Arroyo Grande City Council
February 27, 2024

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

AGENDA SUMMARY

Tuesday, February 27, 2024, 6:00 p.m.

In person at:

Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
215 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
AND via Zoom at:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86752345420
Please click the link above to join the Zoom Meeting:

Webinar ID: 867 5234 5420
Or by Telephone: 1-669-900-6833; 1-346-248-7799
This City Council meeting is being conducted in a hybrid in-person/virtual format. Members of the public may participate and provide public comment on agenda items during the meeting in person at the location identified above, by joining the Zoom meeting, or by submitting written public comments to the Clerk of the Council at [email protected]. Meetings will be broadcast live on Channel 20 and streamed on the City’s website and www.slo-span.org.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. MOMENT OF REFLECTION

4. FLAG SALUTE

5. AGENDA REVIEW

5.a Closed Session Announcements
The City Attorney will Council will announce any reportable action for the following meeting:

February 13, 2024
a) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8:

Property: 214 East Branch Street
Agency Negotiators: Matthew Downing, City Manager; Bill Robeson, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director

5.b Ordinances read in title only
Recommended Action:

Move that all ordinances presented at the meeting shall be read by title only and all further readings be waived.

6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

6.a Honorary Proclamation Recognizing March 2024 as Women's History Month

6.b City Manager Communications
(DOWNING)
Recommended Action:

Receive correspondence/comments as presented by the City Manager and Provide direction, as necessary.

7. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS

7.a MAYOR RAY RUSSOM:

1. California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA)

2. Central Coast Blue Regional Recycled Water Authority Board

3. Five Cities Fire Authority

4. San Luis Obispo County Mayor's Meeting

5. South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD)

6. Other

7.b MAYOR PRO TEM GUTHRIE:

1. County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC)
Council of Governments/Regional Transit Authority/ South County Transit (SLOCOG/SLORTA/SCT)

2. 3. Integrated Waste Management Authority Board (IWMA)

4. REACH Economic Development Roundtable

5. Other

7.c COUNCIL MEMBER BARNEICH:

1. Audit Committee

2. Homeless Services Oversight Council (HSOC)

3. Zone 3 Water Advisory Board

4. Other

7.d COUNCIL MEMBER GEORGE:

1. Five Cities Fire Authority

2. Tourism Business Improvement District Advisory Board

3. Visit SLO CAL Advisory Board

4. Other

7.e COUNCIL MEMBER SECREST:

1. Air Pollution Control District (APCD)

2. South County Chambers of Commerce Governmental Affairs Committee

3. Other

8. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present issues, thoughts, or suggestions on matters not scheduled on this agenda. Comments should be limited to those matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City Council. Members of the public may provide public comment in-person or remotely by joining the Zoom meeting utilizing one of the methods provided below. Please use the “raise hand” feature to indicate your desire to provide public comment.

Click the link below to join the webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86752345420; Webinar ID: 867 5234 5420
•
Or by Telephone: 1-669-900-6833; 1-346-248-7799
Press * 9 to “raise hand” for public comment
•
The Brown Act restricts the Council from taking formal action on matters not published on the agenda. In response to your comments, the Mayor or presiding Council Member may:
• Direct City staff to assist or coordinate with you.
• A Council Member may state a desire to meet with you. • It may be the desire of the Council to place your issue or matter on a future Council agenda.

Please adhere to the following procedures when addressing the Council:
• Comments should be limited to 3 minutes or less.
• Your comments should be directed to the Council as a whole and not directed to individual Council members.
• Slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member or member of the audience shall not be permitted.

9. CONSENT AGENDA
The following routine items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group. The recommendations for each item are noted. Any member of the public who wishes to comment on any Consent Agenda item may do so at this time. Any Council Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit discussion or change the recommended course of action. The City Council may approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda on one motion.

9.a Consideration of Cash Disbursement Ratification
(VALENTINE)
Recommended Action:
1) Ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for the period of January 16 through January 31, 2024;
2) Determine that ratifying the cash disbursements is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378.)

9.b Consideration of Fiscal Year 2023-24 Second Quarter Status Report and Request to Approve Six Budget Adjustment Requests

(VALENTINE)
Recommended Action:

Consider, receive, and file the FY 2023-24 Second Quarter Report; and approve six Budget Adjustment Requests.

9.c Consideration of Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section 3.36.030 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Regarding Development Impact Fees (VALENTINE)
Recommended Action:
1) Adopt the Ordinance amending Section 3.36.030 regarding Development Impact Fees; and
2) Find that the Ordinance does not qualify as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the Ordinance has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3)).

9.d Approval of Minutes
(MATSON)
Recommended Action:

Approve the minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of February 13, 2024, as submitted.

9.e Consideration of Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Regarding the Definition of Formula Business (PEDROTTI)
Recommended Action:
1) Adopt the Ordinance amending Section 16.04.070 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code regarding the definition of a Formula Business; and
2) Find that the Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the Ordinance does not qualify as a “project” under CEQA and because the Ordinance will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines section 15060, subd. (c)(2), (3), section 15378).

9.f Monthly Water Supply and Demand
(ROBESON)
Recommended Action:

Receive and file the Monthly Water Supply and Demand Update.

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS

10.a Conduct Public Hearing and Consider a Resolution Denying the Installation of One (1) Domestic Well on Property Zoned Planned Development (PD); Applicant–Michael Harris; Representative–Richard Burde, SLO Civil Design and Marsha Burch, Attorney at Law (PEDROTTI)
Recommended Action:
1) Adopt a Resolution denying the request by Michael Harris to drill and install one (1) new

domestic well on an unaddressed property on Noyes Road (APN: 007-781-055) northeast of the intersection of Noyes Road and Equestrian Way; and 2) Determine that the denial is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency disapproves or rejects (Pub. Resources Code § 21080(b)(5); State CEQA Guidelines, § 15270(a)), and it will not have direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental impacts (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378.

11. OLD BUSINESS

11.a Update on City Council Goals and Priorities
(DOWNING)
Recommended Action:

Receive an update regarding progress toward the Goals and Priorities for FY 2023-25.

12. NEW BUSINESS
None.

13. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Any Council Member may ask a question for clarification, make an announcement, or report briefly on his or her activities. In addition, subject to Council policies and procedures, Council Members may request staff to report back to the Council at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter or request that staff place a matter of business on a future agenda. Any request to place a matter of business for original consideration on a future agenda requires the concurrence of at least one other Council Member.

14. CLOSED SESSION
The City Council will recess to a closed session for the following:
a) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8:

Real Property under negotiation along Traffic Way, including the following addresses and negotiating parties:

1. APN 006-311-056: Ben Dohi TRE ETAL

2. APN 007-481-009: Romel & Mercedes Fernandez

3. APN 007-481-008: Dan Frietas Rentals 3 LP a CA LP

4. APN 007-482-026: Mes Hansen

5. APN 007-481-011: Raffi M. Kaloosian

6. APN 007-482-018: Coyote Real Estate Corporation

7. APN 007-482-020: Coyote Real Estate Corporation

8. APN 007-482-006: Lan Vest Limited, Pacific Group Fuel LLC

9. APN 007-481-007: Pearl Cole I Family Trust

10. APN 006-311-067: Adam H. Saruwatari TRE ETAL

Agency Negotiators: Matthew Downing, City Manager; Bill Robeson, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment

15. ADJOURNMENT
All staff reports or other written documentation, including any supplemental material distributed to a majority of the City Council within 72 hours of a regular meeting, relating to each item of business on the agenda are available for public inspection during regular business hours in the City Clerk’s office, 300 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande. If requested, the agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. To make a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, contact the Legislative and Information Services Department at 805-473-5400 as soon as possible and at least 48 hours prior to the meeting date.

This agenda was prepared and posted pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2 Agenda reports can be accessed and downloaded from the City’s website at www.arroyogrande.org If you would like to subscribe to receive email or text message notifications when agendas are posted, you can sign up online through the “Notify Me” feature.

City Council Meetings are cablecast live and videotaped for replay on Arroyo Grande’s Government Access Channel 20. The rebroadcast schedule is published at www.slo-span.org.

Item 6.a.

Item 9.a.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Nicole Valentine, Administrative Services Director BY: Lynda Horejsi, Accounting Manager
SUBJECT: Consideration of Cash Disbursement Ratification DATE: February 27, 2024
SUMMARY OF ACTION:

Review and ratify cash disbursements for the period of January 16 through January 31, 2024.

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

There is a $4,168,509.61 fiscal impact for the period of January 16 through January 31, 2024, that includes the following items:
 Accounts Payable Checks $ 3,668,953.40
 Payroll & Benefit Checks $ 499,556.21
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for the period of January 16 through January 31, 2024;
2) Determine that ratifying the cash disbursements is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378.)
BACKGROUND:

Cash disbursements are made weekly based on the submission of all required documents supporting the invoices submitted for payment. Prior to payment, Administrative Services staff reviews all disbursement documents to ensure that they meet the approval requirements adopted in the Municipal Code and the City’s Purchasing Policies and Procedures Manual.

Item 9.a.

City Council
Consideration of Cash Disbursement Ratification
February 27, 2024

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

The attached listing represents the cash disbursements required of normal and usual operations during the period. The disbursements are accounted for in the FY 2023-24 budget.

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:

1. Approve staff’s recommendation;

2. Do not approve staff’s recommendation; or

3. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:
 The Administrative Services Department monitors payments of invoices for accountability, accuracy, and completeness using standards approved by the City Council.
 Invoices are paid in a timely manner to establish goodwill with merchants.  Discounts are taken where applicable.

DISADVANTAGES:

There are no disadvantages identified in this recommendation.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Ratifying the cash disbursements is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378.)
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. January 16 through January 31, 2024 – Accounts Payable Check Register

2. January 26, 2024 – Payroll & Benefit Check Register

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE

CHECK LISTING
JANUARY 16 - JANUARY 31, 2024
ATTACHMENT 1
Line Check Date Check # Amount Description Acct # Vendor Name1 01/17/2024 299972 $ 54,451.46 FEDERAL WITHHOLDING 011.0000.2104 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE2 01/17/2024 299972 63,893.68 SOCIAL SECURITY 011.0000.2105 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE3 01/17/2024 299972 15,304.06 MEDICARE 011.0000.2105 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE4 01/17/2024 299973 21,983.36 STATE WITHHOLDING 011.0000.2108 CA ST EMPLOYMENT DEVEL DEPT5 01/17/2024 299973 4,985.41 CASDI 011.0000.2111 CA ST EMPLOYMENT DEVEL DEPT6 01/17/2024 299974 458.76 DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 011.0000.2114 CA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT7 01/17/2024 299975 5,249.64 DEFERRED COMPENSATION - EE % 011.0000.2117 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP8 01/17/2024 299975 42,017.90 DEFERRED COMPENSATION - EE 011.0000.2117 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP9 01/17/2024 299975 850.00 DEFERRED COMPENSATION - ER 011.0000.2117 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP10 01/17/2024 299975 135.00 ROTH - AFTER TAX 011.0000.2117 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP11 01/17/2024 299975 187.64 ROTH % - AFTER TAX 011.0000.2117 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP12 01/17/2024 299976 4,996.44 02/24 RETIREE MEDICAL 010.4099.5136 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP13 01/17/2024 299976 328.87 02/24 RETIREE MEDICAL 220.4303.5136 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP14 01/17/2024 299976 584.12 02/24 RETIREE MEDICAL 010.0000.1111 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP15 01/17/2024 299977 43,757.79 PERS RETIREMENT 011.0000.2106 PERS - RETIREMENT16 01/17/2024 299977 60,158.09 PERS RETIREMENT 011.0000.2106 PERS - RETIREMENT17 01/17/2024 299977 1,489.06 PERS Employer Pick Up 011.0000.2106 PERS - RETIREMENT18 01/17/2024 299977 497.46 PERS BUYBACK - PRE TAX 011.0000.2106 PERS - RETIREMENT19 01/17/2024 299977 (0.06) ROUNDING DIFFERENCE 010.0000.4818 PERS - RETIREMENT20 01/17/2024 299978 3,108.33 FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNT 011.0000.2127 STERLING ADMINISTRATION21 01/17/2024 299979 692.41 PARS 011.0000.2107 US BANK OF CALIFORNIA22 01/19/2024 299980 280.27 PURCHASE WATER METERS & REPLACEMENT PARTS 640.4712.5611 AQUA-METRIC SALES CO(DBA)23 01/19/2024 299981 320.00 12/23 VILLAGE WATERING 010.4420.5605 ARROYO GRANDE IN BLOOM INC24 01/19/2024 299982 184.34 ACCT#238451-01839190 RADIO 010.4145.5403 AT & T25 01/19/2024 299983 165.00 PEST CONTROL-PW 010.4213.5303 BREZDEN PEST CONTROL, INC26 01/19/2024 299984 23.47 (2) FAST SET CONCRETE 220.4303.5613 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER YARD27 01/19/2024 299985 185.00 CLA-VAL TRAINING PER DIEM 1/30-2/1 640.4712.5501 KORY BROOKS28 01/19/2024 299986 12.34 20' REBAR 220.4303.5613 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, INC29 01/19/2024 299986 35.89 LUMBER-(2) 4X4 220.4303.5613 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, INC30 01/19/2024 299986 16.98 LUMBER- 1X4, 2X4 220.4303.5613 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, INC31 01/19/2024 299987 740.87 12/23 CMC TREE TRIMMING 220.4303.5303 CA ST DEPT OF CORRECTIONS32 01/19/2024 299987 2,217.35 10/23 CMC WEED & BRUSH ABATEMENT 220.4303.5303 CA ST DEPT OF CORRECTIONS33 01/19/2024 299988 4,470.84 19 CY SHOTCRETE FOR HS BASIN DRAINAGE 220.4303.5303 CALPORTLAND CONSTRUCTION34 01/19/2024 299989 11.09 PD-4606 PARTS 010.4203.5601 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS35 01/19/2024 299990 1,349.00 ACCT#170563401-CITY HALL FIBER 010.4140.5303 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS36 01/19/2024 299990 58.63 ACCT#090058901 CITY HALL TV 010.4145.5401 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS37 01/19/2024 299990 327.16 ACCT#170562601 WOMENS CLUB DARK FIBER 010.4145.5401 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE

CHECK LISTING
JANUARY 16 - JANUARY 31, 2024
ATTACHMENT 1
Line Check Date Check # Amount Description Acct # Vendor Name38 01/19/2024 299990 $ 761.32 ACCT#170563801 REC DARK FIBER 010.4145.5401 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS39 01/19/2024 299990 736.80 ACCT#170564001 PW DARK FIBER 010.4145.5401 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS40 01/19/2024 299990 185.15 ACCT#170562101 PD TV 010.4145.5401 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS41 01/19/2024 299990 987.20 ACCT#170562201 PD DARK FIBER 010.4145.5401 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS42 01/19/2024 299990 122.11 ACCT#170563101 COUNCIL CHAMBER 010.4145.5401 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS43 01/19/2024 299990 199.98 ACCT#170562001 PD INTERNET 010.4201.5403 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS44 01/19/2024 299990 1,349.00 ACCT#170563301 COUNCIL CHAMBER 211.4101.5330 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS45 01/19/2024 299990 59.73 ACCT#170564101 PW TV 010.4307.5303 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS46 01/19/2024 299991 4,768.00 01/24 CIO SOLUTIONS IT SUPPORT 010.4140.5303 CIO SOLUTIONS LP47 01/19/2024 299991 1,460.00 01/24 CROWDSTRIKE ADV DEFEND 010.4140.5303 CIO SOLUTIONS LP48 01/19/2024 299991 470.20 01/24 CIO ENTERPRISE MITEL SUPPORT 010.4140.5303 CIO SOLUTIONS LP49 01/19/2024 299991 6,168.00 01/24 MICROSOFT 365 G3 & PROJECT PLAN 3 GCC 010.4140.5607 CIO SOLUTIONS LP50 01/19/2024 299992 4.20 REFUND BLD24-000005 010.0000.2208 COAST ROOFING51 01/19/2024 299992 399.00 REFUND BLD24-000005 010.0000.4181 COAST ROOFING52 01/19/2024 299992 1.00 REFUND BLD24-000005 010.0000.2223 COAST ROOFING53 01/19/2024 299993 372.59 ACCT#2901-1271650-01 METRO INTERNET 010.4140.5303 DIGITAL WEST NETWORKS INC54 01/19/2024 299994 375.00 TRAINING PER DIEM- 5 DAYS X $75 010.4204.5501 STEPHEN DOHERTY55 01/19/2024 299995 4,950.00 SOTO FIELD TURF RENOVATION-UPPER 214.4550.5606 DORMAN HYDRO-SEEDING 56 01/19/2024 299996 185.00 CLA-VAL TRAINING PER DIEM 1/30-2/1 640.4712.5501 JEFFREY GARRITY57 01/19/2024 299997 18,100.60 NEOGOV SUBSCRIPTION 8/23-8/24 010.4140.5303 NEOGOV GOVERNMENTJOBS.COM INC 58 01/19/2024 299998 106.08 PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL 12/15-1/11 220.4303.5552 HARVEY'S HONEY HUTS59 01/19/2024 299999 16.87 (10) 3" GASKETS 640.4712.5610 ICONIX WATERWORKS (US) INC60 01/19/2024 300000 93.59 FORM A FUNNEL KIT 010.4305.5255 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC61 01/19/2024 300001 50.00 01/05/24 PICKLEBALL ROUND ROBIN 010.4424.5351 MAUREEN LEWIS62 01/19/2024 300002 345.00 CONFERENCE -LAS VEGAS 1/22-1/26 010.4201.5501 MICHAEL MARTINEZ63 01/19/2024 300003 402.47 SOUTH TRAFFIC WAY WATER SERVICE RELOCATION 010.4301.5303 MICHAEL K NUNLEY & ASSOC.64 01/19/2024 300003 5,587.24 2023 TRENCHLESS SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT 612.5826.7501 MICHAEL K NUNLEY & ASSOC.65 01/19/2024 300004 312.48 1 CU YD 2.5 SACK CONCRETE 220.4303.5613 MIER BROS LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS66 01/19/2024 300004 145.46 1.4 CU YD 6 SACK CONCRETE-TWB 220.4303.5613 MIER BROS LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS67 01/19/2024 300005 58.07 GROUNDS MAINT-EXT CORDS, FASTENER 010.4201.5605 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC68 01/19/2024 300005 27.99 SLAB CONCRETE SEALER 010.4213.5604 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC69 01/19/2024 300005 16.15 SAFETY GLASSES 010.4213.5604 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC70 01/19/2024 300005 79.70 DOOR SEAL, WEATHER STRIPPING, THRESHOLD 010.4213.5604 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC71 01/19/2024 300005 107.74 BALLAST BYPASS LED LIGHTS 010.4213.5604 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC72 01/19/2024 300005 56.69 GAS CAN, GLOVES, FASTENERS 010.4420.5605 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC73 01/19/2024 300005 8.51 FASTENERS 010.4420.5605 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC74 01/19/2024 300005 193.92 (3) AQUAPHALT ASPHALT PATCH 220.4303.5613 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE

CHECK LISTING
JANUARY 16 - JANUARY 31, 2024
ATTACHMENT 1
Line Check Date Check # Amount Description Acct # Vendor Name75 01/19/2024 300005 $ 26.91 GLOVES, 5 IN 1 SPRAY 220.4303.5613 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC76 01/19/2024 300005 30.15 POLY SHEETING, DUCT TAPE 220.4303.5613 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC77 01/19/2024 300006 81.09 PW-22 TPMS SENSOR 220.4303.5601 MULLAHEY FORD78 01/19/2024 300006 190.03 PD-4606 REPAIR 010.4203.5601 MULLAHEY FORD79 01/19/2024 300007 251.54 (10) SAW CHAINS 220.4303.5603 NOBLE SAW, INC80 01/19/2024 300007 44.48 STARTER ASSMBLY 220.4303.5603 NOBLE SAW, INC81 01/19/2024 300007 57.96 SPANNER WHEELS, SCREWS, NUT LOCKS 220.4303.5613 NOBLE SAW, INC82 01/19/2024 300008 33.39 ELECTRIC-WELL#11 352 LA CANADA 640.4711.5402 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO83 01/19/2024 300008 15.55 ELECTRIC-484 BAKEMAN LN 219.4460.5304 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO84 01/19/2024 300009 227.21 REPAIR ROOT CUTTER 612.4610.5603 PLUMBERS DEPOT INC.85 01/19/2024 300010 24.49 BLDG MAINT UNIFORMS 010.4213.5143 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY86 01/19/2024 300010 48.41 JACKETS FOR 2 PW EMPLOYEES 010.4213.5255 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY87 01/19/2024 300010 25.03 CITY HALL MATS 010.4213.5303 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY88 01/19/2024 300010 48.02 WOMENS CLUB MATS, MOPS 010.4213.5303 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY89 01/19/2024 300010 27.63 PD MATS 010.4213.5303 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY90 01/19/2024 300010 31.17 REC DEPT MATS, MOPS 010.4213.5303 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY91 01/19/2024 300010 36.68 AUTO SHOP UNIFORMS 010.4305.5143 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY92 01/19/2024 300010 57.31 PARKS DEPT UNIFORMS 010.4420.5143 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY93 01/19/2024 300010 48.41 JACKETS FOR 2 PW EMPLOYEES 010.4420.5255 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY94 01/19/2024 300010 23.08 SOTO SPORTS COMPLEX UNIFORMS 010.4430.5143 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 95 01/19/2024 300010 33.18 STREETS DEPT UNIFORMS 220.4303.5143 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY96 01/19/2024 300010 23.08 SEWER DEPT UNIFORMS 612.4610.5143 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY97 01/19/2024 300010 46.72 WATER DEPT UNIFORMS 640.4712.5143 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY98 01/19/2024 300011 1,991.00 SART EXAM CASE#2301596 010.4204.5324 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SART PROGRAM99 01/19/2024 300011 1,991.00 SART EXAM CASE#23016050 010.4204.5324 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SART PROGRAM100 01/19/2024 300012 214.42 STICK TRANSFER PUMP 010.4420.5255 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC101 01/19/2024 300012 126.27 (2) 2.5 GALL HERBICIDE 010.4420.5605 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC102 01/19/2024 300013 81.16 GAS SERVICES-200 N HALCYON 010.4145.5401 SOCALGAS103 01/19/2024 300013 15.29 GAS SERVICES-350 S ELM 010.4145.5401 SOCALGAS104 01/19/2024 300013 204.34 GAS SERVICES-1375 ASH ST 010.4145.5401 SOCALGAS105 01/19/2024 300014 194,697.54 11/23 SEWER SVC COLLECTIONS 760.0000.2304 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST 106 01/19/2024 300014 759.75 11/23 (1) SEWER SVC HOOKUP (ADU) 760.0000.2305 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST107 01/19/2024 300014 8.81 CITY ACCT-215 E BRANCH 010.4145.5401 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST108 01/19/2024 300014 8.81 CITY ACCT-300 E BRANCH 010.4145.5401 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST109 01/19/2024 300014 8.81 CITY ACCT-211 VERNON ST 010.4145.5401 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST 110 01/19/2024 300014 8.81 CITY ACCT-RANCHO GRANDE PARK 010.4145.5401 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST111 01/19/2024 300014 8.81 CITY ACCT-STROTHER PARK 010.4145.5401 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE

CHECK LISTING
JANUARY 16 - JANUARY 31, 2024
ATTACHMENT 1
Line Check Date Check # Amount Description Acct # Vendor Name112 01/19/2024 300014 $ 8.81 CITY ACCT-SHORT ST RESTROOMS 010.4145.5401 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST113 01/19/2024 300014 8.81 CITY ACCT-ELM ST PARK 010.4145.5401 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST114 01/19/2024 300014 8.81 CITY ACCT-203 N RENA 010.4145.5401 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST115 01/19/2024 300014 8.81 CITY ACCT-1221 ASH ST 010.4145.5401 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST116 01/19/2024 300014 8.81 CITY ACCT-SOTO SPORTS COMPLEX 010.4145.5401 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST117 01/19/2024 300014 8.81 CITY ACCT-127 SHORT ST 010.4145.5401 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST118 01/19/2024 300014 8.81 CITY ACCT-211 N HALCYON RD 010.4145.5401 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST119 01/19/2024 300015 39,678.96 WATER SYSTEM ANNUAL FEES 7/1/23-6/30/24 640.4710.5303 SWRCB120 01/19/2024 300016 172.40 SOCKET HOLDER, PRYBAR, PICK SET, WRENCH 010.4305.5273 TCA TOOLS INC121 01/19/2024 300017 389.44 UNIFORMS-BUTTONS, WASHERS, TOGGLES 010.4203.5272 TEMPLETON UNIFORMS122 01/19/2024 300018 28.17 SHIPPING ROOT CUTTER 612.4610.5610 THE UPS STORE123 01/19/2024 300019 928.28 PAYROLL FOR:W/E 01/14 PARKS WORKER 010.4420.5303 UNITED STAFFING ASSOC.124 01/19/2024 300019 1,044.32 PAYROLL FOR:W/E 01/07 PARKS WORKER 010.4420.5303 UNITED STAFFING ASSOC.125 01/19/2024 300020 304.08 ACCT#208620661-00003 CITY IPAD 010.4145.5403 VERIZON WIRELESS126 01/19/2024 300021 13,981.74 11/23 TMD ASSESSMENT REMITTANCE 761.0000.2007 VISIT SLO CAL127 01/19/2024 300021 (279.63) 11/23 CITY ADMIN FEE 010.0000.4771 VISIT SLO CAL128 01/19/2024 300022 0.50 REFUND BLD22-000021 010.0000.2208 WATER FIXERS PLUMBING129 01/19/2024 300022 181.00 REFUND BLD22-000021 010.0000.4182 WATER FIXERS PLUMBING130 01/19/2024 300022 1.00 REFUND BLD22-000021 010.0000.2223 WATER FIXERS PLUMBING131 01/19/2024 300023 308.00 ASH ST RESTROOMS SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE 010.4213.5303 WATERBOYS PLUMBING132 01/19/2024 300024 184.99 UB Refund Cst #00028860 640.0000.2301 TAYLOR LATIMER133 01/19/2024 300025 16.51 UB Refund Cst #00027657 640.0000.2301 SHANNON SA134 01/19/2024 300026 150.17 UB Refund Cst #00027571 640.0000.2301 TRAVIS & JESSICA SCHRAG135 01/19/2024 300027 62.36 UB Refund Cst #00027094 640.0000.2301 LISA WHITMIRE136 01/19/2024 300028 9,117.02 FEDERAL WITHHOLDING 011.0000.2104 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE137 01/19/2024 300028 8,864.14 SOCIAL SECURITY 011.0000.2105 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE138 01/19/2024 300028 2,073.10 MEDICARE 011.0000.2105 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE139 01/19/2024 300029 2,735.14 STATE PIT W/H 011.0000.2108 CA ST EMPLOYMENT DEVEL DEPT140 01/19/2024 300029 786.34 STATE SDI CONTRIBUTION 011.0000.2111 CA ST EMPLOYMENT DEVEL DEPT141 01/19/2024 300030 5,229.88 EE DEFERRED COMP % 011.0000.2117 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP142 01/19/2024 300030 24,813.62 EE DEFERRED COMP FLAT 011.0000.2117 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP143 01/26/2024 300031 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-RANCHO GRANDE 010.0000.2206 JUDICK AGAPAY144 01/26/2024 300031 60.00 PARK RENTAL REFUND-RANCHO GRANDE 010.0000.4354 JUDICK AGAPAY145 01/26/2024 300032 167.92 01/24 COMM MAINT 010.4204.5606 APPLIED TECHNOLOGY GROUP INC146 01/26/2024 300033 177.35 BAN#9391033184 010.4201.5403 AT&T147 01/26/2024 300033 34.35 BAN#9391033183 010.4201.5403 AT&T148 01/26/2024 300033 83.10 BAN#9391033187 010.4201.5403 AT&T

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE

CHECK LISTING
JANUARY 16 - JANUARY 31, 2024
ATTACHMENT 1
Line Check Date Check # Amount Description Acct # Vendor Name149 01/26/2024 300034 $ 8,980.00 SHOTCRETE CREW, PROJECT MGR, ADMIN 220.4303.5303 ATKINSON ENGINEERING INC150 01/26/2024 300035 232.74 AUDIO REPAIR AT WOMENS CLUB 010.4421.5701 A-TOWN AUDIO VIDEO151 01/26/2024 300036 200.00 DO INSPECTION-PW FUEL PUMPS 010.4305.5303 B & T SVC STN CONTRACTORS, INC152 01/26/2024 300037 262.50 CO #1 - PURCHASING POLICY UPDATE 010.4120.5303 BAKER TILLY US LLP153 01/26/2024 300038 26.00 CAR WASH-PD ADMIN 010.4201.5601 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH154 01/26/2024 300038 11.00 CAR WASH-PW B-409 010.4212.5601 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH155 01/26/2024 300038 13.00 CAR WASH-PW 4 010.4301.5601 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH156 01/26/2024 300038 13.00 CAR WASH-PW 4 010.4301.5601 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH157 01/26/2024 300038 16.00 CAR WASH-PW 44 612.4610.5601 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH158 01/26/2024 300038 13.00 CAR WASH-PW 10 640.4712.5601 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH159 01/26/2024 300038 91.00 CAR WASH-PD PATROL 010.4203.5601 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH160 01/26/2024 300038 185.00 CAR WASH-PD PATROL 010.4203.5601 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH161 01/26/2024 300038 55.00 CAR WASH-PD SUPPORT SVCS 010.4204.5601 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH162 01/26/2024 300038 65.00 CAR WASH-PD SUPPORT SVCS 010.4204.5601 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH163 01/26/2024 300039 62.86 STREET SIGN FOR FIRE CHIEF 010.4301.5255 BRAND CREATIVE164 01/26/2024 300039 62.85 STREET SIGN FOR FIRE CHIEF 220.4303.5255 BRAND CREATIVE165 01/26/2024 300039 62.85 STREET SIGN FOR FIRE CHIEF 640.4712.5255 BRAND CREATIVE166 01/26/2024 300040 906.00 200LBS HYPOCHLORITE 640.4712.5274 BRENNTAG PACIFIC INC167 01/26/2024 300041 135.00 PEST CONTROL: CITY HALL 010.4213.5303 BREZDEN PEST CONTROL, INC168 01/26/2024 300042 27.84 DRYWALL, 1X2 LUMBER FCFA 010.4213.5604 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER YARD169 01/26/2024 300042 23.47 (2) FAST SET CONCRETE-CITY HALL 220.4303.5613 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER YARD170 01/26/2024 300043 392.55 1 PALLET READY MIX CONCRETE 640.4712.5610 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, INC171 01/26/2024 300044 760.00 01/23-12/23 UST RETURN 010.4305.5303 CA DEPT OF TAX & FEE ADMIN172 01/26/2024 300045 335.00 10/23/12/23 DIESEL FUEL TAX RETURN 010.0000.1202 CA DEPT OF TAX & FEE ADMIN173 01/26/2024 300046 888.55 10/23-12/23 SMIP 010.0000.2208 CA ST DEPT OF CONSERVATION 174 01/26/2024 300046 (44.43) ADMIN FEE-SMIP 010.0000.4801 CA ST DEPT OF CONSERVATION 175 01/26/2024 300047 195.00 10/23-12/23 STATE GREEN BLDG STDS 010.0000.2223 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS176 01/26/2024 300047 (19.50) ADMIN/CODE ENF EDUCATION FEE 010.0000.2223 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS177 01/26/2024 300048 275.00 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP-MATSON 010.4002.5503 CAPIO178 01/26/2024 300049 10.69 DEGREASER 640.4712.5255 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS179 01/26/2024 300049 150.15 RES#5 GENERATOR BATTERY 640.4712.5603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS180 01/26/2024 300050 3,501.00 FY22/23 OPERATIONAL EXPENSES 640.4710.5314 CENTRAL COAST BLUE REGIONAL181 01/26/2024 300050 25,470.00 URBAN FUTURES INV-FIN SVCS 640.4710.5314 CENTRAL COAST BLUE REGIONAL182 01/26/2024 300051 6,085.00 12/23 WATER SAMPLES 640.4710.5310 CLINICAL LABORATORY OF183 01/26/2024 300052 15,172.98 DESIGN & ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS FOR TRAFFIC WAY 350.5679.7501 CONSOR NORTH AMERICA INC184 01/26/2024 300053 656.00 TAI CHI WINTER SESSION FALL SESSION 010.4424.5351 SHIRLEY J CROSS185 01/26/2024 300054 401.79 KYOCERA COPIER LEASE PYMT 010.4421.5602 DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SVCS

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE

CHECK LISTING
JANUARY 16 - JANUARY 31, 2024
ATTACHMENT 1
Line Check Date Check # Amount Description Acct # Vendor Name186 01/26/2024 300055 $ 29.08 (1) RUBBER BOOTS 612.4610.5255 FARM SUPPLY CO187 01/26/2024 300056 1,423.16 TRASH CAN LINERS 010.4430.5605 FASTENAL COMPANY188 01/26/2024 300057 30.00 PW-56 MOUNT SENSOR 010.4420.5601 FIGUEROA'S TIRES189 01/26/2024 300058 2,362.50 GASBS 68 RPTS FY23 010.4120.5303 FOSTER & FOSTER INC190 01/26/2024 300058 787.50 GASBS 68 RPTS FY23 010.0000.1111 FOSTER & FOSTER INC191 01/26/2024 300059 70.00 REFUND-DOGGIE CLASS 010.0000.4605 GINGER GARRETT192 01/26/2024 300060 1,527.65 TRAFFIC WAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 350.5679.7303 HAMNER-JEWELL ASSOCIATES193 01/26/2024 300061 1,086.00 4TH QTR ELEVATOR MAINT, STATE COMPLIANCE TESTING 010.4213.5303 HEACOCK ELEVATOR CO.194 01/26/2024 300062 2,000.00 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT-FALL 2023 010.4201.5502 BRADLEY HOGAN195 01/26/2024 300063 185.00 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP-J MATSON 010.4002.5503 IIMC - INTL INST OF MUNICIPAL196 01/26/2024 300064 1,000.00 CASH FOR GRASS-1000 SQFT 226.4306.5554 LORI KROGER197 01/26/2024 300065 1,573.78 SHORETEL PHONE CHRGS-CITY HALL 010.4145.5403 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS LLC198 01/26/2024 300065 1,551.08 SHORETEL PHONE CHRGS-PD 010.4201.5403 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS LLC199 01/26/2024 300066 85.00 REFUND SOCCER CLASS 010.0000.4605 PETE LUONGO200 01/26/2024 300067 46.31 PICKUP TOOL, RESPIRATOR 010.4213.5604 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC201 01/26/2024 300067 5.48 PW17 PLASTIC FUNNEL, ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 010.4420.5605 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC202 01/26/2024 300067 54.61 SPRAY PAINT, PLUMBING SUPPLIES 010.4420.5605 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC203 01/26/2024 300067 193.92 (3) AQUAPHALT ASPHALT PATCH 220.4303.5613 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC204 01/26/2024 300067 67.93 WASHERS, LAG SCREWS, DRILL BIT 220.4303.5613 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC205 01/26/2024 300067 193.92 (3) AQUAPHALT ASPHALT PATCH 220.4303.5613 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC206 01/26/2024 300067 54.45 GROUT FLOAT, SPONGE, TROWEL, MORTAR 220.4303.5613 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC207 01/26/2024 300067 21.73 RAT TRAPS 640.4712.5255 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC208 01/26/2024 300067 37.70 PW-10- HEDGE SHEARS 640.4712.5273 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC209 01/26/2024 300068 35,355.80 COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 010.4130.5303 MINTIER HARNISH LP210 01/26/2024 300069 59.47 PW56 TPMS SENSOR 010.4420.5601 MULLAHEY FORD211 01/26/2024 300070 180.00 MEMBERSHIP-REC DIRECTOR 010.4421.5501 NATIONAL RECREATION & PARK212 01/26/2024 300071 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-HERITAGE SQ 010.0000.2206 NCRS CENTRAL CA CHAPTER213 01/26/2024 300071 128.00 PARK RENTAL REFUND-HERITAGE SQ 010.0000.4354 NCRS CENTRAL CA CHAPTER214 01/26/2024 300072 304.86 HONOR GUARD UNIFORMS 010.4204.5272 NEPTUNE UNIFORMS & EQUIPMENT215 01/26/2024 300073 15.51 OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4421.5201 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LLC216 01/26/2024 300073 47.81 OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4421.5201 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LLC217 01/26/2024 300074 205.17 COPIER METER READ 11/28-12/27 010.4204.5602 OFFICE1218 01/26/2024 300075 1,200.00 SOTO-RENOVATE FIELDS, GRADE & LEVEL 214.4550.5606 KIRK OKEEFE219 01/26/2024 300076 15.00 01/24 REVERSE OSMOSIS RENTAL 010.4201.5303 RICHETTI COMPLETE WATER220 01/26/2024 300077 1,981,060.38 FY23/24 SEMI ANNUAL LOPEZ WATER CONTRACT PAYMENT 641.4750.5612 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY221 01/26/2024 300077 20,854.06 FY22/23 REVISED FINAL LOPEZ WATER CONTRACT 641.4750.5612 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY 222 01/26/2024 300078 85.00 REFUND SOCCER CLASS 010.0000.4605 MARIAH SANCHEZ

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE

CHECK LISTING
JANUARY 16 - JANUARY 31, 2024
ATTACHMENT 1
Line Check Date Check # Amount Description Acct # Vendor Name223 01/26/2024 300079 $ 120.00 REIMBURSE FOR DOT PHYSICAL 640.4712.5315 TIM SCHMIDT224 01/26/2024 300080 227.81 (2) 2.5 GALL HERBICIDE 010.4420.5274 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC225 01/26/2024 300081 491.97 PERMIT#1653-5 PW STANDBY GENERATOR 640.4710.5303 SLO COUNTY AIR POLLUTION226 01/26/2024 300081 491.97 PERMIT#887-2 RES#5 STANDBY GENERATOR 640.4710.5303 SLO COUNTY AIR POLLUTION227 01/26/2024 300081 491.97 PERMIT#903-2 VDM PUMP STN STANDBY GENERATOR 640.4710.5303 SLO COUNTY AIR POLLUTION228 01/26/2024 300082 248,512.00 FY23/24 DISPATCH CONTRACT, PAYMENT 1 OF 2 010.4201.5303 SLO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT229 01/26/2024 300083 253,768.89 12/23 SEWER SVCS COLLECTIONS 760.0000.2304 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST 230 01/26/2024 300083 8.81 CITY ACCT-215 E BRANCH 010.4145.5401 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST231 01/26/2024 300083 8.81 CITY ACCT-300 E BRANCH 010.4145.5401 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST232 01/26/2024 300083 8.81 CITY ACCT-211 VERNON ST 010.4145.5401 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST 233 01/26/2024 300083 8.81 CITY ACCT-RANCHO GRANDE PARK 010.4145.5401 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST234 01/26/2024 300083 8.81 CITY ACCT-STROTHER PARK 010.4145.5401 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST235 01/26/2024 300083 8.81 CITY ACCT-SHORT ST RESTROOMS 010.4145.5401 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST 236 01/26/2024 300083 8.81 CITY ACCT-ELM ST PARK 010.4145.5401 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST237 01/26/2024 300083 8.81 CITY ACCT-203 N RENA 010.4145.5401 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST238 01/26/2024 300083 8.81 CITY ACCT-1221 ASH ST 010.4145.5401 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST239 01/26/2024 300083 8.81 CITY ACCT-SOTO SPORTS COMPLEX 010.4145.5401 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST240 01/26/2024 300083 8.81 CITY ACCT-127 SHORT ST 010.4145.5401 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST241 01/26/2024 300083 8.81 CITY ACCT-211 N HALCYON RD 010.4145.5401 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST242 01/26/2024 300084 85.00 REFUND SOCCER CLASS 010.0000.4605 ERICA SUTHERLAND243 01/26/2024 300085 130.38 REMOVER, CRIMPER-CUTTER 010.4305.5273 TCA TOOLS INC244 01/26/2024 300086 62.41 SHIP METER READER FOR REPAIR 640.4712.5603 THE UPS STORE245 01/26/2024 300087 75.00 12/23 INVESTIGATIVE SVCS 010.4204.5303 TRANSUNION RISK246 01/26/2024 300088 6,400.00 ENTERPRISE ERP FINANCIAL MGMT 350.5453.7301 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC247 01/26/2024 300088 1,600.00 ENTERPRISE ERP FINANCIAL MGMT 350.5453.7301 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC248 01/26/2024 300089 137.25 COSTCO-CITY COUNCIL SUPPLIES 010.4001.5201 U.S. BANK249 01/26/2024 300089 61.42 CITY COUNCIL MEETING SUPPLIES 010.4001.5201 U.S. BANK250 01/26/2024 300089 150.00 REACH SUMMIT REGISTRATION-GUTHIE 010.4001.5501 U.S. BANK251 01/26/2024 300089 1,848.00 OFFICE FURNITURE-CITY CLERK 010.4002.5201 U.S. BANK252 01/26/2024 300089 19.99 GALLUP -CLIFTON STRENGTHS 010.4002.5201 U.S. BANK253 01/26/2024 300089 956.00 CACC CONF AIRFARE -$478 TO BE REIMBURSED TO CITY 010.4002.5501 U.S. BANK254 01/26/2024 300089 200.00 CCAC TRAINING 010.4002.5501 U.S. BANK255 01/26/2024 300089 53.26 CCAC CONF- MEALS 010.4002.5501 U.S. BANK256 01/26/2024 300089 99.00 SURVEY MONKEY SUBSCRIPTION 010.4002.5503 U.S. BANK257 01/26/2024 300089 125.00 IIMC MEMBERSHIP 010.4002.5503 U.S. BANK258 01/26/2024 300089 250.00 CCAC CONFERENCE REGISTRATION 010.4002.5503 U.S. BANK259 01/26/2024 300089 14.00 OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4101.5201 U.S. BANK

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE

CHECK LISTING
JANUARY 16 - JANUARY 31, 2024
ATTACHMENT 1
Line Check Date Check # Amount Description Acct # Vendor Name260 01/26/2024 300089 $ 58.00 ISSU-NEWSLETTER 010.4102.5255 U.S. BANK261 01/26/2024 300089 135.00 CSMFO MEMBERSHIP DUES 010.4120.5501 U.S. BANK262 01/26/2024 300089 515.00 CSMFO CONFERENCE REGISTRATION 010.4120.5501 U.S. BANK263 01/26/2024 300089 515.00 CSMFO CONFERENCE REGISTRATION 010.4120.5501 U.S. BANK264 01/26/2024 300089 11.87 SUPPLIES-WATER 010.4130.5201 U.S. BANK265 01/26/2024 300089 97.51 OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4130.5201 U.S. BANK266 01/26/2024 300089 608.81 ZOOM MEETINGS 010.4140.5303 U.S. BANK267 01/26/2024 300089 12.96 M365 LICENSE LESS BILLING CREDIT 010.4140.5607 U.S. BANK268 01/26/2024 300089 62.30 AUTHORIZE.NET CC FEES 010.4145.5555 U.S. BANK269 01/26/2024 300089 52.71 OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4201.5201 U.S. BANK270 01/26/2024 300089 210.09 OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4201.5201 U.S. BANK271 01/26/2024 300089 52.13 OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4201.5201 U.S. BANK272 01/26/2024 300089 460.44 EMPLOYEE WELLNESS SUPPLIES 010.4201.5303 U.S. BANK273 01/26/2024 300089 124.98 EMPLOYEE WELLNESS SUPPLIES 010.4201.5303 U.S. BANK274 01/26/2024 300089 882.48 TRAINING/CONFERENCE LODGING 010.4201.5501 U.S. BANK275 01/26/2024 300089 200.99 SUBSCRIPTIONS 010.4201.5503 U.S. BANK276 01/26/2024 300089 165.14 EMPLOYEE FLOWERS 010.4201.5504 U.S. BANK277 01/26/2024 300089 100.00 ACADAMY RECRUIT SCENARIO AWARD 010.4201.5504 U.S. BANK278 01/26/2024 300089 26.93 SUPPLIES FOR AG CREEK-BRISCO'S HARDWARE 010.4301.5255 U.S. BANK279 01/26/2024 300089 522.00 SUPPLIES FOR AG CREEK- STRAW WATTLES, WOOD 010.4301.5255 U.S. BANK280 01/26/2024 300089 49.54 GOPHER MACHINE PART 010.4420.5603 U.S. BANK281 01/26/2024 300089 39.26 SUPPLIES FOR SANTA SLEIGH 010.4420.5605 U.S. BANK282 01/26/2024 300089 367.92 HOLIDAY PARADE SUPPLIES-AMAZON 010.4424.5252 U.S. BANK283 01/26/2024 300089 17.15 B'FAST W/SANTA SUPPLIES-AMAZON 010.4424.5252 U.S. BANK284 01/26/2024 300089 565.76 TREE LIGHTING SUPPLIES 010.4424.5252 U.S. BANK285 01/26/2024 300089 512.65 SPEC EVENT SUPP-B'FAST W/SANTA, HOL PARADE, TREE 010.4424.5252 U.S. BANK286 01/26/2024 300089 274.07 SOFTBALL SHIRTS-END OF SUMMER AWARDS-TOP SHOP 010.4424.5257 U.S. BANK287 01/26/2024 300089 68.97 FACEBOOK ADS 010.4424.5353 U.S. BANK288 01/26/2024 300089 170.00 TREE LIGHTING SUPPLIES-OFFICE MAX, SMART N FINAL 010.4424.5353 U.S. BANK289 01/26/2024 300089 118.98 SUPPLIES FOR A-FRAMES- TARGET, OFFICE MAX 010.4424.5353 U.S. BANK290 01/26/2024 300089 1,500.00 WATER BARRICADES FOR HALLOWEEN-VIP LUXURY BATH 010.4424.5353 U.S. BANK291 01/26/2024 300089 1,717.19 SPEC EVENT SUPPLIES-TREE LIGHT 010.4424.5353 U.S. BANK292 01/26/2024 300089 149.77 CORDLESS STAPLER 220.4303.5273 U.S. BANK293 01/26/2024 300089 20.70 MSA MEETING 11/15 220.4303.5501 U.S. BANK294 01/26/2024 300089 1,858.04 PATROL EQUIPMENT-DRONE 271.4202.6201 U.S. BANK295 01/26/2024 300089 494.70 PW-71- WEATHERTECH SEAT STORAGE 612.4610.6301 U.S. BANK296 01/26/2024 300089 349.99 TRAINING/TUITION-AMERICAN WATER COLLEGE 640.4712.5501 U.S. BANK

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE

CHECK LISTING
JANUARY 16 - JANUARY 31, 2024
ATTACHMENT 1
Line Check Date Check # Amount Description Acct # Vendor Name297 01/26/2024 300089 $ 562.13 HOSES & FITTINGS FOR NEW AIR COMPRESSOR 640.4712.6201 U.S. BANK298 01/26/2024 300089 504.93 SANTA COP SUPPLIES 010.0000.2025 U.S. BANK299 01/26/2024 300089 220.22 SANTA COP SUPPLIES 010.0000.2025 U.S. BANK300 01/26/2024 300089 349.25 SANTA COP SUPPLIES 010.0000.2025 U.S. BANK301 01/26/2024 300089 315.24 SANTA COP SUPPLIES 010.0000.2025 U.S. BANK302 01/26/2024 300089 793.75 SANTA COP SUPPLIES 010.0000.2025 U.S. BANK303 01/26/2024 300089 316.57 SANTA COP SUPPLIES 010.0000.2025 U.S. BANK304 01/26/2024 300089 1,323.22 SANTA COP SUPPLIES 010.0000.2025 U.S. BANK305 01/26/2024 300089 1,524.88 SANTA COP SUPPLIES 010.0000.2025 U.S. BANK306 01/26/2024 300089 1,012.85 SANTA COP SUPPLIES 010.0000.2025 U.S. BANK307 01/26/2024 300089 215.77 FCFA CHIEF INTERVIEW PANEL LUNCH 010.0000.1111 U.S. BANK308 01/26/2024 300089 144.00 GRAMMERLY SUBSCRIPTION 010.4307.5201 U.S. BANK309 01/26/2024 300089 895.00 PATROL EQUIPMENT-ABC GRANT REIMBURED 010.4203.5272 U.S. BANK310 01/26/2024 300089 227.83 UNIFORMS- PD TRAINEE JOHNSON 010.4203.5272 U.S. BANK311 01/26/2024 300089 15.00 FREIGHT 010.4203.5272 U.S. BANK312 01/26/2024 300089 1,717.10 UNIFORMS 010.4203.5272 U.S. BANK313 01/26/2024 300089 43.00 UNIFORMS 010.4203.5272 U.S. BANK314 01/26/2024 300089 96.97 UNIFORMS 010.4203.5272 U.S. BANK315 01/26/2024 300089 391.88 TRAINING-LODGING 010.4203.5272 U.S. BANK316 01/26/2024 300089 520.00 TRAINING 010.4203.5501 U.S. BANK317 01/26/2024 300089 235.94 MOTOR RAMP 010.4203.5601 U.S. BANK318 01/26/2024 300089 917.32 PD4621 REPAIRS 010.4203.5601 U.S. BANK319 01/26/2024 300089 63.76 FUEL 010.4203.5608 U.S. BANK320 01/26/2024 300089 69.48 FUEL 010.4203.5608 U.S. BANK321 01/26/2024 300089 159.00 TRAINING-REGISTRATION/TUITION 010.4204.5501 U.S. BANK 322 01/26/2024 300089 71.90 FUEL 010.4204.5608 U.S. BANK323 01/26/2024 300089 115.93 VOLUNTEER SUPPLIES-SWEET PEA, 010.4424.5250 U.S. BANK324 01/26/2024 300089 299.61 ADMIN MONITOR 010.4201.5701 U.S. BANK325 01/26/2024 300089 140.02 GRAND BOUQUET 010.4101.5504 U.S. BANK326 01/26/2024 300089 418.80 CM INTERVIEW SUPPLIES 010.4110.5316 U.S. BANK327 01/26/2024 300089 289.38 CM INTERVIEW SUPPLIES 010.4110.5316 U.S. BANK328 01/26/2024 300089 27.25 CM INTERVIEW SUPPLIES 010.4110.5316 U.S. BANK329 01/26/2024 300090 14,372.60 12/23 AGTBID SOCIAL MEDIA MARKETING 240.4150.5301 VERDIN MARKETING INK330 01/26/2024 300091 74.07 ACCT#208620661-00004 CIM CELL 010.4421.5602 VERIZON WIRELESS331 01/26/2024 300092 109.40 DOCUMENT SHREDDING 010.4201.5303 VITAL RECORDS CONTROL332 01/26/2024 300093 2,216.89 NORTHERN CITIES STAFF EXTENSION 640.4710.5303 WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING INC333 01/26/2024 300093 287.91 NORTHERN CITIES STAFF EXTENSION 640.4710.5303 WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING INC

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE

CHECK LISTING
JANUARY 16 - JANUARY 31, 2024
ATTACHMENT 1
Line Check Date Check # Amount Description Acct # Vendor Name334 01/26/2024 300093 $ 1,543.41 NORTHERN CITIES STAFF EXTENSION 640.4710.5303 WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING INC335 01/26/2024 300094 2,015.00 FEE STUDY SVCS-USER, DEVLMT IMPACT FEES 010.4120.5303 WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES336 01/29/2024 300095 1,648.20 PERMIT#37-GENERAL PLAN BULK MAILING 010.4130.5301 US POSTMASTER337 01/30/2024 300096 678.92 AFLAC PRE TAX 011.0000.2126 AFLAC INSURANCE338 01/30/2024 300097 2,783.40 POLICE DEPT DUES 011.0000.2116 ARROYO GRANDE POLICE ASSN339 01/30/2024 300098 54,667.25 FEDERAL WITHHOLDING 011.0000.2104 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE340 01/30/2024 300098 59,706.30 SOCIAL SECURITY 011.0000.2105 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE341 01/30/2024 300098 14,335.16 MEDICARE 011.0000.2105 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE342 01/30/2024 300099 21,776.96 STATE WITHHOLDING 011.0000.2108 CA ST EMPLOYMENT DEVEL DEPT343 01/30/2024 300099 4,845.91 CASDI 011.0000.2111 CA ST EMPLOYMENT DEVEL DEPT344 01/30/2024 300100 458.76 DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 011.0000.2114 CA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT345 01/30/2024 300101 3,570.00 AG CAREER FIREFIGHTERS ASSN 011.0000.2115 FIVE CITIES PROF. FIREFIGHTERS346 01/30/2024 300102 4,789.59 DEFERRED COMPENSATION - EE % 011.0000.2117 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP347 01/30/2024 300102 11,792.90 DEFERRED COMPENSATION - EE 011.0000.2117 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP348 01/30/2024 300102 891.66 DEFERRED COMPENSATION - ER 011.0000.2117 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP349 01/30/2024 300102 135.00 ROTH - AFTER TAX 011.0000.2117 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP350 01/30/2024 300102 187.64 ROTH % - AFTER TAX 011.0000.2117 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP351 01/30/2024 300103 43.90 PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES 011.0000.2125 LEGALSHIELD352 01/30/2024 300104 43,797.19 PERS RETIREMENT 011.0000.2106 PERS - RETIREMENT353 01/30/2024 300104 57,162.78 PERS RETIREMENT 011.0000.2106 PERS - RETIREMENT354 01/30/2024 300104 1,384.41 PERS Employer Pick Up 011.0000.2106 PERS - RETIREMENT355 01/30/2024 300104 497.46 PERS BUYBACK - PRE TAX 011.0000.2106 PERS - RETIREMENT356 01/30/2024 300104 (0.03) ROUNDING DIFFERENCE 010.0000.4818 PERS - RETIREMENT357 01/30/2024 300105 1,649.70 SEIU DUES 011.0000.2118 S.E.I.U. LOCAL 620358 01/30/2024 300106 552.51 PARS 011.0000.2107 US BANK OF CALIFORNIA359 01/30/2024 300107 40.00 NOTARY EXAM -J HAWKINS 010.4002.5503 SECRETARY OF STATE $ 3,668,953.40

General Fund 438,991.91 5101 Salaries Full time 261,018.20 Streets Fund 23,617.03 5101 Volunteer Employee Retirement - Sewer Fund 12,089.73 5102 Salaries Part-Time - PPT 3,330.54 Water Fund 24,857.54 5103 Salaries Part-Time - TPT 4,520.18 499,556.21 5105 Salaries OverTime 7,765.12
5106 Salaries Strike Team OT -
5107 Salaries Standby 2,240.90
5108 Holiday Pay 23,274.94
5109 Sick Pay 4,779.05
Administrative Services - 5110 Annual Leave Buyback -
Information Services - 5111 Vacation Buyback 31,314.18
Community Development 513.60 5112 Sick Leave Buyback -
Police 5,943.34 5113 Vacation Pay 12,449.16
Public Works - Maintenance 444.78 5114 Comp Pay 875.46
Public Works - Enterprise 863.40 5115 Annual Leave Pay 1,786.45 Recreation - Administration - 5116 Salaries - Police FTO - Recreation - Special Events - 5121 PERS Retirement 39,814.77 Children In Motion - 5122 Social Security 27,283.30
7,765.12 5123 PARS Retirement 110.52
5126 State Disability Ins. 3,847.80
5127 Deferred Compensation 816.66
5131 Health Insurance 57,849.59
5132 Dental Insurance 3,070.08
5133 Vision Insurance 813.70
5134 Life Insurance 391.07
5135 Long Term Disability 646.18
5137 Leave Payouts 9,018.98
5142 Unemployment Insurance -
5143 Uniform Allowance -
5144 Car Allowance 887.50
5146 Council Expense -
5147 Employee Assistance -
5148 Boot Allowance -
5149 Motor Pay 211.88
5150 Bi-Lingual Pay 150.00
5151 Cell Phone Allowance 1,290.00
499,556.21
OVERTIME BY DEPARTMENT:

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE

DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION

PAY PERIOD
01/05/24 - 01/18/2024
1/26/2024

BY FUND BY ACCOUNT
ATTACHMENT 2

Item 9.b.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Nicole Valentine, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Consideration of Fiscal Year 2023-24 Second Quarter Status Report and Request to Approve Six Budget Adjustment Requests
DATE: February 27, 2024
SUMMARY OF ACTION:

Consider, receive, and file the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24 Second Quarter Financial Status Report (the “Second Quarter Report”) and approve six (6) Budget Adjustment Requests.

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

Preparation of the Second Quarter Report requires staff time within the existing work plan and budget for the Administrative Services Department. At the end of the second quarter, FY 2023-24 revenues for the Consolidated General Fund were $8.6 million, or one percent (1%), below than the Budget Target (“Target”). Actual Expenditures were $12.4 million, and below the Budget Target by approximately $1.3 million, or four percent (4%).

The City Council is being asked to approve six budget adjustments. The overall impact to the budget is an increase in Consolidated General Fund expenditures of $185,310, COPS Fund expenditures of $25,000, Water Fund expenditures of $13,975, and Sewer Fund expenditures of $20,000, as reflected in the following table 1:

Table 1 – Second Quarter Budget Adjustment Request
RECOMMENDATION:

Consider, receive, and file the FY 2023-24 Second Quarter Report; and approve six Budget Adjustment Requests.

Request Revenue Expenditure
General
Fund
COPS Fund
Impact
Water Fund
Impact
Sewer
Fund
Building Contractual Services 123,700 185,000 23,000 - - - City Attorney Contract Costs - 150,000 150,000 - - -
Escribe Webcasting Module - 12,310 12,310 - - -
Police Equipment - 25,000 - 25,000 - -
Central Coast Blue (CCB) Operating Costs - 13,975 - - 13,975 - Lift Station #1 Pump Repair - 20,000 - - - 20,000
Totals 123,700 406,285 185,310 25,000 13,975 20,000

Item 9.b.

City Council
Consideration of Fiscal Year 2023-24 Second Quarter Status Report and Request to Approve Six Budget Adjustment Requests
February 27, 2024

BACKGROUND:

Each fiscal year the City Council adopts a budget, which commits government resources and services to accomplish the City’s mission of making Arroyo Grande the best place possible for everyone who lives, works, and visits here. The Second Quarter Report is the second of four financial performance reports that staff will present to Council during the 2023-24 fiscal year. The purpose of the FY 2023-24 Second Quarter Report is to:
 Compare second quarter revenues received and expenditures incurred to the second quarter of the prior year and to the budgeted Target to determine the City’s financial performance;
 Provide explanations for key account variances and identify any potential trends that might impact financial planning; and
 Provide other key second quarter information including headcount statistics, status of Capital Improvement Projects, and requests for City Council’s approval of Budget Adjustment Requests that have not previously been approved.

The City’s actual second quarter financial results will be compared to both the prior year’s second quarter and the budgeted Target. The Target for expenditures is calculated as one half (50%) of the FY 2023-24 Budget and represents the 6-month period from July 2023 through December 2023. The Non-Departmental Annual Payments line has a Target of the full budget. The Measure O-06 Sales & Use Tax CIP allocation line has a Target of zero as the allocation is completed in the fourth quarter. This approach decreases the expenditure Target from 50% to 42% for the second quarter. The Target for revenues does not use the 50% Target but a Target of 35.4% that more accurately reflects the anticipated revenues to be received in the second quarter of the FY. Using the Target as a comparator against actual results provides a simplified method to evaluate performance for the quarter.

The Second Quarter Report also includes a section regarding Budget Adjustments Requests. This section summarizes individual budget adjustments approved by the City Council during the second quarter, as well as administrative adjustments completed by City staff. Additionally, this section of the report includes new Budget Adjustment Requests not otherwise addressed in previous City Council agenda items. Approval will enable the City to complete important work items and meet the needs of the community.

Item 9.b.

City Council
Consideration of Fiscal Year 2023-24 Second Quarter Status Report and Request to Approve Six Budget Adjustment Requests
February 27, 2024

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

Second Quarter (Q2) Revenue and Expenditures Compared to Prior Year Table 2 - Current Year Q2 Actuals Compared to Prior Year Q2 Actuals The Consolidated General Fund shown in Table 2 is the primary operating fund of the City and accounts for resources and services traditionally associated with government.

The Consolidated General Fund provides administrative, financial, police protection, community development, public works, fire, and recreation services to the community and other funds. The Consolidated General Fund accounts for revenues that have unrestricted uses and are not required legally or by contractual agreement to be accounted for in another fund. The City has historically reported on the Consolidated General Fund separately from the Local Sales Tax Fund, although the City’s auditors traditionally combine this information in the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report.

The Local Sales Tax Fund accounts for the revenues derived from Measure O-06, a local 1/2% sales tax approved by the City's voters in November 2006. Measure O-06 included advisory measures when passed, providing direction on the uses to which the funding should be allocated. To ensure accountability, the measure included a provision requiring the City to publish and distribute an annual report to each household on the revenues and expenditures from the sales tax proceeds. To aid in the collection and reporting of this information, the City has accounted for this fund in a separate account.

This report presents information for the Consolidated General Fund that includes Local Sales Tax Fund Measure O-06 revenues and expenditures. Consolidated General Fund revenues at the second quarter of this year were approximately $214,439 million higher than the second quarter of the prior year. Expenditures were approximately $1.2 million higher at the end of the second quarter of the current fiscal year versus the second quarter of the prior year. A more thorough explanation of second quarter variances is set forth in the attached financial report. The following is a summary of the second quarter variances between the two fiscal years.

Revenue (approximately $214,439 higher)
The majority of the $214,439 variance between the second quarter of this year and the prior second quarter is related to the increase in User Fees received in the second quarter of FY 2023-24 when compared to the second quarter of FY 2022-23.

Second Quarter
FY 2023-24
Second Quarter
FY 2022-23 Variance
Revenue 8,612,371 8,397,932 214,439
Expenditures 12,350,666 11,106,641 1,244,025

Item 9.b.

City Council
Consideration of Fiscal Year 2023-24 Second Quarter Status Report and Request to Approve Six Budget Adjustment Requests
February 27, 2024

Expenditures (approximately $1.2 million higher)
Second quarter expenditures compared to the prior year were higher by $1.2 million. The majority of the variance between the two fiscal quarters is related to increased costs of one-time payments for Liability and Property Insurance, CalPERS Unfunded Accrued Liability, and Workers Compensation.

Second Quarter (Q2) Revenue and Expenditures Compared to Target Table 3 - Current Year Q2 Actuals Compared to Target
Table 3 above compares second quarter actual results to the budgeted Target. Second Quarter actual revenue was short of the Target by $151,113. Second Quarter actual expenditures were short of the Target by approximately $1.3 million. The following is a summary of the second quarter revenue and expenditure variances compared to the budgeted Target. A more thorough explanation of second quarter variances is set forth in the attached financial report.

Revenue ($151,113 lower)
The actual second quarter Consolidated General Fund revenue shortfall compared to the Target is not unusual. Revenue realization is typically low in the second quarter of the fiscal year due to the time lag involved in billing cycles and the receipt of reimbursements.

Some of the larger revenue variances are explained below.

The largest single source of City revenue is Secured Property Tax. Secured Property Tax is billed by the County to property owners and payable in two (2) installments. Property owners typically receive their second property tax bill at the end of September or early October, with a due date of November 1st. Most of the property tax related to the second installment was received in December, 2023. The second installment is due on April 1st and will be reflected in the fourth quarter report. The revenue Target includes the equivalent of four months of property tax revenue, but actuals were still lower than this conservative revenue assumption by $235,374.

License and permit revenue is above the Target by $61,850. User fee revenue is above the Target by $212,094. Planning revenue exceeded the Target by $31,774. The Target is based on 50% or 6 months of the fiscal year’s total budget. Revenue in this category is customer driven and fluctuates over the course of a year as well as year over year based on demand.

FY 2023-24
Second Quarter
FY 2023-24
Second Quarter Variance
Revenue 8,763,486 8,612,372 (151,113)
Expenditures 13,683,153 12,350,666 (1,332,487)

Item 9.b.

City Council
Consideration of Fiscal Year 2023-24 Second Quarter Status Report and Request to Approve Six Budget Adjustment Requests
February 27, 2024

Other revenue is made up of Business License Tax, Fines, Intergovernmental Income, Other Charges for Service, and Other Revenues. The actual revenue in this category is lower than the Target by $190,937. The largest variance in this category is related to three revenue accounts. The revenue from other government agencies accounts for the SB 1090 funds earmarked for use of the General Plan Update. Once these funds are spent for this project, the revenue will be recognized at that time.

Expenditures (approximately $1.3 million lower)
Actual second quarter expenditures were $1,332,487 under the Target. Some of the more significant savings occurred in Police, Community Development, Public Works, Administrative Services, and City Administration Departments. The Second Quarter Report provided in Attachment 1 includes greater detail regarding the causes for the expenditure variances in these departments.

Section 5 of the Second Quarter Report includes a new update on the Goal Status Reports to Council, that includes City’s progress towards completing Major City Goals and City’s Capital Improvement Plan. This information is provided to keep the Council apprised of the status of the Goal Status Reports and includes progress towards completing Major City Goals and Capital Improvement Plan.

Budget Adjustments
Staff identified six budget adjustments that are requested as described in more detail below:
 Community Development: Appropriate $23,000 from the General Fund Balance to account for the increased costs related to Building Contractual Services. Recent development and building permit activity has increased and a demand for plan check services has resulted. In order to help decrease the processing time to return building permit plan checks to customers, additional contractual services totaling $180,000 is requested. These increases are expected to be offset by a conservative increase to fee revenues totaling $123,700. Additionally, it is recommended to reallocate the remaining $38,300 of budgeted expenditures within the Building Division salary savings to cover a portion of this increased costs since the contractual firm has been providing this service until the new Building Permit technician began with the City in January 2024.
 City Administration: Appropriate $150,000 from the General Fund Balance to account for the increased costs related to the City Attorney contract. Best, Best, and Krieger continues to provide exceptional service to the City and has increased the amount of hours used by approximately 50 hours per month to a monthly average of approximately 165 hours. This increased service level was not reflected in the original budget estimates for FY 2023-24, but has been seen as necessary to update some of the City’s practices. Opportunities to reduce legal costs in the

Item 9.b.

City Council
Consideration of Fiscal Year 2023-24 Second Quarter Status Report and Request to Approve Six Budget Adjustment Requests
February 27, 2024

future are being identified. City staff will incorporate a more accurate estimate in the Mid-Cycle FY 2024-25 budget update at a future Council meeting.  Legislative and Information Services: Appropriate $12,310 from the General Fund Balance to add the Escribe Webcasting Module to provide video indexing to the City Council meetings and support the automation of meetings.  COPS Fund: Appropriate $25,000 from the State COPS Block Grant Fund to purchase license plate readers, evidence drying rack, handheld laser speed gun, and a drone. All pieces of equipment are eligible for COPS Grant Fund use but the special revenue fund did not incorporate these items into this budget.  Water Fund: Appropriate $13,975 from the Water Enterprise Fund Balance to fund the City’s share of the Central Coast Blue (CCB). This increase is related to the CCB Mid-year Budget request presented to the CCB Board on Monday, February 5, 2024, due to substantive work activities related to the start-up of the Authority, including but not limited to legal and financial advisor services.  Sewer Fund: Appropriate $20,000 from the Sewer Enterprise Fund Balance to replace one of the pumps at Lift Station # 1. The pumps at Lift Station # 1 are the City’s largest sewage pumps and pump around 250,000 gallons of raw sewage per day for it to flow via gravity in the collection system to the plant in Oceano.

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:

1. Receive and file the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Second Quarter Financial Status Report and approve six Budget Adjustment Requests;

2. Provide other direction to staff regarding the FY 2023-24 Second Quarter Financial Status Report and the six Budget Adjustment Requests;

3. Receive and file the FY 2023-24 Second Quarter Financial Status Report and do not approve the Budget Adjustment Requests and provide further direction to staff; or

4. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

The financial report presents an updated review of the City’s financial performance in the second quarter of FY 2023-24. Approval of the requested budget adjustments will enable staff to continue providing high quality services to the organization and to the public.

DISADVANTAGES:

No disadvantages have been identified at this time.

Item 9.b.

City Council
Consideration of Fiscal Year 2023-24 Second Quarter Status Report and Request to Approve Six Budget Adjustment Requests
February 27, 2024

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

No environmental review is required for this item.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Fiscal Year 2023-24 Second Quarter Financial Status Report

ATTACHMENT 1

ENSURING FISCAL
STABILITY:

In Fall 2020, the City Council
established a goal to ensure
financial stability for the
organization throughout the
planning, budgeting, and
expenditure process, including
preparation and presentation
of year-end and quarterly
financial reports.

City of Arroyo Grande
Fiscal Year 2023-24
Second Quarter Financial Status Report

INTRODUCTION
The following report is an overview of the City’s fiscal position at the end of the second quarter for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24. The purpose of this report is to update the public and the City Council on the City’s financial position at the end of the second quarter of the fiscal year and compare actual results to the prior year and the budgeted Target, to determine the City’s performance. The second quarter timeframe is July 1 through December 31, 2023.

The financial report is organized in the following sections:

Section 1 – an overview of City’s financial position at the end of the second quarter of FY 2023-24. This includes a comparison of second quarter results between the
current and prior year. In addition, second quarter results will be compared to the budgeted Target. As part of the analysis, brief explanations of significant revenue and expenditure variances are included.

Section 2 – a listing of any personnel changes occurring during the second quarter and a summary of headcount
by department. This section also includes the City’s
calculated vacancy rate.

Section 3 – an update on the Capital Improvement
Projects (CIP) managed by the Public Works and
Community Development Departments. This section
includes CIP that were completed in the second quarter
along with their final costs.

Section 4 – a listing of Budget Amendment Requests previously approved by Council and completed in the second quarter of the fiscal year, as well as a list of additional budget adjustments that are being presented to Council along with the second quarter report for consideration and approval.

Section 5 – an update on the Goal Status Reports to Council that includes progress towards completing Major City Goals and Capital Improvement Plan.

ATTACHMENT 1

SECTION 1: OVERVIEW OF FINANCIAL POSITION

CITY FUND STRUCTURE
The overall City budget is comprised of many individual funds, which are categorized below. This financial report will focus primarily on the Consolidated General Fund but will also report on all Governmental Funds.

Consolidated General Fund – The Consolidated General Fund is the primary operating fund of the City, which accounts for resources and services traditionally associated with government. The Consolidated General Fund provides administrative, financial, police protection, community development, public works, fire, and recreation services to the community and other funds. The Consolidated General Fund accounts for revenues that have unrestricted uses and are not required legally or by contractual agreement to be accounted for in another fund. The City has historically reported on the Consolidated General Fund separately from the Local Sales Tax Fund, although the City’s auditors traditionally combine this information in the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR). The Local Sales Tax Fund accounts for the revenues derived from Measure O-06, a local 1/2% sales tax approved by the City's voters in November 2006. Measure O-06 included advisory measures when passed providing direction on the uses to which the funding should be allocated. To ensure accountability, the measure included a provision requiring the City to publish and distribute an annual report to each household on the revenues and expenditures from the sales tax proceeds. To aid in the collection and reporting of this information, the City has accounted for this fund in a separate account. This report will present information for the Consolidated General Fund that includes Local Sales Tax Fund Measure O-06 revenues and expenditures.

Special Revenue Funds – Special revenue funds are used to account and report the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are restricted or committed to expenditure for specified purposes other than debt service or capital projects.

Debt Service Funds – This fund is used to account for the accumulation of resources and payment of long-term debt principal interest. This includes the USDA loan issued by the City to finance the relocation of City Hall.

Enterprise Funds - An enterprise fund is a separate accounting and financial reporting mechanism for which revenues and expenditures are segregated into a fund with financial statements separate from all other governmental activities. These funds include Water and Sewer services provided to City residents.

Private Purpose Fund – The private-purpose fund was created to hold the assets of the former Redevelopment Agency of the City of Arroyo Grande until they are distributed.

Agency Funds – Agency funds are funds that the City holds on behalf of another entity. Currently, there are three Agency funds. One is the Sanitation District fund, which accounts for the receipt and remittance of wastewater processing fees on behalf of the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District. The second is the Downtown Parking Fund, which collects assessments from Arroyo Grande Village merchants within the boundaries of the Parking and Business Improvement Area for maintenance of the Village parking lots. The third is the San Luis Obispo Tourism Marketing District

ATTACHMENT 1

(SLOTMD) Fund, which accounts for the receipt and remittance of assessments collected from lodging operators on behalf of the SLOTMD.

The following chart below shows an overview of the City’s fund structure.

CURRENT YEAR ACTUALS COMPARED TO PRIOR YEAR
Table 1 below reflects revenue and expenditure patterns through the end of the second quarter of FY 2023-24 and compares the current quarter results against the prior year’s results for all Governmental Funds as well as the City’s Consolidated General Fund. The totals in the table reflect the second quarter actuals for both revenue and expenditures, divided by that fiscal year’s annual budget.

Table 1
The following discussion focuses on both the City’s Governmental Funds and the Consolidated General Fund and provides a comparison between second quarter results for the current and prior year for both revenue and expenditures. Governmental Funds and Consolidated General Fund revenue and expenditures for the second quarter of this year are generally on Target with prior year. The Governmental Funds category includes Special Revenue Funds, Debt Service Funds, as well as the Consolidated General Fund.

Legislative & Information Services Fire Protection Impact Fees City Hall Debt Service Sewer Successor Agency to RDA Downtown Parking Administrative Services Public Access Television Sewer Facility Sanitation Distribution Community Development Police Protection Impact Water San Luis Obispo Tourism Police Department Park Development Water Facility Marketing District Recreation Services Park Improvement Lopez Water (SLOTMD) Public Works Recreation Community Center
Local Sales Tax Fund Grace Lane Assessment District
Parkside Assessment District
Street (Gas Tax)
Traffic Signalization
Traffic Circulation
Transportation Facility Impact
Transportation
In-Lieu Water Neutralization
In-Lieu Affordable Housing
Tourism Business Improvement Dist.

Water Availability
CDBG Grant Fund
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
State COPS Block Grant Agency Funds Special Revenue Funds GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS FIDUCIARY FUNDS

ALL FUNDS
PROPRIETORY FUNDS General Fund Debt Service Funds Enterprise Funds Private Purpose Fund Second Quarter
FY 2023-24
Second Quarter
FY 2022-23 Variance
Revenue $ 13,099,729 $ 13,304,501 $ (204,771)
Expenditures $ 13,413,321 $ 12,102,789 $ 1,310,533
Second Quarter
FY 2023-24
Second Quarter
FY 2022-23 Variance
Revenue $ 8,612,371 $ 7,426,224 $ 1,186,147
Expenditures $ 12,350,666 $ 10,691,410 $ 1,659,256
Governmental Funds
Consolidated General Fund Page 30 of 1799
ATTACHMENT 1

Governmental Funds – At the end of the second quarter of FY 2023-24, Governmental Fund revenue was -1.5%, or $204,771 lower than prior year, and expenditures were higher by 10.8% or $1.3 million.

The majority of the revenue and expenditure variances in Governmental Funds were attributed to variances within the Consolidated General Fund and the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Fund, which is separate from the Consolidated General Fund and not otherwise addressed in this report.

The Governmental Funds category includes the Consolidated General Fund as well as other Special Revenue Funds. The Consolidated General Fund and ARPA Fund variances are explained as follows:

Consolidated General Fund - The Consolidated General Fund is the primary operating fund of the City and accounts for resources and services traditionally associated with government. Consolidated General Fund revenue in the second quarter was 16%, or $1.2 million higher than the second quarter of the prior year. Expenditures increased by 15.5%, or $1.7 million higher than the second quarter of the prior year. The majority of the variance between the two fiscal years is related to increased costs of one-time payments for Liability and Property Insurance, CalPERS Unfunded Accrued Liability, and Workers Compensation.

ARPA Fund – The ARPA Fund was created to help separately track funding provided pursuant to the American Rescue Plan Act. This Act is intended to provide financial aid to families, governments, businesses, schools, non-profits and others impacted by the COVID-19 public health crisis. To date the City has received the full amount allocated totaling $4,300,241. In FY 2021-22 expenditures incurred totaled $604,246. In FY 2022-23 expenditures incurred totaled $745,837 the remaining $2,950,158 is currently recognized as revenue in FY 2023-24.

CONSOLIDATED GENERAL FUND IMPACTS
The following discussion focuses on the City’s Consolidated General Fund performance. Chart 1 starts off with a simple overview of Consolidated General Fund performance compared to the Target. Next are expenditures by category (Table 2). This is followed by a summarized look at FY 2023-24 second quarter actual expenditures compared to the Target (Table 3). Lastly, a discussion of Consolidated General Fund revenue is included, which compares second quarter actual results to the Target (Table 4).

Using the Target as a comparator against actual results provides a simplified method to evaluate performance for each quarter. The Target for revenues does not use the 50% Target but a Target of

35.4% that more accurately reflects the anticipated revenues to be received in the second quarter of the fiscal year. Revenue realization is typically low at the end of the second quarter of the fiscal year due to the timing of receipt of major tax revenues, the time lag involved in billing cycles, and the receipt of reimbursements. The City’s actual second quarter financial results will be compared to both the prior year’s second quarter and the budgeted Target. The Target for expenditures is calculated as one-half (50%) of the FY 2023-24 Budget and represents the 6-month period from July 2023 through December 2023, except for the Non-Departmental Annual Payments line that has a Target of the full budget and the Measure O-06 Sales & Use Tax CIP allocation line that has a Target of zero as the allocation is completed in the fourth quarter. This approach decreased the Target from 50% to 42% for the second quarter.

ATTACHMENT 1

Chart 1
Chart 1 shows a simple comparison
of actual second quarter revenue
and expenditures to the Target. The
actual second quarter Consolidated
General Fund revenue is less than
the budgeted Target by $151,113,
which is not unusual since revenue
realization is typically lower than
the Target through the second
quarter due to the time lag
involved in billing cycles and the
receipt of reimbursements.

Likewise, actual expenditures
through second quarter totaled $12.4 million, or 38% of the full year’s Budget, and are under the Target by $1.3 million. A more detailed discussion on Consolidated General Fund revenue and expenditure variances is included later in this report.

Table 2
Table 2 reflects major expenditure cost
categories within the Consolidated General
Fund. This chart is intended to explain where
the City’s resources were spent during the
second quarter. Within the total expenditures
of $7 million, 56.8% of the City’s costs are
associated with personnel, 38.8% with
operating and maintenance, 2.4% for the
City’s debt service, 0.5% for Capital Outlay,
and 1.6% with transfers to other funds.

FY 2023-24 % of
Q2 Actuals Actuals
Personnel Costs $ 7,014,023 56.8%
Operating Costs 4,786,024 38.8%
Debt Service 299,523 2.4%
Capital Outlay 57,498 0.5%
Transfers Out 193,597 1.6%
Total $ 12,350,665
Expenditure Category

ATTACHMENT 1

Table 3 reflects the second quarter status of all Consolidated General Fund operating departments.

Some departments include multiple divisions. The divisions are consolidated under their respective department, rather than reflected individually within the table.

Table 3 – Consolidated General Fund Expenditures by Department Overall, second quarter expenditures were $1.6 million under the Target. The majority of City departments were under their spending Targets, except for Recreation Services. Some of the more significant savings occurred in the Police, Community Development, Public Works, Administrative Services, and City Administration Departments. A more detailed explanation of key expenditure variances by individual department/division is provided below.

KEY EXPENDITURE VARIANCES FOR INDIVIDUAL DIVISIONS/DEPARTMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Police Services includes the functions of Administration, Patrol Services, Support Services and the Office of
Traffic Safety (OTS) Grant for Traffic/DUI Enforcement
Program. For simplicity, Police Services will be analyzed in total rather than by individual divisions. Some of the more significant variances include:
 The Police Department currently has two vacancies and one medical leave, resulting in labor savings of approximately $190,000.
 The contract with the County Sheriff Department for dispatch services is paid semiannually in the months of January and June. Payments for these services will not be made until the third and fourth quarters, resulting in a second quarter favorable variance to the Target of $248,500.

City Administration $ 1,601,100 $ 800,550 $ 677,636 $ 122,914 8% Legislative & Information Services 449,460 224,730 186,393 38,337 9% Measure O-06 Sales & Use Tax 1,269,800 634,900 624,883 10,017 1% Measure O-06 CIP Allocation 7,715,691 - - - 0%
Administration Services 5,284,902 2,642,451 2,497,794 144,657 3% Non-Departmental Annual Payments 2,836,525 2,836,525 2,755,499 81,026 3% Community Development 1,850,122 925,061 724,868 200,193 11% Police Department 6,905,599 3,452,800 3,012,668 440,132 6% Recreation Services 901,370 450,685 485,983 (35,298) -4% Public Works 3,430,898 1,715,449 1,384,943 330,506 10%
TOTAL EXPEDITURES 32,245,467 13,683,153 12,350,666 1,332,487 4% %
Fav/(Unfav)
Consolidated General Fund Department Variances - Second Quarter Consolidated General Fund
Department
2023-24
Adjusted
2023-24 Q2
Actuals
Dollar
Fav/(Unfav)
2023-24 Q2
Target
Department: Police Services
Division: Various (4201, 4203, 4204, 4209)
Issue: Overall savings in salaries and
benefits and contractual services
Impact to Consolidated General Fund:
$440,132 savings

ATTACHMENT 1

The Community Development Department includes the
functions of Planning and Building & Safety Divisions.

The majority of the favorable variance in this
department can be attributed to salary savings and
lower spending in contractual services. Some of the
more significant variances include:
 The vacancy of the Building Permit Technician position resulted in a portion of the divisions overall labor savings totaling approximately $65,000.
 Minimal contractual services for the Planning Division were incurred through second quarter resulting in $130,990 of favorability to the Target. The following table will summarize where these savings occurred:

The Public Works Department includes the functions of
Government Buildings, Engineering, Auto Shop,
Administration, Park Maintenance, and Soto Sports
Complex Divisions within the Consolidated General
Fund. The majority of the favorable variance in this
department can be attributed to salary savings. For
simplicity, Public Works will be analyzed in total rather than by individual divisions. Some of the more significant variances include:
 The Public Works Administration Division had a vacant Public Works Director/Assistant City Manager position and had a vacant Assistant Capital Projects Manager the majority of the second quarter resulting in labor savings of approximately $186,100.  The Parks Division has $50,000 for Tree removal support at $50,000 for Open Space Fuel Management that will be completed in the third and fourth quarter of this fiscal year.  The Parks Division has savings of approximately $25,000 related to the new mower allocated in the first quarter financial status report that will be received in the third quarter.

This fund accounts for the revenues derived from
Measure O-06, a local 1/2% sales tax approved by the
City's voters in November 2006. The majority of the
favorable variance in this department can be attributed to transfers and lower spending in debt service. Some of the more significant variances include:
 The variance for Measure O-06 Sales & Use Tax Fund through the end of the second quarter results from Transfers Out to Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Projects; the July through December allocation towards projects is completed once a project is finished or at the end of the fiscal year. This is resulting in a second quarter favorable variance to the Target of $115,000.

Budget Target Expenditures Variance
418,182 209,091 93,337 115,755
25,000 12,500 - 12,500
15,000 7,500 4,765 2,735
458,182 229,091 98,102 130,990
On-Call Planning Services and Misc. Planning Studies
On-Call Environmental Review Services
Comprehensive General Plan Update
Planning Contractual Services
Department: Community Development
Division: Various (4130, 4212)
Issue: Overall savings in salaries and
contractual services
Impact to Consolidated General Fund:
$200,193 savings
Department: Public Works
Division: Various (4213, 4301, 4305, 4307,
4420, 4430)
Issue: Overall savings in salaries and
contractual services
Impact to Consolidated General Fund:
$330,506 savings
Department: Administrative Services
Division: Various (4120, 4140)
Issue: Overall savings in Transfers Out to
CIP Projects and debt service
Impact to Consolidated General Fund:
$144,657 savings

ATTACHMENT 1

 The Administrative Services Division has $27,200 for a carryover to complete the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study in the third quarter of the fiscal year.

The City Administration Department includes the
functions of City Council, City Attorney, Retirees, City Manager, and Human Resources Divisions within the
Consolidated General Fund. The majority of the
favorable variance in this department can be attributed to lower spending in contractual services. Some of the
more significant variances include:
 The Legislative & Information Services Division had a vacant Deputy City Clerk/Communications Coordinator position for a portion of the second quarter resulting in labor savings of approximately $18,000.
 Minimal contractual services for the City Manager Division were incurred through second quarter resulting in $50,500 of favorability to the Target related to the Ballot Measure and Polling Consultants continuing work in the third quarter and the Economic Development Consultant budgeted to begin in the third quarter.
 The City Council Division has a variance of $37,500 related to the timing of the Community Services Grant program and $10,750 related to the Retraining Scholarship Program being completed in the second half of the fiscal year.

KEY REVENUE VARIANCES BY ACCOUNT FOR THE SECOND QUARTER Table 4 – Consolidated General Fund Revenue
As reflected in Table 4, second quarter actual revenue was short of the Target by $151,113. This table uses a Target of 35.4% that more accurately reflects the anticipated revenues to be received in the second quarter of the fiscal year. Revenue realization is typically low at the end of the second quarter of the fiscal year due to the time lag involved in billing cycles and the receipt of reimbursements. A more Property Tax $ 6,327,486 $ 2,109,162 $ 1,873,788 $ (235,374) -4% Sales Tax 5,268,158 1,756,053 1,693,861 (62,192) -1%
Measure O-06 Sales & Use Tax 2,962,000 987,333 1,179,264 191,930 6% Transient Occ. Tax 1,545,000 643,750 654,766 11,016 1%
Property Tax in Lieu of VLF 2,001,300 - - - 0%
Franchise Fees 795,600 331,500 250,974 (80,526) -10%
License & Permit Fees 455,800 227,900 289,750 61,850 14% User Fees 521,500 260,750 472,844 212,094 41%
Planning Fees 371,500 185,750 217,524 31,774 9%
Recreation Fees 415,867 207,934 296,713 88,780 21%
Transfers In 3,114,066 1,557,033 1,377,504 (179,529) -6% Other Revenue 992,640 496,320 305,383 (190,937) -19%
TOTAL 24,770,917 $ 8,763,486 8,612,372 (151,113) -1%
Consolidated General Fund Revenue Variances - Second Quarter REVENUE BY CATEGORY FY 2023-24
Budget
FY 2023-24
Q2 Actuals
Dollar
(Unfav)/Fav
FY 2023-24
Q2 Target
%
Fav/(Unfav)
Department: City Administration
Division: Various (4001, 4002, 4003, 4099,
4101, 4110)
Issue: Overall savings in contractual services
Impact to Consolidated General Fund:
$122,914 savings

ATTACHMENT 1

detailed discussion is included below to help explain actual revenue variances through the second quarter compared to the Target.

Property Tax – The majority of the City’s property tax revenue comes from Secured Property Taxes. This tax is billed on a fiscal year (July 1- June 30) basis and is payable in two (2) annual installments. Property owners typically receive their first property tax bill at the end of September or early October, with a due date of November 1st. The majority of property tax related to the first installment was received in December 2023. The second property tax bill installment is received in April 2024 and will be included in the fourth quarter report. Property tax typically represents around 26% of the City’s annual revenue.

The Target is based on four month of Property Tax revenue. Actual revenue received in this category was lower than the Target.

Sales Tax and Measure O-06 Sales & Use Tax – Sales tax and Measure O-06 Sales & Use Tax realization through second quarter is on track. Actual sales tax revenue received through second quarter was $1.7 million and Measure O-06 Sales & Use Tax revenue received through second quarter was $1.2 million which represents four month of payments (July-October). The Target is also based on four months of revenue, taking into account the timing of anticipated payments.

Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) – TOT revenue is reflecting an $11,016 favorable variance to the Target.

The Target and actual TOT revenue represents only five months of TOT receipts due to the timing of payments. Lodging facilities have thirty days after the month’s end to make their TOT payments.

Property Tax in Lieu of Vehicle License Fees (VLF) – Property tax in lieu of VLF is received in two installments during the fiscal year. Typically, the revenue is received in the months of January (3rd quarter) and June (4th quarter). The Target for this revenue is zero in the second quarter.

Franchise Fees – Only five months of Waste Water Connection franchise fees were received through second quarter. In addition, Charter Communications franchise fees earned in the second quarter will not be paid and received until the third quarter. In light of the timing of payments, the Target is based on 5 months of revenue. Without the Charter communications franchise fee receipts, the actual revenue at the end of the second quarter is lower than the Target by $80,526.

License & Permit Fees, User Fees, and Planning Fees – License and permit revenue is above the Target by $61,850. User fee revenue is above the Target by $212,094. Planning revenue exceeded the Target by $31,774. The Target is based on 50% or 6 months of the fiscal year’s total budget. Revenue in this category is customer driven and fluctuates over the course of a year as well as year over year based on demand.

Recreation Fees – Recreation revenue is above the Target by $88,780. The Target is based on 6 months of the fiscal year’s total budget.

Other Revenues – This revenue category includes business license tax, fines, revenue from other government agencies, charges for services and any other revenues accounts received in the consolidated general fund. The largest variance in this category is related to three revenue accounts.

ATTACHMENT 1

The revenue from other government agencies accounts for the SB 1090 funds earmarked for use of the General Plan Update. Once these funds are spent for this project, the revenue will be recognized at that time, resulting in a revenue shortfall to the Target of approximately $185,000.

SECTION 2: POSITION CHANGES AND HEADCOUNT NUMBERS
POSITION ALLOCATION CHANGES MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL (2nd Quarter) None made during this quarter.

FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) BY DEPARTMENT – PERMANENT STAFF ONLY The following table reflects FTE staffing by department. The table only includes permanent staff and does not include part-time or temporary staffing. While departments may hire part-time staff on a regular or seasonal basis, they are not included in the analysis below.

EMPLOYEE VACANCY RATE
The City’s employee vacancy rate at the end of the second quarter of FY 2023-24 was 5.1%. This equates to four (4) vacant positions. The vacancy rate tracks the number of permanent vacant positions at the end of the quarter in comparison to the total number of permanent positions available. Unlike a turnover rate, which tracks employees that separated during the period, the vacancy rate only looks at vacancies at the end of period. The costs associated with turnover includes the cost of advertising new positions, training, overtime, lowered productivity, and workload balance.

Department
Adopted Budget
Headcount (FTE’s)
Vacancies
(2nd Qtr)
% of Total
Staffing Vacant Positions
City Manager & Human Resources 3 1 4% City Manager
Administrative Services 7 - 9%
Community Development 10 1 13% Permit Tech.

Legislative & Info Services 2 - 3%
Police Services 29 2 37% Police Officer (2)
Public Works 24 - 31%
Recreation Services 3 - 4%
Total 78 4 100%

ATTACHMENT 1

SECTION 3: UPDATE ON COMPLETED CAPITAL PROJECTS
This information is provided to keep the Council apprised of the status of the City’s Capital Improvement Projects (CIP).

Project Fund
Budget FY
2023-24
Current
Status
Project Budget
Expended
Financial Management Software Sewer/Water/Sales Tax $ 413,000 In Progress $ 22,038 Women's Club Lighting Project Donations $ 821 In Progress $ - Public Safety Video Cameras COPS/Sales Tax $ 1,125,000 In Progress $ 850 Replacement Generator at Fire Station 1
Other Gov
Agencies/General/Sales
Tax $ 610,714 In Progress $ 11,210
Arroyo Grande Creek Remediation
Sales Tax, FEMA,
CalOES $ 400,000 In Progress $ 115,344
Active Transportation Plan ATP/Sales Tax $ 250,000 In Progress $ 16,302 Fair Oaks Ave Active Transportation
Improvements, Valley Road to Traffic
Way
Developer/Other Gov
Agencies/Sales Tax $ 125,000 In Progress $ -
191 Tally Ho Sales Tax $ 110,000 In Progress $ 850
Bridge Street Bridge Habitat Mitigation HBP $ 100,290 In Progress $ 25,107 Virginia Drive and S. Halcyon Road Curb
Ramp and Sidewalk Improvement CDBG $ 56,749 In Progress $ - Swinging Bridge Rehabilitation Sales Tax $ 1,100,292 In Progress $ 11,386 Arroyo Grande Creek Stabilization Sales Tax $ 6,300 In Progress $ - Pavement Management Program
USHA/General/SB1/Sale
s Tax/General Fund $ 6,825,153 In Progress $ 2,072,581
Sidewalk Repairs and Improvements Sales Tax/CDBG $ 586,644 In Progress $ 57,950 Traffic Way Bridge Replacement HBP/Sales Tax $ 1,165,593 In Progress $ 59,327 Trenchless Sewer Rehabilitation -El
Camino Real to West Branch St. ARPA $ 282,000 In Progress $ 4,400 Lift Station 3
FEMA/CalOES/Sales
Tax $ 850,000 In Progress $ 21,141
Phased Mains Replacement - South
Halcyon Road, Cornwall Street to Fair
Oaks Avenue Water Facility/ARPA $ 1,535,892 In Progress $ 48,718 Phased Main Replacement - Highway
101 Crossing Upgrade, El Camino
Real to West Branch Street ARPA/Water Fund 335000 In Progress $ 623,990 Public Works Office Space Remodel Sales Tax $ 100,000 Not Started $ - City Hall Front Door ADA (CDBG) CDBG $ 53,341 Not Started $ - Fire Station 1 Apparatus Bay Doors Sales Tax $ 115,000 Not Started $ - Recreation Services / Community Center
Building Sales Tax $ 44,745 Not Started $ -
Halcyon Road Complete Streets
HSIP/RSHA/USHA/Safe
Routes to
School/General/Sales
Tax/ATP $ 1,304,000 Not Started $ -
Water Well #11 Facilities Water Availability $ 42,771 Not Started $ - Galvanized Service Replacements Water $ 63,655 Not Started $ -

ATTACHMENT 1

SECTION 4: APPROPRIATION TRANSFERS AND BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS Administrative and Previously-Approved Second Quarter Budget Adjustments The following second quarter budget adjustments were previously approved by Council or are classified as administrative and not requiring Council approval.

Administrative Services Department: Appropriated $13,800 from Public Access Television (PEG) special revenue fund to increase the Council Chamber Audio/Video System Project Upgrade budget. PEG special revenue fund accounts for fees collected from Charter Communications that are restricted for support of public, education, and government access programming and equipment. The Council Chamber Audio/Video system qualifies for PEG funding as a public and government access project. Approved on 11/28/2023 Council meeting, item 12.b.

Administrative Services Department: Appropriated funds for 15 budget adjustments reviewed in the First Quarter Financial Status Report. The overall impact to the budget increased the Consolidated General Fund expenditures by $200,271, and Water Availability expenditures by $24,900, as reflected in the following table:

Approved on 12/12/2023 Council meeting, item 9.c.

Public Works Department: Appropriate $4,000 from the General Fund reserve to reflect salary adjustments with two existing City staff classifications: Public Works Manager and Citywide Fleet Coordinator. Approved on 12/12/2023 Council meeting, item 9.e.

Request Revenue Expenditure
General
Fund
Water Fund
Impact
Water Availability
Fund Impact
Carryover OTS Grant for Traffic/DUI
Enforcement 22,824 22,824 - - -
Carryover Retraining Scholarship
Program 21,500 21,500 - - -
Carryover F250 Replacement Public
Works Truck - 78,433 78,433 - -
Carryover User Fees & DIF
Contractual Services - 27,200 27,200 - -
Carryover Cash for Grass Program - 24,900 - - 24,900
CDBG Grant increase 7,958 7,958 - - -
Reallocate Vehicle Replacement
Funding towards Mower - 50,000 - - -
Reallocate Salary Savings to
Contractual Services for CIP - 60,000 - - -
Tree Removal Support - 50,000 50,000 - -
Increased need to fill Potholes - 10,000 10,000 - -
Village Sign at Traffic Way & Branch - 15,000 15,000 - - Community Development Intern - 10,000 - - -
Central Coast Blue (CCB)
Operating Costs - 28,971 - 28,971 -
Phased Main Replacement at
Cornwall Avenue, from Rena to El
Camino Real (ECR) - 171,300 - 171,300 -
Totals 52,282 578,086 180,633 200,271 24,900

ATTACHMENT 1

Public Works Department: Appropriate $59,400 from the General Fund reserve to provide street sweeping services for the remaining six months of the fiscal year with the new street sweeping contract.

Approved on 12/12/2023 Council meeting, item 9.i.

Additional Requested Second Quarter Budget Adjustments
In addition to the administrative budget adjustments for the CIP and the adjustments previouslyapproved by the City Council during the second quarter, six budget adjustments are proposed for approval along with the review and receipt of this report.  Community Development: Appropriate $23,000 from the General Fund Balance to account for the increased costs related to Building Contractual Services. Recent development and building permit activity has increased and a demand for plan check services has resulted. In order to help decrease the processing time to return building permit plan checks to customers, additional contractual services totaling $180,000 is requested. These increases are expected to be offset by a conservative increase to fee revenues totaling $123,700. Additionally, it is recommended to reallocate the remaining $38,300 of budgeted expenditures within the Building Division salary savings to cover a portion of this increased costs since the contractual firm has been providing this service until the new Building Permit technician began with the City in January 2024.  City Administration: Appropriate $150,000 from the General Fund Balance to account for the increased costs related to the City Attorney contract. Best, Best, and Krieger continues to provide exceptional service to the City and has increased the amount of hours used by approximately 50 hours per month to a monthly average of approximately 165 hours. This increased service level was not reflected in the original budget estimates for FY 2023-24, but has been seen as necessary to update some of the City’s practices. Opportunities to reduce legal costs in the future are being identified. City staff will incorporate a more accurate estimate in the Mid-Cycle FY 2024-25 budget update at a future Council meeting.  Legislative and Information Services: Appropriate $12,310 from the General Fund Balance to add the Escribe Webcasting Module to provide video indexing to the City Council meetings and support the automation of meetings.
 COPS Fund: Appropriate $25,000 from the State COPS Block Grant Fund to purchase license plate readers, evidence drying rack, handheld laser speed gun, and a drone. All pieces of equipment are eligible for COPS Grant Fund use but the special revenue fund did not incorporate these items into this budget.
 Water Fund: Appropriate $13,975 from the Water Enterprise Fund Balance to fund the City’s share of the Central Coast Blue (CCB). This increase is related to the CCB Mid-year Budget request presented to the CCB Board on Monday, February 5, 2024, due to substantive work activities related to the start-up of the Authority, including but not limited to legal and financial advisor services.
 Sewer Fund: Appropriate $20,000 from the Sewer Enterprise Fund Balance to replace one of the pumps at Lift Station # 1. The pumps at Lift Station # 1 are the City’s largest sewage pumps and pump around 250,000 gallons of raw sewage per day for it to flow via gravity in the collection system to the plant in Oceano.

ATTACHMENT 1

SECTION 5: UPDATE ON MAJOR CITY GOALS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN This information is provided to keep the Council apprised of the status of the Goal Status Reports to Council that includes progress towards completing Major City Goals and Capital Improvement Plan.

These reports present updates and communications about the status of City projects, goals, and performance measures. The four major goals are:

The following tables provide a breakdown of the Council Goal’s Work Plan by goal. Here is a key for purposes of defining each department.

Funding
Support a thriving community through fiscal responsibility, economic development efforts, and additional and alternative revenue streams.

Fire Services
Implement operational and fire and emergency service delivery improvements through the Five Cities Fire Authority, and complete the transition of services to Oceano due to its exit from the Authority.

Infrastructure
Invest in and complete critical infrastructure projects throughout the City through the strategic prioritization of projects based on available resources.

General Plan Update
Prioritize and complete major work efforts for the comprehensive General Plan update to provide a vision and framework for future development within the City.

CMO City Manager's Office
AS Administrative Services
LIS Legislative and Information Services
PD Police Department
PW Public Works
Rec Recreation Services
Fire Five Cities Fire Authority
CD Community Development
Key

ATTACHMENT 1

Goal Strategy Task/Action Carryover
Action or New
Responsible
Department
Anticipated to
Start
Completion
Target Update
Funding 1. 1 Economic Development 1.1a Evaluate Economic Development Management Services New CMO 1Q FY2023-24 2Q FY 2023-24 In Progress

1.1b Obtain Economic Development Management Services New CMO 3Q FY 2023-24 3Q FY 2023-24 Not started

1.1c Support Modifications to the AGTBID New CMO/CA/Rec/LIS In Progress 2Q FY 2023-24 Completed

1.1c.i. Transition Administration to City staff New CMO/Rec/PW In Progress 1Q FY 2023-24 Completed

1.1c.ii. Complete Modifications to AGTBID Bylaws and Advisory Board Structure New CMO/CA/LIS In Progress 2Q FY 2023-24 Completed

1.1d 400 W. Branch Disposition and Development Agreement New CMO/CA/CD In Progress 4Q FY 2023-24 In Progress

1.1e Complete Transition of Temporary Parklets to Permanent Parklets Carryover CD/PW In Progress 1Q FY2023-24 Completed

1.1f Develop 1-3 Special Events that drive visitation during shoulder and winter months and build destination awareness New Rec In Progress 4Q FY 2023-24 In Progress

1.2 Pursue Revenue Measure 1.2a Issue an RFP for a consultant to develop a survey and outreach strategy to community New CMO/LIS 1Q FY2023-24 1Q FY2023-24 Completed

1.2b Award contract with consultant to develop a survey and outreach strategy to community New CMO/LIS 1Q FY2023-24 1Q FY2023-24 Completed

1.2c Conduct public outreach to the community to communicate need for additional revenue, including facilitation of a Citizen Committee Carryover CMO/LIS 1Q FY2023-24 1Q FY 2024-25 In Progress

1.2d Bring Revenue ballot measure to Council for consideration Carryover
CMO/AS/LIS 3Q FY 2023-24 4Q FY 2023-24 In Progress

1.3 Evaluate Potential to Enable
Cannabis Businesses within City

1.3a Conduct study session with the City Council regarding potential cannabis ordinance Carryover CD/CA/CMO 3Q FY 2023-24 3Q FY 2023-24 Not started

1.3b Prepare and adopt cannabis ordinance, if directed by the City Council New CD/CA/CMO 3Q FY 2023-24 1Q FY 2024-25 Not started

1.3c Evaluate feasibility of a Cannabis Tax New CD/AS/CA/CMO 3Q FY 2023-24 1Q FY 2024-25 Not started Fire Services 2.1 Work with Regional Partners on
Fire Services in 5 Cities 2.1a Pursue potential contract with the County to serve Oceano New Fire/CMO 3Q FY 2023-24 4Q FY 2023-24 In Progress

2.2 Funding for Fire Services 2.2a Consider including Public Safety in proposed Revenue measure New CMO/AS/LIS 3Q FY 2023-24 4Q FY 2023-24 In Progress

ATTACHMENT 1

Goal Strategy Task/Action Carryover
Action or New
Responsible
Department
Anticipated to
Start
Completion
Target Update
Infrastructure 3.1 Pursue Alternative Funding
Sources for Infrastructure Needs

3.1a Consider Community partnership for Mark M. Millis Community Center construction Carryover CMO/Rec/PW In progress 4Q FY 2023-24 In Progress

3.1b Include infrastructure in new Revenue Measure plans and outreach Carryover AS/CMO/LIS/ PW/CD 1Q FY 2023-24 4Q FY 2024-25 In Progress

3.1c Collect FEMA reimbursement for January - March 2023 storm damage New AS In progress 3Q FY2024-25 In Progress

3.1d Pursue Grant applications and administration for infrastructure projects Carryover PW/CD/AS In progress Ongoing In Progress

3.2 Work with Regional Partners on
Infrastructure Projects

3.2a Support ongoing development and financing of Central Coast Blue project Carryover CMO/AS/PW In Progress Ongoing In Progress

3.2b NCMA Management Agreement Amendments New PW 3Q FY 2023-24 Ongoing In Progress

3.3 Prioritize Key Infrastructure
Projects 3.3a Traffic Way Bridge Carryover CD/PW In progress 2Q FY 2025-26 In Progress

3.3a.i. Traffic Way Bridge Design Carryover CD/PW In progress 4 Q FY 2023-24 In Progress

3.3a.ii. Traffic Way Bridge ROW Carryover CD/PW 1Q FY 2023-24 3Q FY 2023-24 In Progress

3.3a.iii. Traffic Way Bridge Construction Carryover CD/PW 3Q FY 2024-25 2Q FY 2025-26 Not started

3.3b Swinging Bridge Rehabilitation Carryover CD/PW In progress 2Q FY 2024-25 In Progress

3.3b.i. Swinging Bridge Rehabilitation NEPA Carryover CD/PW In progress 3Q FY 2023-24 Completed

3.3bii Swinging Bridge Rehabilitation Bid for Construction Carryover CD/PW 3Q FY 2023-24 3Q FY 2023-24 Completed

3.3b.iii. Swinging Bridge Construction New CD/PW 4Q FY 2023-24 2Q FY 2024-25 In Progress

ATTACHMENT 1

Goal Strategy Task/Action Carryover
Action or New
Responsible
Department
Anticipated to
Start
Completion
Target Update

3.3c Halcyon Complete Streets New CD/PW Not started

3.3c.i. Halcyon Complete Streets Design acquisition New CD/PW 1Q FY 2024-25 1Q FY 2024-25 Not started

3.3c.ii. Halcyon Complete Streets ROW acquisition New CD/PW 1Q FY 2023-24 1Q FY 2024-25 In Progress

3.3c.iii. Halcyon Complete Streets Construction New CD/PW 1Q FY 2024-25 2Q FY 2025-26 Not started

3.3d ATP Development New CD/PW In Progress 3Q FY 2024-25 In Progress

3.3d.i. Award ATP Contract to Consultant New CD/PW 4Q FY 2022-23 4Q FY 2022-23 Completed

3.3d.ii. Final Approval of ATP by Council New CD/PW 3Q FY 2024-25 3Q FY 2024-25 Not started

3.3e 2022 Pavement Management Program Construction New CD/PW 1Q FY 2023-24 2Q FY 2023-24 In Progress

3.3f 2024 Pavement Management Program Design New CD/PW 2Q FY 2023-24 3Q FY 2023-24 Completed

3.3g 2024 Pavement Management Program Construction New CD/PW 4Q FY 2023-24 1Q FY 2024-25 In Progress

3.3h Community Safety Camera Network Carryover Police/CD In Progress 4Q FY 2024-25 In Progress

3.3i Replacement Generator at Station 1 New CD/PW/Fire 4Q FY 2022-23 4Q FY 2023-24 In Progress

3.3j Lift Station 3 New CD/PW 1Q FY 2023-24 1Q FY 2024-25 In Progress

3.3k AG Creek Remediation (Debris removal and bank stabilization) New CD/PW 4Q FY 2022-23 4Q FY 2023-24 In Progress

3.3l Concrete Repair Program New CD/PW 1Q FY 2024-25 4Q FY 2024-25 In Progress

3.3m Concept plan/design for new Mark M. Millis Community Center Building New CD/PW/Rec 1Q FY 2023-24 4Q FY 2023-24 In Progress

3.3n CMP Lining New CD/PW 1Q FY 2024-25 Ongoing In Progress Infrastructure (continued)

ATTACHMENT 1

Goal Strategy Task/Action Carryover
Action or New
Responsible
Department
Anticipated to
Start
Completion
Target Update

4.1 Public Outreach 4.1a Plan and Host a Kick-Off Meeting with Community New CD/LIS 1Q FY 2023-24 1Q FY 2023-24 Completed

4.2 Diversity Equity Iinclusivity
Justice Lens 4.2a Management of DEIJ consultant New CD In Progress Ongoing In Progress

4.3 General Plan Elements New CD 2Q FY 2023-24 3Q FY 2024-25 Not started

4.4 Baseline Analysis of Existing
and Future Business Needs 4.4a Survey Local Businesses Carryover Action CD 1Q FY 2023-24 4Q FY 2023-24 Not started

4.4b Conduct a Retail Market Analysis New CD 1Q FY 2023-24 4Q FY 2023-24 Not started

4.5 Climate Action Plan New CD 2Q FY 2023-24 3Q FY 2025-26 Not started

4.6 Code Update 4.6a Bring code changes to Planning Commission for approval New CD 3Q FY 2025-26 3Q FY 2025-26 Not started

4.6b Bring draft Ordinance of code revision update to Council New CD 4Q FY 2025-26 4Q FY 2025-26 Not started

4.7 EIR 4.7a Complete draft EIR New CD 1Q FY 2024-25 3Q FY 2024-25 Not started

4.7b Complete final EIR New CD 3Q FY 2024-25 4Q FY 2024-25 Not started

4.8 Objective Design Standards Carryover CD/CA 1Q FY 2023-24 1Q FY 2023-24 In Progress General Plan Update

Item 9.c.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Nicole Valentine, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Consideration of Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section

3.36.030 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Regarding
Development Impact Fees
DATE: February 27, 2024
SUMMARY OF ACTION:

Adopting the Ordinance will amend the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) regarding Development Impact Fees.

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

Development Impact Fees (DIFs) reflect and mitigate impacts of new development. They do not represent profit making by the City.

RECOMMENDATION:
1) Adopt the Ordinance amending Section 3.36.030 regarding Development Impact Fees; and
2) Find that the Ordinance does not qualify as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the Ordinance has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3)).

BACKGROUND:

In Arroyo Grande, DIFs are collected at the time a building permit is issued. Fees are used to finance the acquisition, construction and improvement of public facilities needed as a result of this new development. A separate fund is maintained to account for the receipt and expense of each category of DIF funds.

On February 13, 2024, City Council heard a presentation from the City’s consultant, Willdan Financial Services, regarding the DIF Nexus Study; adopted a Resolution updating Development Impact Fees; and introduced an Ordinance amending the AGMC Section 3.36.030 regarding DIFs. In compliance with State law, the updated DIF rate will become effective 60 days after adoption of the Resolution. An effective date of April 15,

Item 9.c.

City Council
Consideration of Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section 3.36.030 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Regarding Development Impact Fees February 27, 2024

2024, would result in two and a half months of collecting the new fees during the remainder of the fiscal year.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

The Ordinance amendment is now ready for adoption. The Ordinance amendment will become effective thirty (30) days after adoption.

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:

1. Adopt the Ordinance, as proposed;

2. Modify the Ordinance and direct staff to return at a future public hearing to reintroduce the Ordinance; or

3. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

Adopting the Ordinance will update the AGMC and the City will be able to recover the estimated cost of providing infrastructure to offset the impact caused by new development.

DISADVANTAGES:

Implementing the recommended DIF will result in an increased cost to new development.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The Ordinance does not qualify as a “project” under CEQA because the Ordinance will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3)). Here, the Ordinance will not result in any construction or development, and it will not have any other effect that would physically change the environment. Approval of the proposed Ordinance therefore does not qualify as a project subject to CEQA.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Proposed Ordinance

ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING SECTION 3.36.030 OF THE

ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AND FINDING THE

ORDINANCE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande (the “City”) has conducted an updated nexus fee study (the “Nexus Study”) for its development impact fees (“DIF”) in connection with the approval of development projects for the purpose of defraying all or part of the costs of providing public facilities related to said development projects in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act, commencing with California Government Code section 66000; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted the Nexus Study and the 2024 DIF schedule related to the Nexus Study by resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study has created different and/or additional categories of DIF than is currently provided for in the Arroyo Grande, California Municipal Code (“AGMC”); and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2024, the City Council conducted noticed public hearings to receive input on the Nexus Study and the adoption of the 2024 DIF schedule and adopted a Resolution approving the 2024 DIF schedule; and WHEREAS, without a change to the AGMC, City regulations are inconsistent with the DIF categories included in the newly adopted 2024 DIF schedule; and WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to amend the AGMC section 3.36.030 to reflect the newly adopted 2024 DIF categories.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Incorporation. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. Environmental. The City Council finds that this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because the Ordinance does not qualify as a “project” under CEQA and because the Ordinance will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines section 15060, subd. (c)(2), (3).) Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines a project as the whole of an action, which could potentially result in either a direct physical change, or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change, in the environment.

Here, the Ordinance will not result in any construction or development, and it will not have any other effect that would physically change the environment. The Ordinance therefore

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 2
-2-
does not qualify as a project subject to CEQA.

SECTION 3. Code Amendment. Section 3.36.030 of the AGMC is hereby amended to read as follows (additions shown in underline and deletions shown in strikethrough), all other provisions of Chapter 3.36 of the AGMC remain in effect:
“This chapter establishes development impact fees which are imposed as a condition of approval upon all development projects for which a building permit is issued on or after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter. Those impact fees are established for the following public facilities:

A.Fire Protection feesFacilities;
B.Police Facilities fees;
C.Community center feesPark Facilities;
D.Park improvement feesRecreation Facilities;
E.Water Facilities fees;
F.Traffic signalization feesTransportation Facilities;
G.TransportationStorm Drain Facilities fees.;
H. Wastewater Facilities.

These impact fees are established in order to pay for the capital costs of public facilities reasonably related to the needs of new development in the city. At least once every five years, the council shall review the basis for the impact fees to determine whether the fees are still reasonably related to the needs of new development. In establishing these fees, the council has considered the effect of the fees with respect to the city's housing needs as established in the housing element of the general plan.” SECTION 4. Publication. A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least ten 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 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.

SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days after adoption.

SECTION 6. Severability. Should any provision of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, that determination shall have no effect on any other provision of this Ordinance or the application of this Ordinance to any other person or circumstance, and, to that end, the provisions hereof are severable.

The City Council declares that it would have adopted all the provisions of this Ordinance that remain valid if any provisions of this Ordinance are declared invalid.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 3
-3-
SECTION 7. Records. The documents and materials associated with this Ordinance that constitute the record of proceedings on which the City Council’s findings and determinations are based are located at 300 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420. The City Clerk is the custodian of the record of proceedings.

On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and by the following roll call vote to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

This Ordinance was adopted at its second reading on the ____ day of ____________, 2024.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 4
-4-

CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:

JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

MATTHEW DOWNING, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

ISAAC ROSEN, CITY ATTORNEY

1 Item 9.d.

ACTION MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
February 13, 2024, 6:00 p.m.

Hybrid City Council Chamber/Virtual Zoom Meeting
215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande
Council Members Present: Mayor Ray Russom, Council Member Barneich, Council Member George, Mayor
Pro Tem Guthrie, Council Member Secrest
Staff Present: Deputy City Clerk Julie Hawkins; City Attorney Isaac Rosen; City Manager Matthew
Downing; Assistant City Manager/Public
Works Director Bill Robeson; Administrative
Services Director Nicole Valentine;
Community Development Director Brian
Pedrotti; Planning Manager Andrew Perez;
City Engineer Shannon Sweeney; City Clerk
Jessica Matson
This meeting was conducted in a hybrid in-person/virtual format. _____________________________________________________________________

1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Ray Russom called the Regular City Council Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL
Deputy City Clerk Hawkins took roll call.

3. MOMENT OF REFLECTION

4. FLAG SALUTE
Members of the Arroyo Grande Valley Kiwanis Club led the flag salute.

5. AGENDA REVIEW
Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie requested, and Council concurred, to move Item 12.a. before Item 10.a. on the Agenda.

5.a Closed Session Announcements
None.

2 Item 9.d.

5.b Ordinances read in title only
Moved by Mayor Ray Russom
Seconded by Council Member Barneich
Move that all ordinances presented at the meeting shall be read by title only and all further readings be waived.

AYES (5): Mayor Ray Russom, Council Member Barneich, Council Member George, Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie, and Council Member Secrest
Passed (5 to 0)

6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

6.a Honorary Proclamation Recognizing February 2024 as Teen Dating Violence Action and Prevention Month
Mayor Ray Russom read the Honorary Proclamation Recognizing February 2024 as Teen Dating Violence Action and Prevention Month. Callie Tennock and Molly Gurrola, Lumina Alliance, accepted the proclamation.

Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received.

No action was taken on this item.

6.b Honorary Proclamation Recognizing Fire Chief Stephen Lieberman Upon His Retirement from Public Service
Mayor Ray Russom read the Honorary Proclamation Recognizing Fire Chief Stephen Lieberman Upon His Retirement from Public Service. FCFA Chief Lieberman, accepted the proclamation.

Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. Speaking from the public was Keith Storton. No further public comments were received.

Council thanked Chief Lieberman for his service.

No action was taken on this item.

6.c City Manager Communications
City Manager Downing provided information regarding the public safety camera project, FCFA promotion of Craig Angello to Battalion Chief; volunteer appreciation event which had over 100 attendees; Meet the Machines event scheduled for February 24th at Soto Complex; visioning workshop for General Plan Update which is scheduled for February 28th; release of the winter edition of the City Newsletter; and mailer with survey questions which will be sent to the community.

Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received.

3 Item 9.d.

No action was taken on this item.

6.c.1 Recent Storm Conditions and Updates
Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director Robeson provided a presentation regarding City staff's response to recent storms and shared information regarding upcoming storms.

7. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
None.

Reports are made during the Second Council Meeting each month.

8. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. Speaking from the public were Alexandria, Gary Schmidt, and Keith Storton. No further public comments were received. Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director Robeson responded to questions from the public.

9. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Ray Russom asked the Council if there were any questions or any items to be pulled from the consent agenda for further discussion.

Mayor Ray Russom requested Item 9.c. be pulled for separate vote.

Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. Speaking from the public was Alexandria. No further public comments were received.

City Manager Downing provided a brief overview of the Downtown Parking Advisory Board function.

Moved by Council Member Barneich
Seconded by Council Member George
Approve Consent Agenda Items 9.a. through 9.g., with the exception of Item 9.c. with the recommended courses of action.

AYES (5): Council Member Barneich, Council Member George, Council Member Secrest, Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie, Mayor Ray Russom
Passed (5 to 0)

9.a Consideration of Cash Disbursement Ratification
1) Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period of January 1 through January 15, 2024; and
2) Determined that ratifying the cash disbursements is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378.)

4 Item 9.d.

9.b Consideration of Statement of Investment Deposits
1) Received and filed the report listing investment deposits of the City of Arroyo Grande as of December 31, 2023, as required by Government Code Section 53646(b); and 2) Determined that receiving the report of investment deposits is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378.)

9.d Consideration of Appointment to the Downtown Parking Advisory Board Approved the recommendation of Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie to appoint Kevin Delaney to the Downtown Parking Advisory Board.

9.e Consideration of Approval of Amendment 1 to the Regional Surface Transportation (RSTP) Exchange/Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Cooperative Agreement AG – FAST – 01 with the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments 1) Adopted a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT 1 TO SAN

LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS REGIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION

EXCHANGE / SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BLOCK GRANT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. AG-FAST-01";
2) Directed the City Clerk to submit the RSTP Exchange/STBG Cooperative Agreement Amendment 1 to No. AG-FAST-01 and the Resolution to the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments; and
3) Found that approving this agreement is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (b)(2)-(3), 15378).

9.f Consideration of Final Approval of Community Development Block Grant Projects for Year 2024 and Finding the Action Exempt Under the California Environmental Quality Act, State Guidelines Section 15061
1) Approved a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING TO THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

APPROVAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROJECTS FOR YEAR 2024"; and
2) Found that the preliminary approval of projects is exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 subd. (b)(3).

9.g Consideration of Rejection of All Bids for the Five Cities Fire Authority (FCFA) Apparatus Door Replacement Project, PW 2023-11
Rejected all Bids for the FCFA Apparatus Door Replacement Project and direct staff to competitively rebid this project.

5 Item 9.d.

9.c Approval of Minutes
Moved by Council Member Barneich
Seconded by Council Member Secrest
Approved the minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of January 23, 2024, as submitted.

AYES (3): Council Member Barneich, Council Member Secrest, and Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie ABSTAINED (2): Mayor Ray Russom, and Council Member George Passed (3 to 0)

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS

10.a Hold Public Hearings, Consider Adopting a Resolution Updating the Development Impact Fee Schedule & Consider the 2024 Development Impact Fee Nexus Study, & Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 3.36 of the AGMC, Development Impact Fees This item was heard after Item 12.a.

Administrative Services Director Valentine introduced the item and Carlos Villarreal, Wildan Financial Services, provided a presentation of the 2024 Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update and responded to questions from Council.

Mayor Ray Russom opened the public hearing. Upon hearing no public comments, Mayor Ray Russom closed the public hearing.

Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie
Seconded by Council Member George
1) Hold a Public Hearing and Adopt a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES

FOR ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY AND TAKING OTHER ACTIONS THERETO";
2) Receive and file the 2024 Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update; 3) Hold a Public Hearing and Introduce an Ordinance entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING SECTION 3.36.030 OF THE

ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AND

FINDING THE ORDINANCE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT";
4) Make findings that adopting the Resolution updating Development Impact fees and introducing the proposed Ordinance are not projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because they have no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378.).

6 Item 9.d.

AYES (5): Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie, Council Member George, Council Member Barneich, Council Member Secrest, and Mayor Ray Russom
Passed (5 to 0)

10.b Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Section 16.04.070 of Chapter 4 of Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Regarding the Definition of Formula Business and Finding That This Action is Exempt from Review Under the CEQA Community Development Director Pedrotti presented the item and recommended that the Council introduce, read by title only, and waive further reading of an Ordinance amending Section 16.04.070 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code regarding the definition of a Formula Business and finding the Ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the Ordinance has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (b)(2)-(3), 15378). Community Development Director Pedrotti and City Manager Downing responded to questions from Council.

Mayor Ray Russom opened the public hearing. Speaking from the public were Alexandria, and Jared Worthen. Upon hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ray Russom closed the public hearing.

Community Development Director Pedrotti responded to questions from public comment.

Moved by Mayor Ray Russom
Seconded by Council Member Secrest
Introduce an Ordinance entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING SECTION 16.04.070 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE

MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF FORMULA BUSINESS AND FINDING THE ORDINANCE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT"; and directed staff to use Council comments from this meeting in later discussions of the General Plan Update, as it relates to the coloring of the legend of the Village core downtown and Village mixed use.

AYES (5): Mayor Ray Russom, Council Member Secrest, Council Member Barneich, Council Member George, and Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie
Passed (5 to 0)

11. OLD BUSINESS
None.

12. NEW BUSINESS

12.a Consideration of a Resolution Approving Arroyo Grande Community Service Grant Program Allocations for Fiscal Year 2023-24 and Finding This Action Is Not a Project Under the CEQA, State Guidelines Section 15378

7 Item 9.d.

This item was heard out of order.

Council Member George recused herself due to owning a nonprofit that applied for funding.

Planning Manager Perez presented the item and recommended that Council: 1) Adopt a Resolution approving the Arroyo Grande Community Service Grant Program funding allocations identified in Attachment 1; and 2) Determine that adopting the Resolution is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (b)(2)-(3), 15378.). Mr. Perez and Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director Robeson responded to questions from Council.

Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. Speaking from the public were Athena Meisheid, Mary Bassett Fernamberg, Ramona Friedman, Nan Bowman, and Cody George. No further public comments were received.

Mary Bassett Fernamberg and Cody responded to questions from Council.

Council discussion ensued regarding reallocation of funding among the applicants.

Council Member Barneich moved to fully fund the athletic scholarships, but move funds from the two athletic programs including $4,000 to the Senior Nutrition Program; move $1,000 to Hospice; and move $1,000 to Shower the People. The motion died due to lack of a second.

Mayor Ray Russom called for a brief break at 7:40 p.m. The Council reconvened at 7:47 p.m.

Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie
Seconded by Council Member Secrest
1) Adopt a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY SERVICE GRANT PROGRAM PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-24"; as amended to remove $1,000 from the suggested funded amount for the AG Valley Little League and $1,000 from the Central Coast Athletics Foundation and add $2,000 to the funding for Senior Nutrition Program/Meals that Connect increasing their recommended funding to $8,000; and 2) Determine that adopting the Resolution is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (b)(2)-(3), 15378.)
AYES (4): Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie, Council Member Secrest, Council Member Barneich, and Mayor Ray Russom
ABSENT (1): Council Member George
Passed (4 to 0)

8 Item 9.d.

13. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Council Member Secrest attended and commented on the Lions Club Speech Contest, Volunteer Appreciation Banquet, and expressed appreciation to staff for their response during the recent storms.

Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie commented on a regional update from the CPUC regarding a public forum related to AT&T wanting to withdraw land line service from 93420 area code.

Council Member George commented on a recent vehicle accident and commended emergency response personnel for their help aiding in the rescue.

Council Member Barneich announced that the 5Cities Homeless Coalition will be hosting an open house at their permanent location; and expressed appreciation to emergency response personnel on their help during the recent storm.

Mayor Ray Russom expressed appreciation to staff for their response during the recent storm.

14. CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Rosen announced the City Council will recess to a closed session for the following:
a) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8:

Property: 214 East Branch Street
Agency Negotiators: Matthew Downing, City Manager; Bill Robeson, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director
Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received.

City Council adjourned to Closed Session at 9:09 p.m.

City Council returned to open session at 9:53 p.m. and City Attorney Rosen announced that there was no reportable action.

15. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Ray Russom adjourned the meeting at 9:54 p.m.
_________________________
Caren Ray Russom, Mayor
_________________________
Jessica Matson, City Clerk

Item 9.e.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Brian Pedrotti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consideration of Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Regarding the Definition of Formula Business
DATE: February 27, 2024
SUMMARY OF ACTION:

Adopting the Ordinance will amend the definition of a Formula Business.

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

No financial impact is projected.

RECOMMENDATION:
1) Adopt the Ordinance amending Section 16.04.070 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code regarding the definition of a Formula Business; and 2) Find that the Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the Ordinance does not qualify as a “project” under CEQA and because the Ordinance will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines section 15060, subd. (c)(2), (3), section 15378).

BACKGROUND:

In response to public comment, the City Council directed staff to research and propose formula business restrictions applicable to the Village Core Downtown (VCD) and Village Mixed Use (VMU) districts of the Historic Character Overlay District (the “Village”) commercial area. Upon approval by the City Council, the 2005 Ordinance identified that “the potential proliferation of formula businesses would diminish the unique character of the VCD and VMU/HCO districts by offering standardization of architecture, interior design and décor, uniforms and the like, and which are required to be virtually identical to other such businesses in other communities.” Specifically, the Ordinance prohibited formula businesses in the VCD and Village Mixed Use/Historic Character Overlay (VMU/HCO) districts.

Item 9.e.

City Council
Consideration of Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Regarding the Definition of Formula Business February 27, 2024

On October 10, 2023, the City Council held a study session to discuss potential revisions to the regulations related to formula businesses and directed staff to return with an amendment to the definition of formula business, including (1) an increase to the sixestablishment threshold, (2) that the definition apply to all business types, and (3) the removal of the two criteria in the definition.

The Planning Commission reviewed the draft Ordinance at its meeting on January 16, 2024. The Commission was supportive of the Ordinance as proposed and recommended that Council adopt the Ordinance as drafted. At the introduction and public hearing on February 13, 2024, the City Council introduced the ordinance, read by title only, and waived further reading of the Ordinance. During discussion, the City Council expressed concerns with how the City’s existing legal non-conforming use provisions in Section

16.48.110 of the municipal code would apply to formula businesses in the Village. The Council agreed to move the ordinance forward and directed staff to consider the applicable district boundaries associated with the Historic Core, and by extension the limits on formula businesses, as part of the General Plan Update.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

The Ordinance amendments are now ready for adoption. The Ordinance amendments will become effective thirty (30) days after adoption.

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:

1. Adopt the Ordinance as proposed; or

2. Modify the Ordinance amendments and direct staff to return at a future public hearing to introduce the modified amendments; or

3. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

Revisions to the Ordinance are supported with objectives and policies from the General Plan because the revisions strengthen the regulatory requirements for formula businesses, ensuring that the architectural design and style of the Village are preserved.

DISADVANTAGES:

The proposed amendment will limit the type of businesses that can occupy commercial spaces within the VCD and VMU districts.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The Ordinance does not qualify as a “project” under CEQA and because the Ordinance will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines section 15060, subd. (c)(2), (3).) Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines a project as the whole of an action, which could potentially result in either a direct physical change, or reasonably foreseeable indirect

Item 9.e.

City Council
Consideration of Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Regarding the Definition of Formula Business February 27, 2024

physical change, in the environment. Here, the Ordinance will not result in any construction or development, and it will not have any other effect that would physically change the environment. Approval of the proposed Ordinance therefore does not qualify as a project subject to CEQA.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Proposed Ordinance

65501.00002\41296594.1
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO. ____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING SECTION 16.04.070 OF

THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING

THE DEFINITION OF FORMULA BUSINESS AND FINDING

THE ORDINANCE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2005, the City Council held a study session to discuss alternatives for the regulations for chain businesses; and WHEREAS, on August 23, 2005, the City Council adopted an ordinance to amend Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) regarding the definition of formula business; and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2023, the City Council directed staff to review the definition of “Formula Business” in the municipal code and return with a study session to determine if ordinance revisions were warranted; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2023, the City Council discussed potential revisions to the definition of “Formula Business,” and directed staff to proceed with an ordinance amendment; and
WHEREAS, on January 16, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the staff report, recommendations by staff, and public testimony concerning the ordinance. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to forward the ordinance to the City Council with a recommendation in favor of its adoption; and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2024, the City Council introduced the ordinance and conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the ordinance, including: (1) the public testimony and agenda reports prepared in connection with the ordinance; (2) the policy considerations discussed therein; and (3) the consideration and recommendation of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of the ordinance have occurred.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Incorporation. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. Environmental. The City Council finds that this ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because the ordinance does not

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 2
qualify as a “project” under CEQA and because the ordinance will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines section 15060, subd. (c)(2), (3).) Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines a project as the whole of an action, which could potentially result in either a direct physical change, or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change, in the environment.

Here, the ordinance will not result in any construction or development, and it will not have any other effect that would physically change the environment. The ordinance therefore does not qualify as a project subject to CEQA.

SECTION 3. Required Findings. In accordance with section 16.16.040(E) of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, the City Council hereby makes the following findings:

1. General Plan. The ordinance’s amendments to the AGMC are consistent with the general plan and necessary and desirable to implement the provisions thereof.

Specifically, economic development objective ED2 and policies ED 3-4 and ED 5-4 support the small-town character and maintaining the Village as a vibrant downtown core.

Land use element objective LU6 also supports maintaining the Village core as a “symbolic, functional and unique business center of the City” which can be achieved by the adoption of the amendment to the definition of formula business and its implementation. Thus, disallowing formula businesses, as defined, will ensure that current residents, visitors, and future generations may enjoy the unique and historic character, culture, and architecture of the Village, as contemplated by the above objectives and policies of the General Plan.

2. Health, Safety, and Welfare; Illogical Land Use Pattern. Adoption of the ordinance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare as it simply updates the definition of “formula business” in the AGMC to ensure that the AGMC is consistent with the City’s general plan. Finally, this ordinance will not result in an illogical land use pattern as it is not amending the City’s zoning map.

3. Consistency with Title 16. This ordinance is consistent with the purpose and intent of AGMC Title 16 because it removes an internal inconsistency therein and ensures that the provisions thereof are consistent with the City’s economic development and land use elements.

4. Environmental. There will be no environmental impact by amending the definition of a formula business because doing so authorizes no construction or development, nor could the definitional change of a formula business indirectly result in a physical impact on the environment. See Section 2 “Environmental” above.

SECTION 4. Code Amendment. Subsection (C) of Section 16.04.070 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (additions shown in underline and deletions shown in strikethrough):
“Formula business”. Shall mean a business, limited to retail trade uses and restaurants, that is required by contractual or other arrangement to maintain

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 3
standardized services and the same or similar name, tradename, or trademark which causes it to be substantially identical to six (6) ten (10) or more other establishments at the time of application submittal, regardless of ownership or location., and which satisfies one of the following two criteria:
a. It has exterior design or architecture, signs, décor or similar features in a style which is distinctive to and standardized among the chain or group; b. It is a fast food restaurant.

SECTION 6. Publication. A summary of this ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five 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 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.

SECTION 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after adoption.

SECTION 8. Severability. Should any provision of this ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, that determination shall have no effect on any other provision of this ordinance or the application of this ordinance to any other person or circumstance, and, to that end, the provisions hereof are severable.

The City Council declares that it would have adopted all the provisions of this ordinance that remain valid if any provisions of this ordinance are declared invalid.

SECTION 9. Records. The documents and materials associated with this ordinance that constitute the record of proceedings on which the City Council’s findings and determinations are based are located at 300 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420. The City Clerk is the custodian of the record of proceedings.

On motion by Council Member ______, seconded by Council Member _______, and by the following roll call vote to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this ____ day of _______, 2024.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 4
___________________________________

CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________________

JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
___________________________________

MATTHEW DOWNING, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________

ISAAC ROSEN, CITY ATTORNEY

Item 9.f.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Bill Robeson, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director BY: Shane Taylor, Utilities Manager
SUBJECT: Monthly Water Supply and Demand
DATE: February 27, 2024
SUMMARY OF ACTION:

The update reports the City’s total water supply and demand for January 2024. Current Lopez Reservoir level and projected levels are provided in the attachments.

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

Approximately two (2) hours of staff time is required to prepare the report.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the Monthly Water Supply and Demand Update.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Arroyo Grande’s water entitlements are calculated on a water year that begins April 1st. The current water supply for water year 2023/2024 includes 2,290 acre feet from Lopez Reservoir, 1323 acre feet of groundwater entitlement from the Santa Maria River Groundwater Basin, and 160 Acre Feet from the City’s wells that draw from the Pismo formation.

The predicted water use for 2023/2024 water year is 2,200 Acre Feet.

In January 2024, the City’s water use was 122.5 Acre Feet with a per capita use of 72 gallons per day/per person. The residential per capita use was 55 gallons per day/per person. There was a total of 2.33 inches of rainfall in the City in January 2024.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

The United States Drought Monitor, as of February 15, 2024, shows San Luis Obispo County is not in a drought. Rainfall for the period of July 1, 2023, through February 15, 2024, is 10.5 inches at the Corporation Yard rain gauge. Lopez Lake is 100.3% as of

Item 9.f.

City Council
Monthly Water Supply and Demand
February 27, 2024

February 15, 2024. The lake began spilling on February 7, 2024, and is currently spilling at a rate of 57-acre feet/day, which is 18,500,000 gallons/day.

The deep well index for the first quarter of 2024 was completed on January 9, 2024, and is 12.33 feet above sea level, which is 4.83 feet above the threshold value. The current deep well index is 1.38 feet higher than October 2023 and 1.75 feet higher than January 2023.

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:

1. Receive and file the report, or

2. Provide other directions to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

The report provides the City Council and the public with the current and projected conditions of our water supply and demand.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

No environmental review is required for this item.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Monthly Operations Report

2. Lopez Reservoir Storage Projection

3. Yearly Water Use Comparison

4. Deep Well Index Levels

Attachment 1

Attachment 2

Attachment 3

Attachment 4

Item 10.a.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Brian Pedrotti, Community Development Director
BY: Patrick Holub, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Conduct Public Hearing and Consider a Resolution Denying the Installation of One (1) Domestic Well on Property Zoned Planned Development (PD); Applicant–Michael Harris; Representative–Richard Burde, SLO Civil Design and Marsha Burch, Attorney at Law DATE: February 27, 2024
SUMMARY OF ACTION:

Following a public hearing, consider staff’s recommended denial of the request of the property owner to drill and install a new domestic well at an unaddressed property on Noyes Road (APN: 007-781-055), northeast of the intersection of Noyes Road and Equestrian Way (“Subject Property”).

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

There is no direct funding impact anticipated as a result of this denial. If the application is denied, the applicant will have the option to connect to City services, which will require staff time to process any subsequently submitted development application and/or a separate connection application. If the well application is approved, staff time will be required to finalize the well permit. Both approval options will require application fees to offset staff time.

RECOMMENDATION:
1) Adopt a Resolution denying the request by Michael Harris to drill and install one (1) new domestic well on an unaddressed property on Noyes Road (APN: 007-781-055) northeast of the intersection of Noyes Road and Equestrian Way; and 2) Determine that the denial is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency disapproves or rejects (Pub. Resources Code § 21080(b)(5); State CEQA Guidelines, § 15270(a)), and it will not have direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental impacts (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378.

Item 10.a.

City Council
Conduct Public Hearing and Consider a Resolution Denying the Installation of One (1) Domestic Well on Property Zoned Planned Development (PD); Applicant– Michael Harris; Representative–Richard Burde, SLO Civil Design and Marsha Burch, Attorney at Law
February 27, 2024

BACKGROUND:

The City received a request from property owner Michael Harris seeking approval to drill a well at the Subject Property in order to provide domestic/drinking water to a future proposed residence. The proposed well meets the City’s definition of an individual domestic well because it is a single well used to supply water for the domestic needs of an individual residence.

Mr. Harris is the owner of the unaddressed property (shown above) on Noyes Road (APN:
007-781-055) northeast of the intersection of Noyes Road and Equestrian Way (“Subject Property”). In April 2019, Mr. Harris contacted the City regarding his intent to build a single-family residence on the Subject Property. City staff provided information regarding zoning and allowed uses, and indicated that residential uses were allowed on the Subject Property. Mr. Harris also had conversations with staff beginning in October 2022 regarding a domestic well, in conjunction with his submittal of a well application to the San Luis Obispo County Health Department (“SLO Health”). On October 18, 2022, the City’s Utility Manager sent a reply to SLO Health that the City Council is required to review and approve well applications. To date, Mr. Harris has not submitted an application for any residential development at the Subject Property.

In March 2023, staff had several e-mail conversations with Mr. Harris regarding scheduling the well application for a City Council hearing. Concerns by staff were raised during the review period leading up to and as part of the drafting of the staff report, and these concerns were expressed to Mr. Harris. Staff and Mr. Harris held several follow-up meetings in the subsequent months, including meetings with Mr. Harris and/or his

Item 10.a.

City Council
Conduct Public Hearing and Consider a Resolution Denying the Installation of One (1) Domestic Well on Property Zoned Planned Development (PD); Applicant– Michael Harris; Representative–Richard Burde, SLO Civil Design and Marsha Burch, Attorney at Law
February 27, 2024

representative on May 10, June 15, and August 15, 2023. Ultimately, the well application was scheduled for a City Council hearing on October 24, 2023. On the day of the hearing, staff received a letter from Mr. Harris’ attorney, Marsha Burch, with a 40-page attachment that included multiple legal assertions regarding the proposed project and staff’s recommended denial (“Attorney Letter”). The Attorney Letter and its attachment are included as Attachment 3.

Due to the receipt of the Attorney Letter a few hours before the scheduled hearing and the legal assertions made therein, staff recommended a continuance to November 28, 2023, to allow for analysis of and response to the arguments in that Attorney Letter. Mr.

Harris indicated on October 24, 2023 that he was unable to attend the November 28, 2023 public hearing in person, and requesting that the item be further continued. At the November 28, 2023, City Council meeting, at the request of Mr. Harris, the item was continued to January 9, 2024. On January 9, 2024, at the request of Mr. Harris, the City Council continued the public hearing to February 27, 2024. City staff issued new public hearing notice for purposes of the continued February 27, 2024 public hearing.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Chapter 13.08 outlines the City’s regulations regarding wells. Section 13.08.040 of the AGMC requires the City Council to consider, in its discretion, approval for new or replacement wells or abandonment of existing wells.

Approval to drill a well within the City boundaries may be granted if the City Council determines: 1) the well will neither deplete nor contaminate the City water supply; and 2) service from the City’s water system is neither practical nor feasible.

Depletion or Contamination
Mr. Harris’ proposed location for the well is on the Subject Property northeast of the intersection of Noyes Road and Equestrian Way. Any well proposal would be required to submit verification that the well is located at least one-hundred feet (100’) from septic system areas, which would also be confirmed by County Environmental Health.

Additionally, any new well would be conditioned to be metered to determine annual usage. The well site is outside of the adjudicated Santa Maria Groundwater Basin and is located in the Los Robles Aquifer. The closest City well is located about 2,800 feet away southwest of the proposed well site. Because the proposed well would not tap the same aquifer utilized by the City’s wells, staff’s determination is that there is no anticipated interference or depletion to the City’s system from the requested well.

Practicality and Feasibility of Connecting to the City’s Water System It is important to highlight that in determining the practicality and feasibility for a domestic water service connection, staff reads the practicality and feasibility test as one based on whether the City is reasonably able to provide a domestic water service connection from

Item 10.a.

City Council
Conduct Public Hearing and Consider a Resolution Denying the Installation of One (1) Domestic Well on Property Zoned Planned Development (PD); Applicant– Michael Harris; Representative–Richard Burde, SLO Civil Design and Marsha Burch, Attorney at Law
February 27, 2024

the City water service line, to the private property boundary, and at what cost to the City this can be done. Staff does not believe practicality and feasibility criteria should be based upon the private property owner’s costs associated with installing domestic water service, nor should it be based solely on the topography of the site.

Prior to 2017, and only for temporary or replacement irrigation wells for agriculture properties or sports fields, the City did consider the cost to an applicant to connect to the municipal water supply. When costs to an applicant were considered, reference to costs to the applicant strictly referred to the Water Availability Fee, Water Distribution Fee and Meter Fee associated with the City installing a water meter. These fees were all collected at the time of building permit issuance and were based only on the size of the proposed connection. The applicant/property owner would still be responsible for connecting the meter to their home and any additional costs unknown to the City.

From 2017 to present, the only factors considered in assessing the feasibility and practicality of a municipal water connection for a domestic well applicant were:
1) Distance from existing municipal water infrastructure; 2) Any necessary infrastructure improvements;
3) Any easements that might be needed to connect to the municipal water supply; and
4) Whether the proposed water connection is located outside City limits.

Since 2017 these factors have been consistently applied to all domestic water well applications. Since 2017 there have been six total well applications, three of which were for domestic wells, and no staff reports mention costs to the applicant as a factor in granting or denying the well application. At no time has the cost to the applicant ever been a factor considered for a domestic well application such as Mr. Harris’ application.

Mr. Harris has provided a groundwater feasibility analysis that examines the local conditions and finds that developing a groundwater well to serve the Subject Property is feasible from a hydrological perspective, which is included as part of the application materials in Attachment 2.

As stated above, Chapter 13.08 of the AGMC provides that the City Council may approve a well if “service from the city water system is neither practical nor feasible.” Staff determined that it is both feasible and practical for the City to connect the City’s water supply to the Subject Property. This determination is due to several factors. First, the Subject Property is immediately adjacent to the City’s Reservoir No. 5, which is a 1.2 million gallon above-ground storage tank. Second, a residential water service connection can be made directly to the City owned water main from the tank and a connection placed to Mr. Harris’s property line with a standard water meter on the property. The connection

Item 10.a.

City Council
Conduct Public Hearing and Consider a Resolution Denying the Installation of One (1) Domestic Well on Property Zoned Planned Development (PD); Applicant– Michael Harris; Representative–Richard Burde, SLO Civil Design and Marsha Burch, Attorney at Law
February 27, 2024

from Reservoir No. 5 to Mr. Harris’ property would be approximately 50 feet in length along generally level land, with minimal surface restrictions. The connection would not require any easements or improvements to existing City infrastructure. Lastly, the connection at the Subject Property is within the City’s boundaries.

In light of these facts, staff has determined it is both practical and feasible for the City to connect Mr. Harris’s property to the municipal water supply.

Applicant’s Analysis
In contrast to staff’s determination, Mr. Harris and his representatives have argued that this connection is neither practical nor feasible. Mr. Harris cites the location of the preferred building site on the property as approximately 600-800 feet from the reservoir, depending on the trenching route, and would involve grading through steeper slopes and sensitive oak trees. Mr. Harris has stated that the City should consider tree impacts in making its determination, citing the Community Tree Program in Chapter 12.16 of the AGMC. Mr. Harris argues that due to the challenges of connecting a potential future home to the municipal water supply, it is expensive to connect to the municipal water supply and thus he should be entitled to a well permit. Staff disagrees with this position.

First, the City does not need to take into consideration impacts to trees when considering a well application. The AGMC allows the Director of Public Works to issue permits for the removal and replacement of any impacted oak trees on properties within the City. This authority takes into consideration any impacts connecting to the municipal water supply and allows the mitigation of those impacts.

Regarding the cost of connecting a future home to the municipal water supply, such costs are purely speculative at this point. As of the date of this Staff Report, Mr. Harris has not submitted any applications to build any structures on the Subject Property and he has never submitted such an application to the City. The City can only make decisions based on the facts before it at the time the decision is made. If new facts are presented at a later time, and Mr. Harris submits a new permit application or development application, the City will analyze any applications under those new facts.

Furthermore, the City is not responsible for the proposed location of residential structures on a property; the location of residential structures is proposed by an applicant and ultimately reviewed by the City to ensure code requirements are met, such as setbacks, height limits, and health and safety standards contained in the California Building Standards Code. With regard to the cost to Mr. Harris of connecting to the municipal water supply, as noted above, this is not a factor considered by the City when determining the practicality and feasibility analysis.

Comparison to Other Well Approvals

Item 10.a.

City Council
Conduct Public Hearing and Consider a Resolution Denying the Installation of One (1) Domestic Well on Property Zoned Planned Development (PD); Applicant– Michael Harris; Representative–Richard Burde, SLO Civil Design and Marsha Burch, Attorney at Law
February 27, 2024

The City Council has approved several well applications in the City, including agricultural replacement wells, irrigation replacement wells, two replacement domestic wells, and one new domestic well. These wells are listed below with their date of approval, type of well, and location:
 September 27, 2005 – Replacement Agricultural Irrigation Well – Coach Road  November 27, 2007 – Replacement Agricultural Irrigation Well – 871 East Cherry Avenue
 November 25, 2008 – Replacement Sports Field Irrigation Well – 207 Pilgrim Way  December 18, 2008 – Replacement Sports Field Irrigation Well – 495 Valley Road  February 14, 2017 – Replacement Agricultural Irrigation Well – 980 East Cherry Avenue
 December 12, 2017 – Temporary Agricultural Irrigation Well – Noyes Road  February 13, 2018 – Replacement Domestic Well – 687 Printz Road  July 14, 2020 – Two Replacement Agricultural Irrigation Wells – 500 Fair Oaks Avenue
 January 12, 2021 – New Domestic Well – 575 Easy Street  January 10, 2023 – Replacement Domestic Well – 959 Valley Road As shown in the list above, the City Council approved five replacement agricultural wells for several properties for agricultural purposes such as crop irrigation and/or livestock watering and approved two replacement irrigation wells for sports fields. The City Council also approved one temporary agricultural well for interim agricultural purposes.

With regard to domestic wells, the City Council approved a replacement domestic well for 687 Printz Road in 2018, and a new domestic well for 575 Easy Street in 2021. For both of these properties, which are located in the same general vicinity, the City determined that it was neither practical nor feasible to extend services to these properties because the nearest City waterlines were located over 1,000 feet away. Making a connection between the existing infrastructure and these properties would have crossed multiple other private properties and additional open space. Connection to the City’s water system for the above two residential properties was determined to be infeasible because multiple private property owners would be required to grant an easement to the applicant just to make the connection. This is in contrast with the current application, where the Subject Property is adjacent to City property and no easements/agreements with other private property owners are required to connect services. Additionally, the Subject Property is very close to an existing City reservoir. It should be noted that the City also approved a replacement domestic well on 959 Valley Road, but unique circumstances of this replacement well existed at time of approval, including that this well replaced an existing long-established well within the City limits for a residence that was located outside of the

Item 10.a.

City Council
Conduct Public Hearing and Consider a Resolution Denying the Installation of One (1) Domestic Well on Property Zoned Planned Development (PD); Applicant– Michael Harris; Representative–Richard Burde, SLO Civil Design and Marsha Burch, Attorney at Law
February 27, 2024

City after the existing well ran dry, and there was an established access easement for the connection.

In reviewing past well approvals granted by the City, it is important to note that agricultural and domestic wells have consistently been treated separately due to their distinct impacts on the City’s water supply. The City is responsible for managing the demands on the municipal water system, as well as the ground water aquifers that the City utilizes.

Agricultural land uses have historically been connected to groundwater wells rather than the City’s water distribution system due to their significant volumes of consumption. Such heavy usage of municipal water for irrigation purposes will negatively impact the municipal water system. Additionally, using water for agricultural irrigation does not require the water be treated for human consumption. Therefore, it is better for agricultural properties to access well water for irrigation because well water is not treated for human consumption.

The City’s water supply comes from a mix of surface water from Lopez Lake and groundwater, which must be managed by the City. Management of these water sources includes conservation measures that apply to all users, such as cash for grass programs, limits on outdoor watering days, no outdoor watering between 10 am and 4 pm, tiered pricing, and additional restrictions during times of drought to ensure a continuous reliable supply of water to the City’s users. All of the domestic water passing through the City’s distribution system has been treated to a level acceptable for potable human consumption. Irrigation wells are not required to meet this standard because they irrigate crops at the ground surface level and are not intended for domestic use. Therefore, the City has historically allowed some agricultural properties, particularly those that need replacement agricultural wells, to utilize groundwater and domestic properties to connect to the City’s domestic water system to minimize unnecessary costs associated with water treatment and distribution.

Alleged CEQA Violations
Mr. Harris alleges that denial of the well application constitutes a project under CEQA because it will indirectly require utility connections to service the planned single-family residence, which will include the removal of oak trees. As such, it is claimed that the exemption used by the City is insufficient. CEQA applies only to projects undertaken, supported, or authorized by a public agency. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(5); State CEQA Guidelines, 15270, subd. (a).) Denials of a project are exempt from CEQA review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15270. Moreover, even if this denial could be considered a “project” subject to CEQA, a “project” refers to the whole of an action that has the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15378, subd. (a).) An indirect effect on the environment is not

Item 10.a.

City Council
Conduct Public Hearing and Consider a Resolution Denying the Installation of One (1) Domestic Well on Property Zoned Planned Development (PD); Applicant– Michael Harris; Representative–Richard Burde, SLO Civil Design and Marsha Burch, Attorney at Law
February 27, 2024

reasonably foreseeable if the future activity is uncertain and is independent of the project. (Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1450; Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1223.) As stated above, Mr. Harris has not submitted an application to the City for the planned single-family residence. Development of a single-family residence is therefore uncertain and analyzing the potential environmental impacts of said residence where there is no description available would be too speculative for meaningful evaluation. In addition, the denial of the well application is separate from, and independent of, the need to connect to the City’s water and the associated review that would occur in concert with a future application. Therefore, the denial of the well application will not have the potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378.) If and when Mr. Harris submits a project proposal or application to build a single-family residence, the City will conduct environmental review at that time that will include utilities and the required connection to City water. In addition, the City will determine what land use entitlements, if any, will be required at that time, including the possibility of a tree removal permit. The City is not required to do any further environmental review at this time associated solely with the denial of the well application. However, should the City Council approve the well application, the approval is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15303 (Class 3), as further explained below.

Review Process
Mr. Harris has alleged that staff originally recommended approval of the well application and distributed a staff report to that effect. While it is true that a staff member indicated in e-mail correspondence to Mr. Harris that there was a likelihood that staff would recommend approval, this draft staff recommendation was before the City’s full review was completed, and staff’s recommendation is not final until the final staff report has been distributed to the City Council and the public. No alternative draft staff reports were distributed to the City Council or to any member of the public at any time.

Allowed Land Uses on the Property
Staff’s recommendation to deny the well application is strictly based on the above practicality and feasibility analysis. Neither staff nor the City envision any particular use of private property in the City. The City simply reviews uses proposed by applicants. Mr.

Harris has alleged that staff envision that the Subject Property should be developed with multiple residences. This is incorrect, and staff’s recommendation on the well application is not contingent on any particular development at the Subject Property. Further, staff has confirmed with Mr. Harris that one single-family residence is an allowed use on the Subject Property. As stated earlier, no application for development has been submitted to date for the Subject Property.

Item 10.a.

City Council
Conduct Public Hearing and Consider a Resolution Denying the Installation of One (1) Domestic Well on Property Zoned Planned Development (PD); Applicant– Michael Harris; Representative–Richard Burde, SLO Civil Design and Marsha Burch, Attorney at Law
February 27, 2024

ALTERNATIVES:

1. Adopt the Resolution denying the installation of one (1) new domestic supply well;

2. Reject staff’s recommendation denying the installation of one (1) new domestic supply well; or

3. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

Denial of the application may result in the required connection of the property to the City’s water system for domestic use, depending on the specifics of any future, submitted development application. Connection to the City’s water system for domestic use is consistent with City policy to ensure that properties within the City will connect to the system when it is practical and feasible to do so.

DISADVANTAGES:

None identified.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

In compliance with CEQA, it has been determined that if the application is denied, the item does not qualify as a “project” under CEQA, because CEQA does not apply to the disapproval or rejection of projects. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(5); State CEQA Guidelines, § 15270, subd. (a).). There will be no construction or development as a result of the denial of this application for a domestic water well, and therefore the denial has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3); 15378.) In the alternative, should the City Council approve the installation of a domestic water well, this project would be categorically exempt from CEQA under the Class 3 exemption, which applies to the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15303.). This project falls within the Class 3 exemption because approval of the project would result in the installation of one small well structure. Furthermore, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply here. The project is not located in a particularly sensitive environment because the project site is zoned for residential use. There will be no cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time, because only one domestic well is necessary to serve any future proposed residential uses on the project site. There are no unusual circumstances such that the project will have a significant environmental impact. The project will not result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially

Item 10.a.

City Council
Conduct Public Hearing and Consider a Resolution Denying the Installation of One (1) Domestic Well on Property Zoned Planned Development (PD); Applicant– Michael Harris; Representative–Richard Burde, SLO Civil Design and Marsha Burch, Attorney at Law
February 27, 2024

designated as a state scenic highway. The project is not located on a site included on any list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. In addition, the project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

Therefore, the project is categorically exempt from CEQA and no further environmental review is required.

Staff recommends that whether City Council denies or approves the application for a domestic water well, a Notice of Exemption should be filed with the County Clerk and State Clearinghouse within five days of the City Council’s final action.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. A new public hearing notice was published in the Tribune on February 16, 2024.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Proposed Resolution

2. Application Materials

3. Letter from Marsha Burch dated October 24, 2023, and attached “Harris Report”.

4. Previous Well Approvals – Resolutions

5. Previous Well Approvals – Staff Reports

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE DENYING THE INSTALLATION OF ONE (1)

NEW DOMESTIC SUPPLY WELL ON PROPERTY ZONED
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT; LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE

INTERSECTION OF NOYES ROAD AND EQUESTRIAN WAY
(APN: 007-781-055); APPLIED FOR BY MICHAEL HARRIS, AND

FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT FROM CEQA
WHEREAS, Michael Harris has submitted an application (see Exhibit “A”) to drill and install one (1) new domestic supply well at a property on an unaddressed parcel on Noyes Road in Arroyo Grande (“Well Application”); and
WHEREAS, the Well Application would be on unaddressed property on Noyes Road (APN: 007-781-055), northeast of the intersection of Noyes Road and Equestrian Way (“Subject Property”); and
WHEREAS, Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (“AGMC”) Chapter 13.08 requires City Council to discretionarily review and approve or deny all new or replacement wells in the City; and
WHEREAS, specifically, AGMC section 13.08.040 requires the City Council to consider, in its discretion, approval for new or replacement wells or abandonment of existing wells. Approval to drill a well within the City boundaries may be granted if the City Council determines: 1) the well will neither deplete nor contaminate the City water supply; and 2) service from the City’s water system is neither practical nor feasible; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed, continued public hearing on February 27, 2024, to consider the Well Application; and
WHEREAS, as described in additional detail below and as incorporated by the accompanying Staff Report, the City Council finds that service from the City’s water system is both practical and feasible to Subject Property.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby incorporates the recitals herein in full and denies the application to drill and install one (1) new domestic supply well at an unaddressed property on Noyes Road (APN: 007-781-055), requested in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

1. The City Council finds that pursuant to Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Chapter

13.08, the following required finding cannot be made to approve the Well Application: “service from the City’s water system is neither practical nor

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 2
feasible.” The City Council finds that it is both feasible and practical to connect the City’s water supply to the Subject Property, as:
a. The Subject Property is immediately adjacent to the City’s Reservoir No. 5, which is a 1.2 million gallon above-ground storage tank; and b. A residential water service connection can be made directly to the City owned water main from the tank and a connection placed to Mr. Harris’s property line with a standard water meter on the property; and c. The connection to City’s water supply would not require any easements or improvements to existing City infrastructure; and
d. The connection at the Subject Property is within the City’s boundaries.

2. CEQA. The City Council determines that if the application is denied, the item does not qualify as a “project” under CEQA, because CEQA does not apply to the disapproval or rejection of projects. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(5); State CEQA Guidelines, § 15270, subd. (a).). There will be no construction or development as a result of the denial of this application for a domestic water well, and therefore the denial has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3); 15378.) In the alternative, should City Council approve the installation of a domestic water well, this project is categorically exempt from CEQA under the Class 3 exemption, which applies to the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15303.). This project falls within the Class 3 exemption because approval of the project would result in the installation of one small well structure. Furthermore, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply here.

The project is not located in a particularly sensitive environment because the project site is zoned for residential use. There will be no cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time, because only one domestic well is necessary to serve any future proposed residential uses on the project site. There are no unusual circumstances such that the project will have a significant environmental impact. The project will not result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. The project is not located on a site included on any list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5.

In addition, the project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Therefore, the project is categorically exempt from CEQA and no further environmental review is required.

City Council directs staff to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk and State Clearinghouse within five days of this Resolution.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 3
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 February 2024.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 4
_________________________________________

CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________________________

JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
________________________________________

MATTHEW DOWNING, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________________

ISAAC ROSEN, CITY ATTORNEY

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 5

EXHIBIT A

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 6

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 7

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 8

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 9

November 8, 2022
Mike Hanis
Cleath=Harris Geologists, Inc.
75 Zaca Lane, Suite 110
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 543-1413
Subject: Well Impact Evaluation
Proposed Private Well in City of Arroyo Grande
APN 007-781-055
Dear Mr. Han-is:

CHG
Per your request, Cleath-Hanis Geologists has performed a Well Impact Evaluation to address requirements for the City of Anoyo Grande.

The proposed domestic well would serve a residence and ADU on parcel APN 007-781-055. The parcel is located in the n01them corner of the City and is not cmTently served by City utilities.

Two potential sites for the residence and ADU are under consideration. One building site is about 700 feet to the west at an elevation of230 feet (approximate coordinates of 35.145369, - 120.590831) and the other building site is about 630 feet from the water tank at an elevation of 265 feet (approximate coordinates of 35.143869, -120.89374).

Water demand for the proposed residence and ADU is estimated at about 2 acre-feet, a po1tion of which would be percolated back into the groundwater via a leachfield and landscape nTigation deep percolation.

CITY PRIVATE WELL ORDINANCE
Anoyo Grande Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 requires the City Council approve new or replacement wells or abandonment of existing wells. Approval to drill a well may be granted if the Council determines that (1) the well will neither deplete nor contaminate the City water supply and (2) service from the City's water system is either not practical or not feasible.

PROPOSED WELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
The siting and design of the proposed well will be requiI·ed to meet State, County and City regulations. Figure 1 from a CHG 2017 study of the propeity shows the proposed location of the well. The well will be located so as to maintain setbacks from on-site wastewater facilities (150 feet) and prope1ty boundaries (10 feet). A 50-foot annular well seal should be placed according to State of California water well standards.

Well impact evaluation 11/8/2022

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

MINOR PROJECT APPLICATION

II PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Street Address: 0 NOYES RD Zoning: Planned
Development
Assessor Parcel No.: 007781055 Parcel Size: 26.54
acre
General Plan Land use Designation:

Legal Description of Existing Lot: CY AG PM 28-85 PTN LT 11 Building Sizes in Square Feet:

E i ting
no buildings
currently
exist on the
property
Propo ed To be
determined
Describe the Proposed Project in Detail. For Vacation Rental applications, please include the emergency contact person's name, address and phone number below:

Drilling of a water well for future dome tic u e

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

MINOR PROJECT APPLICATION
III. COMPLETE THIS SECTION FOR LARGE FAMILY DAY ACRE PERMITS, PLOT PLAN REVIEWS, AND

TEMPORARY USE PERMITS ONLY NOT REQUIRED FOR SHORT TERM RENTAL APPLICATIONS (VACATION RENTALS AND HOMESTAYS).
1 Indicate the propo ed hour of operation (DAYS AND TIMES) 2 E timate the number of employee
Total: Maximum Shift: Time of Maximum Shift:

3. Indicate the number of patrons, clients, customers, etc. anticipated:

Average per day: Peak Hours:

4. Number of off street parking spaces to be provided: (if applicable show breakdown as to use) Total: Garage (enclosed): Covered: Open:

5. Describe any night-time lighting that will be provided, including the type of lighting to be installed:

IV. COMPLETE THIS SECTION FOR CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS, AND LOT

MERGERS ONLY
Number of e i ting lot
Size of e i ting lot (in quare feet)
Number of propo ed lot
Size of propo ed lot (in quare feet)

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

MINOR PROJECT APPLICATION
V. COMPLETE THIS SECTION FOR ALL PROJECTS
Due to recent interpretation and legal amendments to the Political Reform act of 1974, the City needs to be aware of all entities (i.e. corporations, lending institutions, etc. or individuals that may have a financial interest in the proposed project. All LLCs shall provide relevant Articles of Incorporation in order to disclose all financially interested entities. Please complete the following certification and provide your signature:

The following entities and/or indivduals have financial interest in this project:

APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE:

I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements and answers herein made and all data, information, and evidence herewith submitted are in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct. I understand that the submittal of incorrect or false information is grounds for invalidation of application completeness determination or approval. I understand that the city might not approve what I am applying for, or might set conditions of approval.

Signed Date
PROPERTY OWNER/AUTHORIZED AGENT:

I certify under penalty of perjury that I am the owner of the property that is the subject of this application and consent to its filing. (If signed by the authorized agent, a letter from the property owner must be provided indicating that the agent is authorized to act on his/her behalf.)
Signed Date

131 South Auburn Street
GRASS VALLEY, CA 95945
Telephone:
(530) 272-8411
[email protected]
October 24, 2023
Via Electronic Mail
Brian Pedrotti, Community
Development Director
City of Arroyo Grande
300 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
[email protected]
Jessica Matson, City Clerk
City of Arroyo Grande
300 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
[email protected]
Re: Consider a Resolution Denying the Installation of One (1) Domestic Well on Property Zoned Planned Development (PD); Applicant – Michael Harris; Representative – Richard Burde, SLO Civil Design
Dear Mr. Pedrotti, Ms. Matson, and Council Members:

This office represents Mike Harris with respect to the above-referenced domestic well application (“Project”). We have reviewed the staff report for the Project consideration at the City Council meeting on October 24, 2023 (“Staff Report”) and provide the following comments.

A response to the Staff Report has also been prepared by my client and raises many issues that should be carefully considered by the Council. It is attached to this letter for your review and referred to herein as the “Harris Report”. The two most concerning issues will be addressed below: (1) the disparate treatment of this landowner for reasons that appear to be unrelated to the Code or any other legitimate City consideration; and (2) the improper use of a CEQA1 exemption and failure to comply with CEQA for the proposed denial of the application.
1 California Environmental Quality Act: Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, title 14, 15000 et seq.

ATTACHMENT 3

City of Arroyo Grande
October 24, 2023

A. The Project is being treated differently than any previous well application submitted to the City.

As described in detail in the Harris Report at pages 13-15, the City has consistently considered the cost to the applicant as a significant factor in determining whether a well application should be granted. In this case, the City staff is well aware of the fact that the “connection” the City proposes will be in a distant corner of the applicant’s parcel, and will require expensive trenching through protected oak forest in order for the applicant to make use of the City water at the most reasonable building site. (See Harris Report for description of expense and feasibility.) For inexplicable reasons, for the first time in two decades the City staff is asserting that the consideration of expense and feasibility of the use of City water only pertains to the expense incurred by the City. This interpretation of the City Code defies logic, and it would be an abuse of discretion for the City Council to disregard the reasonable past interpretation that considered the actual feasibility of the use of City water.

The Staff Report for the Project is opaque, and there is no explanation for the staff’s abrupt shift from intending to recommend approval in the Spring of this year, to the current refusal to employ the long-followed analysis the City has used in the past. The Staff Report recommends an approach that singles out the applicant for disparate treatment, and the Council should reject this path and consider the actual feasibility of the use of City water on the parcel and consider the application in an equitable manner.

B. Denial of the Project application is not exempt from CEQA.

The staff report mistakenly concludes that approval or denial of Project would be exempt from CEQA. (Staff report, p. 36.)
While the staff report correctly notes that approval of the domestic well would be subject to a Class 3 exemption, it goes on to improperly conclude that a denial of the application is “not a project”. The staff report states as follows:
[I]f the application is denied, the item does not qualify as a “project” under CEQA, because it has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (b)(2)- (3), 15378.).

It is true that approval, and the drilling of one domestic well, will have no impacts. The opposite is true of a denial, requiring the connection to the City water supply. It is astonishing that the City has been receiving detailed information from the applicant raising many concerns about the oak forest that lies between the proposed “connection” to the parcel and the likely building site, and yet ignores this issue in the Staff Report. The Harris Report describes these

City of Arroyo Grande
October 24, 2023

impacts in detail, including the fact that the necessary work would be inconsistent with the Community Tree Program.

The staff report dismisses this by claiming that the “City is not responsible” for the location of the building site on the property. The City is responsible for its discretionary decisions that will foreseeably result in environmental impacts. For the same reasons that the trenching will result in significant impacts to oak trees, any future building would only occur on certain portions of the property.

CEQA defines a “project” as an activity that (1) is a discretionary action by a governmental agency and (2) will either have a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect impact on the environment. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21065.) Thus, the discretionary decision by the City to deny a well application and force the landowner to connect to City water is, in fact, a “project” for CEQA purposes. If the City connection did not necessitate construction activities through a sensitive oak forest, then the City might be able to make a determination that it was not a project based upon the substantial evidence in the record. In this case, the record is rife with evidence that the discretionary denial of the application will result in significant environmental impacts.

Based upon the record before the City Council, there is no doubt that a denial of the Project application will result in the use of City water, “connected” to the property at a remote corner that will necessitate construction activities within a sensitive oak forest. If the City determines that it will exercise its discretion to deny the Project application, even though many similar applications have been granted due to feasibility concerns for the landowner, then additional environmental review is required. Refusing to consider the required construction activity will at best be a violation of CEQA, and may result in a regulatory taking if the feasibility of the construction through the oak forest is not carefully considered by the City.

C. Conclusion
The City Council should consider the City’s previous interpretation of its own Code to take into account the actual feasibility of a connection to the City water supply, and treat the applicant fairly and in a way that is consistent with the way others have been treated.

Additionally, the City Council should be aware of the environmental impacts that will result from a denial of the Project application and consider the Council’s opportunity here to approve the Project and avoid those significant environmental impacts.

Forcing the applicant into the position of being required to construct costly infrastructure that will impact the environment is a regulatory burden on the property that exceeds the bounds of fairness and the applicant’s rights. We

City of Arroyo Grande
October 24, 2023

urge the City to consider the application in a fair way that will not interfere with the property rights of the landowner, will avoid environmental impacts, and will be consistent with the treatment of others in the City.

Sincerely,

Marsha A. Burch
Attorney
cc: Mike Harris
Isaac Rosen, City Attorney ([email protected])

1 Harris Report
APN 007-781-055
Table of Contents
Council Summary ..........................................................................................................................................2 Intent and Purpose of AGMC Chapter 13.08 - Water Wells..........................................................................2 AGMC Critical Section - 13.08.040 - Permits.................................................................................................3 The City has not Followed the AMGC Regarding the Permit Application Process........................................3 City Council has Not Publicly Questioned or Commented on Any Well Application in a Council Meeting (at least since 2004) ...........................................................................................................................................4 City Staff Fails to Consider the Citizen and Taxpayer in its Decision-Making Process...................................4 City Staff Recommendation ..........................................................................................................................5 The City Staff’s Has Not Provided Complete Information.............................................................................6 The City Staff’s Interpretation of the City Code Is Untenable.......................................................................7 The City Council Has Previously Determined by Resolution that Service from the City Water System is neither Practical nor Feasible........................................................................................................................8 The City Staff Believes That the Owner’s Costs Associated with Installing Domestic Water Service is Irrelevant.......................................................................................................................................................9 The City Staff Believes That the Topography of the Site is Irrelevant .........................................................15 The City Is Not Responsible for The Proposed Location of Residential Structures on a Property ..............17 The City Staff Has Failed to Consider the AGMC Community Tree Program ..............................................19 The City Staff Has Failed to Consider the Health and Safety of its Resident (or the Location of a Water Meter Impacts Safety Concerns).................................................................................................................22 The City Staff Wrote and Distributed a Staff Report That Recommended Approval of the Well................23 There is No Issue with Precedent Setting Related to the Well Application ................................................31 Land Use - Development of a Single Residence on the Parcel is Allowed...................................................32 No Reservoir-Adjacent Parcels in the City Connect to City Water in a Similar Way....................................33 In 2023 The City Approved a Well That Just Feet from City Water Main....................................................36

2 Council Summary
• The city staff’s interpretation of the AGMC Section 13.08.040 Part A is inconsistent with purpose and intent of AGMC Chapter 13.08 Water Wells.
• City staff has made a new untenable interpretation of AGMC section related to water well permits.
• City staff’s final recommendation is inconsistent with past recommendations by city staff and past resolutions by city council regarding water wells. • City staff prepared a report for final review which recommended approval for the well application but suddenly, without any rational explanation, changed their position. • City staff claims a policy exists which has never been articulated and has never been documented by city staff, until now.
• City staff’s final recommendation is not based on reasoned decision making and did not consider all relevant factors.
• The city staff report does not provide complete information or all alternatives for consideration by the city and is promoting only one viewpoint.
• Service from the city water system is neither practical nor feasible based on excessive cost, environmental issues, and safety concerns.
• There is clear and convincing evidence that the service from the city water system is neither practical nor feasible and, as a result, city council should approve the well application.

Intent and Purpose of AGMC Chapter 13.08 - Water Wells
The AGMC was amended in 1971 to add Chapter 8 to Title 6 to require permits for the drilling of wells.

From Ordinance 87 (1971):
“The City finds that said water supply been greatly depleted by unrestricted drilling for and pumping of water, and that a danger exists of salt water intrusion into the aquifers underlying the City.”
“The regulations and restrictions as hereinafter set forth are necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the inhabitants and taxpayers of the City of Arroyo Grande.” From AGMC Chapter 13.08 - WATER WELLS (Current):
“It is the purpose of this chapter to provide for the construction, repair, modification and destruction of wells in such a manner that the groundwater of the city will not be contaminated or polluted and that water obtained from wells will be suitable for beneficial use and will not jeopardize the health, safety or welfare of the people of the city.” Neither the intent nor the purpose of the AGMC on water wells prohibits the drilling of water wells unless the water well would adversely impact the health, safety and general welfare of the inhabitants and taxpayers of the City of Arroyo Grande.

The city staff has made no such finding regarding my proposed water well.

3 AGMC Critical Section - 13.08.040 - Permits.

A. Application. Prior to the issuance of any permit, the application and recommendations of the health officer for a new well shall be submitted to the council. The council may approve the application if, in its discretion, the drilling and the operation of the well will not deplete nor contaminate the city water supply and service from the city water system is neither practical nor feasible.

This suggests that connecting a particular property or area to the city water system might pose technical challenges, excessive costs, or other difficulties that make it an impractical or unviable solution. This might then justify seeking alternative water sources, such as drilling a new well. The city code does not prohibit new wells.

The plain language of the city code indicates that it is the “service from” the city water system that is to be considered to determine practicality and feasibility. The use of the preposition “from” inherently implies a direction (e.g., from the city water system to the residence).

The city staff claims that the determination of practicality and feasibility should not consider the costs to the customer to obtain service from the city water system. The city staff also claims that the topography of the site (characteristics of the parcel) should also be given no consideration in determining practicality and feasibility of the service from the city water system.

This is not a reasonable interpretation of the city code. Cost is the primary consideration when determining if service from the city water system in neither practical nor feasible for both the city and the customer.

Any analysis considering only the city’s perspective or only the customer perspective would be incomplete. The only way to achieve an objective, fair and comprehensive evaluation of practicality and feasibility is to consider both the city and customer perspectives.

The City has not Followed the AMGC Regarding the Permit Application Process
The city code states that the well application and a recommendation from the health officer shall be submitted to the council.

4 The health officer is not a member of city staff. The definitions in the city code make it clear that the health officer is:

City Council has Not Publicly Questioned or Commented on Any Well Application in a Council Meeting (at least since 2004)
The city council has never questioned, commented or pulled a well application item for separate consideration in any city council meeting since 2004 (according to video archives).

Video archives of city council meetings are available at https://slo-span.org. The recordings of city council meetings are available beginning February 10, 2004.

Based on the recordings available there has also never been any public questions or comments on any well application.

City Staff Fails to Consider the Citizen and Taxpayer in its DecisionMaking Process The city staff has the following decision matrix which precludes any consideration of any factor related to the customer/inhabitant/taxpayer.

The city’s decision matrix is not a matrix at all. There is no consideration given to the customer.

The City’s Decision Matrix
City Perspective
Feasible and practical Not feasible nor practical
Connect to city Approve well
The City of Arroyo Grande Organizational Chart and City of Arroyo Grande Organizational Values are contrary to position stated by city staff.

5 The city’s decision matrix should, of course, consider the perspective of the citizen/taxpayer and all relevant factors when making a decision to either approve or deny a well application, including customer related factors.

A Reasonable Decision Matrix
City Perspective
Feasible and practical Not feasible nor practical
Customer
Perspective
Feasible and Practical Connect to city Approve well
Not feasible nor practical Approve well Approve well
City Staff Recommendation
The city staff is recommending that the city council deny my well application because it states that a “connection” to the city water system is feasible and practical from the city’s perspective - but only from the city's viewpoint and at a location they designate without regard to cost.

Practicality and Feasibility of Connecting to the City’s Water System It is important to highlight that, in determining the practicality and feasibility for a domestic water service connection, City staff reads the practicality and feasibility test as one based on whether the City is reasonably able to provide a domestic water service connection from the

6 City water service line to the private property boundary. The City does not believe the second of the two approval criteria should be based upon the private property owner’s costs associated with installing domestic water service, nor should it be based on the topography of the site.

The applicant has provided a groundwater feasibility analysis that examines the local conditions and finds that developing a groundwater well to serve the subject property is feasible from a hydrological perspective, which is included as an exhibit to this agenda item.

Staff has determined that it is both feasible and practical for the City to connect the City’s water supply to the subject property. The subject parcel is immediately adjacent to the City’s Reservoir No. 5, which is a 1.2 million gallon above-ground storage tank. The City’s Utilities Manager has stated that a residential water service connection can be made directly to the City owned main water line from the tank and a connection placed to the applicant’s property line with a standard water meter on their property.

As described above, Section 13.08 of the AGMC provides that the City Council may approve a well if “service from the city water system is neither practical nor feasible”. This connection would be approximately 50 feet in length along generally level land with minimal surface restrictions, which staff has determined is both practical and feasible for the City to provide to the applicant’s property. In contrast to City staff’s determination, the applicant has argued that this connection is neither practical nor feasible, citing that the location of their preferred building site on the property is approximately 600-800 feet from the reservoir, depending on the trenching route, and would involve grading through steeper slopes and sensitive oak trees.

However, the City is not responsible for the proposed location of residential structures on a property – that is proposed by an applicant and ultimately reviewed by the City to ensure any municipal code requirements are met, such as setbacks, height, and health and safety standards contained in the California Building Standards Code. The City has historically determined practicality and feasibility based on the City’s ability and cost to serve each parcel.

The City Staff’s Has Not Provided Complete Information
The City of Arroyo Grande City Council Handbook is clear with respect to the scope of information that is to be provided to the city council and that manipulation of information is prohibited.

3.4 City Council/City Manager Mutual Expectations
The following mutual expectations have been agreed upon by the City Council and City Manager regarding their respective roles and support the successful operation of the City Manager/Council form of government. They serve as a general framework to foster a constructive working relationship and provide new Council Members an overall outline of how we have committed to operate. They may also serve as a basis for discussion to resolve potential problems or when changes in the expectations are desired.

Expectation of City Manager
f. Provide complete information regarding an issue or item. Never manipulate information in order to promote one viewpoint.

7 g. Ensure staff reports include alternatives, potential impacts of each alternative and staff’s best recommendation.

It is clear based on the information presented in this report that city staff has not provided complete information, the staff report is not the only report that was authored and distributed, and that the process and requirements have been manipulated to fit the desired outcome.

The city staff has not provided all alternatives for service from the city water system. The following alternatives have not been provided and, of course, the potential impacts of these alternatives have not been provided:
• Connect to the city water system via Equestrian Way
• Connect to the city water system on Noyes Road
• Adopt a resolution approving the installation of one (1) new domestic well Staff’s best recommendation would be relative to the other alternatives, which have not been provided.

Rather than provide complete information, city staff has decided to modify their interpretation of the AGMC so that complete information is not required or relevant. The decision to claim that no consideration should be given to the property owner cost nor the topology of the property allows city staff to ignore issues related to this information (cost and topology).

The only viewpoint that is being promoted is the viewpoint of the city staff, specifically and intentionally ignoring the viewpoint of the citizen, resident and taxpayer.

The City Staff’s Interpretation of the City Code Is Untenable The city staff report states:
“City staff reads the practicality and feasibility test as one based on whether the City is reasonably able to provide a domestic water service connection from the City water service line to the private property boundary.”
This is not a reasonable interpretation of the city code. Rather, this is an interpretation created to align with a biased and predetermined decision by city staff.

The city code actually states:
“service from the city water system is neither practical nor feasible” The city code does not use the term “connection”. It uses the term “service”. Service is a much broader term than connection. Service, much more accurately, includes:
• Sourcing and Supply
• Connection and Infrastructure
• Water Quality and Treatment
• Delivery and Accessibility

8 • Maintenance and Upkeep
• Consumption and Use
• Billing and Customer Service
When assessing the "practicality and feasibility" of providing "service from the city water system," each of these factors should be evaluated. By narrowing the definition to just the installation of a water meter, the city is likely missing a wide range of variables that collectively define what constitutes a "service." A robust analysis taking into account all these elements would offer a more comprehensive view of whether city water service is genuinely practical and feasible.

If the city council and the city wanted the subject regarding practical and feasible to be a “connection” they would have used that language. They did not.

The city code does not use the phrase “the City is reasonably able to provide”. The city code does not limit consideration to the “provider” of the service. In fact, the code uses the phrase “service from”, which indicates consideration should be given the “receiver” of the service since it is the customer that receives service from the city.

The city code does not use the phrase “to the private property boundary”. The city has again narrowly interpreted the city code to fit this particular recommendation to deny the well application.

City staff is attempting to rewrite the city code to fit their recommendation on this particular well application. Their interpretation is narrowly lacking and is unnecessary. The plain language of the city code, the intent of the original city code, and the stated purpose of the code section provides the guidance needed for the decision-making process.

The City Council Has Previously Determined by Resolution that Service from the City Water System is neither Practical nor Feasible Resolution No. 4830 was passed and adopted on December 12, 2017.

The resolution stated:

The approval of well in resolution 4830 is for the exact same parcel and the exact same well location as the application currently under consideration.

At the city council meeting on December 12, 2017, the city council had no questions or comments prior to approving the well on the same parcel at the same location as the current well application. https://slo-span.org/meeting/agcc_20171212

9 Current mayor Ray Russom and council member Barneich voted to approve the well and adopt the resolution, as did all council members, which determined that service from the city water system was neither practical nor feasible because of the distance from existing city water infrastructure.

Service from the city’s water system is still not practical nor feasible, as found by the city council on December 12, 2017.

The City Staff Believes That the Owner’s Costs Associated with Installing Domestic Water Service is Irrelevant
This is a new belief that was never previously held by city staff. This belief materialized when the decision was suddenly made to change position regarding the well application. This belief is necessary for city staff because, if the owner’s costs are considered, the connection to the city water service is clearly neither practical nor feasible.

February 16, 2023 - Richard Burde and Tim Cleath met with Patrick Holub and Shane Taylor at the city offices. Patrick Holub and Shane Taylor specifically requested the private property owner’s costs associated with installing domestic water service. The city staff now claims that this information is irrelevant and should not be considered when determining practicality and feasibility.

The in-person meeting was held on February 16, 2023.

February 23, 2023 at 8:43 AM - Richard Burde sent an email to Patrick Holub indicating that he was still working on gathering the private property owner’s costs associated with installing domestic water service.

February 23, 2023 at 9:10 AM – Patrick Holub emailed Richard Burde stating that a recommendation that council deny the well application was unlikely once you present the numbers. The “numbers” are the private property owner’s costs associated with installing domestic water service.

10 March 9, 2023 at 8:41 AM – Patrick Holub emailed Richard Burde requesting the “feasibility calculation”.

The “feasibility calculation” that was requested by Patrick Holub specifically included the private property owner’s costs associated with installing domestic water service.

March 9, 2023 at 8:46 AM – Richard Burde sent an email to Patrick Holub indicating that he met with the contractor regarding the preliminary cost estimate, part of the private property owner’s costs associated with installing domestic water service.

March 9, 2023 at 8:47 AM – Patrick Holub sent an email to Richard Burde that indicated he was 95% done with the staff report and that he would augment the report with our numbers. Patrick specifically stated that the staff report would include the private property owner’s costs associated with installing domestic water service in the staff report.

11 March 16, 2023 at 5:26 PM – Richard Burde emailed Patrick Holub regarding additional costs for trenching though or removing rocks.

March 20, 2023 at 7:39 AM – Patrick Holub sent an email to Richard Burde indicating that he sent the staff report for final review last week and that we should be on the consent agenda on March 28 for approval of my well application.

I made multiple public records requests for the staff report which was distributed for final review which recommended approval of my well application. The city has continued to withhold this report and any email messages related to the report.

March 21, 2023 at 2:23 PM – Patrick Holub emailed Richard Burde asking for additional cost information, specifically the cost related to installation of the well. Patrick indicates that he “was asked” for the

12 information. So, in addition to Patrick there is at least one other individual that believed that the private property owner’s costs associated with installing domestic water service was relevant and important.

March 21, 2023 at 3:14 PM – Richard Burde emailed Patrick Holub information on the cost to drill the well.

If the private property owner’s costs associated with installing domestic water service should not be considered, why did Patrik and city staff request information on owner’s cost and include that information in the staff report referred to on March 20, 2023? Why were there so many emails and communications regarding the owner’s cost if the city staff believed this information was not important and relevant?
It is clear that the primary focus of city staff was on obtaining the private property owner’s costs associated with installing domestic water service for the purpose of making a determination on practicality and feasibility. It was not the belief of the city staff that this information should not be considered. That belief materialized only after the city suddenly decided to change their position on the well application.

Patrick Holub, the associate planner that was responsible for preparing and distributing the staff report believed that the private property owner’s costs associated with installing domestic water service was relevant and critical to determining whether service from the city water system was

13 neither practical nor feasible and based on this information the service from the city water system was determined to be not practical and not feasible.

In past well applications the city staff and the city council have determined that the property owner’s costs associated with installing domestic water service was relevant and did, in fact, provide at least a partial basis for determining that service from the city water system was neither practical nor feasible:

The following notes are from the section of the staff report that is titles “Practicality of Supply from the City’s Water System”
Year Notes
2017 Agricultural use, meter connection would be a substantial cost to the applicant 2015 Agricultural use, meter would be a substantial cost to the applicant 2008 Agricultural use, meter connection would be a substantial cost to the applicant 2005 Agricultural use, connection could cost between $30,000 and $40,000 Clearly, the private property owner’s cost has been a significant determining factor in the past to determine practicality and feasibility. It is unfair and unreasonable to fail to consider the cost to the property owner of end-to-end service from the city water system when the costs establish that it is neither practical nor feasible for service from the city water system but that fact does not align with the likes and wishes of the city staff.

The city staff report claims that the determination of practicality and feasibility has historically been based on the city’s ability and cost to serve each parcel. The cost referred to are not the city’s cost but rather the property owner’s cost.

As you can see below the cost that is documented (by city staff) is the “cost to the applicant”, not the cost to the city.

14 2017 Well Application
2015 Well Application
2008 Well Application

15 2005 Well Application
The City Staff Believes That the Topography of the Site is Irrelevant This is another new belief that was never previously held by city staff. This belief materialized when the decision was suddenly made to change position regarding the well application. This belief is necessary for city staff because, if the site topography is considered, the connection to the city water service is clearly neither practical nor feasible.

July 24, 2023 at 9:38 AM – Brian Pedrotti emailed me (after I sent a detailed email to all city council members) indicating that a meeting was expected so that the city staff could more fully understand the physical constraints of the site. This is in direct conflict with what is now claimed to be believed regarding the site topography.

16 If the topography of the site should not be considered, why is Brian referring to a meeting to more fully understand the constraints of the site. July 24 would have been an ideal time for Brian to let me know that the constraints of the site (the topography of the site) will not be considered by city staff. This was not communicated to me because it was not the position of city staff that the site topography did not matter.

The topography of the site is of utmost importance to determining practicality and feasibility of service from the city water system.

The city staff's position, which completely ignores the importance of the topology of the site, is overlooking crucial issues. Topography should be considered as a critical element in the determination of what's practical and feasible:

Cost-Effectiveness - Sloping or uneven terrains would require extensive civil works like leveling, backfilling, or excavation, making the project prohibitively expensive.

Technical Considerations - Steep or varied topography can create problems that are either technically challenging or impractical to solve.

Environmental Concerns - Construction on uneven or sloping terrain can lead to erosion and sedimentation issues, requiring additional environmental safeguards and potentially triggering stricter regulatory scrutiny. The need to modify the natural landscape to accommodate infrastructure could have significant environmental consequences, such as disruption of local ecosystems, which could be contrary to the public interest or even against environmental regulations.

Regulatory Hurdles - Uneven topography might necessitate additional permits from environmental agencies, increasing the complexity, duration, and cost of the project.

Modifications required for challenging topographies could potentially violate environmental and land use statutes, causing legal issues that would make the project impractical.

17 Precedent and Subjectivity - If topography isn't considered for one parcel, it sets a precedent.

This could compromise the city council’s ability to make consistent and fair decisions on similar matters in the future. Topography provides an objective measure that can be evaluated through GIS tools, contour maps, and civil engineering studies, which would make the council's decision more transparent and less susceptible to subjectivity.

It’s clear that topography should be a significant factor in the city staff’s recommendation and council's evaluation of practicality and feasibility. Ignoring it would undermine the council's responsibility to make decisions that are economically prudent, environmentally responsible, and equitable for all parties involved.

The City Is Not Responsible for The Proposed Location of Residential Structures on a Property
However, the city is responsible for the proposed location of the water meter, which significantly impacts the practicality and feasibility of service from the city water system and whether or not a parcel is able to be developed.

Below are two pictures of vacant parcels in the north-west area of the city. The red arrows show the driveway access to the parcel and the red X shows the location of the city owned and provided water meter.

18

19 Does city staff really believe that the size and the topography of the site is irrelevant to the determination of practicality and feasibility of receiving service from the city water system? Each parcel is unique and the city code clearly uses broad language which provides the flexibility to make a well-reasoned and fair evaluation and decision with respect to approving or denying water wells.

The City Staff Has Failed to Consider the AGMC Community Tree Program Chapter 12.16 of the AGMC established the Community Tree Program. The Community Tree Program establishes policies, regulations and specifications necessary to govern installation, maintenance and preservation of trees within the city of Arroyo Grande.

City staff has failed to recognize and consider the impact of the Community Tree Program on the practicality and feasibility of service from the city water system.

20 The city code, including Chapter 12.16, establishes regulations that all residents and property owners are required to obey. Violation of these ordinances can result in penalties, including fines, legal actions, or other forms of municipal enforcement.

It is unreasonable that the city staff would exclude from consideration city-imposed regulations when considering the well application.

From the perspective of the city reservoir property, the trees which are located on the parcel should be considered. There is no clear, open path to connect to service from the city water system without impacting trees which are protected by the Community Tree Program.

The Community Tree Program states:

12.16.090 - Installation, maintenance and removal of trees relating to property development.

E. All grading, building, conditional use, tract map, parcel map, planned development, and other development proposals submitted to the city shall be accompanied by an accurate map identifying and locating all existing trees upon the property for which application is received and all existing trees that are off-site but affected by the project. Such map shall also identify all existing trees that are proposed by the applicant for removal or destruction, and such trees shall be visibly marked for the director's inspection. The director, or his or her designee, shall locate all trees upon the applicant's and affected property and prepare a written report to the permitgranting authority within two calendar weeks of the permit application having been received by the city.

21 H. The killing, removal or damaging, intentionally or accidentally, of any tree, because of development activity, shall result in a separate administrative penalty to be paid, through payment by person or persons causing such loss, to the city. The payment shall be the amount of the value of the tree, as set forth in the Manual for Plant Appraisers, published by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, but in no event shall the payment be less than one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) per tree.

The intentional killing, removal or damaging of any tree, as a result of development activity, shall constitute a misdemeanor.

M. Trees designated to remain on the tree removal plan shall be protected prior to and during construction by the owner(s), using the following measures:

1. Each tree or group of trees designated to remain shall be protected by an enclosure of a five-foot fence, prior to the beginning of construction. The fence shall be wooden, chain link, or plastic barricade fencing. The location of the fence is normally at the dripline of the tree, but it may adjusted or omitted with the director's written approval.

2. No parking of vehicles or equipment or storage of materials shall be permitted within the dripline of the trees designated to remain.

3. In the event the underground utilities must be placed within the dripline of the trees to remain, the utilities shall be installed by auguring at twenty-four (24) inches minimum depth or by hand trenching. If roots over one inch in diameter are encountered, the roots shall be preserved without injury. No machine trenching within a tree's dripline shall be permitted, unless authorized, in writing, by the director.

4. A performance bond may be required, in a form acceptable to the city and prior to issuance of an entitlement, to assure protection of trees on the site.

The amount of any set bond shall be one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500.00), or the value of affected trees, whichever is greater, based on the Manual for Plant Appraisers, Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers.

The latest edition is to be available for review in the community development department. If, in the opinion of the certified arborist, no violation or damage has occurred during construction, the bond shall be returned upon final building inspection. However, if damage has occurred, the bond shall be held for three years and forfeited if, in the opinion of the certified arborist, permanent damage has occurred.

5. Failure to comply with tree preservation requirements shall result in the director issuing a stop work order until all requirements have been met.

22 A bond of $200,000 or more could be required to connect to the city water system – because of the location mandated by city staff. Mature oak trees are very expensive and there are hundreds of oak trees on the parcel. Clearly, from an environmental perspective, not to mention a cost perspective, it would be more practical and more reasonable to use a water source which was more closely located to building locations.

The cost to map and identify every tree in the path to the water meter location mandated by the city would cost more than the cost of the city water connection, which has been estimated at over $7,000.

The cost to trench through protected trees is extremely high. No machine trenching is permitted in the tree dripline, so hand trenching must be used. In addition, no parking of vehicles or equipment or storage of materials shall be permitted within the dripline of the trees. The cost of trenching through the trees, in addition to the slope and rock outcroppings issues, will result in a trenching cost exceeding $100,000 to connect to the city water system.

Whether consideration is given to the property owner cost of service from the city water system or not, the fact that the city mandates a connection to the city water system through mature groves of trees the result is a service from the city water system that is neither practical nor feasible from any perspective.

The City Staff Has Failed to Consider the Health and Safety of its Resident (or the Location of a Water Meter Impacts Safety Concerns) The great majority of water meters are placed near the street, sidewalk, or alleyway for easy accessibility for both homeowners and utility personnel. The goal is to strike a balance between accessibility for monitoring and maintenance and the logistical considerations of connecting the home to the water infrastructure.

In our particular case, the city staff is recommending that the water meter be placed at the southern property line, which is the furthest point from the driveway which will lead to the residence. There will be no road available to access the water meter and the path to the water meter will be through very rough terrain consisting of 30% slope, rocks, trees, and uneven terrain.

Quick and efficient shut-off of the water supply in case of leaks or contamination is vital for both safety and resource conservation. The challenging location could significantly delay these emergency procedures, potentially exacerbating any issues such as flooding, or property damage. In this specific case, the accessibility barriers create a high-stakes scenario where time-sensitive actions are hindered, thereby raising safety concerns that could have severe repercussions for the resident.

The city staff has given no consideration to the issues imposed by their proposed water meter location.

23 The City Staff Wrote and Distributed a Staff Report That Recommended Approval of the Well
On March 20, 2023 at 7:39 AM, Patrick Holub sent an email to Richard Burde and Mike Harris indicating he had distributed the staff report for final review last week. He also clearly indicated that the staff report recommended approval and that our approval would be put in front of city council on March 28, 2023.

Where is the staff report recommending approval? Why has this report not been provided to me after I have requested it many times? Why has the staff report recommending approval not been provided to city council for their consideration?
On March 20, 2023 at 8:17 AM, Patrick Holub sent an email to Richard Burde promising to send the staff report that recommended approval to us on March 22 or 23, 2023. Patrick never sent the report.

24 On March 21, 2023 Patrick emailed Richard Burde and Mike Harris requesting additional cost information. This is odd because the city staff now claims that the owner’s costs are not relevant or applicable to the permitting process. Patrick did not indicate who asked him to get additional cost information.

On March 21, 2023, Patrick Holub emailed Richard Burde that “this item” will need to be moved to the 4/11 meeting. It should be noted that we provided the additional cost information the same day that it was requested by Patrick at 3:14 PM.

Sometime between March 20, 2023 at 7:39 AM and March 21, at 2:32 PM the decision was made to recommend that the well application be denied.

25 On March 29, 2023 at 12:00 PM, Patrick Holub sent an email to me indicating he was waiting for “more information” from the City Manager.

On March 29, 2023 at 12:58 PM, Patrick Holub sent an email to me indicating that the discussion regarding my connection to the city water system had shifted away from whether it was practical and feasible to whether it was in the best interest of the city.

26 On April 3, 2023 at 3:15 PM, Richard Burde emailed Patrick Holub asking for a copy of the staff report.

On April 3, 2023 at 4:28 PM, Patrick Holub send an email to Richard Burde indicating that our item would not be presented on the 4/11 council meeting.

27 On April 17, 2023 at 4:49 PM, Richard Burde sent an email to Patrick Holub requesting an update on our well application.

On April 18, 2023 at 9:11 AM, after receiving no reply from Patrick Holub, Richard Burde sent another request for update to both Patrick Holub and Andrew Perez.

28 On May 1, 2023 at 11:23 AM, Patrick Holub sent an email to Richard Burde indicating that the city staff feels that it is not in the best interest of the city to allow a domestic well on the property.

Patrick did not specify what “best interest of the City” meant or how the city staff came to the conclusion. This was the first time we had been given any indication that the recommendation to the city council would be to deny the well.

Notably, Patrick did not indicate that service from the city water system was practical and feasible. It was clear that city staff did not want to allow a domestic well on the property, and all indications have been that the recommendation was decided upon based on the city staff’s vision of development on the property (which equates to development fees and property taxes) and precedence setting (which is a non-issue).

29 On March 20, 2023 at 7:39 AM, it was clear that the city staff had completed as staff report which recommended approval of the well application. However, on May 1, 2023 at 11:23 AM, Patrick Holub notified us that the city staff would recommend denial of the well application.

What happened between March 20 and May 1 (42 days, Patrick was out of the office for 14 of those days) to change the decision of city staff? City staff was clearly knowledgeable and experienced in the processing of a permit for a well application and had written several staff reports for prior well applications.

The only information provided regarding this sudden change was from Patrick Holub on March 29, 2023 at 12:00 PM that he was waiting for more information from our City Manager (Whitney McDonald).

The following are the only emails between city staff produced that discuss the well application between March 21 and May 1.

On March 21, 29023 at 3:18 PM, Patrick Holub sent an email to Brian Pedrotti and Shane Taylor attaching the well drilling cost estimate and indicating the cost estimate for trenching was $97k.

30 On March 21, 2023 at 3:29 PM, Shane Taylor sent an email to Patrick Holub and Brian Pedrotti asking for the trenching estimate.

On March 21, 2023 at 3:29 PM, Patrick Holub sent another email to Shane Taylor and Brian Pedrotti attaching the cost estimate for the trenching.

There was no other internal email discussion regarding the well application that was provided as a result of my public records request.

Between March 22 and May 1 there were no emails that discussed the well application not the decision to recommend denial of the well application by city staff.

31 There is No Issue with Precedent Setting Related to the Well Application City staff has claimed on multiple occasions that there was an issue with precedent if my well application was approved. This is not true and there has been no reasoning provided for such an assertion. There is no record in the AGMC or any past well application that precedent setting has or should be considered when determining whether a well should be approved or denied.

The City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element Update identified forty (40) vacant parcels which could be developed to provide housing:

32 Of the forty (40) vacant parcels identified, thirty-eight (38) have city water available in an adjacent city street. Only two (2) parcels do not have city water available in the adjacent street. The two parcels are off of Noyes Road and owned by the Mike Harris.

The two parcels are not comparable to any of the 38 parcels which do have reasonable access to city water. The 38 parcels are between 18 and 192 times smaller than the two parcels owned by Mike Harris.

The two parcels also have significant slope and significant protected trees compared to the other vacant parcels.

No property owner would want to install a drill a well on a small parcel (0.14 to 1.43 acres) which already has city water available in the adjacent street.

City staff concern for precedent setting based on my well application is misplaced and not reasonable.

Land Use - Development of a Single Residence on the Parcel is Allowed The city staff have also justified the denial of a well application because they envision a different development on the property.

I have been clear from the beginning that I am interested in building a single family residence on the property. I made significant effort to insure that this was possible without discretionary review prior to purchasing the property.

As early as April 2019 I contacted Andrew Perez in the Community Development Department and informed him that my interest in the property was not as a developer that would want to subdivide for multiple homes.

Prior to purchasing the property in December 2021 I received written confirmation from Andrew Perez that I would be able to build a single family residence on the property:

The first time we were told that the city staff would not recommend the well because they envisioned a different development of the property was after the staff report recommending approval was

33 distributed. Whether or not the city staff likes the intended development plans of the property owner is not a criterion of determining practicality and feasibility of service from the city water system.

No Reservoir-Adjacent Parcels in the City Connect to City Water in a Similar Way
There are four (4) reservoirs within the city limits. No parcel which is adjacent to a reservoir was required to connect to the city water system by connecting directly to a water line originating from the reservoir tank.

The connection being mandated by city staff is unconventional and not standard practice within the city.

34

35

36 In 2023 The City Approved a Well That Just Feet from City Water Main At the city council meeting on January 10, 2023, the council members declined to question, comment or pull for separate consideration the approval of a well that benefited a parcel outside the city limits, even though the proposed well was very close to a city water main. There was no discussion among council members regarding the approval of the well prior to its approval. https://slospan.org/meeting/agcc_20230110 The city approved a well at 959 Valley Road (inside the city limits) to serve a property and taxpayer at 2783 Los Berros Road (outside the city limits).

There is an 8” city water main that crosses Los Berros Road that is within 18 feet of the old well that was replaced. The applicant already had customer infrastructure (pipes) that was within 18 feet of a city water main.

The city staff did not base their recommendation on whether it was practical and feasible to connect to the city water system. Rather, they simply stated that the non-citizen that would benefit from the well lives outside the city limits.

37

38 The City of Arroyo Grande Water System Master Plan December 2012 indicates that there are customers outside the city limits that are served by the city water system. It appears that city staff made the decision to recommend the well and then justified it by stating that the applicant lives outside the city limit, rather than actually evaluating the practicality and feasibility of connecting to the city water system.

39

RESOLUTION N0.4053

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING AN APPLICATION BY SCOTT

TREES TO DRILL A REPLACEMENT IRRIGATION WELL ON A
PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURE PRESERVE; APN 007-711-
007; 871_ EAST CHERRY AVENUE (STAFF PROJECT CASE NO.
07-010)
WHEREAS, Scott Trees has submitted an application to drill a replacement well to irrigate crops
at 871 East Cherry Avenue; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 requires City Council review and approval of all new wells; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds the well will not deplete nor contaminate the City water supply based upon the use, design, depth and placement; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that service from the City's water system is neither practical
nor feasible to irrigate agricultural crops due to associated costs, established General Plan policies and existing water supply agreements.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby approve Staff Project Case No. 07-010 authorizing the drilling and installation of an agricultural irrigation well at 871 East Cheny Avenue subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

On motion of Council Member Fellows, seconded by Council Member Guthrie, and on the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: Council Members Fellows, Guthrie, Costello, Arnold, and Mayor Ferrara NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 27"' day of November 2007. II ATTACHMENT 4

RESOLUTION NO.'4053
PAGE 2

TONY FE A, MAYOR
ATTEST:

KELLY ET RE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

E~/ EN ADAIGC CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

TIM THY J. EL, CI ATTORNEY

RESOLUTION NO. ps3L(
PAGE 3
EXHIBIT "A"

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
STAFF PROJECT CASE N0. 01007-
GENERAL CONDITIONS:

1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with-all State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project.

2. The event shall occur in substantial conformance with the application and plans on file in the Public Works Department.

3. The applicant shall comply with all of the Conditions of Approval for Staff Project Case No: 07-010.

4. 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'sfees which the City, its agents, offcers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this condition.

5. The applicant shall install a backflow prevention device to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.

6. The applicant shall abandon all existing wells on site and supply the Public Works Department with a letter stating said abandonment by the County of San Luis Obispo Public Health Department.
i

OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION
I, KELLY WETMORE, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San ,Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the attached Resolution No. 4053 is a true, full, and correct copy of said Resolution passed and adopted at a
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande on the 27~' day of November 2007.

WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 28~' day of November 2007.

KELLY T ORE, CITY CLERK

RESOLUTION NO. 4140

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING AN APPLICATION

BY FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD TO DRILL A

REPLACEMENT IRRIGATION WELL ON A PROPERTY
ZONED PUBLIC FACILITY; APN 006-095- 020; 207

PILGRIM WAY
WHEREAS, First Assembly of God has submitted an application to drill a replacement well to irrigate the sports field at 207 Pilgrim Way; and WHEREAS, Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 requires City Council review and approval of all new or replacement wells; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds the proposed well will neither deplete nor contaminate the City water supply based upon the use and placement; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that service from the City's water system is neither
practical nor feasible to irrigate the sports field due to associated costs, and existing water supply agreements.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby approve the application to drill and install an irrigation well at 207 Pilgrim Way, subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

On motion of Council Member Costello, seconded by Council Member Guthrie, and on the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: Council Members Costello, Guthrie, Arnold, Fellows, and Mayor Ferrara NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 25th day of November 2008

RESOLUTION NO. y 1y0
PAGE 2

TONY F , MAYOR
ATTEST:
ct (~,{,~

KELLY ETM RE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
AS TO FORM:

TIMOCT'bfY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY

RESOLUTION N0.4140
PAGE 3
EXHIBIT "A"

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR

FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD REPLACEMENT IRRIGATION WELL
GENERAL CONDITIONS:

1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project.

2. The event shall occur in substantial conformance with the application and plans on file in the Public Works 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 fees, with the City, its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this condition.

4. The applicant shall connect the new irrigation well system to the existing church and preschool irrigation system within a reasonable amount of time after completion of the well.

5. The applicant shall abandon the existing well on site and supply the Public Works Department with a letter stating said abandonment by the County of San Luis Obispo Public Health Department.

6. A copy of the well/driller report required by the provisions of Section 13751 of the Water Code of the State shall be submitted to the Public Works Department upon completion of the construction of the well.

OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION
1, KELLY WETMORE, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the attached Resolution No. 4140 is a true, full, and correct copy of said Resolution passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency of the City of Arroyo Grande on the 25th day of November 2008.

WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 26th day of November 2008.

KELLY ET ORE, CITY CLERK

RESOLUTION N0.4149

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING AN APPLICATION BY THE

LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT TO DRILL A

REPLACEMENT IRRIGATION WELL ON A PROPERTY ZONED
PUBLIC FACILITY; APN 006-095- 001; 495 VALLEY ROAD
WHEREAS, Lucia Mar Unified School District has submitted an application to drill a replacement well to irrigate the Arroyo Grande High School sport fields at 495 Valley Road; and WHEREAS, Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 requires City Council approval of all new wells; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds the proposed new well will not deplete nor contaminate the City water supply based upon the use and placement.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby approve the drilling and installation of an irrigation well at 495 Valley Road subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

On motion of Council Member Guthrie, seconded by Council Member Amold, and on the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: Council Members Guthrie, Arnold, Costello, and Mayor Ferrara NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Fellows
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 18~" day of December 2008.

RESOLUTION NO. 41Y9
PAGE 2
o-xs

TONY F , MAYOR
ATTEST:

KELLY E ORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

SSE N ADA S, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

TI OTHY MEL, CITY ATTORNEY

RESOLUTION N0.4149
PAGE 3
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. FOR

LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT REPLACEMENT IRRIGATION WELL GENERAL CONDITIONS:

The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project.

2. The event shall occur in substantial conformance with the application and plans on file in the Public Works 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 fees, with the City, its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this condition.

4. The applicant shall abandon the existing well on site and supply the Public Works Department with a letter stating said abandonment by the County of San Luis Obispo Public Health Department.

5. A copy of the well/driller report required by the provisions of Section 13751 of the Water Code of the State shall be submitted to the Public Works Department upon completion of the construction of the well.

OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION
I, KELLY WETMORE, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the attached Resolution No. 4149 is a true, full, and correct copy of said Resolution passed and adopted at a special meeting of the City Council of the City ofArroyo Grande on the 18~h day of December 2008.

WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 22"d day of December 2008.

O/ Q_1.

KELL W MORE, CITY CLERK

RESOLUTION NO. 4773

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING AN APPLICATION BY TERRY

CHANDLER TO DRILL A REPLACEMENT IRRIGATION WELL
ON A PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURE; APN 007- 731- 015;
980 EAST CHERRY AVENUE
WHEREAS, Terry Chandler has submitted an application to drill a replacement well to irrigate the agricultural fields at 980 East Cherry Avenue; and WHEREAS, Municipal Code Chapter 13. 08 requires City Council review and approval of all new or replacement wells; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds the proposed well will neither deplete nor contaminate the City water supply based upon the use and placement; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that service from the City' s water system is neither practical nor feasible to irrigate the agricultural fields.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby approve the application to drill and install a replacement irrigation well at 980 East Cherry Avenue, subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit " A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

On motion of Council Member Brown, seconded by Council Member Ray, and on the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: Council Members Brown, Ray, Harmon, Barneich, and Mayor Hill NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this
14th
day of February 2017.

RESOLUTION NO. 1073
PAGE 2
i

JI HILL, MAYOR
ATTEST:

I
KELLY T . RE, CITY CLERK
A- PROVED AS TO CONTENT:

JAS
ii0 10 Virk
OBERT MCF iv IN - - M CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

HE• HER WHITHAM, CITY ATTORNEY

RESOLUTION NO. 4773
PAGE 3
EXHIBIT " A"

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR

TERRY CHANDLER REPLACEMENT IRRIGATION WELL
GENERAL CONDITIONS:

1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project.

2. The event shall occur in substantial conformance with the application and plans on file in the Public Works 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 fees, with the City, its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/ her obligations under this condition.

4. The applicant shall install a meter on the well head and report annual pumping amount to the City by December 31stof each year.

5. An approved backflow device shall be installed per City standard on the water meter service.

6. The applicant shall abandon the existing well on site and supply the Public Works Department with a letter stating said abandonment by the County of San Luis Obispo Public Health Department.

7. A copy of the well/ driller report required by the provisions of Section 13751 of the Water Code of the State shall be submitted to the Public Works Department upon completion of the construction of the well.

OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION
I, KELLY WETMORE, City Clerk of the City of--Arroyo Grande, County of San. Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the attached Resolution No. 4773 was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council/ Successor Agency of the City of Arroyo Grande on the 14th day of February, 2017.

WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 21st day of
February, 2017.
i I ,
KELLY WE MOS;,' E, CITY CLERK

RESOLUTION NO. 4830

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING AN APPLICATION BY

DARREN SHETLER TO INSTALL A TEMPORARY IRRIGATION

WELL FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES ON A PROPERTY
ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT; APN 007- 781- 55; NOYES

ROAD, ARROYO GRANDE
WHEREAS, Darren Shetler has submitted an application to drill a temporary well for interim agricultural use at property on Noyes Road in Arroyo Grande; and WHEREAS, Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 requires City Council review and approval of all new or replacement wells; and
WHEREAS, based upon studies submitted by the Cleath- Harris Geologists, Inc. dated November 9, 2017, the City Council finds the proposed well will neither deplete nor contaminate the City water supply; and
WHEREAS, based upon the interim agricultural use and the distance from existing City water infrastructure, the City Council finds that service from the City' s water system is neither practical nor feasible..

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby approve the application to drill and install an irrigation well at Noyes Road, subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

On motion of Council Member Brown, seconded by Council Member Barneich, and on the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: Council Members Brown, Barneich, Harmon, Ray, and Mayor Hill NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this
12th
day of December, 2017.

RESOLUTION NO. V830
PAGE 2
i I

JI ILL, MAYOR
I
ATTEST:
b.. . . . , 1. . eL' I
KELLY ET/ 0 RE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

Ilik.
tfrakikp JAME, = - MAN, CITY MANAGER iii
APPROVED AS TO FORM:.

HEATHER WHITHAM, CITY ATTORNEY

RESOLUTION NO. 4830
PAGE 3
EXHIBIT " A"

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A TEMPORARY

TESTIRRIGATION WELL

DARREN SHETLER/ AGC HOLDING CORPORTATION
APN 007-781- 055 and -056 NOYES ROAD
GENERAL CONDITIONS:

1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project.

2. The event shall occur in substantial conformance with the application and plans on file in the Public Works 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 fees, with the City, its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/ her obligations under this condition.

4. The irrigation meter serving APN 007- 781- 056 shall be abandoned.

5. Results from well tests for the purposes of installation of an agricultural irrigation well outlined in the Cleath- Harris Geologists, Inc. Well Impact Discussion shall be reported to the City prior to well operation.

6. The applicant shall install a meter on the well head and report annual pumping amount to the City by December 31st
of each year.

7. An approved backflow device shall be installed per City standard on the water meter service.

RESOLUTION NO. 4830
PAGE 4

8. This approval is to install a temporary well for on- site interim agricultural purposes and is valid for five ( 5) years. If so directed by the City in the event a permanent well approval is not obtained within five ( 5) years, the applicant shall abandon the well and supply the Public Works Department with a letter stating said abandonment by the County of San Luis Obispo Public Health Department.

9. A copy of the well/ driller report required by the provisions of Section 13751 of the Water Code of the State shall be submitted to the Public Works Department upon completion of the construction of the well.

OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION
I, KELLY WETMORE, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the attached Resolution No. 4830 was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the. City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande on the 12th
day of December, 2017.

WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 18th day of December, 2017.
adata0Le
KELLY ET • RE, CITY CLERK

RESOLUTION NO. 4833

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO

GRANDE APPROVING THE INSTALLATION OF A REPLACEMENT

DOMESTIC WELL ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL ESTATE
REQUESTED BY RICK PIERCE; APN 007- 781- 008; 687 PRINTZ ROAD

ARROYO GRANDE
WHEREAS, Rick Pierce has submitted an application to drill and install a replacement well for domestic supply at 687 Printz Road in Arroyo Grande; and WHEREAS, Municipal Code Chapter 13. 08 requires City Council review and approval of all new or replacement wells; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds the proposed replacement well will neither deplete nor contaminate the City water supply and is needed to serve the property to satisfy health and safety needs; and
WHEREAS, based upon the distance from existing water infrastructure, the City Council finds that service from the City' s water system is neither practical nor feasible.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby approve the application to drill and install a replacement domestic well at 687 Printz Road, subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit " A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

On motion of Council Member Barneich, seconded by Mayor Hill, and on the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: Council Members Barneich, Brown, Harmon, Ray, and Mayor Hill NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 13th day of February 2018.

RESOLUTION NO. 98"
PAGE 2

JIM LL, MAYOR
TTEST:
adatOZe -

KELLY , E GORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
k_`
JAME Nrik177 AN, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
dy

E THER WHITHAM, CITY ATTORNEY

RESOLUTION NO. 4833
PAGE 3
EXHIBIT " A"

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

REPLACEMENT DOMESTIC SUPPLY WELL
STAFF PROJECT CASE NO. 18- 001
RICK PIERCE; APN 007- 781- 008; 687 PRINTZ ROAD ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL CONDITIONS:

1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project.

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 fees, with the City, its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/ her obligations under this condition.

4. The applicant shall comply with all Conditions of Approval for Staff Project Case No. 18-001, as well as the terms, conditions and standards specified in the written permit issued by the County of San Luis Obispo Public Health Department.

5. This approval shall expire on February 13, 2019 unless a drilling permit is obtained from the County of San Luis Obispo Public Health Department. Time extensions may be requested in conformation with Subsection 16. 12. 140. 0 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code.

6. The applicant shall abandon all existing wells on site and supply the Community Development Department with a letter approving said abandonment from the County of San Luis Obispo Public Health Department.

7. The applicant shall install a meter on the well head and report annual pumping amount to the City Public Works Department by December 31st of each year.

RESOLUTION NO. 4833
PAGE 4

8. An approved backflow device shall be installed per City standard on the water meter service.

9. A copy of the well/driller report required by the provisions of Section 13751 of the Water Code of the State shall be submitted to the Public Works Department upon completion of the construction of the well.

10. The applicant shall obtain an electrical permit as required for a new well pump.

11. The applicant shall produce survey verification that the distance of the replacement well to any septic system ( leach field) is greater than 100 feet to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.

OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION '
I, KELLY WETMORE, City Clerk of the City -of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the attached Resolution No. 4833 was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande on the 13th
day of February, 2018.

WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 15th
day of
February, 2018.
f2016ttet- e,

KELLY WET RE, CITY CLERK
r

RESOLUTION NO. 5013

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING THE INSTALLATION OF TWO
2) NEW IRRIGATION WELLS ON PROPERTY ZONED
AGRICULTURE; LOCATED AT 500 FAIR OAKS AVENUE;

APPLIED FOR BY LEROY SARUWATARI
WHEREAS, Leroy Saruwatari has submitted an application to drill and install two (2) new irrigation wells at 500 Fair Oaks Avenue in Arroyo Grande; and WHEREAS, Municipal Code Chapter 13. 08 requires City Council review and approval of all new or replacement wells.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby resolves as follows:

1. The City Council finds the proposed irrigation wells will neither deplete nor contaminate the City water supply and are needed to serve the properties for agricultural purposes.

2. Based upon the fact that the City does not supply agricultural property with potable water, connection to the City' s water infrastructure is not feasible.

3. The City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby approves the application to drill and install two ( 2) new irrigation wells at 500 Fair Oaks Avenue, subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

On motion of Council Member Paulding, seconded by Council Member George, and by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: Council Members Paulding, George, Barneich, Storton, and Mayor Ray Russom NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing Resolution was approved this 14th day of July, 2020.

RESOLUTION NO. 5013
PAGE 2

CAREN RAY SOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
1 w, / / OJi4uo/t -

KELLY ET
i•

RE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

BILL ROBESON, CTING CITY MANAGER
APPROV S TO FORM:
c
1A1.--.'
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY

RESOLUTION NO. 5013
PAGE 3
EXHIBIT " A"

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TWO ( 2) NEW IRRIGATION WELLS
500 FAIR OAKS AVENUE
GENERAL CONDITIONS:

1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project.

2. The installation of the wells shall occur in substantial conformance with the application and plans on file in the Public Works Department office.

3. The applicant shall comply with all the conditions of the City Council Resolution adopted on July 14, 2020, as well as the terms, conditions, and standards specified in the written permit issued by the County of San Luis Obispo Public Health Department.

4. The applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, and employees harmless, at its sole expense from any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because 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 be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of their obligations under this condition.

5. This approval shall expire on July 14, 2022, unless a drilling permit is obtained from the County of San Luis Obispo Public Health Department. Time extensions may be requested in conformation with the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code.

6. The applicant shall install a meter on the new well heads and report annual pumping amounts to the City Public Works Department by December 31st

7. A copy of the well/ driller report required by the provisions of Section 13751 of the Water Code of the State shall be submitted to the Public Works Department upon completion of the construction of the wells.

8. The applicant shall obtain permits for all electrical connections required for the new well pumps.

OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION
I, KELLY WETMORE, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the attached Resolution No. 5013 was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande on the 14th day of July, 2020.

WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 15th day of July, 2020.
11J1 4uoft —

KELLY W M E, CITY CLERK

RESOLUTION NO. 5255
PAGE 3
EXHIBIT "A"

CONDITIONSOFAPPROVAL
ABANDONMENTOFONE (1) EXISTINGDOMESTICWELLANDAPPROVALTO
DRILLONE (1) NEWDOMESTICSUPPLYWELL
959VALLEYROAD
GENERALCONDITIONS:

1. Theapplicant shallascertain andcomply withallState, County andCity requirements asareapplicable tothisproject.

2. Theevent shalloccurinsubstantial conformance withtheapplication andplans onfileintheCommunity Development Department office.

3. Theapplicant shallcomply withalltheconditions oftheCityCouncil Resolution adopted onJanuary 10, 2023, aswellastheterms, conditions, andstandards specified inthewritten permit issued bytheCounty ofSanLuisObispoPublic Health Department.

4. Theapplicant shallagree todefend, indemnify andholdharmless theCity, its agents, officers, andemployees harmless, atitssoleexpense fromanyaction brought against theCity, itsagents, officers, oremployees because ofsaid approval, orinthealternative, torelinquish suchapproval. TheSCHS and AGRC shallreimburse theCity, itsagents, officers, oremployees, foranycourt costsandattorney’sfeeswhichtheCity, itsagents, officers, oremployees may berequired byacourttopayasaresultofsuchaction. TheCitymay, atitssole discretion, participate atitsownexpense inthedefense ofanysuchaction but suchparticipation shallnotrelieve applicant oftheir obligations underthis condition.

5. Thisapproval shallexpire onJanuary 10, 2025 unlessadrilling permit is obtained fromtheCounty ofSanLuisObispoPublicHealth Department. Time extensions mayberequested inconformation withtheArroyoGrande Municipal Code.

6. Theapplicant shallinstallameteronthewellheads andreport annual pumping st amounts totheCityPublicWorks Department byDecember 31.

7. Acopyofthewell/drillerreportrequired bytheprovisions ofSection 13751 of theWater CodeoftheStateshallbesubmitted tothePublicWorks Department uponcompletion oftheconstruction ofthewell.

8. Theapplicant shallobtain permits forallelectrical connections required forthe newwellpumps.

RESOLUTION NO. 5255
PAGE 4

9. Theapplicant shallproduce survey verification thatthedistance ofthewellto anyseptic system (leachfield) isgreaterthan100feettothesatisfaction ofthe Director ofPublicWorks.

10. Acertificate ofdestruction fortheabandoned wellshallbeprovided totheCity PublicWorks Department uponabandonment oftheexisting well.

MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEERk SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION BY MARTIN DE

LEON TO DRILL REPLACEMENT IRRIGATION WELL
DATE: SEPTEMBER 27, 2005
RECOMMENDTION:

It is recommended the City Council approve an application by Martin de Leon to drill replacement irrigation well.

FUNDING:

There are no funding impacts associated with this project.

DISCUSSION:

The City was notified that an application was submitted to the County of San Luis Obispo Health Department to drill a replacement well for irrigation purposes within the City limits. Mr. de Leon submitted an application for a replacement well to irrigate approximately 11 acres of his property on Coach Road. The existing well, which served the property for many years, and was in declining production and no longer provided the quantity of water necessary to irrigate the property. The well was destroyed in August in accordance with County Health Department standards. Currently, Mr. de Leon is pumping from Arroyo Grande creek to irrigate his property.

The City's Municipal Code includes a provision to address the construction, repair, modification and destruction of wells within the City limits. Any person wishing to. construct a well must obtain a permit issued by the County Health Department.

However, before a permit can be issued, the application must be approved by the City Council. Approval may be granted if the Council determines the well will not deplete nor contaminate the City water supply and service from the City's water system is neither practical nor feasible.

It is anticipated that the replacement well will not deplete or contaminate the City water supply. Water for applied irrigation is a separate component of the safe yield of the groundwater basin and does not affect the City's groundwater entitlement. The proposed well is also far enough from the City's well field at Elm Street park so as not to pose any impact from potential contaminants. The property is connected to the City's 1 O" water main for domestic use, however, a connection to the City water system for ATTACHMENT 5

no. _____.__ ___~_._~___

CITY COUNCIL

CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION BY MARTIN DE LEON

TO DRILL A REPLACEMENT IRRIGATION WELL
SEPTEMBER 27, 2005
PAGE 2
irrigation of 11 acres of farmland would require a separate connection, A connection large enough to supply an irrigation system could cost between $ 30,000 and $ 40,000 in connection fees, The City currently does not serve any agricultural land with potable water for irrigation purposes, Irrigation is a separate component of the safe yield of the groundwater basin and supplying the irrigation system with domestic water would count against the amount of applied irrigation and water for the urban users; This would further reduce the amount of water for urban uses, The City's current water supply analysis also does not account for this connection, which would use an estimated 11 to 33 acre- feet per year depending on the specific crop and irrigation method, It is recommended the Council approve the application requested by Mr. de Leon to drill a replacement irrigation well.

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for the Council' s consideration:

Approve staff's recommendation;
Do not approve staff's recommendation;
Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendation; or Provide direction to staff,
Attachments:
1, Well permit application
2, Well destruction letter
3, Plot plan

Attachment 1

APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT WELL PERMIT
LOCATION: 200 Coach Road, Arroyo Grande
APN 07- 581- 02 APN 07- 721- 10 APN 07 721- 11
This property is bordered by East Cherry Lane, on the south, Coach Road, on the east and the Arroyo Grande Creek.

Proposed location of the well is on APN 07- 721- 10,
Drainage is to the southwest.

Abandoned well was' located northwest ofthe intersection of East Cherry Lane and Coach Road,
COMPANY: Central Coast Drilling License No. 735315
225 N, Main
Templeton, Ca,
WELL: Depth of well estimated to be 150 feet or less,
USAGE: Water is for irrigation of approximately 11 acres of truck crops.

Martin de Leon
200 Coach Road
Arroyo Grande, Ca,
489- 8132

CITY OF
AflROYO GRANDE
SfP . ,~ 2005
CORPORATE Y/-\RD
L

Attachment 2
j Il iicrJl -.

County of San Luis Obispo · Public Health Department
Environmental Health Services
2156 Sierra Way. P.O, Box J489
San Luis Obispo, Calffornia 93406
805) 781- 5544 . FAX ( 805) 781-4211
Gregory Thomas, M.D., M.P.H,
County Health Officer
Public Health DIrector
CurtIs A, Batsoll, R.E. li.5,
August 13, 2004
DIrector
Martin DeLeon
200 Coach Rd.

Arroyo Grande CA 93420
RE: ' PERMIT# 2004- D-030
APN 001- 581- 002
This Department has reviewed the destrt.ction procedures performed on the well located at Section 23, Township 32S, Range 13E, by Coast Drilling, The well was r' destroyed in accordance with standards.

J
i\
r
j , Thank you for your cooperation.
i ( l, (
RICHARD J. L1CHTENF , R.E. H. S., M. P.H. I
Supervising Environmental Health Specialist.
c: Assessor' s Office
co: Well Driller