Agenda Packet 2006-04-25 CITY OF
City Cou�cil � " ' ' � � ' Agenda
� ,
Tony Ferrara Mayor Steven Adams City Manager
Jim Guthrie Mayor Pro Tem Timothy J.Carmel Ciry Attomey
Jim Dickens Council Member � Kelly Wetmore City Clerk
Joe Costello Council Member �•�° C A L I F O R N I A �
Ed Arnold Council Member �- 9t'
AGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006
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
3. FLAG SALUTE: KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS
4. INVOCATION: RETIRED PASTOR PAUL JONES
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
5.a. Honorarv Proclamation Recopnizins� "Arbor Dav" —April 28. 2006
5.b. Presentation of Tourism Business Improvement District Briefinq bv San Luis
Obisao Countv Visitors and Conference Bureau
6. AGENDA REVIEW:
6a. Move that all ordinances presented tonight be read in title only and all further readings
be waived.
AGENDA SUMMARY— APRIL 25, 2006
PAGE 2
7. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present
issues, thoughts, or suggestions on matters not scheduled on this agenda.
Comments should be limited to those matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City
Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council from taking formal action on matters not
published on the agenda. In response to your comments, the Mayor or presiding
Council Member may:
♦ Direct City staff to assist or coordinate with you.
♦ A Council Member may state a desire to meet with you.
♦ It may be the desire of the Council to place your issue or matter on a future
Council agenda.
Please adhere to the following procedures when addressing the Council:
♦ Comments should be limited to 3 minutes or less.
♦ Your comments should be directed to the Council as a whole and not directed
to individual Council members.
♦ Slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member or
member of the audience shall not be permitted.
8. CONSENT AGENDA:
The following routine items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group.
The recommendations for each item are noted. Any member of the public who wishes
to comment on any Consent Agenda item may do so at this time. Any Council
Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit
discussion or change the recommended course of action. The City Council may
approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda on one motion.
8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification (KRAETSCH)
Recommended Action: Ratify the listing of cash disbursements for the period April
1, 2006 through April 15, 2006.
8.b. Statement of Investment Deaosits (KRAETSCH)
Recommended Action: Receive and file the report of current investment deposits
as of March 31, 2006.
8.c. Consideration of Resolution Increasinst Operatins� Fees Based on Chans�es in
the Consumer Price Index (CPI) (KRAETSCH)
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution increasing operating fees by the January
2006 CPI increase of 5.4%.
8.d. Consideration of Approval of Minutes (WETMORE)
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the Special and Regular City
Council Meetings of March 14, 2006 and the Special and Regular City Council
Meetings of March 28, 2006 as submitted.
8.e. Consideration of Fundins� Reauest from Destination Imas�ination (ADAMS)
Recommended Action: Appropriate $1,000 for a contribution to the Ocean View
Elementary and Judkins Middle School Destination Imagination Global Competition
teams.
AGENDA SUMMARY—APRIL 25, 2006
PAGE 3
8. CONSENT AGENDA: (continued)
8.f. Consideration of Disaosal of Surplus Bicvcles (AEILTS)
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution declaring bicycles as surplus for donation
to the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Office to be refurbished and donated to
needy children.
8.g. Consideration to Aaarove Final Tract Maq 2310 — Phase II: Subdividina 8.2
Acres into Fiftv-Two (52) Residential Parcels. One (11 Park Parcel, and One (il
Drainaqe Basin Parcel, and to Aaarove Related Easement Aareements with S&S
Homes and the South San Luis Obisoo Countv Sanitation District (SPAGNOLO)
Recommended Action: Approve Final Tract Map 2310 - Phase II; subdividing 8.2
acres into fifty-two (52) residential parcels, one (1) park parcel, and one (1) drainage
basin parcel.
8.h. Consideration of a Cooqerative As�reement with Caltrans for Development of
the Brisco Road-Halcvon Road/Route 101 Interchans�e Proiect throus�h Proiect
Auaroval and Environmental Determination (PA&ED) (SPAGNOLO)
Recommended Action: 1) Adopt Resolution approving Cooperative Agreement#05-
CA-0140 between the City of Arroyo Grande and the State of California Department
of Transportation (Caltrans) for development of the Brisco Road-Halcyon RoadlRoute
101 Interchange project through Project Approval and Environmental Determination
(PA&ED); and 2) authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement.
S.i. Consideration of Aareement for Contractor Services with SP Maintenance to
Provide Street Sweeqinq Services (SPAGNOLO)
, Recommended Action: 1) Approve a two-year agreement with a provision for three
, one year extensions, with SP Maintenance, for street sweeping services; and 2)
authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement for Contractor Services.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
9.a. Consideration of Ordinance Establishin4 Res�ulations for Peddlinct and
Solicitinsa Activities (AEILTS/CARMEL)
Recommended Action: Introduce Ordinance adding Chapter 5.76 to the Arroyo
Grande Municipal Code establishing regulations for peddling and soliciting activities.
9.b. Consideration of Appeal of the Plannins� Commission's Interpretation and
Denial of Viewshed Review Case No. 05-021: 1238 Monteno Street (STRONG)
Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution denying the appeal and denying
Viewshed Review 05-021.
9.c. Consideration to Amend the Arrovo Grande Municiqal Code to Permit Service
and Consumation of Alcohol at the Villasae Green for Suecial Events Uaon
Issuance of an Alcohol Beveraae Service and Consumption Permit bv Chief of
Police (HERNANDEZ)
Recommended Action: Approve the Parks and Recreation Commission's
recommendation that the Municipal Code not be amended to permit service and
consumption of alcohol at the Village Green for special events.
AGENDA SUMMARY —APRIL 25, 2006
PAGE 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 the ma be artici atin .
Y Y p p 9
(a) MAYOR TONY FERRARA:
(1) San Luis Obispo Council of Governments/San Luis Obispo Regional
Transit Authority (SLOCOG/SLORTA)
(2) South San �uis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD)
(3) Other
(b) MAYOR PRO TEM JIM GUTHRIE:
(1) Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC)
(2) Other
(c) COUNCIL MEMBER JIM DICKENS:
(1) South County Area Transit (SCAT)
(2) South County Youth Coalition
(3) Other
(d) COUNCIL MEMBER JOE COSTELLO:
(1) Zone 3 Water Advisory Board
(2) Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
(3) Fire Oversight Committee
(4) Fire Consolidation Oversight Committee
(5) 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 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.
AGENDA SUMMARY— APRIL 25, 2006
PAGE 5
14. CITY MANAGER ITEMS:
' The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by the City Manager in order to
receive feedback and/or request direction from the Council. No formal action can be
taken.
a. None.
15. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:
Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Council.
16. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Manager.
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 City Clerk's office 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. Agenda
reports can be accessed and downloaded from the City's website at www.arrovoqrande.orq
5.a.
��TY �F
o • • . �
►
. �
���
_ ..-- - __ _ _ - - -
- - a�a
�
i � ����P� � " ��'
r
�� �� CALIFORNIA
� ���
�� �y ,,A f
� � 9 '1 � t�����
� Honorary Proclamation
Recognizing A�bor �7ay
Apri1 28, 2006
WHEREAS, in 1872 J. Sterling Morton proposed to the�Nebraska Board of Agriculture that a
special day be set aside for the planting of trees;and
� WHEREAS, this holiday,called Arbor Day,�was first observed with the planting of more than a
� million trees in Nebraska;and
� ' W HEREAS, 2006 is the 134�Anniversary of Arbor Day,and it is now observed throughout the
� nation and.the world;and - ,
WHEREAS, trees can reduce the erosion of our precious topsoil by wind and water, cut
heating and cooling costs, moderate the temperature,clean the air,produce life-giving oxygen, ,
and provide habitat for wildlife;and ,
WHEREAS,trees are a renewable resource giving us paper,wood for our homes,fuel for our
� fires, and countless other wood products, increase property values, enhance the economic
, vitality of business areas, beautify our community, and trees,whenever they are planted, are a
. source ofjoy and spiriGal renewal;and '
WHEREAS,the City of Arroyo Grande has been recognized as a Tree City USA by the National
Arbor Day Foundation for the 24u consecutive year and desires to contlnue its tree-planting
, ways.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOWED, that 1, 7ony Ferrara, Mayor of the City of Arroyo
Grande, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby recognize and proclaim April 28N as "ARBOR ,
. DAY" in the City of Arroyo Grande, and urge all citizens to celebrate "ARBOR DAY" and to
support efforts to care for our trees and woodlands and to support our City's community .
', forestry program.
' BE IT FURYNER RESOL!/ED,that all citizens are urged to plant a tree to gladden the heart
� and promote the well-being of this and future generations.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and caused the
Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande to be affixed this 25�^ day of April 2006.
PµROYp
o`� �9
�- INCONVONATEO Z
F
TONY FERRARA.MA�OR u 'Z�g�� °m
1 JUIY�0.�9N #
� " CqCIFOAN�P
� pRROVp S.a.
� c?
� INCORPOqATED 9.y
� m MEMORANDUM
} JULY 10. 1811 *
c4��FORN`P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICE
BY: FRANCES R. HEAD, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOF�t oI.Y, J
SUBJECT: CASH DISBURSEMENT RATIFICATION
`G�
DATE: APRIL 25, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for
the period April 1 through April 15, 2006.
FUNDING:
There is a $879,269.03 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 —April 5, 2006, Accounts Payable Check Register
Attachment 3 —April 10, 2006, Accounts Payable Check Register
Attachment 4 —April 14, 2006, Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks Register
, Attachment 5 —April 14, 2006, Accounts Payable Check Register
ATTACHMENTI
� CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CASH DISBURSEMENTS
For the Period ofApri/1 Through Apri/15,.2006
I _ _.._ _._----_. . _ __ _ ... _ _... _ __. _._. . _ _._ _
� April 25, 2006
� Presented are the cash disbursements issued by the Department of Financial Services for
the period April 1 to April 15, 2006. Shown are cash disbursements by week of occurrence
and type of payment.
WEEK .. ;, .TYPE OF PAYMENT_ ' ' ATTACHMENT, AMOUNT
Apri17, 2006
Amounts Payable Cks 125771-125839 2 $ 207,784.10
April 14, 2006
P�coounts Payable Cks 12584o-125865 3 $ 13,465.07
Payroll Checks&Benefit Checks 4 421,476.14
Aaounts Payable Cks 125866-125964 5 236,543.72
$ 671,484.93
TW�O-WEEKTOTAL $ 879,269.03
U:\MSWORD\CITY COUNCIL FORMS\CASH DISBURSHMENT F02M5\CASH DISBURSEMENT SCHED wEXCEL WKS.doc
CITY OFARROYO GRANDE
INDEX FOR BUDGET DEPARTMENTS
EDEN COMPUTER SYSTEM
GENERAL FUND (010] SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
CitvGovemment(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 Construction Tax Fund (Fund 230)
4121 - Taxes/ Insurance/ Bonds 4556 - Construction 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 Departmental 4203 - Federal Universal Hiring (Fd 274)
Pub/icSafetvlFund 010) 4208 - Federal Local Law Enforcmt (FD 279)
4201 - Police Redevelopment Agency ( Fund 284)
4211 - Fire 4103 - Redevelopment Administration
4212 - Building & Safety ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Pub/ic Works/Fund OZO) Sewer Pund (FUnd 612)
4301 - Public Works-Admin & Engineering 4610 - Sewer Maintenance
4303 - Street/Bridge Maintenance Water Fund (Fund 640)
4304 - Street Lighting 4710 - Water Administration
4305 - Automotive Shop 4711 - Water Production
Par/rs&Recreation/Fund 0101 4712 - Water Distribution
4420 - Parks Lopez Administration (Fund 641)
4421 - Recreation 4750 - Lopez Administration
4422 - General Recreation CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS fFund 3501
4423 - Pre-School Program 5501-5599 - Park Projecks
4424 - Recreation-Special Programs 5601-5699 - Streets Projects
4425 - Children in Motion 5701-5799 - Drainage Projects
4426 - Five Cities 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 FO[2M$\CASH DISBURSEMEIVT F02M5\CASH DISBURSEMENT SCHED wEXCEL WKS.doc
ATTACHMENT 2
vchlist Voucher List Page: 1
04105I2006 2:33:31 PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : b08
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125771 4/3/2006 002868 COTA, MICHELLE 033106 PER DIEM-DARE TRAINING CONF.-
PER DIEM-DARE TRAINING CONF.-
010.4201.5501 82.00
Total : 82.00
125782 4/5/2006 000012 AGRI-TURF SUPPLIES, INC 43126 DOLOMARK LIME
DOLOMARK LIME
010.4430.5255 718.05
ToWI : 718.05
125783 . 4/5/2006 003175 AQUA-METRIC SALES CO 0012647 (1)3" METER CHAMBER
(1)3" METER CHAMBER
640.4712.5207 385.84
Total : 385.84
125784 4/5/2006 005476 ATTORNEY SERVICE OF SLO 040406 REFUND WITNESS FEES DEPOSIT
REFUND WITNESS FEES DEPOSIT
010.0000.4808 150.00
Total : 150.00
125785 4/5/2006 000957 BERCHTOLD EQUIPMENT CO PC48584 POINTS-BOX SCRAPER
POINTS-BOX SCRAPER
010.4420.5603 32.91
PC48584A SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
010.4420.5603 188.65
Total : 221.56
125786 4/5/2006 001266 BR,4NCH STREET DELI 1091 LUNCH MEETING-FAIR OAKS PRO,
LUNCH MEETING-FAIR OAKS PRO.
010.4101.5201 73.73
Total : 73.73
125787 4/5/2006 000087 BREZDEN PEST CONTROL, INC 48002 PEST CONTROL-FIRE STATION
PEST CONTROL-FIRE STATION
010.4213.5303 99.00
Page: 1
vchlist Voucher List Page: 2
0410512006 2:33:31PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125787 4/5/2006 000087 000087 BREZDEN PEST CONTROL, INC (Continued) Total : 99.00
125788 4/5/2006 000090 BRISCO MILL 8 LUMBER YARD 127876 HOSE
HOSE
612.4610.5610 2.25
128000 ROPE
ROPE
612.4610.5610 29.92
128066 ROLLER FRAME
ROLLER FRAME
220.4303.5613 3•2�
ToWI : 35.38
125789 4l52006 002776 CA ST DEPT OF HEALTH SVCS 0650543 AB2995 WATER SYST.FEES-7/1/05
AB2995 WATER SYST.FEES-7/1/05
640.4710.5303 1,996.52
Total : 7,996.52
_ 125790 4/5/2006 000134 CA ST DEPT OF JUSTICE 560823 FINGERPRINT CHECKS-FEB 2006
POLICE-FLORES
010.4201.5324 32.00
IN/OUT
010.4201.5329 2,525.00
Total : 2,557.00
125791 4/5/2006 000142 CAL-COAST MACHINERY, INC R6795 BANNERMAN TOP DRESSER RENT
BANNERMAN TOP DRESSER RENT
010.4420.5605 538.75
R6796 BANNERMAN TOP DRESSER RENT
BANNERMAN TOP DRESSER REN7
010.4430.5552 538.75
Total : 1,077.50
125792 4/5/2006 004548 CARMEL& NACCASHA, LLP 10393 PROF.LEGAL SERVICES. MAR 200f
PROF.LEGAL SERVICES: MAR 200E
010.4003.5304 13,590.30
Page: 2
vchlist VOUChe� List Page: 3
04/OS/2006 2:33:31 PM , CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125792 4/5/2006 004548 004548 CARMEL& NACCASHA, LLP (Continued) Total : 13,590.30
125793 4/5/2006 000603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 40621 CU PUMP BEARING FOR VISTA DE
CU PUMP BEARING FOR VISTA DE
640.4712.5610 25.02
46585 BELT
BELT
220.4303.5601 16.73
46950 BELT
BELT
220.4303.5601 50.19
62043 WIPERS FOR PW44
WIPERS FOR PW44
612.4610.5601 14.44
62044 CREDIT FOR WIPERS PW44
CREDIT FOR WIPERS PW44
612.4610.5601 -1924
62046 LENS
LENS
220.4303.5601 12.93
62151 WIPER FOR PW51
WIPER FOR PW51
612.4610.5601 6.67
62400 FILTER
FILTER
220.4303.5601 88.36
Total : 195.10
125794 4/5/2006 002389 CONAWAY, MARCUS O40506 B/BALL LGE.SCORER-CONAWAY
B/BALL LGE.SCORER-CONAWAY
010.4424.5352 22.50
Total : 22.50
125795 4/5/2006 000185 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DIST 7605-460264 LIGHT FIXTURE-E GRAND AVE
LIGHT FIXTURE-E GRAND AVE
010.4420.5605 245.60
Page: 3
vchlist Voucher List Page: 4
04105/2006 2:33:31 PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode: boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125795 4/5/2006 000185 000185 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DIST (Continued) Total : 245.60
125796 4/5/2006 000201 D G REPAIR 1252 REPAIRS TO ELECTRICAL PROBLE
REPAIRS TO ELECTRICAL PROBLE
220.4303.5601 160.00
REPAIRS
640.4712.5601 160.00
REPAIRS
612.4610.5601 160.00
1279 REPAIR DIST PW16
REPAIR DIST PW16
220.4303.5601 80.00
Total : 560.00
125797 4/5/2006 004706 DEALERS CHOICE/CENTRAL CAL 113615 062 INSTALL EQUIPMENT
062 INSTALL EQUIPMENT
010.4201.6301 1,621.56
ToWI : 1,621.56
125798 4/5/2006 005091 DEERE LANDSCAPES,JOHN 09517489 VALVE BOX LIDS-RANCHO GRAND
VALVE BOX LIDS-RANCHO GRAND
010.4420.5605 109.68
09517490 CREDIT-DEFECTIVE VALVE BOX
CREDIT-DEFECTIVE VALVE BOX
010.4420.5605 -12.99
Total : 96.69
125799 4/5/2006 004790 FLOYD, DEANNA 040506 BASKETBALL SCORER
BASKETBA�LSCORER
010.4424.5352 60.00
Total : 60.00
125800 4/5/2006 003590 FLOYD, SERENA 040506 B/BALL LGE.SCORER-FLOYD
B/BALL LGE.SCORER-FLOYD
010.4424.5352 37.50
Total : 37.50
Page: 4
vchlist Voucher List Page: 5
04/OSI2006 2:33:31PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125801 4/5/2006 000262 FRANK'S LOCK 8 KEY, INC 23800 MUSTER LOCKS
MUSTER LOCKS
640.4712.5255 182.33
Total : 182.33
125802 4/5/2006 004825 GALBREATH, FLAVA 040506 BASKETBALL REFEREE
BASKETBALL REFEREE
010.4424.5352 18.00
Total : 18.00
125803 4/5/2006 004142 GAXIOLA, STAN 040506 BASKETBALL OFFICIAL
BASKETBALL OFFICIAL
010.4424.5352 90.00
Total : 90.00
125804 4/5/2006 004789 HALE, KRAIG 040506 BASKETBALL REFEREE
BASKETBALL REFEREE
� 010.4424.5352 162.00
roc�i : �sz.00
125805 4/5/2006 002405 HARE, CHUCK 040506 B/BALL LGE.OFFICIAL-HARE
B/BALL LGE.OFFICIAL-HARE
010.4424.5352 54.00
Total : 54.00
125806 4/5/2006 004025 HARRIS, EDDIE 040506 SOFTBALL UMPIRE
SOFTBALL UMPIRE
010.4424.5352 36.00
Total : 36.00
125807 4/5/2006 001474 HOPKINS, ROBERT 033006 REIMBURSEMENTlTRAVEL
GAS �
010.4201.5608 42.21
PARKING
010.4201.5501 1320
GAS I
010.4201.5608 23.24 ,
Page: 5
vchlist Voucher List Page: 6
04/05/2006 2:33:31 PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Vaucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125807 4/5/2006 001474 001474 HOPKINS, ROBERT (Continued) Total : 78.65
125808 4/5/2006 000344 J C LANDSCAPING MARCH MARCH 2O06
LANDSCAPE MAINT.
010.4420.5303 460.00
LANDSCAPE MAINT.
217.4460.5355 165.00
LANDSCAPE MAINT.
217.4460.5356 125.00
ToW I : 750.00
125809 4/5/2006 004829 JACOBS, DR. MICHAEL E. 032706 PRESCRIPTION SAFETY GLASSES
PRESCRIPTION SAFETY GLASSES
612.4610.5255 177.00
ToWI : 177.00
125810 4/5/2006 004845 LARSON,JOHN 040506 SOFTBALL UMPIRE
SOFTBALL UMPIRE
010.4424.5352 36.00
Total : 36.00
125811 4/5/2006 001136 LINTNER, DOUG 040506 BASKETBALL REFEREE
BASKETBALLREFEREE
010.4424.5352 108.00
ToWI : 108.00
125812 4/5/2006 001120 MAXIMUS, INC 1033101-001 1ST,2ND&3RD INSTALLMENT PAY
1ST,2ND&3RD INSTALLMENT PAY
010.4145.5303 3,900.00
Total : 3,900.00
125813 4/5/2006 005414 MC CLELLAN, STEVE 040506 BASKETBALL OFFICIAL
BASKETBALL OFFICIAL
010.4424.5352 72.00
ToWI : 72.00
125814 4/5l2006 005389 MGE UNDERGROUND INC PW 2005-02 SEWER LIFT STATION 1 UPGRADE
Page: 6
vchlist Voucher List Page: 7
0410512006 2:33:31 PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/ACCOUnt Amount
125814 4/5/2006 005389 MGE UNDERGROUND INC (Continued)
SEWER LIFT STATION 1 UPGRADE
350.5809.7001 157,005.00
Total : 157,005.00
125815 4/5/2006 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC 77824 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
010.4213.5604 35.62
77989 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
010.4213.5604 41.61
78064 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
010.4213.5604 16.03
75067 MARKING PAINT
MARKING PAINT
010.4420.5605 Z8 9�
78148 PAINT SUPPLIES
PAINT SUPPLIES
640.4712.5609 57.34
78239 EPDXY
EPDXY
640.4712.5609 171.56
78242 MURIATIC ACID
MURIATIC ACID
640.4712.5255 4.82
7g272 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
640.4712.5255 10.16
78383 SUPPLIES FOR CORRIDOR WALLS
SUPPLIES FOR CORRIDOR WALLS
010.4201.5604 115.67
78461 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
640.4712.5610 1.60
Page: 7
vchlist Voucher List Page: 8
04/05/2006 2:33:31PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode: boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125815 4/5/2006 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC (Continued)
78484 GLUE FOR CORRIDOR WALLS
GLUE FOR CORRIDOR WALLS
010.4201.5604 � 428
78725 SUPPLIES FOR CORRIDOR WALLS
SUPPLIES FOR CORRIDOR WALLS
010.4201.5604 196.64
94052 CLEANING SUPPLIES
CLEANING SUPPLIES
640.4712.5604 8.00
Total : 692.23
125816 4/5/2006 005473 MR GILL'S MARKET 032906 CDBG GRANT#PO4AG11-FACADE-
CDBG GRANT#PO4AG11-FACADE-
250.4800.8065 4,071.46
Total : 4,071.46
125817 4/5/2006 000466 NOBLE SAW, INC 148457 AIR FILTER TRI-BLADES
AIR FILTER TRI-BLADES
220.4303.5603 61.78
Total : 61.78
125818 4/5/2006 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 330853857-001 OFFICE SUPPLIES-HEATERS
OFFICE SUPPLIES-HEATERS
010.4120.5201 26.53
331001336-001 OFFICE SUPPLIES-HEATERS
OFFICE SUPPLIES-HEATERS
010.4120.5201 53.07
Totai : 79.60
125819 4/5/2006 000481 PACIFIC GAS& ELECTRIC CO 8532998718-5 ELECTRIC
Page: 8
vchlist Voucher List Page: 9
04/05/2006 2:33:31PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code : b08
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125819 4/5/2006 000481 PACIFIC GAS& ELECTRIC CO (Continued)
ELECTRIC
010.4304.5402 707.82
ELECTRIC
640.4712.5402 310.43
ELECTRIC
640.4711.5402 4,270.64
ELECTRIC
612.4610.5402 1,579.37
ELECTRIC
010.4145.5401 6,170.75
ELECTRIC
217.4460.5355 16.99
ToWI : 13,056.00
125820 4/5/2006 000511 PROTO DIE MANUFACTURING, INC 3102 BLADES FOR BRUSH CHIPPER PVu
BLADES FOR BRUSH CHIPPER PW
220.4303.5603 310.00
Total : 310.00
125821 4/5/2006 000514 PRYOR INDUSTRIES, INC 26648 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
010.4213.6401 163.44
Total : 163.44
125822 4/5/2006 004833 ROMO, STEVE 040506 BASKETBALL OFFICIAL
BASKETBALL OFFICIAL
010.4424.5352 54.00
Total : 54.00
125823 4/5/2006 005474 ROOTX 23393 1 CASE ROOT CHEMICAL FOR SEV
1 CASE ROOT CHEMICAL FOR SEV .
612.4610.5610 392.37
Total : 392.37
125824 4/5/2006 004365 RUIZ, DANIEL 040506 BASKETBALL SCORER
Page: 9
vchlist Voucher List Page: 10
04/OS/2006 2:33:37PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode: boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125824 4/5/2006 004365 RUIZ, DANIEL � (Continued)
BASKETBALLSCORER
010.4424.5352 45.00
Total : 45.00
125825 4/5/2006 003649 RUIZ, DON 040506 BASKETBALL SCORER
BASKETBALLSCORER
010.4424.5352 45.00
Total : 45.00
125826 4/5/2006 000803 SAN LUIS MAILING SVC 30193 MAILING 4/1/O6
UTILITY BILLING MAILING 4/1/O6
640.4710.5201 1,434.58
FIRE DEPT FLYERS
010.4211.5201 10.30
SALES TAX INFO FLYER
010.4101.5201 10.30
ToWI : 1,455.18
125827 4/5/2006 000578 SARMIENTO,ANN 040506 SOFTBALL SCORER
SOFTBALLSCORER
010.4424.5352 15.00
Total : 15.00
125828 4/5/2006 003591 SIMMER, RICHARD 040506 B/BALL LGE.OFFICIAL-SIMMER
B/BALL LGE.OFFICIAL-SIMMER
010.4424.5352 54.00
Total : 54.00
125829 4/5/2006 004527 SLO COUNTY LABORATORY CASE#06-00006 DRUG TEST(RODRIGUEZ)
DRUG TEST(RODRIGUEZ)
010.4201.5324 31.00
CASE#06-00325 DRUG TEST(STEPHEN)
DRUG TEST(STEPHEN)
010.4201.5324 31.00
Total : 62.00
Page: 10
vchlist Voucher List Page: 11
04/OS/2006 2:33:31 PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125830 4/5/2006 004860 SMITH,TAMMY 040506 SOFTBALL SCORER
SOFTBALLSCORER
010.4424.5352 15.00
ToWI : 15.00
125831 4/5/2006 003343 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL 23V/13263789 SOCKET SET
SOCKET SET
010.4211.5273 143.15
ToWI : 143.15
125832 4/5/2006 002499 STEARNS, MICHELE 033106 REIMBURSE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES-PAPER, INDEXI
010.4201.5201 25.02
SUPPLIES-CAP MEETING
010.4201.5504 35.39
DIVIDERS/TAPE DISPENSER
010.4201.5201 13.17
Total : 73.58
125833 4/5/2006 000620 STREATOR PIPE&SUPPLY 440742 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
010.4213.5604 6.99
ToWI : 6.99
125834 4/5/2006 005478 TUCKER, BARRY 032206 WATER DEP.REFUND-120 BOYSE�
WATER DEP.REFUND-120 BOYSE�
640.0000.2302 81.89
Total : 81.89
125835 4/5/2006 002137 VERIZON WIRELESS 2029000069 CELL PHONE 2/23-3/22/O6
459-1757
010.4301.5403 42.45
459-4859 I
640.4710.5403 42.45
459-4855
010.4305.5403 42.46
Page: 11
I
vchlist Voucher List Page: 12
04/0512006 2:33:31 PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125835 4/5/2006 002137 002137 VERIZON WIRELESS (Continued) Total : 127.36
125836 4/5/2006 005475 WENK, BARBARA 30306 REFUND PERMIT FEES-ARC 06-00'
REFUND PERMIT FEES-ARC 06-00'
010.0000.4162 78.00
ToWI : 78.00
125837 4/5/2006 000866 WHARTON,JAMIE 040506 B/BALL LGE.SCORER-HEINZE
B/BALL LGE.SCORER-HEINZE
010.4424.5352 22.50
Total : 22.50
125838 4/5/2006 000865 WHARTON, RON 040506 B/BALL LGE.SCORER-WHARTON
B/BALL LGE.SCORER-WHARTON
010.4424.5352 22.50
Total : 22.50
125839 4/5/2006 005477 XTREME UNLIMITED 4148 STEERING STABILIZER REPAIR P7
STEERING STABILIZER REPAIR P7
010.4420.5601 161.26
Total : 161.26
59 Vouchers for bank code : b08 Bank total : 207,784.10
59 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 207,784.10
Page: 12
� ,
ATTACHMENT 3
vchlist Voucher List Paye: 1
04/70/2006 2:39:28PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125840 4/5/2006 002383 INTL FOOTPRINTERS ASSN 040506 BANQUET-9TH ANNUAL SLO COU�
BANQUET-9TH ANNUAL SLO COU�
010.4201.5504 315.00
ToWI : 315.00
125841 4/10/2006 005412 AEILTS,TONY 040706 PER DIEM-REG.POLICING CONFEF
PER DIEM-REG.POLICING CONFEF
010.4201.5501 80.00
Total : 80.00
125842 4/10/2006 001050 AMERICAN TEMPS 00043849 PAYROLL DATE 3/20-3/23/06
T.ALLEN
220.4303.5303 937.28
Total : 937.28
125843 4/10/2006 000056 BACKYARD IMPROVEMENT CTR, INC 698 GATE FRAME HINGE
GATE FRAME HINGE
010.4430.5605 1.68
Total : 1.68
125844 4/10l2006 000088 BRIDGE, F BARRY 0407 LODGING AND PER DIEM-INTL AFF
LODGING AND PER DIEM-INTL AFF
010.4201.5501 451.68
Total : 451.68
125845 4/10/2006 000095 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, INC 2313607 VISQUEEN
VISQUEEN
220.4303.5613 57.43
2314109 LUMBER& BOLTS
LUMBER& BOLTS
220.4303.5613 372.06
2315181 1 X 3 LUMBER
1X3LUMBER
220.4303.5613 5.54
Page: 1
vchlist Voucher List Page: 2
04/10/2006 2:39:28PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125845 4/10/2006 000095 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, INC (Continued)
2315234 WOOD STAKES
WOOD STAKES
220.4303.5613 14.48
Total : 449.51
125846 4/10/2006 000160 CHAPARRAL 242351 MAINTENANCE: 4/7 TO 5/7/06
MAINTENANCE: 4/7 TO 5/7/06
010.4421.5602 132.00
Total : 132.00
125847 4/10/2006 000163 CHERRY LANE NURSERY 17125 WEED CONTROL
WEED CONTROL
010.4420.5274 193.02
LAVENDER
010.4420.5605 107.04
17129 SOIL BUSTER& FERTILIZER
SOIL BUSTER& FERTILIZER
010.4420.5605 937.04
17151 SLUGGO
SLUGGO
010.4420.5274 18.22
Total : 1,255.32
125848 4/10/2006 003411 CLEAN SWEEP JANITORIAL 1529 JANITORIAL SERVICES:APRIL 200i
JANITORIAL SERVICES:APRIL 200�
010.4213.5303 4,587.15
ToWI : 4,587.15
125849 4/10/2006 000185 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DIST 7605461463 LIGHT BULBS 8 BALLASTS
LIGHT BULBS&BALLASTS
010.4213.5604 195.09
Total : 195.09
125850 4/10/2006 005310 CSULB FOUNDATION 040706 REGISTRATION FEES:INTL AFFAIR
REGISTRATION FEES:INTL AFFAIR
010.4201.5501 262.00
Page: 2
I
vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 ,
04/1012006 2:3928PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode: boa I
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125850 4/10/2006 005310 005310 CSULB FOUNDATION (Continued) Total : 262.00
125851 4/10/2006 000196 CUESTA EQUIPMENT CO 317969 VISTEX
VISTEX
220.4303.5255 59.79
318432 WHEEL BARROW TUB REPLACEMI
WHEEL BARROW TUB REPLACEMI
220.4303.5255 182.33
318602 SAW PARTS
SAW PARTS
220.4303.5603 89.13
318603 HOSE REEL PW41
HOSE REEL PW41
220.4303.5601 198.51
318818 HYDROLIC FITTINGS PW41
HYDROLIC FITTINGS PW41
220.4303.5601 93.79
318984 SKIRTBOARD RUBBER
SKIRTBOARD RUBBER
220.4303.5601 40.55
Total : 664.10
125852 4/10/2006 004707 EGGERS,TAMMIE 0407 PER DIEM-CRIME SCENE INVESTIi
PER DIEM-CRIME SCENE INVESTI�
010.4201.5501 50.00
Total : 50.00
125853 4/10/2006 005481 GRIFFIN, GEORGE 033106 WATER DEPOSIT REFUND-546 LE I
WATER DEPOSIT REFUND-546 LE I
640.0000.2302 4.85
Total : 4.85
125854 4/10/2006 000297 HANCOCK COLLEGE,ALLAN 040706 REGISTRATION FEES:T.EGGERS-
REGISTRATION FEES:T.EGGERS-
010.4201.5501 140.00
Total : 140.00
Page: 3
I
vchlist Voucher List Page: 4
04/1012006 2:39:28PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code : boa '
Vaucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125855 4/10/2006 001237 HANSON AGGREGATES 533790 COBBLE ROCK
COBBLEROCK
220.4303.5613 335.52
Total : 335.52
125856 4/10/2006 005482 HARRINGTON, KAREN 033006 WATER DEPOSIT REFUND-1207 PF
WATER DEPOSIT REFUND-1207 PF
640.0000.2302 58.04
Total : 58.04
125857 4/10/2006 002820 INDOFF, INC 678045 OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
010.4421.5201 102.52
ToWI : 102.52
125858 4/10/2006 000348 J W ENTERPRISES 182485 TOILET RENTAL
TOILET RENTAL
220:4303.5552 95.73
Total : 95.73
125859 4/10/2006 005480 MARTIN,JENNIFER 13535 LANDSCAPE BOND RELEASE-254-
LANDSCAPE BOND RELEASE-254"
010.0000.2210 1,200.00
Total : 1,200.00
125860 4/10/2006 000426 MIER BROS LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS 110346 TEE MIX
TEE MIX
010.4420.5605 9.12
110384 DECOMPOSED GRANITE SAND
DECOMPOSED GRANITE SAND
010.4430.5605 32.18
Total : 41.30
125861 4/10/2006 000466 NOBLE SAW, INC 147452 BLADE& SERVICE REPAIR WORK
BLADE& SERVICE REPAIR WORK
010.4420.5603 83.91
Page: 4
�
{
vchlist Voucher List Page: 5
04/10/2006 2:39:28PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/ACCOUnt Amount
125861 4/10/2006 000466 NOBLE SAW, INC (Continued)
147453 CHAPS
CHAPS
010.4420.5255 75.02
147893 GREASE,AIR FILTERS, SPARK PLl
GREASE,AIR FILTERS, SPARK PLl
220.4303.5603 95.68
Total : 254.61
125862 4/10/2006 001697 PET PICK-UPS 29066 PET PICK-UP WICKETS
PET PICK-UP WICKETS
010.4420.5605 1,000.00
Freight
010.4420.5605 131.12
Total : 1,131.12
125863 4/10/2006 000492 PETTY CASH 466 WORLD AG EXPO ADMISSION
WORLD AG EXPO ADMISSION
010.4420.5501 28.00
467 OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
010.4211.5201 16.85
468 SALES TAX MEETING EXP
SALES TAX MEETING EXP
010.4001.5201 7.28 ,
469 PARKING FEE
PARKING FEE
010.4130.5501 4.50
470 MEETING SUPPLIES
MEETING SUPPLIES
010.4301.5255 17.00
471 MILEAGE-KAREN SISKO
MILEAGE-KAREN SISKO
010.4101.5501 32.22
Page: 5
�.
vchlist Vouchef List Page: 6
04/10/2006 2:39:28PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125863 4/10/2006 000492 PETTY CASH (Continued)
472 CEQA WORKSHOP PARKING
CEQA WORKSHOP PARKING
010.4130.5501 6.00
473 CSMFO LUNCH MEETING
CSMFO LUNCH MEETING
010.4120.5503 �4.z3
474 ASCE BRANCH MEETING-DEVENS
ASCE BRANCH MEETING-DEVENS
010.4301.5503 15.00
475 BOTTLED WATER-SCAT MTG
BOTTLED WATER-SCAT MTG
010.4001.5201 9.�8
476 ASCE LUNCH MTG
ASCE LUNCH MTG
010.4301.5503 15.00
477 MILEAGE
MILEAGE
010.4301.5201 11.25
SUPPLIES
010.4301.5501 8.90
478 LUNCH MTG SPAGNOLO
LUNCH MTG SPAGNOLO
010.4301.5255 �8.23
479 RECORDING FEES: GARDEN ST-
RECORDING FEES: GARDEN ST-
010.4301.5255 16.00
480 CONFERENCE DINNER-HERNANDE
CONFERENCE DINNER-HERNANDE
010.4421.5501 80.00
481 UNIFORM SHIRT-HURST
UNIFORM SHIRT-HURST
010.4212.5255 30.00
482 MILEAGE: ORAL BOARD SAN LUIS-
MILEAGE: ORAL BOARD SAN LUIS-
010.4120.5503 14.24
Page: 6
�j _ _ _ _ _
vchlist Voucher List Page: 7
04H0/2006 2:39:28PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125863 4/10/2006 000492 PETTY CASH (Continued)
483 MILEAGE:ATASCADERO TRAININC
MILEAGE:ATASCADERO TRAININ6
010.4101.5501 29.82
484 MILEAGE-M.MAYFIELD-SAN LUIS N
MILEAGE-M.MAYFIELD-SAN LUIS N
010.4120.5503 14.24
485 SAFETY COMMITTEE MTG SUPPLIE
SAFETY COMMITTEE MTG SUPPLIE
010.4145.5501 9.75
486 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
010.4101.5201 34.04
Total : 437.73
125864 4/10/2006 001576 TILE COLLECTION 53868 TILE FOR VILLAGE
TILE FOR VILLAGE
220.4303.5613 140.39
Total : 140.39
125865 4/10/2006 002137 NERIZON WIRELESS 2028800160 CELL PHONE
ST SUPERVISOR
220.4303.5403 63.12
PW INSPECTOR
010.4301.5403 53.77
ENGINEER
010.4301.5403 31.56
ToWI : 148.45
26 Vouchers for bank code : boa Bank total : 13,465.07
26 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 13,465.07
Page: 7
f
vchlist Voucher List Page: 8
04/10/2006 2:39:28PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
Page: 8
ATTACHMENT 4
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION
PAY PERIOD
03/2M06-04/6/O6
04/14/06
FUND 010 380,482.30 5101 Salaries full time 204,535.47
FUND 220 15,598.21 5102 Salaries Part-Time-PPT 25,355.24
FUND 284 - 5103 Salaries Part-Time-TPT 8,043.00
FUND 612 6,553.18 5105 Salaries OverTime 13,463.73
FUND 640 18,842.45 5107 Salaries Standby 354.00
421,476.14 5108 Holiday Pay 7,676.45
5109 Sick Pay 4,749.53
5110 Annual Leave Buyback
5111 Vacation Buyback
5112 Sick Leave Buyback
5113 Vacation Pay 8,15429
5114 Comp Pay 5,490.27
5115 Annual Leave Pay 1,848.31
5121 PERS Retirement 72,355.86
5122 Social Security 20,193.08
5123 PARS Retirement 353.49
5126 State Disability Ins. 1,079.38
5127 Deferred Compensation 775.00
5131 Health Insurance 39,508.19
5132 Dentallnsurance 4,732.98
5133 Vision Insurance 1,071.73
5134 Life Insurance 586.14
5135 Long Term Disability
5143 Uniform Allowance
5144 Car Allowance 875.00
5146 Council Expense
5147 Employee Assistance
5148 Boot Allowance
5149 Motor Pay 75.00
5150 Bi-Lingual Pay 200.00
421,476.14
ATTACHMENT 5
vchlist Voucher List Page: 1
04/1412006 1028:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125866 4/11/2006 005483 ENVIRONMENTAL HORT.SCI. CLUB 040606 ENV.HORT. PEST MNGMNT CONF:-
ENV.HORT. PEST MNGMNT CONF:-
010.4420.5501 330.00
Total : 330.00
125867 4/11/2006 000673 US POSTAL SERVICE 041106 POSTAGE BY PHONE-MTR#421671
POSTAGE BY PHONE-MTR#421671
010.4145.5201 3,000.00
Total : 3,000.00
125871 4/14/2006 001480 ADKINS, SUSAN 041106 REFUND-BALLETlTAP CLASS
REFUND-BALLET/TAP CLASS
010.0000.4605 21.00
Total : 21.00
125872 4/14/2006 001043 ADVANCE MARKING SYSTEMS 1-59833-1 NAMETAGS
NAMETAGS
010.4211.5272 20.70
Freight
010.4211.5272 6.50
Total : 27.20
125873 4/14/2006 004815 AIRGAS WEST 103215922 ACETYLENE CYLINDERS RENTAL-•
ACETYLENE CYLINDERS RENTAL-•
010.4420.5255 16.90
Total : 16.90
125874 4/14/2006 005494 ALLTECH SERVICES 14092 WITHDRAWN PERMIT
BUILDING
010.0000.4181 47.00
ELECTRICAL
010.0000.4183 73.00
SMIP
010.0000.2208 1.00
Total : 121.00
Page: 1
vchlist Voucher List Page: 2
04/14/2006 10:28:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125875 4/14/2006 002632 API WASTE SERVICES 63X00043 R/0 BIN-DUMP/RETURN SVCS.
R/0 BIN-DUMP/RETURN SVCS.
010.4213.5303 572.28
Total : 572.28
125876 4/14/2006 005434 ARELLANO, MATT 041206 BASKETBALL LEAGUE OFFICIAL
BASKETBALL LEAGUE OFFICIAL
010.4424.5352 108.00
Total : 108.00
125877 4/14/2006 001758 AUTO GLASS CENTRAL 013524 BACK GLASS PW58
BACK GLASS PW58
220.4303.5601 85.00
Total : 85.00
125878 4/14/2006 005487 AZEVEDO,TONI 041106 PARK DEPOSIT-STROTHER PARK-
PARK DEPOSIT-STROTHER PARK^
010.0000.4354 29.00
ToWI : 29.00
125879 4/14/2006 000065 BARROW, BRENDA 040706 REIMBURSE SUPPLIES-PRIZES FO
REIMBURSE SUPPLIES-PRIZES FO
010.4424.5252 51.10
ToWI : 57.10
125880 4/14/2006 000069 BAUER COMPRESSORS, INC 79417 ANNUAL PM SERVICE
ANNUAL PM SERVICE
010.4211.5303 810.00
Total : 810.00
125881 4/14/2006 005484 BEND CHIROPRACTIC REFUND PAID BUS. LICENSE TWICE
PAID BUS. LICENSE TWICE
010.0000.4050 30.00
Total : 30.00
125882 4/14/2006 005498 BROADWAY JEWELERS 005498 BRONZE PLAQUES
Page: 2
vchlist Voucher List aage: 3
04/14/2006 10:28:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125882 4/14/2006 005498 BROADWAY JEWELERS (Continued)
BRONZE PLAQUES
350.5412.4809 5,730.21
Total : 5,730.21
125883 4/14/2006 000094 BRUMIT DIESEL, INC 87641 TOGGLE SWITCH& SEAL KIT
TOGGLE SWITCH& SEAL KIT
010.4211.5603 35.23
87642 SPICER UJOINT
SPICER UJOINT
010.4211.5603 12427
Total : 159.50
125884 4/14/2006 000028 C CA METRO SOFTBALL ASSN 040506 TEAM REGISTRATION: SPRING 20C
TEAM REGISTRATION: SPRING 20C
010.4424.5257 637.00
Total : 637.00
125885 4/14/2006 000125 CA ST DEPT OF CONSERVATION 033106 S.M.I.P. (JAN-MAR FY06)
S.M.I.P. (JAN-MAR FY06)
010.0000.2208 1,387.00
ADMIN FEE-SMIP
010.0000.4801 -69.35
ToWI : 1,317.65
125886 4/14/2006 000603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 60355 ANTIFREEZE
ANTIFREEZE
010.4211.5601 36.04
62286 FLASHER&WEATHER STRIP TAPE
FLASHER&WEATHER STRIP TAPE
010.4211.5603 129.39
62299 LITHIUM GREASE
LITHIUM GREASE
010.4420.5608 26.92
62674 HEADLAMP
HEADLAMP
010.4211.5601 8.46
Page: 3
vchlist Voucher List Page: 4
04/14/2006 10:28:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125886 4/14/2006 000603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS (Continued)
63859 WATER PROOF GREASE FOR VAL`
WATER PROOF GREASE FOR VAL`
640.4712.5610 4.17
64053 . CARGO NET
CARGO NET
010.4213.5604 20.89
64934 ANTENNA F108
ANTENNA F108
010.4211.5603 9.73
65595 CARGO NET&PIPE JOINT COMPO
CARGO NET&PIPE JOINT COMPO
010.4213.5604 29.99
65669 TOOLS
TOOLS
010.4420.5605 7.50
Total : 273.09
125587 4/14/2006 002407 CINGULAR WIRELESS 123079092 CELL: ROB STRONG
CELL: ROB STRONG
010.4130.5201 62.37
Total : 62.37
125888 4/14/2006 002389 CONAWAY, MARCUS O41206 B/BALL LGE.SCORER-CONAWAY
B/BALL LGE.SCORER-CONAWAY
� 010.4424.5352 22.50
Total : 22.50
125889 4/14/2006 000185 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DIST 7605-461507 NUT
NUT
010.4211.5255 82.93
Total : 82.93
125890 4/14/2006 005485 CORR, PAUL 041106 PARK DEPOSIT-RANCH GRANDE^
PARK DEPOSIT-RANCH GRANDE-
010.0000.4354 29.00
Page: 4
vchlist Voucher List Page: 5
04/14/2006 10:28:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Accaunt Amount
125890 4/14/2006 005485 005485 CORR, PAUL (Continued) Total : 29.00
125891 4/14/2006 000190 CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL LAB N1663 BACT.TEST ON NEVADA ST MAIN
BACT.TEST ON NEVADA ST MAIN
640.4710.5310 15.00
Total : 15.00
125892 4/14/2006 001250 CTINALUELINE 370763 PAPER FOR HP500
PAPER FOR HP500(PW SHARE)
010.4301.5201 50.95
PAPER FOR HP500(CD SHARE)
010.4130.5201 50.95
371190 PAPER FOR HP 500
PAPER FOR HP 500(PW SHARE)
010.4301.5201 29.34
PAPER FOR HP 500(CD SHARE)
010.4130.5201 29.33
Total : 160.57
125893 4/14/2006 005490 CUELLAR, SAVANNAH 041106 PARK DEPOSIT-STROTHER PARK-
PARK DEPOSIT-STROTHER PARK-
010.0000.4354 91.00
ToWI : 91.00
125894 4/14/2006 000196 CUESTA EQUIPMENT CO 318269 RUBBER PIPE STRAPS FOR PW51
RUBBER PIPE STRAPS FOR PW51
612.4610.5255 21.43
319023 HOSE CLAMP& FITTING FOR PW5
HOSE CLAMP& FITTING FOR PW5
612.4610.5255 5.92
Total : 27.35
125895 4/14/2006 000198 CURTIS& SONS, L N 1091290-01 HOSE PACKS& POCKET
HOSE PACKS& POCKET
010.4211.5255 442.98
Page: 5
I
vchlist Voucher List Page: 6
04114/2006 10:28:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125895 4/14/2006 000198 CURTIS&SONS, L N (Continued)
1094950-00 PISTON INTAKE VALVE
PISTON INTAKE VALVE
010.4211.6201 2,028.17
1098483-00 OXYGEN SENSORS&CYLINDERS
OXYGEN SENSORS&CYLINDERS
010.4211.5325 1,159.90
Total : 3,631.05
125896 4/14/2006 000203 DAVE'S TREE SERVICE 1622 CONSULT. ON EUCALYPTUS-270-
CONSULT. ON EUCALYPTUS-270-
010.4420.5303 200.00
ToWI : 200.00
125897 4/14/2006 000210 DIESELRO OF SLO, INC 18657 REPAIR TO PW51 ENGINE
REPAIR TO PW51 ENGINE
612.4610.5601 266.17
18682 SERVICE& BIT INSPECTION PW50
SERVICE& BIT INSPECTION PW50
220.4303.5601 145.30
SERVICE&BIT INSPECTION
612.4610.5601 145.30
SERVICE&BIT INSPECTtON
640.4712.5601 145.30
15689 SERVICE 8 BIT INSPECTION PW19
SERVICE 8 BIT INSPECTION PW19
220.4303.5601 261.87
Total : 963.94
125898 4/14/2006 002673 DOCTOR'S MEDPLUS MEDICAL 13878444 PHYSICAL FOR DANIEL HERON
PHYSICAL FOR DANIEL HERON
220.4303.5315 280.00
Total : 280.00
125899 4/14/2006 005488 DONNELLY, RON 041106 PARK DEPOSIT-RANCHO GRANDE
PARK DEPOSIT-RANCHO GRANDE
010.0000.4354 91.00
Page: 6
vchlist Voucher List Page: 7
04/1412006 10:28:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125899 4/14/2006 005488 005488 DONNELLY, RON (Continued) Total : 91.00
125900 4/14/2006 005486 DOWNING, BONNIE 041106 PARK DEPOSIT-STROTHER PARK-
PARK DEPOSIT-STROTHER PARK-
010.0000.4354 29.00
Total : 29.00
125901 4/14/2006 000904 EDEN SYSTEMS, INC 4151 INFORUM GOLD UB CONVERSION
INFORUM GOLD UB CONVERSION
010.4120.5597 1,53125
Total : 1,531.25
125902 4/14/2006 000230 ELLIOTT, NADINE 041006 REIMBURSEMENT-CONTACT PAPE
REIMBURSEMENT-CONTACT PAPE
010.4421.5201 30.00
Total : 30.00
125903 4/14/2006 000240 FARM SUPPLY CO 943525 PLATFORM SCALE-PESTICIDES
PLATFORM SCALE-PESTICIDES
010.4420.5605 61.93
SLUGGO-SNAIL BAIT
010.4420.5274 13.93
944675 TURFLON-HERBICIDE
TURFLON-HERBICIDE
010.4420.5274 157.66
Total : 233.52
125904 4/14/2006 004164 FEDEX 1313-4543-7 SHIPMENTTO STATE CLEARINGHC
SHIPMENTTO STATE CLEARINGHC
010.4130.5201 26.04
ToWI : 26.04
125905 4/14/2006 004844 FIRE DISTRICTS OF CA(FDAC) 041106 REGISTRATION FEE- FIBICH
REGISTRATION FEE-FIBICH
010.4211.5501 50.00
Total : 50.00
Page: 7
vchlist Voucher List Page: 8
04/14/2006 10:28:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125906 4/14/2006 000897 FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD 677 GYM USE FOR BASKETBALL LEAG
GYM USE FOR BASKETBALL LEAG
010.4424.5257 900.00
Total : 900.00
125907 4/14/2006 004790 FLOYD, DEANNA 041206 BASKETBALL LEAGUE SCORER
BASKETBALL LEAGUE SCORER
010.4424.5352 22.50
Total : 22.50
125908 4/14/2006 003590 FLOYD, SERENA 041206 B/BALL LGE.SCORER-FLOYD
B/BALL LGE.SCORER-FLOYD
010.4424.5352 45.00
ToWI : 45.00
125909 4/14/2006 004825 GALBREATH, FLAVA 041206 BASKETBALL REFEREE
BASKETBALL REFEREE
010.4424.5352 54.00
Total : 54.00
125910 4/14/2006 000605 GAS COMPANY,THE 4/4-140 GAS SERVICES: 140 TRAFFIC WY
GAS SERVICES: 140 TRAFFIC WY
010.4145.5401 880.70
4/4-211 GAS SERVECES: 211 VERNON ST
GAS SERVICES: 211 VERNON ST
010.4145.5401 203.61
4/5-200 E GAS SERVICES:200 E BRANCH ST
GAS SERVICES:200 E BRANCH ST
010.4145.5401 12�.a�
4/5-208 E GAS SERVICES: 208 E BRANCH ST
GAS SERVICES: 208 E BRANCH ST
010.4145.5401 42.02
4/5-214 GAS SERVICES: 214 E BRANCH ST
GAS SERVICES:214 E BRANCH ST
010.4145.5401 138.32
Page: 8
vchlist Voucher List Page: 9
04H4/2006 10:28:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# DescriptionlAccount Amount
125910 4/14/2006 000605 GAS COMPANY,THE (Continued)
4/5-215 GAS SERVICES:215 E BRANCH ST
GAS SERVICES:215 E BRANCH ST
010.4145.5401 , 23.80
ToW I : 1,416.32
125911 4/14/2006 005492 GIRL SCOUTS O40306 W/C COMMUNITY CENTER 3/31/06
W/C COMMUNITY CENTER 3/31/06
010.0000.2206 250.00
SUPERVISION-2.75 @ $5
010.0000.4355 -13.75
RENTAL-2.75 HRS @ 37.00
010.0000.4353 -101.75
Total : 134.50
125912 4/14/2006 000499 GRAND AWARDS, INC 60499 SIGNS FOR ENGINE&ADMIN OFFI
SIGNS FOR ENGINE&ADMIN OFFI
010.4211.5201 18.07
Total : 78.07
125913 4/14/2006 002358 GREAT WESTERN ALARM 060400083 SERVICE CALL-ELM ST
SERVICE CALL-ELM ST
010.4213.5303 85.00
- Total : 85.00
125914 4/14/2006 000943 HAGLUND, NANCY 040406 REIMBURSEMENT-AFSS CONF
MISC TIP
010.4211.5501 6.00
PARKING
010.4211.5501 30.00
FUEL
010.4211.5501 49.00
Total : 85.00
125915 4/14/2006 004789 HALE, KRAIG 041206 BASKETBALL REFEREE
BASKETBALLREFEREE
010.4424.5352 108.00
Page: 9
vchlist Voucher List Paye: 70
04114/2006 10:28:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125915 4/14/2006 004789 004789 HALE, KRAIG (Continued) Total : 108.00
125916 4/14/2006 002405 HARE, CHUCK 041206 B/BALL LGE.OFFICIAL-HARE
B/BALL LGE.OFFICIAL-HARE
010.4424.5352 54.00
Total : 54.00
125917 4/14/2006 005495 HUGGINS, MARJ 12996 ELECTRICAL
ELECTRICAL
010.0000.4183 38.40
MECHANICAL
010.0000.4187 45.00
TRAFFICIMPACT
224.0000.4026 2,688.00
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
222.0000.4020 985.00
PLUMBING
010.0000.4182 36.00
WATER NEUTRALIZATION
226.0000.4027 125.00
POLICE IMPACT
212.0000.4725 127.00
SEWER FACILITY
634.0000.4762 715.00
SEWER FACILITY
010.0000.4762 79.00
SEWER HOOKUP
760.0000.2305 2,000.00
Total : 6,838.40
125918 4/14/2006 003730 INDUSTRIAL TOOL BOX 26863 SAW BLADES
SAW BLADES
220.4303.5603 195.00
Freight
220.4303.5603 9.98
Page: 10
vchlist Voucher List Page: 11
04/14/2006 10:28:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boe
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125918 4/14/2006 003730 003730 INDUSTRIALTOOLBOX (Continued) ToWI : 204.98
125919 4/14/2006 000345 J J'S FOOD COMPANY, INC 150345 BBQ SUPPLIES FOR EMPLOYEE-
BBQ SUPPLIES FOR EMPLOYEE-
640.4712.5255 248.93
Total : 248.93
125920 4/14/2006 005201 JAS PACIFIC BI 8841 INSPECTION SERVICES: R.MESSEI
INSPECTION SERVICES R.MESSEI
010.4212.5303 4,920.00
Total : 4,920.00
125921 4/14/2006 000373 LAUTZENHISER'S STATIONERY 6518 MINUTE PLANNING COMMISSION-
MINUTE PLANNING COMMISSION-
010.4130.5201 456.11
Total : 456.11
125922 4/14/2006 001136 LINTNER, DOUG 041206 BASKETBALL LEAGUE REFEREE
BASKETBALLLEAGUE REFEREE
010.4424.5352 54.00
Total : 54.00
125923 4/14/2006 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST 060557 CUSTODIAL CHARGES JUDKINS-
CUSTODIAL CHARGES JUDKINS-
010.4426.5553 804.46
060558 CUSTODIAL CHARGES PAULDING:
CUSTODIAL CHARGES PAULDING:
010.4426.5553 929.29
060560 AND 060559 GYM USE
PAULDING: FEB 14,16,21,23,28
010.4424.5257 432.00
JUDKINS: FEB 12,14,16,19,21,23,26
010.4424.5257 1,320.97
060587 CUSTODIAL CHARGES PAULDING
CUSTODIAL CHARGES PAULDING
010.4426.5553 166.44
Page: 11
vchlist Voucher List Paye: 12
04/1412006 10:28:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode: boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125923 4/14/2006 000393 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST (Continued) ToWI : 3,653.16
125924 4/14/2006 000405 MALLORY, CATHY 040706 REIMB.PRE-SCHOOL SUPPLIES
REIMB.PRE-SCHOOL SUPPLIES
010.4423.5253 10.93
ToWI : 10.93
125925 4/14/2006 005414 MC CLELLAN, STEVE 041206 BASKETBALL LEAGUE OFFiCIAL
BASKETBALL LEAGUE OFFICIAL
010.4424.5352 108.00
Total : 708.00
125926 4/14/2006 004619 MCCLEAN, ROBERT 041106 PARK DEPOSIT STROTHER PARK-
PARK DEPOSIT STROTHER PARK-
010.0000.4354 29.00
Total : 29.00
125927 4/14/2006 OQ0426 MIER BROS LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS 109972 CONCRETE
CONCRETE
350.5632.7002 275.63
110008 CONCRETE
CONCRETE
350.5632.7002 326.04
110010 CONCRETE
CONCRETE
640.4712.5610 63.28
110013 WEED BARRIER
WEED BARRIER
220.4303.5613 233.81
110252 1/2 YD CONCRETE
1/2 YD CONCRETE
640.4712.5610 101.89
111055 CONCRETE
CONCRETE
010.4211.5255 101.89
Total : 1,102.54
Page: 12
vchlist Voucher List Page: 73
04H412006 10:28:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125928 4/14/2006 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC 076147 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
640.4712.5610 0.31
077248 GLUE/TAPE
GLUFJTAPE
640.4712.5255 14.45
077363 FASTENERS
FASTENERS
640.4712.5610 1.72
78243 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
010.4420.5605 1421
78260 PAINTBRUSH
PAINTBRUSH
010.4420.5605 10.71
78326 MISC PARTS &SUPPLIES
MISC PARTS &SUPPLIES
010.4211.5255 53.96
78370 BATTERIES
BATTERIES
010.4420.5605 11.78
78385 MISC PARTS& SUPPLIES
MISC PARTS&SUPPLIES
010.4211.5255 146.68
78412 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
010.4213.5604 18.94
78789 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
010.4213.5273 152.80
78800 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
010.4420.5608 6.42
78870 FASTENERS
FASTENERS
010.4420.5605 24.17
Page: 13
vchlist Voucher List Pa9e: 14
04/14/2006 10:28:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125928 4/14/2006 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC (Continued)
78908 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
010.4213.5604 31.06
79003 WAX
WAX
010.4213.5604 9.18
79005 FUEL BOX FOR DIESEL PUMP
FUEL BOX FOR DIESEL PUMP
010.4305.5608 75.06
79009 MISC PARTS&SUPPLIES F108
MISC PARTS&SUPPLIES F108
010.4211.5601 55.75
79010 PLUG& EXT CORD
PLUG& EXT CORD
010.4211.5255 92.19
79097 BLDG MATERIAL
BLDG MATERIAL
010.4211.5255 2.13
79112 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
010.4213.5604 3428
79135 PAINT SUPPLIES
PAINT SUPPLIES
: 010.4213.5604 20.32
79257 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
010.4420.5605 49.31
79291 BATTERIES
BATTERIES
640.4712.5255 2.67
79306 PIPE WRAP
PIPE WRAP
010.4213.5604 19.28
Page: 14
vchlist Voucher List Page: 15
04/1412006 10:28:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125928 4/14/2006 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC (Continued)
79591 ELBOW
ELBOW
010.4211.5255 6:42
79766 BOLT/BULB
BOLT/BULB
010.4213.5604 13.81
79924 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
010.4420.5605 9.63
94040 PLASTIC FUNNEL
PLASTIC FUNNEL
010.4430.5605 6.42
94259 BROOM; HOOK
BROOM; HOOK
010.4420.5605 23.56
95046 ELECTRICAL PART
ELECTRICAL PART
010.4211.5255 44.95
Total : 952.17
125929 4/14/2006 000441 MULLAHEY FORD 166243 SERVICE TO PW58
SERVICE TO PW58
220.4303.5601 34.81
Total : 34.81
125930 4/14/2006 005496 NESS, CHARLA 041006 TAXI CARD REFUND#2593
TAXI CARD REFUND#2593
225.0000.4777 20.00
Total : 20.00
125931 4/14/2006 005491 NEVAREZ, GEORGE 040306 PARK DEPOSIT-STROTHER PARK-
PARK DEPOSIT-STROTHER PARK-
010.0000.4354 61.00
Total : 61.00
�
125932 4/14/2006 000832 NEXT DAY SIGNS 2794 BANNER-40TH ANNIV.
Page: 15
vchlist Voucher List Page: 76
04114/2006 10:28:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125932 4/14/2006 000832 NEXT DAY SIGNS (Continued)
BANNER-40TH ANNIV.
220.4303.5613 137.28
REFUND PAID BUSINESS LICENSE TWICE
PAID BUSINESS LICENSE TWICE
010.0000.4050 42.00
Total : 179.28
125933 4/14/2006 002849 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 933066312 CELL PHONE
FIRE& EMERGENCY SVCS
010.4211.5403 99.69
BLDG& LIFE SAFETY
010.4212.5403 33.23
Total : 132.92
125934 4/14/2006 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 331927408-001 OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
010.4130.5201 84.50
Total : 84.50
125935 4/14/2006 000472 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE INC 77043 12'TREE PRUNER
12'TREE PRUNER
010.4420.5273 42.89
Total : 42.89
125936 4/14/2006 000523 R&T EMBROIDERY, INC 28568 EMBROIDERY& PATCHES
EMBROIDERY& PATCHES
010.4211.5272 21.99
28582 EMBROIDERY-PARKS SHIRTS
EMBROIDERY-PARKS SHIRTS
010.4420.5143 46.85
EMBROIDERY-BLDG MAINT. SHIRI
010.4213.5143 6.50
Page: 16
vchlist Voucher List Page: 17
04H4/2006 10:28:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125936 4/14/2006 000523 R&T EMBROIDERY, INC (Continued)
28607 HATS FOR MAINTENANCE WORKE
HATS FOR MAINTENANCE WORKE
220.4303.5143 321.75
HATS
612.4610.5143 160.87
HATS
640.4712.5143 160.88
ToWI : 778.84
125937 4/14/2006 003363 RIPPY, NINA 041006 BALLET-JAZZ FOR KIDS
BALLET-JAZZ FOR KIDS
010.4424.5351 785.40
Total : 785.40
125938 4/14/2006 003031 ROBERTSON SUPPLY 5987 GATORADE FOR CMC CREW
GATORADE FOR CMC CREW
220.4303.5255 118.00
ToWI : 118.00
125939 4/14/2006 005474 ROOTX 23393 1 CASE-ROOT CHEMICAL FOR SE�
1 CASE- ROOT CHEMICAL FOR SE�
612.4610.5610 350.00
Freight
612.4610.5610 17.00
ToWI : 367.00
125940 4/14/2006 004365 RUIZ, DANIEL 041206 BASKETBALL LEAGUE SCORER
BASKETBALLLEAGUE SCORER
010.4424.5352 45.00
Total : 45.00
125941 4/14/2006 003649 RUIZ, DON 041206 BASKETBALL SCORER
BASKETBALLSCORER
010.4424.5352 45.00
ToWI : 45.00
Page: 17
vchlist Voucher List Page: 18
04/14/2006 10:28:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode: boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125942 4/14/2006 002932 RUTAN&TUCKER, LLP 467161 PROF.LEGAL SERVICES-1/1/06 TO
PROF.LEGAL SERVICES-1/1/06 TO
010.4003.5327 3,454.13
467979 PROF.LEGAL SERVICES:12/Ot/05 T
PROF.LEGAL SERVICES:12/01/05 T
010.4003.5327 357.00
469062 PROF. LEGAL SERV-01/01/06-2/28
PROF. LEGAL SERV-01/01/06-2/28
010.4003.5327 2,296.02
469118 PROF LEGAL SERVICES:02/01-02/2
PROF LEGAL SERVICES:02/01-02/2
� 010.4003.5327 5,641.65
UNAPPLIED FUNDS
010.4003.5327 -178.50
Total : 11,570.30
125943 4/14/2006 000538 S 8 L SAFETY PRODUCTS 82359 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
010.4213.5604 167.28
Total : 167.28
125944 4/14/2006 005493 SAHAGUN, JOSE 041106 W/C-COMMUNITY CENTER-
W/C-COMMUNITY CENTER-
010.0000:2206 250.00
ToWI : 250.00
125945 4/14/2006 005499 SAWYER, JIM 663447 TRANSFER FIRE DEPT PHONE SY:
TRANSFER FIRE DEPT PHONE SY:
010.4212.6001 350.00
TRANSFER PHONE SYSTEM
010.4212.5602 230.00
TRANSFER PHONE SYSTEM
010.4212.5201 200.00
Total : 780.00
125946 4/14/2006 003108 SBC/MCI T4862484 PC PHONE LINE
Page: 18
vchlist Voucher List Page: 19
04114/2006 10:28:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125946 4/14/2006 003108 SBC/MCI (Continued)
PC PHONE LINE
010.4145.5403 28.54
T4871256 PAYROLL-473-0379
, PAYROLL-473-0379
010.4145.5403 14.35
T4871260 ALARM-473-1935
ALARM-473-1935
640.4710.5403 28.44
T4871261 ALARM 473-2041
ALARM 473-2041
010.4145.5403 14.06
T4871267 473-5100
473-5100
010.4145.5403 914.58
T4871269 473-5400
473-5400
010.4145.5403 1,603.43
Total : 2,603.40
125947 4/14/2006 000607 SCMAF-SO CAL MUNICIPAL 040506 SOFTBALL LEAGUE REGISTRATI01
SOFTBALL LEAGUE REGISTRATIOI
010.4424.5257 588.00
ToW I : 588.00
125948 4/14/2006 000550 SLO COUNTY AIR POLLUTION 10285 APCD GENERATOR ANNUAL PERN
APCD GENERATOR ANNUALPERN
640.4710.5303 1,201.40
APCD GENERATOR PERMIT FOR F
010.4211.5324 600.70
Total : 1,802.10
125949 4/14/2006 003641 SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY SVC, INC C3YD1Y RECYCLE DUMPSTER-CORP YD '
RECYCLE DUMPSTER-CORP YD
010.4213.5303 5.62
Total : 5.62
Page: 19
vchlist Voucher List Page: 20
04/1412006 10:28:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125950 4/14/2006 004393 SP MAINTENANCE SERVICES, INC 14029 STREET SWEEPING MAR 2006
STREET SWEEPING MAR 2006
220.4303.5303 2,291.19
STREET SWEEPING
010.4303.5303 3,583.64
ToWI : 5,874.83
125951 4/14/2006 000540 ST PATRICK'S SCHOOL 041206 GYM RENTAL ST PATRICKS SCHO�
GYM RENTAL ST PATRICKS SCH01
010.4426.5553 2,600.00
- ToW I : 2,600.00
125952 4/14/2006 000613 STATEWIDE SAFETY 8 SIGNS 47702 CLAMPS/FLAGGING TAPE
CLAMPS/FLAGGING TAPE
220.4303.5613 523.06
Total : 523.06
125953 4/14/2006 000620 STREATOR PIPE&SUPPLY 440803 EYEWASH STATIONS
EYEWASH STATIONS
010.4213.5604 2,954.95
ToW I : 2,954.95
125954 4/14/2006 002370 TITAN INDUSTRIAL 1012435 HAND SANITIZER
HAND SANITIZER
612.4610.5255 90.09
ToWI : 90.09
125955 4/14/2006 000666 UNITED RENTALS 54914353-001 SAFETY GLASSES
SAFETY GLASSES
010.4420.5255 6.89
54916469-001 SKYJACK LIFT&TRAILER RENTAL
SKYJACK LIFT&TRAILER RENTAL
010.4430.5552 204.76
55096872-001 ELECT. SCISSORLIFT&TRAILER R
ELECT. SCISSORLIFT&TRAILER R
010.4430.5552 164.35
Page: 20
vchlist Voucher List Page: 27
04114/2006 10:28:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode: boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125955 4/14/2006 000666 000666 UNITED RENTALS (Continued) Totai : 376.00
125956 4/14/2006 005497 UNITY CHURCH-FIVE CITIES O40406 PARK RENTAL FEE/DEPOSIT REFI.
PARK RENTAL FEE/DEPOSIT REFI,
010.0000.4354 86.00
Total : 86.00
125957 4/14/2006 004736 VANGUARD VAULTS 10858 OFFSITE STORAGE
OFFSITE STORAGE
010.4002.5303 60.00
Total : 60.00
125958 4/14/2006 005329 VASQUEZ,JASON 040506 DL RENEWAL-CLASS B LICENSE
DL RENEWAL-CLASS B LICENSE
010.4211.5501 34.00
Total : 34.00
125959 4/14/2006 000687 WAYNE'S TIRE, INC 757314 TIRES F108
TIRES F108
010.4211.5601 896.49
Total : 896.49
125960 4/14/2006 000866 WHARTON, JAMIE 041206 B/BALL LGE.SCORER-HEINZE
B/BALL LGE.SCORER-HEINZE
010.4424.5352 22.50
ToWI : 22.50
125961 4/14/2006 000865 WHARTON, RON 041206 B/BALL LGE.SCORER-WHARTON
8/BALL LGE.SCORER-WHARTON
010.4424.5352 22.50
Total : 22.50
125962 4/14/2006 003994 WILDLAND FIREFIGHTER RENEWAL SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL FOR FY
SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL FOR FY
010.4211.5503 29.90
Total : 29.90
Page: 21
vchlist VouCher List Page: 22
04/74/2006 10:28:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125963 4/14/2006 000699 WILSON ELECTRIC COMPANY, LEE PW 2004-07 TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPGRADE
TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPGRADE
350.5637.7001 160,110.00
Total : 760,110.00
125964 4/14/2006 005489 YRACHETA,JENNIFER 041106 PARK DEPOSIT-RANCHO GRANDE
PARK DEPOSIT-RANCHO GRANDE
010.0000.4354 86.00
Total : 86.00
96 Vouchers for bank code: boa Bank total : 236,543.72
96 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 236,543.72
Page: 22
, ��
8.b.
� pRROyO
� c�
� INCORPORATED 92
V T
} JULY 10, t911 * MEMORANDUM
c4�iFOaN�P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SE CES��
BY: FRANCES R. HEAD, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR
SUBJECT: STATEMENT OFINVESTMENT DEPOSITS
DATE: APRIL 25, 2006
Attached please find a report listing the current investment deposits of the City of Arroyo
Grande, as of March 31, 2006, as required by Government Code Section 53646 (b). Staff
recommends that ihe Council receive and file the report.
�
I
I
�I
CITYOFARROYO GRANDE
MONTHLY INVESTMENT REPORT
As of March 31, 2006 �
April 25, 2006
This report presents the City's investments as of March 31, 2006. It includes all
investments managed by the City, the investment institution, type of investment,
maturity date, and rate of interest. As of March 31, 2006, the investment portfolio was
in compliance with all State laws and the City's investment policy.
Current Investments:
The City is currently investing short-term excess cash in the following accounts:
■ Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)
■ Certificates of Deposit
Following is a comparison of LAIF investments based on book values as of March 31,
2006, compared with the prior month and the prior year:
LAIF INVESTMENTS
AS OF MARCH 31, 2006
DATE AMOUNT INTEREST RATE
Current Month March, 2006 $11,512,563 4.14%
Prior Month February, 2006 $11,512,563 3.96%
Prior Year March, 2005 $11,959,532 237%
Following is a listing of Certificates of Deposit showing the amount purchased, the
Purchase Date, Interest Rate, and Maturity Date:
CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT
AS OF MARCH 31, 2006
interest
Financial Institution Amount Purchase Date Rate Maturity Date
First Standard Bank $99,000 December 2, 2005 4.96% December 2, 2006
Redding Bank of Commerce $99,000 February 8, 2006 4.95% April 7, 2006
Bank of Santa Clarita 99 000 March 9, 2006 5.05% March 9, 2007
Total $297,000
�
� pRROYp H■C■
� c�
� INCORPORATED 92
� ° MEMORANDUM
* JULV 10. iB11 *
c4��FORN�P
ro: cirY couNCi� �
FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES�
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION INCREASING OPERATING FEES
BASED ON CHANGES IN THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX (CPI)
DATE: APRIL 25, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached resolution increasing operating
fees by the January 2006 CPI increase of 5.4%.
FUNDING:
An increase of approximately $25,000 can be expected in the General Fund operating
revenues.
DISCUSSION:
The City completed an operating fee study in Fiscal Year 1999-2000. This study
calculated the direct and indirect costs of providing specialized services to the public.
The commission of this study was undertaken in order to shift the burden of paying for
specific governmental services from the general populous to specific recipients of the
service, through user fees. The underlying assumption being that services benefiting
specific users, not the community as a whole, should be paid by the benefiting
individuals and businesses.
On April 11, 2000 the City Council was presented the completed study and a
recommendation to set operating fees, where appropriate, at 100% of cost. The
enabling resolution was adopted at that meeting and fees were adjusted on July 1,
2000.
On June 14, 2005 the City Council recommended that an updated comprehensive
operating fee study be conducted within the next two years. Staff will present a
recommendation to the Council at a later date for conducting an updated Operating Fee
Study to be performed in Fiscal Year 2006-07.
Since the cost to provide services increases each year, it was the intent of the original
study that these fees be increased annually. The City could have commissioned
operating fee studies to recalculate the growth in costs each year. Rather than spend a
considerable sum of money and staff time on yearly studies, a simpler solution was
instituted. The fees are re-calculated each year by the January consumer price index
CITY COUNCIL
OPERATING FEE ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT
APRIL 25, 2006
PAG E 2
(CPI), which measures the increased cost of living for specific regions of the country.
With the City Council approval, the fees are then adjusted to include the CPI increase.
However, staff is recommending that certain recreation fees on Exhibit "A" not be
increased by the current CPI in order to avoid charges for these activities that are higher
than those of surrounding communities. Recreation programs include: adult sports,
facility use, and extensive child care programs.
The January 2006 CPI, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is 5.4%. In order
that the City's operating fees keep pace with the annual cost of inflation; and that the
City continues to recover the complete cost of providing services, staff recommends that
operating fees be increased by the 5.4%.
Attached to this report is a Resolution updating operating fees, Exhibit "A" to the
Resolution shows the service provided by the City, the current fee charged for that
service, the CPI percentage, and the recommended fee.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for City Council consideration:
- Approve staff recommendation to increase operating fees by 5.4%;
- Do not approve staff recommendation and retain the current fee schedule;
- Modify staff recommendation;
- Provide direction to staff.
Attachments:
- Exhibit A— Schedule of Operating Fee Recommendations.
RESOLUTION NO._
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING OPERATING FEES
FOR PARKS, RECREATION AND FACILITIES,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC WORKS,
BUILDING AND FIRE, AND FINANCIAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENTS.
WHEREAS, the City perForms certain services and issues permits and licenses, which
benefit specific individuals and businesses; and
WHEREAS, the cost of performing such services and issuing such permits, and
licenses are to be paid by those individuals and businesses that receive such services,
permits, and licenses; and
WHEREAS, those fees charged for such services, permits, and licenses provided by
and/or through the Parks, Recreation and Facilities, Community Development, Public
Works, Building and Fire, and Financial Services Departments, no longer reflect the true
costs of providing such services, permits, and licenses; and
WHEREAS, costs for services, permits, and licenses provided by and/or through the
Parks, Recreation and Facilities, Community Development, Public Works, Building and
Fire, and Financial Services Departments that benefit specific individuals and
businesses have been clearly identified; and
WHEREAS, the Ciry of Arroyo Grande has proposed and made available to the public,
data indicating the estimated cost of providing said services and the current and
proposed fees for such services; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered at a duly noticed City Council meeting the
question of whether or not to adjust or establish operating fees for City services to
reflect the estimated amount that is required to reimburse the City for the cost of
providing such services; and
WHEREAS, at said public meeting, the City Council considered all oral and written
presentations that were made regarding operating fees.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande as follows:
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
1. The schedule of fees attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this
reference, entitled "Schedule of Operating Fee Recommendations, Fiscal Year
2006-07" is hereby adopted.
2. Fees shall be adjusted annually by modifying the adopted value up or down in
conformance with the Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles region. The factor
for the adjustment of the fees shall be calculated and established each January by
the Director of Financial Services, utilizing the following formula:
Factor = 1 + Current Index— Base Index for Date of Adoption
Base Index for Date of Adoption
3. This Resolution shall become effective on July 1, 2006.
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 ,2006.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
TONYFERRARA, 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
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Schedule of Operating Fee Recommendations
Effective July 1, 2006
Council
Current approved Proposed
Service Fee increase Fee
PUBLIC WORKS:
Annexation $ 2,913 5.4% $ 3,070
Conditional Use Permit 1,056 5.4°/o 1,115
Grading Permit 2,238 5.4°/a 2,360
Lot Line Adjustment 2,695 5.4% 2,840
Parcel Map 1,193 5.4°/a 1,260
Pre-Application 207 5.4% 220
Tract Map 4,388 5.4% 4,625
Encroachment Permit-Residential 66 5.4% 70
Encroachment Permit-Commercial 133 5.4% 140
, Exhibit A
� CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Schedule of Operating Fee Recommendations
Effective July 1, 2006
i Councii
Current approved Proposed
Service Fee increase Fee
FIRE:
Permit Inspection $ 343 5.4% 360
� Hydrant Flow Calculation 164 5.4% 175
� Fireworks Permit 110 N/A 110
Failed 2nd Inspection 100 5.4% 105
Burn Permit 28 5.4% 30
Excessive False Alarm 58 5.4% 60
BUILDING:
Repeat Unit Plan Check 83 5.4% $ 90
A/l other building activity fees are set by the 1997 UBC rate tables.
Exhibit A
�
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Schedule of Operating Fee Recommendations
Effective July 1, 2006
Council
Current approved Proposed
Service Fee increase Fee
FINANCIAL SERVICES:
Retum check fee (NSF) $ 10 Per CA Civil Code Section 1719 $ 25
& current fee charged by the bank.
Exhibit A
� CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Schedule of Operating Fee Recommendations
Effective July 1, 2006
Council
' Current approved Proposed
Service Fee increase Fee
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Appeals
CD Director to Planning Commission $ 224 5.4% 240
Planning Commission to City Council. 224 5.4% 240
ARC Review
Within P.D. Zone 479 5.4% 505
Outside P.D. Zone 256 5.4% 270
Minor Project 78 5.4% 80
ARC Review Amendment
Within P.D. Zone 479 5.4% 505
Outside P.D. Zone 256 5.4% 270
Minor Project 256 5.4% 270
Cert. Of Compliance
, Within P.D. Zone 746 5.4% 790
Outside P.D. Zone 523 5.4% 550
CUP
Within P.D. Zone 1,388 5.4% 1,465
Outside P.D. Zone 1,154 5.4% 1,215
CUP Amendment
Within P.D. Zone 991 5.4% 1,045
Outside P.D. Zone 762 5.4% 805
Design Review 513 5.4% 540
Development Agreement 2,330 5.4% 2,455
Dev. Code Amendment 1,437 5.4% 1,515
G PA 1,579 5.4% 1,665
Home Occupation Permit 56 5.4% 60
Large Family Daycare 305 5.4% 320
LLA
Within P.D. Zone 915 5.4% 965
Outside P.D. Zone 691 5.4% 730
Lot Merger 691 5.4% 730
Meeting continuance 149 5.4% 160
, Minor Exception 299 5.4°/a 315
, Planned DevelopmenURezoning 1,328 5.4°/a 1,400
Planned Unit Development Permit
Processed with Tentative Map 1,328 5.4% 1,400
PC Interp/WaivelReference 474 5.4% 500
Plot Plan Review 261 5.4% 275
Pre-Application 359 5.4% 380
Research 78 5.4°/a 80
' Mailing Label Production 79 5.4% 85
Exhibit A
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Schedule of Operating Fee Recommendations
Effective July 1, 2006
Council
ICurrent approved Proposed
' Service Fee increase Fee
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (continued):
Reversion to Acreage
Within P.D. Zone 479 5.4% 505
i Outside P.D. Zone 256 5.4°/a 270
� Signs
! Planned Sign Program
Within P.D. Zone 702 5.4% 740
Outside P.D. Zone 479 5.4% 505
, Administrative Sign Permit 78 5.4% 80
, Administrative Sign Program 190 5.4% 200
Mural Permit 190 5.4% 200
Specific Plan 4,072 5.4% 4,290
Specific Plan Amendment 1,328 5.4% 1,400
TUP 122 5.4% 130
Tentative ParceVTentative Tract Map
Within P.D. Zone 1,149 5.4% 1,210
Outside P.D. Zone 920 5.4% 970
Tentative Parcel/Tentative Tract Map Amendment
Within P.D. Zone 1,149 5.4% 1,210
Outside P.D. Zone 920 5.4% 970
Time Extension
Within P.D. Zone 588 5.4% 620
Outside P.D. Zone 354 5.4% 375
Variance
Within P.D. Zone 1,149 5.4% 1,210
Outside P.D. Zone 920 5.4°/a 970
Vesting TPMITTM
Within P.D. Zone 1,149 5.4% 1,210
Outside P.D. Zone 920 5.4% 970
Viewshed Review
Staff Review 398 5.4% 420
Planning Commission Review 398 5.4% 420
Exhibit A
� CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Schedule of Operating Fee Recommendations
Effective July 1, 2006
I Council
Current approved Proposed
Service Fee increase Fee
PARKS, RECREATION AND FACILITIES: '
' Park Facilitv Use Fees
Strother Park-Large Barbecue $ 64 5.4% 70
i Strother Park-Security Deposit 30 5.4% 30
i Strother Park-Small Barbecue 33 5.4°/a 35
Strother Park-Wedding Reception 128 5.4% 135
, StrotherPark-Security1,2,3 64 5.4% 70
Elm Street Park-Barbecue 64 5.4% 70
Elm Street Park-Security Deposit 29 � 5.4% 30
' Soto Sports Complex Use Fees
Campbell Field Rental Fee 13 5.4% 15
Pilg Field Rental Fee 13 5.4% 15
; Santos Field Rental Fee 13 5.4°/a 15
Volunteer Field�Rental Fee 13 5.4% 15
Volunteer Field with Lights Rental 32 5.4% 35
Ikeda Fieid Rental 13 5.4% 15
� Ikeda Fieid with Lights Rental 31 5.4% 35
� Porter Field Rental Fee 19 5.4% 20
Porter Field with Lights Rental 37 5.4% 40
' Tennis Court Rental-1 Hour 6 5.4% 10
Tennis Courts-4 Rentai 93 5.4% 100
Food Booth Rental Fee (Soto) 32 5.4°/a 35
Meeting Room Rental Fee 19 5.4% 20
Field Prep Fees (except Porter) 19 5.4% 20
Field Prep Fees- Porter 32 5.4% 35
� Tournam Sch. & Coordin Fee 62 5.4% 65
I,
, Tournament Deposit Fee 246 5.4% 260
; Woman's Club Use Fees
Rental Fee 40 5.4% 40
Elm Street Comm. Ctr Use Fees
Rental Fee 25 5.4% 25
i
Adult Sport Leaque Fees
Adult Softball-Spring 485 0.0% 485
Adult Softball-Summer 485 0.0% 485
Adult Basketball 530 0.0% 530
' Non-Resident Fee 8 0.0% 8
Exhibit A
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Schedule of Operating Fee Recommendations
�� Effective July 1, 2006
Council
Current approved Proposed
Service Fee increase Fee
PARKS, RECREATION AND FACILITIES (continued):
Child Care Proqram Fees
Pre-Sch 1-Time Registration Fee 6.00 0.0% 6.00
I AMlPM CIM-Elm Street 275 0.0% 275
AMIPM CIM.-Branch Sch. 2.45 0.0% 2.45
AMIPM CIM-Ocean 2.45 0.0% 2.45
AM/PM CIM-Harloe 2.45 0.0% 2.45
CIM -One Time Reg. Fee 12.00 0.0% 12.00
Summer Playground-Strother Pk 1.95 0.0% 1 95
Summer Playground-Elm Street 1.95 0.0% 1.95
Holiday Playground Programs 1.95 0.0% 1.95
Child Care Proqram Fees- Resident Discount
Play& Learn-Tues &Thur. 2.75 0.0% 2.75
, Play& Learn-Mon, Wed & Fri. 2.75 0.0% 2.75
, Kindergartens in Training 2.75 0.0% 2.75
Summer Play& Learn 2.75 0.0% 2.75
Child Care Proaram Fees- Non Residents
Play& Learn-Tues&Thur. 3.30 0.0% 3.30
Play& Learn-Mon, Wed & Fri. 3.30 0.0% 3.30
Kindergartens in Training 3.30 0.0% 3.30
Summer Play 8 Learn 3.30 0.0% 3.30
8.d.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1. ROLL CALL:
Mayor Ferrara called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Council Member Jim Dickens, Council Member
Joe Costello, Council Member Ed Arnold, Mayor Pro Tem Jim Guthrie, City Manager Steven Adams,
and City Attorney Timothy Carmel were present.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
3. CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION:
a. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8:
Property: APN: 007-761-032; 1189 Flora Road
Agency Negotiator: Steven Adams, City Manager
Negotiating Party: Alton E. Jones
Under Negotiation: Price, Terms and Conditions of Potential Purchase
4. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION:
Mayor Ferrara announced that there was no reportable action from the closed session.
�i
5. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
Tony Ferrara, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Ferrara called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
City Council: Council Members Jim Dickens, Joe Costello, Ed Arnold, Mayor Pro Tem
Jim Guthrie and.Mayor Tony Ferrara were present.
City Staff Present: City Manager Steve Adams, City Attorney Tim Carmel, Director of
Administrative Services/City Clerk Kelly Wetmore, Director of Public
Works/City Engineer pon Spagnolo, Director of Financial Services Angela
Kraetsch, Director of Building and Fire Terry Fibich, Acting Community
Development Director Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner Teresa McClish,
Assistant Planner Foster, and Building Official John Hurst.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Dan Walker, representing Arroyo Grande Lions Club, led the Flag Salute.
4. INVOCATION
Pastor Robert Banker, Open Door Church, Oceano, delivered the invocation.
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
5.a. Honorary Proclamation Recognizing March as "American Red Cross Month".
Mayor Ferrara postponed the presentation of the Proclamation recognizing March as "American
Red Cross Month" as a representative from the American Red Cross was not present to accept
the Proclamation.
6. AGENDA REVIEW
6.a. Ordinances Read in Title Only.
Council Member Dickens, Council Member Arnold seconded, and the motion passed
unanimously that all ordinances presented at the meeting shall be read in title only and all further
reading be waived.
7. CITIZENS' INPUT. COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS
Chuck Fellows, representing Tree Guild of Arroyo Grande, reported that the Tree Guild had met
with City staff regarding the Tra�c Way Tree Master Plan, and he gave a status report on the
number and type of trees that will be planted along a portion of Traffic Way the day after Arbor
Day, on April 28th.
8. CONSENT AGENDA
At staff's recommendation, Mayor Ferrara pulled Consent Agenda Item 8.e.
Minutes: City Counci!Meefing Page 2
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Council Member Arnold moved, and Council Member Dickens seconded the motion to approve
Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.d., with the recommended courses of action. City Attorney
Carmel read the title of the Ordiriance in Item 8.c. The motion carried on the following roll-call
vote:
AYES: Arnold, Dickens, Costello, Guthrie, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification.
Action: Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period February 16, 2006
through February 28, 2006.
8.b. Consideration of Approval of Minutes.
Action: Approved the minutes of the Regular City Council meeting of February 14, 2006
and the Special City Council and Regular City Council/Redevelopment Agency meetings
of February 28, 2006, as submitted.
8.c. Adoption of Ordinance Modifying the California Public Employees' Retirement
System (CaIPERS) Contract.
Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 577, as follows: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO
THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF
THE CALIFORNAI PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM".
8.d. Consideration of a Motor Vehicle Emission Reduction (MOVER) Program Grant
Application.
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3906 to apply for the Motor Vehicle Emission Reduction
(MOVER) grant from the Air Pollution Control District to construct the Arroyo Grande
Creek Path from the Village to the Post Office.
8.e. Consideration of Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande Adding Chapter 5.76 to the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, Establishing
Regulations for Peddling and Soliciting Activities and Adoption of a Resolution
Establishing a Solicitation Permit Application Fee.
Recommended Action: 1) Adopt, by title only, an Ordinance entitled: "An Ordinance of
the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande Adding Chapter 5.76 to the Arroyo Grande
Municipal Code, Establishing Regulations for Peddling and Soliciting Activities"; and 2)
Adopt a Resolution establishing a solicitation permit application fee.
City Attorney Carmel referred to his supplemental memorandum distributed to the Council
recommending that the Council continue consideration of this item to a date uncertain to allow
staff the opportunity to make minor modifications to the proposed Ordinance in response to
comments received from the public.
Mayor Ferrara invited those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter.
Jerrv Von Werder, President of Pismo Coast Association of Realtors, expressed concerns about
the proposed Ordinance and referred to a letter he submitted to City staff and the Council which
posed questions and requested clarification about provisions in the Ordinance dealing with
application for a solicitation permit; investigation and permit issuance; and the Do Not Solicit
Registry (on file in the Administrative Services Department).
Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 3
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public comment period.
Council Member Arnold moved to continue the item to a date uncertain. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie
seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Arnold, Guthrie, Dickens, Costello, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mayor Ferrara requested, and the City Council concurred, to move up Agenda Item 11.a. for
: consideration prior to item 9.a.
11.a. Presentation of Financing Alternatives for the Lopez Water Treatment Plant
Upgrade Project.
Financial Services Director Kraetsch presented the staff report and recommended the Council
receive the San Luis Obispo County staff presentation on the four financing alternatives
proposed for the Lopez Water Treatment Plant Upgrade Project for Flood Control Zone 3 and
provide feedback regarding the alternatives to Council Member Costello to take forth to the Zone
3 Water Advisory Board.
I Will Clemens, Accounting and Budget Department Administrator, County of San Luis Obispo,
Department of Public Works, gave a PowerPoint presentation (on file in the Administrative
Services Department) which included an overview of the Lopez Water Treatment Plant Upgrade
project financing options. The overview included estimates of the annual debt service payment
for each of the four financing alternatives; total debt service payments for each of the four
financing alternatives; and present value of total debt service payments. Mr. Clemens also
acknowledged Council Member Costello who serves as a member of the Zone 3 Advisory Board.
He noted that the State Revolving Fund program is the most economical alternative.
In response to a question by Mayor Ferrara, Director of Financial Services Kraetsch explained
that the Water and Sewer Rate Study approved by the Council in June 2005 includes a majority
' of the increased debt service cost and clarified that the current approved rate structure and the
use of the Lopez reserve fund will be able to cover increased costs through Fiscal Year 2010-11.
Council Member Dickens observed that the life expectancy of the project upgrade is estimated at
� 20 years; therefore, it would not make sense to finance the project past that timeframe.
Mayor Ferrara invited those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter, and upon
hearing none, he closed the public comment period.
i Council comments and discussion ensued in support of the State Revolving Fund financing
option; clarification regarding whether each agency could choose to finance their portion of the
, project differently; and how the total project cost increased to $26 million due to design changes
and the construction bid.
After ensuring that Council Member Costeilo had received sufficient direction regarding the
preferred financing alternative to bring forth to the Zone 3 Advisory Board, Mayor Ferrara noted
that no formal action was required on this item.
Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 4
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
9: PUBLIC HEARING
9.a. Consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 05-003 and Planned Unit
Development No. 05-007 for a Phased, Mixed-Use Development Located on Fair
Oaks Avenue East of Arroyo Grande Community Hospital; Applied for by Central
Coast Real Estate Development.
Acting Community Development Director Heffernon presented the staff report and recommended
the Council adopt a Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 05-003 and Planned
Unit Development No. 05-007. Staff responded to questions regarding open and common space
standards; drainage as it relates to the use of porous pavers versus underground vaults or
bioswales; and the proposed gate at the end of Woodland Drive for emergency access only.
Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing and invited comments from those in the audience who
wished to be heard on the matter.
Garv Youna, representing Central Coast Real Estate Development, gave a brief history of the
projecYs development review process and explained that based on feedback received, a project
was developed which addressed the constraints that were raised. He thanked Arroyo Grande
Community Hospital (Hospital) and Catholic Healthcare West (CHW) which attended all the prior
meetings and helped develop the project.
Rick Castro, President and CEO of Arroyo Grande Community Hospital, noted that 20 months
ago Arroyo Grande Hospital was acquired by CHW and had started a process to develop a
Strategic Plan to address immediate healthcare needs and to determine future needs. He
acknowledged that the hospital was landlocked; however, the Hospital needs to plan for future
growth. He acknowledged the Council's approval of the OMU D-2.2 Overlay. He commented that
healthcare is a changing environment and the Hospital needs time to plan for its future growth
and to define the needs of the medical and surrounding community. He supported the project as
proposed. In response to questions by the Council regarding the conceptual design, Mr. Castro
confirmed that the Hospital needs the maximum amount of square footage (up to 120,000 sq.
ft.), as well as the other 3.5 acres to the north, for potential future expansion. He noted the
Hospital needs time to plan appropriately and that it was not yet known whether the expansion
would be to the Hospital or for separate medical offices or exactly how much space would be
required to meet the needs of the community.
David Foote, from FIRMA and speaking on behalf of the applicant, addressed issues relating to
proposed agricultural buffers and setbacks; and responded to questions from Council regarding
the width of the proposed pedestrian path; landscaping; fencing; and soil type/class on the
adjacent triangular piece of land.
Bardhvll Nushi, Cerro Vista Circle, stated he was speaking on behalf of his neighborhood which
includes Cerro Vista Circle, S. Alpine, Dodson, Newman Drive, Eman Court, and Taylor Place
and asked those in the audience who live in those areas and for whom he speaks to please
stand. He read from a prepared statement (on file in the Administrative Service Department)
expressing concerns and opposition to the proposed project, including the Woodland Drive
extension as it relates to public safety; the proposed site design as it relates to size, scale and
loss of rural character; site design as it relates to buffers and the proposed pathway; lack of
compliance with Ordinance 557 (OMU D-2.2 Overlay); and the lack of an approved Hospital
Facilities Plan. He concluded by requesting the Council to reconsider this project.
Darlene Mack, Woodland Drive, spoke in opposition to the extension of Woodland Drive and
requested the existing termination of Woodland Drive be permanent. She submitted written
comments for the record (on file in the Administrative Services Department.)
Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 5
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Deborah West, S. Alpine Street, stated that the projecYs density is a problem because of traffic
and noted that it is surrounded by a low-density residential area which includes a neighborhood
of children and schools. She suggested consideration of a plan that could be spread out. She
expressed concerns about the Phase 2 with so much office space and where the traffic would
exit. She stated the Hospital should have more space for its use and opposed high-density
housing. She also stated preservation of open space is very important.
Gabe West, S. Alpine Street, stated he and his friends play in the neighborhood and the existing
open space is very important to them.
Scott Washinqton, Cerro Vista Circle, agreed with previous public comments and stated he likes
to play with liis friends in the open field.
Bernard Lansman, Newman Circle, read from a prepared statement (on file in the Administrative
Service Department) expressing concerns about the projecYs potential impact to Arroyo Grande
Creek. He referred to and read excerpts from Ordinance No. 550 regarding agricultural buffer
requirements. He urged the Council to take into consideration concern for the creek
environment.
Victoria Shutton, S. Alpine Street, expressed concern about congestion, safety, and loss of open
space as a result of the proposed development in this area.
Robert Berrvhill, Cerro Vista Circle, referred to the pedestrian pathway and stated it would be
difficult for law enforcement to patrol this area and the pathway within the project could attract
vandalism, graffiti, and a criminal element. He further opposed the size and scale of the project
as it would impact views and decrease property values in the neighborhood.
No further public comments were received and Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing.
Garv Younq, applicant, responded to issues regarding drainage and conditions of approval that
will address rehabilitation of the existing storm drain line; noted that there is a long term
agreement with Catholic Healthcare West for the development of the property; stated that
approval of a deed restriction on the property would restrict Phase 2 to hospital/medical office
use, and noted that prior to recordation of the final map, they would execute and record an
agreement with CHW; stated that the project meets the standards of the OMU D2.2 Overlay;
provided further information on the use of biofiltration swales to facilitate project stormwater
drainage, and displayed a sample of a porous paver.
Council Member Arnold provided the following comments:
— Initially thought Phase 2 should be developed first; however, after meeting with Hospital
representatives, he understands their timing issues for future planning;
— Concern with residential parking availability; acknowledged Development Code requirements
had been met; however, he thought more parking should be required for this project.
Suggested a parking agreement with Phase 2 to provide additional parking for residential
component;
— Acknowledged community concerns; however, supported the Woodland Drive extension and
noted that the existing stub was meant for the road to go through;
— Suggested traffic mitigation measures such as speed humps, additional stop signs, bulb-
outs, and enhanced traffic enforcement by the Police Department;
— Noted that having homes close to the pedestrian would diminish the safety issue;
— Acknowledged that the existing open space is private property and was not meant to remain
as open space;
— Thinks this is a good project; however, he questioned whether this was a good project for the
existing neighborhood;
Minufes: City Council Meeting Page 6
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
- Noted that the proposed site plan looks different than what was presented at the Pre-
Application.
- Wanted assurance that the Hospital would be protected and that the residents are not
impacted more than they need to be.
Council Member Dickens provided the following comments:
- Had five areas of concern: housing, the Overlay (hospitai and medical use); traffic circulation,
appropriate agriculture buffer, and open space;
- Referred to General Plan Update which involved comprehensive review of land use options
and to redesignate properties appropriately. Noted that the subject property was zoned as
Mixed Use which means it will be developed and was not meant to remain as open space;
- In response to safety concerns, referred to nearby County developments on the Mesa and
noted that majority of traffic will be generated from those developments down through the
City;
- Noted that installation of sidewalks is the property owner's responsibility;
- Traffic calming measures must be reviewed; cannot support putting blockades up. It is
important from traffic circulation standpoint to open up circulation and not close it off;
- Housing and medical use: Supports more dense project on this site in order to attract
hospital personnel to area; a more dense project would mean housing costs would be lower;
- Agricultural buffer: Noted that Ordinance 550 protects agriculture zoned property; property in
question is not zoned Agriculture. He noted that the triangular piece of land is zoned
Agriculture and it needs to be mitigated. If project moves fonvard, proposed that a zone
change be prepared to redesignate that piece of property as Public Facilities. Also proposed
an in-lieu fee to mitigate the loss of that small parcel of agriculture land (distributed to staff a
proposed formula establishing an estimated in-lieu fee which is on file in the Administrative
Services Department);
- Pathway: Disagreed with comments regarding safety issue. Once developed, would
eliminate transient issues; area would be safer, more people to observe and monitor activity.
Would agree to modifying the space between the buildings and the pathway as it is a bit
confined as designed.
- Understands Hospital's need for time to develop a plan for future needs. Acknowledged that
adequate space is needed for the hospital.
- With minor modifications, can support the project.
Council Member Costello provided the following comments:
- Asked how agriculture buffer is measured (from the agricultural property boundary);
- Supported preserving agricultural land; however, he noted that the .074 acre piece of land is
impossible to be farmed and there should be some sort of mitigation for it. He noted that to
preserve agricultural land in other areas, higher density development must be considered to
meet State housing requirements;
- Acknowledged this is a mixed use project and it is critical to protect the portion designated for
future hospitaVmedical use;
- Does not oppose the proposed residential development; however, must address some of the
' parking problems to ensure enough spaces are provided;
Noted that a portion of the park will remain; and a pathway will remain;
' - Noted that whether or not Woodland goes through, police visibility is still there;
- Creek habitat and environment will remain protected; drainage will be improved in
development process;
- Can support project as proposed with minor modifications;
� Minufes: City Council Meeting Page 7
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
— Has mixed feelings about Woodland extension, however, he noted the stub is already there.
Suggested keeping it closed in Phase 1 and reevaluate extending Woodland Drive in Phase
2.
i
Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie provided the following comments:
— Addressed intent of mixed use zoning and how it relates to this project; spoke about
opportunities for higher density residential;
— Addressed the Overlay and the intent to provide for the expansion of the Hospital;
— Acknowledged that CHW is on board with the proposed project and it works for them;
— Expressed concern about whether the Overlay was necessary for the remaining property;
— Generally supports the project and noted that there is significantly less impact than it would
I have been if it had been developed entireiy as commercial;
I — Addressed traffic circulation as it relates to the Woodland extension; noted he did not think
this would be a good connection and would not oppose keeping it closed;
� — Addressed parking issues;
i — Supports the proposed pedestrian trail and did not feel it would create an unsafe
environment; acknowledged that site constraints required a 12 foot pathway and suggested
that a portion of the path along the creek could be eliminated to improve the site;
— Agricultural buffer distance is adequate; if triangular piece is zoned Agriculture, should be
mitigated. Believes the General Plan designates the property as open space.
— Residential component will generate very little traffic (24 peak hour trips);
— Expressed doubt that 120,000 square foot of office space with underground parking would
ever be built due to construction and building expense;
— Acknowledged significant improvements to drainage; not ready to share costs 90/10;
— Suggested removing the Overlay from the Development Code; favors alternative with deed
restriction;
— Generally supportive of project with minor modifications.
Mayor Ferrara displayed the previous conceptual site plan presented at the Planning
Commission's Pre-Application review and noted that the site plans are significantly different as it
relates to the residential and hospital/medical office layouts as well as open space.
Mayor Ferrara provided the foliowing comments:
— Number one priority is to ensure that Arroyo Grande Community Hospital expands where
they can remain viable and provide adequate healthcare services to the South County;
— Not opposed to the residential density; although he preferred the original configuration
versus the conceptual design being presented tonight;
— Would like to have provided direct housing support (workforce housing) for a Hospital
expansion; however, the timing of the Hospital component makes that impossible; and noted
that the City's housing goals are aligned with the principles of smart growth. Envisioned the
project being built together to encourage workforce housing in order to reduce certain
impacts such as additional traffic generation.
— Drainage: Would not approve any project in such close proximity to the creek that does not
have some form of on-site retention; stated that for a project of this size, porous pavers are
not sufficient in heavy rains;
— Circulation: Acknowledged existing stub and street configuration; noted City's goal is to
improve circulation segments in the City; if Woodland is extended, ingress and egress onto
Fair Oaks would benefit the residents; once project is fully developed, can use traffic calming
devices if necessary.
Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 8
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
— No issue with agricultural buffers. Acknowledged that concerns expressed by Council
Member Dickens were valid;
— Concerned about current site plan and does not think the square footage (120,000 sq.ft.) of
proposed hospital expansion is viable; prefers surface parking instead of subterranean '
parking;
— Prefers original conceptual site design with less mass; favors this type of project in this area,
however, not supportive of current configuration and mixed use proportion of project;
— Not supportive of proposed mitigation for drainage.
Council discussion ensued regarding drainage.
Ken Chacone, project civil engineer, discussed site constraints, including elevation changes, and
how it was determined to adequately address drainage for the project in an environmentally
friendly manner.
Mayor Ferrara referred to the completion of an Alternative Study for Zone 1/1A and suggested
that staff circulate the Study to the Council and the applicant for review as it relates to drainage
and impacts to the creek. He also recommended that before making a determination on this
project, that the City receive direct feedback from the Department of Fish & Game, Salmon
Enhancement, and the Resource Conservation District.
Foilowing further discussion, Mayor Ferrara suggested a continuance in order to seek a
conceptual site plan that is closer to what was originally presented, and to see a modified
strategy on the drainage issue as it relates to the creek. He reiterated that he has no problem .
with the project concept, however, he was not in favor of the current design or the proposed
mitigation measures and conditions as it relates to drainage.
Councii Member Dickens moved to continue consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
05-003 and Planned Unit Development No. 05-007 for a Phased, Mixed-Use Development
Located on Fair Oaks Avenue East of Arroyo Grande Community Hospital; Applied for by Central
Coast Real Estate Development, to provide the applicant adequate time to address concerns
raised by the Council. Council Member Arnold seconded the motion.
Discussion ensued and consensus was reached that the motion included seeking direct
interaction with Fish and Game, Resource and Conservation District and Salmon Enhancement
as it relates to drainage and potential impacts to the creek; as well as clarifying that the concerns
to be addressed include parking, open space, review of the D-Overlay as it relates to the lack of
a Hospital Facilities Plan and mixed use proportion and square footage requirements; and
consideration of agricultural land mitigation.
The motion carried on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Dickens, Arnold, Costello, Guthrie, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mayor Ferrara called a break at 10:24 p.m. The Council reconvened at 10:42 p.m.
Minutes: City Councrl Meeting Page 9
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
9.b. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of Appeal of Planning Commission
Denial of Plot Plan Review 05-008 to Allow Two (2) Second-Floor Apartments in an
Existing Two-Story Office Building at 230 Station Way.
Assistant Planner Foster presented the staff report and recommended the Council adopt a
Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's denial of Plot Plan
Review 05-008.
Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing and invited comments from those in the audience who
wished to be heard on the matter, and upon hearing none he closed the public hearing.
Council Member Costello stated this area did not appear to be a mixed-use area as the area was
primarily developed as commercial and expressed concern that there are no residential
amenities. He supported upholding the Planning Commission's denial.
Council Member Dickens nofed that parking was a concern when the Village Promenade
commercial development was approved, and expressed concerns with the proposal to expand
the land use for a mixed use project. He agreed with the findings made by the Planning
Commission for denial, and supported upholding the Planning Commission's denial.
Council Member Arnold compared this project to that of the Robasciotti mixed use project that
was approved on the corner of E. Branch Street and Traffic Way and noted the Robasciotti
project was located on two of the City's busiest streets. He noted that the proposed project is
away from the main street and the two small apartments could be provided as affordable housing
units. He addressed parking requirements and stated he did not agree that the relocation of the
Post Office to the Village Promenade would impact this project as it relates to parking availability.
He expressed concerns about egress from the project and stated he would like further
information from the Fire Department regarding this issue. He noted that this was a great
location to try a mixed-use project and supported upholding the appeal.
Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie commented this was not a great mixed-use project and could have been
better if the idea was included in the original design. He expressed concern about the location of
the proposed project.in a commercial development and its proximity to the freeway as it relates
to lighting and noise; however, he acknowledged that the project meets the development
standards with the exception of parking. He supported approving the parking exception and
supported the appeal.
Mayor Ferrara said he had reviewed the findings in the proposed Resolution and felt this was a
unique area for a mixed-use project. He said he did not see anything significant that would prove
detrimental to putting a couple of residential units above the commercial use. He agreed that the
units would not be family oriented; however, he concurred with Council Member Arnold that this
would not be targeted for family occupancy and could serve a single person who would have
pedestrian access to Village businesses and services. He noted this use would not impact the
parking and would be an ideal area to experiment with this type of mixed-use. He supported the
appeal; however, he stated he would like staff to report back on the results of this mixed-use
configuration and whether it is successful.
Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie moved to tentatively uphold the appeal, and direct staff to return with a
supporting resolution. Council Member Arnold seconded, and the motion carried on the following
roll-call vote:
Minutes: Cify Council Meefing Page 10
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
AYES: Guthrie, Arnold, Ferrara
NOES: Dickens, Costello
ABSENT: None
9.c. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of Approval of the 2005 Urban Water
Management Plan.
Director of Public Works Spagnolo presented the staff report and recommended the Council
adopt Resolution approving the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP).
Council Member Arnold asked questions regarding how the rainfall season dates are determined
(annually); how the completion of an UWMP in Grover Beach and Oceano affects the joint grant
application for a Desalination Study (Grover Beach has approved its UWMP and OCSD does not
need to complete one as the County prepares a countywide UWMP); referred to page 2-1 of the
UWMP and noted that Atascadero is shown on the vicinity map in two different locations;
referred to page 2-3 and asked what the source was for the projected population figures (State
Department of Finance, as of January 1, 2005); referred to page 3-10, existing well locations,
and noted an error in the capacity figure of Reservoir No. 1; referred to Table 13 on page 5-4
and requested clarification of the figure for projected build-out population; referred to the chart on
page 5-7 and requested clarification regarding cumulative water usage; and referred to a
typographical error on page 5-12.
Council Member Costello asked questions regarding projected water demand, and regarding the
results of the historical water supply analysis (page 5-7).
Mayor Ferrara asked about the availability of Proposition 50 funds; asked abouf the status of
public facility construction in a flood plain (as it relates to the Desalination Plant) and potential
impacts to the receipt of grant funding; requested clarifying language in the UWMP regarding the
proposed location of the Desalination Plant; and asked what the timeframe was for completion of
the Groundwater Study.
Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing and invited comments from those in the audience who
wished to be heard on the matter, and upon hearing none, he closed the public comment period.
Council comments and discussion ensued in support of the Urban Water Management Plan with
a suggestion to include clarifying language regarding the proposed location of the Desalination
Plant.
Council Member Arnold moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,
ADOPTING AND' DIRECTING THE FILING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE 2005 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN", with direction to staff to
include language in the UWMP that the proposed Desalination Plant is sited in a floodplain.
Council Member Costello seconded, and the motion carried on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Arnold, Costello, Dickens, Guthrie, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Minufes: City Council Meeting Page 11
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
10. CONTINUED BUSINESS
10.a. Consideration of Fire Consolidation Oversight Committee Proposal.
City Manager Adams presented the staff report and recommended the Council: 1) Approve the
proposed structure and scope of work for the Fire Consolidation Oversight Committee; and 2)
Appoint a representative from the City Council to participate on the Committee.
Mayor Ferrara asked for clarification regarding the proposed scope of work as it relates to
identifying desired service levels and future needs. He stated that until some form of a study is
completed for Arroyo Grande that focuses on the City's service level needs now and in the
future, he was concerned about formulating long range objectives relating to consolidation. Staff
and Council discussion ensued regarding the scope of work as it relates to executing the
proposed implementation steps prior to determining future vision, goals and objectives.
Further discussion ensued regarding the formation of an ad-hoc sub-committee to begin
discussions on joint dispatch opportunities.
City Manager Adams suggested the .Council approve the proposed scope of work contingent
upon the changes in the order of tasks and directing staff to send a letter from the City Council to
the City Councils of Grover Beach and Pismo Beach and the Board of Directors of the Oceano
Community Services District to communicate the Council's desired changes to the order of tasks
in the scope of work for the Fire Consolidation Oversight Committee.
Council Member Dickens moved that Council Member Costello serve as the primary
representative on the Fire Consolidation Oversight Committee and that Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie
serve as the alternate representative; further moved to include a letter prepared by staff that
would be signed by the Mayor on behalf of the Council expressing concerns over the scope of
work; and moved to approve the plan in concept with the noted objections to the order and
timeline of tasks in the scope of work. Discussion ensued clarifying the intent of the motion to
approve the scope of work with the condition that future vision, goals and objectives and follow-
up studies will follow the implementation steps. Council Member Arnold seconded the motion,
and the motion carried on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Dickens, Arnold, Costello, Guthrie, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS ,
a. Request to Appeal Conditional Use Permit Case No. 05-007; Phase II of the Long's
Center, 1375 E. Grand Avenue. (GUTHRIE)
Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie expiained that the basis for the appeal request was specifically related to
the left turn access from E. Grand Avenue, and gave some background information regarding
the project. He indicated he had looked into the issue further and had reconsidered his decision
to request an appeal.
13. CITY MANAGER ITEMS
None.
Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 12
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
15. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Adams announced that a video regarding the City's funding needs would begin
showing on the City's government access channel next week.
16. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
None.
17. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Ferrara adjourned the meeting at 12:09 a.m.
Tony Ferrara, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk
(Approved at CC Mtg )
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1. ROLL CALL:
Mayor Ferrara called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Council Member Jim Dickens, Council Member
Joe Costello, Council Member Ed Arnold, Mayor Pro Tem Jim Guthrie, City Manager Steven Adams,
and City Attorney Timothy Carmel were present.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
3. CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION:
a. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8:
Property: APN: 007-241-032; Vacant lot; North Side of Farroll
Avenue
Agency Negotiator: Steven Adams, City Manager
Negotiating Party: Jacqui King
Under Negotiation: Price, Terms and Conditions of Potential Purchase
b. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL . COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9(a):
Name of Case: Terrv P. Fowler vs. Citv of Arrovo Grande et al
San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Case No. CV050995
4. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION:
Mayor Ferrara announced that there was no reportable action from the closed session.
5. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
Tony Ferrara, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Ferrara called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
City Council: Council Members Jim Dickens, Joe Costello, Ed Arnold, Mayor Pro Tem
Jim Guthrie, and Mayor Tony Ferrara were present.
City Staff Present: City Manager Steve Adams, City Attorney Tim Carmel, Director of
Administrative Services/City Clerk Kelly Wetmore, Director of Financial
Services Angela Kraetsch, Director of Public Works/City Engineer pon
Spagnolo, and Director of Community Development Rob Strong.
3. FLAG SALUTE
John Stobbe, representing Knights of Columbus, led the Flag Salute.
4. INVOCATION
Mayor Ferrara delivered the invocation.
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
None.
6. AGENDA REVIEW
6.a. Ordinances Read in Title Only
Council Member Dickens moved, Council Member Arnold seconded, and the motion passed
unanimously that all 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
Council Member Dickens requested that Consent Agenda Item 8.f. be pulled for a separate roll
call vote.
Council Member Dickens moved, and Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie seconded the motion to approve
Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.g., with the exception of 8.f., with the recommended
courses of action. The motion carried on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Dickens, Guthrie, Costello, Arnold, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT:: None
8.a. Cash Disbursement Rati£cation.
Action: Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period March 1, 2006 through
March 15, 2006.
Mrnutes: City Council Meeting Page 2
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
8.b. Statement of Investment Deposits.
Action: Received and filed the report of current investment deposits as of February 28,
2006.
8.c. Consideration of Approval of City Investment Policy.
Action: Approved the City of Arroyo Grande Investment Policy.
8.d. Cost Allocation Plan Update.
Action: Adopted the Fiscal Year 2006-07 Cost Allocation Plan.
8.e. Consideration to Approve a Contract Extension with Mid State Plumbing to
Continue the Plumbing Retrofit Program.
Action: Approved a one-year contract extension with Mid State Plumbing and Drain
Cleaning, Inc. in the amount of$274,493.25.
8.g. Consideration of Authorization to Use City Property and Close City Streets for the
Annual Arroyo Grande Strawberry Festival on May 27-28, 2006; Temporary Use
Permit No. 06-002.
Action: Adopt Resolution No. 3909.
8.f. Consideration of Resolution Upholding Appeal 05-006 and Approving Plot Plan
Review 05-008; 230 Station Way.
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution.
Council Member Arnold moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE UPHOLDING APPEAL 05-006 AND
APPROVING PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-008; 230 STATION WAY". Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie
seconded, and the motion passed on the following roil call vote:
AYES: Arnold, Guthrie, Ferrara
NOES: Dickens, Costello
ABSENT: None
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
10. CONTINUED BUSINESS
None.
11. NEW BUSINESS
11.a. Consideration of Presentation on the Arroyo Grende Creek Habitat Conservation
Plan.
Director of Public Works Spagnolo introduced Doug Bird, Hydraulic Operations
Administrator/Utilities Security Coordinator and Mark Hutchinson, Environmental Programs
Manager, from County of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department who gave a PowerPoint
presentation (on file in the Administrative Services Department) on the Flood Control Zone 3
Lopez Project Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The presentation included a description of the
HCP boundaries; a brief chronology of the HCP as it relates to the water rights permit status; an
explanation of the purpose of the HCP which involves compliance with the Federal Endangered
Species Act; an explanation of the species of concern, including steelhead trout, red-legged frog,
tidewater goby, and tiger salamander; an overview of permitting and monitoring requirements; an
Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 3
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
outline of HCP presentations made to various Zone 3 committees and at community outreach
town hall meetings; an overview of reservoir levels without environmental releases; a summary
of other aspects of the preferred alternative; an outline of Resource Agency involvement in the
HCP process; an overview of comments on the draft HCP received by the Resource Agencies;
and an overview of the current action plan. Mr. Bird also noted that the HCP document is
available for public review on the Internet at www.slocounty.info/water/agcreek.
Council discussion followed, during which Mr. Bird and staff responded to questions regarding
the Habitat Conservation Plan.
Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be "heard on the
matter, and upon hearing no public comments, he closed the public comment period.
Discussion and comments on the HCP included:
— If the HCP requires additional downstream releases, how will that impact the Lopez water
supply to contracting agencies (County is working with the resource agencies to determine
the ultimate downstream releases)
— Clarification that the term of the HCP is for 20 years;
— Status of stream gauges along the creek (County monitors and maintains the stream gauges
and one of the projects in the HCP will remodel the existing stream gauge at the end of
Stanley Avenue);
— HCP has established mitigation accounts which will include funds set aside for mitigation
programs as it relates to agricultural water needs;
— Whether the HCP can be expanded to include Zone 1/1A (Zone 1/1A has a Federal nexus
and falis under the Section 7 process under the Endangered Species Act, whereas Zone 3
falls under the Section 10 process under the Endangered Species Act);
— Whether the City's creek maintenance program could be integrated with the Flood Control
DistricYs channel and facility maintenance of Arroyo Grande Creek;
— There was reference to San Luis Obispo (SLO) Basin in the HCP which should be corrected
to Santa Maria Valley Basin.
Mayor Ferrara noted that this was a presentation item and encouraged Council Members to
provide written comments regarding the HCP to staff so they could be forwarded to the County.
There was no formal action on this item.
12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
a. , MAYOR TONY M. FERRARA:
(1) San Luis Obispo Council of Governments/San Luis Obispo Regional Transit
Authority (SLOCOG/SLORTA). Meeting cancelled. Executive Board Meeting
met and set the agenda for a future meeting.
(2) South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD). Dedicated the
new chlorinator which was a $2 million dollar project. Encouraged Council to tour
the facility.
(3) Other. Attended League of California Cities Channel Counties Division Executive
Board meeting; discussed and set agenda for the April 215` Division Meeting.
Minutes: City Council Meefing Page 4
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
b. MAYOR PRO TEM JIM GUTHRIE:
(1) Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC). Received presentation from the
California Space Authority regarding visitor center being developed at
Vandenberg just outside of the Base which will include an amphitheater to watch
future launches; Received presentation on the latest Dalidio project; Sponsorships
are coming in to the EVC and the financial status of the organization is on more
solid ground.
(2) Other. None.
c. COUNCIL MEMBER JIM DICKENS:
(1) South County Area Transit (SCAT). Approved Budget; will consider purchasing
a hybrid bus which will be a first in the County; Issues regarding extension of
route to Strother Park have been resolved — noted that ridership from the adjacent
mobilehome park is low; however, student and resident ridership has increased.
(2) South County Youth Coalition. No report.
(3) Other. None.
d. COUNCIL MEMBER JOE COSTELLO: (ABSENT)
(1) Zone 3 Water Advisory Board. Received Lopez recreation and activity reports
and recreational use is slightly down from last year; talked with staff about bids for
upgrade of the water treatment plant.
(2) Ai� Pollution Control District (APCD). No report.
(3) Fire Oversight Committee. The Fire Consolidation Oversight Committee met;
changes in the scope of work were accepted; consensus was reached to
establish an ad-hoc committee to explore joint dispatch opportunities; developed
regular schedule for monthly meetings and will rotate locations; elected Grover
Beach Council Member Steve Lieberman as Chair.
(4) Other. None.
e. COUNCIL MEMBER ED ARNOLD:
(1) Integrated Waste Management Authority Board (IWMA). Discussed addition of
household batteries as hazardous waste; will be drafting Ordinance; there was
concern about capacity at landfill.
(2) California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA). No report.
(3) County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC). Primary discussion at
meeting was in regard to the County's Rural Planned Development Ordinance,
and a recommendation was made to ask the Board of Supervisors to stop the
process due to the limited water resources within the County.
(4) Other. None.
13, CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS:
None.
14. CITY MANAGER ITEMS:
None.
15. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:
Mayor Ferrara reported he would be traveling to Los Angeles on Friday to attend a League of
California Cities Public Safety Policy Committee meeting. He also reported that he and Mayor
Pro Tem Guthrie would be meeting with Public Works, Salmon Enhancement, Resource
Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 5
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Conservation District, and a representative from Congressman Thomas' office regarding the
creek maintenance program, including potential funding.
16. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
17. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
Steve Ross, Arroyo Grande, commented on projects at the Police Department and adjacent VCA
Animal Hospital as it relates to the existing trees. He expressed concern that the City is taking a
short term view of the site and noted the age and viability of the non-native trees indicates they
are at the end of their usable lifespan. He stated this would be an opportunity to take out those
trees and replace new trees with a treescape that would last into the future.
Joel Couser, Arroyo Grande, referred to the presentation of the Habitat Conservation Plan and
commented that the State and Federal Governments were taking City financed Lopez water and
not replacing it. He said they should be replacing the City's water source.
18. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Ferrara adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
Tony Ferrara, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk
(Approved at CC Mtg 1
PaROra $•@•
O� c,P
� � INCOHFOF�TED 92
V T
* '"`T �°, ,°„ * MEMORANDUM
c4��FORN�P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER��/
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF FUNDING REQUEST FROM DESTINATION
IMAGINATION
DATE: APRIL 25, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council appropriate $1,000 for a contribution to the Ocean
View Elementary and Judkins Middle School Destination Imagination Global
� Competition teams.
FUNDING:
The cost impact of the recommendation would be $1,000 from the Fund Balance of the
General Fund. If approved, an adjustment will be made in the next quarterly budget
report.
� DISCUSSION:
During the past five years, the City Council has received and approved funding requests
from the Destination Imagination program for costs associated with teams from Arroyo
Grande representing California in the Global Finals competition. Last year, the City
Council approved a contribution of $2,000. A reduction is proposed this year due to
budget constraints and the number of mid-year unanticipated expenditures that have
occurred.
This year, two teams are competing from the Lucia Mar Unified School District - one
from Ocean View Elementary School and one from Judkins Middle School. Both teams
have members from Arroyo Grande. The City of Pismo Beach and County Board of
Supervisors have also been requested to approve donations. Both jurisdictions have
provided financial support in the past.
The Global finals will be held at the University of Tennessee on May 23 — May 28, 2006.
Destination Imagination is a world problem solving competition. A copy of their request
is attached.
CITY COUNCIL
FUNDING REQUEST FROM DESTINATION IMAGINATION
APRIL 25, 2006
PAGE 2
ALTERNATIVES:
, The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Appropriate and approve a contribution of$1,000 to Destination Imagination;
- Approve a contribution of a different amount;
- Do not approve a contribution;
, - Provide staff direction.
�
Attachment:
1. Funding request from Mike Liebo
i
�
S:�Administration\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports�Destination Imagination Report 2006.doc
Rt ;:=!'�lE�)
FROM: Mike Liebo (Coordinator of Destination Imagination) f�i T'; i'i- !,i;`r n r�; „;. -
TO: Steve Adams and the Arroyo Grande City Council Qn �°� I 9 )"j�j ��: �j� '
CONCERNING: Global Finals funding for Ocean View and Judkins Middle School
For the fourteenth yeaz in a row the Lucia Maz School district will send two teams to
Global Finals in Tennessee. This year there will be an elementary team from Ocean View and a
team from Judkins Middle School. Our teams advanced by winning regional finals, which was
held at Arroyo Grande High School in Mazch, and by placing in first or second at state finals,
which was held in Sacramento in April.
This year we are requesting $]000.00 to help our local students compete. There aze
eleven students on both teams. The amount we are requesting will basically cover the expenses
of one student.
At the beginning of the school yeaz, over three-hundred students in elementary, middle
and high schools aze involved in the Destination Imagination prograzn. It has the lazgest
participation rate of any academic competition in our area. Funding allows students,who may
have difficulty covering the expenses, participate. Out local students appreciate the
contributions the city of Arroyo Crrande has made on behalf of this program.
Sinc� ��
Mike Liebo
8.f.
� pRRO��
p C,p
� INCOflPORATED 9.t
� o MEMORANDUM
� JULY 10. IBI1 *
c4��FORN�P
To: cinr couNCi��
- i�r
FROM: TONY AEILTS, CHIEF OF POLICE
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS BICYCLES
DATE: APRIL 25, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt a resolution declaring the listed bicycles as surplus
for donation to the San Luis Obispo County Sheriffs 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 Sheriff's 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 or were 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# COLOR
0501457 Schwinn OM111415 Black
0501865 Rincon MY016849 Green
0501489 GT SCH107571 Blue
0501768 Huffy KK03136729 Chrome
0501628 Mongoose None Found Red
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS BICYCLES
APRIL 25, 2006
PAGE 2
CASE # MANUFACTURER SERIAL # COLOR
0501791 Verticle 349403607 Yellow
0501664 Huffy YK6696 Pink � -___ _
0501533 Huffy OL99E41549 Blue
0501871 Huffy C8207326903 Red
0501881 Magna 8597-2005 Purple
0600006 Manchester None Found Red �
0600024 Nishiki S9C42961 Red
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
-Approve staffs 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 ,
2006
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
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
, 8.g.
� pRROyp
p C�
FINCONPORATED 92
° " MEMORANDUM
# JULY 10, 1011 y
c9��FORN�P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
� FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER�
��� SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE FINAL TRACT MAP 2310 — PHASE II;
' SUBDIVIDING 8.2 ACRES INTO FIFTY-TWO (52) RESIDENTIAL
i PARCELS, ONE (1) PARK PARCEL, AND ONE (1) DRAINAGE BASIN
'J PARCEL AND TO APPROVE RELATED EASEMENT AGREEMENTS
� WITH S&S HOMES AND THE SOUTH SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
SANITATION DISTRICT
DATE: APRIL 25, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
II� It is recommended the Councii approve Final Tract Map 2310 — Phase II, subdividing
: 8.2 acres into fifty-two (52) residential parcels, one (1) park parcel, and one (1)
drainage basin parcel.
FUNDING:
There is no fiscal impact at this time.
' DISCUSSION:
I Tract 2310, owned by S&S Homes, includes 10.3 acres and is separated into two
phases. The tract is located south of Soto Sports Complex, north of Farroll Avenue,
east of Dixson Street and west of Golden West Place. The map is for Phase II of the
subdivision, which divides 8.2 acres into fifty-two (52) residential lots ranging from 2,893
to 5,517 square feet in size. Phase II includes an 11,047 square foot pa�k parcel and a
34,310 square foot drainage basin parcel.
Currently, iwo utility lines border the eastern edge of the property. The City owns and
operates a 48" reinforced concrete pipe that conveys storm water drainage from Farroll
Avenue to the Soto Basin system. The South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation
District (Sanitation District) owns and operates an 18" clay sanitary sewer trunk line that
collects wastewater from approximately half of the City. Relocation of these utilities is
required to construct the homes along the eastern edge of the site. The Sanitation
District does not allow sewer laterals to connect to their lines. Therefore, once the
relocated utilities are constructed and operational, the City will accept the relocated
I; sanitary sewer trunk main within the project limits. This allows sewer laterals to connect
directly to the sanitary sewer trunk main and saves the installation of an additional
parallel sewer main to serve the homes on the eastern edge of the project.
The relocation of these utilities will re uire that the Cit and the Sanitation District retain
q Y
the existin easements until the new utilities are constructed and o erational. Attached
9 p
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE FINAL TRACT MAP 2310 — PHASE II;
SUBDIVIDING 8.2 ACRES INTO FIFTY-TWO (52) RESIDENTIAL PARCELS, ONE (1)
I PARK PARCEL, AND ONE (1) DRAINAGE BASIN PARCEL AND THE SOUTH SAN
� LUIS OBISPO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
APRIL 25, 2006
PAGE 2
are an agreement between the City and S&S Homes for the storm drain relocation and
� an agreement befinreen the City, the Sanitation District, and S&S Homes for the sanitary
� sewer relocation. The Sanitation District Board of Directors approved the sanitary
sewer relocation agreement on April 5, 2006. The attached resolution authorizes the
Mayor to execute the agreements with the Sanitation District and S&S Homes.
The current zoning for this tract is Condominium Townhouse (MF). The Final Map is
consistent with the approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map 02-002, approved by the City
Council on November 25, 2003.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
• Approve staffs recommendation;
• Do not approve staffs recommendation;
• Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendation; or
• Provide direction to staff.
Attachment: Attachment 1 — Final Tract Map 2310 — Phase I I
Attachment 2 — Storm Drain Easement Agreement
Attachment 3 — Sanitary Sewer Easement Agreement
S:1Public Works�Engineenng�Development Projects\Trecl Maps\Trect 2310-Farrol Estales�PhUISE II\CITV COUNCIL\MP.P APPROVAL\Council Memo-
Approval of Final Map for T2ct 2310.tlx
� _ _
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY �
OF ARROYO GRANDE CONDITIONALLY APPROVING
EASEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR STORM DRAIN AND
SANITARY SEWER PURPOSES WITH THE SOUTH SAN
LUIS OBISPO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT AND
S&S HOMES FOR TRACT 2310
WHEREAS, S&S Homes received approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2310 on
November 25, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the City and the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District own,
operate and maintain storm drain and sanitary sewer improvements within the project
limits, respectively; and
WHEREAS, S&S Homes is required to relocate existing storm drain and sanitary sewer
facilities to facilitate construction of homes on Lot Nos. 26 through 39.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande, as follows
1 . The City will accept ownership of the relocated storm drain when all project
improvements are fully constructed and accepted.
2. The City will accept ownership of the relocated sanitary sewer main from the
South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District when all project improvements
are fully constructed and accepted.
3. The City will quitclaim all interest in the existing storm drain easement when such
alternate improvements are fully constructed and accepted.
4. The City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby approve the
"EASEMENT AGREEMENT" for storm drain purposes and the "EASEMENT
AGREEMENT" for sanitary sewer purposes and authorizes the Mayor to execute
the Agreements.
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 2006.
Resolution No.
Page 2
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER I
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
�
N .
�
ATTACJ�AE4�Tx� �
a U � �$ 8
g � g .
� �� � � a �
a
����� �� �� a � N �� ��
� �� ,� �a � � ���
��� tl . 04 $��
Y
�b � k � . D�j $
��'�� � �� � �� � I O �� ��� S
r ����� " �� � �� Z �$�g � ' Z �� �� 3
� � �g � � $� � � � ,� � Y# n � _� b��
°' � � m 4
� �:� � �s � � s 1 � z �€ � (� Z y ��
� ���� � � a � I� � � �� � � � .�
�
�
� �5 �t� � � � � � � � � � �� �^ � ��
a���� a € � 8� a �€ � �� � � z � �� � f'—
� �
������ ���� s� �" n�� �
� €�� �S ° � �
������ E�g� �€ � ��.IIe ��� �� �
�3 � �� ��@I� � �� s � $
������ ���e �� � ��� aq ' �, � �� 3
� �{ y � �� �€
���g�� ���� ��i zo � �� � d$� �� i� � �. � �pg$��£
�g����� � �a��� � �� � F � £ � ��� �� a' � � �� d����
� j��j
C L��'�� �� '-,�'�y ���C� �� � FS� � q �b� �� � �g ��','Qi
_ ..�M�5��!f� �� ,f� ���� � � ��� �� � �� � � �8� �� F
� #� � r �� � �1��p ��� �� � �� A �¢ ��� �€�
������s a � � ��aa� a ��} �8 � �� � �� � S ��� C&
� � R
���R�g�� ����� ���� � � � ��� ' � � �� � ��� � .�� .
� ���5��� � ��� � 8 � g S�. � � .i �� B S g
$�����������°a ��� � � � � ��� �: � ' `� ��� � �
" �� w "���� ' �� � � - �� � _: �� �
����$����¢���� ��� s����� ; � � �� ��� k¢���� ` ;;� � � �R���� � � �
�
����������eg�� ��� a°� � � � �°� `: �� , ��� ��� �
�g���������� � � �g����� � �� � ����R�� � �� ; �,�� ������� � �
������������ �� � ��� � �s s� � �y � t� � �
� �€�a��� ��� � � � �� � � �� �t ��� �': � i� ' Y� � ��� � �
��#�� � g��m yn g a � �a nn �gf a e, vo �° $ ; �
��a������������ � �E� a�� ��� � � � �� s � c� ag4 ��� � � �� c�� G� a<& ��� � � �
�
lOT 108 ��Tp8 IJpE 1PBtE t^ CUAYE TA �TM i i
A/NB/BS � .• � sares �
AYV.yPF IOfI� p�a Ll 1. � .N G fOW 540J' x$ S.DJ
Wmiaw. r�nrtP�+Mq ioa�Y�pnrtaN u n r � wo .r zvao'
suww u s nro. z .w a mmrov n.00' � � .ro
u aa us wm a eam•m nm
� x e
ci �sze xa� u� �n. un'
lik ' I�I T�I ax v aa > „u'r i x m , rv' ne. n xa
� � E� r���f..I I' .9 B . a ; Of' 6N'
I �6.RI9 R ' I II ( L� M ` I) ']e W 11/D CII LB'1L'1� R f` 1 W
N pWYELmB( L�I X LM W
II.B/lKR �..� YBYL610IA � � t�➢ .1 5�. Uf . RM n] iC� 33� R '
� L _ (1 4_� JJI I� LII R�W L� S 1 µ MB 6Y IAA
,� �_r �;; ,�� a,
-� - - - � L___ � us �.� cuu �w �n'V ns anxr � K.r'
- - '" --*+°- � — r--- R�o us >. m u m� v..w
(y� �' ' �lAb[ OlN �y LIJ LO W M 140 �l 9l :l �3.V
`(Jr�Y4 2 iAY02 A �ffM L� 34tl K 1! U� • • k .1' \ N�1'
L y��— - --..�$0 tl XID N m t x.�o h .5v'
R/W L� 1'+O PM. 1).
w.b' A �� �G iAM 2) ta� . W cn '�
w g = �
JI/) M1 I �Y NO YY �fYN 11' M0 lM e 1�• i11
1/� PI 11.
-- � a; e � p � r 8 `1 'I :e � ' N� .o � r z�:
� 3W R Ry {�y ' �D� �6� 91 99i* y 3Ip♦ . IS> �Y]c MD �.
a � �I � 8 W � "' 6�I � I 29q � P/-0 �3
K h I �
_ _ 0.
lAS+P R � I sIf1V[ tl9 f �IY� •!�I 5 .., f.
� y�. � sN U, '.x
¢x I � ims+x. s�vae € __ . I
i 19' m � LEC£w0�uatu�u[n1 Hoi[s �'u ur� w�
om 4/n x �wUR � al01E wY � �leTt+s A Fp � iO11ND 5 e � ) A
N a MEASIIRm �9 {1
�' x t e SR4 q R� J M 2 � I R1Y p ftM. = fl.�DIAL G1B ♦ �
O ' �y g � _ I j� I ?i 2\ P.U.E.- PVPLIC UiILITY EASEMENT S 0 i.M
C� Ia � 9 wdY .rqla aa er�}n .I b m ice uM eo�wt xv .
4IA4 rt µy
V� _ � 3TM F R AA M 24I � �� O.R. � 0(fC1OAL iFCOR� 1 l0'fl .W 4 1190
l
rN ';�„ '� A' a I 4�.Eql/e.l � Rl = iP/.Ci Na. 1]69. 16 MB 66 CN �Y't ] �t�' i•�
�I (� � 6M R2 = iRACT No. }9B, 1 MB 4] � �ar� TM
4tMq6V ��T1� � �91fOT
� ft] � iRACT No. 1650, tl MB 3l
S011bi R� {�iW A' R� = iRNCT No. T314-I. _NB__ � ' .�
� � !p 68 II R R�' . FOUND NONUMENT I,5 NOl(D. � � � �m �..
� lIp�!�[� {W�{2 � � � • � FOUNO YF11 MIXJIIYlNt Fffl Ri.fl3. R1. .b '.P
�i I ' ,y� ♦ � Gq1NU Npl MONUYENl STAY?E�l.5 S6)3 PER F1. �i�
- - 1}o w rt ' r�
A/(!ap IGI 6 • = fOUND 1 1/2�tG W/iAG LS�i38 PER P4. N. 1
� J W N ,I 9 O m 2T 1'LP W/T�G l3 6325 MW AT ALL LOT CURNFRS y , � y
p/� a t.V+i R 4fJJ4 A V 1 I p � 3T MELL NCNU�ffNT SiAMPEO t5 6]25 cy H�
4W Y 4 2/ �MVm[ �f T 1 ]� 161 A s 90'
_�SMl4 p0 1 ah.�
, - - � ��'t' "f p.' . °°� �� I
�e a es�n a+ S �^
� as«Ra rg Ara..n a �y¢ �t I I
_'__ '* '__" �auan.
- - � r . �J � is'we r�w vx ws mma cuxrv summm� � iu r.me ru.[.snan mu wwm+c.�ra
- - - �' q � a cau+rt �TI °� � main snw ur¢r�vmrt rw mu�ixi.vr¢ uxxmrww�v.sryw*m wc cm v�.aew
� M1v��Rp�j a i � 1 irv n mu ox wureE. w oNw+.�L
q� 9 .-Li 9�-' eQ n'Yoc an or unoro mnrioe onrvux w.wn �c �Yoc�c�w�awia,�F.rsaexr.a¢m�w
< m --W� 5 uvurt reA ma iem vnx w.oe. 9rtc*�. "
� � � m m_ ��. �� Qc x'.me uwu.ra svn mwm um g.w � vwa.aE rm.x se�smw nca8 c.mawr.srE
�I � � - � wwas w s�c an a uao+o mumc oerui a a¢+�.
/ e 1+g1 .� �i!�I r I_ NI_ ` � Q° iu wrc cns�«r mx ra,iu ue nwvogs.o Q m'woe r�mir�,r EwsEUrHr,m rcr.0 ax s¢cr
y � ��� l� i{ I �, 1 TS bT'6 APROttI QNIOE. J.
6y 81 a �a P I O.� �a E' s3�I_ �z y` n�' �0 g � � am Q zs�.cc c.a�m+.mn xnmi ua.t�...ro -'
b ' a f. g R� �f �I � n aI a9� a rccu ro nrt om or uuow aM�re.
C �
I � �� ��� � ' � I '
� � �' �' TRACT NO. 23 ! O-2
p 1�1WP� 1N:IY . �1 p n li �py W
DM1Y(]MbP�� _ _ .Wi1Y1]M.M6%501N_ _
�,,,,, -� =e����z ,,,a,�n,,.,,� b ��w IN THE CfTY OF ARROYO GRANDE,
F�� wno SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY,STATE OF CAIIFORNIA
�NlpA 6l�qN�A PdRTON OF LOT 1]OF pRAp9WCH&1flG@15 AS
I I BASIS OF BEARINGS ��'��EOrt�eomc3.vnce�s�uwsw�ccv�ovT�
�iMRCWIM41110NC eo' ]0' U W �1Y 2 GUN(IVf�COflOEROFS/�IOCOIMIN
- i�o�`nm.umissv,im ��,uwc a Mea•n'oo'E u»w TME
W�F t5U yi � w � � CEPIiFRUNE O'fAWR9LL RPM1D AS:J10MN
� WE6iMiE`�OAOE.G 9�%] i tc.�E�' � � ON NM(Y 1RACi N0. 1]b9� HI YB H M.4S .NLY 2005
� �.��2 � �0�s ME B.a95 oF BEl.rew0.t rox nas SNEEi 2 OF 3 SHEETS
25 � m I I I
x.
52 z�r+rt >m � � - _ xsa n._ _ _7 J I I I
.��..:,�. ram[
� � a.�r ra rt j__ �j �
Y ?4 ___� Z f I ___`__�_-____ ' ' I
$I I(OU+6 R. � IIV4.'mF �I� � S
.: i I r___`_i__—______ _
��o � ^�
� � + .v � 51 � 62 i - i.rami �wa
_ ° �— v. — �.rH w n. trri�s n. � � I I 1eo�a rt i I
i�Y _
-----,.�a ------ r c��a-` z`e _L __ --�'- � '� � i.n vm
{ "'r "a� �
i � �� �� 4\f . � 70 �� < � a.xn y n. � �
23 � a ♦rrne. m I I
� {YI 4 2 YV � � e] 4110 A M1
_________
_�____ ��f� ' 29
SOf
zz � _ � ` � I a9 e� I �p 1 N l.v»x
�m+s 2 aw.a rz arzr+w rt wy I 9 5� �r na'
am
Z
iiAl2 AOY Y <
I � — ----�— � s�" � b--I � � a'«�. �
y�scn__p_� i�S � � � � c seasan � .
� ;,.a2 � ,�, __ti_ � � —�---
e.x ���` - ----um---L i � � -L_--- - w�n 31 sv
f dy m �wqn
A/l]1a R �� � / �ss� � RI J�R. I S
� �� i� ��' �
47 I � � Z u.r:.e
4 assw n 1 � sw+�v gLt s°° � ax �
� I � p ��
IB � ��" �3 � ' 1� — � �' -
♦�nw 2 9 � I .pAY s G m s-- 33
w� <"' g NQ SCACE $ I �j �y (PRIV�TE_j m SIREETI m ' �y aew s rt
__��� 2 2 � I _ ��f`+ � � �8 @ I � � �� ' I 4' �c F
tt � I a
1..>nR I � �,f n/ i � _ ' -j - -� - -}—i � \ e < � sm i.«:.e S
su! Z 4l' / I 16 � � I j W Z __�.m_
�6Yt ¢w � � I n � I ' 1�'h 1 I - � g .y �aw1[ � rrr
� _ I ° I 9 � I 1 � „ 76
SW w 2 � I b � II! � S°� � Q-1 im j �g � z < S/ll�T R
. ' I I I � __ _ .' _ -_
_ a I ' __. _ " ___- '_ - " _ __
_ _' _ ' . . _%. _ I - 45 _. . _M_' �' 43- IZ- - - ,aK�-� p
41- I. ..10 f p.
_ ' _. __' ____._ _ _ _ ' .. _ _ - �' Ssuart. � IINqR. STYqM1 �I �UtDYR sessart. 1 <xt.�R; �� �Z �°_
Qis'wx sam�sw uu aa�o mn�n wnuv� � � m 39
�mn uri rwvrr�rtn aw��x�.r�¢ � I � � �
J pc--� :m I yo. t� g �.mv.�rt
I �'� � 1 @"j aen {� �� `4y�
s0 �e+oc wx er.wow mroc w�w�a w^ux¢ � I — I x
�r.sNd�rv aov iaa ri.tt�R on. ' � � I
COA'KE R 21AR M SAA1 OW�W 4KR � _ �iMO[ �/ S�KtM 8' o-]"/]Yat' ; �
�s ro M ett 6 umew /�m[. II[KUeL1I' � raAO[ �wb4 �E�'[ Y Y '.eV6mC .'S�l+!' n��sm � FARRfMJ.
R m� �-�aso' �$j �+eao'� AVE�1E
Q �i c�s�ro�u�nwvES.o � A�
FAARML �-xzu
� �ss m`�w�[Gn 6�vx�.nrro
FASEMENT DETAIL SHEET
�v �c aoc>.uE.s�.�n¢.u:ee.uo z
'�"��`�°°A�`°"°�°p Z `� TRACT N O. 23 10-2
a�. < g
wm oa+w�ae. � u��
� sai anor uwv�nxa�umrxr.sc oc*ui a �
Ea m {N THE CIT'OF ARROYO GRANDE,
NOMIIAL YpM RIXTiNN1 K295 U411PI1.SEF m �
on„k w sar x ��,a. a.w.a n :�.c 2 '�eNYa� SAN LUIS OBISAO COUNTY,STATE OF CAIIfORN1A
N'ML'C VI.IXWY FISLEML.YE 1£iN W 916i ♦�
Q � 9� p �A'� rnres'oY BEIN6ASU8UMSWMOFAPONt10NOFlOT1JOFP1911Q8EP0AGN9EKS/5
�'}�j OETA/L 'A� OETAK 9" +) p.�s.w' pEpW,vrtECpROEpIN8001(AP�GEI50FMMS�1MEOfFICE.O��
��j(�� � / ��.0 PR COIHIYRECdt0ER�3NDWUMTY
�Jfii trtTSYY ,
fNMIRiAWR10KMC .v��n.m'
]1011YtNWfSM[E%H��[�'M�U t��isT � '�T�
SunF�so �$Y o-rsmz�v- fARROLL rm�u'sz' M
..... NfS�IMfY1Kf.G%b3 � R�u00' A� R�IiAq' P SHEET } Of J SHEET$
g�llMe Ws.aaSb5T3 w..�+ � L=Sw AYEt�X/E L-9.]T �$
' ATTACHMENT2
WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO:
City of Arroyo Grande, Califomia l
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
EASEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, is made this day of 2006; by Parkside
Viliage LLC, hereinafter called "Owner" and City of Arroyo Grande, hereinafter called "City".
WHEREAS, Owner desires to record a final map for Phase Two 'of Tract 2310 (Tract 2310-2), a
� residential subdivision within the service area of the City; and,
� WHEREAS, City owns the current storm drain and easement located on Owners property, Tract
' 2310-2, which will be abandoned once the replacement system is installed and accepted by the
City; and,
WHEREAS, City, as a condition of approval for Tract 2310-2, will own replacement storm drain
and easement as delineated on the final map; and,
WHEREAS, In order for City to provide such storm drain service, Owner desires to offer
necessary easements and storm drain line rights transfers, and City desires to release interest
in certain easements once storm drain improvements have been installed; and,
WHEREAS, Owner and City desire that ownership of the ,physical storm drain system
improvements constructed for Tract 2310-2 be transferred from Owner to the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, said Owner and City hereby covenant, promise and agree as follows:
1. That said Owner is the owner of the property described in',Exhibit A.
2. That said Owner does hereby irrevocably and in perpetuity offer to City the physical
storm drain system improvements and an easement for a public storm drain system
including mains, services, and related appurtenances, over the area described in Exhibit
B. The purpose of said easement shall include installation, operation, inspection,
I' maintenance and replacement of public storm drain facilities.
I 3. That said Owner does hereby irrevocably offer to City a temporary blanket easement for
storm drain system including mains, services, and related appurtenances, over the area
described in Exhibit C. The purpose of said easement shall include installation,
operation, inspection, maintenance and replacement of storm drain system facilities.
This easement offer shall remain in effect until such time as it is replaced with defined
easements acceptable to the City. It is the intent of both Owner and City that this
blanket easement will be replaced with easements over the areas with the recordation of
Tract 2310-2.
EASEMENTAGREEMENT '
PAGE20F2 !
!
4. That Owner does hereby agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City and accept
liability associated with abandoning the current storm drain system located on Tract
2310-2 in order to facilitate the release in interest by City.
5. That City, in order to facilitate the release, shail quitclaim all interest in that storm drain
easement as described in Exhibit C, effective upon City acceptance of new storm drain
system. ,
6. The Owner agrees that these offers and agreements have been made for a valuable
consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged.
7. The Owner agrees that this agreement is irrevocable and perpetual and shall be binding
on its heirs, legatees, successors and assignees. ;
8. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is hereby executed by said Owner and City on
the day and year first above wcitten.
SIGNATURES: ;
Attach notaries for'ali signatures: 1 '
OWNER: 1 ' %
ar side Village LLC, Wa ren Sanders Managing Member
CITY:
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE BY: �
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR '
ATTEST:
i
KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
;
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
, �
,
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
��'�'���'1^�.��.�'�-s-�'�'.�-ti'��'`�'--���"�.C��'-s:�'��:'�'�z=!`.���-c����34<^ '�M�ti�
�y r
� �.
� State of California �
� ss. �
�S Counryof ��ita��..,5nh�<l� �,
<;
�, _� � ) � i�
;� On i^FftSluFlR�� �[n!„ beforeme, -tSm0.FR y J q��t �.� �5��, r
L�: oa Neme antl Tiile ol0nker e. :$
� g..9ane Ooe.rvotary Puelic"1
� (�
�.� personalry appeared Ai�R�—"A��>R!�\.�_{ZS , h
r5 Neme�s�ol5igner�s� ,,���'
��' S,personally known to me '��
�� proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
� evidence "�
�'
r`� to be the person(s) whose name(s{ is/ace �
;�j subscribed to the within instrument and
�, acknowledged to me that he/sqekpey executed �
�'�+� � the same �in his/her�fEpeiv authorized ��
'fi1 capacity(ies), and that by his/hesll�isir �!
i� � I�BERLYAOSAAON signature(s}on the instrument the person(s), or `i
:�4 CommimbnN16146C0 the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) '�'j�,
� � -d ��Y��•C� acted, executed the insfrument. �?
San Wb Obhpo CaoNY �}
� M�VC�•��P�. WITNESS my hand and official seal �
� �
i� `
� Wr NouryPu �
I�'-] �
� OPTIONAL ?�
t Though fhe inlormanbn 6elow is not required by law,it may prove valuable fo pereons relying on the documenf antl could prevent '.,�,',��
�I��� fraudulent removal and reaftachment ol fhis/orm to another tlocumenL ��
� tF3
Description of Attached Document �
<� (� r� -r^ n ?J;
�� Title or Type of Document: a�-h�rm � lm�w� T n��v,PA��' H�,��t-�?�.\�c �
�� i5
�a Document Date: Number of Pages:��-}�G�tt A-��
��y Signer(s)Other Than Named Above: �.,'h�J}�'
Z? �� Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer �
�s'
� Signer's Name: �
5 ❑ Individual ToPOfm�mbne�e �
�.. ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): �
� ❑ Partner —C� Limited ❑General �
� ��= Attorneyin-Fact �
�; _ Trustee C�
� i Guardian or Conservator t,�
�S � Other. �
�h Signer Is Represeniing: �'��,.,
r,�? r.
�c-'��,'�.�`-<,'._.�-_^�"��i.?!��'^��'is�E,`?`�.�.'�i;'�c.'Ci:`e�;l`�.".�-,c.���Y>G-�%c`�c:^�u•-�-'�'�.?Y.%a1
11999NalionelNOlaryASSaiaiicn�5350�e5oloAV5..P0.8ox2a02�GM1eiswonRCA9t3�32603•vm:�enaCOmino�aryorg ?�W.P:o.59W RearCecGallT011-Freet�dW�d]vA82]
EXHIBIT A
�
Lot 17 of Pismo Beach Gardens in the City of Arroyo Grande, County
of San Luis Obispo, State of California according to the map thereof
recorded September 3, 1924 in Book 3, Page 4,5 of Maps in the office
of the County Recorder of said County.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM, Lots 1 through 13 of Tract Number
2310-1 in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo,
, State of California according to the map recorded July 20, 2005 in
Book 26 of Maps at Page 83-84 in the office of the County Recorder
of said County.
EXHIBIT B
LOT 106 A MB 65
I I
� I
I LOT 17 (
l�IS�O �EA�F4 ��l�3DE�S I
( 3 Pvl� 45
i I I I
o �
M � THE AREA DESCRIBED IS THE I M
N t7 � I EXISTING 25' EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE CHANNEL
O � PER 1848-182 OFFlCIAL RECORDS. �� � O �
' Z CO I Z
r � � m
U �p U �
Q N I I Q I�
� �
I I
L �
� ��� lAN D S��
��,� GF —►I 25� ,
� I� PAT K T. COHCGRAN �;,,
� /� � u I
I �� No. 8325 Q- I
"9TF. . /z-ii-�b�e,�•
�F CAI��t�.
�
. a M N _ _ _ _ _ _
- -� — —
"' FARROLL AVENUE
z Q
a
Y 2
ma m5
� ProjectFARROLL ESTATES
SCALE.• 1°=100' Oescription:STORM DRAIN EAS£MENT IXHIBIT
100' 0 100' 200' �j. STpryTECCONSULTiNGINC.
J^ 3:vNOF1YWE5i1TKE?OJtf!A>,J
/�' Sllii':I50
GRAPH�C 5„LALE WES�tPKEVILWGE,G 91i6i
$}31712G OCS.d95.6522
Job No.: 170061.00.002 Date: 10-13-0.5
' i
I R[CORDINO R60ViST[C !r I ' oso�a;nr• EppApp90 �ECp I
City of Arroyo G:ende ooc. Ho: 2G509 0 �
::: � �::'_� �. UfFIC1Al RECORDS �OIE<I�F EQQQQa�
P. 0. Box 550 � 5AN IUIS OBISPU f:0:. CAL: .
, Arroyo Grendn, Ca. 97420 AUG 141975
♦Ne wMeh Reco�em ru�ro yn�t}pM E ZIMARIK ' -
COUNTY RECORDER -- �-
r � T1ME �:DO P.Nl� •
� Clty of Gr:cyo Grnnde '; �
«,�, 214 P. Braaoh St. �
•'"^' P. 0. Hoz 550 �
i"»��LArroyo Gzande, Ca. 93420 J i
e►AC6 AlOV[TXIe LIN[ FOR R[COROlR'6 USf
YR����I��YMI A
r � �
� "� � Citv of Arrovo Crande � DOCUMENTARV TRANSFER TAX S �E
w+ Zl� �. �_sII�. �. �cowre�[o an wu r�w[ or nonm conr�.eu,o�
�� P. 0. Aox SSO + �COMNifo OM wtl r�w!iN5 Utni I fNCUU���qCES ,
� �;R � � �INING EIIFON �I il\rF Oi SALf.
, v,� LArro=.o ;. --�nz, Ca. 93420 ,�4 � �F.r�� ,s�FJ ary C,EnR
� EASSMENT DEED �lTY�.OF ARROYO '
. iHIS fOI1M fVI1NISMEO�T lUI�EMf ISCIIOW COM�1M�
Pun A �ALLnIfLC Cll;:o.o..�����..�., �����,yi „� .�i:�cn ia ner'bv eeken�leAvM,
� ' ' ':'UYOSriI SAIk1M�l��, ItoBECT "n;,i17':D SAKAM01b. r eiogie man. end
•.n�rvKO 9AKAM..�T4, a etn�iP w�mmnn, ea�h ae re +n .und±vided one-[hlyd intereet
i
. h�rtb� CRAIYI'fS) �o ,
THE CITY OF etRR0Y0 CGANU6, A PLnicipnl Corporetlon,
i
15��'vti4..inS dvoibav rqi yrvye:ly in!i¢
, Counry o( Ssn L.tie Obiepo ,Ga1e oi(ilifomi�:
An o.naemene [or the purpoee o£ the conetruction, msiatenence and operation
. of n c:atnege channel Eor !he uee by the Crentee, aniA�easement to be a strip of
, lnnd c�urcy five (25) feet !a width lying westarly of, :psrallel, md adJacent to the
� eas[erly line of Lot 17 of PSamn Besch Gardene in the Couney of San iuie Obiepo,
. Stete of Cailfomia, according to Mep recorded SepCember 3, 1924, ir, c.:uic 3. °age 45
of Meps, in tne office of ehe County Recorder oE eaid County. Z17
�
� Q
i �
,
I
i
� De�ed Auwat 8, 1975 �� ____ _.. _
. � a f u ..e.l'.��-�s ; .
STATE OF Ctl)j'ORNI � 1 � -') I� t� r- �
rl1ln+Ty n:. uR... � �fl. . ..n_155. �y � �.a rl.. ll ..� �....�L-- 5�
. p� �'r � .• /9)1 helare me�he anda� .
' �i�ne4 a neun Publk in �ed Iv utd S�na parn.J11 �VR�reA _ __,__' ..
. �'ne.Tl, .°' .4' -C(Eli.ar..�-T
� �•�=��ats�"°`l�_0..i �
I / T
� ---_._ __ knewn m me ,
w M�M pee»����hwe n�mef_mMaibed ta Ihe wi�hin .
im�mmenl rod¢knovled{ed tM�eemed�he uma � ��'
m�7Hree y-�•r.d ._d c���a!_� • IIOt�AiJiy•6K2'Lt'..A
SINfI�I!
�/r0�.rw�CO�NflY
, Sitnnare ��.L« ai �. �'.i:ril.IQ.�i - vy.� .. . ..
� ._.., cnbx.ea:o
� s1lua N_ MaocaTCc
� N�m� lTryd m Rlmedl � ��u....r...�n.i.ww��r
I
� Tide Ord<t Ne. _ �E�erow ot Lam No '._,i:.�>'',�'.'.
��. m
� rui na nannMn�t Mnene•qv�� ��i�S1U PACC lU� �
� `��,��;.:.
�
RFC�'?�9ING REQUESfEO 8Y �
Mf�. RE1t1RN lD� � � ;
� lr:es n, a.t r_mM r�.y rt..�� �
GIT?' OF Ak!!DYO !=Re�7DE . I
P.O. 6ox 55C
Anoyo Grande, Calif. 9342�
k
�
� i •
� CERT1FiCATE GF ACCEPTdNCE �
THI3 LS TO CERTIF1' thet the iaterest i.n�r_al prnp<rl:
� .conveved 6y rhP dood nr orncr �-.�d dsrp� auaust 8. t975 .__ '
fro�_ F!tANK KAZUYOSHI SAKAMOTO, nOBERT ws�ii70!SAKIIY.OTO, a stngle man,
and CHIYOKO SAKF."^7�, = single �i�man, each as to�an undivided one-third
Tnterest
to Che Ctty of Arroy� Cra�de, a mur.icipal corporat:.^, is ':ereby
i
accep[ed in eccordence with deso;;,ti�:: .+o. a53, reccrd_d eh=. 2oth '
day of A��3uat, 196C, :n Vv'uae 1091, Otficial Recotda, page 344, N
i
San I.uis Obispo Connty, Caltfornia, end tlie Gran[ee conser.'.. r� �
�J
recordation thcreof. f (D
"`.. CataJ., �� `� ��' �
� i� ' . � ._ CITY YO CRANDE --�-- .
' By: �'�.O� ( ct�_.�����"" ,
� . MAYOR � �.
`:�'
' . . `��:`�' ATTESR': �
`' . . � �.�(.��� . .
, � .
� � GITY CLERK
i
�' �yC11��0 fAG ��:]J F{^�%�
, END Of. DOC1MEfli -��
wa.
EXHIBIT `C' �
LEGAL DESCRIP'I'ION
A temporary easement to the City of Arroyo Grande for the puiposes of public sewer
system and storm drain improvements, described as beins a portion of Lo[ 17 of Pismo
Beach Gardens, in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of
California, as per map recorded in Book 3, Pa?e 45 of Maps in the Office of the County
Recorder of said County, more specifically described as all of that portion of said Lot 17
lying easterly of the followin�described line:
Beginning at the intersection oF the southerly line of said Lot 17 with the easterly line of
Tract 2310-1 as per map recorded in Book 26, Pages 83 and 84 of Maps,in the Office of
the County Recorder of said County, distant thereon, South 89°45'00" West 451.49 feet
from the southeasterly comer of said Lot 17; thence along said easterly line the following
8 courses: '
ls` North 00°15'00" West 24.26 feet, to the beginning of',a tangent curve concave
easterly and having a radius of 276.00 feet; thence ,
2°d northerly along said curve through a central angle of 22°18'S7" an arc distance of
107.50 feet; thence
3`d North 22°03'S7"East 34.36 feet; thence
4`h North 00°15'00" West 56.34 feet; thence
5`h North 84°28'S7" West 53.16 feet; thence
6`h North 00°15'00" West 401.77 feet; thence
7`h North 89°54'19"East 15.91 feet; thence �
8`h North 00°OS'41" West 95.48 feet to the northerly line,'of said Lot 17.
Said easement is blanket in nature, shown graphically on Exhibit `G1' attached here to
and made a part hereof.
���� LAN D SL�L
s-
`� G
� pAT K7. CORCORA�� '�
� �
,�j, No. 6325 �F'
-9T r2�1-� 4�
F OF CA��F�
EXHIBIT C-1
LOT 106 A MB 65 �
N89'54'13'E 456.74'
�s ' �5�� L �p S/���
IENTATIVE iRACT �NO. 2310-'2 y '��
L
u PAT K . CORLU;,1PJ �
�s ; z'�
PORTION OF LOT 17 �
; ��. ,v�. sazs o ��-
PISMO BE�CH C/�E����lS �'�F oF Q��F°Ra
^
3 M B 45
�
i a
o a
m � �
N � 'n i+-)
M m
O � 3 , n p �
z � ° i �+ Z n]
U r ? ~ �
N °o A TEMPORARY EASEMENT TO THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE a Q �
� Z FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUBLIC SEWER SYSTEM o � �
AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS; BLANKET'IN NATURE z ,
i
�
L4
L3 LINE TABLE
tJNE BEARNING LENGTH
Li N00'15'00'W� I24.26'
� L2 N22'03'57'E �34.36'
L3 N00'IS'00'W '�56.34' •
L4 � N8428'S7"W 'S3.16'
LS N89'S4'19'E �15.91'
�� L6 N00'O5 41 W .95.48 �
CURVE TABLE !
CURVE DELTA RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT .
C1 22'18'57' 276.00' 107.50' S4.M'
�� N89'45'00'E ' 451.49' M
d. M N
_ —� _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'� Z FARROLL AVENUE �' Z
� � �
i
p� J m J
Project:FARROLL ESTATES
SCALE.• 1"=700' Description: 1EMPORARY EASEMENT EXMB/T
100" 0 100" 200' i I
; ,{�/� stannc coruu�nNC iNt
v � 3b NGRTn YJ?<nqKE 30ULEYA2D I
GRAPHIC SCALE J;' S��T=��o
-- WESIAKE`AtIAC{,CP 91367
$Ya1112t BG5.495.6522 e...�.� '
Jo6 No.:'170061.00.002 Date: 10-13—OS
ATTACHMENT 3
WHEN RECORDED, RETURN AND
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
City of Arroyo Grande, California
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
EASEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, is made this day of 2006; by Parkside
Viilage LLC, hereinafter called "Owner", City of Arroyo Grande, hereinafter calied "City", and the
South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District, hereinafter called "DistricY'.
WHEREAS, Owner desires to record a final map for Phase Two of Tract 2310 (Tract 2310-2), a
residential subdivision within the service area of the City; and,
WHEREAS, District is a sanitation services district authorized by the State of California to
provide sewer services within its service area and owns the current sanitary sewer line and
easement located on Owners property, Tract 2310-2, which wili be abandoned once the
replacement system is installed and accepted by the City; and,
WHEREAS, City, as a condition of approval for Tract 2310-2, will own replacement sanitary
sewer line and easement as delineated on the final map; and,
WHEREAS, In order for City to provide such sewer service, Owner desires to offer necessary
easements and sewer line rights transfers, and District desires to release interest in certain
easements once sewer improvements have been installed; and,
WHEREAS, Owner and City desire that ownership of the physical sewer system improvements
constructed for Tract 2310-2 be transferred from owner to the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, said Owner, City and District hereby covenant, promise and agree as
follows:
1. That said Owner is the owner of the property described in Exhibit A.
2. That said Owner does hereby irrevocably and in perpetuity offer to City the physical
sewer system improvements and an easement for a public sewer system including
mains, services, and related appurtenances, over the area described in Exhibit B. The
purpose of said easement shall inciude installation, operation, inspection, maintenance
and replacement of public water system facilities.
3. That said Owner does hereby irrevocably offer to District a temporary blanket easement
for a sanitary sewer system including mains, services, and related appurtenances, over
the area described in Exhibit C. The purpose of said easement shall include instailation,
operation, inspection, maintenance and replacement of sanitary sewer system facilities.
EASEMENT AGREEMENT
PAGE20F3
This easement offer shall remain in effect untii such time as it is replaced with defined
easements acceptable to the City. It is the intent of Owner, City and District that this
blanket easement will be replaced with easements over the areas with the recordation of
Trect 2310-2. �
4. That Owner does hereby agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City and District
and accept liability associated with abandoning the current District sewer system located
on Tract 2310-2 in order to facilitate the release in interest by District.
5. That District, in order to facilitate the release, shall quitclaim ali interest in that sanitary
sewer easement as described in Exhibits B and C, effective upon City acceptance of
new sanitary sewer system.
6. The Owner agrees that these offers and agreements have been made for a valuable
consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged.
7. The Owner agrees that this agreement is irrevocable and perpetual and shall be binding
on its heirs, legatees, successors and assignees.
8. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is hereby executed by said Owner, City and
District on the day and year first above written.
SIGNATURES:
Attach notaries for all signatures: �
OWNER:
Par side Village C, War n Sanders Managing Member
CITY:
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE BY:
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
;
;
;
EASEMENT AGREEMENT �
PAGE30F3 ;
APPROVED AS TO FORM: •
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
DISTRICT: '
�_ ( C�T�1/��..-- ;
JOHN LACE, DISTRICT ADMINISTOR �
SOUTH SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
�
j
i
i
i
I
:
i
I
�
CALIFORNIA ALL•PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California
� ss.
CounTy of e�A \ la��b�1t�cYj
•---
On i-eP,Ri.�AA�I , i c��n before me, °�mA ,� To 5 urrl.\ ��{e.5_+�6�� '
� �` Nameantl tleIN�cer�e.8��"�ana�oe7NOiaryPublic�
personally appeared �4CC'e1.\ VCLI�e n � ,
Nema(e)d Signei(s�
C�lpersonally known to me
❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence
to be the person(sj whose name(e� is/are
subscribed to the within insirument and
acknowledged to me that he/sqe/Haey executed
Ihe same in hls/h�[tk�eir authorized
capacity(ies), ' and that by his/perkheir
��Y�� signature(r� on the instrument the person(s�, or
Ca^mbsbn*�5�4640�i the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)
� 'O �ry��'C��� t acted, executed the instrument.
San Ltds OUbpo Counly � .
��01^^�������� Wl�my hand and official seal.
�, SIB�eW ol aryPWfc
OPTIONAL
Though the in/ormallon below is not required by law,it may prove valuable to persons retying on the documenf antl could prevent
/raudulent removal arrd reattachment o/this/orm[o arrother dwument.
Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document: e7
Document Date: Number of Pages:�e.X�tt tt-�-
Signer(s)Other Than Named Above:
Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer
Signer's Name: �
�
❑ Individual Top of�humb here
❑ Corporate Officer —Ttle(s):
❑ Partner— O Limited ❑General
❑ Attorney-in-Fact
❑ Trustee '
❑ Guardian or Conservator �
❑ Other:
Signer Is Representing:
m 1999 Nalional Nowry Auxiafion•9050 Da Sota Pve.,PO.Boa 2M2•Chauv.'oM,CA 91913-2a02•wvrx nationelnotary.org ProG.No.590] ReoNac Ca�l Tall-Frae 1�BOD-0)6692t
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
�, ',
State of California
ss.
CO�nYyO( 5(�AJ i.��S ��tS(J � } \
On nd'�� 1 ` �, �1�_be(ore me, l `A c��'��g�L r�r S� 1 C�pw�
�a�T� ` 1 Neme anE Tile ol 011ker�e.q,'Jaie Oae,No�ery AuGk�
personally appeared �`AV�,�1 � . �a � Q ��("iG4
Nama�a)al5iqereqs)
ersonally known to me
❑ proved to me on the basis of. satisfactory
evidence
i
ro be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
s�bscribed to the within instrument and
CHFISTINE BURKETT ,i acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed
J - COMM.#7373309 n the same � in his/her/lheir authorized
U NOTARYPUBLIC•CALIFORNIA� capacity(ies),� and that by his/hedtheir
F , . � SAN LUIS OBISPO COIINTY y signature(s)on the instrument the person(s), or
My comm.Expires on.a,2ooe the entit u on behalf of which the erson s
L_.�._.�-�..�,.v�e-�J Y P P � )
acted, executed the instrument.
i �ITNESS my hand and official seal.
�,.: ��--�..C .�'
sqne�iaa a NMery Pu4fc
� OPTIONAL
Though fhe in/omrafbn below is not required by law,it may prove valuable fo persons ielying an the dacumenl and could prevent
/reWalenf removal and realfachmenl o/this/orm lo enother docament.
Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document: �
Document Date: ,Number of Pages:
Signer(s)Other Than Named Above: '
Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer
Signer's Name:
❑ Individual � Toporm�mnnare
❑ Corporate Officer - Title(s):
❑ Partner-O Limited O Generel I �
❑ Attorney-in-Fact
❑ Trustee �
❑ Guardian or Conservator
❑ Other: �
Signer Is Representing:
� - - - - � � _ _ _ _ _ � �
91999 Ne�bnal NotaryASSOtlafian•9350 Oe So�oAVa.,P.O.Box 2d02�CMI,'xoM,CA 91319Q402�www.nalianaM1wlary.aig Pmd No.590] PeqOm:Catl TM4Free b800A]8-6021
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
.�LrP��t`���a.�u�::n�c.�Cc�c�;_ci�'`�'12�Z¢������w�`�^.c�2�-.,5�,�,e�'.sRek�tr-.�.%.d,�o.�;osr
I
State of Califomia l � ��
j SS. ,
County of �
��> �
`� On before me, ,
�j Oale Name antl Tnla of Omcer�e.g.,'Jarre Ooe,AbWry Publlc'�
k� personally appeared , �
NameUlalSqneqsl' `�
I
i� ❑personally known to me
❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence
° to be the person(s) whose name(s) islare
subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/stie/they executetl
the same in his/hedtheir authorized
capacity(ies), and that by hislherltheir
i. signature(s) on the insirument ihe person(s), or
the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)
acted, executed the instrument.
i„ WITNESS my hand and oflicial seal.
I
' aqnehne M Naery PubAc
OPTIONAL
Ti�ough Ihe inlonnaHon below is not required by law,!t may prove valuable fo persons relyin9 on fhe documenl and cauW prevent
Iteudulenl removel end reaffechmen(o!Ihis lorm fo anothe�dwument.
Description of Attached Document
Title or Type oi Documen[: '
Document Date: Number of Pages:
4
S(gner(s)Other Than Named Above:
° Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer
�� Signer's Name:
❑ Individual �, rovo�m�mnnera
❑ Corporate Officer —Title(s): �
❑ Partner—O Limited O General ,
❑ Atlomey-in-Fact _
❑ Trustee
❑ Guardian or Conservator
❑ Other:
Signer Is Representing:
� �. _ � �. .� . . � .� � � .=a.� _ .� � �. .� � .� �
O t999 Nalbnai NotaryASmtlallon�9350 Oe Solo Fve.,P.O.Box 2402�ChalswalM1,C�91Jt3�2�0P•wrrv.neliane4Mery.a�g ' Pmtl.No.59P1 Reatlec GII TdlFree L800.0]6689
'
EXHIBIT A
Lot 17 of Pismo Beach Gardens in the City of Arroyo Grande, County
of San Luis Obispo, State of California according to the map thereof
recorded September 3, 1924 in Book 3, Page 45 of Maps in the office
of the County Recorder of said County.
EXCEPTWG THEREFROM, Lots 1 through ; 13 of Tract Number
2310-1 in the City of Arroyo Grande, County, of San Luis Obispo,
State of California according to the map recorded July 20, 2005 in
Book 26 of Maps at Page 83-84 in the office of the County Recorder
of said County.
�
;
�
EXHIBIT B
LOT 106 A MB 65
I I
� (
LOT 17
I PISMO BEACH GARDENS I
I 3MB45 I
� � �
� � �' M � THE AREA DESCRIBED IS THE m
N r� EXISTING 75' EASEMENT FOR TRUNK SEWER �
, O � PER 1361-280 OFFICIAL RECORDS. � O �
Z 0] Z
, � � I � �
U �p U
Q cV I I Q I�
H H
I I
� �
� ���1.AN 0 S(� -I 15'
V��� �G�� I
� PATRICK i. CORCORAN � I
'� ���
' ���/
�j. No. 6325 Q- I
9�'�C- .iz- �'D �C'�
�F CAL\Fd
'r "� N — — — — —
_ _� _ _ _
1° Z FARROLL AVENUE Z
� ¢
aa � aZ
m � m5
Project:FARROLL ESTATES
SCALE.• i"=f 00' Description:SEWER EASEMENi OWIBIT
100" 0 )00� 200' ��^ STANTECCONSVLTNGING.
�wl 310 NOFTH W:SN.KE BO'JIEYA'.J
�' SUITE I50
G�PHIC SCALE - WES7W(EVIWIGE,CA 91's6i
$}dfI�EC 905.495.652Z
Jab No.: 170061.00.002 Date: 10-13—OS
esoon�a++s ornas ,
__ s,►e zuis oeisro oovnrz
_.� ..
; .
I ., ,. . �-a13S1 �280
. ^ �>�;:_' �
,
��
• 1
2 E A S E M E N T �
3 FOR .4 VALUA9LE CONSIDER4TION,, ceceipt oE which is hereby
4 acknrn+ledged, TAKI SAHAMOTO, a macried voman, R08ERT YOSHITD SAKA.-
5 DSOTO, a single man, and CHIYOKO SAKAMOTO, a single woman, do hereby
� , 6 grant to the South Lan Luis Obispo County Sani[ation Discrict, and
� �
` �n 7 I easemen[ for, and the righ[ [o construct, maintain, operate, and
i �
�7 `^ 8 use a sanitary sewer trunkline in, under and across of the herein-
z
� 9 aftec described property, � .
10 A right of way foc construction and maintenance
� of a trunk sewec' over the easterly 15 feet of
11 L�t 17 oE Pismo Beach. Gardens, in the County of
San Luis Obispo, State of California� as per map
12 recorded in eook 3, page 45 of Maps, in the office
� of the county recorder of said county.
13
�
c '
�� 14 Dated: March 2l;1965. ��7�
16 , 4`'�f'a(, :.�C�(2�n,���c�
' . Taki Sakamoto
�4
�#y � ;' � . .t�, _ -._c:. _;.i�_ . ' �.
' Robett oshito Sakamoto
'.�'1B ;v, :
... ,
19 f:�•�r_�--
' Chiyoko Sakamoto
20 ('� ..�..'._` �c.�.._
�
- 21 STATE OF CALIFORNZA ) �
)ss.
22 COUNTY OF SAN LUZS OBZSPO) , '
L ' '
23 On March ���-�, Z 965, before me. the undecsigned, a
24 Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared I
25 � TAKI SAKAMOTO, ROBERT YOSHITO SAKAMOiO, and CHIYOKO SA1c11MOT0,
26II known to me as Che perso��s whose names are subscribed to the witnin f�
i
27 �I instcument and acknowledged thet [hey er.=c•:ted the same. Q
- 28I WITNESS my hand and official seal, il7'
Z9 Ii lAN!R. TNOM%ON . . . ..L•��-���
I
, �i �,w.��..�o..�,.n.. Notaty Pub ic ir. and for said �,
$OI; ����^° 1��� , COUnty and St1te i
�
31 ij /�� 1'3' 1.1'19:^]]:1 i
EE I� 1fr � �,..M/P'kK �
�� - . �I•6011Po[OOIIR �
tM1A[li�[IR i C � '
TCwt����u� �
11��1M��qY nY�l
�� ���W�,�i�� ' l'�l
t r u
I I
i
faC011DCt9 OIRICL �
9�! LIIIS OEISPO COOPTS .
w�1361 �28�. k
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that [he interesi 1n real property convcyed
� by ihe .Lascmenc Decd
, , dat<_d �larcli S1 , , 1965.
from Taki Sakamoto, Cliivoko Sakanoto nku, Rohert Yoshi[o Sakamoto
to the SCUTH SAN LuIS OBISPO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICP, a
governmental aqency, is hereby accepted by �the undersig�ed
officer or agent on 6ehalf of the Board of Directors of �he
SOUTH .iAN LUIS OBISPO C17UN7�Y SANITATION DISTRICT, pursuant
to authority conferred by Resolution of the Board of Directors
of the SOUTH SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRIGT adopted
on Sune 23, 1965, and the grantee consents;to rec..rdation
thereof by its duly authorized o£ficer. � ,
� DATED: June 2.i , 1965
. SOUTH SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
� SANITATION DISTRTGT
�.�'SQf��
: �oeument NT pE u T� By.� � _,�
� R � Ch ' man E the Board
' y��''E������ � of D rectors
; r i i�a►•.-.•.��
s�'ll:{ii's oe�sao eouem.eu.
� AU6 'S 1965 �
� '� � �Qi►�.t�.�isti '
�
; ��ft�
� � �r
; Fee S- �^d°x°d
�
�
� .
EXFIIBIT `C' �
LEGAL DESCRIPTION ��
, A temporary easement to the City of Arroyo Grande for the purposes of public sewer
system and storm drain improvements, described as being a'portion of Lot 17 of Pismo
Beach Gardens, in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of
California, as per map recorded in Book 3,Page 45 of Maps in the Office of the County
, Recorder of said County, more specifically described as all of tHat portion of said Lot 17
lying easterly of the following described line:
Beginning at the intersection of the southerly line of said Lot 17 with the easterly line of
Tract 2310-1 as per map recorded in Book 26, Pages 83 and 84 of Maps in the Office of
the County Recorder of said County, distant thereon, South 89°45'00" West 451.49 feet
, from the southeasterly corner of said Lot 17; thence along said easterly line the following
8 courses: �
� 151 North 00°15'00" West 24.26 feet, to the beginning of a [angent curve concave
easterly and having a radius of 276.00 feet; thence
2"a northerly along said curve through a central angle of 22°18'S7" an arc distance of
107.50 feet; thence �
3`d North 22°03'S7" East 3436 feet; thence
I 4`h North 00°15'00" West 56.34 feet; thence
5`h North 84°28'S7" West 53.16 feet; thence �
6`h North 00°15'00" West 401.77 feet; thence
7�' North 89°54'19" East 15.91 feet; thence
8`� North 00°OS'41" West 95.48 feet to the northerly line of said Lot 17.
Said easement is blanket in nature, shown graphically on Exhibit `C-1' attached here to
� and made a part hereof.
� ��� �AN D SU�G
i i w� F�
�J �
i v pAT K T.CORCORr1N �
� �
�
� �j, . No. 6325 �Q'
'9T�C, i2� - �Q-�
OF �pG�F
� � i
EXHIBIT C-1
LOT 106 A MB 65 �
NB9'S4'13"E 456.74'
�.� �" � SU
L6 � �Gj �G
TENTATIVE iRACT N0. 2310-2 �� tn�
v
% PArRJ�K coecea,�N `-,��.
LS � I ati'v�cc/
� R
PORTION OF LOT 17 s
� No. 325 ,pb�P
PISMO BEACH GARDENS 9'�� oF � 4��F°��
�
3MB45
�
� o
O � a �
� �
N � iO M
M �
O � 3 n O �
Z � ° 3 Z m
r
� � �
�
Q N o A TEMPORARY EASEMENT TO THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE o Q �
� z FOR 1HE PURPOSE OF PUBLIC SEWER SYSTEM o �
~ AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS; BLANKETIN NAiURE °z
L4
L3 LINE TABLE
LINE BEARNING LENG7H
- Li N00'15'00'W '24.26'
L2 N22'03'57'E �34.36'
L2 L3 N00'15'00'W 56.34'
L4 N84'28'S7"W ,53.16'
L5 N8954'19'E '15.91'
LB NOOV541 W ,95.48
C1
CURVE TABLE
WRVE DELTA RADIUS ' LENGIH TANGENT
C7 2 'IB'S7' 278.00' - 107.50' S4.44'
. �� N89'45'00'E •. 451.49' M
'r "� a – –
– —� – – – – – –
"� Z FARROLL AVENUE , Z
� aa '' ¢ a
Project:FARROLL ESTAlES
SCALE: 1"=100' Description: 7EMPORARY EASEMENT EXHIBIT
)00' 0 )00" 200'
STANTEC CONSULTNG ING.
� 370 NORTi 4�ESMKE 90'JLEVAPD
GRAPHIC SCALE � \I,/��' suire iso
— WESMXE`/IWGE,CA 91362
$}dRfEC 805.495.E527
� Job No.r 170061:00.002 Date: 10-13–OS
_� �
80�■
� pRROYO
� CP
' INCOFPORATED 92 �
ti
u °
m
� JVLY 10, 1811 , MEMORANDUM �
c4��FOR��P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH CALTRANS
FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE BRISCO ROAD-HALCYON ROAD/ROUTE
101 INTERCHANGE PROJECT THROUGH PROJECT APPROVAL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (PA&ED)
DATE: APRIL 25, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the Council:
1. adopt a resolution approving Cooperative Agreement #05-CA-0140 between the
City of Arroyo Grande and the State of California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) for development of the Brisco Road-Halcyon Road/Route 101
Interchange project through Project Approval and Environmental Determination
(PA&ED); and
2. authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement.
FUNDING:
The amended Capital Improvement Program budget included $468,925 forthe preparation .
of the Brisco Road-Halcyon Road/Route 101 Project Report to complete the Caltrans
Project Approval and Environmental Determination (PA&ED) phase of project
development. Of this amount, $165,000 is Regional State Highway Account(RSHA)grant
funds.
DISCUSSION:
A cooperative agreement is required when a local agency proposes improvements over$1
million within the State highway right-of-way. A cooperative agreement is a legally binding
contract between the appropriate parties involved in the project. It documents the roles
and responsibilities for each party and defines what work will be performed, by whom,what
it will pay for, on what schedule it will be completed, and any other roles and
responsibilities. In this case, the City of Arroyo Grande is proposing interchange and ramp
improvements on State Route 101 from 04.km south of the East Grand Avenue.
overcrossing to 0.5 km south of the Oak Park Boulevard overcrossing.
This cooperative agreement is for the Project Approval and Environmental Determination
(PA&ED) phase of project development. It defines the roles and responsibilities for the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) compliance. A separate cooperative agreement will be required to cover
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH CALTRANS FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF THE BRISCO ROAD-HALCYON ROADIROUTE 101
INTERCHANGE PROJECTTHROUGH PROJECTAPPROVALAND ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION (PA&ED)
APRIL 25, 2006
PAGE 2
responsibilities and funding forthe plans, specifications, &estimates(PS&E), construction,
and right of way phases of the project.
For this cooperative agreement and phase of the project, Caltrans will be the CEQA lead
agency and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will be the Federal lead agency
for NEPA. The City of Arroyo Grande will be responsible for the public hearing process.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
• Approve the cooperative agreement;
• Do not approve the cooperative agreement;
• Modify and approve the cooperative agreement; or
. Provide direction to staff.
Attachment:
1. Cooperative Agreement
jep:M:�232-City of Arroyo Grande�232-5642-Brisco.101 PA&ED\Correspondence\Correspondence-Arroyo Grande\Council Meeting
02.28.06\Council Memo-Coop Agreement 0228.06.doc
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT #05-CA-0140 FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF THE BRISCO ROAD-HALCYON
ROAD/ROUTE 101 INTERCHANGE PROJECT
THROUGH PROJECT APPROVAL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (PA&ED)
WHEREAS, fhe City of Arroyo Grande desires improvements on State Route 101 through
Arroyo Grande, including modifications to interchanges and ramps, between East Grand
Avenue and Oak Fark Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, a cooperative agreement is required when a local agency proposes
improvements over $1 million within the State highway right of way; and
WHEREAS, Cooperative Agreement#05-CA-0140 between the City of Arroyo Grande and
the California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans)outlines each agency's roles
and responsibility for the Project Approval and Environmental Determination (PA&ED)
phase of the Brisco Road-Halcyon Road/Route 101 Interchange project; and
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed Cooperative Agreement#05-CA-0140
and has determined it to be adequate and complete; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby appoints the Mayor as
the official representative authorized to sign Cooperative Agreement#05-CA-0140.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande
does hereby approve Cooperative Agreement #05-CA-0140 between the City of Arroyo
Grande and Caltrans for PA&ED phase of the Brisco Road-Halcyon Road/Route 101
Interchange project.
On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council
Member and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this dayof ,
2006.
,
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
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
IDistrict Agreement#05-CA-0140
+ 05-SL0-101-PM 13.1/14.6
05-0A370
' PA&ED— Brisco
! COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, ENTERED INTO EFFECTIVE ON
is between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of
Transportation, referred to herein as "STATE," and
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE,
a body politic and a municipal
corporation ofthe State of
California, referred to herein
as "CITY"
RECITALS
1. STATE and CITY, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 130, are
authorized to enter into a Cooperative Agreement for improvements to State
Highways within the City of Arroyo Grande.
� 2. CITY desires State Highway improvements consisting of modifying interchanges and
ramps from 0.4 km south of the Grand Avenue Overcrossing to 0.5 km south of the
, Oak Park Overcrossing on State Route 101 in Arroyo Grande, referred to herein as
"PROJECT", and is willing to fund one hundred percent (100%) of all costs
necessary to complete project approval and environmental documentation (PA&ED),
except for costs of STATE's quality assurance of PA&ED activities.
3. This Agreement will define the CEQA lead agency, CEQA responsible agency, and
the roles and responsibilities of the CEQA lead agency and CEQA responsible
agency regarding environmental documents, studies and reports and compliance
with CEQA and NEPA.
4. STATE's funds will not be used to finance any of the capital and support costs for
preparation of PA&ED.
5. Design, construction and right of way activities for PROJECT will be the subject of a
separate future Agreement(s). �
6. The parties hereto intend to define herein the terms and conditions under which I
PA&ED is to be developed and financed.
I
Page 1 of 10
SECTION I
CITY AGREES:
1. To fund one hundred percent (100%) of all PA&ED costs.
2. To have a Project Report (PR), including all necessary environmental documentation
(ED), prepared, at no cost to STATE, and to submit each to STATE for STATE's
review and concurrence at appropriate stages of development. The PR for
PROJECT shall be signed by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California.
3. To permit STATE to monitor and participate in the selection of personnel who will
prepare the PR, conduct environmental studies and obtain approval for PA&ED, and
to permit STATE to oversee the performance PA&ED activities. CITY agrees to
consider any request by STATE to discontinue the services of any personnel
considered by STATE to be unqualified on the basis of credentials, professional
expertise, failure to perform in accordance with the scope of work and/or other
pertinent criteria.
4. To not use funds from STATE for any support costs for PA&ED.
5. To make written application to STATE for necessary encroachment permits
authorizing entry of CITY onto the State highway right of way to perform surveying
and other investigative activities required for preparation of the PR and ED.
6. To be responsible, at CITY's expense, for the investigation of potential hazardous
material sites within and outside of the existing State highway right of way that would
impact PROJECT as part of the responsibility for the ED for PROJECT. If CITY
encounters hazardous material or contamination within the existing State highway
right of way during said investigation, CITY shall immediately notify STATE and
responsible control agencies of such discovery.
7. To obtain, at CITY's expense, all necessary permits and/or agreements from
appropriate regulatory agencies for completion of PA&ED. All mitigation, monitoring,
and/or remedial action required by said permits shall constitute parts of the cost of
PROJECT.
8. All aerial photography and photogrammetric mapping shall conform to STATE's
latest standards.
9. A copy of all original survey documents resulting from surveys performed for
PROJECT, including original field notes, adjustment calculations, final results, and
appropriate intermediate documents, shall be delivered to STATE and shall become
property of STATE. For aerial mapping, survey documents to be furnished are three
sets of contract prints, with one set showing control; a complete photo index - two
prints and a copy of the negative, and the original aerial photography negative.
10. STATE's quality assurance activities referred to in Article I of Section II of this
Agreement do not include performance of any engineering services required for
completion of PA&ED. These services are to be performed by CITY. If CITY
requests STATE to perform any of these services, CITY shall reimburse STATE for
Page 2 of 10
District Agreement#05-CA-0140
such services. An Amendment to this Agreement authorizing STATE's performance
of such services will be required prior to performance of any engineering work by
STATE.
SECTION II
STATE AGREES:
1. At no cost to CITY, to provide quality assurance activities of all work on PA&ED done
by CITY, including, but not limited to, investigation of potential hazardous material
sites undertaken by CITY or its designee, to provide prompt reviews and approvals,
as appropriate, of submittals by CITY, and to cooperate in timely processing of
PA&ED.
2. Upon proper application by CITY, to issue, at no cost to CITY, an encroachment
permit to CITY authorizing entry onto the State Highway right of way to perform
survey and other investigative activities required for preparation of the PR and ED. If
CITY uses consultants rather than its own staff to perform required work, the
consultants will also be required to obtain a separate encroachment permit. These
permits will be issued at no cost upon proper application by the consultants.
SECTION III
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED:
1. All obligations of STATE under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the State
Budget Act authority, the appropriation of resources by the Legislature and the
allocation of funds by the California Transportation'Commission to STATE for the
purposes of fulfilling STATE's obligations herein.
2. The parties hereto will carry out PROJECT in accordance with the Scope of Work,
attached to and made a part of the Agreement, which outlines the specific
responsibilities of the parties hereto. The attached Scope of Work may be modified
in writing in the future to reflect changes in the responsibilities of the respective
parties. Such modifications shall be concurred with by CITY's Director of Public
Works or other official designated by CITY and STATE's District Director for District 5
and become a part of this Agreement after execution of the amending document by
the respective officials of the parties.
3. The Project Study Report/Project Development (PSR/PD) for PROJECT, approved
on 10l18/01, is by this reference, made an express part of this Agreement.
4. STATE will be the CEQA lead agency and CITY will be a responsible agency for
CEQA. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will be the Federal lead
agency for NEPA with STATE providing oversight for the NEPA process. CITY will
assess impacts of PROJECT on the environment and, if necessary, CITY will
prepare the ED, including the necessary associeted investigative studies and
technical environmental reports, in order to meet the requirements of CEQA and
NEPA. CITY will submit to STATE for STATE's review, comment and approval the
investigative studies and technical environmental reports. The administrative draft
Page 3 of 10
; ,
ED, draft ED, administrative final ED, and final ED will require both STATE's and
�, FHWA's review, comment and approval prior to public availability. STATE will review
the technical environmental reports and request approval of the environmental
, technical reports and ED by FHWA. CITY will be responsible for the public hearing
process. If during preliminary engineering, preparation of the PS&E, or PROJECT
construction, new information is obtained which requires the preparation of an
additional NEPA and/or CEQA ED, this Agreement will be amended to include
completion of these additional tasks by CITY.
5. All phases of a PROJECT, whether done by CITY or STATE, will be developed in
accordance with all policies, procedures, practices, and standards that STATE would
normally follow and in compliance with laws, regulations, executive orders, and
permit requirements.
6. All administrative reports, studies, materials, documentation, including, but not
limited to, all administrative drafts and administrative finals of the ED and PR, relied
upon, produced, created or utilized for PROJECT will be held in confidence pursuant
to Government Code section 6254.5 (e). The parties'agree that said material will not
be distributed, released or shared with any other organization, person or group other
than the parties' employees, agents and their consultants whose work requires that
access without the prior written approval of the party with the authority to authorize
said release and except as required or authorized by statute or pursuant to the terms
of this Agreement.
7. For the purpose of this Agreement, any hazardous material or contamination found
within the area of PROJECT shall be classified in two categories, HM-1 and HM-2.
Hazardous material or contamination of an HM-1 category is defined as that level or
type of contamination which State or Federal regulatory control agencies having
, jurisdiction have determined must be cleaned up by reason of its mere discovery,
regardless of whether it is disturbed by PROJECT,or not. Hazardous material or
contamination of an HM-2 category is defined as that level or type of contamination
which said regulatory control agencies would have allowed to remain in place if
undisturbed or otherwise protected in place should PROJECT not proceed.
8. Any hazardous material or contamination of a HM-1 category found within the
existing State highway right of way during investigative studies requiring remedy or
remedial action, as defined in Division 20, chapter, 6.8 et seq. of the Health and
Safety Code, shall be the responsibility of STATE. ' As between STATE and CITY
only, any hazardous material or contamination of an,HM-1 category found outside of
existing State Highway right of way during investigative studies requiring the same
defined remedy or remedial action shall be the responsibility of CITY.
9. STATE shall sign any HM-1 manifest and pay all costs for remedy or remedial action
within the existing State Highway right of way, except that if STATE determines that
STATE's cost for remedy or remedial action is increased as a result of proceeding
with construction of PROJECT, that additional cost identified by STATE shall be
borne by CITY. As between STATE and CITY only, CITY shall sign any HM-1
manifest and pay all costs for required remedy or remedial action outside the State
Highway right of way.
Page 4 of 10
District Agreement#05-CA-0140
10. STATE will exert every effort to fund the remedy or remedial action for which STATE
is responsible and in the event STATE is unable to provide funding within the
PROJECT schedule, CITY will have the option to either delay PROJECT until
' STATE is able to provide funding or CITY may proceed with the remedy or remedial
action at CITY's expense with any subsequent reimbursement by STATE to be
sought by CTC Resolution at a future date, if at all. Reimbursement arrangements
will be the subject of a separate cooperative agreement.
11. CITY shall perform, or cause to be performed, the cleanup of any hazardous material
or contamination of an HM-2 category found within the existing State Highway right
of way and/or within the local road right of way during investigative studies at CITY's
expense if CITY decides to proceed with PROJECT. CITY shall sign any HM-2
manifest if PROJECT proceeds and HM-2 material must be removed in lieu of being
treated in place. If CITY decides to not proceed with PROJECT, there will be no
obligation to either CITY or STATE other than CITY's duty to cover and protect HM-2
material left in place.
12. If hazardous material or contamination of either HM=1 or HM-2 category is found on
new right of way to be acquired by CITY for PROJECT, CITY, as between CITY and
STATE only, shall be responsible, at CITY's expense, for all required remedy or
remedial action and/or protection and shall guarantee STATE that said new right of
way is clean prior to transfer of title to STATE. The generator of the hazardous
material or, if none can be identified or found, the present property owner, whether a
private entity or a local public agency, or CITY, as a last resort, shall sign the
manifest.
13. Locations subject to remedy or remedial action and/or protection include utility
relocation work required for PROJECT. Costs for remedy and remedial action and/or
protection shall include, but not be limited to, the identification, treatment, protection,
removal, packaging, transportation, storage, and disposal of such material.
14. The party responsible for funding any hazardous material cleanup shall be
responsible for the development of the necessary 'remedy and/or remediaF action
plans and designs. Remedial actions proposed by CITY on the State highway right
of way shall be pre-approved by 8tate and shall be performed in accordance with
STATE's standards and practices and those standards mandated by the Federal and
State regulatory agencies.
15. A separate Cooperative Agreement will be required to cover responsibilities and
funding for the PS&E, construction and right of way phases of PROJECT.
16. Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations
to or rights to third parties not parties to this Agreement or to affect the legal liability
of either party to the Agreement by imposing any standard of care with respect to the
development, design, construction, operation or maintenance of State highways and
public facilities different from the standard of care imposed by law.
17. Neither CITY nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury,
damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by
STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction arising under
this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that STATE shall fully defend,
Page 5 of 10
indemnify and save harmless the CITY and all of its officers and employees from all
claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought forth under,
including, but not limited to, tortuous, contractual, inverse condemnation and other
theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to
be done by STATE under this Agreement.
18. Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury,
damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by
CITY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction arising under this
Agreement. It is understood and agreed that CITY shall fully defend, indemnify and
save harmless STATE and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits or
actions of every name, kind and description brought forth under, including, but not
limited to, tortuous, contractual, inverse condemnation or other theories or assertions
of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under
this Agreement.
19. This Agreement may be terminated or provisions contained herein may be altered,
� changed, or amended by mutual consent of the parties hereto.
20. Except as otherwise provided in Article 19 above, this Agreement shall terminate
upon completion and acceptance of the PROJECT construction contract, or on June
30, 2008, whichever is earlier in time.
Page 6 of 10
District Agreement#05-CA-0140
STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Department of Transportation P. O. Box 550 '
Arroyo Grande, CA 93451
WILL KEMPTON
Director
By
Mayor
By
R. GREGG ALBRIGHT
District Director Approved as to form & procedure:
Approved as to form & procedure:
BY
City Attomey
By
Attorney, Department of
Transportation Approved as to financial terms & conditions:
Cert�ed as to financial terms & conditions: By
Fiscal Officer
By
Accounting Administrator Approved as to content:
Certified as to funds: By
City Engineer
By
District 5 Budget Manager
Page 7 of 10
SCOPE OF WORK
This Scope of Work outlines the specific areas of responsibility for various project devel-
opment activities for the proposed project to modify interchanges and ramps on State Route
101 in Arroyo Grande from 0.4 km south of the Grand Avenue Overcrossing to 0.5 km south
of the Oak Park Overcrossing.
1. CITY and STATE concur that the proposal is a Category 3 as defined in STATE's
Project Development Procedures Manual.
2. CITY will submit drafts of environmental technical reports and individual sections of
the draft environmental documents to STATE, as they are developed, for review and
comment. Traffic counts and projections to be used in the various reports shall be
supplied by STATE if available, or by CITY. Existing traffic data shall be furnished by
CITY.
3. STATE will review, monitor, and approve all project development reports, studies,
and provide all necessary implementation activities of PA&ED.
4. The existing freeway agreement need not be revised.
5. Detailed steps in the project development process are attached to this Scope of
Work. These Attachments are intended as a guide to STATE's and CITY's staff.
Page 8 of 10
l
District Agreement#05-CA-0140
ATTACHMENT1
PLANNING PHASE ACTIVITIES
RESPONSIBILITY
STATE CITY
PROJECT ACTIVITY
1 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS& DOCUMENT PREPARATION
Establish Project Development Team (PDT) X X
Approve PDT X
Project Category'Determination X
Prepare Preliminary Environmental Assessment X
Identify Preliminary Alternatives and Costs X
Prepare and Submit Environmental Studies and Reports X
Provide Quality Assurance X
Provide Quality Control X
Approve Environmental Studies and Reports X
Prepare and Submit Draft Environmental Document(DED) X
2 PROJECT GEOMETRICS DEVELOPMENT
Prepare Existing Traffic Analysis X
Prepare Future Traffic Volumes for Alternatives X
Prepare Project Geometrics and Profiles X
Prepare Layouts and Estimates for Alternatives X
Prepare Operational Analysis for Alternatives X
Provide Quality Assurance , X
Provide Quality Control X
Approve Project Geometrics and Operational Analysis X
3 PROJECT APPROVAL
Lead Agency for Environment Compliance Certifies ED in X X
Accordance with its Procedures
' Prepare Draft Project Report(DPR) X
Page 9 of 10
f
District Agreement#05-CA-0140
Finalize and Submit Project Report with Certified ED for Approval X
Provide Quality Assurance X '
Provide Quality Control X
Approve Project Report X
Page 10 of 10
�_. _-- . - -
8.i.
� pRROY�
� �� MEMORANDUM
� INCORVOR�TED 92
u m
# �u�r ,o, ,e„ *
c4��FORN\P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER�
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTOR SERVICES
WITH SP MAINTENANCE TO PROVIDE STREET SWEEPING
SERVICES
DATE: APRIL 25, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council
A. approve a two-year agreement with a provision for three one year extensions,
with SP Maintenance, for street sweeping services, and
B. authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement for Contractor Services.
I FUNDING:
The cost for the remainder for this fiscal year at the proposed price of $20/curb mile
would be $25,423. The remaining balance as of April 18, 2006 is approximately
$18,947. The additional amount of $6,476 could be accommodated in the Public Works
operating budget.
I
� Fiscal Year Budget 2006/07 allocated $77,000 for street sweeping services. The
proposed agreement will cost $77,120, minus the reimbursement of $4,000 from
Caltrans for sweeping Route 227 for a total of$73,120.
DISCUSSION:
July 27, 2004, the Council consented to transfer the existing agreement with Daystar
Industries to SP Maintenance on a month to month basis. SP Maintenance was in the
process of purchasing several Daystar assets and was determined to be capable of
complying with all of the established contract provisions. SP Maintenance has
continued this agreement to the present time.
Since that time staff has been trying to address changes in the wage classification for
street sweepers. It was proposed that street sweeping be classified as a prevailing
wage operation. This would have required the City to pay its contractor prevailing
wages for street sweeping services. Under those circumstances, it may have been
more advantageous for the City to perform street sweeping in-house. However, a
recent ruling by the State Department of Industrial Relations has classified street
sweeping as a maintenance operation and not subject to prevailing wages.
i
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTOR SERVICES WITH SP
MAINTENANCE TO PROVIDE STREET SWEEPING
, APRIL 25, 2006
PAGE 2
Staff has held several meetings with SP Maintenance related to the age of the existing
equipment and the number of complaints the City has received regarding street
sweeping services. The equipment is approximately seven (7) years old and is at the
end of its effective life as a primary sweeper. Street sweeping complaints have risen ,
over the past several years from 28 complaints in 2002 to 41 in 2005. An agreement in
1998 with Daystar also required the contractor to buy a new primary sweeper. As a
probable result, street sweeping complaints were reduced by approximately 75%.
SP Maintenance is also proposing a reduction in the cost per curb mile from $23 to $20
I if both the Cities of Arro o Grande and Grover Beach enter into a reements to rovide
Y 9 P
street sweeping services. SP Maintenance is presently sweeping both cities. The
Grover Beach City Council has recently retained SP Maintenance as their street
sweeping contractor, by approving a new two (2) year agreement. '
The City staff and SP Maintenance have agreed that a two-year contract with the
� potential for three one-year extensions at $20 per curb mile for primary and secondary
sweeps and $800 per month for parking lot sweeps would facilitate the contractor's
ability to secure financing for a new sweeper. An annual performance review after the
initial two-year contract will provide an opportunity by either party to request an
adjustment in cost, subject to Council approval. The City currently pays $18.82 per curb
mile.
It is recommended that the Council approve a two year agreement with SP Maintenance
with the option to extend the agreement for 3 additional one year terms.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are presented for Council consideration:
- Approve staff's recommendations;
- Modify the terms and/or conditions of the proposed contract and approve staff's
recommendations;
- Reject staff's recommendations and direct staff to renegotiate the terms and
conditions of the proposed contract;
- Go out to bid for street sweeping services; or
- Provide direction to staff
Attachments:
1. Neighboring Cities Contracted Street Sweeping Rates
P A r m nt f r ntr t r rvi
2. roposed g ee e o Co ac o Se ces
Attachment 1
NEIGHBORING CITIES CONTRACTED
STREET SWEEPING RATES
CITY COST PER CURB SPECIAL PARKING
MILE SWEEPS LOTS
City of
Arro o Grande $20.00 $85.00 $800.00
City of
Grover Beach $20.00 $75.00 No
City of
, Pismo Beach $21.00 $100.00 No
City of
Paso Robles In-House No No
City of
Morro Ba $5,500.00 No No
' City of
Atascadero No Res onse No Res onse No Res onse
1. Current cost for City of Arroyo Grande is $18.82 per curb mile; including dump
fees and fuel.
2. The City of Grover Beach approved a new amended street sweeping contract
with SP Maintenance.
I
I
AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTOR SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of May 1, 2006, between SP
Maintenance Services, 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 May 1, 2006 and shall remain and continue
in effect until May 1, 2008, 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 Public Works Director shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the
administration of this Agreement. Sean St. Denis 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
i terms set forth in the portion of Exhibit "B" labeled "Arroyo Grande & Grover Beach Joint
, Street Sweeping", 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 othenvise.
,
i
� Page 1 of 24
k
r
�
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.
(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 Contractor's 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
� 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
entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement.
9. LAWS TO BE OBSERVED. Contractor 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 Contractor under this Agreement;
i
� Page 2 of 24
�
�
1
(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 Contractor's
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,
iand 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
II or in equity occasioned by failure of the Contractor to comply with this Section.
; 10. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
' (a) 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 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
Contractor. With respect to computer files, Contractor shall make available to the City,
at the Contractor'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.
Page 3 of 24
,
;I
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 thereof) in the
performance of professional services under this agreement.
(b) Indemnification for Other Than Professional Liability. 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. This indemnification provision shall
specifically extend the liability for claims, suits and actions under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA).
(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 of
Contractor and shall survive the termination of this agreement or this section.
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.
Page 4 of 24
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 officers, 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,
iemployees, or agents of the City. Contractor shall not incur or have the power to incur
I 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 pertorming services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or
indemnification to Contractor for injury or sickness arising out of performing services
hereunder.
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.
II 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 INFORMATION/CONFLICTS 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
Page 5 of 24
�
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 I
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
Don Spagnolo
214 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
To Contractor: SP Maintenance Services, Inc.
734 Ralcoa Way
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
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
Page 6 of 24
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.
i 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 on
behalf of the Contractor and has the authority to bind Contractor to the performance of
its obligations hereunder.
' Page 7 of 24
i
�
�
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CONTRACTOR
By: By:
Tony M. Ferrara, Mayor Sean D. St. Denis
Its: President
Attest: (Title)
i
i
I Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk
i
, Approved As To Form:
� Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney
P
�,
Page 8 of 24
I�
,�
;�
Exhibit "A"
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
SECTION I
Purpose of the Street Sweepinq Contract:
� To provide street sweeping services to the City of Arroyo Grande on a regularly
scheduled basis, by removing litter, leaves, dirt, and debris from streets, alleys, and
i parking lots. This program shall leave the streets with a presentable appearance and
free from dust created by traffic.
i It shall be the contractor's responsibility to furnish at his own expense all tools,
equipment, labor, material, and services necessary for the satisfactory pertormance of
the work set forth in these specifications.
SECTION II
Standards of Service:
A. The contractor agrees to comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state
and/or local law governing the duties and obligation of businesses and
, employers.
B. The standards of performance which the Contractor is obligated to perform
hereunder are standards considered by the City to be good street sweeping
practices. Reference Street-Cleaning Practice, Third Edition, by American
Public Works Association.
C. Street sweepers will operate at suggested manufacturers sweeping speeds in
accordance with local conditions and desired results. At no time may the
Contractor's street sweeper speed exceed 6 miles per hour.
D. The Contractor shall conduct his operations as to cause the least possible
obstruction and inconvenience to public traffic.
E. Sweeping will be done during daylight hours in all residential areas.
Downtown and other commercial areas will be swept in morning hours.
F. The intersections (cross gutter area) along all scheduled streets are to be
swept. All debris (including debris following inclement weather) along
regularly scheduled routes, no matter what quantity, is to be removed.
Page 9 of 24
i�
I
I
SECTION ill
Work Performance:
A. The City of Arroyo Grande will monitor the work performance of the
Contractor by randomly choosing ten (10) streets of a regular scheduled route
to spot check upon completion of that route. It is understood that if three (3)
of the streets do not meet acceptable city standards, the Contractor will be
re uired to swee the entire route a ain within 48 hours at no cost to the Cit .
4
P 9 Y
B. If a spot check determines a single street has not met the standards, the
Contractor shall resweep within 24 hours at no cost to the City.
' C. All potable water used for dust control will be provided, at no cost to the
' Contractor, through fire hydrants. The City will provide a Fire Hydrant Water
Meter that is to be used every time the street sweeping vehicle fills up.
, D. The Contractor shall provide to the City, immediately following award of
contract, the manufacturers gallons per minute (GPM) rating for dust control,
on each street sweeping unit. The Contractor shall record the daily quantity
of water used by any or all street sweeping equipment used to clean the
regularly scheduled route. The daily totals will then be compared against the ,
monthly metered potable water total to assist in verifying dust control '
compliance. If the daily recorded water usage does not meet or exceed the '
monthly metered potable water total, the City considers this a loss of value �
and reserves the right in its sole discretion to reduce the curb mile rate by
50% for that month.
E. City staff, which observes the sweeping of regularly scheduled routes without
the use of water for dust control, shall result in a 50% reduction of the curb
mile rate for that day.
F. Regularly scheduled routes that are not completely swept on the assigned
day for any reason except for provisions in Section VII, will require notification
of City residents. The Contractor will immediately place and pay for a "Notice ,
of Street Sweeping Rescheduling" in the Times Press Recorder. A 1/16" size
advertisement stating the reason for rescheduling and the Contractors name
and phone number shall be included in the notification. The City reserves the
right to add or modify the content of the "Notice of Street Sweeping
Rescheduling". A final draft of the notification must be approved by the Public
Works Director or his designee prior to placement.
G. Failure to sweep one or more streets, on a regularly scheduled route may
result in the City contracting for the clean up of these streets. All contract and
Page 10 of 24 '
administrative costs incurred as a result of this failure to perform will be
deducted from the regular monthly street sweeping invoice.
H. The determination of acceptable City standards will be made by the Public
Works Director and/or his Designee in his sole and absolute discretion.
Equipment:
A. Contractor shall use, at a minimum, the following equipment:
Item Model/Capacitv Year Manufactured
1. Mobile M9 1990
2. Tymco 435 2001
3. Tymco 600 2000
B. All equipment used for the perFormance of this contract shall be standard
j heavy-duty mechanical broom sweeping or aidvacuum equipment necessary
to properly clean streets and alleys of litter, dirt, rocks, leaves and other
debris. Equipment shall be properly maintained both as to condition and
appearance so as to ensure a high level of street sweeping services.
C. Sweeping equipment as well as disposal trucks shall be equipped with
adequate warning devices and lights for safe operation and shall meet all
vehicle operation requirements of the State of California Department of �otor
Vehicles and the California Highway Patrol.
D. Machines must be maintained both mechanically and visually throughout the
term of this agreement with capability to ensure scheduled routine
maintenance and proper adjustment for sweepers.
E. Machines must be equipped with an adequate water spray system for dust
control.
F. All units shall be clearly and prominently marked with the Contractor's name
and unit number.
� G. Contractor must keep a sufficient supply of spare brooms and parts to ensure
continuous operation. Worn brushes and brooms shall be replaced and
, adjusted to ensure maximum efficiency.
I
H. All equipment must be properly registered and insured in accordance with
state and local laws. Contractor must show proof of ownership or a signed
lease for sufficient machinery to adequately perform services as specified in
this agreement and the provisions of Section XI.
,�
Page 11 of 24
4
I. All units shall have the capability of being contacted by their main office with
radio or paging equipment.
J. Contractor shall have the ability to provide two (2) sweepers to the City of
Arroyo Grande within four (4) hours notice.
K. Contractor shall have the ability to provide a mechanical broom type sweeper
and an air/vacuum type sweeper within four (4) hours notice.
SECTION V
Work to be Performed:
During the term of this agreement, Contractor shall sweep all designated public
streets and curbs and gutters, alleys, street medians, parking lots, center lanes and
intersections within the incorporated City limits of Arroyo Grande with the assigned
frequency as listed below.
The Contractor will adhere to the Primary and Secondary "Street Sweeping
Schedule" provided to him by the City of Arroyo Grande. The City reserves the right
to modify the " Street Sweeping Schedule" from time to time during the period of the
� contract. Additions or deletions to this schedule shall be made in accordance with
unit prices as specified herein, or at the City's sole discretion, as otherwise mutually
agreed upon by the Contractor and the City.
i SECTION VI
Primarv and Secondarv Street Sweepinq Schedule:
The Primary and Secondary Street Sweeping Schedules shall be as outlined on the
attached pages.
SECTION VII
Inclement Weather:
' In the event that a scheduled sweeping shift is not possible due to weather
conditions, equipment failure, or other unforeseen occurrences, Contractor shall
`. notify the City of Arroyo Grande at the earliest possible time and arrange for
� sweeping on another day within a five working day period. It is understood that the
Contractor will make up the missed sweeping shift on the first available day within
the five working day limitation, or forteit any and all compensation for that particular
shift.
I� Page 12 of 24
�
i
SECTION VIII
Additional Work:
A. In the event the City of Arroyo Grande desires to extend the street sweeping
program to include newly constructed streets or alleys, or streets or alleys
procured through annexations, or existing streets not listed or referenced in
Section V, "Work to be Performed" after the effective date of this Agreement,
the Contractor will be notified by fax and/or US mail with a form "Addition to
Street Sweeping Schedule". This form will identify streets and give curb mile
length to be added to "Primary Street Sweeping Schedule" and Contractor
shall be paid for additional streets at the applicable price per curb mile as
specified herein.
B. The Contractor shall provide additional miscellaneous street sweeping
services or "Special Sweeps" for work not otherwise specified in these
Special Provisions, at the current hourly rate as specified herein when
requested to do so by the City of Arroyo Grande.
Contractor from time to time may be requested to provide Special Sweeps
immediately following parades, community celebrations, and other activities
� involving City streets, alleys or parking lots. Compensation for this work will
be paid at the hourly rate as specified herein.
i
C. The Contractor may be requested to provide "Seasonal Sweeps" during
certain times of the year along curbs and at intersections to address seasonal
changes including removal of dirt and debris resulting from adjacent farming
activities.
D. All sweeping as identified in this section, paragraphs B and C, shall be
performed as not to interfere with the proper completion of the regular street
y sweeping schedule.
�
SECTION iX
Disposal of Sweepina Debris:
i
'� The Contractor shall dispose of all refuse and debris collected by his sweeping
operation by hauling to a duly licensed, fully permitted landfill authorized to receive
! street sweeping debris which may include petro-chemicals and other potentially
hazardous waste.
Page 13 of 24
�,
G�
SECTION X
Compensation:
The following payment schedule will be used for services provided by the Contractor:
1. Primary and Secondary
Street Sweeping Section VI) $20.00 per curb mile
2. Special Sweeps (Section VIII) $85 per hour (1 hr min)
3. Parking Lot Sweeps (Section VI) $800.00 per month
Failure to sweep shall be deducted from payment, unless made up as stipulated in
Section VII.
� SECTION XI
I
� Insurance Requirements:
� The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance
� against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from
or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder, by the Contractor, his
agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. The cost of such insurance
shall be paid for by the Contractor.
A. Minimum Scope of Insurance: Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office Form Number GL-0002 (Ed. 1/73), covering
comprehensive general liability and insurance services; office form
number GL-0404, covering broad form comprehensive general liability,
} or; Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage
� ("Occurrence", Form CG-0001).
� 2. Insurance Services O�ce Form Number CA-0001 (Ed. 1/78), covering
i automobile liability, Code 1, "Any Auto", and endorsement CA-0025.
,j 3. Workers' Compensation Insurance, as required by the Labor Code of
the State of California, and Employer's Liability Insurance.
B. Minimum Limits of Insurance: The Contractor shall maintain limits no less
than:
� Page 14 of 24
�
,,
1. Comprehensive general liability: Two million dollars ($2,000,000.00)
combined single-limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury
and property damage.
2. Automobile Liability: Two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) combined
single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability: Workers'
Compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of
California, and Employers' Liability Limits of two million dollars
($2,000,000.00) per accident.
C. Deductibles and Self-Insured Receptions: Any deductibles of self-insured
receptions must be declared to and be approved by the City. At the option of
; the City, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-
' insured receptions as affects the City, its officials, agents and employees, or
� the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and
� related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.
i
; D. Other Insurance Provisions: The policies are to contain the following
provisions:
' 1. General Liability and Automobile Liability Coverages:
' a. The City, its officials, agents, employees and volunteers are to
� be covered as primary insured as respects liability arising out
of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor, or
products and completed operations of the Contractor, or
premises owned, leased or used by the Contractor, or
automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the
Contractor. The coverage shall contain no special limitations
on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officials,
agents, employees or volunteers.
ib. . The Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary
i insurance as respects the City, its officials, agents, employees
� and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained
by the City, its officials, agents, employees or volunteers shall
be in excess of the Contractor's insurance, and shall not
contribute with it.
c. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies
shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officials,
agents, employees or volunteers.
�
� Page 15 of 24
�
i
�
d. Coverage shall state that the Contractor's insurance shall
apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made
or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the
insurer's liability.
2. Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability Coverage:
a. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation
against the City, its officials, agents, employees and
volunteers for losses arising from work performed by the
Contractor for the City.
3. All Coverages:
� a. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be
endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended,
� voided, canceled, reduced in coverage or in limits, except after
'; thirty (30) days prior to written notice by certified mail, return
receipt requested, has been given to the City.
E. Acceptability of Insurers: Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a best
rating of no less than A:XIII.
F. Verification of Coverage: Contractor shall furnish the City with certificates of
; insurance and with original endorsements affecting coverage required by this
! clause (actual policy). The certificates and endorsements for each insurance
policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind
coverage on its behalf. The certificates and endorsements are to be received
and approved by the City before work commences. If so required by the City,
the Contractor shall furnish to the City a duplicate original policy.
G. Subcontractors: The Contractor shall include all subcontractors as insurers
under his policies, or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for
each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of
the requirements stated herein.
� SECTION XII
�
Responsibilitv for Damaqe:
The City of Arroyo Grande and all of their employees and agents shall not be
answerable or accountable in any manner for any loss or damage that may happen
to the work or any part thereof; or for any material or equipment used in performing
the work; for any injury or damage to any person or persons, either workmen or the
public; for damage to adjoining property from any cause whatsoever during the
' progress of work.
Page 16 of 24
�
�I
SECTION XIII
Complaints: .
All complaints shall first be directed to the Public Works Director or his Designee,
then to the Contractor. A "Street Sweeping ComplainY' form will be faxed to the
Contractor indicating the location and nature of each complaint. The Contractor
shall fax back his response to the City indicating compliance to the complaint. It
shall be the Contractor's obligation to resolve all complaints within 24 hours of
receiving a fax copy of the complaint.
I
,
I
—
I
Page 17 of 24
� ____
Exhibit "B"
SP �I�I\TE\:�\CE SER�"ICES, I\C.
� 734 Raicoa Way '
Arroyo Grande,CA 93420
� Phone(805)343-9999
Fax (805)343-9989
I February 7, 2006
Director of Public Works `�-
City of Airoyo Grande
P.O. Bos 550
, Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
ATTN: Don Spagnolo
S �Maintenance Services, Inc. proposes to fumish all necessary equipment, tools .
an labor for the street sweeping in accordance with the provisions outlined in the
existing agreement and at the same frequency as follows :
ARROYO GRANDE STREET SWEEPING
Primary Street Sweeping: $23.00 per curb mile.
Secondary Street Sweeping: $23.00 per curb mile. �
Parking Lot Sweeping: $800.00 per month.
ARROYO GRANDE & GROVER BEACH JOINT STREET SWEEPING
Primary Street Sweeping: , $20.00 per curb mile.
Secondary Street Sweeping: $20.00 per curb mile.
Parking Lot Sweeping: $800.00 per month.
Thank you for the opporiunity to submit this proposal; I hope to hear from you soon.
Respec Ily S mitted,
� _�
ean D. St. Denis
President
S P Maintenance Services, Inc.
i
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. If that existing coverage
does not meet the requirements set forth here, Contractor 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 Ioss,
� will be available to City.
Contractor shall provide the following types and amounts of insurance:
Excess or Umbrella Liability Insurance (Over Primary) if used to meet limit
requirements, shall provide coverage at least as broad as specified for the underlying
� coverages. Any such coverage provided under an umbrella liability policy shall include a
drop down provision providing primary coverage above a maximum $25,000 self-
insured retention for liability not covered by primary but covered by the umbrella.
Coverage shall be provided on a "pay on behalf' basis, with defense costs payable in
addition to policy limits. Policy shall contain a provision obligating insurer at the time
insured's liability is determined, not requiring actual payment by the insured first. There
shall be no cross liability exclusion precluding coverage for claims or suits by one
insured against another. Coverage shall be applicable to City for injury to employees of
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 requiremenfs shall be written by insurer that are
admitted carriers in the state California and with an A.M. Bests rating ofA- or better and
a minimum financial size Vll.
, 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 insured 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.
;j Page 19 of 24
I,
I
�
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.
i
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.
k
6. All coverage types and limits required are subject to approval, modification
i 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
i of discovery period) that may affect City's protection without Citys 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
ipaid by Contractor or deducted from sums due Contractor, at City option.
I 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
' 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.
Page 20 of 24
�
10. Contractor agrees to ensure that subContracto�s, and any other party
I 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
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 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 rights
hereunder in this or any other regard.
15. Contractor 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.
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
I Page 21 of 24
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.
I22. 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.
I
Page 22 of 24
STREET SWEEPING
Street sweeping is one of the essential services provided by the City. It benefits the
community by picking up leaves debris, and storm drain pollutants. However, it is very
difficult to provide good street sweeping service when there are items such as parked cars,
basketball hoo s, and trash containers alon the curb. Swee in around these item
p 9 p 9
requires more time, can be a dangerous maneuver, and forces the sweeperto go around
these obstacles leaving some areas along the curb unswept. Moving these items off the
street will allow the sweeper to do a better job for you and your neighbors.
The street sweeper comes through the residential neighborhoods on Tuesdays as shown
on the table below between the hours of 7:00 am and 5:00 pm. To minimize the impact
of parked cars, please move parked cars off the street on the morning or the night before
sweeping occurs. Please call the Public Works Corporation Yard at (805) 473-5460 for
more information on your street sweeping day. Thank you for your cooperation in keeping
Arroyo Grande clean.
PRIMARY STREET SWEEPING SCHEDULE
STREETS DAY
Downtown Village Monday& Friday
� Barnett Street Bridge Street Halcyon Road
� East Branch Street East Grand Avenue Traffic Way Every Monday
I West Branch Street EI Camino Real Valley Road
(West of Regional South Elm Street
I� Center) Fair Oaks Avenue
Alder Street Huasna Road Oak Park Boulevard
Ash Street James Way Tally Ho Road Every Wednesday
Brisco Road Le Point Street(East of The Pike
Farroll Avenue Mason Street)
Arroyo Avenue Golden West Place Rice Court
Bakeman Lane Hampton Place Rogers Court
Bambi Court Lancaster Drive Russ Court
Beech Street La Vista Court Sandalwood Avenue
California Street Leanna Drive South Via Avante
Carmella Drive Magnolia Drive South Via Belmonte
Carol Place Mesa Drive South Via Firenze Third Tuesday
Carrington Place Morning Rise Lane Starlight Lane of the month
Castillo Del Mar Mulberry Lane Sycamore Court
West Cherry Avenue Noel Street Sycamore Drive
Creekside Drive North Via Belmonte Tierra Street
Del Sol Street North Via Firenze Tiger Tail Drive
Diamond Circle S. Oak Park Boulevard Todd Lane
Diana Place Olive Street Turquoise Drive
Dixson Street Opal Circle Verde Place
Farroll Road (east of Orchard Avenue Via Berros
Halcyon Road) Pacific Pointe Way Victorian Court
Forest Glen Drive Palm Court Victoria Way
PRIMARY STREET SWEEPING SCHEDULE
STREETS DAY
Garfield Place Pearl Drive Virginia Drive
Gaynfair Terrace Pecan Street W illow Lane Third Tuesday
Pilgrim Way Wilson Court of the month
Woodland Court
Woodland Drive
Acorn Drive Hidden Oak Road Rancho Parkway
I Andre Drive Hodges Road Refugio Place
Arabian Circle James Way Robin Circle
Asilo Jenny Place Rodeo Drive
Avenida De Diamante La Canada Rosemary Court
Calle Carman Los Ciervos Rosemary Lane
Calle Cuervo Matthew Way Salida Del Sol
Camino Mercado Meadowlark Drive Scenic Circle Second Tuesday
Cardinal Court Mercedes Lane Sombrillo of the month
Castillo Court Mesquite Lane Spanish Moss Lane
Chaparral Lane Mustang Circle Stevenson Drive
Clinton Court Oak Leaf Circle Via Bandolero
Collado Corte Old Ranch Road Via Las Aguilas
Cuerda Corte Palos Secos Via Poca
Deer Trail Circle Paraiso Court Via Vaquero
Dos Cerros Puesta Del Sol Village Glen Drive
Emerald Bay Drive Quail Court Vista Circle
Equestrian Way Quail Ridge Court Vista Drive
Grace Lane
Alpine Street Dodson Way Oak Street
Aspen Street North Elm Street Park Way
Bell Street Eman Court Pecan Place
Bennett Street East Grand Avenue Pine Street
Beta Court Islands Poplar Street
Blackberry Avenue Faeh Avenue Priscilla Lane
Blueberry Avenue Fairview Drive Raspberry Avenue First Tuesday
Boysenberry Street Hillcrest Drive Rena Street of the month
Brighton Avenue Huckleberry Avenue Robles Road
Cedar Street Juniper Street Ruth Ann Way
Cerro Vista Circle Ledo Place Sage Street
Cerro Vista Lane Linda Drive Sierra'Drive
Chelsea Court Loganberry Avenue Spruce Street
Chilton Street Maple Street Strawberry Avenue
Cornwall Avenue Montego Street Taylor Place
Corona Del Terra Newman Drive Walnut Street
Courtland Street Newport Avenue Wood Place
Cranberry Street (Lower)
Newport Avenue
—
PRIMARY STREET SWEEPING SCHEDULE
STREETS DAY
Allen Street Ide Street Pearwood Avenue
Branch Mill Road Ikeda Way Plata Road
Callie Court James Way(south of Platino Lane
Campana Place Colina Street) Plomo Court
Canyon Way La Cresta Drive Poole Street
Clarence Avenue La Paz Circle Pradera Court
Coach Road Ladera Place Rosewood Lane
Cobre Place Larchmont Drive So. Traffic Way
Colina Street Launa Lane Short Street
Corral Place Le Point Street Stagecoach Road
Cross Street Le Point Terrace Station Way Fourth Tuesday
Crown Hill Los Olivos Lane Tanner Lane of the month
Crown Terrace Mariposa Circle Toyon Court
Cuesta Place Mason Street Trinity Avenue
East Cherry Avenue May Street Vard Loomis Court
' Farmhouse Place McKinley Street VArd Loomis Lane
. Fieldview Place Miller Circle Vernon Street
Flora Road Miller Way Via La Barranca
� Fortuna Court Myrtle Street Village Court
, Garden Street Nelson Street West Branch Street
Greenwood Drive Nevada Street Wesley Street
Grove Court Noguera Place Whiteley Street
Gularte Road Oro Drive Zogata Way
Harrison Street Outland Court
Hawkins Court Pacific Coast Railway
' Hillside Court Paseo Street
Ash Street Bathrooms Elm Street Recreation Soto Sports Complex Twice a Month:
� Car Corral Parking Lot Olohan Alley Strother Park Second & Fourth
City Hall Parking Lots Woman's Club Thursdays
i
i
i
The streets listed below will be swept two weeks following their primary sweeping.
SECONDARY STREET SWEEPING SCHEDULE
STREETS DAY
Aspen Street Maple Street Taylor Place
Bennett Avenue Palm Court Walnut Street(from Third Tuesday
Brighton Avenue Pine Street Maple Street to end of of the month
Cerro Vista Circle Priscilla Lane street)
Courtland Street Ruth Ann Way(from
Dodson Way (from S. Brighton to bottom of
Halcyon to S. Alpine) street)
Arroyo Avenue Opal Circle Turquoise Drive
Bambi Court Orchard Avenue Via Berros First Tuesday
Carmella Drive Pearl Drive West Cherry Avenue of the month
Diamond Circle Pilgrim Way Woodland Drive
Leanna Drive Todd Lane
Avenida De Diamante Old Ranch Road (250 Rodeo Drive (250 feet
Hodges Road (from feet from W. Branch on each side of Fourth Tuesday
Stevenson Drive to end Street) Rodeo Drive & of the month
of street) Robin Circle Mercedes Lane
intersection)
Allen Street Oro Drive (from Rosewood Lane
Coach Road Huasna Road to Platino Stagecoach Road (500 Second Tuesday
Corral Place Lane) feet from Platino, of the month
East Cherry Avenue Pacific Coast Railway south)
Flora Road (from Allen Street to E. Station Way
Garden Street Cherry Avenue) Tanner Lane
Greenwood Drive Pearwood Avenue Traffic Way Exit
Launa Lane Platino Lane (from Via La Barranca
Los Olivos Lane Stagecoach to La
Myrtle Street Cresta Drive)
Noguera Place
9.a.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
On TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006, the Arroyo Grande City Council will conduct a public
hearing at 7:00 P.M. in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET to
consider the following item:
APPLICANT: City of Arroyo Grande
LOCATION: Citywide
PROPOSAL: The City Council will consider a proposed Ordinance adding
Chapter 5.76 to Title 5 (Business Licenses and Regulations)
of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code establishing regulations
for peddling and soliciting activities.
REPRESENTATIVE: Tony Aeilts, Chief of Police
Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney
The Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or after the item
listed above. If you challenge the proposed action 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 the action of the legislative body for which the notice was
given.
Information relating to these items is available by contacting Arroyo Grande City Hall at
473-5414. The Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20.
o C/� �_
Kelly We mor City Clerk
Publish 1T, The Tribune, Friday, April 14, 2006
. -_ , -� ---- -
I� pRRO�p
I �E cP
� NlCONVONATEO 92
V O
m
# anr �o, ie�i *
c4��FORN�P
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY �
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADDING CHAPTER 5.76 TO THE
ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE, ESTABLISHING
REGULATIONS FOR PEDDLING AND SOLICITING ACTIVITIES
DATE: APRIL 25, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Council introduce for first reading by title only the attached
Ordinance entitled: "An Ordinance of the City of Arroyo Grande Adding Chapter 5.76 to
the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, Establishing Regulations for Peddling and Soliciting
Activities."
FUNDING:
The adoption of the proposed Ordinance will not require any funding as an application
fee will be imposed to cover the cost of administration and enforcement by the City.
DISCUSSION:
During calendar year 2005, the City received a substantial amount of complaints from
residents regarding door-to-door peddling and solicitation. These complaints ranged
from highly aggressive sales tactics, misrepresentations, and even fraud, to late night
door-to-door sale visits which are often bothersome and considered by some residents
to be highly intrusive.
A city's ability to restrain and regulate such door to door peddling and solicitation is an
aspect of municipal police power and is justified to the extent it bears a reasonable
relationship to public health, safety, morals, welfare and convenience. Because of
certain clear-cut first amendment issues, such regulations must be narrowly tailored.
Additionally, case law regarding this matter makes a clear distinction between the
regulation of commercial and non-commercial (i.e. non-profit or religious based)
solicitation and peddling.
The proposed Ordinance requires certain peddlers and solicitors to obtain a permit and
to comply with certain time, place and manner restrictions imposed on the permit. In
addition, at the suggestion of Council Member Arnold, the proposed Ordinance
establishes a "Do Not Solicit Registry". The Do Not Solicit Registry allows residents to
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
ADDING CHAPTER 5.76 TO THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE, ESTABLISHING
REGULATIONS FOR PEDDLING AND SOLICITING ACTIVITIES
APRIL 25, 2006
PAGE 2
place their name on a list if they do not want any door to door peddling or solicitation to
take place at their residence. The Do Not Solicit Registry will be maintained by the
Financial Services Department and will be distributed to any person obtaining a
solicitation permit. It will be a violation of the proposed Ordinance for a door-to-door
salesperson to knowingly violate the Do Not Solicit Registry.
The proposed Ordinance was introduced for first reading by the Council at a public
hearing held ori February 7, 2006. Minor modifications were made to the proposed
Ordinance in response to several public comments received. Specifically, Sections
5.76.040(i) and 5.76.060(d) were slightly modified in response to these comments to
refine the solicitation permitting process and Sections 5.76.120(c) now requires the
Financial Services Director to periodically update the Do Not Solicit Registry. The
specific update process will be addressed through an administrative policy.
It is recommended that the Council introduce for first reading by title only the attached
proposed Ordinance.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Approve staff's recommendation and adopt the Ordinance;
- Do not approve staffs recommendation;
- Modify staff's recommendation as appropriate and approve; or
- Provide direction to staff.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE ADDING CHAPTER 5.76 TO THE
ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE, ESTABLISHING
REGULATIONS FOR PEDDLING AND SOLICITING
ACTIVITIES
WHEREAS, persons and organizations have been and are visiting private residential
properties in the City of Arroyo Grande ("City") for the purpose of peddling and soliciting
orders for the sale of goods, wares, merchandise or services; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that a variety of aggressive sales tactics,
misrepresentations, and frauds are at times employed in such activities and that such
peddling and solicitation activities are often considered by impacted residents to be
highly intrusive, disruptive and bothersome; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that public safety and welfare necessitates the
exercise of the police power of the City through the enactment and enforcement of this
Ordinance for the purpose of protecting the health, safety, welfare, and privacy of
residents.
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, correct, and incorporated herein.
SECTION 2: Chapter 5.76, entitled "Peddlers and Solicitors", is hereby added to Title 5
of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code to read in its entirety as follows:
CHAPTER 5.76 PEDDLERS AND SOLICITORS
5.76.010. Legislative findings.
The City Council finds that persons and organizations have been and are visiting private
residential properties in the City for the purpose of peddling and/or soliciting orders for
the sale of goods, wares, merchandise or services, and that some residents find such
visits and the tactics used by such visitors to be bothersome and highly intrusive. The
City Council further finds that a variety of misrepresentations and other frauds are at
times employed in such activities. The City Council further finds that the public safety,
welfare and convenience necessitates the exercise of the police power of the City
through the enactment and enforcement of this chapter for the purpose of protecting the
privacy of residents and preventing aggressive, threatening, abusive and fraudulent
practices by persons representing themselves as peddlers and solicitors.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 2
5.76.020. Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, unless otherwise apparent from the context, "Peddler"
or "Solicitor" means any person who goes upon the premises of any private residence in
the City, not having been requested or invited by the occupant thereof, soliciting, selling
or taking orders for, or offering to sell or take orders for the sale of goods, wares and
merchandise for present or future delivery, or for services to be perFormed immediately
or in the future, whether or not such person has, carries or exposes a sample of such
goods, wares and merchandise, or not and whether or not the person is collecting
advance payments on such sales or not.
5.76.030. Solicitation permit required--Exemption.
(a) Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to act as a
peddler or solicitor within the City without having first obtained a solicitation permit
issued pursuant to this chapter. Each individual peddler or solicitor, shall obtain a
solicitation permit.
(b) Any person peddling or- soliciting on behalf of any institution or organization
recognized by a tax board of the State.and the Internal Revenue Service of the United
States, which institution or organization is conducted wholly for the benefit of charitable,
religious, or nonprofit purposes and from which profit is not derived, either directly or
indirectly, by any person, shall be exempted from the requirements of this chapter.
5.76.040. Application for a solicitation permit.
Applicants for a solicitation permit under this chapter shall file with the Chief of Police an
application in writing on a form to be furnished by the City, which shall give the following
information:
(a) Name and physical description of the applicant.
(b) Date of birth, driver's license or other identification number, Social Security number.
(c) Permanent home address.
(d) Local address and telephone number.
(e) The nature or character of the goods, wares, merchandise or services to be offered.
(f) If employed, the name, address and.telephone number of the employer, or if acting
as agent, the name, address and telephone number of the principal who is being
represented, with credentials in written form establishing the relationship and the
authority of the employee or agent to act for the employer or principal, as the case may
be.
(g) The length of time for which the right to peddle or solicit is desired.
(h) Two photographs of the applicant, taken within sixty days immediately prior to the
date of filing of the application, measuring one inch by one inch, and showing the head
and shoulders of the applicant in a clear and distinguishing manner.
(i) The names of, and a means of contacting, at least two persons, who will certify as to
the applicanYs business reputation, or, in lieu of the names of such references, such
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 3
other available evidence as to the business reputation of the applicant as will enable an
investigator to reasonably and properly evaluate the applicanYs business responsibility.
(j) A statement as to whether or not the applicant has been convicted of any criminal
offehse, whether felony or misdemeanor, other than minor traffic violations. As to any
such offense, the date and place of conviction, the nature of the offense, and the
punishment or penalty imposed must be provided.
(k) Proof of possession of any license or permit which, under federal, state or local laws
or regulations, the applicant is required to have in order to conduct the proposed
business, or which, under any such law or regulation, would exempt the applicant from
the licensing requirements.
5.76.050. Permit fee.
At the time the application for a solicitation permit is filed with the Chief of Police, the
applicant shall pay a fee sufficient to cover the .cost to the City of processing the
application. The amount of the fee shall be set by resolution of the City Council.
5.76.060. Investigation and permit issuance.
(a) Upon receipt of an application, the Chief of Police, or authorized representative,
shall cause an investigation to be made of the applicant as deemed necessary for the
protection of the public health, safety and general welfare.
(b) The Chief of Police shall deny an application for a permit if he or she makes any of
the following findings:
(1) The applicant has failed to pay the application permit fee.
(2) The applicant has made one or more material misstatements in the application
for a permit.
(3) The applicant has ever been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, or any
felony or misdemeanor offense that reasonably and directly indicates a potential risk to
the public.
(4) The applicant has had a judgment in an action for fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation entered against her or him by any court of competent jurisdiction
within ten years prior to the date of application.
(5) The applicant fails to provide proof of possession of any license or permit
which, under federal, state or local laws or regulations, the applicant is required to have
in order to conduct the proposed business.
(6) The applicant has previously been convicted for violation of any provision of
this chapter, or who has had any permit issued pursuant to this chapter revoked.
(7) The Chief of Police, or authorized representative, possesses any other credible
information concerning the applicant, his or her employer or principal that reasonably
and directly indicates the peddling or soliciting activities will likely be used as a means
of committing crime, fraud or deceit. '
(c) If the application is disapproved, the reasons for disapproval shall be noted on the
application, and the applicant shall be notified that his or her application is disapproved
and that no permit will be issued. Notice shall be mailed to the applicant at the address
shown on the application form, or at the applicanYs last-known address.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 4
(d) If the Chief of Police finds the applicanYs business responsibility to be satisfactory
based on the specific criteria set forth herein, he or she shall endorse his or her
approval on the application and shall, upon payment of the prescribed fee, deliver the
required solicitation permit to the applicant.
5.76.070. Permit expiration.
All permits issued under the provisions of this chapter shall expire one year from date of ,
issuance, unless an earlier expiration date is noted on the permit.
f:_
5.76.080. Hours of operation.
It is unlawful for any person described in this chapter, whether permitted or unpermitted,
to enter upon any residential premises between the hours of seven p.m. and nine a.m.
5.76.090. Soliciting where "No Soliciting" sign is posted.
It is unlawful for any person described in Section 5.76.020 of this chapter, whether
permitted or unpermitted, to perform or attempt to pertorm the acts described in such
section by ringing the doorbell or knocking at the door or otherwise calling attention to
the person's presence of or at any residence whereon a sign bearing the words "No
Peddlers", "No Solicitors" or words of similar meaning is painted or affixed so as to be
exposed to public view, and no such person described in Section 5.76.020 shall perform
or attempt to perform any of the acts described in such section in any building, structure
or place of business whereon or wherein a sign bearing the words "No Peddlers", "No
Solicitors" or words of similar import, is painted or affixed so as to be exposed to public
view. Additionally, no person described in Section 5.76.020 shall perform or attempt to
perform any of the acts described in such section upon any property which has
registered and been included on the City's "Do Not Solicit Registry."
5.76.100- Creation of a "Do Not Solicit Registry".
There is hereby created within the City a "Do Not Solicit Registry." The purpose of such
registry is to allow residents within the City to register their name and the address(es) of
such places that they do not want any peddling or solicitation.
5.76.110. Applicability of a "Do Not Solicit Registry".
The "Do Not Solicit Registry" shall only be applicable to residential addresses within the
City.
5.76.120. Maintenance of a "Do Not Solicit Registry".
(a) The Director of Financial Services shall maintain the "Do Not Solicit Registry" ("the
"Registry") which shall consist of a list of residential addresses within the City whose
residents wish to deny any and all peddling or soliciting acts at the described residence.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 5
(b) It shall be the duty of the resident to apply for such Registry, maintain current
addresses, and to remove their name and address(es) from such Registry when so
desired.
(c) It shall be the duty of the Director of Financial Services to have a current and true
copy of the Registry available during normal business hours and to periodically update
the Registry.
(d) At the time of issuance of a business license, the Director of Financial Services, or
his/her designee, shall provide a current copy of the Registry at no cost to a peddler or
solicitor who possesses a valid solicitation permit.
(e) Any person may acquire a current copy of the Registry subject to payment of
duplication fees.
(f) Upon the request of any duly licensed peddler or solicitor pursuant to this chapter,
the Director of Financial Services, or his/her designee, shall provide a current copy of
the City's "Do Not Solicit Registry" at no cost.
5.76.130- Compliance "Do Not Solicit Registry."
It is unlawful for any person to peddle or solicit on private property where the resident
has registered his or her address and such address appears on the City's "Do Not
Solicit Registry."
5.76.140. Other conditions and regulations.
The following conditions and regulations shall also apply to the exercise of the privileges
granted by solicitation permits issued under the provisions of this chapter in addition to
those set forth in other parts of this chapter or elsewhere in this code:
(a) Every person issued a solicitation permit must be in possession of the solicitation
permit, a current copy of the City's "Do Not Solicit Registry", and a current City business
license issued pursuant to Chapter 5.02 of this Code at all times when engaged in the
business herein permitted. The permittee must produce and show the solicitation
permit, business license, and copy of the "Do Not Solicit Registry" on the request of any
person solicited or of any public safety officer or official of the City. No person issued a
permit shall alter, remove or obliterate any entry made upon such permit, or deface
such permit in any way. Each solicitation permit shall be personal and not assignable or
transferable, nor shall any permit be used by any person other than the permittee.
(b) Every peddler or solicitor, upon the request of any public safety officer or official of
the City, shall sign the solicitor or peddler's name for comparison with the signature
upon the solicitation permit or the signature upon the permit application.
(c) Every peddler or solicitor who solicits orders shall, if requested by the customer,
provide a receipt plainly stating the quantity of each article or commodity ordered, the
price paid to be paid therefor, the total amount purchased or ordered and the amount to
be paid on or after delivery.
(d) Every peddler or solicitor shall, if requested by the customer, provide his/her name,
business address and telephone number and the name, business address and
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 6
telephone number of the person, organization, or entity on whose behalf solicitation is
being made.
5.76.150. Peddler--Revocation of Solicitation permit.
(a) A solicitation permit issued under this chapter may be suspended or revoked by the
Chief of Police for any of the following causes:
(1) Fraud, misrepresentation or false statement contained in the application for
permit;
(2) Fraud, misrepresentation or false statement made in the course of carrying on
the business of peddler or solicitor;
(3) Any violation of this chapter;
(4) Conviction of any crime including misdemeanors involving moral turpitude;
(5) Peddling or soliciting in an unlawful manner or in such a manner as to
constitute a breach of the peace or to constitute a menace to the health, safety or
general welfare of the public.
(b) This section shall be self-executing and the suspension or revocation shall be
effective immediately. The Chief of Police shall give notice of the suspension or
revocation of the permit and sufficient notice shall be given if mailed or delivered to the
permittee at permittee's address listed on his or her application.
5.76.160. Appeals to City Manager.
In the event that any applicant,or permittee desires to appeal from any order, revocation
or other ruling of the Chief of Police or any other official of the City, made under the
provisions of this chapter, such applicant or any other person aggrieved shall have the
right to appeal such action or decision to the City Manager within fifteen (15) days after
the notice of the action or decision has been mailed to the person's address as shown
on the permit application. An appeal shall be taken by filing with the Police Department
a written appeal statement setting forth the grounds for the appeal. The Chief of Police
shall transmit the written statement to the City Manager within ten days of its filing and
the City Manager shall set a time and place for a hearing on the appeal. A hearing shall
be set not later than thirty (30) days from the date of filing of the applicanYs written
appeal statement with the Police Department. Notice of the time and place of the
hearing shall be given to the appellant in the same manner as provided for the mailing
of notice of suspension or revocation. The decision of the City Manager, or his
designee, on the appeal shall be final and binding on all parties concerned.
5.76.170. Violations.
Any person who violates a provision of this chapter is guilty of a separate offense for
each day or part of a day during which the violation is committed, continued or
permitted. Any person who violates any provision in this chapter shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor.
ORDINANCE NO. -
PAGE 7
SECTION 3: Severability. If any section, subsection, or clause of this Ordinance is held
to be unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful, the validity of the remaining sections,
subsections and clauses shall not be affected thereby. The City Council declares that it
would have adopted the Ordinance regardless of the fact that one or more sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases may be determined to be unconstitutional
or unlawful.
SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days from its adoption.
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 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 City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance.
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 passed and adopted this day of 2006.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 8
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.b.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
On TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006, the Arroyo Grande City Council will conduct a public
hearing at 7:00 P.M. in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET to
consider the following item:
ITEM: Appeal of the Planning Commission's interpretation that
the Viewshed Review process applies to the proposed
project and the subsequent deniai of Viewshed Review
Case No. 05-021. The City Council will review plans
associated with demolition of the existing 1,512 square foot
house, excavation of the building site to the curb level and
construction of a 2,647 square foot house.
LOCATION: 1238 Montego Street
APPELLANT/APPLICANT: Stacy Harmon
In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the Community
Development Department has determined the project is categorically exempt per
Section 15302 (Replacement or reconstruction of existing structures or facilities on the
same site having substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure
replaced) of the Guidelines. If the City Council does not feel that this determination is
appropriate, project approval will not be considered.
The Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or after the item
listed above. If you challenge the proposed action 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 the action of the legislative body for which the notice was given.
Information relating to these items is available by contacting Arroyo Grande City Hall at
473-5414. The Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20.
�4�
, Kelly W mo , City Clerk
Publish 1T, The Tribune, Friday, April 14, 2006
� p,RROYp
° ��P
� INCORPORATED 92
u '�" MEMORANDUM
� JULY 10, 1811 *
c4��FORN�P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'��
BY: JIM BERGMAN, ASSISTANT PLANNER �
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
INTERPRETATION AND DENIAL OF VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-021; 1238
MONTEGO STREET
DATE: APRIL 25, 2006
� RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt a Resolution denying
the appeal and denying Viewshed Review 05-021.
FUNDING:
No fiscal impact.
DISCUSSION:
Environmental Assessment
In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the Community
Development Department has determined the project is categorically exempt per
Section 15302 of the Guidelines (replacement or reconstruction of existing structures or
facilities on the same site having substantially the same purpose and capacity).
Backuround
In 2004, the applicant submitted plans for a two-story house with a subgrade garage as
shown in the illustration below.
t� �� --_� �=#
Jnf;mnf�T.L/ .
�.��'`+•., `�yy, ''\�.�mm(Ya�f 3
/���y�y�, �rt,qiF7.7
�1�'['naMC �.'"���WN�7 ~ � �_�2+tDNa:n
�"�.inv,,wcu.e�un,cy,,t.v:uchan.
c y Ivf: '
n;i„pt.�n � �Hli��� yasa,~„ �L�asf.Y*ir'
____.._ ....""' ""v ��{�
ewir.�•rg •>.•z•��.: . •'• tilF4
- •., ,..Yw.: . .. . .yeJ...:...v�.. . .
u4bGL�PY �.�,
��� c- p�,w--
c �
� "`
or..�..�ae�aru
'18J i�ftiNT
t ftLnR`it
� I !ILL(VI« . . .1 !. �itY[OY;14TPYiIXiY..i16.V� )
1
Original project. Note excavated subgrade garage, first floor extension and second floor.
;
�
I CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-021
APRIL 25, 2006
PAGE 2
The Community Development Director, due to concerns expressed by neighbors,
denied the original project and the action was appealed to the Planning Commission.
On August 16, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and adopted a
Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Community Development Director's
denial of Viewshed Review 04-016 (see Attachment 1, Planning Commission Minutes
and Resolution 05-1973). During the appeal hearing, Mr. Mankins, the uphill neighbor,
explained his viewshed concerns and suggested alternatives, which should be
considered by the Harmon's and other downhill owners.
In December 2005, the applicant submitted new,plans to the Community Development
Department to seek guidance on whether or not the Viewshed Review process was
applicable to the project. The revised design, which is the subject of tonighYs hearing,
involves the demolition of the existing 1,512 square foot house, excavation of the
building site to approximately the existing curb level and the construction of a 2,647
square foot house. Incorporated into the house design is the use of 8, 9, 10, and 11-foot
ceilings.
e�:.�w�n7�a�,zfz��
cwercw-�broof�h
w.`,F-hnserwf
__ tl1�3J-
k����`�� 2ti300 pt234-�f?5ti'l
� r .....-...� � • ��� r�iriM �! t� Man�a
Y
4Z9lif
iT&^U
Y
rJ�!41 � � � EtiStirtard9r3d0
'bA��A'Y 'n 2k231
.`"•;. : . . A
I -
� , in4x�'2'JDO
, '' �(.. .k� �
_— .,... . . . . . �� . '
. . m:ec ra4e23itl2
�,.::: ...:.:... , .:: P:ezU:-waib
.._. ..—. f.Nf.[8�n ]L(rt1nLOPf15uSG
. . ......"" {,.�»rG�,'}^~"" �";, �
pl�assy,crunzseaeua�d_ror '_—
��a i
The Community Development Director requested the Planning Commission make a
determination of whether the Viewshed Review process was applicable to this project
based upon Municipal Code definitions of"basemenY' and "story" and if so to approve or
deny the application. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 21,
2006 and made the determination that the Viewshed Review process was applicable to
the project and then made findings of denial (See Attachment 2, Planning Commission
Minutes).
City action related to protection of views from development impacts on Montego Street
can be traced back at least to 1973 with the development of a "D" Override (now known
as Design Overlay District D-2.5) regulating the height of houses on the south side of
Montego Street. Records indicate that the discussion of height restrictions was
implemented due to a petition from residents, presumably on the north side of Montego
Street. It should be noted that during these deliberations, the Planning Commission
discussed, but chose not to recommend a height restriction for the properties on the
1 north side of Montego Street (see Attachment 3, Minutes from the Planning Commission
i
�'
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-021
APRIL 25, 2006
PAGE 3
and City Council). Other nearby Overlay Zones related to building height includes D-2.6
(vicinity of Ruth Ann Way) and D-2.7 (vicinity of Hillcrest Drive).
���� / � f� f �, �.� � �o� ��
� � f Y �<� �'j� �Y_' � 5 SC,
, � ,.�, � l 1z,S,_ t �,. : �'�,,n. �: ,,.�'^�
'�„ .r�a'�� w Y i x ?n �ri
Y D L V �"�4�,� ��v' ^���. n., {"� `�
�� ( { i ..°". �",f 4 "� �#r+3 �
~ ; t i¢ � r�r� � � ��� §.„,,� ��.,u.n�� �'
SN'el.i,P ti r y��r y � �� » ,a ��s ..-
^# `3 L ,@��= ^ � flry2i+.. �"�. :
& � 4§ +-+'��:�'�"C ,,,�y` MT�$.�s,�.�,'`� �I �:._, �'., �y� � :
� -'i^'ti;=�-..��,��� { 7 y� � ���'t' s . S �3 Y '
� �
� �4„^�� �t � .i.�� �3i� � 3pk
r�n.q y,x� 9j �. {
I � �*'"....��$�.�...� � � t�'it � � ��' �""° 4s TF - �
� ,
��3,i,. �-�. 1�9�� � ��G
�,� � �� ��7�'`�""� �
t=� ;, #"���
�°�- * �-� a ,
-� � � �=����1 �
�� �� � � � ��
� , �,,��M
p- �, �n;.
a ` #` �fi�'`z
Portion of the Zoning map indicating Design Overlay Districtsregulating heights of buildings.
I Propertv Description
The subject property is 6,630 square feet in area, zoned Single-Family and is currently
� developed with a 1,512 square foot residence. Technically, the lot size is legally
nonconforming. It should also be noted that during the prior appeal in August 2005, the
Commission instructed that the City should initiate expansion of the D-2.5 overlay to
include the west half block on the north side of Montego Street, which has yet to occur.
Any expansion within a D-overlay is subject to the Viewshed Review process.
m. m _ � �;,..
_ F
q, .
;,'., .. .:.,..
::� . �er ah��:'> . F,.
... . l .• ���. �
�� �.i .
t, I
� . ... '�.'ss $"`... 'vi'.^�.�}, {1 y � �� �1 �.*.`<
y�. .} � �
_ j :' r .;, �:x 3` :��, �
unr� ,� �01��i,a,�;�I� ,
a
� � , . � - ,
,��t��s
_ �
{ [ i:A
��x
Existing house. Note the raised garage and finished floor.
I
i CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF VIEWSHED REVIEW OS-021
APRIL 25, 2006
PAGE 4
The parcel is sloped and varies 16-feet in height from the back property line to the front
property line (highest point 242 feet, lowest point 226 feet). Neighboring properties on
the north side of Montego share similar topography and are developed with either a
home and garage pad above the curb level or with garages excavated to curb level and
' living space above curb level. Most houses on the north side of Montego enjoy views of
the ocean and dunes.
� „
�' � � -
, � � x::;�
�' k ���
. � ,�z .� �x.L� � � ..
�� � �
. r �s� � �, ,� z'�-�� �i a n. �, �
r
;�I,� � _ . � ,. , � „ � �
�4 ,.yy �4 �-E , t .s �
� �
x �. '�.Y`J����� 'r� G`*# �:�k7�'i� *
, � , K ... �, �. � � � '�� . �
', ' "4� x'kMYa1A } � t'Kmv� x ��: -t�-";d�._„�'
. ,f*{ M r Y YY "y'� �n . i`S '1�$t �.+�,• $"
�:
. .' � . �* fY �a3 " Y � ,�`.t� 1 +* ([e �,
. 2 .....:t;h . x af'.. f
..,. �,x..�3?'hP'+i s.h r:. xw.. ...x�.. 'b`l� . Yty. , � ..... ......��^
Homes on the north side of Montego Street with garage pads above the curb level or with
garages excavated to curb level and living space above curb level.
Svnopsis of Arquments
Through meetings, the public hearing process and letters received from both parties
(see Attachments 4 and 5), arguments can be paraphrased as:
• Mr. Harmon - Viewshed Review is not required by the Municipal Code since the
proposed design is a single story building with a basement consisting of a garage
and living space. The applicant also has argued that the new design incorporates
architectural techniques to lessen the impacts to views such as a hipped roof to
allow view corridors, removal of the second story and a decreased roof pitch of 4
and 12.
• Mr. Mankins — Viewshed Review is required because this is a two-story building
or at least the building has similar impacts to a two-story building and should be
considered through the Viewshed Review Process. Mr. Mankins has also argued
and the Planning Commission concurred, that when the Viewshed Review
process is utilized, the project unnecessarily and unreasonably interferes with
views from his property.
Discussion of Ar4uments
Section 16.16.110.0 Viewshed Review� A licabilit a ears to a I to the
� , pp Y) Pp PP Y
construction or ex ansion of a second sto at 1238 Monte o Street and reads in art:
P rY 9 p
1. Areas Zoned RR, RS, SF and MF. No second-story addition shall be
erected or enlarged on any single-family home within the PD, PS, SF and
I CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-021
APRIL 25, 2006
PAGE 5
MF districts until a minor use permit for viewshed review is obtained, in
accordance with the procedure set forth in this section.
2. Areas Zoned RR, RS, SF and MF with a -D Overlay Regulating Height.
No new construction, addition or improvement thereof shall be erected or
enlarged on any lot that lies within the RR, RS, SF or MF districts that
have a -D overlay regulating height until a minor use permit for viewshed
review is obtained, in accordance with the procedure set forth in this
section.
Mr. Harmon and his representative contend that his house is not a second story based
upon the Municipal Code, the Uniform Building Code and similar houses previously
approved on Montego Street. The Municipal Code states:
"Story" means that portion of a building included between the upper
surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except
that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building included between
the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling above. The
basement or cellar shall not be considered a storv unless the uaper
surface of the floor above is more than six feet above the averaqe level of
the hiqhest and lowest points of the qround surface immediatelv adiacent
to the exterior walls of the buildinq {emphasis added}.
Included in the definition of "story" is the term "basement," which is defined by the
Municipal Code as:
"BasemenY' means any area of the building having its floor subgrade, i.e.,
below ground level on all sides {emphasis added}..
At the Planning Commission, Mr. Mankin's attorney argued that the proposed project
consists of two stories since the lowest level is not below ground on all sides. Staff
believes that the definition of "basemenY' is potentially flawed since the Municipal Code
does not define subgrade nor does it indicate to what grade it should be applied
(existing grade, average grade or finished grade). Section 15.04.010 of the Municipal
Code adopts specific codes as building and construction regulations of the City of
Arroyo Grande, including the 2001 edition of the California Building Code. The
definitions for grade, basement, and story.from the California Building Code are
included, as well as drawings depicting various situations from the Handbook to the
Uniform Building Code: an illustrative commentary (Attachment 6). These definitions, in
staffs opinion, appear to support the interpretation advanced by Mr. Harmon. However,
it is important to note that in some instances the City has intentionally adopted
standards more stringent than the California Building Code. Whether or not this is the
case for the definition of "basemenY' and "story" is left for the Council's interpretation
since staff has been unable to find any documents related to their creation. After review
of this information, the Planning Commission believed that the most cautious route for
this case was to utilize the Viewshed Review process.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-021
APRIL 25, 2006
PAGE 6
A second argument related to the Viewshed Review process is potential impacts of single
story buildings to existing viewsheds. Throughout the process, Mr. Mankin's has argued
that changes to Mr. Ha�mon's roof height will diminish his view. It has been pointed out
that the Residential Site Development Standards of the Municipal Code allow for a single
story house with a roof height of 30 feet and could allow an increased roof pitch, ceilings
above eight-feet or for vaulted ceilings with only the issuance of a building permit (see
Attachment 7, Minutes from the Planning Commission and City Council during the
establishment of the Viewshed Review process and Ordinance No. 378 C.S.). Direction
from the Council related to this issue could help to evaluate future projects on the north
side of Montego Street.
In the decision to deny Viewshed Review 05-021, the Planning Commission made clear
that compromise between both parties was the best solution. Staff met with both parties in
hopes that a compromise design could be found but no agreement could be reached.
Viewshed Review
If the City Council believes that the Viewshed Review process is warranted, the three
required findings for approval are reproduced below for consideration.
1. The proposed structure is consistent with the intent of this section;
2. The proposed structure is consistent with the established scale and character of the
neighborhood and will not unreasonably or unnecessarily affect views of surrounding
properties;
3. The proposed structure will not unreasonably or unnecessarily interfere with the
scenic view from any other property, judged in light of permitting reasonable use and
development of the property on which the proposed structure or expansion is to occur.
The Planning Commission specifically determined that it could not make any of these
findings in an affirmative manner and therefore denied Viewshed Review No. 05-021 as
outlined in Resolution No. 06-1995 (Attachment 8).
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Adopt a Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning
Commission's decision that the Viewshed Review process does apply and
subsequently denying Viewshed Review 05-021
- Take tentative action to uphold the appeal by determining that the Viewshed
Review process does not apply, and direct staff to return with a supporting
Resolution
- Take tentative action to partially uphold the appeal by determining that the
Viewshed Review process does apply and approving Viewshed Review 05-
021, and direct staff to return with a supporting Resolution
- Provide direction to staff
i
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-021
APRIL 25, 2006
PAGE 7
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Minutes of August 16, 2005 and Resolution 05-
1973
2. Planning Commission Minutes of March 21, 2006
3. Minutes from the Planning Commission and City Council related to the
establishment of D-Overlay district regulating height on the south side of
Montego Street.
4. Letter and exhibits from Mr. Harmon and Mr. Vasquez
5. Letters from Howard and Aileen Mankins and Raymond Biering
, 6. Definitions from the California Building Code and Handbook to the Uniform
Building Code: an illustrative commentary
7. Minutes from the Planning Commission and City Council during the
establishment of the Viewshed Review process and Ordinance No. 378
C.S.
8. Resolution No. 06-1995
9. Project plans
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
' ARROYO GRANDE DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION DETERMINING
THAT THE VIEWSHED REVIEW PROCESS APPLIES TO
THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND SUBSEQUENTLY
DENYING VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-021; LOCATED AT 1238
MONTEGO; APPLIED FOR BY STACY HARMON
WHEREAS, the applicant has filed plans to demolish an existing house and then build a
2,647 square foot residence; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department requested an interpretation by the
Planning Commission to determine if the Viewshed Review process is required for the
proposed project; and
� WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande considered the
interpretation request at a public hearing on March 21, 2006 in accordance with the
Municipal Code of the City of Arroyo Grande and found that the Viewshed Review
process was applicable and then made findings denying Viewshed Review 05-021; and
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2006, the applicant filed an appeal in accordance with the
Municipal Code of the City of Arroyo Grande; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing the
following circumstances exist:
1. The Viewshed Review process applies to this project due to specific definitions
such as "basemenY' and story" as defined by the Municipal Code of the City of
Arroyo Grande; and
2. The City Council made the following findings of fact:
Viewshed Review Findings:
1. The proposed structure is not consistent with the intent of Municipal Code
Section 16.16.110.
The stated intent of the Viewshed Review process is to preserve the
existing scope and character of established single-family neighborhoods
and to protect views and aesthetics and other property values in such
,� neighborhoods in a manner that is compatible with reasonable expansion
� on existing developed lots and/or new development on existing
undeveloped lots. Raising the roofline approximate/y 5-feet unreasonably
diminishes views from the property directly uphill since other building
�—
techniques including reducing the roof pitch or additional grading at the
rear of fhe property can stil! be utilized while maintaining the overall
architectural style and size of the proposed house.
2. The proposed structure is not consistent with the established scale and
character of the neighborhood and will unreasonably or unnecessarily
affect views of surrounding properties.
The proposed structure will unnecessarily affect views from surrounding
properties since it includes a roofline higher than the two houses on either
side of the ro'ect site.
P 1
3. The proposed structure will unreasonably or unnecessarily interFere with
the scenic view from any other property, judged in light of permitting
reasonable use and development of the property on which the proposed
structure or expansion is to occur.
The proposed addition unreasonably interferes with the scenic views from the
property at the fop of the hill including views of the city be/ow. The
interference of views is unreasonable since other building techniques such as
reducing the roof pitch or addifional grading at the rear of the property can be
utilized while maintaining the overall architectural style and size of the
proposed house.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande hereby denies Viewshed Review 05-021.
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 25"' day of April 2006.
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
� �
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ATTACHMENT 1 j
AUGUST 16, 2005 �
1
fll. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
A. STAFF PROJECT CASE NO. 05-005 — NAMING OF A PRIVATE DRIVE;
APPLICANT - S & S HOMES OF THE CENTRAL COAST; LOCATION —TRACT �
2310 (PARKSIDE); FARROLL AVENUE. �
Mr. Foster presented the staff report regarding naming the unnamed private drive
located in Tract 2310 (Parkside) as "Glenbrook Way". Normally private drives are I;,
named at approval of the tract map. This was an oversight found when addresses were �
being assigned. The developer (S&S Homes) submitted several street names and the {
Fire Chief found Glenbrook Way to be satisfactory. !`
There were no questions from commissioners. I
Chair Brown opened the hearing for public comment. I
John Kilpelainen S & S Homes, said he wants to ensure clear addressing for the new
homebuyers and he supports staffs proposaL I
Chair Brown closed the hearing to public comment. �
There were no further Commission comments. �
Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to recommend
approval of STAFF 05-005 and adopt: ��
RESOLUTION NO. 05-1972 i
GRANDEL NAMING THE PRIVATE DRNE �LOCATED N oTRACTR2310
(PARKSIDE) AS "GLENBROOK WAY"
The motion was approved on a 4/0 voice vote. �
AYES: Commissioners Keen, Tait, Parker and Chair Brown i
NOES: None y
ABSENT: Chuck Fellows I
B. APPEAL CASE NO. 04-008 OF VIEWSHED CASE NO. Od-016 & MINOR
EXCEPTION GASE NO. 04-030; APPLICANT — STACEY HARMON; LOCATION
1238 MONTEGO.
Mr. Bergman presented the appeal of the denied proposal to allow an addition of a ,
second story to an existing single story house and to vary from the floor area ratio
(FAR) standariis. Fie described the addition, garage and workshop area. There are
three design overlays nearby, but not on the north side of Montego Street. Letters have
been received both for and against the project.
There were no Commission questions.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 5
AUGUST 16, 2005
Chair Brown opened the hearing for public comment.
Mark Vaspuez, Architect and re�resentative for the applicant, spoke in favor of the
appeal, describing the Viewshed Review not as an encompassing standard, but a
process to work out issues between neighbors. He tried to both meet standards and
compromise with neighbors. Height has been an issue in the surrounding area with
several nearby Design (D) Overlay Districts (with varying standards). They're below the
height limits and pulled in the sides to allow view corridors. In consideration of Mr.
Mankins, they placed part of the addition behind an oak tree (which will grow to block
the view anyways.) Mr. Harmon met with Mr. Mankins several times, but Mr. Mankins
doesn't want any 2-story additions. While trying to be sensitive, the applicant also wants
reasonable use of his property. The immediate neighbors support the project; the
required findings can be made; and this would be a significant neighborhood upgrade.
• Will the second story be 18' above the highest grade? Yes.
• Are the "D" overlays 10-15'? Across the street iYs 11; Hillcrest is 15; and
Ruthann is 18 or 22'from the highesf point a/ong the curb.
• Of the people who signed the petition, how many are directly affected by the
proposal in terms of their viewshed? The two adjacent neighbors and Mr.
Mankins are affected in terms of privacy/view.
Howard Mankins. 200 Hillcrest Drive, spoke against the appeal, reading the Beckham
letter aloud (on file at the Community Development Department) and reading from the
staff report. If all the houses on his property line (7 total on that side) were to build a
second story, he'd have a wall of houses blocking his view. If approved, this would set
a precedent. He shared additional photos showing how the view is blocked and the
neighbors' elevations. There are three issues for his objection: 1) IYs inverse
condemnation, 2) discrimination of property use, and 3) not a hardship for the applicant.
In speaking with the neighbors, the petition shows a trend of concern for views being
taken away. He cited a Tribune article titled "County leads in View Protection", and an
LA article about the Laguna landslide titled "But they have a View". The neighbors who
signed the petition supporting the project don't have their views affected.
• Will the project block views from other parts of the property? Yes, of course: It
blocks 50% in front and all in back.
• In the past, Mr. Mankins has mentioned on numerous occasions with great
concern the issue of property rights and has chided Planning Commission for too
much intervention, so how is this appropriate? About 45 years ago, the Bandusi
brothers developed houses on Montego. He asked if they could keep them low
and they did. If it was a vacant lot, it would be different, but since they're both
existing houses, you can't add on for profit of one at the ofher's expense. He
would have little to say if it was a vacant lot.
Larrv Harlan, 1315 Hillcrest. felt the house with the new addition isn't in keeping with the
size of the neighborhood. Planning Commission could set a precedent by approving it,
which could enable others to add second stories along Montego, and that would be
wrong. Ocean views are prized entities, but also an economic benefit. He requested
Planning Commission protect their properties.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 6
AUGUST 16, 2005
Kathy Destefani, 1242 Monteao, stated that Mr. Mankins has no view because of
bushes in her and the Harmons' backyards (showed photos). He chopped a bunch of
bushes at the chain link fence line to make it look like he has a view.
Stacev Harmon. 1238 Monteqo, said he approached Mr. Mankins a couple times with
the intent to work this out, but Mr. Mankins didn't want him to build up at all. There is no
height limit on Mr. Mankins' side of the street, and he could build a 30' single-story
house with no hearing before Planning Commission. There are five 2-story homes on
Mr. Harmon's side of the street, so precedent has already been set. The real issue is
his specific home and Mr. Mankins view. There wouldn't be views from the entire
property if there were a solid fence at the property line. He understands Mr. Mankins'
position and would like to come to a compromise.
• If the four neighbors across the street from you applied to build 2-story houses,
wouldn't you have a problem? He wouldnY like it, but if if were legal, he hoped
they would work with him.
• Why did you pass the petition? He did so to ensure everyone was okay with his
project. Some people signed it and some abstained.
• Where are the other 2-story homes on Montego? There are fwo c/ose to the
school, one with a second story over a /arge RV-garage, his neighbor Scott
Adams'house, and the house on the corner of Hillcrest and Montego. A/though
they don't block anyone's views now, fhere's potential. Ultimately, the view issue
is really with Mr. Mankins.
Edward Grover. 260 Ruthann Wav, spoke in support of protecting the viewshed, as iYs
important for'the value of the house and the value of the lifestyle in the house.
Scott Adams, 1222 Monteqo Street, spoke in favor of the project. It will improve the
street. While it would partially block his view, he would rather work with the applicant on
compromise instead of obscuring the entire property line. Precedent isn't the issue,.
rather how much will it obscure the viewshed (less than 50%). When he added his
second story, he talked to the Beckhams, and while it blocked their view, they did not
have a problem at that time.
Tom Parsons, 1219 Monteqo. spoke against the project on the principal of viewsheds.
His house and quality of life is being destroyed because of non-native vegetation below
them that will block the view. You can't put a dollar value on a great view or be
otherwise compensated. The five 2-stories don't block anything. Anything that
degrades the view, degrades the house's net worth.
Mark Vasquez returned in agreement that the real issue is between Mr. Mankins and
Mr. Harmon coming up with an effective solution to satisfy both their needs. Anything
could impair his view, even a new roof. They tried to build where no windows are facing
it and where the tree will grow - thaYs what the viewshed process is about.
. Although you say precedent doesn't have anything to do with this, what would
happen if the Ms. Destefani builds up? (Ms. Destefani left the room requesting
the Commission not make her house as an example). ThaYs what this process is
for- to mitigate those things.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 7
AUGUST 16, 2005
• Do you think iYs fair to use the high point of that lot as a measuring point, since
iYs on the top of an unused retaining wall? That was used as a reference to tie
into other deve/opments.
Mr. Mankins reminded Planning Commission they're not a mediator and he needs their
protection. He read the stated intent of the viewshed review process.
Chair Brown closed the hearing to public comment.
Commission Comments:
Keen
• This will devalue his property, and he's inclined to deny the appeal.
Parker
• Mr. Vasquez has been very sensitive in trying to understand the situation, and
, she appreciated his being upfront and honest in trying to work something out.
However there are a lot more issues.
• Mr. Mankins does have protection through the development code, which states
"It is the intent of the city, by requiring minor use permits for the viewshed review
process, to preserve the existing scope and character of established single-
family neighborhoods and to protect views and aesthetics and other property
values in such neighborhoods in a manner that is compatible with reasonable
expansion on existing developed lots and/or a new development on existing
undeveloped lots." This takes away from Mr. Mankins' great views.
• We see precedent as a huge problem.
• It was an oversight that this area wasn't included in an overlay district, and she
would like it to be rezoned.
• This is a large home and does go over the maximum square footage as
proposed. They can improve the property, but iYs not warranted at the expense
of another person.
Tait
• He also appreciated Mr. Vasquez's efforts to minimize view obstructions. He
visited Mr. Mankins yesterday and their fabulous view would be blocked:
• He disagreed that it was just between two neighbors, and felt it is a neighborhood
issue.
• If there were a neighbor's request to build a 2-story on the south side, those on
north Montego would protest just as Mr: Mankins did tonight. He agreed with Ms.
Parker there should be a design overlay for the north side.
• He can't recommend approval. All the neighbors need viewshed protection.
Brown
. It is absolutely inappropriate for anyone to assail someone's personal character
at the Planning Commission or City Council, and iYs unacceptable.
. A viewshed isn't a right - iYs a privilege. That being said, the community has
determined, and rightly so, that views are to be protected. He's been frustrated
time and again in the subjective nature of viewshed reviews. People have even
argued that sunlight for their animals is being blocked and he's amazed. This is
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 8
AUGUST 16, 2005
a clear case of a view being affected — it can be argued to what degree — but iYs
clearly affected.
• In looking at the required findings, they have not been met, particularly #2, as it
does affect a view and in a large enough degree.
Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to recommend
upholding the denial and adopt:
RESOLUTION NO. 05-1973
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE DENYING VIEWSHED REVIEW 04-016 AND MINOR
EXCEPTION 04-030; LOCATED AT 1238 MONTEGO; APPLIED FOR BY
STACY HARMON
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Parker, Tait, Keen and Chair Brown
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Fellows
Mr. Strong noted this action is final unless appealed in 10 days with the City Clerk.
8:20a.m.
The Commission took a five-minute break.
C. AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 05-001; APPLICANT TERRI
FOWLER; LOCATION —212 MILLER WAY.
Mr. Bergman presented the proposal to remove a deed restriction and allow a
secondary dwelling unit on the second floor of an existing carriage house. The garage
and carriage house were developed in 1991 with a condition to restrict plumbing and
conversion to living space. Since then, rules have changed on secondary units and the
applicant wants to legitimize conversions to living space, which were completed without
building permits. The project appears to comply with the Municipal Code, except for
being 100 sf over the maximum floor area and utilization of a separate gas meter. Staff
recommends that Planning Commission recommend approval to City Council.
Commission questions:
Tait
• What is the average slope where the secondary unit is? Staff isn't sure, but it
has been terraced and leveled, including a flat area for parking.
• Code doesn't allow secondary dwellings above garages without going through
the Minor Use Permit process. Has that taken place? No, the deed restriction did
not allow for interior plumbing, so a MUP wouldn't have been approved. This
Amended Conditional Use Permit could release the deed restriction and wou/d
allow for the secondary dwelling since iYs considered a major project.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-1973
� _ A RE30LUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING VIEWSHED
REVIEW 04-016 AND MINOR EXCEPTION' 04-030;
LOCATED AT 7238 MONTEGO; APPLIED FOR BY STACY
HARMON ` ,
WHEREAS, the applicant has filed Viewshed Review 04-016 and Minor Exception 04-
030 to expand the first-story and add a second-story to an existing single-family
residence; and �
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered
, Viewshed Review 04-016 and Minor Exception 04-030 at a public hearing on August 16,
2005 in accordance with the Municipal Code of the City of Arroyo Grande; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this project in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project is
Categorically Exempt per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public
hearing, the following findings cannot be made in an affirmative manner:
I; Viewshed Review Findings:.
1. The proposed structure is consistent with the intent of this section.
The stafed intent of the Viewshed Review process is to preserve the
, existing scope and character of established single-family neighborhoods
and to protect views and aesthetics and other property values in such
neighborhoods in a manner fhat is compatible with reasonable expansion
on existing developed lots and/or a new development on existing
undeveloped lots. Although second story additions do exist wifhin the
neighborhood fhey are designed and resfricted to allow views fr,om all
homes. The proposed second sfory addition creates new ocean view living
area while signifrcanfly blocking the view from the properfy above. The
proposed addition would set a precedent for construction of simila�second
story additions that could seriously diminish ocean views from the existing
, houses af the top of the hill.
2. The proposed structure is consistent with the established scale and
character of the neighborhood and will not unreasonabiy or unnecessarily
affect views of surrounding properties.
The proposed addition is contrary to past City actions including the
I establishment of fhree Design Overlay Districts related to the protection of
i
RESOLUTION NO. 05-1973
VSR 04-016 AND MEX 04-030
AUf3U3T 16, 2005
PAGE 2 of 9
exlsting vlews from second story deve/opment impacts In the Immediate
I'I nelghborhood.
3. The proposed stn�cture will not unreasonably or unnecessarily interfere
with the scenic view from any other property,judged i� light of permitting
reasonable use and development of the property on which the proposed
atructure or expansion is to occur.
The proposed addition unreasonably interteres with the scenlc vlews from the
property owner at the top of the hlll due to the ex3stence of other buildiny
options. Under the deve/opment standards of fhe single-famify zone, the
property owner is allowed to consiruct a 2,652 square foot single story home
p/us a sub-grade garage and workshop.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of ,
Arroyo Grande hereby denles Vlewshed Review 04-016 a�d Minor ExcepNon 04-030.
On motlon by Commissioner Parker, seconded by Commissioner Tait, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Parker, Tait, Keen and Chair Brown
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chuck Fellows
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16"'day of August, 2005.
ATTEST:
�'` �
_�
KATHY MEN ZA, �--� TIM BROWN, CHAIR �
� COMMISSION CLERK
! AS TO CONTENT:
RO TRO ,
COMMUNITY DEVELO ENT DIRECTOR
,r
PLANNING COMMISSION ' ATTACHMENT 2
MINUTES I
MARCH 27, 2006
� �
The motion passed on the foliowing roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Brown, Parker, Ray and Tait
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Fellows
Commissioner Parker made a motion to nominate Chair Brown for Vice Chair;
Commissioner Tait seconded the motion.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: . Commissioner Parker, Brown, Ray and Tait
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Fellows
D. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION: None.
II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
A. VIEWSHED REVIEW INTERPRETATION: VIEWSHED REVIEW CASE NO. 05-
021; 1238 MONTEGO STREET; APPLICANT — STACY HARMON
Mr. Bergman presented the staff report for review of pertinent Municipal Code sections
related to requirements, standards, and definitions for Viewshed Reviews and to
determine if a Viewshed Review application is required in this case. Mr. Bergman
stated there had been numerous height restrictions on this hill site in Arroyo Grande
since 1973; there is a height restriction on the south side of Montego Street as well as
on parts of Ruth Ann Way and Newport Avenue and Hillcrest Drive. Mr. Bergman
explained that an interpretation is required as there are two equally concerned property
owners who both have convincing arguments related to interpretation of the Municipal
Code, especially as it relates to definition of a basement or story. He asked the
Commission to consider two questions:
1. Is the proposed project a single story house with a basement, garage, workshop,
and game room or a two-story house, if so
~ 2. Based upon the previous history of this project, past City policies related to
protection of views (overlay zones), and the Residential Site Development
Standards of the single-family zone, could the viewshed review process apply to
a single story house that would have impacts similar to a two-story house?
In conclusion, Mr. Bergman stated that staff recommends that .the Commission
determine if a viewshed review is required, and make specific findings for approval or
denial.
Commissioners Ray, Tait, and Brown asked staff for clarification on some of the
information contained in the staff report:
Director Strong explained that the D-Overlay for the western six lots on the north side of
Montego Street had not yet been accomplished by staff. There is a concern that if the
PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 3
MINUTES
MARCH 21, 2006
D-Overlay had been in place then even a single story house would be subject to
viewshed review.
Commissioner Ray asked why the applicant had originally applied for a viewshed review
(Planning Commission notes of August 5, 2005) when it was not required? Mr.
Bergman stated that the applicant had consulted with the Community Development
Department as a courtesy; however, if the applicant had gone to the Building
Department first they may in any case have requested the Community Development
consider the viewshed first.
Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment.
Mark Vasquez, applicant agent, spoke at length discussing why this proposal should be
considered a one-story, described the project and gave the history of it. He stated that
it is very clear in the Uniform Building Code that as proposed the garage and space
below is a basement. The only ambiguity is that the City Ordinance refers to the space
below as a basement, states that a basement must be sub-grade, but does not clearly
define what sub-grade means in relation to the property. The proposed space below
the house is sub-grade and the only place that does not meet the definition is the
garage door which is not sub-grade. If the basement were considered a story, then staff
would not have accepted the previous application as it would have been considered a
three-story house. He gave examples of other existing residences in the neighborhood
that were exactly like what they were proposing. Mr. Vasquez stated that the design
meets the requirements for a one-story design and is not out of character with the
neighborhood. A one-story house should not be subject to a viewshed review and they
believe that anything they do on this property that affects the view will not be accepted
by Mr. Mankins. This proposal would affect the view not take it away. In conclusion,
Mr. Vasquez stated that by tearing down the existing house and redesigning for a one-
story house the applicant has made considerable compromises.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Ray regarding the height, Mr. Vasquez stated
that it would be six feet higher than the existing residence.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Parker, Mr. Vasquez stated they could not
make the driveway level with the street due to the existing grade of the house.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Tait regarding redesigning with a lower roof,
Mr. Vasquez stated that this would not be the design or style that the applicant would
like, rieighboring houses have similar roof heights, and in order to not affect the
viewshed it would probably have to be a flat roof.
Commissioner Parker asked if a compromise could be made to look at a roof that would
have a lower pitch. Mr. Vasquez explained that if they go below the proposed pitch
there would be a significant cost increase.
Chair Brown opened the public hearing to public comment.
PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 4
MINUTES
MARCH 27, 2006
Ray Biering, attorney representing Mr. & Mrs. Mankins, introduced Mr. Garing, engineer
' and Ms. Smith, architect. Mr. Biering stated that the proposed development should be,
1) subject to the viewshed ordinance, and 2) be consistent with the required findings.
He then explained the definition of a basement (below ground on all sides) and stated
that this development consists of two stories, a first story with large workshop, game
room, an additional large area (use not stated) and is therefore subject to viewshed
review and the required findings. Mr. Biering then stated that he did not think the
Commission could make these findings based on the proposed project.
Mr. Garing, Garing Taylor & Associates, gave a presentation, stated the roof lines to
east are higher in part as the street is higher; the proposed new roof pitch is legal height
for a tiled roof, slightly less than Mr. Vasquez stated — 5 '/z feet; they believed that with a
serious design effort the roof could be lower by 4-feet or more. He showed some
pictures of a superimposed roof and the impact it would have on the view from the
Mankins property stating it would block the view of the City lights at night.
Mr. Mankins, 200 Hillcrest Drive, read from a letter he had submitted to the City which
addressed his fear of losing the view from his property; stating that some years ago the
property owners on the north side of Montego Street asked the City to restrict the
heights of the houses on the south side to 11 feet; there are four flat roofed houses on
the south side of Montego Street (contrary to what has been stated); his property will
lose its value if his view is taken; he enjoys the view from his home from all areas of his
property, not just from one direction; if this passes it will set a precedent and there will
be other neighbors who will want to do the same. In conclusion, Mr. Mankins asked that
the City not allow his view to be taken and stated that the roofline on this proposal could
be lowered. There is an opportunity for my neighbor to have what he wants and still not
interfere with my view, at least not to the extent proposed.
Chair Brown asked Mr. Mankins if it was correct that he was not prepared to negotiate
at all if his view will be blocked? Mr. Mankins stated that after discussion with the
architect (hired by himself for review of the proposal) there might be some things that
could happen that could change it.
Gerald Weaver, attorney for the applicant, discussed examples of other similar designs
existing on Montego Street and how this would have been considered a three-story
house if the basement was to be included as a story, reiterating the definitions
contained in the Building Code and the viewshed review ordinance related to
basements. He showed pictures of the view from the applicanYs backyard at the time of
the application for the original viewshed review and another picture showing someone
cutting the Mankins bushes down lower (previously blocking some of the view from the
Mankins property).
Larrv K. Harlan, 1315 Hillcrest Drive (south sidel, stated concern that the applicant was
trying to circumvent the previous decision that the Commission had made; if the D-
Overlays had been put in place we would not be here today; if this is approved today
then residents on the south side could also put in basements. Having the 16 ft
�
PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 5
MINUTES
MARCH 21, 2006
restriction only on the south side is not equal protection. He asked the Commission to
not consider this a basement and that they reinforce their previous decision.
Mr. & Mrs. Joseah Beckham, 220 Hillcrest Drive, stated concern that this proposal
would dramatically affect their viewshed; this would set precedence and there has been
talk of others wanting to do the same; going up six foot more would greatly affect the
value of their home.
Tom Butch, 1542 Hillcrest Drive, stated that there is a definite need for the D-override in
this area as this situation will occur over and over.
Tom Parsons, 1219 Montecao Street, (basement home, south side), concern that he
cannot build up, but that people can plant trees and block views. He has trees that his
neighbors planted that block his view taking away thousands of dollars in value. He
urged the City to do some kind of overlay/ordinance to protect views of properties all
along Montego Street.
Mr. Vasquez, stated that the photographs shown of the views from Mr. Mankins
property had been taken in front of his garage not from his living room window (where
his panoramic view is). Mr. Mankins stated he could split his property into four lots, but
in future these could block others views, so if we are to look at height restrictions on
Montego Street we need to look at the whole area (including the Mankins property); a
D-overlay should be consistent with what is here.
Chair Brown closed the hearing to public comment.
7:50 PM
The Commission took a 5-minute break.
Planning Commission comments:
Ray:
. When there is ambiguity we need to take a cautious route and use common
sense and this tells me in this case we should require a viewshed review.
• I feel that the applicant has made a good faith effort to compromise with Mr.
Mankins.
• This proposal is a different project as they have changed the minimum garage
height to 8' and they cannot go lower than that; they have also changed the
roofline to help protect the view.
. The viewshed review process is intended to be where neighbors can come
together each giving and taking a little; however, it appears that one side has
done significantly less than the other.
. A reasonable compromise at this point may be to go from a 4/12 point pitch roof
to a 3/12 point pitch roof, or change the material of the roof, but she would not
be willing to ask the applicant to do more at this point.
• It is clearly not the case that 50°/a of the view is being taken away as claimed by
Mr. Mankins.
• The history on the south side of Montego Street shows very clearly that you
could not have a height restriction that related to both sides of the street, as they
are entirely different.
PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 6
MINUTES
MARCH 21, 2006
• The City needs to take look at the overlay and also at the issue of trees with
respect to viewshed and as a community we can act like good neighbors and
compromise.
Parker:
• There has been good and valid arguments from everyone that commented; she
appreciated Commissioner Ray's comments.
• After trying to decide if this is a basement it became very overwhelming; so
rather than get into specifics it is better to go with the intent of this. The intent (of
16.16.110) is that we do not want to remove someone's viewshed in order to
build what we want.
• There needs to be a compromise between the two neighbors and this can be
done. With compromise the house can be moderately re-designed and built; with
compromise she cannot support this.
Tait:
• He believes this is a single story, but that a viewshed should be required
because the impacts are similar to a finro-story.
• The overlay is required for the north side of Montego Street; it may have been an
oversight that this was not included at the time; some equity is needed here.
. He does not like to see a good home demolished, but this is not his decision.
• Both parties are reading the same words (for the intent of the viewshed process),
but coming with quite different interpretations.
• Viewshed Review findings 1, 2, and 3 cannot be made with the proposed project;
however, the findings could be made if the applicant can show a design that will
allow them to enlarge their living space and at the same time presenre the
neighbor's view.
Brown:
• He does not like the subjectivity of the process. A view is not a right but a
privilege and the community is charged with protection; he has struggled with the
equities of both parties.
• He would have voted for this if in fact digging into the hillside would have caused
the roofline to be reduced.
• He believes findings No. 2 & 3 cannot be made.
Chair Brown put forward a motion to make the interpretation that a viewshed review
would be required and that findings Nos. 2 and 3 could not be made:
Commissioner Parker suggested that finding No. 1 could not be made either.
Chair Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to make the
interpretation that a viewshed review would be required and findings number 1, 2, and 3
could not be made.
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed structure is not consistent with the intent of this section.
;
PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 7
MINUTES
MARCH 21, 2006
2. The proposed structure is not consistent with the established scale and character of
the neighborhood and will not unreasonably or unnecessarily affect views of
surrounding properties.
3. The proposed structure will unreasonabiy or unnecessarily intertere with the scenic
view from any other property; judged in light of permitting reasonable use and
development of the property on which the proposed structure or expansion is to
occu r.
Commission discussion followed:
Commissioner Parker asked staff if the project could come back for consideration to the
Planning Commission if the project was revised to the satisfaction of both parties?
Director Strong explained that if the project was revised with the agreement of both
parties, then a building permit could be pursued without necessarily achieving a
viewshed review. However, if they wait until the D-Overlay is established then it would
have to come back as a viewshed review.
Commissioner Ray asked for clarification on the motion: In approving this motion does
it also mean that the Commission is saying that it is acceptable for the parties to sit
down and perhaps come to a compromise without restarting the entire process? Chair
Brown confirmed that this was the intent.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Brown, Commissioner Parker, Ray and Tait
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Fellows
Director Strong stated that a Resolution of denial of the Viewshed Review Case No. 05-
021 would be prepared for signature at a future meeting.
The Commission had no further discussion.
III. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 05-013; APPLICANT — TIERRA
PACIFIC CONSTRUCTION, LLC; LOCATION — 224 S. HALCYON
Mr. Bergman presented the staff report for review of a mixed-use project consisting of
nine (9) townhouse units and a three-story building with retail, office, and apartment
uses. In conclusion, Mr. Bergman stated that Staff Advisory Committee (SAC) had
reviewed the project November 3, 2005 and issued discussed in included required
infrastructure, building and accessibility regulations, vehicle access and street tree
requirements. The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) considered the project
January 18, 2006 and their comments included: Proposed street trees and existing
trees on site; Height, setbacks and privacy screening; the mixed-use building's visual
proportions and massing; the size, layout and massing of the town homes. The
applicant has modified the current plans based upon SAC & ARC comments. In
� - 485
I ATTACHMENT3
� i
Rrwoyo Grande pianning Commission "
May 1 , 1973 �
The Arroyo Grande p.lanning Commtssloh met Tn regular session wfth Chatrman �
Jones presiding, Present are Commtssioners Calhoon, Goulart, Gullfckson, Porter '
and Spierling. Commissioner PopG , js absent. Also In attendance are Planning
Irector Ga) lop, City Engineer Gering, and Pub11c Works Dlrector Anderson. I
I
;
I E APPROVAL
On motton by Commisstoner Gulltckson,. seconded by Commisstoner Caihoon,
and u nimously carrled, the mtnutes of the regular meet�ng of qprtl 17, 1973
were ap roved as prepared.
RE UEST FO DETERMINATION OF COMMERCIAL USE IN AN RA-B3 .DISTRICT
, Dtrec r Gallop advised t at In the RA and A Districts of the Zoning I
, Ordlnanca, th e ts spectftc petmission to allow sale of produce prtmarily
Patsed on tlie operty on which It is sold. Mrs. Ed(th Runels, 586 Valiey
Road ts raquestt a determination as to whether or not, it ts permtssible to '�'
sdll produtts Othe than vegetables or poultry, eggs, etc. prtmartly ratsed
on her own property. She tndlaates the products are uneatable and are used
foh display materlals such as �lower arrangements, terrariums, etc. The home
Is on a 7 acre parcel , Dtrectdr Gallop polnted out tt was his feeling khe _
, use is withtn the realm f the lntent of the Ordtnance� tn that the sale of �
materials prlmartly raise on �he properEy and sold on the proparty is wttfiin , jl
th$ rp811n of the term "pro ce'.'. He r'ecommended that, to be consistent with !'
past determtnattons, if such finding is made, that tha use be permitted ;
subJect xo Use Permit procedu . ;,
,. i
In answer to Commissioner ulart's question as to what are some of �'
the spectfic items ased that are n produced on the pcoperty, Director '�
Ga�lop mentioned possibly paint, co ainers in which tl�e arrangements ara
placed, products wfth whlch weeds are reated, etc. Ne stated that many tfines
containers are mdde from pumpkins. C isslvrter Goulart commented that tf the' I�
use fs permisstve subject to Use Permlt ocedure, a public hearing will be ;
required and the Cortxnisslon could then be ade aware if there ara any particular I
` probiems.
ii
After further discussion, the following ction wes taken; � �
i
� RESOLUTION N0. 73-29 II
i
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMI ION OF THE :
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE MAKING A DETERM TION OF � iI
. AN ADDITfONAL DEFINITION OF "PRODUCE" APPLIED ;
TO AN "A" AND "RA-B3" DISTRICT, j
� �
,
On motion by Commisstoner Spierling, seconded by Comm sioner Port@r, ;
and on the foilowing roll call vote, to wit; 'i
i
;�
' AVES: Commisstoners Calhoon, Goulart, Gullickson� rter, ' '
Spierltng and Chairman JoneS
NOES: None !�
, ABSENT: Commissioner Pope
' ' ;�i
' The foregotng Resolution was adopted thi 's lst day of Maq, 1973. ',I
. i,
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING CASE N0. 73-68, BLOCKS 2 AND 3. TRACT #150, SOUTH ',I
SIDE� OF MONTEGO STREET, R�1 TO R-]-D DI'STRICT.
' Dtrector' Gallop reviewed ihat a petition was received from properYy �'
owners on Montego Street, Tract #.150, requestfng that the. Planning Commission
, attach a "D" Override to the R-1 2oning for control of height on new �
structures on Blocks 2 and 3 on the 9outh �ide of pontego Street where there �I
a�e six tots not yet developed. He noted tltat there are three vacant lots
on the �orth side of Montego Street. !�
Dlrector Gallop advfsed that the petition suggested that en 11 '
he9ght maximum be establl'shed above exlsting �curb 'grad� A check was
made by ihe Cqnstruction Inspector, and following areTthe heights of the �I ,
exist9ng stru'ttures; Lot il - 14' 1" above grade; Lot 10 - 13'7": Lot 9 -
�'��'. I.ot 8 - 10'9"� Lot ] - 10'6"� Lot �F - 9'3��; Lot 2 - :9'2". Dlrector + �
&aliop recommended that lf a determination of 1 ! ' height limit is made, •
thak chiminTes and other ornamental features be exctuded, i
j,
. ' !
�:
I
-48�
; � ..
�
F�rroyo Grande Planning Commission, 5-1-Z3 . - ' c Page 2
COMMI,SSIONER POPE ENTERED THE MEETING DURING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION,
Upon being assured by Director Gallop that public hearing for Rezoning
CaSe No. 73-68 had been duly posted, publ3shed and property owners notified, . '
Chairman Jones declared the hearing open.
� Mr. Dan McHugh, 1211 Montego, inqutred if it would be possible to apply
the rezoning to both sides of the street. Director Gallop stated there would
be no point of limittng the height of the buildings on the upper side because
of the primary elevation of almost 10 or Il ' . Mr. McHugh stated structures
on the lots on the upper side will block the view of the existing houses from
the htlls, and it was his feeling they should be subject to the same limitatton
that is going to be placed on him.
Director Gallop advised that if an 11 ' height control is placed on the ;
property on the north side, the property owner might be deri.i.ed the right'.to
develop the property without extensive redevelopmeni.....:.;kle5flte�'her__.advised..that, '
from the standpoint of control , he didn't think' Eh'e'saii�� "fRni€"i'oti}d be es-
' tabltshed on the south side, which is below curb grade, as �b'n �the north side,
'� which is basfcally above curb. He also advised that at tfie present time the
� requested zone change cannot include any lots. that are not advertised, and
' the alternative would be to come back and ask for the same consideration or
� the three lots on the north side of the street.
i
';
Mr. McHugh asked if this rezoning could be tabled until both sides of
i the street could be considered at the same time. Director Gallop advised,
i in his opinion, they couldn't both be considered the same way because there
� are two quite different factors invotved on how the height control is es-
i tablished, in that the houses on the north side are built on top of grade.
Chairman Jones stated that the hearing would be continued as stated, and if
j a new petition is received pertaining to the north side, it could be con-
i sidered at that time. Mr. ,lim Love, 1238 Montego, stated he was in favor of
the p'roposed rezoning.
j. No further discussion for or against the proposed rezoning, Chairman
i Jones declared the hearing ctosed, and the fotlowing action was taken:
� - . , .
j RESOLUTION N0. 73-293 z
;
; RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING
� COMMISSION RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAI
! CODE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AS PROVIDED BY
,' CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE 21 , OF SAID CODE,
j
I On motion by Commissioner Goulart, seconded by Canmissioner Spierling,
I, and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
�
� AYES: Commissioners Calhoon, Goulart, Gullickson, Pope, Porter,
Splerling and Chairman Jones
' NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The fqregoing Resolution was adopted this Ist day of May, 1973.
i
I IC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE N0, 73-207 - CONSTRUCTION OF GREENHOUSES IN
AN DISTRICT I 1 TALLY HO ROAD - L C LA VINE.
_.
� Dire r Gallop advtsed that several weeks ayo a reques.t_ to consider
� whether green s would be permissive in an .RA-B3 •Dis:t�diGJt was. before the
Commission, and Reso ion No. 73-286 was adopted, determining .that the use
; Is permi.ssive subject se Permit procedure. Director Gallop stated the
property is approximately f acres and has recently been split into two
parcels, and the site on the hi s been excavated as a site for the two
greenhouses. The location of the bu 'ngs is such that there would 6e no
adverse effect on abutting properties, a t appears to be a reasonable
location and a reasonable use of the land, conditions of the lot split
required dedication of right-of-way and improvem of that rlght-of-way
; and. therefore, there appears to be no further requ ents to be placed
� on the Use permit.
I
�
I�
.I
�U�i
CITY COUNCIL MAY 22, 1973
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORN]'A PAGE 3
City streets; hereafter, a motion was made by Ccu.cil�au Woud, seconded by Council-
man Millis and nimously carried, to dispense w=t:h r�adi.ng the balance of this
resolution.
RESOLiTTION N0. ZO"+2
A RESOLUTION 0 iE CITY COUNCIL OF Z"sIE CITI9 �DF ARROYQ
GRANDE ORDERING ABANDONMENT OF PORTIONS OF T'rIE
CITY STREETS (STitEE AND HIGHWAYS CODE SEGTIO�I 8323j.
On motion of Councilman de Le secor.ded by Cossncilm�n Mi.Zlis and on the
following roll call vote, to wit:
{ , , AYFS: Councilmen Millis, Wood, de on a�d Mayor SchZage2
�
; i ! NOES: None
i
`�- ABSENT: Councilman Talley
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 222d of Ma�, 1973.
COUNCILMAN MILLIS IXCUSED HIMSELF FAOM THE COUIvCIL Ccie1MBERS, D- A POSSIBLE
CONFLICT'OF INTEREST IN THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONE CASE 73-68. R1 TO R1D. PR1.�TEGe� ST ° ORD. 1ST READING
Administrator Butch reviewed that a resolu`i�r. ?�as been received from the
Planning Camnission reco�ending the rezoning fram R°1, Single Famiiq Residential
District, to R-1-D, Single Family Residential District wi�h t:te "D" override far
lv�ight limit control of eleven feet (11') from tcp ef ::uru �o highest peak of the
house, excluding any chi�eys and other appur�enanc.es. Tne rezoning application
was filed by several property owners on Montego Stree*_. U'pon being as�ured by
DepuCy City Clerk Butch that all requiremenCS as provide3 by law had been camplied
with, Magor Schlegel declared the hearing open and ai1 pexsons :uould now be heard
for or against Che proposed rezoning.
The following persons were present and spoke in favor of this rezoning:
Garthrop Upton, 1218 Montego; Mrs. Jordan Countryman, 1222 MonCego; Jordan
Countryman, 1222 Montego; Gerald Baker, 221 N. E1m, owner of one of the lots on
Montego; and Jo}YCe Cwntryman, 1222 Montego.
There being no further discussion for or against the rezoning, Mayor
Schlegel declared the hearing clAaed. After Couac2l disceassion, which included
the possible even€ual height restriction of ne*a huus3ng on the north side of
, Montego Street, City Attorney Shipsey read, for its first reading, the title of
an ordinance amending the Municipal Cade so as tu rezone from R-Z to R-1�D,
certain property in the City of Arroyo Grande; thereafter, a ma�ion was made by,
Councilman Wood, seconded by Councilman de Leon and unanimouslp carried, to
dispense with reading the balance of this ordinance.
COUNCILMAN MILLIS RESUMED HIS PLACE AT THE COUNCIL TABLE,
ODE - 0 T - U D 0 C 'S �'ZRE CODF.
�, City Attorney Shipaey read the title uf an ordinance anending the 1965 Fire
� Code to onform with the 1973 Uniform F�ze Code; thereaf�er, a motion caas made by
I Cauncilman lli�, seconded by Councilman de Leon and et..an3.zaously carried, to
_ dispenae with ading the balance of this ordinance,
ORDINANCE N0, 85 C.S.
AN ORDINANCE 0 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING CHAPTER 2
OF TITLE 4 OF THE OYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING 1+0
THE UNIFORM FIRE COD ,
On motion of Councilman Wood, se ded by Cuunci7�an Mi11is and on the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Councilmen Mi11is, Wood, de Leo nd Mayor Sch7:9g��
NOES: None
ABSENT: Cwnc�tman Talley
the foregoing ord'inanee was passed and adopted tzie 22nd day of y, I9T3.
. �U:t
CITY COUNCIL ,Ii3TIE 12, 19i'3
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORi�]A PAGE 2
RESIGNATION ACCEPTAIiCE OF CITi" CLERK KIiv`C�].,EY CFFECTIVE JCNE_ 35. i97:i
Adminisl-rr�tor B:�tc1� r�.rad � letter irc>:a Yri�y S. King:i�:y in ahich sha
te ers her. resigna.t3or. fra.ia tiac pasitinn <�f .C-LL-; Cit:L'iC e.fEect;eae Jun�: 15, 1973.
The uaonc;.l re.ceived the le�.ter. with ir,z�ch x�t>.gre�':; co_�r.e;ncfing Mre. K:ingsley £z�r
ttne celle.nt �ob sh.. !itts dune. whiTe wo:king fn�� t:%�;:� City f�r. mvr� tP�.n Y.��n years
pius, id that her leace wiil certainiy be £ei� ras :a gx�::at: ioss to the Cicy.
A er C��nzn.cil di.ScU�s�an, on motioa. cE C�_;��ue-ii<<uvn cIl�: "L��.�n, seccn3ed by
CounciL-�tc Millis and v�nar.i.n��usly carr�ed, t1�e raa:.gnatit�?n nt Pr,_1y— S. Kingsl�y
from the p itien of Ci.ty Clerk, effeci.s.va ,7`+cnc. ].5, i9a3, was ac.aepted with
regret; an dininisttator Butcic was di..rrcr�d t� wr.`.�t a Iet_r�:-.� of thanks an3
appreci,atioa Poilp Eor ner seroice to the Cit:.
APP()INTMENT OF TY CLERK EFEECTIVE JIIN& 45o Z973 TNRU APRIl, 1!�,,_ 1976
i Mayor Scn el r.r-_qcest�:d an indication fr:ra ��ther C.�a�e•.i.i?ren regarding
j ttie' re�o�Fer.dati�n .}:at Cif., C�eri: Kingsle_.*'S s_,cr�:+.a.r:a, 'Cc��ac: 4. ;'_e:L Ca..^�po, be
� ...
� appointed Co iill t:. � pcsii:io�+. of Cit;; C1c:rk fcr c�:�=. r�..>.,�ixnc::,� ;:�i`. �Ir.s, Kingsley's
81G,'C�nd C�:Y1R Of O.tf'I. �i�:F.'C (i0URC11. C11:SC'1va3,ryAi� U11 114�+I:'C�:!C �:�j: (�i!��?riC..'.�.e.li3.T1 Millis,
,_ secanded by Counci7man�de Leo:i an3 unanirinusly ca.rri.�3, 'T.reF A: del Campo, i59
` Pine Streat, was appoi.0 .ci t:c the p�si:i.on of Ci�_y Cir�rk tsLft�c�ive J'une 7.5, 1973
through Aprii 16, 19%6, < • � salary of $25.00 F4:T' 'f.lGTll:ii,
RESPONSP FROM CQiVG1tESSMe�'v TCFICJM RE. FBDFRA;.°ATTi IiTGir�?AY�CT
, Adr�Lniat:rs�or EuLct; a3 a 3i:tt-er frcna G'.�r.gre.a�z�ran K.F:tch..sn, �atx:ich wa.s in
r�spense to the Cit; Co+sncil°. adoption ef a re:sula����c.yn t:rgirg prass:�ge ��f Senate
Bill 502, t:tie Fedc:ral-Aid Hi.g'ti � Lact nf 197:, ';a±i:i.c?; .zc�aa"id "�xrz�i rapin trxnsporta-
tion syst�;�s. 1he� Bil;. is p.r�e tly xied up :.n ttsz� Conferenca C:aurtnit-tea.
Administrat.�r. Eutct� a15o ci:u�ed �a�. L•he. C:rngrr:ss:��an`s ii.a5ua., Mr. Silva, has
b�_en in f:o s�e L-t:c C?�y,
RF.SIGNATION f)F 'TEF.N RECRi.nl''IQ'3 Si;PER 'SOF�TUM SI�;?_TO1V
AdmiuistraLor Baic�� rea3 .a lr:f. r :�L resignaticn d�'s;:d Maa 21, 1473 from
Tom Skelton, the Cit;j's Teeci Recx��at�ie St�p:.zvi.sn:, A replacccctnt Yor thF�
, position is being soughw, 6'.YC�I' COt1RC1 ci1uCC:i;ili+Ii� 67l P•(OtlOiY Of CiJllRi::�.L13ri
Mi7.lis, seconded by CcrWncil.man cie T.eon a, ur.+anim��uslg c�rrie3, tlie resignr�tion
of Tom Skelto❑ from the position of Tc�en creation Supervisor; was accepted
with regreC;. and Administr�.tor Butch was di ected to write a letter of thanks
and apFreciation to Tam for his service te e Ci.ty.
TREASUTCER°S REPORT FOR TfIE M�JTvTH OF MAY. 19?3
The T.rc�asssrer's Repor� fnr the r�onth af q, ].973; was received by the
Council, reviewed au3 orcE;re3 filed.
DEPARTMf?NTAL REPORT FOR ?'E� MO'zVTH OF MAY. ].973
The DepartmF.nt3i Re:port fur the isoxith of Ma 1973, was received by the
Cossncil, rc:viewc�d and o.rdere:u filed.
DISCJSSION REe PROPOSEll 1973-74 WOODS e�NIMAL SIIELT.ER ET RE IIEST
Administrator Bakch rreviewed the proposed counte offer nvsde to the Woods
Animal Shr.�lter i.n. r�gard to tneir propcsed 1973-74 bedge cahich requested a
decisive i.ncrease. 7'0e prepo�a.Y arrived at, af.ter numer.ot • snee:tings of the
Mayors f.rcmi tl.e citirs in i:lu: Cuur_fiy and incl.u3ing repre:ae ati�as f.rom the
County; arid an appointed techriical ccrnunitte��, was for a thr year conYract
, with an increase of 11.3o the firs; year, and a 5.5% i.ncreas each f.or the 2nd
an3 3rd y.:ars, over t:he pre�sen�. contract, After Cuc!ncil di.sc r;ion, it :,a,
� agreed ta hoZd eff action an thi.s nuatter un�il the next ra�xla mee�ting of: th.e
�`_ Council, Yo see what pi,sition th<a other entYties taKe.
COUNCIIk1AN MILLIS EXCUSED HTMSEI,F FROM THE COUNCII. CHr�MBERS, DUE A POSSIB3.E
CONFLICT OF IN'PEREST I.1 TEiE NERT. AGENllA ITF.M.
MUNI_ CODE AMEND.-nRD,ADOPT.-REZONE CAS_$ 73-68. R°? TO R-1-D, Mi)1VTEG0 ST_
City Attarnr:y Shipsey r+�ad the tit)�e; of an ord:inwnc<.a :�rendinK �he M;inicipal
Code so ab to rezone f.rmr K°7, Single Eamily Residential P:LsL--rict to A-1-D, Single
Family Res°dentiai. DisT'rict witli a "D" o•aer.ride for height liznit contro'1 uf
eleven f.eet (11'j fr� top nf curo to highest peak �f tlir roxase, c;xcluding any
chi.mneys and otne'r appurt��nunces; thereatter, a motLoa w�ia sna3e t?y Couxici.lman
Talley, seconded hy Counciisas de Leon and unantmcnus]_y ca�rr.ieei, t� dicpense with
reading thc: balance of this ordinance.
II (.���/
' CITY COUNCIL NNE 12, 1973
� ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA PAGE '3
I
� ORDINANCE N0. 86 C.S._
I AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING A PORTION
OF THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE REFERRED TO
� IN SECTION .302 OF TITLE 9, CHAPTER 4 .OF THE 'MUNICIPAL CODE
SO AS TO REZONE CERTAIN PROYERTY IN TIiE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE.
� On motion .of Councilman de Leon, seconded by Councilman Talley and on
� the following roll call vote, to wit:
iAYES: Councilmen Talley, Wood�, de Leon and Mayor SchlAgel .
I NOES: None
� ABSENT: Councilman Millis
I the foregoing ordinance was passed and adopted this 12th day of June, 1973.
COUNCILMAN MiLLIS RESUMED HIS PLACE AT TSE COUNCIL TABLE,
TTER RE UESTING LIEF RE ARCADES 0 BRANCH ST - R GOULD - HELD OVER
Administrator Butch noted that a request has been made that the
ma er regarding the building arcade at 111 East Branch Street be held over
' for 'scussion until the Council's next regular meeting.
I REV EW LEGISLATIVE BULLETINS FROM THE LEAGUE OF CALIF .CITIES
A 'nistrator Butch reviewed with the Council several legislative
bulletins om the Leagiie of Califomia Cities, which included a memorandum
regarding re lution procedures for the annual League conferPnce in .October.
� PUBLIC HEARI G W TER SYSTEM F ES
I Administra r Butch reviewed background information, for the benefit
of citizens presen regarding �he establishment of water system fees to be
, applied .to areas not resently l�ing served by water, which fees the City
felt necessary to ensu an adequate water supply in the future. Koebig
and Koebig had made a th ough study of future water needs and proposed
charges, The results of veral study sessions by th@ Council were s�arized
I. ' by Adminiserator Butch in a eport dated ' �y 8, 1973,` which included for -
consideration new Meter, Dis ibution, Service Main and Lopez charges.
Upon being assured by Dep ty C3ty Clerk BuCch that all requir�ents as
provided by law have been complie with, Mayor Schlegel declared the hearing
open and all persons for or against the establishment of a Water System Fee
, would now be heard.
Kay Carmichael, 433 S. Halcyon, ked for what purpose the income fram
distribution charges would be used. Dire tor of Public Works Anderson replied
that the CiCy is delinquent in e�tablishin additional water storage reservoirs
I and the funds would be used for this purpose She voiced opposition to the fees. '
i
� Walter A, Filer 1220 Sa e
i , g , presented a tition to Depub,� City Clerk
Butch, which was signed by approximaCely 45 pers s in protest of the proposed
� Water System Fees. Mr. Filer also Yead .a statemen opposing the fees.
I
�
� Additionally, the following persons were prese and spoke against the
proposed Water System Fees: Ward Sheldon, 1581 Newpor .Alex Ramey, 226 Sc.
Alpine; Morgan Matthews, 838 Virginia, Bob Frantz, 222 bles, Lee Lovett, !
I 127 S. Mason; Jerry Osborn, 311 Ramona, Grover City; Ji.m ams, 207 Garden;
Bill Simpson, 1879 Brighton; and Vic Pace, 212 Larchmont.
The following persons were preaent .and either spoke i favor of the
proposed fees or cvcmnented on the matter: Jim Moure, 200 Nel n; Elizabeth
Jackson, 998 Sycamore; and Mrs. Sturdevant, 251 Spruce.
i There being no further discussion for or against the prop ed'Water
iSystem Fees, Mayor Schlegel declared the hearing closed.
IThe Council discussed the matter at great length, including report
I covering the entire period of the Lopez bond repayment in interest, ich
report was prepared by an engineer and submitted to the Cit� on an "i terested
Icitizen" basis at no charge.
I
�
ATTACHMENT 4
aesign Graphics
1 O 1 WeSt Branch Street,Suite 1 3 Phone: 805 48 1-04'ib �����-"�•-�--�- �
PO Box 1 93 Fax: 805 48 1 -5645 '
Arroyo Grande,Galifornia 93420 Email:
design_graphice�sbcglobal.net M-
��
{, �:
Arroyo Grande Gity Gouncii
214 East Sranch 5treet
Arroyo Grande,Galifornia 93420
RP: Harmon Viewshed 05-02 1 Appeal
April 1 9, 2006
Good aay,
The foilowing addresses the merits of the decision before you.
An appeal of viewshed review for a 2-story addition for this
property was reviewed by Planning Gommission on August 1 6, 2005. The
appeal was denied, since it was determined that the second story addition
was too great an impact on the view from the ad jacent property.
After reviewing the options with Gity Planning staff, it was determined
that a 1 -story residence could be built on this site, even as tall as 30 ft
above finished grade, per the Gity Development Gode without Viewshed
review.
Suildling a 30 ft. tall single story residence would obviously impact the
� view from the adjacent property even more than the original 2-story
` addition proposal. Therefore, it was decided to add to the existing single
: story residence by building down into the existing grade for the additional
;' square footage rec{uired. The new project is 1 story in design as defined by
both on the Gity flevelopment Gode and Uniform Bulding Gode. (5ee
attached) Additionally, we chose to use a hip roof design at a low pitch
(4: 1 2) to limit the impact to the neighbors view. The proposed residence is
only 1 8'-6" above existing grade at the front of the residence and only 1 O'-
9" above the highest point on the property. As you can see, this rec{uires
virtually complete demolition of my clients existing residence to allow for the
excavation into the grade to minimize view impacts to the neighbor
.�i„s <:r� :..a, � \ ;. �_,�:
F
H:.
APR ? 9 2Q!li�
CITY OF A�'{?OYO CRP,r:�E
cor�rr�u,��n ��v�LOFiY�[PJT
The rec{uest the Gity staff has made of you ie to confirm the
interpretation that the residence is gingle story and whether the project
requires Viewshed review under the currently adopted aevelopment Gode
rec{uirements.
Per the Development Gode 1 6. 1 6. 1 10 Minor use permits -Viewshed
review:
Rpplicability. This section applies to ali areas zoned RR, R5,5F,
including those with a debign development(-D) overlay.
Areas zoned RR, R5, 5P and MF. No seconQ-story add(tion shall be
erected or enlargeQ on any single-family home within the PD, P5, 5F and MF
districts until s minor use permit for viewshed review is obtained, in
accordance with the procedure set forth in thie gection.
As a side note, if the former 2-story addition had not been proposed,
this issue would be very clear and you would not be requested to interpret
the Development Gode regarding this project.
we hope you will concur with the Gity's Development Gode, find this
project is not subject to viewshed Review anQ a Suilding permit ahould be
issueQ per etandard Gity permit policies so the Harmon's can move forward
with their remodel project.
sincerely,
rk Vasc{uez
i.ttachments:
Development t Uniform Suilding Gode Definitions
Additional Design Gonsiderations w/ Exhibits
Additional aesign Gonsiderations
While allowed a 30 ft height by the Development Gode, the building
heights were for this project were chosen to be consistent with the height
limitations for the surrounding D overlays in the area. The following
summarizes the surrounding overlay restrictions:
The D2.5 overlay for the 5outh side of Montego states a height limit
of " 1 1 ft from top of curb to the highest peak of the house:' The top
of curb is actually higher than the highest grade on the property.
The D2.6 overlay for the Hillcrest Drive/ Newport Area states a
height limit of "2 stories not to exceed so ft but in no case shall any
main building be higher than 1 5 ft above the highest corner of the
owners lot".
The D2.'7 overlay for the Ruth Rnn Way area states a height limit of
"building height of 18 ft from established curb height" with some
exceptions. It shouid be noted that the slope is across the lot
frontage in this subdivision and the curb is basically the highest point
on the lot in most cases. Those cases where the highest point is not
at the curb have the 22 ft exceptions.
The proposed residence has a maximum height of 10'-q" above the
highest point on the property, 1 S'-6" highest above existing grade at the
front of the house (1 �'-2" at rear) and a hip roof has been shown to limit
the potential effects of the construction on the aQ jacent properties.
The stated Purpose and Intent of the Viewshed Review process:
"It is the intent of the city, by rec{uiring minor use permits for the
viewshed review process, to preserve the existing scope and
character of established eingle-family neighborhoods and to protect
views and aesthetics and other property values in such
neighborhoods in a manner that is compatible with reasonable
expansion on existing developed lots and/or a new development on
existing undeveloped lots:'
This proposed residence has been designed to respect the intent of
the Viewshed Review process and is in general conformance with the
surrounding design overlay restrictions. It preserves the existing scope and
character of established single-family neighborhood, plus has been degigned
to reasonably limit impacts to existing views while providing reasonable
expansion to the existing developed lot as allowed by the 1�evelopment
Gode.
The directly adjacent agrieved neighbor, Mr. Mankins, previously
claimed and continues to claim he will unneacessarily lose his view. The
attached exhibits will show that this statement is incorrect, and that we did
consider the Mankins property in our design concept.
The exhibits attached and aerial photograph will show that the
Mankins living area windows face west to the ocean. The smaller windows to
the 5outh will look over the lower portion of the hip roof proposal.
Exhibit 1
Aerial Photo
Exhibits 2t4
View from Mankins Front View Window
Exhibits 3ds
View from outside Mankins Front Porch
, .�,�,. „-
r �� ., � � '�� T". , �
� . / `_ �� ��, �'�' �
� , �.'�, ���,. � ;:� S�� '" � � ' � , �.
.y . ; � R� � �
""���r.!,� ,1:' � , - „�
k, .* � fF +�:.'^
. ' /� ,t' . r4 � ,
,. � v. �• � ,r�; ;� ,
�
.
.. .
C ^ 1 �~ F�
+`,y t���,�� .+4.,�„�` �'. �'tY . ' ! . . -M1,�
� ' „{' r ' � �
y
�� � � ��.. `� � ' � � � :��� � ��. � I
'`�. . . �., ..� } �i°s �. � � ,
, � � ..�r� ,�� i, :� ��F ,n,� ,EXHI6175#3&`;' �, �
. . :� i,1�' � , � �,
�
"-'' ,e� �•* ' -r �
� �: . ' ' ` 3 ;-� '�tr� � VIEVv'
, �
, y�(,. v IN
� �+►rv \��G(,��c�, },n , . ' ' `.. �. • EXHIBItS #2&4� �
� � ' . �.. �`�.' � KIN ' �.`f".!. i
�:,,ti ?+MG;` ` >b1i��l � � ��N��1" . , .
.,'. �'"' ! � .��.� �; ��� �r ♦�'� k � �'
AC,h1 , ' q�rr,� f *,� . , .�.;
�� w4'� 4 �' . .
i AK �" � � ��'i �,'
� .TIZEE OAK� a�f � - '� �
° TREE � �
, �
. ' � -- � � . ::;� �� �i3��
, , s4. ... } � �'ar
� � ' �` �`: . . T''
�.� . . •• � ' �
� ;'� � 1 .. � �� . ..- .`""" .�.4 �
1 - n�. ^� � �a .. - ..r '�.�� S. � r.
Pg , -,.fi . .. - ... . . �. .
._ _"..�-. .�.,__._._.. ._.' _ .__.. _ ..
MONTEGO �--�'-
O „ �T9ti - ,
� . . � � Sf � .. �I . ..
�
,,�''�~ �'`'� EXHIBIt 1
, „
iik- �i;.
AERIAL PHOtO&EXHIBIt KEY
HARMON RESIDENGE
�
----___z
SO Ff HEIGHT LIMIT PER DEV CODE y. '�✓
$EC�B.��}.0')0(MAXHEIGHT=26t43') �' '�'°r {
:� ' i� i
� 3 ORIGINAL25TORY --' f�
HEE p�5E-_5..00 �^- � � �.
..
PROP05AL � _�'� � r
' },. ,
"'OPJ�PC""- JI"" t �•�� "
r a F�'�` __ _ - ' "
y..� � �l�i.�v' .. ����
i . � _ �.J��t�J . _..._._ �G�N � . �.
. _ ` --...___. .. ��y
, � A � ``J 1 � tY'.
�� y� t
� L �
�
r' � "��^� '�- j,.. i ����.'�,1 �.�_ .:,. �*�f �'3f�.,'+"a�F� �:'r
'� .� ^\fe„ :�Er �. ��. �:i I .� .i �R�=.'" }'," -
��, "�',�g-� e ""�`" "
�, e
s,_.,,,_
I "� S�� �.. n�� •�.. rv♦ " �
i �i �" ���.
�;: � -,;;,::.
�i6
;
�
.,;
. , � : »
� . �, � . .si;R ,�'�' i �.�, : � .
. .S4` 'i� i4
. . . . �4 'P�..itl�/f"y.�. M V 5+": .
. .. . .. . '�` . .$� '. ... . ..
VIEW FROM MANKINS LIVING iZ00M WINDOW (�RE7lHIDITf1) EXHIBIT#2
30 FT HEIGHT LIMIT PER DEV CODE �
rJEr.�6.��}.07�(MAX HEIGHT=265.43') 't.
�.i!-�� r ' �,'^ � ORIGINAL25TORY ,�y�Y�
� �n ;u
� . �GROPOSAL �- ,w --�
sr ,
a f I E-�fi :;" �
. ,,'__"'_'_"__'_" ' '` _�
. ( .; �' 4�4 __" '_' ""'_ _'
�
, �"._ a. _____
_
:,.
�
.
.. .._.� _-'—__,.:'�,11� . . �`,��J6:�5 ._ .._ ... _._. OCEA^� -- _. �� ''
� -� - ,...,� . ' 1,_. ..- __ _.__�.
� � ' .�. _._. ��� , _._.. _
� ���.:-��', � ¢ ��, � '-- . +.' � e � '�_. , .
.I[I �� � y� �
6 �Y" .
'. � j-� ��1 f2t ' ��� � � � `�... y�fy},.,� " .
v
4 `
r
/{
f
�. .- . - I� ..— . . �� �'� R �:+�r,'14 '' ..'.�...��..� _ - � ;�A^-� 1 -
i� . _n`.� � �'°a ` _ I "�w ..h `r i°'�
F!�� +`t�.W' v �.� ' • '.f. �'�S
� v � �� n
1 �, : J"
A. ,�"M� i- � . .� .
.. ' . -� -'.� , ' � �'
_ -_ ,�
,--. .
_. �� ..,.,q t �ia���� y �I�� ,.�� � � I W � - - .�-
-�Y.:'q 5� It
ti �"�
. �4 '..r.:'. .
i �. . .. � .�^... • '
;__-_':�_. _ .. ._ :,.x:�.T,9� -
.:;;:�� �� .
�
'"'�, , .`^kt .:F��. . . �
4
:r
+ � � . - -.�. '.
� °t#S� 'iv twii � `. � r, . � r
.."y. , . . � r '
..�� u l 4 ��' - . . . ,r .
y� � y.,+5i
�
� r x i i �'ta x . � � . "'es 6 J,"� �; vr e „'.,� 4,.> ,
� n 4 "
v� ' . . 31'� 4F'Y�. �.: .� �, .
�. y. 44 e�� � ��n`�N .:. �1�'P�i.+ .r.� i ..il � �;:s .
.
��' . �� � ,u :s. ..a.^ . . �a .._. . . . . . �
VIEW FIZOM MANKINS PORCH EXHIBIT#3
30 FT NEIGHT LIMIT PER DEV CODE
cjEC �G'.�/�.�7�(MAXHEIGHT=26t43') . - �t�� ..�;^: ,.
+iY�
. -. - i5'00 � ^t+',7`I -i ii I �7 , .,':
� .
� '��'"�.' ..
��
, �r � i . :
-_OPOFPOLE-254_97 , �"i� '�
' '_"_'_" '" y ' �I
. `r'�(u'^ i
1
' �,: __ i N�5_ _;.., . ..,�
�..
.._ _—'_'_ ..— -- _ : �
z
- —' ��
i� "
__. 4 . __. _ _
���~��' .. `�. ' '� �- b� tr.; ...r _" �
,s� -; ' "� , , `z� I i ;,� f _
�- �� � x.'�'_._ x , q 'f, i.'� I `��— <. ?� '+x.s _�!�
�_ ! V— �a�
, '+�..�t . 4 \ -� -
� � �p � r ,p:�; i { :�. � _ ,�,,.r . ..Y` �.
�1 , F ��z�--�—
:���
: .� m R �
..� .�
. _ ,��►� _ �.
,
���'�
�
,,; ,
;;
A,
.
�
� �
� �a� � �
�����,�, ,:s
��. ,
VIEW FROM MANKINS LIVING IZOOM WINDOW (�RE7(MI6R#'I) EXHIBIT#4
30 F7'HEIGHT Llf�f�r pgR DEV
SEC'16.04,p7O MnxHei�Hr_ CODE
( -26143') a`�_'
- H� I- RID6c_�Sg� A �� --
O '___
. 7 =
�--------_-
. TOP OF POLE_254 `�
'� ` �:E F,� - .97' .
�
Cn�- �., . - "_"""""'"'
�".1�''.�- __ _ .- n w�.� ._.... .
� �.��. '�%^F�` ,�'w " �Z+.
..
�y, � �`f' „- .-� D'JNES
' —
. : .. ., �: _ `v - .
r
� t � . v �•� ,��Y �'IC .}�+� � ___
4_'_ - •, �_.l - .�-,.
� '^F"-. , . . �, r({.(` . . OC�-aN —
p .. �
.. f �,'� Y 'F_.. . �� -��'_ �l
��
� . r /� ���n
.� .� ... ):.' �\`�
�..e .. ' � _ .. ._ .-
' � `�. . � • ^ �~�`-�� �,y��_�.
a 's_ " °"as�� . ` ' •�- #;i�R#^F`4 „'_'gwR _'��
. . � , � _
_ Y
� � , b
.c.M. �� �^•'i r1 L.VI, �' �
V ��M '>-'t. y L _y .
j �3u• �
.�. �. .4 \i..v�+L�� i-�. '.
�� �, +r ,�,r.+�a,yl,�£��n r f�.,: F � "_'
.,
. ... . ,. a,.
�::
r';�`
' ' '_ ` �
z.:.;�,.
�
�
C ��
��A�7�� . . . . . . . . .
� y� ..'� � ., �
. fIF y... �,1�'.lw..
� F� �3 I �I�
r �1 :k � �� ��
.iv ��i . - ""�l� "g��+Y N .
�. , ��.r �1
�. 1 � ' � ���� � ��. '
_ � ��`', . �.r " ,0. °� h T�h i F 4
VIEW p��M � _ � :-a,,�, � � , � �
„
—� __MANKINS POi�CH � �`-� `�`��`�w�� �'; "�'`��� ��
f.
_ -
. ,.
le. � �.�4y Y� yP
() . yv .��j�'yh
., w �'S�Y' _z R'�4'y^ _ . .
� -5�i[�.b"� 4'"&. .
' '"" a'':, "��� .o-.
—__-._______-_-- .. . _
....._. _..... :
—_
�—_ �
— ---- EXHIBIT#5
March 28, 2006
�: C�. a;u�ey ,
Tony Ferrara, Mayor � ��
215 E Branch Street �• "�' - " ='"' . �
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 ,���� �
�` :1 '/ `II�I.
Dear Mr Mayor:
On August 16, 2005 a view shed of my proposed remodel
( subterranean garage and second story addition )was
conducted by the planning commission. At that time it was
decided that the second story unduly affected the view of my
neighbor Mr. Howard Mankins and my project was rejected.
The only reason a view shed review was triggered was the
fact that I was proposing a second story.
In drawing up these original plans I approached Mr. Mankins
on two separate occasions. Each time he refused to look at the
plans and stated that he did not want me to change my roof
line at all and if I did so he would "take it to the supreme court if
need be." Not desiring a confrontation or court battle I waived
my right to an appeal to the City Council and decided to
, redraw my plans. We essentially scrapped the first project and
went back to the drawing board. This time I decided to remove
the second story and excavate more space adjacent to the
garage in order to meet the needs of my family and still
preserve as much of Mr. Mankin's view as possible. This idea
was actually suggested after the first meeting as a way of
compromise. The result is a one wall remodel with extra
expense in plans, site work, excavation and as it turns out _
attorney fees. .
During this redesign process my architect, Mark Vasquez, was
in constant communication with the city Planner Rob Strong
- . and at every step was reassured that this project did not
require any view shed review and met every other criteria for
approval and permitting. Interestingly Mr. Mankins was able to
wew my preliminary plans and again voiced his commitment to
thwarting this project also. Shortly thereafter I was asked to
reconsider my redesign and go back to the Planning
Commission once again. Mr. Strong explained to me that
although we did not have to (since I no longer had a second
story) he thought it would be a good idea and would
potentially avoid litigation.
I decided to comply with his wishes and voluntarily subjected
my plans again to the planning commission. It was never clear
to me.exactly why this needed to be done again. The agenda
items for the second meeting on March 21, 2006 were as
follows: 1 . To determine whether or not a view shed issue
exists 2. If one exists then to determine if it meets criteria for
approval or not.
The meeting on the 21st was very interesting and confusing.
Neither of these two items were ruled on. Instead, in the end, I
was told that more compromise was needed and that I had to
be more "neighborl�'. The project was then rejected. Several
things happened during that meeting that have prompted this
appeal. I will try to delineate them here.
I think it is important to note that a single story dwelling does
not require view shed review at all. If I had originally submitted
my plans as they are today there is no mechanism in place to
trigger this type of review. I was told originally that I had a two
story dwelling and had to go to review. I removed the second �
story and now there is question as to whether or not I still have
a two story house planned. The definition of a basement was
used to "prove" this point. Logic and common sense were
thrown out in order to cloud the issue. If my first plans had a
second story then the redesign clearly does not. If it does then
the first set of plans were for a three story home and that would
not have been reviewed in the first place but outright rejected.
By definition it would also make several existing homes on my
street three story. The definition of a story is anything 6 feet
above the average height of the lot. My proposed room does
not meet this criteria and therefore is not a story.
The redesign did several things. All of which were done by me
to try to accomplish my goals and appease Mr. Mankins. The
effort was on my part alone. Mr. Mankins made it clear to me
that if the roof line changed at all he would protest.
� After removing the second story a hip roof was added to
preserve a view corridor at the west end of the house. We
went with a roof that would allow for contemporary ceiling
heights and still not go too high. The final height being about
six feet higher than it is now. This being about the same height
as iny neighbor to the east and slightly above the one to the
west. Mr. Mankins proposed that I go with a flat roof. I think it
unreasonable to suggest that if I knock down my existing home .
for him and rebuild that I would go with a flat roof. No one in
this day and age would design a home from scratch with a flat
roof. Perhaps in the 1970's but not today.
The view in question needs to be addressed too. We are
talking about a view to the far southeast of Mr. Mankin's
property. A view that does not even involve what you see from
his front window unless you lean out and look to your left. His
aerial photo of his view and the superimposed effects of my
project are from in front of his garage; He has stated that he
wants the view presenred from all points in his yard and also
wants to be able to hear activities at Soto Field. My project as
drawn now will �reserve his dune and ocean view. It will
maintain the existing view corridor to the west . It will diminish
the view from the garage of the city to east.
Contrary to the arguments heard by some of the concerned
citizens this will not set any precedent. It has already been set.
In fact the meeting of August 2005 set in motion discussions to
set height limit overlays on the north side of Montego. None
- exist today. My project is exempt from this since it was
proposed before they were suggested. Even so as designed
now it complies with any known height limits in the surrounding
nei�hborhoods. So even with height limits in the future this
pro�ect would be approved. Unless of course there is some
ingenious way of singlmg out my home further.
With all due respect I am concerned about the way several of
the commissioners reached their conclusions. Mr. Brown
erroneously stated that because the height had not changed
from the first set of plans that he could not approve the pro�ect.
In fact the height of the project cannot be the same as before
the second story was removed. It is the same as the hei�ht of
the single story section as previously proposed and this is
where he made his error. Mr. Tait asked that the concept of a
hip roof be explained. Then Ms. Parker suggested that we
lower the pitch of the roof. This in spite of having explained to
her that this was already considered. If we go to a 3 and 12
instead of our 4 and 12 we gain next to nothing. One foot in
height (lowering) dramatically increases the cost of the roof. I
would be required to place a composite roof under the tile. It
would also be unpleasant to the eye and a waste of tile to
have fhe roof so flat the the tile would not be visible. In his
� concluding remarks Mr. Tait stated that he did not think it a
good use of resources for me to demolish and rebuild. He
went on to say that he felt like we we trying to circumvent the
, system by redesigning our home. While entitled to his opinion
these two statements have nothing to do with the issues at
hand and merely reveal his bias. I fmd it offensive to be told
that I have tried to get around the system when all the
compromising has been done on my part and I am before the
' commission voluntarily. Does he really think that 1 would
redraw plans and demolish my home to "circumvent the
system?"
My proposat is reasonable. It is comparable to existing homes
on my street. If you walk down Montego and look at the homes
on the north side you will find 12 homes. Four have
subterranean garages. There are five two story houses (some
three story if you use recently proposed definitions of a story).
Three including mine without the subterranean garages. Two
homes have tile roofs. Of the two story homes two also have
subterranean garages. You can see that my home will not be
out of character with the neighborhood, too big or too high. In
fact one could argue that it is out of character and in the
minority in its present state.
In the end the definition of a story was not determined. My
home was still subjected to a view shed review and denied.
The commissions recommendation was that the the °parties
should compromise and act neighborly."
This is hardly what I was expecting. The definition of
compromise needs to be explained to me. 1 have approached
Mr. Mankins and he has made it clear that there is no way for
me to go up at all. He wants his view preserved from all points
in his yard. I have been the only one to move and have in my
opinion done all I can. Being neighborly would seem to imply
that my neighbor had at least some concern for my wishes. I
have not experienced this at all. How neighborly is it to refuse
to even look at my plans. To make it clear without looking at
them that if we raise the roof line he will oppose it. How
neighborly is it to verbally assault my wife when she simply
asked him to please stop cutting down the bushes along my
back yard until I got home and could talk to him. He said "you
people from LA ti�ink you own everything." This exemplifies his
attitude towards his neighbor. By the way we aren't from LA.
But even if we were this "not in my back yard attitude" doesn't
sound like compromise is possible.
I am asking the City Council to consider all the facts here.
Property rights issues are emotion packed and many
emotional arguments were presented at the Planning
Commission. Unfortunately emotion prevailed over reason and
logic. And if I were cynical I would suggest that politics carried
the day. I respectfully ask for your help in this matter and have
confidence that you will make the right decision based on facts
precedent and faw.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I look forward
to seeing you at the next City Council meeting.
Sincerely,
I"0
S cy F. Harmo , D
1238 Montego reet
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
cc. Council Member, Joe Costello
Council Member, Jim Dickens
Council Member, Ed Amoid
Mayor Pro Tem, Jim Guthrie
'i
� ,
ATTACHMENT5
March 15, 2006
I City of Anoyo Grande
Community Development Department
214 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, California 93420
Subject: Case No. OS-021 Viewshed Review, 1238 Montego Street.
Dear Sir:
This Case is before the Planning Commission as a resuk of a denial by the
Planning Commission on Tuesday August l6, 2005 of a "Viewshed Review 4-016
described as a Remodel of eacisting residence includi�g the addition of 600 square
foot second story".
In this case, the issue seems clear from the Code and the record. One must
ask, What was the intent of the code, by the City Council when it was enacted?
I quote, "It is the iment of the City, (that)the Viewshed review process, (is)
to preserve the existing scope and chazacter of established single-family
neighborhoods and to protect views and aesthetics and other property values in such
neighborhoods in a manner that is compatible with reasonable expansion on
eacisting developed lots and/or a new development on existing undeveloped lots".
One would have to assume that this application attempts to work around the
intent of the Code.
In reviewing the request by the property owner, it appears that the desire is
to increase the living space. With some design changes, this is possible when you
look at the plans and find a 9 foot ceiling in the garage, a 10 foot ceiling in one
section of the home and a 11 foot ceiling in another. By lowering the 11 foot
ceiling to an 8 foot ceiling would reduce the proposed roof line by three feet. With
some additional design work,the roof line could be lowered and I wouldn't lose any
of my e�cisting view.
I have enjoyed my view both day and night for over 50 years. Why am I �
being asked to give up this view? The property next door can enlarge the living
space, with some design changes, and I will be able to cotrtinue to enjoy my view of
the City lights by night and the ocean, sand dunes, and mountains by day?
It is not right or fair that what I have and enjoy can be taken by another, who
knew what he had when he pwchased his property. Why should I have to live in
fear every day that some one else will move in and take another piece of my
Viewshed.
Please do not take away our Viewshed, which we have enjoyed for over 50
years.
� ww n.•a,y n.��q r•�,.�+ ,.j.*^? �lBiilC YOU VCIy TT1UC�
$1 .�..F. ._�i::x L , ._� �.�r'!
. PwAE� 11. � 2'�Qz j�"l,.�.L�G����^�/Q��lu�
Howard & Aileen Mankins
CIT'i` tJf� AF?f�t7YCs GF:E�,l�DE
C.C'i���'si�,;_;;,,,:"�" �?;r`;_�.;j�Yr+,,:'�6VT
. i
1
ADAMSKI MOROSKI �I ATTACHMENT 8 �
MADDEN & GREEN LLP �� '
Pos��Ot�rice Box 3835 TE�evuONF.: (805)543-0990
Snrv Luis O�aispo,CA 93403-3835 A�°roxrvevs Ar Lnw Fncs�mn.b:: (805)543-0980
- www.ammglaw.com - .
info@emmglaw.com
. _ M'dTC1115, 2�06 ('i :i�_r��'W� �'��� ei,",'�S�
" !� �:_� �;J': � � �
.... „ � . �-�v
Honorable Memliers of the Planning Commission hA�� ;� � ����
�-- CityofP,r.oyo-Gran�?e- - - -- - — _ _ _
215 East Branch Street �,�r Ej� ��s;F,,r,,:,,, ,�,;`,3��NE
Arroyo Grande,.CA 93420 , � ,�E�
C� u�f�.��s� .. . w?ST
Re: Viewshed Review Case Number OS-021
Applicant: Stacey Hannon
Location: - 1238 Montego Street, Arroyo Grande
Dear Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:
This firm represents Mr. and Mrs. Howard Mankins with regard to the viewshed review
case referenced above. The Mankins have lived at 200 Hillcrest Drive in Arroyo Grande since
the early 1950s.
The Planning Commission has been requested to review the pertinent Municipal Code
sections related to requirements, standazds, and definitions for viewshed reviews. Specifically,
the Planning Commission is being asked to determine that a viewshed review is required in this
case and make the findings required by the viewshed review ordinance: Arroyo Grande Code
section 1616.110E.
A Viewshed Determination bv the Plannina Commission is Repuired Pursuant to
_ - _ Municipal Code section 16.16.110. _ ._ _ _ _- _ _ __ __
The City of Arroyo Grande has long recognized the importance of view protection. THe
purpose and intent of Municipal Code section 16.16.110A. is as follows:
It is the intent of the City, by requiring minor use permits for the viewshed
review process, to preserve the existing scope and character of established single-
family neighborhoods and to protect views and aesthetics and other property
values in such neighborhoods in a manner that is compatible with reasonable
expansion on existing developed lots and/or a new development on existing
undeveloped lots.
Section 16.16.110C.1. provides that "[n]o second-story addition shall be erected or
enlazged on any single-family home within the PD, PS, SF and MF districts until a minor use
permit for viewshed review is obtained, in accordance with the procedure set forth in this
section." The section also applies to new construction that includes a second-story.
Pnso RoitLES Ot'e�cb:: 1200 Vrne S7'st;E'f•:•PnSO RoxLF;S,CA 93446-2268❖Te�.ei�uone(805)238-2300•:•FncS�m�LE(805)238-2322
Honorable Members of the Planning Commission _ . .
_ . March 15, 2006 _ - - -_ -
' Page 2 -- _. -
`"" " The project applicant_contends that tfie proposed residence. consisfs of one story and a
basement. It is our contention that the proposed Harmon residence is actually a two-story
� structure, designed to circumvent the viewshed protection standards by calling the project a one-
story with a basement. We have examined fhe_plans for the proposed residence in consultation
with a.cipil engineer (Jim Garing of Garing,_Taylor.&_Associates)_and an architect (Louisa Ann
Smith). _THe plans indicate that the proposed residence consists of a gazage and ancillary areas at
its-first story, with the.primary living area within the second story. THe problem with the design
is that the new residence will be higher than the prior residence being demolished, and the
! - structure is not consistent.with the.established scale and chazacter of the neighborhood and will
- unreasonably and unnecessarily affect.the views from the Mankins'property.
-- - - -
_ : . -
The Muriicipal.Code includes definitions for "story" and "basement." The Code defines _ -
-- "story�� as: _ _ _ . _
Story means that portion of a-building included between the upper surface of
any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost -
- story-shall�be that portion of.a_building included between the upper surface of
the topmost floor and the ceiling_above. The.basement or cellaz shall not be
_ _ __ - considered a story unless_the upper surface of the floor above is more than six
- feet above the average level of tHe higliest and lowest points of the ground
_ surface immediately adjacent to the exterior walls of the building:
The Code also defines "basemenY' as "any azea of the building having its floor subgrade,
i.e.,below ground level on all sides."
� . . ..
Ultimately the Arroyo Grande I4lnnicipal Codes prevail,buYto the extent that the City has
- - -. - - , .
adopted by'reference the California_,Building Standards Code pursuant to Municipal Code -
sectiori 15.04.010, the State Code may provide additional guidance. The California Bnilding
_ Code defines "basement" as "any floor level below the first story in a building, except that a
floor level in a building Hading only one floor level shall be classified as a basement unless such
floor level-qualifies as a first story as.defined herein." The Califomia Building Code further
definea"story"-and"f rst story" as.follows " -
- Story is tfiat portiori of a building included between the upper surface of any floor -
and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story shall
" - be that-.portion of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost
floor and the ceiling or roof above. If the finished floor level directly aboye a
usable or unused under-floor space is moie than 6 feet (1829 mm) above grade, as - -
defined herein, for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter or is more than 12
Honorable Members of the Planning Commission
March 15, 2006 - -- -
Page 3
feet (3658 mm) above grade, as defined herein, at any point, such usable or unused
under-floor space shall be considered as a story.
Story, First, is the lowest story_in a building that qualifies as a story, as defined
herein, except that a floor level in a building having only one floor level shal] be
classife_d as-a first story, provided such floor.level is.not m�re�.than 4 feet:(1219 _
mm) below grade, as defined herein, for more than 50 percent of the total
- perimeter; or not more than 8 feet-(2438.mm) below grade, as defined herein, at
any point. [For DSA/ACJ See Health and Safery Code Section 19955.3(b).
To be sure, the plain meaning of the viewshed ordinance, when considered in light of the
- various definitions and standards, creates potential ambiguity in the meaning and applicability of
the ordinance. Fortunately, one of your Commission's fundamental powers and duties is to
clarify ambiguities regarding Title 16. -
- The PlanninQ Commission Should Aonlv the Viewshed Standards and Determine
that the Proposed Proiect, as Presentiv Desiened, is Inconsistent with the Findin¢s
Reauired bv section 16.16.110E. . _ -
Section 16.16.110E. requires the Community Development Director or the Planning
Commission to make all of the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed structure is consistent with the intent of this section;
2. The proposed structure is consistent with the established scale and
_ character of the neighborhood and will not unreasonably or unnecessarily
affect views of surrouriding properties; and
3. The proposed structure will not unreasonably or unnecessarily-interfere
_ with the scenic view from any other property,judged in light of permitting
- reasonable use and-development of the property on which the proposed
structure or expansion is to bccur.
We believe that the proposed project circumvents the purpose and intent of protecting
views, aesthetics, and property values as intended by the viewshed review process. The
applicant could reasonably develop a new residence, with comparable squaze footage and
amenities, without interfering with the Mankins' views. As proposed, the residence.would not be
consistent with the established scale and chazacter of the neighborhood._ Furthermore, the
residence would uni-easonably arid unnecessarily affect views of surrounding properties,
including scenic views from the Mankins' property. As a result, there is no substantial evidence
- in the record to support the findings required by section-16.16.110E. -
Honorable Members of the Planning Commission
March 15, 2006
Page 4
Requested Action - - -
The applicanY can reasonably bnild a new residence without violating the purpose and
intent of section 16.16.110. Apnroval of the project wauld.set.a.negative-precedent:which would. -_ .
ultimately impact properties in the area which were intended to be protected by the viewshed
review procedures. Consequently, we are respectfully requesting that the Planning Commission
determine that (1) the proposed project is subject to the viewshed provisions of section
1616.110.; (2) the proposed project is inconsistent with the_proposed findings of section
16.16.110E.; and (3) the proposed project should be denied subject to a reapplication for a
residence which may be approved sutiject to the required viewshed review findings.
We sincerely appreciate your consideration of this matter. We will be happy to address
any questions o; concerns you may have at the time of the hearing, including questions
pertaining to architectural and engineering issues.
Very tr61y yours,
SKI MOROSKI MADDEN & GREEN LLP
� C�o �
�.-�..� -
RAYMOND A. BIERI�
- - Of Counsel
RAB:Ip
G:VNankinsH\Harmon\Cor�Planning Commission.doc
cc: Jim Bergman, Arroyo Grande Community Development Department
Timothy Carmel, Esq.
Howard Mankins
Jim Garing of Garing, Taylor & Associates
Louisa Ann Smith
April 18, 2006
City of Anoyo Grande, City Council
214 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, California 93420
Subject: Case No. OS-021 Viewshed Review, 1238 Montego Street.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Please uphold the decision by the Planning Commission, Case No. OS-021 in
their meeting of March 21, 2006.
We have enjoyed our home at 200 Hillcrest Drive, overlooking this
residence, for over 50 years. We enjoy our view not only from within our home,
i but as we move around our yard, either working in the gazden, or just taking a walk.
We enjoy the view during the day and the lights during the night. We can even hear
people enjoying the ball games and see the lights, at the Sports fields on the Valley
floor. The view of the mountains, sand dunes and ocean is breath taking.
; In reviewing the request by the propeRy owner,it appears that the desire is
' to increase the living space. This property already has more view shed than we do.
They do not need to increase their view. The request will raise the roof-line si�c
feet. This will remove at least 50%of our present viewshed. This is not necessary.
With some design changes,the living space can be increased without any
loss of view shed to us. Some changes to consider are, changing the roof pitch, a
flat roof, (there are four house across the street with flat roofs), different roof
material, remove backyard deck and lower the grade,use standard eight foot
ceilings in gazage and living areas and there may be other options available.
This case sets a precedent for others on the street to make the same request.
We have heard of another property waiting to see what happens to this request.
It is not right or fair that what we have and enjoy can be taken by another,
who knew what he had when he purchased his property. Why should we have to
live in fear every day that some one else will move in and take another piece of our
viewshed.
We aze not against the desire to increase living space,but it can be done
without interfering with our present existing viewshed.
Please uphold the action of the planning Commission and not take away our
viewshed_,,,which we have enjoyed for over 50 yeazs.
�:. r,�. �.-,. r-- r^ r� ,
�" '.
�: .�� , x . „ _ .._
, Thank you very much,
p f�!r; - F '��_ y��� � � � f� �
3 /_�� ,. ,,/� �j�GGU/r` � Q�.�AM'��
Cl1Y0� { .,-,�„�� r-�. , ,�,c � F �'''�
CG.^."'.�'.�;�';;�; r�,'�4'v.+.+l� �.�.i 1� Howard and Aileen Mankins
I
ADAMSKI MOROSKI
MADDEN & GREEN LLr
PosrOr�r��ceBus3835 Te�.eNUOrve: (805)Sd3-0990
SnnLmsO�e�sro,CA 93403-3835 A7'TORNF.YSATLAW F,tcs�nn�.e: (805)Sd3-0980
www.ammglaw.com
� info@emmglew.com -
�,
n�
April 19, 2006 - . -
�r: _
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members —
City of Arroyo Grande �
215 East Branch Street �
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 c .
Re: Opposition to Harmon Appeal of the Planning Commission's
Inteipretation that the Viewshed Review Process Applies to the Proposed
Project and the Subsequent Denial of Viewshed Review Case No. OS-021
Applicant: Stacey Hannon
Location: 1238 Montego Street, Arroyo Grande
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
The undersigned attomey represents Mr. and Mrs. Howard Mankins with regard to the
viewshed review case referenced above. The Mankins have lived at 200 Hillcrest Drive in
Arroyo Grande since the early 1950s.
The Planning Commission was previously requested to review the pertinent Municipal
Code sections related to requirements, standards, and definitions for viewshed reviews.
Specifically, the Planning Commission was asked to determine that a viewshed review is
required in this case and make the findings required by the viewshed review ordinance: Arroyo
Grande Code section 16.16.110E. On the basis of substantial evidence in the administrative
record, including extensive public comment, the Planning Commission determined that (1) the
proposed project is subject to the viewshed provisions of section 16.16.110., (2) the proposed
project is inconsistent with the required findings of section 16.16.110E., and (3) Viewshed
Review Case No. OS-021 should be denied.
The Planning Commission also urged the applicant and the Mankins to work together to
arrive at a mutually agreeable compromise to the proposed project design that would not impact
the Mankins' viewshed. Although Mr. Mankins and his civil engineer, Jim Garing, did meet with
Stacey Harmon and his representative in a meeting arranged by Rob Strong and Jim Bergman at
City offices, the applicant has apparently decided that he will not revise the proposed project,
and instead, chooses to pursue this appeal. For the reasons set forth in this letter, the City
Council is respectfully requested to deny the appeal.
Pnsu Roisi.rs Or•vicr:: 120o V�rve STi+r:r:��•}Pnso Ro�i�,es,CA 93446•2268•}Tr:i.r:rnorvr;(805)238-2300•:•Fnr.sinui.r:(805)238-2322
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
April 19, 2006
Page 2
A Viewshed Determination is Required Pursuant to Municipai Code section
16.16.110.
The City of Anoyo Grande has long recognized the importance of view protection. The
purpose and intent of Municipal Code section 16.16.110A. is as follows:
It is the intent of the City, by requiring minor use permits for the.viewshed
review process, to preserve the existing scope and character of established single-
family neighborhoods and to protect views and aesthetics and other property
values in such neighborhoods in a manner that is compatible with reasonable
expansion on existing developed lots and/or a new development on existing
undeveloped lots.
Section 16.16.110C.1. provides that "[n]o second-story addition shall be erected or
enlarged on any single-family home within the PD, PS, SF and MF districts until a minor use
permit for viewshed review is obtained, in accordance with the procedure set forth in this
section." The section also applies to new construction that includes a second-story.
The project applicant contends that the proposed residence consists of one story and a
basement. It is our contention that the proposed Harmon residence is actually a two-story
structure, designed to circumvent the viewshed protection standards by calling the project a one-
story with a basement. We have examined the plans for the proposed residence in consultation
with a civil engineer (Jim Garing of Garing, Taylor & Associates) and an architect (Louisa Ann
Smith). The plans indicate that the proposed residence consists of a garage and ancillazy azeas at
its first story, with the primary living area within the second story. The problem with the design
is that the new residence will be higher than the prior residence being demolished, and the
shucture is not consistent with the established scale and character of the neighborhood and will
unreasonably and unnecessarily affect the views from the Mankins'property.
The Municipal Code includes definitions for "story" and "basement." The code defines
"story" as:
Story means that portion of a building included between the upper surface of
any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost
, story shall be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of
the topmost floor and the ceiling above. The basement or cellaz shal] not be
considered a story unless the upper surface of the floor above is more than six
feet above the average level of the highest and lowest points of the ground
surface immediately adjacent to the exterior walls of the building.
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
April 19, 2006
Page 3
The code defines "basemenY' as "any area of the building having its floor subgrade, i.e.,
below ground leve] on all sides."
Ultimately the Arroyo Grande Municipal Codes prevail, but to the extent that the City has
adopted by reference the Califomia Building Standards Code pursuant to Municipal Code
section 15.04.010, the State Code may provide additional guidance. The California Building
Code defines "basemenY' as "any floor level below the first story in a building, except that a
floor level in a building having only one floor level shall be classified as a basement unless such
floor level qualifies as a first story as defined herein." The California Building Code further
defines "story" and "first story" as follows:
Story is that portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor
and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story shall
be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost
floar and the ceiling or roof above. If the finished floor level directly above a
usable or unused under-floor space is more than 6 feet (1829 mm) above grade, as
defined herein, for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter or is more than 12
feet (3658 mm) above grade, as defined herein, at any point, such usable or unused
under-floor space shall be considered as a story.
Story, First, is the lowest story in a building that qualifies as a story, as defined
herein, except that a floor level in a building having only one floor level shall be
classified as a first story, provided such floor level is not more than 4 feet (1219
mm) below grade, as defined herein, for more than 50 percent of the total
perimeter, or not more than 8 feet (2438 mm) below grade, as defined herein, at
any point. [For DSA/ACJ See Health and Safety Code Section 19955.3(6).
To be sure, the plain meaning of the viewshed ordinance, when considered in light of the
various definitions and standards, creates potential ambiguity in the meaning and applicability of
the ordinance. One of the Planning Commission's fundamental powers and duties was to clarify
ambiguities regarding Title 16.
In view of the City's specific definition of "basement,° the definitions pertaining to
"story" logically ultimately do not apply unless it is first determined that the level at issue is in
fact a "basement." Because a basement must have its floor "subgrade, i.e., below ground level
on all sides," the first level of the proposed Harmon residence cannot be considered a basement
since at least one side is by definition at or above grade. Consequently, the proposed first level
is a garage with various other living areas, including a workshop, game-room, and other
undisclosed living space. As such, the Planning Commission conectly applied the City's
viewshed ordinance.
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
April 19, 2006
Page 4
The Plannine Commission PronerlV Applied the Viewshed Standards and
Determined that the Proaosed Proiect, as Presentiv Desiened, is Inconsistent with the
Findines Required bV section 16.16.110E.
Section 16.16.110E. requires the Community Development Director or the Planning
Commission to make all of the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed structure is consistent with the intent of this section;
2. The proposed structure is consistent with the established scale and
chazacter of the neighborhood and will not unreasonably or unnecessarily
affect views of surrounding properties; and
3. The proposed structure will not unreasonably or unnecessarily interfere
with the scenic view from any other property,judged in light of permitting
reasonable use and development of the property on which the proposed
structure or expansion is to occur.
We believe, and the Planning Commission agreed, that the proposed project circumvents
the purpose and intent of protecting views, aesthetics, and property values as intended by the
viewshed review process. The applicant could reasonably develop a new residence, with
comparable square footage and amenities, without interfering with the Mankins' views. As
proposed, the residence would not be consistent with the established scale and chazacter of the
neighborhood. Furthermore, the residence would unreasonably and unnecessarily affect views
of surrounding properties, including scenic views from the Mankins' property. As a result, there
was no substantial evidence in the record to support the findings required by section 16.16.110E,
and on that basis, the Planning Commission properly denied the proposed project.
Requested Action
The applicant can reasonably build a new residence without violating the purpose and
intent of section 16.16.110. Approval of the project as is would set a negative precedent which
would ultimately impact properties in the area which were intended to be protected by the
viewshed review procedures. Consequently, we are respectfully requesting that the City Council
uphold and affirrn the Planning Commission's determination that (1) the proposed project is
subject to the viewshed provisions of section 16.16.110.; (2) the proposed project is
inconsistent with the proposed tindings of section 1616.110E.; and (3) the proposed project
shouid be denied subject to a reapplication for a residence which may be approved subject
to the required views6ed review findings.
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
April 19, 2006
Page 5
We sincerely appreciate your consideration of this matter. We will be happy to address
any questions or concerns you may have at the time of the appea] hearing, including questions
pertaining to azchitectural and engineering issues.
Very truly yours,
ADAMSKI MOROSKI MADDEN & GREEN LLP
1 . --
RAYMOND A. BIERIN�
OfCounsel
RAB:Ip
G:VNankinsHWamwn\Cor\City Council 041906.doc
cc: Rob Strong, Director of Community Development
Timothy Carmel, Esq.
Howard Mankins
Jim Garing of Garing, Taylor&Associates
ATTACHMENT6
2M 2001 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
203
�
APARTMENTHOUSEisanybuildingorportionthereofthat thisdefinition,donotincludebalconieswithinassemblyoccupan-
wntains three or more dwelli g units and,for the purpose of this cies or mezzanines lhal comp� wrth Section 507.
code,includes residential co dominiums. (ForHCD I&HCD 2] A IC STORY is any story immedi- c �
APPROVED,as to mate als and types of consiruction,refers a�ely be(ow lhe roof and whollyt r part[y wilhin�he roo/'framing, c �
to approval by ihe building fficial as the result of investigation designed,qrranged or buik fo�usiness or smrage use. c �
and tests wnducted by th building official, or by reason of A[ffOMA7'IC,as applied ro£re-protection devices, is a de- G
accepted principles or tests recognized authorities,teChnical or ���or system providing an emergency function without the ne-
scientific organizations. . cessity of human intervention��nd activated as a result of a
�� A [ForHCDl&HCD2,D �ACj Approvedmeansmeetirtgthe prodetermined temperature rise,�te of rise of temperamre or in- �
� A approvaloftheenfo�cemen[ gency,exceplasolherwiseprovided crease in the level of combustion� roduc�s.
�� � A 6ylaw,when usedin connec ion wi�h anysystem,material,rypeof AUTOMATIC DOOR./For H�D l/AC] See Chap�er 11A, c �
� A consnuc�ion,fix�ure or ap iance as the result of invu�iga�ions Section 1102A.1 A. [For DSA�A:J See Chapter IIA, Section c �
A L
� A and lests conduc(ed by fhe ency,or 6y reasan of accepted prin- ]]02A.1 A ond Chap�er IIB,Sec[ibn 7102B. c i -
� c ciplesortestsbynationa(a lkorities,tecHnica[,health,orscien-
i c <ifc arganizations or agen �'es.
L A SECTION 203—B
I I � � NOTES:l.See Healt and Safery Code Section 17920 for"ap-
i c p.o�ed^asappfredm�e: e�rwho��.ucrtonand6uitdingso.srruc- BALCONYisthatportionofthe ealingspaceofanassembly
luru accessarylherem, referenced in Section IOI.I Z9. fOOm,the lOwes[part of which is rai d 4 fee[(1219 mm)oI mOre
L C 2. SeeHea/lhondSaf CodeSectionl792/.lfor"opproved"as abovethelevelofthemainfloorand hallincludetheareaprovid-
II � � °ppiiedmrheuseoJhorpi uinresidentialconsfrucfionro/erencedin ing access b lhe seating area or se ng only as a foyer.
L n Secrionl0/.I7.9. BA . CC`8CCl1'eMl
L C
� A 3. SeeHealthandSaf CodeSec�ion1792I.3for"approved"as �
IIL A app�tedm[ow)t�n wa�� �oser:t�res�ee��ia4o�sr.�cno�,asreJa- BASEMENT is any floor level below the first story in a build-
� p encedinSec�ion 10I.1z � . ing,except that a floor level in a building having only one floor
L A 4. SceHml(handSaf. CodeSection19966for"approved"as evelshallbeclassifiedasabasemen[unlesssuchfloorlevelqua-
� p applied m facmry-bui(f singas referencedin SeUion/01./7.9. 5 a fllsl Slory as deflned h_e�feln�. ,��
APPROVED AGENCY �s an established and rewgniud (ForD , C'D°lrA'�`�`�A77IROOM.See Chaprer IIA, A LII
agency regulady engaged i� conducting tests or fumishing in- Section 1102A.2-B. A L
spection services,when sucl�agency has been approved. [ForSFM/ BEDRLDDENPE ONmeansapersoncottfined c �
APPROVEDFABRICA�ORisanestablishedandqualifted �oabed,requiringassistanceinturingorunabletoindependeno- A �
person,firm or corporation a proved by the building official pur- �Y�ransfer�o and from bed,and nble to leave a building unas- A L
suant to Section 1701.7 of tlus code. sisted wder emergency conditions. c �
� c [ForHCD 1&HCD 2] ApPPROVED LISTLNG AGENCY is BOILER,HIGH-PRESSURE�is a boiler furnishing steam at C
� c any agency approved 6y the e°n,�orcement agency unlessotherwise pressures in excess of lS pounds pa r square inch(psi)(103.4 kPa)
� � proviJedbystutute,whichisidlhebusinessof[istingandlabeling orholwaleraltemperaturesinexc sof250°P(121°C),malpres-
� c and which makes available al�least an annualpubl'uhed report of sures in excess of 160 psi(1103.2�kPa).
� c such lislings in which specifi mformation is included that the BOILER ROOM is any room c.ontaining a steam or hohwater C
� c producthasbeentested�oreca n¢edseandardsandfoundtocom- boiler. �
i c P�Y• (ForDSA(AC,HCD I&HCD 2J BUILDING is any stmcture c �
� � [F o r D S A I A C, H C D 7 & �C D 2 J A P P R O V E D T E S T L N G /j o r S F M J a s mw h i c h s t a l e a g e n c o�s h a v e r e g u l a t o ry p o w e r,u s e d � �
� A AGENCY is any agency whi k is determined by enjorcement orintendedforsupportingorsheltetiinganyuseoroccupancy,(for � �
� cagency,exceptasolherwisepr�videJ6ysfnW�gtohuveudequn(e DSA�AC�SFM/dousinbarencfosureofperso�u',ui�imuls,chut- � �+C
� cpersonnefandexpertisemcar'r'�outeke�estingofsystems,maleri- tels,equipmentorpropertyoJany�kinJ,undalsoincludesstruo c �
t�, c a�T,�YPe of construction ftz�ures or appliances. tures wherein �hings may be grown, made, produced, kepl, � �
handled,stored or disposed of,anJ n!1 nppendages,accessories, A L
AREA.See"floor area." r c �
apparatus,app[iances and equipment instal/ed as a part tkereof. A �
ASSEMBLYBUILDING' abuildingorportionofabuilding �d p �
usedforthegatheringtogethe�f50ormorepersonsforsuchpur- "Building" shall no[ include machinery, equipment or p � ,
poses as deliberation,educatia ,instruction,worship,entertain- °PP�innces installed for manufacture or process purposes only, c �
meny amusement,drinking or dining,or awaiting transportation. norshal[i�include any cons�ruc�io�ins�afla�ions which are not a c �
part of a building,any�unne/,mine shaft,highway or bridge,or A L
L C^ [For DSA/AC, SFMI Any�bui[ding or structure or portion includeanyhousetrailerorvehic/ewhichcon/'orms7otheYehicle A �
I � A thereof used or intended to be�ed for�He showing of motion pio- Code. `� n �
� c tureswhenanadmissionfeeise�argedandwhensuchbuifdingor � �
� A struclure is o en to the ublic and has a ca aci o 10 or more NOTE:BU/LD/NC slmf!hove(he same meoning as de�ned in � L
� c P P P �1' f Heal(handSaferyCodeSec�ion/7p20and18908forlheopp[ica(ians A �
LA pe�sans. specified in Sections 101.17.9 andl01.17.10. q �
II L A (For OSA/AC & NCD 7/A / ASS/STIVE DEVICE. See [ForHCDIlAC,DSAlACJBUl�INGENTRANCEONAN A �
� c Chapter IIA,Seclion 1102A.1- ACCESSIBLE ROUTE.See Chapler IIA,Section 1102A.2-B. n �
�' AS1'M is the American Soci�y for Testing and Materials,100 [ForHCD 1&NCD 2,DSA/AC] BUILDING,-EXISTING, i
Barr Harbor Drive,West Consh hocken,Pennsylvania 19428. is a building erected prior to the adoption of this code,or one for
� ATRIUM is an opening throu h two or more floor levels other W'hich a legal building permit has bgen issued.
than enclosed stainvays,elevat�s,hoistways,escala�ors,plumb- [ForOSA1AC,HCD I&KCD 2/�BUILDING OFFICIAL is �
ing, electrical, air-conditionm�or other equipment, which is theofficerorotherdesignatedauthoritychargedwiththeadminis-
closedatthetopandnotdefinedt samall.Floorlevels,asusedin trationandenforcemenrofthiscode,orihebuildingofficiaPsduly
1-8
1 �
2001 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 206
208
7 EXISIINGBUIL NGS.See"building,existing." FI.00RAREAisthe�reaincludedwithinthesurroundingex- C
' � EXIT.See Section 1 05.1. terior walls of a buildin or portion thereof, exclusive of vent
shafts and courts.The tlo�r area of a building,or portion thereof,
+ EXIT COURT.See ction 10063.5.1. not provided with surrounding exterior walls shall be the usable
7 area under the horizontal rojection of the roof or floor above.
SECTION207—F FMisFactoryMutual gineeringandResearch,1151Boston- C
Providence Tumpike,No q� ood,Massachusetts 02062.
F FABRICATION (fab area)is an area within a semi- FOAM PI.AS77C INSULATION is a plastic that is intention-
F conductor fabrication facility and related research and develop- ally expanded by the us�e of a foaming agent ro produce a
F ment areas in which�there are processes using hazardous reduced-density plaslic containing voids consisting of hollow
F production materials.Such areas are allowed to include ancillary spheres or interconnected cells distributed throughout the plastic
Froomsorareassuchasdressingroomsandofficesthataredirectly forthermalinsulatingoracousticalpurposesandthathasadensity
relaled to the fab area ptocesses. less than 20 pounds per cugggbic foot(320 kg/m3).
� A FACIL/TY(o�FACl�T/ES).(Fo�HCD//AC) See Chapter FOOTING is that port�n of the foundation of a structure that C
� C^ IIA,Sec�ian]102A.6-F�[ForOSA/AC]SeeChap�erllA,Sec�ian spreads and iransmits loa directly to the soil or the piles.
� c 1102A.6-F andChapte�177$Section 1102B. �
FRON'f OF LOT is tha front boundary line of a Iot bordering C
FAMILYisanindivwdualortwoormorepersonsrelatedby onthestreetand,inthecaseofacornerlot,maybeeitherfrontage.
blood or marriage or a group of not more than five persons(ex- �
cluding servants)who rieed not be related by blood or martiage lForSFMj FULL-TIMECAREskall mean theesta6(ishment A �
living together in a dwelling unit. and rou�ine cnre ofperson}on an hourly,daily,weekly,monthly, Cn �
41 year[y or permanent baslsJ wke(her for 24 hours per day or(ess, c �
L A re/ated by b�od or�mar�age,or o�herw se�who lv oge(her n a °^d where sleeping acco�ijnodations are provided. c �
� � dwelling unit. �i
c +� SECTION 208—G
n [For AGRJ FINAL INSPECTION PLACE.Any room,com-
� partment or specially prepared open place at which fina(inspec- GARAGE is a building or portion thereof in which a motor ve-
A tionofretainedcarcassesmay6econduc�edinanestab/ishmen�in hicle wntaining flammable.:or combustible liquids or gas in its
Cwhich s/aughtering is dan'e. tank(forSFMJ or an elechi�r vehicle wifh a rechargeablestorage c �
� A (ForHCD I&HCD2,SFMJ F7NISHRATING is�he�imeat battery,fue(cell,photovoltpic array or o�her source of electric A L
� current is slored, repaired,�charged (electric vehicles only) or c �
� A whichthecombusli6lematerialbehindthefinishreachesanaver-
� A age�emperature rise of 250;F(121°C)a6ove ambient or an indi- kept.
L A vidua! temperature rise ofj 325°F (I63°C) above ambient as GARAGE,PRIVATE�is a buildin�or a portion of a building, C
L A measuredantheplaneofthecombustiblema[erialnearestthefire notmorethan1,000squarefe�t(93m )inarea,inwhichonlymo-
L A K'hen tested in accordance with UBC Smndard 7-1. tor vehicles used by the Ienan�of the building or buildings on the
FIRE ASSEMBLY.See Section 7132. premises are stored or kepL(�e Section 312.) �
1 GAItAGE,YUBLIC,isan arageotherlhanaprivategarage.
FIRE CODE is the Uniform Fire Code promulgated by �he
International Fire Code Instilute,as adopted by this jurisdiclion. GAS ROOM is a separately entilated,fully enclosed room in �C
� FIRE RESISTANCE or FIRE-RESISTIVE CONSTRUC- �'hich only roxic and highly to ic compressed gases and associ- I
770N is construction to resist lhe spread of fire,details of which ated equipment and supplies ar srored or used.
are specified in this code. ?1 GRAB BAR es a bar for�he urpose of being g�asped by the c �
« ' hand jor support(ForHCD 1 HCD 2J See Chn fer 11A,Ser c �
� FIRE-RETARDANT-TREATED WOOD is any wood prod- —�-'�-�� A �
, tion ]102A.7-C. oc-DSrYpICrSee C ap�er IA^•Se ion c �
uct impregnated wilh.chemicals by a pressure process or olher 110 Chapter]IB,Section:1102B. � �
means during manufacture,and which,when tested in accordance � �
with UBC Standard 8-I for a period of 30 minutes,shall have a [For HCD 1 & HCD 2, DSAIAC/ GRADE (Adjacent �
flame spread of not over 25 and show no evidence of progressive� Ground Elevalion)is the lowest point of elevation of the finished
combustion.lnaddition,theflamefmntshallnotpmgressmore surfaceoftheground,pavingorsidewalkwithintheareabetween
than 10�/Z feet(3200 mm)beyond the center line of the bumer at lhe building and the property line oy when the property line is
any time during the tesl. Mateiials that may be exposed to ihe more[han 5 feet(1524 mm)from the building,beiween[he build- �
wea�her shall pass the accelerated wwthering test and be identi- � �ng and a lice 5 feet(1524 mm)from the building.SeeHealth anQ i:ll
(ied us Cxterior type, in aceor'dance with UBC Slandard 23-4. SafetyCoJeSec�ion 19955.3(d). �� �
Where malerial is not directly ekposed to rainfall but exposed to i2Apg.(Lumber).is,lhe,clagsifica�ion of lumb ' gard to C
high humidity conditions,it shall be subjeded to the hygroscopic strength and utility.
� test and identified as Interior i�pe A in accordance with UBC �For DSAIAC,HCD]lA J GROUND FLOOR.See CHup�er c i,ll
Standard 23-4. � IlA,Section 1702AJ-G. ^ �'
C L
All materials shall bear identi�cation showing the fire perform- GUARDRAIL is a sys m of building wmponents located
ance rating Ihereof.Such identi ications shall be issued by an ap- near the open sides of eleva d walking surfaces for the purpose of
proved agency having a service for inspection of materials at the minimizing the possibility f an accidental fall from the walking
factory. surface to the lower level.
� c (ForHCD l&2,SFMJ Fir retardanatreated wood shn(1 not
L A (For HCD 1&HCD 2, SA/ACJ GUARDRAlL is a vertical c �
� c be cons�rued ns "noncombust !e" within the meaning o/'UBC A L
L A barrier erec[ed a[ong d� open edges o�a floor opening, wafl c �
� c Sec�ion215. opening,ramp,platform, nwayorotHere[evatedareatoprevent c �
FI,AMMABLE LIQUID. e the Fire Code. persans from falfing off e open edge. c �
1-11
2001 CAIIFORNIA BUILDING CODE � 220
222
/ForHCDI/AC,OSA/ACJ��OPE.SeeChapterllA,Section SECTION221 —T
II L A I���•/9�• (ForHCD2,DSAlAC] TACTILEdescribesanobjecuhatcan A L
� � n SMOKE DETECI'OR is [for SFMJ a state fire marshal- be perceived using the sense of touch. n �
� p approvedandlisteddevicethat�ensesvisibleorinvisibleparticles [For HCD 2, DSA/qCJ TECHN(C9LLY INFEASIBLE c �
L c ofcombustion. � means,withrespecttoanal��rationofabuildingorafacllity,[hat c �
�� � [ForHCD 1] SOUND T SM/SSION CLASS(STC)is n +t has litde likelihood of ti ing accomplished because existing � �
� e single-figwe raling for flaor/c�Irng and inlerior wall partition structura/conditions woul�equire removing or a[tering a laad- n �
L A construc�ionlhatrepresentsth abiliryoftheconstructrontoiso-� 6earingmemberwhickisan� ssentialpartof�hestructural(rame; A �
� p lafe airborne noise, where me ¢auremen!procedure is based on or 6ecause other ecisling p�ysical or si[e constraints prokibit � �
� A ASTME 90-70 orASTME 366�71. modifttalion or nddition oj�elements, spaces, or features which A �
� c �t are in fu(!and strict compliance wilh the minimum requirements c �
� A [ForHCD2,DSA/ACJ SPA � Isadefenablearea,e.g.,room, �� A �
� c for new cons[ruction and wNtch are necessary ta provide accessi- A �
i c toile[room,hall,assembly area,entrance,storage raom,a[cove, b1ll � C L
� n courtyard,or lobby. 4 ry' ��� A L
� c /ForDSA/AC] TEMPORARYsha!lmeanbuildingsandfaci- c �
II � � SPECIAL ACCESS LIFT. �For HCD IIAC) See Chapter /(ties in�ended for use al one`'loca[ion for not more�han one year c��
i c IlA,Section I702A.19-S./ForD A/ACj SeeChapter 11A,Sec- and seats inrended for use t one location for no!mose than 90 c �
� � tion I702A.79-S and Chapter 11_�,Section]702B. days. c �
� c (ForHCDI&HCD2J SQU FEETisabbreviatedasft.z. (ForSFM/TERM/NAL�ILL,asiermedforanindividual, p �
� STAGE.SeeChap�er4. � means�heindividualhasali{erxpeclancyoJsizmonthsorlessas � �
� c smted in writing by his or Her aftending physician and surgeon. A �
� p (For HCD IIAC, DSAIACJ S�AlR RAILlNG. See Chaprer n
� A IIA,Section 1102A.19-S. (For HCD I&HCD 2J TESTlNG AGENCY.Subject to orher � �
� c sec�ions of[aw, the applicable section af the HeaUH and Safery p �
� c (For HCD I&HCD 2,DSA/A ,SFMJ STi17RWAY.Twa or Code is repeated Here for c[arity and reads as follows: c �
L A more risers shall eons[i�u[e a s[ai ay. 4n c �
� A Sec[ion 17920(m).Testing agency means ars agency approved n �
� � [For SFMJ STATE-0WNED ASED BUILDING is n by the depar�ment os qualificd and equipped for tes�ing of prod- p �
� c buildingorpor(ionofabuildingth tisowned,[easedorrented6y ucts,ma�eriafs, equipment and insta[[ations in accordance with A �
� c theslate.Slate-leasedbuildingssHallincludeal[required�its[o na[iona[/yrecognizedstandards, c �
� A a pubfic way serving such leased aren or space.Poreions ofslnle- YP c �
� c (ForOSA/ACJ TEXT TELEPHONE is machinery or equip- n i,
� n leasedbuildings�ha�arettotleasedorrented6ylhestu(eshallnot +�� � i,
� c menr tknt employs interactive grapqic (i.e., ryped) communica- p �
L A beincluded +' ' wse�Ptlrrrtrtk ortions r�. c �
� c [ions through the transmission of coded signa(s across tHe A �
en!an ezpasure kazard to the state-leased area or spa s�andard telephone nenvork.�;Tee<<efephones can inc/ude,for ex- � �
STORYisthatportionofabuildingincludedbelweentheupp ample, devices known as TFYs (telecommunica�ion disp(ay de- � ���
sudace of any floor and lhe upper surface of ihe floor next above, vires)or computers. � pp� c �
except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building in- (ForHCD 1&HCD 2J THROUGH-PENETRATIONFIRE A �
cludedbehveeniheuppersurfaceoflhetopmosifloorandthecei4 STOPisamueerial,deviceor°construc�ioniiu�olled[oresist,fora � �
in orroofabove.lfthefinishedfloorleveldiroctl aboveausable �+
o unused under-floor space is more than 6 feet(1829 mm)above Prescribed[ime period,!he passage of flame,heat and hot gases A �
grede, as defined herein, for more than 50 percent of ihe rotal �hrougk openings which pendlrate the en�ire fire-resistive assem- c �
� ly in order to accommodate�ab/u,cable trays,conduit,tubing, c i
perimeter or is more than 12 feet (3655 mm) above grade, as i es or simi/ar items. � c i
! , defined herein,at any point,such usable or unused under-floor P ' A L
space shall be considered as a story. /Fo�HCD 1/AC,DSAIAC�TOEBOARD.See Chapter IIA, A �II
ection 1102A.20-T. �� A L
� STORY,FIRS7',is the lowest srory in a building that qualifies [ForHCD 1(AC DSA/ACJ TOWNKOUSE.See Cha [er IIA, c �
as a story,as defined herein,except that a floor level in a building ' �` p A �
ction 7102A.20-T. c �
having only one floor Ievel shall be classified as a 6rst story,pro- Ma A L
vided such floor level is not more ihan 4 feet(1219 mm)below (ForDSAIACJ TRANS[ENT LODGING is a 6ui/ding,faci[- A �
grade,as defined herein,for more than 50 percent of the total pe- ,or porlion thereof,excludin�inpa�ientmedical care facilities, A �
rimeter,ornotmorethan8feet(243Smm)belowgrade,asde£ned atconlainsoneormoredwe!lr�guni�sorsleepingaccammoda- A �
I' � cherein,atanypoint.[ForDSA/ACJSeeHealthandSafetyCode, ons.Transien�lodgingmayinl e,butisna!limited(o,resorts, A �
� c Section]99553(b). roup homes,hotels,moee(s an �dormitories. c �
r ublicwaynotlessth TRAVELDISTANCE.See ection1004.2.5.
(4877 mm)in width that has been e �c e e to the pub- TREAD. (Far HCD 7/A J See Chapler 11A, Section c �
licforpublicuse. 1102A.20-T.[ForDSAIAC]See �hapterllA,Sec�ion1102AZ0-T c �
STRUCI'URAL OBSE�VATION means the visual observa- and Chapter]IB,Section 1102 c �
, tion of ihe structural syste�,for general wnformance to the ap- TREAD DEPTK[For HCD C)See Chapter IlA,Sec[ion c �
provedplansandspecifications,atsignificantconstruclionstages 1102A.20-T./ForDSA/ACJSee apterl7A,Section1102A.20-T c i
and Cha !er IIB,Secmn II02B. A �
and at completion of the struplural system.Struclural observation P c �
does not include orwaive th�`responsibility for the inspeclions re- TREAD RUN. [For HCD I/ J See Chapter ]IA, Section c i
quired by Section 108,1701�or other seclions of this code. 1702A.20-T.[ForDSA/AC/See pterl]A,Sec�ion 1102A.20-T c �
� STRUGTURE is[hat which is built or cons[mcted,an ediGce ond Chapter IIB,Secton]102B. c �
or building of any kind,or any piece of work artificially built up or
composed of parts joined to elher in some definite mannec SECTION 222—U
SURGICAL AREA is t�e preoperating,operating, recovery (For NCD]&HCD 2,DSAlAC,SFM,DSA/SSJ UBC shaf! c �
and similar rooms within an outpatient health-care center. mean the most recently adopted edition of the Uniform Building c �
1-12.5
_ _ ____ ., :
1997 UBC HANOBOOK
Chapter 2
DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS
SECTION 201 —DEFINITIONS dance with Section 201, recourse must be to Webster's un-
The Uniform Building Code provides definitions in Chapter 2 abridged dictionary for the definition of residential condomini-
of tertns that aze generally used in two or more places in the code um. To paraphrase Webster's, a residential condominium is
and are those that are applicable specifically[o the code and may individual ownership of a unit in a multiunit strucwre (as an
not have an appropriate definition for code purposes in Web- apartment building). The ownership of the svucture and prop-
ster's unabridged dictionary. Also, there aze definitions within erty is held in common. Webster's further defines a residential
several of the chapters of the UBC that are intended to apply condoininium as a unit so owned and, even funher, a building
only to that chapteror section. Therefore,in order to determine, containing condominiums.Therefoxe,based on the definition in
whether or not a de6nition for a specific item is contained within �he code for an apartment house and in Webster's unabridged
the UBC,Chapter 2 must be examined as weil as the chapter that dictionary for a residential condominium, it appears that any
covers the specific subject for which a definition is desired.The building containing three or more dwelling units held in com-
definitions of some terms are contained within the text of a mon (belonging to each in a group)is an apartment house.The
requirement. For example, the definition of occupancy separa- defimtion in the code for an apartrnent house is indeed appropri-
tions is within Section 3023. Some other frequenfly used and a[e,az it includes alI of the previously described resideMiaf uses
signi6cant terms are undefined (for example, "one-hour �*'here there are[hree or more dwelling units in the same build-
conswctiod'), and their meaning can be discerned only from �ng.Thus,the definition in the UBC for apartment house will in-
their context There are numerous definitions in Chapter 2,but clude apanment houses in which all the units aze rented by the
only selected definitions are induded in this commentary: occupants as well as those where the units are owned by the
occupants and the property is held in common. 1t should be
201.1 General.The important feature of ihis section is the re- noted, however, that when walls and reai estate property lines
quirement that Webster's unabridged dictionary shall be used to establish the boundaries of a ]ivirtg facility that is not held in
provide ordinarily accepted meanings to terms that are not spe- common but is independently owned, it should be treated as a
cifically defi�ed in the code.Tlterefore,the code defines terms dwelling. Some townhouses are in this category.
that have specific intents and meanings insofar as the code is
concerned and leaves it up to Webster's unabridged dictionary to
provide meanings for all other terms. SECTION 203—B
BASEMENT. For commentary regarding efie definition of
SECTION 2U2—A basement,see commentary for the definition of story.
ACCREDITATION BODY. This definition addresses the
approved authority that accredits and moniCOrs[he competency SECTION 204—C
and performance of grading or inspection agencies relative to CONGREGATE RESIDENCE. This definition addresses
carrying out a specific task and is necessary to ensure qaality such alternate living arrangements as convents, monasteries,
control. dormitories, and fratemity and sorority houses.Typically,luger
AEROSOL.The definition of aerosol cooidinates the Uni- cities and cities with a college or university continue to see a�
form Bui[ding Code and the Unrform Fire CodeT"'(UFC), which inerease in these nontraditional living arrangements.The origi-
regulates aerosol products. Aerosols are distinguished from na]concept of a dwelling unit,either in a Group R,Division 1 or
other products due to their potential to"rockeP'in a fire.Flam- Group R,Division 3 Occupancy, which is occupied by only oce
mable aerosols can"rockeP'and spread fire a considerable dis- family,did not cover many of these living arrangements.
tance. Special controls are Iherefore imposed on aerosols by the "
Fire Code,and occupancy limitations aze imposed by the Build-
ing Code. SECTION 205—D
AMUSEMENT BUILDING.See Section 408.2 for defini- DRAF'P STOP. The definition was added to clarify the
tion, meaning of the tecm as it is used in Section 708.
APARTMENT HOUSE.The definition for apartment house
is succinct and states in essence that an apartment house is any SECTION 207 —F
building or portion thereof that contains three or more dwelling
units.The definition also includes,for the purQose of the code, FLOOR AREA.This definition is the area included within
residential condominiums as an apartment house. As [he term the surrounding exterior walls of a building, and the definition
"residential condominium"is not defined in the UBC except to further states that the floor azea of a building or portion thereof
refer back to the definition of an apartment house, the question not provided with surrounding exterio�walls shall be[he usable
arises then as to what a residential condominium is. In accor- area under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above.
7
� 1997 UBC HANDBOOK
The intent of this latter provision is to cover the case where a decrease the number of stories or height in feet.The code doe:
building may not have exterior walls or may have one or more not prohibit this practice, and as long as a building meets th�
sides open without an enclosing exterior wall. code defini[ion and restrictions for heigh[or number of stories.
the intent of the code is me[. See Figure 208-1.
SECTION 208—G SECTION 209—H
GRADE(Adjacent Ground ElevaHon).The code indicates HEIGHT OF BUILDING.The critical feature in the defini-
that grade is the lowest point of elevation of the finished surFace tion of height of building is the case where the building is on a
of the ground within an azea between the building and properry sloping site.In the case of a sloping site,[he height of the build-
line or where the property line is more than 5 feet (1524 mm) ing is measured as depicted in Figure 209-].
from the building between the building and a line 5 feet(1524 �ere the building is s[epped or terraced, the code intends
mm)from the building. that the height of such building is [he maximum height of any
This definition is important in determining[he number of s[o- segmen[of the building.I[may be appropriate under certain cir-
ries within a building as well as its height in feet.In some cases cumstances that the number of stories in a building be deter-
the finished surface of the ground may be artificially raised wi[h mined in the same manner.Because of the varying requirements
imported fill to create a higher grade azound a building so as to of the code that are related to the number of srories,such as exit-
5 Ff.O IN.MIN.OR F�IF CLOSER 5 Ff.O IN.MIN.OR f�IF CLOSER
FINISH GRADE I � FINISH GRADE
�� I I '
` L______J ' I
��------_____
ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE
� ForS[: Ifoot=304.8mm.
USE OF BUILT-UP SOIL TO RAISE FINISH GRADE
FIGURE 208-1
— — — � � — — —
� �
� �
� �
� �
HEIGHT OF HEIGHT OF '
BUILDING BUILDING
i i 5 FT.
5 FT. � I
� �
5�. DATUM � I B
rl %� B � SFT. �I � �I
A _ _ _ ��LESS THAN ��FT� i MORE THAN
10FT. � � - - - � 10FT.
CASE I A ,
CASE II
For SI: 1 foot=304.8 mm.
DETERMINATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT IN FEET(mm)
� FIGURE 209-1
g
I '
t" ' 1�.. .. , .- ` -
1997 UBC HANDBOOK
� MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF BUILDING IS 28 FT. � SEGMENT 1.
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES IS 3 � SEGMENTS 1 AND 2.
SEGMENTI
" HEIGHT=28FT.
THREE STORIES
SEGMENT 2 �Q� ,
HEIGHT=24 FT.
THREE STOFIIES
8 FT. 10 FT.
SEGMENT 3
HEIGHT=18 FT. WA�� I i
TWO STORIES g p7, I
u
WAL ��
10 FT. 8 FT. 2 FT. ��
8 FT. 2 FT. WALL � �� i
\\`� 5 FT.
BFT. WAL�/I/ ��Y
� �i/ � �� 5 FT.
� � �
For SI: ] foo�=304.8 mm.
TERRACED BUILDING
FIGURE 209-2
ing, fire resistance of construction, shaft enclosures, etc., each SECTION 216—O
case should be judged individually based on the characteristics OCCUPANCY. In addition to the definition in this section;
of the site and conswc[ion. In addi[ion to[hose factors[hat are �he code in[ends that the word`bccupancy"carry also[he con-
related to the number of stories,other items to consider are fire notation of a specific family of uses that are considered general-
department access,loca[ion of exterior exits,routes of exi[travel �y to have similar hazard characteristics. While use and occu-
and type of separation be[ween segments. pancy are quite often used in[erehangeably in Ihe code,when the
Figure 209-2 illustrates one example in which the heigh[of word occupancy is used, it means specifically the occupancy
the building and number of stories are detertnined for a stepped classification of the building as defined in Chap[er 3.An unoc-
or terraced building. In the case of a stepped or terraced build- cupied building would be dassified by its intended use.
ing,the language"rotal perimeter"used to define the case sepa-
rating the first story from a basement is intended to include the
entire perimeter of each segment of the building.Therefore, in SECTION 220—S
the cross section of Figure 209-3, [he total perime[er of [he
down-slope segment would be bounded by the retaining wall, STORY.The critical part of the definition of story imolves
the down-slope exterior wall, and the east and wes[ exterior the definition of the first story.The code defines the first story as
walls.In the case illustrated,the dwelling has two stories and a the]owest story in a building tha[qualifies as a story.The first
basement for the down-slope segment.The measurement for the story may be either an inhabited story or may be unused
maximum height of the building would be based upon the maxi- undervfloor space.There are[wo cri[eria that are cri[ical [o the
mum height of the down-slope segment.In this case[he highest determination if a given level is either [he first story or
grade of the segment is more[han ]0 feet(3048 mm)above the basement
lowest grade.Thus,the reference da[um would be 10 fee[(3048 I. If[he finished floor level above the level under considerv
mm)above lowest grade,and[he heigh[would be 17 feet 6 in- a[ion or above under-tloor space is more[han 6 fee[(1829 mm)
ches(5334 mm)plus half[he heigh[of Ihe at[ic. above grade for more than 50 percent of the total perime[er of
the building,the level under consideration is the first story.
2. If the finished floor level above the ]evel under consider-
ation or above undeo-floor space is more than 12 feet(3658 mm)
SECTION 214—M above grade at any point, the level under consideration or the
MEZZANINE or MEZZANINE FLOOR. Although not under-floor space shall be considered as the first story.
specifically stated,the inten[is also [o include an in[ermediate Conversely, if[he finished floor level above the level under
floor placed wi[hin a story.A mezzanine is no[coun[ed as an ad- consideration is 6 feet Q 829 mm)or]ess above grade for more
ditional story in a building under certain condi[ions. See Seo- [han 50 percent of Ihe perimeter and does not exceed 12 fee[
tions 504.4 and 507 of the UBC. (3658 mm)at any point,the floor level under consideration is a
� 9
f
1997 UBC XANDBOOK �
basement.Or,as succinctly defined in the code,a basement is a or less below grade for more than 50 percent of the total perime-
tloor level below the first story. [er or is 8 feet(2438 mm)or less below grade at any point.In this
Where a building is partially excavated into a side-hill loca- latter case[he level is considered to be a one-story building.Fig-
tion and consists of only one level,that level is considered to be ures 209-3 and 220-1 illustrate the definitions of story,first story
a basement by the code unless the tloor level is 4 feet Q 219 mm) and basement.
O O .
%` .
�
i�� '� i 1i
.\\� �
,�1,:
. .:
iii ;>:�:;• <,
�,� �ri i-
����
i- .^�S
CROSS SECTION
mm m �IN.
1
.., -f
CONCRETE WALL OPEN m m g F7.41N.
I i�� �l%// �
m
FINISH GROUND �I 6� � 8 FT.41N.
ELEVATION I
L---- --
� I� 2 FI:6 IN.
i
12 FT. 8 FT. 5 FT. � LOWEST GRADE
For SI: 1 foot=304.8 mm.
WEST ELEVATION
TWO-STORY AND BASEMENT BUILDING
FIGURE 209.9
10
1997 UBC HANDBOOK
SECOND STORY THE LOWER FLOOR LEVEL IS CLASSIFIED AS THE FIRST
� STORY IF THE FLOOR LEVEL ABOVE IS:
MORE THAN 8 FEET ABOVE GRADE FOR MORE THAN
50 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL PERIMETER OR MORE THAN
�� 12 FEET ABOVE GRADE AT ANY POINT.
�
� FIRST STORY '
L---------J ,
CASEI
TWO-STORY BUILDING
� FIRST STORY THE UPPER FLOOR LEVEL WILL BE CLASSIFIED AS THE
FIRST STORY IF THE FIOOR LEVEL IS:
NOT MORE THAN 6 FEET ABOVE GRADE FOR AT LEAST
' � i 50 PERCENT OF THE PERIMETER AND DOES NOT
, I EXCEED 12 FEET ABOVE GRADE AT ANY POINT.
( �� �\\\
� BASEMENT �
L---------�
CASE II
ONE-STORY AND BASEMENT BUILDING
MULTILEVEL BUILDINGS
FIRST STORY FOR A BUILDING HAVING ONLY ONE LEVEL: FIRST STORY
FLOOR LEVEL IS CLASSIFIED AS THE FIRST STORY
WHEN THE FLOOR LEVEL IS:
NOT MORE THAN 4 FEET BELOW GRADE FOR MORE
THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL PERIMETER NOR
� MORE THAN 8 FEET BELOW GAADE AT ANY POINT. �
L---------J .
CASE III
� BASEMENT
BUILDING HAS NO FIRST STORY AND THE FLOOR
IEVEI IS CLASSIFIED AS A BASEMENT WHEN THE
FLOOR LEVEL IS: �
MORE THAN 4 FEET BELOW GRADE FOR MORE THAN I
50 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL PERIMETER OR MORE �
THAN 8 FEET BELOW GRADE AT ANY POINT.
�
L J�� ,
For SI: 1 foot=304.8 mm. CASE IV
SINGLE-LEVEL BUILDINGS �
FIGURE 220-1
, 17
438 �
ATTACHMENT7
Arro9'n (��de P1e�udng �
May 3, 1988 �,
� ,
The Arroyo Grande Plsnntng Camdssion met in regular session with Vice Qiaitmen Soto presiding.
t are Camd�ioners Seott,Moore, Gerrish, OLSen and Boggess, Cqmdsdoner Flores is absent.
Direetar Liberto-Blsnek, Lo►ig Range Planner Bierdzinski and Cisrent P9anner Isnning are
dlso ttenclance«�_ '�bil ._c.n t .�_r_ 1 ,:. ,.t�t::.lt ,^, :�,�.:��? ,:t:.? z t�att.:f.r:. ,
� . . � . . • �E.;1.�-� � .
Vice Soto introduced Planning Camussioner Charles Scott,stating that Mr.Scott has been
eppointedto laceBobCarron�Che�on.�oYice�.Chsim�anSotopointed�outRhatt�s«ermwould
explre at the e of Jime ane recannended that elections for Chairn¢+n be held to finish Mr.Carr's
term to the end Jime 1988.
Canm[ssIoner 01sen n ted John Soto as Chairman, Motion seconded by Camnssioner Gerrish. On
motion by Cam�issIoner O ,sec:onded by Co►mdssIw�er Gerr3sh,and carrIed,natrdnations were closed
eixl w�anLnwis ballot was electing John Soto as(�airman of the Plannirg CanNssion. Chairmen
Soto.opened namnatiais Por Gfiaimien. CamtissIoner Boggess naNnated Blll Gerrish for Vice
Chairmen. Motion seconded by ioner Olsen. Chairnien Soto moved that nartdnationa be closed
and the records show that a iman us vote was cast for B�71 GerrLsh for Vice C�eiRnen. Motion
seconded by Co►mussioner Olsen an inaninously carrIed.
A�tCH1THC�ORAI, REVIEW CASE N 88-410, EXTERIOR REMODffi.ING OF EIiISTING
BDII.DING, 1230 GRAND AVSNDE. JOHNSON/�iTRAL QOAST NATIONAL
BANH).
Glrrrent Planner Lanning advLsed that the appll t is proposing to occupy appro�dmately 4,128 square
feet of the e�sting buiiding and to resr�odel the e rior. The buildUg is ci¢�rently occupied by Pacific
Pride and Arroyo Grande Applicance. He sta the applicent wII be occupyirg the portion of the
bu�ldug now occupied by Pacific Pride and rettade the e�dstitg interior space. There wil be no
expansion of the buildltg's square footage.
'IT�e proposed elevations could be cheracterized as ta Berbera Mission style wIth the prirtw►y
aretdtectural featw�es consistitg of a clock tower and an ade along the Grand Avenue end driveway
elevatiors. Entryways are accented with roof projeet r�s and archways. Teul.ured paving also
provIdes enphasls to the main entrance. The roof line is en up by the tower element,variatiais in
roof elements and false chinmeys. The wall plene is gtven v iation and vlsual interest through tse of
, the arcade col�, pilasters, planter boxes and a variety f window treatrnents.
The proposed colors end materiels consist oP spenish tile roofing, hneni colored slvcco,dark bmnze
enodized alurtdrnun wSndows,and stained wood elements. A color d materials boaid was reviewed by
the Comrdssion.
It was noted that inspection of the site revealed that a trash e�losure ]acldng and the landscape is in
need of upgrading due to the epstence of a mmiber of vweeds. Corre on of these it�rs should be
included as conditions of approval.
Mr. I,enning advised that the Staff Advisory Catmittee had reviewed the roposed remodeH� and
recam�ends that the Plenning Comrtission approve the architeetural re ' , wlth the following
cot�d[tiore:
1. A trash enclosure shell be provided.
2. Larrclscaped arees shall be upgraded and cleaned of weeds and debris or to occupancy.
Richard Johnson,AreMtect for the Exiroject representitg the applicants,ba�iefly disc the ProPosed
. t�e[nodeling.
After a brief disc�sion,on motion by Cam�Sio�c GerrLsh,seconded by CarnrissIones and !i
irt�animously carried,Architeetival Revlew Case No.88-410 was approved subject to the nded I
conditio�.
POBLIC HBARING-ffiTABLI5HDI6NT OF A VIEWSHED REVIEW PERMIT PROCffiS. (C1TY OF
AIiROYO GRANDB).
Planni[g Director Liberto-Blanek reviewed that on Februery 16,1988,the Planning Caimossion held a
study session regardirg a potential vIewshed ordinance and height]umtations. At this study sessIon,
Staff presented two possible options for developing a vlewshed protection ordinance;one which set a
height limit and allows for variances,end enother which set up en overlay zone for review of viewst�ed
impacts, She stated that, after sane discussion,the Planning CarrnLssion gave Staff sune directives
for preparItg the viewshed ordinance, ineluding:
No change to any e�osting height restrictions in D-override zones;
Review pra�ss for all sec:ond-story additions in the C�ty;
/
- - 439 �
Arroyo Grande P�mi[g Oa�o[y 5/8/88 Ii�e 2
Review proce� for any construetion in the D-override zones; and
Pur�OSe oY ordinance is to preserve vIewsheds, not to revIew color and materiaLs of build'vg,
density, scale and/or �ivacy.
_ Long Range PJecuier Bierdzinsld reviewed the propased ame►�nent. She advLsed that the attaehed I
ordinance establishes a vIewshed review overlay zone and pemdt pirocess for sicgle-femily resic�ntiel I
properties not subject to architec�tural revIew. The intent of establishing this new permit process is tp �,
preserve the existing scope and character of established sIrgle-family neighborhoods and to protect I
views in such neighbort�oods. Zhe overlay zone wouid.cover all property zoned R-1,R-2 e�R-1-D. '�
In the R-1 and R-2 zones, the only development subject to a Viewshed Review Pernut v�ould be I
conshuetion oY second-story additions. In the R-1-D zones, eny new con5truction or additions
(whether second-story or lateral) woutd be subject to the Viewshed Review process. 'I
She stated thet the Ordinance does not establish new height lumts but, rather, lets the Plenni� �
Camnssion deterndne if the height proposed is siritable and consistent with the neighborhood. The �,
notic�ed to surroun�ding roperty owners, and a rwt ce�wi7lpub����y,n�ce the heer�ng will be I
approve a petm(t, the Planning Camdssion hes to make the following t"md ngs�.�r. In order to
1. �he proposEd sttucture is co[�sistent with the intent of the ordinence; I
2. 'It�e proposed structure is consistent with the established scale and character of the �
neighborhood, and w�l not unreasonably or unnecesserily effect views of surrounding
propertles; and
3. The proposed structure w3ll not unreasonably or�ecessarlly interfere with the scenic view
from arry other propecty,,j�dged in light of permittirg reasonable use and development of
, the property on which the proposed strueture or expansion Ls to occur.
She noted that a specific height restriction was not ineorporated into this Ordinance because of the
difficulty in deterndning en appropriate buiiding height that could apply to property wIth different
amounts and direction of slc�e. Therefore, it is proposed that the tmderlying height lindtation
established by the zone (R-1, R-2 or R-1-D) set the ma�drtnmi allowable heigh� 11�e Viewshed
Review Ordinance authorizes the Planni�Camdssion to unpose as a condition of approval a bmlding .
height that is less then the maxlnnun ellowed in order to make the required fmdir�gs listed above. Ms. �
� Bierdzinsid reviewed the ma�dmiun allowable height currently in effect in the C%ty as follrnvs: ;
I
R-1 md R-2 Zaies
Main buildings: 1�vo sta�ies not to exceed thirty feet (30')
Aecessory build(ngs: Fourteen feet (14')
He3ght is defined as the vertical d(stance fram the averege level of the highest and lowest point
of that portion of the lot covered by the t�lding to the topmost point of the roof.
R-1-D 7mes
H�t Drive (Ordmemoe 360 C.S.): The ms�mun allowable height shall be as Yollows:
Main buildings-TWuo storIes not to exceed thirty feet (30'),but in no case shall e�ry rt�ein
building be higher than fifteen feet (15') above the highest corner of the owner's lo�
Rirth Arm Way (Or�Bna�e 138 C.S.): All lots shell be lu►dted to a bwldtrg height of �
eighteen feet(18') Yrom establlshed etab height,excepting chmmeys,vents,and associated
appurtenances,except for Lots 1,2,and 3 of Tract 554,Lots 1 and 2 of Parcel Map AG 73-
383, and Lot 1 of Parcel Map AG 74-293, which shall be lirtdted to a building height of
twventy-tv�o feet (22T) fran established curb height, excepting churmeys, vents and I
associated appurtenences. �
; Monteg�o S4+eet(Ordmenoe 86 C.S.): Height liaut control of eleven feet(11')from top of
, curb to highest peak of the house, excluding any chimneys and other eppurtenances.
I It was noted that the fee proposed for processing a Viewshed Review Peimit is One Himdred Dollars �
l ($100.00). 'lliis fee includes cost of staff review tune,ma�7ing notices,and newspaper advertise�nent. !
Long Range Planner Bierdzinsid advlsed that the proposed ordinance was revIewed in canpliance with j
the California Enviro[unental Quality Act (CEQA), and an initiel study was prepered. It was i
deternilned that the Ordinance would result in no significant effects on the envlro[unent and,therefore,
a Negative Declacation was drafted. ',
Plaru�ing Director Liberto-Blanek advised that stafY recmanencls that the Planning C«�nission adopt 'I
the attached Resolution,which recontne�s to the Cty Council adoption of a Negative Decleration and
adoption of an ordinarice amending(�apter 4 of ttie Mimicipal Code to add Articie 41,which estsblishes
a Viewshed Review Overlay Zone and Pern�it Process Yor residential properties [rot subject to �,
architectural revIew. I
I
�
440
Arro'9'o (�ande Plemfig �On, 5/3/88 Page 3
Upon being ass�ed by the P'lennirg Cammiission Qerk that public hearIng Yor the proposed amen�nent
had'been duly published, Chairn�en Soto declered the hearL�g open.
Marie Cattoir,195 Orchid Lane,asked if this viewshed ordinance would include RA-B3 zoning that has
been granted Optional Design Standarcls? Long Renge Plenner Bier� replied that it only
pertains to R-1, R-2 and R-1-D zones. Mrs. Cattoir stated, in her opinion, it should be ineL►ded.
JLn Wiicox,155 WMtecap,Pisra Beach,stated his feelings that the proposed emecxmnent is going in the
right dlrection,end utged the CanNssIon to also consider trees, fences and hedges becauge,in sane
cases, these can also damege a person's vIew of the hills or the ocean.
Upon hearIng no further cormients fr«n the audience, Cheim�an Soto declsred the hear3ng closed.
CanmssIo�r Gerrish stated he wouid like to see the other single fam[ly rnsidential wnes,and RA-B2-
D and RA-B3 za�es included in the orcllnance. He stated he does have an objection to having new
hrnisicg tracts covered by this ordinance, but he feels that the existing residential zo�res that are
already built should be covered.
After further discussion, the following action was teken: �
RE50LDTION NO. 88-1172
A RffiOLDTION OF THE PLANNING CONIIYILSSION OF Y�E GTTY
OF ARROYO GRANDH RHOOMIVffi�DING TO THE C1TY COiTNCII.
ADOPTION OF A NSGATIVE DHCLARATION AND ADOPTION OF
AN ORDINANCE ANffi1DING CHAPIBR 4 OF THB MONICIPAL QODE
(ZONIIiG ORDINANC�) TO ADD ARTK�.E 41, ffiTABLISHIIIG A
VIEWSHED RBVIBW OVERI.AY ZONE AND PERMPf PR.OG&.CS FOR
RLSIDSN77AL PROPERTIDS NOT SUB�7�Cf TO A�U�HITFiCl'URAL
RBVISW.
On motion by Carcnissioner Gernish,seconded by Camdssioner Boggess,and by the following
roll call vote, to wlt:
, AYFS: CamussIoners Moore, Gerrlsh, 01sen, Boggess and CA�aim�en Soto
NOffi: Naie
ABSfAIId: Camdssioner Scott
ABSEI�Ts CamdssIoner Flores
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 3rd day of May 1988.
PLANNING DIIi�C!'OR5 R�ORT/DL9CQSSION
m of the�g►Oedfienoe-Qsrent Planner Lanning stated that there has been a request
for a nt sign us3ng neon Urbe type of lighting for the sign face. Staff advLsed the appllcent that
the p sign was in conflict with the code, whieh prohibits neon tubing. Staff is br3rgirg this
matter to 'on foc an interpretation as to whether this type of sign is aeceptable or too
similer to the n to be considered in confomiance wlth the Sign Ordinence. He stated that the
_ applleant is prese and hes a demonstration of the materials.
HacIley Davls,Senta Maria eon and Electric Signs,steted the projeet is Yor pon MeHaney Realtor and
Colwell Benker,building ten twmes on Briseo Road.INr.Davis demorstrated the neon tube type of
lighting being requested. He it is not neon,but has the same eYfect. He explained that there
t+would be no light emitted fran tubing.
()unnissioner Gerrish stated he doesn't that this type of lighted sign belongs in a residential area
on Brtsco Road. After a brIeY disc , on motion by CamdssIoner Get�cish, seconded by �
ComrriissIoner Olsen,and carried with one "no ote,the Camussion fowid that the pmposed sign is too
surdler to neon lighting to be acceptable �mde the present Sign Ordinance.
Qonoepdml Aretdtectiaal Review - Bioolside (Sc�3/Lo�s) - Qicrent Planner
Isnnitg advLsed that the applicents have requested an rtimity to address the Cam�i.ssion in regard
to their conceptuel architectural theme for the proposed ing center. He stated they are seeldng
CumdssIon input regarding thelr propoeal prIor to comne wlth full worldng drawLigs.
Randy Poltt, representing Scoleri and I,oards, stated they preparing to subaut pletis for
Arehiteetural Review of the project. lfiey expect to be on the ' on's agenda for architectural
review in June. He presented same sketches and requested the on's input and feelings as to
whether or not they are headed in the ttight dlrection.
. .-.
CITY .�COUNCIL MAY 24, 1988
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA PAGE TWO
HA2ARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Con ' ued from Pa e 1
e ayor c ose t e ear ng o e oor.
Moved by Moats/Johnson (5-0-0) to' t, smit Staff comments in the
"Preliminary Draft, County Hazardous Waste agement Plan" Memo to the
County Environmental Health Division of the He th Agency for inclusion
in the final County Hazardous Waste Ma�agement P n.
PUBLIC HEARIN6 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO TITLE 9 CNAPTER 4 OF THE MUNICIPAL
N N R NAN
�a
—Ffs. Liberto-Blanck referred to her memo on "Ordinance Establishing
Viewshed Review Overlay Zone and Permit Process." She said the Planning
Camnission has recommended a Negative Declaration be adopted; the proposed
Ordinance Amending Chapter 4 of the Municipal Code to Add Article 41 , which
established a viewshed review overla�y zone and permit process for residential
properties not sub,�ect to architecturat review be adopted, and the City
Clerk be instructed to fite a Notice of Determination.
Council Member Miltis asked questions about whether the proposed
ordinance covers Ptanned Developments which have sub-zones in R-1. He
said residents'of Rancho Grande, for example, are paying high premiums
for ocean views. Ms. Liberto-6lanck said the ordinance does not cover
P-D Zones.
Mayor Mankins asked questions about new tots. Ms. liberto-8lanck
explained a new home could be built but a second story could not be added
at a later date.
Mayor Mankins opened the Pubtic Hearing.
MARIE CATTOIR said the propOSed ordinance should not apply to existing
homes, and there should be no additional review fees.
Mayor Mank9ns closed the Hearing to the floor.
After Council discussion, it was moved by Moots/Johnson (5-Q-0, Moots,
Johnson, Porter, Millis and Mankins voting aye) to have the first reading
of a proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 4 of the Municipal Code to Add
Article 41 , Establishing a Viewshed Review Overlay Zone and Permit Process
, for Residential Properties Not Sub3ect to Architectural Review.
S ND READING OF ORDINANCf PROPOSED CONTRACT AMENDMENT PROVIDING AN INCREASE
N MEN N F S
n im ity anager iris ris �ansen explained the Ordinance.
, Moved by 1is/Porter (5-0-0, Mi11is, Porter, Johnson, Moots and
Mankins voting aye adopt Ordinance No. 376 C.S. Amendi�g the Contract
Between the 8oard of nistration of the Public Employees' Retirement
I System and the City of Ar Grande.
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE EST SHING A GENERAL FUND SPECIAL CONTINGENCY
RES NT REQ N A N
� ��
0��� HQ 378 C.S.
AN ORDII�iANCS OF 1H8 CPPY OOIIN(� OF TSS C11Y
OF A3tYLOYO f�RANDB AWitiDIIia CaAP78lt 4 OF '!f!8
1lO�AI. ODDB 1�0 ADD NR'liCi.B 43� �TAffi.ffiINCi
A VIHIY� B8YIB111 OVffitT.AY ZONB AND P�Y1T
PBrO(�+'S4 POB BBSIDffi�PIAL PAQP�TiBS NOT
8081Bf.T 1�0 R8VIBIV. '
� asy ao�u or tne acy �t nnny� c�ae ao� t�ny ora� �► touo�
L Sediaa L Q�apter 4 oi the M�midpel dode is hareby a�nended to inc]ude a new Article 41�to rEed os
folloMSs
"Article 41. Vlev�atied Revlew Permi�
secnop a�4.uoL P�epoea� Tt m uie inteM o�tt►e aty ot nn+�y�o arenao cy oe�dust�g t►�e
lievlew PenNt peoceae to pt+eeaeve tt�e e�dating eoope end dieracter at aqteblisl�ed
�Dorinocl�,and to pt�otect deMS.and aesthetie wrd otl►er propeery valu�in such
neigtiboehoodv!n a manner which 1s oampatlble with eeasoneb1e eorpar�fa►or►�devekped
bffi and/or a new devehoptnent on e�deWg tndeve1oped bts. The VieNSt►ed Revlew Pennit
p�roces8 wotild not appdy to propertteB siWBted ln epptvved Aecuied.Davelopment Yaies wlth
e'equired eccldtectural review of all new ae twnwdeled resldanaes. 1Twe provtrdwis w�a�ld not
epply to development in ft-S zones sinc:e eeehitectural appe�oval 1s requieed before ttte Isvuence of
a b�ing petnd�
SoCtton 8^l.4103 DaffiitioD a[Vis�t�od Rovie�r Ovalay' 1e. All 01 that aee8 Rwied R-1�
R-2, 8-A� ar R-1-D 1n tAe City o1 Arroyo Grande.
Sect�or► 9-�4.4303. Rsvlew Prooese.
lt A�A-1 aM lt-2 7a►as: No seoa�d-stay ad�tlon ahe11 be eracted or enlerged on any
singte-tami�y hane within tlte]i-A�R-1 er►d R-2 Zates u�til e Viawst�ed 1tevlew Pem�tt is
- obtained !n acc�ordance with the pmced�e set Wrth herefn.
Ii-1-D 2ones No new cbnvhvettan, ad�tlm or impcoven�t thereoS�ahall be erected or
'y e�iletged at any lot thst 11es within the R-1-D zone u►tff a Vicwushed Revlaw Petmtt Is
obteit►ed ln accordence wlth the p�oc�edut+e set tortl� here3n.
'lTie granting of a Yier�shed'�Iteview Penndt does rot t�elease the applicant ot the re9pa�ID3]ity tor
artewng otber ep"pticable pemaca rrom cne aey,if a,en pematu sre requirea by r.►,e M,,,idpet
aoae, xo�t�a�pem►tc eneu auc�wri�e a sn„et�ae n�gnt u�exc�a or ct�e ne�ne�,tr�
ror ct►e basto zone ona D-ove,�y mona ou�e„Ntso eecebl(shea ror cne peoperty seeang cno pemdt.
A. An nppticatton fa�n ViewsheO:Itevlew P�ntt aha11 be Ned wlth the rleming Dlrector end
shall be ucc�anpanled by tM followlt�gt
1. ApPrcPrtate site plane� eeCtions and ekwat�na (!0 eopiee);
2 H�Ing helght and e1evatian data for the sctveture or eddltian, et►d for
3. Pho�togra(�Ae o�f pt�Oject� andt �� .
4. Q�oes-secttorre deawn to a tnre s�xle for both vertical and hoelzontal �m�►sto�re,
which inelude ad jacent p�operty and� Rfie loaeUm o!the croes-eectlon�
sMll ba keyed to the slte plen by labeled eectlWi linee; and
5. Ap�x�apt�late fee ee aet fath In Seotion 9-4.4104.
8. Liet ot property ownera within thteo l�Wted feet(300�)of the area a�t ttie peapased
ParMt� and maP st►uwlnB e�oh ar�ea.
� nrter aetem�in�g the �pucat�n te oomplete� tna Aenn�g nirecca shan ravlew tno
iact fa�anvlraniat►tnl impacta ee set forth 1n the Qvffornia Lnvlramental Quattty Act
_ �eA).
G a��a�,�,�,�,►�a�r�u�u«►,��,t�n�.n�u�
tt�e iten on tne egenda ot the nezc avannnle meeting ot tne Plenntng camdssian tor a pub]!c
l�eau�ir+�.
D. Notice of the pubtic hoering shsll be glv�at lea9t ten (10) days priae to tfie heacing by
p�ucauon fn a newepepec or ge�el eir«0aa«►in rhe acy ana by ma�irg che nouce co
propeMy owners within 900 feet of the peoject.
E. rrt� to approving or aer,ying an oppuosean, the rleiuur�g C�omntss[on shan sa�iett the
reoannendntions and ca�rnents ot other Pub11�ag�etes,QtY dePw'fi�ents and interested
81'a�
�.,� - Ordinan���No. 318
F. In approving an npplication for a Viewshed Review Pema[t, the P1em►1ng�on she11
moke the following fumd(ngs oP Yect:
1. Zhe propase�d structw�e fs oa�slstent with the intent of Section 9-4.4101;
2. 'fie proposed strucUn�e is corelsteM wlth the �tebished scele and ehatact�of ttie
nei8hbrn'hoodr end will not tmreasoneb�y or umecesaarII�eMect vIews of starrnnc�ng
P��
3. The pcoposed shveture wID not tnt+eesonebly a� �.am�o�lly interfere w[th the
BCCiIIc 1/IEVN TPQII 9TIY�ProP�yr����P�L�11B PCB80f18biC 1S2 Blfd
developnent oi the propeMy on wMdi the �opaaed attveGa�e ac ex�sion ls to
occur.
G. In granting n Yiewshed RevIew Pandt,the Plarming Dannissionmay 6npoee aic�t►aond(tions ' �
asmey be deened nec�rsnry and destr�sle to protect ttie tiealth�satety end general welfare '
' in e+espect to the facts listed �n Peragraph F of t}ds seMion.
& IY,after ca�std�ing�the avatleble info�metton,ttie Henni�g Camdsda�le uneble to eeach
the Sndings of fact set forth in Pau�agreph F of th�s section,the epplicatian ehett be dented.
Y. The decisions of the PJanning Camdseian shaIl be ffied wlt2� the Qty C1erk, A�Uc Works
Deperfi►�t and Bulldfng DePerlir�en�
J. AnY Persom m�Y appeai the deciskn of the P9armU�g�on to the Qty Q�nnefl,es set
�, forth in Section 9-4.3108 of the Zontng Or�Hnence. �
Secdon 9-�L410�L Fe� The fee for a Viewst�ed Revlew Petm3t 9s �10Q00.°
Secbon 8: A s+mnsry ot ttds Or�nence sheII be published in a newspeper publist�ed and clydilated in '
seid Qiy at least five(5)days priac to the Qty Glmdl meeting st wMch the proposed�ts to be
adopted. A certitied twpy of the flili text M Uie proposed Or�nence ahell be posted in the ofSce of
the CJty Qerk. Within tifteen(15)days after edoptfon o!the Ordinence�the aunr�ea�y,with the nemes
of those Qty Oo�l members voting for end ageinst the Or�nence,shari be P�Nshed agein�and the
c��y a� �n poBc a �rtin�a �y �r tt� run t«t or �n ga�c�a or�.
On motion of Ommdl Menber Johnson , seconded by C�rnmr11 Manber Porter , end � the ..-�
Yollovving roll cell wte, to wit:
AYFS: Council Members Johnson, Porter, Millis, Moots and Mayor Mankins
NOffis None
ABSENT: None
the PoregoL�g Ordinence wes pes�d and adopted this 14th day of June , 1fl88.
i
��'"�� 5��..�=--� �
MAYOR
ATPPSTs / KA/Y1.I'r .
G'ITY (�.. H
�I I, NANCY A. DAVIS, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County
I of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty
of perjury that the foregoing Ordinance No. 378 C.S. is a true, full
and correct copy of said Ordinance passed and adopted at a regular meeting � '
, of said Countil on the 14th day of June, 1988. �
f WITNESS my hand and the Sea1 of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed ,
, th�s 27st day of June, 1988. �
`�,LQ/N,C�l, Q • �
' . �YqY-�C
_
�
�
� - - - - - - - - - -
' ATTACHMENT 8
i
RESOLUTION NO. 06-1995
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DETERMINING THAT
THE VIEWSHED REVIEW PROCESS APPLIES TO THE
PROPOSED PROJECT AND DENYING VIEWSHED
REVIEW 05-021; LOCATED AT 1238 MONTEGO; APPLIED
FOR BY STACY HARMON
WHEREAS, the applicant has filed plans to demolish an existing house and then build a
2,647 square foot residence; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department requested an interpretation by the
Planning Commission to determine if the Viewshed Review process is required for the
proposed project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered the
interpretation request at a public hearing on March 21, 2006 in accordance with the
Municipal Code of the City of Arroyo Grande; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public
hearing the following circumstances exist:
1. The Viewshed Review process applies to this project due to ambiguous definitions
in the Municipal Code; and
2. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact:
Viewshed Review Findings:
1. The proposed structure is not consistent with the intent of Municipal Code
Section 16.16.110.
The sfated intent of fhe Viewshed Review process is to preserve the
existing scope and character of esfablished single-family neighborhoods
and to protecf views and aesthetics and other property values in such
neighborhoods in a manner fhat is compatible with reasonab/e expansion
on existing deve/oped lots and/or new development on existing
undeveloped lots. Raising the roofline approximately 5-feet unreasonably
diminishes views from fhe property directly uphill since other building
techniques inc/uding reducing fhe roof pitch or additional grading at the
rear of the property can still be utilized while maintaining the overall
architectural sfyle and size of the proposed house.
RESOLUTION NO. 06-1995
VSR 05-021
MARCH 21, 2006
PAGE 2 of 2
2. The proposed structure is not consistent with the established scale and
character of the neighborhood and will unreasonably or unnecessarily
affect views of surrounding properties.
The proposed structure will unnecessarily affect views from surrounding
properties since it includes a roofline higher than the two houses on either
side of the project site.
3. The proposed structure will unreasonably or unnecessarily interfere with
the scenic view from any other property, judged in light of permitting
reasonable use and development of the property on which the proposed
structure or expansion is to occur.
The proposed addition unreasonably interferes with fhe scenic views from the
property owner at fhe top of the hill since other building techniques such as
reducing the roof pitch or additional grading at the rear of the property can still
be utilized while maintaining the overall architectural style and size of the
proposed house.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Arroyo Grande hereby denies Viewshed Review 05-021.
On motion by Chair Brown, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and by the following roll
call vote, to wit:
AYES: Chair Brown, Commissioners Parker, Ray and Tait
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Fellows
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 215�day of March, 2006.
ATTEST:
LYN REARDON-SMITH, TIM BROWN, CHAIR
SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION
AS TO CONTENT:
ROB STRONG,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
9.c.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
8
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Parks and Recreation
Commission and the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande on the following item:
PROPOSAL: Consideration of an Ordinance Amending Section 9.04.020 of the Arroyo
Grande Municipal Code to Permit Service and Consumption of Alcohol on
the Village Green for Special Events Upon Issuance of an Alcoholic
Beverage Service and Consumption Permit by the Chief of Police. The
Parks and Recreation Commission will make a recommendation, and City
Council will consider whether to amend the Municipal Code to allow service and
consumption of alcoholic beverages for special events at the Village Green,
along with alternatives for types and frequencies of such events and restrictions
on when such service and consumption of alcoholic beverages may be allowed,
if approved.
LOCATION: The "Village Green" area bordered by S. Mason, Nelson, and Short Streets.
PARKS AND RECREATIAN COMMISSInN;
WHEN: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12, 2006 at 6:30 P.M.
WHERE: Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
215 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, California 93420
cirv r.ouNCi�:
�WHEN: TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006 at 7:00 P.M.
WHERE: Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
215 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, California 93420
The Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council may also discuss other hearings or
business items before or after the item listed above. If you challenge the proposed action 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 Commission or
the 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.
Information relating to this item is available by contacting Arroyo Grande City Hall at 473-5400.
The Councii meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20.
� ,�-t',i. �/IJl��f%2Cn1zsL-
Kelly Wet ore, �ity Clerk
Publish 1T, The Tribune, Saturday, April 1, 2006
� pRROYO
� C?
F INCORPOR�TED 9.l M EMORANDUM
V T
� JULY 10, 1B11 *
c4�/FORN�P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DANIEL C. HERNANDEZ, DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION��
AND FACILITIES
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO AMEND THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL
CODE TO PERMIT SERVICE AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL AT
THE VILLAGE GREEN FOR SPECIAL EVENTS UPON ISSUANCE OF
AN ALCOHOL BEVERAGE SERVICE AND CONSUMPTION PERMIT
BY THE CHIEF OF POLICE
DATE: APRIL 25, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Parks and Recreation Commission's recommendation that the Municipal
Code not be amended to permit service and consumption of alcohol at the Village
Green for special events.
FUNDING:
If Council directs staff to proceed with preparation of a code amendment allowing limited
alcohol consumption at the Village Green for special events, it is not anticipated to
impact the General Fund.
DISCUSSION:
Backqround
Since the completion of the new Rotary Bandstand, the City has received inquires
regarding hosting special events on the Village Green that would allow for the
consumption of wine. Such requests have primarily included allowing individuals to
bring wine to summer concerts in the park and/or the ability to conduct a wine tasting
charity fundraising event.
As a result, the City Council indicated it was interested in considering the issue, but
wanted to first provide opportunities for public input, particularly from individuals living in
the neighborhood. Therefore, this item has been publicly noticed and advertised to the
surrounding neighborhood.
Existinq Requlations
As currently written, the Municipal Code does not include any provision for the City to
permit consumption or sales of alcohol on the Village Green in any circumstances.
Therefore, there is no process available for the City Council to grant approval for a
special circumstance or event. The sale and consumption of alcohol is allowed at the
City of Arroyo Grande and Woman's Club Community Center and the Heritage Square
area if a beverage service and consumption permit has been issued by the Chief of
Police.
R:1Staff ReportslccOrdchange.village0406.doc
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION TO AMEND THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE TO
PERMIT SERVICE AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL AT THE VILLAGE GREEN
APRIL 25, 2006
PAGE 2 '
Advantaqes
Allowing use of alcohol at the Village Green on a limited basis would:
• Create the ability to facilitate additional quality public events that currently are not
possible, such as a wine tasting festival;
• Enable additional fundraising opportunities for important efforts;
• Expand the variety, focus and attendance of events held at the Village Green;
and
• Provide increased flexibility to the City to respond to requests for events and
activities as deemed appropriate.
Disadvantaqes
However, disadvantages include:
' • Potential problems to the neighborhood if the use of alcohol is abused;
• Inclusion of alcohol may change the character of some events, making them less
family oriented;
• Potential increase of litter and trash in the park area.
If approved, it would be recommended that permits be approved only for selective and
limited activities. The Parks and Recreation Commission voted unanimously at its April
121h meeting not to amend the Municipal Code in any way and to continue to have no
alcohol in any park setting.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
• Approve the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission that the
Municipal Code not be amended to permit service and consumption of alcohol at
the Village Green for special events.
. Direct staff to prepare an amendment to the Municipal Code to enable the City to
allow the consumption of alcohol at the Village Green for special events upon
issuance of an alcoholic beverage service and consumption permit issued by the
Chief of Police;
• Direct staff to prepare an amendment to the Municipal Code to enable the City to
allow use of alcohol at the Village Green, but specify by policy that it be limited to
wine for no more than a limited number of fundraising events per year, such as
one or two;
• Direct staff to prepare an amendment to the Municipal Code to enable the City to
allow use of alcohol, but specify by policy that it be limited to one wine tasting
fundraising event per year and to allow individuals to bring wine to the summer
concert series being planned;
• Direct staff to prepare an amendment to the Municipal Code to enable the City to
allow use of alcohol, but specify by policy other restrictions that would apply to
the circumstances in which a permit would be issued;
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION TO AMEND THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE TO
PERMIT SERVICE AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL AT THE VILLAGE GREEN
APRIL 25, 2006
PAGE 3
• Direct staff to prepare an amendment to the Municipal Code to enable the City to
allow use of alcohol, but specify restrictions within the amendment to the
Municipal Code;
+ Provide direction to staff.
Attachments:
1. Chapter 9.04.020 Arroyo Grande Municipal Code
2. Letter from Ross Kongable
3. Letter from Ruth Kodaj
,
ATTACHMENT1
9.04.020
' Chapter 9.04 any alcoholic beverage,as defin�d in Secfion
23004 of the Business and Professions Code
OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC PEACE of the state, upon any street, highway, alley,
sidewalk, pazking lot, city building, pazk, or
Secrions: recreationa7 facility within the city. Tlus sec-
9.04.020 Alcoholic beverages. rion shall not be deemed to make punishable
9.04.030 Public urination/ any act or acts which aze prolubited by any
defecation—Unlawful in law of the state. Service and consumption of
public view. alcohol may be permitted at the City of Ar-
9.04.040 Public nudity— royo Graude Woman's Club and Community
Prohibited. Center, South County Historical Society Mu-
seum, and Santa Manuela School sites upon
9.04.020 Alcoholic beverages. issuance ofan alcoholic beverageserviceand
A. Definitions. For the purposes of this cons�ption permit issued by the chief of
section, unless otherwise apparent from the police. �
context,certain words and phrases used in tlus C. No person�shall have in his or her pos-
section aze defined as follows: session, in any public place, any open bottle,
"Alley"means every way set apart for pub- can or other receptacle containiug any alco-
lic travel, except streets, bridle paths, and holic beverage with the intent to consume any
footpaths. of the contents thereof in any public place not
j "City building"means the Arroyo Grande licensed for the consump6on of alcoholic
Community Center and Women's Club build- beverages in or on said place. (Ord 556
ing, the City Hall, the City Hall Annex, the §§2CC, 3B, 2004;prior code §§ 5-15.01, 5-
Council Chambers building, the Pazks and 15.02) '
Recreation Office building,Municipal Corpa
ration Yazd buildings and their respective 9.04.030 Pubtic urination/
sites. defecation—Unlawful im
"Pazking loY'means that azea open to the public view.
use of the public for the purposes of veluculaz It is unlawful to urinate or defecate in a �
pazking. public place open to public view and not in-
"Pazks and recreation facility" means all tended for such purposes or in or on the prop-
city-owned pazks and recrearional facilities. erty of another without the express pemvssion
"Sidewalk" means that portion of a street of the owner, lessee or person otherwise in
between the curb lines and the adjacent prop- . control or possession of the property.
erty lines set aside for pedeshian iravel. Violation of trus section is a misdemeanor.
"StreeY' or `.`highway" means a way or This section shall not apply to a business
place,of whatever nature,publicly maintained open to the public which has a restroom(s)for
and open to the use of the public for the pur- the purpose of serving the public.(Prior code
poses of veluculaz traffic. § 6-11.01)
B. Alcoholic Beverage Service and Con-
sumption Prohibited in Certain Areas. It is
unlacvful for any person to.serve or consume
231 (Axro}ro Caffide Supp.Na 9,12-05)
April 12, 2006 ATTACHMENT 2
Parks & Recreation Commission
Arroyo Grande Ca 93420 '
Re: Consideration of an ordinance amending Section 9.04.020 of the
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code
Dear Commissioners:
Nelson Green is a public park for the general use of the community at all times. The addition of the
Bandstand did not, nor should it, change the intended use of that area, and shouid not restrict the
park's use to the general public.
Any function conducted on Nelson Green, in or out of the Bandstanc), should be accessible to and
appropriate for all ages of our residents and visitors.
To aliow the serving or sale of alcoholic beverages on Nelson Green regardless of the purpose, is
to promote aicohol as a necessity for enjoyment, and not the appropriate message to be conveyed
to our young residents.
The serving of alcoholic beverages in the Woman's Club or Regional Center at private functions in
a closed and secure environment is quite different than serving alcoholic beverages in an open,
unsecured park setting.
Who wouid decide which person or organization is allowed to conduct this "selective and limited
activity" on Nelson Green? Who wouid police the activities to ensure compliance? Is this an
additional burden on our police/fire services? "Rent-a-cops" have very limited authority.
To allow private consumption of alcohol by attendees, at say a summer band concert on Nelson
Green, is alcohol in an open, unsecured park setting, and should not be permitted.
"To expand the variety, focus and attendance of events" implies that major attractions must include
alcohol. I don't believe that our community wants to expand in that direction.
Fund-raising events, which include the sale or service of alcohol, should be conducted in a
controlled, secure setting — not in a public park.
7he absence of alcohol service does not restrict the types or frequency of community events
unless there are no other venues available, and there are many venues which provide a controlled,.
secure environment for such events.
WhaYs next?Allow beer in the bleachers at our Little League, and school games?
Any change to the conduct at Nelson Green is a precedent for all other parks in the city.
Please do not turn our parks and community areas into mini-Woodstock.
We love our co nd we care for our young people.
Respectful
`�
onga e, 55 deo Drive, Arroyo Grande
jDaniel Hernandez-ALCOHOL IN THE VILLAGE
ATTACHMENT3
From: "Ruth Kodaj"� __
To: <sadams@arroyogrande.org>
Date: 4/12/2006 12:37:07 PM
Subject: ALCOHOL IN THE VILLAGE .
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Dear Mr. Adams;
This may be a minority opinion but I don't mind being in the minority. And please convey the following to
The Arroyo Grande City Council Members:
No, no, no, on allowing any alcohol sales, or bringing your own, to our public parks and events!!!
WHAT IS THE BENEFIT? MONEY? .Nota good enough reason.
If any person can't enjoy a special event without wine, etc., that person has a problem.
How would you conVol no alcohol to teens? Some are clever at by-passing rules.
Maybe attendance at these events would be even lower and ro�nrcJier if alcohol was allowed.
TO EACH HIS OWN, BUT NOT AT EVENTS IN OUR PUBLIC PARKS.
Sincerely,
Ruth Kodaj
217 Ca Cresta Dr, Arroyo Grande
�.