CC 2021-11-23 Agenda PacketCITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA SUMMARY
Tuesday, November 23, 2021, 6:00 p.m.
Please click the link below to join the Zoom Meeting:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83255848846
Webinar ID: 832 5584 8846
Or by Telephone: 1-669-900-6833; 1-346-248-7799
Given the recent increase in COVID-19 cases in San Luis Obispo County, and in compliance with Assembly
Bill (AB) 361, which allows for a deviation of teleconference rules required by the Ralph M. Brown Act, City
Council meetings will be conducted by video/teleconferencing through Zoom Webinar until further notice.
Meetings will be broadcast live on Channel 20 and streamed on the City’s website and www.slo-span.org.
Members of the public may participate and provide public comment on agenda items during the meeting by
joining the Zoom meeting or by submitting written public comments to the Clerk of the Council at
publiccomment@arroyogrande.org.
1.CALL TO ORDER
2.ROLL CALL
3.MOMENT OF REFLECTION
4.FLAG SALUTE
SOUTH COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY
5.AGENDA REVIEW
5.a.Closed Session Announcements
The City Attorney will announce reportable actions taken, if any, from the Special Meeting
of November 9, 2021:
a) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.8:
Property: Harden Street at North Mason Street
Agency negotiators: Whitney McDonald, City Manager; Bill Robeson, Assistant City
Manager/Public Works Director
Negotiating parties: Ty Green, on behalf of Alex Carapeti and Kristiane Schmidt
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
b) PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION pursuant to Government Code
Section 54957:
Title: City Attorney
5.b.Ordinances read in title only
None.
6.SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
6.a.Update Regarding Countywide COVID-19 Efforts
(McDONALD)
Recommended Action:
Receive update, accept public comments, discuss, and provide direction as necessary.
6.b.City Manager Communications
(McDONALD)
Recommended Action:
Receive correspondence/comments as presented by the City Manager and Provide
direction, as necessary.
6.c.Honorary Proclamation Declaring December 10, 2021 as Human Rights Day
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. Members of the public may provide
public comment in-person or remotely by joining the Zoom meeting utilizing one of the methods
provided below. Please use the “raise hand” feature to indicate your desire to provide public
comment.
Click the link below to join the webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83255848846; Webinar ID: 832 5584 8846
•
Or by Telephone: 1-669-900-6833; 1-346-248-7799
Press * 9 to “raise hand” for public comment
•
The Brown Act restricts the Council from taking formal action on matters not published on the
agenda. In response to your comments, the Mayor or presiding Council Member may:
• Direct City staff to assist or coordinate with you.
• A Council Member may state a desire to meet with you.
• It may be the desire of the Council to place your issue or matter on a future Council agenda.
Please adhere to the following procedures when addressing the Council:
• Comments should be limited to 3 minutes or less.
• Your comments should be directed to the Council as a whole and not directed to individual Council
members.
• Slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member or member of the audience
shall not be permitted.
8.CONSENT AGENDA
The following routine items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group. The
Page 2 of 182
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.Cash Disbursement Ratification
(VALENTINE)
Recommended Action:
Ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for the period of November 1 through
November 15, 2021.
8.b.Statement of Investment Deposits
(VALENTINE)
Recommended Action:
Receive and file the attached report listing investment deposits of the City of Arroyo Grande
as of October 31, 2021, as required by Government Code Section 53646(b).
8.c.Approval of Minutes
(MATSON)
Recommended Action:
Approve the minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings of November 9,
2021, as submitted.
8.d.Adoption of a Resolution Declaring a Continued Local Emergency Related to the
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic
(McDONALD/CARMEL)
Recommended Action:
Adopt a Resolution declaring a continued local emergency related to the Coronavirus
(COVID-19) pandemic.
8.e.Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Continuance of Remote Teleconference Meetings
of the Legislative Bodies of the City of Arroyo Grande Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54953(e)(3)
(MATSON/CARMEL)
Recommended Action:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the continuance of remote teleconference meetings
pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e)(3).
8.f.Adoption of a Resolution Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22050 Determining to
Continue Work Under Emergency Contracts for the Storm Drain System at 251 East Grand
Avenue Project, PW 2021-12
(ROBESON)
Recommended Action:
Adopt a Resolution finding that there is a need to continue the emergency action for the
storm drain system repairs at 251 East Grand Avenue in accordance with Public Contract
Code Section 22050.
8.g.Adoption of a Resolution Accepting Easements and Public Improvements for the East
Page 3 of 182
Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Project: Final Tract Map 3081 Constructed by Wathen
Castanos Homes
(ROBESON)
Recommended Action:
Adopt a Resolution accepting public improvements for the East Cherry Avenue Specific
Plan Project; General Plan Amendment 15-001; Specific Plan 15-001; Final Tract Map 3081
(Vesting Tentative Tract Map 15-001); Conditional Use Permit 15-004; and PUD 15-001.
8.h.Approve an Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Capital Improvement Budget for the
Castillo Del Mar Street Extension Project, PW 2020-05
(ROBESON)
Recommended Action:
Approve an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program budget
to transfer $20,000 of Local Sales Tax funds from fund balance to the subject project.
8.i.Monthly Water Supply and Demand Update
(ROBESON)
Recommended Action:
Receive and file the Monthly Water Supply and Demand Report.
9.PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
10.OLD BUSINESS
10.a.2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update
(ROBESON)
Recommended Action:
Receive and file the 2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update and provide direction
on pursuing any or all of the two short-term and three long-term recommendations
presented in the study update.
11.NEW BUSINESS
11.a.Study Session on the City’s Temporary Parklet Program and Options for Potential
Permanent Parklet Programs
(PEDROTTI)
Recommended Action:
1) Receive a presentation on potential long-term strategies for parklets; and 2)
Provide preliminary direction to staff to guide a long-term program and policy
development for the potential continuation of the parklet program.
12.CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
12.a.MAYOR RAY RUSSOM:
California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA)1.
South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD)2.
Page 4 of 182
Tourism Business Improvement District Advisory Board3.
Other4.
12.b.MAYOR PRO TEM PAULDING:
Air Pollution Control District (APCD)1.
Brisco/Halcyon Interchange Subcommittee2.
Council of Governments/Regional Transit Authority/ South County Transit
(SLOCOG/SLORTA/SCT)
3.
Other 4.
12.c.COUNCIL MEMBER BARNEICH:
Homeless Services Oversight Council (HSOC)1.
Zone 3 Water Advisory Board2.
Other3.
12.d.COUNCIL MEMBER STORTON:
Brisco/Halcyon Interchange Subcommittee1.
Five Cities Fire Authority (FCFA)2.
Integrated Waste Management Authority Board (IWMA)3.
South County Chambers of Commerce Governmental Affairs Committee4.
Other5.
12.e.COUNCIL MEMBER GEORGE:
Community Action Partnership San Luis Obispo (CAPSLO)1.
County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC)2.
Regional Water Initiatives3.
Visit SLO CAL Advisory Board4.
Other5.
13.COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Any Council Member may ask a question for clarification, make an announcement, or report briefly
on his or her activities. In addition, subject to Council policies and procedures, Council Members
may request staff to report back to the Council at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter or
request that staff place a matter of business on a future agenda. Any request to place a matter of
business for original consideration on a future agenda requires the concurrence of at least one other
Council Member.
14.CLOSED SESSION
None.
Page 5 of 182
15.ADJOURNMENT
All staff reports or other written documentation, including any supplemental material distributed to a
majority of the City Council within 72 hours of a regular meeting, relating to each item of business on
the agenda are available for public inspection during regular business hours in the City Clerk’s office,
300 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande. If requested, the agenda shall be made available in
appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the Americans with
Disabilities Act. To make a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, contact the
Legislative and Information Services Department at 805-473-5400 as soon as possible and at least
48 hours prior to the meeting date.
This agenda was prepared and posted pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2 Agenda
reports can be accessed and downloaded from the City’s website at www.arroyogrande.org If you
would like to subscribe to receive email or text message notifications when agendas are posted, you
can sign up online through the “Notify Me” feature.
City Council Meetings are cablecast live and videotaped for replay on Arroyo Grande’s Government
Access Channel 20. The rebroadcast schedule is published at www.slo-span.org.
Page 6 of 182
Page 7 of 182
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Nicole Valentine, Administrative Services Director
BY: Lynda Horejsi, Accounting Manager
SUBJECT: Cash Disbursement Ratification
DATE: November 23, 2021
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Review and ratify cash disbursements.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
There is a $893,263.84 fiscal impact that includes the following items:
Accounts Payable Checks $509,728.41
Payroll & Benefit Checks $383,535.43
RECOMMENDATION:
Ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for the period of November 1 through
November 15, 2021.
BACKGROUND:
Cash disbursements are made weekly based on the submission of all required documents
supporting the invoices submitted for payment. Prior to payment, Administrative Services
staff reviews all disbursement documents to ensure that they meet the approval
requirements adopted in the Municipal Code and the City’s Purchasing Policies and
Procedures Manual.
ANALSIS 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 2021 -22
budget.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:
Page 8 of 182
City Council
Cash Disbursement Ratification
November 23, 2021
Page 2
1. Approve staff’s recommendation;
2. Do not approve staff’s recommendation; or
3. Provide other direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
The Administrative Services Department monitors payments of invoices for
accountability, accuracy, and completeness using standards approved by the City
Council.
Invoices are paid in a timely manner to establish goodwill with merchants.
Discounts are taken where applicable.
DISADVANTAGES:
There are no disadvantages identified in this recommendation.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
No environmental review is required for this item.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with
Government Code Section 54954.2.
Attachments:
1. November 1 – November 15, 2021 – Accounts Payable Check Register
2. November 5, 2021 – Payroll and Benefit Check Registers
Page 9 of 182
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CHECK LISTING
NOVEMBER 1 - NOVEMBER 15, 2021
ATTACHMENT 1
Line Check Date Check #Amount Description Acct #Vendor Name
1 11/02/2021 292015 50.00 FILING FEE-NOTICE OF 010.4002.5201 SLO COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER
2 11/10/2021 292016 39,587.32 SOCIAL SECURITY 011.0000.2105 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
3 11/10/2021 292016 13,047.32 MEDICARE 011.0000.2105 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
4 11/10/2021 292016 50,868.77 FEDERAL WITHHOLDING 011.0000.2104 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
5 11/10/2021 292017 3,427.00 UNEMPLOYMNT 010.4919.5142 CA ST EMPLOYMENT DEVEL DEPT
6 11/10/2021 292017 1,491.00 UNEMPLOYMNT 010.4919.5142 CA ST EMPLOYMENT DEVEL DEPT
7 11/10/2021 292017 2,484.88 UNEMPLOYMNT 010.4919.5142 CA ST EMPLOYMENT DEVEL DEPT
8 11/10/2021 292017 11,700.00 UNEMPLOYMNT 010.4919.5142 CA ST EMPLOYMENT DEVEL DEPT
9 11/10/2021 292017 310.00 UNEMPLOYMNT 010.4919.5142 CA ST EMPLOYMENT DEVEL DEPT
10 11/10/2021 292017 -13,203.00 FEDERAL CARES ACT CREDIT 010.4919.5142 CA ST EMPLOYMENT DEVEL DEPT
11 11/10/2021 292018 19,564.84 STATE PIT W/H 011.0000.2108 CA ST EMPLOYMENT DEVEL DEPT
12 11/10/2021 292018 1,522.47 STATE SDI CONTRIBUTION 011.0000.2111 CA ST EMPLOYMENT DEVEL DEPT
13 11/10/2021 292019 133.38 CHILD SUPPORT-PAYDATE 11/05/21 011.0000.2114 CA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT
14 11/10/2021 292019 298.84 CHILD SUPPORT-PAYDATE 11/05/21 011.0000.2114 CA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT
15 11/10/2021 292020 8,147.67 11/21 DELTA DENTAL PREMIUM 011.0000.2110 DELTA DENTAL
16 11/10/2021 292020 2,097.42 11/21 DELTA DENTAL PREMIUM 010.4099.5132 DELTA DENTAL
17 11/10/2021 292021 5,442.86 EE DEFERRED COMP %011.0000.2117 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP
18 11/10/2021 292021 10,117.63 EE DEFERRED COMP FLAT 011.0000.2117 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP
19 11/10/2021 292021 866.66 ER DEFERRED COMP FLAT 011.0000.2117 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP
20 11/10/2021 292021 225.00 EE ROTH CONTRIBUTION 011.0000.2117 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP
21 11/10/2021 292021 90.02 EE ROTH % CONTRIBUTION 011.0000.2117 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP
22 11/10/2021 292022 115,074.84 11/21 ACTIVE HEALTH INSURANCE 011.0000.2109 PERS - ACTIVE MED
23 11/10/2021 292022 200.21 11/21 ACTIVE HEALTH ADMIN FEE 010.4145.5131 PERS - ACTIVE MED
24 11/10/2021 292022 87.45 11/21 ACTIVE HEALTH ADMIN FEE-FCFA 010.0000.1111 PERS - ACTIVE MED
25 11/10/2021 292022 6,954.93 11/21 RETIREE HEALTH INS 010.4099.5136 PERS - ACTIVE MED
26 11/10/2021 292022 580.84 11/21 RETIREE HEALTH INS 010.0000.1111 PERS - ACTIVE MED
27 11/10/2021 292022 722.19 11/21 RETIREE HEALTH INS 220.4303.5136 PERS - ACTIVE MED
28 11/10/2021 292023 3,329.66 11/21 ACTIVE HEALTH INS-PT NON PERS 011.0000.2109 PERS - ACTIVE MED
29 11/10/2021 292023 8.32 11/21 ACTIVE HEALTH ADMIN FEE-PT NON PERS 010.4145.5131 PERS - ACTIVE MED
30 11/10/2021 292024 2,960.68 11/21 LIFE INS PREMIUM 011.0000.2113 STANDARD INSURANCE CO
31 11/10/2021 292025 1,326.49 EE PARS CONTRIBUTION PAYDATE 11/5 011.0000.2107 US BANK OF CALIFORNIA
32 11/10/2021 292025 331.68 ER PARS CONTRIBUTION PAYDATE 11/5 011.0000.2107 US BANK OF CALIFORNIA
33 11/10/2021 292026 2,121.47 11/21 VISION PREMIUM 011.0000.2119 VISION SERVICE PLAN
34 11/10/2021 292026 611.07 11/21 VISION PREMIUM-RETIREES 010.4099.5133 VISION SERVICE PLAN
35 11/10/2021 292027 168.02 UB Refund Cst #00023747 640.0000.2301 JUSTIN ARNOLD
36 11/10/2021 292028 16,395.64 UB Refund Cst #00001959 640.0000.2301 ARROYO DEL MAR HOMEOWNERS
37 11/10/2021 292029 30.30 UB Refund Cst #00027689 640.0000.2301 MARY BAKER
38 11/10/2021 292030 168.05 UB Refund Cst #00019200 640.0000.2301 ISBELLA BLACK
39 11/10/2021 292031 49.70 UB Refund Cst #00027757 640.0000.2301 PAUL F CONNOLLY
Page 10 of 182
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CHECK LISTING
NOVEMBER 1 - NOVEMBER 15, 2021
ATTACHMENT 1
Line Check Date Check #Amount Description Acct #Vendor Name
40 11/10/2021 292032 140.99 UB Refund Cst #00027211 640.0000.2301 JUAN COTTO
41 11/10/2021 292033 76.08 UB Refund Cst #00027838 640.0000.2301 CURTIS HAWKINS
42 11/10/2021 292034 19.20 UB Refund Cst #00027936 640.0000.2301 NATALIA LANE
43 11/10/2021 292035 48.26 UB Refund Cst #00027278 640.0000.2301 DANE AMCLAUGHLIN
44 11/10/2021 292036 159.81 UB Refund Cst #00023368 640.0000.2301 IAN MCLEOD
45 11/10/2021 292037 159.28 UB Refund Cst #00001754 640.0000.2301 MARC MOHLER
46 11/10/2021 292038 144.07 UB Refund Cst #00026343 640.0000.2301 CARRIE PANGELINA
47 11/10/2021 292039 83.86 UB Refund Cst #00023941 640.0000.2301 SHANDIE PETTY
48 11/10/2021 292040 80.89 UB Refund Cst #00028161 640.0000.2301 XIA OFWI YU
49 11/12/2021 292041 23.00 RES#4 LEAD TEST 640.4712.5609 ABALONE COAST ANALYTICAL INC
50 11/12/2021 292041 61.00 FIRE LINE TEST 640.4710.5310 ABALONE COAST ANALYTICAL INC
51 11/12/2021 292041 61.00 WELL#8 BACTI TEST 640.4710.5310 ABALONE COAST ANALYTICAL INC
52 11/12/2021 292041 61.00 WELL#8 RE-SAMPLE 640.4710.5310 ABALONE COAST ANALYTICAL INC
53 11/12/2021 292042 1,200.00 TRIM OAK TREE-1086 ASH 010.4420.5303 ACE CERTIFIED TREE CARE
54 11/12/2021 292043 2,237.50 10/21 CABLECASTING 010.4002.5330 AGP VIDEO, INC
55 11/12/2021 292043 750.00 10/21 WEBSITE STREAMING & ARCHIVING 010.4002.5303 AGP VIDEO, INC
56 11/12/2021 292044 561.52 REPLACE CONTROL BOARD-CITY HALL 010.4213.5303 ALPINE REFRIGERATION
57 11/12/2021 292044 140.00 TROUBLESHOOT HVAC-CITY HALL 010.4213.5303 ALPINE REFRIGERATION
58 11/12/2021 292045 22.95 BAN#9391033186 CC MACH 010.4145.5403 AT&T
59 11/12/2021 292045 44.21 BAN#9391033181 ALARM 640.4710.5403 AT&T
60 11/12/2021 292046 4,153.80 REIMB FOR 21/22 PROP TAXES 751.4555.5551 B & M INVESTMENTS
61 11/12/2021 292046 201.54 REIMB FOR 21/22 PROP TAXES 751.4555.5551 B & M INVESTMENTS
62 11/12/2021 292047 717.56 PD FLEET-STOCK BATTERIES 010.4203.5601 BATTERY SYSTEMS
63 11/12/2021 292048 100.00 LESS LETHAL INSTRUCTOR-POST PERDIEM 010.4203.5501 REGGIE BIO
64 11/12/2021 292049 12.00 CAR WASH-PD ADMIN 010.4201.5601 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH
65 11/12/2021 292049 339.00 CAR WASH-PD PATROL 010.4203.5601 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH
66 11/12/2021 292049 90.00 CAR WASH-PD SUPPORT SVCS 010.4204.5601 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH
67 11/12/2021 292049 12.00 CAR WASH-ENGINEERING PW-4 010.4301.5601 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH
68 11/12/2021 292049 10.00 CAR WASH-B-409 010.4212.5601 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH
69 11/12/2021 292049 21.00 CAR WASH-PW-16, PW-17 220.4303.5601 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH
70 11/12/2021 292049 24.00 CAR WASH-PW-14, PW-10 640.4712.5601 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH
71 11/12/2021 292050 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-HERITAGE SQ 010.0000.2206 BOND REAL ESTATE GROUP
72 11/12/2021 292050 124.00 PARK RENTAL-HERITAGE SQ 010.0000.2206 BOND REAL ESTATE GROUP
73 11/12/2021 292050 -124.00 PARK RENTAL-HERITAGE SQ 010.0000.4354 BOND REAL ESTATE GROUP
74 11/12/2021 292051 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-STROTHER#2 010.0000.2206 GLENDA BONER
75 11/12/2021 292052 1,987.60 UB ENVELOPES 010.4102.5255 BOONE PRINTING & GRAPHICS INC
76 11/12/2021 292052 77.58 BUSINESS CARDS-PIERCE 010.4201.5201 BOONE PRINTING & GRAPHICS INC
77 11/12/2021 292053 500.00 Provide janitorial services 010.4201.5615 BRENDLER JANITORIAL SERVICE
78 11/12/2021 292053 1,135.00 Provide janitorial services 010.4213.5615 BRENDLER JANITORIAL SERVICE
Page 11 of 182
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CHECK LISTING
NOVEMBER 1 - NOVEMBER 15, 2021
ATTACHMENT 1
Line Check Date Check #Amount Description Acct #Vendor Name
79 11/12/2021 292054 317.00 REFUND-BLDG PERMIT BLD21-00049 010.0000.4183 BRIGHT PLANET SOLAR
80 11/12/2021 292054 166.00 REFUND-BLDG PERMIT BLD21-00049 010.0000.4505 BRIGHT PLANET SOLAR
81 11/12/2021 292055 50.01 4X8 3/4' CDX BOARD-REC CARNIVAL 010.4420.5605 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER YARD
82 11/12/2021 292055 49.54 TIE DOWN STRAPS 220.4303.5613 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER YARD
83 11/12/2021 292055 116.41 PW-59, PULL CORD, RATCHET SETS 010.4420.5605 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER YARD
84 11/12/2021 292055 7.19 DRYWALL ANCHORS, MASONRY BIT 010.4420.5605 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER YARD
85 11/12/2021 292055 36.61 SAW BLADE, WRENCH 220.4303.5613 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER YARD
86 11/12/2021 292056 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-STROTHER#3 010.0000.2206 DAWN BRODERSEN
87 11/12/2021 292057 273.51 48 BAGS CONCRETE 640.5946.7001 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, INC
88 11/12/2021 292057 -43.10 PALLET DEPOSIT RETURN 640.5946.7001 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, INC
89 11/12/2021 292058 750.00 CPOA 2022 DEPT MEMBERSHIP 010.4201.5503 CA PEACE OFFICERS ASSN
90 11/12/2021 292059 186.00 FINGERPRINT/LIVESCAN-IN/OUT 010.4204.5329 CA ST DEPT OF JUSTICE
91 11/12/2021 292059 32.00 FINGERPRINT/LIVESCAN-PRE-EMPLOYMNT 010.4120.5316 CA ST DEPT OF JUSTICE
92 11/12/2021 292060 430.95 SAND-24 TON 640.5946.7001 CALPORTLAND CONSTRUCTION
93 11/12/2021 292060 260.00 TRUCK RENTAL 640.5946.7001 CALPORTLAND CONSTRUCTION
94 11/12/2021 292060 337.26 ASPHALT -4 TON 640.5946.7001 CALPORTLAND CONSTRUCTION
95 11/12/2021 292061 48.41 PW-5 WIPERS/CLEANER 640.4712.5601 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS
96 11/12/2021 292061 4.45 WINSHIELD WASHER FLUID 640.4712.5601 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS
97 11/12/2021 292061 29.73 PW-17 TIEDOWN 220.4303.5601 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS
98 11/12/2021 292061 9.90 PW-26 SOTO OIL 220.4303.5601 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS
99 11/12/2021 292061 38.05 PW-16 OIL, FILTER 220.4303.5601 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS
100 11/12/2021 292061 24.25 BRUSHES, BUCKET 220.4303.5601 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS
101 11/12/2021 292061 3.88 FUEL LINE HOSE, STARTING FLUID 010.4420.5603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS
102 11/12/2021 292062 78.00 CVT-21-7948 AGPD CASE#2101335 010.4204.5324 CENTRAL VALLEY TOXICOLOGY INC
103 11/12/2021 292062 78.00 CVT-21-8079 AGPD CASE#2101361 010.4204.5324 CENTRAL VALLEY TOXICOLOGY INC
104 11/12/2021 292063 194.98 ACCT#8245100960104152-PD INTERNET 010.4201.5403 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS
105 11/12/2021 292064 2,896.00 HP SERVER WARRANTY-1 YR 010.4140.5303 CIO SOLUTIONS LP
106 11/12/2021 292064 4,768.00 11/21 STRATEGIC SUPPORT 010.4140.5303 CIO SOLUTIONS LP
107 11/12/2021 292064 1,260.00 11/21 CROWDSTRIKE CYBERSECURITY 010.4140.5303 CIO SOLUTIONS LP
108 11/12/2021 292065 15,000.00 CITIZENSERVE SOFTWARE SUBSCRIPTION 010.4140.5303 CITIZENSERVE
109 11/12/2021 292066 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-STROTHER#2 010.0000.2206 JANA CLARK
110 11/12/2021 292067 58.75 GARBAGE TO DUMP 220.4303.5307 COLD CANYON LANDFILL, INC
111 11/12/2021 292068 671.88 EOC SVC 22/23-SATELLITE PHONES 010.4201.5303 COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONALS
112 11/12/2021 292069 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-ELM ST 010.0000.2206 BRIDGET CONRAD
113 11/12/2021 292070 235.20 10/21 SR FITNESS 010.4424.5351 GAYLE CUDDY
114 11/12/2021 292071 1,606.65 10/21 UTILITY BILL MAILING:640.4710.5208 DATAPROSE LLC
115 11/12/2021 292071 39.29 INSERT FEE-DISTRICT ELECTIONS 010.4145.5208 DATAPROSE LLC
116 11/12/2021 292071 400.00 10/21 NETBILL MONTHLY MAINT 640.4710.5303 DATAPROSE LLC
117 11/12/2021 292071 434.56 10/21 NETBILL CC TRANS 640.4710.5555 DATAPROSE LLC
Page 12 of 182
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CHECK LISTING
NOVEMBER 1 - NOVEMBER 15, 2021
ATTACHMENT 1
Line Check Date Check #Amount Description Acct #Vendor Name
118 11/12/2021 292071 108.64 10/21 NETBILL CC TRANS 612.4610.5555 DATAPROSE LLC
119 11/12/2021 292072 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-STROTHER#1 010.0000.2206 AGUEDA DIAZ
120 11/12/2021 292072 58.00 REFUND-PARK RENTAL-STROTHER#1 010.0000.4354 AGUEDA DIAZ
121 11/12/2021 292072 26.00 REFUND-BOUNCE HOUSE FEE 010.0000.4354 AGUEDA DIAZ
122 11/12/2021 292073 1,248.00 ROLLER SKATE-FALL SESSION 2 010.4424.5351 DOOMSDAY SKATE LLC
123 11/12/2021 292074 3,230.00 Provide design services 350.5795.7501 EIKHOF DESIGN GROUP
124 11/12/2021 292074 252.35 Provide design services 350.5658.7501 EIKHOF DESIGN GROUP
125 11/12/2021 292075 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-STROTHER#1 010.0000.2206 KEREN ERDMAN
126 11/12/2021 292076 301.22 SOTO-DIRTY WATER VALVE 010.4430.5605 FARM SUPPLY CO
127 11/12/2021 292076 139.82 HEDGE SHEAR, VALVE KEY 010.4420.5605 FARM SUPPLY CO
128 11/12/2021 292077 1,467.62 TRASH CAN LINERS/ TP 010.4213.5604 FASTENAL COMPANY
129 11/12/2021 292078 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-STROTHER#1 010.0000.2206 ALYSSA GERALD
130 11/12/2021 292079 78.60 FLOWERS FOR STAFF-LIEBERMAN 010.4001.5504 GRAND BOUQUET
131 11/12/2021 292079 94.77 FLOWERS FOR STAFF-DAHL 010.4001.5504 GRAND BOUQUET
132 11/12/2021 292080 1,446.69 07/21-09/21 CJIS SYSTEM ACCESS 010.4204.5606 GSA-INFORMATION TECH
133 11/12/2021 292081 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-ELM ST BBQ 010.0000.2206 DENISE HARRISON
134 11/12/2021 292082 1,728.00 CASH FOR GRASS-1728 SQ FT 226.4306.5554 RICHARD HAYDON
135 11/12/2021 292083 165.24 11/21 AETNA RESOURCES EAP 010.4145.5147 HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCE CTR
136 11/12/2021 292083 41.31 11/21 AETNA RESOURCES EAP 010.0000.1111 HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCE CTR
137 11/12/2021 292084 955.00 PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL-FCFA 010.0000.1111 INDUSTRIAL MEDICAL GROUP
138 11/12/2021 292085 91.16 (5) PIPE RENTAL-ECR 220.4303.5613 IRRIGATION WEST (DBA)
139 11/12/2021 292086 1,699.00 Lenovo ThinkPad T14 20S0 Lapto 010.4140.5702 ITSAVVY LLC
140 11/12/2021 292086 131.67 Sales Tax 010.4140.5702 ITSAVVY LLC
141 11/12/2021 292087 26.60 FUEL-PD4620, 4621 010.4203.5608 JB DEWAR, INC
142 11/12/2021 292087 21.14 FUEL-PD4620, 4621 010.4203.5608 JB DEWAR, INC
143 11/12/2021 292087 57.57 (3) 5 GALL DIESEL CAN 220.4303.5613 JB DEWAR, INC
144 11/12/2021 292088 3,506.45 Construction of the Castillo Del Mar Ext 350.5678.7201 JJ FISHER CONSTRUCTION, INC.
145 11/12/2021 292089 200.00 WASHING MACHINE REBATE 226.4306.5554 ASHLEY JOHNSON
146 11/12/2021 292090 372.51 (5) 5 GALL CEILING PAINT-PUBLIC RR 010.4430.5604 KELLY-MOORE PAINTS
147 11/12/2021 292091 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-STROTHER#2 010.0000.2206 CARSEN LACEY
148 11/12/2021 292092 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-RG#3 010.0000.2206 MARCI LARIOS
149 11/12/2021 292093 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-STROTHER 010.0000.2206 GIANNA LITTLE
150 11/12/2021 292094 1,650.88 09/21 ZUMBA & BARRE 010.4424.5351 HEIDY MANGIARDI
151 11/12/2021 292095 144.00 REFUND-BUSINESS LICENSE OVERPY 010.0000.4050 JOSE L MARTINEZ
152 11/12/2021 292096 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-ELM BBQ 010.0000.2206 VICTORIA MATTHEWS
153 11/12/2021 292096 103.00 PARK RENTAL REFUND-ELM BBQ 010.0000.4354 VICTORIA MATTHEWS
154 11/12/2021 292096 26.00 REFUND BOUNCE HOUSE FEE 010.0000.4354 VICTORIA MATTHEWS
155 11/12/2021 292097 500.00 CASH FOR GRASS-500 SQ FT 226.4306.5554 CHERYL MCAULIFFE-COREY
156 11/12/2021 292098 150.00 WELL#3 PUMP ADJUSTMENT 640.4711.5603 MELLO & SON'S PUMPS & MOTORS
Page 13 of 182
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CHECK LISTING
NOVEMBER 1 - NOVEMBER 15, 2021
ATTACHMENT 1
Line Check Date Check #Amount Description Acct #Vendor Name
157 11/12/2021 292099 14.84 CHAIN FOR GATE-WELL#7 & 8 640.4712.5604 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC
158 11/12/2021 292099 10.76 DUCT TAPE 010.4430.5605 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC
159 11/12/2021 292099 15.06 SANDING DISC 220.4303.5613 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC
160 11/12/2021 292099 18.31 WORK GLOVES 220.4303.5613 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC
161 11/12/2021 292099 7.09 6X6 PACKING SHEET, HAND TOOL 010.4420.5605 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC
162 11/12/2021 292099 51.66 (6) BAGS CONCRETE 010.4420.5605 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC
163 11/12/2021 292099 -51.66 RETURN-(6) BAGS CONCRETE 010.4420.5605 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC
164 11/12/2021 292099 46.31 ORGANIZER, TOOL TOTE 010.4430.5605 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC
165 11/12/2021 292099 15.86 SOTO-DRAIN, GRATE 010.4430.5605 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC
166 11/12/2021 292099 26.03 (6) BAGS QUICKCRETE 010.4420.5605 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC
167 11/12/2021 292099 30.16 RAKE 220.4303.5613 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC
168 11/12/2021 292099 61.11 DRILL BIT, FASTENERS, WASHERS 010.4420.5605 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC
169 11/12/2021 292099 183.16 LEAF BLOWER 640.4712.5273 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC
170 11/12/2021 292099 79.96 AIR FILTER, TOWELS, PAINTBRUSH 010.4213.5604 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC
171 11/12/2021 292099 260.29 CONCRETE COLOR SEAL TINT, ROLL 010.4420.5605 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC
172 11/12/2021 292099 28.36 ROLLER COVER & TRAY 010.4213.5604 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC
173 11/12/2021 292099 19.37 ROLLER FRAME & COVER 010.4213.5604 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC
174 11/12/2021 292099 2.79 TARP STRAP 010.4420.5605 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC
175 11/12/2021 292099 89.38 TOWELS, GFI OUTLETS, PRIMER/SEALER 010.4213.5604 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC
176 11/12/2021 292099 38.29 PAIL, DECK PLUS, SOCKETS, FAST 010.4420.5605 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC
177 11/12/2021 292100 1,440.00 CASH FOR GRASS 1440 SQ FT 226.4306.5554 ROBERT MONGILLO
178 11/12/2021 292101 315.00 TRAINING-TUITION-BIO 010.4203.5501 NATIONAL TRAINING CONCEPTS
179 11/12/2021 292102 177.49 COPY PAPER 010.4102.5201 OFFICE DEPOT
180 11/12/2021 292103 1,397.69 ELECTRIC 010.4307.5402 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO
181 11/12/2021 292103 7,559.35 ELECTRIC 640.4712.5402 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO
182 11/12/2021 292103 4,389.02 ELECTRIC 640.4711.5402 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO
183 11/12/2021 292103 2,205.46 ELECTRIC 612.4610.5402 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO
184 11/12/2021 292103 9,156.84 ELECTRIC 010.4145.5401 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO
185 11/12/2021 292103 13.02 ELECTRIC 217.4460.5355 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO
186 11/12/2021 292104 363.75 2021 Street Repairs Project 350.5638.7301 PAVEMENT ENGINEERING INC
187 11/12/2021 292105 1,200.00 PET PICK-UP WICKETS 010.4420.5605 PET PICK-UPS
188 11/12/2021 292105 171.55 Freight 010.4420.5605 PET PICK-UPS
189 11/12/2021 292106 600.00 START CHG FOR TURKEY TROT 11/14 010.0000.1033 PETTY CASH
190 11/12/2021 292107 218.60 09/21 PARKING CITATION PROCESS 010.4204.5303 PHOENIX GROUP
191 11/12/2021 292108 18,069.88 Traffic Way Bridge Replacement 350.5679.7501 QUINCY ENGINEERING INC
192 11/12/2021 292108 49,231.25 Traffic Way Bridge Replacement 350.5679.7501 QUINCY ENGINEERING INC
193 11/12/2021 292109 484.37 11/21 GRACE LANE LANDSCAPE MAINT 216.4460.5304 RAINSCAPE
194 11/12/2021 292109 1,201.41 11/21 PARKSIDE LANDSCAPE MAINT 219.4460.5304 RAINSCAPE
195 11/12/2021 292110 5.38 COUNCIL CHAMBERS WATER 9/17-10/16 010.4213.5303 READYREFRESH BY NESTLE
Page 14 of 182
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CHECK LISTING
NOVEMBER 1 - NOVEMBER 15, 2021
ATTACHMENT 1
Line Check Date Check #Amount Description Acct #Vendor Name
196 11/12/2021 292111 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-STROTHER#1 010.0000.2206 JOSE RODRIQUEZ
197 11/12/2021 292112 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-STROTHER#3 010.0000.2206 LISA ROTHROCK
198 11/12/2021 292113 811.76 SVC CALL TO INSTALL LOADER TIRES 220.4303.5603 SANTA MARIA TIRE, INC
199 11/12/2021 292114 1,956.00 SART EXAM-CASE#210572 010.4204.5324 SLO COUNTY SART PROGRAM
200 11/12/2021 292115 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-STROTHER#1 010.0000.2206 NATACHA SEDEEK
201 11/12/2021 292116 575.50 09/21 PARKING CITATION REVENUE 010.0000.4203 SLO COUNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLLER
202 11/12/2021 292117 1,437.72 TRITECH CAD BILLING-10/21-3/22 010.4204.5606 SLO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
203 11/12/2021 292118 41.93 GAS SERVICES-111 S MASON 010.4145.5401 SOCALGAS
204 11/12/2021 292118 23.95 GAS SERVICES-211 VERNON ST 010.4145.5401 SOCALGAS
205 11/12/2021 292118 30.25 GAS SERVICES-215 E BRANCH 010.4145.5401 SOCALGAS
206 11/12/2021 292119 148.32 DUMPSTERS -RANCHO GRANDE PARK 010.4213.5303 SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY SVC, INC
207 11/12/2021 292119 172.19 DUMPSTERS -FCFA 010.4213.5303 SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY SVC, INC
208 11/12/2021 292119 148.32 DUMPSTERS -STROTHER PARK 010.4213.5303 SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY SVC, INC
209 11/12/2021 292119 116.59 DUMPSTERS -PD 010.4213.5303 SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY SVC, INC
210 11/12/2021 292119 7.81 DUMPSTERS -PW CARDBOARD 010.4213.5303 SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY SVC, INC
211 11/12/2021 292120 8,999.78 STALKER SAM TRAILER 010.4209.5701 STALKER RADAR
212 11/12/2021 292121 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-STROTHER 010.0000.2206 JOEY STEIL
213 11/12/2021 292122 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-RG#2 010.0000.2206 DANIEL TAPPAN
214 11/12/2021 292123 223.04 MAGNETIC HANGER, HEX WRENCH SET 010.4305.5273 TCA TOOLS INC
215 11/12/2021 292124 624.75 08/21-PH NOTICES-PLANNING COMM 010.4130.5301 THE MCCLATCHY COMPANY LLC
216 11/12/2021 292124 112.20 PH NOTICE-WATER EMERGENCY 010.4002.5301 THE MCCLATCHY COMPANY LLC
217 11/12/2021 292124 362.10 PH NOTICE-CONCRETE REPAIRS 2021 010.4002.5301 THE MCCLATCHY COMPANY LLC
218 11/12/2021 292125 410.55 PD-4605 REPAIR 010.4203.5601 TOM'S AUTO SERVICE
219 11/12/2021 292126 4,312.00 TRAFFIC CONTROL-10/1-ASH/ELM 220.4303.5613 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PRODUCTS
220 11/12/2021 292127 421.06 CLEAN ASPHALT RECYCLE 220.4303.5613 TROESH RECYCLING, INC
221 11/12/2021 292128 66.74 10/21 COPIER CONTRACT 010.4102.5602 ULTREX BUSINESS PRODUCTS (DBA)
222 11/12/2021 292129 83.20 10/21 ART FOR KIDS 010.4424.5351 PEGGY VALKO
223 11/12/2021 292130 2,250.00 Provide Sreet Sweeping service 010.4307.5303 VENCO POWER SWEEPING INC
224 11/12/2021 292130 6,750.00 Provide Street Sweeping Service 220.4303.5303 VENCO POWER SWEEPING INC
225 11/12/2021 292131 70.42 ACCT#808089883-00003 CIM CELL PHONE 010.4425.5255 VERIZON WIRELESS
226 11/12/2021 292131 868.24 ACCT#208620661-00002 PD CELL PHONE 010.4201.5403 VERIZON WIRELESS
227 11/12/2021 292132 519.21 COPY MACH LEASE PYMT 010.4201.5803 WELLS FARGO VENDOR FINANCIAL
228 11/12/2021 292133 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-STROTHER#1 010.0000.2206 ERIN WIGHTON
229 11/12/2021 292134 1,440.00 09/21 SIGNAL MAINT-12 INTERSECTIONS 010.4307.5303 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COMPANY INC
230 11/12/2021 292134 60.00 OAK PARK & JAMES WAY 010.4307.5303 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COMPANY INC
231 11/12/2021 292134 60.00 OAK PARK & EL CAMINO REAL 010.4307.5303 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COMPANY INC
232 11/12/2021 292134 75.00 OAK PARK & W. BRANCH 010.4307.5303 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COMPANY INC
233 11/12/2021 292134 734.67 WO#3341-3343 TRAFFIC SIGNAL REPAIR 220.4303.5303 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COMPANY INC
509,728.41
Page 15 of 182
ATTACHMENT 2
.
General Fund 340,035.10 5101 Salaries Full time 214,957.72
Streets Fund 15,091.47 5101 Volunteer Employee Retirement -
Sewer Fund 7,515.26 5102 Salaries Part-Time - PPT 4,950.46
Water Fund 20,893.60 5103 Salaries Part-Time - TPT 15,481.80
383,535.43 5105 Salaries OverTime 10,938.19
5106 Salaries Strike Team OT -
5107 Salaries Standby 1,683.80
5108 Holiday Pay 6,625.06
5109 Sick Pay 8,106.26
Administrative Services - 5110 Annual Leave Buyback -
Information Services - 5111 Vacation Buyback -
Community Development - 5112 Sick Leave Buyback -
Police 9,880.44 5113 Vacation Pay 6,142.38
Public Works - Maintenance 32.22 5114 Comp Pay 4,428.59
Public Works - Enterprise 1,025.53 5115 Annual Leave Pay 3,698.85
Recreation - Administration - 5116 Salaries - Police FTO 407.80
Recreation - Special Events - 5121 PERS Retirement 29,685.33
Children In Motion - 5122 Social Security 19,240.50
10,938.19 5123 PARS Retirement 331.68
5126 State Disability Ins. 1,044.05
5127 Deferred Compensation 741.66
5131 Health Insurance 47,968.22
5132 Dental Insurance 3,106.18
5133 Vision Insurance 825.34
5134 Life Insurance 369.62
5135 Long Term Disability 627.38
5137 Leave Payouts 224.56
5143 Uniform Allowance -
5144 Car Allowance 837.50
5146 Council Expense -
5147 Employee Assistance -
5148 Boot Allowance -
5149 Motor Pay -
5150 Bi-Lingual Pay 150.00
5151 Cell Phone Allowance 962.50
383,535.43
OVERTIME BY DEPARTMENT:
Total FCFA payroll cost for this period is $209,655.84. FCFA payroll and accounts payable expenditures are
processed as part of the JPA financial services agreement between Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach and
Oceano Community Services District. Arroyo Grande's portion of the FCFA annual budget is identified in the
contractual services budget.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION
PAY PERIOD
10/15/2021 - 10/28/2021
11/5/2021
BY FUND BY ACCOUNT
Page 16 of 182
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Nicole Valentine, Administrative Services Director
BY: Lynda Horejsi, Accounting Manager
SUBJECT: Statement of Investment Deposits
DATE: November 23, 2021
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Presentation of investment deposits as of October 31, 2021.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
There is no funding impact to the City related to these reports. However, the City does
receive interest revenue based on the interest rate of the investments. No or minimal
future staff time is projected.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file the attached report listing investment deposits of the City of Arroyo
Grande as of October 31, 2021, as required by Government Code Section 53646(b).
BACKGROUND:
This report represents the City’s investments as of October 31, 2021. It includes all
investments managed by the City, the investment institution, investment type, book value,
maturity date, and rate of interest. As of October 31, 2021, the investment portfolio was
in compliance with all State laws and the City’s investment policy.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
Government Code Section 53646(b) requires certain information be submitted to the City
Council. The Administrative Services Department has historically submitted a monthly
report, 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.
Page 17 of 182
City Council
Statement of Investment Deposits
November 23, 2021
Page 2
7. Relationship of the monthly report to the annual statement of investment policy.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:
1. Approve staff’s recommendation to receive and file the attached report listing the
investment deposits.
2. Do not approve staff’s recommendation
3. Provide direction to staff
ADVANTAGES:
Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the City. Investments are underta ken in a
manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio.
DISADVANTAGES:
Some level of risk is present in any investment transaction. Losses could be incurred due
to market price changes, 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
minimize such risks, diversifications of the investment portfolio by institution and by
investment instruments are being used as much as is practical and prudent.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
No environmental review is required for this item.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with
Government Code Section 54954.2.
Attachment:
1. Portfolio Summary: October 31, 2021
Page 18 of 182
ATTACHMENT 1City of Arroyo Grande300 E. Branch St.Arroyo Grande, CA 93420Phone: (805) 473-5400CITY OF ARROYO GRANDEPortfolio ManagementPortfolio SummaryOctober 31, 2021Investments Principal ValueCurrent Market Value Interest Rate Date of PurchaseTerm Maturity Date% of PortfolioLocal Agency Investment Fund9,087,279.97$ 9,087,279.97$ 0.203%43.469%Certificates of DepositPacific Premier Bank 106,547.32 106,547.32 0.200% February 21, 2021 12 mos February 21, 2022 0.510%Texas Exchange Bank 248,000.00 248,000.00 1.000% March 25, 2020 24 mos March 25, 2022 1.186%CIT Bank NA 248,000.00 248,000.00 1.050% March 28, 2020 24 mos March 28, 2022 1.186%Firstbank Puerto Rico 249,000.00 249,000.00 1.700% October 25, 2019 30 mos April 25, 2022 1.191%Ally Bank 247,000.00 247,000.00 2.150% July 22, 2019 36 mos July 22, 2022 1.182%TIAA FSB Jacksonville 247,000.00 247,000.00 2.100% July 12, 2019 36 mos July 12, 2022 1.182%Sallie Mae Bank/Salt Lake 247,000.00 247,000.00 1.900% October 3, 2019 36 mos October 3, 2022 1.182%Eaglebank Bethesda Maryland 249,000.00 249,000.00 1.850% October 4, 2019 36 mos October 4, 2022 1.191%Goldman Sachs Bank USA 247,000.00 247,000.00 1.850% October 24, 2019 36 mos October 24, 2022 1.182%1st Security Bank Washington 249,000.00 249,000.00 1.700% October 4, 2019 42 mos April 4, 2023 1.191%Morgan Stanley Private Bank 247,000.00 247,000.00 2.250% July 11, 2019 45 mos July 11, 2023 1.182%Merrick Bank 249,000.00 249,000.00 1.800% October 16, 2019 48 mos October 16, 2023 1.191%BMW Bank North America 249,000.00 249,000.00 0.500% July 16, 2021 36 mos July 16, 2024 1.191%Enerbank USA 247,000.00 247,000.00 1.850% October 25, 2019 60 mos October 25, 2024 1.182%Flagstar Bank 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.850% May 15, 2020 60 mos May 15, 2025 1.172%New York Community Bank 249,000.00 249,000.00 0.550% July 1, 2021 48 mos July 1, 2025 1.191%UBS Bank USA 249,000.00 249,000.00 0.900% July 21, 2021 60 mos July 21, 2026 1.191%Toyota Financial Savings Bank 248,000.00 248,000.00 0.950% July 22, 2021 60 mos July 22, 2026 1.186%Total Certificates of Deposit4,320,547.32 4,320,547.32 20.667%Agency BondsFederal Farm Credit Bank 2,500,000.00 2,564,422.50 1.600% November 1, 2019 48 mos November 1, 2023 11.959%Federal Farm Credit Bank 1,999,314.00 1,995,862.00 0.350% December 4, 2020 42 mos May 16, 2024 9.564%Federal Farm Credit Bank 998,431.00 990,695.00 0.430% March 17, 2021 48 mos March 3, 2025 4.776%Federal Natl Mortgage Assn 1,000,000.00 990,353.00 0.500% October 20, 2020 60 mos October 20, 2025 4.784%Federal Home Loan Bank 999,500.00 994,252.00 0.800% March 17, 2021 60 mos March 10, 2026 4.781%Total Agency Bonds7,497,245.00 7,535,584.50 35.863%TOTAL INVESTMENTS20,905,072.29$ 20,943,411.79$ 100.000%* Effective Interest RatePage 19 of 182
1
ACTION MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
November 9, 2021, 5:00 p.m.
Zoom Virtual Meeting
Webinar ID: 832 5584 8846
ByTelephone: 1-669-900-6833; 1-346-248-7799
Council Members Present: Mayor Ray Russom, Mayor Pro Tem
Paulding, Council Member Barneich, Council
Member Storton, Council Member George
Staff Present: City Clerk Jessica Matson, City Attorney
Timothy Carmel, City Manager Whitney
McDonald, Assistant City Manager/Public
Works Director Bill Robeson, Sarah
Lansburgh
Given the recent increase in COVID-19 cases in San Luis Obispo County, and in compliance with
Assembly Bill (AB) 361, which allows for a deviation of teleconference rules required by the Ralph M.
Brown Act, this meeting was held by teleconference.
_____________________________________________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Matson performed roll call.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Mayor Ray Russom led the flag salute.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
None.
5. CLOSED SESSION
The City Council recessed to a closed session for the following:
a) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.8:
Property: Harden Street at North Mason Street
Page 20 of 182
2
Agency negotiators: Whitney McDonald, City Manager; Bill Robeson, Assistant City Manager/Public
Works Director
Negotiating parties: Ty Green, on behalf of Alex Carapeti and Kristiane Schmidt
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
b) PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION pursuant to Government Code Section
54957:
Title: City Attorney
RECONVENE
The City Council reconvened to open session at 6:00 p.m. in conjunction with the City Council Regular
Meeting and announcement(s) of any reportable action(s) taken in closed session will be made under
Item 5.a.
6. ADJOURNMENT
_________________________
Caren Ray Russom, Mayor
_________________________
Jessica Matson, City Clerk
(Approved at CC Mtg ________)
Page 21 of 182
1
ACTION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
November 9, 2021, 6:00 p.m.
Zoom Virtual Meeting
Webinar ID: 832 5584 8846
By Telephone: 1-669-900-6833; 1-346-248-7799
Council Members Present: Mayor Ray Russom, Mayor Pro Tem
Paulding, Council Member Barneich, Council
Member Storton, Council Member George
Staff Present: City Clerk Jessica Matson, City Attorney
Timothy Carmel, City Manager Whitney
McDonald, Assistant City Manager/Public
Works Director Bill Robeson, Administrative
Services Director Nicole Valentine,
Community Development Director Brian
Pedrotti, Associate Planner Andrew Perez
Given the recent increase in COVID-19 cases in San Luis Obispo County, and in compliance with
Assembly Bill (AB) 361, which allows for a deviation of teleconference rules required by the Ralph M.
Brown Act, this meeting was held by teleconference.
_____________________________________________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Ray Russom called the Regular City Council Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Matson performed roll call.
3. MOMENT OF REFLECTION
4. FLAG SALUTE
Council Member Storton led the flag salute.
5. AGENDA REVIEW
5.a. Closed Session Announcements
City Attorney Carmel announced that the City Council discussed negotiations with real property
negotiators and the public employee performance evaluation of the City Attorney, and that there
Page 22 of 182
2
was no reportable action. Mayor Ray Russom indicated that the Council did not finish its
discussion and would resume special meeting closed session following the regular meeting.
5.b Ordinances read in title only
Moved by Mayor Ray Russom
Seconded by Council Member Storton
Moved that all ordinances presented for introduction or adoption be read in title only and all
further readings be waived.
AYES (5): Mayor Ray Russom, Mayor Pro Tem Paulding, Council Member Barneich, Council
Member Storton, and Council Member George
Passed (5 to 0)
6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
6.a. Update Regarding Countywide COVID-19 Efforts
City Manager McDonald provided a brief update on COVID-19 statistics.
Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received.
No action was taken on this item.
6.b. City Manager Communications
City Manager McDonald stated that the Water and Wastewater Rate Study report will be coming
to Council at the December 14th City Council meeting; the Annual Turkey Trot Fun Run will be
held on November 14th; Elegant Christmas in the Village is schedule for December 4th; and
that funds have been raised to light the Village for the holidays.
Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received.
No action was taken on this item.
6.c. Honorary Proclamation Declaring November 2021 as Family Court Awareness Month
Mayor Ray Russom read the Honorary Proclamation Recognizing November as Family Court
Awareness Month. Tina Swithin, accepted the proclamation.
Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received.
No action was taken on this item.
7. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. Speaking from the public were Francine Errico, and
Shirley Gibson. No further public comments were received.
8. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Ray Russom asked the Council if there were any questions or any items to be pulled from the
consent agenda for further discussion.
Page 23 of 182
3
Mayor Ray Russom commented on Item 8.e. and explained the impact of the proposed boundary
change to the City.
Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received.
Moved by Council Member Barneich
Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Paulding
Approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.j., with the recommended courses of action. City
Attorney Carmel read the full title of the Ordinance in Item 8.h.
AYES (5): Mayor Ray Russom, Mayor Pro Tem Paulding, Council Member Barneich, Council Member
Storton, and Council Member George
Passed (5 to 0)
8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification
Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period of October 16, 2021 through October 3,
2021.
8.b. Fiscal Year 2020-21 Year-End Financial Status Report
Considered, received, and filed the FY 2020-21 Year-End Financial Status Report.
8.c. Approval of Minutes
Approved the minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of October 26, 2021, as submitted.
8.d. Adoption of a Resolution Declaring a Continued Local Emergency Related to the
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic
Adopted a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE DECLARING A CONTINUED LOCAL EMERGENCY RELATED TO THE
CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) PANDEMIC".
8.e. Approval of a Letter to the 2020 California Citizens Redistricting Commission Regarding
the Visualization of Assembly Districts Impacting the City of Arroyo Grande
Authorized the Mayor to execute the proposed letter to the 2020 California Citizens Redistricting
Commission regarding the visualization presented for the week of October 27, 2021, impacting
the Assembly district boundary applicable to the City.
8.f. Appointment of an Alternate Board Member to Serve in the Central Coast Community
Energy Policy Board for Calendar Years 2022-2024
Appointed the Mayor to serve as an alternate on the Central Coast Community Energy (CCCE)
Policy Board for a term of two years beginning January 1, 2022.
8.g. Approve Purchase of Playground Equipment Using the Cooperative Purchasing
Agreement with OMNIA Partners for the Inclusive Playground Replacement Project at
Elm Street Park
Page 24 of 182
4
Approved the purchase of equipment using the cooperative purchasing agreement with OMNIA
Partners for playground equipment with Play & Park Structures for the Inclusive Elm Street Park
Playground Replacement Project.
8.h. Adoption of an Ordinance Adding Chapter 8.33, Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal
Reduction, and Chapter 15.06, SB 1383 CalGreen Recycling and Model Water Efficient
Landscaping Ordinance Requirements, to the Municipal Code to Comply with SB 1383
Adopted an ordinance entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE ADDING CHAPTER 8.33, MANDATORY ORGANIC WASTE DISPOSAL
REDUCTION, AND CHAPTER 15.06, SB 1383 CALGREEN RECYCLING AND MODEL
WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS, TO THE ARROYO
GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SB 1383".
8.i. Adoption of a Resolution Finding an Emergency Exists Within the City and Authorizing
Contracting Without A Competitive Solicitation for Bids for the Storm Drain System at
251 East Grand Avenue Project, PW 2021-12
1) Adopted a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND AUTHORIZING THE IMMEDIATE
EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS TO REPAIR THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM AT 251 EAST
GRAND AVENUE"; and 2) Authorized the City Manager, or designee, to execute contracts with
specialized contractors for repair of the Storm Drain System at 251 East Grand Avenue Project,
PW 2021-12.
8.j. Temporary Use Permit Case No. 21-012; Authorizing the Village Christmas Parade on
Saturday, December 4, 2021, and the Closure of City Streets; Applicant - Doc Burnstein's
Ice Cream Lab; Representative - Czarina Taylor
1) Adopted a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TEMPORARY USE PERMIT NO. 21-012 AND
AUTHORIZING THE CLOSURE OF CITY STREETS FOR THE ANNUAL ARROYO GRANDE
VILLAGE CHRISTMAS PARADE, DECEMBER 4, 2021"; and 2) Appropriated $6,650 from the
General Fund Reserve to facilitate implementation of safety measures for the event.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
9.a. Continued Appeal to City Council Case 21-003; Appeal of Condition Use Permit 21-005
for an Addition to an Existing Commercial Structure and Establishment of an Art Gallery
and Wine Tasting Collective; Location-211 E Branch St; Appellant-Shirley Gibson
Council Member Barneich declared a conflict stating that she had spoken to both the appellants
and the applicants at length, recused herself and left the meeting.
Community Development Director Brian Pedrotti introduced the item. Associate Planner Perez
presented the report and recommended that the Council adopt the proposed Resolution denying
Appeal Case 21-003 and approving Conditional Use Permit 21-005 as revised. Staff responded
to question from Council.
Mayor Ray Russom opened the public hearing. Speaking from the public were Shirley Gibson,
Jennifer Martin, Eric Vonberg, Jill Vonberg, Jim Guthrie, Camilla Karamanlis, and Kevin
Page 25 of 182
5
Buchanan. The Council requested to hear a presentation from the architect on the revised
project design. Jennifer Martin, project architect, presented and responded to questions from
Council.
Appellant, Shirley Gibson, responded to questions from Council.
Upon hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ray Russom closed the public hearing.
Council discussion ensued regarding sending the project back through advisory bodies for
review.
City Attorney Carmel clarified the recommended action.
Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Paulding
Seconded by Council Member Storton
Adopt the proposed Resolution denying Appeal Case 21-003 and approving Conditional Use
Permit 21-005 and modifying Condition No. 7 to include the sentence, "Prior to permit issuance,
architectural details consistent with the revised plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Architectural Review Committee".
AYES (3): Mayor Pro Tem Paulding, Council Member Storton, and Council Member George
NOES (1): Mayor Ray Russom
ABSENT (1): Council Member Barneich
Passed (3 to 1)
10. OLD BUSINESS
None.
Mayor Ray Russom called for a brief break at 8:57 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:02 p.m.
Council Member Barneich rejoined the meeting.
11. NEW BUSINESS
11.a. Approval of Second Amendment to the Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA)
JPA, First Amendment to the IWMA Memorandum of Agreement, and Resolution
Declaring Intent to Remain a Member of the IWMA Subject to Conditions
City Manager McDonald presented the staff report and recommended that the Council: 1)
Approve the Second Amendment to the San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste
Management Authority (“IWMA”) Joint Powers Agreement; 2) Approve the First Amendment to
the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the member jurisdictions of the IWMA and the
authorized districts; and 3) Adopt a Resolution declaring the City’s intent to remain a member of
the IWMA so long as certain conditions are met.
Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received.
Page 26 of 182
6
Moved by Mayor Ray Russom
Seconded by Council Member George
Adopt a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE TO REMAIN A MEMBER AGENCY OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY PROVIDED CERTAIN
CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED" and amend Section 2.b. to read as follows, "The revised JPA
Agreement must be fully executed as soon as possible but not before completion of item (c)
below, with particular emphasis on items (ii) and (iii)."
AYES (5): Mayor Ray Russom, Mayor Pro Tem Paulding, Council Member Barneich, Council
Member Storton, and Council Member George
Passed (5 to 0)
Moved by Mayor Ray Russom
Seconded by Council Member George
Approve the Second Amendment to the San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste
Management Authority (“IWMA”) Joint Powers Agreement; and Approve the First Amendment to
the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the member jurisdictions of the IWMA and the
authorized districts.
AYES (5): Mayor Ray Russom, Mayor Pro Tem Paulding, Council Member Barneich, Council
Member Storton, and Council Member George
Passed (5 to 0)
12. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
13. CLOSED SESSION
At 9:46 p.m., Mayor Ray Russom announced that Council will be going into Closed Session to resume
discussions.
At 10:08 p.m., the closed session concluded and City Attorney Carmel announced that there was no
reportable action. He stated that this report would also be made at the beginning of the next City
Council meeting as this portion of the meeting is not recorded or videotaped.
14. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Ray Russom adjourned the
meeting at 10:09 p.m.
Page 27 of 182
7
_________________________
Caren Ray Russom, Mayor
_________________________
Jessica Matson, City Clerk
(Approved at CC Mtg ________)
Page 28 of 182
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
AGENDA ITEM 8.c. – NOVEMBER 23, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 2021
Item 5.a. in the November 9, 2021 City Council Minutes has been revised to include
Closed Session reasoning.
Attachment:
1. Revised November 9, 2021 City Council Minutes
cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website (or public review binder)
Page 29 of 182
1
ACTION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
November 9, 2021, 6:00 p.m.
Zoom Virtual Meeting
Webinar ID: 832 5584 8846
By Telephone: 1-669-900-6833; 1-346-248-7799
Council Members Present: Mayor Ray Russom, Mayor Pro Tem
Paulding, Council Member Barneich, Council
Member Storton, Council Member George
Staff Present: City Clerk Jessica Matson, City Attorney
Timothy Carmel, City Manager Whitney
McDonald, Assistant City Manager/Public
Works Director Bill Robeson, Administrative
Services Director Nicole Valentine,
Community Development Director Brian
Pedrotti, Associate Planner Andrew Perez
Given the recent increase in COVID-19 cases in San Luis Obispo County, and in compliance with
Assembly Bill (AB) 361, which allows for a deviation of teleconference rules required by the Ralph M.
Brown Act, this meeting was held by teleconference.
_____________________________________________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Ray Russom called the Regular City Council Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Matson performed roll call.
3. MOMENT OF REFLECTION
4. FLAG SALUTE
Council Member Storton led the flag salute.
5. AGENDA REVIEW
5.a. Closed Session Announcements
Special Meeting of November 9, 2021
Page 30 of 182
2
a) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8:
Property: Harden Street at North Mason Street
Agency negotiators: Whitney McDonald, City Manager; Bill Robeson, Assistant City
Manager/Public Works Director
Negotiating parties: Ty Green, on behalf of Alex Carapeti and Kristiane Schmidt
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
b) PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION pursuant to Government Code
Section 54957:
Title: City Attorney
City Attorney Carmel announced that the City Council discussed negotiations with real property
negotiators and the public employee performance evaluation of the City Attorney, and that there was no
reportable action. Mayor Ray Russom indicated that the Council did not finish its discussion and would
resume special meeting closed session following the regular meeting.
5.b Ordinances read in title only
Moved by Mayor Ray Russom
Seconded by Council Member Storton
Moved that all ordinances presented for introduction or adoption be read in title only and all
further readings be waived.
AYES (5): Mayor Ray Russom, Mayor Pro Tem Paulding, Council Member Barneich, Council
Member Storton, and Council Member George
Passed (5 to 0)
6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
6.a. Update Regarding Countywide COVID-19 Efforts
City Manager McDonald provided a brief update on COVID-19 statistics.
Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received.
No action was taken on this item.
6.b. City Manager Communications
City Manager McDonald stated that the Water and Wastewater Rate Study report will be coming
to Council at the December 14th City Council meeting; the Annual Turkey Trot Fun Run will be
held on November 14th; Elegant Christmas in the Village is schedule for December 4th; and
that funds have been raised to light the Village for the holidays.
Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received.
Page 31 of 182
3
No action was taken on this item.
6.c. Honorary Proclamation Declaring November 2021 as Family Court Awareness Month
Mayor Ray Russom read the Honorary Proclamation Recognizing November as Family Court
Awareness Month. Tina Swithin, accepted the proclamation.
Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received.
No action was taken on this item.
7. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. Speaking from the public were Francine Errico, and
Shirley Gibson. No further public comments were received.
8. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Ray Russom asked the Council if there were any questions or any items to be pulled from the
consent agenda for further discussion.
Mayor Ray Russom commented on Item 8.e. and explained the impact of the proposed boundary
change to the City.
Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received.
Moved by Council Member Barneich
Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Paulding
Approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.j., with the recommended courses of action. City
Attorney Carmel read the full title of the Ordinance in Item 8.h.
AYES (5): Mayor Ray Russom, Mayor Pro Tem Paulding, Council Member Barneich, Council Member
Storton, and Council Member George
Passed (5 to 0)
8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification
Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period of October 16, 2021 through October 3,
2021.
8.b. Fiscal Year 2020-21 Year-End Financial Status Report
Considered, received, and filed the FY 2020-21 Year-End Financial Status Report.
8.c. Approval of Minutes
Approved the minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of October 26, 2021, as submitted.
8.d. Adoption of a Resolution Declaring a Continued Local Emergency Related to the
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic
Page 32 of 182
4
Adopted a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE DECLARING A CONTINUED LOCAL EMERGENCY RELATED TO THE
CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) PANDEMIC".
8.e. Approval of a Letter to the 2020 California Citizens Redistricting Commission Regarding
the Visualization of Assembly Districts Impacting the City of Arroyo Grande
Authorized the Mayor to execute the proposed letter to the 2020 California Citizens Redistricting
Commission regarding the visualization presented for the week of October 27, 2021, impacting
the Assembly district boundary applicable to the City.
8.f. Appointment of an Alternate Board Member to Serve in the Central Coast Community
Energy Policy Board for Calendar Years 2022-2024
Appointed the Mayor to serve as an alternate on the Central Coast Community Energy (CCCE)
Policy Board for a term of two years beginning January 1, 2022.
8.g. Approve Purchase of Playground Equipment Using the Cooperative Purchasing
Agreement with OMNIA Partners for the Inclusive Playground Replacement Project at
Elm Street Park
Approved the purchase of equipment using the cooperative purchasing agreement with OMNIA
Partners for playground equipment with Play & Park Structures for the Inclusive Elm Street Park
Playground Replacement Project.
8.h. Adoption of an Ordinance Adding Chapter 8.33, Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal
Reduction, and Chapter 15.06, SB 1383 CalGreen Recycling and Model Water Efficient
Landscaping Ordinance Requirements, to the Municipal Code to Comply with SB 1383
Adopted an ordinance entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE ADDING CHAPTER 8.33, MANDATORY ORGANIC WASTE DISPOSAL
REDUCTION, AND CHAPTER 15.06, SB 1383 CALGREEN RECYCLING AND MODEL
WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS, TO THE ARROYO
GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SB 1383".
8.i. Adoption of a Resolution Finding an Emergency Exists Within the City and Authorizing
Contracting Without A Competitive Solicitation for Bids for the Storm Drain System at
251 East Grand Avenue Project, PW 2021-12
1) Adopted a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND AUTHORIZING THE IMMEDIATE
EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS TO REPAIR THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM AT 251 EAST
GRAND AVENUE"; and 2) Authorized the City Manager, or designee, to execute contracts with
specialized contractors for repair of the Storm Drain System at 251 East Grand Avenue Project,
PW 2021-12.
8.j. Temporary Use Permit Case No. 21-012; Authorizing the Village Christmas Parade on
Saturday, December 4, 2021, and the Closure of City Streets; Applicant - Doc Burnstein's
Ice Cream Lab; Representative - Czarina Taylor
Page 33 of 182
5
1) Adopted a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TEMPORARY USE PERMIT NO. 21-012 AND
AUTHORIZING THE CLOSURE OF CITY STREETS FOR THE ANNUAL ARROYO GRANDE
VILLAGE CHRISTMAS PARADE, DECEMBER 4, 2021"; and 2) Appropriated $6,650 from the
General Fund Reserve to facilitate implementation of safety measures for the event.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
9.a. Continued Appeal to City Council Case 21-003; Appeal of Condition Use Permit 21-005
for an Addition to an Existing Commercial Structure and Establishment of an Art Gallery
and Wine Tasting Collective; Location-211 E Branch St; Appellant-Shirley Gibson
Council Member Barneich declared a conflict stating that she had spoken to both the appellants
and the applicants at length, recused herself and left the meeting.
Community Development Director Brian Pedrotti introduced the item. Associate Planner Perez
presented the report and recommended that the Council adopt the proposed Resolution denying
Appeal Case 21-003 and approving Conditional Use Permit 21-005 as revised. Staff responded
to question from Council.
Mayor Ray Russom opened the public hearing. Speaking from the public were Shirley Gibson,
Jennifer Martin, Eric Vonberg, Jill Vonberg, Jim Guthrie, Camilla Karamanlis, and Kevin
Buchanan. The Council requested to hear a presentation from the architect on the revised
project design. Jennifer Martin, project architect, presented and responded to questions from
Council.
Appellant, Shirley Gibson, responded to questions from Council.
Upon hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ray Russom closed the public hearing.
Council discussion ensued regarding sending the project back through advisory bodies for
review.
City Attorney Carmel clarified the recommended action.
Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Paulding
Seconded by Council Member Storton
Adopt the proposed Resolution denying Appeal Case 21-003 and approving Conditional Use
Permit 21-005 and modifying Condition No. 7 to include the sentence, "Prior to permit issuance,
architectural details consistent with the revised plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Architectural Review Committee".
AYES (3): Mayor Pro Tem Paulding, Council Member Storton, and Council Member George
NOES (1): Mayor Ray Russom
ABSENT (1): Council Member Barneich
Passed (3 to 1)
Page 34 of 182
6
10. OLD BUSINESS
None.
Mayor Ray Russom called for a brief break at 8:57 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:02 p.m.
Council Member Barneich rejoined the meeting.
11. NEW BUSINESS
11.a. Approval of Second Amendment to the Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA)
JPA, First Amendment to the IWMA Memorandum of Agreement, and Resolution
Declaring Intent to Remain a Member of the IWMA Subject to Conditions
City Manager McDonald presented the staff report and recommended that the Council: 1)
Approve the Second Amendment to the San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste
Management Authority (“IWMA”) Joint Powers Agreement; 2) Approve the First Amendment to
the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the member jurisdictions of the IWMA and the
authorized districts; and 3) Adopt a Resolution declaring the City’s intent to remain a member of
the IWMA so long as certain conditions are met.
Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received.
Moved by Mayor Ray Russom
Seconded by Council Member George
Adopt a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE TO REMAIN A MEMBER AGENCY OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY PROVIDED CERTAIN
CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED" and amend Section 2.b. to read as follows, "The revised JPA
Agreement must be fully executed as soon as possible but not before completion of item (c)
below, with particular emphasis on items (ii) and (iii)."
AYES (5): Mayor Ray Russom, Mayor Pro Tem Paulding, Council Member Barneich, Council
Member Storton, and Council Member George
Passed (5 to 0)
Moved by Mayor Ray Russom
Seconded by Council Member George
Approve the Second Amendment to the San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste
Management Authority (“IWMA”) Joint Powers Agreement; and Approve the First Amendment to
the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the member jurisdictions of the IWMA and the
authorized districts.
AYES (5): Mayor Ray Russom, Mayor Pro Tem Paulding, Council Member Barneich, Council
Member Storton, and Council Member George
Passed (5 to 0)
Page 35 of 182
7
12. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
13. CLOSED SESSION
At 9:46 p.m., Mayor Ray Russom announced that Council will be going into Closed Session to resume
discussions.
At 10:08 p.m., the closed session concluded and City Attorney Carmel announced that there was no
reportable action. He stated that this report would also be made at the beginning of the next City
Council meeting as this portion of the meeting is not recorded or videotaped.
14. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Ray Russom adjourned the
meeting at 10:09 p.m.
_________________________
Caren Ray Russom, Mayor
_________________________
Jessica Matson, City Clerk
(Approved at CC Mtg ________)
Page 36 of 182
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Whitney McDonald, City Manager
Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Declaring a Continued Local Emergency
Related to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic
DATE: November 23, 2021
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Adoption of the Resolution will continue the declared local emergency related to the
COVID-19 pandemic.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
There are no direct fiscal impacts related to the proposed ac tion; however, adoption of
the Resolution will facilitate the ability for the City to request resources including financial
support and reimbursement from the State Office of Emergency Services and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency for costs incurred in preparation and/or response to the
COVID-19 pandemic.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution declaring a continued local emergency related to the Coronavirus
(COVID-19) pandemic.
BACKGROUND:
As the City Council is aware, in accordance with Section 8.12.060 of the Arroyo Grande
Municipal Code, the City Manager, in his capacity as the Director of Emergency Services,
proclaimed a local emergency on March 16, 2020 , regarding the COVID-19 pandemic.
The City Council ratified the proclamation at its regular meeting on March 24, 2020.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 8.12.065(C) provides that the City Council is to
“Review the need for a continuing emergency declaration at regularly scheduled meetings
at least every twenty-one (21) days until the emergency is terminated.” Accordingly, the
City Council has adopted the appropriate Resolutions declaring a continued local
emergency related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic within the required 21-day
time period since the ratification of the proclamation at its March 24, 2020 meeting.
Page 37 of 182
City Council
Adoption of a Resolution Declaring a Continued Local Emergency Related to the
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic
November 23, 2021
Page 2
This item is being presented to the City Council to satisfy the requirements of Section
8.12.065(C). Given the ongoing state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor, the
ongoing public health orders issued by the State and local public health officers, and the
ongoing work required of City staff to respond to the pandemic and these proclamations
and orders, it is recommended that the City Council adopt the Resolution declaring the
need to continue the emergency declaration.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:
1. Adopt the Resolution declaring the need to continue the declared local
emergency; or
2. Provide other direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
Adoption of the Resolution will satisfy the requirement of the Arroyo Grande Municipal
Code regarding the periodic review of the declared local emergency related to the COVID-
19 pandemic.
DISADVANTAGES:
No disadvantages have been identified to adopting the Resolution.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Not required.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with
Government Code Section 54954.2.
Attachment:
1. Proposed Resolution
Page 38 of 182
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE DECLARING A CONTINUED LOCAL
EMERGENCY RELATED TO THE CORONAVIRUS (COVID-
19) PANDEMIC
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 8.12.060 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code
the City Manager, in his capacity as the Director of Emergency Services proclaimed a
local emergency on March 17, 2020, regarding the COVID-19 pandemic; and
WHEREAS, the City Council ratified the emergency proclamation through adoption of
Resolution No. 4974 at its regular meeting on March 24, 2020; and
WHEREAS, Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 8.12.065(C) provides that the City
Council is to review the need for a continuing emergen cy declaration at regularly
scheduled meetings at least every twenty-one (21) days until the emergency is
terminated; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Resolutions declaring a continued local
emergency related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on April 14, April 28, May
12, May 26, June 9, June 23, July 14, August 11, August 25, September 8, September
22, October 13, October 27, November 10, November 24, December 8, 2020, January
12, January 26, February 9; February 23; March 9, March 23, April 13, April 27, May 11,
May 25, June 8, June 22, July 27, August 10, August 24, September 14, September 28,
October 12, October 26, and November 9, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the Secretary of Health and Human Services Director issued a Determination
that a Public Health Emergency Exists and has existed as of January 27, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the President of the United States declared a State of National Emergency;
the Governor of the State of California has proclaimed a State of Emergency for the State
of California and issued Executive Orders and direction regarding measures to mitigate
the spread of cases of COVID-19 within the State of California; the San Luis Obispo
County Emergency Services Director has proclaimed a local emergency; and the San
Luis Obispo County Public Health Director has declared a public health emergency
related to the spread of cases of COVID-19 within the State of California and all recitals
set forth therein, are included as though fully set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, the Governor of the State of California issued Executive
Order N-28-20, which suspends any State law that would preempt or otherwise restrict a
local government’s exercise of its police powers to impose substantive restrictions on
residential or commercial evictions based on nonpayment of rent, or a foreclosure, arising
out of a substantial decrease in household or business income or substantial out-of-
pocket medical expenses caused by the COVID -19 pandemic, or any local, state, or
federal government response to COVID-19 that is documented; and
Page 39 of 182
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order N-33-20, including
the Order of the State Public Health Officer mandating all individuals living in the State of
California to stay home or at their place of residence except as needed to maintain
continuity of operations of the federal critical infrastructure sectors, as outlined at
https://www.cisa.gov/identifying-critical-infrastructure-during-covid-19; and
WHEREAS, the COVID-19 pandemic continues to spread rapidly worldwide and in the
U.S., continuing to present an immediate and significant risk to public health and safety,
and resulting in serious illness or death to vulnerable populations, including the elderly
and those with underlying health conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande
that:
1. All recitals set forth above, are true, correct and incorporated herein.
2. A local emergency is declared to continue to exist throughout the City of Arroyo
Grande, and the City has been undertaking, and will continue through termination
of this emergency to undertake necessary measures and incur necessary costs,
which are directly related to the prevention of the spread of COVID -19 and are
taken in furtherance of: the Secretary of Health and Human Services’
determination that a public health emergency has existed since January 27, 2020;
the Governor’s Proclamation of a State of Emergency on March 4, 2020 ; the
President of the United States’ Declaration of a National Emergency on March 13,
2020; the County Emergency Services Director’s Proclamation of Local
Emergency and the County Public Health Director’s Declaration of a Public Health
Emergency on March 13, 2020; and the City Director of Emergency Services’
Proclamation of Local Emergency on March 17, 2020; and related orders and
directives.
On motion of Council Member _______________________, seconded by Council
Member _______________________, and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing Resolution was approved this 23rd day of November, 2021.
Page 40 of 182
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
______________________________________
CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
______________________________________
WHITNEY MCDONALD, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
Page 41 of 182
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jessica Matson, Legislative & Information Services Director/City Clerk
Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Continuance of Remote
Teleconference Meetings of the Legislative Bodies of the City of
Arroyo Grande Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e)(3)
DATE: November 23, 2021
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Adoption of the Resolution will enable the City to continue to comply with the requirements
of legislation, AB 361, and authorize the continued use of teleconferencing for meetings
of the City’s legislative bodies.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
There are no direct fiscal impacts related to the proposed action.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the continuance of remote teleconference meetings
pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e)(3).
BACKGROUND:
As the City Council is aware, on September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed AB 361,
which adds Government Code Section 54953(e) to the Brown Act and provides for remote
teleconferencing subject to the existence of certain conditions.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
AB 361 amended Government Code Section 54953, adding a new subsection (e) that
permits legislative bodies, when there is a proclaimed State of Emergency declared by
the Governor pursuant to Government Code Section 8625, to make a determination to
authorize meeting remotely via teleconferencing as a result of the emergency. To do so,
a resolution would need to be adopted in which the legislative body finds that meeting in
person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, or that State or
local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing.
Page 42 of 182
CITY COUNCIL
Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Continuance of Remote Teleconference
Meetings of the Legislative Bodies of the City of Arroyo Grande Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54953(e)(3)
NOVEMBER 23, 2021
PAGE 2
The City Council first adopted a Resolution making findings in accordance with AB 361
and Government Code Section 54953(e) at its September 28, 2021 meeting. The
Resolution is valid for thirty (30) days after teleconferencing for the first time under the
new regulations. If the State of Emergency remains active after that 30 day period, the
local agency may act to renew its resolution authorizing remote teleconferenced meetings
by passing another resolution which includes findings that the State of Emergency
declaration remains active, the local agency has reconsidered the circumstances of the
State of Emergency, and the local agency has either identified: A) ongoing, direct impacts
to the ability to meet safely in-person, or B) active social distancing measures as directed
by relevant State or local officials.
A draft Resolution has been prepared for Council consideration. It includes continued
findings based upon a determination that, as a result o f the proclaimed State of
Emergency in California due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its continued spread in San
Luis Obispo County and Arroyo Grande through the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, which
is more transmissible than prior variants of the virus and may cause more severe illness,
and, as even fully vaccinated individuals can spread the virus to others, holding meetings
in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:
1. Adopt the Resolution authorizing the continuance of remote teleconference
meetings pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e)(3); or
2. Provide other direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
Adoption of the Resolution will satisfy the requirements of Government Code Section
54953(e)(3) and allow the City to safely continue carrying out its business in a manner
that will minimize the risk of contracting COVID-19 for everyone involved.
DISADVANTAGES:
No disadvantages have been identified to adopting the Resolution.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Not required.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with
Government Code Section 54954.2.
Page 43 of 182
CITY COUNCIL
Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Continuance of Remote Teleconference
Meetings of the Legislative Bodies of the City of Arroyo Grande Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54953(e)(3)
NOVEMBER 23, 2021
PAGE 3
Attachment:
1. Proposed Resolution
Page 44 of 182
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE AUTHORIZING THE CONTINUANCE
OF REMOTE TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS OF THE
LEGISLATIVE BODIES OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE PURSUANT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54953(e)
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020 Governor Newsom declared a State of Emergency in the
State of California pursuant to Government Code Section 8625 as a result of the threat
of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic; and
WHEREAS, subsequently, in March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic,
Governor Newsom issued Executive Orders N-25-20 and N-29-20. These orders
suspended certain elements of the Brown Act and specifically allowed for legislative
bodies as defined by the Brown Act to hold their meetings entirely electronically with no
physical meeting place. On June 11, 2021, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-
08-21 which provided that the provisions in Executive Order N-29-20 suspending certain
elements of the Brown Act would continue to apply through September 30, 2021; and
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021 Governor Newsom signed AB 361, which added
subsection (e) to Government Code section 54953 of the Brown Act, and makes provision
for remote teleconferencing participation in meetings by members of a legislative body,
without compliance with the requirements of Government Code section 54953(b)(3),
subject to the existence of certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, a required condition of AB 361 is that a state of emergency is declared by
the Governor pursuant to Government Code section 8625, proclaiming the existence of
conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the
State caused by conditions as described in Government Code section 8558; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the Governor’s proclamation of a State of Emergency, on
March 16, 2020 the former City Manager, in his capacity as the Director of Emergency
Services, proclaimed a local State of Emergency as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic.
The City Council ratified the proclamation at its regular meeting on March 24, 2020, and
has continued to make determinations since that time that a local State of Emergency
continues to exist in Arroyo Grande as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a Resolution making findings in accordance
with AB 361 and Government Code Section 54953(e) authorizing remote teleconference
meetings on September 28, and October 26, 2021; and
WHEREAS, COVID-19 cases in San Luis Obispo County continue to be a threat to public
health. Emerging evidence indicates that the Delta variant is far more transmissible than
Page 45 of 182
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
prior variants of the virus, may cause more severe illness, and that even fully vaccinated
individuals can spread the virus to others; and
WHEREAS, as a condition of extending the use of the provisions found in Government
Code section 54953(e), the City Council must reconsider the circumstances of the State
of Emergency that exists in the City, and the City Council has done so; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to adopt a Resolution finding that the requisite
conditions exist for the legislative bodies of the City of Arroyo Grande, as defined in the
Brown Act, to conduct remote teleconference meetings without compliance with
paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Government Code section 54953.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande
as follows:
1. The above recitals are true, correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.
2. In accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 54953(e)(3),
the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby finds and determines that it
has reconsidered the circumstances of the State of Emergency and that the State
of Emergency continues to exist and to directly impact the ability to meet safely
in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and its continued spread in San Luis
Obispo County and Arroyo Grande through the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2,
which is far more transmissible than prior variants of the virus, may cause more
severe illness, and can be spread to others even by fully vaccinated individuals,
and therefore holding meetings in person would present imminent risks to the
health or safety of attendees.
3. The City Manager and legislative bodies of the City of Arroyo Grande are hereby
authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to carry out the intent and
purpose of this Resolution including, continuing to conduct open a nd public
remote teleconferencing meetings in accordance with the requirements of
Government Code section 54953(e) and other applicable provisions of the Brown
Act.
4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and shall be
effective for thirty (30) days after its adoption, subject to being extended for an
additional 30 day period by the City Council’s adoption of a subsequent
resolution in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(3) to further
extend the time during which the legislative bodies of the City of Arroyo may
continue to teleconference without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision
(b) of Government Code section 54953.
Page 46 of 182
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
On motion of Council Member _______________________, seconded by Council
Member _______________________, and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing Resolution was approved this 23rd day of November, 2021.
Page 47 of 182
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 4
______________________________________
CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
______________________________________
WHITNEY MCDONALD, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
Page 48 of 182
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Bill Robeson, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director
BY: Jill McPeek, Capital Improvement Project Manager
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section
22050 Determining to Continue Work Under Emergency Contracts for
the Storm Drain System at 251 East Grand Avenue Project, PW 2021-
12
DATE: November 23, 2021
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Adoption of a Resolution by the required four-fifths vote will allow for the continuance of
emergency repairs to the storm drain system at 251 East Grand Avenue .
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
The FY 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget includes $410,000 of
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds for repair of the Storm Drain System at 251
East Grand Avenue Project. Staff time will be necessary to coordinate construction
activities with the property owners, consultant engineer, and contractors.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution finding that there is a need to continue the emergency action for the
storm drain system repairs at 251 East Grand Avenue in accordance with Public Contract
Code Section 22050.
BACKGROUND:
On November 9, 2021, the Council adopted Resolution No. 5124 declaring an emergency
exists within the City to repair the storm drain system at 251 East Grand Avenue.
Public Contract Code (PCC) Section 22050 allows a public agency, in the case of an
emergency, to repair or replace a public facility, take any directly related and immediate
action required by that emergency, and procure the necessary equipment, services, and
supplies for those purposes without going through a formal bid process. PCC Section
22050 requires that, after proceeding with an emergency project, the City Council shall
review the emergency action at its next regularly scheduled meeting and at every
Page 49 of 182
City Council
Adoption of a Resolution Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22050
Determining to Continue Work Under Emergency Contracts for the Storm Drain
System at 251 East Grand Avenue Project, PW 2021 -12
November 23, 2021
Page 2
regularly scheduled meeting thereafter until the emergency action is terminated, and if it
is determined that there is a need to continue the action, authorize continuation of the
emergency action by a four-fifths vote. This item seeks such authorization.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
As of November 17, 2021, the status of the project is as follows:
The Council adopted a Resolution declaring an emergency exists to repair the storm
drain system on November 9, 2021.
Meetings were conducted with City staff, consultant design engineer, property owners’
representative, and boring and concrete companies to develop and define an
approach for interim and permanent repairs.
Work areas were readied at each end of the existing corrugated metal pipe (CMP) in
preparation of plugging and filling the CMP.
An agreement with California Auger Boring, Inc. was executed in an amount not to
exceed $9,500 for the construction of the bulk heads (plugs).
An agreement with Cell-Crete Corporation was executed in an amount not to exceed
$18,000 to fill the CMP with cellular concrete.
The design engineer initiated efforts to acquire Chevron station construction drawings
and existing utility location/elevation information in order to develop plans for a
permanent solution.
The extensive deterioration and damage of the existing CMP continues to be a threat for
further undermining the surrounding soil, which causes voids under the pavement and
leads to surface depressions and eventually sink holes. Therefore, there is a need to
mobilize as quickly as possible to plug and fill the existing CMP, and to develop plans and
construct permanent repairs. Staff strongly believes there is a need to continue the
emergency action.
As required by statute, staff will continue to bring a similar item to the Council on
subsequent agendas until all repairs have been completed or until the emergency action
is terminated. Until this future item, staff will continue to work with the contractor s and
design engineer to complete both the interim and permanent repairs.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:
Page 50 of 182
City Council
Adoption of a Resolution Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22050
Determining to Continue Work Under Emergency Contracts for the Storm Drain
System at 251 East Grand Avenue Project, PW 2021 -12
November 23, 2021
Page 3
1. Adopt a Resolution determining a need to continue work under emergency action;
2. Do not adopt the proposed Resolution and direct staff to prepare a Resolution to
terminate the need to continue work under emergency action; or
3. Provide other direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
Adoption of the Resolution will allow for the continuance of emergency repairs to the storm
drain system at 251 East Grand Avenue and will eliminate a serious threat to public health
and safety and minimize disruptions to the Chevron station’s operations .
DISADVANTAGES:
None identified at this time.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
No environmental review is required for this item.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with
Government Code Section 54954.2.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Proposed Resolution
Page 51 of 182
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE DETERMINING A NEED TO
CONTINUE WORK UNDER EMERGENCY CONTRACTS
TO REPAIR THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM AT 251 EAST
GRAND AVENUE
WHEREAS, on November 9, 2021, pursuant to Public Contract Code (PCC) Sections
20168 and 22050, the City Council deemed it was in the public interest to immediately
authorize the expenditure of City funds needed to safeguard the health, safety and
welfare and to proceed immediately with emergency repairs of the storm drain system at
251 East Grand Avenue; and
WHEREAS, on November 9, 2021, the City Council deemed that the emergency repairs
would not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids and that prompt
action, including authorization to expend all funds required for such repairs without
competitive bidding, was necessary to respond to the emergency; and
WHEREAS, on November 9, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5124
declaring an emergency and authorizing the immediate expenditure of funds to repair the
storm drain system at 251 East Grand Avenue; and
WHEREAS, PCC Section 22050 requires that after proceeding with an emergency
project, the City Council shall review the emergency action at its next regularly scheduled
meeting and at every regularly scheduled meeting thereafter until the emergency action
is terminated; and
WHEREAS, if it is determined that there is a need to continue the action, PCC Section
22050 requires a four-fifths vote to authorize the continuation of the emergency action .
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE that the storm drain system emergency declared by the City Council
on November 9, 2021, shall be deemed to continue.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the local emergency shall be deemed to continue to
exist until its termination is proclaimed by the City Council.
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 9th day of November, 2021.
Page 52 of 182
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
WHITNEY McDONALD, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
Page 53 of 182
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Bill Robeson, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director
Brian Pedrotti, Community Development Director
BY: Robin Dickerson, PE, City Engineer
John Benedetti, Associate Engineer
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting Easements and Public
Improvements for the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Project: Final
Tract Map 3081 Constructed by Wathen Castanos Homes
DATE: November 23, 2021
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Acceptance of easements and public improvements for the East Cherry Avenue Specific
Plan Project (General Plan Amendment 15-001; Specific Plan 15-001; Final Tract Map
3081 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 15-001); Conditional Use Permit 15-004; and
PUD 15-001), Subareas 2 and 3, provides the City with additional infrastructure.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
The estimated value of the public improvements for the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Project was $6,414,963. Maintenance of the new public improvements will add to the
overall costs of the City infrastructure maintenance program.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution accepting public improvements for the East Cherry Avenue Specific
Plan Project; General Plan Amendment 15-001; Specific Plan 15-001; Final Tract Map
3081 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map 15-001); Conditional Use Permit 15-004; and PUD 15-
001.
BACKGROUND:
On January 10, 2017, the City Council approved the East Cher ry Avenue Specific Plan
Project. The Specific Plan is broken into three (3) subareas, with commercial
development (Subarea 1- Rugged Radio), residential development (Subarea 2 -
Creekside), and mixed-use/cultural development (Subarea 3 – Japanese Welfare
Association). This approval included a Vesting Tentative Tract Map for fifty-four (54) lots
Page 54 of 182
City Council
Adoption of a Resolution Accepting Easements and Public Improvements for the
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Project: Final Tract Map 3081 Constructed by
Wathen Castanos Homes
November 23, 2021
Page 2
(Subarea 2), Conditional Use Permit and Planned Unit Development (Subarea 3), and
General Plan and Development Code Amendments to ensure consistency with the
approved Specific Plan. It is recommended the City Council adopt a Resolution accepting
public improvements for the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Project; General Plan
Amendment 15-001; Specific Plan 15-001; Final Tract Map 3081 (Vesting Tentative Tract
Map 15-001); Conditional Use Permit 15-004; and PUD 15-001. This item proposes to
accept easements and public improvements for Subarea s 2 and 3 only.
Located on the south side of East Cherry Avenue, approximately 400 feet east of Traffic
Way, the project site is approximately 11.56 acres and is zoned Village Residential (VR)
with a Specific Plan overlay. The project includes fifty-four (54) lots, with fifty-one (51)
single family homes, two lots that make up the community park, and a single lot for the
adjacent mixed use/cultural development (Subarea 3).
As a condition of approval of VTTM 15-001, CUP 15-004, and PUD 15-001, the applicant
was required to construct a number of public improvements, including utility connections,
water and sewer mains, curbs, gutters, drive approaches, sidewalks, an offsite traffic
signal (Traffic Way and Fair Oaks) and offsite street improvements (at Traffic Way/Fair
Oaks and Grand Ave/W Branch). The engineer of work for the Subarea 2 project
estimated the cost of the improvements for this project at six million four hundred and
fourteen thousand nine hundred and sixty-three dollars ($6,414,963).
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
Improvement plans for the Subarea 2 project were issued on September 19, 2018. The
Final Tract Map 3081 was recorded on March 29, 2019, with the San Luis Obispo County
Recorder’s Office. The improvements were completed by the developer on October 1,
2021, and “as-built” plans were approved on December 11, 2019. Although the
construction of the improvements was completed in 2019, the developer just recently
completed all the necessary punch list items, including sidewalk repairs, slurring the
internal tract streets and refreshing the striping in 2021, that were r equired to close out
the project. CC&Rs and post-construction operation and maintenance agreements were
recorded on May 2, 2019. The developer has provided the necessary ten percent (10%)
warranty bond to be held for one year from the time of acceptance o f the public
improvements. Acceptance of the public improvements begins the one -year maintenance
period, during which time the developer will be responsible for maintenance and repair of
the public improvements. After the one-year maintenance period, the City will take over
the maintenance of the public improvements in perpetuity.
The public improvements included public utility connections, water lines, fire hydrants,
sewer mains, maintenance holes, curbs, gutters, drive approaches, sidewalks, ADA
accessible corner ramps, paving and striping of streets on Waller Place, Sweet Pea Court,
Page 55 of 182
City Council
Adoption of a Resolution Accepting Easements and Public Improvements for the
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Project: Final Tract Map 3081 Constructed by
Wathen Castanos Homes
November 23, 2021
Page 3
Haven Court, Leedham Place and Cherry Avenue, an offsite traffic signal at Traffic Way
and Fair Oaks and offsite street and sidewalk improvements at both Traffic Way and Fair
Oaks, and Grand Avenue and West Branch. As a result of these public improvements,
two additional offers of dedication, two pedestrian access easements and a waterline
easement were required to complete the Subarea 2 project. The acceptance o f these
documents are necessary to complete the acceptance of these public improvements and
are included in the attached Resolution.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
1. Approve staff’s recommendation;
2. Do not approve staff’s recommendation;
3. Modify as appropriate and approve staff’s recommendation; or
4. Provide other direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
By accepting the public improvements, the City will take ownership of facilities in the
public right of way and within the public easements. The project provides the community
with four (4) new streets, residential infill of fifty-one (51) new single family home sites, a
new traffic signal, and additional off site street improvements.
DISADVANTAGES:
No disadvantages have been identified.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
City Council certified the associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and related
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings for the project on January 10, 2017.
No further CEQA action is required.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with
Government Code Section 54954.2.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Resolution
2. Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for Waller Place
3. Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for East Cherry Avenue
4. Water Line Easement
5. Pedestrian Easement for Traffic Way/Fair Oaks
6. Pedestrian Easement for Traffic Way/East Cherry Avenue
Page 56 of 182
Complimentary Recording Requested
Pursuant to Government Code Sections
6103 and 27383
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
City Clerk
City of Arroyo Grande
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, California 93420
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE ACCEPTING EASEMENTS AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE EAST CHERRY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT;
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 15-001; SPECIFIC PLAN 15-001; FINAL
TRACT MAP 3081 (VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15 -001);
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-004; AND PUD 15-001 BY WATHEN
CASTANOS HOMES
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 57 of 182
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE ACCEPTING EASEMENTS AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE EAST CHERRY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT;
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 15-001; SPECIFIC PLAN 15-001; FINAL
TRACT MAP 3081 (VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15 -001);
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-004; AND PUD 15-001 CONSTRUCTED
BY WATHEN CASTANOS HOMES
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Project for
a 54-lot residential subdivision on January 10, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the project was conditioned to complete certain public improvements
pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4771 adopted on January 10, 2017; and
WHEREAS, Final Tract Map 3081 was recorded on May 2, 2019 with the San Luis Obispo
County Recorder’s Office; and
WHEREAS, the developer has constructed and completed the improvements required by
the conditions of approval for the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, City staff inspected the improvements on October 1, 2021 and find they are
constructed in accordance with the approved plans for the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande hereby:
1. Accepts the additional Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for Waller Place and Cherry
Avenue by One Flat Cat, LLC.
2. Accepts the waterline easement by the Arroyo Grande Japanese Welfare
Association.
3. Accepts the additional pedestrian access easement by Gary A. and Barbara T.
Silva on the southwest corner of Traffic Way and Fair Oaks.
4. Accepts the additional pedestrian access easement by Purchin Revocable Trust
on the northeast corner of Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue.
5. Accepts public improvements for Tract 3081 the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Project located at East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way including public utility
connections, water lines, fire hydrants, sewer mains, sewer maintenance holes,
curbs, gutters, drive approaches, sidewalks, ADA accessible corner ramps, paving
and striping of streets on Waller Place, Sweet Pea Court, Haven Court, Leedham
Place and Cherry Avenue, an offsite traffic signal at Traffic Way and Fair Oaks and
offsite street and sidewalk improvements at both Traffic Way and Fair Oaks and
Grand Avenue and West Branch.
On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and
on the following roll call vote, to wit:
Page 58 of 182
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 23rd day of November, 2021.
Page 59 of 182
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_____
JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
WHITNEY McDONALD, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
Page 60 of 182
Page 61 of 182
Page 62 of 182
Page 63 of 182
Page 64 of 182
Page 65 of 182
Page 66 of 182
Page 67 of 182
Page 68 of 182
Page 69 of 182
Page 70 of 182
Page 71 of 182
Page 72 of 182
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 73 of 182
Page 74 of 182
Page 75 of 182
Page 76 of 182
Page 77 of 182
Page 78 of 182
Page 79 of 182
Page 80 of 182
Page 81 of 182
Page 82 of 182
Page 83 of 182
Page 84 of 182
Page 85 of 182
Page 86 of 182
Page 87 of 182
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Bill Robeson, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director
BY: Robin Dickerson, PE, City Engineer
Jill McPeek, Capital Project Improvement Manager
SUBJECT: Approve an Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Capital
Improvement Budget for the Castillo Del Mar Street Extension Project,
PW 2020-05
DATE: November 23, 2021
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Authorize a budget amendment to transfer $20,000 of Local Sales Tax Funds from fund
balance to the Castillo Del Mar Street Extension project.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
The amended FY 2020-21 Capital Improvement Program budget included $1,066,580.72
for the Castillo Del Mar Street Extension project. On September 28, 2021, the Council
appropriated an additional $15,000 of Sales Tax funds for the project. It is now estimated
that an additional $20,000 will be needed to complete the project, and it is recommended
that Local Sales Tax funds be appropriated for this purpose. On July 27, 2021, Cou ncil
approved the allocation of $2,493,950 of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to
previously budgeted infrastructure projects, providing $1,746,500 of anticipated excess
Local Sales Tax funds in Fiscal Year 2021-22. Staff time will be necessary to coordinate
construction activities with the contractor and engineering consultants.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program budget
to transfer $20,000 of Local Sales Tax funds from fund balance to the subject project.
BACKGROUND:
On January 12, 2021, the City Council awarded a construction contract for the Castillo
Del Mar Street Extension project and authorized the City Manager to approve change
orders for a total of 10% of the contract amount of $930,943.20, or $93,094.32, to be used
for unanticipated costs during the construction phase of the project. On September 28,
2021, based on current projections at that time, it was estimated the final project costs
Page 88 of 182
City Council
Approve an Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Capital Improvement Budget for
the Castillo Del Mar Street Extension Project, PW 2020-05
November 23, 2021
Page 2
would exceed the available budget and that an additional $15,000 would be needed to
complete the project.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
Final/actual project quantities are now known . There are four bid line items that required
additional quantities to be placed in excess of the engineer’s estimate due to actual field
conditions. These include hot mix asphalt (HMA) (877 tons vs. 740 tons), HMA dike (790-
lf vs. 780-lf), and deep curb (416-lf vs. 157-lf) and flush curb (73-lf vs. 69-lf) along the bio
filtration planter. In order to fully fund the project, staff is rec ommending a transfer of an
additional $20,000 of Local Sales Tax funds that were returned to fund balance from the
use of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding on previously budgeted inf rastructure
projects. The following table presents the updated final project costs proposed to be
funded with $536,500 of developer contributions, $80,749 from the Lucia Mar Unified
School District (LMUSD), and $475,654 of Sales Tax funds.
Current Budget
Available
Projected
Expenditures
Projected
Shortfall
Construction $ 930,943 $ 930,943 $ 0
- Construction contract 930,943 930,943
Contingencies 94,730 113,957 19,227
- Change orders 81,269 81,959
- Additional quantities - City Items 13,461 30,303
- Additional quantities - LMUSD Items 0 1,695
Contract Admin 20,790 20,790 0
- Engineering contract 7,000 7,000
- PG&E street lights contract 10,990 10,990
- Bid advertisement 1,176 1,176
- Plan sets 173 173
- Annual storm water permit 566 566
- Backflow device 885 885
Testing 19,179 19,179 0
- Testing contract 19,179 19,179
Design 8,034 8,034 0
- Engineering contract 8,034 8,034
Totals $ 1,073,676 $ 1,092,903 $ 19,227
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:
1. Approve staff’s recommendation;
Page 89 of 182
City Council
Approve an Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Capital Improvement Budget for
the Castillo Del Mar Street Extension Project, PW 2020-05
November 23, 2021
Page 3
2. Do not approve staff’s recommendation and request further information;
3. Modify staff’s recommendation and approve; or
4. Provide other direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
The street extension of Castillo Del Mar will result in improved access for the Vista Del
Mar and the Heights at Vista Del Mar developments, and will hel p relieve congestion
related to traffic surrounding Arroyo Grande High School.
DISADVANTAGES:
A transfer of Local Sales Tax funds takes away funding from other infrastructure projects.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
No environmental review is required for this item.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with
Government Code Section 54954.2.
Page 90 of 182
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Bill Robeson, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director
BY: Shane Taylor, Utilities Manager
SUBJECT: Monthly Water Supply and Demand Update
DATE: November 23, 2021
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Receive a report of the City’s water supply and demand for October 2021, including
current and projected Lopez Lake levels.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
Approximately two (2) hours of staff time is required to prepare the report.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file the Monthly Water Supply and Demand Report.
BACKGROUND:
On April 25, 2017, the City Council, by Resolution, rescinded the previous Stage 1 Water
Shortage Emergency along with related emergency water conservation measures and
restrictions. During that public meeting, Council requested that staff continue preparing
the monthly water supply and demand updates. Council urged citizens to continue to
practice everyday water saving measures, and reiterated that the previously adopted
water conservation measures were to remain in effect.
In response to Council discussion on April 27, 2021, staff has begun to provide notice to
customers in non-compliance of the mandatory water conservation measures by hanging
door tags. In addition, four social media posts have been posted to the City’s social media
channels reminding customers of the measures, information is highlighted on the City’s
website, and message boards displaying conservation messaging have been placed at
various locations around the City. The City’s drought response team has continued to
Page 91 of 182
City Council
Monthly Water Supply and Demand Update
November 23, 2021
Page 2
enhance public awareness of the drought and has been preparing for upcoming water
shortage measures.
On October 12, 2021, the City Council adopted a Resolution declaring a Stage 1 Water
Shortage Emergency, and implementing reductions in water usage as provided in Arroyo
Grande Municipal Code Section 13.07.030(A).
In October the City’s water use was 194.7 acre-feet with a per capita use of 116 gallons
per day/per person. There was 1.6 inches of rain in October 2021. The water use for the
current “rolling” water year from November 2020 to October 2021 was 2,347.7 acre -feet
which equates to a per capita use of 119 gallons per day per pe rson. There was a total
of 10.71 inches of rain fall for this period.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
The United States Drought Monitor, as of November 9, 2021, shows San Luis Obispo
County in an extreme drought. Rainfall to date for the period July 1, 2021 through
November 9, 2021 is 1.75 inches at the Corporation Yard rain gauge. Lopez Lake, as of
November 9, 2021 is at 29.6% capacity (14,637 acre-feet of storage).
The new water year began on April 1, 2021, and the City’s annual Lopez contract supply
was 2,290 acre-feet. On August 24, 2021, the San Luis Obi spo County Board of
Supervisors (Board) enacted the Low Reservoir Response Plan (LRRP) for Lopez Lake.
On September 8, 2021, the Zone III Technical Advisory Committee endorsed the action
of reducing contract deliveries by 10%. The City began reducing the flow of Lopez Lake
deliveries on September 15, 2021, to 1.9 million gallons per day, compared to the normal
flow of 2.2 million gallons per day. In addition, the City h as 1,323 acre-feet of ground
water entitlement from the Santa Maria Basin, and wells within the Pismo Formation that
produce approximately 160 acre-feet per year. The fourth quarter monitoring for the Santa
Maria Basin sentry wells was completed in October. The deep well index was 6.64 feet
above sea level, which is 0.86 feet lower than the deep well index threshold value of 7.5
feet and 0.43 feet lower than the index value one year ago (7.07 feet). This is the second
consecutive quarter the index is below the 7.5-foot threshold. If the deep well index value
is below 7.5 feet for six (6) continuous quarters, this is also a Stage 1 triggering condition.
The projected water use for the City of Arroyo Grande for water year 2021/22 is 2,450
acre-feet based on current rainfall.
ALTERNATIVES:
Not applicable at this time.
ADVANTAGES:
This report provides the City Council and the public with the current and projected
conditions of our water supply and demand.
Page 92 of 182
City Council
Monthly Water Supply and Demand Update
November 23, 2021
Page 3
DISADVANTAGES:
No disadvantages noted at this time.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
No environmental review is required for this item.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with
Government Code Section 54954.2.
Attachments:
1. Lopez Monthly Operations Report for October 2021
1a. Lopez Monthly Operations Report for March 2020
2. Lopez Reservoir Storage Projection
3. Monthly Water Use Comparison
4. Monthly Monitoring Report for October 2021
Page 93 of 182
San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water District
Zone 3 - Lopez Project - Monthly Operations Report
October, 2021
0.00
Note: Deliveries are in acre feet. One acre foot = 325, 850 gallons or 43, 560 cubic feet. Safe yield is 8,730
acre feet.
"Year to Date" is January to present for State water, April to present for Lopez deliveries, and July to present for rainfall.
1364.55
April to Present
2.70
Arroyo Grande 2061
Lopez Dam Operations
Lake Elevation (full at 522.37 feet)468.29
Storage (full at 49200 acre feet)14744
Rainfall 2.66
Downstream Release (4200 acre feet/year)317.32
Spillage (acre feet)0
This Month Year to Date
1960.47
0.00
807.00 177.57
Entl.Surplus
Water
Declared Usage
2868
Total
Available
Water
Lopez Water Deliveries
0.00Oceano CSD 272.7 107.00 0.00380
462.97Grover Beach 720 282.00 66.841002
46.13Pismo Beach 802.8 314.00 0.001117
50.53CSA 12 220.5 86.00 5.85307
1059.631260157.61
79.33968.50
390.9864044.31
State Water Deliveries
1924.1840771596.00 250.265673 1641.192116220.61Total
Contractor
Difference (feet)-54.08
% Full 30.0%
Comments:
1) Oceano supplied water to Canyon Crest via Arroyo Grande's Edna turn out. A total of 2.09 AF delivered to Canyon Crest was added
to Oceano's water usage this month and 2.09 AF was subtracted from Arroyo Grande's usage this month.
2) On May 12, 2021 Pismo requested to take all SW for April 2021. On May 18th, PB's SW Delivery Request was changed to 1260 AF.
3) Lopez Water Deliveries are now operated under the Low Reservoir Response Plan (LRRP). In August 2021 TAC requested a 10%
entitlement reduction (retroactive to April 2021) in anticipation of reaching the 15,000 AF trigger of the LRRP. Entitlements shown
represent a 10% reduction.
Surplus water shown is actually "Carry Over" water as designated in the LRRP.
April to Present Lopez Entitlement+Surplus Water Usage
0
50
100
150
200
250
Jan '21 Feb '21 Mar '21 Apr '21 May '21 Jun '21 Jul '21 Aug '21 Sep '21 Oct '21Acre FeetAG GB OCSD PB CSA12
January to Present State Water Usage
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Jan '21 Feb '21 Mar '21 Apr '21 May '21 Jun '21 Jul '21 Aug '21 Sep '21 Oct '21Acre FeetOCSD PB CSA12 SanMig
San Miguelito 111.2512010.19
This Month
%
Total
January to Present
Usage
This Month
% of
Annual
Request
Usage % of Annual
Request
177.57
Total Water
Deliveries
This Month
44.31
66.84
157.61
14.35
10.19
470.87
Annual
Request
0.00
Usage
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1364.55
0.00
462.97
46.13
50.53
1924.180.00 1555.00
SWP
Deliveries
SWP
Deliveries
Change in
Storage
220 -0.61
1179.97This Month Stored State Water
0.0%
8.6%47.6%
0.0%0.0%
9.3%46.2%
0.0%4.1%
2.7%16.5%
12.5%84.1%
8.9%82.6%
6.9%61.1%
6.1%33.9%10.4%77.6%
8.5%92.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
66.2%
0.0%
64.3%
5.7%
22.9%
47.2%0.0%
Entitlement Surplus
Usage %Usage %
Entitlement Surplus
Usage %
1180.5800Last Month Stored State Water
Surplus
Requested
807.00
107.00
282.00
314.00
86.00
1596.00
Friday, November 5, 2021 Page 1 of 1Report printed by:AdminData entered by:Desiree B.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 94 of 182
San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water DistrictZone 3 - Lopez Project - Monthly Operations ReportMarch, 2020727.00Note: Deliveries are in acre feet. One acre foot = 325, 850 gallons or 43, 560 cubic feet. Safe yield is 8,730 acre feet."Year to Date" is January to present for State water, April to present for Lopez deliveries, and July to present for rainfall.2122.35April to Present14.31Arroyo Grande2290Lopez Dam OperationsLake Elevation (full at 522.37 feet)490.87Storage (full at 49200 acre feet)25472Rainfall5.37Downstream Release (4200 acre feet/year)207.46Spillage (acre feet)0This MonthYear to Date2736.220.00378.00139.74Entl.Surplus Water DeclaredUsage2290.00Total Available WaterLopez Water Deliveries624.35Oceano CSD30350.000.00624.35787.22Grover Beach800132.0064.00820.001297.65Pismo Beach892147.000.001297.6586.34CSA 1224540.007.19245.0097.27112023.845.92272.040.002270.00State Water Deliveries4917.914530747.00210.935277.00132.28150135.14Total ContractorDifference (feet)-31.50% Full51.8%Comments:Available Surplus Water is shown and as designated per BOS May 14, 2019 Declaration of Surplus Water. Beginning with July 2019 report, Surplus Water Requested is amount purchased by each agency. Surplus Water used is based on Surplus Water Requested. 1) Oceano supplied water to Canyon Crest via Arroyo Grande's Edna turn out. A total of 1.5 AF delivered to Canyon Crest wasadded to Oceano's water usage this month and 1.5 AF was subtracted from Arroyo Grande's usage this month.On 2/7/2020 Pismo requested the remaining 127 AF of surplus water (SurW) in addition up to 90 AF of Oceano’s SurW if needed for March, 2020. In March, Pismo used 78.65 AF of Oceano's remaining SurW. Pismo Surplus = 200 AF (original) + 127AF (Total remaining SurW) + 78.65 (Oceano's remaining SurW Requested) = 405.65 AF.San Miguelito29.091279.26This Month%TotalJanuary to PresentUsageThis Month% of Annual RequestUsage% of Annual Request139.74Total Water Deliveries This Month48.0764102.499.239.26372.79Annual Request0.00Usage48.070.0078.650.00%0.00321.350.00405.650.002122.35303.00787.22892.0086.344190.91126.72136.00SWP DeliveriesSWP DeliveriesChange in Storage1459.97This Month Stored State Water97.3%6.1%92.7%0.0%100.0%8.0%96.0%0.0%100.0%2.9%35.2%2.1%8.7%7.6%21.9%0.0%0.0%4.7%93.2%2.3%8.8%7.3%22.9%0.0%15.0%0.0%19.4%0.0%0.0%100.0%0.0%100.0%0.0%92.7%100.0%98.4%100.0%35.2%92.5%17.0%EntitlementSurplusUsage%Usage%EntitlementSurplusUsage%Last Month Stored State WaterSurplus Requested0.00321.3520.00405.650.00747.00Friday, April 3, 2020Page 1 of 1Report printed by:AdminData entered by:D. Bravo$77$&+0(17DPage 95 of 182
0.54
0.00
4.70
2.14
0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.52
1.42
5.16
0.22
0.94
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2.38
2.87 3.10 2.77
0.90
0.33 0.32 0.62
1.34
2.03
3.02 3.25 2.91
1.13
0.41 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.32 0.62
1.70
2.24
3.12 2.98
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
1/1/20202/1/20203/1/20204/1/20205/1/20206/1/20207/1/20208/1/20209/1/202010/1/202011/1/202012/1/20201/1/20212/1/20213/1/20214/1/20215/1/20216/1/20217/1/20218/1/20219/1/202110/1/202111/1/202112/1/20211/1/20222/1/20223/1/2022Storage (AF)Date
LOPEZ RESERVOIR STORAGE PROJECTION
Actual Precipitation Predicted Precipitation Actual Storage
20,000 AF Storage Projection Storage Projection (No Rain)
1. Storage projection is based on predicted rainfall from longrangeweather.com, inflow based on predicted rainfall, 20-21 downstream release requests, and municipal usage.
2.Municipal Usage is based on Jan 2010-Dec 2020 average monthly deliveries.
3. Predicted inflow is based off of historical precipitation and storage data. Antecedant moisture conditions are factored into the model.The first rainstorms after months without
rain will cause less inflow than rainstorms during the rainy season. If the average daily rainfall for the previous three months is below 1 inch the model will multiply the predicted
inflow by 0.1, if the average is above 1 inch the inflow is multiplied by 1.25.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 96 of 182
225.1194.7134116050100150200250Oct‐20 Oct‐21Monthly Water Use ComparisonAcre FeetUsage (gpcd)ATTACHMENT 3Page 97 of 182
ATTACHMENT 4
Below is the information you have submitted for the month of October 2021. If this
information is incorrect, you can edit the report or re-submit your report for the month
with the corrected information. We use your most recently submitted monthly report in
our calculations.
Reporter Shane Taylor
Urban Water Supplier (Number) Arroyo Grande City of (608)
Public Water System ID(s) CA4010001
Reporting Month 10/21
County / Counties San Luis Obispo
County Under Drought Declaration Yes
Water Shortage Contingency Plan 1
Water Shortage Level Yes
Population 17636
Total Potable Water Production 194.7 AF
Commercial Agricultural Water 0 AF
Residential Use Percentage 80%
CII Water 21.5 AF
Recycled Water 0 AF
Non-revenue Water AF
Estimated R-GPCD 92.84
Qualification
Emergency Response Section Revealed? Yes
State Water Resources Control Board Office of Research, Planning & Performance
Page 98 of 182
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Bill Robeson, Assistant City Manager / Public Works Director
BY: Shane Taylor, Utilities Manager
SUBJECT: 2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update
DATE: November 23, 2021
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Receive and file the 2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update and provide direction
to staff regarding pursuit of recommendations presented in the study update.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
The consultant cost of the study completed by Michael K. Nunley and Associates, Inc.
(MKN) was $15,067. There was approximately 30 hours of staff time spent on the report
preparation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file the 2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update and provide direction
on pursuing any or all of the two short-term and three long-term recommendations
presented in the study update.
BACKGROUND:
At the June 8, 2021 City Council meeting, Council discussed the Central Coast Blue
(CCB) regional recycled water sustainability project and provided direction to staff to,
among other items, conduct an analysis of the City’s potential water supply alternatives.
On September 14, 2021, staff presented a summary of the preliminary alternatives that
the City’s consultant, MKN, would be evaluating as part of an updated water supply
alternatives report. Eight preliminary alternatives were discussed that included State
Water, Oceano Community Service District water, Interagency Connections, a Recycled
Water “Scalping Plant” Concept, CCB, Nacimiento Project water, Water Conservation,
and Stormwater Capture. Council received the information and directed staff to move
forward with further analysis on water supply alternatives.
Page 99 of 182
City Council
2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update
November 23, 2021
Page 2
The update water supply alternatives report is now complete and is provided in
Attachment 1. The 2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update (Attachment 1) provides
a summary of previous studies performed to date, a preliminary list of current available
water options, and an updated list of the most promising options.
In August 2004, a Water Supply Alternatives Report prepared by the Wallace Group, was
presented to the City Council. The objective was to identify short, intermediate, and long
term supply alternatives that meet the City’s needs for water quantity, reliability and
quality. There were seventeen (17) supply alternatives presented at that time. Ta ble 2-2
in the attached 2021 Water Supply Alternatives Update shows a final action or conclusion
status for the 2004 water supply alternatives for ten projects that were determined to be
the most feasible or had potential feasibility due to location and other factors. Updated
Final Actions or Conclusions are also provided.
Page 100 of 182
City Council
2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update
November 23, 2021
Page 3
Page 101 of 182
City Council
2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update
November 23, 2021
Page 4
Since 2004, three alternatives from those listed in Table 2-2 above have been performed
to date/completed:
- Pismo Formation Wells - Well Numbers 9 and 10 have been completed for an
additional 160 AFY. Well 11 has been completed but not yet permitted. When
permitted, this well will supply an additional 40 AFY.
- Conservation – This program is in progress and results in a saving of 400 -500
AFY. The City has also spent $2 million on retrofits and rebates since 2004.
- Additional Storm Water Basins – The Poplar Basin was expanded for capture. The
Soto Sports Complex basins currently capture water for groundwater recharge and
use this non-potable water to irrigate the entire sports complex.
In addition, MKN completed an updated analysis of the following four alternatives from
the 2004 report that may be postponed and/or dismissed from further consideration for
the reasons described below:
- State Water - Water Purchase or Lease from SLO County – As stated in section
3.1.4. Infrastructure, of the 2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update, “Based
on discussions with County of San Luis Obispo Public Works Staff, the capacity of
Polonio Pass Water Treatment Facility and Coastal Branch is full y subscribed by
existing State Water subcontractors. The capacity of the Lopez Project is also fully
subscribed by South County Zone 3 water purveyors.” Continued engagement with
the County is suggested and currently ongoing.
- Additional Groundwater Entitlement – 1,323 AFY is currently entitled to the City,
however, recent modeling indicates significantly less availability. Continued annual
monitoring and adaptive management using the Santa Maria Basin ground water
model will help provide sustainable yield information and basis for pursuing this
alterative if justified.
- Purchase Private Well Water – Private wells in the upper Arroyo Grande Valley
have not been identified nor pursued as a supplemental water source to date. This
would require legal negotiations for water rights/amounts, utility easements, well
data (gallons per minute and potential yields), wells installation, equipment, and
storage costs for a potentially small amount of supplemental AFY. Distribution of
private well water is also significant issue that is unresolved. Multiple private wells
located on private property would require individual and separate negotiations and
agreements. This does not appear to be a feasible alternative due to complexity
and relatively low AFY amounts.
A well system located within Strother Park that would irrigate the entire Strother
Park with untreated/non-potable water, was evaluated Hydrologic Engineer and
designed and adopted as part of the Water Master Plan. Future larger scale
development (i.e. housing tract) is intended to fund the Strother Park well project
through water offset fees required as part of the project entitlement/conditions of
approval.
Page 102 of 182
City Council
2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update
November 23, 2021
Page 5
- Increased Lopez Entitlement – A study evaluated raising the spillway to increase
dam/reservoir storage. However, San Luis Obispo County Water Conservation
and Flood Control District determined, based on estimated project costs and
environmental review and permitting, this alternative is not feasible at this time.
Four other studies that were commissioned by the City in the past were also summarized
in the 2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update. City staff, consultants, and project
partner evaluations conducted in 2006, 2009, and 2016 are listed below. The studied
facilities were not considered viable. The current analysis done by MKN and City staff
agree that these water supply alternatives remain inviable. The following list summarizes
those alternatives:
- 2006 Water Supply Study: Desalination joint project: Coastal Commission and
Coastal Act permit processing has proven to be highly challenging. The timeframe
for processing is estimated in the 10 to 15-year range. The 2006 capital cost
estimate was $17 million or $2,675 per acre foot. These costs can easily double if
calculated for 2021.
- 2006 Water Supply Study: Nacimiento Pipeline Extension – This study presented
two options, a 17.5-mile pipeline extension down Orcutt Road and a 18.07 -mile
pipeline extension from Plains Oilfield to Arroyo Grande Creek (the recommended
option) with an estimated 2006 cost $12 million for the pipe alignment and $6
million in annual operating costs. An agency exchange of Nacimiento water for
State Water was also considered but found to not be feasible at this time due to
lack of available partners (no holders of both State Water and Nacimiento Water).
- 2009 Final Recycled Water Study: This study estimated the cost of a recycled
water project using 2008 estimates at $14 million and provided further evaluation,
aquifer recharge analysis and public outreach. Section 3.4.4. Feasibility, of 2021
Water Supply Alternatives Study Update, elaborates further on this study.
- 2016 Recycled W ater Facilities Planning Study: In partnership with the South San
Luis Obispo County Sanitation District, a more in-depth analysis was conducted of
the recycled water project. It was found that a South San Luis Obispo County
Sanitation District recycled water project would be exceedingly expensive at
$4,400 for phase 1 and $3,000 per AF for phase 2. Property acquisition costs were
not calculated since a site(s) had not been proposed. CCB was seen as a preferred
regional alternative with lower costs.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
The 2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update, after reviewing all the previous
alternatives and final action or conclusions, focused on a list of available water options
along with feasibility and/or next step recommendations. The following is a list of
summarized alternatives:
Page 103 of 182
City Council
2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update
November 23, 2021
Page 6
1. State Water Project – The purchase or lease of State Water from the County does
not appear feasible at this time due to lack of availability. Ongoing engagement
with the County and potential subcontractors is being pursued.
2. Oceano Community Services District – Negotiation of a short water supply
agreement is recommended;
3. Interagency Connections – Begin discussions for planning, design, and
construction, with Golden State Water (GSW) for emergency interconnection.
Begin initial negotiations with GSW and Nipomo Community Services District for
purchase of excess Nipomo supplemental water;
4. Nacimiento Water Project – This alternative is not feasible at this time, due to lack
of availability;
5. Central Coast Blue – Continue to participate and engage in CCB;
6. Recycled Water Plant – This alternative is not recommended due to the difficulty
in reducing groundwater pumping in exchange for recycled water and the use of
recycled water for agricultural production;
7. Water Conservation – The City’s conservation programs have proven to be very
successful. Ongoing administration and management is planned;
8. Stormwater Capture – Stormwater capture is not a significant supply of water.
However, as development occurs, basins are modified and low impact
development standards are implemented, which could be a source of ground water
recharge and irrigation supply.
The 2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update was completed to investigate, analyze,
and make conclusions for each of the alternatives listed above. Of the eight alternatives,
two (2) short term and three (3) long term alternatives were determined to be the most
feasible from a water quantity, reliability, quality, and cost perspective. Of these, staff
recommends pursuing two (2) short term and one (1) long term alternatives.
The recommended short term alternatives are:
1. Partner with Oceano Community Services District on a short-term water supply
agreement: A temporary agreement would be required between OCSD and the
City. Purchasing OCSD water as a permanent supply could be affected by OCSD
and City regulations. OCSD has an ordinance preventing long-term sale of their
State Water entitlement but has been able to enter into short-term agreements in
the past. The City of Arroyo Grande passed a ballot me asure in 2016 to allow the
City to purchase State Water on an emergency basis but a previous ballot measure
prevents permanent purchase of State Water. Purchasing State Water under non-
emergency conditions would require a new ballot measure to be passed.
- OCSD has not typically taken its full 750 AFY of State Water;
- Approximate cost of 1,758 per AF;
- OCSD has stored (San Luis Reservoir) unused State Water that can be
extracted upon its request;
Page 104 of 182
City Council
2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update
November 23, 2021
Page 7
- Potential future ability for Lopez Project participants, like t he City, to obtain
excess OCSD water and store it in the Lopez Reservoir, which then could be
available for extraction when needed;
- No new infrastructure needed;
2. Pursue an emergency connection with Golden State Water Company:
- The City’s water service area is located within 300 feet of GSW water
infrastructure.
- Both the City and GSW are CalWARN members, which promotes mutual aid
during water emergencies, and could help the development of an emergency
interconnection;
- A water supply interconnection could benefit the City, GSW and NCSD to allow
transfer of water from Lopez Project contractors through the City’s water system;
- Further negotiations, analysis of cost infrastructure and maintenance and
operation are required.
The recommended long term alternative is:
3. Continue participation in Central Coast Blue. The City anticipates purchasing 25%
of the water produced by the CCB project. At its November 16, 2021 meeting, the
Pismo Beach City Council unanimously approved increasing its share of the
Project from 20% to 39%, leaving no portion of the Project unsubscribed. The
Cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and Pismo Beach are preparing
agreements to address cost sharing and operations of the Project. In light of the
City’s pursuit of the CCB Project, staff recommends prioritizing it as the main
source of additional permanent water supply at this time.
Each of these alternatives, if pursued, will require additional and more detailed evaluation
of design/infrastructure, permit requirements, cost analysis, and a framework for
agreements/negotiations with agencies and/or private property owners. However, it is
recommended by staff that each of the three alternatives listed above are evaluated
further and pursued to the preliminary negotiation and agreement stage, because they
have been determined as viable and feasible in having potential to provide additional
water supply for the future of Arroyo Grande.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following are provided for the Council’s consideration:
1. Consider, receive, and file the 2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update and
provide direction to staff to pursue the following short -term and long-term water
supply alternatives to the preliminary negotiation and agreement stage:
a. Continue participation in CCB at the 25% entitlement level;
b. Partner with OCSD on a short-term water supply agreement; and
Page 105 of 182
City Council
2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update
November 23, 2021
Page 8
c. Pursue an emergency connection with Golden State Water Company.
2. Provide direction to further evaluate one or more of the recommended short -term
and long-term alternatives;
3. Provide additional direction to perform analysis on another water supply
alternative(s);
4. Provide other direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
This report provides the City Council and the public with a study that may be used as a
tool for future water supply policy decisions.
DISADVANTAGES:
No disadvantages.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
No environmental review is required for this item.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with
Government Code Section 54954.2.
Attachment:
1. Water Supply Alternatives Study Update dated November 12, 2021
Page 106 of 182
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
WATER SUPPLY
ALTERNATIVES STUDY UPDATE
November 12, 2021
City of Arroyo Grande
300 E. Branch St.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
PREPARED BY:
MKN
530B Paulding Circle
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
805 . 904 . 6530
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 107 of 182
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
WATER SUPPLY
ALTERNATIVES STUDY UPDATE
November 12, 2021
Report Prepared Under the Responsible Charge of:
____________________________________
Michael K. Nunley, PE C61801
Page 108 of 182
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | i
Table of Contents
1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 Water Supply .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Water Demand ....................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.4 Supplemental Water............................................................................................................................... 1-3
2.1 2004 City of Arroyo Grande Water Supply Alternatives Study .............................................................. 2-1
2.2 2006 Water Supply Study: Desalination ................................................................................................. 2-6
2.3 2006 Supplemental Water Supply Study: Nacimiento Pipeline Extension ............................................. 2-7
2.4 2009 Final Recycled Water Study ........................................................................................................... 2-8
2.5 Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study ............................................................................................... 2-8
3.1 State Water ............................................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1.1. Background ............................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.2. Water Quality and Reliability.................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.3. Institutional or Legal Constraints ............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1.4. Infrastructure............................................................................................................................................ 3-2
3.1.5. Cost ........................................................................................................................................................... 3-2
3.1.6. Feasibility .................................................................................................................................................. 3-2
3.2 Oceano CSD ............................................................................................................................................ 3-2
3.2.1. Background ............................................................................................................................................. 3-2
3.2.2. Water Quality and Reliability .................................................................................................................. 3-2
3.2.3. Institutional or Legal Constraints ........................................................................................................... 3-3
3.2.4. Infrastructure .......................................................................................................................................... 3-3
3.2.5. Cost ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-3
3.3 Interagency Connections ........................................................................................................................ 3-3
3.3.1. Background ............................................................................................................................................. 3-3
3.3.2. Water Quality and Reliability .................................................................................................................. 3-4
3.3.3. Institutional and Regulatory Constraints ................................................................................................ 3-4
3.3.4. Infrastructure .......................................................................................................................................... 3-4
3.3.5. Cost ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-4
Page 109 of 182
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | ii
3.4 Nacimiento Water Project ...................................................................................................................... 3-5
3.4.1. Background ............................................................................................................................................. 3-5
3.4.2. Institutional and Regulatory Constraints ................................................................................................ 3-5
3.4.3. Infrastructure .......................................................................................................................................... 3-5
3.4.4. Feasibility ................................................................................................................................................ 3-5
3.5 Central Coast Blue .................................................................................................................................. 3-5
3.5.1. Background ............................................................................................................................................. 3-5
3.5.2. Water Quality and Reliability .................................................................................................................. 3-6
3.5.3. Institutional or Legal Constraints ........................................................................................................... 3-6
3.5.4. Infrastructure .......................................................................................................................................... 3-6
3.5.5. Cost ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-6
3.5.6. Additional Considerations ...................................................................................................................... 3-7
3.6 Recycled Water “Scalping Plant” Concept .............................................................................................. 3-7
3.6.1. Background ............................................................................................................................................. 3-7
3.6.2. Water Quality and Reliability .................................................................................................................. 3-7
3.6.3. Institutional or Legal Constraints ........................................................................................................... 3-7
3.6.4. Infrastructure .......................................................................................................................................... 3-8
3.6.5. Cost ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-8
3.6.6. Feasibility ................................................................................................................................................ 3-8
3.7 Water Conservation ................................................................................................................................ 3-9
3.8 Stormwater Capture ............................................................................................................................... 3-9
3.8.1. Background ............................................................................................................................................. 3-9
3.8.2 Water Quality and Reliability .................................................................................................................. 3-9
3.8.3 Infrastructure and Regulatory Constraints ............................................................................................. 3-9
3.8.4 Cost ....................................................................................................................................................... 3-10
3.8.5 Feasibility .............................................................................................................................................. 3-10
4.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 4-2
List of Tables
Table 1-1 – Historical Water Delivery and Production by Category (AFY)…………………………………….….………….1-2
Table 1-2 – Water Delivery Projections from 2015 UWMP…………………………………………………………….………….1-2
Table 1-3 – Future Water Production Projections ………….…………………………………………………………….………….1-3
Page 110 of 182
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | iii
Table 2-1 – 2004 Alternatives……………………………………………………………………………………..…………….…………..2-2
Table 2-2 – Update to 2004 Water Supply Alternatives Study…………………………………………………..…….………..2-6
Table 3-1 – First Year Operation and Maintenance Costs for 280 AFY Recycled Water Treatment Facility….3-8
Page 111 of 182
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 1-1
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
1.1 Introduction
Michael K. Nunley and Associates, Inc. (MKN) was retained by the City of Arroyo Grande (City) to update the
City’s 2004 Water Supply Alternatives Study Report. In 2004 the City performed an analysis of potential
additional water sources to supplement the City’s existing groundwater and Lopez Reservoir supplies and to
meet the projected future needs of the City. This report categorized water supply alternatives as “short term”,
“intermediate term”, and “long term” with the objective of identifying one or more for implementation in each
category. The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of previous studies performed to date, provide a
preliminary list of current available water options, and provide an updated list of the most promising options.
1.2 Water Supply
The City has developed a water supply that utilizes groundwater from two separate formations and water from
the Lopez Project. Wells 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 & 8 extract water from the Santa Maria River Valley Groundwater Basin.
As part of the Groundwater Management Agreement between the City of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Pismo
Beach and Oceano Community Services District (Oceano CSD), the City is entitled to groundwater extractions
of 1,323 acre-feet per year (AFY). 160 AFY of groundwater is also available from Pismo Formation Wells 9 and
10.The City has a contract entitlement of 2,290 AFY from the Lopez Project.
A maximum combined total of 3,773 AFY of water is available from the City’s wells and the Lopez Project. The
2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) noted only 3,584 AFY would be available during the third year
of a multiple dry year event. This includes 2,061 AFY of water from the Lopez Project and 1,523 AFY of
groundwater. However, current groundwater modeling results indicate significantly less water may be available
from the Santa Maria River Valley Groundwater Basin than the current entitlement.
1.3 Water Demand
The City provided annual reports for the State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW)
to provide historical water billing information. Table 1-1 summarizes water delivery by use category compared
with total production. For purposes of this study, the difference between production and delivery is considered
to be non-revenue water (NRW).
Page 112 of 182
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 1-2
Table 1-1 Historical Water Delivery and Production by Category (AFY)
Category 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Water Delivered
Single-family Residential 1,259.1 1,380.8 1,409.0 1,369.9 1,500.4
Multi-family Residential 219.1 251.0 213.5 280.1 246.4
Commercial/Institutional 200.7 355.7 277.6 321.8 246.4
Industrial 0 0 0 0 0
Landscape Irrigation 145.8 104.5 234.8 103.6 245.2
Other 0 0 0 0 0
Total Urban Retail Delivered 1,824.7 2,092 2,134.9 2,075.5 2,238.5
Agricultural 0 0 0 0 0
Other Public Water Systems 0 0 0 0 0
Total Water Production 1948.1 2193.7 2212.5 2138.0 2318.5
Non-Revenue Water (NRW) 123.4 101.7 120.5 62.5 80.0
NRW as Percentage of Delivery 6.8% 4.9% 5.6% 3.0% 3.6%
The City’s 2015 UWMP summarized current water deliveries and predicted future water deliveries as follows:
Table 1-2 - Water Delivery Projections from 2015 UWMP (AFY)
Category 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Single-family Residential 1,517 1,957 2,013 2,083 2,113
Multi-family Residential 190 245 252 261 264
Commercial/Institutional 178 230 236 245 248
Industrial 0 0 0 0 0
Landscape Irrigation 169 217 224 231 235
Institutional/ Governmental 53 69 71 73 74
Total Urban Retail 2,106 2,718 2,796 2,893 2,934
Agricultural 0 0 0 0 0
Other Public Water Systems 0 0 0 0 0
Non-Revenue Water 133 150 154 159 161
Total Water Use 2,239 2,867 2,949 3,052 3,096
As shown, the UWMP predicted 2020 water deliveries of 2,718 AFY and total production of 2,867 AFY
including NRW. An annual increase of 42.9 AFY in production per year was projected through 2035. The City
recorded 2020 production of 2,318.5 AFY, which is approximately 24% lower than predicted (2,867 AFY). This
Page 113 of 182
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 1-3
difference indicates implementation of the City’s water conservation program has had a significant impact on
water demand.
For this study, future water usage was projected based on historical demand in units of gallons per capita per
day (gpcd). Approximately 99% of the City population is within the City’s water service area, with very few
customers outside City limits. Therefore, City population is a close approximation of service area population.
California Department of Finance estimated a 2020 population of 17,617 for the City of Arroyo Grande.
Dividing 2020 water use of 2,318 AFY by 2020 population resulted in 117 gpcd usage. The 2015 UWMP
calculated average three-year water usage (2013-2015) of 138 gpcd and projected this per capita usage
through General Plan buildout (population of 20,000). Applying future water demand of approximately 127
AFY, or the average of 138 and 117 gpcd, to a future 20,000 service area population yielded a conservative
future demand of 2,540 AFY.
1.4 Supplemental Water
The City anticipates having sufficient water available through buildout based on the average year and multiple
dry year scenarios presented in the 2015 UWMP. However, securing an additional 250 AFY (approximately
10% of projected future demand) would allow the City to reduce groundwater usage and further protect the
groundwater basin. The following table predicts water delivery to meet future demand of 2,540 AFY assuming
the City has acquired an additional 250 AFY of supplemental water. For future production estimations it is
assumed Lopez Project deliveries are reduced during a multiple dry year scenario as discussed in Section 1.2,
whereas full City entitlement is 2,290 AFY.
This water supply portfolio would allow the City to reduce groundwater pumping to approximately 15% of their
combined 1,323 AFY Santa Maria River Valley Groundwater entitlement and 160 AFY Pismo Formation
production capacity in a multiple year drought scenario.
Table 1-3 – Future Water Production Projections During Multiple Dry Year Scenario
Source Supply
(AFY)
Lopez Project 2,061
Supplemental Water 250
Groundwater 229
Total Production 2,540
Page 114 of 182
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 2-1
REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES
The City of Arroyo Grande has partnered with surrounding water agencies such as the South San Luis Obispo
County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD), City of Grover Beach, City of Pismo Beach, and Oceano CSD to prepare
multiple water supply studies to assess the feasibility of potential water supply projects. This section provides
a synopsis of previous water supply studies conducted by the City and partnering agencies.
2.1 2004 City of Arroyo Grande Water Supply Alternatives Study
The 2004 City of Arroyo Grande Water Supply Alternatives Study prepared by the Wallace Group analyzed
seventeen water supply alternatives the City could implement to increase water supply and meet future
demands. The study identified nine short term alternatives that could be implemented within a five-year period
with low complexity and cost, three intermediate alternatives that could be implemented over a ten-year period
with moderate complexity and cost, and three long term alternatives that could be implemented within a ten
to fifteen-year time frame with high complexity and cost. For each alternative, the study considered
infrastructure needs, water quality and supply reliability, and cost. The objective of the report was to provide
a preliminary analysis of each alternative, identify the most viable options, and advise City Council to conduct
further studies of the supply alternatives that were identified as the most feasible and cost effective. The
following table summarizes findings from that study.
Page 115 of 182
Table 2-1 Summary of Findings from Water Supply Alternatives Study for City of Arroyo Grande (Wallace Group, 2004)
2004 Alternative Background Water Quality/Reliability Required Infrastructure Required
Agreements 2004 Cost Additional Considerations
Short-Term Alternatives
Private Well for
Cemetery Irrigation
• Arroyo Grande Cemetery District currently
uses potable water from City for irrigation.
• Could provide 38 AFY and 48 AFY at buildout
Adequate for intended use • New well
• Piping
• Pump and electrical
Equipment
• Cemetery District
Approval
• City Council
Approval
• County
Environmental
Health Services
Department permit
required
Less than City
water
Implementation schedule
anticipated to be less than a
year
Pismo Formation Well • The City currently uses Well No. 9
• Proposed Well No. 10 could allow City to
extract 160 AFY or more (total) from Pismo
Formation
Adequate for intended use with
treatment, but lower yield and
lower quality when compared to
other City groundwater
• New well
• Treatment plant
• Piping
• Pump and electrical
Equipment
• Currently planned by
the City
• County
Environmental
Health Services
Department permit
required
$425,000
(installed costs)
• Implementation schedule
would be approximately two
years
• Basin is low yield and lower
quality
Rancho Grande Pismo
Formation Well
(Irrigation)
• Well would serve Rancho Grande Park
• Active well is owned by Castlerock
Development and supplies construction water
• City could obtain the well or drill a separate
well at the park
Adequate for intended use City could obtain the well and
construct a pipeline or drill a
new well and construct a
pipeline. New well would
require pump and electrical
equipment.
County
Environmental
Health Services
Department permit
required
-- • Implementation schedule
would be approximately two
years
• Basin is low yield and lower
quality
Purchase Water – Santa
Barbara County
• Potential to purchase 400 AFY from a Santa
Barbara County Water Contractor
• Pipeline capacity from contractors north of
the City is limited
• Pipeline is sized to supply flow from State
Water contractors south of City
• Deliveries can be as low as 30%
of the entitlement but “drought
insurance water” can be
purchased for up to 100% of
contract amount.
• State Water is offline one month
per year
• Water quality is adequate for
intended use
Existing infrastructure could
be used to deliver State Water
to Lopez Water Treatment
Plant (WTP). County staff
stated Lopez pipeline capacity
is sufficient but must be
confirmed.
State Water
entitlement holder,
Santa Barbara
County, DWR, and
Central Coast Water
Authority (CCWA)
must approve.
Contract would likely
include paying sunk
costs of State Water
to entitlement
holder.
$1400/AF + Buy-
in costs
• Several years to implement this
option
• Would require voter approval
per Measure A
Purchase water – SLO
County
• 20,170 AF available from SLO County
• No excess pipeline capacity according to
County staff
• 140 AFY may be available from Pismo Ranch
development
• County had begun discussions with CCWA.
• Deliveries can be as low as 30%
of the entitlement but “drought
insurance water” can be
purchased for up to 100% of
contract amount.
• State Water is offline one month
per year
• Water quality is adequate for
intended use
Requires engineering
evaluation to determine
hydraulic capacity of existing
system
State Water
entitlement holder
and County must
approve.
-- • Several years to implement this
option
• Would require voter approval
per Measure A
Page 116 of 182
Table 2-1 Summary of Findings from Water Supply Alternatives Study for City of Arroyo Grande (Wallace Group, 2004)
2004 Alternative Background Water Quality/Reliability Required Infrastructure Required
Agreements 2004 Cost Additional Considerations
Additional Groundwater
Entitlement
City is limited to 1,323 AFY of groundwater
extraction by the Basin Management
Agreement
Very reliable •Would require a
hydrogeologic study
•Wells with excess capacity
already exist but additional
wells or pipelines may be
needed
•Would require
modifying the Basin
Management
Agreement
-- If the additional entitlement is
available, option would be the
most cost effective, reliable,
and easily implemented long
term solution
Purchase private well
water
Safe yield in the Basin Management
Agreement is 5,300 AFY for applied irrigation
Quality consistent with existing
groundwater supply
•New wells required to meet
County Environmental Health
Department requirements
•Treatment infrastructure
•Pipeline construction
•Supply agreements
with landowners
•County
Environmental
Health Services
Department permit
required
-- •Potential pipelines across
environmentally sensitive areas
•Less than two years to
implement
Lease State Water Short-term 3- to 5-year contracts for surplus
water sales are allowed by DWR
Reliable in the short term Same requirements as
purchasing water from SLO or
Santa Barbara County.
Agreement between
City and State Water
entitlement holder
•May violate State law if
provided to new developments
•Can be utilized until long-term
source is secured
•Several years to implement this
option
•Would require voter approval
per Measure A
Reclaimed Price Canyon
Oil Field Water
•Water produced during oil extraction must be
returned to the reservoir unless it can be
treated and disposed
•Anticipated flows of 730 AFY for 10 years
•Potential exchange for Lopez Water released
to sustain habitat and fisheries. Extracted and
treated water would be released to Arroyo
Grande Creek. Exchanged raw water would
be treated at Lopez WTP for use by City.
•Only viable for ~ 10 years
•Water quality is adequate for
intended use
•Treatment plant at oilfield
•Pump Station
•Electrical equipment
•Pipeline
•Capacity of the Lopez pipeline
and WTP would need to be
investigated
•EIR
•Impact to Habitat
Conservation Plan
•Agreements with
Landowners for
pipeline easements
•Agreement with
Plains (owner)
•Permits with
resource agencies
and County
departments
$850/AF •Could compromise steelhead
fingerprinting of Arroyo Grande
Creek for spawning purposes
•SLO County would own the
pipeline after 7,300 AF had
been delivered
Water Conservation •Water Conservation Program is anticipated to
save 10% of usage
•Phase 1 100 AFY savings
•Phase 2 will involve irrigation retrofits
N/A None -- Decreases City
revenue
--
Page 117 of 182
Table 2-1 Summary of Findings from Water Supply Alternatives Study for City of Arroyo Grande (Wallace Group, 2004)
2004 Alternative Background Water Quality/Reliability Required Infrastructure Required
Agreements 2004 Cost Additional Considerations
Intermediate Alternatives
Additional Stormwater
Basins
(Irrigation)
•Modify stormwater basins to serve as storage
basins for irrigation use
•Rancho Grande Park, AG Cemetery, Caltrans
ROW potential users with approximately 75
AFY
•Low reliability, low quality
•Irrigation water is not typically
required after large storm events
•New basins may be required
to preserve storage capacity
or infiltration capacity in
existing basins
•Improvements to existing
basins would include cleaning,
lining, pumps, electrical
equipment, and pipelines.
-- -- Protected wildlife may
complicate modification of
existing basins
Increased Lopez
Entitlement
Amount of surplus water is currently limited
until the Habitat Conservation plan (HCP) is
completed
Surplus water not considered a
reliable supply
•Additional treatment capacity
at the Lopez WTP
•Additional conveyance may
be needed in the Lopez
pipeline
•SLO County approval
•HCP Adoption
$350/AF +
infrastructure
improvements
Nacimiento Project Currently 6,120 AFY of unallocated raw water
supplied to SLO County
•High reliability
•Requires local treatment
•Scheduled shut-downs every 2-3
years
Either:
•Additional City of SLO
treatment and pipeline
connecting downstream of
Lopez WTP; or
•Increase Nacimiento pipeline
capacity south of San Luis
Obispo to SLO Airport and
extend pipeline to Lopez WTP
•Treated water
scenario would
require wheeling
agreement with City
of SLO
•Agreement with
County
•Approval by
Nacimiento
participants
•Between $1,800
and $3,300 / AFY
•Other parties
could share in
project cost
Cost would be less if the City
participates during project
inception
Long-Term Alternatives
Desalination •Potential joint venture between South County
Agencies to construct a Regional Facility
•Grover Beach and other agencies have
expressed interest in participation
•Adequate for intended use
•High reliability
Seawater extraction,
treatment, pumping, storage,
and pipeline facilities would
be required
Significant
environmental
issues associated
with new ocean
outfall if required
$3,000 to
$4,000/AFY (2001
reference)
Recycled SSLOCSD
Water (Secondary-23)
•Secondary SSLOCSD water could be used for
landscape irrigation on restricted areas
•Approximately 2,250 AFY of recycled water
available
•Adequate for intended use
•High reliability
•Pumping facilities
•Transmission pipeline
Agreement with
SSLOCSD
$1.4 million or
$3,800/AF
Secondary recycled water
market is very small with
combined cemetery and
freeway landscaping use of 45
AFY
Recycled SSLOCSD
Water (Tertiary)
•Highly treated effluent can be used for
landscape irrigation of unrestricted areas such
as golf courses and public parks
•Estimated use of 595 AFY
•Adequate for intended use
•High reliability
•Pumping facilities
•Transmission pipeline
•Significant plant upgrades
Agreement with
SSLOCSD
$16.3 million or
$3,100/AF
Page 118 of 182
Table 2-1 Summary of Findings from Water Supply Alternatives Study for City of Arroyo Grande (Wallace Group, 2004)
2004 Alternative Background Water Quality/Reliability Required Infrastructure Required
Agreements 2004 Cost Additional Considerations
Recycled SSLOCSD
Water
(Tertiary-demineralized)
•Uses include: SSLOCSD area landscape
irrigation, groundwater recharge, agricultural
irrigation, potential augmentation of Arroyo
Grande creek
•Available flow 950 AFY
•Adequate for intended use
•High reliability
•Pumping facilities
•Transmission pipeline
•Significant plant upgrades
including salt removal
Agreement with
SSLOCSD
$25.6 - $29.1
million or $4,900 -
$5,200/AF
Alternatives Considered But Not Evaluated
Nacimiento/State
Water Exchange
•Alternative considered but not further
evaluated
•City would contract with County to receive
Nacimiento Water
•Nacimiento Water would be exchanged for
State Water by a current State Water
entitlement holder who has the ability to
receive Nacimiento Water
Adequate for intended use •Existing infrastructure could
be utilized to convey water
•Additional treatment and
conveyance capacity may be
needed for Lopez WTP and
pipeline
•Agreement with SLO
County for
Nacimiento Water
•Agreement with
State Water
entitlement holder
-- --
Conoco-Phillips Refinery
Well Water
•Alternative considered but not further
evaluated
•New wells would be required on Conoco-
Phillips Refinery property
Very low reliability Wells and conveyance
infrastructure
Agreement with
Conoco-Phillips
Refinery
-- Existing wells have experienced
drawdown and two have lost
production. Representatives of
the refinery have concluded
they are not in a position to sell
water or allow additional wells
to be drilled on their property.
Page 119 of 182
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 2-6
The following table summarizes work completed after the 2004 Alternative Study for the alternatives
determined to be the most feasible.
Table 2-2 - Update to 2004 Water Supply Alternatives Study
2004 Alternative Final Action or Conclusion
Private Well for Cemetery
Irrigation
This alternative was determined infeasible because groundwater does not
exist under the property.
Pismo Formation Wells
The construction of a well at the Deer Trail site (Well No. 10) is completed.
Wells No. 9 and 10 require treatment and can provide a combined 160
AFY. Well No. 11 and treatment system were completed for an additional
40 AFY but is not yet permitted. The development of irrigation wells to
serve the Park was not pursued.
Water Purchase or Lease from
SLO County
The City understands various agencies have had discussions with SLO
County about acquiring additional water from the State Water Project, but
no decision has been determined. An updated analysis is provided in this
study.
Water Purchase or Lease from
Santa Barbra County
No update. This alternative has not been further evaluated since the
2004 Study.
Additional Groundwater
Entitlement
While 1,323 AFY of groundwater is entitled to the City under the
Groundwater Management Agreement, recent groundwater modeling
indicates significantly less water may be available.
Purchase Private Well Water
Wells in the upper Arroyo Grande Valley Sub-Basin may be available but
projects have not been pursued. The Groundwater Sustainability Plan is
underway for the Arroyo Grande Valley Sub-basin. A well pump was
designed for the irrigation of Strother Park, but not yet constructed. It is
anticipated to provide 8 - 9 AFY. It is assumed a future developer will fund
the project.
Reclaimed Price Canyon Oil
Field Water
Currently the treatment facility discharges Price Canyon Oil Field Water to
Pismo Creek. It was determined to be too expensive to extend the pipeline
to Arroyo Grande Creek for exchange with Lopez Water.
Conservation
The City documents progress on the conservation program monthly and
reports to the City Council. Currently, the City is saving 400 - 500 AFY due
to conservation and has spent $2.0M on retrofits and rebate programs.
Additional Stormwater Basins
This alternative has been implemented. Poplar Basin was expanded to
handle runoff from the Applebee’s and Rite Aid development on Grand
Avenue. The Elm Street Sport Complex uses storm water as irrigation water
when available. The City’s low impact development standards have added
underground retention to new developments.
Increased Lopez Entitlement
A study conducted by Stetson Engineers evaluated raising spillway to
increase storage and determined that raising the dam would be subject to
Bureau of Dam Safety requirements. Each foot of height would add
approximately 1000 AF of storage.
2.2 2006 Water Supply Study: Desalination
The 2006 Water Supply Study: Desalination prepared by the Wallace Group for the City, Oceano CSD, and City
of Grover Beach further analyzed the construction of a desalination facility as recommended in the 2004
Page 120 of 182
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 2-7
Water Supply Alternatives Study. The report assumed the desalination project would be a joint project among
the three agencies to meet future demands. The study made the following assumptions:
• Facility will be located at the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment
Plant (SSLOCSD WWTP).
• Source water will be extracted from new beach wells near the SSLOCSD WWTP.
• Brine will be disposed using the existing ocean outfall.
• The facility will use reverse osmosis (RO) as the desalination method.
The study determined that treated water from the facility should match existing water quality standards, be
distributed to each agency’s storage tanks, and all costs would be divided among the agencies. The report
outlined the permitting process for relevant regulatory agencies such as the Regional Water Quality Control
Board and California Coastal Commission, discussed applicable policies of the Coastal Act, and concluded
multiple permits and an Environmental Impact Report were required. The estimated capital cost of the facility
was approximately $17 million, and the 20-year life cycle cost analysis determined the cost per acre foot of
desalinated water would be $2,675/AF 1. The timeline for the project from the completion of a feasibility study
through construction was estimated to be 86 months (7+ years).
2.3 2006 Supplemental Water Supply Study: Nacimiento Pipeline Extension
The Nacimiento Water Supply Project (or “Nacimiento Pipeline Project”) was intended to deliver raw water
from Nacimiento Reservoir to agencies in San Luis Obispo County, ultimately extending from the Reservoir to
the City of San Luis Obispo and terminating at the City Water Treatment Plant. The 2006 Supplemental Water
Supply Study: Nacimiento Pipeline Extension prepared by the Wallace Group for City of Grover Beach, Oceano
CSD, and the City evaluated the viability of the Nacimiento Pipeline Project to supply approximately 2,300 AFY
of potable water to meet future demands, as reported in the 2004 Water Supply Study. The study presented
two alignments of the extension, identified and discussed the design and regulatory requirements of the
project, and provided a 20-year life cycle cost analysis including capital and O&M costs for the project. The
report compared two pipeline alignments: Orcutt Road to Lopez Reservoir (Alignment A, 17.5 miles long) for
treatment at Lopez WTP; and Plains Oilfield to Arroyo Grande Creek (Alignment B, PXP 18.07 miles long) for
exchange of Arroyo Grande Creek and Lopez Project water. The study concluded that the Plains Oilfield pipeline
was the most cost-effective method but was uncertain of the time frame for availability of the pipeline. The
Orcutt Road alignment had a significantly higher cost but considerably reduced the construction schedule. The
project required improvements to the Lopez WTP for treatment of raw water such as the installation of
chemical pretreatment, new membrane filtration system, and disinfection to meet state and federal water
quality standards. The existing Lopez Project pipeline also would require pumping improvements to increase
capacity and maintain adequate delivery rates and pressure to all users. Agencies would be required to sign
the Nacimiento Project Water Delivery Entitlement Contract, which defines the operation and maintenance,
delivery entitlement, and regulatory requirements for each agency. The estimated capital cost of the Orcutt
Road alignment was $30,100,000 with estimated annual O&M cost of $5,960,000 and 20-year life cycle cost
of $3,827/AF. The estimated capital cost of the Plains Pipeline alignment was $11,860,000 with an estimated
$5,800,000 annual O&M cost and 20-year life cycle cost of approximately $3,010/AF. The cost for this
alignment was lower since a water discharge pipeline constructed by Plains Exploration (PXP) would be reused
for part of the project. The report concluded the project would require a minimum of 5 years to complete
planning, permitting, design, and construction if the Orcutt Road alignment was selected. However, if the
recommended Plains Pipeline alignment was selected, the timeline could increase by 10 years since the
pipeline would be necessary for oil water production during that period. The report concluded that more
information was required regarding the timeline for the Plains Pipeline due to the high uncertainty before a
feasibility study is conducted.
1 Estimated capital and 20-year life cycle costs in 2006 dollars
Page 121 of 182
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 2-8
2.4 2009 Final Recycled Water Study
The 2009 Water Recycling Update Report prepared by the Wallace Group for the SSLOCSD reevaluated
previous recycled water studies and proposed alternative projects for the District in response to the 2004
Water Supply Alternatives Study. The SSLOCSD provides wastewater services to the City of Arroyo Grande, City
of Grover Beach, and community of Oceano and operates a wastewater treatment plant with a capacity of
5,600 AFY. The report provided a detailed overview of each agency’s water supply systems, wastewater
characteristics of the District, recycled water regulations, and described the potential for a recycled water
market. The report evaluated the viability of recycled water use within the District through multiple proposed
projects and evaluated the cost, water quality impacts, public perception, constructability, and construction
impact for each project. The recycled water projects considered were landscape irrigation for the Elm Street
Park/Soto Sports Complex, groundwater recharge and stream augmentation at the Arroyo Grande Creek,
direct agricultural irrigation of food crops, and toilet flushing. All the proposed projects would require upgrades
to the existing SSLOCSD WWTP. Turf irrigation, direct food crop irrigation, and indirect potable reuse projects
required adding coagulation and sedimentation ahead of filtration and disinfection or adding a direct filtration
process with disinfection. The report determined that a full-scale direct agricultural irrigation project, possibly
in combination with an indirect potable reuse project, was the most cost effective and viable recycled water
project with an estimated cost of $1,200 to $1,400 per AF. The SSLOCSD WWTP would require process
improvements including microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and advanced oxidation using ultraviolet light. These
improvements would have an estimated construction cost of $14.3 million 2. The report concluded with five
near-term recommendations for the recycled water projects: conduct additional feasibility studies regarding
aquifer recharge, begin to request Title XVI funding for recycled water projects, develop a conceptual design
for the recycling facility, develop a public outreach plan, and coordinate with Regional and State Boards to
secure project funding.
2.5 Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study
The 2016 Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study prepared by Water Systems Consulting, Inc. for the
SSLOCSD and the City to identified, evaluated, and analyzed two potential locations for an advanced treatment
plant (ATP). The report describes the current and projected water system and water use characteristics,
identifies permitting requirements, potential project funding, and illustrates an implementation plan for the
two potential locations. The project plan, regardless of the alternative site locations, consist of a two-phase
implementation plan. Phase 1 is to construct the ATP to treat flows from Pismo Beach WWTP and Phase 2 will
expand treatment to include flows from the SSLOCSD WWTP. Alternative 1 included construction of the ATP
onsite at the existing WWTP to provide water for groundwater recharge and or agricultural irrigation. Alternative
2 included construction of an offsite ATP to treat secondary effluent from the Pismo Beach WWTP and the
District’s WWTP to provide water for groundwater and or recharge agricultural irrigation. The report
recommended that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared to further evaluate the location and
discussed advantages and disadvantages for both options. Key benefits of the onsite ATP (Alternative 1)
compared to an off-site ATP (Alternative 2) were less infrastructure for conveyance, no additional property was
needed for the onsite location, and O&M costs were lower. Alternative 1 was estimated to cost $3,900 per AF
for Phase 1 and $2,800 per AF for Phase 2. The main disadvantage of this alternative was increased regulatory
restrictions and permits needed to upgrade the existing facility. The report stated the key advantage of the
offsite location (Alternative 2) was less regulatory restrictions, but the capital and O&M costs were higher than
the onsite option. Alternative 2 was estimated to cost $4,400 per AF for Phase 1 and $3,000 per AF for
Phase 2. The report also compared cost between using recycled water for groundwater recharge only and for
a hybrid approach that included groundwater recharge and agricultural irrigation with both project location
options. The groundwater recharge-only projects would have a lower capital cost and higher O&M costs but
provide higher water quality to the basin long term. The hybrid projects would result in higher capital cost, but
lower O&M costs once a framework for participating agencies to contribute to project costs was developed.
The report provided near term and long-term project components that all stakeholders need to address and
2 Costs in 2008 dollars
Page 122 of 182
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 2-9
further evaluate before a project option can selected and outlines permitting steps needed to begin the next
evaluation process.
Page 123 of 182
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 3-1
EVALUATION OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES
3.1 State Water
3.1.1. Background
San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (SLOCFCWCD) and Santa Barbara
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (SBCFCWCD) are State Water Project contractors. San
Luis Obispo County and Santa Barbara County subcontractors receive flow through the Coastal Branch
Aqueduct and distribution facilities operated by Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA). Water delivered in both
counties is treated at the Polonio Pass Water Treatment Plant. The distribution system of the Lopez Project is
used to deliver State Water to County Service Area 12 subcontractors (including Avila Beach CSD, Pismo
Beach, San Miguelito Mutual Water Company, and Oceano CSD).
3.1.2. Water Quality and Reliability
State Water is treated for the Coastal Branch service areas by CCWA and delivered for potable use but annual
availability for new supply is subject to drought conditions since it is an imported surface water supply. For
example, in March 2021, California Department of Water Resources (DWR) announced “Table A” deliveries
would be reduced to 5% of requested supplies 3. SLOCFCWCD has an agreement with DWR for up to 25,000-
acre feet per year (AFY) of “Table A” allocation but can currently only deliver 4,830 AFY of water through
Coastal Branch facilities 4. Undelivered “Table A” water is used by SLOCFCWCD to meet local needs in years
when statewide “Table A” water supply allocation is less than what is requested by Contractors. For example,
“Table A” allocation of 5% results in 1,250 AFY of new “Table A” water being available to San Luis Obispo
County, which the SLOCFCWCD can then use in combination with its stored carryover water (“Table A” from
previous years) to deliver up to 100% of the water supply amounts requested by their subcontractors.
3.1.3. Institutional or Legal Constraints
A City ballot measure passed in 1990 required voter approval to receive State Water. However, during the last
major drought the City passed a 2016 ballot measure to allow purchase of State Water on an emergency basis
only. Purchasing State Water on an emergency basis during drought conditions would be legal, but permanent
supply would require a new ballot measure to be passed.
For the City to obtain State Water, an existing subcontractor must develop an agreement with the City to
transfer State Water since CCWA facilities are fully subscribed. Some additional capacity may be available in
the treatment and distribution facilities but all CCWA members and San Luis Obispo County subcontractors
must approve use of this additional capacity by Arroyo Grande unless existing entitlement is transferred.
The City would need to find a willing State Water subcontractor to purchase their Table A allocation. San Luis
Obispo County Public Works staff stated they did not know of any interested subcontractors at this time. Many
existing subcontractors are interested in procuring more State Water. OCSD has expressed an interest in a
short-term transfer of State Water to the City which is discussed separately in this study (see Section 3.2).
Only State Water subcontractors downstream of Arroyo Grande on the Lopez Project could contract with the
City without requiring the City to procure capacity in either the Coastal Branch or the Lopez Project.
3 https://water.ca.gov/News/News-Releases/2021/March-21/SWP-Allocation-Update-March-23
4 “Table A” allocation refers to an agency’s contracted amount of State Water. It can be adjusted by the Department of
Water Resources each year based on overall availability of water, considering drought and other impacts to the state
surface water supplies.
Page 124 of 182
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 3-2
3.1.4. Infrastructure
State Water can be conveyed to the Lopez Project for delivery to the City of Arroyo Grande. Based on
discussions with County of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department Staff, the capacity of Polonio Pass Water
Treatment Facility and Coastal Branch is fully subscribed by existing State Water subcontractors. The capacity
of Lopez Project is also fully subscribed by South County Zone 3 water purveyors. The 2020 Draft Urban Water
Management Plan for SLOCFCWCD Zone 3 (2020, WSC) states an additional 300 AFY capacity may be
available in the Coastal Branch and Lopez Projects when comparing existing agreements for Lopez and State
Water to the hydraulic capacity of the pipelines.
3.1.5. Cost
Assuming no treatment or distribution improvements are required to deliver State Water to Arroyo Grande,
permanent acquisition of water from a State Water subcontractor will require buy-in costs to reimburse the
subcontractor for past debt service. Historically, this has been a limitation for agencies in acquiring State
Water if they were not early subcontractors. The total cost for State Water could vary widely depending on the
specific opportunity. City staff will continue to work with subcontractors and the County to identify any willing
sellers.
3.1.6. Feasibility
This alternative is not recommended for consideration as a long-term water supply for the following reasons:
• Fully subscribed pipeline and treatment capacity in the Lopez and CCWA facilities.
• Requirement for approval by CCWA and San Luis Obispo County subcontractors.
• Impact of drought on long term reliability.
• Requirement for City to pass a new ballot measure for long-term water supply.
However, the City should continue to engage with the County in case plans are developed to acquire more
State Water, acquire additional pipeline or treatment capacity from CCWA, or new partnerships arise to
facilitate State Water exchange through the Zone 3 system.
3.2 Oceano CSD
3.2.1. Background
OCSD water sources include State Water, Lopez Water, and groundwater. Lopez and State Water are delivered
through the Zone 3 system. In 2009, the City and OCSD entered a five-year agreement for 100 AFY of either
Lopez Water or groundwater to be delivered to the City as a temporary water supply. Cost was assigned to be
105% of current Lopez Water costs with a credit of $275/AFY for any groundwater used.
From discussions with OCSD, up to 300 AFY of OCSD’s water may be available to the City on a short-term
basis. The actual amount would depend on availability of water supplies to meet OCSD’s demand on a year-
to-year basis.
3.2.2. Water Quality and Reliability
OCSD would need to assess availability of water each year before committing to deliveries to the City since all
of OCSD’s water supplies could be affected by drought conditions. State Water is treated and delivered for
potable use but is subject to drought conditions since it is supplied by imported surface water. For example,
in March 2021, California DWR announced “Table A” deliveries would be reduced to 5% of requested
supplies 5. SLOCFCWD has an agreement with DWR for 25,000-acre feet per year (AFY) of Table A allocation,
but can currently only deliver 4,830 AFY of water through CCWA facilities. Undelivered “Table A” water is used
5 https://water.ca.gov/News/News-Releases/2021/March-21/SWP-Allocation-Update-March-23
Page 125 of 182
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 3-3
by SLOCFCWCD to meet local needs in years when statewide “Table A” water supply allocation is less than
what is requested by Contractors. For example, “Table A” allocation of 5% results in 1,250 AFY of new “Table
A” water being available to San Luis Obispo County, which the SLOCFCWCD can then use in combination with
its stored carryover water (“Table A” from previous years) to deliver up to 100% of the water supply amounts
requested by the Subcontractors including OCSD.
OCSD has typically not taken its full 750 AFY of Table A State Water entitlement due to the high variable cost
for State Water, but has stored unused water in San Luis Reservoir, a State Water Project facility. This stored
water can be extracted when requested by OCSD, increasing reliability of this supply.
In the future, Lopez Project participants will have the ability to use State Water to offset their usage of Lopez
Water, then store their unused Lopez Water in Lopez Reservoir. Pending agreements are being finalized among
Lopez Project and State Water contractors. If the City can obtain excess OCSD water and store it in Lopez
Reservoir, it would be available for extraction in later years improving long-term reliability.
3.2.3. Institutional or Legal Constraints
A temporary agreement would be required between OCSD and the City but the arrangement would be legal for
both agencies. Purchasing OCSD water as a permanent supply could be affected by OCSD and City regulations.
OCSD has an ordinance preventing long-term sale of their State Water entitlement but has been able to enter
into short-term agreements in the past. The City of Arroyo Grande passed a ballot measure in 2016 to allow
the City to purchase State Water on an emergency basis but a previous ballot measure prevents permanent
purchase of State Water. Purchasing State Water under non-emergency conditions would require a new ballot
measure to be passed. If OCSD acquired State Water in excess of current “Table A” amounts, OCSD may be
able to legally sell this water to Arroyo Grande on a long-term basis.
3.2.4. Infrastructure
No additional infrastructure would be required as long as OCSD does not exceed their allotted capacity of
CCWA or Lopez facilities to provide water to Arroyo Grande.
3.2.5. Cost
The previous agreement between OCSD and the City established a cost equivalent to 105% of Lopez Water
price. OCSD’s current price for Lopez Water is $1674 per AF, which results in a purchase price of approximately
$1758 per AF under the original agreement. Cost would be negotiated prior to finalizing any agreement.
3.3 Interagency Connections
3.3.1. Background
The City’s water service area is located within 300 feet of Golden State Water-Cypress Ridge’s (GSWCR’s)
service area near the intersection of Cathedral Lane and Cornerstone Lane. Both agencies are members of
the California Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network (CalWARN) which promotes mutual aid during
emergencies. The City could initially rely on their joint CalWARN membership with GSWCR to provide
emergency water supply.
Developing an emergency connection could be the first step in long-term purchase of water by the City. Nipomo
CSD (NCSD) receives supplemental water under a Wholesale Agreement with the City of Santa Maria and is
completing design of interconnections to deliver water to GSWCR, Golden State Water’s other Nipomo service
area, and Woodlands Mutual Water Company. The City of Santa Maria sells a “municipal mix” of State Water
and groundwater to NCSD.
This connection could also benefit GSWCR and NCSD by allowing transfer of water from Lopez Project
contractors via Arroyo Grande’s water distribution system if needed.
Page 126 of 182
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 3-4
3.3.2. Water Quality and Reliability
A connection between the City and GSWCR could improve reliability for both agencies. Construction of an
interconnection and development of a mutual aid agreement could, at a minimum, allow transfer of water
during emergency conditions. All water conveyed to the City would be potable water.
GSWCCR utilizes groundwater and intends to receive supplemental water from NCSD as described above.
Reliability of groundwater and supplemental water could be impacted by drought, as discussed in the other
sections where State Water is considered. However, this can be mitigated by Santa Maria procuring other
available State Water, storing water in San Luis Reservoir for extraction during dry years, or supplementing
with groundwater.
3.3.3. Institutional and Regulatory Constraints
GSWCR and the City of Arroyo Grande are both signatory to CalWARN as described above, so they can provide
emergency relief to each other. This could facilitate short-term emergency water transfers between the two
systems if they are connected. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or similar agreement between GSWCR
and the City would develop guidelines for design, construction, and funding a new connection.
Long-term opportunity to purchase supplemental water from NCSD and wheel it through the GSWCR system
could be explored in the future. NCSD has constructed facilities that connect and convey water from the City
of Santa Maria to NCSD’s water system. NCSD’s water system connects to and will be conveying water to
Woodlands Mutual Water Company and GSWCR. NCSD entered into a Wholesale Agreement with the City of
Santa Maria to purchase a minimum of 2,500 AFY beginning in the 2025-26 fiscal year, with a maximum
allowable delivery of 6,200 AFY. Additional infrastructure will be needed to reach the maximum allowable
delivery amount. The District is importing a minimum of 1,000 AFY in the 2021-22 fiscal year and the years
leading up to the 2025-26 fiscal year. An easement agreement with SBCFCWCD limits delivery to 3,000 AFY
at this time. This quantity includes allocations for Nipomo Mesa purveyors including GSWCR, Woodlands
Mutual Water Company, and another Nipomo GSWC service area. If the City of Arroyo Grande and NCSD pursue
a permanent sale of water, NCSD may need to revise the easement agreement to purchase additional water
beyond the 3,000 AFY limit. It is our understanding NCSD and County of San Luis Obispo staff are negotiating
with SBCFCWCD to revise this limit.
Other exchanges among the City, Lopez Project contractors, GSWCR, and NCSD could be explored but are
outside the scope of this study.
3.3.4. Infrastructure
Hydraulic grade line (HGL) elevations in the City’s Main City Pressure Zone and the primary GSWCR zone
appear to be similar (approximately 312 ft mean sea level (MSL)). An engineering study will be needed to
confirm the amount of water that could be conveyed among the three systems and to size interconnection
piping and metering facilities. A typical interconnection includes a buried vault with meter, valves, bypass
piping, instrumentation, flow control capability, and power. Additional improvements within the City or GSWCR
system may be needed depending on the design flow for the interconnection.
If long-term purchase of water is pursued in the future, additional improvements will be needed within the
NCSD water system and may be needed within the GSWCR water system.
3.3.5. Cost
Hydraulic analysis of both systems and agreement on design criteria would be required before cost can be
determined, but cost components are summarized below:
• Capital cost of interconnection facility (including planning, design, and construction).
• Operation and maintenance of interconnection facility.
Page 127 of 182
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 3-5
If long-term purchase of NCSD supplemental water is pursued, the following cost components may be required:
• Capital cost of GSWCR and NCSD improvements (including planning, design, and construction).
• Operation and maintenance costs to wheel water through the GSWCR and NCSD systems.
• Purchase cost for supplemental water from NCSD.
3.4 Nacimiento Water Project
3.4.1. Background
The Nacimiento Water Project can deliver 15,750 AFY of raw water through facilities including the reservoir
intake, pumping stations, tanks, and pipelines. Existing participants include San Luis Obispo County Service
Area 10A (Cayucos), Bella Vista Mobile Home Park (Cayucos), Santa Margarita Ranch Mutual Water Company,
City of Paso Robles, Templeton CSD, Atascadero Mutual Water Company, and City of San Luis Obispo. As
discussed in previous studies, the Nacimiento Water Supply Project was not extended south past the City of
San Luis Obispo.
3.4.2. Institutional and Regulatory Constraints
The project is fully subscribed by existing participants and capacity must be acquired from current participants
without adding pipelines or pumping facilities to deliver more water. However, participants are not using their
full allocations. County staff have noted the participants are working to develop a surplus water sales program
that would support transfers of Nacimiento Water Project water to non-participants within the central coast
region.
To transfer Nacimiento Water, a new pipeline would be required connecting the City of San Luis Obispo to
Lopez Reservoir for treatment at Lopez Water Treatment Plant. Another approach could be construction of a
new pipeline from the City of San Luis Obispo to the Avila area currently served by the Lopez Project.
Alternatively, if no new pipeline was constructed the City would need to be able to exchange Nacimiento Water
for State Water through existing Zone 3 partners. However, there are no Zone 3 partners who are also
customers of the Nacimiento Water Project.
3.4.3. Infrastructure
An exchange of State Water for Nacimiento Water would not require new pipelines or connections, in theory.
However, there are no partners in both projects who could facilitate this transfer other than SLOCFCWCD who
may have the potential to facilitate transfers or exchanges.
3.4.4. Feasibility
This alternative should not be explored further at this time since there are no appropriate partners engaged
in both the Nacimiento Water Project and State Water Project, and no Nacimiento Water is currently available.
San Luis Obispo County staff has noted SLOCFCWCD has the capability to purchase additional Nacimiento
water from Monterey County Water Resources Agency beyond the current Nacimiento Water Project contracted
amount. The City should continue to engage with the County in case plans are developed to extend the
Nacimiento Water Project to south San Luis Obispo County or new partnerships arise to facilitate water
exchange through the Zone 3 system.
3.5 Central Coast Blue
3.5.1. Background
The Preliminary Engineering Report for Central Coast Blue (CCB PER, WSC/Carollo, 2021) provided
background information for this Study. The Central Coast Blue Project is intended to protect the Northern Cities
Page 128 of 182
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 3-6
Management Area of the Santa Maria River Valley Groundwater Basin against groundwater contamination
from seawater intrusion and augment groundwater supply. The project involves the construction of an
advanced water purification facility (AWPF) that will treat effluent from the Pismo Beach Wastewater Treatment
Plant (PBWWTP) and the SSLOCSD Wastewater Treatment Plant (SSLOCSD WWTP) to Title 22 standards for
indirect potable reuse for groundwater injection into the SMGB. Participants of the project include the Cities
of Pismo Beach, Arroyo Grande, and Grover Beach which are members of the Northern Cities Management
Area (NCMA).
The project would be implemented in two phases. Phase 1 will include the construction of the AWPF, five
injection wells and associated monitoring wells, pipelines, and the conveyance system. Only effluent from the
PBWWTP would be treated in this phase. Phase 2 will increase the AWPF capacity to process effluent from
SSLOCSD WWTP and incorporate two additional injection wells. The project will increase water supply reliability
of the NCMA by injecting 900 AFY during Phase 1 and a total of 3,500 AFY when Phase 2 is completed.
3.5.2. Water Quality and Reliability
The SMGB provides groundwater for the NCMA agencies. Water supply reliability is limited by drought
conditions, seawater intrusion, and overall groundwater level reductions in the Santa Maria Valley
Groundwater Basin. Since 2009 the NCMA agencies have reduced groundwater pumping in efforts to prevent
seawater intrusion. The Central Coast Blue Project will increase groundwater supply and reliability for the
NCMA and improve the overall water quality by injecting highly purified recycled water that complies with Title
22 standards and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements for minerals and
drinking water maximum contaminant levels into the SMGB.
The Central Coast blue project would inject up to 900 AFY of purified water in Phase 1 and 4,390 AFY in
Phase II. A groundwater model has been developed to determine how much water could be extracted at these
two phases of project implementation without negatively impacting the groundwater basin. Results of the
modeling analysis indicate the agencies will be able to extract as much water as they are injecting, and possibly
more, without causing seawater intrusion.
The City of Arroyo Grande has agreed to participate to a 25% level in the Phase I project, which is noted as
225 - 250 AFY of expected benefit for the City in the September 14, 2021, Staff Report to City Council.
3.5.3. Institutional or Legal Constraints
Operating and management agreements are being developed among the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Pismo
Beach, and Grover Beach for completion of permitting, design, construction, and management of Central Coast
Blue. Permitting and regulatory constraints have been identified by the project stakeholders and are being
addressed as part of the implementation strategy.
3.5.4. Infrastructure
The Central Coast Blue Project will require the construction of the AWPF which will utilize ultrafiltration, reverse
osmosis, and UV disinfection with advanced oxidation processes for water treatment and the development of
injection and monitoring wells. The project will also require additions to the PBWWTP and the SSLOCSD WWTP
infrastructure such as additional treatment facilities, a conveyance system, and multiple pump stations.
Existing extraction wells would be utilized to deliver water to the City.
3.5.5. Cost
A cost analysis was prepared for the project that assumed a 1% interest rate over a 30-year payback period.
The total cost for Phase 1 after injection is $2,400/ AF and $1,800/ AF for Phase 2. Total cost includes capital
cost, annualized capital cost, and annualized O&M cost. The PER notes the Phase 1 cost “before injection” is
$3,400 AFY, since 900 AFY would be injected but the PER states this will result in a yield of 1,700 AFY of
groundwater that can be extracted without increasing potential seawater intrusion.
Page 129 of 182
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 3-7
3.5.6. Additional Considerations
The City could improve reliability by exchanging Central Coast Blue allocation for State Water and/or Lopez
Water. As discussed in Section 3.2, in the future, Lopez Project participants will have the ability to use State
Water to offset their usage of Lopez Water, then store their unused Lopez Water in Lopez Reservoir. This could
allow the City to store unused water they have exchanged for their Central Coast Blue allocation.
Exchanging Central Coast Blue allocation for State Water and/or Lopez Water could also provide higher water
quality. Both surface water supplies have lower mineral content and hardness than groundwater.
3.6 Recycled Water “Scalping Plant” Concept
3.6.1. Background
In a June 24, 2021, letter to City Council, Hartman Engineering identified an option for a “scalping plant”,
defined in the letter as “decentralized treatment plant(s) which can provide recycled water to the City of Arroyo
Grande without the added infrastructure of developing large scale water treatment facilities and the
associated new pipe networks.” The letter recommended locating the scalping plant near Arroyo Grande High
School and surrounding agricultural fields where raw wastewater could be extracted from a SSLOCSD sewer
trunk main and treated for irrigation use. This water would be exchanged for groundwater in order to allow the
City to extract unused groundwater. The project could be phased to produce up to 400 AFY according to the
letter.
3.6.2. Water Quality and Reliability
The development of a scalping plant would provide a reliable water supply for irrigation. The letter states that
this project could reduce groundwater pumping by agricultural businesses and naturally reduce seawater
intrusion potential by providing recycled water as an alternative.
Mineral content could be a challenge for agricultural users, depending on the crops in production. High total
dissolved solids and chlorides can present a challenge as noted in previous recycled water studies. This
concern could be alleviated by blending with groundwater. However, this would reduce the beneficial
groundwater extraction offset.
There may also be concern from potential consumers about use of treated wastewater for food crops. Users
would also be required to obtain permitting for recycled water use and meet Title 22 requirements for
placement of irrigation systems and for prevention of cross-connection with potable water supplies.
3.6.3. Institutional or Legal Constraints
The letter claims the permitting process for decentralized treatment plants have a streamlined regulatory
pathway with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). One of the key benefits identified in the letter
is that scalping plant designs have the ability to be scalable to meet current and future demands without
excessive permitting limitations.
Since the plant would discharge waste to the existing SSLOCSD trunk mains, no Waste Discharge Requirement
Orders would be necessary. However, a Title 22 Engineering Report will be necessary to receive RWQCB
approvals for recycled water treatment and delivery. The project would also require California Environmental
Quality Act review and any other permits for treatment, pipelines, pump stations, and storage facility
construction.
In order to provide a quantifiable water supply benefit to the City, contracts with agricultural users would be
necessary. Users would need to agree to reduce groundwater pumping by a 1:1 ratio to delivered recycled
water. The City would need to have the right to extract this exchanged water from their wells.
Page 130 of 182
City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 3-8
3.6.4. Infrastructure
The letter notes that the key advantage of a scalping plant is its limited infrastructure requirements. The
scalping plant would not require the development of a large-scale water treatment facility. As envisioned by
the letter’s author, the scalping plant would consist of a packaged membrane bioreactor system with
disinfection and pumping and would utilize the existing network of irrigation pipe to distribute recycled water.
The letter assumes existing pipe is nearby and available for connecting to the plant.
3.6.5. Cost
Cost cannot be accurately estimated at this time due to the range of variables, but cost components are
summarized below:
•Capital cost of scalping plant (including planning, design, and construction)
•Operation and maintenance of scalping plant.
In a similar project developed for a community in Madera County, a 0.25 MGD (280 AFY) recycled water
treatment facility was constructed for $6.5M construction cost. Assuming 30-year financing at 1.5% (recent
State Water Resources Control Board State Revolving Loan Fund terms), this would result in annual debt
service of $270,000 or $970/AF. The following table summarizes operation and maintenance costs projected
for the first year of operation.
Table 3-1 Example Estimated First-Year O&M Costs for 280 AFY Recycled Water Treatment Facility
Category Cost
Labor and Materials $420,000
Utilities (Power, Water, and
Communication) $160,000
Outside Services (Sludge
Disposal, Laboratory Testing,
and Engineering)
$80,000
Regulatory Permits and Fees $33,000
Administration $74,000
Total $767,000 ($2740/AF)
Total estimated cost, including only construction and operation/maintenance, for the recycled water plant in
Madera County is $3,710/AF for this 280 AFY facility. It is likely the cost per AF for a 400 AFY facility
would be lower due to economy of scale and the ability to discharge solids back to the collection system
instead of requiring offsite disposal. First year of operation tends to be higher until a treatment system
reaches a steady state of performance and less operator time is required. However, this cost does not
include land acquisition, resource agency permits, design, financing, recycled water distribution pipelines, or
other costs beyond those identified above. This cost opinion is considered adequate as a conceptual,
planning-level cost until preliminary design is performed.
3.6.6. Feasibility
While the project is feasible, developing planning-level costs would require preliminary design. No costs were
presented in the letter addressed to Council.
The City would need to identify interested customers before proceeding with this alternative. Discussions with
potential irrigation users would be required to determine if they are likely to reduce groundwater pumping in
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 131 of 182
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 3-9
exchange for recycled water. This has proven to be a challenge in similar projects since agricultural businesses
are often concerned about committing to reducing their water usage and sometimes have concerns regarding
safety and quality of recycled water, particularly mineral quality.
3.7 Water Conservation
As discussed in Section 1.3 of this Study, the City recorded 2020 deliveries that were 24% or approximately
550 AFY lower than predicted. This is due to the City’s conservation efforts, including the tiered rate structure,
restrictions to irrigation during drought conditions, rebate programs such as “cash for grass”, and retrofits of
low flow fixtures. Further reduction through water conservation would require more stringent restrictions and
penalties for using excess water. It is difficult to predict how the City could further reduce water consumption
beyond the current level of success.
3.8 Stormwater Capture
3.8.1. Background
The San Luis Obispo County Stormwater Resource Plan (SWRP, 2020, County of San Luis Obispo Public Works
Department) identified and prioritized stormwater and dry weather runoff capture projects in the County,
including the City of Arroyo Grande. The SWRP provides the basis for this discussion.
The City is located within the Arroyo Grande/Pismo Creeks Watershed Group for stormwater planning efforts.
It is one of nine Watershed Groups identified in San Luis Obispo County. The Arroyo Grande Creek watershed
has a total drainage area of 103 square miles (mi2) of which 68 mi2 is above Lopez Dam.
The SWRP identified the following projects within the Watershed Group:
•Stormwater Infiltration Basins
•Pismo Preserve Roads Improvement Project
•Oceano Drainage Improvement Project
•South Halcyon Green/Complete Street
•Corbett Creek Floodplain and Stream Restoration Project
Of these projects, only the infiltration basins were identified as having a water supply benefit. No cost was
identified but a benefit of 26 AFY was estimated across the Watershed Group, which includes the Cities of
Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Pismo Beach, community of Oceano, and other unincorporated areas of San
Luis Obispo County.
3.8.2 Water Quality and Reliability
Surface flow from Arroyo Grande Creek would be the primary water supply under this alternative. Arroyo
Grande Creek supply is subject to drought conditions and is strongly dependent on releases at Lopez Dam.
The SWRP notes water quality is “generally good but for high concentrations of nitrate and orthophosphate,
and marginal temperatures in the lowermost reaches.” Orthophosphate loading to groundwater would likely
be reduced through adsorption during percolation but nitrate could have an impact to groundwater if this
alternative is implemented.
3.8.3 Infrastructure and Regulatory Constraints
Arroyo Grande Creek flow is regulated by releases from Lopez Dam. Operations have been altered since the
mid-1980s to improve flow conditions in the stream in order to enhance habitat. The SWRP notes these
conditions are “likely providing a disproportionate amount of the suitable steelhead rearing habitat in the
County, and thus are potentially high priority areas for protection and habitat enhancement.” Therefore, any
attempts to retain flows to or along Arroyo Grande Creek could affect endangered species habitat and would
require environmental review.
Page 132 of 182
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 3-10
Permitting for new pipelines, open channels, infiltration basins, or modifications to existing basins would be
required. Project-specific review would be necessary to identify permitting and regulatory requirements.
3.8.4 Cost
Total cost and cost per AFY cannot be determined at this time, but capital cost of new basins, open channels,
and piping (including planning, design, and construction) and cost of operation and maintenance should be
considered.
3.8.5 Feasibility
Water supply benefit appears to be very low, considering the entire Watershed Group would only realize an
estimated 26 AFY of additional water supply. However, these projects could be pursued as new development
occurs or as existing basins are improved or upgraded in the future.
Page 133 of 182
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 4-1
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Conclusions
The City has adequate water supply under normal and three-year drought conditions per the 2015 UWMP.
However, acquiring an additional 250 AFY could allow the City to meet future demands while reducing reliance
on native groundwater.
This Study analyzed the following water supply alternatives to meet future water demand under drought
conditions and to provide redundancy:
•State Water Project
•OCSD Supply
•Interagency Connections
•Nacimiento Water Project
•Central Coast Blue
•Recycled Water “Scalping Plant” Concept
•Water Conservation
•Stormwater Capture
The most feasible water supply alternatives appear to be the following:
•Short-Term:
o Partnering with Oceano Community Services District on a short-term water supply agreement.
o Pursuing an emergency connection with GSWCR.
•Long Term:
o Participation in Central Coast Blue.
o Negotiation with OCSD for long-term water purchase.
o Negotiation with GSWCR and NCSD for supplemental water after an emergency connection is
pursued with GSWCR.
State Water Project and Nacimiento Water Project participation do not appear to be feasible at this time. City
staff will continue to engage with County staff to identify potential opportunities to partner and acquire water
from either supply if it becomes available.
The Scalping Plant Concept requires negotiation with potential agricultural users prior to beginning planning
and design work. Customers willing to reduce groundwater pumping in exchange for recycled water are critical
to success.
The City’s water conservation program has been very successful. It is difficult to determine how much
additional enforcement effort, rebates, or incentive programming would be required to further reduce
customer demand.
Stormwater capture does not appear to provide a significant supply of water to the City based on the San Luis
Obispo County Stormwater Resource Plan. However, it could be pursued as new development continues and
as existing stormwater basins are modified and low impact development standards are implemented.
Page 134 of 182
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 4-2
4.2 Recommendations
The following next steps are recommended to continue developing the City’s water supply portfolio:
•Continue to engage in Central Coast Blue. Pursue potential delivery of State Water or Lopez Water in
exchange for Central Coast Blue allocation.
•Begin development of a Memorandum of Understanding with GSWCR for planning, design, and
construction of an emergency interconnection.
•Begin initial discussions with GSWCR and NCSD for purchase of excess Nipomo supplemental water.
•Negotiate with OCSD on a temporary water supply agreement.
•Engage with OCSD to explore long-term water purchase.
•Approach potential agricultural customers to discuss exchange of recycled water for reduced
groundwater pumping. This will determine if the Recycled Water “Scalping Plant” Concept is viable.
•Continue to regularly engage with County staff in case surplus Nacimiento or State Water is available
and could be transferred to the City.
Page 135 of 182
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Brian Pedrotti, Community Development Director
Bill Robeson, Assistant City Manager / Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Study Session on the City’s Temporary Parklet Program and Options
for Potential Permanent Parklet Programs
DATE: November 23, 2021
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The City Council will discuss aspects of the City’s parklet program and provide direction
to staff.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
Potential fiscal impacts associated with the long-term continuation of parklets are subject
to further evaluation and are ongoing. The total cost to the City is estimated at $3,000 to
$5,000 per parklet installation with an annual ongoing cost of $1,000 -$1,500 per parklet,
for a total of $4,000 to $6,500 per parklet. Ongoing costs include in-house and/or
contractual services for manual street sweeping, barrier adjustments, inspection and
maintenance, and general program administration. Currently there are a total of fourteen
existing parking spaces displaced.
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Receive a presentation on potential long-term strategies for parklets; and
2) Provide preliminary direction to staff to guide a long-term program and policy
development for the potential continuation of the parklet program.
BACKGROUND:
The COVID-19 pandemic that began in 2020 created a public health crisis and
unprecedented economic impacts throughout the country, State, and at the local level. In
the City of Arroyo Grande (City), local businesses have been economically impacted by
this public health emergency, especially restaurants, hotels, and retail establishments.
This created both a significant challenge for the City - with an urgent need to support both
public health and economic recovery of local businesses - as well as a unique opportunity
to re-imagine how the City’s public right-of-way can be utilized to improve long-term
community vibrancy and economic vitality.
Page 136 of 182
CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION ON THE CITY’S TEMPORARY PARKLET PROGRAM AND OPTIONS
FOR POTENTIAL PERMANENT PARKLET PROGRAMS
NOVEMBER 23, 2021
PAGE 2
In response to the initial COVID-19 reopening process, the City adopted a resolution on
June 23, 2020, authorizing the Community Development Director to waive the application
fees for encroachment permits and Minor Use Permits/Temporary Use Permit s for
restaurants that were seeking additional outdoor dining space.
Starting in July of 2020, the City facilitated the installation of five temporary parklets for
eight individual businesses in the Village. All of these parklets remain in use today. About
eight other businesses, both in the Village and in other City commercial areas, took
advantage of the opportunity to expand outdoor dining within private parking lots,
including restaurants that utilized temporary barricades (concrete K-rail) from the City and
installed at the City’s expense, in order to remain in business outdoors. Most of the
parklets outside of the Village area have been removed. The only temporary street
closure that remains in effect is the closure of Short Street between Branch Str eet and
Olohan Alley, which will be evaluated and presented to the Council as a separate future
item. Attachment 2 includes a map of the parklets installed during the temporary program.
Existing parklets within the Village displace a total of fourteen (14 ) parking spaces, which
include partial spaces that can only support smaller vehicles.
While there were many changes in COVID-19 restrictions such as no indoor dining, mask
wearing and resulting consumer behavior, the available quantitative and anecdotal data
indicates that the various efforts to activate the City’s commercial areas likely had a
positive benefit to the economic response and recovery of the City. For example, HdL
(economic/sales tax consultant) provided the City with the Sales Tax revenue b y
Geographic Area for the second quarter of 2021 for the period from April 1 through June
30, 2021, and this data indicates that the Village area experienced an increase of 98.1%
in revenues when compared to the second quarter of 2020.
It is difficult to compare the impact of the temporary parklet program vs. taking no action,
and equally difficult to isolate the specific effects of the program from other promotional
efforts conducted by Village businesses during the pandemic. For instance, the City’s
business assistance grants totaled approximately $170,000 to Arroyo Grande businesses
impacted by the pandemic. Additionally, Village businesses began the Big Ditch Market
in July 2021 to attract more visitors and business into the Village on Friday evenings
through December 2021. However, the combination of all of these efforts encouraged
both visitors and locals to come to the Village , shop and dine out when that would not
have been as inviting without these efforts, and this has been supported by discussions
with some Village business owners.
Page 137 of 182
CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION ON THE CITY’S TEMPORARY PARKLET PROGRAM AND OPTIONS
FOR POTENTIAL PERMANENT PARKLET PROGRAMS
NOVEMBER 23, 2021
PAGE 3
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Survey and Results
The City recently conducted a community survey to gather input from residents, visitors,
and local businesses to better understand how people feel about the current temporary
parklet program and long-term options. The questions in the survey were as follows:
1. Throughout the pandemic, the City of Arroyo Grande has run a temporary parklet
program, where some public street parking spaces have been converted to
outdoor dining areas. Have you used a parklet in Arroyo Grande?
2. The City is considering whether to make some of these parklets permanent. In
general, how supportive are you of having permanent parklets in Arroyo Grande?
3. Are you a business owner, manager and/or decision -maker of a business in the
City of Arroyo Grande?
4. Where is your business located?
5. Does your business currently use one of the parklets?
6. Are you interested in participating in the parklet program if it becomes permanent?
7. The City has provided several parklets on public streets at no cost to local
businesses. A parklet costs approximately $3,000 -$5,000 for installation (traffic
safety K-rail placement) and approx. $1,000-$1,500/year for ongoing costs
(maintenance, K-rail monthly rental fees, etc). If they become permanent, the City
will look to share the expense with the businesses that have them. As a business
owner/representative, what is the maximum annual cost you would be willing to
pay to have a parklet at your business?
8. What is your overall feeling toward parklets in the Village? (Comment Box)
9. Does having parklets makes you more likely to visit an outdoor dining
establishment?
Overall, respondents expressed strong support for having a long-term permanent parklet
program as shown below. This sentiment strongly correlated with the qualitative data in
the comment box provided with the survey, where the majority of comments were positive
toward parklets. With over 600 total comments received, staff was able to group the
positive comments into several major themes, including:
Page 138 of 182
CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION ON THE CITY’S TEMPORARY PARKLET PROGRAM AND OPTIONS
FOR POTENTIAL PERMANENT PARKLET PROGRAMS
NOVEMBER 23, 2021
PAGE 4
Energy and Ambiance. Many respondents indicated that they felt the parklets
added a different energy and ambiance to the Village. Some of the terms used
were “small town feel”, “European or Paris” charm. These comments generally
indicated that parklets created a more inviting and lively atmosphere, particularly
in the evenings.
Aesthetics and Design. Although there were many concerns about some visual
aspects of parklets, several respondents noted visually pleasing design, with the
parklets at Villa Cantina and Café Andreini as standouts.
Community Interaction. Somewhat related to energy and ambiance, several
respondents felt that the parklets were conducive to community interaction, and
that there has been an increase in positive interactions with restaurant staff and
an overall street-friendly atmosphere.
Safety. Some respondents felt that the parklets made the Village safer by slowing
down passing vehicles.
Economic Activity and Recovery. There were several positive comments about
increased economic activity and help to struggling businesses. Several
respondents noted that parklets help local businesses.
Respondents also indicated that if an outdoor dining establishment included a parklet,
they were more likely to visit such establishment by a margin of 68% to 26%, with about
6% unsure.
For businesses, given the known limited number of temporary parklets in the City, it was
not surprising to find that only a small percentage of businesses (10%) indicated that they
currently use a parklet. The number of business that are interested in participating in the
Page 139 of 182
CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION ON THE CITY’S TEMPORARY PARKLET PROGRAM AND OPTIONS
FOR POTENTIAL PERMANENT PARKLET PROGRAMS
NOVEMBER 23, 2021
PAGE 5
parklet program, if it becomes permanent, increased to about 20%, with another 28%
unsure. A little over 50% of the business respondents indicated they would not be
interested in creating permanent parklets. When asked about the maximum annual costs
a business owner/representative would be willing to pay, there were mixed responses,
with about 30% indicating a willingness to pay some amount, and another 47% unsure,
as shown below:
While most respondents were supportive of parklets, there were also some consistent
themes of concern regarding a variety of issues, as follows:
Parking. Some expressed that there was already a lack of available parking,
particularly in the Village, and that parklets were taking up needed spaces.
Aesthetics. Some expressed that the parklet structures themselves needed a
more pleasing design aesthetic, while others stated that the white concrete K-rail
barrier was not attractive.
Safety. Comments on safety issues were focused on the proximity of moving
vehicles close to the parklets. Several respondents felt unsafe in parklets because
of the potential for physical collisions with vehicles driving by. Other respondents
were concerned about the impact of vehicle emissions in parklets.
Obstruction. Somewhat related to safety concerns, some respondents were
concerned with the ability for pedestrians to safely pass on sidewalks, and that
they incentivize jaywalking.
Page 140 of 182
CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION ON THE CITY’S TEMPORARY PARKLET PROGRAM AND OPTIONS
FOR POTENTIAL PERMANENT PARKLET PROGRAMS
NOVEMBER 23, 2021
PAGE 6
Fairness. Some respondents were concerned about the economic fairness of
allowing some businesses to have additional outdoor dining space while other
businesses are not afforded this opportunity.
Timing and Necessity. Some stated that the temporary parklets were necessary
for economic activity during the pandemic, but questioned their necessity at this
stage of the pandemic, with some reopening occurring.
Other Public Outreach
In addition to inviting community input via the online survey and social media
engagement, staff also presented information on the potential long-term considerations
for the parklet program to Arroyo Grande businesses at monthly meetings held by the
Village businesses and at meetings held by the South County Chambers of Commerce.
Finally, this study session itself intends to serve as an opportunity to invite feedback from
the City Council and community on the potential for continuing parklets beyond the current
temporary program. Additional community outreach will be conducted in conjunction with
any long-term policy proposals that evolve from this study session.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES
Staff has organized this study session to invite input from the community and direction
from the City Council on whether the City should develop potential long-term policies
and/or programs for parklets beyond the current temporary program . The current
temporary program may also be continued to allow for ongoing flexibility as the pandemic
and public health emergency continue. The remainder of this report, however, discusses
options for a permanent parklet program.
LONG-TERM PARKLET PROGRAM OPTIONS
The outline below provides a summary of the temporary parklet program, potential policy
options for long-term consideration, key advantages, considera tions, and constraints
associated with each option, and suggested strategies to transition from the current
program to permanent policies and practices.
Potential Long-Term Options:
Option 1: Return to pre-COVID policies, removing all parklets at conclusion of
temporary program.
Option 2: Develop long-term parklet program.
Pros and Cons of Each Option:
Option 1: Remove Parklets After Pilot Program
Page 141 of 182
CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION ON THE CITY’S TEMPORARY PARKLET PROGRAM AND OPTIONS
FOR POTENTIAL PERMANENT PARKLET PROGRAMS
NOVEMBER 23, 2021
PAGE 7
Pros:
Maximizes on-street parking supply
Eliminates risk of potential vehicle collisions with outdoor di ning areas in parking
lane.
Requires no new staffing resources or capital expenditures on parklets beyond end
of temporary program.
Cons:
Limits available space for outdoor dining activities, providing less opportunity to
increase vibrancy of pedestrian environment.
Restricts ongoing flexibility for businesses as the pandemic continues.
Limits the options for businesses during economic recovery.
Option 2: Develop Long-Term Parklet Program
Pros:
Provides more opportunities for outdoor dining, which adds to vibrancy of the
public realm.
Helps businesses with economic recovery.
Visually narrows the street, which can have a traffic calming effect.
Increases tax revenue to the City through the use of additional dining space and
increased customer patronage.
Cons:
Reduces on-street parking supply.
Increases costs to the City to continue parklet program, including costs for manual
street sweeping around the parklets, installation costs for City-funded parklet
locations, maintenance and program administration. Excluding installation, total
ongoing costs are estimated at $1,000-$1,500 annually per parklet.
Parklets will need to be removed to facilitate roadway paving work, resulting in
higher costs for work and direct temporary impacts to business that utilize parklets.
This includes the removal of the parklet for Humdingers/Doc Bernsteins/Village
Café for the Traffic Way Bridge Replacement Project currently scheduled for
2023/24. Costs would be influenced by complexity of parklet construction and
timeframes of construction.
Parklets do not directly benefit all types of businesses.
Increased risk for vehicle collisions for anything located within the footprint of the
roadway.
Additional staff time required to develop and administer permanent program, which
may shift focus from other priorities in staff’s current work program.
Page 142 of 182
CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION ON THE CITY’S TEMPORARY PARKLET PROGRAM AND OPTIONS
FOR POTENTIAL PERMANENT PARKLET PROGRAMS
NOVEMBER 23, 2021
PAGE 8
Next Steps to Develop Permanent Policy/Program
Option 1: Remove Parklets After Temporary Program
No additional action needed. Remove parklets at end of temporary program.
Option 2: Develop Long-Term Parklet Program
Develop framework for long-term parklet program and policies, including
developing the permit type, objective design guidelines, proposed fee schedules,
and amendments to the City Municipal Code required to continue with a permanent
program.
Conduct a detailed cost analysis for materials (barriers), installation, staff time,
outside services (trucking/delivery), ongoing maintenance, replacement of
damaged barriers, etc.
Conduct additional outreach to guide refinement of proposed parklet policies.
Present final parklet program and policy recommendations for advisory body and
Council consideration for approval.
If the City Council opts to proceed with Option 2 and begin development of a long-term
parklet program with local business and community input, staff recommends that the City
Council direct the following specific requirements:
1. Include an appropriate permit process for future permanent parklets. Staff
recommends an encroachment permit and Plot Plan/Minor Use Permit for each
parklet, including approval by the Community Development Director via
Architectural Review Committee design review.
2. Develop detailed, but flexible, objective design standards for safety and aesthetics,
with approval by the Community Development Director via Architectural Review
Committee design review.
3. Develop appropriate permitting and annual user fees based on cost calculations
and Council input.
4. Include a process for notification of adjacent properties and an opportunity to
appeal new parklet proposals to the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff
recommends notification and appeal procedures consistent with a Plot Plan/Minor
Use Permit.
STUDY SESSION FRAMEWORK FOR FEEDBACK TO STAFF
At this study session, Council will receive a summary presentation of this report, hear
input from the public, and can ask questions and provide feedback to staff to guide further
policy and program development for the potential long-term continuation of parklets. In
providing feedback to staff, below are a series of key focus areas and questions that
Council may want to use to guide the discussion:
Page 143 of 182
CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION ON THE CITY’S TEMPORARY PARKLET PROGRAM AND OPTIONS
FOR POTENTIAL PERMANENT PARKLET PROGRAMS
NOVEMBER 23, 2021
PAGE 9
Question #1. Does Council want to continue with a permanent parklet program?
Question #2. Does Council support stringent parklet design standards that encourage a
uniform appearance, or more flexible design guidelines that still allow for unique designs,
as long as they meet objective minimum standards for safety and quality of appearance?
Question #3. Does Council support the imposition of permit processing fees as well as
user fees that will fully cover the costs to the City for installing the parklet barriers and
managing the parklet program? If fees are adopted, should they be implemented
gradually over the course of a few years? An additional cost for consideration is that for
an encroachment permit, which can range from $57/month for a minor encroachment
(placing items in right-of-way, no inspections) to a blanket annual encroachment fee (for
one entity with multiple encroachment sites, concrete work, plan review, inspections) of
$17,475.
Question #4. What level of notification and communication should be provided to
adjacent businesses and property owners prior to approving new parklet applications?
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for Council’s consideration:
1. Direct staff to remove existing parklets and end the Temporary Parklet
Program;
2. Direct staff to develop a Long-Term Parklet Program, including:
a) Develop framework for long-term parklet program and policies,
including developing the permit type, objective design guidelines,
proposed fee schedules, and amendments to the City Municipal
Code required to continue with a permanent program.
b) Conduct a detailed cost analysis for materials (barriers), installation,
staff time, outside services (trucking/delivery), ongoing maintenance,
replacement of damaged barriers, etc.
c) Conduct additional outreach to guide refinement of proposed parklet
policies.
d) Present final parklet program and policy recommendations for
advisory body and Council consideration for approval;
3. Direct staff to continue the existing Temporary Parklet Program; or
4. Provide other direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
Public discussion of a potential permanent parklet program provides an opportunity to
evaluate the impacts and opportunities from allowing such facilities.
Page 144 of 182
CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION ON THE CITY’S TEMPORARY PARKLET PROGRAM AND OPTIONS
FOR POTENTIAL PERMANENT PARKLET PROGRAMS
NOVEMBER 23, 2021
PAGE 10
DISADVANTAGES:
No disadvantages are identified relating to having a public discussion about potential
permanent parklets.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
This study session itself does not constitute a “Project” under California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378. Similarly, the current activities in action as
part of the temporary parklet program are also exempt from environmental review
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15269, because the temporary program includes
specific actions that would allow for safe physical distancing consistent with the State’ s
Resilience Roadmap and County and State Guidelines in order to mitigate the COVID -
19 public health emergency.
Parklets in some form of long-term continuation would be categorically exempt under
CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) because the actions are limited to
permitting, leasing, and minor alteration of existing public facilities. However, staff will
carefully evaluate any activities considered for continuation and conduct the a ppropriate
level of project specific CEQA review prior to returning to Council with any permanent
program or policy proposals.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted in at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with
Government Code Section 54954.2.
Attachments:
1. Summary of Public Survey Responses
2. Parklet Map
3. Parklet Photos
4. Full list of Public Survey Comments
Page 145 of 182
1 / 9
84.85%868
15.05%154
0.00%0
0.10%1
Q1 Throughout the pandemic, the City of Arroyo Grande has run a
temporary parklet program, where public street parking spaces have been
converted to outdoor dining areas. Have you used a parklet in Arroyo
Grande?
Answered: 1,023 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 1,023
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No, but I know
what they are
No, I'm not
sure what a...
Don't know /
unsure
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No, but I know what they are
No, I'm not sure what a "parklet" is
Don't know / unsure
Attachment 1 - Parklet Survey Summary
Page 146 of 182
2 / 9
71.40%729
8.62%88
2.45%25
4.60%47
12.93%132
0.00%0
Q2 The City is considering whether to make some of these parklets
permanent. In general, how supportive are you of having permanent
parklets in Arroyo Grande?
Answered: 1,021 Skipped: 2
TOTAL 1,021
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Strongly
Support
Somewhat
Support
Neutral
Somewhat
Opposed
Strongly
Opposed
Don't Know
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Strongly Support
Somewhat Support
Neutral
Somewhat Opposed
Strongly Opposed
Don't Know
Attachment 1 - Parklet Survey Summary
Page 147 of 182
3 / 9
11.81%120
88.19%896
Q3 Are you a business owner, manager and/or decision-maker of a
business in the City of Arroyo Grande?
Answered: 1,016 Skipped: 7
TOTAL 1,016
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Attachment 1 - Parklet Survey Summary
Page 148 of 182
4 / 9
55.00%22
45.00%18
0.00%0
Q4 If your answer to Question 3 was “No”, please skip to Question 8. If
your answer to Question 3 was “Yes”, please answer Questions 4 – Where
is your business located?
Answered: 40 Skipped: 983
TOTAL 40
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Village
Other area in
the City
Both
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Village
Other area in the City
Both
Attachment 1 - Parklet Survey Summary
Page 149 of 182
5 / 9
9.80%25
90.20%230
Q5 Does your business currently use one of the parklets?
Answered: 255 Skipped: 768
TOTAL 255
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Attachment 1 - Parklet Survey Summary
Page 150 of 182
6 / 9
21.00%63
51.00%153
28.00%84
Q6 Are you interested in participating in the parklet program if it becomes
permanent?
Answered: 300 Skipped: 723
TOTAL 300
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
Don't Know /
Unsure
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Don't Know / Unsure
Attachment 1 - Parklet Survey Summary
Page 151 of 182
7 / 9
8.09%25
10.68%33
10.68%33
23.30%72
47.25%146
Q7 The City has provided several parklets on public streets at no cost to
local businesses. A parklet costs approximately $3,000-$5,000 for
installation (traffic safety K-rail placement) and approx. $1,000-$1,500/year
for ongoing costs (maintenance, K-rail monthly rental fees, etc). If they
become permanent, the City will look to share the expense with the
businesses that have them. As a business owner/representative, what is
the maximum annual cost you would be willing to pay to have a parklet at
your business? Please select the one that best describes your opinion:
Answered: 309 Skipped: 714
TOTAL 309
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Up to $500 per
year
$500 to $1,000
per year
$1,000 to
$1,500 per year
Not willing to
pay any cost
Don't Know /
Unsure
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Up to $500 per year
$500 to $1,000 per year
$1,000 to $1,500 per year
Not willing to pay any cost
Don't Know / Unsure
Attachment 1 - Parklet Survey Summary
Page 152 of 182
8 / 9
Q8 What is your overall feeling towards parklets in the Village?
Answered: 600 Skipped: 423
Attachment 1 - Parklet Survey Summary
Page 153 of 182
9 / 9
67.95%176
26.25%68
5.79%15
Q9 Does having parklets makes you more likely to visit an outdoor dining
establishment?
Answered: 259 Skipped: 764
TOTAL 259
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
Don't Know /
Unsure
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Don't Know / Unsure
Attachment 1 - Parklet Survey Summary
Page 154 of 182
Attachment 2Page 1 of 1Page 155 of 182
Attachment 3
Page 1 of 2
Parklet Photos
Rooster Creek
Café Andreini
Page 156 of 182
Attachment 3
Page 2 of 2
Villa Cantina
Humdingers/Village Café/Doc Bernstein
Page 157 of 182
1 / 21
Q8 What is your overall feeling towards parklets in the Village?
Answered: 607 Skipped: 427
#RESPONSES DATE
1 I'd rather have patios and parklets than street parking.11/13/2021 5:17 PM
2 Good 11/12/2021 9:53 PM
3 I believe they continue to be a great idea not only for more options of seating but also to
support those in our community who are high risk but want to be able to enjoy some normalcy
in their lives
11/12/2021 9:13 PM
4 I’m concerned about the parking situation in the Village. The parklets take up valuable parking
- spaces that are a premium for elderly or mobility challenged. The parklet on Short St should
be removed and the street reopened. If the parklets become permanent, they should be
beautified and consistent. Those K rails are ugly! Im also concerned about safety with large 18
wheelers barreling through the small street…I won’t sit in a parklet.
11/12/2021 3:52 PM
5 When we visit, we enjoy sitting outside, and was so excited to have so many choices,
because so many restaurants di this. It allows more people, which in turn makes more money
for these restaurants and happier customers. They should absolutely stay!
11/10/2021 9:56 PM
6 I love the expanded outdoor dining! Please keep them. Without them I'm less apt to visit
restaurants.
11/10/2021 8:18 PM
7 Good 11/10/2021 3:34 PM
8 We need parking!!! You have overbuilt and taken away parking. Dissuading people from going
into the Village.I do like an option to eat outside
11/10/2021 1:52 PM
9 Love them!!11/10/2021 10:22 AM
10 I love them, though I wish they would be a bit more appealing to the eye, the village is so
beautiful, we live by Paulding and drive through several times a day and walk through it all the
time. The village is a staple but the concrete barriers while needed are not with the same
village feel, I would love to see them stay but be a bit more appealing
11/10/2021 9:57 AM
11 It creates a since of socialization of community. It extends the inside, out. Further draws the
eye to the business, and grabs interest.
11/10/2021 8:41 AM
12 Eating and drinking while traffic whizzes by is unpleasant. One "parklet" in front of Humdingers
is bisected by the public sidewalk, meaning servers are having to dodge pedestrians to serve
food. Honestly I don't want to sit in the street to eat.
11/9/2021 11:11 PM
13 Love it!11/9/2021 10:09 PM
14 They are tacky looking and unfair to other businesses that need the parking. Especially dislike
the closure of Short St. The restaurants are getting free square footage which is very unfair to
other businesses. Also Mason St. Grill should be made to reopen their back parking lot as
parking was a condition for opening
11/9/2021 8:45 PM
15 Positive 11/9/2021 8:40 PM
16 Negative. They need to be removed. Not only are businesses using public space for private
gain, they are an eyesore. Furthermore, they encroach into public right of ways and block
pedestrian access. Blocking/preventing pedestrians, especially disabled people, from moving
efficiently along a sidewalk is a major problem and liability. The parklets also take up valuable
parking spaces along Branch Street and completely deny access to Short Street from Branch
Street. They were installed during the height of the pandemic but they need to be removed,
unobstructed sidewalks and roads need to be restored immediately.
11/9/2021 3:50 PM
17 I see their great value during the pandemic to help business. I also really like the idea of
increasing outdoor dining. However , I think most are very unattractive. They detract from the
beauty of the village—especially the concrete safety structures. Ugly. I would greatly support
11/9/2021 3:44 PM
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 158 of 182
Arroyo Grande Parklets SurveyMonkey
2 / 21
another way to create more outside dining space. As it is now, parking is cut. Also, get rid of
the large tent next to Rooster Creek. Ugh. Thanks.
18 Great! Love the outdoor seating as it's not only COVID friendly but also pet friendly!11/9/2021 2:40 PM
19 Not on Branch St 11/9/2021 1:48 PM
20 Please keep them.11/9/2021 12:38 PM
21 I strongly support them 11/9/2021 12:14 PM
22 I like the ones that look permanent like Rooster Creek and Andreinni’s. I think there should be
some sort of standard, so they all look like an outdoor structure.
11/9/2021 12:10 PM
23 IT'S IMPERATIVE TO KEEP THEM, FOR EVERYONE!11/9/2021 10:14 AM
24 I like them a lot. It makes me feel like I'm in Paris.11/8/2021 10:59 PM
25 People don’t shop if they don’t have a place to park and that really hurts us all 11/8/2021 8:52 PM
26 I don’t k ow what we did before them! They are so necessary and provide outdoor dining to
many places I would otherwise not go. They are vital! Street parking is not, plenty of parking
elsewhere
11/8/2021 7:34 PM
27 great outdoor dining option! I love the small town vibe it gives our village.11/8/2021 5:00 PM
28 Maybe a 6 month extension to get the village businesses through Winter and so they can
adequately plan for changes, and then take parakeets down.
11/8/2021 4:34 PM
29 Agree 11/8/2021 4:26 PM
30 Takes away valuable parking spots that are much needed in the Village.11/8/2021 2:54 PM
31 They take up parking spaces and it’s not fair to other businesses for the city to give income
opportunities to only a few businesses. The city should not look to profit off of what was for
covid safety.
11/8/2021 2:47 PM
32 I think they’re a great idea for more business and less waiting for customers. My only concern
is making sure there is free parking available while people are in the Village.
11/8/2021 2:09 PM
33 They have been great to support local business through the pandemic. We are limited on
parking and need that space for our vehicle's. Developing the village and traffic way would
benefit the city and our local businesss.
11/8/2021 11:47 AM
34 I like the concept for more outdoor dining but would like to see some of the aesthetics
improved. Some of the parklets are more attractive than others. Some look like construction
zones and could use upgrades if they are going to be permanent. Some of them make street
parking more difficult and there is a loss of parking to weigh in in too.
11/8/2021 11:20 AM
35 They provide much needed outdoor dining opportunities to the businesses in Arroyo Grande
and allow for flexibility in keeping businesses open when safety mandates limit indoor dining.
11/8/2021 11:18 AM
36 The are a number of businesses thriving specifically because of the parklets. We have great
weather and even post COVID, people like sitting outside. Many communities are leaning
toward keeping them - I hope the Village follows suit.
11/8/2021 10:16 AM
37 They are taking up valuable street parking and benefiting only select businesses.11/8/2021 10:10 AM
38 I think they provide a great opportunity to enjoy the beautiful scenery that is Arroyo Grandes
Village.
11/8/2021 10:08 AM
39 Inviting, warmth, European charm, friendly, community 11/8/2021 9:19 AM
40 Love the open air outdoor feel and don’t mind the impact on sidewalks, streets and parking as
long as it is done well and maintained.
11/8/2021 7:19 AM
41 Over all I believe it a nice compliment to dining experience in the village. If they are going to
be removed it should wait until we know we’re through the pandemic.
11/7/2021 11:44 PM
42 I like them 11/7/2021 9:01 PM
43 The add an inviting and classy feel, making the Village feel very inclusive and inviting! Almost 11/7/2021 8:24 PM
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 159 of 182
Arroyo Grande Parklets SurveyMonkey
3 / 21
like a trip to Europe! Feel it shocks be a requirement for all new eating establishments.
44 I think parklets will be an asset, especially if they are permanently built in.11/7/2021 7:00 PM
45 Love them 11/7/2021 6:59 PM
46 Parking is limited and some areas are crowded 11/7/2021 6:47 PM
47 It encourages sales fir business, as ling as they are not a hazard or safety issue for residents
or visitors
11/7/2021 6:20 PM
48 My concern is they go into the lanes where cars are driving. The drivers have to drive around
them
11/7/2021 5:50 PM
49 They look ugly. They're no longer necessary. They take up valuable parking spaces, which is
unfair to other businesses, they make walking down the sidewalk difficult, and it makes driving
thru town a nightmare as well as dangerous. If the city unfortunately goes thru with this,
businesses, should have to pay 100% with no help from the city
11/7/2021 4:58 PM
50 You don't want them to replace parking entirely. And they're not pleasant on a trafficky street.
But they're better than covid..
11/7/2021 4:58 PM
51 I wonder if the loss if parking has negatively impacted other businesses.11/7/2021 4:54 PM
52 I think they are great 11/7/2021 4:40 PM
53 Glad to help out local businesses.11/7/2021 4:34 PM
54 I like them gives an outdoor dining option to people not ready to head back indoors 11/7/2021 3:49 PM
55 I believe during the worst of pandemic they probably helped businesses. But Arroyo Grande is
a small town of 17000 people and has had over 2200 positive covid cases. These were
partially brought on by people congregating in the village with out masks and proper social
distance. The parkettes don't allow social distancing.
11/7/2021 3:42 PM
56 They were meant to be temporary, what about when we have parades, I want Short st open, I
am very upset the city is paying for this and wants to continue to do so, where is the money
coming from? Roads were not meant to be dining areas and I don't think they are zoned for
outdoor restaurant usage.
11/7/2021 3:26 PM
57 I think it's a great idea to help enhance our local business it's still tough times in the restaurant
industry.
11/7/2021 2:47 PM
58 I love them so much, I’m in favor of closing down vehicular traffic on Branch Street and
making that a pedestrian only area.
11/7/2021 2:42 PM
59 I feel they were necessary during the pandemic. However I do not see the need for them now. 11/7/2021 2:41 PM
60 They add to the small charm AG Village is famous for, they enforce safety standards that can
not or should not be enforced by police and they encourage community/tourism engagement in
a meaningful way
11/7/2021 1:09 PM
61 Positive 11/7/2021 12:36 PM
62 Negative 11/7/2021 11:45 AM
63 I like them. Having them has made the village a safer place for pedestrians because cars tend
to slow down.
11/7/2021 10:45 AM
64 I support that these businesses should be able to keep open these areas 11/7/2021 10:30 AM
65 Absolutely love them! Creates a more friendly environment 11/7/2021 10:15 AM
66 It adds to the small town ambiance 11/7/2021 9:41 AM
67 Love them 11/7/2021 9:38 AM
68 Terrible parking 11/7/2021 8:28 AM
69 They need to be permanent and find a lower cost alternative to renting renting makes no sense
should be minimal maintenance cost
11/7/2021 8:28 AM
70 I think it enhances the character of the village while providing safe dining options. It’s lovely to 11/7/2021 8:26 AM
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 160 of 182
Arroyo Grande Parklets SurveyMonkey
4 / 21
have the option to dine outside.
71 Parklets detract from the look and feel of the village. It looks trashy and takes away much
needed parking spaces. Please don’t allow these to become permanent!
11/7/2021 8:19 AM
72 I support them 11/7/2021 8:00 AM
73 They are public areas. My taxes pay for the public roads and sidewalks that they have taken
over. The park let's have cause overcrowding in the village. The businesses need to return to
pre pandemic space and give the public areas back to the public.
11/7/2021 7:52 AM
74 The less overrun a city is with automobile traffic the higher the quality of life for residents.
Parklets improve quality of life for AG residents.
11/7/2021 7:47 AM
75 I don’t think it’s healthy or safe for people to be eating that close to traffic I do believe our city
will get a lawsuit at the first traffic accident because there’s not really adequate protection and
exhaust their breathing while you’re eating it just doesn’t seem right
11/7/2021 7:36 AM
76 Takes up parking for all customers & only benefits a couple benefits & most of the time they
are not filled with customers
11/7/2021 7:29 AM
77 Adds a welcoming and fun vibe to area. They also draw interest to the businesses.11/7/2021 7:23 AM
78 Positive 11/7/2021 7:08 AM
79 They add to street friendly atmosphere 11/7/2021 6:51 AM
80 Love it 11/7/2021 6:41 AM
81 Love them!11/7/2021 6:15 AM
82 Really like them 11/7/2021 6:11 AM
83 I think they add to the character and feel of the village. I like the ones in front of Rooster but
the ones in front of Docs is ugly.
11/7/2021 5:25 AM
84 Terrible idea, bad for traffic and dangerous for pedestrians.11/7/2021 3:35 AM
85 They should be cleaned up to look better but I like them 11/7/2021 2:34 AM
86 Meh 11/7/2021 1:41 AM
87 Positive 11/7/2021 12:12 AM
88 They have been a God sent.11/6/2021 10:37 PM
89 Adds to the friendly feel of the village. Our climate makes it possible.11/6/2021 10:04 PM
90 Some look better than others. I feel if the business did a professional job and it looks nice then
yes but just like with slo; some are tacky and basic
11/6/2021 9:58 PM
91 Overall good. Please ensure consistent and safe passage for pedestrians walking through.
There should be no impediments, thoroughfare should remain wide and a pedestrian should not
feel as though they are "barging through" a dining area. For example, limit or eliminate the wait
staff coming and going as that introduces conflicts with pedestrians. Q9 is not worded well.
Outdoor dining makes me more likely to visit. Some establishments have nice outdoor spaces
w/o a parklet. It's not about the parklet unless other outdoor space is not available.
11/6/2021 9:52 PM
92 I like the choice of indoor or outdoor seating.11/6/2021 9:52 PM
93 I like them!11/6/2021 9:27 PM
94 Enjoy eating outside 11/6/2021 9:16 PM
95 Love outdoor seating. We do need to find additional parking elsewhere.11/6/2021 8:59 PM
96 I love it. Makes the Village look more beautiful. Why not have outdoor dining in a place with
lots of sunshine!
11/6/2021 8:30 PM
97 We should’ve created the parklets years ago. Wildly loved by every customer we have.11/6/2021 8:08 PM
98 Fantastic, I love them! Some places allowed to bring my dog. :-)11/6/2021 8:01 PM
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 161 of 182
Arroyo Grande Parklets SurveyMonkey
5 / 21
99 Its kinda like Paris,as long as its safe.11/6/2021 7:50 PM
100 They are ugly- the big concrete k rails, the way that some of them have been thrown together.
The village is historic, and our historic building are being obscured by these parklets that were
only temporary structures. Tables, seating on sidewalk- fine, but get the stuff off the street and
those concrete eyesores gone.
11/6/2021 7:38 PM
101 love the outdoor option, don't love the car traffic running through the village 11/6/2021 7:38 PM
102 Love them! Enjoy being outdoors and it is conducive to random chats with other locals.11/6/2021 7:32 PM
103 I believe a lot of them can be removed. I never see anyone at the one in front of the bakery.
Use the parking for cars not chairs. If they were to stay I would put in bullards (which could be
removable style)so you don’t have to rent k rails.
11/6/2021 7:31 PM
104 I love options to eat outside. We will be living with COVID, and my family will only eat outdoors
for the foreseeable future.
11/6/2021 7:26 PM
105 I like the idea of being able to enjoy the fresh air and the outdoor surroundings 11/6/2021 7:24 PM
106 Now seeing the cost of the parklets and learning that businesses don't pay those costs I'd say
parklets should only exist if the business fully pays all associated costs.
11/6/2021 7:19 PM
107 I love them. I prefer eating outdoors always, but especially since the pandemic is not over. 11/6/2021 7:09 PM
108 Not necessary without COVID restrictions and they look sloppy.11/6/2021 6:30 PM
109 I own sidewalk cafe and am extremely upset that we have to pay ALot for our patio. This takes
away a ton of business from us. It takes away parking. We literally are loosing business
because other businesses suddenly offer patio seating. Some have as many as 15+ extra
seats! That is so unfair.
11/6/2021 6:01 PM
110 It’s obvious that the parklets have been wildly successful. It’s been so wonderful to see the
parklets full of people, Ive heard nothing but positive feed back minus my two neighbors that
oppose them.
11/6/2021 5:36 PM
111 Love them 11/6/2021 5:35 PM
112 Adds outdoor sitting and creates a cool feel downtown 11/6/2021 5:22 PM
113 Love them!!!11/6/2021 5:10 PM
114 They have been an asset to the village 11/6/2021 5:06 PM
115 I like the outdoor space options 11/6/2021 4:44 PM
116 Safer outside.11/6/2021 4:32 PM
117 Love the additional outdoor seating 11/6/2021 4:30 PM
118 I love them 11/6/2021 4:15 PM
119 It's great for local businesses, for patrons, and makes the village feel more welcoming.11/6/2021 4:15 PM
120 Love them. I have a home business in the Village so not directly effected but the parklets sure
make our strolls through the village much more interesting and sittitng out in them is a lot of
fun!
11/6/2021 3:59 PM
121 They are a very positive move to modernize this city in line with other major cities. Will help
increase tourism by accentuating our great weather. Current parklets will need to be rebuilt to
be more permanent looking.
11/6/2021 3:17 PM
122 Love them! Please keep them.11/6/2021 2:06 PM
123 We love them! They add a ton of character and extra seating and kids to the village.11/6/2021 1:21 PM
124 They give more of a sense of community 11/6/2021 1:01 PM
125 They seem ugly and dangerous but if something can be done about that, then they are fine. 11/6/2021 12:36 PM
126 Love them!11/6/2021 12:22 PM
127 I think they are a wonderful addition 11/6/2021 12:22 PM
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 162 of 182
Arroyo Grande Parklets SurveyMonkey
6 / 21
128 I like some of them that are being used and look attractive like Cafe Andreini’s. Some of them
do not seem to be currently used. I do not like short street closed.
11/6/2021 12:20 PM
129 I feel it gives people an option to sit outside so it would encourage people to still come to the
restaurants especially if they don’t want to eat or drink inside.
11/6/2021 12:20 PM
130 Please keep them! We enjoy sitting in the parklets...such a nice/beautiful addition to our
Village!!
11/6/2021 12:13 PM
131 I think for some businesses it is vital for their businesses. From our customers standpoint
many are still preferring to sit outside.
11/6/2021 11:33 AM
132 I like them but against the one on side street between rooster creek and Gina’s. I believe every
restaurant has right to same size. But I believe restaurant should pay to maintain going forward
11/6/2021 11:22 AM
133 They are inviting and our weather is perfect for them 11/6/2021 10:42 AM
134 I love how they open up the option to dine in or out. Plus it brings more customers 11/6/2021 10:42 AM
135 They should look permanent with village architecture, not like Rooster's tent.11/6/2021 10:37 AM
136 I like them but it would be more up to the business owner of they think they help increase head
count into their restaurant.
11/6/2021 9:39 AM
137 They look tacky and it is not a clean place to eat 11/6/2021 9:26 AM
138 Looks awesome 11/6/2021 9:16 AM
139 Love them 11/6/2021 9:14 AM
140 They are the future, need to be made more attractive.11/6/2021 9:11 AM
141 It's great. Nice to have the option to eat outside.11/6/2021 9:02 AM
142 I absolutely love them. They make the village look like more of the community that it is. It
allows for more dining options, doesn’t take up space on the sidewalks that pedestrians have
to fight to get around & it allows the smaller restaurants to compete with the larger ones.
11/6/2021 8:32 AM
143 They are really horrible looking, take away parking and do not look safe. An accident will
happen
11/6/2021 8:12 AM
144 Allow for more seating and adds to the charm of the village atmosphere.11/6/2021 8:05 AM
145 They are such a great way to enjoy eating outside. The central coast has beautiful weather and
they are a great way to take advantage of it!
11/6/2021 7:59 AM
146 Love them!11/6/2021 7:46 AM
147 Good 11/6/2021 7:31 AM
148 Like them!11/6/2021 6:05 AM
149 Keep them, maintain them & enjoy them!11/6/2021 6:02 AM
150 Love them 11/6/2021 5:23 AM
151 Positive 11/6/2021 4:21 AM
152 They are an eye sore. There should be an aesthetic requirement if they are allowed to be
permanent.
11/6/2021 4:16 AM
153 As an AG resident it completely changes the feel of the village for the better. It provides an
energy especially in the evenings when lights add the the ambiance. Just look to Andreni's on
any weekend morning to see the impact they can have.
11/5/2021 11:02 PM
154 TOTAL GAME CHANGER. LOVE IT!!!11/5/2021 10:48 PM
155 Great!11/5/2021 10:40 PM
156 Safe 11/5/2021 10:21 PM
157 Love then- total fan of outdoor eating areas. I’m ok with having to park a bit further away and
walk due to lost parking space.
11/5/2021 9:57 PM
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 163 of 182
Arroyo Grande Parklets SurveyMonkey
7 / 21
158 They block parking in an already difficult area and create the uncomfortable feeling of walking
through someone's meal just to get down the sidewalk. Additionally witers/servers/customers
using them don't always check the sidewalk before dashing out of whatever restraunt they are
serving
11/5/2021 9:37 PM
159 Very positive 11/5/2021 9:36 PM
160 I like them. More outdoor seating.11/5/2021 9:34 PM
161 I enjoy eating outdoors and want the outdoor dining to continue.11/5/2021 9:20 PM
162 Love the nice parklets!11/5/2021 9:11 PM
163 Supportive 11/5/2021 9:09 PM
164 Love them! Great to have additional spots for outdoor seating.11/5/2021 9:08 PM
165 I think it will add to the friendly atmosphere and keep businesses going. There are some
patrons that are uncomfortable being unmasked inside and the addition of permanent parklets
would feel more welcoming to all customers to enjoy the Village.
11/5/2021 9:00 PM
166 I like Outdoor dining 11/5/2021 8:53 PM
167 Great Idea..friendly...11/5/2021 8:27 PM
168 Love them - hope they standardize and grow 11/5/2021 8:25 PM
169 They are a great idea and we have used them many times.11/5/2021 8:08 PM
170 I love the option of outdoor seating! We have 11/5/2021 8:04 PM
171 They filled a great need at the time.11/5/2021 7:52 PM
172 It makes it harder to park and participate in village events. I actually drive away sometimes
when I cannot find a place to park. I’m okay with some do them.
11/5/2021 7:35 PM
173 If they look nice and are safe, I’m all for it. They act as great traffic calming devices in my
opinion.
11/5/2021 7:23 PM
174 I love them. It has helped businesses but also made the Village more inviting.11/5/2021 6:53 PM
175 It's always nice to have more outdoor dining, but that wasn't how things were constructed. I
believe it will end up causing more trouble than it's worth in the long run. What are the rules
when a new diner comes in and wants one? Is it fair to deny? Is it fair to approve and take
away more public parking? What happens when a current diner closes and becomes a clothing
store? We should consider building a muti-level parking structure and then all of the parking
space can be converted to dining and pedestrian use if you really want to expand that type of
outside space for the village.
11/5/2021 6:34 PM
176 Changes the feel. More relaxing. Friendlier. Feels more like a community.11/5/2021 6:24 PM
177 As a truck driver that lives in Arroyo Grande, driving through the village has become more
hazardous with the road being so narrow in spots. You add in pedestrians, cyclists and narrow
roads, is a recipe for disaster. I almost lost my driverside mirrors the other day to a garbage
truck because the road is so narrow in areas. Doesn't leave any room for emergency
maneuvers. The parklets seen to favor one type of business over the others. What can be
great for one business hinders the others.
11/5/2021 6:10 PM
178 They are good for business, but it does reduce parking in a small town.11/5/2021 6:10 PM
179 Parking is limited and inside business should be fine to handle the people.11/5/2021 5:54 PM
180 Love it!11/5/2021 5:50 PM
181 They are a nice addition and make the Village a better place to visit.11/5/2021 5:39 PM
182 I like the outdoor dining. They could look nicer but it’s nice to eat outside as an option 11/5/2021 5:30 PM
183 I think they are wonderful and should be permanent 11/5/2021 5:25 PM
184 In the way 11/5/2021 5:25 PM
185 Dislike them 11/5/2021 5:19 PM
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 164 of 182
Arroyo Grande Parklets SurveyMonkey
8 / 21
186 I think their great!11/5/2021 5:05 PM
187 Great idea for business in our community.11/5/2021 4:54 PM
188 They not only expand seating but they are charming and it is a privilege that we live in a place
where parklets can be used pretty much year-round. And if keeping them around offers extra
support to our local businesses that fought so hard to stay afloat last year, then I support
having parklets around even more.
11/5/2021 4:13 PM
189 I love them!11/5/2021 3:56 PM
190 Enjoy sitting outside while having coffee.11/5/2021 3:41 PM
191 It’s better to have the choice to be outdoors 11/5/2021 3:39 PM
192 They are tacky looking. Businesses are back to full capacity. We need the parking back and
Short Street opened for all businesses to use. Mason Bar should return there outdoor dining
back to parking if off street parking was part of their business plan/condition of use.
11/5/2021 3:30 PM
193 They are ugly and take away much needed parking 11/5/2021 3:26 PM
194 I enjoy them 11/5/2021 3:18 PM
195 I feel they have added so much more of a personal touch to our sweet village.11/5/2021 3:16 PM
196 I think they are great for the downtown community. As a first responder I noticed a fire hydrant
inside of a parklet in front of rooster creek. The fire hydrant is supposed to be easily visible
and easy to get to. This one Would not be easy to get to in the event of a fire.
11/5/2021 3:08 PM
197 Like them 11/5/2021 2:51 PM
198 I would like to see them stay. However there need to improve their appearance if they become
permanent.
11/5/2021 2:32 PM
199 Warm & fuzzy 11/5/2021 2:31 PM
200 They take away precious street side parking spaces fro potential customers. It’s not fair for
businesses like mine (sidewalk cafe) that have patio seating. Now customers park in front of
my business to eat down the street on someone’s parklet patio. They are also an eyesore to
the historic village. With indoor dining fully open I don’t think it’s fair to take away parking and
give restaurants extra outdoor seating.
11/5/2021 2:23 PM
201 They are great for use during the pandemic. However when the pandemic is over I feel we
need to get back to normal use so the public can get back to life as it was pre pandemic.
11/5/2021 2:20 PM
202 Parklets add overall trashy look AND take up valuable parking spots.11/5/2021 2:10 PM
203 Not attractive 11/5/2021 2:09 PM
204 I like them 11/5/2021 1:58 PM
205 The fact that sitting with on coming traffic is no good. One day their will be a huge incident and
injury and then from someone will regret sitting their. Not to mention the air disturbance caused
by traffic that we inhale and or settling on your food.
11/5/2021 1:51 PM
206 They add charm to an already charming place.11/5/2021 1:42 PM
207 Ugly! Promotes J Walking, another Traffic Hazard for First Responders & more distraction for
drivers in the Village. Add the Farmers Market on Saturday and it’s Simply too much! Plus
reduced parking is a bigger problem.
11/5/2021 1:37 PM
208 Love them!!!!11/5/2021 1:27 PM
209 Positive, it's fun to eat outdoors under a canopy 11/5/2021 1:24 PM
210 Love them 11/5/2021 1:20 PM
211 Great idea. I go to the village way more often with the parklets there. Plus AG has such nice
weather, it would be a shame to lose out on the outdoor seating.
11/5/2021 1:12 PM
212 add to the character of the village as a destination location 11/5/2021 1:11 PM
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 165 of 182
Arroyo Grande Parklets SurveyMonkey
9 / 21
213 Currently a necessary evil. It is sad to lose the parking and I do not see an alternative location
for those lost parking spots. It creates issues for people who cannot make the longer trek
required to park and get to the Village.
11/5/2021 1:03 PM
214 They stimulate business and recreation in The Village 11/5/2021 1:01 PM
215 Feels more enjoyable and a much more better feeling for those unsure of going out 11/5/2021 12:56 PM
216 On Branch St? NO!11/5/2021 12:55 PM
217 It is great to have the choice to sit out side and not have to fill like a sardine and a restaurant 11/5/2021 12:55 PM
218 I think it's nice to enjoy an outdoor meal on a nice day.11/5/2021 12:50 PM
219 Good, unique, cool, vibes well with the downtown 11/5/2021 12:44 PM
220 Get rid of them.11/5/2021 12:43 PM
221 The parklets serve a very useful purpose in helping business owners survive through these
trying times, and I believe that they should remain in place if indoor seating is still restricted.
That said, once the businesses are able to seat at full capacity they should definitely be
removed. To me, K-rail and tents make our downtown look like it's under construction. Is that
what we want?
11/5/2021 12:38 PM
222 It was nice the past year since there wasn’t the option of dining inside or limited seating. But
with everything slowly going back to normal it seems safer to not have them. It also leaves
room for more parking. If business want a front patio area they should look for a building that
actually has one.
11/5/2021 12:37 PM
223 With the pandemic still with us, I still prefer to eat/drink outside.11/5/2021 12:30 PM
224 Like to use and strongly support especially while covid is still a factor 11/5/2021 12:30 PM
225 I think they are great and I dine in the Village much more often than I used to 11/5/2021 12:25 PM
226 Love them 11/5/2021 12:24 PM
227 I would love to see the parklets expanded and improved to increase foot traffic in the village.
Unfortunately with the volume of traffic on Branch, I doubt it will ever be all that pleasant a
dining or shopping experience.
11/5/2021 12:22 PM
228 Not good 11/5/2021 12:16 PM
229 I love them! I love that it provides more seating and space for businesses. I like dining
outdoors anyway. I feel like it has made people drive slower through town as well which is nice!
11/5/2021 12:12 PM
230 Less parking near some businesses 11/5/2021 12:11 PM
231 Love them!! This city has always needed more outdoor places to enjoy our gorgeous town and
practically perfect year round weather!
11/5/2021 12:07 PM
232 Given the choice whether to eat indoors or at a parklet, I'd go to the parklet every time.11/5/2021 12:07 PM
233 I don't like the ugly tents, but I like the nicer looking parklets such as in front of Villa Cantina.
The concrete rails are ugly and should be painted or something.
11/5/2021 12:06 PM
234 I think that they are a great addition, however the safety rails are an eyesore. Can we decorate
them and make them less of an eyesore like they've done in downtown SLO?
11/5/2021 11:58 AM
235 Outdooe dining makes for a more vibrant downtown 11/5/2021 11:47 AM
236 Time to remove 11/5/2021 11:33 AM
237 Parklets make the street through the Village cramped, cluttered, and unsightly. The Village
looked much more roomy and inviting before parklets were installed. The solution would be to
extend the sidewalks out and make them look like patios with planter boxes, lamp posts, etc.
Then you could place attractive tables for the customers on the "patios" in front of the
businesses.
11/5/2021 11:31 AM
238 Love the extra outdoor space but some feel dangerous like a car could hit you. Make it more of
a permanent protected structure.
11/5/2021 11:17 AM
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 166 of 182
Arroyo Grande Parklets SurveyMonkey
10 / 21
239 Helps the businesses survive 11/5/2021 11:17 AM
240 I love them! It makes the streets feel lively and family friendly! It’s improved the village
significantly
11/5/2021 11:16 AM
241 They impede traffic flow and are an eyesore.11/5/2021 11:12 AM
242 Positive 11/5/2021 10:56 AM
243 I love them as long as other parking options are easily accessible and available. Good for
small businesses.
11/5/2021 10:48 AM
244 Unattractive.11/5/2021 10:47 AM
245 Strongly support the parklets! They are fantastic, and a much better use of public space than
cars. We have way too much car parking in the Village as is. Keep and expand the parklets!
It's smart.
11/5/2021 10:39 AM
246 They make the area much more enticing and makes me want to spend time in the area. 11/5/2021 10:38 AM
247 Welcome the outdoor dining but need esthetic standards because some are extremely
unsightly and distract from the historical beauty of the Village.
11/5/2021 10:32 AM
248 Very positive! A wonderful addition to the Village's charm.11/5/2021 10:11 AM
249 I think they are great. They provide a pedestrian centered feel to the village and enhance the
community interaction. The only drawback being the truck and motorcycle noise.
11/5/2021 10:10 AM
250 They are an eyesore and take up much needed parking spaces.11/5/2021 10:08 AM
251 Love them 11/5/2021 10:06 AM
252 Negative 11/5/2021 10:04 AM
253 Our family likes them. Gives the Village more character.11/5/2021 9:53 AM
254 I am so uncmortable eating indoors next to others whose vax status is unknown to me, that I
hope the parkletts can continue.
11/5/2021 9:52 AM
255 I thought they worked well to give those that want outdoor seating an option.11/5/2021 9:46 AM
256 Very positive 11/5/2021 9:41 AM
257 It’s really nice to have the option to sit outside 11/5/2021 9:39 AM
258 Positive. It makes sense, and takes advantage of the great climate.11/5/2021 9:39 AM
259 I love them! They add a a lot of vibrance and energy to downtown. Dining out is much more
enjoyable with them.
11/5/2021 9:24 AM
260 They are an eyesore and huge liability for the city. Accident waiting to happen.11/5/2021 9:22 AM
261 I love them! This is California, no better place for dining al fresco all year long. I do think that
there should be a level of quality and aesthetics to any that become permanent.
11/5/2021 9:12 AM
262 They don’t need it any longer 11/5/2021 9:10 AM
263 I love them! Please keep them so businesses can have plenty of outdoor seating with our
beautiful weather on the central coast
11/5/2021 9:06 AM
264 It's taking up room in the road and we should be able to eat inside. Allow the businesses to eat
inside and we can have ample parking again. The parking lot is too small and people have to
park in residential neighborhoods and walk.
11/5/2021 9:05 AM
265 Keep 'em 11/5/2021 9:00 AM
266 Love them!11/5/2021 8:57 AM
267 I probably wont do indoor dining ever again so I hope they stay forever or I wont be able to
support the local businesses
11/5/2021 8:48 AM
268 Good idea. Need some type of conformity but still affordable 11/5/2021 8:46 AM
269 Great option! We have great weather here, why not take advantage of it?11/5/2021 8:43 AM
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 167 of 182
Arroyo Grande Parklets SurveyMonkey
11 / 21
270 IT'S AWESOME! I hope they're able to keep these going.11/5/2021 8:41 AM
271 They create more congestion in a town with too much already. The village has enough due to
population increase, and now this.
11/5/2021 8:40 AM
272 Love them 11/5/2021 8:30 AM
273 Love it! Please keep it how it is 11/5/2021 8:28 AM
274 Love them 11/5/2021 8:26 AM
275 take up to much parking 11/5/2021 8:25 AM
276 I think it adds to the charm and friendliness of the Village.11/5/2021 8:24 AM
277 I like having outdoor seating. In some cases, it feels a little dangerous…like you are sitting too
close to the street and an accident could happen.
11/5/2021 8:17 AM
278 They make the downtown look junk village e. They interfere with bike travel as well as cars.
This ruins the appearance of a historic lilttle
11/5/2021 8:17 AM
279 It makes the downtown area feel more lively and gives more seating options for the local
business allowing increased headcounts.
11/5/2021 8:15 AM
280 Love it 11/5/2021 8:11 AM
281 Favorable 11/5/2021 8:11 AM
282 They are an eye sore, makes walking on sidewalk difficult to walk.11/5/2021 8:08 AM
283 I like them 11/5/2021 8:06 AM
284 I love them, I wish they were more permanent. It feels nice to dine outdoors if one chooses
and still feel part of the community.
11/5/2021 8:00 AM
285 Love them. Streets becoming orientated towards people rather than cars cars is so entertaining
and enjoyable.
11/5/2021 7:58 AM
286 LOVE them 11/5/2021 7:56 AM
287 They’ve been a fun and useful addition 11/5/2021 7:52 AM
288 They offer a beautiful space to lounge & feel safe from the traffic but open enough to
experience being outside.
11/5/2021 7:51 AM
289 Great. People enjoy eating out doors in nice weather.11/5/2021 7:50 AM
290 Love them!!11/5/2021 7:48 AM
291 Great! I drive the village multiple times a day and haven’t been annoyed at traffic once due to
the parklets!
11/5/2021 7:44 AM
292 I like them 11/5/2021 7:41 AM
293 I like them. I think the city should pay for them as the more people visitors see sitting out front
only encourages more visitors to the village.
11/5/2021 7:38 AM
294 I like them but wish they looked better. I do Not like the tent between rooster and Gina’s. It
would be awesome to make that permanent but nicer
11/5/2021 7:29 AM
295 Good 11/5/2021 7:25 AM
296 If they work for the businesses they are great. Local businesses should be supported a much
as possible right now.
11/5/2021 7:16 AM
297 Keep them open 11/5/2021 7:15 AM
298 Love them 11/5/2021 7:13 AM
299 Please keep them. They are like Santa Barbara state street outdoor seating and adds
ambience to our AG Village.
11/5/2021 7:11 AM
300 They are nice in the warm months 11/5/2021 7:10 AM
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 168 of 182
Arroyo Grande Parklets SurveyMonkey
12 / 21
301 I like them. They give it a more pedestrian friendly feeling. More of a village feeling. If you go
forward with the program, the businesses that are using them MUST pay for the use of city
land to run their business. The city should basically rent that space to the business, otherwise
it is using city property and resources for a private business.
11/5/2021 7:10 AM
302 I like them 11/5/2021 7:10 AM
303 They make the village even more inviting 11/5/2021 7:07 AM
304 ugly 11/5/2021 7:02 AM
305 I love them. I like to option to support a local business outside.11/5/2021 6:55 AM
306 Fine by me.11/5/2021 6:50 AM
307 There’s no room for them 11/5/2021 6:36 AM
308 Love them!11/5/2021 6:25 AM
309 They had a need but they should go.11/5/2021 6:23 AM
310 I like them- they are a good way to eat outdoors to stay safe.11/5/2021 6:22 AM
311 I love them.11/5/2021 6:17 AM
312 I love them! I'm more inclined to dine out if there is outdoor seating available to enjoy our
weather and for health reasons. However, they need to be uniform in design to tie it all together
like Rooster Creek's design and a few others like it.
11/5/2021 6:15 AM
313 Love them!1 11/5/2021 6:13 AM
314 They encourage more people to enjoy local restaurants 11/5/2021 6:10 AM
315 Love dining outdoors. It would be nice to have them look nicer and more permanent.11/5/2021 6:10 AM
316 Keep them. We will not eat indoors until the pandemic is done.11/5/2021 6:09 AM
317 I understand the need for the parklets for businesses during covid restrictions, yet they
interfere with the ability to park a vehicle with ease and alter the flow of pedestrian foot traffic
on side walks.
11/5/2021 6:04 AM
318 good 11/5/2021 6:04 AM
319 I like them 11/5/2021 6:00 AM
320 It takes away a lot of parking 11/5/2021 5:59 AM
321 Love them!11/5/2021 5:45 AM
322 Folks should sit inside without masks. I have discontinued patronizing businesses that require
masks.
11/5/2021 5:40 AM
323 Positive 11/5/2021 5:27 AM
324 i like the additional outside seating options 11/5/2021 5:27 AM
325 Ugly, but I just want those businesses to survive 11/5/2021 4:44 AM
326 Love them 11/5/2021 4:38 AM
327 They look terrible. takes up valuable parking. Dumb name 11/5/2021 4:34 AM
328 I truly enjoy them, brings a different feel to the area. Gets people enjoying outside.11/5/2021 3:47 AM
329 Like them 11/5/2021 3:44 AM
330 Limits parking. Who wants to breathe in auto fumes & road dust while eating?11/5/2021 3:41 AM
331 They are great. Keep them please 11/5/2021 2:49 AM
332 Love them. Puts more people on the streets. Feels more connected 11/5/2021 12:52 AM
333 I think they are wonderful! When we are comfortable dining out again, we would be happy to
visit them.
11/5/2021 12:34 AM
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 169 of 182
Arroyo Grande Parklets SurveyMonkey
13 / 21
334 I don't like them.11/5/2021 12:33 AM
335 I think it's great 11/5/2021 12:32 AM
336 They are very cute and give it a lot more character. They must stay!11/5/2021 12:24 AM
337 Love the vibe and outdoor ambiance while eating.11/5/2021 12:22 AM
338 They need to go 11/5/2021 12:16 AM
339 Love them 11/4/2021 11:41 PM
340 I feel they create more sense of community and promote pedestrians hip. I feel they should
remain as permanent fixtures so long as the business remains open.
11/4/2021 11:37 PM
341 Yes!!! Keep them! We have such great weather,11/4/2021 11:26 PM
342 Keep them 11/4/2021 11:14 PM
343 Love 11/4/2021 11:10 PM
344 Think they’re great for the business and community 11/4/2021 11:06 PM
345 Love them!!!11/4/2021 11:02 PM
346 Makes me want wider sidewalks rather than parklets 11/4/2021 11:00 PM
347 Too crowded already WITHOUT parklets.11/4/2021 10:59 PM
348 I like them but if permanent would like to see the concrete barriers more appealing 11/4/2021 10:59 PM
349 Love them 11/4/2021 10:57 PM
350 I love them. It brings a small town feel with lots of community connection.11/4/2021 10:56 PM
351 Awesome. Close the whole street and make it all walkable 11/4/2021 10:48 PM
352 I do not support them. They were only meant to be temporary. They take up valuable parking
spaces. This highway streets are too narrow increasing liability for the city.
11/4/2021 10:41 PM
353 Love them! Just want them to be more permanent and esthetic.11/4/2021 10:40 PM
354 Positive 11/4/2021 10:40 PM
355 Greatest thing to come from covid! Outdoor seating is always a top request of mine and now
there is more room to sit outside and admire the day and businesses and people walking about
11/4/2021 10:38 PM
356 Love them 11/4/2021 10:37 PM
357 Love of as long as they look decent and have good umbrella’s, heaters for the evening, some
greenery etc
11/4/2021 10:34 PM
358 Great! Keep them!11/4/2021 10:31 PM
359 I like them 11/4/2021 10:26 PM
360 I have used them dozens of times to eat Loved eating outdoors. It made permanent take away
the plastic barrier to the street find better material that looks nicer.
11/4/2021 10:25 PM
361 Love them. We live in such a beautiful area, it’s nice to have more opportunities to eat outside. 11/4/2021 10:24 PM
362 They are great 11/4/2021 10:22 PM
363 It makes the Village seem more vibrant and alive with activity.11/4/2021 10:19 PM
364 Fabulous!11/4/2021 10:16 PM
365 I love all the outdoor seating options and would to see them stay 11/4/2021 10:16 PM
366 Love them!11/4/2021 10:15 PM
367 Overall I like them, and look forward to them being permanent so the outside of the barrier can
be made a bit more attractive.
11/4/2021 10:14 PM
368 I think they are great.11/4/2021 10:10 PM
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 170 of 182
Arroyo Grande Parklets SurveyMonkey
14 / 21
369 Love the opportunity to dine outside in the fresh air and to watch what’s going on in the village. 11/4/2021 10:09 PM
370 Yes 11/4/2021 10:07 PM
371 Ok but they are not attractive I feel the one in the street near rooster creek and ginas in not
needed
11/4/2021 10:06 PM
372 Nice to be able to sit outside.11/4/2021 10:05 PM
373 I love them 11/4/2021 10:03 PM
374 I like them 11/4/2021 9:51 PM
375 I think they are great! They offer more space to the businesses and a chance to eat outdoors if
you choose to!
11/4/2021 9:47 PM
376 The are great! They add to the village vibe, feels European!11/4/2021 9:46 PM
377 I love them. They add a sense of community and a café culture to the Village.11/4/2021 9:44 PM
378 Cafe Andreni looks nice but Rooster’s cheapens the village, mason bar needs to remove their
tent.
11/4/2021 9:44 PM
379 Waste of parking 11/4/2021 9:43 PM
380 Love the out door space. Tired of the k rail and the tents. Looks bad 11/4/2021 9:43 PM
381 Not a problem. Our family enjoy them.11/4/2021 9:42 PM
382 they take away parking which is always at a premier!!!!!11/4/2021 9:39 PM
383 I think they are wonderful. I enjoy dinning outside and seeing others doing the same. Park let’s
are perfect for our area and it’s mild weather.
11/4/2021 9:38 PM
384 Positive 11/4/2021 9:38 PM
385 Great!11/4/2021 9:35 PM
386 They are AMAZING!! And should be made permanent 11/4/2021 9:34 PM
387 Very convenient 11/4/2021 9:28 PM
388 Love them! Works well with our weather and atmosphere we are trying to create 11/4/2021 9:27 PM
389 Great during the pandemic but some are unnecessary now like the ones between Rooster and
Gina’s. Not every restaurant in the village needs a parklet and it does make parking in the
village more difficult since there is no limited parking on Branch.
11/4/2021 9:27 PM
390 Love them!!!11/4/2021 9:25 PM
391 Parklets are an eyesore that need to go away.11/4/2021 9:21 PM
392 Positive 11/4/2021 9:20 PM
393 Fine, all in all. Maybe a bit more uniformity to the structures.11/4/2021 9:16 PM
394 Great 11/4/2021 9:16 PM
395 take away valuable parking 11/4/2021 9:15 PM
396 They were fine when we were not allowed to dine indoors. It’s time to get back to normal, ie no
more dining in a parking lot.
11/4/2021 9:12 PM
397 We love the outdoor dining, we live in a perfect climate for it.11/4/2021 9:12 PM
398 Love it 11/4/2021 9:11 PM
399 Love the outdoor space as traffic calming, a place to be outdoors, and a better feeling of being
with neighbors.
11/4/2021 9:10 PM
400 Love them! Finally outside seating. We live with the most amazing weather and sitting
outdoors is fantastic! I love the new vibe the pandemic has brought to our village
11/4/2021 9:10 PM
401 Love them 11/4/2021 9:09 PM
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 171 of 182
Arroyo Grande Parklets SurveyMonkey
15 / 21
402 they are great 11/4/2021 9:07 PM
403 Awesome 11/4/2021 9:07 PM
404 They are horrible! Ugly and dangerous and I have no interest in sitting in traffic for a meal!
Bring back the parking spaces!!
11/4/2021 9:05 PM
405 Love them!11/4/2021 9:05 PM
406 Taking up valuable and unrecoverable space.11/4/2021 9:04 PM
407 They're great!11/4/2021 9:03 PM
408 I love them.11/4/2021 9:02 PM
409 I like them very much !11/4/2021 8:57 PM
410 Good for temporary. Should not be permanent 11/4/2021 8:57 PM
411 They are a great addition to the village!11/4/2021 8:55 PM
412 They are wonderful. I feel much safer sitting outside 11/4/2021 8:54 PM
413 They are nice addition, but with limited parking downtown in the village and it being such a
busy street with traffic it might be safer to remove them. But if they stay they should be free
since parking is free
11/4/2021 8:49 PM
414 I like them 11/4/2021 8:49 PM
415 Quaint, healthy outdoor choice.11/4/2021 8:48 PM
416 I think that they were fine when they provided outdoor seating so that the restaurants could
remain open during the indoor restrictions, but now, I do not think that they are necessary and
that they are an eyesore. They take up valuable parking spaces and could ultimately be
unsafe. They are practically waiting for a car to drive through the barricades.
11/4/2021 8:48 PM
417 Great addition 11/4/2021 8:47 PM
418 Love them.11/4/2021 8:46 PM
419 They are great! Gives the sense of community.11/4/2021 8:42 PM
420 Great 11/4/2021 8:40 PM
421 They are hideous, bad idea no matter if it’s a pandemic or not. I’m 11/4/2021 8:38 PM
422 Love them!11/4/2021 8:35 PM
423 I like them 11/4/2021 8:30 PM
424 I like them, it’s great to sit outdoors, we have almost perfect weather 11/4/2021 8:30 PM
425 Good 11/4/2021 8:29 PM
426 I think it is a pretty good idea. If it helps businesses then that is a very good thing.11/4/2021 8:29 PM
427 Kinda cool 11/4/2021 8:29 PM
428 Unhealthy from auto exhaust 11/4/2021 8:29 PM
429 Love them! Easy to connect with people and the outdoors!11/4/2021 8:28 PM
430 I like them.11/4/2021 8:27 PM
431 Positive 11/4/2021 8:26 PM
432 Great space to allow outside seating.11/4/2021 8:20 PM
433 Positive 11/4/2021 8:19 PM
434 I love the outdoor dining spaces, it really gives the village a great vibe.11/4/2021 8:14 PM
435 Take up too much space. They don’t match the motif of the village. They make the streets and
sidewalks look cluttered.
11/4/2021 8:11 PM
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 172 of 182
Arroyo Grande Parklets SurveyMonkey
16 / 21
436 I think they’re great!11/4/2021 8:10 PM
437 I love the idea and if businesses knew they could stay they could invest and make them
beautiful
11/4/2021 8:07 PM
438 I prefer the polished looking parklets. The Sloppy ones need upgrade.11/4/2021 8:07 PM
439 Overall positive especially if it helped the businesses stay afloat.11/4/2021 8:06 PM
440 ok 11/4/2021 8:06 PM
441 Love it!11/4/2021 8:04 PM
442 i have mixed feelings. don't want businesses to fail, understand the need to keep the Village
attractive, more worried about our roads such as the one in front of our hospital. how do you
balance and prioritize spending? new here. do hope once i deal with personal issues to pitch in.
need BALANCE!
11/4/2021 8:02 PM
443 The restaurants don’t NEED them anymore. Branch st is not the street for them to be on.
Parking is more important.
11/4/2021 8:02 PM
444 They’re wonderful! Make the village feel more like an actual village/ community space 11/4/2021 8:00 PM
445 I like them!11/4/2021 8:00 PM
446 I like them. I new way to enjoy our town.11/4/2021 7:59 PM
447 they're pretty cool 11/4/2021 7:58 PM
448 I like them, but I think those parking spots should be created somewhere else so we don’t
loose parking in the area.
11/4/2021 7:58 PM
449 Keep them.11/4/2021 7:55 PM
450 They're great.11/4/2021 7:54 PM
451 I like them.11/4/2021 7:51 PM
452 Love them 11/4/2021 7:51 PM
453 It is very nice to be able to eat outside. The city should NOT charge the businesses. They
bring more sales tax revenue to the village.
11/4/2021 7:50 PM
454 The professional looking park look great. The dirty ones should be taken down. Kudos to Villa
Cantina.
11/4/2021 7:47 PM
455 They take away from the 'Old Town' Village look and appeal.11/4/2021 7:43 PM
456 I like them because it gives the town more opportunity to interact 11/4/2021 7:42 PM
457 I prefer outdoor seating. If permanent a traffic study would be interesting. Also don't love the
not permanent baracade look of them. Also know its a matter of time before some idiot
Trumper drives through one on purpose. Businesses that use them should be responsible for
the entire cost of them. Ridiculous for the city to pay for this.
11/4/2021 7:39 PM
458 I LOVE them and think they add to the community feel of The Village.11/4/2021 7:31 PM
459 I love em 11/4/2021 7:30 PM
460 As an immunocompromised person, I have greatly appreciated the use of parklets in the
Village. Parklets have allowed me to spend time downtown and support local businesses in a
safe way. I hope the city keeps the parklets in AG.
11/4/2021 7:30 PM
461 Keep them forever.11/4/2021 7:24 PM
462 Love them 11/4/2021 7:24 PM
463 They are a great idea and should be permanent 11/4/2021 7:24 PM
464 Very positive 11/4/2021 7:23 PM
465 I think they served a purpose, allowing restaurants to continue to operate when inside dining
was prohibited.
11/4/2021 7:20 PM
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 173 of 182
Arroyo Grande Parklets SurveyMonkey
17 / 21
466 Perfect 11/4/2021 7:19 PM
467 Positive 11/4/2021 7:19 PM
468 Seems more alive.11/4/2021 7:18 PM
469 Love them!! Create a more village community feel.11/4/2021 7:16 PM
470 They work!11/4/2021 7:13 PM
471 I love them!11/4/2021 7:11 PM
472 they are great I enjoy seating in them with my wife and friends 11/4/2021 7:10 PM
473 Good option 11/4/2021 7:08 PM
474 Prefer to sit outside 11/4/2021 7:02 PM
475 I love them!!11/4/2021 6:58 PM
476 I really like them!11/4/2021 6:57 PM
477 I understand why they were used but I would like the village to return to the pedestrian friendly
place it used to be.
11/4/2021 6:54 PM
478 Love them!11/4/2021 6:53 PM
479 I appreciate the outdoor dining but do realize the other businesses near them lose prime
parking. Some beautification and more permanent structures would be nice if not burdensome
to already strapped businesses.
11/4/2021 6:52 PM
480 Let's make them permanent 11/4/2021 6:46 PM
481 I feel it’s a bit dangerous 11/4/2021 6:45 PM
482 They were a good way to help the business owners 11/4/2021 6:40 PM
483 I LOVE THEM! And I live in the village.11/4/2021 6:40 PM
484 Fine 11/4/2021 6:39 PM
485 I think they give a good vibe for the area. Although I have yet to face the frustration of not
finding a parking space, which could be an issue.
11/4/2021 6:38 PM
486 They served their purpose.11/4/2021 6:37 PM
487 Love them!11/4/2021 6:37 PM
488 Love them!11/4/2021 6:36 PM
489 I think they are great. The village is a beautiful little area and having the ability to sit outside
instead of indoors is nice.
11/4/2021 6:35 PM
490 Love it. Makes it more inviting to be in the village.11/4/2021 6:34 PM
491 Takes up valuable parking spots 11/4/2021 6:32 PM
492 Good option during pandemic 11/4/2021 6:30 PM
493 Great to have outdoor seating choices.11/4/2021 6:22 PM
494 Positive 11/4/2021 6:21 PM
495 Great 11/4/2021 6:19 PM
496 Love them!!11/4/2021 6:14 PM
497 Love them! It brings a closer “village” feel.11/4/2021 6:10 PM
498 Great idea! Need Better quality if permanent.11/4/2021 6:09 PM
499 Love them!11/4/2021 6:04 PM
500 Love them! Adds vibrancy to the Village!11/4/2021 5:57 PM
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 174 of 182
Arroyo Grande Parklets SurveyMonkey
18 / 21
501 I love them so much 11/4/2021 5:56 PM
502 They are a good alternative 11/4/2021 5:54 PM
503 Love eating outside 11/4/2021 5:54 PM
504 O.K.11/4/2021 5:52 PM
505 Complete enjoyment 11/4/2021 5:50 PM
506 They look messy 11/4/2021 5:49 PM
507 Great for the vendor. But esthetically they need improvement 11/4/2021 5:44 PM
508 If they are well built, well maintained, attractive, and often utilized, I believe they should be
allowed to stay.
11/4/2021 5:43 PM
509 I love them!! Love seeing them and love using them.11/4/2021 5:42 PM
510 Why are we getting chage on water but there are houses going up so fast can we stop building
untell we get some water at the lake???
11/4/2021 5:40 PM
511 We adore them 11/4/2021 5:38 PM
512 I adore them! It adds a quaintness to the village and encourages community and getting
outdoors.
11/4/2021 5:38 PM
513 They need to look better 11/4/2021 5:37 PM
514 Get rid of them. They’rean eye sure they take up space and they are keeping businesses
hostage with this Covid crap.
11/4/2021 5:37 PM
515 Love them!11/4/2021 5:33 PM
516 They are useful and a great alternative to dining indoors. Some people object, saying the
space is needed for parking, but we eat in the Village frequently and have always been able to
find a parking space. Let’s keep the parklets.
11/4/2021 5:31 PM
517 I think they are a great addition!11/4/2021 5:29 PM
518 I love the option for outdoor seating and supporting our local restaurants.11/4/2021 5:27 PM
519 Love it 11/4/2021 5:22 PM
520 I don’t mind them. They also allow more spacing for tables, which is good.11/4/2021 5:19 PM
521 Needed 11/4/2021 5:19 PM
522 Love them and sitting outside 11/4/2021 5:18 PM
523 Positive-inviting-feels safe 11/4/2021 5:17 PM
524 They take up too much space 11/4/2021 5:15 PM
525 I like them.11/4/2021 5:12 PM
526 SAD..DESTROY'S SMALL TOWN ATMOSPHERE AND CREATS A LACK OF PARKING FOR
LOCAL SMALL BUSINESS !!!!
11/4/2021 5:09 PM
527 Fabulous to be able to sit outside, eat, drink, and enjoy our beautiful weather.11/4/2021 5:09 PM
528 Love it!11/4/2021 5:04 PM
529 I like them as they liven up the street and promote a sense if community. However, I think the
business that have them should pay $1,000-$1,500 per year or not be allowed a space.
11/4/2021 5:03 PM
530 Indifferent, but it is concerning considering the traffic on Branch St.11/4/2021 5:00 PM
531 I love the outdoor dining option!11/4/2021 4:59 PM
532 Love love love. The central coast has amazing weather and the more ways to be outside the
better!
11/4/2021 4:58 PM
533 They have absolutely transformed the Village. It now has the feeling of sidewalk cafes in 11/4/2021 4:56 PM
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 175 of 182
Arroyo Grande Parklets SurveyMonkey
19 / 21
Europe and have brought the Village to life!
534 There great 11/4/2021 4:55 PM
535 it seems to be declining in appeal for shopping and losing the quaint village feeling, overrun
with tourists, crowded and dirty
11/4/2021 4:53 PM
536 Take up too much parking space that was already limited. The city should not have allowed the
Agorian Hotel but instead should have built a 2 story pay to park structure which still brings in
money and doesn’t use even a 10th of the water a hotel does
11/4/2021 4:52 PM
537 Love it 11/4/2021 4:50 PM
538 I think they are a great way for businesses to bring needed income to our city.11/4/2021 4:50 PM
539 They are good for optional service. I'd say keep them.11/4/2021 4:49 PM
540 Indifferent 11/4/2021 4:48 PM
541 They look trashy in the Village. The use of k rails and makeshift structures takes away from
the ambiance of the village.
11/4/2021 4:48 PM
542 Mixed. I like being able to go out to eat (outside) but the parking is more difficult 11/4/2021 4:48 PM
543 LOVE THEM 11/4/2021 4:47 PM
544 I love it, gives the option of outdoor dining for each establishment which I feel will be useful
even after the pandemic
11/4/2021 4:46 PM
545 I like the idea for small restaurants that do not have outdoor dining options. My only concern is
the issue of adequate parking spaces for vehicles.
11/4/2021 4:45 PM
546 They are a good idea. Extra seating and social distancing.11/4/2021 4:45 PM
547 I love having outdoor dining options in the Village. Would like to see a phased plans to help
business make them more attractive. I think the park keys are great for these small busineses
too.
11/4/2021 4:43 PM
548 Love it, really enjoy sitting outside and having the option to eat/drink outside a business 11/4/2021 4:42 PM
549 I love eating outside and enjoying the village!11/4/2021 4:41 PM
550 They are wonderful!11/4/2021 4:41 PM
551 Prefer that they not be there.11/4/2021 4:38 PM
552 They detract from the Village 11/4/2021 4:37 PM
553 Love them 11/4/2021 4:34 PM
554 Love!!!11/4/2021 4:32 PM
555 I like seeing these parklets, and seeing people enjoying them. I think it also conveys to
visitors what a vibrant little city we live in.
11/4/2021 4:26 PM
556 If they help the business and the business wants it let it stay.11/4/2021 4:26 PM
557 It helps make what can be a high-traffic area feel a little more welcoming. Definite “plus.” 11/4/2021 4:25 PM
558 I like having the increased outdoor seating options when dining out.11/4/2021 4:25 PM
559 I LOVE them - they add some great seating outside and they are really nice 11/4/2021 4:25 PM
560 Spend the money on our streets, Brighton is worse than 3rd world countries 11/4/2021 4:24 PM
561 Ugly and take up so much parking 11/4/2021 4:23 PM
562 I think they are amazing!!11/4/2021 4:23 PM
563 Love them!!!!11/4/2021 4:22 PM
564 Very positive 11/4/2021 4:21 PM
565 Excellent 11/4/2021 4:20 PM
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 176 of 182
Arroyo Grande Parklets SurveyMonkey
20 / 21
566 Love them!11/4/2021 4:20 PM
567 Great idea 11/4/2021 4:20 PM
568 I think they are great 11/4/2021 4:19 PM
569 Love them. Makes the small town feel even better 11/4/2021 4:18 PM
570 While it would be nice if they were separated from the road by more attractive barriers, I really
like having sidewalk dining, and often choose an outdoor table when we are traveling to other
cities. I especially like them now, when we still need to be concerned about good ventilation to
prevent the spread of COVID-19.
11/4/2021 4:16 PM
571 Fabulous, keep,them permanent and make them even better/nicer/more permanent.11/4/2021 4:15 PM
572 I love them!11/4/2021 4:11 PM
573 Loved it 11/4/2021 4:10 PM
574 I like them!11/4/2021 4:09 PM
575 I love it! It's great to be dining outdoors.11/4/2021 4:08 PM
576 They are unsafe for those using them as well as drivers, and are unattractive.11/4/2021 4:07 PM
577 I think they are terrific!11/4/2021 4:07 PM
578 I love that there is outdoor dining. I feel like it brings so much to the village as a whole. It's so
nice driving through the village seeing people laugh and enjoy themselves. It makes me want
to patronize those business and hang out in the village more often. FYI I drive through the
village daily and before the pandemic I'd only go hang out in the village during halloween,
strawberry festival and the Christmas parade with an occasional trip to docs. Being a mom of 6
rambunctious kids, eating out is something I dreaded, but with the option to use the parkleys,
we've eaten out at several of the business's in the past year. ♡
11/4/2021 4:06 PM
579 Remove them 11/4/2021 4:06 PM
580 Good for the purpose they were allowed for but should not be permanent.11/4/2021 4:05 PM
581 Very positive - they add charm and create a more festive environment.11/4/2021 4:03 PM
582 They are necessary and give a better feel to the village 11/4/2021 4:03 PM
583 Love them.. options 11/4/2021 4:03 PM
584 How Cafe Andreini has their parklet is nice and visually appealing. Humdinger and Doc
Burnsteins just looks bad, brings down the character of the Village. There should be design
guidelines for parklets.
11/4/2021 4:03 PM
585 I want them gone for more parking 11/4/2021 4:02 PM
586 I like having more space for pedestrians and outdoor dining.11/4/2021 4:02 PM
587 I like them 11/4/2021 4:01 PM
588 Love 11/4/2021 3:59 PM
589 I feel it should be turn back to normal conditions do to safety reasons whether your a
pedestrian/ customer or if your driving a vehicle. At some point a incident will happen and a
law suit will develop from the incident.
11/4/2021 3:58 PM
590 Eye sore, I see how it was helpful for businesses at the start of the pandemic when indoor
dining was limited. However, now, the are no longer needed
11/4/2021 3:57 PM
591 I like them.11/4/2021 3:55 PM
592 I love them!!11/4/2021 3:55 PM
593 Positive, I like being outdoors and eating at a restaurant 11/4/2021 3:55 PM
594 Street parking in the Village is comparatively limited and some of the lots difficult to navigate.
As the pandemic winds-down, I regard the parklets as a "nice to have" to not a necessity,
particularly given the street spaces they cost. If they were to continue, I'd prefer to see them
11/4/2021 3:52 PM
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 177 of 182
Arroyo Grande Parklets SurveyMonkey
21 / 21
only in certain areas and all built to a consistent code (one which utilizes something more
aesthetic than K-rails, etc.).
595 I love them. Would like a more attractive enclosure in some areas 11/4/2021 3:51 PM
596 Love em 11/4/2021 3:50 PM
597 I like them a lot but they could look nicer 11/4/2021 3:50 PM
598 Love more outdoor seating at restaurants and hope they stay. But - if these are permanent,
would like additional parking made available elsewhere.
11/4/2021 3:49 PM
599 A nice addition, Village vibe.11/4/2021 3:48 PM
600 Love them!!!11/4/2021 3:47 PM
601 I enjoy outdoor dining and the parklets provide that. That being said, some are more pleasing
to the eye than others.
11/4/2021 3:46 PM
602 I like them 11/4/2021 3:45 PM
603 I love them and wish cities would leave them in place as an extra outdoor setting for dining! It
is a great atmosphere to enjoy rather than waiting for indoor seating.
11/4/2021 3:45 PM
604 I think these are a wonderful addition to the community. Please keep them. However, they will
need to re-arranged so that pedistarians are separated from the diners.
11/4/2021 3:44 PM
605 I love the idea of outdoor seating in the village.11/4/2021 3:44 PM
606 I like them 11/4/2021 3:42 PM
607 We need the parking in the village.11/4/2021 3:41 PM
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 178 of 182
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jessica Matson, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
Agenda Item 11.a. – November 23, 2021 City Council Meeting
Study Session on the City’s Temporary Parklet Program and Options
for Potential Permanent Parklet Programs
DATE: November 23, 2021
Attached is correspondence received by 4:00 PM for the above referenced item.
cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director
Community Development Director
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website (or public review binder)
Page 179 of 182
From: slimorse >
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 7:45 PM
To: Caren Ray Russom
Subject: Please KEEP parklets
The parklets allow me & all still concerned about contracting COVID-19 a way to feel safe
dining in our community.
They also give a lovely European vibe to the village.
I highly reccomend keeping them.
Lori Morse, AG resident
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Page 180 of 182
From: Zarina Szeflin >
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 8:38 AM
To: Caren Ray Russom
Subject: Please keep the parklets!
Hi,
Just wanted to voice my opinion. I really think we should keep the parklets.
I feel they add so much ambience to downtown and contribute to a warm sense of community. They also make it
convenient to enjoy the amazing weather we have!
Thanks for taking the time to hear what we think!
Zarina
Page 181 of 182
From:Kevin Buchanan
To:public comment
Subject:Item 11.a - Study Session on the City’s Temporary Parklet Program
Date:Tuesday, November 23, 2021 1:25:10 PM
I'm writing to express my support for the parklet program and the development of a long-term
parklet program.
Parklets are a much more valuable use of public space than free on-street parking. While there
are costs to parklets presented in this report, there is no mention of the costs of free, on-street
parking. Street space has a cost in construction and maintenance, as well as opportunity cost in
lost potential revenue when it is provided free of charge or when evaluated against other
potential uses (i.e. parklets or paid parking). Any parklet program should weigh the potential
revenue and ongoing cost of parklet maintenance against the true cost of free, subsidized,
street space for parking. Alternatively, and more accurately, the costs of parklets should be
compared against potential revenue from charging a market rate for on-street parking.
Additionally, the claim that "parklets do not directly benefit all types of businesses" is
irrelevant in this case, because free on-street parking also does not directly benefit all types of
road users, even others driving on Branch Street who cannot use the parking space once it is
occupied.
Please preserve parklets and more productive uses of our public space through the
development of a fair and flexible parklet program.
Kevin Buchanan
Page 182 of 182