Agenda Packet 2005-07-26 CITY OF
City Council � ' ' ' � � ' Agenda
Tony Ferrere Mayor Steven Adams City Manager
Joe Costello Mayor Pro Tem Timothy J.Carmel City Atlorney
Jim Dickens Council Member � Kelly Wetmore Ciry Clerk
Jim Guthrie Council Member �` C A L 1 F��O R N I A y
Ed Amold Council Member �' '
I
AGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2005
7:00 P.M.
Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande
1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL: COUNCIL/RDA
3. FLAG SALUTE: ROTARY CLUB OF ARROYO GRANDE
4. INVOCATION: PASTOR ROBERT BANKER
OPEN DOOR CHURCH, OCEANO
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
None.
6. AGENDA REVIEW:
6.a. Move that all resolutions and ordinances presented tonight be read in title only and all
further readings be waived.
j
AGENDA SUMMARY —JULY 26, 2005
PAGE 2
7. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present
issues, thoughts, or suggestions on matters not scheduled on this agenda. Comments
should be limited to those matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City Council. The
Brown Act restricts the Council from taking formal action on matters not published on the
agenda. In response to your comments, the Mayor or presiding Council Member may:
♦ Direct City staff to assist or coordinate with you.
♦ A Council Member may state a desire to meet with you.
♦ It may be the desire of the Council to place your issue or matter on a future
Council agenda. ,
Please adhere to the following procedures when addressing the Council:
♦ Comments should be limited to 3 minutes or less.
♦ Your comments should be directed to the Council as a whole and not directed
to individual Council members.
♦ Slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member or
member of the audience shall not be permitted.
8. CpNSENT AGENDA:
The following routine items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group. The
recommendations for each item are noted. Any member of the public who wishes to
comment on any Consent Agenda item may do so at this time. Any Council Member may
request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit discussion or
change the recommended course of action. The City Council may approve the remainder
of the Consent Agenda on one motion.
S.a. Cash Disbursement Ratffication (PILLOW)
Recommended Action: Ratify the listings of cash disbursements for the period July 1,
2005—July 15, 2005.
8.b. Consideration of Statement of Investment Deoosits (PILLOW)
Recommended Action: Receive and file the report of current investment deposits as of
June 30, 2005.
8.c. Consideration of Aooroval of Minutes (WETMORE)
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the Special City Council Meeting and
Regular City CounciURedevelopment Agency Meeting of June 14, 2005 as submitted.
8.d. Consideration of Reiection of Claim Aaainst Citv—C. Foresee (WETMORE)
Recommended Action: Reject claim.
8.e. Consideration of Annual Aareement with the San Luis Obisno Countv Visitors and
Conference Bureau [COUNCIURDA] (ADAMS)
Recommended Action: Approve the annual Agreement with the San Luis Obispo County
Visitors and Conference Bureau.
- �
AGENDA SUMMARY—JULY 26, 2005
PAGE 3
8. CONSENT AGENDA (continuedl:
8.f. Consideration of Annual Aareement with the Economic Vitalitv Coraoration of San
Luis Obisoo Countv [COUNCIURDAj (ADAMS)
Recommended Action: Approve the annual Agreement with the Economic Vitality
Corporation of San Luis Obispo County.
8.g. Consideration of Council Aupointment to the Traffic Commission (ADAMS)
Recommended Action: Approve the recommendation of Council Member Jim Dickens to
appoint Jim K. Carson to the Traffic Commission.
S.h. Consideration of Amended Cablecastina Aareement with AGP Video in Order to
Add Cablecastina of Plannina Commission Meetinas (ADAMS)
Recommended Action: Authorize the Mayor to execute the proposed cablecasting
Agreement with AGP Video in order to add cablecasting of Planning Commission
meetings.
8.i. Consideration of Disoosal of Surolus Bicvcles (TerBORCH)
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution declaring the listed bicycles as surplus for
donation to the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Office to be refurbished and donated to
needy children.
8.j. Consideration of Authorization to Purchase Reolacement In-Car Video Svstems for
Police Patrol Vehicles (TerBORCH)
Recommended Action: Authorize staff to purchase seven (7) digital in-car video systems
and related equipment from ICOP Digital, Inc. for a total cost of $41,974.50.
8.k. Consideration of a Resolution Consentina to a Transfer of a Pioel(na Franchise
A�reement From Unocal California Pi�eline Comoanv To ConocoPhillins Pioe Line
Comeanv (CARMEL)
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution.
8.1. Consideration of Aareement with Pacific Gas and Electric Comnanv for Phase 2 of
Let There Be Liahts (STRONG)
Recommended Action: Approve Agreement and authorize the City Manager to sign on
behalf of the City of Arroyo Grande, including payment of $39,776.00 for materials and
installation.
8.m. Consideration of Adootion of Resolution Initiatina Proceedinas For Formation of the
Parkside Villaae Assessment District ITract 2310) (CARMEL)
Recommended Action: Receive the Petition requesting formation of an assessment
district filed by Parkside Village, LLC, for operation and maintenance of improvements
associated with Tract 2310; adopt a Resolution initiating proceeding for formation of the
Parkside Village Assessment District; and authorize the City Manager to enter into a
Reimbursement Agreement with the Petitioner to reimburse City for costs incurred in
forming the District.
�
AGENDA SUMMARY —JULY 26, 2005
PAGE 4
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
9.a. Consideration of Pr000sed Ordinance Definina and Restrictina Formula Businesses
in the Villaae Core Downtown and Villaae Mixed Use/Historic Character Desian
Overlav Zonina Districts (VCD and VMU D-2.41: Development Code Amendment
Case No. 05-009 (STRONG)
Recommended Action: Continue the public hearing to August 9, 2005.
9.b. Consideration of Procosed Ordinance Amendina Chaoter 15.04 of Title 15 of the
Arrovo Grande Municioal Code Uodatina Uniform Buildina and Related Codes
(FIBICH)
Recommended Action: Introduce Ordinance amending Chapter 15.04 of Title 15 of the
Municipal Code updating Uniform Building and related Codes.
9.c. Consideration of Develooment Code Amendment 05-008: Tentative Parcel Mac 05-
Q03 and Conditional Use Permit (Saecific Develocment Planl No. 04-009: Ap�lication
—Garv White: Location — 1400 W. Branch Street (STRONG)
Recommended Action: Adopt a mitigated Negative Declaration and introduce an ,
Ordinance amending the zoning map to designate the subject property as PlaNned '
Development (PD1.1), and adopt a Resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 05-003 �'
and Conditional Use Permit (Spec'rfic Development Plan) Case No. 04-009, allowing the
construction of a hotel and restaurant.
9.d. Continued Public Hearina — Consideration of Soecific Plan Amendment 03-001:
Aaalicant — S & S Homes: Location — Southwest Corner of Courtland Street and
East Grand Avenue (STRONG)
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution amending the Berry Gardens Specific Plan to
allow mixed-use development of Subareas 3 and 4.
10. CONTINUED BUSINESS:
None.
11. NEW BUSINESS:
None.
12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
This item gives the Mayor and Council Members the opportunity to present reports to the
other members regarding committees, commissions, boards, or special projects on which
they may be participating.
(a) MAYOR TONY FERRARA:
(1) San Luis Obispo Council of Governments/San Luis Obispo Regional Transit
Authority (SLOCOG/SLORTA)
(2) South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD)
(3) Other
AGENDA SUMMARY—JULY 26, 2005
PAGE5
12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS (continuedl:
(b) MAYOR PRO TEM JOE COSTELLO:
(1) Zone 3 Water Advisory Board
(2) Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
(3) Fire Oversight Committee
(4) Other
(c) COUNCIL MEMBER JIM DICKENS:
(1) South County Area Transit (SCAT)
(2) South County Youth Coalition
(3) Other
(d) COUNCIL MEMBER JIM GUTHRIE:
(1) Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC)
(2) Other
(e) COUNCIL MEMBER ED ARNOLD:
(1) Integrated Waste Management Authority Board (IWMA)
(2) California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA)
(3) County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC)
(4) Other
13. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS:
The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by the Mayor and/or a Council Member
who would like to receive feedback, direct staff to prepare information, and/or request a
formal agenda report be prepared and the item placed on a future agenda. No formal
action can be taken.
a) None.
14. CITY MANAGER ITEMS:
The following ftem(s) are placed on the agenda by the City Manager in order to receive
feedback and/or request direction from the Council. No formal action can be taken.
a) None.
15. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:
Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Council.
16. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Manager.
�
_ �
AGENDA SUMMARY — JULY 26, 2005
PAGE 6
17. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present
issues, thoughts, or suggestions. Comments should be limited to those matters that are
within the jurisdiction of the City Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council from taking
formal action on matters not published on the agenda.
18. ADJOURNMENT
♦����+��♦
All staff reports or other written documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the
agenda are on file in the Administrative Services Department and are available for public inspection
and reproduction at cost. 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 Administrative Services
Department at 805-473-5414 as soon as possible and at least 48 hours prior to the meeting date.
♦������+♦
Note: This agenda was prepared and posted pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2.
www.arrovos�rande.ors�
i
�
� pRROYp S�'��
° c�P
FINCOHPORATED 9Z
U �
� JULY ,o. ,s„ , MEMORANDUM
P
4��FORN�
To: cinr couNCi�
FROM: ANGELA PILLOW, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES �
BY: FRANCES R. HEAD, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISO
SUBJECT: CASH DISBURSEMENT RATIFICATION
DATE: JULY 26, 2005
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for
the period July 1 through July 15, 2005.
FUNDING:
There is a $2,300,265.94 fiscal impact. All payments are within the existing budget.
DISCUSSION:
The attached listing represents the cash disbursements required of normal and usual
operations. It is requested that the City Council approve these payments.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
• Approve staff's recommendation;
• Do not approve staff's recommendation;
• Provide direction to staff.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 — Cash Disbursement Listing
Attachment 2 — July 1, 2005, Accounts Payable Check Register
Attachment 3 —July 1, 2005, Accounts Payable Check Register
Attachment 4 — July 8, 2005, Accounts Payable Check Register
Attachment 5 —July 8, 2005, Accounts Payable Check Register
Attachment 6 — July 8, 2005, Payroll Checks & Benefit Register
Attachment 7 — July 14, 2005, Accounts Payable Check Register
Attachment 8 — July 14, 2005, Accounts Payable Check Register
�
ATTACHMENTI
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CASH DISBURSEMENTS
�� r� ���� � �r� r� �s, zcb.s
,
July 26, 2005
Presented are the cash disbursements issued by the Department of Financial Services far
the period July 1 to July 15, 2005. Shown are cash disbursements by week of occurrence
and type of payment.
WEEK TYPE OF PAYMENT ATTACHMENT AMOUNT
J�Y 1.Z�`
Accounts Payable Cks 121754-121790 2 $ 30,997.57
Accounts Payable Cks 121805-121825 3 690,138.67
Accounts Payable Cks 12182Cr121911 4 115,275.67
$ 836,411.91
J�y s,2oos
Accounts Payable Cks 12192�121945 5 $ 6,483.35
Payroll Checks and Benefit Checks 6 462,415.70
468,599.05
J,�y is,2oos
Accounts Payable Qcs 12144Cr121944 7 971,03231
Accounts Payable Cks 12199�r122055 8 23,922.67
994,954.98
THIZE�WEIIC TOTAL $ 2,,3(10,265.94
U:\MSWORD\CITY COUNCIL FORMS\CASH DISBURSEMENT FORMS\CASH DISBURSEMENT SCHED wEXCEL WKS.dcx
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
INDEX FOR BUDGET DEPARTMENTS
EDEN COMPUTER SYSTEM
GENERAL FUND f010) SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
City Government(Fund 010) Park Development Fee Fund (Fund 213)
4001 - City Council 4550 - Park Development Fee
4002 - Administrative Services Traffic Signal Fund(Fund 222)
4003 - City Attorney 4501 - Traffic Fund
4101 - City Manager Transportation Fund(Fund 225)
4102 - Printing/Duplicating 4553 - Public Transit System
4120 - Financial Services ConstrucHon Tax Fund (Fund 230)
4121 - Taxes/ Insurance/ Bonds 4556 - Construcrion Tax
4130 - Community Development Police Grant Funds
4131 - Community Building(CDBG) 4201 - Law Enforcement Equip. (Fd 272)
4140 - Management Information System 4202 - State AB3229 Cops Grant(Fd 271)
4145 - Non Deparhnental 4203 - Federal Universal Hiring(Fd 274)
Public Safehi(Fund 010) 4208 - Federal Local Law Enforcmt(FD 279)
4201 - Police Redevelopment Agency (Fund 284)
4211 - Fire 4103 - Redevelopment Administrarion
4212 - Building&Safety ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Public Works (Fund 010) Sewer Fund(Fund 612)
4301 - Public Works-Admin&Engineering 4610 - Sewer Maintenance
4303 - Street/Bridge Maintenance Water Fund(Fund 640)
4304 - Street Lighring 4710 - Water Administrarion
4305 - AutomoHve Shop 4711 - Water ProducHon i
Parks f�Reneation (Fund O10) 4712 - Water DistribuHon
4420 - Pazks Lopez Administration(Fund 641)
4421 - Recreation 4750 - Lopez Adminisfrarion
4422 - General Recreation CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS (Fund 3501
4423 - Pre-School Program 5501-5599 - Park Projects
4424 - RecreaHon-Special Programs 5601-5699 - Streets Projects
4425 - Children in Motion 5701-5799 - Drainage Projects
4426 - Five CiHes Youth Basketball 5801-5899 - Water/Sewer/Street Projects
4430 - Soto Sport Complex 5901-5999 - Water Projects
4213 - Government Buildings
4460 - Parkway Maintenance
U:\MSWORD\CITY COUNCIL FORMS\CASH DISBURSEMENT FORMS\CASH DISBUILSEMENT SCHED wEXCEL WKS.dce
vchlist
07/01/2005 10:50:50 A M
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
121754 7/1/2005 003745 ARROWHEAD SCIENTIFIC, INC
121755
121756
121757
121758
7/1/2005 000065 BARROW, BRENDA
7/1/2005 003385 BMW OF FRESNO
7/1/2005 003453 BOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC
7/1/2005 000096 BURTON'S FIRE, INC.
121759 7/1/2005 000198 CURTIS&SONS, L N
Voucher List
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Invoice
20658
062905
4013078
50123256
24258
1079345-01
10�9345-02
6120032-00
ATTACHMENT2
Page:
PO# Description/Account
NARCOPOUCH METH
NARCOPOUCH METH
010.4201.5255
Freight
010.4201.5255
Total :
PLAYGROUND SUPPLY REIMBURS
PLAYGROUND SUPPLY REIMBURS
010.4422.5256
Total :
043 30K SERVICE
043 30K SERVICE
010.4201.5601
Total :
BABY MANIKIN
BABY MANIKIN
010.4211.5206
Total :
BALL VALVES&MISC PARTS FOR-
BALL VALVES&MiSC PARTS FOR-
010.4211.5601
ToWI :
BOOTS
BOOTS
010.4211.5272
COATS R PANTS
COATS&PANTS
010.4211.5272
TURNOUT COATS 8 PARTS
TURNOUT COATS&PARTS
010.4211.5272
1
Amount
190.00
10.15
200.15
206.15
206.15
1,281.63
7,281.63
399.27
399.27
385.56
385.56
95.45
9,269.62
1,392.11
Page: 1
vchlist
07/01/2005 70:SO:SOAM
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
121759 7/1/2005 000198 CURTIS&SONS, L N
121760
121761
121762
121763
121764
121765
.1.� .:_:
7/1/2005 004706 DEALERS CHOICE/CENTRAL CAL
7/1/2005 001854 DECECCO, JIM
7/1/2005 000210 DIESELRO OF SLO, INC
7/1/2005 002753 ESTRADA, SARAH
7/1/2005 000247 FIBICH,TERENCE
7/1/2005 004859 FITZGERALD, JENNIFER
Voucher List
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Invoice
(Continued)
6120033-00
113404
113405A
063005
16181
060805
063005
063005
Page: 2
PO# Description/Account Amount
CREDIT-RETURNED COATS&PAN
CREDIT-RETURNED COATS&PAN'
010.4211.5272 -1,392.11
Total : 9,365.07
12 INSTALL EQUIP.(LIGHTS, MIRRC
12 INSTALL EQUIP.(LIGHTS, MIRRC
010.4201.5601 735.69
TAHOE INSTALL COMMAND POST
TAHOE INSTALL COMMAND POST
010.4201.5601 10,899.05
Total : 11,634.74
S.BALL UMPIRE-6 GAMES @$18.0(
S.BALL UMPIRE-6 GAMES @$18.0(
010.4424.5352 108.00
Total : 108.00
MUD FLAPS FOR PW50
MUD FLAPS FOR PW50
220.4303.5601 32.30
Total : 32.30
REFUND SUMMER PRESCHOOL-N�
REFUND SUMMER PRESCHOOL-N�
010.0000.4603 51.00
Total : 51.00
BAGELS: STAFF MEETING
BAGELS: STAFF MEETING
010.4211.5255 13.3C
AIRLINE TICKETS: INSPECTION OF
010.4211.5501 803.6L
Total : 876.9Q
S.BALL SCORER:6 GAMES @$7.50
Page: 2
vchlist
07/01/2005 10:50:50AM
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
121765 7/1/2005 004859 FITZGERALD, JENNIFER
121766 7/1/2005 002820 INDOFF, INC
121767 7/1/2005 000345 J J'S FOOD COMPANY, INC
121768 7/1/2005 004845 LARSON, JOHN
121769 7/1/2005 001136 LINTNER, DOUG
121770
121771
ai _
7/1/2005 000441 MULLAHEY FORD
7/1/2005 002849 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
Voucher List
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Invoice
(Continued)
122874
156848
063005
063005
104238
933066312-043
PO# Description/Account
S.BALL SCORER:6 GAMES @$7.50
010.4424.5352
Total :
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
010.4421.5201
ToWI :
DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES
DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES
010.4212.5255
Total :
S.BALL UMPIRE2 GAMES @ $17.0(
S.BALL UMPIRE2 GAMES @$17.0(
010.4424.5352
ToWI :
S.BALL UMPIRE:6 GAMES @$18.0
S.BALL UMPIRE: 6 GAMES @$18.0
010.4424.5352
Total :
LEVER/PARKING LIGHT PW33
LEVER/PARKING LIGHT PW33
220.4303.5601
Total :
CELL PHONE:FIRE& EMRGNCY SE
CELL PHONE:FIRE&EMRGNCY SE
010.4211.5403
CELL PHONE:BLDG& LIFE SAFETY
010.4212.5403
CELL PHONE ACCESSORIES
010.4211.5403
Page:
Page:
3
Amount
45.00
45.00
67.93
67.93
2120
21.20
34.00
34.00
108.00
�os.00
35.99
35.99
10026
33.42
79.16
3
vchlist Voucher List
07/0112005 10:SO:SOAM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
121771 7/1/2005 002849 002849 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS (Continued)
121772 7/1/2005 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 293193118-001
121773 7/1/2005 000477 P J'S TOP SHOP
121774 7/1/2005 004858 PINHEY, PEGGY
121775 7/1/2005 000495 PIONEER EQUIPMENT CO
121776 7/1/2005 004996 ROBINSON, CANDICE
121777 7/1/2005 000536 ROSE, GREG
121778 7/t/2005 004365 RUIZ, DANIEL
4175
063005
GP51825
063005
063005
063005
PO# Description/Account
ToWI :
INK CARTRIDGES
INK CARTRIDGES
010.4211.5201
Total :
SHIRTS/AWARDS FOR MENS'BBAI
SHIRTS/AWARDS FOR MENS' BBAI
010.4424.5257
ToWI :
S.BALL SCORER:3 GAMES @$7.50
S.BALL SCORER3 GAMES @$7.50
010.4424.5352
Total :
NEW CUT BLADE FOR PW9
NEW CUT BLADE FOR PW9
220.4303.5603
Total :
PARK DEPOSIT-ELM STREET PARF
PARK DEPOSIT-ELM STREET PARh
010.0000.4354
ToWI :
S.BALL UMPIRE2 GAMES @$18.0(
S.BALL UMPIRE:2 GAMES @$18.0(
010.4424.5352
Total :
S.BALL SCORER:9 GAMES @ $7.50
S.BALL SCORER:9 GAMES @$7.5C
010.4424.5352
Total :
Page: 4
Amount
272.84
58.17
58.17
594.68
894.68
22.50
22.50
246.48
246.48
29.00
29.00
36.00
36.00
67.50
67.50
Page: 4
vchlist
07/0112005 10:50:50A M
Bankcode: boa
Voucher Date Vendor
121779 7/1/2005 003649 RUIZ, DON
121780 7/1/2005 000538 S& L SAFETY PRODUCTS
121781 7/1/2005 000578 SARMIENTO,ANN
121782 7/1/2005 000479 SBC
121783 7/1/2005 003024 SCHAFFER, MARK
121784 7/1/2005 004860 SMITH,TAMMY
121785 7/1/2005 000609 SPEAR, BOB
yi:;w,.
Voucher List
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Invoice
063005
124010
063005
271-7480
489-9867
063005
063005
063005
PO# Description/Account
S.BALL UMPIRE:6 GAMES @ $18.0(
S.BALL UMPIRE:6 GAMES @$18.0(
010.4424.5352
Total :
SHOP TOWELS/GLOVES
SHOP TOWELS/GLOVES
220.4303.5255
Total :
S.BALL SCORER:5 GAMES @$7.50
S.BALL SCORER:5 GAMES @$7.50
010.4424.5352
Total :
271-7480: 6/7 TO 7/6/05
271-7480: 6/7 TO 7/6/05
010.4201.5403
489-9867: 6/8 TO 7/7/05
489-9867: 6/8 TO 7/7/05
010.4201.5403
Total :
S.BALL UMPIRE:6 GAMES @$18.0(
S.BALL UMPIRE:6 GAMES @$18.0(
010.4424.5352
Total :
S.BALL SCORER:9 GAMES @ $7.50
S.BALL SCORER:9 GAMES @ $7.50
010.4424.5352
Total :
S.BALL UMPIRE:3 GAMES @$18.0(
S.BALL UMPIRE:3 GAMES @$18.0(
010.4424.5352
Page: 5
Amount
108.00
108.00
376.96
376.96
37.50
37.50
65.31
54.28
119.59
108.00
708.00
67.50
67.50
54.00
Page: 5
vchlist
07/0112005 10:50:50 A M
Bankcode: boa
Voucher Date Vendor
121785 7/1/2005 000609 000609 SPEAR, BOB
121786 7/1/2005 000613 STATEWIDE SAFETY&SIGNS
121787 7/1/2005 000616 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS
121788 7/1/2005 002442 THURMAN; DENNIS
121789 7/1/2005 002137 VERIZON WIRELESS
121790 7/1/2005 004857 WHITE, ROBIN
37 Vouchers for bank code : boa
37 Vouchers in this report
Voucher List
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Invoice
(Continued)
42988
20648
063005
1954234586
1956962845
063005
PO# Description/Account
Total :
2 HR PARKING SIGNS FOR NELSOI
2 HR PARKING SIGNS FOR NELSOI
220.4303.5613
Total :
053 INSTALL EQUIP. ON TAHOE-
053 INSTALL EQUIP. ON TAHOE-
010.4201.5601
Total :
S.BALL UMPIRE:3 GAMES @$18.0(
S.BALL UMPIRE:3 GAMES @$18.0(
010.4424.5352
Total :
ADMIN CELL-5/8 TO 6/7/05
ADMIN CELL-5/8 TO 6/7/05
010.4201.5403
MOTOR CELL PHONES-6/17-7/16
MOTOR CELL PHONES-6/17-7/16
010.4201.5403
Total :
S.BALL UMPIRE:3 GAMES @$18.0(
S.BALL UMPIRE 3 GAMES @$18.0(
010.4424.5352
ToWI :
Bank total :
Total vouchers:
Page:
s
Amount
54.00
90.09
90.09
3,142.97
3,142.97
54.00
54.00
349.03
75.87
424.90
54.00
54.00
30,997.57
30,997.57
Page: 6
vchlist
0710112005 10:50:50AM
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
#�
Voucher List
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Invoice
PO#
Page:
Description/Account Amount
Page:
vchlist
07101/2005 3:37:04PM
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
121805 7/1/2005 000010 AFSS
121806
121807
121808
�;
7/1/2005 001146 ARROYO RANCH COMPANY
7/1/2005 000107 CALIFORNIA FIRE CHIEFS ASSN
7/1/2005 003775 CALIFORNIA JPIA
Voucher List
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Invoice
070105
:
062305
070105
ATTACHMENT 3
Page:
PO# Description/Account
MEMBERSHIP DUES:HAGLUND
MEMBERSHIP DUES:HAGLUND
010.4211.5503
Total :
RANGE RENTAL 2005-06-4890 HUA
RANGE RENTAL 2005-06-4890 HUA
010.4201.5553
Total :
MEMBERSHIP DUES-FY05/06-FIBIC
MEMBERSHIP DUES-FY05/06-FIBIC
010.4211.5503
Total :
GENERAL LIABILITY
Page:
7
Amount
50.00
50.00
2,688.00
2,688.00
150.00
150.00
1
vchlist Voucher List
07101/2005 3:37:04PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO#
121808 7/1/2005 003775 CALIFORNIAJPIA (Continued)
Description/Account
GENERAL LIABILITY
010.4145.5576
WORKERS COMP:CITY COUNCIL
010.4001.5141
WORKERS COMP:ADMIN.SERVICE
010.4002.5141
WORKERS COMP: CITY MNGR OFF
010.4101.5141
WORKERS COMP: PRINTING
010.4102.5141
WORKERS COMP: FINANCIAL SER'
010.4120.5141
WORKERS COMP: COMM.DEVEL01
010.4130.5141
WORKERS COMP: MIS
010.4140.5141
WORKERS COMP: POLICE
010.4201.5141
WORKERS COMP: FIRE
010.4211.5141
WORKERS COMP: BUILDING&SAF
010.4212.5141
WORKERS COMP: GOV'T BLDG
010.4213.5141
WORKERS COMP: PW ADMIN
010.4301.5141
WORKERS COMP:AUTO SHOP
010.4305.5141
WORKERS COMP: PARKS
010.4420.5141
WORKERS COMP: RECREATION AI
010.4421.5141
WORKERS COMP: GEN. RECREATI
010.4422.5141
Page: 2
Amount
167,392.00
152.78
572.89
2,163.38
532.86
2,050.36
2,688.34
523.02
231,461.52
46,026.04
4,917.99
2,271.55
6,104.60
3,304.03
24,218.08
721.46
2,669.79
Page: 2
vchlist Voucher List Page: 3
07/0112005 3:37:04PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
121808 7/1/2005 003775 CALIFORNIAJPIA
121809
121810
7/1/2005 000751 FIRE ENGINEERING
7/1/2005 003608 G CARD INTEGRATORS
Invoice
(Continued)
062305
0029449
121811 7/1/2005 000317 HONEYWELL, INC 3224403
PO#
Description/Account
WORKERS COMP: PREC.PRE-SCH
010.4423.5141
WORKERS COMP: SOTO SPORTS �
010.4430.5141
WORKERS COMP: STREETS MAINI
220.4303.5141
WORKERS COMP: RDA
284.4103.5141
WORKERS COMP: SEWER MAINT.
612.4610.5141
WORKERS COMP:WATER ADMIN
640.4710.5141
WORKERS COMP:WATER PRODU
640.4711.5141
WORKERS COMP:WATER DISTRIE
640.4712.5141
GENERAL L�ABILITY RETRO DEPO:
010.4145.5576
WORKERS COMP: CHILDREN IN Mi
010.4425.5141
Total :
SUBSCRIPT.RENEWAL-05/O6&O6/1
SUBSCRIPT.RENEWAL-O5/06&06/1
010.4211.5503
ToWI :
ID SYSTEMS TECH SUPPORT&TH
ID SYSTEMS TECH SUPPORT&TH
010.4201.5607
Total ',
BLDG MAINT.-7/1/05-09/30/05
BLDG MAINT:7/1/05-09/30/O5
010.4213.5303
Amount
1,249.43
8,835.12
24,763.69
130.68
8,219.57
8,550.35
3,474.77
11,390.66
39,720.00
8,983.04
613,088.00
43.00
43.00
1,190.00
1,190.00
7,279.50
Page: 3
vchlist
0710112005 3:37:04PM
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
121811 7/1/2005 000317 000317 HONEYWELL, INC
121812 7/1/2005 004329 IACP POLICY CENTER
121813
121814
121815
121816
121817
121818
�I�
7/1/2005 000333 IAFC MEMBERSHIP
7/1/2005 000383 LIEBERT, CASSIDY,WHITMORE
7/1/2005 000323 LOGIN/IACP NET
7/1/2005 001513 NCFMA-N CA FIRE MECH ASSN
7/1/2005 000993 POLK&CO, R L
Voucher List
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Invoice
(Continued)
070105
062305
55199
4649
062305
061305
7/1/2005 002792 PULITZER C COAST NEWSPAPERS 070605
Page: 4
PO# Description/Account Amount
Total : 7,279.50
MODEL POLICY SUBSCRIPT.TO 8/:
MODEL PO�ICY SUBSCRIPT.TO 8/�
010.4201.5503 30.00
Total : 30.00
MEMBERSHIP DUES:FIBICH
MEMBERSHIP DUES:FIBICH
010.4211.5503 240.00
Total : 240.00
CENTRAL COAST EMPLOYMENT-
CENTRAL COAST EMP�OYMENT-
010.4145.5501 2,725.00
Total : 2,725.00
ANNUAL RENEWAL TO IACP NET-
ANNUAL RENEWAL TO IACP NET-
010.4201.5607 800.00
Total : 800.00
MEMBERSHIP DUES
MEMBERSHIP DUES
010.4211.5503 25.00
ToWI : 25.00
MOTOR VEHICLE REG-VOL2 RENE
MOTOR VEHICLE REG-VOL2 RENE
010.4201.5255 117.98
Total : 177.98
ANNUAL SUBCRIPTION-FINANCE
ANNUAL SUBCRIPTION-FINANCE
010.4120.5503 24.00
Total : 24.00
Page: 4
vchlist Voucher List
07/01/2005 3:37:04PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO#
121819 7/1/2005 002670 RICOH LEASING 05077659484
121820
121821
121822
121823
121824
7/1/2005 000816 RITTERBUSH,JIM
062105
7/1/2005 000555 SLO COUNTY DEPT OF ENGINEERS 337
7/1/2005 001433 SOUTH COUNTY HISTORICAL SOC 061705
7/1/2005 000616 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS
7/1/2005 002606 TRAINING INNOVATIONS, INC
121825 7/1/2005 000672 US POSTAL SERVICE
20582
OS-1562
070105P
Description/Account
CONTRACT#24-62-5325
CONTRACT#24-62-5325
010.4421.5602
Total :
REIMBURSE: CA FIRE CH.ASSOC. I
REIMBURSE: CA FIRE CH.ASSOC. I
010.4211.5503
LUNCH-CFCA MTG
010.4211.5501
Total :
SEMI-ANNUAL LOPEZ EXP
SEMI-ANNUAL LOPEZ EXP
641.4750.5612
Total :
CDBG FACADE:GRANT P03AG11-
CDBG FACADE:GRANT P03AG11-
250.4800.8051
Total :
SERVICE AGREEMENT: JULY 2005
SERVICE AGREEMENT: JULY 2005
010.4201.5606
Total ;
TRAINING MNGMNT SOFTWARE-
TRAINING MNGMNT SOFTWARE-
010.4201.5607
Total :
PO BOX RENTAL 7/OS-O6/06
PO BOX RENTAL 7/05-06/O6
010.4120.5201
Total ,
Page: 5
Amount
155.28
155.28
40.00
15.00
55.00
860,950.77
860,950.77
1,39425
1,394.25
974.00
974.00
500.00
500.00
236.00
236.00
Page: 5
vchlist
07/0112005 3:37:04PM
Bankcode: boa
Voucher Date Vendor
7012005 7/1/2005 002862 LA SALLE BANK NA
22 Vouchers for bank code : boa
22 Vouchers in this report
�
Voucher List
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Invoice
070105
PO# Description/Account
SAFE WATER LOAN PAYABLE-INTF
SAFE WATER LOAN PAYABLE-INTF
640.4710.5802
SAFE WATER LOAN PAYABLE-PRI�
640.4710.5801
Total :
Bank total :
Total vouchers :
Page: 6
Amount
12,542.68
45,830.98
58,373.66
7,551,089.44
1,551,089.44
Page: 6
vchlist
0710812005 9:4122AM
Bank code: boa
Voucher Date Vendor
121826 7/5/2005 004204 CORBIN 8 ASSOCIATES, INC
121827
121832
121833
121834
121835
121836
121837
7/5/2005 003226 HENDRIX,JASON
Voucher List
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Invoice PO#
070105
070505
7/7/2005 005003 FEMA-FINANCIAL SERVICES BRANCH 063005
7/7/2005 005003 FEMA-FINANCIAL SERVICES BRANCH 0605
7/S/2005 003651 3T EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC
7/8/2005 001050 AMERICAN TEMPS
7/8/2005 000034 APEX SHARPENING WORKS
41404
00041486
25776
7/8/2005 000042 ARROYO GRANDE FLOWER SHOP 19910
ATTACHMENT 4
Page: 1
Description/Account Amount
REGISTRATION FEES: J.HENDRIX
REGISTRATION FEES:J.HENDRIX
010.4201.5501 385.00
Total : 385.00
LODGING;MEALS; PER DIEM
LODGING;MEALS; PER DIEM
010.4201.5501 669.00
Total : 669.00
G RANT#EM W2003FG03187-
GRANT#EMW2003FG03187-
010.4211.5206 526.85
Total : 526.85
G RANT#EM W2003FG03187-
GRANT#EM W2003FG03187-
010.4211.5206 6���
Total : 604.71
VACUUM TUBE FOR PW51
VACUUM TUBE FOR PW51
612.4610.5610 271.31
ToWI : 271.31
PAYROLL FOR M.THOMAS:6/20-6/2
PAYROLL FOR M.THOMAS:6/20-6/2
640.4712.5303 93�28
Total : 937.28
AIR FILTER
AIR FILTER
220.4303.5603 17.53
Total : 77.53
FLORALARRANGEMENT:VANBEVE
Page: 1
vchlist Voucher List
07108/2005 9•41:22AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
121837 7/8/2005 000042 ARROYO GRANDE FLOWER SHOP (Continued)
121838
121839
7/8/2005 005000 AVERY ASSOCIATES
7/8/2005 000065 BARROW, BRENDA
6163
063005
121840 7/8/2005 001944 BASIC CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS, LLC SI5059105
121841 7/8/2005 000957 BERCHTOLD EQUIPMENT CO
121842 7/8/2005 000090 BRISCO MILL 8 LUMBER YARD
PC47190
124329
121843 7/8/2005 004997 BRUHN INC., DICK 1186799-IN
PO# Description/ACCOUnt
FLORALARRANGEMENT:VANBEVE
010.4001.5504
Total :
INITIAL SEARCH FEE FOR POL.CHI
INITIAL SEARCH FEE FOR POL.CHI
010.4101.5316
Total :
REIMBURSEMENT OF SUPPLIES
REIMBURSEMENT OF SUPPLIES
010.4422.5256
REIMBURSEMENT OF SUPPLIES
010.4423.5253
Total :
SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE
SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE
640.4712.5274
Total :
RIPPER TEETH FOR BUSH HOG P4
RIPPER TEETH FOR BUSH HOG P4
010.4420.5601
Total :
BUCKETS/GLOVES
BUCKETS/GLOVES
640.4712.5255
Total :
CORDS TO CHARGE FLASHLIGHT:
CORDS TO CHARGE FLASHLIGHT:
010.4201.5255
Total :
Page: 2
Amount
63.28
63.28
7,000.00
7,000.00
33.00
64.10
97.10
561.81
561.81
43.55
43.55
23.44
23.44
36.56
36.56
Page: 2
vchlist Voucher List Page: 3
07108/2005 9:41:22AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
121844 7/8/2005 000028 C CA METRO SOFTBALL ASSN
121845 7/8/2005 000156 C COAST TAXI-CAB SVCS, LLC
121846 7/8/2005 000125 CA ST DEPT OF CONSERVATION
121847 7/8/2005 004548 CARMEL& NACCASHA, LLP
121848 7/8/2005 000603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS
121849 7/8/2005 000163 CHERRY LANE NURSERY
Invoice
062005
063005
063005
10172
10184
112706
148-117430
148-119094
13998
PO# Description/Account
TEAM REGISTRATION: SUMMER 2(
TEAM REGISTRATION: SUMMER 2(
010.4424.5257
Total :
TAXI SVC:6/15-6/30/OS
TAXI SVC: 6/15-6/30/05
225.4553.5507
Total :
S.M.I.P. (APR-JUN FY05)
S.M.I.P. (APR-JUN FY05)
010.0000.2208
ADMIN FEE-SMIP
010.0000.4801
Total :
PROF SERVICES: CITY'S CONSENI
PROF SERVICES: CITY'S CONSENI
010.4003.5304
PROF.LEGAL SERV: 06/01-06/30/05
PROF.LEGAL SERV: 06/01-06/30/05
010.4003.5304
ToWI
ELECTRIC FUEL PUMP FOR PW47
ELECTRIC FUEL PUMP FOR PW47
220.4303.5603
MONSTER CYLINDER GASKET
MONSTER CYLINDER GASKET
010.4420.5601
CREDIT-BRAKE SHOE DEFECT
CREDIT-BRAKE SHOE DEFECT
010.4211.5601
Total
ROUND UP
Amount
377.00
377.00
575.25
575.25
441.00
-22.05
47 8.95
4,830.00
12,902.50
17,732.50
156.07
6.96
-70.00
123.03
Page: 3
vchlist
07/0812005 9:47:22AM
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
121849 7/8/2005 000163 CHERRY LANE NURSERY
121850
121851
7/8/2005 000164 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET
Voucher List
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Invoice
(Continued)
14020
5685
7/8/2005 003599 COMMERCIAL SANITARY SUPPLY 85022616
121852 7/8/2005 000922 CONSOLIDATED PUMP 8 SUPPLY 26822
121853
121854
121855
�.._
7/8/2005 001515 DE BLAUW, KIMBERELY
7/S/2005 001854 DECECCO, JIM
7/8/2005 000210 DIESELRO OF SLO, INC
052605
070605
15964
PO# Description/Account
ROUND UP
220.4303.5613
SHRUBS/ROUND UP
SHRUBS/ROUND UP
220.4303.5613
Total :
LIGHT FLASHER P-7
LIGHT FLASHER P-7
010.4420.5601
Total :
TOILET TISSUE;TRASH LINERS;TO'
TOILET TISSUE;TRASH LINERS;TO'
010.4213.5604
Total :
PUMP SEALS, CAPS, GASKETS FO
PUMP SEALS, CAPS, GASKETS FO
640.4711.5603
Total :
TUITION REIMBURSEMENT COLUN
TUlTION REIMBURSEMENT COLUN
010.4201.5502
ToWI :
S.BALL UMPIRE: 3 GAMES @$18.0
S.BALL UMPIRE: 3 GAMES @$18.0
010.4424.5352
Total :
ENGINE SERVICE P7
ENGINE SERVICE P7
010.4420.5601
Page:
4
Amount
22.49
120.04
142.53
11.84
17.84
382.35
382.35
929.25
929.25
35.00
35.00
54.00
54.00
17429
Page: 4
vchlist
0710812005 9:41:22AM
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
121855 7/8/2005 000210 DIESELRO OF SLO, INC
121856 7/8/2005 002673 DOCTOR'S MEDPLUS MEDICAL
�
Voucher List
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Invoice PO#
(Continued)
16068
013872708
013875088
013875176
013875191
013875243
013875245
013875255
013875284
013875381
013875382
Page:
Description/Account
FLASHER FOR P7
FLASHER FOR P7
010.4420.5601
Total :
PRE EMPLOY.PHYS: C. GARCIA
PRE EMPLOY.PHYS: C. GARCIA
010.4425.5315
PRE EMPLOYMENT PHYS: D.CECC
PRE EMPLOYMENT PHYS: D.CECC
010.4425.5315
PRE EMPLOYMENT PHYS: C.MCCL
PRE EMPLOYMENT PHYS: C.MCCL
010.4425.5315
PRE EMPLOYMENT PHYS:A. CANC
PRE EMPLOYMENT PHYS:A. CANC
010.4425.5315
PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYS: C.TORR
PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYS: C.TORR
010.4425.5315
PRE EMPLOY.PHYS: L.CRAWFORC
PRE EMPLOY.PHYS: L.CRAWFORC
010.4425.5315
PRE EMPLOYMENT PHYS-A.JEFFE
PRE EMPLOYMENT PHYS-A.JEFFE
010.4425.5315
PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYS-M.CAN�
PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYS-M.CAN�
010.4425.5315
PRE EMPLOYMENT PHYS: D.COFFI
PRE EMPLOYMENT PHYS: D.COFFI
010.4425.5315
PRE EMPLOYMENT PHYS-K.DELCF
PRE EMPLOYMENT PHYS-K.DELCF
010.4425.5315
��
Amount
31.68
205.97
148.00
200.00
205.00
160.00
200.00
213.00
200.00
125.00
230.00
230.00
Page: 5
vchlist
0710812005 9:41:22AM
Voucher List
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode: boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO#
121856 7/8/2005 002673 002673 DOCTOR'S MEDPLUS MEDICAL (Continued)
121857 7/8/2005 004999 EARL, JYOTHI 070605
121858
121859
121860
121861
121862
121863
�I
7/S/2005 004164 FEDEX
7/S/2005 001525 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC
7/8/2005 004859 FITZGERALD,JENNIFER
7/8/2005 003631 GMC ELECTRICAL, INC
7/8/2005 000499 GRAND AWARDS, INC
7/8/2005 000292 HACH COMPANY
3-895-49624
890062
892261
070605
E-05-1087
13468
4330882
Page: 6
Description/Account Amount
Total : 1,971.00
REFUNDING CHILDCARE-K.WATSC
REFUNDING CHILDCARE-K.WATSC
010.0000.4602 485.00
Total : 485.00
MAILING OF PLANS
MAILING OF PLANS
010.4301.5255 13.59
ToWI : 73.59
SERVICE SADDLES;FITTINGS-MET
SERVICE SADDLES;FITTINGS-MET
640.4712.5610 508.91
METER BOX LID LIFTERS(4);2"MET
METER BOX LID LIFTERS(4);2"MET
640.4712.5273 165.72
Total : 674.63
S.BALL SCORER 5 GAMES @$7.51
S.BALL SCORER: 5 GAMES @$7.51
010.4424.5352 37.50
Total : 37.50
ANNUAL MAINT:CATHODIC PROTE
ANNUAL MAINT.-CATHODIC PROTE
640.4712.5609 1,105.00
Ta�� : 1,705.00
PORTRAIT BOOK CLOCK-L.O'DELL
PORTRAIT BOOK CLOCK-L.0'DELL
010.4101.5201 80.97
Total : 80.97
TRAINING CLASS:SCHMIDT&MARS
Page: 6
vchlist
07/08/2005 9:41:22AM
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
121863 7/8/2005 000292 HACH COMPANY
121864 7/8/2005 004998 HARRIS, MISSY
121565 7/8/2005 000345 J J'S FOOD COMPANY, INC
121866 7/8/2005 000350 JACK'S REPAIR SERVICE
121867 7/8/2005 003355 JONES, MD, ERNEST
121868 7/8/2005 003949 KERN'S PAPER CONNECTION
Voucher List
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Invoice
(Continued)
070505
155433
156502
156778
18677
100312P121245
99626P121320
14928
PO# Description/Account
TRAINING CLASS:SCHMIDT&MARS
640.4712.5501
Total :
REFUND-SPECIAL INTEREST CLA:
REFUND-SPECIAL INTEREST CLA�
010.0000.4605
Total :
REGIONAL SWAT TRAINING
REGIONAL SWAT TRAINING
010.4201.5272
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
010.4101.5201
COFFEE
COFFEE
010.4211.5255
Total :
CARB. &PARTS FOR PW103
CARB. &PARTS FOR PW103
220.4303.5603
Total :
PRE.EMPLOY.PHYSICAL-PENNOCN
PRE.EMPLOY.PHYSICAL-PEN NOCP
010.4201.5315
PRE.EMPLOY.PHYSICAL:SOUZA
PRE.EMPLOY.PHYS ICAL:SOUZA
010.4201.5315
ToWI :
PAPER
PAPER
010.4102.5255
Page:
Page:
7
Amount
400.00
400.00
25.00
25.00
211.06
8.85
21.98
241.89
125.58
125.58
207.00
266.00
473.00
198.41
7
vchlist Voucher List Page: 8
07/08/2005 9:41:22AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
121868 7/8/2005 003949 KERN'S PAPER CONNECTION
121869
121870
121871
121872
121873
121874
x�
7/8/2005 000365 KEY, LINDA
7/8/2005 004969 KING, JOHN
7/8/2005 004845 LARSON, JOHN
7/8/2005 001136 LINTNER, DOUG
7/8/2005 005002 LUND'S
7/8/2005 002129 MAINLINE UTILITY CO
Invoice
(Continued)
14956
15043
062905
063005
070605
070605
215677
3612
PO# Description/Account Amount
PAPER/CHIPBOARD
PAPER/CHIPBOARD
010.4102.5255 Z73.��
PAPER/NCR
PAPER/NCR
010.4102.5255 756.48
ToWI : 1,228.00
PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES
PRESCHOOLSUPPLIES
010.4423.5253 125.93
Total : 125.93
DRIV. LIC. RENEWAL-CLASS B
DRIV. LIC. RENEWAL-CLASS B
010.4211.5324 35.00
Total : 35.00
S.BALL UMPIRE: 3 GAMES @$17.0
S.BALL UMPIRE: 3 GAMES @$17.0
010.4424.5352 51.00
Total : 51.00
S.BALL UMPIRE: 5 GAMES$18.00
S.BALL UMPIRE: 5 GAMES$18.00
010.4424.5352 90.00
Total : 90.00
GIFT BASKET FOR CHAMBER OF C
GIFT BASKET FOR CHAMBER OF C
284.4103.5201 55.00
ToWI : 55.00
VIDEO OF PIPE TO STORM DRAIN;
VIDEO OF PIPE TO STORM DRAIN�
220.4303.5303 3,150.00
Page: 8
vchlist Voucher List
Page: 9
07/08/2005 9:41:22AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO#
121874 7/8/2005 002129 002129 MAINLINE UTILITY CO (Continued)
121875 7/8/2005 000419 MIDAS MUFFLER& BRAKE 0010719
0010772
0010930
10677
10872
10901
121576 7/8/2005 000426 MIER BROS LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS 0100079
098772
098904
098958
t �n .r� _ ..t -�;
Description/Account
Total :
SERVICE TO PW62
SERVICE TO PW62
612.4610.5601
LOF TR,4NS FLUSH& BRAKE FLUS
LOF TRANS FLUSH &BRAKE FLUS
010.4305.5601
BATTERY FOR P16
BATTERY FOR P16
010.4420.5601
944 UO/F
944 UO/F
010.4201.5601
012 UO/F WIPERS
012 L/O/F WIPERS
010.4201.5601
041 UO/F
041 UO/F
010.4201.5601
ToWI :
CONCRETE-ALDER VALVE BOX
CONCRETE-ALDER VALVE BOX
640.4712.5610
CONCRETE
CONCRETE
350.5632.7002
CONCRETE
CONCRETE
350.5632.7002
CONCRETE-CAMINO MERCADO
CONCRETE-CAMINO MERCADO
640.4712.5610
Amount
3,150.00
30.47
265.73
87.89
25.47
46.90
25.47
481.93
140.50
21128
148.01
100.82
Page: 9
vchlist Voucher List
07/08I2005 9:41:22AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO#
121876 7/8/2005 000426 MIER BROS LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS (Continued)
098959
121877
121578
7/8/2005 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC
7/8/2005 000441 MULLAHEY FORD
099323
099639
099756
100081
41315
41324
103929
104110
104253
Page: 10
Description/Account Amount
CONCRETE
CONCRETE
350.5632.7002 148.01
CONCRETE-WOOD PLACE
CONCRETE-WOOD PLACE
640.4712.5610 123.34
CONCRETE-OAK PARK BLVD
CONCRETE-OAK PARK BLVD
640.4712.5610 111.54
CONCRETE-WALNUT ST
CONCRETE-WALNUT ST
640.4712.5610 134.06
CONCRETE
CONCRETE
350.5632.7002 148.01
ToWI : 1,265.57
CEMENT
CEMENT
640.4712.5610 8.35
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
612.4610.5273 274.83
Total : 283.18
FILLER CAP FOR P31
FILLER CAP FOR P31
010.4420.5601 4.14
DIAPHR,4M, BRAKE CAP GASKET
DIAPHRAM, BRAKE CAP GASKET
010.4420.5601 3.69
032 WASHER/BOLT/NUT WING
032 WASHER/BOLT/NUT WING
010.4201.5601 �7 �5
Page: 10
vchlist Voucher List
07/08/2005 9:41:22AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO#
121878 7/8/2005 000441 000441 MULLAHEY FORD (Continued)
121879 7/8/2005 002174 NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX& 183824
121580
121881
121882
121883
7/8/2005 000481 PACIFIC GAS& ELECTRIC CO
7/8/2005 004858 PINHEY, PEGGY
7/8/2005 003980 PITNEY BOWES, INC
7/8/2005 003265 PLATINUM PLUS FOR BUSINESS
6/24-853299
070605
7658355-JN05
Description/Account
Total :
PROF.LEGAL SERV.: SANTA MARIF
PROF.LEGAL SERV.: SANTA MARIF
640.4710.5575
ToWI :
8532998718-5
ELECTRIC
010.4304.5402
ELECTRIC
640.4712.5402
ELECTRIC
640.4711.5402
ELECTRIC
612.4610.5402
ELECTRIC
010.4145.5401
ELECTRIC
217.4460.5355
Total :
S.BALL SCORER: 3 GAMES @$7.51
S.BALL SCORER: 3 GAMES @$7.51
010.4424.5352
Total :
METER/MAILING MACHINE-
METER/MAILING MACHINE-
010.4101.5602
Total :
06/20-0918 GASOLINE
GASOLINE
010.4201.5608
DARE CONFERENCE TRAVEL
010.4201.5501
Page: 11
Amount
24.98
5,789.97
8,789.97
769.52
362.91
17,053.04
985.07
9,475.56
16.14
28,662.24
22.50
22.50
483.00
483.00
74.00
368.79
Page: 11
VC�I�ISt
07/08/2005 9:41:22AM
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
121883 7/8/2005 003265 PLATINUM PLUS FOR BUSINESS
Voucher List
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Invoice
(Continued)
06/20-6404
6/20-2611
6/20-6263
6/20-6289
6/20-6297
PO# Description/Account
ENVELOPE& LETTERHEAD
ENVELOPE& LETTERHEAD
010.4201.5201
GRADUATION SIGNS
010.4201.5255
LODGING FOR TRAINING
LODGING FOR TRAINING
010.4201.5501
ORAL BOARD LUNCH
ORAL BOARD LUNCH
010.4201.5501
SUN TAN LOTION
SUN TAN LOTION
010.4201.5272
STAPLES FOR RANGE
010.4201.5255
VIDEO TAPES/DISH SOAP
010.4201.5255
BATTERIES
010.4201.5255
TRAVELMEAL
010.4201.5501
VIDEO TAPES
010.4201.5255
RESERVE OFFICER MEETING
RESERVE OFFICER MEETING
010.4201.5501
Page:
Page:
12
Amount
18.63
80.41
103.40
76.50
14.89
37.43
32.80
21.41
22.57
19.05
57.78
12
vchlist
07/08/2005 9:41:22AM
Bankcode: b0a
Voucher
121883
121884
�
Date Vendor
7/S/2005 003265 PLATINUM PLUS FOR BUSINESS
7/8/2005 000526 RADIOSHACK CORPORATION
Voucher List
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Invoice
(Continued)
6/20-6313
6/20-6321
6/20-6420
6/20-7583
537537
PO#
Description/Account
EARTHLINK CONNECT-RESOURCE
BAR CODE PRINTER LABELS
010.4201.5201
CASE FOR PROJECTOR& ENVELC
010.4201.5255
GASOLINE
010.4201.5608
EARTHLINK CONNECT-RESOURCE
Ot 0.4201.5607
STRAWBERRY FESTIVAL SUPPLIE
STRAWBERRY FESTIVAL SUPPLIE
010.4201.5255
GASOLINE
GASOLINE
010.4201.5608
SR OFFICER ORAL BOARD BRIEFII
010.4201.5501
CPOA CONFERENCE LODGING
010.4201.5501
ANNUALVOLUNTEERLUNCHEON
010.4201.5504
GASOLINE
GASOLINE
010.4201.5608
LODGING FOR K-9 TRAINING
010.4201.5501
RES BOOKING
010.4201.5501
Total :
NEW COMPUTER MOUSE
NEW COMPUTER MOUSE
612.4610.5602
Total
Page: 73
Amount
52.47
72.91
15.80
50.69
33.31
59.75
49.73
695.80
420.00
47.83
278.36
160.29
2,864.60
21.44
21.44
Page: 13
vchlist Voucher List Page: 14
07/08/2005 9:41:22AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode: boa
Voucher Date Vendor
121885 7/8/2005 003031 ROBERTSON SUPPLY
121886
121887
121888
121889
121890
121891
121892
7/8/2005 000536 ROSE, GREG
7/8/2005 004365 RUIZ, DANIEL
7/8/2005 003200 RUIZ, STEPHANIE
7/8/2005 000575 SARMIENTO.ANN
7/8/2005 003108 SBC/MCI
7/8/2005 003024 SCHAFFER, MARK
7/8/2005 000607 SCMAF-SO CAL MUNICIPAL
Invoice
54
070605
070605
070505
070705
T3861980
070605
062005
PO# Description/Account Amount
SAFETY GLASSES
SAFETY GLASSES
220.4303.5255 90.36
Total : 90.36
S.BALL UMPIRE: 3 GAMES @$18.0
S.BALL UMPIRE: 3 GAMES @$18.0
010.4424.5352 54.00
Total : 54.00
S.BALL SCORER:6 GAMES @$7.50
S.BALL SCORER:6 GAMES @$7.50
010.4424.5352 45.00
ToWI : 45.00
PARK DEPOS�T
PARK DEPOSIT
010.0000.4354 61.00
Total : 61.00
S.BALL SCORER: 3 GAMES @$7.51
S.BALL SCORER: 3 GAMES @$7.51
010.4424.5352 22.50
Total : 22.50
PC PHONE LINE
PC PHONE LINE
010.4145.5403 29.61
Total : 29.61
S.BALL UMPIRE: 3 GAMES @ $18.0
S.BALL UMPIRE: 3 GAMES @ $18.0
010.4424.5352 54.00
Total : 54.00
SOFTBALL LEAGUE TEAM REGISTI
Page: 14
vchlist
07I0812005 9:41:22AM
Bank code : bo8
Voucher Date Vendor
121892 7/8/2005 000607 SCMAF-SO CAL MUNICIPAL
121593
121894
121895
121896
121897
7/8/2005 000587 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIBUTOR
7/8/2005 004860 SMITH,TAMMY
7/8/2005 000609 SPEAR, BOB
7/8/2005 005001 ST ONGE, JOY
7/8/2005 002499 STEARNS, MICHELE
Voucher List
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Invoice
(Continued)
CFN84835
070605
070605
070505
062205
PO# Description/Account
SOFTBALL LEAGUE TEAM REGISTI
010.4424.5257
Total :
GAS
GAS
010.4211.5608
Total :
S.BALL SCORER: 3 GAMES @$7.51
S.BALL SCORER: 3 GAMES @$7.5�
010.4424.5352
Total :
S.BALL UMPIRE:3 GAMES @$18.0
S.BALL UMPIRE: 3 GAMES @$18.0
010.4424.5352
ToWI :
METER DEPOSIT
METER DEPOSIT
640.0000.2302
CLOSING BILL-SEWER
612.0000.1110
CLOSING BILL-WATER
640.0000.1110
CLOSING BILL-LOPEZ
641.0000.1110
CLOSING BILL-SANITARY DIST
760.0000.1110
Total :
DECORATIONS FOR CHAMBER MD
Page: 15
Amount
348.00
348.00
32.12
32.12
22.50
22.50
54.00
54.00
180.00
-21.81
-67.02
-32.19
-10.18
48.80
Page: 15
vchlist Voucher List Page: 16
07/08/2005 9:47:22AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
121897 7/8/2005 002499 STEARNS, MICHELE
121898 7/8/2005 000636 TERBORCH. RICK
121899 7/S/2005 002442 THURMAN, DENNIS
121900 7/8/2005 002370 TITAN INDUSTRIAL
Invoice
(Continued)
062805
070605
1005521
1005525
1005562
1005598
1005625
PO# Description/ACCOUnt
DECORATIONS FOR CHAMBER MU
010.4201.5504
RAFFLE PRIZE/BALLOONS FOR MI;
010.4201.5504
CHAMBER MIXER COOKIES 8 PLAI
010.4201.5504
NAME BADGES FOR VOLUNTEER L
010.4201.5201
Total :
HIGH SPEED INTERNET CONNECT
HIGH SPEED �NTERNET CONNECT
010.4201.5607
Total :
S.BALL UMPIRE: 2 GAMES @$18.0
S.BALL UMP�RE: 2 GAMES @$18.0
010.4424.5352
Total :
FIRST AID SUPPLIES
FIRST AID SUPPLIES
612.4610.5255
FIRST AID SUPPLIES
FIRST AID SUPPLIES
612.4610.5255
SAFETY GLASSES
SAFETY GLASSES
640.4712.5255
MISC.PARTS F104
MISC.PARTS F104
010.4211.5601
MISC PARTS F104
MISC PARTS F104
010.4211.5601
Amount
5.36
40.38
37.29
23.58
106.61
50.00
50.00
36.00
36.00
23.66
29.12
4620
33.07
137.43
Page: 16
vchlist
07108/2005 9:41:22AM
Bankcode: boa
Voucher Date Vendor
121900 7/8/2005 002370 002370 TITANINDUSTRIAL
121901 7/8/2005 000642 TOSTE GRADING 8 PAVING
121902
121903
121904
121905
�L.�
7/8/2005 000650 TROESH READY MIX, INC
7/8/2005 004609 TROESH RECYCLING, INC
7/8/2005 000669 UNION ASPHALT, INC
7/8/2005 000671 UNITED GREEN MARK, INC
Voucher List
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Invoice
(Continued)
0002797-IN
1355
1293
1305
1315
1341
194660
194876
3813623-00
PO# Description/Account
Total :
LABOR& EQUIPMENT-LAUNA LN
LABOR& EQUIPMENT-LAUNA LN
220.4303.5303
Total :
ASPHALT WASTE
ASPHALT WASTE
220.4303.5307
Total :
RECYCLE BASE
RECYCLE BASE
220.4303.5613
RECYCLE BASE
RECYCLE BASE
220.4303.5613
CLEAN ASPHALT
220.4303.5307
CLEAN ASPHALT
CLEAN ASPHALT
220.4303.5307
CLEAN ASPHALT
CLEAN ASPHALT
220.4303.5307
Total
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
220.4303.5613
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
220.4303.5613
Total
PALM SPIKES
Page: 17
Amount
269.48
2,750.00
2,750.00
30326
303.26
56024
430.00
369.90
348.80
173.97
7,882.91
245.84
202.40
448.24
Page: 17
vchlist
07/0812005 9:47:22AM
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
121905 7/8/2005 000671 UNITED GREEN MARK, INC
121906 7/8/2005 000678 VALLEY AUTO SERVICE
121907 7/8/2005 002137 VERIZON WIRELESS
121908 7/8/2005 000687 WAYNE'S TIRE, INC
121909 7/8/2005 004857 WHITE, ROBIN
�� ..
Voucher List
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Invoice
(Continued)
3814198-00
3814311-00
16401
1958812273
1959039413
750429
070605
PO# Description/Account
PALM SPIKES
010.4420.5274
HUNTER MODULES-IRRIG.CLOCK
HUNTER MODULES-IRRIG.CLOCK
010.4430.5605
140 ADJUSTABLES FOR NELSON f
140 ADJUSTABLES FOR NELSON t
010.4420.5605
Total :
ROTATE-BALANCE TIRES
ROTATE-BALANCE TIRES
010.4211.5601
Total :
CELL PHONE:441-0872
CELL PHONE:441-0872
220.4303.5303
CELL PHONE:459-4859
CELL PHONE:459-4859
612.4610.5403
CELL PHONE:459-1757
010.4301.5403
CELL PHONE:459-5855
010.4305.5403
Total :
4 NEW TIRES FOR PW16
4 NEW TIRES FOR PW16
220.4303.5601
ToWI :
S.BALL UMPIRE: 3 GAMES @$18.0
S.BALL UMPIRE: 3 GAMES @$18.0
010.4424.5352
Page: 18
Amount
9.14
293.62
75.73
378.49
24.00
24.00
187.33
49.91
49.91
49.92
337.07
686.02
686.02
54.00
Page: 18
vchlist Voucher List
Page: 79
07/08/2005 9:41:22AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO#
121909 7/8/2005 004857 004857 WHITE, ROBIN (Continued)
121910 7/8/2005 000699 WILSON ELECTRIC COMPANY, LEE PW 2004-03
121911 7/8/2005 004764 XCEL SERVICES GROUP, INC.
82 Vouchers for bank code : boa
82 Vouchers in this report
3�ID
Description/Account
Total :
CREEKSIDE PATH, PHASE III LIGH"
CREEKSIDE PATH, PHASE III LIGH-
350.5412.7001
Total :
LEAK ON DIESEL PUMP NEW HOSI
LEAK ON DIESEL PUMP NEW HOSI
010.4305.5303
Total :
Bank total :
Total vouchers:
Amount
54.00
21,578.31
21,578.31
76.80
76.80
115,275.67
115,275.67
Page: 19
ATTACHMENT 5
vchlist VOUCher LISt Page: 1
07/08/2005 2:56:75PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode: boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account
121928 7/8/2005 000077 BETTER BEEP,A 070105 PAGER SERVICES:JULY 2005
PAGER SERVICES:JULY 2005
010.4201.5606
Total :
121929 7/8/2005 000078 BLUEPRINT EXPRESS 27989 SEWER LIFT STATION#1REPLACE
SEWER LIFT STATION#1 REPLACE
350.5809.7301
Total :
121930 7/8/2005 000143 CANBY WELDING,ARON 6298 METER BOX LID-FABR�CATION FOf
METER BOX LID-FABRICATION FOf
640.4712.5610
Total :
121931
121932
121933
7/8/2005 000603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS
7/8/2005 000577 DE LOS SANTOS, LENNY
7/8/2005 001840 DELL MARKETING LP
148-121998
148-121999
148-123197
070505
POLISH
POLISH
010.4211.5601
POLISH
POLISH
010.4211.5601
MISC PARTS-F311
MISC PARTS-F311
010.4211.5601
TENNIS LESSONS-ADULT
TENNIS LESSONS-ADULT
010.4424.5351
Total :
Total
F10181306 DELL COMPUTER FOR WATCH-
DELL COMPUTER FOR WATCH-
010.4201.6201
ToWI
Amount
134.25
134.25
231.66
231.66
224.67
224.67
620
6.20
16.11
28.51
280.53
280.53
1,023.18
7,023.1 S
Page: 1
vchlist Voucher List Page: 2
07/08/2005 2:56:15PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
121934 7/8/2005 000262 FRANK'S LOCK&KEY, INC
121935
121936
121937
121938
7/8/2005 000345 J J'S FOOD COMPANY, INC
7/8/2005 004015 LANGSTAFF, DAN
7/8/2005 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC
7/8/2005 003980 PITNEY BOWES, INC
Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
22424 KEYS
KEYS
010.4211.5601 6.44
Total : 6.44
156777 SUPPLIES-FY 05/O6 BBQ
SUPPLIES-FY 05/O6 BBQ
010.4101.5319 11.87
156846 SUPP�IES-TY 05/O6 BBQ
SUPPLIES-TY 05/06 BBQ
010.4101.5319 �Z �2
ToWI : 23.99
41401492 TUITION- ID 301
TUITION- ID 301
010.4201.5502 780.00
9358377 BOOKS-MBS DIRECT
BOOKS-MBS DIRECT
010.4201.5502 125.13
ToW I : 905.7 3
41437 TAPE-RELEASE
TAPE-RELEASE
612.4610.5610 ����
41932 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
640.4712.5610 140.48
42038 MORTAR
MORTAR
612.4610.5610 3.74
Total : 167.99
451441 EQUIPMENT MAINT.-POSTAGE SC/
EQUIPMENT MAINT.-POSTAGE SCI
010.4101.5602 158.40
Page: 2
vchlist
07/08/2005 2:56:15PM
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
121938 7/S/2005 003980 PITNEY BOWES, INC
121939 7/8/2005 003363 RIPPY, NINA
121940 7/8/2005 000536 ROSE, GREG
121941 7/8/2005 004365 RUIZ, DANIEL
121942 7/8/2005 003649 RUIZ, DON
121943 7/8/2005 000803 SAN LUIS MAILING SVC
121944 7/8/2005 000578 SARMIENTO,ANN
Voucher List
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Invoice
(Continued)
451442
070505
070705
070705
070605
29136
� �.� ,
121945 7/8/2005 000624 SUPERIOR QUALITY COPIERS, INC 32273
Page: 3
PO# Description/Account Amount
EQUIPMENT MAINT.-MAILING MACI
EQUIPMENT MAINT.-MAILING MACI
010.4101.5602 722.7p
Total : 881.10
BALLET-TAP FOR KIDS: SUMMER'
BALLET-TAP FOR KIDS: SUMMER'
010.4424.5351 596.40
Total : 596.40
S.BALL UMPIRE: 2 GAMES @$15.0
S.BALL UMPIRE: 2 GAMES @$18.0
010.4424.5352 36.00
Total : 36.00
S.BALL SCORER:3 GAMES @$7.51
S.BALL SCORER: 3 GAMES @$7.51
010.4424.5352 22.50
ToTal : 22.50
S.BALL UMPIRE: 3 GAMES @$18.0
S.BALL UMPIRE: 3 GAMES @ $18.0
010.4424.5352 54.00
Total : 54.00
UTILITY BILLING MAILING 07/01/05
UTILITY BILLING MAILING 07/01/05
640.4710.5201 1,619.44
Total : 1,619.44
S.BALL SCORER:6 GAMES @$7.5i
S.BALL SCORER: 6 GAMES @$7.5�
010.4424.5352 45.00
Total : 45.00
SERVICE AGREEMENT: FAX MACH
Page: 3
vchlist Voucher List
07I08/2005 2:56:75PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO#
121945 7/8/2005 000624 SUPERIOR QUALITY COPIERS, INC (Continued)
18 Vouchers for bank code : boa
18 Vouchers in this report
Page: 4
Description/Account Amount
SERVICE AGREEMENT: FAX MACH
010.4101.5602 208.56
Total : 208.56
Bank total : 6,483.35
Total vouchers : 6,483.35
Page: 4
a , �
�ti .�N c✓
ATTACHMENT 6
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION
PAY PERIOD
O6(17/05 -O6/30/05
07/08/OS
FUND 010 421,433.01 Salaries Full time 178,001.65
FUND 220 15,735.32 Salaries Part-Time- PPT 23,075.09
FUND 284 1,772.91 Salaries Part-Time-TPT 16,777.70
FUND 612 6,839.52 Salaries OverTime 14,287.05
FUND 640 16,634.94 Salaries Standby 391.00
462,415.70 Holiday Pay 9,026.29
Sick Pay 9,271.58
Annual Leave Buyback 34,986.35
Vacation Buyback -
Sick Leave Buyback -
Vacation Pay 17,006.18
Comp Pay 5,190.08
Annual Leave Pay 1,906.15
PERS Retirement 62,973.54
Social Security 23,422.00
PARS Retirement 463.09
State Disabiliry Ins. 1,142.81
Deferred Compensation 725.00
Health Insurance 36,819.51
Dentallnsurance 4,773.09
Vision Insurance 1,088.51
Life Insurance 739.03
Long Term Disability -
Uniform Allowance 19,400.00
Car Allowance 875.00
Council Expense -
Employee Assistance -
Boot Allowance -
Motor Pay 75.00
462,415.70
�
vchlist Voucher List
07/14/2005 1:1728PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO#
71205 7/12/2005 000555 SLO COUNTY DEPT OF ENGINEERS 337
121946
121947
7/11/2005 005004 SCHMIDT,TIM
7/11/2005 000408 MARSALEK, PAUL
062205
0622
121945 7/11/2005 000185 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DIST 7605-451096
121949 7/15/2005 001259 AGP VIDEO, INC ggg
121950
121951
121952
7/15/2005 005006 BLAND, SHAWN
7/15/2005 000087 BREZDEN PEST CONTROL, INC
7/15/2005 000095 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, INC
071205
33430
2292783
ATTACHMENT 7
Page: 1
Description/Account Amount
SEMI-ANNUAL LOPEZ EXP
SEMI-ANNUAL LOPEZ EXP
641.4750.5612 860,950.77
Total : 860,950.77
PER DIEM: CONFERENCE
PER DIEM: CONFERENCE
640.4712.5501 80.00
Total : 50.00
PER DIEM: CONFERENCE
PER DIEM: CONFERENCE
640.4712.5501 80.00
Total : 80.00
LIGHT BULBS
LIGHT BULBS
010.4213.5604 397.10
Total : 397.10
VIDEO PRODUCTIONlfAPE-MAY'0:
VIDEO PRODUCTIONffAPE-MAY'0:
211.4101.5330 3,075.00
ToWI : 3,075.00
REFUND FATHER/DAUGHTER DAT
REFUND FATHER/DAUGHTER DAT
010.0000.4607 42.50
ToWI : 42.50
QRTLY PEST CONTROL:FIRE STAT
QRTLY PEST CONTROL:FIRE STAT
010.4213.5303 99.00
To�� : 99.00
2X4 STUDS FOR CONCRETE FORN
Page: 1
vchlist Voucher List Page: 2
07/14I2005 1:17:28PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
121952 7/15/2005 000095 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, INC
121953
121954
121955
7/15/2005 000123 CA ST BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
7/15/2005 005013 CABALAR, JASON
7/15/2005 000603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS
Invoice
(Continued)
2292884
DG MT 57-425096
070505
112418
148-008526
148-009280
145-112577
148-115823
148-121871
PO# Description/Account Amount
2X4 STUDS FOR CONCRETE FORN
350.5515.7001 43.76
REBAR, DOBIES,WIRE,NAILS-
REBAR, DOBIES,WIRE,NAILS-
350.5515.7001 89.55
ToWI : 133.31
DIESEL FUEL TAX QTR 4-04/05
DIESEL FUEL TAX QTR 4-04/OS
010.0000.1202 421.56
Total : 421.56
PARK DEPOSIT-ELM ST 06/19/05
PARK DEPOSIT-ELM ST O6/19/05
010.0000.4354 29.00
Total : 29.00
FUEL FILTER/OIL FILTER PW47
FUEL FILTER/O�L FILTER PW47
220.4303.5603 38.�g
BATTERY TERMINAL/GREASE CUP
BATTERY TERMINAL/GREASE CUP
640.4712.5603 g.g7
LIGHT BULB FOR PW44
LIGHT BULB FOR PW44
612.4610.5601 2.13
BELT 8 OIL STABILIZER-P74C
BELT&OIL STABILIZER-P74C
010.4420.5603 �g 2�
PIPE JOINT COMPOUND FOR OAK
PIPE JOINT COMPOUND FOR OAK
010.4420.5605 6.96
FUEL FILTER-P26 SOTO SP. COMP
FUEL FILTER-P26 SOTO SP. COMP
010.4430.5601 g gg
Page: 2
vchlist Voucher List
07/14/2005 1:17:28PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode: boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO#
121955 7/15/2005 000603 000603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS (Continued)
121956 7/15/2005 005014 CARRERAS, ERLINDA 070505
121957 7/15/2005 001291 CENTER FOR CREATIVE THOUGHT 070505
121958 7/15/2005 000163 CHERRY LANE NURSERY
121959 7/15/2005 000201 D G REPAIR
121960 7/15/2005 002039 DELTA LIQUID ENERGY
121961 7/15/2005 000210 DIESELRO OF SLO, INC
-°"°'°R'--.,
14029
14118
9723
012226
W23001
15779
Description/Account
Total :
PARK DEPOSIT-R,4NCH0 GRANDE
PARK DEPOSIT-RANCHO GRANDE
010.0000.4354
Total :
PARK DEPOSIT-ELM ST 06/26/05
PARK DEPOSIT-ELM ST 06/26/05
010.0000.4354
Total :
2 1/2 GALLONS OF REMUDA WEEC
2 1/2 GALLONS OF REMUDA WEEC
010.4420.5274
2-5 GAL HEBE LAKE SHRUBS
2-5 GAL HEBE LAKE SHRUBS
010.4420.5605
Total :
REPAIR
REPAIR
010.4430.5601
Total :
CYLINDER
CYLINDER
220.4303.5603
PROPANE
PROPANE
220.4303.5603
Total :
PW32 SERVICE INSPECTION
PW32 SERVICE INSPECTION
640.4712.5601
Page:
Page:
3
Amount
76.99
29.00
29.00
29.00
29.00
96.51
36.44
132.95
140.00
740.00
80.43
15.39
95.82
56.00
�
VCh�ISi
07/14/2005 1:17:28PM
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
121961 7/15/2005 000210 DIESELRO OF SLO, INC
121962 7/15/2005 005016 DYKSTRA, LISA
121963 7/15/2005 001525 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC
121964 7/15/2005 005015 FREEMAN, JENNI
121965 7/15/2005 000605 GAS COMPANY. THE
121966 7/15/2005 001237 HANSON AGGREGATES
�,..,;.,;�,�,�;,
Voucher List
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Invoice
(Continued)
15780
070505
883018
883780
070505
7/1-140
7/1-211
486610
PO# Description/Account
PW51 SERVICE INSPECTION
PW51 SERVICE INSPECTION
612.4610.5601
Total :
PARK DEPOSIT-RANCHO GRANDE
PARK DEPOSIT-RANCHO GRANDE
010.0000.4354
Total :
CLA-VAL REPAIR KITS FOR WELL i
CLA-VAL REPAIR KITS FOR WELL i
640.4711.5603
40 METER BOX LIDS
40 METER BOX LIDS
640.4712.5610
Total :
PARK DEPOSIT-RANCHO GRANDE
PARK DEPOSIT-RANCHO GRANDE
010.0000.4354
Total :
GAS SERVICES: 140 TRAFFIC WY
GAS SERVICES: 140 TRAFFIC WY
010.4145.5401
GAS SERVICES: 211 VERNON ST
GAS SERVICES: 211 VERNON ST
010.4145.5401
Total :
MATERIAL FOR SIERRA 8 HILLCRE
MATERIAL FOR SIERR,4& HILLCRE
220.4303.5613
Total :
Page:
Page:
4
Amount
56.00
712.00
29.00
29.00
1,570.39
34321
1,913.60
29.00
29.00
57.44
28.61
116.05
172.66
172.66
4
vchlist Voucher List
07/14/2005 1:17:28PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO#
121967 7/15/2005 000301 HEACOCK TRAILERS&TRUCK 18793
121968 7/15/2005 000330 INFORMATION TECH DEPT
121969 7/15/2005 000344 J C LANDSCAPING
121970 7/15/2005 005011 LORUSSO, DEBRA
121971 7/15/2005 004279 MID STATE PLUMBING&
121972 . 7/15/2005 000419 MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAKE
4169
JUNE
070505
071105
10930
121973 7/15/2005 000426 MIER BROS LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS 100135
Description/Account
STEEL-ANGLE&EXPANDED-NEWI
STEEL-ANGLE& EXPANDED-NEWI
010.4420.5605
Total :
DAS SERVICES-WEEKS 19-22
DAS SERVICES-WEEKS 19-22
010.4140.5303
Total :
LANDSCAPE MAINT.: JUNE
LANDSCAPE MAINT.:JUNE
010.4420.5303
LANDSCAPE MAINT.: JUNE
217.4460.5355
LANDSCAPE MAINT.:JUNE
217.4460.5356
Total :
PARK DEPOSIT-R,4NCH GRANDE P
PARK DEPOSIT-RANCH GRANDE P
010.0000.4354
Total :
WATER CONS.PROGR,4M PHASE I
WATER CONS.PROGRAM PHASE I
350.5409.7001
ToWI :
BATTERY P-16
BATTERY P-16
010.4420.5601
ToWI :
CONCRETE FOR STROTHER PARK
CONCRETEFOR STROTHER PARK
350.5515.7001
Page: 5
Amount
52.34
52.34
7,656.43
7,656.43
460.00
165.00
125.00
750.00
29.00
29.00
30,474.42
30,474.42
87.89
87.89
226.30
Page: 5
vchlist Voucher List
Page: 6
07114/2005 1:17:28PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO#
121973 7/15/2005 000426 000426 MIER BROS LANDSCAPE PRODUCl (Continued)
121974 7/15/2005 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC 037659
121975 7/15/2005 005007 MR. ED'S CARPET SERVICE
121976 7/15/2005 004085 OMNI MEANS
037695
039361
4569
24016
121977 7/15/2005 000472 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE INC 00071905
121978 7/15/2005 005017 PAULICH, BRAD
30839
070505
121979 7/15/2005 005008 PLAYPOWER LT FARMINGTON, INC 1400061112
Description/Account
ToWI :
LOCK KEYED ENTRY
LOCK KEYED ENTRY
010.4213.5604
LOCK EN TYLO
LOCK EN TYLO
010.4213.5604
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
010.4430.5605
Total :
FIRE STATION REPLACEMENT PR(
FIRE STATION REPLACEMENT PR(
350.5410.7001
Total :
PROJECT PW 2005-01-DESIGN SEF
PROJECT PW 2005-01-DESIGN SEF
350.5524.7501
Total :
SCREEN DOOR FOR THE BACK OF
SCREEN DOOR FOR THE BACK OF
010.4213.5604
PLANTER AND PLANT-LINDA ODEL
PLANTER AND PLANT-LINDA ODEL
010.4213.5604
Total :
PARK DEPOSIT
PARK DEPOSIT
010.0000.4354
Total :
SPRING-PLAYGROUND EQUIPMEN
Amount
226.30
10.71
11.79
48.86
71.36
203.20
203.20
175.00
175.00
69.70
34.30
104.00
29.00
29.00
Page: 6
vchlist Voucher List
07/14/2005 1:17:28PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO#
121979 7/15J2005 005008 PLAYPOWER LT FARMINGTON, INC (Continued)
121980 7/15/2005 005012 POLADIAN,ALICIA
121981 7/15/2005 000503 POOR RICHARD'S PRESS, INC
121982 7/15/2005 000523 R&T EMBROIDERY, INC
070505
89893
27006
121983 7/15/2005 000531 RICHETTI WATER CONDITIONING 35941
121984 7/15/2005 003363 RIPPY, NINA
121985 7/15/2005 003108 SBC/MCI
071305
T3870383
Description/Account
SPRING-PLAYGROUND EQUIPMEN
010.4430.5605
Total :
PARK DEPOSIT-ELM ST 06/17/05
PARK DEPOSIT-ELM ST O6/17/05
010.0000.4354
Total :
CODE ENFORCEMENT CITATIONS
CODE ENFORCEMENT CITATIONS
010.4212.5303
Total :
PUBLICE WORKS HATS
PUBLICE WORKS HATS
612.4610.5143
PUBLIC WORKS HATS
640.4711.5143
PUBLIC WORKS HATS
640.4712.5143
PUBLIC WORKS HATS
220.4303.5143
Total :
REVERSE OSMOSIS RENTAL:JUN '
REVERSE OSMOSIS RENTAL:JUN'
010.4201.5604
Total :
BALLET-TAP DANCE FOR KIDS
BALLET-TAP DANCE FOR KIDS
010.4424.5351
Total :
805-473-0379: PAYROLL
Page:
7
Amount
237.21
237.21
29.00
29.00
841.59
841.59
140.00
50.00
100.00
309.09
629.09
15.00
15.00
42.00
42.00
Page: 7
vchlist Voucher List Page: 8
07114/2005 1:17:28PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
121985 7/15/2005 003108 SBC/MCI
121986 7/15/2005 000587 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIBUTOR
121987 7/15/2005 003838 SILVAS OIL COMPANY, INC
121988 7/15/2005 004527 SLO COUNTY LABORATORY
Invoice
(Continued)
T3870387
T3870388
T3870394
T3870396
CFN85169
292522
053005-DUP
121989 7/15l2005 000602 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST 63005
PO# Description/Account
805-473-0379: PAYROLL
010.4145.5403
805-473-1935:ALARM
805-473-1935:ALARM
640.4710.5403
805-473-2041:ALARM
805-473-2041:ALARM
010.4145.5403
805-473-5100
805-473-5100
010.4145.5403
805-473-5400
805-473-5400
010.4145.5403
Total :
GASOLINE 6/16 TO 6/30
GASOLINE 6/16 TO 6/30
010.4201.5608
Total :
1333 GALLONS OF#2(CARB RED)-
1333 GALLONS OF#2(CARB RED)-
010.0000.1202
Total :
DRUG TEST: CHRISTIAN MENDOZE
DRUG TEST: CHRISTIAN MENDOZF
010.4201.5324
ToWI :
SEWER SVC COLL-O6/05
Amount
15.12
29.38
14.55
938.66
1,81521
2,812.92
67.83
67.83
3,16523
3,7 65.23
31.00
31.00
Page: 8
vchlist Voucher List Page: 9
07/14/2005 1:17:28pM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
121989 7/15/2005 000602 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST
121990 7/15/2005 000620 STREATOR PIPE& SUPPLY
121991 7/15/2005 000666 UNITED RENTALS
121992 7/15/2005 004736 VANGUARD VAULTS
... ��.��ra,,,...
Invoice
(Continued)
416225
416998
419472
49173782-001
7630
PO# Description/Account
SEWER SVC COLL-06/05
760.0000.2304
SEWER HOOKUPS-06/05
760.0000.2305
SAN.DIST-203 N.RENA-06/05
010.4145.5401
SAN.DIST-ASH R/RM O6/05
010.4145.5401
HANDLING-ACCTS-01/OS-06/05
010.0000.4753
HAN DLI NG-HOOKUPS-01/05-06/05
010.0000.4753
Total :
SANDPAPER-SROLLS
SANDPAPER-SROLLS
640.4712.5255
PIPE NIPPLE
PIPE NIPPLE
640.4712.5610
TOILET SEAT
640.4712.5604
3"PLUG
3" PLUG
640.4712.5610
ToWI :
ROTARY HAMMER
ROTARY HAMMER
220.4303.5303
Total :
OFF-SITE STORAGE CHARGES
OFF-SITE STORAGE CHARGES
010.4002.5303
Amount
57,047.98
2,000.00
13.47
13.47
-6,759.90
-24.00
52,291.02
42.61
6.96
9.07
8.54
67.18
52.55
52.55
.� ��
Page: 9
vchlist Voucher List Page: 10
07I14/2005 1:17:28PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO#
121992 7/15/2005 004736 004736 VANGUARD VAULTS (Continued)
121993 7/15/2005 000689 WEST PAYMENT CENTER 809183073
121994 7/15/2005 000699 WILSON ELECTRIC COMPANY, LEE 1830
50 Vouchers for bank code : boa
50 Vouchers in this report
���,� .
1944
Description/ACCOUnt
Total :
CA CODES ON CD-ROM
CA CODES ON CD-ROM
010.4003.5503
Total :
REPAIR TO STAND BY GENERATOI
REPAIR TO STAND BY GENERATOI
640.4712.5603
TRAFFIC SIGNAL REPAIR
TRAFFIC SIGNAL REPAIR
010.4304.5303
Total :
Bank total :
Total vouchers :
Amount
60.00
163.58
163.58
1,161.01
1,322.85
2,483.86
971,032.31
971,032.31
Page: 10
vchlist
07I15/2005 2:38:01PM
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
121995 7/15/2005 003762 MLS CAMPS
121996 7/15/2005 001997 ARCH WIRELESS
121997 7/15/2005 003745 ARROWHEAD SCIENTIFIC, INC
Voucher List
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Invoice
071405
A3257180G
20699
121998 7/15/2005 000042 ARROYO GRANDE FLOWER SHOP 063005
121999 7/15/2005 004990 BAKER, SHARON
122000 7/15/2005 005018 BARBOSA, JANIE
071205
070505
122001 7/15/2005 005005 BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA 41S
ATTACHMENT 8
Page:
PO# Description/Account
MLS SOCCER CAMP-JULY 11-15, 21
MLS SOCCER CAMP-JULY 11-15,2i
010.4424.5351
DEPOSIT FOR 2006 CAMP
010.4424.5351
Total :
PAGER CONTRACT:TO 6/30/06
PAGER CONTRACT:TO 6/30/06
010.4201.5606
Total :
STERILE SWABS/DNA EVIDENCE k
STERILE SWABS/DNA EVIDENCE N
010.4201.5272
Total :
FLOWERS: BRIDGE/MUMAW/SMILE
F�OWERS: BRIDGE/MUMAW/SMILE
010.4201.5504
Total :
REIMBURSE SNACK&CRAFT SUPI
REIMBURSE SNACK&CRAFT SUPI
010.4425.5255
Total :
PARK DEPOSIT-STROTHER PARK-
PARK DEPOSIT-STROTHER PARK-
010.0000.4354
Total :
EXPLORER AWARDS
EXPLORER AWARDS
010.4201.5255
7
Amount
740.00
200.00
940.00
1,047.82
1,047.82
53_26
53.26
80.98
80.98
187.25
187.25
29.00
29.00
63.33
Page: 1
VChIISt
07/15/2005 2:38:01PM
Bankcode : boa
Voucher List
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Voucher Date Vendor
122001 7/15/2005 005005 005005 BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA
122002 7/15/2005 004077 CA ST DEPT OF HEALTH SVCS
122003
122004
122005
7/15/2005 003053 CABRIALES, CID
7/15/2005 005019 CAMACHO,JUAN
7/15/2005 000603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS
.. a�:: ;�.... � 2re� ... .. . . .
Invoice
071105
Page: 2
PO# Description/Account Amount
(Continued) Total : 63.33
EXAM FEES: RANDY ROBINSON D
EXAM FEES: R,4NDY ROBINSON D
640.4710.5501 100.00
EXAM FEES: SHANE TAYLOR D4
640.4710.5501 130.00
EXAM FEES: BILL FULLER D-3
640.4710.5501 70.00
EXAM FEES: JOSE SAHAGUN D-3
640.4710.5501 100.00
EXAM FEES: DANNY CARVALHO C
640.4710.5501 65.00
Total : 465.00
070805 REIMBURSE TUITION TO AMERICA
REIMBURSE TUITION TO AMERICA
010.4201.5502 1,200.00
Total : 1,200.00
070505 PARK DEPOSIT-ELM ST PARK 7/2/C
PARK DEPOSIT-ELM ST PARK 7/2/C
010.0000.4354 29.00
Total : 29.00
148-122020 COIL
COIL
010.4430.5601 40.59
148-122082 SPARK PLUGS IGNIT.WIRE
SPARK PLUGS IGNIT.WIRE
010.4430.5601 21.33
148-122084 ROTOR P26
ROTOR P26
010.4430.5601 Z 5�
148-122748 OIL 8 AIR FILTERS
OIL&AIR FILTERS
010.4430.5601 z2 Z3
Page: 2
VCh�IS�
07/75/2005 2:38:01PM
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
122005 7/15/2005 000603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS
122006
122007
122008
122009
7/15/2005 001990 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS
7/15/2005 003411 CLEAN SWEEP JANITORIAL
7/15/2005 000113 CPCA-CA POLICE CHIEFS ASSN
7/15/2005 005020 CRUZ, SANTIAGO.
Voucher List
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Invoice
(Continued)
148-123710
070205
1182
218
2331
070805
122010 7/15/2005 005027 DOMINGUEZ, LINDSEY 071205
PO# Description/Account
- TRANS FLUID 4 QRTS
TRANS FLUID 4 QRTS
640.4712.5601
Total :
MIS CABLE MODEM:
MIS CABLE MODEM:
010.4140.5303
Total :
JANITORIAL SERVICES: JULY
JANITORIAL SERVICES:JULY
010.4213.5303
Total :
ANNUAL DUES FOR CHIEF:07/01/0!
ANNUAL DUES FOR CHIEF:07/01/0;
010.4201.5503
ANNUAL DUES FOR CMDR ANDRE'
ANNUAL DUES FOR CMDR ANDRE'
010.4201.5503
ToWI :
W/GCOMMUNITY CENTER JULY1/.
W/C-COMMUNITY CENTER JULY1/:
010.0000.2206
SUPERVISION-25.25 HRS @$9.00
010.0000.4355
ToWI :
METER DEPOSIT
Page:
Page:
3
Amount
7.16
93.82
189.85
189.85
4,587.15
4,587.15
250.00
75.00
325.00
250.00
-22725
22.75
3
VCh�ISt
07I15/2005 2:38:01PM
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
122010 7/15/2005 005027 DOMINGUEZ, LINDSEY
122011 7/15/2005 000220 DYKZEUL, DEBI
122012 7/15/2005 002697 EARTHLINK, INC
122013 7/15/2005 004859 FITZGER,4LD,JENNIFER
122014
122015
7/15/2005 000262 FRANK'S LOCK& KEY, INC
Voucher List
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Invoice
(Continued)
071205
225911712
071205
22370
7/15/2005 003365 GLOBAL PHONE&WIRELESS SVCS 7632
PO# Description/Account
METER DEPOSIT
640.00002302
CLOSING BILL-SEWER
612.0000.1110
CLOSING BILL-WATER
640.0000.1110
CLOSING BILL-LOPE'c
641.0000.1110
CLOSING BILL-SANITARY DIST
760.0000.1110
Total :
S.BALL SCORER: 2 GAMES @$7.51
S.BALL SCORER:2 GAMES @$7.51
010.4424.5352
Total :
INTERNET SERVICE:JUN 21-JUL 2
INTERNET SERVICE: JUN 21-JUL 2
010.4201.5607
Total :
S.BALL SCORER: 3 GAMES @$7.51
S.BALL SCORER: 3 GAMES @$7.51
010.4424.5352
Total :
3 ENTRY LOCKS
3 ENTRY LOCKS
010.4201.5604
Total :
VCR REPAIR
VCR REPAIR
010.4201.5603
Page:
4
Amount
100.00
-7.41
-19.50
-36.23
-11.70
25.16
15.00
15.00
45.90
45.90
22.50
22.50
22.52
T2.52
190.00
Page: 4
vchlist Voucher List
07/75/2005 2:38:01PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO#
122015 7/15/2005 003365 003365 GLOBAL PHONE&WIRELESS SVC; (Continued)
122016 7/15/2005 000499 GRAND AWARDS, INC 13529
122017 7/15/2005 002157 HARDY, SHEILA
122018 7/15/2005 004188 HARRIS, EDDIE
122019 7/15/2005 001793 KELLER&ASSOCIATES, INC, J J
122020 7/15/2005 001035 KRAFT, KIMBERLY
122021 7/15/2005 005021 KRITZ, CHERIE
122022 7/15/2005 004845 LARSON. JOHN
070505
071305
005853036
071205
070505
071305
Description/ACCOUnt
Total :
EXPLORER PLAQUES
EXPLORER PLAQUES
010.4201.5201
Total :
PARK DEPOSIT-KINGO PARK 7/4/0!
PARK DEPOSIT-KINGO PARK 7/4/0!
010.0000.4354
Total :
S.BALL UMPIRE: 3 GAMES @$18.0
S.BALL UMPIRE: 3 GAMES @$18.0
010.4424.5352
Total :
OSHA COMPLIANCE MANUAL
OSHA COMPLIANCE MANUAL
220.4303.5503
ToWI :
CRAFT SUPPLIES&GAMES
CRAFT SUPPLIES&GAMES
010.4425.5255
ToWI :
PARK DEPOSIT-RANCHO GRANDE
PARK DEPOSIT-RANCHO GRANDE
010.0000.4354
Total :
S.BALL UMPIRE: 2 GAMES @$17.0
S.BALL UMPIRE: 2 GAMES @ $17.0
010.4424.5352
Total :
Page:
5
Amount
190.00
151.76
151.76
29.00
29.00
54.00
54.00
14023
140.23
83.37
83.37
58.00
58.00
34.00
34.90
Page: 5
vchlist
07/15/2005 2:38:01PM
Bankcode: boa
Voucher Date Vendor
122023 7/15/2005 001136 LINTNER, DOUG
122024 7/15/2005 004422 MEDEIROS,JENNIFER
122025 7/15/2005 004279 MID STATE PLUMBING&
122026 7/15/2005 000419 MIDAS MUFF�ER& BRAKE
122027 7/15/2005 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC
Voucher List
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Invoice PO#
071205
070505
0711
10838
10961
41991
42092
42093
42280
Description/Account
S.BALL UMPIRE 3 GAMES @$18.0
S.BALL UMPIRE: 3 GAMES @$18.0
010.4424.5352
Total :
PARK DEPOSIT-STROTHER PARK-
PARK DEPOSIT-STROTHER PARK-
010.0000.4354
Total :
WATER CONS.PROGRAM PHASE I
WATER CONS.PROGRAM PHASE I
350.5409.7001
Total :
022 REPLACE BENT SWAY BAR/-
022 REPLACE BENT SWAY BAR/-
010.4201.5601
031 UO/F
031 UO/F
010.4201.5601
Total :
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
010.4420.5605
HOSE
HOSE
010.4420.5605
VALVE BALL
VALVE BALL
640.4712.5610
FASTENERS
FASTENERS
640.4711.5603
Page:
Page:
6
Amount
54.00
54.00
29.00
29.00
4,209.57
4,209.57
1,684.69
25.47
1,710.16
58.94
27.87
7.50
1.63
�
vchlist Voucher List Page: 7
07/15/2005 2:38:01 PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
122027 7/15/2005 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC
122028 7/15/2005 005022 MOTLEY, RAY
122029 7/15/2005 000441 MULLAHEY FORD
Invoice
(Continued)
42346
42435
42863
42867
42944
43033
070505
104599
122030 7/15/2005 000444 MUSTANG TREE CARE SERVICES 244
PO# Description/Account Amount
FLAPPER KORKY PLUS CARD
FLAPPER KORKY PLUS CARD
010.4213.5604 11.78
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
010.4420.5605 26.32
VIDEO TAPE
VIDEO TAPE
612.4610.5255 q Zg
REEL STRINGLINER;LASER LEVEL
REEL STRINGLINER;LASER LEVEL
350.5515.7001 41.81
OUTDOOR PLANTS
OUTDOOR PLANTS
010.4213.5604 22 5�
EPDXY;PAINTBRUSH
EPDXY;PAINTBRUSH
640.4712.5610 47.52
Total : 250.16
PARK DEPOSIT-STROTHER PARK-
PARK DEPOSIT-STROTHER PARK-
010.0000.4354 29.00
Total : 29.00
TAILGATE FOR PW34
TAILGATE FOR PW34
640.4712.5601 335.18
Total : 335.18
TREE STUMP GRINDING: ROGERS
TREE STUMP GRINDING: ROGERS
010.4420.5605 663.00
Page: 7
vchlist Voucher List Page: 8
07115/2005 2:38:07 PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode: boa
Voucher Date Vendor
122030 7/15/2005 000444 MUSTANG TREE CARE SERVICES
122031 7/15/2005 005023 NAGAYN, KIMBERLY
Invoice
(Continued)
245
246
070505
122032 7/15/2005 005009 OCHOA, ROBERT CUP 05-011
122033 7/15/2005 000472 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE INC 070505
122034 7/15/2005 005024 PETERSON, MAUREEN
122035 7/15/2005 002751 RANGE MASTER
122036 7/15/2005 000536 ROSE, GREG
070505
106657
071305
PO# Description/Account Amount
TREE PRUNING&THINNING FOR-
TREE PRUNING&THINNING FOR-
010.4430.5605 1,700.00
TREE PRUNING-LIQUIDAMBER BAL
TREE PRUNING-LIQUIDAMBER BAt
350.5515.7001 450.00
Total : 2,813.00
PARK DEPOSIT-STROTHER PARK-
PARK DEPOSIT-STROTHER PARK-
010.0000.4354 29.00
Total : 29.00
APPLIC.WITHDRAWN-359 OLD RAP
APPLIC.WITHDRAWN-359 OLD RAP
010.0000.4162 1,154.00
Total : 7,154.00
PIPE PLUG
PIPE PLUG
640.4712.5610 3.53
Total : 3.53
PARK DEPOSIT-STROTHER PARK-
PARK DEPOSIT-STROTHER PARK-
010.0000.4354 29.00
ToWI : 29.00
SILVER"P" BUTTONS
SILVER"P"BUTTONS
010.4201.5255 12.81
Total : 12.81
S.BALL UMPIRE: 6 GAMES @$18.0
S.BALL UMPIRE:6 GAMES @$18.0
010.4424.5352 108.00
Page: $
vchlist Voucher List Page: 9
07/15/2005 2:38:07PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
122036 7/15/2005 000536 000536 ROSE, GREG
122037 7/15/2005 004365 RUIZ, DANIEL
122038
122039
122040
122041
122042
122043
7/15/2005 003649 RUIZ, DON
7/15/2005 000538 S& L SAFETY PRODUCTS
7/15/2005 005025 SANCHEZ,ALICE
7/15/2005 000541 SANCHEZ, DAVID
7/15/2005 000578 SARMIENTO,ANN
7/15/2005 003108 SBC/MCI
� .
.��- a e�N�...,,. .�. :.., . . . . .
Invoice
(Continued)
071305
071305
124035
070505
071505
071305
T3846890
PO# Description/Account Amount
Total : 108.00
S.BALL SCORER:4 GAMES @$7.51
S.BALL SCORER:4 GAMES @ $7.51
010.4424.5352 30.00
Total : 30.00
S.BALL UMPIRE: 1 GAME @$18.00
S.BALL UMPIRE: 1 GAME @$18.00
010.4424.5352 18.00
Total : 18.00
LATEX GLOVES&WYPALL TOWEL
LATEX GLOVES&WYPALL TOWEL
010.4213.5604 310.92
Total : 310.92
PARK DEPOSIT-STROTHER PARK-
PARK DEPOSIT-STROTHER PARK-
010.0000.4354 29.00
Total : 29.00
EXPENSED: CONFERENCE 7/31-8/'
EXPENSED: CONFERENCE 7/31-8/'.
010.4201.5501 665.90
Total : 665.90
S.BALL SCORER:6 GAMES @$7,5�
S.BALL SCORER: 6 GAMES @$7.51
010.4424.5352 45.00
Total : 45.00
267-8633:6/1 TO 7/10/05
267-8633: 6/1 TO 7/10/05
010.4145.5403 90.01
Page: 9
vchlist Voucher List Page: 10
07/15/2005 2:38:01PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
122043 7/15/2005 003108 SBC/MCI
122044 7/15/2005 003024 SCHAFFER, MARK
122045 7/15/2005 004451 SIEGEL, JERI
122046 7/15/2005 000547 SLOCAPRA
Invoice
(Continued)
T3861978
071305
070505
071505
122047 7/15/2005 004860 SMITH,TAMMY 071305
122048 7/15/2005 003641 SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY SVC, INC 1096922
1097949
1098668
PO# Description/Account
489-2174:6/1 TO 7/7/05
489-2174: 6/1 TO 7/7/05
010.4201.5403
Total :
S.BALL UMPIRE: 3 GAMES @$18.0
S.BALL UMPIRE: 3 GAMES @ $18.0
010.4424.5352
roWl :
PARK DEPOSIT-RANCHO GRANDE
PARK DEPOSIT-RANCHO GR,4NDE
010.0000.4354
Total :
MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL
MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL
010.4421.5503
Total :
S.BALL SCORER: 9 GAMES @$7.51
S.BALL SCORER: 9 GAMES @$7.51
010.4424.5352
ToWI :
DUMPSTERS-STROTHER PARK
DUMPSTERS-STROTHER PARK
010.4213.5303
DUMPSTERS-FIRE STATION
DUMPSTERS- FIRE STATION
010.4213.5303
DUMPSTERS-R,4NCH0 GRANDEF
DUMPSTERS-RANCHO GRANDE F
010.4213.5303
Total :
Amaunt
30.76
120.77
54.00
54.00
29.00
29.00
20.00
20.00
67.50
67.50
102.89
200.40
102.89
406.18
Page: 10
vchlist Voucher List Page: 11
07/15/2005 2:38:07PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
8ankcode: boa
Voucher Date Vendor
122049 7/15/2005 000609 SPEAR, BOB
122050 7/15/2005 002442 THURMAN, DENNIS
122051 7/15/2005 002370 TITAN INDUSTRIAL
Invoice
071305
071305
1005787
122052 7/15/2005 003429 VAN BEVEREN, CARRIE 071205
122053 7/15/2005 002000 VERIZON WIRELESS MESSAGING SVC L5252720FG
122054 7/15/2005 005026 WATANABE,AMY
122055 7/15/2005 005010 WEBBER PHD, NANCY E
61 Vouchers for bank code : boa
070505
071105
PO# Description/Account
S.BALL UMPIRE: 3 GAMES @$18.0
S.BALL UMPIRE: 3 GAMES @$18.0
010.4424.5352
Total :
S.BALL UMPIRE: 3 GAMES @$18.0
S.BALL UMPIRE: 3 GAMES @$18.0
010.4424.5352
Total :
EARPLUGS 8 LEATHER GLOVES
EARPLUGS&LEATHER GLOVES
010.4420.5255
ToWI :
MICROPHONE FOR CHILDREN IN M1
MICROPHONE FOR CHILDREN IN A
010.0000.4602
Total :
MIS PAGER
MIS PAGER
010.4140.5303
Total :
PARK DEPOSIT-STROTHER PARK-
PARK DEPOSIT-STROTHER PARK-
010.0000.4354
Total :
MEDICAL EVALUTION
MEDICAL EVALUTION
010.4420.5255
Total :
BanktoWl :
Amount
54.00
54.00
54.00
54.00
214.07
214.07
24.43
24.43
11.34
11.34
29.00
29.00
787.50
787.50
23,922.67
Page: 11
VChI1St
07/15/2005
Bankcode
Voucher
Voucher List
2:38:01PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
boa
Date Vendor Invoice PO#
61 Vouchers in this report
�� � ,a.�.._..>._ .
Page: 72
Description/Account Amount
Total vouchers: 23,922.67
Page: 12
.____
8.b.
� pRRO��
� C�
' � INCORPORATED 9Z
U �
m
M JULY ,o. ,s„ * MEMORANDUM
� c4��F ORN�P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ANGELA PILLOW, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES �
BY: FRANCES R. HEAD, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISO
SUBJECT: STATEMENT OFINVESTMENT DEPOSITS
DATE: JULY 26, 2005
Attached please find a report listing the current investment deposits of the City of Arroyo
Grande, as of June 30, 2005, as required by Government Code Section 53646 (b).
� CITY OFARROYO GRANDE
MONTHLY INVESTMENT REPORT
rld o��uKe 30, 2GYJ5 °
July 26, 2005
This report presents the City's investments as of June 30, 2005. It includes all
investments managed by the City, the investment institution, type of inveshnent,
maturity date, and rate of interest. As of June 30, 2005, the investment portfolio was in
compliance with all State laws and the City's investment policy.
Current Investments:
The City is currently investing all short-term excess cash in the Local Agency
Inveshnent Fund (LAIF) administered by the State Treasurer. This is a very high
quality investment in terms of safety, liquidity, and yield. The City may readily
transfer the LAIF funds to the City's checking account when funds are needed. At this
time, the City does not hold any other investments. The following is a comparison of
investments based on book values as of June 30, 2005, compared with the prior month
and the prior year.
LAIF INVESTMENT CURRENT PRIOR MONTH PRIOR YEAR
Date: June, 2005 May, 2005 June, 2004
Amount: $ 12,229,650 $ 12,229,650 $ 13,700,000
Interest Rate: 2.97% 2.86% 1.43%
8.c.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2005
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 275 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Mayor Pro Tem Costello called the meeting to order at 6:23 p.m. Council Member Dickens, Council
Member Guthrie, Council Member Arnold, City Manager Adams, City Attorney Carmel, Chief of ;
Police TerBorch, and Human Resources Manager Sisko were present. Mayor Ferrara was absent
due to his attendance at the County Board of Supervisors' hearing on the proposed transfer of
maintenance responsibility for Flood Zone 1/1A to the Department of Water Resources.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
3. CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION:
a. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Government Code Section
54957.6:
Agency Negotiators: Rick TerBorch and Karen Sisko
Represented Employees: Service Employees International Union (SEIU) — Local 620
b. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Government Code Section
54957.6:
Agency Negotiator:Steven Adams
Represented Employees: Part-time Employees
c. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Government Code Section
54957.6:
Agency Negotiator:Steven Adams
Represented Employees: Director of Building and Fire
d. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9(a):
Name of Case: Santa Maria Vallev Water Conservation District vs Citv of
Santa Maria, et al. and related actions
Santa Clara Suoerior Court Case No CV 770214.
MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
JUNE 14, 2005
PAGE 2
4. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION:
Mayor Pro Tem Costello announced that there was no reportable action from the closed session.
5. ADJOURNMENT TO REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
Tony Ferrara, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk
i
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2005
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1. CALL TO ORDER
MayodChair Ferrara called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
City Council: Council/Board Members Dickens, Guthrie, Arnold, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice
Chair Costello, and MayoNChair Ferrara were present.
City Staff Present: City Manager Adams, City Attorney Carmel, Director of Administrative
Services/City Clerk Wetmore, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Spagnolo, Director of Financial Services Pillow, Director of Community
Development Strong, and Associate Planner Heffernon.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Charles Howell, Sr. Vice Commander and Aimee Clayton, President Auxiliary, representing
Veterans of Foreign Wars 2829, led the Flag Salute.
4. INVOCATION
Pastor Paul Jones delivered the invocation.
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
5.a. Honorary Proclamation Recognizing Leavitt Woodland for Attaining the Rank of
Eagle Scout.
Mayor Ferrara presented an Honorary Proclamation to Leavitt Woodland and congratulated him
for attaining the rank of Eagle Scout.
6. AGENDA REVIEW
6.a. Resolutions and Ordinances Read in TiUe Only.
Mayor Pro Tem Costello moved, Council Member Dickens seconded, and the motion passed
unanimously that all resolutions and ordinances presented at the meeting shall be read in title
only and all further reading be waived.
7. CITIZENS' INPUT. COMMENTS. AND SUGGESTIONS
None.
8. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Pro Tem Costello requested that Item 8.c. (Consideration of CoMirmation of
Assessments, Tracts 1158 and 1769) be pulled for separate roll call vote as he has a conflict of
interest due to ownership of real property.
Mayor Pro Tem Costello moved, and Council Member Arnold seconded the motion to approve
Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.n., with the exception of Item 8.c., with the recommended
courses of action. City Attorney Carmel read the titles of the Ordinances in items 8.f and 8.g.
The motion carried on the foliowing roll-call vote:
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
JUNE 14, 2005
PAGE 2
AYES: Costello, Arnold, Dickens, Guthrie, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification.
Action: Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period May 16, 2005 through
May 31, 2005.
8.b. Consideration of Annual Adjustment of Development Impact Fees.
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3842 approving the annual adjustment to the City's
Development Impact Fees.
8.d. Consideration of Approval of Minutes.
Action: Approved the minutes of the Special City Council (Closed Session) Meetings of
March 22, April 26, and May 10, 2005; the Regular City Council Meeting of May 10, 2005;
and the Speciai City CounciVRedevelopment Agency Meeting of May 18, 2005 as
submitted.
8.e. Request for Approval to Proceed with Purchase of Used Fire Apparatu�.
Actlon: Authorized the purchase of one used 1996 Hi-Tech fire engine; declared Arroyo
Grande Engine 6695 surplus and authorized the City Manager to sell the engine upon
commissioning of the Hi-Tech engine.
S.f. ConsideraUon of Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 2 of the Municipal Code
to Change the Regular Meeting Schedule of the Senior Advisory Commiss(on.
Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 566 amending Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section
228.050.D. to allow the Senior Advisory Commission to meet quarterly rather than
monthly.
8.g. Consideration of Adoption of Ordinance Repealing, Amending, and Adding
Provisions to Titles 8, 9, 12 and 15 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code.
Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 567 repealing, amending, and adding provisions to Titles
8 (Health & Safety), 9 (Public Peace &Welfare), 12 (Streets, Sidewalks & Public Places),
and 15 (Buildings and Construction) to provide internal consistency with current City
policies and practices; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 3845 establishing fees for moving
permit application and inspection fees as authorized by Municipal Code Chapter 15.12.
8.h. Cons(deration of a Cooperation Agreement Between the County of San Luis
Obispo and the City of Arroyo Grande for Joint Participation in the Community
Development Block Grant Program, the Home Investment Partnerships Program,
the Emergency Shelter Grant Program, the American Dream Down Payment
Initiative Program, and the Housiny Opportunitles for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
Program for Fiscal Years 2006 Through 2008.
Actlon: Adopted Resolution No. 3846 approving the Cooperation Agreement.
S.i. ConsideraUon to Authorize the SolicltaUon of Proposals for Environmental
Services to be Provided in Conjunction with Creek Cleaning Work.
Action: Authorized the solicitation of proposals for environmental services to be provided
in conjunction wfth cleaning the major creeks within the City.
S.j. Consideration of an Agreement with Caltrans for the Positive LocaUon of
Underground UtlliUes.
Action: 1) Adopted Resolution No. 3847 approving an agreement with Caltrans for the
positive location of underground utilities; and 2) Authorized the Mayor to execute the
Agreement.
I
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
JUNE 14, 2005
PAGE 3
8.k. ConsideraUon of Acceptance of the Reservoir No. 1 Replacement Project, PW
2003-07.
Action: 1) Accepted the project improvements as constructed by Papich Construction
Company in accordance with the plans and specifications for the Reservoir No. 1
Replacement Project; 2) Directed staff to file a Notice of Completion; and 3) Authorized
release of retention thirty-five (35) days after the Notice of Completion has been
recorded, 'rf no liens have been filed.
8.1. ConsideraUon of Chanye in Council Appointment to the San Luis Obispo County
Water Resources Advisory Committee(WRAC).
Actlon: Appointed Council Member Ed Arnold as the City's primary representative to the
San Luis Obispo County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) and Mayor Pro
Tem Joe Costello as the alternate representative.
8.m. Consideration to Approve the Plans and SpecificaUons and AuthorizaUon to Solicit
Bids to Construct Phase 1 of the Well No. 10 Project, PW 2004-07.
Action: 1) Approved the plans and specifications for Phase 1 of the Well No. 10 Project;
2) Authorized the Public Works Department to solicit public construction bids; 3)
Determined that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section
15306; and 4) Directed the Administrative Services Director to file a Notice of Exemption;
and 5) Adopted Resolution No. 3848 accepting the easement for the well site.
S.n. ConsideraUon of Approval of Plans and Specificatlons and Authorizallon to Solicit
Bids for the Sewer Lift Station No. 1 Upgrade, PW 2005-02.
Actton: 1) Approved the plans and specificaUons for the Sewer Lift Station No. 1
Upgrade, PW 2005-02; 2) Authorized the Public Works Department to solicit public
construction bids; 3) Determined that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA
pursuant to Section 15301(b); 4) Directed the Director of Administrative Services to file a
Notice of Exemption; and 5) Adopted Resolution No. 3849 authorizing the Mayor to sign
a Certificate of Acceptance for a Quitclaim Deed for conveyance of real property from the
County to the City.
8.c. Consideration of Confirmation of Assessments.
Recommended Action: 1) Adopt Resolution confirming landscaping assessments for all
parcels within Tract 1158; and 2) Adopt Resolution confirming landscaping and lighting
assessments for all parcels within Tract 1769.
Council Member Dickens moved to approve staff's recommendation on Item 8.c., Council
Member Guthrie seconded, and the motion carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Dickens, Guthrie, Arnold, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: Costello (recused)
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
9.a. ConsideraUon of Development Code Amendment Case No. 05-008, Tentative Parcel
Map Case No. 05-003 and Conditlonal Use Permit Case No. 04-009; Applicant —
Gary White; Location—1400 West Branch Street.
�;�
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
JUNE 14, 2005
PAGE 4
Director of Community Development Strong recommended that the Council continue the public
hearing item to the Regular City Council meeting of July 12, 2005.
Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing and invited comments from those in the audience who
wished to be heard on the matter. No public comments were received and the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
Following Council discussion concerning summer vacation schedules and absences during
upcoming meetings, Council Member Arnold moved to continue consideration of Development
Code Amendment Case No. 05-008, Tentative Parcel Map Case No. 05-003 and Conditional
Use Permit Case No. 04-009; Applicant— Gary White; Location — 1400 West Branch Street to a
date uncertain. Mayor Pro Tem Costello seconded, and the motion carried on the following roll-
call vote:
AYES: Arnold, Costello, Dickens, Guthrie, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
9.b. Continued Public Hearing - Conslderation of the 2005 Water and Sewer Rate Study
and Resolutions Establlshing New Water and Sewer Rates, and New Lopez
Contract Charges (SPAGNOLO)
Director of Public Works Spagnolo introduced Clayton Tuckfield from Tuckfield &Associates who
would be giving a presentation of the results of the water and sewer rate study.
Clayton Tuckfield, Tuckfield & Associates, gave a presentation of the results of the water and
sewer rate study which included overviews of the existing water system, water major capital
improvements, water fund financial plan, comparison of water fund revenue with revenue
requirements, proposed rates and example water bills based on the current rate structure,
comparison of example water bilis under existing rate structure with other communities, water
conservation rates, impacts of conservation rate structure, example single family residence water
bills under the conservation rate structure; and overviews of the existing wastewater system,
wastewater major capital improvements, sewer fund financial plan, comparison of sewer revenue
with revenue requirements, sewer rates under existing structure, example sewer bilis under
existing structure, comparison of example sewer bills under existing rate structure with other
communities, sewer rates under conservation rate structure; and an overview of the Lopez fund,
Lopez fund projected cash f�ow, and Lopez fund existing and future charges.
Staff and Mr. Tuckfield responded to questions from Council regarding average single-family
residence water consumption; clarification concerning the status of existing debt service for the
Water fund; clarification regarding how projections for water usage were made for the purpose of
determining revenue; whether there has been success in achieving conservation with tiered
water rate structures in other local jurisdictions; whether rates will stabilize in FY 2008-09 once
financing of substantial capital improvement projects is complete; and clarffication of the capital
improvement plan.
Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing and invited comments from those in the audience who
wished to be heard on the matter. No public comments were received and the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
JUNE 14, 2005
PAGE 5
Council Member Guthrie stated that he had seen a tiered rate structure work well in conservation
efforts in Santa Barbara; however, the tiers were higher. He supported the tiered rate structure
and commented that if it was successful in achieving water conservation, the City nesded to be
prepared to build those factors into the base rates. He stressed the importance of an
educational program regarding the need for water conservation.
Council Member Dickens stated the proposed tiered rate structure is a good compromise;
however, he was skeptical whether the tiered structure would provide the adequate incentives for
conserving water. He agreed with Council Member Guthrie in that there probably should be
greater separation between tiers; however, he would not support that for Arroyo Grande. He felt
that it would be a penal system and he preferred an educational approach for water
conservation. He favored moving fonvard with the tiered rate structure as proposed as it was not !
significantiy different from our existing structure. He acknowledged the need for funding future
capital projects. In addition, he supported staff's recommendation concerning the proposed
Lopez contract charges.
Council Member Arnold supported the tiered rate structure as proposed. He commented he did
not have a lot of faith that this would result in a lot of water conservation; however, he
acknowledged that it would raise more money which would allow development of more water
sources to benefit the City in the long run. He suggested reviewing the tiered rate structure in
one year to see the results and possibly adding a fifth tier which would be more punitive.
Mayor Pro Tem Costello supported the tiered rate structure and stated it was an excellent start.
He did not feel the rates should be punitive; however, he commented that as time progresses,
there needs to be more awareness of water conservation efforts. He agreed with the suggestion
to review the results in one year. He expressed concern over the proposed increases in the
Lopez contract charges, and Director Spagnolo responded that those costs are a direct result of
the completion of the Lopez Dam retrofR project as well as plans for the upcoming water
treatment plant upgrade project. Mayor Pro Tem Costello emphasized that an educational
process would be a key part of this process and encouraged staff to explore every opportunity to
educate the community concerning water conservation.
City Manager Adams commented that due to the City's new financial services software system,
the new tiered rate structure would not be implemented until the new utility billing component is
installed. He stated this was anticipated to occur by March 2006, and this would give the City
more time to provide public education prior to any rate changes taking piace. He also clarified
that previously approved increases would still take effect; however, the tiered rate structure
implementation woutd be delayed.
Mayor Ferrara stated he was hesitant about a tiered rate structure because he saw it as a
punitive measure. He commented that even if we are successful with conservation programs
that result in a material reduction, then the City's revenue stream is negatively affected and
people are ultimately penalized across the board for conserving water because they pay so little
for using less water that it affects revenue stream that supports operational costs. He stated that
he could support this proposal with the stipulation that the City monftor this program, detertnine
whether or not this program has a material effect on consumption, and bring the issue back to
the Council for review. He also spoke of the need for the Council to consider build out
population, as it relates to the City's infrastructure and water supply resources.
�'
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
JUNE 14, 2005
PAGE 6
Council Member Arnold moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ESTABLISHING WATER AND SEWER
RATES AND CHARGES", and approving the tiered rate structure with yearly usage monitoring.
Following discussion, the motion was amended to include that the tiered water rate schedule
would be implemented as soon as feasible and a water conservation status report would be
provided a year from the date of implementation. Council Member Guthrie seconded the
amended motion. Following further discussion concerning monitoring and reporting, the motion
carried on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Arnold, Guthrie, Dickens, Costello, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Council Member Arnold moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE SETTING FORTH THE AMOUNT OF
LOPEZ CONTRACT CHARGES". Council Member Dickens seconded, and the motion carried
on the foilowing roll-call vote:
AYES: Arnold, Dickens, Guthrie, Costello, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
At 825 p.m. at the request of Council Member Dickens, the Council unanimously agreed to take
a recess to allow time to review correspondence received at the beginning of the meeGng
relating to Item 9.c.
Mayor Ferrara reconvened the meeting at 8:38 p.m.
9.c. Consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 04-004 and Planned Unit
Development Case No. 04-001; Applicant— DB & M Properties, LLC; Location —415
East Branch Street
Associate Planner Heffemon presented the staff report and recommended the Council consider
an Addendum to a cert'rfied Environmental Impact Report and a proposal for a commercial retail,
office and residential project. The Planning Commission recommended the City Council deny the
project as presented at the April 19, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Associate Planner
Heffernon noted that the applicant had since made changes to the project in accordance with
Planning Commission and public comment. Staff responded to questions from Council.
Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing.
oe Boud, Joseph Boud & Associates, spoke on behalf of the applicant and gave a brief
background presentation on the status and design of the project which has been in progress for
the past five years. He stated that the proposed mixed-use project had been presented to the
Council as a pre-application last year in order to better understand the City's goals and
expectations for the site. He stated the project had been reviewed by the Staff Advisory
Committee, Archftectural Review Committee (ARC) and Planning Commission and support
letters had been provided by the Chamber of Commerce and Village Improvement Association.
He explained that the project had been redesigned as a result of feedback received. He referred
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
JUNE 14, 2005
PAGE 7
to Conditions #79 and #94 and suggested a change to the requirement for full sidewalk
improvements along Le Point Street; had agreed to the down slope driveways on Crown
Terrace; commented that the barn had been retained; referred to Condition #6 which requires an
open space agreement and a trail easement; commented that the appiicant agresd to eliminate
the gate between the residential and commercial components; stated that the driveway between
the barn and Maude house had been eliminated; stated they had also agreed to return the
project back to the Planning Commission and ARC and suggested that a condition for this be
added; noted that a guard rail sample had been provided which would be reviewed by the
Planning Commission and ARC; noted that a storm drain filter sample had been provided; and
noted that a scale model of the project had been prepared. He commented that the creek
cleanup and restoration comments made at Planning Commission would be managed through
the mitigation-monitoring program as specified in the EIR, as well as compliance with the flood
control ordinance. He stated that they agreed to modify the streetlights, which may require a
change to Condition #72. He concluded by stating that almost every item the Planning
Commission brought up was incorporated into the project with the exception of the loss of one
residential unit. He stated the project complies with all development code standards; the
commercial building was designed to compliment the Loomis building, and the bungalow style
residential units were designed to compliment the Village. He stated he hoped this was a project
the Council could support. Mr. Boud responded to questions from Councii conceming circulation
issues surrounding the project; the proposed height of the commercial building; the proposed
trail easement, proposed fencing, and clarification concerning required setbacks.
Earl Balaeman, Le Point Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed project and stated he had
only heard about this project in January. He suggested involving the neighborhood earlier, at the
beginning of the process. He expressed concerns regarding safety on Crown Terrace and Le
Point Street due to increased traffic generated from the development, density of the proposed
project, as weli as ingress and egress from Crown Terrace.
James Norbv, Le Point Street, opposed the design of the project and said it did not make sense
to have 24 units exiting the development onto a dead-end street. He also said he heard the
adjacent property owner woutd not grant an easement and that this should be required so a
driveway could be used from E. Branch Street.
Carol Fulmer, Le Point Street, asked that the project include a crosswalk where the sidewalks on
Crown Terrace and Le Point already intersect near the proposed island. She expressed concern
that the growth of this area has not yet been addressed and it was not fair to dump the traffic
from a mixed-use project into a well-established urban area; agreed that the traffic should be put
onto the commercial streets and not back into the neighborhood.
Bill McCann, Crown Hill, began by stating that the proposed Creekside Center should eventually
be approved in some form and, if done properly, it will be a fine addftion to the City. However, he
expressed concerns about traffic impacts on E. Branch Street at the comers of Crown Hill and
Crown Terrace. He beiieved that a complete evaluation of the subject property, the Hayes
property, and the Scolari property should be done to determine how best to handle all of the
traffic within the boundaries of E. Branch Street, Crown Terrace, Le Point and Mason Streets. He
spoke of previous traffic studies. He displayed photos (on file in the Administrative Services
Department) showing vehicles at these locations during peak hour traffic. He stated he did not
believe that even with the proposed driveway relocation and an added left turn lane, that it would
be adequate to service the development. He also stated it was imperative that a reciprocal
a�ess agreement be obtained with the adjacent property owner to the west and stated that
without this agreement, the size of the project should be reduced. He suggested 'rf the project
was reduced, to eliminate the upper residentiai units on Crown Terrace.
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
JUNE 14, 2005
PAGE 8
Ann Balaeman, Le Point Street, referred to the letter she wrote to the Planning Commission
which included 37 signatures of her neighbors opposing the scope of the project es it relates to
traffic and safety impacts, and asked the Council to visit the site and walk the streets surrounding
the project site.
Barbara Freel, Le Point Street, referred to the proposed island along Crown Terrace and
expressed concerns that it will be all concrete without any landscaping. She stated she was
unhappy with the trees along Crown Terrace being removed and also expressed concern with
lighting generated from the project and its impact to the residences.
Camav Arad, owner of Chameleon Fabrics on E. Branch Street, rebutted some of Mr. Boud's
comments regarding redesign of the project; that the barn was retained (the barn was sold); and
stated that not all of the Planning Commission's suggestions were addressed, induding design
materials for the commercial building and creekside access. She referred to the roofline of the
proposed commercial building and objected to the metal roof. She noted that the design of the
commercial portion should be cute, charming, and character driven to attract shoppers.
Steve Ross, Garden Street, commented that the project had gone through the ARC and was
reviewed by people who were familiar with the Cityscape; believed that the project is outside the
strictest area of architecture that would include the Village Core and is in the Village Mixed Use
area as far as zoning. He said if the City intends to provide affordable workforce housing,
projects like this within the core of the City is where it should be provided. He said he did not
believe this project takes away from the rural feel of the City. He stated that the project should
follow the City's guidelines.
Jacklin Pontarelli, Le Point Street, said there is a unique opportunity in the Village to provide a
project that wili benefit the citizens, merchants, and visitors. She spoke of the need to inc�ude
businesses that will attract visitors and that those businesses have adequate parking.
Howard Mankins, Hillcrest Drive resident and owner of several businesses in the Village, stated
he has lived here all his life and has watched the changes in the City. He said there is more to
being for or against a project; what is good for the City is what counts. He commented on the
water supply issue. He stated it was important for the Council to consider a project that brings in
sales tau, offers some workforce housing, and stated that projects cannot economically assume
all of the mistakes made around it. He noted that the Village Improvement Association
supported this project and that this project would be good for the Village. He supported the
proposed project.
Grea Moore, Village business owner and member of the Village Improvement Association, spoke
in support of the project. He pointed out the project is compatible with the area and is a nice
addition to the Village, provides a live/work environment, and noted that residents could walk to
the Village for services.
Richard DeBlauw, property owner/applicant, stated that retired people who are interested in the
project have contacted him. He spoke in support of the project.
Susan Flores, E. Branch Street, stated that she sees potentia� for this project; noted that the
developer is a long time resident of the City; commented that Crown Hiil needs to be opened up;
and more sidewalks are needed for the kids. She supported the project as proposed.
�ohn Gutierrez, E. Branch Street, commented that traffic is already coming from ott�er areas of
the City to the Village and he disagreed that the neighborhood would be impacted by additional
traffic. He supported the proposed project.
Mike McConville, E. Branch Street, commented tMat backing out onto E. Branch Street is tough.
He stated this was a good project and that he felt there was too much negativity surrounding the
project. He suggested that sidewalks be installed on Crown Hill. He supported the project and
encouraged the Council to provide the applicant with clear direction.
1
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
JUNE 14, 2005
PAGE 9
Michael Bondello, McKinley, acknowledged that the City Council is very concerned with the
details of the project as well as the neighborhood's concems. He spoke about the existing traffic
problems near Crown Hill and stated that this project will exacerbate the problem.
Ann Balaeman, Le Point Street, noted that the addresses of those who spoke in favor of the
project are not directly impacted and do not live in the immediate vicinity of the project.
Joe Boud, applicanYs representative, responded to public comments and spoke of the traffic
studies that have been conducted and the level of service impacts. He also clarified that his
reference to a redesign of the project was from the original 35,000 square foot shopping center
to this proposed mixed-use project of 24 residential units and a 12,000 square foot commercial
building. He encouraged approval of the project.
Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing.
Counci� Member Arnold stated one of his concems was the access through the west side of the
property. He stated he could not support the project until that access is granted. He addressed
the circulation issue; referred to the trees on Crown Terrace and suggested a way to save them;
expressed concern with regard to the scale of the commercial building; requested story poles on
the site; and concluded by stating that most of the issues could be resolved and this could be a
good project. He reiterated that access to the west side of the parcel is critical.
Council Member Guthrie asked questions of the traffic engineer regarding Crown Hill and E.
Branch. Mr. Dan Dawson replied that detailed studies, traffic, and pedestrian counts were
conducted during a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Council Member Guthrie stated that he believes
commercial use generates more traffic than residential; that the proposed improvements will
return Crown Terrace to a residential street; the addition of a sidewalk on the west side also
improves the street to a residential nature; and the driveways would contribute more to a
residential nature of Crown Terrace. He stated the net affect is an improvement to Crown
Terrace/Le Point. He expressed a concern about the creek setbacWproperty line issue as it
relates to the residential component. In terms of the commercial component, he acknowledged
that there is a traffic problem at the intersection at certain times of the day; however, the overall
effect at this intersection is not serious according to the Citys policies. He shared concerns with
the proposed scale/height of the commercial building. He said the addition of a second entrance
on E. Branch is important and would improve the traffic congestion at Crown Hiil and E. Branch.
He concluded by stating that he would need clar'rfication on the creek setback to ensure that
houses are not being built within the creek setback, and agreed that the project needs the
access easement for a second entrance on E. Branch Street. He stated that with those two
additions he could support the project as designed.
Council Member Dickens stated he relies in part on observations and input from residents in the
immediate area for traffic concerns. He refiected on the pre-application process which was
review of a conceptual plan and an opportunity to provide input. He spoke about the focus and
vision for the Village Core. He stated that he had preferred the original commercial project and
did not support the large residential component as presented. He spoke about the site and said
a project needs to capitalize on its assets, including creekside access, close proximity to the
Village, and the historic features and buildings on the site. He objected to the size and scale of
the three-story commercial building which dwarfs the existing barn; did not see adequate
pedestrian access or pathways to the Village; and felt there were land use conflicts between the
commercial and residential uses. He stated there was also a conflict beriveen the residential and
open space. He commented that historically, this parcel has had no access to Crown Terrace
6,
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
JUNE 14, 2005
PAGE 10
and that it needs to be widened and improved to City standards. He was not in favor of
relinquishment of any easements along Le Point, and stated that future circulation and access
issues need to be addressed. He noted that circulation within the development was imperative
and that circulation must include access to the west. He suggested the applicant look at the
assets this parcel provides, capitalize on those assets, and mitigate traffic circulation problems
more effectively.
Mayor Pro Tem Costello inquired how many trees were proposed to be removed. He expressed
concern with the left turn pocket as proposed; the driveway as proposed on E. Branch Street
conflicts with Crown Hill intersection; stated that access from the west side of the property needs '
to be in place first; supported the four way stop at Crown Terrace and Le Point; did not have a
problem with the driveways backing out into the street; noted that lighting impacts are mitigated
and should not create a nuisance for the residential neighborhood; suggested a one year review
period on an interior gate; agreed that pedestrian circulation needed to be improved; supported
the proposed density and noted that in order to preserve agricultural in the City, we need to look
at other areas for development; requested clarification regarding the open space and potential
impacts to the homes; clarification regarding the creek setback; and stated at this point he could
not support the project.
Mayor Ferrara asked staff to address the potential for phasing the project. Director Strong stated
there was initially a recommendation to phase the project to defer the 12,000 square foot
commercial building until the western access was obtained. He said the applicant has been in
negotiations with the owner of the property located to the west.
Mayor Ferrara noted that a considerable amount of progress had been made on this project. He
acknowledged existing problems surrounding the site. He stated that size, scale and intensity of
use are the most critical issues in the Village. He stated he was pleased that negotiations were
undervvay to obtain access to the western portion of the site. He agreed the creek setback and
open space issues need to be clarified. He expressed appreciation for the three dimensional
model; did not support the proposed roofline of the c�mmercial building; steted that the
commercial building needs to blend in better with the barn; supported the concept of "less
verticality, more horizontality' and stated it needed to be softened and/or flattened. He liked the
idea of phasing of the project overall for circulation purposes and stressed the need for a
manageable circulation segment. He had issues with the results of the traffic study based on his
actual experience. He stated with additional modifications, the project would work. He
commented that live/work units are not working in this area and supported the concept of small
residential units, with proper Iandscaping.
Council Member Arnold moved to continue to a date uncertain consideration of Vesting Tentative
Tract Map Case No. 04-004 and Planned Unit Development Case No. 04-001; Applicant— DB &
M Properties, LLC; Location — 415 East Branch Street. Council Member Guthrie seconded, and
the motion carried on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Arnold, Guthrie, Costello, Ferrara
NOES: Dickens
ABSENT: None
Mayor Ferrara requested, and the Council concurred, to move Agenda Item t0.a. up on the
Agenda for consideration prior to Item 9.d.
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
JUNE 14, 2005
PAGE 11
10. CONTINUED BUSINESS
10.a. Consideration of FY 2005-06/FY 2006-07 BI-Annual Budget[CC/RDA].
Director of Financial Services Pillow presented the staff report recommended the Council: 1)
Adopt a Resolution approving the FY 2005-06/FY 2006-07 Bi-Annual Budget; and 2) Approve
the proposed change to the City's Financial Policies.
MayodChair Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on
the matter.
John Dunn, Acting PresidenUCEO of the Economic Vitaliry Corporation, thanked the City for its
support over the years. He stated the EVC is the only County-wide organization devoted to
improving the economic vitality of the County in the creation of jobs. He said EVC programs are
designed to assist in the retention, expansion, and attraction of business and industry. He said
during a recent Board retreat, discussions were held of the EVC's role and function of the
services provided and how to better serve its constituencies. He wi�l be following up with specific
work programs, which witl include working closer with the cities to better align their adivities with
the City's economic goals and objectives.
No further public comments were received and MayodChair Ferrara closed the public comment
period.
Mayor Pro TemNice Chair Costello moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING FISCAL YEARS
2006-06 AND 2006-07 TWO-YEAR BUDGET AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE
AMOUNT BUDGETED". CounciUBoard Member Guthrie seconded, and the motion carried on
the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Costello, Guthrie, Dickens, Arnold, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
9.d. Consideration of Proposed Resolution Increasing Operating Fees by 5% in the
Fire, Building, Community Development, and Engineering Departments.
City Manager Adams presented the staff report and recommended the Council adopt a
Resolution increasing operating fees in the specified departments by 5%.
Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing and invited comments from those in the audience who
wished to be heard on the matter. No public comments were received and the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
Council discussion and comments included support in recapturing fuily City costs from those who
benefit from the services; support for the recommendation that a comprehensive operating fee
study be conducted within the next hnro years; and overall support for the proposed 5% increase.
I!
f`
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
JUNE 14, 2005
PAGE 12
Council Member Dickens moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING OPERATING FEES FOR
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, ENGINEERING, BUILDING AND FIRE SERVICES". Mayor
Pro Tem Costello seconded, and the motion carried on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Dickens, Costello, Guthrie, Arnold, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
11. NEW BUSINESS
None.
12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS
a) Request to place on a future agenda consideration of sfdewalk improvements in
the Nelson Green area. (FERRARA)
Mayor Ferrara requested, and the Council concurred, to direct staff to place on a future agenda
consideration of sidewalk improvements in the Nelson Green area.
13. CITY MANAGER ITEMS
None.
14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Council Member Dickens requested, and the City Council concurred, for staff to investigate
whether construction of the East Village Plaza is in conflict with creek setback requirements.
Council Member Arnold thanked the Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Department for the Father
Daughter Date Night. He also commended Commander Steve Andrews regarding the Police
DepartmenYs response and investigation to complaints regarding door-tadoor solicitations and
suggested the development of an ordinance to address inappropriate behavior by solicitors. I
Mayor Ferrara gave a status update on the County Board of Supervisor's unanimous support to
delay for one year maintenance responsibility for Flood Zone 1/1A to the State Department of
Water Resources.
15. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
None.
16. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Steve Ross, Garden Street, agreed with the Mayor on his philosophy regarding tiered water
rates and their impact on conservation.
17. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Ferrara adjourned the
meeting at 11:53 p.m.
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
JUNE 14, 2005
PAGE 13
Tony Ferrara, MayodChalr
ATTEST:
Kelly Wetmore, City CIerWAgency Secretary
(Approved at CC Mtg )
�
oE pRROY�c S��■
� INCORVOqATED Z
u �
�
� �u�r ,o. �u�, *
c4��FORN�P MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/CITY
CLERK _ p/,i)
�,N�-
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF REJECTION OF CLAIM AGAINST CITY — C.
FORESEE
DATE: JULY 26, 2005
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council reject the claim for damages against the City filed by
Cindy Foresee.
FUNDING:
None.
DISCUSSION:
The City's insurance administrators have reviewed the claim of Ms. Foresee and
recommend it be rejected.
Attachments:
1. Rejection Letter
y :
__...
�`� �
C� � P.o.soX sso
�y�G�� 214 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande,CA 93421
ADMIAIISTRAITVE SERVICES Phone:(805)473-5414
FAX:(S0�473-0386
E-Mail:agcity@arroyogrande.org
July 27, 2005
Ms. Cindy Foresee
165 Leeward
Shell Beach CA 93449
REJECTION OF CLAIM PRESENTED WITHIN SIX MONTHS
Notice is hereby given that the claim you presented to the City Council of the City of
Arroyo Grande on May 25, 2005 was rejected by the City Council on July 26, 2005.
WARNING
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice
was personally delivered or deposited in the United States mail to file a court action
on this ciaim (See Government Code Section 945 6)
This time limitation appiies only to causes of action arising under California law for
which a claim is mandated by the California Government Tort Claims Act.
Government Code Sections 900 et. seq.. Other causes of action, including those
arising under federal law, may have different time limitations for filing.
You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter.
If you desire to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.
Kelly Wetmore
Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk
c: City Manager
City Attomey
Director of Public Works '
Carl Warren & Co.
�
_._�
pRROY� ��e�
OE CP
' INCONPORATED 92
�
u °
m
* x�Y ,o, ,e„ . MEMORANDUM
� c4��FORN�P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER �
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ANNUAL AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN
LUIS OBISPO COUNTY VISITORS & CONFERENCE BUREAU
DATE: JULY 26, 2005
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute the annual
Agreement with the San Luis Obispo County Visitors and Conference Bureau
(SLOCVCB).
FUNDING:
The annual cost of the Agreement is $7,100, which is charged to the
Redevelopment Agency. This represents an increase of $210 over what was
paid in previous years, and funding is included in the FY 2005-06 budget.
DISCUSSION:
The mission of the SLOCVCB is to "promote the County's economic
opportunities through its primary industry — tourism." The SLOCVCB promotes
tourism through a number of programs and it is cost effective for the City to
coordinate these efforts with other agencies and businesses in the County. The
City has been a dues paying member since 2000.
The City's Economic Development Strategy includes a section on tourism, and
one of the specific goals is "to become an active participant in the San Luis
Obispo Countywide tourism programs." Therefore, this item forwards the goals
of the Economic Development program. The City's funds will assist the
SLOCVCB to expand their outreach efforts. Existing programs of the SLOCVCB
have been successful. Most notable, they have greatly expanded their website
materials, capabilities and marketing. At this time, Jim Bergman from the
Community Development Department serves as the City's representative on the
SLOCVCB Board of Directors. Participation in the SLOCVCB will continue to be
more important in the future if the City is successful in its efforts to attract new
hotel development.
; CITY COUNCIL
SLOCVCB AGREEMENT
JULY 26, 2005
PAGE 2
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Authorize the Mayor to execute the annual agreement with the
SLOCVCB;
- Modify the agreement and then execute the Mayor to approve the
agreement;
- Do not approve agreement;
- Provide staff with other direction.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Agreement with SLOCVCB
S:\CIT1'MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports\VCB Agreement 7.26.OS.doc
AGREEMENT FOR SLOVCB SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of July 1, 2005, between the SAN LUIS
OBISPO COUNTY VISITORS AND CONFERENCE BUREAU, a California non-profit
corporation (herinafter referred to as "SLOCVCB"), and the CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE, a Municipal Corporation ("City"). In consideration of the mutual covenants
and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. TERM
This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2005 and shall remain and continue
in effect until June 30, 2006, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this
Agreement.
2. SERVICES
SLOCVCB shall perform the tasks described and comply with all terms and
provisions set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference.
3. PERFORMANCE
SLOCVCB shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his/her
ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein. SLOCVCB shall
employ, at a minimum generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons
engaged in providing similar services as are required of SLOCVCB hereunder in
meeting its obligations under this Agreement.
4. AGREEMENT ADMINISTRATION
City's City Manager shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the
administration of this Agreement. PresidenUCEO shall represent SLOCVCB in all
matters pertaining to the administration of this Agreement.
5. PAYMENT
In consideration for the services to be perFormed by SLOCVCB, the City agrees
to pay the SLOCVCB seven thousand and one hundred dollars ($7,100).
6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE
The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or
terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the SLOCVCB at leas4
ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the SLOCVCB shall
immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides othervvise.
Page 1 of 13 •
If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or
termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.
7. TERMINATION ON OCCURRENCE OF STATED EVENTS
This Agreement shall terminate automatically on the occurrence of any of the
following events:
(a) Bankruptcy or invoivency of any party;
(b) Assignment of this Agreement by SLOCVCB without the consent of City;
(c) End of the Agreement term specified in Section 1.
8. DEFAULT OF SLOCVCB
(a) The SLOCVCB's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement
shall constitute a default. In the event that SLOCVCB is in default for cause under the
terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating
SLOCVCB for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this
Agreement immediately by written notice to the SLOCVCB. If such failure by the
SLOCVCB to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes
beyond the SLOCVCB's control, and without fault or negligence of the SLOCVCB, it
shall not be considered a default.
(b) If the City Manager or his/her delegate determines that the SLOCVCB is in
default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, he/she
shall cause to be served upon the SLOCVCB a written notice of the default. The
SLOCVCB shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure
the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the SLOCVCB
fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right,
notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to terminate this Agreement
without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be
entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement.
9. LAWS TO BE OBSERVED. SLOCVCB shall:
(a) Procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all
notices which may be necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the
services to be performed by SLOCVCB under this Agreement;
(b) Keep itself fully informed of all existing and proposed federal, state and
local laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees which may affect those
engaged or employed under this Agreement, any materials used in SLOCVCB's
performance under this Agreement, or the conduct of the services under this
Agreement;
Page 2 of 13 -
(c) At all times observe and comply with, and cause all of its employees to
observe and comply with all of said laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees
mentioned above;
(d) Immediately report to the City's Contract Manager in writing any
discrepancy or inconsistency it discovers in said laws, ordinances, regulations, orders,
and decrees mentioned above in relation to any plans, drawings, specifications, or
provisions of this Agreement.
(e) The City, and its officers, agents and employees, shall not be liable at law
or in equity occasioned by failure of the SLOCVCB to comply with this Section.
10. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
(a) SLOCVCB shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to
sales, costs, expenses, receipts, and other such information required by City that relate
to the perFormance of services under this Agreement. SLOCVCB shall maintain
adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of
services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. SLOCVCB
shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable
times to such books and records; shall give City the right to examine and audit said
books and records; shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary; and
shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to
this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained
for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment.
(b) Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this
Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files,
surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to
be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and
may be used, reused, or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the
SLOCVCB. With respect to computer files, SLOCVCB shall make available to the City,
at the SLOCVCB's office and upon reasonable written request by the City, the
necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling,
transfercing, and printing computer files.
11. INDEMNIFICATION
(a) Indemnification for Professional Liabilitv. When the law establishes �
professional standard of care for SLOCVCB's Services, to the fullest extent permitted by
law, SLOCVCB shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City and any and all
of its officials, employees and agents ("Indemnified Parties") from and against any and;
all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including attorney's fees and costs
to the extent same are caused in whole or in part by any negligent or wrongful act, ereT�
or omission of SLOCVCB, its officers, agents, employees or subContractors (or �. ;-�
Page 3 of 13 -
entity or individual that SLOCVCB shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the
performance of professional services under this agreement.
(b) Indemnification for Other Than Professional Liabilitv. Other than in the
performance of professional services and to the full extent permitted by law, SLOCVCB
shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, and any and all of its employees,
officials and agents from and against any liability (including liability for claims, suits,
actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings,
losses, expenses or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, including
attorneys fees and costs, court costs, interest, defense costs, and expert witness fees),
where the same arise out of, are a consequence of, or are in any way attributable to, in
whole or in part, the performance of this Agreement by SLOCVCB or by any individual
or entity for which SLOCVCB is legally liable, including but not limited to officers,
agents, employees or subContractors of SLOCVCB.
(c) General Indemnification Provisions. SLOCVCB agrees to obtain executed
indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those set forth here in this section
from each and every subContractor or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or
on behalf of SLOCVCB in the performance of this agreement. In the event SLOCVCB
fails to obtain such indemnity obligations from others as required here, SLOCVCB
agrees to be fully responsible according to the terms of this section: Failure of City to
monitor compliance with these requirements imposes no additional obligations on City
and will in no way act as a waiver of any rights hereunder, This obligation to indemnify
and defend City as set forth here is binding on the successors, assigns or heirs of
SLOCVCB and shall survive the termination of this agreement or this section.
12. INSURANCE
SLOCVCB shall maintain prior to the beginning of and for the duration of this
Agreement insurance coverage as specified in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and
incorporated herein as though set forth in full.
13. INDEPENDENT SLOCVCB
(a) SLOCVCB is and shall at all times remain as to the City wholly independent.
The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of SLOCVCB
shall at all times be under SLOCVCB's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor
any of its o�cers, employees, or agents shall have control over the conduct of
SLOCVCB or any of SLOCVCB's officers, employees, or agents, except as set forth in
this Agreement. SLOCVCB shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or
any of its officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officers, employees, or
agents of the City. SLOCVCB shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt,
obligation, or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner.
(b) No employee benefits shall be available to SLOCVCB in connection wifh
performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to SLOCVCB as provided 6�
Page 4 of 13 •
the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to SLOCVCB
for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or
indemnification to SLOCVCB for injury or sickness arising out of performing services
hereunder.
14. UNDUEINFLUENCE
SLOCVCB declares and warrants that no undue influence or pressure was or is
used against or in concert with any officer or employee of the City of Arroyo Grande in
connection with the award, terms or implementation of this Agreement, including any
method of coercion, confidential financial arrangement, or financial inducement. No
officer or employee of the City of Arroyo Grande will receive compensation, directly or
indirectly, from SLOCVCB, or from any officer, employee or agent of SLOCVCB, in
connection with the award of this Agreement or any work to be conducted as a result of
this Agreement. Violation of this Section shall be a material breach of this Agreement
entitling the City to any and all remedies at law or in equity.
15. NO BENEFIT TO ARISE TO LOCAL EMPLOYEES
No member, officer, or employee of City, or their designees or agents, and no
public official who exercises authority over or responsibilities with respect to the project
during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect,
in any agreement or sub-agreement, or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed
in connection with the project performed under this Agreement.
16. RELEASE OF INFORMATIONICONFLICTS OF INTEREST
(a) All information gained by SLOCVCB in performance of this Agreement shall
be considered confidential and shall not be released by SLOCVCB without City's prior
written authorization. SLOCVCB, its officers, employees, agents, or subContractors,
shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the
City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at
depositions, response to interrogatories, or other information concerning the work
performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the
City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary"
provided SLOCVCB gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
(b) SLOCVCB shall promptly notify City should SLOCVCB, its officers,
employees, agents, or subContractors be served with any summons, complaint,
subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for
admissions, or other discovery request, court order, or subpoena from any person or
party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder or with respect to
any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no
obligation, to represent SLOCVCB and/or be present at any deposition, hearing, or
similar proceeding. SLOCVCB agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide the
opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by SLOCVC�e
Page 5 of 13 -
However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by
City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.
17. NOTICES
Any notice which either party may desire to give to the other party under this
Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii)
delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal
Express, which provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in
the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested,
addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that
party may later designate by notice:
To City: City of Arroyo Grande
Steven Adams
City Manager
214 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
To SLOCVCB: John Dunn, Interim PresidenUCEO
Economic Vitality Corporation of SLO County
P.O. Box 5257
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
18. ASSIGNMENT
The SLOCVCB shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part
thereof, without the prior written consent of the City.
19. GOVERNING LAW
The City and SLOCVCB understand and agree that the laws of the State of
California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties, and liabilities of the parties to this
Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation
concerning this Agreement shall take place in the superior or federal district court with
jurisdiction over the City of Arroyo Grande.
20. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to
the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous
agreements, understandings, representations, and statements, or written, are merged
into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into
this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each
party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material.
Page 6 of 13 �
21. TIME
City and SLOCVCB agree that time is of the essence in this Agreement.
22. CONSTRUCTION
The parties agree that each has had an opportunity to have their counsel review
this Agreement and that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be
resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in the interpretation of this Agreement
or any amendments or exhibits thereto. The captions of the sections are for
convenience and reference only, and are not intended to be construed to define or limit
the provisions to which they relate.
23. AMENDMENTS
Amendments to this Agreement shall be in writinq and shall be made only with
the mutual written consent of all of the parties to this Agreement.
24. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT
The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of SLOCVCB
warrants and represents that he/she has the authority to execute this Agreement on
behalf of the SLOCVCB and has the authority to bind SLOCVCB to the performance of
its obligations hereunder.
Page 7 of 13 -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE SLOCVCB
By: gy;
Tony M. Ferrara, Mayor John Dunn, Interim PresidenUCEO
By:
Attest: Mathew Fortier, Vice President, Chair
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk
Approved As To Form:
Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney
Page 8 of 13 •
San Luis Obispo County Visitors &
Conference Bureau Agreement
Description of Services
Exhibit "A"
The San Luis Obispo County Visitors & Conference Bureau shall provide regional '
tourism services and activities that shail include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. Assuring strong communication and compatibility with City goals and policies;
coordinate all City related tourism activities consistent with a protocol
satisfactory to the City's Economic Development Director.
2. Developing direct sales efforts to attract leisure, group business, and
conferences. Major markets would include, but not be limited to, Los
Angeles; San Francisco, Sacramento, Bakersfield, and Fresno. �
3. Providing leads for potential conferences with individual properties including
the South County Regional Center, the Arroyo Grande Woman's Club
Community Center, and the South County Performing Arts Center (Clark
. Center).
4. Developing and distributing countywide promotional materials, including
Arroyo Grande's promotional materials, to be used in the marketing program.
5. Submitting biannual reports on the progress of the SLOCOVCB to the City's
Economic Development Director. Reports will contain information from the
most recent time period as well as anticipated future activities, including a
detailed breakdown of activities that specifically benefit the City of Arroyo
� Grande.
6. Acting as the County Film Commission to attract film business to the area.
i;
EXHIBIT B
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Prior to the beginning of and throughout the duration of the Work, SLOCVCB will
maintain insurance in conformance with the requirements set forth below. SLOCVCB
will use existing coverage to comply with these requirements. If that existing coverage
does not meet the requirements set forth here, SLOCVCB agrees to amend,
supplement or endorse the existing coverage to do so. SLOCVCB acknowledges that
the insurance coverage and policy limits set forth in this section constitute the minimum
amount of coverage required. Any insurance proceeds avai/ab/e fo City in excess of the
limits and coverage required in this agreement and which is applicable to a given loss,
will be available to City.
SLOCVCB shall provide the following types and amounfs of insurance:
Commercial General Liability Insurance using Insurance Services Office "Commercial
General Liability" policy from CG 00 01 or the exact equivalent. Defense costs must be
paid in addition to limits. There shall be no cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by
one insured against another. Limits are subject to review but in no event less than
$1,000,000 per occurrence.
Business Auto Coverage on ISO Business Auto Coverage from CA 00 01 including
symbol 1 (Any Auto) or the exact equivalent. Limits are subject to review, but in no
event to be less than $1,000,000 per accident. If SLOCVCB owns no vehicles, this
requirement may be satisfied by a non-owned auto endorsement to the general liability
policy described above. If SLOCVCB or SLOCVCB's employees will use personal autos
in any way on this project, SLOCVCB shall provide evidence of personal auto liability
coverage for each such person.
Workers Compensation on a state-approved policy form providing statutory benefits as
required by law with employer's liability limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident or
disease.
Insurance procured pursuant to fhese requirements sha/l be writfen by insurer that are
admitted carriers in the sfate California and with an A.M. Bests rating of A- or better and
a minimum financial size Vll.
General conditions pertaining to provision of insurance coverage by SLOCVCB.
SLOCVCB and City agree to the following with respect to insurance provided �y
SLOCVCB:
Page 10 of 13 -
1. No liability insurance coverage provided to comply with this Agreement
shall prohibit SLOCVCB, or SLOCVCB's employees, or agents, from waiving the right of
subrogation prior to a loss. SLOCVCB agrees to waive subrogation rights against City
regardless of the applicability of any insurance proceeds, and to require all SLOCVCBs
and subContractors to do likewise.
2. All insurance coverage and limits provided by SLOCVCB and available or
applicable to this agreement are intended to apply to the full extent of the policies.
Nothing contained in this Agreement or any other agreement relating to the City or its
operations limits the application of such insurance coverage.
3. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these
requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been first
submitted to City and approved of in writing.
4. No liability policy shall contain any provision or definition that would serve
to eliminate so-called "third party action over" claims, including any exclusion for bodily
injury to an employee of the insured or of any SLOCVCB or subcontractor.
5. All coverage types and limits required are subject to approval, modification
and additional requirements by the City, as the need arises. SLOCVCB shall not make
any reductions in scope of coverage (e.g. elimination of contractual liability or reduction
of discovery period) that may affect City's protection without City's prior written consent.
6. Proof of compliance with these insurance requirements, consisting of
certificates of insurance evidencing all of the coverages required and an additional
insured endorsement to SLOCVCB's general liability policy, shall be delivered to City at
or prior to the execution of this Agreement. In the event such proof of any insurance is
not delivered as required, or in the event such insurance is canceled at any time and no
replacement coverage is provided, City has the right, but not the duty, to obtain any
insurance it deems necessary to protect its interests under this or any other agreement
and to pay the premium. Any premium so paid by City shall be charged to and promptly
paid by SLOCVCB or deducted from sums due SLOCVCB, at City option.
7. Certificate(s) are to reflect that the insurer will provide 30 days notice to
City of any cancellation of coverage. SLOCVCB agrees to require its insurer to modify
such certificates to delete any exculpatory wording stating that failure of the insurer to
mail written notice of cancellation imposes no obligation, or that any party will
"endeavor" (as opposed to being required) to comply with the requirements of the
certificate.
8. It is acknowledged by the parties of this agreement that all insurance
coverage required to be provided by SLOCVCB or any subContractor, is intended to
apply first and on a primary, noncontributing basis in relation to any other insurance or
self insurance available to City.
Page 11 of 13 -
9. SLOCVCB agrees to ensure that subContractors, and any other party
involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in the project by SLOCVCB,
provide the same minimum insurance coverage required of SLOCVCB. SLOCVCB
agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for
ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this
section. SLOCVCB agrees that upon request, all agreements with subContractors and
others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.
10. SLOCVCB agrees not to self-insure or to use any self-insured retentions
or deductibles on any portion of the insurance required herein and further agrees that it
will not allow any SLOCVCB, subContractor, Architect, Engineer or other entity or '
person in any way involved in the performance of work on the project contemplated by
this agreement to self-insure its obligations to City. If SLOCVCB's existing coverage
includes a deductible or self-insured retention, the deductible or self-insured retention
must be declared to the City. At the time the City shall review options with the
SLOCVCB, which may include reduction or elimination of the deductible or self-insured
retention, substitution of other coverage, or other solutions.
11. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to
change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the SLOCVCB ninety
(90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial
additional cost to the SLOCVCB, the City will negotiate additional compensation
proportional to the increase benefit to City.
12. For purposes of applying insurance coverage only, this Agreement will be
deemed to have been executed immediately upon any party hereto taking any steps
that can be deemed to be in furtherance of or towards performance of this Agreement.
13. SLOCVCB acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on
the part of City to inform SLOCVCB of non-compliance with any insurance requirements
in no way imposes any additional obligations on City nor does it waive any rights
hereunder in this or any other regard.
74. S�OCVCB will renew the required coverage annually as long as City, or
its employees or agents face an exposure from operations of any type pursuant to this
agreement. This obligation applies whether or not the agreement is canceled or
terminated for any reason. Termination of this obligation is not effective untif City
executes a written statement to that effect.
17. SLOCVCB shall provide proof that policies of insurance required herein
expiring during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other
policies providing at least the same coverage. Proof that such coverage has been
ordered shall be submitted prior to expiration. A coverage binder or letter from
SLOCVCB's insurance agent to this effect is acceptable. A certificate of insurance
and/or additional insured endorsement as required in these specifications applicable �o
Page 12 of 13 -
the renewing or new coverage must be provided to City within five days of the expiration
of the coverages.
18. The provisions of any workers' compensation or similar act will not limit
the obligations of SLOCVCB under this agreement. SLOCVCB expressly agrees not to
use any statutory immunity defenses under such laws with respect to City, its
employees, officials and agents.
19. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this
section are not intended as limitations on coverage, limits or other requirements nor as
a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any given policy. Specific reference to a
given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue,
and is not intended by any party or insured to be limiting or all-inclusive.
20. These insurance requirements are intended to be separate and distinct
from any other provision in this agreement and are intended by the parties here to be
interpreted as such.
21. The requirements in this Section supersede all other sections and
provisions of this Agreement to the extent that any other section or provision conflicts
with or impairs the provisions of this Section.
22. SLOCVCB agrees to be responsible for ensuring that no contract used by
any party involved in any way with the project reserves the right to charge City or
SLOCVCB for the cost of additional insurance coverage required by this agreement.
Any such provisions are to be deleted with reference to City. It is not the intent of City to
reimburse any third party for the cost of complying with these requirements. There shall
be no recourse against City for payment of premiums or other amounts with respect
thereto.
23. SLOCVCB agrees to provide immediate notice to City of any claim or loss
against SLOCVCB arising out of the work performed under this agreement. City
assumes no obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty) to
monitor the handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve City.
i
i
Page 13 of 13 -
. pitROYp ����
pE C,P
� � W�COAVONATED 9Z
u °
m
* ,�,.• ,o, ,B„ . MEMORANDUM
c4��FORN�P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER� -
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ANNUAL AGREEMENT WITH THE
ECONOMIC VITALITY CORPORATION OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY
DATE: JULY 26, 2005
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute the annual
Agreement with the Economic Vitality Corporation of San Luis Obispo County
(EVCSLOC).
FUNDING:
The annual cost of the Agreement is $4,000, which is charged to the
Redevelopment Agency. This is a proposed reduction of $1,000 from what has
been paid in previous years, and funding is included in the FY 2005-06
Redevelopment Agency budget.
DISCUSSION:
The mission of the EVCSLOC is to "stimulate the economic vitality of San Luis
Obispo County, generate jobs, and increase financial investment within the
County by promoting the retention, expansion, and attraction of business and
industry to the area." Council Member Guthrie currently represents the City of
Arroyo Grande on the EVCS�OC Board of Directors. The EVCSLOC promotes
economic development through a number of programs and it is cost effective for
the City to coordinate these efforts with other agencies and businesses in the
County. The EVCSLOC has provided important tools for the City's use in its
economic development program. The City has been a dues paying member
since 2000.
Probably the most important capability of the EVCSLOC is a small business loan
program, which they coordinate with a local bank. It provides the City with
another economic development tool when we can refer a potential new business
owner to EVCSLOC for assistance with their financing. They also provide a
number of marketing efforts to attract employers to the county and training
programs to assist retention of existing businesses. Staff believes there is a
CITY COUNCIL
EVCSLOC AGREEMENT
JULY 26, 2005
PAGE 2
benefit to the City not only from new businesses recruited to Arroyo Grande, but
also from new employers locating in surrounding areas since this provides jobs
and a strong regional economy for the City's residents.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
/
- Authorize the Mayor to execute the annual agreement with the
EVCSLOC;
- Modify the agreement and then authorize the Mayor to execute the
agreement;
- Do not approve agreement;
- Provide staff with other direction.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Agreement with EVCSLOC
S:\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports�EVC Agreement 7.26.OS.doc
I
AGREEMENT FOR EVCSLOC SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of July 1, 2005, between the ECONOMIC
VITALITY CORPORATION OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, a California non-profit
corporation (herinafter referred to as "EVCSLOC"), and the CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE, a Municipal Corporation ("City"). In consideration of the mutual covenants
and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. TERM
This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2005 and shall remain and continue
in effect until June 30, 2006, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this
Agreement.
2. SERVICES I�
EVCSLOC shall perform the tasks described and comply with all terms and
provisions set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference.
3. PERFORMANCE
EVCSLOC shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his/her
ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein. EVCSLOC shall
employ, at a minimum generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons
engaged in providing similar services as are required of EVCSLOC hereunder in
meeting its obligations under this Agreement.
4. AGREEMENT ADMINISTRATION
City's City Manager shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the
administration of this Agreement. President/CEO shall represent EVCSLOC in all
matters pertaining to the administration of this Agreement.
5. PAYMENT
In consideration for the services to be perFormed by EVCSLOC, the City agrees
to pay the EVCSLOC four thousand dollars ($4,000).
6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE
The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or
terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the EVCSLOC at leas4
ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the EVCSLOC shall
immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwis�.
Page 1 of 13 -
if the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or
termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.
7. TERMINATION ON OCCURRENCE OF STATED EVENTS
This Agreement shall terminate automatically on the occurrence of any of the
following events:
(a) Bankruptcy or involvency of any party;
(b) Assignment of this Agreement by EVCSLOC without the consent of City;
(c) End of the Agreement term specified in Section 1.
8. DEFAULT OF EVCSLOC
(a) The EVCSLOC's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement
shall constitute a default. In the event that EVCSLOC is in default for cause under the
terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating
EVCSLOC for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this
Agreement immediately by written notice to the EVCSLOC. If such failure by the
EVCSLOC to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes
beyond the EVCSLOC's control, and without fault or negligence of the EVCSLOC, it
shall not be considered a default.
(b) If the City Manager or his/her delegate determines that the EVCSLOC is in
default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, he/she
shall cause to be served upon the EVCSLOC a written notice of the default. The
EVCSLOC shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure
the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the EVCSLOC
fails to cure its default within such period of time, the Gity shall have the right,
notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to terminate this Agreement
without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be
entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement.
9. LAWS TO BE OBSERVED. EVCSLOC shall:
(a) Procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all
notices which may be necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the
services to be performed by EVCSLOC under this Agreement;
(b) Keep itself fully informed of all existing and proposed federal, state and
local laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees which may affect those
engaged or employed under this Agreement, any materials used in EVCSLOC's
performance under this Agreement, or the conduct of the services under this
Agreement;
Page 2 of 13 -
(c) At all times observe and comply with, and cause all of its employees to
observe and comply with all of said laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees
mentioned above;
(d) Immediately report to the City's Contract Manager in writing any
discrepancy or inconsistency it discovers in said laws, ordinances, regulations, orders,
and decrees mentioned above in relation to any plans, drawings, specifications, or
provisions of this Agreement.
(e) The City, and its o�cers, agents and employees, shall not be liable at law
or in equity occasioned by failure of the EVCSLOC to comply with this Section.
10. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
(a) EVCSLOC shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to
sales, costs, expenses, receipts, and other such information required by City that relate
to the performance of services under this Agreement. EVCSLOC shall maintain
adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of
services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. EVCSLOC
shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable
times to such books and records; shall give City the right to examine and audit said
books and records; shall permit City to. make transcripts therefrom as necessary; and
shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to
this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained
for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment.
(b) Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this
Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files,
surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to
be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and
may be used, reused, or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the
EVCSLOC. With respect to computer files, EVCSLOC shall make available to the City,
at the EVCSLOC's office and upon reasonable written request by the City, the
necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling,
transferring, and printing computer files.
11. INDEMNIFICATION
(a) Indemnification for Professional Liabilitv. When the law establishes a
professional standard of care for EVCSLOC's Services, to the fullest extent permitted by
law, EVCSLOC shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City and any and all
of its officials, employees and agents ("Indemnified Parties") from and against any and
all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including attorney's fees and costs
to the extent same are caused in whole or in part by any negligent or wrongful act, error
or omission of EVCSLOC, its officers, agents, employees or subContractors (or aray
Page 3 of 13 -
entity or individual that EVCSLOC shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the
perFormance of professional services under this agreement.
(b) Indemnification for Other Than Professional Liabilitv. Other than in the
performance of professional services and to the full extent permitted by law, EVCSLOC
shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, and any and all of its employees,
o�cials and agents from and against any liability (including liability for claims, suits,
actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings,
losses, expenses or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, including
attorneys fees and costs, court costs, interest, defense costs, and expert witness fees),
where the same arise out of, are a consequence of, or are in any way attributable to, in
whole or in part, the performance of this Agreement by EVCSLOC or by any individual
or entity for which EVCSLOC is legally liable, including but not limited to officers,
agents, employees or subContractors of EVCSLOC.
(c) General Indemnification Provisions. EVCSLOC agrees to obtain executed
indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those set forth here in this section
from each and every subContractor or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or
on behalf of EVCSLOC in the performance of this agreement. In the event EVCSLOC
fails to obtain such indemnity obligations from others as required here, EVCSLOC
agrees to be fully responsible according to the terms of this section. Failure of City to
monitor compliance with these requirements imposes no additional obligations on City
and will in no way act as a waiver of any rights hereunder. This obligation to indemnify
and defend City as set forth here is binding on the successors, assigns or heirs of
EVCSLOC and shall survive the termination of this agreement or this section.
12. INSURANCE
EVCSLOC shall maintain prior to the beginning of and for the duration of this
Agreement insurance coverage as specified in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and
incorporated herein as though set forth in full.
13. INDEPENDENT EVCSLOC
(a) EVCSLOC is and shall at all times remain as to the City wholly independent.
The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of EVCSLOC
shall at al� times be under EVCSLOC's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor
any of its officers, employees, or agents shall have control over the conduct of
EVCSLOC or any of EVCSLOC's o�cers, employees, or agents, except as set forth in
this Agreement. EVCSLOC shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or
any of its officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officers, employees, or
agents of the City. EVCSLOC shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt,
obligation, or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner.
(b) No employee benefits shall be available to EVCSLOC in connection with
performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to EVCSLOC as provided ira
Page 4 of 13 -
the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to EVCSLOC
for perForming services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or
indemnification to EVCSLOC for injury or sickness arising out of performing services
hereunder.
14. UNDUE INFLUENCE
EVCSLOC declares and warrants that no undue influence or pressure was or is
used against or in concert with any officer or employee of the City of Arroyo Grande in
connection with the award, terms or implementation of this Agreement, including any
method of coercion, confidential financial arrangement, or financial inducement. No
officer or employee of the City of Arroyo Grande will receive compensation, directiy or
indirectly, from EVCSLOC, or from any o�cer, employee or agent of EVCSLOC, in ,
connection with the award of this Agreement or any work to be conducted as a result of
this Agreement. Violation of this Section shall be a material breach of this Agreement
entitling the City to any and all remedies at law or in equity.
15. NO BENEFIT TO ARISE TO LOCAL EMPLOYEES
No member, officer, or employee of City, or their designees or agents, and no
public o�cial who exercises authority over or responsibilities with respect to the project
during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect,
in any agreement or sub-agreement, or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed
in connection with the project performed under this Agreement.
16. RELEASE OF INFORMATION/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
(a) All information gained by EVCSLOC in performance of this Agreement shall
be considered confidential and shall not be released by EVCSLOC without City's prior
written authorization. EVCSLOC, its officers, employees, agents, or subContractors,
shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the
City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at
depositions, response to interrogatories, or other information concerning the work
performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the
City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary"
provided EVCSLOC gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
(b) EVCSLOC shall promptly notify City should EVCSLOC, its officers,
employees, agents, or subContractors be served with any summons, complaint,
subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for
admissions, or other discovery request, court order, or subpoena from any person or
party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder or with respect to
any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no
obligation, to represent EVCSLOC and/or be present at any deposition, hearing, or
similar proceeding. EVCSLOC agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide the
opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by EVCSLO�.
Page 5 of 13 -
However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by
City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.
17. NOTICES
Any notice which either party may desire to give to the other party under this
Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii)
delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal
Express, which provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in
the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested,
addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that
party may later designate by notice:
To City: City of Arroyo Grande
Steven Adams
City Manager
214 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
To EVCSLOC: John Dunn, Interim PresidenUCEO
Economic Vitality Corporation of SLO County
P.O. Box 5257
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
18. ASSIGNMENT
The EVCSLOC shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part
thereof, without the prior written consent of the City.
19. GOVERNING LAW
The City and EVCSLOC understand and agree that the laws of the State of
California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties, and liabilities of the parties to this
Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation
concerning this Agreement shall take place in the superior or federal district court with
jurisdiction over the City of Arroyo Grande.
20. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to
the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous
agreements, understandings, representations, and statements, or written, are merged
into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into
this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each
party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material.
Page 6 of 13 -
21. TIME
City and �VCSLOC agree that time is of the essence in this Agreement.
22. CONSTRUCTION
The parties agree that each has had an opportunity to have their counsel review
this Agreement and that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be
resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in the interpretation of this Agreement
or any amendments or exhibits thereto. The captions of the sections are for
convenience and reference only, and are not intended to be construed to define or limit
the provisions to which they relate.
23. AMENDMENTS
Amendments to this Agreement shall be in writinq and shall be made only with
the mutual written consent of all of the parties to this Agreement.
24. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT
The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of EVCSLOC
warrants and represents that he/she has the authority to execute this Agreement,on
behalf of the EVCSLOC and has the authority to bind EVCSLOC to the performance of
its obligations hereunder.
Page 7 of 13 -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE EVCSLOC
BY� By:
Tony M. Ferrara, Mayor John Dunn, Interim PresidenUCEO
By:
Attest: Mathew Fortier, Vice President, Chair
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk
Approved As To Form:
Timothy J. Carmel, City Attomey
Page 8 of 13 �
Economic Vitality Corporation of
San Luis Obispo County Agreement
Description of Services
Exhibit "A"
The Economic Vitality Corporation of San Luis Obispo County (EVCSLOC) shall provide
regional economic development services and activities as follows:
1. Assure strong communication and compatibility with City goals and policies;
coordinate all City related business retention, expansion, and recruitment
activities consistent with a protocol satisfactory to the �City's Economic
Development Director.
2. Assist in the development of job employment, training and business
opportunities for residents of the City of Arroyo Grande.
3. Assist in the preparation and delivery of an annual economic development
update that may include, but not be limited to, an Overall Ecbnomic
Developmenf Plan, an Economic Element of the General Plan, and other
• comprehensive economic development policies, strategies, and needs
assessment.
4. Assist in the preparation and submittal of application on behalf of the City of
Arroyo Grande and/or participating agencies to public and private funding
sources for financing and/or to state and federal agencies for special
designations in support of economic, business, and employment development
activities. ' '
5. Assist in providing research, analysis, and recommendations to the City of
Arroyo Grande and private organizations on economic development.
6. Provide appropriate countywide business marketing and business retention
and expansion activities and to liaisbn�with appropriate local, regional, state
and federal agencies, and private parties, including actively participating�in
the Centra► Coast Marketing Team and providing copies of the agendas and
minutes to the City. . �
7. Provide semi-annuaf reports of its activities to the City of Arroyo Grande. The
reports shall include activities from the previous time period as well as
' anticipated future activities. Said reports shall include a detailed breakdow�o
. of all activities that specifically benefit the City of Arroyo Grande. ,
EXHIBIT B
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Prior to the beginning of and throughout the duration of the Work, EVCSLOC will
maintain insurance in conformance with the requirements set forth below. EVCSLOC
will use existing coverage to comply with these requirements. If that existing coverage
does not meet the requirements sef forth here, EVCSLOC agrees to amend,
supplement or endorse the existing coverage to do so. EVCSLOC acknowledges that
the insurance coverage and policy limits set forth in this section constitute the minimum
amount of coverage required. Any insurance proceeds available to City in excess of the
limits and coverage required in this agreement and which is applicable to a given loss,
will be available to City.
EVCSLOC shall provide the following types and amounts of insurance:
Commercial General Liability Insurance using Insurance Services Office "Commercial
General Liability" policy from CG 00 01 or the exact equivalent. Defense costs must be
paid in addition to limits. There shall be no cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by
one insured against another. Limits are subject to review but in no event less than
$1,000,000 peroccurrence.
Business Auto Coverage on ISO Business Auto Coverage from CA 00 01 includin5
symbol 1 (Any Auto) or the exact equivalent. Limits are subject to review, but in no
event to be less than $1,000,000 per accident. If EVCSLOC owns no vehicles, this
requirement may be satisfied by a non-owned auto endorsement to the general liability
policy described above. If EVCSLOC or EVCSLOC's employees will use personal autos
in any way on this project, EVCSLOC shall provide evidence of personal auto liability
coverage for each such person.
Workers Compensation on a state-approved policy form providing statutory benefits as
required by law with employer's liability limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident or
disease.
Insurance procured pursuant to these requirements shall be written by insurer that are
admitted carriers in the stafe Califomia and with an A.M. Bests rating of A- or better and
a minimum financia/size Vll.
General conditions pertaining to provision of insurance coverage by EVCSLOG.
EVCSLOC and City agree to the following with respect to insurance provided �oy
EVCSLOC:
Page 10 of 13 -
1. No liability insurance coverage provided to comply with this Agreement
shail prohibit EVCSLOC, or EVCSLOC's employees, or agents, from waiving the right of
subrogation prior to a loss. EVCSLOC agrees to waive subrogation rights against City
regardless of the applicability of any insurance proceeds, and to require all EVCSLOCs
and subContractors to do likewise.
2. All insurance coverage and limits provided by EVCSLOC and available or
applicable to this agreement are intended to apply to the full extent of the policies.
Nothing contained in this Agreement or any other agreement relating to the City or its
operations limits the application of such insurance coverage. ,
3. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these
requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been first
submitted to City and approved of in writing.
4. No liability policy shall contain any provision or definition that would serve
to eliminate so-called "third party action over" claims, including any exclusion for bodily
injury to an employee of the insured or of any EVCSLOC or subcontractor.
5. All coverage types and limits required are subject to approval, modification
and additional requirements by the City, as the need arises. EVCSLOC shall not make
any reductions in scope of coverage (e.g. elimination of contractual liability or reduction
of discovery period) that may affect City's protection without City's prior written consent.
6. Proof of compliance with these insurance requirements, consisting of
certificates of insurance evidencing all of the coverages required and an additional
insured endorsement to EVCSLOC's general liability policy, shall be delivered to City at
or prior to the execution of this Agreement. In the event such proof of any insurance is
not delivered as required, or in the event such insurance is canceled at any time and no
replacement coverage is provided, City has the right, but not the duty, to obtain any
insurance it deems necessary to protect its interests under this or any other agreement
and to pay the premium. Any premium so paid by City shall be charged to and promptly
paid by EVCSLOC or deducted from sums due EVCSLOC, at City option.
7. Certificate(s) are to reflect that the insurer will provide 30 days notice to
City of any cancellation of coverage. EVCSLOC agrees to require its insurer to modify
such certificates to delete any exculpatory wording stating that failure of the insurer to
mail written notice of cancellation imposes no obligation, or that any party will
"endeavor" (as opposed to being required) to comply with the requirements of the
certificate.
8. It is acknowledged by the parties of this agreement that all insurance
coverage required to be provided by EVCSLOC or any subContractor, is intended to
apply first and on a primary, noncontributing basis in relation to any other insurance or
self insurance available to City.
Page 11 of 13 -
9. EVCSLOC agrees to ensure that subContractors, and any other party
involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in the project by EVCSLOC,
provide the same minimum insurance coverage required of EVCSLOC. EVCSLOC
agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for
ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this
section. EVCSLOC agrees that upon request, all agreements with subContractors and
others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.
10. EVCSLOC agrees not to self-insure or to use any self-insured retentions
or deductibles on any portion of the insurance required herein and further agrees that it
will not allow any EVCSLOC, subContractor, Architect, Engineer or other entity or
person in any way involved in the perFormance of work on the project contemplated by
this agreement to self-insure its obligations to City. If EVCSLOC's existing coverage
includes a deductible or self-insured retention, the deductible or self-insured retention
must be declared to the City. At the time the City shall review options with the
EVCSLOC, which may include reduction or elimination of the deductible or self-insured
retention, substitution of other coverage, or other solutions.
11. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to
change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the EVCSLOC ninety
(90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial
additional cost to the EVCSLOC, the City will negotiate additional compensation
proportional to the increasebenefit to City.
12. For purposes of applying insurance coverage only, this Agreement will be
deemed to have been executed immediately upon any party hereto taking any steps
that can be deemed to be in furtherance of or towards performance of this Agreement.
13. EVCSLOC acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on
the part of City to inform EVCSLOC of non-compliance with any insurance requirements
in no way imposes any additional obligations on City nor does it waive any rights
hereunder in this or any other regard.
14. EVCSLOC will renew the required coverage annually as long as City, or
its employees or agents face an exposure from operations of any type pursuant to this
agreement. This obligation applies whether or not the agreement is canceled or
terminated for any reason. Termination of this obligation is not effective until City
executes a written statement to that effect.
17. EVCSLOC shall provide proof that policies of insurance required herein
expiring during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other
policies providing at least the same coverage. Proof that such coverage has been
ordered shall be submitted prior to expiration. A coverage binder or letter frorr�
EVCSLOC's insurance agent to this effect is acceptable. A certificate of insurance
and/or additional insured endorsement as required in these specifications applicable 4�
Page 12 of 13 -
the renewing or new coverage must be provided to City within five days of the expiration
of the coverages.
18. The provisions of any workers' compensation or similar act will not limit
the obligations of EVCSLOC under this agreement. EVCSLOC expressly agrees not to
use any statutory immunity defenses under such laws with respect to City, its
employees, officials and agents.
19. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this
section are not intended as limitations on coverage, limits or other requirements nor as
a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any given policy. Specific reference to a
given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue,
and is not intended by any party or insured to be limiting or all-inclusive.
20. These insurance requirements are intended to be separate and distinct
from any other provision in this agreement and are. intended by the parties here to be
interpreted as such.
21. The requirements in this Section supersede all other sections and
provisions of this Agreement to the extent that any other section or provision conflicts
with or impairs the provisions of this Section.
22. EVCSLOC agrees to be responsible for ensuring that no contract used by
any party involved in any way with the project reserves the right to charge City or
EVCSLOC for the cost of additional insurance coverage required by this agreement.
Any such provisions are to be deleted with reference to City. It is not the intent of City to
reimburse any third party for the cost of complying with these requirements. There shall
be no recourse against City for payment of premiums or other amounts with respect
thereto.
23. EVCSLOC agrees to provide immediate notice to City of any claim or loss
against EVCSLOC arising out of the work performed under this agreement. City
assumes no obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty) to
monitor the handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve City.
Page 13 of 13 -
�
pRROYp ���■
�� CP
� INCONPORATED y2
u m MEMORANDUM
* JULY t0, 1011 *
c4��FORN�P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER��
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL APPOINTMENT TO THE
TRAFFIC COMMISSION
DATE: JULY 26, 2005
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the Council approve the recommendation of Council Member
Jim Dickens to appoint Jim K. Carson to the Traffic Commission, replacing Larry
Rohloff.
FUNDING:
There is no fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION:
On January 14, 1997, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 481 C.S.
amending the composition of applicable Commissions and Boards from seven to
five members and adopted Resolution No. 3192 establishing Council policy as it
relates to the appointment procedure to various Commissions and Boards. The
Ordinance states that the Mayor and each respective member of the Council
shall appoint a representative to the various Commissions and Boards subject to
the approval by a majority of the Council. All Commission and Board members
serve at the pleasure of the Council.
Council Member Jim Dickens' appointment to the Traffic Commission, Larry
Rohloff, submitted his resignation May 17, 2005. Council Member Dickens is
recommending the Council approve the appointment of Jim K. Carson to the
Tra�c Commission, replacing Mr. Rohloff.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
• Approve the recommended appointment;
• Do not approve the recommended appointment;
• Provide direction to staff.
Attachment:
1. Application form: Jim K. Carson
�
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS TO SERVE
Planning Commission
Parks and Recreation Commission
—� Traffic Commission Years Lived in Arroyo Grande 3
Senior Advisory Commission - Registered Voter of Arroyo Grande
Architectural Review Committee Yes _� No
Downtown Parking Advisory Board (must own business in the Village area)
Historical Resources Committee
Special BoardslCommittees (varies)
NAME_ � I /�'1 � ( A/iS(��l/
HOME / / ,
ADDRESS /,� (,�/J �i) ) r��) �/��/L� G�99'CGPHONE ���� L��
PRESENT EMPLOYER � l � - /� `/L � a` /G� )L Gh �/��N�j'�
BUSINESSADDRESS �: c (,�/ i � PHONE ' - �
EDUCATIONALBACKGROUND
Hi h School � l � �9 C � .Colle e .s - �
ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION y', ' ,� � j�' �- S
�U '° r �/� �LL /Cy � 1/, � �
COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS / - � �G(JS' � ,y� .� � �
//"/G'/l�G�'�An//Ul���L�/O Y�CA �iY�l�L O 1 l�/ /7���)�1 �.7 .Y/! /GG
The City Council would like to have the names of three(3)Arroyo Grande References:
NAME ADDRESS
�' o �
,.SA�/J�/ �/�l�l ��� �.�.tsA��E/lf� .� �
2���NNf�,�T /�l le�� i�4 %� ��o���e� � r
3. �.1/M (s!�{���li✓ `TCJ ! �l�G � �YIA�G � G
,�
ARE YOU WILLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION/COMMITTEE/BOARO MEETING TIMES SHOWN BELOW:
Planning Commission, First and Third Tuesday of each month,6:00 PM Yes No
Parks and Recreatlon Commission, Second Wednesday of each month, 6:30 PM Yes No_
Tra�c Commission,the day(Monday)before the third Tuesday of each month, 7:00 PM Yes�No_
Senior Advisory Commission, First Wednesday of each month, 3:00 PM Yes No
Architectural Review Committee First Monday of each month, 3:15 PM Yes_No_
Downtown Parking Advisory Board-Meets as needed Yes_No_
Historical Resources Committee-Q rterly meetings anticipated Yes_No_
Special Boards/Com ttees ri Yes No
v — —
Signature � '"�
Date G
The Arroy ande City Counc(I requests Infortnatlon about your interest(and educadon, K applicable), in serving on a commission or
committee, apeciflcally your comments and vtews relaUve to the roIe and responsibillUes of the Planning Commission, Parks and
Recreatlon Commission, Trafflc Commission, Senior Adv�sory Commission, Architectural Revtew CommlHee, Historleal Resources
Committee,or a Speclai BoardlCommittee. Please note such information on the reverse aide of this fortn. Thank you toryour interest/,, ,�
THIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD e � �UnG/MC���Y1Y�
IF APPOINTED.COMPLETION OF A STATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM IS REQUIREO �/ ,F.t�.d�
7/►�1�2,20�5
July 19, 2005
To: Airoyo Grande City Council Members
From: Jim Carson
Subject: Appointment to Tr�c Commission
Sirs,
Thank you for reviewing my application for a position on the Tr�c Commission. I have
been a home owner and resident in Arroyo Grande for a little more than 3 years. I retired
in 2002 from a 32 year career in law enforcement with the Newport Beach Police
Department where I served as the Detective Lieutenant. I am also a U.S. Army veteran
and a graduate of the F.B.I. National Academy.
I twice served as my Department's Traffic Services Division Commander, for a total of
about 4 years. During that time I was a member of the City's Tr�c Affairs Committee. I
believe I have a good working knowledge of the Vehicle Code and State and Local
Ordinances and documents such as the Traffic Coilision Manual. I have experience
working with the public and City Staff, inc(uding Traffic Engineers and Pubiic Works.
I believe the role of the Traffic Commission to be advisory, but with the kind of
professional, deliberate,judgments that enable Council Members to make informed
decisions without having to handle issues that should have been solved at a lower level.
Tr�c problems aze often an emotional plea from peopie who want something done
immediately without considering legal, engineering, or liability concerns. The
Commission's responsibility is to deal with these matters in a catm and professional
manner and to communicate well with everyone involved, while having the insight and
courage necessary to do the right thing, always keeping the City's interests first.
I have no conflicts of interest. I do not belong to any special interest groups or own any
property other than my home, nor do I have income from any source other than Cal PERS
and Deferred Compensation. I am available for an interview at your convenience. Thank
you.
Respectfully
Jim Cazson
�;'
i =
S.h.
PRROro
o� c�+
� INCORFORATED yZ
V O
m
* �,�Y ,o, ,8„ . MEMORANDUM
.. c4��FORN�P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER�
�/
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDED CABLECASTING AGREEMENT
WITH AGP VIDEO IN ORDER TO ADD CABLECASTING OF
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
DATE: JULY 26, 2005
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute the proposed
cablecasting Agreement with AGP Video in order to add cablecasting of Planning
Commission meetings.
FUNDING:
The total annual cost of the Agreement is estimated to be approximately $36,000
annually. Revenue from the Public, Education and Government (PEG) access fee is
projected to be sufficient to fund this amount. The proposal also includes a one-time
equipment purchase and installation cost estimate of $35,600. The balance in the PEG
Access Fund is projected to be approximately $31,000. Therefore, a one-time
appropriation from the General Fund of roughly $4,600 will be necessary to implement
the proposal. Appropriation of funding for the equipment costs will be requested at the
time the equipment purchase is presented for consideration.
DISCUSSION:
At the December 11, 2001 meeting, the City Council approved a contract for
cablecasting services with AGP Video to televise City Council meetings and assist in
managing the City Government Access Channel. Since then, the contract has been
renewed on an annual basis, most recently on December 14, 2004.
At the April 13, 2004 meeting, Council Member Dickens requested, and the City Council
concurred, for staff to present alternatives for cablecasting Planning Commission
meetings. In response, staff worked with representatives from AGP Video on
alternative ways in which to provide this additional programming within available
revenue. The results were presented to the City Council at the June 8, 2004 meeting,
September 22, 2004 City Council/Planning Commission joint meeting, and the May 10,
2005 meeting. At the May 10, 2005 meeting, the City Council directed staff to proceed
with a proposal to modify the system to install mounted remotely controlled cameras
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF AMENDED CABLECASTING AGREEMENT WITH AGP VIDEO
IN ORDER TO ADD CABLECASTING OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
JULY 26, 2005
PAGE 2
and to prepare an amended agreement with AGP Video to begin cablecasting Planning
Commission meetings.
The proposal to replace the existing manual cameras with mounted camera equipment
made it financially feasible to add Planning Commission meetings by reducing costs for
ongoing services. However, due to changing technology and equipment,
implementation has been delayed in order to allow for design of the optimal system. To
avoid further delay, AGP Video has now agreed to proceed with amendment of the
Agreement to begin cablecasting both City Council and Planning Commission meetings
under the proposed new cost prior to implementation of the new system.
A copy of the revised Agreement is attached for City Council review and consideration. !
It is proposed that the Agreement become effective on September 1, 2005. This will
allow for all Planning Commissioners to be present for the first meeting that is
cablecast.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Approve the proposed cablecasting Agreement with AGP Video in order to add
cablecasting of Planning Commission meetings;
- Delay approval of the proposed Agreement and cablecasting of Planning
Commission meetings until new equipment is either purchased and/or installed;
- Do not approve proposed Agreement;
- Provide direction to staff.
Attachment:
1. Proposed Agreement with AGP Video
2. Letter from AGP Video dated July 1, 2005 proposing to begin utilizing new fee
structure
S:\CIT1'MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports�Planning Commission Cablecasting Report 7.26.OS.doc
AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTOR SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of September 1, 2005, between AGP
VIDEO, INC. ("Contractor"), and the CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, a Municipal
Corporation ("City"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth
herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. TERM
This Agreement shall commence on September 1, 2005 and shall remain and
continue in effect until August 30, 2006, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the
provisions of this Agreement.
2. SERVICES '
Contractor shall perform the tasks described and comply with all terms and
provisions set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference.
3. PERFORMANCE
Contractor shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his/her
ability, experience . and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Contractor shall
employ, at a minimum generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons
engaged in providing similar services as are required of Contractor hereunder in
meeting its obligations under this Agreement.
4. AGREEMENT ADMINISTRATION
City's City Manager shall represent City in all matters pertaining to 4he
administration of this Agreement. Steve Mathieu shall represent Contractor in all
matters pertaining to the administration of this Agreement.
5. PAYMENT
The City agrees to pay the Contractor in accordance with the payment rates and
terms set forth in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE
(a) The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend
or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Contractor at
least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Contractor shall
immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise.
If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension ��-
termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.
Page 1 of 15 -
(b) In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City
shall pay to Contractor the actual value of the work performed up to the time of
termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination
of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Contractor will submit an invoice to the
City pursuant to Section 5.
7. TERMINATION ON OCCURRENCE OF STATED EVENTS
This Agreement shall terminate automatically on the occurrence of any of the
following events:
(a) Bankruptcy or insolvency of any party;
(b) Sale of Contractor's business; or
(c) Assignment of this Agreement by Contractor without the consent of City.
(d) End of the Agreement term specified in Section 1.
8. DEFAULT OF CONTRACTOR
(a) The Contractor's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement
shall constitute a default. In the event that Contractor is in default for cause under the
terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating
Contractor for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this
Agreement immediately by written notice to the Contractor. If such failure by the
Contractor to make progress in the perFormance of work hereunder arises out of causes
beyond the Contractors control, and without fault or negligence of the Contractor, it �
shall not be considered a default.
(b) If the City Manager or his/her delegate determines that the Contractor is in
default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, he/she I
shall cause to be served upon the Contractor a written notice of the default. The !
Contractor shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure
the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Contractor ';
fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, ;
notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to terminate this Agreement
without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be i
entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement.
9. LAWS TO BE OBSERVED. Contractor sha�l: �
(a) Procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give al�
notices which may be necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the
services to be performed by Contractor under this Agreement;
(b) Keep itself fully informed of all existing and proposed federal, state and
local laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees which may affect tho��
engaged or employed under this Agreement, any materials usetl in Contracto�°� i
I
Page 2 of 15 - � �
I
perFormance under this Agreement, or the conduct of the services under this
Agreement;
(c) At all times observe and comply with, and cause all of its employees to
observe and comply with all of said laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees
mentioned above;
(d) Immediately report to the City's Contract Manager in writing any
discrepancy or inconsistency it discovers in said laws, ordinances, regulations, orders,
and decrees mentioned above in relation to any plans, drawings, specifications, or
provisions of this Agreement.
(e) The City, and its officers, agents and employees, shall not be liable at law
or in equity occasioned by failure of the Contractor to comply with this Section.
10. OWNERSHIP AND RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS AND MATERIAL
(a) Any video tape, reports, information, data, or other material given to, or
prepared or assembled by Contractor under this Agreement shall be the property of City
and except as otherwise specified herein shall not be made available to any individual
or organization by Contractor without the prior written approval of the City's Contract
Manager.
(b) If City requests additional copies of videotapes, reports, drawings,
specifications, or any other material in addition to what Contractor is required to furnish
in limited quantities as part of the services under this Agreement, Contractor shall
provide such additional copies as are requested, and City shall compensate Contractor
for the costs of duplicating of such copies at Contractor's direct expense. Contractor
may sell copies of tapes/DVDs to any individual or organization for a fee not to exceed
$25.00.
(c) Contractor shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to
sales, costs, expenses, receipts, and other such information required by City that relate
to the performance of services under this Agreement. Contractor shall maintain
adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of
services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Contractor
shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable
times to such books and records; shall give City the right to examine and audit said
books and records; shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary; and
shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related 40
this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained
for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment.
(d) Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this
Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer file�a
Page 3 of 15 •
surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to
be pertormed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and
may be used, reused, or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the
Contractor. With respect to computer files, Contractor shall make available to the City,
at the Contractor's o�ce and upon reasonable written request by the City, the
necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling,
transferring, and printing computer files.
11. INDEMNIFICATION
(a) Indemnification for Professional Liabilitv. When the law establishes a
professional standard of care for Contractor's Services, to the fullest extent permitted by
law, Contractor shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City and any and all
of its officials, employees and agents ("Indemnified Parties") from and against any and
all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including attorney's fees and costs
to the extent same are caused in whole or in part by any negligent or wrongful act, error
or omission of Contractor, its officers, agents, employees or subContractors (or any
entity or individual that Contractor shall bear the legal liability thereo� in the
performance of professional services under this agreement.
(b) Indemnification for Other Than Professional Liabilitv. Other than in the
performance of professional services and to the full extent permitted by law, Contractor
shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, and any and all of its employees,
officials and agents from and against any liability (including liability for claims, suits,
actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings,
losses, expenses or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, including
attorneys fees and costs, court costs, interest, defense costs, and expert witness fees),
where the same arise out of, are a consequence of, or are in any way attributable to, in
whole or in part, the performance of this Agreement by Contractor or by any individual
or entity for which Contractor is legally liable, including but not limited to officers, agents,
employees or subContractors of Contractor.
(c) General Indemnification Provisions. Contractor agrees to obtain executed
indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those set forth here in this section
from each and every subContractor or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or
on behalf of Contractor in the performance of this agreement. In the event Contractor
fails to obtain such indemnity obligations from others as required here, Contractor
agrees to be fully responsible according to the terms of this section. Failure of City to
monitor compliance with these requirements imposes no additional obligations on City
and will in no way act as a waiver of any rights hereunder. This obligation to indemnify
and defend City as set forth here is binding on the successors, assigns or heirs �f
Contractor and shall survive the termination of this agreement or this section.
Page 4 of 15 -
12. INSURANCE
Contractor shall maintain prior to the beginning of and for the duration of this
Agreement insurance coverage as specified in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and
incorporated herein as though set forth in full.
13. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
(a) Contractor is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent
Contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of
Contractor shall at all times be under Contractor's exclusive direction and control.
Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, or agents shall have control over the ,
conduct of Contractor or any of Contractor's o�cers, employees, or agents, except as
set forth in this Agreement. Contractor shall not at any time or in any manner represent
that it or any of its officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officers,
employees, or agents of the City. Contractor shall not incur or have the power to incur
any debt, obligation, or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner.
(b) No employee benefits shall be available to Contractor in connection with
performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Contractor as provided in
the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Contractor
for perForming services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or
indemnification to Contractor for injury or sickness arising out of performing services
hereundec
14. UNDUEINFLUENCE
Contractor declares and warrants that no undue influence or pressure was or is
used against or in concert with any officer or employee of the City of Arroyo Grande in
connection with the award, terms or implementation of this Agreement, including any
method of coercion, confidential financial arrangement, or financial inducement. No
officer or employee of the City of Arroyo Grande will receive compensation, directly or
indirectly, from Contractor, or from any officer, employee or agent of Contractor, in
connection with the award of this Agreement or any work to be conducted as a result of
this Agreement. Violation of this Section shall be a material breach of this Agreement
entitling the City to any and all remedies at law or in equity.
15. NO BENEFIT TO ARISE TO LOCAL EMPLOYEES
No member, officer, or employee of City, or their designees or agents, and no
public o�cial who exercises authority over or responsibilities with respect to the project
during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect,
in any agreement or sub-agreement, or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed
in connection with the project performed under this Agreement.
Page 5 of 15 -
16. RELEASE OF INFORMATIONICONFLICTS OF INTEREST
(a) All information gained by Contractor in performance of this Agreement shall
be considered confidential and shall not be released by Contractor without City's prior
written authorization. Contractor, its officers, employees, agents, or subContractors,
shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the
City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at
depositions, response to interrogatories, or other information concerning the work
performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the
City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary"
provided Contractor gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
(b) Contractor shall promptly notify City should Contractor, its officers,
employees, agents, or subContractors be served with any summons, complaint,
subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for
admissions, or other discovery request, court order, or subpoena from any person or
party regarding this Agreement and the work perFormed thereunder or with respect to
any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no
obligation, to represent Contractor and/or be present at any deposition, hearing, or
similar proceeding. Contractor agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide the
opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Contractor.
However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by
City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.
17. NOTICES
Any notice which either party may desire to give to the other party under this
Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii)
delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal
Express, which provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in
the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested,
addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that
party may later designate by notice:
To City: City of Arroyo Grande
Steven Adams
214 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
To Contractor: AGP Video, Inc.
Steve Mathieu
1600 Preston Lane
Morro Bay, CA 93442
Page 6 of 15 -
18. ASSIGNMENT
The Contractor shall not assign the perFormance of this Agreement, nor any part
thereof, without the prior written consent of the City.
19. GOVERNING LAW
The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the State of
California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties, and liabilities of the parties to this
Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation
conceming this Agreement shall take place in the superior or federal district court with '
jurisdiction over the City of Arroyo Grande.
20. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to
the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous
agreements, understandings, representations, and statements, or written, are merged
into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into
this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each
party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material.
21. TIME
City and Contractor agree that time is of the essence in this Agreement.
22. CONSTRUCTION
The parties agree that each has had an opportunity to have their counsel review
this Agreement and that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be
resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in the interpretation of this Agreement
or any amendments or exhibits thereto. The captions of the sections are for
convenience and reference only, and are not intended to be construed to define or limit
the provisions to which they relate.
23. AMENDMENTS
Amendments to this Agreement shall be in writinq and shall be made only with
the mutual written consent of all of the parties to this Agreement.
24. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT
The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Contractor
warrants and represents that he/she has the authority to execute this Agreement or�
behalf of the Contractor and has the authority to bind Contractor to the performance �S
its obligations hereunder.
Page 7 of 15 -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AGP VIDEO, INC.
By: By:
Tony M. Ferrara, Mayor Steve Mathieu, CEO ,
Attest:
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk
Approved As To Form:
Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney
Page 8 of 15 -
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
AGP VIDEO agrees to perform or provide the following services:
a. Gavel-to-gavel video production and broadcast services for all City Council
meetings and any Planning Commission meetings on request. AGP Video will
provide services utilizing a minimum three-camera production system,
predominantly using four cameras. The camera layout shall be agreed to by
CITY and AGP VIDEO.
b. AGP VIDEO shall supply all equipment and personnel until mounted cameras
and related equipment are installed, including, but not limited to tapes, lighting,
materials, supplies and vehicles necessary to perform the services set forth in
this Agreement. When mounted cameras and related equipment are installed,
the camera, presentation, video hardware, recording hardware, computer,
titling/streaming, channel programming, and audio hardware systems shall be
supplied and owned by CITY. All other necessary equipment shall continue to be
provided by AGP VIDEO.
c. AGP VIDEO shall provide a minimum of three qualified personnel each meeting,
predominantly utilizing a four-person crew, when manual cameras are used.
When remotely operated cameras are used, AGP VIDEO shall provide a
minimum of one qualified personnel each meeting, predominantly utilizing a two-
person crew.
d. All reasonable effort on the part of AGP VIDEO shall be made to televise
meetings live where technically infrastructured. Meetings shall be replayed
during times specified by the CITY. Following the conclusion of each meeting,
AGP VIDEO shall promptly set the equipment for cablecast.
e. AGP VIDEO shall provide a master hard drive for cablecast (using a tape only for
backup) one DVD copy for the CITY's records and one tape and/or DVD copy to
the South County Library.
f. Each cablecast meeting will open with a title segment that will include a
character-generated identification of the meeting and the date.
g. Upon request, AGP VIDEO shall provide technical assistance to CITY staff with
regard to operation of the channel insertion and playback equipment. AGP
VIDEO shall provide channel management and operations for Arroyo Grande
Cable Channel 20. This shall include the programming of ineeting tapes for
replay, the scheduling of other tapes provided by the CITY, providing technical
assistance to CITY staff as necessary on the community calendar and tape
Page 9 of 15 -
insertion process, and serving on-call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for
problems and emergencies.
h. AGP VIDEO shall serve as the liaison with the cable operator concerning
operation of the channel, including upgrades and maintenance. AGP VIDEO will
facilitate identifying any equipment that needs to be repaired and the delivery of
that equipment to a certified repair company. Cost of repairs shall be the
responsibility of the cable operator or CITY.
i. AGP VIDEO shall be responsible for all set up, teardown and connection of
equipment and wiring for the video and audio elements of video production.
j. All AGP VIDEO staff shall maintain a clean and professional appearance.
k. The CITY has the right to request additional video production services from AGP
VIDEO, which may include, but are not limited to, other meetings, special events
and informational videos. Compensation for any additional video production
services will be negotiated and agreed upon by both parties on a case-by-case
basis.
Page 10 of 15 -
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
In consideration for the services to be performed, CITY agrees to pay AGP
VIDEO the following:
a. Four hundred and sixty dollars ($460.00) per meeting up to two hours in length.
b. For any meetings in excess of two hours, a rate of one hundred and ten dollars
($110.00) shall be paid per hour beyond the first two hours of the meeting,
calculated on 15-minute increments and rounded up.
c. Five hundred ($500.00) per month for channel management.
d. Seventy-five dollars ($75.00) per meeting for use of LCD projectoddigital camera
provided by AGP VIDEO when requested.
e. Forty-five dollars ($45.00) per hour for additional technical and engineering
consulting services provided by AGP VIDEO outside the scope of services set
forth in this Agreement, as requested by CITY.
Page 11 of 15 -
EXHIBIT C
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Prior to the beginning of and throughout the duration of the Work, Contractor will
maintain insurance in conformance with the requirements set forth below. Contractor
will use existing coverage to comply with these requirements. lf that existing coverage '
does not meet the requirements set forfh here, Contracfor agrees to amend,
supplement or endorse the existing coverage to do so. Contractor acknowledges that
the insurance coverage and policy limits set forth in this section constitute the minimum
amount of coverage required. Any insurance proceeds available to City in excess of the
limits and coverage required in this agreement and which is applicable to a given /oss,
will be available to City.
Contractor shall provide the following fypes and amounts of insurance:
Commercial General Liability Insurance using Insurance Services Office "Commercial
General Liability" policy from CG 00 01 or the exact equivalent. Defense costs must be
paid in addition to limits. There shall be no cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by
one insured against another. Limits are subject to review but in no event less than
$1,000,000 peroccurrence.
Business Auto Coverage on ISO Business Auto Coverage from CA 00 01 including
symbol 1 (Any Auto) or the exact equivalent. Limits are subject to review, but in no
event to be less than $1,000,000 per accident. If Contractor owns no vehicles, this
requirement may be satisfied by a non-owned auto endorsement to the general liability
policy described above. If Contractor or Contractor's employees will use personal autos
in any way on this project, Contractor shall provide evidence of personal auto liability
coverage for each such person.
Workers Compensation in the amounts required by law.
Contractor, subContractors or others involved in the Work. The scope of coverage
provided is subject to approval of City following receipt of proof of insurance as required
herein. Limits are subject to review but in no event less than $1,000,000 per
occurrence.
Insurance procured pursuant to these requirements shall be written by insurer that are
admitted carriers in the state California and with an A.M. Bests rating of A- or better and
a minimum financial size Vll.
Page 12 of 15 •
General conditions pertaining to provision of insurance coverage by Contractor.
Contractor and City agree to the following with respect to insurance provided by
Contractor:
1. Contractor agrees to have its insurer endorse the third party general
liability coverage required herein to include as additional insureds City, its officials
employees and agents, using standard ISO endorsement No. CG 2010 with an edition
prior to 1992. Contractor also agrees to require all Contractors, and subContractors to
do likewise.
2. No liability insurance coverage provided to comply with this Agreement
shall prohibit Contractor, or Contractor's employees, or agents, from waiving the right of
subrogation prior to a loss. Contractor agrees to waive subrogation rights against City
regardless of the applicability of any insurance proceeds, and to require all Contractors
and subContractors to do likewise.
3. All insurance coverage and limits provided by Contractor and available or
applicable to this agreement are intended to apply to the full extent of the policies.
Nothing contained in this Agreement or any other agreement relating to the City or its
operations limits the application of such insurance coverage.
4. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these
requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been first
submitted to City and approved of in writing.
5. No liability policy shall contain any provision or definition that would serve
to eliminate so-called "third party action over" claims, including any exclusion for bodily
injury to an employee of the insured or of any Contractor or subcontractor.
6. All coverage types and limits required are subject to approval, modification
and additional requirements by the City, as the need arises. Contractor shall not make
any reductions in scope of coverage (e.g. elimination of contractual liability or reduction
of discovery period) that may affect City's protection without City's prior written consent.
7. Proof of compliance with these insurance requirements, consisting of
certificates of insurance evidencing all of the coverages required and an additional
insured endorsement to Contractor's general liability policy, shall be delivered to City at
or prior to the execution of this Agreement. In the event such proof of any insurance is
not delivered as required, or in the event such insurance is canceled at any time and no
replacement coverage is provided, City has the right, but not the duty, to obtain any
insurance it deems necessary to protect its interests under this or any other agreement
and to pay the premium. Any premium so paid by City shall be charged to and promptly
paid by Contractor or deducted from sums due Contractor, at City option.
8. Certificate(s) are to reflect that the insurer will provide 30 days notice to
City of any cancellation of coverage. Contractor agrees to require its insurer to modify
Page 13 of 15 •
such certificates to delete any exculpatory wording stating that failure of the insurer to
mail written notice of cancellation imposes no obligation, or that any party will
"endeavor" (as opposed to being required) to comply with the requirements of the
certificate.
9. It is acknowledged by the parties of this agreement that all insurance
coverage required to be provided by Contractor or any subContractor, is intended to
apply first and on a primary, noncontributing basis in relation to any other insurance or
self insurance available to City.
10. Contractor agrees to ensure that subContractors, and any other party
involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in the project by Contractor,
provide the same minimum insurance coverage required of Contractor. Contractor
agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for
ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this
section. Contractor agrees that upon request, all agreements with subContractors and
others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.
11. Contractor agrees not to self-insure or to use any self-insured retentions
or deductibles on any portion of the insurance required herein and further agrees that it
will not allow any Contractor, subContractor, Architect, Engineer or other entity or
persorr in any way involved in the performance of work on the project contemplated by
this agreement to self-insure its obligations to City. If Contractor's existing coverage
includes a deductible or self-insured retention, the deductible or self-insured retention
must be declared to the City. At the time the City shall review options with the
Contractor, which may include reduction or elimination of the deductible or self-insured
retention, substitution of other coverage, or other solutions.
12. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to
change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Contractor ninety
(90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial
additional cost to the Contractor, the City will negotiate additional compensation
proportional to the increase benefit to City.
13. For purposes of applying insurance coverage only, this Agreement will be
deemed to have been executed immediately upon any party hereto taking any steps
that can be deemed to be in furtherance of or towards performance of this Agreement.
14. Contractor acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on
the part of City to inform Contractor of non-compliance with any insurance requirements
in no way imposes any additional obligations on City nor does it waive any righ�s
hereunder in this or any other regard.
15. Contractor will renew the required coverage annually as long as City, or ets
employees or agents face an exposure from operations of any type pursuant to tha�
agreement. This obligation applies whether or not the agreement is canceled ��
Page 14 of 15 -
terminated for any reason. Termination of this obligation is not effective until City
executes a written statement to that effect.
16. Contractor shall provide proof that policies of insurance required herein
expiring during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other
policies providing at least the same coverage. Proof that such coverage has been
ordered shall be submitted prior to expiration. A coverage binder or letter from
Contractor's insurance agent to this effect is acceptable. A certificate of insurance
and/or additional insured endorsement as required in these specifications applicable to
the renewing or new coverage must be provided to City within five days of the expiration
of the coverages.
17. The provisions of any workers' compensation or similar act will not limit
the obligations of Contractor under this agreement. Contractor expressly agrees not to
use any statutory immunity defenses under such laws with respect to City, its
employees, officials and agents.
18. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this
section are not intended as limitations on coverage, limits or other requirements nor as
a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any given policy. Specific reference to a
given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue,
and is not intended by any party or insured to be limiting or all-inclusive.
19. These insurance requirements are intended to be separate and distinct
from any other provision in this agreement and are intended by the parties here to be
interpreted as such.
20. The requirements in this Section supersede all other sections and
provisions of this Agreement to the extent that any other section or provision conflicts
with or impairs the provisions of this Section.
21. Contractor agrees to be responsible for ensuring that no contract used by
any party involved in any way with the project reserves the right to charge City or
Contractor for the cost of additional insurance coverage required by this agreement.
Any such provisions are to be deleted with reference to City. It is not the intent of City to
reimburse any third party for the cost of complying with these requirements. There shall
be no recourse against City for payment of premiums or other amounts with respect
thereto.
22. Contractor agrees to provide immediate notice to City of any claim or loss
against Contractor arising out of the work performed under this agreement. City
assumes no obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty) to
monitor the handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve City.
Page 15 of 15 �
_....
AGP Video, �nc MEMO
1600 Preston Lane, Morro Bay, CA 93442
voice: 805/772-2715 fax: 805/772-4950
aenvideoC�a charter.net slo-span.org
DATE: July 1, 2005
TO: Steve Adams, City Manager
City of Arroyo Grande
FROM: Steve Mathieu and Nancy Castle
RE: Revised proposal for video production/media distribution services
for Arroyo Grande City Council and Planning Commission
meetings
In a memo to you dated Apri128, 2005, we provided a draft equipment list for an in-house
system and our proposed fee structure for meeting coverage once that in-house system is
installed. For a variety of reasons, including timing of the availability of key equipment
components, we have been unable to expedite the process of the system installation.
At the June 28`h City Council meeting, you approached us with the request that we provide you
with a proposal to begin coverage of the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission almost
immediately, preferably by their second meeting in July. Given the array of delays, we are
willing to begin using the new fee structure developed for use with the in-house system
beginning with all meetings in July.
To refresh your memory, the compensation package establishes a two-hour minimum (which
also covers special meetings) of$460,with meeting time beyond two hours charged at$110 per
hour, calculated on 15-minute increments, rounded up. To achieve a ballpazk estimation of cost,
we have provided the chart below,based on average meeting times.
There is a difference between this chart and the one in the Apri128, 2005 memo. We have
realized that we need to increase the amount for channel management, as an AGP staff inember
will need to do follow-up on a weekly basis in Arroyo Grande. At a minimum, we will need to
retrieve the DVDs and CDs generated in the control room for use in our office for duplication
and distribution.
Time Base Per Total Est# Totals
rate hour mt s
CC 3.5 460 110 625 24 $15,000
PC 4 460 110 680 22 14,960
29,960
Channel mana ement $500 er month 6,000
Annual Total $35,960
During the interim period before the in-house system is installed, we will continue to provide our
LCD projector and laptop presentation system for the City Council meetings at $75 per meeting.
If the system is also required at the Planning Commission meetings, we would be glad to provide
it for those meetings at that rate.
We look forwazd to meeting the Planning Commission and providing the community with the
opportunity to see those meetings in Arroyo Grande.
8.i.
pRRO��
O`` �`,p
� INCORVOR�TED 92 MEMORANDUM
u °
m
� JUIY 10. 1811 *
c9��FORN�P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: RICK TerBORCH, CHIEF OF POLICE�
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS BICYCLES
DATE: JULY 26, 2005
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt a resolution declaring the listed bicycles as surplus
for donation to the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Office to be refurbished and donated to
needy children.
FUNDING:
There are no costs to the City associated with this proposal. In that it has been the City
Council's past policy to donate the bicycles to the Sheriffs Office,the City does not budget any
revenues to be derived from a bicycle auction.
DISCUSSION:
As has been done in past years,the Police Department is requesting that all unclaimed bicycles
that have been in the DepartmenYs custody in excess of 90 days be declared surplus. These
bicycles have been turned in over the past year as found orwere reported stolen and recovered
by the Police Department. Attempts to locate owners and/or return the bicycles to their owners
have been made, but the bicycles remain unclaimed. Due to limited storage space for bicycles,
it is necessary to dispose of those bicycles held in excess of 90 days.
Upon being declared surplus, the bicycles will be donated to the Sheriff's Department. There
the bicycles will be renovated by prisoners at the County Sheriffs Honor Farm and
subsequently donated to needy children during the Holiday Season. In past years, some of
these donated bicycles have been returned to the Police Department to be given as gifts to
needy children during the "Santa Cop" Program.
The surplus bicycles are:
CASE # MANUFACTURER SERIAL # TYPE COLOR
0500287 Gemini Pacific HG0913645 Boys Purple
0401438 Unknown ACY910546 Boys Bronze
0401438 Unknown SY21922182 Boys Silver
0400272 Magna None Girls Blue
0401874 Motiv D38C00292 Boys Orange
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS BICYCLES
JULY 26, 2005
PAGE 2
CASE # MANUFACTURER SERIAL # TYPE COLOR
0400614 Unknown None Boys Silver
0401657 Diamond Back H7D01940 Boys White
0401865 Kent ANN00034293 Boys Maroon
0401871 Realm LH030803935 Boys Red
0401905 Huffy SNHEE03K44061 Boys Blue
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Approve staff's recommendation;
- Do not approve staffs recommendation;
- Modify as appropriate and approve staffs recommendation; or
- Provide direction to staff.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE DECLARING SURPLUS PROPERTY TO
BE DONATED TO THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT PROGRAM TO REFURBISH
BICYCLES FOR NEEDY CHILDREN
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande has certain bicycles that have been turned in to the
Police Department as found items, or for other reasons, and not claimed by the owners;
and
WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Department is conducting a program to
rehabilitate bicycles and donate them to needy children; and
WHEREAS, in past years, some of these donated bicycles have been returned to the
Arroyo Grande Police Department to be given as gifts to needy children during the "Santa
Cop" Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande
does declare as surplus the property listed in Exhibit"A"attached hereto and incorporated
herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bicycles declared herein as surplus be donated to
the San Luis Obispo County Sheriffs Department for rehabilitation and distribution to
needy children.
On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of ,
2005.
� '
i
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST: I
KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
,
EXHIBIT "A"
The following listed bicycles have been held for 90 days or longer with no owners located. It is
requested that these case numbers be declared as surplus, to be turned over to the Sheriff's
Department to be refurbished for needy children:
CASE # MANUFACTURER SERIAL # TYPE COLOR
0500287 Gemini Pacific HG0913645 Boys Purple
0401438 Unknown ACY910546 Boys Bronze
0401438 Unknown SY21922182 Boys Silver
0400272 Magna None Girls Blue
0401874 Motiv D38C00292 Boys Orange
0400614 Unknown None Boys Silver
0401657 Diamond Back H7D01940 Boys White
0401865 Kent ANN00034293 Boys Maroon
0401871 Realm LH030803935 Boys Red
0401905 Huffy SNHEE03K44061 Boys Blue
oE pRROYOC .... V�'■
9
� INCORFORATED 92 MEMORANDUM
V o
m
. # .nxr �o, ieii *
� c4�,FORN�P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: RICK TerBORCH, CHIEF OF POLICE�
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE REPLACEMENT
IN-CAR VIDEO SYSTEMS FOR POLICE PATROL CARS
DATE: JULY 26, 2005
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council authorize staff to purchase seven (7)digital in-car video
systems and related equipment from ICOP Digital, Inc. for a total cost of$41,974.52.
FUNDING:
The FY 2005-06 Police Department Budget contains funding totaling $29,000 for the
purchase and installation of four (4) replacement in-car video systems and support
equipment. Additionally, $13,200 was carried over from the FY 2004-05 Budget for
replacement of the remaining three(3)in-car video systems. This totals$42,200 budgeted
for this program. The cost of this program for this fiscal year will be $41,974.52.
DISCUSSION:
In adopting the FY 2005-06 City Budget, the City Council authorized the replacement of a
total of four (4) in-car video systems and related equipment (two current patrol vehicles
purchased in FY 2004-05 and two to be purchased in FY 2005-06). Additionally, the City
Manager authorized the Police Department to carry over funds from FY 2004-05 for similar
purchases (this allowed for a more cost effective purchasing program due to price
reductions as a result of purchasing more units in the same order). These funds will be
used to replace the in-car video units for the Canine Vehicle, the Watch Commander's
Utility Vehicle (Tahoe) and the School Resource Officer Vehicle. It should be noted that
two (2) of the patrol vehicles, the Canine Vehicle and the Watch Commander's Utility
Vehicle, all purchased in FY 2004-05, are currently in use without in-car video systems and
are waiting for this replacement program to be implemented. This leaves four (4) current
patrol cars, the School Resource Officer Vehicle and the Watch Commander's old Utility
Vehicle (Expedition) with the old in-car video systems in operation.
As presented in the supporting budget documentation for FY 2005-06, the in-car video
system is a critical system which directly supports the perceived credibility/integrity of the
Police Department. The Arroyo Grande Police Department was a pioneer in the use of
in-car video systems in all patrol cars in the County. The Department has been used as an
example by Grand Juries, the Courts and the District Attorney as to the benefits of using
such systems, including dealing with citizen complaints, evidence in prosecution of criminal
investigations, officer safety, evaluation of performance of field personnel and training.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE REPLACEMENT IN-CAR
VIDEO SYSTEM FOR POLICE PATROL CARS
JULY 26, 2005
PAGE 2
The current video system is over seven (7) years old and is beginning to require frequent
maintenance. This has reached the point where a system in a vehicle has been
inoperative for several days at a time and unavailable during critical events where video
evidence from the system would have been beneficial. The District Attorneys Office has
commented that the quality of the video tape recordings is diminishing, greatly reducing
their evidentiary value. In addition to these replacements, the City Council approved
replacement of two (2)additional systems for patrol cars and two (2) more systems for the
two(2)traffic enforcement motorcycles in FY 2006-07. Those purchases will complete the
replacement cycle for the in-car video system program.
The Police Department obtained bids from three companies that provide in-car video
systems for police use. It should be noted that all three bids were for digital equipment and
low light level cameras, necessary for better quality recordings during darkness. The bids
submitted for the seven (7) replacement systems, including necessary associated
equipment, area as follows:
ICOP Digital, Inc. $41,974.52
Lenexa, Kansas
Kustom Signal $45,387.79
Lenexa, Kansas
Mobil Digital Systems, Inc. $66,510.01
Boonton, New Jersey
Staff is recommending the acceptance of the ICOP Digital, Inc. bid. Not only is it the
lowest bid, it is a single unit and, as such, is the easiest and most economical to install and
maintain. The unit replaces the radio in the dash of the vehicle. The other companies
have units in the cargo compartments (trunks) of the vehicle and, as such, are subject to
damage by potential shifting of equipment in the trunk. Additionally, staff contacted several
Police Departments which use the ICOP system and they are extremely satisfied with the
pertormance, durability and ease of maintenance of the equipment. Delivery date is
expected within six (6) weeks of the time of order.
The Mobil Digital System has the capability to automatically download video data when the
police vehicles enterthe Police Department's parking lot. Whilethiswould be desirable, its
cost far exceeds the funding allotted for the purchase in the budget. The ICOP Digital
System has an add-on capability to also automatically download images. It may be
desirable to obtain this capability in the future when appropriate funding becomes
available.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE REPLACEMENT IN-CAR
VIDEO SYSTEM FOR POLICE PATROL CARS
JULY 26, 2005
PAGE 3
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Approve staff's recommendation;
- Reject bids and direct staff to solicit additional bids;
- Reject bids and provide further direction to staff; or
- Do not approve staffs recommendation.
Attachment (1)
� � ..
0
m � .� m d �
� y �, ° n ";
a, m � ,� e°+ a o � y
ro
� y,� �i N 7�1 ,d
a � Q � F+ � .Y . 0 .
�
RI 'i N � �.i »I �
�
m �C v�i � � a a,
�
m
g a .
+� � '� � � M
� �6 U
� 2 en vi
� �p � � � F a � � y .
� �
� y 0'0 F1 � 1� b
..� � � � °' �
� w o � m �
�
a � °� r� � �-�+ �
� ai � a `O
a � N
� N �
� � N �G m �. ^
� � o � 'i m �y,
� aJ U n �
sa 4. „�n,� � Z � +� •'1 0� .-�
� � Di F @ � � 7 E W � +� �
0 .-� . +.� c�
p � ti z m m o � � �
t+ '� �--I Q N q m � . �o
� SL +� U
w w '� R' c.� `° � �-� '� °°'`�
� a � >, m N oo �° � a �,
� o a m
�' '+�� m v N
� � a s�, ' "� •
� m �, z a
a �u m
� � 0 � � �
n a m
o n, m y � �
�a m +� a o
m m m � � `�
o � F a a o
-.{ '.,
+� .+ � �'
,� �'
+� ,� � � 'm
U
m pt � Q w m �
o m �.°� c� t° � m a
:v o Q H � � ., m � o
O m U qy � � "i 0 F w ,-�
� .-I m y p p � � � A � �
a H Q � o� m +� 0 F ol
0 U U
� � P�4 � d � O� 0 m �
'� � .i G4 p >+
3 � � 0 0 � � m •�
.a
■ ❑ H2 F U w o a
�
oE pRROYpc S�k�
?
� INCOFVORATED 9.l
u °
m
� JULY I0, IB11 *
c9��FORN�P MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNE�(�
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO A
TRANSFER OF A PIPELINE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT FROM
UNOCAL CALIFORNIA PIPELINE COMPANY TO CONOCOPHILLIPS
PIPE LINE COMPANY
DATE: JULY 26, 2005
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the Council adopt a Resolution consenting to a transfer of An
Agreement Granting to Unocal California Pipeline Company, a California Corporation, a
Franchise to Construct, Operate, and Maintain Pipelines for the Transportation of Oil,
and Other Specified Materials in the City of Arroyo Grande, State of California (the
"Pipeline Franchise AgreemenY'), from the Unocal California Pipeline Company to
ConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company.
FUNDING:
All City costs and expenses related to the review and processing of the proposed
transfer are the responsibility of ConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company. There is no fiscal
impact to the City.
DISCUSSION:
On November 9, 1999 the City entered into the Pipeline Franchise Agreement for "the
non-exclusive right, privilege and franchise to, within the City, construct, erect, maintain,
operate, repair, renew, abandon, and change the size of and remove pipelines, not to
exceed twelve (12) inches nominal internal diameter, for the transportation of oil, oil
products, hydrocarbon gases and other gases necessary for the operation and
maintenance of pipelines, water and mixtures thereof, moveable by pipeline, in, under
along, and across the public street, ways, alleys and places (hereinafter collectively
referred to as 'streets'), more fully described and shown in the site maps in the
Appendix, attached hereto and made a part hereof."
By letters dated March 1 and June 13, 2005, the City received notification from Conoco
Phillips requesting that the City approve the transfer of the Pipeline Franchise
Agreement from Unocal California Pipeline Company to ConocoPhillips Pipe Line
Company. It should be noted that the proposed transfer is in the form of a sale 100% of
the stock of Unocal California Pipeline Company to ConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company.
The sale results in a change in control of the franchise which constitutes a transfer
pursuant to the Pipeline Franchise Agreement and requires the City's formal consent.
City staff has carefully reviewed a large volume of relevant documents and has
_
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO A TRANSFER OF FRANCHISE RIGHTS
AGREEMENT FROM UNION PIPELINE COMPANY TO CONOCOPHILLIPS PIPE LINE COMPANY
JULY 26, 2005
PAGE2
determined the ConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company has the necessary financial stability
and operational experience to satisfactorily operate the franchise and satisfy the terms
of the Pipeline Franchise Agreement and that the change in control serves the public
interest. Therefore, staff recommends that the Council adopt the attached Resolution
consenting to the transfer.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following altematives are provided for the Council's consideration: �
- Approve staffs recommendation;
- Do not approve staffs recommendation;
- Provide direction to staff.
Attachments:
• Letter from ConocoPhillips dated March 1, 2005
• Letter from City of Arroyo Grande dated May 19, 2005
• Letter from ConocoPhillips dated June 13, 2005
I
— ; :
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE CONSENTING TO THE TRANSFER OF A
FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN
PIPELINES, FROM UNOCAL CALIFORNIA PIPELINE
COMPANY TO CONOCO PHILLIPS PIPE LINE COMPANY
WHEREAS, On November 9, 1999, the City of Arroyo Grande entered into "An
Agreement Granting to Unocal California Pipeline Company, a California Corporation, a
Franchise to Construct, Operate, and Maintain Pipe Lines for the Transpiration of Oil,
and Other Specified Materials, in the City of Arroyo Grande, State of California "(the
"Pipeline Franchise AgreemenY'); and
WHEREAS, by letters dated March 1 and June 13, 2005 ConocoPhillips Pipe Line
Company ("ConocoPhillips") advised the City that it had acquired 100% of the stock of
Unocal California Pipeline Company ("Unocap") and that the two Companies had
effectively merged; and
WHEREAS, the sale of Unocap's stock constitutes a transfer of control pursuant to
Article 17B of the Pipeline Franchise Agreement requiring the Ciry's formal consent; and
WHEREAS, upon a comprehensive review of the financial stability and operational
experience of ConocoPhillips, Ciry staff has concluded that ConocoPhillips satisfies the
general transfer requirements and criteria established under the Pipeline Franchise
Agreement and that the change of control of the franchise is in the best interest of the
public.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande does hereby consent to the transfer and change in control of the Pipeline
Franchise Agreement, subject to the following conditions:
1. ConocoPhillips shall agree to be bound by all requirements in the
Agreement and comply with all City rules, regulations and policies related
to the subject matter of the Agreement.
2. Conoco Phillips shall pay all costs and expenses incurred by the City in
reviewing the transaction, and in processing of all necessary paperwork
related to the transfer of and change in control of the franchise.
On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member ,
and on the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of July, 2005.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
JUL-22-2005 10:23 CARMEL & NACCASHA LLP 8055468015 P.02
ATTACHMENT1
~/ • • i,li'1' u�eCIt�O O�G�ili�:i
Cono�oPhillips
05199R —4 P19 �a� I 8
March 1,2005
C1ry Cletk
City of Amoyo Orande
P.O,BozggO
214�ast Branch Street
Arroyo Grande,Caltfomfa 93421
Qenpeme�;
SubJeet TransFe�afLlnioeP eNn Comaanv(Califomta)
EfPeetive February 1, 2p05, Un�on Pipeline Compeny (Califomia), a Callfomie corporatlon ("Unocap'�
and a w►iolly ovmed subsidiary of Con000Philijps Company, merged Into ConocoPhipips Plpo Line
Campeny, a Delaware corpordye� ("CPPLC), and a newiy fortned wholly owned subsldlary of
ConacoPhililps Company with (q p�indpai place of buainess locat�d at 600 North Dairy Ash(cro,
HousMn,Tezas 77078. Unoe�p is no lalger a legal entlry.
As suocessor to Unocap, CPPLC cyrrently operates (a) common camer plpaline(s) for the
transpoRa4on of crude oll wfthin cerFain sRaets of the CIty/COUnIy under Franehise Agf�eme�t tlated
November 9, 1998. Tho wmmon earrier plpeBne operatons are tggulated by the Califomia Publk
Udlides Commission.
ConocoPhOfips Pipe Line Co�npany is agreeable fo assuming all of Unocap's obfigaoons related to irye
Franohlse and hereby 2quesm the Ctty Caunc� and/or County Board of 6upervtsors' cortsent 6o the
trensferof sUCh franchlse dghta.
All questlona o� requests for infortnaqon rela6ve M this request should be dlreated ro me, Mona D,
Hebert,at tha ebove addfess or tefephone number(562)290-1519.
We look foiward to the Council's and/or Baard of SupeMSOrs'favorable consideration of and consent
to the t2nafer.
Sincerely,
,__�„��- l��
Mona D. HebeR,SWIA/A
Property Tax, Rea�Estate, Rlght of Way&C�aims
MH
cc: G.T�tle �. .. ,
6.Hallett .
JUL-22-2005 10:23 CARMEL & NACCASHA LLP 8055468015 P.03
• C'Zt�1 Of ATTACHMENT 2
1023 Nipomo Strcec
Arroyo C�rande Suite 150
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Pltone: (805)546-$785
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY FAX: (80� 546-8015
May 19.2005
ConocoPhillips
Attn, Mona D.Hebert,SR/WA '
600 North Dairy Ashford
Houston,TX 77079
Re Transfer of Union Pipeline Company,City of Arroyo Grande,California
Ms.Hebert,
� I am respouding�o your letter dated Mazch 1,2005,requesting the the City of
Arroyo Grande("City")consent to a transfer of franchise rights•fxom Utrion Pipeline
ComPany("Unocap") to ConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company(•`CPPLC"). .
Pursuant to the Franchise Agreement,dated Novembet 9,1999,("Agreemenc")
between the Gity and Unocap any chanoe in control of the franchise tequires prior
written City approval (teference Article 17 of Agreement). The failure of Unocap and/or,
CPPLC to abide by the terms of the Agreement places the City in the undesirable
position of retroactive]y having to make a determination if the public interest is best
seived by the Qansfer of control. 7his said,the Ciry is willing to evaluate�he request for
consenc to a trattsfer of the franchise righ�s subject to the requiremenrs as see forth in
Article 17 of the Agmement. Ar�icle 17(B)states the following.
Borh the Grantee and�he proposed transferee shall inform the Ciry of any
pending change in control of this Iranchise or of any pending ¢ansfer of
an in�eresc in the franchise requiring the City's consent pursuant to this
Atcicle, and each shall provide applications containing all document on
which the transfer or change in cona�ol is predicated and all doeuments
which the Ciry determines are necessary to ev�luate the transfer or
change of control. These applicarions shall be signed by duly authori�ed
representarives oF the Grancee and thc proposed transferee, with
signatures acknowledged by a notary. The appropriate transfer fee
• described in Arricle 17(C),inFra,shall accompany these applicarions.
The Ciry will require cransfer fee of$10,000 to cover the Ciry incurred e�cpenses
relatecl co analysis,processing and Ci�y Council considera�ion of�he proposed eransfer.
� '
j:
JUL-22-2005 10:23 CARMEL � NACCASHA LLP 8055468015 P.04
� Conoco Phillips
. hfsy�19,2005
p,�
Please inirially procidc all necessarp documents pursuant to Aracle 17 in order for
the Ciry to Ue,gin to address this requesc and make a de�etmination. A copy of Ardcle 17
of thc Agreement is attached Eor y our convenience. Should you ha�•e any comments or
quesaons please con�act me.
Sincerely,
CARMEL Fu NACCASHA LLP
_ �,
imothy J. Caz `
City ACtorney
rJciam
Enclosure: Amcle 17
cc: City Manager (withouc enelosures)
Financial Services Director(without enclosures)
City Clerk(withouC enclosures)
_ I`?
JUL-22-2005 10:25 CARMEL & NACCASHA LLP 8055468015 P.09
ATTACHMENT3
ConocoPhillips
Mona D. Hebert,SRM/A
3900 Kilroy AirpoR Way.Suile 210
Long Beach, CA 90806
Phona� 562-290.1519
Email addrass•
mona.hgb9rt�conocoph i Ilips.wm
June 13, 2005
Mr. Timothy J. Garmet
City Attorney
City of Arroyo Grande
1023 Nipomo Street, Suite 150
San Luis Obispo, Califomia 93401
Dear Mr. Carmel:
Re: Union Pi eline Com an Franchise
In reply to your letter of May 19, 2005, ConocoPhillips Company, on behalf of its subsidiary,
ConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company, a common carrier pipeline company regulated by the
California Public Utilities Commission, hereby request the transfer of the subject franchise from
Unocap to ConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company.
ConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ConocoPhillips Company.
ConocoPhillips Company acquired 100% of the stock of Unocal California Pipeline Company
(Unocap)from Tosco Corporation as of December 1, 2001. Unocap was transferred to
ConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company as of February 1, 2005 and is no longer a viable entity.
In support of this request, we enclose the following materials and/or information:
1) A copy of the Certificate of Merger between ConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company and
Union Pipeline Company (California).
2) A copy of the application and approval of the merger by the Public Utilities Commission of
the State of California.
3) Our check Number 00004182 dated 06/09l2005 in the amount of$10,000.00, covering
the transfer fee.
4) Our pipeline drawings, Index and sheats 1 through 4 depicting the pipelines within the
City's public street rights of way,
JUL-22-2005 10:25 CARMEL & NACCASHA LLP 8055468015 P. 10
Mr. Carmel
June 8, 2005
Page 2
Re: Union Pipelina Company Franchise
Also, for your information, ConocoPhillips has a web site that contains the financial and
company information necessary for the City to use in their transfer and assignment of the
franchise ordinance. The web site is:
htte�//www Conocoohilli�s com/aboWcoroorate+aovernance/index htm.
We trust the information provided herewlth will be sufficient for the City to consent to the transfer. If
you have any questions or need additional information, please give me a call at (562) 290-1519.
Sincerely,
�b�"�'ti21—�X- {{L�/V�-� �
Mona D. Hebert, SR/WA
Property Tax, Real Estate, Right of Way& Ciaims
Enclosures
MDH
TOTAL P. 10
_ f '
a.i.
pRROy�
O� c,P
� INCONPOAATED 92
U m
� JULY f0. 1BH *
c4��FORN�P MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO�
- SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AGREEMENT WITH PACIFIC GAS AND
ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR PHASE 2 OF LET THERE BE LIGHTS
(LTBL)
DATE: JULY 26, 2005 i
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council approve the agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric
Company and authorize the City Manager to sign on behalf of the City of Arroyo Grande,
including payment of$39,776.00 for materials and installation.
FUNDING:
The $39,776 payment will be paid from the current $56,615 balance of donations
deposited in the LTBL account, and represents $2,486 per pole and fixture. Phase 2
`donation' was estimated at $3,000 per pole, which will leave approximately $500 per pole
for purchase of the brass plaque and accessory banner arms, band and ribs (to create a
cage around the glass acorn fixture) similar in appearance to the Phase I design.
DISCUSSION:
With Phase I of the LTBL program, involving 12 lights and poles along the Creek
Promenade and around the gazebo completed, the Phase 2 project is now ready to
implement. A single donation by Howard Mankins enabled the City and PG&E to prepare
a detailed cost estimate for 12 pole locations. Four (4) existing poles were added west of
Phase 2 to convert all the existing lanterns between Traffic Way and Short Street.
As soon as this installation is completed, sometime this summer, a similar detailed design
and agreement will be requested for all of the remaining PG&E poles and lanterns from
Short Street to Crown Hill along E. Branch Street. It is anticipated that the cost will remain
approximately $3,000 per pole and fixture.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are presented for Council consideration:
- Authorize agreement and payment;
- Provide direction to staff.
Attachment:
1. Agreement from PG&E dated July 7, 2005
S:\COMMUNITY_DEVELOPMENT\CITY_COUNCIL\2005\07-26-05\07-18-05 City Council LTBL.dot
�
July 7, 2005
Ref:# 101688856; Let There Be Light phase 2, 16 lights on W. Branch Street Arroyo Grande
' �
Rob Strong
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Dear Rob Strong:
Enclosed are electric agreements for your commercial project in Arroyo Grande. This letter summarizes the line
extension and service agreements for this project.
Please initiai and sign all copies of the agreement(s)and return to me along with your payment. A fully executed
copy of each agreement will be returned to you. PG&E should receive these agreement(s)and money, 45 days
prior to the start of its work on your project. Agreements shouid be sent to: 4325 S. Higuera St., San Luis '
Obispo, CA 93401
PG&E will honor these costs (based on existing scope and design)and agreements for 90 days from the"Date of
, Issuance"found on the first page of the DisMbution and Service Extension Agreemenf(Form 62-0980/82).
The charges shown in the Agreement to Perform Tariff Schedule Related Work(Form 62-4527)are summarized
below.
Line# Description �.1pN Refundable 50°/. Discount
O tion O tion
1. Gas Rule 15 Refundable/Discount Pa ment $0.00 $0.
2. Electric Rule 15 Refundable/Discount Pa ment $0.00 $ .00
3. Gas 8 Electric Rules 15/16 Non-Refundable Pa ment $0.00 .00
4. Total Rule 15/16 Pa ment Lines 1-3 $0.00 $0.00
5. Other Non-Refundable Payment(Rule 20, StreetlighU $39,776.00 ,776.00
Traffic Control, Third Pa Trench
6. S ecial Facilities Pa ent $0.00 $0.00
7. Time of Use Meter s Pa ment $0.00 0.00
8. Credits En ineerin de osit, etc. $0.00 $ 0
9. TOTAL PAYMENT DUE sum Lines 4-7, less Line 8 $39,776.00 $39,776.
'Only applies to Rule 15 Refundable Amounts. Amount shown is less credit for associated Applipnt rk.
The amount due is net of$0.00 in allowances and $0.00 in other PG&E contributions. The Income Tax
Component of Contribution (ITCC) is included in the above charges when applicable.
Prior to the installation of your permanent electric meters, a final electrical inspection approval by the local
jurisdiction must be forwarded to this office. You must also call our our Local Meter Set Desk at(805)546-5247 to
schedule electric meter installations. Thank you for the opportunity to bs af service. Contact me at(805j 546-
5236 or rmbe@pge.com if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Bob Burke �
New Business Project Manager
� �� ` °
�19�
c; , ,,
���opr�nEN�
G,�;.,`-°'
Page 1
4. Applicant shall pay to PG&E, promptly upon demand by PG&E,as the compiete contract price hereunder,the sum of
ThirN Nine Thousand Seven Hundred SevenN Six and 00/100ths Dollars($39,776.00).
Upon completion of requested work,ownership shall vest in: X� PG&E 1� Applicant
Executed this_day of
CiN of Arcovo Grande PACIFIC GAS 8 EtECTRIC COMPANY
APP�irant
BY� - - -- BY'
_ =='µ` ' Lvn Stonehouse
(PrinVTy9e/NaFq„ ' (Print/Type Name)
TiUe:_. _ _, ' � Title: Service Plannino Suoervisor
Mailing Address: P.O. Box SSU -
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
I
� � 62�527(Rev 1/91)
Service Planning -
Advice No.1633G/1342-E�.
� �ffective 4/02l91 �� -
pRROy� S.m.
OF �',p
F MCONVOqATED 9.1
u m MEMORANDUM
# du�r �a. ie�i ,f
c9��FORN�P .
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNF�Y'��/
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION INITIATING
PROCEEDINGS FOR FORMATION OF THE PARKSIDE VILLAGE
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (TRACT 2310)
DATE: JULY 26, 2005
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council receive the Petition requesting formation of an
assessment district filed by Parkside Village, LLC, for operation and maintenance of
improvements associated with Tract 2310, adopt a Resolution initiating proceeding for
formation of the Parkside Village Assessment District, and authorize the City Manager
to enter into a Reimbursement Agreement with the Petitioner to reimburse the City for
costs incurred in forming the District.
FUNDING:
All costs and expenses associated with the formation of the subject assessment District
are to be paid by the Petitioner, Parkside Village, LLC.
DISCUSSION:
The condition of approval for the Parkside Village subdivision (Tract 2310) requires
formation of an assessment district to fund operation, maintenance, and repairs costs
associated with the certain specified tract improvements, including a drainage basin and
related appurtenances. The City has received a Petition from Parkside Village, LLC
requesting formation of the assessment district. The City will be utilizing the procedures
set forth in the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highway Codes §§
22500 et seq.) to form the subject assessment district and to establish the amount of
assessments. The attached Resolution is the first step in the process of forming the
district. If adopted, a formal engineers report will be prepared for consideration by the
Council which will, through an appropriate formula, establish the amount of the
assessments based on the specific benefit derived by each affected parcel. The
Petitioner will execute a Reimbursement Agreement requiring payment by the Petitioner
of all City costs incurred in connection with the assessment district formation. It is
recommended that the Council receive the subject Petition, approve the Resolution
initiating proceedings and authorize the City Manager to enter into the Reimbursement
Agreement with the Petitioner on behalf of the City.
i
CITY COUNCIL
, CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR FORMATION
OF THE PARKSIDE VILLAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT(TRACT 2310)
JULY 26, 2005
PAGE 2
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Approve staff's recommendation to proceed with the formation process for
the assessment district to include preparation of an engineer's report and
implementation of a reimbursement agreement; ,
- Do not approve staff's recommendation to proceed with formation; I
- Request further information regarding the formation of the District;
- Provide direction to staff.
Attachment:
- Petition Affecting Real Property
i{ '.
{`
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE
FORMATION OF THE PARKSIDE VILLAGE ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande ("City") is authorized under the procedures of the
Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (commencing with §22500 of the Streets and Highways
Code) to form an assessment district to construct, operate, maintain and repair certain
improvements within the Ciry; and
WHEREAS, Parkside Village, LLC, ("Owner" and/or "Developer") is the Owner and Developer
of certain real property (the "Property") located within the City being developed as a residential
subdivision and including certain public improvements ("Tract 2310" and/or the "ProjecY'); and
WHEREAS, Owner has filed a petition with the Ciry Clerk requesting the City to form an
assessment district to provide a means for payment of the costs of the operation, maintenance
and repair (including Ciry administrative costs, and establishing a reasonable reserve), for the
above-referenced improvements, said improvements specifically benefiting the property
owned by Owner,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande, as
follows:
1. City proposes to form an assessment district for the purpose of the providing for the
annual costs of the maintenance, operation and repair (including Ciry administrative
costs and a reasonable reserve) of certain improvements within the City, including but
not limited to the Tract 2310 improvements described as follows:
A. Landscaping bordering Farroll Road, Bakeman Road Entrances, behind
and along Bakeman Lots 10, 11, 12, and 13 of Phase 1, mini park,
pedestrian pathway easement and drainage basin.
B. Fencing, gates and walls bordering Farroll Road, Bakeman Road
Entrances, behind and along Bakeman Lots 10, 11, 12, and 13, park and
drainage basin.
C. The pathway easement, lighting and all improvements between lots 1, 2
and 3 between Dixon Street and the mini park.
D. The mini park and all improvements to include walkways, play area,
benches, and basketball court on Lot 24.
E. The drainage retention basin and all improvements to include, water
separator, on Lot 25 and french drain long the east boundary of Tract
2310-2.
2. The proposed assessment district is to be designated as the Parkside Village
Assessment District.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
3. The City Engineer of the City of Arroyo Grande is hereby designated Assessment
Engineer for the purpose of these formation proceedings.
4. The City Engineer is ordered to prepare and file a report in accordance with Article 4 of
Chapter 1 of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (commencing with Street and
Highways Code Section 22565).
On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll I
call vote, to wit:
AYES: '
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2005.
�.
�
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
TONYFERRARA, MAYOR
I
ATTEST: �
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
I`
�;
ATTACHMENT
PETITION REQUESTING FORMATION
OF THE PARKSIDE VILLAGE ASSESSM�NT DISTRICT NO. 1
WHEREAS, the Petitioner, Parkside Village, LLC a Limited Liability Company,
(hereinafter referred to as "Developer" or "Owner(s)") is the sole owner and developer
of certain real property (hereinafter referred to as "Praperty") located in the City of
Arroyo Grande,(hereinafter referred to as the "City"); and
WHEREAS, Developer is developing the Property as a single family residential
subdivision approved by the City as Tract 2310, Phases 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred
to as the "ProjecY'); and
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande has conditioned and required the
Project be improved with landscaping, lighting, pedestrian walkway, park, french
drain and drainage basin (herein "Improvements"); and
WHEREAS, Developer, as the sole owner of the Property to be benefited by
the Improvements hereby requests the City of Arroyo Grande under the conditions of
approval of the project to establish an assessment district to provide for the cost of
the operation, maintenance and repair (including City's administrative costs and
establishment of a reasonable reserve) for said Improvements;
NOW, THEREFORE, by this Petition, the undersigned Developer requests the
City to accomplish the following with regard to the Property:
1. Formation of Assessment District. Owner requests the City to form an
assessment district (hereinafter referred to as "The Parkside Village Assessment
DistricY') for the purpose of levying an annual assessment against the Property and
each lot or parcel therein in the amount, for the purpose of funding the annual costs
of the operation, maintenance and repair and incidental expenses (including City
administrative costs and establishing a reasonable reserve) for the Improvements.
The undersigned Owner understands that such Improvements and the operation,
maintenance and repair of same are of special benefit to the Property, each lot to be
created therein, and the public.
2. Description of Land to be Inciuded in Proposed Improvement
District. The land to be included in the proposed Parkside Village Assessment
District is the property described as Tract Map 2310, f'hase 1 and Phase 2.
3. Names of all Owners of the Property. Parkside Village, LLC, is the
sole Property owner whose address is 1350 East Grande Avenue, Arroyo Grande,
CA 93420.
1
Tract 2310 Main[enance Disirict -
4. The Proposed Improvements to be Maintained by the Assessment
District are Described as Follows:
A. Landscaping bordering Farrol Road, Bakeman Road Entrances, behind
and along Bakeman Lots 10, 11, 12, and 13 of Phase 1, mini park,
pedestrian pathway easement and drainage basin.
B. Fencing, gates and walls bordering Farrol Road, Bakeman Road
Entrances, behind and along Bakeman Lots 10, 11, 12, and 13, park
and drainage basin.
C. The pathway easement, lighting and all improvements beiween lots 1, 2
and 3 between Dixon Street and the mini park.
D. The mini park and all improvements to include walkways, play area,
benches, and basketball court on Lot 24.
E. The drainage retention basin and all improvements to include, water
separator, on Lot 25 and french drain long the east boundary of Tract
2310-2.
5. Amount of the Annual Assessment. The formula for establishing
the assessment and the annual assessment to be levied against the Property to fund
the operation, maintenance and incidental expenses (including administrative costs
and establishing a reasonable reserve) of the Improvements is to be described in a
report prepared by the City Engineer. The City may establish the administrative costs,
a reasonable reserve amount and the discount rate for public use of the park and
walkway.
6. Apportionment of Annual Assessments Among Subdivision Lots
or Parcels. Owner understands that the formula used to calculate the
assessments shall accurately reflect the proportionate special benefit received by
each such lot or parcel or public arising from the operation, maintenance and repair
of the Improvements, as determined by the City.
7. Waiver of Notice of Assessment District Protest Hearing. The
undersigned Developer, as sole Owner of the Property to be included in the proposed
Parkside Village Assessment District, hereby waives the resolution, report, notices of
hearing, right of majority protest, and any other formalities in establishing the
Parkside Village Assessment District in order to effectuate its formation.
8. Effect of City's Failure to Form Assessment District. In the event
the City fails to form the Parkside Village Assessment District, Owner understands
that Owner shall be responsible for maintenance of the Improvements through the
establishment of a Homeowners Association as required by the conditions of
approval for Tract 2310.
9. Ballot in Favor of Assessment District. The undersigned Developer
executes this Petition both as the Owner's Petition for the formation of the Parkside
Village Assessment District, and as the Owner's Ballot in favor of the assessments to
2
Trect 2310 Maintenance Dishict �
be charged or levied against the Property and the individual lots and parcels therein.
In addition, the undersigned Owner hereby authorizes the City Clerk to file this
Petition as Owner's ballot in favor of forming the Parkside Village Assessment
District.
10. Notices. Notices required to be given shall be addressed as
follows:
CITY: DEVEI.OPER:
City of Arroyo Grande Parkside Village, LLC
208 East Branch Street 1350 East Grande Avenue
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 Arroyu Grende, CA 93420
Attn: City Clerk
11. Successors and Assigns. The City and Developer agree that this
Petition shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the Developer, his/her heirs,
successors, executors, administrators and assigns, including successor individual lot
owners, and shall inure to the benefit of the City and its successors and assigns.
12. Authority to Execute Agreement.
The undersigned hereby represent that the individual executing this Petition is
expressly authorized to do so for and on behalf of Parkside Village, LLC, a Limited
Liability Company.
PROPERTY OWNER/ DEVELOPER:
PARKSIDE VILLA E, LLC
A Limite Liability ompany
By:
Warren San ers n � S/
Its: Managing Member Date: d` d
3
3
Tract 2310 Maintenance Disfrict
9.a.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande will conduct a
Public Hearing on TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. in the Arroyo Grande City Council
Chambers, 215 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA-to consider the foilowing item:
CASE NO: Development Code Amendment Case No. 05-009; Regulating Formula
Businesses in the vicinity of the Viilage of Arroyo Grande
LOCATION: Citywide: Village Core Downtown district
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION: Exempt pursuant to Sections 15183, 15305, 15378, 15061(b)(3) of the
Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
Public Resources Code section 21083.3(e).
STAFF CONTACT: Teresa McClish, Associate Planner
The City Council will consider a proposed ordinance amending the Municipal Code to
specifically define formula businesses and restrict formula businesses in the Village Core
Downtown district. Generally, formula businesses operate in an extremely standardized
manner where all outlets maintain the same merchandise, fagade, decor, color schemes,
signage, trademarks and employee apparel.
Information relating to this proposal is available at the Community Development Department,
located at 214 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California, or by telephone at (805) 473-
5420 during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) Any person affected or
concerned by these proposals may submit written comments to the Community Development
Department before the City Council hearing, or appear and be heard in support of or
opposition to the proposals at the time of hearing.
If you challenge an item in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence
delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. .
Failure of any person to receive the notice shall not constitute grounds for any court to
invalidate he action of the leg�tive body for which the notice was given.
f� ��t.�.�� �
Kelly We or City Clerk
Publish 1T, 1/8 page display ad, The Tribune, Friday July 15, 2005
pRROy�
°`' ��P
�' INCONPOFATEO 92
�
V O
m
# au�v io, iuii *
� c4��FORN�P MEMORANDUM
To: cirY couNCi�
FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE DEFINING AND RESTRICTING
FORMULA BUSINESSES IN THE VILLAGE CORE DOWNTOWN AND
VILLAGE MIXED USE/HISTORIC CHARACTER DESIGN OVERLAY
ZONING DISTRICTS (VCD AND VMU D-2.4): DEVELOPMENT CODE
AMENDMENT CASE NO. 05-009 ;
DATE: JULY 26, 2005
Although an eighth-page public hearing notice was published in the Tribune, an error was
made by staff in the description of the proposed affected area. (Only the VCD district was
mentioned). Additionally, staff failed to provide mailed notices to the affected property
owners of the enlarged area recommended by the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council open the advertised public hearing, consider
public input, but continue the hearing and defer any action until August 9, 2005.
FUNDING:
No fiscal impact.
DISCUSSION:
Due to a failure to mail public notices to all potentially impacted property owners in time,
continuance of the public hearing is recommended. This will allow for the opportunity to
re-advertise and mail proper notice. Staff regrets the inconvenience this noticing error has
caused.
S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN1lCITY_COUNCIL�2005\W-26-05\07-18-OS Formulat Business Cover.dot
9.b.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CITY COUNCIL
k NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande will conduct a
Public Hearing on TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 215
E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA to consider the following item:
PROPOSAL: Consideration of a Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter
15.04 of Title 15 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code
Updating the Uniform Building and Related Codes. The City
Council will consider an ordinance adopting by reference
documents known and designated as the California Building
Standards Code, including the 2001 Califomia Building Code,
California Plumbing Code, and the California Mechanical Code, �
and the 2004 California Electrical Code as adopted by the �
Building Standards Commission of the State of California, and
the 1997 editions of the Uniform Housing Code, the Code for '
the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, the Uniform
Administrative Code, and the appendices to the 1997 Uniform
Building Code, and the 2000 editions of the Uniform Plumbing
� and Mechariical Codes; and such codes, as amended, are
proposed as the building and construction regulations of the
City of Arroyo Grande.
STAFF CONTACT: Terry Fibich, Director of Building and Fire
Information relating to this proposal is available at the Building Department, located at 200 E.
Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California, or by telephone at (805) 473-5450 during normal
business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) Any person affected or concerned by the proposal may
submit written comments to the Administrative Services Department before the City Council
meeting, or appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the proposal at the time of
hearing.
If you challenge an item in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearings deseribed in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearings.
Failure of any person to receive the notice shall not constitute grounds for any court to
invalidate the action of the legislative body for which the notice was given,
� �_
Kelly Wet or , City Clerk -
Publish 2T, The Tribune, Friday, July 15, 2005 and Thursday, July 21, 2005
E pRROY�
� cP
FINCONiOR�TED 9.L
u °
m
# ur m, ieii y
c9��FORN�P
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TERRY FIBICH, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND FIRE �
BY: JOHNATHAN HURST, BUILDING OFFICIAL�
RE: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 15.04 OF TITLE 15 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL
CODE UPDATING THE UNIFORM BUILDING AND RELATED CODES
DATE: JULY 26, 2005
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council introduce the attached Ordinance amending
Chapter 15.04 of the Municipaf Code updating the Uniform Building and Related Codes.
FUNDING:
No fiscal impact.
DISCUSSION:
Historically, every three years the City has adopted the latest versions of the "Uniform
Administrative Code," "Uniform Building Code" (Volumes 1, and 2) and its appendix, the
"Uniform Mechanical Code," "Uniform Code for Building Conservation," "Uniform
Plumbing Code," and the "National Electric Code." This was in keeping with the
requirements of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and the three-year
publishing cycle for new uniform codes.
The proposed amendments in Chapter 15.04 of Titfe 15 of the Municipal Code will
reflect the following:
1. The actual title of the codes required to be enforced by local jurisdictions.
2. The adoption of the 2004 California Electrical Code, which becomes mandatory
Statewide on August 1, 2005.
3. The specific inclusion of the appendices of the 1997 edition of the Uniform
Building Code, and the appendices of the 2000 editions of the Uniform Plumbing
and the Uniform Mechanical Codes (this is due to the fact that the State of
California does not expressly adopt the appendices to these codes.)
4. Repeal of Sections 15.04.020 and 15.04.030 which will now be included by
reference in Section 15.04.010.
�
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 15.04.010 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE
MUNICIPAL CODE UPDATING THE UNIFORM BUILDING AND RELATED CODES
JULY 26, 2005
PAGE 2
These codes become effective and are mandated by State law whether or not the local
jurisdiction formally adopts them.
In compliance with Government Code Section 6066, the required public hearing notice
was published in the newspaper once a week for two successive weeks, at least five (5)
days apart, on July 15, 2005 and July 21, 2005. If the Council introduces the
Ordinance, adoption of the Ordinance will be scheduled for August 9, 2005.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Approve staff's recommendation;
- Do not approve staff's recommendation;
- Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendation;
- Provide direction to staff.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE AMENDING CHAPTER 15.04 OF TITLE 15 OF THE ARROYO
GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THOSE
CERTAIN CODES KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS THE CALIFORNIA
BUILDING STANDARDS CODE, INCLUDING THE CALIFORNIA
BUILDING CODE, CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, CALIFORNIA
PLUMBING CODE, CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, THE 1997
EDITIONS OF THE UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, UNIFORM CODE FOR
THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, AND THE UNIFORM
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, WHICH SHALL ALSO INCLUDE THE
APPENDICES TO THE 1997 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING
CODE AND THE 2000 EDITIONS OF THE UNIFORM PLUMBING AND
MECHANICAL CODES, AND SUCH CODES, AS AMENDED, SHALL
BE THE UNIFORM BUILDING LAWS OF THE CITY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 15.04.010 is hereby amended in
its entirety to read as follows:
15.040.010. Adoption of Codes. Documents known and designated as the
California Building Standards Code including the 2001 editions of the Calffomia
Building Code, the Califomia Plumbing Code, and the Califomia Mechanical Code,
and the 2004 edition of the California Electrical Code, as adopted by the Building
Standards Commission of the State of California, and the 1997 edition of the Uniform
Housing Code, the Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, and the Unfform
Administrative Code, and the appendices to the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building
Code and the appendices to the 2000 edition of the Uniform Plumbing and Uniform
Mechanical Codes, and such codes, as amended, are hereby adopted as the building
and construction regulations of the City of Arroyo Grande and are incorporated by this
reference as though set forth in full.
SECTION 2: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 15.04.020 (Amendments —
Section 202(d) Unfform Administrative Code) is hereby repealed in its entirety.
SECTION 3: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 15.04.030 (California
amendments) is hereby repealed in its entirety.
SECTION 4: Within fifteen (15) days after passage of this Ordinance, it shall be
published once, together with the names of the Council Members voting thereon, in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 2
SECTION 5: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30)
days after its passage.
On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on
the following roll call vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this day of , 2005.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 3
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
9.c.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande will conduct a
Public Hearing on TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 215 E.
Branch Street, Ar;oyo Grande, to consider the foliowing item:
CASE NO: Development Code Amendment 05-008 including Specific Development �
• Plan; and Tentative Parcel Map 05-003
PROPOSAL: - The City Council will consider introduction of a proposed Ordinance
amending the Zoning Map to reclassify the subject 2.7 acre site from
Office Mixed Use (OMU) to Planned Development (PD1.1), including a
Specific Development Plan, and Tentative Parcel Map for a 103-room
hotel (Hampton Inn and Suites); a 6,000 square foot single story
restaurant, and a 130 car parking lot.
LOCATION: 1400 West Branch Street[Northwest corner of West Branch Street and
Camino Mercado] (see map)
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION: Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for proposed
Planned DevelopmenUDevelopment Code Amendment
REPRESENTATIVE: City of Arroyo Grande
STAFF CONTACT: Rob Strong, Community Development Director
Information relating to this proposal is available at the Community Development Department,
located at 214 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California, or by telephone at (805) 473-5420
during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) Any person affected or concerned by
these proposals may submit written comments to the Community Development Department
before the City Counci� hearing, or appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the
proposals at the time of hearing.
if you challenge an item in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to
the City Councii at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Failure of any person to receive the notice shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate
the action of the legislative body for which the notice was given.
U.���2�-
Kelly etm re, City Clerk
(Publish 1T, The Tribune, Friday, July 15, 2005)
i
, ,
-��,... ,' �'"__..1....�, r �
r
�
i
��- _.� ---...�'. i t �
i
�
ys� �..... � rc
1
� . ��57` �`�... ...�
9
$
. . . . . � ..'�
pRRO��
o`� �,�
. � INCOflPOA�TED yZ
" "' MEMORANDUM
� ���Y ,o. ,o,� *
C9��FOfaN�P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR�
BY: JIM BERGMAN, ASSISTANT PLANNER� ,
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE
NO. 05-008; TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 05-003 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE (SPECIFIC DEVELOMENT PLAN)
NO. 04-009; APPLICANT — GARY WHITE; LOCATION — 1400 W.
BRANCH STREET
DATE: JULY 26, 2005
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt a mitigated Negative Declaration and
introduce an Ordinance amending the zoning map to designate the subject property as
Planned Development 1.1 - (PD-1.1) and adopt a Resolution approving Tentative Parcel
Map 05-003 and Conditional Use Permit (Specific Development Plan) Case No. 04-009,
allowing the construction of a hotel and restaurant.
FUNDING:
No fiscal impact from the project approval process. Development of this site for hotel
and restaurant use was part of a recent economic development strategy and will yield
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and sales tax. The City received approximately
$750,000 in transient occupancy taxes during the last two years, primarily from three
relatively large modem motels (Casa Grande Best Western, Premier Inn and Econo
Lodge). It is estimated that the Hampton Inn would generate and additional $200,000 to
$250,000 annually from TOT, an important element of the City's economic development
strategy. Projections for sales tax from the restaurant have not been made.
Based on preliminary fee estimates provided to the owners, and responding to the City
Council question of May 10, 2005, the Hampton Inn would also contribute more than
$200,000 in traffic and signal impact fees, approximately $50,000 for sewer connection
and $100,000 for water neutralization fees prior to issuance of building permits. The
proposed restaurant would pay almost $80,000 for traffic and signal impact fees,
$13,000 in sewer and $59,000 in water neutralization fees.
DISCUSSION:
Environmental Assessment
After review of the proposed project, staff has completed a Draft Initial Study and Draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 1). A Notice of Availability related to these
documents was mailed to the County Clerk on April 11, 2005 and posted in two
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 05-008;
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 05-003 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE
NO. 04-009; APPLICANT— GARY WHITE; LOCATION — 1400 W. BRANCH STREET
JULY 26, 2005
PAGE2
locations at City Hall and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the proposed
project on April 12, 2005. No comments from the public or agencies have been received
to date. Project refinements reinforce mitigation regarding saving 5 of the 12 existing
mature Oaks, transplanting two and replanting 15 specimen trees to replace five Oaks
removed due to building location and related grading. ,
Backaround I
This 2.7 acre, sloping, corner lot adjoining Freeway 101, Levitz Furniture store, Premier
Inn and historic cemetery was previously approved for five one- and two- story office
buildings. The currently entitled project included tall retaining walls, a steep driveway,
access from and widening of West Branch Street and a secondary access driveway on
Camino Mercado. The office complex site plan attempted to preserve a majority of the
mature Oaks, however, potential on-site grading, building and paving in proximity to
several trees may have jeopardized their long-term survival. A time extension has been
approved, allowing this currently entitled project to be constructed during the next two
years, but a saturated regional office space market and expensive construction bids
have caused the property owners to consider alternative uses.
The City's 2001 General Plan Update designated the Camino Mercado area as Mixed
Use between the Oak Park Plaza and Rancho Grande Five Cities Regional Commercial
Shopping Center. The 2004 Development Code Update Amendment, which was
recently approved by the City Council, reclassified the area from Planned Development
(PD1.1) to "Office Mixed Use" (OMU). This reclassification allows many combinations of
mixed uses, including retail, office, multi-family residential as well as visitor serving hotel
and restaurant. New OMU design guidelines and development standards enable two
and three story buildings reaching 35-feet in height, and increased intensity
developments. A maximum building size of 50,000 square feet in OMU would require an
exception or rezoning back to PD1.1. A recently adopted Economic Development
Strategy specifically encourages this site as one of seven desirable, visitor-serving,
hotel/motel sites.
The Architectural Review Committee, Planning Commission and City Council reviewed
a Pre-Application proposal of a four-story hotel in November and December 2004
(Attachment 2). Feedback from the three bodies focused on scale, mass and height of
the proposed project and its relationship to the character of Arroyo Grande and
surrounding properties. Suggestions related to future applications included construction
into the terrain, a Mediterranean style, conference facilities, vertical or horizontal
articulation to mitigate height and mass and utilization of a three dimensional model.
The Planning Commission and the City Council also requested a thorough study of
impacts related to water, sewer and traffic. On May 10, 2005, the City Council
suggested additional landscaping and increased building setback from West Branch
Street as well as other architectural refinements as part of the Planned Development
pre-application review.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 05-008;
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 05-003 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE
NO. 04-009; APPLICANT— GARY WHITE; LOCATION — 1400 W. BRANCH STREET
JULY 26, 2005
PAGE 3
Proiect Descriation / Modifications
The applicant has returned with a revised project that utilizes comments tendered
during the Planned Development Pre-Application Review process. The current project
proposes a 103 room, three-story (plus basement) Hampton Inn and Suites (61,366
total square feet) and a one-story 6,000 square foot restaurant building with 128 off-
street parking spaces. The hotel and restaurant have been further moved away from '
West Branch Street a total of 10 feet creating a setback which varies 30 to 38 feet from
the property line. The building has also been reduced 15 feet in length and additional
basement space has been added to increase conference and accessory meeting
rooms. Utilization of this space allows for a 1,541 square foot conference room.
Articulation of the West Branch Street frontage of the hotel building has been increased
through the use of trellised and walled patios associated with four first floor rooms,
decks on the second and third floor and railings and window modifications to the "pop-
ouY' rooms which include French or sliding doors and wrought iron balcony railings. Site
access is from three entry-exit driveways on Camino Mercado. The driveway closest to
West Branch Street would allow right turn entry and exit only. A Tentative Parcel Map
application is included to create separate lots for the hotel and restaurant. A Conditional
Use Permit application is also included to ensure compatibility with the surrounding
neighborhood as a vehicle for the Specific Development Plan.
Buildinq Desiqn
The proposed hotel has been scaled down at the most visible areas and no longer
presents four above ground floors except when viewed from the interior of Levitz upper
parking lot on the west side. Instead, the hotel is imbedded into the hill and consists of
three above grade floors and a partially exposed basement. This design allows the roof
height to remain at a near constant level even as the vertical elevation of the site
increases. In order to aid review, staff has indicated building height, the number of
visible floors and the height of the tallest vertical plane in the following assessment. This
analysis is based on the architectural plans and the preliminary grading plan.
East Building Elevation (Camino Mercado) — Three floors with tower component.
(Tallest vertical plane equals 32 feet, 34* feet to top of tower at the center of building).
South Building Elevation (VVest Branch Street) — Three floors (tallest vertical plane
equals 39 feet, 50* feet to top of tower at the center of building).
West Building Elevation (West Branch Street from Oak Park) — Three floors toward
West Branch Street (tallest vertical plane equals 32 feet, 39 feet to top of roo�, four
floors obstructed by the Levitz building (tallest vertical plane equals 43 feet, 49* feet to
top of tower at the center of building).
North Building Elevation (Premier Inn) — Two floors and tower component (tallest
vertical plane equals 24 feet, 30" feet to top of tower at the center of building).
'It should be noted that the definition of building height per the Municipal Code is based on
measurements from the average natural grade to the highest point of the roof. Use of this definition with
the natural site topography reduces the height of tower by 15 feet.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 05-008;
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 05-003 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE
NO. 04-009; APPLICANT— GARY WHITE; LOCATION — 7400 W. BRANCH STREET
JULY 26, 2005
PAGE 4
The design appears to conform to newly adopted coverage, floor area ratio, shared use
parking, and other OMU design guidelines and development standards with two notable
exceptions: height and maximum building size. It should be noted that the previous
Planned Development (PD-1.1) zoning had no prescribed height or size limits and that
other developments in the vicinity are at a higher elevation due to topography and larger
in size (e.g. K-Mart). Table 16.36.020(H) of the Municipal Code states the maximum
height of commercial buildings is 35 feet or three stories, which ever is less and
maximum allowed building size of 50,000 square feet. Due to these design deviations,
staff and the Planning Commission recommend a Development Code Amendment to
rezone the property from Office Mixed Use zone back to its previous designation of
Planned Development (PD-1.1). The PD-1.1 zoning would approve this specific property
development plan and hotel/restaurant use as an alternative to the prior office project.
No other uses or development design could be proposed without full Planned
Development reconsideration.
Retainina Walls
Due to the sloping nature of the site, the project design utilizes sloping and vertical
retaining walls of various heights. The use of these walls creates steps that allow ADA
paths of travel, parking, Oak tree preservation and successful transition from
neighboring topography. Heights of all walls at various points are indicated on the
Grading Plan (Attachment 7). Vertical retaining walls are proposed around three sides
of the restaurant building, between the hotel and parking lot and at each parking level.
The vertical walls will vary between 1.5 and 11.5 feet. Sloping retaining walls are utilized
around the pool area and at the northern edge of the property to accomplish the
transition to the neighboring property. The rear sloping wall varies between 6 and 19.5
feet. The sloping wall system is proposed since it can accommodate landscaping to
help minimize visual impacts. The project architect will present photographs of projects
that have utilized similar sloping walis.
Trees
A total of 12 Coast Live Oak trees, having varying degrees of health and vigor, exist on
the project site. An arborists report from the previously approved office project, dated
December 1, 1998 and an addendum dated May 8, 2005 has been used in this analysis
and the table below summarizes the findings of the reports.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 05-008;
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 05-003 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE
NO. 04-009; APPLICANT— GARY WHITE; LOCATION — 1400 W. BRANCH STREET
JULY 26, 2005
PAGE 5
SUMMARY OF PROJECT TREE CONDITIONS
TfOe# TRUNK HEIGHT CANOPY VIGOR CONDITION ARBORIST PROJECT
DIAMETER DENSITY RECOMMENDATION PROPOSAL
1 14.7" 20'-25' 75% Fair Good Save Save
2 38.2" 50'+ 25%30% Good Poor Remove Save
3 242" 20'-25' 80% Good Good Save Remove*
4 32.0" 20'+ 75% Fair Poor Remove Remove*
5 23.5" 15'-18' 15°/o Poor Poor Remove Remove*
5a** 5.2"at 18" 8' 100% Good Good No Remove
above grade Recommendation without
miti ation
6 4.0", 52", 6.0", 15' 90%-95% Good Poor Remove Transplant***
8.4„
7 11.2" 16'-18' 90%-95% Good Good Save Trans lant"`
7a** 1.2"at 18" 4' 15% Poor to Poor to fair No Remove
above grade fair Recommendation without
miti ation
8 15.4" 20' 75%+ Fair Good Save Remove*
9 10.5", 10.8", 20' 60% Poor Poor Possibly Remove Save
13.0"
10 14.4", 14.5" 25'+ 75% Good Good Save Save
11 11.0" 20' 80% Good Good Save Save
12 4.4", 4.9", 5.8", 10' 100°/a Good Good Save Remove'
6.0"
'Mitigation at 3:1 with specimen trees per City selection
'*A sapling in the initial arborist report, now considered a tree in the addendum.
'**Transplant to tocations shown on Plan A-1 of Attachment 9
The proposed project would save five of the 12 Oak trees, transplant two to upper
parking area and replace five lost with 12 specimen trees. Native Oaks are a protected
tree species in the City of Arroyo Grande and any removal must be mitigated per the
City's Community Tree Program (Municipal Code Section 16.12). The majority of the
eucalyptus and other trees on the slope bank adjoining Levitz will remain and be
supplemented by additional slope landscaping and trees.
In addition to the Oak trees, seven small Monterey Cypress trees near the Camino
Mercado sidewalk would be replaced with other Cypress or evergreen landscaping after
site grading.
Parkinq
The Municipal Code requires that hotels/motels provide parking at a rate of one space
per room and two parking spaces for the Manager's office. Restaurants are required to
provide one parking space per 100 square feet of public areas. In this case, 103 rooms
and a restaurant with public areas equaling 3,000 square feet would require 133
spaces. Municipal Code Section 16.56.050 allows a mixed use parking reduction of up
to 20 percent, which equates to 106 spaces. The proposed project supplies 128 parking
spaces.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. OS-008;
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 05-003 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE
NO. 04-009; APPLICANT— GARY WHITE; LOCATION — 1400 W. BRANCH STREET
JULY 26, 2005
PAGE 6
Architectural Review
The Architectural Review Committee evaluated the proposed project and recommended
approval on February 7, 2005 (Attachment 3). This approval was based on massing,
scale and site planning only and the Architectural Review Committee requested that the ,
applicant return for a final review of colors, materials, miscellaneous details and a i
landscaping plan. Suggestions for the final project include:
• More/enhanced horizontal articulation on the West Branch Street side faqade,
including trellis and terraces;
• Continue the design theme to the restaurant and require that both buildings
maintain architectural compatibility;
. Consider possible redesign of the front tower for better integration, specifically,
less rectangular in shape, and utilize a similar roof pitch;
• If consistent with the trafficstudy, consider creating an entry/exit driveway in the
southern parking aisle;
. Consider alternative conceptual studies of the West Branch Street frontage
including stepped back upper floors (or the entire building, but the ARC was
willing to accept current massing with appropriate horizontal articulation);
• Study the possibility of transplanting Oak trees or replacing them with specimen
size trees in appropriate locations;
• Consider more tan and adobe colors than white and pinkish colors (perhaps a
tone or two darker than the West Branch Street perspective drawing, and not as
dark or pinkish as the chocolate brown Paso Robles Hampton Inn); and
. Use high quality mission barrel roofing or s-clay tiles for the roof.
Impacts —Traffic. Sewer and Water
Traffic - A traffic impact study for the proposed project was completed by Omni-Means,
Ltd. of Roseville, California at the request of the City of Arroyo Grande (Attachment 4).
The traffic impact study included eight critical study intersections as established by City
of Arroyo Grande staff. The traffic impact study also includes an analysis of existing
traffic volumes, existing traffic operations, short term no project operations (includes
previously approved development projects), short term plus project conditions, short
term plus project traffic operation, cumulative base conditions, cumulative base no
project traffic operations, and cumulative base plus project traffic operations.
The traffic impact study estimates that the proposed project will create 1,524 daily trips,
94 AM peak hour trips and 113 PM peak hour trips. The study suggests that 80 percent
of the traffic associated with the project will be oriented toward US 101. The table on
page 12 of the Draft Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration presents
projected Level of Service (LOS) and delay data for short-term conditions and
cumulative base conditions (20 years with build out of the existing General Plan) with
and without the project.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 05-008;
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 05-003 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE
NO. 04-009; APPLICANT— GARY WHITE; LOCATION — 1400 W. BRANCH STREET
JULY 26, 2005
PAGE 7
It is important to note that intersections which form the Brisco-Halcyon-US 101
interchange are estimated to operate at an unacceptable LOS in both short term project
or no project scenarios and would likely be further aggravated under Cumulative Base
and Cumulative Base Plus Project scenarios without mitigation. Mitigation for this
situation per Omni-Means is for the City of Arroyo Grande to actively move forward with
near-term modification of the US 101 / Halcyon Road / Brisco Road interchange as
indicated in the Project Study Report (PSR). The City is currently pursuing Project
Approval and Environmental Documentation (PA&ED) and has programmed Project
Design Engineering into the 2006-2007 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Through
payment of signalization fees, the project contributes to and the 2005-2006 CIP
provides for signal installation at West Branch and Camino Mercado prior to occupancy.
Sewer - A sewer study for the proposed project was completed by the Wallace Group of
San Luis Obispo, California at the request of the City of Arroyo Grande (Attachment 5).
The study examined projected flow calculations and peaking factors and how such flows
may impact the City's collection system and the South San Luis Obispo County
Sanitation District (SSLOCSD) trunk system. It should be noted that the study did
identify that pipes 1258, 1260 and 2163 will flow with a d/D of 54 percent and pipe 1124
will flow at 1.9 fps. While these flows are marginally outside of acceptable values of 50
percent and 2 fps, the report concludes, "there is adequate sewer capacity for the
proposed Hampton Inn and restaurant."
Although the sewer study did not recommend any mitigation measures, there are
current capital improvement projects within the City that will provide benefits to the
Hampton Inn and restaurant. These improvements include retrofitting of City Lift Station
1 with a variable frequency drive pumps and the EI Camino Real and Walnut Street
sewer upgrade. The impact mitigation fees paid by the project will contribute to these
CIP projects scheduled as determined by the City.
Water — Development of the proposed project would require water for both domestic
use and landscape irrigation. Projected water demand for the hotel is approximately
15.6 acre-feet of water per year while the restauranYs projected water use is 3 acre-feet
per year. The water consumption by this project would further reduce the City's
remaining supply of available water. This impact will be minimized by mitigation
measures, including using water-conserving designs, fixtures and landscaping and
payment of water neutralization impact fees to fund conservation projects to offset
project use.
The City currently receives its water supply from both surface and groundwater sources.
Ground water extractions are derived from seven (7) wells and two (2) separate basin
formulations. Surface water is obtained from the Lopez Reservoir Project, which was
constructed in the late 1960's and seismic retrofitted in the last five years. Reclaimed
storm water collected by the Soto Sports Complex Storm Water Reclamation Project is
also used as an irrigation supply source.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 05-008;
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 05-003 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE
NO. 04-009; APPLICANT— GARY WHITE; LOCATION — 1400 W. BRANCH STREET
JULY 26, 2005
PAGE 8
The City adopted a Water System Master Plan in 1999, which identified water resources
as being a significant issue, and identified methods to increase and diversify water
supply to increase long-term reliability of the City's water service to its residents. The
report assessed potential methods to address the water supply issue and prioritized
alternatives.
The City used approximately 97.7% of its available/allocated water supply, totaling
approximately 3,700 acre-feet, between January 2004 and December 2004. Per
Chapter 13.05.010 of the City's Municipal Code (Water Supply Conditions), this level of
water use is considered a "severely restricted" water supply condition that has not yet
reached a "critical" level. To manage its potential water supply deficiency, the City
adopted a two-phased strategy in November 2004 that included alternatives to be
pursued to meet the City's water demand over the next 10- year period (phase 1), and
identified alternatives that will provide permanent water supply increases to meet the
long-term demand that are most desirable, feasible and cost effective (phase 2). As
part of phase 1, the City adopted a Water Conservation Program in May 2003 that
included:
• Plumbing Retrofit Program;
• Water Shortage Contingency Analysis;
• Public Information and Education;
• Information System Assessment for Top Water Users;
• Enforcement of City's Water Conservation Codes; and
• Optional components, including washing machine rebates, irrigation system or
landscaping rebates, and retrofit of cemetery with non-potable water.
Other components of phase 1 include construction of Well No. 10 (located on Deer
Trail Circle), pursuing oil field water on Price Canyon, implementing a tiered water and
sewer rate structure as financial incentives for water conservation, and a utility retrofit
upon-sale program. It should also be noted that pursuant to the agreement entitled
Management of the Arroyo Grande Ground Water Basin, dated effective June 10, 2002,
(the "Basin AgreemenY' the City is entitled to the first 359.1 acre feet of the urban
parties share of any increase in the safe yield of the Arroyo Grande Ground Water
Basin; an RFP for this study has been implemented. This additional entitlement,
potentially presents the most immediate long-term increase in water supply to the City.
Lastly, the Oceano Community Services District has agreed to allow the City to utilize
the unused portion of its groundwater allocation under the basin agreement for the next
two years.
Phase 2 provides various permanent water supply options that include:
• Conducting a groundwater study;
• Pursuing water from the Nacimiento Project;
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 05-008;
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 05-003 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE
NO. 04-009; APPLICANT— GARY WHITE; LOCATION — 1400 W. BRANCH STREET
JULY 26, 2005
PAGE 9
• Implementing a reclaimed water system;
• Studying feasibility of a desalination plant; and
• Pursuing water from the State Water Project.
The City is currently in a severely restricted water supply situation, which is considered
a cumulatively significant impact. The projecYs contribution, however, is considered di
minimis, meaning that the environmental conditions would be the same whether or not
the project is implemented. The City adopted overriding considerations for cumulative
water supply impacts identified in the Program EIR for the 2001 General Plan Update. If
per capita consumption is not reduced by conservation measures or new resources are
not secured, the City and other regional users of groundwater may exceed current
resources, which are subject to many variables.
Although, short-term in nature, it should be noted that water use is substantially down
this year due to heavier than normal rainfall. Staff will be presenting short and / or storm
water projections based on measures underway at the August 9, 2005 meeting. Staff
believes these measures will address water demand of the project.
Planninq Commission Review
On May 17, 2005, the Planning Commission reviewed the project and adopted a
Resolution recommending the City Council approve the Development Code
Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map and Conditional Use Permit (Meeting Minutes,
Attachment 4). The Commission also instructed staff to forward specific concerns of
individual commissioners to the Council, including:
1. Water concerns
2. Their request that the upper floors (or the entire building) be set back
further.
3. Oak tree concerns: Tree 3 should be preserved, trees 4 and 5 can be
removed, trees 6 and 7 should be transplanted next to tree 12 and tree 12
should be kept where it is.
4. Concerns with architectural detail, specifically, the tower element closest
to the restaurant is adequate, but should come down at least 10 feet.
5. Mitigation Measure #19 should be changed to replacement trees being a
minimum of 5 or 6 foot box, instead of 2 foot box.
6. The concerns previously expressed by City Council (water, setbacks,
architectural detailing, etc.) are shared by the Planning Commission.
The applicant voiced objection to Condition of Approval 73, 107, 115 and Mitigation
Measure 20. The contested Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measure are listed
below with suggested modifications (strikethrough for deletion and underlined for
addition):
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 05-008;
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. OS-003 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE
NO. 04-009; APPLICANT— GARY WHITE; LOCATION — 1400 W. BRANCH STREET
JULY 26, 2005
PAGE 10
73. The developer shall be required to mitigate the impacts on the trunk sewer
line by contributing the proiecYs fair share proportion to the installation of a
new trunk replacement line or providing a relief line.
107. All storm water drainage facilities will eit#eF:
■ Connect to the storm drainage facilities underneath Camino
Mercado,;�
.
,
115. The applicant shall reimburse the City for the plan check fees for the
previous project approved for the site, {Staff has not been able to confirm
that these fees were paid and recommends that the condition remain until
payment is verified.}
Mitigation Measure 20.
. . {Staff agrees that the applicant
has no control over the upgrade of Lift Station No. 1. The
project (Lift Station No.1) is in the contract bidding process
and it is assumed will be completed prior to the occupancy of
the hotel and restaurant.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Introduce the Ordinance and adopt the Resolution;
- Modify as appropriate and introduce the Ordinance and adopt the Resolution;
- Do not introduce the Ordinance or adopt the Resolution
- Provide direction to staff
Attachments:
1. Draft Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
2. Notes and minutes from Architectural Review Committee, Planning
Commission and City Council related to Pre Application Review
3. Notes from Architectural Review Committee meeting of February 7, 2005
4. Traffic Impact Study
5. Sewer Impact Study
6. Planning Commission Minutes of May 17, 2005
7. Vesting tentative parcel map, utility plan and preliminary grading and
drainage plan
8. Conceptual landscaping elevations for West Branch Street frontage
9. Project plans
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO
DESIGNATE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT 1.1 - (PD-1.1); DEVELOPMENT CODE
AMENDMENT 05-008, INITIATED BY THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1400
WEST BRANCH STREET
WHEREAS, the 2001 General Plan Update Urban Land Use Element Map designates
the subject 2.68-acre property as Mixed Use with a Planned Development Overlay (PD);
and
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande Zoning Map currently designates the subject
property as Office Mixed Use; and
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande initiated Development Code Amendment 05-008
to amend the Zoning Map and designate the project site as Planned Development 1.1;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed
Development Code Amendment 05-008 at a duly noticed public hearing on May 17, 2005
in accordance with the Development Code of the City of Arroyo Grande at which time all
interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered Development
Code Amendment 05-008 at a duly noticed public hearing on July 26, 2005, in
accordance with the Development Code of the City of Arroyo Grande at which time all
interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information and public
testimony presented at the public hearings, staff reports, and all other information and
documents that are part of the public record; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the
following circumstances exist:
A. Based on the information contained in the staff report and accompanying
materials, the proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning
Map is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the
General Plan and is necessary and desirable to implement the provisions of the
General Plan.
B. The proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map will
not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare or result in an illogical
land use pattern.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 2
C. The proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map is
consistent with the purpose and intent of the Development Code and the
Planned Development district 1.1.
D. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed Development Code
Amendment amending the Zoning Map are less than significant or can be
mitigated to a less than significant level as specified in the initial study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande
as follows:
SECTION 1� The above recitals and findings are true and correct.
SECTION 2� Development Code Section 1624.020 (Zoning Map) is hereby amended as
shown in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3� If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause of
this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unlawful, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof.
The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection,
subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one
or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause be declared
unconstitutional.
SECTION d� Upon adoption of this Ordinance, the Director of Administrative Services
shall file a Notice of Determination.
SECTION 5� A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published
and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days prior to the City Council
meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full
text of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the Director of
Administrative Services/Deputy City Clerk. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the
Ordinance, the summary with the names of those City Council Members voting for and
against the Ordinance shall be published again, and the Director of Administrative
Services/Deputy City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted
Ordinance.
SECTION s: This Ordinance shall take effect on the later of thirty (30) days from the date
of adoption.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 3
On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member ,
and by the following roll call vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this day of 2005.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 4
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
EXHIBIT A
„�� � � � �
,,
; �� �
� '
( � � _ GRIEB bR(p) � �
" i . �.1 , � ' � �� "
_� �
I , �._I 1 - A � �'-Y�� ���
/ A � . � I ! . �� .i
/ i� �^� v�" � � � � ' � y. I � ! �� �i
� . / (1 � � � pOKl�l . .� y> . ' . >
'CC���'K�E
� �
° l � ��� �V � i �� � 1 � � '� ,�P'��� �,.
i
� t � i � i� 1� A � , 1;,.'� �(7`r'� \� A,y .
� t L 1 . `Y�'1 � � .
� r � � �
� . ��„r. .�.. � � ;, ,< y,,
,�_
: :.
i
��/ i� � � t ., � �
;�.
, ,.....
., �
.,
�
�\ � , �.�_�i.- ' _ �,, y,
\, -.. / //l,�;� ���,
�_ �L , i :��"T��� � � �
,
,r
\, ��/ ! / �i i { � t,.,, I
� . �..
�F I ,!-" i
;���/ �����
� % _-_�
� � ....__ _._ .__..._ ;
Office Mixed Use(OMU)to �i i
Planned Development 1.1 (PD 1.1) ��J / . i ,
�
� �i
�! i
% '�" �
, �
,
, � I
� ; ,, �,.. � , ,.
�._. / /i ; A... ! �� ��, ; � � •. � � ._,.
,.
.
i i; i \.. / �� i .. �_ .�,,,
�C // i / � % �- ��
�. �
;
\ � \.
.� �.� ,
��, 1,"
�
� � � �
\
�
i
i
� ...........
��
... � �� \ � � / j�:'-�..,�..,.
`` "�.� ,.` `^�.,�'7%ep�.Ch ,�`, y // ` 4
�,�\, ^\ � ..\�W yT � '
�\, A , � � ,
� \ �
�
; /\ � �,,,, �� ° � I
.,
�..
� i � � �� � �
�
� ��. � V � � �, � '�, `
�
� �. , �
,
;
� �, � � \
�-��� /� ;� �. �N p
,
� , �
.�
,
� � � � ,
.
y �. ' � V �.
.
, . � �
;
� / �. ; ; �..� � �..� .._.. �'i ' �,, �
.,
.
.
< � � I
`� ;� �l V __' \ � - /;
�� ���� � ����� �� �
�% ,��,� � ��� �� ..��� .� ��� � ��
'� r%`HSr �. A � A � .
� �� .��. � ��A �� �. �� i
: �� X. �, � � � � �� � �
'�,, , � ��; � � H@1� � \
� % � � p��
r�.�� _� i��� �/ i . � �� . � ,
�$'� i���. ' �� A� �� � �\ �
�[• ,��� �� �� �•.� ���
�. A�� �
, , ,' ;1� � � � `� �� �
.1/ �' �� � 1 �a,y o �
.� ... � ;! T, ! �Ry+q�� �
�� ������%��;�,
��� ��c ,���
, � . � ,
� � ��,i; > �v"v< ��
�R R ��� Y/ , �;;;<,� v YY \ /
i
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 05-003 AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT (SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN) CASE NO. 04-009,
ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HOTEL AND RESTAURANT;
LOCATED AT 1400 WEST BRANCH STREET, AS APPLIED FOR BY ;
STEPHEN COOL AND GARY WHITE I
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered Tentative I
Parcel Map Case No. 05-003 and Conditional Use Perrnit (Specific Development Plan)
Case No. 04-009 filed by Stephen Cool and Gary White, to create two parcels and
construct a 103 room hotel consisting of 61,366 square feet and a 6,000 square foot
restaurant on a 2.68 acre site; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande reviewed the
proposed Tentative Parcel Map and Specific Development Plan / Conditional Use Permit,
at a duly noticed public hearing on May 17, 2005, in accordance with the Development
Code of the City of Arroyo Grande at which time all interested persons were given the
opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information and
public testimony presented at the public hearing, staff report, and all other information
and documents that are part of the public record and adopted a Resolution
recommending the City Council approve Tentative Parcel Map 05-003 and Conditional
Use Permit 04-009 ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the information and public
testimony presented at the public hearing, staff report, and all other information and
documents that are part of the public record; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed this project in compliance with the Califomia
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande
Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and based on the initial study and
findings has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be adopted; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the
following circumstances exist:
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
Tentative Parcel Map:
1. The proposed tentative parcel map is consistent with goals, objectives, policies,
plans, programs, intent and requirements of the Arroyo Grande General Plan, as
well as any applicable Specific Plan, and the requirements of Title 16.
2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed due to the
property being 2.68 acres in size and consists of moderately sloping topography.
3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development due to the
size of the property and the character of surrounding development and existing
and planned infrastructure.
4. The design of the tentative parcel map or the proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as documented in the Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
5. The design of the hotel and restaurant is not likely to cause serious public health
problems due to the projecYs compliance with all applicable design standards of
the Municipal Code.
6. The design of the tentative parcel map will not conflict with easements acquired by
the public at large for access through, or use of, property within the proposed
tentative parcel map or that alternate easements for access or for use will be
provided, and that these alternative easements will be substantially equivalent to
ones previously acquired by the public.
7. The discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community
sewer system will not result in violation of existing requirements as prescribed by
Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the California Water Code.
8. Adequate public services and facilities exist or will be provided as the result of the
proposed tentative parcel map to support project development and have been
documented in the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated
engineering and traffic study.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
Conditional Use Permit Findings:
1. The proposed use is permitted within the Planned Development PD-1.1 districts
pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.16.050 of the Municipal Code, and will,
through conditions of approval, comply with all applicable provisions of the
Municipal Code, the goals and objectives of the Arroyo Grande General Plan, and
the development policies and standards of the City.
2. The proposed use will not impair the integrity and character of the district in which
it is to be established or located because the proposed hotel and restaurant is
similar to and compatible with surrounding uses.
3. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development that is
proposed because all the necessary easements, circulation, parking and setbacks
would be provided.
4. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and
services to ensure the public health and safety as documented in the Initial Study,
Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated engineering and traffic study.
5. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity because the
proposed project would not create adverse environmental impacts as determined
through the development and implementation of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
Required CEQA Findings:
1. The City of Arroyo Grande has prepared an initial study pursuant to Section 15063
of the Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for Specific
Development Plan / Conditional Use Permit (Specific Development Plan) No. 04-
009.
2. Based on the initial study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for
public review. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and related materials
is located at City Hall in the Community Development Department.
3. After holding a public hearing pursuant to State and City Codes, and considering
the record as a whole, the Planning Commission recommends and the City
Council adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and finds that there is no
substantial evidence of any significant adverse effect, either individually or
cumulatively on wildlife resources as defined by Section 711.2 of the Fish and
Game Code or on the habitat upon which the wildlife depends as a result of
development of this project. Further, the City Council finds that said Mitigated
Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande hereby adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approves Tentative
Parcel Map 05-003, to create two parcels; and approves Conditional Use Permit
(Specific Development Plan) Case No. 04-009, allowing the construction of a hotel
and restaurant; located at 1400 West Branch Street, applied for by Stephen Cool
and Gary White with the above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in
Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Be it further resolved that this Resolution shall become effective on the effective date of
Ordinance (Development Code Amendment 05-008).
On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member
and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 26�' day of July 2005.
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 05-008; TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 05-003
AND SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN I CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-009
1400 WEST BRANCH STREET
STEPHEN COOL AND GARY WHITE ,
.OMM INITY D V OPM NT D PARTM NT
GENERAL CONDITIONS
This approval authorizes the construction of a 103-room hotel consisting of 60,323 square
feet and a 6,000 square foot restaurant of which 3,000 square feet is accessible by the
public.
1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County ancl City
requirements as are applicable to this project.
2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Specific Development
Plan / Conditional Use Permit No. 04-009.
3. This application shall automatically expire on July 26, 2007 unless a building
permit is issued. Thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the approval, the
applicant may apply for an extension of one (1) year from the original date of
expiration.
4. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to
the City Council at the meeting of July 26, 2005 and marked Attachment 7.
5. A. With regard to the Conditional Use Permit (Specific Development Plan), the
applicant shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought against
the City, its present or former agents, officers, or employees because of the
issuance of said approval, or in anyway relating to the implementation thereof, or
in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the
City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attomey's fee's
which the City, its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay
as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its
own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not
relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this condition.
B. As a condition of approval of this tentative or final map application,
defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Arroyo Grande, its present or
former agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding
against the City, its past or present agents, officers, or employees to attack, set
aside, void, or annul City's approval of this subdivision, which action is brought
within the time period provided for by law. This condition is subject to the
provisions of Government Code Section 66474.9, which are incorporated by
reference herein as though set forth in full.
DEVELOPMENT CODE
6. Development shall conform to the PD-1.1 zoning requirements except as
otherwise approved.
7. Signage shall be subject to the requirements of Development Code Chapter 16.60. '
8. Setbacks, lot coverage, and floor area ratios shall be as shown on the
development plans except as specifically modified by these conditions.
NOISE
9. Construction shall be limited to between the hours of 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday
through Friday for noise and inspection purposes.
I IGHTWG
10. All lighting for the site shall be downward directed and shall not create spill or glare
to adjacent properties or nearby residences.
WATER
11. All new construction shall utilize fixtures and designs that minimize water usage.
Such fixtures shall include, but are not limited to, low flow shower heads, water
saving toilets, instant water heaters and hot water recirculating systems. Water
conserving designs and fixtures shall be installed prior to occupancy.
SO II_ D WAST�
12. Trash enclosures shall be screened from public view with landscaping or other
appropriate screening materials, and shall be made of an exterior finish that
complements the architectural features of the main building. The trash enclosure
area shall accommodate recycling container(s).
PRIOR TO ISSUING A BUILDING PERMIT:
13. Final design of trash enclosures shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review
Committee and approved by the Community Development Director.
14. A landscaping and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape
architect subject to review and approval by the Community Development
Department and the Parks, Recreation & Facilities Department. The landscaping
plan shall include the following:
a. Tree staking, soil preparation and planting detail;
b. The use of landscaping to screen ground-mounted utility and mechanical
equipment;
c. The required landscaping and improvements. This includes:
(1) Deep root planters shall be included in areas where trees are within five
feet (5') of asphalt or concrete surFaces and curbs;
(2) Water conservation practices including the use of low flow heads, drip
irrigation, mulch, gravel, drought tolerant plants and mulches shall be
incorporated into the landscaping plan; and
(3) An automated irrigation system.
(4) The selection of groundcover plant species shall include native plants.
(5) Linear planters shall be provided in the parking area.
,
PRIOR TO ISSUING THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY:
15. Development shall comply with Development Code Sections 16.48.070, "Fences,
Walls and Hedges"; 16.48.090, "Lighting"; 16.48.120, "PerFormance Standards";
and 16.48.130 "Screening Requirements".
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (A�
16. Final building colors, details, materials and landscaping plan shall be reviewed by
the Architectural Review Committee and approved by the Community
Development Director. This approval is for mass, scale and site layout only.
17. The developer shall paint a test patch on the building including all colors. The
remainder of the building may not be painted until inspected by the Community
Development Department or Building and Fire Department to verify that colors are
consistent with the approved color board. A 48-hour notice is required for this
inspection.
18. All electrical panel boxes shall be installed inside the building.
19. All ducts, meters, air conditioning equipment, and other mechanical equipment,
whether on the ground, on the structure or elsewhere, shall be screened from
public view behind the parapets, or with materials architecturally compatible with
the main structure.
20. All parking spaces shall be paved and striped per City standards.
21. All landscaping must be installed.
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
GENERAL CONDITIONS
22. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 431, the
Community Tree Ordinance.
23. The applicant shall supply a landscape/tree preservation plan, subject to approval
by the Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities and the Community
Development Director. Proposed removal and mitigation of Oak trees shall be
consistent with the following table:
Tree TRUNK HEIGHT CANOPY VIGOR CONDITION ARBORIST PROJECT
� DIAMETER DENSITY RECOMMENDATION PROPOSAL
1 14.7" 20'-25' 75% Fair Good Save Save
2 38.2" 50'+ 25%-30% Good Poor Remove Save
3 24.2" 20'-25' 80% Good Good Save Remove*
4 32.0" 20'+ 75% Fair Poor Remove Remove*
5 23.5" 15'-18' 15% Poor Poor Remove Remove*
5a*" 5.2" at 18" 8' 100°/a Good Good No Remove
above Recommendation without
rade miti ation
6 4.0", 5.2", 15' 90%-95% Good Poor Remove Transplant"*
6.0" 8.4"
7 11.2" 16'-18' 90%-95% Good Good Save Trans lant***
7a" 1.2" at 18" 4' 15% Poor to Poor to fair No Remove
above fair Recommendation without
rade miti ation
8 15.4" 20' 75%+ Fair Good Save Remove"`
9 10.5", 10.8", 20' 60% Poor Poor Possibly Remove Save
13.0"
10 14.4" 14.5" 25'+ 75% Good Good Save Save
11 11.0" 20' 80% Good Good Save Save
12 4.4", 4.9", 10' 100% Good Good Save Remove*
5.8" 6.0"
" Mitigation at 3:1 with specimen trees per City selection
** A sapling in the initial arborist report, now considered a tree in the addendum.
*** Transplant to locations shown on Plan A-7 of Attachment 9
PRIOR TO ISSUING THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY:
24. Linear root barriers shall be used at the front of the project to protect the
sidewalks.
25. All street front trees shall be 24-inch box.
POLICE DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO ISSUING A BUILDING PERMIT:
26. The applicant shall submit an exterior lighting plan for Police Department
approval.
PRIOR TO ISSUING THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY:
27. The applicant shall install a security system per Police Department guidelines, and
pay the Police Department alarm permit application fee.
28. The applicant shall post handicapped parking, per Police Department
requirements.
6L11LDING AND FIRE DEPARTMENT
GENERAL CONDITIONS
29. The project shall comply with the most recent editions of the Califomia State Fire
and Building Codes and the Uniform Building and Fire Codes as adopted by the
City of Arroyo Grande.
30. The project shall provide complete compliance with State and Federal disabled
access requirements to the public right-of-way.
31. The project shall have a fire flow of 1,700 gallons per minute for a duration of four
(4) hours.
32. Any review costs generated by outside consultants shall be paid by the applicant.
PRIOR TO ISSUING A BUILDING PERMIT:
33. The applicant shall show proof of properly abandoning all non-conforming items
such as septic tanks, wells, underground piping and other undesirable conditions.
34. County Health Department approval is required for food service occupancies.
35. The applicant shall pay water meter, service main, distribution, and availability
fees, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit
issuance.
36. The applicant shall pay the Water Neutralization fee, to be based on codes and
rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
37. The applicant shall pay the Traffic Impact fee, to be based on codes and rates in
effect at the time of building permit issuance.
38. The applicant shall pay the Traffic Signalization fee, to be based on codes and
rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance, offset by the cost of
signalization improvement plans prepared for Camino Mercado and West Branch
Street.
39. The applicant shall pay the Sewer hook-up & facility Permit fees, to be based on
codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
40. The applicant shall pay the Building Permit fees, to be based on codes and rates
in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
41. The applicant shall pay the Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (SMIP) fee,
to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance
in accordance with State mandate.
42. The applicant shall pay the Fire Protection fee, to be based on codes and rates
in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
43. The applicant shall pay the Police Facilities fee, to be based on codes and rates
in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY:
44. All fire lanes must be posted and enforced, per Police Department and Fire
Department guidelines.
45. Prior to occupancy, all buildings must be fully sprinklered per Building and Fire
Department guidelines.
46. An opticom traffic signal pre-emption device shall be installed that meets Building
and Fire Department requirements at the new signal at Camino Mercado and West
Branch Street.
PIIRI IC W[]RKS nFPGRTMFNT
All Public Works Department conditions of approval as listed below are to be complied
with prior to recording the map, unless specifically noted otherwise.
rFNFR�I CnNIIITICINS
47. Clean all streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks at the end of the day's operations
or as directed by the Director of Community Development or the Director of
Public Works.
48. Perform construction activities during normal business hours (Monday through
Friday, 7 A.M. to 5 P.M., except City holidays) for noise and inspection purposes.
The developer or contractor shall refrain from performing any work other than
site maintenance outside of these hours, unless an emergency arises or
approved by the Director of Public Works. The City may hold the developer or
contractor responsible for any expenses incurred by the City due to work outside
of these hours requiring City inspection.
IMPRn\/FMFNT PI ANR �
49. All project improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with
the City of Arroyo Grande Standard Drawings and Specifications.
50. Submit four (4) full-size paper copies and one (1) full-size mylar copy of
approved improvement plans for inspection purposes during construction.
51. Submit as-built plans at the completion of the project or improvements as
directed by the Director of Public Works. One (1) set of mylar prints and an
electronic version on CD in AutoCAD format shall be required.
52. The following Improvement plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer and approved by the Public Works Department:
■ Grading, drainage and erosion control,
■ Street paving, curb, gutter and sidewalk,
■ Public utilities,
■ Water and sewer,
■ Landscaping and irrigation,
■ Any other improvements as required by the Director of Public Works,
53. The site plan shall include the following:
■ The location and size of all existing and proposed water, sewer, and storm
drainage facilities within the project site and abutting streets or alleys.
■ The location, quantity and size of all existing and proposed sewer laterals.
■ The location, size and orientation of all trash enclosures.
■ All existing and proposed parcel lines and easements crossing the
property.
■ The location and dimension of all existing and proposed paved areas.
■ The location of all existing and proposed public or private utilities.
54. Improvement plans shall include plan and profile of existing and proposed
streets, utilities and retaining walls.
55. Landscape and irrigation plans are required for landscaping within the public
right of way, and shall be approved by the Community Development and Parks
and Recreation Departments. In addition, The Director of Public Works shall
approve any landscaping or irrigation within a public right of way or otherwise to
be maintained by the City.
W�TFR
56. The applicant shall loop a water main through the site and connect to the water
main underneath West Branch Street and the water main underneath Camino
Mercado,
57. All on-site water mains and fire hydrants shall be public. The applicant shall
dedicate the appropriate easements to the City. The easement shall be a
minimum 15' wide,
58. The applicant shall install fire hydrants along Camino Mercado, West Branch,
and on site to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the Fire Chief,
59. The applicant shall install a double detector check valve with fire department
connection to serve the fire sprinkler system. The location shall be subject to the
approval of the Fire Chief,
60. Construction water is available at the corporate yard. The City of Arroyo Grande
does not allow the use of hydrant meters.
61. The hotel and restaurant buildings shall have separate water meters.
62. Existing water services to be abandoned shall be properly abandoned and
capped at the main per the requirements of the Director of Public Works.
63. The applicant shall complete measures to neutralize the estimated increase in
water demand created by the project by either:
■ Implement an individual water program consisting of retrofitting existing
high-flow plumbing fixtures with low flow devices. The calculations shall be
submitted to the Director of Public Works for review and approval. The
proposed individual water program shall be submitted to the City Council for
approval prior to implementation; OR,
■ The applicant may pay an in lieu fee of $2,200 for each new residential
unit equivalent.
S�ElACEf3
64. Each parcel shall be provided a separate sewer lateral.
65. All sewer mains shall be a minimum 8" in diameter with a minimum slope of .5%,
66. All sewer laterals within the public right of way must have a minimum slope of
2%.
67. All sewer mains or laterals crossing or parallel to public water facilities shall be
constructed in accordance with California State Health Agency standards.
68. Existing sewer laterals to be abandoned shall be properly abandoned and
capped at the main per the requirements of the Director of Public Works.
69. Obtain approval from the South County Sanitation District for the developmenYs
impact to District facilities prior to final recordation of the map.
70. The applicant shall extend a public sewer main on-site from the sewer main
underneath Camino Mercado. This sewer main shall connect at a manhole.
71. The applicant shall dedicate the appropriate easements to the City. The
easements shall be a minimum 15' wide.
72. The applicant shall obtain a will serve letter from the South San Luis Obispo
County Sanitation District prior to applying for a building or grading permit.
SOUTH SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT C�NDITIONS �F
APPROVAL
73. The developer shall be required to mitigate the impacts on the trunk sewer line
by contributing the projecYs fair share to the installation of a new trunk
replacement line or providing a relief line.
74. Underground all new public utilities in accordance with Section 16.68.050 of the
Development Code.
75. Underground improvements shall be installed prior to street paving.
76. The applicant shall have obtained all utility company signatures on the
improvement plans prior to the final submittal,
77. Submit all improvement plans to the public utility companies for approval and
comment. Utility comments shall be forwarded to the Director of Public Works
for approval.
78. Prior to approving any building permit within the project for occupancy, all public
utilities shall be operational.
STRFFTS
79. The applicant shall overlay West Branch Street from gutter to gutter across the
project frontage,
80. The applicant shall overlay Camino Mercado from gutter to gutter across the
project frontage,
81. All trenching in City streets shall utilize saw cutting. Any over cuts shall be
cleaned and filled with epoxy.
82. All street repairs shall be constructed to City standards.
83. Street structural sections shall be determined by an R-Value soil test, but shall
not be less than 3" of asphalt and 6" of Class II AB.
f l IRR f;l ITTFR �Nfl SIfIFWGI K
84. Utilize saw cuts for all repairs made in curb, gutter, and sidewalk.
85. The driveways shall adhere to all applicable City standards,
86. Install tree wells for all trees planted adjacent to curb, gutter and sidewalk to
prevent damage due to root growth.
87. The applicant shall remove and replace any cracked or broken curb, gutter and
sidewalk along the Camino Mercado frontage,
88. The applicant shall remove and replace any cracked or broken curb and gutter
along the West Branch frontage,
89. The applicant shall install sidewalk along the West Branch frontage,
90. The applicant shall install a wheelchair ramp at the northeast corner of Camino
Mercado and West Branch,
91. The applicant shall remove and replace the spandrel at the northeast corner of
Camino Mercado and West Branch,
c;Rnnwr,
92. Perform all grading in conformance with the City Grading Ordinance.
93. Submit an updated preliminary soils report to the soils report prepared for the
previous project. All earthwork design and grading shall be performed in
accordance with the approved soils report.
94. Submit all retaining wall calculations for review and approval by the Director of
Public Works for walls not constructed per City standards.
95. The improvement plans shall be subject to the review of the Coastal San Luis
Resource Conservation District. The applicant shall reimburse the City for the
review by the Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District.
96. The applicant shall obtain a WDID No. from the Regional Water Quality Control
Board prior to issuance of a grading permit,
ER�SI�N CONTROL
97. The applicant shall prepare an erosion control plan for review and approval prior
to issuance of a grading permit,
98. The applicant shall obtain a WDID No. from the Regional Water Quality Control
Board prior to issuance of a grading permit,
nRnwnr,F
99. All drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate a 100-year storm flow.
100. All drainage facilities shall be in accordance with the Drainage Master Plan.
101. The project is in Drainage Zone "C" and may drain to the creek through city
facilities.
102. The applicant shall provide detailed drainage calculations indicating that
increased run-off can be accommodated by existing facilities and/or provide on-
site retention basins, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
103. All storm water drainage will be filtered prior to entering City facilities.
104. All storm water drainage will be conveyed through pipes to the City storm drain
system.
105. The applicant shall replace both drop inlets along the project frontage with
Camino Mercado with new City standard drop inlets.
106. The applicant shall remove the existing standpipe drain on-site.
107. All storm water drainage facilities will either:
■ Connect to the storm drainage facilities underneath Camino Mercado, or
IIFIIIrGTIC1NS ONII FGSFMFNTS
108. All easements, abandonments, or similar documents to be recorded as a
separate document, shall be prepared by the applicant on 8 1/2 x 11 City
standard forms, and shall include legal descriptions, sketches, closure
calculations, and a current preliminary title report. The applicant shall be
responsible for all required fees, including any additional required City
processing.
109. . A Public Utility Easement (PUE) shall be dedicated a minimum 6 feet wide
adjacent to all street right of ways. The PUE shall be wider where necessary for
the installation or maintenance of the public utility vaults, pads, or similar
facilities.
110. Easements shall be dedicated to the public by separate document approved by
the City, for the following:
• 15' sewer easement for the extension of the sewer main onto the site,
■ 15' water easement for the water main to be looped through the site. The
easement shall entail any on-site fire hydrants,
PFRMITS
111. Obtain an encroachment permit prior to performing any of the following:
■ Performing work in the City right of way,
■ Staging work in the City right of way,
• Stockpiling material in the City right of way,
• Storing equipment in the City right of way.
112. Obtain a grading permit prior to commencement of any grading operations on
site.
�EES
113. Pay all required City fees at the time they are due.
114. Fees to be paid prior to plan approval:
■ Plan check for grading plans based on an approved earthwork estimate,
■ Plan check for improvement plans based on an approved construction
cost estimate,
■ Permit Fee for grading plans based on an approved earthwork estimate,
■ Inspection fee of the improvements based on an approved construction
cost estimate,
115. The applicant shall reimburse the City for the plan check fees for the previous
project approved for the site,
��
116. Inspection Agreement: Prior to approval of an improvement plan, the applicant
shall enter into an agreement with the City for inspection of the required
improvements.
117. Improvement Agreement: The applicant shall enter into an improvement
agreement for the completion and guarantee of improvements required. The
improvement agreement shall be on a form acceptable to the City.
IMPRf1\/FMFNT SFrI IRITIFS
118. All improvement securities shall be of a form as set forth in Development Code
Section 16.68.090, Improvement Securities.
119. Submit an engineer's estimate of quantities for improvements for review by the
Director of Public Works.
120. Provide financial security for the following, to be based upon a construction cost
estimate approved by the Director of Public Works:
■ Faithful Performance: 100% of the approved estimated cost of all
required improvements,
■ Labor and Materials: 50% of the approved estimated cost of all required
improvements,
• One Year Guarantee: 10% of the approved estimated cost of all required
improvements. This security is required prior to acceptance of the
improvements.
PRInR T(1 ISSI IIN(; A RI III IIINC; PFRMIT
121. The improvement plans shall be approved with all pertinent conditions of
approval satisfied.
PRInR TCl IRSI IINr 0 CFRTIFICATF (1F (1CCI IPANC'Y
122. All utilities shall be operational.
123. All improvements shall be fully constructed and accepted by the City.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
A negative declaration with mitigation measures has been adopted for this project. The j
following mitigation measures shall be implemented as conditions of approval and shall !,
be monitored by the appropriate City department or responsible agency. The applicant
shall be responsible for verification in writing by the monitoring department or
agency that the mitigation measures have been implemented.
MITIGATIDN MEASURES
1 . The applicant shall complete measures to neutralize the
estimated increase in water demand created by the project by
either:
Implementing an individual water program that utilizes fixtures
and designs that minimize water usage. The calculations shall
be submitted to the Director of Public Works for review and
approval. The proposed individual water program shall be
submitted to the City for approval prior to implementation; or,
Payment of an in lieu fee.
Monitoring: Review of individual water program or
payment of the in lieu fee
Responsible Department: Public Works Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit
2. All new construction shall utilize fixtures and designs that
minimize water usage. Such fixtures shall include, but are not
limited to, water saving toilets, low flow showerheads, instant
water heaters and hot water recirculating systems. Water
conserving designs and fixtures shall be installed prior to final
occupancy.
Monitoring: Review of building plans
Responsible Department: Building and Fire Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit
3. The hotel shall participate in the " Project Planet Linens and
Towels Reuse Program" or a similar program in scope and
conservation of water and energy.
Monitoring: Review of individual water program
Responsible Department: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy
4. All landscaping shall be consistent with water conservation
practices including the use of drought tolerant landscaping, drip
irrigation, and mulch. To the greatest extent possible, lawn areas
and areas requiring spray irrigation shall be minimized.
Monitoring: Review of landscaping and irrigation
plans
Responsible Department: Parks and Recreation Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit
5. The applicant shall provide detailed drainage calculations
indicating that increased run-off can be accommodated by
existing facilities and/or provide on-site retention basins to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
Monitoring: Review of grading plans
Responsible Department: Public Works Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of a grading permit
6. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be
used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to
prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would
include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after
work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15
miles per hour.
7. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept
moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation.
8. Permanent dust control measures identified in the revegetation
and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible
following completion of any soil disturbing activities.
9. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates
greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with
fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is
established.
10. All vehicles hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to
be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard
(minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer)
in accordance with CVC Section 23114. (This measure has the
potential to reduce PM10 emissions from this source by 7 —
14%).
11 . Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved
roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the
site. (This measure has the potential to reduce PM10 emissions
from this source by 40 — 70%).
12. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is
carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with
reclaimed water should be used where feasible. (This measure
has the potential to reduce PM�o emissions from this source by
25 — 60%).
For Mitigation Measures No. 6 — 12: I
Monitoring: Review of grading and building plans
and site inspections
Responsible Department: The Public Works and Building and Fire
Departments shall inspect plans and
spot check in the field
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of grading permit and
during construction
13. Occupancy of the project will not be allowed until installation of a
traffic signal at the intersection of Camino Mercado and West
Branch Street
Monitoring: Monitor installation of the traffic signal
Responsible Department: Public Works Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy
14. The applicant shall pay the City' s Transportation Facilities Impact
fee prior to issuance of building permit.
Monitoring: The applicant shall pay the fees
Responsible Department: Building & Fire Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit
15. The applicant shall retain an arborist during the grading and
construction phases of the project to ensure tree protection
measures are implemented. The recommendations outlined in the
arborist report prepared for the project shall be followed.
Monitoring: Field inspection
Responsible Department: Parks & Recreation, Community
Development Departments
Timeframe: During grading and construction
16. Protective fencing shall be installed around each tree to remain at
the dripline, or as directed in the field by the arborist. The fencing
shall be installed prior to any site clearing or grading activities, and
shall remain in place until construction is complete, including
landscaping. The fence shall be a minimum of 4' tall and
supported by stakes at least every 10' on center. Weatherproof
signs shall be permanently posted on the fences, stating the
following:
Tree Protection Zone
Do Not move or remove this fence
[Name of arborist or consultant]
[Name and phone number of developer or general contractor]
The Arborist of Record shall inspect the site prior to the start of
any construction activities to determine that adequate tree
protection measures have been implemented.
Monitoring: Field inspection
Responsible Department: Parks & Recreation, Community
Development Departments
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of grading permit
17. The arborist shall mark all trees to be removed with either colored
ribbon or paint. Transplant trees per arborisY s iiirection prior to
site grading.
Monitoring: Field inspection
Responsible Department: Parks & Recreation, Community
Development Departments
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of grading permit
18. The applicant shall submit written reports prepared and signed by
the arborist stating that all tree protection measures have been
met per the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA)
Guidelines.
Monitoring: Review of reports
Responsible Department: Parks & Recreation, Community
Development Departments
Timeframe: Reports filed on a monthly basis
commencing after issuance of grading
permit
19. Removal of the oak trees shall be replaced in-kind or to City
selection at a 3:1 ratio with a minimum size of a 24" box planted
on-site.
Monitoring: Review landscape plans/Field
inspection
Responsible Department: Parks & Recreation Department
Timeframe: Prior to occupancy
20. The applicant shall pay the proportionate share of the impacts to
the EI Camino Real Sewer upgrade and
Walnut Street Sewer Upgrade.
Monitoring: The applicant shall pay the fees
Responsible Department: Public Works Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of grading permit
21 . The following note shall be placed on the grading and
improvement plans for the project:
"In the event that during grading, construction or
development of the project, and archeological resources are
uncovered, all work shall be halted until the City has reviewed the
resources for their significance. If human remains (burials) are
encountered, the County Coroner (781-4513) shall be contacted
immediately. The applicant may be required to provide
archaeological studies and/or mitigation measures."
Monitoring: Construction plans shall be reviewed
prior to issuance of a grading permit to
ensure the note is in place.
Responsible Department: Public Works Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of grading permit
Additional Conditions
1. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy the applicants shall develop a parking, access,
and maintenance agreement acceptable to the Director of Community
Development and the Director of Public Works.
2. The applicant shall install a City benchmark monument at the northwest corner
of Camino Mercado and West Branch in accordance with City standards.
l
�
ATTACHMENT1
� o� pRROyOC .
� iNCOqiORATEO z CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
� � ° DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND
*��U`Y '�' ""P� DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
. Q��FORN` � . � .
1. Project Title; Conditionai Use Permit Case No. 04-009
Tentative Parcel Map Case No.
Variance Case No.
2. Lead Agency Name & Address: City of Arroyo Grande '
P.O. Box 550/214 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
3. Contact Person & Phone #: Jim Bergman, Assistant Planner
(805) 473-5420
4. Project Location: 1400 West Branch Street '
Northwest corner of West Branch Street/Camino Mercado !I
intersection
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
5. Project Sponsor's Name & Address: Gary White and Stephen Cool
1577 EI Camino Real
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
6. General Plan Designation: Mixed Use
7. Zoning: Office Mixed-Use
8. Description of Project: (Describe the who% action invo/ved, inc/udrng but not limited to/atei phases of
the prqject, and any secondary, suppoit, or off-site features necessary for its imp/ementation. Aitach
additional sheets if necessary.J
The proposed project is to construct a 104 room, three-story plus tasement Hampton inn and Suites
hotel (60,323 total square feet, approximately 50,000 square feet of above ground usable space) and
a one-story 6,000 square foot restaurant on a 2.68-acre parcel. The property is located on the
northwest corner of West Branch Street and Camino Mercado and is currently vacant. The
development will require grading, sidewalk and signalization, tree removal and utility construction to
serve the commercial project.
9. Other agencies whose approval is required (and permits needed):
County Health Department (Restaurant)
' �
_ - 1
DETERMINATION.
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have
been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
i find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the
effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated". An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be
addressed.
Signature � Date
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: �
The environmental factors checked below would 6e potentiaily affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a
"POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT" or "POTENTIALLY IS SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATED", as indicated by the checklist on
the following pages. �
❑ Land Use and Planning � ✓ Biological Resources � ❑ Pu61ic Services � �
❑ Population and Housing ❑ Energy and Mineral Resources ✓Utilities and Service Sysiems
❑ Geophysicai � Hazards 0 Aesthetics
✓ Water ❑ Noise ❑ Cultural Resources
✓Air Quality ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance � ❑ Recreation
✓Tran sportation/Circul ation
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
7. A brie7 explanation is �equi�ed foi al!answeis excepi "No lmpact" answers ihat are adequately supported by the information
souices a/ead agency cites in the pareniheses following each quesiion. A "No Impact" question is adequately supported if the
referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project
falis outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is tiased on project specific tactors as
well as generel standards (e.g., the project will not axpose sensitive receptors to poliutants, based on a projecbspecitic
screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whale action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-
level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operations impacts. �
3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if an effect is significant or potentially significant, or is the lead agency lacks
information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or more "Poten'tially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated" applies where the iricorporatian af mitigation measures has reduced an effect from
"Potentia�ly Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must descrihe the mitigation measures
and briefly explain how they reduce the effact to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier
Ana�yses", may be cross referenced.) �
5. Eariier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)13)�D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section
XVII at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g.,
general plans, zoning ordinances). A Source List should be attached and other sources used or individuals should be cited in the
discussion.
,
__ _ �
. � Poten6ally
Potentially Significant Less Than
� Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): � SigniTcant Unless S�gn�ficant No
/mpact Mitigated /mpact /mpact
� L LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would ihe proposa/.• � �
a1 Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? .
(source �(s1: 1,2,3,4) X
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies � .
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project7 �
(source 1JIs): 1,6,7) � x
c) Affect agricul[ural resources or operations (e.g., impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land �
uses)? (source 71�s): 9, 11) x
d) Disrupt or divide the physicai arrangement of an
estabtished communiiy (including a low-income or
minority community)? (source ll(s): 2,4,11) x
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would fhe proposal.•
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections? (source 1/(s): 1,5,91� x
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undevelaped area
or extension of major infrestructure)? x
� (source lils): 9,70)
c) Displace existing housing, especially.affordable housing? . �
(source a(s): 9,10,11) X
111. GEOPHYSICAL: Would the proposaliesu/t In or exposa
people fo potenSa/impactslnvo/ving: -
a) Seismicity: fault rupture? (source #Is): 5,6) x
b) Seismicity: ground shaking ar liquefaction7
Isource #(s): 5,6) X
c) Seismicity: seiche or tsunami? (source #Is): 5,6) x
dl Landslides or mudslides7 (source �fls): 5,6) X
e1 Erosion, changes in topogrephy or unstable soils
conditions trom excavation, grading or fill7
(source /t(s): 101 x
fl Subsidence of land7 (source HIs1: 5,6) x
g) Expansive soilsi (source #(s): 5,61 X
h) Unique geologic or physical features? Isource#IsL•
5.6.10,11) • X
IV. WATER: Wou/d ihe p�apasal iesult in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, dreinage pattems, or the
rate and amount of surface runaff7 (source 11(s): 10) x
b) Exposure to people or property to water related hazards •
such as flooding? lsource ills): 8) x . .
' �
4
� Pofentially
. Potentially Srgnilcant Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): - Significant Un/ess Signircant No
/mpact Mitigated /mpact /mpact
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteretion of �
surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved X
oxygen or turbidity? (source !t(s): 9) �
d1 Changes in the amoun[ of surtace water in any water
bodyl (source #(s): 9, 10) X
e1 Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (source �i(s): 9, 10) x
fJ Change in the quantity of ground waters, eiiher through
di�ect additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
Isource /1(s): 9, 10) x
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? �
(source �/(s): 9, 10) x
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (source kls): 9,10) X
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise '
available for public water supplies? (source ��s): 6, 14) '
' X
V. AIR nUALiTY: Would!he proposak
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violationl
(source �(s): 7, 131 X
b1 Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (source #Is1: � . .
10. 71) X
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? �source !f(s): 9) X
d) Create objectionabte odors? (source #Is): 9,10) X
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Wou/d the proposal
' iesult in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or tretfic congestion7 (source
#Is): 13) • X
b) Hazards to safety from design features fe.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)1 (source#(s): 9, 10) X
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby sftes7
(source #(s): 9, 70) X
d) Insuffi6ient parking capacity on-site or off-sita? Isource
#Is): 3, 9, 10) • X
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? �source
#(s): 9, 10) • . x
f) Contlicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)7 �
lsource /�Is): 9, 70) X
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Wou/d the pioposal iesult in
impacts to: � , � � .
a) Endangered, threatened or rere species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, �C
animais, and birdsl (source k�s): 6)
1
4
. ___..
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)?
(source /!(s): 10, 11� X
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, -
coastal habitat)? (source tl(s1: 70, 11) X
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pooq?
� (source H(s): 9, 11�
X
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
(source #ls): 11) x
VIII.ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? .
(source #Is): 1, 61 X
b) Use nomrenewa6le resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner7 Isource #(s): 9, 10) X i
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposalinvolve:
a� A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation7 �source #Is): 9) X
b) Possibla interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (source #Is): 9, 701
X
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazardt Isource Hls): 9, 10) . x
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential x
health hazards? (source #(s1: 9,70,11I
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, X
grass, or irees? (source #Is1: 70, 11)
X. NOISE. Wouldfheproposaliesultin:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (source #1s1: 1, 9) x
b1 Exposure of people to severe noise levels7 x
�source #(sl: 9, 10)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would ihe proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new oi altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fre Protection7 (source #Is): 6) x
b) Police Protection7 (saurce #fs): 6) X
c) Schools7 (source!�(s): 6) x
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads7 . x
�source�i1s): 6�
e) Other governmental services7 (source fi(s): 6) x
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would ihe p�oposal
result in a need foinewsysiems, orsubstantialalteiations
to the fol%wing utilities:
a) Power or naturel gas? (source!!fs): 9, 10) x
b) Communications systems7 (source #Is): 9, 10) x
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution x
facilities? Isource �(s): 6)
d) Storm water drainage? (source#Is): 61 X
'
_5 •
e) Solid waste disposal? (source X(s): 6) X �
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the p�oposal: .
� a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
(source �/(s): 1, 10, 11) � )(
b) Have a demonstrable negative aestheiic effect7
(source #fs): 9, 10, 11) . � X �
c) Create light or glare? (source /!Is): 9,10) . X
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources7 (source #Is): 6, 17) � X
b) Disturb archaeological resources (source tf�s): 6, 11) X . -
c) Affec[ historical resources? (source N(sl: 6, 11) X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which ,
would affec[unique ethnic culturel values? Isource M(s): � � '
11) X
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the �
potential impact area? (source Nls): 10, 11) X
XV. RECREATION. Would the pioposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
or other recreational facilities? (source#Is): 1, 3) .
X
b) Affect existing recreationai opportunities? T
(saurce #�s1: 1, 5) X
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantielly reduce fhe '
ha6itat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rere or
endangered p�ant or animal or eliminate important �
examples of the major periods of California history or X
prehistory? .
b) Does the project have the poteniial to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals? X
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable7 ('CumulatiVely
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considereble when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future .
projects.) �� X
d) Does the praject have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectlyl x
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Eariier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR ar negative declaration. Section 15063Ic��3)(D). In this case, a discussion should
identify the following on attached sheets
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) . Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
6
adequately analyzed by earlier documents.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "potentially significant" or "potentially significani unless mitigated",
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporeted or refined from the earlier document and the extent to
which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
SOURCE LIST:
'I. City of Arroyo Grende Generai Plan
2. City of Arroyo Grande Generai Plan Land Use Map
3. City of Arroyo Grande Development Code
4. City of Arroyo Grande Zoning Map
5. City of Arroyo Grande Existing Setting and Community Issues Report i
6. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan EIR
7. Air Pollution Control District Clean Air Plan
8. FEMA- Flood Insurance Rate Map
9. Project Description
10. Project Plans
11. Site.lnspection
12. Ordinance 431 C. S.
13. Institute of Traffic Engineers Trio Generation Manual
14. Water Master Plan
15. Sewer Master Plan
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
The project site is approximately 2.68 acres in size and is located on the northwest corner of the West Branch
Street and Camino Mercado intersection in the Office Mixed-Use zone. The intersection is coMrolled by a four-
way stop and is located at the northbound Freeway 101 Oak Park Boulevard off-ramp. The site is highly visible
from Freeway 101 and West Branch Street, sloping steeply up from West Branch Street and then becoming
relatively flat. The property is currently vacant and contains twelve (12) maiure Coast Live Oak trees, six (6) of
which are proposed to be removed. The project site is not located near a k�own culturai resource area.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project evaluated by this initial study is to construct and operate a three-story plus basement, 104 room hote
totaling 60,323 square feet (approximately 50,000 square feet of above ground usable space) and a one-sto�
6,000 square foot restaurant building.
EXPLANATIONS TO INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST:
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING
The �property is loaated on the corner of the West Branch Street and Camino Mercado intersection and i�
subject to the site development standards for the Office Mixed-Use Zone and other ordinances of the City o
Arroyo Grande. Construction of a hotel is consistent with the General Plan and zoning for the site. Th�
project location was also identified in the City' s Economic Development Strategy as one of seven potentia
hotel sites within the City. Permit processing for the project consists of a Conditional Use permit (land usF
approvaq, a variance (maximum height and potentially for maximum square foocage) and a parcel maE
(division of the property into two parcels).
The proposed project does not pose conflicts with existing environmental plans and/or policies, and ihere ar
no agricultural operations in the vicinity of the project site.
Analysis of Significance: Less than significant impacts.
_ ,
7
II. POPULATION & HOUSING
The project would provide hotel and restaurant services to visitors and citizens of Arroyo Grande. No new
housing would be directly associated with the proposed project, and no significant increase in demand for
housing would be created by the project. The proposed project site is located within the City of Arroyo
Grande and will be served by existing infrastructure.
Analysis of Significance: Less than significant impact.
III. GEOPHYSICAL
Although the proposed project design generally follows the natural topography of the site, the project will
involve a considerable amount of construction grading and soil compaction. Standard erosion control
measures would address on-site erosion by wind or water during construction. Long-term erosion potential
would be addressed through installation of landscaping and storm drainage facilities, both of which would be
designed to meet applicable regulations.
Based on the Generel Plan and review of the Alquist-Priolo Zone Fault maps, the proposed project is not
located on a known earthquake fault subject to rupture. The proposed project wili be subject to the effects of
periodic seismic events in the region, including ground shaking. However, exposure of peopie to these events
can generally be mitigated to an acceptable level of risk by following Uniform Building Code development
standards.
Analysis of Significance: Less than significant impact.
IV. WATER/DRAINAGE
Water. The City currently receives its water supply from both surface and groundwater sources. Ground
water extractions are derived from seven (7) wells and two (2) separate basin formulations. Surface water is
obtained from the Lopez Reservoir Project, which was constructed in the late 1960' s. Reclaimed storm
water collected by the Soto Sports Complex Storm Water Reclamation Project is also used as an irrigation
supply source.
The City adopted a Water System Master Plan in 1999, which identified water resources as being a significant
issue, and identified methods to increase and diversify water supply to increase long-term reliability of the
City' s water service to its residents. The report assessed potential methods to address the water supply
issue and prioritized alternatives.
The City used approximately 97.7% of its available/allocated water supply between January 2004 and
December 2004. Per Chapter 13.05.010 of the City' s Municipal Code (Water Supply Conditions), this level
of wat�r use is considered a "severely restricted" water supply condition that has not yet reached a "critical"
level. io manage its water supply deficiency, the City adopted a two-phased strategy in November 2004 that
included alternatives to be pursued to meet the City' s water demand Over the next 10- year period (phase 1),
and identified alternatives that will provide permaneni water supply increases to meet the long-term demand
that are most desirable, feasible and cost effective (phase 2). As part of phase 1, the City adopted a Water
Conservation Program in May 2003 that included: ' .
• Plumbing Retrofit Program;
• Water Shortage Contingency Analysis;
• Public Information and Education; -
• Information System Assessment for Top Water Users;'
• Enforcement of City' s Water Conservation Codes; and
• Optional components, including washing machine re6ates, irrigation system or landscaping rebates,
and retrofit of cemetery with non-potable water. -
�,
_ Q
Other components of phase � include construction of Well No. 10 (located on Deer Trail Circle), pursuing oil
fieid water on Price Canyon, implementing a tiered water and sewer rate structure as financial incentives for
water conservation, and a utility retrofit upon-sale program.
Phase 2 provides various permanent water supply options that include:
• Conducting a groundwater study;
• Pursuing water from the Nacimiento Project;
. Impiementing a reclaimed water system;
. Studying feasibility of a desalination plant; and
. Pursuing water from the State Water Project.
Conclusion. The City is currently in a severely restricted water supply situation, which is considered a
cumulatively significant impact. The projecY s contribution, however, is considered di minimis, meaning that
the environmental conditions would be the same whether or not the project is implemented. The City adopted
overriding considerations for cumulative water supply impacts identified in the Program EIR for the 2001
General Plan Update.
Development of the proposed project would require water fo� both domestic use and landscape irrigation.
Projected water demand for the hotel is approximately 15.6 acre-feet of water per year while the restaurants
projected water use is 3 acre feet per year. The water consumption by this project would further reduce the
City' s supply of available water. This impact could be mitigated using water-conserving designs, policies,
fixiures and landscaping.
Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated.
The project shall implement the following restrictions and measures to reduce water supply impacts to
a less-than-significant level. .
Mitigation Measures:
1. The applicant shall complete measures to neutralize the estimated increase in water demand
created by the project by either:
Implementing an individual water program thai utilizes fixtures and designs that minimize
water usage. The calculations shall be submitted to the Director of Pubiic Works for review
and approval. The proposed individual water program shall be submitted to the City for
approval prior to implementation; or,
Payment of an in lieu fee.
• Monitoring: Review of individual water program or payment of the in
• lieu fee .
Responsible Department: Public Works Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit !
2. All new construction shall utilize fixtures and designs that minimize water usage. Such fixture:
shall include, but are not limited to, water saving toilets, low flow Showerheads, instant wate.
heaters and hot water recirculating systems. Water conserving designs and fixtures shall be
installed prior to final occupancy.
Monitoring: Review of building plans
Responsible Department: Building and Fire Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit
,
_ 9
3. The hotel shall participate in the "Project Planet Linens and Towels Reuse Program" or a similar
program in scope and conservation of water and energy.
Monitoring: Review of individual water program •
Responsible Department: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of CerCificate of Occupancy
4, All landscaping shall be consistent with water conservation practices including the use of drought
tolerant landscaping, drip irrigation, and mulch. To the greatest extent possible, lawn areas and
areas requiring spray irrigation shall be minimized.
Monitoring: Review of landscaping and irrigation plans
Responsible Department: Parks and Recreation Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit
Dreina4e. Development of the site will increase impervious surfaces, which in turn will change absorption
rates and increase the amount of runoff. The site would drain onto Camino Mercado and existing drainage
facilities would accommodate the increased flows. Detailed drainage calculations would be reviewed as part
of the plan check process.
Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated.
Mitigation Measure:
5. The applicant shall provide detailed drainage calculations indicating that increased run-off can be
accommodated by existing facilities and/or provide on-site retention basins to the satisfaction of t
the Director of Public Works.
Monitoring: Review of grading plans `
Responsible Department: Public Works Department ;.
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of a grading permit
V. AIR QUALITY
Development of the site will involve grading and other activities that will produce emissions for which the
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) has established impact thresholds. Grading in
excess of four (4) acres will generate emissions that exceed the District's threshold for respirable
particulate matter (PMio). The project site is 2.68 acres in size, which falis under the threshold for
significance. However, construction activities would generate dust, which could cause potentially
significant short-term environmental impacts. The project will also contribute emissions to the air basin,
which is already a non-attainment area for the State ozone standard. Emissions generated by this project,
together with emissions generated by reasonably foreseeable new development, will result in a cumulative
adverse impact on air.quality unless all reasonably available mitigations are included in the design of the
project.
Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated.
Mitigation Measures:
Dust generated by the development activities shall be kept to a minimum with a goal of retaining dust
on the site. The dust control measures listed below shall be followed during construction of the
project, and shall be shown on grading and building plans:
6. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle �
movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include
wetting down such areas in the later morning a�d after work is completed for the day and
whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. .
- ��
7. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to
prevent dust generation.
8. Permanent dust control measures identified in the revegetation and landscape plans should be
implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities.
9. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after
initial grading should be sown with tast-germinating native grass seed and watered until
vegetation is established.
70. All vehicles hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at
least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in
accordance with CVC Section 23114. (This measure has the potential to reduce PM,o emissions
from this source by 7 — 14%).
11. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off
trucks and equipment leaving the site. (This measure has the potential to reduce PM,o emissions
from this source by 40 — 70%).
12. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads.
Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasibie. (This measure has the
potential to reduce PMio emissions from this source by 25 — 60%). �
For Mitigation Measures No. 5 — 11:
Monitoring: Review of grading and building plans and site inspections
Responsible Department: The Public Works and Building and Fire Departments shall
inspect plans and spot check in the field
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of grading permit and during construction
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
The project is located at the corner of West Branch Street and Camino Mercado. West Branch Street is
classified in the Circulation Element as a minor arterial street in most segments involving an 80-foot wide
right-of-way, while Camino Mercado is classified as a collector street having a 63-foot right-of-way. Proposed
access to the hotel and restaurant is via two driveways on Camino Mercado.
A traffic impact study for the proposed project was completed by Omni-Means, Ltd. of Roseville, California at
the request of the City of Arroyo Grande. The traffic impact study included eight critical study intersections as
established by City of Arroyo Grande staff. The traffic impact study also included an analysis of existing
traffic volumes, existing traffic operations, short term no project operations (includes previousiy approved
development projects), short term plus project conditions, short term pius project traffic operation, cumulative
base 'conditions, cumulative base no projecc traffic operations, and cumulative base plus project traffic
operations. �• ,
The traffic impact study estimates that the proposed project will create 1,524 daily trips, 94 AM peak hour
irips and 113 PM peak hour trips. The study suggests that 80 percent of the traffic associated with the
project will be oriented toward US 107. The following two tables present projected Level of Service and delay
data for short term conditions and cumulative base conditions (20 years with buiid out of the existing General
Plan) with and without the project.
� ,
11
o mma � n � � o mmm � p � � p
. c n n ^' � ° ° ic o o ° ° ° � x
� 0 3 3 ° o � m o u 3 3 s o � m m u
A V ]1 : U
0 0' 'o ° > > > '� o 'o ° n � > ; m .
o A A C � � � z � �A � � � � �
v v � �nrn � cntn � d � �nv� � cnvi �
x 2m ° C (� An � Sm ° P n pn �
� 3 Np�. Z �. n j � N Np�. Z �. . j � N
p � o � `� �� � ¢i m p O m O $� S C.�i m
� � � � a o � 3. > > � T� ° ° 3. �
s nn ' n ��{S 'o � nn nn� G o' Li' ���
' c. tCil n w ° q C n u n ,3
U � �, Cj y O � p .
� O 4 �
o a �
a y � C N � C
m W C m C
3 yo yo
a o m o m
�^ m0 m0 ,
S
° m epi
n 3 3
n
0
�
r
y r r
O O
b y y
'0 2 2 �
p fn O O O m m O m � O O m o D m m m �
q� a a
- �i n �
F � r- .
01• 4Oi N
N � '�
. � RI n (7 �l m m n m N O C) CI Cl D m m W H
� � 1
b a. D a. D I
n � 3 n $ 3
a ° � �
3 ° xc m a�c �
� � _ � � _ � I
2c . � ze 'Z . ` .
°Q �mati � ,'a � o � < � 'a ,m' '� ,'n � 'mo + —i I
- ieivaa � � io � V A � m � -� � -. 'tn V '0 � .
� a m a �
n n twii �i
. � — 1p ._
' . � O O
n
< b Cl
O y
n + O A O � ti lJ t0 m + N O O � � Of N , . .
N O� 01 + + V N + � 41 W t0 t: V O N �p _O
a a
� �
� n
O O
N N
Z Z
mmoommoo°� TOOQmmTO�
a. a
e �
. o 0
y �
v v
mmot�mmoo� mot� nmm -nc� �`^ '
v v
a. 9 a. �
� 3 � 3
— y " 9
li Q
� x 0 JC
d 2 d S
(/� Z e °c
N Of A J � N W W O � N W i fV.f O J' O ONl � � .
lN f0 � m m C.1 N �0 J W t0 C� + + (n + 'p
a a
n �
— :
O O I
v d
i
y !,f � t,� 9 i
N A N O � m V fn q GN9 N > > o " P q� q
, A N IJ N V 01 m �p rG O � tl + � + N �
' � � �
.
. �7
It is important to note that intersections, which form the Brisco-Halcyon-US 101 interchange, is estimated to
operate at an unacceptable LOS in both short term project or no project scenarios and would likely be further
aggravated under Cumulative Base and Cumulative Base Plus Project scenarios without mitigation. Mitigation
for this situation per Omni-Means is for the City of Arroyo Grande to actively move forward with near-term
modification of the US 101 / Halcyon Road / Brisco Road interchange as indicated in the Project Study Report
(PSR).
Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated.
Mitigation Measures:
13. Occupancy of the project will not be allowed until installation of a traffic signal at the
intersection of Camino Mercado and West Branch Street
Monitoring: Monitor installation of the traffic signal
Responsible Dept./Agency: Public Works Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy
14. The applicant shall pay the City' s Transportation Facilities Impact fee prior to issuance of
building permit.
Monitoring: The applicant shall pay the fees
Responsible Dept./Agency: Building & Fire Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
There are no wetlands on the property. A total of 12 Coast Live Oak t�ees and 2 saplings exist on the project
site having varying degrees.of heaith and vigor. The proposed project would remove 6 of the 12 oak trees. .
Native oaks are a protected tree species in the City of Arroyo Grande and any removal must be mitigated per
the City' s Community Tree Ordinance No. 431 C.S.
Per the arborist report prepared by Dave' s Tree Service for the project dated December 1, 1998 (reference
Aitachment B), the majority of the trees proposed for removal are either in poor health or have questionable
structural integrity. The table below summarizes the findings of the arborist report.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT TREE CONDITIONS
Tree# TRUNK Height CANOPY VIGOR �CONDITION ARBORIST PROJECT
DIAMETER DENSITY RECOMMENDATION PROPOSAL
1 14.7" 20'-25' 75% Fair Good Save Save
2 38.2" 50'+ 25%-30% Good Poor Remove Save
� 3 24.2" 20'-25' 80% Good Good Save Remove'
4 . 32.0" 20'+ 75°k Fair Poor Remove Remove
5 � '23.5" 15'-18' 15% Poor Poor Remove Remove
6 4.0", 5.2", 15' 90%-95% Good Poor - , Remove Save
6.0", 8.4"
7 11.2" 16'-18' 90%-95% Good Good 'Save Remove'
8 15.4" 20' 75%+ Fair Good Save Remove'
9 10.5", 10.8", 20' 60% Poor Poor Possibly Remove. Save
13.0"
10 14.4", 14.5" 25'+ 75% Good . Good Save Save
11 11.0" 20' 80% Good " Good Save Save
12 4.4", 4.9", 10' 100°/a Good Good Save Remove'
5.8", 6.0°
" Transplant or mitigation at 3:1 with specimen trees per City selection
, ,
13
Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated.
Mitigation Measures:
15. The applicant shall retain an arborist during the grading and construction phases of the project
to ensure tree protection measures are implemented. The recommendations outlined in the
arborist report prepared for the project shall be followed.
Monitoring: Field inspection
Responsible Department: Parks & Recreation, Community Development Departments
Timeframe: During grading and construction
16. Protective fencing shall be installed around each tree to remain at the dripline, or as directed in
the field by the arborist. The fencing shall be installed prior to any site clearing or grading
activities, and shall remain in place until construction is complete, including landscaping. The
fence shall be a minimum of 4' tall and supported by stakes at least every 10' on center.
Weatherproof signs shall be permanently posted on the fences, stating the following:
Tree Protection Zone
No personnel, equipment, materials, or vehicles are allowed
Do Not move or remove this fence
[Name of arborist or consultant]
[Name and phone number of developer or general contractor]
The Arborist of Record shall inspect the site prior to the start of any construction activities to
determine that adequate tree protection measures have been implemented.
Monitoring: Field inspection
Responsible Department: Parks & Recreation, Community Development Departments
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of grading permit
17. The arborist shall mark all trees to be removed with either colored ribbon or paint. Transplant
trees per arborisY s direction prior to site grading. •
Monitoring: Field inspection
; Responsible Department: Parks & Recreation, Community Development Departments
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of gradjng permit
18. The applicant shall submit written reports prepared and signed by the arborist stating that all
tree protection measures have been met per the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA)
Guidelines.
Monitoring: Review of reports
Responsible Department: Parks & Recreation, Community Development Departments
Timeframe: Reports filed on a monthly basis commencing after issuance of
grading permit
19. Removai of the oak trees shall be replaced in-kind or to City selection at a 3:1 ratio with a
�,
' . 1.
minimum size of of a 24" box planted on-site.
Monitoring: Review landscape plans/Field inspection
Responsible Department: Parks & Recreation Department
Timeframe: Prior to occupancy
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Developmerit of the site with a hotel and restaurant will not conflict with adopied energy conservation plans
or result in the wasteful use of non-renewable resources.
Analysis af Significance: No impact.
IX. HAZARDS
The project does not pose an undue risk to project occupants or occupants of surrounding properties.
Analysis of Significance: No impact.
X. NOISE
The project is adjacent to an arterial street and Highway 101 and there are no sensitive land uses within
approximately 500 feet of the project site. Therefore, operations are not expected to significantly increase
ambient noise levels for sensitive land uses. However, all operations shall comply with the City' s Noise
Ordinance. Residual impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
Analysis of Significance: Less than significant impact.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES
The proposed hotel and restaurant development is consistent with the General Plan designation and zoning for
the site. Adequate fire and police services exist in the community to serve the project. No housing is
associated with the project, and therefore no impact on schools would be generated by the project.
Analysis of Significance: Less than significant impact.
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The proposed project will not create a significant demand for new or altered power, gas, or communication
systems. A sewer study for the proposed project was compieted by the Wallace Group of San Luis Obispo,
Caiifornia at the request of the City of Arroyo Grande. The study examined projected flow calculations and
peaking factors and how such flows may impact the City' s coliection system and the SSLOCSD trunk
system. It should be noted that the study did identify that pipes 1258, 1260 and 2163 will flow with a d/D of
54 percent and pipe 1124 will flow at 1.9 fps, however these fiows are marginaily outside of acceptable
values of 50 percent and 2 fps. The report concludes, "there is adepuate sewer capacity for the proposed
Hampton Inn and restaurant"
Although the sewer study did not recommend any mitigation measures there are current capital improvement
projects within the city, which will provide benefits to the Hampton Inn and restaurant. These improvements
include retrofitting of City Lift Station 1 with a variable frequency drive pump and EI Camino Real Sewer
upgrade. The following mitigation measures incorporate these improvements.
Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated.
20. Occupancy shall not be.granted until the upgrade of Litt Station No. 1 is complete.
�
_ 15
Monitoring: Monitor improvements to Lift Station 1
Responsible Department: Public Works Department
Timeframe: Prior to final occupancy
21. The applicant shall pay the proportionate share of the impacts to the EI Camino Real Sewer upgrade
and Walnut Street Sewer Upgrade.
Monitoring: The applicant shall pay the fees .
Responsible Department: Public Works Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of grading permit
XIII. AESTHETICS
The project site is vacant and is highly visible from the Highway 101 corridor but has not been identified as a
scenic resource within the community. Distant views ot Avila Beach can be briefly seen at several points
within the city. It appears that there would be no disturbance of this view while traveling west on West
Branch Street, while a brief disturbance of the view occurs on Rancho Parkway near the A.G. Edwards
building. A substantial reduction of this view would occur at the extreme west edge of the parking lot of the
Five Cities Center. To date, the applicant has redesigned the project after Pre Application input from the
Architectural Review Committee, Planning Commission and City Council, in an effort to limit vertical aspects
and to conform to existing terrain. The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) considered the current project
plans end determined that the proposed architecture is acceptable.
There is a potential for edded light from the project through light fixtures associated with parking lot Iight
poles, windows and signage. The potential for significant impact is negated through City standards for
shieided light pole design and design review associated with signs.
Analysis of Signiticance: Less than significant impact.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A phase one archaeological surface survey was conducted on the'site by Archaeologist Robert Gibson, and no
significant historic or prehistoric archaeological materials were found. Based on the survey, the proposed
project woutd not have a significant adverse.impact on any known cultural resources.
However, if during construction excavation, any buried or isolated prehistoric cultural materials or historic
features are unearthed, work in that area shall halt until they can be examined by a qualified archaeologist and
appropriate recommendations made as outlined in CEQA. In such an event, Robert Gibson should be
contacted at (805) 238-5411, or the Community Development Department of the City of Arroyo Grande.
Analysis.of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated. .
. Mitigation Measure:
22. The following note shall be placed on the grading and improvement plans for the project:
"In the event that during grading, construction or developmeni of the project, and.
archeological resources are uncovered, all work shall be halted until the City has reviewed the
resources for their significance. If human remains (burials) are encountered, the County
Coroner (781-4513) shali be contacted immediately. The applicant may be required to provide
archaeological studies and/or mitigation measures."
Monitoring: Construction plans shall be reviewed prior to issuance of a
greding permit to ensure the note is in place.
Responsible Department: Public Works Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of grading permit
� �
_ iF
XV. RECREATION
The proposed commercial development would not increase ihe demand for additional recreation facilities, and
therefore the project would not have an impact on recreational opportunities or resources.
Analysis of Significance: No impact.
,
_ 77
Q� P.O.Box 550
� -. `�'� °� � - � . � 208 East Branch Street _ �
(-� Arroyo Grande,CA 93421
�TI��G�� Phone: (80�473-5440 Engineering
l.�/ FAX:(80�473-5443 .
PUBLIC WORKS " ` 1375AshStreet`
� Phone:(80�473-5460 .Corp.Yard
. March 28, 2005 . Fax:(so.s�.a7�:5462
E-Mail:agciCyQa arroyogrande.org
Mr. Raymond Dienzo
Wailace Group
4115 Broad Street,,Suite B-5 .
San Luis Otiispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT.: WASTEWATER ANALYSIS -.15T SUBMITTAL`.
, ... .
CUP 04-009- HAMPTON INN AND SUITES >
Dear Mc Dienzo:' ;
Public 1Norks has reviewed fhe,improvement plans submitted for projecf name and have
` the.following comments: .
1. : Make recommendations for mitig'ation measures utilizing a mazimum tl/D of 50%,
,. ,:.
...,.
2. ` Provide a table with the proposed average and. peak flows for other .proposed
- ; projects used in the build out;;
3. Ciarify whether Exhibit "A'' had other.proposed pro�ect flows added to the flows
defined in the AGWWMP,�. :
_:. . � ... ::: !<.., . ,. ,.•: , .
_ .: . :, ::
. .
4. :. The report does not, adequately analyze or;discuss: the impacts to:facilities r
downstream of Lift Stat�on.No 1 Due to the installation of vanable frequency
:: . .
, ?: : drive pumps.,in ,Cift�.Station.,No 1, the. average flow downstream will �be higher.
, Therefore, `for example, instead of<an 18 `pipe ,to 'accommodate the flow�.as
` dete�mined in the AGWWMP for fhe Walnut Street upgrade, 'perhaps a: 21'',pipe .
`will be necessary, : '
5. ; Provide the�license number and expirafion date for tfie engineer p�eparing the
study,
Please �address all�.�comments in a:rewsed,:report, and provide a:written response fo
each comment wifh";the next submittal : Rlease' feel free;fo call me if you'have any
quesfions a4 (805) 473-5445. . '
Sinc rely � �`
Y�/�...
Victor Devens _
. . , >. :
.- - ;
� Associafe Enginee�-,Development � ; . �
: :. , .
, :.
� . ��� � C �.', Director of Pubhc Works/CRy Engineer - �° - ' '
> �:
' ,ASSfstant City Engineer : �` `- �
. PublicWorks�5uperdisor UGfities
�• � ��� � �Direcror,otCoinrr�unityDeveiopment - .� ,'.�� � �� � �, -
_. �PsSistaritProJeclP.tanner � `�� ' '
. . . .,. .... . .
.. .. : , � :�.��y[ProJec[Fle- . '��: . -. ,. : ... ..: . :, .. .
, . -. .,. ..� ..
� - . - `�'Carrespondence File � � � � � � � � .
. .,. ' � - ' . . . -.��. � . . ..� . . .
, ' •S:1PUBlIC N/ORKS FNGINEERING SHARED fiEM5lDeveiopment�ProjectslCondiEOnai,Use Pertnit:\YEAF2 20041CUP.04009 =�Hampton��nn - . , .
� �CaminoMert.adolSewerStudy�Commentletter=CUP04-009-Hamptanlnn-.5ewerStudy-�7stSubmittal.dac� �:�_.:.'..: : - , ' _ �
� • ATTACHMENT C
Dave ' s Tree Service
625 Jameson Ct.
Arroyo Grande, Ca. 93?20
(805)481-1038
December 1 , 1998
Proiect Site
Corner G9est Branch and�Camino tiercado
Arrovo Grande
This report only addresses. the Coast Live Oaks, Quercus •
agrifolia, on this site. There are 12 oaks and 2 saplings .
The •12 trees are all numbered. The metal tags are
approximately 1"x3" . They are located on -the � north side of
the tree at 4 :-6 � above grade.
The 2 saplings are located at the eastern edge of the , •
canopy on trees �5 and �7 .
Measurements taken on the trees •give a picture in time of •
the size and condition of the trees•. These can be .
referenced at a later date to evaluate the trees progress .
The dbh, diameter at breast height, is given. Dbh is 4.5 �
above grade unless otherwise noted.
Approximate height and spread are given.
Leaf color, vigor and canopy density are listed. These
factors are indicators of tree health.
Many of the �trees have Western Sycamore Borer activity.
• This is' a Clear-Winged Moth. The larvae ee� •� n the bark.
� Their presence �sually indicate a stressed tree. Probably.
drought with thes2 oaks. Minor Western Sycamore . Borer
activity is • not a cause for concern.
Some of the trees have included bark. This is a structural
defect and is usually genetic. There� is bark included in
the crotch. Pruning can be used to lighten the weight on
the affected branches. '
, .
, . •
Trees may be healthy but have poor structure. Condition
takes into consideration the health and structure of the
trees .
The presence of decay can weaken the structure of the tree
. depending on its location. The presence of old wounds
generally indicate decay even if they are closed.
The amount and degree of decay present and its affect on
the structure of the tree (roots, trunk and limbs ) is
difficult to assess .
This report does not necessarily contain all the problems
(decay, broken or cracked limbs, insect infestations , etc . ) :
associated with the oaks on this lot. These trees were
examined visually from the ground. rfany defects may be �
internal, on the top of limbs, high in the canopy and
otherwise undetectable. .
Trees �2 ,�4 ,�5 and �6 are recommended ior removal. They
will all be hazardous once there is pedestrian and
vehicular traffic around then. Tree �9 is a possible
candidate for removal .
All the trees will need some pruning for aesthetics and
clearance. �
Tree �1
Dgg 14 .65".
Height 20 '-25 ' �
spread 21 'x25 �
Leaf Color Good
Canopy Density 75� .
� vigor Fair .
�Condition Good
TheYe is frass (fecal pellets) from the Western Sycamore
. Borer on the lower trunk. There are some• oZd wounds at the
� base along with several suckers . .
Many of the branch tips are dead. The leaves are still
attached on many of these. I would suspect Cryptocline, a
fungus which attacks stressed trees . The stress is probably
drought related. Cryptocline is generally not lethal.
,
Tree �2
DBA 38 . 2" @ 6 .5 ' *
He ight 5 0 '-i-
Spread 45 'x60 '
I,eaf Color Fair
Canopy Density 25�-30�
Vigor Good .
Condition Poor
This tree fell over many years ago. The primary scaffold
branches. are poorly spaced and many have included bark.
They appear to be suckers arising from old pruning cuts .
There is a cavity at the central cluster of primary
branches that extends 2 '+ down into the trunk.
There is a cavity at the base of the trunk. .There is fresh
frass from the Western Sycamore Borer and extensive mining
(old damage)in the bark of the trunk. Many of the small
branch tips are dead.
.This tree is in poor condition evidenced by the thin
canopy,. leaf color and dead branch tips. The structure of
the tree is compromised by the poor spacing and included
bark in the primary scaffold branches and the two cavities .
I recommend the removal of this tree. •
* DBH was measured at 6 .5 ' because 'the first primary limbs .
arose at ? .5 ' and the trunk was buried below•.
Tree #3 � • I
DBH 24 .2" '
Height 20 '-25' !
Spread 36 'x36' . •
Leaf Color Good
Canopy Density $��
Vigo'r Good . .
' . Condition �Good �
This tree fell over many years ago. There is a cavity at
the end of the trunk at an old pruning cut which extends lat. {
into the trunk. �
There is some evidence of Western Sycamore Borer. The 2
upright primazy scaffold branches to the south have several
old wounds . The end weight needs to be reduced on these 2 .
1 imbs.
Tree �4
DBH 32"
Height 20 '+
Spread 20 'x25 '
Leaf Color Fair
Canopy Density 75�
Vigor. � Fair �
Condition Poor
There is some evidence of Western Sycamore Borer. The 2
main horizontal limbs hava broken off. A cavity extends
into the main trunk at least a '-5 ' . There are several dead
branches in the canopy.
This tree has extensive internal decay. I recommend the
removal of .this tree.
Tree �5 ' .
DBH 23-5��
Height . 15 '-18 '
Spread 25 'x25 '
Leaf Color Poor
Canopy Density 15�
vigor Poor
Condition Poor
There is some evidence of Western Sycamore Borer. The '
lowest limb has broken off and decay extends into the main,
trunk. Tissue around the majority of the circumference af
this tree is dead. �
This tree is in extremely poor condition. I recommend its
removal. ' • �
� Tree �6 . .
DBH - 4",5 .2" , 6",8.a„
Heigfit 15 '
• Spread 20'x20 ' ' �.
� Leaf Color Good
Canopy Density • 90g-95�
vigor . Good
Condition Poor ' '
The canopy oP this tree consists of ,suckers growing. off an .
old �rotten stump. �The eastern half of the stump7canopy
could be broken off by hand. °.
I recommend the removal of this tree. - �
�. . • .
Tree �7
DBH 11 .2„
' Height 16 '-18 ' •
Spread lS �x24 ' �
Leaf Color Fair
Canopy Density 90�-95$
vigor Good
Condition Good
The western 1/2 of the canopy is comprised of 2 suckers
with included bark. The canopy should be thinned to reduce
the sail (affect of the wind pushing against the tree} .
There are 3 small pruning wounds at the base of the tree.
Tree �8 '
DBH 15 .4"
Height 20 '
Spread 25 'x25 '
I,eaf Color Fair
Canopy Density 75$+ �
vigor Fair
Condition Good
There is an old wound at the base which has closed.
Tree �9
Dgg • 10.5^, 10 .8",13"
Height 20 '
Spread 18"x28"
. Leaf Color Poor
Canopy Density 60�
vigor •Poor
Condition Po.or ,
This tree has 3 trunks. There are many dead branches and
br�nch tips throughout the canopy- The trunks are, covered.
, with suckers . ' • •
This �ree is stinggling. It is in poor •condition and would
not respond well to the effects of construction. It could
be removed_
,
• ,
Tree m10
Dgg 14 .4",14 .5"
Height 25 '+
Spread 24 'x30 '
Leaf Color Good
Canopy Density 75�
vigor Good
Condition Good
This tree has 2 trunks . There are small areas on both
trunks which are weeping. �
Tree ;11
DBH 11,•
Height � 20 ' ,
Spread 15 'x20 '
Leaf Color Good
Canopy Density 80� �
vigor Good ,
Condition Good �
This tree is leaning at approximately a5°. There are several .
suckers on the stump and trunk. . '
Tree �12 .
DBH 4 _35",4 .9",5 .8", 6" .
Height 10 '
Spread 10 'x12'
Leaf Color Good �
Canopy Density 100�
Vigor Good
Condition Good
This tree is comprised of several suckers arising off the
stump. The tree was probably cut back several times during
weed abatement. �
� , .
, •
' ATTACHMENT2
ARC Notes
November 1, 2004
o Are there requirements for maximum irrigated landscape areas?
Not yet.
• Is there an increased backyard setback near existing neighborhoods?
It's 95'. Since each plan has to come to ARC, there's appropriate
oversight.
• What if the City doesn't acquire East Cherry for the road extension?
The existing dirt road is owned by about 17 people, most of whom live
there, but some are no longer alive. Applicants don't have control over
it, and this needs fo be discussed at Council level to decide whether to
approve if with a certain amount of time to purchase and improve or
after a certain amount of time to condemn if.
• Driveways could be located in pairs to maximize on-street parking.
• Jamie Ohler expressed concern with excessive on-street parking in the
Village and requested additional guest parking, especiaily in the
center. Discussion was held over changing some area of the park to
parking, but consensus was to keep the open space. CC&R's should '
contain wording about keeping garage open for owners to park there '
and not on the street. Also, speed limit signs should be posted in this
area. He's not worried about the architecture, though.
o Within each quarter (of 3 houses) of the center section there
should be architectural variety. Larger lots should be mixed up.
They can do a lot with exterior materials, color, and siding. Go
easy on pink paint. (Jon Knight said of fhree, one will be stucco,
one vertical siding, and one horizontal siding).
• ARC requested continuing this item to the December meeting in order
to spend more time on discussion.
G. PRE-APPLICATION PRE 04-018; APPLICANT — Gary White;
REPRESENTATIVE - Robert Tuttle, Architect; LOCATION — Northeast
corner of Camino Mercado and West Branch Street
This project was presented by Community Development Director, Rob Strong.
There is an approved office project on this site, but there was a secondary
access problem and difficulty with onsite oak trees. IYs now being presented .
• as a Hampton Inn and Suites. The site is sloping, but prominent from the
' freeway, (so any building will be very prominent). Submitted elevations
exaggerate the worst-case scenario. Four-story buildings are permitted under
the previous. PD zoning, but now there's a 35' height limit. This plan
measures 50' (not an average, due to slopes). What would ARC support if
this was a 35' building on top of 15' slope bank? There are concerns about
adequacy of parking and room numbers for the site to be developed. �Also, "
applicants are trying to accommodate a restaurant, and will need 130 parking
spaces. The advantage of this site plan is that it saves 7 oaks. There are 2
in poor health in the footprint of the hotel and 2 worthy of moving, plus one irp
the driveway configuratibn, with ample opportunities for them to be moved.
One eucalyptus could be eliminated, and some Monterey Cypress probably
� . .
ARC Notes Page 12
November 1, 2004
will be eliminated. Overail, the site is sioping and the idea of widening the
street and putting in a driveway made a very "hardscaped" freeway
appearance. If applicant can get plantings on the street side and by Levitz, it
can soften the look. The Fire Chief can accept the parking configuration.
(The first site plan had a front circular driveway, but deficient parking and
would be hard to save the oaks). The best cluster of trees are right in front of
the building.
Gary White helped present the project. He said he'll do whatever is best for
the City. If they don't approve this, he can still do the office complex, but
economically, it has to make sense. Hampton Inns wants it to look and feel
like their product. They're joint-venturing with them on the project, if they go
forward. It seems to be better all the way around as far as long-term return to
put a hotel there, but he understands there are City requirements.
The ARC had the following comments and questions:
• On the Branch Street frontage, what is the height of the wall? Grade is
about 15; and it's about 40' to the plateline (cars won't be ab/e fo see
the roo�.
• Is it very visible from EI Camino Real? Yes. The freestanding
restauranf gives it a better sca/e, and oaks filfer fhe hotel view. From
southbound 109, it will be more prominent.
• ARC likes the idea of a hotel in this location. As far as land use, they
would rather see a hotel than an office complex. They understand it's
a difficult site.
0 100 units is the smallest that Hampton lnns would go.
o Mr. Strong suggested they could step the building back into the
slope, but there are plane problems and might be leakage. He's
been working with the architect and thinks it could be built to
look like 3 stories, stepping back at the upper level.
• Adding balconies would add more interest. Maybe each floor could be
stepped back a little bit. It needs more detailing. They don't want it to
resemble the one in Paso Robles.
o Mr. Strong noted the mechanical drawing doesn't render as well
. as an architectural version, as floor lines wouldn't read through.
• The more embellishment done, the more footprints are a►tered
and the less likely the City is to attract�it.
• ARC doesn't want a 40' high "monolith". Something has to be done to
make if less massive. They wouldn't rule out a 4-story building if it
could be designed to soften the appearance.
• Is this a cookie cutter design? No, iYs been designed fo fit the sife, but
also has fo meet fheir criteria, like standard room dimensions. They �
have been flexible about a round drive, L shape building, laundry and
basement rooms.
,,
ARC Notes Page 13
November 1, 2004
o Mr. Strong suggested a PD, Design Overlay or other zoning
could be achieved on this site fo� economic development
incentives.
• The location fits with freeway access. There are probably enough
offices on that side of the freeway. ARC would like a more pleasing
look, with roof elements, decks, landscaping, etc.
• ARC would like architects to return with updated design and model.
Color will be key. They could go to a high quality roof treatment and
corbels. This looks like a flat plane with a bunch of windows.
• Chuck Feliows thought that iYs a sellout for TOT and too massive. He
agrees with the 35' height limit. Here iYs almost immediately going
50% higher. Maybe they can come back with something that doesn't
look so massive.
No action was taken on this item, as it was a Pre-Appl'ication only.
11. DISCUSSION ITEM:
1. PLOT PLAN REVIEW 04-011; APPLICANT — Roots; REPRESENTATIVE -
Madeline Ann Ramey; LOCATION — Next door to The Wardrobe (Branch St.) ,
This project was presented by Jim Bergman. Although Community Development
had previously given approval for this Plot Plan Review, the owners were doing
additional "new" changes that need to be reviewed by ARC. The applicant has
moved the existing, iron gate forward, and changed it to swing inward (not over
the sidewalk). They tried installing a ramp, but it wouldn't work for ADA
standards, so they propose three concrete steps with ADA railings (as required
by the Building Department). The applicant proposes an awning (same color as
The Wardrobe) in front, connected to the gate. (She has already ordered the
fabric for the awning.)
Madeline Ann Ramey was present for discussion. At this point, she just wants to
open and has already been waiting a couple months. She suggested a spot on
the gate for a tile sign embedded in black metal to match the bars (instead of an
awning). �
•� 'The ARC had the following comments and questions:,
• Will the background color.of the tile sign be white? Ms. Ramey preferred
black and gre�n, since the bars are already black. They do have corrosion,
so she wanfs to get rust off and.repainf.
• What is being sold? Nursery plants, cut flowers, potted plants, etc.
• After some discussion on the gate paint color, ARC preferred off white or
beige, instead of black or another dark color.
. On the awning, where will it be mouhted and what is the height? /t has fo
have 8'clearance for fhe gate, which is over 6: .
o How will the awning be mounted? Mefal L frames will mount it onto the
� o/d Bank of America and the gate. -
� ,
MINUTES PAGE 9
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 16, 2004
AYES: Commissioners Arnold, Brown, Fowler, Keen and Chair Guthrie
NOES: None
ABSENT: None.
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16'" day of November 2004.
IV. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 04-018; APPLICANT — GARY WHITE;
LOCATION — 1400 W. BRANCH ST.
Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster presented the staff report for consideration of a pre-application
review for a 106-room Hampton Inn and 6,000 square-foot restaurant. He stated that the site
has been previously approved for an office complex. IYs 2.17 acres. The project has been
revised a couple times already, and is in revision again, including: a parking lot remodel to
maintain more oak trees, and a redesign from five to four (or even three) stories in height. He
requested Planning Commission to consider a floating Planned Development (PD) zone, in
order to implement the City's Economic Development strategy.
Commissioner Brown asked where the restaurant was. Mr. Foster replied iYs not depicted on
the plans, but pointed to where it would be. Commissioner Brown also asked about traffic flows
compared to the previously approved (office) use. Mr. Devens replied that with the Camino
Mercado senior project, they had planned for a new signal, and the off-ramps and turning lanes
could change significantiy. They might even need to go back to Cal Trans and start over. Due
to the elimination of driveways off 1Nest Branch, it may alter the direction of traffic. For a time
frame, this signal plan was started over one and a half years ago.
. Chair Guthrie asked the square footage of the original office project. He also mentioned that at
the last meeting, the Fire Chief wouldn't approve two driveways so close together, and wanted
them on different streets, so he wondeced why it would be approved here. Mc Foster replied
that at SAC, Chief Fibich wasn't there, but the representative from Building and Fire was more ,
concerned with the height of the building and access to top stories with the ladder truck. '
Chair Guthrie opened the item for public comment.
Steve Cool, applicant, stated they are working with American Property Management
Corporation (APMC). This plan is being proposed as a Hampton Inn, and Hampton has their
own architects, so they don't have much control over whaYs being done architecturally. He
belieJ�s it is actually 2.65 acres with the restaurant siEe. As far as Fire Department approval, he ,
thoughE there's been discussion, and that the driveways are far enough apart to satisfy Chief ',
Fibich. . '
Keen • '
• On plans, there was no indication of the elevation in relation to the back property. The
top of the office building was not much higher than their parking lot, but this is 75' tall.
He would like some indication how it relates to that property behindl He understands
they're trying to reduce the height and would not have approved it at five stories (75').
Mr. Cool added that although they're trying fo reduce the height, in order to make it
financially feasible they need at least 100 rooms.
Arnold. _
;
,
MINUTES PAGE 10
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 16, 2004
• He noticed in the ARC notes, they're not willing to go to a single aisle on any of the
rooms. If they would do a U-shaped hotel, they couid use part of the hotel as a retaining
walL
. He would consider transplanting the oaks or cutting them down, instead of working
around them, as they could end up with a hod,gepodge of buildings.
• The best way to build this is to cut into the hill.
. Fie agreed this is a difficult site, but the plans don't feel anything like Arroyo Grande. He
wants to encourage a hotel, but this looks like a monstrosity as initiaily designed. He
would like a more pleasing design — Spanish or Craftsman. He is not looking for a low-
end hotel, but something at more of a mid point. Mr. Cooi replied that Hampton Inn has
two styles - one is stark modern and the other is more Mediterranean. He will carry
message back to the architect.
Fowler
. She supports hotels, but this is too massive and needs major.changes. It needs to be
softer.
• It's a wonderful location.
• Traffic will be an issue.
Brown
• Is it a corporate requirement of Hampton Inn to have a restaurant? Mr. Cool answered
that it was their suggestion. They like to have restaurants adjacent to the hotels, but not
own the restaurants, themselves. That portion will need to be split off, and Mr. White
and Mr. Cool wiii retain ownership of the land. Commissioner Brown suggested traffic
issues would be different without a restaurent.
. He asked about a grading map. Mr. Cool replied they're actually working on a model.
• He's dismayed by Arnold's comments and doesn't share opinion on oak trees.
. His two big problems are traffic and mass
Guthrie
• He recognized size is an issue for Hampton Inn. They would be a great operator.
• Maybe they could phase the project, as far as traffic. He's concerned that it will set back
the intersection signal two more years. Can they produce signal without grading being
done — was it required when an office project? Mr. Devens answered that was with a
driveway o.ff West Branch. With site plans now presented (no driveway off W. Branch),
there's no need for a deceleration lane. His concern is fhat if the driveway configuration
is altered so all the traffic is on Camino Mercado, it may alter how lanes are laid out for ,
traffic from the freeway to access this site. Cal Trans wouid need that information to
• possibiy reconfigure the signal. One issue is the request that Camino Mercado parking
' •be eliminated and a center turn lane added. This may shift where you have a through
lane that would line up with the left-turn pocket off of Camino Mercado.
• What is sf of office project? 24,500 sf of useable space.
Mr. Devens commented that considering this was previously approved and anticipated for an
o�ce/commercial use, a hotel may put different constraints on the City's system in terms of
water and sewer. '
Gary White, applicant, requested feedback on Cal Trans traffic issues: Mr. Devens replied that
lane configuration needs to be looked at further before construction. Mr. White added that he's
been told a hotel decreases traffic during peak hours, since check-in isn't until 3 and people
don't arrive until 5, and check-out in the morning. A tra�c study would have to be done; but he
,
MINUTES PAGE 11
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 16, 2004
believes it should decrease tra�c. In regards to architectural details, it is a large building and a
difficult site with the topography and oak trees. He feels a hotei is better than an office, but
Hampton has a pian they need to follow and aren't very flexible. The next set of plans should
give a better feel for what it will look like. He's hoping it will lean toward Mediterranean, as
much as Hampton Inns will allow. He would loye to see a hotel there, so he.will do what he can
to soften the look and get it to fit. To get 100 rooms, iYs impossible to make it look quaint.
There are benefits to the City, too, and with Hampton Inn going in other cities, it would be a
shame to miss out on the benefit. They do have a time frame to work in and if it took Caltrans
two years to reconfigure, they would sell the office project.
Commissiori took a five minute break from 8:20 pm. to 8:25 p.m.
Hearing no further pubiic comment Chair Guthrie closed the item to public comment.
Commission Comments:
Keen:
• Traffic will probably move smoother than with the office project, since this will be so
convenient to the off-ramp. Traffic shouldn't be a big problem here.
• As far as the height, iYs too massive.
• He would reaily like to see a hotel on this property
Arnold:
• To clarify his position on oak trees and grading, iYs important they don't do this project
half way. A national chain could.be important to the City. Growth will come from either
new homes or tourism, and more likely it will be from tourism. If the quality of the project
would be better, he supports mitigating the loss of oak trees. It does need to be
architecturally appropriate, attractive and a quality chain. It's in the hotel's best interest
to keep landscaping looking top notch.
• A model is very appropriate with the. adjacent properties, or maybe they could do a
realistic computer rendering.
No action taken on this item, as it was a pre-application only.
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: '
1. Letter from S&S Homes dated November 15, 2004 regarding SPA 03-001
Mc Foster requested clarification from Planning Commission on continuance of this item. '
The applicant wants to move along with the SPA, but Mr. Foster understood they wanted
�.the results of the appraisal in before reviewing again. Commissioners Arnold, Brown.
and Guthrie agreed they wanted to wait for the appraisal before reviewing it again.
(Commissioner Fowler wasn't at that meeting.) . �
2. In£II Development in Arroyo Grande survey by Cal Poly student, Michael Profant
This survey was emailed td aIl the commissioners, and Ms. Heffernon requested they .
respond directly by email to Mr. Profant. Commissioner Keen attended the presentation
on infili done by this student at Cal Poly and feeis the surveys are a little premature, and
that staff should send them additionai information. For instance, they're a little behind on
the new mixed use (MU) districts along Grend Avenue. They don't mention MU in any of
the survey. In regards to question of height, maximum and minimum lot sizes, a lot of
these questions were already addressed in the rezoning. ,
, ,
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
DECEMBER 14, 2004
PAGE7
There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed.
9.d. Consideration of an Interim Urgency Ordinance Extending the Moretorium on
Medical Marijuana Dispensaries.
Chief of Police TerBorch presented the staff report and recommended the Council adopt an
Interim Urgency Ordinance to extend for ten (10) months and fifteen (15) days, or until repealed,
the moratorium on medicai marijuana dispensaries.
, Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing, and upon hearing no public comments, he closed the
public hearing.
Council comments included support for approving the Interim Urgency Ordinance to extend the
moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries in order to ailow staff time to research the issue.
Council Member Dickens moved to adopt an Ordinance as follows: "An Interim Urgency
Ordinance of the City of Arroyo Grande Extending the Moratorium on Medical Marijuana
Dispensaries". Council Member Guthrie seconded the motion, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Dickens, Guthrie,Amold, Costello, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES,the motion is hereby declared to be passed. '
10. CONTINUED BWSINESS
None.
11. NEW BUSINESS
11.a. Consideration of Pre-Application 04018, Hampton Inn and Suites;Appiicant—Gary
White; Location—1400 W. Branch Street.
Community Development Director Strong presented the staff report and recommended the
Council �eview and comment on a proposed preliminary Hampton .Inn and Suites, 107-room
hatel and 6,000 sq. ft. restaurant development design to be located on the northwest corner of
Camino Mercado and West Branch Streets. He noted that the�prqiect's representatives, Robert
Tuttle, Steve Cool, and Gary White,were present and would make a brief presentation. �
Steve Cool, proposed developer of the site, commented that it had been determined that the I'
previous approval to construct an office complex at this location was not financiaily feasible. He
commented that following discussions with staff concerning the development of a hotel at this
site, they entered into discussions with American Properties Management Corporation. He
introduced Bob Tuttle, an architect representing American Properties Management Corporation.
Bob Tuttle gave an overview of the proposed 107-room Hampton Inn and Suites projecf,
including average daily room rate ($93), average. occupancy rate (70%), projected annual
revenues ($2.5 miliion) and esGmated annual Transient -Occupancy Tax (f0'n revenue
, ($250,000-260,000 in the first year of operation). He acknowledged the topography constraints
�
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
DECEMBER 14, 2004
PAGE 8
on the site (oak trees, slopes), and displayed a proposed rendering of the hotel project, which
would include a restaurant component. He explained that there would be two separate parcels
and the restaurant would occupy one parcel and be under separate ownership. He commented
on traffic issues and acknowledged there would be a difference between o�ce use and hotel use
for peak hour traffic. He stated that a hotel use would have reduced traffic during peak hours.
Council questions and discussion ensued concerning the street slope on Camino Mercado;
whether there wouid be any retaining wall placed along W. Branch Street (the applicant indicated
no, it would ail be landscaped);whether or not there would be a conference room included in the
hotel and what the occupancy would be (the applicant indicated there would be 1,200 square
foot of ineeting space available that could be made up of multiple room sizes); what the size of
the restaurant pad would be and what kind of restaurant was anticipated (the applicant indicated
that it would be a medium to large sized restaurant of approximately 6,000 square feet and
would be an upper scale restaurant); clarification concerning estimated TOT revenue;
clarificatiori concerning the distance from West Branch Street to where the building wouid begin;
what the estimated hotel rates would be; and discussion concerning the design of the building
and the restaurant.
Mayor Ferrara invited public comments on this item. No public comments were received.
Council Member Arnold stated he was a proponent of a hotel on this site; however, he expressed
concerns about the proposed size of the hotel. He commented that he had conducted an
informal survey of Hampton Inns on the Internet and determined that there was no standard
design theme or size for Hampton Inns throughout the State. He commented that this would
allow opportunities to amend the design to suit this particular site. He commented that this was a
prominent corner in the City and he would be supportive of a hotel here; however, it will require
an architectural design that wiil mitigate the size such as a treliis used more extensively on the
lower level, and faux balconies on some of the higher level rooms to break up the mass of the
building. He also expressed concerns about the water and sewer use at a hotei and the potential
impacts,which will need to be reviewed.
Council Member Costello also supported a hotel at this location. He stated that he would like to
see a model of the proposed project; expressed concerns about the fourth story at the back of
the project; and stated that size, mass, and scale will be critical review factors. He said that the
traffic, water, and sewer issues would come up and need to be analyzed and solved before
'moving forward: He referred to the slope of Camino Mercado and said this impact would have to
be reviewed carefully as it relates to the project. _
Council Member Dickens supported the idea of a hotel establishment at this site; however, he
stated that as this project comes forward, he would be looking at potential sewer deficiencies
and traffc impacts. He said he would like to see a 3D model come forth to depict the hotel's
orientation in relation to the adjacent properties and their existing buildings. He commented on.
the proposed height of the building on the W. Branch Street side and felt it was too intrusive. He
• preferred two stories, as the proposed height will be out of scale with the surrounding buildings.
He suggested reconfiguring the hotel around the pool and perhaps a reduction in the number of
rooms. He supported the concept of a restaurant; however, it is a secondary use and it was not
� necessary that the restaurant be 6,000 square feet. He suggested a reconfiguration of the
restaurant. He commented that he was not a big proponent of tile roofing. He favored stepping
back terraces to add dimension and reduce the mass.
' �
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
DECEMBER 14, 2004
PAGE9
Council Member Guthrie expressed concerns about the proposed mass of the building and
suggested reducing the number of stories and/or reducing the number of rooms and moving the
hotel away from W. Branch Street. He referred to the adjacent Mid State Bank buildings that are
only two stories. He felt there were too many units for the size of the Iot; suggested building the
hotel without the restaurant; commented on the traffic issue; expressed concerns about the .
parking issue, particulariy if there is a successful adjacent restaurant which could impact the
number of available hotel parking spaces; commented that water and sewer issues will have to
be studied; and concluded by stating that although there were many issues, the hotei project was
desirable and worth pursuing.
Mayor Ferrara referred to the architectural rendering and supported the idea of a three-
dimensional model. He referred to the design of the building and suggested it be less vertical
and more horizontal due to the challenging topography of the site and to put this project in scale.
He supported fie idea of a restaurant on the site and commented that the City desperately
needs a lodging/conference facility. He commented on the various architectural styles available
and stated he tended to favor Mediterranean. He encouraged adding dimension through the use
of various architectural materials and features. He acknowledged the environmental, circulation,
water, and sewer issues that will need to be reviewed, studied, and mitigated. He concluded by
stating that the scale of the project and it's accompanying intensity of use were the two key
issues.
Council Member Costello suggested consideration of multi-level parking.
Upon conclusion of Councii comments, Mayor Ferrara ensured that the applicant had received
sufficient feedback and direction with regard to the proposed project.
There was no formal action on this item.
Mayor Ferrara called for a break at 9:43 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:47 p.m.
11.b. Consideration of Selection of Council Member Costello as Mayor Pro Tem.
Ciry Manager Adams presented the staff report and recommended the Councii appoint Council
Member Costelb as the Mayor Pro Tem for the next one-year period.
�Mayor Ferrara invited public comments on this item. No public comments were received.
There was brief discussion about modifying the existing policy for selecting the Mayor Pro Tem,
which would be bas2d•on time served on City commissions and committees when rivo members
have the same tenure on the City Council. City Manager Adams said he wouid bring this issue
back to the Council on a future agenda for consideration.
Council Member Amold moved to appoint Council Member Costello as the Mayor Pro Tem for
the next one-year period. Council Member Dickens seconded the motion, and on the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Amold, Dickens, Guthrie, Costello, Ferrara
NOES: None • -
, ABSENT: None �
, I
� ARC Notes ATTACHMENT 3
. February 7, 2005
F. ADMINISTRATIVE SIGN PERMIT 05-006; APPLICANT — Fitness 19;
REPRESENTATIVE — Sign A Rama; LOCATION — 906 Rancho Parkway.
The oject was presented by Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman. Fitness 19
has ha temporary banner for the last eight months. The proposed sign is
made of i 'vidual channel letters, similar to other nearby signs. One area of
discretion fo e ARC to decide is if the circle area (around the number 19) is
inciuded in the " rop caps" height restriction of the sign code. This is their
logo, so if the A decides that area is included, the applicant would most
likely reduce the en ' e sign proportionately. (No representative present for
this item.)
ARC had the following com ts and questions:
• This is an interpretative ' n issue, Which ARC has met with in the Five
Cities Center before.
• The circle is part of the sign, also part of the message.
• • The sign seems dominant at th location, so the applicant could be
requested to scale down the sign. Office Max is allowed to have a
larger sign, as they are a designated chor' store.)
o Mr. Bergman noted they have a e frontage, and sign size is
supposed to be proportional in amo to rent space.
• This is one of last signs to go on at center, nd iYs not visible from
Branch Street.
• The numbers (19) fall within the size limits, iYs ju the circle that may
be excessive.
• After further discussion, ARC agreed that the circle hould not be
included in the drop cap size limitations.
A motion was made by Gary Scherquist and seconded by Kristen B eich to
recommend approvai to the Planning Commission of ASP 05-006. otion
approved: 4/0 voice vote.
G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04-009; APPLICANT — Gary White;
• REPRESENTATIVE — Robert Tuttle,. Architect; LOCATION — Corner of
' Camino Mercado and West Branch
The project was presented by Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman. This is a
proposai for a 104-room Hampton inn and Suites. It was previously
presented as a pre-application, and the applicants have returned with a model
• for further discussion on height, mass and site planning. (The project will be
revisited at future meetings to discuss details such as color and materials.)
' Robert Tuttle, architect, discussed their changes from four stories to three,
with a basement on the West side below grade. The Hampton Inn roofline
. will be lower than the wall separating the Premier_Inn. He prepared sketches .
, � • ,
-
�
' ARC Notes
Page 9
February 7, 2005
by taking photos and generating computer models over them to make it very
close to actual in terms of scale.
ARC had the following comments and questions:
Mass:
. Levitz seems very large, and this seems that much bigger. Although
one could make the case this is overbuilding a site, the scale is
�p r understandably needed to make it economicaily feasible.
. They've done a much better job of vertical articulation and now need
some horizontal articulation. For horizontal articulation, there will be
some low rooflines and trellis along the wesf facade. Also, fhe
exposed timbers and low roof should soften the end of the building that
opens onto the pool area.
o Are they articulating plate lines between floors? They didn't
intend fo - their plan was for a base definition wifh some
intermediates.
o Mr. Strong suggested ground level terraces off Branch with
landscaping and a short retaining wall to give more definition.
o If the trellis projects from the hotel to the front of the restaurant,
it would pull the two buildings together.
o Pedestrian scaled detaiis at the base will help visuai impacts.
o Patios could be added to the base units to take away the impact
of three stories.
o Upper floors could be set back to make the fa�ade more visually
inviting. At the same time, it was understood that pushing the
entire building back from Branch could create other problems
with a ripple affect across the site. There are certain tradeoffs
due to the challenging topography of the site.
o Why does the model show some windows as openings and
some with solid planes? Some will be inset and the resf are just
typical window treatments. Hampton has a sfandard window
treafinent fhat fits in as one component (ac and heating). In
suites, some units have them and others don't, but regular
rooms all have grills beneath the windows.
. ■ There wasn't consensus on faux windows versus plain
. windows without railings.
o Would true balconies heip with articul�tion? Thaf would push
the project out closer to the streef. Also, Hampton doesn't use
real balconies on fheir hofels (for insurance and safety reasons).
� ■ For this location, balconies and decks would probably be
noisy and windy.
• Have colors been decided on? No, fhey're open to recommendafion.
o Darker colots reduce perceptions of the massing.
o A dark color could be applied further up than tFie first story.
o The color could be a darker shade than the artist's rende�ing.
' � . '
� ARC Notes Page 10
February 7, 2005
• ARC requested high quality roofing, as it's the dominant element of the
building. What materials are proposed? With the colonial Spanish
look, they would probably use barrel tiles with a smooth wall finish and
. spare details like wrought iron railings.
Site Planninq:
• Are the Branch Street setbacks the same? There's a 20' setback to
the hotel and 24'to fhe restaurant.
o Is additional setback necessary for potential future street
widening? Mr. Strong answered that the probability of street
widening is minimal, because it would wipe out Levitz and
require a retaining wall to support the building.
• What about double-deck parking? This is not an option for financial
reasons (requiring basement, retaining walls, etc.)
• Can the oak trees be preserved? Instead of. fhe traditional porte-
cochere, fhey plan to preserve three large oak trees fo use as a
canopy near the enfrance. They're also preserving a tree in the
parking lot. They will work to preserve most oaks in designing the site
plan, but some may need to be removed. IYs hard to move fhe frees
and have them survive.
o ARC noted that any project will impact the oaks and for a project
of this size and magnitude, they have done a remarkable job.
• Will the architect be the same for both hotel and restaurant? It should
be visually compatible, as it pulls out the horizontality and ARC would
like to see design continuity.
o Sfeve Cool, Gary White and his sisfer will retain ownership of
. the restaurant parcel, along with the hotel developer. They
expect to design it in harmony with the hotel.
Other:
• ARC liked the addition of a nice restaurant in the City. Wili the hotel
and restaurant have 4he same owner? No, the resfaurant will be
leased, as Hampton does nof typically have full service restaurants.
Architecturally, fhey plan for the hotel to look more dominanf than the
. restaurant.
• ARC liked the rear tower, in that it .gives a focal point of identity.
• Centered over the main enfrance/lobby, it becomes as much of a sign
' as not having a sign on the tower. However, the front rectangular
tower seemed like a "visual stopping point". 'Will there be signs placed
on the.towers? No, it doesn't warrant it. They have other designated
areas forsignage.
• This is an ideal location for a hotel, especially with the visibility from the
freeway. ARC would like to see this project happen.
A motion was made by Chair Hoag �and seconded by Kristen Bameich to
recommend approval of massing, scale, and site planning only for CUP 04-
009 to the Planning Commission. Motion approved: 4/0 voice vote.
'� .
_ �
. ARC Notes Page 11
February 7, 2005
ARC requested fhe applicant to return for review of colors, materials, other
details, and the landscaping plan. Their detailed suggestions include:
1. More%nhanced horizonfal articulafion on the Branch Street side
fagade, including trellis and terraces,
2. Continue fhe design theme to the restaurant and require that it be
architecturally compatible to the hofel,
3. Consider possible redesign for the front tower- to be /ess rectangular,
more similar fo other roof pitches, and better infegrated with the full
design of the building,
4. Based upon the traffic study, consider opening the lower parking lot to
an exit,
5. Consider alternative conceptual studies of stepped back upper floors
from the front (or fhe entire building, buf they're willing fo accept
current massing with appropriate horizontal articulation),
6. Study the possibility of transplanting oak trees or replacing them with
specimen size frees in appropriate locations,
7. Consider more tan and adobe colors than white and pinkish colors
(perhaps a tone or fwo darker fhan the Branch Street perspective
drawing, and not as dark or pinkish as the chocolate brown Paso
� Rob/es Hampfon Inn),
8. Use high qualify mission bar�el roofing or s-clay tiles for the roof.
11. DISCUSSION ITEM:
1 . Demolition at 135 WhiteleY
his report was strictl for the demolition of the house. ce Brothers
p ose to demo the single story, non-historically signifi house. (Later,
they ill return to ARC with plans to build thre ouses on the three
underl lots). There is one historically signific element on the property
(part of t PC Railway wall), but they have ntent to modify that.
ARC conse s wa§ they had no probie with it. No formal motion was
necessary on 's item.
2. Election:
' •Warren Hoag move nd chael Peachey seconded nomination of Amy
Miltenberger for Vice C . Motion approved: 4/0 voice vote.
Gary Scherquist ' ved and ' hael Peachey seconded nomination of
Warren Hoag Chair. Motion proved: 4/0 voice vote.
III. ADJOU MENT: The meeting was a rned at 6:30 P.M. to the next regular
mee ' g of Monday, March 7, 2005, at . P.M. It was noted that Kristen
B eich, Rob Strong and Jim Bergman will b t of town that day.
ARC Notes ATTACHMENT 2
November 1, 2004
o Are there requirements for maximum irrigated landscape areas?
Not yet.
• Is there an increased backyard setback near existing neighborhoods?
IYs 15'. Since each plan has to come to ARC, there's appropriate
oversight.
. What if the City doesn't acquire East Cherry for the road extension?
The existing dirt road is owned by about 17 people, most of whom live
there, but some are no longer alive. Applicants don't have control over
it, and this needs to be discussed at Council level to decide whether to
approve it with a certain amount of time to purchase and improve or
after a certain amount of time to condemn it.
• Driveways could be located in pairs to maximize on-street parking.
. Jamie Ohler expressed concern with excessive on-street parking in the
Village and requested additional guest parking, especially in the
center. Discussion was held over changing some area of the park to
parking, but consensus was to keep the open space. CC&R's should
contain wording about keeping garage open for owners to park there
and not on the street. Also, speed limit signs should be posted in this
area. He's not worried about the architecture, though.
o Within each quarter (of 3 houses) of the center section there
should be architectural variety. Larger lots should be mixed up.
They can do a lot with exterior materials, color, and siding. Go
easy on pink paint. (Jon Knight said of three, one will be stucco,
one ve�tical siding, and one horizontal siding).
• ARC requested continuing this item to the December meeting in order
to spend more time on discussion.
G. PRE-APPLICATION PRE 04-018; APPLICANT — Gary White;
REPRESENTATIVE — Robert Tuttle, Architect; LOCATfON — Northeast
corner of Camino Mercado and West Branch Street
This project was presented by Community Development Director, Rob Strong.
There is an approved office project on this site, but there was a secondary
access problem and di�culty with onsite oak trees. IYs now being presented
as a Hampton Inn and Suites. The site is sloping, but prominent from the
� freeway, (so any building will be very prominent). Submitted elevations
exaggerate the worst-case scenario. Four-story buildings are permitted under
the previous PD zoning, but now there's a 35' height limit. This plan
measures 50' (not an average, due to slopes). What would ARC support if
this was a 35' building on top of 15' slope bank? There are concerns about
adequacy of parking and room numbers for the site to be developed. Also,
applicants are trying to accommodate a restaurant, and will need 130 parking
spaces. The advantage of this site plan is that it saves 7 oaks. There are 2
in poor health in the footprint of the hotel and 2 worthy of moving, plus one in
the driveway configuration, with ample opportunities for them to be moved.
One eucalyptus could be eliminated, and some Monterey Cypress probably
_
_ �
ARC Notes Page 12
November 1, 2004
will be eliminated. Overall, the site is sloping and the idea of widening the
street and putting in a driveway made a very "hardscaped" freeway
appearance. If applicant can get plantings on the street side and by Levitz, it
can soften the look. The Fire Chief can accept the parking configuration.
(The first site plan had a front circular driveway, but deficient parking and
would be hard to save the oaks). The best cluster of trees are right in front of
the building.
Gary White helped present the project. He said he'll do whatever is best for
the City. If they don't approve this, he can still do the office complex, but
economically, it has to make sense. Hampton Inns wants it to look and feel
like their product. They're joint-venturing with them on the project, if they go
forvvard. It seems to be better all the way around as far as long-term return to
put a hotel there, but he understands there are City requirements.
The ARC had the following comments and questions:
• On the Branch Street frontage, what is the height of the wall? Grade is
about 15; and iYs about 40' to the plateline (cars wonY be able to see
the roo fl.
. Is it very visible from EI Camino Real? Yes. The freesfanding
restaurant gives it a better scale, and oaks filter the hotel view. From
southbound 101, it will be more prominent.
• ARC likes the idea of a hotel in this location. As far as land use, they
would rather see a hotel than an office complex. They understand it's
a difficult site.
0 100 units is the smallest that Hampton Inns would go.
o Mr. Strong suggested they could step the building back into the
slope, but there are plane problems and might be leakage. He's
been working with the architect and thinks it could be built to
look like 3 stories, stepping back at the upper level.
• Adding balconies would add more interest. Maybe each floor could be
stepped back a little bit. It needs more detailing. They don't want it to
resemble the one in Paso Robles.
o Mr. Strong noted the mechanical drawing doesn't render as well
as an architectural version, as floor lines wouldn't read through.
• The more embellishment done, the more footprints are altered
and the less likely the City is to attract it.
. ARC doesn't want a 40' high "monolith". Something has to be done to
make it less massive. They wouldn't rule out a 4-story building if it
could be designed to soften the appearance.
. Is this a cookie cutter design? No, iYs been designed to fit the site, but
also has fo meet their criteria, like standard room dimensions. They
have 6een flexible abouf a round drive, L shape building, laundry and
basement rooms.
�
ARC Notes Page 13
November 1, 2004
o Mr. Strong suggested a PD, Design Overlay or other zoning
could be achieved on this site for economic development
incentives.
• The location fits with freeway access. There are probably enough
offices on that side of the freeway. ARC would like a more pleasing
look, with roof elements, decks, landscaping, etc.
• ARC would like architects to return with updated design and model.
Color will be key. They could go to a high quality roof treatment and
corbels. This looks like a flat plane with a bunch of windows.
• Chuck Fellows thought that iYs a sellout for TOT and.too massive. He
agrees with the 35' height limit. Here iYs almost immediately going
50% higher. Maybe they can come back with something that doesn't
look so massive.
No action was taken on this item, as it was a Pre-Application only.
11. DISCUSSION ITEM:
1. PLOT PLAN REVIEW 04-011; APPLICANT — Roots; REPRESENTATIVE -
Madeline Ann Ramey; LOCATION — Next door to The Wardrobe (Branch St.)
This project was presented by Jim Bergman. Although Community Development
had previously given approval for this Plot Plan Review, the owners were doing
additional "new" changes that need to be reviewed by ARC. The applicant has
moved the existing, iron gate forward, and changed it to swing inward (not over
the sidewalk). They tried installing a ramp, but it wouldn't work for ADA
standards, so they propose three concrete steps with ADA railings (as required
by the Building Department). The applicant proposes an awning (same color as
The Wardrobe) in front, connected to the gate. (She has already ordered the
fabric for the awning.)
Madeline Ann Ramey was present for discussion. At this point, she just wants to
open and has already been waiting a couple months. She suggested a spot on �
the gate for a tile sign embedded in black metal to match the bars (instead of an
awning).
The ARC had the following comments and questions:
. Will the background color of the tile sign be white? Ms. Ramey preferred
black and green, since fhe bars are already black. They do have corrosion,
so she wants to get rust off and repaint.
. What is being sold? Nursery plants, cut flowers, potted plants, etc.
. After some discussion on the gate paint color, ARC preferred off white or
beige, instead of black or another dark color.
• On the awning, where will it be mounted and what is the height? It has to
have 8'clearance for fhe gate, which is over 6:
o How will the awning be mounted? Metal L frames will mounf it onto the �
old Bank of America and fhe gate.
MINUTES PAGE 9
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 16, 2004
AYES: Commissioners Arnold, Brown, Fowler, Keen and Chair Guthrie
NOES: None
ABSENT: None.
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16`" day of November 2004.
IV. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 04-018; APPLICANT — GARY WHITE;
LOCATION — 1400 W. BRANCH ST.
Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster presented the staff report for consideration of a pre-application
review for a 106-room Hampton Inn and 6,000 square-foot restaurant. He stated that the site
has been previously approved for an office complex. IYs 2.17 acres. The project has been
revised a couple times already, and is in revision again, inciuding: a parking lot remodel to
maintain more oak trees, and a redesign from five to four (or even three) stories in height. He
requested Planning Commission to consider a floating Planned Development (PD) zone, in
order to implement the City's Economic Development strategy.
Commissioner Brown asked where the restaurant was. Mr. Foster replied iYs not depicted on
the pians, but pointed to where it would be. Commissioner Brown also asked about traffic flows
compared to the previously approved (o�ce) use. Mr. Devens replied that with the Camino
Mercado senior project, they had planned for a new signal, and the off-ramps and tuming lanes
couid change significantly. They might even need to go back to Cal Trans and start over. Due
to the elimination of driveways off West Branch, it may alter the direction of traffia For a time
frame, this signal plan was started over one and a half years ago.
Chair Guthrie asked the square footage of the original office project. He also mentioned that at
the last meeting, the Fire Chief wouldn't approve two driveways so close together, and wanted
them on different streets, so he wondered why it would be approved here. Mr. Foster replied
that at SAC, Chief Fibich wasn't there, but the representative from Building and Fire was more
concerned with the height of the building and access to top stories with the ladder truck.
Chair Guthrie opened the item for public comment.
Steve Cool, applicant, stated they are working with American Property Management
Corporation (APMC). This plan is being proposed as a Hampton Inn, and Hampton has their
own architects, so they don't have much control over whaYs being done architecturally. He
believe's it is actually 2.65 acres with the restaurant site. As far as Fire Department approval, he
thought there's been discussion, and that the driveways are far enough apart to satisfy Chief
Fibich.
Keen
• On plans, there was no indication of the elevation in relation to the back property. The
top of the office building was not much higher than their parking lot, but this is 75' tall.
He would like some indication how it relates to that property behind? He understands
they're trying to reduce the height and would not have approved it at five stories (75').
Mr. Cool added that although they're trying to reduce the height, in order to make it
financially feasible they need at least 100 rooms.
Amold.
MINUTES PAGE 10
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 16, 2004
. He noticed in the ARC notes, they're not willing to go to a single aisle on any of the
rooms. If they would do a U-shaped hotel, they couid use part of the hotel as a retaining
wall.
. He would consider transplanting the oaks or cutting them down, instead of working
around them, as they could end up with a hodgepodge of buildings.
• The best way to build this is to cut into the hili.
. He agreed this is a difficuit site, but the plans don't feel anything like Arroyo Grande. He
wants to encourage a hotel, but this looks like a monstrosity as initially designed. He
would like a more pleasing design — Spanish or Craftsman. He is not looking for a low-
end hotel, but something at more of a mid point. Mr. Cool replied that Hampton Inn has
two styles - one is stark modern and the other is more Mediterranean. He will carry
message back to the architect.
Fowler
• She supports hotels, but this is too massive and needs major changes. It needs to be
softer.
• IYs a wonderful location.
. Traffic will be an issue.
Brown
. Is it a corporate requirement of Hampton Inn to have a restaurant? Mr. Cool answered
that it was their suggestion. They like to have restaurants adjacent to the hotels, but not
own the restaurants, themselves. That portion will need to be split off, and Mr. White
and Mr. Cool will retain ownership of the land. Commissioner Brown suggested traffic ,
issues would be different without a restaurant.
. He asked about a grading map. Mr. Cool replied they're actually working on a model.
. He's dismayed by Arnold's comments and doesn't share opinion on oak trees.
. His rivo big problems are traffic and mass
Guthrie
• He recognized size is an issue for Hampton Inn. They would be a great operator.
. Maybe they could phase the project, as far as traffic. He's concerned that it will set back
the intersection signal two more years. Can they produce signal without grading being
done — was it required when an o�ce project? Mr. Devens answered that was with a
driveway off West Branch. With site plans now presented (no driveway off W. Branch),
there's no need for a deceleration lane. His concern is that if the driveway configuration
is altered so all the traffic is on Camino Mercado, it may alter how lanes are laid out for
traffic from the freeway to access this site. Cal Trans would need that information to
possibly reconfigure the signal. One issue is the request that Camino Mercado parking
be eliminated and a center turn lane added. This may shift where you have a through
lane that would line up with the left-turn pocket off of Camino Mercado.
. What is sf of office project? 24,500 sf of useable space.
Mr. Devens commented that considering this was previously approved and anticipated for an
office/commercial use, a hotel may put different constraints on the City's system in terms of
water and sewer.
Gary White, applicant, requested feedback on Cal Trans traffic issues: Mr. Devens replied that
lane configuration needs to be Iooked at further before construction. Mr. White added that he's
been told a hotel decreases traffic during peak hours, since check-in isn't until 3 and people
don't arrive until 5, and check-out in the morning. A traffic study would have to be done; but he
MINUTES PAGE 11
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 16, 2004
believes it shouid decrease traffic. In regards to architectural details, it is a large building and a
difficult site with the topography and oak trees. He feels a hotel is better than an office, but
Hampton.has a plan they need to follow and aren't very flexible. The next set of plans should
give a better feel for what it will look like. He's hoping it will lean toward Mediterranean, as
much as Hampton Inns will allow. He would love to see a hotel there, so he will do what he can
to soften the look and get it to fit. To get 100 rooms, it's impossible to make it look quaint.
There are benefits to the City, too, and with Hampton Inn going in other cities, it would be a
shame to miss out on the benefit. They do have a time frame to work in and if it took Caltrans
two years to reconfigure, they would sell the office project.
Commission took a five minute break from 8:20 pm. to 8:25 p.m.
Hearing no further public comment Chair Guthrie closed the item to public comment.
Commission Comments:
Keen:
. Traffic wili probably move smoother than with the office project, since this will be so
convenient to the off-ramp. Traffic shouldn't be a big problem here.
. As far as the height, iYs too massive.
. He would realiy like to see a hotel on this property
Arnold:
. To clarify his position on oak trees and grading, iYs important they don't do this project
half way. A national chain could be important to the City. Growth will come from either
new homes or tourism, and more likely it will be from tourism. If the quality of the project
would be better, he supports mitigating the loss of oak trees. It does need to be
architecturally appropriate, attractive and a quality chain. IYs in the hotel's best interest
to keep landscaping looking top notch.
. A model is very appropriate with the. adjacent properties, or maybe they could do a
realistic computer rendering.
No action taken on this item, as it was a pre-application only.
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. Letter from SS�S Homes dated November 15, 2004 regarding SPA 03-001
Mr. Foster requested clarification from Planning Commission on continuance of this item.
The applicant wants to move along with the SPA, but Mr. Foster understood they wanted
the results of the appraisal in before reviewing again. Commissioners Arnold, Brown
and Guthrie agreed they wanted to wait for the appraisal before reviewing it again.
(Commissioner Fowler wasn't at that meeting.) �
2. InFll Development in Arroyo Grande survey by Cal Poly student, Michaei Profant
This survey was emailed td all the commissioners, and Ms. Heffernon requested they
respond directly by email to Mr. Profant. Commissioner Keen attended the presentation
on infill done by this student at Cal Poly and feels the surveys are a little premature, and
that staff should send them additional information. For instance, they're a little behind on
the new mixed use (MU) districts along Grand Avenue. They don't mention MU in any of
the survey. In regards to question of height, maximum and minimum lot sizes, a lot of
these questions were already addressed in the rezoning.
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
DECEMBER 14, 2004
PAGE7
There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed.
9.d. Consideration of an Interim Urgency Ordinance Extending the Moratorium on
Medical Marijuana Dispensaries.
Chief of Police TerBorch presented the staff report and recommended the Council adopt an
Interim Urgency Ordinance to extend for ten (10) months and fifteen (15) days, or untii repealed,
the moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries.
Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing, and upon hearing no public comments, he closed the
public hearing.
Council comments included support for approving the Interim Urgency Ordinance to extend the
moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries in order to allow staff time to research the issue.
Council Member Dickens moved to adopt an Ordinance as follows: "An Interim Urgency
Ordinance of the City of Arroyo Grande Extending the Moratorium on Medical Marijuana
Dispensaries". Council Member Guthrie seconded the motion, and on the foliowing roll call vote:
AYES: Dickens, Guthrie,Arnold, Costello, Ferrara '
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed.
10.CONTINUED BUSINESS
None.
11. NEW BUSINESS
11.a. Consideration of Pre-Application 04018, Hampton Inn and Suites; Applicant—Gary
White; Location—1400 W. Branch Street.
Community Development Director Strong presented the staff report and recommended the
Council �eview and comment on a proposed preliminary Hampton Inn and Suites, 107-room
hotel and 6,000 sq. ft. restaurant development design to be located on the northwest corner of
Camino Mercado and West Branch Streets. He noted that the projecYs representatives, RobeR
Tuttle, Steve Cool, and Gary White,were present and would make a brief presentation.
Steve Cool, proposed developer of the site, commented that it had been determined that the
previous approval to construct an office complex at this location was not financially feasible. He
commented that following discussions with staff concerning the development of a hotel at this
site, they entered into discussions with American Properties Management Corporation. He
introduced Bob Tuttle, an architect representing American Properties Management Corporation.
Bob Tuttle gave an overview of the proposed 107-room Hampton Inn and Suites project,
including average daily room rate ($93), average occupancy rate (70%), projected annual
revenues ($2.5 miliion) and estimated annual Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue
($250,000-260,000 in the first year of operation). He acknowledged the topography constraints
_ �
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
DECEMBER 14, 2004
PAGE 8
on the site (oak trees, slopes), and displayed a proposed rendering of the hotel project, which
would include a restaurant component. He explained that there would be two separate parcels
and the restaurant wouid occupy one parcel and be under separate ownership. He commented
on traffic issues and acknowledged there would be a difference between office use and hotel use
for peak hour tra�c. He stated that a hotel use would have reduced tra�c during peak hours.
Council questions and discussion ensued concerning the street slope on Camino Mercado;
whether there would be any retaining wall placed along W. Branch Street(the applicant indicated
no, it would ali be landscaped); whether or not there would be a conference room included in the
hotel and what the occupancy would be (the appiicant indicated there would be 1,200 square
foot of ineeting space available that could be made up of multiple room sizes); what the size of
the restaurant pad would be and what kind of restaurant was anticipated (the applicant indicated
that it would be a medium to large sized restaurant of approximately 6,000 square feet and
would be an upper scale restaurant); clarification concerning estimated TOT revenue;
clarification concerning the distance from West Branch Street to where the building would begin;
what the estimated hotel rates would be; and discussion concerning the design of the building
and the restaurant. I
Mayor Ferrara invited public comments on this item. No public comments were received.
Council Member Amold stated he was a proponent of a hotel on this site; however, he expressed
concerns about the proposed size of the hotel. He commented that he had conducted an
informal survey of Hampton Inns on the Internet and determined that there was no standard
design theme or size for Hampton Inns throughout the State. He commented that this would
allow opportunities to amend the design to suit this particular site. He commented that this was a
prominent corner in the City and he would be supportive of a hotel here; however, it will require
an architectural design that will mitigate the size such as a trellis used more extensively on the
lower levei, and faux balconies on some of the higher level rooms to break up the mass of the
building. He also expressed concems about the water and sewer use at a hotel and the potential
impacts,which will need to be reviewed.
Council Member Costello also supported a hotel at this location. He stated that he would like to
see a model of the proposed project; expressed concerns about the fourth story at the back of
the projech, and stated that size, mass, and scale will be critical review factors. He said that the
traffic, water, and sewer issues would come up and need to be analyzed and solved before
moving forward. He referred to the slope of Camino Mercado and said this impact would have to
be reviewed carefully as it relates to the project. _
Council Member Dickens supported the idea of a hotel establishment at this site; however, he
stated that as this project comes forward, he would be looking at potential sewer deficiencies
and tra�c impacts. He said he would like to see a 3D model wme forth to depict the hotel's
orientation in relation to the adjacent properties and their existing buildings. He commented on
the proposed height of the building on the W. Branch Street side and felt it was too intrusive. He
preferred two stories, as the proposed height will be out of scale with the surrounding buildings.
He suggested reconfiguring the hotel around the pool and perhaps a reduction in the number of
rooms. He supported the concept of a restaurant; however, it is a secondary use and it was not
necessary that the restaurant be 6,000 square feet. He suggested a reconfiguration of the
restaurant. He commented that he was not a big proponent of tile roofing. He favored stepping
back terraces to add dimension and reduce the mass. .
�
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
DECEMBER 14, 2004
PAGE 9
Councii Member Guthrie expressed concerns about the proposed mass of the building and
suggested reducing the number of stories and/or reducing the number of rooms and moving the
hotel away from W. Branch Street. He referred to the adjacent Mid State Bank buildings that are
only two stories. He felt there were too many units for the size of the lot; suggested building the
hotel without the restaurant; commented on the traffic issue; expressed concerns about the
parking issue, particularly if there is a successful adjacent restaurant which could impact the
number of available hotel parking spaces; commented that water and sewer issues will have to
be studied; and concluded by stating that although there were many issues, the hotel project was
desirable and worth pursuing.
Mayor Ferrara referred to the architectural rendering and supported the idea of a three-
dimensional model. He referred to the design of the building and suggested it be less vertical
and more horizontal due to the challenging topography of the site and to put this project in scale.
He supported he idea of a restaurant on the site and commented that the City desperately
needs a lodging/conference facility. He commented on the various architectural styles availabie
and stated he tended to favor Mediterranean. He encouraged adding dimension through the use
of various architectural materials and features. He acknowledged the environmental, circulation,
water, and sewer issues that will need to be reviewed, studied, and mitigated. He concluded by
stating that the scale of the project and iYs accompanying intensity of use were the two key
issues. !
Council Member Costello suggested consideration of multi-level parking.
Upon conclusion of Council comments, Mayor Ferrara ensured that the applicant had received
su�cient feedback and direction with regard to the proposed project.
There was no formal action on this item.
Mayor Ferrara called for a break at 9:43 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:47 p.m.
11.b. Consideration of Selection of Council Member Costello as Mayor Pro Tem.
City Manager Adams presented the staff report and recommended the Council appoint Council
Member Costello as the Mayor Pro Tem for the next one-year period.
Mayor Ferrara invited public comments on this item. No public comments were received.
There was brief discussion about modifying the existing policy for selecting the Mayor Pro Tem,
which would be based on time served on City commissions and committees when iwo members
have the same tenure on the City Council. City Manager Adams said he would bring this issue
back to the Council on a future agenda for consideration.
Council Member Amold moved to appoint Council Member Costeilo as the Mayor Pro Tem for
the next one-year period. Council Member Dickens seconded the motion, and on the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Amold, Dickens, Guthrie, Costello, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None -
_ __ �
ARC Notes ATTACHMENT 3
February 7; 2005
F. ADMINISTRATIVE SIGN PERMIT 05-006; APPLICANT — Fitness 19;
REPRESENTATIVE — Sign A Rama; LOCATION — 906 Rancho Parkway.
The oject was presented by Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman. Fitness 19
has ha temporary banner for the last eight months. The proposed sign is
made of i 'vidual channel letters, similar to other nearby signs. One area of
discretion fo e ARC to decide is if the circle area (around the number 19) is
included in the " rop caps" height restriction of the sign code. This is their
logo, so if the A decides that area is included, the applicant would most
likely reduce the en ' sign proportionately. (No representative present for
this item.)
ARC had the following com ts and questions:
• This is an interpretative ' n issue, which ARC has met with in the Five
Cities Center before.
• The circle is part of the sign, also part of the message.
• The sign seems dominant at th location, so the applicant could be
requested to scale down the sign. Office Max is allowed to have a
larger sign, as they are a designated chor" store.)
o Mr. Bergman noted they have a e frontage, and sign size is
supposed to be proportional in amo to rent space.
• This is one of last signs to go on at center, nd iYs not visible from
Branch Street. '
• The numbers (19) fall within the size limits, iYs ju the circle that may '
be excessive.
. After further discussion, ARC agreed that the circle hould not be
included in the drop cap size limitations.
A motion was made by Gary Scherquist and seconded by Kristen B eich to
recommend approval to the Planning Commission of ASP 05-006. otion
approved: 4/0 voice vote.
G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04-009; APPLICANT — Gary White; •
REPRESENTATIVE — Robert Tuttle,. Architect; LOCATION — Corner of
� Camino Mercado and West Branch
The project was presented by Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman. This is a
proposal for a 104-room Hampton Inn and Suites. It was previously
presented as a pre-application, and the applicants have returned with a model
for further discussion on height, mass and site planning. (The project will be
revisited at future meetings to discuss details such as color and materials.)
Robert Tuttle, architect, discussed their changes from four stories to three,
with a basement on the West side below grade. The Hampton Inn roofline
will be lower than the wall separating the Premier Inn. He prepared sketches
ARC Notes Page 9
February 7, 2005
by taking photos and generating computer models over them to make it very
close to actual in terms of scale.
ARC had the following comments and questions:
Mass:
. Levitz seems very large, and this seems that much bigger. Although
�/a one could make the case this is overbuilding a site, the scale is
r understandably needed to make it economically feasible.
. They've done a much better job of vertical articulation and now need
some horizontal articulation. For horizontal articulation, there will be
some low rooflines and trellis along fhe west facade. Also, the
exposed timbers and low roof should soften the end of the building that
opens onto the pool area.
o Are they articulating plate lines between floors? They didn't
intend to - their plan was for a base definition with some
intermediates.
o Mr. Strong suggested ground level terraces off Branch with
landscaping and a short retaining wall to give more definition.
o If the trellis projects from the hotel to the front of the restaurant,
it would pull the two buildings together.
o Pedestrian scaled details at the base will help visual impacts.
o Patios could be added to the base units to take away the impact
of three stories.
o Upper floors could be set back to make the faCade more visually
inviting. At the same time, it was understood that pushing the
entire building back from Branch could create other problems
with a ripple affect across the site. There are certain tradeoffs
due to the challenging topography of the site.
o Why does the model show some windows as openings and
some with solid planes? Some will be inset and the rest are just
typical window treatmenfs. Hampton has a sfandard window
treatment that �ts in as one componenf (ac and heating). In
suites, some units have them and others don't, but regular
rooms al/have grills beneath the windows.
■ There wasn't consensus on faux windows versus plain
. windows without railings.
o Would true balconies help with articulation? That would push
the project out closer to the streef. Also, Hampfon doesn't use
real balconies on their hotels (for insurance and safefy reasons).
■ For this location, balconies and decks would probably be
noisy and windy.
. Have colors been decided on? No, fhey're open to recommendation.
o Darker colors reduce perceptions of the massing.
o A dark color could be applied further up than the first story.
o The color could be a darker shade than the artisYs rendering.
-�
ARC Notes Page 10
February 7, 2005
• ARC requested high quality roofing, as iYs the dominant element of the
building. What materials are proposed? With the colonial Spanish
look, fhey would probably use barre! files wifh a smooth wall finish and
spare details like wrought iron railings.
Site Planninp:
• Are the Branch Street setbacks the same? There's a 20' setback to
the hotel and 24'to the restaurant.
o Is additional setback necessary for potential future street
widening? Mr. Strong answered that the probability of street
widening is minimal, because it would wipe out Levitz and
require a retaining wall to support the building.
. What about double-deck parking? This is not an option for financial
reasons (requiring basement, retaining walls, etc.)
. Can the oak trees be preserved? Instead of the traditional porte-
cochere, they plan to preserve three large oak trees to use as a
canopy near the entrance. They're also preserving a tree in fhe
parking lot. They will work to preserve most oaks in designing the sife
plan, but some may need fo be removed. IYs hard to move the trees
and have fhem survive.
o ARC noted that any project will impact the oaks and for a project
of this size and magnitude, they have done a remarkable job.
. Will the architect be the same for both hotel and restaurant? It should
be visually compatible, as it pulis out the horizontality and ARC would
like to see design continuity.
o Sfeve Cool, Gary White and his sister will retain ownership of
the restaurant parcel, along with the hotel developer. They
expect to design it in harmony wifh the hotel.
Other.
. ARC liked the addition of a nice restaurant in the City. Will the hotel
and restaurant have the same owner? No, the restaurant will be
leased, as Hampfon does not typically have full service restaurants.
Architecfurally, they plan for the hotel to /ook more dominant than the
restauranf.
. ARC liked the rear tower, in that it gives a focal point of identity.
Centered over the main entrance/lobby, it becomes as much of a sign
� as not having a sign on the tower. However, the front rectangular
tower seemed like a "visual stopping poinY'. Will there be signs placed
on the towers? No, it doesn� warrant it. They have other designated
areas for signage.
. This is an ideal location for a hotel, especially with the visibility from the
freeway. ARC would like to see this project happen.
A motion was made by Chair Hoag and seconded by Kristen Barneich to
recommend approvai of massing, scale, and site planning only for CUP 04-
009 to the Planning Commission. Motion approved: 4/0 voice vote.
ARC Notes Page 11
February 7, 2005
ARC requested the applicant to return for review of colors, materials, other
details, and the landscaping plan. Their detailed suggestions include:
1. More%nhanced horizontal articulation on the Branch Street side
fagade, including trellis and terraces,
2. Continue the design theme to fhe restaurant and require that it be
architecturally compatible to the hotel,
3. Consider possible redesign for the front tower- to be less rectangular,
more similar to other roof pitches, and better integrated with the full
design of the building,
4. Based upon fhe tra�c study, consider opening the lower parking lot to
an exif,
5: Consider alternafive conceptual studies of stepped back upper floors
from the front (or the entire building, but they're willing to accept
current massing with appropriate horizontal articulation),
6. Study fhe possibility of transplanfing oak trees or replacing them with
specimen size trees in appropriate locations,
7. Consider more tan and adobe co/ors than white and pinkish colors
(perhaps a tone or two darker fhan the Branch Street perspective
drawing, and not as dark or pinkish as the chocolate brown Paso
Robles Hampton Inn),
8. Use high qualify mission barrel roofing or s-c/ay tiles for the roof. ,
II. DISCUSSION ITEM:
1. Demolition at 135 Whitelev
This report was strictl for the demolition of the house. Pace Brothers
propose to demo the single story, non-historically significant house. (Later,
they will return to ARC with plans to build three houses on the three
underlying lots). There is one historically significant element on the property
(part of the PC Railway walq, but they have no intent to modify that.
ARC consensus was they had no problems with it. No formal motion was
necessary on this item.
2. Election:
.Warren Hoag moved and Michael Peachey seconded nomination of Amy
Miltenberger for Vice Chair. Motion approved: 4/0 voice vote.
Gary Scherquist moved and Michael Peachey seconded nomination of
Warren Hoag for Chair. Motion approved: 4/0 voice vote.
III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 P.M. to the next regular
meeting of Monday, March 7, 2005, at 3:15 P.M. It was noted that Kristen
Barneich, Rob Strong and Jim Bergman will be out of town that day.
�
ATTACHMENT 4
City of Arroyo Grande —
Hampton Inn and Restaurant
Traffic Impact Study
Final Report
Prepared for the
City of Arroyo Grande
� Prepared By
�
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE—
HAMPTON INN AND RESTAURANT �I
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
FINAL REPORT
Prepared For:
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Prepared By
OMNI-MEANS,LTD.
ENGINEERS&PLANNERS
943 Reserve Drive,Suite 100
Roseville,California 95678
(916)782-8688
Apri12005
25-1275-08
� pees�rsoo�.noc�
_ �
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ 1
EXISTINGTRAFFIC VOLUMES ..............................................................................................................4
LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGIES/POLICIES ............................................................................7
EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS....................................................................................................... 11
APPROVED/PENDING PROJECTS......................................................................................................... 12
SHORT TERM NO PROJECT TRAFFIC OPERATIONS........................................................................ 17
SHORT TERM PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS.....................................................................................20
PROJECTDESCRIPTION.........................................................................................................................20
PROJECTTRIP GENERATION...............................................................................................................20
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT.........................................................................22
SHORT TERM PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC OPERATIONS....................................................................25
CUMULATIVE BASE CONDITIONS......................................................................................................28
CUMULATIVE BASE NO PROJECT TRAFFIC OPERATIONS...........................................................30
CUMULATIVE BASE PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC OPERATIONS.......................................................31
RECOMMENDED CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS.........................................................................33
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure1 —Project Vicinity Map.........................................................................................................:.........2
Figure 2—Existing Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control....................................................................5
Figure 3—Existing Peak Hour Intersection and Daily Roadway Traffic Volumes......................................6
Figure 4—Approved/Pending Project Sites................................................................................................ 14
Figure 5—Short Term No Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes...............................:............................... . 19
Figure 6—Proposed Project Site Plan..............................................................:.........................:................21 �
Figure7—Project Trip Distribution............................................................................................................23
Figure 8—«Project-Only„Traffic Volumes...............................................................................................24
Figure 9—Short Term Plus Project Traffic Volumes.................................................................................27
Figure 10—Cumulative Base No Project Peak Aour Traffic Volumes......................................................29
Figure 11 —Cumulative Base Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes....................................................32
LIST OF TABLES
Table I Level of Service(LOS)Criteria For Intersections...........................................................................8
Table 2 Level of Service(LOS)Criteria for Aoadways...............................................................................9
Table 3 Existing Conditions: Intersection Levels of Service......................................................................l l
Table 4 Approved/Pending Projects Trip Generation................................................................................. 13
Table 5 Shod Term No Project Conditions:Intersection Levels of Service...............................................17
Table 6 Proposed Project and Previously Approved Land Use Trip Generation.................................:......20
Table 7 ShoR Term Plus Project Conditions: Intersection Levels of Service.............................................25
Table 8 Cumulative Base No Project Conditions:Intersection Levels of Service......................................30
Table 9 Cumulative Base Plus Project Conditions:Intersection Levels of Service....................................31
APPENDIX
INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE SUMMARY("MITTGATION MATRIX")
INTERSECTION LOS AND SIGNAL WARRANT WORKSHEETS
� Hampton!nn and Restaur¢n[ +
Ciry ojArroyo Grande � (ZS-1275-10/R863TS00/.docJ
�
INTRODUCTIOY
This report has been prepazed for the City of Airoyo Grande to present the results of a Transportation
Impact Study (TIS) performed by OMNI-MEANS in support of the proposed Hampton Inn and
Restaurant project in the City of Aaoyo Grande. The term"project", as used in this report, refers to the
proposed 104-room motel and 6,000 square-foot restaurant. The land use on the property was previously
approved for a 24,300 square-foot office complex (Penfield and Smith, Camino Mercado Office project,
2000).
The City of Arroyo Grande is an incorporated community located within the "Five Cities" area of San
Luis Obispo County, Califomia. The California Department of Finance estimates that the population for
the City is approximately 16,600, as of 2004. Figure 1 illustrates the City of Arroyo Grande, which
includes the entire area within and adjacent to its City limits. The City of Arroyo Grande is located
approximately 10 miles south of the City of San Luis Obispo,along the US Highway 101 coastal corridor.
The City is located contiguous with the incorporated areas of the City of Pismo Beach to the northwest
and the City of Grover Beach to the west. US 101 runs diagonally through the City in a northwesterly to
southeastedy direction. US 101 is the primary State highway providing regional access, connecting the
City with other par[s of the County and the State. State Route 227 also provides more localized access
to/from the City, connecting Aaoyo Grande with the City of San Luis Obispo and surrounding counry
community. i
The following roadways provide primary circulation within the City of Aaoyo Grande and its vicinity. I
US IOI is a major nodh-south freeway facility that traverses cqastal California. US 101 serves. as the
principal interregional auto and truck traveT route that connects San Luis Obispo County (and other
portions of the Central Coast) with the San Francisco Bay Area to the north and the Los Angeles urban
basin to the south. Within San Luis Obispo County, US 101 provides major connection between and
through several cities. Through the "Five Cities" area of San Luis Obispo County, US 101 represents a
major recreational and commuter uavel route and has a general four-lane divided freeway cross-section
with 65 mph posted speed limits. Within the City of Anoyo Grande, US 101 forms full-access
interchanges with Brisco Road/Halcyon Road and East Grand AvenueBranch Street. There is directional
interchange access at Oak Park Boulevard,Camino Mercado,Tr�c Way,and Fair Oaks Avenue.
State Route 227 (SR 227) is a state highway route that runs predominantly in a north-south direction
connecting the City of San Luis Obispo and the City of Arroyo Grande. SR 227 has a general two-lane
highway type cross-section through most segments. SR 227 represents a significant pazallel commuter
route to US 101,as well as a recreational travel route serving points east of the Ciry.
East Grand Avenue is a major east-west travel arterial through and within the City and has a general five-
lane arterial(two travel lanes per direction with a two-way left-tum median lane)through the City, West
of the Ciry of Arroyo Grande, East Grand Avenue extends into the City of Grover Beach and extends
farther west to the coastline. East of the full-access interchange with US 101, East Grand Avenue
becomes East Branch Street and extends farther east to Corbett Canyon Raad and SR 227. East Grand
Avenue represents one of the "gateway"routes for recreational uavelers headed westwards from US 101
to the PaciFic coastline.
East Branch Streei (SR 227) extends East Grand Avenue to the east and serves as the City's main
downtown commercial thoroughfaze and is commuter connection behveen US 101 and SR 227.The dual
purpose for this three lane arterial, with on street parking, creates safety and capacity concerns. The high
volume of traffic (18,500 AD'I) also conflicts with the community's desire to have a pedestrian-friendly
downtown.
� Hampton!nn and Restaurant � �
Ciry ofArroya Grande . . (15-7775-10/R8637SOOl.docJ
�
SP�,�\
+h�
�� �/ �
/ <\ /� '`a
\
a \\ / /J 'O+c
// v \ �/ �
� �\ ��/� �
� �acsm�.x \\ ��� \\
w.r +�wes \ } � a
�� Wr ��i � pp�q�, 1
t � �1p
Jnu[s � } \
�
PROJECT °' p � g �
, � �SITE c a \
�u � 4 uw K+c,,, a�� � ' bE' �^,
BR�ry�N PO
�yISX� �
/ S�FF� � F ��A � �O
s ARROYO s � '`
�l �ancco GRANDE ^" , /' . '..
�cwwr .�xxuc sm / ��,
' . u�o. 'o < /
wnamv � S n�t��c e° nu �"q_ 4n /
� `k
�] � � acxxcrt '� F D �,{e�a /'
fA.uVY L nOFWE u' � OR�K ��p��' ppp 1M � �'v
I & � O�S x /�
C / `� /
—i �o�:� . � �\w' ��
smecr f ry /
I fuR OYS -- b �''�I
I I ` �
�..�LL ..��E r— — � �\ \
\ � I �� � \
�_ 7 � �� //
I �
ME�.E I�� r—_
� r-an�,-� � --� ��/�.�
� � � \
- ---�.i
. EL GEND
' CITYLIMITS - ----
City of Arroyo Grande Figure 1
PROJECT VICINITY MAP �
,� ,��.�.�a��„�,„_,=,�,o
�
Ha[cyon Road is a general two to four lane north-south aRerial facility that connects between US 101 in
the City of Arroyo Grande and State Route 1 (SR 1) in the Halcyon area located to the south of the City.
Halcyon Road, in wnjunction with Brisco Raad and El Camino Rea[, forms a full-access interchange
with US 101;northwest of the US 101/East Grand Avenue interchange.
Oak Park Borrlevard is a general five lane noRh-south arterial that runs along the northwestem City limit
line, defining Arroyo Grande's boundary with the adjacent Cities of Grover Beach and Pismo Beach.
Oak Pazk Boulevard focros a full-access interchange with US 101, in conjunction with EI Camino Real.
North of the City of Arroyo Grande, Oak Park Boulevard forks into Old Dak Park Road, which extends
nor[h into County lands, and into Noyes Rnad, which extends in a northeastedy d'uection to connect with
SR 227.
James i�ay is predominantly an east-west two-lane roadway serving as a residential collector between
Oak Park Boulevard and Tally-ho Road,which connects to SR 227.
West Branch Street is a two-lane frontage road east of US 101 with both commercial and residential
frontage. It extends from Oak Pazk Boulevard to East Branch Street and provides important north-south
circulation and commercial accessibility east of the freeway.
Rancho Parkway is a two-lane collector linking residential development on James Way to West Branch
Street and the US 101 conidor. It runs through the eastem portion of the Five Cities Shopping Center,
bisecting the Center into Walmart-anchored and Trader Joe's-anchored sections.
E[Camino Real is a two to three lane northeast-southwest arterial that operates as a frontage road on the
southwest side to US 101.
Tra�c Way is a two to four-lane ar[erial roadway serving local commercial development. It extends
from East Branch Street (SR 227) to the north and terminates into ramp junctions with US 101 to the
south.
Hampton Inn and Resmurant " � '�
Ciry ojArroyo Grande (15-l275-10/R863TS00l.dac)
�
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
The AM and PM peak hour traffic volume counts (turning movements) at the study intersections were
conducted by OMNI-MEANS an November 17,2004.
The AM peak hour is defined as the one-hour of peak traffic flow(which is the highest total volume count
over four consecutive 15-minute count periods) counted between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM on a typical
weekday. The PM peak hour is defined as the one-hour of peak traFfic flow (which is the highest total
volume count over four consecutive I S-minute count periods)counted between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM on
a typical weekday.
The following critical study intersections were established for this study in coordination with City of
Airoyo Grande staff,and aze analyzed within this study for weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions:
1. West Branch Street/Oak Pazk Boulevard
2. West Branch Street/Camino Mercado
3. West Branch Street/Rancho Parkway
4. Rancho Parkway/Camino Mercado '
5. West Branch Street/Brisco Road
6. Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps
7. Brisco Road/El Camino Real
8. El Camino Real/US 101 SB Ramps ,
Lane geometrics and control of the above study intersections are illustrated on Figure 2. Existing AM and
PM peak hour traffic.volumes at the study intersections aze shown on Figure 3.
Hampton!nn arsd Restaurant � 4
Ciry ojAnoyo G�ande (25-1175-10/R8637SOOl.docJ
�
� OAK PARX BLVD./ 2 �EST BRANCH STR./ 3 WEST BRANCH STR./ ¢ RANCHO PARXWAY/
WEST BRANCX STR. CANINO MERCA00-US l0l NB RANCHO PARKWAY CAMlNO MERCADO
I i r�� o� I � �
�{ � �— �
•t � � d015 �J �
� r� �$ �r`� � --�� �
o a
. .
. .
5 WEST BRANCH STR./ 6 BRlSCO RD./ ] EL CAMlNO R£AL/ $ EL CAMINO REAL/
BRlSCO RO. US 101 NB BR/SCO RD. HALCYON RD-US 10f SB
L
� � �- Y � ,�- ` � r— . .
� � � � 1 � � r � �r
: _ : _
. �I�� 3� ��4E5
/ W'+ Q� .
J/uE5
� �
F
(T ' � UMM YfF[.100 4 pp\JE
BRµW 2
S�F �L e�
� 3 5 ARROYO � m '` ,.,„.
ffi I �o„,��o GRANDE � ' '�
xcva+r ��fx�[ qw r 4'
� F IlNO/
eniara � fi ��xxuc a°S 7 � g �.
� � "� om�i acvxcn � ,R ""4
crtANO` � ��Ewf y � $ ��ND� 101 � , �j
i �
� s� o�z ;
. � � / �„"
_ £owsw w�r Y�
9 +
I � SiNEEi Sv
City of Arroyo Grande Figure 2
EXISTING GEOMETRICS AND LANE CONTROL �
m. ns�rcoxero(mvoel:s-uro-io
�
� OAK PARK BLVD./ 2 WEST 6RANCN STR./ 3 W6ST BRANCX STR./ ¢ RANCHO PARKWAY/
WEST BRANCN STR. CAMlNO MERCADO-US lO1 NB R1NCX0 PdRKWAY CAM1!!NO MERCADO
mF�o �� ..m 6n
N n m L796(283) o'T H Y L 4(12) � `v n Y
J� �I � �-18(38) I I �--166(309) � q Lg6 355) N�
y � �115(�67) � y y � 53(226) � � �253(297) � �
� } (� �u�271 so is� (ie)aa� � T
1 I (47H)142--� � � � (260)70--� (24)27--y !a
�°,i�a �7) 3� m^`vm �n
i:n�n Y.�.% v
P Y N
�p�
�j WEST BRANCH STR./ 6 BRlSCO RD./ ] EL CAMINO REAL/ $ EL CAb11N0 R£AL/
BR/SCO RD. US 707 NB BRISCO RD. HALCYON RD-US 701 SB
� mnM PN�
�•�• `�j�� L436(367) .'u°ivi o L 8(19)
�w n �� �82(Bfi) n �^ f--53(24)
F 70(169) L »��oo� I zs(w) I �(2+)
r— eecBO> � 1 � ,.,(se, J 1 �. ,� r 1 �. �
(175)85—► � � �1 } (37)10-� � } � (19B)129� � i �
(438)B8 � � (188)133—� ' (2z)3�--� y� ,.e
� � p Y N �0.3���J� v.O'^.�tp (331)15fi� Y YI N
b� v0'I O Vv
� .m. m m v`� n
,_, �..�.
LEGEND:
xxx — AM PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION VOLUMES
(xxx)— PM PEAK HOUR ,
INTERSECTION VOLUMES '
♦� �4Fp `
`4/ W�Y �
Y
JnMfS
O� �Y
J+ i�
3 � q4iN 4[R .
M �� 4 ��.
enMa 2
r �
�FF� �
L
s L 3 5 ARROYO S �,C 5' ,,,,,
I ����o GRANDE �"
ME'WORi 1HHIIE S�q W C
emarox �` � E ��cruc ' urw� �S 7 8 � r.
� � q • F �
5 � Y' 0�� BENMii �
CR1N� �KHUE � $ ��� 101 � �
• I 0�5 4��
J �' / �po-
c
_ y 0.A' $ON WAY �f
` h
I SMEEI r
•9�
City of Arroyo Grande Figure 3
EXISTING PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES �
.r�. mvmo�.e.a(a.u�osl�s-�ns-�a
�
LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGIES/POLICIES
Traffic operations have been quantified through the determination of"Level of Service" (LOS). Level of
Service is a qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions,whereby a letter grade "A° through"F" is
assigned to an intersection or roadway segment representing progressively worsening traffic conditions.
Intersection and Roadway LOS Methodologies
Levels of Service (LOS) have been calculated for all intersection control types using the methods
documented in the Transportation Research Board Publication Highway Capaciry Manual, Fourth
Edition, 2000. Current City of Arroyo Grande Traffic Impact Study Policy standards for LOS aze derived
from Circular 212 Operations methodology, which was published in 1985. The transportation
engineering industry has moved away from the Circular 212 methodology toward the more recent
Highway Capacity Manual methodology and the Ciry TIS Policy should be updated to reflect this change.
For signalized intersections and All-Way-Stop-Controlled (AWSC) intersections, the intersection delays
and LOS aze average values for all intersection movements. For Two-Way Stop-Controlled (TWSC)
intersections, the intersection delays and LOS are representauve of those for the worst-case movement.
LOS definitions £or different types of intersection controls are outlined in Table 1. The average daily
traffic based roadway level of service thresholds are shown in Table 2.
The Ciry ojArroyo Grande Genera(Plan (Adopted Octo6er 9, 2001), Circulation Element, Streets and ,
Highway Standards, aze partly quoted below:
CT2: Attain and maintain Leve[ojService(LOS) "C"or better on aU streeu and cantrolled intersections. .
CT2-1: Where deficiencies exist,mitigate to a LOS "D"at a minimum and plan improvemeni to achieve LOS .
"C"(LOS"E"or"F"unacceptable=significant adverse impact)
The Caltrans published Guide jor the Preparation ojTra�c Impact Studies (dated June 2001) states the
following:
"Caltrans endeavors�a maintain a target LOS at the transiHon 6etween LOS "C"and LOS "D"on State l�ighway
jacilities..." • .
Consistent with City and Caltrans policies stated above, for purposes of this uaffic study, LOS "C" has
been taken as the minimum acceptable LOS standazd at critical study intersections and roadway segments
falling within City right-of-way. For freeway ramp intersections and other intersections and roadway
segments falling within State right-of-way, consistent with Calhans policy of"LOS C/D transition", a
"low LOS D" (which is regazded as LOS "D" with delay values closer towazds LOS "C" than towazds
LOS "E") has been taken as the minimum threshold for acceptable operations. Appropriate circulation,
capacity or and/or control improvements have been identified for instances when study azea faciliries aze
projected to operate below acceptable standards.
Hampton Inn and Restaurant � � �
� CiryofArroyoGrnnde (25-1275-10/R863TSOOl.doc)
_ �
� o 0 0 0
c
F, � vi � N
N N1 W '�
� � VI VI VI VI O �
0
< � v v v � . o �p
3 VI m a . n �a A p
; ; o �n ^ ^ �
= Q n n «,
ro
� a
a
O p O O � � ^�
O t�.'� � ry .�-� �n , °o
V -i c � VI VI . � VI y��: , . ��� � ,^'•�
y Q O� 'O 'O 9 9. . ' ON h
>' V V I m � . � '� . . � n �
3 Z � � N �
n
Q p A h A /�. . .
O
C
Z o O Q �
U N p � � � �
VI VI � VI V� �� O
G
� � 'cf 9p � G C � � � �
z V� W fJ - . N n :� /�
H � N � �
� n n n n
z
0r
W T�" �... C u � q y O . �� u 00 n
} 'O � U G y
a F� L > u Y L L 9 ~ � �� �'W�E ?C yp
E" d m �o �€ g �3 oou �� � aa oa � � �v.� vo
�. � H �c ? �
m:� n .G Y ' >A E � O Y T 09 .: � 0 G b y p
FC m � a°i T � e°� _' .c • � � >y.y n �n.yri � L�a u a:r o_
y p � E d � :�
� � �dm�6iG � SL T� W L00� � AO � �9 U 'OC �O ..
m > d.o o �+ u v w uF ��.�.a c �. 3•� .. c _ a •� o c .
� � � c ° °aC 's,�4o a> °3' . . vco � u � . �v� E3As
� � m n E u y E a � � � �i dE o c �.a ?
� W � � dro : a. ua y��E °� ' ud � .°'. u.� .... pEvncx °o .
� V �FEw.> � $ m 0.i018x ��EO �0 �5 ���. ��.n � o. Eaa �
FN
� � �.. . m . y � � .-WT. v y ,y �
W . 3 � . .u. = o �a.� E m°m c.? �O � ia � � m �
U �o �: o � � `�F� u o'st0� y " _? �� m ,Ty o� o°�
5 � u ,�= :� .� > `� � � ° ° ... a�oU ,... E � �iHp? � a
W . o � �G s ° �.ao .°_' : Es �` a `�' o'� : ° cF° 6oF . o
> r' ��Eo °^ �� �Y— u u? Q o
`n � .cm °' . c :'c p! � ° o c u— � °a, � � � �
w aGi � 00 6L u F T � � �F x O U S :�m � .L a �
L+ :: � m 00'� '.. 6� � g � O
� .� �y y �1 :U g W . Y V � U . .
� = �9 .. � � a.� u � eb �5� rXT �`b E °'S .,o 8 � y'`r'' E e
�' ,� c � `� u= ���F= m� bEm '� a u2' g'+ " � >�� � $' °
w - �°-, °0 �0 4 'd � o°'. ' g c � q u � o'b .,:� a o a �L' F:
a q u C 'mN os�r'� $ ,c :—° • c m g' L° ..5 � " m O
om �° �=y� � � q° ° � � �n�' o � �:� T
'ry c e `o �d ° G � � =�o ° a a'a � SF a. � W
� W o- ,��!J y J o � ?,.u p ,� r u � 9 u �c
`T' E , o $ � G `,�d�C• `oEom� �' •� g0.S�� � 8 °> `° c o
'vv�� ''y'� a� �u �'. '� � mut50+o � $O "^�' °uCms = �
.t u �y 60 y 9 u ti � .'3 ;,uo� 8 0? ��� � yT�,2 .p � O
� �d 9 U EO �'j �j C�6� F NM� � 0 ?! � tl � � � "� N 7 T 00 � C
-� Z` ao•- � �m � a•_ ucW_ ° o u�'u. � c > o �
m O O� O u > �F u � V C O Q � , V'C U � y VN C
�> EyC7 > m � x3aH � '�.F� � o > ak''i C�a� :2w �Uvo �.. ,c'� a
q y d
� ; � o � o Q �, -: �o o :. o V a a
�• u, a v >
. � -u. . �. u. Co ���'. �'�..m u o �,v 3 v V
o � u u p L :� u Z o
F .... y �..y v�i ��''.. ��,Q] r7 ..w '� � Q
o,,
� o
O y c � V
� � .� Q �'Pa U :. Ga W �'' �
ay a
_ __ �
TABLE 2
LEVEL OF SERV[CE(LOS)CRITERIA FOR ROADWAYS
Roadway Type . � Average Daily Traffic(AD'1)-Total of Both D'vections
� � �. LOS"A" LOS"B^ LOS C" LOS"D" LOS"E^
6-Lane Freeway 75,000 90,000 10,500 120,000 135,000
4-LaneFreeway SQ000 60,000 70,000 80,000 9Q000�
6-Lane Expressway 36,000 42,000 48,000 54,000 60,000 �
(high access control)
4-Lane Expressway Zq,000 28,000 32,000 36,000 40,000
(high access control)
6-Lane Divided Arterial 32,000 38,000 43,000 49,000 54,000
(with leR-tum lane)
4-Lane Divided Anerial ZZ,000 25,000 29,000 32,500 36,000
(with left-tum lane)
4-Lane Undivided Arterial 18�� 21,000 � 24,000 27,000 30,000
(no left-Nm lane)
2-Lane Arterial 1I,000 12,500 14,500 16,000 18,000 '�.
(with left-tum lane) � '
� 2-I.ane Arterial 9,000 10,500 12,000 13,500 I5,000
(no left-tum lane)
4-LaneCollector 12,000 IS,OW � 18,000 21,000 24,000
2-I.ane Collecror 6,000 7,500 9,000 I0,500 12,000
Notes: /.Bared on(('yh Cona 'rv M a!Fau�th Edition Transporta(ion Ruearch Board,I000. -
2.A((vo/ume thresholds are approsimate and assume idea(roadway tharatte�irtics. Attual thruRolds jor each LOS listed o6ove
mayvarydependinganavarieyoffactorsintluding(butnotlimitedto)roadwaycurvotureandgrade,intersec�ionor ,
intercFangespacing,drivewayspacing,pertmmge of7rucks and other heavy vehitles,lane wldlhs,signal timing,an-st'eet
parking,volume ofcross tro�c and pedufrians,etc.
To determine whether "significance" should be associated with unsignalized intersection operations, a
supplemental traffic signal"waaant"analysis has also been completed. The term"signal wazranu"refers
to the list of established criteria used by Caltrans and other public agencies to quantitatively justify or
ascectain the need for installation of a haffic signal at an othecwise unsignalized intersection. This study
has employed the signal warrant criteria presented in the latest edition of the Federal Highway
Administration's (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Tra�c Contro! Devices (MUTCD), as amended by the
MIJTCD 2003 Calijornia Supplement, for all study intersections. The signal wazrant criteria are based
upon several factors including volume of vehiculaz and pedestrian traffic,frequency of accidents,location
of school ueas etc. Both the FHWA's MiJTCD and the MII"fCD 2003 Calijornia Supplement indicate
that the installation of a traffic signal should be considered if one or more of the signal warranu ue met.
Specifically, this study will utilize the Peak-Hour-Volume based Wazrant 3 as one representarive type of
traffic signal warrant analysis. Warrant 3 criteria aze basically idenrical For�both the FHWA's M[JTCD
and the MUTCD 2003 California Supplement. Since Waaant 3 provides specialized warrant criteria for
intersections with rural characteristics (e.g. located in communities with populations of less than 10,000
persons or with adjacent major sheeu operating at above 40mph), study intersections that use Uris
specialized criteria will be cleazly identified.
Hampton/nn artd Restaurant - 9
Ciry ofArroyo Grande (25-7328-19/R833TSOOI.doc)
_, -�
Technical Analysis Parameters
This TIS provides a "planning level" evaluation of traffic operating conditions, which is considered
sufficient for CEQt1/NEPA pucposes. The "planning level" evaluation incorporates appropriate heavy
vehicle adjustment factors, peak hour factors, and signal lost-time fac[ors, and repoRS the resulting
intersection delays and LOS as estimated using HCM-2000 based analysis methodologies. In this study, a
general Peak Hour Factor (PHF) of 0.92 (as recommended by HCM-2000) and a heavy-vehicle traffic
percentage of 5 percent will be applied in the analysis of all study intersections under all analysis
scenarios. The HCM-recommended suburban traffic signal default cycle length of 100 seconds will be
used for analysis of signalized intersections, with 4 seconds of°lost time" per critical signal phase. The
TraJjix 7.7(Dowling Associates) softwaze program was used to implement the HCM-2000 analysis on the
majority of the study intersections. The Synchro 6 (Tra�cware) softwaze program was used for analysis
on the close-proximity intersections neaz the Brisco Road interchange with US 101, so that factors such as
queuing and coordinated signal operations could be taken into account for a more accurate analysis.
Except where realistic at the close proximity intersections, a"design level"eva(uation(including queuing
on intersection lane groups, stacking length requirements, coordinated signal operations analyses etc.)
will not be included in this planning-level study.
I
Nampton Inn and Restaurant 1� '�
Ciry ojArroyo Grande (25-1275-10/R863TSOOl.doc)
EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
Intersections
Existing AM and PM peak hour intersection iraffic operations were quantified utilizing the existing traffic
volutnes (Figure 3) and the existing intersection lane geometrics and control (Figure 2). Table 3 contains
a summary of the existing intersection LOS conditions.
TABLE3
EXISTING CONDITIONS:INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
y� � +-^ +�+�"" � a k � r qy � � z�3�,�Peak$ouc-`� iPMPeikHour �
Tr'` * ' `'�s���.'�`�d�� r u �3 �'b t1� § T i 'U4W l[1'int ,x -yf Wamnt I
z . 'x �� ,i.= � #Caotrol Yr- ',�,�" �yt ,.b �,�y�r � �.n
t : � ,�� '`!�5 s=ti �� i t r t w u+� s� ,t� �a
� # I te �t 'S '� ,d-T�k`3?+� �,;d .a�°'�.Pe,}..� aY-�',,'A�'N LOS�,r'&Melo� .DetaY` LO�.., Mdo; '
1 Oalc Park elvd/Wat Branch St/SU 101 NB On-Rarnp Signal 18.5 B - 25.4 C -
S West Branch St/Camtno Mercado-US 101 NB AWSC 11.3 � H No 44.1 E Ya
3 West Banch St/Rancho Parkway Sippal 7.0 A • I5.5 B -
4 Ran<haParkway/CaminoM<rcado TWSC 9.5 A No 9.8 A Nu
5 West Branch St/Bdsco Rd• Signal 16.5 B - Z7.9 � "
6 Hrisco Rd/US]01 Northbound' Signal 17.1 B - 26.6 C -
7 EI Cam(no Real/Bdsco Rd• Signal 20.6 C - 31.5 C -
8 EI C i Real/H 1 yon Rd-US 101 SB' Signnl 46.9 D 43.4 D -
Note: LOS-MinorStreetApproaehLevelofServireforTwo-WayStop-Conballedlntersectlou
� LOS-O�rrullAveragelnfersetttonLevelofServicefor5ignalizedandAll-WOySrop-Canfro(ledinferaections
Delay-Minor Sneet ApproacA Delayfor Twa-R'ay Smp-Controlled intnsecfions
Delay-Overa(!Average Interrettlon De(ayfor Signa(izedandAl!-Wny Srop-Con(rolled tntera¢tfians i
AWSC-A((WaySmpConfrolfedtntenecfion TWSC-Twa-WaySmp-Conballedlntersection �
Warrmt-AfUTCD Peak Xour Vo(ume Wanpnbi(Urban Ar<arJ �
•These infe�secrioru,which fosm the Brisco-Hofryron-US!Ol intercAange,are in c(oseproximity m eath ather ond have cwabainedgeometrics
(hat Iimitlhe tra�c ro(umer ab(e m puts through the inlersections. Ar auc6,the o6served Jra�c valumer may rtof reJlecr the actmf hoffic
demand atlhe imerchange. Based an furtRer aNdy,the tntenecfton LOS are likefy warse than whaf is calculatedfrom fhe observed ba�c
rolumes.
As indicated in Table 3,the West Branch SueeUCamino Mercado-US 101 NB ramp intersection currently
operates at unacceptable LOS "E" during the PM peak hour period. This intersection satisfies MLTTCD
Peak Hour signal warrants, indicating that the peak hour volume at the intersection is large enough to
warrant installation of a traffic signal. The eastbound approach is estimated to experience the greatest
amount of delay at the intersection during the PM peak (approach LOS "F"), while the southbound
approach is estimated to experience the least amount of delay(approach LOS"B").
As noted in the table footnote,Intersections 5-8 make up the Brisco-Halcyon-US 101 Interchange. Based
on the observed trafFic volumes at the intersections, the intersections are not operating deficiently based
on peak hour LOS criteria. However, the configurations of the intersections limit the maximum number
of vehicles that are able to pass through the interchange,thereby possibly understating the actual demand.
Further study indicates that the interchange is currently operating at deficient conditions, contrary to the
LOS calculated based on the.observed traffic volumes alone.
Intersections 1 and 4 are currently operating at an acceptable LOS. All circulation improvements are
discussed in a subsequent section of this report.
� HamptonlnnandRestaurant � � . 1�
. Ciry ofArroyo Grande (15-1175-10/R863TSOOl.doc) .
�
APPROVED/PENDING PROJECTS
Based on discussions with Ciry staff, eleven land development projects are within the vicinity of the
proposed project and can be regarded as "approved" or"pending approvaP' for construction in the near-
term. Approximate"approved/pending"project locations are shown in Figure 4 and described in terms of
their general description(location,access, etc.),trip generation,and trip distribution below.
1. 40 single-family residences, located north of James Way and west of Rancho Parkway. An
altemative land use at this site is the construction oF 21 residential units rather than 40 units.
Traffic impacts associated with the altemative development were not analyzed.
2. 20 condominiums, located south of James Way and east of Oak Park Boulevard
3. Camino Mercado Senior Apartments and Senior Center, located north of Camino Mercado and
west of Ranch Parkway. Consists of 60 senior condominiums and a 3,000 square foot senior
center(Pe�eld and Smith,2001).
4. Stonecrest Homes, located south of El Camino Real, between Oak Pazk Boulevard and Brisco
Road. Consists of 26 single-family residential units within a subdivision project (I-Iiggins and
Associates,2000). '
5. Commercial building, located on a 0.7 acre lot south of El Camino Real, west of Brisco Road. ;
This site was proposed for development as a 10,000 square foot farm supply store subsequent to �
the analysis. �
6. 12 multi-family residences,located west of Brisco Road and south of El Camino Real. �
7. Brisco Road Mixed Use Development, bounded by Grand Avenue, Brisco Road, Linda Drive,
and Elm Street. Consists of a 99-unit residential complex, 18,210 squaze feet of
industriaUbusiness pazk floor azea, 10,400 squaze feet of specialty retaiUstrip commercial floor
area,4,300 square feet of high turnover restaurant floor area, and 10,690 square feet of financial
institution floor azea(OMNI-MEANS,2004)
8. 20 single-family residential units, located west of Rodeo Drive, between W. Branch Sueet and
James Way.
9. Le Point Mixed Use development, located north of East Branch Street east of Traffic Way
(Higgins Associates, 2003). Consists of 9 residential dwelling units and 3,400 squaze feet of ,
office facilities.
10. Creekside Center, located north of East Branch Street east of Traffic Way. Consists of 24
residential dwelling units and 12,000 squaze feet of commercial and/or office facilities
(Associated Transpodation Engineers,2003).
11. Five Cities Shopping Center Expansion, located northeast of the West Branch SheedRancho �
Parkway intersection(OMAII-MEANS,2005). Consists of filling in an existing 4,550 squaze-foot
commercial pad with a bank and constructing a new 33,200 square-foot retail building. Also
assumes occupancy of a currently vacant 5,000 squaze-foot restaurant building.
(Note:Approved/pending project driveways (access points) are not evaluated as a part of
� the Hampton Inn and Restaurant Tra�c Impact Study}
The following projects have been presented to the City for review: East Village Plaza, Robiscotti �
development,Timmons development, and The Parable specialty retail development. These studies will be �
incorporated into later TIS upon fiuther discussion and guidance from City stafF !
Hamptan Inn and Res�aurant �Z
Ciry ojArraya Crande � (25-l275-l0/R863TSOOl.doc) �
Trip Generation
Traffic studies have been completed and published for Approved/Pending Projects 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 11.
Approved/pending project without completed traffic impact studies had trip generation rates and volumes
estimated based upon rates contained in the San Diego Association of Govemments (SANDAG)
publication Trip Generation Manual(Revised May 2003). Total approved/pending project trip generation
estimates are presented in Table 4.
TABLE 4
APPROVED/PENDING PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION
�,: �, � a�ys, i'"�* '�i�,yi n�y a�r r �.�a ^`- 4 _. s a "'af`m;Tdd Rates 2= + �,j =-' �,c -
, � ,�, +F- � � baJy Tnp'3Veekday AM Redk�Aour Weekday RM$eak Aour�..
LandUseCate or '*^2z��'��k�"'d�§�Y'F�,�*� '',�?'�` � � 4 a � o �f x, e o .
g Y�`���s.r.x ...,��s��' . �° ,_ Umt '"�RateRJmt Total' 7nrf.'.,�'"�,.Out /0.�3'otal Ea./d�'-Out/o�
Single-Family Detached Residential,urbanized
area Per D.0 9 0.72 20% 80% 0.9 70% 30%
� Multiple Dwelling Unit:under 20 dwelling
units/acre Per D.U. 8 0.64 20% 80% 0.8 70°/a 30°/a
S ecial Retail CencedStri CommercialZ Per KSF 36 L08 60% 40% 324 50% 50%
CommercialOffice PerKSF 20 2.8 90% 10% 2.6 20% 80%
[ndustrialBusiness Park� Per KSF t6 1.9 80°/a 20% 1.9 20% 80%
Commercial-Retail,Restaurant,Hi h-Tumove2 Per KSF 104 832 50% 50% 83 60% 40% '.
Financial Institution excluding drive-through° Per KSF 112.5 4.5 70% 30% 9 40% 60%
Five Cities Sho in Center(observed� KSF 693 1.8 60% 40% 73 48% 52%
�• a�,;,, _: a , `�. .aa°p,.�".: �"'n ° ' aily""xWeskdaYiAM�e"�IF�Hti�G �i'eeRda RM e6k$ou�: .
�.anil�Description � �� � � an''� �p"s 'Fotil'�T�'�rt � nk To'Ysl`� ' ^" Ouf�+'�
s
1.40 Sin le Famil Residential Units 40 D.U. 360 29 6 23 36 25 I1
2.20 Condominium Units � 20 D.U. I60 � 13 3 10 16 I1 � 5 �
3a.Camino Mercado Senior Condominiums 60 D.U. 8 4 4 7 4 3
3b.Camino Mereado Senior Cencer 3 KSF - 11 8 3 12 6 6
4.Stonecrest Homes 26 D.U. 234 l9 4 15 23 16 7
5.Commercial Building(OJ acres at 25%floor
area ratio) 7.6 KSF 274 8 5 3 25 12 13
6. l2 Multifamil Residential Units 12 D.U. 96 8 2 6 10 7 3
7a.Hrisco MU,A artment Com lex 99 D.U. 792 63 l3 50 79 55 24
76.Brisco MU,IndustriaVBusiness Pazk 28.6 KSF 458 54 43 I1 54 11 44
7c.Brisco MU,Restaurant 43 KSF 447 36 18 18 36 21 14
7d.Brisco MU,Bank 10.7 KSF 1,203 48 34 �14 96 38 58
(7 BriscoMUexistinglanduses) (565) (58) (43) (15) (62) (l7) (45)
8.20 Sin le Famil Residential Units 20 D.U. 180 14 3 12 18 13 5
9a.Le Point MU,Townhouse/A anment 9 D.U. 72 6 1 5 7 5 2
9b.Le Point MU,Commeroial Office 3.4 KSF 67 9 8 1 9 Z 7
10a.Creekside Center,24 residential units 24 D.U. 192 15 3 12 19 13 6 �
IOb.Creekside Cenrer,CommerciaVOffice 12 KSF 432 l3 � 8 5 39 19 l9
�. (lO.CreeksideCenterexistlnglanduses) (493) (26) (16) (6) (48) (24) (12) �
1 la Wells Fargo Bank(existing vacant soace) 4 55 512 20 14 _ 6 41 16 25
� 1 Ib.Pad i Retail Ex ansion 332 2,300 � 59 35 24 242 116 126 j
� l lc.Restaurant(existin vacant restauant) 5 520 42 21 21 42 25 17 I
otal Tnps � 41 391 17 2 1 7 0 7 . 37 �
D.0-dwelling unit.KSF-1000 rq.Jl..MU-Mtzed We
� /.0%posa-by nductian(SANDAG Tr(p Gmeration Manuaf,eevtred Moy 3003f
� 1./OYo pau-by reJucfion(SANDAG I003f
3.10%pav`-by reJiation(SANDAG 3003J
4.IJ%pms-by reducrion(SANDAG 100J)
Hampton Inn and Restaurant - 1 j i
Ciry ofArroyo Grande (15-l175-10/R863TSOOl.doc) � �.
f
i
�
__. . ... . 1i
r •
�O�DOOV Of ViA WN ' y
D \ / ?1 n�Nm� �NO�N A �
J � � f'IO�,N 0�000
� 1 m � x�Vl (Ni � O N VI n Vl -A�j
� � A Z . � Na.� � ° 33� 0 � O
� C� m . a��3� � o �� m
� m m ^ =3 a-
ti N � LO � � O � n
O O � Z .Z�I K O m�'_�O p��O N
� � A -� a 3 < 3 � c3 �
a � ,� ��m,� o°3,�
r,-i � y
� � o N .Zl � G a1 3. ."O
j m G-.m � R
N �� V1 � N
� � _ J OAK PARK BLVD � \ � y �H �
-� _I
m O J OAK m o°i w
z � PARK
� Q I COURTLAN ST BWp
a
z � ^5 \
z
G7 � AIR VIEW pR ^' .F �� \
�
V Z < D � � O � \
Z 2 Ny � n O ; \
O � m m A Z O = m N ,.
m m
� ELM ST � 0 G .
I�T�I � � n O N
� ePi`3` O D ^�'a~ � A
Cn CO Y O z ',.
O O i �
D A P n D <' �
Cn `�^ °90 0' '
0
RANCHO I
� m O I
� z � �
m
� � �
A9 O
�
� �� i ��9y �
n c o �
� Zo � R��fp � :
�
�� G� D O
� � ��d�� i � � �
O
Z O �
� � � A i
frl 0 '� r�
� � �3'\5�.
` �S /'
y ,C �, / \
� ��� /
� y lsd
!
. TI � aa~ �0 �9 � /
�8 '� °
� � � yS y Qyl � /
a
� CO sr r9 Y
v �p,€' (Cf y /
' -�' y ' 1 s.�
. 1�' �yt• 9y / _
y �� �^ �o Q yo / /
\n ♦ yS ��r. � �i 'ri
Trip Distribrrtion
Trip distributions for Approved/Pending Projects 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 11 have been taken from previously
completed TIS. Trip distributions for approved/pending projects without completed TIS were estimated
using the City of Arroyo Grande Citywide Traffic Model (ONINI-MEANS, 2004) and supplemented by
knowledge of the existing traffic flow pattems, geographical location of the project sites, area
demographics, and locations of other similar destinations, eta The overall daily trip distributions aze
listed below.
Approved/Pending Projects 1,2,4, 6, 8 (Residential):
. 20%to/from East Branch Street east
. 20%to/from US 101 north
• 15%to/from US 101 south
• 15%to/from Grand Avenue west
• 10%to/from Five Cities Shopping Center ,
• 10%Yo/from Halcyon Road south
. 5%to/from Oak Pazk Boulevazd south
. 3%to/From Elm Street south
. 2%to/from EI Camino Real north
Approved/Pending Project 5
• 30%to/from East Branch Street east
• 20%to/from Grand Avenue west
. 14%to/from US 101 north
. 12%toffrom US 101 south
• 10%to/from Halcyon Road south
• 5%to/from Oak Pazk south
. 5%to/from Five Cities Shopping Center
. 3%to/from Elm Street south
• 1%to/from El Camino Real north
Approved/Pending Project 3, Camino Mercado Senior Condominiums and Center (Penfield and Smith,
2001)
. 25%to/from US 101 north
. 20%to/from US 101 south
. 20%to/from Oak Pazk Boulevazd south
. 10%to/from Rancho Parkway north
• 15%to/from West Branch Sheet east
.• 10%toffrom Five Cities Shopping Center
Approved/Pending Project 7,Brisco Mixed Use Development(OMIQI-MEANS,2004)
. 26%to/from East Branch Street east
• 17%to/from Grand Avenue west
• IS%to/from Five Cities Shopping Center
• 12%to/from Halcyon Road south
• 12%to/from US 101 nort6
• 10%ro/from US 101 south
. 4%to/from Oak Pazk south
. 3%to/from Elm Street south
?5
Hampton/nn and Restaurant - . " (25-1275-10/R863TSOOI.doc)
Ciry ojAnayo Grande
__ �
• 1%El Camino Real north
Approved/Pending Project 9,Le Point Mixed Use Project(Higgins Associates, 2003)
• 20%to/from US 101 north
• 2�%tO�f70(RUS 1�1 S011Lll
• 15%to/from West Branch Avenue west
. I S%to/from East Branch Street east
• 15%to/from Grand Avenue west
. 15%to/from Fair Oaks Avenue east
Approved/Pending Project 10,Creekside Center(Associated Transportation Engineers,2003)
• 55%ro/from Grand Avenue/US 101 ramps west '
• 10%to/from East Branch Street east
• 10%to/from Mason Street north
• 5%to/from Mason Street south
. 5%to/from West Branch Street west
• 5%to/from Traffic Way south
. 5%to/from Le Point Avenue east
• 5%to/from Crown Hill Street east
Approved/Pending Project 11,Five Cities Shopping Center Expansion(OMAII-MEANS,2005)
. 12%to/from US 101 north
. 18%to/from US 101 south
. 13%to/from Halcyon Road south
• 9%ro/from Brisco Road south
. 12%to/from Rancho Pazkway north
• 8%to/from Oak Park Blvd. north
. 8%to/from Oak Park Blvd.south
• 13%to/from W.Branch Street east
Flamptan!nn and Restaurant 16
Ciry ojArroyo Grande (15-7173-10/R863TSOOl.doc)
SHORT TEIL�'I NO PROJECT TRAFFIC OPERAT10N5
As described in the previous section, the Short Term No Project Condition is a"no project° scenario that
investigates traffic operations following completion of approved/pending projects in the vicinity of the I
study area. Short Term No Project Conditions were simulated by superimposing the approved/pending
project trips over the existing traffic volumes at the study intersections and roadway segments. The
resulting Short Term No Project traffic volumes are illustrated on Figure 5.
Intersections
Per the City of Arroyo Grande Capital Improvements Inventory (last revision: 2001), there are no
progranuned improvements in the neaz-term expected to affect capacity in the existing roadway network
within the proposed project study azea. For this reason, Short Term No Project AM and PM peak hour
intersection traffic operations have been quantified utilizing the existing lane geometries and control
(shown on Figure 2) and the Short Term No Project peak hour intersection traffic volumes shown on
Figure 5. Table 5 contains a summary of the resulting intersection LOS conditions.
TABLE 5
SHORT TERM NO PROJECT CONDITIONS:INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
,°.:. �� � � ��Pnk�'ouid o'�tfr"'�-.
` ' � �' ., � , . raut,
i'! � < � � , # � .
,��' �'�tr4 V�4 kt? .
*� Dela „
"f-�# ,int�rsechon � ^„` ' . . . .— � ���
1 Oak Park Blvd/West B'anch St/SU IOI NB On-Ramp Signal 18.7 B - 26.1 C -
2 West Branch St/Camino Merodo-U5101 NB AWSC 11.6 B No 53A F Yes
3 West eranch St/Rancho Parkway Si�al 14.1 B - 19.t B •
4 Rancho Parkway/Camino Mercado TWSC 9] A No 10.1 B No
5 West Branch St/Brisco Rd• � Signal 18.1 B - 33.6 C -
6 Brisco Rd/US lOt Northbound' Signil 19.9 B - 31.9 C -
7 EI Csmino Real/Brisco Rd• Signsl 21.6 C - 33.3 C -
8 ElCaminoReal/Halc onRd-US10158* Si nal 50.0 D �•� E ' �
Nole: L0.S—MinorStreefApproachLevelofServ(cefor7Wo-WnySlop-Controlfedinfarectfav
LOS—Overo!(Average Inferxttian Leve!ofServite for Signnfized andAll-Woy SropContra(led infersecttons
De/ay-Minor Sneef Approach Deloy far Two-Way SfopContro/led Infenetfions
De(ay—Overal(Average/ntersecNon Defayfor Slgno(ized wdA!(-fPay SfapControf(ed fnrerrectlonr
AWSC—A(lWuyStop-Controlledinferaection TWSC—Two-WaySfop-Controlfedlnfenecfion
Warrant—bIUTCD Peak Xour Polume WarranF3(Ur6an Area+)
�These inlersecfions,wFich form(he Brlrco-Ha(cyon-US/01 Interchange.ore fn cfase psostmiry ro each olher and have conshalned geometrics
Ihat limi[!Re tra�c wlumu abfe fo pacs through(Re Intenetfiartt As such,fhe absarved baf/!c valumu may no!re/lect fhe acfual bo�c
demand at the inlerchange,there6y rcau(ting in�he wtimated LOS I(rted obove. Bmed un fur�her tfudy,the intersectlon LOS an wrorse fhan
what is calculatedfrom�Re o6served tra�c vofumes.
As indicated in Table 3, the West Branch StreedCamino Mercado-US 101 NB ramp intersection is
projected to operate at unacceptable LOS "E" during the PM peak hour period in the neaz-term. This
intersection satisfies MCJTCD Peak Hour signal wazranu, indicating that the peak hour volume at the
intersection is large enough to warrant installation of a uaffic signal. The eastbound approach is
estimated to experience the greatest amount of delay at the intersection during the PM peak (approach
LOS"F"), while the southbound approach is estimated to experience the least amount of delay(approach
LOS"B"). This projection is consistent with the estimated existing conditions at the intersection.
Although not reflected in the projected volume-based LOS as being deficient,the intersections that make
up the Brisco-Halcyon-US 101 Interchange aze projected to experience increased delay in the near-term
t�
Hampron!nn and Restaurant � " (z5-/175-/0/R863TSOOl.doc)
Ciry ofAnoyo Grande �
�i
as the result of nearby approved and pending projects. The intersections and the interchange as whole
are projected to continue operating at deficient conditions,consistent with existing conditions.
Intersecfions 1 and 4 aze projected to operate at acceptable LOS. All circulation improvements are
discussed in a subsequent section of this report.
18
Hamptan!nn and Resmurant ' (15-1275-10/R863TS00l.doc)
Ciry ojArroyo Grande .
�
� OAK PAP.K BLVO./ 2 WEST BRANCH STR./ 3 WEST BRANCH STR./ 4 RANCHO PARKWAY/
W£ST BRANCH STR. CAM/NO M6RCAD0-US I01 NB RANCNO PARKWAY CAM/NO MERCADO
b N n � b
m �O N Y�� ^ Cl � �
t—zm(zs�) n�I =f L�(is) - ^ m q
� y � ~720(379) � +rl� ~'S7(2 6) Y nI �-147(I58) J 1
� � � 4 �--256(301)
� } f� (52)34� �1 } (� (73)25� (19)34� � } .
I � (498)152—� � I I (29)29�, NN
N Y� /�� � m a^ (264)75—� ,_^
Nh� ` � ^ �yl v�
py�� Yv� V
v N� N v
�j WEST BRANCH STR./ 6 BRlSCO RD./ � EL CAMINO REAL/ $ EL CAMINO REAL/
BR/SCO RD. US 101 N6 BRfSCO RD. NALCYON RD-US f01 SB
���
�° � ��� R--451(408) �a° L e(ie)
x n n ^^ a—84(93) ���`+° �54(29)
�83(19J) c+ � 79(120) I 35(85) I I I 3(21)
� 9fi(87) � 1 � 152(74) � � `� � �/ i 4 1�
(137)95—i � /� F } (38)13�' � � (� (236)156� � r �
(510)124� � I I (193)143—� � (za)ai� �„
� � q N (8B)77 =h� (350)168� �N r
.��. m .a."� . � v^v �v..
Y � m n�p A�
h N+ v
LEGEND•
xxx - AM PEAK HOUR
INiERSECiION VOLUMES '
(xxx)- PM PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION VOLUMES
g/I ; `
�w�� � Mr[r i
ffi Q
AYES
� y�y
6
F
, �� Uuirv 4EF4p� 0��
� 4
BRµM 2
S�� �
l �
L
q � 3 5 ARROYO s � t �„„
Nf�� � I A�E „�,�,� w GRANDE �
sm e
� uxo�
eairnrox � `o ��txue a°� � g
� : .
a � �'f° nmt xrwc.r ',�, ���
LPU1D 1KNVE W Q ��ry0 �p� f
�( /
� � � �P �° ;
e
J �, / . �
� �OCO$(Y1 N�Y �V.
I '
ASM S1RFf! < y �Y
City of Arroyo Grande Figure 5
SHORT-TERM NO PROJECT INTERSECTION VOLUMES �
.rvc ree�rcw.aa(ov�m7 v-�i>f-io
SHORT TE[L\I PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
The Short Term Plus Project Condition is the analysis scenazio in which traffic impacts associated with
the proposed project (i.e. Hampton Inn and Restaurant) are investigated in comparison to the Short Term
No Project Condition scenario.
PROJECT DESCAIPYION
The proposed Hampton Inn and Restaurant project consists of a 104-room motel and 6,000 square-foot
restaurant. The project site is located at the northwestem wmer of Camino Mercado and West Branch
Street. At the time of the analysis, the relationship behveen the motel and restaurant was not yet
deteanined. The motel and restaurant were conservatively considered as sepazate facilities with limited
on-site trip matching, as opposed to an integrated faciliry (e.g. convention center}. Figure 6 shows the
preliminary site plan submitted to the City(dated January 4,2005).
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Table 6 provides a listing of proposed land uses and quantities, and summazizes the anticipated trip
generation from motel and restaurant. The trip generation for the previously approved 24,300 square-foot
office building is included to illustrate the incremental change in trip generation due to the change in land
use.Trip generation rates were taken from the SANDAG Trip Generation Manual(Revised May 1003). ii
TABLE6 li
PROPOSED PROJECT AND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED LAND US�E.,�q qT�RIP GEIVERATION :y� '
'3'- ' �1 . : :�"; 'r � li*x T*�f�"#���'.�E'$�..�w�`�.�1;*�' "'"�sU)T�i°�Ra�es d�� "'v . ,� n^"tR
i i,�� , �.� �., n� 14y s(i'4s r it s. � ,,,„y, .
� *'.-, ,�,;. � ` ' � a�y�1'dp wWeekda`yAM PeakH$°uc��i:�aekdaS�MYB�k�Iloa�r ���
-�d Use Category »� � ,5,,'�' �w �y o e �
-}�w rs� - �: � � �ta�felUnit�,�Total�� Id�°b�,3Uu'� fd��� otal.��kln�:/a�+flnk,le� i
4
Hamptonlnn PerRoom ]0 0.6 60% 40% 0.8 60% 40%
Restaucant,Hiah-Tumover Per KSF I30 832 50% 50°/a 832 60% 40%
CommercialOfficeZ PerKSF 20 2.8 90% 10% 2.6 20% 80%
� ndU�eDescnpt�on� _ �� ' �� ��Y�h �Yeeliils MPes1�Ho., eekd'� +�&I,P��. u`"��'
�,. _�s �. u e ,.;M rt s A": �n�?, ,Ou ofa1�. n'�' . .. ��-m.
Proposed Proiect - �
Hampton Inn 104 1 040 62 37 25 83 50 33
HoleLRestnurnn!Trip Mntehing 8% (78) (5) (3) (2) (6) (4) (2)
Hampton]nn restaurant 6 780 50 25 25 50 30 20 .
Holel-Resm�u�nnt Trip Matching 10% (78) (5) (2) (2) (5) (3) (2)
. Pass-By Redutrion� 10% (140) (9) (4) (4) (9) (5) (4)
Total � 1,524 94 53 4I 113 68 �45
Previouslv Approved Praject
5 Office Buildines 243 486 � 68 61 7 63 13 51
NetTrip Volumc Change 1 038 26 -9 34 50 � 55 � -5
/.TriprafelistedisOrivewayRate. Thedrivewoytriptarefherominum6erof(riprgmem(edbytheritt,rn/cu(oredarfhetumofcumu/otivelript
(new generated tripi)and pms•by bipr(pre-eslrt(ng,dive�ted tripr).
. 1.Pmfiefdand5mith,d000,includeapais-bynductfon �
3.IOib pars-by mducrian(SANDAG Trip Gmnafion Manua(RevGtd May 1003)ateaun�ed for affer 6ofe7-resfnwant Mp mafching
Hampton Inn und Resmurant _ 10
City ojArroyo Grande (25-1275-l0/R8637S00l.doc)
----------1�lesY.Branch,StrQei_ ---.---.-'-----.----- -_
r- . �
i . __�-•�....,-- -=���. ._..=----c�
! --------- - . . , _ �
i .,
; �
�� ! t
i ��� ;
�� � : J - �
, .. ,
�, , , .��:� � .,� �;
3 � � s
_.; _. _ . ;
oi
o , a _ � �
- _ , , �
�;; � ,
m � ;s __ ! ,. ' .
-, . � �', , ;
�.:i r
°' ��.
, , , . _ , -
n.: , .
o ;
'G � � . .. ;� � � � � ` ,: .::
� _ � , _.
� �: . �
r R � . - � .
= ��.. ... ... �. � �.�p \� �,���
� "�� ' . . __ ... .. �,�
D _� � �.._ . . .. .. �: '� ��. ." �:�.
„ I ' I .- - � '
.� , -- - -
. _. :, ..
, � . .
m _ � � _ ; �,s,,�;k
� .
,
� ,, _ .� ,�
�� � . �,�,� ,,„�a:_
.
. ,
-o ; __ ,
� � . �
, � :�, .
�Z , ' � " �
; � �.
� ,r ; r - ,;; :;
0. �,.
H12i0N� �; - , �;
. _
. �` � . . � ,� �� � � � ������ € T��£� � � � �� .�
� ` � �
„ �8��� � � � ��� �__� � �� �
� �� � � � � � � � � �€aa �
, �� "'� �� ypa u• 'p;C�% 9 ffi
� �� ;_ ��� �� � � �
t
D� �� Hampton Inn � Suites, Arro�ro Grande � 9� � 3"�
,f Weat Branch SVeet and Comino Macado, Arroyo Gran Colifomia ��±�y ,
a 9� �� �i ��3'
j =� by MIBf�C8I1 PfOQB1��9! IY�BflflQBRl6f1� I�a ..0 i
I
As shown in Table 6, the Hampton Inn and Restaurant project is projected to load an additional 1,524
daily trips, 94 AM peak hour trips (53 inbound, 41 outbound) and 113 PM peak hour trips (68 inbound,
45 outbound) onto the local roadway network. The estimated trip generation takes into account limited
trip matching between the restaurant and hotel, and restaurant pass-by diversion from existing area traffic.
The change in land use from the previously approved office building results in a trip increase of
approximately 1,038 daily,26 AM peak hour,and 50 PM peak hour trips.
It should be noted that the hotel and restaurant land uses have substantially different peak hour trip
generation characteristics than offices. While the project is three-times the daily volume of the previously '
approved office (1,524 / 486), the peak hour traffic is only 40% greater during the AM peak and 80% '
greater during the PM peak. This is because a lazge proportion of office trips are made during the AM
and PM peak hours; hotei and restaurant land uses generally have higher off-peak trip rates than office
land uses.
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
The directional trip distribution and assignment of project-generated trips was estimated using the City of
tlrroyo Grande traffic model (last updated August 2004) as the primary tool and supplemented by an
understanding of existing and projected future traffic flows and travel pattems within the vicinity of the
project site, lrea demographics, and geographical location of the project site. The Cirywide traffic model
utilizes TransCAD(Caliper Corp.)transportation placuiing model softwaze. The distribution of"proposed
project only"trips is illustrated on Figure 7.
The majority (80%)of the proposed project traffic is projected to be oriented toward US 101. Immediate
access for traffic traveling on US 101 NB is provided to/from the project site via the Camino
Mercado/West Branch Stceet—US 101 intersection. The project impacts associated with the US 101 NB
traffic aze projected to be minimal due to project traffic passing through the least constrained
(northbound-southbound)intersection approaches.
Access from US 101 SB is provided from the Oak Park ramp intersection and the Brisco-Halcyon-US 101
Interchange. The most direct route for project traffic exiting US 101 SB is from the Oak Pazk ramp. 14%
of the project traffic is projected to utilize the Oak Pazk ramps based on the assumptions that the majority
of visitors would have reservations at the hotel,possess some local travel knowledge,and would utilize as
necessary online traveler tools(e.g.Mapquest,Yahoo! Maps). Only 2%of project traffic exiting from US
101 SB is projected to pass through the constrained Brisco-Halcyon-US 101 Interchange. The entirety of
project traffic entering US 101 SB is projected to utilize the Brisco-Halcyon-US 101 Interchange. Of the
portion of project traffic staying within the City (20% of total project tra�c), the majority is oriented
south of US 101 (16%of total project traffic.)
All project traffic from north of Camino Mercado is projected to utilize Camino Mercado to Rancho
Pazkway or Oak Park Boulevazd.
As illustrated on the proposed site plan (Figure 6), access into the project site is proposed to be attained
exclusively from Camino Mercado via two project driveways. The southemmost driveway is
approximately 200 feet north of the Camino Mercado/West Branch StreebUS 101 NB ramp intersecrion.
The second driveway is approximately 70 feet north of the southem driveway. For analysis purposes, a
50 percent distribution split was estimated between the two driveways.
Figure 8 shows the"project only"traffic volumes at the study intersections.
� Hampton!nn and Restaurant _ zz
GYty ojAnoyo Grande (25-1175d 0/R8637SOOl.dac) . .
� n
�
� fi
O o
' ^ M L � __ — r , p
l l �
—I y s -J � — 1 �� �
� — r
� � � cwxn�no sr � RJ on'+ »xT
� Q '� aro
s �
� � � 'e v \�� i
r �
� ^ 4R NfW OR � �I
U/
�
� � F
� a � � � s m
W � �w s� Y N
� {
"� � €
Q
Z ��
� �b W $ <
nnxcwa
w
'�eq R � . ? 1 R '.".;
� p �4, N
N
�ucrax rtono � �
� � N
� F V
F
� f
+, ^ "0ko
� �$ V—nl �T
4�° N N
D �7
\ � f�Tl O �
w
� ��'
\ s
\' /�
. � �
y �"�y
�s � ,�+2�� � ^ F
" T�4.
� 3 /\�\ � f' �♦ � . �' Yz
V � � e
� � � /.
St � � ,6 �
\� , a 4 � . . , .. /
�.,,a ecr +y� (\
� OAK PARX BLVD./ 2 WEST BRANCN STR./ 3 WEST BRANCH STR./ ¢ RANCHO PARKWAY/
WEST BRdM1'CN STR. CA.NlNO MERCADO-!IS 701 N9 RANCNO PARXWAY GM1N0 MERCADO
XX� ��) Yx� �0�) 2S� „o
J 1 �. �3�4) J 1 �. ,�«o> J �. ��; J 1
� 1 � czs)so---} � 1 � (o)o--� co7o� � 1
0 0 0 (26)24—► o v�o (26)24—� ����� o 0
. ooN (0)0� vnv o0
v �v n
�j WEST BRANCH STR./ 6 BRlSCO RD./ ] EL CAMlNO REAL/ $ EL CAMlNO R£AL/ '��
BRlSCO P,D. US 101 NB BR(SCO RD. NALCYON RD-US f0/ SB I
^o � o�+� R--2(5) o 0 0 �0(0) �I
x� �s�� �ao� a�o �ao>
��i ,J 1 �oiai .1 1 �. ,��c�� ,1 1 �. r—ao�
�"'—' '1 f' '11 c2�:� '1 t f czz>zo—� '1 1 f�
(25)23—� (0)0--� (0)0--s
� � � m N 00
v o c.m. ���e--� °."'..°. (2)Z� �°.°.
LEGEND:
xxx - AM PEAK HOUR
, INTERSEC710N VOlUMES
(xxx)- PM PEAK HOUR
INTERSEC710N VOlUMES
`s/ q�1 3� +14FS. `
ffi aP
[ J/YF$
¢ �,y
A
a � GuiH 4 .�F.
N fyG� 4 CP
Bqµ�H Z
S �
�Fr
L ¢g
q � 3 g ARROYO „ `` �,,,„,
� I „�„��o GRANDE ' � ° �
NEWORi AYFHUE S�p
. r IMOA . _S �/ < 8 � '
BRid�M' � S �`2NIC P'.
� .
5 �i pM1N BENMti � VE �/k'
GA4x0` I.YfNVE � 9 ��$� �q t
• � I a � o�s � � /
J � / ��
L
� ' K OWSCM M1Y j'j_
I Y �`
.� s,�E� �,
City of Arroyo Grande Figure 8
"PROJECT ONLY" TRAFFIC VOLUMES �
_ �u. ne�noe.av(waias):o-ixro-+o
SHORT TER\I PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
Short Tenn P/us Project Conditions have been simulated by superimposing traffic generated by the
proposed project onto Short Term No Project intersection and roadway traffic volumes(Figure 5).
Intersections
Short Term Pk�s Project AM and PM peak hour traffic operations were quantified utilizing the Short
Term Plus Project peak hour intersection traffic volumes. Table 7 contains a summary of the resulting
Short Term Plirs Project intersection levels of service.
TABLE7
SHORT TERM PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS:INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
x:..�3o-4` ' : a��. a �otr '' ry ��,5, "dz .'�+�'LYnk�Your' =�.i k.';[PMPn 'i
oar k '�.
� '�� y �����t�`.�� ,:r" � �iF��'� � nb�ol ��'. ' .kv5.t rv',-FW�rta C k �'-�„"'a.t m�y�f";�WarY�nt�
r��A s F' ti n ,'!tw 4��, �i�a��'Ty�pe �7a �� „,L0.S -�^Met�:_Deldy� LO'}`". btet2�`= -
1 Oak Park Blvd/Ncst Branch St/SU 101 NB On-Ramp Si�ai 18.8 B - 26.2 C -
2 West Branch St/Camino Merndo-US]Ol NB AWSC 12.1 B No 603 F Y<s
3 Wtst Bmnch St/Rancho Parkway Signel 10.0 B - 17.0 B -
4 Rancho Parkway/Camino Mercado TWSC 9.7 A No 10.1 B No
5 WestBranchStBrfscoRd' Signal 20.9 C - 24.9 C -
6 Brisco Rd/US 101 Northbaund` Signal 20.9 C - 34.1 C -
7 EI Gmino Rcal/Brisco Rd' Signal 223 C - <2•8 D -
8 EI b ' R 1/H Icyon Rd-US 101 SB• Signal 51� D 56.9 E -
No(e: LOS—MinorSo-eelApproachLeve(ofServiteforTwo-WaySmp-Contro((edinfersec(ions
. L0.S—Overu((AveragefntenectionLevefajServiceJ'orStgnafiaedandAl6WayStop-Canho(ledinlersections �
Delay-hlinor S(reet Approoch Delay for Two-Way Sfop-Confrol(ed infertections .
Delay—Overu(lAverqgeln(errection De(ayforSignalizedandAl6WaySlopContra(ledlntersecfions
AWSC—A((NaySfap-Conhofledinfersecfion TWSC—Two-WoyStop-Controfledlnrerrectian
Warrarrt—MUTCOPeokHourYolumeWarronF3(UrbatAreas) �
'These in�ero�ections,which form the Brfsco-Halryon-US/0I intercl�ange,a�e in c(we prosimiry ta each otRer and hwe conrtroined geomehics
lhat limil(he tra�c volumu abfe fo pats through fhe inferseclfonr. As tuch,fhe observed bo//it vo(umu may noNeJlec!fhe actua(no�c
demand at the inrerchange.(he�eby resu(fing in the esBmaredlAS(isled a6ove. Based an further aNdy,the Intertecfion LOSare xrorre(han
what is cu(ndareJfrom the obaerved tm�c rolumu.
As indicated in Table 7, the West Branch StreedCamino Mercado-US 101 NB ramp intersection is
projected to operate at unacceptable LOS "F" during the PM peak hour period in the neaz-term with the
project. This intersection satisfies MUTCD Peak Hour signal wazrants, indicating that the peak hour
volume at the intersection is lazge enough to warrant installation of a traffic signal. Because the
eastbound West Branch Sueet approach is the most deficient approach at the intersection, project-related
traffic coming from the US 101 SB / Oak Park off-ramp and to/&om points west of the project are
projected to most significantly impact intersecrion delay. The Camino Mercado approach maintains
acceptable LOS "C". �
With regard to queuing from the southbound Camino Mercado approach, even without the installation of
the warranted signal, queuing is not projected to interfere with vehicle entry and exit into the project site.
The HCM 2000 methodology does not define a queuing calculation methodology for AWSC
intersections. For illustrative purposes,the following queuing calculation is presented:
During the PM peak hour;the hourly vehicle arrival rate at the southbound approach is 71 vehicles,while
the average delay per vehicle at the southbound approach is 15 seconds. Considering an average arrival
rate of 1 vehicle every 50 seconds(60 seconds/71 vehicles)and a maximum delay of 30 seconds(double
Kampton/nn anJ Restaurant , 15
Ciry ojArroyo Grande � (15-/275-10/R863TSOOl.doc)
the average delay), the southbound queue would not exceed two vehicles. The 200-foot spacing between
the intersection and the southem-most project driveway intersection is therefore adequate to
accommodate free project traffic movemen[.
As discussed in the Existing Conditions analysis, the intersections that make up the Brisco-Halcyon-US
101 Interchange are currendy operating at deficient conditions during peak hour periods. 34% of the
project traffic, equating to approximately 32 AM peak hour and 38 PM peak hour trips, is projected to
pass through the interchange, further increasing delay. The project share of the interchange traffic
represents less than 2% of the neaz-term volume of traffic projected to be serviced by the interchange.
Therefore,the impacts resulting from project traffic at the interchange aze projected to be minimal.
Intersections 1 and 4 are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS. All circulation improvements are
discussed in a subsequent section of this report.
Hampton/nn and Res[aurant � _ 26
CYry ojArroyo Grunde (�5-1175-10/R863TSOOI.doc)
� OAX PARX BLVD./ 2 WEST BRANCH STR./ 3 WEST BRANCN STR./ ¢ RANCHO PARXWAY/
WEST BRAh'CH STR. CAMlNO M£RCADO-US I01 NB RANCHO PARKWAY CAM/NO MERCADO
q n� � b
N ' ^� O�1(1
' ry�n �'1�1�Z9B� Y N� 'L iKx+) — ^
��I mI t--19(40) � YI �` �--180(337) Y n °ii n
Jy l� �124(383) � j � � 57(236) � � �263(3f0) � j
I T I (�e)ss—� � I � �73)25-1 (zo)as� I T �
(522)176� (29 29 �.
n n m ��)3� m v N �291)98� � � �^ '�
n C^
NOtO Yv� v
v�v �
�j H6ST BRANCH STR./ 6 BRlSCO RO1 'J EL CAMINO REAL/ $ EL CAMfNO REAL/
BRlSCO RO. US 107 N BR7SC0 RD. HALCYON RD-US 101 SB
^� a�,_,
�� �YX L 453(473) �a^ L 8(19)
�--84(194) '�� L 79(120) n^I �I �--84(93) � '�'�� �-54(29)
� 96(87) � 1 �- 152(74) � + 4 �35(65) � 1 � �3(21)
(138)98-� ^ � � } (39)7J�' � } � (258)178� 1 1 �
(535)147--i I I (193)143---� ^ !�. (24)41� �e
n �n °m °n (88)37� n� (352)169-�, �N N
T �� qYV Y{yv
h � Nr v� hv
�/v
LEGEND.
xxx — AM PEAK HOUR
� IN7ERSECTION VOLUMES
(xxx)— PM PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION VOLUMES
{ �
d� w�r �a` e��.py. .
a
g JAVES
yi �`�s
F
� � uuix �
� "'�^c+oo q om
e"w°' 2
S�eFr ¢ F
L "
q � 3 g ARROYO . s s� 5 w^
� I „�„��, GRANDE �"
NF4wG9i �4fNUE � �
ewiwrov �` � S �etuuc ^ uno. e°S 7 � g �
� s
� � qyyE BEMNEii � � �
cannp` �`2NVE � &Q ��0� � i
P � /
. I 0!�'S �i .
J �, / �,
_ W omsw w.. �4�
I '� smccr 9 . f'
City of Arroyo Grande Figure 9
SHORT-TERM PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES �
. n. nemwe.av(wnw)xo-ur�io
CUMULATIVE BASE CONDITIONS
Cumulative conditions reFer to analysis scenarios during a future planning horizon year,which is typically
assumed to be approximately 20 years in the fuhue. Cumulative Base Conditions scenarios assume ,
padial or complete build out of the existing local General Plan. Within this analysis, the Cumulative Base
No Project Condition is a yeat 2025 "no projecY' scenario, which includes this existing General Plan
build-out, excluding development of the proposed project.
General
The long-term future year traffic forecasts for this study have been developed using the Ciry of Arroyo
Grande's traffic model(updated August 2004). Consistent with the City of Arroyo Grande's future traffic
model,the year 2025 has been used as the"cumu(ative yeaz"of analysis for this traffic study.
No significant network changes are modeled in the 2025 citywide model with the exception of the
addition of a traffic signal at the West Branch StreeUCamino Mercado/US 101 Northbound ramp
intersection. Both the Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project analysis scenarios were
analyzed assuming existing lane geometrics and conhol(as shown on Figure 2)at the study intersections.
The City of Arroyo Grande's 2025 Citywide ha�c model was utilized to establish cumulative traffic
vo(umes. The traffic model volumes aze based on projected population and traffic growth rates consistent
with full build-out of the current General Plan. These traffic model volumes have been updated to reflect
the latest available development data provided by the City and include revised trip genetation estimates
for the build-out of the Five Cities Shopping Center and the absence of the previously approved office
development at the proposed project site. Figure 10 shows the projected Cumulative Base traffic
volumes.
Hamptott Inn and Restaurant _ 28
Ciry oJArroyo Grande (25-l175-10/R863TSOOl.dac)
� OAK PAP.X BLVD./ 2 M£ST BRANCN STR./ 3 WEST BRANCH STR./ ¢ RANCHO PARKWAY/
WEST BRANCN STR. CANINO M£RCA00-US I07 NB RANCHO PARXWAY CAM/NO MERCA00
�v Y � N� � � m N .
m o m L203(321) N x�uS �17 40 ^ h�
anm rn� � ) �Y ,.� m
� I I �30(70) �--19{(34B) �,yp0(487)
y y j--I48(458) � � � �fi6(270) � � �308(384) � � i
� I � (109)60--r 7 } I� (80)31� (32)49� � }
(490)158—� I � �ao)a4 �
� �n o (38) 6 p°��°,�'^ (355)97--� �' N e
raw �
� m b ��vv O n
v�v v v
rj R'EST BRANCH STR./ 6 BR/SCO R0./ ] FL CAM/NO REAL/ $ EL CAF1/NO RFAL/
BRfSCO RD. US 101 N9 BRISCO RD. HALCYON RD-US f0/ SB
me °n �+ ~n^
.�.� m�� t--477(449) `�Y.� L14(35)
�124(258) �� L114(162) I I �I �—97(96) �n- �—55(25)
�135(105) � 1 �156(107) �1 + y �34(89) � 1 � �4(32)
(207)715� ^ � � I (60)76�' � � (� (288)168�' � r �
(598)171—� I (194)155—► ' (ss)as--�
°m °m �n (110)40� =�� (377)iBi� �N%�
^ � rM �ii�Y O Y.�..
vv V�V �V
LEGEND•
xxx — AM�PEAK HOUR
� INTERSECTION VOLUMES
(xxx)— PM PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION VOlUMES
.
. ffi�/ W�� �3 �4� `
6
dMES
� k1Y
F
oaa,x
� �, +aec�� 4 pw'�'
eww�y 2
�Ft �L
q � 3 5 ARROYO "` s,,,,
� I „�„�� GRANDE ° ' e""�
xfva0ar ��ExuE S�q W �
� . uxo.
eniw.on � 5 �uxriuc a°S 7 g r
Vs �
Ll 5 G �� ORIYF BEHNEiI ' . '� � •
4A�H0 �Kn�f 4 ��0 �P � �
� g i' �t° t
0
J y / `�p
N
� W A150N W.11 �2
I 9 Yf
♦SM S1REEi � 1"
City of Arroyo Grande Figure 10
2025 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC VOLUMES �
� ne ienlco).M(OSI�W)SY�:IY�o
CUMULATI VE BASE NO PROJECT TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
Intersectinns
Cumulative Bnse No Project peak hour intersection traffic operations were quantified utilizing the
Cumulative Base No Project peak hour intersection traffic volumes, shown on Figure 10, and existing
network lane geometrics and control, with the exception of Intersection 2. Table 8 contains a summary of
the resulting intersection LOS conditions.
TABLE S
CUDIULATIVE BASE NO PROJECT CONDITIONS:INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
„! F°" ' k .�; �'�a��" �� �'� :�';«,t,. '� �3����` �'a�.�AMPdkHour'�'"�" r-J.!�'MPe°3 Ylour
�XC � � : ,� , i t . ,p,y @n ri',xr,}k' �-'�i�` Wan'ant ,§ig' a '�..W,+ amot
. ':Yt:�InLenection ':v„ nS���� a rs�'a'a ��.t,�'����7YDa�.,.��.Dstiy`i^ OS'�„;MetS ';v��4Y - r ��il�f+Met?
1 Oak Park Blvd/Wcst Bmnch St/SU 101 NB On-Ramp Signal 19.0 B - 35.0 D -
2 West Branch 5�/Camino Mercado-US 10I NB .Signal 31.5 C - 40.9 D -
3 Wat Branch S�/Rancho Parkway Signai 14.1 B - I8.8 B -
4 Rancho Parkway/Camino Memado � TWSC 10.0 8 No I1.0 B No
5 Wal Branch St/Brisco Rd• S(gnd 22.4 C - 27.8 C -
6 Bruco Rd/US IOI Nort66ound' Signal 24.4 C - 41.0 D -
7 EI Camino Revl/Brism Rd' Signal 29.2 C - 58.9 E -
8 EI C�mino Real/Halcyon Rd-US 101 SB• Signal 59.9 E 62.5 E
Note:�LOS—MirtorStreetApproathlevelofServittforTwo-WayStop-Contro(ledinrersectians
LOS—Overal(Average/ntenection Levef ofService for Signalized andAp-Way SropControlled inrersecfionr
De(ay-Minor Street Approach Delay for Two-Way Srop-Confraf(ed Infenections
.Delay—Overal!Averagelnferseclion De(ay for Sigrtolized and A(!-Way Stop-Contro((ed lnfersmltons ,
AWSC—A(l{VayStop-Controfledlnter.recfion TWSC—Two-WayStopConbof(edlnrerseclion
Wanarcf—AfUTCD Peak Hour Polume Wanan!-3(Ur6an Areas)
•T6ese intersections,w6lch/orm the Brlrto-Halcyan-US!01 inrerchonge,ore/n clox proxlmiry ro each olher ondhove consfmiradgeomebics
lhot limit the tru�c volumes ob(e fo pass tRrough(he inhrsections. Ae such,!h¢o6served fra�c vo(umes may nat reJlect the aclua!traQc
demand af rhe inrerchange,there6y resu(Nng tn the estimated LOS lieredobove. Bated an furlh¢r sfudy,!he Mfnsection LOS are worse lhan
what ts cafculated�ram the a6rerved ba�c volumes.
As indicated in Table 8, planned signalization of the West Branch St./Camino Mercado — US 101 NB
intersection is projected to result in LOS "D"at the Caltans-acceptable standard of cusp"C/D"during the
PM peak hour period. The existing deficient conditions at the Brisco-Halcyon-US 101 Interchange aze
projected to remain in the Cumulative Base No Project Condition.All other intersections are projected to
operate at acceptable LOS. All circulation improvements are discussed in a subsequent section of this
report.
Hampton Inn and Restaurdnt � , � . 30
Ciry ojArrayo Gramfe � (25-1275-l0/R863TSOOl.doc)
CUMULATIVE BASE PLUS PROJECT TAAFFIC OPERATIONS
Cumulative Base P/us Project Conditions have been simulated by superimposing traffic generated by the
proposed project onto Cumulative Base No Project intersection and roadway traffic volumes (Figure 10).
The resulting C:rme�lative Base Plus Project traffic volumes are illustrated on Figure 11.
Intersections
Cumulative Bnse Plus Project AM and PM peak hour intersection traffic operations were quantified
utilizing the C�o�rulative Base Plus Project peak hour intersection traffic volumes(Figure 11)and existing
lane geometrics and control as shown in Figure 2 (excepting the proposed signal at study intersection 2)at
the study intersections. Table 9 contains a summary of the resulting intersection LOS conditions.
TABLE 9
CUMULATIVE BASE PLUS PROJECT COl`IDITIONS:INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
��4 71��i"�` ; � v ,6��-a � .. .� -,.� .c�.�.t3a�i`C�MPei�k o , ��_.M,..,.,."o Fl��,�af
��� �''� � z�s�v"`a��-s �+ � Co . ' t�
=:$M Inh section � .*"�; .,rv , s i`� ,1�V �� +
. � 1 � Oak Park Blvd/West Branch St/SU 101 NB On-Remp Sigiai I9.1 B - 35.8 D -
2 West B�anch 5�/Camino Mettado-US 101 NB Signai 32.4 C - 42.3 D -
I Wwt Bmnch St/Rancho Parkxay Signal 13.7 B - 18.7 B -
4 RanchoParkway/CaminoMercado 7'YVSC 10.0 B No 11.0 B No
5 West Branch St/Brisco Rd• Signal 20.1 C - 30.2 C -
6 Brtsco Rd/US 101 Northbound• Signal 24.1 C - 45.2 D -
7 EI Camino Real/Brisco Rd' Signd 30.6 C - 64.6 E - �
8 EI Camino Real/Nalcyan Rd-US]01 SB' Signal 61.8 E 65.4 E -
Nofe: LOS—MittorStreetApproachLevefofServittfor7kro-WaySropContro!ledinfersectiom
LOS—Overa(!Averuge/nferaecfion Leve7 of Servlce for Signaltzed andA(l-Woy Stop-Controfled fnlersectiona
Delay-Minar Saeet Approach De(ayfor Two-Way Smp-Controfled tnrerrectionr
Delay—Overul!Averoge Infersetlton Delay for Signa(ized andAl6Way Sfop-Conna(fed interaectlou
AWSC—AllWayStop-Control(edinrersec(ion� TWSC—lkro-WaySrop-Conho!ledfnrersec(ion
Warrant—h1UTCD P¢ak Hour Volume WonanF3(Urban Areasf
•These inten'ectionr,which form tRe Brimo-Ha(cyon-US/0l inter[hange,are in Nose proximiry fo eoch olher and have conrtralntd geametrics
thaf lirnit fRe(m�c valumes a6(e m parr through tl�e ln�ersmtlona. As xuch,the o6terved traJJic volwnu may not reJlec![Fe actua(fraJjic
demanda��heinrercFange,tFesebyruullinglnlheestimatedLOSlirteda6ova Basedonfu�Iherttudy.thelntersetNonLOSareworsethan
whaf ir ca(ndofedfrom fhe obrerved ba�c vo/umu. �
As shown in Table 9, the Cumulative Base Plus Project traffic volumes at the improved Camino
Mercado/West Branch St. — US 101 Interchange aze projected to result in intersection LOS "D" at the
Caluans-acceptable cusp of"C/D". The 95`"-percentile queue calculated during the PM peak hour period
is projected at 120 feet, which is within the storage length available on Camino Mercado before the
project driveways(200 feet).
The existing deficient condifions at the Brisco-Halcyon-US 101 Interchange aze projected to remain is the
Cumulative Base Plus Project Condition. All other intersections are projected to operate at acceptable
LOS.
All circulation improvements aze discussed in a subsequent section of this report.
Hamptan Inn and Restaurant 3�
Ciry ojArroyo Grande (15-l275-10/R863TS00I.doc)
� OAK PARK BLVD./ 2 WEST 6RANCN STR./ 3 WEST BRANCN STR./ ¢ RdNCHO PARKWAY/
W6ST BRANCH STR. CAMlNO NERCADO-US 10/ NB RANCHO PARKWAY CAM/NO hfERCADO
� `w^ p �
vnY . mNN h I!I AN
N�i N L�LOJ�J2i� N�N K4S� �`j � q
�2 N
� I .-30(�0) I .--isa(aaa) � — Lzoo aai
y � j---151(462) y � � 88(270) � � �31(393) � �
� � (� (734)88 1 � } f(BO)31� (32)49�' � �
n n N (51(3B)8� o�n in (381)121ti (80)44
n acl � mu�� � am
q 0 0 Y v� O n
NbN N "'
5 WBST BRANCX STR./ 6 BRlSCO RD./ ] EL CAMINO REAL/ g EL CAMfNO REAL/
BRlSCO RO. US )O1 NB BRlSCO RD. HALCYON RD-US f01 SB
m n �N� �h�
� ��^� L475(452) ��^ �14(JS)
�-125(259) n� �111(162) I I `VI �97(9fi) 'R�+= �--55(25)
j-175(105) J 1 �756(107) �/ + y �34(89) I 1 � j--4(32)
r
(208)118—► ^ � � I (62)18--�' � � (� (3f0)198�' � '� �
(623)194—y I �isa)iss—. � . (26)45—� „„_
�n m �n (110)40� ��� (379)183� �Nn
a °o �� �h� F�°.�'
.�'°.. � �� � n
LEGEND:
xxx — AM PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION VOLUMES
� . � (xxx)— PM PEAK HOUR
INTERSEC710N VOLUMES
bs'`/ W'+ ,T3' yMFS �
I a
WIES
¢ W�Y
�s A
d � CA�xN 4 JE
p �W � Oro
ekµpl Z
S e
�ft y
L ea'
s � 3 5 ARROYO s � `` �,,,
� I „�„�,� GRANDE �"
xcwaar ��uuc s� w �
� uxo�
BFiW�iM � o n�[m� P�� 7 8
� � 5 3 � ORRE BfNNER � � � •
. cnex0 s /.MNE y Q �NA� . 101 � <
� & � /
J °�5 Y�
t� / �a"
�
_ � �oaozox w.r ��'?
� ^� sm¢r ' , 4,
City of Arroyo Grande Figure 11
2025 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES �
-n.� rwarcaawf(�a�m)ts-�no-io
RECOMMEI�DED CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
This section presents recommended base improvements as well as project-related mitigation measures at
the study intersections based on the findings from the analyses presented in the prior sections of this
report. A summary "Mitigation Matrix" of intersection LOS under all analysis scenarios (without and ,
with improvements)is attached as Appendix Table 1.
Existing Conditions
The following improvements aze recommended under Existing Conditions:
West Branch Street / Camino Mercado/US 101 Northbound Ramns InterchanQe — This in[ersection
cutrently operates at LOS "E" during the PM peak hour period under existing peak hour conditions with
existing lane geometrics and control. The required circulation improvement suggested is consistent with
the current City of Arcoyo Grande Capital Improvement Program (FY 2003-2008), which recommends
traffic signal installation. With this improvement, acceptable LOS "C° or better is projected for AM and
PM peak hour periods under existing uaffic volume conditions.
Brisco-Halcvon-US 101 InterchanPe-Intersections 5, 6, 7 and 8,which form the Brisco-Halcyon-US 101
Interchange are estima[ed as operating at unacceptable LOS under Existing Conditions. Required
circulation improvements recommended to achieve acceptable LOS at these intersections are consistent
with the approved Project Study Report (PSR) for interchange improvements on US 101 at Brisco
Road/Halcyon Road(Dokken Engineering, September 2001). It is expected that existing deficiencies will
be resolved as long as the City is active in moving forwazd with the neaz-term modification of the US
101/Halcyon Road/Brisco Road interchange.
Short Term and Short Term Plus Project Conditions
The Short Term scenario refers to the incremental traffic impacts attributable to near term projects within
the study area circulation system under existing conditions. With the mitigations recommended under
Existing Conditions, all project intersections under Short Term No Project and Short Term Plus Project
ConAitions operate at an acceptable LOS and no additional mitigations to unprove intersection traffic
operations are recommended.
Cumulative Base
Cumulative Base Conditions establishes a baseline cumulative condidon scenario in wluch the proposed
Hampton Inn and Restaurant project site is assumed to remain undeveloped (i.e. a "vacanY' project site)
tluough year 2025, and yeaz 2025 model land uses are assumed elsewhere based on a full build-out of
vacapt lands per the City of Airoyo Gnnde General Plan. The long-term future yeaz traffic forecasts for
this study have been developed using the City of Anoyo Grande tr�c model. Consistent with the City
of Arroyo Grande's future tra�c model,Yeaz 2025 has been used as the"cumulative yeaz"of analysis.
Brisco-Hnlcvon-US 101 Interchange-Intersections 5,6,7 and 8,which form the Brisco-Halcyon-US 101
Interchange are estimated as operating at unacceptable LOS under existing conditions. The unacceptable
conditions would likely be further aggravated under Cumulative Base Condirions without midgations.
Required circulation unprovements recommended to achieve acceptable LOS at these intersecrions aze
consistent with the approved Project Study Report (PSR) for interchange improvements on US 101 at
Brisco Road/Halcyon Road (Dokken Engineering, September 2001). It is expected that existing and
possible future deficiencies will be resolved as long as the City is active in moving forwazd with the neaz-
term modification of the US 101/Halcyon Road/Brisco Road interchange.
Hampfonlnn and Resmur¢n! _ 33
Ciry ofArroyo Grande (25-1275-10/R863TSOOl.doc)
Cumulative Base Plus Project Conditions
Cumulative Base P[us Project Conditions superimposes the project-generated traffic volumes onto the
Cumulative Bnse Conditions traffic volumes
Brisco-Hnlcvon-US 101 InterchanQe-Intersections 5,6,7 and 8, which form the Brisco-Halcyon-US 101
Interchange 1re estimated as operating at unacceptable LOS under existing conditions. The unacceptable
conditions would likely be further aggravated under Cumulative Base and Cumulative Base Plus Project
Conditions without mitigations. Required circulation improvements recommended to achieve acceptable
LOS at these intersections are consistent with the approved Project Study Report (PSR) for interchange
improvements on US 101 at Brisco Road/Halcyon Road (Dokken Engineering, September 2001). It is
expected that existing and possible future deficiencies will be resolved as long as the City is active in
moving forward with the neaz-term modification of the US 101/Halcyon Road/Brisco Road interchange.
Hamptan/nn and Restaurant „ 34
Ciry ojArrayo Grande , (25-7175-10/R863TSOOl.docf
APPENDIX
INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE SUMMARY
("MITIGATION MATRIX")
LEVEL OF SERVICE AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
WORKSHEETS
r
i
i
APPENDIX TABLE 1
HAMPTON INN AND RESTAURANT
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
t q �
� 6 � 0.� iLQ' C �.
� � ��C m c n H �+ �
3 c U z `� U � - 0.7 T�
O � o � �, ° � �
MITIGATION MAT ; z u j U Y u ? 9 � �
CC K p
� o c � c `m c .o e o orn
A � �yv°� µ�j m ov° � oy° c 'co
ro
a � � � � � � � y ti � � N
o" v, 3 � 3a" rs� � 3 wz° 'w 'w �
AM PEAK HOUR LOS Delay LOS Delvy LOS Del�y LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Deiay LOS Deivy
EXirfin B I&5 B 113 A 7.0 A 93 B 1&5 B I7.1 C 30.8 D J6.9
.__._. ....... .. ....._. ..........._.. .,.......
Fxisfing(with Mitigation) • � •
Shar(T[rmNoPro'ecf B I&7 B 11.6 B Id,l A 9J B 18.1 B 19.9 C 7I.6 D W.0
Shorl Term Na Project(with Miligalion) �
ShartTermPfusPro'ect B 18.8 B li.l B 10.0 A 9.7 C 20.9 C 30.9 C 113 D 51.J
...._._ ......... ......... ......_..._.
ShortTermPlurProject(withMitigation) • �
Cumula(iveNoPro�ecf - B 19.0 C 7L5 B 10.1 B 10.0 C 23.0 C 34A C 29.2 E 59.9
CumulativtNaProject(withMitigation) • • • ' ' • • .
CumulafivePfutPro�ect B 19.1 C 7S.0 B I7.7 B 10.0 C 70.1 C 54.1 C 70.6 E 61.8
CumulativePlusProjec� (withMi�igation) �
PM PEAK HOUR LOS Dehy LOS Dehy LOS Delay LOS Ddry LOS Delry LOS D<lay IAS Delay LOS Delay
Es1aNn C SSA E LI.1 B IS.S A 9.8 C 27.9 C 38.6 C 31.5 D d3.�
Existing(wilh MitigatianJ c ?0.6 • • ` •
Shart Term No Pro'ecf C 36.1 F 57.0 B 19.1 B- 10.1 C 3J.6 C 31.9 C 31J E ib.7 .
SlwrtTefmNoProject(withMitigation) (: 3).( • ' *
Short Term Plut Pro'ect C I6.2 F 60J B 17.0 B ]0.1 C 24.9 C 3d.1 D dE.B E SG9
ShortT¢smPf¢tPrajecf(wilhMitigation) D N3 ' ' ' `
Cumu[ative No Pro eu D 35.0 D 40.9 B I&6 B tl.0 C 37.8 D /I.0 E 5&9 E 6S.S -
Cwrtu/aNveNoProjecf(withMitigation) i!; •
CumulativePlµtPro'ect D 35.8 D 173 B I&7 B 11.0 C 70.2 D �53 F: 60.6 E 65A .
� CumuLP(wProject(withMi�igation) ;'.� ,
OYR-Ovr'ffowCordttimu,LOS-LevelofServfn �
Nofe:The minimum acceptuble standrvAJ6r Gry intmmHO�u u LOSCwdforSmhlnxnecflmu b fAe curp ofIASC/D.
•Rsguircd deue(opmenl(mprovementr reeommended ro acFieve accrptable LOSaf thlr lnferstttlan an cauUfenf wltAan ayproyedAroJM Sfudy Report(PSI�/or
lntercFwg(mprovemenn on US 101 utBnrw Road-Xa(cyun Road(Dokken Engineertngfw eFeGry ofAiroyo Csandt,Seytember 1001J.
OMNI-MEANS Ltd. �
4/8/2005 � 25-1275-10 � t863e02_LOS01.xls
ATTACHMENTS
MEMORANDUM _,r.f��-.3„�%!J.:
�.r ��
/ �v�2; �• T' �l �
�;�-�/1F, ':^> tn
Date: Apri1 1, 2005 �'��<`� '�' �°'
(I`" � ' • �?• 79 �m I
To: Don Spagnolo, Victor Devens, Rob Strong �ir=� �� �� WALLACE GROUP
�\v �D• � ��
From: Steve Tanaka, Raymond Dienzo ,r /
Tg,.� ��i ,1' �0.q'�\� ' UVIL ENGINEENING
V�a: Jill Peterson ��«E�` CONSTRUCTION
AIANAGEMENT
Subject: Sewer Study for Hampton Inn and Restaurant - Updated �ANDSCAPE
' ARCHITECTURE
This technical memorandum presents the sewer capacity study for the proposed ��ECHANICAL
Hampton Inn and Restaurant. This memo presents Hampton Inn and Restaurant flow ENGINEE�7ING
calculations and peakipg factors and how such flows may impact the SSLOCSD trunk P�ANNING
system. The Arroyo Grande Wastewater Master Plan (AGWWMP); �adopted in pUBIIC WORKS
November 2001, was updated relative to existing and future impacts from this project. AoM�rv�srenr�or,
� . SURVEYING!
Location and Description GIS SOLUTIONS
WATER qESOUHCES
The proposed Hampton Inn and Restaurant project site is located on the corner of �yq��p�E5WAN50N
Camino Mercado and West Branch Street (see Figure 1); West Branch St parailels the INTERNATIONAL
east side of Highway 101. Other establishments, in the project vicinity along West
Branch Street, are the Five Cities Center to the north (upstream sewer flows in relation
, to the project site) and the Oak Park Plaza to the south (downstream sewer flows in
relation to the project site). There are business complexes along Camino Mercado
(upstream sewer flows in relation to the project).
Zoninq
The zoning for this project site is Mixed Use (MU). The AGWWMP projected future
average daily flows of 1',064 gpd, 4,200 gpd, and 1,500 gpd to account for potentiai
Office, Restaurant, and Retaii respectiyely. It appears from this study that flows from
Hampton Inn and Restaurant wili exceed that projected in the 2001 AGINWMP by
approximately 17,000 gpd.
SewerAnalvsis Criteria
Wastewater flows were estimated and calculated as follows:
• For the Inn— 110 rooms
o Average Daily Flow (ADF) of 160 gallons per day (gpd) per room was
used, resufting in a full occupancy of 17,600 gpd maximum day.
o Assume occupancy rate of 70% which results in 12,320 gpd ADF —this WALLACE GROUP
n anre.m.ce�vor.�to.
is the value used for this analysis.
4115 BROAD 5T
• For the Restaurant— 200 occupants, 15 employees, 3000 sf of seating, 3000 sf SUITE 6-5
of re area. snr, �u�s oa�sPo
P P CALIFORNIA 9340�
o Assume 300 meals per day @ 40 gallons per meale; therefore 12,000
gpd ADF. T eos saa•ao,i
- F 805 544-4294
' www.wallaceg�oup.� �
' Metcalf&Eddy, Waslewa�erEngineering—TreatmendDisposa!/Reuse, 2"dE�lition
Subject:
April 1, 2005
Page 2 of 4
Peaking factor for this project is assumed at 3.0, which is consistent with the city wide peaking
factor used in the AGWWMP.
Table 1 -Summary of Project Flows
Flow Contributor Flow Units
Inn 12,320 9Pd
Restaurant 12,000 gpd
24,320 gpd
Total Average Flow 17.0 gpm
0.038 cfs
51.0 gpm
Totai Peak Fiow (3 x Average)
0.114 cfs
The total peak flow (Table 1) was added to the updated sewer model, which includes upstream
developments that were not included in the AGWWMP (see Table 2). This data is presented in
the model spreadsheet titled Exhibit 8 — Build-ouf Flows for Hampton Inn and Resfaurant. The
pipes that were analyzed are shown in boid in Figure 1. The model spreadsheet titled Exhibit A
— Existing were existing flows as stated in the AGWWMP refiects existing conditions in 2001,
which shows adequate capacity. This data is included as reference.
It should be noted that the AGWWMP stated excessive storm water inflows upstream of Lift
Station 1 in the Rancho Grande area.=,improvements have smce,been made to remediate this?
- � - - . -.._;.. ....-e.-a..-- Z . . - . - . -
problem; therefore, actual peak flows may be'iowet."than"whaf was projectedf Until new flow
monitoring for the existing pipes at Camino Mercado and West Branch Street is available, future
projections stated in the AG�MNMP including the Hampton project and other recent
developments will be used (as shown in Exhibit B).
Model Results
This sewer model was generated by determining and analyzing the sewer pipes that would
convey the additional Hampton flows, and inputting this data into the sewer model spreadsheet
developed by Wallace Group. Manning's Formula for open channel flow was the basis for this
computer model and the Manning's coefficient n=0.013 was chosen to be consistent with the
value used in the AGWWMP. The proposed connection for the project sewer main is Pipe 1124
on Camino Mercado (see Figure 1 and Exhibit B), and
sewer flows wili be conveyed in a northerly direction by
�-, the sewer main along West Branch St(Pipe 1010, et al.)
T - to Lift Station 1.
� Sewer capacity criteria used in this analysis were the
� \ I ratio of depth of flow to the diameter of pipe (d/D) (see
� i ��/. adjacent figure) at peak flow and the peak flow velocity.
� ` The peak flow (d/D) for an 8" to 12" main should be a
� maximum of 50% . In this analysis, the largest diameter
sewer main is 12" (1258, 1260, 2163) near Oak Park
Ave, which flows directly into Lift Station 1: As seen in Exhibit B,column L, ali d/D at peak flow
is near the 50% criteria �
Subject•
April 1, 2005
Page 3 of 4
Peak velocity in gravity sewers should be a minimum 2 fps and below a maximum 10 fps and as
seen in Exhibit B, column N, all velocities are well below 10 fps but some pipes 1113,1124, and
1008 are below the minimum 2 fps. Pipe 1113 and 1008 are areas of concern but are upstream
of the project so it does not directly apply to this analysis. Pipe 1124 is below 2 fps but 1.9 fps is .�
`•; an acceptable value. �
.. _ . . __.. .
Based on fhe aboye analysis, there is:adequate sewer capacity for the_proposed Hampton inn �
;and Restaurant. '..
Flow Contributions
Flow contributions of this project were determined by comparing Hampton peak flows to the
peak build-out fiows conveyed by the 8" and 12" sewer mains. Build-out fiows of other proposed
developments were included in this analysis (see Table 2, and Figure 2).
Table 2— Build-out Flows of Other Proposed Developments
Proposed Developments Average Average Peak Pipes common to Hampton
(not projected in AGWWMP) Flows Fiows Flows project
d m m
Condominiums (60 units, 2.0 p/du) 7,800 5.4 16.3 1010
Apartments (22 units, 2.0 p/du) 2,860 2.0 6.0 1258,1260,2163
Oak Park Tract(35 RSF, 2.4 p/du) 5,460 3.8 11.4 1258,1260,2163
Totai (other developments) 16,120 11.2 33.7
Hampton Inn and Restaurant 24,320 17.0 51.0
Total (other developments inciuding 40,440 28.2 84•7
Ham ton
Based on AGWWMP future ro'ection 65 d/ erson
Future conditions (see Exhibit B) to pipes 1010 and 2163 were chosen for this analysis. Percent
of peak flows with total flows to Lift Station 1 was also analyzed; since there is current flow
meter data (August 2004) that would give an accurate picture of total flows to West Arroyo
Grande. This analysis is summa�ized in Table 3.
: Table 3- Flow Contributions by Hampton Inn and Restaurant .
Sewer Main Build-out Peak Flows Hampton Peak %flows
(w/o Hampton)(cfs) Flows (cfs) contributed
� b Ham ton
Pi e 1010 8"Sewer Main 0.3677 0.114 31.5
Pi e 2163 12"Sewer Main 1.059 0.114 10.7
Lift Station 1 1.132 0.114 10.2
SSLOCSD Trunk Svstem .
The sewer flows from West Arroyo Grande are conveyed to the SSLOCSD Wastewater
Treatment Piant through the SSLOCSD Trunk System. The West Arroyo Grande sewer
connects to this trunk system at the comer of�jC_Q�ks Ave and South Elm Stree
� Hampton sewer flows.enter into Lift Station 1 ����`ift��attt�P��"3S�E� } � ''� �
Subject:
April 1, 2005
Page 4 of 4
vanable frequency:drive (VFD) pumps that ,will not increase the existing pump peak.flows; �i
therefo�e, future sewer capacity will be the same as whaf is stated in the AGWWMP which
shows adequate hydraulic capacity at the point of connection to the SSLOCSD Trunk System
and to the WWTP. Because of the increase of average flows from upstream developments,
hydraulic analysis was performed on the downst�eam pipes of Lift Station 1 up to their �
connection to the SSLOCSD Trunk System (see Exhibit C for existing and Exhibit D for build- '
out; aiso Figure 2). Average flows for both existing and build-out conditions result in a d/D below
50% (see Exhibit C & D, column K). Although there will not be any capacity issues at the point
of cor��ection to the SSLOCSD Trunk System, there will be a 5% addition to the total future flow
volume conveyed at this point of connection, at which the flow rate will be controlled by Lift
Station 1.
Capital Improvements
Thereyare no ca�ital:improvements proposed for this;,pr ject, however it.is,�ecommended.that,;
. __:... .._ __ -
_Lift Station 1 upgrades be compietecJ prior to;occupancy. �
RCD:SGT:rcd
Cc: Jill Peterson
M:@32-Moya GranCe�232-0405-Gmeal ConsulEnq�a3•Hartyton Inn Se«erMalysisUiampion Nn Sewer Study Repwl.dx
Z"�.t�e � i' -r' '� .- '' -L. e� ry $C:if. .J ' •:'�A t �. �i
17 � �N th %it0 m O m a�^]. O �Cl +� F��_Y
� � H m � >mi�� rn .��'` ml �oy� m 'm � t �
z o � r icv.im o: ,�w I co'�v o m cv v m��o� m��. �n i.an.�-t��^r {m S a .�-w:
v 4 't N�Vt� y,i � �y'1 �� C! �Y `6' Cl OJ�A� y� 4N: �� SV N.^.D N N N N_
] J Z i � �'�'� ��}�`.S pa.�L'���X�! c�.+ tL�: �";�"E+ i
,r �b'�ir��m�_"�:c �,x"'� [.0� ��,._.w-r...i� t ..,,, _-
.., .c! "� '.I E". �.'� ., 1 ..'.:� " 'c,
� N �m f0 ��.j �. �O N.� H N �O O O }O O O'.LO O O�� O � O � N N N�
O O O C) m� m m aI ^t0 O ! � N
E � m .�n m �n�..l v � ;� m� r �n .ro < o ¢� v v, vs v q,� �ni � m i � - n
S /CI �� N -� N"� ��� N N N� O O.. O O O, O t0 � N �1D �.
9 :�.•:.r...� �.'� .. .�_ie. . � :.�.� . _ �i: ai.�.1.4:��'.�av._w* ��. ..�x I�.n- - �,
O1 b N l0-�• a0�.� O Y N O) N O O :O O O� O O � O' O 'O tD �f� (o�
J a � N-..Cl N � C�J. �.�.� . m o] :'O O o '. o m �o. ao m m r �o v ��� ,:v
Q t0� N .�N cq t0 . bl O O� O O '.O O ,':t0 Y
O'O O ��D�I ; O- 'A � O O ,O 'O O O �O O .O� O O'"�O' O 'O O O �'O
9 .
� ^ ° �—�g � I'� � Y ': 1 l� 4(
� , x s�
oe� �m o'�.'o'-j y� 1 ��� � fO m c°i m �x� TO! xN v�. v vKV d°{ dv�i aNi m m
Y C O Y �SA� `�P a �N m : W F m M� fO M� Cl'l,.�N� N N N� Y #t01 ) m�im aG
� {OyO� �Ob � O O O f0 O O O O O� p{ N N Cl�
9 " �,`3�..� r � � Q 1 ... �� i�a k�5 LiC %c s� �,;5 y` 'j1�r.H �
._i4;».a.s4Z±<.• rts�'`x ..._ _�.� ._<s is,� &,..: u .�. .... ,�_t�. vr-��.�._
� O �t0 O O'. .�O ' 'O ' N O O O 01 M �t� O .O� O O O� O '01 ro �D ���0
� � � �� �O: � �-O . N . O .� � � �� O ,O� O O .O O � O{ �Y yH
9 O:�"O C "G� "a O' ' � C O C lD O O 'G O G� O O �G� O ��'G O -�0 G�
3 .._ �. �. .r: �� r ,�A ro t0 t0 M `t0� t0 l9 �t0 C) �m m 0 �m�
O N..�•N a ,a-�. :€''.. `�� �� I � n � M �n eyi .Yi Fi o `o 0 0 0 o v m m o
w 3 a� I c o ( c l lola l `�c o 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 o c o
0 0 0 0
L LL � N N N N N N N I N N N W m m � N N N
N N N N � N N N N N N N h h t�
r �. �. N N N O O O O O O � � a? m
� �� LL 6 CI t0 m Cl m 0 m p� 01 01 �O (D tO 'Y Y st < O O y y p
y T = q O1 OI OI N N I [O I m m �I ' p � � m N• � m N N ln 1A
1� h !` I� h 1� A � N N N
y o a
� � ^ p
� � y y p ! ' � I ^ � � � ' � O O O O O O � N. N N
C C (� >� Tj O O � O O O � O O O O � � �
(0 '„�,� Q LL � O G O G G G I O � O O G O G O G G O O G O O O O C
CN .... .. ... :... .... ,:�
C X , . . �y. ..: " 3
W d � � .� � ��: m � C ��N C�J n ��V O O .O N t7 �r N '1�(1 N � h�.
� � I� O�1�. O 'O O :�::, ,.Q . . p � .O O � .:O O O 1'0 � �O � O O O ��O O O 'O
QQ N -- o...,o o+'o.. ; o � � o �-o o °::a o *o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° f�.�o 0 0 0.
= L � q,.:� � :P:: ..�_`: : � _. '..�. m a��'m m"m LLrn Va m rn m m m� .:�i�i �.:� <:�:
W W ;; �i eyi, �i, �i, I �i �i I �i, �i, �i, �i �i �i, e°o e�i �i .yi, �i, vei, Xi, r n r r
� o 0 0 o c c o 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O � c W m m 'c� �..m m � m oa m m ao m �m aJ m m -m W '.to
� � � �
N" ... . ..:., :.',�.. � : �': � � ". : ::..
U N � r M O�i Y�] � t�0 N t�0 � Nv ti O � m T � I m.
�
U �x N Cl !�I C1I �IMI N�Na �I �I.m I � I �.I'.� ' e- ' p
. � ' . . ( I � . . ..._. . . . . . .
2 U1�..� O .N. � ���. O O N V f0 0� '��O th t0 m ` .:` N -� N �'�N �
N O�
m a � .� .0.. O � O yj O O O O O �O � . O� N
O
a
o m N
�^ > �^ � O � . y Y
. in O N . V1� W p
s� ° a N� m V ry � c> z
c � v� `v�c � C m $e b
o . �� - . am -�� � �� . � - c �
o ;e °'
� a o - � c � ym cOC m� . �. 'E -_ at0. � - .m `'
� - mE �� . . m3 �E yE. .. m m a �
� y m ' c d�j m�j . . o . � w �.
3° � 3 3 0
Z, _:.�� n '° -�,. � '�w.1 xt y�x :�� � y,""�L`r .s��t " ' c'`�..�{.v'�'�'
u � h m K� w g°in. �"�m o`� b m m o"i�a�., n e"i `m m A m�cn-`ar `�in m�,
z o � n w co o- . ��"m am �.?v c+: m .n �r ��) S�n"r ci.�,-s'ggcz„s� m � mt �.
j c 4 �tY N�'�-': �v `~ t�tryt'ir � v.�.f» uKjA"�'°c""�,�^. C'�t'�s fist��^�-�.K.s�'4 i4 r q c �'cw c�:
� s�....• v.e�.. y'-v�..,�"�..._ �� 'f°�r.�,.r- >s'r^�r.{'Eir.+`e 2�sat -• ;i�s._.a»..<"`�..,.�'�.-i—�+•''s,,.. . i
1 ° 1 �-.'. � ,: 1 :... t .aa+ i`
_. -
� � N m �{� isN !.O FN�'� O O ,O C < � O �.O O O �CYN � i� a �H'��N �N'
O: O� ' N 1 N af 'O m m �1 a] ..m N a0 '.tD f71 ;' RNf w4't9( .t7�
� � m �!o m �n.� � � -'� �.i co 0 0 �� v v v v v m , 3 4�v.�•t �a. �
. O � � .F <� N N` fV {O S� �� O O O O O 1 < I �D'S'm fp�
.. k. '�� � ",1 C .A.-: t_ � I�SQ�SI� , .�.
�`� 4_ '1 ..:.�� _ � i.�w 'n : J 'M`t�i� Ca:��: I
� N. �f0 N �{O V `'N O O �O O m `W O 'O O O.��O N �"m �p�tp "(p� �
, E � N - O (O N �� O) t0 .l0 W T .0) t0 'tO tD (O .�<D N �{ Cl 't9 .t�l
� N �f0 N . {O 'N , '�' N N 'N M iZ '�Cl O �.O O O. O �N "Cl h_yN'-1q
a � O O O .O� O '... ' O ��O O 0.-0• O O ' O ' �O "O O 'O.:.O , O��'",O•'O�
.
. O O
� � -� � :{ 4.� �,��.� A t yryv y3„I > � ; r t �-. 'i��- .` r! 7 k?.�4' '2
0 oq O �O y� m 1 ;O � O�y('�� g1.0 O lO�1lD.,mA� o 0 0 0 0 0' y�01 poro }�o�
w Y � S T: m A� Y �`� i�� � .r`t�.l Rl N �:Hy� � t�I � � sNysN N-��I u.N i am �Kisx..�:
� 9 ,<y° ,°:1 s y� �°�.�.�, Nj r�ir<'�r ,, ". o oo�ko�,.o o F {� �a� w�es,� .
i .._..} � ..._:�_ x -..zn���ira�aY2i��� .�i?�.�."'�i�]X.���.[?,.�s:�'i t�a�^��:;si� 1—�"�.`�� � ' _
� P o 1m� o 'op�� m '�' �o ` o�. �n o -o 'itvy o ;'o 0 0���c o >.'m a�`�o o-�
.ia � p � � � �.�'O� n .' •N � � N Y:� yN Yt�` �,'ry � �� S .O.��p � ..� �. H aN.
y .o o :�'o o'. o� c ��o '�o 0 0:=0 0 0 :o ..c -io 0 0.��'0 0 -jo o �;o .c,
c . ::.: : : .,.� . .....; . . '. . �.. .. _ . . _ _. _.. . .
. �_
� 3 . ....- ..�.�.:,. . . . �;. ..:.. ., .,� •. .., ,ei
A m � o 0 o c� ° � �� � o 0 0 0 0 0 0l0 0 0 o c ^�o � ^n ..r.
..+ C a ' ' '
l � O �., O O O O fg y�j I �j O O O N m m N N N N N � � ` b `
3 LL 9 N N N N � Q q p� p� 0 0 N O O O O O Y
� O 'j Y 6 W m W OJ t0 Vl N N N N < V V C < � t0 a0 m o]
N CL m m r r r I r �N � � N N N M � � N oJ W m m � M r r r
� � a
C .0 � l7 >o� $ $ $ $ o � o o a° °a °v �� °' ^ $ o o I o go � $ . � n w
(Q � Q LL � p O G O C G C O o o C O o G O O C G O O C C G
c 3
, w r.�
C y m •�• O��C�J N t�O Mp �V N� t��l � �V O O O �N V lh �A H .b 4�VI�N�
� Q LL O� O .O O �..: O LO O'. O � �O O O .O � O � O O O .O �P�a*0�ao��
QLLh '-' o 0 0 0;� o . -SO c� o � ;o 0 0 0 0 ;o 0 0 0 ° ;o `o�.o�'o�
E v.. ;C��. : �Ya'.-.1'+.%t
= O � p "p'. � .,�; .:.� �.. .,rn m�t m .m..rn m rn m � ..p,.� .� � . � ,�:� . �.. .�.
�p W m � n cyi egi .yi �i .yi cgi evi e$ .yi �i .yi, .� w �i �i, �i, �i r r � n
._
� o 0 o c c o 0 o c o 0 0 .o o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m p r. . .. . .: . . .. . . N N .'N .�N�
� 0 N C QJ 0 OJ� l0 l0 41 l0 CI �31 W l0 t0 'W m . W O� N .t0 �N
m N v
Y _ . . . . . . . . . . . .: . . • .. .. . .. ..
�� 0 to tV �n
x U � v ` NI � � � � NINI � IN ) N � � I � � m...� I � a � a nI�N.I.�...
W 0
.. . '.m . : . �. . . . ' `::
Z . � �� po� �N � �p{ O O N �V i0 m �N l7 tO (O N..'N N � � 1�[l.�m f�0�
R1 m � � O S �O � oj O o �.O O O '�O pmj � N ,N '
a o �
.y �� . , i QE� �G� �� :.O � . . O d . U ���..NJ
O v O y � � d v Dm N 0 '.V 9 . . � U V .�� O^ ..O .
Q R � gU 6L �0 U `V � tl� � �� C� � . �9 �_ � _
o ,.�° m " 3 �� L° m �� . L° p . . °cco� q ° ..c
.� mefZ u.L°r ato� � m� . . . � � E ; p, � ��i .�
m :
m� o cmc �i-` E� . . m 'E° . . . ciE .� m . y�:��t
3��. �3� 3��a� 3°, _ _ ° W.
0
� � � � tN0 I Q�i I m N N O N I m I V I, � Q�j N I N I � I In � O t"l I 1� I� � I � I � I � � I�' � I � '
O O a�i N Q� c7 � N � � aJ o� m tD I N M ' t0 In tD i i� f� I V I t0 N I V v � V i < I Kl O? � N �
? a � <ol a ivit� I �i c�i ri �+iiv I �ti i �n v lniioi ic'� IoiiM ril c�i I rilri : riivi .- I �i ic�i
� I. I i j I � � I � I I � � ; � I i
c ^ N N I lA N V m �J O 1 O I '? � � O N O � O � O O O O � O � O O I O � O : fD
61 tO a0 I 6o CV N N O O t0 tD O t� I N � �' � t� �O t0 V' M '� � I m � �
2 n C t� N I tn � t� t0 � � Gl � O O I O O N I O N 4) C"J W OI Ol � I N I O c0 I tiJ
9`� M �� I �['i I M t0 tO t0 c0 i f0 � � t0 i� i 1� I t0 I t0 i t0 t0 fD i (O i� I i� I I� � ' �T I n
1 �
n �p � � t0 N 'at V' � O N N o <O � � •t N m V T �O N o O O N
� ° t0 t0 � V K 1� O N N O O oJ M N � fD t0 i� t0 t� CV t0 N
� � N1 'at '�t e7 tn � � � �1 V V � � � V V V 'U V V V V V N CV V
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
�
� ^ tp t0 N O O O N O t0 �J O N � � O �1 � � � O O O O O N
' c i. � OJ 6"1 OJ Of (V ? V ` � � l� K t`� a � V lCl In In 1� O � .
� J ^� � rn rn .- v v v co I .- � r r m � �n v, ao <o ao I r I r i— rn t� ,
CV N N N th f�J C] C] t"1 N N C'1 � M M M I c7 M �"i I t") [ri t+1 M � N t
V v I
I
I
I
I I
� I
I
+ n V V 1� O�I QOi � O t�0 N N t�0 � O N M N �V � V .� � � � � N
Y � � N N r N N N M (V N N N t0 0') N N N N N N N N N c7 � N
� O O O O � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
3 ° o 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 � � � M M � � � � � � � a � � m
' IL N
O � �G � �f tr[l, t� f� 1� f� t� i� 1� W OJ �D O] m � m � Q? Q? O O O O O O
N N N N N N
LL a
�
� � ^ o 0 0 o r � n r n r� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r� �n v? N N cy
++ � — Y °� o 0 0 o m m � c�o m m v v v a � a v v o� � oi cd m
� N m m r n r r t� � r � r n m m m m m m o� m w � rn rn rn rn rn rn
i m a�.
IC y ?+ � � � � � � � � t�0 t�p N N N N N N I N N 1� � O O O � OI 01
N y � LL 9 N N N N V � 'C � � < N N N N N N N N <O �O c� M �'? � � �
� X x Y a �ci �ri vi �ri o 0 0 0 0 o n n � n � � � � N N � M � � � �
Q,' W A � o 0 0 0 -
'O r- a
C (n
� J o� 3 N N N N N � f� � � ( � � O O O O O O O O � � � � � � � �
C � C9 > o '� �n �n u� in in �n �n �n �n �n m �o m m <o m �o <o �o m <o m m � m m
C � Q u. � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
� L
Q. C O•^ � N N a O O O O � N N N f�0 r n tN0 t�D � � I � � 4�Y f0 t•l `N C�1
O O O O O O O O O O � O O
� O �+- N � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° o 0 0
2 �
V ��� � v`ti � v`�i � v�i u�i v`�i �i � � �i �i �i -�i � � n � � I ��y �` � N N m m
W 0 N W o� 00 07 c0 W o] � a0 W N a0 CI N N fV N N N N N N f; I�
� � n r 1� I� 1� h r r r r h t` n n N N N N N `
� � p O O O O O O O G O O O O O �
`X �� � C N N N N N N N N� N N ` N ^ N ` � � � � � � � � � � �
�
� �
N �"
�� � N Ol I� M e7 � m O] 'V Ol N N
e•� ��o, v, rn w �rq �v �m �n n � o � rn � rn oNi, '�q � ai, � o . �i, i�r�i, m �v, r
U ',9'x O1 oi °1 oi o vi r o r� �n • co m cn � ' w rn o oa o
VI a0 �' � O! r W o� N � Ih O �j N 'V' N � � r � N �V M M M � �
O N V vt th t �t N � N
O
� Z O] M Vl � o� O N '�T t0 0] O N � � � t�0 � � n 1� � t�0 �
CO d N N N t0 � � M V �! V V � 1[1 1d N N N
. a M th e7 M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
a
c ¢ �
c
f0 m � � Q
m ° U�' � � m
� � ° � m m o o � m .
:+ c
a J •� � < Q ¢ 3 °
� o
w U � ��L°
aci c7
. W m
� $ — M. rlml � l M m rnl � m v � m � IrImIN rn o ! o o n � � Ivl �
O o n � o ° M I m � w w m � c� � � m � °m . n � � � N � I � vfDi v , m rn � ry ! m
. � a r v vIrIM Miai vilvi �ri �ri v ri vi � riiai oi vi � � c� m c�iiai .- i �ni �.i �
i i
C ,,, o� O O N ! O O I O Y I ' I I I I I I
o m R V' Q� I V o� W O i V O �N ' N V I N i � i O �V I M I N I O t�0 I � � I t�0 N
Z w � W c0 t0 I� m t� I� � e- N N !D V I V h (O .- N <+J � � j �f � oJ Q�
9" ci �ri vi ai I <o �d m � I � ui �ri ao r r I ao I <o co r n r n � I n �. v n
Y � O O 't0 -O' � � N N � O N � O oJ N O tD N oJ O a V O O � O
n 3 N 1� f� I� t0 f0 m M V M fV N tn V I� � t0 W O O O� O� f� V
� � C� � V M tC) tn � tn � � V �CJ t0 t0 V 'Q st '7 �' 'V� �(I � V oJ N 'C:
,� O O O O O O O O O O- �O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O .�O
w 2
� C „ c0 O O a0 N o� N V� O t0 t0 O N t0 In O O O O O O O O O V V
= J q C N N N N m � m � � OI � � N � t�0 n r O O O I N N N � � M .
� ,O v N th t7 N ch th C) th C] fV N C1 < V M CJ th V' V 'R V � V t0 (V I V'
N
� �a°� m O O O� V� a V N O C] M O f0 oJ t") O O O O O O O O st CJ M .
rv 3 ¢1 1� h 61 N N N M O V sf o �fl a V ln � 1� 1� i� W 6) m t'� tp �
I.c. Y � � N N t7 M th th t7 N N M th th N N N N N N N N N � N
� �p O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
�
�O O O� � � � M M t+l C] M M '�t V sf �C � a V sf M M oJ a0 a0 0) � O�
co co m m co m m m co o� v v v c v v v v o o r n �
� ' LL YI O O O O O] Q� 0I � W � V V' 't V �t d' a V th M � 0I � N N N
� Y � tD t0 t0 t0 I� f� 1� n n 1� O� Of N Ol Ol � � OI r '- � .- '-
y `� (V� N tV tV (V N fV N
.- �- '- e- � � e- �- .- � e- e- � � � � '- �
� a
.� 3
...
C• � ^ � � � � � .- � � � � n n r r� n n r n � � v, v, v, v, v v,
� LL � N N N N 1� f� I� n r 1� N (V (V N (V iV fV fV <D tD t0 t0 t0 � � �
'�'� Y a N N N N O O O O O O f` t� I� 1� 1� '1� 1� 1� �[1 � m Op <p O O O
C n1 m � r n r n w ao w w co m w m w m o� m w m rn rn rn rn rn o 0 0
i = a
f�0 w 3 rn rn rn rn N N a cv w N m rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn � �n �n � r r
t"!1 3 � �n �n in � r r r n r n m rn rn rn m rn rn rn � v � n n �o m m
9 OJ N 00 OJ N N N N N (V �D t0 (O t0 f0 t0 t0 t0 <O V '•f 'C � � �
� = u' C Oi T � � N N N N N N �O t0 t0 t0 t0 f0 �O �O t0 f0 O O O M M M
Y
p� M M M M t0 (O f0 t0 t0 f0 N In LL'! � N � � � 1� f� N N N 1(I � �
� � d O O O O r � N N N N N N N N ch th � � � � '7 '7
'o o a �
C LL '- .- .- .- '- � � � � � .- .- r � .- '- � � r- .- .- � � � r-
� � � � � 'd' V 7 a �Y V N N N N N fV N N � � O O O N N N
C Ol ?+ N � h n i. 1� 1� 1� N N N N N N N N
� t7 > o � m m m <o m m m <o m m n � r n n n � n r n m m w w m co
C � �. a t+. -- o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C '
a
r�.+ ' :. y N N a0 N t7 �t N e- sT N N 1n 1n N OI N. 01 a0 I� 47 t`J 1n
Q' a� tOV N N �V O O O O � N N N O O O O O O O O O O � O � O
R m LL N � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � o 0 0 �
S J ^
� ����. � v`�i � �i �i � u`S �i � �i � v`Ti v�i � � n n n � � i� n n n n � r�
N a0 a0 a0 N N a0 0] W W m W W c0 N N N N N N N N N N t0 <O
R W d r n f� f� n n 1� h h h f� f� 1� h N N N N N N N N N N n r
L +e O O O O O O O O O O O O O O � �
�I-� Q
N
C �� H C N N N N N N N N N N N N N N � �f1 V] � � � �fI 1� N u7 W �
3 � N .v �� � � �
�
� � . :� o] W V � O1 P7 a N OI f� M M N t0 � Q� f� W
� � .. V W r N � a0 1� N N � M � N �I M a .V' .
Q C�^ t0 � � a0 � Y aD N h � O � 0I � O! O] lf1 � M � O � � W a �
V 1�°�� °� oi O1 ai d �+i r� o �+i �ri .ri �d ri �c ci rn o � o
N � o o rn � m ao o� in n o 'r a a �n m. °' a rn �n � �n rn
�+-� � N � � th '•t a N .V � N � M � V N V M pJ t0 tf1
.n
.0 ` o
X � Z O] t�l tfI s� � 00 O N V t0 6� O N t0 O� O O N t0 � f0 GO O
�jJ m N N N N tq � � M Y� V '�T V � tn t0 � 1n 1n (O � � � n f0 t0 i�
p� M {'l M t7 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
'a
c Q o
N m C N d
C CL O� � � � fn . ¢
O
r C . m d , p p ' � - �
a O ' � KQ . � �> . > A O
� o � ¢ a 3 �
w E cz, v a
c
w m �
MEMORANDUM !!!
�Date: April 1, 2005
To: Don Spagnolo, Victor Devens, Rob Strong
WALLACE GROUP
From: Steve Tanaka, Raymond Dienzo `�
ClVll ENGINEEPING
Vla: Jill Pete�son CONSTRUC710N
- MANAGEMENT ,
Subject: Wastewater Analysis—Hampton Inn and Suites—Response to Comments �ANDSCAPE
- ARCHITECTURE
MECHANICAI
ENGINEERING
This technicai memorandum presents the responses to the comment letter reference P�ANNING
number CUP-04-009, regarding the Hampton Inn and Suites wastewater analysis. rueuc woaKS . �
� ADMINISTRATION
The wmments along with the responses are presented as follows. suRVer�r,� i
� . GIS SOLUTIONS
Comment 1 - Make recommendations for mitigations measures utilizing a maicimum WATER RESOURCES
fIID Of SO� � WALLACE SWANSON
� INTERNATIONAL
Response:
The pipes that will receive peak hour flows resulting in d/D over 50% are 1008,1006,
1258; 1260,and 2163. .
• Pipes 1008 and 1006, with a capacity of 63% peak flow, are upstream of the
Hampton project, and are not in the scope of this analysis.
• Pipes 1258, 1260 and 2163 receive build-out peak hour flows resulting in a d/D
of 54% peak flow. These pipes have a 12" diameter and because the d/D is
marginally over 50%, upg�ades to these pipes are not recommended.
Comment 2 - Provide a fable with the proposed aVerage and peak flows for other
proposed projects used in the build out
Response: _
See Table 2 in the report section "Flow Contributions."
Tabie 2 shows a summary of the proposed average and peak flows for other proposed
projects used in the build-out. These developments are additions to the future
projections estim.ated in the AGWWMP. Victor Devens provided the development
locations. '
� � WALLACEGROUA
A Ca�IPoml+CotOOn[IM
Comment 3 - Clarify whefher Exhibit "A'had other proposed project flows added to the
flows defined 1n the AGWWMP a�i s enono sr
� ' � SUITE B-5
SAN LUIS�BISPO
� R0SD0(1S@: ' CALIFORNIA93401
Exhibit A included flows from the Five Cities Center since these fiows were not
hydraulically analyzed in the AGWWMP; although theirflows were considered existing. T aos saa-ao>>
For this analysis, consider Exhibit A as a reference. - F sos s«-«9<
� www.wailace9roupd•
a
Subject:
April 1, 2005 .
Page 2 of 2
Comment 4 - The report does nof adequately analyze or discuss the impacts to facilities
downstream of Lift Station No. 1. Due to the installation of va�iabfe f�equency drive pumps in
Lift Stafion No. 1, the average flow downsfream will be higher. Therefore, for example, instead
of an 18"pipe to accommodafe fhe flow as dete�mined in the AGWWMP for the Walnut Street
upgrade, perhaps a 21"pipe will be necessary
Response:
Further analysis was pertormed on the downstr2am sewer pipes from LS1 (see Figure 2). The
results were tabulated in Exhibit C for existing conditions, and Exhibit D for future conditions.
The peak flows for future conditions wiil remain the same since the peak flow of developments
upstream of LS 1 are controlled by the peak pump flow of LS 1. But since LS 1 will be upgraded
with variable frequency drives, the increased average flow was analyzed with the added flows �
from the proposed projects upstream of LS 1. The average flow d/D for Build-out conditions (see
Exhibit D, column K) shows that there is adequate capacity for all of the SSLOCSD trunk
sewers. All upgrades proposed in the AGWWMP were based on peak flows. This analysis
shows that the 18"Walnut Street upgrade will be sufficient.
Comment 5 - P�ovide the license number and expiration date fo� the engineer preparing the
study,
Resoonse:
Engineer in responsible charge—Steyen G. Tanaka, PE, C49779, 9/30/06
RCD:SGT:rcd
Cc: Jiil Peterson
M:1232-Artayo Grantle1232-0SOS•Gene21 Cor�tultlnqN�•Hartplon Irui SewetMalysislHartptan Inn Sewer Study Reparl-wmmenLS rev.dac
ZS = � --���
: I ' �+ � s
� tl `. 'a N o �
�YS�� /i fiI � � I-W- ��._ �� Q 3
t ;i _ � y. � Q � =�� �� 7 �
+ - � p �p � ',
, � o
� ; Q) L � � a ,� �'1i> o .
i1 �\ O 4 3 a � a `'. \ i; ¢ �
I Q� � V � '.., �� , °
� �Y,, �: � �� p `� '�� �
o p a:
T � � � � �
.0
� r� �
�
V
�
s
�:,.�� .-yv : �ry. ry :x
��, ___ �.//�,_ .� r.��a�a.:..a �
� � "`q.
__ �e
, . s�
mr��'! rrry e
/'.. �
i' J�+
�
�63
e: c o �
w�
� � ��
�
; , , !
. i � � r..c e%
d
. \\ • �� , x m„/ W
�� � � " d �
Q
� ,p W
ug , Q
z
� �
.p`�� o
�\\ o ° �',. � �
� \ 3 ,�" �
� m o �-
� 3 'S� V / nr� vWi .
� a C � C a.+ 1
\ � i g �� � i
2
v � O,yi/ � -•.r� 2
\ . �
o c• .�" �i _ 2
( � \ � h+� /�� � � : Q �
- � .{
� ✓ � } a :,. _
. ;/ • •+' "�ry � �
+.�'' .. . � �/� .a o _ _ ' „ .
., e` a o�. �I, V,zP ��� d" d.
a / ' _ 1� � ,: � s�' � v'�
� ^ / �,,,
o�' ' � mk#� a„ °' " 4 .
` 5.
�� � • �� . � �
�.
����� � � �
., �
�� � =��, ti �L,D,� �� � �
-�- � � �--�.� �
.: .
.�_ . Q
� __ _ , , -
.. _
_
� � I� _.., � �� _.._ - - - -
_..__._.._._ . .: ; � . •
-_ _._.._.._.., . s: . : .= .._..,�S1IWI .11I
: ;
, _ ._.._._.._.-..---..�
�,;'' I Nw ,�
� - ' I
b � ► � ,
:,� � R � li �
�r,l �' V � � W
i � ^ � � U .:i'. 2 7
``'I — � � c� � o � � ��7 . �
� �
. ll - Y Ql L ��{�,a m _ a , ,' i � °°
� ... ry � W .C`. . � � O __ '
� 0 ; I�^ �
` � y w ,\ `.,�� i.. � ¢ '
Q g � � vl � o
z� ° L� '�+
o t� + � ► ' �
: T � k 0 J �
W � . I��
t �1 r
1 v
-- _•::�. �__ __'J '1--��U._ "�. =�J ��:_.�.J __ u � I��.�u��.;_
� ---- — �_
_- � a sa .
,
p,� a ` a ` i
. . �_I �: `y ' a
_.-^� 4
., =—a��— _a .,. �'
'e'n � s
�er��:�w;r-
e„. . .<,
' f n�sss . A,.,,..e
I a�a r�uuu
g oswas a
�� xouaxawa M 9 a....
k vn�w uwas o.n b
"r..• �
v. n n+
. ���.,I_....'.. w52A� , n� { ' �o...
. y I , ;' G..• .
b b I T � x
. Lr___ . �
�� f o-� , � �+ � O .
" o F _
(l��� . . � �
J \�`� W
// Kt �
' � I _ Lt \�Rt i . VI
K � Q �
i:� _�a-ro.'a �.�; O
"I ' �-�� t �� :r �
y' � � h
J, , • \ J
\ d.I �
� . I
. � � Z
:, a z
�� -- . p,
e.� .y:, aj a+ �
�� ' • , a
,.. „t....,_..�. a a., �
dr a , _
�<�: •�`s °, d
a� + g . e.. �� , .
`\ I r..eo.... 4 i w..mw� � _ .
��` � ..m p j ' �`w•a
- \�\ ' & .... i s t .
�w�.`� ' '� �•
A�:��r'� . �� _ ' � I
�:\.i\ . b �} a� p I
.�� �
.�g,�t. `�:•� . �—.r:�_, '.r� _. �_'._' �
�> `��*�;. � ��.s' 'O d d
i
� i
� .
4f P 'L{
.. `"�,, r�` �'�
.�:.�4 � L • ' O
_ ._.._._..---------- -- • �"� ' .. \ ' �.\ �
ATTACHMENT6
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 17, 2005
D. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 05-008 (INITIATED BY THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE); CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 04-009 AND TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 05-003; APPLICANT— GARY WHITE; LOCATION — 1400
WEST BRANCH STREET/CAMINO MERCADO INTERSECTION.
Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman presented the staff report and answered Commissioner
questions. This project was previously reviewed as a pre-application. There are three
applications being considered today: a Development Code Amendment (DCA) to change
zoning from Office Mixed Use (OMU) to Planned Development (PD1.1) to allow flexibility in
development standards; a Tentative Parcel Map to create two parcels (one for the hotel and one
for the restaurant); and a Specific Development Plan (via Conditional Use Permit) to allow
construction and operation of the hotel and restaurant. At last week's City Council meeting, the
applicants discussed changes to the conceptual landscape plan, retaining walls, oak trees,
architectural refinements to West Branch frontage, and further investigation of moving back the
top stories.
In response to Commission questions, Mr. Strong, Mr. Bergman and Mr. Devens made the
following statements:
. If the applicants decided not to do either project after changing zoning to PD, they would
have to return to Planning Commission with any new proposals. The advantage to
changing zoning to PD is that it doesn't affect OMU citywide.
• There was a preliminary site grading plan that depicted the retaining walls. IYs being
determined if allen block could be used instead of stepped block walls. That's subject to
further review and refinement, and would be part of landscape review and analysis.
. Although the staff report mentions some of the sewer pipes are marginaily outside
standard values, they're close enough to be acceptable. These were analyzed for peak
flows, but average flows will be well below 50%. The greatest sewer concern is ,
upstream and won't be affected by this project.
• Discharge will be carried out to Camino Mercado, down the Cal Trans ditch, down 101
(in an open ditch) near the Oak Park overpass, and finally discharge into the creek
behind AJ Spurs, so there will be some exposure to the sun and filtering under the
willows, but some mitigation measures will be required.
• Staff will check into the number tags on the oak trees vs. the map.
. The new sapling adjacent to tree #5 is also designed for removal, since iYs in the
footprint.
. Oaks 6 and 7 are being evaluated by an arborist for transplant. If iYs more economically
feasible to replace them with specimen plantings, they may go that route.
Vice Chair Keen opened the public hearing to public comment.
Steve Cool, co-applicant, &poke in support of the project. They have scaled down and softened
the project as much as they could. There are a couple conditions and a mitigation measure that
they would like to discuss with staff and wanted to go on record for objecting to:
• Condition 73 — That seems to be a citywide problem. If affected by some facet of this
specific project, they will pay fair share, but don't plan to pay for all.
• Condition 107 —Seems like an extreme financial burden. Condition 115 —As far as they
knew, they already paid for plan check fees. If there are additional ones, they'll pay
them, but they thought they were paid up.
• Mitigation Measure 20 — They don't have control of the lift station schedule and
expressed concern this could be a five-year project on the part of the City. Mr. Devens
Page 10 of 14
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 17, 2005
noted he felt comfortable that this project should be completed before the hotel is ready
to open.
In response to Commission questions, Gary White, co-applicant, made the following statements:
• For a conference facility, they're looking at expanding part of the basement level.
• The architect is looking at the possibility of moving the building back 10-15', but it may
require a reduction in the number of rooms. It depends on the economic feasibility.
• The architect wiil return at the Council meeting with another elevation section to show
them. He's adding some more architectural features, which are plant on style features.
• The back retaining wall won't be a crib wall. It accomplishes the same thing, but is a
much more attractive wall.
• In moving the buiiding back, they shouldn't have to relocate the lobby, since iYs just 15'
different.
• In regards to the possibility of transplanting some of the oaks, they're looking at two
trees (6 and 7), but it depends on economic feasibility.
• The conceptual landscape plan is being worked on.
o Mr. Strong added if approved tonight, these applications won't return for further
review by Planning Commission. There will be additional decisions made by City
Council in regard to issues under study but not resolved, and ARC will resolve
additional details (final planting and irrigation plans), subject to review by
Planning Commission and City Council if contested.
Vice Chair Keen closed the public hearing to public comment.
Commissioner comments:
Fellows:
• The mitigated neg dec goes a long way toward saving oak trees, but he's not completely
satisfied. If they recommend approval tonight, will there be later review of landscape
plans — specifically th,e oaks? Mr. Strong replied there should be a clearer resolution at
the Council level, so specific�ecommendations can be made as part of the resolution.
• His understanding is that most members of City Council shared similar concerns, but felt
iYs a great place for a restaurant and hotel. If they don't get moving, they'll end up with
nothing, so they should get on with it and hope the TOT helps with some things the City
needs. He can make a motion to approve the projects, but would like oaks to be saved
and architectural details to be implemented.
Tait:
• He's comfortable acting on the DCA.
• .He would have liked further details from City Council's recommendations to be
addressed by the applicant tonight.
• City staff should address applicants' concerns with conditions and mitigation measures.
• The accuracy of the numbering on the oaks should be checked.
• Why isn't Hampton Inn contributing to the 101 interchange? Mr. Devens replied that the
final solution has not been decided, so the exact dollar amount has not been
determined. Typically when assessing fees, they know the final cost of construction, but
iYs too early to tell.
Parker:
• She was also concerned that the concerns addressed by Council last week hadn't been
finalized yet by the applicants, but understood this was a "fast-track" application.
• The City in general needs to be cautious about approving projects that may use more
water than it has, and therefore putting the project on the backs of the community that is
Page 11 of 14
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 17, 2005
already estabiished, because they may have to ask the community to pay more for their
allocated water. Projects should not drive infrastructure.
• She likes the hotel, and although she had a hard time with the height originally, looking
at the picture helped a lot.
. She appreciates the proposed changes and hopes they will make a big difference in how
it looks and make the setback look more appealing.
Keen:
• He's also concerned with the setback.
• In regards to condition #73, SLO County Sanitation District is in the process of imposing
fees to rebuild a trunk line from the City to the County.
• On condition #107, he agrees that probably the best way is the connection to Camino
Mercado.
• The plan check fees can be straightened out at staff level.
• In regards to the mitigation measure, iYs close to getting done and shouidn't be an issue,
but they can request that Council not hold them to that.
Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to approve the '
project with the following conditions:
Discussion: Commissioner Tait commented that he couldn't agree with condition #4 (regarding
water). Will this go forward with our comments regarding water, setbacks and other changes?
Yes, but iYs not part of the resolution unless you make specific conditions part of the approval.
Commissioner Parker stated she would like to have their concerns stand out (not just be part of
the minutes). Vice Chair Keen suggested an instruction to staff to notify Council of specific
concerns.
Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to approve the
project as presented, and to instruct staff to forward specific concerns to Council:
RESOLUTION NO. 05-1965
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO.
05-008, TO REZONE THE 2.68 ACRE SITE FROM OFFICE MIXED USE (OMU) TO
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 1.1 (P.D:1.1); APPROVE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 05-
003, TO CREATE TVWO PARCELS; AND APPROVE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 04-009, ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A HOTEL AND RESTAURANT; LOCATED AT 1400 WEST BRANCH STREET,
APPLIED FOR BY STEPHEN COOL AND GARY WHITE
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Fellows, Parker, Tait and Vice Chair Keen
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chair Brown
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 17'" day of May 2005.
Specific concerns to be forwarded to City Council are:
1. Water concerns
2. Their request that the upper floors be set back
1 Page 12 of 14
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 17, 2005
3. Oak tree concerns: #3 should be preserved where it is. #4 and #5 can go. #6 and #7
should be transplanted next to #12. #12 should be kept where it is.
4. Concerns with architectural detail: the tower element closest to the restaurant is okay,
but should come down 10' or so.
5. Mitigation Measure #19 should be changed to replacement trees being minimums of 5'
or 6' box, instead of 24" box.
6. The concerns previously expressed by City Council (water, setbacks, architectural
detailing, etc.) are shared by the Planning Commission.
IV. �
C. PROPOSED 2005-07 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ROGRAM (CIP), PUBLIC WORKS,
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Associate Engineer, Mike Lynn, was present to ans er questions. He did not present a staff ,
report due to the late hour. No public was present in he audience for public input.
Commissioner comments:
Tait:
• He reviewed the CIP and in his opinion, i does follow the General Plan. Mr. Linn added
there are no major building projects pro sed - mostly maintenance. Everything is based
on master plans like the Pavement Ma gement Plan, so it should follow the City's written
priorities.
Fellows:
• He stated that he relies on staff's ex ertise and suggested that sidewaiks on Crown Hili be
considered.
Parker:
• There was an article in the Tribu e stating the City is running short of money. Does that
affect this CIP? Wiil the City be ble to continue all the projects, and what will be stopped
if they can't? Mr. Linn repli d that Finance Director Angela Pillow makes revenue
projections based on tax rev ue, but there are a lot of different funding sources for CIP
projects. Some may not b completed if based on State funding, due to the California
budget. However, if they d 't continue maintenance now, it will have to be done at some
point in the future, at whic time it may be even more expensive. For instance, instead of
just doing slurry seals, th y might have to do overlays. This is a major concern of the City
Manager.
• What projects might no fall under the General Plan? Mike Linn replied that all the master
plans were done with e General Plan goals in mind, so they should follow it.
Keen:�
• Project 5411 (parki g lot for the Police Department) — Does that zoning need to be
changed to Public acility (PF)? Mr. Strong replied yes, it will need to be changed.
• In regards to fun ' g for the project on Oak Park and West Branch, is $25,000 the total or
is that how muc each of the three cities will contribute (for a total of $75,000)? Mr. Linn
replied he beli ed iYs an amount per City, but would have to double check.
• He's been th ugh the rest of the CIP and has no problems with it. He's satisfied that it
meets code
. He agreed ith Commissioner Fellows that at some point, sidewalks on Crown Hill for the
students alking to and from school need to be considered.
Commission r Parker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fellows to approve the CIP
as presente�i. '
Page 13 of 14
��_y . ,
� � , ����'' ��� �� ATTACHMENT 8
«� �_.'�,t��~�.��`y.`' �i
't.'`J'. �-y�(, I
,1/��'.'I � . . . �.
�� , il���` .. .
� � b I li �
� � �
�
I
I
I
�
� �
� �
-.. . . .'.l..
:\`. // :
� //
��^� �j
—� �.� �� ::;:`- �.�.�. ��t- � '�?J.
, '+ '
`� � 't I' , `i _1 �'`. I
.�+.r � L'. .1 . � .���
. � ' .ti;yY.at�k.
,_,� � , '.
� � �,r�`''` -'�''
� , i , _,r
� � � i ����' � � . �.
i , , , .
i �
�, � i � �� �� �
', ' � �� 4i �
� I, , , -�-
, i � � � . '�
. ��I i� lX . i . ?'� ' . I
, .. . i � . ` , .., �
C � r / � � " � �'�� .
/ /
� � 3 ��-_" �'_i " - . " � �F �I i
��h $ S —t `, , � i .
� 4 . g@ �� �a�� . ! ' j
i
��g��3�` d �� x. iF � - i
s a S : � +�Y '� � � �
�k3� �`t s� t� . . � .. � � i �� � . � a,
s��= ���� t�F��� o � j � � �,
� rx , , , � �� , � — ,
������������������i� �; - ' �� L�_ _- ----� � + . �� �� . , ���__ , _ ` ..
,,, , �� — :, � � i
„ +': i
� � —�,—,
� � � r,.i--���� ,r� � ' � r __
i" �J„ ` �t�.��.r
. , ,:;;� , . � � ,�— .� �
�
, � " ,(� � ____�.�
,', rr r,; I q.:'* ,.'r� r r —
,,ii� � ', � � i
u�i i n 1.:�� . -�i
.p ;�li F� ��u� � I
¢ .R � ' Iljl � 4p . . 1 s _
� � ` � j '"____ . �' i'i� i 9.� '��',� I. --" _ f.i
� 35 __' nii . p.
il� � ,�.
} 2-W'. -� . 'F�f- .
3x� Yi 2 � �� �
d �.. 3a� � �1 I!li� ... J '' '
i u 4� r . �.:+,�� �
���� 7�� 4" � + p u�il � ��i..�ii ,�
�- �� � �'�' u� :\ � ::�
�t � u _ u hi �, � j -''
��� ���� � N�3 -- iiiii , �.;� � ��i �,i .
��� �'��t� Y` L� i�i��i i ; S� ��
�¢ �a �^ gr� ui�h .� ��: � � � ,;-.s
$ ' �
� �� ����F � 8� � -�J � .' �F'x ' ' _,� .
� 3 ' . �'
i�� � � �. �� �; �
�u��� � a � �F� � � � � � �
i
3 �? �
� .r.� ,�,4�i
7 � . f �l,� , '
� � f.
� � �` � - , ,�. ,- --�,-
. - _ .� � � ; �
. P '
. , T ��kV, , — , . �
�,'
-}� �f�—' - - + . F , � 2 ��_� .
\ ,;i#iitl�� � �.fi-', I� ( ' .
. .� .r ..r� +S. � r- _- _ t1�� . -
� _- ^ i:!
-- '- — `-:='4' t, . .
i'- - � ,
_ i . .. . � ��� -- � C=.\� 4y �
' r� c
'_ I � �
'
. �'i�C' � _ _� , ..
� pRROY� � ���■
� c'A
FINCOFVORATED 92
° m MEMORANDUM
M JULY 10. 1811 y
C4��FORN�P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROB STRONG COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR°�
BY: RYAN FOSTER, ASSISTANT PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FROM APRIL 26, 2005 —
CONSIDERATION OF SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 03-001;
APPLICANT — S & S HOMES; LOCATION — SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
COURTLAND STREET AND EAST GRAND AVENUE
DATE: JULY 26, 2005
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the attached Resolution,
amending the Berry Gardens Specific Plan to allow mixed-use development of Subareas
3and4.
FUNDING:
No fiscal impact.
DISCUSSION:
Backqround
The City Council considered this item with a recommendation of approval from the Planning
Commission at its meeting of April 26, 2005. At that time, the property owner of Subarea 3
requested a 90-day continuance to allow potential buyers to review the proposed Specific
Plan Amendment.
During the meeting, the City Council expressed concern with the following provisions of
the proposed Specific Plan Amendment:
■ Required access/utility easements across Subarea 4 for the benefit of Subarea 3;
Staff has included language into the proposed amendment that secures a total of
three (3) access/utility easement locations across Subarea 4 for the benefit of
Subarea 3 in order to allow for the maximum future development of Subarea 3 —
staff is concerned that without secondary access from Courtland Street, all of the
traffic generated by development of Subarea 3, including any delivery trucks,
would be forced to use East Grand Avenue for ingress and egress. Staff is also
concerned that without any utility easements to Courtland Street, Subarea 3 may
have to provide an on-site drainage basin to accommodate stormwater runoff,
reducing the maximum development potential of the subarea. The language in the
S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT�PROJECTS\SPA\03-001\SPA_03-001_CC_RPT_3.doc
�
CITY COUNCIL
SPA 03-001
JULY 26, 2005
PAGE 2 OF 5
proposed amendment only establishes the location of the easements for possible
future use by Subarea 3 — Subarea 3 is not required to acquire the easements, but
they are provided for if necessary, depending on the final development plan for
Subarea 3.
• Required reimbursement from Subarea 3 to Subarea 4 for easements and
mutually beneficial infrastructure improvements;
Staff has included language in the proposed amendment that provides a means ,
for Subarea 3 to reimburse Subarea 4 for the easements (discussed above) and
mutually beneficial infrastructure improvements, such as stubbing out utilities to
the shared property line between subareas. The cost for the easements is based
on an appraisal completed in December 2004 by Bruce Beaudoin & Associates,
contracted jointly by both property owners, and the cost for the infrastructure
improvements is based on an independent analysis conducted by the Keith
Companies. Staff has recommended including an interest rate of 7% that would
commence on the date that building permits are issued for development of
Subarea 4. Again, Subarea 3 is not required to acquire all of the easements or
even utilize the mutually beneficial infrastructure improvements, but the provision
has been included to provide a means to compensate Subarea 4 should Subarea
3 utilize either any of the easements or mutually beneficial infrastructure. Subarea
3 will not be required to pay for or acquire the easements until and unless needed.
Alternatively, the reimbursement provision could be removed from the proposed
amendment, and Subarea 3 would be responsible for negotiating with Subarea 4
for any future easements and/or utility connections; however, staff is concerned
that if both subareas are unable to reach a settlement in the future, the
development potential of Subarea 3 may suffer as a result. An additional
alternative would be to reserve the easements, but specify that the value will be
determined by a jointly funded appraisal at the time it is needed.
■ Maximum building height of 45';
Staff has included additional language in the proposed amendment that would
prohibit buildings greater than 35' in height from being built within 300' of East
Grand Avenue frontage — buildings greater than 35' in height would not be allowed
in the Multi-Family Apartment portion of the specific plan area. This would limit the
area in which buildings greater than 35' in height to approximately a 100' strip at
the rear of the Mixed-Use portion of the specific plan area.
• Parking standards;
The proposed amendment includes parking standards consistent with current
Development Code standards, with one exception: the proposed amendment
allows a 50% reduction in the required guest parking for the Multi-Family
S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENIIPROJECTS\SPA\03-001\SPA 03-001 CC RPT 3.doc
CITY COUNCIL
SPA 03-001
JULY 26, 2005
PAGE 3 OF 5
Apartment portion of the specific plan area, provided that the reduction can be met
by the Mixed-Use portion of the specific plan area as determined through
discretionary review.
■ Proposed amendment may not result in a cohesive project;
Because the two subareas are under separate ownership and will more than likely i
be developed at different times, it is difficult to guarantee a cohesive project.
However, it is staffs opinion that the proposed amendment provides development
standards and policies that will result in a high-quality mixed-use development at
the City's western gateway. The Specific Plan is the most effective tool available
to the City to ensure coordination takes place between the two developments.
■ Further environmental analysis may be necessary.
During previous review of the proposed amendment, the Council asked for
clarification of the traffic analysis included in the addendum. The Berry Gardens
Specific Plan EIR analyzed both project impacts (Subarea 1 — Tract 2260) and
cumulative short-term impacts (Subareas 2 — 4 and pending projects). In order to
properly analyze the cumulative short-term impacts, the EIR allocated 2,856 total
daily vehicle trips to Subareas 3 and 4 — seventy-two (72) peak-hour AM trips and
261 peak-hour PM trips. These numbers were based on entirely commercial
development, using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation
rates.
The City now uses San Diego Association of Government (SANDAG) trip
generation rates to evaluate traffic impacts. Applying SANDAG rates, the
proposed amendment, even with a residential component, would generate roughly
the same amount of traffic — 2,276 total daily vehicle trips, eighty-eight (88) AM
peak-hour trips and 206 PM peak-hour trips.
This is due to the fact that the ITE trip generation rates used in the Berry Gardens
Specific Plan EIR are higher than the now City standard SANDAG trip generation
rates. The ITE trip generation rate was assigned as 115 daily vehicle trips per
1,000 square-feet of commercial area, while SANDAG trip generation rates vary
from 6 (furniture store) — 850 (24-hour convenience store with gasoline) daily
vehicle trips per 1,000 square-feet of commercial space, depending on the type of
development.
For analysis of the proposed amendment, staff used the following breakdown of
development types and SANDAG traffic generation rates:
Land Use Trips/Unit Peak•Hour°/. (AM:PM)
6,000 square-foot restaurant 160 I 1,000 s.f. 1%:8%
One (1)acre of office development 180 I acre 15%:15%
S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTPROJECTS\SPA\03-001\SPA 03-001 CC RPT 3.doc
CITY COUNCIL
SPA 03-001
JULY 26, 2005
PAGE 4 OF 5
Two (2) acres of specialty retail / strip commercial 400/acre 3%:9%
development
Fifty-six (56)apartments 6/dwelling 8%:9%
While staff has determined that the above analysis is appropriate for adoption of the
Specific Plan Amendment, it should be noted that the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) allows further environmental analysis of commercial projects
within specific plans during subsequent discretionary review, if deemed necessary.
The Council then opted to continue this project for a period of ninety (90) days, allowing
the potential buyers of Subarea 3 sufficient time to review the proposed amendment and
bring forth any proposed revisions.
Staff met with the potential buyers of Subarea 3 on several occasions; however, no
revised amendment was submitted and the buyers have recently withdrawn all offers for
the property. As a result, the owner of Subarea 3 no longer objects to proceeding with
approval of the plan. A letter is included in Attachment 5. In addition to the other issues
discussed, she has identified questions regarding coordination of grading and other
development. The owners of Subarea 4 can pursue either utility and grading easements
or construct a retaining wall and driveway without encroaching on the adjoining Subarea
3. These and other development construction details can be deferred for resolution prior
to or concurrent with necessary Conditional Use Permit approval on either property, in
substantial compliance with the Specific Plan.
Berrv Gardens Specific Plan
The project area is part of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan Area; specifically, it comprises
two Subareas (3 and 4) of the Specific Plan totaling 6.1 acres. Both subareas are
currently vacant, and the Berry Gardens Specific Plan must be amended to include
development standards and policies before any development can occur on either of these
two subareas.
Prolect Description
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would establish development standards and
policies to allow mixed-use development on the two subareas, focusing retail and office
uses on the northernmost four (4) acres and multi-family apartments on the southernmost
two (2) acres. The amendment would not grant any entitlements for specific buildings;
any development permits must be approved through subsequent discretionary review
applications — i.e., Conditional Use Permit.
Environmental Review
Although the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Berry Gardens Specific Plan
focused primarily on Subarea 1 (Tract 2260), consisting of 180 single-family homes, it
also identified potential environmental impacts for the entire Specific Plan Area, based on
projected densities and land uses. During initial review of the proposed Specific Plan
Amendment, staff found that the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTPROJECTS\SPA\03-001\SPA 03-001 CC RPT 3.doc
CITY COUNCIL
SPA 03-001
JULY 26, 2005
PAGE 5 OF 5
amendment would be no worse than those identified in the Berry Gardens EIR; staff then
prepared an Addendum to the Berry Gardens EIR (Attachment 2) in compliance with
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A copy of the Berry Gardens
Specific Plan EIR is attached (Attachment 3).
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for Council consideration:
• Adopt the attached Resolution approving the Specific Plan Amendment as
recommended by the Planning Commission; I
• Do not adopt the attached Resolution and direct the Planning Commission to �
review a revised proposed Specific Plan Amendment; '
■ Direct staff to return with a Resolution to remove the Specific Plan overlay from the
two properties; or
■ Provide direction to staff and applicants ��
Attachments:
1. Proposed Specific Plan Amendment (Appendices on file)
2. Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Addendum
3. Berry Gardens Specific Plan EIR (on file)
4. April 26, 2005 City Council meeting minutes
5. Letter from Ruth Dea, owner of Subarea 3, dated July 21, 2005
S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTPROJECTS\SPA\03-001\SPA 03-001 CC RPT 3.doc
RESOLUTION N0.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT 03-001; LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF
EAST GRAND AVENUE AND COURTLAND STREET;
APPLIED FOR BY S & S HOMES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande adopted Resolution No. 3323
on September 8, 1998 approving the Berry Gardens Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Berry Gardens Specific Plan does not include, and contemplates later
adoption of, development standards for Subareas 3 or 4; and
WHEREAS, the applicant, S & S Homes, owner of Subarea 4, has filed Specific Plan
Amendment 03-001 to amend the Berry Gardens Specific Plan to include development
standards for Subareas 3 and 4; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has recommended
that the City Council approve Specific Plan Amendment 03-001; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered Specific Plan
Amendment 03-001 at a duly noted public hearing on July 26, 2005 in accordance with
the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has determined that the
addendum to the certified environmental impact report (EIR) for this Specific Plan
Amendment, as prepared, satisfies the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and its Guidelines, per Section 15164; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the
following circumstances exist:
Specific Plan Amendment Findings:
1. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals,
objectives, policies and programs of the general plan;
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would designate fhe area for the
development of a horizontal mixed-use project at the southwest intersection
of East Grand Avenue and Courtland Street. This designafion would
encourage pedestrian activity fhrough placemenf of retail/commercial
buildings along the street and inclusion of a pedestrian path through the
site. These project attributes are consistent with the goals, objecfives and
policies of fhe City's General Plan, including policies LU5-7, LU5-10.1,
LU12-7.3, ED4-2, ED6-2.
RESOLUTION NO.
SPA 03-001
JULY 26, 2005
PAGE 2 of 4
2. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not adversely affect the public
health, safety and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern;
There is nothing contained within fhe proposed Specific Plan Amendment �
that will adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare. The proposed \
Specific Plan Amendment contains mixed-use development sfandards,
which are consistent wifh the mixed-use land use designation. The
proposed Specific Plan Amendment addresses and resolves critical
coordination of infrastructure improvements between Subareas 3 and 4. �;
Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not result in an
illogical land use pattem.
3. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is necessary and desirable in
order to implement the provisions of the General Plan;
Because the Berry Gardens Specific Plan does not include development
standards for the project area and the City's General Plan designates the
project area as mixed-use with a specific plan overlay, no development can
occur on the project site until such time thaf the Specific Plan is amended.
Therefore, the Specific Plan Amendment is necessary and desirable in
order to implement the provisions of the General Plan, which seeks to
promote orderly mixed-use development on the project area.
4. The development standards contained in the proposed Specific Plan
Amendment will result in a superior development to that which would occur
using standard zoning and development regulations.
The development standards contained in fhe Specific Plan Amendment
include standards for building height fhat take advantage of the lot depth of
Subareas 3 and 4 by placing taller structures in the middle of the lots. This
enables flexibility in building design and increases e�cient utilization of the
project area, allowing for superior potential development to fhat which
would occur using standard zoning and development regulations.
5. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the purpose and
intent of and will not create internal inconsistencies within the Specific Plan.
By using multi-family apartments as a buffer between existing single-
family residences in Berry Gardens and more intensive office and
retail/commercial development along East Grand Avenue, the proposed
Specific Plan Amendmenf will not create internal inconsistencies within
the Specific Plan. Although the intent of the 1998 Berry Gardens Specific
Plan was for Subareas 3 and 4 to develop as entirely retail/commercial,
the inclusion of multi-family apartments allows for a mixed-use
development consistent with the City's 2001 General Plan. The proposed
Amendment is consistent with the existing Specific Plan and the City's
recently amended 2003 Housing Element and would implement the
y
RESOLUTION NO.
SPA 03-001
JULY 26, 2005
PAGE 3 of 4
policies, goals and objectives of the General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the findings set forth herein, the
City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby approves Specific Plan Amendment 03-
001 as described in Exhibit "A".
On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and by
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 26�h day of July 2005.
;
RESOLUTION NO.
SPA 03-001
JULY 26, 2005
PAGE 4 of 4
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
�
�
i
I
I
ATTACHMENT1
Amendment to the Berry Gardens Specific Plan
Subareas 3 and 4
City of Arroyo Grande
Adopted by City Council Resolution
On
Amendment to the Berry Gardens Specific Plan—Subareas 3 and 4
Table of Contents
Background ........................................................................................................ 1
Berry Gardens Specific Plan............................................................................. 1
Subarea1 ......................................................................................................... 1
Subarea2......................................................................................................... 1
Subarea3......................................................................................................... 1
Subarea4......................................................................................................... 1
Summary Table of Subareas............................................................................ 2
Specific Plan Proposals — Subareas 3 and 4................................................... 2 ,
Purposeand Objectives.................................................................................... 2
AllowedLand Uses........................................................................................... 2
Development Standards — Multi-Family Apartments......................................... 3
Development Standards — Mixed-Use .............................................................. 3
ConceptualPlans.............................................................................................. 4
Architectural Design Guidelines........................................................................ 4
BuildingMaterials ............................................................................................. 4
ScreeningProvisions........................................................................................ 4
Outdoor Storage, Mechanical Equipment and Trash Enclosures ..................... 4
Improvements..................................................................................................... 5
Circulation and Parking..................................................................................... 5
Easements........................................................................................................ 5
Water, Sewer and Utilities ................................................................................ 5
Drainage........................................................................................................... 6
Implementation................................................................................................... 6
ProjectPhasing................................................................................................. 6
Reimbursement Agreement.............................................................................. 6
Table of Illustrations
1. Berry Gardens Subareas............................................................................ 7
2. Allowed Land Uses ..................................................................................... 8
3. Building Height Diagram ............................................................................ 9
4. Concept Plan — Subareas 3 and 4............................................................ 10
5. Easement Locations .........................................................:....................... 11
Table of Appendices
A. Complete Appraisal Summary Report
B. Preliminary Utility Plan
C. Utility Improvement Type Cost Summary
City of Arroyo Grande
i
";
�
Amendment to the BerN Gardens Specific Plan—Subareas 3 and 4
BACKGROUND
Berrv Gardens Specifc Plan
The Berry Gardens Specific Plan, consisting of four (4) separate subareas, was
adopted by the City Council in September of 1998 (Illustration 1). The specific
plan area is located on the western edge of the City of Arroyo Grande and
comprises approximately 50.1 acres. The area is generally bordered by Oak
Park Boulevard to the west, East Grand Avenue to the north, residential
development to the east and Ash Street to the south.
Subarea 1
Subarea 1 (37.5 acres) was the only fully defined subarea included in the original
Berry Gardens Specific Plan. This subarea consists of 149 single-family homes,
thirty-one (31) patio homes and a 0.75-acre neighborhood park. This subarea is
bordered to the north by Subareas 3 and 4, the Poplar Ponding Basin, and
residential development, to the east by residential development, to the south by
residential development (Subarea 2) and to the west by commercial development
(in the jurisdiction of Grover Beach) and Oak Park Boulevard.
Subarea 2
Subarea 2, also known as Jasmine Place, was approved through an amendment
to the Berry Gardens Specific Plan in June of 2003. This subarea consists of
forty-seven (47) single-family homes and 0.5 acres of passive open space on 5.0
acres. This subarea is bordered to the west by residential development (in the
jurisdiction of Grover Beach), to the south by Ash Street, to the west by
residential development, and to the north by residential development (Subarea
1).
Subarea 3
Subarea 3 consists of approximately 4.6 acres; nine (9) single-family homes on
the southern most 1.5 acres were approved through an amendment to the Berry
Gardens Specific Plan in June 2003. The remaining 3.1 acres is vacant with
northern frontage along East Grand Avenue. This subarea is bordered to the
west by a commercial center (in the jurisdiction of Grover Beach), to the east by
Subarea 4 and to the south by Blackberry Avenue.
Subarea 4
Subarea 4 consists of approximately 3.0 acres of vacant land with northern
frontage along East Grand Avenue and eastern frontage along Courtland Street.
This subarea is bordered to the west by Subarea 3, to the south by residential
development (Subarea 1) and to the east by Courtland Street.
City of Arroyo Grande
1
�
Amendment to the Berry Gardens Specific Plan—Subareas 3 and 4
Summarv Table of Subareas
Subarea Owner Acrea e Existin Zone Pro osed Zone Units
1 N/A 10.2 SFR-SP N/A 51
217 SFR-SP 9$
5.6 PHR-SP 3�
2 N/A 5.0 N/A 47
3 Dae 1.5 SFR-SP N/A 9
3.1 GMU-SP GMU-SP 28
4 S & S Homes 3.0 GMU-SP GMU-SP 28
Sub-total 6.1 56
Total 50.1 283
SPECIFIC PLAN PROPOSALS - SUBAREAS 3 AND 4
Purnose and Obiectives
This amendment to the Berry Gardens Specific Plan establishes allowed uses
and development standards for the Gateway Mixed-Use Specific Plan (GMU-SP)
zoning district for Subareas 3 and 4, which are intended by the Berry Gardens
Specific Plan to be developed together.
The objectives of this amendment to the Berry Gardens Specific Plan are as
follows:
• Implement the goals, objectives and policies of the City of Arroyo
Grande's General Plan;
■ Promote high-quality retail/commercial development within the City of
Arroyo Grande's Redevelopment Area;
■ Increase the City of Arroyo Grande's supply of affordable rental housing
stock; and
■ Produce a functional, aesthetically pleasing project that will serve as a
landmark in the City of Arroyo Grande's western gateway and complete
build-out of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan.
Allowed Land Uses
Although the entire portion of both Subareas 3 and 4 are zoned Gateway Mixed-
Use Specific Plan (GMU-SP), this amendment establishes two distinct
development areas within the zone. Approximately 1.3 acres at the rear of each
subarea is designated as Multi-Family Apartment and the remaining portion of
each site is designated as Mixed-Use (Illustration 2).
Uses in the Multi-Family Apartment portion of Subareas 3 and 4 are restricted to
rental apartments, while uses in the Mixed-Use portion of Subareas 3 and 4 are
City of Arroyo Grande
2
i
�
�
Amendment to the Berrv Gardens Soecific Plan—Subareas 3 and 4
Parking requirements 1 space per 250 square-feet of gross floor area for
retail/commercial uses; 1 space per 100 square-
feet of publicly accessible area for restauranUfood
service uses; parking requirements may be
reduced by a maximum of 30%, subject to the
provisions of Section 16.56.050 of the City of
Arro o Grande Develo ment Code
oncentual Plans
This amendment contains a conceptual plan illustrating complete buildout of both
subareas, utilizing the development standards described above (Illustration 4).
rchitectural Desian G�ideline
A single architectural theme and character consistent with both the Gateway
Mixed-Use (GMU) zoning district and East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan
(EGAEP) shall be used throughout Subareas 3 and 4. Site and building design
shall incorporate neo-traditional elements. All new construction and exterior
remodels shall be subject to review by the Architectural Review Committee
(ARC). Use of water features and plaza areas are encouraged.
Buildina Materials
Consistent use of stucco and masonry or horizontal painted wood or composite
siding is encouraged as exterior siding materials. Concrete or clay tile, slate, or
heavy composition shingles are encouraged as roofing materials. (Wood shake
or shingles are prohibited due to fire safety concerns). Heavy timber, tile, or
wrought iron is encouraged for accent materials. Commercial buildings are �
encouraged to use additional accent materials such as granite, tile and rock.
creenina Provisions
Walls shall generally be the same colors and materials as the adjoining building
exterior and should not exceed a height of six feet. Heights up to eight feet may
be allowed and are subject to minor exception approval. Walls in required front
and street side yards should not exceed thirty-six inches in height. Perimeter
fences shall not exceed six feet high unless specifically approved through a
variance; architectural features such as entry gateways, trellis and arbor
elements shall not exceed a maximum height of eight feet.
O�tdoor Storaae Mechanical Ea�ioment and Trash Encloc��rPc
To the extent possible, these types of facilities shall be integrated into buildings
and not located outside. When necessary, and if approved through discretionary
review, limited outdoor storage, mechanical equipment, or trash enclosures may
be located within walled and gated enclosures designed as an extension of and
compatible with the primary or accessory structures. Freestanding enclosures
and metal accessory structures are discouraged. Normal utility and air-
City of Arroyo Grande
4
Amendment to the Bem Gardens Specifi'c Plan—Subareas 3 and 4
conditioning equipment may be placed on the ground when screened by
appropriate landscaping and situated away from outdoor use areas, windows, or
doorways. All rooftop equipment shall be screened appropriately.
IMPROVEMENTS
irculation and Parkina
Courtland Street - Courtland Street is an existing collector street, which shall be
used for secondary access to the mixed-use portions of Subareas 3 and 4 and
shall be the only access for the multi-family apartment portions of Subareas 3
and 4.
Grand Avenue — Grand Avenue is a major arterial street, which runs the full
length of both Subareas 3 and 4. Joint access, split evenly between the two
subareas with 15' on each side of the common property line, shall be used to
serve as the primary entrance for the mixed-use portions of Subareas 3 and 4.
This requires a reciprocal access easement between Subareas 3 and 4.
Parking — Parking for each subarea shall be provided in accordance with the
development standards contained within this amendment. Parking may be
shared between the two subareas with an appropriate parking agreement,
otherwise each subarea shall be required to provide all required parking within
that subarea. ,
Pedestrian Pafh — A pedestrian path shall be provided between the two
subareas, providing for a connection from East Grand Avenue to the multi-family
apartment portions of both subareas.
Easements
Easement locations for the purposes of access, utilities and drainage are shown
in Illustration 5. The northernmost easement would be used for secondary
access to the mixed-use portions of both subareas and shall be aligned with the
secondary access for the commercial development (Longs Drugs) on the other
side of Courtland Street. The remaining two easement locations would serve as
the only vehicular access for the multi-family portions of both subareas. These
easement locations may also serve utilities and drainage.
Water. Sewer and Utilities
Water services shall be obtained from an existing water main located at the
northem end of the common property line. Sewer services shall be obtained
from an existing sewer main located in Courtland Street. Gas and electrical
utilities shall be obtained from existing lines located in East Grand Avenue. All
utilities shall be installed underground.
City of Arroyo Grande
5
Amendment to the BerN Gardens Specific Plan—Subareas 3 and 4
�
Both Subareas 3 and 4 will direct stormwater runoff east across Courtland Street
to the Poplar Basin, which was recently expanded by the City to increase
capacity. Each subarea will be required to reimburse the City for its
proportionate share of basin capacity, as determined by the Public Works
Department.
IMPLEMENTATION
Proiect Phasina
Because a different party owns each subarea, the possibility exists that each
owner may wish to develop their subarea according to their own timeline. For
this reason, development of Subareas 3 and 4 shall be separated into two
distinct phases — development of Subarea 4 shall be Phase I and development of
Subarea 3 shall be Phase II.
Reimbursement Provision
Although each subarea shall be able to pursue development according to its own
schedule, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the development of
both subareas result in a cohesive, integrated project. For this reason, a
reimbursement provision is necessary to guarantee the securing of easements
and installation of "mutually beneficial" infrastructure improvements that are vital
to this purpose.
An appraisal for the cost of securing the three (3) access/utility easements
located on Subarea 4 for the benefit of Subarea 3 was completed on December
2, 2004 with the consent of both subarea owners. The appraisal concluded that
the market value of the easements amounts to $162,000 (Appendix A).
The Keith Companies prepared a detailed cost analysis for "mutually beneficial"
improvement costs on January 17, 2005 at the direction S & S Homes. This
analysis was based on a preliminary utility plan (Appendix B), which concluded
that the shared cost for each subarea would amount to $152,910 (Appendix C).
These two figures, totaling $314,910, shall be used as a baseline amount and an
interest rate of 7% shall be applied to this amount, commencing on the date that
building permits are issued for Phase I (Subarea 4). Phase I (Subarea 4) shall
be responsible for provision of up to three (3) easement locations and installation
of the "mutually beneficial" infrastructure improvements, and shall be paid by the
owner, or subsequent owners of Phase II (Subarea 3) this amount, plus interest,
prior to development of Phase II. Phase II will only be required to pay for those
easements and infrastructure improvements that are utilized as part of the
development of Phase II.
City of Arroyo Grande
6
�
�
Amendment to the Berry Gardens Specifc Plan—Subareas 3 and 4
1. Berry Gardens Subareas
; � � -
� ___ �
f °_
i _ _ ._ ` �'
, - - ; ._
; ;;__
. ...__ _.' / I �K'�.
C I
......... LL /
� �..._�.i..�_`...�...... EQRANOAVE � .. �..__.
f ! �. ; _
} ., � , ..._ ,___..
� { ,- �.. .__.
� i
+ : �' ! '
, �
� � _ `
; cC t i ,N
j N � ' �
i
j
j M � I ( " _ � ' _
� -Q ��
a
{ � , �
� � (/� � _ _ '
a
� � 6' { - ` "
r �
; � , . _
1 � POPLAR 5{..
' J �-a�.`.t ti_w..�a
� i - � . 1 r.�.� �.
U
� -�.:.`. :'
� � - � 1 1 . � i ..
. " � ...�. 3 r F i ....; �
� ....:.._,._... STRAWBFRRYAVE�..._,. . . .'..........i i .
+ ( . I : �- ' �T....�. . ...._..� 4 `�. .
,�. ' _ � ; ' �� _' __ _
� / i . ...__„ t � t
i
� � _
�) t � , ', _.tr � ..
,,.._ _.. � IN . .. .
t ..... �,�_ ' :, .=. i L� � 1
�� .^...- � 9LAC�ERRYAVE �, (- .-. , .....
� • S_. .. .� _ w, �
� '"_ � ' t
� . -.. ._ } �_ . __, . : i � � �� ' f _
__ _ ... -... � :N _ _. . �.
f ._: - ' ; 7 �� ', �—� ro_ � _.. _ —..
— _ � \ , t fm � �_
I. ___ —�� MUCRLE9ERRYME... ��� �.. �• • i � .
� _'� �,.
� . . ._.._ ': r. . .__ � �CE
DAR ST --
T =�- � � ��.!-b � � _ .
;
, _ _ _ af"�� '�- i- 1 �
� jw
� < � r �
r' � 6 --1- w. ' e�ue " � � � _. �.
�� '° ' LOOAN9EFRYAVE "� � � t_-� " . . -� t�, .
� � � , T � ,/ �.,, BERFYAYE
5. .- I
i /
� � .� � . .
� __t_ . I � t t . � `, T _..
, � . .
� � �
� � •_ - • � __� � .
,-. _ ._-,.._ , _ �_ � � .
. ._ .. _ . , i . .
1
_
. , i_�. '__. ' , , � -
� ' - ._._�., . , � �....
� `..,..._. RASP9EFRYAVE ."�, � .,,. �
� ...... . . y . _. .... �. . ,., _. :' , ( _ _. .. . �.
� �
j � � I � � j � : .
{.�..�_� � � � � ..� ', � ...�.. ...... .
� -� _ ._ . ... __ ._.. . . .]�
�
+ � _
' Subarea 2 +
+ ,
;
._ , _
- . a�s��_ _� _ , _.�_.� ,
r - �._..___._ , . '�.__...
ASH51
City of Arroyo Grande
7
_�
Amendment to the Berty Gardens Specifc Plan—Subareas 3 and 4
2. Allowed Land Uses
...,e._.u�. . ,_W. ;.
--�.. . ... �_ ;�� i � m
ma.�.. _
�.... _
� _..... . ;
,. __
�, 's� i:�"�� -�;.� .
� � }. �,...;,,_
�,. ; +���,�� �°°`;�� �;`'a�m*„,�,,,'
`1 M+M tH' ' y 9 tih : . �1 i
F !
�� i � �I
� �r { t , i� � w'� �
:�� � i �q .� ,,� �` w
�.. �'� :,, h ^�na �, .; y a�'.0
'�. 1M�, �fi
� � � i v S � � � . € �.
� . .,�7i au Fry -
� r ��' y`i� � ` � '� ! � i! �� " i ��+ 7i�' � ;:.
'�I F�' ! y x
I r�
� � # i� s� �i�� ��t�rt�� 4 ; � � . I �
,a : ,�+ � .��: p tii � � � x �; ��r
i i �
� /5I '�i : 9���i �� i 9 ! h�. y.IJ, i
rw 6. ,
LI� ����� � '�F j , � ' � �7 �� � �� � � y
� � �� �
� i i � :, � �,�, . y` :� �� �}} h�
r 3 k i
� � �� � �{ tp '� � �� �� � �
� S d 4 ti� 3 �� 4 .i I� . .y,
� � ��, P t i� �' ' i vrt" yf .
ff (
ff
}� � � ;� ?µ�.. i . � ( �.'Z v � s'v ...�. S `
� � �� . �_ ' `� }i 3� �� i :
� �.. t i : ' � .: d� v i . '.
o �.� �
� � : v � � r
5 _ �
Y+/� � _ . ;� a� rv�v��uµ�^� �t .�. � � .�,��+�j ;����^` � 1 � ,.
� � j �� p.]q� ��i d� ��i t . � :
�+k ¢ F� � �fi , ��!'^' � ik � � ��, i� yA � ��� !{�.i'!:!4� 4
� ir� ^
t{ � ik 1iF; � Ht d � A!� t4.. �� � -
� ,F �� � � ��� �� !4 � � d:
� � r � ���yp H 9 y y
� � �
. _ _ '# �����{ � ,k�a4 uu+ro t�9 ���": {) Ku a �.;
�'p � �� �P�" W {' �� ce +�f $
i
� �M. Y , ' � § � LPV � � . °�° (��
�u � � hi . � 4 � M� rw �� y, � v &
v �E � � yie�E'�J !� d r ,;�,�: �
� i � � i � ����,i .: ��
'� �'�E�? � , �"� .� .:�, ,.,.� �
�u
, ; � �w.
�
� � �'�;�'��"� ���� ��+,�� .��l:. ,i k�t �u� ���w,� 9+""�.�0,9xi�, � .. .
��, ��
^ t°""_',�..�.t°,��.�tt,".C3�r c � . � �.""'" ?,vl�r�r. �r. -.
City of Arroyo Grande
8 �
�
Amendment to the Berry Gardens Specific Plan-Subareas 3 and 4
3. Building Height Diagram (Mixed-Use Component)
XI AR
25Y cF F�,c'rnc.
� THIS SIaPC s�Rrtf* bewn�
g5' p}oX NSIFH'1' g���GIN�f
Fp�oM GiRnpE ��.. p'FcR�M�t�F-
I �
�r 2a'
SR'i'C�'GK 5� �
I — � I '�lIRTN�S 5�v�.
L�-- —G q5' Mf•x H�'lq+t
��K f¢c+M a�Rr�.s+E
� '�15 510�. �6� MN� }�EIy1Yr
�OI'� CrRP.� '('o NCI o1N
Plan View
20�
8 ET Bxc.K-
I �� /
rlaK. .4R�A
Of flOOY, D6lAV�/
F
� Srer'( 3 �
N
� S-toicY z
S7oRY �
�
Section View
City of Arroyo Grande
9
1
�
Amendment to the Berty Gardens Specifc Plan—Subareas 3 and 4
4. Concept Plan — Subareas 3 and 4
., _-__ � ,.
.....__ ...... . m. . . , ,�. i....... . .
,...... . .._...,.,..� ....._ ,........ . .. .. ,. ; . �
. . .. . ��`i'��` 43."V�+ i*;}
:ri'.� ..r� ��M�k�v M�u.r�..�.K� `�����. '� " '. �vJ�p�'. ....
} � �fij `
��' E �( � .T«� '�i "'fi
� �mm
� �� v p �{,�� �( jy .�_
� . Y y�,. C tl
� & ! � j u �4 $�``'`
* � jt�! �
� § .. .�-. ..» �.�Mr«�,+� d� Pf A.u.rv .�.> Y
� � � � �.` �,:. #� �;, � � .�i � rt�
,
� � Y �
� �i. � t � a .� d.
P' yt
d �. i�����KRl��'° g � �(. i 'ri�
fi �� � & �+ ��i '4" . j '� [..
} .. 'Yrr �A' � ' �^r� I .
�� � j�'' ,,��..k =�, ''� ,i»'ti ; � ��.4 �R' � �''"�` i �
�$ g���� m �
� '^�Mw :�,L.�. . ���'�{"'.' �, � � � v.'t a�y . �•� .:.�a,:;t' � . ..
A Mw� „ ,
� iG �` i �+.„ �
� � ....�p.,.....,-,v� .,.,�.�,� ���u...�. `�.�,. �, '� 'i"�„�-'i"' " .y ,.! b-7 . . II
� ,w� i y . w».� �.+a E �.
°'t K_ E '�k � ?� � i
r =
%J J � t �� ��� � k � ��� �� �
, �
� r ;�f � �� � �_.���{�' s � ��J�
»
�� � . _ """ y` g
#4 � w ��ay� u,�.,o-t� � � �" � �` ;
V { '#� � ...�m. ���t. ,t w..,,.�G� i a
� .� t � }., ' � � � .
� �' � � � � � ��� � � ,�
� d I
� � ..k Rp ��, . } m p � R � �
i � g
� r
ii � e C : R�� k �
.__...... a � a—, t � � u � i-
� ) ...a„. S r '� y�y e� s � ^ '.
�} �- �
L � � ��t w o- G�- � � ��� ¢ ��.
�
,�xm,«—v&.,y .n .s ��.. wi"�..,' �§� �'w�:
" ii' -w.o».,., '�ffi'� �y a �i �w� ��,;
� � w, W
,� �" , �. ' .i
�� � �
. h, - � �
�� �°�.w�:� �,�. ,�.�`�� ,� ��:°���.tt..�`"`�:�°w� , ._
...... �:
3 t"'��5'I. .r F� �� .�«.�.,.�e,°' q^^^^^'tli&r7"$'';�c n -k i'
City of Arroyo Grande
10
j
.�
Amendment to the Bem Gardens Specifc Plan—Subareas 3 and 4
5. Easement Locafions
z,..,.. �:;��.W�....
u,. ___ -�... .,.
� �e. � i:� , x
,�__ � _......
___ , . ... „� � � �
��� . ?� t��� ��x� �� �
�;,��� � ��._:�� :������� ��:� .. � �
� �� , ��:
� - �, '�� �'�� s�`�` ` � � � t �a;
� i ` i( _{ ° ii �4,,, E
� � � � � � � �
, : � � �f ig �:
y ' ,.. �,�. ��',� ,«' �� ..,,.�1-., �; 3 �:-.
� � � �� �a,. :, � ��g�, . rb.-�WWm , ,�� ��
� � c
� �� � v 3� .. .� �§d � F ��y
i. ��..5 �YY�c iI.•
k �
. ry.� iR� � . .i� w�E�r i{ � � ��� g ,� . �h �i N
3
«. i �
4�+«�i �,,, b, �., „ � �f �' �yt, � ��� � :
� � � �� �
� � � ,
'�f 2 6 7.az 4 � d,a * � P �r '�' y?�,? . :� "
� � �xµ�� r �� .,,.. M,-.,�.�� "d'.�`�� t��+'� �� . .
..� tY �
u.,K�4 �. u` � � °.
� �r� "� � ' � ;`� �i ...
�i ��. k �j " ' � .
�
�-�y �: � „,� � E� � w5�,�, . �
�►.t Q � � �� '� .� �� � � �� � ,
^,�` ° �,�' .
F� . . � �
� ����� ��.,,� �`���'s$ „�°� ,. �.,«���`� .°,
,��, Eas enk C�#�„�� `
� , ' � ,��"' �r
�
4I d! rew +we+-� �, r �� 1 3 �
� {� �'.,,. �+ �k . _ M1 E'.:.
° � t i �J•'w�S��''' a +y3a{iw ��f i' + � i:= ' p +-v ^. .r
` � � , � p� �� ,g .,
�u���� � s
�/ - ...e� .... F � t � �. E# * i � ��t � ��
R
i. -.� k aY °° � ,y '
� � � �
. . � ... i 3 l� ..�� ° �': �.M.�� ��� x.,,i - v
' �d"'Hn«.-J.ss� a# * �. ,�^+««�-„ -�` a9 ��:i
H � �$�J. t �, i��• a .� . . . - f-
^ _�y� •} , ��4���174� ��fl .,..
� ��.� .m.d..:���e � t� � �.' wa .,�� ,.� ,
. ww .'.�3 �d :_
�`t sn a a�"�kl� ."a a'i �?,v�"x"��e.rF �. F i � .
City of Arroyo Grande
11
Be�rv Gardens Soecific Plan EIR Addendum
1.0 Introduction
Background
In June of 1998, the City Council of rame ot Contencs
the City of Arroyo Grande certified the
Final Environmental Im act Re ort �'o rneroa��m�
P P 2.0 Propoaed Project Anolyais
(EIR) for the Berry Gardens Specific a.o EnvironmentalAoalyata
Plan — Tract 2260. The Specific Plan a•a �0"C1u°'°" '
Appeadiz A Berry GardensrSabarea Map
and EIR are intended to provide the
framework for an orderly development of the properties within the Berry Gardens
Specific Plan area consistent with the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan.
Berry Gardens is a 50.1-acre residential and commercial project consisting of
four (4) subareas, located on the western edge of Arroyo Grande (refer to
Appendix A). Subarea 1 of Berry Gardens includes 149 single-family homes,
thirty-one (31) patio, or zero lot-line homes and a 0.75-acre neighborhood park.
Subarea 2 ("Jasmine Place") is currently under construction and includes forty-
seven (47) attached and detached single-family homes and 0.5 acres of passive
open space. A portion of Subarea 3 (1.6 acres) has been approved for nine (9)
single-family homes. The remainder of Subarea 3 and all of Subarea 4, together
totaling 6.1 acres, remain vacant.
Proposed Project I
Tiering from the approved Specific Plan, the applicant is seeking to amend the '
Specific Plan to allow a mixed-use development on the remainder of Subarea 3
and all of Subarea 4 (refer to Appendix A) consisting of commercial, office and
residential uses.
Proposed Environmental Determination
When a program EIR, such as the Berry Gardens Specific Plan EIR is certified,
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows subsequent
environmental documents to "tier" from the program EIR. One such
environmental document is an addendum to the program EIR, which is allowed
when a project description differs from that which was analyzed in the program
EIR, but the potential environmental impacts are found to be no worse than those
disclosed in the program EIR.
Upon review of the proposed amendment, Community Development Department
staff has determined that the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
amendment are likely to be no worse than those disclosed in the Berry Gardens
Specific Plan EIR. Therefore, this Addendum to the Berry Gardens Specific Plan
EIR has been prepared by the City of Arroyo Grande Community Development
Department pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
Section 15164.
Page 1
Berry Gardens Soecific Plan EIR Addendum
The proposed amendment would not result in any changes to the conclusions
reached in the Berry Gardens Specific Plan EIR, nor would there be a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified potentially significant effects.
Also, no new information of substantial importance is known to exist that was not
known or could not have been known at the time of the Berry Gardens Specific
Plan EIR.
2.0 Proposed Project Analysis
Berry Gardens Specific Plan EIR Assumptions
The Berry Gardens Specific Plan EIR analyzed project-specific and cumulative
project impacts based on an assumed build-out of the entire Berry Gardens
Specific Plan area as follows:
■ Subarea 1 — 180 single-family homes and a neighborhood park on 37.5
acres
• Subarea 2 — 23-25 single family homes on 5.0 acres
■ Subarea 3 — 9 single-family homes on 1.6 acres and retail commercial on
3.0 acres
■ Subarea 4 — Retail commercial on 3.0 acres �
As previously stated, Subarea 1 includes a combined 180 single-family homes
and neighborhood park, Subarea 2 has been approved for forty-seven (47)
single-family homes and a passive open space area, 1.6 acres of Subarea 3 has
been approved for nine (9) single-family homes and the remainder of Subarea 3
(3.0 acres) and all of Subarea 4 remain vacant. This represents an increase of
twenty-two single-family homes over the maximum build-out assumed for
Subarea 2.
Changes to the Proposed Project
The proposed project consists of an amendment to the Berry Gardens Specific
Plan that would guide development of a portion of Subarea 3 (3.0 acres) and all
of Subarea 4, totaling 6.1 acres. The proposed amendment, as shown in the
Master Concept Plan, would allow retail commercial and office uses on
approximately 4.0 acres and multi-family uses at a density of twenty-eight (28)
units per acre on approximately 2.0 acres. This represents an increase of up to
fifty-six (56) residential units and a decrease of up to 43,560 square-feet of retail
commercial space compared to the maximum potential development of the area
under the provisions of the General Commercial (GC) zoning district, which has
since been replaced with the Gateway Mixed-Use (GMU) zoning district.
3.0 Environmental Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality
The Berry Gardens Specific Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated water demand for
the Berry Gardens Specific Plan area compared to the historic amount of
Page 2
� Berrv Gardens SoeciTic Plan EIR Addendum
groundwater withdrawn to irrigate the project area when it was used for
agriculture, which was 126.9 acre-feet per year (AFY). A groundwater recharge
rate of 25% was used to calculate net groundwater use based on sandy soils.
This results in a net water demand of 95.17 AFY for agricultural use.
The Berry Gardens Specific Plan EIR determined that there would be a net
increase in groundwater demand of 1.92 acre-feet per year (AFY)' once the area
was developed. This calculation was based on a total of 238 single-family
households, each using 435 gallons of water per day — no commercial use was
factored into this calculation. This amounts to a total demand of 114.24 AFY.
Using the same groundwater recharge rate of 25%, with the assumption that
60% of water use would be used for landscaping purposes, the net water
demand was calculated to be 97.09 AFY— a net increase of 1.92 AFY.
The City's Water System Master Plan (adopted in 1999) estimates future water
demand for single-family homes to be 350 gallons per day, multi-family
apartments to be 200 gallons per day and retail commercial to be 1,400 gallons
per day per acre. Based on the City's estimated numbers, the Berry Gardens
Specific Plan area (including the proposed amendment) would require the
following amounts of water:
Land Use Quantit Demand Acre-Feet/Year
Sin le-Famil 236 dwellin units 350 allons/da 91.10
Multi-Famil A artments 56 dwellin units 200 allons/da 12.35
Retail Commercial 4.0 acres 1,400 ailons/da 6.18
Total 109.63
Applying the same groundwater recharge rate and landscaping assumptions to
these revised numbers, net water demand is estimated to be 93.19 AFY— 109.63
* [1- (0.6 * 0.25)). This represents a decrease of 3.9 AFY below the anticipated
water demand identified in the Berry Gardens Specific Plan EIR and net
decrease of 1.98 AFY below historical agricultural use.
1 One acre-foot per year=331,012 gallons
The City is currently in a severely restricted water supply situation, which is
considered a cumulatively significant impact. The project's contribution, however, is
considered di minimis, meaning that the environmental conditions would be the
same whether or not the project is implemented. The City adopted overriding
considerations for cumulative water supply impacts identified in the Program EIR
forthe 2001 General Plan Update.
Drainage
Because the proposed project area is now vacant, any development would
increase the amount of surface stormwater runoff. The Berry Gardens Specific
Plan EIR only analyzed the drainage impacts of residential areas in Subarea 1,
Subarea 2 and a portion of Subarea 3, which drain into a ponding basin at the
Page 3
Berry Gardens Soecific Plan EIR Addendum
corner of Cranberry and Raspberry Avenues. This basin does include capacity
to accept surface stormwater runoff from the nine (9) recently approved single-
family homes on a portion of Subarea 3. It does not, however, include the
capacity necessary for the stormwater runoff from the remainder of Subarea 3
nor any of Subarea 4.
The Poplar Street ponding basin was recently expanded by the City to facilitate
the development of the Longs project, located across Courtland Street, just east
of the proposed project site. This expansion included extra capacity not only for
the adjacent Longs project, but also for the proposed project area and other
commercial and mixed-use properties in the vicinity. Each property is
responsible for reimbursing the City for its proportionate share of the basin's
extra capacity, ranging from $130,000 to $150,000 each. This reimbursement
will be included as a condition of approval on any discretionary development
permits approved by the City for the proposed project area. Drop inlets and a
storm drainage pipeline from the project area across Courtland Street and an
outlet to the Poplar Street ponding basin are required concurrent with
development. Because adequate stormwater runoff capacity exists for the
proposed project area, there is no potential significant impact to drainage and no
mitigation measures are required.
Land Use and Planning
At the time the Berry Gardens Specific Plan EIR was prepared, the proposed
project area was designated as General Commercial (GC) in the City's General
Plan. In 2001, the City's General Plan was updated, including changing the
proposed project area to Mixed-Use (MU). This land use designation allows for a
mix of retail commercial, office and residential uses at densities up to twenty-five
(25) dwelling units per acre. The proposed amendment is consistent with the
goals, policies and objectives of the City's General Plan. No potentially
significant impacts to land use and planning have been identified; therefore, no
mitigation measures are required.
Noise
The proposed amendment includes a residential component in an area that was
identified as being completely retail commercial in the Berry Gardens Specific
Plan EIR. The noise impacts generated by a commercial use are similar to but
not greater than those generated by traffic on Oak Park Boulevard, which the
Berry Gardens Specific Plan EIR identified as a potentially significant impact to
the patio homes located in Subarea 1. Therefore, the same mitigation measure
prescribed in the Berry Gardens Specific Plan EIR is sufficient to mitigate this
potentially significant impact.
Transportation and Traffic
The Berry Gardens Specific Plan EIR analyzed both project impacts (Tract
2260 - Subarea 1 ) and cumulative short-term impacts (Subareas 2 - 4 plus
pending projects►. The EIR allocated a total of 2,856 daily vehicle trips to
Page 4
Berrv Gardens Soecific Plan EIR Addendum .
the development of Subareas 3 and 4, with seventy-two (72) peak-hour trips
in the AM and 261 peak-hour trips in the PM, assuming commercial
development of the area. The EIR determined that with implementation of
the mitigation measures required for Tract 2260, the cumulative short-term
impacts were less than significant, with all intersections included in the
analysis operating at LOS "C" or better, and no mitigation measures were
required.
Applying the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Traffic
Generation Rates2 (current City standard), the proposed amendment is
anticipated to generate a total of 2,276 daily vehicle trips, with eighty-eight (88)
peak-hour trips in the AM and 206 peak-hour trips in the PM. This represents a
net decrease of 580 daily vehicle trips, a net increase of sixteen (16) AM peak-
hour trips and a net decrease of fifty-five (55) PM peak-hour trips. Additionally,
the proposed amendment includes a bus stop on East Grand Avenue, which will
encourage the use of public transportation that was not factored into these
numbers.
Overall, the proposed amendment is anticipated to generate similar traffic
numbers as those identified in the Berry Gardens Specific Plan EIR and'#herefore
no further mitigation measures are required for adoption of the Specific Plan
Amendment; however, CEQA does allow for further environmental review of
commercial projects within a specific plan during discretionary approval, if
necessary.
2—SANDAG Tnp Generetion Rates
Land Use Dail Tri Generation AM Peak-Hour PM Peak-Hour
Multi-Famil A artments 6/du '56 8% 10%
Commercial 400/acre"2 3% 9°/a
Office 180/acre` 1 15% 15%
Restaurant 160/1,000 s.f. *6 1% 8%
a.o Conclusion
Based on the above discussion, the potential environmental impacts disclosed in
the Berry Gardens Specific Plan EIR are not significantly different than the
potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendment. No additional
mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Berry Gardens Specific Plan
EIR are required; therefore, a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not considered
necessary and this EIR addendum is appropriate for the proposed specific plan
amendment.
Page 5
r
Berry Gardens Soecific Plan EIR Addendum
Appendix A
, _ _
! ,' � ' ' _
�
__ . �
, , _ - °
�
�_ W,
____ _.._
> —
_ _ .�:
- LL
�-�--� �.�..�_�.-....ti EGRANOAVE , ... ... ...
t ,. a .._ . _ .
ei . .. ._._.... .
� ; + ..._. . :
1 �' ! j
`
! � � ''
�
i � _
i ' Q� I ; ,. i a
L„ w
7 � ,' � + ..... . . ..._...... ,.. . ;..._ . -.:�
.� � � � - �,
; c6 � i i.
� � j rr) � _ _ _ _.
�
ro � �
� � � ,s, �- � � �
.�: . � ?ORARST...
� 1 �"
� r " � .
� � � �� �
. r^ _ ' ? . , ...«.-� 1
1 ��J ... ; ' � ;
� . . :_.. p ....,_ �. ..
� 9TRAWeERRYAVE ..�- . '—�( �� �� .
i �..__
� � i ..._ -.. I_ . .
.
� , ., _. r., .-- �
j � ' ^ ` """" .
� � � �
_ � i i 7 . __,._'� ' _�. ' J :-,. 1 . ..._.
• .
_� i . , , , ..... . 1 - .
r . ._., � , , � .__.
-_„ � . . . i_...., _ ,� (..... �
� �� �� f '^ .-� � BUC�ERRYAVE �
- l ; . �.. � ._ . .- .
, , __� � � 1 , . m ;
� - , _�_ . , � � _ ___
, , � ; � _ _ ,
_. ; _ ... m
,
, _._ � .._ >
� � —� . A � � � o �-- + _ i
; m_ �
( " ,-�'% HIILKLEBEftRY�VE ,..• ". ^
� v
� � - -^7 I__ • � .� � � � -�LE�ARST. ._
� ,�-.� �('�1j i r' _. ' i � ` �• _� _—
� ,��( � �.YU�a�Q,.�' . �.._ ,-_ ' .. r
m __
i �
� j � � ..
yu ..,_ ) � : ) �
� {. _ LDOANBEFFVAVE � - —' .__ ��� .: Ia
`� 'i � _.__'
' i ,. � ....4 `..� .. BL�BERRYpVE � �^
.,�. �._.__, ..._�....
..... 3 - �. � � . .. T __._. .1.
�.��_� 3 � ' � E �.__ � .
r r
_ � .__
� �T� ; _ _ .�� .
� { Y
� � � t _ _ �
\ i i
� �' � RASPBERRYpVE� �.�� � I � ^��..
� . _' �_ ._ ;� .
- _ r. . ._ � . �. �
(� ' '.�-..�-�� � ��� 3 3 '_ I_. .._. . `
r _ , _. _ _.:, ,
r � . _
� Subarea 2 j`_
� , � �
..� ;
.
. ____........ ASHSi� ...� _�..�_.._� � � ....�..�_�.� �.�1_. ..
; — �
,�.' -__. _._ .._. ASH81
I
Page 6
ATTACHMENT 4
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
APRIL 26, 2005
PAGE 6
Mayor Ferrara stated that the amendment was appropriate. He commented on the deteriorating
condition of Farroll Avenue and stated that this is a location that would require monitoring
throughout the construction process. He also agreed with comments regarding the need for
contiguous sidewalks in the area near the project and the elementary school.
Council Member Arnold moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE REVISING CONDITION OF
APPROVAL NO. 774 REGARDING DRAINAGE BASIN FOR VESTING TENATIVE TRACT
MAP 02-002 (VTTM 2310) BY S&S HOMES, NORTH SIDE OF FARROLL AVENUE". Council
Member Dickens seconded the motion, and the motion carried on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Arnold, Dickens, Guthrie, Costello, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
9.b. Consideration of Specific Plan Amendment 03-001: Applicant — S&S Homes;
Location —Southwest corner of Courtland Street and East Grand Avenue.
Mayor Ferrara announced a conflict of interest due to ownership of real property within 500 feet
of the project and stepped down from the dais. Mayor Pro Tem Costello took over as the
Presiding Officer.
Assistant Planner Foster presented the staff report and recommended the Council adopt a
Resolution amending the Berry Gardens Specific Plan to allow mixed-use development of
Subareas 3 and 4. Staff responded to questions from Council regarding the proposed 45-foot
maximum building height; explanation of Specific Plan versus Development Code standards;
clarification concerning maximum density requirements; clarification regarding the previously
certified Environmental Impact Report; clarification regarding development standards that would
preclude condominium conversion in the future; and clarification regarding access/utility
easement issues and reimbursement provisions for easement and infrastructure improvement
costs. '
Mayor Pro Tem Costello opened the public hearing.
Ruth Matsumoto Dea, property owner representing Subarea 3, stated her family has owned this
property for 50 years and gave some background about the property's agricultural and farming
history, and expressed concerns with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. She indicated that
she has placed the property for sale, there is a pending offer, and she requested a continuance
of this item for 90 days.
Jeffrey Emrick, architect and engineer for EDA, spoke on behalf of Ruth Dea and her vision to
provide more affordable housing in the City. He stated that the proposed Specific Plan
Amendment does not do justice to that vision and stated that the Specific Plan Amendment
reduces the value of Subarea 3, divides the property into two different zones and two different
types of development. He disagreed with the three proposed access easement provisions in the
Plan; disagreed with finding #2 in the proposed Resolution which states that the Specific Plan
Amendment will not result in an illogical land use pattern; disagreed with finding #4 which states
that the standards for building height take advantage of the unusual existing grades in the project
area; and concluded by suggesting a lot line adjustment to rotate the existing property line.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
APRIL 26, 2005
PAGE 7
Ann Wilson, attorney assisting Ruth Dea, addressed issues relating to securing the easements
between the two properties; installation of mutual infrastructure improvements; difficulty in
cooperation between the two landowners; and elevation differences. She suggested a lot line
adjustment to address these issues, which would eliminate the need for securing easements, the
installation of infrastructure improvements, the cooperation necessary to develop the two
parcels, and the elevation differences would also be eliminated or reduced. She questioned the
legality of some portions of the proposed amendment, the Addendum to the EIR which assumes
that the addition of 56 apartments would not substantially affect the conclusions in the certified
EIR, and expressed concern about the proposed reimbursement provisions, especially with
regard to the 7% interest rate. She concluded by commenting that the City's involvement in an
agreement between two adjacent landowners was questionable.
John Mack, architect for S&S Homes, responded to questions from Council regarding the
proposed building height, density, easements, and conceptual design. He stated that a lot of
work has gone into this project and they would like to move forvvard. He did not see a lot line
adjustment as an issue. He stated the Architectural Review Committee and Planning
Commission have reviewed the Plan and provided favorable comments on the conceptual plan.
He commented that he did not think approval of the Plan tonight would preclude other
amendments in the future.
Upon hearing no further public comments, Mayor Pro Tem Costello closed the public hearing.
Council Member Guthrie commented on the access issues and stated that Subarea 3 could not
develop without at least one access easement; commented that the proposed values of the
easements are reasonable, however, the 7% interest rate may be too high; agreed that this
approval would not preclude future amendments for Subarea 3; suggested language be included
to protect against 45 foot buildings being visible from E. Grand Avenue; commented on the
proposed density and stated that an increase may require additional environmental review;
suggested language be added that specifies the project must include apartments; commented
that he did not see a lot line adjustment as a viable alternative; and stated he could move
forward and suppo�t the Specific Plan Amendment with the suggested changes.
Council Member Arnold stated he was not ready to move forward and would support a
continuance. He stated that one of the goals of the Specific Plan was to create one cohesive
project. He expressed concerns regarding the access/easement infrastructure and utility issues;
and also expressed concern with the project being underparked, especially with a mixed-use
project that includes a proposed restaurant use. He expressed concern about the EIR and stated
that an increase in residential could trigger the need for a new EIR. He agreed that the City
desperately needs apartments. He preferred to continue the item for 90 days to see if a plan for
Subarea 3 comes in.
Council Member Dickens thanked Ms. Dea for providing her history of the property. He said that
the goal was to create a project that benefits the City. He acknowledged the work that has been
done; however, there were a lot of unanswered questions and he could not support moving
forvvard at this time. He commented that the Council was considering a proposed Specific Plan
Amendment, and not a concept plan. He disagreed that the proposed amendment would not
substantially affect the conclusions in the certified EIR, and stated there are traffic and water
issues that need to be addressed; did not understand the building height exception and said he
was uncomfortable with the proposed 45-ft height standard as part of this amendment; stated
that there were unforeseen legal issues concerning the easements, and whether the interest rate
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
APRIL 26, 2005
PAGE 8
was equitable; agreed that the City needs apartments in its housing inventory; reiterated that the
goal is to create an integrated cohesive project; acknowledged that there could be some
potential advantages in the property owners considering a lot line adjustment; and believed that
the parties needed time to resolve some of these significant issues. He suggested directing staff
to go back and review the original certified EIR, and based on the proposed amendment
determine if there is any additional impact to traffic and water usage.
Mayor Pro Tem Costello commented that if the amendment was approved tonight, it was not
likely to result in a cohesive project. He stated he would like to review the original certified EIR;
acknowledged that there were a lot of unanswered questions; commented that a lot line
adjustment may work; favored apartments; however, expressed concern with an increase in
density as it relates to traffic. He did not support moving forward at this time.
Council Member Arnold moved to continue this item until July 26, 2005 and direct staff to provide
copies of the EIR to Council for review prior to that date. Council Member Dickens seconded the
motion, and the motion carried on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Arnold, Dickens, Costello
NOES: Guthrie
ABSENT: Ferrara
Mayor Pro Tem Costello called a recess at 10:05 p.m.
Mayor Ferrara returned to the dais and reconvened the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
9.c. Consideration of Proposed Ordinance Amending Arroyo Grande Municipal Code
Chapter 16.36 of Title 16 to Include Permitting Requirements Applicable to Auto,
Vehicle Parts Sales Without Installation Services in Commercial and Mixed Use
Districts and Adding Chapter 10.18 to Title 10 to Prohibit Auto-Related
Maintenance and Repair Activity in Commercial and Public Parking Lots
(Development Code Amendment 05-007).
Associate Planner McClish presented the staff report, recommended the Council introduce an
Ordinance amending Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Chapter 16.36 of Title 16 and Adding
Chapter 10.18 to Title 10, and responded to questions from Council.
Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing, and when no one came forward to speak on the item,
he closed the public hearing.
Mayor Ferrara recalled when the City Council considered the Master Plan for E. Grand Avenue
during the General Plan Update, which involved looking at compatibility issues for businesses
along E. Grand Avenue. He recalled that the intent at that time was to locate auto parts stores
next to similar uses in certain areas such as the Highway Commercial District where there was
an existing concentration of auto sales and auto repair businesses. He commented that the
Gateway segment was identified as the center of the City, which would focus more on pedestrian
oriented uses. He expressed concern about locating this type of use in the Gateway, the ongoing
issues relating to auto repair and maintenance in parking lots, and expressed concerns
regarding the ability to enforce the prohibition of auto repairs and maintenance in parking lots.
FROM :Ruth Dea FAX N0. :650-355-8155 J
ATTACHMENTS
City Council
City of Arroyo Grande
Meeting Date: July 26, 2005
Agenda Item: Specific Plan Amendmant/S & S Homes
I and my buyeddeveloper were allowed a 90-ciay corrtinua�ce to design a
specific plan for Sub Area 3 other than that which was proposed by S 8 S
Homes. After presenfing their proposed plan to city offiaals and receiving
negative responses, the buyeddeveloper has deaded to bow out. Therefore, t
will no longer oppose the S &S Specific Plan concept inr development. Hov�ver,
since I am not a developer nor plan to be one, I request that any future
buyeddeveloper and/or l be allowed to come forward with another Specific Plan
amendment that would oniy pertain to the development of Sub Area 3.
With �egard to specific factors in S 8 S Homes Specific Plan Amendment not yet
resolved nor agreed to are:
9) Easements: (brought up at April Counal meeting)
—How many7 �
—Should the easement to the commercial from Courda�d be charged as it is
mutualiy beneficial and there is shared parking? (Historically, this is not
charged.)
—Shared easement off East Grand Avenue? - Grading issue7
--Legality of City to indude the payrr�nt issues for easements in the Specific
Plan Amendment?
—7% interest?
—Interest to commence upon the issuance of building permits for Phase 1 of
Sub Area 4? (What if Sub Area 3 is never developed?)
: New tssus:
If Sub Atea 3 uses only the southernmost access point for utilities, does that
mean there would be only one (1) reimbursable easemerd?
2) 'Grading:
—Is it fair that I have to bear the cost of prematurely grading my property
when I do not intend to develop?
--Since it was S 8 S Homes that built up Sub Area 4 to tremendousty increase
the disparity between the iwo Sub Areas, why are they not required
to haul away some of that soil? Or could they not push the excess soil
over to Sub Area 3 for the required grading to begin their project and have
access from East Grand?
With regard to the.aforementioned matters, since I have no plans to develop this
property, I do not wish to commit any resources ($$). If there is everrtual
FROM :Rutti Dea FAX N0, :650-355-8155 Jul. 22 2005 09:47RM P3
2
developrrient of Sub Area 3 by a developer with buiiding permits issued, of
oourse, at that Gme it would be totally appropdate.
These are the only issues that I would hope to have resolved before this Speafic
Plan Amendment is approved.
Respecxfully Submitted,
��JV �-�.��u.�''(}�p�
Ruth Matsumoto Dea
OwnedSub Area 3