Loading...
Agenda Packet 1999-04-27 - CITY COUNCIL ~ity 0/ AGENDA ~ !ff~e Michael A. Lady Mayor Robert L. Hunt City Manager Tony M. Ferrara Mayor Pro Tern Timothy J. Carmel City Attorney Thomas A. Runels Council Member Nancy A. Davis Director, Administrative Services Steve Tolley Council Member Jim Dickens Council Member AGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1999 7:30 P.M. Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers 215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande 1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 P.M. \ 2. ROLL CALL 3. FLAG SALUTE: SHOOTING STARS ISH DOO DAH CAMPFIRE CLUB 4. INVOCATION: REVEREND DR. NORMAN SOMES ST. BARNABAS EPISCOPAL CHURCH 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: a. Proclamation - Great Customer Service Month b. Proclamation - Congratulating Dave Foster and the Academic Decathlon Team 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 - APRIL 27, 1999 PAGE 2 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. James Way Annexation (Village Glen. Tract 2265) (ENGEN) (Action Required: Adopt Resolutions; Introduce Ordinance for First Reading) 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. CONSENT AGENDA: The following routine items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group. The recommendations for each item are noted in parentheses. Any Council Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit discussion or change the recommended course of action. The City Council may approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda on one motion. a. Cash Disbursement Ratification (SNODGRASS) (Action Required: Approval) b. Cash Flow Analysis - Approval of Interfund Advance From the Sewer Facility Fund (SNODGRASS) (Action Required: Approval) c. Minutes of City Council Meetinq of April 13 . 1999 (DAVIS) (Action Required: Approval) d. Reiection of Claim - Roberta Palius (WETMORE) (Action Required: Reject Claim) -- -------------...------ ~ ~- AGENDA SUMMARY - APRIL 27, 1999 PAGE 3 9. CONSENT AGENDA: (continued) e. Adoption of Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Procedures (SPAGNOLO) (Action Required: Adopt Ordinance) f. Sale of Safe and Sane Fireworks for the Millennium Celebration (FIBICH) (Action Required: Adopt Resolution) g. Declaration of Surplus Property (SPAGNOLO) (Action Required: Adopt Resolution) h. Authorization to Solicit Bids, Landscape Maintenance Contract (HERNANDEZ) (Action Required: Approval) i. Authorization to Solicit Bids - Montego Street Sidewalk (South Side). Proiect No. 90-98-7 (SPAGNOLO) (Action Required: Approve Staff Recommendations) j. City Corporation Yard Fuel Facility Replacement Plan. City Proiect No. 80-98-1, Proqress Payment No.2 (SPAGNOLO) (Action Required: Authorize Payment to Remedial Management Corporation) k. Acceptance of Improvements for Tract 2217 (SPAGNOLO) (Action Required: Accept Improvements; Adopt Resolution) I. Authorization to Use City Property for the March of Dimes Walk America on Saturday. May 1. 1999 (ENGEN) (Action Required: Adopt Resolution) 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS: a. Change of Reqular City Council Meeting Time (HUNT) (Action Required: Introduce Ordinance for First Reading and Adopt Resolution) 11. NEW BUSINESS: a. Reimbursement of Fees - Special Olympics of San Luis Obispo County (HERNANDEZ) (Action Required: Provide Direction to Staff) - AGENDA SUMMARY - APRIL 27, 1999 PAGE 4 11. NEW BUSINESS: (continued) b. Grand Avenue Corridor Study: Stripina Modifications from Elm Street to Halcyon Road (SPAGNOLO) (Action Required: Approval of Traffic Commission Recommendations) c. Authorization to Solicit Bids - Grand Avenue, Elm Street to Halcyon Road. Proiect No. 60-70-90-98-6 (SPAGNOLO) (Action Required: Approval) 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 TEM TONY M. FERRARA: (1) Integrated Waste Management Authority Board (IWMA) (2) Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC) (3) Air Pollution Control District (APCD) (4) 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/SLORT A) (4) Other (e) COUNCIL MEMBER JIM DICKENS: (1) South County Area Transit (SCAT) (2) Economic Development CommitteelChamber of Commerce (3) Other - Community Recreation Center Subcommittee -------.------ - AGENDA SUMMARY - APRIL 27, 1999 PAGE 5 13. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Council 14. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Information for the City Council presented by the City Manager 15. ADJOURNMENT * * * * * * * 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.arroyogrande.org ---------. --_.~~---- -- CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE - ABBREVIATIONS revised 01/28/98 A Agricultural Preserve JPA Joint Powers Authority AAC Architectural Advisory Committee LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission AB Assembly Bill LCC League of California Cities ADA Americans with Disabilities Act LLA Lot Line Adjustment AG General Agriculture LUE Land Use Element AGMC Arroyo Grande Municipal Code MER Lot Merger AGPOA Arroyo Grande Police Officers' Association MF CondominiumfTownhouse APN Assessor's Parcel Number MFA Apartments APCB Air Pollution Control Board MHP Mobile Home Parks APCD Air Pollution Control District 0 Office Professional ARC Architectural Review Committee OCSD Oceano Community Services District ASCE American Society Civil Engineers OSCE Open Space and Conservation Element AWWA American Water Works Association PC Planning Commission BD Building Division PD Police Department CA City Attorney PF Public/Quasi Public CC City Council PPR Plot Plan Review CCC California Conservation Corps PRD Parks & Recreation Department CCCSIF Central Coast Cities Self-Insurance Fund PRE-APP Pre-application CCO City Clerk's Office PSHHC Peoples' Self-Help Housing Corp. CD Community Development PSP Planned Sign Program CDBG Community Development Block Grant PUD Planned Unit Development CE Circulation Element PW Public Works Department CEC California Energy Commission RE Residential Estate CEQA California Environmental Quality Act RFP Request for Proposals CIP Capital Improvement Program RFQ Request for Qualifications CIWMP California Integrated Waste Management Plan RH Hillside Residential CM City Manager's Office RHNP Regional Housing Needs Plan CMC California Men's Colony RR Rural Residential CMP Congestion Management Plan RS Suburban Residential COC Certificate of Compliance RTA Reversion to Acreage CPI Consumer Price Index RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board CUP Conditional Use Permit SAC Staff Advisory Committee DARE Drug Abuse Resistance Education SB Senate Bill DC Development Code SCAT South County Area Transit CEA Drug Enforcement Administration SEIU Service Employees International Union E.C. Election Code SF Single Family EDU Equivalent Dwelling Unit SLO San Luis Obispo EIR Environmental Impact Report SLOCOG San Luis Obispo Council of Governments EIS Environmental Impact Statement SLOHA San Luis Obispo Housing Authority EVC Economic Vitality Corporation SLONTF San Luis Obispo Narcotics Task Force FAU Federal Aid Urban SLORTA San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority FD Fire Division SLOWRAC San Luis Obispo County Water Resources Advisory FDAA Federal Disaster Assistance Administration Committee FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency SR Senior Housing FID Financial Services Department SSLOCOWA South San Luis Obispo County Water Association FPPC Fair Political Practices Commission SSLOCSD South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District FTA Federal Transit Administration SRRE Source Reduction & Recycling Element FY Fiscal Year SWRCD State Water Resources Control Board G.C. Government Code TPM Tentative Parcel Map GC General Commercial TT Tentative Tract Map GF General Fund TTAC Transportation Technical Advisory Committee GP General Plan TUP Temporary Use Permit GPA General Plan Amendment UBC Uniform Building Code HCD California Department of Housing and Community UFC 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 'ntermodal Surface Transportation ZONE 3 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District - Zone 3 (Lopez Project) _._-- -" -.--.- - ---.----.-- _..._---~~-_..^.._-~ - 5... Honorary 1 Proclamation .++ .++ .+. ... . . . . PROCLAIMING MAY AS "GREAT CUSTOMER SERVICE MONTH" WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande and the Arroyo Grande Chamber of Commerce believe wholeheartedly that good cu~tomer seIVice will contribute to the improvement of the economic vitality of the City and its business community; and WHEREAS, it is the goal of the City and the Chamber of Commerce to foster and improve customer seIVice to the citizens and visitors who come into Arroyo Grande to patronize the businesses in the City; and WHEREAS, the City and the Chamber of Commerce are working together to improve the economic vitality of Arroyo Grande; and WHEREAS, great customer seIVice is a foundation of a viable commercial base and it is important to let the public and patrons of the local businesses know they are valued and appreciated; and WHEREAS, the Chamber of Commerce, with the support of the City, is providing a I I series of workshops for the business community emphasizing great customer seIVice I skills; and I WHEREAS, the City and the Chamber of Commerce understand that great customer seIVice is an ongoing process that should be reflected in the attitude of all City and business employees. 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 proclaim the Month of May 1999, as "Great Customer Service Month" in the City of Arroyo Grande. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande to be affIXed this 27th day of Apri11999. MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR I 5.b. i' \. Honorary . 1 I Proclamation i I I ... ... ... ... . . . . I "CONGRATULATING DAVE FOSTER AND THE I ACADEMIC DECATHLON TEAM" I I WHEREAS, the youth of our country are the future and education is the key to this future; and WHEREAS, the nine members of the Arroyo Grande High School Academic l Decathlon Team, under the tutorage of Arroyo Grande High School Decathlon Coach I Dave Foster, won, for the seventh consecutive year, the San Luis Obispo County Academic Decathlon Championships and took sixth in its division at the State Championship held in Stockton during March 11-13, which required students to master 10 academic disciplines at a college level; and . WHEREAS, the names of the team members are BRIANNE ABRAMS, ALANA I BORNINO, ADAM COHON, CHRIS FREDERICK, TRISH. GRATON, ADAM GREEN, ! CODY HOGOBOOM, JAKE McGUIRE, AND SEAN SCHMIDT; and I I I WHEREAS, the academic team worked, studied and socialized together repeatedly, motivating and driving each other to form a "family group" and, in doing so, learned to understand others which will help the members to function successfully later in life, the goal that, Coach Foster stated, is primary to the awards. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Michael A. Lady, Mayor of the City of Arroyo Grande, on behalf of the City Council and Citizens of Arroyo Grande, congratulate and applaud DAVE FOSTER AND THE ACADEMIC DECATHLON TEAM for its scholastic efforts, and for bringing immense pride and esteem to this community. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,. I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande to be affixed this 27th day of April 1999. MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: HENRY ENGEN, INTERIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~ DIRECTOR SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION - AGENDA ITEM 7.a. - JAMES WAY ANNEXATION (VILLAGE GLEN, TRACT 2265) DATE: APRIL 27,1999 The following information was inadvertently omitted from the subject staff report: Alternatives The following alternatives are provided for Council consideration: . Approve the Planning Commission's recommendations; . Do not approve the Planning Commission's recommendations and direct staff to return at a future Council meeting with resolutions and appropriate findings supporting the denial; . Modify as appropriate and adopt the resolutions and introduce for first reading the ordinance; . Provide direction to staff. In addition, the attached letter regarding this item arrived the afternoon of April 26th. -- _ .._..~__.,..u_~_~.._ .,.__________ " ' or, . . . RECEIVED April 26, 1999 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Mr. Jim Hamilton, AICP 99 Af'R 26 PM 3; O~., Director of Community Development P. O. Box 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 Dear Mr. Hamilton: from William E. Daniel, 741 Printz Road In Regards to the proposed James Way Annexation, Tract #2265. Known as, The Village Glen Annexation. I will be unable to attend the meeting that is scheduled for your April 27th meeting due to a prior commitment. So I will express my views here. I am enclosing a copy of my letter, dated March 25,1999, so you will know where I am coming from. I would still like to see my proposal of combining lots number 40 and 41 thus creating one lot. And combining lots number 42 and 43, and lots number 44 and 45. Which would create two lots, one of 1.00 acre and one of. 88 acre. And combine lots 46 and 47 into one lot of .81 acre. Also combine lots 48, 49 and 50 into two lots of 1.00 acre and one lot of .45 acre. Again this would result in a loss of 5 lots, leaving a total of 54 lots for the project. To help the developer regain a portion of this loss I would propose that the developer could reintroduce the two lots that were removed between lots 1 and 58. This would provide the developer with 56 lots. While this does not create lots of 1.00 ac in size, (which I would like to see as I feel it is in keeping with the adjoining properties). I think that this might be more in keeping with the general plan and would be not only fair to the developer but to the surrounding land owners as well. After conversation with a member of your staff I would like to withdraw my objections to the proposed fire access road off Easy street, as it seems to be a practical solution to providing access to the area in the case of a disaster. Once more, please let's preserve as many of the oaks as is practical and the eucalyptus trees that are on the site as these not only tend to beautify the area but also serve as a place of refuge to some of the wildlife in our area. I do have a concern about the additional withdrawal of water from their proposed aquifer in as much as I should hope it would not cause the available water to be depleted to a point where my well would run dry. I realize that the proposed water extraction is on a different aquifer.....but it is directly below the one that serves my well, as well as my neighbors wells. Could we expect some assurance that this would not happen, and in the unlikely event it did occur would there be a source of water that would be available to us. ---- ..---..--.----...---....- . . ~'. , \ ~~P-L_ William E. Daniel 741 Printz Road Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 .~.._. ,_.~.._-~.."-- -...- ...------ ~.,."'" ~. ..' . . March 25, 1999 Mr. Jim Hamilton, AI Director of Community Development P. O. Box 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 Dear Mr. Hamilton: from William E. Daniel, 741 Printz Road In regard to the proposed James Way Annexation (Village Glen Annexation), Tract 2265. I have looked at the new proposed site plan as shown on their map dated February 25,1999. I feel they have taken some steps to overcome my objections to their development as they originally proposed it, but I would like to see the developer change their new proposed plot plan to encompass the following. Combine lots number 40 and 41, creating a lot of 1.06 ac in size. Combine lots number 42, 43, 44 and 45, and realign the proposed property line between lots 43 and 44 creating two lots, one of 1.00 ac and one of .88 ac. Combine lots 46 and 47, creating a lot of .81 ac. Combine lots 48, 49 and 50, and realign the proposed property line between lots 49 and 50 creating two lots, one of 1.00 ac and one of.45 ac. This results in a loss of 5 lots, leaving a total of 54 lots for the project. Two additional lots could be obtained by reintroducing the two lots that were removed between lots 1 and 58. This would provide the developer with 56 lots. While this does not create lots of 1.00 ac in size, which I would like to see, I feel that it might be a solution and more in keeping with the general plan. Another benefit would be the reduced impact on our overcrowded schools due to fewer families living in the area and less need of additional facilities to service these new families. Eliminate the fire access road easement through lots 43 and 44 and a portion oflot 42. This proposed access road is totally impractical due to the location of the two homes on Easy Street that abut the development. Create a new fire access road easement through lots 36 and 37, to be accessed from Rodeo Drive, as noted on the tract map as "possible future road alignment". Please keep in mind the restriction of tree removal to preserve the oaks that are in the proposed development, as has been done in the "Rancho Grande" and "Highlands" development. Also the eucalyptus trees that are in the proposed development offer refuge and nesting sites for a family of hawks that need our protection. --.. - .-. _.."_..~,. ---'-------- _._-~--_....._-- ....-- - , . . I assume that the cost of any water treatment for the development would be borne by the taxpayers. Could we possibly get a little help from the developers for these costs? Would it be possible to look into the Grace Way extension as a means of reducing the traffic impact on Rodeo Drive, and can we possibly obtain some help for the costs for this extension from the developers. Now with all these suggestions, here is a little "pat on the back" for all the members of the Planning Commission for the careful planning that has been done on Rancho Grande and The Highlands. These two developments are in keeping with the surrounding areas and are a credit to the community. Thank you. Respectfully yours, William E. Daniel 741 Printz Road Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 - ... .. ~ A ~ /{ &J1o G7<.A- dE c; ;Y RE-CEVlED .. . CITY OF AR.fi.D:tO GRANDE ~ ~".v c'r /47C',u /u s:: /!.{:.:r A ~.e' S U",7' 99 APR ~7 PH-': ,:.\ ~ . /'rA/~ ~;<" 7 /e<,rv - ----. -- -.----------- ... ..~ ._-~_. "'- y:: "",,';'A C-~ .EX~4e$f Art/' ~/O<;/*:- ~ /;; ~ A /V;'V e'.<." 7;~~ I /I 5 ,.' /u, / / tf?iHdf A <:I'd' fi'?,4 e -*4 /.#A.-- ~/f.d(.V/ ~ c?",-~--~",-4 C> ;t:r- ur//~ '5>A~/C A ~~,,1u-7:-/;/_/t't!'~C- D /" ;/J/l./l( ~A; d .4~d ~~,.z (/C' So d....,~_."/t ~ td/cd'- o-/' ~~c,..; ~ .;e:~/e~c~c-F_.~~t-<j'2S. Ue. Nud;6 /~/$-4#ulf"S:-t2;'/~" /~ ':/;A r/~'C r-/1",r/kC'.s' ~~~_~~_P~~~tJ~1'"A /J"Vd ~ ~U 5 t/O-!;dS ~ voi'~_ 0_ A-A/ n/e ,</1 77c-#;"'>" ;;:::- ;e l/ 0 ~ A ..s_~!.?...1_ -c--; .A/l-NtRX/ ~ff',.1 t~rN'~ T- A...~~ _IL~~ Ek ere if () Yl;c /';4/ ~ ~~~~4$o___c?~ ..;- ec~ 7'444:. ~A .s ~~,-v -6 &J /' _a~___c:.(~ s-h;V!/__ . c~ '/' 4/.2~ ~Y'C b~#vc4-... ;v",,~d /{A, ~"s ~.~~..~J:L ,1 ?>u""~/~t' Yt?~ t.< ;// 4~~ C"~~-/;-tJ / ??V~ a of~ t/c ~/'U'Crl..;~ ~/...; ~ 4!' .e /'?' --~--. ..- t' / Mr.~~ther -":0 /'7/l.#4 d 4- ~L:_~_ ~~CA"'JU80" . 4/2 /2 ~~p ~_d~ G, ~_.____________ pA v~9 ~77 S-'P' ______________ .' .. . , . CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande on the following project: CASE NO. James Way Annexation (Village Glen) General Plan Amendment 91-004 Development Code Amendment 97-009 Certification of Environmental Impact Report APPUCANT: Village Glen Homes LLC (Originally Gary L. Young &Associates) LOCATION: North and east of James Way, adjacent to the northem City limit in unincorporated County lands. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Environmental Impact Report per CEOA Guidelines REPRESENTATIVE: Engineering Development Associates PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Project involves the proposed annexation of an 86 acre area, designating this area as Rural Residential in the General Plan, and Pre-Zoning the area as Rural Residential (RR). The Applicant is proposing the future subdivision of 64 acres of the area into 59 residential lots ranging in size from 14,214 square feet to 53,702 square feet, and one lot of 33.5 acres with an existing residence. Five additional parcels totaling approximately 22 acres, are also included in the annexation area, but are not part of the proposed Tentative Tract 2265. The project is in the unincorporated County area located north and east of James Way adjacent to the northern City limits, In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning Commission has recommended certification of the Environmental Impact Report on the above project. Any person affected or concerned by this application msy sUbmi~tt:~omments to the Administrative Services Department before the City Council hearing, or appear an ard in support of or opposition to the project and the environmental impacts at the time of hearing. Any person interested in the proposals can contact thQ Administrative Services Department at 214 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California, during normal business hours (8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.). IF YOU CHALLENGE AN ITEM IN COURT, YOU MAYBE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 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, April 27, 1999 at 7:30 P.M. Place of Hearing: Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers 215 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420 11 a.~ Nancy ~ Director Administrative Services Department '- -- ~ ~d .. FALCON RIDGE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION t..J 11.1(Q'1 ~ 3563 Empleo street, Suite B" San Luis Obispo CA 93401 (805) 544 - 9093 (Fax) 544 - 6215 April 27,1999 Henry Engen Community Development Director City of Arroyo Grande P.O. Box 550 Arroyo Grande, Ca 93421 Re: General Plan Update Request Dear Mr Engen: Attached is a copy of my address to the City Council on April 27, 1999. Please forward this letter with attachment to the Long Range Planning Committee for consideration at their meeting scheduled for Thursday, April 29th. Sincerely, ~ Ja~lbot President 230 Dove Court Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Phone: 474-8460 Atch cc: Long Range Planning Committee, City of Arroyo Grande K. Achadjian, Fourth District Supervisor, San Luis Obispo County --_.._---~-_.._----"_. _om' . .- Address to the City Council April 27,1999 Mayor Lady, Mayor Pro Tern Ferrara, Council Members: My name is James R. Talbot, President of the Falcon Ridge Homeowners Association. We are located south of the City of Arroyo Grande, in the unincorporated area between EI Campo and Los Berros Roads. My purpose tonight is to establish the record on two issues: 1. Annexation of Falcon Ridge into the City of Arroyo Grande, and 2. The EI Campo Road Interchange It is expected that this information will be useful to your Long Range Planning Committee as it goes forward with your new General Plan. First, we must request that the new General Plan carry no threat to our property values or to our peace of mind: We will oppose any discussion of annexation of Falcon Ridge, and we ask that the City recognize that our roads are inadequate for any purpose other than their approved use. Additionally, our status as County residents shows there is no requirement for the citizens of Arroyo Grande to share their services or their resources with us. There will be other demands on the City's services and resources, but Falcon Ridge will not be one of those demands. Secondly, we have been involved. in the EI Campo Interchange process since 1997: Our members wrote over 50 letters to support the City's request to the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments to retain funding for a project study. We participated in that first Project Study Report. We continue participation the second PSR. We will stay involved in the Interchange issue until formal resolution is made. We suggest these Falcon Ridge positions can be profitable for all: The City will bear no burden for maintenance of our development, yet our purchasing dollars will continue to support the local business community. Falcon Ridge residents can know they are free from encroachment. Let us continue to work together as good neighbors on the EI Campo question, ensuring a collaboration that will benefit all of our neighborhoods. . . . . Fred Wendell REGEIVEO CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE 737 Printz Road Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 99APR27 AM 1:~~) April 26, 1999 City of Arroyo Grande City Council Attn: Administrative Services Department 214 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 To Whom It May Concern; I offer the following comments on the Planning Commission Staff Report and Resolutions No. 99-1689, 99-1690, and 99-1691 regarding the proposed James Way Annexation (Village Glen, General Plan Amendment 97-004, Development Code Amendment 97-009, and Certification of the associated Environmental Impact Report. My wife and I have been residents of Arroyo Grande for almost 25 years. We have raised two children here. We recently moved to a residence in the immediate vicinity of the proposed annexation. Consequently, my comments are influenced by both my hopes for the community as well as my personal concerns. Planning Commission Staff Report: Page 2: The staff report characterizes the surrounding land use/zoning to the north by stating that the lot sizes average 2.5 acres. This characterization could mislead the City Council and it tends to minimize one of the impacts this development could have on existing city residences. One of the contentious issues regarding this proposal is the lack of transition in lot size ftom the proposed clustered lots in Tentative Tract 2265 to adjacent large acreage to the north. The lots closest to the cluster development are appreciably larger than 2.5 acres. While the county has a zoning minimum of 1 acre, I have walked the area along the entire northern edge of the proposed annexation and the average lot size appears larger than that suggested. Page 3: Please see specific comments regarding Planning Commission resolutions. Page 6: Procedural Requirements - CEQA review: The City Council is being asked to certify that the CEQA process has been completed. I do not know what the City's Implementing Procedures are for following CEQA. However, I believe that all oral and written comments require a response in the final CEQA document. I submitted a letter prior to the last Planning Commission meeting on this proposal expressing concerns in a number of areas. That letter was not responded . , . to in the Final CEQA document and was not available to the Planning Commission when they approved recommendation for certification. The letter has been responded to in this packet; however, it was not available for the Planning Commission's consideration when they took action. Page 8: General Plan Confonnity: The proposed annexation will not impact the tUIIOIlnt of water resources available elsewhere within the City. I have expressed concern regarding the potential for well interference at existing private wells within the City that are located between the Deer Creek well site and where the deep aquifer the well accesses surfaces near Highway 227 and Printz Road. The proposed short-term production testing offered as a mitigation in the EIR will not adequately address weB production and potential for well interference under drought conditions (an evaluation of worse case scenarios are not addressed in the CEQA document) - nor, will the proposed soort-term testing provide any confirmation that the assumptions used in the EIR assessment are reasonable.. These are weakness in the EIR and should make it difficult to make the required findings. At a minimum, I believe that another source of water must be available to the City to make the requested finding. I suggest that the developer make the existing on-site well available to the City iflong-term production at the Deer Creek well site becomes problematic. I believe this needs to be done to reasonably find that the proposed annexation will not impact water resources available elsewhere in the City. While that commitment might address the City's larger concerns, it does nothing for my personal concerns. My residence is within the city, but does not have a City water connection. Well interference, if it occurs at my site, will simply degrade the value and limit the uses of my property. If I understood his public comment, the hydrologist indicated that there was some possibility for well interferrence at my site (and at other sites between the Deer Creek well and where the aquifer surfaces). How many residents of the City have to be impacted before there is a lack of Confonnity with the General Plan? Page 9: General Plan Confonnity: Clear compatibility exists with the community's bask identity as a rural smail town community; the goals and desires of the people and the Dty of Arroyo Grande as a whole; and with the community's existing resources. The staff report suggests that the designation of Rural Residential is consistent with the land use and zoning designations of adjacent properties. It might be consistent if the proposed Tract provided for actual one + acres lots on those proposed lots that are adjacent to existing city lots with 2.5 acres minimums. Otherwise it seems inconsistent with those existing uses. Without that provision, I believe that it is not in confonnity with the General Plan. I also believe it will have a significant negative impact on the value of the larger lots that are within the City and in the immediate vicinity of the Tract (including mine). Page 11: General Plan Confonnity: Significant benefits will be derived by the City upon annexation. I question whether the long-term costs of continued development without corresponding . . . improvements in city inftastructure and services necessarily result in a net benefit to the City. I accept that the short-term analysis (without considering long-term issues) suggests that the City will experience a modest net gain. Page 11: General Plan Conformity: Adequate infrastructure and services have been or can be economically provided in accordance with current City standards. The mitigation measures offered in the EIR to address the impacts on inftastructure and services through approval of the proposed Tract are inadequate. The EIR provides mitigation in the form of monitoring (City to determine if cumulative need exceeds existing capacity); however, the developer does little to compensate for his contribution to the cumulative impacts trom growth. I can also see that traffic issues through increase use on Rodeo Road are not adequately addressed trom a cumulative /long-term impact perspective. AITACHMENT 1 - RESOLUTION NO. 99-1689 Please see my comments regarding procedural requirements (1 st page - this correspondence). The Whereas statement that asserts that all "comments thereon or object thereto have been heard, and said Final EIR and all comments and responses thereto having been considered; and ..." is incorrect. Further, the Planning Commission had not considered all comments, written and oral, received at the public hearing on the Final EIR prior to adopting this Resolution. I mentioned the lack of response to my written comments at that hearing and expressed concern that they provided more detail than I could provide in oral presentation. I would not be concerned except that the approach taken in EIR (word choice and depth of analysis) suggest that the document was written in support of the proposed annexation and Tract development, rather than as a full disclosure document designed to allow the City Council to determine if development is in the publics best interest. However, I do acknowledge that much of the analysis is probably adequate. The spin/bias apparent in some places in the EIR makes it more difficult to accept all assertions when based on assumptions. ATTACHMENT 2 - RESOLUTION NO. 99-1690 Please see earlier comments (re: staff report) regarding the adequacy of the suggested findings. I question whether existing data can reasonably allow the passage of this resolution. I have questioned potential for impacts to existing private wells within the City. I believe that the existing Tract Map, with cluster development (small lots) adjacent to large acreage within the City will result in impacts to land value and degrade the rural atmosphere that prompted our move to this home (we have been residents of Arroyo Grande for almost 25 years). AITACHMENT 3 - RESOLUTION NO. 99-1691 I believe that the proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map (prezoning) unreasonably and unnecessarily limits the City's options to structure development in the proposed Tract in a way that best suits the City's needs. " ,~ 7 . You hold the structure and quality of our community experience in your hands. Just from my exposure to this one issue, I sense that your role requires a very difficult balancing process and I appreciate your taking the time to consider my views. ~-t0..-Jill Fred Wendell Resident \ 7... CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL MEETING : NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande on the following project: CASE NO. James Wav A~nexation fViUage Glen) General Plan Amendment 97-004 Development Code Amendment 97-009 Certification of Environmental Impact Report APPUCANT: Village Glen Homes LLC (Originally Gary L. Younga.Assoclates) LOCATION: North and east of James Way, adjacent to the northern City limit In unincorporated County lands. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Environmental Impact Report per CEOA Guidelines REPRESENTATIVE: Engineering Development Associates PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Project involves the proposed annexation of an 86 acre area, designating this area as Rural Residential in the General Plan, and Pre-Zoning the area as Rural Residential (RR). The Applicant is proposing the future subdivision of 64 act.. of the area into 69 residential lots ranging in size from 14,214 square fMt to 63,702 square feet, and one lot of 33.6 acr.. with an existing residence. Rve additional parcels totaling approximately 22 acres, are also included in the annexation area, but are not part of the.proposed Tentative Tract 2266. The project is in the unincorporated County area located north and east of James Way adjacent to the northern City limits, In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning Commission has recommended certification of the Environmental Impact Report on the above project. Any person affected or concerned by this application may submit written comments to the Administrative Servic.. Department before the City Council hearing, or appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the project and the environmental impacts at the time of hearing. Any person interested in the proposals can contact the Administrative Services Department at 214 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California, during normal business hours (8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.). IF YOU CHALLENGE AN ITEM IN COURT, YOU MAYBE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 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, April 27, 1999 at 7:30 P.M. Place of Hearing: Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers 215 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420 11 a. ~ Nancy ~ Director Administrative Services Department MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: HENRY ENGEN, INTERIM DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: JAMES WAY ANNEXATION (VILLAGE GLEN, TRACT 2265) DATE: APRIL 27, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council: (1 ) Adopt a resolution certifying that the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for General Plan Amendment 97-004, Development Code Amendment 97-009, Vesting Tentative Map 2265, and Planned Development 97-56 has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City of Arroyo Grande's CEQA Implementing Procedures; and (2) Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 97-004, thereby amending the General Plan Land Use Map and designating the property Rural Residential; and (3) Introduce for first reading an ordinance approving Development Code Amendment No. 97-009, thereby amending the City's adopted Zoning Map and pre-zoning the property Rural Residential (RR), preliminary to annexation of the property. , FUNDING: A Fiscal and Public Services Analysis for the project was performed by Crawford, Multari & Clark Associates. The report, attached as Appendix E to the Final EIR, is dated October 1, 1998. The report concluded that annexation as proposed would provide modest fiscal benefits to the City. The report noted that if development were to be constructed under County jurisdiction, the City could expect to incur service costs in excess of revenues, while the City would experience positive income if development were pursued following annexation. The report estimated a positive fiscal impact of $140.00 per residence per year if annexation occurred, and a loss of $179.00 per residence per year if the development occurred under County jurisdiction. DISCUSSION: The proposed project involves the proposed annexation of an 86.3 acre area located north of James Way in the vicinity of Mesquite Lane. The applicant Staff Report: James Way Annexation April 27, 1999 Page 2 requests, as part of the project, that the City (1) certify the environmental impact report prepared for the project, (2) approve a General Plan amendment to amend the Land Use Plan Map to designate the parcel Rural Residential, and (3) approve an amendment to the Development Code to change the zoning of the parcel to Rural Residential. If the City Council takes the requested actions, the applicant could apply to the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for amendment of the City of Arroyo Grande's sphere of service and annexation of the parcel to the City of Arroyo Grande. If LAFCO approves the annexation and amendment of the sphere of service, this acreage will become part of the City. The applicant has also filed applications for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2265 and Planned Unit Development 97-56. These applications, if approved, would establish the manner in which approximately 64 acres of the annexation area would be developed. These applications are not before the City Council for consideration at this time because annexation must precede their consideration. The Planning Commission considered the matter on March 30, 1999 and recommended approval as follows: . Res. 99-1689-Recommending Certification of EIR Vote: 5-0 . Res. 99-169Q-Recommending Amending General Plan Vote: 4-1 (Chair Greene dissenting) . Res. 99-1691-Amending Development Code Vote: 4-1 (Chair Greene dissenting) During the Planning Commission hearing, discussion focused on several aspects of the project. The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting are attached as AttachmentS. The following areas of discussion merit special comment: Groundwater resources: Policy 8.1 of the General Plan, Land Use Element, includes the following implementation action: Permit new developments only where and when adequate water services can be provided, and when the provision of adequate water service can be assured by providing system-wide water improvements in advance of needs. The applicant has proposed to offset the projected water demand for the project by developing and dedicating a new water well for City use. The well is located off the project site and is referred to in project documents as the MDeer Trail Well." --_._-,-"...,.- ._.~ Staff Report: James Way Annexation April 27, 1999 Page 3 The Deer Trail Well draws water from the Pismo aquifer, which is the same aquifer as is currently accessed by the City's Oak Park Well. The Pismo aquifer in not subject to the MGentlemen's Agreement" regarding use of the Arroyo Grande-Tri Cities Mesa groundwater basin. While the applicant has submitted reports that support the finding that the Deer Trail Well would produce water in. sufficient quantity to meet the General Plan test, there are concerns regarding the quality of the water that would be produced. The water quality of the Oak Park Well is such that wellhead treatment is required, and it is expected that the same situation would apply to the Deer Trail Well. The Planning Commission questioned the estimate of cost regarding wellhead treatment, and whether that would affect the decision of the City as to accepting the proposed dedication. The Planning Commission also questioned the proposed mitigation measures in the Final EIR concerning the quantity of water that might be obtained from the Deer Trail Well. The Final EIR noted that the output of the proposed well was not certain, and that the well might have an impact on neighboring wells. The Final EIR proposed that the well should be drilled, constructed, and tested as recommended in the report submitted by the applicant's consultant prior to the issuance of a project grading permit or final tract map approval. Long-term testing would be continued following project approval. The well testing program recommended in the EIR is summarized as follows: 1. Verifv the maximum well flow rate: Per mitigation E1, perform a flow test, a step drawdown test, and a well recovery test to verify the well flow capacity (To be performed prior to any grading permit or final tract map approval). 2. Verifv the net flow considering drawdown on other Citv wells: Per mitigation E1, perform a test to verify the drawdown effect on the Los Robles Del Mar and the Oak Park well. This test is a 30 day test and will be used to determine whether the new well should be pumped at a lower rate to avoid interference, and to determine the resulting effective net water supply (To be performed prior to any grading permit or final tract map approval). Staff recommends that this test also include monitoring of existing private wells in the area. 3. Verifv water aualitv and anv needed treatment: Per mitigation E3, test for water quality, with the applicant to provide treatment as required (To be performed after the flow and drawdown tests, and prior to any grading permit of final tract map approval). .. Resolution No. Page 2 of 3 judgment and analysis of the City Council, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21082.1 and Section 15090 of the CECA Guidelines. Section 2. Independently review and analyze the Final EtR and consider the information contained therein and all comments, written and oral, received at the public hearing on the Final EIR prior to adopting this Resolution. Section 3. Adopt the Mitigation Measures and the Mitigation Monitoring Program identified in the Final EIR. 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 27th day of April, 1999. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF ARROYO GRANDE; DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 97- 009 (APPLICANT: GARY YOUNG) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande Zoning Map indicates that the area identified in the. attached Exhibit A, located north of James Way, is located in the unincorporated area of San Luis Obispo County; and WHEREAS, the applicant, Gary Young, has filed Development Code Amendment 97-009 to amend the Zoning Map designating the project area as Rural Residential; and WHEREAS, adoption of the proposed zoning would establish land use, development and design standards for the above described area; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed Development Code Amendment 97-009 at a duly noticed public hearing on March 30, 1999 in accordance with the Development Code of the City of Arroyo Grande at which time all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard, and has recommended that the City Council adopt the requested amendment to the Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered Development Code Amendment 97-009 at a duly noticed public hearing on April 27, 1999 in accordance with the Development Code of the City of Arroyo Grande at which time all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information and public testimony presented at the public hearings, staff reports, and all other information and documents that are part of the public record; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: 1. Based on the information contained in the staff report and accompanying materials, the proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan and is necessary and desirable to implement the provisions of the General Plan. 2. The proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern. 3. The proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Development Code. Development within the Village Glen Annexation area would be required to meet development and design standards that insure orderly development and a unique and aesthetically pleasing design. -~,,~- ... Resolution No. Page 2 of 3 judgment and analysis of the City Council, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21082.1 and Section 15090 of the CEOA Guidelines. Section 2. Independently review and analyze the Final EIR and consider the information contained therein and all comments, written and oral, received at the public hearing on the Final EIR prior to adopting this Resolution. Section 3. Adopt the Mitigation Measures and the Mitigation Monitoring Program identified in the Final EIR. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call vote, to wit: A YES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 27th day of April, 1999. Resolution No. Page 3 of 3 MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: KELty WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING AMENDMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE GENERAL PLAN MAP; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-004 (APPLICANT: GARY YOUNG) WHEREAS, the applicant, Gary Young and Associates, has submitted an application to amend the General Plan Map to designate the project site area, described on Exhibit A to this Resolution, as Rural Residential (RR), allowing a density of one unit per acre; and WHEREAS. amending the General Plan Map as requested would establish land use, development and design standards for the above described area; and WHEREAS, on March 30, 1999 the Planning Commission, following a duly noticed public hearing, recommended that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Village Glen Annexation; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed the application for General Plan Amendment 97-004 at a duly noticed public hearing on April 27, 1999, in accordance with the Development Code of the City of Arroyo Grande at which time all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information and public testimony presented at the public hearings, staff reports, and all other information and documents that are part of the pubfic record; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation, and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: Annexation Findinas 1. The proposed annexation will not impact the amount of water resources available elsewhere within the City; 2. Clear compatibility exists with the community's basic identity as a rural, small town community; the goals and desires of the people and the City of Arroyo Grande as a whole; and with the community's existing available resources; 3. The proposed general plan amendment is consistent with goals and objectives of the General Plan, particularly in regard to protection of agricultural and open space lands, and will not result in any internal inconsistencies within the General Plan.; 4. Significant benefits will be derived by the City upon annexation; 5. Adequate infrastructure and services have been or can be economically provided in accordance with current City standards; 6. The proposed annexation will generate sufficient revenues to adequately pay for the provision of City services; Resolution No. General Plan Amendment 97-004 Page 2 of 3 General Plan Amendment 7. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed General Plan Amendment are insignificant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level as identified in the Village Glen Annexation Environmental Impact Report; and 8. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare. 9. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan and will not result in any internal inconsistencies within the plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby approves an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element and General Plan Map by designating the project area as Rural Residential. 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 27th day of April 1999. Resolution No. - General Plan Amendment 97-004 Page 3 of 3 MICHAEL A. LADY. MAYOR ATTEST: KELL Y WETMORE. DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ROBERT L. HUNT. CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL. CITY ATTORNEY / ~ EXHIBIT A \ .~ '~~J' .., .- .~, .~, .~ County: Residential Suburban \\ ' \ \ \ ~ "It' P F ;.*~;' ~ .~' --.J\ ----! ~' I ' . ~' ~' ...........Ai .~ ~ ~' PD G\'-oO~ V1CJN 11'1 M Pc r ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF ARROYO GRANDE; DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 97- 009 (APPLICANT: GARY YOUNG) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande Zoning Map indicates that the area identified in the. attached Exhibit A, located north of James Way, is located in the unincorporated area of San Luis Obispo County; and WHEREAS, the applicant, Gary Young, has filed Development Code Amendment 97-009 to amend the Zoning Map designating the project area as Rural Residentiat; and WHEREAS, adoption of the proposed zoning would establish land use, development and design standards for the above described area; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed Devetopment Code Amendment 97-009 at a duly noticed public hearing on March 30, 1999 in accordance with the Development Code of the City of Arroyo Grande at which time aU interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard, and has recommended that the City Council adopt the requested amendment to the Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered Devetopment Code Amendment 97-009 at a duly noticed public hearing on April 27, 1999 in accordance with the Development Code of the City of Arroyo Grande at which time all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information and public testimony presented at the public hearings, staff reports, and all other information and documents that are part of the public record; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: 1. Based on the information contained in the staff report and accompanying materials, the proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan and is necessary and desirable to implement the provisions of the General Plan. 2. The proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern. 3. The proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Development Code. Development within the Village Glen Annexation area would be required to meet development and design standards that insure orderly development and a unique and aesthetically pleasing design. Ordinance No. Page 2 of 3 4. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed Development Code Amendment are insignificant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level as identified in the Village Glen Annexation Environmental Impact Report. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande, California hereby approves Development Code Amendment 97-009 amending a portion of the Zoning Map as follows: SECTION 1: Development Code Section 9-01.080 (B) also known as the "Zoning Map of the City of Arroyo Grande" is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2: If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be 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, or clause thereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause be declared unconstitutional. SECTION 3: Upon adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall file a Notice of Determination. SECTION 4: Within fifteen (15) days after passage of this Ordinance, it shall be published once, together with the names of the Council members voting thereon, in a newspaper of general circulation within the City. SECTION 5: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this 27th day of April, 1999. Ordinance No. Page 3 of 3 MICHAEL A. LADY,MA YOR ATTEST: KELL Y WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY ~,,"8\" ,.. - countV: ReSidential ~ ....'\. \\ . proposed f\f\ ,.f:; \f\lJra\ f\esidentta\: '\ 00 per ~ eof8\. ~ \' I !j \ \ I pD ~. pF Hearing date: March 30, 1999 ATTACHMENT A Agenda Item No. II. A PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING TO BE HELD IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 215 EAST BRANCH STREET APPLICANT: GARY L. YOUNG AND ASSOCIATES FILEIINDEX: Village Glen AnnexationlTract 2265 1. Certification of EnYironmentallmpad Report 2. General Plan Amendment 97-004 3. Development Code Amendment 97-009 4. Vesting Tentative Map 2265 (Future Agenda) 5. Planned Unit Development 97-56 (Future Agenda) PROPOSAL: Recommendation to City Council Regarding Requests To: 1. Certify that the Village Glen Annexation, Tract 2265 Enyironmental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with the California Enyironmental Quality Act (CEQA). 2. Amend the General Plan to designate the project site as Rural Residential (RR). 3. Amend the City Zoning Map to prezone the projed site as Rural Residential (RR). LOCATION: The project is located north and east of James Way, adjacent to the northern city limit in unincorporated County lands. See Exhibit 1, Location Map. REPRESENTATIVE: Garry L. Young Hearing Notices sent on March 19, 1999. Staff Report Prepared by Tom Buford. Site Inspection by Jim Hamilton, AICP and Tom Buford on March 23,1999. Parcel Size: Annexation area is 86 acres. The applicant has proposed a Tentative Trad Map 2265, which would encompass 64 acres of the project site. The tract map would duster 58 residential lots on 33.76 acres, and would create one open space parcel of 30.24 acres. Planning Commission Staff Report Re: Village Glen Annexation March 30, 1999 Page 2 of 16 Terrain: The proposed annexation area straddles a ridge, sloping upward from James Way towards the north. There is a steep slope on the eastside of the ridge, which combined with a ridge from the north, forms a small canyon in the upper middle of the property. Vegetation: There are several yegetation types on the property. The site has been grazed by cattle over many years, so that natiye vegetation has been almost completely removed. The present yegetation consists primarily of introduced annual grasses and forbs. There are also stands of mature coast five oaks, primarily along the northern edge of the annexation boundary. There are few young oaks, and most of the t.mderstory has been replaced by introduced annual grasses. Two species of lupine have been observed on the site, the blue lupine and the tree lupine. ExistingLand Use: The annexation area has flye existing residences. Four of these are located outside of the proposed Tentative Tract 2265. Existing General Plan Designation: County of San Luis Obispo: Residentiat Suburban Existing Zoning Designation: County of San Luis Obispo: Residential SubUrban Proposed General Plan Designation: Suburban Residential Proposed Zoning Designation: Suburban Residential Surrounding Land UselZoninglGeneral Plan Designation: North: Residential Suburban (County), with lot sizes averaging 2.5 acres East: Rural Residential (City), with lot sizes of approximatefy one aae within the City limits South: Existing residential (Royal Oaks P.D. 1.3) within the City limits; southwest comer of annexation area adjacent to open space lot. West: Existing residential uses within the City limits zoned RE (Residential Estate) with lots approximately 2 to 5 acres in size, and residential Planned Development (Tract 1834 -east), currently undevetoped, with planned lot sizes of 12,400 square feet to 26,000 square feet. PlannIng Commission Staff Report Re: ViHage Glen Annexation March 30, 1999 Page 3 of 16 RECOMMENDATION 1) Adopt a resolution certifying that the Final Environmentallmpad Report prepared for General Plan Amendment 97-004, Development Code Amendment 97-009, Vesting Tentative Map 2265, and Planned Development 97-56 has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Ad and the City of Arroyo Grande's CEQA Implementing Procedures; and 1) Approve General Plan Amendment No. 97-004, thereby amending the General Plan Land Use Diagram and designating the property Rural Residential; and 2) Approve Development Code Amendment No. 97-009, thereby amending the City's adopted Zoning Map and prezoning the property Rural Residential (RR), preliminary to annexation the property. If the Planning Commission takes other action, staff will return with the appropriate resolutions for adoption by the Planning Commission. FUTURE PROJECT ACTIONS The Commission's ...view of this project will include two additional disaetionary actions, neither of which is before the Planning Commission at this time: . Approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2265 to create 58 residential lots, and 1 lot of 32.17 acres in size. Lot 59 would include a designated building area of 1.93 acres, with the remaining 30.24 acres in a designated open space easement. . Approve Planned Unit Development 97-563 to allow clustering of the 58 residential lots. The applicant has submitted an application for approval of Tentative Tract Map 2265, which would include approximately 64 acres of the project site. However, the applicant has recently revised the plans for Tentative Tract 2265, and has re- submitted such plans to City. The most recent set of plans was received February 26, 1999. Several of these modifications resulted from comments received during the Draft EIR Public hearing. Therefore, the Tentative Tract Map is not before the Planning Commission for decision at this time. The applicant is in the process of preparing and submitting a grading and drainage plan, and elevations of the proposed residences required for the Planned Development approval. When these materials have been received, review will be scheduled before the Architectural Review Committee (ARC), and Staff Advisory Committee (SAC). Once the recommendation of the ARC has been received, it would be forwarded to the Planning Commission, and consideration of the proposed tentative tract map would be scheduled before the Planning Commission. PlannIng Commission Staff Report Re: ViUage Glen Annexation March 30, 1999 Page .- of 16 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS The applications before the Planning Commission at this time, if approved by the City Council, would allow the applicant to pursue an application for annexation before the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency formation Commission (LAFCO). LAFCO would consider the application based, in part, on the Citys zoning of the project site as Rural Residential (RR). If the application for a tentative parcel map and planned unit development permit were ultimately approved, they would control the development of the portion of the site included in those applications. It is possible, however, that the City would eventually deny these applications, or that the applicant would withdraw them. In that case, assuming LAFCO approval of the annexation request, the project site would remain zoned as Rural Residential. Any later proposal for subdivision would be required to follow the application procedures for a tentative parcel or tract map. BACKGROUND Proiect descriDtion: The proposed project includes a request for the City to annex 86.3 acres north of James Way, and prezone the property Rural Residential (RR). This Would include an amendment of the Land Use Diagram of the General Plan, designating the property Rural Residential. This land use designation would allow a density of one residential unit per gross area, consistent with the RR zoning. Approval of the General Plan and Development Code amendments as requested, would change the Land Use designation from Residential Suburban (County) to Rural Residential, and rezone the property from Suburban Residential (minimum lot sizes 2.5 acres to 1.0 acre if on community water or sewer) to Rural Residential (density of one residential unit per acre). In effect, the site is "pre-zoned" to advise the applicant and others of the intended zoning to be applied by the City if annexation of the site occurs. The revised tract map (Tract Map 2265) would subdivide approximately 64 acres of the annexation area, creating 58 residential lots ranging from 14,214 square feet to 53,702 square feet in size; and creating a single lot containing a 1.93 acre building site, and a 30.24 acre open space easement (Lot 59). The Planned Unit Development request would permit clustering of residences on lots below 40,000 square feet in size. Access to the project is proposed at two locations on James Way. The circulation system consists of a local street (36-feet paved in a SO-foot right-of-way) and two short cul-de-sacs. The 11.25 acre parcel southwest of Tract 2265 could potentially link the Rodeo Drive cul-de-sac to a street stub-out within the tract. Lot 59 would continue to haye access from Canyon Way. Planning Commission staff Report Re: VII/age Glen Annexation March 30, 1999 Page5of16 Proiect Location The project site is located on the northern edge of Arroyo Grande outside the City limits (see Map 1-Vicinity Map). Map 2-Annexation Area shows the site and surrounding property pattern. To the north, large lot residential land uses are located on Printz Road. To the east, in the City of Arroyo Grande, developed residential areas exist on Canyon Way. To the south, single family residential developments occur along James Way. To the west, large lot residential development exists on Easy Street, which is within the City limits. Annexation Area The annexation area is approximately 86.3 acres in size (see Map 3-Annexation Properties), and Tentatiye Tract 2265 comprises about 64 acres of the area. The proposed annexation area includes Tentatiye Tract Map 2265 and five other parcels under various ownership, as shown on Table P-1 below. There are six (6) existing residences within the annexation area. The City of Arroyo Grande SUITC!IiUI1ds the project area on three sides, and annexation of the property would be cmnsistent with LAFCO policies requiring that annexations be logical in character. Table P-1 Annexation Area Ownership and Acreage Parcel Name & Address Size Number 47-132-5 Mrs. Jean James 11.0 ac. and 17 765 James Way, AG. 47-132-08 Tarvin C. and Paula B. 2.5ac. Clark 352 Canyon Way, AG. 47-132-09 Allen L. and Ramona 2.5 ac. Logue 356 Canyon Way, AG. 47-132-10 Zenis and Helen 3.0ac. Walley P.O. Box 276, AG. 47-132-14 Richard J. and G.L. 3.0ac. Brekke 390 Canyon Way, AG. Lots not included in Tract 2265 would be eligible for connection to city water and sewer service, as well as other city services such as police, fire, after annexation. These PlannIng commission Sla" Report Re: ViRage Glen Annexation March 30, 1999 Page 60(16 parcels could subdivide in the future into smaller lots down to one aae. Although the proposed zoning would allow one aae lots, it is not clear that the three parcels in the northeast corner of the annexation area (about 8 aaes) are suitable for subdivision into one-aae lots due to topography, oak trees, the location of existing homes and appurtenant driveways and improyements. The parcels in the southwest comer of the annexation area totaling about 11.25 gross aaes might feasibly be subdivided to about 11 lots. Therefore, those areas not in Tract 2265 would add five existing houses, and could add 10 to 17 potential new residences to the City, subject to City approyal, if annexed. PROJECT HISTORY The following chronology highlights the history of the project: DATE EVENT June, 1995 Applications for annexation and tentative tract map file Owner: Robert James, et al. July 21, 1995 Application deemed incomplete August 3, 1995 Application re-submitted September 1, 1995 Application deemed complete October 3, 1995 Staff AdYisory Committee review October 8, 1996 Staff Advisory Committee review November 30, 1998 Notice of Completion of EIR (SCH # 98071100) January 5, 1999 Planning Commission hearing for public comment on draft EIR January 18, 1999 Close of public comment period on draft EIR PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS CECA Reyiew The California Environmental Cuality Act sets forth-specific procedures for evaluating and disclosing the environmental effects of proposed activities. The City has adopted locallCimplementing procedures. to provide objectives, aiteria, and procedures for the orderly evaluations of projects pursuant to the CECA Guidelines. Section 9 of the City's Implementing Procedures sets forth the steps to be follbwed in preparing and reviewing Environmental Impact Reports. Planning Commission Staff Report Re: VIllage Glen Annexation March 30, 1999 Page 7 of 16 The "decision making body" for the project (in this case the City Council), must certify that the CECA process has been completed, and that significant environmental impacts created by the project have been mitigated where feasible, before approving the project. The Planning Commission's role is to make a recommendation to the Council on the adequacy of the environmental document in meeting the CECA requirements. General Plan Amendments Section 9-03.020 et seq., of the Development Code sets forth the procedural steps to be followed in reviewing requests for a General Plan Amendment. The Planning Commission must review such requests for consistency with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, and must recommend by resolution to the City Council that the proposed amendment be approved, approved in modified form, or disapproved. Specific findings are provided to aid the Commission in making a recommendation to the Council. Amendments to Zonina Districts Section 9-03.040 et seq., of the Deyelopment Code sets forth the procedural steps to be followed in reviewing requests for amendments to Zoning Districts. The Planning Commission must review such requests, and must recommend by resolution to the City Council that the proposed amendment be approved, approved in modified form, or disapproYed. The purpose of the Commission's recommendation is to ensure consistency between the Development Code and the General Plan. SpecifIC findings are proYided to aid the Commission in making a recommendation to the Council. Annexation Annexation is a term used to describe the attachment or addition of territory to a city or special district. An annexation results in a change to a potitical boundary line between a city and a county. Annexation may affect the level and responsibility for certain public services being provided to residents, business owners, and property owners within the affected territory. In California, the annexation of territory to a city or district is governed by the State Govemment Code. These state laws were established "to encourage orderly community growth and deyelopment which is essential to the social, fiscal, and economic well-being of the state". These state laws also establish special boards to review and approve all annexation proposals within each of Califomia's 58 counties. These special boards are called "local agency formation commissions. or LAFCOs. In our county, the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission must review and authorize all annexations. In order for LAFCO to consider an amexation request, the Arroyo Grande City Council must first approve the request. Typically, the property will be "prezonecJ" by the Council before the annexation request is submitted to the County LAFCO by the applicant. Prezoning identifies the zoning district that will be applied to each property, if the territory is ultimately annexed to Arroyo Grande. The Planning Commission's affirmatiye Planning Commission staff Report Re: VlRage Glen Annexation March 30, 1999 Page 80'16 (or negative) recommendation in regards to the General Plan Amendment and Prezoning request, serves as the Commissions recommendation. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY The General Plan for the City of Arroyo Grande contains provisions that relate to annexations and extensions of City services. The following policy and implementation actions concern the findings that must be made in connection with such a request: 10.1 Permit the annexation of unincorporated areas within the General Plan study area when consistent with the general plan in limited circumstance.. Implementation Actions: a. Require all of the following finding. to be made prior to permitting annexations: . The proposed annexation will not Impact the amount of water resources available e/sewhero within the City. The total projected water. demand for the proposed project is estimated at 53 acre-feet per year (afy). This corresponds to a well output of 33.2 gallons per minute (gpm). (EIR p. IV-E5). The EIR concluded that the minimum well capacity that should be shown to serve the proposed development is 45 to 50 gpm. The applicant has proposed supplying water for the project by the construction of a new water supply well, located approximately one mile west of the project. The new well, located at the intersection of Deer Trail Circle and Equestrian Way. (the "Deer Trail weln, would be dedicated to the City by the applicant. The City would be responsible for serving the project following amexation, with the installation of water meters. The Deer Trail well would extract water from a deep aquifer zone in the Pismo Foundation. The Deer Trail well would draw from a different aquifer than that over which the project is located. Cleath & Associates tested the Deer Trail welf site, and a report submitted dated Juty 3, 1998. The Cleath report concluded that the Deer Trail well would be capable of producing a continuous discharge of 100 gpm. The EIR took outp"" from the City's Oak Park well into account, and concluded that production from the Deer Trail well could be half of that forecast by Cleath. This quantity would be sufficient to satisfy output requirements for the well. Cleath concluded that the aquifer is not in a state of overdraft. (Cleath, p. 5) The water quality of the Deer Trail well is unknown. Based on the water quality of the City's Oak Park well, which taps the same aquifer, it is likely that the water will contain elevated concentrations of hydrogen sulfide, manganese, and iron. Water quality testing would be required if the well were brought on line and proposed for use in the City's Planning Commission Staff Report Re: Village Glen Annexation March 30, 1999 Page 9 of 16 water supply. Presence of the above mineral, or certain other constituents, would require treatment at the well head prior to use. The Final EIR discusses groundwater resO\Kces on pages IV-E1 to IV-E11. The EIR proposed mitigation measures to respond to environmental impacts concerning groundwater withdrawal, well interference, and water quality. The EIR concluded that with incorporation eX the mitigation measures, residual impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Even though the EIR reached this conclusion, the City must determine whether the applicant's manner of satisfying the project demand for water is consistent with City policy. The EIR noted: The City must make a policy decision regarding the feasibility of incorporating and operating [a} low-producing water wen with water requiring wellhead treatment into the municipal water supply system. Typically, wells that produce the volume of water expected from the Deer Trail well are significantly more expensive to maintain and operate than larger production wells located closer to the main supply grid. This issue becomes particularly relevant because the Deer Trail well will likely require wellhead treatment, and because it will interfere, albeit in a relatively minor fashion, with operation of the existing Oak Park well. Although the new well is expected to provide the City with a quantity of water at least equal to the volume of the project demand, the new well will not necessarily improve the City's water supply capability, except for creating redundancy in the system by essentially creating a backup well for the Oak Park well. (EIR p. IV-E8) To address issues of timing, quality, and. quality, specific mitigation measures have been included in the EIR and will be made conditions of approyal for any subdivision approyals. The issue of operational costs to maintain and operate the well are policy issues requiring a determination by the City Council. Alternative measures that provide equal mitigation. could also be approved by the City before acceptance of the Deer Creek Well. . Clear compatibility exists with the community's basic Identity as a Nra/, small town community; the goals and desires of the people and the City of Arroyo Grande as a whole; and with the community's existing available resources. James Way serves as one of the main thoroughfares for residential ~opments in the foothills surrounding the City. The annexation proposal would incorporate into the community one of the few remaining County parcels having frontage on James Way. Upon annexation the project area would be zoned consistent with the City's Rural Residential District which establishes development standards consistent with the Community's basic identity as 8 rural residential area. This designation is also consistent with the land use and zoning designations of adjacent properties. Planning Commission staff Report Re: Village Glen Annexation March 30, 1999 Page 10 of 16 The applicant has applied for approval of a tentative tract map for the parcel. Although the map is not before the Planning Commission for consideration at this time, the tract map would provide guidance concerning the character and extent of future residential development on the site. Annexation would provide the City with land use authority over development of the parcel. Incorporating the parce' into the City would also provide the City with an income stream from the property, in the form of rea' property taxes and other assessments, that would not be present if the property were developed as an unincorporated area. The extent to which income offsets the cost of providing services is analyzed in the fiscal impact study. Annexation and development of the parcel would be consistent with previous development activity in the James Way vicinity. The City, through conditions imposed on the tentative tract map approval, could control to some extent, the character, extent, and intensity of development on the site. This would be consistent with the desire of community residents to have a significant role in plaming for the future of the community. . The proposed annexation /s consistent with goals and obJecUvea of the General Plan, particularly In regard to protect/on of agricultural and open space lands. The project site is within the county-designated urban reserve Rne (URL) for the City of Arroyo Grande. This is analogous to the sphere of influence, because it identifies the area for future urban and suburban growth within the next twenty years. Framework for Planning, which is Part I of the Countys Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, contains public service policies for maintaining a distinction between rural and urban development by requiring extension of urban services to areas within the URL, and restricting the extension of such services beyond the URL. The primary purpose of the policies in the County's Comprehensive Plan is to enhance the pattern of identifiable communities and to discourage premature intensive development in areas without infrastructure required to serve such development. Related to these policies is the general goal of encouraging. the phasing of urban development, first using vacant or underutilized parcels as "in-fill- parcels and other properties adjacent to existing development. San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building has advised LAFCO, by memorandum dated August 27, 1995, that it views the annexation of the project site favorably. The memorandum (Attachment 7), comments on the various urban services that could be provided to the site if annexation were to occur, and that would otherwise be proYided either on an indiYidual basis (e.g. septic systems, water wells) or occur in a less carefully planned manner (e.g. drainage). PlannIng Commission staff Report Re: Village Glen Annexation MBICh 30, 1999 Page 11 of 16 Tract Map 2265 proposes clustering of residential lots within the annexation area for the purpose of preserving large areas of open space and reducing development impacts. This design would be consistent with General Plan Land Use Objectives and Policies 2.1 a., -e., -g, 6.3 e., -g; 7.1 d.; . Significant benefits will be derived by the City upon annexation. The fiscal impact analysis conducted by Crawford, Multari & Clark has examined and analyzed the costs and benefits of the annexation proposal consistent with the guidelines established by the City. The analysis, dated October 1, 1998, is attached to the Final EIR as Appendix E. The report updated a previous report for the same site conducted in August, 1996. The fiscal report concluded: Uke the analysis two years ago, this update suggests that the proposed annexation wiD provide modest fiscal benefits to the City of Arroyo Grande. If the development were [to] be constructed under County jurisdiction, the City could expect to incur service costs in excess of revenues. (Fiscal report, pages 3-4) The report concluded that net revenue per residential unit with annexation would be $140.00 per year; if the property were developed in County jurisdiction, the net loss per residential unit would be $179.00 per year. . Adequate infrastructure and services have been or can be economically provided in accordance with current City standards. The applications before the Planning Commission for consideration at this time include only the General Plan Amendment and Development Code amendment. These actions, by themselves, would have no fiscal impact on the City, and would require no additional infrastructure or services not already provided to the project directly (roads), or indirectly through mutual aid agreements for police and fire services. As previously stated, the project area is surrounded on three sides by the City limits. In addition, the City provides service to this area under current mutual aid agreements. As identified in the Fiscal Analysis for the project, revenues collected from the proposed tract will exceed service costs provided under current city standards. (See table - Fiscal Impact Summary, pg. 4) If approved, these applications would enable the applicant to seek annexation through the San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission. The applicant is pursuing an application for Tentative Tract 2265, and a planned unit development designation, projects that would have a demonstrable impact on infrastructure and services. Mitigation measures and conditions of approval for development of the property, will require that development costs and ongoing services will be funded by the project applicants or future residents. PlannIng Commission Staff Report Re: VIllage Glen Annexation March 30, 1999 Page 120'16 In discussing the findings required by the General Plan, staff has evaluated not only the annexation request itself, but the proposal put forth by the applicant concerning the likely development of the site. The project analyzed in the EIR and fiscal impact study included 63 residential lots, and one lot subject to an open space easement. Fire: The City maintains a fire department consisting of forty volunteers and a full-time, paid fire chief. The fiscal impact report noted that insuring an adequate level of response is sometimes difficult with a volunteer-based department. Average response times in the City are approximately 12.6 minutes for fire, and eight (8) minutes for medical emergencies. The project site is, and will be, accessible via established and improved roadways, and response times would be similar to the established standards. The City has not adopted standards for staffing and response times for ftre protection. Nor has the City adopted impact fees to cover the cost of additional facilities that might be needed due to development. The City conducts an annual review as part cI the City Council's budget process. This procedure would be used to determine the requirements for additional staffing and facilities that might be needed to serve the proposed project as well as other areas of the community. Police: The City Police Department is currently staffed with 23 full-time sworn personnel, 16 of which are in uniformed service. The department also employs 8 auxiliary officers who work part-time. As with the Fire Department, the City has not adopted standards for staffing and response times for police protection services. Nor has the City adopted impact fees to cover the cost of additional capital facilities that might be needed due to development. The City conducts an annual review as part of the City Council's budget process. This procedure would be used to determine the requirements for additional staffing and facilities that might be needed to serve the proposed project as well as other areas of the community. Solid waste: Solid waste collection and disposal is provided to the project site by South County Sanitary Service, Inc. Solid waste is hauled to one of the several landfills located in San Luis Obispo County. Cold Canyon Landfill serves the City and is located approximately nine miles southeast on Highway 227. The landfill has a remaining capacity of approximately twenty years. San Luis Obispo County and City of Arroyo Grande have prepared a long-term waste management plan that contains goals for waste reduction and recycling. Development within the amexation area would be subject to all requirements contained within the plan including mandatory recycling and greenwaste collection. The EIR prepared for the project concluded that there is adequate capacity for solid waste disposal to accommodate the proposed project. PlannIng COmmission Staff Report Re: Village Glen Annexation March 30, 1999 Page 13 of 16 Wastewater: The project area lies within the boundaries of the San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District. The District operates a wastewater treatment plant in the community of Oceano that serves Arroyo Grande and surrounding communities. The treatment plant, which is licensed to treat 5.0 million gallons of effluent per day, is projected to meet the demand for sewer service within the District through the year 2015. The EIR and fiscal study analyzed the projected demand for sanitary sewer service from the proposed project, and noted that the project demand of 16,589 gallons per day would constitute approximately 0.75% of the remaining capacity of the treatment plant. The study concluded that there is adequate wastewater treatment plant capacity to accommodate the project buildout. Schools: The project lies within the Lucia Mar Unified School District. The District provides primary and secondary education in southern San Luis Obispo County. The District is currently charging an impact fee for new residential construction. The District has reached agreement with the applicant regarding the impact fees to be charged, and has indicated that the District is satisfied that impacts of the proposed project on the school system have been fully mitigated. The School District is the "Responsible and Trustee Agency" designated by CEaA with the authority to determine the adequacy of nNtigation measures required to address the impacts created by the project. Parks: The City maintains and operates a system of parks, and atso operates recreation facilities and programs. The City Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan seeks to establish and maintain a ratio of four acres of deyeloped parkland per 1,000 population. To achieve this objective, the City employs provisions of the Subdivision Map Act that allow local governments to require the dedication of land, and/or the payment of money in the form of in-lieu fees. The City has adopted an implementing ordinance, and assesses and collects such fees. CoRection of the in-lieu fee is considered sufficient to offset the additional demand for parks that would result from project buildout. Traffic: The project analyzed in the EIR and traffic study conducted in connection with the project included 63 single-family residences. The applicant has since reduced the number of lots in the subdivision. The analysis here is based on the project reviewed in the EIR. The traffic study analyzed the impact of project traffic on the following intersections: . Brisco RoadfW. Branch Street/U.S. Highway 101 Northbound ramps . East Branch StreetfTraffic Way . East Branch StreetlWest Branch Street/Grand Avenue . Grand AvenuelU.S. Highway 101 interchange (2 locations) . EI Camino ReallHalcyonlU.S. Highway 101 southbound ramps Planning Commission staff Report Re: Village Glen Annexation March 30, 1999 Page 14 of 16 . Rodeo Drive between James Way and the intersection of the proposed Grace Lane extension. The traffic study first reviewed the yolume of traffic that would be generated by the project, and the distribution of that traffic on area streets. Based on trip generation rates contained in the ITE Trip Generation reference (6th Edition, 1997), the study concluded that the project would generate 602 new daily trips, with 64 p.m. peak hour trips. Distribution of these trips to area streets was based on existing traffic patterns, location of employment and shopping destinations, and the consultant's knowledge of travel patterns in the City. Once project-generated trips were distributed to area streets, the traffic study calculated the intersection levels of service that resulted, compared to existing service levels. The City's minimum leyel of service standard is LOS C, with LOS 0 acceptable on a short- term basis proYided there is an improyement identified that will proYide a minimum LOS C when the improvement is completed. The study concluded that levels of service on the study area intersections for existing plus project traffic were at LOS C or aooye. See Table 1, below, Column (2). Table 1 LOS Table for Traffic Scenarios (1 ) (2) (3) (4) Intersection Existing Existing plus Baseline Baseline LOS Project LOS LOS Plus Project Brisco Roadm. Branch StlU.S. 101 NB Ramp 0.46/A O.46/A 0.86/0 0.87/0 EI Camino Reali Halcyon/U.S. 101 SB Ramp 0.48/A 0.48/A 0.72/C 0.73/C E. Branch StlGrand AyefTraffic Way 0.68/B 0.68/B 0.78/C 0.78/C E. Branch StNI. Branch StlGrand Ave 0.40/A OAO/A 0.57/C 0.57/C Grand Ave/NB U.S. 101 ramp O.56/A O.56/A 0.63/8 O.63/B Grand Ave/SB U.S. 101 Ramp 0.55/A 0.55/A O.64/B O.64/B The study also analyzed baseline traffic conditions. These are determined by adding in the vehicles trips generated by approved and proposed projects within the City. (See Table 03, EIR, page IV-D5.) PlannIng Commission Staff Report Re: Village Glen Annexation March 30, 1999 Page 15 of 16 The report concluded that baseUne trips could add 32,547 daily trips, and 2,999 p.m. peak-hour trips to the road network within the City. These trips were then added to the existing trips. All intersections remained at LOS C or better, with the exception of Brisco Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps, which would operate at LOS D. (See Table 1, below, Column (3). The EIR noted that the City was completing a study of traffic improvements at this intersection, and that any of the three identified alternatives would improye the level of service at this intersection to LOS C or better. The traffic study next analyzed baseline plus project traffIC at study area intersections. The addition of the project traffic to baseUne traffic did not change any of the levels of service calculated for the baseline alone. See Table 1, below, Column (4). The addition of daily traffic from the project was not expected to significantfy change any roadway level of service on a City roadway. Rodeo Drive During the pubUc comment period on the Draft EIR, issues were raised in regards to the impact of the annexation (specifically deyelopment of Tract 2265) on Rodeo Drive. These issued are addressed in Response to Comment 15.1 of the final EIR. The EIR concluded that the project would not have a significant impact on study area intersections, based on the threshold of significance utilized by the City. . The proposed annexation will generate sufficient revenues to adequately pay for the provision of City services. One of the purposes of the fiscal impact study was to determine whether the revenue from the proposed project would be sufficient to pay for City services to be provided. The study used an average cost approach to estimate public service costs for the proposed project. This process evaluates the cost of providing the service (e.g. a department's annuat budget) and the extent to which the service is directed toward residential uses, as opposed to commercial or industrial (e.g., percentage of police calls to residences). In addition, the fiscal study also evaluated the impact of providing services to persons not residing in the City. For example, if the project were not approved, and project deyelopment occurred in the unincorporated area, those residing in the development would be expected to use City parks and other services. Thus, the City would incur a cost without receiving a source of revenue (e.g., real property taxes) to offset such cost. Having evaluated such factors, the fiscal study concluded that the proposed annexation and development with residential uses as proposed would provide modest fiscal benefits to the City. The study also concluded that if the project were constructed under County jurisdiction, the City could expect to incur costs in excess of revenues. Planning Commission Staff Report Re: ViHage Glen Annexation March 30, 1999 Page 16 of 16 Recommendation: It is recommended that this annexation be approved because it is consistent with adopted county general plan policies and because the city is in the best position to provide the needed level of services for existing and expanded development of the site. Staff Advisorv Committee: The Staff Advisory Committee considered the annexation request and proposal for Tentative Tract 2265 on December 8, 1998. Comments were received primarily concerning proposed Tract 2265, and the Parks department indicated an oak tree protection plan would be required. Minutes of the meeting are attached (Attachment 8.) Architectural Advisorv Committee: The ARC has not reviewed the project. The applicant has not produced elevations for the residences proposed for the site. In the absence of elevations, and given the review for aesthetic issues conducted during the EIR process, review by the ARC will await the submittal of more specific development plans. Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Resolution on Certification of Final EIR 2. Planning Commission Recommendation on General Plan Amendment No. 97-004 3. Planning Commission Recommendation on Development Code Amendment No. 97- 009 (Prezoning) 4. Map 1: Vicinity Map 5. Map 2: Annexation and Prezoning Area 6. Map 3: Annexation Properties 7. San Luis Obispo County Memorandum Re: Annexation, August 27, 1995 8. Staff Advisory Committee Minutes, (date) 9. Project Plans: Tentative Tract 2265, and Tentatiye Tract 2265 Grading and Drainage Plans 10. · Answers to Common Questions About Annexation to the City of Arroyo Grande- 11. Correspondence received regarding the proposed project. 12. Final Environmental Impact Report - Village Glen Annexation (delivered under separate cover) N:\SHARED\Communlty Development Dept. - Sharec:t\PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PACKETS'MARCH 30, 1999\PCSTAF-2.DOC ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 99-1689 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE COMPLETION OF AND MAKE FINDINGS AS TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE VILLAGE GLEN PROJECT WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") for the Village Glen Annexation, including General Plan Amendment 97-004, Development Code Amendment 97-009, Vesting Tentative Tract 2265, and Planned Unit Development 97-563m (the "Project") was prepared by firma (the "Consultant") for the City of Arroyo Grande (the "City") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq., hereinafter the "State CEOA Guidelines") and local procedures adopted by the City pursuant thereto; and WHEREAS, copies of the Draft EIR were distributed to the State Clearinghouse and to those public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project and to other interested persons and agencies, and the comments of such persons and agencies were sought; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was thereafter revised and supplemented to adopt changes suggested and to incorporate comments received and the City's response to said comments, and as so revised and supplemented, a Final EIR was prepared and submitted to the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande for review and consideration in conjunction with consideration of approval and adoption of then Project; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 30, 1999 to consider the Project and the Final EIR relating thereto, following notice duly and regularly given as required by law, and all interested persons expressing a desire to comment thereon or object thereto having been heard, and said Final EIR and all comments and responses thereto having been considered; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, as revised and supplemented, incorporating all comments received and the response of the City and the Planning Commission thereto as of the date hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande resolves as follows: Section 1. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of Arroyo Grande certify that the Final EIR for the Project has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA), the State CEOA Guidelines and local procedures adopted by the City pursuant thereto. The Planning Commission further recommends that the City Council find that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21082.1 and Section 15090 of the CEOA Guidelines. Section 2. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR and considered the information contained therein and all comments, written and oral, received at the public hearing on the Final EIR prior to adopting this Resolution. Resolution 99-1689 EIR Certification Page 2 of 2 Section 3. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigation Measures and the Mitigation Monitoring Program identified in the Final EIR. On motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Costello, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners London, Costello, Parker, Keen and Chair Greene NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 30th day of March 1999. Laurence Green, Chairman ATTEST: Kathleen Fryer, Commission Clerk AS TO CONTENT: Jim Hamilton, AICP Community Development Director A IT ACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. 99-1690 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE GENERAL PLAN MAP; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97- 004 (APPLICANT: GARY YOUNG) WHEREAS, the applicant, Gary Young and Associates, has submitted an application to amend the General Plan Map to designate the project site area, described on Exhibit A to this Resolution, as Rural Residential (RR), allowing a density of one unit per acre; and WHEREAS; amending the General Plan Map as requested would establish land use, development and design standards for the above described area; and WHEREAS, on March 30, 1999 the Planning Commission considered a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Environmental Impact Report, and recommended that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Village Glen Annexation; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed the application for General Plan Amendment 97-004 at duly noticed public hearings on March 30, 1999, in accordance with the Development Code of the City of Arroyo Grande at which. time all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information and public testimony presented at the public hearings, staff reports, and all other information and documents that are part of the public record; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation, and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: Annexation Findinas 1. The proposed annexation will not impact the amount of water resources availabHt elsewhere within the City; 2. Clear compatibility exists with the community's basic identity as a rurat, small town community; the goals and desires of the people and the City of Arroyo Grande as a whole; and with the community's existing available resources; 3. The proposed general plan amendment is consistent with goals and .objectives of the General Plan, particularly in regard to protection of agricultural and open space lands, and will not result in any intemal inconsistencies within the General Plan.; 4. Significant benefits will be derived by the City upon annexation; 5. Adequate infrastructure and services have been or can be economicaUy provided in accordance with current City standards; 6. The proposed annexation will generate sufficient revenues to adequately pay for the provision of City services; Resolution No. 99-1690 General Plan Amendment 97-004 Page 2 of 3 General Plan Amendment 7. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed General Plan Amendment are insignifteant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level as identified in the Village Glen Annexation Environmental Impact Report; and 8. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare. 9. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives. policies, and programs of the General Plan and will not result in any intemal inconsistencies within the plan. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande, California hereby recommends to the City Council that it approve an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element and General Plan Map by designating the project area as Rural Residential. On motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Costello, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Costello, Parker, and London NOES: Chair Greene ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 30" day of March, 1999. Laurence Greene, Chairman ATTEST: Kathleen Fryer, Commission Clerk Resolution No. 99-1690 General Plan Amendment 97-004 Page 3 of 3 AS TO CONTENT: Jim Hamilton Community Development Director ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO. 99-1691 AN RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF ARROYO GRANDE: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 97-009 (APPLICANT: GARY YOUNG) WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande Zoning Map indicates that the area identified in the attached Exhibit A, located north of James Way, is located in the unincorporated area of San Luis Obispo County; and WHEREAS, the applicant, Gary Young, has filed Development Code Amendment 97"()()9 to amend the Zoning Map designate the project area as Rural Residential; and WHEREAS, adoption of the proposed zoning would establish land use, development and design standards for the above described area; and WHEREAS, on March 30, 1999 the Planning Commission recommended the City Council certify an Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Village Glen Annexation as complete and adequate per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed Development Code Amendment 97-009 at a duly noticed public hearing on March 30, 1999 in accordance with the Development Code of the City of Arroyo Grande at which time all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information and public testimony presented at the public hearings, staff reports, and all other information and documents that are part of the public record; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: 1. Based on the information contained in the staff report and accompanying materials, the proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan and is necessary and desirable to implement the provisions of the General Plan. 2. The proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern. 3. The proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Development Code. Development within the Village Glen Annexation area would be required to meet development and design standards that insure orderly development and a unique and aesthetically pleasing design. 4. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed Development Code Amendment are insignificant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level as identified in the Resolution No. 99-1691 Development Code Amendment 97-009 Page 2 of 2 Village Glen Annexation Environmental Impact Report. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Plaming Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande, California hereby recommends the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande approve Development Code Amendment No. 97-009, thereby prezoning the subject property Rural Residential, preliminary to its annexation to the City of Arroyo Grande On motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Costello, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Costello, Parker and London NOES: Chair Greene ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 30111 day of March 1999. Laurence Green, Chairman ATTEST: Kathleen Fryer, Commission Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Jim Hamilton, Community Development Director " A T\ A""6 ......-- \\ 7 tj (,,1 A(,. ~ --- -\ Ail' ~ __.ti 4 iii , PD -- A"1 \ P\'-" ....- i ~~ ~~ Z- eD 0 - 0 \G \t) (,) en . . "f""" - < U1 ~ < '% 0 - ~ c:(, ~ ~ '% '% U1 < (.) a:. .!! ::;I 0 ~ en r- ATTACHMENT 6 ~ \ ~ o ~M -r'"\. ~ ~ 't- -r'"_ ~ ~ ~ r:} ~~ ~ ~ ~ ....~ .... "0 ~ 0 . :,0.... z .. "00 ~d> ~: "" " ...~~ ~ ~ 1 ~ :?-~~ ~ ~ .-~ . .!! en "'!ol ~ I- ~~ m Z ... ~ --- ~~ ~ ....0 ~~ ~ 'i.. ... 't.~" IIfJtJ-lrJ -iHJ :N.N .". ~ ~ '\.'\.1.. W 3:JK:/ 'S' )1()()8 ..... "'to . .rIO Z znm,I ~... w '\~ -- ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ,.., ,0:, a: ~ ~ ~ ,~ 0 ----1 ~ ~ ~ I 'i.~ ~ ~ .... 't- . ~~'t- ~~, ~ ~ '\::\. ~'\ - -:.~ ~ ~ ~< ~-\., \;., ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ u ~ 0..' II) o~ b. o ---- ~ ~'t- I IliHrl-iH *if' o ~~ I UXM/Y)11XJ6 U ~~ ... .rIO tf'./In.rlO ~ ~ 'b. ~ 't- "6~ . ? ~ ., ~~ ~ "0. ~ :.> "6~ i~~~ en ~ ~~7~ W .It) ~ $7 ..It) /IIDtDIIM - _ _ _ _ II f l- II ffi 't- I ~ ~ ~~7~ 0 "'to,: I .Jt1 ~ J#1 ..It) IIfJ/U/fM a: -~-- ". ~ ~, --;:~~~~~~-:.\. Z \ ~ ~ < o X 't- -r'"~ 't- c( W ~~. -~ ~'\.. fa ~ ~ 'a. ~ "'"", .. w.A' ~ ~, u ~ ~ ~ .- v ~ ~ o == m I- ATTACHMENT 7 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING ALEX HINDS DIRECTOR . BRYCE TINGLE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ELLEN CARROLL ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR BARNEY MCCAY CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL NORMA SALISBURY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES OFFICER TO: PAUL L. HOOD, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LAFCo FROM: KAMI GRIFFIN, SENIOR PLANNER VIA: ALEX HINDS, DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND BUILDING DATE: AUGUST 27, 1995 SUBJECT: ANNEXATION No.1 TO THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE - JAMES PROPERTY (LAFCo FILE #4-R-95;PLANNING FILE # G940012F) The following is in response to your request for information regarding this proposal: 1. Factors relating to the proposal: a. Topography: The 88 acre site has rolling topography. b. Natural boundaries and drainage basins: The site is roughly rectangular in shape and is split into four.parts by Canyon Way and Wild Oak: Place. There is drainage swale that nms through the site from north to south in the northeast quadrant of the site. c. Population of area and adjacent areas: The site is made up of nine parcels, seven being developed with single family residences. It is located within the San Luis Bay (Inland) planning area of the Land Use Element (LUE) of the county . general plan. The population projections prepared in June, 1995, by the Department o( Planning and Building using information. from the California State Department of Finance estimate the 1995 population for the following areas to be: :"liil!llllif!~mlml:~~~~~~~'~::1~:;~;~t:{Lji .:;:~:t::~:;:::::;:L:::{;:~:.~:i[!:~!~m9iWli~'11.1 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE 15,330 SAN LUIS BAY PLANNING AREA 47,485 INJY GOVERNMENT O:NTER . SAN LuIS OBISPO . CAufORNIA 93408 - (805) 781-5600 . FAX (80S) 781-1242 OR 5624 LAFCo Referral August 27, 1995 .. Page 2 d. Population growth in the area over the past decade: The .following table summarizes the growth rates that were experienced between 1980 and 1990 by the two areas ("annual %" is the annual population increase that occurred yearly between 1980 and 1990): ARROYO GRANDE 10,674 14,215 3,541 3% SAN LUIS BAY 31;603 43,881 12,278 4% Using estimates from the June, 1995 population projections, the recent growth in the two areas that has occurred since 1990'is summarized in the following table: Ilrll1~t.!'i'1~ ~f~\t'ift~~~.~t.111.lel~l_ '_Ig_;:~:':, .- ARROYO GRANDE 14,215 15,330 1,115 > 1% SAN LUIS BAY 43,881 . 47,485 3,604 > 1% e. Like~ihood of significant growth in the area and in adjacent areas during the' - next 10 years: The following table summarizes the projected population increases for the two areas for the next ten years, using the latest estimates prepared by the County Department of Planning and Building: ;11'~t&gi~~J.~~~~';~i~~ ~~~~:il~ij~~~$.~:rt1~~ :~;f~f:~~:~~!iQcj~::!:~::;1:::~! ,~~~:~:i1~iN6ftE,~s.E.j::~~1 :~~~~~~!:f ARROYO GRANDE 15,330 18,056 2726 1.7% SAN LUIS BAY 47,485 56,814 9,329 1.9% f. Present Land Use Designation in County Land Use Element: The site is designated Residential Suburban. There are no Combining Designations on. the site. . g. Existing land use(s) in subject territory: The site has historically been larger lot (2.5 to 20 acre) homesites. It is made up of nine parcels, seven being developed with single family residences. h. Subject territory's relationship to Planning Lines (URL, USL, Coastal Zone, Etc.): The site is within the San Luis Bay (Inland) planning area of the Land Use Element of the general plan. The site is within the Arroyo Grande Urban Reserve Line (URL) but outside of the Urban Services Line (USL) designated in the county general plan. The URL is coterminous in this area with the Arroyo Grande City Limits. The site is also within the city's Sphere of Influence h^11n,.l~r" LAFCo Referral Augdst 27, 1995 Page 3 The Land Use Element of the City of Arroyo Grande's general plan includes the site in their Planning Impact Area (pIA). The PIA indicates the maximum potential growth area for the city in the foreseeable future or areas where the development pattern would have an immediate impact upon the city. Being with the city's PIA does not represent a commitment on the part of the city to annex the areas it contains. The city does not currently have the site designa.ted in their general plan. The site will have to go through the city's pre-zoning process. i. Planning Area Standards pertaining to the subject property: There are standards that apply to the subject property. The standards. apply to all areas within the Arroyo Grande Fringe. The standards read as follows: l. Limitation on Use. Uses identified in Table 0, Part I of the Land Use Element as "A" or "S" uses may be permitted except nursing and personal care; and correctional institutions. 2. Specialized Animal Facilities. Land use permit ,applications . for speciali.zed animal facilities hall address and mitigate. any identified impacts of erosion and downstream sedimentation that would be caused by the establishment of the facilities. 3. New Land Divisions. Prior to acceptance of any application for land division as complete, the . applicant shall provide information to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building, in consultation . with, the Director of Environmental Health and the Environmental Coordinator that: (1) adequate groundwater resources are available to serve the proposed land division and (2) each proposed parcel can accommodate an individual sewage disposal system. The results of this information shall be incorporated into the design and proposed density of the land division. j. Land Use Designation and existing uses of adjacent parcels: North: scattered residential single family dwellings designated Residential Suburban. South: scattered residential single family dwellings on l~ger lot rural land within the Arroyo Grande city limits. East: residential single family dwellings within the Arroyo Grande city. limits. ..;i West: scattered residential single family dwellings on larger lot rural land within the Arroyo Grande city limits. k. Subdivision and building activity in the area: Recent. activity consists of the continuing subdivision of the unincorporated Arroyo Grande Fringe into parcel sizes consistent with the zoning, and the on-going development of the Rancho Grande, Royal Oaks and Tally Ho neighborhoods within the city. LAFCo Referral August 27, 1995 Page 4 1. Miscellaneous infonnation concerning the subject property or area: RMS Information: The 1994 Annual Resource Summary Report for the ~esource Management System (RMS) of the county Land Use. Element indicates the status of key resources and service capacitates. in unincozporated areas. . For the greater area containing the site, the 1994 report identifies recommended levels of severity of level m for Arroyo Grande's elementary schools and high schools and level n for middle schools. County general plan policies: The site is within the county-designated urban reserve line (URL), for the city of Arroyo Grande. this is analogous to the sphere of influence because it indicates the area for additional urban and suburban growth within a 20 year timeframe. Framework for Planning, Part I of the LUE, contains public service policies for maintaining a distinction between rural and urban development by directing the extension of urban services to areas within urban and village reserve lines and restricting such services form being "proyided outside those lines (chapter 4). The purposes of these policies for maintaining a clear distinction between rural and urban development are to enhance thepattem of identifiable communities and to discourage premature intensive development in areas without all needed services .being available. Related. to these policies is a general goal in framework for encouraging the phasing of urban development in a compact manner, first using vacant or underutilized "infill" parcels and lands next to existing development. - 2" a. Planning Department comments and recommendations: Comments: The applicant is requesting annexation to the City of Arroyo Grande and the South County Sanitation District. The application submitted for this proposed annexation indicates "that the applicant is initiating the request for the following reasons: 1. It is within the city's sphere of influence and the county's URL. 2. The "area is surrounded on three sides by the city limits and so any development of the property will impact directly on city residents adjacent to the property. Furthermore, the annexation could be viewed as a filling in of the ~ity boundaries. 3. The city can provide urban level services to the site, some of which are already provided by the city, including water, sewer, police and fire. 4. The vacant portions of the site shou:ld be developed consistent with the city's general plan because access to the site is through the city, via James Way and Canyon Way. 5. Groundwater is available on the property and a recently completed weI~ would be made available to the city's system in order to supplement existing well supplies. ---- LAFCo Refertal AuguSt 27, 1995 Pag~ S .~ 6. Community sewer systems are a preferable sewage disposal method over individual septic tanks. A sewer system is available through the city, however, development in the county would use individual septic systems. 7. If the property were developed within the county, traffic fees would be collected by the county. If the property were developed within the city, traffic fees would be collected by the city where the majority of the traffic impacts would occur from development. 8. The area is within the city's watershed, and drains either to Canyon Way or James Way, both of which are in the city. With proper engineering, the property could be developed in such a waythaLcurrent'.peakflows down Canyon Way are retained on-site and all impacts mitigated. 9. The city's Parks and Recreation Element shows a trail extending into the property. Development of the property in the city would allow for Ute acquisition of the trail by the city. Annexation of the site s9 that the full range of community services can be provided by the city is consistent with county general plan policies >onpublic services. This is becaus~ th site is within the Arroyo Grande URLand designated Residential Suburban which a1lows parcel sizes as small as 1 acre dependent on urban services. Also, the orientation of the site being surrounded on three sides by the existing city limits would make it a logical extension of the city limits consistent with the policies on promoting in-fill and compact development. Recommendation: It is recommended that this annexation be approved because it is consistent with adopted county general plan policies and because the city is in the best position to provide the needed level of services for existing and expanded development of the site. b. Date site viewed, report author: The site was viewed on June 7, 1995 and the report prepared by Kami Griffin, Senior Planner. . ' ..... 0.....'0 cou....... o' .......... oP ,'-""'....... So ..un.O..... ~ - . .-- J)~,.\~..,\ P' _ ,":, '\ t. f ; .."'''' ~ - ~ I #... .." I ' 0.--"'" , " / .. '-\ ~ . ~ ~: '; I.", ~! ,?,i '''"'' ... .. J:",- \ ,. .' .....~ o~ ' ~ f{ ".G ". ,~"_"'J,,. · i. '. '-- . ,,'" "~ ofl . , .' -<Ii . .>-- '" ,tl 'Y ' ~.".. ~ ' .. <'I~.n .> ~ .'. "" . ~ . J _." ." .' tL-,. \,O..<f. ~, , <~.,::".~ _ '....: "k!'j t:~.. O' ,~"$I T.E. I "~~-J~ - ~....~ ~.;/ -cs- r' ~. ,~;.., "" . / ,f. \ r:;:l ?, "'-;"'--. .f. . ", f!W;. . .... I' ~. f"A ~ . ~ i ~"'. -<!. 0 .. .' ~ ~ J' . ,,-;; .' ....... ~ 10 ~~., ~"I;:-~ ,jj.~' ... . · .. '. · <' , ~~......~Jl( ~<." j~r..A.'<< ..,' .... ......~........ ! d . /, ~ . _ ~ ' c".' t. ' < .a/t,~~ /A~ ..' L. It~ ~ " :..,...... ~ '" .... ~ ._. .: ....._./- ..... ... 0 ~- If, · . ;.;; , ~" ~ . . -".. . ~- ' ~. fN., """'~_~ ...,~-...' """'~1""'''' ... ... -= . ~ 2-0' ~. =-- ~ U'. " ., p.o. · '~ ~.;. ~. ~''''~ . . niJ'}o..~.t:.."O ....<'11 \....... :' ,'_..'. .... <r~ ~_ _ " ,,~... . ~-' J>I"~: ..~-" .. .. ~ 'c.. .... .=~. · c. "" ., . · ~-"~ ". ~ "'" ",," ~. ~ ' --; M~ a....,:FfE~i~~" <!! ..~1SIJIt!r.o'iN t" "'- j?';- J~q - .. . ~~.,,,, PI ~.~" . ~ .\ " .=- --.; I ~_ ~ ~.'\~ ~ "'~""i Ii <. ~ '" I~ . ..., ... ". - . ~ '" ~ . . ' . ~ _ =.".,"" ~..,... ,~. _ .... ~4", -"'I' <, , " .. i T.L .~ """ '" '" " '.. · .=,,,,""'-' .' ' ~. ~... ... :;" .J. t.e'1o . , -I f~~~"'X '" ~'iI .. "...~ .,.', 1<. ~. Ii, .~" ....0 .._"'.~~~,~ ~~~~~... ~. ~I ~- , . "". .""".... - . .~.' .. I.... . ; ~y , '" .~. '" <:;-<;0 .~ ",,' ~;5! 'O:;~~VE~IJE ~Ao~ ~~1.~~(f'.. j ~ , ......? P"v.V.O'lO .~.... . . , ...... _ '" ~. i. '!. .. <O' ~ - '" . Gft ^ A'.....c \ '-~ ; .;, All- ........ . II i "", .Ii...... ~~ " '''''~'~ - ,1',"",\11- _W' . . "' .L I .~"- i Z j. ...." ~~ '~\i::C..1. ",' ... ~. · ~ I . _ 0 ,.... ...' . .' > """" F" · -1~~~"" '..... ., 6< . ';." ""i ..... < .._ .:'. 0'.__ ," .,t., .... i . . . ",.c. .. ,,~~ . ..j. ~..... - " f ....!. : <3:! I.., ... ;.,,~:~0<71","~"" . c:t ,"~."i~ S"oII'. ~,t:I\'" oV" -- ,- ': """'-~.. .' ., . , -".....- · 11J:\'- ~ ."~ .., . , _, "."J- ,_' ' ~.""" . ,.,. .... o' ~..t ". . \' ': . ; I Ii. ~ "b;; ...... " !To i ~;. -.-.::.' p~ -,~;: ~hV"''" ,r- ~, ~/"'O ...o, . I:.~" ~ ~_13'! ~. '.!~~ii! '. ,,~ <J .. ~ .. '... "" u.;;. .iBU~'; .\v_ :-1.. - ....~. .. ....:" '"- ...... ~~... : ~ ". ' . ~ .-.!....""" _..... ,. _. . .0.. .....~.... ~:..o ~. _ . ~.. :f' "',,--- - ' -- ." ..~. .. ' ,.. . . ~ '\..... ir.<::'O!' ~'.:W~ "t ~ -~~.... ~~~. .... ... .~.._~ ~... ' :..~ .i\~ -t~ ~ ~~v---"&. ""\. . .' ~ [1 ~~';;"'<>- =~ .....", ; .~'i!:' ~... .".~ iii ,~~ ~~/"'G. ~44: I .~. . ~""., %.... -i\~"' .. f-.................-voo.. .q;~. l ' , . ." ... '" c - . - ..--- - . ~".." [~_..., . .., 0 .Y" -,.- ~ ~ ., . > ~""" .' _ ....l ........ _, ~~ ;; 1;;1 / 'f~ · '" ~!I. ~ ~>a .'^;< E",:'S~ 1'\6' ~l<I'LCY"" :Ii .-", '" .~ " ..", " ~.... ":l!" ..' -., "~Ii':!f.15 0 i ~ !:11 /'"- .. .... .' '~ ~ ==-=\ t .. ..... -. .N..... ...oi'~ ;: '" · - ~ '" 1 1 ,,!. . , __ \ ~~.....if!I..~ IJ-- .d11 ~ '. {t~~~ o,-~ \1 . ......:\ ;.., . , \ ,...... 1.& '1~rl.'P.~ !If' ~_""-~ doE: G' ~.. ~:....,ii;) ~~. . _.--;-,. _~_ ... ~o=!i-"c~'=-' · .._~ . · ,'f - . , - I . . . ._ ". .,.... ~ ..-- I\.' . ' .' .._0. · ~ . _ _.\.~C;; 01"Cf."NO-;;1~~ ~ .; ~:~:.: -; II, . ~ ..,~ /' .. -. . -~. . -- , . \.......~... '._~""- ..-. . -..,& . \ \ ...-". \ b"--- .:. I ,. .-- , 1 . ...." \ \ t'lO$=t-rrt : . ...---: --. . --' .-..~ ,- r-:::::~!<l'O,\.~~'4-"-9' \ . r~"'!'!:~\1~\I'{-~"~- . __ o."OyO G"-""OE . I} t ,.SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & BUILDINC" . ~ . . I I j I , . j , ~ . -5.......g Impact Areas · A" o.d "n" 'NORTH -- ., .. -- . ....1. ... . -.. -.... . .. _ PRo.JECT <8 EXHIBIT ANNEXATION NO.1 - LAFCo FILE #4-R-9S CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ' - j PLANNING IMPACT AREA MAP JAMES PROPERTY . v . . > - - --'" - ' . " .... .............. .. ....."'.... - ", . -....." """~ ........ ~ ~ -,~ ~ 4 ; 1.0 SPllfJ>.E Of SERVICE )>.110 SPIIERE Of INfLUENCE fO\!. ,.1110 CI"~ Of ,.R\!.O~O G\!.IINOE '; . ". . "do;\:ed Sphere of'. e'r ..." ,.flu."".' r""U.d .S.pt~ \ S. \ 9tS; "doQ\:ed Sphere ~f ser. #......" ...,Ice lc.o\:enn\OOUS ".,\:h ". ~dopt.d Sph.r. of \.flu.... ....pt ,"0'0.10) , . ___ E)(.\5\:\09 t\\:Y l.icn\\:S . f I s,.o --:---.. ' "E~tt\. -. "- '('/ ~~'~ % ., o -', "",t'O. ~ ," I' e 1!-)(.""s'''' - - .~ _ ----. _ " "".... ~-n<>" ,,0. I .VOfC'> """ ,..".91 - \ .' sr'''''''' Of ~ .. ..""yo ""","OE ' .... - ,,' IrIAN DF ;: ~ fAt ~ ._ ~a..JECT . EXHIBIT -. .... ANNEXATION NO.1 - LAFCo FILE 14-R-95 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE LAND USE CATEGORY MAP JAMES PROPERTY ... "'! ~ * .. . , .. .. (t"'.-ri.-t) .. .!' ~ .... , "- ... 0'.. ... .' . : . ! i : . , 36 : 34 . ,. ./ / . I . : - .. I * .' I ,D' ., ; i t\10RT~ : I. t .. ~..::-:- ~:.:. *.. '. ::-. __ Pf'o.recT . E)(.....st.... J,NNEXA-nON NO. \ . 1,.AFCo flLE ,4-R-9S S\TE DETf\'L CrrY OF ~OYO GRANDE _ ... _r DQQpERTY pAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DEPARTMENT DF PLANNING .. BUILDING . '. TAX AREA CODE NO. 47-132 THIS loW' IS PREPARED ft)R ASSESSMENT I'UI!I'06ES 0Hl.Y. t::........ (3_~ ,.. I S '44 I I No ss-. . 4 Al. 91-50 .. . eu....'-...O l ~ .. ;:j 33 ~ ~ '~.90 Ac.. 'i ~ @ ~ . ..-. ~ ~ UIc /7~ , . . ~ _. ..... .... . , \..23 .J - .. 3&~.1Ie' /7' .. I " @ \/"8) .. I co I co i .. iii ... @ ~~ 0 H :a 39.81 AC. 11- 34 0 - ~ .. ~ ~ ~ 1.3.40 "c. ~ .. ..@ .. . \. I " " .... \ .... .. . .. 0 .... - . P.M. ""-40 ,-~ I 5~ "-'~~.?'& . N.$S"~O'M/. .." f~ 12 {7' p HOTE - ROADS SHOWN 00 HOT EXIST (1Z'/B7) \9' $I ).R.. \l3922 P. 233-237 HILLIKER e. wooDeURY TRAOT d" U: I : - ; ~s..:.s.;r: .!':O SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY. . ". .. . . ,. . . CALIFORNIA N. .~. ! . -.- . - . . .0' ...... .._ ____.__0..... .._ - .-- ..........--.. .-.---.---- I I .1 - PRD.lECT (9 EXHIBIT .. ANNEXATION NO. I - LAFCo FILE 14-R-95 crrY OF ARROYO GRANDE ASSESSOR'S MAP JAMES PROPERTY SAC Meeting Notes ATTACHMENT 8 December 8, 1998 Page 2 of 2 Lezley Buford, Community Development Department hand delivered the Draft Negative Declaration with the Initial Study on Rosemary Lane Extension and advised comments are due by January 8th. C. 1 . Applicant: Gary Young, R.A. Development C. 2. Representative: Dan Uoyd, EDA 3. Case Number: Village Glen Annexation Tract 2265 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Proposal: 65 Single Family lots clustered on 67 acres 5. Location: James Way & Canyon Way at Tally Ho Rd. Lezley Buford, Community Development Department advised that Village GlenElR comments are due by January 1811'1. Terry Fibich, Fire Department stated that he is in favor of sprinJding the project and that a dedicated easement for all weather access into the project via Easy Street is needed. Craig Campbell. Public Works Department advised a shared expense agreement on the waterline for Phase 4 and 5 of Castlerock Development and ViUage Glen is needed. Dan Hernandez, Parks and Recreation Department will need an Oak tree protection plan. D. 1. Applicant: Milton F. Hayes 2. Representative: Gregory D. Soto 3. Case Number: Pre-Application Review 4. Proposal: 2,300 square foot office building 5. Location: 11 9 East Branch St. Milton Hayes talked about the project and stated that the address should be 121 East Branch Street. Jim Hamilton advised that parking for the project is through the parking corral credits and that a variance will be needed for the floor area requested by the applicant. Larry Schmidt, Building Department will talk to Greg Sato regarding building codes. Mr. Schmidt questioned Mr. Hayes as to if he would be willing to sprinkle the building. It is not required and Mr. Hayes did not commit to sprinkJing the building. Easements were discussed as a method which might allow the building to be constructed as proposed. Craig Campbell, Public Works Department stated that the plans needed to be more detailed and that a title report would be necessary. . III. Written Communications/Staff Comments- None IV. Adjournment - 11 :50 a.m. ATTACHMENT 10 II Annexation" Answers to Some Common Questions About Annexation to the City of Arroyo Grande Prepared by the City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department April, 1999 ANNEXATION Answers to Common Questions About Annexation to the City of Arroyo Grande What is "annexation"? Annexation is a term used to describe the attachment or addition of territory to a city or special district. An annexation results in a change to a political boundary line between a city and a county. Annexation may affect the level and responsibility for certain public services being provided to residents, business owners, and property owners within the affected territory. In California, the annexation of territory to a city or district is governed by the State Government Code. These state laws were established "to encourage orderly community growth and development which is essential to the social, fiscal, and economic well-being of the state". These state laws also establish special boards to review and approve all annexation proposals within each of California's 58 counties. These special boards are called "local agency formation commissions" or LAFCOs. In our county, the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission must review . and authorize all annexations. Why would Arroyo Grande agree to a request to annex territory? Essentially, the motive is similar to the basic purpose of these state laws: to encourage and ensure that Arroyo Grande's growth in all areas of our community will be orderly and well-planned, thereby enhancing Arroyo Grande's social, fiscal, and economic well-being. What is the benefit in annexing to the City of Arroyo Grande? The motive or desire to annex to any city or district varies from individual to individual. Generally speaking, when a property owner requests annexation it is motivated by a desire to obtain city services. In most cases, services cannot be provided unless the property owner is within the city limits. To others a benefit is the ability to vote in local elections, run for local office, and have a greater voice in the local land use decisions about property surrounding their land. Annexation and availability of city utility services may also increase the value of existing-developed properties by increasing their future development potential. While some property owners may have no desire to develop their property further, the availability of urban services is still generally a benefit. These services, when and if they are desired, give a property owner greater options on how his or her land may be used in the future. Some owners of existing businesses or residences may also be motivated by the increased safety and shortened response time from emergency service personnel including police and fire fighters available from an adjacent city, versus a rural volunteer fire company or a county law enforcement agency. Many property owners may find their fire insurance rates drop as their property is annexed to a city with an enhanced insurance rating factor as determined by the Insurance Service Offices (ISO), a national rating company. [Arroyo Grande residents enjoy a Class 5 ISO insurance rating] Why is my property included in the territory proposed for annexation? Your DroDertv is not beina sinaled out for annexation! State Law requires that any annexation proposal be "logical" in its arrangement. In other words, if your property is situated next to other property proposed for annexation, it may be logical to include your property in that annexation application. Annexation proposals must make sense by allowing for an efficient and cost effective method of providing local government services. State law does not allow for "leap frog" development or the skipping of certain properties in order to respond to individual requests. Instead, it says that proposals should include contiguous lots or properties that create a logical territory of land that provide for an efficient plan of service delivery. What will happen to my property if it is annexed into the City of Arroyo Grande? Most people find little effect on the day-to-day activities occurring on their property following annexation to a city. Essentially, the existing activities and uses taking place on your land when it is annexed stay the same and are allowed to continue until YOU decide to make a change. You are protected by provisions within the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, which allow you to continue existing uses, even if other properties around yours change and develop. In other ways, annexation will result in important changes in regards to the responsibility of the City to respond to emergency police and fire suppression service calls you may someday have to make. Will I be required to connect to city utilities if my property is annexed? The answer is NO. Annexation to the city does not require forced connection to any city utilities that may be installed in your area. That choice is left to each individual Drocerty owner. The use of any existing private water wells and private septic disposal systems continues with no restrictions, subject to compliance with normal health and safety laws. If a private system fails sometime 'in the future, and city utilities are available, you may be required to connect at that time. Given the cost of installing a new well or septic system, this often provides a beneficial option to the property owner. Like all cities in California, the City of Arroyo Grande does have mandatory refuse collection, which may affect your existing garbage collection rate. Won't my taxes increase if my property is annexed? Generally No. There are no special city taxes associated with annexations. In the state of California, the local property tax is set by the State Constitution at the rate of one percent. (1 %) of the assessed valuation of your property [a result of Proposition 13]. Your property tax rate is not affected by a "change in territory or boundaries" and, by law, cannot be reassessed solely because of annexation. Once your property is in the City, you will be subject to any future bonded indebtedness that the citizens of the community choose to place on themselves. Reassessments, or changes to your property tax, are generally allowed only upon the sale or development of the property. This would apply whether or not the property is in the city. Can I keep my farm animals? The answer is YES. If you have a use of land or activity that is leaally in existence at the time of annexation, it may continue following annexation. This continuation of all existing uses and activities is allowed regardless of the zoning of your property or properties adjoining yours. However, after the property has been annexed to the City, any non-conforming use that undergoes a substantial change in character or intensity may be required to meet current city laws. If you cease the use of the property for the keeping of farm animals for a period of time which exceeds 180 days, and the property is not zoned for agricultural uses, you may loose this right. What does the City gain by annexation? The City gains a more cohesive, well-planned community with the ability to provide city services with increased efficiency to those who desire them. We want to make sure utility service extensions and future improvements take place in a cost-effective and timely manner. Emergency service personnel will be able to respond readily without having to worry about inter-jurisdictional problems or liability, thereby increasing the community's level of security and safety. What happens once the annexation process starts? In order for LAFCO to consider an annexation request, the Arroyo Grande City Council must first approve the request. Typically, the property will be "prezoned'" by the Council before the annexation request is submitted to the County LAFCO. Prezoning identifies the zoning district that will be applied to each property, if the territory is ultimately annexed to Arroyo Grande. You will be noticed of all public hearings concerning annexation requests. We encourage you to attend these hearings. SUMMARY This information has been prepared in hopes that it will answer questions you may have regarding "annexation, '" and how you and your property may be affected. Members of City staff would be pleased to answer further questions and provide any information we can concerning this process. Just give us a call. You are encouraged to contact city staff at City Hall to inquire further or receive more information. Please call (805) 473-5420. - CORTESE-KNOX LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1985 ANNEXA TION/DETACHMENTIREORGANIZA TION PROCEDURE DIAGRAM COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS AGENCY PRE-NOTICE May be initiated by ra.olution of application by affected local Mailed notice by proponent to agency (Section 58800). or patition with required .ignature subject and intere.ted of landowners or registered voters. (Section 58753).. egenoies at le.t 20 days before resolution edoption unles. 100% consent. (Section 58800 (b)) RESOLUTION PETITION Re.oIution of application by affected local Petition with required signatures of lendowners or agency. (Section 58800) regi.t.red vot.rs. (Section 151753) APPLICATION FOR PROPOSAL Application to LAFCO in form r.quired by Commi.sion to Environmental review include r..oIution or patition. map and description, appIiceble AGENCY PRE-NOTICE i. performed if LAFCO f.... compliance with CEClA. (S.ction 58852) Mailed notio. by Executiv. I. the lead agency. Officer to subject and int.....ted egenoi. et leest 20 days before i.suing a Certlfioete of Filing - unle.. Tax .xcMng. CERTIFICATE OF FILING 100% coneent or notice agreement. .... Determination of completena.. or incompleteness within 30 "ready MAt by the initiating adoptad by city(.) 1& days by Executive Offic.r; Commi.sion hearing within 90 egency. (Section 51818 (b)) county. if applicable. days of certificate. (Section 58828) NOTICE OF COMMISSION HEARING Notice given by Executive Offic.r by mailing publication, and po.ting. (S.ction 58834, 58835) APPLICATION REVIEW Reque.t for information from other agencies or affected countie.; Executive Officer prepare. report and recommendation on proposal; report mailed at lea.t 5 days prior to heering. (Section 58833) COMMISSION HEARING At the hearing the Convnission will consider: staff report and factor. r.lated to proposal. tsstimony of affected agencies and parties, saMce plan. CEClA documentation. Make determinations required by law. (Sections 58375,58852) COMMISSION DENIES PROPOSAL COMMISSION APPROves PROPOSAL If denied, no similar proposal may be may be approved with revisioM 01 condition.. made within ona year. (Section 58855) Commission designates conducting authority for further proceedings; approval expirH within one year if not completed; Convnl.sion resolution mailed to conducting Authority. (Sections 58852, 51853) All citations reference the California Government Code Eff.ctive July 1, 1994. the Commi.sion may initiate continue on beck propo.... for change. of organization. or r.organizations of di.trict.. (.e. Section 58375(a)) CONDUCTING AUTHORITY PROCEEDINGS (1) Conducting authority d.lignated by Commi..ion (S.ction 56029) NOTICE OF HEARING Notic. giv.n by cl.rk of conducting authority within 35 days of Convni.lion hearing; notic. giv.n by mail, publication, and po.ting at I.a.t 15 days before date of h.aring; may b. authorized by Commi.lion without notic. and hearing with 100% landowner cons.nt. (S.ctions 57002, 57025. 57026) PUBLIC HEARING AND PROTEST Conducting authority hearing held on date and time of notic.; may b. continued up to 60 days; writt.n prot.st filed with cl.rk prior to conclusion of the h.aring and .ach must hev. prop.r dat., lignature, and eckIr.s.; velu. of writt.n prot.st d.t.rmined by conducting authority and r..oIution edopted within 30 days of h.aring. making r.quired finding.. (S.ction 57050) TERMINATION (2) Propo.aI mu.t b. d.nied if prot..t. ar. majority of: APPROVAL OF PROPOSAL (2) 1. vot.r. if inhabited. Conducting authority mu.t approve 2.landown.r. of valu. if CALL FOR ELECTION (2) if: uninhabited. Conducting ..thority must cell for ,. uninhabited and no majority R..olution ..nt to LAFCO. N.w elaction if Inhebited end prot..t i. land own.r prot.st rec.ived. proposel must wait 1 y.er. 25%-50% of vote... or landowne.... 2. inhabited and I.s. than 25% R.solutlon ..nt to Electione clerk. writt.n prot..t from regi.t.red Impertiel eneIylis by LAFCO. voter. or landowners. (Section 57100) (S.otion 57075) If propos" is for city detachm.nt or VOTERS APPROVE di.trict ann.xation, proposal may be terminated by conducting Conducting authority adopts VOTERS OPPOSE authority. resolution of approval. Propoul teminated. R_oIutlon sent to LAFCO. New propos" must welt 1 year. COMPLETION OF PROCEEDINGS The conducting authority clerk .hell send to the Commielion office a certified copy of the conducting authority resolution and Stat. fee. (Section 54902.5). Th. Executive Offio.r shell det.rmin. compliance. with the Convni..ion Resolution. If in complianc. a certificate of completion is is.ued and recorded with County R.corder. If no other effective date i. named the recording date is effective dat.. Executive Officer issue. .tatement of boundary chenge and ..nd. to State Bo..d of Equalization. County A.....or and Auditor. Stat.m.nt .ent to S.oretary of Stat. for oity annexation (Section 57200). All citation. r.fer.nc. the California Governm.nt Code (1) Conducting Authority proceeding. may be waived in .ome circumstance. (S.ction 56837 (0)). CompI.tion of Proceedings would then b. the next and final .tep. (2) Prote.t provi.ion. for cheng.s of organization oth.r than annexation., d.taohment., and reorganizations conlisting .olely of annexation. and detachments are different. Pless. consult applicable seotion. of the law. If terminated due to protest or failure at an .I.ction, the waiting p.riod for an incorporation or city consolidation is two years. A IT ACHMENT 11 CITIZEN CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR DISTRIBUTION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 25,1999 City of Arrcyo Crande eomrnunlty Deve'opment Dept. Mr. Jim Hamilton, AICP MAR 2 5 1999 Director of Community Development P. O. Box 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 Dear Mr. Hamilton: from William E. Daniel, 741 Printz Road In regard to the proposed James Way Annexation (Village Glen Annexation), Tract 2265. I have looked at the new proposed site plan as shown on their map dated February 25,1999. I feel they have taken some steps to overcome my objections to their development as they originally proposed it, but I would like to see the developer change their new proposed plot plan to encompass the following. Combine lots nwnber 40 and 41, creating a lot of 1.06 ac in size. Combine lots nwnber 42, 43, 44 and 45, and realign the proposed property line between lots 43 and 44 creating two lots, one of 1.00 ac and one of .88 ac. Combine lots 46 and 47, creating a lot of .81 ac. Combine lots 48, 49 and 50, and realign the proposed property line between lots 49 and 50 creating two lots, one of 1.00 ac and one of.45 ac. This results in a loss of 5 lots, leaving a total of 54 lots for the project. Two additional lots could be obtained by reintroducing the two lots that were removed between lots 1 and 58. This would provide the developer with 56 lots. While this does not create lots of 1.00 ac in size, which I would like to see, I feel that it might be a solution and more in keeping with the general plan. Another benefit would be the reduced impact on our overcrowded schools due to fewer families living in the area and less need of additional facilities to service these new families. Eliminate the fire access road easement through lots 43 and 44 and a portion oflot 42. This proposed access road is totally impractical due to the location of the two homes on Easy Street that abut the development. Create a new fire access road easement through lots 36 and 37, to be accessed from Rodeo Drive, as noted on the tract map as "possible future road alignment". . Please keep in mind the restriction of tree removal to preserve the oaks that are in the proposed development, as has been done in the "Rancho Grande" and "Highlands" development. Also the eucalyptus trees that are in the proposed development offer refuge and nesting sites for a family of hawks that need our protection. I assume that the cost of any water treatment for the development would be borne by the taxpayers. Could we possibly get a little help trom the developers for these costs? Would it be possible to look into the Grace Way extension as a means of reducing the traffic impact on Rodeo Drive, and can we possibly obtain some help for the costs for this extension from the developers. Now with all these suggestions, here is a little "pat on the back" for all the members of the Planning Commission for the careful planning that has been done on Rancho Grande and The Highlands. These two developments are in keeping with the surrounding areas and are a credit to the community. Thank you. . Respectfully yours, ~r~ William E. Daniel 741 Printz Road Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 . Jan. 25, 1999 Dear Arroyo Planning Commission: Sandy Luben Del Haney Nanci Parker Laurence Green John Keen Weare writing to make known our feelings concerning the Vtllage Glen development. We would like to see the project begin as soon as possible. We have lived in Arroyo Grande for over 18 years and have been fervently searching to no avail for a new residence since last October when we sold our home. There is ~ definate shortage of new quality construction in Arroyo Grande. This situation has caused home prices in this area to become over inflated. We would love to stay in Arroyo Grande for the children's stability in school and with mends. but we're now considering A vila and San Luis. We attended the Jan. 5th meeting and it appeared the public was misinformed on certain aspects of the project. For example, someone referred to the project as low cost housing. Our price range is $375,000 - $390,000 and Village Glen meets aJlthe criteria we are desperately searching for. I hope the Comission realizes sooner or later this land will be developed. It seems it would be in the best interest of the area that nice homes with curb appeal and care to elevation be put in instead of cracker box rubber stamp houses like the Higftbmds. Water and traffic was a concern at the meeting. I was infonned a new street between Rodeo and Rancho Parkway would eleviate some of the traffic. Why is treatment of water a concern and a burden on taxpayers? What happens when other developments are approved. About 12 years ago we purchased a lot in SLO to build our dream home. The building moratorium was enacted shortly thereafter, and we were never able to build on this lot because it was considered.to be in a sensitive resource area. We just sold the lot at 1/3 of what we paid and the County Planning and Building Dept. (not the same people who held the job when we purchased) have done away with all restrictions on the lot and a new house is going up. The Commission needs to consider that growth is inevitable and rather than delay the process which may hurt some people, please exercise common sense when making decisions concerning peoples futures and homes. Consider Rancho Grande, the project is on its third developers; Richardson and Shelter. In the p~ building sites were held up forever, and that's the reason we purchased the lot in San Luis. Past rancho Grande developers fought endless city restrictions such as preserving oaks, but look at the current desecration of land on James Way and Rancho Parkway, even after all the delays and wasted time. t~~ ~-4~ T & Millie Holmbeck 1001 Stevenson Dr. Arroyo Grande, Ca. 93420 City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Dept. FfB 2 6 1999 . Eebmary"..26, 1999 . .. . ." -'" -" - City of AIroyo Grande Planning Commission 214 East Branch Street AIroyo Grande, CA 93420 Subject: Village Glen Annexation ErR. Dear Commissioners: On January 5,1999, the Planning Commission held a public meeting to discuss the Draft EIR for the Village Glen Annexation. At that meeting, the Planning Commission and nine citizens provided input on the EIR and the proposed project. After listening to the many constructive comments, we have revised the tract map to address many of the concerns as follows: Reduced the number of lots from 64 to 59 . This reduced the density by 9%. . This reduced the traffic generated by 9%. . Increased minimum lot size to 14,200 feet fi:om 11,700 square feet. . Increased average lot size to about 20,000 square feet from 17,500 square feet. . Eliminated 2 lots adjacent to James Way, which reduces the amount of buildings visible from James Way. . Eliminated 2 lots in the northwest comer of the project ~ which reduces tb.e density adjacent to larger lots. Shifted Street "A" towards the north creatine: deeper lots alone: James Wav . This allows for more gentle slopes that will undulate creating a "natural" loolcing landfoID1. . The homes will be setback further from James Way. Created a 50 foot non-buildable easement adiacent to .James Wav . This will guarantee a minimum setback for all future buildings, including accessory buildings. Increased lot sizes adiacent to Easv Street . The average lot width has been increased to 149 feet fi:om 119 feet for lots 42, 44-46 adjacent to the two Easy Street residences which creates more space between homes and a more rural . atmosphere. . The average lot size of the four lots adjacent to Easy Street is 20,800. Eliminated offer of dedication at northern end of Road "A" . . This will pre.ch14e aJ~ltur~ .access to the north as part of this project appravaJ.-...- --.~ '. .- - . - l !I!;J ...a. .. ...... . . . Clarified the intent of the Open Space area . Lot 59 will have a deed restriction requiring that the lot cannot be further subdivided in perpetuity, which will allow only one residence on the lot. . A buildable area has been designated where future accessory structures could be coIIStrUcted. . The remainder of Lot 59, or approximately 30 acres, will have an open space easemem recorded prohibiting the constrUCtion of buildings, insuring that it will.remain undeveloped in perpetuity. We would also like to take this opportunity to inform you that are intent is to build large, traditional style homes ranging in price from the low $300,000' s up to $500,000. There will be a minimum of four models, each vlitb. several different architectural treatments to create interest. The square footage of the homes is projected to be between 2,.200 and 3,500 square feet. We also intend to generously landscape the area along James Way with native and drought tolerant plants. Upon approval by the City Council of the General Plan Amendment, we will work on submittal of the home designs and landscape plans. We sincerely hope that the above revisions demonstrate that we are serious about a.ddtessing concerns raised by the Planning Commission and citizens to date. If anyone has questions regarding the revisions or would like to discuss the project, please do not hesitate toca1l me at 773-1080. Best Regards, Gary Young c: City Council Planning Deparnnent . p ~ A/ /V / N'~ C:. /!1 ,:f"! / ~ f /(/ A.I . . /- /1/(.{()y~' b/2.~...,dE,6~ . . -- . . .-:c- A ~ ~ -I A /iV~ z:;- eft ~-{A"'" ~ S t-t/At AA/A/LX.~ ?5~;fJ A> d .!5,C:~1 o~d /A.~ 1b~ /I /I; c A,: c/ /f/p 7)cc: &. - "'- ~ -? (/017 af '/";4. ~ At ~"" A? '" 7 &:J~ Y COUA/ c" '/~:J-/~,e.( k4..$" z:. ./f!p ~ /fJ-", dd"'N (;l(/C~~ ~v~~/...o"l?C'_?): ~~/~ z./A- CR C't: .t' cd Co< / '/ / C,2 ~A ~ !,f' ~ 6 A A; _ ,_._. _ _ 5jl/€Alf":',Z A S,_~~ /1/2 ~ 4~", s-~~/;..~ _0 0,0 . . /:; ~d~#1k"";/;E".s T-v ~.,I6 5d~~'" 0/ U >. 4'//C'/lp..~ 6h4/ ECJc'l /; // / ~ ,/ 4- /;' L;Q tp,v / .s w __ dc...z- 0..... 0.0 0 a/~... e .G / /Jt. c'~~ /?e ~ /1/a ~ /V~6d ;--;~~~e' A ~5 ~1.4 /z::: PM If)U~ ~~~N ?JA~ A;{oJ /7 !.-{./<!' /,vee>CI--h~ A /!/"-~ ~C'...< c-/ d4~"'f'Hr Y~i4S'; tu// u, e hI "o'C: /:'V ~"'-;I' q r- u. /I a ~ ;/0 hi /e' r IJc. tdeA(.e~~~.s /;'c'r-eAS~ /I~c/e~:'#ovdl ;:J/C.A~c:. (." C/ h /\/0 dIU' ,.,f,IV/Vo/"XAi Z:;'~~'o. _ - /I'l/i./.zA A,va~..<!. . 4C1;;l... ~/} ,/V/.i ~ /1'?o~f' A- 4..R.ot/CJ 6"T,,yctEcA. ATTACHMENT B MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 30, 1999 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in special session with Chair Greene presiding. Present are Commissioners Parker, Keen, Costello and London. . Community Development Director Jim Hamilton, Pfanning Consultant Tom Buford and Senior Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell are also in attendance. MINUTE APPROVAL Hearing no additions or corrections the minutes of the regular meeting of March 16, 1999 were approved as prepared on motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Costello, and unanimously carried. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. None WRITTEN .COMMUNICA TIONS 1. Letter dated M~ch 29, 1999 from Eugene L. Nooker regarding the James Way Annexation and EIR (Village Glen Annexation). PUBLIC HEARING. JAMES WAY ANNEXA TIONNILLAGE GLEN ANNEXA TIONITRACT 2265; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-004; DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 97-009; APpliCANT: GARY YOUNG AND ASSOCIATES. Chair Greene advised there are three issues pending before the Commission tonight. The first issue pertains to the Environmental Impact Report, which has been prepared and circulated. The action requested is relative to a request that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council in regard to certification of the EIR. Other issues relate to a request that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they adopt in whole or in part, Generat Plan Amendment 97-004 and Development Code Amendment 97-009. He noted that these are separate yet related issues that will be discussed in sequence in order to preserve some continuity in the discussions. Planning Consultant Tom Buford reviewed in detail the staff report dated March 30, 1999. He reviewed the applicant's request, which includes several actions. The Environmental Impact Report was prepared in regard to the proposed annexation and the development of proposed Tract 2265. Before the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the Council with regard to certification of the EIR. The applicant has also requested General Plan Amendment 97-004 and Development Code Amendment 97-009, with the effect of pre-zoning the property. In addition, matters not before the Commission tonight are recommendations with regard to vesting Tentative Map Tract 2265 and Planned Unit Development 97-56, which are subdivisions of approximately 64 acres of the site that would create residential lots and one open space lot. The Planned Unit Development is for the purpose of allowing clustering of the homes and, in effect, creating lots less than one acre in size. Mr. Buford explained that part of what the Commission is dealing with this evening has to do with the annexation process, noting that when property is outside of the City it is not the City's prerogative to actually take action on the annexation. That is the role of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for San Luis Obispo County and, in this case, they would be called upon by the applicant (assuming favorable action by the City) to modify the sphere of service and to annex the property. Bringing the property into the City allows the City to Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 2 of 19 provide water, sewer and other services to the site. He pointed out that the City's actions at this point in time, basically, involve pre-zoning and the General Plan Amendment, and the LAFCo action. The applicant is asking the City to indicate its intention to zone the 86.3 acre annexation area in a particular way because the applicant is proposing subdivision of the property, which depends upon receiving a particular zoning once that property is brought into the City. The LAFCo action would basically be approval of the annexation and, following that action, the applicant would be proposing a vesting tentative tract map which would call for actual development of the parcel. At the time the tentative tract map is brought forward for action before the Planning Commission and City Council, appropriate conditions of approval would be required. Mr. Buford commented that the Environmental Impact Report included each of the actions that was requested by the applicant, and if the Planning Commission recommends certification of the EIR and the City Council certifies the EIR, the conclusion then would be that the EIR produced information that was accurate and sufficient to advise the decision making body as to the environmental impact of the proposed project, which includes tentative tract map 2265. He noted that tentative tract 2265 has been revised due largely to discussions the applicant has had with staff, the Staff Advisory Committee and the environmental hearings. It is also conceivable that tract 2265 may never be developed as proposed even if it were eventually adopted by the City Council. However, it is a guide at this point as to the applicant's stated intentions with regard to that portion of the property. With regard to earlier discussions regarding a possible Printz Road access, Mr. Buford stated as far as he knows only negative comments have been received about that possibility and the applicant is not interested in pursuing any proposal for Printz Road access into Tract 2265. He noted that there is a proposed access area through lot 44 for fire safety purposes that is included as a result of a request and recommendation by the Fire Department. Mr. Buford mentioned a couple of issue areas, commenting that there has been a significant amount of discussion regarding water resources; the standard in the General Plan as set forth in the staff report states basically that there be no impact on water resources due to annexation. The water demand for the project is estimated at 53 acre-feet per year; the applicant has proposed satisfying the water demand by bringing on line and dedicating to the City the Deer Trail well. He stated that the well would draw from the same aquifer as the existing City Oak Park Well, and it is noted in the EIR that the water quality from the Oak Park Well is not good and it is likely that the water from the Deer Trail well would have been treated at the well head. There are also some questions that are raised in the EIR with regard to the policy of taking on line a well that has relatively low production and has relatively higher cost than higher production wells, and whether that, in fact, satisfies the intention of the General Plan. Another significant issue is the matter of traffic. Mr. Buford advised that the Enwonmental Impact Report relied on a traffic study that was conducted with regard to anticipated traffic from the site. He pointed out that the standard in the City is that intersections should remain at a minimum of a Level of Service C, and that a level of Service D is acceptable only if traffic improvements are identified that would improve the intersection to level of Service C when completed. He referred to the table in the EIR stating that basically the conclusions drawn were that the project when added to the existing projects did not create a significant impact because Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 3 of 19 it did not lower any intersection below a C Level of Service. However, at base line, it is noted that the Brisco Road/West Branch Street/US 101 northbound ramp would operate at a D level of Service. When the project is added to the base line, basically, there are two intersections where a slight increase occurs in the delay but there is no reduction in the Level of Service. The conclusion based on the City's threshold is that the traffic from the project would not cause a significant environmental impact and would not violate the policies of the City of Arroyo Grande. The note in the EIR with regard to the Brisco Road/Halcyon Road/US 101 interchange is that the City is completing a study or analysis with regard to alternatives for that intersection and with implementation of any of the three long term measures proposed, the baseline Traffic would improve to level of Service A or C depending on the alternative. Mr. Buford stated that the parcel to be annexed of 86.3 acres is not a level parcet and has a significant topography. He referred to the fable taken from the Development Code to illustrate the manner in which the Development Code approaches parcels that have significant slopes, stating that staff believes the intention is evident that on a parcel such as this where there are areas of significant slopes they would be designated as open space. This table indicates slopes 25% and up, there will not be building and grading on those sites, and if those parcels were to be subdivided they would be intended for open space to be owned by a Homeowners' Association. He stated in looking at the parcels that have been created, staff believes they are consistent with the Development Code. He commented that even though Tract 2265 is not before the Planning Commission for recommendation at this time, it is felt it makes sense to be sure that the proposal by the applicant is realistic in terms of the City's General Plan and Development Code, and it is staff's opinion that it is. Mr. Buford advised that staff is recommending the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council certify the EIR, and recommend that the General Plan be amended to designate the project site as Rural Residential, and that the City's zoning map be amended to pre-zone the project site as Rural Residential. In response to Commissioner Costello's question regarding method of funding for additional police and fire personnel as a result of the project, Community Development Director Hamilton explained the funding would be based on an incremental increase that would have to be allocated and/or addressed through the budget process. Commissioner CosteUo also questioned Impacts B 1 and B2, storm water rlinoff, and inquired if the estimate of 2. 1-acre-feet proved to be inadequate, where would the additional funds come from. Mr. Buford noted that the fiscal impact analysis has identified a certain source of revenue from new development and the rest would fall in the present manner in which the City is financing those services, and there are a variety of avenues for the City to address those. However, once the tract is approved, you don't go back and impose conditions again on that tract. Commissioner Costello stated he has some serious concerns regarding the wat8f' quality of the Deer Trail well, and the language in the EIR seems to be couched with "hedging the bet-. He commented it isn't clear what the quality or quantity is going to be, or what the net impact win be on the existing wells or impacts from other projects that might tap into the existing aquifer Mr. Hamilton explained that the mitigation measure is attempting to put in place a monitoring process to insure that the water quality is adequate and to determine whether or not additional Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 4 of 19 measures need to be taken to insure that. Commissioner Parker referred to a previous comment regarding provisions that could be taken to keep the 33-1/2 acre lot from being developed at a later time, and inquired about the deeding process. Mr. Hamilton advised that an easement would be placed on the property and would be a legally described part of the title of the property and is a condition of approval of the tract map. Removal of the easement would require the approval of the City Council. In other words, it would be a privately owned parcel of property with an easement and, in essence, that easement would stipulate there be no development within that property, and to change that easement to something else or to remove it would require approval of the City Council. Commissioner Parker expressed concerns regarding water quality and costs related to treating the water and the effect the Deer Creek well would have on the Oak Park well. She commented that if the study shows that because of costs, condition of the water, end the drop in the Oak Park well, it really does not support the building of 56 homes but perhaps would support 30 homes, she questioned if that information would be given to the Commission before or during the project review? Mr. Buford advised that the mitigation measure require that information all be determined prior to any grading or construction occurring on the property and prior to any subdivision map approval. He stated the map condition requires that these matters be resolved to the satisfaction of the City prior to any approvals being granted that would result in modifications of the property or the project. Commissioner Parker referred to the information in the staff report indicating that the water demand for the project is 53 acre-feet a year, and inquired if that fegure takes into consideration the summer months where the water needs may increase? Mr. Buford advised the figure is based on the City's procedures for determining water demand and the EIR consultant's review of that information. Commissioner Keen referred to Page 11 of the staff report relating to the mitigation measures requiring development costs and ongoing services to be funded by the project applicants or future residents, and inquired if the City has a mechanism that could charge a subdivision a different water rate than the rest of the City to recover treatment costs? Mr. Buford stated he is not aware of such a mechanism. After further discussion between the Planning Commission and staff, Chair Green opened the public hearing and invited the applicant and his representatives to speak first. David Foote. Firma. 849 Monterev Street. responded to Commissioners' questions during the foregoing discussion. With regard to the question regarding the Pismo Clarkia, Mr. Foote advised that a botanical survey was conducted in the spring, the time the Clarkia would normally be present, and none was found. The Department of Fish and Game felt that due to the nature of the species, it can be abundant some years and almost non-existent others, so they requested that another survey be done before any dirt is moved out there, which is a normal procedure. Regarding the question of the increase to Tally Ho Creek with the 50 cubic feet per second, Mr. Foote stated it is his understanding that it is impossible to calculate the level of increase; it is Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 5 of 19 negligible in a channel of its relative narrow width, and if there is no increase, the width increase would also be very little. He explained the reason width is referenced is that usually flood levels are the key thing and not the width itself. With regard to the timing of the interchange, Mr. Foote pointed out that if design studies are under way, the Level of Service D that is forecast for that intersection, until that interchange is improved, that LOS 0 would only be a result of buildout of an of the cumulative project list, which includes a full buildout of Los Robles Del Mar and all of the projects within the City, some of which have not even been approved yet. He commented that the buildout of that tist is some number of ye...s in the future, and the process to get the interchange designed and built is also a number of years. Whether or not they will coincide nicely is somewhat speculative. In response to Commissioner Parker's question regarding the collector status on Rodeo Drive, Mr. Foote referred to response to comment 15.1, and the answer is it is both a collector street and a local street depending on which end you are standing on. From Mercedes Drive west it is built to a collector width per the Circulation Element standard for a Collector Street; the area eastward of Mercedes to James Way is built to a Local Street standard and the volumes that it is currently carrying are within Level of Service C or better for those widths. Mr. Foote stated that the water forecast of acre-feet per year is an average over the whole year so it does take into account peak periods as well as low periods. With regard to Commissioner Costello's question as to what could be approved in the County, Mr. Foote referred to Section 2, Page 2, for a synopsis of the County code standards and the criteria that would have to be met to do a cluster deveiopment on that site, the amount of water that is available there now and the number of homes that it could sustain are about 50. He noted it is unknown what the septic capability is for that property and it may constrain that number lower; the realm of 40 to 60 is probably something that could be proposed to the County under their. code without asking for a variance. Mr. Foote also clarified that if the Planning Commission were to approve a pre-zoning that is more intense, he is not sure that this EIR would cover it; this EIR covers a certain project density and, therefore, that would need to be thought through carefully. Also, regarding the question posed by Commissioner london relative to the situation of the Los Robles well, Mr. Foote pointed out that the EIR states that the City of Pismo Beach has no intention of using the wells at Los Robles Del Mar and that project would be receiving water from their State water aHocation and, to the best of his knowledge, the wells that the City of Pismo Beach uses currently are actually located in Grover Beach. He noted theY currently have surplus for their General Plan buildout and, in his opinion, it doesn't appear imminent that those wells are to go on line; they certainly could in the future, however, that is not their plan. In answer to Commissioner Parker's question regarding effect of water availabitity and the water quality from the well during peak periods, Mr. Foote stated it is his understanding that the deep aquifer at 900 feet does not have a lot of seasonal fluctuation. Mr. Foote further advised it is his understanding that there is a well currently on the property and it has been analyzed by Cleath Associates and the report indicates about 50 residences could be served under a mutual water company formed within the County. He pointed out that the report was Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 6 of 19 actually prepared for another property owner. He stated water doesn't seem to be a constraint in the County, but septic might be. Mr. Foote advised that the open space lot is 33 acres, which is less than the over a" annexation area but is less than half of the tract. In response to Commissioner Parker's question relative to responsibility of the cost of water treatment assuming the proposed Deer Trail well requires some type of well head treatment, Senior Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell explained the two components of cost with a treatment facility, which is a filtration facility at the well head. One is the construction cost, which would be the applicant's expense. There is also an ongoing maintenance expense, including treatment, which would be the City's expense. Dan Uovd. EDA. 1320 Nioomo Street. representing the applicant, spoke regarding the comparisons of the project if developed in the City or County. . He stated the applicant is required by the County to exhaust their opportunity for annexation by the City, therefore, the project is being brought to the City first because that is the logical sequence. The property is adjacent to the City, is a logical infill on the edge- of the City and is surrounded on three sides by the City. If for some reason the City is not prepared to take that step toward annexation, then the applicant will go to the County. Mr. Lloyd stated, in his opinion, the annexation is appropriate from a revenue standpoint and from a control standpoint. The idea of clustering is allowed by the ordinance and is a very good planning tool because it provides better use of the resource of the land, putting development where it should go and leaving the open space which should remain open. He presented a brief comparison of this project to other projects in the City of similar nature, such as Oak Park Acres, 250 acres with 251 units (1 unit to the acre); the Rancho Grande project of 82 acres with 83 units (1 unit to the acre), and the Royal Oaks project of 151 acres with 233 units (1-1/2 units to the acre). The proposed annexation of Village Glen has a proposed density of 59 units and is .9 units to the acre. With regard to development in the County, Mr. Lloyd stated that one unit per gross acre could result in 64 units, which would require development of an on-site water company and a community disposal field. The community disposal field would be regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. They have a minimum requirement for about 50 units for a community septic system, and that system would be located on the more northerly portion of the site where the soils and slopes are appropriate. Mr. Lloyd answered some of the questions raised previously. He stated, with regard to drainage, a detention basin is proposed on site that will limit flow down to Tally Ho Creek in its existing water course, in fact, it will reduce water going into that water course by spreading that water over time. He noted that is an improvement and betterment and with respect to capacity, it would need to meet all of the standards that are set by the City, and could actually exceed that criteria if deemed necessary and warranted. With regard to water quality and water quantity, Mr. Lloyd advised that in order to bring I water supply into the City, the applicant would have to address water quality and quantity. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 7 of 19 As far as quality, he advised that generally speaking, that water is treatable to a standard that would be usable, and the City could actually identify those costs associated with treatment and apportion a flat fee of those costs against those residents' water bills. With respect to grading and landform, Mr. Uoyd commented that the first plan did show maximum usage of the parcels and create the biggest usable area. However, in the redesign, they were able to show they can actually reduce the slope adjacent to James Way, contour it and create a more natural looking sloped bank with landscaping, boulder., etc. He noted that trails are proposed at the request of the City, however, there are none within the site at this time so the actual final location would be determined in consultation with the Parks and Recreation Director. Mr. Lloyd stated his feeling that the most important thing as far as he has seen is that the level of review and analysis that has been conducted by Firma on behalf of the City i. thorough, comprehensive and answers the questions. He stated there are no impacts that cannot be mitigated, the density is appropriate and is in keeping with the residential density existing within the area. With respect to the General Plan Amendment, in his opinion, it is appropriate to bring this property into the City, and he feels it is appropriate to look at the one unit per gross acre density and is consistent with the ordinance and with County standards. He further stated he feels the City is in a position to have a better project by having it developed within the City. Soencer Harris. 1390 Oceanaire Dr.. San Luis Obisoo. stated he is a registered geologist in California and representing Cleath and Associates as a hydro geologicaf consultant. Mr. Harris responded to Commissioner Parker's question regarding water resources noting that the deep aquifer within the Pismo formation is not. directly hydraulically connected with the Arroyo Grande Valley and the groundwater basin that underlies that portion of the City of Arroyo Grande and the adjacent cities. Therefore, this particular aquifer is not going to impact the water availability of resources within the groundwater basin. The aquifer that is within the Pismo formation is structurally bowl shaped and is relatively deep beneath the site which was selected for the test drilling. If the City decided it wanted to develop this water resource, then a well at this location would be recommended. Chair Greene commented that it appears Mr. Harris' position is that the Deer Trail well, when operational, is not a redundancy with the Oak Park well. Mr. Harris stated it is not a redundancy and is an additional asset that will provide additional water from this resource. He noted that the Deer Trail well will be tapping this aquifer at a significantly greater depth than the Oak Park well, so it has the capacity to draw from a much greater storage area than the Oak Park well and wiD tap water that the Oak Park well will not tap. Chair Greene asked for Mr. Harris' opinion regarding the quality of the water and what sort of treatment will be necesury and what costs would be associated with that treatment Mr. Harris stated his opinion that the water has a problem with iron and manganese; these are secondary standards which are not directly health related and relate more to user preference. The rest of the water quality he has seen, based on his review of water quality on the James estate that has the same aquifer is that it is fresh and not too hard and, therefore, he didn't see any major problems with the water quality other than iron and manganese. He further commented that Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 8 of 19 there are many wells throughout the County that are treated for iron and manganese so, in his opinion, this would not be an overly burdensome problem, but he would refer it to the Public Works Department for a cost. Garv Youna. Arrovo Grande. applicant, stated when they originally went out to the other property owners that are joining them in the annexation, they went out at the request of LAFCo, one of their requests was that they be zoned with one acre parcels. Therefore, when the applications were turned in to the City with the concurrence of City staff back in 1996, it was agreed that the zoning come in as one block. He commented in defferenee to the property owners, he would not My that he specifically represents them, but he has met with them and, in his opinion, it would be their desire at this point to have the same zoning being requested and that is the RR1 zoning. Commissioner Parker inquired if the applicants had met with the property owners about the emergency access route from the proposed development going straight to the back of Easy Street? Mr. Young stated there are actually three property owners up on the hill and he had met with two of them last evening. Their property backs up to the project. boundary where the Fire Chief has asked for the emergency access, and the one owner who really has all of the access on his property is in agreement. He understands the project will be providing him a way for the Fire Department to get there should they not be able to come around the back of the hill. Phil Whitaker. 921 Huasna Road. stated he is in support of this project. He is . general contractor and has lived in the City of Arroyo Grande for 10 years. He stated he has reviewed this project and the Environmental Impact Report, he has walked the project, has been to the Deer Trail well site, has reviewed the models that are being proposed, and he knows the developer. He stated he likes the project and it gives him an opportunity in the future to possibly have a home up on that hill. He further stated he likes the idea of clustering, which allows the opportunity for some smaller and some larger homes. He commented he would like to see the Commission recommend this project and agree with City staff that this would be a good project for the future of the City and, in his opinion, it fits well with the idea of providing for future families. He stated he believes it would be wise for the City to control this project instead of the County, and he would like to see the revenue come into the City. Fred Wendell, stated he had made comments during review of the Draft EIR and the number of changes he observed in the Final EIR were relatively few compared to the Draft EtR. He stated that because of the number of questions being asked indicates to him that the document has not gone the full measure to provide the Commission with the information needed to determine whether or not this project is in the public's best interest. He further stated the questions he asked during previous reviews of the Draft EIR were not answered, and he would have liked to have those answers. One of the points he would like clarified relates to clustering. He stated there is no modification in the Final EIR and he has not seen the tract map so he doesn't know if there are changes there. However, what he saw in the Final EIR still suggests small lots adjacent to larger acre homes and, in his opinion, this will affect property values and will also affect his view. He stated he would like to see larger lot sizes proposed for adjacent properties with larger lot sizes. Mr. Wendell stated he is still concerned about the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 9 of 19 water issues. He commented his property lies in a direct line between the deep aquifer and where it surfaces, and he is concerned that his well, as well as many other wells within the area, may be deep enough, and if you are drawing a lot of water from deep in the aquifer, is that going to affect his ability to draw his water from his well? Mr. Wendell stated, from a larger community perspective, he would like to have an answer about the cost of treatment. He noted he does not understand why this cost information is not in the EIR if there is a wen that is already producing and drawing water from that aquifer and is being treated; the information is there and should have been incorporated in the Final EIR. Mr. Wendell concluded that he opposes the annexation, as currently structured and as he understands it. The project EIR has not addressed his concerns; and it appears that its goals are the developer's goals at his expense, and he is not sure it is structured to comply with all of the elements of the General Plan. Also, in his opinion, it exposes the City to unnecessary risks and expense with regard to the water issue. Glenn Hovina. 445 Cobre Place. stated he is a resident of Arroyo Grande 'and also works for Century 21 Real Estate. He commented about the compatibility of this particular project, stating from his perspective the project is compatible and makes. sense with the homes surrounding this parcel. He stated over the last year and a half he has received numerous questions regarding this project and when it will be completed. Mr. Hoving stated his opinion that this annexation makes sense and he highly recommends the City go after this project rather than have it develop in the County C. Z. Brown. 350 Old Ranch Road. stated he has had the opportunity to review the EJR and Tract 2265. The proposed tract composes 64 acres, which includes five other parcels under various ownerships, totaling 86.3 acres. The aooexation has five existing residences, four of which are not included in Tract 2265. He questioned if this means four more plots should be included and, if so, how big are they? Are they 22 or more acres? He noted that 86.3 acres plus 22 additional acres equals 108.3 acres, and the EIR speaks of 1 acre plots. He questioned if this means 108.3 potential residences, or is 50% of that going to be dedicated to open space? In addition, he stated if acres are downsized, this could possibly provide for more homes and especially if they are clustered. He stated he couldn't tell from reading the EIR how many homes would be clustered and how many would be residences. He stated it is difficult to determine the exact number of cluster homes to be developed and others; the EIR talks about 63 units, 904 units and 105 units. He further stated on Page 3-6, Paragraph 6.1, .Consistency Analysis., states over half the tract is to remain as open space. He questioned if this is one half of 64 or one half of 105? Mr. Brown referred to the entrance or exits from the project, noting the statement .The 11.5 acre parcel southwest of Tract 2265 would potentially link Rodeo Drive cul-de-sac to the street stub-out within the tract.. He stated that Rodeo Drive already has a traffic problem and he urged that outlet to James Way from the project be moved further north. He stated he noticed from the plot plan on the board that there is a section there not included in the development but within the annexation for access. If that access road could exit on James Way nearer to Rancho Parkway, in his opinion, that would be more appropriate. If it could not exit further to the northwest and it is going to exit onto Rodeo Drive, he suggested an abutment there as it Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 10 of 19 exists on James Way so traffic wouldn't proceed directly down Rodeo Drive; put . right turn lane only and then going east on James Way, put a left turn lane only so that the traffic going on Rodeo to James Way could not go directly into the project. As a side note, Mr. Brown stated that in reviewing past traffic studies, it might be we' to ask our own Traffic Commission to take a more accurate review of what is going on with the cumulative circulation problem within this respective area. This would include the Village Glen, the Highlands, the Rodeo Heights project, the Cantrell project, etc. He referred to Page 3-4, 4th paragraph, 31d sentence, stating "The process has led to the creation of many lots, some approaching one acre in size without an adequate road access due to a poorly planned overall circulation system" . Mr. Brown stated he agrees with that statement and a more comprehensive approach to planning is needed, not just review of this individual EIR. He also referred to issues of scarring of hillsides due to poor grading practices, inadequate drainage resulting in flooding and siltation of drainage courses. He urged the Commission to take a critical look at these potential problems. With respect to the traffic, he reiterated that perhaps the Traffic Commission could do a comprehensive traffic circulation study that would be helpful to this Commission and to the Council. He noted that on Page IU, 13E, under "Known Controversy. it states "'No known .....s of public or agency controversy.. Mr. Brown stated he totally disagrees with that statement. There is disagreement on traffic, water, park fees and where the funds are going to be spent, the impact on schools, etc. Under "Alternatives., V, 1 and 2, under C, Paragraph 7, it states "Reduce project to 20 to 50 would avoid or reduce all significant impacts to a level not requiring mitigation for some or all impact areas.. He stated, in his opinion, this would seem to be quite appropriate. He mentioned a letter from Larry Allen, Air Pollution Control District, wherein he made several pertinent observations. It states "District staff does not agree with the air quality analysis and that both short term and long term impacts to air quality could be affected. The project description is unclear as to the maximum number of units.. Mr. Brown stated it is still very unclear to him; 81 units if the other 5 units are developed, or is it 99? In addition, will the 33.5 residential lots be retained or further subdivided? He commented he believes Mr. Allen's observations are pertinent and he questioned just how many cluster type units and residential units are to be planned for this particular project? Kathleen Wendell. 727 Printz Road. stated she and her husband were not notified about this meeting and did not find out about it until Saturday morning. She stated when they went to the library, a copy of the Fmal EIR was not available, however, they were able to obtain a copy and spent a great deal of the weekend reading the document before they had to return it. She stated she was concerned about the fact that the Final EIR and the tract map do not match and is very confusing. She commented, therefore, her recommendation would have to be based on the Final EIR information. With regard to the well, she stated it seems if this were developed in the County, they could use this well and it is stated that could support 52 homes, so they could have a community well system and in that way they would be responsible for maintaining the equipment and the treatment of the water, which would all be internal to the site. One of the issues she wanted to emphasize was relative to comment 19.2 which states "... .new development, and its need to be in an appropriate density and intensity based upon compatibility with the majority of existing surrounding land uses." She stated the reference Anoyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 11 of 19 to -majority of existing surrounding land uses- seems to be pretty cut and dried. She noted that adjacent to the north are 2.5 acres to 10 acre parcels, over 2.5 acre P81'cels adjacent in the west, and going to the east there are two 2.5 acre parcels and two 3.0 acre parcels, and only in the south across a large street behind a fence do you have a more dense environment. It seems if this development were to meet that criteria it would be in the RE 2.5 acre parcel at a minimum. Ms. Wendell stated she too felt there were a lot of questions asked at the last meeting that were not sufficiently answered in the Final EIR, such as who would be responsible for treatment to the well, and the possibility of the long term need to do blending. Also, the question about legal conveyance of the well site to the City; whether it would be bought or leased? There were also comments in the draft EIR indicating that the current planning at the way we would be building out would use our allocated water supply and, therefore, anything additional that would be annexed would have to have their own water. She noted that the area designated for open space and the traits is pretty steep. With the foregoing comments, Ms. WendeR stated it is her recommendation that the Planning Commission not recommend this Final EIR be certified by the City Council. Also, in her opinion, it appears that by using the guise of clustering we are not going in conjunction with the surrounding properties, and therefore it seems more appropriate to go with Residential Estate zoning. Carter Hooker. 380 SDanish Moss Lane. spoke regarding the traffic at the Brisco underpa.., stating that three lanes is not sufficient now and when Wal Mart and the rest of these tracts are built out, it will be a lot worse. He commented that the Brisco underpass has to be widened in the near future and, hopefully, before it gets too crowded. It is a real physical concrete bottleneck that needs to be addressed immediately. He further stated he is surprised the City can't come up with any kind of conditions to take care of the additional cost to the City for the Fire and Police, school, buses, etc., and there must be some way to work on that. He noted that the water issue comes up in every City and in every meeting. Also, the sewer issue is one of his main concerns and he inquired if an overall assessment of the sewer requirements has been done, adding up tract by tract and building by building, and is there enough capacity for the treatment? Mr. Hooker referred to traffic on Rodeo Drive, commenting that it is the straightest shot to the freeway and everybody uses it. He stated addressing these things one at a time doesn't seem to be enough, and he urges using some kind of a score card to literally start keeping track of aU of the commitments and keep adding them up because at some point in time the City is going to have to say -no. to somebody. Mr. Hooker recommended that the City consider the same kinds of questions for the non-tract section as for the tract section; what kind of rules, what kind of limitations and what are the requirements? He noted the City is going to have to maintain all of their streets and provide City services to them also. Jack Hardv. Grover Beach. stated he is in favor of the project and he feels it has been very wen planned out, makes a lot of sense with the clustering of homes. The plan has a nice design and fits well with the transition of homes on the south side of James Way. He commented, in his opinion, it would be far better for the City to control a project like this than for the County to control it. He noted some of the advantages to the City such as 59 new taxpayers paying Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30. 1999 Page 12 of 19 property tax to the City. in-lieu park fees. and I lot of families spending money in Arroyo Grande. He stated he believes that this is the type of controlled growth that this community needs and urged the Commission to recommend this project to the City Council. Glen D. James. stated his father bought the property up there many years ago and his family has been working with Gary Young over the past three years. He encouraged the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the project to the Counc". stating he believes it is an excellent project because it concentrates the development and still leaves a large green area. He commented that some of the other proposals made to them were for rather large rich estates and he hates to see only the rich get housing. Mike Lebow. Canvon Wav. stated he is in favor of more of a no growth policy to keep the hills from growing with homes and keep the integrity of the nature of this area. Doua Dunn. Arrovo Grlll\de. stated he has I piece of property that touches thia development. His concerns include the density and building on that prominent ridge line. and also the water issue. Dick DeBlauw. 774 Alta Vista Wav. stated he has reviewed the plans for the property and the design for the subdivision and. in his opinion. it is a good design for development of the property. He further stated he would prefer to see it designed as the plans show than have homes spread out an over that acreage. He noted he has been on a well from that same aquifer for 27 years and it is good water and the water table never seemed to move up or down. He commented. in his opinion. the Commission should think about good planning and seriously recommend taking this "operty into the City of Arroyo Grande for development rather than let go to the County. He urged that the Commission plan for the people rather than pfan against the people because population is happening and we need to have places for people to live. Melissa Watkins. Heritaae Lane. Arrovo Grande. stated her feelings that annexing this property as part of the City is a wise decision because then you do have control over what is done with the property. and it would be a financially sound decision. She also stated she feels that the tract project as presented is a good one and that the public expects that parcel. of property to be developed and is something that everyone knows is going to happen eventually. She further stated she feels that people will be pleased to see a smaller project like the one acrOH James Way instead of the larger estate lots, and she hopes the Commission win recommend approval of the annexation to the City Council. Sara Ann Marshall. 203 Montecito Ave.. SheD Beach. stated she is in favor of the project. She noted one of the pros for her would be the fact that there are 4 bedroom homes at affordable prices and the lots are larger and have more room for children to play. Bob Harris. Cleath and Associates, addressed various comments regarding the fact that there are wells along James Way that would probably tap this aquifer and it is the applicant's intent to be attentive to those. He noted that Cleath and Associates' position on water availability is that water for a property for development should be sustainable by the property, and generally speaking, the more property you have overlying an aquifer the more right you have Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 13 of 19 to pump that water. Therefore, when Cleath &. Associates looked at the recharge that is available for the property itself, it was felt there was a constraint on that rech8rge and informed the applicant of that, noting that this is the amount of water we would credit that property as being able to sustain. Beyond that you would be pulling water from outside of the property and thereby potentially impacting adjacent wells. Mr. Harris noted that their analysis is based on well interference and recharge, and the well interference has been analyzed conservatively and presented in the EIR, aa well as recharge. When the well is drilled and tested, then a final analysis will be presented of the impacts. Dan Uovd. EDA, stated their position this evening is to make sure the Commi88ioners' questions are answered. With regard to water, he noted that the proposed well site ia ooinI to provide water in excess of the project's needs and, therefore, there wiH be more water available to the City than will be utilized by this property. Also, this well will provide water for the additional parcels within the annexation area, and the sewer needs will be met. With reglfd to the density issue raised, Mr. Lloyd stated he doesn't believe there is an issue regarding dertsity; one unit to the acre for the entire annexation area is not a problem. Chair Greene spoke regarding the traffic that would be generated by thia project on Rodeo Drive, stating that the issue of traffic on Rodeo Drive has been a very contentious and troublesome problem for the City since the street opened a decade ago. According to the data that was provided from a 1997 study, the street carries 2300 vehicle trips per day to Branch. He stated, according to the conclusion by Mr. Foote, 300 vehicle trips per day is not a significant environmental impact, however, it is agreed that it is a significant impact for the individuals who live in that community. He asked if there are any alternatives to mitigating the traffic problems available to the applicant? Mr. Lloyd stated, in his opinion, there are a lot of good suggestions that have been mentioned and it was his feeling that some good options could be looked at with the Traffic Commission. Mr. Lloyd stated that the timing seems to be right because there is a little time between now and the time when this project comes back to the Commission, and there could probably be three or four meetings with the Traffic Commission. One option could perhaps include the support of a consultant to deal with traffic calming suggestions and look at it in an aggregate way, and actually come up with some mitigation measures that the applicant could help fund and perhaps identify a mitigation program that could be adopted by the City. Chair Greene suggested that a mitigation measure be added in the EIR direct"" the a,pIicant to engage in and work with community resources such as the Traffic Commission, Department of Public Works, and citizens who represent the community in that area in coming up with a proposal or a plan to either calm traffic on the street or to help fund an alternative route that might alleviate some of the traffic. Mr. Lloyd indicated their willingness to participate in a joint discussion and solution to the traffic issue. Chair Greene asked if Mr. Lloyd and the applicant have given any thought to endeavoring to work with the adjacent property owner and developer of Tract 1834 to provide an outlet for the subject development through Tract 1834 instead of running the road that is proposed to go through the existing James residertce and maybe drawing it a little bit to the west and providing an access through that parcet. An opportunity could be offered to that individual to develop a secondary emergency access, which could be a benefit to both subdivisions to have access to an east/west corridor through what is now the Arroyo Grende Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 14 of 19 11 acre James property. Mr. Lloyd indicated their willingness to discuss various options. Mr. Young, applicant, inquired if the reference to additional mitigation measures that are not contained on his property, references funding something that is not on his property? Chair Greene advised when this project was before the Commission previously, one of the Commissioners recommended that there be some sort of complimentary agreement that would enable the current proposal to be considered tempering this effort to reduce traffic through the neighborhood that seems to be most impacted by this proposal. Mr. Young pointed out that his project needs to take care of his needs and to start talking about MfundingM on another person's project is getting out of the purview of his responsibility at this point, especially when talking about a private developer with a private project. He noted he would certainly not want to link his project to Grace Lane, however, he would jointly work with the community for the betterment of the community to solve traffic issues. Mr. Young stated that the issues before the Commission tonight are the iauea of recommending to the City Council to approve annexing the ."operty, recomf'llHlftd to, the City Council to have the General Plan Amendment show the pre-zoning and recommend the pre- zoning, and he encouraged the Commission to vote tonight. Hearing no additional comments from the audience, Chair Greene closed the public hearing. Commissioner London atated that his questions have pretty mueh been answered and the project seems to fall within all of the requirements of the General Plan and Devefopment Code. Commissioner Costello stated his biggest concern about the project revolves around the water issues and, in his opinion, we won't have answers on the water until a weft is actually drilled and testing is done. Inasmuch as the final approval of the tract map is contingent upon those wells being examined, he feels that is an issue that is going to be resolved down the line. In terms of some of the mitigation issues, the structure we have to deal with in the City such as public safety issues doesn't give any latitude, because there is no language that exists that says we are going to need an additional officer and we are going to fund it; that is going to happen after the fact. He stated he has a problem with full mitigation for schools, and he unders~ands it is beyond the purview of this EIR to solve this particular problem. Density fteeds to be dealt with and, as pointed out by staff, when the project comes back, we have the ftexibility to work with the project in terms of how we go about reaching the consistency. There are a lot of issues he needs to think about and that will need to be dealt with, but he believes the document does meet the minimum and does answer some of the questions. In principal, the annexation is a logical extension of the City's boundaries and does fit into the City of Arroyo Grande and probably should be annexed. The question remains; what is the best way to do that and what is the best project to put in there '1 Commissioner Parker stated she believes in the clustering type of density, and that this project conforms with the statement in the General Plan that when you put in a project, it needs to conform to the surrounding lands and, in her opinion, this one does. The reason she ftkes the clustering of homes here is because it leaves the lands she believes to be an environmental issue. The land in the culvert and the land that is surrounded by all of the Oak trees need to Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30. 1999 Page 15 of 19 be preserved. She also believes that annexation needs to be addressed in the Gener8t Plan. end because this site is already surr~unded on three sides by the City and is within the City's sphere. it doesn't represent an urban buildout. rather it feels like we are' flHing in the hole, and seems like a natural acceptable annexation that doesn't sprawl us out in one direction or another. She also stated whether or not this project is built. Rodeo Drive needs to be addressed and. in her opinion. Rodeo is not necessarily a problem because of this project. but Rodeo has a problem despite this project. Commissioner Parker referred to an Oak Grove area of six to eight Oak trees that is designated to be removed and suggested this area be looked at when the project comes back to the Commission to see if anything can be done to preserve the rural character even further and contain that Oak grove and not remove it. Also. she stated she believes that a community based sewer system that the City could provide to this area would be much more preferable to the area than having either individual septic systems or community septic systems. With regard to water. Commissioner Parker stated she is concerned. however. she is glad to hear that the water studies will be prepared and in place before the City has to look at the project. Commissioner Keen stated he feels that this project is a good in-fin project and need. to be developed by the City because of the different ramifications it would have if developed by the County. Regarding schools. Commissioner Keen stated the City's efforts of trying to designate land from a project for a school has been unsuccessful and. in his opinion. hwing school fees given is the best way to go. The Police and Fire Department have a mutual aid agreement and. therefore. if the County develops it, the City wiD still service that area. There wHI stitt be traffic on James Way and Rodeo Drive if the County develops it. so that is another reason the City should annex it and try to govern and develop some way to help on Rodeo Drive. He stated if there is a way that this traffic impact fee could go directly toward helping finance the Rodeo Heights bypass. in his opinion. that would be a step in the right direction. Senior Consultant Engineer Craig CampbeH advised that presently the only traffic fee structures that are available are for specific lists of projects, such as a traffic facilities ......ct fee and a traffic signalization fee. and these each have their list of city-wide improvements where they are applicable for. and the City is restricted in using them for that. and correcting problems on Rodeo is not on that list. Basically, to use the fees for Rodeo. you would need to amend the Fee Ordinance to add that as one of the list of projects. Chair Greene clarified that the purpose of this hearing is to consider whether or nor the Draft . and Final EIR together adequately (1) identify the environmental impact. (2) adequately analyze the environmental impacts. and (3) propose appropriate mitigations. If the Planning Commission votes to recommend to the City Council to certify the EIR. that does not mean that the project has been approved. only that the environmental impacts have been adequately identified. .nalyzed and mitigations proposed. He outlined other major steps in the approval process before the project can go on line, some of which are policy issues. Chair Greene noted the Commission is guided by the Land Use Element of the Gefterat Plan. Objective 10.0. which talks about expansion of city boundaries and annexation. He stated he believes this property should be annexed and he also believes reasons for the annexation have . Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Pege 16 of 19 been adequately explained by other members of the Commission. He stated he is very uncomfortable with this EtA because it focuses almost entirety on the annexation of Tract 2265 and addresses in a superficial manner only the armexation of the remaining .-reels which constitute the other 19 acres. When some of that land becomes developed it is going to add additional environmental impacts which, in his opinion, have not been and cannot be adequately addressed in the EIR. He commented that the handwriting is on the wall and these properties are going to be developed and the impacts are going to occur. He is concerned because the water analysis focuses a great deal on some 59 homes and doesn't include a discussion regarding additional homes. Maybe the welt that is on Deer Trail can absorb the additional water needs, and maybe the other issues regarding police, fire, public safety provisions, school issues, school fees and traffic mitigation issues can be dealt with, however, he is very uncomfortable that this is being presented to the City in this way. He agreed that there is no other way the applicant could present it since he doesn't have control over the James property. He stated his feeling that the decision makers need to address this issue and there needs to be some reference in the staff reports regarding potential impacts over and above those identified in the EIR. Chair Greene expressed concern over the water issue, stating it is not clear to him who it going to pay and how much. He feels that the EIR is deficient in that respect and, in his opinion, there should be some information provided to the City decision makers regarding the cost associated with the we.. He noted that the Open Space and Conservation Element under the Water Resources section states .....the City's present entitlements to ground water and Lopez supplies are not adequate to support buildout of the General Plan." This was adopted many years ago, and at that time, they were telling us that there were wate, problems then and we have added a significant number of residences since that date, and we continue to add more. He outlined another concern he has regarding the proposal requiring that the property be pre- zoned as RR, which means one residence per acre. He commented this is compatible at some points and incompatible in others with the surrounding neighborhood. He suggested that staff include in their staff report to the Council some sort of options they might want to consider regarding alternative zoning measures. Chair Greene stated that the next issue to be considered is compatibility with the community's basic identity as a rural small town community and, in his opinion, this project is compatible. This is a residential area and we are annexing residential property and there is some degree of consistency . Another issue is whether the annexation is consistent with the ooals and objectives of the Generaf Ptan in regard to protection of agriculture and open space. He stated he has a concern about that because there is a section in the General Plan that talks about maintaining slopes of 25% or more on 40 acre parcels, and there appears to be a slight deviation from that here. The applicant might want to consider setting aside extra portions of Tract 2265 for open spaee to bring it closer to that element of the General Plan. He further stated his opinion that everyone would applaud a reduction in the density or an increase in open space for that issue. Chair Greene agreed with other Commissioners why the City will benefit from annexation when considering what the County could build, the loss of property tax values, park fees and traffic fees, which is a significant benefit to the City. Another issue is the contamination of ground Anoyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 17 of 19 water with septic systems. He commented there does exist a significant social and economic inner dependence interaction between the City and property proposed for annexation. There is adequate infrastructure and services that can be or have been provided and, finafly, the proposed annexation witt generate revenue to pay for provision of City services. After the foregoing comments, Chair Greene advised he supports the resolution that would certify the EIR He stated he has a real problem with the pre-zoning and the density of the project. With regard to the traffic problems on Rodeo Drive, Chair Greene stated his belief that the City has the responsibility to provide for and protect the general welfare of the citizens of the community, and although it might not necessarily be an environmental impact for a residential street to have 2300 or 2600 vehicles go up and down it each day, it is . significant impact for the residents who live there. He believes the City has a responsibility to alleviate that situation; how they go. about doing that and whether the applicant is involved or not is an issue that will be addressed later on. He commented he believes the applicant has the responsibility to help mitigate this problem and when this issues comes before the Commission again, it will be interesting to see what efforts have been made to develop a community response to this problem. Chair Greene reiterated his position that he is prepared to support a resolution certifying the EIR, however, he is not prepared to support a resolution that the property be pre-zoned RR. It is his feeling that process needs a little more investigation and discussion. There being no further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 99-1689 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY Of ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE COMPLETION OF AND MAKE FINDINGS AS TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE VILLAGE GLEN PROJECT. On motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Costello, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners London, Costello, Parker, Keen and Chair Greene NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 30th day of March 1999. RESOLUTION NO. 99-1690 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CTY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE GENERAL PLAN MAP: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-004 (APPLICANT: GARY YOUNG). Arroyo Grende Plenning Commission March 30. 1999 Page 18 of 19 On motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Costello, and by the foHowing roll call vote, to with: AYES: CommiS8ioners Keen, CosteHo, london and Parker NOES: Chair Greene ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 30th day of March 1999. Regarding Attachment 3, Resolution No. 99-1691, Chair Greene pointed out that Paragraphs 5 and 6 are redundant and one should be deleted. RESOLUTION NO. 99-1691 A RESOLUTION OF THE PlANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF ARROYO GRANDE; DEVaOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 97-009 (APPLICANT: GARY YOUNG). On motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Costello, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Costello, Parker and london NOES: Chair Greene ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 30th day of March 1999. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - None DISCUSSION ITEMS - None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS Commissioner Keen noted the upcoming farewell gathering for Community Development Director Jim Hamilton. He expressed his appreciation and commended for Mr. Hamilton for taking over when he did at a point when there were several controversial projects and, in his opinion, he did an outstanding job. The Commissioners expressed their thanks to Mr. Hamilton and their wishes for good luck in his new assignment. Mr. Hamilton advised that Mr. Henry Engen will be the Interim Director and that he is well experienced and knows the community and the area very well. Commissioner Parker briefly reviewed the Planning Commissioners' Conference held in Monterey which she attended last week. She stated she would like to see the Couftcif designate. funds for Planning Commissioners to attend these conferences. She further stated, in her opinion, this helps Commissioners to learn their job better and, therefore, be more beneficial and provide more to the City in return. She encouraged City staff to approach the City Council in this respect and ask them to include funds in the budget. Mr. Hamilton advised he is in the process of preparing the budget recommendations for the department for the upcoming year, and he has made a request to increase the education portion of the budget to allow some opportunity Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 19 of 19 for at least two of the Commissioners to attend the conference in the upcoming year. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP REPORTS. Community Developm8ft.t Director Hamilton advised that at the last City Coul'\cil meeting the Council took action whereby the City will be applying in concert with the County for an agricultural land stewardship program grant from the State as part of the next step in the CASP process, and right now it looks like we are asking for a joint grant of about $30,000 and looking at actually putting in place some of the implementation elements that were included in CASP. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 12:30 A.M. ATTEST: Kathleen Fryer, Commission Clerk Laurence Greene, Chair AS TO CONTENT: Jim Hamilton, AICP Community Development Director firms ATTACHMENT C landscape architecture planning environmental studies ecological restoration 849 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805)781-9800. fax (805)781-9803 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Date: April 16, 1999 To: Tom Buford City of Arroyo Grande Re: Village Glen EIR Contract #: 9813 WE ARE SENDING YOU: COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 4-16-99 2 ResDOnse to Letter from Fred Wendell SIGNED: David Foote COpy TO: File e-mail: firmaslo@aol.com firma landscape architecture planning environmental studies ecological restoration Village Glen EIR April 16, 1999 Response to Letter from Fred Wendell 1. Refer to FEIR response to comment 5.2. 2. If accepted and ultimately used by the City, the proposed well would be operated by the City, including water treatment operations. The type and cost of treatment are not considered extraordinary, but are similar to measures taken by the City elsewhere and also by many municipalities, according to the Public Works Department (testimony by Craig Campbell, Assistant City Engineer at Planning Commission meeting). 3. Th~ mitigation calls for a revised grading plan to be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuing a grading permit. The mitigation is clearly feasible by eliminating pad grading and/or creating wider lots. As a start toward satisfying this mitigation measure, the applicant presented a revised Tract Map at the Planning Commission meeting with deeper lots. along James Way. This would reduce the steepness of slopes along James Way. 4. Refer to responses to comments 6.2 and 7.2. The City of Pismo Beach weB on the Los Robles del Mar property is not planned to serve that project, and the City of Pismo Beach has no plans to use the well (see EIR page IV-E7). Cumulative effects of well pumpage on the aquifer are described on page IV-E8 and were addressed by a hydrogeologist in detail at the Planning Commission meeting. The EJR notes that if the proposed well production is, in fact, sirrilar to the Oak Park well, the output would be adequate to serve the project water demand (see pages IV-E4 and ES). Refer also to page 11-1 of the FEIA. 5. The referenced existing parcel would become part of, and be superseded by, the proposed Jot 64 consisting of a single 33.5 acre lot. As part of the Final Tract Map this lot would presumably be subject to deed restrictions preventing future subdivision since this lot is the open space lot necessary to create a cluster subdivision. "Gross area" means at site land including roads and sidewalks and is the correct method to determine density. 6. Property value issues are outside the purview of CECA. Regarding local (on-site) water. an on- site well exists that could serve about 50 homes (see response to comment 7.1). 7. Refer to 6 above. 8. The EIA section E-Groundwater Resources was prepared by an independent consultant who reviewed an applicant prepared report. Refer also to response 7.2. 9. Cumulative impacts are summarized in section VI of the EIA. 10. Refer to response 6.3. FhinClCal: 'Javld W. Poore .4SLA. .4EP /~'=~~::st.'-a!!cr /'10. 21 -: 7" :~-:? "~-lQnte"e.1/ Sr,"eet SUite 205 5f-1.n LUiS ()j;.scc. CA ::?34;'": 1 305_,~8'.9800 ;ax:lC5.791.9803 Village Glen EtR Responses to Letter. Wendell April.16, 1999 Page 2 of 2 . 11. Regarding the potential for access to an alternative project from Canyon Way, refer to response 7.1. The alternative of 20 lots is not rejected "out of hand", but is rejected because I does not satisfy the CEOA requirement that an alternative meet most of the project objectives. The idea of using "other suitable building areas" would mean shifting some lots from the upland areas of the site to the lower areas at the end of Canyon Way. For example, about five lots could be shifted from the northern corner nearest the adjacent County lands and located at the end of Canyon Way. This alternate would benefit the commentor who lives in the County land, however, this alternative does not meet the CEOA standard of avoiding or reducing one or more significant irnpact identified in the EI R. Fred Wendell 737 Printz Road Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 January 4, 1999 City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department P.O. Box 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to provide comment on the Village Glen Annexation, Tract 2265 Project Draft EIR. I am a City of Arroyo Grande property owner with property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. My primary residence lies approximately 400 feet north of the north-western comer of the proposed annexation. While I am opposed to the project as currently proposed for a variety of reasons, I will focus my comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures: Impact A 1 and A2: Monitoring is offered as suggested mitigation for potential impacts to fire and police services. This form of mitigation appears unnecessarily weak compared to that provided for impacts to school districts (development impact fees). Impact E3: If water quality is poor (a reasonable assumption given data from Oak Park well that taps same aquifer) and requires treatment to meet minimum State drinking water standards for domestic use, who will pay for ongoing treatment costs? Are treatments costs considered in assessment that donation of well to the City represents a positive beneficial aspect of project deyelopment? Impact F1: Mitigation offered for subject impact is qualified as "to the extent feasible". How can the EIR ev.aluate adequacy of that form of mitigation if the proposal does not define specifically what is feasible in terms of eliminating pad grading, creating stepped pads, or varying slope ratios below 2: 1. One should assume that none of the offered mitigation are feasible without commitment to specifics particularly since the Draft EIR offers no Level of Impact After Mitigation. Impact E1 and E2: I believe these impacts should be classified as Class II at a minimum. They have the potential for creating significant impact to adjacent property owners if assumptions made in the Draft EIR are incorrect. Specifically, the Draft EIR assumes no connection between shallow and deep aquifers (howeyer, it recognizes that water from shallow aquifers is a factor in recharging the deep aquifer in another section). If this assumption is incorrect and additional drawdown from the deep aquifer removes water from the shallow aquifer many property owners in the area that rely on wells that tap the shallow aquifer could be negatively impacted. The potential for negative affects from additional drawdown of the deep water aquifer are greater than that described in the Draft EIR. It is not clear to me that the Draft EIR evaluates the additional cumulative affect from use of the Pismo Beach City well adjacent to the City's Oak Park well (full project demand from that well -additional 350 residences?). The cumulative impacts could affect other City uses from existing well. The existing City well provides approximately 55 gpm yet the hired consultant hydrologist assumes that the new well can provide 100 gpm. The Draft EIR does not provide adequate support for the assumption in face of the existing and contradictory data from the Oak Park well. The mitigation suggested for this impact is monitoring and testing. It is not clear what will happen if the assumptions prove incorrect and the project donated well cannot provide usable water in the quantities necessary to support the project. Giyen these concerns is seems unreasonable to suggest that the assumed excess water from the donated well will be a positive (Class IV) beneficial impact from annexation. Consistency Analysis (General Plan): Section 6.Od and e - It is not clear in the Draft EIR specifically what will prevent future development on portion of Lot 31 of Book B, Page 78. The land appears to be suitable for building. If it is part of the single 33.5 acre lot, what will preyent its development under other administrations. I believe most negative impacts from development of this property would be minimized if this area were considered part of the usable land (increase lot sizes near northern edge of project without increasing the total number of lots) and accessed those lots from Canyon Way. Lots near the northern edge of the annexation area could then be expanded to make them more compatible with the adjacent Rural Estate lots (2.5 acre minimums). However, I do not believe this to be a reasonable alternative given the current status of available water. It would seem that roads and sidewalks have been added into the land to establish the gross minimum one acre minimum lots sizes. Is this appropriate and consistent application of clustering concept? Section 7.1 - The placement of clustered lots that are around 15,000 square feet immediately adjacent to Rural Estate lots (minimum 2.5 acres lot size) is unnecessary and will have a significant negative economic impact on the existing property owners. On a large scale there is a transition in lot size. However, comparisons to the Garden tract with the smaller "affordable housing" minimum lot size is not reasonable given the real character of most of the surrounding land use. Section suggests that development under county zoning could create potential.for livestock keeping. Since this would be prohibited after armexation, the project could avoid potential incompatibilities. This seems to be a biased characterization. It is not clear that development under county zoning is possible since local water is not available. Further, existing uses include grazing on the property and adjacent land owners to the north can have livestock. Section 7.2 - The clustering concept does not create a pleasing transition to surrounding development. As mentioned earlier, clustering places relatively small lots immediately adjacent to much larger lots. It will have an immediate affect on adjacent property values. Page IV-E3 Since the section on Aquifer Properties states that little is know about the Pismo formation deep aquifer, one should question nature of evaluation provided in Executive Summary related to affects of drawdown. I believe the City would be remiss to accept the projects hired hydrologists interpretation without independent assessment that the formation lithology between the shallow aquifer and the deep aquifer will be an effectiye aquitard (ie proYiding a barrier and precluding hydraulic communication between two strata). The Draft EIR does indicate that there is no data to confirm interpretation but does not eyaluate potential impacts if interpretation is incorrect. Page IV-E4 indicates that addition sources of recharge of deep aquifer may be yertical leakage from the shallow aquifers - but, assumes it is very limited. Many property owners will be affected if assumption is incorrect. Cumulative Impacts (Page IV-E8): The assessment provided in this section should also be provided in the Executive Summary. This is the only section that addresses many of the water related concerns mentioned aboye and it seems biased that it has not been provided in summary form. Page IV-F1: The visual resources - The section does not indicate that lots within the incorporated area to the northwest look across the site. Specifically, this is my residence and the view is restricted by trees to only the clustered lots. It will not be visually pleasing. Alternatives This section appears to be weakly developed. Only two alternatives are offered and one of these is rejected out of hand. One is left with an evaluation of a project reduced from 64 lots to 50. Clearly, other reasonable alternatives are available including: 1) reduced lots numbers above 20 and less than 50; 2) modification of lot sizes to provide larger lots near RE zoning; 3) use of other suitable building areas within the proposed annexation area which could be accessed from Canyon Way. Several of these alternatives would be superior to those currently proposed. In summary, while I believe in providing room for development, the proposed project and the alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIR will all have a significant impact on me and have the potential for negatively impacting my City. I would like to see a better eyaluation of alternatives and impacts than that which has been provided in the subject Draft. Sincerely, {J.W~ F red Wendell -....-...--....-... ... . .-- ~VV.L Village Glen Homes LLC Apri16, 1999 City of ArrOY~ ::;~eoePt. Community Deve 0 APR 07 1999 Tom Buford, Contract Planner Community Development Department City of Arroyo Grande 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Subject James Way Annexation (General Plan Amendment 97-Q04, Development Code Amendment 97-009, Vesting Tentative Map 2265, &: Planned Unit Developntent 97-563) DeuTon\, As a result of changes to the partnership, the applicant for the above referenc:ed project is no longer Gary 1. Young & Associates. The following entity is the new applicant Village Glen Homes LLC . 231 Pomeroy, Suite F Pismo Beach, CA 93449 (805) 773-1080 All other information submitted with the original application is valid. H you have any questions, please do n~ hesitate to caIl me at 773-1080. Best Regards, Gary Young General Partner Village Glen Homes LLC -~ -~--------_.._-- -.- -~----- --,---- 9.a. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: LYNDA K. SNODGRASS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES ~ SUBJECT: CASH DISBURSEMENT RA TIFICA TION DATE: APRIL 27,1999 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for the period Apri/1 - April 15, 1999. FUNDING: There is a $938,149.61 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 - April 2, 1999 Accounts Payable Check Register ATTACHMENT C - April 9, 1999 Accounts Payable Check Register ATTACHMENT D -April 9, 1999 Payroll Checks and Payroll Benefit Checks CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE INDEX FOR BUDGET DEPARTMENTS EDEN COMPUTER SYSTEM GENERAL FUND (010) SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS City Government (Fund 010) Parle 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 Sewer Fund (Fund 612) 4212 - Building &. Safety 4610 - Sewer Maintenance 4213 - Government Buildings Water Fund (Fund 640) Public Works (Fund 010) 4710 - Water Administration 4301 - Public W orks- Admin &. Engineering 4711 - Water Production 4303 - Street/Bridge Maintenance 4712 - Water Distribution 4304 - Street Ughting Lopez Administration (Fund 641) 4305 - Automotive Shop 4750 - LopezAdministration 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 Depl. Index for CounciLxIs -.- ,,- ATTACHMENT A CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CASH DISBURSEMENTS 7tJ1t. tie PeWJd oI11ta1td 16 7~ 11ta1td 31, 1999 April 27, 1999 Presented are the cash disbursements issued by the Department of Financial Services for the period April 1 to April 15, 1999. Shown are cash disbursements by week of occurrence and type of payment. April 2, 1999 Accounts Payable Cks #89684-89770 B $ 482,700.39 April 9, 1999 Accounts Payable Cks # 89771-89814 C 216,903.80 Payroll Checks and Payroll Benefit Checks D 238,545.42 455,449.22 Two Week Total $ 938,149.61 Attachment B VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 1 03/31/99 08:49 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 10 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 89684 04/02/99 000468 A T & T-L/DIST SVC. L/DIST PHONE 010.4211.5403 13.01 13.01 89685 04/02/99 001300 AGRI-TURF SUPPLIES, INC. DOLOMARK LIME 010.4430.5605 240.23 240.23 89686 04/02/99 003120 AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SUP SAFETY GLASSES 010.4420.5255 37.64 37.64 89687 04/02/99 100897 AMERICAN TEMPS HAWORTH SVCS-3/14 284.4103.5303 628.00 89687 04/02/99 100897 AMERICAN TEMPS STOUFFER SVCS-3/14 010.4130.5303 502.40 1,130.40 89688 04/02/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER AIR TRAVEL-SNODGRASS 010.4120.5501 225.00 89688 04/02/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER CSMFO CONF. HOTEL 010.4120.5501 483.12 89688 04/02/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER NETWORK INTERFACE CARDS 010.4140.6101 274.00 89688 04/02/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER LAPTOP PC CARRY CASES 010.4140.6101 306.00 89688 04/02/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER KEYBOARD 284.4103.6001 24.00 89688 04/02/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER MONITOR 284.4103.6001 240.00 89688 04/02/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER MOUSE 284.4103.6001 25.00 89688 04/02/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER SHIPPING CHARGE-MONITOR 284.4103.6001 59.25 89688 04/02/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER JPS NET-INTERNET PROVIDER 010.4140.5303 168.00 89688 04/02/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER CALCULATOR BATl'ERIES 010.4301. 5255 9.09 89688 04/02/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER UCB - PMS SEMINAR 010.4301.5501 147.00 89688 04/02/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER HAAKER EQUIPMENT 010.4211.5601 179.20 89688 04/02/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER THOMAS BROS. WALL MAP 010.4211.5255 357.73 89688 04/02/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER CRAFT SUPPLIES 010.4424.5251 111.18 89688 04/02/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER GASOLINE 010.4421.5608 17.00 89688 04/02/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER ROOM/MEALS 010.4421.5501 439.11 89688 04/02/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER LCC/AIR TRAVEL 010.4001.5501 572.00 3,636.68 89689 04/02/99 009282 BARCLAYS LAW PUBLISHERS TITLE 22 DIV 4 AMENDMENT UPDAT 640.4710.5503 248.00 248.00 89690 04/02/99 009750 BRENDA BARROW REIMB.AM/PM SUPPLIES 010.4425.5255 5.54 89690 04/02/99 009750 BRENDA BARROW REIMB. SNACK SUPPLIES 010.4425.5259 104.93 89690 04/02/99 009750 BRENDA BARROW REIMB.SNACK SUPPLIES 010.4425.5259 246.30 356.77 89691 04/02/99 101024 RAY BERGUIA VOLUNTEER BQT PERFORMANCE 010.4424.5353 25.00 25.00 89692 04/02/99 011700 BOB'S SELF SERVICE CAR CAR WASH TOKENS 3/08/99 612.4610.5601 14.58 89692 04/02/99 011700 BOB'S SELF SERVICE CAR CAR WASH TOKENS 3/08/99 612.4610.5603 14.58 89692 04/02/99 011700 BOB'S SELF SERVICE CAR CAR WASH TOKENS 3/08/99 640.4712.5601 14.58 89692 04/02/99 011700 BOB'S SELF SERVICE CAR CAR WASH TOKENS 3/08/99 640.4712.5603 14.58 89692 04/02/99 011700 BOB'S SELF SERVICE CAR CAR WASH TOKENS 3/08/99 220.4303.5601 14.58 89692 04/02/99 011700 BOB'S SELF SERVICE CAR CAR WASH TOKENS 3/08/99 220.4303.5603 14.60 87.50 89693 04/02/99 011856 KIMBERLY BOESE REIMB.TUITION-BOESE 010.4201. 5502 1,210.00 89693 04/02/99 011856 KIMBERLY BOESE REIMB.BooKS-BOESE 010.4201.5502 92.26 1,302.26 89694 04/02/99 101007 PHIL BULLARD AFTER SCHOOL SPORTS-BULLARD 010.4424.5351 39.00 39.00 89695 04/02/99 021684 C.COAST MEDICAL SUPPLY OXYGEN H FILL 010.4211.5206 12.00 12.00 89696 04/02/99 021940 C.COAST TAXI CAB SERVIC TAXI SVCS-MARCH 1-16,1999 225.4553.5507 1,537.00 1,537.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 2 03/31/99 08 :49 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 10 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 89697 04/02/99 0180i8 CA. ST. DEPT. GENERAL SVCS L/DIST SVCS-5400 010.4145.5403 88.70 88.70 89698 04/02/99 100927 CAMPUS LEARNING SYSTEMS CD-ROM TRAINING SYSTEM 010.4201.5597 2,450.00 2,450.00 89699 04/02/99 021918 CENTRAL COAST SUPPLY RESTROOM SUPPLIES 010.4420.5605 242.49 89699 04/02/99 021918 CENTRAL COAST SUPPLY TRASH LINERS 010.4420.5605 97.60 340.09 89700 04/02/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET SMOG TEST 010.4301. 5601 24.95 24.95 89701 04/02/99 101029 COASTAL IMAGING REPR.PRINTER-CODE ENFORCE 010.4130.5602 91.10 91.10 89702 04/02/99 024832 COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS REPL. VACUUM SOLENOID 612.4610.5610 385.00 385.00 89703 04/02/99 025428 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL LIGHTS 010.4213.5604 219.79 219.79 89704 04/02/99 100326 COOKIE CROCK WAREHOUSE FILM PROCESSING-JAN/FEB 99 010.4201. 5255 23.85 23.85 89705 04/02/99 100355 DAVID CROCKETT CROCKETT SVCS-3/26 010.4130.5303 1,200.00 1,200.00 89706 04/02/99 100631 CUESTA CONSULTING CUESTA SVCS-3/22/99 010.4130.5303 5,985.00 89706 04/02/99 100631 CUESTA CONSULTING CLERICAL SUPPORT SVCS 010.4130.5303 98.00 6,083.00 89707 04/02/99 101023 DICK DASMANN B/BALL OFFICIAL-DASMANN 010.4424.5352 45.00 45.00 89708 04/02/99 100322 STAN DOMINGUEZ B/BALL OFFICIAL-DOMINGUES 010.4424.5352 45.00 45.00 89709 04/02/99 030576 GREG DUTRA CUSTODIAL CHARGES-B/BALL 010.4424.5257 180.00 180.00 89710 04/02/99 101030 HENRY ENGEN ENGEN SVCS-3/25 & 3/26 010.4130.5303 720.00 720.00 89711 04/02/99 032214 ENTENMANN-ROVIN CO K-9 BADGES 010.4201.5255 68.46 68.46 89712 04/02/99 100310 EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATION ANNUAL ENHANCEMENT/SUPPORT 010.4201.5606 2,367.00 2,367.00 89713 04/02/99 032838 FAMILIAN PIPE & SUPPLY GASKET-RES#2 640.4712.5609 7.51 89713 04/02/99 032838 FAMILIAN PIPE & SUPPLY PIPE/FITTING/SADDLE 640.4712.5610 318.08 89713 04/02/99 032838 FAMILIAN PIPE & SUPPLY PVC FITTINGS/STOPS 640.4712.5610 215.47 541. 06 89714 04/02/99 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES LEGAL 1048 010.4002.5301 66.00 89714 04/02/99 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES LEGAL 1062 010.4130.5301 90.00 89714 04/02/99 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES LEGAL 998 010.4130.5301 67.50 89714 04/02/99 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES LEGAL 999 010.4130.5301 72.00 295.50 89715 04/02/99 034826 FIX NETWORK INTERNET PROVIDER CHARGES 010.4140.5303 34.95 34.95 89716 04/02/99 036972 GATOR CRUSHING & RECYCL A/ C REMOVAL 640.4712.5610 44.46 44.46 89717 04/02/99 101026 ANGIE RICO GIESE REF. PARK DEPOSIT-GIESE 010.0000.4354 50.00 50.00 89718 04/02/99 038376 GRAND AUTO PARTS CHAIN LUBE 010.4201.5601 3.10 3.10 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 3 03/31/99 08 :49 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 10 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 89719 04/02/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4301.5255 13.33 89719 04/02/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 612.4610.5201 16.38 89719 04/02/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4421.5201 7.33 89719 04/02/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4211. 5201 3.75 89719 04/02/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4211. 5201 56.08 89719 04/02/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4301. 5255 114 . 73 89719 04/02/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4120.5201 28.64 89719 04/02/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4102.5255 77.00 89719 04/02/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4101. 5201 92.39 89719 04/02/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4130.5201 50.84 89719 04/02/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 612.4610.5201 2.39 89719 04/02/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4101.5201 41. 51 89719 04/02/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4101.5201 17.98- 89719 04/02/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4101. 5201 16.69 89719 04/02/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4130.5201 19.28 522.36 89720 04/02/99 100982 CLAYTON GRANT B/BALL OFFICIAL-GRANT 010.4424.5352 180.00 180.00 89721 04/02/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE - CM 010.4145.5403 20.76 89721 04/02/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-CONST.INSP 350.5617.7301 10.88 89721 04/02/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-ENG 1 010.4211.5403 17.81 89721 04/02/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-FIRE PORTABLE 010.4211.5403 17.35 66.80 89722 04/02/99 101028 JAMES GUERARA REIMB.PARKING CITE D6405 010.0000.4203 20.00 20.00 89723 04/02/99 100349 PAUL HARPER B/BALL OFFICIAL-HARPER 010.4424.5352 103.00 103.00 89724 04/02/99 042354 HI STANDARD AUTOMOTIVE TROY FACEPLATES 010.4211.5603 48.25 48.25 89725 04/02/99 100547 HI-TECH EMERGENCY HYDRO FLUID 010.4211.5601 95.73 95.73 89726 04/02/99 042158. BOB HICKS TURF EQUIPMEN BUSHINGS 010.4420.5603 110.94 110.94 89727 04/02/99 042198 HIGHLAND MFG. & SALES EGG HUNT EGGS 010.4424.5252 346.04 346.04 89728 04/02/99 042276 KARA HILL B/BALL OFFICIAL-HILL 010.4424.5352 21. 00 21. 00 89729 04/02/99 042862 HONEYWELL, INC. MAINT TO 6/30/99 010.4213.5303 6,467.75 6,467.75 89730 04/02/99 043954 JOSH IANNEO B/BALL OFFICIAL-IANNEO 010.4424.5352 28.00 28.00 89731 04/02/99 046176 J J'S FOOD COMPANY CMC CREW SODAS 220.4303.5613 58.26 58.26 89732 04/02/99 101031 PATTI JACKSON REIMB. TORN CLOTHING-JACKSON 220.4303.5255 140.00 140.00 89733 04/02/99 047300 BLAIR JUAREZ B/BALL OFFICIAL-JUAREZ 010.4424.5352 84.00 84.00 89734 04/02/99 047600 KAISER SAND & GRAVEL CO ASPHALT TRENCH PATCHING 640.4712.5610 176.32 89734 04/02/99 047600 KAISER SAND & GRAVEL CO ASPHALT TRENCH PATCHING 640.4712.5610 161. 33 89734 04/02/99 047600 KAISER SAND & GRAVEL CO ASPHALT TRENCH PATCHING 640.4712.5610 129.14 466.79 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 4 03/31/99 08:49 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 10 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 89735 04/02/99 100985 DOUG LINTNER B/BALL OFFICIAL-LINTNER 010.4424.5352 225.00 225.00 89736 04/02/99 053092 LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES PHONE MAINT 010.4211. 5403 25.60 25.60 89737 04/02/99 053820 MC CARTHY STEEL INC PLATE/ANGLE/LABOR 010.4211. 5601 63.37 63.37 89738 04/02/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE K-9 SUPPLIES 010.4201. 5322 24.38 89738 04/02/99 057096 MINER'S. ACE HARDWARE VAC BAGS/FLASHLIGHT 010.4213.5604 16.07 89738 04/02/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE LOPPER BYPASS 010.4211.5603 28.95 89738 04/02/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE FLUR.BULBS 010.4213.5604 21.41 89738 04/02/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PAINT SUPPLIES 010.4420.5605 9.22 89738 04/02/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE SIMPLE GREEN/ZOO CLEANER 010.4213.5604 33.42 89738 04/02/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PAINT/PAINT SUPPLIES 010.4420.5605 67.29 89738 04/02/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE MOUNTING TAPE 010.4212.5201 5.56 89738 04/02/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE NUMBERS 010.4420.5605 5.78 89738 04/02/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE COUPLER 220.4303.5613 2.82 89738 04/02/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PIPE WRAP/SAFETY HOOKS 640.4712.5610 18.41 89738 04/02/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE EYE BOLTS 010.4201. 5255 8.96 242.27 89739 04/02/99 058578 MULLAHEY FORD LUBE/OIL/TIRE REPAIR 010.4201. 5601 129.64 129.64 89740 04/02/99 059124 MUSTANG TREE CARE REMOVE BRANCH-SILK OAK 010.4420.5303 225.00 89740 04/02/99 059124 MUSTANG TREE CARE TREE APPRAISAL-AG CARE CENTER 010.4420.5303 125.00 350.00 89741 04/02/99 100281 JEFFREY NIEMEYER B/BALL OFFICIAL-NIEMEYER 010.4424.5352 90.00 90.00 89742 04/02/99 100984 SCOTT 0' CONNELL B/BALL OFFICIAL-O'CONNELL 010.4424.5352 63.00 63.00 89743 04/02/99 100402 ODV, INC. CITATION PRINT PADS 010.4201. 5255 87.95 87.95 89744 04/02/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 473-1935 640.4710.5403 38.25 89744 04/02/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 473-2041 010.4201. 5403 18.97 89744 04/02/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL PHONE 489-2174 010.4201. 5403 41. 83 89744 04/02/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL FAX 437-2198 010.4145.5403 25.75 89744 04/02/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL PHONE-473-5400 010.4145.5403 1,331. 74 89744 04/02/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL SLO COMPUTER 271-6566 010.4145.5403 47.86 89744 04/02/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL PHONE 481-6944 010.4201.5403 123.63 89744 04/02/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 271-7480 010.4201. 5403 64.06 89744 04/02/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL SLO COMPUTER 473-9523 010.4145.5403 71.69 89744 04/02/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL PHONE 489-9867 010.4201. 5403 43.21 1,806.99 89745 04/02/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 010.4304.5402 244.62 89745 04/02/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECT-TR1769 L/SCAPE 217.4460.5355 7.29 89745 04/02/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 010.4304.5402 106.72 89745 04/02/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 010.4304.5402 102.15 460.78 89746 04/02/99 064258 PAGING NETWORK OF LA PAGER SVCS-CM 010.4145.5403 31.74 89746 04/02/99 064258 PAGING NETWORK OF LA PAGER SVCS-P&R 010.4421.5602 100.54 132.28 89747 04/02/99 065598 DOUG PERRIN PHOTO PROCESS-DON ROBERTS 010.4424.5252 13.75 89747 04/02/99 065598 DOUG PERRIN VOLUNTEERS BANQ.SUPPLIES 010.4424.5252 52.49 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 5 03/31/99 08:49 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 10 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 89747 04/02/99 065598 DOUG PERRIN VOLUNTEERS BANQ.SUPPLIES 010.4424.5252 23.48 89747 04/02/99 065598 DOUG PERRIN EGG HUNT SUPPLIES 010.4424.5252 500.00 589.72 89748 04/02/99 066690 PITNEY BOWES SOFTWARE-NEW POSTAGE RATES 010.4145.5201 219.86 219.86 89749 04/02/99 100989 REMEDIAL MANAGEMENT COR FUEL FACILITY REPL.PLAN 350.5401. 7001 45,195.61 45,195.61 89750 04/02/99 071682 GREG ROSE B/BALL LGE.ASSIGNER-ROSE 010.4424.5352 100.00 89750 04/02/99 071682 GREG ROSE B/BALL OFFICIAL-ROSE 010.4424.5352 270.00 370.00 89751 04/02/99 101027 SANDRA SALGADO REF.PARK DEPOSIT-SALGADO 010.0000.4354 75.00 75.00 89752 04/02/99 073632 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIS-K.HEFFERNON-STREAMS CONF 010.4130.5501 35.00 35.00 89753 04/02/99 101025 MONICA SANCHEZ REF.C/B DEPOSIT-SANCHEZ 010.0000.2206 250.00 89753 04/02/99 101025 MONICA SANCHEZ BLDG. SUPER-SANCHEZ 010.0000.4355 110.25- 139.75 89754 04/02/99 078156 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIB. GASOLINE/DIESEL 010.4211. 5608 266.30 89754 04/02/99 078156 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIB. GASOLINE 010.4201. 5608 1,034.03 1,300.33 89755 04/02/99 074412 SLO CNTY DEPT. ENGINEERS PRINC.PAYMENT 641.4750.5801 120,316.25 89755 04/02/99 074412 SLO CNTY DEPT. ENGINEERS INTEREST 641.4750.5802 34,365.75 89755 04/02/99 074412 SLO CNTY DEPT. ENGINEERS WATER PURCHASES 641. 4750.5802 234,368.50 389,050.50 89756 04/02/99 074490 SLO CNTY DEPT. HEALTH CROSS CONNECT-12/98-1/99 640.4710.5303 1,896.60 1,896.60 89757 04/02/99 100983 AMANDA SMART B/BALL OFFICIAL-SMART 010.4424.5352 84.00 84.00 89758 04/02/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY COOLANT /RAD CAP 010.4211.5601 15.09 89758 04/02/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY COOLANT 010.4211.5601 78.84 89758 04/02/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY AIR FILTER 010.4420.5603 17.44 89758 04/02/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY GAS CAP 010.4201. 5601 6.10 89758 04/02/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY COOLANT 010.4211. 5601 77 .09 89758 04/02/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY THERMOSTAT 010.4211. 5601 33.34 89758 04/02/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY COOLANT 010.4211.5601 77 .09 89758 04/02/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY SEALED BEAM 010.4211.5601 35.72 340.71 89759 04/02/99 101013 SPECTRUM PAINTING INTERIOR PAINTING-CC 010.4213.6401 3,175.00 89759 04/02/99 101013 SPECTRUM PAINTING PAINT-CODE ENFORCE OFFICE 010.4213.6401 160.00 3,335.00 89760 04/02/99 073008 ST. PATRICK'S SCHOOL GYM USE-B/BALL 010.4424.5257 540.00 540.00 89761 04/02/99 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS BENCH CHECK RADIO/REPR. 010.4211.5603 253.50 253.50 89762 04/02/99 084084 TAYLOR'S TUNE-UP SHOP LUBE/OIL/FILTER 220.4303.5601 224.99 89762 04/02/99 084084 TAYLOR'S TUNE-UP SHOP REPL.DIST.CAP 220.4303.5601 65.94 290.93 89763 04/02/99 084240 SHANE TAYLOR AWWA CONF-TAYLOR 640.4712.5501 120.00 120.00 89764 04/02/99 101032 TRI-CNTY FIRE CHIEF ASS LODGING-GUEST SPEAKER 010.4211.5255 64.90 64.90 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 6 03/31/99 08:49 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 10 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 89765 04/02/99 086346 TROESH READY MIX SAND SLURRY 640.4712.5610 839.76 839.76 89766 04/02/99 101009 UNISOURCE MAINT SUPPLY P.TOWELS/T.PAPER 010.4213.5604 320.93 89766 04/02/99 101009 UNISOURCE MAINT SUPPLY CLEANER/AIR FRESHNER 010.4213.5604 184.74 505.67 89767 04/02/99 088084 UNITED GREEN MARK,INC. SPRINKLERS 010.4430.5605 109.29 109.29 89768 04/02/99 090480 WAYNE I S TIRE TIRES 010.4201.5601 211.93 211.93 89769 04/02/99 100431 WILLARD PAPER CO PAPER/ENVELOPES 010.4102.5255 330.03 330.03 89770 04/02/99 093794 SHARON YOUNG SEXUAL HARASSMENT AWARE CLASS 010.4145.5501 400.00 400.00 TOTAL CHECKS 482,700.39 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 7 03/31/99 08 :49 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 10 FUND TITLE AMOUNT 010 GENERAL FUND 40,726.25 217 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 7.29 220 STREETS FUND 521.19 225 TRANSPORTATION FUND 1,537.00 284 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND 976.25 350 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 45,206.49 612 SEWER FUND 432.93 640 WATER FUND 4,242.49 641 LOPEZ FUND 389,050.50 TOTAL 482,700.39 Attachment C VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 1 04/08/99 08:41 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 10 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 89771 04/09/99 00'0468 A T & T-L/DIST SVC. L/DIST FAX 473-0386 010.4145.5403 6.67 6.67 89772 04/09/99 101041 PETER AGH REF.L/SCAPE BOND-555 PALOS SEC 010.0000.2210 1,200.00 1,200.00 89773 04/09/99 003120 AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SUP SAFETY GLASSES 010.4305.5255 22.84 22.84 89774 04/09/99 100897 AMERICAN TEMPS STOUFFER SVCS-3/7 010.4130.5303 439.60 89774 04/09/99 100897 AMERICAN TEMPS HAWORTH SVCS-3/21 284.4103.5303 669.21 89774 04/09/99 100897 AMERICAN TEMPS STOUFFER SVCS-3/21 010.4130.5303 565.20 1,674.01 89775 04/09/99 005070 APPLIED DEVELOP.ECONOMI AG SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE 010.4130.5392 5,144.49 5,144.49 89776 04/09/99 101038 ARROYO GRANDE LIONS REIMB.VOLUNTEER BANQUET SPLYS 010.4424.5252 413.63 413.63 89777 04/09/99 010998 BETTER BEEP PAGER SVCS-APRIL 010.4305.5303 25.00 89777 04/09/99 010998 BETTER BEEP PAGER SVCS-APRIL 010.4305.5303 10.00 89777 04/09/99 010998 BETTER BEEP PAGER SVCS-APRIL 640.4712.5303 20.00 55.00 89778 04/09/99 018096 CA. ST. DEPT. GENERAL SER L/DIST-FEB 010.4145.5403 78.71 78.71 89779 04/09/99 017472 CA. ST. DEPT. CONSERVATION S.M.I.P. 3Q 98/99 010.0000.2208 1,273.95 1,273.95 89780 04/09/99 101043 CAL STATE-LONG BEACH REGIS. INTERNAL AFFAIRS-FERDOLA 010.4201.5501 422.00 422.00 89781 04/09/99 028548 DAYSTAR INDUSTRIES STREET SWEEPING 612.4610.5303 5,050.23 5,050.23 89782 04/09/99 099006 RICHARD DEBLAUW REF.L/SCAPE BOND-139 ANDRE 010.0000.2210 1,200.00 1,200.00 89783 04/09/99 101035 -RICHARD DEMING 20 HRS. CONTINUING ED 010.4420.5501 180.00 180.00 89784 04/09/99 033462 JOHN FERDOLAGE INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVEST 010.4201.5501 60.00 60.00 89785 04/09/99 033702 TERENCE FIBICH REIMB.MEETING SUPPLIES 010.4211. 5501 46.87 46.87 89786 04/09/99 035060 DAVID W. FOOTE SUB.FINAL EIR-JAMES WAY ANNEX 010.0000.2461 7,309.00 7,309.00 89787 04/09/99 100498 KATHLEEN FRYER REIMB.MEETING SUPPLIES-FRYER 010.4130.5201 64.94 64.94 89788 04/09/99 036786 GAR BAR LIMITED DRAINAGE REIMBURSEMENT-3/99 010.0000.2220 10,935.00 10,935.00 89789 04/09/99 036894 GATEWAY 2000 COMPUTER/MONITOR/OFFICE 97 010.4140.6101 1,558.35 89789 04/09/99 036894 GATEWAY 2000 COMPUTER/MONITOR/OFFICE 97 284.4103.6001 1,558.34 3,116.69 89790 04/09/99 036972 GATOR CRUSHING & RECYCL ASPHALT 640.4712.5610 19.74 19.74 89791 04/09/99 100225 GEMMA SYSTEMS HP LASERJET 5 010.4140.6101 1,200.13 89791 04/09/99 100225 GEMMA SYSTEMS HP LASERJET 5 010.4140.6101 1,200.13 2,400.26 89792 04/09/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4130.5201 14.43 89792 04/09/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4301.5255 18.62 89792 04/09/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 220.4303.5201 17.12 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 2 04/08/99 08 :41 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 10 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 89792 04/09/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4130.5201 40.68 89792 04/09/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 612.4610.5201 2.47 89792 04/09/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4130.5201 85.78 89792 04/09/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4201. 5201 76.63 89792 04/09/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4301.5201 4.50 89792 04/09/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 612.4610.5201 5.34 89792 04/09/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4101.5201 17.75 89792 04/09/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4421. 5201 24.67 89792 04/09/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4201.5201 9.61 89792 04/09/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4130.5201 24.08 89792 04/09/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4120.5201 3.07 89792 04/09/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY PAPER 010.4102.5255 77.00 89792 04/09/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4101.5201 1.91 423.66 89793 04/09/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-F.DIV CHIEF 010.4211. 5403 18.03 89793 04/09/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-PD 010.4201.5403 108.80 89793 04/09/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-PD 010.4201. 5403 23.03 89793 04/09/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-PD 010.4201.5403 16.09 89793 04/09/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-PD 010.4201.5403 41.18 89793 04/09/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-PD 010.4201.5403 15.87 89793 04/09/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-PD 010.4201.5403 15.87 89793 04/09/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-PD 010.4201.5403 43.94 282.81 89794 04/09/99 101036 GUIDANCE SOFTWARE,INC ENCASE STANDARD ED. INVEST. SOFT 010.4201.5255 470.06 470.06 89795 04/09/99 101037 JOHN GUTIERREZ REF.B/BALL LGE.REGIS.FEES 010.0000.4606 450.00 450.00 89796 04/09/99 100117 IMAGING PRODUCTS INT I L GAUSS BULK TAPE ERASER 010.4201.5255 507.13 507.13 89797 04/09/99 100204 IMPACT SCIENCES REVISE SCREENCHECK EIR 010.0000.2431 325.00 89797 04/09/99 100204 IMPACT SCIENCES REVISE SCREENCHECK EIR-ARROYO 010.0000.2431 337.50 662.50 89798 04/09/99 100783 KIRBY'S MOTORCYCLES 983 ADJ.VALVES/R&R TIRES 010.4201. 5601 280.30 280.30 89799 04/09/99 101034 ALAN LITTLE REF.L/SCAPE BOND-565 CLINTON C 010.0000.2210 1,200.00 1,200.00 89800 04/09/99 059496 SHARON NACCARATI RELOCATE AS400-1/99 & 3/99 010.4120.5305 243.75 243.75 89801 04/09/99 100402 ODV, INC. 15 CLEAR EVIDENCE JARS 010.4201.5255 19.12 19.12 89802 04/09/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL NETWORK DATALINE 473-0379 010.4140.5303 119.77 89802 04/09/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL L/DIST FAX 473-0386 010.4145.5403 32.41 89802 04/09/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL CENTREX 473-5100 010.4145.5403 615.36 89802 04/09/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL DATA LINE-PD 473-5141 010.4145.5403 314.69 1,082.23 89803 04/09/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 010.4304.5402 858.63 89803 04/09/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 640.4712.5402 216.43 89803 04/09/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 640.4711.5402 1,364.57 89803 04/09/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 612.4610.5402 686.40 89803 04/09/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 010.4145.5401 3,712.99 6,839.02 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 3 04/08/99 08 :41 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 10 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 89804 04/09/99 100920 MATTHEW J PALM REIMB.FIRE TRN.CLASS-PALM 010.4211.5501 11.00 11.00 89805 04/09/99 101040 JAMIE PHILLIPS REF. WATER DEPOSIT-1260 POPLAR 640.0000.2302 180.00 89805 04/09/99 101040 JAMIE PHILLIPS CLOSING BILL-1260 POPLAR 640.0000.4751 72 . 04- 107.96 89806 04/09/99 100961 PLANNING COMMISSION JOU BALANCE-PLANNING COMMISSION 010.4130.5503 48.00 48.00 89807 04/09/99 101042 HAROLD PRINCIE REF.BLDG.PERM-894 TODD 010.0000.4181 45.00 45.00 89808 04/09/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP.INS-4TH QTR 98/99 010.4001.5141 48.08 89808 04/09/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP.INS-4TH QTR 98/99 010.4101.5141 343.42 89808 04/09/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP. INS-4TH QTR 98/99 010.4102.5141 109.90 89808 04/09/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP.INS-4TH QTR 98/99 010.4120.5141 487.64 89808 04/09/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP.INS-4TH QTR 98/99 010.4002.5141 109.90 89808 04/09/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP.INS-4TH QTR 98/99 010.4130.5141 501.40 89808 04/09/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP.INS-4TH QTR 98/99 010.4201. 5141 40,379.62 89808 04/09/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP.INS-4TH QTR 98/99 010.4211.5141 3,708.96 89808 04/09/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP.INS-4TH QTR 98/99 010.4212.5141 789.87 89808 04/09/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP.INS-4TH QTR 98/99 010.4301.5141 1,002.79 89808 04/09/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP. INS-4TH QTR 98/99 010.4213.5141 817.35 89808 04/09/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERs COMP. INS-4TH QTR 98/99 010.4305.5141 1,229.45 89808 04/09/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP.INS-4TH QTR 98/99 010.4420.5141 4,732.36 89808 04/09/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP.INS-4TH QTR 98/99 010.4421.5141 137.37 89808 04/09/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP.INS-4TH QTR 98/99 010.4422.5141 412 . 11 89808 04/09/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP.INS-4TH QTR 98/99 010.4423.5141 240.40 89808 04/09/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP.INS-4TH QTR 98/99 010.4425.5141 1,462.98 89808 04/09/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP.INS-4TH QTR 98/99 010.4430.5141 1,057.74 89808 04/09/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP.INS-4TH QTR 98/99 220.4303.5141 4,849.13 89808 04/09/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP. INS-4TH QTR 98/99 284.4103.5141 171. 71 89808 04/09/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP.INS-4TH QTR 98/99 612.4610.5141 1,559.14 89808 04/09/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP.INS-4TH QTR 98/99 640.4710.5141 1,119.56 89808 04/09/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP.INS-4TH QTR 98/99 640.4711.5141 563.21 89808 04/09/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP.INS-4TH QTR 98/99 640.4712.5141 2,850.41 68,684.50 89809 04/09/99 073866 SLO CNTY AIR POLLUTION PERM#A-1055-P-1 GASOLINE 010.4305.5303 82.80 82.80 89810 04/09/99 101039 SLO CNTY FIRE DEPARTMEN REGOS-BASIC AIR OPERATIONS-ROD 010.4211. 5501 22.00 22.00 89811 04/09/99 101033 ROBERT SOLOMON BILL PAID TWICE-1123 GRIEB 640.0000.4751 76.03 89811 04/09/99 101033 ROBERT SOLOMON CLOSING BILL-1123 GRIEB 640.0000.4751 20.13- 55.90 89812 04/09/99 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT SEWER SVC COLL-2/99 760.0000.2304 52,841.17 89812 04/09/99 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT SEWER HOOKUPS-2/99 760.0000.2305 40,000.00 89812 04/09/99 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 2-1 SAN.DIST-203 N.RENA 010.4145.5401 13.47 89812 04/09/99 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 2-1 SAN.DIST-ASH R/RM 010.4145.5401 13.47 92,868.11 89813 04/09/99 084084 TAYLOR'S TUNE-UP SHOP REPL.PLUG WIRES/TUNE UP 010.4201.5601 253.15 253.15 89814 04/09/99 092586 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COM GRAND/ELM REPR.PED BUTTON 010.4304.5303 241. 50 89814 04/09/99 092586 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COM REPR.LIGHTS-EL CAMPO/VILLAGE 010.4304.5303 514.52 89814 04/09/99 092586 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COM SIGNAL MAINT-JAN 99 010.4304.5303 834.75 1,590.77 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 4 04/08/99 08 :41 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 10 FUND TITLE AMOUNT 010 GENERAL FUND 103,175.76 220 STREETS FUND 4,866.25 284 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND 2,399.26 612 SEWER FUND 7,303.58 640 WATER FUND 6,317.78 760 SANITATION DISTRIBUTION FUND 92,841.17 TOTAL 216,903.80 ---~-- - ----.,--...--....---- Attachment D CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION PAY PERIOD 3/18/99 TO 4/01/99 3/26/99 FUND 010 216,364.20 Salaries Full time 126,544.62 FUND 220 8,651.06 Salaries Part-Time 30,366.55 FUND 284 - Salaries Over-Time 8,331.14 FUND 612 3,585.66 Holiday Pay 4,297.39 FUND 640 9,944.50 Sick Pay 5,074.77 238,545.42 Annual Leave Pay 3,881.03 Vacation Buy Back 198.28 Vacation Pay 3,028.67 Comp Pay 2,125.72 Annual Leave Pay 550.01 PERS Retirement 15,986.52 Social Security 13,183.50 PARS Retirement 236.64 State Disability Ins. 70.07 Health Insurance 19,100.56 Dental Insurance 3,713.37 Vision Insurance 682.61 Life Insurance 498.97 Long Term Disability - Uniform Allowance - Car Allowance 300.00 Council Expense 375.00 Employee Assistance - Total: 238,545.42 ------------ 9.b. MEMORANDUM I j i TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: LYNDA K. SNODGRASS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES~ SUBJECT: CASH FLOW ANAL YSIS/APPROVAL OF INTERFUND ADVANCE FROM THE SEWER FACILITY FUND DATE: APRIL 27, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council: . Accept the March 1999 cash report, . Approve the interfund advance of $659,986 from the Sewer Facility Fund to cover cash deficits in other funds as of March 31, 1999. FUNDING: No outside funding is required. ------ -- ------~----- .... '---"-^-_.^~- ATTACHMENT A I CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CASH BALANCE / INTERFUND ADVANCE REPORT At March 31, 1999 Balance at Recommended Revised I Fund 3/31/98 Advances Balance 1 010 General Fund 1,507,455 1,507,455 213 Park Development 235,179 235,179 217 Landscape Maintenance 18,032 18,032 220 Street (Gas Tax) Fund 118,054 118,054 222 Traffic Signalization 398,633 398,633 223 Traffic Circulation 293,143 293,143 224 Transportation Facility Impact 1,376,281 1,376,281 225 Transportation 62,132 62,132 226 Water Neutralization Impact 2,137 2,137 230 Construction Tax 222,336 222,336 231 Drainage Facility 19,876 19,876 271 State COPS Block Grant Fund 3,186 3,186 274 Federal Universal Hiring Grant (828) 828 0 275 96-97 Fed Local Law Enforcement Grant 0 0 0 276 97-98 Fed Local Law Enforcement Grant 0 0 277 98-99 Fed Local Law Enforcement Grant 10,149 10,149 284 Redevelopment Agency (189,289) 189,289 0 285 Redevelopment Set Aside 1,303 350 Capital Projects (469,869) 469,869 0 466 Canyon Way Bond Fund 11,317 11,317 612 Sewer Fund 13,656 13,656 634 Sewer Facility 1,262,570 (659,986) 602,584 640 Water Fund 2,083,361 2,083,361 641 Lopez 1,566,742 1,566,742 642 Water Facility 1,079,247 1,079,247 751 Downtown Parking 45,320 45,320 760 Sanitation District Fund 128,973 128,973 761 Rubbish Collection Fund 11,962 11,962 Total City Wide Cash 9,811,059 0 9,809,756 THE ABOVE LISTING ARE THE CASH BALANCES SHOWN IN THE GENERAL LEDGER OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AS OF MARCH 31, 1999. ~~ nda K. Snodgra Director of Financial Services _ _________n ..__ 9.c. MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, APRIL 13,1999 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Lady called the meeting to order at 6:30 P. M. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara, Council Members Runels, Tolley, Dickens, City Manager Hunt, and City Attorney Carmel were present. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. 2. CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Lady announced that the Council was going to meet in closed session to discuss the following matters: A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT pursuant to Government Code Section 54957: Title: Director of Administrative Services B. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6: Agency Negotiators: Rick T erBorch and Larry Schmidt Employee Organization: Service Employees' International Union (SEIU) - Local 620 C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) involvinq one (1) potential case. D. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Government Code Section 54956.9(a)) (1 ) Name of Case: Blanck v City of Arroyo Grande. et al.: United States District Court. Central District of California, Case No. 95-5118 DDP (Rzx). (2) Name of Case: Elder v City of Arroyo Grande: Workers Compensation Appeals Board Case No. GRO 0021438. 3. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS: There was no reportable action from the closed session. - _._~_..__.- 4. ADJOURNMENT TO REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING: The meeting was adjourned at 7:28 P.M. to the regular City Council meeting of April 13, 1999. MICHAEL A. LADY, Mayor ATTEST: NANCY A. DAVIS, City Clerk ~ _. __u.__o__ CITY COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1999 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 215 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA I 1. CALL TO ORDER The Honorable City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande met in regular session at 7:30 p.m. 2. FLAG SALUTE Terry Orton of Arroyo Grande Lions Club led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. INVOCATION. The Reverend Richard Sham, retired, delivered the invocation. 4. ROLL CALL X City Manager X City Attorney X Director of Administrative Services X Chief of Police X Director of Building and Fire X Director of Community Development X Director of Public Works X Director of Parks and Recreation - X Director of Financial Service 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS a. Proclamation - Vard IkedaN outh Basketball - accepted by the Ikeda family b. Proclamation - Arbor Day - accepted by Dan Hernandez, Parks and Recreation Director c. Proclamation - Alcohol Awareness Month - accepted by Linda Shephard, Executive Director of the Youth Coalition. 6. AGENDA REVIEW None. 6.A. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES READ IN TITLE ONLY Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara 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. - _._.._~-~--+~_.._- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 13, 1999 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 8. CITIZENS' INPUT, COMMENTS. AND SUGGESTIONS a. Dr. Guenther Mayer-Harnisch read a. statement from a Baha'i Faith publication about the equality of men and women. b..Sharlotte Wilson of 802 Bambi Court asked the Council to consider televising the Council meetings. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara directed the Administrative Services Director to speak to Ms. Wilson about action the City is taking to improve communication with the public. c. C.Z. Brown of 350 Old Ranch Road spoke to the Council regarding the use of park in-lieu fees in the City and the fees collected in relationship to Rancho Grande Park. He said he was concerned that in-lieu fees that were for Rancho Grande Park were spent on the Soto Park Complex. He recommended an objective legal interpretation of the Quimby Act by the City Attorney regarding the use of park fees and: (1) An accounting of how these collected funds have been expended (2) If there an obligation by the City to return unused park fees to the property owners? (3) In the future, if there are park fees collected from a specific project, the property owners or the developer need to be clearly advised just where those funds will be expended. (4) . Royal Oaks and La Barranca property owners should b~ advised as to what happed to the park fees and current scheduling and funding for the Rancho Grande Park. (5) Clarify whether Ottse, Inc. has an option to buy the 10-acre parcel back for $118,000. Mayor Lady directed staff to respond to Mr. Brown's comments. d. Richard Venable, 849 Mesa Drive, asked the City to be more specific and give more detail about what it is doing about the Y2K Problem. He said he. was particularly concerned about Sewer Pump Station No.4, which is located near his home. Council Member Tolley and Mayor Lady said they would like updates on the Y2K Problem and Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara said there is a need to address the embedded chip issue as they relate to Public Works items. 9. CONSENT AGENDA Council Member Runels moved and Council Member Dickens seconded the motion to approve Consent Agenda Items 9.a. through 9.j., with the recommended courses 2 - -'_.~ ~...._.--...- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 13, 1999 of action. City Attorney Carmel read the title of Ordinance No. 502 C. S. in Consent Agenda Item 9,i. 9.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification 9.b. Cash Flow Analysis/Approval of Interfund Advance. From the Sewer Facility Fund. 9.c.Statement of Investment Deposits. 9.d. Minutes of City Council Meetings of March 23 and 26, 1999. 9.e. Donation of Historical Records to South County Historical Society. Resolution No. 3353. 9.f. State/City Cooperative Agreement #05-CA-0099 for Opticom Detection Devices on Each Branch Street (State Route 227)/Mason Street Intersection, Project No. 90- 99-2. Resolution No. 3354. 9.g. Authorization to Close City Streets, Use City Property, and Waive Fees for Police Services for the Arroyo Valley Car Show on Saturday, July 31, 1999. Resolution No. 3355. 9.h. Fall 1998/99 Slurry Seal Project, City Project No. 90-98-4, Progress Payment No. 1. - 9.i. Adoption of an Ordinance of the City of Arroyo Grande Designating the City . Engineer as the Official with the Authority to Approve Final Maps. Ordinance No. 502 C.S. 9.j. Rejection of Claim Against City. _ Voice Vote ...x. Roll Call Vote -AyjL Lady .AyjL Ferrara -AyjL Runels -M1L Tolley -M1L Dickens There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 3 -,-~~---_._-,- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 13, 1999 10.A. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE: REPORT OF LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE AND GENERAL PLAN CORE OUTREACH TEAM Interim Community Development Director Henry Engen said it was the recommendation of the Long Range Planning Comm.ittee and the General Plan Core Outreach Team that the Council provide direction on the next step in the progress of the General Plan Update. Mr. Engen gave a history of the "Citizens' Planning Survey" developed by the Committee and Team. He said more than 1,000 surveys were returned by citizens. He said results of the survey were in the staff report. Mayor Lady invited the public to speak about the direction the City should take on the General Plan Update. The following persons spoke: (1) Mary Von Achen, a resident of Brady Lane off EI Campo Road near Falcon Ridge in the County. Ms. Von Achen said she was accompanied by her brother, Pat Williams. She said their family owns 200 acres of property located East of US 101 directly adjoining and contiguous to the Frederick property that has been considered for annexation by the City. She suggested it would benefit the City to also annex her property. She discussed the importance of constructing an interchange on Highway 101 to provide access to the annexed property. She said her family was in the process of contracting with a local engineering firm to work on the preparation of a Specific Plan. (2) Tim Brown, 125 Allen Street, spoke to the Council about his plan for proceeding with the General Plan Update, as follows: - (a) Assess the survey and workshop results. (b) Based on that assessment, create a single land use plan, using as a starting point Map A. (c) Have the Community Development Director act as a facilitator in leading the Long Range Committee and Core Outreach Team in drafting the plan. The group should report back to the Council in 60 days. (d) Assuming the plan is approved by the City Council, give it to the General Plan Update consultants for a final draft of the General Plan. (e) If the Long Range Committee and Core Outreach Team cannot draft a plan, let the consultants prepare a land use plan acceptable to Council. (3) Nan Fowler, 630 Cerro Vista Circle, Chair of the board of the Chamber of Commerce and a Grand Avenue business owner, said the Chamber suggested that while the Council is discussing the ongoing Update of the General Plan it look at the area of the Fiscal Economic Analysis. She said $50,000 already has been allocated to develop a Fiscal Economic Analysis for the City. She said there would be merit in expanding that scope of study to include the development of an economic strategy. She said with all the background available from numerous prior studies, it would be cost effective to have the consultants compile the existing data 4 - ~-_.._-~--~" CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 13, 1999 into not only a fiscal analysis but also to develop an economic strategy. She said there has been thousands of dollars spent on these studies and it would be a waste not to use them. She said it would be an efficient way to get added value for the dollars we are spending for this Gener~1 Plan Update. She gave the Council a memorandum from the Chamber on this subject. (4) Kevin Ferguson, 605 Village Court, said he was concerned with some of the zoning proposed for the Arroyo Linda project. Council Member Tolley questioned Mr. Brown about his suggestions and whether a staff member or the consultant should facilitate the Long Range Committee/Core Outreach Team discussions. Mr. Brown said his main concern was to save the City time and money. (5) Kirk Scott of Arroyo Grande said he also was concerned about how much money was being spent. (6) Mike Titus, 404 Lierly, said there is plenty of data to update the land use element and he was reluctant to spend more funds on the consultants. (7) Colleen Martin, 855 Olive Street, and Dr. Ed Gordon, 272 Tempus, said they agreed with Mr. Titus. (8) Otis Page, 606 Myrtle, said consultants were not needed and that if the CommitteelTeam group "gets it wrong," it will hear about it. - (9) Howard Mankins, 200 Hillcrest Drive, said the real issues will come out when the hearing process beings. He said the remainder of the money should be used in getting to the hearing stage. He said the Council should carefully consider Ms. VonAchen's remarks. (10) Mr. Titus asked if the consultants had been moving "ahead on the other elements. Mayor Lady closed the discussion to the public and the Council began consideration of the General Plan Update process. In response to questions from Council Members Tolley and Runels, the City Manager described the economic development portion of the consultants' proposed work program. He said if the City directed the consultants to develop a specific economic development strategy, it would require a modification to the Envicom contract. Council Member Dickens said the Long Range Planning Committee and the Core Outreach Team need to decide what the Land Use Element will contain. He posted a map of the City on the wall with blue areas representing indecisive issues. He 5 -.--.--.-- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 13, 1999 said he had seen a General Plan prepared by Envicom for the City of American Canyon and it was well-written and professional. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara, Mayor Lady, and Council Member Dickens said they believed the Committee, Team, and staff could do the work on the Land Use Plan. Council Member Dickens said other members of the public should be welcomed at the CommitteelTeam meetings. He said objectives should be identified-first. Council Member Tolley said he favored having the consultant facilitate the discussions. .AII Council Members said it was necessary to stick to a time frame and move forward in a timely manner. Council Member Runels said the economic issue should not delay the update. In response to a Council question, Interim Director Engen said he would not have time to act as facilitator. City Manager Hunt said the process would not mOve expeditiously if staff were to draft the elements. After considerable discussion, Council Member Tolley moved and Council Member Runels seconded the motion to send the matter back to the Long Range Planning Committee/Core Outreach Team to meet within the next three weeks to discuss the role of the consultant, ask the consultant for a revised scope of work, and report back to the Council on the status of the CommitteelTeam's effort within approximately 60 days. - Voice Vote --X- Roll Call Vote - ~ Lady ~ Ferrara ~ Runels ~ Tolley ~ Dickens There being 4 A YES and 1 No, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 11.A. AUTHORIZATION TO FORM AN ECONOMIC TASK FORCE TO DEVELOP AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN City Manager Hunt said staff recommended the City Council authorize the formation of an Economic Task Force and select a Council Member to serve thereon. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara gave background on what has been done in the City concerning Economic Development. He said considerable work has already been done and there is a foundation for establishing a formal Economic Element of the General Plan. He said a task force should be developed to work on the Element. He said David Spaur, president of the Economic Vitality Corporation, was present to speak about some core values that need to be understood. 6 ------------- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 13, 1999 Also speaking to the Council were Heather Jensen, Chamber Executive Director, who $aid there is merit in having an Economic Development Task Force, that the Task Force would ,benefit from guidance of a professional economic development director, and that before the Task Force is established there should be specific policies for the composition of its membership. She said the Chamber recommended the following: (a) One City Council representative and one Planning Commissioner (b) Two representatives from the Chapter Board plus the Chamber CEO (c) The City manager, Financial Services Director, and Community Development Director (d) A School Board Member and the Superintendent of Schools (e) An Agribusiness representative (f) A Utflities representative (g) A Health Care representative (h) A Financial representative (i) Two representatives at large Upon question by Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara, City Manager Hunt said initial steps were taken to recruit an Economic Development Director for the City but the response to the recruitment effort was unsatisfactory. Ms. Jensen said much work has already been done and the Business Plan and the Marketing Plan could be put into a Strategic Plan. 0 There was discussion of the formation of an Economic Task Force and the work of the Long Range Planning Committee/Core Outreach Team starting at the same point in time. Mr. Spaur said the timing was good, that the Economic Development Plan recommended by the Chamber should be expedited, and the General Plan Update consultant should be asked to work it into the Update. Council Member Runels said he hoped the Council would be committed to fast tracking new businesses in the City. Mr. Brown said the information gathered in past years should reflect the thinking of the current community at large. Ms. Jensen said 80 percent of economic development is keeping the current business community working. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara said the economic plan could contain headings on redevelopment, supporting the existing business community, and things that are important to Arroyo Grande. He said goals could then be established, and an implementation strategy drafted. Mike Frederick, president of Arroyo Linda Corporation, said he hoped the economic development proposals would not hinder the progress of his development. Council 7 --- _....__.~,---_.- I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 13, 1999 Member Runels said the Frederick development was exempted from the General Plan Update. Other Council Members agreed that the development should not be delayed by the economic plan. City Attorney Carmel said it was up to the Council as to how much it wanted to involve the Frederick annexation in the development of an economic plan process, but it would be naive to say there is no relation between the two. He said the Fredericks are free to move ahead with their application for a General Plan Amendment but he did not see how Council could separate a proposed annexation of that level from Council's economic policies and the proposed Economic Task Force. It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara and seconded by Mayor Lady that Council recommend the formation of an Economic Task Force, that the City begin with the recruitment of positions as described in the April 13, 1999 Arroyo Grande Valley Chamber of Commerce memorandum distributed to Council, that staff be directed to explore the feasibility and the budget to bring on board an Economic Development Director, and that there be a connection as soon as possible between the formation of the Task Force and the General Plan Update process. - Voice Vote L Roll Call Vote AyjL Lady AyjL Ferrara AyjL Runels .An.. Tolley .An.. Dickens There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 11.B. ADOPTION OF UNIFORM PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION COST ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES ACT Public Works Director Spagnolo said staff recommended the Council: (1) Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City to utilize the California Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting procedures; (2) Introduce for first reading the Ordinance to provide for bidding procedures pursuant to the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act; and (3) Direct the Department of Administrative Services to notify the Office of State Controller, in writing, of the City's decision to become subject to the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act and forward a copy of the adopted resolution. Mr. Spagnolo said the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act allows a City to increase the amount of construction that can be accomplished using City 8 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 13, 1999 work forces, and also raises the monetary ceiling for projects that must be formally bid. After Council questions of staff, it was moved by Council Member Runels and seconded by Council Member Dickens to approve Resolution No. 3356 Electing to Become Subject to Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Procedures. Voice Vote X Roll Call Vote Aye Lady Aye Ferrara Aye Ru~els Aye Tolley Aye Dickens There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. Council Member Tolley moved and Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara seconded a motion to introduce for first reading an Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Section 2-4.02(c) of Chapter 4 of Title 2 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code. Voice Vote X Roll Call Vote - X Lady X Ferrara X Runels X Tolley X Dickens There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. John Keen of the Planning Commission urged the Council to give preference to local contractors when the City is not g~ing to do its own work. Council Members said that preference was in place already. 11.C. AUTHORIZATION TO ADD AN ASSOCIATE PLANNER POSITION TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Manager Hunt said staff recommended the City Council authorize the addition of an Associate Planner position to the Community Development Department. He said the position is needed because one of the Associate Planners is on medical leave. 9 I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 13, 1999 Council Member Runels moved and Council Member Tolley seconded the motion to authorize the addition of an Associate Planner position to the Community Development Department. Voice Vote X Roll Call Vote X Lady X Ferrara X Runels X Tolley X Dickens There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 12.A. CORRESPONDENCE FROM OCEANO COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT REGARDING AN EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE TO EVALUATE THE FORMATION OF A JPA OR SPECIAL DISTRICT TO OPERATE LOPEZ DAM (1) Council Member Runels introduced Noel King, Deputy San Luis Obispo County Engineer-Administration, who referred to a letter to the County from Rick Searcy, President of the Oceano Community Services District, proposing the formation of a JPA or Special District to operate Lopez Dam and its associated recreational facilities. Mr. King listed concerns about considering the formation of a JPA or Special District and refuted the points made by Mr. Searcy. Council Members discussed the proposal with Council Member Runels, who is the City representative on the Zone 3 Board. Council Member Runels recommended not going forward on the issue at this time because of the dam retrofit that is underWay, the Arroyo Grande Creek water rights discussion, and the problem with flow in the main water line. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara said there were too many problems involved with forming a JPA to operate the dam. Council Member Tolley made a motion and Council Member Dickens seconded the motion to file the request from Mr. Searcy and take no further action. X Voice Vote Roll Call Vote X Lady X Ferrara X Runels X Tolley 10 - ._--~----~--,. ------------," ! CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 13, 1999 X Dickens There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. (2) Council Member Tolley requested the City clean up mud on the sidewalks on Fair Oaks Avenue near the agricultural land. (3) Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara asked when the draft ordinance brought to the Council by Chris Ivey was going to be on the Council agenda. Mr. Hunt said the issue was going to be considered by the Planning Commission at its meeting of May 4th. (4) Council Member Runels asked that the issue of the canopy over the barbecue pit at the Community CenterIWoman's Club be revisited. (5) Council Member Runels asked for consideration of holding the City Council meetings at an earlier time. The City Manager said he would put the matter on the next City Council meeting agenda. (6) Council Member Runels said he and the City Attorney attended a meeting in Nipomo on ground water. He said there was consensus that the five entities should form an united legal front. He said the five entities are Arroyo Grande, Oceano, Grover Beach, Pismo Beach, and the farm community. He suggested the three South County City Managers discuss the matter. 14. ADJOURNMENT Council Member Runels moved and Council Member Tolley seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting. Time: 10:50 p.m. MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ArreST: NANCY A. DAVIS, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR 11 -----"._--~ --_.._--~ ---------.,---- 9.c1 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: KELL Y WETMORE,'~ DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SUBJECT: REJECTION OF CLAIM AGAINST CITY DATE: APRIL 27, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council reject the attached Claim for Damages against the City filed by Roberta Palius, c/o Daniel J. O'Neil, Attorney at Law, 1076 Pacific Street, San Luis Obispo. FUNDING: None. DISCUSSION: The City's insurance adjusters have reviewed the claim of Ms. Palius and recommended it be rejected. ~ ~Uy 0/ P.O. Box 550 ~ &~ 114 EMf Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA '3411 Phone: (105) 473-5414 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES FAX: (105) 473-OW . E-Man: ..dty@uroyop'ande.orl April 28, 1999 Roberta Palius c/o Daniel J. O'Neil 1076 Pacific Street San Luis Obispo CA 93401 REJECTION OF CLAIM PRESENTED WITHIN SIX MONTHS Dear Ms. Palius: Notice is hereby given that the claim you presented to the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande on March 9,1999 was rejected on April 27, 1999. WARNING Subject to certain exceptions, you haye only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally delivered or deposited in the United States mail to file a Court Action in a Municipal or a Superior Court of the State of California on this claim (See Government Code Section 945.6). You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you desire to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES c: City Manager City Attorney Public Works Director Carl Warren & Co. ., . , , ,. . RECEIVED 1 Daniel J. O'Neill, SBN #94222 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL J. O'NEILL 99 MAR -9 .PH 4: 40 2 1076 Pacific Street San Luis Obispo CA 93401 c: Ci~ ~"'r1~ 3 TEL: (805) 542-0639 FAX: (805) 542-0841 CA;\ Wo..t"~ -Cr> . 4 5 Attorney for Claimant, Roberta Palius K~'~WD!rf 6 :3 4 '14 7 8 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES ROBERTA PALIUS 9 [Government Code ~91O] Claimant, 10 v. 11 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE 12 and DOES 1-50, Inclusive 13 Respondent. 14 15 16 17 TO: CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE: 18 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the above-named Claimant hereby makes a claim against the City 19 of Arroyo Grande in the sum of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) and in support of said claim 20 represents as follows: 21 1. When did the damage or injury occur? 22 September 11, 1998 23 2. Where did the damage or injury occur? 24 Near the 1002 block of Branch St., Arroyo Grande, California 25 3. How did the damage or injury occur? 26 Claimant was struck by a motor vehicle while in a crosswalk on Branch St. 27 28 1 Palius v. City of Arroyo Grande Claim For Damages ( ~- -# . 1 4. What particular act or omission on the part of the City of Arroyo Grande officers, 2 servants or employees caused the injury or damage? 3 The pedestrian cross walk was dangerous by design and construction. 4 5 5. What are the names of the City of Arroyo Grande officers, servants or employees 6 causing the damage or injury? 7 Unknown 8 6. What damage or injuries do you claim resulted from this accident? 9 Cervical disc injuries, right shoulder rotator cuffinjury, bilateral TMJ injuries, Traumatic 10 Brain Injury, injury to vision. 11 12 7. Medical specials, wage loss, pain and suffering: 13 Medical specials $ 12,000.00 (Approximately) 14 Pain and suffering 975,000.00 15 Wage loss 13,000.00 (Approximately) 16 8. The names of witnesses, doctors and hospitals involved are as follows: 17 Dr. Peter Russell, Ph.D. Dr. Citek, M.D. 18 Mary Kleeman - Speech Therapy Lisa Powell - Occupational Therapy 19 Five Cities Ambulance Arroyo Grande Fire Department - Paramedics 20 Arroyo Grande Community Hospital Pacific Coast Physicians 21 Dr. Lanier, M.D. Dr. Watson, D.C. 22 Dr. Soleimany, M.D. Dr. Gealy, M.D. 23 Sport & Spine Physical Therapy Jerry Whitaker - Physical Therapy 24 Dr. Charney Dr. Kilion 25 Madison Ave. Imaging Dr. Elias 26 T A T2 - Physical Therapy 27 28 2 Palius v. City of Arroyo Grande Claim For Damages ( - . ., . , 1 9. Claimant's name and address: 2 Ro Palius 1561 Mill St., #B 3 San Luis Obispo CA 93401 4 10. Notice should be sent to: 5 Daniel J. O'Neill Law Office of Daniel J. O'Neill 6 1076 Pacific St. San Luis Obispo CA 93401 7 8 11. The computation of damages is as follows: 9 (a) Medical expenses incurred to date: Approximately $12,000.00 and continuing 10 (b) Estimated future medical expenses: Unknown at this time 11 (c) Lost wages: Approximately $13,000.00 12 (d) General damages: $975,000.00 13 (f) Total Damages: $1,000,000.00 14 Dated: March 9, 1999 Law Office of Daniel J. O'Neill 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Palius v. City of Arroyo Grande Claim For Damages ( . . , . I PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 I am employed in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the instant action; my business address is 1076 Pacific Street, San Luis Obispo, 4 California. 5 On, March q , 1999,1 served the foregoing document described as Claim For Damages [Government Code ~910] by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as 6 follows: 7 City Clerk 8 City of Arroyo Grande 214 E. Branch St. 9 Arroyo Grande CA 93420 10 - (BY MAIL) I caused such envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid to be 11 placed in the United States mail at San Luis Obispo, California. I am "readily familiar" with the finn's practice of collection and processing 12 correspondence and mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid 13 at San Luis Obispo, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal 14 cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 15 16 ..x.. (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the offices of the addressee. 17 18 ..X- (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the above is true and correct. 19 20 21 Executed on Marchl, 1999, at San Luis Obispo, California. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 Pal ius v. City of Arroyo Grande Claim For Damages , ~"-~~ - .... " MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEE~ SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF UNIFORM PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION COST ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES ACT ORDINANCE DATE: APRIL 27, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council adopt Ordinance No. 503 C.S., repealing and replacing Section 2-4.02(c) of Chapter 4 of Title 2 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code. FUNDING: Utilizing alternatiye bidding procedures will result in lower costs to the City by allowing City personnel to undertake more public works projects currently subject to costly formal bidding procedures. . DISCUSSION: The City Council, at its meeting of April 13, 1999, introduced without modification Ordinance No. 503 C.S. for first reading. It is recommended the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 503 C.S. Attachment: Ordinance 503 C.S. ORDINANCE NO. 503 C.S. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE REPEALING AND REPLACING SECTION 2-4.02(c) OF CHAPTER 4 OF TITLE 2 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, the. City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has adopted Resolution 3356 electing to utilize the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act (the II Act") procedures as set forth in Chapter 2, Part 3, Division 2 of the Public Contract Code (more specifically the alternatiye procedures provided in Article 3 of the Act) NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Section 2-4.02( c) of Chapter 4 of Title 2 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code shall be repealed in its entirety and revised to read as follows: 2-4.02 (c) - Expenditures inyolvina public proiects. Notwithstanding the proYisions of Article 4 (commencing with Section 20160) of Chapter 1, part 3 of the California Public Contract Code, the requirements for the award of contracts for public projects of the City shall be governed by the alternative procedures contained in Article 3 (commencing with Section 22030) of the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act (hereinafter "Act"), except as otherwise proYided for in this Chapter. (1) Public proiects of $25,000 or less. Public projects, as defined by the Act, of twenty-fiye thousand dollars ($25,000) or less, appropriations for which haye beenapproyed. by the City Council, may be performed by the employees of the City by force account, or by negotiated contract or purchase order approyed by the City Manager. (2) Public proiects of $75,000 or less (informal biddina procedures). Public projects, as defined by the Act, of seyenty-fiye thousand dollars ($75,000) or less may be let to contract by informal procedures as set forth in Section 22032, et seq., of the Public Contract Code. (a) A list of contractors shall be deyeloped and maintained by the Director of Public Works in accordance with the proYisions of Section 22034 of the Act. -_..._.__.__.._----~--_.~._.,_..- ORDINANCE NO. 503 C.S. PAGE 2 (b) Where a public project is to be performed which is subject to the provisions of this Chapter, a notice inviting informal bids shall be mailed to all contractors for the category of work to be bid, as shown on the list developed in accordance with Section 22034 of the Act, and to all construction trade journals as specified by the California Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Commission pursuant to Section 22036 of the Act. Additional contractors and/or construction trade journals may be notified at the discretion of the departmenUagency soliciting bids; proyided howeyer: 1) if there is no list of qualified contractors maintained by the City for the particular category of work to be performed, the notice inYiting bids shall be sent only to the construction trade journals specified by the' Commission, or 2) if the product or service is proprietary in nature such that it can be obtained only from a certain contractor or contractors, the notice inviting informal bids may be sent exclusiyely to such contractor or contractors. All mailing of notices to contractors and construction trade journals shall be completed not less than ten (10) calendar days before bids are due. (c) The notice inYiting informal bids shall describe the project in general terms, how to obtain more detailed information about the project, and state the time and place for the submission of bids. (d) The City Manager is authorized to award informal contracts pursuant to this section. (e) If all bids receiyed are in excess of seyenty-five thousand dollars ($75,000), the goyerning body of the public agency may by passage of a resolution by a four-fifths yote, award the contract, at eighty thousand dollars ($80,000), or less, to the lowest responsible bidder, if it determines the cost estimate of the public agency was reasonable. (3) Public proiects of more than $75.000 (formal biddina Drocedures). For all public projects of more than $75,000, a contract shall be awarded . pursuant to a formal bidding procedure as set forth in the Act, and subject to the exemptions provided for therein. SECTION 2: That all ordinances, codes, sections of ordinances and codes, and resolutions that are inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. -- ------.------..- ..- ------ ORDINANCE NO. 503 C.S. PAGE 3 SECTION 3: If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, cl~use or phrase of this Ordinance or any part thereof is fqr any reason held to be 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, subdiYision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespectiYe of the fact that anyone or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrases be declared unconstitutional. SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and operation from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption. SECTION 5: 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 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 City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member and on the following roll call Yote. to-wit: - AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this day of ,1999. -,._~_..._------,----_.,~~--- --'-'-~"- ORDINANCE NO. 503 C.S. PAGE 4 MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: -~kn- L. ~\ ~ ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER - APPROVED AS TO FORM:" TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY ---~.-----_.." .._- "- 9.1. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: TERRY FIBICH, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND FIR~ SUBJECT: SALE OF SAFE AND SANE FIREWORKS FOR THE MILLENIUM CELEBRATION DATE: APRIL 27,1999 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Council adopt a resolution authorizing the sale and use of safe and sane fireworks for the limited Millenium celebration period connected with New Year's Eve 1999. FUNDING: Funds for the administration and monitoring of this program will be derived from fees established by City Council Resolution 3220 (Attachment #1), resulting in a revenue/expenditure neutral situation. Resolution 3220 establishes the permit fee of $590 and conditions related to recovering the costs associated with the sale of fireworks. DISCUSSION: On January 1, 1999, Assembly Bill 2090 became effective. The Bill authorizes local governments the option of allowing the sale and use of safe and sane fireworks from December 26, 1999 to January 1, 2000. Currently, State law and Municipal ordinance allow sales only during seven days preceding the Fourth of July. AB 2090 authorizes the City Council to adopt a resolution to permit eligible non-profit organizations to sell fireworks and allow citizens of the City to use them for the one-day period of New Year's Eve 1999. This legislation is effective for this 6-day period only, and it then expires automatically. The sale of safe and sane fireworks is regulated by Ordinance 492 C.S. This ordinance establishes a lottery system for the selection of successful sales permittees, as well as determining by a population-based formula, the number of sales permits to be issued. One (1) permit is authorized per each 3000 residents of the City or fraction thereof. Based on the latest population figures, the calculation is as follows: 15,700+3000=5.23 or 6 permits. CITY COUNCIL SALE OF SAFE AND SANE FIREWORKS FOR THE MILLENIUM CELEBRATION APRIL 27,1999 PAGE 2 If the number of applications exceeds the number of permits to be issued, permits (not exceeding 6 in number) are granted by a lottery drawing. Upon approval of the attached resolution, the same system of selection and determination will be utilized. The process is initiated by the completion of an application package by the prospective permittee. The application package allows the permittee to show non-profit status, membership, proposed sales location, proposed disposition of proceeds, and storage arrangements for fireworks. The process for the Millenium celebration fireworks sale will begin in September. At the State level, the California State Fire Marshal has taken a neutral position on this matter. Concern over the sales of fireworks has been the result of two matters; personal safety and the threat to structures and wildland. Because of the generally wet and cool environmental conditions during December and January, the threat of outdoor fire is minimal. The remaining threat, that to personal safety, has been minimized in Arroyo Grande by an active, educational, field visitation approach by Department of Building and Fire personnel the day before, and during the one-day period of authorized use. Alternatives The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: -Approve staffs recommendation; -Do not approve staffs recommendation; -Modify as appropriate and approve staffs recommendation; -Provide direction to staff. Attachment 1. Resolution 3220 with Exhibits A and B RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AUTHORIZING THE SALE AND USE OF SAFE AND SANE FIREWORKS FOR NEW YEAR'S EVE 1999 WHEREAS, the State of California has authorized a millennial celebration for the year 2000; and WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 2090 (Chapter 363 of the Statutes of 1998) authorizes the sale of certified safe and sane fireworks from 9:00 a.m. on December 26, 1999 through midnight of January 1, 2000, if authorized by a city, county, or city and county ordinance, or resolution; and WHEREAS, fireworks shall only be distributed at. City approved, pre';designated locations, under the direction of licensed wholesale fireworks distributors, from 9:00 a.m. December 26, 1999 through 9 p.m. December 31, 1999. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby find and declare that, based on all of the foregoing, it is in the best interest of the City of Arroyo Grande to authorize the sale of safe and sane fireworks for the period from ~:OO a.m. December 26,1999 through 9:00 p.m. December 31,1999. Additionally, safe and sane fireworks may be used within the City on December 31, 1999. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this _ day of , 1999. -- -_.._._.._-~-_...__._-_..- -."--_.-- RESOLUTION NO. - PAGE 2 MICHAELA. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: loheli L. ~~- ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY ATl'AaiMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 3220 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ESTABUSHING FEES AND CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANTING OF PERMITS FOR THE SAlE OF SAFE AND SANE AREWORKS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande ('"City") has enacted Ordinance No. 472 C.S. establishing rules and regulations concerning the sale and use of safe and sane fireworks (hereinafter "fire'NOrks"); and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 472 C.S. proYides that the City Council shall, by resolution, establish appropriate fees and conditions for the granting of permits for the sale of fireworks within the City; and -. WHEREAS, the City Council has made certain findings regarding the costs associated with the sale and use of fireworks. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande as follows: 1. RNDINGS: The purpose of the fireworks permit fee is to protect the public health, safety and wetfare by mitigating the impact that the issuance of permits for the sale of fireworks will have on public services within the City, and to pay for the additional cost of such services. 2. COST ESTtMA TES: The Estimated cost of services and facilities to be funded with the fees established by this Resolution are set forth. in Exhibit KA:. attached hereto and incorporated herein. 3. AMOUNT OF FEE AND TIME OF PAYMENT: The amount of the fee for the issuance of permits for the sale of fireworks shall be set forth in Exhibit I&S" attached hereto and incorporated herein. Said fee shall be paid by the applicant for a permit prior to the issuance of a pennil 4. INSURANCE: As a condition to the issuance of a permit, the applicant shall furnish to the Director of the Department of Building and Fire a policy of public liability and property damage insurance with a deductible acceptable to the Director of the Department of Building and Fire with limits in the amount of $1,000,000 for each occurrence. Said insurance policy shall incfude product and complete aggregate liability of $1,000,000 per each oCCJrTenca.The City and its officers, directors, and employees shall be named as additional insureds under - - --~._..__.._.._--~---~.._...~,._.- Resolution No. 3220 Page 2 such public liability policy. Such insurance policy shall include a provision that the insurer will not cancel the coverage without thirty (30) days prior written notice to the Director of the Department of Building and Fire. 5. APPUCATION FEE: Each application shall be accompanied by a $75 application fee. If a permit is issued, the $75 will be credited towards the permit fee. Should a permit not be issued, the $75 shall be refunded. On motion of Council Member Lady . seconded by Council Member __Fuller and on the following roll call yote, to wit AYES: Council Members Lady, Fuller, Tolley, Runels, and Mayor Dougal NOES:None ABSENT: . None the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 22nd the day of April ,1997. ~ A K "PETE" DOUGALL, ATTEST: 11 MJotjt a. . ~ NANCY A VIS, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: .- __..._______.___~_.__._ __.__n_____ ___ Resolution No. 3220 Page 3 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: KvkvL /fU.lll .... ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER I, NANCY DAV1S, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify that the following Resolution No. is a true, full and correct copy of said Resolution passed and adopted at a regular meeting of said Council on the22rDjay ofIp:il1997. WITNESS my hand and the seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this25th(jay April ,1997. L(7 ~ 0.. ~4' NANCY A 0 IS, CITY CLERK - EXHIBIT A TO: ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER FROM: TERRY FIBICH, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND FIRE SUBJECT: BREAKDOWN OF COSTS RELATED TO 4th OF JULY DATE: APRIL 22, 1997 Police Department . No additional costs to the City. Fire and Emergency Services Division . Fire Dept. patrol staffing hours: 6:00 p.m. -10:00 p.m. on July 3,1997 9:00 p.m. July 4,1997 - 12:30 a.m. July 5, 1997 One Engine 10 hrs. @ $50.00 per hr. = $ 500.00 One Staff Vehicle 10 hrs. @ $20.00 per hr. = 200.00 Chief Officer 20 hrs. @ $55.00 per hr. = 1,100.00 Administrative 10 hrs. @ $16.00 per hr. = 160.00 20lC/Captains 10 hrs. @ $10.77 per hr. = 107.70 2 Eng.lOperators 10 hrs. @ $ 9.69 per hr. = 96.90 2 Firefighters 10 hrs. @ $ 8.61 per hr. = 86.10 Subtotal $ 2,250.70 Director of Building and Fire . Field inspection and program Oversight: 20 hrs at $44.60 per hr = J 892.00 Subtotal $ 3,142.70 City Cost Allocation: 12.57% $ 395.04 TOTAL COSTS $ 3,$37.74 * All hourly rates include social security and other related b~nefits. ----- EXHIBIT B SALE OF SAFE AND SANE FIREWORKS , . Maximum number of permits - Sec.7804.3(4): 1 permit per each 3,000 residents of the City or'fraction thereof, based on official City census: 15,495 - current population estimate + 3,000 = 5.165 or 6 permits . $3,537.74 Total Cost (Exhibit A) + 6 permits = $589.62 . Cost for a sale of fireworks permits = $590 ---.------ ---.--..- RULES AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE LICENSING AND OPERATION OF FIREWORKS STANDS IN THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE 1. A permit is required ftom the State Fire Marshal's Office before a City Permit may be issued. 2. Applications for the City fireworks permit consideration must be accompanied by a $75 filing fee and applications may not submitted prior to 8:00 a.m. April 1st no later than May 15th of the year for which the permit is requested. Exception: 1996 April 10th - May 22nd. 3. A permit is required ftom the Arroyo Grande Department of Building and Fire for storage and handling of fireworks. 4. Such permit shall be issued only to local charitable or nonprofit civic or patriotic groups or organizations that are incorporated pursuant to State law or are chartered by a State or national organization. "Local" shall mean having principal offices in or having conducted meetings regularly in this City for not less than three years immediately preceding the granting of said permit and having a bona fide membership of not less than 15 members. A complete roster of the organization including names and addresses. of all members, must be submitted to the Director of Building and Fire at the time of filing the application for consideration, or the application will not be accepted. 5. No organization may receive more than one permit for fireworks sales during anyone calendar year. One permit may be issued to two or more qualifying applicants as a joint venture. The maximum number of permits which may be issued' shall be 5 during calendar year 1996. If the number of applications exceeds the number ofpenriits to be issued, permits shall be granted by a drawing supervised by the Director of Building and Fire and the City Clerk. 6. Retail sales of fireworks shall be made only ftom temporary fireworks stands. Sale of fireworks ftom any other building or structures is prohibited. Temporary stands will be subject to the following provisions: a. No fireworks stands shall be located within 50 feet of any other building, within 100 feet of a gasoline or other type of flammable fuel pump or storage area, within 500 feet of another fireworks stand or less than 1/8 of a mile ftom the City's boundary with another jurisdiction. b. All fueworks stands shall be erected or constructed on commercial or industrial zoned property. No fireworks stands will be constructed or erected on residential property. Rules & Regulations 1 --.- c. Fireworks stands need not comply with the Building Code of the City. Stands requiring electrical service shall be required to obtain an electrical permit from the Building and Life Safety Division. Portable generators shall not be permitted. Stands shall be constructed or erected in a manner that will reasonably insure the safety of attendants and patrons. The stands shall be subject to inspection by representatives of the Department of Building and Fire at any time. d. Each stand shall have a minimum of two marked exits or as otherwise directed by the Director of Building and Fire. e. Each stand shall have a minimum of 2 fire extinguishers of a type designated by the Director of Building and Fire. 7. No permit shall be issued unless the applicant represents that applicant (through its members) will operate such stand and will not use or hire independent contractors or non-members in connection herewith. On any violation of such representation, the Director of Building and Fire may revoke such permit or may refuse. such permit in subsequent years. The spouses, parents and children (see next paragraph for age requirements) may help staff the fireworks stand of each organization as long as one member of the family is a bona fide member of the club. Injoint operations by two or more organizations, each organization must operate a pro rata share. 8. No person under the age of 18 years shall be allowed to work a stand as interpretation of the statutes by the California State Attorney General's Office. 9. The use of sound amplification equipment shall not be permitted. All advertising is subject to the regulation of the Community Development Department. 10. All fireworks must be of a type approved as "safe and sane" fireworks by the California State Fire Marshal's Office with the marking of the State Fire Marshal's seal, otherwise vendor shall be subject to prosecution and all illegal fireworks shall be confiscated (Health and Safety Code Sections 12505, 12700, 121702, 121721 and 121722) 11. It is unlawful for any person who is a retailer to sell or transfer any "safe and sane" fireworks to a person who is under 18 years of age. 12. Any person violating any of the provisions of the State Fireworks law is guilty of a misdemeanor and may be punished by a fine of $500 to $1,000 or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period of time not exceeding one year or both by such fine and imprisonment. Rules & Regulations 2 "'-.-.".-- 13. A person is guilty of a separate offense for each day of violation. (Health and Safety Code Section 12701) 14. A permit is subject to immediate revocation for noncompliance with any of the provisions of the Health and Safety Code, Div. XI, Part 2, State of California and/or Article 78 of the Uniform Fire code as amended by the City of Arroyo Grande. 15. OTHER REQUIREMENTS: (a) An application shall be accompanied by a filing fee of $75 payable to the City of Arroyo Grande. (b) Each stand shall provide temporary sanitary facilities or obtain permission to use either private or public facilities during the hours of operation. Proof of sanitation facilities shall be documented in written form. (c) All weeds, trash, and debris shall be cleared for a distance of at least twenty-five (25) feet surrounding the fireworks stand. (d) Doors of the stand shall not be locked on the outside of the door while anyone is inside the stand. The door may be latched in such a manner that will not cause any undue delay to anyone exiting in an emergency. (e) An aisle or passageway in the fireworks stand will be kept clear and unobstructed so as not to impede anyone leaving the stand in an emergency. (t) The use of electrical or fuel operated heaters in the fireworks stand is prohibited. (g) The temporary fireworks stand will be dismantled and removed from its location not later than the Sunday of the weekend following the 5th of July of each year. It shall be the responsibility of the permitee to remove the stand. If the removal of the stand is not accomplished by this deadline, the City of Arroyo Grande may remove and store it at permitees' cost and expense until it is redeemed by the payment of appropriate fees and interest thereon. In addition, the permitee failing to meet this deadline will be ineligible for a permit the following year. (h) Each stand shall have adequate temporary parking acceptable to the Director of the Department of Building and Fire. Rules & Regulations 3 --..-...- 16. DATES OF SALE: No fireworks shall be sold or offered for sale within the City except during the period trom 9:00 a.m. July 1st through 9:00 p.m. July 4th. Sales during this period shall be limited to 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. each day. 17. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: (a) Excepting sales window, each stand must be covered with 1/4" mesh wire. (b) "No Smoking" signs must be displayed. (c) A shelf must be installed (at counter window) extending inward a minimum of6 inches to protect stack trom sources of ignition and to prevent public trom touching same. (d) Trash and debris shall not be allowed to accumulate in and around stands. (e) All unsold stock shall be returned to the wholesaler or manufacturer no later than 9:00 a.m. July 5th. (t) The Director of Building and Fire, or his designated assistant, may impose additional regulations for the prevention of fire when necessary. (g) No low voltage battery systems will be allowed. Rules & Regulations 4 9.g. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER ~ SUBJECT: DECLARATION OF SURPLUS PROPERTY DATE: APRIL 27,1999 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached Resolution declaring the used office furnishings, office equipment, and miscellaneous items listed in Attachment "A" as surplus and authorize its sale. FISCAL IMPACT: Upon sale of surplus items, the City could realize revenue of up to $1,500. DISCUSSION: The attached list represents office furnishings, office equipment, and miscellaneous items that were replaced over the last several years from all departments. Storage space is at a premium at the Corporation Yard, therefore, staff is recommending the Council declare the items surplus and authorize sale of the items at a public auction. This public auction will be conducted in conjunction with items from Parks and Recreation that have previously been declared surplus and the balance of the Police Department's unclaimed stolen property initially auctioned earlier this fiscal year. - ~..._._m__._ -- ---------..- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DECLARING ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON A SURPLUS LIST AND REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FOR SALE AT PUBLIC AUCTION WHEREAS, the Public Works Department has certain office furnishings and equipment which are no longer used; and WHEREAS, the office furnishings and equipment can be classified as surplus property and made available for sale to private parties at public auction. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arr9Yo Grande does hereby declare as surplus the office furnishings and equipment described in Attachment "An and authorize its sale. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: - ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1999. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 MICHAELA. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ~luJL. ~ ROBERTL. HUNT, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: . TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY ATTACHMENT "A" DESKS, BOOKSHELVES, TABLES Drafting Tables (2) Tables 48" x 24" (2) Book Shelf 49" x 12" Plywood cabinet with drawers 24" x 36" Oak table 26" x 48" Plywood box with shelves 20" x 36" Stereo cabinet (Grolen, Inc.) White, two drawer cabinet Plywood, two drawer cabinet Brown desk 34" x 55" White table top 44" x 60" Book shelf 62" x 48" Oak computer desk Oak desk 28" x 55" Cabinet with two doors 22" x 32" Table 24" x 24" CHAIRS Leather chairs, brown (2) Stacking chairs, mustard (5) Stacking chairs, orange (6) Reception chair, orange (1) Office chairs, grey (2) Office chair, gold (1) High back office chair (1) Overstuffed chairs, blue (3) OFFICE EQUIPMENT Pitney Bowes 6200 postal stamp machine Zenith TV, 16" Vemco V-track drafting machine Vemco, drafting arm (model 5100/30) CRT Float, model C6060 (drafting tool) Bronze lamp Steel master, small card file cabinets (7) Brown phones (2) White phone Desk lamp (no. 196154) Xerox 5335 Copier (serial no. 8W7) Fuji microfilm reader printer (FMR P30AU) Victor 1800 microfilm viewer, model 18-1542 (serial no. 3952-782) OFFICE EQUIPMENT, con't Dictaphone with pedal (model 2870) Dictaphone, Lanier Regent (model P-85) Dictaphone, Sanyo memo scriber Paper cutter, Scoth Edgen (cat. no. S-64) Environmental air system (model no. 1200A) Holder for computer paper Hedman check signer and dater (model 530460) Microphone static (model no. 877HL) MISC ITEMS Floor buffer Vacuums (2) Traffic counters (2) - --- 9.h. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DANIEL C. HERNANDEZ, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATIO~ SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT BIDS, LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT DATE: APRIL 27, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize staff to solicit bids for the maintenance of nine (9) City landscape areas and authorize the City Manager to approve the award of bid. FUNDING: Funds in the amount of $5,500 have been included in the Parks Division FY 1999-00 Preliminary Budget. DISCUSSION: The City currently contracts with J.C. Landscape to maintain nine (9) City landscape areas (Attachment 1) at a total cost of $5,400 per year ($450 per month). Historically, it has proven to be cost effective to contract small City landscape areas to private independent contractors. Attached is a copy of the Proposal to be sent to local landscape contractors. The contract would be for a period of two (2) years, July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2001. Alternatives: . Approve staffs recommendation to solicit for bids; . Do not approve staffs recommendation; . Modify as appropriate and approve staffs recommendation; or . Provide staff with direction. S:\StaffRpt\LandscapeContractBidApr27.99 - ---~------------ -' NOTICE OF INVITATION TO BIDDERS The City of Arroyo Grande is requesting bids for contract maintenance of specific landscape areas with the City. The contractor must furnish all equipment and labor necessary to complete the vvork specified in the attached Proposal and contract. Bid proposals will be accepted until 2:00 p.m.. Tuesday. June 1, 1999. at the Office of the Director of Administratiye Services. 214 E. Branch Street. City of AtrQvo Grande. On Friday, May 28, 1999, 10:00 a.m., Jim Koski, Parks Supervisor, will conduct a pre- bid tour for bidding contractors of the proposed areas. The tour will begin at the Parks and Recreation Office, 1221 Ash Street. Questions concerning bid proposals are to be directed to Dan Hernandez, Director of Parks and Recreation, at 473-5474 or Jim Koski, Parks Supervisor, at 473-5470. REQUIRf;MENT$: 1. Show evidence of liability and Workers' Compensation Insurance: $500,000 bodily injury, $500,00 property damage and $500,000 aggregate minimum. 2. Possess a current California Class II driyer's license. 3. Obtain a City of Arroyo Grande business license. 4. Contractor responsible for hauling and disposal of all waste collected and expenses of waste collection. BID PROPOSAL MUST INCLUDE: 1. Monthly bid to maintain areas one through nine for a period of 1YJQ (2) years. See attached bid sheet. 2. Name, address, and phone number. 3. A written schedule of days specific areas will be mowed, weeded, and maintained. 4. Authorized signature. The City of Arroyo Grande reserves the right to reject any and all bids received. S:\Parks\Bids\LandscapeContractBIdNtc.frm __._______n.__.____.__._______, PROPOSAL AND CONTRACT LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE TO: City of Arroyo Grande DATE: Post Office Box 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 (805) 473-5474 Dear Sir or Madam: As the Independent Contractor, I will furnish professional services for the City upon the terms and under the following conditions for a period of two (2) years: It is understood and agreed that Independent Contractor possesses distinct professional skills in performing the services described beloW; that City contracts for said services; that Independent Contractor has full control oyer the means and methods of performing these services; that Independent Contractor understands and believes that services are being performed as an Independent Contractor. Nothing in this contract shall in any way be construed to constitute the Independent Contractor or any of its agents or employees as an agent, employee, or representative of this City. The Independent Contractor agrees to perform and furnish services as follo'NS: 1. Hart-Collett Park, (A & B) Traffic, Bridge Street and Nelson Street; 2. Dower Wayside Park (A, B, & C) south end of Traffic Way; 3. East Branch (A & B) lawn area in front of E.C. Loomis & Son; 4. Hoosgow Historical Park (A, B, & C) Le POinte Street and Miller Way; 5. Parkview Estates (C); 6. Newport Median (A, B, & C) area between upper and 10'Ner Newport, 'Nest lower portion only; 7. Arroyo Grande Fire Station (A, B, & C) Station Way and Traffic Way; 8. Oak Park Median (B & C) Oak Park Boulevard and James Way; 9. Oak Park Greenbelt (Oak Park and Meadowlark) (A, B, & C) LEGEND: A: Mow grass areas using a reel front throw type with catcher or rotary mower with catcher. B: Edging: use a power gas edger, power gas weedeater, or an approved herbicide to edge along curbs. planter areas, and sprinkler heads. All sprinkler heads should be free from growth for proper operation. c: Weed and prune planter areas. Keep planter areas and medians free from debris or weeds and prune any overhanging or overgrown shrubbery. D: Prune the hedge in back of lawn area three times per year. 1 --.----.-- PROPOSAL AND CONTRACT LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE Work is to be done weekly and all areas are to be kept in a neat and acceptable appearance. All clippings and related refuse are to be picked up and may be dumped at a designated City site. The Independent Contractor is responsible for gopher mounds and control. All irrigation system maintenance, replacement of landscape materials, and watering will be the responsibilitv of the City. The Independent Contractor is responsible for any damages to irrigation system equipment. During the last two (2) weeks of November, all lav.m areas are to be thinned and cut to between one-half (1/2) to one (1) inch in length. All of the aboye work to be completed in a substantial and workmanlike manner according to standard practices for the sum of $ monthly. The City reserves the right to discontinue service upon thirty (30) days' written notice to the Independent Contractor for any reason and to forthwith discontinue service in the event that said Independent Contractor fails to provide, or keep in force, liability or Workers' Compensation Insurance as set forth in the notice inviting bids. Any alteration or deviation from the above specifications involving extra cost of material or labor will only be executed upon written orders for same, and will become an extra change over the sum mentioned in this contract. All agreements must be made in writing. Submitted by: Name: Drivers License #: Mailing Address: Phone #: City, State Zip: Work Schedule: Date: Sun Mon Tues ~ I.bY!J EO ~ Area (s): Insurance Policy: City Business License: Signature: S:\P&rks\Bids\LandsCapeContracUrm (Revised: AprH 1999) 2 ~ J) is ... ~ I ) ~ ~ ~ 0- - ~ 0 .0 ~ ~. ~ - ro - . ~ ~ ~\ .~ ~ B~ 0- ~ a. 9J. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER Iff SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT BIDS - MONTEGO STREET SIDEWALK (SOUTH SIDE), PROJECT NO. 90-98-7 DATE: APRIL 27,1999 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council: A. approve the plans and specifications for the Montego Street Sidewalk capital improvement project; B. find that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 5301 and direct Administrative Services to file a Notice of Exemption; C. authorize the Mayor to sign, and direct Administrative Services to record, the four easement grant deeds for public sidewalk purposes from the property owners; and, D. authorize the advertisement of construction bids for the project. FUNDING: The FY 1997/98 capital improvement program budget includes $33,500 for the construction of the Montego Street Sidewalk capital improvement project. The Engineer's estimate for the construction of the project is $25,000. DISCUSSION: This project will install a sidewalk on Montego Street near Ocean View Elementary School. Four residents along the south side of Montego Street are providing at no cost to the City the necessary right-of-way. The project will provide a contiguous sidewalk on the south side of Montego Street from Newport Avenue to the school in response to requests from residents and parents of school children. The project includes the installation of a sidewalk on the south side of Montego Street in front of 1215, 1211, 1207, and 1203 Montego Street respectively. The project is proposed to be constructed in accordance with the attached schedule. jep:232.5622\solicitbidmontegostreet.wpd 7 \;v ~ //1 \ 0) 0) I I .J I I I I it~ / I ..J ~..:. / I 0 / I .0 C>~ / / >0 ~~ I I I I / I W(I) - / / - 0 / I >~ / I et: I / Zet I / I I <[t- (, I WZ UW O~ W ..J W ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -' -I ~ <( ~ Q W S.... - N.... tI) ....- C ....0 c 0.... - ~- -{-- CJ) W .... tI) ....m t- ~- 0 -r-/ '1 S IW - LLI It) 73 0. ....00 LLI ~ ~- ~ I I:~I I . t- o. / ~ CJ) ~/ 7 ~ 0 f...-.: '3[] fiN 'aClD:J ~ '" C) / V) i:::: 0-' ::t: W ~ t- Q:: Z ~ -~- 0 l:f \ ~ ~ h.: ~ ~ y ~ AI 1;11 N/'v V' \.J) ~ -~- ---- \:f- --- ---- R:~ 0 ...- I ~ r ~ ~ ~ . -,I- <( t- );r Y ~a - en 11 71 - :r: >-r X c; / / \-J T w " CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE TENTATIVE PROJECT SCHEDULE for MONTEGO STREET SIDEWALKS (SOUTH SIDE) (CITY PROJECT NO: 90-98-7) Plans & Specifications Completed and ROW/Easements Secured ..... Apri/16, 1999 Council Approval to Solicit Bids ................................ April 27, 1999 1 st Notice to Bidders ........................................ Apnl 30, 1999 2nd Notice to Bidders (min 5 days between publications) .................. May 5, 1.999 Pre-Bid Conference (Thursday, 2:00 p.m. at Montego cul-de-sac) . . . . . . . . . . .. May 13, 1999 Receive Bids (Tuesday, 2:00 p.m.) ................................ May 25, 1999 Award of Bid (at City Council Meeting) ............................... June 8, 1999 Last Day of School .......................................... June 11, 1999 Notice of Award ............................................ June 11, 1999 Notice to Proceed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 24, 1999 Begin Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 28, 1999 Completion - 30 calendar days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. July 27, 1999 * Project should be accomplished during Summer break (last day of school June 11, 1998) for Ocean View Elementary School. jep:232.5622\projsch4.99.wpd April 12. 1999 RECORDING REQUEST BY: Public Works Department City of Arroyo Grande WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City Clerk P.O. Box 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 APN: 077 -062-010 EASEMENT GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE THIS INDENTURE, made the 16th day of April. 1999, by Steye E. Warriner and Lilia F. Warriner. husband and wife as joint tenants, hereinafter collectiYely referred to as "Grantor", and the CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, a political subdivision of the State of . California, hereinafter referred to as "City"; WITNESSETH: That Grantor, for valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant, convey and dedicate unto City, its successors and assigns the right of way and incidents thereto for a public roadway upon, over, under and across, that certain real property situate in the City of Arroyo Grande, State of California, described in Exhibit "A" and shown graphically for reference on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Grantor further understands that the present intention of the City is to construct and maintain a public sidewalk on the above .described real property, and, if so constructed, Grantor for himself, his successors and assigns, hereby waives any claim for any and all damages to Grantors remaining property contiguous to the property hereby conveyed by reason of the location, construction, landscaping or maintenance of said roadway. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has hereunto set his hand the day and year first above written. (As used above the term "Grantor' shall include the plural as well as the singular number and the word "his" and "himself' shall include the feminine gender as the case may be.) Dated: () tf!ft/1f9'! -2 #t- t. /'If-~ I , Steve E. Warriner , Dated: I) 4 /J(/ /99 l1/~ -J~ Lilia F. Warriner STATE OF CALIFORNIA : ss COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ) On A-fYl'l 1(" ,1999, ~efore me, ~b()ll2h ~ We I 'ch, 'nj tv; a Notary Public, personally appeared Steve E. Warriner, 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 executed the same in his authorized capacity and that by his signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. .. ~ A... .AI.. .A. .JIItr.. ~ J1t<... ~............ ~ ~ ~ ~ t WITNESS my hand and official seal o Deborah Lee Weichinger ~ COMM. , 1204454 eJ NOTARY PUBLIC-CALlFORNIA Q ~ SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY 0 LJ~h ~ ~~~ COMM. EXP. DEC. 11, 2002..1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) : ss COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ) On ..B.pv:', 1(..,/ , 1999, before me, ~b()fo.h Lv. Wi 1'J\(h~.I'V; a Notary Public, personally appeared Lilia F. Warriner, personally known to me (0 proyed 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 she executed the same in her authorized capacity and that by her signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. ~.Ao.. .-. ~ .-.. .-.. .-. .- .- __ .-.. .JItt.. .A. ~ ~ . Deborah Lee Welchingerf g COMM. '.1204454 Q WITNESS my hand and official seal . NOTARY PUBLIC-CALlFORNIA ~ SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY 0 I COMM. EXP. DEC. 11,2002 ( r~~~~~~"V'~~~~~~ ~ M-U- ~L~ This is to certify that the interest in real property conyeyed by the deed or grant dated , 1999, from to the City of Arroyo Grande, a municipal Corporation of the State of California, is hereby accepted by order of the City Council on , 1999, and the GRANTEE consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: NANCY A. DAVIS DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES jep:232.5622\WARRINERgrantesmt.wpd EXHIBIT "A" Being the northerly five feet of Lot 10 in Block 2 of the Tract No. 150 in the City of Arroyo Grande, in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, as per Map recorded May 12, 1959 in Book 6, Page 18 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. jep:232.5622\WARRINERgrantesmt.wpd - Sent By: JLWA SLOj 805 544 4294j Apr.'~.99 2:04PMj Page 4/5 eXHI81r "8" MOJJTEGO STIt-Eer "- ---... -.- ..._-.---. - - ...-....... . G' 6IoeWAL~ tfitIISMtiNr -- __I ~. -- ~J ~--"'........ . 'l ~'l ---. -2-~ - I - I (; ~ ... 'f 9 ~o /0 \'Q // ~ L-~II ~ I .... T tz., ^ IC r 11 o. ~ IGo " /fA A F' 6 IS ~. I I ----r -- ~.tJf)' It. . . -- -- - . . RECORDING REQUEST BY: Public Works Department City of Arroyo Grande WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City Clerk P.O. Box 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 APN: 077 -062-011 EASEMENT GRANT' DEED TO THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE THIS INDENTURE, made the ~ day of Apt. J l , 1999, by Byron A. Williams. a widower, hereinafter collectively referred to as "Grantor", and the CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "City"; WITNESSETH: That Grantor, for valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant, convey and dedicate unto City, its successors and assigns the right of way and incidents thereto for a public roadway upon, over, under am:! across, that certain real property situate in the City of Arroyo Grande, State of California, described in Exhibit "{t' and shown graphically for reference on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Grantor further understands that the present intention of the City is to construct and maintain a public sidewalk on the above described real property, and,if so constructed, ' Grantor for himself, his successors and assigns, hereby waives any claim for any and all damages to Grantor's remaining property contiguous to the property hereby conyeyed by reason of the location, construction, landscaping or maintenance of said roadway. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has hereunto set his hand the day and year first above written. Dated: .r~/99 '"\ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) : ss COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ) On Ap('d I b, ' 1999, before me, O(~h I . .' r a Notary . Public, personally appeared Byron A. Williams, personally known to me (or royed 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 executed the same in his authorized capacity and that by his signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. Deborah Lee Weichinger,. WITNESS my hand and official seal COMM. , 1204454 ;:. ~ NOTARY PUBLlCoCAlIFORNIA G) ~ SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY 0 J COMM. EXP. DEC. 11.2002t D A I 6 ... ~ "" ~t!.c' ~ ~~~__~_~~~~~~ ~ ~ u This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the deed or grant dated , 1999, from to the City of Arroyo Grande, a municipal Corporation of the State of California, is hereby accepted by order of the City Council on , 1999, and the GRANTEE consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. MICHAELA. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: NANCY A. DAVIS DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES jep:232.56'Zl\WILLIAMSgrantesmt.wpcI -'"' -..-.'.'.-',- - -~'--~----'--'---- EXHIBIT "A" Being the northerly five feet of Lot 11 in Block 2 of the Tract No. 150 in the City of Arroyo Grande, in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, as per Map recorded May 12, 1959 in Book 6, Page 18 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. jep:232.5622\WILLlAMSgrantesmt.wpd - Sent By: JLWA SLOj 805 544 4294j Apr-19-99 2:05PMj page 5/5 EXJ.lIBI T "S" MfJNTEt;o ST~El! r I ... ---- .. ,_ "'16. 80 S'8I0ISMU<. "LI~~l)8'6tJ. 846EulWr r./~5IJ' N N,Q 4S 'JAI.. ':i. ~. /5 ' - -- ~_Ne7"3",' 'OliN ftJ. n' /(, . -- ----f · tt ~ ' . I ~ /0 ~ - // II tt) YL-Ot::k~ 2. . I~ T ~ A ~ IV 0. /601 ~ _ ~, /oIfIlPf7 !!._ _ -1 ~ . ---.. ....- - I . RECORDING REQUEST BY: Public Works Department City of Arroyo Grande WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City Clerk P.O. Box 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 APN: 077 -062-009 EASEMENT GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE THIS INDENTURE, made the 16th day of April. 1999, by Faye E. Ogden. an unmarried woman, hereinafter collectively referred to as "Grantor", and the CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "City"; WITNESSETH: That Grantor, for valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant, convey and dedicate unto City, its successors and assigns the right of way and incidents theretQ for a public roadway upon, over, under and across, that certain real property situate in the City of Arroyo Grande, State of California, described in Exhibit "I\' and shown graphically for reference on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Grantor further understands that the present intention of the City is to construct and maintain a public sidewalk on the above described real property, and, if so constructed, Grantor for herself, her successors and assigns, hereby waives any claim for any and all damages to Grantor's remaining property contiguous to the property hereby conveyed by reason of the location, construction, landscaping or maintenance of said roadway. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has hereunto set his hand the day and year first aboye written. Dated: fw//~-1f ~&.~--~ F ye E. Ogden --_.~-----_._."" --- ~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) : ss COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ) On f1pUf2 Ii!. ,1999, before me, '11~. a'~a Notary Public, personally appeared Faye E. Ogden, personally know to me (or prayed 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 she executed the same in her authorized capacity and that by her signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. ,,~u-~=u.-1 WITNESS my hand and official seal 'e a.:.o:.. '17~ a.~ I ---.,..,. ____~~~~I This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the deed or grant dated , 1999, from to the City of Arroyo Grande, a municipal Corporation of the State of California, is hereby accepted by order of the City Council on , 1999, and the GRANTEE consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. . MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: NANCY A. DAVIS DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES jep:232.5622\OGDENgrantesmt.wpd EXHIBIT "A" Being the northerly five feet of Lot 9 in Block 2 of the Tract No. 150 in the City of Arroyo Grande, in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, asper Map recorded May 12, 1959 in Book 6, Page 18 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. jep:232.5622\OGDENgrantesmt.wpd - 805 544 4294' Apr-19-99 2:04PM; Page 3/5 Sent By: JLWA SLO; . J EXJ.lISlr 's" MONTe (# () Sr~eE r 1 .. _ _ r g' ~1V11LJ( Etf6eMeHT -- .-.~ I I I I ~II ' --__ L-- ~d ~ I 8 tll ,9 ~ I /0 ~11 I' ~ I - ~II " MA' $ ~ I / (7 0 ~1 I -r 1J 0, 1c) I I ~ It. I c..." l.,.Q& K- z.1 I --- __-:-IL r-- ""-46'N 7/.()()' It. . . - .- -- , RECORDING REQUEST BY: Public Works Department City of Arroyo Grande WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City Clerk P.O. Box 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 APN: 077-062-008 EASEMENT GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE THIS INDENTURE, made the 16th day of April. 1999, by James R. Weed and Ann R. Weed. husband and wife as ioint tenants, hereinafter collectively referred to as "Grantor", and the CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "City"; WITNESSETH: That Grantor, for valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant, convey and dedicate unto City, its successors and assigns the right of way and incidents thereto for a public roadway upon, over, under and across, that certain real property situate in the City of Arroyo Grande, State of California, described in Exhibit "A" and shown graphically for reference on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Grantor further understands that the present intention of the City is to construct and maintain a public sidewalk on the above described real property, and, ifso constructed, Grantor for himself, his successors and assigns, hereby waives any claim for any and all damages to Grantor's remaining property contiguous to the property hereby conveyed by reason of the location, construction, landscaping or maintenance of said roadway. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has hereunto set his hand the day and year first above written. (As used aboye the term "Grantor" shall include the plural as well as the singular number and the word "~is" and "himself' shall include the feminine gender as the case may be.) Dated: ~ /1 19~f' ~;~~d'- '- Dated: ~ I~ /qC;CJ ~4~~ Ann R. Weed STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) : ss COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ) On ~ /1 ,1999, before me, 'f1~a.~ a Notary Public, personally appeared James R. Weed, personally know to me (or p~ved to me en tAg basi& of iatisfagsl)' evieon~ to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity and that by his signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. J - - - - - ~~A.:':' - -1 WITNESS my hand and official seal i.~: - 714. a.~ j _ _ _ _~~~:~7:.~ I ~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) : ss COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ) On ~ /'1 ,1999, before me, 77~ (J.. :: a Notary Public, perso ally appeared Ann R. Weed, personally kno to me {or proved to me on tAg Basi! of satisfGetor)' evidcFlee) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that she executed the same in her authorized capacity and that by her signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. J -. -. ..... -. -. .... ..... -. -. ..... .... ....., WITNESS my hand and officiai seal . NANCY A. DAVIS _ CommIssIon' 1093759 I Notay Public - Caltomla I L_n"':~~~1 -(J~a.~ This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the deed or grant dated , 1999, from to the City of Arroyo Grande, a municipal Corporation of the State of California, is hereby accepted by order of the City Council on , 1999, and the GRANTEE consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: NANCY A. DAVIS DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES jep:232.5622\WEEDgrantesmt.wpd EXHIBIT "A" Being the northerly five feet of Lot 8 in Block 2 of the Tract No. 150 in the City of Arroyo Grande, in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, as per Map recorded May 12, 1959 in Book 6, Page 18 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. jep:232.5622\WEEDgrantesmt.wpd 805 544 4294' ~pC.19.99 2:u.r~, L"~ SLO; · etfll(!JIT -8" 6rf/.6E-r -- ------ ----- -- \ . \ \ t{ ---" ---- ---- - -------- (:)1 - \ \ ~ ~\ - ~ 8 ~\\ g 7 ~ J\ ~ ~\\ ~ J L 0 ~ c,It.. "'~\ . ~\~ \<<00 ___---- - t\o .--' \ . #".4!J'f'/ "'If..od /L' -- s:.---- .- " (j i' ~p.t~ i 1--~ III . .. . Notice of Exemption To: 0 Office ofPlanning and Research From: (Public Agency) Ci1y of Arroyo C'1T8J1de 1440 Tenth Street. Room 121 P.O. Box 550 Sacramento. CA 95814 Arroyo Grande. CA 93421 [!] County Clerk County of San Luis ObiS1)O Coun1y Government Center San Luis Obisoo. CA 93408 Project Title: Monte2o Street Sidewalks (South Side t Project No. 90-98-7 Project Location - Specific: In the Ci1y of Arrovo Grande on Montego Street Project Location - City: Arroyo Grande Project Location - County: San Luis Obisoo Description of Project: Install sidewalks alonll the frontage oflots 1215. 1211. 1207. and 1203 near Ocean ViewEJementaIy School. Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Arrovo Grande - Public Works Deoartment Name of Person or Agency Carrying Project Out Project: Exempt Status: (check one) - 0 Ministerial (Section 12080(bXl); 15268); 0 Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(bX3); 15269(a)); 0 Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(bX4); 15269(bXc)); [!] Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: Section 15301 0 Statutory Exemptions. State code number. Reasons Why Project Is Exempt: Proiect consists of minor alteration of an existinll Dublic roadway/sidewalk facility involvin2 ne21i2ible exoansion of use beyond that oreviouslv existin2. Lead Agency Contact Person: Don SDa2Ilolo. Director of Public Works Area CodeIT elephonelExtension: (805) 473-5440 If fded by Applicant: 1. Attach a certified document of exemption finding. 2. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? 0 Yes DNo Signature: Date: Title: o Signed by Lead Agency D Date received for filing at OPR: o Signed by Applicant Revised October 1989 jep:232.'622\environ.exm. wpd W.._ 9.j. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER~ SUBJECT: CITY CORPORATION YARD FUEL FACILITY REPLACEMENT PLAN, CITY PROJECT NO. 80-98-1, PROGRESS PAYMENT NO.2 DATE: APRIL 27,1999 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council authorize payment in the amount of $32,427.01 to Remedial Management Corporation for the City Corporation Yard Fuel Facility Replacement Plan capital improvement project. FUNDING: On August 25, 1998, the Council awarded the City Corporation Yard Fuel Facility Replacement Plan construction contract to Remedial Management Corporation in the amount of $135,165 and authorized a contingency of $2,435 to be used for unanticipated costs during the construction phase of the project (Total construction cost of $137,600). DISCUSSION: An Application for Progress Payment No. 2 was received from Remedial Management Corporation for work completed between March 6, 1999, and March 19, 1999, for the City Corporation Yard Fuel Facility Replacement Plan project. As of March 19th, 69% of the contract funds had been requested by the Contractor. The original contract end date was April 1, 1999. However, the contract has been extended to April 30, 1999 due to delays caused by rain and additional days needed to handle the sandy soil conditions. jep: 232.5401\Prog.pay.3.wpd APPLICATION FOR PROGRESS PAYMENT NO.2 CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL DATE: MARCH 23, 1999 CONTRACT DATE: September 16, 1998 5-Apr-99 SUBMITTED TO: City of Arroyo Grande 10:00 AM CONTRACT NO: 80-98-1 CONTRACT FOR: City Corporation Yard Fuel Facility Replacement Plan CITY ACCOUNT NO: 350-5401-7001 = $32,427.01; 350-5401-7201 = $0.00 FOR THE WORK ACCOMPLISHED BY REMEDIAL MANAGEMENT CORP. FROM: Mar. 6, 1999 TO: Mar. 19, 1999 CONTRACTOR'S schedule of Values WORK COMPLETED NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT 1. Permitting, Bond Fees, Engineering, Project $16,446.00 1 LS $16,446.00 50% $8,223.00 Management, Procurement, Mobilization, Trucks, & Transportation 2. Tank Removal $21,246.00 1 LS $21,246.00 100% $21,246.00 3. EquipmentlHardware $35,798.00 1 LS $35,798.00 80% $28,638.90 4. Tank Installation $16,834.00 1 LS $16,834.00 65% $10,941.90 5. Piping and Electrical (Materials and Installation) $20,845.00 1 LS $20,845.00 75% $15,633.75 6. Resurfacing $6,579.00 1 LS $6,579.00 0% $0.00 7. Vent Pipe, Provide and Install $1,165.00 1 LS $1,165.00 0% $0.00 8. General Construction Items $10,252.00 1 LS $10,252.00 65% $6,663.80 9. 50 Cubic Yards of Soil Disposal $6,000.00 1 LS $6,000.00 0% $0.00 $135,165.00 TOTAL $91,347.35 CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS: - Estimated Total % Billed Amount Paid 1-A. Remove and dispose of existing concrete pavement $40.00 0% $0.00 1-B. Installation additional 31-sf of concrete pavement $232.00 0% $0.00 2-A. Substitute electronic readout with mechanical readout for dispensers ($666.00) 0% $0.00 2-B. Reduce fill spill containment box from 15 gallons to 5 gallons $0.00 0% $0.00 2-C. Upgrade electrical facilities to requipment storage building to meet code req. $3,579.00 0% $0.00 2-D. Install diesel tank vent assembly $605.00 0% $0.00 2-E. Credit for Contract Add/Deduct item "Install Vent Pipes at Altemate Location" ($1,165.00) 0% $0.00 2-F. Crecflt for Contract Item "RemovalfTreatmentlDisposal of Contaminated Soir ($6,000.00) 0% .$0.00 2-G. Locate monitoring equipment from shop to office $0.00 0% $0.00 TOTAL I {$3,375.00)1 PAID I $0.00 ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTATION: ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $135,165.00 TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS ($3,375.00) Invoice #7402, dated 03130/99 from Remedial ADJUSTED CONTRACT AMOUNT $131,790.00 Management Corporation TOTAL VALUE OF WORK PERFORMED TO DATE $91,347.35 LESS 10% RETAlNAGE ($9,134.74) NOTES: LESS AMOUNTS PAID ($49,765.61) TOTAL AMOUNT DUE THIS APPLICATION $32,427.01 CONTRACT START DATE February 15, 1999 ORIGINAL CONTRACT DAYS 45 PREVIOUS ADJUSTMENTS 0 ADJUSTMENTS THIS PERIOD 9 ADJUSTED CONTRACT DAYS 54 ADJUSTED CONTRACT END DATE April 13, 1999 CONTRACTOR'S ACCEPTANCE: . Dated: 4~/!LI-11 ' of 1999. . ~'''_'''''- By: . ./ .~~r/, ~X r S~nMu~ Payment of the above AMOUNT DUE THIS APPLICATION is recommended: Dated: . of 1999. Engineer . By: S~nMu~ Dated: , of 1999. City Manager By: .SignMu~ Send Dayment to: Remedial Management Corporation 3833 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 445-9240 - .- jep:232.5401\pay3.xts ...11:. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEE~ SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 2217 DATE: APRIL 27,1999 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council: 1. accept the public improvements constructed as conditions of approval for Tract 2217; 2. approve the attached resolution accepting the following offers of dedication shown on the Tract Map: A. Garden Street, Grove Court, Farmhouse Place, Hillside Court, Fieldview Place, Cherry Avenue, Los Olivos Lane, Branch mill Road; B. Street Tree Easements; C. Public Utility Easements. FUNDING: There is no immediate fiscal impact. Maintenance of these facilities will be funded from Public Works maintenance funds in future years. DISCUSSION: Tract 2217 is located on the south west comer of Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill Road as shown on the attached sketch. The final map for the Tract was approved by the City Council on April 14, 1998 and was subsequently recorded on April 29, 1998. The required improvements have been constructed. In accordance with the subdivision agreement for the Tract, the developer is required to warranty the improvements for a period of one year following acceptance of the improvements. Staff has inspected the improvements and recommends that the City accept the offers of dedication, and the improvements for maintenance. Attachments: Exhibit A - Location Map Resolution -----~..- ~------_._-- - RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS, AND OFFERS OF CEDICA TIONS AND EASEMENTS WITHIN TRACT 2217 WHEREAS, the City Council approved the final map for Tract 2217 on April 14, 1998, and the map was subsequently recorded on Apri129, 1998; and, WHEREAS, offers to dedicate right of way and easements to the public were provided on the final map for Tract 2217; and, WHEREAS, the developer has constructed the improvements required by the Tract conditions of approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby accept the public improvements constructed for Tract 2217, and accepts the following offers of dedication and public easements, as shown on the final map for Tract 2217, recorded April 29, .1998 in book 18 of maps, at page 46 in the office of the recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California: 1. Garden Street, Grove Court, Farmhouse Place, Hillside Court, Fieldview Place, Cherry Avenue, Los Olivos Lane, Branch Mill Road; 2. Street Tree Easements; 3. Public Utility Easements. - On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1999. . - RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 MICHAEL A.LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Knb L, HaJ:;J ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: - TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY 'i / ~ 0 I- ~ ~ ----- ~ ---------~ '\ N7 \ ___ 2I7/Vg ) --=- J/7H -.J --- --~-- _------------ ___'-J ~ r- ~ ~ b ~ r- - 4. ~ en -- ~ ~- 9J. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: HENRY ENGEN, AICP -"E. INTERIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO USE CITY PROPERTY FOR THE MARCH OF DIMES WALK AMERICA ON SATURDAY, MAY 1, 1999 DATE: APRIL 27, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the use of City property. FUNDING: No fiscal impact. DISCUSSION: The March of Dimes has requested use of the grass area fronting Nelson Street between Short and Mason Streets for the start and finish for the annual Walk America fund raising event (reference attached). The event is proposed to take place on Saturday, May 1, 1999. Set up will begin about 6:30 a.m. and clean up will be over about 3:00 p.m. Registration will take place from 7:00 to 8:00 a.m. and walkers will be given a barbecue lunch from 11:00 a.m. to 1 :30 p.m. A live band will play during lunch. Upon City Council authorization to use City property, staff would issue a Temporary Use Permit for the event. The proposed conditions of approval have been discussed with a representative for the applicant. Attached are draft conditions of approval which will be attached to the Temporary Use Permit for the event. Attachments: 1. Resolution for Approval 2. Draft Conditi~ns of Approval 3. Request Letter from Applicant with exhibits RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO USE CITY PROPERTY FOR THE MARCH OF DIMES WALK AMERICA TO BE HELD SATURDAY, MAY 1, 1999 1 WHEREAS, organizers of the March of Dimes Walk America have requested the use of the grass area fronting Nelson Street between Short and Mason Streets for their annual Walk America fund raising event to be held May 1, 1999; and WHEREAS, members of the March of Dimes Walk America will be responsible for the cost of traffic control and cleanup. NOW ,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande as follows: 1. That the grass area located on Nelson Street between Short and Mason Streets shall be closed from 6:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Saturday, May 1, 1999 for the purpose of holding the registration, barbecue lunch and live musical entertainment for the Walk America fund raising event; and - 2. That the March of Dimes Walk America will adhere to certain requirements and conditions set forth by the Public Works, Police, and Building and Fire Departments regarding security and traffic control and all other applicable conditions of a Temporary Use Permit to be issued by the City. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call vote, to wit: A YES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 27th day of April, 1999. -- -- - - - --_._-_.~----_.~._"...__. -_. ----- - RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 ! MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ~krrL.~~ ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY .---._-" -_._--_.__."~_.._._._._.._- ------------.----"- -- ATTACHMENT 2 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WALK AMERICA MARCH OF DIMES MAY 1, 1999 General Conditions 1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project. i 2. The event shall occur in substantial conformance with the application and plans on file in the Community Development Department. 3. The applicant shall agree. to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said approval, 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 fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may require 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 action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this condition. Building and Fire Department Conditions 4. The event organizers shall provide handicapped accessible portable toilets. 5. The event organizers shall provide a 2A 1 OB6 fire extinguisher at the barbecue area. 6. Emergency access must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Director of Building and Fire. 7. The Director of Building and Fire must approve any electrical hookups. Parks and Recreation Department Conditions 8. The City Parks and Recreation Department will provide portable picnic tables and waste receptacles to be places on Friday, April 30, 1999. The event organizers shall coordinate the location with the Director of Parks and Recreation. 9. The event organizers shall coordinate the location and movement of the barbecue, stage and other equipment with the Director of Parks and Recreation. Sprinklers shall be marked with paint, flags, or flour to prevent damage. 10. March of Dimes Volunteers shall pick up the area and leave trash cans empty. 11. Portable toilets must be picked up 24 hours after the end of the event. 12. The event organizers shall clean up the City property and walk route of all litter. Police Department Conditions 13. The applicant shall contact the Police Commander prior to the event to confirm traffic control requirements and the need for barricades. __.._._..u_____ .._------_.,.~~--,-~_.._- --_.-........_-~---- --'- ------ IlllliTTACHMENT3 I ------- - - --- r.tc:!:,,::: of Di!i'ies 8irth Defects. r=cundsr::m Cer.::a! Coas: Qffrce ZOC s. 13th S~re9L. Suit: ~O6 G.-over Sea::n. SA 93<:33 Teleqhcne 8C~ ~73 26;7 ~ax &:35 473 2699 -- .,..-"-' -~ ~ :;1.tl, I qcr{ DATE: J'~g1:=-:: :J I 1--'- ~ ..;J\T RE: Temporary Use Permit APPLICANT: March of Dimes The March of Dimes requests the use of the city owned lawn area on Nelson street between Mason and Short Streets for our annual WalkAmerica fund-raising event. The date of use will be Saturqay, May j, 1991, from 6:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. We will set up beginning at 6:30 a.m. Set up will include tables for registration, balloon arch, banners, straw bales for seating, tables for food serving, tubs for ice, portable barbecue for cooking, and portable toilets. The Kiwanis Club of Arroyo Grande Valley will sponsor the barbecue lunch for all the walkers and volunteers. Walkers will begin arriving around 7:00 a.m. for team photos. At 8:00 a.m. , approximately 500 walkers will leave the lawn area, proceed up Mason street to East branch. Walkers turn left on East Branch, proceed to West Branch, turn right and go to Oak Park Boulevard. They move into Pismo Beach and eventually return to Arroyo grande when they come up Grand Avenue. The walkers continue to Bridge Street, turn right, and then left on Nelson street. They go up Nelson street back to the start site. The Kiwanis will feed the walkers a barbecue lunch upon their return to the si te. A live band will entertain the walkers from 11:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. The March of Dimes volunteers will clean up the site and route of all paper, litter, etc. that is left behind by the walkers. . Join Ou:- Camcaian for Healthier Babies -- ~-----_... --,._-, --....__.._--_...,.._..-.__.~--_. . - ----..---.-.- , III . . I . . . .. oJ;"" _ - . " .- ...- -. - .- - . .... -----------/ . ... - -~.- ... " . ......- ~ . ... --. ,. - -. ......... .'~.' :" "-";. - . ,"~: I I . IV; /l J()/v J'112_;!c!T ... c: ,...... \~ '-0 \'.. ~) -J ~ ~ D; ~ ~ . ~ ~ n~ ~ ~ . c ""J I"- ~ 't"\, '" '\ ~~~.. ~ . . ~,. ~' ~I' SIIl./! iFf I I I --..- ;,-. ;~, :-\"... ('~r="\r~~i.....,1"\ inr W~-tt~1or ;<~ni::.~ ------ - WALKAMERICA Through State Camp Grounds :II ;, - - ~ ~ > ~ ~ - ~ - - - .. " ~ ~ - - t: ..... ~. ...., ~ "'- ~ -. :t: ARROYO G~"IDE LVIAY \ 1 START /FINISH Mason & Nelson Sr~ts Bchimllh~ Old ViIlag~ of Arroyo G(and~ -- --...- _.. ... .. - .---.----.---... -.-. ---. -..---....--- ___-.J .._~"..._-~ 1O.a. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGE~~ SUBJECT: CHANGE OF REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TIME DATE: APRIL 27,1999 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council: . Introduce for first reading an ordinance modifying Title 2, Chapter 1, Article 1 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code regarding the date and time for regular meetings of the City Council; . Adopt a resolution establishing 7 p.m. as the time City Council meetings shall begin, effective July 1, 1999. FUNDING: None DISCUSSION: The City Council, at its meeting of April 13th, directed staff to initiate steps to change the time of regular City Council meetings. The proposed ordinance deletes from the Municipal Code any specific time for the Council meeting and substitutes language indicating the time of the regular meeting shall be set by resolution. Further, the ordinance modifies the current four-fifths vote of the Council to change the time to a simple majority. The resolution proposes to establish the meeting time of regular Council meetings at 7 p.m. Staff is further recommending that the change from 7:.30 p.m. to 7 p.m. not occur until the first Council meeting of the new fiscal year (July 13, 1999). This delay in making the change will provide the opportunity to ensure adequate notice is given to citizens and all interested parties. --,._~.- CITY COUNCIL CHANGE OF CITY REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING TIME APRIL 27,1999 Alternatives The following alternatives are presented for the Council's consideration: . Approve staff's recommendation; . Modify staff's recommendation; . Reject staff's recommendation; or . Provide direction to staff. jv ORDINANCE NO. C.S. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, REPEALING AND REPLACING ARTICLE 1', CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE 2 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized by law to establish the place, date and time for regular City Council meetings. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Article 1, Chapter 1 of Title 2 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 2-1.101. Meetings: Time. The date and time for regular meetings of the City Council shall be established by resolution of the City Council. 2-1.102. Meetings: Place. Regular meetings of the City Council shall be held at the City Council Chambers. located at 215 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande; proYided, howeyer, the place of regular meetings may be changed by majority yote of the City Council and upon posting on the doors of the City Council Chambers a notice of the time and place of the changed meeting. SECTION 2: That all ordinances, codes, sections of ordinances and codes, and resolutions that are inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 3: If any section, subsection, subdiYision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the yalidity 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. ORDINANCE NO. C.S. PAGE 2 SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and operation on July 1. 1999. SECTION 5: 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 Administratiye Services. Within (15) days after adoption of the Ordinance. the summary with the names of those City Council- members yoting for and against the Ordinance shall be published again. and the Director of Administratiye Services shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance. On motion of Council Member . seconded by Council Member . and on the following roll call yote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this day of .1999. - -'---~ .-,-'.~...-~-_...._.- --"~'----'-- --_._..~ ORDINANCE NO. C.S. PAGE 3 MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: KDlrt:rL. ~~ ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY - , _._,._---~.~--.~----- --... RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ESTABLISHING THE DATE AND TIME FOR REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized by law to establish the date and time for regular City Council meetings; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Arroyo Grande to establish the date and time for regular City Council meetings as set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande that, effectiye July 1, 1999, regular City Council meetings shall be held on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at the hour of 7:00 p.m. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call yote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of ,1999. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 MICHAELA. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: , KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ~LelT L.liuG1 ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY -_._-~---_._.- 2-1.101 2-1.103 , TITLE 2. . ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER 1. COUNCIL Article 1. Meetings Se'c. 2-1.101. Meetin~s: Time.. . Regular meetings of the Council shall be'held on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 7:)0 p.m. (Sec. 1, Ord. 115) I Sec; 2-1.102. Meetings: Place. All regular meetings of the Council shall be held in the Council Chambers~ provided, however, the place of regular meetings may be changed upon a four-fifths (4/5) ~ajority vote of the Council and upon posting on the doors of the Council Chamb~rs a notice of the time ~~d place of the changed meeting. (Sec. 2, Ord. 11), as amended by Sec. 1, Ord. 252 C..S., eft. October 8, 1981) Sec. 2-1.103. Meetin~sl Chan~e of time. The Council, from time to time, may change the hoUr or day of the month on which regular meetings of the Council shall be held by the adoption of a resolution so to do passed by a four-fifths (4/5) majority vote of the Council. The Council, from time to time, may change the days of the month on which regular meetings of' the Council shall be held by the adoption of a resolution so to do passed by a four-fifths (4/5) majority vote of the Council. (Sec. J, Ord. 11), and Sec. 2, Ord. 115) 16 Reprint No. 27 - 5-14-82 -~---~ ------ 11.a. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL ~ FROM: DANIEL C. HERNANDEZ, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION SUBJECT: REIMBURSEMENT OF FEES - SPECIAL OLYMPICS OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DATE: APRIL 27,1999 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council proYide direction to staff regarding two (2) separate reimbursement requests from Special Olympics of San Luis Obispo County for use of the City of Arroyo Grande and Woman's Club Community Center on Friday, April 9 and Monday, April 12, 1999. FUNDING: Approyal of the fee reimbursement requests 'NOuld result in a reduction of Community Center rental fees of $330 ($250 for rental April 9, 1999 plus $80 for use April 12, 1999). DISCUSSION: Special Olympics of San Luis Obispo County completed separate reimbursement requests for two different scheduled events. Aoril 9. 1999 use reQuest: This event was a dance for Special Olympians. Special Olympics of San Luis Obispo County is a nonprofit organization; howeyer, 50% of its membership are not Arroyo Grande residents so it does not qualify for criteria item #1 on the Fee Waiver or Reduction Criteria Form (Attachment 1). The organization does not provide 50% of its budget to support programs and actiyities specifically to City of Arroyo Grande or Fiye Cities area clientele but rather for individuals throughout the County and therefore does not qualify for criteria item #3 or #4. Special Olympics of San Luis Obispo County qualifies for one (1) point rather than four (4) points on the Fee Waiver or Reduction Criteria Form. Special Olympics of San Luis Obispo County has not previously submitted a fee waiyer request to the City Council for use of the City of Arroyo Grande and Woman's Club Community Center. Calculation of Costs for April 9. 1999 event: Current fees charoed to user orouc: Rental Fee $250 per day for Friday through Sunday use. Actual costs to the City: $47. 81/hour x 6 hours (5:00 -11 :00 P.M.) = $286.86 (Attachment 2) -"- ---~--_..._-_._._., ^ "~ MEMORANDUM: WAIVER OF FEES - SPECIAL OL YMPICS OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY APRIL 27, 1999 PAGE 2 Aoril 12. 1999 use reQuest: This event was a yolunteer orientation for the organization. A request for reimbursement was submitted to the Parks and Rea-eation Commission at its April 14th meeting for 2.5 hours of use at the City of Arroyo Grande and Woman's Club Community Center. The score on the Fee Waiver or Reduction Criteria Form (Attachment 3) submitted for this eyent should also be changed to two (2) points because the organization does not consist of 50% Arroyo Grande residents. The reason for the different score on the April 12th request as opposed to the April 9th request is due to the fact the meeting on April 12th was scheduled for midweek (Monday - Thursday) as per criteria item #7. The reimbursement request for the April 12th eyent was not approYed by the Parks and Recreation Commission due to a 2-2 yote (Commissioner Lozano and Vice Chair Borgman yoting for approyal of the request, Commissioner Brown and Chairperson Storton voting for denial of the request, Commissioner Martin was absent). Dick Blankenburg, a representative of Special Olympics, requested that the Commission's decision be appealed to the City Council. Calculation 9f Costs for Aori112. 1999 eyent: Current fees charced to user group: Rental Fee $32/hour x 2 % hours (6:00 P.M. - 8:30 P.M.)= $80.00 Actual costs to the City: $47.81/hour x 2 % hours (6:00 P.M. - 8:30 P.M.) = $119.53 (Attachment 2) Alternatiyes: The following alternatives are proyided for the Council's consideration: . Approve the reimbursement requests; . Do not approye the reimbursement requests; . Modify the reimbursement requests as appropriate; or . Proyide direction to staff. S:\StaffRpt\FeeWaiverSpecOlympicsApr27 .99 -- ---_.~.,--- Attachment 1 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE FEE WAIVER OR REDUCTION CRIT~M Name: A:JISS:.PO ~~lIb4 ., Phone #: 5'#-~L/'I1 Type of Fee Reque te to Be 'ved: ,..-:e;J. Total Fee Amt. To Be Considered: $ .::L'5'"D WAIVER OF FEES: All groups/organizations/sponsors requesting a waiver of fees must submit a completed Fee Waiver or Reduction Criteria Fonn with a letter stating: (a) the facility requested, (b) event, (c) which fees should be waived, and (d) verification of infonnation requested on the criteria fonn (e.g., organization donates 50% of its budget-supporting programs in the Five Cities area). Please include all additional infonnation on a separate sheet of paper along with your letter of request. All fonns and letters should be submitted to the Parks and Recreation Office and addressed: For Reauests for Fees Totalina $200 or Less: For Reauests for Fees Tota/ina 5201 or More: Parks and Recreation Commission Arroyo Grande City Council c/o Parks and Recreation Office Attention: City Clerk Post Office Box 550 Post Office Box 550 1221 Ash Street 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande.. CA 93421 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 Check below each item that a lies to our rou or Of'; anization: 1. Local Arroyo Grande-based non~profit group or organization # '1r; ,. 4S~84sD (provide 1.0. number). "Local" is defined as 50% membership from the City of Arroyo Grande. ~ - 2. Non-profit group/organization services youth only, ages 6 . 18; and no specific program fees are charged youth (other than registration fee). Number of youth served: Registration fee charged to youth: ~3. L4. The facility/activity requested and all proceeds will be used for a specific City of Arroyo Grande/Five Cities area public project, be e It ~r ca e.. Exal!!l2le _ of coecific service/project: I-' )(5 The event proposed is open to the public, an9 the organization/sponsor is not requesting a donation or -' charging a fee for entry or to participants (vendors, speakers, etc.). - 6. Group or organization provides a yearly donation (equipment, monetary, services-in-kind) to the City of Arroyo Grande. Specific donation: . Date of donation: - 7. Mid-week or shared scheduling of facility. The group has requested a date during the week (Monday - Thursday), and another organization will be meeting at the same time. - TOTAL NUMBER OF CRITERIA ITEMS WHICH APPLY. QUALlFICA TrONS: Groups meeting criteria 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. DETERMINATION: All requests for the reduction or waiver of fees that require a Public Safety and Welfare Pennit or Police Department Auxiliary Police Services (e.g., fees established by City Ordinance or Resolution) are appealed directly to the City Council. Field rental fees (excluding tournaments, lighting, and field preps) shall be waived for all youth sport activities scoring five (5) points or more on a fully completed Fee Waiver or Reduction Criteria Fonn. "Youth sport activities" shall 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 TOTALING $200 OR LESS FOR USE OF A CITY FACILITY: Waiver or reduction of the fees can be approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission. All decisions made by the Parks and Recreation Commission can be appealed to the City Council. FOR FEES TOTALING $201 OR MORE FOR USE OF A CITY FACILITY: Waiver or reduction of fees must be approved by the City Council. c:\forms\FeeWaiverJrm (Revised: 11/24197) -