Agenda Packet 2000-09-26
CITY COUNCIL . Citll of oZ\t't'ollo (.}t'tuule
.A..G- E1\I ..JJA..
Michael A. Lady Mayor
Tony M. Ferrara Mayor Pro Tem Steven Adams City Manager
Thomas A. Runels Council Member
Steve Tolley Council Member Timothy J. Carmel City Attorney
Jim Dickens Council Member Kelly Wetmore Director, Administrative Services
NOTICE OF
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
Tuesday
SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
6:15 P.M.
Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande
AGENDA
1. ROLL CALL
2. PUBLIC COMMENT on Special Meeting Agenda Items.
Members of the public wishing to address the Council on any item described in this
Notice may do so when recognized by the Presiding Officer. ,
3. CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION:
(a) CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Government Code
Section 54957.6:
Agency Negotiator: Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney
Unrepresented Employee: Police Chief
(b) PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION pursuant to Government
Code Section 54957:
Title: City Manager
4. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION:
Announcement of reportable action from closed session, if any.
5. ADJOURNMENT.
c :closedsession .agenda .09 2 600.
,
CITY COUNCIL Cit!l of o'21l'l'o!lo yl'AIJ"e
.A..G- EN" ......A.
Michael A. Lady Mayor
Tony M. Ferrara Mayor Pro Tern
Thomas A. Runels Council Member Steven Adams City Manager
Steve Tolley Council Member Timothy J. Carmel City Attorney
Jim Dickens Council Member Kelly Wetmore Director, Administrative Services
AGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26,2000
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 COUNCIURDA
3. FLAG SALUTE: AMERICAN LEGION POST NO. 136
4. INVOCATION: PASTOR RON SALSBURY
NEW LIFE CHURCH, PISMO BEACH
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATION:
5.a. Proclamation - Voter ReQistration Week
6. AGENDA REVIEW:
6a. Move that all resolutions and ordinances presented tonight be read in title only
and all further readings be waived.
--..-----..... ~.._-
AGENDA SUMMARY - SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
PAGE 2
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7.a. Public Hearing Concerning the Use of State 2000-01 Citizens Option for
Public Safety (COPS) Funds (TerBORCH)
Recommended Action: Approve the expenditure of $100,000 as authorized by
the State for Law Enforcement Services under the Citizens Option for Public
Safety (COPS) Program.
7.b. Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision to Denv Conditional Use Permit
00-005. Variance 00-002 and Lot Line Adjustment 00-003: 1375 Grand
Avenue (McCANTS)
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution upholding the decision of the Planning
Commission to deny Conditional Use Permit 00-005, Variance 00-002 and Lot
Line Adjustment 00-003.
-
8. CITIZENS' INPUT. COMMENTS. AND SUGGESTIONS:
Persons in the audience may discuss business not scheduled on this agenda
regarding any. item of interest within the jurisdiction of the Council/RDA. The.
Council/RDA will listen to all communication but, in compliance w~th the Brown
Act, will not take any action on items that are not on the agenda.
Upon'completing your comments:
. You may be directed to staff for assistance;
. A Council/Board Member may indicate an interest in discussing your
issue with you subsequent to the Council/RDA meeting;
. The Council/RDA may direct staff to research the issue and
subsequently report back to the Council/RDA (generally in the form of
a memorandum or staff report); or
. No action is required or taken.
9. CITY COUNCIURDA CONSENT AGENDA:
The following routine items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a
group. The recommendations for each item are noted. Any Council/Board
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/RDA may approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda on one motion.
9.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification (SNODGRASS)
Recommended Action: Approve the listing of cash disbursements to vendors
for the period September 1, 2000 through September 15, 2000.
9.b. Minutes of City Council/Redevelopment Aaencv Meetina of September 12.
2000 [COUNCIURDA] (WETMORE)
Recommended Action: Approve minutes as submitted.
.
AGENDA SUMMARY - SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
PAGE 3
9. CONSENT AGENDA (continued):
,
,.
9.c. Conflict of Interest Code Review (WETMORE)
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution amending the Arroyo Grande Conflict
of Interest Code to update the appendix of designated positions required to file
Statements of Economic Interest.
9.d. Purchase of ReDlacement Ballistic Vests (TerBORCH)
Recommended Action: Authorize the purchase of twenty-eight (28) Second
Chance Body Armor ballistic vests for sworn Police Department personnel from
Adamson Industries in the amount of $20,908.32.
9.e. Disadvantaaed Business EnterDrise (DBE) Program for FFY 2000-01
(SPAGNOLO)
Recommended Action: 1) Approve the submittal' of the FFY 2000..01 DBE
Program with "proposed" Overall Annual DBE Goal to Caltrans by October 1,
2000; 2) Direct the Director of Administrative Services to publish a public notice
in the local media in accordance with Section XIV of the Program; and 3) Direct
staff to return to the Council with a summary of public comments and. necessary
documentation authorizing the submittal of the FFY 2000/01 DBE Program with
"established" Overall Annual DBE Goal to Caltrans by January 1, 2001.
9.f. SDring 2000 Pavement Management Project No. 2000-5. Progress Payment
No.1 (SPAGNOLO)
Recommended Action: Authorize progress payment in the amount .of
$69,686.60 to Bond Blacktop, Inc.
'9.g. Fair Oaks AvenuelTallv Ho Overlay Project No. 2000-3. Proaress Payment
No.2 (SPAGNOLO)
Recommended Action: Authorize progress payment in the amount of
$173,412.05 to Burke Construction.
9.h. Solicitation of Bids for the City Hall Re-Roofina Project (HERNANDEZ)
Recommended Action: Authorize the solicitation of bids for the re-roofing of
City Hall.
10. CONTINUED BUSINESS:
10.a. ADl)eal of Condition of ADDroval No. 56 for Tentative Parcel MaD 99-003 and
Planned Unit DeveloDment 99-003 Regardinq the Underaroundina of
Utilities: 1171 Ash Street (McCANTS)
Recommended Action: 1) Adopt Resolution upholding the decision of the
Planning Commission to require certain existing overhead public utilities to be
placed underground; and 2) Staff recommends that language be added to
condition of Approval No. 19 regarding tree protection measures for underground
utility trenching.
AGENDA SUMMARY - SEPTEM~ER 26, 2000
PAGE 4
11. NEW BUSINESS:
11.a. Desianation of a Subordinate Officer Per Section 23800(E) of the Business
and Professions Code (McCANTS)
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution designating the Community
Development Director as the Subordinate Officer pursuant to Section 23800(e) of
the Business and Professions Code.
12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
This item gives the Mayor and Council Members the opportunity to present
reports to the other members regarding committees, commissions, boards, or
special projects on which they may be participating.
(a) MAYOR MICHAEL A. LADY:
(1) South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District -
(SSLOCSD)
(2) Other
(b) MAYOR PRO TEM TONY M. FERRARA:
(1 ) Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA)
(2) Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC)
(3) Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
(4) Other
(c) COUNCIL MEMBER THOMAS A. RUNELS:
(1) Zone 3 Water Advisory Board
(2) County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC)
(3) Other
(d) COUNCIL MEMBER STEVE TOLLEY:
(1) Long-Range Planning Committee
(2) San Luis Obispo Council of Governments/San Luis
Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLOCOG/SLORT A)
(3) Other
(e) COUNCIL MEMBER JIM DICKENS:
(1) South County Area Transit (SCAT)
(2) Economic Development Committee/Chamber of Commerce'
(3) Community Recreation Center Subcommittee
(4) Economic Opportunity Commission (EOC)
(5) South County Youth Coalition
(6) Other
-^- ^.+~-- ~~.-
---.-
AGENDA SUMMARY - SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
PAGE 5
13. COUNCIURDA COMMUNICATIONS:
Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Council/RDA.
,.
14. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Correspondence/Information for the City Council presented by the Interim City
Manager.
15. ADJOURNMENT
-
* * * * * * *
Copies of the staff reports or other written' materials relating to each item of business
referred to on this agenda are on file with the Director of Administrative Services and are
available for public inspection and reproduction at cost. If you have questions regarding
any agenda item, please contact the Director of Administrative Services at (805) 473-
5414.
* * * * * * *
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to
participate in a City meeting, please contact the Director of Administrative Services at
the number listed above at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to ensure that reasonable
arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting.
* * * * * * *
Note: This agenda is subject to amendment up to 72 hours prior to the date and time
set for the meeting. Please refer to the agenda posted at City Hall for any revisions, or
call the Director of Administrative Services at (805) 473-5414 for more information.
www.arrovoqrande.orq
--.-._"
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE - ABBREVIATIONS ,. revised 08104/00
Agricultural Preserve .
A
AS Assembly Bill LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act LOCC League of California Cities
AG General Agriculture LLA Lot Line Adjustment
AGMC Arroyo Grande Municipal Code LUE Land Use Element
AGPOA Arroyo Grande Police Officers' Association MER Lot Merger
APN Assessor's Parcel Number MF Condominiumfrownhouse
APCB Air Pollution Control Board MFA Apartments
APCD Air Pollution Control District MHP Mobile Home Parks
ARC Architectural Review Committee 0 Office Professional
ASCE American Society Civil Engineers OCSD Oceano Community Services District
ASD Administrative Services Department OSCE Open Space and Conservation Element
AWWA American Water Works Association PC Planning Commission
BD Building Division PD Police Department
CA City Attorney PF Public/Quasi Public
CC City Council PPR Plot Plan Review
CCC California Conservation Corps PRD Parks & Recreation Departmen~
CCCSIF Central Coast Cities Self-Insurance Fund PRE-APP Pre-application
CD Community Development PSHHC Peoples' Self-Help Housing Corp.
CDBG Community Development Block Grant PSP Planned Sign Program
CE Circulation Element PUD Planned Unit Development
CEC California Energy Commission PW Public Works Department
CEOA California Environmental Quality Act RDA Redevelopment Agency
CIP Capital Improvement Program RE Residential Estate
CIWMP California Integrated Waste Management Plan RFP Request for Proposals
CM City Manager's Office RFQ Request for Qualifications
CMC California Men's Colony RH Hillside Residential
CMP Congestion Management Plan RHNP Regional Housing Needs Plan
COC Certificate of Compliance RR Rural Residential
CPI Consumer Price Index RS Subljrban Residential
CUP Conditional Use Pennit RTA Reversion to Acreage
DARE Drug Abuse Resistance Education RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
DC Development Code SAC Staff Advisory Committee
CEA Drug Enforcement Administration SB Senate Bill
E.C. Election Code SCAT South County Area Transit
EDD Economic Development Department SEIU Service Employees International Union
EDU Equivalent Dwelling Unit SF Single Family
EiR Environmental Impact Report SLO San Luis Obispo
EIS Environmental Impact Statement SLOCOG San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
EOC Economic Opportunity Commission SLOHA San Luis Obispo Housing Authority
EVC Economic Vitality Corporation SLONTF San Luis Obispo Narcotics Task Force
FAU Federal Aid Urban SLORTA San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority
FD Fire Division SLOWRAC San Luis Obispo County Water Resources Advisory
FDAA Federal Disaster Assistance Administration Committee
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency SR Senior Housing
FID Financial Services Department SSLOCOWA South San Luis Obispo County Water Association
FPPC Fair Political Practices Commission SSLOCSD South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District
FTA Federal Transit Administration SRRE Source Reduction & Recycling Element
FY Fiscal Year SWRCD State Water Resources Control Board
G.C. Government Code TPM Tentative Parcel Map
GC General Commercial TT Tentative Tract Map
GF General Fund TTAC Transportation TeChnical Advisory Committee
GP General Plan TUP Temporary Use Permit
GPA General Plan Amendment UBC Uniform Building Code
HCD California Department of Housing and Community UFC Uniform Fire Code
Development USA Underground Service Alert
HOP Home OccUpancy Permit VAR Variance
HUD Housing and Urban Development Dept. VC Village Commercial
I Industrial and Business Park Vca SLO County Visitors & Conference Bureau
ISTEA Intermoclal Surface Transportation VSR View Shed Review
JPA Joint Powers Authority ZONE 3 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District - Zone 3 (Lopez Project)
-..---------
....
":.:;"!,,j~_K.;~:';:::^':":_ ., ~'ic._~ ~.t,.'_,:~~w;r;:,~~~tS:"1.':,'7i!...':-,~X'~:~~~ :~.at;.
HONORARY PROCLUlATlON
RECOGNlZiN~rnm WEEK OF
;' OCTOBERl2':~~'/IO 2000 AS
',', ",.,..,.""
" '," ',"'_'.." 1.;
r~"VOTER REGISTRATION WEEK"
"]
..- - -. ",'
.~ ....>. -. >,"
t", .''-\<,-,-:';,
~':- ,,", : - " - ;.-' '.-'.
\!i.'__. .">,, .......:"."..
\," ","'< .
It, '
WH~REAS, the California SecretLry of State's office is sponsoring' a
program entitled "VOTERRE<;ISTRA TION WEEK" designed to flood
California with registration matEtc1als during the last week of registration
so 9itizens can go anywhere in ~ State of California and find registration
forrias or other election-related friatenals; and .
WH~REASI an individual must b! a registered voter in order to participate
in the 'November 7, 2000 Election;, and
,. \
. " '\ I
WHEREAS, the final day to regis~er*o vote in order to participate in the ~
November 7, 2000 Election isTuesday~\October 10, 2000; and I
.,\, i
WHEREAS, Secretary of State Bill Jones has made it the highest priority of I
his administration to achieve 100perc~n..t participation by all eligible
Californians; and '.. ",', <\'\
.' . "'.' ,",\
WHEREAS, the most fundamental way to become involved and to stay I
involved is by registering to vote andtoexercis~ ~e right to vote.
., ""'\
".- '--.
"-,-.\-.-.,, .'" ':.'",',' .. .. ,:.,,- -','
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, ,that I, Mich$el A. Lady, Mayor of
the City of Arroyo Grande, onl,)e~alfofthe.;gwYIf;<ouncil, do hereby
proclaim the week of ?ctober..2". '...~.9ct~i:)er~;2~~~f~,.:000 as "VOTER
REGISTRATION WEEK" 10 the City ..' of Arroyo Grana.,%; d support the
, -"'.',">: ,,'-':-;"<{~:;{'~~~"'~'\~M>.j.~-;~.r{"'" \
California Secretary of State's,office'in.' its:<EtOC:l,~"Yi'".to launch a
- ,,<~,;->_:,".<-'- -' ", _:.':.~; 'T,~"--~f.,~~,~j~~~~'~
comprehensive Statewide outreach~ffOrt to enq<>e:(r:ag.';r::'. tration and
ti .' "'!';"l~~~"i;";;'~~' ..;j
vo ng./' c', '.. ',;}':P...r;:::i'!'i>~*,~.,',
. .' '. ...ci::.....'.;.... ..,..<.,.IiT~~)~~~~~i~l!.~'.;
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have he~untoBet my'h.n<t_~.f;tt~.
','_>_'--, _ -",':" "'~;f.""" ' --:,."_ ;'-'-..,-"'m? ...~.','-ii~~'k~,~: ".~G:
of the City of Arroyo Grande,to be'affbted this2~t'l:yaP.Y2; "
2000 "'. . "', ", ,~,;~~~~<. .
. \,,/;~ii~'f' .
'..
>~~
',,'
\,
-........
"
MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ,
~~:~~-~:':~,"'-'. , . ''''2''''''.'',,' V~ ; . .... .... ..... :7.;:,.. , . ,.=.1
7...
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of
Arroyo Grande to consider the following item:
APPLICANT: City of Arroyo Grande
LOCATION: Citywide
PROPOSAL: Proposed expenditure of State funds for law enforcement services provided in
the FY 2000-01 State Budget, $100,000 being the City of Arroyo Grande's
approximate allocation.
As part of the FY 2000-01 State Budget, Assembly Bill 1913 was enacted to
continue funding for the Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program.
Under this program, $100 million was allocated to local law enforcement
agencies to enhance delivery of services. These funds must be used to
augment local law enforcement services and may not be used to supplant
existing funds. .
The law requires that the funds be appropriated pursuant to written requests
from the Chief of Police. Governor Gray Davis stated in the FY 2000-01 State
Budget that the intended use for COPS funding is the addition of sworn peace
officers. In support of this intent, the State of California will provide the City of
Arroyo Grande $100,000 per year through the COPS program. The Chief of
Police will develop his requests pursuant to these criteria and will be presenting
those requests for consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE: Rick TerBorch, Chief of Police
Any person affected or concerned by the proposal may submit written comments to the Office of
the Chief of Police before the City Council hearing, or appear and be heard in support of or
opposition to the proposal at the time of the hearing.
Any person interested in the proposed expenditures may contact the Office of the Chief of Police at
the Police Department, 200 North Halcyon Road, Arroyo Grande, California, during normal
business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.).
If you challenge an item in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to
the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Failure of any person to receive the notice shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate
the action of the legislative body for which the notice was given.
Date and Time of Hearing: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 at 7:00 p.m.
Place of Hearing: Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
215 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, California 93420
Kelly tm e
Director of dministrative Services/Deputy City Clerk Publish 1 time, September 15, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL ,
FROM: RICK TerBORCH, CHIEF OF POLlC
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING USE OF STATE 2000-01 CITIZENS
OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) FUNDS
"
DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended, after conducting a public hearing and making any modifications,
the City Council approve the expenditure of $100,000 as authorized by the State for
law enforcement services under the Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program.
FUNDING:
There is no General Fund impact. This expenditure involves $100,000 received by the
City under the COPS Program in FY 2000-01.
DISCUSSION:
As part of the FY 2000-01 State Budget, AB 1913 was enacted to continue funding
for the Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program. Under this program, funding
is allocated to local law enforcement for the delivery of services. These funds must
be used to augment local law enforcement services and may not be used to supplant
existing funding for such services. As in the past, the declared intent of the Governor
and Legislature is to continue COPS as a multi-year program, however, a new
appropriation to fund the program will be required each succeeding fiscal year.
The law requires that these funds be appropriated pursuant to written requests from
the Chief of Police. The City Council must consider these requests separate and apart
from the proposed law enforcement allocations from the General Fund. Additionally,
the City must establish a separate interest bearing fund to record the receipt and
expenditures of monies received pursuant to this program. The enabling legislation
requires that the City conduct a public hearing in September of each year to consider
requests from the Chief of Police. The funds were recently transferred from the State
to the San Luis Obispo County Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF),
which is administered by the County of San Luis Obispo. On September 18, 2000,
the City was notified by the County Auditor-Controller that the FY 2000-01 COPS
funds will be forwarded to the City within a week. The allocation for the City of
Arroyo Grande is $100,000.
Over the past several years, the City has received COPS funding in the mid $30,000
range. These funds have been used to buy equipment and programatic supplies for the
Police Department. The FY 2000-01 COPS Program is providing each City in the State
with a minimum of $100,000. In doing so, Governor Gray Davis stated in the
FY 2000-01 State Budget that the intended use of COPS funding is the addition of
sworn peace officers. This emphasis was recently reinforced by legislative bulletins
issued by the California League of Cities. In order to support the addition of sworn
personnel, the stated intent of the Governor and Legislature is to provide each City
with $100,000 per year over a four (4) year period. However, as stated earlier in this
report, a new appropriation will be necessary each succeeding year.
Given the declared intent by the Governor, this proposal centers on the addition and
enhancement of sworn personnel. This proposal was discussed with the Police
Department's Community Advisory Council at its meeting on July 26, 2000. The
Community Advisory Council recommended approval of the requests as presented.
RECOMMENDED EXPENDITURES:
Upon analysis of Police Department needs related to personnel, the Chief of Police
recommended that the FY 2000-01 COPS funds be utilized for the following purposes.
1. Addition of a Police Sergeant $71,000
There is a need to add a Sergeant to the Police Department. Currently, there
are four Sergeants in the agency. In order to provide continuous Sergeant
coverage on a 24 hour/seven day a week basis, a minimum of 4.2 full-time
equivalent (FTE) Sergeant positions are required. When vacation, sick leave and
training are factored in, the FTE for Sergeant positions increases to 4.43. As
demonstrated by such recent incidents as the LAPD Rampart Scandal, dedicated
supervision must be available on a full-time basis in order to reduce the risks for
such incidents. Additionally, all Sergeants are given ancillary responsibilities
such as: Traffic Supervisor, Detention Facility Supervisor, Special Response
Team Supervisor, Neighborhood Officer/Special Problems Team Coordinator,
Emergency Services Coordinator, etc. These assignments currently require
Sergeants to conduct tasks related to the assignments on regular duty time,
thereby taking away the supervisors from their regular watch commander/patrol
duties. The addition of a Sergeant will allow each Sergeant two (2)
staff/administrative days per month, thereby allowing the Sergeants to devote
their full attention to watch commander/patrol duties during their regular shift.
Finally, there has not been any new sworn positions added to the Police
Department since 1996. Since that time, the City has increased by
approximately 1,480 persons. Additionally, there are several projects which
either have begun or are about to begin construction which will cumulatively
add a significant increase to the population, such as Berry Gardens, Village
Glen, and Vista Del Mar (an estimated increase of 675 persons). In order to
offset the anticipated workload impacts of these projects, it will be necessary
to add a minimum of one peace officer to the City. The availability of the FY
2000-01 State COPS Program allows the City to add a position in anticipation
-.-....^.------ --------~--
of these workload impacts. In smaller cities, such as Arroyo Grande, Sergeants
are "working supervisors". That is, they perform field patrol duties as well as
provide supervision. Given this, the addition of a Sergeant will mitigate the
workload impacts of these new developments.
The current annual cost for a Sergeant is approximately $91,500, salary and
benefits. The cost for a Sergeant for the remaining nine (9) months of
FY 2000-01 is $68,600. In addition, hiring costs, including uniforms and safety
equipment, are approximately $2,400. Therefore, the total first year costs to
add a Sergeant will be approximately $71,000.
2. Upgrade Two Police Officer Positions to Senior Police Officer $10,600
It is recommended that two (2) Police Officer positions be upgraded to Senior
Police Officer positions to enhance professional development within the Police
Department. Currently, there are nine (9) Police Officer positions and nine (9)
Senior Police Officer positions within the Department. Unlike other City
Departments, such as Public Works and Financial Services, which automatically
elevate personnel to higher positions based on length of service, the Police
Department has a fixed number of Senior Police Officer positions and elevation
to the position is based on competitive examination. The Police Department has
a very low attrition rate, therefore promotional opportunities are generally
scarce. The City currently does not offer longevity pay to employees. Out of
the nine (9) Police Officer positions, five (5) have over seven (7) years of service
with the Police Department [four (4) have at least ten (10) years of service].
Given the overall quality of these personnel and their contributions to the City,
and in order to facilitate career/professional development within the agency, it
is necessary to increase the number of available Senior Police Officer positions.
Elevation to these positions will still require successful completion of
competitive examinations. The addition of two (2) Senior Police Officer
positions, plus three (3) which will be filled as a result of vacancies created by
promotions, will significantly reduce the perceived stagnation in advancement
opportunities which exist due to the Department's low turnover rate.
The current annual cost to upgrade two (2) Police Officer positions to Senior
Police Officer positions is approximately $14,100 per year. The cost for the
remaining nine (9) months of FY 2000-01 is approximately $10,600.
3. Retain Leftover Funds to Offset Future Personnel Costs $18,400
It is recommended that the remaining $18,400 be "escrowed" to pay any
increases in personnel costs created by the FY 2000-01 COPS Program
proposal. As stated earlier, the City expects to receive $100,000 under the
State COPS Program for the next three (3) years ( in addition to this proposal).
The annual recurring cost is approximately $1 05,600 per year. These
"escrowed" funds, plus the interest derived from the funds, will more than
offset the additional $5,600 per year cost of the program over the $100,000
per year the City will receive.
---~~-- ---_.._.._~-
As discussed earlier in this report, Governor Davis' intended use for this money
is the addition or enhancement of sworn personnel. Both the Governor and the
Legislature have committed to funding the COPS Program at a minimum of a
$100,000 per law enforcement agency for four (4) years. Should such funding
not fully occur or upon completion of the four (4) year period, and the City is
unable to fund these requests, attrition within the Police Department due to
planned retirements will enable the City to assimilate these positions without
the necessity of layoff of personnel, etc.
AL TERNA TIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Approve staff's recommendations;
- Do not approve staff's recommendations; or
- Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendations.
--_.~
7.b.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande will
hold a Public Hearing on the following item:
CASE NO. Conditional Use Permit 00-005
Variance 00-002
Lot Line Adjustment 00-003
APPLICANT: Zaddie Bunker Trust
LOCATION: 1375 Grand Avenue
ENVJRONMENT AL
DETERMINATION: Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
REPRESENT A TIVE: Gary White
The City Council will consider an appeal by the applicant of the Planning Commission's decision to
deny Conditional Use Permit 00-005, Variance 00-002 and Lot Line Adjustment 00-003. The
proposed project is to expand an existing mini-storage facility with a manager's apartment, and
construct a new office/retail commercial building.
In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the Community Development
Department has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration on the above project. The Mitigated
Negative Declaration is available for review at the Community Development Department, City of
Arroyo Grande. If the City Council does not feel that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is
appropriate, project approval will not be considered.
Any person affected or concerned by this application may submit written comments to the
Department of Administrative Services before the City Council hearing, or appear and be heard in
support of or opposition to the project and the environmental impacts at the time of hearing.
Any person interested in the proposals can contact the Department of Administrative Services at
214 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California, during normal business hours (8:00 A.M. to 5:00
P.M.).
IF YOU CHALLENGE AN ITEM IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE
ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE,
OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
FAILURE OF ANY PERSON TO RECEIVE THE NOTICE SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR
ANY COURT TO INV ALIDA TE THE ACTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY FOR WHICH THE NOTICE
WAS GIVEN.
DATE AND TIME OF HEARING: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 at 7:00 P.M.
PLACE OF HEARING: Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
215 E. Branch Street
Arroyo rande, California 93420
re, Director of Administrative Services/
Deputy City Clerk
._~_._- ---~~..__.-
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
KERRY McCANTS ~~
FROM:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-005, VARIANCE 00-002 AND
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 00-003; 1375 GRAND AVENUE
DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution upholding the
decision of the Planning Commission of August 1, 2000 to deny Conditional Use
Permit 00-005, Variance 00-002, and Lot Line Adjustment 00-003.
FUNDING:
No fiscal impact.
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission considered this item on July 5, 2000 and July 18, 2000.
On August 1, 2000, the Planning Commission denied the application based on the
inability to make the necessary Conditional Use Permit and Variance findings in an
affirmative manner (reference Attachments C through F for Planning Commission
meeting minutes and staff reports). The applicant appealed this decision, stating
that the reasons for the Planning Commission's denial were not clear (reference
Attachment A).
The applicant seeks a Conditional Use Permit to expand an existing mini-storage
facility with a manager's apartment, and construct an office/retail commercial
building. The project site is located on the south side of Grand Avenue between
Oak Park Boulevard and Elm Street in the General Commercial District.
AL TERNA TIVES:
The following alternatives are presented for Council consideration:
- Approve staff's recommendation;
- Do not approve staff's recommendation;
- Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendation;
- Provide direction to staff.
Appeal to City Council
White CUP 00-005
September 26, 2000
Page 2 of 2
Attachments:
A. Appeal statement from applicant
B. Minutes from the July 18, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting
C. Minutes from the August 1, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting
D. July 5, 2000 Planning Commission Staff Report (less attachments)
E. July 18, 2000 Planning Commission Staff Report (with attachments)
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT CASE NO. 00-005, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
CASE NO. 00-003, AND VARIANCE CASE NO. 00-002,
LOCATED AT 1375 GRAND AVENUE, APPLIED FOR BY
ZADDIE R. BUNKER TRUST
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande held duly noticed
public hearings on July 5, 2000, July 18, 2000 and August 1, 2000, to consider
Conditional Use Permit Case No. 00-005, Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 00-003, and
Variance Case No. 00-002 filed by Zaddie R. Bunker Trust, to expand an existing
mini-storage facility with a manager's apartment, and construct a commercial
office/retail building; and
WHEREAS, as part of its consideration of the application, the Planning Commission
reviewed and considered the information and public testimony presented at the public
hearings, the staff reports and other information and documents that were part of the
public record; and
WHEREAS, after due study, the Planning Commission denied Conditional Use Permit
Case No. 00-005, Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 00-003, and Variance Case No. 00-
002 on August 1, 2000; and
WHEREAS, Zaddie R. Bunker Trust filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's
decision to deny the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information and public
testimony presented at the public hearing, the staff report and other information and
documents that are part of the public record; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing,
that the following circumstances exist:
1. The proposed use will impair the integrity and character of the neighborhood
because the proposed commercial use is not consistent with Section 9-
07.040.B of the Development Code which requires the front building setback
area' to be landscaped, and the proposed mini-storage use is out of character
with the surrounding retail, restaurant and office uses.
2. The site is not suitable for the proposed intensity of development because the
site is already dense with mini-storage units and adding more storage units will
worsen the situation.
3. A variance cannot be granted to deviate from Section 9-07.040.A of the
Development Code requiring a fifteen foot (15') front setback because there
are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply
generally to other properties classified in the same zone.
RESOLUTION NO.
Page 2
4. The proposed project is not consistent with Objective 6.0 of the Land Use
Element because the metal siding of the proposed mini-storage expansion is
not architecturally harmonious with the rural, small town character of Arroyo
Grande and is not consistent' with other commercial buildings in the vicinity.
5. The proposed project will impair the City's economic enhancement policy to
increase the retail utilization of the Grand A venue Corridor because the
proposed mini-storage expansion will displace any potential retail use at the
project location.
6. The proposed mini-storage expansion is not consistent with the City's
Economic Development Strategy because it does not promote local patronage
or strong performance in satisfying local demand for goods and services and
the creation of additional jobs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande hereby denies Conditional Use Permit Case No. 00-005, Lot Line Adjustment
Case No. 00-003, and Variance Case No. 00-002 based on the above findings
incorporated herein by this reference.
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 26th day of September 2000.
RESOLUTION NO.
Page 3
MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTORI
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
~4J'
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
... . ..
A IT ACHMENT A
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
-'.. '. .',.. .
, "
. CITY~OF ARROYO GRANDE
Date .1/7/00
. , ,'I ' ""
. Name and Address of Appellant . 2tl& €- Q. ...~kiv..."' W() +
~IS ~IJ~t\1~.~'~il>6~...lo.,~ ....
" Appeal of' Chv-J,~~u5e ~+DO--DOS' , DD-D03. oo-oo~'
. . ,- ,."
Case No.
Approved/Denied by P l4...1\'t~~1\- on f;/i'/Oo' .
': Date
Reason for Appeal ~~~ 4Cv-' , cku.lal. ~ t\..DJ. - ~v..
{i:~I~~5?I~ .~~.. 4~ ~
I
Signature
, ~Me~lM,. 4Q,G~,c1. 73cf~
"
" Fee -. $184.00 Receipt No. . (9 ;;L ,q Ol... .
- Date r:! r; /00
(J.
ministrative Services/Deputy City Clerk
._-~._._--,----_.-------'-- -.,..-.. --- '-
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION ATTACHMENT B
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2000
PAGE 5
II. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-005, VARIANCE 00-002, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 00-
003; LOCATION - 1375 GRAND AVENUE; APPLICANT - ZADDIE BUNKER TRUST,
GARY WHITE
Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, explained that the Planning Commission considered this
project on July 5th, and discussed issues regarding the upgrade of the existing mini-storage
facility, the adequacy of landscaping, undergrounding of overhead utilities, and conformance of
the project with the City's new Economic Development Strategy. The public hearing was
continued and the applicant was directed to meet with the Economic Development Director
regarding how the proposed project fits with the Economic Development Strategy.
Ms. Heffernon noted that the summary of their meeting was provided in the attached
Memorandum from the Economic Development Director to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Heffernon advised the Planning Commission that the applicant has not revised the project
since the previous public hearing and requests that the Planning Commission make a decision
this evening.
Finally, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the
additional information provided by the Economic Development Director. If the Commission
determines that the project can be approved as submitted, the appropriate resolutions have been
included in the staff report, with a condition added requiring the applicant to i~stall a wall along the
rear property line to separate the mini-storage use from the residential use, as discussed at the July
5th meeting. If the Planning Commission determines that the findings cannot be made to approve
the project, staff will return to the next meeting with a resolution for denial.
Commissioner Costello noted for the record that he had listened to the tapes from the Planning
Commission meeting of July 5, 2000 from which he was absent.
Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing.
Diane Sheelev, Economic Development Director, spoke briefly to the Planning Commission and
asked them if they had any questions concerning the Memo she had written as a follow-up to her
meeting with the applicant's representative, Gary White, which was included-in-the staff report for
this project? /
Vice-Chair Parker asked for clarification on certain points of Ms. Sheeley's Memo to the Planning
Commission. Ms. Parker asked if it was in Ms. Sheeley's position to give recommendations on
projects or just state the facts of what would happen if it were to be different?
Ms. Sheeley stated that the objective of her Memo was to state the facts of how this project fits in
with the Economic Development Strategy and not to recommend one way or \the other. In Ms.
Sheeley's opinion this is a land use issue that the Planning Commissioners will need to make a
decision on. Her interpretation of one of the goals of the economic development program is that
the City would like to see the expansion and retention of local businesses that create employment
opportunities and generate revenue for the City.
Vice-Chair Parker asked Ms. Sheeley what her understanding was of her (Ms. Sheeley's) position?
----.- -
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2000
PAGE 6
Ms. Sheeley stated that currently there is an Economic Development Strategy. The Economic
Development Director's role is to implement both the Economic Development Strategy and the
Redevelopment Plan Implementation Strategy. She reminded the Commission that as of this date
the Economic Development Strategy has not yet been incorporated as an Economic Element in the
General Plan. Therefore, this is simply a policy document.
She went on to say that her understanding of the direction of the Economic Development Strategy
and how it fits in, is that it is to complement the General Plan, and to complement the
redevelopment strategy, not to add another component on land use.
Vice-Chair Parker asked what the need for commercial/office buildings along Grand Avenue i~?
Ms. Sheeley stated that from her perspective only, people periodically contact her office and
request information for office space and retail space. There is some difficulty tracking how serious
these calls are. For instance, it could be a Cal Poly student simply asking questions for a class or it
may be someone with a business in a neighboring community that would like to relocate- into
Arroyo Grande. Also, the Chamber of Commerce gets these calls and although she communicates
with them, it is still difficult to get a feel for what the "market" can hold and what is actually
needed. She stated that she relies on the developers somewhat for this information because they
are the ones in the "market" everyday, trying to find out if there are tenants for the spaces they
have or would like to build.
Chair Greene invited the applicant's representative, Gary White, to speak to the Planning
Commission.
Mr. White explained that he had met with Ms. Sheeley and Mr. McCants, as the Planning
Commission had requested, to attempt to get some direction about his project. Mr. White stated
that he does not feel that the Economic Development Strategy provides clear direction to as to how
to address some of the issues that have been raised concerning his project. Mr. White pointed out
that when he first came before the Planning Commission on February 1, 2000, none of these
issues were present. Mr. White stated that it makes it difficult to address the current issues
because the project had already been designed.
Mr. White discussed the issues that had been brought up at the previous meeting and how these
had been addressed.
. Commissioners London and Parker had discussed the walls surrounding the project. The
applicant was willing to make the changes that had been discussed.
. The undergrounding of the utilities is another major issue. At the previous meeting the
Commission had stated that cost should not be a factor in deciding which poles and lines need
to be placed underground. Mr. White pointed out that this is a major issue for the developer
because if the project is not economically feasible, it cannot be built.
. Mr. White discussed the possibility of a "joint effort" between several different developers in
this area with regards to the undergrounding of the utilities.
. With regards to Commissioner Keen's remarks about the metal buildings, and his wish to see
stucco instead, Mr. White explained that they are proposing "faux" stucco walls on the
buildings. The only portion of the metal buildings that will be seen is in the interior property.
. With the regards to the issue raised about joining with the developer that is considering the
Long's project adjacent to this property, they have not spoken to them for several different
reasons, which Mr. White explained.
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2000
PAGE 7
Commissioner Costello and Mr. White discussed the undergrounding of the utilities and which poles
Mr. White was objecting to undergrounding.
Commissioner Keen stated that, although Mr. White had answered some of his questions about the
metal buildings, they (the metal buildings) were still his main objection to the project.
Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing.
Vice-Chair Parker stated that she believed very strongly that the Planning Commission should follow
the General Plan and the Development Code as they interpret it when making decisions on projects.
She had the following issues and concerns:
. The Development Code clearly states that metal used in construction in commercial buildings,
roofs and walls, is to be discouraged. She felt that especially on Grand Avenue, it would look
inappropriate.
. She does not have a problem with the project; but she does have a problem with the
information the Commission gets that there is not enough commercial/retail space in Arroyo
Grande. She also feels that the City wants to develop the Grand Avenue corridor and make it
economically sound, as well as making it more appealing.
. It is important to encourage growth along the Grand Avenue corridor.
. She would like to encourage anyone who still has parcels along Grand Avenue to follow the
City's Economic Development Strategy. Ms. Parker stated that she realized this is only a
guideline, but it should be considered because the City needs more commercial/retail.
. The City needs to follow the General Plan and Development Code guidelines. She believes very
strongly that the City recognizes the property rights. She believes that Mr. White has the right
to build on his property what is allowed by the Development Code and General Plan. She would
like to see a larger portion of his development for commercial/retail if that is what is needed.
She believes Mr. White has the right to build a storage facility on his property and because of
this she stated that she is looking only at the project that is presented. Because of this she
feels that the project, as presented, is a nice one and will look good on Grand Avenue.
. She is glad that Mr. White will be putting stucco over the metal buildings on the front and she
hopes the stucco over the metal in the middle of the project does make it look more
presentable.
. Regarding the overhead utilities, she feels that staff has come up with an excellent compromise
and the developer needs to stick to this compromise.
Commissioner Keen did not have any further comments about the project.
Commissioner london stated that the comments he had made at the last meeting still stood and
that he had nothing further to add.
Commissioner Costello stated that he believed that the Planning Commission does not make policy.
It merely serves as an advisory panel to the City Council. This is how he was going to base his
decision on this project.
. The Planning Commission has heard repeatedly that there is not enough space available for
retail/commercial business. That it is difficult to utilize retail space physically removed from
Grand Avenue. He believes that there is validity to the fact that the further away from Grand
the business is, and if it has no facing on Grand the dingier, the stores look.
He sees three specific questions regarding this project as follows:
. The first issue is the Economic Development Strategy. The Strategy states that "continue to
enhance and increase the utilization of the Grand Avenue corridor". The Planning Commission
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18,2000
PAGE 8
needs more guidance from the City Council on what this is. Ultimately, if the Planning
Commission turns down the project, the applicant can go to the City Council and ask them
what the Economic Development Strategy says about this.
There are mixed benefits to the project in terms of the economic development. The letter from
Ms. Sheeley shows that with the retail structure in the front there will be some benefit to the
City through property taxes. This commercial/retail will also provide some new jobs, so there is
a scale that is balancing in this situation and he was not sure which way it would "tipll?
. The second issue is the one of the undergrounding of the utilities. This issue has been coming
up before the Planning Commission for a year now. What the General Plan says is fairly
specific. Maybe the General Plan needs to be revised, or the policy maker's need to provide
more guidance to the Planning Commission. The language is not clear enough and he does not
believe it (the language in the Development Code) is particularly fair at this point.
. The last issue is in the City's General Plan land Use Element, objective 6.11, which states that
"Commercial centers should be developed in a manner that is architecturally harmonious with
the defined theme, consistent with the rural, small town character of Arroyo Grandell. In
Paragraph H it states that, "the following architectural elements should be discouraged in
conjunction with construction of commercial buildings such as metal or plastic siding or metal
roofs". Commissioner Costello stated that it seemed clear to him that if the Planning
Commission followed the guidance that they have in the General Plan and the policy that the
Economic Development Strategy shows, than he has some problems with the project.
Finally, Mr. Costello stated that "taken in a vacuum" the project looks good to him, but when he
applies the three specific issues to it he cannot support the project.
Chair Greene stated that his position has not changed since the previous Planning Commission
meeting and he had informed Mr. White of his position. His concerns with the project are as
follows:
. He does not believe that the Planning Commission can make the necessary architectural review
findings. Mr. Keen and Mr. Costello have both pointed out that the metal buildings are
inappropriate.
. Regarding the Economic Development Strategy, Mr. Greene stated that this document took a
year to create. He does not believe that this document is just a statement, but as close to City
policy as it can get without it actually being a part of the General Plan. He believes that in a
relatively short period of time it will be part of the General Plan. He stated that he interprets the
Economic Development Strategy the same way as Commissioner Costello does, which is that
the City has developed a strategy and a policy to stimulate the growth of retail and commercial
development along Grand Avenue. Mr. Greene said, that as he had pointed out at the previous
meeting, this kind of project that calls for "massing" of mini-storage space on the property and
a relatively small amount of commercial/retail space is inconsistent with the directives of the
Economic Development Strategy. The solution to the issue that is before the Planning
Commission is best answered by going to the City Council and asking them. Mr. Green told Mr.
White that the timing of this is somewhat unfortunate because the Economic Development
Strategy was developed after he began the formulation of his project.
. The Planning Commission is not a policy making body, rather it interprets existing policy.
. This is a Conditional Use Permit and the Planning Commission has to make a finding that the
proposed use is consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, and the development
policies and standards of the City. In his judgement, the Economic Development Strategy is a
policy standard and he is interpreting it to mean that this type of development, where a great
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2000
PAGE 9
portion of a parcel is devoted to non-sales tax revenue-producing, (a situation where few jobs
are produced), is inconsistent with City's goals.
. He disagrees with Ms. Parker's position that as long as the property is zoned for this a project
can be built. He does not believe this to be the case.
. Finally, one of the other findings that they have to make is that the site is suitable for the type
of intensity of use or development that is proposed. In his opinion the proposed development
would be a gross under-utilization of the property. By developing the property in the manner
that has been suggested, there will not be the opportunity and ability to landscape the property
in a fashion, which is consistent, with how the City envisions the growth of Grand Avenue, is
lost. The project will not produce any sales-tax revenue, and few jobs.
. Mr. Greene stated that he did not see the undergrounding of the utilities as a big issue. The
Development Code is clear, it is unambiguous about this issue. It may be harsh or unfair,
although he is not suggesting that it is, but the , remedy is not to ask the Planning Commission
to make compromises without having any basis in fact for knowing how much things are going
to cost. The remedy would be for the applicant to go to the City Council and ask them to
change the law. He feels uncomfortable entering into a compromise such as the one the
applicant is proposing.
Vice-Chair Parker stated that Chair Greene had brought up a good point in that this is a Conditional
Use Permit and she had forgotten that this was the case. She stated that if you look up under the
findings for a Conditional Use Permit in the Development Code, the number one finding is that the
proposed use is permitted within the subject district pursuant to the provisions of this section
provided that it complies with all applicable provisions of ordinance, goals and objectives of the
General Plan, and the development policies and standards of the City. It also goes on to say that
the proposed use would not impair in any way, the integrity or character of the district in which it is
to be established and located and that the site is suitable for the development that is proposed. If
there is a misunderstanding of the Development Code or General Plan it needs to go to the City
Council for a decision.
She further stated that she has had a problem with this project because of the recently adopted
Economic Development Strategy. In reading the findings that should be made for the Conditional
Use Permit she feels that it needs to be considered.
The Planning Commission asked staff how they should proceed?
Kelly stated that, if it is the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the project, specific
findings needed to be made for the denial. Staff could then bring the resolutions for denial back to
the next meeting for the Planning Commission to vote on.
Mr. McCants suggested that if the Planning Commission intended to make the findings for denial,
they focus on the General Plan and Development Code issues versus the Economic Development
Strategy issue.
Commissioner Costello moved that the Planning Commission vote, as a tentative action, to deny
the resolutions as presented and direct staff to prepare resolutions to be brought back to the
August 1, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, which are consistent with the concerns raised by
the Commission during their discussions at the present meeting. Specifically including, but not
limited to the principles of the land Use Element objective 6.0, as well as the other concerns of the
Commissioners. Vice-Chair Parker seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the
following roll call vote:
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2000
PAGE 10
ROLL CALL VOTE
YES Commissioner Costello
YES Commissioner Keen
NO Commissioner London
YES Vice-Chair Parker
YES Chair Greene
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2328, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 99-001; LOCATION -
EL CAMINO REAL; 'APPLlCANT - S & S HOMES (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 6, 2000)
Kelly He ernon, Associate Planner, stated that the applicant had submitted revised plans for the
Planning C mission's review based on comments and concerns expressed during the June 6th
Planning Co ission meeting. Specifically, the following revisions had been made:
1. The bUl ing footprints have been reduced by an average of 15%.
2. The gross inimum lot size is 6,000 square feet. Although the net lot size when the
private road removed from the calculation decreases to 4,000 and 5,000 square
feet for some s.
3. Except for lot 9, ch lot has two guest parking spaces, increasing the overall guest
parking from 25 to 1 spaces.
4. Private open space inc ased from an average of 20% to 59% per lot.
5. A public shared area of 750 square feet has been added to the back of lot 10.
6. A net total of 6 additional k trees have been saved due to the project redesign.
7. Side yard setbacks are a mini urn of 5 feet, with a minimum of 10 feet between any
two residences.
8. A four-foot wide pedestrian and bl lane has been added on the interior road.
9. The traffic analysis has also been up ted to better explain the methods used in
determining the traffic distribution and fects on the level of service resulting from
the proposed project.
Ms. Heffernon told the Commission that the Conditions 0 Approval have been modified to reflect
the revised project, such as requiring CC&R's for the com n areas; a maintenance and access
agreement for the private driveway, the common parking a as and pedestrian access; and a
revised "Figure A" for the undergrounding of utilities based on lanning Commission comments
during the June 6th meeting.
The applicant is also requesting that the street located within the velopment be officially
named "Stonecrest Drive" as part of the project approval. Ms. Heffer n explained that the
proposed street name was reviewed by the Department of Building and 're to make sure it
would not be confused with other street names within San Luis Obispo r Santa Barbara
Counties during an emergency response situation. The Fire Chief has in ated that the
proposed street name would not cause any confusion
With regard to public comments prior to this hearing, staff did receive a letter from the djacent
property owner who manages the Hilltop Trailer Park. His comments focused on three sues,
including:
1 ~~-
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION A TT ACHMENT C
MINUTES
AUGUST 1, 2000
PAGE 1
ALL TO ORDER
Chair Greene called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo
Grande to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
X Commissioner Costello
X Commissioner Keen
X Commissioner London
_LL- Vice-Chair Parker
_LL- Chair Greene
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of May 30, 2000 were continued to the next Planning Commission meeting for
corrections and further review.
ITEM I.
I.A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
1.B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
ITEM II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
II.A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-005, VARIANCE 00-002, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 00-
003; LOCATION - 1375 GRAND AVENUE; APPLICANT - ZADDIE BUNKER TRUST;
REPRESENTATIVE - GARY WHITE (CONTINUED FROM JULY 18,2000)
This item had been continued from the July 18, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. Chair
Greene stated that the Public Hearing for this item would not be reopened. He further stated
that the Planning Commission would discuss and vote on the resolution that had been prepared
by staff for this project.
Commissioner Costello stated that the language in the resolution prepared by staff was
adequate.
Vice-Chair Parker stated that this resolution was very well done. However, in the section that
listed the findings, should sections Section 9-03-050 A and D in the Development Code that
dealt with this, be specifically named in the resolution?
Mr. McCants stated that if Ms. Parker wanted to specify the sections of the Development Code
in the resolution, staff would be happy to do this.
Commissioner London stated that the language adequately reflected the Planning Commissions'
comments, but he was not in agreement with these comments.
Chair Greene asked that Page 1 of the resolution under Number 1, where the paragraph talks
about "the project does not comply with applicable provisions of the Development Code etc."
should be amended to state "including but not limited to 9-03.050 A and 0".
----
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
AUGUST 1, 2000
PAGE 2
Vice-Chair Parker moved that the Planning Commission adopt:
RESOLUTION NO. 00-1750
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CASE NO. 00-005, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 00-003,
AND VARIANCE CASE NO. 00-002, LOCATED AT 1375
GRAND A VENUE, APPLIED FOR BY ZADDIE R. BUNKER TRUST
with the language added to Page 1, Number 1 which reads "including but not limited to Section 9-
03.050 A and D". Commissioner Costello seconded the motion. The motion was approved by
the following roll call vote:
ROLL CALL VOTE
YES Commissioner Costello
YES Commissioner Keen
NO Commissioner London
YES Vice-Chair Parker
YES Chair Greene
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-006; LOCATION - 244 OAK PARK BLVD.; APPLICANT -
PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH; REPRESENTATIVE - HERB HART
Teresa lish, Assistant Planner, stated that Peace Lutheran Church was proposing to expand
their church eeting hall, add new handicapped accessible restrooms and a storage room. The
total addition pro sed was 1,588 square feet.
Ms. McClish explained t in addition to the Church, the property included three (3) educational
buildings used for the Peace hristian Pre-school, a playground area, and the parsonage.
The ARC reviewed the project on 8, 2000 and per their request, the applicant had proposed 4
additional windows on the south side eting hall wall.
The SAC reviewed the project on May 2, 2 . The SAC request for the widening of Oak Park
Blvd. and the undergrounding of the utilities were eing addressed by the Oak Park Blvd. widening
capital improvement project. The other conditions in ded two fire hydrants and a firewall.
Ms. McClish stated that a 76-space parking lot exists. ParI< required for the church includes 39
spaces for the fellowship hall and 37 spaces for the meetin all area including the proposed
addition. The applicant has stated that the fellowship hall and the eting area are not used at the
same time and typically the meeting area is used after church service and in the evenings. The
required parking for the pre-school is 14 spaces. This does not effect the verall parking however
because the pre-school is not in operation when the meeting hall or fellowship II are being used.
Ms. McClish informed the Planning Commission that the proposed project t
Development Code requirements including setbacks, lot coverage, and floor area ratio.
ATTACHMENT D
H...... 0...: 7/5/00
Agenda Item: II. C.
PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARING TO BE HELD IN THE
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
215 EAST BRANCH STREET
APPLICANT: Zaddie R. Bunker Trust
FILE/INDEX: Conditional Use Permit Case No. 00-005
Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 00-003
Variance Case No. 00-002
PROPOSAL: Expansion of an existing mini-storage facility with a
manager's apartment, and construction of an office/retail
commercial building
LOCATION: 1375 Grand Avenue
REPRESENT A TIVE: Gary White
17 Hearing Notices sent on 6/23/00. Staff Report Prepared by Kelly Heffernon.
Site inspection by Kelly Heffernon on 12/3/99. Notice of Public Hearing was
adequately posted on the project site.
Parcel Size: Three (3) parcels totaling 1.94 acres
Terrain: Slopes down from Grand A venue
Vegetation: Commercial Landscaping, Weeds and Grasses
Existing land Use: Mini-Storage, Restaurant, Dive Shop and Key Shop
General Plan Designation: General Commercial (GC)
Existing Zoning: General Commercial (GC)
Surrounding land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation:
North: Commercial Retail/GC/GC
South: Residential/MF/MF
East: Commercial Office/GC/GC
West: Vacant/GC/GC
Planning Commission
July 5, 2000
CUP 00-005; LLA 00-003; V AR 00-002
Page 2
BACKGROUND:
On February 1, 2000 the Planning Commission denied, without prejudice, Conditional
Use Permit 00-008, Lot Line Adjustment 99-003 and Variance 99-007, allowing the
applicant to return to the Planning Commission with substantially the same project
(reference Attachment 8 for staff report and Attachment 9 for meeting minutes). The
basis for the denial was lack of support to make the required variance findings.
Although the project description is comparable to the previous submittal, the revised
project better complies with Development Code standards.
DISCUSSION:
Proiect Descriction:
The applicant proposes to expand an existing mini-storage facility with a manager's
apartment, and construct a new office/retail commercial building. The property is
approximately two acres in size and is comprised of three separate parcels. Existing on
site is a restaurant, dive shop, key shop, and the mini-storage facility. Unlike the
previous submittal, the proposed project is not phased.
Details of the proposed project are as follows:
. Addition of 18,450 square feet of mini-storage space.
. Construction of a 1, 1 09 square foot manager's apartment over a two-car garage.
. Construction of a 3,625 square foot retention basin.
. Removal of the existing key shop (all other existing facilities on site are proposed
to remain).
. Construction of a 2,750 square foot office/retail building and eleven (11) parking
spaces.
The lot configuration has been amended to place all of the existing mini-storage,
proposed mini-storage expansion and commercial office/retail building on parcel U A",
and the existing restaurant and dive shop on parcel US". The revised lot configuration
eliminates the previous floor area ratio and front setback issues by enlarging parcel U A",
and eliminating the lot line between the off-street parking and mini-storage expansion.
In the previous submittal, a variance was also required for a twelve (12) foot high
masonry wall along the west property line. Since the wall is part of the building itself
and not a separate structure, it is not subject to the six (6) foot maximum wall height
requirement. However, a Minor Exception is required for any fence/wall combination
between six (6) and eight (8) feet in height.
The current variance is to deviate from the front setback of 1 5 feet for parcel U A" to
allow a 1 O-foot front setback for the proposed commercial office/retail building.
- ------
Planning Commission
July 5, 2000
CUP 00-005; LLA 00-003; V AR 00-002
Page 3
Conditional Use Permit
Except for the front setback, the proposed project meets all site development standards
as shown in the table below.
GENERAL COMMERCIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Min. Min. Side Min. Max. Max. Lot Max. Required Number
Front Bldg. Rear Floor Area Coverage Build. of Parking Spaces
Bldg. Setbacks Bldg. Ratio Height
Setback Setback
Dev. Code 15' 0' 0' 0.50 45% 30' 2 for the
Standards manager's
apartment, 11 for
the commercial
office/retail
buildina
Proposed 10' 0' 45' 0.49 37% 28' Same as required
The existing mini-storage facility is accessed from Poplar Street through a residential
neighborhood. This access would be converted to an emergency access only, and the
primary access for the entire project would be from Grand Avenue. Per Staff Advisory
Committee's recommendations, the drive approach from Grand Avenue has been
narrowed to meet City standards, and the emergency access easement and path is
identified on the plans. As conditioned, the stormwater basin will be designed to store
runoff from a "100-year" rainfall event, and be fenced around the perimeter with
materials and design approved by the Community Development Director.
Variance
The Planning Commission may approve a variance application only if all of the following
six (6) findings specified in Section 9-03.110 of the Development Code can be made in
an affirmative manner.
1. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would
result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship not otherwise shared by others
within the surrounding area.
2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply
generally to other properties classified in the same zone.
3. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified
in the same zone.
Planning Commission
July 5, 2000
CUP 00-005; LLA 00-003; V AR 00-002
Page 4
4. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone.
5. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
6. That the granting of a variance is consistent with the objectives and policies of the
General Plan and the intent of the Development Code.
Under this variance application, the applicant is requesting relief from the front setback
requirement of 1 5 feet to allow a 10-foot setback. The reduced setback would allow
the proposed commercial office/retail building to be aligned with neighboring
businesses. The applicant believes that the variance findings can be made to justify a
10-foot front setback since adjacent businesses enjoy minimal setback distances from
Grand Avenue as shown on the attached photos (reference Exhibits HB2 - B6H of
Resolution 00-1755 for site photos and Attachment 6 for the applicant's variance
request) . Staff believes the variance findings can be made to grant the exception and
recommends approval.
The Development Code requires that a minimum ten-foot (10') wide planted setback
area be maintained along all street frontages for commercial projects. Proposed within
the 10-foot front setback is a paved area with five (5) Laurel trees and a trellis. Staff
recommends that the project be conditioned to eliminate the paved area in front of the
commercial office/retail building, except for the pedestrian entrance, and include
additional plant material in the landscape plan (reference condition of approval No.
18.c(6)).
Lot Line Adiustment
The proposed lot line adjustment would reconfigure three (3) lots into two (2) lots as
follows:
Existing Proposed
Parcel A: 21,779.6 square feet 67,093.98 square feet
Parcel B: 21,779.6 square feet 17,545.27 square feet
Parcel C: 41,080.0 square feet
The Development Code requires that all lots within the General Commercial zoning
district be a minimum of 10,000 square feet, and that all lots must have a minimum
width of 80 feet and a minimum depth of 100 feet. The proposed lot sizes, widths and
depths meet the minimum requirements.
ISSUES:
T raffic/Circulation
The proposed project is estimated to generate 78 average daily trips with 10 p.m. peak
hour trips. The amount of additional trips is not anticipated to have a significant impact
-..----"
Planning Commission
July 5, 2000
CUP 00-005; LLA 00-003; VAR 00-002
Page 5
to the existing level of service on Grand Avenue. As mitigation, payment of the City's
standard Traffic and Signalization Impact fees is required.
Frontaae Improvements
Required frontage improvements are addressed in the Conditions of Approval, which
include installing curb, gutter and sidewalk, planting street trees, and placing overhead
utilities underground. The applicant is requesting an exception to the undergrounding
requirement, stating that the cost would render the project financially infeasible
(reference Attachment 7).
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
A public notice was sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project,
and a public notice was placed in the Times-Press-Recorder. Staff has not received any
comments or correspondence to date.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Staff has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures
for Implementation of CEQA. Based on the review, staff does not anticipate that this
project will have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, staff has prepared a
negative declaration with mitigation measures for adoption by the Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolutions, thereby
approving Conditional Use Permit 00-005, Lot Line Adjustment 00-003 and Variance 00-
002 subject to the conditions of approval.
Attachments:
1. Resolution No. 00-1753 Approving Conditional Use Permit Case No. 00-005
Exhibit "A": Conditions of Approval
Exhibits "B1 - B7": Project Plans
2. Resolution No. 00-1754 Approving Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 00-003'
Exhibit "A": Conditions of Approval
Exhibit "B": Preliminary Lot Line Adjustment
3. Resolution No. 00-1755 Approving Variance Case No. 00-002
Exhibit "A": Conditions of Approval
Exhibit "B 1 ": Site Plan
Exhibits "B2 - B6": Site Photos
4. Location Map
5. Draft Negative Declaration and Initial Study
6. Letter from applicant dated May 5, 2000 regarding variance request
7. Letter from applicant dated June 26, 2000 regarding undergraunding of utilities
8. February 1, 2000 Staff Report (less attachments)
9. February 1, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
10. SAC Meeting Notes of May 23, 2000
11. ARC Meeting Notes of June 5, 2000
A TT ACHMENT E
H...... DItte: 7/11100
Agenda'ltem: II.C.
PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARING TO BE HELD IN THE
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
215 EAST BRANCH STREET
APPLICANT: Zaddie R. Bunker Trust
FILE/INDEX: Conditional Use Permit Case No. 00-005
Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 00-003
Variance Case No. 00-002
PROPOSAL: Expansion of an existing mini-storage facility with a
manager's apartment, and construction of an office/retail
commercial building
LOCATION: 1375 Grand Avenue
REPRESENTATIVE: Gary White
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FROM THE JULY 5, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
Parcel Size: Three (3) parcels totaling 1.94 acres
Terrain: Slopes down from Gr~nd Avenue
.
Vegetation: Commercial Landscaping, Weeds and Grasses
Existing Land Use: Mini-Storage, Restaurant, Dive Shop and Key Shop
General Plan Designation: General Commercial (GC)
Existing Zoning: General Commercial (GC)
Surrounding Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation:
North: Commercial Retail/GC/GC
South: Residential/M F /M F
East: Commercial Office/GC/GC
West: Vacant/GC/GC
Planning Commission
July 18, 2000
CUP 00-005; LLA 00-003; V AR 00-002
Page 2
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission considered this project on July 5, 2000 and discussed the
following issues (reference attached meeting minutes):
. Upgrade of the existing non-conforming mini-storage structures to comply with
current Building Code requirements.
. Installing a wall at the rear property line to buffer the commercial use from the
residential use.
. Adequacy of proposed landscaping.
. Undergrounding of overhead utilities.
. Selection of building materials (metal siding).
. Conformance of the proposed project to the City's recently adopted Economic
Development Strategy.
DISCUSSION:
As directed by the Planning Commission, the applicant met with the Economic
Development Director on July 9, 2000 regarding the proposed project and how it
correlates with the Economic Development Strategy. The attached memorandum from
the Economic Development Director to the Planning Commission explains the intent of
this policy document and how it relates to the proposed project.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the additional information
provided by the Economic Development Director. If the Planning Commission determines
that the project can be approved as submitted, staff has prepared the appropriate
resolutions. (Note that Condition of Approval No. 21 has been added to Resolution No.
00-1753 requiring the applicant to install a wall along the rear property line to separate
the mini-storage use from the residential use).
Attachments:
1. Memorandum from Diane Sheeley, Economic Development Director, to the
Planning Commission dated July 18, 2000
2. Resolution No. 00-1753 Approving Conditional Use Permit Case No. 00-005
(revised)
Exhibit II A": Conditions of Approval
Exhibits IIB1 - B7": Project Plans
3. Resolution No. 00-1754 Approving Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 00-003
Exhibit II A": Conditions of Approval
Exhibit liB": Preliminary Lot Line Adjustment
4. Resolution No. 00-1755 Approving Variance Case No. 00-002
Exhibit II A": Conditions of Approval
Exhibit liB 1": Site Plan
Exhibits IIB2 - B6": Site Photos
5. July 5, 2000 Staff Report (less resolutions)
6. July 5, 2000 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
A TT ACHMENT I
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DIANE SHEELEY, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ,J} S
SUBJECT: GRAND AVENUE MINI-STORAGE FACILITY
DATE: JULY 18, 2000
Following the July 5th Planning Commission meeting, I was contacted by Gary White,
representing the Zaddie Bunker Trust, regarding the proposed expansion of the mini-
storage facility at 1375 Grand Avenue. As a follow-up to our telephone conversation,
Community Development Director Kerry McCants and I met with Gary White to further
discuss his proposed project.
The Redevelopment Plan Implementation Strategy recommends inclusion of an
Economic Development Element in the General Plan. It is important to note, however,
that at this point in time, the Economic Development Strategy is a general policy
document with no specific standards and has not (yet) been incorporated into the City's
General Plan or other regulations.
Although I see the issues surrounding the application's proposal as strictly a land use
matter, I was asked to comment on how the project fits in with the City's Economic
Development Strategy. In developing the Strategy, the City Council-appointed
Economic Development Task Force determined that the Strategy would attempt to
complement the existing General Plan's Land Use Element and Redevelopment Plan
Implementation Strategy. In reviewing the Economic Development Strategy, one of the
goals of the economic development program is "to assist in the retention and expansion
of local businesses." My interpretation is that the City would like to see businesses
create employment opportunities and generate income for the City. Additionally, one of
the goals of the retail/commercial component of the Strategy is "to continue to enhance
and increase the retail utilization of the Grand Avenue corridor, the Village District,
Traffic Way, and EI Camino Improvement Zones consistent with the Redevelopment.
Plan Implementation Strategy."
The proposed project includes a 2,750-sqliare-foot office/retail space. Given these
statistics, Hinderliter de Llamas, the City's sales tax consultant, estimates that
approximately $4,000-$8,000 in annual sales tax could be generated should the entire
footage be developed into retail space and assuming the market will absorb the
proposed retail space. Retail-related jobs would also be created.
-- .,----~_._------~._.._--- .-. --- m"_
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: GRAND AVENUE MINI-STORAGE FACILITY
DATE: JUL Y 18, 2000
PAGE 2
Should the applicant add more office/retail space, the potential for the proportionate
increase in annual sales tax could be realized, provided the space is developed into
retail space and (once again) assuming the market will absorb the added retail space.
Should the applicant end up utilizing the entire 2,750-square-foot facility for professional
office space, (non-retail) jobs would be created although sales tax revenues would not
be realized. The applicant may end up with a mixed-use facility, which would then be a
combination of the above in looking at job creation and sales tax revenues. -
Should you have questions, please contact me at your earliest convenience at ext.
5486.
c: Council Members
Interim City Manager
Community Development Director
PlanningCommission/mini-storage.doc
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO. 00-1753
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, INSTRUCTING THE SECRETARY TO FILE
A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION, AND APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 00-005, LOCATED
AT 1375 GRAND AVENUE, APPLIED FOR BY ZADDIE R.
BUNKER TRUST
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered
Conditional Use Permit Case No. 00-005, filed by Zaddie R. Bunker Trust, to expand
an existing mini-storage facility with a manager's apartment, and construct a
commercial office/retail building; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing on this application in
accordance with the City Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that this project is consistent with
the General Plan and the environmental documents associated therewith; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this project in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the
Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and has
determined that a Negative Declaration can be adopted; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public
hearing, the following circumstances exist:
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
Conditional Use Permit Findings:
1. The proposed use is permitted within the General Commercial district pursuant
to the provisions of Section 9-03.050 of the Development Code, and complies
with all applicable provisions of the Development Code, the goals and
objectives of the Arroyo Grande General Plan, and the development policies
and standards of the City.
2. The proposed use will not impair the integrity and character, of the district in
which it is to be established or located because the proposed use is similar to'
surrounding uses.
3. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development that is
proposed because all the necessary easements, circulation, parking and
setbacks would be provided.
4. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and
services to ensure the public health and safety.
-~,_.._--_._..- --_._-----~----- ^-.--
Resolution No. 00-1753
CUP 00-005
Page 2 of 14
5. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity
because the proposed project would not create adverse environmental impacts.
Architectural Review Findings:
1. The proposal is consistent with the General Architectural Review Guidelines for
the City of Arroyo Grande.
2. The proposal is consistent with the text and maps of the Arroyo Grande
General Plan, and the City of Arroyo Grande Development Code.
3. The proposal will not be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort and general
welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed
project.
4. The general appearance of the proposed building is consistent with the
character of the neighborhood because the size and design are consistent with
other commercial buildings in the vicinity.
5. The proposal is not detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of
the City.
6. The proposal will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the
neighborhood.
Department of Fish and Game Required Findings of Exemption:
1. The City of Arroyo Grande has prepared an initial study pursuant to Section
1 5063 of the Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
for Conditional Use Permit Case No. 00-005.
\
2. Based on the initial study, a Negative Declaration was prepared for public
review.
3. After holding a public headng pursuant to State and City Codes, and
considering the record as a whole, the Planning Commission adopted the
negative declaration and found that there is no substantial evidence of any
significant adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively on wildlife
resources as defined by Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code or on the
habitat upon which the wildlife depends as a result of development of this
project.
--
Resolution No. 00-1753
CUP 00-005
Page 3 of 14
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Arroyo Grande hereby adopts a Negative Declaration, instructs the Secretary to file a
Notice of Determination, and approves Conditional Use Permit No. 00-005, with the
above findings, and to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
On motion by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner ,
and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 18th day of July, 2000.
ATTEST:
Kathleen Fryer, Commission Clerk Laurence Greene, Chair
AS TO CONTENT:
Kerry McCants,
Community Development Director
---
Resolution No. 00-1753
CUP 00-005
Page 4 of 14
EXHIBIT II A II
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 00-005
Zaddie R. Bunker Trust
1375 Grand Avenue
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
GENERAL CONDITIONS
This approval authorizes the expansion of an existing mini-storage facility by 18,450
square feet with a 1,064 square foot manager's apartment, and construction of a
2,750 square foot commercial office/retail building. The project is located at 1375
Grand Avenue, City of Arroyo Grande.
The applicant shall comply with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and
City requirements as are applicable to this project.
2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Conditional Use
Permit Case No. 00-005.
3. This application shall automatically expire on July 18, 2002 unless a building
permit is issued. Thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the approval, the'
applicant may apply for an extension of one (1) year from the original date of
expiration.
4. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented
to the Planning Commission at the meeting of July 18, 2000 and marked
Exhibits "B1 - B7".
5. The applicant shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought
against the City, its present or former agents, officers, or employees because
of the issuance of said approval, or in anyway relating to the implementation
thereof, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall
reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and
attorney's fee's which the City, its agents, officers or employees may be
required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but
such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this
condition.
--.._---- ~--- --
Resolution No. 00-1753
CUP 00-005
Page 5 of 14
WATER
.
6. All new construction shall utilize fixtures and designs that minimize water
usage. Such fixtures shall include, but are not limited to, low flow shower
heads, water saving toilets, instant water heaters and hot water recirculating
systems. Water conserving designs and fixtures shall be installed prior to final
occupancy.
SOUD WASTE
7. Solid waste pick-up location as identified is acceptable. The property owner
shall construct a City standard trash bin enclosure approved by Community
Development and Public Works Departments. Solid waste pick-up for the
subject site shall be provided by bin service only.
8. Trash enclosures shall be reserved exclusively for dumpster and recycling
container storage. Miscellaneous tires, auto parts, boxes, bins, racks, etc., will
not be allowed within the enclosure.
9. Site development shall include convenient facilities for interior and exterior on-
site recycling.
10. Interior vehicle travelways shall be designed to be capable of withstanding
loads imposed by garbage trucks.
NOISE
11. Construction shall be limited to between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.
Monday through Friday and between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Saturday or
Sunday.
DEVELOPMENT CODE
12. Development shall conform to the General Commercial zoning requirements
except as otherwise approved.
13. All walls (including retaining walls), fences, or combination thereof, within the
front setback area, shall be no more than three feet (3') in height. Unless
specifically approved through the appropriate procedure, no other wall
(including retaining walls), fence, or combination thereof shall exceed six feet
(6') in height. All walls shall be compatible with the approved architecture and
Development Code Standards, subject to the review and approval of the
Community Development Director.
14. Signage shall be subject to the requirements of Oevelopment Code Chapter 9-
13. Prior to the installation of any sign, all necessary permits and approvals
shall be obtained. Prior to issuance of a building permit or recordation, any
illegal signs shall be removed.
Resolution No. 00-1753
CUP 00-005
Page 6 of 14
15. Setbacks, lot coverage, and floor area ratios shall be as shown on the
development plans, except as specifically modified by these conditions.
16. The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 9-14,
"Dedications, Fees and Reservations."
17. All planted areas shall be separated from the driveway by concrete curbs or
established hedges.
PRIOR TO ISSUING A BUILDING PERMIT:
18. A landscaping and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape
architect subject to review and approval by the community Development and
Parks and Recreation Departments. The landscaping plan shall include the
following:
a. Tree staking, soil preparation and planting detail;
b. The use of landscaping to screen ground-mounted utility and mechanical
equipment;
c. The required landscaping and improvements. This includes:
(1 ) Deep root planters shall be included in areas where trees are
within five feet (5') of asphalt or concrete surfaces and curbs;
(2) Water conservation practices including the use of low flow heads,
drip irrigation, mulch, gravel, drought tolerant plants and mulches
shall be incorporated into the landscaping plan;
(3) All slopes 2:1 or greater shall have jute mesh, nylon mesh or
equivalent material.
(4) An automated irrigation system.
(5) Areas separating parking from adjacent streets shall be screened
with earthen berms, walls, and planted materials which shall
insure that a minimum screen height of thirty-six inches (36") is
obtained.
(6) A minimum ten-foot (10') wide planted setback area shall be
maintained along the Grand Avenue frontage. The ten-foot (1 a')
wide paved area shown on the preliminary landscape plan in front
of the commercial office/retail building shall be eliminated, except
for the pedestrian entrance, and replaced with plant material.
19. . The applicant shall submit a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded
materials, such as concrete, sheetrock, wood, and metals, from the demolition
of existing buildings and proposed construction. Recycled-content materials
shall be used in structural and decorative building components and in surfacing
wherever feasible. The plan must be submitted to the Community
Development Director for approval.
20. An exterior lighting plan and site lighting footcandle plan shall be prepared
subject to the review and approval of the Community Development and Police
-'---".
----
Resolution No. 00-1753
CUP 00-005
Page 7 of 14
Departments which shall comply with the provisions of Development Code
Sections 9-10.080, 9-12.070 C (3), and 9-15.040.
21. The applicant shall submit a fencing plan, to be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director. The fencing plan shall include an 8' high
solid wall along the rear (south) property line to screen the existing mini-
storage use from the residential use. All walls and fences shall be consistent
in materials and colors throughout the project.
22. The applicant shall submit a Minor Exception application for all walls, fences,
or combination thereof exceeding six (6) feet but less than eight (8) feet in
height.
23. The applicant is responsible for providing each City Department that
conditioned the project with a set of project plans.
PRIOR TO ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY:
24. All ducts, meters, air conditioning equipment and all other mechanical
equipment, whether on the ground, on the structure or elsewhere, shall be
screened from public view with materials architecturally compatible with the
main structure. It is especially important that gas and electric meters, electric
transformers, and large water piping systems be completely screened from
public view. All roof-mounted equipment that generates noise, solid particles,
odors, etc., shall cause the objectionable material to be directed away from
residential properties.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ARC) CONDITIONS
25. The masonry wall shall be made of architectural block, such as slump stone,
split-faced, or stucco.
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
26. Prior to issuance of grading permit and during construction the applicant shall
comply with the provisions of Ordinance 431 C.S., the Community Tree
Ordinance, if applicable.
27. Linear root barriers shall be used at the front of the project to protect the
sidewalks.
28. All street front trees shall be 24-inch box.
Resolution No. 00-1753
CUP 00-005
Page 8 of 14
POLICE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
PRIOR TO ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPAN CY:
29. The applicant shall install surveillance cameras.
BUILDING AND FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
30. The project shall comply with the most recent editions of the California State
Fire and Building Codes and the Unifo~m Building and Fire Codes as adopted by
the City of Arroyo Grande.
31. Project shall have a fire flow per UFC standards.
PRIOR TO ISSUING A BUILDING PERMIT:
32. The applicant shall show proof of properly abandoning all non-conforming
items such as septic tanks, wells, underground piping and other undesirable
conditions.
33. A demolition permit must be applied for, approved and issued.
PRIOR TO ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY:
34. The applicant shall post designated fire lanes, per Section 22500.1 of the
California Vehicle Code.
35. The applicant shall provide an approved "security key vault", per Building and
Fire Department guidelines.
PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION:
36. Fire hydrants shall be installed, per Fire Department and Public Works
Department standards.
37. All buildings must be fully sprinklered per Building and Fire Department
guidelines.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS
The following conditions apply continuously throughout the project:
38. Fees - The applicant shall pay all applicable City fees at the time they are
due.
--
Resolution No. 00-1753
CUP 00-005
Page 9 of 14
39. Site Maintenance - The developer shall be responsible during construction for
cleaning city streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks of dirt tracked from the
project site. The flushing of dirt or debris to storm drain or sanitary sewer
facilities shall not be permitted. The cleaning shall be done after each day's
work or as directed by the Director of Public Works or the Community
Development Director.
PRIOR TO ISSUING EITHER A GRADING OR A BUILDING PERMIT:
40. Public Works Improvements - All project improvements shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with City of Arroyo Grande standards and
specifications. The following improvement plans shall be prepared by a
registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Public Works Department:
a. Grading, drainage and erosion control.
b. Street paving, curb, gutter and sidewalk.
c. Public utilities.
d. Utility undergrounding.
e. Water and sewer.
41. Site plan - The site improvement plans shall include the following:
a. The location and size of all water, sewer, and storm water facilitie$
within the project site and abutting streets or alleys.
b. The location and size of all sewer laterals.
c. The location, size and orientation of all trash enclosures.
d. All parcel lines and easements crossing the property.
e. The location and dimension of all paved areas.
f. The location of all public or private utilities.
g. Plan and profile drawings of existing and proposed streets and
utilities.
h. Retaining wall locations and details.
42. Plan sets - Upon approval of the improvement plans, the applicant shall
provide a reproducible mylar set and 3 sets of prints of the improvements for
inspection purposes. Prior to acceptance of the improvements, the applicant
shall provide reproducible mylars, 2 sets of prints of the approved record
drawings (as builts) and electronic (e.g. Autocad) files where available.
43. Improvement agreement - Prior to approval of any improvement plans, the
applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City for inspection of the
required improvements.
44. Encroachment permits - The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining an
encroachment permit for all work within a public right of way.
.~-_..._--~- ---....- - ---
Resolution No. 00-1753
CUP 00-005
Page 10 of 14
45. Primary access - The primary access to Parcel JI A shall be from a driveway
shared with Parcel JIB" to Grand Avenue. Reciprocal access easements shall
be dedicated as required by the Director of Public Works.
46. Maintenan~e agreement - An agreement approved by the City attorney shall
be recorded providing for the shared maintenance of the following common
facilities:
a. Grand Avenue access driveway.
b. Poplar Street emergency access.
47. Emergency access - Emergency access for Parcel JI A" shall be from a
driveway shared with Parcel JIB" to Poplar street. The applicant shall obtain,
or demonstrate that adequate existing offsite easements exist to allow the
emergency access. The emergency access shall be controlled by a chain or
gate accessible by the City Fire department.
48. Soils report - A preliminary soils report shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer and supported by adequate test borings. All earthwork design and
grading shall be performed in accordance with the approved soils report.
49. Adjacent structures - The grading plan design shall include measures to
protect the adjacent structures from damage due to the construction.
50. Off-site work - Written permission from property owners shall be obtained
for all off-site grading and construction.
51. Drainage design - The portion of Parcel JIB" which does not currently drain
to the existing onsite stormwater detention basin and all of Parcel JI A" shall
drain to the proposed stormwater basin. All drainage facilities shall be
designed for a 1 DO-year storm flow.
52. Water Neutralization Program - Consistent with Mitigation Measure No.1,
The applicant shall complete measures to neutralize the estimated increase in
water demand created by the project by either:
Implement an individual water program consisting of retrofitting existing
high-flow plumbing fixtures with low flow devices. The calculations shall be
submitted to the Director of Public Works for review and approval. The
proposed individual water program shall be submitted to the City Council for
approval prior to implementation; or,
Pay an in lieu fee of $2,200 per equivalent residential unit water usage.
53. Utility review - All improvement plans shall be submitted to the public utility
companies for review and comment. Utility comments shall be forwarded to
the Director of Public Works.
.
- .._n__. ~
Resolution No. 00-1753
CUP 00-005
Page 11 of 14
54. Private Agreements - An agreement shall be entered into for the common
maintenance of the private driveway and all shared private utilities within the
driveway. The Director of Public Works and the City Attorney shall approve
these provisions.
55. Documents - All easements, abandonment's, or similar documents to be
recorded as a document separate from the map, shall be prepared by the
applicant on 8.5 x11 City standard forms, and shall include legal
descriptions, sketches, closure calculations, and a current preliminary title
report. The applicant shall be responsible for all required fees, including any
additional required City processing fees.
56. Recordation - At the time of map recordation, copies of all recorded
documents shall be submitted to the City on either mylar sheets or 8 %" x
11 " archival quality paper.
57. Certificate of Compliance for Lot Line Adjustment - The Certificate of
Compliance for the Lot Line Adjustment shall be recorded with all pertinent
conditions of approval satisfied.
PRIOR TO ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY:
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
58. Emergency access - The applicant shall replace the damaged driveway
approach for the emergency access on Poplar Street.
59. Curb, gutter and sidewalk - The applicant shall replace any damaged curb,'
gutter and sidewalk along the project frontage. Existing driveway ramps not
used by the project shall be removed and replaced with concrete curb, gutter
and sidewalk. The existing driveway shall be widened as required for the
new access.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
60. Grading - All grading shall be done in accordance with the City Grading
Ordinance.
61. Street sections - Street structural sections shall be determined by an R-Value
soil test.
62. Stormwater Basin - Consistent with Mitigation Measure No.3, The applicant
shall provide a private on-site storm water retention facility designed and
constructed to Public Works and Community Development requirements. The
storm water retention basin shall be designed to store runoff from a "100-
year" rainfall event, per Arroyo Grande City Development Code and the Berry
Gardens Specific Plan criteria. The basin shall be sized by a registered Civil
--
Resolution No. 00-1753
CUP 00-005
Page 1 2 of 14
Engineer to store the runoff from either a 24-hour storm, or from extended
rainfall patterns with consideratipn for the percolation rate, whichever is
larger. For the purposes of this condition, the rainfall pattern from the winter
of 1997-98 may be used as the basis for the extended duration analysis.
The basin shall be designed for the following criteria:
a. The facilities shall be designed to reduce the peak flow rate from a post-
development 1 DO-year storm.
b. The 1 DO-year basin outflow shall not exceed the pre-development flow.
c. The 1 DO-year basin outflow shall be limited to a level that does not cause
the capacity of existing downstream drainage facilities to be exceeded .
d. Infiltration basins shall be designed based on soil tests. Infiltration test
shall include a minimum of 2 borings 1 5 feet below the finished basin
floor. Additional borings or tests may be required if the analysis or soil
conditions are inconclusive.
e. The basin design shall include freeboard equal to 15 percent of the basin
depth, to a minimum of 12 inches.
f. The basin shall be fully constructed and functional prior to occupancy for
any building permit within the project.
g. The property owner shall maintain the basin.
h. The basin design shall include landscaping and irrigation.
i. The basin shall be fenced around the perimeter. The Community
Development Department shall approve fence material and design.
WATER
63. Water meters - A new commercial water service and meter shall be installed
to serve Parcel "A".
64. Fire Sprinkler service - A new fire sprinkler service line shall be installed.
The service line shall be sized to serve both parcels "A" and "B". A public
waterline easement shall be dedicated to the City for the fire hydrant. The
easement shall be a minimum of 1 5 feet wide.
65. Abandonments - Existing water services to be abandoned shall be properly
abandoned and capped at the main per the requirements of the Director of
Public Works.
W ASTEW A TER
66. Sewer lateral - A new sewer lateral shall be installed to serve Parcel "A".
67. Abandonments - Existing sewer laterals to be abandoned shall be properly
abandoned and capped at the main per the requirements of the Director of
Public Works.
68. Sewer crossings - All sewer mains or laterals crossing or parallel to public
Resolution No. 00-1753
CUP 00-005
Page 13 of 14
water facilities shall be constructed in accordance with California State
Health Agency standards.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
69. New Utilities - All new public utilities shall be installed as underground
facilities.
70. Underground Existing Utilities - Existing overhead utilities for both Parcels
IIA" and liB" shall be placed underground, including all overhead wires and
service poles onsite, along the frontage and within 6 feet of side and rear
yard lines. The undergrounding of utilities shall be as shown in Figure 1.
71. Utilities - All utilities shall be operational.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
72. Consistent with Condition of Approval No. 48, the applicant shall complete measures
to neutralize the estimated increase in water demand created by the project by either:
Implement an individual water program that utilizes fixtures and designs that minimize
water usage. The calculations shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for
review arid approval. The proposed individual water program shall be submitted to the
City for approval prior to implementation; or,
Pay an in lieu fee.
Monitoring: Review of individual water program or payment of the in
lieu fee
Responsible Department: Building and Fire Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit.
73. All landscaping shall be consistent with water conservation practices including the use
of drought tolerant landscaping, drip irrigation, and mulch. To the greatest extent
possible, lawn areas and areas requiring spray irrigation shall be minimized.
Monitoring: Review of landscaping and irrigation plans
Responsible Department: Parks and Recreation Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit
74. Consistent with Condition of Approval No. 58, the applicant shall submit a final
drainage plan showing a stormwater basin designed to store runoff from a "1 DO-year"
rainfall event.
Monitoring: Review of grading plans
Responsible Department: Public Works Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of a grading permit
-~---- ---~--,...-
Resolution No. 00-1753
CUP 00-005
Page 14 of 14
75. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill
materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems are to be used to prevent dust from
leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities cease.
76. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas
of vehicle . movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a
minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after
work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 1 5 miles per hour.
77. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with
soil binders to prevent dust generation.
Monitoring: Review of grading and building plans and site inspections
Responsible Department: The Building and Fire Department shall inspect plans, and
the Community Development Department shall spot
check in the field
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of grading permit
78. The applicant shall pay the City's Traffic and Signalization fees prior to issuance of
building permit.
Monitoring: The applicant shall pay the fees
Responsible Department: Public Works Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit
79. The following note shall be placed on the grading and improvement plans for the
project:
"In the event that during grading, construction or development of the project,
archeological resources are uncovered, all work shall be halted until the
significance of the resources are determined. If human remains (burials) are
encountered, the County Coroner (781-4513) shall be contacted immediately.
The applicant may be required to provide archaeological studies and/or
additional mitigation measures as required by the California Environmental
Quality Act if archaeological resources are found on the site."
Monitoring: Review of grading plans
Responsible Department: Public Works Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of a grading
t)\
~
~
Ul
\:;
(J)
I :rl
, \ UoI
.\ :::> ~-
\ \ '1 ,,s \ ."
\ ~' I~
\ _'in · - ,~
/ "- . 1'111"; 7-
, _ ... ." 11' .
I / - :> ' , it..' ' ,
, / ' . ,1...'\ ", t ·
v' · · ...... .,.' \. ~
1.. t \!~~~ :!! l
.... .. ~.. ..t" 4 Ii ... ...
""CCC ~ ~
~S~ia \I ~ t"~
E)tHIIIIT II' ~,,~! ,\ ~ 1\ 1\ 1\ ri - ; ~
t-,;\H g \,\ lcr~t \~
\\\\U\ 'S H" \\itl S
"ft..,
~\ \\.\\\\i
~ _....'
:::-.:;:..~.. ....._d ~
. ~ ,....,.,..... \
....... .'
,~ ' \.@\
\ .......~ _p-~ ' ~ _" ' ~ \.,.-..\_ '"r -,T' \
,"'t ..".._ " ",7 ,... .../ I:t / \ ~ I
\-::::::d -,,,' ILl/I' \ \ \i~ \ \
" I' \ I ~_.,..-- ,~,I i 0/\ 7"'LI 17 ' ,
\_~ 1\ j,\ '\ "\ ,"'~~~ ,I '\ r I ,'/ ,/ v'iy-i . t 1\ I 1\ I ~\ ,i \ 'I
( ..J'-- ,D '\ r- I " ~ 1 r v ';:f\ ~ ' J \\ \'\ \ \
'(" _ ",,'" "ff," 'I ::1 '/ ' d t, \. ' .
\~,\ '- \ _ ~ 1/ h l~iC,1 Ii ~~1 \ (0, ~ f,,\ I \ \ ,
~-" ;..-..;::: \ r7 i~ I \~ .' \ 1 I ,,' " \ \ \ \ '
~ 'c ,-' ' . -\ \ tlT " .. ..., . ~ ~; r \ " \' \ ~
\; ,)1\",~ I'~ ~:~ ..~.;! ~[\.\. \ \ I ~.J 1\"\\ \ .\\\ \\ \<<\\~
~ _ . __ ! I U,' ' ,\1\ I \ \ CD ~ t .
,_ ,_ ,__ "" " VI ".
',A, --.i+' 7'''/.'!' , , Ii _.~ ..... '" ~..,.... I' I .. I \ ~t ~
\ _ ~ .,'" \ \ '\ ,\ I i'. ,.\ ,I, ~\ a\~ \
.. _ ......-__ _~~' \ \~~ ~.~~\.~~~_~~~~ \. \ ~\\ \ \~ \ ~ 1
-.... .-~------,,---'( ,-~' ,~ ..' .
."'..,.. I --=' \ gI ,. ': '" 1,
. "" P ~\ \ "''i;~ t
I\'........ 1\. ~ 1,,\ \ 1.\\'
~l \ // ~ -- h ,\ \, \h~\.; ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~\ \
, t ' -- i \",," , ~ · ~p
~ :l{~i
" ~ '" -~- '"
. 11\\" \
\ ~ it\11 \ \' \ ' __ ~ \ \. \ \ \~'\ ~~ i
U \-., \: j \'.~ \- \\ ~\ i\ ~ \"
" , II -- " " 1\ \ . ~
. 'l ;,' __,!..J
\~' .!, \ Ii z...,- \ '-j~ \ \ 1\1 \. ~
I \ \ _-::- "''''' \ \ \\ '\ \ ~
~_ r ~ --' · '
\" '.' -p~' \. -
_ s s,~.
,.... '3 i '{'\~
:=p~' ~i ,\ \. \14:
,~t. ~<1<'\
~ \ s \1
~ t \ 1~ \
\ ~" i i\ \
ti\ i\' i\\ \
~\i\\\ '1 \.~ \~~~ E){\.\\6rr 62
it .. \, i . ~ .\
i~ \~!i
\
\i \
\\\ ~
!!i .....
t,,-s. .. . . ,'~ "
,at ..-.-:.:o;=.. ;~
~~. 'i.~.t~: ~
1~\ ;,;:.11.""'" -
tit .\....~f~ ~
1 \ ,\ ,.,;
" ,_ J ;~. C)
3 ..\:l.at ~.~ ~
3 ... '\t~' till
\ ~\ \ \ ,i~ ~
\ \\\\\~ ~\ ~
I
@\
G)
~
\
'a
~- ---
\
\ \
\ ::::J.'
\ < 1
:::\ ~ i
~\ } ~
3\ \~ ~
~..\ ~? ~
, IS ()
, \~"
\ ~
4C.
..J
---------- .
----------- ,-'
-------~--
A TT ACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION NO. 00-1754
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 00-003 TO RECONFIGURE
THREE (3) LOTS INTO TWO (2) LOTS, LOCATED AT 1375
GRAND A VENUE, APPLIED FOR BY ZADDIE R. BUNKER
TRUST
WHEREAS, the applicant has filed Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 00-003 to
reconfigure three (3) lots into two (2) lots located at 1375 Grand Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has held a public
hearing on Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 00-003 in accordance with City Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that this project is consistent with
the City's General Plan and Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public
hearing that the lots were legally created and the following findings exist:
This Lot Line Adjustment will not:
1. Create any new lots.
2. Include any lots or parcels created illegally.
3. Impair any existing access or create a need for access to any adjacent lots or
parcels.
4. Impair any existing easements or create a need for any new easements serving
adjacent lots or parcels.
5. Constitute poor land planning or undesirable lot configurations due to existing
environmental conditions or current zoning development standards.
6. Require substantial alteration of any existing improvements or create a need for
any new improvements.
7. Create a nonconforming lot in the development district, in which it exists, except
as allowed in Section 9-10.100 of the Development Code.
Department of Fish and Game Required Findings:
1 . The City of Arroyo Grande has determined that Lot Line Adjustment Case No.
99-003 is exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Categorical
Exemption ~ 15305 (a), "Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations", of the
Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act.
- "." --.._--~
8 II~
- il J I i ~
z I j 9 . ,.. <J<J<J
"
II ~ - j I ;
" c S ~ ~
& ,- --{1-
v _:! _ 9 ~
11>13 'I-"s~t!' ~ <.J
1'1'" tiij~ !~..!! j '" i !
~ i :;I
t ~lz -r q.:!- 0 .. ~.
~ . ~!'" i'" f 1 5- i . : . 3 " i c1 II ~ Ii
. <.J ~
~ ~ . ti: J ~ 1 ! ~ i .! U i I J a
i l1Jj,t !~i!Li;! ~ >. ~ ill!! i!tl
~1 1."- "-_ 1 1 ~
- i~~~"i~ll;;nci > <.J ;;;
.. .. - - ':t ~ .. ':I 8
~ ~ f lJl!ld!.~JLi! 1..111 >I~
~ i !JJJI..jl~~!I!~ i I I ! II .11;:1 I
~I Jta~:;I:C...",:= i Ii .!.
EXHIBIT B3 ~i
I
~ I
I
I iO
0
i
i t
i
I I
j
I
! II J
--
W
..J
4(
0
iT (J)
0
J w
h CJ
I a:
<
i it 2
I I w
-
. I I z
I I <
. cr
I 1 I
I ~ W
, a..
! 4(
0
~ (J)
I ~
-t 4(
..J
-
',..-
is I I I ~
~i !i I li<
. <I<I<J I
;.', I.
J ~. ,I>>. ~', .I~ Ii il,!!
! ~~i ::~~:_,~~ it! '~~~~'~~ i;; I' ~ iliUIn ~~ill
! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ [l'! j ~ % ~ I ~ . ~ ~ le:~ 0 i j I i3 II
: .. ' .:.' ~. 0
i ,.....~ , . : ., ]r\ i I l1+:OS I ~ GD
' -" '~I.. '" .. '" " '" ! J ~'.. '" , " ,'" ," J' LL = ,
I .... r.. .. · ... ,"1l .:....... -. ~ .., ~..
~: ~- ".' .~ " m ~'I'
~. . i :' --J :os I i:ii -
. r '" '" ., ,,:~.. ~ \J i LJ . i .. I'.. ., ." '" I \j~ ~ ~ ~e
:. D,". .. I'" .. ~. ~ ~ ',.. .. .. .. .. .: C -g
..!..t...! . ~ ~ !, I ~ '"C
. . 17., .. " ..'~.. ...........,~.. i., .. .,:.,...:-:- ~ ~
~ r''' ..!.. .. i ~.. ]!MIOII.w. ~ ""q .. ::. .. .. .. I': , ~ _::::J
.;J r\ r\ r\ " " " [\ 1\ , /1, f1 f1Jl/1 !1 /1/1 .~" ~ ~
... ~ II 'I' I , A, ... Z a.
- , .. ., ,'" ., ."" , Q, !,,,,.,.., '," ."., .. ..: .. - ...
. ':. :. .. .. '",.. ...."" j, ~:. i :. r .. ,",. .. ill ... ':It I .. _9 ..,
. , ~ 3: . , 0
, ' ,_ c:
. ~ - 0
! ! I :J 0
! m_
......910 "a-.Qt. , ~... (
EXHIBIT B4
JJ
. . ;, ;, . ;,. . '" '" i.,
.. .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. .. :;'. .
.. .. .. i:>> Go .. ;, 0:' 11 .. is 'b 1
- - - - - - - - - - - - ~-
I _.:' . 11-
11
~I
1 ..... f -~~ I'''~M ~~ r I ~
~ I -----.<
1 ~
~.. ~
j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .' ~ ~ ~ ~ 11 Ja:o ~
~ ! ~ ~ ! ~ !! 0 ::z
:., ~ I ~ .,....
118 - - ~ oJ
I I ~ ~ I LL UJ
I I ; ~ '! ~ ;:r ; ~ ~ ; ; I t; ~
l' · . '. · · ( '...... ---4. g; a:
. .~ _ . LL 0
.. ::I ! ,~....
~ I ----':1. in - (JJ
I '! ! '! ~. . 'J S '! ": !. . ..)(
j ~ ~ ~ ~'... ~ }ll ILJ~ · ~ ~ ~. 0 e <i!
Z - 0
. ~ 1! <-; CL
. ~.. ~ >-
I . , . t. - [] ,.., ~Oi l-
I .. ~ i ~s ~ ~ '! S ~ <!1 .a
~ !~. 11! a. (JJ
I I 2- I ~ j ~;, ~9 8 ~
~ ' ;I --'Ip C ..J
, '--U I ::> 0 ..
! >. IJ >: I>.J >. ",.2 ~
~, ~
LL
.~\ ~t'l
,\ ~. a~
~t \.. 4<14
E){H\B\1' BS I
~ ~ .' ~
~ '4 t ri.
~ \ ~ U t \1 ~
il\ ~4 !,
\; ;c .\\,,\ \ \~
~nln\i\~i\
~ \\ .. 13.
\; \ G>
\ ~\
\
\ \~
s.
\;
\; J : ."
\~ \
\ \r\\ \
\ ~ \
~ .1
\ h .. \\
\ \
\"; .' \ \; . \\
\ ~
\ \ \ ' \ \ \
\ .. ~
\ { :r
, ~
~ \ ri
, ~ \
, # \ ... ~
\ to \ \; \ U
\
\ \; 3
\ ~
\ ~ \. ' {/"" c=-'\ >:;;
; ~ . I
\ \ =-,\ """\ I ~
\ 2- 'I
\ \ ~ UUU
\ \ t
\ ~ ~ \ ~
.' i
\ <3 (/)
~ u.- ~
\ O. ~ ;
\ ...1
u.- ~ ~
~ (J) ~
~ b 0
u.-
~ - ~
1 i
~ ~ ~
~ CD ')-
~ r
~
'"
'.' t
~
<3
u.-
-------'--
e'!' II;;;
.1 I " I
EXHIBIT B6 ~ ~ II!! :I! 1<
... <1<J<i
I -,'j. II
. . . I
I~ ~ I T
~ , i~~.
i cSU ~Hij
;:
..; I' I I
a$
",. ~ lil:'1i~ ;:
,I piLI 8:i/I:,
i Iii I'
1 I
~ i:/,
a!
\ 5" ., ;,~
.-s i *'Vo
~""
~./~ ~
':,.' _J.r:' lfi.;
. , 'J. ~
\"*.f ~f.t t;;l ~ !
1\0 * ..{..
III' "it ,...>' 2'
';" t 'tt...-. .
"'}' ~~
'I.t~;:' J . ~ ~.;. a::I J
":1/1 ";.~ . , '"
'.. '.2r.. ~~
.~'~ ~F=
" :/< j
.~ .e, " ..> -r
:..:-t~:: .' ,"iA\' !~ -.i
~'f,. '-; ~.~ "'\
~~k" ."Jir,' b:'" ~-nr; i !
. Ht\\ At- . ".::. . -:>"t M'
..~ ' . .~ ~~ ,~ .~,~
. t ~ '. ~z~ ,,"J t..~ tk~~. '4:..~ ~
'1&:. ~
11'~~' . " X
.f,r-I. lrl~..~ ,.....~.~ w
~.t.' - .
'.' ~ <'.1 :~~q'
'& ~t! ..1" .,., .
o ':'~o{ '''~~.' \
....it ~, ~ " ~ -#r~
. '."
. :1 ":'i.. ~ ,'%."/! .
,. .
\~
'N' f
. . .;~:'* .
'~k
~ ..
I 'If':,\~. .~ .
~I.~ ~:;, '" ,
:; ~}.~ ~ '.. , ~~~ ~'4'~~-
~~'~"
~ . to..
c .rt:. ~ , . :f"!~.I>" ~. :'::l
5.f '". ~~ _~j T'I'~ .
i .. .~;' , \;'. 'J.!i,ri~.'..
. .. 4,. 4" of ~~.~ ...
!j>
(JJ ,
;0
z ~
e
~ ~,~ i=
" < - i
~ ~~. -ti-. I >
II :'~~.,. 'I ~ ~j
i ~,~. ,: I! ;
: ~ w
"'f; t: ~ .. I ~~c: ~i
~.r" ~9' t~. .
. f ", 1'7#. I ::lie !1
.' . ,j. . I i -
. - ;'J t:. .....r. I ;e c:
. ~.~ -. ,.t I ~w if
~~ I.', ~"'1~.. I ....
t .. ( trt~...~,"" x
':J. I~ ,,~~~1' W
. ~ ~-~tt
" ~ 'f.
JI .~ .@.
~ " .,;, . ~
;( .ii.
--- _._---~---
e-. I I i~
~j il _~ ~ i.:c
S. =1 a. <I<1<I
EXHIBIT B7 ,
.. ~; II
I !! P ,..
!.... ;. 1;-
", ~ < 111 s~.,
: f>'!! ,,~ 5 . II':
' ;, .*, I I._ ." ~; '.
". ,. Ii So .'.! ;'
II i III tiz I " ::
i i i.1 !l1!:i I <.
o il lid::
~t ;"...: ~~i ~~
. A, .
.c"f;t ~
~ t !~t'''r.~
CO ~ ~'~~l
.~ Cl
. ,Ll. ~ '( 'i\
,~ ~...
~"'''''1 "
<e~~~.~.~. ~-t. " a
, V-
. .,
<Ii . _. .
~. "" ..
;.,. r(
r'~k
.. f~- ~~--I
;,;? . J
I I
liS "
Ii!
~c a
! CD
I
c
J
~ CD ~
~ 5
= a
/ ;, " 1
~ I ,~~..:.:\~. ~ t-..~-----
,'. " I . ~~
\, "'" I I so. 'k>iIr, '"" ,
.. ~ ~\ ~ . . .r. ,.,' ,.~
!"';.J '~'i!i , .. ~, ;;.,.~
..r.'., J;!. :.... ?% .J!.":t -'U,
l- .....;:....' 7: J, . ..~ ..:-, ;~ ~
'-".X." \:lI\~: ->;..".. 'oi...
. << .. .' ''0'' ,.
' I ---1
: ......"
~
I ----r j
I I
~ I
I ,
~ I CI) I
J ~ I
. i 0 I,
~ : ~
' .".' : <
~. 7., I > I
11 I W
.".: ~
' ~ .ii I W
:., ~ ~.., I
~ tU ,~..' < a: I
,.r.~!.;~.. ~ 0
I'"tf/;'/ ...,t. 11_
~ ....;:. "'. ~ ,:; i ffi
~ . ';-f;, ":~ . I-
is.. X
i f W
a.H. Wires To Be
Replaced Underground
8 pp
(To Be Removed)
pp
(To Be Removed)
pp
(To Remain)
1375 GRAND AVE.
Kings Dive =~
Sea Food Shop Building
to.H. Wires \ a.H. Wires
(To Remain) \ (To Remain)
2 5
- -
pp pp "--- pp
(To Remain) / (To Be Removed) . (To Remain)
I pp
a.H. Wires To Be Replaced Undergroun (To Be Removed)
I
I
I
c=- FlA...1'I1:> A.." E 1'1 U E
1- a.H. Wires
01 (To Remain)
pp
(To Remain) .
UTILITY RELOCATION
CUP 00-005 - FIGURE 1
DATE: 6/15/00
--~--
A TT ACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION NO. 00-1754
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 00-003 TO RECONFIGURE
THREE (3) LOTS INTO TWO (2) LOTS, LOCATED AT 1375
GRAND A VENUE, APPLIED FOR BY ZADDIE R~ BUNKER
TRUST
WHEREAS, the applicant has filed Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 00-003 to
reconfigure three (3) lots into two (2) lots located at 1375 Grand Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has held a public
hearing on Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 00-003 in accordance with City Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that this project is consistent with.
the City's General Plan and Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public
hearing that the lots were legally created and the following findings exist:
This Lot Line Adjustment will not:
1. Create any new lots.
2. Include any lots or parcels created illegally.
3. Impair any existing access or create a need for access to any adjacent lots or
parcels.
4. Impair any existing easements or create a need for any new easements serving
adjacent lots or parcels.
5. Constitute poor land planning or undesirable lot configurations due to existing
environmental conditions or current zoning development standards.
6. Require substantial alteration of any existing improvements or create a need for
any new improvements.
7. Create a nonconforming lot in the development district, in which it exists, except
as allowed in Section 9-10.100 of the Development Code.
Department of Fish and Game Required Findings:
1. The City of Arroyo Grande has determined that Lot Line Adjustment Case No.
99-003 is exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Categorical
Exemption ~ 15305 (a), "Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations", of the
Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act.
~_.._--
Resolution No. 00-1754
LLA 00-003
Page 2 of 6
2. After holding a public hearing pursuant to State and City Codes, and
considering the record as a whole, the Planning Commission found that there
is no substantial evidence of any significant adverse effect, either individually
or cumulatively on wildlife resources as defined by Section 711.2 of the Fish
and Game Code or on the habitat upon which the wildlife depends as a result
of development of this project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Arroyo Grande hereby approves Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 00-003 with the
above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
On motion by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner ,
and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 18th day of July 2000.
ATTEST:
Kathleen Fryer, Commission Clerk Laurence Greene, Chair
AS TO CONTENT:
Kerry McCants
Community Development Director
'-
Resolution No. 00-1754
LLA 00-003
Page 3 of 6
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 00-003
Zaddie R. Bunker Trust
1375 Grand Avenue
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
GENERAL CONDITIONS
This approval authorizes the reconfiguration of three (3) existing lots into two (2) lots
as follows:
Existing Proposed
Parcel A: 21,779.6 square feet 67,093.98 square feet
Parcel B: 21,779.6 square feet 17,545.27 square feet
Parcel C: 41,080.0 square feet
1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and
City requirements as are applicable to this project.
2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Lot Line
Adjustment 00-003.
3. This application shall automatically expire on July 18, 2002 unless a
Certificate of Compliance is recorded. Thirty (30) days prior to the expiration
of the approval, the applicant may apply for an extension of one (1) year from
the original date of expiration.
4. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented
to the Planning Commission at the meeting of July 18, 2000 and marked
Exhibit "B".
5. The applicant shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought
against the City, its present or former agents, officers, or employees because
of the issuance of said approval, or in anyway relating to the implementation
thereof, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall
reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and
attorney's fee's which the City, its agents, officers or employees may be
required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but
such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this
condition.
Resolution No. 00-1754
LLA 00-003
Page 4 of 6
DEVELOPMENT CODE
6. Development shall conform to the General Commercial (GC) zoning
requirements except as otherwise approved.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The following conditions must be complied with prior to recording a map or a
certificate of compliance finalizing the Lot Line Adjustment:
7. Fees - The applicant shall pay all applicable City fees at the time they are due.
8. Primary Access - The primary access to both Parcels IIA" and liB" shall be
from Grand Avenue. Reciprocal access easements shall be dedicated over
the shared access as required by the Director of Public Works.
9. Emergency access - Emergency access for both Parcel IIA" and Parcel liB"
shall be from Poplar street. The applicant shall obtain, or demonstrate that
adequate existing offsite easements exist to allow the emergency access.
The emergency access shall be controlled by a chain or gate accessible by
the City Fire department.
10. Preliminary Title Report -: A current preliminary title report shall be submitted
to the Director of Public Works prior to checking the recordable documents.
11. Private Agreements - An agreement shall be entered into for the common
maintenance of the private driveway, emergency access, and all other shared
facilities. These provisions shall be approved by the Director of Public Works
and the City Attorney.
12. Tax Certificate - In accordance with Section 9-15.130 of the Development
Code, the applicant shall furnish a certificate from the tax collector's office
indicating that there are no unpaid taxes or special assessments against the
property.
13. Documents - All easements, abandonments, or similar documents to be
recorded as a document separate from the map, shall be prepared by the
applicant on 8.5 x11 City standard forms, and shall include legal
descriptions, sketches, closure calculations, and a current preliminary title
report. The applicant shall be responsible for all required fees, including any
additional required City processing fees.
14. Records - Provisions shall be made such that copies of all recorded
documents shall be submitted to the City, on either mylar map sheets or
8 %" x 11" archival quality paper.
Resolution No. 00-1754
LLA 00-003
Page 5 of 6
15. Private easements - Private over Parcels "A" and "B" shall be reserved on the
map or other document acceptable to the City easements as required by the
Director of Public Works for the following: .
A. Private drainage easements over Parcel" A" in favor of Parcel "B".
B. Private water and sewer easements.
C. Private and public utility easements.
D. Reciprocal emergency access easements.
E. 25 feet wide access easement over Parcel "B" in favor of Parcel "A".
16. Underground Existing Utilities - Development of either Parcel "A" or "B" shall
require that all existing overhead public utnities (for both parcels) on site shall
be placed underground, including all overhead wires and service poles onsite,
along the frontage, and within 6 feet of side and rear yard lines. The
undergrounding shall be according to Figure 1
17. Stormwater basin - Development of either Parcel "A" or "B" shall require
that a a private on-site storm water retention facility be designed and
constructed to Public Works and Community Development requirements. The
storm water retention basin shall be designed to store runoff from a "100-
year" rainfall event, per Arroyo Grande City Development Code and the Berry
Gardens Specific Plan criteria. The basin shall be sized by a registered Civil
Engineer to store the runoff from either a 24-hour storm, or from extended
rainfall patterns with consideration for the percolation rate, whichever is
larger. For the purposes of this condition, the rainfall pattern from the winter
of 1997-98 may be used as the basis for the extended duration analysis.
The basin shall be designed for the following criteria:
a. The facilities shall be designed to reduce the peak flow rate from a post-
development 100 year storm.
b. The portion of Parcel "B" which does not currently drain to the existing
onsite stormwater detention basin and all of Parcel "A" shall drain to the
. proposed stormwater basin.
c. The 100 year basin outflow shall not exceed the pre-development flow.
d. The 100 year basin outflow shall be limited to a level which does not
cause the capacity of existing downstream drainage facilities to be
exceeded.
e. Infiltration basins shall be designed based on soil tests. Infiltration test
shall include a minimum of 2 borings 1 5 feet below the finished basin
floor. Additional borings or tests may be required if the analysis or soil
conditions are inconclusive.
f. The basin design shall include freeboard equal to 1 5 percent of the basin
depth, to a minimum of 12 inches.
g. The basin shall be fully constructed and functional prior to occupancy for
any building permit within the project.
Resolution No. 00-1754
LLA 00-003
Page 6 of 6
h. The basin shall be maintained by the property owner.
i. The basin design shall include landscaping and irrigation.
j. The basin shall be fenced around the perimeter. Fence material shall be
approved by the Community Development Department.
PRIOR TO ISSUING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR ANY LOT:
18. Certificate of Compliance for Lot Line Adjustment - The Lot Line Adjustment
shall be finalized by recording either a Parcel Map or Certificates of
Compliance, and subsequent deed transfers, with all pertinent conditions of
approval satisfied.
"- -.-..-
A TT ACHMENT 4
RESOLUTION NO. 00-1755
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING VARIANCE
CASE NO. 00-002, LOCATED AT 1375 GRAND AVENUE,
APPLIED FOR BY ZADDIE R. BUNKER TRUST
WHEREAS, the applicant, Zaddie R. Bunker Trust, has filed Variance Case No. 00-
002 to allow a deviation from the required front yard setback of fifteen feet (15');
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered
Variance Case No. 00-002 at a public hearing on July 18, 2000 in accordance with
the Development Code of the City of Arroyo Grande; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that this project is consistent with
the General Plan and the Development Code associated therewith; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this project under the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the
project is exempt from review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15305; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public
hearing, the following findings can be made in the affirmative:
Variance FindinQs
1. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship not otherwise
shared by others within the surrounding area.
2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that
do not apply generally to other properties classified in the same zone.
3. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties <;:Iassified in the same zone.
4. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same
zone.
5. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
Resolution No. 00-1755
Variance Case No. 00-002
Page 2 of 3
6. That the granting of a variance is consistent with the objectives and policies of
the General Plan and the intent of the Development Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Arroyo Grande hereby approves Variance Case No. 00-002, with the above findings
and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
On motion by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner ,
and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 18th day of July, 2000.
ATTEST:
Kathleen Fryer, Commission Clerk Nanci Parker, Vice-Chair
AS TO CONTENT:
Kerry McCants
Community Development Director
.
Resolution No. 00-1755
Variance Case No. 00-002
Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT II A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VARIANCE CASE NO. 00-002
APPLIED FOR BY ZADDIE R. BUNKER TRUST
LOCATED AT 1375 GRAND AVENUE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
General Conditions
This approval authorizes a reduction of the required front yard setback from 1 5 feet
to 10 feet, as illustrated in Exhibit "B 1" and shall be located no farther forward than
the adjacent house to the west located at 1611 Chilton Street, APN #077-012-09.
1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and
City requirements as are applicable to this project.
2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Lot, Line
Adjustment Case No. 99-001 with Variance Case No. 99-004, and Certificate
of Compliance Case No. 99-001.
3. The applicant shall, as a condition of approval of this variance application,
defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Arroyo Grande, its present or
former agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding
against the City, its past or present agents, officers, or employees to attack,
set aside, void, or annul City's approval of this subdivision, which action is
brought within the time period provided for by law. This condition is subject
to the provisions of Government Code Section 66474.9, which are
incorporated by reference herein as though set forth in full.
Development Code
4. The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 9-4, "Land
Divisions" .
5. The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 9-14,
"Dedications, Fees and Reservations."
----
.
i
o 1 0 I ~ u
z
1 I! ~ ~ . :>
0 u
i '~i i1151:!' ~ ~ ~
!Jt1 'q.si~~t (I) ~ 6
~ I 3
i .....j'litiJZ!;-'l. 0 u
.~ttzt'q !~i.; j :>
~ il!"'!"~. Ls ~i3 ~ ~ i
~. j j Ii: 1 ~ I ~ i j ii ! '"
:i ~ 1 <! ~!! ": ~ '0 ~ ;i > u
~ ~ ;gI~.!~=JI~i ,1 8
~ ~ !l1J!PtHlIH ~ I
~ j tJ]jj~t~iL1 ~_ ~
8 .. I _ It } 3 ::
- ~ t: _
31 J~&~of". .
..
EXHIBIT B 1 0
..-
~
I
'11
'I
I,
I ii,
I"
I ill
!
I II
II
t III r.. I
~
",
I h
I I @g;~
I 0111
, "'1_"
I I~
I i
! n~. ;
I LJ ' I
I I
r--'
+t
I -
! w
-J
-<
III 0
en
c
w
(!)
i h ~
-+ ;!
I
Is w
-
, z
,
I -<
I
I I -J :
I I Il.
I
I J
I I . w
I I ~
J ~
! I
I !i
, I -<
I -J
I I
i -
!
- - - -
-~
A TT ACHMENT 5
Hearing Date: 7/5/00
Agenda Item: II. C.
PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARING TO BE HELD IN THE
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
215 EAST BRANCH STREET
APPLICANT: Zaddie R. Bunker Trust
FILE/INDEX: Conditional Use Permit Case No. 00-005
Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 00-003
Variance Case No. 00-002
PROPOSAL: Expansion of an existing mini-storage facility with a
manager's apartment, and construction of an office/retail
commercial building
LOCATION: 1375 Grand Avenue
REPRESENTATIVE: Gary White
1? H.earing ~otices sent on 6/23/00. Staff Report P!epared by. Kelly ~effernon. ~,-tf,
Site inspection by Kelly Heffernon on 12/3/99. Notice of Public Heanng was
adequately posted on the project site.
Parcel Size: Three (3) parcels totaling 1 .94 acres
Terrain: Slopes down from Grand A venue
Vegetation: Commercial Landscaping, Weeds and Grasses
Existing Land Use: Mini-Storage, Restaurant, Dive Shop and Key Shop
General Plan Designation: General Commercial (GC)
Existing Zoning: General Commercial (GC)
Surrounding Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation:
North: Commercial Retail/GC/GC
South: Residential/MF/MF
East: Commercial Office/GC/GC
West: Vacant/GC/GC
-- ~-_._...._-
---
Planning Commission
July 5, 2000
CUP 00-005; LLA 00-003; VAR 00-002
Page 2
BACKGROUND:
On February 1, 2000 the Planning Commission denied, without prejudice, Conditional
Use Permit 00-008, Lot Line Adjustment 99-003 and Variance 99-007, allowing the
applicant to return to the Planning Commission with substantially the same project
(reference Attachment 8 for staff report and Attachment 9 for meeting minutes). The
basis for the denial was lack of support to make the required variance findings.
Although the project description is comparable to the previous submittal, the revised
project better complies with Development Code standards.
DISCUSSION:
Proiect Description:
The applicant. proposes to expand an existing mini-storage facility with a manager's
apartment, and construct a new office/retail commercial building. The property is
approximately two acres in size and is comprised of three separate parcels. Existing on
site is a restaurant, dive shop, key shop, and the mini-storage facility. Unlike the
previous submittal, the proposed project is not phased.
Details of the proposed project are as follows:
. Addition of 18,450 square feet of mini-storage space.
. Construction of a 1, 109 square foot manager's apartment over a two-car garage.
. Construction of a 3,625 square foot retention basin.
. Removal of the existing key shop (all other existing facilities on site are proposed
to remain).
. Construction of a 2,750 square foot office/retail building and eleven (11) parking
spaces.
The lot configuration has been amended to place all of the existing mini-storage,
proposed mini-storage expansion and commercial office/retail building on parcel "A",
and the existing restaurant and dive shop on parcel "B". The revised lot configuration
eliminates the previous floor area ratio and front setback issues by enlarging parcel "A",
and eliminating the lot line between the off-street parking and mini-storage expansion.
In the previous submittal, a variance was also required for a twelve (12) foot high
masonry wall along the west property line. Since the wall is part of the building itself
and not a separate structure, it is not 'subject to the six (6) foot maximum wall height
requirement. However, a Minor Exception is required for any fence/wall combination
between six (6) and eight (8) feet in height.
The current variance is to deviate from the front setback of 15 feet for parcel "A" to
allow a 10-foot front setback for the proposed commercial office/retail building.
-- -----~--_....- _._.~-
Planning Commission
July 5, 2000
CUP 00-005; LLA 00-003; VAR 00-002
Page 3
Conditional Use Permit
Except for the front setback, the proposed project meets all site development standards
as shown in the table below.
GENERAL COMMERCIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Min. Min. Side Min. Max. Max. Lot Max. Required Number
Front Bldg. Rear Floor Area Coverage Build. of Parking Spaces
Bldg. Setbacks Bldg. Ratio Height
Setback Setback
Dev.Code 15' 0' 0' 0.50 45% 30' 2 for the
Standards manager's
apartment, 11 for
the commercial
office/retail
buildina
Proposed . 10' 0' 45' 0.49 37% 28' Same as required
The existing mini-storage facility is accessed from Poplar Street through a residential
neighborhood. This access would be converted to an emergency access only, and the
primary access for the entire project would be from Grand Avenue. Per Staff Advisory
Committee's recomme'ndations, the drive approach from Grand Avenue has been
narrowed to meet City standards, and the emergency access easement and path is
identified on the plans. As conditioned, the storm water basin will be designed to store
runoff from a "100-year" rainfall event, and be fenced around the perimeter with
materials and design approved by the Community Development Director.
Variance
The Planning Commission may approve a variance application only if all of the following
six (6) findings specified in Section 9-03.110 of the Development Code can be made in
an affirmative manner.
1. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would
result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship not otherwise shared by others
within the surrounding area.
2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the prope~y involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply
generally to other properties classified in the same zone.
3. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified
in the same zone.
_._-
Planning Commission
July 5, 2000
CUP 00-005; LLA 00-003; V AR 00-002
Page 4
4. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zon~.
5. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
6. That the granting of a variance is consistent with the objectives and policies of the
General Plan and the intent of the Development Code.
Under this variance application, the applicant is requesting relief from the front setback
requirement of 15 feet to allow a 1 a-foot setback. The reduced setback would allow
the proposed commercial office/retail building to be aligned with neighboring
businesses. The applicant believes that the variance findings can be made to justify a
1 a-foot front setback since adjacent businesses enjoy minimal setback distances from
Grand Avenue as shown on the attached photos (reference Exhibits IIB2 - B6" of
. Resolution 00-1755 for site photos and Attachment 6 for the applicant's variance
request) . Staff believes the variance findings can be made to grant the exception and
recommends approval.
The Development Code requires that a minimum ten-foot (10') wide planted setback
area be maintained along all street frontages for commercial projects. Proposed within
the 1 a-foot front setback is a paved area with five (5) Laurel trees and a trellis. Staff
recommends that the project be conditioned to eliminate the paved area in front of the
commercial office/retail building', except for the pedestrian entrance, and include
additional plant material in the landscape plan (reference condition of approval No.
18.c(6)).
Lot Line Adiustment
The proposed lot line adjustment would reconfigure three (3) lots into two (2) lots as
follows:
Existing Proposed
Parcel A: 21,779.6 square feet 67,093.98 square feet
Parcel B: 21,779.6 square feet 17,545.27 square feet
Parcel c: 41,080.0 square feet .
The Development Code requires that all lots within the General Commercial zoning
district be a minimum of 10,000 square feet, and that all lots must have a minimum
width of 80 feet and a minimum depth of 100 feet. The proposed lot sizes, widths and
depths meet the minimum requirements.
ISSUES:
Traffic/Circulation
The proposed project is estimated to generate 78 average daily trips .with 10 p.m. peak
hour trips. The amount of additional trips is not anticipated to have a significant impact
~-~~ - --
A TT ACHMENT 4
~I ~ A~ RES. 3323
A~
/
~
~ sara SPORTS CDHP!.E:X i
I :..,f.,.
.!::~~ I
/ il-
I I u ~ PF Itj
I I ~ i~ ~
t.) I Ie.-, ~
t ~ a.:
,:-.I
\.....,
,..-
I
. I .
~ :
EXHIBIT B2
.
file://C:\lvfy Documents\MVC-0002.JPG 5/9/00
___m__.'_. --
EXH\B\T B3
~~C;:S
stJ\ fOOU
lit S't'~\~ HOO9't1
, l!SU h- cnlpS
,
ftle:11 C :\MY Docuroents\M.\' C-OOO 1.JPG 5/8/00
----------/..
. : .
.
J
.. ,
.
~ "
. . .
..,.. .
,t' I
..
.
.
. ,
S!
-.
. '.
I, , ....:- .
',> I
~ .~ -. . . 'I
--- ...:~~'!', -~. ... "''"'~
.' . r' - ....
-- . j; ~t-- .
, '. .-
......J.#c~ -
_.-J _..>1.u-....._~... .... .~~
..-' .", "-.'
/?4~ij;i~~~:,~~; .. ..,~
~ -'~' '..I.:~':~~~~~~fffi-:"~j\.o~~":~-'" (,. - ,
..... : r '_-~~.~ ~";;'J:;... 'i-'''':':'''::;:'-:''''' ~_.....'S '-..._, ,~>....~. J...
d.... ~. -~-(("",~~~';(""~~,,,,,...jJ' ....1.'~ ~'}, .
.,~;.'b-"{jiiIJ!tt~~Jk. .
. . - , .. , '0.. .'t., ~*-,tJ\..~,'t"'~-':.jJJ~"'" . .p ___ '- '
, '-",7~:~}.:\ ,.:, - '.:;:-~.:~~";:,-~~1~;';5~f~~:.1ii;]z:g,?:,;,
, L.--+ .'. "'",-,-';=...1_,"",' ~-':'\ ,,'~~_~~~I~"""~~..:c_T:~":-:;"?r..>' '. .
... ',,,'r;~~~~:::~~~:~~i ,~,J, -:: ~ ,:~ .7~~il:j~~~~~;~:';H\
~..:~: ~". -.....- >' ; : i-.
I , I, '" · . . II
.
. .
.
wi
...'., ..,/
f. . .. .
,~ : . . I~~ ..
. r,:,,~, . I' ~
;::-'t4}~(';" '1;
; ~_~~...~.'J ~tl
11~:'"
-.-.- '. ',. ,''''~'''''-'--''''''
<... or_
I"! ........ '
. , .
-.
-~. -
-
- , .
- ,.,....... . ..--~ ---
- _..-
. . .
. _ ...., ,- .c;~.';'~'.i'~ :c._;;>,,;-.~ .
. -
I.
.., .
...
. .
~.
-1'
~ i/
. //:)
'1/
. II-
, ..
~ . -: f ..~ .~
..:, _ 'L ~', .
~
. ,..
-.
-. 'I~ ~:~c.=__
-' ...~.....
.-."- _. '" _ ._~ ~ '0 .- '.. ."'." . L- . ~
, --.-... ..~_.:.- -
.,JC:& - - . ....:Jo. ~ _....-- ~ . .'
---- -. ,-,..... ............,
.-
,-
,-
",,-,..
:</ ~
~
.
.. ..;....L:....
. - I. "' . . . II
A TT ACHMENT 5
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
- INITIAL STUDY -
1. Project Title: Conditional Use Permit Case No. 00-005
Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 00-003
2. Lead Agency Name & Address: City of Arroyo Grande
P.O. Box 550/214 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
3. Contact Person & Phone #: Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner
(805) 473-5420
4. Project Location: 1375 Grand Avenue
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
5. Project Sponsor's Name & Zaddie R. Bunker Trust
Address: 515 Windermere Ln.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
6. General Plan Designation: General Commercial
7. Zoning: General Commercial (GC)
8. Project Description:
Expansion of an existing mini-storage facility with a manager's apartment, and construction
of an office/retail commercial building.
-
9. Other Agencies whose approval is required (and permits needed):
None.
--------- ~ --
DETERMINATION - On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the
project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. . X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required.
I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effectls) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially
significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated". An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but
it mus anal e onl he effects that remain to be addressed.
b#~cJ
Date
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a
"POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT" or "POTENTIALLY IS SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATED", as indicated by the checklist on
the following pages.
o Land Use and Planning o Biological Resources ' 0 Public Services
o Population and Housing o Energy and Mineral Resources o Utilities and Service Systems
o Geophysical o Hazards o Aesthetics
. Water o Noise o Cultural Resources
o Air Quality o Mandatory Findings of Significance o Recreation
o Transportation/Circulation
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for aI/ answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses fol/owing each question. A "No Impact" question is 'adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved
le.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project
specific factors as well as general standards le.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
projec~-specific screening analysis).
2. All answer's must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as
project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operations impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if an effect is significant or potentially significant, or is the lead agency lacks
information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect
from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level Imitigation measures from Section XVII,
"Earlier Analyses", may be cross referenced.)
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEOA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063Ic)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section
XVII at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts le.g.,
general plans, zoning ordinances). A Source List should be attached and other sources used or individuals should be cited in the
discussion.
------
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(source Its): 1,2,3,4) X
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
(source #(s): 1,6) X
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)? (source Its): 11) X
d) ,Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (source #(s): 2,4,11) X
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections? (source #(s): 1,5,9) X
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)?
(source Its): 9,10) X
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
(source #(s): 9,10,11) X
III. GEOPHYSICAL: Would the proposal result in or expose
people to potential impacts involving:
a) Seismicity: fault rupture? (source #(s): 5,6) X
b) Seismicity: ground shaking or liquefaction?
(source Its): 5,6) X
c) Seismicity: seiche or tsunami? (source #(s): 5.6) X
d) landslides or mudslides? (source #(s): 5,6) X
e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soils
conditions from excavation, grading or fill? X
(source #(s): 10)
f) Subsidence of land? (source Its): 5,6) X
g) Expansive soils? (source #(s): 5,6) X
h) Unique geologic or physical features? (source #(s):
5,6,10,11) X
IV. WATER: Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the X
rate and amount of surface runoff? (source #(s): 10)
b) Exposure to people or property to water related hazards X
such as flooding? (source #(s): 8)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved X
oxygen or turbidity? (source #(s): 9)
X
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (source #(s): 9, 10)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (source #(s): 9, 10)
--
. " ""r.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
movements? (source lis): 9, 10) X
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception X
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
(source #(s): 9, 10)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(source #(s):9, 10) X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (source lis): 9,10) X
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise
available for public water supplies? X
(source #(s): 6)
V. AIR QUALITY: Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
(source lis): 7, 13) X
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
(source #(s): 10, 11) X
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (source lis): 9) X
d) Create objectionable odors? (source lis): 9,10) X
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal
result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (source
lis): 13) X
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)? (source #(s): 9, 10) X
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby sites?
(source #(s): 9, 10) X
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (source
lis): 3, 9, 10) X
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (source
lis): 9, 10) X
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(source lis): 9, 10) X
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in -
impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, X
. animals, and birds? (source lis): 6)
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? X
(source lis): 10, 11)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, X
coastal habitat)? (source lis): 10, 11)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pooll?
(source lis): 11)
X
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X
(source lis): 11)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(source Its): 1, 6) X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (source Its): 9, 10) X
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation? (source Its): 91 X
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (source #(sl: 9, 101
X
cl The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard? (source #(sl: 9, 10) X
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (source #(sl: 9,10,111 X
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (source #(sl: 10, 111 X
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (source #(sl: 1, 9) X
.b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
(source #(sl: 9, 101 X
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
al Fire Protection? (source #(sl: 61 X
bl Police Protection? (source Its): 6) X
cl Schools? (source #(sl: 61 X
dl Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(source Its): 6) X
e) Other governmental services? (source #(sl: 6) X
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal
result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations
to the following utilities:
al Power or natural gas? (source #(sl: 9, 101 X
b) Communications systems? (source #(sl: 9, 101 X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution X
facilities? (source Its): 6)
dl Storm water drainage? (source Its): 61 X
-
e) Solid waste disposal? (source #(sl: 61 X
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X
(source Its): 1, 10, 111
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X
(source Its): 9, 10, 111
c) Create light or glare? (source Its): 9,101 X
------- --
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (source lis): 6, 11) X
b) Disturb archaeological resources (source lis): 6, 11) X
c) Affect historical resources? (source lis): 6, 11) X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (source lis):
11 ) X
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (source lis): 10, 11) X
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
or other recreational facilities? (source lis): 1, 3)
X
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
(source Its): 1, 5) X
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important ,
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory? X
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals? X
c) Does the project have impacts that are. individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.) X
d) Does the 'project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? X
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CECA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a discussion
should identify the following on attached sheets:
-
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed by earlier documents.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated",
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to
which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080(c), 21080.1. 21080.3. 21082.1.21083, 21083.3. 21093. 21094. 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino. 202 Cal. App. 3d 296
119881; Leonoffv. Monterey Boerd of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).
-----_.~._-- -
SOURCE LIST:
1. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan
2. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Land Use Map
3. City of Arroyo Grande Development Code
4. City of Arroyo Grande Zoning Map
5. City of Arroyo Grande Existing Setting and Community Issues Report
6. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan EIR
7. Air Pollution Control District Clean Air Plan
8. FEMA - Flood Insurance Rate Map
9. Project Description
10. Project Plans
11. Site Inspection
12. Ordinance 431 C. S.
13. Institute of Traffic Engineers (lTE) Trio Generation Manual
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
The proposed project evaluated by this initial study is to expand an existing mini-storage facility by 18,450
square feet with a 1,064 square foot manager's apartment, and construct a 2,750 square foot commercial
office/retail building. A 3,625 square foot retention basin to the rear of the property is also proposed. The
existing access from Poplar Street will be retained as an emergency access only, and an improved primary
access will be from Grand Avenue.
The project site is approximately two acres in size and is comprised of three legal parcels. The applicant is
proposing a lot line adjustment that will result in two lots for the purpose of retaining all mini-storage use on
one parcel. Existing on the site is a restaurant, dive shop, key shop, and the mini-storage facility.
-
EXPLANATIONS:
IV. WATER
Development of the proposed project would require water for both domestic use and landscape
irrigation that would fUl1her reduce the City's supply of available water. This impact could be
mitigated using water conserving designs, fixtures and landscaping, in addition to the development
and implementation of an individual water program to neutralize water use.
Analysis of Significance: Less than significant
Mitigation Measures:
1. The applicant shall complete measures to neutralize the estimated increase in water
demand created by the project by either:
----- _._--~.__.__.__._--
~-
Implement an individual water program that utilizes fixtures and designs that minimize
water usage. The calculations shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for
review and approval. The proposed individual water program shall be submitted to the
City for approval prior to implementation; or,
Pay an in lieu fee.
Monitoring: Review of individual water program or payment of the in
lieu fee
Responsible Department: Building and Fire Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit
2. All landscaping shall be consistent with water conservation practices including the use
of drought tolerant landscaping, drip irrigation, and mulch. To the greatest extent
possible, lawn areas and areas requiring spray irrigation shall be minimized.
Monitoring: Review of landscaping and irrigation plans
Responsible Department: Parks and Recreation Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit
DRAINAGE
Development of this project will change absorption rates and the rate and amount of surface runoff.
The site would drain to a stormwater basin located on the south end of the property. Detailed
drainage calculations would be reviewed as part of the plan check process.
Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated
Mitigation Measure:
3. The applicant shall submit a final drainage plan showing a stormwater basin designed
to store runoff from a "100-year" rainfall event.
Monitoring: Review of grading plans
Responsible Department: Public Works Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of a grading permit
The proposed project will not significantly change the quantity of ground water through direct
additions or withdrawals, since the project description does not include improvements that would
change ground water through these methods. The rate of flow or quality of groundwater is also not
anticipated to change as a result of this project.
-
Analysis of Significance: Less than significant
V. AIR QUALITY
The proposed project would generate approximately 46 average daily trips, and 5 p.m. peak hour
trips. Emissions from the trips generated would produce less than 10 Ibs./day of emissions. Based
on the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLO APCD) emission thresholds, the
proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact on air quality.
Analysis of Significance: Less than significant
Dust generated by the development activities shall be kept to a minimum with a goal of retaining
dust on the site. The dust control measures listed below shall be followed during construction of the
project, and shall be shown on grading and building plelns:
--
Analysis of Significance: Less than significant
Mitigation Measures:
4. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill
materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems are to be used to prevent dust from
leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities cease.
5. During construction, water trucks or sprinkle~ systems shall be used to keep all areas
of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a
minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after
work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour.
6. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with
soil binders to prevent dust generation.
Monitoring: Review of grading and building plans and site inspections
Responsible Department: The Building and Fire Department shall inspect plans, and
the Community Development Department shall spot
check in the field
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of grading permit
VI. TRANSPORT A TION/CIRCULA TION
Based on trip generation rates described by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (lTE) Trip
Generation Reference, the project would be expected to generate 78 average daily trips, with ten
(10) p.m. peak hour trips.
The site ingress/egress is onto Grand Avenue, designated as an arterial street in the City's
Circulation Element. The increased vehicle trips is not anticipated to have a significant impact on
existing levels of service on Grand Avenue. However, the applicant shall pay the City's Traffic and
Signalization Impact fee (based on the adopted fee at the time of building permit issuance).
Analysis of Significance: Less than significant
Mitigation Measure:
7. The applicant shall pay the City's Traffic and Signalization fees prior to issuance of
building permit.
Monitoring: The applicant shall pay the fees
Responsible Department: Public Works Department -
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit
X. NOISE
Short-term noise increases will be caused by construction of the facility. These impacts can be
mitigated through limiting construction hours. No other noise sources are anticipated.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The site is not a known archaeological site, nor is it within one-quarter mile of a known site, nor
does it exhibit the characteristics of a Native American habitation site. However, due to the long
history of Native American habitation in this area, isolated discoveries could take place anywhere.
Therefore, if cultural resources are encountered during grading, then all work in the area of the find
shall be suspended and the City of Arroyo Grande shall be notified. An archaeologist qualified to
evaluate the find shall be contacted and an assessment completed, and, if necessary, a mitigation
plan formulated and implemented.
---~._._..- n_
Analysis of Significance: Less than significant
Mitigation Measure:
8. The following note shall be placed on the grading and improvement plans for the
project:
"In the event that during grading, construction or development of the project,
archeological resources are uncovered, all work shall be halted until the
significance of the resources are determined. If human remains (burials) are
encountered, the County Coroner (781-4513) shall be contacted immediately. The
applicant may be required to provide archaeological studies and/or additional
mitigation measures as required by the California Environmental Quality Act if
archaeological resources are found on the site."
Monitoring: Review of grading plans
Responsible Department: Public Works Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of a grading
-
-------- -...------- -
A TT ACHMENT 6
May 5, 2000
City of Arroyo Grande
Kelly Heffemon, Associate Planner
RE: Variance for Front Setback I CUP Case No. 00-005
Dear Ms. Heffemon,
We are requesting a variance from the 15ft. front setback on our project. We feel our project deserves the
same setback enjoyed by several other properties in the local vicinity. However, we are only asking for a
partial reduction of setback, which we feel will give us adequate exposure. Ifwe are required to comply
with the 15ft setback, our building will be obscured from enjoying the same exposure from Grand Ave.
traffic as the adjacent businesses As such, we feel we have met all six findings required to grant a
variance.
Sincerely,
-
RECEIVED
MAY 0 9 2000
CITy' OF AF(iiJYO GRANDE
COMMUN!TY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
A TT ACHMENT 7
June 26, 2000
City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Dept.
Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner
RE: CUP
Dear Kelly,
It is our understanding that there may be a requirement to underground the
utility lines, which front our property on Grand Avenue, as one of the
conditions of approval for our proposed project. We have contacted the
utility companies who would be involved in the process and asked for an
estimate of the cost involved. They have estimated around $150,000.00 to
do the work required. . As you can see, this is a substantial amount and
would make our small project financially unfeasible. We also understand that
at some time in the future, the utilities on this section of Grand Avenue will
be placed underground by Rule 20 funds as they have along previous
sections. We have only 268 Feet of frontage on Grand Avenue. We feel
that it would be an insignificant visual impact to only do such a small section
at this time, as well as significantly increase the cost, as compared to doing
the entire block at one time. As such, we are asking that the requirement
for the undergrounding of the utilities to be reviewed.
Sincerely,
-
Gary White, Trustee
Zaddie R. Bunker Trust
-- ---- ~-
ATTACHMENT 8
Hearing Date: 2/1/00
Agenda Item: II. B.
PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARING TO BE HELD IN THE
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
215 EAST BRANCH STREET
APPLICANT: Zaddie R. Bunker Trust
FILEIINDEX: Conditional Use Permit Case No. 99-008
Variance Case No. 99-007
lot line Adjustment Case No. 99-003
PROPOSAL: Mini-Storage Expansion
LOCATION: 1375 Grand Avenue
REPRESENT A TIVE: Gary White
18 Hearing Notices sent on 1/19/00. Staff Report Prepared by Kelly Heffernon. \Z,C
Site inspection by Kelly Heffernon on 12/3/99.
Parcel Size: Three (3) parcels totaling 1.94 acres
Terrain: Slopes down from Grand Avenue
Vegetation: Commercial landscaping, Weeds and Grasses
Existing land Use: Mini-Storage, Restaurant, Dive Shop and Key Shop
General Plan Designation: General Commercial (GC) -
Existing Zoning: General Commercial (GC)
Surrounding land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation:
North: Commercial RetaiIlGC/GC
South: ResidentiallM F /MF
East: Commercial Office/GC/GC
West: Vacant/GC/GC
-~-- ~--
Planning Commission
February 1, 2000
Conditional Use Permit 99-008
Page 2 .
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located on the south side of Grand Avenue between Courtland
and Juniper Streets, and is developed with a restaurant, dive shop, key shop, and a
mini-storage facility. The property is under one ownership and is comprised of three
separate parcels totaling 1.94 acres.
The applicant proposes to improve the property in two separate phases. Phase 1
would include constructing 18,450 square feet of additional mini-storage space, a
1,109 square foot manager's apartment above a two-car garage, a 3,625 square foot
stormwater basin and an access drive off of Grand Avenue. Phase 2 would remove the
existing key shop and add 2,750 square feet of office/retail space with 11 parking
spaces. The applicant is requesting approval of Phase 1 only under this Conditional
Use Permit application. Consideration of Phase 2 will occur later under a separate
application.
.
The project was originally submitted as a pre-application in March of 1 999 which the
Staff Advisory Committee (SAC) and Architectural Review Committee (ARC)
considered in April and May, respectively (reference attached meeting notes). In June,
the applicant submitted a formal CUP application, followed by applications for a lot line
adjustment and variance. The purpose of the lot line adjustment is to locate all mini-
storage use on the same parcel. The variance request is to deviate from the maximum
wall height, minimum front setback, and maximum floor area ratio.
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission has three items to consider: A Conditional Use Permit,
Variance and Lot Line Adjustment. These items are discussed below in order of action
in which the items would be considered.
Conditional Use Permit
Apart from the requests submitted under the variance application, the proposed project
meets all relevant site development standards as shown in the table below.
General Commercial Site Development Standards
Min. Min. Side Min. Max. Max. Lot Max. Max. Wall Required
Front Bldg. Rear Floor Area Coverage Build. Height Number of
Bldg. Setbacks Bldg. Ratio Height Parking
Setback Setback Spaces
Dev. Code 15' 0' 0' 0.50 45% 30' 6' 2 covered
Standards spaces
Proposed 4' 0' 45' 0.59 43% 28' 12' 2 covefed
spaces
Planning Commission
February 1, 2000
Conditional Use Permit 99-008
Page 3
The existing mini-storage facility is accessed from Poplar Street through a residential
neighborhood. The primary access for both the existing facility and the proposed
expansion would be from Grand A venue with the existing Poplar Street access
converted to an emergency access only. As conditioned, the storm water basin will be
designed to store runoff from a "1 DO-year" rainfall event, and be fenced around the
perimeter with materials and design approved by the Community Development Director.
The proposed exterior materials are typical for a mini-storage facility, including metal
roofing, siding and doors. Unique to this project is an elevator with clay tile roofing and
stucco wall finish.
Variance
The Planning Commission may approve a variance application only if all of the following
six (6) findings specified in Section 9-03.110 of the Development Code can be made in
an affirmative manner.
1. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would
result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship not otherwise shared by others
within the surrounding area.
2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply
generally to other properties classified in the same zone.
3. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified
in the same zone.
4. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone.
5. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. -
6. That the granting of a variance is consistent with the objectives and policies of the
General Plan and the intent of the Development Code.
Under this variance application, the applicant is requesting to deviate from the following
three site development standards:
1. Six (6) foot maximum fence/wall height.
2. Fifteen (15) foot minimum front setback.
3. 0.50 maximum floor area ratio.
Wall Height. The applicant is proposing a twelve (1 2) foot high masonry wall along the
west property line for screening and retaining purposes. Because of the sloping
--
Planning Commission
February 1. 2000
Conditional Use Permit 99-008
Page 4
topography. the wall is sta!;Jgered in height and retains from two (2) to four (4) feet of
material. With vacant property located west of the project site, the proposed
development would be highly visible from eastbound traffic on Grand Avenue. The
applicant believes the full twelve-foot height is necessary to serve as both a retaining
wall and an adequate screen from Grand A venue.
Front Setback and Floor Area Ratio. The proposed development and lot configuration
place the mini-storage facility four (4) feet from the front property line. The
Development Code requires a minimum front setback of 1 5 feet. The proposal also
exceeds the maximum floor area ratio by 9%. Staff believes site design alternatives
should be considered that would comply with Development Code standards, such as
relocating the front property line of Parcel A closer to Grand Avenue, reducing the
square footage of the mini-storage facility, or some combination thereof.
A review of the circumstances surrounding the request, and a strict application of the
variance findings, would indicate that the variance request should not be approved.
Lot Line Adjustment
The proposed lot line adjustment would reconfigure three (3) lots into two (2) lots as
follows:
Existing Proposed
Parcel A: 21.780 square feet 51,205 square feet
Parcel B: 21,780 square feet 33,435 square feet
Parcel c: 41,080 square feet
The Development Code requires that all lots within the General Commercial zoning
district be a minimum of 10,000 square feet, and that all lots must have a minimum
width of 80 feet and a minimum depth of 100 feet. The proposed lot sizes, widths and
depths exceed the minimum requirements.
The following information explains the Planning Commission's authority and scope of
review for lot line adjustment applications:
Purpose
A lot line adjustment is intended to allow the adjustment between two or more existing
lots, where land is taken from one parcel and is added to another parcel, where no
additional lots are created.
Authority
The Planning Commission has limited authority in reviewing and approving lot line
adjustments as specified in Section 66412 of the Subdivision Map Act: U A local
agency shall limit its review and approval to a determination of whether or not the
parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to local zoning and building
..._~_...._----
Planning Commission
February 1,2000
Conditional Use Permit 99-008
Page 5
ordinances. The local agency shall not impose conditions or exactions on its approval
of a lot line adjustment except to conform to local zoning and building codes, to require
the prepayment of real property taxes prior to the approval of the lot line adjustment, or
to facilitate the relocation of existing utilities, infrastructure, or easements."
Findings
The Planning Commission may approve a lot line adjustment application only if all of the
findings of fact can be maqe in an affirmative matter (reference the first page of the
Resolution). Staff believes that all the findings can be made.
ISSUES:
Traffic/Circulation
The proposed mini-storage expansion is estimated to generate 46 average daily trips with
5 p.m. peak hour trips. The increased vehicle trips is not anticipated to have a significant
impact to the existing level of service on Grand Avenue. As mitigation, payment of the
City's standard Traffic and Signalization Impact fees is required.
Frontage Improvements
Required frontage improvements are addressed in the Conditions of Approval, which
include installing curb, gutter and sidewalk, planting street trees, and placing overhead
utilities underground.
Drainage
All drainage is proposed to be directed towards the stormwater basin and existing City
stormdrain facilities, which is acceptable to the Public Works Department.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
A public notice was sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project,
and a public notice was placed in the Times-Press-Recorder. Staff has not received any
comments or correspondence to date.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Staff has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CECA), the CECA Guidelines and the City of Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures
for Implementation of CECA. Based on the review, staff does not anticipate that this
project will have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, staff has prepared a
negative declaration with mitigation measures for adoption by the Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staft'believes the findings cannot be made to support approval of the variance request.
Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission Udeny the project without
prejudice", thereby allowing the applicant to return to the Planning Commission with
revised plans that comply with Development Code standards. The Planning Commission
may also "deny" the project, which would allow the applicant to appeal the decision to
the City Council, but would prevent the applicant from submitting substantially the
same project for one year from the effective date of the denial.
.- ~_._--- --
Planning Commission
February 1, 2000
Conditional Use Permit 99-008
Page 6
In the event the Planning Commission decides to approve the Conditional Use' Permit
and Variance applications, staff has prepared the appropriate resolutions for Planning
Commission action.
Staff further recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution
approving Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 99-003 subject to the conditions of approval.
Attachments:
Resolution No. 00-1731 Approving Conditional Use Permit Case No. 99-008
Exhibit "A": Conditions of Approval
Exhibits "B 1 - B3": Project Plans
Resolution No. 00-1732 Approving Variance Case No. 99-007
Exhibit "A": Conditions of Approval
Resolution No. 00-1733 Approving Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 99-003
Exhibit "A": Conditions of Approval
Exhibit "B": Preliminary Lot Line Adjustment
1. Location Map
2. Draft Negative Declaration and Initial Study
3. SAC Meeting Minutes of April 13, 1999
4. SAC Meeting Minutes of November 2, 1 999
5. ARC Meeting Minutes of May 3, 1999
6. ARC Meeting Minutes of December 6, 1999
.
.
-
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION ATTACHMENT 9
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 1, 2000
PAGE 2
John KneDf , Corbett Canyon, was concerned with the number of trees being rem ed and
stated that in Grover Beach there is a Five to One replacement program. He w surprised
to see that Arroyo Grande had a One to One replacement program.
Commissioner Costello asked where people coming to church were par .
exits and entrances would remain the same?
Mr. Soto replied that the majority of the overflow parking was 0 the street. Furthermore,
the exits and entrances would remain in the same area, how er they would be changed
so one was entrance only and one was exit only.
Commissioner Keen asked that the applicant make sur he lighting was pointing down.
Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Co
A RESOLUTION OF TH LANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO ANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT AM MENT CASE NO. 00-001, LOCATED
AT 501 FAIR AKS AVENUE, APPLIED FOR BY ST.
PATRICK'S C RCH
odification to Condition No. 15 to read "after demolition and
prior to constructio Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was
lIowing roll call vote.
TE
Commissioner Costello
Commissioner Keen
Commissioner London
Vice-Chair Parker
Chair Greene
II. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-008; VARIANCE 99-007; LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
99-003; LOCATION - 1375 GRAND AVENUE; APPLICANT - ZADDlE. BUNKER
TRUST; REPRESENTATIVE - GARY WHITE
Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner stated that the applicant proposes to improve
the property in two separate phases. Phase 1 would include constructing 18,450
square feet of additional mini-storage space, a 1, 1 09 square foot manager's
apartment above a two-car garage, a 3,625' square foot stor~water basin and an
access drive off of Grand Avenue. Phase 2 would remove the existing key shop
and add 2,750 square feet of office/retail space with 11 parking spaces. The
applicant is requesting approval of Phase 1 only under this Conditional Use Permit
application. Consideration of Phase 2 will occur later under a separate application.
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 1, 2000
PAGE 3
Ms. Heffernon explained that the existing mini-storage is accessed from Poplar
Street through a residential neighborhood. The primary access for both the existing
facility and the proposed expansion would be from Grand Avenue with the existing
Poplar Street access converted to an emergency access.
The applicant is requesting a Variance to deviate from three site development
standards as follows:
1. A twelve-(12) foot high masonry wall along west property line.
2. A four (4) foot setback from the front property line.
3. The proposal exceeds the maximum floor area ration by 9%.
A Lot Line Adjustment is requested to reconfigure three (3) lots into two (2) lots
Ms. Heffernon stated that Staff believes that the circumstances of this particular
project are not exceptional enough to justify a Variance and that site design
alternatives should be considered that comply with Development Code
requirements. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission "deny
the project without prejudice" thereby allowing the applicant to return to the
Planning Commission with revised plans that comply with Development Code
standards. In the event' the Planning Commission decides to approve the
Conditional Use Permit and Variance applications, staff has prepared the
appropriate resolutions for Planning Commission action.
Staff further recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached
resolution approving Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 99-003 subject to the
conditions of approval.
Commissioner Costello asked if the proposed driveway entrance change was
intended to be in Phase I?
-
Ms. Heffernon answered that it would be in Phase I.
Vice-Chair Parker discussed and had questions about:
. The wall on Grand Avenue and the requested variance.
. The entrance on Poplar St. access and if there was enough room for an
emergency vehicle to make the 90 degree turn and come out the Grand Avenue
access, or will it have to turn around and come out at Poplar? Also, did the Fire
Department have any concern because they could not make the turns?
. Why was there no justification for the Variance in the staff report?
Kim Romano, Public Works stated that with the proposed development there will be
emergency access only and the entrance on Grand A venue would serve both the
new mini-storage and the existing one. This will also be addressed in improvement
----
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 1, 2000
PAGE 4
plan review to assure that the final site plan allowed enough turn around space.
With regard to the Fire Department, they do not have enough room to turn around
near the mini-storage however, the Fire Department has required that the project
have sprinklers installed, so they do not have a problem with the emergency access
as it is.
Ms. Heffernon replied that if the Planning Commission feels that if they can make
the findings they should do so. Staff did not feel that could make the findings,
therefore they did not list any justification. It would be up to the Planning
Commission to state how they would make the findings.
Commissioner Keen asked how staff interprets metal roofing on a steel building?
Mr. Keen thought that the Development Code did not allow metal roofing.
Ms. Heffernon stated that staff would look in the Development Code and find the
language that Mr. Keen had been referring to.
Vice-Chair Parker opened the Public Hearing.
Garv White, representative for the Zaddie Bunker Trust, spoke to the Planning
Commission about the following concerns:
Reduced Setback - The current mini-storage is existing on a zero lot line at this
time. The applicant is proposing to continue with this, laterally for continuity. Mr.
White stated that he realizes that the Development Code requires a 1 5-foot
setback. However, he does not believe the intent was that this be required when a
lot is not fronting on a major thoroughfare. Further, Mr. White stated that it did not
seem to have any benefit to set the buildings back from the proposed property line
that the project was proposing to create.
Floor Ratio Area - Mr. White stated that this was more of an oversight <?n the
architect's part when designing the project. The. project could be scaled back,
however they were trying to maximize the property. He explained to the
Commission that they were below the coverage area of the lot even though they
were proposing a higher floor area ratio.
Mr. White felt that because this was a Mini-Storage it would not generate a'
tremendous amount of traffic on a daily basis. The trip counts that have been
stated in the traffic analysis are 4 to 5 a day during peak hours. Therefore, the
floor area ratio would not impact the area because it would not create additional
trips.
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 1,2000
PAGE 5
Wall HeiQht - This was designed as a viewshed buffer from traffic eastbound on
Grand Avenue. Right now it is possible to see the existing facility because there is
only a chainlink fence. ' The architect felt this would be more aesthetically pleasing.
The wall could be lowered, but then more of the building would be visible. They
would also like this wall height for added security to the storage facility. Mr. White
explained that given the. topography of the property the retaining wall on the
project side would have to be there. They could remove the wall but the retaining
wall would have to remain because of the topography.
Mr. White also discussed the turnaround, which was mitigated by installing fire
sprinklers, and the emergency road access gate on Poplar Street will be left there.
Finally" Mr. White discussed the City's requirement that the utilities be put
underground. He had done some research into this and found that the p:reliminary
estimates are somewhere between $200,000 to $300,000 to underground the
lines at the front of the property.
Commissioner London asked Mr. White if it wouldn't make more sense to abide by
the setback and push the front building back on the property?
Mr. White replied that he did not feel it would be a problem heeding the setback
requirement, is it really the intent of the Development Code to require a setback in
this type of situation.
Commissioner London felt that from an aesthetic standpoint, as far as the new
building and parking lot that is being proposed, having the setback with some
greenery and maybe a tree or two would add to the project.
Commissioner London asked Mr. White if he had discussed the undergrounding of
the utilities with staff?
-
Mr. White replied that he had not discussed this issue with staff except, as it was
a condition of new projects. Mr. White stated that he would like staff to look at
his project on a "stand alone" basis.
Commissioner Costello asked if there would be a new retention basin intended to
service the new development or to replace the existing one?
Mr. White replied that it was their intention to leave the existing basin to collect
what it was designed for on that one parcel, but he thought the Conditions of
Approval asked for all the drainage to drain to the newly proposed basin? This is
an issue that will have to be discussed as he is not sure what is being asked.
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 1, 2000
PAGE 6
Craig Campbell, Public Works, stated that the portions that drain to the existing
basis are those between that basin and Grand Avenue and they will continue to do
so. The existing mini-storage will be drained into the new basin.
Commissioner Costello asked what kind of use was proposed for these buildings?
Mr. White replied that he did not know at this time.
Mr. Costello and Ms. Heffernon discussed the upcoming Longs project 'and how it
would relate to this commercial development.
Vice-Chair Parker stated that the Development Code recommends that there is a
buffer between commercial and residential uses by using a wall that should be at
least six feet high. She would like to see a nice block wall rather than the chain
link fence with barbed wire on top. She also stated that she was happy to see that
the entrance was being moved to Grand Avenue. Further, she asked if the gate at
the emergency access would be changed? Finally, she asked where the trash
enclosure was for Phase 1?
Mr. White replied that there would be a crash gate with a KNOX Box at this
access. Also, they would have to add another trash enclosure.
Ms. Parker asked about the width of the hallways in the second floor storage area
and if. they were wide enough?
Mr. White replied that this was an "industry standard design" and that they were
wide enough. In fact, they are ADA compliant. Mr. White went on to explain that
the 2nd story would only be feasible to do if they are allowed to use the density
that they are proposing. If they have to reduce the structure by 1 5 % then, more
than likely, the 2nd story would have to be removed.
-
Vice-Chair Parker stated that she was concerned about the parking and how much
was required at this type of facility.
Mr. White replied that the existing 70-unit facility has four to five people per day
maximum. With the new facility doubling the size, there would be a maximum of
10 cars a day. There is no parking need at this type of facility.
Ms. Parker stated that there should be some type of designated lane where people
parked which would also allow for emergency access. She also felt there should
be restroom facilities on the premises.
---- --
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 1, 2000
PAGE 7
Mr. White stated that they have considered not doing a Lot Line Adjustment but
doing a lot merger instead thereby gaining area and complying with the floor area
ratio.
James Q'Keef, of Kings Fish & Chips of Arroyo Grande, stated that he does not see
any problem with this project, however, he was wondering if the Planning
Commission was considering both phases? He felt that the mini-storage was a
good idea.
Ms. Heffernon stated that the reason the. second phase was not being considered
tonight was because of the traffic considerations. This issue will not be settled by
the City Council until February 22, 2000.
. Vice-Chair Parker closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Costello stated that the Planning Commission was looking at three
different issues. The biggest problem was the Variance. Looking at the four (4)
foot lot line and 59% coverage the problem with this is that if a four foot lot line is
allowed on this project and the Phase 2 property is' sold and they ask for a four
foot lot line, how would the Planning Commission deny them their request? When
looking at the criterion that needs to be made, he cannot see that there is any
hardship if the project is redesigned.
Further, Mr. Costello stated that the explanation of the parking satisfied any
questions he had and that he felt that there was some for negotiation on the height
of the fence, because it would provide a benefit to the surrounding areas.
Finally, Mr. Costello stated that the four-foot setback and the 59% coverage were
what he had the big problem with.
Commissioner London stated that he could' not support the project with only a four-
foot set back and the 59% coverage.
Further he would like to see a public restroom and a trash enclosure brought into
the inside of the project so it doesn't present a visual problem with the adjoining
property.
Mr. London asked staff about the undergrounding of the utilities and that with all
the projects on Grand Avenue, isn't the conduit being installed by the City? Could
Mr. White wait until this is done and sees then what he has to do?
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 1, 2000
PAGE 8
Kim Romano, Public Works stated that there is nothing going on with this section
of Grand Avenue at this time. The Longs and Berry Garden project will be required
to put utilities at their sites underground.
Mr. McCants stated that staff has not discussed the undergrounding requirement
with the applicant prior to this evenings hearing. Mr. McCants said that the
Development Code requires the undergrounding of utilities under the circumstances
that are specified. At the January 18 Planning Commission meeting the
Commission had allowed some deviation from this requirement. There were
specific circumstances that were defined at that hearing that were used to make
that decision. Mr. McCants stated that he did not feel that there was sufficient
information on this project to make a determination at tonight's meeting.
Mr. Campbell explained to the Planning Commission that if an applicant wants to
make the argument that he should be relieved from this condition because of
expense, the City would ask that he do so with a formal request. This has not
been done at this time.
Commissioner Keen had the following points:
Wall HeiQht: The City in the past has allowed higher walls primarily when the
higher wall is only observed from the property that it is effecting, not from the
viewshed of people adjoining the property. Those who will see the wall that Mr.
White is proposing are outside the boundaries of the property. Although Mr. Keen
feels the wall would hide some of the metal buildings, he has a problem with the
Commission allowing something that much above the normal wall height limit.
Four-Foot Setback: Mr. Keen stated that he agreed with Commissioner
Londonabout this issue. If the zero lot line were on Grand Av.enue, it would be
different because no one would be building on the front of the property. However,
if there isn't a legal setback and the adjoining property sells, they wo~ld be
punished. As long as the property is divided in the manor that Mr. White is.
requesting, Commissioner Keen felt there should be a 1 5-foot setback.
Floor Ratio: Mr. Keen stated that there is a 50% maximum in the Development
Code and the applicant will have to deal with this.
Over Head Utilities: Mr. Keen stated that tie felt the lines ru,nning along this side of
Grand Avenue were primarily telephone lines. With the possibility of the City
redoing Grand Avenue from Elm Street to Oak Park Blvd., Mr. Keen asked what the
possibility would be of Mr. White contributing his fair share to some kind of a fund
to help place the lines underground? Then this could all be done at one time
instead of in a piece meal type of way.
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 1, 2000
PAGE 9
Trash Enclosure: This should be added to the Conditions of Approval.
Finally, he does not have' a problem with the Lot Line Adjustment.
Vice-Chair Parker stated that she did not have a problem with the Lot Line
Adjustment and felt it was a good idea. She also does not have a problem with the
wall height and felt that the height could be used in this area for safety and also to
make the project look better from the outside.
There needs to be a front setback of at least ten to fifteen feet. It is especially
important in this situation if the adjoining property were to be sold somewhere
down the line. Ms. Parker felt it was very important to follow the Development
Code in this type of situation.
Ms. Parker also had a problem with the metal roofing and felt that somewhere in
the Development Code it stated that this was not allowed, however, it may be that
this it was prohibited in the Village.
She stated that because of personal experience, she was a strong supporter of
"buffer zones ". They need to be created as often as possible for the different
uses, especially the uses that are so different.
Finally, she feels strongly about the undergrounding of the utilities. She can't
believe that it would be over $300,000 to accomplish this in this area. She would
like the applicant to work with staff and the different utility companies and bring
the information back to the Planning Commission so they can make an informed
decision.
Commissioner Costello moved that in light of issues of setbacks, flqor area ratios,
wall height, restrooms, trash enclosures,and cost of undergrounding utilities, the
Planning Commission deny the project without prejudice. Commissioner London
seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote:
ROLL CALL VOTE
YES Commissioner Costello
YES Commissioner Keen
YES Commissioner London
YES Vice-Chair Parker
ABSENT Chair Greene
SAC Meeting Notes ATTACHMENT 10
May 23, 2000
Page 2
B. 1. Applicant: Zaddie Bunker Trust
2. Representative: Gary White
3. Case Number: Lot Line Adjustment 00-001
Conditional Use Permit 00-005
Variance 00-002
4. Proposal: The applicant is proposing the expansion of the existing mini
storage facility (Phase I) and construction of a commercial
building (Phase II).
5. location: 1375 Grande Avenue
6. Staff Contact: Kelly Heffernon
Kelly Heffernon, Community Development Department explained that this project had been to the
Planning Commission in February and was essentially the same project, However, changes had
been made to the adjustment of the lot lines and better clarification of the wall has been
provided. .
Craig Campbell, Public Works Department had the following issues with the plans and would like
to have them clarified:
. Please show the emergency access easement and its "path" to Poplar Street.
. Concerns with grading and the amount of fill.
. Concerned that if there is too much fill the emergency access may not work t?ecause it will be
too high. Show more detail on the grading map to define clearly the grading at the access.
. The applicant might consider constructing a ramp to deal with the grade change instead of
brining in so much fill.
. The map topography ends at the site's property line. This makes it difficult to' see problems
that may be of concern. If the topography extended 5' to 10 ' beyond the property line then
items of concern would be more distinguishable.
. The back (south) elevations of the mini-storage are misleading - show retaining walls on the
plans.
. There is a very large driveway entrance that is existing and that is proposed to remain. The
driveway should be upgraded to current standards.
. Please clarify what are the lot lines and what lines constitute the phase lines.
. Submit the City's "marked up" site plan with the revised plans.
Finally, Mr. Campbell stated that he felt it would be better if Mr. White did not phase the project.
Larry Schmidt, Chief Building Inspector, stated that there were no new issues (from the previous
review) for this project.
Mr. White stated that he had an issue with the request to underground the utility wires. Ms.
Heffernon explained to Mr. White that he could write a letter to the Planning Commission, asking
them to waive or modify this requirement. .
Applicant: Kevin Wing
Representative: Erik Justesen, RRM
mber: Pre-Application Permit 00-003
Proposal: he proposal is to construct 110,600 square feet of
mini-s space with a 6,530 square foot
manager's resi e nd a commercial office retail
complex of approximately uare feet.
Notes ATTACHMENT 11
ARC Meeting
June 5,2000
Page 1 4 of 1 6
Joe Tavlor asked it there could be any lateral problems w'
see any bracing on the plans.
Warren HoaQ said that the Building Depart
Chet Kielan Chuck Fellows to approve the carport as
proposed.
AYES 4
NOES: 0
PRESENT: 4
H. ZADDIE BUNKER TRUST/GARY WHITE, LLA 00-001. CUP 00-005, & VARIANCE
00-002. LOCATED AT 1375 GRAND AVENUE
Kellv Heffernon introduced the project saying the plans had been revised since the last
Planning Commission meeting.
Garv White. the representative said at the last SAC meeting he had made some more
changes and had brought some new plans with him to show to the ARC. He then went
on to point out the changes they had made on each sheet. We tried to clarify the lot
line adjustment, new and old, and it was not clear so we had to clarify this.
Warren HoaQ clarified saying of the two new parcels - one is going to be King's Fish &
Chips. Dive Shop and parking, and the other one is going to be the existing mini-storage
and drainage basin, with the new mini-storage and then the new commercial in front.
Are the set backs and number of parking spaces are the same?
Garv White set that was correct, other than the set. back on the new commercial
building which is proposed to be 10% feet. We have also removed the phasing - there
is no Phase II, we are going to build it all at once.
Warren HoaQ commented that the applicant is removing the Poplar Street entrance and it
is just going to be an emergency exit and thought that was a good idea. Landscaping
for what used to be Phase II has also been added.
He also noted that the new plan says they will replace drive approach with curb, gutter
and sidewalk for the western half and modify the existing driveway approach with the
25 feet to match the new easement, and he thought that was a good idea also. On the
South elevation you now show the difference between finished grade and existing
grade, and on the east elevation too.
One of the items the Planning Commission sent you back to the drawing board was the
12-foot high masonry wall, which required a variance. This plan now clarifies that it is
actuaUy part of the building and where it is not part of the building it is an 8-foot wall.
Notes
ARC Meeting
June 5, 2000
Page 1 5 of 1 6
Gary White said the remaining variance is for a 4 % -foot front setback. He went on to
explain that part of the reason for this is for parking depth, layout, and exposure and .
view from Grand Avenue for the front project. The existing setbacks, on the existing
buildings, on both sides of Grand Avenue, are basically all zero.
Warren HoaQ said, even in a Highway Commercial zoning he does not mind the buildings
being fairly close to the street. He would rather see the buildings than parking, but with
sufficient width for landscaping. In this case I think there is suffjcientwidth to put in
some substantial plantings.
Gary White said they have tried to stagger the building in front with landscaping
recesses and tapered setbacks. The maximum protrusion for the variance is 4 % -feet,
and half of the building tapers further back and would allow for some landscaping and
architectural changes.
Kellv Heffernon advised the applicant to show more detail on the landscaping, in the
front setback, for the Planning Commission.
Gary White clarified that the key shop will be removed.
Chet Kielan pointed out that some of the street names were wrong.
Garv White said he would get them corrected.
Warren HoaQ said he would like to see some different shades of paint on the wall
finishes. The ARC has not seen a color-board and usualty gets one on a project 'Iike this.
We could condition this project to move forward, but have it come back to the ARC with
the color-board. The applicant's architect should make a proposal and let the ARC
review it. It would be better'if we could see the color-board and landscape plan at the
same time.
Warren Hoag made a motion, seconded by Chuck Fellows to approve the project as
shown on the current set of plans (with the revision date of May 28, 2000, but with the
following conditions:
1. The street names on the vicinity map to be corrected.
2. Submit a color board of materials for the ARC to review prior to issuance of
the building permit for the front of the retail space.
3. Submit a detailed landscaping plan for the front set back, the planter along the
driveway, and other areas of opportunity for planting trees. If possible submit
the landscape plans and color-board to the ARC at the same time.
4. The elevation along Grand Avenue should have varying colors (possibly use
different colors and textures for wall faces).
Notes
ARC Meeting
June 5, 2000
Page 1 6 of 1 6
With the following roll call vote:
AYES 4
NOES: 0
PRESENT: 4
Update of Projects: None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS/STAFF COMMENTS: None
V. ADJOURNMENT.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m. The next meeting was scheduled for Monday,
July 10, 2000, due to the July 4th Holiday.
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION A TT ACHMENT 6
MINUTES
JULY 5, 2000 DRAFT
PAGE 5
II. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-005, VARIANCE 00-002, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 00-
003; LOCATION - 1375 GRAND AVENUE; APPLICANT - ZADDIE BUNKER TRUST,
GARY WHITE
Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner reminded the Commission that last February, the Planning
Commission had considered a similar project, but because the variance findings could not be
made to deviate from the floor area ratio and front setback requirements, the project was denied
without prejudice, allowing the applicant to return with substantially the same project. The
current proposal includes a modified lot line adjustment, which eliminates the previous floor area
ratio and setback issues.
Ms. Heffernon explained that, as before, the applicant was proposing to expand an existing mini-
storage facility with a manager's apartment, and construct a new commercial building for either
office or retail use. She told the Commission that the property consisted of three parcels
totaling two acres, and was currently developed with a restaurant, a couple of shops, and the
mini-storage facility. Different from the earlier proposal, this project is not separated into
phases.
In the previous submittal, a variance had been required for a twelve-foot high wall along the
west property line. Since the wall is actually part of the building and not a separate structure, it
is not subject to the six-foot maximum wall height requirement. A Minor Exception will be
required for the combined fence and retaining wall located between the buildings along the west
side, since it is shown as greater than six feet, but less than eight feet in height.
The current variance is being proposed to deviate from the front setback of 15 feet for Parcel
"A" to allow a 10-foot front setback for the proposed commercial building. The purpose of the
request is to allow the same visual exposure along Grand Avenue as the neighboring properties.
Since the majority of the businesses in the vicinity were allowed to develop close to or on the
front property line, it appears that the applicant is not requesting a special privilege that other
property owners don't already enjoy. Staff believes that the findings can be made to grant the
variance request and recommends approval. However, staff is further recommending that the
landscape plan be modified to show the front setback area fully landscaped and the pavement
removed except for the pedestrian entrance. Except for the variance request, the proposed
project would then meet all site development standards for the General Commercial District.
Ms. Heffernon explained that the required frontage improvements were addressed in the
Conditions of Approval, which included installing curb, gutter and sidewalk, planting street trees,
and placing overhead utilities underground. Ms. Heffernon explained to the Commi,ssion that the
applicant was requesting an exception to the undergrounding requirement, stating that the cost
would render the project financially infeasible.
Finally, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff was recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the
attached Resolutions, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit 00-005, Lot Line Adjustment 00-
003 and Variance 00-002 subject to the conditions of approval.
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES DRAFT
JULY 5, 2000
PAGE 6
Vice-Chair Parker asked if, when adding on to the existing project, would the original storage unit
need to be brought up to code with regards to the back lot line. Ms. Parker stated that she had
raised this issue when the project had come before the Planning Commission in February and,
according to the plans, this had not been changed. The Development Code states that between
Commercial and Single Family zoning a buffer is required. This should be at least a six- (6) foot
wall with vegetation on the commercial side. Ms. Parker went on to say that at this time there is
an existing 6 foot chain-link fence with two rows of barbed wire on the top. She also asked if the
existing gate was going to be left. She did not feel that this was an appropriate emergency access
gate. Finally, she said that the Development Code also states that between commercial and
residential use there should be at least 10 feet. She was questioning that this 1 0 'foot is has been
met? This is mentioned on page 210 and 218 of the Development Code.
Kerry McCants, Community Development Director, explained that if the applicant is causing the
use/structure to be less conforming, then you have to bring everything up to code. Mr. McCants
stated that he does not view this project as creating that type of situati.on. This is referenced on
page 215 of the Development Code.
Commissioner London stated that he remembers the issue of the back property line and the fencing
located there from the previous meeting. He also recalled that the developer had indicated that he
would replace the chain-link fence etc.
Secondly, Mr. London stated that on the building on the front of the property, the applicant is
requesting a deviation from the 1 5 foot setback. Mr. London had noticed that there was going to
be an overhanging fac;:ade on the front of the building. Was this overhang allowed to encroach
onto the setback?
Ms. Heffernon stated that overhangs are allowed.
Commissioner Keen stated that the plans showed a 25-foot entrance easement situated entirely on
Parcel 1. Will this be a shared easement with both properties?
Craig Campbell, Public Works, explained to Mr. Keen that it was his understanding that the
easement was split over the property line however, in any case there is a condition of approval that
requires shared maintenance of the driveway and reciprocal easements of the driveway. Mr.
Campbell stated that he would review the conditional of approval to make sure it is compatible with
what is shown on the plans.
Mr. Keen stated that, with regards to the landscaping for this project, it appeared to him that 85%
to 90% of the required amount was going to be in the retention basin. Was this correct?
Ms. Heffernon stated that in her opening remarks she had talked about the needed revision of the
landscape plans to show the 10-foot landscape requirement, which would improve the situation,
Mr. Keen was referring to.
________m____
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES DRAFT
JULY 5, 2000
PAGE 7
Vice-Chair Parker stated that she had looked at the project and she noticed that there were many
buildings that had a zero lot line at the front of the property. She asked what was discussed when
the Long's pre-application had come before the Planning Commission?
Ms. Heffernon stated that she did not remember this being discussed with relationship to the
Long's pre-application.
Chair Greene asked Ms. Heffernon what the term IIrule-20 funds" meant as used in Mr. White's
June 26, 2000 letter?
Ms. Heffernon stated that this was money that P.G. and E. has set aside for a jurisdiction to use
for undergrounding purposes. Each jurisdiction then designates an lIundergrounding district". Ms.
Heffernon stated that as far as she knew, the City had already used the allocations into the future
for the work that has been done on Grand Avenue.
Mr. Greene asked what the Development Code said about the minimum percentage of the property
that is required to be landscaped and where is the applicant proposing to place the landscaping.
Also, Mr. Greene asked if the applicant was il)cluding the retention basin as part of the minimum
threshold landscaping or is this separate.
Ms. Heffernon stated that 10% of the parking area and the 10-foot setback that abuts up to the
street has to be landscaped. The applicant has proposed landscaping in the parking area and in the
area that separates the self-storage from the commercial buildings. Finally, Ms. Heffernon stated
that the applicant was not including the retention basin as part of minimum threshold requirement
for the landscaping.
Mr. Greene asked why this application was being processed as a Conditional Use Permit?
Ms. Heffernon stated that this was because there are new commercial buildings being established.
Chair Greene then asked what thoughts, if any, the Economic Development Director had on this
project? Does it comply with the new Economic Development Strategy?
Mr. McCants replied that he had talked to Diane Sheeley, the Economic Development Director and
she had not had an opportunity to review the project so she was not prepared to speak as to
whether or not it was in conformance with the Economic Development Strategy.
In answer to Commissioner London's question concerning the power poles that are to be removed
and the discrepancy between what is listed in the Conditions of Approval and what is shown on
the plans, Mr. Campbell stated that the Conditions of Approval always govern.
There was a discussion concerning which poles would be removed and which would remain.
Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing.
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES DRAFT
JULY 5, 2000
PAGE 8
Garv White, representative for the Zaddie Bunker Trust, spoke to the Planning Commission. He
stated that with regards to the rear fence issue, he also remembered it from the.previous meeting
and it was an oversight that it was not corrected on the new plans. He stated that there was no
problem with fencing the entire project so that it looked uniform. He further stated that he did not
know at this point if the fence was on their property line or the neighbors so there is a possibility
they would have to get permission to install a new fence.
In response to Ms. Parker's question that the emergency access gate meet all City codes he stated
that he had spoken to the Fire Chief and that he seemed to feel that all City codes were being met.
Ms. Heffernon clarified that the zoning for the parcel directly behind the one pertaining to this
project was Single Family.
Ms. Parker stated that she had a problem with having a chain-link fence with barbed wire on top
especially when it is next a residential area.
Commissioner London asked if the applicant would have a problem putting an eight-foot wall
around the entire self-storage? He felt that it would be more protected from vandalism with an
eight-foot wall. Also, . although the Fire Department might approve a gate that meets the Fire
Codes, he felt that, in this area, an aesthetically pleasing gate would be appropriate.
The Planning Commission, staff and Mr. White discussed the undergrounding of the utilities.
Chair Greene stated that currently the parcel was divided into three (3) parcels with Parcel C being
proposed for development and this parcel is approximately 41 ,000 square feet. Mr. Greene went
on to say that the applicant .is proposing that the existing self-storage parcel, which is
approximately 26,000, be merged to form a single parcel of 67,000 square feet. Mr. Greene then
surmised that the applicant was taking a 67,000 square foot parcel and only using 2,700 for
commercial/office/retail purposes with the remainder being used for self-storage.
Mr. Greene asked Mr. White if he had had any discussions with the adjacent property owner for the
Long's project to merge the two properties to create more office/commercial/retail space? Also,
Mr. Greene asked Mr. White if he had talked to the City's Economic Development Director to see if
this proposal is consistent with the Economic Development Strategy?
Mr. White stated that he had not done either.
Mr. Greene asked what other uses besides self-storage has Mr. White considered for the 41,000
square foot parcel?
Mr. White stated that they had considered commercial/office/retail space all the way to the back of
the property in the beginning. He stated that the Trust has been the owner the property for 15
years. During this time they have seen a great deal of change in the economic climate and
feasibility for doing certain projects.
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES DRAFT
JUL Y 5, 2000 PAGE 9
Mr. White went on to explain that they feel there is not enough demand for office/commercial/retail
at this time. The Trust does not want to build something that is going to stand vacant. They have
had a great deal of discussion with many different people and most feel that because of the lot
configuration, it does not lend itself to retail because it is too deep and narrow. The storage
expansion was the best use with the office space along Grand Avenue.
,
Mr. Greene asked what the percentage of the project space will be self-storage?
Mr. White stated that it was a 6-1 ratio.
Vice-Chair' Parker asked if the amount of the percentage of the property that is proposed for
commercial could be increased?
Mr. White explained that if a company did not have Grand Avenue frontage no one is going to rent
it. He said that Longs shopping area would have anchors. He discussed the"difficulty- with having
a retail center in this area.
Finally, Mr. White said that these kind of self-storage units are scarce in this area. He also gave
reasons that he felt that self-storage was important in a community.
Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing.
Vice-Chair Parker had the following statements and issues with this project:
. She is more concerned with this project now than when it first came up because of the recently
adopted Economic Development Strategy. She does not know what the City Council's direction
to the Planning Commission with regards to this Strategy is.
. She is unclear of the City's direction regarding the need for commercial projects. She would
like some clear direction on this issue. Is there a need for commercial or not?
. She would prefer not to use up this commercial property for storage, however, there is existing
storage and to extend it may be a better use than creating a whole new area for storage.
. She also understands that the site in question is very narrow and she sees how hard it would be
to put commercial all the way back to the end of the property.
. She also would like to know and have some direction on how to handle the undergrounding of
utilities.
. The new plans that Public Works has suggested look feasible to her.
. The two poles in the back (#7 and #8), should be easy to underground and should not be too
expensive to do.
. She is glad to see that Mr. White does not have any objection to putting in a buffer between
the residential and commercial.
. Finally, she would be comfortable if the applicant would install an eight (8) foot wall.
Commissioner London had the following statements and issues with this project:
. With modifications the applicant is willing to make to the back of the property, he has no
problem with the project.
. He feels that the office building will look good along the Grand Avenue corridor.
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES DRAFT
JULY 5, 2000
PAGE 10
. He would agree to the undergrounding of the utilities as proposed by the Public Works
Department and agrees with Ms. Parker that removing the poles at the back. of the property
would be easy.
Commissioner Keen had the following statements and issues with this project:
. He stated that he did not have a problem with the project as a whole.
. He stated that the steel buildings along the Grand Avenue corridor would not be appropriate.
. Mr. Keen does not see how the Planning Commission could approve the steel building at this
location based on the Architectural findings contained in the resolution, specifically:
1. The proposal is consistent with the general Architectural Review Guidelines of the City of
Arroyo Grande.
4. The general appearance of the proposed building is consistent with the character of the
neighborhood because of its size and design...
. If the building were steel stud and stucco he would not have a problem with it.
. The plan for the undergrounding of the utilities is addressed in an equitable manner.
Chair Greene had the following statements and issues with the project:
. This is the first time he has been involved in this project.
. He does not support this project at all.
. He has a grave concern about the proliferation of self-storage units on Grand Avenue.
. The argument that this area of Grand Avenue does not have any pedestrian traffic and therefore
would not support commercial/retail is a self fulfilling prophesy. The City is about to build 160
homes within a five-minute walk from this parcel. There may be a commercial magnet with the
Long's project next door.
. This would be a gross under-utilization of this property.
. Meet with Diane Sheeley and discuss a more "community friendly" development.
. This project will not produce any sales tax revenue for the City.
. He believes that these kinds of facilities are needed but not wisely situated in the central core of
the City.
. Perhaps talk to the developers of the adjacent property (Long's) and see if there could be some
type of joint development.
. The metal buildings are inappropriate.
. More citizens of Arroyo Grande and the South County can utilize this area if it were retail vs.
self-storage facility.
. Staff's request for the undergrounding of the utilities is reasonable.
. He would like to see the project continued until the applicant had a chance to meet with Diane
Sheeley and discuss the project with her.
Chair Greene suggested to the Planning Commission that this item be continued to the next
Commission meeting to give the applicant a chance to discuss these issues with City staff and the
Economic Development Director.
James O'Keefe, owner of King's Fish and Chips, stated that he felt that the City was developing
many shopping centers that are not full, and the traffic on Grand Avenue is getting worse. The
mini-storage, which would be located next to his property, would not bring in any more traffic. The
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES DRAFT
JULY 5, 2000
PAGE 11
shopping center across the street is not even full and he does not believe the City needs any more
shopping centers on Grand.
Garv White, made the following statements:
. He is very disappointed at the new issues that have come up with his project. Some of these
issues were not addressed at the previous Planning Commission meeting.
. When he first approached the City with this project it was postponed several times because of
traffic issues. The City felt that commercial and retail projects were generating too much traffic
and he was not allowed to go forward with the second phase of the project because of this
issue.
. The second phase of the project was deleted from the first submittal because of the traffic and
now he finds it ironic that he is being told there is not enough commercial/retail space in his
project.
. It had never been brought up to him before to speak to Diane Sheeley.
. If he really felt that increasing the retail/commercial portion of this project wouldbe"what it took
to have the project approved, he does not have a problem with doing this.
. The issue is visual impact from Grand Avenue and how this relates to rentable space.
. He would like to build this project and feels that it is a good one that would enhance Grand
Avenue.
. He would like. to have a firm direction of what he needs to do make this project work for the
City.
Chair Greene stated that he was not in a position to tell the applicant. what' percentage of the
property should be developed in a certain way. He stated that his thinking is that there is someone
on staff who is a professional, for the explicit purpose of working with property owners to develop
their property in a way which is consistent with the City's economic development policy. In order
to make a finding necessary to support a Conditional Use Permit the Commission has to make
findings that the project is consistent with City policy. Mr. Greene stated that he regrets that this
information is coming to Mr. White in this way. Mr. Greene's proposal is that the project is
continued until City staff has had a chance to meet with Mr. White.
Mr. White stated that he would agree to continuing the hearing to the next Planning Commission
meeting, without taking a vote at tonight's meeting, and he will speak to Diane Sheeley, Economic
Development Director.
After further discussion the Planning Commission decided to continue the project to the July 18,
2000 meeting. The Commission elected to not reopen the public hearing but to limit the discussion
to new information. Commissioner Costello will receive a copy of the tapes to listen to so he will
be in a position to comment on the project.
Commissioner London moved that the Planning Commission continue the hearing on Conditional
Use Permit 00-005, Variance 00-000, Lot Line Adjustment 00-003 to the meeting of July 18,
2000. Vice-Chair Parker seconded the motion. The motion was approved on the following roll call
vote:
i
8 li~
t I! i ~
.i J Ie I
-- .lla <J<J<J J <
~ EXHIBIT B
II ! I~ I
~ i ~ II H
1 I il h ~ I~ ~ I: I
> IIi II ! I~
il i hI II ~:j
c I ; '" I
: 13\
ai
J I >
as ~i
/1, 0 ~ "tJ
(' 'I c:
a: I as
...
- CD
~ . QJ
0 0.. ~ 1&
~
~ 31 .-
- I I ..J z
; w i ~
I ~ 0 .-
. en
a: .
. :>
i <( II it ...,
co 0
0.. P <z
~:5
....,) I :JD..
.'JiQ.... Mol'.. ,0,'.1' ....1'1.a.-S .-W
,al':9Or ...11 .t'S 01::
.Jen
.. ':1 I~. J!: i ;:. @;
. .
~
OJ
~
9
~ "8
()
"0
It QI
( CD
0
g-
o.
~I ! 1.01" 41 J:J
::E : II! it ~iJJ!tt!Jiiz1.
3 =:s
< 3 .,0. JI 1!III~1~II-ilt
a: ~ in 1 ,f. 11}. I ·
(!) 5 ~I. j.1 "IiI. 1 51 ;1'
< l ~~I I' t' -'J ~ J
. - :}'.;I t! 1!.
a > or 5 Jt fJ"~f~jll~J;
< ..
.- "0 _ .. ~ - II ';=.'1 -11)"'1
c Z ill u ~ Ii 11;:) 'i~ IIi
~ .g <3 ~r
~ i a
'" . ~~. 1;.1 t,.!,.j.
. <II :!! ia:
.. ~ .- _'g tal 1 12 '=.-1 111j]f'J
It C en - ~J ~ ~i J~lltl:ll.jJll
0 :> ~. ~-i 3 ~il lj4Jfji 1;II.j
() ..., 1 go ai_
.J ~ 0 c.3 .. . i ~r ~ 1.1 =.-1
~ j~ < j'" ~!~ ~ !.' 1111!.JJl~Ji I
~ ~:~ ~-1 ~ -11. 't11- .~!J.
II: I' ~ '" 11-
:! ~ -~ = & ..1 -.t ' 1.1' i
~ I! .J . :J g.:"! =11 i 11 II ~Itllf'li.r
w ~ ~~ ! I ~ J !J_.J II!
o ~: .-
Itr 0
( ~
11. ; .J
9.a.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JANET M. HUWALDT, ACTING DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICEs:r
SUBJECT: CASH DISBURSEMENT RA TIFICA TION
DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for
the period September 1 - September 15, 2000.
FUNDING:
There is a $875,359.08 fiscal impact.
DISCUSSION:
The attached listing represents the cash disbursements required of normal and usual
operations. It is requested that the City Council approve these payments.
ATTACHMENTS:
ATTACHMENT 1 - Cash Disbursement Listing
ATTACHMENT 2 - September 1, 2000 Accounts Payable Check Register
ATTACHMENT 3 - September 8,2000 Accounts Payable Check Register
ATTACHMENT 4 - September 8,2000 Payroll Checks and Benefit Checks
ATTACHMENT 5 - September 15, 2000 Accounts Payable Check Register
--"..~
A IT ACHMENT 1
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CASH DISBURSEMENTS
For the Period of September 1 Through September 15, 2000
September 26, 2000
Presented are the cash disbursements issued by the Department of Financial Services for
the period September 1 to September 15, 2000. Shown are cash disbursements by week of
occurrence and type of payment.
September 1, 2000
Accounts Payable Cks 97136-97256 2 272,380.73
September 8, 2000
Accounts Payable Cks 97257-97337 3 92,181.16
Payroll Checks and Benefit Checks 4 257,724.63
349,905.79
September 15, 2000
Accounts Payable Cks 97350-97400 5 485,249.05
Less Payroll Transfer included in
Attachment 4 (232,176.49)
253,072.56
Two Week Total $ 875.359.08
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
INDEX FOR BUDGET DEPARTMENTS
EDEN COMPUTER SYSTEM
GENERAL FUND (010) SPEOAL REVENUE FUNDS
City Government (Fund 010) Park Development Fee Fund (Fund 213)
4001 - City Coundl 4550 - Park Development Fee
4002 - City Oerk 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 - Finandal Services Construction Tax Fund (Fund 230)
4121 - Taxes/ Insurance/ Bonds 4556 - Construction Tax
4130 - Community Development Police Grant Fund (Fund 271)
4131 - Community Building (CDBG) 4202 - State AB3229 Cops Grant
4140 - Management Information System 4203 - Federal COPS Hiring Grant
4145 - Non Departmental 4204 - Federal Local Law Enforcement
Public Safety (Fund 010)
4201 - Police ENTERPRISE FUNDS
4211 - Fire SewerFund(Fund61~
4212 - Building & Safety 4610 - Sewer Maintenance
4213 - Government Buildings Water Fund (Fund 640)
Public Works (Fund 010) 4710 - Water Administration
4301 - Public Works-Admin & Engineering 4711 - Water Production
4303 - Street/Bridge Maintenance 4712 - Water Distribution
4304 - Street Lighting Lopez Administration (Fund 641)
4305 - Automotive Shop 4750 - Lopez Administration
Parks & Recreation (Fund 010)
4420 - Parks CAPITALIMPROVEMENTPROG~S
4421 - Recreation 5501-5599 - Park Projects
4422 - General Recreation 5601-5699 - Streets Projects
4423 - Pre-School Program 5701-5799 - Drainage Projects
4424 - Recreation-Spedal Programs 5801-5899 - Water/Sewer/Street Projects
4425 - Children in Motion 5901-5999 - Water Projects
4430 - Soto Sport Complex
4460 - Parkway Maintenance
Dept. Index for Council
ATTACHMENT 2
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 1
08/31/00 19:03 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 16
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
97136 09/01/00 000468 A T & T-L/DIST SVC, FAX MACHINE MODEM 010.4211.5403 17.86
97136 09/01/00 000468 A T & T-L/DIST SVC. L/DIST DATALlNE-E MAIL 010.4140.5303 1,793.21 1,811. 07
97137 09/01/00 000780 ACCURATE FLO & MOTION O-RINGS-LIFT STA.FILTER BOWLS 612.4610.5610 6.68 6.68
97138 09/01/00 005538 AG CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CHAMBER SOAR INIT-MC CANTS 010.4130.5501 15.00 15.00
97139 09/01/00 100584 AIR LIQUIDE AMERICA COR OXYGEN/ACETYLENE 010.4305.5303 48.19
97139 09/01/00 100584 AIR LIQUIDE AMERICA COR OXYGEN/ACETYLENE 640.4712.5610 48.20 96.39
97140 09/01/00 003120 AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SUP 30 MINUTE FLARES 010.4201.5255 501. 54 501. 54
97141 09/01/00 003276 AMERICAN LASERTEK 3 HPLJ111 CARTRIDGES 010.4201. 5201 174.06 174.06
97142 09/01/00 100897 AMERICAN TEMPS RHINEHART SVCS TO 8/18/00 220.4303.5303 742.49 742.49
97143 09/01/00 101617 AUTO GLASS CENTRAL 923 NEW WINDOW 010.4201. 5601 249.50 249.50
97144 09/01/00 009008 BANKCARD CENTER OTC SUPPLIES 010.4424.5252 211.05
97144 09/01/00 009008 BANKCARD CENTER OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4120.5201 34.30
97144 09/01/00 009008 BANKCARD CENTER OFFICE MAX-SUPPLIES 010.4101. 5201 26.80
97144 09/01/00 009008 BANKCARD CENTER OFFICE MAX-SUPPLIES 284.4103.5201 47.15
97144 09/01/00 009008 BANKCARD CENTER OFFICE MAX-SUPPLIES 010.4101. 5201 68.98
97144 09/01/00 009008 BANKCARD CENTER OFFICE MAX-SUPPLIES 010.4002.5506 53.98
97144 09/01/00 009008 BANKCARD CENTER LOCC CONF-FERRARA 7/26-7/29/00 010.4001. 5501 300.00
97144 09/01/00 009008 BANKCARD CENTER ICSC SUB-SHEELEY 284.4103.5503 100.00
97144 09/01/00 009008 BANKCARD CENTER OFFICE MAX-SUPPLIES 284.4103.5201 4.03
97144 09/01/00 009008 BANKCARD CENTER FUEL LOCC CONF-FERRARA 010.4001.5501 5.75
97144 09/01/00 009008 BANKCARD CENTER LOCC CONF-HOTEL/LODGING 010.4001. 5501 490.41
97144 09/01/00 009008 BANKCARD CENTER LOCC CONF-CAR RENTAL-FERRARA 010.4001. 5501 210.05
97144 09/01/00 009008 BANKCARD CENTER LOCC LEADERSHIP ACAD-FERRARA 010.4001.5501 225.00
97144 09/01/00 009008 BANKCARD CENTER OFFICERS STAFF MTG. 010.4211.5501 44.86
97144 09/01/00 009008 BANKCARD CENTER U.S.GEOLOG.7.5 MIN MAP 010.4130.5503 71.91
97144 09/01/00 009008 BANKCARD CENTER FRESNO BEE-WANT ADS 010.4301. 5301 1,068.58
97144 09/01/00 009008 BANKCARD CENTER QUARTER DECK-MTG 010.4301. 5201 34.32
97144 09/01/00 009008 BANKCARD CENTER GINA'S-MTG 010.4301. 5201 44.10 3,041.27
97145 09/01/00 101810 BASIC CHEMICAL SOLUTION SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 640.4712.5274 430.01 430.01
97146 09/01/00 101921 BATTERY ZONE MOTOROLA HT750 NlCAD BATTERY 010.4201. 5603 180.28 180.28
97147 09/01/00 013026 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER HOSE BIB 220.4303.5613 4.82 4.82
97148 09/01/00 101949 MICHELLE BROWN PARK DEP REFUND-BROWN 010.0000.4354 25.00 25.00
97149 09/01/00 101499 R. BURKE CORPORATION FAIR OAKS/TALLY HO OVERLAY 350.5630.7001 82,064.97
97149 09/01/00 101499 R. BURKE CORPORATION FAIR OAKS/TALLY HO OVERLAY 350.5631.7001 61,908,66 143,973.63
97150 09/01/00 016695 CA. RESERVE PEACE OFFICE CRPOA DUES-QUEZADA/ZIGELMAN 010.4201.5503 144. 00 144.00
97151 09/01/00 017628 CA. ST. EMERGENCY SERVICE CSTI CONF-COSGROVE 010.4201. 5501 425.00 425.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 2
08/31/00 19:03 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 16
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
97152 09/01/00 019266 CALIFORNIA UNIFORM CTR. UNIFORM SHIRT-BEDIA 010.4201. 5255 51.48 51.48
97153 09/01/00 101952 STEPHANIE CAVAZOS PARK DEP REFUND-CAVAZOS 010.0000.4354 25.00 25.00
97154 09/01/00 101739 LUKE CAYWOOD S/BALL LEAGUE SCORER-CAYWOOD 010.4424.5352 63.00 63.00
97155 09/01/00 021762 CENTRAL COAST PRINTING PRINT DOOR HANGERS 640.4710.5201 75.72 75.72
97156 09/01/00 021918 CENTRAL COAST SUPPLY RESTROOM SUPPLIES 010.4420.5605 356.24
97156 09/01/00 021918 CENTRAL COAST SUPPLY BLDG. SUPPLIES 010.4213.5604 356.23 712.47
97157 09/01/00 101835 CENTRAL TV AND VIDEO 962 REPAIR VIDEO CAMERA 010.4201. 5603 120.73 120.73
97158 09/01/00 101956 CHRIS CHRISTIANSEN REIMB.EXP-CHRISTIANSEN 010.4145.5575 274.62
97158 09/01/00 101956 CHRIS CHRISTIANSEN REIMB.EXP-CHRISTIANSEN 640.4710.5575 21.45
97158 09/01/00 101956 CHRIS CHRISTIANSEN REIMB.EXP-CHRISTIANSEN 612.4610.5575 7.48
97158 09/01/00 101956 CHRIS CHRISTIANSEN REIMB.EXP-CHRISTIANSEN 284.4103.5575 .65
97158 09/01/00 101956 CHRIS CHRISTIANSEN REIMB.EXP-CHRISTIANSEN 220.4303..5575 20.80 325.00
97159 09/01/00 023400 ROBERT CHUBBUCK TACT.OPERAT CONF-CHUBBUCK 010.4201.5501 663.00 663.00
97160 09/01/00 023946 CLINICAL LAB.OF SAN BER WATER SAMPLES-7/00 640.4710.5310 517.00 517.00
97161 09/01/00 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220.4303.5307 10.00
97161 09/01/00 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220.4303.5307 10.00
97161 09/01/00 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220.4303.5307 10.00
97161 09/01/00 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220.4303.5307 10.00
97161 09/01/00 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220.4303.5307 10.00
97161 09/01/00 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220.4303.5307 10.00
97161 09/01/00 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DISPOSAL 220.4303.5307 10.00
97161 09/01/00 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220.4303.5307 10.00
97161 09/01/00 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220.4303.5307 10.00
97161 09/01/00 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220.4303.5307 10.00
97161 09/01/00 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220.4303.5307 10.00
97161 09/01/00 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220.4303.5307 10.00
97161 09/01/00 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220.4303.5307 10.00
97161 09/01/00 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220.4303.5307 10.00 140.00
97162 09/01/00 101900 COLLEGIATE PACIFIC PLAYGROUND SPORTS EQUIP 010.4422.5256 5.91 5.91
97163 09/01/00 024832 COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS CONNECT WEE 4 PROP MTR TO SCAD 640.4711.5603 225.00
97163 09/01/00 024832 COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS REPR MOTOR CONTROL VALVE-RES 1 640.4712.5609 948.91 1,173.91
97164 09/01/00 101638 TYLER COON S/BALL LEAGUE SCORER-COON 010.4424.5352 7.00 7.00
97165 09/01/00 026286 CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL LAB WTR SAMPLES-TR.1834 PHV 640.4710.5310 70.00
97165 09/01/00 026286 CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL LAB WTR SAMPLES-TRACT 1834 PHV 640.4710.5310 70.00 140.00
97166 09/01/00 026754 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER C BOTTLED WATER-8/00 010.4421. 5201 35.00
97166 09/01/00 026754 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER C DRINKING WTR-7-17-00 010.4212.5201 15.00 50.00
-'
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 3
08/31/00 19:03 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 16
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
97167 09/01/00 101569 CSMFO BUDGET AWARD PROGRAM 010.4120.5503 25.00 25.00
97168 09/01/00 027534 D.G.REPAIR P-23 REPAIR ELECT. 010.4420.5601 60.00 60.00
97169 09/01/00 028548 DAYSTAR INDUSTRIES ST.SWEEPING-8/00 612.4610.5303 5,176.33 5,176.33
97170 09/0'1/00 101910 JEREMY DE LOS SANTOS S/BALL LEAGUE SCORER-DE LOS 010.4424.5352 21. 00 21. 00
971 71 09/01/00 101369 KIMBERELY DEBLAUW SCHOOL REGIST/BOOKS-DEBLAUW 010.4201. 5502 131. 24
971 71 09/01/00 101369 KIMBERELY DEBLAUW SCHOOL REGIST.BOOKS-DEBLAUW 010.4201. 5502 84.00 215.24
971 72 09/01/00 101716 JIM DECECCO S/BALL LEAGUE UMP-DECECCO 010.4424.5352 112.00 112.00
97173 09/01/00 029250 J.B. DEWAR,INC. VALVOLlNE UNITRAC-PW 33 220.4303.5603 35.61
97173 09/01/00 029250 J .B. DEWAR, INC. HYD OIL-P111,P74 010.4420.5603 35.60 71.21
97174 09/01/00 029484 DIESELRO INC. SVC/INSP-PW 51 VACTOR 612.4610.5601 498.99
971 74 09/01/00 029484 DIESELRO INC. TRANS SVC-PW 51 VACTOR 612.4610.5601 300.14
97174 09/01/00 029484 DIESELRO INC. SVC.INSP-PW 50 640.4712.5601 260.27
97174 09/01/00 029484 DIESELRO INC. SVC.INSP-PW 50 640.4712.5601 260.27
97174 09/01/00 029484 DIESELRO INC. SVC.INSP-PW 50 220.4303..5601 260.27
97174 09/01/00 029484 DIESELRO INC. SVC INT'L TRUCK-PW32 640.4712.5601 847.50 2,427.44
97175 09/01/00 030584 DEBI DYKZEUL S/BALL SCORER-DYKZEUL 010.4424.5352 21. 00 21. 00
97176 09/01/00 099187 FIRE ENGINEERING SUBSC.RENEWAL 11/00-11/01 010.4211. 5503 46.55 46.55
971 77 09/01/00 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES PUBLIC HEARING NOT-JORGENSEN 010.4130.5301 55.50
971 77 09/01/00 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES PUBLIC HEARING NOT-FOGLEMAN 010.4130.5301 51. 00
971 77 09/01/00 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES PUBLIC HEARING NOT-2ND RES. 010.4130.5301 51. 00
971 77 09/01/00 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES PUBLIC HEARING NOT-SONNY'S 010.4130.5301 51. 00 208.50
97178 09/01/00 035802 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY INC 971 2 DUP TICK KEYS 010.4201. 5601 64.14 64.14
97179 09/01/00 035022 GEO.FOLKROD AND SON,INC UNCLOG DRAIN-STROTHER 010.4420.5605 65.00 65.00
97180 09/01/00 037206 GIBBS INTERNATIONAL TRU MIRROR BRACKET-PW 32 640.4712.5601 23.89 23.89
97181 09/01/00 101947 GOLDEN COASTERS PARK DEP REFUND-GOLD COASTERS 010.0000.4354 25.00 25.00
97182 09/01/00 101955 FERNANDO GONZALEZ C/B DEP-GONZALES 010.0000.2206 250.00 250.00
97183 09/01/00 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH DOG OBEDIENCE-CITY OF G.B. 010.4424.5351 8.10 8.10
97184 09/01/00 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE 7-15/8-14-00 010.4421. 5303 15.55
97184 09/01/00 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE 7-15/8-14-00 010.4421. 5303 29.08
97184 09/01/00 036426 GTE WIRELESS PHONE CHG. 7-10/8-04-00 284.4103.5403 43.19 87.82
97185 09/01/00 101088 HANSON AGGREGATES CONCRETE-497 FAIR OAKS 350.5632.7001 442.79
97185 09/01/00 101088 HANSON AGGREGATES ASPHALT 220.4303.5613 200.37 643.16
-----.-..-------
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 4
08/31/00 19:03 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 16
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
97186 09/01/00 100857 HANSON BRIDGETT MARCUS PROF. LEGAL SVC-L.BLANCK 010.4145.5575 37,169.31
97186 09/01/00 100857 HANSON BRIDGETT MARCUS PROF. LEGAL SVC-L.BLANCK 640.4710.5575 2,903.17
97186 09/01/00 100857 HANSON BRIDGETT MARCUS PROF. LEGAL SVC-L.BLANCK 612.4610.5575 1,011. 71
97186 09/01/00 100857 HANSON BRIDGETT MARCUS PROF.LEGAL SVC-L.BLANCK 284.4103.5575 87.97
97186 '09/01/00 100857 HANSON BRIDGETT MARCUS PROF.LEGAL SVC-L.BLANCK 220.4303.5575 2,815.19 43,987.35
97187 09/01/00 100635 HARRY'S RADIATOR SVCS BATTERY/RADIATOR/THERMO PD952 010.4201. 5601 289.26 289.26
97188 09/01/00 042470 HI-WAY SAFETY INC. TYPE 1 BARRACADES 220.4303.5613 1,305.41 1,305.41
97189 09/01/00 101238 HOPKINS TECHNICAL PDTS. CHLORINE PUMP 640.4712.5610 105.27 105.27
97190 09/01/00 043630 IACP NAT'L LAW ENFORCEM MODEL POLICIES SUB TO 8-31-01 010.4201. 5503 30.00 30.00
97191 09/01/00 043640 IACP NET/LOGIN SERVICES IACP NET 6-29-00/6-29-01 010.4140.5607 800.00 800.00
97192 09/01/00 044304 IMPULSE MFG. WELDING-PW 27 220.4303.5601 113.75
97192 09/01/00 044304 IMPULSE MFG. UNDER BED TOOL-PW 56 220.4303.5603 512.60 626.35
97193 09/01/00 044496 INFORMATION SERVICES DP-ON-LINE TRANS 7-00 010.4201. 5606 89.69 89.69
97194 09/01/00 046176 J J'S FOOD COMPANY BBQ SUMMER KIDS 220.4303.5613 87.55
97194 09/01/00 046176 J J'S FOOD COMPANY SODA'S CMC CREW 220.4303.5613 8.56 96.11
97195 09/01/00 046410 J.W.ENTERPRISES TOILET RENTAL 9-00 220.4303.5552 91.73 91.73
97196 09/01/00 100689 CHRISTINE JONES PARK DEP REFUND-JONES 010.0000.4354 25.00 25.00
97197 09/01/00 100752 KUSTOM SIGNALS, INC. 2 EYEWITNESS VIDEO SYSTEMS 010.4201. 6201 11,382.73 11,382.73
97198 09/01/00 100773 LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPLY, 4 MH PORTA CLIPS 010.4201. 5255 72.73 72.73
97199 09/01/00 101075 LEMUS ARCHITECTURE DESIGN REVIEW 010.0000.2357 178.75
97199 09/01/00 101075 LEMUS ARCHITECTURE DESIGN REVIEW 010.4130.5303 178.75 357.50
97200 09/01/00 101950 LENDER'S CHOICE NETWORK PARK DEP REFUND-LENDERS CHOICE 010.0000.4354 25.00 25.00
97201 09/01/00 053092 LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES SVC AGREE 7-11/8-10-00 010.4145.5403 27.34 27.34
97202 09/01/00 053274 LYON & CARMEL LEGAL EXP-L.BLANCK 010.4145.5575 627.64
97202 09/01/00 053274 LYON & CARMEL LEGAL EXP-L.BLANCK 640.4710.5575 49.02
97202 09/01/00 053274 LYON & CARMEL LEGAL EXP-L.BLANCK 612.4610.5575 17.08
97202 09/01/00 053274 LYON & CARMEL LEGAL EXP-L.BLANCK 284.4103.5575 1.49
97202 09/01/00 053274 LYON & CARMEL LEGAL EXP-L.BLANCK 220.4303.5575 47.54 742.77
97203 09/01/00 100775 MARKELL INCORPORATED GRENADES/TEAR GAS 010.4201. 5272 1,630.33 1,630.33
97204 09/01/00 101252 MCI WORLDCOM CALLING CARDS 6-00 010.4145.5403 7.64
97204 09/01/00 101252 MCI WORLDCOM CALLING CARDS 7-00 010.4145.5403 4.22 11.86
97205 09/01/00 101954 JOE MENDES PARK DEP REFUND-MENDES 010.0000.4354 25.00 25.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 5
08/31/00 19:03 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 16
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
97206 09/01/00 101944 PROF. MARC MERMAN EDUC.SEMINAR-ROCHA 010.4420.5501 75.00
97206 09/01/00 101944 PROF, MARC MERMAN EDUC.SEMINAR-MC CLURE 010.4420.5501 75.00 150.00
97207 09/01/00 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAKE 981 LOF 010.4201. 5601 50.76
97207 09/01/00 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAKE 924 CARALYTIC CONVERTER 010.4201. 5601 184.36
97207 09/01/00 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAKE 982 BATTERY/BRAKE PADS/LOF 010.4201.5601 415.27
97207 09/01/00 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAKE P-28 BRAKES-R/R 010.4420.5601 522.61 1,173.00
97209 09/01/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PAINT-LIFT STA 612.4610.5610 49.28
97209 09/01/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PLUMBING SUPPLIES 640.4712.5610 7.49
97209 09/01/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE FILM PLATINUM 640.4712.5255 26.80
97209 09/01/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE TRAFF.WAY BRIDGE PAINT 220.4303.5613 91. 15
97209 09/01/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PAINT BRUSHES 220.4303.5613 23.63
97209 09/01/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PAINT-TRAFF.WAY BRIDGE 220.4303.5613 91. 11
97209 09/01/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PAINT SUPPLIES 220.4303.5613 4.82
97209 09/01/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE RAGS 010.4213.5604 4.28
97209 09/01/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE SIMPLE GREEN/GRIND WHEELS/HOSE 220.4303.5613 39.08
97209 09/01/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE NAILS 640.4712.5604 1. 31
97209 09/01/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE CVR CLEANER 010.4211.5605 17.69
97209 09/01/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE RECEPT-WHITE 010,4211.5605 16.08
97209 09/01/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PLUMBING SUPPLIES 010.4420.5605 48.37
97209 09/01/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE NAILS/CAULK 640.4712.5604 10.91
97209 09/01/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE TRASH CAN/TOOLS 010.4420.5605 305.57
97209 09/01/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PLUMBING SUPPLIES 010.4420.5603 7.10
97209 09/01/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE CONNECT COMP/HDWE 010.4420.5605 4.23
97209 09/01/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PAINT-WELL 5 ' 640.4712.5604 42.65
97209 09/01/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BALLASTS 010.4213.5604 53.60
97209 09/01/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 010.4213.5604 2.15
97209 09/01/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE GRINDER WIRE WHEELS-PW 52 640.4712.5273 30.87
97209 09/01/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BOLTS/NUTS/SCREWS 640.4712.5610 11.33
97209 09/01/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BOLTS/NUTS/SCREWS 640.4712.5604 11.28
97209 09/01/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BLEACH 640.4712.5274 1. 07 901.85
97210 09/01/00 057174 MISSION OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4120.5201 134.80
97210 09/01/00 057174 MISSION OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4120.5201 17.58
97210 09/01/00 057174 MISSION OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 612.4610.5201 25.19
97210 09/01/00 057174 MISSION OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4130.5201 16.23
97210 09/01/00 057174 MISSION OFFICE PRODUCTS FOOTREST 010.4130.5602 j9.58
97210 09/01/00 057174 MISSION OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4130.5201 117.48
97210 09/01/00 057174 MISSION OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 220.4303.5201 49.55
97210 09/01/00 057174 MISSION OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4421.5201 97.98
97210 09/01/00 057174 MISSION OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4421. 5201 7.57
97210 09/01/00 057174 MISSION OFFICE PRODUCTS COMPUTER PAPER 612.4610.5201 25.73 531. 69
97211 09/01/00 057272 MIKE MITCHELL S/BALL LEAGUE UMPIRE-MITCHELL 010.4424.5352 80.00 80.00
97212 09/01/00 101953 MATTHEW MOHEL PARK DEP REFUND-MOHEL 010.0000.4354 25.00 25.00
97213 09/01/00 101938 PAULINE MORENO REF PARK DEP-MORENO 010.0000.4354 80.00
97213 09/01/00 101938 PAULINE MORENO CANCEL 8/16-MORENO 010.0000.4354 25.00-
97213 09/01/00 101938 PAULINE MORENO LATE CANCELLATION-MORENO 010.0000.4354 5.00- 50.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 6
08/31/00 19:03 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 16
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
97214 09/01/00 058382 LAW OFFICES OF SARAH MO PROF. LEGAL SVC-L.BLANCK 010.4145.5575 12,324.34
97214 09/01/00 058382 LAW OFFICES OF SARAH MO PROF. LEGAL SVC-L.BLANCK 640.4710.5575 962.61
97214 09/01/00 058382 LAW OFFICES OF SARAH MO PROF.LEGAL SVC-L.BLANCK 612.4610.5575 335.46
97214 09/01/00 058382 LAW OFFICES OF SARAH MO PROF. LEGAL SVC-L.BLANCK 284.4103.5575 29.17
97214 09/01/00 058382 LAW OFFICES OF SARAH MO PROF. LEGAL SVC-L.BLANCK 220.4303.5575 933.44 14,585.02
97215 09/01/00 058578 MULLAHEY FORD WHEEL COVERS 010.4201. 5601 157.40 -157.40
97216 09/01/00 058734 ROY MUMAW DISPATCHER UPDATE-MUMAW 010.4201. 5501 40.00 40.00
97217 09/01/00 058890 RICHARD MUNOZ S/BALL LEAGUE UMPIRE-MUNOZ 010.4424.5352 144.00 144.00
97218 09/01/00 060918 NAT'L TACTICAL OFF.ASSN TACTICAL OPER.CONF-CHUBBUCK 010.4201. 5501 . 550.00 550.00
97219 09/01/00 063960 PACIFIC BELL PHONE 271-7480 010.4145.5403 64.03
97219 09/01/00 063960 PACIFIC BELL PHONE 271-6566 010.4145.5403 47.91
97219 09/01/00 063960 PACIFIC BELL PHONE 489-9867 010.4201.5403 53.70
97219 09/01/00 063960 PACIFIC BELL PHONE 489-2174 010.4201. 5403 35.62
97219 09/01/00 063960 PACIFIC BELL MODEM-FIRE DEPT 010.4145.5403 6.82
97219 09/01/00 063960 PACIFIC BELL PHONE 473-9523 010.4145.5403 73.77
97219 09/01/00 063960 PACIFIC BELL PHONE 489-2174 010.4145.5403 35.62 317.47
97220 09/01/00 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC STREET LIGHTING-8-00 010.4304.5402 12,646.58 12,646.58
97221 09/01/00 065910 PETTY CASH TRAFFIC COMM.MTG EXP 010.4301. 5608 6.18
97221 09/01/00 065910 PETTY CASH CANDIDATES ORIENTATION EXP 010.4001.5504 19.20
97221 09/01/00 065910 PETTY CASH MILEAGE REIMB-MARSALEK 220.4303.5501 6.40
97221 09/01/00 065910 PETTY CASH CITY CLERK QTRLY MTG 010.4002.5501 25.00
97221 09/01/00 065910 PETTY CASH PHOTO PROCESSING 010.4130.5201 23.33
97221 09/01/00 065910 PETTY CASH CANDIDATES' ORIENTATION EXP 010.4001. 5504 23.64
97221 09/01/00 065910 PETTY CASH ASCE MTG 010.4301. 5503 15.00
97221 09/01/00 065910 PETTY CASH MILEAGE REIMB-ODELL 010.4101. 5501 6.17
97221 09/01/00 065910 PETTY CASH CD FOR COPYING 010.4130.5201 10.72
97221 09/01/00 065910 PETTY CASH CD FOR COPYING 010.4002.5201 10.71
97221 09/01/00 065910 PETTY CASH RECORDING FEES-LA VINE 010.4130.5201 19.00
97221 09/01/00 065910 PETTY CASH ZONE 3 MTG EXP 010.4001.5201 10.77
97221 09/01/00 065910 PETTY CASH MEETING SUPPLIES 010.4001. 5201 20.32
97221 09/01/00 065910 PETTY CASH MEETING SUPPLIES 010.4130.5201 20.31
97221 09/01/00 065910 PETTY CASH MEETING SUPPLIES 010.4301. 5201 20.31
97221 09/01/00 065910 PETTY CASH RECORDING FEES-PAC BELL 010.4301.5201 19.00
97221 09/01/00 065910 PETTY CASH PHOTO PROCESSING 010.4130.5201 25.46
97221 09/01/00 065910 PETTY CASH MILEAGE REIMB-VENEMA 284.4103.5501 7.92
97221 09/01/00 065910 PETTY CASH OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4101.5201 63.72 353.16
97222 09/01/00 066322 PHOENIX FOODSERVICES CSTI SATETY CLASS-COSGROVE 010.4201. 5501 72.60 72.60
97223 09/01/00 068562 PRYOR INDUSTRIES,INC. INSTALL CONTR/DOOR-CDD 010.42i3.5303 558.35
97223 09/01/00 068562 PRYOR INDUSTRIES, INC. DOOR INSTALL-CDD 010.4213.5303 214.85 773.20
97224 09/01/00 069420 R & T SPECIALTY,INC. DARE PEN/PENCIL SET/REFLECT 010.4201. 5504 48.26 48.26
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 7
08/31/00 19:03 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 16
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
97225 09/01/00 071682 GREG ROSE S/BALL UMP-G.ROSE 010.4424.5352 64.00 64.00
97226 09/01/00 100200 RRM DESIGN GROUP PROF.SVCS-R.GRANDE PARK 350.5512.7501 2,087.85 2,087.85
97227 09/01/00 072638 S & L SAFETY PRODUCTS SAFETY CLASSES/GLOVES 220.4303.5255 292.58
97227 09/01/00 072638 S & L SAFETY PRODUCTS SHOP TOWELS 220.4303.5255 100.03
97227 09/01/00 072638 S & L SAFETY PRODUCTS SHOP TOWELS 640.4712.5255 100.03
97227 09/01/00 072638 S & L SAFETY PRODUCTS SHOP TOWELS 612.4610.5255 100.03 592.67
97228 09/01/00 101136 S.C.A.C.E.O. SUCCESS TRAIN-CROCKETT 010.4130.5501 250.00 250.00
97229 09/01/00 073632 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO REGISTR-RECORDS MGMT SEMINAR 010.4002.5501 375.00 375.00
97230 09/01/00 076740 SANTA MARIA TIMES TPR TO 09/28/01 010.4301. 5201 20.00
97230 09/01/00 076740 SANTA MARIA TIMES TPR TO 9/29/01 010.4201.5503 20.00 40.00
97231 09/01/00 077024 ANN SARMIENTO S/BALL SCORER-SARMIENTO 010.4424.5352 77.00 77 .00
97232 09/01/00 077572 SCHOOL SPECIALTY,INC. PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES 010.4423.5253 701. 04 701. 04
97233 09/01/00 078156 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIB. CHAIN/CABLE LUBE/FILTER 010.4211.5601 93.85
97233 09/01/00 078156 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIB. DIESEL FUEL 010.4211.5608 149.98
97233 09/01/00 078156 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIB. GASOLINE 8/1-8/15 010.4201. 5608 1,266.09 1,509.92
97234 09/01/00 075114 SLO CNTY GENERAL HOSPIT LEGAL TOX SCREEN-JULY 010.4201. 5324 28.00 28.00
97235 09/01/00 101943 SLO CO VISITORS & CONF. CONTR.SVCS-SLO CO VISITORS 284.4103.5303 3,250.00 3,250.00
97236 09/01/00 100304 SMITH PIPE & SUPPLY TORO SEAL-RISER/HI POP 010.4420.5605 3.10 3.10
97237 09/01/00 101951 MARIA SOLARIO PARK DEP REFUND-SOLORIO 010.0000.4354 25.00 25.00
97238 09/01/00 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY REPL BATTERY-P111 010.4420.5603 42.85
97238 09/oi/00 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY WELDING ROD-WELL 4 REPR 640.4712.5610 32.86 75.71
97239 09/01/00 081200 JEFF SOUZA REIMB BOOKS-SOUZA 010.4201. 5502 174.00 174.00
97240 09/01/00 081432 BOB SPEAR S/BALL UMP-B.SPEAR 010.4424.5352 48.00 48.00
97241 09/01/00 082134 STATEWIDE SAFETY & SIGN DELINEATION CONSTR.FLAGS 220.4303.5613 486.33 486.33
97242 09/01/00 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS VISAR RADIO REPAIR 010.4211. 5603 285.00
97242 09/01/00 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS 983 RADIO SWITCH 010.4201. 5601 25.74
97242 09/01/00 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS 951 REPL SIGNALMASTER 010.4201. 5601 259.55 570.29
97243 09/01/00 083226 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH VEHICLE WASH 010.4201. 5601 121. 00
97243 09/01/00 083226 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH VEHICLE WASH 640.4712.5601 45.00
97243 09/01/00 083226 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH VEHICLE WASH 010.4301.5601 6.00
97243 09/01/00 083226 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH VEHICLE WASH 010.4420.5601 15.00
97243 09/01/00 083226 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH VEHICLE WASH 220.4303.5601 15.00
97243 09/01/00 083226 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH VEHICLE WASH 010.4305.5601 8.50
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 8
08/31/00 19:03 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 16
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
97243 09/01/00 083226 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH WASH VEHICLES 010.4201. 5601 152.45
97243 09/01/00 083226 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH WASH VEHICLES 010.4301. 5601 113.50
97243 09/01/00 083226 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH WASH VEHICLES 010.4420.5601 45.00
97243 09/01/00 083226 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH WASH VEHICLES 640.4712.5601 15.00 536.45
97244 09/01/00 084708 RICK TERBORCH IACP BANQUET-TERBORCH 010.4201. 5501 40.00 40.00
97245 09/01/00 101948 BETTY THURMAN PARK DEP REFUND-THURMAN 010.0000.4354 25.00 25.00
97246 09/01/00 085664 TOM TOTH S/BALL UMP-TOTH 010.4424.5352 32.00 32.00
97247 09/01/00 086736 DOTTIE TRULOCK DOG OBEDIENCE-TRULOCK 010.4424.5351 48.80 48.80
97248 09/01/00 087242 ULTRA-CHEM, INC BIO-MATIC ODOR ELIM-BLDGS 010.4213.5604 170.24 170.24
97249 09/01/00 101521 UNITED DOMESTIC WORKERS REF C/B DEP-UNITED DOMESTIC 010.0000.4353 250.00
97249 09/01/00 101521 UNITED DOMESTIC WORKERS C/B RENT-8/19/00 010.0000.4353 66.00- 184.00
97250 09/01/00 087672 UNITED RENTALS LIGHT BARRICADE RENTAL 640.4712.5552 17.33 17.33
97251 09/01/00 101945 UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY FLASH UNITS-PW27 220.4303.5601 158.50 158.50
97252 09/01/00 101946 MARK VALDEZ PARK DEP REF-VALDEZ 010.0000.4354 25.00 25.00
97253 09/01/00 101939 VENTURA COLLEGE DISPATCH UPDATE-MUMAW 010.4201. 5501 17.00 17.00
97254 09/01/00 090480 WAYNE'S TIRE TIRE & SVC-PW24 640.4712.5601 149.09
97254 09/01/00 090480 WAYNE'S TIRE FIX REAR BUMPER & TIRE-981 010.4201. 5601 129.08 278.17
97255 09/01/00 091338 WESTERN FARM SERVICE, I CALCIUM HYPOCHLORITE 640.4712.5274 366.58 366.58
97256 09/01/00 092976 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS K-9 TRAINING 010.4201. 5322 360.75 360.75
TOTAL CHECKS 272,380.73
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 9
08/31/00 19:03 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 16
FUND TITLE AMOUNT
010 GENERAL FUND 97,384.59
220 STREETS FUND 8,678.31
284 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND 3,571.57
350 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 146,504.27
612 SEWER FUND 7,554.10
640 WATER FUND 8,687.89
TOTAL 272,380.73
ATTACHMENT 3
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 1
09/07/00 11:04 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 16
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
97257 09/0S/00 10195S AMERICAN BENEFIT SERVIC MAINT/SOFTWARE SUPP-00/01 010.4140.5607 2,275.00 2,275.00
9725S 09/0S/00 003120 AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SUP REPL HEADS-EYE WASH STATION 220.4303.5255 29.49 29.49
97259 09/0S/00 100S97 AMERICAN TEMPS RHINEHART SVCS TO S/25/00 220.4303.5303 709.79 709.79
97260 09/0S/00 009750 BRENDA BARROW REIMB. PRE-SCH. SNACKS-BARROW 010.4423.5253 74.37 74.37
97261 09/0S/00 010062 BAUER COMPRESSORS,INC. HEAD HARNESS/BUCKLES 010.4211. 5603 613.05 613.05
97262 09/0S/00 013572 BRUMIT DIESEL,INC REBUILT WATER PUMP 010.4211.5601 344. 92
97262 09/0S/00 013572 BRUMIT DIESEL,INC OIL 010.4211.560S 76.45 421. 37
97263 09/0S/00 101959 EDWARD BURLETT REF.WTR.DEP-S50 HUASNA RD 640.0000.2302 lS0.00
97263 09/0S/00 101959 EDWARD BURLETT CLOSING BILL-S50 HUASNA RD 640.0000.4751 62.62- 117.3S
97264 09/0S/00 021294 C.COAST FIRE PREVENTION C.C.F.P.A.DUES-FIBICH 010.4211.5503 30.00
97264 09/0S/00 021294 C.COAST FIRE PREVENTION C.C.F.P.A.DUES-SCHMIDT 010.4212.5503 30.00 60.00
97265 09/0S/00 01S330 CA. ST. DEPT. OF JUSTICE F/PRINT CHECKS 010.4201.5324 32.00
97265 09/0S/00 01S330 CA.ST.DEPT.OF JUSTICE F/PRINT CHECKS 010.4425.5315 162.00
97265 09/0S/00 01S330 CA. ST. DEPT. OF JUSTICE F/PRINT CHECKS 010.4301. 5315 S1. 00 275.00
97266 09/0S/00 101934 CALIFORNIA UTILITY EQUI METROTECH MODEL S10/ACCESS 640.4712.6201 1,747.99
97266 09/0S/00 101934 CALIFORNIA UTILITY EQUI METROTECH MODEL S10/ACCESS 612.4610.6201 1,747.9S 3,495.97
97267 09/0S/00 101739 LUKE CAYWOOD S/BALL SCORER-CAYWOOD 010.4424.5352 2S.00 2S.00
9726S 09/0S/00 02191S CENTRAL COAST SUPPLY RESTROOM SUPPLIES 010.4420.5605 75.29 75.29
97269 09/0S/00 024102 COAST GRAPHIC SUPPLY GRAPHLINE FILM-SUPPLIES 010.4102.5255 .,1):15 79.15
97270 09/0S/00 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220.4303.5307 79. ()O
97270 09/0S/00 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220.4303.5307 60.25
97270 09/0S/00 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220.4303.5307 12.00 151.25
97271 09/0S/00 101957 RICK CONRADI REF.CIM CARD-CONRADI 010.0000.4602 19.25 19.25
97272 09/0S/00 0262S6 CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL LAB WELL #5 BACTERIA SAMPLES 640.4710.5310 40.00 40.00
97273 09/0S/00 026676 ROBERTO CRUZ MSA CONF-CRUZ 220.4303.5501 SO.OO SO.OO
97274 09/0S/00 026754 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER C BOTTLED WATER-C.M. 010.4101. 5201 23.34
97274 09/0S/00 026754 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER C BOTTLED WATER-C.D. 010.4130.5201 23.33
97274 09/0S/00 026754 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER C BOTTLED WATER-FIN. 010.4120.5201 23.33
97274 09/0S/00 026754 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER C BOTTLED WATER-COUNCIL CHAMS 010.4001. 5201 20.00
97274 09/0S/00 026754 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER C BOTTLED WATER-P.W. 010.4301. 5201 20.00 110.00
97275 09/0S/00 101S44 CSK AUTO. INC. SPARK PLUG/RAD.CAP-F 103 010.4211.5601 13.5S 13.5S
97276 09/0S/00 101779 CTE COMPUTER TRAINING C ACCESS 97 INT-L.REARDON-SMITH 010.4140.5501 149.00 149.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 2
09/07/00 11:04 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 16
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
97277 09/08/00 101969 DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIA COPIER LEASE PMT-REF.093791 010.4421. 5303 . 196.15 196.15
97278 09/08/00 101910 JEREMY DE LOS SANTOS S/BALL SCORER-J.DELOS SANTOS 010.4424.5352 35.00 35.00
97279 09/08/00 101716 JIM DECECCO S/BALL UMP-DECECCO 010.4424.5352 32.00 32.00
97280 09/08/00 029562 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY P/GROUND CRAFT/SAND 010.4422.5256 282.28
97280 09/08/00 029562 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY CIM CRAFT/SPORT EQUIP 010.4425.5255 713.59 995.87
97281 09/08/00 100956 DOKKEN ENGINEERING ENGR SVCS-BRISCO/HALC/101 350.5615.7701 187.50 187.50
97282 09/08/00 030584 DEBI DYKZEUL S/BALL SCORER-DYKZEUL 010.4424.5352 21. 00 21. 00
97283 09/08/00 100709 EDEN SYSTEMS EDEN CONF-HUWALDT 010.4120.5501 300.00 300.00
97284 09/08/00 100217 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO TITLE RPT-F.OAKS/VALLEY 350.5636.7501 360.00
97284 09/08/00 100217 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO TITLE RPT-F.OAKS/VALLEY 350.5636.7501 360.00 720.00
97285 09/08/00 101924 J.A. FISCHER,INC. 55 GAL 15X40 RECYLED OIL 010.4305.5255 277.10 277 .10
97286 09/08/00 100691 FIVE CITIEscTIMES ORD.#516 C.S. 010.4002.5301 49.50 49.50
97287 09/08/00 101963 TAFIANNE GARDNER REF.CIM CARD-GARDNER 010.0000.4602 23.75 23.75
97288 09/08/00 037206 GIBBS INTERNATIONAL TRU SVC AIR CONDIT-1990 VANPELT 010.4211.5601 221. 66
97288 09/08/00 037206 GIBBS INTERNATIONAL TRU KNOBKIT 010.4211.5601 22.28 243.94
97289 09/08/00 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-C.M. 010.4101.5403 32.43
97289 09/08/00 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-FIRE 010.4211. 5403 22.45
97289 09/08/00 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-FIRE DEPT 010.4211. 5403 19.03
97289 09/08/00 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-SPORT FAC. 010.4430.5605 4.37 78.28
97290 09/08/00 100204 IMPACT SCIENCES RODEO HEIGHTS EIR 010.0000.2706 1,931.35
97290 09/08/00 100204 IMPACT SCIENCES ARROYO LINDA EIR 010.0000.2431 2,624.46
97290 09/08/00 100204 IMPACT SCIENCES ARROYO LINDA EIR 010.0000.2431 3,483.30 8,039.11
97291 09/08/00 046176 J JOS FOOD COMPANY CANDIDATE ORIENTAT.MTG EXP 010.4001. 5504 9.86
97291 09/08/00 046176 J JOS FOOD COMPANY COFFEE 010.4211.5255 19.98 29.84
97292 09/08/00 101604 BARBIE JONES MILEAGE-B. JONES 010.4425.5303 24.79
97292 09/08/00 101604 BARBIE JONES REIMB CIM SUPPLIES-JONES 010.4425.5255 154.93
97292 09/08/00 101604 BARBIE JONES REIMB CIM SNACK-JONES 010.4425.5259 252.92 432.64
97293 09/08/00 101960 MARK LACOUAGUE DISPATCHER UPDATE-LACOUAGUE 010.4201.5501 142.00 142.00
97294 09/08/00 101320 LEBARDoS MICROAGE LASER PRINTER REPR-HP3 010.4120.5602 239.00 239.00
97295 09/08/00 100985 DOUG LINTNER S/BALL UMP-LINTNER 010.4424.5352 128.00 128.00
97296 09/08/00 101909 M & W PUMPS, INC REPR TO WELL #5 640,4711.5603 10,269.57 10,269.57
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 3
09/07/00 11:04 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 16
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
97297 09/08/00 057174 MISSION OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4211.5201 113.56
97297 09/08/00 057174 MISSION OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 284.4103.5201 36.63
97297 09/08/00 057174 MISSION OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 612.4610.5201 21.45 171 . 64
97298 09/08/00 057272 MIKE MITCHELL S/BALL UMP-M.MITCHELL 010.4424.5352 64.00 64.00
97299 09/08/00 058890 RICHARD MUNOZ S/BALL UMP-R.MUNOZ 010.4424.5352 128.00 128.00
97300 09/08/00 060642 NAT'L NOTARY ASSOC. NOTARY RENEWAL-WETMORE 010.4002.5501 100.00
97300 09/08/00 060642 NAT'L NOTARY ASSOC. NOTARY SUPPLIES 010.4002.5503 159.09 259.09
97301 09/08/00 101961 DAN PACE REF.PRE-APPL- LOT 184 010.0000.4511 300.00 300.00
97302 09/08/00 066690 PITNEY BOWES POSTAGE METER RENTAL 010.4101.5602 311.61 311.61
97303 09/08/00 066924 PLAQUE SHAQUE TROPHIES-PINE WOOD DERBY 010.4425.5255 53.09 53.09
97304 09/08/00 067548 POOR RICHARD'S PRESS PRINT SVCS-BUS.CARDS-COSGROVE 010.4102.5306 19.84 19.84
97305 09/08/00 067890 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION,IN OXYGEN CYLINDERS 010.4211.5206 16.74 16.74
97306 09/08/00 069576 RADIO SHACK PHONE PLUGS/RELAY 010.4211.5603 9.62 9.62
97307 09/08/00 101967 TONY RAMOS REF CIM CARD-RAMOS 010.0000.4602 14.75 14.75
97308 09/08/00 101968 JULIA RAYBONLD-RODGERS REF.CIM CARD-R.RODGERS 010.0000.4602 63.00 63.00
97309 09/08/00 101970 RECR.ADMIN DISCRETIONAR SHARE FAIRE-CAL POLY 010.4421. 5501 125.00 125.00
97310 09/08/00 101971 K.J. & BARBARA RISLEY REF.L/SCAPE BOND-231 TRINITY 010.0000.2210 1,200.00 1,200.00
97311 09/08/00 101964 AMBER RIVERA REF.CIM CARD-RIVERA 010.0000.4602 36.00 36.00
97312 09/08/00 071682 GREG ROSE S/BALL UMP-G.ROSE 010.4424.5352 32.00 32.00
97313 09/08/00 077024 ANN SARMIENTO S/BALL SCORER-SARMIENTO 010.4424.5352 42.00 42.00
97314 09/08/00 077572 SCHOOL SPECIALTY,INC. PRE-SCHOOL SUPPLIES 010.4423.5253 51.46 51.46
97315 09/08/00 100124 SLO CNTY OFFICE OF EDUC EMP.F/PRINT-ZIGELMAN/MEJIA 010.4201. 5315 24.00
97315 09/08/00 100124 SLO CNTY OFFICE OF EDUC F/PRINT-FEAR/SCURI/WEST/SIMON 010.4425.5315 48.00
97315 09/08/00 100124 SLO CNTY OFFICE OF EDUC F/PRINT-WILLOUGHBY 010.4120.5315 12.00 84.00
97316 09/08/00 101962 BRENDA SMYTH REF. PLAYGROUND-SMYTH 010.0000.4601 6.00 6.00
97317 09/08/00 080340 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORP QUI CK TEMP GAGE 010.4305.5273 10.99 10.99
97318 09/08/00 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT SEWER HOOKUPS-7/00 760.0000.2305 1,400.00
97318 09/08/00 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT SEWER SVC COLL-7/00 760.0000.2304 51,260.13
97318 09/08/00 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 7-1 SAN DIST-214 E BRANCH 010.4145.5401 19.63
97318 09/08/00 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 7-1 SAN DIST-215 E BRANCH 010.4145.5401 13.47
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 4
09/07/00 11:04 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 16
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
97318 09/08/00 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 7-1 SAN DIST-208 E BRANCH 010.4145.5401 13.47
97318 09/08/00 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 7-1 SAN DIST-211 VERNON 010.4145.5401 13 .47
97318 09/08/00 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 7-1 SAN DIST-140 7RAF WAY 010.4145.5401 13 .47
97318 09/08/00 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 7-1 SAN DIST-STSROTHER R/R 010.4145.5401 13.47
97318 09/08/00 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 1-6/00 HANDLING-ACCTS 010.0000.4753 4,343.04-
97318 09/08/00 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 1-6/00 HANDLING-HOOKUPS 010.0000.4753 66.00- 48,338.07
97.319 09/08/00 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY WASHER SOLVENT 010.4211. 5601 3.20
97319 09/08/00 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY BRAKE DISK-F312 010.4211.5601 60.38 63.58
97320 09/08/00 081432 BOB SPEAR S/BALL UMP-B.SPEAR 010.4424.5352 48.00 48.00
97321 09/08/00 082134 STATEWIDE SAFETY & SIGN CONSTR.DELINEATION FLAGS 220.4303.5613 497.75 497.75
97.322 09/08/00 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS RADIO CARRY CASE 010.4211. 5603 10.67
97322 09/08/00 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS SPECTRA CABLE/HIROSE ADAPTER 010.4211.5603 354.47 365.14
97323 09/08/00 082486 STEWARD CO GLUE PAD/PAD ADHESIVE 010.4102.5255 28.54 28.54
97.324 09/08/00 083382 SUPERIOR QUALITY COPIER TONER/OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4101. 5201 156.59 156.59
97325 09/08/00 085664 TOM TOTH S/BALL UMP-TOTH 010.4424.5352 96.00 96.00
97326 09/08/00 101429 UNILAB PRE-EMP.PHYSICAL-S.BRANDT 010.4301. 5315 367.50 367.50
97327 09/08/00 088084 UNITED GREEN MARK,INC. HUNTER PLS/COUPLING 010.4430.5605 56.27
97327 09/08/00 088084 UNITED GREEN MARK,INC. FITTINGS-SSC 010.4430.5605 26.87
97327 09/08/00 088084 UNITED GREEN MARK,INC. RAINBIRD 12"/PLS NOZ 010.4420.5605 42.95 126.09
97328 09/08/00 087398 USA BLUE BOOK VENT HOSE-LIFT STA ENTRY 612.4610.5610 117.10 117.10
97.329 09/08/00 101939 VENTURA COLLEGE DISPATCHER UPDATE-LACOUAGUE 010.4201. 5501 17.00 17.00
97330 09/08/00 101866 VERIZON WIRELESS MESSAG CELL PHONE-FIRE CHIEF 010.4211.5403 1.03 1. 03
97.331 09/08/00 101966 DANA VICARS REF.CIM CARD-VICARS 010.0000.4602 22.50 22.50
97.332 09/08/00 091026 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR. CA CODE UPDATES/CD ROM 010.4003.5503 137.28 137.28
97.333 09/08/00 101965 SARAH WHITLEY REF.CIM CARD-WHITLEY 010.0000.4602 13.50 13.50
97334 09/08/00 092274 STEVE WHITNEY MILEAGE REIMB-WHITNEY 010.4211.5501 106.24 106.24
97335 09/08/00 101119 WILDFIRE PACIFIC,INC. 4" X 100' SUPPLY HOSE 010.4211.6201 2,602.38 2,602.38
97336 09/08/00 100431 WILLARD PAPER CO PAPER/ENVELOPES 010.4102.5255 471. 40
97336 09/08/00 100431 WILLARD PAPER CO PAPER 010.4102.5255 394.14
97336 09/08/00 100431 WILLARD PAPER CO PAPER 010.4102.5255 197.07
97336 09/08/00 100431 WILLARD PAPER CO PAPER/WINDOW ENVELOPES 010.4102.5255 387.02
97336 09/08/00 100431 WILLARD PAPER CO COPY PAPER 010.4102.5255 227.37
97336 09/08/00 100431 WILLARD PAPER CO PAPER/ENVELOPES 010.4102.5255 377.93
--
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 5
09/07/00 11:04 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 16
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
97336 09/08/00 100431 WILLARD PAPER CO COPY PAPER/ENVELOPES 010.4102.5255 340.42 2,395.35
97337 09/08/00 092586 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COM SIGNAL MAINT-6/00 010.4304.5303 1,212.75
97337 09/08/00 092586 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COM SIGNAL MAINT-7/00 010.4304.5303 1,212.75 2,425.50
TOTAL CHECKS 92,181.16
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 6
09/07/00 11:04 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 16
FUND TITLE AMOUNT
010 GENERAL FUND 23,047,15
220 STREETS FUND 1,468.28
284 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND 36,63
350 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 907.50
612 SEWER FUND 1,886.53
640 WATER FUND 12,174.94
760 SANITATION DISTRIBUTION FUND 52,660.13
TOTAL 92,181.16
ATTACHMENT 4
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION
PAY PERIOD 8/18 TO 8/31/00
09/08/00
FUND 010 227,780.61 Salaries Full time 135,707.68
FUND 220 10,830.12 Salaries Part-Time 30,520.68
FUND 284 4,417.20 Salaries Over-Time 10,317.65
FUND 612 4,069.64 Holiday Pay 5,354.53
FUND 640 10,627.06 Sick Pay 4,060.88
257,724.63 Annual Leave Pay -
Vacation Pay 9,673.14
Comp Pay 4,574.88
Annual Leave Pay 2,205.18
PERS Retirement 14,900.63
Social Security 14,437.55
PARS Retirement 266.76
State Disability Ins. 504.29
Health Insurance 19,643.43
Dental Insurance 3,584.79
Vision Insurance 765.56
Life Insurance 532.00
Long Term Disability -
Uniform Allowance -
Car Allowance 200.00
Council Expense 375.00
Employee Assistance -
Uniform Allowance
Motor Pay 100.00
Total: 257,724.63
ATTACHl-lliNT 5
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 1
09/14/00 13: 30 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 16
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
284 09/01/00 098550 PER S PERS ADJ 1-00-3 P/R 011.0000.2106 290.69
284 09/01/00 098550 PER S PERS ADJ 1-00-4 P/R 011.0000.2106 369.41 660.10
285 09/01/00 101589 CALPERS CITY HEALTH 9/200 ADJ 011.0000.2109 37,743.10 37,743.10
286 09/05/00 062018 OFFICE DEPOT LAPTOP/CASE 010.4140.6101 1,228.21 1,228.21
287 09/05/00 100905 TONY M. FERRARA LOCC ANNUAL CONF-FERRARA 010.4001.5501 160.00 160.00
288 09/05/00 101072 JIM DICKENS LOCC ANNUAL CONF-DICKENS 010.4001. 5501 655.25 655.25
289 09/06/00 101738 KERRY MCCANTS LOCC ANNUAL CONF-MCCANTS 010.4130.5501 303.50 303.50
290 09/06/00 100271 LYNDA SNODGRASS LOCC ANNUAL CONF-SNODGRASS 010.4120.5501 154.00 154.00
291 09/06/00 100758 DON SPAGNOLO LOCC ANNUAL CONF-SPAGNOLO 640.4710.5501 154.00 154.00
292 09/07/00 005616 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE G.A.REIMB 8-31-00 P/R 011.0000.1015 193,773.29 193,773.29
293 09/08/00 100069 MARY BASSETT LIEBERT CASSIDY TRAINING EXP 010.4101. 5501 102.53 102.53
294 09/08/00 101690 COMPUTER STUFF 16 PORT HUB FOR CITY NETWORK 010.4140.5602 252.04 252.04
295 09/11/00 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 010.4304.5402 44.70
295 09/11/00 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 010.4304.5402 967.09
295 09/11/00 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 640.4712.5402 209.20
295 09/11/00 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 640.4711.5402 10,407.28
295 09/11/00 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 612.4610.5402 758.36
295 '09/11/00 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 010.4145.5401 5,802.35 18,188.98
296 09/11/00 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 473-0379 010.4145.5403 88.26
296 09/11/00 063960 PACIFIC BELL FAX 473-0386 010.4145.5403 19.32
296 09/11/00 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 473-1935 010.4145.5403 34.67
296 09/11/00 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 473-2041 010.4145.5403 21. 00
296 09/11/00 063960 PACIFIC BELL FAX 473-2198 010.4145.5403 74.64
296 09/11/00 063960 PACIFIC BELL PHONES 473-5100 010.4145.5403 612.98
296 09/11/00 063960 PACIFIC BELL DATA LINE 473-5141 010.4145.5403 367.89
296 09/11/00 063960 PACIFIC BELL PHONES 473-5400 010.4145.5403 1,356.94
296 09/11/00 063960 PACIFIC BELL PHONE 481-6944 010.4201.5403 128.59 2,704.29
297 09/11/00 101499 R. BURKE CORPORATION FAIR OAKS/TALLY HO OVERLAY 350.5630.7001 82,064.97
297 09/11/00 101499 R. BURKE CORPORATION FAIR OAKS/TALLY HO OVERLAY 350.5631.7001 61,908.66 143,973.63
97350 09/15/00 101972 LYNN AINSWORTH REF.CIM CARD-AINSWORTH 010.0000.4602 62.00 62.00
97351 09/15/00 101958 AMERICAN BENEFIT SERVIC LASERFICHE S/WARE & HDWE 272 .4201.6101 19,237.65 19,237.65
97352 09/15/00 100069 MARY BASSETT REFRESHMENTS-INTRO C.M. 010.4101. 5201 99.90 99.90
97353 09/15/00 018486 CA. ST. DEPT OF PESTICID QUAL.APPL.CERTIF #22648-CRUZ 220.4303.5503 30.00 30.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 2
09/14/00 13:30 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 16
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
97354 09/15/00 014508 CALIF.APPLIED TECHNOLOG CALIBRATE RADAR EQUIP 010.4201. 5603 300.00 300.00
97355 09/15/00 016692 CALIF.PEACE OFFICER'S A CA. LAW ENF . JOURNAL SUBSCR. 010.4201. 5503 20.00 20.00
97356 09/15/00 101283 CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC SUP ELECTRIC CORD SUPPLIES 010.4201. 5604 25.00 25.00
97357 09/15/00 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET 924 ADHESIVE 010.4201. 5601 23.60 23.60
97358 09/15/00 023634 CLASSIC TEES & SIGNS STAFF T-SHIRTS 010.4425.5255 126.29 126.29
97359 09/15/00 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DISPOSAL 220.4303.5303 12.00 12.00
97360 09/15/00 026442 CROCKER'S LOCKERS STORAGE UNIT RENT TO 10/01 010.4201. 5553 1,815.00 1,815.00
97361 09/15/00 026832 CUESTA EQUIPMENT CO BARREL PUMP 010.4305.5255 49.36 49.36
97362 09/15/00 076848 LENNY DE LOS SANTOS ADULT TENNIS-DE LOS SANTOS 010.4424.5351 155.40 155.40
97363 09/15/00 100905 TONY M. FERRARA LOCC ANNUAL CONF-FERRARA 010.4001. 5501 160.00 160.00
97364 09/15/00 035802 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY INC DUPLICATE KEYS-P402 010.4305.5255 6.44
97364 09/15/00 035802 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY INC DUPLICATE KEYS-P16 010.4305.5255 6.44 12.88
97365 09/15/00 100700 G & M MOBILE SERVICE 2 STROBE LIGHTS-PW 27 220.4303.5601 277.35 277 . 35
97366 09/15/00 101978 GLM LANDSCAPE MANAGEMEN WEED ABATEMENT 010.4211.5599 160.00 160.00
97367 09/15/00 101977 BOB GRISWALD LANDSCAPE BOND-277 JAMES WAY 010.0000.2210 1,200.00 1,200.00
97368 09/15/00 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-CODE ENF. 010.4301.5403 50.35
97368 09/15/00 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE 010.4201.5403 66.07
97368 09/15/00 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE 010.4201. 5403 23.21
97368 09/15/00 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE 010.4201. 5403 15.99
97368 09/15/00 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE 010.4201. 5403 23.49
97368 09/15/00 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE 010.4201.5403 18.34
97368 09/15/00 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE 010.4201. 5403 15.99
97368 09/15/00 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE 010.4201. 5403 19.04
97368 09/15/00 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONES-PATROL CAR 010.4201. 5403 307.84 540.32
97369 09/15/00 100516 VENEE HETRICK PARK DEP REF-HETRICK 010.0000.4354 25.00 25.00
97370 09/15/00 039584 HPC/EAGLE ENERGY DTE 26 PUMP OIL 640.4711.5603 133.42 133.42
97371 09/15/00 101848 INVENSYS METERING SYSTE ACTPAKS-WEEL 1, 3 & 4 640.4712.5611 377.61 377.61
97372 09/15/00 048516 KEYLOCK SECURITY SPECIA HON CABINET LOCK 010.4201.5201 25.45 25.45
97373 09/15/00 053118 LUCIA MAR UN.SCH.DIST. BUS TRANSP-ATAS.ZOO 7/6 010.4425.5303 261.44
97373 09/15/00 053118 LUCIA MAR UN.SCH.DIST. BUS TRANSP-FLIPPOS SKATE 010.4425.5303 182.40
97373 09/15/00 053118 LUCIA MAR UN. SCH. DIST . BUS TRANSP-FESTIVAL CINEMAS 010.4425.5303 30.40 474.24
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 3
09/14/00 13: 30 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 16
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
97374 09/15/00 101973 MARIANA MARQUEZ REF.C/B DEP-MARQUEZ 010.0000.4353 250.00
97374 09/15/00 101973 MARIANA MARQUEZ C/B CLEANING EXP-MARQUEZ 010.0000.4353 25.41- 224.59
97375 09/15/00 101974 WYNELL MARTINEZ REF.CIM CARD-MARTINEZ 010.0000.4602 9.00 9.00
97376 09/15/00 056628 MID STATE BANK-MASTERCA GASOLINE 010.4201. 5608 134.70
97376 09/15/00 056628 MID STATE BANK-MASTERCA TRAINING EXPENSES 010.4201.5501 30.58
97376 09/15/00 056628 MID STATE BANK-MASTERCA MTG W/CHP ASST CHIEF 010.4101. 5501 36.50
97376 09/15/00 056628 MID STATE BANK-MASTERCA OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4201.5201 125.50 327.28
97377 09/15/00 056550 MID-STATE BANK DELUXE CHECKS/CHECKBOOK 010.4201. 5201 136.06 13 6 . 06
97378 09/15/00 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAKE 951 L/O/F 010.4201. 5601 27.32
97378 09/15/00 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAKE 941 L/O/F/BRAKES/ROTORS/BATT 010.4201. 5601 361. 69 389.01
97379 09/15/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE HOOKS AND CHAINS 010.4305.5255 65.19
97379 09/15/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE CR: CAULK/SEALER 640.4712.5604 11.65-
97379 09/15/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE SPACKLE/FURN.POLISH 010.4213.5604 11.78
97379 09/15/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PLUMBING SUPPLIES 010.4211.6201 6.69
97379 09/15/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE ELECTR.OUTLET PARTS 010.4211.6201 11. 87
97379 09/15/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE OVEN SPRAY 010.4213 .5604 4.29
97379 09/15/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE GLUE 612.4610.5603 1. 81
97379 09/15/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE MARKING PAINT 640.4712.5610 2.99
97379 09/15/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE HARDWARE FOR WASHER/DRYER 010.4211.6201 6.28
97379 09/15/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PLUMBING SUPPLIES 220.4303.5613 5.58
97379 09/15/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE HOSE/CLAMP 640.4712.5610 50.60
97379 09/15/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PLASTIC TUBE/CLAMP HOSE 612.4610.5603 7.55
97379 09/15/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE HAND TOOL/ACCESS 010.4211.5273 2.67
97379 09/15/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE GLUE 220.4303.5613 4.28
97379 09/15/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE CAULK SILICONE/OIL 220.4303.5613 68.65
97379 09/15/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE FENCE SUPPLIES 010.4430.5605 22.48
97379 09/15/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE POOL CHE:M TABS 640.4712.5274 16.61 277.67
97380 09/15/00 057174 MISSION OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 220.4303.5201 34.75 34.75
97381 09/15/00 101116 NEW TIMES JOB AD-TEACHER 010.4421. 5316 58.50 58.50
97382 09/15/00 101665 ONEMAIN.COM INTERNET SVC TO 9/20/00 010.4140.5607 46.90 46.90
97383 09/15/00 066924 PLAQUE SHAQUE DARE PLAQUES 010.4201. 5504 53.63
97383. 09/15/00 066924 PLAQUE SHAQUE S/BALL LEAGUE TROPHIES 010.4424.5257 611.33 664.96
97384 09/15/00 067548 POOR RICHARD'S PRESS CITATIONS 010.4201.5201 1,224.05
97384 09/15/00 067548 POOR RICHARD'S PRESS COLOR COPIES-MAPS 010.4201. 5201 36.16 1,260.21
97385 09/15/00 067782 DENNIS PORTE PUPPY PLAY SCHOOL-PORTE 010.4424.5351 649.25 649.25
97386 09/15/00 069420 R & T SPECIALTY, INC. DARE REFLECTORS-HEATH 010.4201. 5504 21. 45 21.45
97387 09/15/00 069120 R.H.F.INC. REPL TUNING FORK-RADAR UNIT 010.4201. 5603 38.29 38.29
----".-.---- ..- ----_.---
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 4
09/14/00 13:30 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 16
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
97388 09/15/00 077572 SCHOOL SPECIALTY,INC. PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES 010.4423.5253 53.45 53.45
97389 09/15/00 101306 SERPA PACKAGING SOLUTIO PARK DEP REF-SERPA PACKAGING 010.0000.4354 25.00 25.00
97390 09/15/00 101740 KAREN SISKO LOCC CONF-SISKO 010.4101. 5501 217.00 217.00
97391 09/15/00 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY 2.5 GAL PLASTIC CONTAINER 010.4305.5255 4.28 4.28
97392 09/15/00 080964 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICE 010.4145.5401 26.77
97392 09/15/00 080964 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICE 010.4145.5401 16.59
97392 09/15/00 080964 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICE 010.4145.5401 10.30
97392 09/15/00 080964 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICE 010.4145.5401 42.29
97392 09/15/00 080964 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICE 010.4145.5401 19.72 115.67
97393 09/15/00 101976 SPARKLE JANITORIAL & MA CLEAN CARPET-ELM ST C/B 010.4213.5604 375.00 375.00
97394 09/15/00 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS K9 UNIT-TRUNK SOLENOID KIT 010.4201. 5601 227.54 227.54
97395 09/15/00 084278 TEE'S PLUS DARE PRESENTAT.FLDR-HULGAN 010.4201. 5504 146.50 146.50
97396 09/15/00 100320 TITAN LOGICAL COMPUTERS HDWE & RAM FOR P-S MOTHERBD 272.4201. 6101 305.00 305.00
97397 09/15/00 088424 URBAN FUTURES INC. ARROYO LINDA REPORT PREP 284.0000.2458 5,025.00 5,025.00
97398 09/15/00 101121 TOM VIOLA LANDSCAPE BOND-560 DOS CERROS 010.0000.2210 1,200.00 1,200.00
97399 09/15/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. BIKEWAY PROJ.ONE 350.5606.7301 45.00
97399 09/15/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. CREEKSIDE PATH 350.5607.7301 8,841.68
97399 09/15/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. OAK PK BLVD WIDENING 350.5609.7301 265.00
97399 09/15/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. PAVEMENT MGMT SYSTEM 350.5613.7701 867.80
97399 09/15/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. BRISCO/101 INTERCHANGE ALTS 350.5615.7301 292.90
97399 09/15/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. WL CAMPO/101 INTERCHANGE ALTS 350.5616.7301 455.20
97399 09/15/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. TRAFF.WY CURB/GUTTER 350.5625.7501 220.00
97399 09/15/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. RTE 227 RELINQUISH STUDY 350.5628.7701 328.75
97399 09/15/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. FAIR OAKS RECON/VALLEY-TRAFF 350.5630.7301 7,467.11
97399 09/15/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. TALLY HO RECON/227-LEPOINT 350.5631.7001 635.12
97399 09/15/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. TALLY HO RECON/227-LEPOINT 350.5631.7301 6,316.91
97399 09/15/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. FAIR OAKS/VALLEY TRAFF.SIG. 350.5636.7501 1,394.48
97399 09/15/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. TRAFFIC LIGHT AT HALCYON 350.5637.7501 577.27
97399 09/15/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. SPRUCE ST. SIDEWALK 350.5641.7501 62.50
97399 09/15/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. NEWSOM SPRINGS 350.5754.7701 231.25
97399 09/15/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. SEWER MASTER PLAN 350.5813.7701 730.00
97399 09/15/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. RES.#l DESIGN 350.5903.7501 657.55
97399 09/15/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. GENERAL CONSULTING 010.4301. 5303 18,566.90 47,955.42
97400 09/15/00 092274 STEVE WHITNEY BIKE TUBE 010.4211.5206 17.68
97400 09/15/00 092274 STEVE WHITNEY BIKE BAG 010.4211.5206 48.20 65.88
TOTAL CHECKS 485,249.05
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 5
09/14/00 13:30 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 16
FUND TITLE AMOUNT
010 GENERAL FUND 42,602.37
011 PAYROLL CLEARING FUND 232,176.49
220 STREETS FUND 432.61
272 CA LAW ENFORCMT TCHNLGY EQUIP. 19,542.65
284 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND 5,025.00
350 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 173,362.15
612 SEWER FUND 767.72
640 WATER FUND 11,340.06
TOTAL 485,249.05
..b.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2000
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Mayor Lady called the meeting to order at 6:34 P.M. Mayor Pro Tern Ferrara, Council
Members Runels, Dickens, Tolley, and City Attorney Carmel were present.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
2. CLOSED SESSION:
Mayor Lady announced that the Council was going to meet in closed session to discuss the
following matter:
(a) CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Government Code
Section 54957.6:
Agency Negotiator: Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney
Unrepresented Employees: Police Chief
3. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Lady announced that there was no reportable action from the closed session.
4. ADJOURNMENT TO REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:19 P.M. to the regular City Council meeting of September 12,
2000.
MICHAEL A. LADY, Mayor
ATTEST:
KELL Y WETMORE, Director of Administrative Services/Deputy City Clerk
~..._---- ---.----.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2000
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Lady called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:20 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
City Council: Redevelopment Agency:
X Mayor Lady X Chair Lady
X Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara X Vice Chair Ferrara
X Council Member Runels X Board Member Runels
X Council Member Tolley X Board Member Tolley
X Council Member Dickens X Board Member Dickens
Staff Present:
-X-City Manager
-X-Chief of Police
-X-City Attorney
lLJ)irector of Administrative Services
_Director of Building and Fire
-X-Director of Community Development
-X-Director of Economic Development
lLJ)irector of Public Works
_Director of Parks, Recreation, and Facilities
-X-Director of Financial Services
3. FLAG SALUTE
The Arroyo Grande Lions Club led the flag salute.
4. INVOCATION
Pastor Vince Llamas, New Life Community Church, Pismo Beach, delivered the
invocation.
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
5.a. PROCLAMATION - uNA TIONAL POLLUTION PREVENTION WEEK""
Tim Fuhs, representing the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District,
accepted the Proclamation.
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 12, 2000
5.b. Mayor Lady introduced Steven Adams as the new City Manager. He called a
break at 7:35 p.m. to hold a brief reception to welcome Mr. Adams to the City.
The Council/RDA reconvened at 7:45 p.m.
6. AGENDA REVIEW
6.a. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES READ IN TITLE ONLY
Council Member Runels moved, Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara seconded, and the
motion passed unanimously that all resolutions and ordinances presented at the
meeting shall be read in title only and all further reading be waived.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7.a. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 2265 AMENDMENT 00-001 REGARDING THE UNDERGROUNDING OF
PUBLIC UTILITIES: VILLAGE GLEN
Council Member Tolley declared a conflict of interest as a result of real property
owned near the project and stepped down from the dais.
Community Development Director McCants highlighted the staff report and stated
that staff recommended the City Council adopt a resolution upholding the
decision of the Planning Commission of July 18, 2000 to deny Tentative Tract
map 2265 Amendment 00-001.
Mayor Lady opened the Public Hearing.
Gary Young, 2850 Mesa Alta Lane, project applicant, displayed an overhead
showing the utility poles near Lot 15 of Tract 2265 for re~erence purposes. He
referred to power poles 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the picture and stated the poles were not
on their property. He stated that pole 4 was located about 12-13 feet away from
their property serving eight homes. He explained that pole 4 was not in question
as it was located outside of the project boundary. Mr. Young stated that it was
pole 3 that they have been requested to take down because it lies within 6 feet of
the project boundaries. He referred to the conditions in Development Code
Section 9-15.050 requiring above ground utilities to be placed underground and
read them into the record. He said subsection A.4. requires undergrounding of
utilities located along or within six feet of the rear or side lot lines of the property
to be developed. He said he thought the intent of the provision was that if there
were a pole on your property within six feet of the boundary, you would be
required to underground it. He said he was being requested to underground pole
3, which was not on his property, and he would have to secure easements from
other property owners to go onto their property. He concluded by stating that it
would be a burden to require underground placement of the poles on the other
properties.
2
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 12, 2000
Joseph Sullivan, a resident near the proposed project, asked if the contractor had
the right to change the topography of the earth to suit the builder. He explained
that there was a portion of land on James Way that had been raised significantly,
blocking the views of the mountains from the homes across the street.
Director Spagnolo responded that the developer was allowed to change the
topography of the existing ground in accordance with the grading ordinance.
Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Lady closed the Public Hearing.
Council Member Dickens asked staff about the interpretation of Development
Code Section 9-15.050.
Director McCants replied that staff's interpretation was that anyone of the four
conditions required that the utilities be placed underground and that is how the
ordinance has consistently been applied.
Council Member Dickens referred to written communication received by Mr. Shaw
from 295 Canyon Way and asked if he would be involved in any potential
easements that need to be granted.
Director Spagnolo replied he would not.
After clarifying the language in the Development Code, Mayor Pro Tern Ferrara
stated that past practice and application of the Code indicates that if any of the
circumstances exist then utilities will be placed underground.
Following further Council discussion regarding the requirements and
interpretation of the Development Code with respect to placing utilities
underground, there was consensus of the Council to uphold the decision of the
Planning Commission.
Mayor Pro Tern Ferrara moved to adopt a Resolution upholding the decision of
the Planning Commission to deny Tentative Tract Map 2265 Amendment 00-001
and read the title of the Resolution. Council Member Dickens seconded the
motion.
Voice Vote
LRolI Call Vote
Aye Lady
Aye Ferrara
Aye Runels
Absent Tolley
Aye Dickens
3
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 12, 2000
There being 4 AYES, 0 NOES, and 1 ABSENT, the motion is hereby declared to be
passed.
Council Member Tolley returned to the dais.
8. CITIZENS' INPUT. COMMENTS. AND SUGGESTIONS
Richard Venable, 849 Mesa Drive, referred to the City Council's role as the
Redevelopment Agency and distributed an article published by The Tribune on
Saturday, September 9, 2000 entitled "Cities cry 'blight' as excuse to redevelop".
He encouraged the Council to read the article.
9. CONSENT AGENDA
Council Member Dickens requested that Item 9.1. and Item 9.i. be pulled for
discussion.
Council Member Tolley announced that he had a conflict of interest on Agenda
Item 9.i. and would not vote on the item.
9.f. Adoption of an Ordinance of the City of Arroyo Grande Amendina in its
Entirety Chapter 13. Title 5. of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code
Reaardina a Juvenile Nighttime Curfew.
Council Member Dickens referred to the Supplemental Report regarding Item 9.f.
and stated that a request had been made from an individual who wanted to make
public comments regarding the proposed ordinance.
Mayor Lady opened up the discussion for public comments.
Gail Lightfoot, 849 Mesa Drive, spoke about the Juvenile Nighttime Curfew
Ordinance. She stated this was an important issue to her, politically as a
Libertarian and as a candidate for U.S. Senate. She said that the Senate has a lot
of bills that relate to juveniles and there was a movement in this country to isolate
juveniles for special treatment for their protection. . She stated although there
was good will intended, it selects juveniles out by age which was not allowed with
any other age. She said that in this community she did not think it was a
problem. She said that any curfew at any time violates the First and Fourth
Amendments. She said this was a very important issue, which needed to be used
very judiciously and in a positive way.
9.i. Approval of Open Space Agreement for Tract 2265.
Council Member Dickens stated that in response to discussion with staff, a
Supplem~ntal Report had been distributed which modifies paragraph 2(a) of the
Open Space Agreement for Tract 2265. The proposed modification authorizes
agricultural uses which are consistent with the nature and purpose of the
Agreement, such as orchards, vineyards, and non-commercial grazing of cattle,
horses and sheep, subject to compliance with the Development Code.
4
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 12, 2000
Mayor Pro TemNice Chair Ferrara moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 9.a.
through 9.k., with the exception of Item 9.i., with the recommended courses of
action. Council/Board Member Runels seconded the motion. City Attorney
Carmel read the titles of Ordinance No. 517 C.S. and Ordinance No. 518 C.S.
a. Cash Disbursement Ratification. Approved.
b. Statement of Investment Deposits. Approved.
c. Cash Flow Analysis/Approval of Interfund Advance from the Water Facility
Fund. Approved.
d. Minutes of City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting of August 22,
2000. Approved.
e. Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande
Adding Chapter 16, Title 5 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Entitled
"Regulation of the Sale and Distribution of Tobacco Products". Adopted
Ordinance No. 517 C.S.
f. Adoption of an Ordinance of the City of Arroyo Grande Amending in its
Entirety Chapter 13, Title 5, of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code
Regarding a Juvenile Nighttime Curfew. Adopted Ordinance No. 518 C.S.
g. . Economic Vitality Corporation of San Luis Obispo County Agreement.
Approved. .
h. Authorization to Close City Streets and Use City Property for the 63rd
Annual Arroyo Grande Valley Harvest Festival, September 29-30, 2000.
Adopted Resolution No. 3477.
j. Approval of Open Space Agreement for Tract 2207. Approved.
k. Authorization to File a Notice of Completion, Approve Progress Payment
No.1, Notice of Completion and Authorize Release of Retention for Fire
Station Re-roof Project. Approved.
Voice Vote
LRolI Call Vote
City Council Redevelocment Agency
Aye Lady Aye Lady
Aye Ferrara Aye Ferrara
Aye Runels Aye Runels
Aye Tolley Ave Tolley
Aye Dickens Ave Dickens
There being 5 A YES, and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed.
Council Member Dickens moved to approve Consent Agenda Item 9.1. as
amended, with the recommended course of action. Council Member Runels
seconded the motion.
Voice Vote
LRolI Call Vote
5
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 12, 2000
City Council
Aye Lady
Aye Ferrara
Aye Runels
Absent Tolley
Aye Dickens
There being 4 AYES, 0 NOES, and 1 ABSENT, the motion is hereby declared to be
passed.
10. CONTINUED BUSINESS
None.
11. NEW BUSINESS
11.a. RODEO DRIVE: REQUEST FOR SPEED HUMPS
Staff recommended the Council review the Traffic Commission's recommendation
to approve the residents' request to install eight (8) modified speed humps at
various locations between Grace Lane and Mercedes Lane as a traffic calming
measure to address an increase in speed and volume of vehicles on Rodeo Drive.
He explained that the Traffic Commission reviewed the request and has
recommended the City Council approve the request.
Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara asked about the funding issue and what commitments
have been made to next year's Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
Director Spagnolo responded that there are no firm commitments at this time for
next year's CIP. He said there are projects that are in the CIP that are to be
funded in future years.
Mayor Lady opened the Public Hearing.
Larry Greene, 393 Rodeo Drive, spoke in favor of the request for Installation of
speed humps on Rodeo Drive. He explained that the project was. a result of
actions taken by the Council in November 1999 when the Village Glen project
consisting of forty homes and an elementary school was approved. He said the
Council voted unanimously to direct staff to work with the residents along Rodeo
Drive to develop a proposal and funding strategy to mitigate the significant
negative traffic impacts resulting from the development of Village Glen. He
requested that members of the audience in support of the plan stand to
demonstrate support of the plan. He gave a review of the traffic and speed
problems on Rodeo Drive as highlighted in a letter submitted by Rodeo Drive
residents included as Attachment 2 in the staff report.
Ron Dodgen, 182 Rodeo Drive, spoke in favor of the project. He addressed the
process the residents of Royal Oaks have undertaken to resolve the traffic
6
-_.~'.'--
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 12, 2000
problems. He said there were 300-350 hours of meetings with staff involvement
to prepare a plan and get conceptual approval from the Traffic Commission.
Once conceptual approval was received, there was a series of neighborhood
meetings with 88% approval of the plan. He noted for the record that three (3)
individuals on the street originally in favor of the plan have since changed their
position. He spoke about the traffic mitigation goals and reviewed various
options discussed such as Botts dots, speed bumps, police enforcement,
signage, 1-way, cul-de-sac, Grace Lane extension, and modified speed humps.
He explained that previous botts dots installed on the street have had no effect to
mitigate traffic on the street. He described the proposed plan of modified speed
humps with landscaped bulb-outs in the street, addressed budgetary concerns,
and displayed a map showing the proposed location of the speed humps and
landscape planters. He concluded by addressing the concerns about 'traffic
speed, volume, and safety and requested the Council approve the proposed plan.
Maggie Summers, 1470 Newport Avenue, submitted a letter for the record signed
by eleven Newport Avenue residents stating that they are very happy with the
speed humps on their street and that over the past year traffic has calmed and
overall speed has been reduced.
Leslie Brown, 400 Rodeo Drive, spoke in favor of the proposed plan.
Kay Bucalski, 443 Rodeo Drive, spoke in favor of the proposed plan.
Dick Franks, 879 Fair Oaks Avenue, stated he had served 14 years on the Traffic
Commission and has observed traffic on many occasions. He expressed his
opinion that speed humps do not work and will not provide the results that
residents want. He stated that initially, speed humps can be effective, but
cautioned the Council to look at the speeds after one year.
Robin Greene, 393 Rodeo Drive, spoke in favor of the proposed plan and
submitted letters from Don Septnitz, David and Sharon Naccarati - 173 Rodeo
Drive, Susan Stem - 664 Via Vaquero, and Donna Sommer - 177 Avenida de
Diamante, supporting the proposed plan.
Wendell Schultz, 433 Emerald Bay Drive, stated he could support the modified
speed humps; however, he thought the planter boxes are a safety hazard and
very costly. He encouraged the Council to support the speed humps but
cautioned about the landscaped bulb-outs.
Mike Fleming, 1407 Noyes Road, spoke in favor of the proposed plan.
Lavonia Dodgen, 182 Rodeo Drive, spoke in favor of the proposed plan.
Isabel Tellez, 415 Rodeo Drive, spoke in favor of the proposed plan.
Beverly Cosper, Rodeo Drive, spoke in favor of the proposed plan.
7
.------
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 12, 2000
Judith Hughes, 239 Rodeo Drive, addressed the comments about the speed
humps without the bulb-outs. She stated the purpose was to get people to travel
toward the middle of the street. She commented that the bulb-outs were an
essential part of the plan.
Andrea Portney, 425 Emerald Bay Drive, spoke in favor of the proposed plan.
Larry Greene addressed comments regarding the plan without the bulb-outs. He
stated the installation of the entire plan was necessary to ensure success of the
plan.
Council Member Dickens asked Mr. Greene if there had been a selection of trees
yet and whether the irrigation was considered in the potential funding strategy.
Mr. Gree",e replied that the City has a palette of approved street trees and that all
costs are estimates.
Rick Tellez, 415 Rodeo Drive, spoke in favor of the proposed plan.
Carl Alfono, representing J.H. Land Development, spoke about proposed Tract
2236, which includes an extension of Grace Lane. He said he would be happy to
meet with residents regarding the extension of Grace Lane.
Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Lady closed the Public Hearing.
Council Member Tolley commented that he had voted against the speed humps
on Newport Avenue; however, the Council had taken responsibility about traffic
mitigation when it approved the Village Glen project. He stated he could support
the project in next year's CIP Budget.
Council Member Runels asked Chief TerBorch where the majority of traffic
violators in this area were from.
Chief TerBorch replied that on an average weekday, about 70% of those receiving
traffic citations reside in the immediate area.
There was further discussion regarding stop signs as a traffic mitigation
measure; whether there was existing safety data on bulb-outs; the potential for
traffic volume reduction as a result of a future extension of Grace Lane; and the
cost effectiveness of the proposed plan. The Council concurred that the
proposed plan would result in a significant remedy of the existing traffic
problems, commended the residents for their efforts; and indicated that the
project should be included in the FY 2000-01 Capital Improvement Project
Budget.
8
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 12, 2000
Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara moved to accept the Traffic Commission's
recommendation to approve the residents' request to install eight (8) modified
speed humps on Rodeo Drive. Council Member Dickens seconded the motion.
Council Member Tolley asked for clarification in the motion on when the project
would be funded.
Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara amended the motion to accept the Traffic Commission's
recommendation to approve the residents' request to install eight (8) modified
speed humps on Rodeo Drive and that funding for the project be assigned to the
Fiscal Year 2000-01 Capital Improvement Project Budget. Council Member
Dickens seconded the motion.
- Voice Vote
LRolI Call Vote
Aye Lady
Aye Ferrara
Aye Runels
Ave Tolley
Aye Dickens
There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed.
11.b. CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE AND HIGGINS ASSOCIATES FOR.. THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT
UPDATE AND TRAFFIC MODEL
Community Development Director McCants highlighted the staff report. Staff
recommended that the Council approve an agreement in the amount of $51,850
with Higgins Associates.
Council Member Dickens referred to the previous scope of work approved by
Council in October 1997, and asked if the scope of work had been changed and
whether there would be cost savings with the new agreement.
Director McCants stated that the scope of work is essentially the same; however,
he did not think there would be savings in the overall cost of the project due to
time delays and the change of consultants that has occurred. He explained that
the cost difference between the two proposals was that some of the work that the
prior consultant completed would be used by Higgins Associates.
Council Member Dickens asked if the current scope of work for the General Plan
Update is still $308,256.
Director McCants responded that an analysis had not been completed to
determine precisely what the costs would end up being; however, it was
anticipated that the costs would exceed $308,000.
9
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 12, 2000
Council Member Dickens stated for the record that he had a problem with that
and that the scope of work needs to be kept within that contract.
Council Member Runels referred to Exhibit A, Section B. - Available Information
and asked for clarification that traffic circulation issues have been studied on
twelve different occasions.
Director McCants stated that the Circulation Element is a requirement to develop
a viable Land Use Element. He explained that the development of a Circulation
Element is a highly technical engineering function. He said much of the data that
has been developed would be used in this effort.
Mayor Pro Tern Ferrara commented that he would like to see the Level of Service
Policy incorporated into the Circulation Element. He also referred to the Brisco
interchange and clarified that Higgins Associates prepared the traffic study on
Brisco for Dokken Engineering. He spoke of the results of the traffic study and
the creation of the LOS Policy. He suggested that when Higgins Associates
approaches the Brisco issue in the Circulation Element, to use the information
from the original evaluation.
Mayor Pro Tern Ferrara referred to page 11, and asked for interpretation of Task
3A regarding Growth Impacts and Mitigations. He asked if it was the intent to
develop four or five potential land use alternatives ilnd to study each alternative
in terms of traffic impacts. He commented that the best approach would be to
reach a position on land use and then conduct the traffic analysis and model.
Director McCants explained that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
process requires consideration of at least three land use alternatives with the
associated traffic analyses.
Mayor Lady opened up the discussion for public comment, and hearing none,
brought the issue back to the Council for consideration.
Council Member Tolley stated that costs are a concern; however, the City needs
to move forward on this process.
Council Member Runels spoke in favor of moving forward with the process and
approving the agreement.
Council Member Dickens referred to the 1997 Consultant Services Agreement and
asked for a follow-up on the status of the provisions in the Agreement.
City Attorney Carmel said that the consultant is still bound by the Agreement, but
the consultant has raised issues regarding modifications to the scope of work.
10
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 12, 2000
City Manager Adams acknowledged the priorities of the Council regarding the
General Plan Update and stated it was his intent to return to the Council with a
full status report and recommendations as soon as possible.
Mayor Pro Tern Ferrara clarified that the proposed Consultant Services
Agreement was between the City and Higgins Associates and that Envicom was
no longer directly involved in terms of the preparation of the Circulation Element.
Director McCants replied that was correct.
Mayor Pro Tern Ferrara suggested that the City coordinate efforts with Higgins
Associates to start work on issues not associated with land use.
Council Member Runels moved to approve an agreement in the amount of
$51,850 with Higgins Associates.
Mayor Pro Tern Ferrara requested that the motion include that the City monitor
the scope of work; that Higgins Associates rely on their previous work and data
on the Brisco interchange and use that as a baseline study for that portion of the .
contract; and that staff work with Higgins to ensure that the scope of work is
timed properly with the development of the Land Use Map and three land use
alternatives. Council Member Runels agreed to the amended motion. Mayor Pro
Tern Ferrara seconded the motion.
- Voice Vote
lLRolI Call Vote
Ave Lady
Ave Ferrara
Aye Runels
Aye Tolley
Ave Dickens
There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed.
12. COUNCIURDA COMMUNICATIONS
. Mayor Lady referred to correspondence forwarded by Dr. Steve Hansen which
included information from the Children and Families Commission of San Luis
Obispo County regarding the fluoridation of drinking water. Mayor Lady asked
if the Council had any interest in the issue and whether it should be referred to
staff for further research.
Council Members discussed the issue of fluoridated drinking water and
reached consensus not to pursue the matter at this time and directed staff to
respond to the inquiry.
11
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 12, 2000
City Manager Adams suggested that staff come back with information on what
the City is currently doing with regard to fluoridated drinking water and what
the current status is.
Mayor Lady requested that the City Manager follow-up with Dr. Hansen to
inform him of the discussion.
. Council Member Dickens referred to recent media coverage about the truck
traffic issue relating to the Lopez Dam seismic remediation project. He
distributed a draft letter he composed which would be sent to contractors
bidding on the project. He encouraged the Council to take a similar stand on
alternative routes that could be utilized that would not significantly impact the
timeframe of the project and would better protect the Village merchants.
There was extensive dis~ussion regarding the proposed truck route; the
certified Environmental Impact Report for the project; and the mitigation
measures that have been put in place regarding traffic impacts.
Council Member Dickens said his goal in sending the letter was to let the
bidders know what the concerns are in order to negotiate the use of
alternative routes with the contractor who is awarded the bid.
Mayor Pro Tern Ferrara commented that a traffic safety plan was still in the
works that could address some of the concerns. He stated it should be
stressed to the bidders that alternative routes are available and truck drivers
are encouraged to use the routes for safety purposes and to minimize
negative impacts.
Council Member Runels indicated that because the trucks can only travel
through the Village four days per week, they may be utilizing the alternative
routes on the remaining days.
Chief TerBorch stated that at a previous Council meeting, there was
discussion that the City would be actively involved in working on the traffic
safety plan to look at additional mitigation measures.
Mayor Lady stated he supported Council Member Dickens' proposed letter.
Chief TerBorch stated that since this was not an agendized item, Council
could not take any action. He suggested Council Members send their own
individual letters regarding the issue.
. Mayor Pro Tern Ferrara inquired about the partitions that Trader Joe's had
installed.
12
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 12, 2000
Chief TerBorch stated one partition was built to screen the shopping carts and
the other partition was to screen the pallet area. He stated a follow-up memo
on the issue would be forthcoming to Council.
. Mayor Pro Tern Ferrara reported that he had received letters from neighbors
regarding the trash bins located behind the Marshall's,~e and the pallets
being stacked outside by the Office Max store.
13. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
None.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Council Member Dickens moved, Council Member Runels seconded, and the
motion passed unanimously to adjourn the meeting.
Time: 10:43 p.m.
MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR!
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
13
I.c.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ~
SUBJECT: CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE REVIEW
DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached resolution amending the Arroyo
Grande Conflict of Interest Code to update the appendix of designated positions
required to file Statements of Economic Interest.
FUNDING:
There is no fiscal impact.
DISCUSSION:
The California Political Reform Act of 1974 requires local government agencies to adopt
a Conflict of Interest Code ("Code"). The Code designates positions required to file
Statements of Economic Interests and assigns disclosure categories specifying the
types of financial interests to be reported. Further, the Code contains specific
provisions setting forth any circumstances under which designated positions or
categories of designated positions must disqualify themselves from making,
participating in the making, or using their official position to influence the making of any
decision.
Positions mandated by State law to file disclosure statements and not required to be
listed in the Code include Mayors, Members of the City Council, candidates for City
offices, Members of the Planning Commission, City Manager, City Attorney, and City
Treasurer.
In 1987, the City adopted the State's standard Conflict of Interest Code by reference
which, along with the Appendix of Designated Positions and the Appendix of Disclosure
Categories, constitute the City of Arroyo Grande Conflict of Interest Code.
Under the Political Reform Act, local agencies are required to review their Conflict of
Interest Code biennially to determine if it is current and legally sufficient, or if revision is
needed due to changed circumstances, including the creation of new positions, and
Staff Report - Conflict of Interest Code Review
September 26, 2000
Page 2
relevant changes in the duties assigned to existing positions. The City's Code was last
updated in September, 1999.
A revision to the Conflict of Interest Appendix of Designated Positions is required at this
time due to position changes that have been approved by Council since the Code was
last updated. These changes need to be reflected in the Conflict of Interest Code to
ensure that it is current.
Changes made to the Appendix of Designated Positions include the following:
1. The position of Management Assistant has been changed to Human Resources
Manager.
2. The position of Director of Parks and Recreation has been changed to Director of
Parks, Recreation, and Facilities.
3. The position of Deputy Director, Public Works has been changed to Assistant
City Engineer.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the City Council's consideration:
- Adopt the attached resolution;
- Modify as .appropriate and adopt the attached resolution;
- Do not adopt the attached resolution; or,
- Provide direction to staff.
------
RESOLUTION NO. -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE ADOPTING A REVISED CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
INCLUDING AN AMENDED APPENDIX OF DESIGNATED POSITIONS
WHEREAS, the Political Reform Act of 1974 (California Government Code Sections
81000 et. seq., ) requires that governmental entities in the State of California adopt and
promulgate Conflict of Interest Codes; and
WHEREAS, in 1987 the City of Arroyo Grande adopted a standardized Conflict of
Interest Code, incorporating by reference the terms of Title 2 of the California Code of
Regulations, Sections 18730 et. seq., which contain the terms of a Standard Conflict of
Interest Code; an Appendix of Designat~d Positions listing employees, officials, and
consultants who make or participate in the making of decisions that may foreseeably
have a material effect on their financial interests, and an Appendix of Disclosure
Categories assigned to the Designated Positions; and
WHEREAS, the Political Reform Act requires every local agency to review its Conflict of
Interest Code biennially to determine if it is accurate and up-to-date or, to make
amendments to the Code when necessitated by changed circumstances; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to make the following changes to the Appendix of
Designated Positions in the City's Conflict of Interest Code:
1. The position of Management Assistant has been changed to Human
Resources Manager.
2. The position of Director of Parks and Recreation has been changed to
Director .of Parks, Recreation, and Facilities.
3. The position of Deputy Director, Public Works has been changed to Assistant
City Engineer.
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the attached Appendices, marked
"Exhibit A" and "Exhibit B", respectively, both of which are incorporated herein by this
reference, accurately set forth those positions which should be designated and
categories of financial interests which should be disclosed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande does hereby adopt a revised Conflict of Interest Code with the above changes
to the Appendix of Designated Positions; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution supersedes Resolution No. 3396
adopted September 28, 1999.
RESOLUTION NO. _
PAGE 2
On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member ,
and on the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this _ day of September, 2000.
RESOLUTION NO. -
PAGE 3
MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF AMINISTRATIVE SERVICESI
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
~,~~
STE EN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
FOR THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
The Political Reform Act, Government Code Section 81000, et seq., requires state and
local government agencies to adopt and promulgate conflict of interest codes.
The Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted a regulation, 2 California Code of
Regulations Section 18730, which contains the terms of a standard conflict of interest
code. It can be incorporated by reference and may be amended by the Fair Political
Practices Commission after public notice and hearings to conform to amendments in the
Political Reform Act.
Therefore, the terms of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations Section 18730 and
any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission are
hereby incorporated by reference, and along with the attached Appendices in which
members and employees are designated and disclosure categories are set forth,
constitute the conflict of interest code of the City of Arroyo Grande.
Pursuant to Section 4(A) of the standard code, designated employees shall file
statements of economic interests with the City of Arroyo Grande. Upon receipt of the
statements of the designated employees, the Director of Administrative Services/Deputy
City Clerk shall retain the originals and make them available for public inspection.
EXHIBIT "A"
APPENDIX OF DESIGNATED POSITIONS
Designated Positions Assianed Disclosure Cateaories
1. Director of Community Development 1
2. Associate Planner 2
3. Code Enforcement Officer 1
4. Director of Public Works 1
5. Assistant City Engineer 1
6. Public Works Inspector 1
7. Associate Engineer 2
8. Chief Building Inspector 1
9. Building and Fire Safety Inspector 1
10. Director of Building and Fire 1
11. Fire Division Chief 2
12. Police Chief 1
13. Police Commander 2
14. Director of Parks, Recreation, and Facilities 1
15. Director of Financial Services 1
16. Business License Clerk 6
17. Assistant City Attorney 1
18. Director of Economic Development 1
19. Director of Administrative Services 1
20. Human Resources Manager 2
21. Executive Assistant-City Administration 2
22. City Clerk 1
23. Traffic Commission Member 5
24. Downtown Parking Advisory Board Member 6
25. Parks and Recreation Commission Member 5
26. Senior Advisory Commission Member 5
27. Architectural Review Committee Member 5
28. Consultants. 1
* Consultants shall be included in the list of designated employees and shall disclose pursuant
to the broadest category in the code subject to the following limitation:
The City Manager may determine in writing that a particular consultant, although a "designated
position" is hired to perform a range of duties that is limited in scope and thus is not required to
fully comply with the disclosure requirements described in this section. Such written
determination shall include a description of the consultant's duties and, based upon that
description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The City Manager's
determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner
and location as this Conflict of Interest Code.
NOTE: The Mayor, City Council, candidates for City offices, City Manager, City Attorney, City
Treasurer, and members of the Planning Commission are mandated by State law (Government
Code Sections 87200 through 87210) to file their Statements of Economic Interests.
-
"EXHIBIT B"
APPENDIX OF DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
1. Persons in this category must disclose all investments and business positions in
business entities, all sources of income, and all interests in real property. .
2. Persons in this category must disclose all sources of income; business positions in
business entities; investments which pertain to a business entity or activity dealing
with real property,* and all interests in real property.
3. Persons in this category must disclose business positions in business entities;
investments and income which pertain to a business entity or activity dealing with
real property. *
4. Persons in this category must disclose interests in real property where the property
is located within the boundaries of the City; business positions in business entities;
investments, and income from sources which provide services, supplies, materials,
machinery or equipment of the type utilized by the City in any public works project.
5. Persons in this category must disclose interests in real property where the property
is located within the boundaries of the City; business positions in business entities;
investments and income which pertain to a business entity or activity dealing with
real property. *
6. Persons in this category must disclose investments which pertain to a business
entity conducting a business in the City which requires a business license therefor
pursuant to ordinances of the City.
* A Business Entitv or Activity Dealing With Real Property Includes:
The sale, purchase, exchange, lease or rental, financing for its own account or as
a broker of real property, or the development, syndication, subdivision of real
property, or construction thereon, of buildings or structures.
I.d.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL d
FROM: RICK TerBORCH, CHIEF OF POLlC
SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF REPLACEMENT BALLISTIC VESTS
DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the purchase of twenty-eight (28)
Second Chance Body Armor Ultima Ballistic Vests for sworn Police Department
personnel from Adamson Industries for $20,908.32
FUNDING:
Total cost to purchase the vests is $20,908.32. The United States Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance Bulletproof Vest Program will reimburse the City
fifty percent (50%) of the cost for the vests. The net cost to the City for the purchase
will be $10,454.16. This cost is $1,245.84 less than the amount budgeted for this
purchase ($11,700).
DISCUSSION:
As part of the FY 2000-01 City Budget, the City Council authorized the replacement
of ballistic vests for sworn Police Department personnel. Additionally, the purchase
was to be made in conjunction with the United States Department of Justice, Bureau
of Justice Assistance Bulletproof Vest Program which will reimburse the City up to
fifty percent (50%) of the costs for the ballistic vests. The current vests were
purchased in 1994 and now have six (6) years of usage. Ballistic vests are guaranteed
by the manufacturer for five (5) years and, therefore, the industry standard is to
replace these vests after five (5) years of wear.
Staff made application to the Bureau of Justice Assistance Bulletproof Vest Program
(BVP) for funding. As part of the program, the applicant agency is required to
designate a BVP approved ballistic vest from a BVP approved vendor. Staff selected
the Second Chance Body Armor Ultima Ballistic Vest to be supplied by Adamson
Industries. The Ultima Ballistic Vest was selected as a result of the recommendation
from a committee of Police Officers. This committee evaluated several different vests.
Adamson Industries was selected in that it was the only vendor on the BVP approved
list which the City utilizes on a regular basis.
On July 10, 2000, the City's application to the BVP was approved, with a
reimbursement set at a maximum of $10,556.68 (see Attachment A). On
August 4, 2000, the City received notification from the BVP that cities with approved
applications could begin to request reimbursement for purchases. The recommended
purchase of twenty-eight (28) Second Chance Body Armor Ultima Ballistic Vests from
Adamson Industries is $20,908.32, including tax and shipping (see Attachment 8).
AL TERNA TIVES:
The following alternatives are presented for the Council's consideration:
1. Approve staff's recommendation; or
2. Do not approve staff's recommendation.
Attachments:
8VP - Approved Year 2000 Application Notification (Attachment A)
Vest Purchase Cost Details (Attachment 8)
---~_._-----
Page 1 of2
ATTACHMENT A
RICK TERBORCH
From: <vests@ojp.gov>
To: <chief@thegrid.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2000 11 :05 PM
Subject: Bulletproof Vest Program - Approved Year 2000 Application Notification
Bulletproof Vest Program - Approved Year 2000 Application Notification
Date JulIO, 2000
Jurisdiction Name/State ARROYO GRANDE CITY, CA
Jurisdiction Total Application Amount $ 23323.66
Jurisdiction Approved Federal Funding Amount $ 10556.68
Congratulations.
This email serves as official notice that the
Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs,
U.S. Department of Justice, has approved a Year 2000
application under the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act of 1998 (BVP)
for ARROYO GRANDE CITY, in the amount of$10556.68.
National Institute of Justice (NIl) approved vests ordered
on or after March 1, 1999 are eligible for funding.
Once purchased vests have been delivered to
law enforcement agencies, an online receiving repo~
must be completed. The jurisdiction, through its
Internet-based, online handbook, electronically requests
payment from BJA to cover up to 50% of the cost of the
vests received, in accordance with the approved funding level.
Jurisdictions are responsible for ensuring that purchased
vests are in compliance with applicable program standards,
that the invoiced prices do not include unrelated
law enforcement equipment, and that total program payments
do not exceed 50% of the cost of vests purchased
under this program.
Jurisdictions with approved 2000 applications may
request payments beginning August 1,2000. This will
allow sufficient time for BJA to update its records and
ensure the electronic payment process is operating
properly. Jurisdictions with approved 1999
applications may continue to submit payment requests
as needed.
When BJA approves and processes the jurisdiction's request
for funding, funds are electronically transferred from
the U.S. Treasury to the jurisdiction's bank account,
as identified during the online registration process.
A minimum of 25 business days may be required to process
each payment request. Jurisdictions are responsible for
facilitating prompt payment to vest vendors and
ensuring that electronic banking and routing numbers are
correct and accurate in their online BVP profile.
Only law enforcement officers may receive vests through
this program. According to the Act, "law enforcement officer"
means any officer, agent, or employee of a State, unit of local
. 7/11/00
Page 2 of2
government, or an Indian tribe authorized by law
or by a government agency to engage in or supervise the
prevention, detection, or investigation of any violation of
criminal law, or authorized by law to supervise
sentenced criminal offenders. Eligible officers may be
full-time, part-time, paid or volunteer.
Jurisdictions with approved applications must request
federal payments no later than September 30th of the fourth
federal fiscal year following the end of the federal fiscal
year in which their application was approved.
In other words, the jurisdiction has four
years beyond the year of their application to receive vests
and request payments. Jurisdictions may not use both BVP
and Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) funds
to purchase vests during the fiscal year in which the LLEBG
funds were awarded. Payments and transactions may be subject
to audits by the U.S. General Accounting Office,
U.S. Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General
and Office of Justice Programs, state or local government
auditors, or auditors from independent public accounting firms.
Jurisdictions must follow their local procurement policies and
procedures in the purchasing of vests under this program,
including the maintenance of reliable and accurate accounting
systems, record keeping, and systems of internal control.
Recipients of federal funds are expected to retain
documentation supporting all program transactions for at least
three years following the approved application's
final payment request. If any litigation, claim, negotiation,
audit, or other action involving records has been started
before the expiration of the three year period, the records
must be retained until completion of the action and resolution
of all related issues, or until the end of the regular
three year period, whichever is later.
If you require additional information, please address your concerns
to the Bulletproof Vest Program, Bureau of Justice Assistance,
4th floor, 810 7th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20531 or
call the BVP technical support staff
at 1-877-75VESTS (1-877-758-3787).
Thank you.
- 7/11/00
---.,-
SEP-13-2000 05:35 PM CRAIG HENDRICKS 605 461 03~~ P.02
ATTACHMENT B
Arroyo Grande Police Department
Memorandum
To: Chief TerBorch
From: Ofc. Hendricks
Subject: Vest Purchase Cost Details (Reviled Corrected Copy)
Date: 9~ 13-2000
Commander Ferdolage Sergeant Cleaver
Sergeant. . Sanchez Andrews
Sr. Officer Bridge Allen
McBride Sr. Officer Kienly
Hendricks Williams
Chubbuck Officer Pole
Souza Res. Officer Hopkins
Pryor
Officer Beny Above total 7 vesta
Taylor 7 @ 5784.12 - S 5488.84
Checansky
Bromby Omitted: Chief Terborch
Tanneo Cmdr. Wulfing
Beattie Res. Ofc. V. Johnson
Hamilton ZigeJrnan
1. Johnson
Cosgrove Trauma Plates: Hamilton
Res. Officer Cooper DeBlauw
Jensen V. Johnson
DeBlauw
Quezada Above total 3 trauma plates
3 @ 555.28 · S 165.84
Above totl121 vests
21 @ 5659.06 = 513840.26
21 @ 5659.06 = $13840.26
7 @ 5784,12 Ie 5488.84
3 @ 5 55.28- 165.84
Subtotal: 519494.94
Tax @ 7.25% 1413.38
Total Purchase Order 520908.32
Notes: Shipping is included. Difference in vest prices ($659.06 and $784.12) is based on size.
-, - __ m___~
----
~..,r"_ -"...........
9...
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF: PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER ~
SUBJECT: DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM (DBE) FOR
FFY 2000/01
DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
RECOMMENDA TION:
It is recommended the City Council:
A. approve the submittal ofthe Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2000101 DBE Program with
"proposed" Overall Annual DBE Goal to Caltrans by October 1, 2000;
B. direct the Director of Administrative Services to publish a public notice in the local
media in accordance with Section XIV. of the Program; and,
C. direct staff to return to the Council with a summary of public comments and
necessary documentation authorizing the submittal of the FFY 2000101 DBE
Program with "established" Overall Annual DBE Goal to Caltrans by January 1,
2001.
FUNDING:
It is anticipated that the following Federal-aid highway funds will be expended for the City
of Arroyo Grande in FVY 2000101:
. Bridge Street Bridge Replacement (design) - Highway Bridge Replacement and
Rehabilitation Program (HBRR) funds in the amount of $49,600; and,
. Phase" of The Scenic Walk Through the Historic Village of Arroyo Grande
(construction) - Federal Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) funds in the
amount of $244,400.
DISCUSSION:
Each year the City of Arroyo Grande has been required to adopt a Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise (DBE) Program for projects utilizing Federal-aid highway funds. On
September 9, 1999, Caltrans issued a letter to all agencies receiving Federal-aid highway
funds on new Federal DBE requirements. Part 26 has replaced Part 23, Title 49 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), as the final rule binding on all recipients of
Department of Transportation (DOT)-assisted contracts. Previous DBE requirements (49
CFR 23), which the City previously followed for Federal-aid highway funds, are now
superseded by the new regulations (49 CFR 26).
...- .
SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
DISADVANTAGED ENTERPRISES PROGRAM (DBE) FOR FFY 2000/01
PAGE TWO
In the past, the City adopted an overall annual DBE goal consistent with that established
by Caltrans (historically 10%). The new regulations require each local agency to now
establish their own overall annual DBE goal based on a methodology with demonstrable
evidence of local market conditions and designed to ultimately attain a goal that is
rationally related to the relative availability of DBEs in the local agencies' market. The
attached Program utilizes the "bidders list" methodology which essentially determines the
number of DBEs that have bid or quoted on the City's DOT-assisted contracts in the
previous year.
Based on the "bidders list" methodology outlined in Section XIV. of the Program, it was
determined that the City of Arroyo Grande proposes a 7% overall annual DBE goal for FFY
2000101.
AL TERNA TIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Approve staff's recommendations;
- Do not approve staff's recommendations;
- Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendations;
- Provide direction to staff.
Attachments
1. Letter to Caltrans with "proposed" Overall Annual DBE Goal
2. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program for FFY 2000101
3. Public Notice for "proposed" Overall Annual DBE Goal
(City of Arroyo Grande Letterhead) Attachment 1
September 27, 2000
Mr. Jerald T. Gibbs, Local Assistance Engineer
Caltrans District 5
50 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: Proposed Annual Overall Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Goal
Information
Dear Mr. Gibbs:
The amount of overall goal, methodology, breakout of e~timated race-neutral and
race-conscious participation, and any DBE program updates are presented herein in
accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 26, and as described in
the Local Assistance Procedures Manual.
The City of Arroyo Grande submits our annual overall goal information (and any needed
updates of our DBE program) for your review and comment. We propose an annual
overall DBE goal of7% for the Federal Fiscal Year 2000/01, beginning on October 1,2000
and ending on September 30, 2001.
Methodology
The "Utilizing the Bidders List" methodology was used to determine the City of Arroyo
Grande's overall goal for Federal fiscal Year FY 2000/01.
The City of Arroyo Grande elected to utilize the following methodology in establishing the
City of Arroyo Grande's Base Figure of relative DBE availability for FFY 2000101.
For the Numerator: DBE Firms in City of Arrovo Grande's Bidders List
For the Denominator: All Firms in City of Arroyo Grande's Bidders List
The City of Arroyo Grande calculated its weighted Base Figure' by first determining the
number of ready, willing and able DBEs in its FY 1999/00 Bidders List by work category,
and dividing the number of DBEs by the total number of firms in the same work category.
Through this method, the City of Arroyo Grande measured the availability by the number
of firms that have directly participated in, or attempted to participate in, City of Arroyo
Grande's DOT-assisted contracting in FY 1999/00.
Mr. Jerald T. Gibbs
September 27, 2000
Page 2
Application of this formula yields the following baseline information:
Number of Ready. Willing and Able DBE's = BASE FIGURE
Number of All Ready, Willing and Able Firms
The Base Figure resulting from this calculation was determined to be 0%.
As this is the first year the City of Arroyo Grande has used this methodology in determining
its overall annual DBE goal, it was concluded that there was not enough known relevant
evidence at this time to determine the number of ready, willing and able DBEs by work
category. Therefore, the Base Figure for FYV 2000/01 was adjusted by dividing the total
number ready, willing and able DBEs in the City's FY 1999/00 Bidders List by the number
of the total number of firms in the City's FY 1999/00 Bidders List bidders list for FFY
2000/01.
DBE Firms in City of Arroyo Grande's Bidders Ust = BASE FIGURE
All Firms in City of Arroyo Grande's Bidders Ust
The Base Figure resulting from this calculation was determined to be ~.
Breakout of Estimated Race-Neutral and Race-Conscious Participation
Of the overall annual 7% goal for DBE participation, the City of Arroyo Grande projects
meeting 6% of the goal utilizing race-neutral methods, including making efforts to assure
that bidding and contract requirements facilitate participation by DBEs and other small
businesses; unbundling large contracts to make them more accessible to small
businesses; encouraging prime contractors to subcontract portions of the work that they
might otherwise perform themselves; and providing technical assistance, and other support
services to facilitate consideration of DBEs and other small businesses. The remaining
1 % of the goal is anticipated to be accomplished through race-conscience measures,
which includes establishing contract specific goals on contracts with contracting
possibilities, when needed, to meet the City's overall annual DBE goal.
DBE Program Updates
N/A.
Public Participation Process
The City of Arroyo Grande is entering into the public participation process. Proof of
publication along with a summary of public comments received will be forwarded to your
office no later than January 1, 2001.
Mr. Jerald T. Gibbs
September 27, 2000
Page 3
Please contact me at (80S) 473-5440 or Jill Peterson, Consultant Senior Engineer, at (80S)
544-4011 if you have any questions regarding this information.
Sincerely,
Don Spagnolo, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
~--_.....-
Attachment 2
City of Arroyo Grande
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program
for FFY 2000/01
City of Arroyo Grande
Public Works Department
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
(805) 473-5440
September 2000
* This Program is in accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 26
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PROGRAM
I. Definitions of Terms
The terms used in this program have the meanings defined in 49 CFR ~26.5.
II. Objectives/Policy Statement (~S26.1, 26.23)
The City of Arroyo Grande has established a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE)
program in accordance with regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT),
49 CFR Part 26. The City of Arroyo Grande has received Federal financial assistance
from the DOT, and as a condition of receiving this assistance, the City of Arroyo Grande
will sign an assurance that it will comply with 49 CFR Part 26.
It is the policy of the City of Arroyo Grande to ensure that DBEs, as defined in part 26,
have an equal opportunity to receive and participate in DOT -assisted contracts. It is also
our policy:
. To ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT-assisted
contracts;
. To create a level playing field on which DBEs can compete fairly for DOT':'assisted
contracts;
. To ensure that the DBE Program is narrowly tailored in accordance with applicable
law;
. To ensure that only firms that fully meet 49 CFR Part 26 eligibility standards are
permitted to participate as DBEs;
. To help remove barriers to the participation of DBEs in DOT -assisted contracts; and
. To assist the development of firms that can compete successfully in the market
place outside the DBE Program.
The Director of Public Works has been delegated as the DBE Liaison Officer. In that
capacity, the Director of Public Works is responsible for implementing all aspects of the
DBE program. Implementation of the DBE program is accorded the same priority as
compliance with all other legal obligations incurred by the City of Arroyo Grande in its
financial assistance agreements with the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans).
The City of Arroyo Grande has disseminated this policy statement to the Arroyo Grande
City Council and all the components of our organization. We have distributed this
statement to DBE and non-DBE business communities that perform work for us on
DOT-assisted contracts by publishing this statement in general circulation,
minority-focused and trade association publications.
City of A"oyo Grande
DBE Program for FFY 2000101 Page 1 September 2000
- -~---_.._._._. ._------~.-,_.._-
III. Nondiscrimination (~26. 7)
The City of Arroyo Grande will never exclude any person from participation in, deny any
person the benefits of, or otherwise discriminate against anyone in connection with the
award and performance of any contract covered by 49 CFR Part 26 on the basis of race,
color, sex, or national origin.
In administering its DBE program, the City of Arroyo Grande will not, directly or through
contractual or other arrangements, use criteria or methods of administration that have the
effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the DBE
program with respect to individuals of a particular race, color, sex, or national origin.
IV. DBE Program Updates (~26.21)
The City of Arroyo Grande will continue to carry out this program until the City of Arroyo
Grande has established a new goal setting methodology or until significant changes to this
DBE Program are adopted. The City of Arroyo Grande will provide to Caltrans a proposed
overall goal and goal setting methodology and other program updates by June 1 of every
year.
V. Quotas (~26.43)
The City of Arroyo Grande will not use quotas or set asides in any way in the
administration of this DBE program.
VI. DBE Liaison Officer (DBELO) (~26.45)
The City of Arroyo Grande has designated the following individual as the DBE Liaison
Officer:
Mr. Don Spagnolo, P. E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
City of Arroyo Grande
P.O. Box 550
214 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
(805) 473-5440
dspagnolo@arroyogrande.org
In that capacity, Mr. Spagnolo is responsible for implementing all aspects of the DBE
program and ensuring that the City of Arroyo Grande complies with all provisions of 49
CFR Part 26. This is available on the Internet at: osdbuweb.dot.qov/main.cfm. Mr.
Spagnolo has direct, independent access to the City Manager concerning DBE program
matters. The DBELO has a staff of two support personnel who will devote a portion of his!
her time to the program. An organization chart displaying the DBELO's position in the
organization is found in Attachment A to this program.
city of A"oyo Grande
DBE Program for FFY 2000/01 Page 2 September 2000
---._------
The DBELO is responsible for developing, implementing and monitoring the DBE program,
in coordination other appropriate officials. Duties and responsibilities include the'
following:
1. Gathers and reports statistical data and other information as required.
2. Reviews third party contracts and purchase requisitions for compliance with this
program.
3. Works with all departments to set overall annual goals.
4. Ensures that bid notices and requests for proposals are available to DBEs in a
timely manner.
5. Identifies contracts and procurements so that DBE goals are included in
solicitations (both race-neutral methods and contract specific goals) and monitors
results.
6. Analyzes the City of Arroyo Grande's progress toward goal attainment and identifies
ways to improve progress.
7. Participates in pre-bid meetings.
8. Advises the CEO/governing body on DBE matters and achievement.
9. Chairs the DBE Advisory Committee.
10. Participates with the legal counsel and project director to determine contractor
compliance with good faith efforts.
11. Provides DBEs with information and assistance in preparing bids, obtaining bonding
and insurance.
12. Plans and participates in DBE training seminars.
13. Provides outreach to DBEs and community organizations to advise them of
opportunities.
VII. Federal Financial Assistance Agreement Assurance (~26.13)
The City of Arroyo Grande will sign the following assurance, applicable to all
FHWA-assisted contracts and their administration as part of the program supplement
agreement for each project:
The recipient shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the
award and performance of any DOT -assisted contract or in the administration of its DBE
Program or the requirements of 49 CFR part 26. The recipient shall take all necessary and .
reasonable steps under 49 CFR part 26 to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and
administration of DOT-assisted contracts. The recipient's DBE Program, as required by
49 CFR part 26 and as approved by DOT, is incorporated by reference in this agreement.
Implementation of this program is a legal obligation and failure to carry out its terms shall
be treated as a violation of this agreement. Upon notification to the recipient of its failure
to carry out its approved program, the Department may impose sanctions as provided for
under part 26 and may, in appropriate cases, refer the matter for enforcement under 18
U.S.C. 1001 and/or the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (31 U.S.C. 3801 et
seq.).
City of Arroyo Grande
DBE Program for FFY 2000/01 Page 3 September 2000
VIII. DBE Financial Institutions
It is the policy of the City of Arroyo Grande to investigate the full extent of services offered
by financial institutions owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals in the community, to make reasonable efforts to use these institutions, and to
encourage prime contractors on DOT -assisted contracts to make use of these institutions.
Information on the availability of such institutions can be obtained from the DBE Liaison
Officer. The Caltrans Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program may offer assistance
to the DBE Liaison Officer.
IX. Directory (~26.31)
The City of Arroyo Grande will refer interested persons to the DBE directory available from
the Caltrans Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program website at:
www.dot. ca.aov/hQ/bep.
X. Overconcentration (~26.33)
The City of Arroyo Grande has not identified any types of work in DOT -assisted contracts
that have a overconcentration of DBE participation. If in the future the City of Arroyo
Grande identifies the need to address overconcentration, measures for addressing
overconcentration will be submitted to the DLAE for approval.
XI. Business Development Programs (~26.35)
The City of Arroyo Grande does not have a business development or mentor-protege
program. If the City of Arroyo Grande identifies the need for such a program in the future,
the rationale for adopting such a program and a comprehensive description of it will be
submitted to the DLAE for approval.
XII. Required Contract Clauses (~~26.13, 26.29)
Contract Assurance
The City of Arroyo Grande ensures that the following clause is placed in every
DOT -assisted contract and subcontract:
The contractor or subcontractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national
origin, or sex in the performance of this contract. The contractor shall carry out applicable
requirements of 49 CFR part 26 in the award and administration of DOT-assisted
contracts. Failure by the contractor to carry ou\ these requirements is a material breach
of this contract, which may result in the termination of this contract or such other remedy
as recipient deems appropriate.
city of A"oyo Grande
DBE Program for FFY 2000101 Page 4 September 2000
Prompt Payment
The City of Arroyo Grande ensures that the following clauses or equivalent will be included
in each DOT -assisted prime contract:
Satisfactory Performance
The prime contractor agrees to pay each subcontractor under this prime contract for
satisfactory performance of its contract no later than 10 days from the receipt of each
payment the prime contractor receives from the City of Arroyo Grande. Any delay or
postponement of payment from the above referenced time frame may occur only for good
cause following written approval of the City of Arroyo Grande. This clause applies to both
DBE and non-DBE subcontractors
Release of Retainage
The prime contractor agrees further to release retainage payments to each subcontractor
within 30 days after the subcontractor's work is satisfactorily completed. Any delay or
postponement of payment from the above referenced time frame may occur only for good
cause following written approval of the City of Arroyo Grande. This clause applies to both
DBE and non-DBE subcontractors.
XIII. Monitoring and Enforcement Mechanisms (~26.37)
The City of Arroyo Grande will assign a Resident Engineer (RE) or Contract Manager to
monitor and track actual DBE participation through contractor and subcontractor reports
of payments in accordance with the following:
After Contract Award
After the contract award the City of Arroyo Grande will review the award documents for the
portion of items each DBE and first tier subcontractor will be performing and the dollar
value of that work. With these documents the RE/Contract Manager will be able to
determine the work to be performed by the DBEs or subcontractors listed.
Preconstruction Conference
A preconstruction conference will be scheduled between the RE and the contractor or their
representative to discuss the work each DBE subcontractor will perform.
Before work can begin on a subcontract, the local agency will require the contractor to
submit a completed "Subcontracting Request," Exhibit 16-B of the LAPM or equivalent.
When the RE receives the completed form it will be checked for agreement of the first tier
subcontractors and DBEs. The RE will not approve the request when it identifies someone
other than the DBE or first tier subcontractor listed in the previously completed "Local
city of An-oyo Grande
DBE Program for FFY 2000/01 Page 5 September 2000
Agency Bidder DBE Information," Exhibit 15-G. The "Subcontracting Request" will not be
approved until any discrepancies are resolved. If an issue cannot be resolved at that time,
or there is some other concern, the RE will require the contractor to eliminate the
subcontractor in question before signing the subcontracting request. A change in the DBE
or first tier subcontractor may be addressed during a substitution process ~t a later date.
Suppliers, vendors, or manufacturers listed on the "Local Agency Bidder DBE Information"
will be compared to those listed in the completed Exhibit 16-1 of the LAPM or equivalent.
Differences must be resolved by either making corrections or requesting a substitution.
Substitutions will be subject to the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act (FPA).
Local agencies will require contractors to adhere to the provisions within Subletting and
Subcontracting Fair Practices Act (State Law) Sections 4100-4144. FPA requires the
contractor to list all subcontractors in excess of one half of one percent (0.5%) of the
contractor's total bid or $10,000, whichever is greater. The statute is designed to prevent
bid shopping by contractors. The FPA explains that a contractor may not substitute a
subcontractor listed in the original bid except with the approval of the awarding authority.
The RE will give the contractor a blank Exhibit 17 -F, "Final Report Utilization of
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, First Tier Subcontractors" and will explain to them
that the document will be required at the end of the project, for which payment can be
withheld, in conformance with the contract.
Construction Contract Monitorina
The RE will ensure that the RE's staff (inspectors) know what items of work each DBE is
responsible for performing. Inspectors will notify the RE immediately of apparent
violations.
When a firm other than the listed DBE subcontractor is found performing the work, the RE
will notify the contractor of the apparent discrepancy and potential loss of payment. Based
on the contractor's response, the RE will take appropriate action: The DBE Liaison Officer
will perform a preliminary investigation to identify any potential issues related to the DBE
subcontractor performing a commercially useful function. Any substantive issues will be
forwarded to the Caltrans Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program. If the contractor
fails to adequately explain why there is a discrepancy, payment for the work will be
withheld and a letter will be sent to the contractor referencing the applicable specification
violation and the required withholding of payment.
If the contract requires the submittal of a monthly truck document, the contractor will be
required to submit documentation to the RE showing the owner's name; California Highway
Patrol CA number; and the DBE certification number of the owner of the truck for each
truck used during that month for which DBE participation will be claimed. The trucks will
be listed by California Highway Patrol CA number in the daily diary or on a separate piece
of paper for documentation. The numbers are checked by inspectors regularly to confirm
compliance.
City of Arroyo Grande
DBE Program for FFY 2000/01 Page 6 September 2000
Providing evidence of DBE payment is the responsibility of the contractor.
Substitution
When a DBE substitution is requested, the RE/Contract Manager will request a letter from
the contractor explaining why substitution is needed. The RE/Contract Manager must
review the letter to be sure names and addresses are shown, dollar values are included,
and reason for the request is explained. If the RE/Contract Manager agrees to the
substitution, the RE/Contract Manager will notify, in writing, the DBE subcontractor
regarding the proposed substitution and procedure for written objection from the DBE
subcontractor in accordance with the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act.
If the contractor is not meeting the contract goal with this substitution, the contractor must
provide the required good faith effort to the RE/Contract Manager for local agency
consideration.
If there is any doubt in the RE/Contract Manager's mind regarding the requested
substitution, the RE/Contract Manager may contact the DLAE for assistance and direction.
Record Keepino and Final Report Utilization of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises
The contractor shall maintain records showing the name and address of each first-tier
subcontractor. The records shall also show:
1. The name and business address, regardless of tier, of every DBE subcontractor,
DBE vendor of materials and DBE trucking company.
2. The date of payment and the total dollar figure paid to each of the firms.
3. The DBE prime contractor shall also show the date of work performed by their own
forces along with the corresponding dollar value of the work claimed toward DBE
goals.
When a contract has been completed the contractor will provide a summary of the records
stated above. The DBE utilization information will be documented on Exhibit 17 -Fand will
be submitted to the DLAE attached to the Report of Expenditures. The REwill compare
the completed Exhibit 17 -F to the contractor's completed Exhibit 15-G and,' if applicable,
to the completed Exhibit 16-B. The DBEs shown on the completed Exhibit 17 -F should be
the same as those originally listed unless an authorized substitution was allowed, or the
contractor used more DBEs and they were added. The dollar amount should reflect any
changes made in planned work done by the DBE. The contractor will be required to
explain in writing why the names of the subcontractors, the work items or dollar figures are
different from what was originally shown on the completed Exhibit 15-G when:
. There have been no changes made by the RE.
. The contractor has not provided a sufficient explanation in the comments section
of the completed Exhibit 17 -F.
city of A"oyo Grande
DBE Program for FFY 2000101 Page 7 September 2000
The explanation will be attached to the completed Exhibit 17 -F for submittal. The RE will
file this in the project records.
The local agency's Liaison Officer will keep track of the DBE certification status on the
Internet at www.dot.ca.aovlhalbep and keep the RE informed of changes that affect the
contract. The RE will require the contractor to act in accordance with existing contractual
commitments regardless of decertification.
The DLAE will use the PS&E checklist to monitor the City of Arroyo Grande's commitment
to require bidders list information to be submitted to the City of Arroyo Grande from the
awarded prime and subcontractors as a means to develop a bidders list. This monitoring
will only take place if the bidders list information is required to be submitted as stipulated
in the special provisions.
The City of Arroyo Grande will bring to the attention of the DOT through the DLAE any
false, fraudulent, or dishonest conduct in connection with the program, so that DOT can
take the steps (e.g., referral to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution, referral
to the DOT Inspector General, action under suspension and debarment or Program Fraud
and Civil Penalties rules) provided in ~26.109. The City of Arroyo Grande also will
consider similar action under our own legal authorities, including responsibility
determinations in future contracts.
XIV. Overall Goals (~26.45)
Amount of Goal
The City of Arroyo Grande's overall goal for the Federal fiscal year FY 2000/01 is the
following: 7% ofthe Federal financial assistance in FHWA-assisted contracts. This overall
goal is broken down into 1 % race-conscious and 6% race-neutral components.
Methodoloav
The "Utilizing the Bidders List" methodology was used to determine the City of Arroyo
Grande's overall goal for Federal fiscal Year FY 2000101.
1. DOT -Assisted Contracting Proaram for FYV 2000101
The following represents the City of Arroyo Grande's projected FHWA funded
contracts and expenditures by work category and corresponding North AmeriCan
Industry Classification System (NAICS) for FFY 2000101:
City of Arroyo Grande
DBE Program for FFY 2000101 Page 8 September 2000
----,._-----------
Engineering Services 541330 $ 49,600 19%
Other Heavy Construction 234990 $ 214,400 81%
TOTAL $ 264,000 100%
2. Goal-methodologv
Step I: Determination of a Base Figure (49 CFR 26.45)
The City of Arroyo Grande elected to utilize the following methodology in
establishing the City of Arroyo Grande's Base Figure of relative DBE availability for
FFY 2000/01.
For the Numerator: DBE Firms in City of Arroyo Grande's Bidders Ust
For the Denominator: All Firms in City of Arroyo Grande's Bidders Ust
The City of Arroyo Grande will calculate its weighted Base Figure by first
determining the number of ready, willing and able DBEs in its FY 1999/00 Bidders
List bywork category, and dividing the number of DBEs by the total number of firms
in the same work category. Through this method, the City of Arroyo Grande can
measure availability by the number of firms that have directly participated in, or
attempted to participate in, City of Arroyo Grande's DOT-assisted contracting in FY
1999/00.
Application of this formula yields the following baseline information:
Number of ReadY. Willina and Able DBE's = BASE FIGURE
Number of All Ready, Willing and Able Firms
The Base Figure resulting from this calculation is as follows:
Base Figure = .19(DBEs in 541330) + . 25(DBEs in 234990)
Firms in 541330 Firms in 234990
Base Figure = { .19(0) + .25(0) }
(0) (0)
Base Figure = [ .19(0) + .25(0) ]
city of Arroyo Grande
DSE Program for FFY 2000101 Page 9 September 2000
Base Figure = [ 0 + OJ x 100
Base Figure = [0] x 100 = 0%
Step 1/: Adjusting the Base Figure
As this is the first year the City of Arroyo Grande has used this methodology in
determining its overall annual DBE g9al, it was co~cluded that there is not enough
known relevant evidence at this time to determine the number of ready, willing and
able DBEs by work category. Therefore, the Base Figure for FYY 2000/01 has
been adjusted by dividing the total number ready, willing and able DBEs in the
City's FY 1999/00 Bidders List by the number of the total number of firms in the
City's FY 1999/00 Bidders List bidders list for FFY 2000/01.
DBE Firms in City of Arrovo Grande's Bidders Ust = ~ = 7%
AII'Firms in City of Arroyo Grande's Bidders Ust 42
Breakout of Estimated Race-Neutral and Race-Conscious Participation
Of the overall annual 7% goal for DBE participation, the City of Arroyo Grande projects
meeting 6% of the goal utilizing race-neutral methods, including making efforts to assure
that bidding and contract requirements facilitate participation by DBEs and other small
businesses; unbundling large contracts to make them more accessible to small
businesses; encouraging prime contractors to subcontract portions of the work that they
might otherwise perform themselves; and providing technical assistance, and other support
services to facilitate consideration of DBEs and other small businesses. The remaining
1 % of the goal is anticipated to be accomplished through race-conscience measures,
which includes establishing contract specific goals on contracts with contracting
possibilities, when needed, to meet the City's overall annual DBE goal.
Process
Starting with the Federal fiscal year 2002, the amount of overall goal,the method to
calculate the goal, and the breakout of estimated race-neutral and race-conscious
participation will be required annually by June 1 in advance of the Federal fiscal year
beginning October 1 for FHWA-assisted contracts. Submittals will be to the Caltrans'
DLAE. An exception to this will be if FTA or FAA recipients are required by FTA or FAA
to submit the annual information to them or a designee by another date. FHWA recipients
will follow this process:
Once the DLAE has responded with preliminary comments and the comments have been
incorporated into the draft overall goal information, the City of Arroyo Grande will publish
a notice of the proposed overall goal, informing the public that the proposed goal and its
rationale are available for inspection during normal business hours at the City of Arroyo
Grande's principal office for 30 days following the date of the notice, and informing the
City of Arroyo Grande
DBE Program for FFY 2000/01 Page 10 September 2000
public that City of Arroyo Grande comments will be accepted on the goals for 45 days
following the date of the notice. Advertisements in newspapers, minority focus media, trade
publications, and websites will be the normal media to accomplish this effort. The notice
will include addresses to which comments may be sent and addresses (including offices
and websites) where the proposal may be reviewed.
The overall goal resubmission to the Caltrans DLAE, will include a summary of information
and comments received during this public participation process and City of Arroyo
Grande's responses. This will be due by September 1 to the Caltrans DLAE. The DLAE
will have a month to make a final review so the City of Arroyo Grande may begin using the
overall goal on October 1 of each year.
If there is a design build please refer to Appendix B of this DBE Program.
XV. Contract Goals (S26.51)
The City of Arroyo Grande will use contract goals to meet any portion of the overall goal
the City of Arroyo Grande does not project being able to meet by the use of race-neutral
means. Contract goals are established so that, over the period to which the overall goal
applies, they will cumulatively result in meeting any portion of the overall goal that is not
projected to be met through the use of race-neutral means.
Contract goals will be established only on those DOT -assisted contracts that have
subcontracting possibilities. Contract goals need not be established on every such
contract, and the size of contract goals will be adapted to the circumstances of each such
contract (e.g., type and location of work, availability of DBEs to perform the particular type
of work). The contract work items will be compared with eligible DBE contractors willing
to work on the project. A determination will also be made to decide which items are likely
to be performed by the prime contractor and which ones are likely to be performed by the
subcontractor{ s). The goal will then be incorporated into the contract documents.
Contract goals will be expressed as a percentage of the total amount of a DOT-assisted
contract.
XVI. Transit Vehicle Manufacturers (S26.49)
If DOT -assisted contracts will include transit vehicle procurements, the City of Arroyo
Grande will require each transit vehicle manufacturer, as a condition of being authorized
to bid or propose on transit vehicle procurements, to certify that it has complied with the
requirements of 49 CFR Part 26, Section 49. The City of Arroyo Grande will direct the
transit vehicle manufacturer to the subject requirements located on the Internet at:
http://osdbuweb.dot.gov/programs/dbe/dbe.htm.
City of A"oyo Grande
DBE Program for FFY 2000/01 Page 11 September 2000
XVII. Good Faith Efforts (926.53)
Information to be Submitted
The City of Arroyo Grande treats bidders'/offerors' compliance with good faith effort
requirements as a matter of responsiveness. A responsive proposal is meeting all the
requirements of the advertisement and solicitation.
Each solicitation for which a contract goal has been established will require the
bidders/offerors to submit the following information to:
City of Arroyo Grande
Attn: Director of Administrative Services
P.O. Box 550
214 EastBranch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
no later than 4:00 p.m. on or before the fourth day, not including Saturdays, Sundays and
legal holidays, following bid opening:
1. The names and addresses of known DBE firms that will participate in the contract;
2. A description of the work that each DBE will perform;
3. The dollar amount of the participation of each DBE firm participation;
4. Written and signed documentation of commitment to use a DBE subcontractor
whose participation it submits to meet a contract goal;
5. Written and signed confirmation from the DBE that it is participating in the contract
as provided in the prime contractor's commitment; and
6. If the contract goal is not met, evidence of good faith efforts.
Demonstration of Good Faith Efforts
The obligation of the bidder/offeror is to make good faith efforts. The bidder/offeror can
demonstrate that it has done so either by meeting the contract goal or documenting good
faith efforts. Examples of good faith efforts are found in Appendix A to part 26 which is
attached.
The following personnel are responsible for determining whether a bidder/offeror who has
not met the contract goal has documented sufficient good faith efforts to be regarded as
responsive: The City of Arroyo Grande Director of Public Works.
The City of Arroyo Grande will ensure that all information is complete and accurate and
adequately documents the bidder/offeror's good faith efforts before a commitment to the
performance of the contract by the bidder/offeror is made.
City of Arroyo Grande
DBE Program for FFY 2000/01 Page 12 September 2000
Administrative Reconsideration
Within 10 days of being informed by the City of Arroyo Grande that it is not responsive
because it has not documented sufficient good faith efforts, a bidder/offeror may request
administrative reconsideration. Bidder/offerors should make this request in writing to the
following reconsideration official:
Mr. Don Spagnolo, P. E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
City of Arroyo Grande
P.O. Box 550
214 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
(805) 473-5440
dspagnolo@arroyogrande.org
The reconsideration official will not have played any role in the original determination that
the bidder/offeror did not make document sufficient good faith efforts.
As part of this reconsideration, the bidder/offeror will have the opportunity to provide
written documentation or argument concerning the issue of whether it met the goal or
made adequate good faith efforts to do so. The bidder/offeror will have the opportunity to
meet in person with the reconsideration official to discuss the issue of whether it met the
goal or made adequate good faith efforts to do. The City of Arroyo Grande will send the
bidder/offeror a written decision on reconsideration, explaining the basis for finding that
the bidder did or did not meet the goal or make adequate good faith efforts to do so. The
result of the reconsideration process is not administratively appealable to Caltrans, FHWA
or the DOT.
Good Faith Efforts when a DBE is Replaced on a Contract
The City of Arroyo Grande will require a contractor to make good faith efforts to replace
a DBE that is terminated or has otherwise failed to complete its work on. a contrad with
another certified DBE, to the extent needed to meet the contrad goat The prime
contractor is required to notify the RE immediately of the DBE's inability or unwillingness
to perform and provide reasonable documentation.
In this situation, the prime contractor will be required to obtain City of Arroyo Grande prior
approval of the substitute DBE and to provide copies of new or amended subcontracts, or
documentation of good faith efforts. If the contractor fails or refuses to comply in the time
specified, the City of Arroyo Grande contracting office will issue an order stopping all or
part of payment/work until satisfactory action has been taken. If the contractor still fails
to comply, the contracting officer may issue a termination for default proceeding.
VXIII. Counting DBE Participation (~26.55)
City of Arroyo Grande
DBE Program for FFY 2000/01 Page 13 September 2000
The City of Arroyo Grande will count DBE participation toward overall and contract goals
as provided in the contract specifications for the prime contractor, subcontractor, joint
venture partner with prime or subcontractor, or vendor of material or supplies. See the
Caltrans' Sample Boiler Plate Contract Documents previously mentioned. Also, refer to
XI, A. "After Contract Award."
XIX. Certification (~26.83(a))
The City of Arroyo Grande ensures that only DBE firms currently certified on the Caltrans'
directory will participate as DBEs in our program.
XX. Information Collection and Reporting
Bidders List
The City of Arroyo Grande will create and maintain a bidders list, consisting of information
about all DBE and non-DBE firms that bid or quote on its DOT -assisted contracts. The
bidders list will include the name, address, DBE/non-DBE status, age, and annual gross
receipts of firms.
Monitorina Pavments to DBEs
Prime contractors are required to maintain records and documents of payments to DBEs
for three years following the performance of the contract. These records will be made
available for inspection upon request by any authorized representative of the City of
Arroyo Grande, Caltrans, or FHWA. This reporting requirement also extends to any
certified DBE subcontractor.
Payments to DBE subcontractors will be reviewed by the City of Arroyo Grande to ensure
that the actual amount paid to DBE subcontractors equals or exceeds the dollar amounts
stated in the schedule of DBE participation.
Reportina to Caltrans
The City of Arroyo Grande's final utilization of DBE participation will be reported to the
DLAE using Exhibit 17 -F of the Caltrans' LAPM.
Confidentialitv
The City of Arroyo Grande will safeguard from disclosure to third parties information that
may reasonably be regarded as confidential business information, consistent with Federal,
state, and local laws.
city of Arroyo Grande
DBE Program for FFY 2000101 Page 14 September 2000
This Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Program is approved by:
Steven Adams Date
City Manager
This Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Program is accepted by:
Jerald T. Gibbs Date
Caltrans District 5
, Local Assistance Engineer
city of Arroyo Grande
DBE Program for FFY 2000/01 Page 15 September 2000
------------.
ATTACHMENT A
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
THE ELECTORS
I
MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
I
CITY MANAGER
Steven Adams
I
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Don Spagnolo, P.E.
Director/City Engineer/DBELO
I
I I
Dave Rasmussen, P.E. Jill E. Peterson
Associate Civil Engineerl Sr. Consultant Engineerl
DBE Support Staff DBE Support Staff
City of A"oyo Grande
DBE Program for FFY 2000/01 Attachment A . Page 1 September 2000
- ~---- ----- ~
APPENDIX A TO PART 26
GUIDANCE CONCERNING GOOD FAITH EFFORTS
I. When, as a recipient, you establish a contract goal on a DOT -assisted contract, a
bidder must, in order to be responsible and/or responsive, make good faith efforts
to meet the goal. The bidder can meet this requirement in either of two ways. First,
the bidder can meet the goal, documenting commitments for participation by DBE
firms sufficient for this purpose. Second, even if it doesn't meet the goal, the bidder
can document adequate good faith efforts. This means that the bidder must show
that it took all necessary and reasonable steps to achieve a DBE goal or other
requirement of this part which, by their scope, intensity, and appropriateness to the
objective, could reasonably be expected to obtain sufficient DBE participation, even
if they were not fully successful.
II. In any situation in which you have established a contract goal, part 26 requires you
to use the good faith efforts mechanism of this part. As a recipient, it is up to you
to make a fair and reasonable judgment whether a bidder that did not meet the goal
made adequate good faith efforts. It is important for you to consider the quality,
quantity, and intensity of the different kinds of efforts that the bidder has made. The
efforts employed by the bidder should be those that one could reasonably expect
a bidder to take if the bidder were actively and aggressively trying to obtain DBE
participation sufficient to meet the DBE contract goal. Mere pro forma efforts are
not good faith efforts to meet the DBE contract requirements. We emphasize,
however, that your determination concerning the sufficiency of the firm's good faith
efforts is a judgment call: meeting quantitative formulas is not required.
III. The Department also strongly cautions you against requiring that a bidder m~et a
contract goal (Le., obtain a specified amount of DBE participation) in order to be
awarded a contract, even though the bidder makes an adequate good faith efforts
showing. This rule specifically prohibits you from ignoring bona fide good faith
efforts.
IV. The following is a list of types of actions which you should consider as part of the
bidder's good faith efforts to obtain DBE participation. It is not intended to be a
mandatory checklist, nor is it intended to be exclusive or exhaustive. Other factors
or types of efforts may be relevant in appropriate cases.
A. Soliciting through all reasonable and available means (e.g. attendance at
pre-bid meetings, advertising and/or written notices) the interest of all
certified DBEs who have the capability to perform the work of the contract.
The bidder must solicit this interest within sufficient time to allow the DBEs'
to respond to the solicitation. The bidder must determine with certainty ifthe
DBEs are interested by taking appropriate steps to follow up initial
solicitations.
city of Arroyo Grande
DSE Program for FFY 2000/01 Appendix A . Page 1 September 2000
B. Selecting portions of the work to be performed by DBEs in order to increase
the likelihood that the DBE goals will be achieved. This includes, where
appropriate, ,breaking out contract work items into economically feasible
units to facilitate DBE participation, even when the prime contractor might
otherwise prefer to perform these work items with its own forces.
C. Providing interested DBEs with adequate information about the plans,
specifications, and requirements of the contract in a timely manner to assist
them in responding to a solicitation.
D. (1 ) Negotiating in good faith with interested DBEs. It is the bidder's
responsibility to make a portion of the work available to DBE subcontractors
and suppliers and to select those portions of the work or material needs
consistent with the available DBE subcontractors and suppliers, so as to
facilitate DBE participation. Evidence of such negotiation includes the
names, addresses, and telephone numbers of DBEs that were considered;
a description of the information provided regarding the plans and
specifications for the work selected for subcontracting; and evidence as to
why additional agreements could not be reached for DBEs to perform the
work.
(2) A bidder using good business judgment would consider a number of
factors in negotiating with subcontractors, including DBE subcontractors,
and would take a firm's price and capabilities as well as contract goals into
consideration. However, the fact that there may be some additional costs
involved in finding and using DBEs is not in itself sufficient reason for a
bidder's failure to meet the contract DBE goal, as long as such costs are
reasonable. Also, the ability or desire of a prime contractor to perform the
work of a contract with its own organization does not relieve the bidder of the
responsibility to make good faith efforts. Prime contractors are not, however,
required to accept higher quotes from DBEs if the price difference is
excessive or unreasonable.
E. Not rejecting DBEs as being unqualified without sound reasons based on a
thorough investigation of their capabilities. The contractor's $tanding within
its industry, membership in specific groups, organizations, or associations
and political or social affiliations (for example union vs. non-union employee
status) are not legitimate causes for the rejection or non-solicitation of bids
in the contractor's efforts to meet the project goal.
F. Making efforts to assist interested DBEs in obtaining bonding, lines of credit,
or insurance as required by the recipient or contractor.
G. Making efforts to assist interested DBEs in obtaining necessary equipment,
supplies, materials, or related assistance or services.
City of A"oyo Grande
DBE Program for FFY 2000/01 Appendix A - Page 2 September 2000
H. Effectively using the services of available minority/women community
organizations; minoritylwomen contractors' groups; local, state, and Federal
minoritylwomen business assistance offices; and other organizations as
allowed on a case-by-case basis to provide assistance in the recruitment
and placement of DBEs.
V. In determining whether a bidder has made good faith efforts, you may take into
account the performance of other bidders in meeting the contract. For example,
when the apparent successful bidder fails to meet the contract goal, but others meet
it, you may reasonably raise the question of whether, with additional reasonable
efforts, the apparent successful bidder could have met the goal. If the apparent
successful bidder fails to meet the goal, but meets or exceeds the average DBE
participation obtained by other bidders, you may view this, in conjunction with other
factors, as evidence of the apparent successful bidder having made good faith
efforts.
city of A<<oyo Grande
DBE Program for FFY 2000/01 Appendix A - Page 3 September 2000
APPENDIX B
TO BE USED FOR DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTS
The' following are hereby incorporated into the Agency's Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise (DBE) Program:
II. Objectives IPolicy Statement (~~26.1, 26.23)
At the end of the first paragraph, add the following:
The Agency recognizes that certain modifications are necessary to adapt the program for
use in' connection with design-build contracts, and has therefore established certain
procedures applicable to design-build DBE contracts under the DBE Program. Public
Contract Code Section 4109 requires subcontractors to be identified by the prime
contractor for the subletting or subcontracting of any portion of the work in excess of
one-half of 1 percent of the prime contractor's total bid. Exceptions are only in the cases
of public emergency or necessity, and then only after a finding reduced to writing as a
public record of the awarding authority setting forth the facts constituting the emergency
or necessity. The written public record of the awarding authority/Agency as to either
emergency or necessity is attached hereto (See Appendix C for sample).
XIII. Monitoring and Enforcement Mechanisms (~26.37)
At the end of the first paragraph below "After Contract Award", add the following
paragraph:
After Desian-Build Contract Award
As described in the Section entitled "GOOD FAITH EFFORTS" below, each proposer for
an Agency design-build contract will be required to submit a DBE Performance Plan as
part of a responsive proposal. Following award of a design-build contract and during both
the design and construction portions of the project. the design-build contractor will be
required to submit documentation. in the form of progress reports described below, to show
that the design-build contractor is meeting the contract goal for the project, or if the goal
is not being met, the design-build contractor must submit satisfactory evidence that it has
made good faith efforts, in accordance with that Section, to meet the goal. Evidence of
good faith efforts, as described in 49 CFR Part 26 Section 26.5349 and Appendix A, will
be monitored by the Agency throughout the duration of the design-build project.
City of A"oyo Grande
DBE Program for FFY 2000101 Appendix B - Page 1 September 2000
At the end of the first paragraph below "Preconstruction Conference", add the following
sentence:
The contractor will promptly provide the Agency with the information required by the form
entitled BLocal Agency DBE Information" upon selection of any DBE or other subcontractor
not previously identified by the design-build contractor. During the course of the contract,
differences must be explained and resolved by either making corrections or requesting a
substitution.
At the end of the fourth paragraph below "Construction Contract Monitorina", add the
following paragraph:
The contractor will provide DBE Progress Reports to the Agency with each invoice and will
provide an annual report on or before August 1 of each year of the design-build contract.
Each report must also include a narrative summary stating whether the contractor is on
target with respect to the DBE goal set forth in the design-build contract, whether the goal
has been exceeded (stating the amount of the excess), or whether the contractor is behind
target (stating the amount of the deficit).
XVII. Good Faith Efforts (~26.53)
At the end of the third paragraph below "Information to be Submitted", add the following
items:
7. A DBE Performance Plan containing a detailed description of the design-build
contractor's planned methodology for achieving the DBE goal stated in the contract,
including a description of the good faith efforts the design-build contractor intends
to undertake to achieve that goal.
B. A design-build proposal must also include an affidavit that the proposer will either
attain the DBE goals for the design-build contract or will exercise good faith efforts
to do so.
At the end of the first paragraph below "Demonstration of Good Faith Efforts", add the
following sentence:
If it is a design-build contract, each contractor proposing will be required to submit DBE
Performance Plan as part of a responsive proposal and good faith efforts.
City of Arroyo Grande
DBE Program for FFY 2000/01 Appendix B - Page 2 September 2000
.--
Steven Adams Date
City Manager
This Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Program for design-build contracts is accepted
by:
Jerald T. Gibbs Date
Caltrans District 5
Local Assistance Engineer
City of A"oyo Grande
DBE Program for FFY 2000/01 Appendix B - Page 3 September 2000
APPENDIX C
SAMPLE RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
REGARDING NECESSITY OR EMERGENCY FOR
SUBSEQUENT SUBCONTRACTOR IDENTIFICATION AND
SELECTION FOR DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTS (REQUIRED
BY PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 4109 ENTITLED
"PUBLIC EMERGENCY GROUNDS FOR CHANGE")
A. EXPLANATION OF PUBLIC NECESSITY OR EMERGENCY:
B. FACTS CONSTITUTING THE PUBLIC NECESSITY OR EMERGENCY:
C. FINDINGS:
D. RESOLUTION FOR SUBSEQUENT IDENTIFICATION OF SUBCONTRACTORS:
E. ADOPTION OF PROCEDURE TO BE USED BY DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTOR
FOR SUBSEQUENT IDENTIFICATION OF SUBCONTRACTORS: ;
F. CERTIFICATE OF SECRETARY
1. MOTION MADE AND DATE
2. VOTING RESUL TS
3. SIGNATURES:
(a) (Secretary) i
,0'
(b) (Chairperson)
City of A"oyo Grande
DBE Program for FFY 2000101 Appendix C . Page 1 September 2000
-_._-----"-~_..---~- ~ -----~_.__._._.-
Attachment 3
PUBLIC NOTICE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Arroyo Grande has established an Overall
Annual Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Goal, applicable to contracting opportunities
scheduled to be awarded during the period of October 1, 2000 through September 30,
2001. The City of Arroyo Grande's proposed Overall Annual Goal and its rationale were
developed in response to U.S. Department of Transportation's New Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise Program Final Rule (49 CFR Part 26) and are available for inspection
for thirty (30) days following the date of this Notice, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Pacific
Daylight Time, Monday through Friday, at our principal place of business located at:
City of Arroyo Grande
Office of Administrative Services
214 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, California 93420
Phone: (805) 473-5400
Web Address: www.arroyogrande.org
Comments will be accepted on the Goal for forty-five (45) days from the date of this Notice.
Comments can be forwarded to the City of Arroyo Grande at the above stated address or
to Jerald T. Gibbs, District Local Assistance Engineer, Caltrans District 5, 50 Higuera
Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93401.
Dated at , California, this day of , 2000~
Isl
-------..---- ---- j
9.'.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER Ik
SUBJECT: SPRING 2000 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECT, NO. 2000-5,
PROGRESS PAYMENT NO.1
DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council authorize Progress Payment No. 1 in the amount of
$69,686.60 to Bond Blacktop for the work completed on the Spring 2000 Pavement
Management Project.
FUNDING:
On July 11, 2000, the City Council awarded the Spring 2000 Pavement Management
Project to Bond Blacktop in the amount of $101,580 and authorized a contingency of (
$10,000 to be used for unanticipated costs during the construction phase of the Project
($111,580 total available construction funds).
DISCUSSION:
The City received an application for Progress Payment No. 1 from Bond Blacktop for work
completed between August 22, 2000 and September 15, 2000. Staff has reviewed the
application and has determined that the amount requested is in conformance with the
quantity of work completed as of September 15, 2000. Progress Payment No. 1 is in the
amount of $77,429.56 of which $7,742.96 will be held in retention until the project is
completed in accordance with the project specifications.
Attachment:
Application for Progress Payment No. 1
C:\My Documents\ProJects\Sprlng 2000 Slurry Seal 5627\5627pp#1 cc.Sprlng.2000.doc:
-
--------- - ~~-
~Uyof
~rJ~ Public Works Department
Application for Progress Payment
Contract Name: Spring 2000 Pavement Management Project
Contract No: 2000-5
Progress Payment No: 1
City Account No: 350-5627-7001 $69,686.60
Payment Date: 9/2612000
i Bid Estimate Amended Estimate Pay to Date
Bid Unit Unit Unit %
Jtem Unit Description Qty Price Amount Qty Price Amount Qty Price Amount Camp
1 SY Install Type II Sluny Seal 104,000 $ 0.67 $ 69.680.00 102.268 $ 0.67 $ 68,519.56 102.268 $ 0.67 $ 68.519.56 100%
2 LS Traffic Control 1 $ 9.900.00 $ 9.900.00 1 $ 9,900.00 $ 9,900.00 0.9 $ 9,900.00 $ 8.910.00 90%
3 LS Replace markers, markings. 1 $ 22,000.00 $ 22.000.00 1 $ 22.000.00 $' 22,000.00 o $ 22.000.00 $ - 0%
legends and striping
Total $101.580.00 $ 100,419.56 $ 77,429.56 77%
Contractor Date
Pay to Date $77,429.56 ~
Retention $7.742.96
Project Manager Date Previous Payments $0.00
This Payment
Public Works Director Date
Contract Start Date: 0812212000
Original Contract Days: 30
Adjusted Contract Days: 0
City Manager Date Adjusted Contract End Date: 09/21/2000
Send P1wment to:
Bond Blacktop
PO Box 616
Union City, CA 94587
e.g.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEE~
SUBJECT: FAIR OAKS AVENUElTALL Y HO ROAD OVERLAY PROJECT
PROJECT NO. 2000-3 - PROGRESS PAYMENT NO.2
DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council authorize Progress Payment No. 2 in the amount of
$173,412.05 to R. Burke Corporation for the Fair Oaks AvenuelTally Ho Road Overlay,
capital improvement project.
FUNDING:
On June 27, 2000, the Council awarded a construction contract for the Fair Oaks
AvenuelTally Ho Road Overlay Project, to R. Burke Corporation in the amount of
$599,559 and authorized a contingency of $142,591 to be used for unanticipated costs
during the construction phase of the project ($742,150 total available funding).
DISCUSSION:
The City received an application for Progress Payment No. 2 from R. Burke Corporation
for work completed between August 12, 2000 and September 4, 2000. Staff has reviewed
the application and has determined that the amount requested is in conformance with the
quantity of work completed as of September 4, 2000. Progress Payment No. 2 is in the
amount of $192,680.06 of which $19,268.01 will be held in retention until the project is
completed in accordance with the project specifications.
Attachment:
Application for Progress Payment No. 2
c:\My Documents\Projects\Fair Oaks OVerlay\FairOaksOverlay. pp#1.doc
~-
city of
Ayyoy()-GY~ Public Works Department
Application for Progress Payment
Contract Name: Fair ORb A......., VIII1ey Ro.o4I1114 TRIIy Ho Ro.o4
Contract No: 2()()().{)2
PropelO Payment No: 2
City Account No: 350..5806-7001 - 5173,412.05
Payment Date: 9,.v.!000
1 Bid Estimate 1 Am.nded EstImate 1 PavtoDaW 1
BId Un~ Un~ Unit Percent
Item Un~ IDescrIDtIon Qty Price Amount Qty Price Amount Qty PrIce Amount Comn_
PHASE I
_I R....unments
1 LS MobIlization Allowance 1 S 5 000.00 $ 5000,00 1 S 5 000.00 $ 5 000.00 1 $ 5 000.00 $ 5 000.00 10f)CJ1,
2 LS Tramc Control 1 S 7 500.00 S 7500.00 1 s 7 500.00 S 7 500.00 1 S 7 500.00 s 7 500.00 10f)CJ1,
3 LS Trench $MeIIno, Shorlno or Braclno 1 $ 600.00 S 600,00 11 s 600.00 S 600.00 1 S 600.00 S eoo.OO 10f)CJ1,
4 LS CoMtructIon SUrww 1 S 1 400.00 $ 1 400,00 1 $ 1 400.00 $ 1 400.00 1 S 1 400.00 $ 1 400.00 10f)CJ1,
SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS
5 LS Grtndlna Pavement 1 S 19 500,00 $ 19500.00 11 S 19500.00 S 19 500.00 1 S 19 500.00 S 19500.00 10f)CJ1,
6 SF A.C Patch Reoalr 3630 $ 3.40 $ 12342.00 7793 3.40 $ 26 496.20 7793 S 3.40 S 211411II.20 10f)CJ1,
7 TON Class B Asnhalt Concrete 2300 $ 50.00 $ 115000.00 2071 50.00 S 103 547.50 2071 50.00 103.547.50 10f)CJ1,
8 LF Conaete Curb and Gutter 742 S 21.00 $ 15582.00 728 21.00 $ 15 288.00 728 21.00 15,288.00 10f)CJ1,
9 EA Conaete CIoaa Gutter and Snandrels 2 S 4 eoo.OO s 9600,00 2 4 eoo.OO $ 9 600.00 2 4 -."" lI,eoo.OO 10f)CJ1,
10 EA Wheelchair Ramll 10 S 1 380.00 s 13800,00 8 s 1 380.00 S 11 040.00 8 1 380.00 11040.00 10f)CJ1,
11 SF on...wav Ramll 726 $ 6.00 S 4356.00 7701 S 6.00 S 4 620.00 770 S 8.00 S 4 620.00 10f)CJ1,
12 EA Conduits ror Tramc SltInals 1 $ 15000.00 $ 15000.00 1.00 $ 15000.00 S 15000,00 0.9 $ 15 000.00 S 13!!OO.00 90%
13 SF Concrete SId_lk 850 $ 4.30 S 3655,00 953 $ 4.30 $ 4097,90 953$ 4.30 $ 4097.90 10f)CJ1,
14 LS R.nlace Frames and eave... 1 $ 8000.00 S 8000,00 1 $ 8 000.00 S 8 000.00 1 S 8 MII.OO S 8000.00 10f)CJ1,
15 LS Pavem.nt Delineation 1 $ 5800.00 $ 5800.00 1 S 5800.00 S 5 800.00 1 S 5800.00. S 5 800.00 10f)CJ1,
16 LF Curb Palntlna 12-Coats\ 300 $ 0.90 $ 270.00 300 $ 0.90 S 270.00 o $ 0.90 $ - 0%
UTlLmES
17 I LS I R.lllace Tramc Slanal LOIIIIS I 11 $ 11500.00 I $ 11500,00 I 01 $ 11500.00 1 $ - 1 01 $ 11 500.00 I $ . 1 10f)CJ1,
STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS
18 LF 18" HOPE Storm Drain Pine 38 S 83.00 S 3 154,00 381 S 83,00 $ 3 154.00 38 $ 83.00 $ 3 154.00 10f)CJ1,
19 LF 24' HDPE Storm Drain Pine 62 $ 120.00 S 7440,00 9,5 S 120.00 S 1140.00 9.5 S 120.00 S 1 140.00 10f)CJ1,
20 EA Storm Drain Manhol. 1 $ 3400.00 S 3400,00 1 $ 3400.00 S 3 400.00 1 S 3 400.00 S 3 400.00 10f)CJ1,
21 LF French Drain - Incl. Pine Filter and Backtltl o S - $ - o $ . $ - 0 10f)CJ1,
22 EA Storm Drain Drllp Inlet, 1 $ 5,400,00 $ 5,400.00 1 $ 5,400.00 $ 5,400.00 1 $ 5.400.00 $ 5,400.00 10f)CJ1,
P.r Detal Al18 W= 7ft
23 EA Storm Drain Drllp Inlet, 1 $ 8,800,00 $ 8,800.00 1 $ 8,800,00 $ 8,800.00 1 $ 8.800.00 $ 8,800.00 10f)CJ1,
Per Detal 8118 W- 14ft
24 LS R.moval and DlsIlOSaI of Ex. SO Facilities 1 $ 2000.00 $ 2000.00 I $ 2 000.00 S 2 000.00 I S 2 000.00 S 2 000.00 10f)CJ1,
SUBTOTAL BID - PHASE I S 279 099 S 261 654 S 2511883.60
PHASE II
GENERAl. REQUIREMENTS
28 I LS I Mobllzatlon Allowance I 11 $ 2000.00 1 $ 2000.00 1 11 $ 2000,00 1 $ 2000.00 1 11 $ 2.000.00 I $ 2 000.00 I 10f)CJ1,
26 I LS ITramc Control 1 11 S 1 900.00 1 S 1 900.00 I 11 $ 1900.00 1 $ 1 900.00 1 11 $ 1.900.00 I $ 1 900.00 I 10f)CJ1,
27 I LS IConstructlon Survey 1 11 S 900,00 I s 900.00 I 11 S 900.00 1 S 900.00 1 11 S 900.00 I S 900.00 I 10f)CJ1,
SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS
28 LS Grlndlna Pavem.nt 1 6500,00 S 6500.00 1 S 6 500.00 S 6 500,00 1 S 8 500.00 S 8 500.00 10f)CJ1,
29 SF A.C Patch Reoalr 8800 2,65 S 23 320,00 5544 $ 2.65 $ 14691.60 5544 $ 2.115 $ 14691.60 10f)CJ1,
30 TON Class B Asllhalt Concrete 700 54.00 $ 37800.00 1142 $ 54.00 $ 61 675.56 1142 $ 54.00 81.11711.156 10f)CJ1,
31 LS R......,. Frames and eave... 1 1 200.00 $ 1 200.00 1 $ 1 200.00 $ 1 200.00 1 $ 1 """",ft . 1.200,00 10f)CJ1,
32 LS PaIIement Delineation 1 S 2800.00 S 2800.00 1 S 2 800.00 S 2 800.00 1 S 2800.00 2 800.00 10f)CJ1,
33 LF Curb Palnllna ~-Coats\ 400 S 0.80 $ 320.00 400 $ 0.80 $ 320.00 $ 0.80 - 0%
SUBTOTAL BID - PHASE II $ 76740,00 $ 91 987.18 111 687.16
PHASE III
GENERAl. REQUIREMENTS
34 LS Mobllzatlon Allowance 1 S 5000,00 S 5000.00 1 S 5000.00 $ 5000.00 0.1 S 5 000.00 S 500.00 10%
35 LS TraIIIc Control 1 S 4000.00 S 4000.00 1 $ 4000.00 S 4 000.00 o S 4 000.00 S - 0%
36 LS Trench Sheetlna. Shorlna or Braclna 1 S 500.00 S 500.00 1 S 500.00 S 500.00 o S 500.00 $ - 0%
37 LS Construction Survey 1 $ 2 700.00 $ 2 700.00 1 $ 2700.00 $ 2700.00 o $ 2 700 00 $ . 0%
SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS
38 LS Grtndlna Pavem.nt 1 $ 19500.00 $ 19500.00 1 S 19500.00 S 19500.00 o S 19500.00 S - 0%
39 SF A.C Patch R.nalr 5275 $ 3.60 S 18990.00 5275 $ 3.60 $ 18 990.00 o $ 3.80 $ - 0%
40 TON Class B AsDhalt Concrete 2600 $ 50,00 $ 130 000.00 2600 $ 50.00 $ 130 000.00 o $ 50.00 $ - 0%
41 LF Concrete CUrb and Gutter 60 $ 25.00 S 1 500.00 60 $ 28.00 $ 1 500.00 o $ 28.00 $ - 0%
42 SF Drlvewav Ramn 240 S 7.00 S 1 680.00 240 S 7.00 S 1 680.00 o S 7.00 S - 0%
43 LF Asnhalt Concrete DIk. 70 $ 7.00 S 490.00 70 S 7,00 S 490,00 o S 7.00 S . 0%
--_.~-~-_._-~
44 10%
45 0%
0%
- 0%
- 0%
$ 1 100.00
$ .71 59'11.
~_\~ -00
Date
.:k? I Z, za;o Pay to Date $ 354650.76
Retention $ 35,265.08
Dati Previous PaY"'- $ 1C3,973.63
Previous ~ $ 15.997.07
'1-Il:j-d"L ThIs Payment 5 173.4u.a5
ThIs Retention $ 19,261.01
Date
Contract Start Date: 7/13/00
'1... ~ /Jtfl) C>ripa1 Contract Da)'"' 75
Adjuoted. Contract Da)'"' 0
Date Adjuated Contract End Date: 9/25/00
.....
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DANIEL C. HERNANDEZ, DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION AND #
FACILITIES
SUBJECT: SOLICITATION OF BIDS FOR THE CITY HALL RE-ROOFING PROJECT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council authorize the solicitation of bids for the re-roofing of
City Hall.
FUNDING:
The adopted FY200012001 Government Buildings Structures and Improvements Budget
includes $30,000 for the re-roofing of City Hall.
DISCUSSION:
The Public Works Department has prepared plans and specifications for the Re-roofing of
City Hall. The City Hall building has an existing roof that is estimated to be at least 25
years old. Although patched many times, the roof continues to leak during rain. The roof
has been examined by three reputable roofing contractors and has been determined to be
beyond repair. Staff recommends that the roof be replaced.
AL TERNA TIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Approve staff's recommendation;
- Do not approve staff's recommendation;
- Modify staff's recommendation as appropriate and approve;
- Provide direction to staff.
C:\My Documents\Projects\CityHall. Reroof.Auth.Advertise. doc
10.8.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL J~
FROM: KERRY McCANTS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 56 FOR
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 99-003 AND PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 99-003 REGARDING THE
UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES; 1171 ASH STREET
DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution upholding
the decision of the Planning Commission of June 6, 2000 to require certain existing
overhead public utilities to be placed underground. Staff further recommends that
language be added to Condition of Approval No. 19 regarding tree protection
measures for underground utility trenching.
FUNDING:
No fiscal impact.
DISCUSSION:
On July 25, 2000, the City Council heard an appeal of the Planning Commission's
decision on June 6, 2000 regarding this matter. Following the staff presentation
and public hearing, the public hearing was closed. The City Council directed that
the item be continued to September 26, 2000 to allow the applicant time to gather
information regarding PG&E's requirements on the placement and cost of
undergrounding (reference Attachment 2 for City Council meeting minutes).
The applicant has submitted a letter addressing the costs associated with
undergrounding utilities. The cost breakdown is divided into two categories listed
on page 2 of the letter. The first category outlines the overhead utilities that the
applicant is willing to place underground. The second category lists the costs
associated with undergrounding the primary electrical service, which is the basis of
the appeal. The last page is a preliminary cost estimate from PG&E to underground
a portion of the project (reference Attachment 3). Information from PG&E
-_..__._-~---_..__._- -
Appeal to City Council
Sutton TPM 99-003; PUD 99-003
September 26, 2000
Page 2 of 2
regarding the feasibility of placing the transformer within the public right-of-way, or
other options from PG&E, has not been submitted for staff's review.
Although it was staff's desire to continue this item to allow the applicant the
opportunity to research other options for Council's consideration, the applicant has
requested that the matter be decided tonight based on the information contained in
the attached letter,
AL TERNA TIVES:
The following alternatives are presented for Council consideration:
- Approve staff's recommendation;
- Do not approve staff's recommendation;
- Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendation;
- Provide direction to staff.
Attachments:
1. Minutes from the July 25, 2000 City Council Meeting
2. Letter from applicant dated September 1 9, 2000
3. July 25, 2000 City Council staff report (less attachments)
----..--------
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO REQUIRE CERTAIN OVERHEAD UTILITIES BE PLACED
UNDERGROUND FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 99-003 AND
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 99-003, APPLIED FOR BY BILLY D.
SUTTON, SR. FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1171 ASH STREET
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2000 the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande
held a duly noticed public hearing to consider Tentative Parcel Map Case No. 99-003
and Planned Unit Development Case No. 99-003 filed' by Billy D. Sutton, Sr. to
subdivide a half-acre parcel into three lots and construct two single-family residences;
and
WHEREAS, as part of its consideration of the application, the Planning Commission
reviewed and considered the information and public testimony presented at the public
hearing, the staff report and other information and documents that were part of the
public record; and
WHEREAS, after due study, the Planning Commission approved the Tentative Parcel
Map and Planned Unit Development applications with a Condition of Approval No. 56
requiring the plagement of certain existing overhead public utilities underground, as
shown on the attached Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, Billy D. Sutton, Sr. filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's
decision to require certain public utilities to be placed underground; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 26,
2000 in accordance with the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information and public
testimony presented at the public hearing, the staff report and other information and
documents that are part of the public record; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing,
the following circumstances exist:
1. The overhead public utilities required to be placed underground as shown in
Exhibit "A" are subject to the following provisions of Section 9-15-050 of
the Development Code because the overhead utilities:
a. Provide direct service to the property being developed;
c. Are existing between the property line and the centerline of the
peripheral streets of the property being developed; and
d. Are located along or within six feet of the rear or side lot lines of the
property to be developed.
~---
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission to require certain
utilities be placed underground as shown in Exhibit U A", attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby
amends Condition of Approval No. 19 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 00-
1745 as follows (new language is shown highlighted):
19. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance 431 C.S., the
Community Tree Ordinance. The following tree protection 111~?stJresshall be
implemented for underground trenching. within the driplineofth~18"..diameter
oak tree located on the immediately adjacent property west oftfu:tprojectsite:
The utilities shall be installed by auguring at twenty-ft)",rinChes(24")
minimum depth or by hand. trenching. If rootsover()r)~inch (1") in
diameter are encountered, the roots. shall be preserved.~i"thoutinjury.
No machine trenching within the tree's dripline shall be permitted.
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 26th day of September 2000.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE '3
MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELL Y WETMORE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTORI
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
L~~'
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
~ -~'---"._'-
0 pp
I (To Remain)
I
I
I/lO.H. Wires
I (To Remain)
I
I
I
I 1
<;> pp
(To Remain)
I
I
PARCEL 3 I
I .
I
V'O.H. Wires
I (To Remain)
-,----------
I
I
PARCEL 2 I
I
2 pp
a.H. Wires To Be (To Remain)
.!Iace~ Underground ~ ,
,
,
,
,
,
"
fo.H. Wires PARCEL 1 a.H. Wires
. (To Remain) (To Remain)
<4 . 3 5
----0------ -----
pp pp pp
(To Remain) (To Remain) (To Remain)
a.H. Wires To Be
Placed Underground /iO.H. Wires
(To Remain)
~!:; 1-1 !:;iFlEET 6
----- -----
~ "- pp
i a.H. Wires I (To Remain)
(To Remain) I
I
I
I
UTILITY RELOCATION
TPM 99-003, PUD 99-003
EXHIBIT A
A TT ACHMENT I
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
JULY 25,2000
Ms. Hughes gave an informational presentation on Clerk Assisted Sales of
tobacco products. She spoke about tobacco use issues, citing various smoking
related. health statistics. She spoke about the County programs which. focus on
creating smoke free environments; educating the community on advertising that
has been banned; and reducing youth access to tobacco products. She
explained the Clerk Assisted Sales program which has been effective in reducing
illegal sales to minors. She requested the Council consider the adoption of an
Ordinance to implement a Clerk Assisted Sales policy in the City. She said their
goal is to make San Luis Obispo County the first County in the State to have all
jurisdictions covered by Clerk'Assisted Sales ordinances and policies.
Wayne Hansen, volunteer chairperson of the San Luis Obispo CounW Tobacco
Control Coalition, which is a citizens group that is organized to be a supporter for
public policy. He stated that youth is at risk when it comes to tobacco products
and reducing access to tobacco products is one of its goals. He requested the
Council support and adopt the Clerk Assisted Sales ordinance.
Lloyd Henning provided additional information about youth access to tobacco
and distributed promotional materials to the Council.
Mayor Pro Tern Ferrara spoke in support of the concept of Clerk Assisted Sales
and suggested bring the item back as an Agenda item with a draft Ordinance.
Council Members Dickens, Tolley, Runels, and Mayor Lady also supported the
program.
There was Council consensus to direct staff to bring the item back with a draft
ordinance at a future meeting.
6. AGENDA REVIEW
Interim City Manager TerBorch stated that a petition to repave a portion of Valley
Road had been received and distributed to the Council relating to Item 10.a.
Interim City Manager TerBorch reported that a letter was recmved from Kenneth
Dawson, 857 Mesa Drive, supporting the paving of an additional portion of Valley
Road.
6.a. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES READ IN TITLE ONLY
Council Member Tolley moved, Council Member Runels seconded, and the
motion passed unanimously that all resolutions and ordinances presented at the
meeting shall be read in title only and all further reading be waived.
7. PUBLIC HEARING
7.a. APPEAL OF CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 56 FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP 99-003 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 99-003 REGARDING THE
UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES: 1171 ASH STREET
2
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
JUL Y 25, 2000
Director of Community Development McCants highlighted the staff report. He
explained that the applicant was appealing Condition No. 56 which requires
underg~ounding of overhead public utilities. He stated the Planning Commission
modifi~d the original condition to reduce the undergrounding requirement by
eliminating the removal of three utility poles and reducing the number of lines to
be undergrounded by approximately 50%. He stated that staff had been in
contact with the owner of 1177 Ash Street who indicated there is no' problem with
undergrounding on her property as long as it does not impact the existing oak
tree. Director McCants stated it was recommended the Council amend Condition
No. 19 to address this concern. As to the second reason for appeal that the
adjacent senior housing complex was not required to underground the service,
Director McCants stated that at the time the project was approved, the
interpretation of the requirements of the Development Code was more liberal than
it is currently. Staff recommended the Council deny the appeal and adopt a
Resolution upholding the decision of the Planning Commission, with the
modification to Condition No. 19 regarding protection of the oak tree.
In response to an inquiry from Council Member Dickens, Director McCants
explained that Attachment 6 shows the modifications as recommended by the
Planning Commission, eliminating the requirement to remove any power poles
and revising the overhead lines to be placed underground.
There was discussion and clarification regarding the undergrounding of the
overhead wire that crosses over Ash Street to the property. Also clarified was
that the service to parcels 1, 2, and 3 located on the property would be placed
underground.
Mayor Lady opened the Public Hearing.
John Belsher, attorney. representing the applicant, addressed the applicant's
concerns including visual impacts; burden of costs associated with
undergrounding of utilities; the nexus for requiring undergrounding; and
potential impacts to the existing oak tree. He displayed an overhead and spoke
of the requirement of undergrounding from across Ash Street to the first pole. He
said this requirement was at issue, otherwise the Planning, Commission
recommendation was acceptable to applicant. Mr. Belsher asked the Council to
consider other mitigation, uphold the Planning Commission modifications, and
delete the undergrounding requirement from pole #6 to pole #2.
Marjorie Boswell, 1177 Ash Street, said if the existing oak tree was removed, the
only other trees remaining at the back of the property would be a lemon, apricot,
and lilac tree. She stated she did not want to lose the oak tree. She spoke about
the existing poles that line up on her side of the property; and that there was
room on the applicant's property to work without disturbing the trees.
Greg Hownstein, stated he was a relative of the owner of the house behind the
subject property. He said there was a letter submitted previously to the Planning
3
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
JUL Y 25, 2000
Commission regarding adverse effects to their property. He submitted a letter for
the record from Liem Vo and Daniel Dang which address the decisions made by
the Planning Commission not related to the undergrounding.
Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Lady closed the Public Hearing.
Council questions and discussi.on included various potential methods of working
around the existing oak tree in order to place the overhead wires underground;
whether or not the transformer on the pole across the street could be placed
underground in the City's right-of-way in a utility easement. versus on private
property; and whether P .G.&E. had been contacted to find out what exactly is
required.
Tim Thiessen, California Design Associates, stated that there was an issue of
placing the transformer underground because it could not be surface mounted.
He stated he was not sure if P.G.&E would allow the transformer to be placed
underground under the driveway. He stated they are usually located in a
dedicated easement and would conflict with the design of the driveway approach.
John Belsher stated the transformer must be replaced for undergrounding and
relocated on the applicant's property. He said it was not a feasible solution due
to the expense and may not be acceptable to the utility company.
Bill Sutton, owner/applicant, relayed information from his meetings with P .G.&E
and stated that a person must pay P.G.&E. to prepare an estimate and written
recommendations.
Mrs. Boswell stated that she had given permission for accessing her driveway in
order to place the transformer at the back of the property. She said she was not
aware of any easement.
Following further discussion with regard to the placement and cost of
undergrounding, Council Member Tolley stated the Council did not have enough
information on undergrounding the utilities and would like to see documentation
from P.G.&E. on options before making a decision. Council Member Runels and
Mayor Lady agreed.
Council Member Dickens stated the issue before the Council was whether to
uphold the conditions approved by the Planning Commission or determine
whether the reasons for the appeal were adequate. He felt that the Planning
Commission had done an adequate job in reviewing the proposal; had looked' at
the General Plan and the Development Code; and had made good decisions
based on the information provided. He stated he would not be opposed if the
applicant wanted to come back with additional information regarding. P .G.&E.'s
assessment of the issue. However, he stated the applicant had not justified the
appeal and he would uphold the Planning Commission's decision.
4
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
JUL Y 25, 2000
Mayor Pro Tern Ferrara commented on the requirements of the City's
Development Code to place overhead wires underground; bringing in an arborist
to ens~re there is no damage to the oak tree; whether it was feasible to place the
tran.sformer in the public right-of-way; and related cost estimates. He said he
agreed with Council Members Tolley and Runels about not making a decision
without more information. He stated he was willing to postpone the item if the
applicant was willing to provide more information from P.G.&E.
John Belsher requested sixty days to bring back reports with more information
about. P.G.&E.'s requirements regarding the placement and cost of
undergrounding.
Council Member Tolley moved to continue the item until September 26th. Council
Members Runels seconded the motion.
X Voice Vote
- Roll Call Vote
Aye Lady
Aye Ferrara
Aye Runels
Aye Tolley
No Dickens
There being 4 AYES and 1 NO, the motion is hereby declared to be passed.
8. CITIZENS' INPUT. COMMENTS. AND SUGGESTIONS
John Keen, 298 N. Elm, commented on the action Council took on Item 7.a. He
suggested the Council give the Planning Commission direction because this
decision was a policy change from the Development Code. He said the
Development Code does not address cost issues for undergrounding utilities. He
said if cost was going to be a factor in decision-making, the Planning
Commission needs that information from the Council.
Sharlotte Wilson, Bambi Court, spoke about the paving of Valley Road. She said
she was speaking to the Council on behalf of the senior citizens on Valley Road
that are affected by the traffic noise and vibration levels. She said it has come to
her attention that Valley Road was not going to be paved from Via Los Berros to
Sunrise Terrace. She stated she was there to help the Council understand that it
was not a cosmetic issue. She said that Marjorie Gillam set forth the petition and
had never approached the City on an issue until now. She stated it was her hope
that something would be done to help the residents on Valley Road.
Dorothy VonBurg, resident on the corner of Tiger Tail and Valley Road, spoke
about the negative impacts of truck traffic and the poor condition of Valley Road.
5
~".-,._,."...._-_..- - ._~--
m Pacific Gas and
I Electric Company..
A TT ACHMENT 2 Los Padres Division
4325 South Higuera St;e~t
San Luis Obispo;CA 93401
-
August 25, 2000 : !.
'. .
RECEIVED
SEP 1 2 2000
Mr. Billy Sutton CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
690 Kodiak COMMUNI1Y DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
Arroyo Grande CA 9342.0
Re: 1171 Ash Street .
Dear Mr. Sutton: . ,',,>.' . ....
..-,-{#~{~;4i~~~,'
PG&E has reviewed your request for a <;:ost estimate to underground one":,.:":-~~;>Hi;'!~?:'::
span of 12,000 volt overhead line at 1171 Ash Street, Arroyo Grande.
As we discussed by phone, based on the information you have provided,
PG&E's t'Ballpark" estimate for this work is $30,000. In addition to these
costs you would be responsible to install the necessary trenching, conduit
and substrutures. This cost estimate covers only the overhead to
underground conversion. There will be additional costs to provide service
to the 3 unit residential development.
Please call me at (805)546-3811 if you have any additional questions.
.
- -.
..- , .
.
Jerry Christensen
New Business Rep.
Enclosure(s)
..--.....-
ATTACHMENT 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: KERRY McCANTS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 56 FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP CASE NO. 99-003 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
CASE NO. 99-003 REGARDING THE UNDERGROUNDING OF
UTILITIES; 1171 ASH STREET
DATE: JULY 25, 2000
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution upholding
the decision of the Planning Commission of June 6, 2000 to require certain existing
overhead public utilities to be placed underground. Staff further recommends that
language be added to Condition of Approval No. 19 regarding tree protection
measures for underground utility trenching.
FUNDING:
No fiscal impact.
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission approved Tentative Parcel Map 99-003 and Planned Unit
Development 99-003 on June 6, 2000 to subdivide a half-acre parcel into three
lots and construct two separate single-family residences (reference Attachment 3
for Planning Commission meeting minutes). A single-family residence currently
exists on the property that will remain.
The Conditions of Approval for the project required the applicant to place certain
overhead utilities underground. Specifically, Condition No. 56 requires that
"existing overhead public utilities on site shall be placed underground, as shown in
Exhibit A, " (reference
Attachment 4). The Planning Commission modified Condition No. 56 to relieve the
applicant from removing three (3) utility poles and undergrounding approximately
half of the overhead wires (reference Attachments 5 and 6).
APPLICANT'S APPEAL STATEMENT AND RESPONSE BY STAFF:
The appeal document filed by the applicant (Attachment 1) sets forth the reasons
for the appeal. For the Council's convenience, the reasons supporting the appeal
stated by the applicant are listed below in italics, followed by the staff response.
Appeal to City Council
Sutton TPM 99-003; PUD 99-003
July 25, 2000
Page 2 of 3
1. The neighbor located at 1177 Ash Street will refuse us access onto her
property for purposes of updating her service.
Staff Response
Staff discussed this item with the neighbor, Mrs. Boswell, whose property is
located at 1177 Ash Street. Mrs. Boswell did not express any opposition to
undergrounding along the driveway. However, she did express concern about the
18" diameter oak tree located on her property and the damage that utility trenching
could have on it. In response to her concern, staff recommends that the following
language be added to Condition of Approval No. 19 to ensure that proper tree
protection measures are used during the trenching of utilities (new language is
shown highlighted):
19. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance 431 C.S., the
Community Tree Ordinance.
2. I feel that I am being unfairly discriminated against as the power I will be
forced to underground services a new senior housing complex and two
existing residences that are not part of our project. It is my opinion that
Public Works should have made the senior complex underground this service
at the time of their approval. The financial strain of this requirement would
make this proposed project unfeasible.
Staff Response
Development Code Section 9-1 5-050 requires all above ground utilities to be placed
underground when the following circumstances exist for any proposed subdivision
or discretionary land use project (reference Attachment 8):
1. Utilities provide direct service to the property being developed;
2. Utilities are existing and located within the boundaries of the property being
developed;
3. Utilities are existing between the property line and the centerline of the
peripheral streets of the property being developed; or
4. Utilities are located along or within six (6) feet of the rear or side lot lines of
the property to be developed.
-- -----..-------
Appeal to City Council
Sutton TPM 99-003; PUD 99-003
July 25, 2000
Page 3 of 3
The project site contains a total of three (3) utility poles and associated overhead
utility wires along the front and west property lines that are subject to the above
requirement. Per the Development Code, the draft conditions of approval required
all three (3) utility poles to be removed and all associated overhead utilities placed
underground. After receiving public input and reviewing the written request from
the applicant to waive the undergrounding requirement (reference Attachment 9),
the Planning Commission granted an exception by allowing all three (3) poles and
approximately half of the overhead utilities to remain.
Exceptions can be made to this utilities undergrounding requirement on an
administrative level if it can be determined that "topographic soil, or any other
conditions, render underground placement impractical or infeasible." The Public
Works Director and Community Development Director reviewed the request and
determined that the undergrounding requirement was not "impractical". or
"infeasible. "
The senior housing project referenced in the applicant's above statement (Self-Help
Housing, approved in July of 1 994) is located southwest of the subject property
(reference Attachment 7). All new public utilities were installed underground per
the Development Code. However, the project was not conditioned to place the
existing overhead utilities located along the rear property line underground. It is
staff's assumption that the Development Code was interpreted more liberally at the
time the project was approved.
Attachments:
1. Appeal statement from applicant
2. Resolution upholding the Planning Commission's decision of June 6, 2000
3. Minutes from the June 6, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting
4. Condition of Approval No. 56 for TPM 99-003 and PUD 99-003
5. Utility Exhibit A (Draft)
6. Utility Exhibit A (Approved)
7. Location of Peoples' Self-Help Housing project
8. Section 9-1 5-050 of the Development Code
9. Letter from applicant requesting an exception to the undergrounding of
utilities, dated March 31, 2000
< .
CALIFORNIA
DESIGN
ASSOCIATES
725 Shell Beach Road. Shell Beach, California 93449 · 805/773-2771 · Facsimile 805/773-2397
September 19,2000
City of Arroyo Grande
clo Planning Dept./City Council
RE: Off-Site improvement costs.
1171 Ash Street
Arroyo Grande, CA
Dear Mayor & Councilmembers,
The following is a cost breakdown for the undergrounding of utilities as directed
by the City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission.
The second page will give you two categories. The costs to underground items
Bill Sutton agrees to provide are itemized within the first category. Items within
the second category are the costs to underground the existing overhead poVIIer
service.
The last page of this cost breakdown is a preliminarv written estimate from
P.G.& E..
Thank you. If you have any questions, please call.
Sincerely,
--r::- ~
Tim Tiessen
Principal
RECEIVED
SEP ] ~ 7non
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
Residential. Commercial
- .
Utility Cost Breakdown
For 1171 Ash Street
Not Contesting
Underaroundina of TelePhone and Cable Television:
Cutting of Asphalt: $ 300.00
Trenching: $ 2,500.00
2" Telephone Conduit (installation): $ 200.00
2" Cable Conduit (installation): $ 200.00
Telephone Cable:
(400')($14. OO/Ft.): $ 5,600.00
Cable Television:
(4oo')($14.00/Ft.): $ 5,600.00
Re-Paving of Street: $1,300.00
Total: $ 15,700.00
Basis of Appeal
Underaroundina of Primary Electrical Service:
Cutting of Asphalt: $ 300.00
Trenching: $1,500.00
6" Electrical Conduit (installation): $ 400.00
Re-Paving of Street: $ 1,300.00
P.G. & E.'s hook-up charge: $ 30,000.00 ('ballpark')
Total: $ 33,500.00
Total Costs: $ 49,200.00
~ , I~ Pacific Gas and
. Electric Company,. <
L,g, PlOT" Qivilien' . .
( . 4325 Soudrite-~ Sveot .
S.,. lUll Obi.,.,,' .';A m?!
August 15, 2000 ,
. .
i
Mr. Billy Sutton
690 Kodiak
Arroyo Grande CA 9342.0
Re: 1171 Ash Street .
Dear Mr. Sutton: '. . :', .,'. .',
. '..1;':'~':.''',;,~~\''
....~~1
...~ . .:;:
PGEi:E has reviewed your request for a c:;:ost estimate to underjfound 'on~\'~"'~:~'~;'~~~~~:
span. of 1-2,000 volt overhead line at 1171 Ash Street, Arroyo Grande.
As we discussed by phone, based on the information you have provtdedl
PG&E's "'Ballpark" estimate for this work is $30,000. In addition to these
costs you would be responsible to install the necessary trenching, conduit
and substrutures. This cost estimate covers only the overhead to
underground conversion. There will be additional costs to provide service
to the 3 unit residential development.
Please call me at (805)S46-381 i if you have any additional questions.
,
,
)
)
Jerry Christensen
New Business Rep
Enclosure(s)
..
'"a;\
;'
- , I~ Pacific Gas and
, ElecUit: Company,. .
Lo, Pld.... Cimien' . .
( 4325 Soudrltper" SVCOt .
s~ Lu.. O~illlO.' ~ 93.~1
August 25, 2000 ,
}e '..
;
Mr. Billy Sutton
690 Kodiak
Arroyo Grande CA 9342C
Re: 1171 Ash Street .
Dear Mr. Sutton; '. . :-. ..'.' .
',....".,.,:.,
,;,'PO:' .~~\
.~ .. ':J
. ... ~ ;>!#;:Cr'.....
PG8:E has reviewed your request for a c;:ost estimate to underJround on~\ .?.:.'...:.~:.~ '1':~':'
span. of 1-2,000 volt overhead (fne at 1171 Ash Street, Arroyo Grande.
As we discussed by phone, based on the Information you have provided,
PG&E's rfBallpark" estimate for this work is $30,000. In addition to these
costs you would be responsible to install the necessary trenching, conduit
and substrutures. This cost estimate covers only the overhead to
underground conversion. There will be additional costs to provide service
to the 3 unit residential development.
.
Please call me at (805)546-3811 if you have any additional questions.
,
,
;
)
,
Jerry Christensen
New Business Rep,
Enclosure(s)
..
'I"'"
J
11...
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL cJj
FROM: KERRY MCCANTS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR '^---
SUBJECT: DESIGNATION OF THE SUBORDINATE OFFICER PER
SECTION 23800(E) OF THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
CODE
DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached resolution designating the
Community Development Director as the Subordinate Officer pursuant to Section
23800( e) of the Business and Professions Code.
FUNDING:
There will be a minor cost associated with preparing the documentation required to
support the request for conditions.
DISCUSSION:
During the 1999 Legislative Session an amendment was made to the Business and
Professions Code relating to alcoholic beverage licensing which affects the local
governing bodies of cities and counties.
Section 23800( e) was added to the Business and Professions Code to permit a "local
governing body or its designated subordinate officer or agency" to request that
conditions be placed upon a license at the time of transfer which would mitigate
problems at or in the immediate vicinity of the premises. The Department of Alcoholic
Beverage Control (ABC) is required to either adopt the conditions as requested if
supported by substantial evidence, or give written notice of "its determination that there
is not substantial evidence that the problem exists, or that the conditions would not
mitigate the problems identified." A prospective buyer dissatisfied with conditions could
back out of the transfer allowing the existing ownership to continue operation without
the proposed conditions. A copy of Assembly Bill NO.1092 establishing Section
23800( e) is attached.
The ABC must receive a request for conditions within 30 days of the filing of a transfer
application. This may be extended for an additional 20 days upon written request to the
ABC. A request for conditions must include "substantial evidence" documenting existing
problems with the premises or in the immediate vicinity of the premises and specific
proposed conditions intended to mitigate the problems. The ABC's authority in these
circumstances is to either adopt or reject the conditions in their entirety so it is important
to address and limit conditions to those which will specifically mitigate identified
problems.
As the local governing body the City Council may elect to delegate the duties of
submitting evidence of existing problems and requested conditions to a subordinate
agency or official such as a zoning, planning, or law enforcement agency or official if
desired. The ABC has requested that the City submit a written notice of such
delegation to the Department's Headquarters address within 45 days of the date of
receipt of their notice. (See attachment 2) If such a delegation is not made within that
period the ABC will assume that the City Council will be making these determinations.
The Council retains the ability to rescind or drop the delegation at any time.
AL TERNA TIVES:
The following alternatives are presented for Council consideration:
- Approve staffs recommendation;
- Do not approve staffs recommendation;
- Modify staffs recommendation as appropriate and approve; or
- Provide direction to staff.
Attachments:
1) Assembly Bill No. 1092
2) Letter dated August 26, 2000 from. the Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control
--------...---- ---
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE DESIGNATING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
AS THE SUBORDINATE OFFICER RESPONSIBLE FOR REQUESTING
CONDITIONS ON ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSES
WHEREAS, Section 23800(3) was added to the Business and Professions Code
relating to alcoholic beverage licensing; and
WHEREAS, Section 23800(e) allows a local governing body or its designated
subordinate officer to request at the time of transfer that conditions be placed upon a
license which would mitigate problems at, or in the immediate vicinity, of the
premises; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, as the local governing body, has the option to designate
a subordinate officer to request conditions be placed on a license, provide substantial
evidence of the problems related to the premises and demonstrate how the requested
conditions will mitigate those problems.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande hereby designates the Community Development Director as the subordinate
officer for the purpose of implementing the provisions of Section 23800(e) of the
Business and Professions Code.
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 26th day of September 2000.
---.~._. - - -- -----..
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE; ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR!
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Sif;- --.
~)
STEVEN D. ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
--
ATTACHMENT I
Assembly Bill No. 1092 .
, CHAPTER 499
An act to amend Sections 23800 and 23805 of the Business and
Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages.
[Approved by Governor September 27, 1999. Filed
. with Secretary of State September 27, 1999.]
LEGISlATIVE COUNSEI:S DIGEST
AB 1092, Lowenthal. Alcoholic beverages: licenses.
Under existing law, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
is authorized to place reasonable restrictions upon retail licensees or
any licensee in the exercise of retail privileges in various situations.
This bill would also permit the department to place reasonable
restrictions on these licensees if the department 'adopts conditions
requested by a local governing body.
. The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 23800 of the Business and Professions Code
is amended to read:
23800. The department may 'place reasonable conditions upon
retail licensees or upon any licensee in the exercise of retail privileges
in the following situations:
(a) If grounds ~xist for the denial of an application for a license or
where a protest against the issuance of a license is filed and if the
department finds 'that those grounds may be removed by the
iniposition of those conditions.
(b) Where findings are made by the department which would
justify a suspension or revocation of a license, and. where the
imposition of a condition is reasonably related to those findings. In the
case of a suspension, the conditions may be in lieu of or in addition
to the suspension. .
(c) Where the department iSsues an order suspending' or revoking
only a portion of the privileges to be exercised under the license.
(d) Where findings are made by the department that the licensee
has failed to correct. objectionable conditions within a reasonable
time after receipt of notice to make corrections given pursuant to
subdivision (e) of Section 24200.
(e) Upon notiee to the licensee from the department adopting
conditions requested by the local governing body, '. or its designated
subordinate officer or agency, in whose jurisdiction the license is
located. The request for conditions shall be supported by substantial
evidence that the problems either on the premises or in the
94
. -_._-~_._..._------~-------..........--~
,
Ch. 499 -2-
immediate vicinity identified by the local governing body or its
designated subordinate officer or agency will be mitigated by the
conditions. Upon receipt of the request for conditions, the
department shall either adopt the conditions requested or notify the
local governing body, or its designated subordinate officer or agency,
in writing of its determination that there is not substantial evidence
that the problem exists or. that the conditions would not mitigate the
problems identified. The department may adopt conditions
requested. pursuant to this paragraph only when th~ request is flied
within the time authorized for a local law enforcement agency to file
a protest or proposed conditions pursuant to Section 23987.
SEC. 2. Section 23805 of the Business and Professions Code is
amended to read:
23805. The proceedings specified in Section 23800(a),' (b), (c),
(d), and (e) shall be conducted in the same manner as is required for
other proceedings involving petitions, protests or accusations, and
the right of a respondent in the proceedings to appeal shall include.
the right. to . appeal from an order i~posing conditions upon the
licenses involved in the proceedings. If the department gives notice
of conditions pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 23800 or denies
a petition flied under Section 23803, the licensee or transferee may,
within 10 days after the mailing of the denial, make a written request
for a hearing.. The proceedings at the hearing .shall be conducted as
provided in Section 24300, and the respondent shall have the same
rights of appeal therefrom as'in'disciplinary actions.
0
$ 94
.__.~-
.'
. ST~TE OF CAliFORNIA - BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY A TT ACHMENT 2 GRAY DAVIS, Govemor
DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL Q
3810 Rosin Court. Suite 150 RECE\VED r.;:? t\ '.'~'7
Sacramento, CA 95834 CITY OF ARROYO ~:,\i"i,L!.~
(916) 263-6900
00 AUG 28 PM l,: 50
,
August 25,2000
To: County Board of Supervisors
City Councils
Mayors
During L;,e 1999 Legislative Session an ~'1lerrdment '.vas made to the Business and
Professions Code relating to alcoholic beverage licensing which affects the local
governing bodies of cities and counties.
Section 23800(e) was added to the Business and Professions Code to pennit a "local
governing body or its designated subordinate officer or agency" to request the imposition
of conditions be placed upon a license at the time of transfer which would mitigate
problems at or in the immediate vicinity of the premises. The Department is required to
either adopt the conditions as requested if supported by substantial evidence or give
written notice of "its detennination that there is not. substantial evidence that the problem
exists or that the conditions would not mitigate the problems identified." A buyer of a
business dissatisfied with conditions could always back out of the transfer allowing the
existing ownership to continue operation without the proposed conditions. A copy of
the Chaptered Assembly bill creating Section 23800(e) is enclosed.
A request for conditions must be received by the Department within 30 days of the
filing of a transfer application which may be extended for an additional 20 days upon
written request to the Department. A request for conditions must include "substantial
evidence" documenting existing problems with the premises or in the immediate vicinity of
the premises and specific proposed conditions intended to mitigate the problems. The
Department's authority in these circumstances is to either adopt or reject the conditions in
their entirety so it is important to address and limit conditions to those which will
specifically mitigate identified problems.
The Department is asking that all evidence of problems and requested conditions be
in writing and submitted to the local office of the Department.
As the local governing body you may elect to delegate the duties of submitting
evidence of existing problems and requested conditions to a subordinate agency or
official such as a zoning, planning, or law enforcement agency or official if desired. If this
is your decision, please submit a written notice of such delegation to the Department's
Headquarters address within 45 days of the date of this notice. If such a delegation is not
made within that period we will assume that the local governing body will be making
these detenninations. Obviously, you may make, amend or rescind such delegations later
if that is your wish.
Section 23800( e)
August 25, 2000
Page 2 ..
,
Please send all notifications of delegation of these duties to:
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
Office of the Director
3810 Rosin Court, Suite 150
Sacramento, CA 95834
We appreciate your cooperation in these matters and we feel that the changes in the
law as outlined above will serve to give local officials the ability to better deal with
alcoholic beverage licensing issues.
Sincerely,
anuel R. Espinoza
Interim Director
- - --_.~---~_.-
. .
CALIFORNIA
DESIGN
ASSOCIATES
725 Shell Beach Road. Shell Beach, California 93449 · 805/773-2771 · Facsimile 805/773-2397
September 19, 2000
City of Arroyo Grande
c/o Planning Dept./City Council
RE: Off-Site improvement costs.
1171 Ash Street
Arroyo Grande, CA
Dear Mayor & Councilmembers,
The following is a cost breakdown for the undergrounding of utilities as directed
by the City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission.
The second page will give you ~ categories. The costs to underground items
Bill Sutton agrees to provide are itemized within the first category. Items within
the second category are the costs to underground the existing overhead power
service.
The last page of this cost breakdown is a preliminary written estimate from
P.G.& E..
Thank you. If you have any questionst please call.
Sincerely,
--r:::.~
Tim Tiessen
Principal
RECEIVED
SEP J ~ 7000
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMHH DEPT.
Residential- Commercial
- ..
Utility Cost Breakdown
For 1171 Ash Street
Not Contesting
Underaroundina of TeleDhone and Cable Television:
Cutting of Asphalt: $ 300.00
Trenching: $ 2,500.00
2" Telephone Conduit (installatiQn): $ 200.00
2" Cable Conduit (installation): $ 200.00
Telephone Cable:
(400')($14.00/Ft.): $ 5,600.00
Cable Television:
(400')($14.00/Ft.): $ 5,600.00
Re-Paving of Street: $ 1,300.00
Total: $ 15,700.00
Basis of Appeal
Underaroundina of Primary Electrical Service:
Cutting of Asphalt: $ 300.00
Trenching: $ 1,500.00
6" Electrical Conduit (installation): $ 400.00
Re-Paving of Street: $ 1,300.00
P. G. & E.'s hook-up charge: $ 30,000.00 ('ballpark')
Total : $ 33,500.00
Total Costs: $ 49,200.00
... . I~ Pacific Gas and
, Elet:trH; Company,. .
Lo, Pwdre. Oimi.,.' .
( 4325 Soudr~~ !vOlt'
Soelllll Ollispo,'? 834?'
August 25, 2000 ,
. i
".
Mr. Billy Sutton
690 Kodiak
Arroyo Grande CA 93420
.
Re: 1171 Ash Street .
Dear Mr. Sutton~ '. '. , .'
.....~
" ...... ~ \
PG8:E has reviewed your request for a c;ost estimate to underjround 'on~'~:~~..:.~jt~~~;
span. of 1-2,000 volt overh.ad line at 1171 Ash Street, Arroyo Grande.
As we discussed by phone, based on the information you have providedl
PG&E's "'BaUpark" estimate for this work is $30,000. In addition to these
costs you would be responsible to instaU the necessary trenching, conduit
and substrutures. This cost estimate covers only the overhead to
underground conversion. There will be additional costs to provide service
to the 3 unit residential development.
Please calt me at (805)546-3811 if you have any additional questions.
,
,
,
)
)
Jerry Christensen
New Business Rep,
Endosure(s)
:t";:'~
)
-......-.-