AGENDA
SALE CIT GRIFOR
CITY OF GUSTINE
CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
352 5th STREET GUSTINE, CALIFORNIA
NCORPORATED NOW FEBRUARY 21, 2023 - 6:30 P.M.
The Council Chambers are open and in-person attendance is encouraged.
As a convenience, the City will be retaining the virtual component of public meetings for optional attendance with the use of an online meeting room.
Log-in and dial-in information is as follows:
https://meet.goto.com/898144317
or via telephone by dialing (872) 240-3311, access code: 898-144-317 Feedback and noise will be muted by the meeting organizer.
CALLTO ORDER - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Please take a moment to silence your cell phones.
ROLL CALL
Council Members: Marsigli - Bonta - Brazil - Mayor Pro Tem Ford - Mayor Nagy
PRESENTATIONS
1. New Employee Introduction and Badge Pinning Ceremony Steven Hollis, Reserve Police Officer
Antony Becerra Alvarez, Reserve Police Officer
Sepandar "Sam" Danesh, Reserve Police Officer
PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, any person may comment on any item which is not on the agenda. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. Action will not be taken on the topic unless deemed an urgency matter by a 3/5 vote of the City Council. Topics not considered an urgency matter may be referred to City staff and/or placed on a subsequent agenda for consideration, by a 3/5 vote of the City Council.
Members of the public, who have questions or comments regarding a specific agenda item, may comment on that item before consideration of that item, when recognized by the Mayor.
CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered routine and may be approved by one action of the City Council, unless any member of the City Council wishes to remove an item for separate consideration.
Are there any items on the consent calendar that any member of the public would like to comment on?
2. Minutes of the February 7, 2023 Regular Meeting
Recommendation: Review and approve
3. Warrants
Recommendation: Review and approve
4. Approve Resolution Naming and Confirming Signatories on the City's Banking Accounts
Recommendation: Review and approve resolution
5. Approve Request for Street Closures and Waiver of City Staff and Services for Every 15 Minutes Program
Recommendation: Review and approve request
(continued)
6. Approve Gustine Airport Capital Improvement Plan Submission Recommendation: Review and approve submission
7. Approve Resolution Designating Police Chief as Public Convenience or Necessity Officer for Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control License Applications Recommendation: Review and approve resolution
8. Approve Resolution Authorizing City Manager to Enter into Memorandum of Understanding with La Familia Central Valley for COPS CIT Grant Recommendation: Review and approve resolution
9. Approve Resolution Accepting Engie Solar Project as Complete, and Directing City Clerk to File a Notice of Completion
Recommendation: Review and approve resolution
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA
10. PUBLIC HEARING - Consider Resolution Approving Amendments to Previously Adopted Conditions of Approval of Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map; R Katakis; APNs: 063-180-029 and 063-180-030
1. Receive Staff Report
2. Open the public hearing
3. Close the public hearing
4. Consider a motion to approve Resolution approving amendments to the previously adopted conditions of approval of the Katakis vesting tentative subdivision map for Southeast Gustine Development
11. Consider Resolution Amending Encroachment Permit Fees in Gustine User & Regulatory Fee Schedule
1. Receive Staff Report
2. Receive Public Comment
3. Consider a motion to approve the resolution
CITY DEPARTMENT REPORTS
CITY MANAGER REPORT
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
CLOSED SESSION
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9: one case
ADJOURNMENT
Note:
1. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, a disabled person requesting a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, must contact City Hall at (209) 854-6471 or (209) 854-2127 (fax). Requests must be made as early as possible, preferably one-full business day before the start of the meeting.
2. Any document provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any open session item on this agenda is available for public inspection during normal business hours at the front counter of City Hall located at 352 5TH Street, Gustine, CA. Documents or writings received after the general distribution of the agenda are aiso available for inspection.
CERTIFICATION
I, Melanie Correa, Deputy City Clerk, do hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing agenda was posted at the Gustine City Hall, 352. 5th Street, Gustine CA and made available for public review on this 16th day of February. 2023, at or before 5:00 p.m.
Melanie Corred
MINUTES OF
REGULAR MEETING
February 7, 2023
CALL TO ORDER - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Nagy called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. and conducted the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Council Members: Marsigli - Bonta - Brazil - Ford - Mayor Nagy Staff present: City Attorney Ann Siprelle, Public Works Supervisor Dennis Castro, Recreation Manager Tiffany Vitorino, Economic & Community Development Director Jami Westervelt, Finance Director Jennifer Morrison, Police Chief Ruben Chavez, Fire Chief Pat Borrelli, City Manager Anna Nicholas (via telephone), and Administrative Services Director Melanie Correa
PRESENTATIONS
1. Gustine Volunteer Fire Department Recognition
Pat Borrelli, Fire Chief
Fire Chief Borrelli thanked the volunteers and spoke to the commitment it takes on their behalf to dedicate time towards becoming a volunteer firefighter. Fire Chief Borrelli introduced the volunteers and Mayor Nagy presented the volunteers with certificates of appreciation.
2. New Employee Introduction
Jenny Morrison, Finance Director
Administrative Services Director Correa introduced and provided a brief background on Jenny Morrison, Finance Director.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Craig Christenson, 657 West Avenue, thanked the City and staff for the Community Development Block Grant provided to him 28 years ago. He expressed disappointment in regards to Airport flooding and issues with the eastside drainage project.
Mike Rasmussen, expressed frustration and requested to put their Planning Commission item on pause. He advised of the pipeline issue on Sullivan Road that was installed by Gustine Unified School District. He also advised the condition in the agreement that states that Mike and Rick Rasmussen will dedicate the sewer line to the City. He expressed further frustration in regards to increasing fees.
CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered routine and may be approved by one action of the City Council, unless any member of the City Council wishes to remove an item for separate consideration.
Are there any items on the consent calendar that any member of the public would like to comment on?
3. Minutes of the January 17, 2023 Regular Meeting
Recommendation: Review and approve
4. Warrants
Recommendation: Review and approve
5. Approve Request to Allow Mobile Food Vendors for Spring Movie Night Events Recommendation: Review and approve request
6. Approve Emergency Purchase in Excess of $10,000 for Composite Sampler Recommendation: Review and approve emergency purchase
7. Approve Request for Street Closures and Waiver of City Staff, Services, and Park Rental Fees for Annual Linguica Run
Recommendation: Review and approve request
Approve Resolution Adopting and Recertifying Updated Sewer System Management Plan
Recommendation: Review and approve resolution
9. Approve Mayoral Committee Appointments for 2023-2024 Recommendation: Review and approve
10. Approve Resolution Approving Purchase and Sale Agreement Between City and Gary and David Peters Partnership (APN: 020-082-008)
Recommendation: Review and approve resolution
Mayor Nagy introduced the consent calendar.
There was no public comment.
Council member Brazil requested to pull consent calendar item #6 for separate consideration.
Council member Bonta requested to pull consent calendar item #9 for separate consideration.
Council member Marsigli inquired why the City is paying sales tax to Stanislaus County for tires. She also inquired if the City is trapping gophers, to which Mayor Nagy advised the City contracts for gopher abatement.
Council member Marsigli also inquired what the City's energy bill was prior to solar and how much the City is saving, to which Administrative Services Director Correa advisea staff is completing an internal analysis and will provide an answer by next Council meeting.
Council member Ford inquired on the State Water Resources Control Board warrant, to which Mayor Nagy advised it is a fee to the State for city water connections. Council member Ford inquired further clarification on the fee, to which City Manager Nicholas advised (via telephone) it is an annual fee.
Mayor Nagy inquired if the fee is passed to the rate payers, to which City Manager Nicholas (via telephone) advised the fee is paid from the water fund revenue.
Council member Marsigli requested to pull consent calendar item #8 for separate consideration.
Council member Bonta made a motion to approve consent calendar items #3, 4, 5, and 7.
The motion was seconded by Council member Brazil and carried 5-0.
Mayor Nagy re-introduced consent calendar item #6.
There was no public comment.
Council member Brazil inquired who owns the samplers, to which City Manager Nicholas (via telephone) advised the samplers are property of the City.
Public Works Supervisor Castro confirmed Hillview Packing also has a composite sampler and confirmed that sampler is owned by the City.
Council member Brazil inquired on the amount of received bids, to which City Manager Nicholas (via telephone) advised it was an emergency purchase and stated USA Blue Book was the only vendor able to provide the sampler within a reasonable timeframe.
She also stated to her knowledge that USA Blue Book was the only bid received Council member Brazil inquired on the purchase being from Illinois, to which City Manager Nicholas advised it could be the distribution location or the invoicing but she was not certain.
Council member Brazil made a motion to approve the emergency purchase in excess of $10,000 for composite sampler.
The motion was seconded by Council member Marsigli and carried 5-0.
Mayor Nagy re-introduced consent calendar item #8.
There was no public comment.
Council member Marsigli inquired on debris items not listed on agenda packet page 66 (SSMP page 14) of the Sewer System Management Plan. She also inquired if building owners could be included in the noticing requirements on agenda packet pages 82 (SMP Section 7.3) and 90 (SSMP Section 11.3) in regards to outreach.
City Manager Nicholas (via telephone) advised of her conversations with Public Works Director Unavez in regards to targeted campaigns to intorm the community on what not to flush. She advised the City is working on ways to get this information out to the community.
Council member Marsigli suggested including building owners, to which City Manager Nicholas confirmed the addition of building owners to the outreach.
City Manager Nicholas advised the City is relying on proactive education component due to restraint with monitoring and enforcement.
Council member Marsigli inquired if the numbers listed on agenda packet page 168 (SSMP Appendix E page 6-1) are accommodating for ADU's, to which City Attorney Ann Siprelle advised she is not aware of this being a component of the Accessory Dwelling Unit law.
Council member Marsigli inquired if there is a time limit to approve the updated Sewer System Management Plan, to which Noe Martinez, Gouveia Engineering, advised there is no timeline to be compliant but recommended the sooner the better.
Council member Bonta inquired how the flow numbers are developed, to which Mr.
Martinez advised he does not know and would have to report back.
The Council pulled consent calendar item #8 from consideration, pending staff research.
Mayor Nagy re-introduced consent calendar item #9.
There was no public comment.
Council member Bonta proposed a change in his appointment to the Chamber of Commerce to the Downtown Revitalization. He suggested a swap with Council member Ford. Council member Ford was in agreement.
Mayor Nagy offered to sit in for Council member Marsigli on Chamber of Commerce, to which Council member Marsigli agreed.
Council member Bonta made a motion to approve consent calendar item # 9 as amended. The motion was seconded by Council member Brazil and carried 5-0.
Mayor Nagy re-introduced consent calendar item #10.
There was no public comment.
Council member Marsigli inquired on agenda packet page 218, agreement section
2.8.4, why funds are required by buyer and seller. She stated in her opinion the seller should not be listed in this section.
City Attorney Siprelle advised it could be a charge that is divided between buyer and seller but stated she was unsure of the reasoning.
Council member Marsigli inquired on agreement section 2.9.3 being blank, to which City Attorney Siprelle advised it is intentionally blank.
Council member Marsigli stated exhibit A and B are repeated, to which City Attorney Siprelle attested the resolution must be recorded to memorialize Councils' approval.
Council member Brazil made a motion to approve consent calendar item #10.
The motion was seconded by Council member Bonta and carried 5-0.
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA
11. Consider Nomination and Election of Mayor Pro Tempore
1. Receive Staff Report
2. Receive public comment
3. Nominate and consider a motion to elect a Mayor Pro Tem to serve a two-year term
Administrative Services Director Correa presented the staff report.
There was no public comment.
Mayor Nagy nominated Council member Ford for Mayor Pro Tem.
Council member Brazil made a motion to approve the nomination and elect Council member Ford as Mayor Pro Tem.
The motion was seconded by Council member Marsigli and carried 5-0.
12. Consider Re-Appointment to Gustine Airport Commission
1. Receive Staff Report
2. Receive public comment
3. Consider a motion to re-appoint Airport Commissioner for a new two-year term Administrative Services Director Correa presented the staff report.
There was no public comment.
Council member Marsigli commented on the length of term, to which Administrative Services Director Correa advised the two-year term has been the historical practice, and is dictated in the City's municipal code.
Council member Brazil suggested bringing the term length back to Council as part of the Municipal Code Subcommittee review.
Council member Marsigli made a motion to re-appoint Airport Commissioner Dioszegi for a new two-year term.
The motion was seconded by Council member Bonta and carried 5-0.
13. Consider Appointments) to Attend 2023 One Voice Delegation and Establish Priority Projects
1. Receive Staff Report
2. Receive public comment
3. Consider a motion to appoint delegate(s) and establish priority projects for submission to Merced County Association of Governments
Administrative Services Director Correa presented the staff report.
There was no public comment.
Council member Marsigli inquired whether funding for Public Works could be included.
There was a brief discussion in regards to past One Voice experiences.
Council member Brazil made a motion to appoint Mayor Nagy and Council member Bonta as the 2023 One Voice delegates.
The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ford and carried 5-0.
Mayor Nagy advised he would like to add the National Endowment for Arts in the priority projects.
The Council confirmed they would like to submit all of the suggested projects with the addition of the National Endowment for Arts project.
CITY DEPARTMENT REPORTS
Police Chief Chavez gave a shout out to the Fire department and City staff on the City/County Relations Dinner. He updated on the Catalytic Converter event with Orestimba High School. He thanked Council for their support in the purchase of the communication antenna. He shared a presentation on Citizen RIMs feature. He distributed the new department Valentine's patch, and informed Council the department is raising funds through selling department patches to develop a department honor guard.
Fire Chief Borrelli shared the department's participation in Catholic Schools Week at Our Lady of Miracles School. He advised the department radios are not old enough to qualify for a potential radio grant. He informed Council of upcoming mandatory department training. He also advised that the Fill in the Boot Fundraiser event was planned for February 18th.
Recreation Manager Vitorino informed Council the tennis courts are being contracted out by the Orestimba High School Tennis Club. She advised the Orestimba High School tennis courts are being refurbished and once completed the team will return to their school courts. She also advised the pickle ball lines on the Schmidt Park courts are not official regulation and informed Council of community requests for regulation lines. She commended the Police Volunteers for their assistance with erecting the shelving at the Goman Center. She provided installation details for the Crinklaw Memorial bench.
Council member Brazil inquired if the security cameras at the tennis courts were working, to which Recreation Manager Vitorino advised the City is having wi-fi issues in that area which is impacting the security cameras. She advised the issue is being worked through the Mid-Valley IT.
Council member Brazil inquired if all the trees are planted, to which Recreation Manager Vitorino advised all Memorial trees are planted and the remaining trees will be planted in Spring, when the weather warms.
Lastly, Recreation Manager Vitorino updated on the Clean California Community Days event, which will take place in March.
Finance Director Morrison advised Council that she is starting on the FY 23/24 budget.
Economic & Community Development Director Westervelt advised both the business and building at 540 5' Street is for sale. She also advised the building next door to City Hall is for sale. She updated on the kickoff meeting for Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element that took place on January 23rd. She informed Council of communications with HCD in regards to the SB2 Grant and using those funds towards the Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element. She advised the Airport is reopened and flooding only took place on the taxiway. She provided information on her meeting with FAA in regards to the Airport and capital project list. She advised that airport hangars were an eligible expense for the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funds and stated this item will be taken to Airport Commission on February 13th for their recommendation to Council. She updated on L&E Café reopening and encourages the community to visit.
Council member Brazil inquired if the Urgent Care is still operating, to which Economic & Community Development Director Westervelt advised it is still operating and stated they are due for a check-in.
Council member Bonta advised Dr. Veerappa and RAN Health are connected.
Mayor Nagy inquired if the City is submitting airport damage to FEMA, to which Economic & Community Development Director Westervelt advised the City is looking into the electrical boxes and stated Public Works Director Chavez is keeping a list of all items impacted at the Airport.
Mayor Pro Tem Ford inquired on the condition of the runway lights, to which Economic & Community Development Director Westervelt advised the lights are out of commission. She also advised the Airport Commission will weigh in on the light issue at their next meeting. She informed Council the lights are ACIP-eligible. She stated the FAA has ultimate input on funding priorities if the runway is deteriorated.
Council member Brazil inquired on solar at the Airport, to which Economic & Community Development Director Westervelt advised it is just PG&E.
Council member Brazil suggested tying it into the existing solar.
Public Works Supervisor Castro advised Public Works is installing new fiber into City park play areas. He updated on the Fire Hydrant Replacement project. He advised staff is looking into acquiring electric mowers. He also advised all holiday decorations have been taken down. He updated on the flooding on the Airport taxi ways. He advised staff has been trimming trees and filling potholes.
Council member Bonta advised of deterioration on Sullivan Road. He suggested contacting Caltrans to receive help improving to remedy Sullivan Road prior to the Hwy 33/SR 140 Roundabout detour.
Administrative Services Director Correa thanked the Gustine Fire Department volunteers, Fire Chief Borrelli, Ladies Auxiliary, Recreation Manager Vitorino, Administrative Assistant Desirae Porras and all other staff involved in the City/County Relations Dinner. She thanked District Attorney Nicole Silveira for being the event speaker. She advised of the large attendee count. She updated on the onboarding of the Part-Time Maintenance applicants. She informed Council of 3 new Reserve Officers onboarding tomorrow. She advised the City is still seeking interested candidates for the Airport Commission and Planning Commission vacancies. Mrs. Correa informed Council of one claim resulting from the severe weather in early January, and advised she is working with the property owner on full submittal. She welcomed Finance Director Morrison and advised she is a great addition to the team.
CITY MANAGER REPORT
City Manager Nicholas (via telephone) informed Council of her meeting with Nick Gomes, with Senator Duarte's office. She advised of her attendance at the League of California Cities New Mayors and Council Members Academy, which she attended with Mayor Nagy and Council member Marsigli. She informed Council the City does not have the bulky item pick-up with Mid-Valley Disposal, and advised Mid-Valley Disposal has distributed an updated flyer for the City. She thanked the Fire Department Volunteers and expressed gratitude for their service. She welcomed Finance Director Morrison. She congratulated Council for their Mayoral appointments.
Mayor Pro Tem Ford inquired on the status of the street sweeper purchase, to which City Manager Nicholas advised the City has not purchased a street sweeper.
Mayor Pro Tem Ford advised of numerous weekly complaints received due to lack of regular street sweeping.
Mayor Pro Tem Ford reiterated past discussions in regards to purchasing a street sweeper.
City Manager Nicholas advised the City needs to get into the finances associated with this purchase and bring this item back to Council for a more in-depth conversation.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Council member Marsigli expressed joy in attending the League of California Cities New Mayors and Council Members Academy. She reminded everyone of Motors on Main event in February.
Council member Bonta advised he had nothing to report.
Council member Brazil complimented the Fire Department volunteers.
Mayor Pro Tem Ford reiterated the great success of the City/County Relations Dinner.
He advised to be alert for the cattle egrets.
Mayor Nagy advised he will talk to the Caltrans Merced County Association of Governments liaison about Sullivan Rd improvements. He wished everyone a Happy Valentine's Day. He advised he enjoyed the League of California Cities New Mayors and Council Members Academy. Last, Mayor Nagy welcomed Finance Director Morrison.
CLOSED SESSION
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Nagy adjourned the meeting at 8:12 P.M.
City of Gustine, CA Warrant List
By Vendor Name
Post Dates 02/08/2023 - 02/21/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount Vendor: 209 MULTIMEDIA CORPORATION
209 MULTIMEDIA CORPOR 01/20/2023 02/21/2023 YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION 52.00 03/03/2023 - 03/03/24
Vendor 209 MULTIMEDIA CORPORATION Total: 52.00
Vendor: ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTINE
ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTI 532766 02/21/2023 REC OPERATING SUPPLIES 21.63 - XMAS STORAGE, TAPE
ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTI 533961 02/21/2023 PD OPERATING SUPPLIES - 10.38
PAINT FOR GRAFFITI
ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTI 533966 02/21/2023 PD OPERATING SUPPLIES - 9.73
PAINT FOR GRAFFITI
ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTI 534019 02/21/2023 PD OPERATING SUPPLIES- 6.46 KEYS
ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTI 532538 02/21/2023 PW CITY HALL SUPPLIES- 71.42
PLUNGER FOR TOILETS
ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTI 532582 02/21/2023 PW AL GOMAN CENTER 27.69
TILE REPLACEMENT
ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTI 532714 02/21/2023 PW DEPT OP TOOLS- 7.40
DRILL, DRIVER
ACE HARDWARE OF GUST 532714 02/21/2023 PW DEPT OP TOOLS- 5.92
DRILL, DRIVER
ACE HARDWARE OF GUST 532714 02/21/2023 PW DEPT OP TOOLS- 16.28
DRILL, DRIVER
ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTI 532714 02/21/2023 PW DEPT OP TOOLS- 19.72
DRILL, DRIVER
ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTI 533278 02/21/2023 WATER LEAK REPAIR ITEM 10.36 ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTI 533280 02/21/2023 PW WASTE WATER 9.30
SUPPLIES- QUICK WELD
ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTI 533299 02/21/2023 FUEL MIX FOR SMALL 90.90
EQUIPMENT
ACE HARDWARE OF GUST 533305 02/21/2023 GENERATOR FUEL AT 30.30
NORTH AV LIFT STATION
ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTI 533327 02/21/2023 NORTH AV LIFT REPAIRS 12.94 ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTI 533357 02/21/2023 PW WELL #7 REPAIR 30.76
SUPPLIES
ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTI 533429 02/21/2023 PW MISC SUPPLIES-RAKE 31.38
BOW FIBER
ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTI 533502 02/21/2023 PW WATER METER 15.54
SUPPLIES- BATTERIES,
SCREWDRIVER
ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTI 533510 02/21/2023 PW WATER LEAK REPAIR 17.07
SUPPLIES
ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTI 533654 02/21/2023 ABSORBENT FOR OIL LEAK 6.26 ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTI 533654 02/21/2023 ABSORBENT FOR OIL LEAK 5.01 ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTI 533654 02/21/2023 ABSORBENT FOR OIL LEAK 13.78 ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTI 533654 02/21/2023 ABSORBENT FOR OIL LEAK 16.70 Vendor ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTINE Total: 486.93
Vendor: AFLAC ADMINISTATIVE SERVICES
AFLAC ADMINISTATIVE SER PR - 2/3/23 02/21/2023 PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 847.68 Vendor AFLAC ADMINISTATIVE SERVICES Total: 847.68
2/14/2023 10:45:42 AM Page 1 of 16
Warrant List Post Dates: 02/08/2023 - 02/21/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount Vendor: ALHAMBRA & SIERRA SPRINGS
ALHAMBRA & SIERRA SPRI 12652410 020323 02/21/2023 DRINKING WATER ALL 6.16 DEPTS 01/18/23 &
02/01/23
ALHAMBRA & SIERRA SPRI 12652410 020323 02/21/2023 DRINKING WATER ALL 6.16 DEPTS 01/18/23 &
02/01/23
ALHAMBRA & SIERRA SPRI 12652410 020323 02/21/2023 DRINKING WATER ALL 30.81 DEPTS 01/18/23 &
02/01/23
ALHAMBRA & SIERRA SPRI 12652410 020323 02/21/2023 DRINKING WATER ALL 9.24 DEPTS 01/18/23 &
02/01/23
ALHAMBRA & SIERRA SPRI 12652410 020323 02/21/2023 DRINKING WATER ALL 9.24 DEPTS 01/18/23 &
02/01/23
ALHAMBRA & SIERRA SPRI 12652410 020323 02/21/2023 DRINKING WATER ALL 6.16 DEPTS 01/18/23 &
02/01/23
ALHAMBRA & SIERRA SPRI 12652410 020323 02/21/2023 DRINKING WATER ALL 9.24 DEPTS 01/18/23 &
02/01/23
ALHAMBRA & SIERRA SPRI 12652410 020323 02/21/2023 DRINKING WATER ALL 46.21 DEPTS 01/18/23 &
02/01/23
ALHAMBRA & SIERRA SPRI 12652410 020323 02/21/2023 DRINKING WATER ALL 61.61 DEPTS 01/18/23 &
02/01/23
ALHAMBRA & SIERRA SPRI 12652410 020323 02/21/2023 DRINKING WATER ALL 61.62 DEPTS 01/18/23 &
02/01/23
ALHAMBRA & SIERRA SPRI 12652410 020323 02/21/2023 DRINKING WATER ALL 61.61 DEPTS 01/18/23 &
02/01/23
Vendor ALHAMBRA & SIERRA SPRINGS Total: 308.06
Vendor: AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC.
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 1CMJ-64MY-LWXQ 02/21/2023 PW OFFICE SUPPLIES- 113.24
PENS, BINDERS, TAPE,
NOTEPADS
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 1DCH-Q347-3M7Y 02/21/2023 STUDY BOOK FOR QAC 61.83
EXAMINE
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 1MPT-LKLY-9UP 02/21/2023 PW OFFICE SUPPLIES- 52.87
CHARGER, BINDER,
DIVIDERS
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 1MPT-LKLY-9LIP 02/21/2023 PW OFFICE SUPPLIES- 52.87
CHARGER, BINDER,
DIVIDERS
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 1N6J-FKRH-19VN 02/21/2023 PW DEPT OP SUPPLIES- 24.67
FLASHLIGHT
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 1N6J-FKRH-19VN 02/21/2023 PW DEPT OP SUPPLIES- 19.74
FLASHLIGHT
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 1N6J-FKRH-19VN 02/21/2023 PW DEPT OP SUPPLIES- 54.28
FLASHLIGHT
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 1N6J-FKRH-19VN 02/21/2023 PW DEPT OP SUPPLIES- 65.79
FLASHLIGHT
Vendor AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC. Total: 445.29
2/14/2023 10:45:42 AM Page 2 of 16
Warrant List Post Dates: 02/08/2023-02/21/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount Vendor: ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES INC
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERV 5040094805 02/21/2023 PW DEPT OP SUPPLIES- 28.41
TOWELS, MOPS, MATS
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERV 5040094805 02/21/2023 PW DEPT OP SUPPLIES- 22.73
TOWELS, MOPS, MATS
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERV 5040094805 02/21/2023 PW DEPT OP SUPPLIES- 62.50
TOWELS, MOPS, MATS
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERV 5040094805 02/21/2023 PW DEPT OP SUPPLIES- 75.75
TOWELS, MOPS, MATS
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERV 5040097294 02/21/2023 PW DEPT OP SUPPLIES- 4,41
TOWELS, MOPS, MATS
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERV 5040097294 02/21/2023 PW DEPT OP SUPPLIES- 3.53
TOWELS, MOPS, MATS
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERV 5040097294 02/21/2023 PW DEPT OP SUPPLIES- 9.70
TOWELS, MOPS, MATS
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERV 5040097294 02/21/2023 PW DEPT OP SUPPLIES- 11.75
TOWELS, MOPS, MATS
Vendor ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES INC Total: 218.78
Vendor: ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERV 2580137760 02/21/2023 FD CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 143.97 Vendor ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Total: 143.97
Vendor: BADGER METER INC.
BADGER METER INC. 80117041 02/21/2023 WATER METER MONTHLY 1,624.25
SUBSCRIPTION JANUARY
2023
Vendor BADGER METER INC. Total: 1,624.25
Vendor: BARBARA B. PARKIN
BARBARA B. PARKIN YOGA SESSION 02/03/202 02/21/2023 YOGA SESSION 24 450.00 PARTICIPANTS JAN 3 - FEB
3, 2023
Vendor BARBARA B. PARKIN Total: 450.00
Vendor: CALEB WILKINSON
CALEB WILKINSON 004 02/21/2023 PD CONSULTING SERVICES 2,028.00 (01/01/2023 - 01/31/2023
Vendor CALEB WILKINSON Total: 2,028.00
Vendor: CENTRAL SANITARY SUPPLY
CENTRAL SANITARY SUPPL 7824911 02/21/2023 PW CLEANING SUPPLIES- 59.16
TOILET PAPER, BOWL
CLEANER
CENTRAL SANITARY SUPPL 7824911 02/21/2023 PW CLEANING SUPPLIES- 47.33
TOILET PAPER, BOWL
CLEANER
CENTRAL SANITARY SUPPL 7824911 02/21/2023 PW CLEANING SUPPLIES- 130.16
TOILET PAPER, BOWL
CLEANER
CENTRAL SANITARY SUPPL 7824911 02/21/2023 PW CLEANING SUPPLIES- 157.78
TOILET PAPER, BOWL
CLEANER
Vendor CENTRAL SANITARY SUPPLY Total: 394.43
Vendor: CINTAS CORPORATION #3
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4144866662 02/21/2023 PW UNIFORM 10.19
ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL
SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4144866662 02/21/2023 PW UNIFORM 22.49
ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL
SUPPLIES
2/14/2023 10:45:42 AM Page 3 of 16
Warrant List Post Dates: 02/08/2023 -02/21/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4144866662 02/21/2023 PW UNIFORM 6.41
ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL
SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4144866662 02/21/2023 PW UNIFORM 13.07
ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL
SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4144866662 02/21/2023 PW UNIFORM 19.28
ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL
SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4144866662 02/21/2023 PW UNIFORM 39.07
ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL
SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4144866662 02/21/2023 PW UNIFORM 53.73
ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL
SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4144866662 02/21/2023 PW UNIFORM 43.17
ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL
SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4144866662 02/21/2023 PW UNIFORM 72.38
ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL
SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4144866662 02/21/2023 PW UNIFORM 20.39
ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL
SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4145562206 02/21/2023 PW UNIFORM 10.19
ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL
SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4145562206 02/21/2023 PW UNIFORM 22.49
ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL
SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4145562206 02/21/2023 PW UNIFORM 6.41
ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL
SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4145562206 02/21/2023 PW UNIFORM 13.07
ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL
SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4145562206 02/21/2023 PW UNIFORM 19.28
ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL
SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4145562206 02/21/2023 PW UNIFORM 39.07
ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL
SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4145562206 02/21/2023 PW UNIFORM 53.73
ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL
SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4145562206 02/21/2023 PW UNIFORM 43.17
ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL
SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4145562206 02/21/2023 PW UNIFORM 72.38
ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL
SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4145562206 02/21/2023 PW UNIFORM 20.39
ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL
SUPPLIES
Vendor CINTAS CORPORATION #3 Total: 600.36
2/14/2023 10:45:42 AM Page 4 of 16
Warrant List Post Dates: 02/08/2023 - 02/21/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount Vendor: CITY OF GUSTINE
CITY OF GUSTINE BORRELLI WATER 12/23/2 02/21/2023 BORRELLI WATER 35.32 12/23/22 - 01/23/23
Vendor CITY OF GUSTINE Total: 35.32
Vendor: COMCAST BUSINESS SERVICES
COMCAST BUSINESS SERVI 164346654 02/21/2023 INTERNET SERVICE UP TO 2.64 JAN 31, 2023
COMCAST BUSINESS SERVI 164346654 02/21/2023 INTERNET SERVICE UP TO 2.64 JAN 31, 2023
COMCAST BUSINESS SERVI 164346654 02/21/2023 INTERNET SERVICE UP TO 2.64 JAN 31, 2023
COMCAST BUSINESS SERVI 164346654 02/21/2023 INTERNET SERVICE UP TO 2.64 JAN 31, 2023
COMCAST BUSINESS SERVI 164346654 02/21/2023 INTERNET SERVICE UP TO 528.78 JAN 31, 2023
COMCAST BUSINESS SERVI 164346654 02/21/2023 INTERNET SERVICE UP TO 2.64 JAN 31, 2023
COMCAST BUSINESS SERVI 164346654 02/21/2023 INTERNET SERVICE UP TO 2.54 JAN 31, 2023
COMCAST BUSINESS SERVI 164346654 02/21/2023 INTERNET SERVICE UP TO 2.64 JAN 31, 2023
COMCAST BUSINESS SERVI 164346654 02/21/2023 INTERNET SERVICE UP TO 10.58 JAN 31, 2023
COMCAST BUSINESS SERVI 164346654 02/21/2023 INTERNET SERVICE UP TO 10.58 JAN 31, 2023
COMCAST BUSINESS SERVI 164346654 02/21/2023 INTERNET SERVICE UP TO 10.58 JAN 31, 2023
COMCAST BUSINESS SERVI 164346654 02/21/2023 INTERNET SERVICE UP TO 185.07 JAN 31, 2023
COMCAST BUSINESS SERVI 164346654 02/21/2023 INTERNET SERVICE UP TO 185.07 JAN 31, 2023
COMCAST BUSINESS SERVI 164346654 02/21/2023 INTERNET SERVICE UP TO 105.76 JAN 31, 2023
COMCAST BUSINESS SERVI 164346654 02/21/2023 INTERNET SERVICE UP TO 2.65 JAN 31, 2023
Vendor COMCAST BUSINESS SERVICES Total: 1,057.55
Vendor: CSG CONSULTING - PRECISION
CSG CONSULTING - PRECIS 48619 02/21/2023 PLANNING SERVICES 4,705.00 Vendor S CONSUTNG-2 E250 02l: 4,705.00
Vendor: DAVID J PIRES
DAVID J PIRES 6360 02/21/2023 PW CITY HALL RESTROOM 1,453.39
REPAIRS
DAVID J PIRES 6390 02/21/2023 PW CITY HALL RESTROOM 250.00
DRAIN WORK
Vendor DAVID J PIRES Total: 1,703.39
Vendor: FAR WEST LABORATORIES, INC.
FAR WEST LABORATORIES, 105048 02/21/2023 DRINKING WATER LAB 1,446.00
SAMPLES
Vendor FAR WEST LABORATORIES, INC. Total: 1,446.00
Vendor: FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC
FERGUSON ENTERPRISES I 1731968-1 02/21/2023 WATER METER SUPPLIES 1,130.39 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES I 1768888 02/21/2023 WATER METER SUPPLIES 3,432.95 Vendor FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC Total: 4,563.34
2/14/2023 10:45:42 AM Page 5 of 16
Warrant List Post Dates: 02/08/2023 - 02/21/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount Vendor: FRANCHISE TAX BOARD
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD PR -2/3/23 02/21/2023 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 250.00 Vendor FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Total: 250.00
Vendor: GROVER LANDSCAPE SERVICES INC
GROVER LANDSCAPE SERV 0309860 02/21/2023 EMERGENCY TREE 2,150.00
REMOVAL
GROVER LANDSCAPE SERV 0310102 02/21/2023 FALLEN TREE DUE TO 5,990.00
STORM AT SCHMIDT PARK
Vendor GROVER LANDSCAPE SERVICES INC Total: 8,140.00
Vendor: GUSTINE DEPOT GARAGE, LLC
GUSTINE DEPOT GARAGE, 0031049 02/21/2023 PD PRIUS OIL CHANGE 56.71 GUSTINE DEPOT GARAGE, 0031055 02/21/2023 PW #1065 OIL CHANGE 8.17 GUSTINE DEPOT GARAGE, 0031055 02/21/2023 PW #1065 OIL CHANGE 6.53 GUSTINE DEPOT GARAGE, 0031055 02/21/2023 PW #1065 OIL CHANGE 17.97 GUSTINE DEPOT GARAGE, 0031055 02/21/2023 PW #1065 OIL CHANGE 21.77 GUSTINE DEPOT GARAGE, 0031057 02/21/2023 PW #1064 OIL CHANGE 8.99 GUSTINE DEPOT GARAGE, 0031057 02/21/2023 PW #1064 OIL CHANGE 7.19 GUSTINE DEPOT GARAGE, 0031057 02/21/2023 PW #1064 OIL CHANGE 19.77 GUSTINE DEPOT GARAGE, 0031057 02/21/2023 PW #1064 OIL CHANGE 23.97 GUSTINE DEPOT GARAGE, 0031116 02/21/2023 PW #1072 R&R DOOR 29.50 HINGE
GUSTINE DEPOT GARAGE, 0031116 02/21/2023 PW #1072 R&R DOOR 23.60 HINGE
GUSTINE DEPOT GARAGE, 0031116 02/21/2023 PW #1072 R&R DOOR 64.90 HINGE
GUSTINE DEPOT GARAGE, 0031116 02/21/2023 PW #1072 R&R DOOR 78.67 HINGE
GUSTINE DEPOT GARAGE, 0031210 02/21/2023 PW #1012 VEHICLE TIRE 33.50 GUSTINE DEPOT GARAGE, 0031210 02/21/2023 PW #1012 VEHICLE TIRE 26.88 GUSTINE DEPOT GARAGE, 0031210 02/21/2023 PW #1012 VEHICLE TIRE 73.92 GUSTINE DEPOT GARAGE, 0031210 02/21/2023 PW #1012 VEHICLE TIRE 89.60 Vendor GUSTINE DEPOT GARAGE, LLC Total: 591.74
Vendor: GUSTINE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT.
GUSTINE VOLUNTEER FIRE FD 02/07/2023 02/21/2023 FD VOLUNTEER 500.00
DONATION - SERVICES
PROVIDED 1/26/23
Vendor GUSTINE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT. Total: 500.00
Vendor: IEH-JL ANALYTICAL
IEH-IL ANALYTICAL 587719 02/21/2023 WWTP WATER SAMPLES 249.00 01/05/23
IEH-IL ANALYTICAL 588333 02/21/2023 WWTP WATER SAMPLES 231.00 01/12/23
Vendor IEH-JL ANALYTICAL Total: 480.00
Vendor: JACK BERRY
JACK BERRY 1084 02/21/2023 EMERGENCY 3,569.36
REPLACEMENT FOR
AERATORS
Vendor JACK BERRY Total: 3,569.36
Vendor: LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES
LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES 10741468 02/21/2023 PD TRANSLATION SERVICE 10.22 Vendor LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES Total: 10.22
2/14/2023 10:45:42 AM Page 6 of 16
Warrant List Post Dates: 02/08/2023 - 02/21/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount Vendor: LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CI 643335 02/21/2023 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP 4,699.00 DUES 2023
Vendor LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES Total: 4,699.00
Vendor: MARTIN L. CARVER
MARTIN L. CARVER 1700 02/21/2023 ZONING MAP & GIS 101.25 LAYERS SB2
MARTIN L. CARVER 1700 02/21/2023 ZONING MAP & GIS 101.25 LAYERS SB2
MARTIN L. CARVER 1700 02/21/2023 ZONING MAP & GIS 101.25 LAYERS SB2
MARTIN L. CARVER 1700 02/21/2023 ZONING MAP & GIS 101.25 LAYERS SB2
MARTIN L. CARVER 1700 02/21/2023 ZONING MAP & GIS 101.25 LAYERS SB2
MARTIN L. CARVER 1700 02/21/2023 ZONING MAP & GIS 101.25 LAYERS SB2
MARTIN L. CARVER 1700 02/21/2023 ZONING MAP & GIS 101.25 LAYERS SB2
MARTIN L. CARVER 1700 02/21/2023 ZONING MAP & GIS 101.25 LAYERS SB2
Vendor MARTIN L. CARVER Total: 810.00
Vendor: MERCED COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL
MERCED COUNTY ANIMAL 25-1 02/21/2023 ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTE 75.00 Vendor MERCED COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL Total: 75.00
Vendor: MID-VALLEY DISPOSAL LLC
MID-VALLEY DISPOSAL LLC JANUARY 2023 02/21/2023 REFUSE SERVICES 52,487.95 12/24/2022 - 01/23/2023
Vendor MID-VALLEY DISPOSAL LLC Total: 52,487.95
Vendor: MODERN WILDLIFE SOLUTIONS
MODERN WILDLIFE SOLUT 9417 02/21/2023 GOPHER ABATEMENT AT 300.00
SCHMIDT PARK JANUARY
2023
Vendor MODERN WILDLIFE SOLUTIONS Total: 300.00
Vendor: MUNICIPAL RESOURCE GROUP LLC
MUNICIPAL RESOURCE GR 03-23-48 02/21/2023 FINANCIAL PROJECT 591.88 MANAGEMENT 12/05 -
12/31
MUNICIPAL RESOURCE GR 03-23-48 02/21/2023 FINANCIAL PROJECT 355.12 MANAGEMENT 12/05 -
12/31
MUNICIPAL RESOURCE GR 03-23-48 02/21/2023 FINANCIAL PROJECT 473.50 MANAGEMENT 12/05 -
12/31
MUNICIPAL RESOURCE GR 03-23-48 02/21/2023 FINANCIAL PROJECT 4,143.12 MANAGEMENT 12/05 -
12/31
MUNICIPAL RESOURCE GR 03-23-48 02/21/2023 FINANCIAL PROJECT 6,037.12 MANAGEMENT 12/05 -
12/31
MUNICIPAL RESOURCE GR 03-23-48 02/21/2023 FINANCIAL PROJECT 118.38 MANAGEMENT 12/05 -
12/31
2/14/2023 10:45:42 AM Page 7 of 16
Warrant List Post Dates: 02/08/2023 - 02/21/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount MUNICIPAL RESOURCE GR 03-23-48 02/21/2023 FINANCIAL PROJECT 118.38 MANAGEMENT 12/05 -
12/31
Vendor MUNICIPAL RESOURCE GROUP LLC Total: 11,837.50
Vendor: OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL #3
OPERATING ENGINEERS L PR -2/3/23 02/21/2023 PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 216.00 Vendor OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL #3 Total: 216.00
Vendor: O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC
O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRIS 5718-326284 02/21/2023 PD VEHICLE BATTERY 197.56 Vendor O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC Total: 197.56
Vendor: PACIFIC LANDSCAPE SUPPLY, INC
PACIFIC LANDSCAPE SUPPL 68819 02/21/2023 PW PLAY GROUND FIBER 1,960.40
FOR PARKS
Vendor PACIFIC LANDSCAPE SUPPLY, INC Total: 1,960.40
Vendor: PACIFIC STAR CHEMICAL, LLC.
PACIFIC STAR CHEMICAL, L 244703 02/21/2023 CHLORINE FOR CITY POOL 1,781.70 PACIFIC STAR CHEMICAL, L 244974 02/21/2023 CHLORINE FOR WELL #5 1,068.36 Vendor PACIFIC STAR CHEMICAL, LLC. Total: 2,850.06
Vendor: PACIFIC WATER RESOURCES
PACIFIC WATER RESOURCE 23105 02/21/2023 SMITH & LOVER WW 2,701.14
SEWER LIFT STATION
IMPELLER
Vendor PACIFIC WATER RESOURCES Total: 2,701.14
Vendor: PG&E
PG&E 01/27/2023 02/21/2023 LINDEN AT BONTA 11.79
ELECTRICAL 02/28/2022 -
01/26/2023
PG&E 01/30/2023 02/21/2023 GAS AND ELECTRIC 1,865.13
12/22/2022 - 01/19/2023
PG&E 01/30/2023 02/21/2023 GAS AND ELECTRIC 1,086.71
12/22/2022 - 01/19/2023
PG&E 01/30/2023 02/21/2023 GAS AND ELECTRIC 148.30
12/22/2022 - 01/19/2023
PG&E 01/30/2023 02/21/2023 GAS AND ELECTRIC 701.50
12/22/2022 - 01/19/2023
PG&E 01/30/2023 02/21/2023 GAS AND ELECTRIC 9.85
12/22/2022 - 01/19/2023
PG&E 01/30/2023 02/21/2023 GAS AND ELECTRIC 8.39
12/22/2022 - 01/19/2023
PG&E 01/30/2023 02/21/2023 GAS AND ELECTRIC 24.42
12/22/2022-01/19/2023
PG&E 01/30/2023 02/21/2023 GAS AND ELECTRIC 198.98
12/22/2022 - 01/19/2023
PG&E 01/30/2023 02/21/2023 GAS AND ELECTRIC 56.02
12/22/2022-01/19/2023
PG&E 01/30/2023 02/21/2023 GAS AND ELECTRIC 4,866.96
12/22/2022 - 01/19/2023
PG&E 01/30/2023 02/21/2023 GAS AND ELECTRIC 23.82
12/22/2022 - 01/19/2023
PG&E 01/30/2023 02/21/2023 GAS AND ELECTRIC 8,110.05
12/22/2022 - 01/19/2023
PG&E 01/30/2023 02/21/2023 GAS AND ELECTRIC 3,804.44
12/22/2022 - 01/19/2023
PG&E 01/30/2023 02/21/2023 GAS AND ELECTRIC 252.19
12/22/2022 - 01/19/2023
2/14/2023 10:45:42 AM Page 8 of 16
Warrant List Post Dates: 02/08/2023 - 02/21/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount PG&E 01/30/2023 02/21/2023 GAS AND ELECTRIC 159.20
12/22/2022 - 01/19/2023
Vendor PG&E Total: 21,327.75
Vendor: POLICE OFFICERS ASSOC
POLICE OFFICERS ASSOC PR -2/3/23 02/21/2023 PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 480.00 Vendor POLICE OFFICERS ASSOC Total: 480.00
Vendor: PUBLIC EMP RETIREMENT SYSTEM
PUBLIC EMP RETIREMENT PR - 2/3/23 EE CLASSIC MI 02/21/2023 RETIREMENT 1,550.71
CONTRIBUTIONS
PUBLIC EMP RETIREMENT PR - 2/3/23 EE PEPRA MIS 02/21/2023 RETIREMENT 1,464.52
CONTRIBUTIONS
PUBLIC EMP RETIREMENT PR -2/3/23 EE CLASSIC SA 02/21/2023 RETIREMENT 685.11
CONTRIBUTIONS
PUBLIC EMP RETIREMENT PR - 2/3/23 EE PEPRA SAF 02/21/2023 RETIREMENT 1,930.62
CONTRIBUTIONS
PUBLIC EMP RETIREMENT PR - 2/3/23 ER CLASSIC MI 02/21/2023 RETIREMENT 2,281.90
CONTRIBUTIONS
PUBLIC EMP RETIREMENT PR - 2/3/23 ER PEPRA MIS 02/21/2023 RETIREMENT 1,620.73
CONTRIBUTIONS
PUBLIC EMP RETIREMENT PR - 2/3/23 ER CLASSIC SA 02/21/2023 RETIREMENT 1,596.41
CONTRIBUTIONS
PUBLIC EMP RETIREMENT PR - 2/3/23 ER PEPRA SAF 02/21/2023 RETIREMENT 1,898.04
CONTRIBUTIONS
Vendor PUBLIC EMP RETIREMENT SYSTEM Total: 13,028.04
Vendor: RICHARD A. FORD II
RICHARD A. FORD I 173601 02/21/2023 FD GAL DIESEL EXHAUST 73.39 FLUID
Vendor RICHARD A. FORD II Total: 73.39
Vendor: RICK ANDREW DIAZ
RICK ANDREW DIAZ 23-3873 02/21/2023 PD VEHICLE SERVICES - 840.00
TOW VEHICLE OUT OF
MUD
Vendor RICK ANDREW DIAZ Total: 840.00
Vendor: ROCHA BACKHOE SERVICE INC
ROCHA BACKHOE SERVICE 1469-1 02/21/2023 WATER LINE REPAIR - 720 3,775.00 LAUREL AV & HWY 33
ROCHA BACKHOE SERVICE 1470 02/21/2023 ROAD REPAIR MATERIAL 2,247.50 Vendor ROCHA BACKHOE SERVICE INC Total: 6,022.50
Vendor: SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLL
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNI N155996 02/21/2023 23/24 ANNUAL PERMIT 290.00 FEES
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNI N155997 02/21/2023 ANNUAL PERMIT TO 98.00
OPERATE
Vendor SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLL Total: 388.00 Vendor: SHRED-IT
SHRED-IT 8003300111 02/21/2023 SHRED SERVICE 11.64
01/03/2023 - 01/31/2023
SHRED-IT 8003300111 02/21/2023 SHRED SERVICE 19.40
01/03/2023 - 01/31/2023
SHRED-IT 8003300111 02/21/2023 SHRED SERVICE 11.64
01/03/2023 - 01/31/2023
SHRED-IT 8003300111 02/21/2023 SHRED SERVICE 155.22
01/03/2023 - 01/31/2023
SHRED-IT 8003300111 02/21/2023 SHRED SERVICE 3.88
01/03/2023 - 01/31/2023
2/14/2023 10:45:42 AM Page 9 of 16
Warrant List Post Dates: 02/08/2023 - 02/21/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount SHRED-IT 8003300111 02/21/2023 SHRED SERVICE 11.64
01/03/2023 - 01/31/2023
SHRED-IT 8003300111 02/21/2023 SHRED SERVICE 77.61
01/03/2023 - 01/31/2023
SHRED-IT 8003300111 02/21/2023 SHRED SERVICE 77.61
01/03/2023-01/31/2023
SHRED-IT 8003300111 02/21/2023 SHRED SERVICE 19.40
01/03/2023 - 01/31/2023
Vendor SHRED-IT Total: 388.04
Vendor: SLOAN SAKAI YEUNG & WONG LLP
SLOAN SAKAI YEUNG & W 51056 02/21/2023 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1,120.00
CONSULTING SERVICES
Vendor SLOAN SAKAI YEUNG & WONG LLP Total: 1,120.00
Vendor: STATE STREET BANK & TRUST COMPANY
STATE STREET BANK & TRU PR - 2/3/23 02/21/2023 PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 250.00 STATE STREET BANK & TRU PR - 02/3/23 02/21/2023 PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 174.33 STATE STREET BANK & TRU PR -2/03/23 02/21/2023 PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 174.33 Vendor STATE STREET BANK & TRUST COMPANY Total: 598.66
Vendor: T-MOBILE USA, INC
T-MOBILE USA, INC 12/21/22 - 1/20/23 02/21/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 2.21 12/21/22 - 01/20/22
T-MOBILE USA, INC 12/21/22 - 1/20/23 02/21/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 2.21 12/21/22 - 01/20/22
T-MOBILE USA, INC 12/21/22 - 1/20/23 02/21/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 2.21 12/21/22 - 01/20/22
T-MOBILE USA, INC 12/21/22 - 1/20/23 02/21/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 2.21 12/21/22 - 01/20/22
T-MOBILE USA, INC 12/21/22 - 1/20/23 02/21/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 481.56 12/21/22 - 01/20/22
T-MOBILE USA, INC 12/21/22 - 1/20/23 02/21/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 2.21 12/21/22 - 01/20/22
T-MOBILE USA, INC 12/21/22 - 1/20/23 02/21/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 2.21 12/21/22 - 01/20/22
T-MOBILE USA, INC 12/21/22 - 1/20/23 02/21/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 2.21 12/21/22 - 01/20/22
T-MOBILE USA, INC 12/21/22 - 1/20/23 02/21/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 7.09 12/21/22 - 01/20/22
T-MOBILE USA, INC 12/21/22-1/20/23 02/21/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 7.09 12/21/22 - 01/20/22
T-MOBILE USA, INC 12/21/22 - 1/20/23 02/21/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 7.09 12/21/22-01/20/22
T-MOBILE USA, INC 12/21/22 - 1/20/23 02/21/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 132.85 12/21/22 - 01/20/22
T-MOBILE USA, INC 12/21/22 - 1/20/23 02/21/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 132.85 12/21/22 - 01/20/22
T-MOBILE USA, INC 12/21/22 - 1/20/23 02/21/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 74.57 12/21/22 - 01/20/22
T-MOBILE USA, INC 12/21/22 - 1/20/23 02/21/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 2.21 12/21/22 -01/20/22
T-MOBILE USA, INC 12/21/22 - 1/20/23 02/21/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 24.87 12/21/22 - 01/20/22
Vendor T-MOBILE USA, INC Total: 885.65
Vendor: TRI COUNTIES BANK CARDMEMBER SERVICES
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/01/2023 JC TWILIO 02/21/2023 SCADA SERVICE FOR 10.01
WATER WELL JANUARY
2023
2/14/2023 10:45:42 AM Page 10 of 16
Warrant List Post Dates: 02/08/2023 - 02/21/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/30/2023 JC UC ANR PU 02/21/2023 STUDY MATERIAL FOR 31.04
SPRAY APPLICATOR
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/30/2023 JC UC ANR PU 02/21/2023 STUDY MATERIAL FOR 24.83
SPRAY APPLICATOR
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/30/2023 JC UC ANR PU 02/21/2023 STUDY MATERIAL FOR 68.28
SPRAY APPLICATOR
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/30/2023 JC UC ANR PU 02/21/2023 STUDY MATERIAL FOR 82.76
SPRAY APPLICATOR
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/30/2023 JC UC ANR PU 02/21/2023 STUDY MATERIAL FOR 1.92
SPRAY APPLICATOR
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/30/2023 JC UC ANR PU 02/21/2023 STUDY MATERIAL FOR 1.53
SPRAY APPLICATOR
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/30/2023 JC UC ANR PU 02/21/2023 STUDY MATERIAL FOR 4.22
SPRAY APPLICATOR
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/30/2023 JC UC ANR PU 02/21/2023 STUDY MATERIAL FOR 5.12
SPRAY APPLICATOR
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/18/2023 JW ELIKA 02/21/2023 AIRPORT GATE OPENER 59.48 CARD READER 1/18/23-
2/18/23
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/01/2023 MC GOTO 02/21/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 1.78 1/1/23 - 1/31/23
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/01/2023 MC GOTO 02/21/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 1.78 1/1/23 - 1/31/23
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/01/2023 MC GOTO 02/21/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 1.78 1/1/23 - 1/31/23
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/01/2023 MC GOTO 02/21/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 1.78 1/1/23 - 1/31/23
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/01/2023 MC GOTO 02/21/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 355.16 1/1/23 - 1/31/23
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/01/2023 MC GOTO 02/21/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 1.78 1/1/23 - 1/31/23
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/01/2023 MC GOTO 02/21/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 1.78 1/1/23 - 1/31/23
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/01/2023 MC GOTO 02/21/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 1.78 1/1/23 - 1/31/23
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/01/2023 MC GOTO 02/21/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 7.10 1/1/23 - 1/31/23
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/01/2023 MC GOTO 02/21/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 7.10 1/1/23 - 1/31/23
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/01/2023 MC GOTO 02/21/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 7.10 1/1/23 - 1/31/23
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/01/2023 MC GOTO 02/21/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 124.30 1/1/23 - 1/31/23
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/01/2023 MC GOTO 02/21/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 124.30 1/1/23 - 1/31/23
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/01/2023 MC GOTO 02/21/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 71.03 1/1/23 - 1/31/23
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/01/2023 MC GOTO 02/21/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 1.76 1/1/23 - 1/31/23
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/03/2023 MC SNHU.ED 02/21/2023 EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS 9.43 TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/03/2023 MC SNHU.ED 02/21/2023 EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS 1.68 TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/03/2023 MC SNHU.ED 02/21/2023 EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS 4.04 TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/03/2023 MC SNHU.ED 02/21/2023 EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS 0.67 2/14/2023 10:45:42 AM Page 11 of 16
Warrant List Post Dates: 02/08/2023 - 02/21/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/03/2023 MC SNHU.ED 02/21/2023 EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS 6.74 22EW3
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/03/2023 MC SNHUED 02/21/2023 EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS 1.01 22EW3
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/03/2023 MC SNHU.ED 02/21/2023 EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS 8.42 22EW3
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/03/2023 MC SNHU.ED 02/21/2023 EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS 1.70 22EW3
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/18/2023 MC WALMAR 02/21/2023 COUNCIL DIAS CALENDAR 31.10 TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/20/2023 MC HYATT RE 02/21/2023 LEAGUE NEW MEMBER 499.64 ACCOM.-A. NICHOLAS
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/20/2023 MC HYATT RE 02/21/2023 LEAGUE NEW MEMBER 549.64 ACCOM. -P. NAGY
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/20/2023 MC HYATT RE 02/21/2023 LEAGUE NEW MEMBER 499.64 ACCOM.-S. MARSIGLI
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/25/2023 MC COSTCO 02/21/2023 CITY COUNTY DINNER 117.23 DECOR 1/26/23
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/25/2023 MC DOLLAR T 02/21/2023 CITY COUNTY DINNER 8.15 SUPPLIES 1/26/23
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 12/31/2022 MC INDEED 02/21/2023 FINANCE DIRECTOR 34.00
RECRUITMENT
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/12/2023 SJ MARIN CO 02/21/2023 LEADERSHIP AND 250.00
ACCOUNTABILITY
TRAINING-F. MARTINEZ
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/25/2023 SJ PIZZA FACT 02/21/2023 MEETING FOR EVIDENCE 46.44
TRAINING FOR
VOLUNTEERS
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 12/08/2022 SJ PATRICK AN 02/21/2023 PD DOG TAGS 201.35 TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/07/2023 TV WALMART 02/21/2023 REC STORAGE SUPPLIES 95.92 TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/19/2023 TV NRPA 02/21/2023 PROFESSIONAL 190.00
DEVELOPMENT- CPRP
CLASSES
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/23/2023 TV MCCLELLA 02/21/2023 INSURANCE-AL GOMAN 107.84
CENTER RENTAL
01/28/2023
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 01/27/2023 TV HOME DEP 02/21/2023 RECREATION OP SUPPLIES- 1,008.02
STORAGE SHELVES
Vendor TRI COUNTIES BANK CARDMEMBER SERVICES Total: 4,672.16 Vendor: TRUE BLUE VETERINARY HOSPITAL
TRUE BLUE VETERINARY H 151234 02/21/2023 PD VACCINATION CLINIC 448.81 11/09/2023
TRUE BLUE VETERINARY H 152341 02/21/2023 PD VETERINARY SERVICES 229.30 01/09/2023
Vendor TRUE BLUE VETERINARY HOSPITAL Total: 678.11
Vendor: VAN DE POL ENTERPRISES
VAN DE POL ENTERPRISES CL44221 02/21/2023 FUEL FD/PD/PW VEHICLE 104.16 01/16/2023 - 01/31/2023
VAN DE POL ENTERPRISES CL44221 02/21/2023 FUEL FD/PD/PW VEHICLE 1,082.81 01/16/2023 - 01/31/2023
VAN DE POL ENTERPRISES CL44221 02/21/2023 FUEL FD/PD/PW VEHICLE 265.15 01/16/2023 - 01/31/2023
VAN DE POL ENTERPRISES CL44221 02/21/2023 FUEL FD/PD/PW VEHICLE 56.82 01/16/2023 - 01/31/2023
VAN DE POL ENTERPRISES CL44221 02/21/2023 FUEL FD/PD/PW VEHICLE 277.46 01/16/2023 - 01/31/2023
2/14/2023 10:45:42 AM Page 12 of 16
Warrant Ust Post Dates: 02/08/2023 -02/21/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount VAN DE POL ENTERPRISES CL44221 02/21/2023 FUEL FD/PD/PW VEHICLE 278.40 01/16/2023 - 01/31/2023
Vendor VAN DE POL ENTERPRISES Total: 2,064,80
Vendor: WINDECKER, INC
WINDECKER, INC 278017 02/21/2023 ADDITIVE FUEL FOR 6.90
DIESEL EQUIPMENT
WINDECKER, INC 278017 02/21/2023 ADDITIVE FUEL FOR 5.52
DIESEL EQUIPMENT
WINDECKER, INC 278017 02/21/2023 ADDITIVE FUEL FOR 15.18
DIESEL EQUIPMENT
WINDECKER, INC 278017 02/21/2023 ADDITIVE FUEL FOR 18.40
DIESEL EQUIPMENT
WINDECKER, INC 278096 02/21/2023 DIESEL FUEL AND 249.52
UNLEADED FOR SMALL
WINDECKER, INC 278096 02/21/2023 DIESEL FUEL AND 199.62
UNLEADED FOR SMALL
WINDECKER, INC 278096 02/21/2023 DIESEL FUEL AND 548.95 UNLEADED FOR SMALL.
WINDECKER, INC 278096 02/21/2023 DIESEL FUEL AND 665.39
UNLEADED FOR SMALL
Vendor WINDECKER, INC Total: 1,709.48
Grand Total: 167,062.86
2/14/2023 10:45:42 AM Page 13 of 16
Warrant List Post Dates: 02/08/2023 - 02/21/2023
Report Summary
Fund Summary
Payment Amount
001 - GENERAL FUND 32,093.98
009 - COMMUNITY CENTER FUND 2,225.95
010 - GAS TAX 2105 FUND 2,150.00
016 - SWIM POOL FUND 1,870.33
017 - CITY WIDE LIGHTING & LAND 5,485.25
019 - RECREATION FUND 1,839.08
021 - REGIONAL STREET TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM 2,248.17
059 - STORM DRAIN 484.73
060 - WATER FUND 27,432.89
061 - SEWER FUND 19,229.02
52,979.48
063 - AIRPORT FUND 438.37
074 - ASSESS - BORRELL! 194.52
093 - INSURANCE TRUST FUND (RENTAL) 107.84
099 - PAYROLL TRUST FUND 15,420.38
101 - GENERAL GOVERNMENT IMPACT FEES 101.25
102 - POLICE IMPACT FEES 101.25
103 - FIRE IMPACT FEES 101.25
104 - PARKS IMPACT FEE 101.25
105 - STORM DRAIN IMPACT FEES 101.25
106 - WATER IMPACT FEES 101.25
107 - SEWER IMPACT FEES 101.25
108 - REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES 101.25
505 - CAL VIP GRANT 2,052.87
Grand Total: 167,062.86
Account Summary
Account Number Account Name Payment Amount
001-0110-520.010-00 DEPT OPERATING SUPP 37.26
001-0110-530.088-00 CITY - COUNTY DINNER 625.38
001-0110-530.090-00 MEMBERSHIPS/SUBSCRI 4,751.00
001-0110-530.091-00 MEETINGS & TRAINING 1,049.28
001-0120-530.011-00 TELEPHONE & INTERNET 6.63
001-0120-530.091-00 MEETINGS & TRAINING 499.64
001-0120-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 11.64
001-0140-500.000-00 SALARIES - FULL TIME E 591.88
001-0140-520.010-00 DEPT OPERATING SUPPL 6.16
001-0140-530.011-00 TELEPHONE & INTERNET 6.63
001-0140-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 19.40
001-0142-530.011-00 TELEPHONE & INTERNET 6.63
001-0142-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 11.64
001-0142-530.240-00 PROFESSIONAL DEVELO 9.43
001-0150-520.010-00 DEPT OPERATING SUPPL 99.11
001-0150-520.011-00 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 20.38
001-0150-520.040-00 FUEL 104.16
001-0150-530.011-00 TELEPHONE & INTERNET 6.63
001-0150-530.060-00 ELECTRIC 1,865.13
001-0150-530.062-00 GAS 1,086.71
001-0210-520.000-00 OFFICE SUPPLIES 26.57
001-0210-520.010-00 DEPT OPERATING SUPPL 30.81
001-0210-520.030-00 MOTOR VEHICLE EXPEN 254.27
001-0210-520.040-00 FUEL 1,082.81
001-0210-530.009-00 OTHER PROFESSIONALS 840.00
001-0210-530.011-00 TELEPHONE & INTERNET 1,365.50
001-0210-530.060-00 ELECTRIC 148.30
001-0210-530.091-00 MEETINGS & TRAINING 296.44
001-0210-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 165.44
2/14/2023 10:45:42 AM Page 14 of 16
Warrant List Post Dates: 02/08/2023 - 02/21/2023
Account Summary
Account Number Account Name Payment Amount
001-0220-520.010-00 DEPT OPERATING SUPPL 143.97
001-0220-520.030-00 MOTOR VEHICLE EXPEN 73.39
001-0220-530.060-00 ELECTRIC 701.50
001-0220-530.062-00 GAS 9.85
001-0230-520.010-00 DEPT OPERATING SUPPL 954.46
001-0410-500.005-00 COD - SALARIES FULL TI 355.12
001-0410-530.011-00 TELEPHONE 6.63
001-0410-530.030-00 ADVERTISING 34.00
001-0410-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 5,825.00
001-0460-530.011-00 TELEPHONE 6.63
001-0460-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 3.88
001-0610-520.010-00 DEPT OPERATING SUPPL 8,840.33
001-0610-520.011-00 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 12.82
001-0610-520.030-00 MOTOR VEHICLE EXPEN 86.52
001-0610-530.011-00 TELEPHONE 6.63
001-0610-530.060-00 ELECTRIC 8.39
009-0150-520.010-00 DEPT OPERATING SUPPL 9.24
009-0150-520.040-00 FUEL 265.15
009-0150-530.011-00 TELEPHONE 24.77
009-0150-530.060-00 ELECTRIC 24.42
009-0150-530.062-00 GAS 198.98
009-0150-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 1,703.39
010-0310-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 2,150.00
016-0613-520.010-00 DEPT OPERATING SUPPL 1,787.86
016-0613-530.011-00 TELEPHONE 24.77
016-0613-530.060-00 ELECTRIC 56.02
016-0613-530.240-00 PROFESSIONAL DEVELO 1.68
017-0140-500.000-00 SALARIES - FULL TIME E 473.50
017-0260-530.060-00 ELECTRIC 4,866.96
017-0610-520.010-00 DEPT OPERATING SUPPL 61.83
017-0610-520.011-00 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 26.14
017-0610-520.040-00 FUEL 56.82
019-0142-530.240-00 PROFESSIONAL DEVELO 4.04
019-0613-520.010-00 DEPT OPERATING SUPPL 1,113.18
019-0613-530.011-00 TELEPHONE 24.77
019-0613-530.060-00 ELECTRIC 23.82
019-0613-530.091-00 MEETINGS & TRAINING 190.00
019-0613-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 483.27
021-0142-530.240-00 PROFESSIONAL DEVELO 0.67
021-0310-520.010-00 DEPT OPERATING SUPPL 2,247.50
059-0730-520.010-00 DEPT OPERATING SUPPL 415.52
059-0730-520.030-00 MOTOR VEHICLE EXPEN 69.21
060-0140-500.000-00 SALARIES - FULL TIME E 4,143.12
060-0140-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 77.61
060-0142-530.240-00 PROFESSIONAL DEVELO 6.74
060-0710-520.010-00 DEPT OPERATING SUPPL 5,852.48
060-0710-520.011-00 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 107.46
060-0710-520.030-00 MOTOR VEHICLE EXPEN 190.34
060-0710-520.040-00 FUEL 90'LL
060-0710-530.009-00 OTHER PROFESSIONALS 1,446.00
060-0710-530.011-00 TELEPHONE 442.22
060-0710-530.060-00 ELECTRIC 8,121.84
060-0710-530.094-00 LICENSES & PERMIT FEE 1,914.25
060-0710-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 4,853.37
061-0140-500.000-00 SALARIES - FULL TIME E 6,037.12
061-0140-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 77.61
061-0142-530.240-00 PROFESSIONAL DEVELO 9.43
061-0520-520.010-00 DEPT OPERATING SUPPI 5,023.19
2/14/2023 10:45:42 AM Page 15 of 16
Warrant List Post Dates: 02/08/2023 - 02/21/2023
Account Summary
Account Number Account Name Payment Amount
061-0520-520.011-00 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 144.76
061-0520-520.030-00 MOTOR VEHICLE EXPEN 230.71
061-0520-520.040-00 278.40
061-0520-530.011-00 TELEPHONE 442.22
061-0520-530.060-00 3,804.44
061-0520-530.072-00 OTHER EQUIPMENT REP 2,701.14
061-0520-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 480.00
062-0140-500.000-00 SALARIES - FULL TIME E 118.38
062-0140-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 19.40
062-0510-520.000-00 OFFICE SUPPLIES 61.61
062-0510-520.011-00 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 40.78
062-0510-530.009-00 OTHER PROFESSIONALS 52,487.95
062-0510-530.011-00 TELEPHONE & INTERNET 251.36
063-0140-500.000-00 SALARIES - FULL TIME E 118.38
063-0142-530.240-00 PROFESSIONAL DEVELO 1.70
063-0340-530.011-00 TELEPHONE
063-0340-530.060-00 ELECTRIC 252.62
063-0340-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 59.48
074-0610-530.059-00 WATER UTILITY 35.32
074-0610-530.060-00 ELECTRIC 159.20
093-0000-220.070 INSURANCE TRUST 107.84
099-0000-220.050 PERS PAYABLE 13,028.04
099-0000-220.065 AFLAC PAYABLE 847.68
099-0000-220.071 POA DEDUCT PAYABLE 480.00
099-0000-220.081 UNION DUES PAYABLE 216.00
099-0000-220.092 CAL PERS 457 DEF COMP 598.66
099-0000-220.094 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 250.00
101-0140-530.009-00 OTHER PROFESSIONALS 101.25
102-0210-530.009-00 OTHER PROFESSIONALS 101.25
103-0220-530.009-00 OTHER PROFESSIONAL S 101.25
104-0610-530.009-00 OTHER PROFESSIONAL S 101.25
105-0730-530.009-00 OTHER PROFESSIONAL S 101.25
106-0710-530.009-00 OTHER PROFESSIONAL S 101.25
107-0520-530.009-00 OTHER PROFESSIONALS 101.25
108-0310-530.009-00 OTHER PROFESSIONALS 101.25
505-0210-520.040-00 TELEPHONE EXPENSE 24.87
505-0210-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 2,028.00
Grand Total: 167,062.86
Project Account Summary
Project Account Key Payment Amount
**None** 165,009.99
CAL VIP GRANT EXPENSE 2,052.87
Grand Total: 167,062.86
GanyHorpism
2114/2023
2/14/2023 10:45:42 AM Page 16 of 16
& CU ITEM NO. 4
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
FEBRUARY 21, 2023
PREPARED BY: Jenny Morrison, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Consider Resolution Naming and Confirming Signatories on the City's Bank Accounts
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The City's banking accounts require two signatures on accounts payable checks, and one on payroll checks. In the interest of efficient and effective government administration of the City's financial transactions, the Council has traditionally authorized the City Manager and Finance Director as well as the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem as authorized signers on the City's accounts. It is common practice to have more than one management staff as a signatory on municipal accounts.
With the recent nomination of Mayor Pro Tem Ford, and the addition of the City's new Finance Director, the City needs to provide the banking institution with updated signatory information. Tri-Counties requires this action be taken by resolution.
Staff recommends Council authorize the following individuals as signatories to the City's bank accounts at Tri-Counties Bank effective immediately: City Manager Anna Nicholas, Finance Director Jenny Morrison, Mayor Pat Nagy, and Mayor Pro Tem Rich
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
RECOMMENDATION
City Council approve the attached resolution, naming and confirming signatories on each of the City's bank accounts.
EXHIBIT(S)
A) Resolution
APPROVED BY:
Anna Nicholas, City Manager
RESOLUTION 2023-XXXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUSTINE NAMING AND
CONFIRMING SIGNATORIES ON THE CITY'S BANKING ACCOUNTS
WHEREAS, the Gustine City Council must designate those staff positions who are authorized signatories to City accounts; and
WHEREAS, the Gustine City Council must designate Council members who are authorized signatories to City accounts; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Gustine:
Section 1. The following four individuals are hereby authorized as signatories to the City's bank accounts at Tri-Counties Bank, and any investment accounts elsewhere, effective immediately: City Manager Anna Nicholas, Finance Director Jenny Morrison, Mayor Pat Nagy, and Mayor Pro Tem Rich Ford.
Section 2. Any other previous signatories to the City accounts will be removed as signatories.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Gustine was passed by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of February, 2023, and the resolution was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
Patrick Nagy, Mayor
City of Gustine
ATTEST:
Melanie Correa, Deputy City Clerk
City of Gustine
ITEM NO. 5
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
FEBRUARY 21, 2023
PREPARED By: Ruben Chavez, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Approve Request from Gustine High School for Street Closures and the Use of City Resources for "Every 15 Minutes Program"
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Staff has received a request from Gustine High School for assistance in hosting the popular Anti-DUl Program "Every 15 Minutes" '. This national model program, which last took place at GHS four years ago, is geared towards Juniors and Seniors and will take place on March 30-31, 2023. The two-day event is a theatrical DUl related collision and the aftermath of such tragedies where lives are lost. The goal of the program is to challenge students to make mature decisions when drinking and driving. This program takes place on City Streets using local resources to ensure a realistic life-like event. The second day takes place in the gym for all Juniors and Seniors to hear and feel what it is like to be involved in the poor decision making of drinking and driving.
The event, which is being coordinated by Megan Azevedo, involves extensive coordination with Gustine High School students and staff, the California Highway Patrol, the Gustine Police Department, Gustine Fire Department and Public Works, Westside Ambulance, Medi-flight, Doctors Hospital, and the Merced County Coroner's Office.
The program begins with a staged collision on North Ave where bleachers will be set up.
Once it begins, the students will be released from class and brought out to the scene where the drama begins. The morning of the event, a Grim Reaper will accompany a Gustine Officer to specific classrooms to read an obituary of a student in that classroom who is removed and becomes the "living dead". Twelve students are selected to be part of the living dead. These students will be the backdrop of the collision scene.
The Gustine High School is requesting the closure and use of North Ave from 5th Street to Sycamore Ave and all side streets within that section to one block south from 8 am to noon. The program also requires no parking signs along North Ave where the Program takes place. Staff will ensure Police and Public Works personnel are assigned as needed.
FISCAL IMPACT
This program is a multi-agency collaboration with Gustine Unified School District and the City of Gustine. However, to keep track of associated costs:
1. The estimated labor costs for barricade placement and retrieval would require two hours. The projected labor cost is approx. $100.00. 12$50.00)
2. Police staffing will be required to participate in the event. This involves two days of commitment by three officers, with a labor cost estimated at $720.00 (twelve hours x $60.00) has been projected. Any costs associated with Cal Fire or the Gustine Fire Department Volunteer Fire Department have not been included.
3. Total estimated costs to the City (Public Works and Police Staffing) is $820.00.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the request from Gustine High School Every 15 Minutes Coordinator Megan Azevedo for the street closure request and use of city resources for the Every 15 Minutes Program.
EXHIBIT(S)
A) Letter of request from Megan Azevedo
APPROVED BY:
Anna Nicholas, City Manager
i Every 15 Minutes
January 31, 2023
Honorable Mayor
C/o Members of the City Council
352 5th Street
Gustine, CA 95322
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
The Every 15 Minutes Program would like to close city streets for a mock accident.
The Every 15 Minutes program is a two-day program focusing on high school juniors and seniors. It challenges them to think about drinking, driving, personal safety, the responsibility of making mature decisions, and the impact their decisions have on family, friends, their community, and many others. The accident will occur on March 30"h at approximately 10:30 am. The location of the mock accident will be at the intersection of West Ave and North Ave, to the side of the football field. Because of the preparation time needed for the event, we would need to close streets from 8 am until noon. The streets that need to be closed will be North Avenue up until Sycamore Ave, North Avenue from 6*h h, and 5" street, and west avenue up to 1st street. We will also need No parking signs on the corner of West and North Avenue down to the front of the high school. The helicopter will land on the Gustine High School football field.
We will be receiving assistance from the California Highway Patrol, Gustine police, Gustine fire department, westside ambulance, Doctors medical center, and PHI medflight for this program. If you need any further information please contact me at 854-6414 or (209)495-1494. Thank you so much for your cooperation with this program.
Sincerely,
Megan Azevedo
Pauline Griset
Gustine High School
Every 15 Minutes
Program Coordinators
Map of mock crash scene
DAVISOM WeatlAvo
Yellow arrows - the path the students would walk and approach the bleachers from the backside
Blue squares - Bleachers
Orange rectangle - bus to block the view of vehicles
Green & Red squares - 2 vehicles in collision
Map of road blockage
High School Football field 5th St
fock brash
north Ave North Ave North Ave North Ave North Ave North Ave scene No Parking
No Parking
Vest Ave 6th SI 5th St
Sycamore Ave 6th St
West Ave Sth St
Tst Ave
Sycam
ist Ave
ist Ave
1st Ave
NE CITY CA ITEM NO. 6
LIFORNIA
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
FEBRUARY 21, 2023
PREPARED BY: Jami Westervelt, Airport Manager
SUBJECT: Approve Airport Capital Improvement Program (ACIP) Submission
BACKGROUND
At the end of 2021, a Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) passed providing new funding to airports to be administered by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA already manages capital improvements through its Airport Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP). The FAA programs Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant funds through the ACIP annually but the BIL came as additional federal funds for a limited time. Gustine Airport receives $110,000 for four years in BIL funding-also for capital projects.
BIL funding came down to FAA quickly and without full details. Information has trickled down slowly, including on project eligibility. Staff and City engineers met with local FAA representatives the first week of February, who have now confirmed that the BIL can fund fuel and hangar projects within specific guidelines.
Both the AIP and BIL funding sources can fund some capital improvement projects and the plans needed to inform and justify those improvements. However, the BIL provides a rare opportunity not normally found in the AIP-funding revenue-producing improvements-such as fuel pump and hangar replacement. The FAA has asked the City to submit lists for both these funding sources under its annual ACIP list submission.
Council input on the submission is needed in light of recent confirmations from FAA.
DISCUSSION
The City submitted a BIL project list last year that contained the fuel pump, along with runway lights and an Airport Master Plan. Staff received input from the Airport Commission and City Council that the fuel pump was the highest priority. During discussion, it was noted that, as a non-towered, general-aviation airport, the airport traditionally hosts very few night landings. Fuel was identified as the highest priority.
Both the Commission and the Council have repeatedly and over time identified hangars as a priority. Lack of funding has kept the airport from completing these projects. Prior to BIL, the City found no programs to fund replacing them.
In contrast, the FAA confirms AIP can fund both runway lights and the Airport Master Plan. While the projects are eligible for AIP, it is important to note both would compete with existing projects on the AlP list. Condition of the runways and taxiways will take precedence over either the lights or the Master Plan in regard to priorities of FAA.
The City is in the middle of a Pavement Maintenance Management Plan (PMMP) for the Airport, required by the FAA and funded in its AIP program. Engineers expect to conclude the analysis and provide the PMMP report toward the end of summer 2023.
Outside of the AIP or BIL, it is going to be difficult for the Airport to fund repairing or replacing runway lights. Electricians found burned wires, problems with the regulator, issues with the wiring and fixtures throughout the old system, and a need to upgrade the electrical panel. Given the costs and extensive scope to repair the old system, staff and contactors recommend replacing it with a new LED system that also brings down future energy costs. Whether replacing or repairing, the airport does not currently have revenue sources sufficient to fix the lights in the near future outside of the AlP or BIL.
Similarly, the City does not have funding for updating its 1996 Airport Master Plan outside of the AIP or BIL. Master Plan updates are extremely expensive and time consuming. The conditions of the airport and City have not changed as drastically as was anticipated in the 1996 report and both the City and FAA have felt an updated Airport Layout Plan (ALP), currently moving forward under AIP funding, is the more appropriate step at this time. In fact, once the ALP update is complete, the FAA would require a triggering factor to even consider funding a Master Plan update in a short period of time following an ALP Layout Plan update.
It is important to note that BIL funds cannot be used for repair or maintenance (Exhibit B). The City will need to fund a complete replacement of the current pump and accompanying card reader under BIL. FAA will also require the City to perform additional environmental work prior to replacement to prove none of the existing systems are leaking. This brings some additional costs and time to complete. For hangars to quality, the City has to completely replace them. While the City has several hangars that could benefit greatly from roof and door repair alone, small repairs to existing hangars would not be eligible for BIL funding. According to FAA staff, BIL can replace demolished hangars but cannot fund either demolishing or removing them.
Staff compiled the attached draft ACIP submission (Exhibit A) considering all the factors above. The following are the main changes from the list submitted previously:
• The runway lights are moved from BIL to the AlP funding list. • The fuel pump and card reader remain priority one on the BIL list but increase in cost in anticipation of environmental work required by the FAA. • The Airport Master Plan comes off the BIL list.
• The BIL funds not used for fuel are programmed for hangar replacement.
The Extension of Parallel Taxiway moves down the AlP, falling off that list for now. • The City can add Parallel Taxiway and the Airport Master Plan to the AlP funding list in the future if desired but that happens outside of the current ACIP timeline.
The ACIP is a living document, which the City updates annually based upon most current needs and available information. Changes will take place due to evolving conditions, requirements and costs.
The information in the upcoming PMMP will play an important role and information contained has the potential to shift priorities. It should arrive well in advance of the next ACIP submission and allow for an even more well-informed decision on priorities into the future at that time.
At its February 13 meeting, the Airport Commission confirmed the attached list as matching its priorities and recommended that the Council approve the submission.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Council approve the attached City of Gustine Airport Capital Improvement Plan and submit to FAA.
EXHIBIT(S)
A) 2023 City of Gustine Airport Capital Improvement Plan Submission B) FAA Bipartisan Infrastructure Law FAQ (page 15/16)
APPROVED BY:
Anna Nicholas, City Manager
City of Gustine Airport Capital Improvement Plan Submission Airport: Gustine Municipal Airport
Sponsor: City of Gustine
Date: February 28, 2023
Airport Improvement Plan (AIP) funded Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) funded Federal Requested
Fiscal Total Project Federal Proposed Estimated Total
Year Project Description Funding Cost Project Description Funding Local Funding Project Cost Complete
2023 Carryover Year N/A N/A N/A Replacement - $135,000 $15,000 $150,000 Entire Fuel Pump &
Card Reader
Runway Rehabilitation-
2024 Design $90,000 $10,000 $100,000 Carryover Year $0 $0 2025 Carryover Year $0 $0 $0 Carryover Year $0 $0 $0
Runway Rehabilitation-
2026 Construction $585,000 $65,000 $650,000 Carryover Year $0 $0 $0 2027 Carryover Year $0 $0 $0 Hangar Replacements $305,000 $33,889 $338,889 2028 Replace Runway Lights $225,000 $25,000 $250,000
Signature Anna Nicholas, City Manager
Exhibit B- FAA Bipartisan Infrastructure Law FAQ (page 15/16) Q-U47: Can BIL AIG Allocated funds be used on sponsor-owned revenue producing aeronautical support facilities such as fuel farms and hangars? Yes. Revenue producing aeronautical support facilities are defined under 49 U.S.C. 47102(24) as fuel farms, hangar buildings, self-service credit card aeronautical fueling systems, airplane wash racks, major rehabilitation of a hangar owned by a sponsor, or other aeronautical support facilities that the Secretary determines will increase the revenue producing ability of the airport.
AIG Allocated funds have expanded eligibility beyond AIP. BIL eligibility allows these types of projects to be funded at any airport, regardless of size. The AIP 15 example, the expansion of a fuel farm to include a new fuel tank, increasing capacity, would be eligible as a new installation. A project to replace old fuel tank supply lines would be considered general maintenance and ineligible TINE CITY ITEM NO. 7
GUS:
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
FEBRUARY 21, 2023
PREPARED BY: Anna Nicholas, City Manager
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution 2023-XXXX, designating the City of Gustine Police Chief as the Public Convenience or Necessity Officer
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) is the state agency tasked with issuing and regulating licenses for alcoholic beverage sales. The City Council received a letter from ABC requesting the local governing body to designate authority for license approvals that are subject to the Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) process. ABC has already had this system in place, but is now formalizing the designation selection by requesting to have a form filled out that will be kept on file in the ABC office.
This review process is for certain types of licenses, including off-sale public premises.
Pursuant to Section 23958 of the California Business and Professions Code (BPC), the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) will deny a license application if the issuance of the license would result in or add to an undue concentration of licenses.
When a business requests a license for alcohol sales, ABC will issue the license if the census track has not exceeded its designated number of licenses. If the census track is saturated, and an application is received by ABC, the application will go through the PCN process to deny or authorize the license request.
The ABC letter presents three options for the City Council to choose from in determining who will be responsible for the PCN process:
1. The City Council will make the determination of Public Convenience or Necessity
2. The City Council may designate a subordinate officer or body to make the determination
3. The City Council could decline the above two options and designate the ABC as the entity to make the decisions on all PCN applications.
It is recommended the City Council choose option 2 and designate the Police Chief as the officer to review applications for PCN and make final determinations. Should the City Council choose this option, the Police Chief will develop a process review procedure to determine if a PCN exists and all future applications will be subject to the process review. Option 2 will allow for local control over the approval or denial of the license application. In addition, by delegating a subordinate officer, the City Council does not have to make the determinations through the established City Council meeting process.
Currently, ABC has the City of Gustine Police Chief listed as the designee to review applications for PCN. This resolution formalizes the authority of the designation and provides an improved tracking system for ABC.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATION
City Council confirm designation of the City of Gustine Police Chief as the officer to make the determinations of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) for person/premises applying for an ABC license.
EXHIBIT(S)
A) Resolution 2023-XXXX
B) ABC letter
APPROVED BY:
Anna Nicholas, City Manager
RESOLUTION 2023-XXXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUSITE DESIGNATING THE
GUSTINE POLICE CHIEF AS PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY (PCN) OFFICER
FOR THE CITY OF GUSTINE
WHEREAS, the State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) is the body that regulates alcohol business sales statewide; and WHEREAS, ABC has set a specific number of alcohol sales licenses that should be allowed in each census track throughout California; and WHEREAS, ABC will issue an alcohol sales license if the census track has not exceeded its designated number of licenses; and
WHEREAS, if the census track is at or exceeds the designated number of licenses, ABC may still issue an alcohol sales license if there is a Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN); and
WHEREAS, ABC allows the city to designate an officer of the City of Gustine to make the determination of PCN.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Gustine:
Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Gustine hereby designates the Gustine Police Chief as the Public Convenience and Necessity officer for the City of Gustine.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Gustine was passed by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of February, 2023, and the resolution was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
Patrick Nagy, Mayor
City of Gustine
ATTEST:
Melanie Correa, Deputy City Clerk
City of Gustine
STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS. CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY Gavin Newsom. Governor
DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL
3927 Lennane Drive, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95834
(916) 419-2500
January 4, 2023
Gustine City Council
PO Box 16
Gustine, CA 95322
RE: Public Convenience or Necessity
23958.4 CA Business & Professions Code
Designation of Subordinate Officer or Body
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to Section 23958 of the California Business and Professions Code (BPC), the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) shall deny an application for a license if issuance would result in or add to an undue concentration of licenses. Section 23958.4 BPC defines what constitutes an "undue concentration" of ABC licenses.
Section 23958.4 further states, with respect to certain license types, e.g., off-sale (types 20,21), public premises (types 42,48), and certain club-type licenses (types 50,51,57), the Department may issue said licenses if the local governing body, or its designated subordinate officer or body. determines that issuance of the license would serve a public convenience or necessity (PCN).
In accordance with the above, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) is requesting that the local governing body for each jurisdiction complete the applicable section below. With this information the Department will be able to assist our customers with the Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) process, including but not limited to, which entity to contact for a PCN determination. Please complete one of the below sections and return to the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) so our records may be updated with current information.
• The City Council or Board of Supervisors of the City/County of will make determinations of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) for persons/premises applying for an ABC license.
• The City Council or Board of Supervisors of the City/County of has designated the following subordinate officer or body to make determinations of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) for persons/premises applying for an ABC license.
_ The City/County of has declined to make determinations of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) for persons/premises applying for an ABC license.
Under this circumstance, determinations for Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) will revert to the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC).
Pursuant to Section 23958.4 BPC, if the local governing body, or its designated subordinate officer or body, does not make a determination of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) within a period of 90 days, then the authority to make the determination will revert to the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC).
Please contact us if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Susan Medrano
Licensing Manager
Enclosure: 23958 & 23958.4 B.P.
Business & Profession Code § 23958
Upon receipt of an application for a license or for a transfer of a license and the applicable fee, the department shall make a thorough investigation to determine whether the applicant and the premises for which a license is applied qualify for a license and whether the provisions of this division have been complied with, and shall investigate all matters connected therewith which may affect the public welfare and morals. The department shall deny an application for a license or for a transfer of a license if either the applicant or the premises for which a license is applied do not qualify for a license under this division.
The department further shall deny an application for a license if issuance of that license would tend to create a law enforcement problem, or if issuance would result in or add to an undue concentration of licenses, except as provided in Section 23958.4.
Business & Profession Code § 23958.4
(a) For purposes of Section 23958, "undue concentration" means the case in which the applicant premises for an original or premises-to-premises transfer of any retail license are located in an area where any of the following conditions exist:
(1) The applicant premises are located in a crime reporting district that has a 20 percent greater number of reported crimes, as defined in subdivision (c), than the average number of reported crimes as determined from all crime reporting districts within the jurisdiction of the local law enforcement agency. (2) As to on-sale retail license applications, the ratio of on-sale retail licenses to population in the census tract or census division in which the applicant premises are located exceeds the ratio of on-sale retail licenses to population in the county in which the applicant premises are located. (3) As to off-sale retail license applications, the ratio of off-sale retail licenses to population in the census tract or census division in which the applicant premises are located exceeds the ratio of off-sale retail licenses to population in the county in which the applicant premises are located. (b) Notwithstanding Section 23958, the department may issue a license as follows:
(1) With respect to a nonretail license, a retail on-sale bona fide eating place license, a retail license issued for a hotel, motel, or other lodging establishment, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 25503.16, a retail license issued in conjunction with a beer manufacturer's license, or a winegrower's license, if the applicant shows that public convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance. (2) With respect to any other license, if the local governing body of the area in which the applicant premises are located, or its designated subordinate officer or body, determines within 90 days of notification of a completed application that public convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance. The 90-day period shall commence upon receipt by the local governing body of (A) notification by the department of an application for licensure, or (B) a completed application according to local requirements, if any, whichever is later.
If the local governing body, or its designated subordinate officer or body, does not make a determination within the 90-day period, then the department may issue a license if the applicant shows the department that public convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance. In making its determination, the department shall not attribute any weight to the failure of the local governing body, or its designated subordinate officer or body, to make a determination regarding public convenience or necessity within the 90-day period.
(c) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) "Reporting districts" means geographical areas within the boundaries of a single governmental entity (city or the unincorporated area of a county) that are identified by the local law enforcement agency in the compilation and maintenance of statistical information on reported crimes and arrests. (2) "Reported crimes" means the most recent yearly compilation by the local law enforcement agency of reported offenses of criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, lareeny, theft, and motor vehicle theft, combined with all arrests for other crimes, both felonies and misdemeanors, except traffic citations.
(3) "Population within the census tract or census division" means the population as determined by the most recent United States decennial or special census. The population determination shall not operate to prevent an applicant from establishing that an increase of resident population has occurred within the census tract or census division.
(4) "Population in the county" shall be determined by the annual population estimate for California counties published by the Population Research Unit of the Department of Finance. (5) "Retail licenses" shall include the following:
(A) Off-sale retail licenses: Type 20 (off-sale beer and wine) and Type 21 (off-sale general). (B) On-sale retail licenses: All retail on-sale licenses, except Type 43 (on-sale beer and wine for train), Type 44 (on-sale beer and wine for fishing party boat), Type 45 (on-sale beer and wine for boat), Type 46 (on-sale beer and wine for airplane), Type 53 (on-sale general for train and sleeping car), Type 54 (on- sale general for boat), Type 55 (on-sale general for airplane), Type 56 (on-sale general for vessels of more than 1,000 tons burden), and Type 62 (on-sale general bona fide public eating place intermittent dockside license for vessels of more than 15,000 tons displacement). (6) A "premises-to-premises transfer" refers to each license being separate and distinct, and transferable upon approval of the department.
(d) For purposes of this section, the number of retail licenses in the county shall be established by the department on an annual basis.
(e) The enactment of this section shall not affect any existing rights of any holder of a retail license issued before April 29, 1992, whose premises were destroyed or rendered unusable as a result of the civil disturbances occurring in Los Angeles from April 29 to May 2, 1992, to reopen and operate those licensed premises.
(f) This section shall not apply if the premises have been licensed and operated with the same type license within 90 days of the application.
SAY AT ALTONE ITEM NO. 8
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
FEBRUARY 21, 2023
PREPARED BY: Ruben Chavez, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: City Council Approve Memorandum of Understanding with La Familia for Mental Health Services
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
City Council recently accepted the award of a Department of Justice Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) Grant in the amount of $335,141.54. The grant allows the contracting with a known and proven Mental Health Provider, La Familia of Central Valley, which the City of Gustine currently contracts with for the MAPS Program. The MAPS Program is due to end June 30, 2023. The new CIT grant has allocated specific funding in the following amounts: Year One-$134,768 and Year Two-$149,552. The grant period is FY 2022-24.
These costs cover the actual costs related to the contracting of one mental health clinician also referred to as a staff specialist, or staff therapist.
While La Familia currently contracts for mental health services for the MAPS Program, they are technically contracted through the Gustine Unified School District who in turn invoice the City of their services. This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) would be directly with La Familia. The grant has allocated funding for one full-time mental health professional to work directly with the Gustine Police Department as well as other local agencies who may benefit from their response during normal business hours as well as being on call for after-hours up to a specific number of hours, as outlined in the grant document.
Moreover, as mentioned in the previously approved grant, the grant covers all the expenses for GPD officers to contact La Familia mental health specialists after hours by use of broadband enabled iPad to assess those in crisis.
FISCAL IMPACT
The two-year grant covers all expenses for mental health services for La Familia at the total cost of $284,320. The grant also covers the wages/benefits for City staff to manage the financial side of the work needed. The grant encompasses administrative costs of $10,387.01 for both years, for a total of $20,774.02. The balance of the awarded funding in the amount of $30,047.52 pays for the purchase of ten iPads, cellular coverage, and training for department members. There are no additional fiscal impacts to the City.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council to approve the resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with La Familia for COPS Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) grant.
EXHIBIT(S)
A) Resolution
B) La Familia MOU
APPROVED BY: _
Anna Nicholas, City Manager
RESOLUTION 2023-XXXX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUSTINE
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
WITH LA FAMILIA FOR THE COPS CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM GRANT FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $284,320
WHEREAS, the City of Gustine was awarded a grant from the Department of Justice to assist those suffering in crisis in the total amount of $335, 141.54; and WHEREAS, the grant requires the City to contract for mental health services with La Familia in the amount of $284,320.00; and
WHEREAS, La Familia, formally known as First Behavioral Health, is currently the contracted mental health provider for the MAPS Program for the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Gustine's governing body must provide authority to the authorized representative to execute memorandum of understanding between the City and La Familia; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Gustine that it does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said document.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Gustine was passed by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of February, 2023, and the resolution was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
Patrick Nagy, Mayor
City of Gustine
ATTEST:
Melanie Correa, Deputy City Clerk
City of Gustine
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
For The
COPS Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) Grant
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is effective upon the signature of the last party to sign this agreement, and is made between La Familia, a non-profit community based organization, located at 875 Geer Road, Turlock, CA 95380 (the "Contractor"), and the Gustine Police Department, located at 682 3rd Avenue, Gustine, CA 95322 (the "Department").
The Parties agree as follows:
1. Grant Agreement Engagement and Status. The Department hereby agree to use and retain the services of Contractor, and Contractor agrees to perform, the projects and assignments described in Article 2 of this agreement, as well as such other projects and assignments as may be accepted by Department and Contractor during the term of this agreement, related to the Office of Community Oriented Policing Development Solicitation Grant for establishment and implementation of a Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) program (hereafter, the "Program") at the Department. The Parties agree to performance of this Agreement and the Program, subject to all of the following terms and conditions:
1.1. Independent Organizations/Grantee Status. This MOU is made by and between grant partners and is not intended to and shall not be construed to create a relationship of agent, servant, employer, employee, partnership, joint venture, association, or other legal relationship which would impose vicarious liability upon one Party for the act or omission of the other Party. Except as is expressly set forth in this Agreement, each Party will bear full and sole responsibility for its own expenses, liabilities, costs of operation and the like. No single Party has the power to bind another Party or to assume or to create any obligation or responsibility, expressed or implied, on behalf of, or in the name of, another Party.
1.2. Exclusion of Benefits. The Contractor, its officers, employees, and agents, shall perform its duties under this MOU in an independent capacity and not as officers, employees, or agents of the Department, and as such Contractor is not entitled to benefits of any kind or nature normally provided to employees of the Department, including but not limited to, State Unemployment Compensation Insurance, Worker's Compensation, or other insurance or employee benefit plans. The Contractor shall assume full responsibility and liability for payment of all applicable federal, state, and local taxes or contributions, including unemployment insurance, social security, and income taxes with respect to Contractor's employees
1.3. Confidentiality. Contractor shall comply with all laws, regulations, and professional standards pertaining to the confidentiality of Department and client records.
1.4. Standards. Contractor certifies that it is competent and qualified to perform the services 1 described in this MOU for the Program. The Contractor shall provide the services in Article 2 of this agreement in a competent and professional manner consistent with industry standards. All services shall be completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the Department.
2. Services to be Performed. The Contractor shall provide the services described in this section below to the Department.
2.1. Administrative services. The Contractor shall perform the following administrative functions:
2.1.1. Staffing and Related Matters. The Contractor shall provide the Department with a person qualified to act in the position of Staff Therapist. Staff Therapist shall at all times remain an employee of Contractor. In no event shall Staff Therapist be considered or constitute an employee of Department. In the event a Staff Therapist is absent from the Program the Contractor shall make a good faith effort to ensure a replacement is provided in a timely manner, regardless of whether an absence may be temporary (e.g. due to extended illness or other medical leave) or permanent (e.g., due to dismissal, transfer, or resignation).
The Contractor shall be responsible for communicating with Staff Therapist regarding placement, hours, and procedures, with the exceptions of joint training and coordination efforts with the Department.
2.1.2. Cancellation of Staff Therapist's participation in the Program: The Department hereby reserves the right to cancel a Staff Therapist's participation in the Program after a 10 day cure period with no resolution. Cancellation of Staff Therapist's participation in no way hinders, affects, prevents, or mandates termination of the at-will or other independent relationship between a Staff Therapist and the Contractor. Contractor hereby agrees that Contractor remains solely liable for any actions, causes, claims, or damages that arise between Contractor and Staff Therapist as a result of or in relation to cancellation of Staff Therapist in the Program.
2.1.3. Professional development and technical assistance. The Contractor shall provide training, coaching, clinical supervision, and other technical assistance to Staff Therapist in the areas of clinical practice, service coordination, and seamless integration into the Department. The Contractor shall continuously monitor the progress and development of Staff Therapist.
22. Scope of Work. The Contractor, through its Staff Therapist, shall work collaboratively with the Department and its employees to support the CIT Program at the Department as listed in Section 2.3 of this agreement. Services include but are not limited to:
2.2.1. Crisis Counseling & Assessment
2.2.2. Case Management.
2.2.3. Assistance as needed to Gustine Police Department for Program-related goals. 2 2.3. Place of performance. The primary place of performance for services listed in 2.2 above is anticipated to be in the Department office. The Department shall provide in-kind office space for a Staff Therapist at the office. It is understood that some services will take place in the community, including on calls with police department officers. Contractor shall provide Clinical Supervision to Staff Therapist on a weekly basis.
2.4. Supplies and Equipment
2.4.1. Relating to the services described in Section 2.1, the Contractor agrees to provide equipment and supplies required for completion of the Contractor's services described in Section 2.1 of this contract.
2.4.2. Relating to the services described in Section 2.2, the Department shall provide Contractor access to equipment and supplies (copy machine, fax, landline telephone, etc.) at the Department office required for completion of Contractor's services described in Section 2.2.
3. Compensation. Contractor Staff Therapist providing services to the Department are employees of the Contractor and will be compensated by the Contractor.
3.1. Grant funding. The position of Staff Therapist is funded by the COPS CIT Grant in the amount of $134,768 (Year 1) and $149,552 (Year 2). The Contractor understands and acknowledges that the Department, as the COPS CIT Grant recipient, shall administer the grant funds to Contractor for purposes of funding the Contractor Staff Therapist.
Contractor will invoice Department monthly for services. Compensation will be paid directly to the Contractor by the Department upon receipt of Invoice. Contractor is solely responsible for timely compensating Department, notwithstanding grant funding deadlines contained in the COPS CIT Grant or this MOU.
4. Terms of Agreement, Termination, and Renewal. This MOU shall be effective upon the signature of the last party to sign this agreement (the "Effective Date") and shall continue until September 30, 2024 (the "Termination Date"), unless terminated sooner pursuant to the conditions set forth below.
4.1. Termination for cause. Any Party may terminate this agreement immediately for cause, including for any material breach or default of this agreement after a 10 day cure period with no resolution.
4.2. Termination without cause. Any Party may terminate this agreement at any time for any reason upon the notice described as follows:
4.2.1. Notice by Department. The Department shall provide thirty (30) days notice to the Contractor. Such notice should conform to the standards described in Section 4.4.
4.2.2. Notice by Contractor. Contractor shall provide thirty (30) days notice to the Department. Such notice should conform to the standards described in Section
4.4. 3
4.3. No renewal of term. This agreement expires on the Termination Date and will not automatically renew for subsequent term(s). In the event the Department, in its sole and absolute discretion, desires to renew this agreement, such renewal shall be communicated to the Contractor and requires the mutual agreement of both Parties
4.4. Form of notice. All notice pursuant to this Article 4 shall be in writing and signed by a duly authorized officer or agent of the notifying party.
The Contractor shall defend, indemnify, and hold the Department, its directors, officers, employees, representatives and agents, harmless from and against any and all liability, loss, expense (including reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation expenses), or claims for injury or damages arising out of the performance of this Agreement, but only in proportion to and to the extent such liability, loss, expense, or claims for injury or damages are caused by, or result from, the negligent or intentional acts or omissions of the Contractor, and its directors, officers, employees, representatives or agents.
6. The Department shall defend, indemnify, and hold the Contractor, and its directors, officers, employees, representatives and agents, harmless from and against any and all liability, loss, expense (including reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation expenses), or claims for injury or damages arising out of the performance of this Agreement, but only in proportion to and to the extent such liability, loss, expense, or claims for injury or damages are caused by, or result from, the negligent or intentional acts or omissions of the Department, its employees, representatives or agents.
7. Contract Information.
Contractor:
Juan Perez, Clinical Director
La Familia Central Valley
875 Geer Road
Turlock, CA 95380
Department:
Ruben Chavez, Chief of Police
City of Gustine Police
Department 682 3rd Ave.
Gustine, CA 95322
8. Distribution.
- "Copy No. 1" to the Department; and
-"Copy No. 2" to the Contractor.
9. Effectiveness and date. This agreement will become effective when all parties have signed it. The date of this agreement will be the date this agreement is signed by the last party to sign it (as indicated by the associated date with that party's signature). Each party is signing this agreement on the date stated opposite that party's signature. 4 Date: By:
Aaron Ortiz, CEO
La Familia
Date By:
Anna Nicholas, City Manager
City of Gustine
THE CITY CALIFOR ITEM NO. 9
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
FEBRUARY 21, 2023
PREPARED BY: Melanie Correa, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Consider Resolution Accepting Completion for the ENGIE Solar Project, and Authorizing the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with Merced County
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
On November 5, 2019, City Council approved a resolution authorizing the approval of an agreement with Engie Services US, Inc. for interior and exterior lighting upgrades to City facilities, HVAC upgrades to the police department, and a VFD upgrade at Well #6. Also included in the project scope was four solar array canopies located at: City Hall parking lot, Henry Miller Park, Schmidt Park, and the Public Works Corporation Yard.
Many of the projects were completed in 2020, and all but one was complete by the end of 2021. Delays from the City in providing the park deed, as well as from PG&E in switching the solar array at Henry Miller Park caused the project to be delayed in completion. The final switch over occurred in October, 2022, and after final verification that the City's rates were correctly classified, the entire project should be considered complete effective November 16, 2022.
A final inspection has been performed and the work was found to be in compliance with the plans and specifications, along with additional verification that the City's rates with PG&E are classified correctly. As such, the work should be accepted as complete and a Notice of Completion filed with Merced County.
This item was originally presented for Council consideration at their January 17th regular meeting. The item was tabled from consideration to allow for staff's review of the project timeline in the Energy Services Contract between the City and Engie Services. In the contract, there is a clause allowing for liquidated damages, however this clause is not applicable in this scenario, which was caused by "excusable events" as outlined in the contract. Excusable events are defined in part as any delay caused by the City, or any other agency (such as PG&E).
FISCAL IMPACT
The project was originally slated to be funded by securing a 1% loan from the California Energy Commission in the amount of $2,249,604. Additional funding in the amount of $1,003,449 was approved as an inter-fund loan from the sewer fund though the LAIF program. The intent was to repay the sewer loan through the realized savings from the switch in rate tiers with PG&E.
After all expenses related to the project have been compiled, the total project expense comes to $2,650,033.76, lowering the amount necessary of the inter-fund loan to $400,429.76.
In comparing the City's PG&E bills within the project timeline, the City has seen a signiticant savings in energy costs since the inception of the project. While a full year with the adjusted rates has not yet occurred to get a full savings snapshot, the City has seen a 29% savings in energy costs between FY 20/21 to FY 21/22.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that Council accept the work as complete, and authorize the Deputy City Clerk to record a Notice of Completion with Merced County.
EXHIBIT(S)
A) Resolution No. 2023-XXXX
B) Notice of Completion
APPROVED BY:_
Anna Nicholas, City Manager
RESOLUTION 2023-XXXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUSTINE ACCEPTING THE ENGIE
SOLAR PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO RECORD A NOTICE OF
COMPLETION WITH MERCED COUNTY
WHEREAS, the City of Gustine authorized entering into an agreement with Engie Solar U.S., Inc. for interior and exterior lighting upgrades to City facilities, HVAC upgrades to the police department, and a VFD upgrade at Well #6, along with four solar array canopies located at: City Hall parking lot, Henry Miller Park, Schmidt Park, and the Public Works Corporation Yard; and
WHEREAS, much of the work in the project scope was completed by the end of 2021, however delays in switching the array over to PG&E at the Henry Miller Park location delayed the final completion to November 16, 2022; and WHEREAS, upon approval of the final acceptance of the Project by the City Council, the City Clerk will record a Notice of Completion with Merced County.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Gustine:
Section 1. Adopt a Resolution to accept the Engine Solar project as complete.
Section 2. Authorize the City Clerk to record a Notice of Completion with Merced County.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Gustine was passed by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 21s day of February, 2023, and the resolution was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
ATTEST: Patrick Nagy, Mayor
City of Gustine
Melanie Correa, Deputy City Clerk
City of Gustine
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
City Clerk
City of Gustine
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of Gustine
P.O. Box #16
352 Fifth Street
Gustine, CA 95322
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
1. That the interest of estate stated in paragraph 3 below in the real property hereinafter described is owned by the following:
NAME STREET AND NO. CITY STATE
City of Gustine 352 Fifth Street Gustine California
(if more than one owner of the interest stated, the name and address of each must be inserted)
2. That the full name and address of the owner of said interest or estate, if there is only one owner, and the full names and addresses of all the co-owners who own said interest or estate as joint tenants, as tenants in common or otherwise, if there is more than one owner, are set forth in the preceding paragraph.
3. That the nature of the title of said owner, or if more than one, then of said owner and co-owner is: In Fee.
4. That on the 16'h day of November, 2022 a work of improvement on the real property hereinafter described was completed.
5. That the name of the original contractor, if any for such work of improvement was:
Engie Services U.S., Inc.
(If no contractor for work of improvement as a whole, insert "No Contractor") That the real property herein referred to is situated in the City of Gustine, County of Merced, State of California, and is described as follows:
Solar arrays located at City Hall parking lot, Henry Miller Park, Schmidt Park, and Public Works Corporation Yard, HVAC upgrades to the Gustine Police Department, and lighting upgrades to City Hall.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
February 21, 2023 By:
Date Signature of Owner
Anna Nicholas
Print Name
VERIFICATION
I understand, state:
I am the person who signed the foregoing notice. I have read the above notice and know its contents, and the facts stated thereir re true of my own knowledge
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at Gustine, California City of Gustine
This 21st day of February, 2023 Owner
By:
Anna Nicholas, City Manager
& CITY CA ITEM NO. 10
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
FEBRUARY 21, 2023
PREPARED BY: Anna Nicholas, City Manager
Brad Kilger, Project Management Consultant
SUBJECT: Katakis Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map request for amended Conditions of Approval
BACKGROUND
On May 17, 2022, the City Council approved the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM) for Mr. Ron Katakis. The subdivision consists of 157 single-family residential lots in the Southeast Gustine Master Plan (SGMP). The applicant proposes certain modifications to the conditions of approval applicable to his approved VTSM relating to development of his property. The VISM is a part of the southern portion of the SGMP, south of Sullivan Road.
The adopted SGMP was prepared in accordance with, and is consistent with, the General Plan and provides the underpinning for development of the area with urban uses, primarily residential. It establishes policy relating to, and the general layout of, the SGMP area. The Master Plan is available on the City's website.
A portion of the Master Plan area, including the area encompassed by the VTSM, was annexed to the City in follow up to the Master Plan adoption. The area the VTSM is located in was pre-zoned to PD (Planned Development) consistent with the City's General Plan. This zone requires that all development be pursuant to a Precise Development Plan, a follow up step that will occur before any building occurs.
The applicant sought approval of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map over his property and this map was considered by the Planning Commission and City Council, The City Council approved the VTSM, including a set of Conditions of Approval on May 17, 2022 (attached).
Mr. Katakis identified a number of revisions to the conditions of the map and related matters that he is desirous of changing. He states that the requested amendments are necessary due to an increase in mortgage interest rates and softening of the residential real estate market. If the Planning Commission and City Council agree, approval of such amendments would require a finding that there has been a change of circumstances related to the original approval.
The Gustine Zoning and Subdivision Code (Sec. 4-61-100) provides that a subdivider may request changes to an approved tentative map or its conditions of approval before recordation of a final map only if one of the following findings is made:
1. There was a material mistake of fact in the deliberations leading to the origina approval;
2. There has been a change of circumstances related to the original approval; or
3. A serious and unforeseen hardship has occurred, not due to any action of the applicant subsequent to the enactment of this Zoning and Subdivision Code.
The proposed amendment of the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map was heard by the Planning Commission on November 30, 2022. Not all the items requested by Mr. Katakis tell under the purview of the Commission as discussed below. After considering Mr.
Katakis' requests and taking public testimony, the Commission recommended approval of amendment to the conditions of approval as outlined in this staff report.
DISCUSSION
A. Amendment Requests Considered by the Planning Commission The Planning Commission staff report is attached, which includes the applicant's application and supporting documents. Following is a summary of his requests and recommendations made by the Planning Commission to each, which are also reflected in the attached Planning Commission resolution. 1) Request: Change Requirement for Payment of Public Facility Impact Fees from Issuance of Building Permit to Close of Escrow
As explained in the Planning Commission staff report, the applicant, Mr. Katakis, requested that Condition #21 be amended to change the requirement for payment of Public Facility Impact Fees from issuance of building permit to close of escrow. Mr. Katakis stated that this is necessary to make his development feasible in a continually deteriorating real estate market. Staff raised several concerns with this request including the potential impact on the ability of the City to fund construction of essential infrastructure improvements and the difficulty in administering a fee collection program that would require execution and recordation of a lien on the property at the time of, or prior to, final inspection/certificate of occupancy, and collection of fees/release of lien through the escrow at time of sale. Such a complex process for a City with limited staffing resources increases the opportunity for errors.
After publication of the Planning Commission staff report it was brought to staff's attention by the applicant that Section 66007 of the Government Code, which governs the payment of impact fees, states that fees cannot be collected until final occupancy unless the City qualifies for the exceptions set forth in Section 66007(b)(1). The exceptions require that the City must have appropriated funds from an impact fee account for a public improvement and the City has adopted a proposed construction schedule for the improvement. Staff checked with the City Engineer who confirmed that the City does not currently have any public improvements which would qualify for these exceptions.
As the result of this new information, staff proposed the following amended Condition #21, which the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council for approval.
2 Planning Commission recommendation for amended Condition #21:
Prior to final inspection or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any unit, subdivider shall pay all development impact fees as specified and pursuant to the City's municipal code, ordinances, and resolutions.
Following the Planning Commission meeting, staff further examined this issue and determined that depending on when development of the project proceeds, circumstances may have changed, and the City might qualify for the exceptions set forth in State law. Therefore, staff suggests the City Council consider the revised Condition #21 below. This condition was incorporated into the conditions of approval for the two Rasmussen Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps.
Staff suggested alternative Condition #21:
Prior to, but no later than final inspection or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or at an earlier time as authorized by California Government code Section 66007(b)(1), subdivider shall pay all development impact fees as specified and pursuant to the City's municipal code, ordinances, and resolutions. The fee assessment shall include all applicable fees for Municipal Facilities, Police, Fire Protection, Transportation, Water, Domestic Wastewater, Storm Drainage, and Parks. Fees shall be paid at the time of the issuance of each permit.
Request: City to Provide Public Facility Impact Fee Credits for Infrastructure Improvements from Across Fee Categories
In addition to deferring when impact fees must be paid, Mr. Katakis also requested that the subdivision be credited any Public Facility Impact Fee (PFF) component balances (General Government, Police, Fire, Park Facilities, Storm Drainage, Water, Sewer, and Transportation) to offset any expenditures for infrastructure improvements that may exist within a particular fee component account and that all impact fee components be included in these inter-fund fee credit calculations.
The mechanism he proposed to implement this request is a Reimbursement Addendum.
Mr. Katakis in his application packet originally requested that a new condition be added approving the use of a Reimbursement Agreement. However, in a follow- up e-mail, Mr. Katakis acknowledged that the actual infrastructure costs that will be used to form the agreement cannot be established until the final engineering design and construction of improvements have taken place. Therefore, at this time he desires to have the City approve in concept that such an agreement will be entered into with the future developer as part of the Final Map process.
The City's PFF program provides for reimbursement of developer-installed infrastructure in Chapter 3 as follows:
Credits and Reimbursement Policies
The City shall provide fee credits or reimbursements to developers who dedicate land or construct facilities included in the fee program. Fee credits or reimbursements will be provided up to the cost of the improvement, as shown in this study, subject to periodic inflation adjustments, or the actual cost 3 paid by the developer, whichever is lower. For construction cost overruns, only that amount shown in the fee study, subject to periodic inflation adjustments, would be credited or reimbursed. Credits or reimbursements may be repaid based on the priority of the capital improvements, as determined by the City.
The City will determine fee credits and reimbursements on a case-by-case basis and possibly through the use of a development agreement.
While the City's PFF program provides for reimbursement of developer-installed infrastructure, it does not provide guidance on the request proposed by the applicant. In speaking with Harris & Associates who prepared the Impact Fee update, it was not the intent to authorize cross-category reimbursements. They cautioned the City to review the implications of allowing such reimbursements very carefully. Therefore, as stated in the Planning Commission staff report, staff believes the request for cross-category fee credits would result in increased costs of administering the program, the potential for errors, and limit the availability of this funding for other City infrastructure needed to accommodate new growth.
Because the true fiscal impact of such an agreement cannot be determined at this time, staff believes such an agreement should only be considered during the Final Map process when the subdivision improvement plans are prepared. At that time the City will also have better knowledge of the existing impact fee fund balances and whether such a concept should be considered given the infrastructure priorities of the City. Therefore, staff recommended that the Planning Commission not support the proposed Reimbursement Agreement in concept.
The Planning Commission concurred and directed staff to include this recommendation in the resolution. The Planning Commission also encouraged the Council to adopt a comprehensive set of formal implementation policies for the City's PFF program before considering a Reimbursement Addendum in the future. 3) Request: Revise Assessment District Formation/ Annexation Requirements In his VTSM amendment application submittal, Mr. Katakis requested revision of Condition of Approval #22, which requires the developer of the subdivision to form and/or annex into the appropriate maintenance district. The purpose of the amendment was to provide additional clarification of the intent and application of the condition. Staff concurred that clarification would be helpful and recommended the condition be amended as follows:
#22. Prior to approval of the Final Map, Subdivider shall prepare, fund, and complete the annexation of the proposed parcels to any applicable Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District and Community Facilities District for the City of Gustine for all required and applicable assessments, or, at the City's discretion, the Subdivider shall prepare, fund, and complete the formation of a new landscape and lighting maintenance district and/or community facilities district for the parcels.
During the Planning Commission's discussion of this item, Commissioner Marsigli stated that during the Planning Commissions' consideration of the original Katakis VTSM application on April 27, 2022, she had suggested the applicant be required to form a Community Facility District (CFD) that could assist in funding the anticipated increased cost to the City in providing general services such as Police and Fire to the new residents in the SGMP. In response staff stated that from a review of the record it did not appear that forming a CFD to fund City general services had been raised during the development and adoption of the Master Plan or during the processing of the original Katakis VTSM.
The applicant's representative Mr. Petrulakis concurred with staff's comments and further stated his concerns that not knowing what type of services would be required in the district could potentially pose significant additional costs on the developer and for future homeowners making the development unmarketable. It has been the applicant's assumption that they would only be required to annex into the City's current citywide Landscape and Lighting District (L&LD) and possibly form their own L&LD to fund maintenance of their internal landscaped areas.
Staff concurred with the applicant's statement that Condition #22 does not specify what facilities and or services are to be included in the district. Staff recommended that if it was the desire of the Planning Commission and applicant to define the purpose and specific facilities to be maintained and/or services to be funded at this time, then the matter should be referred to the City Council for discussion.
This issue involves important policy considerations for Council, including how future City services are to be funded and the impact on development in the City. The Planning Commission concurred and recommended to Council the amended Condition #22 as proposed by staff and requested that the City Council determine the type of district that should be formed and the services to be funded for the Katakis VTSM.
SGMP Public Improvements and Services Funding Considerations Following the Planning Commission hearing, staff researched the matter further.
The formation of assessment districts to fund the construction and on-going operations and maintenance of public improvements that were constructed to serve a specific development has become customary practice for cities. The SGMP anticipated that "to the extent possible" all infrastructure would be financed and constructed by the developers as development occurred (Chapter 6 - Financing & Implementation). Where it would be necessary to oversize certain improvements to serve future development, the City would cooperate in the establishment of reimbursement agreements to provide for cost participation at the time of future development. Facilities identified by the Master Plan where this might occur included the park/drainage dual-use facility and the domestic water well and appurtenant water production facilities. The Master Plan further specified that "prior to approval of any subdivision map, a financing mechanism for this infrastructure must be identified and adopted and any required districts) formed." After approval of the SGMP, Mr. Katakis submitted his subdivision application. A key issue to resolve was how to fund construction of the oversized facilities. During these discussions, additional facilities that provided area-wide benefit were identified such as the roundabout, and the need to construct a new 12-inch sewer transmission line along Sullivan Road and between Hunt and Kniebes Roads, including boring under the UPRC railroad tracks. Initially the focus was on developing a Development Agreement (DA) to specify what would be 5 constructed and how the developer would be reimbursed for constructing any oversized facilities. Eventually this approach was abandoned, and the applicant and City agreed on updating the City's Public Facility Impact Fees (PFF) to resolve the matter. The updated fees were adopted by the City Council on May 17, 2022.
Therefore, in terms of constructing the necessary infrastructure in the SGMP, the City of Gustine chose to use impact fees as the funding mechanism, not assessment or community facility districts. In regards to funding the cost of on- going operations and maintenance of infrastructure, facilities and landscaping, Chapter 6 of the SGMP anticipated the formation of Landscape and Lighting Districts, similar to what the City has required for other subdivisions, to fund the maintenance of proposed improvements such as landscaping within any median or roundabout, parkway landscaping and street lighting operational and energy costs. However, the SGMP also acknowledged this list was not exhaustive and the City Attorney has advised that nothing in the SGMP would preclude funding the maintenance of other types of infrastructure or services or forming a different type of assessment district or CFD.
The City of Gustine currently has three assessment districts, which were formed pursuant to Section 22585 of the Streets and Highways Code (Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972), they are:
• Citywide District No. 95-1- encompasses all parcels within the incorporated boundary of the City of Gustine. The purpose of the district is to fund the maintenance of 1) all existing lighting improvements within City owned and maintained public right of ways, city parks and recreation areas and 2) all city owned parks and recreation areas.
• Southport Lighting & Landscaping District - encompasses 84 residential lots in southwest Gustine. Its purpose is to fund maintenance of storm drain facilities, including all landscaping and associated fences and retaining walls. • Borrelli Assessment District - encompasses seventy-five lots within the Borelli Ranch subdivision. Its purpose is to fund maintenance and operation of storm drain and recreational facilities.
In discussions with the City Engineer, if the focus is to provide maintenance for the facilities identified by the Master Plan, then he recommends creating a separate area-wide L&LD for the entire SGMP area to fund operation and maintenance of all lighting and landscaping within the Master Plan area and the proposed storm basin and park facilities. If a specific subdivision has any internal landscaping maintenance requirements these can be handled by forming its own L&LD.
If the intent of the City is to fund the operation and maintenance of streetlights, landscaping, storm water and park facilities within the development, formation of an L&LD would be sufficient. However, if the objective of the City is to ensure all financial impacts to the City's General Fund caused by the new development are funded, or if the objective is to fund improvements or services that do not provide a unique and distinct benefit to the assessed parcels, an L&LD is limited in what activities it can assess properties for.
In addition to operation and maintenance of landscaping and lighting, cities have 6 funded maintenance of facilities such as streets, and sidewalks and services such as street sweeping and graffiti abatement. Typically, cities form a Benefit Assessment District (BAD) or CFD pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, to include these additional maintenance functions. For a BAD, as well as for aLL&D and any other type of assessment district, the assessment is limited to the special benefit conferred to the assessed parcel, and the City cannot assess for any service or improvement that provides benefits to the public at large, and the assessment must be levied annually.
A CFD is more flexible than a L&LD and BAD and can fund construction of improvements and services to a greater degree. It is a distinct separate legal entity from the City that, subject to landowner approval, can levy a special tax to fund improvements and services, provided the services are above and beyond what is already provided to the territory to be included in the CFD. Unlike L&LD and BAD assessments, the CFD is a special tax for services that can run in perpetuity (although a special tax for improvements or facilities is limited in its duration). It also allows for expedited future annexations into the CFD.
Therefore, in regards to funding the maintenance of landscaping, streetlights, and park and storm drain facilities the City can use a L&LD or possibly a BAD (if it wishes to include additional facilities and services that are specific to the development such as road maintenance, street sweeping and graffiti abatement). However, those do not address the issue raised by the Planning Commission, which is dealing with the possible fiscal impact caused by new development on the City's other general services such as Police, Fire, and various administrative operations and functions that are funded by the City's General Fund (e.g., property, sales, and transient occupancy taxes). Unlike infrastructure maintenance, determining the incremental increased cost to providing general City services caused by new development is a much more complex process and it is not guaranteed that a net deficit to the General Fund will be realized.
Typically, a fiscal impact analysis is conducted to identify and quantify the various types of revenue sources projected to be generated for the City by development within the SGMP and the recurring cost burden (expenditures) placed upon the City's General Fund resulting from development within the SGMP. The revenue portion of the fiscal impact analysis focuses on various taxes, fees, and other City revenues collected to fund ongoing operational costs and the expenditure portion of the fiscal impact analysis focuses on recurring expenditures incurred by the City to provide ongoing services to its population. New development can only be assessed or taxed for the cost of additional services the City will be required to provide to accommodate new growth. It cannot be used to fund existing service deficiencies and only if the expenses generated by new development exceed the revenues generated.
The Planning Commission has requested that the City Council consider requiring the creation of a CFD to fund City general services, as well as infrastructure and facility operations and maintenances for the entire SGMP area. In considering the request the Council should first determine if it has sufficient information to make such a decision. Also, to the best of the staff's knowledge establishing a special tax to fund general services in the SGMP has never been discussed with property owners in the SGMP, therefore the Council may wish to obtain their input.
If the City Council does believe the fiscal impact of development on all City general services should be considered and a CFD formed, then it must be determined who will pay the cost of the analysis and formation of the district.
Preparing a fiscal impact analysis and forming a CFD can take several months and cost several thousands of dollars. Typically, the developer is required to pay the cost for formation of the district, but in this case the CFD will be formed to serve the entire SGMP, so a cost sharing reimbursement approach may be appropriate as was done for reimbursing Mr. Katakis for funding of the SGMP preparation and annexation.
In regards to the Katakis VTSM amendment, the Council can choose to approve Condition #22 as recommended by the Planning Commission. The language of the condition is broad enough to allow the City to resolve the CFD issue after the project is approved. However, if the Council wishes to clarify its intent now regarding formation of a CFD to fund general City services, staff recommends the Council adopt the following revised Condition #22:
Staff alternative Condition #22. Prior to approval of the Final Map, Subdivider shall prepare, fund, and complete the formation of new Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District and Community Facilities District for the City of Gustine to fund the maintenance and operation of all applicable City infrastructure, facilities, and general City services, such as Police and Fire that are provided to all parcels in the South Gustine Master Plan area. 4) Request: Replace Requirement for Construction of Roundabout on Sullivan Road at Grove Avenue Intersection with a 4-Way Stop-controlled Intersection with Lighted Pedestrian Crossing
Mr. Katakis requested that the requirement for him to construct a roundabout at the intersection of Sullivan Road and Grove Avenue (Conditions #29 and #33) be removed and replaced with a requirement for him to construct a 4-way stop controlled-intersection, with a lighted pedestrian crossing. The attached Planning Commission staff report provides the detailed justifications for his request. In summary Mr. Katakis believed the roundabout was not formally approved by the City Council and since it is not reflected in the current Master Plan Conceptual Circulation Plan, it creates an inconsistency between his VTSM and the Master Plan. He also felt the size of the roundabout would not achieve the desired effect of properly slowing down cars and provide a safe crossing for students and noted the difficulty of obtaining right of way from adjacent property owners for a roundabout the size of the one proposed, which may require the City to pursue acquisition by eminent domain.
Staff researched the history of the roundabout and determined that though the City Council never formally amended the Master Plan to incorporate the roundabout, the revised SGMP Circulation Plan approved in concept by the City Council replaced two offset three-legged stop-controlled intersections with a single 4-way intersection and eliminated another, thereby improving traffic safety.
Furthermore, the determination by KD Anderson, the EIR traffic consultant, that the transportation impacts of the proposed revisions to the Circulation Plan, including 8 the 4-way intersection/roundabout, were similar to or less than those identified in the original Master Plan transportation analysis, supported the consistency of these revisions with the guiding principles and requirements of the Master Plan. Staff also cited what they believe to be the benefits of a roundabout such as providing superior traffic flow and reducing congestion and air emissions.
After discussing the perceived pros and cons of constructing the roundabout, the Planning Commission determined that their preference was to have a roundabout versus a 4-way stop controlled-intersection. However, the Planning Commission inquired whether there was some assistance that could be provided by the City.
Staff informed the Planning Commission that the roundabout is a planned facility of the PFF program, therefore an alternative would be to have the applicant construct a 4-way stop controlled-intersection and reserve the right-of-way for a future roundabout. The City would therefore be responsible for eventually constructing the roundabout once enough impact fees had been collected. A ture round to the city mor majority of the Planning Commission agreed with this approach and recommended forwarding the revisions to Conditions #29 and #33 as set forth below to Council on a 2-1 vote, with Commissioner Marsigli dissenting.
Amended #29: Subdivider shall dedicate street right of way and construct subdivision street frontage improvements for the south half of Sullivan Road pursuant to a 70-ft Street Section per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer. Roadway pavement for the south half of Sullivan Road shall be widened to ultimate street width within the subdivision frontage and transitioned to existing pavement as required. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, decorative street lighting and other required street frontage improvements shall extend the length of the subdivision boundary.
Construct all required frontage improvements per City standards or as approved by the City Engineer.
Amended #33: Subdivider shall dedicate or cause the dedication of street right of way for a 4-way stop at the proposed intersection of Sullivan Road/Grove Avenue and construct the intersection improvements the ultimate street right of way for the south half of Sullivan Road for a future roundabout at the proposed Sullivan Road/Grove Avenue intersection with a footprint configuration based on the requirements of the Highway Design Manual Figure 404.5C for California legal design vehicle of 50-ft turning radius and 6-seconds lock-to-lock time for rural Arterial designation. In the interim, Subdivider shall dedicate any required street right of way and construct improvements for a 4-way stop intersection at Sullivan Road and Grove Avenue pursuant to the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Southeast Gustine Annexation prepared by KD Anderson & Associates dated December 17, 2015, and as approved by the City Engineer. Construct the 4-way stop intersection with the dedicated turning lanes as required by the traffic impact analysis and improvements including, but not limited to, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramp, lighted crossing, landscaping, decorative street lighting and other required street improvements per the City's Improvement Standards. 9 B) Requests Not Related to Conditions of Approval and Not Considered by the Planning Commission
Mr. Katakis also raised several additional requests not relating to the Conditions of Approval for the VTSM. These matters were not in the purview of the Planning Commission and therefore were not discussed by the Commission. 5) Request: City Issue Water Connection Will Serve letter In his application packet, Mr. Katakis included a memorandum dated August 14, 2022, that was prepared by the City Engineer at the request of the then Interim City Manager. The memorandum provided an updated water capacity analysis for new development in the SGMP area. At the time the SGMP was prepared, the City consultant team determined that there was sufficient citywide water system capacity to serve a maximum of 90 residential units in the Master Plan area before a new well would need to be constructed.
In the new analysis prepared by the City Engineer he used updated data regarding the water production capacity of the City's wells and the community's water demand over the last ten years. Based on this information he determined the City currently would have a total available service capacity of 557 equivalent development units (EDUs) after applying a 20% contingency factor. Reviewing historical building permit issuance trends, the City Engineer then calculated the expected residential, commercial, and industrial growth over the next 5 years outside of the SGMP. This calculation identified the need to reserve an additional 246 EDUs. The result of the analysis was that the number of single-family residentia building permits that could be built in the SGMP area before a new well would need to be constructed increased from 90 to 311.
Based on this new information, Mr. Katakis is requesting an amendment of Section
4.2 of the Southeast Gustine Master Plan to remove the language that states a new well will be required prior to issuance of the 91st residential building permit in the Master Plan area. Staff does not believe amendment of the Master Plan is necessary due to the additional language contained in Section 4.2, which states the well be required "prior to the issuance of the 91 st residential building permit in the Master Plan, or when determined to be necessary by the City Engineer." Therefore, staff feels the August 14, 2022, memorandum from the City Engineer should be sufficient to comply with Section 4.2 without requiring an amendment to the Master Plan text.
The applicant is also requesting that he receive some type of assurance that the connections will be available at the time his subdivision is built. This would typically be provided by the City in the form of a "will server" letter. It is, however, important that the City maintains appropriate records of all will serve letters in order to not issue more connections than are available. If the City Council concurs with the applicant's request, staff recommends placing a reference in the resolution approving the amended VTSM, acknowledging that the City will issue a will serve letter for 157 single-family residential building permits upon approval of the amended VTSM. Because the time frame for construction of the Katakis VTSM is currently unknown, the Council may wish to set a termination date in the will serve letter. Staff suggests a maximum of five (5) years, which is consistent with the time 10 frame used by the City Engineer in his water capacity analysis. Below is suggested condition of approval if the Council concurs with the applicant's request.
Staff suggested new condition:
The City shall issue a Will Serve letter to the applicant for 157 residential water connections for the Katakis Vesting Tentative Subdivision map effective upon adoption of this resolution. The Will Serve letter shall terminate five (5) years after the effective date unless extended by the City Council. 6) Request: City Pay Permit Fees for Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRC) Utility Easements for Sewer and Storm Water Backbone Infrastructure The Public Facilities chapter of the Master Plan identifies how the Master Plan area will be served by the required backbone infrastructure. Storm water is to be conveyed by a storm drain line from the proposed detention basin in the southerly Master Plan area, north to Sullivan Road then to South Hunt Road to a point of connection with the Central California Irrigation District drain line at Meredith Avenue. The backbone sewer trunk line is to extend from the Master Plan area to an existing trunk line in Carnation Road at the Kniebes Road intersection. Both alignments require that they transverse under the railroad tracks just north of the intersection of South Hunt Road and Railroad Avenue.
The railroad tracks are used by the California Northern Railroad Company who leases them from UPRC. In order to construct the utility lines, easements for each line must be issued by UPRC through a permit. The applicant and the prior City Manager decided it would be wise to apply for the permits now to determine if the SGMP Public Facility Plan was feasible and improve the marketability of the project by minimizing future unknowns or delays in developing the property. As the permits can only be issued to a public agency, the City agreed to file the paperwork to obtain the easements. In his application packet, Mr. Katakis contends that the previous City Manager agreed to have the City pay for the cost of obtaining the permits. However, according to City staff they were directed by the previous City Manager to charge Mr. Katakis for the cost of the permits. The fee for each permit was $7,300 for a total cost of $14,600. As this did not involve the use of any consultant time the City's 15% administrative fee will not be included.
Mr. Katakis contends that since the utility lines are in the PFF, the cost of the easement permits should come from those funds. Since the permits are necessary to allow for the sewer and storm drain lines to be constructed, they would qualify as reimbursable costs under the PFF program for developer-installed infrastructure.
Mr. Katakis also points out that if adequate funds currently exist in the respective PFF facility funds to cover the cost of the permits, why should he pay for them now only to be reimbursed at a later date?
As discussed in Mr. Katakis' Request #2, the PFF credits and reimbursement policies state that all construction cost reimbursements will be provided up to the cost of the improvement reflected in the study or the actual cost paid by the developer, whichever is lower, subject to periodic inflation adjustments. Furthermore, when the reimbursements are to be repaid are subject to the City's capital improvement 11 priorities at the time the developer makes his request for reimbursement. As the amount of the total reimbursement to the developer is dependent on what the true cost of construction is versus what was estimated in the PFF study and the timing of the reimbursement is subject to available funding and City infrastructure priorities, it is reasonable to assume that the intent of the PFF policies was for developers to be responsible for all upfront costs, including obtaining any necessary permits.
Notwithstanding what agreements may or may not have been reached between the applicant and the prior City Manager, in the opinion of staff this request appears to conflict with the PFF policies, as neither the true cost of the improvement is known at this time, nor what the capital improvement priorities of the City will be at the time the developer submits his request for reimbursement, though the City Attorney has determined the City Council has discretion on when and who can pay the fees, staff believes this request is contrary to the intent of the PFF policies, which could set a precedent for future development projects.
Therefore, staff recommends that the applicant be required to pay the UPRC permit fees.
Staff has withheld the billing of Mr. Katakis for any remaining charges to his original VTSM application deposit account, pending Council consideration of his request.
Once the Council provides direction on whether he or the City is responsible for paying for the UPRC permits, staff will adjust his billings accordingly and provide Mr. Katakis with a complete reconciliation of his deposit account. 7) Request: Waive Processing Fees for VTSM Amendment Application In his VTSM amendment application packet, Mr. Katakis requested that "any and all" processing fees for his VTSM amendment application submitted on October 13, 2022, be waived by the City Council. His stated justification for this request is the "many mistakes" he believes the City previously made in the processing of his original VTSM "that have caused undue delay, costs, and lost market opportunities" for his project. The Municipal Code does not permit staff to waive application fees, therefore this has been brought forward to the City Council for consideration.
As discussed above, the total City expenses for processing his amendment application will not be known until after the City Council takes final action. If the City Council believes that waiving of the fees is warranted, the Council must find that there are extenuating circumstances justifying such waiver, that it is in the public interest to do so, and that therefore it would not be a prohibited gift of public funds. If the City Council decides not to waive the fees, staff recommends adding a condition requiring that all outstanding processing fees be paid before the final map is approved.
8) Request: Reimbursement of Prior VTSM Processing Expenditures In his application packet Mr. Katakis has requested that in addition to waiving his VTSM amendment application processing costs, he also is requesting the City reimburse him for costs incurred (City and his consultant team) in preparing a draft Development Agreement for his original VTSM application (approved by the City 12 Council on May 17, 2022). He also wishes to be reimbursed for charges he believes the City applied to his account for two consultant firms (CSG and Raney) that he did not feel were qualified to work on the project.
In the case of the DA, it is current staff's understanding that there was mutual agreement between the City, Mr. Katakis' team and the Rasmussens' team that DAs were needed to address the relative timing, financing and reimbursement rules for construction by the three developers of the backbone infrastructure in the SGMP, since it was contemplated that all three project applications would be processed and approved simultaneously. After the Rasmussens postponed their applications and the City decided to update the PFF program, the issues became more simplified and both the City and Katakis' team decided that a DA was unnecessary. In hindsight, Mr. Katakis believes that the time and expense of the DA was unnecessary. In regards to City consultant charges, the City reserves the right to decide which consultants will represent the City in processing development applications and the applicant is responsible for reimbursing the City for such costs.
Unlike Mr. Katakis request to waive the processing fees for his VTSM amendment application which is currently being reviewed, his request to be reimbursed for prior expenses on his original subdivision application is subsequent to the application's approval (May 17, 2022). Therefore, the City Attorney has advised that the proper procedure for contesting prior charges is to file a claim against the City for processing by the City's risk manager.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
The Katakis Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map was approved as consistent with the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and its accompanying Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2016021092). The proposed amendments to conditions of the VTSM would not involve any substantial changes to the project, new or substantially more severe impacts, or require new mitigation measures.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the City Council conduct the public hearing and take the following actions:
By resolution, approve amendments to the Katakis Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map as discussed below.
In formulating the final resolution (Attachment 1), Staff recommends that the Council consider the following:
1. Request to amend Condition #21 - timing of impact fee collection.
Planning Commission recommendation: In acknowledgement of the provisions of State law that specify fees are to be collected at time of final occupancy of the residence unless certain exceptions can be met, approve the following amendment to Condition#21.
Amended #21: Prior to final inspection or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any unit, subdivider shall pay all development impact fees as 13 specified and pursuant to the City's municipal code, ordinances, and resolutions.
As discussed in the staff report, the following alternative recommendation is presented for Council consideration. The alternative condition acknowledges that circumstances may change in the future and the City may qualify for the exceptions set forth in Section 66007(b) (1) of the Government Code and could require payment of impact fees at time of issuance of building permits. Again, it should be noted that the applicant's desire is for impact fees to be collected at the time of final inspection regardless of the circumstances in relation to Section 6607(b) (1).
Staff suggested alternative Condition #21:
Prior to but no later than final inspection or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or at an earlier time as authorized by California Government code Section 66007(b)(1), subdivider shall pay all development impact fees as specified and pursuant to the City's municipal code, ordinances, and resolutions. The fee assessment shall include all applicable fees for Municipal Facilities, Police, Fire Protection, Transportation, Water, Domestic Wastewater, Storm Drainage, and Parks. Fees shall be paid at the time of the issuance of each permit.
2. Request for City to agree in concept to approval of Public Facility Impact Fee Reimbursement Addendum
Planning Commission recommendation: That the City Council 1) concur with staff determination that approval of a Reimbursement Addendum as proposed by the applicant is not an appropriate condition for the VTSM amendment and that the decision to accept a Reimbursement Addendum as proposed by the applicant should be made in connection with approval of a subdivision improvement agreement or Final Map by the City Council, and 2) before the City considers any such agreements the City Council should adopt a comprehensive Public Facility Impact Fee credit and reimbursement policy and process.
3. Request to amend Condition #22 - formation of maintenance districts.
Planning Commission recommendation: That the City Council 1) approve the revised condition #22 below and 2) consider requiring the formation of a Community Facility District to fund the cost of increased public services for development in the Southeastern Gustine Master Plan area.
Amended #22: Prior to final map approval, Subdivider shall prepare, fund, and complete the annexation of the proposed parcels to any applicable Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District and Community Facilities District for the City of Gustine for all required and applicable assessments, or, at the City's discretion, the Subdivider shall prepare, fund and complete the formation of a new landscape and lighting maintenance district and/or community facilities district for the parcels.
If the Council wishes to clarify its intent now regarding formation of a CFD to fund general City services, staff recommends the Council adopt the following revised Condition #22:
14 #22. Prior to approval of the Final Map, Subdivider shall prepare, fund, and complete the formation of new Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District and Community Facilities District for the City of Gustine to fund the maintenance and operation of all applicable City infrastructure, facilities, and general City services, such as Police and Fire that are provided to all parcels in the South Gustine Master Plan area.
4. Request to amend Conditions #29 and #33 - remove requirement for a roundabout at the Sullivan/Grove intersection and replace with a 4-way stop.
Planning Commission recommendation: That the City Council approve the amendments to Conditions #29 and #33 below requiring the applicant to construct a 4-way Stop-Controlled Intersection with a lighted pedestrian crossing and that the City of Gustine will be responsible for constructing a roundabout using Public Facility Fees when sufficient funding is available.
Amended #29: Subdivider shall dedicate street right of way and construct subdivision street frontage improvements for the south half of Sullivan Road pursuant to a 70-ft Street Section per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer. Roadway pavement for the south half of Sullivan Road shall be widened to ultimate street width within the subdivision frontage and transitioned to existing pavement as required. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, decorative street lighting and other required street frontage improvements shall extend the length of the subdivision boundary. Construct all required frontage improvements per City standards or as approved by the City Engineer.
Amended #33: Subdivider shall dedicate or cause the dedication of street right of way for a 4-way stop at the proposed intersection of Sullivan Road/Grove Avenue and construct the intersection improvements the ultimate street right of way for the south half of Sullivan Road for a future roundabout at the proposed Sullivan Road/Grove Avenue intersection with a footprint configuration based on the requirements of the Highway Design Manual Figure 404.5C for California legal design vehicle of 50-ft turning radius and 6-seconds lock-to-lock time for rural Arterial designation. In the interim, Subdivider shall dedicate any required street right of way and construct improvements for a 4-way stop intersection at Sullivan Road and Grove Avenue pursuant to the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Southeast Gustine Annexation prepared by KD Anderson & Associates dated December 17, 2015, and as approved by the City Engineer. Construct the 4-way stop intersection with the dedicated turning lanes as required by the traffic impact analysis and improvements including, but not limited to, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramp, lighted crossing, landscaping, decorative street lighting and other required street improvements per the City's Improvement Standards.
5) Request for City to issue a Will Serve letter for water connections to serve the subdivision
Staff Recommendation: Consider applicant's request for a will serve letter for his 157 single-family residential lot subdivision based on the City Engineer's August 14, 2022, water capacity analysis that determined 311 residential building permits can be issued in the SGMP area before a new well will need to be constructed. The Council 15 may wish to include an expiration date, if so, staff would suggest a maximum of five (5) years.
Suggested Condition of Approval
The City shall issue a Will Serve letter to the applicant for 157 residential water connections for the Katakis Vesting Tentative Subdivision map effective upon adoption of this resolution. The Will Serve letter shall terminate five (5) years after 6) Request for City to pay permit fees for Union Pacific Railroad utility easements Staff Recommendation: It has been determined by the City Attorney that the City Council has discretion in granting the applicant's request. However, notwithstanding what agreements may or may not have been reached between the applicant and the prior City Manager, the request appears to be in conflict with the adopted Public Facility Impact Fee Credits and Reimbursement Policies. The policies state fee credits or reimbursements will be provided up to the cost of the improvement reflected in the fee study, or the actual cost paid by the developer, whichever is lower. Furthermore, reimbursements may be repaid based on the priority of the capital improvements, as determined by the City. As neither the true cost of the improvement is known at this time, nor what the capital improvement priorities of the City will be at the time the developer submits his request for reimbursement, this request has been determined by staff to be contrary to the intent of the PFF policies and could set a precedent for future development projects. Therefore, staff recommends that the applicant be required to pay the UPRC permit fees.
7) Request to waive processing fees for VTSM amendment application Staff Recommendation: Consider the applicant's request and determine if there is sufficient justification to waive his VTSM amendment application fees, provided the City Council can determine that such waiver is in the public interest and therefore not a prohibited gift of public funds.
8) Request for reimbursement of prior VTSM processing expenditures.
Staff Recommendation: The City Attorney has advised the applicant that the proper remedy for requesting reimbursement of a portion of the funds already paid to the City for processing his original VTSM application approved by the City Council on May 17, 2022, is to file a claim against the City.
EXHIBIT(S)
A) City Council Resolution 2023-XX recommending adoption of amended conditions to the Katakis Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
B) Redlined Version- Planning Commission Resolution 2022-XX recommending to the City Council amended conditions to the Katakis Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map C) Planning Commission November 30, 2022, staff report with the following attachments
1. Katakis Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map amendment application and request memorandum and attachments.
2. Katakis follow-up email regarding Reimbursement Addendum request 16 3. Resolution 2022-2619A approving a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for Southeast Gustine development.
4. Katakis Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map diagrams.
The following documents are available online here:
https://tinyurl.com/SEGustineDevtDocs:
D) Southeast Gustine Master Plan
E) Southeast Gustine Master Plan EIR (Draft and Final) & MMRP The following item is available on the City's website in the Building, Planning and Zoning Section of the Document Center
F) Gustine Public Facility Impact Fee Update Report - Adopted 5/17/22 APPROVED BY:
Anna Nicholas, City Manager
17 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XXXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUSTINE APPROVING
AMENDMENTS TO THE KATAKIS VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP WHEREAS, by Resolution 2018-2419 on March 6, 2018, the City Council adopted the Southeast Gustine Master Plan in conformance with the provisions of the Gustine General Plan; and
WHEREAS, Ron Katakis ("Subdivider") filed an application to amend his Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to divide 41.68 acres, property located south of Sullivan Avenue within the Southeast Gustine Master Plan area, into 157 single- family residential lots and one park/storm drainage/water well lot; and WHEREAS, an application to amend the Vesting Tentative Map was received in the office of the Secretary of the Planning Commission on December 3, 2020; and
WHEREAS, copies of the proposed vesting tentative map amendment have been sent to the Gustine Unified School District, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Central California Imigation District, and the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, City service, including sewer and water facilities, are available; and
WHEREAS, the area can be served by elementary schools in the Gustine Unified School District and by the City's Fire Station at 686 Third Street, about 1- 1/2 miles distant; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on November 30, 2022, in the Council Chambers, Gustine, California, at which hearing evidence both oral and documentary was received and considered; and
WHEREAS, the City Council certified it had received and reviewed the Initial Study, Environmental Assessment No. EA/C&ED 2018-24, which concluded that the project is within the scope of the General Plan Master EIR (SCH No. 2007072023), and
WHEREAS, Section 4-61-100 of the Gustine Zoning Code provides that a subdivider may request changes to an approved tentative map or its conditions of approval before recordation of a final map if the amendments are necessary due to a change of circumstances related to the original approval; and WHEREAS, the Subdivider has represented that changes in the local economy and housing market have necessitated the requested amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Gustine City Council that it hereby finds and determines as follows:
1. The proposed amended vesting tentative subdivision map, together with the provisions for its design and improvements, is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Gustine, the Southeast Gustine Master Plan, and the Subdivision Map Act; and none of the findings requiring denial set forth in Zoning Code Section 4-61-070 can be made.
2. The proposed amendments are necessary because of the change of circumstances related to the original approval, specifically the rise in mortgage interest rates and a softening in the residential real estate market.
3. Prior to issuance of any building permit, a Precise Development Plan as required by provisions of the PD zone must be applied for and approved.
4. The discharge of waste as a result of the amended vesting tentative subdivision map into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code of the State of California.
5. The amended vesting tentative map will have no additional significant effect on the environment, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 21158 of the Public Resources Code, which was not identified in the Master Plan EIR.
6. No new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives are required.
7. The amended vesting tentative map is within the scope of the project covered by the Master Plan EIR.
8. All applicable policies, regulations, and mitigation measures identified in the Master Plan EIR have been applied to the proposed vesting tentative map subsequent project or otherwise made conditions of approval of the proposed vesting tentative map.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the amended Vesting Tentative Map subject to the following conditions:
CEQA:
1. All development shall at all times be subject to and in conformance with the mitigation measures identified by the Southeast Gustine Final EIR and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Southeast Gustine Master Plan Project (MMRP).
1.1. BIO 3.1: If construction work on a project commences between March 1 and September 15, a pre-construction survey for nesting Swainson's hawks within 0.5 miles of the construction site shall be conducted by a qualified biologist retained by the project applicant prior to the start of construction work. If active nests are found, a qualified biologist shall determine the need (if any) for temporal restrictions on construction or other protective measures. The determination shall be pursuant to criteria set forth by CDFW in its Staff Report regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson's Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California (1994). The project shall incorporate all recommended measures, including any temporal restrictions.
1.2. BIO 3.2: If construction work on a project commences between February 1 and August 31, a pre-construction survey for burrowing owls within 250 feet of the construction site shall be conducted by a qualified biologist retained by the project applicant prior to the start of construction work. If occupied burrows are found, a qualified biologist shall determine the need (if any) for temporal restrictions on construction or other protective measures. The determination shall be pursuant to criteria set forth by CDFW in its Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012). The project shall incorporate all recommended measures, including any temporary restrictions.
1.3. BIO 4.1: If construction work on a project commences during the general avian nesting season from March 1 through July 31, a pre-construction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist retained by the project applicant prior to the start of construction work. If active nests are found, work in the vicinity of the nest shall be delayed until the young fledge.
1.4. CULT 1.2 and 2.2: So that potential archaeological or paleontological materials encountered during construction activity can be identified, the developer or contractor shall provide training of field personnel in identification procedures prior to construction work, such training to be carried out by a qualified cultural resources specialist. The training would consist of a mandatory pre-field meeting in which a professional archaeologist would review with equipment operators the natural and cultural history of the annexation area,
archaeological sensitivity, the most likely locations of buried cultural materials, if any, and what kinds of cultural materials would be seen if prehistoric materials are in fact unearthed and specifically how to address such discoveries and what
immediate actions to take, particularly if human remains are found
1.5. CULT 2.3: If any subsurface cultural resources are encountered during future project construction, all construction activity in the vicinity of the encounter shall cease until a qualified archaeologist examines the materials, determines their
significance, and recommends mitigation measures that would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level, in accordance with CEQA. The City of Gustine shall be immediately notified of the discovery and the developer or its contractor shall be responsible for retaining a qualified archaeologist and for implementing recommended mitigation measures.
1.6. CULT 2.4: If human remains are encountered at any time during future project construction, all construction activity in the vicinity of the encounter shall cease, and the County Coroner and the City of Gustine shall be notified immediately. The Coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission if the
remains have been identified as or are suspected of being of Native American descent. The developer or its contractor shall implement the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines with
respect to human remains of Native American origin. The developer or its contractor shall retain a qualified archaeologist to evaluate the archaeological importance of the find and recommend any mitigation measures needed to reduce any
potentially significant effects to a less than significant level under CEQA. The developer shall implement those recommendations.
1.7. CULT 3.1: If paleontological resources are encountered during project construction, construction activity in the vicinity of the encounter shall cease until a qualified paleontologist examines the materials, determines their significance under CEQA, and recommends mitigation measures that would be necessary to reduce potentially significant effects to a less than significant level, in accordance with CEQA. The City of Gustine shall be immediately notified of the discovery. The developer or its contractor shall be responsible for retaining a qualified paleontologist and for implementing recommended mitigation measures.
1.8. GEO 3.1/3.2: Implemented by Condition 16.
1.9. GRG-1: The project developer shall implement the following greenhouse gas emission reduction measures: 1) The project shall install only natural gas hearths in residences, and 2) Residences on the project site shall exceed Title 24 energy efficiency targets by at least 15%.
1.10. NOISE 14.1: Hours of operation for noise-generating construction equipment shall be restricted to 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM Saturday, and Sundays (with authorization from the City Council or Planning Commission), 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM, when such equipment is to be used near noise sensitive land uses.
1.11. SERV 1.1: The Precise Development Plan shall include design and implementation that promotes citizens' safety developed in consultation with the Gustine Police Department.
1.12. TRANS 1.2 is implemented through the payment of applicable Traffic Development Impact Fees as currently under
consideration for adoption.
1.13. UTIL 2.1 and UTIL 5.1 are implemented into the Master Plan infrastructure required to be completed with the project.
General Conditions:
1. With recordation of a Final Map, the map shall demonstrate via note or building setback line that all rear-yard setbacks for lots that back up to Sullivan Road shall be fifteen feet, in accordance to the setback standards outlined in the City's Zoning Code.
2. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy of any structure on any lot abutting Sullivan Road, the following fences and walls shall be installed:
2.1. An eight-foot-high continuous split-face decorative masonry wall with cap treatment shall be installed along Sullivan Road;
3. Prior to recordation of a Final Map, Subdivider shall provide a form of disclosure to future residents about the potential exposure to agricultural operations in the area. Such disclosure shall be placed on the Final Map and provided with deeds for each residential lot.
4. All landscaping, fences, and walls shall be maintained and the premises shall be kept free of weeds, trash, and other debris.
5. Except as amended herein, or by reference, all development shall be in accordance with the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and the mitigation measures specified by the applicable EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
6. Prior to start of construction, all-weather, hard-surfaced roadways shall be constructed and maintained free of obstructions at all times during construction as required by City Engineer.
7. Subdivider shall, at his sole expense, defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Gustine, its agents, officers, directors and employees, from and against all claims, actions, damages, losses, or expenses of every type and description, including but not limited to payment of attorneys' fees and costs, by reason of, or arising out of, this development approval. The obligation to defend, indemnify and hold harmless shall include but is not limited to any action to arbitrate, attack, review, set aside, void or annul this development approval on any grounds whatsoever. The City of Gustine shall promptly notify Subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
8. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, a Precise Development Plan for the area as required by provisions of the PD zone must be applied for and approved.
9. All minimum conditions of subdivision approval in Article 6 of the City's Zoning Ordinance ("Subdivisions") are included by reference.
10. The Final Map shall comply with all provisions of the Subdivision Map Act.
11. The Final Map shall be prepared by a California licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer and filed for City Council approval.
12. Subdivider shall provide all required documents as determined by the City Engineer for review and approval of the Final Map and recording thereof.
13. Before approval of the Final Map and recording thereof, the Subdivider shall:
a) Construct all public improvements or provide the required surety for the construction thereof for acceptance by the City Council. b) Construct or provide required surety for all irrigation improvements as required by Central California Irrigation District.
C) The Subdivider shall dedicate all necessary rights of way and easements to the City of Gustine, public utility companies, and other affected agencies.
d) The Subdivider shall dedicate all public park lands, well sites, and storm basins to the City of Gustine.
14. Prior to approval of the Final Map, improvement plans for streets, utilities, drainage facilities, survey monuments, grading, and erosion control shall be prepared and submitted for the City Engineer's approval.
15. Public improvements shall conform to the latest edition of the City of Gustine Improvement Standards and any modifications thereto approved by the City Engineer in place at the time of approval of this Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map. Improvements shall conform to other City adopted documents, including the approved Southeast Gustine Master Plan and amendments thereof, General Plan, Sewer Master Plan, and Stormwater Master Plan. The work shall comply with all applicable State, Federal, and local laws and regulations.
16. As part of the improvement plans, the Subdivider shall submit to the City Engineer a soils report prepared by a California registered geotechnical engineer. The soils report shall include recommendations for the structural sections for streets, excavation, compaction, clearing. grubbing requirements, percolation, water table elevation, and grading improvements for the drainage basin.
17. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit or commencement or construction on site, the Subdivider shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) under the California Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CA000002 for construction activities.
18. Prior to approval of the improvement plans, Subdivider shall prepare a pre-project water balance calculation for storm water runoff pursuant to the California Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2012-0006- DWQ, NPDES No. CA000002 for compliance with Post-Construction Standards for non-MS4 Phase I and Phase Il agencies.
19. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit or commencement of construction on site, the Subdivider shall prepare a Dust Control Plan (DCP) and file the Plan with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to approve construction activities for the project if required.
20. Prior to the issuance of any grading and encroachment permits, Subdivider shall pay the permit fee, plan check and inspection fees, and furnish improvement securities pursuant to the City's improvement standards, municipal code, and ordinances. Improvement securities will be in accordance with standards set for in the California Subdivision Map Act and the City's Municipal Code.
21. Prior to final inspection or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any unit, Subdivider shall pay all development impact fees as specified and pursuant to the City's municipal code, ordinances, and resolutions.
22. Prior to approval of the Final Map, Subdivider shall prepare, fund, and complete the annexation of the proposed parcels to any applicable Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District and Community Facilities District for the City of Gustine for all required and applicable assessments, or, at the City's discretion, the Subdivider shall prepare, fund, and complete the formation of a new landscape and lighting maintenance district and/or community facilities district for the parcels.
23. Provide utility services to each lot, including electric power, gas, telephone, and cable television.
24. Construct all proposed utilities underground within the street rights of way or public utility easement. Any existing overhead lines including electric, communication and Cable TV within the public rights of way or easements fronting the subdivision, or within the proposed parcel boundaries shall be undergrounded within the street rights of way or relocated to acceptable easements as approved by the City and the affected utility companies.
25. The location and installation of mailboxes shall be approved by the US Postmaster and the City of Gustine.
26. The names for the new subdivision streets shall be provided for consideration and are subject to approval by the City Council.
27. The rights of way and easements shown on the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map are preliminary until they are reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. The Final Map shall show final precise location of all rights of way and easements.
28. Subdivider shall coordinate and obtain all required approvals from the County of Merced, Central California Irrigation District, and any other stakeholders affected by the work.
Subdivision Public Improvements
29. Subdivider shall dedicate street right of way and construct subdivision street frontage improvements for the south half of Sullivan Road pursuant to a 70-ft Street Section per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer. Roadway pavement for the south half of Sullivan Road shall be widened to ultimate street width within the subdivision frontage and transitioned to existing pavement as required. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, decorative street lighting and other required street frontage improvements shall extend the length of the subdivision boundary. Construct all required frontage improvements per City standards or as approved by the City Engineer.
30. Subdivider shall dedicate public utility/pedestrian easement and construct street improvements for Mills Road pursuant to a 60-ft Street Section per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer. Roadway pavement shall be widened to ultimate street width within the project frontage and transitioned to existing pavement as required. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, decorative street lighting and other required street frontage improvements shall extend the length of the subdivision boundary. Construct all required frontage improvements per City standards or as approved by the City Engineer.
31. Subdivider shall dedicate street right of way and public utility/pedestrian easement for the proposed Interior Collectors and construct street improvements pursuant to a 70-ft Street Section per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer.
Roadway improvements shall include, but not be limited to, pavement section, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, driveways, decorative street lighting, landscaping, survey monuments, signage, and striping and shall conform to the City's Improvement Standards.
32. Subdivider shall dedicate street right of way and public utility/pedestrian easement for the proposed Local Roads and construct street improvements pursuant to a 52-ft Street Section per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer.
Roadway improvements shall include, but not be limited to, pavement section, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, driveways, street knuckles, decorative street lighting, landscaping, survey monuments, signage, and striping and shall conform to the City's Improvement Standards.
33. Subdivider shall dedicate or cause the dedication of street right of way for a 4-way stop at the proposed intersection of Sullivan Road/Grove Avenue and construct the intersection improvements the ultimate street right of way for the south half of Sullivan Road for a future roundabout at the proposed Sullivan Road/Grove Avenue intersection with a footprint configuration based on the requirements of the Highway Design Manual Figure 404.5C for California legal design vehicle of 50-ft turning radius and 6-seconds lock-to-lock time for rural Arterial designation. In the interim, Subdivider shall dedicate any required street right of way and construct improvements for a 4-way stop intersection at Sullivan Road and Grove Avenue pursuant to the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Southeast Gustine Annexation prepared by KD Anderson & Associates dated December 17, 2015, and as approved by the City Engineer. Construct the 4-way stop intersection with the dedicated turning lanes as required by the traffic impact analysis and improvements including, but not limited to, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramp, lighted crossing, landscaping, decorative street lighting and other required street improvements per the City's Improvement Standards.
34. Construct street knuckles to the dimensions and curve lines as required per the City of Gustine Improvement Standards.
35. Construct all designated partial Interior Collectors and Local Roads to allow vehicle travel in each direction and to contain storm runoff within the subdivision boundary.
36. Provide sight distance at intersections of Street 9 (A) at Sullivan Rd and Street 5 (A) at Mills Road to meet City of Gustine Improvement Standards.
37. Pursuant to the Southeast Gustine Master Plan, construct temporary paved pedestrian access north from Sullivan Rd. along Grove St. to the elementary school, consistent with the provisions of the Master Plan.
38. Pursuant to the Southeast Gustine Master Plan, construct frontage improvements along the Gustine Middle School frontage of Sullivan Road.
Water System
39. Construct water mains, fire hydrants, blowoffs, sampling stations, and lateral connections as necessary to serve each lot.
40. Water services shall be sized to meet domestic and fire protection demands and shall include shutoff valves, corporation stops, and water meters. Subdivider shall incorporate water recirculation for residential sprinkler system at the water service or onsite plumbing as applicable.
41. Construct minimum 8-inch water mains on proposed subdivision streets and looped as needed to support the subdivision pursuant to the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer.
Pipe sizes greater than the minimum shall be determined from hydraulic calculations and/or modeling studies, consistent with the existing network grid or as recommended from the Southeast Gustine Master Plan.
42. Construct 12-inch water main from point of connection at Sullivan Road and along Street 9 (B), Street 1 (B) and Street 8 (B) to the proposed well location at the basin site per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan.
43. Construct 12-inch water main from the proposed well location and along Street 8 (B) to the subdivision south boundary per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan.
44. Construct 12-inch water main on Mills Road to extend the length of the subdivision boundary per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan.
45. Connect proposed water main on Street 11 (A) to existing main on Sullivan Road to complete a loop per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan.
Sewer System
46. Construct sewer lines, lift stations, manholes, and lateral connections as necessary to serve each lot. Convey sanitary wastewater via a gravity flow system unless a lift station is required at points of connection due to topography restrictions.
47. Lateral connections shall include cleanouts and other required components per the City's Improvement Standards.
48. Construct minimum 8-inch sewer mains on proposed subdivision streets pursuant to the Southeast Gustine Master Plans and as approved by the City Engineer. Pipe sizes greater than the minimum shall be determined from hydraulic calculations and/or modeling studies, consistent with the existing network grid, or as recommended from the Southeast Gustine Master Plan.
49. Construct 10-inch sewer main from the proposed connection on Sullivan Road and along Street 9 (B), Street 1 (B), and Street 8 (B) to the subdivision south boundary per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan.
50. Construct 18-inch sewer main on Sullivan Road to extend the length of the subdivision boundary to the west and connect to the existing 18- inch sewer main to the east. Extend the 18-inch trunk sewer from the existing sewer pump station on Railroad and Meredith Avenue and along Hunt Avenue, Meredith Avenue, and Kniebes Road to connect to the existing 24-inch on Carnation Road pursuant to the South east Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer.
Storm Drainage
51. Construct storm drain lines, manholes, drain inlets, catch basins, detention basins, outfalls, and lift stations.
52. Construct storm sewers on proposed subdivision streets as determined from hydraulic calculations and/or modeling studies, consistent with the existing network grid and as recommended per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and Storm Drain Master Plan.
53. All runoff from City streets shall be contained within the public rights of way or easements and conveyed to the proposed storm basin.
54. Design and construct the proposed storm basin per the City's Improvement Standards, Soils Investigation and Southeast Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer. Basin shall be sized to handle the storm runoff from the proposed subdivision. Design shall demonstrate and construction shall implement an interim solution providing for the ultimate storm basin design for the Master Plan area.
55. Design and construct a storm pump station on a block wall-enclosed 50'x50' site with pumping capacity and equipped as required and approved by the City Engineer and pursuant to the Southeast Gustine Master Plan.
56. Construct 12-inch storm drain force main from the storm pump station and along Street 8 (B), Street 5 (A), Street 11 (A), Sullivan Road, Hunt Road, and Railroad Avenue to connect at the existing 42-inch irrigation pipeline on Meredith Avenue pursuant to the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer. Construct connection to irrigation pipe as required and approved by the Central California Irrigation District.
57. Subdivider shall dedicate the park/storm basin/water well parcel to the City of Gustine for public use.
58. The basin area including side slopes and floor shall be provided with grass and irrigation at all phases.
City Park Improvements
Subdivider shall dedicate the park/storm drain/water well parcel to the City of Gustine for public use.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the conditions of project approval set forth herein include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservations requirements, and other exactions, and that pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is hereby further notified that the ninety (90) days approval period in which a protest of these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a) can be filed, begins on February 21, 2023, and that if a protest is not filed within this (90) ninety day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, the applicant will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that the Clerk of the City Council is hereby directed to file with the Merced County Clerk a Notice of Determination in regard to the environmental impact of the proposed subdivision.
The foregoing resolution was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council held on February 21, 2023, by Council member who moved its adoption, which motion was seconded by Council member and carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
City Clerk Mayor Nagy
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GUSTINE
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
OF THE KATAKIS VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
WHEREAS, by Resolution 2018-2419 on March 6, 2018 the City Council adopted the Southeast Gustine Master Plan in conformance with the provisions of the Gustine General Plan; and
WHEREAS, Ron Katakis ("Subdivider") filed an application for a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to divide 41.68 acres, property located south of Sullivan Avenue within the Southeast Gustine Master Plan area, into 157 single-family residential lots and one park/storm drainage/water well lot; WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on April 27, 2022, in the Council Chambers, Gustine, California, at which hearing evidence both oral and documentary was received and considered; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a hearing on May 17, 2022 in the Council Chambers, Gustine, California, at which hearing evidence both oral and documentary was received and considered; and
WHEREAS, the City Council certified it had received and reviewed the Initial Study, Environmental Assessment No. EA/C&ED 2018-24, which concluded that the project is within the scope of the General Plan Master EIR (SCH No. 2007072023) ,and
WHEREAS, an application for the proposed amendment of the Vesting Tentative Map was received in the office of the Secretary of the Planning Commission on XXXXXX, 2022; and
WHEREAS, Section 4-61-100 of the Gustine Zoning Code provides that a subdivider may request changes to an approved tentative map or its conditions of approval before recordation of a final map if the amendments are necessary due to a change of circumstances related to the original approval; and
WHEREAS, the Subdivider has represented that changes in the local economy and housing market have necessitated the requested amendments.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council concur with the Commission's recommendation that the applicant's request for a Public Facility Impact Fee Reimbursement Addendum be considered at the time of Final Map, however with no commitment to approving such addendum. The Commission also recommends the City Council develop and adopt policies for implementation of the City Public Facility Impact fee program prior to considering a reimbursement addendum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission that it hereby finds and determines as follows:
1. The proposed vesting tentative subdivision map, together with the provisions for its design and improvements, is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Gustine, the Southeast Gustine Master Plan, and the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California.
2. Prior to issuance of any building permit, a Precise Development Plan as required by provisions of the PD zone must be applied for and approved.
3. The discharge of waste as a result of the proposed vesting tentative subdivision map into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code of the State of California.
4. The proposed vesting tentative map will have no additional significant effect on the environment, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 21158 of the Public Resources Code, which was not identified in the Master Plan
5. o new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives are requires . The proposed vestina tentative map is within the scope of the projec covered by the Master Plan EIR.
7. All applicable policies, regulations, and mitigation measures identified in the Master Plan EIR have been applied to the proposed vesting tentative map subsequent project or otherwise made conditions of approval of the proposed vesting tentative map.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Gustine City Council approves the amendment to the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map subject to the following conditions:
CEQA:
1. All development shall at all times be subject to and in conformance with the mitigation measures identified by the Southeast Gustine Final EIR and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Southeast Gustine Master Plan Project (MMRP).
1.1. BIO 3.1: If construction work on a project commences between March 1 and September 15, a pre-construction survey for nesting Swainson's hawks within 0.5 miles of the construction site shall be conducted by a qualified biologist retained by the project applicant prior to the start of construction work. If active nests are found, a qualified biologist shall determine the need (if any) for temporal restrictions on construction or other protective measures. The determination shall be pursuant to criteria set forth by CDFW in its Staff Report regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson's Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California (1994). The project shall incorporate all recommended measures, including any temporal restrictions.
1.2. BIO 3.2: If construction work on a project commences between February 1 and August 31, a pre-construction survey for burrowing owls within 250 feet of the construction site shall be conducted by a qualified biologist retained by the project applicant prior to the start of construction work. If occupied burrows are found, a qualified biologist shall determine the need (if any) for temporal restrictions on construction or other protective measures. The determination shall be pursuant to criteria set forth by CDFW in its Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012). The project shall incorporate all recommended measures, including any temporary restrictions.
1.3. BIO 4.1: If construction work on a project commences during the general avian nesting season from March 1 through July 31, a pre-construction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist retained by the project applicant prior to the start of construction work, If active nests are found, work in the vicinity of the nest shall be delayed until the young fledge.
1.4. CULT 1.2 and 2.2: So that potential archaeological or paleontological materials encountered during construction activity can be identified, the developer or contractor shall provide training of field personnel in identification procedures prior to construction work, such training to be carried out by a qualified cultural resources specialist. The training would consist of a mandatory pre-field meeting in which a professional archaeologist would review with equipment operators the natural and cultural history of the annexation area,
archaeological sensitivity, the most likely locations of buried cultural materials, if any, and what kinds of cultural materials would be seen if prehistoric materials are in fact unearthed and specifically how to address such discoveries and what
immediate actions to take, particularly if human remains are
1.5. CULT 2.3: If any subsurface cultural resources are encountered during future project construction, all construction activity in the vicinity of the encounter shall cease until a qualified archaeologist examines the materials, determines their
significance, and recommends mitigation measures that would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level, in accordance with CEQA. The City of Gustine shall be immediately notified of the discovery and the developer or its contractor shall be responsible for retaining a qualified archaeologist and for implementing recommended mitigation
1.6. CULT 2.4: If human remains are encountered at any time during future project construction, all construction activity in the vicinity of the encounter shall cease, and the County Coroner and the City of Gustine shall be notified immediately. The Coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission if the
remains have been identified as or are suspected of being of Native American descent. The developer or its contractor shall implement the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines with
respect to human remains of Native American origin. The developer or its contractor shall retain a qualified archaeologis:
to evaluate the archaeological importance of the find and ecommend any mitigation measures needed to reduce any
otentially significant effects to a less than sianificant level under CEQA. The developer shall implement those recommendations.
1.7. CULT 3.1: If paleontological resources are encountered during project construction, construction activity in the vicinity of the counter shall cease until a qualitied paleontologist examine e materials, determines their sianificance under CEDA. an recommends mitigation measures that would be necessary to reduce potentially significant effects to a less than significant level, in accordance with CEQA. The City of Gustine shall be immediately notified of the discovery. The developer or its contractor shall be responsible for retaining a qualified paleontologist and for implementing recommended mitigation measures.
1.8. GEO 3.1/3.2: Implemented by Condition 16.
1.9. GRG-1: The project developer shall implement the following greenhouse gas emission reduction measures: 1) The project shall install only natural gas hearths in residences, and 2) Residences on the project site shall exceed Title 24 energy efficiency targets by at least 15%.
1.10. NOISE 14.1: Hours of operation for noise-generating construction equipment shall be restricted to 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM Saturday, and Sundays (with authorization from the City Council or Planning Commission), 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM, when such equipment is to be used near noise sensitive land uses.
1.11. SERV 1.1: The Precise Development Plan shall include design and implementation that promotes citizens' safety developed in consultation with the Gustine Police Department.
1.12. TRANS 1.2 is implemented through the payment of applicable Traffic Development Impact Fees as currentiy under
consideration for adoption.
1.13. UTIL 2.1 and UTIL 5.1 are implemented into the Master Plan Deleted: TRANS 1.3 is implemented through the infrastructure required to be completed with the project. inclusion of a roundabout at the Sullivan/Grove intersection into the VTSM.1
General Conditions:
1. With recordation of a Final Map, the map shall demonstrate via note or building setback line that all rear-yard setbacks for lots that back up to Sullivan Road shall be fifteen feet, in accordance to the setback standards outlined in the City's Zoning Code.
2. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy of any structure on any lot abutting Sullivan Road, the following fences and walls shall be installed:
... An eight-foot high continuous split-face decorative masonry wal vith cap treatment shall be installed alona Sullivan Roadi
3. Prior to recordation of a Final Map, Subdivider shall provide a form of disclosure to future residents about the potential exposure to agricultural operations in the area. Such disclosure shall be placed on the Final Map and provided with deeds for each residential lot.
4. All landscaping, fences, and walls shall be maintained and the premises shall be kept free of weeds, trash, and other debris.
5. Except as amended herein, or by reference, all development shall be in accordance with the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and the mitigation measures specified by the applicable EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
6. Prior to start of construction, all-weather, hard-surfaced roadways shall be constructed and maintained free of obstructions at all times during construction as required by City Engineer.
7. Subdivider shall, at his sole expense, defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Gustine, its agents, officers, directors and employees, trom and against all claims, actions, damages, losses, or expenses of every type and description, includina but not limited to payment of attorneys' fees and costs, by reason of, or arising out of, this development approval. The obligation to defend, indemnify and old harmless shall include but is not limited to any action to arbitrate attack, review, set aside, void or annul this development approval oi any grounds whatsoever. The City of Gustine shall promptly notify Subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
8. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, a Precise Development Plan for the area as required by provisions of the PD zone must be applied for and approved.
9. All minimum conditions of subdivision approval in Article 6 of the City's Zoning Ordinance ("Subdivisions") are included by reference.
10. The Final Map shall comply with all provisions of the Subdivision Map
11. The Final Map shall be prepared by a California licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer and filed for City Council approval.
12. Subdivider shall provide all required documents as determined by the City Engineer for review and approval of the Final Map and recording thereof.
13. Before approval of the Final Map and recording thereof, the Subdivider shali:
a) Construct all public improvements or provide the required surety for the construction thereof for acceptance by the City Council. b) Construct or provide required surety for all irrigation improvements as required by Central California Irrigation District. c) The Subdivider shall dedicate all necessary rights of way and easements to the City of Gustine, public utility companies, and other affected agencies.
d) The Subdivider shall dedicate all public park lands, well sites, and storm basins to the City of Gustine.
14. Prior to approval of the Final Map, improvement plans for streets, utilities, drainage facilities, survey monuments, grading, and erosion control shall be prepared and submitted for the City Engineer's
15. Public improvements shall conform to the latest edition of the City of Gustine Improvement Standards and any modifications thereto approved by the City Engineer in place at the time of approval of this Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map. Improvements shall conform to other City adopted documents, including the approved Southeast Gustine Master Plan and amendments thereof, General Plan, Sewer Master Plan, and Stormwater Master Plan. The work shall comply with all applicable State, Federal, and local laws and reaulations.
16. As part of the improvement plans, the Subdivider shall submit to the City Engineer a soils report prepared by a California registered geotechnical engineer. The soils report shall include recommendations for the structural sections for streets, excavation, compaction, clearing, grubbing requirements, percolation, water table elevation, and grading improvements for the drainage basin.
17. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit or commencement or construction on site, the Subdivider shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) under the California Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NDES No. CA000002 for construction activities
18. Prior to approval of the improvement plans, Subdivider shall prepare a pre-project water balance calculation for storm water runoff pursuant to the California Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2012-0006- DWQ, NPDES No. CA000002 for compliance with Post-Construction Standards for non-MS4 Phase I and Phase Il agencies.
19. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit or commencement of construction on site, the Subdivider shall prepare a Dust Control Plan (DCP) and file the Plan with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to approve construction activities for the project if required.
20. Prior to the issuance of any grading and encroachment permits, Subdivider shall pay the permit fee, plan check and inspection fees, and furnish improvement securities pursuant to the City's improvement standards, municipal code, and ordinances. Improvement securities will be in accordance with standards set for in the California Subdivision Map Act and the City's Municipal Code.
21. Prior to final inspection or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any unit. Subdivider shall pay all development impact fees as specified and pursuant to the City's municipal code, ordinances, and Deleted: Prior to the issuance of a building permit,
22. Prior to approval of the Final Map, Subdivider shall prepare, fund, and Subdivider shall pay all development impact fees as specified and pursuant to the City's municipal
complete the annexation of the proposed parcels to any applicable code, ordinances, and resolutions. The fee Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District and Community assessment shall include all applicable fees for Municipal Facilities, Police, Fire Protection.
Facilities District for the City of Gustine for all required and applicable Transportation, Water, Domestic Wastewater,
assessments, or, at the City's discretion, the Subdivider shall prepare, Storm Drainage, and Parks. Fees shall be paid at fund, and complete the formation of a new landscape and lighting the time of the issuance of each permit. maintenance district and/or community facilities district for the parcels, Development Fees shall include all those fees currently under consideration by the City Council
23. Provide utility services to each lot, including electric power, gas, and proposed for adoption on May 17, 2022 telephone, and cable television. Formatted: Not Highlight
24. Construct all proposed utilities underground within the street rights of Deleted: The proposed parcels shall be annexed
way or public utility easement. Any existing overhead lines including to any applicable Landscape and Lighting electric, communication and Cable TV within the public rights of way Maintenance District and Community Facilities or easements fronting the subdivision, or within the proposed parce. District for the City of Gustine for all required and applicable assessments, or, at the City's
boundaries shall be undergrounded within the street rights of way or discretion, the Subdivider will agree to, prepare relocated to acceptable easements as approved by the City and the and fund, formation of a new landscape and affected utility companies. lighting maintenance district and community facilities district for the parcels.
25. The location and installation of mailboxes shall be approved by the US Postmaster and the City of Gustine.
26. The names for the new subdivision streets shall be provided for consideration and are subject to approval by the City Council.
27. The rights of way and easements shown on the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map are preliminary until they are reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. The Final Map shall show final precise location of all rights of way and easements.
28. Subdivider shall coordinate and obtain all required approvals from the County of Merced, Central California Irigation District, and any other stakeholders affected by the work.
Subdivision Public Improvements
29. Subdivider shall dedicate street right of way and construct subdivision street frontage improvements for the south half of Sullivan Road pursuant to a 70-ft Street Section per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer. Roadway pavement for the south half of Sullivan Road shall be widened to ultimate street width within the subdivision frontage and transitioned to existing pavement as required. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, decorative street lighting and other required street frontage improvements shall extend the length of the subdivision boundary. Construct all required frontage improvements per City standards or as approved by the City Engineer, Deleted: Subdivider shall dedicate or cause the
30. Subdivider shall dedicate public utility/pedestrian easement and dedication of street right of way for the proposed roundabout and subdivision street frontage for
construct street improvements for Mills Road pursuant to a 60-ft Street Sullivan Road and construct street improvements Section per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the pursuant to a 70-ft Street Section per the City Engineer. Roadway pavement shall be widened to ultimate street Southeast Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer, Roadway pavement shall
width within the project frontage and transitioned to existing be widened to ultimate street width within the pavement as required. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, decorative project frontage and transitioned to existing street lighting and other required street frontage improvements shall pavement as required. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, decorative street lighting and other
extend the length of the subdivision boundary. Construct all required required street frontage improvements shall frontage improvements per City standards or as approved by the City extend the length of the subdivision boundary.
Construct all required frontage improvements per
City standards or as approved by the City
31. Subdivider shall dedicate street right of way and public Engineer. utility/pedestrian easement for the proposed Interior Collectors and Formatted: Not Highlight construct street improvements pursuant to a 70-ft Street Section per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer.
Roadway improvements shall include, but not be limited to, pavement section, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, driveways, decorative street lighting, landscaping, survey monuments, signage, and striping and shall conform to the City's Improvement Standards.
32. Subdivider shall dedicate street right of way and public utility/pedestrian easement for the proposed Local Roads and construct street improvements pursuant to a 52-ft Street Section per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer.
Roadway improvements shall include, but not be limited to, pavement section, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, driveways, street knuckles, decorative street lighting, landscaping, survey monuments, signage, and striping and shall conform to the City's Improvement Standards.
33. Subdivider shall dedicate or cause the dedication of street right of way for a 4-way stop at the proposed intersection of Sullivan Road/Grove Avenue and construct the intersection improvements the ultimate street right of way for the south half of Sullivan Road for a future roundabout at the proposed Sullivan Road/Grove Avenue intersection with a footprint configuration based on the requirements of the Highway Design Manual Figure 404.5C for California legal design vehicle of 50-ft turning radius and 6-seconds lock-to-lock time for rural Arterial designation. In the interim, Subdivider shall dedicate any required street right of way and construct improvements for a 4-way stop intersection at Sullivan Road and Grove Avenue pursuant to the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Southeast Gustine Annexation prepared by KD Anderson & Associates dated December 17, 2015, and as approved by the Cily Engineer. Construct the 4-way stop intersection with the dedicated turnina lanes as required by the traffic impact analysis and improvements including, but not limited to, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramp, lighted crossing, landscaping, decorative street lighting and other required street improvements per the City's Improvement Standards, Deleted: Construct the proposed roundabout to
34. Construct street knuckles to the dimensions and curve lines as required meet Highway Design Manual Figure 404.5C for per the City of Gustine Improvement Standards. California Legal Design Vehicle of 50-ft turning radius and 6-seconds lock-to-lock time for a rural
35. Construct all designated partial Interior Collectors and Local Roads to arterial designation. allow vehicle travel in each direction and to contain storm runoff within Formatted: Not Highlight the subdivision boundary.
36. Provide sight distance at intersections of Street 9 (A) at Sullivan Rd and Street 5 (A) at Mills Road to meet City of Gustine Improvement
37. Pursuant to the Southeast Gustine Master Plan, construct temporary paved pedestrian access north from Sullivan Rd. along Grove St. to the elementary school, consistent with the provisions of the Master Plan.
38. Pursuant to the Southeast Gustine Master Plan, construct frontage improvements along the Gustine Middle School frontage of Sullivan Water System
39. Construct water mains, fire hydrants, blowoffs, sampling stations, and lateral connections as necessary to serve each lot.
40. Water services shall be sized to meet domestic and fire protection demands and shall include shutoff valves, corporation stops, and water meters. Subdivider shall incorporate water recirculation for residential sprinkler system at the water service or onsite plumbing as
41. Construct minimum 8-inch water mains on proposed subdivision streets and looped as needed to support the subdivision pursuant to the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer.
Pipe sizes greater than the minimum shall be determined from hydraulic calculations and/or modeling studies, consistent with the existing network grid or as recommended from the Southeast Gustine Master Plan.
42. Construct 12-inch water main from point of connection at Suilivan Road and along Street 9 (B), Street 1 (B) and Street 8 (B) to the proposed well location at the basin site per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan.
43. Construct 12-inch water main from the proposed well location and along Street 8 (B) to the subdivision south boundary per the Southeast
44. Construct 12-inch water main on Mills Road to extend the length of the subdivision boundary per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan.
45. Connect proposed water main on Street 11 (A) to existing main on Sullivan Road to complete a loop per the Southeast Gustine Master Sewer System
46. Construct sewer lines, lift stations, manholes, and lateral connections as necessary to serve each lot. Convey sanitary wastewater via a gravity flow system unless a lift station is required at points of connection due to topography restrictions.
47. Lateral connections shall include cleanouts and other required components per the City's Improvement Standards.
48. Construct minimum 8-inch sewer mains on proposed subdivision streets pursuant to the Southeast Gustine Master Plans and as approved by the City Engineer. Pipe sizes greater than the minimum shall be determined from hydraulic calculations and/or modeling studies, consistent with the existing network grid, or as recommended from the Southeast Gustine Master Plan.
49. Construct 10-inch sewer main from the proposed connection on Sullivan Road and along Street 9 (B), Street 1 (B), and Street 8 (B) to the subdivision south boundary per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan.
50. Construct 18-inch sewer main on Sullivan Road to extend the length of the subdivision boundary to the west and connect to the existing 18- inch sewer main to the east. Extend the 18-inch trunk sewer from the existing sewer pump station on Railroad and Meredith Avenue and along Hunt Avenue, Meredith Avenue, and Kniebes Road to connect to the existing 24-inch on Carnation Road pursuant to the South east Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer.
Storm Drainage
51. Construct storm drain lines, manholes, drain inlets, catch basins, detention basins, outfalls, and lift stations.
52. Construct storm sewers on proposed subdivision streets as determined from hydraulic calculations and/or modeling studies, consistent with the existing network grid and as recommended per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and Storm Drain Master Plan.
53. All runoff from City streets shall be contained within the public rights of way or easements and conveyed to the proposed storm basin.
54. Design and construct the proposed storm basin per the City's Improvement Standards, Soils Investigation and Southeast Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer. Basin shall be sized to handle the storm runoff from the proposed subdivision. Design shall demonstrate and construction shall implement an interim solution providing for the ultimate storm basin design for the Master Plan area.
55. Design and construct a storm pump station on a block wall-enclosed 50'x50' site with pumping capacity and equipped as required and approved by the City Engineer and pursuant to the Southeast Gustine Master Plan.
56. Construct 12-inch storm drain force main from the storm pump station and along Street 8 (B), Street 5 (A), Street 11 (A), Sullivan Road, Hunt Road, and Railroad Avenue to connect at the existing 42-inch irrigation pipeline on Meredith Avenue pursuant to the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer. Construct connection to irrigation pipe as required and approved by the Central California Irrigation District.
57. Subdivider shall dedicate the park/storm basin/water well parcel to the City of Gustine for public use.
58. The basin area including side slopes and floor shall be provided with grass and irrigation at all phases.
City Park Improvements
59. Subdivider shall dedicate the park/storm drain/water well parcel to the City of Gustine for public use.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the conditions of project approval set forth herein include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservations requirements, and other exactions, and that pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is hereby further notified that the ninety (90) days approval period in which a protest of these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a) can be filed, begins on November 30, 2022, and that if a protest is not filed within this (90) ninety day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, the applicant will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Commission that the Secretary of the Planning Commission is hereby directed to file with the Merced County Clerk a Notice of Determination in regard to the environmental impact of the proposed subdivision.
The foregoing resolution was introduced at the regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on November 30, 2022, by Commissioner who moved its adoption, which motion was seconded by
Commissioner _ and carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
City Clerk Planning Commission Chairman
ITEM NO. 5
GUST TE CITY CALIFORNI
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA ITEM
NOVEMBER 30, 2022
PREPAREd BY: Brad Kilger, Interim City Manager
George Osner, Consulting Planner
SUBJECT: Katakis Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map request for amended Conditions of Approval
BACKGROUND
On May 17, 2022, the City Council approved the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM) for Mr. Ron Katakis. The subdivision consists of 157 single-family residential lots in the Southeast Gustine Master Plan. The applicant proposes certain modifications to the conditions of approval applicable to his approved VTSM relating to development of his property. The VTSM is a part of the southern portion of the Master Plan, south of Sullivan Road.
The adopted Southeast Gustine Master Plan was prepared in accordance with, and is consistent with, the General Plan and provides the underpinning for development of the area with urban uses, primarily residential. It establishes policy relating to, and the general layout of, the Master Plan area. The Master Plan is available on the City's website.
A portion of the Master Plan area, including the area encompassed by the VTSM, was annexed to the City in follow up to the Master Plan adoption. The area the VTSM is located in was pre-zoned to PD (Planned Development) consistent with the City's General Plan. This zone requires that all development be pursuant to a Precise Development Plan, a follow up step that will occur before any building occurs.
Most recently, the applicant sought approval of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map over his property and this map was considered by the Planning Commission and City Council, and was approved including a set of Conditions of Approval.
Mr. Katakis has identified a number of revisions to the conditions of the map and related matters that he is desirous of changing. He is claiming that the requested amendments are necessary due to an increase in mortgage interest rates and softening of the residential real estate market. If the Planning Commission and City Council agree, the amendments can be approved in reliance on the finding that there has been a change of circumstances related to the original approval.
The Gustine Zoning and Subdivision Code (Sec. 4-61-100) provides that a subdivider may request changes to an approved tentative map or its conditions of approval before recordation of a final map only if one of the following findings is made:
1. There was a material mistake of fact in the deliberations leading to the original approval;
2. There has been a change of circumstances related to the original approval; or
3. A serious and unforeseen hardship has occurred, not due to any action of the applicant subsequent to the enactment of this Zoning and Subdivision Code.
DISCUSSION
The applicant's application and supporting documents are attached. Following is a summary of his requests.
1) Request to Change Requirement for Payment of Public Facility Impact Fees from Issuance of Building Permit to Close of Escrow
Condition #21 currently reads as follows:
#21. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Subdivider shall pay all development impact fees as specified and pursuant to the City's municipal code, ordinances, and resolutions. The fee assessment shall include all applicable fees for Municipal Facilities, Police, Fire Protection, Transportation, Water, Domestic Wastewater, Storm Drainage, and Parks. Fees shall be paid at the time of the issuance of each permit. Development Fees shall include all those fees currently under consideration by the City Council and proposed for adoption on May 17, 2022. (Note: City Council approved the Impact Fees update on May 17, 2022) In his attached request memorandum, Mr. Katakis states that due to the deteriorating real estate market, potential buyers of his subdivision map are requiring certainty as to how they will be reimbursed for any up-front infrastructure costs they will be responsible for. He believes that in order to make development feasible, all of the impact fees should be deferred until Certificate of Occupancy and collected at the close of escrow for each single-family residence. To support his request, Mr. Katakis submitted documents to City staff showing that this method of collecting fees was approved for a subdivision he developed in the City of Turlock (Attachment 2B). He is therefore requesting that Condition #21 be amended to read as follows:
Proposed #21: Subdivider shall pay all development impact fees as specified and pursuant to the City's municipal code, ordinances, and resolutions. The fee assessment shall include all applicable fees for Municipal Facilities, Police, Fire Protection, Transportation, Water, Domestic Wastewater, Storm Drainage, and Parks, except those subject to fee credits for infrastructure previously installed. All development fees shall be deferred until certificate of occupancy of each house and collected a close of escrow for that house. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued until a recordable lien in a form approved by the City Attorney has been placed on the subject property for the total amount of fees to be paid.
Development Fees shall include those fees currently under consideration by the City Council and proposed for adoption on May 17, 2022.
The City Council resolution approving the City's Public Facilities Fee program requires payment of fees to be at the time a building permit is issued. Any exception for this particular project that will permit fees to be paid at a later time would need to be documented in the resolution approving the project.
Staff has identified several administrative and infrastructure funding concerns that deferral of fee payment presents for the City including the following:
• Infrastructure funding: Fees provide funding for necessary infrastructure that in some cases is needed early in the development process or when sufficient revenue has been collected to fund the improvement. Any proposed deferral needs to be considered in this light. For instance, completion of the well within the Master Plan area is needed relatively early in the development process for the Master Plan. Other City infrastructure improvements identified in the Impact Fee Program will be needed including a water storage tank and system upgrades to the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Difficulty of administration: Fee collection in connection with permit issuance is a standard process and ensures that the fees applicable to each unit are paid, with no opportunity for items to be missed. Any deferral requires additional tracking to ensure that the fee collection is not missed at a later date.
The process proposed by Mr. Katakis requires three steps: 1) calculation and establishment of fees at the time of building permit, 2) execution and recordation of a lien on the property at the time of, or prior to, final inspection/certificate of occupancy, and 3) collection of fees/release of lien through the escrow at time of sale. This more complex process has potential for error and places an additional administrative burden on Gustine's very limited staffing. The City of Turlock fee deferral program suggested by Mr.
Katakis is from a much larger city (406 staff positions) with its own on-site Planning, Building and Finance departments who have the capacity and technology to manage such a complex process accurately.
Mr. Katakis states there is precedence in Gustine for his request. He cites an impact fee deferment the City made with Self Help Enterprises, a private nonprofit corporation specializing in the development of affordable housing.
In 2013, the City agreed to defer a portion of the impact fees for 33 infill lots in the Borelli Ranch subdivision until time of resale by the owner builders. The homes were built under the mutual self-help method of construction where each family is required to contribute a minimum of 40 hours a week working on all the homes for a period of 9 to 12 months. These labor hours are used as the family's down payment on their new home, reducing costs for a new home they could otherwise not afford. In addition, Self Help obtained special financing from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the State of California to make the homes affordable.
The deferral program was implemented through an agreement signed by the City and Self Help. Self Help drafted the Transfer Fee Agreement and Notice of Payment documents that were signed by the homeowner. The City maintains the signed agreements in binders in the Finance Office. To date the staff are not aware that any homes have sold requiring repayment of the deferred fees. The binders were located after some searching, as newer staff were not aware they existed.
While staff acknowledges that there is precedent for deferring fees, it is believed there is a difference between the Self-Help example and the request from Mr. Katakis. First, only 20% of the total fees were deferred for each home, reducing the potential financial risk to the City, which was a primary concern of the then City Council.
Secondly, this was only for 33 homes, whereas the Katakis VTSM consists of 157 lots.
Finally, this was an affordable housing project for low and very low-income households, whereas the Katakis project is market rate. The City viewed this as a reasonable measured exchange for generating needed affordable housing in Gustine.
In addition, separate from the Self-Help project, the City has not had a good record of accomplishment monitoring Final Map requirements. For example, the Borrelli Ranch subdivision was recorded and built in several phases. It was discovered after several phases were recorded that they were not required to annex into the mandatory maintenance district prior to recordation. Failure to do annex the lots has had a significant negative financial impact on the City, as the City has had to use General Fund revues to cover the maintenance costs of the lots that are not assessed.
This has left the Council with concerns regarding management of such processes in the future.
A third option that other cities have used is to defer collection of all or a portion of the impact fees to final inspection of the residence. This option would allow the developer to defer the fee payments until the residence is ready for occupancy. This eliminates the need for a lien but requires that the City implement a precise Certificate of Occupancy process. The process requires the City's Building Department to generate and manage sufficient documentation to certify that the residence complies with all applicable laws, building codes and requirements imposed by the City, such as payment of impact fees, to ensure the fees are collected before the residence is allowed to be occupied.
Therefore, in considering this request, the Commission has at least three options: 1) leave the timing as it is, at time of building permit, 2) defer payment of fees to final inspection/certificate of occupancy, or 3) as requested by the applicant defer fee collection to Close of Escrow, with fees to be paid out of escrow funds, which requires that a lien be placed on the property to ensure payment. 2) Request to Receive Public Facility Impact Fee Credits for Infrastructure Improvements from Across Fee Categories
In addition to deferring when impact fees must be paid, Mr. Katakis is also requesting that the subdivision be credited any fee component balances (General Government, Police, Fire, Park Facilities, Storm Drainage, Water, Sewer and Transportation) to offset any expenditures for infrastructure improvements that may exist within a particular fee component account and that all impact fee components be included in these inter- fund fee credit calculations.
The City's PFF program provides for reimbursement of developer-installed infrastructure as follows:
Credits and Reimbursement Policies
The City shall provide fee credits or reimbursements to developers who dedicate land or construct facilities included in the fee program. Fee credits or reimbursements will be provided up to the cost of the improvement, as shown in this study, subject to periodic inflation adjustments, or the actual cost paid by the developer, whichever is lower. For construction cost overruns, only that amount shown in the fee study, subject to periodic inflation adjustments, would be credited or reimbursed. Credits or reimbursements may be repaid based on the priority of the capital improvements, as determined by the City.
The City will determine fee credits and reimbursements on a case-by-case basis and possibly through the use of a development agreement The adopting resolution suggests that a Development Agreement may be a mechanism for establishing the details of such reimbursement. The applicant, however, proposes to have a Reimbursement Addendum adopted as part of a future agreement between the City and the future owner of the property when the City Council approves the Final Map.
To implement this approach, Mr. Katakis in his application packet, requested that a new condition be added as follows:
Proposed #21A Fee credits shall be provided to the project as set forth in the attached Reimbursement Addendum.
However, in a follow-up e-mail (Attachment 3), Mr. Katakis acknowledged that the actual infrastructure costs that will be used to form the agreement cannot be established until the final engineering and construction of improvements have taken place. Therefore, at this time he desires to have the City approve in concept that such an agreement will be entered into with the future developer as part of the Final Map process. However, he does not suggest any specific language on how such approval is to be granted. Mr. Katakis again explains that the primary purpose of this request is to facilitate construction of the subdivision by a future developer.
In reviewing the Public Facility Impact Fee Program Credit and Reimbursement Policies above, staff acknowledges that the program anticipated fee credits when a developer's cost of construction of an improvement exceeds the amount of impact fees they are required to pay. However, in speaking with Harris & Associates who prepared the Impact Fee update, it was not the intent to authorize cross-category reimbursements. They cautioned the City to review the implications of allowing such reimbursements very carefully.
Staff believes the request for cross-category fee credits would result in the creation of inter-category loans which by law must be tracked and accounted for and which increase costs of administering the program, as well as the potential for errors. It also limits the availability of this funding for other City infrastructure needed to accommodate new growth, such as 1) the new water well the City is responsible for constructing in the SGMP area, 2) a new water storage tank to meet fire flows and increased peak hour demand, and 3) system upgrades to the wastewater treatment plant to increase plant capacity and operational reliability.
It is staff's opinion that it would be fiscally imprudent for the City to agree to an impact fee reimbursement concept before the true financial impacts of such an agreement can be determined. The appropriate time to consider such a proposal is during the Final Map process when the subdivision improvement plans are prepared. At that time the City will also have better knowledge of the existing impact fee fund balances and whether such a concept should be considered given the infrastructure needs of the City at that point in time.
This request also highlights the need for the City to develop a formal set of policies and a process for administering the Public Facility Impact Fee Program and how to provide credits and reimbursements. The City should undertake the preparation and adoption of such policies before considering any reimbursement requests that involve cross fund reimbursements.
3) Request: Revise Assessment District Formation/ Annexation Requirements Condition of Approval #22 currently reads as follows:
#22. The proposed parcels shall be annexed to any applicable Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District and Community Facilities District for the City of Gustine for all required and applicable assessments, or, at the City's discretion, the Subdivider will agree to prepare and fund formation of a new landscape and lighting maintenance district and community facilities district for the parcels.
Mr. Katakis has requested that Condition #22 be revised as follows:
Proposed #22. Prior to the final map approval or as otherwise provided in a subdivision improvement agreement, the proposed parcels shall be annexed to any applicable Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District and Community Facilities District for the City of Gustine for all required and applicable assessments.
The Subdivider will agree to prepare and fund the formation of a new Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District and/or Community Facilities District reasonably necessary for the parcels prior to final map approval or as otherwise provided in a subdivision improvement agreement.
Staff concurs with clarifying that district formation is not required until Final Map and has provided alternate clarifying language in the Recommendations section. 4) Request: Replace Requirement for Construction of Roundabout on Sullivan Road at Grove Avenue Intersection with a 4-way Stop-Controlled Intersection.
Mr. Katakis requests that the requirement for a roundabout be replaced with a 4-way stop controlled-intersection, with pedestrian lighting. The roundabout is located at the intersection of Sullivan and Grove to provide intersection control at that location.
The roundabout would also feature pedestrian lights to provide safe crossings.
One of Mr. Katakis' stated reasons for requesting the removal of the roundabout is that it is not reflected in the current Master Plan Conceptual Circulation Plan and therefore creates an inconsistency between his VTSM and the Master Plan. He is correct that the roundabout is not reflected in the Circulation Plan, however, neither is the Sullivan/Grove 4-way intersection. The origins of the Circulation Plan amendments occurred on July 7, 2020 when the previous City Manager brought an item to the City Council requesting policy direction on two issues. The first issue was to permit smaller residential lot sizes in the SGMP and the second issue involved revise the street pattern of the Master Plan Conceptual Circulation Plan by: 1) moving the main access on Sullivan to align with Grove Avenue (thus replacing two offset three- legged stop-controlled intersections with a single 4-way intersection), 2) removing the eastern street access on Sullivan and replacing it with an emergency only access, and 3) implementing a roundabout for traffic control at the newly configured 4-way intersection. The report included diagrams of the revised Circulation Plan based on discussions with Mr. Katakis and prepared by his engineer.
After discussing the matter, the Council's direction to staff was to not reduce the permitted minimum lot size. However, they did agree with the proposed revisions to the Circulation Plan depicted in Attachment A of the City Manager's staff report.
Subsequently, on May 17, 2022, the City Council approved the Katakis VTSM, incorporating the Circulation Plan revisions, including the roundabout. At the same meeting the Council approved the Public Facilities Impact Fee update, which included the roundabout as one of the planned transportation facilities.
Mr. Katakis believes that since the staff never returned to Council to have the roundabout formally adopted into the Master Plan the requirement for him to build the roundabout should not have been included as a condition of approval for his VTSM. In that regard, Section 6.3 of the Master Plan requires that "major circulation changes" will require amendments to the Master Plan and if necessary, the General Plan. Unfortunately, neither the City Zoning Code nor the Master Plan defines major circulation changes. However, in early 2021, KD Anderson & Assoc. Inc., the firm that conducted the analysis of the transportation impacts for the SGMP Environmental Impact Report, was requested to evaluate the potential transportation impacts of the revised Circulation Plan. In his letter dated March 18, 2021 (Attachment 4), Mr.
Anderson concluded, "the transportation impacts of the proposed plan are similar to or less than those identified in our previous analysis, and no additional mitigation is required."
The issue of consistency between the Katakis VTSM and the Master Plan is one of determining whether the revised Circulation Plan constitutes a major circulation change. Except for the 4-way intersection at Sullivan/Grove, all other adjustments are on local streets, which are specifically exempted from the requirement for a Master Plan amendment per Section 6.3. In addition, whether the 4-way intersection is a roundabout or a signalized intersection is not germane to this question. Since the revised Circulation Plan replaced two offset three-legged stop-controlled intersections with a single 4-way intersection and eliminated another, it is an obvious traffic safety improvement. KD Anderson's determination that the transportation impacts of proposed revisions to the Circulation Plan, including the 4-way intersection/roundabout, were similar to or less than those identified in the original Master Plan transportation analysis, also supported the consistency of these revisions with the guiding principles and requirements of the Master Plan. It is therefore assumed staff determined a Master Plan amendment was not required.
Mr. Katakis also believes that since Sullivan Road is a designated truck route and there is also a school crossing at that location, the size of the roundabout would not achieve the desired effect of properly slowing down cars and provide a safe crossing for students. He also notes the difficulty of obtaining right of way from adjacent property owners for a roundabout the size of the one proposed, which may require the City to pursue acquisition by eminent domain.
Staff believes there is merit in retaining the roundabout. This type of intersection would provide superior traffic flow, reduced congestion and reduced air emissions as compared to a 4-way stop intersection. The roundabout would also provide very safe pedestrian crossing with the use of refuge median islands and audio/sensing crossing elements for the visually impaired. There would be very little maintenance from drought-tolerant landscaping and any other decorative surface features. The roundabout would be designed to limit speeds to around 20 MPH and allow the turning movements of large trucks using a mountable truck apron. Unlike a 4-way stop, the roundabout would significantly reduce traffic backups anticipated from the nearby elementary school and middle school traffic. The roundabout would keep traffic flowing at all times and any backups would not be allowed to block crossing traffic as current guidelines prohibit vehicles from stopping inside the roundabout.
If the Planning Commission, however, agrees with Mr. Katakis' request to replace the roundabout with a 4-way stop, it would require the revision of two of his VTSM conditions (#29 and #33) as detailed below. It would also result in minor revisions to the layout of the subdivision map as related to lots in the immediate vicinity. The layout changes could be determined to be consistent with the tentative map if the condition changes were approved.
Condition #29 currently reads as follows:
#29. Subdivider shall dedicate or cause the dedication of street right of way for the proposed roundabout and subdivision street frontage for Sullivan Road and construct street improvements pursuant to a 70-ft Street Section per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer. Roadway pavement shall be widened to ultimate street width within the project frontage and transitioned to existing pavement as required. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, decorative street lighting and other required street frontage improvements shall extend the length of the subdivision boundary. Construct all required frontage improvements per City standards or as approved by the City Engineer.
Mr. Katakis requests that this be revised as follows:
Proposed #29. Subdivider shall dedicate or cause the dedication of street right of way for the proposed four-way stop at the intersection of Sullivan Road/Grove Avenue and subdivision street frontage for Sullivan Road and construct street improvements pursuant to a 70-ft Street Section per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer. Roadway pavement shall be widened to ultimate street width within the project frontage and transitioned to existing pavement as required. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, decorative street lighting and other required street frontage improvements shall extend the length of the subdivision boundary. Construct all required frontage improvements per City standards or as approved by the City Engineer."
Condition #33 currently reads as follows:
#33. Construct the proposed roundabout to meet Highway Design Manual Figure 404.5C for California Legal Design Vehicle of 50-ft turning radius and 6-seconds lock-to-lock time for a rural arterial designation.
Mr. Katakis requests that this be revised as follows:
Proposed #33. Subdivider shall construct and install four-way stop facilities at the Sullivan Road/Grove Avenue intersection as part of the first Final Map process. 5) Other Requests Not Related to Conditions of Approval:
Mr. Katakis also raises several additional requests not relating to conditions of the VTSM. These matters will be brought before the City Council and do not require discussion/recommendation by the Planning Commission. They include 1) a request for a will serve letter for water connections to serve the subdivision, 2) the payment of permit fees for utility installation under the Union Pacific Railroad easement, and 3) a request to waive processing fees. In his application packet Mr. Katakis also requested that the City reimburse him for all his previous VTSM processing costs. The City Attorney has advised that the proper remedy for such a request would be to file a claim against
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
The Katakis Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map was approved as consistent with the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and its accompanying Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2016021092). The proposed amendments to conditions of the VTSM would not involve any substantial changes to the project, new or substantially more severe impacts, or require new mitigation measures.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing and take the following actions:
By resolution, recommend amendments to the Katakis Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to the City Council as discussed below.
In formulating the final resolution (Attachment 1), Staff recommends that the Commission consider the following:
1. Request to amend Condition #21 - timing of impact fee collection Three options have been put forward: 1) the existing VTSM condition that requires payment at time of building permit issuance, which is consistent with the City's adopted Public Facility Impact Fee program, 2) prior to final inspection/issuance of a certificate of occupancy, 3) the applicant's request to collect the fees at time of close of escrow.
Staff recommendation: To minimize the potential for the delay in fee collection and significant additional administrative overhead and potential for error, staff recommends Option #1 - retain the existing condition. However, if the City is desirous of providing the developer some financial relief, Option #2 could be considered, which requires payment of fees at time of final inspection/issuance of certificate of occupancy. However, while this places less administrative burden on staff, there is still the potential for error.
Option 1 - retain existing Condition #21.
Option 2 - revise Condition #21 as follows):
Amended #2l: Prior to final inspection or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any unit, Subdivider shall pay all development impact fees as specified and pursuant to the City's municipal code, ordinances, and resolutions.
Option 3 - revise Condition #21 as follows (Katakis request):
Amended #2l: Prior to final inspection or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any unit, Subdivider shall prepare and record a lien in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney providing that all development impact fees as specified and pursuant to the City's municipal code, ordinances, and resolutions shall be paid from and prior to close of escrow.
If the Commission chooses either Options #2 or #3 the resolution approving the VTSM will need to include the acceptance of the collection of Impact Fees at either Certificate of Occupancy or close of escrow.
2. Request to agree in concept approval of Public Facility Impact Fee Reimbursement Addendum
Staff recommendation: As explained in the staff report staff believes that this would not be an appropriate condition to the VTSM. This is a policy issue that should be decided at the time the City is presented a reimbursement agreement in connection with approval of a subdivision improvement agreement or Final Map by the City Council and when the City has a better understanding of the financial impact and infrastructure improvement consequences of such an agreement. Staff therefore recommends that the Commission not include a condition of approval agreeing to future approval of an Impact Fee Reimbursement agreement. Staff further recommends that before the City considers any such agreements the Council adopt a Public Facility Impact Fee credit and reimbursement policy and process.
In the event that the Commission agrees that a Reimbursement Agreement may be an appropriate mechanism for determination of how impact fees will be reimbursed, the Commission may wish to include a statement in the resolution approving the VTSM amendment, which indicates a willingness to consider such an agreement in connection with approval of a subdivision improvement agreement or Final Map, without specifically identifying the particulars of, or committing to the approval of, such an agreement.
3. Request to amend Condition #22 - formation of maintenance districts Staff recommendation: Staff agrees that this condition could benefit from clarification and suggests that Condition #22 be amended as follows:
Amended #22: Prior to final map approval, Subdivider shall prepare, fund, and complete the annexation of the proposed parcels to any applicable Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District and Community Facilities District for the City of Gustine for all required and applicable assessments, or, at the City's discretion, the Subdivider shall prepare, fund and complete the formation of a new landscape and lighting maintenance district and/or community facilities district for the parcels.
4. Request to amend Conditions #29 and #33 - remove requirement for a roundabout at the Sullivan/Grove intersection and replace with a 4-way stop Staff recommendation: As stated in the staff report, staff believes that the benefits of a roundabout-controlled intersection outweigh the costs and challenges of installation at this location. If the Commission believes that the roundabout is the most beneficial traffic solution for this location, then no change to these conditions is recommended. If Commission concurs with the issues raised by the applicant and that the roundabout should not be required at this location, then Conditions #29 and #33 should be amended as follows:
Amended #29: Subdivider shall dedicate street right of way and construct subdivision street frontage improvements for the south half of Sullivan Road pursuant to a 70-ft Street Section per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer. Roadway pavement for the south half of Sullivan Road shall be widened to ultimate street width within the subdivision frontage and transitioned to existing pavement as required. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, decorative street lighting and other required street frontage improvements shall extend the length of the subdivision boundary. Construct all required frontage improvements per City standards or as approved by the City Engineer.
Amended #33: Subdivider shall dedicate or cause the dedication of street right of way for a 4-way stop at the proposed intersection of Sullivan Road/Grove Avenue and construct the intersection improvements pursuant to the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Southeast Gustine Annexation prepared by KD Anderson & Associates dated December 17, 2015 and as approved by the City Engineer.
Construct the 4-way stop intersection with the dedicated turning lanes as required by the traffic impact analysis and improvements including, but not limited to, curb. gutter, sidewalk, curb ramp, lighted crossing, landscaping, decorative street lighting and other required street improvements per the City's Improvement standards.
EXHIBIT(S)
A) Resolution recommending adoption of amended conditions to the Katakis Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
B) Katakis Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map amendment application and request memorandum and attachments
C) Katakis follow-up email regarding Reimbursement Addendum request D) Resolution 2002-2619A approving a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for Southeast Gustine development
E) _ Katakis Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map diagrams The following documents are available online at https://tinyurl.com/SEGustineDevtDocs F) Southeast Gustine Master Plan
G) Southeast Gustine Master Plan EIR (Draft and Final) & MMRP APPROVED BY:
Brad Kilger, Interim City Manager
RESOLUTION 2022-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GUSTINE
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF
THE KATAKIS VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
WHEREAS, by Resolution 2018-2419 on March 6, 2018 the City Council adopted the Southeast Gustine Master Plan in conformance with the provisions of the Gustine General Plan; and
WHEREAS, Ron Katakis ("Subdivider") filed an application for a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to divide 41.68 acres, property located south of Sullivan Avenue within the Southeast Gustine Master Plan area, into 157 single-family residential lots and one park/storm drainage/water well lot; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on April 27, 2022, in the Council Chambers, Gustine, California, at which hearing evidence both oral and documentary was received and considered; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a hearing on May 17, 2022 in the Council Chambers, Gustine, California, at which hearing evidence both oral and documentary was received and considered; and
WHEREAS, the City Council certified it had received and reviewed the Initia Study, Environmental Assessment No. EA/C&ED 2018-24, which concluded that the project is within the scope of the General Plan Master EIR (SCH No. 2007072023), and WHEREAS, an application for the proposed amendment of the Vesting Tentative Map was received in the office of the Secretary of the Planning Commission on October 13, 2022; and
WHEREAS, Section 4-61-100 of the Gustine Zoning Code provides that a Subdivider may request changes to an approved tentative map or its conditions of approval before recordation of a final map if the amendments are necessary due to a change of circumstances related to the original approval; and WHEREAS, the Subdivider has alleged that changes in the local economy and housing market have necessitated the requested amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Gustine:
Section 1. The proposed amended vesting tentative subdivision map, together with the provisions for its design and improvements, is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Gustine, the Southeast Gustine Master Plan, and the Subdivision Map Act; and none of the findings requiring denial set forth in Zoning Code Section 4-61-070 can be made.
Section 2. The proposed amendments are necessary because of the change of circumstances related to the original approval, specifically the rise in mortgage interest rates and a softening in the residential real estate market.
Section 3. Prior to issuance of any building permit, a Precise Development Plan as required by provisions of the PD zone must be applied for and approved.
Section 4. The discharge of waste as a result of the amended vesting tentative subdivision map into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code of the State of California.
Section 5. The amended vesting tentative map will have no additional significant effect on the environment, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 21158 of the Public Resources Code, which was not identified in the Master Plan EIR.
Section 6. No new or addilional milligalion measures or alleralives ure required.
Section 7. The amended vesting tentative map is within the scope of the project covered by the Master Plan EIR.
Section 8. All applicable policies, regulations, and mitigation measures identified in the Master Plan EIR have been applied to the proposed vesting tentative map subsequent project or otherwise made conditions of approval of the proposed vesting tentative map.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the amended Vesting Tentative Map subject to the following conditions:
CEGA:
1. All development shall at all times be subject to and in conformance with the mitigation measures identified by the Southeast Gustine Final EIR and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Southeast Gustine Master Plan Project (MMRP).
1.1. BIO 3.1: If construction work on a project commences between March 1 and September 15, a pre-construction survey for nesting Swainson's hawks within
0.5 miles of the construction site shall be conducted by a qualified biologist retained by the project applicant prior to the start of construction work. If active nests are found, a qualified biologist shall determine the need (if any) for temporal restrictions on construction or other protective measures. The determination shall be pursuant to criteria set forth by CDFW in its Staff Report regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson's Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California (1994). The project shall incorporate all recommended measures, including any temporal restrictions.
1.2. BIO 3.2: If construction work on a project commences between February 1 and August 31, a pre-construction survey for burrowing owls within 250 feet of the construction site shall be conducted by a qualified biologist retained by the project applicant prior to the start of construction work. If occupied burrows are found, a qualified biologist shall determine the need (if any) for temporal restrictions on construction or other protective measures. The determination shall be pursuant to criteria set forth by CDFW in its Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012). The project shall incorporate all recommended measures, including any temporary restrictions.
1.3. BIO 4.1: If construction work on a project commences during the general avian nesting season from March 1 through July 31, a pre-construction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist retained by the project applicant prior to the start of construction work. If active nests are found, work in the vicinity of the nest shall be delayed until the young fledge.
1.4. CULT 1.2 and 2.2: So that potential archaeological or paleontological materials encountered during construction activity can be identified, the developer or contractor shall provide training of field personnel in identification procedures prior to construction work, such training to be carried out by a qualified cultural resources specialist. The training would consist of a mandatory pre-field meeting in which a professional archaeologist would review with equipment operators the natural and cultural history of the annexation area, archaeological sensitivity, the most likely locations of buried cultural materials, if any, and what kinds of cultural materials would be seen if prehistoric materials are in fact unearthed and specifically how to address such discoveries and what Immediate actions to take, particularly if human remains are found.
1.5. CULT 2.3: If any subsurface cultural resources are encountered during future project construction, all construction activity in the vicinity of the encounter shall cease until a qualified archaeologist examines the materials, determines their significance, and recommends mitigation measures that would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level, in accordance with CEQA. The City of Gustine shall be immediately notified of the discovery and the developer or its contractor shall be responsible for retaining a qualified archaeologist and for implementing recommended mitigation measures.
1.6. CULT 2.4: If human remains are encountered at any time during future project construction, all construction activity in the vicinity of the encounter shall cease, and the County Coroner and the City of Gustine shall be notified immediately. The Coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission if the remains have been identified as or are suspected of being of Native American descent. The developer or its contractor shall implement the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines with respect to human remains of Native American origin. The developer or its contractor shall retain a qualified archaeologist to evaluate the archaeological importance of the find and recommend any mitigation measures needed to reduce any potentially significant effects to a less than significant level under CEQA. The developer shall implement those recommendations.
1.7. CULT 3.1: If paleontological resources are encountered during project construction, construction activity in the vicinity of the encounter shall cease until a qualified paleontologist examines the materials, determines their significance under CEQA, and recommends mitigation measures that would be necessary to reduce potentially significant effects to a less than significant level, in accordance with CEQA. The City of Gustine shall be immediately notified of the discovery. The developer or its contractor shall be responsible for retaining a qualified paleontologist and for implementing recommended mitigation measures.
1.8. GEO 3.1/3.2: Implemented by Condition 16.
1.9. GRG-1: The project developer shall implement the following greenhouse gas emission reduction measures: 1) The project shall install only natural gas hearths in residences, and 2) Residences on the project site shall exceed Title 24 energy efficiency targets by at least 15%.
1.10. NOISE 14.1: Hours of operation for noise-generating construction equipment shall be restricted to 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM Saturday, and Sundays (with authorization from the City Council or Planning Commission), 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM, when such equipment is to be used near noise sensitive land uses.
1.11. SERV 1.1: The Precise Development Plan shall include design and implementation that promotes citizens' safety developed in consultation with the Gustine Police Department.
1.12. TRANS 1.2 is implemented through the payment of applicable Traffic Development Impact Fees as currently under consideration for adoption.
TRANS 1.3 is implemented through the inclusion of a roundabout at the Sullivan/Grove intersection into the VTSM.
1.13. UTIL 2.1 and UTIL 5.1 are implemented into the Master Plan infrastructure required to be completed with the project.
General Conditions:
1. With recordation of a Final Map, the map shall demonstrate via note or building setback line that all rear-yard setbacks for lots that back up to Sullivan Road shall be fifteen feet, in accordance to the setback standards outlined in the City's Zoning Code.
2. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy of any structure on any lot abutting Sullivan Road, the following fences and walls shall be installed:
2.1. An eight-foot high continuous split-face decorative masonry wall with cap treatment shall be installed along Sullivan Road;
3. Prior to recordation of a Final Map, Subdivider shall provide a form of disclosure to future residents about the potential exposure to agricultural operations in the area.
Such disclosure shall be placed on the Final Map and provided with deeds for each residential lot.
4. All landscaping, fences, and walls shall be maintained and the premises shall be kept free of weeds, trash, and other debris.
5. Except as amended herein, or by reference, all development shall be in accordance with the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and the mitigation measures specified by the applicable EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
6. Prior to start of construction, all-weather, hard-surfaced roadways shall be constructed and maintained free of obstructions at all times during construction as required by City Engineer.
7. Subdivider shall, at his sole expense, defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Gustine, its agents, officers, directors and employees, from and against all claims, actions, damages, losses, or expenses of every type and description, including but not limited to payment of attorneys' fees and costs, by reason of, or arising out of, this development approval. The obligation to defend, indemnify and hold harmless shall include but is not limited to any action to arbitrate, attack, review, set aside, void or annul this development approval on any grounds whatsoever. The City of Gustine shall promptly notify Subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
8. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, a Precise Development Plan for the area as required by provisions of the PD zone must be applied for and approved.
9. All minimum conditions of subdivision approval in Article 6 of the City's Zoning Ordinance ("Subdivisions") are included by reference.
10. The Final Map shall comply with all provisions of the Subdivision Map Act.
11. The Final Map shall be prepared by a California licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer and filed for City Council approval.
12. Subdivider shall provide all required documents as determined by the City Engineer for review and approval of the Final Map and recording thereof.
13. Before approval of the Final Map and recording thereof, the Subdivider shall:
a) Construct all public improvements or provide the required surety for the construction thereof for acceptance by the City Council. b) Construct or provide required surety for all irrigation improvements as required by Central California Irrigation District.
C) The Subdivider shall dedicate all necessary rights of way and easements to the City of Gustine, public utility companies, and other affected agencies. d) The Subdivider shall dedicate all public park lands, well sites, and storm basins to the City of Gustine.
14. Prior to approval of the Final Map, improvement plans for streets, utilities, drainage facilities, survey monuments, grading, and erosion control shall be prepared and submitted for the City Engineer's approval.
15. Public improvements shall conform to the latest edition of the City of Gustine Improvement Standards and any modifications thereto approved by the City Engineer in place at the time of approval of this Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map.
Improvements shall contorm to other City adopted documents, including the approved Southeast Gustine Master Plan and amendments thereof, General Plan, Sewer Master Plan, and Stormwater Master Plan. The work shall comply with all applicable State, Federal, and local laws and regulations.
16. As part of the improvement plans, the Subdivider shall submit to the City Engineer a soils report prepared by a California registered geotechnical engineer. The soils report shall include recommendations for the structural sections for streets, excavation, compaction, clearing, grubbing requirements, percolation, water table elevation, and grading improvements for the drainage basin.
17. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit or commencement or construction on site, the Subdivider shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) under the California Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No.
CA000002 for construction activities.
18. Prior to approval of the improvement plans, Subdivider shall prepare a pre-project water balance calculation for storm water runoff pursuant to the California Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ, NPDES No. CA000002 for compliance with Post-Construction Standards for non-MS4 Phase I and Phase II agencies.
19. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit or commencement of construction on site, the Subdivider shall prepare a Dust Control Plan (DCP) and file the Plan with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to approve construction activities for the project if required.
20. Prior to the issuance of any grading and encroachment permits, Subdivider shall pay the permit fee, plan check and inspection fees, and furnish improvement securities pursuant to the City's improvement standards, municipal code, and ordinances.
Improvement securities will be in accordance with standards set for in the California Subdivision Map Act and the City's Municipal Code.
21. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Subdivider shall pay all development impact fees as specified and pursuant to the City's municipal code, ordinances, and resolutions. The fee assessment shall include all applicable fees for Municipal Facilities, Police, Fire Protection, Transportation, Water, Domestic Wastewater, Storm Drainage, and Parks. Fees shall be paid at the time of the issuance of each permit.
Development Fees shall include all those fees currently under consideration by the City Council and proposed for adoption on May 17, 2022
22. The proposed parcels shall be annexed to any applicable Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District and Community Facilities District for the City of Gustine for all required and applicable assessments, or, at the City's discretion, the Subdivider will agree to, prepare and fund, formation of a new landscape and lighting maintenance district and community facilities district for the parcels.
23. Provide utility services to each lot, including electric power, gas, telephone, and cable television.
24. Construct all proposed utilities underground within the street rights of way or public utility easement. Any existing overhead lines including electric, communication and Cable TV within the public rights of way or easements fronting the subdivision, or within the proposed parcel boundaries shall be undergrounded within the street rights of way or relocated to acceptable easements as approved by the City and the affected utility companies.
25. The location and installation of mailboxes shall be approved by the US Postmaster and the City of Gustine.
26. The names for the new subdivision streets shall be provided for consideration and are subject to approval by the City Council.
27. The rights of way and easements shown on the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map are preliminary until they are reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. The Final Map shall show final precise location of all rights of way and easements.
28. Subdivider shall coordinate and obtain all required approvals from the County of Merced, Central California Irrigation District, and any other stakeholders affected by the work.
Subdivision Public Improvements
Streets
29. Subdivider shall dedicate or cause the dedication of street right of way for the proposed roundabout and subdivision street frontage for Sullivan Road and construct street improvements pursuant to a 70-ft Street Section per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer. Roadway pavement shall be widened to ultimate street width within the project frontage and transitioned to existing pavement as required. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, decorative street lighting and other required street frontage improvements shall extend the length of the subdivision boundary. Construct all required frontage improvements per City standards or as approved by the City Engineer.
30. Subdivider shall dedicate public utility/pedestrian easement and construct street improvements for Mills Road pursuant to a 60-ft Street Section per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer. Roadway pavement shall be widened to ultimate street width within the project frontage and transitioned to existing pavement as required. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, decorative street lighting and other required street frontage improvements shall extend the length of the subdivision boundary. Construct all required frontage improvements per City standards or as approved by the City Engineer.
31. Subdivider shall dedicate street right of way and public utility/pedestrian easement for the proposed Interior Collectors and construct street improvements pursuant to a 70-ft Street Section per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer. Roadway improvements shall include, but not be limited to, pavement section, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, driveways, decorative street lighting, landscaping, survey monuments, signage, and striping and shall conform to the City's Improvement Standards.
32. Subdivider shall dedicate street right of way and public utility/pedestrian easement for the proposed Local Roads and construct street improvements pursuant to a 52-ft Street Section per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer. Roadway improvements shall include, but not be limited to, pavement section, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, driveways, street knuckles, decorative street lighting, landscaping, survey monuments, signage, and striping and shall conform to the City's Improvement Standards.
33. Construct the proposed roundabout to meet Highway Design Manual Figure 404.5C for California Legal Design Vehicle of 50-ft turning radius and 6-seconds lock-to-lock time for a rural arterial designation.
34. Construct street knuckles to the dimensions and curve lines as required per the City of Gustine Improvement Standards.
35. Construct all designated partial Interior Collectors and Local Roads to allow vehicle travel in each direction and to contain storm runoff within the subdivision boundary.
36. Provide sight distance at intersections of Street 9(A) at Sullivan Rd and Street 5(A) at Mills Road to meet City of Gustine Improvement Standards.
37. Pursuant to the Southeast Gustine Master Plan, construct temporary paved pedestrian access north from Sullivan Rd. along Grove St. to the elementary school, consistent with the provisions of the Master Plan.
38. Pursuant to the Southeast Gustine Master Plan, construct frontage improvements along the Gustine Middle School frontage of Sullivan Road.
Water System
39. Construct water mains, fire hydrants, blowoffs, sampling stations, and lateral connections as necessary to serve each lot.
40. Water services shall be sized to meet domestic and fire protection demands and shall include shutoff valves, corporation stops, and water meters. Subdivider shall incorporate water recirculation for residential sprinkler system at the water service or onsite plumbing as applicable.
41. Construct minimum 8-inch water mains on proposed subdivision streets and looped as needed to support the subdivision pursuant to the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer. Pipe sizes greater than the minimum shall be determined from hydraulic calculations and/or modeling studies, consistent with the existing network grid or as recommended from the Southeast Gustine Master Plan.
42. Construct 12-inch water main from point of connection at Sullivan Road and along Street 9 (B), Street 1 (B) and Street 8 (B) to the proposed well location at the basin site per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan.
43. Construct 12-inch water main from the proposed well location and along Street 8 (B) to the subdivision south boundary per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan.
44. Construct 12-inch water main on Mills Road to extend the length of the subdivision boundary per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan.
45. Connect proposed water main on Street 11(A) to existing main on Sullivan Road to complete a loop per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan.
Sewer System
46. Construct sewer lines, lift stations, manholes, and lateral connections as necessary to serve each lot. Convey sanitary wastewater via a gravity flow system unless a lift station is required at points of connection due to topography restrictions.
47. Lateral connections shall include cleanouts and other required components per the City's Improvement Standards.
48. Construct minimum 8-inch sewer mains on proposed subdivision streets pursuant to the Southeast Gustine Master Plans and as approved by the City Engineer. Pipe sizes greater than the minimum shall be determined from hydraulic calculations and/or modeling studies, consistent with the existing network grid, or as recommended from the Southeast Gustine Master Plan.
49. Construct 10-inch sewer main from the proposed connection on Sullivan Road and along Street 9 (B), Street 1 (B), and Street 8 (B) to the subdivision south boundary per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan.
50. Construct 18-inch sewer main on Sullivan Road to extend the length of the subdivision boundary to the west and connect to the existing 18-inch sewer main to the east. Extend the 18-inch trunk sewer from the existing sewer pump station on Railroad and Meredith Avenue and along Hunt Avenue, Meredith Avenue, and Kniebes Road to connect to the existing 24-inch on Carnation Road pursuant to the South east Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer.
Storm Drainage
51. Construct storm drain lines, manholes, drain inlets, catch basins, detention basins, outfalls, and lift stations.
52. Construct storm sewers on proposed subdivision streets as determined from hydraulic calculations and/or modeling studies, consistent with the existing network grid and as recommended per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and Storm Drain Master Plan.
53. All runoff from City streets shall be contained within the public rights of way or easements and conveyed to the proposed storm basin.
54. Design and construct the proposed storm basin per the City's Improvement Standards, Soils Investigation and Southeast Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer. Basin shall be sized to handle the storm runoff from the proposed subdivision. Design shall demonstrate and construction shall implement an interim solution providing for the ultimate storm basin design for the Master Plan area.
55. Design and construct a storm pump station on a block wall-enclosed 50'x50' site with pumping capacity and equipped as required and approved by the City Engineer and pursuant to the Southeast Gustine Master Plan.
56. Construct 12-inch storm drain force main from the storm pump station and along Street 8 (B), Street 5 (A), Street 11 (A), Sullivan Road, Hunt Road, and Railroad Avenue to connect at the existing 42-inch irrigation pipeline on Meredith Avenue pursuant to the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer. Construct connection to irrigation pipe as required and approved by the Central California Irrigation District.
57. Subdivider shall dedicate the park/storm basin/water well parcel to the City of Gustine for public use.
58. The basin area including side slopes and floor shall be provided with grass and irrigation at all phases.
City Park Improvements
59. Subdivider shall dedicate the park/storm drain/water well parcel to the City of Gustine for public use.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the conditions of project approval set forth herein include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservations requirements, and other exactions, and that pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is hereby further notified that the ninety (90) days approval period in which a protest of these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a) can be filed, begins on November 30,2022, and that if a protest is not filed within this (90) ninety day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, the applicant will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Commission that the Secretary of the Planning Commission is hereby directed to file with the Merced County Clerk a Notice of Determination in regard to the environmental impact of the proposed subdivision.
THE FOREGOING RESOULTION of the Planning Commission of the City of Gustine was passed by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on the 30th day of November, 2022, the resolution was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
City Clerk Planning Commission Chairman
CITY OF GUSTINE
PO BOX 16 - 352 5TH STREET
GUSTINE CA 95322
OFFICE (209) 854-6471 - Fax (209) 854-2127 TOMATED HOW TER www.cityofgustine.com
UNIFORM APPLICATION FORM
Type of Application
• Development Agreement • Tentative Map Extension • Subdivision Map • Annexation (Special • General Plan Amendment • Lot Line Adjustment Submittal Package) (Special Submittal Package) (Special Submittal Package) • Minor Plan Modification • Variance/Minor Zone • Sign Permit Modification
• Specific Plan/Amendment • Use Permit • Municipal Code Amendment
• Rezone/Prezone • Appeal • Major Sign Permit
• PUD • Site Plan Review 8 Other: Master Pian Amendment &.Amendment to COAS
Pioject Detail
Project Name: Ron Katakis - Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Property Address: Gustine, CA 95322
APN: 063-180-029 & 030
Is the property within the Redevelopment Agency's (RDA) Project Area? o Yes * No (Property within the RDA Project area must sign the acknowledgement on page 2). roject Description (submit separate attachment if necessary) (e.g. Expansion of existing us stablishment of a new use or new construction, etc.
Property Owner: Applicant:
Name: Ron Katakis Name: Same as Property Owner
Contact: Contact:
Address: 1850 Arbor Street Address:
City, Zip: Turlock, CA 95380 City, Zip:..
Phone: (209) 483-8159 Phone:
Fax: Fax:
E-mall: [email protected] E-mail:
Office Use Only - Fees
Fees Account Number
Application Type
Receipt Number: Date:
Accepted By:
File Numbers):
Olher Contact Information
Name: GDR Engineering, Inc. (Contact: Max Garcla) Name: George A. Petrulakis, Attorney at Law Address: 3525 Mitchell Road, Suite G Address: 1130 12th Street, Suite B City, Zip: Ceres, CA 95307 City, Zip: Modesto, CA 95354 Phone: (209) 538-3360 Phone: (209) 522-0500 ext. 1
Fax: Fax: (209) 522-0700
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Miscellaneous
General Plan Designation: Planned Development (Southeast Gustine Master Pian) Proposed General Plan Designation: Same as above
Zoning: Planned Development Proposed Zoning:
General Property Dimensions: 951.7' × 969.24' & 1352.9' × 600' Acres/Square Feet: Approximately 41.68 acres
Land Use: Di Undeveloped/Vacant • Developed
Hazardous Waste Allidovit
Govemment Code Section 65962.5 requires each applicant for any development project to consult the State Hazardous Waste and Substance Sites List. Based on this list (available from the Planning Division of the Community Development Department) the applicant is required to submit a signed statement to the City of Gustine indicating whether the project is located on a site which is included on the list before the City accepts the application as complete. If the project site is listed by the State as a hazardous waste or substance site, the applicant must fully describe the nature of the attached hazard and potential impacts in the Initial Study. Part I. In either situation, the applicant must complete and sign the Affidavit in the space below.
I have been informed by the City of Gustine of my responsibilities pursuant to Section 65962.5 to notify the City as to whether the site for which a development application has been submitted is located within an area which has been listed as the location of a Hazardous Waste or substance Site by the Office of Planning and Research, State of California. a The project site is located in an area listed as a Hazardous Waste or Substance Site. *The project site is not in an area listed as a Hazardous Waste or Substance Site.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Applicant Signature: .... " Katel"
Date: 10013/2021
Agreement and Representations of Applicant
This application is not complete, and processing of this application will not begin, until all initials and signatures are provided:
1. Applicants) acknowiedge and agree that by making this application, and under the authority of Government Code Section 65105, that in the performance of their functions, City staff may enter upon the subject property and make examinations and surveys. provided that the entries, examinations and surveys de not unreasonably igferlere with the use of the land by those persons lawfully entitled to the possession thereof. ... (Initial)
2. Applicants) certify under penalty of perjury that the signature(s) provided below is/are that of the legal owners) (all individual owners must sign as they appear on the deed to the land).
Corporate Officers) empowered to sign for the corporatlon, Owner's Legal Agent having power of Attorney (a notarized Power of Attorney document must accompany this application), or the own unheized epresentative (include a notarized consent form from the owner).
3. Applicants) acknowledge and agree that all of the required items have been submitted and understands that missing items may result in delaying the processing of my application. I further regarding the proposed project at the project site. acknowiedge and agree that by signing this document facept the posting of pulic notices
4. Applicants) agree to defend, indemnify ard hold harmiess the City of Gustine ("City") and its agents, officers, consultants, independent contractors and employees ("City's Agents") from any and all claims, actions or proceedings against the City or the City's Agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval by the City, or the City's Agents concerning he Project (collectively "Claim"). The Cily shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Claim and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the Applicant of any Claim or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the Applicant shall no! thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. Nothing in this paragraph shall obligate the City to defend any Claim and the City shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement arising from any such Claim not defended by the City, unless the settlement is approved in writing by the City. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall prohibit the City from independently defending any Claim, and if the City does decide to independently defend a Claim, the City shali bear its own attorney's fees, expenses of litigation and costs for that independent defense.
The Applicant may agree to reimburse the City for attorney's fees, expenses of litigation and costs for that independent defense. Should the City decide to independently defend any Claim, Claim unless the settlement is approved by the Applicant.
5. This Application will be a public record. K.K... (Initial) IT IS SO AGREED:
Per. Kil Ron Katakis 10/12/2048
Applicant Signature Print Name Date
Ron Katakis
Property Owner Signature Print Name Date
Property Owner Signature Print Name Date
CITY OF GUSTINE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION
his document shall serve to notify the Cily of Gustine that the undersigned are the lega wners) of the property described in the attached application and do hereby authorize the person/firm identified below to file and represent my/our interest in the application(s) listed Authorized Person:
Name/Firm: GDR Engineering, Inc. George A. Petrulakis, Attorney at Law Address: 3525 Mitchell Rd. Suite G 1130 12th Street, Suite B City/State/Zip: Ceres, CA 95307 Modesto. CA 95354
Phone: (209) 538-3360 (209) 522-0500 ext. 1
Email: [email protected] [email protected]
Appllcations:
Amendment to Conditions of Approval
Legal Owners:
The undersigned are the legal owners) of the said property; have read the foregoing letter of authorization and know the contents thereof: and do hereby certify that the same is true of my/our own knowledge. I/we certily (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the information contained in the above referenced application(s) is true and correct.
Kaloki
Ron Katakis 10/13/2122
Applicant Signature Print Name
Kin Kotha
Ron Katakis 10/13/2084
Property Owner Signature
Property Owner Signature Print Name
Date
Attachment "1"
Amendment to Southeast Gustine Master Plan
Detail for "Project Description"
Unform Application Form, page 1
The project includes a request to amend Section 4.2 of the Southeast Gustine Master Plan.
Amendment of Section 4.2 of the Southeast Gustine Master Plan. The purpose of this proposed amendment is to accurately reflect water availability for new development in the area of the Southeast Gustine Master Plan ("Master Plan"). According to information provided by the City Engineer to the Interim City Manager (see attached memorandum dated August 14, 2022), after accounting for future growth needs (residential, commercial, and industrial) in the city limits of Gustine excluding the Master Plan area, 311 equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) of water supply is available. This capacity is sufficient to no longer require the 90-unit limit on water connections in the Master Plan.
Applicant's request is to amend Section 4.2 of the Master Plan by removing the last sentence of the second paragraph of this section. That sentence reads as follows: "The existing City's supply system is adequate to serve 90 residential units within the master plan area, the proposed well will be required to be installed prior to the construction of the 91 residential ###
GOUVEIA ENGINEERING
To: Brad Kilger, Interim City Manager
From: Mario B. Gouveia, PE, City Engineer
Subject: City of Gustine - Summary of Available Water Capacity 5 Year Projection
Date: August 14, 2022
Cc: Jesus Chavez, Public Works Director
This Technical Memorandum (TM) was prepared at the request of the Interim City Manager to assess the spare capacity of the City of Gustine's municipal water supply.
The purpose of the TM is to determine how many additional residential connections the City can serve within the next 5 years, exclusive of the Southeast Gustine Master Plan (SGMP) area, before an additional water supply well would be required.
The City of Gustine currently uses the underlying groundwater to meet 100% of the City's water demand. The following table displays the nominal capacity, in gallons per minute (gpm), of each well.
Well No. Flowrate (gpm)
4 700
5 1,100
6 800
7 600
Total 3.200
Firm capacity is equal to total capacity, minus the capacity of the largest well. The following table shows the City's firm water supply capacity, i.e., the total capacity of Well No. 4, 6, and 7.
Well No. Flowrate (gpm)
4 700
5 Off Line
6 800
7 600
Total 2,100
456 SIXTH STREET, GUSTINE, CALIFORNIA 95322 0 TELEPHONE; (209) 854-3300 According to §64554(b(2)) of the California Water Code, maximum daily demand (MDD) and peak hour demand (PHD) are calculated for highest water usage month during the last ten years. According to the City water production data, July averages out to be the highest water usage month, although in some instances, June or August showed higher productions. For 2019, water production records show an abnormal production approximately 4 times the expected median demand. For that reason, data from June was used for these calculations. The MDD and PHD are calculated as follows:
• To calculate the MDD, multiply the average daily usage during the highest month by a peaking factor of 1.5.
• To calculate the PHD, determine the average hourly flow during MDD and multiply by a peaking factor of 1.5.
Based on representative water production capacity and water demand data for the last ten years, and applying a 20% contingency factor, the City has an available capacity of 557 EDUs.
Estimated EDU equivalents for the next 5 years for residential, commercial, and industrial water demands were calculated.
For the next 5 years and based on a 0.5% residential growth rate outside the SGMP area, an additional 51 EDUs will be required.
Using 20% of the projected commercial demand in the City's Water Master Plan (142 x
0.2) for the next 5 years, an additional 28 EDUs will be required.
Regarding projected industrial demand for the next 5 years, the equivalent water demand for an industry similar to Saputo was used. Based on water use data, an additional 167 EDUs will be required.
A summary of these data is presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1
Estimated 5 Year Water Demand
Land Use ] EDU
Current Available Capacity 557
Residential (without SGMP) 51
Commercial 28
Industrial 167
Available Capacity at 5 Years 7311
2! Pape
940.01
1850 Arbor Way
Turlock, CA 95380
October 13, 2022
Brad Kilger, Interim City Manager
City of Gustine
352 Fifth Street
Gustine, CA 95322
RE: Request for Waiver of Processing Fees for Uniform Application Requesting an Amendment to the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and Revisions to Conditions of Approval for Vested Tentative Subdivision Map
Dear Brad,
As you are aware, I am submitting a Uniform Application Requesting an Amendment to the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and revisions to the Conditions of Approval for my Vested Tentative Subdivision Map.
Because of the many mistakes of the City prior to your arrival that we have discussed that have caused undue delay, costs, and lost market opportunities for my project, l am requesting a waiver of any and all processing fees for my requested revisions.
Please refer to my memorandum to you dated October 13, 2022 for more detail.
Cordially,
Ron Hatches
Ron Katakis
TO: Brad Kilger
FROM: Ron Katakis
SUBJECT: Outstanding Items for the Katakis Subdivision
DATE: 10/13/2022
CC: George Petrulakis, Max Garcia
Brad, in this memorandum I detail my requests for revisions to my project approvals, indicate which conditions of approval you have convinced me that do not need to be changed, and (with the added transparency you have brought to City affairs since my tentative approval) list the wasted time, money and effort that I have had to endure during this process that I believe the City should reimburse me for. After you have reviewed, please contact me with any questions.
Please provide a copy of this to the Mayor and City Council and also the City Attorney.
1. Katakis Subdivision Reimbursement Addendum (revised 10/13/2022) • I have revised this draft addendum for a future Subdivision Improvement Agreement to reflect the base fees (5% City Administration fee not included) for each development impact fee component per the updated Public Facilities Impact Fee Report. I am still requesting my idea of using any credit balances that are available within any fee component be used to offset any debit balances that may exist within a particular fee component account and that all impact fee components including General Government, Police, Fire, Park Facilities, Storm Drainage, Water, Sewer and Transportation be included in these inter-fund fee credit calculations.
With the deteriorating real estate market, potential buyers are requiring certainty as to how they will be reimbursed for the up-front infrastructure costs they must spend. I am requesting a new condition of approval to memorialize the fee credit approach that we have discussed that is necessary to make any development feasible. I would like to add a new condition #21A as follows: "Fee credits shall 1 be provided to the project as set forth in the attached Katakis Subdivision Reimbursement Addendum."
• Additionally, I am still requesting that all of the impact fees be deferred until Certificate of Occupancy and collected at the cinse of escrow for each house.
If the above is approved by the City Council, then condition #21 of the Conditions of Approval will need to be amended. Sound practice for the City in the deferral of payment of impact fees until the close of escrow would include the City imposing the appropriate lien against each housing lot until the fee is collected from escrow. I have included sample documents for that purpose that were used in my Turlock project.
I would like to amend the above-referenced condition as follows:
"Subdivider shall pay all development impact fees due as specified and pursuant to the City's municipal code, ordinances, and resolutions. The fee assessment shall include all applicable fees for Municipal Facilities, Police, Fire Protection, certificate of occupancy of each house and collected at close of escrow for that house. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued until a recordable lien in a form approved by the City Attorney has been placed upon the subject property for the total amount of fees to be paid. Development Fees shall include all those fees currently under consideration by the City Council and proposed for adoption on May 17, 2022."
2. Confirm infrastructure approaches
• After the City Council approved installing Well #8 at its December 7, 2021 meeting, I spoke with the then City Manager, Doug Dunford, and asked him about the timing of when the new well would be installed and if there was any money to do so. He informed Max Garcia and myself that the City of Gustine had the sufficient funds in order to design and construct the well and that such work would be started shortly thereafter. To my chagrin, I was informed in late July by you that the funds that Doug had intended to use for the well design and construction were funds that were not able to be used. Further, even if the funds could have been used, Doug had not even included the new well in the City's Capital Expenditure Program.
Towards the end of this last July, I had requested that you ask the City's engineer, Mario Gouveia, to do a water capacity analysis to actually determine if the City of 2 Gustine had any excess water capacity. I appreciate that you asked Mario to do so and Mario came back per his memo dated August 14, 2022, that the City has excess water capacity of three-hundred and eleven (311) EDU's, net of residential (not including units within the Southeast Gustine Master Plan), commercial and industrial demand.
These new-found EDU's will he more than be sufficient to cover the one hundred and fifty-seven (157) lots that my project is requiring.
As a result of this positive outcome, I am requesting that Section 4.2 Water, on page 37 of the Southeast Gustine Master plan be amended, if required, to remove the current language that states "it is currently anticipated that the domestic water well and appurtenant pumping, storage and treatment will be required prior to the issuance of the 91'' residential building permit in the Master Plan, or when determined to be necessary by the City Engineer." The deletion of this language will then remove the "cloud" that currently exists with respect to the number of building permits that can be issued.
Additionally, because of the discovery of the total of five-hundred and fifty-seven (557) EDU's in Mario's memo, the City of Gustine will now ample time to prepare for the design, funding and construction of Well #8 without any operating constraints placed upon the City or development within the Southeast Gustine Master Plan area since Mario's calculations took into account estimated EDU use for the next five (5) years as well as a 20% contingency factor.
• The City of Gustine is to reiterate and confirm, in writing, that the calculation of the citywide development impact fees including Park Facilities, Storm Drainage, Water, Sewer and Transportation are fully reimbursable/credited at their respective base fee upon the application and issuance of a building permit and be deferred until Certificate of Occupancy and collected at the close of escrow when each house closes escrow along with payment of the non-reimbursable development impact fees including General Government, Police and Fire.
3. Conditions of Approval
I am requesting amending condition #21 as described in Section 1, above. • I am requesting amending condition #22 of the Final Conditions of Approval, which reads as follows: "The proposed parcels shall be annexed to any applicable Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District and Community Facilities District for the City of 3 Gustine for all required and applicable assessments, and at the City's discretion, the Subdivider will agree to prepare and fund, formation of a new Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District and/or Community Facilities District for the parcels." I would like to amend the condition as follows: "The proposed parcels shall be annexed to any applicable Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District and Community Facilities District for the City of Gustine for all required and applicable assessments for maintenance and services. The Subdivider will agree to prepare and fund the formation of a new Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District and/or Community Facilities District for the maintenance and services related to the parcels concurrent with the time that subdivision improvement plans are submitted to the City of Gustine."
I am fine with keeping condition #24 of the Final Conditions of Approval regarding the undergrounding of proposed overhead utilities.
• I am fine with keeping condition #37 of the Final Conditions of Approval regarding constructing a temporary paved pedestrian access North from Sullivan Road along Grove Street.
• I am fine with keeping condition #38 of the Final Conditions of Approval regarding constructing frontage improvements along the Gustine Middle School frontage.
I am requesting amending condition #33 of the Final Conditions of Approval to read as follows:
"Subdivider shall construct and install four-way stop facilities at the Sullivan Road/Grove Avenue intersection as part of the first Final Map process." Doug Dunford, the City of Gustine's previous City Manager, insisted that "the City" wanted a roundabout and compelled my consultants and myself to change the four- way stop facilities that were approved in the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and its associated Mitigation Monitoring Program (derived from the EIR) and construct a roundabout instead. In addition to the roundabout change, Doug also told Max Garcia and myself over dinner that "the City" wanted smaller lots and he suggested that my entire project be 5,000 s. f. lots. I was not in agreement with this and agreed to having only a very small number of lot sizes reduced to what he said the City wanted. At the July 7, 2020 City Council meeting, the entirety of the City Council's 4 conversation was focused on the question of whether 5,000 s. f. lots should be allowed in the Master Plan and the idea was completely shot down and absolutely no mention was even made of the roundabout. It should also be noted that at the May 17, 2022 City Council when my VTSM was approved, that the City Council was completely caught off guard as to the inclusion of the roundabout that they "had previously voted on" because no one Council member could even remember voting on it.
Per your e-mail dated August 11, 2022, the following was mentioned:
At the last Council meeting, Council member Brazil inquired as to when the proposed roundabout at Grove and Sullivan was approved by Council.
According to the record, staff presented to Council at the July 7, 2020 meeting an item titled 'Consider Revisions to Originally Adopted Master Plan for Southeast Gustine Annexation.' Staff asked the Council to consider two revisions: 1) for a revised circulation plan, which included the roundabout, and 2) to allow for smaller lot sizes. The Council did not support smaller lot sizes, but approved Attachment "A" to the Council staff report which included the original lot sizes and also approved the circulation layout of Exhibit "B" (see minutes). There is no mention by the Council of the roundabout, which was included on both Attachments A and B.
You then forwarded the above to the City Attorney requesting an opinion on whether the City Council action was an amendment to the Master Plan or only direction. The City Attorney then provided the following opinion:
Regarding the question whether the Council action on July 7, 2020 amended the Master Plan to include a roundabout, my answer is no. There is no indication that there was a noticed public hearing for either the PC meeting or the CC meeting, which would be required for a formal amendment. Also, the action taken, approved 4-0 was only to 'move forward with Exhibit A, with the amendment of removing the additional entrance at Sullivan Rd. making that an emergency entrance only! It looks to me like this was council direction only and did not expresaly address a roundabout.
Thus, there was found to be no evidence that any formal amendment of the Master Plan Circulation Plan was ever brought to Council to legally incorporate the roundabout into the approved plan and that the action taken by the Council on July 7, 2020 was a policy statement, not an amendment of the plan. Due to these overwhelming facts and the fact that the roundabout was an ill-conceived and misrepresented afterthought presented to both myself and the City Council by Doug Dunford by questionable means. Accordingly, I think that since Condition #33 of the 5 Final Conditions of Approval essentially carries no force nor effect since it creates an inconsistency between the Master Plan and my tentative map, the City Council should vote to remove this "cloud" of uncertainty with respect to the roundabout and the myriad of problems that it has created.
Sullivan Road is a truck route, and a roundabout of the type proposed would be a large Caltrans design for trucks and would probably not have the desired effect of properly slowing down cars because the sheer size of it would allow cars to just speed along through the roundabout. With the school crossing at that location, it would be much safer having a four-way stop. Roundabouts in residential areas are for use as a traffic calmer to slow down traffic without stop signs and should not be utilized on truck routes. In order to install the full roundabout on the North side of Sullivan Road, the right of way will be required from both properties along Grove Avenue. If the owners of these properties are not willing to dedicate or sell the necessary right of way, the City of Gustine would need to acquire them through Eminent Domain. The 4-way intersection could be built without the additional right of way at this time.
If the above request is approved by the City Council, then condition #33 would need to be amended to incorporate the original four-way stop facilities as was approved in the Southeast Gustine Master Plan. It would also require Chapter 11, Transportation, of the Public Facilities Impact Fee Update Report be amended to exclude the roundabout and the calculation of a new Transportation Impact Fee be done. • I am fine with keeping condition #28 of the Final Conditions of Approval specifically regarding that Subdivider shall coordinate and obtain all required approvals from the County of Merced, Central California Irrigation District and any other stakeholders affected by the work.
4. Request for reimbursement of wasted processing costs and fees.
After the May hearing and approval of my tentative map application, all the pieces have fallen into place regarding the damage caused me by former City Manager Doug Dunford in this process. Consequently, I am asking for reimbursement from the City of various wasted processing costs and fees.
I was invoiced the amount of Eight-thousand three-hundred dollars ($8,300.00) for a Union Pacific Railroad invoice, evidently for an easement. Doug Dunford told both Max Garcia and myself that these funds would be paid by the City of Gustine directly from the Storm and Sewer Impact Fee accounts. You had recently informed me that 6 Doug reversed his decision and decided that I should pay for this, which I have refused to do and don't think is right that I even be asked to do so. • As mentioned above in item number 3, Doug Dunford requested that I amend my map to reflect the smaller, 5,000 s. f. lots and communicated to me that "the City" wanted these. Obviously, this was not the case and I spent a substantial amount of time and money having my engineer amend my map. As a result, I am requesting that I be reimbursed the total amount of money that I spent for this, an invoice of which will be provided.
• I originally submitted my Tentative Map Application on December 7, 2020. Over the course of several months, Doug went from using Raney & Associates to CSG Consultants, Inc. and finally to George Osner, who should have been the planner handling the processing of the Tentative Map from the very first day as George was the original planner involved on my project from its very inception. Because of this, more of my money was wasted on worthless planning work and precious more months of the planning process because Doug, for whatever reason, did not want George Osner on the project. In addition to this, Doug told me that the City of Gustine was going to require a Development Agreement. I told him that the use of Development Agreements was something that was voluntary between an applicant and a city and that he couldn't compel me to do so. He made it quite clear that if I did not, then no work would be done on my application. So, I reluctantly gave in under protest and proceeded to have my consultants work on the agreement.
For several months, countless hours and money were spent by both my consultants and the City of Gustine's consultants on the Development Agreement, all to no avail.
During one of our weekly conference calls, my attorney George Petrulakis objected to the process of continuing to utilize a development agreement and the City Attorney, Ann Siprelle, was in agreement that a development agreement was not required based upon the scope of the project. As soon as Doug heard both George and Ann's comments, he agreed to do away with the Development Agreement. Doug's lack of planning knowledge caused me to waste the better part of a year and paid for work performed by Best, Best and Krieger, George Osner, GDR Engineering and George Petrulakis on hundreds of worthless pages of Development Agreement, only to later be vindicated in my original request by having all of the City's concerns and protections addressed in the Conditions of Approval.
7 To add insult to injury, the overall process was further complicated and delayed by just under a year due to the fact that the City of Gustine was undergoing an updated fee study being performed by Harris and Associates, the Final rendition of which was prepared on May 17, 2022. The City's Impact Fee schedule effective July 15, 2018 had total impact fees of $31,180.00/residential dwelling unit. My engineer, GDR Engineering made some inquiries and learned that the Impact Fees had gone up and was sent a City of Gustine Impact Fee schedule, with fees effective October 1, 2021, of $53,570.00/residential dwelling unit and exclusive of the new Transportation Fee, an increase of 71.81%. This made no sense to me, so I started making some calls to the City and requested the current Public Facilities Impact Fee Update, which I learned was the last one prepared by Harris & Associates on January 3, 2018 and adopted by the City Council on May 15, 2018. I called Doug Dunford and asked him how could the impact fees go up to $53,570.00, exclusive of Transportation Fee, from $31,180.00 without an updated and adopted Impact Fee Update, the answer of which was that most cities have not updated their own fee studies and that Gustine's fees were too low and that everyone else in Gustine is making it work, so I would have to as well. I asked Doug who is "everyone else" because, to my knowledge, only five (5) new homes had been build in Gustine since 2019 and they were built by SCM Corporate Group and its fees were based on the July 15, 2018 fee schedule amounting to $31,180.00/residential dwelling unit, which I later confirmed with Steve Mothersell of SCM Corporate Group because he e-mailed me all of his permits on October 29, 2021.
I obviously knew better and decided to contact Allison Bouley around early October of 2021, the City's impact fee consultant and a principal with Harris & Associates, directly so that I could try and get some answers. In short, she confirmed that her firm was working on an updated impact fee study, but that it was only being worked on and asked me if I could wait until April of 2022 to have further discussions on what the final impact fees may look like. How was I supposed to answer such a question? I did some computations on all of the impact fees and saw that General Government, Police, Fire, Parks and Storm Drainage impact fees increased by approximately 7.70%, which was allowed per a City Council Agenda Item 12, Section 3, dated May 15, 2018, from the January 3, 2018 impact fees, but the Water and Sewer impact fees increased by approximately 169.24% because an incorrect 1" meter size was being used. I knew right then that something was intuitively wrong. I made another call to Doug and told him that I had spoken to Allison Bouley and he instructed me not to call her again because it would cost the City money every time I spoke with her. Once again, he reiterated that the impact fees of surrounding cities, 8 especially the City of Turlock, were too low and not updated and that's just the way it is and that I would just have to wait until the new, updated impact fee study was complete in 2022.
I then contacted Gustine's Building Department and spoke with Jared Claypool who finally e-mailed me back on October 29, 2021 that "I was able to get the okay for the fees for the 5 lots completed by SCM and have attached breakdowns for each of the property. Please keep in mind that fees have gone up since these were issued and the fee for a new 1,900 sq. ft. house is coming in around $55K-$56K." I had inquired as to what impact fees SCM had paid for each of the houses that it had built and was going to challenge Doug on these numbers because he told me over the phone that SCM paid the higher fees when I first started questioning the numbers, which was prior to me receiving the October 29, 2021 e-mails from both Steve Mothersell and Jared confirming what SCM had actually paid. Of course, Doug just blew me off as usual. I also found it very suspect that Jared had to "get the okay" in order to send me the fees for SCM's five houses because building permits are public information. Jared personally told me over the phone that he would have to get Doug's permission prior to the release of the permits.
In the months that followed, there were conference calls that included Doug, George Petrulakis, Max Garcia, the team at Harris & Associates, Ann Siprelle and myself. These conference call conversations lasted for a few months and it took quite a while for George Petrulakis to convince Harris & Associates that they were using the wrong 1" meter service size instead of the correct 5/8 × 3/4" meter service size, which was obviously incorrect. Page 52, FEE SCHEDULE, of the Public Facilities Impact Fee Update prepared by Harris & Associates on May 17, 2022 ultimately used the correct size of 3/4" meter size, which says "the residential fee is based on the fee for a 3/4 inch meter which is the meter size that would be required for the average daily water demand of a residential unit."
Furthermore, during these conference calls, Max Garcia discovered that the land values that were being used in the new impact fee update for various fee components were substantially high and had no reasonable basis for support, in order words, no current land appraisals nor comparable sales reports to support the land value number that was being used. I had provided some recent, closed property sales documents to the team, but whether or not they were utilized is not known by me. In the end, we all, more or less, came to terms with what everyone thought was a reasonable land value because too much time was being wasted. Had George Petrulakis not 9 discovered that the City and Harris & Associates were both using the wrong meter size and had Max Garcia not discovered the error in land values being used, then the May 17, 2022 impact fees could have very well ended up being $53,570.00 plus the new Transportation Fee of $4,830.00 for a total of $58,400.00 and perhaps even higher because there were a few different proposed fee charts which were being considered.
This entire endeavor cost in excess of six months of wasted time and many wasted dollars.
The total lack of preparedness, knowledge and overall deceit elicited by Doug Dunford during his tenure as City Manager of Gustine, insofar as my efforts are concerned, have only served to undermine the integrity of the entire Southeast Master Plan, the processing of my tentative subdivision map application, the processing of future tentative subdivision map applications and any and all work associated with the planning of the Master Plan.
I am requesting that the City of Gustine reimburse me for the substantial amount of money that I was compelled to spend on the needless planning work that was performed by Raney & Associates and CSG Consultants, Inc. and for all work performed, as it specifically relates to the Development Agreement, by Best, Best & Krieger, George Osner, GDR Engineering and George Petrulakis. Proof of my wasted expenditures will be provided.
Han Vateth 10/13/2025
Ron Katakis Date
10 Attachment "2"
Amendment to Conditions of Approval
Detail for "Project Description"
Uniform Application Form, page 1
The project includes a request to amend certain conditions of approval to Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Katakis ('VTSM") as reflected in City Council Resolution No. 2022-2619.
1. Deferral of Payment of Impact Fees from Bullding Permit to Certificate of Occupancy and Fee Credits. There are two purposes to these proposed revisions. The first is to defer payment of impact fees from building permit to certificate of occupancy with collection of the impact from the close of escrow of each home. The second is to confirm the fee credit approach for the significant up-front infrastructure costs of the project. These revisions make the project more economically viable in the deteriorating real estate market.
Condition #21. Condition #21 currently reads:
"Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Subdivider shall pay all development impact fees as specified and pursuant to the City's municipal code, ordinances, and resolutions. The fee assessment shall include all applicable fees for Municipal Facilities, Police, Fire Protection, Transportation, Water, Domestic Wastewater, Storm Drainage, and Parks. Fees shall be paid at the time of the issuance of each permit. Development Fees shall include all those fees currently under consideration by the City Council and proposed for adoption on May 17, 2022."
Applicant's request is to amend Condition #21 so that it will read:
"Subdivider shall pay all development impact fees due as specified and pursuant to the City's municipal code, ordinances, and resolutions. The fee assessment shall include all applicable fees for Municipal Facilities, Police, Fire Protection, Transportation, Water, Domestic Wastewater, Storm Drainage, and Parks, except those subject to fee credits for infrastructure previously installed. All development fees due shall be deferred until certificate of occupancy of each house and collected at close of escrow for that house. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued until a recordable lien in a form approved by the City Attorney has been placed upon the subject property for the total amount of fees to be paid. Development Fees shall include all those fees currently under consideration by the City Council and proposed for adoption on May 17, 2022." Condition #21A. Applicant's request is to add a new Condition #21A to read as follows:
"Fee credits shall be provided to the project as set forth in the attached Reimbursement Addendum."
Il. Clarification of Special Districts. The purpose of this proposed revislon Is to clarify use and timing of special districts [Landscape and Lighting Maintenance Districts) and Community Facilities District(s)] for maintenance and services.
Condition #22. Condition #22 currently reads:
"The proposed parcels shall be annexed to any applicable Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District and Community Facilities District for the City of Gustine for all required and applicable assessments, and at the City's discretion, the Subdivider will agree to prepare and fund, formation of a new Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District and/or Community Facilities District for the parcels."
Applicant's request is to amend Condition #22 so that it will read:
"Prior to final map approval or as otherwise provided in a subdivision improvement agreement, the proposed parcels shall be annexed to any applicable Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District and Community Facilities District for the City of Gustine for all required and applicable assessments. The Subdivider will agree to prepare and fund the formation of a new Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District and/or Community Facilities District reasonably necessary for the parcels prior to final map approval or as otherwise provided in a subdivision improvement agreement."
Findings for Revisions of Conditions 21 and 22 and Addition of Condition 21A.
Requests for changes to conditions of approval of a City tentative map are governed by the City's Subdivision Ordinance, Section 4-61-100.D. That section has two (2) requirements. First, the change must be necessary due to at least one of three factors listed in this section.
Subdivision Ordinance Sec. 4-61-100.D1-3. Second, It must be found that all the applicable findings for approval required by Sections 4-61-070.A and B can still be made. Subdivision Ordinance Sec. 4-61-100.D.
A significant change of market conditions since the original approval of the VTSM supports the modification of Conditions 21 and 22 and addition of Condition 21A. Subdivision Ordinance Sec. 4-61-100.D2 ("a change in circumstances related to the original approval.") Since the approval of the VTSM, mortgage rates have continued to rise and have exceeded six percent for the first time since 2008. These increases have been affected by the increase in the "Fed Funds Rate" undertaken by the Federal Reserve this year.
2 In addition to this rise in mortgage rates, the expected duo of inflation and threatened recession have caused buyers of subdivision land to pause and scrutinize prospective projects more thoroughly. While it is hoped that a lack of inventory will allow some projects to continue, buyers of subdivision land are requiring minor adjustments to timing of payments that affect their cash flow obligations and are also enhancing their due diligence efforts to remove uncertainty from prospective projects. The modification to Condition 21 improves the cash flow scenario for the builder of the homes by delaying payment of impact fees without affecting the City's ability to collect the fees. The modification to Condition 22 clarifies the timing of special district requirements so that enhanced due diligence requirements of buyers of subdivision land may be met. The addition of Condition 21A confirms the fee credit approach for the significant up-front infrastructure costs of development in the Southeast Gustine Master Plan The revisions to Conditions 21 and 22 and addition of Condition 21Ado not affect the ability of the required findings for approval to be made as required by Sections 4-61-070.A and B. Those findings can still be made.
III. Replace Sullivan Road/Grove Avenue Roundabout with Original Concept of 4-Way Stop.
The purpose of these proposed revisions is to replace the roundabout at Sullivan Road/Grove Avenue which has never been adopted by the City Council as part of the Southeast Gustine Master Plan with the original concept of a 4-way stop.
Condition #29. The first sentence of Condition #29 currently reads:
"Subdivider shall dedicate or cause the dedication of street right of way for the proposed roundabout and subdivision street frontage for Sullivan Road and construct street improvements pursuant to a 70-ft Street Section per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer." Applicant's request is to amend the first sentence of Condition #29 so that it will read:
"Subdivider shall dedicate or cause the dedication of street right of way for the proposed four-way stop at the intersection of Sullivan Road/Grove Avenue and subdivision street frontage for Sullivan Road and construct street Improvements pursuant to a 70-ft Street Section per the Southeast Gustine Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer."
Condition #33. Condition #33 currently reads:
"Construct the proposed roundabout to meet Highway Design Manual Figure 404.5C for California Legal Design Vehicle of 50-ft. turning radius and 6-seconds lock-to-lock time for a rural arterial designation."
3 Applicant's request is to amend Condition #33 so that it will read:
"Subdivider shall construct and install four-way stop facilities at the Sullivan Road/Grove Avenue intersection as part of the first Final Map process." Findings for Revisions of Conditions 29 and 33.
Requests for changes to conditions of approval of a City tentative map are governed by the City's Subdivision Ordinance, Section 4-61-100.D. That section has two (2) requirements. First, the change must be necessary due to at least one of three factors listed in this section.
Subdivision Ordinance Sec. 4-61-100.D1-3. Second, it must be found that all the applicable findings for approval required by Sections 4-61-070.A and B can still be made. Subdivision Ordinance Sec. 4-61-100.D.
The first factor supporting the revisions of Conditions 29 and 33 is a factual oversight in the deliberations leading up to the original approval of the VTSM. Subdivision Ordinance Sec. 4-61- 100.D1 ("material misstatement of fact in the deliberations leading to the original approval.") In the deliberations leading to approval of the VTSM, both the Katakis team and the City team operated under the mistaken belief that the roundabout at the intersection of Sullivan Road and Grove Avenue had been approved by the City Council in an amendment to the Southeast Gustine Master Plan. After the VTSM, City staff discovered and shared with Developer that the master plan had not been officially amended to change the original four-way stop with the roundabout. This oversight constitutes a material misstatement of fact sufficient for Conditions 29 and 33 to be revised to remove the roundabout configuration so that the VTSM may return to the original four-way stop facility as shown in the Southeast Gustine Master Plan.
The second factor supporting the revisions of Conditions 29 and 33 is a significant change of market conditlons since the original approval of the VTSM. Subdivision Ordinance Sec. 4-61- 100.D2 ("a change in circumstances related to the original approval.") Since the approval of the VTSM, mortgage rates have continued to rise and have exceeded six percent for the first time since 2008. These increases have been affected by the increase in the "Fed Funds Rate" undertaken by the Federal Reserve this year.
In addition to this rise in mortgage rates, the expected duo of inflation and threatened recession have caused buyers of subdivision land to pause and scrutinize prospective projects more thoroughly. While it is hoped that a lack of inventory will allow some projects to continue, buyers of subdivision land are enhancing their due diligence efforts to remove uncertainty from prospective projects. The modifications to Conditions 29 and 33 streamline the project since the original four-way stop configuration can be constructed without a developer acquiring right-of-way that would be necessary from a landowner to the north to construct the roundabout. In addition, this would prevent the possibility that the City would have to conduct condemnation proceedings to acquire this right-of-way to the north if the developer was unable to do so. In addition, some cost savings due to returning to the original four-way stop 4 configuration modestly decreases the significant up-front infrastructure costs necessary to provide publlc Infrastructure for the project.
The revisions to Conditions 29 and 33 do not affect the ability of the required findings for approval to be made as required by Sections 4-61-070.A and B. Those findings can still be made. ###
5 REIMBURSEMENT ADDENDUM TO
SUBDIVISON IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
for the:
KATAKIS SUBDIVISION
Revised 10/13/2022
This Reimbursement Addendum is for illustrative purposes and the numbers shown are urrent construction cost estimates provided by GDR Engineering, exclusive of design an contingency. Actual costs will be determined at the time of acceptance of the improvement and reimbursement amounts will be based on the lesser of actual costs or the amounts allowed for the improvement in the City of Gustine's Public Facilities Impact Fee Update dated May 17, 2022.
The below fees also do not reflect the 5% administration fee that the City of Gustine will be collecting for administering the Fees Program.
The following are the proposed reimbursements and the schedule for said reimbursements based on an Opinion of Probable Construction Costs for Backbone Infrastructure prepared by GDR Engineering, Inc. on October 26, 2021.
1. Southeast Gustine Infrastructure and City Fee Program Components:
A. Transportation Projects:
Sullivan Road Roundabout $700,000.00
• Right-of-way Acquisition 10,000.00
• Lighted Pedestrian Crossing 100,000.00
Total Backbone Transportation Reimbursement
amount $810,000.00
Amount of Transportation fees collected
On 157 building permits $722,200.00
Estimated debit balance IS 87,800.00
*All 157 building permits within the Katakis Subdivision will be credited for the Transportation component of Gustine's City Fees ($4,600.00/dwelling unit), which is the base fee exclusive of the City's 5% administration fee.
*The remaining debit balance of approximately $87,800.00 shall then be reimbursed by the City of Gustine providing fee credits from other infrastructure component categories within the Katakis Subdivision or by providing reimbursement from City Fees paid by other development, whichever is earlier.
B. Sanitary Sewer Projects:
1 • 18-inch Sanitary Sewer Main $506,000.00
• Standard Manhole 120,000.00
24-inch Steel Casing Pipe (Jack and Bore & Pit) 66,000.00 Connect To Existing Manhole 4,000.00
Remove and Dispose of Existing Sewer Lift Station 50,000.00 • Railroad Utility Crossing 22,500.00
Total Backbone Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement
amount $ 768,500.00
Amount of Sanitary Sewer fees collected on 157 building permits $1,183,780.00
Estimated credit balance ฿ 415,280.00
*All 157 building permits within the Katakis Subdivision will be credited for the Sanitary Sewer component of Gustine's City Fees ($7,540.00/dwelling unit), which is the total fee per the May 17, 2022 Public Facilities Impact Fee Update and backing out the 5% City administration fee because the base fee was not adjusted by the 5% in the study. *The remaining credit balance of approximately $415,280.00 shall then be used to offset any City Fee infrastructure category components that may have a debit balance remaining after receiving their respective reimbursement amounts.
C. Water Projects:
• Water Well #8 (to be constructed at City expense)
Total Backbone Water Reimbursement
amount $ 0.00
Amount of Water fees collected on 157 building
Permits $496,434.00
Estimated credit balance 5496,434.00
*All 157 building permits within the Katakis Subdivision will pay the Water component of Gustine's City Fees ($3,162.00/dwelling unit), which is the total fee per the May 17, 2022 Public Facilities Impact Fee Update and backing out the 5% City administration fee because the base fee was not adjusted by the 5% in the study.
*The remaining credit balance of approximately $496,434.00 shall then be used to offset any City Fee infrastructure category components that may have a debit balance remaining after receiving their respective reimbursement amounts.
2 D. Off-Site Storm Drain Extension & Pump Station
12-inch Storm Drain Force Main $329,000.00
• Standard Manhole 120,000.00
• 20-inch Steel Casing Pipe (Jack and Bore & Pit) 66,000.00 Pump Station 650,000.00
Railroad Utility Crossing 22,500.00
Basin Excavation 133,200.00
• Basin Landscaping 215,000.00
Total Backbone Storm Drain Reimbursement
amount $1,535,700.00
Amount of Storm Drain fees collected on 157 building
permits $1,174,203.00
Estimated debit balance 361,497.00
*All 157 building permits within the Katakis Subdivision will be credited for the Storm Basin component of Gustine's City Fees ($7,479.00/dwelling unit), which is the base fee exclusive of the City's 5% administration fee.
*The remaining debit balance of approximately $361,497.00 shall then be reimbursed by the City of Gustine providing fee credits from other infrastructure component categories within the Katakis Subdivision or by providing reimbursement from City Fees paid by other development, whichever is earlier.
The following is the proposed reimbursement based on a Basin and Parkland Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction Costs prepared by GDR Engineering, Inc. on April 27, 2022.
E. Basin and Parkland Projects:
• Play Equipment (to be provided at City expense) 0.00
• Restroom Facilities (to be constructed at City expense) 0.00 • Basin Excavation 133,200.00
• Park Landscaping (needs to be adjusted for City portion) 215,000.00 • Park Design (City responsibility?) 69,800.00
Total Backbone Basin and Parkland Reimbursement
amount $418,000.00
Amount of Park fees collected on 157 building permits $1,114,700.00 Estimated credit balance 896.700.00
3 *All 157 building permits within the Katakis Subdivision will be credited for the Park component of Gustine's City Fees ($7,100.00/dwelling unit), which is the base fee exclusive of the City's 5% administration fee.
*The remaining credit balance of approximately $696, 700.00 shall then be used to offset any City Fee infrastructure category components that may have a debit balance remaining after receiving their respective reimbursement amounts.
The following are the proposed summary of Public Facility Impact Fees from the Gustine Public Facility Impact Fee Update dated May 17, 2022.
F. General Government
• None 0.00
Total Backbone General Government Reimbursement amount $ 0.00 Amount of General Government fees collected on 157 building $ 270,197.00 permits (1,721.00/dwelling unit), which is the base fee exclusive of the City's 5% administration fee.
Estimated credit balance 270-197400
*The remaining credit balance of approximately $270,197.00.00 shall then be used to offset any City Fee infrastructure category components that may have a debit balance remaining after receiving their respective reimbursement amounts.
G. Police
• None 0.00
Total Backbone Police Reimbursement amount $ 0.00
Amount Police fees collected on 157 building permits $ 223,568.00 ($1,424.00/dwelling unit), which is the base fee exclusive of the City's 5% administration fee.
Estimated credit balance S 223,558.00
*The remaining credit balance of approximately $223,568.00 shall then be used to offset any City Fee infrastructure category components that may have a debit balance remaining after receiving their respective reimbursement amounts.
4 H. Fire
• None 0.00
Total Backbone Fire Reimbursement amount $ 0.00
Amount of Fire fees collected on 157 building permits $ 311,174.00 ($1,982.00/dwelling unit), which is the base fee exclusive of the City's 5% administration fee.
Estimated credit balance $ 311,174.00
*The credit balance of approximately $311,174.00 shall be used to offset any City Fee infrastructure category components that may have a debit balance remaining after receiving their respective reimbursement amounts.
Note:
Per the Gustine Public Facility Impact Fee Update dated May 17, 2022, the Update does not provide a base fee nor a 5% administration fee for the Water Impact Fee and it does not provide a base fee for the Sewer Impact Fee. The dollar amounts per dwelling unit used for this Addendum for both the Water and Sewer Impact Fees are $3,162.00 and $7,540.00, respectively, and have the 5% administration fee netted out of the actual impact fees to be collected, which are $3,320.00 and $7,917.00 for water and sewer, respectively.
307P2020008 15KS. BROADWAY SUMTE 150
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DRPARTIENE TURLOCK CA 95381
CK BNGINSERING DIVISION! PHONS (239, 508.5320
INC 08
TDD: (800) 735-2929 FAX: (209) 602-0363
October 23, 2017
Ron Katakis
1850 Arbor St.
Tariock, CA 95380
(209) 571-9340
Re: Deferral of Map Fees
Dear Ron:
The City of Turlock has changed the timing for the collection of development impact fees related to mapping and the development of property. We now allow for the deferral of certain fees that were traditionally collected on a map fees letter to as far out as close of escrow for a residential property.
Attached is a copy of the map fees letters for the Les Chateaux subdivisions which illustrate which fees the City of Turlock is willing to defer. Fees that are deferred to an encroachment permit pay for City personnel to perform work and must be paid prior to the execution of that work. With the exception of the water meter fees, Fees that are deferred to the building permit may be deferred until close of escrow. Water meter fees must be paid at building permit issuance. All other fees are not deferrable and must be paid prior to recordation of the map.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Michael Pitcock, P.E.
Director of Development Services / City Engineer
Attachments:
Fees letter for Les Chateaux Subdivision
MICHAEL ArCOCK 8, SIT? ENGINEER : (2091602-3590 3X36420 10120000012007.0;
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ENGINEERING DIVISION
156 S. Broadway, Suite 150
Turiock, CA 95380 Michael G. Pitcock, P.E.
(209) 668-5520 Phone Development Services Director
(209) 668-5563 Fax OCK City Engineer
To: Edmond & Mary Shamouel November 16, 2015
c/o Ron Katakis Revised October 23, 2017
1850 Arbor St.
Turlock, CA 95380
From: Michael Pitcock, Engineering Division
Re: Les Chateaux
Please be advised that the following fees, etc., are required before the final map of the subject subdivision can be presented to the City Council for approval:
FEES: (Subject to change quarterly) These fees apply until December 31,2017, at which time they will be adjusted to the E.N.R. index
Office Use Only
ENG 033 a. Map Checking Fee (Original Final Viap Review) Engineering Division: $1,883.00
Planning Division: $317.00
ENG 033 b. Map Checking Fee
Engineering Division. • $2,408.87
Planning Division: -- $266.13
c. Street Signs (city will order and install): Deferred to ( 7 sets @$145.00 each) Encr. Permit
BLDG 118 d. Master Storm Drain Fee: - Deferred to
( 20.62 acres a $6,944.94 per acre ) Bidg. Permit
($1,110.11 per lot, adjusted to the current ENR)
e. Park Land Fee \ 0.63 acres @ $180,000.00 per acre )
Neighborhood Park Portion (2/3). Deferred to
($1,417.50 per lot, adjusted to the current ENR) 3ldg. Permi Community Park Portion (1/3): Jeferred to
($472.50 per lot, adjusted to the current ENR) Bidg. Permit LMD 115 f. First Year Assessment Fee: $99,851.90
(60 lots @ $1,664.20 per lot )
ENG 019 g. Copying Fee: - $112.00
(32 copies @ $3.50 per copy )
ENG 004 h. Water Meter Fee: - Deferred to
(60 dwelling units @ $440.00 each unit) Bidg. Permit