Agenda Packet 2011-06-14City Con e1*1
Tony Ferrara, Mayor
Caren Ray, Mayor Pro Tem
Joe Costello, Council Member
Jim Guthrie, Council Member
Tim Brown, Council Member
Steven Adams, City Manager
Timothy J. Carmel , City Attorney
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk
AGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2011
7:00 P.M.
Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. FLAG SALUTE
4. INVOCATION
7:00 P.M.
ARROYO GRANDE VALLEY KIWAN IS
PASTOR ROBERT BANKER
OPEN DOOR CHURCH
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
5.a. Honorary Mayor's Commendation Recognizing the Lions Club for receiving the
"District 4 -A3 Number One Club" Award
5.b. Honorary Mayor's Commendation Recognizing Arroyo Grande High School
Graduate Hunter Norton on his U.S. Military Academy/West Point Appointment
6. AGENDA REVIEW
6.a. Move that all ordinances presented for introduction or adoption be read in title only
and all further readings be waived.
AGENDA SUMMARY —JUNE 14 2011
PAGE 2
7. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present
issues, thoughts, or suggestions on matters not scheduled on this agenda.
Comments should be limited to those matters that are within the jurisdiction of the
City Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council from taking formal action on
matters not published on the agenda. In response to your comments, the Mayor or
presiding Council Member may:
♦ Direct City staff to assist or coordinate with you.
♦ A Council Member may state a desire to meet with you.
♦ It may be the desire of the Council to place your issue or matter on a future
Council agenda.
Please adhere to the following procedures when addressing the Council:
♦ Comments should be limited to 3 minutes or less.
♦ Your comments should be directed to the Council as a whole and not directed
to individual Council members.
♦ Slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member or
member of the audience shall not be permitted.
8. CONSENT AGENDA:
The following routine items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group.
The recommendations for each item are noted. Any member of the public who wishes
to comment on any Consent Agenda item may do so at this time. Any Council
Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit
discussion or change the recommended course of action. The City Council may
approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda on one motion.
8.a. Consideration of Cash Disbursement Ratification (KRAETSCH)
Recommended Action: Ratify the listing of cash disbursements for the period May
16 2011 through May 31, 2011.
8.b Consideration of Fiscal Year 2011 -12 Appropriation Limit (KRAETSCH)
Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution establishing the appropriation limit from
tax proceeds for Fiscal Year 2011 -12.
8.c. Consideration of Approval of the City of Arroyo Grande Investment Policy
(KRAETSCH)
Recommended Action: Approve the City of Arroyo Grande Investment Policy.
8.d. Consideration of Confirmation of Assessments for Tracts 1158, 1769 2310, and
2236 (KRAETSCH)
Recommended Action: 1) Adopt a Resolution confirming landscaping assessments
for all parcels within Tract 1158; 2) Adopt a Resolution confirming landscaping and
lighting assessments for all parcels within Tract 1769; 3) Adopt a Resolution
confirming the assessments for the Parkside Assessment District for all parcels within
Tract 2310; and 4) Adopt a Resolution confirming the assessment for the Grace Lane
Assessment District for all parcels within Tract 2236.
AGENDA SUMMARY —JUNE 14 2011
PAGE 3
8. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd)
8.e. Consideration of Approval of Minutes (WETMORE)
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the Regular City Council/
Redevelopment Agency meeting of May 24, 2011; the Special City Council meeting of
May 26, 2011; the Special City Council /Redevelopment Agency meeting of May 26,
2011, and the Special Joint City Council /Planning Commission meeting /study session
of May 31, 2011, as submitted.
8.f. Consideration of Council Appointment to Parks and Recreation Commission
(WETMORE)
Recommended Action: Approve the recommendation of Council Member Joe
Costello to appoint Roxanne Shankland to the Parks and Recreation Commission.
8.g. Consideration of Letter to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC
Regarding the SmartMeter Program (ADAMS)
Recommendation Action: Authorize the Mayor to submit a letter to the CPUC urging
approval of a Pacific Gas and Electric SmartMeter opt out program at no additional
cost to the customer.
8.h. Consideration of Cancellation of July 26, 2011 City Council Meeting (ADAMS)
Recommended Action: Cancel the regularly scheduled Council meeting of July 26,
2011.
8.i. Consideration of Request from Planning Commissioners Keen and Sperow for
Consecutive Absences from Planning Commission Meetings (McCLISH)
Recommended Action: Consent to three consecutive absences by Planning
Commissioners Keen and Sperow during the summer months.
8.j. Consideration of a Resolution Accepting Improvements for Parcel Map AG 04-
0123 Located at 154 Pine Street Constructed by Robert Del Campo (McCLISH)
Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution accepting improvements for Parcel Map
AG 04 -0123 located at 154 Pine Street constructed by Robert Del Campo.
8.k. Consideration of Acceatance of the Well No. 10. Phase II Rehabilitation Proiect.
PW 2010 -02 (McCLISH)
Recommended Action: 1) Accept the project improvements as constructed by R.
Baker, Inc. in accordance with the plans and specifications for the Well No. 10, Phase
II Project; 2) Direct staff to file a Notice of Completion; 3) Appropriate an Additional
$6,000 for the project budget from the Water Availability Fund; 4) Approve a Second
Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services with Garing, Taylor &
Associates in the amount of $2,150; and 5) Authorize release of the retention, thirty -
five (35) days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded, if no liens have been
filed.
AGENDA SUMMARY —JUNE 14 2011
PAGE 4
8. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd)
8.1. Consideration of Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Portions of Title 13 and
Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Relating to the Establishment of
Water Efficient Landscape Requirements; Development Code Amendment Case
No. 11 -002 (McCLISH)
Recommended Action: Adopt an Ordinance amending portions of Title 13 and Title
16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code relating to the establishment of water
efficient landscape requirements.
8.m. Consideration of a Resolution Accepting Open Space, Trails, Public Access
and Slopes for Tract 2236 (McCLISH)
Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution accepting offers of dedication and
improvements for open space, trails, public access and slopes for Tract 2236.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
9.a. Consideration of Development Code Amendment 11 -003: Proaosed Ordinance
Amending Regulations Regarding Temporary Signs; Citywide (MCCLISH)
Recommended Action: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council
introduce an Ordinance amending portions of Chapter 16.60 of Title 16 of the Arroyo
Grande Municipal Code regarding temporary banners and signs.
10. CONTINUED BUSINESS:
None.
11. NEW BUSINESS:
11.a. Consideration of South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District
Presentation (ADAMS)
Recommended Action: Receive presentation and communicate concerns and
questions.
12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
This item gives the Mayor and Council Members the opportunity to present reports to
the other members regarding committees, commissions, boards, or special projects
on which they may be participating.
(a) MAYOR FERRARA:
(1) San Luis Obispo Council of Governments /San Luis Obispo Regional
Transit Authority (SLOCOG /SLORTA)
(2) South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD)
(3) Brisco /Halcyon /Hwy 101 Interchange Project Subcommittee
(4) Other
AGENDA SUMMARY —JUNE 14 2011
PAGE 5
12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS (cont'd)
(b) MAYOR PRO TEM RAY:
(1) Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC)
(2) California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA)
(3) Tourism Committee
(4) Other
(c) COUNCIL MEMBER COSTELLO:
(1) Zone 3 Water Advisory Board
(2) Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
(3) Five Cities Fire Authority (FCFA)
(4) Other
(d) COUNCIL MEMBER GUTHRIE:
(1) South County Area Transit (SCAT)
(2) Community Action Partnership (CAPSLO)
(3) Homeless Services Coordinating Council (HSOC)
(4) Other
(e) COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN:
(1) Integrated Waste Management Authority Board (IWMA)
(2) County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC)
(3) Other
13. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS:
The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by a Council Member who would like
to receive feedback, direct staff to prepare information, and /or request a formal
agenda report be prepared and the item placed on a future agenda. No formal action
can be taken.
None.
14. CITY MANAGER ITEMS:
The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by the City Manager in order to
receive feedback and /or request direction from the Council. No formal action can be
taken.
None.
15. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:
Correspondence /Comments as presented by the City Council.
16. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Correspondence /Comments as presented by the City Manager.
AGENDA SUMMARY —JUNE 14 2011
PAGE 6
17. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present
issues, thoughts, or suggestions. Comments should be limited to those matters that
are within the jurisdiction of the City Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council
from taking formal action on matters not published on the agenda.
18. ADJOURNMENT
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
All staff reports or other written documentation, including any supplemental material distributed to a
majority of the City Council within 72 hours of a regular meeting, relating to each item of business on the
agenda are available for public inspection during regular business hours in the City Clerk's office, 300 E.
Branch Street, Arroyo Grande. If requested, the agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative
formats to persons with a disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. To make a request
for disability - related modification or accommodation, contact the Legislative and Information Services
Department at 805 - 473 -5414 as soon as possible and at least 48 hours prior to the meeting date.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
This agenda was prepared and posted pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2. Agenda reports
can be accessed and downloaded from the City's website at www.arroyogrande.orq
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
City Council /Redevelopment Agency Meetings are cablecast live and videotaped for replay on Arroyo
Grande's Government Access Channel 20. The rebroadcast schedule is published at www.slo- span.org
CITY OF
LIFORI
Mayor's c ommendation
Presentedto
arroyo Grande Lions Club
The City of .Arroyo Grande recognizes the
.Arroyo GrandAelfam Chid as the recipient of the
District 4 -A3 WUMber One Chid Awar4 the highest
award avaiCa6le to a I ions Club. We ti►+ouCd Czke to
extencfour carcgratuCatiorrs to your dedicated
members ardare very gratefulf'or your service to
the ,arroyo Grande Community.
Datedthis ztLday0f J=e 2011 ; 1111111111111 1
WCORPORATED
M
JULY 10. 7911
Tiony Ferrara, Nayor t / FF r 0 jk \
Agenda Item 5.a.
Page 1
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item 5.a.
Page 2
� CITY
Amok
:01-9
LIFOR
Mayors I Commendation
jDresentedto
(unter Vance Xmlow
In reco8n,ition of your CongressloonaCMamlonatIAM
andsu6secruent Ayyointment to the
UnitedStates Mititary .academy.
On Befiagof the .Arroyo Grande City Counci�
^We are oudof your camyCtshm-ents andtivish
you the very best of tuck at 'West Point.
Datedthis nth day JUne zou
0 . !L k Ft OY O
mcopipoRxm
(.) rv
_ rn
71f JULY 14. loll �
Agenda Item 5.b.
Page 1
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item 5.b.
Page 2
INCORPORATED
JULY 10, 1911
1 F O
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESJJ
: TRICIA ME ERS, SENIOR ACCOUNT CLERK
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF CASH DISBURSEMENT RATIFICATION
DATE: JUNE 149 2011
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for
the period May 16 through May 31, 2011.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is a $1,062,039.07 fiscal impact that includes the following it rns:
• Accounts Payable Checks 149820 - 149987 $ 599,230.04
• Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks 402
BACKGROUND:
Cash disbursements are made weekly based o the submission of all required
documents supporting the invoices submitted for payment. Prior to payment,
Administrative services staff reviews all disbursement documents to ensure that they
meet the approval requirements adopted in the Municipal Code and the City's
Purchasing Policies and Procedures Manual o February 2000.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
The attached listing represents the cash disbursements required of normal and usual
operations during the period. The disbursements are accounted for in the FY 2010-11
budget.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
• Approve staff recommendation;
• Do not approve staffs recommendation;
Provide direction to staff.
Agenda Item 8.a.
Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF CASH DISBURSEMENT RATIFICATION
JUNE 14, 2011
PAGE 2
ADVANTAGES:
0 The Administrative Services Department monitors payment of invoices for
accountability, accuracy and completeness using standards approved by the
Council.
0 Invoices are paid in a timely manner to establish goodwill ith merchants.
Discounts are taken where applicable.
DISADVANTAGES*
No disadvantages have been identified as long as City Council confirms all
expenditures are appropriate.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
No environmental revie w is required for this item.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, .tune g, 2011. The Agenda
and report were posted on the City's webite on Friday, ,Jane 10, 2011. No public
comments were received.
Attachments:
1. May 1 — May 31,, 2011 — Accounts Payable Check Register
2. May 20, 2011 — Payroll Check & Benefit Checks Register
Agenda Item 8.a.
Page 2
ATTA HME IT 1
Page: 1
apkHist Che History Listing
0610612011 1 : 4AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bark code. boa
Check # Date Vendor Statue DlearN id Date Invoice Irv. Date Amount Paid Check Taal
` 149820 0511312011 008249 NICK E POKRAJAC INC 0513112011 per 2010 -1 0511312011
E 350.5435.7001 35,171.40
35
35,1 71.40
149821 0511712011 000039 CHEVR & TE CARD C 0513112011 29799
149822 9511812011 000072 US POSTAL SERVICE
149323 9511912011 008455 CLAUDIA ACO
149824 05/19/2011 000033 AG C HAMBER O F
149825 0511912011 003175 AQ SMILES
0513112011 051311
051 011
051 211
0513112011 0037510 -i1
0510012011
E 01 0.4201.560 8
114.07
114.07
0511312011
E 0 10.442 1.5504
1,64.4
1,047.48
0511012011
R 01 0.0000.4354
30.00
30.00
05/12/2011
E 01 0.4424. 5353
1
1,350.00
05/01/2011
E 040.4712.5207
3
114.07
1,047.48
30.00
1,350.00
D 3t0.0
t�
149820 0511 912011 000043 ARROYO GRANDE GLASS & C 0513112011 1 537 0412112011
CL E 010.4213.5004 05.00
0
05.00
c�
M 00
wh)
Page: 1
ap kHi t
Check History Listing
3678
Page: 2
06/0612411 1 : 4A !
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank co boa
147.81
Check Date Vendor
Status Clear# oi Date Invoke
Inv. Date
Amount Pa Check Total
149827 05!19!2011 005507 AT&T
C 05!3112011 5/7 -0183
05!07!2011
E 01 0. 4145.5403
785.06
128.24
785.06
C 05/31/2011 5/7-3956 -3956
05/07/2011
05!3112011
3671
04/20!2011
E 220.4303.5303
31.38
E 010-4213.6401
31.38
C 05!3112011 5/7 - 3959
05!07!2011
122.1
C
E 640-
31.33
31.38
847.82
1 49828 05/19!2011 001055 A VCO FIFE EXTINGUISHER C
05!3112011
3678
04/20!2011
E 010.4213.6401
147.81
147.81
C
05!3112011
3672
04/20!2011
E 010-4213.6401
128.24
128.24
C
05!3112011
3671
04/20!2011
E 010-4213.6401
122.1
122.1
C
05!3112011
3680
0412012011
E 010A213-6401
102.1
102.10
05!3112011
3670
04/20!2011
E 0 1 0 A213.6401
61.05
61.05
05/3112011
3073
04/20!2011
E 010.4213.6401
20.00
t> 2.
05/31/2011 3075 44/20!2011
CL E 010.4213.6401 20.00
20.00
t�
M 00
44-iD
Page:
apCkHi t
Che History Listing
P
0610612011 10:64AM
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
B ank cod boa
C heck # Date Vendor
Statue ClearlVoid Date Invoice
Inv. Date
Amount Paid Check Total
0613112011 3674
0412012011
E 010.4213.6401
16.00
16.00
05/3112011 3676
0412012011
E 010.4213.6401
16.00
16.00
0613112011 3679
0412012011
E 0 1 0.4213.6401
12.00
12.
0513112011 3677
04/20/2011
E 01 0.4213.6401
6.00
8.00
653.30
149629 0511912011 000053 B & B STEEL & SUPPLY, INC 0613112011 363503
149830 0511912011 000065 BRENDA BARR O
0613112011 061211
04/1912011
E 010.4420.6605 109.79
109.70
100.70
05/12/2011
E 010.44 24.62 2 222.8
E 010.4426.5255 74.57
E 010.4423.6253 26.64
326.03
14983' 0511912011 002909 DEBRA BLACK
c�
c�
CL
0
c�
M 00
CA 0
0613112011 1309
149832 0611912011 000087 BREMEN PEST CONTR C 05/31/2011 139644
04/25/2011
E 21 7.4460.6366 1
1,260.05
05/0612011
E 01 0.4213.6303 109-00
109.00
326.03
1,260.00
Page:
a pCkHIst
Check History Listing
Page:
06/0612011
10: 4AM
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check #
Date
Vendor
Statue ClearNoid Date Invoice
Inv. Date
Amount Paid
Check Total
C
05/31/2011 1 30064
05!06!2011
E 010.4213.5303
30.00
0.
189-00
140333
05!10!2011
000000 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER
C
05!31!2011 147302
04/21/2011
E 01 0.4213.5604
9
05.53
05.53
140334
05!10!2011
005812 BROUGH CONSTRUCTION
C
05/31/2011 PW 2011 -02
05!13/2011
E 350.5422.7001
66,664.13
66,604.13
66, 664.13
1 40335
05/1 9/2011
000005 BUR E AND PACE O AG
C
05/31/2011 2415873
04/01/2011
E 640.4712.5610
201.43
201.43
C
05/31/2011 2416774
04/22/2011
E 350-5632.7005
1 55.03
1 55.03
C
05/31/2011 2416138
04!07!2011
E 350.5632,7005
144.00
144.00
C
05/31/2011 241 6254
04/11/2011
E 350,5632.7005
21.75
21.75
C
05/31/2011 2415033
04/04/2011
E 350.5632.7005
13.02
D 13.02
C 05/31/2011 2416387 04/13/2011
CL
E 640.4712.561 4.40
0 4.40
540.62
c�
M 00
Page: 4
p kHist
Check History Listing
E 350.5829.7501
Pa ge:
06/06/2011 '10 :54AM
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
0413012011
Bank code: boa
375.00
375.00
Check # Date Vendor
Status Clear/Vold Date Invoice
Inv, Date
Amount Paid Check Total
149836 05/19/2011 003456 KAREN BURKE
C 0513112011 051 011
05/10/2011
R 01 0.0000.4354
30.00
30.00
30.00
149337 0511912011 000129 CA ST EMPL REVEL
C 0513112011 050911
0510912011
E 010.4425.5142
4.00
E 640.4712.5142
1,1 07.00
E 010.4301.5142
1
E 010.4 1.5142
324.00
E 010.4301.5142
4
B 010.0000. 1111
995.00
B 010.0000. 1111
-3.o
8
149833 0511912011 003353 CALIFORNIA LI
0513112011 7043
0412612011
E 010.4213.5004 74.24
74.24
3,530.10
74.24
0313112011
E 010.4420.5005 100.00
100.00
100.00
c�
c�
CL
0
c�
M 00
149330 05/1912011 000143 AR ON AI BY WELDIN
II
149840 0511012011 005390 CANNO
0513112011 7371
0513112011 50700
0513112011 50771
05/31/2011 50770
0413012011
E 350.5829.7501
025.00
025.00
0413012011
E 012.461 0.5303
375.00
375.00
0413012011
E 612.4610-5303
250.00
250.
Page:
a pCkHi t
Check History Listing
P
0610612011
1 :64AM
CITY OF ARROYO RANDB
Bark code:
boa
Check #
Date
Vendor
Status DlearfVold Date
Invoice
Inv. Date
Amount Paid
Check Total
1
149841
0511 912011
000603 CAR QUEST AUTO PARTS
C
8513112811
7314 - 481232
05102/2011
E 220.4383.5603
146.50
146.50
C
0513112011
7314 - 479149
0412112011
E 81 0.4428.5603
144.07
144.07
C
0513112011
7314 - 4821
0510612811
E 010.4305.5601
30.97
.7
321.54
149 842
8511 912811
003854 CCMF - CA CITY T
051211
0511212011
E 010.4181.5503
400.00
480.00
400.00
149843
0511 912011
007794 CENTENNIAL CELE B TI I
C
0513112811
051 911
0511 912011
B 010.0008.2229
5,080.00
5,000.00
5,000.00
1 49844
8511912811
008160 CHAPARRAL
C
0513112811
332278
8510212011
E 010.4421.5602
120.00
E 0 18.4421.5602
48.58
168.58
168.58
149845
8511912811
000174 COASTLINE
C
0513112011
2941
8511212011
D E 220.4383.5608 731.81
t�
731.81
C C 8513112011 27586 04120/2811
E $40.471 2.5683 484.64
484.64
1,216.45
M 00
00 iD
Page:
app I H1 t Check History Listing P a g e: T
0610612011 1 : 4AM CITY OF ARROYO RANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status learl id Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total EMENEEMEEMEM mmw�
149846 0511912011 008457 KRITY COLE C 0513112011 051011 0511012011
R 010.0000.4354 30.00
30.00
30.00
im
i•/
� M
V 00
149847 0511912011 008467 CR CONSTRUCTION C 0513112011 PW 2010 -11
149848 0511912011 000195 CRYSTAL PRI I WATER C 0513112011 4130 - 014273
C 0513112011 5/3-070931
C 0513112011 513- 003949
0511212011
E 350.5910-7001 156
156, 049.87
04/30/2011
E 0 10.4421-52 01
40.89
40.89
0510312011
E 010.4420.5605
24.94
E 01 2.401 0.5303
24. 9
0510312011
102.76
E 010.4430.5605
15.97
15.97
149849 0511912011 007548 CSG SYSTEMS INC
C 0513112011 71865
C 05/31/2011 72241
0412012011
E 640.471
1 1 5 6 4.3 2
1,564.32
04/26/2011
E 640.4710.5303
3
E 01 2.401 0.5303
80.00
E 640.4710.5555
102.76
E 61 2.461 0.5555
25.69
528.45
149850 05119 /2011 008286 DATAARC LLC
C 0513112011 1161
05105120 11
E 350.5436.7301 1
1 1 092.26
156,049.87
81.80
2,092.77
Page: 7
p kH i t
C 05/31/2011 3183 03/03/2011
Che History Listing
2
P
0610612011
1 : 4A 1
C 05/31/2011 8190 04/12/2011
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
E 350.5422.7501
1 ,780.00
Bank code:
boa
�F
Check #
Date
Vendor
Status Clear/Vold Date Invoice
Inv. Date
Amount Paid
Check Total
1,092.26
149351
0511912011
005091 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES
C
0513112011 5765661
0510212011
E 0 1 0.4420.5605
69.17
69.17
C
05/31/2011 57665230
05/03/2011
E 010.4420.5605
66.30
66.30
C
05/31/2011 57647818
05/02/2011
E 0 1 0.4420.5605
25.45
25.45
C
05/31/2011 57526326
04/21/2011
E 010.4420-5605
3.63
3.68
16
149352
05/19/2011
003453 KR1ST1 DIBBERN
C
05/31/2011 050311
05/03/2011
R 010-0000.4605
60.00
60
60
149353
0511 912011
007928 THE D CUTEAM
C
0513112011 W01 18575
0412512011
E 010.4145.5303
90.00
90.00
90.00
149354
0511912011
007985 WILLIAM R DYER
C
0513112011 3194A
0510612011
E 350.5422.7501
4
4
D
C 05/31/2011 3183 03/03/2011
E 350.5422.7501
2
2,597.30
CL
C 05/31/2011 8190 04/12/2011
E 350.5422.7501
1 ,780.00
1,780.00
�F
o�
Page:
ap kHi t Check History Listing P
06/06/2011 10: 4AM CITY OF ARROYO RA IDE
Bank code: boa
C heck # Date Vendor Statue ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
05/31/2011 8194E 05/06/2011
E 350.5422.7501 1
1,310.00
9
149855 05/19/2011 008096 ENNIS PAINT IN
149856 05/19/2011 000262 FRANK'S L FEY
149858 0511912011 000605 THE GAS COMPANY
05/3112011 10195226 04/18/2011
E 220.4303.5613
2,015-68
2,015.68
0511 012011
2
0513112011 31956 0412712011
71.18
E 010.4430.5601
18.49
051111201'1
18.49
0513112011 31870 0411212011
E 010.4420.5605
3.26
3.26
2'1.75
05131 12011 050211 0510212011
B 010.0000.22'1 0 1
1,200.00
1,200.00
0513112011 5111-1375
0513112011 5110 -200
013112011 511'1350
0511112011
E 010.4145.5401
120.66
120.66
0511 012011
E 010.4145.5401
71.18
1
051111201'1
D
E 010.4145.5401 68.00
68.00
CL
0513112011 516 -111 0510612011
E 010.4145.5401 21.11
2'1.11
�F
Page:
D
c�
c�
CL
0)
c�
�00
N�
a p kH!st
Check History Listing
Page: 10
06/06/2011
10: 4AM
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check #
Date
Vendor
status ClearlVold Date
Invoice
Inv. Date
Amount Paid
Check Total
95/31/2911
5/10 -1500
95/1012011
E 019.4145.5401
15.78
15-78
05/
I11 -919
05/11/2011
E 919.4145.5491
1.0
1.06
297.79
149859
05/19/2011
092813 GRAIN INC
C
95/31/2011
9524460921
04/28/2911
E 040,4712.5255
78.00
70.00
78.60
1 49800
05/19/2011
000280 CITY OF GROVER BEACH
C
05/31/2011
0 1711
05/1 7/2011
E 010.4424.5351
40.00
48.00
48.00
149001
05/19/2011
008459 HEATHER HARRIS
051011
05/10/2011
010.0000.4354
30.00
30.00
30.00
149802
05/19/2011
000331 INTL TRAINING RESOURCES,
051911
05/19/2011
E 919.4291.5501
450.00
450.00
450.00
149003
05/19/2011
000844 IRON 1 OU NTAI N
C
05/31/2011
DJT2 69
04/30/2011
E 010.4002,5303
150.12
150,12
150-12
149004
05/19/2011
005201 JAS PACIFIC
BI 10784
05/04/2011
E 010.4212.5303
4
4,512.00
Page: 10
pDkHl t
Check History Listing
Page: 11
0810812011 10:64 AM
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor
Status DlearrfV 'ld Dame Invoice
Inv. Date
Amount Paid
Check Total
4 , 512.99
149865 05/19/2011 093949 KERN'S PAPER
C 0513112911 39403
0412812011
E 010.4102.5255
233.54
233.54
05/31/2011 39333
04/25/2011
E 010.4102.5255
186.83
186.83
420.37
149866 05/19/2011 008381 KAFI LAIC
0513112911 051811
05/18/2011
E 010.4425.5303
E 010.4425.5303
37.50
149867 05/19/2011 000393 LIMA MAR MINIFIED SCHOOL C 0513112011 11 0544
149868 05/19/2011 008198 MANGANO HOLIES IN
03/14/2011
E 91 0.4425.5303
051211 0511 212011
B 0 1 0.0000.221
5 211 0510212011
B 010.0000.221
050 111 05/01/2011
B 010.0000.221
72.14
72.14
1,525.00
1,525.00
1,525.90
1, 200-00
t� 0502 05/19/2011
tD B 91 0.0900.221 1,200-00
CL
1,200.00
,.� 4
c�
00
w�
Page: 11
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 12
0610612011 10: 4AM CITY OF ARROYO I ANDE
Banc code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Statue ClearfVold Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
149869 05/19/2011 0640 (LEAN ROOFING INC 0513112011 3396 04/13/2011
E 350.5689.7001 1,633.00
E 350.5433.7001 1.632.
CL
0
1T
M w
■
3,265.00
149870 05/19/2011 000426 MIER BS LANDSCAPE C 0513112011 176389
C 0513112011 1
0410512011
E 350.5632.7005 14,90
147.90
0410512011
E 350.5632.7005 147,90
147,9
149671 05/1912011 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, IIAF E, C 0513112011 K57933
C 0513112011 K99551
0513112011 K666
0513112011 K99511
C 0513112011 K451
0513112011 K71966
0412212011
E 220.4303.5255
206.1
206.19
0412612011
E 10.4420.5605
92.40
92.40
0510312011
E 010.4213-56D4
52.57
52.57
04/28/2011
E 01 0.421 3.5604
61.98
61.96
04/21/2011
E 010.4424-5252
60.57
60.57
04/13/2011
E 640.4712.5610
55.41
55.41
3,265.00
295.60
Page. 12
a pDkHi t Check History Listing P 1
06/06/2011 10: 4AM CITY OF ARROYO AIDE
Bonk code. boa
Check # Gate Vendor
Status ClearNoid Date Invoice
C heck Total
Inv. Date Amount Paid
Page: 1
C
0513112011
K586
0412812011
E 010.440.0 5
40.06
40.0
C
0513112011
K7
0312412011
E 640.4712.5610
36.1
36 .1 3
C
0513112011
K 73736
0510312011
E 010.4213-5604
.
35.88
C
0513112011
K72537
0412112011
E 640.4712-5610
30.41
30.41
C
0513112011
K58933
0413012011
E 010.4430.5603
8.26
2 8.2 6
C
05/31/2011
K58388
0412612011
E 010.42 1 .504
8.26
''
28.26
C
0513112011
K69205
03/10/2011
E 40.471.10.40
26 .4 9
C
0513112011
K75
0511712011
E 220.4303.5255
26.19
26 .19
C
05/31/2011
K 7 3 7 2 7
0510312011
E 010.42 1 .504
15.21
15.21
C
0513112011
K 7 36 74
0510312011
D
E 010.42 1 .504
11.9
c�
1 1.92
C
0513112011
K75232
05112!2011
E 640.47 1 2.561 0
10.85
c�
10.85
( �
M
F
♦�
V ■ ice/
Inv. Date Amount Paid
Page: 1
D
t�
c�
CL
0)
c�
�F
a� 0)
a pkHist
Check History Listing
P 14
0610612011
10 :64AM
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check #
Date
Vendor
status ClearNold Date Invoice
Inv. Data
Amount Pald
Check Total
0513112011 K7231 0
0412512011
E 010.4213,5604
9.73
9.73
C
0513112011 K57933
0412212011
E 010.4430-5605
7,59
7.59
C
0513112011 K73732
0510312011
E 010.4213.5604
-14.36
-14.36
661.79
149372
9511912911
994441 MULL HEY FORD
C
0513112011 50651
0410712011
E 010.4420.5601
474.22
474.22
474.22
149373
9511912911
994333 NATIVE SONS NURSERY, INC
C
9513112911 94976
03123/2011
E 010.4420.5605
135.04
135.04
C
9513112911 94100
0312412011
E 010.4420-5605
45.66
45.66
230.72
149374
0511912011
999456 NAIL REC & PARK ASSN
C
0513112011 050311
0510312011
E 010.4421.5503
60.00
E 010.4421.5503
60.00
E 010.4421.5503
60.00
E 010.4421.5503
69.99
E 010.4421.5503
60.00
300.00
149375 9511912911 000464 NEWMAN TRAFFIC SIGNS, C 0513112011 T1- 0233333
04129!2011
E 220.4303.5613 6 2 713.47
300.00
Page: 14
ap kHjst
Check History Listing
P 1
0610612011 1 :4AM
CITY O F ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor
Status Clear ord Date Invoice
Inv. Date
Amount Paid
Check Total
6,71 3.47
149876 0511912911 999466 NOBLE SAW, INC
C
9513112011 110490
0411112011
E 220.4303.5603
246.71
246.71
C
0513112011 199355
0410512011
E 220.4303.5603
245.75
245.75
492.46
149377 9511912911 999468 OFFICE DEPOT
C
0513112911 553713575991
0411912011
E 01
259.48
259.48
C
9513112011 558322422991
0411912011
E 010.4130.5201
259.48
259.48
C
9513112911 561 722955901
0412012011
E 010.4101.5201
88.43
88.48
C
9513112011 589997839991
0411312011
E 010.4301.5201
43.47
43.47
149373 0511912911 993978 MARINA ORTI
C 0513112911 951911
0511012011
R 010.0000.4354 30.00
30.00
823.87
30.00
D
c�
c�
CL
0
c�
�F
ft-4 0
149379 9511912011 999481 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC C 0513112911 4119 - 194997
0411912011
E 010.4304.5402 14,313.87
14,813.37
Page: 1
ap kHEst
Check History Listing
P U
06/06/2011 10:54A1
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank c ode: boa
Check # Dane Vendor
Status ClearNoid Date Invoice
Inv. Date
Amount Paid Check Total
C 0513112011 8532991684944
0412912011
E 010.4304.5402
1
E 040.47 12.5402
3
E 040.4711.5402
1
E 012.4010.5402
1
E 010.4145.5401
5
E 217.4460-5355
18.62
12,222.00
C 0513112011 5/11-620838
0511112011
E 01 2.4010.5402
231.43
231.43
C 0513112011 5/11-
0511112011
E 01 0.4145.5401
13.07
19.07
143880 05/19/2011 001739 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC C 05/31/2011 LE POINT ST 05113/2011
E 350.5422.7301 14, 513.53
14,513.53
27,291.37
14,513.53
149331 0511312011 008401 JIM P E N E L L
C 0513112011 051 011
05110/2011
R 01 0.0000.4354 30.00
30.00
30.00
D
c�
c�
F
0 ice/
143882 05/19/2011 000498 PITNEY BOWES, IN
143383 0511912011 007698 STEPHEN P LLA I
855.00
372.00
C 0513112011 7058355 -MY 11
C 0513112011 051911
03113!2011
E 010.4101.5002 855.00
855.00
05/19/2011
E 220.4300.5554 372.00
372.00
Page: 1
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 17
06/06/2011 1 : 4AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: b
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
149884 05/19/2611 062670 F IC H LEASH C 05/31/2611 9376411 64/23/2611
E 0 16.4421.5602 1 76.55
176.55
1 76.55
D
t�
c�
CL
0
c� �
�,
1 49885 65/1 9/2611 068466 SACRAME REGIONAL
149886 6511 912011 062142 SAN LUIS PAPER C
051911 05/19/2011
E 61 0.4261.5561 112.60
112.00
C 6513 112 611 624921
C 05/31/2011 624922
C 0513112611 626668
C 05/31/2011 622781
C 6513112611 626666
C 05/31/2011 622016 -66
C 05/31/2011 622976
C 05/31/2011 622016 -61
6412912611
E 616.4426.5665
645.36
645.36
64/29/2611
E 61 0.421 3.5664
599.69
599.69
6212312611
E 916.4213.5664
591.06
591.66
63/36/2611
E 616.4213.5604
512.06
512.66
6212612011
E 616.4420.5665
453.72
453.72
03/16/2011
E 616.421 3.5664
467.76
407.76
04/01/2011
E 616.4426.5605
327.27
327.27
03/21/2011
E 616.4213.5604
212.66
212.06
112.66
Page: 17
Page: 18
apCkHist
C he c k History Listing
Page: 1
06106/2011
10:64AM
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code:
boa
C heck #
Date
Vendor
status ClearlVold D ate
Invoice
Inv. Date
Amount Paid
Check Total
05/31/2011
622969
0410512011
E 010.4213.5604
104.31
194.31
3,973.39
149337
0511912011
005367 SERVPRO OF FIVE CITIES
C
0513112011
2695753
0411212011
E 010.4213.5303
2,906.36
2,906.86
2,906.86
149888
0511912011
008462 KEISHA SHOEMAKER
C
0513112011
051011
0511012011
010.0000.4354
30.00
30.00
30.00
149889
0511912011
000553 SLO COUNTY
C
0513112011
051711
0511812011
E 350.5678.7501
70.00
70.00
70.00
149890
0511912011
000562 SLO COUNTY TAX
C
0513112011
050411
0510412011
E 350.5678.7501
629.00
629.00
629.00
149891
0511912011
000562 SLO CO UNTY TAX
C
0513112011
051 711
0511812011
E 350.5678.7501
73.00
73.00
73.00
D
140302
0511912011
003641 SOUTH COUNTY SANiTARY
C
0513112011
52733
0510112011
E 010.4213.5303
1
c�
^ �
ii
1
0513112011
3300003
0510112011
E 010.4213.5303
212.32
212.32
N ■A,
0 �
Page: 18
ap kHi t Check History Listing Page: 1
06/06/2011 10: 4AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor
Status Dlear111oId Date Invoice
Inv. Date Amount Paid
Check Tot I
C
05/31/2011
3300330
C
05/31/2011
3200660
C
05/31/2011
3300557
05/01/2011
149693 05/19/2011 000602 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT C
E 010.421 3.5303
112.16
04/28/2011
112-16
05/01/2011
E 010.421 3.5303
112.1
E 612.4610.5303
112.16
05/01/2011
E 010.421 3.5303
5.01
5.01
2,140.16
Page: 1
149693 05/19/2011 000602 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT C
05/31/2011
FOG INSPECTION
04/28/2011
E 612.4610.5303
3,386.83
3,386.63
05/31/2011
FOG INSPECTION
04/26/2011
E 612.4610.5303
707.05
707.05
4,003.66
149804 05/10/2011 004 393 SP MAINTENANCE C
05/31/2011
34563
04/01/2011
E 220.4303.5303
2
E 010.4303.5303
4
7,074.40
C
05/31/2011
34643
05/01/2011
E 220.4303.5303
03.60
E 010.4303.5303
146.40
240.00
7,314.40
D
149895 05/10/2011 000613 STATEWIDE DE SAFETY & C
05/31/2011
1175
05/05/2011
c�
E 640.4712.5255
83.14
CL
83 .14
c�
Page: 1
ap kHist
0610612011 10: AM
Check History Listin
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
P a ge:
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice
140806 0511912011 000624 SUPERIOR F UALITY
149897 05/19/2011 008465 SCOTT TAYL
140808 0511912011 002370 TITAN INDUSTRIAL
IAL
C 0513112011 37278
C 0513112011 051811
C 0513112011 1045239
C 0513112011 1045288
Inv. Date Amount Paid
0312512011
E 010.4212.5602 125.00
140800 0511912011 004609 TROESH RECYCLING, , INC C 0513112011 16184
140000 0511912011 006551 UNITED STAFFING ASSOC. C 0513112011 076616
1,113.46
D
c�
^ CL
ice/
c�
N o0
N 0
140001 0511912011 000660 USA BLUE BOOK C 0513112011 387067
0510412011
E 640.4712.5303 1
1
0412912011
E 612.4610.5255 58.53
58.53
53.53
140002 0511012011 003420 CAR IE VAN BE1 EF EN C 0513112011 051111 05111/2011
E 010.4425.5250 28.38
28.38
Page:
Check Total
125.00
1 25.00
0511812011
1 010.0000.4607
45.00
45.00
45.00
0412512011
E 010.4420.5255
211.53
211.53
0412712011
E 220.4303.5255
2.88
2.33
214.41
0412612011
E 350.5422.7001
200.78
200.78
200.78
0510412011
E 640.4712.5303 1
1
0412912011
E 612.4610.5255 58.53
58.53
53.53
140002 0511012011 003420 CAR IE VAN BE1 EF EN C 0513112011 051111 05111/2011
E 010.4425.5250 28.38
28.38
Page:
Check Total
ap kHi t Check History Listing P 21
0610612011 10 :5 AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
C heck 0 Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
28.38
149903 0511912011 008463 CRAIG VA IDERZWAA 051011 0511012011
R 010.0000.4354 3.
D
c�
c�
CL
0
c�
w�
30.00
149904 0511912011 003407 SHERRY VASQUE
149905 0511912011 002137 VERIZON WIRELESS
051 011
05/10/2011
R 010.0000.4354
30.00
30.
05/17/2011
E 010.4305-5403
44.63
44.63
04/28/2011
E 010.4420.5308
81.42
81.42
05/10/2011
R 01 0.0000.4354
30.00
30.00
05120!2011
E 010.4201.5501
30.00
0513112011 0971 065583
149906 0511912011 000688 WEST COVINA N URSERIES C 0513112011 342529
149907 05/19/2011 008464 PATRICK WILLIAMS
149908 0512012011 006702 JASON CASTILL
0513112011 051 011
0513112011 052011
30.0
149915 0512712011 008471 SANDY FRIEDE K
30.06
30.06
44.63
51.42
30.66
36.11
0513112011 R e f OOO 05125/2011
B 640.0000.2301 36.11
36.11
Page: 21
CL
^
ice/
M
N ■^'
ice/
pCkHI t
Check History Listing
Page: 22
0610612011
10:54AM
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code. boa
Check #
Date
Vendor
Status ClearNold Date Invoke
Inv. Date
Amount Paid
Check Total
149916
0 12712011
008476WILLIAM L GRID
R f000111873
0512512011
B 640.0000.2301
24.37
24.37
24.37
149917
0512712011
006473 JBA I IE HA A I
R f000111870
0512512011
B 640.0000.2301
39.82
39.62
39.62
149918
0512712011
006477 MAR HERITA JE IBE I
R f000111 74
0512512011
B 640.0000.2301
6.31
3.31
3.31
149919
0512712011
006475 DEBORAH & DOUGLAS
R f000111872
0512512011
B 640.0000.2301
9.66
9.66
9.66
149920
0 12712011
006478 OCEAN OAKS
R f00011187
0512512011
B 640.0000.2301
30.00
30.00
30.00
149921
0512712011
008472 PATTY BALAB
Rf000111 869
0212011
B 640.0000.2301
84.17
64.17
84.17
149922
0512712011
006474 ERIKA 11 AR IE
R f000111871
0512512011
B 640.0000.2301
32.39
32.39
32.39
Page: 22
D
t�
c�
CL
A
i)
/Y
/ W0
' ■AA,'
V , i)
apCkHist
0610612011 10 :4AM
Check History Listing
C ITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Page:
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor
1 49923 05/27/201 001259 AGP VIDEO, IN
149924 0512712011 004815 AIRGAS WEST I
149925 05/27/2011 005160 APEX OUTDOOR PAVE
S tatus Cle arNold Date Invoice
13112011 4434
Inv. Date Amount Paid
0510412011
E 211.41 01.5330 2.662.50
0513112011 103135194
04/30/2011
E 010.4420.5255
3131 0410612011
E 010.4430.5605
31327 0411212011
E 01 0.4430.5605
2
36.79
36.79
65.03
34.75
149926 0512712011 001133 ARROYO GRANDE LIONS
149927 05/27/2011 005507 AT & T
052511 0512512011
E 010.4424-5252
1 99.79
E 010.4001.5504
99.66
E 010.4201.5504
99.66
399.55
517 -7460 0510712011
E 010.4201.5403
63.72
63.72
149923 0512712011 006607 AT&T
2315156 0412512011
E 010.414. 403 3
3,464.67
Check Total
2,662.50
36.79
99.76
399.55
63.72
Page:
apCkH!st Check History Listing Page: 24
0610612411 1:84 11 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check Date Vendor Statue Clear/Vold Date invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Cheer Total
2314362 4412512411
E 414.4145.5443 16.33
1 6.33
3,541.24
^ CL
ice/
M
N ■^'
ice/
1 49929 4512712411 444458 BANK OF AMERICA C
05/31/2011
513 -7762
4514812411
E 414.4425.5259
271.91
E 41 4.4424.5252
658.49
E 414.4423.5253
22.75
952.75
C
45/3112411
513 -2459
4514812411
E 414.4241.5641
141.96
E 414.4241.5541
122.46
E 414.4201.5541
602.71
1
866.77
C
4513112411
518 -4915
4514812411
E 414.4441.5541
187.94
167.94
C
4513112411
518 -6736
4514612411
E 354.5435.7441
16
162.44
C
4513112411
5/8-2083
4514612411
E 414.4134.5241
19.12
E 414.41 34.5543
74.99
E 414.4140.5642
65.23
155.34
C
4513112411
518 -2454
45146!2411
E 010.4421.5201
45.44
E 414.4425.5255
33.94
414.442 3.52 53
22.22
E 41 4.4424.5257
35.79
137.31
Page: 24
D
c�
c�
CL
0)
c�
N o0
w-40)
apkHist
05/05/2011 10:541
Check History Listi
CITY OF ARROYO F ANDE
Bank code. boa
C heck # Date Vendor
149930 05/27/2011 00191 BOB'S EXPRESS ESS 1 ASH
149931 05/27/2011 003734 ADRIAN B I JA
149932 05/27/2011 000122 CA ST B OF
149033 05/27/2011 005601 MARY CANNON
Statue ClearNold Data Invoice
Inv. Date
05/31/2011
I - 9444
05/31/2011
I -4272
05/31/2011
I -9436
05/02/2011
05/31/2011
5I -2581
Inv. Date
Amount Paid
05/08/2011
E 010.4101.5201
36.90
36.90
05/08/2011
05/02/2011
E 010.4120.5316
64.54
64.54
05/08/2011
E 010.4101.5201
43.48
163.00
43.48
05/08!2011
E 350.5433.7301
36.92
P
C heck Total
Page: 25
36.9
2,693.95
20160
05/02/2011
E 010.4201.5601
163.00
163.00
168.00
052611
05/26/2011
E 010.4424.5353
500.00
500.00
500.00
051611
05/1 / 011
E 235.4103.5303
500.00
500.00
500.00
052511
05/25/2011
E 010.4423.5253
80.00
30.00
80.00
Page: 25
apCkHlst
Chef History Listing
Page:
06 106/2011
1 :54AM
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
C heck #
Date
Vendor
Status Clear/Vold Date Invoice
Inv. Date
Amount Paid
Check Total
140034
05!27!2011
003033 CENTRAL COAST
A27679
03/24/2011
E 010.4420.5605
259.00
259.00
250.00
140035
05!27!2011
000160 CHAPARRAL
C 05!31/2011 332413
05!04/2011
E 010.4102.5602
150.00
E 010.4102.5602
161.20
311.20
311.20
140036
05/27/2011
002 800 CHIEF SUPPLY
C 05/31/2011 300 376
04/26!2011
E 010.4201.5272
30.69
E 010.4201.5272
8.09
30.63
39.68
140037
05/27/2011
008470 SHANNON DOLBY
C 05/31/2011 082311
05/23/2011
010.0000.4354
105.00
105.00
105.00
140033
05/27/2011
007723 SCOTT DRAIB
052511
05/25!2011
E 010.4424.5352
77.00
77.00
77.00
140030
05/2712011
003 362 RICH D EI I N
052 511
05!25!2011
E 01 0.4424.5352
40.00
D
40.00
40.00
CL
140040
0512712011
000203 J B DEIAF, INC
780992
0413012011
E 010.4201. 5608
01.13
t�
91.13
N 0o
91.13
000
Page:
ap kHi t
Check History Listing
Page: 27
0610612011
10: 4AM
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code:
boa
Check #
Date Vendor
Status ClearNoid Date Invoice
Inv. Date
Amount Paid
Check Total
14994'
05/27/2011 007129 TERRY ENDER
052511
05/25/2011
E 010 , 4424.5352
44.00
44.00
44.00
149942
05/27/2011 000240 FARM SUPPLY CO
599047
0410512011
E 010.4430.5005
105.92
105.92
590277
0410112011
E 010.4201.5322
04.15
04.15
599382
0410512011
E 010.4430,5005
50.57
58.57
015220
0411912011
E 010.4201.5322
48.93
48.93
817397
0412112011
F
E 010.4430.5005
33.83
33.83
309.40
149943
0512712011 004104 FEDE
7-470-33929
0412212011
E 010.4145.5208
17.52
17.52
17.52
140944
0512712011 004142 STAN GAXIOLA
052511
0512512011
E 010.4424.5352
103.00
1 98.00
198.00
CL
0 149945 0512712011 008488 GRAND BOUQUET 13052 0313112011
E 010.4001.5504 85.25
N co
05.25
Page: 27
D
t�
c�
CL
0)
c�
w 0
o0)
apCkHist
0810812011 10: 4AM
Check History Listing
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
0510512011
E 010.4201.5606
E 010.4201.5606
Bank code: boa
Check 0 Date Vendor
149946 05/27/2011 006058 RDI EY G RAY
1 49947 0512712011 002358 GREAT WESTERN ALARM
149948 0512712011 000330 GSA-INF TECH
149949 0512712011 008480 DAVID HANSO
149950 0512712011 002405 CHARLES HARE
149951 0512712011 004188 EDDIE HARRIS
149952 0512712011 006461 KAREN IRIII
Status ClearNoid Date Invoice
052511
Inv. Dante Amount Paid
05/25/2011
E 010.4424.5352 110.00
0513112011 110402323101 0510112011
E 01 0.4201.5604
502
052311
0513112011 052511
0513112011 052511
052311
0512312011
R 010.0000.4354
0512512011
E 0 1 0. 4424.
Page: 28
Check Taal
110-00
28.00
28.00
236.06
424.54
30.00
30.00
66.00
88.00
1 80.00
180.00
30.00
0512612011
E 010.4424.5352
05123/2011
R 0 10. 0000.4 3 54
65.25
119.00
28.00
424.54
30.00
66.00
1 60.00
30.00
Page: 28
D
t�
c�
CL
0)
c�
w 0
p kHist
Check History Listing
Pag 2
0610612011
10: 4A 1
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code. boa
Check #
Date
Vendor
Status Clean old Date Invoice
Inv, Date
Amount Paid
Check Total
149953
0512712011
008482 DAN KAISER LLC
052411
0512412011
E 01 0,4212.5501
100.00
100.00
100.00
140054
0512712011
007200 G ASTON KETTING O LIVIER
C 0513112011 052511
0512512011
E 010.4424.5352
242.00
242.00
242.00
149055
0512712011
005511 CHRISTOPHER LINTNER
052511
0512512011
E 010.4424.5352
132-00
E 010.4424.5352
66.00
198.00
108.00
149956
0512712011
001136 DOUGLAS LIITIEI
C 0513112011 052511
0512512011
E 01 0.4424. 5352
44.00
44.00
44.00
140057
0512712011
008483 CHRISTINA A 4ACDO ALD
052311
0512312011
010.0000.4354
30.00
30.00
30.00
140058
0512712011
008387 COREY MATE
052511
0512512011
E 010.4424.5352
88.00
88.00
88.00
140950
0512712011
008484 RYAN 4ER ITT
1100280
0512012011
B 010.0000.2020
20.00
20.00
20.00
Page: 2
CL
^
ice/
M
W ■^'
N ice/
a pCkHist
06/06/2011 1 :4AM
Check History Listing
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Page:
Bank code: boa
Check # Data Vendor
149960 95/27/2911 090425 MIER BR OS LANDSCAPE
149961 95/27/2011 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE,
AI E,
::sail
Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
04/09/2911
E 919.4429.5695
93/93/2011
E 910.4429.5695
94/96/2911
E 010.4429.5693
:fe* �s11
149952 05/27/2011 000468 OFFICE DEPOT
149 963 05/27/2011 000481 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRI
55746091 03/30/2011
E 919.4991.5291
282.75
282.75
92.39
5/11-853299 05/11/2011
E 640.4711-5402
5/18 - 154503 05/1 8/2011
E 010.4145.5401
5/12 -19031 05/12/2011
E 919.4145.5491
28.24
25.83
25.83
1,234.21
8
149954 05/27/2011 007453 PLANNING MPA Y ASS
Status ClearfV Date Invoice
176 588
982 04/30/2011
E 350.5642.7701 5,000-00
5 9 000-00
282.75
120.63
25.83
2,206.27
5 1 000- 00
Page: 30
apCkHi t Check History Listing Page: 31
06/06/2011 10:64AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank coda: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
149905 0512712011 008485 S LEDAD R JAS C 0513112011 052311 0512312011
R 010.0000. 30.00
30.00
30.00
Page: 31
149960
0512712011
004633 STEPHEN ROW
052511
0512512011
E 010.4424.5352
66.00
00.00
66.00
149907
0512712011
000530 GREG ROSE
052511
05/2512011
E 010.4424.5352
22.00
E 010.4424.5352
100.00
162.00
182.00
1 49908
05/27/2011
002932 RUTA I & TUCKER, LLP
007389
0411212011
E 284.4103.5303
3,373.50
3
007372
0411212011
E 284.41 03.5303
1,287.00
1,287.00
007373
0411212011
E 285.4502.5303
916-50
9 16.50
607383
0411212011
E 285.4502.5303
156.00
156.00
5,733.00
149969
0512712011
000080 I IARTI IA SARMIE IT
C 0513112011 052511
0512512011
E 010.4424.5352
176.00
176.00
176.00
w 0
w�
Page: 31
D
c�
c�
CL
0)
c�
w 0
pc k H it
06!06!2011 10: 4AM
Check History Li ti n
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor
149970 05!27!2011 003024 MARK S H FFEF
149971 05!27!2011 007792 TIM SHERIDAN
149972 05!27!2011 001727 SHERIFF'S DVI O Y
Status clear) old Date Invoice
052511
05!31!2011 052511
052511
50.00
149973 05/27/2011 008363 PYTDI SMALL
149974 05!27!2011 007229 DONALD SNYDEF
149975 05!27!2011 000602 SOUTH SLO CO UNTY SANIT
052511
052511
Inv. Date Amount Paid
05!25!2011
E 010.4424.5352 1 80.00
05/25/2011
E 010.4424.5352
0 2011
E 010.4201.5501
05/25/2011
E 010.4424.5352
E 010.4424.5352
05/25/2011
E 010.4424.5352
Page:
Check To tal
180.00
40.00
40.00
50.00
180.00
40.00
50.00
50.00
83.00
260.00
260.00
43011 04/30/2011
B 760.0000.2304
1 32,1 51.43
B 760.0000.2305
4,950.00
E 010.4145.5401
15.30
E 010.4145.5401
15.30
137 t 132.03
83.00
260.00
1 37,1 32.03
Page:
Page:
pCkHi
06/06/2011
10: 4A !
Check History Listing
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Page: 33
Bank code: boa
Check #
Date
Vendor
Status Clear/Void Date Invoice
Inv. Date
Amount Paid
Check Total
149976
0512712011
004393 S MAINTENANCE
34907
0510112011
E 220.4303.5303
2
E 10.4303.5303
4, 31 5.38
7, 074.40
7, 074.40
149977
0512712011
000609 BOB SPEAK
052511
0512512011
E 010-4424.5352
1 54.00
1 54.00
1 54 .00
149978
0512712011
000620 STREATOR PIPE & SUPPLY
C 0513112011 S 1187 389, 001
0412912011
E 010.4213.5604
50.97
50.97
50.97
14 997 9
0512712011
007699 TIEF RA WEST AD1 IS 0 RS I N C
AG-0411
0511212011
E 284.4103.5303
4
4,878.75
4,878.75
149980
0512712011
007236 LESLIE TI L LEY
052311
0512312011
R 010.0000.4354
30.60
30.00
30.00
149981
0512712011
006551 UNITED S TAFFING ASSOC.
076830
0511112011
E 640.4712.5303
1
1,163.28
D
1,1 83.26
ca
149982
0512712011
0084861 VENTURA POLICE
051711
0511712011
CL
E 010.4201.5501
100.60
160.00
1 00.00
c�
w 0
Page:
Page:
pCkHIst
Check History Listing
Page: 34
06/06/2011
10 :64AM
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check #
Date
Vendor
Status Clear/Vold Date Invoice
Inv. Date
Amount Paid
Check Total
149963
05/27/2011
000665 WALLACE GROUP A CALIF
31566
04/13/2011
E 350.5910.7501
11
11
31 644
05/09/2011
E 350.5676.7501
3
3,325.50
31506
04/07/2011
E 350.5676.7501
2,534.52
2
17,009.06
149964
05/27/2011
007695 ROBIN WALTON
052311
05/23/2011
010.0000.4354
30.00
30.00
30.00
149965
05/27/2011
007599 WATER SYSTEMS
C
05/31/2011 0247A
02/26/2011
E 640.4710.5303
3
3,759.00
C
05/31/2011 0247
02/26/2011
E 640.4710.5303
2,126.66
2
C
05/31/2011 0236
01/31/2011
E 640.4710.5303
1 ,07'1.95
1
C
05/31/2011 0236A
01/31/2011
E 640.4710.5303
960.75
960.75
7,920-56
^D^
.l.i
149960
05/27/2011
006467 TIM WEADON
1100249
05/19/2011
CL
B 01 0.0000.2029
100.00
1 00.00
1 00.00
w 0
a*) 0
Page:
a pCkHist Check History Listing Page:
06/06/2011 1 : 41alM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor status ClearNold Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
149987 05/27/2011 007927 SHIRLEY LEY 1 I LLM TT 052511 05/25/2011
E 010.4424.5352 77.00
f r .UU
77.00
c�
c�
CL
0
c�
wF0
ft-4 0
162 checks in this report
boa Total: 599
Total Checks: 500
*Check 149820 in the a mount o f $35,'171.40 was not included in prior months check history listing report. This item was
processed on 05113111 as a quick check and recorded on 05119111.
P
ATTACHMENT
CITY of ARROYO AI DE
DEPARTMENTAL TAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION
PAY PERIOD
412912011 - /1212011
05120111
FUND 010
305
FUND 217
12.72
FUND 219
159.69
FUND 220
17
FUND 226
1,893.40
FUND 234
745.63
FUND 235
1
FLUID 290
107
FUND 612
6
FUND 640
20,655.31
9
462,809.03
OVERTIME BY DEPARTMENT:
Admin. Support Services
-
Community Development
Police
11,1 63.02
Fire
6
ovrnrnent Bldg Maint.
8
Engineering
Comp Pay
Fleet Maintenance
5115
Parrs
2,564.33
Recreation - Admn
PEE S Retirement
Iec - Special Events
-
Children In Motion
-
Soto Sport Complex
255.36
Public Works Maintenance
987.1
State Disability Ins.
1 9
5101
Salaries Full time
214
5102
Salaries Part -Tune - PPT
17
5103
Salaries Part -Tune - TPT
30,781.07
5105
B lames OverTime
19,056.74
5107
Salaries Standby
334.13
5108
Holiday Pay
2,933.35
5109
Sick Pay
9
5110
Annual Leave Buyback
-
111
Vacation Buyback-
5112
Sick Leave Buyback
-
113
Vacation Pay
8
114
Comp Pay
3
5115
Annual Leave Pay
2,564.33
5121
PEE S Retirement
76,219.28
5122
Social Security
21,427.10
5123
PARS Retirement
618.87
5126
State Disability Ins.
1
5127
Deferred Compensation
633.21
131
Health Insurance
44
5132
Dental Insurance
4
5133
Vision Insurance
1
5134
Life Insurance
458.76
5135
Long Terra Disability
851.06
5143
Uniform Allowance
-
144
Car Allowance
675.00
5146
Council Expense
-
5147
Employee Assistance
217.36
5148
Boot Allowance
-
149
Motor Pay
150.00
10
Bi- Lingual Pay
125.00
5151
Cell Phone Allowance
352. 50
462,809.03
Agenda Item 8.a.
Page 38
R 0 �6 0
INORPrOAATED
Z;
MEMORANDUM
DUM
AK JULY 10. 1911
4 d14
I F
I
To:
CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ANGELA K AETSCH, DIRECTOR of
SERVICES
ADMINISTRATIVE
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION of FISCAL YEAR 2011-1 APPROPRIATION
LIMIT
DATED JUNE 14 2011
RECOMMENDATIO
It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached Resolution establishin
the appropriation limit from tarn proceed for Fiscal Year 2011-12.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact
BACKGROUND:
Annually, the City is required to cal the expenditure appropriation limit from
tax proceeds to determine compliance with Propositions (Gann Initiative) and
111 (Spending Limitation Act of 1990). This calculation is based on the previous
year's appropriation limit ($16,462,168) multiplied by the per capita p
income percentawge increase (1.0251 % ) awnd multiplied awgarin by the pop uIawtion
percentarge chawnge 1.01267% . The State D e pawrtment of Finarnce provid es both
the population change and the per capita personal income change for the
previous fiscal year.
ANALYSIS of ISSUES:
The City is responsible for dividing citywide revenues
revenue and applying the formula to the cumulativ
Fiscal Year 201 1-12, the appropriation limit has
$17
between tax and non-tax
appropriation limit. For
been calculated to be
This calculation means than the City cannot re ceive more than $17,089,162 in
tax-based revenues in Fiscal Year 201 1-12. The estimated tax-based revenues
for Fiscal Year 201 1 -12 have been calculated to be $11,323,211, approximately
$5 .8 million less than the appropriation limit. Therefore, the City is in compliance
with Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
Agenda Item 8.b.
Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION F FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 APPROPRIATION LIMIT
JUNE 14, 2011
PAGE
ALTERNATIVES:
ES:
The following arlternartives are provided for City Council consideration:
- Adopt the Resolution t establish the appropriation limit for Fiscal Year
2011-12;
Do not adopt the Resolution;
Provide direction t staff.
ADVANTAGES:
By adopting the Resolution t establish the appropriation limit for Fiscal Year
2011 -12, the City will be in compliance with Propositions 4 and 111.
DISADVANTAGES:
There is no disadvantage Identified in relation to this recommendation.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
No environmental revie w is required for this item.
PUBLIC N 'rIFICATI N AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, ,June 9, 2011. The
Agenda and report were posted on the City's website on Friday, June 10, 2011.
No public comments were received.
Attachment:
1 . Categorization of Estimated Revenue
Agenda Item 8.b.
Page 2
RESOLUTION Flo,
A RESOLUTION of THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY of
ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A TALC PROCEEDS
EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR
2011-12
WHEREAS, Sections 7900 et seq. of the Government Code provide for the effective and
efficient implementation of Article X111B of the California Constitution; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 7901 through 7914 provide that each year, the
governing body of each local jurisdiction shall, by resolution adopted at a regularly
scheduled meeting, establish the annual adjustment factors to be used and the tarn
proceeds expenditure appropriation limit.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, ED, by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande
as follows:
1. The California per capita income and the population of San Luis Obispo County,
California are recognized as the annual adjustment factors for Fiscal Year 2011-12.
2. The appropriation limit for Fiscal Year 201 1 -12 is hereby set at seventeen million,
eighty -nine thousand, and one hundred and sixty-two dollars ($17,089,162).
3. Documentation used in the determination of the tarn proceeds expenditure
appropriation limit is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this
reference.
4. This Resolution is effective on its date of adoption.
On motion of Council Member
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT*
, seconded by Council Member
an d on the following roll call vote, to it:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this
day of 12011.
Agenda Item 8.b.
Page 3
RESOLUTION CVO.
PAGE 2
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST.
KELLY 1 ETM RE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
T:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CAR PEL, CITY ATTORNEY
Agenda Item 8.b.
Page 4
Exhibit
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CALCULATION OF A PP R OPRIA TION LIMLT FROM TAX PROCEEDS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 -12
Appropriation limit for 2010 -11
Multiplied by the appropriation limit charge `actors:
Per Capita Personal Income Change.
Conversion to ratio:
2.51%
2 .51% + 100
16A62,1
1.0251
100
Population Change
2010 1'1,145
2011 17 1.2669%
Change 220
Conversion to ratio: 220 1.2669+100 1.01267
17 100
APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 17
ESTIMATED 2011-12 PROCEEDS OF TAXES SUBJECT T
APPROPRIATION LIMIT
11,323,211
Agenda Item 8.b.
Page 5
Attachment I
CITE' OF ARROYO RAID
CA AEG 0 RIZA TI ON OF ES TIM-A TED RE YEN UE
Proceeds
Revenue Sou Fr om Taxes
Taxes
Property Tax
Sales Tax
Sales Tax - Safety
Transient Occupancy Tax
Business License Tax
Other Taxes
Licenses and Permit
Building Dept. Permits
Other Licenses and Permits
Fines
M.V. Code Fines
Local Ordinance/Parking
Use of Prom
Rent
IF Fees /r.Bur.oll.
Aid From Other Govt nci
M. V. License Fees
Homeowners Prop.Tax Relief
P...T. Reimb.
Other Subventions
Mandated Cost Recovery
P.1 . fficer rant haring
Other Grants
Gas Tax
Streets Revenues
Charges For Current Services
Community Development Fees
Safety Impact Fees
Recreation Program Fees
Public Access Fees
Sever Utility Billings
Park Development Fees
District Assessments
Traffic Signal Assessment
Transportation Facility Impact
Water Neutralization Impact Fees
In -lieu Affordable Housing
Other Current Services
3,648,000
4,17,000
500,000
80,000
540,000
1,285,000
34,000
466,000
108,365
Non Proceeds
From Taxes
110,000
1221
82,7
58,000
27,000
278,310
2,200
5,000
9,000
76,000
740
107,600
75,00
523,650
38,000
922,000
41
72,300
10po
25X0
35,000
0
52
Agenda Item 8.b.
Page 6
Attachment I
CITY F ARROYO GRANDE
CA TEGORIZA TION OF ESTIMATED RE VENUE
Proceeds
R evenue Sources From Taxes
Charges For Current Services
Severer Facility Charges
Hydrant Water
Water Utility Billings
Meter Installations
Water Avail. har es
Lopez Utility Billings
Water DistriblMain Charges
Taxi Coupon Sales
Assessments-Parking District
Sales of Yroperty
Expenditure Recovery
Miscellaneous
Other Revenue
Taal Revenue, Not Including Interest 11,268,365
Interest Percentage 54.22%
Interest % Applied 54
Taal Revenue Including Interest 11 ,323,211
Grand Taal Budget City Revenue
in QQ Q
Iron Proceeds
F Taxes
10
3,200
3,44 ,1 0
5,000
25,000
2,489,000
20,000
0
8,300
1,0
65,000
20,000
5,600
9,513,310
45.78%
46,304
9,559,614
Agenda Item 8.b.
Page 7
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item 8.b.
Page 8
0
Sk 01 0
(: 090"
INCORPORATED
52:_:: rrr
MEMORANDUM
AK JULY 10, 1911
fF Ovt
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SEF VICE
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION F APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE I I' V ESTM ENT POLICY
DATE: JUNE 1 , 201'1
RECOMMENDATION:
MMENRATION
It is recommended the City Council approve the City of Arroyo Grande Investment
Policy.
FINANCIAL iMPACT:
There is no funding impact to the City related to this policy. However, the City does
receive interest revenue based on the type of investments it pursues.
BACKGROUND:
Attached is the City's Investment Policy, which was reviewed by the City Council on
May 25, 2010. In the past, California Government Code Section 53646 required that an
Investment Policy be presented to the Council on an annual basis. Beginning January
1 2007, it was no longer required by statute that the treasurer or chief financial officers
of local government entities annually submit a statement of investment policy to their
governing body. However, it is highly recommended by both the Association of Public
Treasurers of the United States & Canada and the Government Finance Officers
Association GFA.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
It is in the best interest of the City if staff continues to prepare the policy and present it
to the Council on an annual basis for revie w. The City's Investment Policy authorizes
only the more conservative investments, requires monthly investment reports to City
Council, and requires that the due diligence of a "Prudent person" be followed in the
investment of City funds.
The purpose of the Investment Policy is to identify various policies and p rocedures that
enhance opportunities for a prudent and systematic investment process and to organize
and formalize investment- related activities. The ultimate goal is to enhance the
economic statues of the City of Arroyo Grande while protecting its cash resources.
The investment policies and practices of the City of Arroyo Grande and the Arroyo
Grande Redevelopment ment Agency are based on State laver and prudent money
Agenda Item 8.c.
Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL of THE CITY INVESTMENT POLICY
JANE 14, 2011
PAGE
management. All funds will be ingested in accordance with the City's Investment Policy
and the authority governing investments for municipal governments as set forth in the
California Government Code.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for City Council consideration:
Approve the Investment Policy;
Do not approve the Investment Policy;
- Modify Investment Policy and approve;
Provide direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
The Investment Policy provides staff with guidance when pursuing investment
opportunities. In addition, the policy establishes the specific investment goals of the
City which are safety, liquidity and yield.
DISADVANTAGES:
There are no identified disadvantages related to the approval of this policy. However,
there is some legal of risk in any investment transaction. To minimize such risks,
diversification of the investment portfolio by institution and by investment instruments
when possible is recommended in the City's Investment Policy.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
No environmental review i required for this item.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted in front of City Half on Thursday, June 9, 2011. The Agenda
and report were posted on the City's web site on Friday, June 10, 2011. No public
comments were received.
Attachment:
- City of Arroyo Grande Investment Policy
Agenda Item 8.c.
Page 2
CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE
f
INVESTMENT POLICY
JUNE 14, 2011
Prepared by the Administrative Services Department
Agenda Item 8.c.
Page 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Inves rn ■A■ 1■
tment Poll .................. Fry.i#.. y....##.............. r...rr.rrrrrrrrrrrrrrtt##.......##.....ss ..............................■
• estmV t O Frr..y #....y
Pru ..... ............................... s ....... ............................... s ......... ............................... ■
Areas of Investment Policy:
I. A Control, and Care ......................... # # # # ................. s s ........................ # . # # F i ...
II. Portfolio Diversification
Eligible Financial Institutions ......................................... F.. F ...............................
Code Authorized Instruments and Portfolio Limitations #F #....... i. i... i.....F #F #.y F.■
Safe ing cf Securities ........................ ..............ss............ ...............................
City Placement Practice .............................#• F. FyFFyyyy###.......... ...........FF # #FFF..i # * i.......
III. Cash Management and Maturities ■ .. ............................. # F .... s .. ............................... .
Investment Reporting, Policy Review an Effeefive Policy Term ............................................
Agenda Item 8.c.
Page 4
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY
Investment Polic
The purpose of this document is to identify various policies and procedures that enhance opportunities
for a prudent and systematic investment process and to organize and formalize investment-related
activities. The ultimate goal is to enhance the economic status of the City of Arroyo Grande while
protecting its cash resources.
The investment policies and practices of the City of Arroyo Grande and the Arroyo grand
Redevelopment Agency are based on state law and prudent money management. All funds will be
invested in accordance with the City's investment Policy and the authority governing investments for
municipal govenu bents as set forth in the California Government Code.
Investment Ob"ective
The investment objective of the City of Arroyo Grande is to optimize the following goals:
o Safety
o Liquidity
o Yield
Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the City. Investments shad be undertaken in a manner
that seeps to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio. Investment decisions should
not incur unreasonable credit or market risks in order to obtain current investment income. Credit risk
is the risk of loss due to the failure of ` the security issuer or broker. Market et ri sly is the risk that the
market value of securities in the portfolio will fall due to changes in general level of interest rates.
The City's investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet its cash flow
requirements. Liquidity of the investments guarantees the City's ability to meet operating expenditures.
The City's investment portfolio shad be designed with the objective of attaining a market rate of return
on its' investments consistent with the constraints imposed by its safety objective and cash flow
considerations. Yield is to be a consideration only after the basic requirements of safety and liquidity
have been met.
Optimization means striving to achieve a balance between all three objective goals. Should a demand
be perceived to prioritize the three goals, they are listed in preferred order.
Agenda Item 8.c.
Page 5
Prudence Standard
The standard of Prudence to be used by the Treasurer and/or deputy shall be the "prudent person rule'
and shall be applied in the context of managing City investments. Persons acting in accordance with
written procedures and exercising clue diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for are
individual investment loss, provided that deviations are reported in a timely fashion, and appropriate
action is taken to control adverse developments.
Areas of Investmenti
Authorities, Control and Care:
1. The City Treasurer may appoint a Deputy with the responsibility for the individual placement
of monies in deposit investment transactions.
2. The Director of Admim'strative Services has been authorized, via resolution 44005, to
establish deposit and investment agreements and undertake deposit investment transactions on
behalf of the City of Arroyo Grande.
3. The Administrative Services Department is responsible for implementing this policy, and
maintaining a system of internal control designed to prevent employee error or imprudent
actions, misrepresentation by parties to an investment agreement, fraud, or unexpected
changes in the financial market place.
4. State of California Government Code Sections 53600 et sect. 53683 and 16429.1 regulate the
deposit/investment activities of general law. cities (See Sec. 53635 and 16429.1). Based
upon the relatively small size of the City's portfolio, the City sloes not utilize a professional
investment manager. rather, Arroyo Grande's investment program is simply a part of the
City's financial management activity.
5. The Treasurer and/or deputy shall use good judgement and care, as a "prudent person'
would, when entering contracts for deposits and investments, and when placing individual
investment transactions. Such care is that which would be exercised by a person concerning
his/her own affairs; not for speculation, out for safe investment and earned interest.
Some level of risk is present in any investment transaction. Dosses could be incurred due to
market price charges, technical cash flow complications such as the need to withdraw a non-
negotiable Time Certificate of Deposit early, or even the default of an issuer. To mina' ni e
such risks, diversification of the investment portfolio by institution and by investment
instnu nts vn*ll be used as much as is practical and prudent.
2
Agenda Item 8.c.
Page 6
Portfolio Diversification:
1. Eligible Financial Institutions:
Government Code Section 53635 distinguishes between "deposits" and "investments'. It
provides that "as far as possible" City monies shall be "deposited" in Mate or National
barks, or State or Federal savings and loan associations; ar may be "invested" in specified
instruments. Thus, eligible financial institutions would include:
A. Barks plus savings and loam, primarily rily for active demand deposits (checking accounts
and passbook savings) and inactive deposits (non- negotiable Time Certificates), also
for investment instraments. See Goverment Code Sec. 53638 for maximum deposit
limitations for banks and savings and loans, involving bank paid up capital and saving
and loan net worth.
B. Brokers and issuers, for various investment in t- uments listed below.
2. Code Authorized Instruments and Portfolio Limitations:
A. Instruments and Portfolio Limitations are authorized as provided in Goverment Code
Section 53635 and 16429. 1, as follows:
1 Bonds issued by the City of Arroyo Grande. No limit.
2) U.S. Treasury Notes, bonds, bills, or other certificates of indebtedness. The
maximum maturity shall not exceed five years.
3 California Mate registered notes, bonds, or warrants. Maximum maturity of
five years.
4 Other local agencies within California, bonds, notes, warrants, or other
indebtedness. Five year maximum maturity.
5 Obligations issued by Federal agencies such as Federal Horne moan Bank
( FHLB ) , Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (IFHLMC), Federal Farm
Credit Bank FFCB , etc. Limited to a five year maximum maturity.
6) Banker's acceptances (bills of exchange or time drafts) drawn on and accepted
by a commercial bank, and which are eligible for purchase by the Federal
Deserve System. These are limited to 4 percent of the City's surplus funds,
and limited to 180-day maximum maturities.
7 Commercial paper of "prime" quality, as rated by Moody's Investor Service or
Standard and Poor's Corporation. These are limited to 25 percent of the City's
Agenda Item 8.c.
Page 7
portfolio, and limited to 270-day maximum maturities, plus some other
qualifications.
8) FDIC insured or filly collateralized time certificates of deposit in financial
institutions located in California, including United Mates branches of foreign
banks licensed to do business in California. The maximum maturity of a time
deposit shall not exceed five years.
9 Negotiable Certificates of Deposit, issued by either a National r Mate bank or
a state or federal savings and loan provided that the senior debt obligations of
the issuing institution are rated "AX' or better by Moody's or Standard
Poor's. The maximum maturity of a negotiable certificate of deposit shall not
exceed five years. Purchase of negotiable certificates of deposit may not
exceed 20 percent of the book value of the City's portfolio.
l o Repurchase agreements or reverse repurchase agreements, whereby the seller
of securities will repurchase them on a specified date and for a specified
amount. The maximum maturity of a time deposit shall not exceed one year.
1 l) Local Agency Investment Fund, Mate of California, per Government Code Sec.
16429. 1. Pooled monies of various agencies within California. Account size is
limited to a minimum of $5,000 (unless bond proceeds) and a maximum limit
of $50 million.
Safekeepiuz of Securities;
To protect against fraud or embezzlement or losses caused by collapse of an individual securities
dealer, all securities owned by the City shall be held in safekeeping by a third party bank trust
department. Designated third party shall act as agents for the City under the terms of a custody
agreement. AB trades executed by a dealer will settle delivery vs. payment VP) through the City's
safekeeping agent. Investment officials shall be bonded to protect the public against possible
embezzlement or malice.
Securities held in custody for the City shall be independently audited on an annual basis to verify
investment holdings.
City Placement Practice:
1. The following financial institutions will be used by the City of Arroyo Grande, for non-
negotiable Time Certificates of Deposit:
a Commercial banks having offices in the Mate of California.
b Savings and loans maintaining offices in the Mate of Califomia.
Agenda Item 8.c.
Page 8
2 . The State of California Local Agency Investment Fund L. .I.F. will be utilized, to pool
current surplus City monies for demand deposit earrings.
3 For other investment instruments, three institutions may be selected from a list of qualified
primary or regional bro qualifying under SEC rule 156-1 (uniform net capital
rule). Broker /dealers must be licensed in the Mate of California and be headquartered or
maintain a branch office in the Mate of California.
All brokers /dealers shall carry Errors and Omissions insurance with a limit of not less than
$1,000,000 per occurrence. Proof of existence of said insurance shall be provided to the
City at its request and the City shall be notified if the policy is cancelled or coverage is
reduced below 1
4. Prior to establishing a contract for deposit of monies per Sec. 53649, or placing an
individual investment, the credit - worthiness of each financial institution Will be
determined. As a minimum, the ratio of net worth equity to total assets shall be 3.0% or
more.
5. No more than 0% of the City's available surplus shall be placed with any one financial
institution (excluding the State L.A.I.F. and government agency issues).
6.. No more than 0% of the Cit available surplus shall be placed with savings and loan
institutions.
+7, The City, as authorized in Government Code Sections 53635 and 16429.1, may use all
deposit and 'investment instruments; except repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements
shall not be used. However, non - negotiable time certificates with commercial banks s and
savings and loans, plus deposits in the Mate Local Agency Investment Fund, will be the
primary instruments used by the City, along with possible U.S. Treasury bills and banters
acceptances.
8. Collateral security on Certificates of Deposit will be provided in accordance to
Government Code Sections 5365 I and 53653 by the commercial banks and savings and
loans, a t 110% when government securities are used, or at 10% when promissory notes
secured by I st mortgages or I st trust deeds on improved residential real property located in
California are used.
9. Individual placements of deposits and investments will be made based upon highest rate
quotes, in most instanees.
10. within the context of any portfolio limitations and quoted rates, deposits shall be
distributed between institutions as evenly as practical or possible.
5
Agenda Item 8.c.
Page 9
Cash Management and Maturities
1. A maximum investment of all City monies, not needed to meet current cash flow needs,
will be maintained as closely as practical. A sufficient compensating balance will also be
provided, regarding the City's banking service agreement.
2. All monetary resources will be pooled for investment purposes, to mu', interest
earnings, which will be periodically allocated to the various funds of the City based upon
average cash balances at month ends. No interest will be credited to individual accounts
within the various funds.
3. Time deposits and investments will be held to maturity, unless it is absolutely necessary to
sell an investment early dine to an unexpected liability.
4. Maturities of deposits and investments will be scheduled in such a manner as to provide
steady stream of available cash to meet cash flow needs. The California Mate Local
Agency Investment Fund deposits of the City of Arroyo Grande are available on a same -
day /next -day telephone call basis.
Investment ReDortine, Pokey evie w and
Effective Policy Term
Are Investment Policy is no longer required by statute. However, it is highly recommended by both the
Association of Public Treasurers of the United Mates & Canada and the Government Finance Officers
Association GFA. It is in the best interest of the City to prepare, present and discuss the Investment
Policy with the City Council on an annual basis. In addition, a monthly report is submitted to the City
Council, providing the following information:
1. Type of investment.
2. financial institution (bank, savings and loan, broker, etc).
3. Date of maturity.
4. Principal amount.
5. Rate of interest.
6. Current market value for all securities having a maturity of more than 12 months.
7. Relationship of the monthly report to the annual statement of investment policy.
The City's independent certified public accountant shall review and make recommendations, when
appropriate, regarding the City of Arroyo Grande's investment policy.
D
Agenda Item 8.c.
Page 10
R
A.
IFJ RP RI T MEMORANDUM
MTI
-1K J LY 10, 1911
0 1%
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ANGELA I RAETSCH DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF CONFIRMATION F ASSESSMENTS FOR
TRACTS 1158, 1769 2310 AND 2236
DATE: JUNE 1 , 2011
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council;
9 Adopt a Resolution confirming landscaping assessments for all parcels within Tract
1158;
0 Adopt a Resolution confirming landscaping and lighting assessments for all parcels
within Tract 1769;
0 Adopt a Resolution confirming the assessments for the Park side Assessment
District for all parcels within Tract 231 Pre side Village Subdivision);
0 Adopt a Resolution confirming the assessments for the Grace Lane Assessment
District for all parcels w ithin Tract 2236 (Grace Lane Subdivision).
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The City entered into agreements with four assessment districts to provide lighting and
landscaping maintenance. The assessments are placed on the taxpayers' tarn roll each
year. The total amount of revenue to be received from the assessment districts in
Fiscal Year 201 1 -12 is $74,470.
BACKGROUND:
O June 9, 1992, Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 1 was created to
provide landscaping and lighting improvements and maintenance for Tract 1 769. The
annual assessment was 100 per parcel located within Tract 1769 a total of $3,000).
The Tract 1769 landscaping and lighting assessment must be confirmed by the Council
each year.
On May 28, 199 at the request of the homeo wners within Tract 1158, the City agreed
to provide landscaping and related maintenance to a portion of the greenbelt and
appurtenances located on Oak Park B oulevard for the benefit of parcels located within
Agenda Item 8.d.
Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF CONFIRMATION OF ASSESSMENTS
JUNE 14, 2011
PAGE 2
Tract 1158. The City Council and parcel owners agreed to an annual 40 per parcel
City charge (for a total of $2,800) for this service.
On November 8, 2005, at the request of Parkside V illage LLC, the sole owner and
developer of the Parkside Village Subdivision (Tract 2310), the City Council approved
the formation of the Parkside pillage Assessment District. This assessment is adjusted
annually by the April Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI for 2011 is 3.3%. The
annual assessment varies from $618 per parcel to $974 per parcel for a total of
$58,682 annually. This is an increase of $1,807 above the prior year.
On November 28, 200 6, at the request of Vista Roble LLC, the sole owner of the Grace
Lane Subdivision (Tract 2236), the City Council approved the formation of the Grace
Lane Assessment District. This assessment is also adjusted annually by the April
Consumer Price Index (CPI) or 3.3% in 2011. The annual assessment ranges from
$492 to $652 per parcel for a total annual assessment of $9,988. This is an increase of
$305 above the prior gear.
ANALYSIS of ISSUES:
All of the listed assessments must be confirmed each year. The assessments will be
added to the tax roll of the affected property owners and collected by the San Luis
Obispo County Tax Collector.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are presented for the City Council's consideration:
- Approve staff recommendations;
- Do not approve staff recommendations;
- Modify staff recommendations and approve;
- Provide direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
TAGES
By confirming the assessments, the City will continue to receive the funding to maintain
the landscape districts.
DISADVANTAGES:
There is no disadvantage identified in this recommendation.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
No environmental review is required for this item.
Agenda Item 8.d.
Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF CONFIRMATION F ASSESSMENTS
JUNE 14 2011
PAGE
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
MENTS:
The Agendas was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, June 9, 2011. The Agenda
and report were posted on the City's website on Friday, June 10, 2011. No public
comments were received.
Agenda Item 8.d.
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO,
A RESOLUTION of THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE CONFIRMING A LANDSCAPING
ASSESSMENT FOR TRACT 1158
WHEREAS, EAS, on May 28, 1996, the Arroyo Grande City Council approved an
Amendment to Cove narnts, Conditions, and Restrictions trictions for Tract 11 58 (Oak Pa rk Villas)
whereby the City of Arroyo Grande agreed to provide certain specified landscaping and
related maintenance on real property located along Oak Park Boulevard adjacent to
Tract 1158, Arroyo Grande, California, which maintenance was previously provided by
the homeowners in Tract 1158 and administered by the Dark Park Villas Homeowners
Association; and
WHEREAS, the owners of Lots 1 through 70, Tract 1158, agreed to pay an annual
assessment of $4g per parcel, in exchange for the City's agreement to provide said
maintenance services.
NOW, THEREFORE, E, BE IT RESOLVED IED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Gra nde ans follows:
1. That the above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein.
2. That the assessment for the 2011-12 fiscal year shorn on Exhibit "A ", attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, are confirmed as true and correct.
3. Immediately after adoption, an certified copy of this Resolution shall be filed with the
County Auditor.
4. The assessment shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as
County taxes are collected, and all laws providing for the collection and enforcement
of County taxes shall apply to the collection and enforcement of the assessments.
After collection by the County, the remaining amount of the assessments, after
deducting compensation due the County for collection, shall be paid to the City.
On motion by Council Member
and on the following roll call Grote, to grit:
, seconded by Council Member
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2011.
Agenda Item 8.d.
Page 4
RESOLUTION NO,
PAGE
TONY Y FER AFAA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
Agenda Item 8.d.
Page 5
EXHIBIT "A"
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY TAX SYSTEM
TRACT115BASSESSMENTS
FOR TAX ROLL YEAR 2011-12
Fund
Assessment #
Ch era
Fund
Assessmen
Charge
1764
007773001
40.00
1764
007773036
40.00
1 764
007773002
40.00
1 764
007773037
40.00
1764
007773003
40.00
1764
007773038
40.00
1 764
007773004
40.00
1 764
007773039
-40.00
1 764
007773005
40.00
1 764
007773040
4.
1 764
007773006
40.00
1 764
007773041
40.00
1 764
007773007
40.00
1764
007774001
4.
1 764
007773008
40.00
1764
007774002
40.00
1 764
007773009
40.00
1 764
007774003
40.00
1764
007773010
40.00
1764
007774004
40.00
1764
0077730 11
40.00
1 764
007774005
40.00
1764
007773012
40.00
1764
007774006
40.00
1764
007773013
40.00
1764
007774007
40.00
1 764
007773014
40.00
1 764
007774008
40.00
1 764
007773015
40.00
1 764
007774009
40.00
1764
007773016
40.00
1764
007774011
40.00
1764
007773017
40.00
1764
007774012
40.00
1764
007773018
40.00
1764
007774013
40.00
1 764
007773019
40.00
1 764
0077740 14
40.00
1 764
007773020
40.00
1 764
007774015
4.
1 764
007773021
40.00
1 764
007774016
4.
14
007773022
40.00
14
007774017
40.00
1764
007773023
40.00
1764
007774018
40.00
1 764
007773024
40.00
1 764
007774019
40.00
1764
007773025
40.00
1764
007774020
40.00
1 764
007773026
40.00
1 764
007774021
40.00
1 764
007773027
40.00
1 764
007774022
40.00
1 764
007773028
40.00
1 764
007774023
40.00
1764
007773029
40.00
164
007774024
40.00
1764
007773030
40.00
1764
007774025
40.00
1 764
007773031
40.00
1 764
007774026
40.00
1 764
007773032
40.00
1 764
007774027
40.00
1 764
007773033
40.00
1 764
007774028
40.00
1 764
007773034
40.00
1764
007774029
40.00
1764
007773035
40.00
1764
007774030
40.00
Total $2
Agenda Item 8.d.
Page 6
RESOLUTION N .
A RESOLUTION F THE CITY COUNCIL. OF THE CITY
F ARROYO GRANDE CONFIRMING A LANDSCAPING
AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT FOR TRACT 1769
WHEREAS, on ,June 9, 1992, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande ordered the
formation of Arroyo Grande Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 1, within
Tract 1769, containing 30 single- family home sites located at Farr ll Avenue and Oak
Park Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande to levy
assessments totaling $3,000 ($100 per assessable parcel) for Landscaping and Lighting
Assessment District Flo. 1 for the Fiscal Year 2011-12.
NOW, THEREFORE, I E, E IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande as follows:
1. That the above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein.
2. That the assessments shown on Exhibit "A " , attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference, are confirmed as true and correct.
Immediately after adoption, a certified copy of this Resolution shall be filed with the
County Auditor.
4. The assessment shall be collected at the same time and in the sane manner as
County taxes are collected, and all lags providing for the collection and enforcement
of County taxes shall apply to the collection and enforcement of the assessments.
After collection by the County, the remaining amount of the assessments, after
deducting compensation due the County for collection, shall be paid to the City.
On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member
and on the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2011.
Agenda Item 8.d.
Page 7
RESOLUTION NO,
PAGE 2
TONYFERRARA,MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WET RE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITE MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J, CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
E
Agenda Item 8.d.
Page 8
EXHIBIT "A"
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY TALC SYSTEM
TRACT 1769 ASSESSMENTS
FOR TAX ROLL YEAR 2011 -12
Fund Assessment ## Char e
1 765
077253001
100.00
1765
077253002
100.00
1765
0772
100.00
1765
077253004
100.00
1 765
077253005
100-00
1 765
077253006
100.00
1 76
0772
100.00
1 765
077253008
100-00
1 765
077258009
100.00
1765
077253010
100.00
1 765
0772 580 11
100.
1 765
0772 580 12
100.00
1 765
077258018
100.00
1 765
077258014
100.00
1 765
07725801
100-00
1 765
07725801
100-00
1 765
077253017
100.00
1 765
077253018
100.00
1 765
077258019
100-00
1 765
077258020
100.00
1 765
077258021
100-00
1765
077258022
100,00
1 765
0772 58028
100-00
1 765
0772 58024
100.00
1 76
077253025
100.00
1 765
077258026
100.00
1765
077258027
100.00
1 765
077258028
100.00
1 765
0772 58029
100.00
1 765
077258080
100.00
TOTAL
$3
Agenda Item 8.d.
Page 9
RESOLUTION ISO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE CONFIRMING THE
ASSESSMENTS FOR THE PARKSIDE VILLAGE
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (TRACT 2310)
WHEREAS, EAS, the owner Parkside Village, LLC of Lots 1 through 67, Tract 2310
requested the City form a maintenance assessment district commonly referred to as
the Parside pillage Assessment District to provide means to finance the costs of
maintenance, operation, and service of certain specified improvements; and
WHEREAS, EAS, on November 8, 2005, the Arroyo Grande City Council adopted Resolution
No. 3888 ordering the formation of the Par side Village Assessment District, confirming
assessments, assessment district diagram, and approving the levying of assessments
for Tract 2310 Parkside V illage); and
WHEREAS, EAS, assessments for the Parkside Village Assessment District must be
confirmed by the City Council for each fiscal year.
OW, THEREFORE, F E, E IT RESOLVED LVE by the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande as follows:
1. That the above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein.
2. That the assessment for the 2011-12 fiscal year shorn on Exhibit "A ", attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, are confirmed as true and correct.
3. Assessments shall be adjusted annually by modifying the adopted value up or down
in conformance with the Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles region. The
factor for the adjustment of the assessments shall be calculated using the April index
and established by the Director of Administrative Services, utilizing the following
formula:
Factor = 1 + Current Index — Prior Year Index
Prior Y ear Index
4. Immediately after adoption, a certified copy of this Resolution shall be filed with the
County Auditor.
5. The assessment shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as
County takes are collected, and all lavers providing for the collection and enforcement
of County takes shall apply to the collection and enforcement of the assessments.
After collection by the County, the remaining amount of the assessments, after
deducting compensation due the County for collection, shall be paid to the City.
Agenda Item 8.d.
Page 10
RESOLUTION NO.
PACE
On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member
and on the following roll call Grote, to grit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution w s passed and adopted this day of , 2011.
Agenda Item 8.d.
Page 11
RESOLUTION .
PAGE
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST.
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK{
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT.
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CA EL, CITY ATTORNEY
Agenda Item 8.d.
Page 12
EXHIBIT "A°
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY TAX SYSTEM
TRACT 2310 ASSESSMENTS
FOR TALC ROLL YEAR 2011-12
Fund Assessment # Charge
1 893
077255002
618.00
1893
077255003
618.00
1 893
077255004
618-00
1 893
077255005
618.00
1 893
077255006
618.00
1 893
077255007
618.00
1893
077255008
618.00
1 803
077255000
618.00
1 893
077255010
618.00
1893
077255011
618.00
1 803
077255012
618.00
1803
077255013
618.00
1 803
077255014
618.00
1803
077255015
074.00
1 893
077255016
074.00
1 893
077255017
074.00
1893
077255018
074.00
1 893
077255019
074.00
1803
077255020
974.00
1 803
077255021
074.00
1 803
077255022
074.00
1 803
077255023
074.00
1893
077255026
074.00
1 893
077255027
074.00
1893
077255028
074.00
1893
077255020
074.00
1 803
077255030
074.00
1803
077255031
974.00
1893
077255032
074.00
1803
077255033
074.00
1803
077255034
974.00
1833
077255035
074.00
1 803
077255036
074.00
1803
077255037
074.00
1893
077255038
974.00
1803
077255030
074.00
1893
077255040
974.00
1803
077255041
074.00
Agenda Item 8.d.
Page 13
EXHIBIT "A"
1893
077255042
974.00
1893
077255043
974.00
1893
077255044
974.00
1893
077255045
974.00
1893
077255046
974.00
1893
077255047
974.00
1893
077255048
974.00
1 893
077255049
974.00
1893
077255050
974.00
1 893
077255051
974.00
1 893
077255052
974.00
1893
077255053
974.00
1893
077255054
974.00
1893
077255055
974.00
1 893
077255056
974.00
1893
077255057
974.00
1893
077255058
974.00
1893
077255059
974.00
1893
077255060
974.00
1 893
077255061
974.00
1 893
077255062
974.00
1 893
077255063
974.00
1893
077255064
974.00
1893
077255065
974.00
1893
077255066
974.00
1893
077255067
974.00
1 893
077255068
974.00
TOTAL $58
Agenda Item 8.d.
Page 14
RESOLUTION No.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE CONFIRMING THE
ASSESSMENTS FOR THE GRACE LANE ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT (TRACT 2236)
WHEREAS, the o wner (Vista Roble, le, LLC ) of Lots 1 through 19, Tract 2236, petitioned
the City to form a maintenance assessment district, commonly referred to as the Grace
Lane Assessment district to provide means to finance the costs of maintenance,
operation, and service of certain specified improvements; and
WHEREAS, EAS, on November er 2 , 2006, the Arroyo Grande City Council adopted
Resolution Igo. 39 ordering the formation of the Grace Lane Assessment district,
confirming assessments, assessment district diagram, and approving the levying of
assessments for Tract 2236 (Grace Lane Subdivision); and
WHEREAS, assessments for the Grace Lane Assessment district must be confirmed
by the City Council for each fiscal year.
NOW, THEREFORE, E, E IT RESOLVED y the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande as follo ws:
1. That the above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein.
2. That the assessment for the 2011 -12 fiscal year shown on Exhibit "A ", attached
hereto and incorporated herein b y this reference, are confirmed as true and correct.
3. Assessments shall be adjusted annually by modifying the adopted value up or down
in conformance with the Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles region. The
factor for the adjustment of the assessments shall be calculated using the April index
and established by the director of Administrative Services, utilizing the following
formula;
Factor = 1 + Current Index — Prior Y Index
Prig Year Index
4. Immediately after adoption, a certified copy of this Resolution shall be filed with the
County Auditor.
5. The assessment shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as
County takes are collected, and all lavers providing for the collection and enforcement
of County takes shall apply to the collection and enforcement of the assessments.
After collection by the County, the remaining amount of the assessments, after
deducting compensation due the County for collection, shall be paid to the City.
Agenda Item 8.d.
Page 15
RESOLUTION Igo.
PAGE
On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member
and on the following roll call Grote, to wit:
AYES.
NOES:
ABSENT.
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2011.
Agenda Item 8.d.
Page 16
RESOLUTION N .
PAGE
T N F E I IAA IAA, III A l
ATTEST:
KELLY I ETMO E, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
NEY
Agenda Item 8.d.
Page 17
EXHIBIT "A"
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY TAX SYSTEM
TRACT 2236 ASSESSMENTS
FOR TALC ROLL YEAR 2011-12
Fund
Assessment
Charge
1 835
00701 9002
432.00
1 835
007013003
432.00
1 835
007013004
432.00
1835
007013005
432.00
1835
007013006
432.00
1835
007013007
432.00
1835
007013008
432.00
1835
007013003
432.00
1835
007013010
432.00
1 835
337019011
432.33
1835
007019012
492.00
1835
007019014
492.00
1895
007019015
432.00
1895
007013016
432.00
1895
007019017
492.00
1 835
007019018
652.00
1 835
007019019
652.00
1835
007019020
652.00
1895
007019021
652.00
TOTAL .00
Agenda Item 8.d.
Page 18
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY C UNCIUREDEVEL PME T AGENCY
TUESDAY, MAY 24,2011
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 216 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor /Chair Ferrara called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
City Council /RDA: Council /Board Member Joe Costello, Council /Board Member Jim Guthrie,
Council /Board Member Tim Brown, Mayor Pro Tem Vl e Chair Caren
Ray, and Mayor/Chair Tony Ferrara were present.
City Staff Present: City Manager Steven Adams, City Attorney Tim Carmel, Deputy City
Clerk Ditty Norton, Community Development Director Teresa MClish,
Chief of Police Steve Annibali, Recreation and Maintenance Services
Director Doug Perrin, Administrative Services Director Angela Kraetsh,
and Associate Planner Kelly Heffernn were present.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Mayor/Chair Ferrara led the Flag Salute.
4. INVOCATION
Reverend Valerie Valle, St. Barnabas Episcopal Church, delivered the invocation.
6 . SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
6.a. Honorary Proclamation Declaring May 2011 as "Building safety Month".
Mayor Ferrara read and presented the Proclamation to Jonathan Hurst, City of Arroyo Grande
Building Official.
8. AGENDA REVIEW
8.a. Ordinances Read in Title Only.
Council /Board Member Brown moved, Council /Board Member Guthrie seconded, and the
motion passed unanimously that all ordinances presented at the meeting shall be read by title
only and all further readings be waived.
7. CITIZENS! INPUT, COMMENTS., AND SUGGESTIONS
The following members of the public spoke during Citizens' Input, Comment and Suggestions:
Bob Lund; Aaron Henkel, S. Alpine; Pa#tr Welsh, Pradera Court; D Margaret Carmen; Barry
Hague; Kristina Agne; Jeff Pinak and Brad Snook, Surfrider Foundation.
8. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor/Chair Ferrara invited members of the public who wished to comment on any Consent
Agenda Item to do so at this time. Speaking from the public was Nancy Underwood, Short
Street, regarding Item 8.g.
Agenda Item 8.e.
Page 1
Minutes: City / rifl r rf er i Agen Pager
T May 24, 2011
Mayor/Chair Ferrara requested Item 8.d. be pulled,
Council /Board Member Guthrie requested Item 8.g.be pulled.
Action: Council /Board Member Brown moved, and Council /Board Member Guthrie seconded
the motion to approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.i., with the exception of Items 8.d.
and 8.g., with the recommended courses of action. The motion passed on the following roll -call
Grote:
AYES: Brown, Guthrie, Costello, Ray, y, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
8.a. Consideration of Cash Disbursement Ratification.
Recommended mmended Action: Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period May 1,
2011 through May 15, 2011.
8.b. Consideration of statement of Investment Deposits.
Recommended Action: Received eived and filed the report listing the current investment
deposits of the City, as of April 30, 2011, as required by Government Code Section
53646(b).
8.. Consideration of Approval of Minutes.
Recommended mmended Action: Approved the action minutes of the Special and Regular City
Council Meetings of May 10, 2011, as submitted.
8.e. Consideration of Amendment No. I to the Agreement with Water systems
Consulting, Inc. for the 2010 Upd ate to the Urban Wate r Management Plan.
Recommended mmended Action; 1 ) Approved Amendment No. 1 to the Consultant Services
Agreement with Water Systems Consulting, Inc. in the amount of $17,920 for the 2010
Update to the Urban Water Management Plan; 2 ) Authorized the Mayor to sign the
amendment to the agreement with Water Systems Consulting Inc.; and Appropriated
$9,000 from the Water Fund into the Water and Severer Master Plan project.
8.f. Consideration of an Award of Contract to rugh Construction, Inc. for the El
Camino Real Rehabilitation and Enhancement Project, P1128 -.
[CCIRDA)
Recommended Action: 1 ) Awarded a contract for the El Camino Real Rehabilitation
n
and Enhancement Project to Baugh Construction, Inc. in the amount of $1,900,572; 2
Authorized the City Manager to approve change orders for approximately 15% of the
contract amount, $285,086 for unanticipated costs during the construction phase of the
project: Adopted Resolution No. 4362 entitled: `A RESOLUTION F THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROWNG PROGRAM
SUPPLEMENT NO. 012-N TO ADMINISTERING AGENCY-STATE AGREEMENT NO.
05-5199R FOR THE L CAMINO REAL REHABILITATION AND 1 HANG ME T
PROJECT"- Adopted Resolution n N . 4363 entitled: "A RESOLUTION F THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO RA AUTHORIZING PA TICIPA TIN I
THE APCD/MOVER GRANT PROGRAM FOR THE L CAMINO REAL
REHABILITATION AND 1 HANG ME T PRO J CT "; Adopted Resolution No.
4364 entitled: " RESOLUTION F THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE APPROVING A FUNDING AGREEMENT Y AND TWEE THE CITY
AND THE ARROYO GRA REDEVELOPMENT A NC Y, AND MA KJ THE
FINDINGS REQUIRED Y HEALTH & SAFETY CODE SECTION 33445, FOR
AGENCY CY FUNDI F A PORTION F THE L CAMINO REAL REHABILITATION
Agenda Item 8.e.
Page 2
Minutes: City Councilll edevelopment Agency
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Page
AND ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, P W 2008- ".. and Adopted Redevelopment
Agency Resolution No. FDA 11-02 entitled: "`A RESOLUTION OF THE ARROYO
GRANDE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING A FUNDING AGREEMENT Y
AND BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND THE CITY OF ARROYO RA1 E, Al
MAKING THE FINDINGS REQUIRED Y HEALTH & SAFETY CODE SECTION
33445, FOR AGENCY FU II F A PORTION OF THE EL CAMINO REAL
REHA IL I TA TI 1 AND ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, PW 2008-09 .
8.h. Consideration to Authorize Chief of Police to Execute License Agreements for
Hosting Video surveillance Cameras.
Recommended mended Action: Authorized the Chief of Police to execute all license
agreements for hosting video surveillance c ameras.
8.i. Authorize sole source Procurement of Mobile Data Computer
Equipment/Software and Upgrade to PSNet Records Management
System/Computer Aided Dispatch system.
Recommended Action: Approved the procurement of Mobile Data Co mputers (MDC)
from Hub- Data911 and ruggedi ed tablets from Xpl re Technology, and approve
upgrading the Executive Information Services {EIS} PSI et Records rds Management
System (RMS) and Computer Aided Dispatch System (CAD) along with the necessary
hard warels ft are /professional services for placement in police department patrol,
traffic, command and investigations vehicles.
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT T AGENDA
8.d. Consideration of a Cooperation Agreement Between the County of San Luis
Obispo and the City of Arroyo Grande for .Joint Participation in the Community
Development Block Grant Program, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program
the Emergency shelter Grant Program, the American Dream Downpayment
Initiative Program, and the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS HPIIA
Program for Fiscal Years 2072 through 2074.
Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution appr ving the Cooperation Agreement.
Mayor Ferrara provided an update regarding the Federal budget and proposed cuts to many
programs, including the HOME Investment Partnerships program.
Action: Mayor Ferrara moored to adopt Resolution I . 4365 entitled " "A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO RA1 COOPERATION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE CITY OF ARROYO RAl
FOR JOINT PARTICIPATION IN THE COMMUNITY E L ME T BLOCK GRANT
PROGRAM,, AM,, TH HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM., THE EMERGENCY
SH L TER GRANT PROGRAM, THE AMERICAN I AM DOWNPAYMENT INITIATIVE
TIVE
PROGRAM, AND THE HOUSING I TU ITI S FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS H A
PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEARS 2012 THROUGH 2014'. Council Member Guthrie
seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll -call Grote:
AYES: Ferrara, Guthrie, Costello, Brown, Flay
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Agenda Item 8.e.
Page 3
Minutes: City CouncillRedevelopment Agent
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Page
8.g. consideration of Adoption of an Ordinance Amending section 9.04.020 of the
Arroyo Grande Municipal code Regarding Alcoholic Beverage service and
Consumption In certain Areas.
Recommended Action: 1 Adopt an Ordinance amending Section 9.04.020 of the
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code; and Adopt a Resolution permitting the service and
consumption of alcohol sold on -site at Heritage Square Park in designated areas during
the 2011 pillage Summer Concert Series.
In response to an inquiry by Council Member Guthrie, staff clarified the language in the
proposed Ordinance, as well as in the proposed Resolution, which would permit the service and
consumption of alcohol at Heritage Square Park in designated arrears during the 2011 Centennial
Summer Concert Series. City Manager Adams explained that any future events would require
Council approval by Resolution.
Mayor Ferrara invited public comment. Speaking from the pudic was Nancy Underwood, Short
Street, regarding pudic notification for any future events that would allow the service and
consumption of alcohol at Heritage Square Park.
Mayor Ferrara requested that any future events should be placed on the Agenda as a new
business item with public notification.
City Attorney Carmel recommended ar minor modification to the operative phrase of the
Resolution to state: "Consumption of alcohol shall be limited to designated areas."
Action: Council Member Guthrie moored to adopt Ordinance No. 632 entitled: 119 AN
ORDINANCE of THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY of ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING
SECTION . 04.020 OF THE A RRO Yo GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE S R VIC AND CONSUMPTION IN CERTAIN AIWAS as
modified to include language that consumption of alcohol shall be limited to designated areas.
Council Member Brown seconded and the motion passed on the following roll -call Grote.
AYES: Guthrie, Brown, Costello, Fury, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Action: Council Member Guthrie moved to adopt Resolution No. 4366 entitled: ""
R SOLU71ON of THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY of ARROYO GRANDE ALLOWING
THE SERVICE AND CONSUMPTION of ALCOHOL AT HERITAGE SQUARE PAR
DURING THE 2011 WLLAGE SUMMER CONCERT SERIES PURSUANT To ORDINANCE
NO. 632 as modified to Include language that consumption of alcohol shall be limited to
designated areas. Council Member Brown seconded, and the motion passed on the following
roll -call Grote:
AYES: Guthrie, Brown, Costello, Fury, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Agenda Item 8.e.
Page 4
Minutes: City CouncillRedevelopment Agency
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
GS
Page
9.a. Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval f Conditional Use Permit Case No.
11-002 for an Interim Regional Transit Authority /South County Area Transit
TA/SCAT Parking and Storage Facility Located at 800 Rodeo Drive.
Community Development Director McClish presented the staff report and recommended the
Council adopt a Resolution denying the appeal and upholding approval of Conditional Use
Permit Case No. 11 -002 for an interim I TA SCAT parking and storage facility located at 800
Rodeo Drive.
Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing. Speaking from the public in support of the appeal
were Bob Do kerty, appellant; Mark Vasquez; Mike Furman, Ilia Vaquero; and Mike Freese, Ilia
Vaquero. Speaking in opposition of the appeal was Ed Ding, representing F TA SCAT. No
farther public comments were received and the public hearing was closed.
Action Council Member Guthrie moved to adopt Resolution No. 4367 entitled "'
RESOLUTION THE CITY COUNCIL THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING
APPEoqL AND UPHOLDING APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL US SIT CASE NO. 11 -002
FOR AN INTERIM I I TAISCA T PARKJNG AND STORAGE AGILITY AT 800 RODEO DRIVE OF
as modified to include the addition of three conditions of approval, as follows: 1 that the hours
of operation shall be from 5.00 a.m. to 10.00 p.m.; that no more than eight buses shall be
located on site at any one time; and that pnor to commencing operation on the site, a nose
mitigation plan shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Community Development
Department. Mayor Pro Tern Ray seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Guthrie, Ray, Brown, Costello, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mayor Ferrara called for a break at 9:06 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:20 p.m.
9.. Consideration of an Ordinance Amending Portions of Title 13 and Title 15 of the
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Relating to the Establishment of Water Efficient
Landscape Requirements; DeveI o pm ent Code Amendment Case I I o. I 1 -002.
Associate Planner Heffernon presented the staff report and recommended the Council introduce
an Ordinance amending portions of Title 13 and Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code
Relating to the Establishment of Water Efficient Landscape Requirements.
Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing. Speaking from the public and providing comments on
the proposal were Patter Welsh, Pradera Court; and Aaron Henkel, S. Alpine Street. No farther
public comments were received, and the public hearing was closed.
Action: Council Member Costello moved to introduce an Ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY COUNCIL THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING PORTIONS OF
TITLE 13 AND TITLE 15 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING T
Agenda Item 8.e.
Page 5
Minutes: City Count llRedevelopment Agency Page 6
Tuesday, May 24, 201
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS' i Council
Member Guthrie seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call Grote:
AYES: Costello, Guthrie, Brown, Flay, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
9.c. Consideration of Development Code Amendment 11-003; Proposed Ordinance
Amending Regulations Regarding Temporary signs; Citywide.
Community Devel pment Director McClish presented the staff report and stated the Planning
Commission recommended the City Council introduce an Ordinance amending portions of
Sections 16.60.050 and 16.60.060 of Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code regarding
temporary banners and signs.
Mayor Ferrara o pened the public hearing. speaking from the public and providing comments on
the proposal were Patty Welsh, Pradera Court; Aaron Henkel, S. Alpine; Kristin Barnei h,
Planning Commissioner; and John been, Planning Commissioner. No further public comments
were received, and the pudic hearing was closed.
Action Council Member Guthrie moored to tiring back at the next regular City Council meeting a
reprised Ordinance to include the Planning Commission recommendations with the following
exception: to include a grace period program of 90 days for portable (sandwich board) signs to
be approved if they meet certain criteria as approved by the Community Development Director:
and to include two different alternatives relating to human signs for full o partial prohibition. In
addition, staff was directed to tiring back in the future a reprised table 16.60.040a so that it can
be s implified and put in brochure format with illustrations to include examples of appropriate and
inappropriate signa e. Council Member Brown seconded, and the motion passed on the
following roll call Grote:
AYES: Guthrie, Brown, Costello, Flay, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
10. CONTINUED BUSINESS
None.
11. NEW BUSINESS
11.a. Consideration of Police Building site Alternatives.
Mayor Ferrara announced that he would remain at the dais until discussion began regarding the
C urtland site, at which time he would step down from the dais due to a conflict of interest.
Recommended Action: 1) Receive information regarding Police building site alternatives; 2)
Direct staff to prepare a feasibility study of co-locating the Police Station at the Corporation Yard
site; and 3) Delay selection of a preferred alternative until the feasibility of use of the
Corporation Yard is determined and the Council receives a presentation on updated project
alternatives for the East Grand Avenue and Courtland Street site.
Agenda Item 8.e.
Page 6
Minutes: Cit Count 111 edevelopment Agency Page
Tuesday, May 24,
City Manager Adams and Craig Atkinson, BFGC Architects, presented the proposed buildin
site alternatives, with the exception of the Curtlarnd Street site.
Council questions and comments ensued regarding the proposed sites.
Mayor Ferrara stepped down from the dais for the presentation and discussion regarding the
alternative site on Curtlarnd Street due to ar conflict of interest associated with his primar
residence which is lamed within 500 feet of the subject site.
Mayor Pro Tern Ray tools over as Presiding Officer and noted than pursuant to Council policy,
the Council must vote unanimously to continue the meeting past midnight. Council Member
Guthrie moved, Mayor Pro Tem Ray seconded, and upon voice vote, with Council Member
Brown dissenting, the motion did not pass.
City Manager Adams and Craig Atkinson, BFGC Architects, presented the alternative for the
Curtlarnd Street site.
Following discussion, Council directed staff to work with the architect on a feasibility study for
use of the Corporation 1 acrd site.
No f action was taken on this item.
Mayor Ferrara returned to the dais.
12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
f TS
Council reports were tabled to the next regular meeting.
13. CITY COUNCIL ICI E ICI BE ITEMS
None.
14. CITY MANAGER ITEMS
None.
1. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
16. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
None.
17. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
None.
18. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor/Chair Ferrara adjourned the meeting at 12:01 a.m. to the Special Budget Meeting of
Thursday, May 26, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 215 E. Branch Street.
Agenda Item 8.e.
Page 7
Minutes: City CouncillRedevelopment Agency Page
Tuesday, May 24, 201
Tony Ferrara, Mayor/Chair
ATTEST:
Kitty Norton, Deputy City Clerk/Agency Secretary
(Approved at CC Mtg
Agenda Item 8.e.
Page 8
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
THURSDAY, MA Y 26 2011
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH CH STF EET
ARROYO Y GRANDE, CALIF F NIA
1. R CALL:
Mayor Ferrara called the special meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. Council Member Joe Costello,
Council Member Jinn Guthrie, Council Member Tim Brown, City Manager Steven Adams,
Human Resources Manager Karen Sisk o, and City Attorney Tim Carmel were present. Mayor
Pro Tern Ray was absent.
2 . PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
3. CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION:
a. CONFERENCE ENCE ITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Government Code
Section 54957.6: x
Agency Negotiator: Steven Adams, City Manager
Represented Employees: Service Employees International Union SEIU
Local 620
b. CONFERENCE ITH LABOR #E TIAT R pursuant to Government Code
Section 54957.6:
Agency Negotiator: Steven Adams, City Manager
Represented Employees: Arroyo Grande Police Officers' Association
(AGPOA
C. CONFERENCE ENCE ITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Government Code
Section 54957.6:
Agency Negotiator: Steven Adams, City Manager
Unrepresented Employees: Management Employees
4 . RECONVENE NVENE T OPEN SESSION:
Mayor Ferrara announced that them was no rep action from the closed session.
5 . ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 6 : 10 p. m.
Agenda Item 8.e.
Page 9
Minutes of City C ouncil Special Meetin
May 2 , 201
Page 2
Tony Ferrara, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kelly Wetmore, re, City Clerk
(Approved at CC Mtg )
Agenda Item 8.e.
Page 10
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPM EI T AGENCY
THURSDAY, MAY 26 2011
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor /Chair called the Special Meeting of the City Council/ Redevelopment Agency to order at
6:'16 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Mayor/Chair Tony Ferrara, Mayor Pro Tem ice -Chair Caren Flay, Council /Board Member Joe
Costello, Council /Board Member Jim Guthrie, and Council/Board Member Tim Brown were
present.
Staff members present were City Manager Steven Adams, Chief of Police Steve Annibaili
Director of Legislative and Information Service /City Clerk Kelly Wetmore, re, Community
Development Director Teresa McCli h, Recreation n and Maintenance Services Director Doug
Perrin, and Administrative Services Director Angela Kraet ch.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Mayor /Chair Ferrara led the Pledge of Allegiance.
4 . CITIZENS' INPUT COMMENTS., MEN TS AND SUGGESTIONS
There were no public comments.
5. NEW BUSINESS
5.a. Fiscal Year 2010-11 Third Quarter Budget Report.
Director Kraetch presented the staff report and recommended the City Council /Agency Board:
1 Approve detailed budget adjustments listed in the Third Quarter budget report; Approve
Schedule Aa and 3 Approve requests for additional adjustments in the General Fund.
Brief discussion ensued regarding the City's insurance program through the California Joint
Powers Insurance Authority CJPIA and the need to review the program to determine if it is still
cost efficient for the City.
No public comment was received.
Action Council/Board Member Costello moored to approve detailed budget adjustments listed in
the Third Quarter budget report; approve Schedule A; and approve requests for additional
adjustments in the General Fund. Council/Board Member Brown seconded, and the motion
passed on the following roll caul Grote:
AYES: Costello, Brown, Guthrie, Ray, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Agenda Item 8.e.
Page 11
Special City Coun illJ edevelop ent Agency Meeting Minutes
May 26, 201
P age
5.b. Consideration of Preliminary FY 2011 -1211= 2012-13 Biennial Budget.
Director Kraetsch presented the staff report which included a review of the biennial budget
calendar; a summary of the Preliminary Budget for FY 2011 -12 and 2012-13 including General
Fund revenue and expenditure projections and estimated budget shortfalls; budget strategies to
address the shortfall in FY 2011 -12; and an overview of other funds pater, severer,
Redevelopment pment Agency, streets, Capital Improvement Program).
Director Perrin provided a summary of major City projects, and Director M cClish provided a
summary of major street, drainage, and water projects.
City Manager Adams explained that there were three unfunded projects (Car Corral, Fair
Oaks, and Ella street improvements) and that the budget strategy was to apply any savings
from other projects to these projects.
Brief discussion ensued regarding sidewalk damage due to tree roots and the priority for fining
all sidewalks within the City, with an emphasis on the pillage.
No public comments were received.
Council/Board Member comments ensued regarding sidewalk repairs; negotiation of labor
agreements; sales and gas tax revenue assumptions from the County; street improvements as it
relates to mi r surfa ing versus slurry seal; repairs needed on James Way; street maintenance
for E. Grand Avenue; and the importance of maintaining the City Council's reserve fund goal of
20%, not falling below 15%, and that the first priority is to increase the reserve fund.
No formal action was taken.
6 .A D JOURNMENT
Mayor/Chair Ferrara adjourned the special Meeting at 7:09 p.m.
Tony Ferrara, Mayor/Chair
ATTEST:
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk/Agency Secretary
{Approved at CC Mtg )
Agenda Item 8.e.
Page 12
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
SPECIAL *JOINT MEETING/STUDY SESSION
CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, MAY 31, 2011
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GYG GF ANDE, CALIFORNIA
Mayor Pro Teri Ray r Called the special meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
City Council:
Planning
Commission:
City Staff_
3. FLAG SALUTE
Council Members ,Joe Costello, ,Jinn Guthrie, Tim Brown, and Mayor Pro
Tern Caren Far were present. Mayor Tong Ferrara was absent.
Commissioners ,John Teen, Lisa B perw, and Vice-Chair Kristen
Barneich were present. Commissioner ,Jennifer Martin and Chair
Elizabeth Ruth were absent.
City Manager Steven Adams, City Attorney Tim Carmel, City Clerk Kelly
r
Wetmore, Community Devel pment Director Teresa MCClish, and
Associate Planner Fran Foster were present.
Mayor Pro Tern Ray led the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. EAST GLAND AVENUE AND CGUF TLAND PROJECT
The purpose of the study session is to* 1 provide the applicant with are opportunity to present
alternative Concepts for development of the parcel at the southwest Corner of E. Grand Avenue
and C urtland Street; provide an opportunity for discussion, questions, and feedback from
the City Council and Planning Commission regarding issues, preferred options and feasibility of
other development Concepts; and 3 allow the public to ask questions and provide Comments.
Carol Florence, representing Nick Tompkins, pr vided introductory Comments.
Nick Tompkins, applicant, provided an overview of development efforts to date regarding the
parcels on E. Grand Avenue and C urtland Street with public outreach and tenant searches;
provided a history of the C urtland Place project dating back to 2007; Commented on the state
of the local Commercial real estate market; et; reviewed previously proposed site plans; and then
presented fire new alternative site plans. Mr. Tompkins ins then responded to questions from the
Planning Commission and City Council members.
Mayor Pro Tern Ray r invited members of the public to ask questions or provide Comments on the
material presented.
The following members of the public spore: Richard Duffin, Newport Avenue; Debbie Collins,
Santa Maria; Aaron Henkel, S. Alpine; Del Clegg, Cookie Crock Warehouse Manager; and
Bernadine Duflin, Newport rt Avenue.
Agenda Item 8.e.
Page 13
Minutes of City Council Special Meetin
May 10, 2011
Page
Commissioner Barneioh provided the following comments:
- Liked Michael's and Fresh Market alternatives;
- Did not believe there was a duplication of uses;
- Does not favor a bank in the alternatives;
- Could accept one drive -thru use;
- Likes the loading dock area;
- Church use is ok, but seems a waste of prime commercial space;
- Noted that a future landscape plan would address open space issue.
Commissioner Keen provided the following comments:
- Likes Michael's and Fresh Market;
- Expressed concern about Walgreens drug store; opposes drive- thru's;
- Likes truck access and dock;
- Opposes a church at this location; property is located at City's gateway and is prune
rnrnerial space.
Commissioner Sperow provided the following comments:
- Referred to nearby residents and would like more input from there;
- Likes Michael's; acknowledged that Fresh Market is different;
- Troubled by two proposed drive- thru's;
- Proposals shover promise.
Mayor Pro Tern Flay provided the following comments:
- Agreed with most of Commissioner Barnei h's comments;
- Referred to E. Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan;
- Alternatives presented did not appear to be bide or pedestrian oriented;
- Concerned with two drive- thru's; could accept one drive -thru;
- Does not believe there is a duplication of uses;
- Does not like a drug store with a drive -thru;
- Complimented truck access redesign;
- Concerned about mass /scale of rear building; encouraged facade to make it look like
two buildings;
- Does not support a church at this location;
- Acknowledged that public improvements and traffic circulation will need to be addressed
when a specific project application comes forward.
Council Member Brown provided the following comments
- Acknowledged the site was previously two separate pro perty owners/ parcels which
made proposed development challenging;
- Referred to E. Grand Avenue as it relates to truck traffic and stated he does not want to
modify the existing medians;
- Believes there is some duplication of uses and some amount of sales tax transfer;
- Concerns regarding drive- thru's and truck circulation will be key issues;
- Acknowledged staff for Engineering peer review study previously conducted.
Council Member Costello provided the following comments:
Noted that grocery stores /markets are not typically pedestrian friendly uses;
Commented on green space issues;
- Stated that the back building should be two smaller buildings; one building is too big;
Agenda Item 8.e.
Page 14
Minutes of city council Special Meeting
May 1, 2011
Page
Must be careful on design for truck access as it relates to wall separating the commercial
and residential uses;
Does not support two drive thru's;
Other issues regarding traffic and truck circulation are not going away.
Council Member Guthrie provided the following comments:
- In response to public comment regarding a hotel on the site, this is a poor location as
hotels file to locate in a resort area or next to industrial uses;
- Does not support a church at this location as this is prime commercial land;
- Does not support drive -thru, although placement behind buildings is better than the front;
believes there is a conflict in the site plan with the truck access and the drugstore;
- Acknowledged that the Chase Bank without drive -up ATM is successful in other
locations;
- Concern about size of trucks making deliveries to the Varlet; lies the access through
the back;
- Suggested that there are ways to address the mass /scale of the back building such as
offsetting two buildings;
- Stated number one concern as the big trucks on Courtland and the gall separating the
commercial use from the residential use;
- Hesitant to base decisions on proposed tenants;
- Noted that most business plans include locating next to similar uses;
- commented that if building to accommodate big trucks, then City needs to address
standards Citywide
- Not opposed to drugstore or bank; tenant mix is off;
- Alter drive- thru's radically.
Mr. Tompkins briefly responded to the issue of breaking up the large building and suggested
that a deed restriction could address that issue. There was also brief discussion regarding the
likelihood of a proposed Police Station on the site and it was noted that the council would be
conducting a Joint Meeting with Grover Beach City council within the next month to discuss
related issues.
Council /Commission comments concluded and Mayor Pro Tern Flay thanked everyone who
attended and participated in the study session.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Pro Tern Flay adjourned the special meeting at 8 :00 p.m. in honor and memory of former
Council Member Thomas F unefs, who passed away on Sunday, May 29, 2011.
Caren Ray, Mayor Pro Term
ATTEST:
Kelly Wetmore, city clerk
(Approved at CC Mtg )
Agenda Item 8.e.
Page 15
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item 8.e.
Page 16
IN ORPORATE0
" "' MEMORANDUM
Ac JI)L-Y 10. 19 11
,
T: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE AND INFORMATION
SERVICESICITY CLERK 0i
Y: DITTY NORTON, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANTIDEPUTY CITY CLERIC
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION N CAF COUNCIL APPOINTMENT LENT TC PARKS AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
N
DATE: JUNE 14 2011
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the Council approve the recommendation of Council Member Joe
Costello to appoint Roxanne Sh nl l nd to the Parks and Recreation C rr mi i n.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact from this archon.
BACKGROUND:
On January 14, 1997, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 481 amending the
composition of applicable Commissions, Boards, and Committees from seven to five
members and also adopted Resolution No. 3192 establishing Council policy as it relates
to the appointment procedure to the Commissions,, Boards and Committees. The
Ordinance starter that the Mayor and each respective member of the Council shark
recommend a representative to the various Commissions, Bands and Committees,
subject to the approval by ar majority vote of the Council. All Commission, Board, and
Committee Members serve at the pleasure of the Council.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
An unscheduled vacancy occurred on the Parrs and Recreation Commission when
Shannon Kessler resigned, effective March 7, 2011. Her term does not expire until
January 31, 2015, A Notice of Vacancy the Parrs and Recreation Commission was
posted on March 1 , 2011 pursuant to Government Code Section 54974 (Attachment
1). Two ppli anti ns have been received and are attached for Council's information
(Attachment 2. Council Member Costello has recommended this vacancy be filled by
Roxanne Shn4lnd.
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
APPOINTMENT To PARKS AND F EC EATIO I COMMISSION
JUNE 14, 2011
PACE 2
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
A pprove the recommended mended a p poi ntment;
R o not approve the recommended mended appointment;
Provide di re do n to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
This appointment will provide for a full membership of the Parks and Recreation
reation
Commission.
DISADVANTAGES:
TAGES:
N disadvantages are identified as long as the appointment reflects the desired
community representation on this Commission ion bar the City Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
No environmental review is required for this item.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION I AID COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thur da ,, June 9, 2011. The Agenda
and report were posted on the City's web site on Friday, June 10, 2011. No public
comments were received.
ttarhment:
1. Notice of Vacanc
2. Applications
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 2
A �. CITY of ATTACHMENT I
AIM
-.
- Ilnl.11 ;:lfl1:[I:lII[I.:.
CITY OF A G
,i YCALIFORN
NOTICE of VACANC
March 1 11
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to Section 54374 of the California Government Code, that
one unscheduled vacancy has occurred on the following city commission;
NAME IE of COMMISSION; Parks and Recreation Commission
PURPOSE: The Perks and Recreation tion Corr mi ion shall have the responsibility to;
A . Act in an advisory capacity to the council and the recreation director in all matter
pertaining to Perks and public recreation and to cooperate with other governmental
agencies and civic groups in the advancement of sound park and recreation
planning and programming;
B. Formulate policies on recreation services for approval by the council,-
C. Meet with the council when necessary to discuss proposed policies, programs,
budgeting, future needs, or other mafters requiring joint deliberation,-
D. Advise with the recreation director on problems of administration, development of
recreation areas,, facilities, programs, and improved recreation s ervices;
E. (lake periodic inventories of recreation services that exist or may be needed and
interpret the needs of the public to the council and to the recreation director;
F. Aid in coordinating the recreation s ervices with the programs of other governmental
agencies and voluntary organizations;
G. Interpret the policies and functions of the parks and recreation department to the
public; and
H. Advise the recreation director in the preparation of the annual parks and recreation
budgets and a long -range recreation capital improvement program; and
I* Adopt rules and regulations for the use of recreation areas and facilities in
accordance with the laws of the city.
MEETINGS: Meetings are held on the 2nd Wednesday of each month at 6:30 pm to the
City Council Chambers, 215 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande. Special
meetings may be called as needed.
TERM: Through ,January 31, 2015.
For further information or an application, please contact:
Ditty Norton, Deputy City Clerk, 300 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande CA 93420, o 3-
404
4 fie / Wetmore. Director of Legislative and Information ServiceslCity clerk, do hereby
certify that the above Notice of Vacancy was posted in accordance with Section 54974 of
the California Govern meat code.
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 3
ATTACHMENT
CIW OF A GRANDE
. .
"' eB rvoir o f Citizens to S erve ;• ,-; ;-, ._. ,••*
Ij k ,
214 Ee Branch bvet i
Arroyo Grand CA 93420
App li ion t o Board, Committee, o r commission
PLEE PLACE A CHECK MARK N EXT TO THE BOARD 011 MME MM1 ON FOR WHICH YOU ULD
LIKE TO APPLY (You mart' make amore th one selac#ion ):
Planning Commission Viral RaNgw Lamm= e
Parks and Romention Commission Historical Resouraw Cornmotte e
Traffic Commission - pedal Subcommittem
Downtown ParlQng AdNisory Board
Deft of lkatio �
Name ho r7 /Oin ot
Last First
Home A dd A6
Dome orSdWhone f 1 81ho Phone
E -mail adds (tonal)
MM
Do you seside within the City limft of rro�ra Grande? Yes No
Are you a r iebered voter Yes Igo
11111 ...... ....
is-/-
Community i
PT� .
Tla
Lis# miani ation memberships and com . amdgnnien
Please deecribe any background, trainin , education or inters �u I you as an appowtee
0 0 . 7 4- h
ff �
(Flews at&N* p2Vw
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 4
What do you see as the obi es and goals of the advisory board, committee ee or commission for whk h you
are a pptoug-
oat,(
y o .00,
No
G
PIBa6e list three (3} Arroyo rande I'+�fFJr�lCeS. PLEASE OBTAIN PERMESS[Ol�i FROM INDMDUALS BEFORE
LISTIIMG THEN AS A REFERENCE
N ame
Nana
Name
Curt meeflng schedules are indite below:
Planning Commission, 1 st and 3rd Tuesday of each month, f:BB p.m.
Parks and Recreation reaction Corr mission, 2rA Wednesday of each month, 6:30 p.m.
Traffic Commission, Monday before the 3rd Tuesday of each month, :BB p.m.
Downt Parking- Ad viso ry Board, Qu a►rte rly,. 4 th Wednesd , 7 3 0 a.m.
Architectural Review Committee, 1 st Monday of each month, 2:38 p.m.
Historical Resources urces Corr mittee, 2nd Friday of each month, I OPOO a.m.
Are you willing to commit to the time neammary to fulfill the obligations of an a ppointment to a Board,
Co mmhfte or Commission? Yw No
i he��eb�r dadare that the oing IMortnatlon is true and oompleba to the best of my Imovrledge and
Applicant n , re Date
NQ= to Aoofican
I. Applicants appointed by the City Coundl are required to take an Oath of ice,
2 . State law -and the CRYs Co flktt of Inberest CD requires that Board Membem, Co mmitte e embers.. and
Commissioners file Starts of Economic Intel (Form 7DB ) upon assuming office, annually, and upon leaving
an appointed office (e.g. sources of Income, loans, gib In a bn r s, Interests in real property within the City).
3 . This application is a rrmat w of public record and portions tivreof are subject to disclosure pursuant to te Callfbm
Public Records AcL
Please m compl! at P d APpllca on to:
M MARA OFFICE
214 Ei Branch Stivat
Anv" Grand C A 93420
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 5
CrrY OF ARROYO GRANDE # ,
"'Rewrvoir of Citizens to SerW , }
Soo East Branch Street `
Arroyo Grande, CAA 93420
Application to Board, Committee, or Commission
PLEASE PLACE A CHECK MARK NEXT TO THE B AR.D COMM TTEE C MMLW1 N TOR WHICH YOU WOULD
LIKE TO APPLY (You may make more than one s+ekcdon ):
_Planning C ommission
Parks and Recreation Commission
,2� Traffic Commission
nvntown Peridng Advisory Board
ArchlbwW al R aWew Comrnitbae
�Hlstorlcal Ilesour m Comm itbee
.,Spedal Subcommittees
Date of Application �,�`'� _ �] . F- k L
Name v��-- N �: �
L,ast First
Home Address
Horne or Ceti Phone.. Buslness Phone
E addss (Optional)
Do you reside within the City limits o Arroyo Grande's fifes 2 Igo
Are you a regiftwed gofer? Y is ?'- No.
Dcnu on ��� r - -, K-_ - A - - - .,:
Esnplon►er
Edison {Include oral or vo Menses or ca fioses�
C ommunky involveism t (List organization memberships and committee asaignments
Please describe any bsdtground, traini ng, education or Irteresb that qualify you as an appointee
c rJ ��-5 L t4 V. V'-s -�
{Please athmb addlbkwa If nec�wA
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 6
What do you ne as the an goals of the board, comm
are applying? r t
UZ
Page 2
o� nmission !or which you
p G
Plc list three 3 Arroyo [G rande brIMCM, P OEMAIN PERMT N FROM INDIMUM BE OU
H+r AS A CE11
Wq'� k. e- i
Nanw: Add
4'�.
�W_-- o'J-�
Marne: Add
Name: d.
A
Current meeting scheduke are Indicated below:
Planning Commission, 1 ",and 3rd Tuesday of each month,, 6:00 p.m.
Parks and Recreation Commission, 2 nd Wednesday of each month, 630 p.m.
Traffic C ommission, Monday before the 3rd Tuesday of each month, 7:00 p.m.
Downtown Parking Advisory Board, Quarterly, 4th Wednesday, 7:30 a.m.
Architectural Review w ommitt e, 1 st Monday of each month, 2:30 p.m.
Historical Resources Committee, 2nd Friday of each month, 1 0:00 a.m.
Are yo willing to commit to the time nacmery to fulfill the obligations of an appointment to a Board,
h
Committee or C ommission? Yea No
I hereby declare that the i'oregoing infonfnatlon Is true and complete to the beat of my knowledge and
belief.
a 0
Applicant Signature Date
Notice to AmAlca .0
t. Appikants appointed by the aty Council are required to take are Oath of Office.
2 . Mate law and the CWs C onflict of Interest Code requires that Board Members, Co mmittee Members and
Commissioners file Statements of Economic Interests (Foam 700) upon assuming office, annually, and upon leaving
an appointed office e.g. sources of income, loans, gifts, inveAments, Interests In real property within the My).
3 . This application is a m atter o f public record and portions thereof are subject to disdosure p ursuant to the California
Public Rec Act.
P ane return completed Application to:
Crier CLERICS OFF IE
300 F.aet Bmnch Street
Arroyo [Grande CA 93420
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 7
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 8
RO
WCORPORATED
41 JULY 1D. 1011 MEMORANDUM
Cti I
T: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF LETTER TO THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION REGARDING THE SMARTMETER
PROGRAM
DATE: JUNE 14 2011
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council authorize the Mayor to submit the attached letter to
the California Public Utilities Commission CPUC urging approval of a Pacific Gas and
Electric (PG&E) SmartMeter opt out program at no additional cost to the customer.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no known fiscal impact to the City regarding this item.
BACKGROUND:
At the January 11, 2011 meeting, Mayor Ferrara requested staff, and Council
concurred, to make arrangements with PG&E for a presentation regarding the
SmartMeter program. According to PG&E, the program was driven by the California
CPUC in response to the 2000 -2001 energy crisis. The CPUC authorized PG&E to
deploy SmartMeter technology in July 2006. As a result, a presentation was made by a
PG&E representative at the February 8, 2011 meeting. No additional direction was
provided by the City Council at that time.
However, since that meeting, the City Council has received a number of comments from
the public regarding concerns about SmartMeters. In response, the Council
subsequently requested the item be placed on an agenda for consideration.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
The SmartMeter system collects electric usage data from homes and businesses and
transmits it to PG&E aria a wireless communication network. The goals of the program
are to allow for price structures that Crary by time of day to encourage off -peak usage of
electricity, provide automated meter reading for all customers, and to provide a platform
for innovative technologies, such as home energy automation, distributed generation
Agenda Item 8.g.
Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION of LETTER To THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION REGARDING THE SMARTMETER PROGRAM
AM
,JUNE 14 2011
PAGE 2
and storage, and plug -in- hybrid electric vehicles capability. PG&E has argued that it will
decrease energy costs by reducing meter reading costs and enabling consumers to
reduce consumption during peak load times.
Many public concerns have arisen about the meters. The most common one expressed
is that the meters can be harmful to residents' health duce to radio frequency graves sent
out by the meters. Like cell phones, these meters send out their information through
radio graves and many have argued than they are harmful to the health of users. A
recent report by the California Council of Science and Technology stated that these
meters produce much less radio graves then other more common household items like
microwaves and cell phones. Ho wever, a significant amount of conflicting information
and contention exists regarding this issue. It has also been argued that the meters
don't decrease costs for consumers duce to the cost of implementation and new peak
load rules. Others believe the meters are an invasion of privacy because they provide
o much information about people's energy consumption so quickly.
At the request of the CPUC, PG&E has proposed a new plan to the CPUC that allows
people to opt out of having a SmartMeter installed. For people that have had these
meters installed already, the radio function would be shun off. However, people who
decide to opt out of these meters will be charged fees depending on the household.
#rhey will have the choice to pay an upfront fee, which could be up to about $270 or ar
fined monthly fee of about $20. Customers are also provided the option of hawing the
meter relocated on the property to avoid potential health risks.
Input provided at prior Council meetings has most recently focused on a desire for the
opt out program to be offered at no cost to the customer. Therefore, a letter is attached
for Council's consideration that would request the CPUC to approve a PG&E program
than would provide customers the option to decline use of a SmartMeter at no additional
cost. A similar letter was recently approved by the City of Grover Beach City Council.
There have been some jurisdictions than have adopted moratoriums on SmartMeter
installation. However, staff has confirmed than the City does not have the authority to
implement a moratorium since PG&E is regulated by the CPUC.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
Authorize the Mayor to send the attached letter to the CPIJC urging approval of ar
PG&E SmartMeter opt out program at no add itional cost to the customer;
- Modify and approve the letter;
- Direct staff to prepare a moratorium for consideration;
- Do not take any action regarding the SmartMeter program;
- Request additional analysis; or
- Provide staff other direction.
Agenda Item 8.g.
Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF LETTER TO THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION F EGARC ING THE SI IARTMETER PROGRAM
.JUNE 14 2011
PAGE 3
ADVANTAGES
Requesting an opt out program a t no cost to the consumer will best design a program to
meet each resident's needs and address concerns that have been expressed by many
people.
DISADVANTAGES:
Smart Meter opt out provisions will impact the cost efficiencies of the SmartMeter
program by requiring some to be read manually, and costs created by those not wanting
to participate will be passed on to other customers if no fee is charged for the opt out.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
:
No environmental review is required by the City for this item.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, Tune 9, 2011 and on the
City's website on Friday, Tuna 10, 2011. One citizen has previously contacted the City
with concerns regarding the program, who was notified of the meeting. No additional
public input was received.
Attachments:
1. Letter to CPUC
Agenda Item 8.g.
Page 3
Z S A & CITY of
:'• a
w _ IT
e C L 1 F 0 R N J& �.
CITY OF
AR Royo GRAND
�
CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT 'I
June 1, 2011
Michael Peevey, President
California Public Utilities Commission
505 Van bless Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102
Dear Mr. Peevey:
O n behalf of the City of Arroyo Grande, I urge you to approve a Pacific Gas & Electric PG&E
option program that provides a clear and fair choice for the customer regarding SmartMeters.
Therefore, the City urges the Commission to approve a SmartMeter program for PG&E where
the customer has the option to decline participation at no additional cost.
It is the City's understanding that the California Public Utilities Commission authorized PG&E to
complete the installation of the SmartMeter Program throughout its territory. It is also the City's
understanding that PG&E recently submitted a proposal that would gyre residential customers
the option to have the radios in their SmartMeters turned off, but a fee would be charged to
exercise this option. This option would enable the meters to be manually read and was in
response to the Commission's request for a proposal from PG&E to deal with public concerns
regard the program.
Based on our revie w of the material and testimony presented, the City wants to communicate to
the Commission that our City Council supports an option program that provides a clear choice
for the customer regarding SmartMeters, but believes the customer should bear no cost for his
or her decision regarding participation in the option program. Additionally, the Council is of the
opinion than the customer should have the option of making an initial and informed decision
early in the process and prior to the installation of the SmartMeter, thus avoiding the actual
installation of the meter if participation is not desired by the customer.
Thank you for your consideration of our input. Please contact us if you have questions or
request additional information.
Sincerely,
T ony Ferrara
M ayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR • 300 East Branch Street • Arro Grande, California 93420
Phone. (805) 473-5400 • Fax. ( o ) 473-0386 • E -mail: agcity@arroyogrande. • W b it ~ nd . or
Page 4
INCORPORATED
JWLY 10, 1911
4 1FOR MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: C NSIDEF A'rI N OF CANCELLATION OF JULY 26, 2011 CITY
COUNCIL MEETING
DATE: JUNE 14 2011
RECOMMENDATION:
1 IMENRATION:
It is recommended the Council cancel the regularly scheduled Council meeting of July
26, 2011.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact.
BACKGROUND:
On August 1, 2007, the City Council considered the concept of establishing a policy of
designating a summer month for cancellation of Council meetings. The purpose was to
designate a month "dark" " fr m Council meetings in the summer so the City Council and
staff could coordinate their vacations during this period. Staff recommended the month
of July because it was the only full month in which school is not in session and it
includes the July 4 th holiday.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
The City Council wrests twice a month on the second and fourth Tuesdays. When the
Council established the policy of designating a summer month for cancellation,
concerns were expressed regarding the impact on other meeting agendas and potential
delays to important items. Therefore, it was suggested that one meeting be cancelled in
July as a compromise. The City Council concurred and a policy was established to
cancel the first meeting in July of each year.
At the request of one of the council members, it was changed to the second meeting in
July last year. Given labor negotiations and budget t issues, it is recommended that it
again be designated as the second meeting in July since the first meeting in July may
be necessary to finalize any items related to the Fiscal Year 2011 -12 budget.
t.
Agenda Item 8.h.
Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF CANCELLATION OF JULY 26 2011 C117Y COUNCIL
MEETING
JUNE 1 , 201'1
PAGE 2
Additionally, it will be difficult for Council or staff to plan vacations in early July this year
given preparations for the Centennial Celebration.
ALTERNATIVES:
ES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
1. Cancel the July 26, 2011 City Council Fleeting;
2. Cancel the July 12, 2011 City Council Fleeting;
3. Direct staff to marks changes to the current policy; or
4. Provide other direction t0 staff.
ADVANTAGES:
B cancelling the July 26, 2011 meeting, the Council will be able to meet on July 12,
2011 to approve any remaining items related to the FY 2011 -12 budget. Additionally, it
provides the City Council and staff an opportunity to pram a vacation during the summer
months without being absent from a meeting or being concerned about missing an item
that is important for their vote or input.
DISADVANTAGES.
Cancellation of a regular meeting may result in heavier arg ndas at the prior and
following meetings.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
No environmental review is required for this item.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, June 9, 2011 and on the
City's website on Friday, June 10, 2011.
Agenda Item 8.h.
Page 2
IN ORP RATED
"
MEMORANDUM
4K JULY , o, 191
1
To: CITY COUNCIL
ol�v
FROM: TERESA McCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT T DIRECTOR
BY: DEBBIE WEICHINGER, ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION of REQUEST FROM PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
KEEN AND SPERO II FOR CONSECUTIVE ABSENCES FROM
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
DATE: JUNE 1 , 2011
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council consent to three consecutive absences by Planning
Commissioners been and Sperow during the summer months.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no cost impact from this item.
BACKGROUND:
According to Municipal Code Section 2.18.060, three consecutive absences from regular
Planning Commission meetings constitute a resignation, unless the City Council consents
to such absences. Planning Commissioners Keen and Sperow have requested City
Council consent for absences from three consecutive, regular meetings.
ANALYSIS of ISSUES:
Requirements in the Municipal Code regarding Commission meeting absences are
designed to encourage steady attendance. However, Commissioners been and Sperow
have demonstrated an ongoing record of excellent attendance, are considered valued
members of the Planning Commission, and do not currently plan on absences beyond the
three that will be required for their planned vacation /commitments.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
• Consent to the absences,
• Do not consent to the absences, or
• Provide direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
Consenting to the absences will maintain valuable members of the Planning Commission
and avoid the potential need to fill vacancies.
Agenda Item 8.i.
Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FROM PLANNING COMMISSIONERS KEEN AND
SPEROW FOR CONSECUTIVE ABSENCES FROM PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETINGS
JUNE 1, 2011
PAGE
DISADVANTAGES:
No disadvantages have been identified.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
No environmental review is required for this item.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, June 9, 2011. The Agenda and
staff report were posted on the City's weite on Friday, June 10, 2011. No public
comments were received.
Agenda Item 8.i.
Page 2
A INCORPORATE
JULY 10, t9I1
.1440500 MEMORANDUM
IAA
To: CITY COUNCIL
l
SRO IAA• T EI ESA McCLISH oMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
Y: LES E ANS, PROJECT ENGINEER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION ATION of A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING
IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL MAP AG 04-.0123 LOCATED AT
1 PINE STREET CONSTRUCTED BY ROBERT DEL CAM PO
DATE: JUNE 14,2011
RECOMMENDATION:
ATIoN
It is recommended that the Council adopt a resolution accepting improvements for Parcel
Map AG 04-0123 located at 154 Pine Street constructed by Robert Del Campo.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There are minor financial impacts in that maintenance of these facilities will be funded
from City maintenance funds in future years. The Developer will provide a one -year
warranty bond insuring any defects that may appear in the improvements.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council approved Final Parcel Map AG 04-0123 on May 22, 200 7, subject to
conditions of approval. The conditions included requirements from the Community
Development and the former Building and Fire Parks, Recreation and Facilities, and
Public Works Departments. The project also required the installation of an underground
storm grater filtration system to be privately maintained.
ANALYSIS of ISSUES:
As a condition of the development, the applicant was required to provide the following
public improvements along the project frontage at 154 Pine Street;
0 Install approximately 120 lineal feet of curb and gutter
0 Install approximately 1,330 square feet of asphalt paving
The improvements have been completed and inspected.
Agenda Item 8.j.
Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS FOR
PARCEL MAP AG -0123 LOCATED AT 1 PINE STREET
JUNE '1 , 201 '1
PAGE 2
ALTERNATIVES:
The following arlt rnartiv s are provided for the Council? s consideration:
- Adopt the resolution accepting improvements.
-
Do not adopt the resolution accepting improvements.
- Provide other direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
TAGES:
By accepting the public improvements the City will have ownership of facilities in the
public right-of-way ray and within dedicated easements.
DISADVANTAGES:
VAl TAGES:
No disadvantages have been identified.
ENVIRONMENTAL TAL REVIEW:
No environmental review is required.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
MENTS:
The agenda for this meeting was posted at City Hall on Thursday, .dune 9, 2011 and the
agenda and staff report were posted on the City's website on Friday, .dune 10, 2011. As
of the writing of this staff report no public comment had been received.
Agenda Item 8.j.
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY of
ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS FOR
PARCEL MAP AG -0123 LOCATED AT 154 PINE STREET
CONSTRUCTED BY ROBERT DEL CAMPo
WHEREAS, the City Council approved Final Parcel harp AG 04 -0123 located
at 154 Pine Street on May 22, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the project was conditioned to offer ar dedication of easements
and to construct certain public improvements; and
WHEREAS, the developer has offered the easements and constructed the
improvements required by the conditions of approval for Parcel Map AG 04-
0123; and
WHEREAS, staff has inspected the improvements and finds they are
constructed in accordance with the approved plans for the project; and
WHEREAS, the developer has provided the 10% warranty security as
required by the conditions of approval, to be released at the conclusion of
the one -gear warranty period, provided the improvements are still in
satisfactory condition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED than the City Council of the City of
Arroyo Grande does hereby accept the following for Parcel Map AG 04-
01 23:
1. Street tree planting and maintenance easement shogun on Parcel Map
04-0123.
2. Public utility easement shogun on Parcel harp 04-0123.
3. Curb and gutter installation at 154 Pine Street.
4. Water services and devices installation.
On motion of Council Member Council Member , seconded by
Council Member : and by the following roll call vote, to grit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this dary of
2011.
Agenda Item 8.j.
Page 3
RESOLUTION CVO.
PACE
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETM RE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
T:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J* CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
Agenda Item 8.j.
Page 4
14t.Ro Y64�4
Z; E s
dp ' my
F
MEMORANDUM
To: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TERESA MccLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
BY. MIKE LINN, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION of ACCEPTANCE of THE WELL NO. 10, PHASE II
REHABILITATION PROJECT, PW 2010-
DATE: . JUNE 14,2011
RECOMMENDATI
It is recommended the City Council:
1. Accept the project improvements as constructed by R. Baker, Inc. in accordance
with the plans and specifications for the hell Igo. 10, Phase II Project;
2. Direct staff to file a Notice of Completion;
3 . Appropriate an additionaf $6,000 for the project budget from the Mater
Availability Fund;
4 . Approve a Second Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services with
Daring, Taylor & Associates in the amount of $2,150; and
5 . Authorize release of the retention, thirty -five days after the Notice of
Completion has been recorded, If no hen have been filed
FINANCIAL IMPACT;
The Capita( Improvement Budget included $655,626 for the entire project (Phase I and
Phase II The actual total Phase fl construction project cost, including authorized
construction changes, is $2 The total Phase 11 cost of the project, including all
design, construction, contract administration and testing costs is approximately
$336,789.
B ACKGROUND:
The well site is located on property at the southwest corner of Deer Trail Circle and
Equestrian Way. It was originally acquired in 19 as part of conditions of approval for
the pillage Glen Project. Due to the nature of well development and environmental
concerns, the project was split into two separate phases:
Agenda Item 8.k.
Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION of ACCEPTANCE of THE WELL No. 10, PHASE 11 PROJECT
PW 2010 -02
JUNE 1 , 20'1'1
PAGE
Phase I - Test Well Construction
Drilling and development of the well. Includes testing of the actual production
capacity of the well and the water quality to perform the design of the Phase II
project.
Phase 11- Site Work, Pump & Pipeline Installation
Construction of a filter back -flush pipeline, site grading, construction of a
masonry retaining wall and pump building, and the installation of treatment plant
equipment. Upon satisfactory completion and water quality testing, the
contractor shall perform a permanent tie -in from the well to the city's water
system.
On March 13, Zoo, council accepted the Well [o. 10, Phase I Project. On August 10,
2010, Council awarded a construction contract to perform the Well N. 10, Phase 11
Project to R. Baker, Inc. for $221, 30 and authorized the city Manager to approve
change orders in the amount of $22,153.
O September 14, 2004, council approved a consultant Services Agreement with
wring, Taylor & Associates in the amount of $73,950 for design and construction
services for Phase I and Phase II. On [November 10, 2009, council approved a Fiat
Amendment to the consultant Services Agreement for an additional $54,180 for
additional design and construction services.
ANALYSIS of ISSUES:
The contractor has completed the work in accordance with the approved plans and
specifications. Them are no outstanding issues.
During the construction of the Phase II Project, staff directed additional construction
support services from Daring, Taylor & Associates that have exceeded the approved
budget. Staff requests authorization of a Second Amendment in the amount of $2,150
to facilitate payment of the outstanding invoices.
ALTERNATIVES:
- rhe following alternatives are provided for the council's consideration:
- Approve staffs recommendations;
- Do not accept the project;
- Accept the project, but do not authorize release of retention; or
- Provide direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
The project is complete. Accepting the improvements will allow staff to close out the
project and return any remaining funds to the fund balance.
Agenda Item 8.k.
Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION of ACCEPTANCE of THE WELL CVO. 10, PHASE II PROJECT
PW 201 0.
JUNE 1 , 2011
PAGE 3
DISADVANTAGES:
The disadvantage of accepting the improvements would be if subsequent deficiencies in
the work are identified. However, the contract documents include a one -year warranty
period for the contractor to add any construction defects that may arise.
ENVIRONMENTAL R E I E':
On April 13, 2010, Council adopted a resolution for a Negative Mitigated Declaration in
accordance Frith CE QA guidelines.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION A ID COMMENTS:
MEI' TS:
The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, June 9, 2011. The Agenda
and report were posted on the City's webite on Friday, June 10, 2011. No public
comments were received.
Attachment:
1. Notice of Completion
2. GTA Second Amendment
Agenda Item 8.k.
Page 3
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TD:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
P.O. BOX 550
ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93421
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:
ATTACHMENT 'I
1. The undersigned is owner or agent of owner of the interest or estate or the property hereinafter described as stated below.
2. The FULL NAME of the DINER is: ' e r LA Grande
. The FULL ADDRESS of the OWNER is: 300 Fast Branch Street, Arrovo G rande, California 93420
4. The NATURE OF THE INTEREST or ESTATE of the undersigned is: in fee
THE FULL NAME and FULL ADDRESS of ALL PERSONS, if any, who hold such interest or estate with the undersigned as JOINT
TENANTS or as TENANTS IN C are:
NAMES ADDRESSES
Non
6. THE FULL NAMES and FULL ADDRESSES of the PREDECESSOR'S in interest of the undersigned if the property was transferred
subsequent to the commencement of the work of improvements er ents herein referred to:
NAMES ADDRESSES
Norge
7. All work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was COMPLETED May 20, 2011
8. The NAME OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR, if any, for such work of improvement is:
R. Baker n,
9. The street address of said property is: Norge
10. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is rn the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State
of California, and is described as follows: Well No. 10, Phase II Pre, 8010 -0
Verification of NON-INDIVIDUAL owner: I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that I am the Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities of the aforesaid interest or estate in the property described in the above notice; that
I have read the said notice, that I know and understand the contents thereof, and the facts stated therein are true and correct.
Teresa Mc li h, Community Development Director
June 15, 2011, Arroyo Grande, California
-- END OF DOCUMENT __
Agenda Item 8.k.
Page 4
ATTACHMENT
CONSULTANT SEF ICES AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT NO.
This Second Amendment "Second Amendment") to Consultant's Services Agreement
("CSA") by and between the CITY F ARROYO GRANDE and GAMING, TAYLOR
ASSOCIATES, is made and entered into this day of .June, 2011, based on
the following facts:
WHEREAS the parties entered into a CSA dated September 14 t 2004, for Well N o. 1
Design and Support Services; and
WHEREAS, EAS, the parties entered into a First Amendment to CSA dated November 10,
2003, for additional Design and Support services; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to modify the CSA as set forth herein.
NOW THEREFORE, E, for valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is
acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1. To include the additional services at the increased cost as specified in Exhibit
it
"A„ attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
2. Except as modified herein, all other terms and conditions set forth in the CSA,
as amended, shall remain unchanged.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, E F, CITY and CONSULTANT have executed this First
Amendment the day and year first above written.
GAFFING, TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES
B:
CITY OF ARROYO f GRANDE
B;
Steven Adams
City Manager
Agenda Item 8.k.
Page 5
PPP
Civil Engineering EXHIBIT A
Surveying
Project Development
�ASSOq��S
ENGINEERING SERVICES
RELATED TO PRODUCTION WELL # 10
PROJECT NO, PW- 2004 -07
June 9,, 2011
Michael Linn, P.E.
Assistant City Engineer
City of Arroyo Grande
P.O. Box 550
208 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande,, CA 93421
Dear Mr. Linn:
Daring, Taylor and Associates would like to request are additional $2,150-00 for
Construction Management Services spent to assist in the completion and
imp(emenfafion the Cify's Municipal hater Well #10. The amount is based on
actual time required and is being billed l at our published 2008 rate schedule. The
project is considered complete and there will be no further killing to the City.
W e appreciate the opportunity to work with you and your associates.
Ma ny th
R espectfully submitted,
GA I G, TAY ASS INC.
r
Danny Ja mes
Project Manager
A 0 - 245Vinal,da
141 South Elm Street • Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 • 805/489-1 • Fax 8051489 -6723
Agenda Item 81.k.
Page 6
4
4
4
1
1
1
r
r
r
i
r CORPIOgATE
• T ,0. 1 911 * MEMORANDUM
Vp
Fy \1�
a
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TERESA McCLISH, C IIAMUN11 Y DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
B: . BELLY HEFFERNN, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
PORTIONS OF TITLE 1 AND TITLE 1 F THE ARROYO GRAN
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF HATER
EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS; DEVELOPMENT CODE
AMENDMENT CASE NO. 11-002
DATE: JUNE 14 2011
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled:
"AID ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARR
GRANDE AMENDING PORTIONS OF TITLE 13 AND TITLE 16 OF THE
ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT
T
F WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS P)
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact is identified at this time. There will be additional staff time necessary
to review water efficient landscape plans and materials.
BACKGROUND:
In 2006, the State Legislature adopted the "Water Con rvation in Landscaping Act"
(Assembly Bill 1881), requiring the Department of Wat Resources DIIR to update
the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance WEL . The updated model
ordinance contains several new landscape and irrigation design requirements aimed at
reducing water consumption and waste in landscape irrigation. All local land use
agencies were required to adopt the model ordinance, or develop an ordinance that is at
least as ff ctiv by January 1, 2010. Because the City took no action on adopting a
local ordinance by the deadline, the updated MWELO went into effect as if it wer
officially adopted by the City. The proposed City Wat Efficient Landscape Ordinance
will be incorporated into a new Chapter 16.84 of Title 1 (Development Code) of the
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code. The City Council introduced the proposed Ordinance at
its meeting of May 24, 2011.
Agenda Item 8.1.
Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO, 11-002
.JUNE 14 2011
PAGE OF 3
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
The purpose of the State's model ordinance is to achieve increased landscape water
use efficiency in new development. If a City adopts its own local ordinance, it must be
at least as effective in achieving water use efficiency as the model ordinance.
The intent of AB 1881 is to require all cities in California to reduce the amount o water
used to irrigate landscaping; promote the values and benefits o water efficient
landscapes, as well as the need to invest water efficiently; establish a structure for
planning, designing, installing and managing water efficient landscapes; and set a
Maximum Applied Water Allowance as an upper limit.
The City o Arroyo Grande has an opportunity to adopt its own ordinance that would
better suit the community while still requiring a reduction in water use. It is anticipated
that the City's ordinance would be as effective in achieving water conservation as the
State's model, but be much simpler to comprehend and implement, mating it less
onerous on property owners and developers and less expensive to implement (reduce
costs for new homes and reduce the City's administrative costs as compared to the
State's requirements).
The detailed and costly plans, audits, and irrigation system requirements required by
the State's model ordinance would result in high costs and hardship for hmebuyer
and builders. In addition, the City does not currently, and would not in the future, have
sufficient staff to check and evaluate plans and audits for all new single family, multi -
family and non - residential projects.
Therefore, the City's draft ordinance requires detailed plans and irrigation audits only for
new and retrofitted landscapes that are one 1 acre or larger in size. instead, for
landscapes that are less than one 1 acre, the City's draft ordinance would simply limit
the amount of turf to ar percentage of the landscaped area, and require adherence to
certain landscape and irrigation system design standards including Breather -based
irrigation control systems. This will simplify landscape plan development and review,
limit the amount of high water use turf, and achieve significant reductions in overall
landscape water use.
ALTERNATIVES:
ES:
The following arlternartive are presented for City Council's consideration:
1. Adopt the ordinance, as proposed;
2. Modify and re- introduce the ordinance;
3. Do not adopt the ordinance; or
4. Provid other direction to staff.
Agenda Item 8.1.
Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE No, 11 -002
JUNE 149 2011
PAGE 3OF3
ADVANTAGES: I
Adopting the proposed ordinance would have the following advantages:
1. Bring the City into conformance with State requirements with a local ordinance
that befter suits the community;
2. Streamline the approval process; and
3. Minimize costs for applicants, homeowners and the City.
DISADVANTAGES:
There are no obvious disadvantages to adopting the proposed local ordinance as
opposed to the State's M EL .
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
:
Staff has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Q uality Act
(CEQA), the CEA Guidelines and the City of Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for
Implementation of CE A. Based on the review, staff has determined that the project is
exempt pursuant to CE QA Guidelines Section 15307.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
An Ordinance Summary was published in The Tribune on - rhursday, June 2 2011
pursuant to State laver. The Agenda was posted at City Hall on Thursday, June 9, 2011
and the Agenda and staff report were posted on the City's wet site on Friday, June 10,
2011. No public comments were received at the time of preparation of this staff report.
Agenda Item 8.1.
Page 3
ORDINANCE No,
AN ORDINANCE of THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY of ARROYO
o o
GRANDE AMENDING PORTIONS of TITLE 1 AND TITLE 1 of THE
ARROYO o o GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING To THE
ESTABLISHMENT of WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
WHEREAS, the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (Government Code
Sections 65591 et seq.) requires cities to adopt landscape water conservation ordinances
by January 1 1 2010; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with this law, the California Department of Water Resources
prepared a Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance WEL ; and
WHEREAS, all cities and counties had until January 1, 2010 to either adopt the State's
MWELO or their own local water efficient landscape ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City took no action on adopting its own local water efficient landscape
ordinance by the deadline and therefore the State's MWELO went into effect as if it were
officially adopted; and
WHEREAS, a draft local ordinance has been prepared and provides requirements that are
as effective at achieving water savings as the MWELO, reduces the costs for new homes
compared to the State's requirements, and reduces the City's administrative costs
compared to the State's MWELO approach; and
WHEREAS, this Development Code Amendment would include a new Chapter 16.84,
Water Efficient Landscape Regulations, and amends portions of Title 13 and Title 16 to
refer to this new Chapter; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on May 3, 2011, the Planning Commission considered the facts
and analysis, as presented in the staff report prepared for this project, conducted a public
hearing to obtain public testimony, and recommended that the City Council adopt the
proposed ordinance; and
WHEREAS, based on consideration of information received at its meeting of May 24,
2011, the City Council considered the facts and analysis as presented in the staff report
prepared for this project, and conducted a public hearing to obtain public testimony.
NOW, THEREFORE, F E, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande,
as follows:
SECTION 1: The Council finds that:
a. It is necessary to amend Title 16 of the Municipal Code in order to comply with the
Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (Government Code Sections
65591 et seq.;
b. The proposed code amendment would meet the City's policy to promote the
conservation and efficient use of water and to prevent waste of this valuable
resource;
Agenda Item 8.1.
Page 4
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE
C. Consistent with California Laver, the purpose of this ordinance is to promote the
values and benefits of landscapes while recognizing the need to invest water and
other resources as efficiently as possible;
d. Consistent with California Laver, the purpose o f this ordinance is to establish a
structure for planning, designing, installing, maintaining, and managing water
efficient landscapes in new construction and rehabilitated projects.
e. The proposed ordinance is estimated to be at least as effective as the State's
Model Water Efficient Landscape and Irrigation Ordinance as a result of the turf
limitations and limitations on overhead spray irrigation for all projects including
single family residential.
SECTION : The above recitals and findings are true and correct.
SECTION : Section 13.05.010 of Chapter 13.0 Water Conservation) of the Arroyo
Grande Municipal Code is hereby amended, as follows:
13.05. 010 - Water conservation measures established.
Mandatory water conservation measures are hereby established as set forth in
this Chapter. Please refer to Chapter 16.84, Water Efficient Landscape
Requirements, for rules and regulations regarding landscape and irrigation,
including limitations on the percentage of turf lawn that can be placed in
landscape areas.
SECTION : Subsection 1 .1 .030.D.3 b i of Chapter 16.16 (Specific Plan Adoption
and Amendments) of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code is hereby amended, as follows
1 .1 .030.D.3 b ix
Identification of any project phasing, if applicable. All major infrastructure,
including parks and landscaping adjacent to roadways or major elements of the
specific plan, shall be installed in the fiat phase of development. Please refer to
Chapter 16.84, Water Efficient Landscape Requirements, , for rules and
regulations regarding landscape and irrigation, including limitations on the
percentage of turf lawn that can be placed in landscape areas. All parrs and
roadways required to service each phase shall be completed prior to occupancy.
The responsibility of the developer, the city, and any other agencies shall be
discussed in the phasing section of the document. Any and all agreements that
require city participation, developer contribution, or construction of facilities shall
be discussed.
SECTION 5: Subsections 16.32.050.8.4. and 16.32.050.B.5. of Chapter 16.32
(Residential Districts) of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code are hereby amended, as
fo I rovers :
Agenda Item 8.1.
Page 5
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE
16.32-050. .4
Developments f five o more dwelling units in the SF, MF, MFA and MFVH
districts shall be required to pr front and street side yard landscaping
consisting of predominantly drought resistant plant materials, except for
necessary walks, drives and fences. Please refer to Chapter 16.84, hater
Efficient Landscape Requirements, uirements, for rules and regulations regarding landscape
and irrigation, including limitations on the percentage of turf lawn that can be
placed in landscape areas.
1.32.0..
In the MF, MFA and MHP districts, a minimum of thirty -five 3 percent of the site
area shall be landscaped, consisting of predominantly drought resistant plant
materials, and/or provided with an adequate underground irrigation system. Please
refer to Chapter 16-84, hater Efficient Landscape Requirements, uirements, for rules and
regulations regarding landscape and irrigation, including limitations on the
percentage of turf /lawn that can be placed In landscape areas. The required
landscaping shall include required setback areas and may include outdoor
recreation areas.
SECTION 6: Subsection 16.36.020.L.5. cf Chapter 16.36 ( Commercial and Mixed Use
Districts) of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code is hereby amended, as follows:
1.3.2.L.
In all mixed use or commercial districts, required front and street side building
setback areas shall be landscaped. The landscaping shall consist predominantly
of plant materials except for necessary walks and drives. A minimum
landscaped area five feet in depth shall be provided between the property line
and the off- street parking area, with additional landscaped area between the
parking area and the building, unless otherwise approved by minor use permit.
Please refer to Chapter 16.84, hater Efficient Landscape Req uirements, for
rules and regulations regarding landscape and irrigation, including limitations on
the percentage of turf /lawn that can be placed in landscape areas.
SECTION : Subsections 16-44.010.D.2(d) and 1 6.44.030. . f of Chapter 16.44 (Special
Districts) of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, are hereby amended, as follows:
16.44. 010. D. 2 d
Landscaping plans, in detail, excepting typical single - family lot residential areas
of ten thousand 10,000} square and over. The street tree planting requirements
of the city may be waived; provided, that the development plan or covenants
provide adequate alternatives to the satisfaction of the planning commission and
city council. Please refer to Chapter 16.84, hater Efficient Landscape
Requirements, for rules and regulations regarding landscape and irrigation,
including limitations on the percentage of turf /lawn that can be placed in
landscape areas.
Agenda Item 8.1.
Page 6
O RDINANCE lCE N .
PAGE
16.
unifying landscape design which is cleanly identified and included as pant of the
specific plan is required and shall enhance the building design, enhance public
views and spaces and provide buffers and transitions. Landscaping shall provide
for s access and for shade to facilitate energy c Where
appropriate, landscape design features such as color accents, specimen tree
planting and decorative harrdscarpe shall be provided to enhance roadway
intersections, driveway approaches, pedestrian walkways, and building entries.
A discussion of plant materials, minimum sizes, nu mber of plants, placement and
anticipated landscape budget for the project is required. Please refer to Chapter
16.84,, Water Efficient Landscape Requirements, for rules and regulations
regarding landscape and irrigation, including limitations on the percentage of
turf /lawn that can be planed in landscape areas.
SECTION 8: Section 16-56-130 of Chapter 1 6.56 (Parking and Loading Requirements) of
the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code is hereby amended, as follows:
16.56.1 30 — Landscaping for off- street parking facilities.
Off- street parking arrears containing five o more parking spaces sharp be subject
to the following landscaping requirements. Prior to the issuance of ar building
permit, a landscape plan shall be submitted and appr by the direct of
recreation and maintenance services. The plan shall show the location, size,
variety of plantings, water suppler and similar designations. Please refer t o
Chapter 16.84, eater Efficient Landscape Requirements, for rules and
regulations regarding landscape and irrigation, including limitations on the
percentage of turf that can be planed in landscape arrears.
SECTION : Chapter 16.84 entitled 'Water Efficient Landscape Requirements" is hereby
added to Title 16 o f the Arroyo Gra nde M u n ici par l Code as set forth in Exhibit A, attached
hereto and incorporated herein.
SECTION 10 if any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause of
this Ordinance o any pant thereof is for any reason held to be unlawful, such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any pant thereof. The
City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection,
subdivision, paragraph, sentence, o clause thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause be declared
unconstitutional.
SECTION 11: A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in ar newspaper
published and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five days prior to the
City Council meeting at which the proposed O rdinance is to be adopted. A certified
copy of the full tent of the proposed O rdinance shall be posted in the office of the City
Clerk. Within fifteen 1 damns after adoption of the Ordinance, the summary with the
names of those City Council Members voting for and against the Ordinance shall be
Agenda Item 8.1.
Page 7
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE
published again, and the City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such
adopted Ordinance.
SECTION 12: This Ordinance s hall take effect thirty 3 days after its adoption.
On motion by Council Me ber
by the foilo ing roll call vote, to wit
, seconded by Council Member
, and
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this day of , 2011.
Agenda Item 8.1.
Page 8
ORDINANCE N.
PAGE
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST.
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERIC
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARM E L, CITY ATTORNEY
Agenda Item 8.1.
Page 9
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE
Exhibit A
Chapter 16.8
WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
Sections-.
16.84.010 Purpose
16.84.020 Definitions
1 6.84.030 Applicability
16.84.040 Turf Limitations for New Construction and Rehabilitated Landscapes
16.84.050 Landscape and Irdgati n System Design Requirements
16.84 - 01 Purpose.
Consistent with Calif mia State Laver, it is the purpose of this Chapter to: a promote the
values and benefits of landscapes while recognizing the need to use water resources as
efficiently as possible; h establish a structure for planning, designing, installing,
maintaining, and managing water efficient landscapes in new construction and
rehabilitated projects.
1 6.84.020 Definitions.
A. Purpose and Intent.
The purpose of this section is to ensure precision in interpretation of this Chapter. The
meaning and construction of words and phrases defined in this Section applies throughout
this Chapter, except where the content of such words or phrases clearly indicates a
different meaning or construction.
B. Definitions.
"Certificate of completion" means the document required under Section 16.84.050.B.4.
"Landscape architect" means a person who holds a license to practice landscape
architecture in the State of California as described in the business and Professionals
Code, §561 5.
"Landscaped area 1; means all the planting areas, turf areas, and water features in a
landscape design plan subject to the Maximum Applied Water Allowance calculation.
- rhe landscape area does not include footprints of buildings or structures, sidewalks,
driveways,, parking lots, decks, patios, gravel or store walks, other pervious or non-
pervious hard cape , and other non - irrigated areas designated for non - development
( e.g., open spaces and existing native vegetation).
Agenda Item 8.1.
Page 10
ORDINANCE NO.
PACE 8
=`Landscape contractor' means a person licensed by the state of California to construct,
maintain, repair, install, or subcontract the development of landscape systems.
"Landscape Documentation Package (LDP)" means the documents required under
Section 16.84.050.B.3.
"Landscape project means total area o f landscape in a project as defined in "landscape
area" for the purposes o f this Chapter.
"Mulch" means any organ material such as leaves, bark a nd straw or in organic mineral
materials such as rocks, gravel, and decomposed granite left loose and applied to the
soil surface for the beneficial purposes of reducing evaporation, regulating soil
temperature, decreasing erosion, preventing the freezing of roots, and suppressing
geed. The decomposition of organic mulches also serves as soil amendments.
"Multi-family residential" means two or more attached residential units. Landscape
areas for multiple detached units on one parcel will be considered single family units for
the purposes of this Chapter.
"New construction means, for the purposes of this Chapter, a new building with a
landscape or other new landscape, such as a park, playground or greenbelt without an
associated building.
"Permit" means an authorizing document issued by local agencies for new construction
or rehabilitated landscapes.
"Pervious" means any surface or material that allows the passage of water through the
material and into the underlying soil.
"Project applicant" means the individual or entity submitting a Landscape
Documentation Package required under Section 16.84.050.83, to request a permit, plan
check, architectural review, or design review from the local agency. A project applicant
may be the property owner or his or her designee.
"Rehabilitated landscape" means ay re- landscaping project that requires a permit, plan
check, architectural revie w, or design review.
"Runoff' means water that is not absorbed by the soil or landscape to which it is applied
and flows from the landscape area. For example, runoff may result from water that is
applied at too great a rate (application rate exceeds infiltration rate) or when there is a
slope.
"Single family residential means one home on one lot, or multiple ltiple detached units on
one lot (not attached) .
Agenda Item 8.1.
Page 11
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE
"Soil moisture sending device or "soil moisture sensor" means a device that measures
the amount of water in the soil. The device may also suspend or initiate an irrigation
event.
"Turf" means a ground cover surface of mowed grass. Annual bluegrass, Kentucky
bluegrass, Perennial ryegra, Red fescue, and Tall fescue are cool - season grasses.
Bermudagrass, Kikuyugrass, Seashore Pa palum, St. Augustinegrass, Zoysiagrass,
and Buffalo grass are warm- season grasses.
"Valve" means a device used to control the flog of water in the irrigation system.
Mater conserving plant species' means a plant species identified as having a lover plant
factor.
16.84.030 Applicability.
The requirements within this Chapter apply to new construction and rehabilitated
landscapes for commercial, industrial and residential projects that are subject to the
development review process and/or a building permit.
A. Development Review iew Process
In conjunction with the submittal of a project for development review (specific plan
tentative tract map, tentative parcel ,nap, planned unit development, conditional use
permit, architectural review, design review), conceptual landscape plans shall be
provided that demonstrate that the design of the landscaping complies with the
standards within this Chapter. These plans shall be reviewed by City staff during
the development review process.
B. Building Permit
In conjunction with the submittal of a project for building plan check, final landscape
and irrigation plans, in compliance with this Chapter, shall be submitted with the
project. After plan check review by the Community Development Department for
compliance with this Chapter, a building Permit may be issued. Fees consistent
with the fees established for building plan check will be applied for staff revie w of
the landscape and irrigation plan.
C. Certificate of Completion
Once the landscape and irrigation plans and necessary documentation has been
provided in substantial compliance with the Landscape Development Package
(LDP), a Certificate of Completion may be issued. A Certificate of Completion shall
be issued prior to the project receiving a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building
Division.
Agenda Item 8.1.
Page 12
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE '1
D. Landscape and Irrigation Installation
For all projects, the landscape and irrigation shall be installed per the approved
plans prior to the issuance of ar Certificate of Occupancy or "final" of the
building /project. For phased development projects, all landscape improvements,
including creek bank and setback area restoration and enhancement and trail
construction, shall be installed in the first phase of development.
E. Landscape Bond
For projects that have a landscape area of one 1 acre or greater and rewire
LDP ar bond may be posted than would allow ar building to be fnarled and ar
Certificate of Occupancy to be issued prior to the site landscape and irrigation
being completed. The bond shall be based on an estimate for labor and materials
to complete the landscape and irrigation project per the approved plains, plus an
additional 25-percent. The applicant shall fill out the Landscape Bond Security
Agreement along with the necessary bonding information, to the Community
development Department for review and approval t determine the specific bond
a ! • unt•
For projects than have a landscape area of less than one 1 acre, which does not
require the LDP, the Community Development Director or his o her designee may
approve a bond to be posted that would allow ar building to be finarled and a
Certificate of Occupancy to be issued prior to the landscape and irrigation
being completed.
16.84.040 Turf Limitations for New Construction and Rehabilitated Landscapes.
A. All new construction projects (residential, commercial, industrial) shall comply with
the following limitations
1 Turf areas less than eight feet in width in any direction are prohibited,
unless subsurface irrigation is used and maximum turf areas do not exceed
the percentages outlined in this Chapter.
2. Turf shall be prohibited within the public right -of -wary, including parkways.
3. Development shall be graded to maximize the on-site distribution of runoff to
planted areas.
4 For non -turf arrears, drip irrigation methods and low waiter use plaints are
recom mended.
5 Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ns CC& s shall not rewire turf
landscaping nor have the effect of prohibiting low -water use landscaping and
shall include by reference and/or attachment a copy of Chapter 16-84.
B. Commercial and Industrial projects:
1 . The area planted in turf grass and irrigated with spray irrigation shall be
limited to 10 percent o f the d eve l pment's landscaped area.
2. Exceptions: This section does not apply to Cemeteries, plant collections as
part of botanical gardens and arboretums open to the public, City parks, and
school sports fields.
Agenda Item 8.1.
Page 13
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 11
C. Single Family Residences:
es:
1. Turf grass installed with spray irrigation in residential front yards shall be
limited to 25 percent of the landscaped area.
2. The common arrears in residential subdivisions planted in turf (including
landscape and lighting district acres ) shall be limited to 10 percent of the
landscaped area (excluding active play acres such as ball fields,
playgrounds, and picnic rears.
D. Nadel Homes;
1. Turf grass shall be prohibited in the front yards of model homes, and shall be
limited to bg percent for the landscaped area in back and side yards.
2. Model homes shall be used to educate future home owners about water
efficient landscape and irrigation techniques. Education features for Model
homes shall include:
(a) The installation of interpretive landscape information signs that
describe the principles of water efficient landscapes including
features such as hyd ro ones, appropriate irrigation equipment and
other techniques that contribute to the overall water efficient irrigation
theme.
(b) Information shall be provided to new home o wners that include
techniques on designing, installing, managing and maintaining water
efficient landscapes.
E. Multi-family Residential l Projects:
1. Turf grass sharp be limited to 20 percent of the total landscaped area. The
20 percent limitation shall be exclusive of areas designed as active play
surfaces e.g. bail fields, playgrounds, picnic arrears).
F. Rehabilitated ted Landscapes:
1. Rehabilitated landscapes shawl comply with the turf limitations outlined in
Sections -E above, as appropriate to the property type.
1 .84.050 Landscape and Irrigation System Design and Information Requirements.
A. All project landscaping and irrigation plans /designs shall comply with the following
standards:
1. Rain sensors, either integral or auxiliary, that suspend irrigation during and
after rainfall events, shall be required on all irrigation control systems.
2. Prohibit turf on slopes greater than 20 percent where the toe of the slope is
adjacent to an impermeable hard scarpe where 20 percent means one foot
of vertical elevation change for every fire feet of horizontal length rise
divided by run times one hundred).
3. Water features shall use recirculating water systems.
4. Prohibit overheard spray irrigation within 24 inches of non-permeable
surfaces such as, but not limited to, concrete sidewalks s and driveways.
Subsurface irrigation may be used as long as other requirements of this
Chapter are met. Allowable irrigation within the setback from non-
Agenda Item 8.1.
Page 14
ORDINANCE AI CE Igo.
PAGE 1
permeable le surfaces may include drip, drip line, or other low -flow non-spray
type of systems. The setback area may be planted or non - planted. The
surfacing of the setback may be mulch, gravel, cobie , or other porous
material. These restrictions may be modified if the landscape area is
adjacent to permeable surfacing, and no runoff occurs or the adjacent non-
permeable surface drains entirely to landscaped areas.
5. Irrigation systems shall be designed and constructed to achieve a minimum
efficiency of 71 percent.
6. Apply minimum two inch 2" lager of m on all exposed soil surface of
planting areas.
7. The architectural guidelines and Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions of
common interest developments shall not have the effect of prohibiting the
use of low - grater use plants or requiring turf grass in landscaped areas.
B. Projects that have a landscape area equal to or greater than one acre shall submit
the following information:
Dote that the landscape area for new residential subdivisions will be calculated on
an individual lot basis as each lot develops, not for the total of landscape areas
prior to s ubdivision. Therefore, a residential subdivision generally will not require
an LDP for individual lot landscaping. However, if there are common areas, or
areas within a Landscape and Lighting District that have landscape areas of one
acre or greater, there will be a requirement for an LDP for those areas to be
completed prior to the recordation of the final map.
1. All of the items identified in Section A above.
2. Weather -based irrigation controllers, soil moisture -based controllers, or other
self - adjusting irrigation controllers shall be required for irrigation scheduling.
3. The following documents and plans shall be submitted prior to the issuance
of a building Permit for the associated project (refer to the Landscape
Irrigation Design Guide for specific forms and criteria):
0 Project Information
0 Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet
0 Soil Management Report
0 Landscape Design Plan
0 Irrigation Design Plan
0 Grading Design Plan
4. The following documents and plans shall be completed and the landscape
and irrigation project shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the associated project (refer to the Landscape & Irrigation
Design Guide for specific forms and criteria):
0 Irrigation Scheduling
0 Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance Schedule
0 Irrigation Audit, Irrigation Surrey and Irrigation Water Use Analysis
0 irrigation Efficiency
0 Stor water Management
Agenda Item 8.1.
Page 15
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item 8.1.
Page 16
RO
INCORPORATED
MEMORANDUM
JULY 10, 19tt
T: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TER ESA McCLISH, COMMUNITY MUNIT DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
BY: LES E ANS, PROJECT ENGINEER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING OPEN SPACE,
TRAILS, PUBLIC ACCESS AND SLOPES FOR TRACT 2236'
DATE: JUNE 14,2011
RECOMMENDATION:
MMENRATION:
It is recommended the Council adopt a Resolution accepting offers of dedication and
improvements for open space, trails, public access and slopes for Tract 2236.
FUNDING:
There is no fiscal impact at this tune. Maintenance of these facilities is funded from the
Grace Lane Assessment District approved by the City Council on November 28, 2006.
DISCUSSION:
On November 28, 2006, the City Council approved Final Tract Map 2236. The subject
tract is located north and west of Rodeo Drive, southwest of Grace Bible Church, south
of Rancho Grande Park, and southeast of Avenida de Diamante. The map subdivided
2 9.5 acres into nineteen (1 9) residential parcels, including four affordable restricted
parcels, ranging in size from 6,037 square feet to 50 square feet. In addition there
is an open space parcel of 15.74 acres and are open space /drainage parcel of 16,903
square feet.
Also on November 28, 2006, the City Council established the Grace Lane Assessment
District to fund the maintenance of the open space, trails, slopes and the street searing
the affordable units. The Assessment District has been collecting annual assessments
of $9,334.95 since 200 7.
On September 14, 2010 the City Council accepted easements and completed public
improvements as follows:
■ Street paving, curb, gutter and sidewalk,
■ Public utilities,
■ eater and sewer,
■ Safety rail and fencing
Agenda Item 8.m.
Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING OPEN SPACE, TRAILS,
PUBLIC ACCESS AND SLOPES FOR TRACT 2236
JANE 14 2011
PAGE
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
At the time of approval of the Final Map, the City "rejected without prejudice"
easements and public improvements pending the completion of the project. The public
streets, sidewalks and utilities were accepted on September 14, 2010. The remaining
easements and improvements are all related to trails, slopes and open space. Staff
finds them ready to accept at this tune.
ALTERNATIVES-
The following alt rnativ s are provided for the Council's consideration:
0 Approve staffs recommendation;
0 Do not approve staffs recommendation;
0 Modify staff s recommendation as appropriate and approve; o
0 Provide other d irection t staff.
ADVANTAGES:
The public will have legal access to maintained trails and open space. The City will be
able to ensure that the areas are maintained in a safe condition.
DISADVANTAGES.
Maintenance of large open space areas and trails is difficult and can be costly.
Although an Assessment District has been established to bear the cost of this
maintenance, there is some risk that the funds will not be adequate at some point in the
future.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
:
No environmental review is required for this item per CE QA Guidelines Section
15 061 b ) (3).
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall o Thursday, June g 2011. The Agenda
and report were posted on the City's website on Friday, June 10, 2011. No public
comments were received as of the publishing of this report.
Agenda Item 8.m.
Page 2
RESOLUTION I O,
A RESOLUTION of THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING OPEN SPACE,
TRAILS, PUBLIC ACCESS AND SLOPES FOR TRACT
2236 CONSTRUCTED BY MANGANO HOMES
WHEREAS, EAS, the City Council approved Final Tract Map 2236 on November 28, 200 6;
and
WHEREAS, EAS, the project was conditioned to complete certain public improvements
pursuant to Resolution No. 3732 adopted by the City Council on ,January 13, Zoo; and
WHEREAS, EAS, the developer has constructed the improvements and offered the
easements required by the conditions of approval for Tract 2236; and
WHEREAS, EAS, staff has inspected the improvements and finds they are constructed in
accordance with the approved plans for the project.
Noll', THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of A rroyo
Grande does hereby accept the following offers of dedication and improvements for
Tract 2236:
1. Trail and Public Trail Easement shorn on the Final Tract Map.
2. Blanket Open Space Easement Lot B and slope easements as shorn can the
Final Tract flap.
3. All slope easements and landscape maintenance easements included in the
Grace Lane Assessment District approved by the City Council on November 28,
Zoo.
On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member
and by the following roll call Grote, to grit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of 2011.
Agenda Item 8.m.
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
TONY FER Af A, MAYOR
ATTEST*
KELLY I ETMO E, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
T:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J, CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
Agenda Item 8.m.
Page 4
RRO
INCORPORATE D
JMV ID. 191 w
MEMORANDUM
T: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TERESA MCCLISH, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 11-003;
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING REGULATIONS REGARDING
TEMPORARY SIGNS; CITYWIDE
DATE: JUNE 14 2011
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council introduce an Ordinance of the City of Arroyo
Grande amending portions of Chapter 16.60 of Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande
Municipal Code regarding temporary banners and signs.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
No financial impact is projected,
BACKGROUND:
In July 2009, at the Council's request, staff presented an analysis and the Council
discussed regulations regarding temporary banners and signs. There were
conflicting opinions regarding implementation of more stringent requirements versus
more lenient requirements given the difficult economic circumstances that many
small businesses are experiencing. As a result staff was directed to obtain feedback
from the Chamber of Commerce. since then, staff has met on multiple occasions
with the Chamber of Commerce Legislative Committee regarding this issue and they
conducted a surrey of their membership.
At the April 12, 2011 meeting, City Council considered staff's recommendations and
directed staff to draft an Ordinance for Planning Commission and City Council
consideration to implement the proposed changes. The recommendations were
based largely on the Chamber of Commerce input, as well as discussions with all
staff involved in the code enforcement process.
Temporary signs are currently allowed no more than 30 days prior to an event and no
more than 60 calendar days per year. Sandwich board signs are not allowed as
temporary signs, but there has been a significant proliferation of them in the public
right -of -way. There are conflicting provisions regarding flags, pennants, balloons and
Agenda Item 9.a.
Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 11 -003
JUNE 14, 2011
PAGE
sail and wing signs. They are treated as exempt signs in one section of the Municipal
Code, but require a temporary use permit in another.
At one tune, staff proactively enforced temporary sign violations. Enforcement has
been more sporad in recent months given staff vacancies and consideration of
changes to the regulations.
Off -site real estate and garage sale signs are not currently allowed in the public right -
of -way, except for provisions allowing three off -site advertising signs for newly
approved subdivisions. The Police Department has recently assigned staff to remove
garage sale signs and excessive real estate signs from the public right -of -way during
weekend days.
Neighborhood Services procedures recently approved by the City Council specified
the following guidelines for enforcement:
• Enforcement of violations in response to complaints;
• Proactive enforcement of illegal construction and secondary units, temporary
banners, and other issues identified as a priority; and
• Proactive enforcement of flagrant code violations.
The Architectural Review Committee (AFDC) reviewed the proposed changes on May
2 2011 and the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed changes on May 3,
2011. Both the AFDC and PC discussed signage concerns that have come before
them during project review in recent years, including obstruction of City right -of -way,
untidiness of window signage, disorderly banner placement, proliferation of wing
signs and balloons, and visual clutter of signage in general and the potential
detriment on the business community. Also discussed was the potential hardship on
businesses and the desire to find a balance that would allow businesses flexibility for
temporary signage as well as promote temporary signs that are neat in their
appearance and placement. Additionally, time periods for temporary signage was
discussed, and it was suggested that temporary signs are more noticeable by
providing for a shorter duration of time period i.e. signs are most noticeable when
they are first put up or when they change and less noticeable if they remain in place
for months at a time).
The City Council reviewed the proposed changes on May 24, 2011. After
considerable discussion, and by a unanimous vote, the item was continued so that
staff could include the following in the proposed ordinance:
1. A go day grace period for sandwich board signs. This allows businesses with
sandwich board signs to seek revision of their sign program to include a
sandwich board sign with no fee. The grace period is reflected in the recitals
Agenda Item 9.a.
Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT "1 "1 -003
JUNE 14 2011
PAGE 3
of the proposed ordinance since it simply describes the enforcement strategy
of the new code provision.
2. Criteria under the proposed regulations that sets forth approval of sandwich
board signs in the sign program., which include:
a. Cannot block doorway, access, or Americans with Disabilities access
b. Must be constructed from wood or plastic and have a professional
appearance
c. Only one is allowed per business
d. It cannot be located on any public right - -era
3. Two options for the ordinance — one that maintains current regulations
regarding hand geld signs and one that prohibits them from private property.
4. The Council directed staff to reprise Table 16.60.040-A and bring it back later in
the year to clarify permanent signage requirements.
The proposed Ordinance reflects the recommended amendments of both the ARC
and Planning Commission, as well as the City Council provisions outlined above.
Additionally, staff met with representatives of the Arroyo Grande Chamber of
Commerce to discuss the proposed granges to the regulations. Although serious
concerns were expressed about the sign regulations in general due to the difficult
economic climate, the proposed grace period for portable signs and registration
process for temporary signs were supported. Additionally, potential incentives were
discussed to encourage businesses to register their temporary signs such as
acknowledging a business who registers a sign on the City's segment on Channel 20.
ANALYSIS SIS of ISSUES:
The goals of the recommendations were to establish regulations that
0 Are more clear;
Balance the need to be "business friendly" with maintaining an attractive
business environment;
Are more feasible to enforce; and then
Enforce them on a more p roactive and consistent basis.
The recommendations discussed below are reflected in the draft Ordinance. The
original recommendations presented by staff would have allowed sail and wing signs
for up to three 3 days each month and banners up to for up to 60-days each per
year.
Window Siq-n,s
The proposed Ordinance includes the following provisions regarding window signs;
Agenda Item 9.a.
Page 3
CITY COUNCIL
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT '1'1 -003
JUNE '14 2011
PAGE 4
Shall not exceed 20% of window area or twenty -four 24 squ are-feet,
whichever is less per each street-facing window.
A number of conflicts have been Identified in the Code regarding window signs —
when they are considered accessory, exempt, tem rarrily permitted or permanently
permitted. Permanent window signage up to 10% of total window area is exempt per
Section 16.60.030.E (Accessory Signs) and does not count toward total sign area
allowed per sign permit. Otherwise, window signage between 1 % arnd 20% i
allowed permanently if approved as part of a sign permit. Temporary window signs
can be planed without a permit if the total area does not exceed 20 %. Finally,
Section 16.60.050. B. specifies that up to 20% of window area is allowed for
permanent signs limited to hours o operation, address and emergency information.
After review, staff has also identified difficulties in how to enforce the time limit
proposed by the Planning Commission that are important to bring to Council's
attention. Since window signs typically involve multiple small temporary signs and
posters that are displayed at varying times, often due to the timing of events and
activities, there is no rarcticarl wary to monitor start and ending times necessary in
order to enforce the -day time limit. Therefore, staff recommends amending
Sections 16.60.050. A., 16.60.050. B. and 16.60.030. E., which together would
exempt window signs up to 20% of the window area or twenty -four 24 square feet
(whichever is less) from sign permit requirements.
Banners
The proposed Ordinance includes the following provisions regarding banners:
Shall not exceed twenty -four 24 square-feet.
Shall be professionally printed on vinyl or plastic.
Shall be firmly attached to the building, below the roofline.
Shall not be displayed for more than thirty days in any ninety g day
period (this is less than the 60-day time limit recommended by staff).
Pennants. Harpoons and Flan
The proposed Ordinance includes the following provisions regarding pennants,
balloons and flags:
Shall not contain any tent or other advertising message.
Shall not be displayed for more than three days in any thirty day
period.
Prohibited Temporary Sins
The proposed O rdinance includes the following provisions recommended by the
Planning Commission and Architectural Review Committee (AFDC) regarding
prohibited tem signs:
Agenda Item 9.a.
Page 4
CITY COUNCIL
CIL
DEVELOPMENT T CODE AMENDMENT 11-003
JUNE 14 2011
PAGE 5
0 Signs held o supported by a person.
0 Inflatable (including Ilylar ) oo fan- signs.
0 Sail or gyring signs.
0 Sandwich board signs, unless otherwise permitted under the provisions of
Section 16.60.040 of this Chapter.
Portable Signs ("Sandwich Board Sin }'
The proposed Ordinance includes the following additional provisions to be added in
Section 16. for a portable sign that is approved as part of a sign permit:
0 Cannot block doorway, access, or Americans with Disabilities access
0 Must be constructed from wood or plastic and have a professional appearance
0 Only one is allowed per business
0 It cannot be located on any public right -of -gray
0 Portable signs that are proposed for a store or restaurant located in shopping
centers must be located immed lately adjacent to that business.
Portable signs are not proposed to be a llowed as temporary signage due to the more
permanent nature these signs and their placement. The proposed Ordinance simply
continues to allover these signs as part of the (permanent) sign permit process.
Portable signs are allowed in most commercial areas of the City.
Grace Period for Portable Si -qn
The Council directed staff to implement a 90-day enforcement grace period
applicable for portable signs (sandwich board signs.) Since there are many portable
signs that have not been permitted, the grace period allows business o wners to
amend their sign permits, with no fees imposed, in order for staff to review proposed
portable sign placement with the new criteria proposed in this ordinance. Businesses
with portable signs that meet the criteria will be notified of the grace period. Staff will
continue to enforce provisions regarding portable signs that do not meet the criteria.
Sail or Vying Signs
Sail or wing signs are currently prohibited unless approved through the Temporary
Use Permit process upon recommendation by the Architectural Review Committer
(ARC) per Section 16.60.060 0. Both the ARC and Planning Commission have
recommended that Section 16.60.060 0. be amended to prohibit sail or wing signs.
This recommendation is reflected in the proposed Ordinance.
Handheld Signs
Handheld signs are currently allowed on private property only
regulations approved by the Council in 2007 (Section 1 6.60.060 V.).
has been actively enforced by the Police Department, which
in response to
The provision
has effectively
Agenda Item 9.a.
Page 5
CITY COUNCIL
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT '1'1 -003
JUNE 14 2011
PAGE 6
eliminated the proliferation of handheld signs on street corners — the purpose of
establishing the regulations at that time.
Both the AFDC and Planning Commission recommend amending Section 1 . g.g g V.
to prohibit all commercial handheld signs, as refl ected in Section 4 of the proposed
Ordinance. The primary concern identified with this recommendation is that it would
preclude non - profit groups from displaying signs for fundraisers frequently held at the
car wash at Elm Street and East Grand Avenue if enforced consistently. An
alternative proposed by staff is to adopt the proposed Ordinance, striping Section 4,
which would leave Section 16.60.060 V. as is and continue to allover handheld signs
o n private property.
Public Education and Enforcement
If the proposed Ordinance is approved, it is proposed that a public is ed ucati n effort
initially be implemented, which would include a letter from the Police Department to
every b usiness address. The Neighborhood Services Technician will patrol the
commercial areas o n a periodic basis and maintain a log of temporary signs that
have been registered. Business owners will be contacted and provided a violation
letter for banners not removed after 30 days. They will b e requested to correct the
violation within 72 hours, an accelerated time frame for voluntary compliance when
compared to other types of code enforcement violations since there should be little
work required to remove a temporary sign. Staff is also establishing a standardized
citation process to expedite and compel compliance when voluntary means are
unsuccessful.
Sign Feistratin for Temporary Signs
In order to provide businesses an opportunity to comply with the reprised sign
ordinance and clarify current requirements, staff recommends implementing a
registration process for temporary banners. This will consist of a web-based
registrar, as well as a registration by phone o in person. Banners and all other
allured temporary signage can b registered so that time periods can b tracked or
verified if a complaint is received.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for City Council consideration:
1. Introduce the proposed Ordinance: or
2. Introduce the proposed Ordinance, striping Section 4 regarding handheld
signs;
3. Modify the proposed Ordinance to include the recommendation of the
Planning Commission regarding temporary window signs; or
4. Modify as appropriate and introduce the proposed Ordinance;
5. Do not intr the proposed Ordinance; o
6. Provide direction to staff.
Agenda Item 9.a.
Page 6
CITY COUNCIL
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 11-003
JUNE '1 , 201'1
PAGE 7
ADVANTAGES:
The Ordinance will establish a process that allows staff to monitor the display of
temporary signs and clearly define the number, type and duration that temporary
signs may legally be displayed. Stricter sign regulations will improve the appearance
of the City's commercial arrears by minimizing visual clutter. The grace period
proposed to amend sign permits to include portable "sandwich beard" signs should
allow for a n educational opportunity for the revised sign code, as well as more
consistency in enforcement for these types o f signs.
DISADVANTAGES:
The Ordinance will initially require additional staff time to conduct public education
and abate illegal temporary signs, particularly concerning time limits placed on
temporary window signs. Enforcement o f the proposed provisions, particularly those
related to time limits for temporary signs, prohibition of sandwich board signs (unless
permitted in accordance with Municipal Code Section 16.60.040) and prohibition of
sail or wing signs will likely result in complaints from business owners. The
alternative to prohibit handheld signs will restrict community youth groups than
promote charity car washes a t Elm Street and East Grand Avenue, which will inhibit
fundraising and may negatively impact community relations. The proposed provisions
only partially reflect the input provided by the Chamber of Commerce, which may
negatively impact the ability to seek voluntary compliance. Additionally, time limits on
window signs will be difficult to enforce.
ENVIRONMENTAL EI TAL F E IIE ' :
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CE QA) A Guidelines, staff
has determined that the draft Ordinance is categorically exempt per Section 15308 of
the Guidelines (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment).
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION A D COMMENTS:
A notice of public hearing was published in the Tribune on Friday, ,June 3, 2011
pursuant to State law. The agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday,
June g, 2011 and on the City's website on Friday, June 10, 2011.
Agenda Item 9.a.
Page 7
ORDINANCE N.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING
PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 16-60 OF TITLE 1 F THE ARR
GRANDE M ICIPAL CODE REGARDING TEMPORARY BANNERS
AND SIGNS
WHEREAS, the purpose of the city's sign regulations is to protect the character quality
of life, and economic health of the city by maintaining the suitability and appropriateness
o f allo signs in a manner that benefits the public and minimizing visual clutter; and
WHEREAS, the city has determined that use of temporary signs are suitable and
appropriate to advertise business activities under certain limitations and requirements;
a nd
WHEREAS, temporary signs are exempted from the administrative sign permit,
administrative sign program and planned sign program requirements subject to certain
limitations and requirements; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of all testimony and all relevant evidence, the city
Council has determined that the following Development code Amendment findings can
be made in an affirmative manner:
A. The proposed changes to chapter 16.60 will help allow temporary signs that are
limited to those appropriate and suitable to protect the character, quality of life
and economic health of the city.
B, The proposed changes to chapter 16.60 will not adversely affect the public
health, safety, and welfare.
C. The proposed changes to chapter 16.60 are consistent with the purpose and
intent of Title 16, satisfies the intent of Chapter 16-60 of the Municipal code and
provides for internal consistency.
D. As disclosed in the Negative Declaration, the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed changes to Chapter 16.60 are insignificant.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande as follows:
SECTION 1 : The above recitals and findings are true and correct and incorporated
herein by this reference.
SECTION : A rr o yo Grande Municipal code Subsection 16.60.050. A. is hereby
repealed and replaced in its entirety as follows:
Agenda Item 9.a.
Page 8
i i i t i+
i, i< As o ff" i
i # i W OYAKIIII #�
M i
i i i< i< i A6
** * i ■ i
w
Ahl i*
s w
i
W r r
•
f �
W
MY- i< i i X w j - -N
A i 1 ■ LW71���
IIIIIIIII &I i
Agenda Item 9.a.
Page 8
O RDINANCE NO.
PAGE
F WEN
f s — a N t _ —
# w -II w j! -I
WAL 1111 i i i t i + i * * a i i # • i
f w I E M 0 1111 a 111 L f I L�
4 it # a f
: : W do! : s it MI
i
IN # it i i iF i
• ■' * # i i i i +• ft 9.m f t
w w w
; a f i III A i i ■ I
� M s
A. Temporary banners, decorations and searchlights in accordance with the
followinci provisions:
1. Banners
a. Shall not exceed twenty -four 2) square -feet.
b. Shall be pr r)rinted on grin I or plasti
C . Shall be firmly attached to the building, below the roofline.
d. Shall be registered with the Community Development Department
p ri o r to d is la
e. Shall not be dismal ed for more than thirty a days in any ninety
(90) day peri
2. Pennants, Balloons and Flags
a. Shall not contain anv text o other advertising message.
b. Shall not be displayed for more than three 3 dams in any thirty PO)
day period.
3. Searchlights
a. Shall be directed upwards into the shy and not at any point o n land.
b. Shall not be dls la ed for more than three days in any thi (3
day peri
Section 3: Arr Grande Municipal Code Subsection 16.60.050. B. is hereby
amended as follows:
B. Permanent window signs ri ,� , ,� �� G arn to n n A nann .
;�
infix m:atic%n provided- that all f the following are met:
1 . The total area o f such signs does not exceed twenty 2 percent o f the
window area.
2 . The sign is no greater than twee -four square -feet.
Agenda Item 9.a.
Page 9
O RDINANCE NO.
PAGE 3
3. Sin a is limited to street-facing windows.
Section : Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Subsection 16.60.060 0. is hereby amended
as follows
0. # * . iF i i i i • i * i
%WON # # 11 f f r f f f i s r
th # ## +w +` •i i. i i i s ## i + i i A i� i� + i t i * i it
* ii ii
1 i�J tlli l# iS 1 i# ! #
Section : Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Subsection 16.60.060 V. is hereby amended
as follow
V . J II I II I Ier iQl signs., T 1 1! MA 1 11. l�" "C -"i!' ht- Cif- 1A1 =V -- he ld o r
supported by a person.
Section 6: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Subsection 16.60-030.E is hereby amended
as follows:
E. Accessory Signs. Signs that advertise products sold or services provided o the
premises, such as beer signs or an automated teller machine ATM signs, shall
be considered accessory signs and do not count towards the permitted signage
listed in Tablel 6.60.040 -A if they are restricted to ten 1 percent or less of the
or wall area on which it is placed. Accessory signs between ten 1 and
terry 2 percent f the wall area can be allowed with a
recommendation from the architectural review committee, however areas greater
than ten 1 percent shall be considered toward total permitted sign area. The
design, number, location and size o accessory signs shall be reviewed and
approved as part of an administrative sign permit, administrative sign program, o
planned sign program by the architectural review committee if the following
findings are made:
1. The proposed general design, arrangement, texture, colors, and lighting
placement are consistent with the purposes and regulations of this chapter
and any applicable design guidelines; and
2. The appropriateness of the proposed accessory signs are compatible with
other signs and other structures on the premises and contiguous area and
do not exceed twenty percent of the wall area on which
they are placed.
Section : Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Subsection 16.6 is hereby added a
fo
G. Portable Sin "Sandwich Board Signs") that are allowed D er Section 16.60.04
Table 16.60.040. A., rust meet the following criteria:
Agenda Item 9.a.
Page 10
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE
1. Portable Si cannot block doorwav, access or Americans with
Disabilities access.
2. Portable Signs must be constructed from wood or plastic and have a
professional appearance.
3. Only one portable si n is allowed oer business.
4. Portable signs cannot be located on any public right-of-
5. Portable signs that arersed for a store or restaurant located in
shopping centers must be located immediately adiacent to than business.
Section : If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause of
this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unlawful, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof.
The City Council hereby declares than it would have passed each section, subsection,
subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one
or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause be declared
unconstitutional.
Section 9: Upon adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall file a Notice of
Exemption.
Section 10: A summary o f this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published
and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at leant five b days prior to the City Council
meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full
tent of the proposed Ordinance shark be posted in the office of the City Clerk. Within
fifteen (115) days after adoption of the Ordinance, the su rn mary with the names of those
City Council Members voting for and against the Ordinance shall be published again,
and the City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full tent of such adopted Ordinance.
Section 11: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty 3 days from the dame of adoption.
On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the
following roll call vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing Ordinance was adopted this day of June, 2011.
Agenda Item 9.a.
Page 11
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE
TONY FE IAAFAA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY 11 ETMO E, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
Agenda Item 9.a.
Page 12
e" �F
A. INCORPORATED
.JULY 10, 1911
F
M EMORANDU M
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF SOUTH SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
SANITATION DISTRICT PRESENTATION
DATE: .JUNE 14 2011
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the Council receive the presentation from representatives of the
South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District and communicate concerns and
questions.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact of the presentation.
BACKGROUND:
Mayor Ferrara is currently the City's representative o n the South San Luis Obispo
County Sanitation District's ("District") Board of Directors. Council Member Guthrie i s
the alternate. A Notice of Violation was received by the District from the State Water
Resources urce Control Board, which was issued after the District filed a report concerning
the flood event of December 19, 2010. The Council previously received a presentation
from the District on the flood event and the resulting spill. A Grand .Jury Rep was
also released o n .June 3, 2011, which identifies conflict o f interest and other issues. A
copy of the Grand .Jury report is attached.
The Council has received public comment on several occasions regarding these and
other concerns. As a result, Mayor Ferrara previously recommended District
representatives provide a presentation to update the Council on these issues.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District representatives, Administrator and
District Counsel will provide a presentation at the ,June 14, 2011 meeting on the current
status of District activities. The District has responded to the Notice of V i o lati o n
received from the State Water Resources urce Control Board with documentation on May 31,
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION of SOUTH COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PRESENTATION
JUNE 149 2011
PAGE 2
2011 and a copy of the response letter is attached for the Council's information. As a
result of the State Board's review of the Plant Superintendent's previous interview,
personnel changes to operations staff` have also been made. wrhe District Administrator
will discuss the current staffing changes that have been implemented. As to the Grand
Jury report, District Counsel will discuss the steps that the District has taken to address
their concerns and what the District is doing to respond.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
1. Receive the presentation;
2. Provide input to the City's Board representative and alternate regarding Board
activities; or
3. Provide other direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
The presentation provides an opportunity for the Council to receive detailed information
regarding the issues that have occurred, to ask questions and seek clarification, and to
communicate concerns and input.
DISADVANTAGES
No disadvantages regarding the presentation have been identified.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
No environmental review is required for this item.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, June g, 2011 and on the
City's website on Friday, dune 1 , 2011.
Attachments:
1. June 3, 2011 Grand Jury Report
2. May 31, 2011 Technical Report Responding to Notice of Violation
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 2
ATTACHMENT 1
THE SOUTH SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
SANITATION DISTRICT
INTRODUCTION
The Grand Jury initiated this investigation as the result of several citizen complaints amd
numerous published articles and editorials in local newspapers alleging mismanagement and
otter problems at the South Sari Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (District).
During its investigation, the Grand Juror learned that the State water Resources Board (Water
Board) was also investigating some o f the allegations. The Grand Jury subsequently learned that
the water Board had issued various reprimands to the District and was actively engaged in
monitoring District remedial actions. Other allegations concerning the District were the subject
o f ongoing legal proceedings. The Grand Juror decided not to pursue further the allegations that
were already being investi o l in o ther f
However, the Grand Jury's initial review o the multiple allegations concerning the District
revealed other concerns that warranted further investigation. Three major issues emerged:
1. The District Administrator has a conflict of interest in his dual, simultaneous roles as
administrator of the District's faci lities and operations, an as the m ajority o wner of
company, wallas Group, that su a major share of contracted services t o the
District without benefit of co mpetitive bidding for such services.
20 10-2011 San Luis Obispo C ounty Gran Jury
P age � Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 3
2. The District's Board of Directors (Board) has failed to recognize the existence of this
conflict of interest, which has resulted in a further failure of the Board to take action
necessary either to eliminate or properly mitigate the conflict.
3. The contract under which the District Administrator and his majority-owned company
perform saris for the District is 25 years old. During this period, the contract has
never been evaluated, re-bid or modified in any way, except for approved increases in the
hourly billing rates that can be charged by the District Administrator and his employees
for services provided to the District.
The Grand Jury also learned that the Board had hired an investigator to review some of the
allegations of misconduct. The investigator's report indicated he had found the allegations to be
false. The Board viewed this as evidence that District operations were quite satisfactory. The
Grand Jury's review f this same investigation determined it had been ineptly performed and the
investigator's conclusions were not substantiated.
The Grand Jury concludes that the Board and the District are exposed to a number of financial,
legal and public trust issues. These issues are a result of the District Administrator's conflict of
interest, the Board's failure to recognize and eliminate or mitigate the conflict, and the Board's
failure to evaluate, re-bid id r m dif r its contract wiffi the District Administrator for more than
years.
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board consider hiring independent management and that it
evaluate and compare and evaluate organizational and operational alternatives for the District. In
addition, as long as the District Administrator's conflict of interest continues to exist, the Grand
Jury recommends that the Board demand sufficient budget and cost detail to ll it to mitigate
this conflict. The Grand Jury further recommends that an independent audit of the District's
accounts and records be performed by the County of Saxe Luis bisp 's Audit Division.
2010-2011 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Page
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 4
This report describes the Grand Jury investigation, its conclusions and findings, and includes
TecommcndationsfOTactions the Board should take or consider.
Addendum to Introduction:
This report is the result of a long and detailed Grand Jury investigation and analysis of the
South Scan Luis Obispo County Sanitation District. The investigation and report were completed
in April, 2011. While the report was being edited and reviewed for final publication, the Grand
Jury received several unsolicited letters from District representatives describing various changes
that have been or will be made in District policies, procedures andlor operations. The letters
indicate that changes are being made as a result of District ".se - examination "after
considering the issues raised and questions asked by the Grand Jury during its investigation.
The Grand Jury acknowledges the receipt of these letters but will not otherwise describe or
respond to them in this report. The letters appear to be an attempt by the District to influence rn or
modify the Grand Jury report before it is published. Such an attempt reflects .s a
misunderstanding of the Grand Jury process. State law requires orpermits the Grand. ury to
investigate the operations ofgovernmental agencies. It is then authorized to issue reports that
include the findings ridings of its investigations and such recommendations concerning the operations of
the governmental agency as the Grand Jury deems proper and f a . Tf and when the Grand Jury
publishes its report, State law then mandates the manner and form in which the governmental
agency is required to respond to any findings ridings are recommendations of the Grand Jury.
This report .sets forth the findings findings and recommendations ions of the Grand Jury concerning the
operations of the District as they were being conducted during the time of the Grand Jury
investigation. The required responses of the District to these ridings and recommendations care
the proper place for the District to describe what, if ny changes it has made or will make to its
policies, procedures or operations in response to the Grand Jury findings findings and recommendations.
The public will have to decide the validity of these Grand Jury findings an recorr menda ions
and the adequacy of the District's required responses.
2010 -2011 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Page
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .... I
TABLE of CONTENTS ................................................................. ...
PROCEDURE ii...i......... ii. ii.i...i• ...............■......................,.......... 6
BACKGROUND ■.. ii■. 6
Formation of the District ................................................................... ..............................■ 6
District Board of Directors: Structure and Composition .............. ............................... 6
NARRATIVE s.. s........... r ..........................ss.....................,...... s...... ...............................
Current operation and Structure of the District ................................ ............................... g
Roleof the Board ................................................................. ............................... g
Delegation of Management to the District Administrator ...... ............................... g
District Administrator Contract Terms and Scope ................ ............................... g
Additional Roles Assigned to the District Administrators ........ ............................'11
Functions Performed by Wallace Group Employee .............. ............................'11
Functions Performed by District operations Employees ....... .............................'1
Use of Competitive Bidding .................................................. .................L.......... #.1
Issues Identified in Current Operations .................................... ...........f..........,........
1
Board Dependence on the District Administrative for Information .....................
1
Di tdct Administrator Conflict of interest .... LL..a#...a... ..L..a L. L. L.. LL.. LLL....LLL.........■
1
Inadequacy of the Budget/Payment Process to Ensure the
Conflict of Interest is Mitigated ■#■■■■....... L ......................■. ■ ■........... ... ......
1
The 0 & M Part of the Budget ..... Lt ...................................... ..............................■
16
The Capital Projects Part of the Budget ............................. ...............................
16
What Happens When the Board Asks for More Budget Detail? .... . ....... . ... ........
19
The Budget/Payment Process inadequacies in Summary ........................
g
Consequences of the Failure of the Board to Recognize
2010-2011 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Page
Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 6
theConflict of Interest ...............w.. ............................... .....................
Inadequacy of the Investigation to Determine the Reasonableness nablene f
Wallace Charges .............................................. ............................... 21
Responsibility to Audit the District's Accounts and Records 2
CONCLUSIONS ..... ■ ■ i ...F * .. r i . i i ■ i i ... i i ........... i ........ i ................. * M . i .. i ..................... ■ .... ■ * * * ... ■
FINDINGS ■..... *
RECOMMENDATIONS ................* ................... 7
REQUIREDRESPONSES ■...... iii ..........................................a.. ii... ... ■...........................
ATTACHMENTS .................. .............F................. iii.i..#.i.#.....#■ f...■ .i ■.......... ■........ ■ ■....... g
2010-2011 Sari Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Page
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 7
PROCEDURE
The Grand Jury obtained information for this report from the following sources:
• Interviews with the three members of the District Board of Directors
• Interview with the District Administrator
• Tour of the District wastewater processing plant
• Attendance at District Board meetings
• Extensive documentation provided by the District Board and the District Administrator.
• The redacted Thomas Consulting investigation report, together with documents
referenced in the report that were provided separately to the Grand Jury by the District
legal counsel
• The District's audited financial statements
• Documents obtained from the State water Resources Board concerning District
operations
• Documents obtained from the County of San Luis Obispo Office of the Auditor-
Controller
BACKGROUND
Formation of the District
The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors formed the District in 1963. The District
provides wastewater treatment and disposal t aprimately 9, residents f Arroyo r
Grover Beach and Oceano. The plant facilities consist of a wastewater processing plant located
in Oceano, t lines that carry wastewater from the three communities to the processing essin plant,
and a 4 -foot pipe that discharges the processed wastewater into the ocean.
District Board o Directors: Structure and Composition
A Board of Directors oversees District operations. The current Board consists of three members,
one from each city or community the District serves: Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach and Oceano.
2010-2011 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Page
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 8
Each Director is an elected official of his or her respective city or community. Directors are
appointed under state law governing sanitation districts; they are not selected because they have
any special knowledge or qualifications regarding operation of a county sanitation district or
wastewater plant. Over the past 10 years, there have been 15 different directors on the Board,
of whom served only 1 year or less.
District Board duties are not the primary activity for any of the current Board members. In
addition to their City Council or Community Services District activities, Board members have
other public and private organization memberships, duties, and/or employment.
2010-2011 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Page
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 9
NARRATIVE
Current Operation and Structure of the District
The table below graphically summarizes the services performed to Operate and manage the
District. The remainder Of this section Of the report describes in more detail the various roles and
services that are required to Operate and manage the District. It further explains who executes
the roles and provides the services, and describes how those services are provided to the District.
Summary Table Of Services Performed to Operate and Manage the District 1
SERVICE
PERFORMED BY
Set Policies
Board of Directors; Advised by District Administrator
Goals & Objectives
Board Of Directors; Advised by District Administrator
Set Customer Rates
Board Of Directors; Adv. by Distr. Admin. & Consultant
Develop Budget
District Administrator
Approve Budget & Amendments
Board of Directors; Advised by District Administrator
Approve Expenditures
Board of Directors; Advised by District Administrator
Engineering Services
District Administrator Wallace Group
Administration
District Administrator/ Wallace Group
Contract Administration
District Administrator/ Wallace Group
Maintain Budget & Expense Records
District Administrator/ Wallace Group
Chief Finance Officer
District Administrator
Treasurer
District Administrator
r
Operation of Wastewater Facility
District Employees/ District Administrator Supervises
Major Engineering Projects/ Studies
Formally Bid, Sometimes Assigned to Wallace Group
Capital Project Construction
Bid out- Some Small Projects to District Empipyce
1 Sourccs for this chart include the following: SSLOCSD Fiscal Year Budget 2010 -2011, Table of Organization,
p.1 l and Exhibit A, p. 97; SSLOCSD Sewer S ystem Management Plan, adopted July 15, 2009; SSLOCSD Bylaws
approved March 2., 2011
2010 -2011 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Page
Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 10
Role of the Board
The Bylaws of the District explain the responsibilities of the Board of Directors: "'The primary
responsibility of the Board of Directors is the formulation and evaluation of policy. Routine
ratters concerning the operational aspects of the District are to be delegated to professional staff
members of the District."' trict."' In addition, the Board is responsible for approval of the budget and
expenditures in conformity with the budget.
The Board meets twice a month. Until recently, the Board meeting duration was an hour or less.
Board members are paid 100 per meeting.
Board members are almost totally dependent on the District Administrator for the day-to-day
management decisions, engineering, planning, budgeting, and administration of the District. A
the Bylaws state, there are no expectations that the Board members have the time or expertise to
become involved in daily management of District trict operations. The District Administrator
provides management and is the conduit through which the Board receives most District
information.
Delegation of Management to the District Administrator
District Administrator Contract Terms and Scope
The District contracts for the services of a District Administrator who is the Chief Executive
Officer of the District. Twenty -five gears ago, John L. Wallace signed a 3-page contract with the
District to provide these services (Attachment 1). According to an interview, the only revisions
to this contract during the last 25 years have been periodic increases in the hourly rates charged
by Mr. Wallace and employees of The Wallace Croup for services provided to the District.
There is no available evidence indicating that the structure, cost or effectiveness of this contract
has ever been reevaluated or reconsidered by the Board o r a qualified independent consultant.
The contract is between the District and Mr. Wallace as an individual. The stated purpose of the
contract is to engage the services of Mr. Wallace to act as the District Admini tra►t r. Mr.
Wallace has also been appointed to serve the District in other capacities, including District
2010-2011 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Page
Agenda Item II.a.
Page I I
Engineer, District Finance Officer and Treasurer. Where are n o written agreements between him
and the District for his services in any of these other capacities.
The services provided by Mr. Wallace under the contract are very broad and include the
ll in :
General administration and management of the District
• General supervision and direction of District staff` (District staff is not defined in the
Agreement but presumably includes all employees of the District)
• General engineering advice to and on behalf of the District staff`
ign, d ument preparation, contract admini trati n, and i
Des for District
projects including, but not limited to, water, sever, drainage, and wastewater treatment
projects
While the word "design" is also not defined in the contract, it appears to 'include engineering for
the defined utility and public works projects. The breadth of the contract essentially gives Mr.
Wallace the right to provide all administration, management and engineering services required
by the District. The only services he does not provide are the services required actually to
operate the District's wastewater treatment plant. District employees who are managed and
supervised by Mr. Wallace provide these services.
The contract authorizes Mr. Wallace to engage the services of his company's employees as "H
MAY DEEM PROPER' [emphasis added]. Absent any other limitation, this provision gives
Mr. Wallace unlimited discretion to assign the performance of any or all of the services under the
contract to his own company employees. In addition, Mr. Wallace is authorized to charge the
cost of these services at hourly rates specified in the contract and its subsequent amendments.
The only contract provision that limits or regulates the number of hours that may be charged is
the statement, "Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall he at the direction and request
of the District's Board of Directors." The contract has no term and remains in effect `ect ind finit ly
2 SSLOCSD Bylaws approved March 2, 2011, p. ; Fiscal Year Budget 2010-2011, Exhibit A, p. 97
2010-2011 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jur
Page 1
Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 12
unless o until terminated by either party. Either party with thirty clays prior written notice
to the other party can terminate the contract.
Additional boles assigned to the Distract Administrator
In addition to the ngineen*ng and administrative services described in the contract, the District
Bylaws describe other responsibilities of the District Administrator:
"The District Administrator shall be responsible for all of the fllwin:
• The implementation of the policies established by the Board o f Directors for the
operation of the District
• The appointment, supervision, discipline, and dismissal of the District's employees,
consistent with the District's Personnel Policies as tal li h d by the Board of Directors
• The Supervision of the District"s facilities and services
• The supervision of the District' finances"
As part of his administrative duties, the District Admini trat r provides the Board with an annual
budget, subject to its approval, as well as the subsequent budget and expenditure reports that the
Board reviews and approves.
Functions rf rmed by Wallace Group Employees
The District Administrator assigns many of the engineenhig and administration services for
which he is responsible to Wallace Group employees. To illustrate the financial significance of
these assignments, information provided to the Grand Jury by the District Administrator
indicates that the Wallace Group charged the District $836,000 for its services in Fiscal Year
2009-20 10. The personnel expenses for the District's nine employees in this same period totalled
2 1) 004 . Therefore, approximately one -half of the District's total labor costs in FY 2009 -2 10
were either paid to Mr. Wallace or resulted from his assignment of services to Wallace Group
employees.
3 SSLOCSD Bylaws approved lurch 2, 2011, p.
4 Fiscal Year Budget 20 10-2 011, ac teal personnel expenses for 2 009-20 10, p. 21
2010-2011 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
'age 11
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 13
Functions Performed by District Operations Employees
Nine District employees handle the day-to-day wastewater plant operations and maintenance and
may also undertake smaller projects that otherwise would have to be completed by an outside
vendor or contractor. This employee group is under the general supervision of the District
Administrator; it also includes a Plant Superintendent responsible for supervision of the other
eight employees.
Use of Competitive Biddin
Construction work is competitively bid. If a job or project requires specialized expertise that the
Wallace Group does not have, it is always put out to bid. Large -scale studies or projects, for
example, are normally competitively bid.
There is no dollar limit policy for what is assigned to the Wallace group and what is
competitively bid. For example, the District Administrator assigned much of the engineering
and administration work for a recent centrifuge project to the Wallace Group rather than putting
it out for competitive bid. As of November 2010, Wallace Group costs for this uncompleted
project were $336,000 Attachment 2).
Issues Identified in Current Operations
Board Dependence on the District Administrator for Information
The Board is dependent on the District Administrator for the information it reviews in order to
fulfill its oversight role and make policy decisions. He gathers and provides the critical budget
and cost information to the Board. The Board, however, has limited knowledge or ability to
independently verify or evaluate information from this single source.
This situation is a matter of concern because independent information is particularly important
when the primary source of information has a conflict of interest. The District Administrator
manages, controls or assigns virtually every service performed for the District and is the primary
5 SSLOCSD Fiscal Year Budget 2010 -2011, Table of Or p. 11
2010-2011 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Page 12.
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 14
source of information for the Board about these activities. This dependency is increased by the
fact that the Wallace Group performs so much of the District's wort. The District
Administrator, who is the majority over of the Wallace Group, then evaluates this wort. In
addition, when outside consultants are used, the District Administrator guides the Board in
determining who is hired.
Under the Brown Act, Board members can only discuss amongst themselves District activities at
Board meetings. Therefore, by observing the interaction between the Board members and the
District Administrator at these meetings, one can observe the extent to which the Board depends
on the District Administrator for information.
District Administrator Conflict of Interest
A conflict of interest exists when are individual is in a position to exploit a professional capacity
for his or her personal or corporate benefit. Someone with a conflict of interest may deny that a
conflict exists because he or she did not act improperly. However, the conflict still exists
because the conflict of roles still exists. Such a conflict should either be eliminated or mitigated.
Mitigation requires that internal controls be in place to ensure that the conflict does not have a
detrimental impact on the entity affected by the conflict.
The District Administrator has a conflict of interest between his personal. financial interest, as the
majority owner of the Wallace Group to whom he assigns much of the District's work, and his
duty as the District Administrator to control and minimize the administrative and engineering
costs of the District. However, neither the Board's current Chairman nor its legal counsel
recognizes that a conflict of interest exists. In addition, they do not recognize that the District
Administrator does not provide the Board with the detailed information required in order to
control or mitigate the conflict of interest. As a result, the Board has neither the inclination nor
the information needed to control or manage the conflict of interest.
2010-2011 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Page 1
Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 15
The statements that follow underscore the publicly stated positions of the District Board
Chairman and the Di s tri t s legal counsel. The Board minutes of January 5, 2 011 include the
following:
"Chairman Nicholls stated that while he could appreciate that there were those who might
believe there is are appearance of conflict of interest, he had not seen any conflict himself
with the way the contract is currently written."
In a letter dated july 22, 2010, responding to a public information request, the District's legal
counsel stated:
"... the District Administrator has very limited ability to self-direct work to Wall Group.
Rather, any work that is going to be performed by Wallace Group as a part of any function at
the District is approved by the Board of Directors and they are kept apprised of [sic] each
meeting in regards to the costs associated with each project."
The only safeguard in the contract that could mitigate the conflict of interest is the provision that
services will only be provided by Mr. Wallace or his employees at the "direction and request" of
the Board. However, the Board's budget and payment controIs are effective mitigation of
conflict of interest only if: 1 the Board fully understands what Wallace Group costs are in the
budget; the Board determines that these costs are reasonable for the work required; and the
Board determines that amounts paid to the Wallace Group conform to the budget. Such controls
are ineffective o do not exist. The financial protection that was intended to be provided for the
District by requiring the Board to "direct and request"' Wallace Group services is illusory.
The facts show that the Board is not being provided with the information necessary to mitigate
the Wallace conflict of interest and that the Board is not focused on managing conflict of
interest. The facts also demonstrate that the District Administrator has considerable ability to
44 1f= direct work to Wallace Group," despite the statement of District legal counsel to the
contrary.
2010-2011 Sari Luis Obispo County Grand .fury
Page 1
Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 16
Inadequacy of the Budget /Payment Process to Ensure the Conflict of Interest is Mitigated
The Board's approval of the budget and the invoice payments made in accordance with the
budget are the internal controls by which the Board could manage the Wallace Group costs and
mitigate the conflict of interest. The Grand Jury has concluded that the intended internal controls
are riot effective because the Board has nether the interest nor the information necessary to carry
out this responsibility.
The budget is composed of two parts: an operations and maintenance (O &M) expense budget
and a capital projects (Major Budget Items) budget comprised of major facilities replacement
and expansion projects. The cost control reporting problems in these budgets are as follows:
&M budget section: Cumulative monthly and annual cost reports do not specify
Wallace Group costs in each account
• Capital project budget sections: Costs for multi -year capital projects are not presented in
a moray that allows the Board to sec the c umulative Wallace Group costs for each project.
Pr*or year Wallace Group costs simply drop from sight
Pen'odic budget reviews and adjustment requests provide little if any information about
Wallace Group cost overa within any account or capital project
to a normal situation, where the District Administrator does not assign District work to his own
company, the budget detail provided to the Board is probably adequate, with the exception of the
lack f prior cost information for multi -year projects. In this situation, however, it is crucial that
the cost accounting fully documents the cumulative charges billed by the District Administrator
and his company to each account by month, fiscal year and capital project or expense account.
This is the information that matters for the Board i t ensure that the Wallace conflict of interest is
not financially detrimental to the District. To illustrate this, the following discussion will
examine the budget presentation and payment of Wallace Group costs for the most recently
completed FY 2009-2010.
2010 -2011 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Page 1
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 17
The table below is based upon information provided to the grand Jury by the District
Administrator and indicates actual FY 2009 - 20 10 Wallace Group charges:
Administration expense account
S 1 69,000 (original budget 150,000)
Engineering expense account
109,000 (original budget $90,000)
Other O &M accounts charged by Wallace Group
159 5 000
Capital Project costs
399,000
Total FY 2009 - 2010: Wallace Group
$836,000
The O&M Part of the Budget
Even though the 5278,000 for Administrative and Engineering accounts exceeded the original
budget, the budget made it clear these were Wallace group CoSt However, the $
charged to various other O&M accounts is a different matter. There is no detail in the approved
budget that would identify these charges as Wallace Group costs. The explanation provided t o
the Grand Jury by the District Administrator for this was as follows: "Other line items are not
specifically budgeted between Wallace group and others but are executed by Wallace Group o
an as nee ded o Board directed basis." In o ther wor there are do llar amounts scattere
throughout the budget than the District Administrator, at his discretion, assigns to the Wallace
Gr The Board approves such payments because there is money in the budget. There is n
budget o r expense summary report than informs the Board how many of these budget dollars
have subsequently been allocated to Wallace Group work.
The Capital Projects Part of the Budget
W allace Group costs charged to capital projects for Fiscal Year 2009- 10 totaled S 399,000.
There is nothing in the individual capital projects in the Annual Budget than id the
Wallace Group cost m n nt.� The explanation provided t the brand fury by the Dist
ri t
6 Fiscal Year Budget 2010-2011, District Administration, Engineering expenses for 2009 -2 10, p. 22
7 F iscal Year B 2009 -2 1
20 10-2011 San Lu bid County Grand Jury
Page 1
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 18
Administrator was as follows: "Budgets for Design and Contract Administration services to be
r vWed by Wallace Group are determined when the Major Budget Item (MBI) is presented to
the Board for authorization to initiate project award of consultant and constmction contracts,
etc." The Grand Jury agrees it is a reasonable budget practice to have a plaeehlder aunt in
the capital budget until the project is actually initiated. At that time, the Board approves a
detailed project budget. It then becomes crucial to manage Wallace Group costs to that detailed
budget and it is here the District's capital budget process fails to meet the Board's needs.
The Grand Jury has a particular concern that the budget payment process does not inform the
Board of the total Wallace Group costs for multi -gear projects. The documents the Grand Jury
reviewed simply dropped Wallace Group cost detail for prior years. One of these projects is the
District's project to replace a centrifuge. This project is still ongoing. As of November 2 1,
the Wallace Group charges to this project were $336,000. (Attachment 2
In February, the Grand Jury asked the Board to explain how the District Administrator kept it
apprised of Wallace charges to multi -gear projects.
In March, the Board provided a response prepared by the District Administrator that included the
explanation given in the following two paragraphs
"In FY 2009 -1 , in are effort to provide a more comprehensive presentation o each
MBI , a total budget (all years) was introduced into the District Budget. Staff' gathered
expenditures from FY 06-07 through F -9 to develop the past project costs. The
past project costs added to the projected project costs is what makes up the total budget
(all years). This format was carried forward and in in the FY 2010-2011 District
Budget."
"when an action item for an M I is presented to the Board for consideration, a table is
included under the funding section of the staff report that outlines expenditures to date,
proposed expenditures, and resulting totals. Therefore, no additional special reports are
2010-2011 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Page 1
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 19
created to review multi -year cumulative project costs versus budget from inception to
completion. The District Budget and M I staff reports continue to present this
information t0 the Board as the MBI's progress throug project development."'
In Order to validate this response, the Grand Jury examined the March staff report the District
Administrator had provided to the Board for the Centrifuge project. This report is included here
as Attachment 3. A review Of this document shows that it is impossible t0 tell the Wallace
Group charges for this project total at least $336,000. The total budget number is a single
amount Of 1,904,081, shown On page 2, without details as t0 what portion represents Wallace
Group costs. In other words, it showed the explanation the Board had provided the Grand Jury
was incorrect.
The Grand Juror notes with a sense Of irony that there is a section on page two Of this same staff'
report that provides very detailed budget information On $36,959 Of Outside contractor costs
charged to this project. The Wallace Group prepared this budget detail, which exemplifies the
type Of detail needed but not provided t0 the Board for the Wallace Group's Own charges.
It is noteworthy that in April the District Administrator revised the report format and now
provides detailed cumulative costs similar to what the Board told the Grand Jury it had started
doing a year ago (Attachment . This revised format reveals the Centrifuge project actual
Contract Administration costs are $70,557 and the Design and Survey costs are $479,665, for a
total Of $550,222. Are these two accounts composed totally Of Wallace Group charges and/or d0
some Of the other accounts listed also include Wallace Group charges? Even with this new
format, it is impossible for the Board t0 determine.
Therefore, it is unclear if the Centrifuge project includes Wallace Group charges Of $336,000 or
$550,222, something in between Or something more. Had the Board realized the extent of these
charges and allowed this work not to be competitively bid, it would indicate a relationship
between the Board and the District Administrator that is too comfortable, to the possible
2010 -2011 San Luis Obispo County Grand Juror
Page 1
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 20
detriment of ratepayers. At the least, the evidence examined by the Grand Jury shows the
budget/payment process fails to provide the Board with the Wallace Group information it needs.
Capital budget issues of concern are not limited to multi -year projects. The Grand Jury saw no
evidence that actual Wallace Group charges to a capital project are explicitly identified as long
as the project total cost stays within the project budget. This lack f transparency allows the
possibility of Wallace Group cost overruns in any project that is under budget. The information
reviewed by the Board during the budget/payment process would not reveal any such overrun.
What Happens When the Board Asks for More Budget Detail?
The Grand Jury observed at a Board meeting what happened when a Board member asked for
more detail about the budget process from the District Administrator. The following exchange is
from the minutes of the December 15 , 20 10 Board meeting:
"Director Hill questioned the Wallace Group invoice with regards to the line item for Major
Budget Items. Administrator Wallace replied that the charges incurred were for Major
Budget Item expenses previously approved through the 2010/2011 budget process and
through subsequent Board authorizations for projects. He added that detailed invoices for all
warrants (authorizations to pay) are available for review at the meetings. Director Hill stated
that his specific question was whether the engineering services performed by Wallace Group
for individual projects were included in the budget amount as a line item or just assigned.
Administrator Wallace replied that the work performed by Wallace group is approved
through directions from the Board and the overall contract the District has with Wallace
Group. The majority of the work entails smaller projects with major engineering work
contracted out to other engineering firms such as Kennedy /Jenks Consultants."'
The grand Jury concluded that the District Administrator simply did not answer the question
asked regarding where the Wallace group charges were included in the budget. It is certainly an
interesting non - response to direct question from a Director who has an obligation to mitigate or
even eliminate the District Administrator's conflict of interest.
2010-2011 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Page 1
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 21
The BudgetlPayment Process Inadequacies in Summary
many
Although Wallace Group receives individual payments on the basis that the money is "in the
budget," the Board has no clear idea what the Wallace Group budget is by line item, by capital
project or in total. This deficiency of budget information and the lack of a subsequent budget
tracking process allow the District Administrator vide flexibility to assign District work to his
company without reasonable scrutiny. The District Administrator's assertion of Board approval
of Walla Group charges is misleading. The Board approval process does not mitigate the
conflict of int r st because it is not based on are informed approval.
Consequences of the Failure of the Board to Recognize the Conflict of-Interest
If the Board does not recognize the conflict of interest and it is not eliminated or mitigated, the
District is exposed to a number of risks, as follows:
• A long -term contractual relationship that is never subject to competitive bid or other
evaluation and enables a continuing conflict of interest that is not mitigated may result in
a "too comfortable" situation that lacks the rigorous oversight and reasonable controls the
District ratepayers deserve
• Over the -year period of the contract, the District organization may have been molded
to conform t the services provided by the District Administrator and the Wallace group
If the information and analysis the Board requires to fulfill its stewardship obligations
come primarily from or through a conflicted source, the Board is at risk for making
inappropriate decisions
• The Board may lack the independent information necessary to evaluate the Wallace
Group's performance
• The District may not obtain the best duality and reasonable cost from contract service
providers
• The Board may be subject to continuing public mistrust
• The Board may be ubj t to legal liability for not properly falf fling its stewardship
obligations
• The conflicted party has the potential to act improperly
2010-2011 Sari Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Page
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 22
Inadequacy of the Investigation to Determine the Reasonableness of Wallace Group Charges
A Word document found on a District computer contained allegations that the Wallace Group
had done unnecessary work on two capital projects. The document was given to the Board,
which responded by hiring a private investigator to investigate the charges. The resulting
investigation report i included here as Attachment 5. There were redactions in the original
report released to the public by the District. The Cram Jury has further redacted the names of
individuals who were not a subject of this investigation.
The Grand Jury addresses this investigation in its report for two reasons. One is the Cram Jury's
strong impression that the Board believes the investigation report is proof that the Wallace Croup
charges are reasonable and appropriate, and therefore no conflict of interest exists. The other is
that a careful examination of the evidence reveals another example where the budget /payment
process did not inform the Board of the aggregated Wallace Group charges for the project
investigated, resulting in an uninformed Board approval of Wallace Group costs.
The capital project of interest to the Grand Jury was repainting the roof of the maintenance
building. The painting job was competitively bid and the contract was completed in 2009 at a
cost of approximately $39,000. The private investigator found that the Wallace Group had
charged the District S 16,921 related to the paint job for specifications and structural review,
bidding tasks and contract management. His investigation report reached the following
conclusion:
"This investigation found no reason to suspect that (Wallace) or his firm would tat
advantage of the District ire billing unnecessary work."
The report states that the sources of the facts uncovered in this investigation were interviews
with the Plant Supr'ntndnt and the District Administrator, as well as the available related
documentation. The Plant Superintendent is quoted by the investigator as saying h "...has never
questioned the need for the work performed." That left the District Administrator as the only
interviewed source of evidence regarding the necessity of the work he assigned to his o n
company.
2010-2011 San Buis Obispo County Grand Jury
Page 21
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 23
The investigator also failed to evaluate whether the Board was provided the information to
determine if Wallace Group charges to this project were reasonable le and appropriate. The final
section of the report titled General Comments states:
"... the arrangement of Join Wallace being both the District Administrator and his firm
providing engineering and project management services to the District presents an easy
target to critics n District triet Staff and the community), and can provide the 'appearance'
of a conflict of interest,"
The report then deals with the Board's management of this potential conflict in a single sentence:
4 7he investigation into this matter reveals that the project was completed within regulations and
District policy with full Board approval." The facts indicate something quite different.
The $16,921 paid to the Wallace Croup was made in a series of seven individual payments
occurring over a two fiscal year period. The project was budgeted and the Board authorized
payments as follows:
Budget
Actual Charges
Fiscal Year 2007-08: Original budget
$40,000
Wallace Croup charges
1 0
Total Charges: FY 2008-09
$10,007
Fiscal Year 2008-09: Amended budget
$47,672
Wallace (group charges
6, 914
Total painting contract
38-
Total Miscellaneous charges
1 1
Budget
$47,672
Total Charges: FY 2008-09
$47,620
Total: All gears
"7, 2'7
As can be seen from this table, the project total charges exceeded the amended budget by
approximately 1 0,000. However, the Board did not realize this because, when approving the
$47,672 as the amended budget in FY 2008-09, it was not given the information that $10,007
2010-2011 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Page 22
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 24
had been paid the prior year to the Wallace Group. The budget and payment process never
informed the Board at any point in time that total Wallace Group costs were S 16,9.1. The
investigation states the Wallace Group payments were made with "full Board approval," but fails
to recognize or understand that the budget and payment process did not inform the Board what
the total Wallace Group actual charges were.
meaningful investigation is one performed by an independent expert who is technically
qualified to loom at the design and management work the Wallace Group performed and render
an opinion whether the worm and related billings are appropriate and reasonable. That is
precisely what this investigation did not do.
Responsibility t Audit the District's Accounts and Records
rd
Among the primary functions of the County of Sari Luis Obispo f fic of Auditor - Controller
(Audit Division) is the audit of accounts and records of County Special Districts. Its recent years,
the Audit Division has fulfilled this responsibility by obtaining a copy of the District's financial
statements as certified by an eternal auditor and maintaining a copy of the statements in its files.
The Audit Division is authorized to conduct an audit of the District, if it chooses to do so, in
order to carry out this responsibility.
The same principal auditor has audited the District's financial statements since 1998. Federal
law Sarbanes -Oxley act of 2002) mandates that the principal auditor be rotated every five years.
Although this mandate applies to publicly owned companies, local government agencies have
also followed this standard. One of the reasons for this is o that a longer -term association does
not compromise the auditor's independence.
2010-2011 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Page
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 25
CONCLUSIONS
Three issues emerged from the Grand Jury's investigation of District operations. The first issue
is the District Administrator's conflict of interest and conflict of roles between his duties as
District Administrator and his simultaneous role as majority owner of the Wallace Croup.
The second issue is the Board's failure to acknowledge that this conflict of interest exists. As a
result, it has not taken the steps necessary to eliminate, control or mitigate the conflict. The
Board may have high regard for the personal integrity of the District Administrator, but that
regard is not adequate to safeguard the interests of the District ratepayers.
The third issue is that the 25 year -old contract to manage the District may not provide the best
organizational alternative for the District and there has been no independent evaluation of the
situation.
After examining the facts related to these issues, the Grand Jury has reached the following
conclusions:
1. The District Administrator, John Wallace, and his company, the Wallace Group, have a
pervasive presence in all facets of the District's operation, from executing Board policy
and exercising oversight responsibility for daily operation and to providing numerous
financial services, including budget preparation and financial reporting. There are few
District activities that the District Administrator or the Wallace Group does not manage,
provide or control.
2. The Board should consider independent management for the District. An independent
District Administrator could become familiar with District operations and finances, and
then develop and recommend to the Board an organizational structure and plan to
transition to the new organization.
3. As long as the District Administrator's conflict of interest exists, the Board must demand
and receive a level of infonnation that allows It to manage and mitigate the conflict.
2010 -2011 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Page 24
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 26
Because this conflict of interest has not been a focus of the Board, the current budget and
budget tracking process is not adequate to mitigate it. The budget and budget monitoring
process provides inadequate information about Wallace Croup charges. Appropriate
controls should be designed, independent of the District Administrator. The District
Administrator has had 2 years to put appropriate budget controls in place and has not
done so.
4. The Board should evaluate and compare operational alternatives for the District. This
would include a review of all services provided to operate the District below the level of
the Board. The District and Wallace Croup have been molded together for 2 years, with
no independent evaluation of what has evolved. This review should be done
independently of the involvement or influence of the District Administrator because of
his conflict of interest.
5. The County's Audit Division would provide considerable benefit to the District and the
public if it were to conduct an audit. The result would be an independent professional
opinion regarding the adequacy of the District's internal controls to mitigate a conflict of
interest.
FINDINGS
1. The service contract between the District and the District Administrator has been in effect
since 1986 and has not been modified except to increase the hourly billing rates.
2. The District Administrator is the majority owner of the Wallace Group.
3. The contract allows the District Administrator to provide the District with Engineering
and Administrative services by means of assigning work to the Wallace Croup.
4. The District Bylaws provide that the District Administrator also supervises the District's
facilities and services, and supervises the District's finances.
2010-2011 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Page 2,
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 27
5 . The District Administrator maintains the budget and expenditures records, and provides
the Board with the budget and budget tracking information it uses to manage the budget.
6. The District's Board is dependent on the District Administrator for the information it
reviews in order to make policy decisions. The Board has limited resources to verify or
evaluate this information independently.
7. The District Administrator has a conflict of interest because of his dual simultaneous
roles with the District and the Wallace Group.
8. The contract provides the District with some ability to mitigate a conflict of interest by
means of the following clause: "Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be at
the direction and request of the District's Board of Directors."
9. The budget and payment processes do not currently provide the information necessary for
the Board to mitigate the 1tnt Administrator's conflict of interest.
10. The Board does not recognize that the dual roles of the District Administrator create a
conflict of interest.
11. The Investigation Report commissioned by the Beard to investigate allegations of
unnecessary Wallace Group work being charged to a District project concluded the
allegation was false.
12. The limited facts presented in the Investigation Report were not adequate to support the
report's conclusion.
2010-2011 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Page 26
Agenda,ltem II.a.
Page 28
1. The Investigation Report supporting documentation includes evidence that the budget
process did not inform the Board of the total Wallace Group costs charged to the
maintenance building roof capital project.
14. The County of San Luis bispo's Audit Division has the right to audit the accounts and
records of the District.
15. The same audit principal has audited the District's financial statements since 1995.
RECOMMENDATIONS
I . As long as the District Administrator has a conflict of interest, the District's budget/
payment process should be modified to provide the Board with the specific Wallace
Group information it needs to mitigate the conflict. (Addresses Findings -13
2. The budget/payment process changes required and the manner and timing of reporting
Wallace Group charges must be determined independently of the District Administrator.
(Addresses Findings 2 -13)
3. The Board should consider hiring independent management for the District in order to
eliminate the current District Administrator conflict of interest and to begin the process to
review and evaluate the organizational structure of the District. (Addresses Findings 1 -,
and 10)
4. The Board should evaluate and compare all operational alt rnativ s for the District. This
review should include all services provided to the District below the level of the state-
mandated Board of Directors. (Addresses Findings 1-7)
5. The Board must review operational alternatives independently of the District
Administrator because of his conflict of interest. .Add resses Findings 1-7
2010-2011 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Page
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 29
6. The County of San Luis bispo's Audit Division should consider conducting an audit of
the District that would include an independent professional assessment of whether the
District has the controls in place to mitigate the financial risks inherent in a conflict of
iterest. (Addresses Findings 5, 9, and 14
7. The Board should adopt the practice o rotating the District's principal auditor every five
years. (Addresses Finding 15)
REQUIRED RESPONSES
The South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District Board of Directors is required to
respond to all Findings and Recommendations with the exceptions of Finding 14 and
Recommendation 6. The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Sari Luis
Obispo County Superior Court by August 29, 2011. Please provide a paper copy and an
electronic version of all responses to the Grand Juror
The County of San Luis Obispo Office of Auditor-Controller is required to respond to
Finding 14 and Recommendation 6. The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of
the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by August 2, 2011. Please provide a paper copy
and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury.
The mailing addresses for delivery are:
Presiding Nudge
Grand Jury
Presiding Judge Charles S. Crandall
San Luis Obispo bounty brand Jury
Superior Court of California
1050 Monterey street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93402
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
The email address for the Grand Jury is: GrandJurrgco.
2010-2011 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Page
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 30
ATTACHMENT 1
Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 31
Z£ a
•e l, l, well epue6v
Glow toad s -T -[q - Pu'2 X4 F7[TZtl
Puy u s x u J V 2 - -V a 1 U O -4 - 2,X'2 d x d_ a P'F u � E q
s
x - 4a purer sipamad Guvjd Isdrarm snoTaP ; auTX zrq PWQ MV7A
3 J 13 04 OT 43aa - Ep P
g - .1maws5eusm P * -e
S
u „pT AO xd 7[ Coal
.� T SO
.Q `
u s s - cm.0ad tq g Q a. - moor
,pixie skuaaq 9144 04 qu sa cl ' L - K L j jG Zgqj ri' ; ,a u
SIE Wm
- -z
HISSSE I
0 poaaag;�Ia
qt '� my;
r
r
i
g . Other c= r i es as requested bar DISTRICT and mutually agree
able to both parties.
5
tber e :t- nt it a onabl. r ne-cessaxy to enable ENGINEER to perform
hi duties b4�&exu i ,a; khQ 8N � -R s hiall be .authorized to. euga a the
s it s ia : a,s s ie t;&rrt~s or a lo es wbicb he may deem proper.
The .0ast. c1f. Flo vi z�tz t-( the DISTRICT of .9u ph assistants or employees
hail ble Gt4VffegV?1e to thLe DISTRICT ih a tddn a with the schedule
df fr G�ftd hawri hlazain cLr as mutually Ag.reeabie to DISTIL-I T and ENGINEER.
1 -Mm 2� RT: . M
v xqes � Tta'� t� t -t i.sp �: erfaexut s b3a at the
cli cvtlan aha 6& the 0,1stri t r s Baerd of Dire t rs .
T TON 4 _ a! F�
The Dj M.T Usr ag m- eiRs to pa3t t E_T as ccapensation
at his serviceis, Veers; auzb d rjq to t t f B IL r im =
a . Pjrj_zT3 4 6-1 a M a # a a a a. dF W $4 5. 0 0 hr
i o - red- 0 g i a r _ _ 3-7. 50 h
d lns tor. * $ 30.001h r .
e. L € l� t sca 1 ar�d 0't 1 _t K to la-e r i n g -
f y T Mall Sll r o • r a • ■ • w s • ■ 80. 0 0 #
g. e retaa:� `U k ? q/Vaud o ek -s irrg $ 25. 00 Ih i?.
i Autnal casIm - f d1rect e av es Incurrad for work
re - basted thie DISTRICT f LTJ alilding
tit ticLt; try ;
a4d el i urarr a-Veld if - q5- -recd- by th-a
i
le at .a l
16diainq evil m dla
Lp tq dis tAnce elepho *e, telegraph
get
dot o f- ire praf s iana -1 consultants required
ifyr x Wic -3 .* i-f ice -a - tned and pepi4 5o by EI I B R
vin D16TtICT behalf, plus I % aamini trati a c osts
faatexiadry required for the j db and u -tech in drafting
and eliiad activities, inaiudIn printing and
i� p3 oaduation costs.
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 33
C
r
sEc TiaN s . LNR �zmk,
`'
— n
1 T -IC's &greas to d pi ., indemni-fy indemnify arid hold harmless ENGINEER
from amy and all lalms , dlspt�t s , coiTtroversies or laws ualts arising
Ercau o r xplAL-' t b work of s r-r ices perf o wed by ENGINEER p ur uam t
bo the � a� -s re vdent while he. is spay vin g• in t cap acity of
the a i - i s•t r i. -t �T 1 rr t� t e p'i� x the a e axis
rk g t r the DISTRICT a.ai include the ENGINEER
i d• r a-my Of ioews• anC Di a tors insurance policy it may obtain
�Ls agWedMe supa-rsadas a a4ld all oth r agreements f either
r i-I iii ri � vrt r m- dip, paxti 3� t :.th rospect t the
jt ` t' rot =t i` ho, a n with - r rRx a ont { tart an , or promise
� ter, i; t-a tip , = , je-a- .t ,Lte-* .o.f this Agreemerit which is not con -tainted
die r _m, ; s.h i v i l ire � q; .
SECT- IM AN Tra TO AjG T
' Ta a x rI'm .ti t j h the mutual
pr any sk i o -b 1. �.c� t o r� s h r eux� *c�. e r
Sam axe lwtLi' � by t1re E M gR w1thout the p wr itten co nsent
o f .
- B' Ti''
Zither g -a-rt mad t =tri t trAiq Ag�eae ie t w Lth thirty ( 30) days
px r i - ften noti e.: p'� �rlck td the othe party.
uT
M of. jaw or in equity is br ug o enforce or Inter-
-P = s17. the W t i• ns of th i& grey r t , the prevailing_ party shall
cx r s b attoxnay' s fetes im addit on to Any other
e O li may
r-c t 1 t;iO t ra given r ,uA t to thp terms and pro-
s ha+ an writing and s dj . -eYTt by f inst -.ass
SQL OQ aD
B.60 Dimt. 335
a rLd to the Eli I ASE ER at
13 29 Chor S et
San Luis Obis.joo CA 93 401
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 34
I WITNE WHEREOF, DISTRICT and the ENGINEER have executed
this A eerfi nt of the day and year first her inabo a set forth.
SSLD
By:
_ auk B a~ t f Chairmam, boazd o boa
Dire-at-ors -
B
ai I F
kn WhI & nd As sae i at e�g
�-2
Gerald S hip8ey , Asti' t Attorne
t
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 35
ATTACHMENT 2
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 36
RECAP OF CENTRIFUGE xE PROJECT
BUDGET AND ACTUAL COSTS BY FISCAL YEARS
*Note: 2 0 10 costs are as November, 20 1.
All budget and actual cost figures were provided b
the Wallace Gr u .
Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 37
WALLACE
BUDGET
BUDGET
GROUP
OTHER
TOTAL
FISCAL YEAR
NUMBER ER
AM UI T
COST
COST
COST
20
C16
1,5 000
$1 2 9 428
12
2007
C14
1
$39,868
$438
$40
2008-09
05MBI06
$499
$76
$2 154
$78
2009-10
MBI 6
155199340
$150,048
$368
$518,
2010-11*
5MBI 6
1,1 4 , 1 422
$57,
$15,
$734
TOTAL
3
$38
$ 7234 , 274
*Note: 2 0 10 costs are as November, 20 1.
All budget and actual cost figures were provided b
the Wallace Gr u .
Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 37
ATTACHMENT 3
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 38
v
SOUTH SAN Luis OBISPO COUNTY
SANITATION DISTRICT
Post Office Box 339 Oceanq California 93475 -0339
1600 Aloha Oceano, Caiiforrua 93445-9735
Telephone (805) 4$9 -6566 FAX (805) 489-2765
- Staff Report
To: Board of Directors
From: John Wallace, Dis ria dr finis tt
]ate March h , 2011 -
S ubject: N ew Centrifuge 2A, B rough Construction Progress Pa No 4 and payment to Earth
Sytma Pacific
Recommendation*
1. Approve Progress Payment No. 4 to Drough Construction, Inc. in the amount of $36,959.50.
( S3 3 ,263.55 without retention)
-. Approve Payment to Earth Systems Pacific in the amount of S758aS.
F unding:
The FY 2010 B includes the Maj or Budget Item 05 MBI o — N ew Cenirifuge 2A — in the
amount of $1,104,422.
Brough Construction was retained by a September 1 2010 Board action for the lump sum amount of
S827,134.00 to provide construction services for the project_ The.revised contract amount after C bange
Orders 1, 2 , 3 4 and 6 is $852902.00 (Change order No. 5 was not accepted.
Furth Systems Pacific was retained by a N ovember 17, 20 Board action for the time and materials
contra t to p rfornn materials testing services during construction of the C enftifuge 2A Project The
submitted invoices totaling S758aS are for professional services including: concrete sampling, concrete
c mPr ssion strength t sthi , and for bolt inspection.
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 39
Expenditures to '
Proposed
Totals
date FY ; Oil 1
a pendltu res
.budget
i,I4,42.00
-
1 00
E quipment Expenditures B
Design expenditures
46
6,479.1
Testing/Troubleshooting 1
4,218.13
758
4X6
Co rLstructioa expen
$
323 7 886.42
$
36 - 50
$
360,845.92
PG&E Utility Services F
$
15
$
-
$
15
A. expenditures
5
57 8
S
$
57,914.19
Ret aina g e -. J- 109/6)
(32,388.64)
S
(3v695.95)
$
( 36,o &4 -5 9). .
P a ra n t s (B+C+D+E+F+G-M
$
415,768.53 768.53
$
3
449,790-33
Subtota ( I)-, (B+C+D+E+F+Gj
448,157.17
S
37, 717.75
S
521,959.51
( indudes relain J e
'lance t or, P eti - T
+
S
�[
656,264.83
S
,32,462.49
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 39
S taff eporl — Marc h 2 2010 Meeting — New Ce ntr ifuge 2A Bro ugh Cons&wl ion Progress Payment No.
Page
Expenditures to Proposed Balance to
�a�(Total Pry ect Expenditures Complete
Total Project Date,
Budget -- All S 1, $ 1,233 $ 37,717.75 S 5 S,462.
Fisca Y ears
D iscussion:
l ornthlyprogre s payment No. 4 includes payment fbr the month of February on work associated with
this contract. Based upon the work that has been completed by Brough Staff believes this payment is
equivalent to the amount of work performed during this period_ Tasks and percentage complete for this
period ale listed in the f ollowing table. S taffhas closely monitored work performed under this contract
and believes the invoice reflects the actual work performed by B rough Cbnstruction.
Item Descripdon
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Contract
Amount
% Complete
is
Cost Th is
Pen
1crnr�ed Concrete
147
LF
x . 00
° o
$132.00
R etaining Bin Wall
CMU Flood Wall
150
LF
$62.50
$9,375.00
100%
$9,375 * 00
Pre-Engineered
M etal By ldin
I
LS
$54, 940.00
$54, 840.00
1 O°
$5
3" Clasp Lined
Sludge P
IMF
$ 1,543.00
$3,086.00
25 %
$771.
Sl FeM Pump,
V Parcel and
1
LS
$10
10
%
$2.
App u rtenances
Local Power
D istribution Panel
l
LS
.
$14
$1 4,770.00
10 %
$1,
Power and
Communications
Wiring
l
LS
S20
00. 0
��
$1,02O.00
(R &M Buildin
Power and
Communications
Wiring
I
LS
S17
$17
%
$5
( W/ In Ne
B
Design Install and
test SCA Sy stern
i
LS
$102,000.00
$1O2�OOO.0O
10 %
$f O, OO.00
rtotai
( Job to date
$36,959-50
taiia O'Da
.
-Net Total
$ 336
Staff` r=mmends approval of Progress Payment No. 4 in the amount of S36,959.50. A 10% retaina e o
53,695.95 is withheld resulting in a net payable amount of S33g6155.
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 40
ATTACHMENT 4
Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 41
SOUTH SAN LUIS OB PO COUNTY
SANUATION D TRJCT
Post Office Box 339 Uceaao, California 93475-0339
1600 Aloha Occano, California 93445 -9735
'telephone (845) 489-"66 FAX ($45) 489 -2765
hCtQ:LLSSfaCSC[AX'�I
Staff Report
To: B owd of Dim t ra
Fromm: Jo st W allace, Dis&id h is
Date: Apdl 6, 2011
Subject: New Cettrifiige 2A, Brough Construction Progress Payment No.
eeendtin:
I . Approve Pm grew Payment No. 5 to Brougb Ccmtrucdon, Inc. in the amount of 6�3 . 0#
(S77,700.42 with motion deducbd , authorize thrw Contract Change Orders CC No. 13 in
the mount 18,700,90, CC No. 14 in the amount of # * il and CCO No. 16 in the
amount of S 9 2 . 0 0, for a na 000traot charge of d.
2. Approve, payment to Eartb SysW= P acific In th e amount of S 7 0 for inspecfion services
ccwnpleted.
Funding:
Th FY 201011 Budget includes the Wjor Budget Item 05 MB10 —New Cenfr&ge 2A -- in the
am n t of 1 The ov=W t budget fnr all fiscal ycus is $1,904,081.
ro g�h Consftuction was retained by a Septwnber 1, 2010 ward acSon for Ow lump suet amount of
SM to provide eoniftuctiar sa for the projeet.''na revised contract amount air CCOs 1
13 , 14 and 16 is S899 See attachments far a list of pOs .
Prior . Current. FIf Tat # Prod This
Rrs es of 03-26-11 Ail F s Staff Report
Budget f ' L104 '422 1,90 r 0;81
Emeodftres
I
i
$
- 1
$
Capital Egt:ipment
320
-
- .920,814
tudWs
-
-
$
Testing TroubleshooUng
-
,p976
$
4
$
287
Detn & Survey
4
S
46A79
47 - 6 6 5
$
-
Contract Administration
$
3,
67
70
12 .000
Cotes Con- ti i es
$
-
$
40 0 , 764
$
40,764
$
16p307
PG&E Utility Se ce
$
$
15,
�5 59 � $
Co nstruction
2 652
28 997
49
$ 70,027
Total E pendltur
799,659
$
459
$
1,259,005
98
R erNnatnIn g Bu dget
W,996
546,375
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 42
ATTACHMENT 5
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 43
WORKP I GATIONS
Date: April 2,, 2010
To: Michael Selz
Attorney -- SLCSD
From: Richard Thomas — Thomas Consultin
Re: Investigation of Allegations — Maintenance Roof Coating, and Chemical Tank Replacements
Thomas Consulting (T C) was retained by Milchaei Seitz, Attorney for the S LO SD, to Investigate two
allegations contained In a Microsoft Word document (Doc ) found on one of the SSLOC D computers.
The computer is located in an area at the plant office that is accessible by all employees.
r
The document was titled "Dear Board ~Members" and is fire pages in length and contains a gran
signature box with the words "Thank You, Regards, . The source of the document has not
been verified as actually being written by
T
The following are excerpts from the document:
Allegation I: Maintenance Roof Coating
Allegation 2-: Chemicad Tanks
:.. A few examples of these would be the recent Purchase of two District chemical tanks, one
entirely handled in house and purchased at a cost to the tax payers of approximately $.16,000.
This was placed ire service as the new Sodium Hypos hlor ate tank. It was then observed the District
was in need of a new Ferric Chloride tunk which the Wallace Croup unnecessarily handled. This
was the same basic tank however the cost to the tax payers was some $32,000. There wos no
reason to lengineer' another tank purchose__." ( Excerpt from bottom page 3 and top pope 4 o
Doc ).
An Investigation into these two allegations was conducted and the result of that investigation follows.
Contained with this report is a series of documents related to these issues that were gathered In the
course o ttrl investigation. The documents are labeled Document ] -] and will be referred .to
throughout this report.
Thomas Consulting 30 Oriole St. Ojai, CA 93023 i805i 640-1666 Office (805) 640 -1246 Fax P1 uc. No. 23388
- Page 1 of 5
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 44
W O�]K�'L1�CE INV�S'7CIGA`�'Y�I�TS
Allegation 1* Maintenance Roof Coating
I inter iewed the Plant uperintendant and the District Administrator about this
allegation; I also . av o related to this proje,
Both Mand Wallace told me that th e Maintenance Building roof was in need of recoating and the
project was induded in the annual budget and approved by the Board -- MBI No. C24 ($40,000).
After it was determined a formal [aid process was required, Wallace Group initiated the necessary
advertising and processing of the bids. Two bids were received_ The lowest [aid was rejected as non -
responsive to the totality of the work required for the project (see Doc 8c — Board Meeting minutes
dated 5 /21108 and Doc 8b — Staff port dated 5/21/08), and the proj
ff ect was awarded to Ingham
Painting in the amount of $38,812.
The project commenced on July 7, 2008 and was completed on August 1, 2006 (see Doc 8c Board
minutes dated 8/20/06). This was an ext ensive pro)ect which included power washing the roof surfaces,
repairing a corner section of the roof si ding an then applying two layers of an industrial coating system.
In addition to the work com pleted the contractor - In harp PaintFn& there was other work and
charges related to this project. These costs are detailed in the following table. The total cost of the
project was 58.027 ;1.
Thomas Consulting 306 Oriole St. Ojai, C'A 30 3 (805) 640-1666 Office (805) 640 -1246 Fax Pl Uc. No. 23388
Page 2of5
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 45
WORKPLACE INVESTIGATIONS
Maintenance Building Roof Coating Charge
I
cost
T
Wallace pup
WG through March 078 FY
$ 2,5
WG April 078 FY
$ 2,244.42
WG May 07-08 FY
4,848.71
WG June 078 FY
$ 974.00
WC 8/20/08
-5
W /l
$ 867.05
WG 1/21/09
467.S0
Su b -total
$ 16,pML23
$ 16
SLO Newsp apers 5/23/08
$ 980.20
$ 980 *0
Bobcat Rain Cutters Inc.
914.00
$ 914.00
Ingham Painting
94
Ingham Painting
$ 9,881.00
S ub-to t al
, ,911.80
38
Project Total
57,627.23
All documents collected by TC that relate to the roof coating can be found under Tab 8_
Adle 2: Chemical Tanks
The District replaced two chemical tanks. The allegation purports that the Sodium Hypochlorite tank
was handied entirely by the District Staff` at a cost of $16,000 and the Ferric Chloride tank, handled by
the Wallace Croup, cost $92,000 for essential ly the sage basic tan . The allegation insinuates that
becauLse Wallace Group was involved In the second purchase, the engineering fees charged, doubled the
cost of the project.
The facts contained in the allegation are not support 6d by the evidence gathered by TC. 1n ..taking this
determMation l Interviewed the Plant Supenintenda nt and the t i rict Administrator abort
this allegation. I also 'Interviewed the District's B kke per Secreta and collected
documents from bath Wallace Group and the District_ The documents collected are filed under Tabs 9
and 10.
Thomas COnSulfMg 306 Oriole St. Ojai, CA 93023 (SOS) 640-1666 Office (805) 64G-1246 Fax Pl tic. Ova. 2-3388
Page 3 of 5
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 46
W ORKPLACE ENVE-,STIGAUONS
The investigation details follow.
S odium ypochlorite Tank
John Wallace stated the tank was showing signs of deterioration including the failure of one of the lifting
points, and District Staff recommended the tank be replaced. District Staff initiated an informal bidding
process and reefed three quotes. The lowest bid from Harrington Plastics in the amount of
11 was award . w -„ -
Plant Superintendent stated that the bid process was handled by District Staff, and the
tank did require replacements
The Board minutes from 9/3/08 reflect the appr ov I for the purchase of the Sodium H pochlor'ite tank
o ut of the FY 20W-09 budgetary funds. The accompanying staff report prepared by Wallace shows the
three bids received by District Staff ranged from $11,331.91 to IL1 with Harrington as the lowest
hid.
District records con rm (see tab 9) the bid amounts, and Harrington Plastics was paid $11,556.44 on
11/07/2 According to Spears the $224.53 above the quoted price covered the cost to protective
wrap the tank for shipping. T were no charges from Wallace Group associated with this project.
Ferric Chloride Tan
The District Staff recognized the need to replace the Ferric Chloride Tank and included a major budget
item in the 2008-2009 FY Budget — 08 I► BI 23 Chemical Tank Replacement. initially District Staff' (Scott
i ascolo) set about getting quotes to replace the existing 4000 gallon tank. He received two quotes; one
from Harrington Industrial Plastics and the other from Keith Ballet' (Snyder). Records related to this first
round of quotes are contained in a set of documents received from John Wallace (labeled 10a).
Following the receipt of these two quotes it was determined that the District would benefit from
replacing the 40DO gallon tank with a 6600 gallon tank. Plant Superintendar explained
that a 4000 gallon tank is not able to accept a 'full load's of ferric chloride and it world he more
economical for the District to have a 6600 gallon tank that could wept a full load.
District Staff then sought quotes for a 6600 gallon tank. Three quotes were included in a set of
documents (labeled 10d) received from Ham ton Indus al Plastics Core- Rosion
Products, and Snyder Direct furnished quotes and Oore ion was the lowest at $10,996.43.
then forwarded a Staff Report dated 3/24/09 (contained in the set of documents labeled 10d)
to John Wallace. The staff report was presented by Wallace to the Board on 4/1 and the purchase
from Gore- Rosion was approved. The Board also approved an additional cost of approximat l $200 to
have the tank protection wrapped for shipment (see set of documents labeled 10b).
District records r e.i• d-ka n• indicate the total project expenses related to they
..rreplacement_of.the-Ferric Chlorite tank totaled $11,,586.51 Doc 10c). ors- F�oslon Products was paid
11 ,17 of that amount, There were no payments to Wa il ace Group.• l
Thomas Consulting 306 Oriole S Ojai, CA 93023 (805) 640-I6 Office (8 640-1246 Fax Pl Lic. No. 23388
Page 4 of 5
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 47
W o��,r�c� r�rv�����A�r�o�s
ire regard t th legation.thath re- .were,va cant -charg -f r-Wallace. rpv p services;jhgA
is Ise. Further, records from the District and from 1 ailace Group show the project, including quotes,
was handled by District Staff and Wallace Group engineering staff played no role in the purchase or
installation of the Ferric Chloride tank, No charges for the Ferric Chloride tank were paid to Wallac
Croup.
Wallace Croup charges were related to preparing spedflcations, bidding tasks, contract administration,
moral review and miscellaneous expenses. Waltace G roup furnished an accounting of th eir
ex ( see Doc d).
In determining the costs associated with this project, ` collected records from both W allace Group, 0 and from SLCSD Bookkeeper . The records from both sources are consistent,
a ace
The statements made by Appleton and 1 regarding this project are also consistent.
The investi ption into this matter reveals that the project was completed within regulations and District
policy with full Board approval. The matter related to the initial inform aI bid by a relative of a District
employee was addressed as an internal personnel matter.
Conclusion - Allegation
The allegations contained in the document suspected to be written by are false. The
replacement of both tanks was handled by District Staff with no fees paid to Wallace Group. The
amounts cited in the allegation are inaccurate. Both tanks were replaced for approximately $11,,SM
each. i hese. amounts do not include the, District taff time dedicated. to developing specifica loins,
collecting quotes, selecting the vendor, administering the contracf payments, and installing the tanks
erter l Comments
Mr. John Wallace and his firm Wallace Croup enjoy a great reputation. This Investigation found no
reason to suspect that Wallace or his firm would take advantage of the District In billing unnggessa
work. The Plan uperintendant is very complimentary of Wallace Group and the services
they provide and states that he has nearer questioned the need for the work performed,
stated that Wallace is one of the most ethical men I know.
O n the other hand, the arrangement of John Wallace being both the District Administrator and his firm
providing engineering and project management services to the District presents an easy target to critics
(on District Staff' and the community), and can provide the 'appearance' of a conflict of interest.
The decision to contract with John Wallace as District Administrator and with his firm to proin*de
engineering and project management services is within the purview of the Districts Board of Directors.
Clearly this is not a unique arrangement but may subject the District to continuing questions of
impropriety. It must be stated though, that nothing in this investigation has lead TC to question the
veracity of John Wallace or his flan, Wallace Group.
Th om as Consulting 306 Oriole S Ojai, CA 93023 (805) 640-1555 Office (805) 64G-1246 Fax PS tic. pia. 2-3388
Page 5 of 5
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 48
ATTACHMENT
SOUTH SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
SANITATION DISTRICT
Post Office Box 339 Oceano, California 43475 -0339
1600 Aloha Street, Oceano, California 93445 -9735
Telephone (805) 489 -6666 FAX (SQS) 489 -2765
http: / /www.sslocsd.or&/
May 31, 2011
Reed Sato, Director
Office of Enforcement
aliforn'a State water Resources Control Board
10011 Street, 16 Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
.J
w
{
$ E
i
_ k d
Subject: Technical Report responding to Notice e of Violation for Unauthorized Discharge
Letter Dated Agri 1 18, 2011
Dear Mr. Sato:
Enclosed please find the District's response to the State water Resources Control Board and
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board's written Investigative Order dated April
18 2011, relating to So uth San Luis Ob 1 s o County Sancta ion District No ti of io lation for
Unauthorized Discharge of Untreated Sewage to Waters of the State on December 19, 2010.
Pursuant to section 1 3267 of the California Water Code W , the District hereby submits this
technical report and associated appendices consistent with the conditions outlined 'within the
written order and accompanying letter.
It is our understanding that this technical report is required to enable the Central Coast water
Board and State Water Board staff to effectively evaluate the nature, circumstances, extent, and
g ravity of the unauthorized discharge of untreated sewage. This report is therefore intended to
fuller address the subject violation and answer all questions raised in the investigative order.
To better facilitate ease of use, we have formatted the enclosed technical report to follow the
outline of the Investigative Order. For your convenience, each requirement of the investigative
order has been individually restated, followed immediately by our specific response. In many
yes, additional information is referenced within the appropriately labeled birder sections that
follow.
Due to the overall combined size of the budget reports, separate binders are included with our
submission to facilitate your request for: 1. i Copies o f the Discharger - s a nnual ra i fiscal
year budget report ( discussion o fmain budget items for proposed pro j ects) since year 2000.
Please feel free contact me with any questions or to request additional information.
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 49
Page 2
This report was prepared by me, a registered Civil Engineer* 1 certify under penalty of
law that this document and all attachments werc prepared under my dU' =tion or supervision m
accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel gath and evaluate th
onnation submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, o r
those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to
the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I axe aware that here are
significant penalties for submitting False information, , inc luding the possibility of fine and
imprisonment for knowing violations.
Sincerely,
1
eA&X'�
John Wallace., RCE 33965
District Administrator
cc:
SSLOCSD Board of D irectors
/
cCO � 2
o �g
� p
\ \F CALtF��`�
District Legal Counsel
Central Coast Regional water Quality Control Board
A ttachments:
VOLUME 1
A ppendix 1— Causes and Circumstances of the Unauthorized Discharge of Unftrated Sewage
A ppendix 2 — ischarger's Response to the Unauthodzed Discharge of Untreated Sewage
A ppendix 3 — Monitoring and Analysis of the Unauthorized Discharge of Unfir rated Sewage
VO LUME
A ppendix 4 — Impacts of the Unauthorized Discharge of Untreated Sewage
Appendix 5 — Additional I ormation
VOLUM
SS L O CSD Budgets: FY 1999/2000 dough 2004 /2005
VO LUME
SSL Budgets: FY 2005/2005 dough 2010 /2011
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 50
Page
Technical Report — Response to NOV, April 18, 2011
1. Causes and Circumstances of the Unauthorized Discharge of Untreated Sewage:
a. A complete, detailed explanation of how and when the discharge of untreated
sewage from the Di harger's severer collection system was discovered.
Response: Please find enclosed in Appendix I .a. the timeline and narrative of how
the discharge was discovered.
It is important to note that at the time of the event on December 19, 2010, the area
was experiencing severe flooding not only in areas outside of the treatment plant but
also within the plant itself. The severity of the flooding, and more specifically its
impact on the Oceano Lagoon area (Le. Meadow Creek Lagoon) located adjacent to
the treatment plant, made national news, and ultimately led to the evacuation of area
residents by emergency personnel during the early afternoon hours of December 19,
2010. During the period of time between midnight on December 18, 2010 and :00
All on December 20, 2010, over sic inches of rain tell in the Oceano and Arroyo
Grande area. This was preceded by other storms that saturated the upper
watersheds of Arroyo Grande and Meadow Creek, which are tributary to and /or
impact the Ocea no Lagoon area. By the afternoon of December 19, 2010, flood
waters were already up to three feet deep on the roadways and had inundated the
majority of the homes in that area. A Proclamation of Local Emergence was made by
the County Administrator and Director of Emergency Services, Jim Grant, on
December 21, 201 retroactive to D ecember 1 g, 2010), and a P roclamaticn of State
Emergency was issued by State Governor Schwa r enegger on Decernber 21, 2010
(retroactive to December 19, 2010).
In summary, the events leading up to the discovery of the sewage discharge
occurring December 19, 2010 began when a plant staff member arrived on site in
response to a common alarm at the Emergency generator at approximately 07:35.
At that time he discovered that the site was experiencing the early stages of the
flooding described above, as water levels in Meadow C reek lagoon area began to
rise as the result of storm water accumulation. Additional staff was called in to help
address the issue at approximately 07:50 and at 08:30. At 10:26 am on December
19 2010 the #4 Influent Pump shorted due to water in the windings and tripped.
When this motor tripped it also shut down the remaining three Influent pumps.
Influent arriving at the headwors structure immediately following the shutdown of
the primary pumps began to accumulate within the headwor s as the trunk lines
began consuming available storage capacity within the lower reaches of the trunk
system. Immediate attempts to restart the influent pump motors tailed. As a result,
the diesel driven influent bypass pump was started but did not initially function to full
capacity due to the fact that one of the discharge valves located within the
head w r s structure was closed. The Plant Superintendent was able to partially
open the valve before it was completely submerged with influent, which allowed for a
portion of the influent to pass into the treatment portion of the plant while the
remainder continued to till available storage within the trunk system. The trunk
system began to back up and began to spill at approximately 11:00 am.
b. A diagram showing the location of the actual sewage overflows, including, but
not limited to, the location of the influent pump electrical faiiure, location of
Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 51
Page
impacted waters, and discharge locations from sewer Imes, laterals and
connections, cleanuts, sewer relief valves, or other assets owned by the
Discharger, including discharge locations from all known assets not oWned or
operated by the Discharger affected by the SSO event.
Response: Please find attached a GIS drawing in Appendix 1.b. that indicates the
location of the overflows as well as the location of the headworks, and impacted
waters. There were a total of 21 overflow locations that were discovered using the
methods described in Section 1.c of this technical report- 3 within the plant, 7 located
on the District's trunk sewer and 11 located in the collection system owned by the
Ocean Community Services District. The District is also aware from interviews with
homeowners in the affected area of 5 possible instances of laterals backing up into
homes serviced by the Oceano Community Services District Collection System. This
is the extent of overflows that the District is aware of, based upon photographic
evidence, physical evidence at the ,manholes and surrounding areas, interviews with
a number of residents affected, and through information received as part of the
District's community outreach which included numerous public forum requests for
information. We have included copies of the interviews and photographic evidence in
Appendix 1.b.
. A detailed report of the total volume of untreated sewage discharged,
including the engineering methods, diagrams, ,models, references,
calculations and assumptions used in estimating the total volume of untreated
sewage discharged. This should include, at a minimum, tabular and graphical
summaries of the daily total influent flows of untreated sewage received by the
treatment plant one week before and one week after the SS O. Additionally,
submit total daily influent and effluent flows of untreated sewage received by
the treatment plant for the past three years.
Response: Please find attached in Appendix 1.c, the volume estimate of untreated
sewage that was discharged from the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation
District and Oceano Community Services District manhole locations identified in
section 1.b. of this technical report.
Three methods of calculation are included:
(1) An analysis of individual manholes based upon calculation methods contained in
Hvd raulics and Its Apolication by A.H. Gibson (Constable Co. Limited) as
referenced In Collection Systern Collaborative Benchmarking Group Best
Practices for Sanitary Sever Overflows (SSO) Prevention and Response Plan,
published and distributed by California Muter Environment Association — 2004.
This document utilizes the height of the water column corning out of ,manhole
pick holes and covers as well as calibrated reference photos to estimate sewage
spill volumes,
(2) An analysis based upon on historic diurnal curves for the plant to estimate flows
for periods when the Parshail Flume ,metering system was inoperable during the spill
event, and
(3) An approximate analysis performed by the Plant Superintendent estimating a
worst case scenario had influent flow to the treatment plant increased or remained
constant from the time of the start of the spill to the end of the spill event. The
Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 52
Page
Superintendents bass and associated calculations is included in Appendix
I.c. In addition an analysis of the basis and volume calculation is also Included.
Given the daily diurnal flog cycles, it is our determination that Influent flow to the
treatment plant did net increase or remain constant from the start of the spill to the
end of the spill and therefore believe that the Superintendent's report is not an
accurate estimation of spill volume.
In addition please find in Appendix 'I .c. daily total influent flows of untreated sewage
received by the treatment plant one week before and one week after the SS O,,
provided in both tabular and graphical format. This information includes December
19, 2010 (spill event), but it should be noted that the Parshall flume metering device
was inoperable during much of the spill event making ing the number provided non -
representative of total flog for that day.
Also included are the daily influent flows of sewage received by the treatment plant
for the past three years. Untreated effluent flogs have not been included due to the
fact that the plant does not discharge untreated effluent,
d. A detailed description of the causes of the electrical problem/failure related to
the treatment plant influent pumps, standby generator /pump, including any
analyses or forensic studies performed by the Discharger or its consultants to
determine the reasons for the electrical failures.
Response: Based upon the investigation conducted by the District, the District's
contractor, and the District's Electrical Engineering consultant, the cause of the
electrical problem /failure was floodwater entering the underground electrical
conduits within the plant. Given the flooding in the plant on December 19, 201 O
grater traveled in the influent pump conduits from, in all likelihood, one or more
flooded pull boxes, to an electrical junction box in the headrorks and then through
electrical conduits to each of the influent pump motors. The cause was confirmed
when the terminal boxes at the rotors were opened and were found to be full of
water. Floodwater entered the motors and caused a short in the motor for influent
pump . This short caused the main breaker feeding all the influent pumps to trip
as well as the sub breaker that feeds pump #4.
A preliminary investigation by Thoma Electric indicated that the instantaneous trip on
the main breaker was set to trip faster than the sub - breaker for the #4 pump motor.
This resulted in the breaker coordination issue that caused the main breaker to trip
as well as the pump motor breaker. This is being addressed currently with a breaker
coordination study being performed by Thorna Electric. The study was approved b
the Board on March 2, 2011 (enclosed in Appendix I.d.. It is anticipated that the
study will be completed by the end of ,June 2011.
Enclosed in Appendix 1.d., are the motor teardo rn reports from Perry Electric
indicating the presence of grater in the motor housing of influent pump motor #4
causing a short in the grindings. Three other influent pump motors including a spare
motor had moisture in them as well* One pump motor #3 was not affected and was
run later in the day. During the response to the overflow, a maintenance contractor
that was on site tested the motor c onductors via megger to determine if the
conductors had failed. The reggers indicated than the conductors were serviceable
and not damaged by the floodwater. Backup documentation regarding this is also
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 53
included In Appendix 1A New conductors were also installed and connected
to all four pump motors in the evening of December 19, 2010 as a precaution.
'age
The original installation date and any subsequent rebuild dates of the
treatment plant influent pumps, including design and construction standards
specifications, and recommended operations and maintenance procedures by
the manufacturer.
Response; The original installation and rebuild dates of the pumps are as follows:
Influent Pump #1 — 1965
Influent Pump #2 rt- 1965
Influent Pump #3 — 1979
Influent Pump #4 —1991
Design and construction standards and plans associated with the installation
projects are enclosed In Appendix 1.e. as well as operations and maintenance
procedures.
t'.
Documentation discussing any planned or proposed capital or O&M projects
for the head works facility and/or ancillary equipment, such as but not limited
to any upgrades such as pump /motor rebuilds, electrical system and /or
equipment upgrades, etc, 1'nluding any proposed budgets generated for
consideration of any upgrades since year 2000.
Response: As included in Appendix 1.f, since 2000 the following projects have
been identified in the annual budgets for the 1'--ieadw rl s:
FY-02/03 Influent Pumps VFD upgrade $15,000 — Completed
FY-04105 Influent Line to Pumping Plant Design and Replacement $45,000 —
I n itiated
Standby Generator upgrade $280,000 — Initiated
Electrical System upgrade $200,000 — Initiated
Emergency Influent Bypass Pump 100,000 — Initiated
FY 05/05 Influent Flood Wall Replacement $118,309 — Initiated
Influent Pump Gate Valve $5,000 — Initiated
Influent Lire Replacement $45,000 — Carry Over
Emergency Influent Bypass Pump $135,000 — In Fabrication
Standby Generator upgrade $308,000 — Garay Over
Electrical System Upgrade $200,000 — Garay Over
FY 06!07 Electrical System Upgrade $260,000 — Garay Over
Influent Flood Wall Replacement $220,000 — In Design
Emergency Influent Bypass Pump $140,000 — In Fabrication
Standby Generator Upgrade $308,000 — In Construction
Influent Line Replacement $4250,000 — Garay over and combine
projects
FY 07/08 Emergency Influent Bypass Pump $140,000 — Project Completed
Influent Flood Wall Replacement $10,000 — Project Completed
Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 54
Page►
Influent Line Upgrade $260,000 — Combination of Splitter Box
Valve project and influent line upgrade — Initiated and became part of
the FY 09/1 o "1 nfl u en t Pumps Gate and Dheck Valves"
Influent Pump Room m Exhaust Fan $7,000 — Initiated
Electrical System Upgrade $250,000 — Carry Over
Standby Generator Upgrade $10,000 — Project Completed
FY 08/00 Influent Pumps Gate and Check Valves $261 ,000 — Carry Over
Influent Pump Room Exhaust Fan $7,500 — In Design
Electrical System Upgrade $285,000 -- Carry O ver
FY 09/10 Influent Pump Room Exhaust Fan $ , coo — Completed
Influent Pumps Gate and Check Valves $244,000, Phase I completed,
Phase II Completed, design of Phase III — In progress
Electrical System Upgrade $425, 000 — In Design
FY 10/11 Influent Pumps Gate and Check Valves $416,000 — Scope increased;
addition of sliplining.
Electrical System Upgrade $500,000 — In Design
. Recommended mmended operations and maintenance procedures supplied by the
manufacturer for the influent pump motor variable frequency drives (VFDs),
circuit breakers and other associated electrical equipment, including
documentation for the upstream power supply and associated circuit breaker
that provides electrical power for all four VFD knits.
Response: Please find enclosed in Appendix 1.g. the following information:
• Main head works breaker and sub breaker
• Influent Pump Motors
• Influent Pump VFDs O&M Manual Toshiba and Baldor
• Headworks single line diagram
h. Historical maintenance records for the past three years for any wort
performed on the influent pump motor VFDs, circuit breakers and other
associated electrical equipment, including any maintenance records for the
upstream power supply and associated circuit breaker that provides electrical
power for all four VFD units.
Res Please find enclosed in Appendix 1.h. the following information:
• Annual Maintenance Records for the Motor Control Center
• Semi Annual Maintenance Records for the Influent Pumps and
Motor
i. Copies of the Dischargees annual operating/fiscal year budget report
(discussion of main budget items for proposed projects) since year 2000.
Response: nse: Please find enclosed in Appendix 1.i. the following information:
• The District budgets for Fiscal Year 2000/ 2001 through
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 55
2010/2011. Included in each budget is a list of Major
Budget items and their corresponding descriptions.
2. Discharger's Response to the Unauthorized Discharge of Untreated Sewage:
Page 8
a. A detailed chronological description of all actions taken by the Discharger t o
terminate the discharge, divert sewage flows from the headw rks including
any bypass, and mitigate the impacts from the discharge. The narrative
description must include an evaluation of the results of these actions.
Response: Please find enclosed in Appendix 2.a. the timeline and narrative of how
the discharge was terminated. It is important to note that the response to the
unauthorized discharge was hampered by the evacuation order given by the County
of San Luis Obispo due to the potential of the Arroyo Grande Creels levee failing
behind the plant coupled with severe flooding in the surrounding area, as well as
within the plant. Floodwaters of up to two to three feet cove red a number of
manholes that were potentially spilling. As a result, it was not possible to stop or
contain the spilling of wastewater in some locations outside the plant. The sludge
drying beds and biosolids storage area within the plant were used to contain
untreated influent spilling within the plant and to contain rain water and flooding
entering the plant from the neighboring street and Oc eano Airport to the greatest
extent possible. It is also important to note that all water processed through the plant
met permit requirements.
The milestones of the response were the following with the discharge terminated
incrementally over the course of 11-1/2 hours with all discharge terminated by :00
on December 1 g, 2010.
• 10:35 est — The diesel influent pump was started but was not pumping due to
a closed discharge block valve.
16.50 est — The pump block valve was partially opened, and the pump was
pumping 2.8 MGD.
11:60 est — The SSO begins.
11:30 est — Pumping began to the drying beds and biosolids storage area.
14:30 est — The diesel pump block valve was open completed, and the pump
was pumping 5.2 MGD.
18:06 ,-- The supplemental diesel pump from Pismo Beach was operational
with both pumps collectively pumping 6.3 MGD.
20&20 The #3 influent pump is started, and with the two diesel pumps, the
collective pumped flow is 8.64 MGD.
22:00 — The SSO from all manholes Is stopped.
Included in the narrative is an evaluation of the results of these actions. In
Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 56
Pagel
summary, the diesel pump is rated to pump the influent flows that the plant
encountered on December 19, 2010. The deficiencies include not having the pump
discharge valve locked open and not being able to operate the diesel pump at its
maximum design speed. If the pump discharge valve was open and the pump
operated at design speed, the probability of a sewer overflow would have been very
low.
b. A copy of the Discharger*s approved and certified Sanitary Sewer
Management Plan (SSMP), including evidence of DischargeFls Board approval,
prepared in accordance with the SSSWDF s. Please describe how the
procedures detailed in the Discharger's Overflow Emergency Response a Plan
were implemented during the mitigation and response activities associated
with the SSo event, including any suggested changes planned to Improve the
plan as a result of the 12/19/2010 SSO event.
Response: Please find enclosed in Appendix .b. a copy of the District's SSMP,
which was approved by the Board of Directors on July 15, 2009. The District
recently reprised the SSMP to reflect staffing changes and incorporate lessons
learned from the SSO event. Revision ion 1 of the District's SSMP is also included.
The estimated stark time of the SSO event was 1 1:00 AM. Notifications by District
staff of the required agencies RWQC , County Health, DalE 1A, etc.) were made in
accordance with the SSMP, and despite the error in the SSMP, which stated the
notification must be made within 24 hours (this has been corrected in Revision ion 1 ),
the required notifications were made within the two 2 hour timeframe mandated by
Order Igo. WQ 2008 - 0002 -EXEC.
The District's OERP called for District staff to secure the area and post warning
signs. At approximately 1 7:00, District staff went out and marked potential SS
locations with traffic cones and written information regarding the SSO and the need
for the Public to avoid contact with floodwater in the area. A photo of one of the
warning sign posted on December 19, 2010 is included in Appendix 2.b.
The OERP additionally called for the District to spread lime over the affected area
and clean up dirt for disposal offsite. This plan was implemented with chlorine, but
only on the one area identified by District staff as having an odor and risible material
to clean up. The flooding that occurred during the SSO took the 'majority of the
spilled sewage through the Oc eano Lagoon to the mouth of Arroyo Grande Creek
and, ultimately, to the Pacific Ocean at Oceano State Beach, leaving normal flood
related debris and no odor at the beach. After the floodwaters receded and it was
deemed safe, District staff cleaned and disinfected the area around manhole G13-115,
which is located on l for wing Drive near Meadow Lagoon, on December 20, 2011
and again on December 28, 2010.
Enclosed in Appendix 2.b, is a list of changes that were recommended based upon
our review of the response to the SSO event. These changes are included in the
reprised OERP, which is also enclosed as part of Revision ion 1 of the SSMP.
. A detaile d description of the final corrective actions, including are update of
the status of the final repair, documentation of associated costs involved
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 57
Page 10
Response: As part of the report submitted on January 3 2011 a list of
corrective actions were included. These corrective actions are enclosed in Appendix
2.c. A total of 20 corrective actions were identified. The task list that identifies 20
items is attached. To date 10 have been or will be completed within a month. The
remaining 10 are in process with some to be completed as early as this summer.
The costs associated or anticipated to complete the actions are included where
appropriate.
d. A detailed description of the Dischar per's Sewer Reserve Fund including the
Discharger's criteria for utilization of that fund for emergency projects, and an
annual accounting of the monies available in than reserve from 2008 to the
present,
Response: The District does not specifically identify a sewer reserve fund, but
rather since it is a Sanitation District, all fund balances not specifically budgeted are
considered reserve funds. (inclosed in Appendix 2.d. are the fund balances for the
District.
. A diagram of the affected lagoons and creel, Pismo State Beach, and the
Pacific ocean showing the areas of these waters that were closed or restricted
to the public as a result of the untreated sewage discharge, including the
dates these areas were closed to public use and communication
logs informartion with state and local regulatory agencies.,
Response: Please find enclosed in Appendix 2.e. a diagram of the affected water
bodies as well as where and when they were closed. Given the storm conditions at
the time, public access to the beach was restricted by the State Parks depar
and access to the Meadow Creek lagoon was not possible due to the fact it had
flooded its banks and inundated the surrounding neighborhoods. In fact, we
understand that the San Luis Obispo County Sherriff was considering evacuating the
neighborhoods due to the imminent threat of failure of the Arroyo Grande Creek
levee. The information associated with communication to the state and local
regulatory agencies includes the following:
11:40
Grover Beach lire Dept, Capt. Searb y notified
11:
SLO Co. Sheriffs Dept Dispatch notified
11.
Office of Emergency Services, Patricia Reynolds lds notified
12:00
CAL -E A notified, Certification #10 -7627
12:15
Ca. Dept. of Fish and Game notified left message
12:20
Regional Water Quality Control Board notified left message
f. Copies of any field response documents during and/or after the SSo event,
including site photos, interview notes and information related to sewer
backups into structures.
Response: Included in Appendix 2.f. are field notes taken by ,John Wallace and
Torn Zehnder on the state of event, the plant logs for December 18-20, and
interviews conducted with plant staff in the days following the event. In addition,
enclosed are interviews and phone logs of contact with the general public.
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 58
3. Monitoring and Analysis of the Unauthorized Discharge of untreated
Sewage:
Page I I
, A description of all water quality sampling activities conducted by the
Discharger or other agencies associated with the sewage spill, analytical
results, and an evaluation of the results.
Response: The District did not conduct additional water quality sampling activities
immediately following the SSO due to the San Luis Obispo SL County Flood
Advisory issued on December 20, 2010. As stated in the District's SSIP under
section 6.12, the District utilized the SLO County Environmental Health EH
Department for the service o f water quality monitoring after the SS.
SLO County EH conducts weekly ocean sampling at the Oceano State Beach at
sampling stations OC B11, OCB 1 , and OCB 1 , which are located 571 yards south
of Pier Ave., at the end of Pier Ave., and 350 yards north of Pier Ave., respectively.
On December 2, 2010, the County issued a Flood Advisory for all of the beaches in
its jurisdiction, and, therefore, did not sample at Oceano State Beach the week of
the December 19, 2010 due to safety precautions and the need to avoid
dangerously high surf. The County also posted signs warning the public of the
sewage spill and rain advisory at all main beach entrances and on all beach advisory
boards. The weekly ocean sampling schedule was reinstated the next week when
SLO County EH conducted their next scheduled sampling event on December 28,
2010.
SLO County EH monitors for total coliform, fecal c lif rm, and enteroco ous which
are the same pollutants the District is required to monitor for under NPDES Permit
No. CA0048003, Order No. R3-9009-0046. The single sample maximum limits for
these three pollutants are the same for SLO County EH and the District. These
Deceiving Water limits are derived from the California Ocean Plan and are given in
the following table;
Pollutant
Single sample Maximum Limit
Total Coliforrn
10,000 per 100 ml
Fecal Coliform
400 per 100 ml
Enterococcus
104 per 100 ml
An evaluation of the results from SLO County PH's December 28, 2011 monitoring is
show below:
Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 59
Nee 1
SLO Environmental Health Oceano state Beach Water Quality Monitoring
Results December 28, 2010
Monitorin
.
Mon
Total Coliforrr►
f=ecal Coliforn�
�nterococc�s
Results Within
( MPN/1 00
Receiving
g
L
MP/1 001
l
(MPN/100 m
rrrl )
Water limit
(Yes/No
C B 1 1
1 720
10
10
`des
O CB12
2247
20
31
`des
O CB13
2247
31
42
`des
*MPN: Most Probable Number
Upon return and evaluation of the water quality results, SLO County EH lifted the
beach advi on December 29, 2010.
During this time, all plant effluent was monitored in accordance with the District
1PDES Permit. No violations of effluent limits occurred on December 19, 2010 or
for the remainder of the month of December.
b. A description of the Discharger's accelerated or additional monitoring
provisions developed as part of the Overflow Emergency response Plan in the
Discharger's SSMP {section 6.f).
Response: The District did not conduct additional effluent monitoring under the
NPDES Permit as the WVVTP was operating normally once it began to receive raver
influent. As stated in section 3 .a. above, San Luis Obispo County Environmental
Health conducted water quality monitoring and results were within the Receiving
wing
Water limits. Please find attached the updated Overflow Emergency Response
Plan ERP) in Appendix .b. The OERP was updated as a result of lessons
learned during the SS O.
. A detailed location map for any subsequent water quality sampling and
reference points.
Response: Please find attached in Appendix 3.c. the location neap.
d. Historical records (past three years) of the influent quality received by the
Discharger's wastewater treatment plant for the following: 1) conventional
pollutants - total suspended solids, settleable solids, turbidity, oil and grease,
pH and fecal conform bacteria and toxic pollutants (see gable 6 of I PDES
Permit No, CA00 600 , Order No. R3
Response: i PD S Permit i o.CA00 600 , Order I o.F - 2009 -0046, requires the
District to perform influent monitoring for the following pollutants:
I. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) - weekly
2. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) - weekly
3. Settleable Solids (S5) - monthly
Please find the 2006 2009, 2010, and January through April 2011 influent
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 60
monitoring results for TSB and SS enclosed in Appendix 3A
Page 1
The District is not required by NP ES Permit No.CA0048003, Order Flo. R3-2009-
0046, to sample influent for tonic pollutants. As a result, this technical report does
not contain the requested influent monitoring results for these pollutants.
4. Impacts of the Unauthorized Discharge of Untreated Sewage.
An assessment of the potential short- and long -term Impacts of the discharge
on public health, animal and plant communities (including sensitive and /or
endangered species), and on the overall ecosystem downstream of the
discharge. The assessment must include:
Response: We have contacted Douglas I ischbieter with the Mate Water Quality
Control Board. Nor. Iischbieter prepared a monitoring report entitled Lower Arroyo
Grande Creek and La_ n Fishery and A Luatio Resources Summary ..2006
M nitorrn lie ort attached in Armendix 4, a . This is the only assessment of the
ecosystem that has been prepared that we are aware of based upon our research.
Mr. I ischbieter is on vacation for the month of May. We have contacted him aria
phone and email (attached in Appendix .a. ) and seek to contract with him to
complete an additional assessment related to the discharge. If Mr. Iichbreter is not
available to complete an additional assessment, we will contact another qualified
consultant.
i, A summary of all threatened and endangered species located downstream
of the spill site within or adjacent to Arroyo Grande creek on strand Way,
ooeano lagoon along Maul Circle, Aloha Place, Pismo Mate Beach and the
Pacific ocean.
Response. Based upon a review of Mr. I ischbieter's report, the lower Arroyo
Grande Creek may contain the following threatened and endangered species:
Tidewater Goby and Bteelhead Trout.
Based upon a review of the Arroyo Grande Creek Channel Waterway
Management Program AGWMP Environmental Impact Report (EIR sections
4.3.1.5-7 included in Appendix ra. the following special status wildlife species
were identified that potentially could be present in the Arroyo Grande Creek
Channel:
• Tidewater Goby
• steelhead Trout
• California red legged
frog
Coast range newt
Southwestern pond
turtle
Coast horned lizard
Two- striped garter
snake
0 Cooper's hawk
0 sharp - shinned hark
e Western yellow- billed
cuckoo
e Yellow warbler
o White tailed kite
0 Purple martin
0 Least bell's vireo
0 Southwestern willow
flycatcher
0 Pallid bat
0 Townsend "s big -eared
hat
Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 61
Page ]
• other nesting birds
and roosting birds
ii. A description of all observations and sampling activities conducted by or on
behalf of the Discharger associated with potential short -tenn and long -term
impacts to human health, vegetation and wildlife from the spill and an evaluation
of these limpa ts_
F p ns : We have voluntarily initiated and completed two sampling events of
the Meadow Creek Lagoon and mouth of Arroyo Grande Creek and have
enclosed the results and sampling locations in Appendix 4.a.11. We will complete
further sampling as recommended by Cllr. I is hbieter.
b. This assessment must be prepared by a technical professional qualified to
evaluate the short and long term impacts of the discharge on ecological
receptors.
Response: It is our intent to contract with Cllr_ l is hbieter, given his background
and prior research, or other qualified professional if Mr. I ws hbieter is not available.
. A detailed discussion of the Dis harger's efforts to date to obtain the
necessary permits, develop mitigation plans, and restore any environmental
impacts as a result of the untreated sewage discharge. This discussion shall
include any correspondence or applications submitted to other
res ur elregulat ry agencies.
Response: To date no environmental impacts have been identified and, as a result,
no permits, mitigation plans or restoration of environmental impacts has occurred.
Based upon the findings of Mr. Rischbieter, the District will address any identified
environmental impacts moving forward.
In the meantime, the County Flood Control District and Public Works s Department
recommended various actions pertaining to the operation of Arroyo Grande Creek
flap gates and the Oceano Lagoon area. These efforts are more drainage related,
but they also impact our plans for future operations of the District's trunk sewer
system and flood improvements to the plant. We will continue to work with the
County and other resource agencies to alleviate flooding conditions in the area and
to continue to improve coordination efforts with agencies and residents alike.
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 62
6. Additional information
Page 1
Completion of attached Collection System Questionnaire (both in hard copy
and electronic Microsoft word format - E3oard staff will send electronic
questionnaire via email).
Response: The District completed the Collection System Questionnaire
( Questionnaire) and attached the Questionnaire and the supporting documents
requested in Part 2 Section 1 of the Questionnaire in Appendix 5-a. The
Questionnaire is currently in draft format and under review by the State Water
Resources Control Board. The District completed the Questionnaire in its entirety
as it was written and revised on April 5, 2011.
b. Copies of collection system service calls records, logs of complaints
received from service area customers, and maintenance records (including
any invoices received by outside contractors conducting maintenance,
cleaning, and /or repairs) over the past 24 months.
Response (Call Records): The Cities of Grover Beach, Arroyo Grande, and the
ceano Community Services District Member Agencies) each retain individual
ownership and direct responsibility for wastewater collection within their respective
community boundaries. The District owns a large diameter trunk sewer system to
transport the Wastewater collected within each of the Member Agencies to the
treatment plant.
With the Member Agencies each retaining ownership and responsibilities for
wastewater collection within their respective boundaries the District does not
receive many calls from public members directly. While there are a limited number
of service laterals connected directly to the District's trunk system throughout the
system, the District is not immediately aware of receiving any service cards or
complaints specific to the trunk system over the last 24 months other than those
provided in Appendix .b.
Of those provided in Appendix ,b., one 1 is related to financial assistance for
flood related damages on December 19, 2010, one 1 is related to sewage
backing up into a home on the Grover Beach collection system, two were calls
from the front gate telephone reporting released flood waters resulting from culvert
work completed by Caltrans that followed the same drainage path through the
ceano Airport adjacent to the treatment plant, as during the December 19, 201
rain event, one 1 was related to a housing assistance request after a home was
evacuated by the Sheriff in Oceano as a result of flooding, and one 1 was related
to a call from the Fire Department on behalf of a resident than wanted to know more
about events on December 19, 2010 at the treatment plant.
Response Maintenance Records): Please find enclosed copies in Appendix 5.b.
of maintenance records for the District Trunk Line over the past 6 years (including
invoices received by outside contractors conducting maintenance, cleaning, and /or
repairs). Please note that the Investigative Order inciuded with the Water Beard's
NOV only required such records over the prior 24 month period. Ho wever, we feet it
more appropriate to provide such records over the prior 6 year period in order to be
more consistent with the requirements and frequencies defined within Element
Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 63
Page 1
(Operations and Maintenance) of the District's approved SSMP, and to more
effectively demonstrate the level of due diligence provided by the District with
respect to fiscal and economic responsibility of owning and maintaining a large
diameter trunk system.
Section 4 of our approved SSMP defines among other things, our regulatory
requirements for providing: resource and budget, mapping, preventative
maintenance, inspection, cleaning, system assessment, short and long terra
rehabilitation, and replacement to the Trunk Line system.
For your convenience the maintenance records provided in Appendix _b. are
categorized into the following areas: 1 Video Inspection, Assessment
Cleaning, Hot Spot Assessment and Maintenance, and Rehabilitation and Repair,
and are discussed in detail in the following paragraphs.
At the beginning of the section we have provided a District Trunk Line map to assist
in locating the areas to which work has been performed.
Video Inspection:
During the past 5 years, the District Trunk Line has been video inspected in its
entirety. Currently the frequency stated within Section 4 of the District's approved
SSMP is once every 6 years. Pith each inspection, the District has received
narrated color videos and detailed written fogs of the existing conditions found at the
time of inspection. Upon receipt of the of the videos and written inspection logs,
District Engineering Staff has performed subsequent review and assessment,
documenting the general condition of the pipe and rioting any system deficiencies
and /or abnormalities for consideration in future rehabilitation and replacement
projects,
The following table identifies the frequencies and locations of video inspection
occurring within the District Trunk Line over the prior 5 year period.
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 64
Upper Sewer Farm
September 19, 2007
2007
Trunk System
3 ft
Bal eman Lane Staff
(Manhole B -1 2a to
o. rani)
Report to the Board
B22
Grover Beach Trunk
December 5, 2007
2007
Lire
11 $ 0 0 ft
Grover Beach Staff
(Manhole GB -1 to GB-
.1 rani)
Report to the Board
4
South Side Trunk
May 21, 2008 gunk
2008
System
20 ft
Line Video Inspection
( Manhole A- I to C-
i
Staff Report to the
Board
Lower Sewer Farm
May 21, 2008 Trunk
Trunk System
5 ft
Line Video Inspection
( Manhole A -9a to B-
1.0 mi
Staff Report to the
12b)
Board
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 64
Page 1
In addition to the times identified above, the system was also video inspected in
January 200 4, following the San Simeon Earthquake occurring December 2003.
Please note that the majority of the Inspections listed above were completed
immediately following issuance of the State Water Resource Control Board Order
No. 2006 -0003, Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary
Sewers and prior to the mandated time for implementation of Phase 11 video
inspection requirements.
While reviewing the May 21, 2008 Trunk Line Inspection Staff Report for video
inspection completed in 200 8, you will find the overall objective to be:
Satisfy the requirement of State Water er Resources Control Board Order No.
2006 -0003, Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary
Sewers, which requires owners and operators of sanitary sewer systems greater
than one mile in length to perform regular visual and TIC inspection of the
manholes and sewer pipes as well as develop a system for ranking their
condition and for scheduling needed rehabilitation of any noted abnormalities
andor deficiencies.
2 To follo w through with recommendation made to the Board by District Staff in the
staff report dated September 19, 2007, entitled Bakeman Lane Trunk Line
Analysis update. Those recommendations included the need for further video
inspection of the remaining Trunk System prior to initiating rehabilitation of the
deficiencies noted in the area of Bakeman Lane Trunk Line.
Within the Recommendation section of the same staff report you will also find:
Upon conclusion of the work, District Staff will perform an Engineer's
Assessment of the results. This assessment will aid in developing a rehabilitation
and replacement plan to identify and prioritize system deficiencies and
implement short-term and long -term rehaabilitedon actions to address each
deficiency.
In general video inspection of the District Trunk has identified that the system is in
overall good condition. various short- terra and long -term rehabilitation items were
identified as discussed in the following categories, previously defined.
Assessment
As mentioned previously within this section, upon receipt of the narrated color
videos and detailed written logs District Staff performs assessment of the existing
conditions. For your convenience and revie w, a copy of a recent Power Point
presentation prepared for the SSLCSD District Board detailing the findings and
assessment of prior video inspection has been included within Appendix 5.b. These
types of assessments assist the District in determining future budget requirements
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 65
Cherry Ave. Trunk
May 27, 2008 Trunk
2008
System
4830 ft
Line Video Inspection
(Manhole C -50 to C -71)
(0.9 mi)
Staff Report to the
Board
In addition to the times identified above, the system was also video inspected in
January 200 4, following the San Simeon Earthquake occurring December 2003.
Please note that the majority of the Inspections listed above were completed
immediately following issuance of the State Water Resource Control Board Order
No. 2006 -0003, Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary
Sewers and prior to the mandated time for implementation of Phase 11 video
inspection requirements.
While reviewing the May 21, 2008 Trunk Line Inspection Staff Report for video
inspection completed in 200 8, you will find the overall objective to be:
Satisfy the requirement of State Water er Resources Control Board Order No.
2006 -0003, Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary
Sewers, which requires owners and operators of sanitary sewer systems greater
than one mile in length to perform regular visual and TIC inspection of the
manholes and sewer pipes as well as develop a system for ranking their
condition and for scheduling needed rehabilitation of any noted abnormalities
andor deficiencies.
2 To follo w through with recommendation made to the Board by District Staff in the
staff report dated September 19, 2007, entitled Bakeman Lane Trunk Line
Analysis update. Those recommendations included the need for further video
inspection of the remaining Trunk System prior to initiating rehabilitation of the
deficiencies noted in the area of Bakeman Lane Trunk Line.
Within the Recommendation section of the same staff report you will also find:
Upon conclusion of the work, District Staff will perform an Engineer's
Assessment of the results. This assessment will aid in developing a rehabilitation
and replacement plan to identify and prioritize system deficiencies and
implement short-term and long -term rehaabilitedon actions to address each
deficiency.
In general video inspection of the District Trunk has identified that the system is in
overall good condition. various short- terra and long -term rehabilitation items were
identified as discussed in the following categories, previously defined.
Assessment
As mentioned previously within this section, upon receipt of the narrated color
videos and detailed written logs District Staff performs assessment of the existing
conditions. For your convenience and revie w, a copy of a recent Power Point
presentation prepared for the SSLCSD District Board detailing the findings and
assessment of prior video inspection has been included within Appendix 5.b. These
types of assessments assist the District in determining future budget requirements
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 65
for necessary repair and rehabilitation.
Page 1
Through recent video inspection the District has been able to identify and
repair /rehabilitate numerous manhole locations found to be paved below asphalt,
locate severer hotspots consisting of root penetrations and grease accumulations
requiring more frequent cleaning frequencies, locate and remove debris causing
potential flow restrictions, become more akin to actual cleaning requirements based
on observation, and identify finer deficiencies which may lead to long -term
degradation of the concrete pipe.
Cleanin
Within Appendix 5.b. please find a copy of the South San Luis Obispo County
Sanitation District Trunk Server System Inspection and Cleaning Zone Frequency
map. The map identifies the trunk server cleaning frequency and provides visual
reference to the section included in each phase. Budget estimates were prepared in
2009 and considered for future fiscal year budget allocation under the Trunk Line
Operations and Maintenance Budget.
As stipulated within Section 4 of the approved District SSIl P, cleaning occurs at
recurring 3 year intervals, with the entire system being cleaned every 6 years.
Currently Phase 1 cleaning is due by 2012. The District has yet to implement
system -ride cleaning since approving the final District SSIl P. The District does
recognize that the hydraulic scour c aused by the high -flow trunk system requires
different consideration than smaller diameter municipal lines when determining
cleaning frequencies and may change the frequency in the future to match the
needs of that which is observed through video inspection observation and actual
debris removal quantities during future cleanings.
Historical records of prior cleaning efforts occurring in years 2007 -2009 are included
In Appendix 5.b. under the Cleaning heading as well as the Htot heading.
Hot r) t
By proactively providing the video inspection services previously mentioned, the
District has become aware of various trunk segments, which have become classified
as system "hotspots ", placing these locations on an increased cleaning and
observation frequency.
Identifying these locations has allowed the District to retain the professional services
of outside vendors to address the concerns caused by these hotspot.
Please find in Appendix .b. a memorandum darted August 1 2009 entitled
Evaluation and Maintenance a of SSLO SD Trunk Lure "hot Spots" between C-56
and C-50. This memorandum provides the details of the primary hotspot located on
the trunk system and includes historical and photographic record of the actions
taken by the District to remedy the deficiencies noted at this location. Additionally,
please find signed purchase orders to the City of Arroyo Grande public Works and
Mainline Utility Company darted September 1, 2009 and October 11, 2010 for
ongoing work associated with system cleaning, de- rooting, and video inspection
services .
Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 66
Page 1
One additional hotspot is located at between Manhole C and D - 71. This
location consists of a steel pipe bridge passing over the Arroyo Grande Creel. The
pipe bridge was constructed in 1965 as part of the original collection system during
construction of the Waste Water Treatment Plant in O ceano. The 146 ft long Pipe
Bridge crosses the Arroyo Grande just east of the grillage between Nelson Street
and Bast Branch Street in Arroyo Grande. The bridge is constructed of - and -in
standard lap welded wrought steel pipe members in a triangular truss configuration
which in turn supports an 1 -inn diameter steel sewer pipe which is integral to the
bridge superstructure.
Do cumentation describ the Di strict's efforts to ma this structure are included
in Appendix S.b. under the Hotspots heading.
Rehabilitation and Repair
Do cuments suppo rting the District's recent e ff ort s to date to re habilitate and re pair
the District trunk sewer are provided in Appendix 5.b. under the heading of
Rehabilitation and Repair. As discussed preciously, these deficiencies were noted
during prior video inspection within the District trunk severer. Primarily the repairs and
rehabilitation have consisted of locating and raising manhole previously paved over
or non - identified, recoating of manhole interiors ( see Staff R T District Board
dated December 6, 2007 under the heading of Video Inspection in Appendix 5.b.),
and design consideration and implementation for the relining of asbestos cement
pipe within the District trunk sewer.
c. Any other pertinent information that will assist the state Water Board state in
eva!ti ing the n ti,r , clor r��x rfr� � t mt, d r vi� f t � tintre- t
s ewage di scharge*
Response: ponse: Gi ren that the SSO occurred during a major storm event that
threatened to cause the Arroyo Grande c reek levee, which runs adjacent to the
plant, to overtop and fail, as well as flooding of the plant and surrounding
neighborhood when the Meadow Creel lagoon overflowed, it is difficult to
definitively calculate the actual volume of influent that was spilled and its dilution
with the very large flows from the upstream watershed. This is compounded by the
fact that the influent meter was flooded, which prevents calculating the flows
entering the plant. To better understand the nature of the events surrounding the
SS O, the following information is enclosed in Appendix .c.:
Spill Report Sent to CRWQCB
The District sent the California Regional Water Q uality Control Board, Central
Coast Region, a spill report in response to the December 19 2010 spill, as
required by the Standard Provisions attached to the District's Waste
Discharge Requirements (WDR) Order No. R3-2009-0046. The spill report
contains the following information:
1 , A chronological description and tuning of events that lead up to and
followed the December 19 g'l sewage spill event-
Staffing levels at the District's wastewater treatment plant VIIVVTP
and actions taken between the morning o December 18, 2010 and
the time the WW P was fully operational and in compliance with the
VD R;
Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 67
3 _ All available wastewater flog data (influent and effluent) for
this time period;
4. An estimate of the sewage spill volume and duration; and
Page
5. A summary ► of proposed actions, upgrades, repairs, etc. required to
protect the header ors influent pump station from future failures as a
result of flooding.
• ceano Flood Photographs
The photographs enclosed in Appendix 5.c- compare the status of sites in
ceano during and after the flooding, in order to illustrate the extent to which
the floodwater affected the public and the District on December 19, 2010.
• San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors Emergency Proclamation
O December 28, 2010, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors
held an emergency meeting and approved extending the emergency
Proclamation 14 more days. The emergency proclamation had been in effect
since December 21, 201 , and was originally scheduled to rd t pry on
December 28, 2010. Enclosed in Appendix _c. are the Meeting Minutes,
which recorded this Board decision. The emergency proclamation given on
December 21, 2010 is also enclosed in Appendix 5 .c.
• Member Agency and District PowerPoint Presentations and Meeting
Minute
District Staff presented PowerPoint presentations discussing the events
which occurred December 19, 2010 at each of the Member Agencies' City
Council meetings and to the District Board of Directors meeting. The
PowerPoint presentations, each Member Agencies' Meeting Minutes, and the
Board of Directors Meeting Minutes from the meeting at which the
PowerPoint presentations were made are enclosed in Appendix 5.c.
* San Luis Obispo County Community Meeting
San Luis Obispo County and approximately ten other resource agencies,
including the District, held a Community Meeting in Oceano in order to
receive further public comment on the flooding, which occurred on December
19 2010. The invitation the District received for the event, a newspaper
article discussing the Community Meeting, the PowerPoints presented by the
County and the District, and photographs of the event are enclosed in
Appendix 5.c. SSL CSD also provided attendees a tape home flyer, which
discusses SSL CSD's role and function in the community, and included the
flyer in Appendix 5.c.
SLO County Board of Supervisors " ceano Community Drainage and
Flooding Issues F eport
On May 24, 2011, San Luis Obispo County's Utilities Director submitted a
Report, which discussed and evaluated the Oceano Community drainage
and flooding events and issues than occurred in December 2010 and
continue to be addressed, to the San Luis Obispo County Board of
Supervisors. The District Administer provided testimony at this hearing.
The Report and May 24, 2011 County Board of Supervisors Meeting Minutes
are enclosed in Appendix 5.c.
• OCSD Board of Supervisors NOV Response a Presentation
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 68
Page 21
District Staff presented a P werP int presentation at the Oceano
Community Services District Board o f Supervisors meeting regarding the
December 19, 2010 spill and the Notice of Violation the State Water
Resources Control Board required in response to the event. A copy of the
presentation is enclosed in Appendix Sx.
End of responses
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 69
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item II.a.
Page 70
PAR
>0
NV FiP RATED
Ax y 10, 1911
C %,4
d q
SOZ
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
,JUNE 14 2011 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 8.g. — LETTER T
CPUC REGARDING SMARTIII'IETER PROGRAM
DATE: ,JUNE 1, 2011
Attached is correspondence received today r rdin Item 8. relating to the
SmartMeter Program.
: City Attorney
City Clerk
G Cif
From: allinda930@netzero.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 1 4, g1 '1 3:14 P1
To: AG City
object: SmartM t r Agenda Item 6/14/11
ttachment ; Arroyo grande City oun il.d ; OPPOSITION TO WIRELESS SMART METERS.doc
Dear City Council Members,
Thank you for taking the time to read the attached in related to smartmeters .
I will also be forwarding are email I received a friend of nine April 8th: a picture taken in
the Bair area Larch 19th and another taken 3 weeps later (April - -F a healthy bush that
died after 18e smartmeters were installed.
Linda Ikeda
Get Free Email with Video bail & Video Chat!
http://www.netzero.net/
I
To: Arroyo Grande City Council
agcity a�arroyogrande.org
From: Linda Ikeda
Date: 6/14/11
SmarrtM t r — Agenda 6/14/11
Please enact an urgent ordinance banning the installation of wireless
SmartM t rs for 1 year in the city of Arroyo rand . They are not safe. We
need to keep our analog rasters with an extras fee.
I am one o f the 3% of people (according to the Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance acrd, the federal ar n y than administers the American
with Disabilities Act.) se verely sensitive to wireless and dirty electricity,
result of overexposure and a head injury Au 2005.
People than study this, like Magda dar Navas from Canada, says than up t o 50% may
be hyper sensitive mardarharvar.r /tarp /multiple - sclerosis. Manny do not
make the connection between their symptoms and pulsed high frequencies in
the air girl o r on the wiring as produced by wireless SmarrtM t r . In
Europe, 30,000 doctors signed the Friburr Appal observing the
connection in their patients to pulsed high frequencies and the many health
problems than resolve or improve when removed from than environment.
NMI The heard injury I had, occurred wh I was on the phone and DSL, was
activated for high speed int rn t. Apparently the filters w not functioning
properly and I felt ar strong heating come through the phone's receiver. From than
moment on, it felt like I had had ar bad burn inside my heard, from my ears
across through my sinuses to the other side of my head. Thereafter, cell phones
o n standby 50 feet away caused piercing ear pain. A television turned on 40 feet
away caused rapid heartbeat f ll ow d by such severe weakness I felt like I was
dying. fly allergies wr severely w plus 3 of ar page of other s ymptoms.
Before this injury, I did not make the connection that my disability had anythin
to do with high frequencies from my cordless phone o on my electricity, etc.
often was so weak, it was hard to walk. After the injury, all I wanted to do is
find something non-pharmaceutical to relieve the pain in my head. I tried
various products. To my surprise, some of the products than reduced the pain
in my head immediately caused the weakness to vanish! l did not expect that
and no one told me that than might happ
I didn't kn what else to d. I w to the doctor but he was clueless; went to my
chiropractor and he produced information about my condition. Finally, someone
arranged for my c hiropractor and I to talk with George Carlo, previous head o
ONR
one of the largest, if not THE largest study n cell phones and their biological
effects. H told u what t do and h w the various products I tried worked
a t the cellular level 1 was once a cell biology tutor) — use theta and stay away
from wireless, etc. When I did that, every health problem I agar had began t
disappear. Later, I was told that there was possible nerve damage and that that
takes a long time repair. When the SmartMeters were installed in our
neighborhood, I had already healed a lot (no piercing ear pain, no err
weakness, often unable to feel a cell phone, etc) but was still healing and
continue to need residence without wireless. I do not have a SmartM t r.
When the Smartmeters care to my neighborhood, I and others a t the sam
time, began to h insomnia and other symptoms. One neighbor all of a sudden
had a flare up of flbr my l i . I had much increased pressure in ray head where I
had had the injury described ab None of us had gotten SmartMeters yet. W
didn't know w that about a week before our troubles, SmartMeters had been
installed o n the streets nearby.
N ow, where do I go to get away from wirel
These meters feel very strong and different than other wireless. It turns out
that these meters can transmit 1/ mile to er r 2 miles and pulses are
exceptionally strong compared to other wireless devices. Some meters are
stronger than others. They also produce high frequencies o the wiring called
,�%Mw dirty electricity.
Later I tarred to a retired engineer about ]pow strong the pulses felt and how they
g o right through shielding materials and he told me about "power density."
Cindy Sage, coeditor of the Bi initi ti report study of 30 gears of research
o n wireless) said the power density from SmartMeters could be 1000 times
stronger than a cell phone http: www. tb y pr .corms/ yr b r -
m rtm t r - dangerous - too /Content id= 'I 939740 . Dan Hirsch
( whistleblower for the nuclear industry) using figures from the California Council
o n Science and Technology report on health effects from Sm rtM t r
determined that they are 100 times stronger mfftyntwrl.r /'gip= 3946).
Other people who are sensitive attest to the fact that they are very strong
pulses, worse than anything they have felt before.
PG&E minimizes the pulse by using instruments that a v e rage the pulse. Others
h found strong pulses with their instruments.
http: //www. tb y pr .corn yr b /are- m rtm t r -d n r u -
t Cunt nt' id = 939740 .
And I 's of these exceedingly strong, quarter mile to two-mile signals
transmit as often as every couple of seconds to an average f every
seconds in a locale from each home.
want to leave Atascadero, only to be free from the SmartMeters and the
pressure /pain in my sinuses, ears and head, the insomnia, nausea and
fatigue that these meters h caused. For me, they have ruined our wonderful
c ity.
When I go to many areas of San Luis Obispo, the Srn rtMeter discomfort
goes awa When 1 come b to Atder, the discomfort returns.
Already, PG&E has hurt thousands of people with Srnertl leter (over 2000
health complaints to the California Public Utilities Commission) and they
continue to rush deployment. This technology has met with huge public outcry; its
safety is clearly questionable. (See emfsafetynetwork.org for health and safety
complaints.) Experts warn of a dverse public health and safety impacts. Studies
show that wireless and dirty electricity cause ill health and contribute t
healthy people becoming sensitive to wireless and other electromagnetic
fields produced by computers and other gadgets we enjoy.
( sagereports.com/smart-meter-rf/?page — id=282) Ma 1, 201'1, The World
H a�lth organization declared radio frquencies to be possible carcinogen
along with lead and DDT
And the utilities want to put three Smrtmeters on each home plus added
wirel from the Ho Applian Network with wireless tra nsm itters on
washers computers and ether appliances. Even if you thinly this is all safe, the
controversy in the scientific arena is enough evidence to wait and NOT
N%W allow the installation of a technology not proven safe by independently-
funded research!
Our communities need to stop Sm rtMeter deployment until they male it
safe.
Other contentions included violations of the FCC code in certain applications
(see sagereports.com/smart-meter-rf/?page nonprofessionals with two
weeks training installing meters, (also an FCC violation) increasing the risk of
fires traced back to the meters.
We want to Deep our original analog meters with no e charge.
For these and numerous other reasons (high bills, privacy, damaged electronics,
etc.), please enact an urgent ordinance banning the installation of wireless
SmartMeters in Arroyo Grande.
Thank you so much for your Consideration in this very important matter.
Linde Iked
5000 El V er a no Avenue
Atsdero, CA 93422
805-461-0954
3
OPPOSITION TO WIRELESS SMART METERS
nfsaf tyn twor .
42 C local governments (Cities and Counties) formally oppose WI smart meters, including
San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors (318111) and SLO County Health Commission; 10
have passed ordinances (law) prohibiting the meters.
World Health Organization declared radio fr qu u i s (R-F possible carcinogen along with lead
and DDT May 31, 2011. RF is elTuitted from Sm artMeters, cordless phones, cell phones, wifi, etc.
Sax Francisco Chapter of the Sierra Club opposes wireless smart meters. http:llstopsmartm t rs.org
Public Citizen (Ralph leader's consumer advocate organization) has a national campaign exposing that
smart meters don't save energy, just profit PE's bottom line.
http: . citizen. org /do u-Tn nt En r In st ntFoniTnPr s.pdf public Citizen, AARP, Consumers
Union, National Consumer Law Center and the National Association of State Utility Consumer
Advocates www.ncic.org/images/Pdflenergy utility_t l om/additi
The Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA), an independent consurner advocacy division of the
California Public Utilities Conunission (CPU C), and the C alifornia Small Business Association BA ,
a non - profit small business advocacy. http:llyuban t. ora/ alifornia/DRA.- and -- BA - Request -R h f-
fro -- N ew- l tri -Pricing- theme - That - Will - aus - Disrup -to- 5 00-000-PG-E-Small- -
ustoers.php
fndiana regulators rejected the meters: The cost outweighs potential benefits to cousumers.
http://www.businessweek.cora/magazine/content/10
The Karolinska Institute, Stockholm (Gives the Nobel Prizes) warns against wireless smartmetrs,
et .:http:llww .seribd.eom/doe /4 14 4 / arolin ka- Institute- Press - Release
The Government Accountability Office (the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress) warns of security
risks from ybrattaks - -- hackers being able to remotely shut off power:
http:llne wateh.typepad. orEVmedial o1110llsnmrt Teter- security -is -a- growing - on em.htrt l
Dan Hirsch, Professor of Nuclear Polley at UC CaLfornia warns that continuous whole body exposure
from a smart meter may be 100 times worse than that from cell phones "...a very large experiment
on a very large population." enfsafetynetwork.orgl?p =3946.
Elihu I Richter Nom, MPH medical epidemiologist from Israel "... we are no longer talking about mere
precaution of uncertain risk, but about prevention of highly probable and known risk ...an unethical
exercise... it is now fairly certain that there will be widespread adverse public health impacts."
http-.//emfsafetynetwork.org/?page
EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY, are agency of the European Union that advises 32 countries
on public policy, is calling for FOR LOWERING EXPOSURE TO ENE Electron agnetie Fields
"Waiting for high levels of proof before taking action to prveut well known risks can lead to very
high health and economic costs, as it did with asbestos, leaded petrol and smoking."
http:ll lossar .en.eea.europa.eu terminology /sitesea.reh?teim - childr +an +ernfr
Dr. David Carpenter, Harvard trained NOD who headed up ICY State Dept of Pubh Health 18 yrs & Dean
of the School of Public Health at the University at Albany, New York "We have id nc ...th t exposure
to radiofrequeney radiation...iner eas the risk of cancer, increases damage to the nervous system,
causes eleetrosensitivity, has adverse reproductive effects and a variety of other effects on different
organ cyst i . There is no justification for the statement that SmartMet have no adverse health
effects." http://emfsafetynetwork.org/?p-3946
emfsafetynetwork.org
Top wireless radiation scientists in the world at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco 11 / 18/10):
CELL DAMAGE, DNA BREAKS and BREACHES IN THE BLOOD -BRAIN BARRJER (increased
ns s of cancer and a him ar from low levels of pulsed RF signal radiation as emitted by Wireless smart
meters: VIDEO - http : / /eleutromagnetiehealth.org /electromagnetic - health - log /uu- video/
TRENT rN EUROPE TOWARD NVERED and AWAY A FROM WERELESS TECHNOLOGIES:
cmmn/French Government advise against i -fi and French libraries removed wi -fi. Spain removed some
cell towers. Fr iburg r Appeal 2002 signed by 3 0, 000 doctors observe correlation of disease and wireless
technologies. emfsafetynetwork.org/?p=l 1
Insurance Companies won't insure the health problems from wireless smart meters and do not
sacrifice insurance premiums without good reason. TAT MEWS VDD - minutes):
http://eon3emfblog.net/?p=382
Wireless smart meters constantly transmit pulsed digital microwave radiation (RF) 24/7, up to 22,500
pulses per day. P G&E minimi the transmitting time stating its only 45 seconds per day, however these
pulses are between 2-20 Millisecond bursts. In addition this duty cycle does not include what the Smart
Meters are further intended for- wireless data ti ansixiissin for new RF enabled appliances.
Cindy Sage, coeditor of The l i initiative Report www. ioinitiativereport.org states that "Wireless smart
meters are unique in that they transmit 24/7 without shut off and without relief. Hurn ns can recover from
significant adversity and stress, but 24/7 pulsed transmissions from wireless smart meters dominates the
sleep time for human recovery, and the pulsed signal radiation from the wireless meters dominates the
Mural lo- electronic communications originating in the brain. " http://sagereports.com/smart-meter-
rV?page
114ft' URGENT LETTER CAMPAIGN
A Public Utilities Commission: public. advisor@a advisor@cpuc.ca.gov 505 Van Mess Avenue, Room2103, San
Francisco, CA 94102; or call 1-- 849 -8390
REQUEST To KEEP E39STING ANALOG METER, OR IF ALREADY TAKEN, HAVE IT
REPLACED AT PG&E EXPENSE. CUSTOMERS CAN REPORT THEIR ENERGY BY
CONTACTING PG&E MONTHLY. PG&E CAN VERIFY USAGE EVERY 6 MoNHTS.
Governor Brown: govemor@govemor.ca.gov
a.gov
Email Senator Blakeslee, Assemblymember Achadiian:
Legislature website: http://leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.litTfl
SPEAK AT YOUR CITY COUNCIEL MEETINGS AND ASIA OTFIERS To SEND LETTERS!
Delay Installation of S rtMeter i Call P E at 877-743-7378
Document the call, the employee name and request they note: "I want to keep or restore) m y analog
meter at no costa' Then ask for a confirmation number to be sent to you. If you received a letter from
PG&E to install a Smart Meter', also call wellington (the installation company) at 1-866-671-1001. If they
have a work order for your location, tell them you don't want a SmartMe ter. 3 -4 business days later, call
P E to be sure they received back the work order from wclhn ton. Also, pint signs on electric /gas meters
(homemade or downl actable from www. mfsafetyn t work.or
AG City
From: allinda930@netzero.com
Sent: Tu June 1 4, 20 3 Phi
T: AG City
�
ubj t: Fr : photos of shrub in front of 1 martM t r
,,tta hment : TT131381.htm; redwood gardens smart meters shrub before .jp9; redwood gardens smart
meters shrub after .jp9; redwood gardens smart meters shrub before .jp ; redwood gardens
smart meters shrub after •jp9
Hi,
This is aura opening about the safety of these meters
Linda Ikeda
Please note: forwarded massage attached
From: M arti Kheel ma rtin arti h 1. com
To: SmartWarriorMarinpgooglegroups.
Subject: photos of shrub in front of 180 meters
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 11:58:38 -0700
Year Old Mom Loo 71
Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http: thirdpartVoff r, n t ro. n t T L 41/4df7dd l 7 4c 4fb t lvuc
1
5V
41h * F ipp lop lk
k k
l it ,
It
I
All
to
N4
ki
Aj
. p e. -I k 1 0
c w
40
"
I dt
J
IL
City council,
1 am asking for you to delay the smart meters from coming into our town for one year.
The reason 1 ask this is because they want to charge $270.00 to opt out, and then $20.00 a month to have
someone come read the meters. The opt out fee is just ridiculous and is much to high.
If you have solar panels on your house you are not charged the $270.00 but if you are the only one on the
block with solar they then charge you the $20.00 a month.
They have nothing in place if a few people opt out and a couple more have solar panels. Everyone still pay
the $20.00 a month. But if you have a few people who have solar panels they will then waive the $20.00 a
month. This needs to be better thought out by PG and E prior to the installation.
PG and E also state the meters only run for 45 seconds a day, but from what 1 have read else where that is
not true.
1 just want more time to find out the facts before 1 allow this on my house. To many times we are told things
are safe only to find out later that was not true. PG and E is just now trying to get information out about
these meters. 1 personally feel this should have been done a long time ago, not right before they install there.
Thankyou,
s
4
r
Patty Welsh
. t
Kitty Norton
From: Carole [onegoodgalQuno-com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2011 1:27 AM
To: Tony Ferrara; Caren Flay; Joe Costello; Jinn Guthrie; Tim Brown; Kitty Morton
Subject; SLO City Council requests immediate suspension of Smart Meter installation
Distinguished Arroyo Grande City Council members,
Are you aware that the City Council of San Luis Obispo has recently
requested of the CPUC that PG &E immediately suspend the installation of
Smart Meters in the City of San Luis Obispo until azero -cost opt -out is
finalized and made available to the public? With this request they have
addressed the "forced compliance" portion of the problem, and for that we
are thankful.
They also mentioned the health, privacy, safety and environmental risks
associated with Smart Meter technology, but they only addressed the opt-
out in their letter, We are asking you to take it one step farther and request
a one -year moratorium based on the same concerns that were mentioned
by the City Council of San Luis Obispo.
Thank you for your time. I'm sure you'll do the right thing.
Carole Good
onegoodizal(a,L upo. com
VitaCost discount vitamins and mare) can be fauna at bttT://mvi!oodhealthvfood.co
I
Kim Norton
From: Carole [ n dal @a jun . m]
Sent: Sunday, Jane 12, 2011 :00 PM
To: Tony Ferrara; Caren flay; Joe C Jim Guthrie; Tim Brown
Cc: Kitty Norton
Subject: Electromagnetic Pollution and Smart Meters
Good morning, distinguished member of the Arroyo Grande City Council:
I write to you again today with additional information on Electromagnetic Pollution, which
includes Smart Meters. I'd like to start off with information from Dr. John Mercola. If you are
not familiar with Dr. Mercola, here is his partial Woo.
First and foremost, I am an osteopathic physician, also known as a DO. DOs are
licensed physicians who, similar to lVlDs, can prescribe medication and perform surgery
in all 50 states. DOs and lVlDs have similar training requiring four years of study in the
basic and clinical sciences, and the successful completion of licensing exams. But DOs
bring something extra to the practice of medicine. Osteopathic physicians practice a
"whole person" approach, treating the entire person rather than just symptoms.
Focusing on preventive health care, Des help patients develop attitudes and lifestyles
that don't dust fight illness, but help prevent it, too.
I am also board - certified in family medicine and served as the chairman of the family
medicine department of St. Alexius Medical Center for five years. I am trained in both
traditional and natural medicine.
Dr. john Mercola has prepared a good overview of the entire ENT (Electromagnetic Field)
pollution issues regarding its effects on various life forms: especially human beings. I
recommend this article as the best starting point for learning about this entire field:
httn: / /emf.mercola.com / sites /emf /archive/ 2011 /02/ 16 /raisin- awareness- about-
ele tr ma�eti - ll tion. x
Next, I thought you might like to know that Dr. Samuel Milham, an M.D. and retired
epidemiologist, has written an excellent book on the subject, Dirty Electricity: Electrification
and The Disease of Civilization. His research shows that most, if not al[, of the maladies of
civilization (cancer, diabetes, depression, ADD, stress - related diseases, etc.) follow quickly on
the heels of electrification wherever it has occurred in the world. (This, of course, does not by
itself prove that it is the AC electricity that is causal. However, there is much follow -up
research from other researchers that does strongly indicate that dirty electricity, and other EMF
pollution, is directly causal.) Dr. Milham's web site is hgp
And Lastly a commentary from, Karl Maret, MD, Physician and Electrical and BioMedical
Engineer. If you are not familiar with Dr. Maret, here is his partial bio:
For the record, my qualifications are that I hold a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering,
a Master of Engineering degree in BioMedical Engineering, and a Medical Doctor degree and
have additionally completed a four year post - doctoral fellowship in physiology.
I have been interested in the health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) for many years and
given lectures about the potential health impacts of non - ionizing radiations, both in Europe and
the United States. I am president of anon- profit foundation interested in energy medicine, a
sub - specialty within the field of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) as defined
by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), a center
within the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH ).
The following link http: / /saizereports.com/ smart- meter -rf / ?p =368 is a commentary by Dr. Maret
on the California Council on Science and Technology (COST) report, "Health Impacts of Radio
Frequency from Smart Meters" published January 2011.
Dr. Maret submits that the CCST report, written in response to health concerns expressed by
Assembly Members of the California Legislature, contains inaccuracies and minimizes the
biological effects and health impacts of non - thermal radio - frequency radiation, such as those
produced by wireless technologies including Smart Meters.
Dr. Maret's specific concerns with the report are as follows:
1. The minimization ation f the problem of non- thermal microwave radiation;
2. The minimization of the need for lower exposure standards;
3. The increase in radiation levels at potential local hot spots through reflection;
4. The lack of information about the impact of pulsed radiation from Smart Meters;
5. The lack of information on the health impacts of night -time radiation from Smart Meters;
6. The lack of modeling or actual measurements of the contribution from Smart Meters to
the existing background microwave radiation;
7. The lack of health and environmental consideration by the CPUC when the Advanced
Metering Infrastructure (AMI) was approved.
Until these issues are more fully addressed it is recommended that the current Smart
Meter deployment using radio - frequency radiation (RFR) be halted pending a more
unbiased reassessment of the potential health issues associated with these meters,
including a reassessment of the Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AM[) program
approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) without any
environmental impact assessment. Further, that the California public be offered the
option to opt out of this program, which at present is mandatory for every dwelling.
2
I totally agree with Dr. Maret's assessment and I hope you will as well. I'm asking that
the Arroyo Grande City Council send a letter to the CPUC, and the Governor of the
State of California, expressing Dr. Maret's concerns (shown in red above) and request
a one -year moratorium on the installation of Smart Meters, allowing time for unbiased
research to be per
Thank you for taking the time to research this most important topic. I thank you and
your family, friends and neighbors thank you too (whether they realize it or not).
Carole Good
onegoodaalC&,iuno.com
Kitty Norton
From: Carole [onegoodgarl a@juno.00m]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 12.52 AM
To: Tony Ferrara; Caren Ray; Joe Costello; Jim Guthrie; Tim Brown; Ditty [Norton
Subject: Intem tional Experts' Perspective on EMF and RF (Smart Meters)
Hello again... from Carole Good.
This is quick road. If you want more details visit www.maizdahavas.com
From Magda Navas, Phi - International Experts' Perspective n EMF and R
Subject: International Experts' Perspective on the Health Effects of Electromagnetic
Fields and Electromagnetic Radiation
For Distribution:
Junell,11.
Below are some of the key resolutions /appeals released by expert scientific groups around the world since 1998
regarding the biological and health effects of both low frequency electromagnetic fields EMF associated with
electricity and radio frequency (RF ) electromagnetic radiation (EiR ) generated by wireless devices.
Anyone who reads these cannot be left with the illusion (r delusion) that this form of energy is without adverse biological
and health consequences at levels well below exis ting guidelines. Children are particularly vulnerable. It is irresponsible
of governments to maintain the status quo in light of thousands of studies that have been published and statements by
these experts.
Here are the resolutions /appeals /reports in reverse chronological order. These are presented in more detail and links are
provided for each one at www.ma vas.c m "Int rrrational xp rts' Perspective on the Health Effects of
Electromagnetic Fields and Electromagnetic Radiation ".
1. May 31, 2011: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARQ and world Health Organization
V3 reclassified radio frequency electromagnetic fields as a Mass 2B carcinogen (possibly carcinogen to humans).
2. May 2011* The Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe (FACE) released Resolution 1815 on the Potential
Dangers of Electromagnetic Fields and their effect on the Environment.
3 . April 2011; The Russian National Committee on Non - Ionizing Radiation Protection (RN NIRP ) released
their Resolution entitled " lectroma neticf gilds from Mobile Phones. Health Effect on Children and na ers ",
4. oio: Seletun Statement, Norway: The International FJectromagnetic Field Alliance (IEMFA ) released
their report entitled 'cientif Parcel on Electromagnetic Field Health Risks: Consensus Points, Recommendations, mendations, and
Rationales following a scientific meeting at Seletun Norway November 2009.
, 5 . 2 oo : EU Parliament Electromagnetic Report and Resolution entitled.-European Parliament Resolution on
health concems associated with electroma netr` f elds, was adopted February 1 7, 2009 with 29 recommendations.
6 . ; Porto Alegre Resolution, Brazil. Scientists and doctors recognize electrohypersensitivity and are
concerned that exposure to electromagnetic fields may increase the risk of cancer and chronic diseases; that
exposure levels established by international agencies (IEEE, ICNIRP, ICES) are obsolete; and that wireless
technology places at risk the health of children, teens, pregnant women and others who are vulnerable.
7. oog: Venice Resolution, Italy, International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety ICEMS Scientists
recognize biological effects at non- thermal levels, that standards are inadequate, that electro- sensitivity exists and that
there is a need to research mechanisms.
g. 2007: Biolnitiative Report, USA. In response to statements that there are no scientific studies showing adverse
biological effects of low level electromagnetic fields and radio frequency radiation, a group of researchers produced the
iolnitiatie Report that documents 2000 studies showing biological effects of extremely low frequency (ELF)
electromagnetic fields and radio frequency (RF) radiation and calling for biologically based exposure guidelines.
9. 20o6: Benevento Resolution, Italy. The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety ICEMS
organized a conference entitled: The Precautionary MFA roc : Rationale, Legislation and
Imple mentation .Scientists at this conference signed the Benevento Resolution that consists of 7 major statements.
10, 200 5: Helsinki Appeal, Finland. Physicians and researchers presented the Helsinki Appeal to the European
Parliament.
11. 2 oo : Irish Doctors' Environmental Association (IDEA), Ireland. Members of IDEA wrote a position paper on
electromagnetic radiation. Doctors recognize electrohyperensitivity EH is increasing and request advice from
government on how to treat EHS.
1# 2002. Catania Resolution, Italy. This resolution was signed by scientists at the international conference 'State of
the Research on Electromagnetic Fields - Scientific and Legal Issues ".
1. 2002 : Freiburg Appeal, Germany. Physicians request tougher guidelines for radio frequency exposure. This
document was endorsed by thousands of healthcare practitioners,
1 4. 200 2: Salzburg Resolution, Austria. The Salzburg Resolution on Mobile Telecommunication Base
Stations makes four recommendations including preliminary guidelines of o.1 icroW cm for suns of all emissions from
mobile phone stations.
1, 5 . z oo: Stewart Report, UIC The Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones IE iP produced a
report, Mobile Phones and Health, than 'is commonly referred to as the Stewart Report, named after its Chairman Sir
William Stewart.
16, 1998: vxenna EMF Resolution, Austria. Workshop on Possible Biological and Health Effects of RF
Electromagnetic Melds.
Based on these resolutions and appeals from international groups of physicians and scientists immediate
action is required to protect public health from continued increasing exposure to radio frequency
radiation and electromagnetic fields.
I call on r
1, regulators around the world to reexamine exis ting guidelines for both EMF and EMR and to reduce them to the
lowest possible levels to protect the public and workers. values above 4 milliauss (low frequency magnetic
fields); above oa microw cm (power density for radio frequency radiation) and above 4o GS units (dirty
electricity) have been associated with adverse health effects in peer reviewed scientific publications!
. government agencies responsibility for the location of both base stations and power lines to keep distances at
least 400 meters (base stations) and loo meters (transmission lines) from residential properties as well as school
and health care facilities.
3. utilities (water, gas, electricity) to reconsider the use of wireless smart meters and provide wired options for
those who are sensitive, for those who do not want to be exposed, and for those in densely populated settings,
4. ma uwfa Wrers who are providing technology that uses electricity and/or emits radio frequency radiation to re-
engineer their products to provide the minimum radiation possible. This includes light bulbs, computers, wireless
home devices like baby monitors and cordless phones, cell phones, smart meters, plasma TVs, among others,
5. architects, builders, ele i ians, and plumbers to design and construct buildings that are based on
principles of good electromagnetic hygiene. This includes using materials that absorb or shield building interiors
from microwave radiation especially near external sources of this radiation and in multi -unit buildings; to provide
wired alternatives to wireless devices; to properly wire and ground buildings to minimize low frequency
electromagnetic Melds and to eliminate ground current problems; and to install filters on electrical panels and/or
throughout the building to ensure good power quality.
6. local, state, federal health authorities to educate medical professions about the potential biological effects of
both low frequency and radio frequency electromagnetic energy; about the growing number of people who have
electrosensitivity ) or electrohypersensitivity H and to alert therm on how they can help their patients in
terms of minimizing their exposure and promoting their recovery.
7. hospitals and health care centres to review their policy on wireless technology and to provided
electromagnetically -clean areas within these centres for those who are sensitive to this radiation.
8. school hoards to reopen their policy on the preference of wiFi (wireless technology) over wired internet access
and not allow towers /antennas within 400 meters of their school property.
9 . parents to practice good electromagnetic hygiene especially in the bedroom and especially for their children.
This involves using wired rather than wireless devices in the home, keeping electric appliances away from the bed,
turning off /unplugging devices when not in use.
io. the media to provide information to the public about the health and safety of using this technology; to rely on
"independent experts" who do not receive funding or other benefits based on the outcome of research studies; and
to identify experts funded by the industry as "industry representatives", The integrity of many of these scientists
leaves much to be desired.
Dr. Magda Havas
Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada
www.magdahavas.com
__
VitaCost discount vitamins (and more) can be found at :rn oodhealth food,orn
lJtRO�6 47
W RP RATED
F 'qN 'e % . %1W FS
MEMORANDUM
Ti CITY COUNCIL
FROM: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR F F LEGISLATIVE AND INFORMATION
SERVICES/CITY CLER
SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INF RMA711O
JUNE 1 � 2011 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 8.e. — APPROVAL OF
MINUTES
DATE; JUNE 14, 2011
Attached are corrections to Page 1 of the Special City Council/Redevelopment Agency
Meeting mi nutes of M 26, 2011 to s how that Mayor Pro Tern Ray y wa absent.
c: City Ma nager
City Attorney
City Clerk
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING of THE CITY COUNCIL /REDEVELOPMENT T AGENCY
THURSDAY, MAY 26,2011
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH CH ST EET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor/Chair called the Special Meeting of the City Council /Redevelopment Agency to order at
6:16 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Mayor/Chair Tony Ferrara, Council/Board Umber Joe
Costello, Council /Board Member Jim Guthrie, and Council /Board Member Tim Brown were
present. Mavor Pro Tem Ray was absent.
Staff members present were City Manager Steven Adams, Chief of Police Steve Annibli
Director of Legislative and Information Services /City Clerk Kelly Wetmore, Community
Development Director Teresa McCli h, Recreation and Maintenance Services Director Doug
Perrin, and Administrative Services Director Angela Freth.
3 . FLAG SALUTE
Mayor/Chair Ferrara led the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. CITIZENS* INPUT, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS
There were no public comments.
5. NEW BUSINESS
5.a. Fiscal Year 2010 -11 Third Quarter Budget Report.
Director Kraeth presented the staff report and recommended the City Council /Agency Board:
1 Approve detailed budget adjustments listed in the Third Quarter budget report; 2 Approve
Schedule A: and Approve requests for additional adjustments in the General Fund.
Brief discussion ensued regarding the City's insurance program through the California Joint
Powers Insurance Authority C JPIA and the reed to review the program to determine if it is still
cost efficient for the City.
No public comment was received.
Action Council /Board !Member Costello moved to approve detailed budget adjustments listed in
the Third Quarter budget report; approve Schedule A; and approve requests for additional
adjustments in the General Fund. Council/Board Member Brown seconded, and the motion
parsed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Costello, Brown, Guthrie, F
NOES: Pone
ABSENT: te ary