Agenda Packet 1999-01-26
CITY COUNCIL ~~o/
AGENDA ~ 8f~nde
Michael A. Lady Mayor Robert L. Hunt City Manager
Tony M. Ferrara Mayor Pro Tern Timothy J. Carmel City Attorney
Thomas A. Runels Council Member Nancy A. Davis City Clerk
Steve Tolley Council Member
Jim Dickens Council Member
AGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1999
7:30 P.M.
Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande
!
1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 P.M.
~
l,
,""""", 2. FLAG SALUTE: HE WA WIN SU DISCOVERY CAMPFIRE
CLUB, ARROYO GRANDE
3. INVOCATION: FATHER BUTTERS, ST. PATRICK'S
CATHOLIC CHURCH, ARROYO GRANDE
4. ROLL CALL: COUNCIL/AGENCY
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
None
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 - JANUARY 26, 1999
PAGE 2
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
a. Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Conditional Use Permit
No. 98-565 to Construct a 27 .250-Square-Foot Commercial/Retail
Building. 200 Station Way - Dr. Robert D. Anderson (HAMILTON)
(Action Required: Adopt Resolution Upholding Planning
Commission's Decision)
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.
The Council will listen to all communication but, in compliance with the
Brown Act, will not take any action on items that are not on the agenda.
9. CONSENT AGENDA:
The following routine items listed below are scheduled for consideration as
a group. The recommendations for each item are noted in parentheses.
Any Council Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the
Consent Agenda to permit discussion or change the recommended course
of action. The City Council may approve the remainder of the Consent
Agenda on one motion.
a. Cash Disbursement Ratification (SNODGRASS)
(Action Required: Approval)
b. Acceptance of Audited Annual Financial Reports (SNODGRASS)
[CITYI (Action Required: Receive and File)
AGENCY]
c. Minutes of City Council Meetings of January 12. 1999 (DAVIS)
(Action Required: Approval)
d. Council Appointments to Various Boards and Commissions
(HUNT)
(Action Required: Approve Appointments)
e. Waiver of Fees - Harvest Bag. Inc. (HERNANDEZ)
(Action Required: Approval)
f. Adoption of an Ordinance of the City of Arroyo Grande Revising the
Flood Plain Management Ordinance (SPAGNOLO)
(Action Required: Adopt Ordinance No. 501 C.S.)
-----------.....~.----- ---_.'- -----'--~_._--- ---~- -
AGENDA SUMMARY - JANUARY 26, 1999
PAGE 3
9. CONSENT AGENDA: (continued)
g. Waiver of Fees - South County Historical Society (TERBORCH)
(Action Required: Approval)
10. CONTINUED BUSINESS:
a. Date for Workshop on Water Reclamation Projects/Issues
(SPAGNOLO)
(Action Required: Select Date)
11. NEW BUSINESS:
a. Request for Speed Humps: Upper Portion of Newport Avenue
(SPAGNOLO)
(Action Required: Provide Direction to Staff)
b. Final Maps - Approval Process (SPAGNOLO)
(Action Required: Approve Staff Recommendations)
12. CITY COUNCIL/AGENCY REPORTS:
This item gives the Council/Agency 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 Board (IWMA)
(2) Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC)
(3) Air Pollution Control Board
(4) Other
(d) COUNCIL MEMBER THOMAS A. RUNELS:
(1) Zone 3 Water Advisory Board
(2) County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC)
(3) Other
- -"-'~._.,._---,._._-~--
AGENDA SUMMARY - JANUARY 26, 1999
PAGE 4
12. CITY COUNCIL/AGENCY REPORTS: (continued)
(e) COUNCIL MEMBER STEVE TOLLEY:
(1 ) San Luis Obispo Council of Governments/San Luis Obispo
Regional Transit Authority (SLOCOG/SLORT A)
(2) South County Youth Coalition
(3) Long-Range Planning Committee
(4) Other
(c) COUNCIL MEMBER JIM DICKENS:
(1) South County Area Transit (SCAT)
(2) Economic Development Committee/Chamber
(3) Other
13. COUNCIUAGENCY COMMUNICATIONS:
Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Council/Agency
Board
14. ST AFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Correspondence/Information for the City Council/Agency Board presented
by the City Manager/Executive Director
15. ADJOURNMENT: 8:30 A.M. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1999 AT
ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
CONFERENCE ROOM, 345 SOUTH HALCYON
ROAD, FOR A COUNCIUSTAFF LEADERSHIP
WORKSHOP
--'''--~'--'_...-'-----
AGENDA SUMMARY - JANUARY 26, 1999
PAGE 5
* * * * * * *
Copies of the staff reports or other written materials relating to each item of
business referred to on this agenda are on file in the City Clerk's' Office and are
available for public inspection and reproduction at cost. If you have questions
regarding any agenda item, please contact the City Clerk's Office 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 City Clerk's Office
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 City Clerk's Office at (805) 473-5414 for more information.
---~--~.._-----,-~._-----
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 on the following item:
Appeal: Appeal of Planning Commission denial of Conditional Use
Permit No. 98-565 to construct a 27,250 square foot
commercial/retail building.
Appellant: Robert D. Anderson
Representative: Gerald C. Weaver Esq.
Location: 200 Station Way
Reason for
Appeal: The appellant states the Resolution denying the project was
deficient and did not have sufficient findings; the conclusions
were not supported by evidence, and the denial was
arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to the City Development
Code, General Plan policies, and standards.
Any person affected or concerned by this appeal may submit written comments
to the City Council before the hearing, or appear and be heard in support of or
opposition to the appeal at the time of the hearing.
Any person interested in the appeal can contact the Community Development
Department, 214 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California, during normal
business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) or call 473-5420.
Copies of the appeal and related documents are available for inspection at City
Hall.
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, January 26, 1999, 7:30 p.m.
PLACE OF HEARING: City Council Chambers,
215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande
11 a.~
NANC~IS, CITY CLERK
----- -
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: f..,( -g .
JIM HAMIL TON, DIRECTOR OF CQMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~6)t- .
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY,
CUP 98-565, VILLAGE CREEK PROMENADE
DATE: JANUARY 26, 1999
RECOMMENDATION: .
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution upholding the decision
of the Planning Commission of December 1, 1998 and deny the application for a
conditional use permit.
FUNDING:
No fiscal impact.
DISCUSSION:
The Appeal to the City Council is attached as Attachment A.
The applicant sought a conditional use permit to construct four commercial
buildings in the Village Creek Promenade on Station Way. Village Creek Promenade,
while originally developed under single ownership, eventually was subdivided into
several parcels, one of which (Parcel 3) was conveyed to the applicant. The project
plans are included as Attachment B.
The parcel size is 2.7 acres gross and approximately 2.3 acres net.
The project site is zoned General Commercial and has a General Commercial
designation under the General Plan.
The project includes landscaping, parking, and drainage improvements. Access to
the site is via Station Way.
All buildings constructed as part of the project would be sprinklered to Fire
Department specifications.
Parcel 3 is subject to numerous site constraints. The parcel is relatively narrow and
is bordered on the south by U.S. Highway 101 and on the north by Station Way.
In addition, Parcel 3 is subject to constraints in connection with drainage, parking,
--
Appeal to the City Council
Village Creek Promenade; CUP 98-565
January 26, 1999
Page 2
loading areas, landscaping, and specific development review criteria, as discussed
below.
The proposal has been the subject of extensive consideration by the Planning
Commission, Architectural Advisory Committee, and staff:
November 26. 1997: Application filed. '
December 29.1997: Letter of incompleteness to applicant (Attachment C).
.
March 24. 1998: The Staff Advisory Committee considered the proposal. The SAC
provided comments to the applicant regarding parking, site access, landscaping,
loading areas, public improvements, and other site design issues. The relationship
of the proposed project to existing development in the center was also discussed.
The applicant was encouraged to maintain an architectural style consistent with the
existing .development, and to assure that the proposed development avoided, to the
extent possible, conflicts in terms of parking, access and circulation.
ADril 6. 1998: The Architectural Advisory Committee (AACf reviewed the project.
The AAC comments included issues such as a common design theme for all
phases, consideration to be given to having sidewalks connect pedestrian access to
the buildings via a stamped decorative treatment pavement through the parking lot.
The applicant was requested to return wit~ design details, including materials, color,
boards, and roof design details.
Amil 21. 1998: The Planning Commission considered the matter on pre-application
screening. Commissioner comments at the pre-application screening related to the
proposed loading dock, parking, issues, sidewalks, pedestrian access, and
landscaping, (Minutes attached as Attachment D).
Mav 4. 1998: The Architectural Advisory Committee reviewed the proposal. The
AAC unanimously approved the project (Minutes attached as Attachment E), with,
the following conditions:
. Continuous sidewalks adjacent to and along the complete length of
the buildings.
. Building colors to closely match Lemos buildings with Old Zinc Grey
for roof color.
. Need loading zone depending on tenant use.
. Add more surface mounted open lattice work (spaced proportic::ms) to
front and rear of buildings.
. Concrete (textured) crosswalk.
. Confirm that garbage dumpster had to be moved.
.
_.__._...._....~--_...-... .
Appeal to the City Council
Village Creek Promenade; CUP 98-565
January 26, 1999
Page 3
June 2. 1998: The Planning Commission reviewed the application. The staff report
recommended that the Planning Commission continue the item to a date uncertain
and direct the applicant to submit a revised site plan to include the items listed on
the incompleteness letter (Attachment C) and a revised parking plan that complied
with the Development Code. Following presentations by staff and the applicant, the
Planning Commission accepted the staff recommendation and continued the item to
a date uncertain. The applicant was directed to submit a revised site plan and a
revised parking plan which complied with the Development Code. In addition, the
applicant was required to provide parking and loading areas consistent with the
Development Code, based on the proposed square footage, (Staff Report attached
as Attachment F, Minutes attached as Attachment G).
November 4. 1998: The Planning Commission considered the matter on staff's
recommendation to deny the project, without prejudice, which would have allowed
the applicant to respond to continuing concerns. At that meeting, the applicant
indicated, and staff confirmed, that revised plans for the project had been
submitted shortly before the meeting. Staff had not had an opportunity to review
the recently submitted plans. After discussing the project in general, the Pla.nning
Commission continued the matter directing staff to review the revised plans and
reschedule the matter for further Planning Commission consideration (Staff Report
attached as Attachment H; Minutes are under review by the Planning Commission).
November 17. 1998: The Staff Advisory Committee considered the project. The
SAC identi.fied concerns with the revised plans and recommended that the
applicant revise the project plans prior to further Planning Commission review. The
applicant declined to make further changes to the plans.
December 1. 1998: The Planning Commission denied the application for a
conditional use permit to construct four commercial buildings with a total of
27,350 square feet in floor area and 110 parking spaces. (Staff Report attached as
Attachment I; Minutes attached as Attachment J, approved but not signed;
Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-1676 attached as Attachment K, approved
but not signed).
APPLICANT'S APPEAL STATEMENT AND RESPONSE BY STAFF
The appeal document filed by applicant (Attachment A) sets forth the reasons for
the appeal. For the Council's convenience, the reasons supporting the appeal stated
by the applicant are set forth below in italics and underlining, followed by the staff
response.
Appeal to the City Council
Village Creek Promenade; CUP 98-565
January 26, 1999
Page 4
A. The resolution adooted bv the Planning Commission and denYing the oroiect
on December 1. 1998 is deficient in that it does not set forth findings
sufficient to determine for or to suooort the conclusions that were reached.
STAFF RESPONSE:
Development Code Section 9-03.050D provides that the Planning Commission may
approve a conditional use permit in whole or in part, with or without conditions,
only if certain findings of fact can be made in an affirmative manner. The Planning
Commission concluded it could not make such findings to approve the project. The
Planning Commission instead adopted findings which set forth' the basis for its
denial of the project. The following findings, adopted by the Planning Commission
in Resolution 98-1676, addressed each of the relevant issues:
. The proposed use is permitted within the General Commercial District;
however, the project does not comply with all the applicable
provisions of the Development Code, the goals and objectives of the
General Plan, and the development policies and standards of the City.
. The proposed use will impair the integrity and character of the
neighborhood in which it is to be established because the proposed
commercial use is not consistent with the Development Code
requirements for parking, landscaping and density and is too intensive
for the site creating conflicts with adjacent uses in the neighborhood.
. The site is not suitable for the type and intensity of the proposed use
because the 2.7 acre gross and approximately 2.3 acre net site is not
large enough to accommodate th.e density and intensity of the use
causing parking and circulation and aesthetic problems.
. The proposed use wilJ be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the
vicinity because the increased density and lack of adequate
landscaping and other site improvements would adversely impact the
neighborhood.
The findings adopted by the Planning Commission responded to each of the main
issue areas involved in the consideration of conditional use permits. The Planning
Commission clearly stated its conclusion that the applicant had failed to satisfy the
requirements of the Development Code. The findings set forth in the resolution
were sufficient to identify the reasons for, and basis for, the Planning Commission
decision.
;I
,.-"
,. .---....
Appeal to the City Council
Village Creek Promenade; CUP 98-565
January 26, 1999
Page 5
B. The conclusions that were reached were not sUDDorted bv the evidence
presented before the Commission.
STAFF RESPONSE:
Planning Commission review of the project included consideration of the project
plans, materials presented in the staff report for the Planning Commission meeting
of December 1, 1998, other supporting materials and testimony at the hearing. The
. evidence presented to the Planning Commission provided substantial support for
each finding and conclusion of the Planning Commission.
The staff report identified several deficiencies in the proposed project. The
deficiencies identified are as follows:
1. The lot size and associated calculation shown on the plans are
inaccurate.
2. The plan details showing the right-of-way and landscaping areas are not
drawn to scale and are misleading.
3. The proposed landscaping design requires a variance application which
has not been submitted.
4. The applicant has not demonstrated that the drainage plans can be
implemented as proposed.
5. The parking lot access needs revision, which may affect the number of
parking spaces provided.
6. The retaining wall and fence combinations are shown as being over 6
feet in height. This requires a design revision or a variance request.
7. The plan utilizes offsite relocation of a parking lot curb to make
sufficient room for a loading dock. The applicant has not demonstrated a
. right to perform this work.
In addition, staff indicated during the hearing that the overriding issue was the
intensity of the development proposed for the site.
Each of the proposed project's deficient areas identified by staff in the staff report
were addressed either in written materials, oral testimony, or both. The deficiencies
were identified as follows:
Deficiency 1: The lot size and associated calculation shown on the plans are
inaccurate.
Appeal to the City Council
Vl11age Creek Promenade; CUP 98-565
January 26, 1999
Page 6
Deficiency 2: The plan details showing the right-of-way and landscaping areas
are not drawn to scale andare misleading.
These deficiencies relate to the project plans. These deficiencies had been identified
early in the development review process, and had not been corrected at the time of
the hearing.
Deficiency 3: The proposed landscaping design requires a variance application
which has not been submitted.
This deficiency related to the landscaping design proposed by the applicant. Staff
had advised the applicant early in the development review process that project
plans appeared to indicate that a portion of the landscaping was located in the
public right-of-way. This did not satisfy the requirements stated in the Development
Code for landscaping, and staff advised the applicant that if this plan was to be
implemented a variance would be required. No variance application was filed by the
applicant.
Applicant's response at the December 1, 1998 Planning Commission hearing was
that staff was not correct, the landscaping proposed meets the requirements of the
Development Code, and no variance application was required.
This deficiency was addressed in the December 1, 1998 Planning Commission staff
report, and at the Planning Commission hearing. The Planning Commission's
,conclusion to deny the application, based in part on this deficiency, was supported
by the testimony and exhibits considered at the Planning Commission hearing.
Deficiency 4: The applicant has not demonstrated that the drainage plans can
be implemented as proposed.
Deficiency 4 related to the drainage plans proposed by the applicant. The project
site (Parcel 3), has historically drained to the south. Caltrans, which owns the right-
of-way to the south, has not consented to allow the applicant to perpetuate this
drainage pattern. As an alternative, the applicant proposed draining the site to
Parcel 2. The applicant based this design on the CC&R's for Village Creek Plaza,
which establish a drainage easement u...to accommodate the natural storm channel
flow within the Shopping Center."
In response to staff concerns, the applicant asserted at the Planning Commission
hearing that the Unatural" storm channel flow is the same as the drainage that
would result from his planned grading and paving for the final project. Staff did not
believe this was a reasonable interpretation of the language in the CC&R's. The
project plans, the staff report, testimony of the applicant, other tenants in the
-~,--_."---
Appeal to the City Council
Village Creek Promenade; CUP 98-565
January 26, 1999
Page 7
shopping center, and the text of the CC&R's support the Planning Commission's
conclusion.
Deficiency- 5: The parking lot access needs revision, which may affect the
number of parking spaces provided.
Staff pointed out that the proposed design created numerous constraints in terms
of access and circulation. The Development Code requires 109 parking spaces, and
the applicant's plans indicate 110 parking spaces would be provided. The
neighboring property owner testified that he disagrees with staff's parking space
calculations and believes that the applicant has substantially less on-site parking.
One of the concerns raised at the Planning Commission concerned specific parking
spaces shown on the project plans. The Commission questioned whether
automobiles could actually enter and leave those spaces given the design of the
parking area, thus limiting their practical use as parking spaces. The applicant
responded that the spaces were in fact useable, but this did not satisfactorily
respond to the concerns raised.
As noted, the applicant's plans showed 110 parking spaces. The plans, however,
revealed that several aspects of the project required revision that would reduce the
number of parking spaces:
. Contrary to City policy, applicant utilized public right-of-way as part of
a landscaping setback required in the Development Code (Deficiency
3). If the applicant complied with City policy, reconfiguration of the
parking area would be required, with a loss of several parking spaces.
Any reduction in excess of one parking space, however, would result
in a deficiency in required parking, and the need for a variance. The
applicant was therefore advised that a variance would be required if he
wished to pursue the proposed design for landscaping, but no such
application has been filed.
. The Planning Commission felt that the parking area was not well-
designed. In response to Planning Commission concerns regarding the
radius of parking islands and the feasibility of the parking design, the
applicant simply asserted that these concerns were unfounded.
Redesign of the parking islands and parking lot circulation would have
the probable result of reducing the parking spaces provided, thus
creating the need for a variance from parking requirements in the
development Code.
. The plans submitted by the applicant indicated that a loading dock,
required by the Development Code, would be installed on a
Appeal to the City Council
Village Creek Promenade; CUP 98-565
January 26, 1999
Page 8
neighboring property. The applicant provided no documentation that
permission had been received for such work, or that such consent
would be obtained. Using an alternative area for the loading dock
could result, again, in a reduction in the number of parking spaces
provided, and the need for a variance.
Deficiency 6: The retaining wall and fence combinations are shown as. being
over 6 feet in height. Development Code Section 9-' 0.0708
states that this requires a design revision or a variance request.
Deficiency 7: The plan utilizes offsite relocation of a parking lot curb to make
sufficient room for a loading dock. The applicant has not
demonstrated a right to perform this work.
Deficiency 6 related to the retaining wall and fence shown on the project plans,
and Deficiency 7 related to the project plans, and proposed off-site improvements.
In each case discussion at the hearing was based on evidence in the record.
The Planning Commission findings concerning each of the deficiencies were based
on evidence presented at the hearing.
Staff's recommendation for denial was based on the conclusion that the proposed
development was simply too intensive for the site. While the applicant had
proposed parking which met the minimum requirements of the Development Code,
responding to deficiencies in the areas of parking, access or landscaping would
probably require a reduction in the number of parking spaces, creating a deficiency
in parking. This was discussed at the Planning Commission, and the Planning
Commission determined that the project site is not large enough to support the
proposed development. This determination, as with the findings regarding
deficiencies in the project, was based on evidence at the hearing.
At the heart of the appeal is the applicant's assertion that he has proposed a
development which does not exceed the maximum size allowed on the parcel, and
is therefore entitled to approval of the application for a conditional use permit. The
applicant indicated at the hearing that the proposed development was, in fact, less
intensive than what he would be entitled to build. This was apparently based on
Development Code Table 9-07.040-A which places limits on the maximum floor
area ratio in the General Commercial district (0.5) and which would establish a limit
of approximately 50,000 square feet of commercial space for the project site,
based on the net site area.
The Development Code, as asserted by the applicant, establishes standards for
maximum lot coverage and floor-to-area-ratio. Other considerations apply, however,
---_._._._~
Appeal to the City Council
Village Creek Promenade: CUP 98-565
January 26, 1999
Page 9
most notably the standards which must be met, and findings that must be made by
the Planning Commission, for conditional use permits. The purpose of a conditional
use permit is to provide for project review which takes into account the -many
components of a project which may have an impact on those who visit the facility,
and those who own businesses or work or live in the vicinity. Section 9-03.050 of
the Development Code states, in part:
The [conditional use permit] application process allows for the review of the
location and design of the proposed use, configuration of improvements, and
potential impact on the surrounding area from the proposed use. The review
shall determine whether the proposed use should be permitted, by weighing
the public need for and benefit to be derived from the use against any
adverse impact it may cause. -
The floor area ratio is only one of many factors considered in the development
review process. The Planning Commission considered the applicant's assertion, but
denied the project based on the inability to make .the findings required for
conditional use permits.
C. The denial was arbitrary, caoricious and contrary to the aoolicable orovisions
of the City's Develooment Code, the General Plan and the oublished
development policies and standards of the City.
STAFF RESPONSE:
As noted in the discussion above, the Planning Commission determination was
supported by substantial evidence in the record, and was neither arbitrary nor
capricious. The Planning Commission action was consistent with standards set
forth in the Development Code, as previously explained.
The Planning Commission action was consistent with the General Plan. One of the
primary goals of the Land Use Element is:
Achieve an overall design statement for the City of Arroyo Grande that will
establish a visually perceivable and unique rural, small town image
throughout the City.
Many of the concerns raised by staff relate to this goal of the Land Use Element.
Reasonable design of commercial centers, safe routes for vehicles and pedestrians,
and adequate landscaping and access requirements for parking areas, each support
the goal of creating a community which has a small-town ambience.
Appeal to the City Council
Village Creek Promenade; CUP 98-565
January 26, 1999
Page 10
The applicant did not cite specific portions of the General Plan which are claimed to
have been violated. Some sections of the General Plan which are applicable to the
project, however, are:
. Land Use Element: Objective 3.0
Provide commercial areas within the City which are conveniently located,
efficient, attractive and have safe and easy pedestrian and vehicular access
in order to serve the retail and commercial needs of Arroyo Grande
residents.
. Land Use Element, Objective 7.0:
Achieve a pattern of land use which protects the integrity of existing land
uses.
Policy Statement 7.1 :
Require that new developments be at. an appropriate density or intensity
based upon compatibility with the majority of existing surrounding land
uses.
Implementation Action:
a. As part of the development review process, treat the densities
and intensities outlined in the Land Use Element as the maximum
allowable; do not approve the maximum allowable density or
intensity unless the proposed project is consistent with the
provisions and intent of the Arroyo Grande General Plan and City
ordinances. (emphasis in original)
Policy Statement 7.2:
Require that new development should be designed to create pleasing
transitions to surrounding development.
. Circulation Element: Goal C:
COORDINATE POLICIES FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT AND CIRCULATION
Policy B: Review the impact of land use proposals on the circulation
system.
Program 1: Development proposals will be reviewed according to the
provisions of the zoning and subdivision ordinance to ensure that
Appeal to the City Council
Village Creek Promenade; CUP 98-565
January 26, 1999
Page 11
adequate access, on-site circulation, parking and loading areas are
provided.
Policy D: Establish the circulation system as a positive element of
community design.
Program 2: In the development review process, include the
consideration of the visual aspects of a development from roadways,
including Highway 101. Aesthetic consideration shall include
architectural compatibility and landscaping.
The Planning Commission findings and action were consistent with the General
Plan, including the provisions of the General Plan set forth above.
D. The oroiect does comolv with all aoolicable orovisions of the DeveloDment
Code. the General Plan and the oublished develooment oolicies and standards
of the City.
STAFF RESPONSE:
The applicant has not cited any specific provisions of the General Plan or
Development Code. The provisions set forth in the discussion above establish that
the Planning Commission approval is consistent with the General Plan and
Development Code.
E. The orooosed use is en tirelv consistent with the character of the
neighborhood and, indeed. is of lesser density than the surrounding
develooed oarcels and is an "in-fill" buildoutof a oreviouslv aoproved
commercial oroiect. the remainder of which has already been built-out in a
manner consistent with the orooosed oroiect and the aooroved olan for the
entire oroiect.
STAFF RESPONSE:
The evidence presented at the Planning Commission hearing included evidence
which examined whether the project as proposed was consistent with the
character and use of surrounding properties. The Planning Commission concluded,
based on the evidence, that the project was too intensive for the site. The
applicant disagrees with that conclusion, but has not set forth facts which support
his claim.
The applicant references a previously approved commercial project. As originally
approved in 1985, the project included a building approved for 17,200 square feet
on the project site.
.--.--- ---_._-_..~._-_..,.,.-
Appeal to the City Council
Village Creek Promenade; CUP 98-565
January 26, 1999
Page 12
In February, 1990 the owner of the site obtained Architectural Review approval for
development of a 21,816 square foot commercial building on Parcel 3, with 118
parking spaces. The approved. building contained fewer square feet than the
applicant's current proposal, and provided more parking. The building was not
constructed, and the entitlements have expired pursuant to Development Code
Section 9-02.140.
The proposed project is, therefore, more intensive than the previously-approved
building on the project site.
F. Denial of the oroject denies the aoolicant the same use of his orooertv as
that enioved bv the owners of the other oarcels in the oroiect and therefore
is in violation of the eaual orotection clauses of the California and United
States Constitutions.
STAFF RESPONSE:
The applicant has been required to comply with the General Plan and Development
Code provisions in effect at the time of the application. The General Plan and
Development Code have been duly adopted, and are in compliance with California
law. Requiring the applicant to. comply with these provisions does not deny any
rights recognized under state or federal law.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Staff has reviewed this project in compliance with the CalifQrnia Environmental
Quality Act, and has determined that the project would not have a significant effect
on the environment. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was distributed for public
review and comment. The close of the public comment period is 5:00 p.m. December
1, 1998. No comments have been received.
The environmental document is attached as Attachment L.
CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING PROJECT
Copies of correspondence from Brad Anderson, applicant, dated November 20, 1998
and Mike Miner, dated January 19, 1999 are attached as Attachment M and
Attachment N, respectively.
Appeal to the City Council
Village Creek Promenade; CUP 98-565
January 26, 1999
Page 13
Alternatives
The following alternatives are considered for City Council consideration:
1. Uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and adopt a resolution
denying the application for a conditional use permit.
2. Uphold the appeal of the applicant and direct staff to prepare a resolution for
City Council consideration at its meeting of February 9, 1999 approving the
application for a conditional use permit.
3. Provide direction to staff.
ATTACHMENTS
(NOTE: Staff Report attachments or exhibits have been removed where they would
duplicate attachments to this Staff Report.)
Attachment A: Appeal to the City Council
Attachment B: Project plans
Attachment C: December 29, 1997 letter of incompleteness to applicant
Attachment D: Minutes of April 21, 1998 Planning Commission meeting
Attachment E: Minutes of May 4, 1998 Architectural Advisory Committee
meeting
Attachment F: Staff Report for June 2, 1998 Planning Commission meeting
Attachment G: Minutes of June 2, 1998 Planning Commission meeting
Attachment H: - S~aff Report for November 4, 1998 Planning Commission
meeting
Attachment I: Staff Report for December 1, 1998 Planning Commission
meeting
Attachment J: Minutes of December 1, 1998 Planning Commission meeting
(approved but not signed)
Attachment K: Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-1676 (approved but not
signed)
Attachment L: Draft Negative Declaration
Attachment M: Correspondence dated November 20, 1998 from Brad Anderson
Attachment N: Correspondence dated January 19, 1999 from Mike Miner
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DECISION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-565 APPLIED FOR
BY DR. ROBERT D. ANDERSON, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 200
STATION WAY (VILLAGE CREEK PROMENADE)
WHEREAS, on December 1, 1998 the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo
Grande held a duly noticed public hearing to consider Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Case> No. 98-565 filed by Dr. Robert D. Anderson to construct a 27,350 square foot
commercial office and commercial retail complex; 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 denied the CUP application; and
WHEREAS, Dr. Robert D. Anderson has filed an appeal of the Planning Commission
decision to deny the CUP application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on January 26, 1999 in
accordance with City Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council 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 proposed use is permitted within the General Commercial District; however,
the project does not comply with all the applicable provisions of the Development
Code, the goals and objectives of the General Plan, and the development policies
and standards of the City, as specifically set forth in the staff report.
2. The proposed use will impair the integrity and character of the neighborhood in
which it is to be established because the proposed commercial use is not
consistent with the Development Code requirements for parking, landscaping and
density and is too intensive for the site, creating conflicts with adjacent uses in
the neighborhood, as specifically set forth in the staff report.
3. The site is not suitable for the type and intensity of the proposed use because the
2.7 acre gross site and approximately 2.3 acre net site is not large enough to
-.-..----.-.-...-.... -,._-- --~---_...-
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
accommodate the proposed density and intensity of use causing parking,
circulation, and aesthetic problems as specifically set forth in the staff report.
4. The proposed use will be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, and
materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity because the
proposed density, lack of adequate landscaping and, other site improvements
would adversely impact the neighborhood.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande hereby denies the appeal of Dr. Robert D. Anderson in Conditional Use Permit
Case No. 98-565 and upholds the decision of the Planning Commission based on the
above findings which are incorporated herein by reference.
On motion of Council Member , seconded by
Council Member , and on the following roll call
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of
,1999.
._-"--'-~ ------,--- ___._.____n_.________
----,-...-
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
NANCY A. DAVIS, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
~L,~
ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
. TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
.
__ '_ _ ____,.. _ _____ . .~ ..___., _ ~ttac~ment A
. A~PEA~ TO THE .CITY. COUNCIL. OF THE -
. .' ..:.CITYOF ARROYO.GRAND'E ..<.....,'. :. .' ...... . . ,
. - I .,
.. . # . .
" .... . . ,- .~. . . .: ,; . . :. . .: .'. - ." . . '..,
. Date.' 'DECEMBER.S; 1995', .... .:.':' - .: ',- .'.
" .. .' .' . ..-. ,"..
. '" . ., . ,". .
. ',' Name a~d Add f A'. 1'1' t ROBERT iD... "AN.~ERSON cio' ~ER.AiDC'. ..' W~A V~R ~:.isQ ~.~.. '.
. . . ' '. .. re~s 0 . ppe an,. ..' . .,. ,. .
, . '. P.;O .... BOX 4;51;. .~:~~'. L~is ':OBISPO;" 'CA :,'93~06 : . . . . . .'".. .. .. ,....
, - - -APpeal of ,DENIAL OF P~ANNIN~ coliMr SSI O~ _ - OF~PPLIC~;~ ON __'~0R.-~UP98-56S' - _ ;; ,
. ....~. '." ,', '. . ... . .' :..- . . ...... CaseN~' .... '. '.-
: .' r '. . . ," ~ - . . '.' .. :'. .... . . .. " : ~ .
. .
.'APprovedlD~ni~dbY PLANN;rNG COMtU.SS~ON ~n' D.ECE~~ER -.1,1'~.'98.~. '. '. '
'.' . . D'ate" .' -. ,.' :.,..,
. .... .. .
.: . . ." . '.': ~.~. :'.
. . . SEE EX=IIBIT "Ai. l\.TTACH~D HERE'ro:"'~: :' ,.. ,.
, '- R~ason for Appeal ,.' ,. . "
.
. . -, - .
. . .. ; .
.' '"". . ..
.' . 0"
." .',
, . .
.... .eo. .:"
. . ..
" ".'
. .. .
. . . ",'.,
'Signat.ufe . ,: . -. " .'. ... ..
;,' .
. ,.
: Mailing Address' ,P.O. BOX 451, SAN, LUIS OBispo C~'-9~:4~~_____:-; - ' , , -._,
". 'TelePD.on~: S05:-543...6010 , .." '..:' ::...... .. .... :.......:.:~.. .:.. .:~.'.
. '
. . ., . . ..... '." ," .". .....,' "
... . ". '.' .' . . ..' .'
. ReceiptNo.':Oj C, j:O . ,-. ",' :..... ":'< .... . .~ .,.. .:.
", Date, /.R.!8/flJ ' ',' ,'..., .~' ',', . ,"
.. , ' , .. '.' . .
'., ......... '. .., ... .',
. . . .
... . .
. .' .
.....11.'a~~ .... ..
. ~YClerk' .
_._4
Exhibit "A"
.. .
Appeal to the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande
Case # 98-565
Denial of Planning Commission on CUP 98-565
1. The resolution adopted by the Planning Commission. and denying the Project on
December 1, 1998 is deficient in that it does not set forth findings sufficient to
determine for or to support the conclusions that were reached.
2. The conclusions that were reached were not supported by the evidence
presented before the commission and
3. The denial was arbitrary, capricious and contrary to the applicable provisions of
the City's Development Code, the General Plan and the published development
policies and standards of the City.
In support of the appeal, the applicant states the following:
1. The project does comply with all applicable provisions of the Development Code,
the General Plan and the published development policies and standards of the
City.
2: The proposed use is entirely consistent with the character of the neighborhood
and, indeed, is of a lesser density than the surrounding developed parcels and is
an "in-fill" build out of a previously approved commercial project, the remainder of
which has already been built-out In a manner consistent with the proposed
project and the approved plan for the entire project.
3. Denial of the project denies the applicant the same use of his property as that
enjoyed by the owners of the other parcels in the project and therefore Is in
violation of the equal protection clauses of the California and United States
Constitutions. .
'.
178
.. APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCILOF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
.
Date DECEMBER 8, 1998
Name and Address of Appellant ROBERi'D. ANDERSON C/O GERALD e. WEAVER.ESQ.,
P.O. BOX 451 f- SAN LUIS OBISPO , CA. 93406
. - Appeal of DENIAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION OF APPLICATION 'FOR CUP .98-565
. . . . .
Case No.
. Approved/Denied by PLANNING COMMISSION - -
on DECEMBER .1,1098.
Date
Reason for Appeal SEE EXqIBIT "A" ATTACHSD HERETC
-
Signature
Mailing Address. P.O. BOX 451, SAN LUIS OBISPO CA93406
Telephone 805-543-6010
Receipt No. t!)"3 b '30
Date IR./~ /f8
11.a..~
~YClerk- .".
-------~--_._-~-- "
Exhibit "A"
Appeal to the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande
Case # 98-565
Denial of Planning Commission on CUP 98-565
1. The resolution adopted by the Planning Commission and denying the Project on
December 1, 1998 is deficient in that it does not set forth findings sufficient to
determine for or to support the conclusions that were reached.
2. The conclusions that were reached were not supported by the evidence
presented before the commission and
3. The denial was arbitrary,. capricious and contrary to the applicable provisions of
the City's Development Code, the General Plan and the published development
policies and standards of the City.
In support of the appeal, the applicant states the following:
1. The project does comply with all applicable provisions of the Development Code,
the General Plan and the published development policies and standards of the
City.
2. The proposed use is entirely consistent with the character of the neighborhood
and, indeed, is of a lesser density than the surrounding developed parcels and is
an "in-fill" build out of a previously approved commercial project, the remainder of
which has already been built-out in a manner consistent with the proposed
project and the approved plan for the entire project.
3. Denial of the project denies the applicant the same use of his property as that
enjoyed by the owners of the other parcels in the project and therefore is in
violation of the equal protection clauses of the California and United States
Constitutions.
--._--_.-------_.---- ------ ..._-..._~---
. .
. AttachmentC
--pO ~____' -.- . . -- ---------- -_._--- ~-. . --- -
cI!-'l, 'l,0!J 0 g'l,andE. P.o. Box 550
214 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
Phone (805) 473-5420
Community Development Department FAX (805) 473-0386
-
December 29, 1997
Robert Anderson
201 Station Way
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
. Subject: Determination of Incomplete Application, Conditional Use Permit &
Tentative Parcel Map, Located at 100 Station Way
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Thank you for the opportunity to review your proposed development project. City staff.
has reviewed the materials you resubmitted. on November 26, 1997 and has
determined that your application is inc~mplete. Some revisions, additions and
additional materials are necessary for further processing. Your application materials
will be complete when all the information on the attached sheets have been
submitted.
If you disagree with the Community Development Director's determination that your
application is incomplete, you may appeal the determination to the Planning
Commission. Appeals must be filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 9-02.150 of.
the Development Code.
Please contact me should you have any questions.
.
. '
Sincerely, I
Doreen Liberto-Blanck
Community Development Director
B~. SLW~-'~ -
Bruce BUCk!ngh~
Associate Planner
Attachments: List of Additional Materials
c: Craig Campbell
.
.
__ ______,' __.,_'_______.,'______ u_
.-- ,~- ,,--- -
LIST OF ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
Please submit the below listed information. If you have any questions, please contact
~ruce Buckingham, Associate Planner, at 473-5420:
1. Sub{TIit a parking table ind!cating the existing number of parking spaces and the
required number of parking spaces (based on existing building square footage
and uses) for the entire Village Creek center and indicate the location (i.e., the
. distribution) of the parking spaces on a plan. Please incorporate this
information with the number. of proposed and required parking spaces for the
. proposed project and indicate the total number of parking spaces for the center.
2. Indicate location of required bicycle and motorcycle' parking spaces as required
by Development Code Section 9-12.1S08nd 9-12.080:-respectively. ,
3. Submit a copy of the current CC&Rs 'for the Village Creek center. . .
4. Revise the zoning designation on sheet T1.
5. Indicate proposed lot line on Sheet C1. .
6. Provide a table indicating that minimum landscape area requirements are met as
required by Development Code Section 9-12. 130. ~
7. Clarify if the unshaded area on Sheet L 1 are untreated concrete areas.
8. Indicate/clarify the architectural treatments' for the building elevation sheets
(e.g., metal roof, siding, multi-pane windows, etc~) and provide material and
color boards.
9. Clarify treatments under windows (e.g., Sheet A 1-2 north elevation) and on roof
(e.g., Sheet A 12 west elevation).
10. ,Indicate proposed lot coverage and floor area ratios for each lot on Sheet T1.
11. Indicate proposed lighting and samples of fixture designs.
12. Identify the loading areas as required by Development Code Section 9-12.170. )J'/
13. Nqise mitigation may be necessary for the proposed project. Please scbmit the
necessary information to determine that noise levels would be b~low the
adopted thresholds as specified in the City's General Plan Noise Element ana
Municipal Code Chapter 21. .
14.' Indicate if any roof mounted equipment is proposed, and if so, how would it be
screened.
15. Provide drawings for the trash enclosures, mailboxes, raised planters and any
other/features to be. reviewed by' the Architectural Advisory Committee. .
The following issues have been identified by. staff. Although these items are not
required to be addressed in order to process your application, staff will discuss these
issues at the Staff Advisory Commi1!ee and Architectural Advisory Committee
meetings.
. Access to the proposed trash enclosures is not adequate. Please revise to
illustrate how dumpsters can be accessed when vehicles are parked in, adjacent
parking spaces.
. Although a reciprocal parking agreement may exist for the entire site (to be
verified), staff believes that the proP9sed project should provide 100% of the
required parking for the project on-site (i.e., ."<? surplus parking should be used on
adjacent sites to the west or north).
's
.
. The proposed project has the potential to employ many people. In order to
encourage employees to remain on-site during lunch and breaks, 'patio or seating
'areas should be considered. '.'
. A Sign Program will ultimately need to be reviewed and approved' for the project. It
can be beneficial to review the proposed sign type and locati.on as part of the
architectural review.to insure that the signage will be architecturally mtegrated into
the building design and meet the applicant's intent.
. The project is within the Village Design Guidelines. All guidelin~ should be
adhered to including site design, building design, construction materials, building
colors. and signage.
Please submit the below listed information. If you have any questions, please contact
Craig Campbell~ "Assistant Public Works Director,:at 473-5440:
1. Indicate existing private and public sewer lines~ the location of easements, and
where the proposed project would connect to sewer on the Parcel Map Sheet.
2. -Indicate elevations and contours on the Parcel Map Sheet.
3. Indicate size of existing utilities (e.g., water and sewer).
4. Clarify the location of the proposed right of way.
5." Two. Preliminary Grading and Drainage plans have been submitted. Please
combine all information into one plan and indicate the proposed lot line and lot
numbers. Also, verify that CalTrans will accept increased drainage from the
project and whether increased drainage flowing to the adjacent lot to the west
is acceptable (Le., is there an existing drainage easement).
6. Indicate how the areas between the buildings will drain.
7: Indicate the use of concrete gutters for parking lot drainage. '
8. Indicate the existing width of sidewalk. and obstructions (e.g., posts, fixtures,
etc.). Indicate location and materials of sidewalk widening in order to conform
to the ADA requirement of a four: foot wide unobstructed area.
-After the above revisions have been made, submit 10 sets of plans (folded and
. ,
stapled), .and one. 8-1/2" x 11" transparency of each sheet.
.
.
'J
---
,
't., Attachment D
-
.Ms. Buford noted that the Staff Advisory Committee reviewed this project on March 24, 1998,
and expressed concern regarding the proposal and the likelihood of meeting all of the _ Code
requirements, particularly building and fire.
After further comments from the Commission and staff, Chair Lubin opened the meeting for
public comment.
Mr. W. Von Biskuuskv.2927 De La Vina Street. Santa Barbara. applicant, referred to his letter
to the Community Development Department, dated April 20, 1998. He reviewed -- the
requirements for condominium conversion and descnlJed how he proposed to meet the majority
of those requirements. He stated the main problem is the requirement for separate utility
services, -noting that the issue in dispute is the req~ment for- individual sewer lines. He
further stated that construc~g separate laterals would not be feasible and would require opening
walls, slabs and footings. He stated the requirement for one hour fire walls, water and
electricity are no problem. With regard to open space, he offered three apartments for low cost
housing as a concession for the open space requirement.
Hearing no further discussion from the audience, Chair Lubin restricted further comments to the
Comniission.
Commissioner Haney stated he feels it is important. to fonow as closely as possible to the
standards of the Development Code and try to implement those requirements in condominium
conversions. Commissioner Greene stated the project appe31'S to present significant deviations
from the standards in the Development Code, and he could not recommend going f()rward. with
the project as presented. Commissioner Rondeau inquired if the buildings would have to brought
up to the Code with regard to earthquake standards. He stated in this particular instance he
doesn't feel he has enough information to make a recommendation at this time. Commissioner
O'Donnell stated he is concerned about the issues of health and safety, and the issue of utilities
as far as the plumbing is concerned. He commented he would have a difficult time
recommending something that doesn't meet the requirements of the Development Code. Chair
Lubin stated he is not sure he agrees with the reasons for the change in the 1atera1s or the change
in the fire walls, however, standards are established in the Development Code, and we need to
fonow the Development Code.in tenns of utilities, fire and safety.
.. PENDING APPLICATION REVIEW - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-563
/TE1.'ITATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 98-548, DISCUSSION OF PLAL'fS TO
CONSTRUCT 27,250 SQUARE FOOT COMl\ilERCIAlJRETAIL BUILDING A1"ID A LOT
SPLIT; APPUCANT: ROBERT AJ.'IDERSON; LOCATION: 200 STATION WAY
(VILLAGE CREEK PLAZA).
Acting Community - Development Director Helen Eder advised that the Staff Advisory
- Committee (SAC) reviewed the application for this project on March 24, 1998, and provided
comments to the applicant regarding parking and site~, landscaping, loading areas, pub~c
improvements, and other site design issues. They also discussed the relationship between tlie
proposed project as Phase 3 of the Village Creek commercial development. _ The Architectural
Advisory Committee (AAq also reviewed the project on April 6, 1998. Their comments
included issues such as a common design theme for all three phases, and the issue that sidewalks
\V should connect pedestrian acceSs to the buildings via a stamped decorative treatment pavement
through the parking lot. They requested the applicant return with design details, including \J/
--
materials, color boards, and roof design details. She stated that since that time, Dr. Anderson
reviewed the comments provided by the AAC and SAC and requested a study session with the
Planning CommisSion. She further noted that staff is currently reviewing the project regarding
parking, landscaping, sidewalk improvements, etc. Staff is also in the process of reviewing the
previous master plan approved in 1985. She pointed out that previously the Development Cooe
a1low~ 1 parking space to 200 square f~t of space; the current ratio is 1 to 250 square feet.
Robert Anderson. 2775 Coast View Drive. applicant, stated he proposes to build the 1ast phase
of Village Creek Plaza, and has re-designed the project to four smaller buildings with mixed
uses of office and retail.. He noted that parking has been an issue with some of the owners in
the Association. He stated he has reviewed the history of the project and the Development
I Cooe, and at no time during the history of the project did the City ever require any particular
ratio other than what is defined in the Development Code. He further stated he doesn't think
parkilig is an issue because it is determined by the Development Code.
Dr. Anderson stated the issues that were discussed during the MC meeting were the
substandard sidewalks and the landscape strip. He proposed removing the existing substandard
sidewalk and creating a ten foot landscaped strip between the street and p~king.lot, and provide
a new: sidewalk on the northeast side of Station Way. This would allow continuation of the
existing parking lot in its present form, without a ten foot, mid-block jog to the other side and
would satisfy the requirement for a ten foot landscape strip with a three foot high earthen berm
betw~n the street and parking lot. This would also provide consistency. With the rest of the
shopping center. .
Mike Miner, 316 Ora Drive, owner of Parcel 2 of Village Creek Plaza I, reviewed some of the
history of the Plaza and expressed concern with regard to potentially serious parking problems
with the proposed development of Parcel 3. He referred to the infonnation contained in his
letters dated April201h and April 21st and copies of the Planning Department's approval of Mid
Coast Land's Lot Merger of 1994, and the Corrected Parking Supplement, stating that the
docu,ments stipulate that Parcel #2 must use parking from Parcel #3, whi~h is the reason the
parking lot was installed there by the original developer.
Tom Thompson,.900 Robin Circle, owner of Parcel 5, and his concern is that parking not be
allocated from his parcel to alleviate parking deficiencies across the ~t. He spoke of a
judgement and the outcome was the developer would have to separate the parcel he acquired and
would have to provide him the building and the parking lot. He suggested looking at the scope
of the project to meet everyone's needs. He referred to Parcel 5 and Building ~ stating he
hopes that the City requires that parking be contiguous to the building.
Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chair Lubin closed the ~cussi.on and
restricted further comments to the Commission.
Deputy Public Works Director Craig Campbell stated, in his opinion, it would be desirable to
have sidewalks on both sides of the street, and the CUIre.'1t standards call for sidewalks on both
sides of the street. He further stated. he recommended -the 4 ft. wide sidewalk be widened to 6'
ft. because of the fire hydrants and utility poles.
In answer to Commissioner Haney's question reo~ing original approvals and e.'1titleme.'1ts,
Acting Community Development Director Elder advised that staff would have to go back and
look at the previous ordinance under which the original project was approved. She commented
this is a complicated issue and will take time to research the files.
- . ..._-
"
Commissioner Haney stated that in looking at the Development Code, loading docks are
required. Ms. Eder noted that this item was discussed at the AAC meeting. Dr. Anderson
proposes that there be a limitation of the uses to commercial/retail and office uses.
With regard to architectural design of the buildings, Ms. Eder advised the MC's determination
was to basically work with the applicant and his design with the intent complement the existing
buildings but that the architectural character of the new building did not have to be the same as
the existing buildings. Dr. Anderson commented that the Architectural Advisory Committee
liked the design of the buildings shown in the design element.
,Commissioner O'Donnell stated it s~ms there is enough parking proposed based on what is
shown and, in his opinion, the parking appears to meet the requirements of the Development
Code. However, he does have a problem with the loading. dock. The way it is designed now,
there will be some problems and he would like to see that issue addressed. . With regard to the
sidewalks, he stated crossing the street seems like a viable solution and, at this time, it would
be acceptable .for the applicant to do what he had originally intended. As fur as the. landscaping,
Commissioner O'Donnell stated he would need to look at the landscaping when the plans come
back to the Commission.
Commissioner Greene stated his feeling that the Village Project is not up to the standards that
the community expects and this particular project is not an aesthetically pleasing 'one. He fecls
more work needs. to be done to make it more pleasing. He also stated he could not understand
why there were no ~dewalks, and he feels sidewalks should be installed on-both sides from Fair
Oaks A venue up to a point where you cross the ~t. He commented ,?-7,000 square feet may
be too much space, and the issue of traffic is a concern, and more development will increase
demands on Fair Oaks, Station Way and Traffic Way. He suggested downsiZing the project
to help mitigate the traffic problems. With regard to parking, Commissioner Greene stated he
would like to reserve judgement on parking problems until he has a chance to review the history.
As far as landscaping, he stated he would like to see more landscaping, more open space' and
greenery, and less concrete.
Commissioner Haney stated this is a ve..ry important project to sustain the V~ae area. and he
is strongly supportive of this site being developed to pull people into the Village area. He
preferred that the sidewaJ.ks be continuous to Fair Oaks Avenue. He encouraged the applicant
to work with the other tenants to solve the parking problem so that the project can move ahead.
He expressed a concern about the loading and unloading facilities, which is a requirement of the
.Development Code and would require a Variance or some other means to delete that
requirement. Regarding the issue of Iandscaping~ Commissioner Haney xeferred to the
Development Code, Section 9-12.130 requiring a minimum of 10% of the gross lot area used
for off-street parking and access be provided in landscaping in the interior of the parking area.
With regard to the design and architectural elements, he pointed out that at the rear of the
buildings there are large blank walls that are visible from Fair Oaks A venue and, in his opini(;m,
those need to be looked. at a little more closely. He also suggested perhaps going'1o a two story
building with a new design and he would be closer to a 22,000 square feet. He suggested
moving forward with the project and working with Miner's Hardware on the parking p~blem~.
Chair Lubin spoke regarding the parking issue, commenting that the tenants n~ to find a way
to work together, and he agreed with the suggestion to down size the project to what was
originally proposed. With regard to landscaping, Chair Lubin stated he would like to see the
required landscaping as called for in the Development Code and, in his opinion, enough
landscaping has to be provided to make this an attractive project. He further stated he feels the
_......_-",---,-
. ~............. "J OJ ...................~ - ...............-~ '-U~"'U&..L -
April 21, 1998 i i
ioac:fing doc.x: issue nds to be ad~ and he ~ wii:h Commi~oner Haney regarding
the back or the bm1ciings facing Fair Oaks Avcme.. He c:ommenn::d he feds the applicant is
fighting an uphill bcmle on some of the ~ howe're:, he is snpporrive of the project and it
is just a. croesricn of ~ nnO' it work. .
. ~
pLA!'{'"NING COMM:ISSIONlCOMMIJr-iITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECIOR ITEMS A.L'ID
COl\1MENTS.. .
A. Pending Projects in San Luis Obispo County. .Acting Colllllllllliry Deve!~t~..or
Helen Eeier refem:d to the notie: re=ived from the County l~diug a. request..for a. seconci.aJ.-y
dwelling unit at 188 .VaIlcy V1.eW. She $Wed the nct:ic= was incind~ with. the agenda p~~
in ~ing with the Commission's request iD be ncri:fiedof pe:JriTn~ Co~ developments..
B. Update of Projects. Ms. Beier" arivT..sed the tcIta!ive dates fer the tIpCOming ClIY
CouncillPhTmin~ Comnri~on lU~ting hzve b~ submitted to the City CotmciL They are 6:30
M W' . J 10m Th . .- 18= ']j . -ul ,.....
P._ . on ~~, une _ , . msaay, June or rm:rso~, J Y LJ _
C. Gene..?'3l PIan Update.. M$. Ede::' advi.se::i th2t the ~ woranop is rP!m;rive!.y sc.heduied
for June 13111, and ~!!lU.;(;m~!y 8,000 na~ will. be m~;ied DJ reside:1rs notL..:ying the:n af the
Gene.."'4l P1an W<ri:shop~
D. WritteJ. ColllllllllliMtiOns
,L (.Agenda Item TIU.) R:soiurians 95-1500 and 95-1503
2. (.A~..nda Item IILC-) I..=rer from W. Van "Ri~~~$icyf dared April 20, 1998.
... (~..nda. Item IILD_) Two 1ette:s frorit Mike Miner of M:ine::'s ~ ~ one
.:I.
dared April 20, 1998 and the otb.e: dated April 21, 1998-
4. (Agenda Jt.em ITLD.) R::soimions 94-1.458 and 94-1459.
5. Draft E:IVi:romne:n:al-Inmac: 'R=1orr: for the Be::!v G-arcicIs Sue::ffic P1an Proi~
- _. 4 . ..
ADJOURNMENT
T.!le..~ be~g no further bnc;m~ before the Cammi~nn T the m~~ was acijoumed at 11:20
p.rn. on motion Dy CommT<:~ntIer O~armd, se=mded by Commi~oner Gre::le, ami
Unanimously ~~
ATTEST;
~~
~ ,
.. !).--. ) .I
. C <auerr~'
AS TO CONTENT:
rlY~~-/ L7 C.U ,
. , ---
.ti.elen M. 1-!c1I"!!'", Ala?
Ac:i.ng Community De'Ie!opme=It Dire:::cr
--'...-.-
" Attachment E
\,;11 T ua- AHt1UTU uHANDt:
ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY COMMJ 1 I t:ti
MONDAY, MAY 4,1998
AS AMENDED AND APPROVED ON MAY 18, 1998
The meeting of the City of Arroyo Grande Architectural Advisory Committee was
called to order at 4:30 p.m. Present were Chair Tony Orefice, Vice-Chair Warren
Hoag, and. Committee Member Fabbian Detweiler. Also present were staff
members Bruce Buckingham and Helen 8der.
A. Design Review Ta:act 1997 - Lot 16, Castferock Development
,.
Doug Davidson, . Cannon Associates. discussed the 2 '. deviations, height of
retaining wall and 2 feet over fill limit. .. :
After a short discussion the. AAC on motion by Tony Orefice, seconded by
Fabbian Detweiler and unanimously approved.
The Committee' and staff agreed to take item B. (Five Cities Center) out of order
and place the item last on the agenda.
c. Applicant Investec (Lu!=ky's)
Representative: Maurice Macare.
Case Number: Variance 98-207 & Planned Sign Program 98-126
Location: 1404 -1488 Grand Avenue
Proposal: Revision to signage .at Town & Cauntry Square
After some discussion the AAC on motion by Tony Orefice, seconded by Fabbian
Detweiler, aft unanimously dc~:sion decided to continue this item to the June 1,
1998 meeting if revised plans are received one week in advance of said meeting.
Some of the concerns are as follows:
1. Unity and consistency of design of signage.
2. Need matching parapets and monument sign no higher than it is
now. .
D. Applicant Robert Anderson
Representative: Same
Case Number: Conditional Use Permit 98-565 & Tentative Parcel.Map
98-548
Location: 200 Station Way .
.
Proposal: Construct ?:1 ,250 square foot commercial/retail
building and a lot split
After some discussion the AAC on motion by Tony Orefice, seconded by Warren
Hoag and unanimously approved will the fo((owing conditions.
1. Continuous sidewalks adiacent to and alono the complete length of
the buildings.
--.---..--..--.-----.....---.---
......., -.., ."IIII""~~ - --- - --- - - .. ~ ~ --
.....
2. Building color~ to closely match Lemos buildings with Old Zinc Grey
for roof color.
3. Need loading zone depending on tenant use.
4. Add more surface mounted open lattice work (spaced proportions)
to front and rear of buildings.
5. Concrete (textured) crosswalk.
6. Confirm that oarbaoe dumoster had to be moved.
.
B. Applicant AGRA. llClRve Cities Center
Representative: Mike Heinrich
Case Number: Planned Sign Program 97-124
Location: West Branch Street and Rancho Parkway
Proposal: . Signage Program for Center
Staff member Helen Elder gave a brief overview of the project, summarizing a
staff report forwarded to the Planning Commission. Mike Heinrich, architect
and representative for the applicant gave a presentation of the planned. sign
program for the center.
The following is a summary of the comments: . "
The committee had a brief discussion regarding separating the two phases of
the project to make two projects for purposes of calculating the number of
signs. Member Detweiler said she was opposed to this due to oroiect
aooroval . was under one entitlement and same stioulations . Le. one
commercial center. .
Wal-Mart SIGN Buildino A-1 - It was discussed that the 5 foot lettering was
modest and in proportion with the scale of the building. The sign is shown on
only one elevation, the south (front) elevation and this is the only place where
a" sign should be loc~ted for the Wal-Mart.
BUILDING A-2 - The sign shown fits with the scale of the fac;ade~
BUILDING C- LUCKY -SA V ON - Sign as shown is okay.
.
NON CORPORATE SIGNS (SUCH AS "BAKERY., .PHARMACY., ETC) - These
. signs should be of a uniform character and use one type-face, such as
"GARAMOND BOLD", .as suggested in the PSP. To avoid clutter of small
signs, these signs should not be used to advertise ~pic~! r~cm3 items tvoicallv
found in a orocerv store. but can be used for bank, pharmacy, 1-hour photo.
Seafood, Food and not considered acceptable. Where these signs are shown
on towers they should be balanced and proportional to the tower fa9ade.
--- -_.~_.-
. .
- . .
OFFICE MAX CStaoles-8uitdina D) - The lettering should be indented from
both sides the approximate width of the pilasters so that the lettering is better
balanced. The height of the lettering should also be reduced proportionately.
.
BUILDING E TENANT - The proposed "TENANT- lettering is too large.
Member Orefice suggests using the width of the columns/pilasters for each
side of lettering as an appropriate .margin- on the left and right side of all
signs.
, .
BUILDING F - No signs on the east elevation since it will face the residential
area.
SMALLER TENANT SPACES - Member Hoag suggests that one tenant sign
per tenant space on all the smaller buildings with multiple tenants is
appropriate.
BUILDING G - On the south east elevation it may be appropriate to keep the
size of the signs to 70 sq. ft., reduce the number of signs to one sign and
remove the three smaller signs.
. HOLL YWOOD VIDEO Buildina H - Member Hoag suggested that the sign does
not need to be shown 011 the three sides. It was discussed that the sign is a
strong graphic statement, but that might not be a detractor and may actually
add interest. No neon, one :ct:c:-ing only, on the 30~'1 clevation. On the
north elevation,. 'reduce the size to'1 00 s.f. and eliminate the mountains and
neon. Signs on the west and south elevation would be okay.
BUILDING I - No sign should be shown on the west elevation where the
angled wall is shown, because of the visibirrty of the sign from the residential
area is not' needed. The sign on the south elevation (front elevation), needs.
better spacing betWeen the top and bottom of the sign area to better balance
. it with the fa<;ade; lettering should be reduced to 5.feet in height.
BUILDING J - 8iminate signs on east elevation, facing St. Patrick's School;
they are not needed and take off south and north elevation.
BUILDING K -. Eliminate signs on eastwest and south sides. Use the
monument sign at the southwest comer of site at St. Patrick's comer for both
J and K building tenants.
BUILDINGS L & M - Remove Building M from PS? since no building elevations
have been approved. In general, no signs should be placed on the rear
elevations of either building.
. .
-
COMMENTS REGARDING SIGNS VISIBLE FROM RANCHO GRANDE
RESIDENTlAL AREAS - Throughout the discussion the Members commented
on the direction of signs facing motorist going south, that signs would not be
needed since most of that traffic would be local and not need the advertising
signs as direction. Also the Committee discussed concerns about the not
having signspe visible for adjacent residents.
Member Detweiler commented that, in general, the sign program showed too
many signs and signs that were too large, beyond what would be permitted
under the Sign Ordinance. She stated that the PSP should be found
consistent with the Sign Ordinance, that it was important to remember that
Rancho Parkway was a gateway to a residential area. She stated that the
colors were too bright and that more uniform signs were needed to unify the
center. The signs should announce the tenants but not advertise. She was
also concerned about the height of the gateway signs.
MONUMENT SIGNS: Eliminate the entry monument sign on the second
driveway into Phase II side. These entry monument signs on both sides of
Rancho Parkway can be reoriented at an angle to the sueet and made one
sided and no sign copy on the side facing toward residential area.
,For the monument sign on West Branch Street near the detention basin, use
an optional entry monument sign instead, with just the "Rve Cities Center"
lettering and toga.
.
GATEWAY TOWER: Eliminate Gateway Tower for Phase II. One gateway
~ tower is needed for the main part of the center only. It could just list four
malar tenants rather than 5 major tenants.
EX1STtNG SIGNS FOR THEATER 'AND SIZZLER. The members. discussed how
'the existing signs should be updated and encouraged to be designed to fit in
with the PSP for th~ center. It was discussed that these existing uses are not
a part of the center that they are on separate parcels. It was suggested that
a sign similar in design to the gateway tower could be .used for the theater.
Upon completion of the' discussion, a motion was made by Chair Orefice,
seconded by Member Hoag to accept all comments above as changes
recommended to the applicant, and to request the applicant revisit the sign
ordinance together with the comments and see if there are additional areas
where signs could be eliminated, bringing the PS? into closer compliance with
the sign ordinance. The motion was unanimously approved. .
Down liahtina instead of backliahtina is oreferred.
The meeting adjourned ~ 7:35 p.m.
.
Attachment F.
----'--- .___u
- --- - -..-- ~._---
PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARING TO BE HELD IN THE
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
215 EAST BRANCH STREET
!
APPLICANT: Robert Anderson
I 200 Station Way
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
SUBJECT: Application Regarding Parcel 3 of Village Creek Plaza
FILE/INDEX: TPM 98-548; CUP No. 98-565
,
PROPOSAL: Proposal to develop Lot 3 with four buildings totaling 27,250
square feet and 109 parking spaces
LOCATION: ' Lot 3, Village Creek Plaza; 201 Station Way
REPRESENTATIVE: See application
Hearing Notices sent oil May 8, 1998. Staff Report Prepared by Lezley Buford,
AICP. Reviewed by Tim Carmel, City Attorney. Site Inspection by Lezley Buford
on May 1, 1998.
-
Parcel Size: 2.7 acres
Terrain: Level
Vegetation: Vacant parcel has been cleared with little remaining
vegetation
Existing Land Use: Vacant
General Plan Designation: General Commercial
Existing Zoning: General Commercial
Surrounding Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation:
North: . Station Way; General commercial uses/General
Commercial
South: U.S. Highway 101
East: Auto Dealership, U.S. Post office/General
Commercial . "
West: . U.S. Highway 101
--. --....--..-..---- .... .-.-------. _..
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue this item to a date
uncertain and direct the applicant to submit a revised site plan that contains
the items listed on the incompleteness letter dated December 29, 1997, and a
revised parking plan which complies with the Development Code.
2. Find that the applicant is required to provide parking and loading areas
consistent with the Development Code, based on the proposed square footage
of buildings proposed for Parcel 3.
3. Find that Parcel 3 is not obligated to provide additional parking spaces for the
benefit of other parcels in the Village Creek Plaza development.
4. In the alternative, deny the application and direct staff to return to the June
16, 1998 meeting of the Planning Commission with a resolution to deny.
5. In the alternative, deny the application without prejudice, and direct staff to
return to the June 1 6, 1998 meeting of the Planning Commission with a
resolution to deny.
BACKGROUND:
The application concerns the Village Creek Plaza, located on Station Way. For ease
of reference, staff will refer to the parcels as they were eventually configured by the
lot line adjustment in 1.990. The major occupants of the parcels are:
Parcel 1: Video Thyme
Parcel 2: Miner's Hardware/Kennedy Fitness Center/Roger Dunn Golf
Parcel 3: Vacant/ Site of Anderson application
Parcel 4: Vacant
Parcel 5: Offices of Dr. Thomas Thompson, D.D.S.
Development of the Village Creek Plaza commercial development was initiated in
1985. Since that time some parcels have been developed, ownership changes have
occurred, and the City has approved a lot line adjustment and merger which changed
the configuration of some of the parcels in the development. The current applications
have generated the opposition of other occupants in the Village Creek Plaza, primarily
based on parking and access. Other issues include design of proposed landscaping,
sidewalks, loading areas, and architectural character.
The applicant seeks to develop the 2.7 acre parcel (Parcel 3) with four buildings
totaling 27,250 square feet and 109 parking spaces.
The Village Creek Plaza project was first approved in 1985, when an application was
submitted by Mid-Coast Land to develop the overall 8.5-:acre site with a 59,540
square foot commercial center, comprised of three buildings (see Master Plan). The
Staff Advisory Committee and Architectural Advisory Committee found that the
--"...,..__._---,--~- --
____n____.._ ~ ..-.-'---.
proposal was consistent with development requirements of the zoning ordinance,
including off-street parking. Buildings were constructed on Parcels 1 and 2. In 1987
approval was received for approximately 1,500 square feet of outdoor nursery
storage and sales activity adjacent to Miner's Hardware (Parcel 2).
In February, 1990, the Planning Commission approved development of a 21,816
square foot commercial building on Lot 3. The development included provisions for
118 parking spaces. This building was not constructed, and the entitlements have
expired pursuant to Development Code Section 9-02.1.40.
A I'ot line adjustment and lot merger was approved in 1995, resulting in the existing
five-lot configuration. Approval of the lot line adjustment and merger by the City
was conditioned on the recording of reciprocal easements for, inter alia, access and
parking. CC&Rs were recorded in May, 1995 which appeared to satisfy this
condition. Section 6.1 (c) of the CC&Rs provided:
6.1 Easements for Common Facilities: Each parcel, each Owner and the
Association shal/ have and is hereby granted the following easements:
(cl An easement for parking purposes over and across the parking areas
within the Shopping Center as reflected on the Map. "
This easement has been reviewed by the City Attorney, who confirmed that although
this easement grants reciprocal parking, it does not reserve a soecified number of
soaces for use bv develooment on adioining oarcels.
The City has received no formal development proposals for Lot 4. The current owner
of Lot 5 has notified the City that he does not believe Lot 5 is encumbered with any
obligation to participate in parking cooperative arrangements with the owners or
tenants of other parcels in Village Creek Plaza. Staff does not believe Parcel 5 issues
are relevant to this proceeding, as the owner's claim is based on the specific facts of
his case, and not an interpretation of the Development Code or the language of the
CC&Rs.
DISCUSSION:
Parkin9: Table 1 shows the parking requirements for the project and for existing uses
on Parcels 1 and 2. The City's existing Development Code requires 1 parking space
per 250 square feet of general retail and office use in the Village. (Section 9-12.060,
matrix 3.a.) The ordinance also provides that common parking facilities may be
provided in lieu of individual requirements if the total number of parking spaces is the
sum of the requirements for individual uses and the parking facilities are located
within two hundred feet (200') of the associated use (Section 9-12.050).
--,---- ---
.--.-- --------
-- ---------:-Page 4
Village' Creek Plaza was originally' proposed as a single development, and included
three separate parcels (see Master Plan dated 1985). In general, it was anticipated
that parking deficiencies for the building located on Parcel 2 would be satisfied by
parking surpluses for buildings constructed on Parcels 1 and 3. At the time of
appr~val, however, no condition was implemented which created a binding obligation
on each lot within the development to provide a specific number of parking spaces for
other parcels, nor was the developer required to create access and parking easements
for common enjoyment. The City required the developer, at the time the buildings on
. Parcels 1 and 2 were constructed, to also construct 41 parking spaces on what is
now Parcel 3 to accommodate the parking then required under the Development
Code. Parcels 1 and 2 have continued to utilize parking on Parcel 3 since the initial
development of the site.
As Qotedabove, the existing configuration of the parcels in the Village Creek Plaza
development were created in 1994 with the approval of a lot line adjustment. As
part of the approval process, the applicant was required to create easements for
common access and parking, which are set forth above.
The applicant in this case agrees that Parcel 3.is subject to the easements for access
and parking, but does not agree that he is required to provide a specific number of
parking spaces for the benefit of other parcels in the development. The owners and
tenants of Parcel 2 claim that the requirement for access and parking easements, and
the history of the project, prevent the applicant from utilizing some existing parking
spaces on Parcel 3 to meet parking requirements for the building to be constructed on
Parcel 3.
Required parking is determined by reference to Chapter 9-12 the Development Code.
General retail, office and commercial uses are required .to provide one parking space
for each 250 square feet of gross floor area. The applicant has requested approval
for four buildings comprising a total of 27,250 square feet, which would require 109
spaces (27,250 I 250). The applicant's plan as submitted is unclear with regard to
the actual parking spaces proposed, lacking details regarding motorcycle parking,
compact spaces, loading areas etc.
Under the provisions of the previous Development Code,. parking was calculated at
one space per 200 square feet for commercial and office space, and the 1985
approval was subject to this requirement. The Development Code standard for
parking has been changed, and the current standard is one space per 250 square
feet. The parking required in the 1985 approval, and the parking requirements for the
project to date, as built, are shown in the following table:
-..-------
TABLE 1
1985 APPROVAL SQUARE FEET PARKING REQ'D PARKING
PROVIDED
BLDG "A" 8,960 45 spaces 68 spaces
SLDG "B" 20,200 1 0 1 spaces 50 spaces
SLDG "C" 17,200 86 spaces 105 spaces
BLDG "D" 4,260 22 spaces 16 spaces
SLDG "E" 4,800 24 spaces 40 spaces
AS BUlL T SQUARE FEET PARKING REQ'D PARKING.
@ 1 PER 250 PROVIDED
BLDG "A" 10,500 42 spaces 68 spaces
BLDG "B" 1 9,600 78 spaces 50 spaces
PROPOSED 27,250 109 spaces 11 5 spaces
BLDG "c"
BLDG "D" NOT BUlL T
BLDG "E" 4,882 20 spaces 40 spaces
Access and Loading: Section 9-12.170 A of the Development Code provides as
follows: "All industrial and commercially zoned developments shall be designed with
truck approach and backup areas so as to prevent truck maneuvering within public
rights-of-way. " Developments of 14,000 square feet or less are exempted from
loading area requirements under some circumstances. This exception does not apply
to this project. The site plan submitted by the applicaot does not inclu(je loading
areas, and the applicant has been requested by staff to revi~e the site plan in this
regard. .
ISSUES: _
Parking: Staff believes the issue with regard to parking can be stated as follows: Is
the applicant required to provide a specific number of spaces for the use of other
tenants in the Village Cr!Jek Plaza development? While the lot line adjustment
conditions imposed in 1994 required the creation of easements for mutual access and
. - --- - June 2, 1998
Page 6
parking, the conditions did not require the allocation of a specific number of spaces to
specific parcels. The parking available to Parcels 1,2 .and 3 would satisfy the
requirements of the Development Code if the applicant constructed buildings with the
requested square footage. Staff believes, therefore, that the applicant is not required
, to provide a specific number of parking spaces in addition to the number of spaces
required for the project. However, planning for the parking spaces must be carefully
considered. The applicant has not provided sufficient information to enable staff to
make a determination regarding this issue, and a revised site plan should therefore be
submitted.
,.
Access: The Development Code contains specific requirements regarding loading
areas for industrial and commercially zoned property. The site plan submitted by the
applicant does not identify adequate facilities for loading. The applicant should be
required to submit a revised site plan.
LandscaDing: The Development Code requires a 15' front building setback
(Development Code Table 9-07.040-A). Additionally, the setback must be
landscaped, and where off-street parking areas are situated such that they are visible
from any street, an earthen berm, wall, or combination wall/berm three feet in height
must be erected within the required landscape area. 'The Development Code also
provides that if parking is located in the building setback area, a minimum ten foot
landscaped area must be provided between the property line and the parking area
with an additional minimum landscaped area of ten feet also requ.ired between the
parking area and the building. This item has been discussed with the applicant at
SAC, the Planning Commission meeting of May 18, 1998, and at other meetings and
telephone conversations with the applicant. The site plan must be revised to show
landscaping consistent with the requirements of the Development Code before the
project can be approved.
Planning Commission: The project was reviewed and discussed at the May 18, 1998
Planning Commission at the applicant's request. The Commission expressed
concerns regarding parking, loading, landscaping, design and density of development
(see Exhibit J).
In his letter dated May 21, 1998, the applicant requests that the application be
approved. Staff does not believe the applicant has provided an adequate site plan
needed to accurately assess the project and to determine whether the application
satisfies the requirements of the Development Code. For example, the design and
landscaping of the setback and parking areas may affect the building design and size.
STAFF ADVISORY COMMITTEE: SAC reviewed the project on July 1, 1997. .
Comments were made concerning frontage on U.S. Highway 101, and the need to
architecturally match the existing buildings. The pedestrian walkway in front of the
existing buildings should continue through the proposed project, and landscaping
trash enclosures and light fixtures should match the existing site. The Building and
.
----------- ..__..._._u v....._ _, ___~__.______ ___
Page 7
Fire Department commented regarding compliance with the most recent editions of
the California State Fire and Building Codes, and abandonment of non-conforming
services such as septic tanks. Public Works department commented regarding sewer
service and dedication of utility easements, driveways and water neutralization plan.
Parks and Recreation commented regarding street trees and the park development
fee. The Police Department commented regarding adequate .Iighting for the project.
ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE: The AAC reviewed the project on May
4, 1998 (see Exhibit I), commenting on colors' and materials, compatibility of
proposed project with existing architecture, pedestrian walkway to be improved with
stamped pattern concrete across street and through parking area.
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 related to the proposed project, with the
exception of the correspondence set forth below from owners and tenants of the
Village Creek Plaza development and their representatives.
. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Staff' has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act, and has determined that the project would not have a significant effect
on the environment. A Negative Declaration was issued with a hearing date of June
2, 1998. Staff does not anticipate that this project will have an adverse effect on the
environment.
Attachments:
Resolution Continuing This Item
Financial Interest Form
Exhibits
Exhibit A: Site Plan (Distributed with April 21, 1998 materials)
Exhibit B: May 21, 1998 from Robert M. Anderson, D.D.S.
Exhibit C: May 19, 1998 from Norman & Vasquez Associates, on behalf of owners and
tenants of Miner's Hardware Building
Exhibit 0: April 21, 1998 Memo from Mike Miner (fax) with Scott Spieling letter dated
January 31,1997 attached
Exhibit E: April 20, 1998 Memo from Mike Miner vvith attachments
Exhibit F: April 15, 1988 letter from Robert M. Anderson, D.D.S. .
Exhibit G: December 4, 1997 from Mike Miner
Exhibit H: 1985 Approved Master Plan
Exhibit I: AACMeeting notes for May 4
Exhibit J: Draft Minutes for April 21, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting
Exhibit K: Initial Study/Draft Negative Declaration
Exhibit L: CCRs/Conditions of Approval referencing parking easements
---"--~'~.~.
,
. Attachment G
. .
ARROYO GRANDE P! ~G COl\1i.\1ISSION
: -:'<C .. . ...
JUNE 2, 1998
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Lubin presiding.
Present are Commissioners Rondeau, Parker and Haney. .Commissioner Greene is absent. Also
in attendance are Acting Co~munity Development Director Helen. Eder, Associate Planner
Bruce Buckingham and Contract Planner LezJ.ey Buford.
,
INTRODUCTION OF NEW PLAt.~G COMMISSIONER
Chair Lubin introduced new Commissioner Nanci Parker and welcomed her to the Planning
Commission. .
MINUTE APPROVAL
. Hearing no corrections or additions, on motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by
Commissioner Rondeau, ~d canied, the minutes of the regular meeting of April ~ 1, 1998 were
. approved as prepared.
o.
ORAL COM:M:ONICATIONS - None
PtI8LIC HEAlUNG - CONDIDONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 92-502, REQUEST FOR
A ONE YEAR L"'ITEN'SION; Ai"ID CONDmONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 94-521,
REQUEST TO OPERATE THE LOPEZ CONTINUATION IDGH SCHOOL AND THE.
TEENAGE ACADEMIC AND PARENTING PROGRAJ.'\1, AND AM:END THEHOURS OF
OPERATION FOR CHILD CARE FROM 8:00 A.M. TO 3:30 P.M. TO 7:30 A.M. TO
11:30 P.M.; APPLICAt.'IT: LUCIA MAR ~.un.JID SCHOOL DISTRICT;
oREPRESEL'ITATIVE: SAL"IDY DA VIS; LOCATION: 227 BRIDGE STREET
Associate Planner Bruce Buckingham reviewed the staff report dated June 2, 1998. He stated .
that in August 1992 the C;omrnission approved Conditional Use Pennit 92-502 to allow Lopez
Continuation High School to. operate at 227 Bridge Street for a. four year period. Subsequently,
in November 1994 the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 94-527 to allow
the high school to operate a Teenage Academic Parenting program at the same location. In July
1996 the Planning Commission approved a two year time extension for both CUP's because of .
the failure of school bonds to secure the necessary funding for a. permanent school facility.
Since that time, the School District has received the funding and has started construction of the
new Lopez Continuation High School in Nipomo, however, the new facility will not be ready
this Fall and, as a result, the School District is requesting a final one year time extension for
both Conditional Use Pennits to allow additional time to complete the fucility. In addition the
District is requesting that Condition No. 10 of CUP 94-527 be amended changing the hours of
operation for child care services from 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. This
is the result of a recently approved State funding the School District received.
Mr. Buckingham advised that the Staff Advisory Committee has reviewed the applicant's
requests and finds the projects to be acceptable, and staff recommends the Planning Commission:
approve the one Ye3I time extension for both Conditional Use Pennits and the amendment to the
hours of operation for the child care services. He noted there is one correction on the CUP
Amendment Resolution, Attachment A, hours for the child care center, should be correctly stated.
as 7:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m.
. . .
. . . .,-
Arroyo Grande PJ~nning Co(--- ission .
June 2, 1998
Upon completion of staff's presentation, Chair Lubin opened the hearing for public comment
and invited the applicant to make his presentation. .
Peny Judd. Lucia Mar Unified School District. stated he is representing Sandy D~vis, who
could not be present tonight. He further stated he concurs with staffs. recommendation for a
one year . extension. of the Conditional Use Pennits. and amendment to the. hours of opexation for
the child care services. He advised. the new facility is being built and is slated for use around -
Easter of the 1999 school year.
After a brief disc~ssion between the Commission and applicants, the Commission indicated their
support for the pro~7 and the following action was taken: .-. .
RESOLUTION NO. 98-1~"'3
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COl\lIMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRAi.~E APPROV1NG A ONE YEAR 1'Il\1E EXTEN'SIONFOR ..
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-502 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
94-527, FOR THE OPERATION OF LOPEZ CONTINUATION.mGH
SCHOOL AND THE TEENAGE ACADEMIC AND PARENTING
PROGRAM (TAP) AT 227 BRIDGE STREET, APPLIED FOR BY LUCIA
MAR UNIJ!lJill SCHOOL DISTRICT
On motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and by the following
roll call vote, to wit:
.
AYES: Commissioners Haney, Rondeau, Parker and Chair Lubin
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Greene
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 2= day of June 1998.
RESOLUTION NO. 98-1654
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COl\lIMISSION OF THE CITY OF .
ARROYO GRANDE APPROV1NGANAMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT CASE NO. 94-527, APPLIED FOR BY LUCIA MAR LUCIA
MAR m.UlJill SCHOOL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 227 BRIDGE.
STREET .
On motion by Commissioner Haney,. seconded by Commissioner Parker, and by the following
roll call vote, to wit
AYES: Commissioners Haney, Rondeau, Parker and Chair Lubin
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Greene
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 2Dd day of June 1998.
. .
.
Arroyo Grande Planning COL. ...ission : , .
June 2, 1998
After further discussion between the Commission and staff, Chair Lubin opened the hearing for
public comment. ,
Robert Anderson. applicant, thanked staff for their hard work and dedication. He stated he has
agreed to revise the plans based on staff's comments. He commented, that it is clear he is not
obligated to provide additional parking to the adjoining properties. He stated he is willing to
abide by the reciprocal. parking agreement to help ensure the parlcing accessibility. He refeIred
to th~ study that was commissioned on his behalf, stated the report clearly supports the _ claim
that the parking is adequate and, and he does not agree with Mr. Miners claims of entitlement
to parking on the project site, nevertheless the proposal is still providing 10 to 12 smplus spa,ces.
With regard to site coverage, Mr. Anderson stated the proposal of 22% is minimal-and a project
with less than 20%. coverage is not economically feasible. Regarding staff's recommendation
for continuance, Mr. Anderson stated he would like to get this project going and requested that
the Commission make a ruling tonight if possibl~.
Mark Vasquez. Nonnan. Vasquez & Associates. representing Mr. Miner, stated they agree with
the staff report, plus they and Mr. Miner encourage Mr. Anderson to pursue hisdevelopnient,
however, they still feel there is an issue regarding the parking. They believe the key to this
issue is the fact that the original approval and the documents associated -with: that approval in
1985 specifically stated that Phase 1 involving Buildings A and B shall include constrUction of
146 spaces specifically for those two buildings. The developers completed the consn:uction in
1986. Building E was subsequently built under the original approval in 1987. Wlth regard to
Buildings C and D, that part of the overall approval was not exercised; building pemiits were
not issued and, therefore, the approvals expired and new approvals are required. In 1994 it was
decided by the develoPers to do a lot merger and lot line adjustmeIltto allow 5 individual
parcels for each structures. At that time a finding was made that parlcing had to be adequately
provided. In order to do that the, CC&Rs were recorded requiring a reciprocal parking
easement. Mr. Vasquez commented that in order for the original approval to be valid, when
Buildings A, Band E were constructed, there had to be 146 spaces allotted to those buildings,'
and their concern is that the proposed project be in compliance with the original awiO'val. He
requested that the parking be required consistent with the original conditions approved in the
~~P~. ' .
Jay Johnson. P. O. Box 3. Grover Beach. stated he represents. ~er's Hardware and also the .
current owners of the property. He stated his feeling that the public should be able to rely on.
Conditions of Approval adopted by the City, and requested that the City enforce the original,
conditions.
Don Selbv noted that most cities allow for at least 20% of the parking spaces to be compact.
The City Code requires that all spaces shall be 9 x 18, and questioned why spaces above and
beyond what is required by the Code be allowed to be compact'?, He stated this would benefit_
the applicant and the exi.st:ing tenants.
William B'o\!den stated he was looking for a building to lease and was directed to Mr..
Anderson's project over a yem: ago. In talking to Mr. Ande...~on last w~k he was infonned th~t
the parking had become a problem for the project. Mr. Bogden refe...'TeCi to the parking survey
presented to the Commission submitted by Ganador Associates, Inc. He stated, that, they went
out and counted parking spaces every 15 minutes, and the last sheet of their report shows - the
totals for a 3 day period, indicating there is more than enough parking. H~ requested that the
.. ,. " - - LL - ---=-~ .__=_1-. ...:.'" "..................;...~~ ,..nnrl;rinn~ nf ~nnmva.1 to resolve
...... ......
. .
Arroyo Grande PIann. Commi~on
June 2, 1998
c
PUBLIC BEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 98-548 AND
CONDmONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 98-565, CONSTRUCTION OF A 27,250
SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIALJRETAIL BUJLDING Ai'ID LOT SPLIT; APPliCANT: .
ROBERT ANDERSON; LOCATION: 200 STATION WAY
Contract P1.3.nner Lezley Buford reviewed the staff report dated June 2, 1998.' She stated the
project was reviewed by the Planning Commission sometime ago as a pre:'appIi~on discussion
item. At that time the Commission provided many comments with regard to the design and
other issues, particularly with regard to the master plan that was approved in 1985, and also with
regard to the existing parking, and the Development Code parking requirements. Since the last
discussion, all of the materials relating to the history of the project have been forwarded to the
City Attorney for his review, and it is staff's opinion that the issues and questions regarding the
requirements and any property entitlements have been resolved. Ms. Buford briefly reviewed
the history of the Village Creek Plaza development. She also noted that in February of 1990
the Planning Commission approved development of a 21,816 square foot commercial building
on Lot 3. The development included provisions for 118 parking spaces. At that time, the City's
parking requirement fG a ccmmercial development Was 1 per 200 square feet of building area.
The building was not constructed and the entitlements have since expired.
Ms. Buford advised that a lot line adjustment and lot merger was approved in 1995, which was
mainly to reconfigure 10 parcels into five the parcels that exist today. At that time, there was
a discussion with regard to the parking situation, and as a condition to the lot line adjustment
and lot merger, the property owner was required to file reciprocal parking easements across the
entire site. The CC&Rs were recorded in May 1995. Section 6.1(c) of the CC&Rs states Co\ An
easement for parking purposes over and across the parAing areas within the Shopping Cenrer
as reflected on the Map." She stated that the map was the parcel map and lot line adjustment
at that time, showing all parking that existed on the site. At that time the..."e were 40 developed
parking spaces on the subject parcel. Before the Commi.sSion tonight is the proposed
development of Parcel 3, where the previous development was proposed. She noted there have
been two changes since that time: (1) the parking requirements per the City's Development Code
have been ch3:I1ged to 1 space per 250 square feet of building space, and' (2) the development
has changed, in that the proposal is 4 buildings totaling approximately 27,000 square feet,
instead of one building as previously proposed. Also shown on the site plan are a total of 115....
spaces; some of which are compact spaces, which the City does not allow. . Therefore, the total
number,of parking spaces could be reduced to 109 spaces.
Ms. Buford reiterated that the City Attorney has reviewed the history of the proj~ the project
site. and the development of Village Creek Plaza, and has concluded that while there 'is a
reciprocal easement for parking purposes and access across the entire site, there is no specific
agreement regarding a specific number of spare; for any of the parcels, . and also there has never
been any condition or any requirement that any future development provide spaces other than
what is, required by the Development Code, which would be the minimum requirement.
With regard to the plans that have been submitted, Ms. Buford stated it is staff's opinion that
the plans are close to meeting the Development Code. However, there are several design issues
including landscaping, parking and loading areas, that need to be revised, and may affect the
overall development and design of the proj~t. Therefore, staff.recommends the Commission
continue this item so that the applicant can move forward with redesi~nimJ' th~ nmiP.ct tn mp~t
. .
. .
ArroYo Grande PIanniI :ommiC\Sion .f~_.(.'':'' -..;
June 2, 1998
. Chair Lubin further indicated that he is in total agreement with the other Commissioners and he
would like to see a complete site plan with all of the changes made. He wants to be sure that
all of the parking and landscaping fits, and that the infonnation submitted to staff can be relied
upon.
After further disCussion, on motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by' Commissioner
Rondeau, and unanimously carried, staff recommendations 1 and 2 were approved as follows:
l. That the Planning Commission continue this item to a date uncertain and direct the
applicant to submit a revised site plan that cQntains the items listed on the incompleteness
letter, dated D~mber29, 1997, and a revised parking plan which complies with the
Development Code.
2. The applicant is required to provide parking and loading areas consistent with the
Development Code, based on the proposed square footage of buildings proposed for,
Parcel 3.
pLANNING COl\tRvJISSION/CO:Ml\fiJNITY DEVELOPl\tIENT DIRECTOR ITEMS AND
COl\lIMENTS.
A. Pending Project in San Luis Obispo Coun~y. Acting Community Development
Director Helen Eder stated that in keeping with the Planning Commission's requ~ to be
notified of pending projects in San Luis Obispo County, a Project Referral for the Nipomo
Valley Mutual Water Company is being referred to the Commission. Also, the Planning
Commission received a handout tonight of a Notice of Preparation for an EIR for Hampton, eta!
General Plan Amendment, which is also from San Luis Obispo County.
Ms. Eder also listed items that will heard at the June Ifrh Planning Commission meeting as
follows:
1. YMCA Tune Extension.
2. 5 Cities Center Planned Sign Program.
3. K-Mart Planned Sign Program.
4. Beacon Planned Sign Program.
Ms. Elder also reminded the Commission that there is a joint City CounciIlPlanning Commission ,"
study session scheduled for June 18m at 6:30 p.m. Items to be discussed at that m_eeting include
the Redevelopment Agency implementation and General Plan Update.
With regard to the General Plan Update, Ms. Eder advised that Workshop No.2 on Land Use
Alternatives is scheduled for Saturday, June 20111 from 9:00 a.m. to noon at the Arroyo Grande
High School Gym. Also, Tnursday, June 4111 at 6:30 a meeting is being held for the Co~
Outreach Team members to obtain infonnation on the Workshop. She funhe- advised that.a
notice for the Workshop will be published in the newspaper in two weeks, and next wee..fc notices
for the Workshop will be delivered to 8,000 addresses in the City.
,..,-.,.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commi'5S'ion . .~- . ,.
. '. ". ...... .
June 2, 1998
.
WRlTI'EN .COJM:MUNICATIONS L
L Notice OfPrepara1::ion of an ER for Hamptony et aL Gene::al PIan Amendment from San
Lnis Obispo County.
2. Agenda Item 1L.A. - Letter dated June 2y 1998 from Ruth w~.
3. Agenda Item No. !LB. - Resolution No. 94-1458.
4. Agenda !temNo. !LB. - Resolution No. ~1459 . ,
5. Parking Study from Gamdor Associatesy Inc.y dated June 1, 1998. .
6. Revised explanations for the ~ Study Checklist J:I.L~ed for the Ande:son project..
ADJOURNMENT
T.nere being no further business before the Commi~on7 the ~tin~ was. adjoumed by the
Chairman at 9:30 p.rn.
.
ATTEST:
~~
~~~ro / ~ .~
.AS TO. CONTENT:
~/VM,~~.
Helen M. Eder, AlCP
Acting Community Deve.!opme:J.t Dire:"..or
. .
.
.
.
r~~
L
~
. Attachment H
Hearing Date: 11/4/98
Agenda Item No. 1I.}(-I3".
PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARING TO BE HELD IN THE
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS .
215 EAST BRANCH STREET
APPLICANT: Robert Anderson
PROJECT: ' Conditional Use Permit 98-565
Tentative Tract Map 98-548
PROPOSAL: Construction of a 27,520 SF commercial retail and office
building and lot split
LOCATION: 200 Station Way
REPRESENTATIVE: Brad Anderson
18 Public Hearing Notices. Public hearing notice published in the Times-Press- i
Recorder on October 9, 1998. Site inspection by Helen Elder on1 0/13/98. Staff ~
report prepared by Helen Elder, AICP, Associate Planner.
Parcel Size: 119,123 SF (2.7 acres)
Terrain: Flat
Vegetation: Shrubs and trees along northern edge of property
between existing parking area and street. .
Existing Land Use: Vacant
General Plan Designation: General Commercial
Zoning Designation: General Commercial (GC), Design 2.11 Overlay
Surrounding land Use, Zoning,' General Plan Designation:
North: Commercial/General Commercial/same
East: Commercial office/General Commercial/same
South: Commercial/residence/General Commercial/Highway
West: Highway 101
i
VillAGE CREEK PLAZA
NOVEMBER 4, 1998
Page 2 of 5
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission deny, without prejudice, the above
referenced applications.
DISCUSSION:
An application for a conditional use permit and tentative parcel map was submitted
on November 26, 1997 by. Robert Anderson. for construction of a 27,000+/-
commercial office and commercial retail complex at 200 Station' Way. On
December 29, 1997 the applicant was notified in writing that the application was
incomplete. A list of the incomplete items was also sent to the applicant.
At the March 24, 1998 meeting, the Staff Advisory Committee provided comments
to the applicant regarding items needed for completion of the application. Staff.
met with the applicant and his representatives on several occasions to provide
direction on the items needed for a complete application. .
On April 21, 1998, the project was scheduled as a non-public hearing item before
the' Planning Commission at the request of the applicant. The Commission provided
comments regarding the application. The item was again heard by the. Commission
at a public hearing on June 2, 1998. After much discussion, staff recommended,
and the Commission concurred, that the item should be continued to allow the
applicant time to revise the site plan to provide adequate information for the
Commission to make a decision on the project, and to be in conformance with the
Development Code for parking, loading areas and landscaping.
On September 1, 1998 the applicant submitted revised plans. Staff reviewed the
plans and has determined that the revised plans are not in conformance with the
Development Code for building and property setbacks for landscaping, parking and
lot coverage. The plans do not include the minimum landscaping requirements of
10 feet of landscaping between parking areas and the property line, with an
additional minimum of, 10 feet of landscaping between the buildings and the
parking lot (Development Code Sec. 9-07.040 (B.4') Commercial Site DeveloDrT'-erit
Standards). The inclusion of this landscaping area is a basic' site constraint that.
will provide the basis' for determining the amount of parking and the size of' the
buildings. The applicant was provided written notification of staff's determination
and that the item would be scheduled for a public hearing on a recommendation for
denial for this meeting.
Development Code Section 9-02.110 Denials allows for the denial of applications
which do not provide information necessary to clarify, amplify, correct,. or
otherwise supplement the information required for the application, or information
without which the City's decision to approve a project would not be supported by
substantial evidence.
,
VILLAGE CREEK PLAL,", . '
NOVEMBER 4, 1998
. Page 3 of 5
Based on the incompleteness of the revised plans and the lack of conformance with
the Development Co~e, staff recommends the Commission deny the applications.
.The findings for denial are ~hown hi the attached resolution.
Attachments:
Site plan
Resolution of Denial, without prejudice.
Planning Commission minutes for meetings of April 21 and June 2, 1998.
Letter dated September 23, 1998 to applicant with attachment outlining items of
non-conformance.
Development Code sections
.
VILLAGE CREEK PLA .
NOVEMBER 4, 1998
Page 4 of 5
RESOLUTION NO. 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO. GRANDE DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-S65 a.nd
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 98-548, APPLIED FOR BY ROBERT
ANDERSON, LOCATED AT 200 STATION WAY (VILLAGE CREEK
PLAZA)
WHEREAS, the P.lanning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered a
Conditional Use Permit 98-565 and a Tentative Parcel Map 98-548, filed by Robert
Anderson, to construct a 27,350 square foot commercial office and commercial retail
complex; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a duly noticed public hearing on
November 4,1998 in accordance with City Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information
and public testimony presented at the public hearings, the staff report and other
information and documents that are part of the public record; and
WHEREAS, the Development Code Section 9-02.110 Denials, allows the denial of a
permit, license or entitlement for a development project in the event that the
following information is not provided by the applicant within the time limits specified
by the Development Code:
1. Information necessary to clarify,amplify, correct, or, otherwise supplement the
information required for the application; or
2. Information without which the City's decision to approve a project would not be
supported by substantial evidence. .
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public
hearing, the following circumstances exist:
1. The proposed use is permitted within the General Commercial District; however,
the project does not comply with all the applicable provisions of the Development
Code, the goals and objectives of the General Plan, and the development policies.
and standards of the City.
2. The proposed use will impair the integrity and character of the neighborhood in
which it is to be established because the proposed commercial use is not
consistent with the Development Code requirements for parking, landscaping and
VILLAGE CREEK PLAZA '. .
NOVEMBER 4, 1998
Page 5 of 5
density and is too intensive for the site creating conflicts with adjacent uses in
the neighborhood.
3. The site is not suitable for the type and intensity of the proposed use because the .
119,123 square foot site is not large enough to accommodate the proposed
density . and intensity, of the proposed use, causing parking, circulation and
aesthetic problems.
4. The proposed use will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or
materi~lIy . injuri~~~ _ to J?~~~e.rt!es and imp,~overn~n,tsu. in t~e yicinity ~ec~use, t~e
in,creased density and lack of adequate landscaping and other site improvements
would adversely impacts the neighborhood.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Arroyo Grande hereby denies, without, prejudice, Conditional Use Permit Amendment
98-565 and Tentative Parcel Map 98-548 based on the above findings 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 4th day of November 1998.
ATTEST:
Pearl Phinney, Commission Clerk Sandy Lubin, Chair
.
AS TO CONTENT:
Jim Hamilton, AICP, Community Development Director
.
?-- Attachment I
. Hearl" ~ Date: Decer:nber 1, -1998
Agenda Item No. ItA.
PLANNING COMMISSION
) HEARING TO BE HELD IN THE .
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
215 EAST BRANCH STREET
APPLICANT: Robert Anderson
200 Station Way
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
PROJECT: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 98-565
PROPOSAL: Proposal to develop lot 3 with four buildings totaling 27,350
square feet and 110 parking spaces
lOCATION: .. lot 3, Village Creek Plaza; 201 Station Way
REPRESENTATIVE: Brad Anderson
Hearing Notices sent on November 18, 1998. Staff Report Prepared by Tom
Buford. Reviewed by Craig Campbell, Public Works. Site Inspection by Tom
Buford on November 16,1998.
Parcel Size: 2.7 acres gross; approximately 2.3 acres net
Terrain: Level
Vegetation: Vacant parcel has been cleared with little remaining
vegetation
Existing Land Use: Vacant
General Plan Designation: General Commercial
Existing Zoning: General Commercial; D-2.11 design overlay
.
Surrounding land UselZoning/General Plan Designation:
North: Station Way; General commercial uses/General
Commercial
---
South: U.S. Highway 101
East: Auto Dealership, U.S. Post Office/General
Commercial
West: U.S. Highway 101
Planning Commissi\ .
CUP No. 98-565
December 1, 1998
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the application for a
conditional use permit. In the event the Planning Commission decides to approve the
project, staff will prepare tha appropriate resolution and conditions and reschedule the
matter before the Planning Commission. \
Staff's recommendation is based on the following deficiencies in the proposed
project:
1. The lot size and associated calculation shown on the plans are
inaccurate.
2; The plan details showing the right-of-way and landscaping areas are not
drawn to scale and are misleading.
3. The proposed landscaping design requires a variance . application which
has not-been submitted.
4. The applicant has not demonstrated that the drainage plans can be
implemented as proposed.
5. The parking lot access needs revision, which may affect the number of
parking spaces provided.
6. The retaining wall and fence combinations are shown as being over 6
feet in height. This requires a design revision or a variance request.
7. The plan utilizes offsite relocation of a parking lot curb to make
sufficient room for a loading dock. The applicant has not demonstrated a
right to perform this work.
BACKGROUND:
Previo~s Planning Commission consideration:
The Village Creek Plaza project as proposed by the applicant, has previously been
considered by the Planning Commission on three occasions.
On April 21, 1998, the project was before the Planning Commission as a non-public
hearing item at the request of the applicant. The Planning Commission provided
comments regarding the application. Staff had previously advised the applicant
regarding items that would need to be provided to make the application complete.
See Minutes of the meeting attached as Exhibit C, and staff's letter to applicant
attached as Exhibit G.
Planning Commissi,
CUP No. 98-565
December 1 J 1998
Page 3
On June 2, 1998, staff recommended that the Planning Commission continue the
item, and direct the applicant to submit a revised site plan responding to the items of
incompleteness identified in the City's letter to the applicant dated December 29,
1997, and a revised parking plan. The Planning Commission accepted staff's
recommendation. The staff report for the June 2, 1998 meeting is attached as Exhibit
D. Minutes of the meeting are attached as Exhibit E.
On November 4, 1998, the Planning Commission considered staff's recommendation
to deny the project, wi~hout prejudice, which would have allowed the applicant to
respond to continuing staff concerns. At that meeting, the applicant indicated, and
staff confirmed, that revised plans for the project had been submitted shortly before
the meeting. Staff had not had an adequate opportunity to review the recently
submitted plans. The project was generally discussed, and the Planning Commission
continued the matter, directing staff to review the revised plans and reschedule the
matter for further Planning Commission consideration. The staff report for the
November 4, 1998 .meeting is attached as Exhibit F.
History:
The applicant seeks to develop the subject parcel (Parcel 3) with four. buildings
totaling 27,350 square feet and 110 parking' spaces. The parcel size is 2.7 acres
gross, and approximately 2.3 acres net.
The application concerns the Village Creek Plaza, located on Station Way. A lot line
. adjustment was approved in 1995 and the lots renumbered. For ease of reference,
staff will refer to the parcels as they were eventually configured by the lot line
adjustment. The major occupants of the parcels are:
Parcel 1: Video Thyme
Parcel 2: Miner's Hardware/Kennedy Fitness Center/Roger Dunn Golf
Parcel 3: Vacanti Site of Anderson application
Parcel 4: Vacant-located at Mullahey Ford
Parcel 5: Offices of Dr. Thomas Thompson, D.D.S.
Buildings have been constructed on Parcels 1, 2 and 5. In 1987, approval was
received for approximately 7,500 square feet of outdoor nursery storage and sales
activity adjacent to Miner's Hardware (Parcel 2). The current applications have.
generated the opposition of other occupants in the Village Creek Plaza, primarily
based on parking and access. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission and
staff include design of proposed landscaping, sidewalks, loading areas, and
architectural character.
Lot 3 History
In February 1990, the Planning Commission approved development of a 21,816
_ _____.________,,__.,..,___ _,M'_
Planning Commissi~
CUP No. 98-565
December 1, 1998
Page 4
square foot commercial building on Lot 3. The development included provisions for
118 parking spaces. This building was not constructed, and the entitlements have
expired pursuant to Development Code Section 9-02.140.
Approval of the lot line adjustment and merger by the City in 1995 was conditioned
on the recording of reciprocal easements for access and parking. CC&Rs were
recorded in May, 1995 which appeared to satisfy this condition. Section 6.' (c) of
the CC&Rs provided:
6.1 Easements for Common Facilities: Each parcel, each Owner and the
Association shall have and is hereby granted the following easements:
(c) An easement for parking purposes over and across the parking areas
within the Shopping Center as reflected on the Map. "
This easement has been reviewed by the City Attorney, who confirmed that although
this easement grants reciprocal parking, it does not reserve a specified number of
spaces for use by development on adjoining parcels.
The City has received no formal development proposals for Lot 4. The current owner
of Lot 5 has notified the City that he does not believe Lot 5 is encumbered with any
obligation to participate in cooperative parking arrangements with the owners or
tenants of other parcels in Village Creek Plaza. Staff does not believe Parcel 5 issues
are relevant to this proceeding, as the owner's claim is based on the specific facts of
his case, and not an interpretation of the Development Code or the language of the
CC&Rs.
DISCUSSION:
Parking:
Village Creek Plaza was originally proposed as a single development under single
ownership. At the time the buildings on what are now identified as Parcels 1 and 2
were developed, the owner was required to construct an, additional 41 spaces' on
Parcel 3, now owned by the applicant. This requirement reflected the standard for
. parking then in effect, which required 1 space for each 200 square feet of developed
commercial space.
Since the original approvals on the project, the City has revised its parking
requirements for commercial zones, from 1 space for each 200 square feet to 1
space for each 250 square feet. Table 1 shows the parking requirements for the
project and for existing uses on Parcels 1 and 2 based on existing parking
standards.
The occupants of businesses on Parcels 1 and 2 have used the parking spaces on
Planning Commissk
CUP No. 98-565
December 1, 1998
Page 5
Parcel 3 since the project was completed. No requirement for reciprocal parking
easements or arrangements was in effect until the applicant was. required to create
easements for common access and parking as part of the approval process for the lot
line adjustment (see above for text of Section 6.1 (c)).
The CC&R's do not contain an exclusive reservation of any parking spaces on
Parcel 3 for use by occupants of buildings on Parcels 1 or 2. The owners and
tenants of Parcel 2 have argued that the original project. approval and requirement
for access and parking easements prevent the applicant from utilizing some existing
parking spac~s on Parcel 3 to meet. parking requirements for the building to be
constructed on Parcel 3.
The Development Code provides that common parking facilities may be provided in
lieu of individual requirements if the total number of parking spaces is the sum of the
requirements for individual uses and the parking facilities are located within two
hundred feet (200') of the associated use (Section 9-12.050). That provision may
apply in this case.
If Parcel 3 were developed with buildings totaling 27, 350 square feet, the parking
computation for the center would be as follows:
PARCEL SQUARE FEET . PARKING @ 1/250 PARKING
PROVIDED
Parcel 1 10,500 42 soaces 68 soaces
Parcel 2 20,200 80 soaces 50 soaces
Parcel 3 27,350 109 soaces 110 soaces
TORAL . 58,050 232 soaces 228 soaces
Staff believes the Planning Commission resolved the parking issue at its June 2, 1998
meeting. The motion approved at the conclusion of the Commission's discussion at
that meeting provided:
1. That the Planning Commission continue this items to a date uncertain
and direct the applicant to submit a revised site plan that contains the
items listed on the incompleteness letter, dated December 29, 1997,
and a revised parking plan which complies with the Development Code.
Planning Commissk
CUP No. 98-565
December 1 J 1998
Page 6
2. The applicant is required to provide parking and loading areas consistent
with the Development Code, based on the proposed square. footage of
building.s proposed for Parcel 3.
Staff therefore concludes that sufficient parking has been provided in connection with
the project.
Access. and Loadi.ng:
Section 9-12.170 A of the Development Code provides as follows: "AII industrial and.
commercially zoned developments shall be designed with truck approach and backup
areas so as to prevent truck maneuvering within public rights-of-way." Developments
of 14,000 square feet or less are exempted from loading area requirements under
some circumstances. This exception does not apply to this project.
Staff has raised concerns regarding the design and space allocatio~ for the loading
area proposed on the western portion of the site. The applicant has proposed
modifying an existing curb on Parcel 2 to provide for additional turning' and loading
space. The applicant's representative has indicated the CC&R's permit such action.
Staff has not been provided with a reference to the CC&R's which establishes this
right in a clear and unambiguous manner, nor has the applicant provided consent of
the property owner of Parcel 2 to such a modification. In the absence of such
information, staff has concluded that the loading area is inadequate.
Drainage:
The site currently drains to the Caltrans drainage ditch running along the southern
boundary of the site. The applicant would prefer to continue to drain the site in this
manner.
..
The revised site plan presented at the November 4, 1998 Planning Commission
meeting proposed a new grading and drainage concept. Previous submittals had
proposed draining the site to the existing Caltrans drainage ditch adjacent to the
project site on the southerly boundary. In response to staff requests, tt)e applicant
obtained a letter from Caltrans addressing the use. of the ditch. The letter indicates
that Caltrans will not accept increased drainage to its ditch. Staff has been informed
that the applicant is continuing to interact with Caltrans on this issue, and staff has
encouraged the applicant to attempt to resolve the drainage issue through
cooperation with Caltrans if possible.
In response to the Caltrans letter, the applicant's November 3 and November 20,
1998 submittals were revised to show grading which directed flow away from the
Caltrans ditch. The drainage would .instead be directed to the parking lot and exit to
.
Planning Commissk .
CUP No. 98-565 ,
December 1, 1998
Page 7
the existing parking lot on Parcel 2. Staff has requested that the applicant
demonstrate the right to direct the site drainage to Parcel 2, and demonstrate that the
Parcel 2 ~rainage facilities can properly convey the drainage.
The applicant has asserted that the CC&R's on the site allow for such drainage.
Section 6.1 (f) of the CC&R's, identified by the applicant's representative as providing
authority for such drainage, provides as follows:
6.1 Easements for Common Facilities: Each Parcel, each Owner and the
Association shall have and is hereby granted the following easements:...
(f) An easement for drainage purposes through and over portions of Parcels 1
and 2 as reflected on the Map, as necessary to accommodate the natural
storm channel flow within the Shopping Center.
Staff questions whether draining the site in the manner proposed by the applicant is
consistent with the Mnatural storm channel flow.". The available topographic maps
indicate otherwise.
The applicant has not produced satisfactory evidence of a right to drain the site in the
manner proposed, and has not provided the requested information regarding the
capacity of Parcel 2 drainage facilities to convey the drainage proposed. In the
absence of such information, staff cannot support the grading and drainage system
proposed.
Right to apoly for Conditional Use Permit:
It has been suggested that the applicant may not have the right to apply for a
conditional use permit on the property without including other property owners within
the project as signatories to the application. The basis for this claim appears to be
that the project .site was originally part of a larger parcel and that site conditions,.
including parking, were applied to the site as a whole. The applicant's effort to
modify such conditiof)s, it is .argued, requires all affected property owners to join in
the application.
Section 9-02.030 of the Development Code provides that applications for permits
may only be made by the affected property owner or the owne(s authorized agent.
Notice is given of such applications, and the neighboring property owners have the.
right to comment on the proposed project. To the extent property owners affected ~y
provisions of the CC&R's believe the applicant is not in compliance with such
provisions, legal relief may be available through private action.
Staff believes the applicant has the right to file and proceed with the application.
Planning Commissk..
CUP No. 98-565
December 1. 1998
Page 8
Access and Circulation
Section 9-12.100 provides that the. location and design of entrances and exits onto
public rights-of-way is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. In this case, the
design of the parking lot contains islands or bump-outs which have a short radius
which would make ingress and egress, and parking within the lot, difficult at best.
The City Engineer has indicated that a radius of twenty feet should be used for these
structures.
The plans submitted by the applicant do not satisfy the requirements of the City
Engineer.
landscaDing
There are several issues relating t9 landscaping which concern the project.
The Development Code requires a 15' front building setback (Development Code
Table 9-07.04Q-Al measured from the front property line (right-of-way). Section' 9-
07.040-8 requires that the setback be landscaped. Where off-street parking is located
in the building setback area, as is the case here,' a minimum landscaped area of 10
feet shall be provided between the property line and the off-street parking area, with
an additional minimum landscaped area of 10 feet required between the parking area
and the building. The applicant in this case has proposed using a portion of the right-
of-way to meet the 10' landscaping requirement, which would require a variance.
Off-street parking areas containing five or more parking spaces' are subject to
additional landscaping requirements pursuant to Section 9-12.130. A minimum of
10% of the gross lot area used for off-street parking and access shall be provided in
landscaping "...in the interior of the parking area." The Section provides: "The
planting areas shall be a minimum size of twenty (20) square feet and distributed
throughout the parking area."
Given the configuration of the site, and the narrowness of the parking area, the
applicant has suggested that he should be credited with landscaping installed along
Station Way, and that satisfying the landscaping requirement as stated would be
unreasonable. Staff agrees that placement of landscaping areas within the parking lot
would unduly hamper circulation within the parking area, and consideration should be
given to the applicant's request.
Fire safety
The applicant has agreed to fully sprinkle all buildings, and to provide up to $10,000
toward the purchase and installation of an Opticon traffic signal controller. The Fire.
Department has indicated that this will result in a benefit for fire and public safety.
-_..._-,~.
Planning Commissi, .
CUP No. 98-565
December 1, 1998
Page 9
STAFF ADVISORY COMMIITEE: The revised plans were considered at the Staff
Advisory Committee meeting of November 17, 1998. Issues remaining of concern to
staff were .identified. The applicant's representative was present, arid discussion
ensued regarding these issues. Issues discussed included: areas designated for
loading and proposed off-site improvements; landscaping required for the project,
including landscaping areas required between the street and parking area and
between the parking area and the building; applicant's proposed inclusion of reql,lired
landscaping in area to be credited for 10% parking area landscaping requirement;
location of right-of-ways and areas of dedication; drainage, and the need for Caltrans
approval for drainage to the Caltrans drainage ditch; parking area design and access;
retaining wall design; and applicant's proposal to sprinkle the buildings and provide
funding for Opticom traffic signal controller.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the applicant's representative indicated that the
plans most recently submitted should be considered the final plans for the proposed
project. The plans before the Planning Commission are, therefore, identical to the
plans submitted by the applicant just prior to the Planning Commission meeting of
November 4, 1998.
ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY COMMllTEE: The AACreviewed the project on May
4, 1998 (see Exhibit H), and approved the design with the following conditions:
1. Continuous sidewalks adjacent to and along the complete length of the
buildings.
2. Building colors to closely match Lemos buildings with Old Zinc Grey for
roof color.
3. Need loading zone depending on tenant use.
4. Add more surface mounted open lattice work (spaced proportions) to
front and rear of buildings.
5. Concrete (textured) crosswalk.
6. Confirm that garbage dumpster had to be moved.
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 related to the proposed project since the
November 4, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, with the exception of the lertter
dated November 20, 1998 from Brad Anderson, attached as Exhibit I.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Staff has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act, and has determined that the project would not have a significant effect
on the environment. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was distributed for public
review and comment. The close of the public comment period is 5:00 p.m. December
1, 1998. No comments have been received.
.--. -
Planning Commissi... .
CUP No. 98-565
December 1, 1998
Page 10
Attachments:
Resolution Denying rhis Item
Financial Interest Form
Exhibits
Exhibit A: Site Plan
Exhibit B: Initial Study/Draft Negative Declaration
Exhibit C: Minutes for April 28, 1998 Planning Commission meeting
Exhibit D: Staff Report for June 2, 1998 Planning Commission meeting
Exhibit E: Minutes for June 2, 1998 Planning Commission meeting
Exhibit F: Staff Report for November 4, 1998 Planning Commission meeting
Exhibit G: Staff letter to Dr. Anderson re: incompleteness, December 29, 1997
Exhibit H: AAC Minutes for May 4, 1998 meeting ,
Exhibit I: . Letter from Brad Anderson, . Brad Anderson Construction, Inc., dated
November 20, 1998
.
;
I
.
.
Attachment. J
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 1, 1998
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Lubin
residing. Present are Commissioners Parker, Greene and Keen.. Commissioner Haney
is absent. Also in attendance are Community Development Director Jim Hamilton,
Contract Planner Tom Buford and Senior Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from John Harrison dated November 10, 1998, including photographs, regarding the .
proposed road at the eastern base of Equestrian Way and Noyes Road.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 98-565
APPROVAL TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 27,350 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL AND
COMMERCIAL OFFICE SPACE; APPUCANT: ROBERT ANDERSON; LOCATION: 200
STATION WAY
Associate Planner Tom Buford reviewed the staff report dated December 1, 1998. He
reviewed history of the project and prior reviews before the Commission. He noted that the
applicant is requesting approval to develop lot 3 of the Village Creek Plaza with four
buildings totaling 27,350 square feel
Mr. Buford listed major concerns at this time are parking, access and loading, and
landscaping issues. He advised that the revised plans were reviewed by the Staff Advisory
Committee on November 17, 1998 and by the Architectural Advisory Committee on May 4,
1998. A letter from Brad Anderson, dated November 20, 1998 was the only written
communication received in terms of public comments. Mr. Buford advised that
environmental review was a mitigated negative declaration and the comment period closed
at 5:00 P.M. today, with no comments being received. He stated it is staff' 5
recommendation to deny the pr9ject based on the deficiencies identified on Page 2 of the
staff report.
In response to Commissioner Greene's question regarding drainage, Mr. BUford advised
that it is his understanding, based on the drainage plan and the statements of the
applicanfs representative, that the natural drainage on the site is to the south to the Cal
Trans drainage ditch. The attempts by the applicant to obtain approval and consent from
Cal Trans to accept drainage from the improved site have been unsuccessful. The CC&R's
for the project, Page 7, indicate that an easement for drainage purposes was. created over.
portions of Parcels 1 and 2 as necessary ....to accommodate the natural storm channel flow
within the shopping center...". Staff's concern is that the natural storm channel flow is to the
south not to the northwesti, and if the drainage is modified to send it to the northwest, there
may be a dispute created with regard to the obligation to accept the drainage at that point
He stated that, from staff's perspective. it makes the most sense to have the drainage
directed to the Cal Trans drainage ditch as proposed by the applicant. There doesn't
A"nr- .-L~~4 N'\O.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2
December 1, 1998
appear to be any sound reason why Cal Trans would not accept. the drainage, however,
~ey have not done so to date. Staff is also aware that there have been continuing
concerns expressed by tenants in the shopping center with regard to approval of Parcel 3,
and a primary. concern is to have a project approved when there may be a dispute
somewhere down the line, and drainage may not be feasible to run in that direction without
some sort of legal action. The other' aspect of drainage is adequacy of the drainage
facilities on the site at Parcel 2 to accept the drainage from Parcel 3. This has been a
concern raised by Public Works, and it has not been demonstrated to their satisfaction that
it is adequate to handle the drainage.
With regard to the plan utilizing off-site relocation of a parking lot curb to allow additional
space for loading and turning, Mr. Buford pointed out that the location for work is on Parcel
2. The applicant has indicated he has the right to do that work based on language in the
CC&R's. Mr. Buford stated that staff is not aware of a consent being given by the owner of
ParCel 2to allow that work being done, and staff has not been satisfied that the applicant
can show clearly that he has the right to go on to Parcel 2 and do the work.
Commissioner Parker commented with regard to the Negative Declaration, No.8, stating
that "A light source is potentially significant unless mitigated". She pointed. out that there
was no mitigation measure listed. Community Development Director Hamilton advised it
should have been listed as a mitigation measure to comply with the City Development
Standards regarding light fIXtures, cut-off shields, etc., and that can be added at this time.
Commissioner Keen commented regarding the sidewalk along the front of the property,
stating it is his understanding that is going to be replaced with standard City sidewalks.
Senior Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell explained the proposal is that the sidewalk on
the frontage of this project would be removed and a full sidewalk would be constructed on
the other side of the street. The theory was that would provide a continuous sidewalk all on
one side of the street instead of a sidewalk that goes half way down one side of the street
and then crosses and continues on the other side of the street. Relating to that, Mr.
Campbell advised he has reviewed the documents and found that the right of way does
exist and he has contacted some of the owners who have indicated some concerns on their
part with that idea.
Chair Lubin announced this item is a continued public hearing and invited the applicant to
make his presentation.
Brad Anderson. representing the applicant, addressed various issues listed in the staff
report with regard to drainage, parking, loading docks, sidewalks, setback requirements,
aesthetics regarding the metal roof and view of the back side of the building from the
freeway. With regard to density of the project, Mr. Anderson pointed out that the Code.
allows for up to 45% coverage, and this project is well below the allowable limit. With
regard to landscaping, Mr. Anderson advised they are providing landscaping consistent
with the existing development and the existing' shopping center that is there, and as he
expressed to the Planning Commission last month, the applicant would do whatever needs
to be done as a condition of the project with regard to landscaping.
^r-.Dr ~ 'lL~ lnc
"
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3
December 1, 1998
Commissioner Parker questioned the ~sability of the six parking spaces in front of Building
#4 stating she personally does not believe those spaces will be workable. Mr. Anderson
stated h~ beJieves the spaces will be useable and they do meet the development standards
of the City. .
Mr. Anderson stated that the applicant wants to move on with this project and get it built. It
is they're feeling that the project should not be denied on staff's recommendation because
they have not provided a compelling argument. Therefore, they are requesting that the
project be approved and move forward through the permit process, where cOncerns. raised
by staff can be addressed including the drainage, the landscaping and the lighting issues.
Mike Miner. Co-owner of Miner's Hardware, stated that tonight is the first time he had heard
that the drainage was planned to go through Parcel 2. He advised that last winter during
the storms, even though they were only getting drainage from that one section, both
Kennedy Nautilus and Roger Dunn experienced flooding on two occasions, and they have
pretty strong feelings about the drainage problem. He stated the curb and the sidewalk
issue, and the loss of parking are issues that have been going on and on, and now the
developer is saying those issues can be solved in the construction process as we go along.
Mike Mullahey. Mullahey Ford. stated he had just this afternoon heard about the proposal
for the sidewalk and he doesn't like the idea. He stated they are extremely constrained for
space right now, and the particular part they are talking about putting a sidewalk on
represents about 25 to 30 spaces where they park their new vehicles, and this proposal
would be a step in the wrong direction for them. His request to the Commission was to
somehow keep the sidewalk on the other side of the street. In response to Commissioner
Greene's question regarding ownership of that property, Mr. Mullahey stated the property is
owned by his family and they would not choose to put a sidewalk on the property.
Anthony Diaz. stated he owns one of the businesses in the shopping center, noting that
there are a lot of seniors that come into the center and the parking is really beneficial for
them because of the easy access. He stated he is concerned that the parking spaces in his
section will be used for other businesses, and it would be harder for his customers to find
parking close to his business.
Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chair Lubin closed the public hearing and
reserved further comments to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Greene stated notwithstanding the merits the project has ancl .the need for
the Village to continue to develop retail and office space facilities, he cannot in good
conscience go forward with the project in view of the strong and valid objections raised by
the City staff. He commented that staff doesn't often raise these kinds of objections and.
when they do, he tries to pay careful attention to them.
. .
Commissioner Parker stated at. this point there are issues that have come back again and
again; they are the same issues and they still need to be addressed. She commented that
there are many issues involved and many of them were concerns when the applicant first
brought the project to the Commission a year ago. They haven't been solved ln a year's
Anaya Grande Planning Commission Page 4
December 1, 1998
time, and it seems unlikely that all of a sudden during construction, they afe going to be
taken care of. She stated her concerns that lighting femains a problem, parking remains a
big problem, the ramp is a problem, and drainage may Of may not be a problem, depending
on what can be worked out. Also, the sidewalk may.or may not be a problem depending
upon what can be worked out, and since Mr. Mullahey's testimony, this becomes a whole
different issue. She commented she would like to see the project back here in a month if
concerns could be worked out, and she would nate to see it thrown aside because of issues
that she feels could still be worked out
Commissioner Keen stated he believes the two loading docks are necessary because the
prQject is strung out, however, he didn't think they needed to be as drastic because, in his
opinion; the use will be mostly office space. He further stated he does have a problem with
the sidewalk situation because there needs to be a sidewalk on one side of the street or the
other as far into the project as possible to Fair Oaks Avenue. He also commented
regarding an issue that was brought up sometime ago referring to stamped conaete
crosswalks. He stat~d he has observed people in wheelchairs having a difficult time trying .
to cross that type of walk. He further stated he has a problem regarding the drainage going .
into the other property as far as the CC&R's afe concemed. Also, he stated that the
grading plan needs to be established before plan . check. Regarding landscaping,
Commissioner Keen stated if it becomes necessary, he would be in favor of eliminating
some landscaping on the front property line to get a sidewalk in there.
Chair Lubin stated, in his opinion, the project is acceptable according to Code; the size of
the project is acceptable and it is a good project. The items listed by staff are of a semi-
minor nature and can be dealt with on an individual basis. He stated he prefers that the
landscaping plan be contiguous with the existing project and doesn't believe the new code
should be the requirement for landscaping, street tree easements, sidewalks, etc., because
it puts a jog in the project and does not match. If a variance is necessary so that the project
is contiguous and looks good then, in his opinion, that is acceptable. He commented that.
each item by itself is insignificant and can be .mitigated in some form or anothef. He stated
this project is continuously bumping heads with the other property owners and. City staff,
instead of resolving the issues. He noted the owners of Parcel 2 have to be dealt with in
terms of water flow, parking and the curb issue on the loading dock. There are also
property owners involved on the sidewalk issue. All of the issues are still pending and it is
necessary that these be resolved before the City approves the project. With regard to th~
parking issue, Chair Lubin stated he doesn't think this issue is going to be resolved any
time soon and, in his opinion, the Commission is going to have to take a stand one way or
anoth.er at some point, and eventually the issue will have to be resolved by th~ property
owners.
There being no further comments, the following action was taken:
_.,--,.._-~,-.---,.-
.
. .
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission AttachRlent K
December 1, 1998
RESOLUTION NO. 98-1676
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-565 APPLIED FOR
BY ROBERT ANDERSON, LOCATED AT 200 STATION WAY (VILLAGE
CREEK PLAZA)
On motion by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit: .
AYES: Commissioners Greene, Parker and Lubin
NOES: Commissioner Keen
ABSENT: Commissioner Haney
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 1 st day of December 1998.
Chair Lubin advised that this matter could be appealed to the City Council within 10 days.
PUBLIC HEARING - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM (PSP), CASE NO. 98-128 AND
VARIANCE CASE NO. 98-212, APPLICANT: SIZZLER RESTAURANT; LOCATION:
1170'W. BRANCH STREET
Community Development Director Hamilton reviewed the staff report dated December 1,
1998. He advised that the Sizzler site is located adjacent to the Five Cities Center. In 1986
the Sizzler received approvals from the Architectural Review Committee for the existing
building and associated signs. Four signs were approved totaling approximately 145
square feet, and included a double-faced monument sign and three parapet mounted wall
signs. Mr. Hamilton advised that the applicant is requesting a modification to the sign
program; they would like to add an additional 32 square foot sign on the northeast facing
elevation. As a result of the Five Cities Center, a redesign of the circulation and parking
around this property necessitated that on the existing monument sign be relocated. They
are also planning to re-face all of the signs as part of a corporate identity change and they
will be replacing the sign faces in each of the parapet mounted wall signs.
Mr. Hamilton noted that under the current zoning ordinance, this project would not meet the
standards for the number of wall signs. The monument sign is conforming and does meet.
the current standards for size, height, location, etc. However, under the current ordinance,
they would only be allowed two wall signs; they currently have three, and the additional
sign would make four wall signs on the property. The sign ordinance requires before any
additional signs can be approved where there are non-conforming signs, all signs must be
brought into conformance with the City's Sign Ordinance or a Variance must be approved.
In this case a Planned Sign Program and Variance have been applied for. He stated that
the Architectural Advisory Committee has reviewed the project and have made their
recommendation for approval to allow the additional sign and to approve the overall sign
package establishing a Planned Sign Program for the Sizzler Restaurant.
J!.t'~QC_1 ?/1 /Q~
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 6
December 1, 1998
After a brief discussion between staff and the Commission, Chair Lubin opened the hearing
for public comments.
Richard Herman. Architect for the Project, stated that as Mr. Hamilton pointed out, they
currently have more signs than would be allowed by the ordinance. He advised that owner
has gone through a lot of negotiations with the developer of the center and a lot of
consideration was given to design a way that the restaurant would look tied in with the
center. One of the ways they came up with to try deal with this was to change the entry,
however, it was determined that this would be economically unfeasible. Another idea to
make the restaurant look related to the center was to
Modify the look of the rear of the re~taurant. The service entrance area was changed to
make it look a lot more decorative, and also it is felt that the addition of the sign at the rear
of the restaurant lets the rest of the people in the center know there is a restaurant there.
He commented that one of the concerns expressed by the Architectural Advis.ory
Committee was the visibility of this sign from the northwest behind Wal-Mart. He stated
with all that will be going on in the center, such as lights, etc., he did not think the 32 square
foot sign would have any significance from beyond the boundaries of the parking "lot.
Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chair Lubin closed the public hearing and
restricted further comments to the Commission.
Commissioner Keen stated he was over there last Sunday in the parking Jot on the Wal-
Mart side and it was his feeling that even though this is going to exceed the amount of
signs that are allowed, that side of the building is so bleak, that this sign will enhance and
improve the appearance of that side of the building. He stated he hesitates to -approve this
many signs, however, in this case is seems appropriate.
Commissioner Parker agreed that side of the building would benefit by having a sign and it
would help tie the building in to the Five Cities Center. She stated she does have a
problem with adding an extra sign and she doesn't think four signs are necessary. She
also doesn't feel it is necessary for Sizzler to have two signs on West Branch Street
advertising the restaurant. She suggested one sign could be located on either the western
side or the southern side, .and they could choose to change one of those signs and put it
towards the back of the building so people in the Five Cities Center could see there is a
restaurant and where it is located.
Commissioner Greene pointed out that the ground sign cannot be seen when traveling east
on the freeway heading towards the project. but you can see the parapet sign on the side of
the building facing the Levitz store. He stated that normally he would have a concern about
the proliferation of signs, but the ground sign is an identifying feature only for those who are
essentially right next to it. He also agreed with Commissioner Keen that the back side of
the building does need a sign because the Sizzler needs to be identified for people who are
parked behind it and are patronizing the rest of the center. He stated he is prepared to
support the applicant's application for a variance, and he is not sure that removing the
AGPC. 12/1198_ ---~-_.".~- -~ -~_._--
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 7
December 1, 1998
parapet sign on the West Branch side of the building is necessarily going to make any
significant diffarence in terms of aesthetic appearance.
Chair Lubin stated he supports the additional signage and would support the resolution.
He stated he looked at the site and agreed that the building needs something "on the back,
and since it is a small sign, it will not be visually obtrusive to the people across the way. He
also commented that the Sizzler Restaurant has been there for a long time and, in his
opinion, deserves the City's support.
After a brief discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 98-1677
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY" OF
ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF THE SIZZLER PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM 98-128 AND
VARIANCE 98-212 APPLIED FOR BY SIZZLER, INC., LOCATED AT 1170
WEST BRANCH STREET
On motion by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Keen, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Keen, Greene and Lubin
NOES: Commissioner Parker
ABSENT: Commissioner Haney
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 1 st day of December 1998.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 98-213, REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE ON A
SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE; APPLICANT: SUSAN P.
FLORES; LOCATION: 529 E. BRANCH STREET
Associate Planner Tom Buford reviewed the staff report. He advised that the applicant
is seeking a variance to permit the construction of a garage, approximately 12' x 28' in
size on the northeast portion of the lot. He stated that" the applicant is requesting a
variance from the interior side yard setback of 5', rear yard setback of 20' and minimum
distance between buildings of 10'. The maximum permitted lot coverage is 40%; the
applicant's lot is approximately 4,000 square feet in area. The lot coverage for the
residence and garage would total approxima.tely 1,540 square feet for ~ lot coverage of
38.5%.
Mr. Buford stated to the right of the proposed garage is a cement block retaining wall and a
planter on the other side of the wall. There is also a fence or hedge along the wall, so there
is an additional height along there between this property and the property to the east He
stated he spoke to Lori Quinn at 531 East Branch and she had expressed some concerns
regarding light and drainage from the project. Also, Mr. Quinn expressed some concern
that their home would be only 4-1/2 feet from the garage if it were constructed in this
AlToyo Grande Planning Commission Page 8
December 1, 1998
location. Mr. Buford advised some comments had been received regarding the residence
at the rear of this property, and that residence has a deck which comes very close to the
property line. Also, coming off the deck are some windows leading into one of the rooms of
the home, and that would be fairly close to the rear lot line.
Mr. Buford referred to the garage at the residence at 531 East Branch Street, stating it also
appears to be at or very near the lot line. He commented that one the relevant issues for
granting a variance are the privileges enjoyed by the surrounding properties. There is
some relevance to the fact that the lots at this end of the block are smaller than lots
elsewhere. One of the concerns raised had to do with the type of construction to ~ used in
the garage and concerns about fire safety. The type of construction materials regarding fire
safety is normally determined by the Building Department at the time the building permit is
issued.
After discussion between staff and the Commission, Chair Lubin opened the public hearing
and invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission.
Susan P. Flores, 529 East Branch Street. owner of the subject property, described the
property, the plans for the proposed garage, and the location of retaining walls and planters
on the property. She stated she had talked to the Building Department and was informed
she will either have to put a mncrete wall in, or a two-hour fire. With regard to the house to
the rear of her property, she advised the house is 6 feet behind the wall and the deck will
be about even with the peak of the roof. The block wall that is back there has a fence on
top and is approximately 8-112' high. She advised that the deck in the back actually sits
above her and is above her retaining wall and fence, so there is no imposition on them
whatsoever. There being no further comments from the audience, Chair Lubin closed the
public hearing and restricted further comments to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Greene stated he was unable to visit the site, however, he believes the
request has some merit but would feel more comfortable. going to the site before making a
decision.
Commissioner Keen stated since the applicant is basically going to have a single car
garage with a little work space, what would be the possibility of shortening the garage to the .
standard single car length and putting the extra length to the left, and it would possibly
center in that space a little better. Ms. Flores stated if she were to extend as suggested,
she would lose all aesthetics in the back there, and also the cost factor would be
prohibitive.
Commissioner Parker stated she has some real concerns about this request and cannot
agree to this project the way it is set up without some kind of change. She commented, in
her opinion, the close proximity to the building next door and the fact that it is someone's
home, and the garage is going to be 3 feet from this home, is too close even with a two
hour fire wall. She commented she did not have a problem with the zero lot line in the
back, the height of the garage, or the 40% coverage, what she is worried about is the fire
hazard and putting this garage so close to an existing home.
An-oyo Grande Planning Commission Page 9
December 1, 1998
Chair Lubin stated he likes the project, it is the only way to get a garage on the property,
and if it is built to code the proper fire protection will be there.
Hearing no further discussion, the following action was taken:
. RESOLUTION NO. 98-1678
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING VARIANCE CASE NO. 98-213 APPLIED
FOR BY SUSAN P. FLORES AT 529 EAST BRANCH STREET
On motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Greene, and by the .
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Keen, Greene and Lubin
NOES: Commissioner Parker
ABSENT: Commissioner Haney
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 1 st day of December 1998.
DISCUSSION ITEMS - None
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS
Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Campbell briefly reviewed the issues referred to in the letter from
John Harrison, dated November 10, 1998, regarding the proposed road at the eastern base
of Equestrian Way and Noyes Road.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP REPORTS
Community Development Director Hamilton advised that the theater sign is going to be
relocated on the property shortly. He noted the sign itself will not be changed and is only
being relocated. Chair Lubin noted that there was a lot of discussion during the approval
process of the Wal-Mart project sometime ago that Rancho Parkway would not be closed
for any length of time, and it has now been closed for a significant period of time. He asked
when Rancho Parkway was scheduled to be re-opened. Senior Consultant Engineer
Campbell advised he has the exact date of the re-opening in his office and would send
Chair Lubin that. information.
Mr. Hamilton advised that the Rite-Aid CUP application will be coming before the
Commission at their meeting of December 15, 1998 and possibly the Rodeo Heights EIR
will be on the agenda for certification. In regards to the James Way Annexation, Mr.
Hamilton advised that a public hearing on this item would be held at the first meeting in
January.
ADJOURNMENT
AGPC 1?/1I9R ______.
AlToyo Grande Planning 'Commission Page 10
December 1, 1998
There bein~ no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at
10:30 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Greene, and
unanimously carried.
ATTEST:
Pearl L. Phinney, Commission Clerk Sandy Lubin, Chair
AS TO CONTENT:
Jim Hamilton, AICP
Community Development Director
Attachment L
.
.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CON'l\1MtJNITY DEVELOPl\1ENT
DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR VILLAGE CREEK PLAZA PROJECf, CONDmONAL
USE PERMIT 98-565, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 98-548
'0 WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
'he Community Development has prepared Negative Declaration pursuant to Section 15083 of the State
Iuidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. The issuance of a Negative
)eclaration affinns our opinion that there are no significantly adverse unavoidable impacts associated with the
roposed project, and the project does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (ErR).
~he a~ached Initial StudylNegative Declaration fonn identifies and discusses potential impa~ mitigation, and
~sidual impact for identified subject areas. Specific mitigation measures and monitoring language are included in
he issue area discussions.
>UBLIC COl\1MENTS:
;taffwill accept written or oral comments on the adequacy of the information contained in the Draft Negative
)eclaration during the public review pe.riod. Please make sure that written comments reach this office by 5:00
).m. on May 29, 1998, the close of the public review period. The DRAFTND' and all documents referenced in
he ND may be reviewed at our office. A public hearing will be held on the project before the Planning
:ommission om June 2, 1998.
PROJECf DESCRIPTION:
The project consists of a proposed lot split and construction offour buildings for commercial use. Building I
would be 7,900 sq. ft.; Building II 7,275 sq. ft.; Building ill 8,550 sq. ft.; and Building IV 3,525 sq. ft. The
project also includes adjacent parking area totaling 115 spaces, loading areas, pedestrian walkways and
landscaping.
\.--'"
PROJECf LOCATION:
100 Station Way, City of Arroyo Grande, CA (see attached map)
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
INITIAL STUDY ; ,
... . ,.
PROJECT: Village Creek Promenade
:
LEAD AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS: City of Arroyo Grande
P.O. Box 550/214 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
. CONTACT PERSON & PHONE #: Lezley Buford, Contract Planner, 473-5420
. PROJECT LOCATION: 201 Station Way, Arroyo.Grande, CA
. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME & Dr. Robert Anderson
ADDRESS: 201 Station Way
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 .
. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial
. ZONING: General Commercial (CG)
i. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
rhe proposed project consists of a lot split and construction offour buildings for commercial use. Building I
vould be 7,900 sq. ft.; Building IT 7,275 sq. ft.; Building ill 8,550 sq. ft.; and Building IV 3,525 sq. ft. The
)roject also includes adjacent parking area totaling 115 spaces, loading areas, pedestrian walkways and
andscaping.
The project site is a vacant parcel, and is generally flat. The parcel is within the urbanized area of the City of
Arroyo Grande. Neighboring land uses are as follows:
~orth: Commercial buildings (Village Creek I & IT)
South: Fair Oaks Avenue, single family residences and highway commercial
West: Highway 101, agricultural; uses
East: Commercial (automobile dealership), United States PoSt office
)ETERMINATION.
)n 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 prep~ed. X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
~nnnL'\1I.T1\A"C1\JTA T ThIfP ArT "RT:'P()~T i<: rpnl1irprf
Potentially Lcs 11uzn
:Ssues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potcrtially SignifICant Significant
SignifICant Unless 1mpad No
Impact Kdigirt~d lmpad
[. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or X
zoning? (source #(s): 1,2,3,4)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? (source #(s): 1,6,7) X
c) Affect " agricultural resources or operations (e.g.,
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? (source #(s): 9,11) 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)? .X
(source #(s): 9,10)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (source #(s): 9,10,11) X
DI. 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 #(s): 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? "
(source #(s): 10) X
t) Subsidence ofland? (source #(s): 5,6) X.
g) Expansive soils? (source #(s): 5,6) X
h) Unique geologic or physical features? (source X'
#(s): 5,6,10,11)
IV. WATER: Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (source X
#(s): 10)
P'--'dia/ly Less 11ian
;sues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Signijiamt Signij;amJ
SignifICant Unless- Impad ND
. 1mI'm Kdigated Impact
b) Exposure to people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (source #(s): 8) X
c) Discharge into surface waterS or other alteration X
of swface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? (source #(s): 9)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (source #(s): 9,10) X
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? (source#(s): 9,10)
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either . -. ..
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations? X
(source #(s): 9,10)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? (source #(s): 9,10) X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (source #(s): X
9,10)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of X
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? (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 #(s) 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 #(s): 9) X
d) Create objectionable odors? (source #(s): 9,10) X
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CJRCULATION. Would
the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X
(source #(s): 13)
b) Hazards to safety trom design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or X
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
(source #(s): 9,10)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to X
nearby sites? (source #(s): 9,10)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(source #(s): 3,9,10) X
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(<!!^"yo"'... III <!! \. 0 1 n\ X
Polen , LG$ T1uzn
Cssues (and Supporting Infonnatiou Sources): PotentialIy Signl/h._d Signifr&ant
Signiftu:ld Unless Impact 'No
Impad Mitigated Impad
t) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (source #(s): 9,10) X
VB. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impacts to:
a) .Endangered, threatened or rare species or their X
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? (source #(s): 6)
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)?
(sourc~ #(s): 10,11) X
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., .. . .- .X,-
oak forest, coastal habitat)? (source #(s): 10,11)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal X
pool)? -. - ~
(source #(s): 9,11)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X
(source #(s): 11)
VID. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? X
(source #(s): 1,6)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (source #(s): 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? X
(source #(s): 9)
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X,
(source #(s): 9,10)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? (source #(s): 9,10) X
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? (source #(5): 9,10,11) X
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? (source #(s): 10,11) u . X
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result ill:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (source #(s): X
1,9)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X
(source #(5): 9,10)
XL PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have
.... .. .._H..... . .............._..__ .. ..... ..' ...... . . .~. _U... ............ ..._...-._....... .......:........... _..__. .....
'.'
an effect upon, or result in a ,,~ed for new or ;
altered government services in any of the following
areas:
a) Fire Protection? (source #(s): 6) X
b) Police Protection? (source #(s): 6) X
c) Schools? (source #(s): 6), X'
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? ' X
(source #(s): 6)
e) Other governmental services? (source #(s): 6) X
~ UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the proposal result in a needfor new
systems, or substantial alterations to the following ....
utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (source #(s): 9,10) X
b) Communications systems? (source #(s): 9,10) X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distnoution ,X
facilities? (source #(s): 6) ,
d) Storm water drainage? (source #(s): 6) X ,
e) Solid waste disposal? (source #(s): 6) X
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X
(source #(s): 1,10,11)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X
(source #(s): 9,10,11)
c) Create light or glare? (source #(s): 9,10) X
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (source #(s): X
~ID '
b) Disturb archaeological resources (source #(s): X
6,11 )
c) Affect historical resources? (source #(s): 6,11) X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change X
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? (source #(s): 11)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? (source #(s): 10,11) X
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? X
(source #(s): 1,3)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
(source #(s): 1,5) X
VVT M A NT) A Tn1?V 'JITNT\TN't:~ nl?
SIGNIFICANCE. "
a) Does .the project have the ~ "~ntial to degrade, X
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?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-tenn, to the disadvantage oflong-term,
environmental goals? X
c) Does the project have impacts that are,
individual1y 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 X
probable future projects.)
d) Does the project have environmental effects X
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
I
I
I
I
.
.
.
I
I
... .... ......_..~~..J.J_..""""......
OURCE LIST:
. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan
..
. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Land Use Map
. City of Arroyo Grande Development Code
~.' City of Arroyo Grande Zoning Map
i. City of Arroyo <;3rande Existing Setting and Community Issues Report
). City of Arroyo Grande General Plan EIR
7. Air pollution Control District Clean Air Plan
1. FEMA - Flood Insurance,Rate Map
~. Project Description
to. Project Plans
',1. Site Inspection "
2. Ordinance 431 C. S.
3.Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual.
.
-
-' .
,.
J
.
:XPLANATIONS:
1/. Air Qualitv - Grading and site preparation would result in the generation of dust and contribute to
PM10 in the area. This impact could be mitigated through implementation of the following measure.
Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless.mitigated.
Mitigation Measure:
1. .Dust generated by the development activities shaU be kept 0 a minimum with a
goal of retaining dust on the site. 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.
V. Water - Development of the proposed project would require water for both domestic use and
landscape irrigation. The water consumption by'this project would further reduce the City's supply
of available water. This impact could be mitigated through conservation and the development and
implementation of an individual water neutr~lization program.
Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated.
Mitigation Measures:
2. 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.
Monitoring: Review of building plans
Responsible Department Building and Fire Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of a building. permit
3. 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 plans
Responsible Department: Parks ana Recreation Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of a building permit
4. The applicant shall provide for review and approval by the City Council, an individual
water program that will propose mitigating measures to neutralize projected water
demand for the project. As part of the water program, the City Council may adjust
projected water demand based upon proposed water conservation measures or other
factors that decrease use of City water supplies. The approved program must- be
implemented or bonded for, prior to issuance of building permits.
Monitoring: Review of water conservation plans
Responsible Department: Public Works Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permits
I. DrainaQe - Development of the proposed proiect would increase thA vnh rmA nf c:"rf~,..o:> ~..n",ff
. .
from the site. This run may contain pollutants from parkir Ireas. . .
Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated
Mitigation Measure
5. All runoff water from impervious areas shall be conveyed by impervious conduits
to existing drainage facilities. drainage plan' which incorporates the above shall be
submitted to t the City prior to the issuance of any permits. .
Monitoring: Review of drainage/grading plans
Responsible Department: Public Works Department.
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of a grading permit
i. Traffic - The proposed project woulfd contribute new vehicle trips.
Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless
mitigated.
Mitigation Measure:
6. The applicant shall pay the City's Traffic and Signalization impact fee (based on the
adopted fee at thetime of building permit issuance). Currently, this fee is $1,076 per
1 ,000 square feet of building area.
Monitoring: Condition of approval on plans
Responsible Department: Public Works Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permits.
'" Noise - The project is adjacent to an arterial street and there are no sensitive land uses within
about 500 feet of the site. Therefore, operations are not expected to significantly increase noise
levels for sensitive land uses. However, all operations shall comply with the City's Noise
Ordinance.:,
~ Cultural Resources - The site is located in close proximity to a recorded archaeological site. The
site was previously graded and there is no evidence of the existence of potential cultural
resources. However, because the site is located near a known the following mitigation sahli be
implemented.
Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless
mitigated
Mitigation Measure:
7. The following note shall be placed on the grading and improvement plans for the
project:
Uln the event that during' grading, construction or development of the project,
archeological resources are uncovered, all work shall be halted until the resources are
reviewed to determine their significance. If human remains (burials) are encountered,
the County Coroner (781-4513) shall be contacted immediately. The applicant may
be required to provide archaeological studies an/or additional mitigation measures as
.
required by , California Environmental Quality At '. archaeological resources are
found on the slte~ n
Monitoring: Review of grading plans and site visits by the Public
Works Inspector
Responsible Department: Public Works, Building Departments
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of. a grading permit and during site
grading
-
.-
.
.
.
. . .. . . ... . . . . . . G' . . . . . . . .
. ::::::'-~\';A: :::::.'::::::.
............. .. .... .....--..
........... ... .. .. -.-...-.-
.. ....:...........-...... .-. ....... ....."::...... ~
.. .. w...... ..- .-.... ........... -.. .-...-... w. -... -.- ... -.:- .-. G'
...... ...... 1. .
.\........
.~.:.:.~.:-F.F.>::..
,.~-... '.. ,......
.. ...... ........ .. .. . ..
.... .. , .. .. .. .. .. ..
...
-.-... .; -,
. . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. ...... ..
. ............. .
- '. .. .... . . .. . , .' .
., . - . .. .... .. .. , '
. ., .- .. ,. . '. .
-.. .. . .-....... ..
..... .. ' ,-
.... ...... .
'.- . . "
.................... .. .... ............. ....
~':::."~:::' ::::.. :::::.-:: :::::::: .-1:. ::: :'. :: ::::::~:f-tf::---:':': .::- -:: - .. .. . .. q q
...........!fn...... .. ..... n.... .___ ..__. _ .___ .. .. .. ' . 'p -
.:. :.:-: .:. :.:.:.:. :.:.: .:. :.:~:.:.:.:.: .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.] I ,,-.. ~--""'-'-'I -- --..-..---.----. ., ...,....... ..
r::::::::::~~:::::::::::::~::~::_::.~::=:=:=:::::~:::::::::::~:-. ".:.:.: - -:-~..' >::':..1. \, -
........................-......
. . . . - . - . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . n . .,
';::. .:..................:. .:: :::: :::::. -:]I!
...--... ( ( Attachment M
&6J: BRAD ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION, INC.
November 20, 1998
City of Arroyo Grande ' . ,-. ..
-, '..1 ".- ~ . ; . .
Mr. Jim Hamilton COli1mun;~j ,) ::.".i:._.;.-:,:;~t O~~~;:.
P.O. Box 550 ~J;j :j 1998
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Re: Village Creek Professional
Dear Jim,
Attached please find seven copies of the above-mentioned project for your review and
distribution to the Planning Commission.
These plans are the last set that will be submitted for review, and they are unchanged'
from the set submitted on October 30, 1998.
We take exception to most of the planning commissions statements of November 41h.
This project was approved in concept and design by the MC on May 4, 1998. The
project retains the style and~Architecture of the existing development to the north and
east. The Parking requirements were outlined in staff's report of June 2, 1998 and set
the parking count at 109. We have provided that amount of parking. Mr. Miners
argument regarding existing parking is not vaiid, as commented by Ms. Buford and your
City attorney in the same staff report, therefore we will provide the 109 parking spaces
&s required by the development code and no more.
.. As for the question of the density of the project, we an~ at either 22% or 29%, depending
on were you count the square footage. I.e.: property line or ROW. Either way, we are
dignificantly less than the 45% allowed by the development code. The build out of the
neighboring properties is at least 35% at Miners and in the case of the Car lot on the
Corner of Fair Oaks and Station Way it is at 100% density. The landscaping for this
lJruJect is aiso in excess of which is already installed on the rest of the previous
de'v"elopm-=3nt. We removed the Concrete promenade across the front of the project and
added considerable landscaping in ifs place whid, abuts the parking lot and provides
more than the 10% required for parking areas.
vVe a:e requesting that a staff recommend approval of this project as it is in compliance
with the development code. We have been delayed by several months, justifying items
that are already consistent with the code and were on the plans.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call at anytime.
Cc: Bce f'_,cerson, Jerry Weaver, Esq., and Bob Hunt
pn ~n)( 111=;1 ~I:u::jnYn r-D^"lnl= rl1 0':1L!'.J1 .. Qn~.AQq-L1C::;7C::;.. j:^',( QnE:;J1QQ.JI-:J':1E:;
--"~"
~
. Attachment N
Miner's
RECEIVED
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE 1056 Grand Ave
.. 9.~ JAH 29~ PH, t; 51 Grover Beach, CA 93433
TEL: 805-489-2931
Hardware FAX: 805-489-2971
January 19, 1999
Arroyo Grande City Council
City of Arroyo Grande
214 East Branch
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
RE: Anderson Project
Dear Council Members:
I urge you to uphold the AG Planning Commission's denial of CUP 98..565 (Anderson's
Project). My reasons for this request fall into two areas: first parking and deliveries and second
Anderson's almost complete refusal to listen to either City Staff or the Planning Commission. A
brief discussion of both areas follows.
Parking & Deliveries
Anderson's property lies within the Village Creek Plaza (VCP) which consists of 4 parcels
that are joined through cross parking easements and CC&R's. I am deeply con~ that
Anderson's Project, as currently envisioned, would cause serious parking problems for the entire
VCP for the following reasons:
. 27 Spaces on Anderson's Project are required for other VCP parcels (CUP 85-389).
Anderson seeks to "double count" these spaces as part of his project.
. Development on the North end of Station Way has required the removal. of all off-street
parking. I believe that Anderson's development on the Southern end of Station will have the
same result thereby further reducing the total available parking for the entire VCP.
The Phase I development of VCP (Miner's & Video Choice Buildings) had poorly
designed delivery facilities that continue to cause problems and defy solutions.' Anderson's
project seeks to repeat these past mistakes by not providing adequate delivery facilities in his new
development.
Anderson Won't Listen
Before Anderson purchased the parcel he was warned in writing by the seller that there
were serious parking issues and concerns. In early 1998 Anderson submitted preliminary plans to
City Staff for a 27,000+ sq.ft. project. Not liking what Staff had to say Anderson approached the
Planning Commission on April 21, 1998. Among the Commission's comments was the statement
-
r
by a majority of the board that the size of the project was too big. Anderson returned to the
Commission two additional times with virtually the same 27,000+ sq.ft. project. Each time the
Commission told him that among other problems, such as landscaping, delivery and drainage, that
the project was too big. On December 1, 1998 Anderson approached the Planning Commission
for the fourth and last time. Instead of making the required changes Anderson "resubmitted the
same 27,000+ sq.ft. project along with a letter that read in part "...These plans are the last set that
will be submitted for review, and they are unchanged trom the set submitted on October 30,
1998." For obvious reasons the Planning Commission then voted to deny AndersOn's CUP #
98-565.
While Anderson continually states that he has tried to work with the City and has made
countless modifications and compromises, the facts simply do not support this view. . It is clear
that Anderson has no intention of working with City Staff, nor of solving the problems identified
by VCP or the Planning Commission. I therefore respectfully request that the City Council
uphold the Planning Commission's denial of Anderson's Project.
Sincerely,
tM~
Mike Miner
~--- --,-.- - ----- .....-..-----
9...
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: LYNDA K. SNODGRASS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: CASH DISBURSEMENT RA TIFICA TION
DATE: JANUARY 26, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for
the period January 1 - January 15, 1999.
FUNDING:
There is a $434,528.85 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 A - Cash Disbursement Listing
ATTACHMENT B - January 1, 1999 Accounts Payable Check Register
ATTACHMENT C - January 8,1999 Accounts Payable Check Register
ATTACHMENT 0 - January 15,1999 Accounts Payable Check Register
ATTACHMENT E - January 15, 1999 Payroll Checks and Payroll Benefit Checks
--
CI1Y OF ARROYO GRANDE
INDEX FOR BUDGET DEPARTMENTS
EDEN COMPUTER SYSTEM
GENERAL FUND (010) SPEGAL REVENUE FUNDS
City Government (Fund 010) Pad< Development Fee Fund (Fund 213)
4001 - City Council 4550 - Park Development Fee
4002 - City Oerk Traffic Signal Fund (Fund 222)
4003 - City Attorney 4501 - Traffic Fbnd
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 Sewer Fund (Fund 612)
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 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS
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
Deft. Index for CoundLxIs
-~.~_...-
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CASH DISBURSEMENTS
*JM t4e PeWut ot ~., 7~ ~ 15, 1999
January 26,1999
Presented are the cash disbursements issued by the Department of Financial Services for
the period January 1 to January 15, 1999. Shown are cash disbursements by week of
occurrence and type of payment.
January 1, 1999
Accounts Payable Cks #88444-88500 B $ 25,371.19
January 8, 1999
Accounts Payable Cks # 88505-88583 C 101,284.88
January 15, 1999
Accounts Payable Cks #88584-88703 D 67,168.63
Payroll Checks and Payroll Benefit Checks E 240,704.15
307,872.78
Three Week Total i434.528.6~
.
_.__n_
ATTACHMENT B
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 1
12/29/98 08:26 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 20
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
88444 01/01/99 000234 A << R WELDING SUPPLY OXYGEN CYLINDER 010.4211.5206 13,00 13.00
88445 01/01/99 100897 AMERICAN TEMPS HAWORTH SVCS-12/11 284.4103,5303 502.40 502.40
88446 01/01/99 005772 ARROYO GRANDE COMM. HOS PHYSICAL-GRAVES 010.4211,5324 161. 50 161.50
88447 01/01/99 013026 BRISCO MILL << LUMBER V-BELTS 220.4303.5613 2.90 2.90
88448 01/01/99 017030 CA.SPECIALIZED TRNG.INS DISPATCHER REGIS-MILTON 010.4201,5501 225.00 225.00
88449 01/01/99 018018 CA.ST,DEPT.GENERAL SVCS L/DIST.PHONE 010.4145.5403 104.52 104.52
88450 01/01/99 018330 CA,ST,DEPT.OF JUSTICE FINGER PRINTS 010.4425.5255 134.00 134.00
88451 01/01/99 018876 CA. ST. DEPT. TRANSPORTATI 10/98-SIGNAL/LIGHTING MAINT 010,4304.5303 72.46
88451 01/01/99 018876 CA,ST,DEPT.TRANSPORTATI 10/98-SIGNAL/LIGHTIN ELEC 010.4304,5402 107.37 179.83
88452 01/01/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET LUBE/OIL/FILTER/SVCS-PD943 010.4201. 5601 36.05
88452 01/01/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET SMOG TEST-PW4 220,4303.5601 24.95
88452 01/01/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET SMOG TEST-PW 16 220.4303.5601 24.95 85.95
88453 01/01/99 024180 COAST NUT << BOLT BOLTS/NUTS 640.4712.5610 196.26 196.26
88454 01/01/99 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220.4303,5307 10.25
88454 01/01/99 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220.4303.5307 69.75 80.00
88455 01/01/99 024832 COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS REPR,ANTENNA SYS-LIFT #1 612.4610.5610 145,08
88455 01/01/99 024832 COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS REPR.ANTENNA SYS LIFT #6 612.4610,5610 180.08 325.16
88456 01/01/99 025428 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL TIMER/LIGHTS 010.4213.5604 131.14 131,14
88457 01/01/99 026286 CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL LAB CCTC WATER SAMPLES 640.4710.5310 105.00 105.00
88458 01/01/99 026754 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER C BOTTLED WATER 010.4001. 5201 15.00
88458 01/01/99 026754 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER C BOTTLED WATER 010.4421. 5201 35.00 50.00
88459 01/01/99 027534 D,G,REPAIR PUMP SEAL-P28 010,4420.5601 155.22 155,22
88460 01/01/99 100896 LISA DEL VAGLIO REIMB.MILEAGE-DEL VAGLIO 010.4425.5255 66.65 66.65
88461 01/01/99 027456 DFM ASSOCIATES 99 CALIF,ELECTION CODES 010.4002.5506 41. 04 41. 04
88462 01/01/99 029484 DIESELRO INC, REPL,HYDRO.FILTERS/LUBE 640.4712.5601 413.04 413.04
88463 01/01/99 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES SUBSCRIPTION-1/1/2000 010.4201,5503 42.00
88463 01/01/99 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES LEGAL 829 010.4130.5301 81. 00
88463 01/01/99 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES LEGAL 830 010.4130.5301 67.50
88463 01/01/99 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES LEGAL 831 010.4130.5301 54.00 244.50
88464 01/01/99 035802 FRANK'S LOCK << KEY INC DUP KEYS 010.4305.5601 4.83 4.83
------._----- ---- ~
.
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 2
12/29/98 08:26 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 20
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
88465 01/01/99 100700 G << M MOBILE SERVICE REPR.HYDRO ELECT. HOIST 640.4712.5303 910.59 910.59
88466 01/01/99 038376 GRAND AUTO PARTS WIPER BLADES 220.4303.5601 13.96 13.96
88467 01/01/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY WASTEBASKET 010.4212.5201 5.31
88467 01/01/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 640.4710.5201 20.35
88467 01/01/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4211. 5201 4.80
88467 01/01/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4212.5201 4.25
88467 01/01/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4130.5201 16.62
88467 01/01/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010,4211.5201 15.36
88467 01/01/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4130.5201 8.31-
88467 01/01/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4001. 5201 150.10
88467 01/01/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4120.5201 209.63
88467 01/01/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4101. 5201 53.40
88467 01/01/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010,4002.5201 1.92
88467 01/01/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 220.4303.5201 10.70
88467 01/01/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4102.5255 77 .01 561.14
88468 01/01/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-CONST.INSP 010.4301. 5403 223.21 223.21
88469 01/01/99 042354 HI STANDARD AUTOMOTIVE TROY FACEPLATE 010.4211.6301 89.00 89.00
88470 01/01/99 044050 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS,I MAINT/COPY USEAGE 010.4421. 5602 246.49 246,49
88471 01/01/99 044496 INFORMATION SERVICES CLETS/LS CHARGE 010.4201.5606 48.95 48.95
88472 01/01/99 045162 INTL CONF OF BUILDING 0 ICBO DUES-SCHMIDT 010.4212.5503 195.00 195.00
88473 01/01/99 046176 J J'S FOOD COMPANY ORAL BOARD SUPPLIES 010.4301. 5201 4.27
88473 01/01/99 046176 J J'S FOOD COMPANY BLOOD BANK SUPPLIES 010.4211. 5504 70.21 74.48
88474 01/01/99 100087 HOLLY JARRATT JAZZERCISE CLASS-JARRATT 010.4424.5351 122.48 122.48
88475 01/01/99 100869 KIS COMMUNlCATIONS,INC E-MAIL SVC-JAN/FEB/MARCH 010.4140,5303 329.75 329.75
88476 01/01/99 054248 DONNA MCMAHON ANSWERING MACHING-C/C COORD 010.4421. 5201 34.31 34,31
88477 01/01/99 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER << BRAKE ALIGN/LUBE/OIL 220.4303.5601 98.69
88477 01/01/99 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER << BRAKE TIE ROD/ALIGN-PD941 010.4201. 5601 118.17
88477 01/01/99 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER << BRAKE REPR.LOCK/LUBE/OIL/FILTER 010.4420.5601 64.77 281.63
88478 01/01/99 057018 REBECCA MILTON DISPATCHER W/SHOP-MILTON 010.4201.5501 380.94 380.94
88479 01/01/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BUILDING MATERIALS 640.4712.5604 12.87
88479 01/01/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BOLTS/NUTS 640.4712.5610 14.41
88479 01/01/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE SANDPAPER/WOOD PATCH 010.4213.5604 4.88
88479 01/01/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BUILDING MATERIALS 010.4305.5603 68.63
88479 01/01/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE ASSORT. ANCHORS 010.4213.5604 6,64
88479 01/01/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE DRILL BITS 010.4213.5604 6.09
88479 01/01/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE TRUCK ROPE 220.4303.5613 56.56
88479 01/01/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE COMBO WRENCH 640.4712.5273 6.29
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 3
12/29/98 08:26 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 20
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
88479 01/01/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BOLTS/NUTS 640.4712,5610 32.89
88479 01/01/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PIN HINGERS/LUMBER 640,4712.5604 15,37
88479 01/01/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE TAPE RULE/WIRE NAILS 220,4303.5273 13.71 238.34
88480 01/01/99 058578 MULLAHEY FORD GENERAL MAINT/LUBE/OIL/WIPERS 640.4712.5601 35.26 35.26
88481 01/01/99 059124 MUSTANG TREE CARE TRIM PALM TREES-NELSON 010.4420.5605 1,000.00 1,000.00
88482 01/01/99 060996 NAT.VOLUNTEER FIRE COUN 99 FIRE COUNCIL DUES 010.4211.5503 40.00 40.00
88483 01/01/99 061308 NELSON OFFICE EQUIPMENT TIME STAMP RIBBON 010.4101. 5201 19.91 19.91
88484 01/01/99 061542 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, I ANTENNA 010.4211.5603 60.33
88484 01/01/99 061542 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, I HI-CAD BATTERY/DOOR 010.4211.5603 186.40 246.73
88485 01/01/99 062712 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE GORILLA RACKS 010.4420.5605 160.84
88485 01/01/99 062712 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE GORILLA RACKS 010.4420.5605 107.23
88485 01/01/99 062712 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE GORILLA RACKS 010.4420.5605 160.84 428.91
88486 01/01/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL RADIO 451-0183 010.4145.5403 193.04
88486 01/01/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 473-1935 640.4710.5403 20.17
88486 01/01/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 841-3953 010,4211.5403 33.06
88486 01/01/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 841-3955 640.4710.5403 231.65
88486 01/01/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 841-3956 220.4303.5403 33.06
88486 01/01/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 841-3959 640.4710.5403 33.06
88486 01/01/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 841-3960 010.4211.5403 33.06
88486 01/01/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 841-3961 612.4610.5403 33.06
88486 01/01/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 841-3962 612.4610.5403 33.06
88486 01/01/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 841-3963 612.4610.5403 33.06
88486 01/01/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 841-3964 612.4610.5403 33.06
88486 01/01/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL CENTREX PHONE-5400 010.4145.5403 1,383.94
88486 01/01/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL PAY PHONE 489-9816 010.4145.5403 42.27 2,135.55
88487 01/01/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE VELDHUIS SVCS-12/13 220.4303.5303 475.23
88487 01/01/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE GOMEZ SVCS-12/13 220.4303.5303 416.64
88487 01/01/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE STEARS SVC-12/6 010.4213.5303 548.00 1,439.87
88488 01/01/99 066320 PIONEER EQUIPMENT CO. INSTL.GLASS WINDOW 220.4303.5603 249.52 249.52
88489 01/01/99 090284 SHAWN PRYOR PUBLIC RECORDS W/SHOP-PRYOR 010.4201.5501 256.00 256.00
88490 01/01/99 100143 QUAGLINO ROOFING REPR.ROOF-STATION 010.4213.5604 172.50 172.50
88491 01/01/99 073320 SAN JOAQUIN SUPPLY CO. LINERS 010.4213.5604 25.65 25.65
88492 01/01/99 075130 SAN LUIS OBISPO CNTY.NE CLASS AD-ADMIN SECRETARY 010.4130.5201 613.80
88492 01/01/99 075130 SAN LUIS OBISPO CNTY.NE CLASS AD-ASSOC. PLANNER 010.4130.5201 702.38
88492 01/01/99 075130 SAN LUIS OBISPO CNTY,NE CLASS AD-OFFICE ASST 284.4103.5201 531.96
88492 01/01/99 075130 SAN LUIS OBISPO CNTY.NE CLASS AD-CLERK TYPIST 010.4301.5201 356.96
88492 01/01/99 075130 SAN LUIS OBISPO CNTY.NE CLASS AD-MAINT WORKER 1 010.4213.5255 286.44 2,491.54
----"---------
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 4
12/29/98 08:26 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 20
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
88493 01/01/99 078156 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIB. GEAR OIL 220.4303,5603 30.63
88493 01/01/99 078156 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIB. DIESEL FUEL 010.4211.5608 105.75
88493 01/01/99 078156 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIB. GASOLINE 010,4201.5608 835.20 971.58
88494 01/01/99 082040 STAPLES OFFICE CHAIRS/COMPUTER CART 010.4421.6001 300.27
88494 01/01/99 082040 STAPLES BLK INK JET CARTRIDGE 010.4421.5201 27.34
88494 01/01/99 082040 STAPLES COPIER LABELS 010.4421. 5201 26.80
88494 01/01/99 082040 STAPLES SELF LAMINATE PAPER 010.4421.5201 13.93
88494 01/01/99 082040 STAPLES OFFICE CHAIR 010,4421.6001 160.86
88494 01/01/99 082040 STAPLES OFFICE CHAIR 010.4421.6001 160.86
88494 01/01/99 082040 STAPLES CR:OFFICE CHAIR 010.4421.6001 160.86-
88494 01/01/99 082040 STAPLES OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4421.5201 80.35
88494 01/01/99 082040 STAPLES OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4421.5201 6.04
88494 01/01/99 082040 STAPLES REFUND ADJUSTMENT 010.4421.5201 .01-
88494 01/01/99 082040 STAPLES OFFICE SUUPLIES 010.4421.5201 19.58
88494 01/01/99 082040 STAPLES CR:OFFICE CHAIR 010.4421. 6001 160.86- 474.30
88495 01/01/99 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS UHF BASE STATION 010,4211.6201 739,38
88495 01/01/99 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS PORTABLE RADIO 010,4211.6201 1,481.12 2,220.50
88496 01/01/99 084708 RICK TERBORCH CA.POLICE CHIEF CONF-TERBORCH 010.4201. 5501 58.00 58.00
88497 01/01/99 100852 TUCKFIELD & ASSOCIATES WATER/SEWER RATE STUDY 11/30 350.5805.7701 5,300.00 5,300.00
88498 01/01/99 088084 UNITED GREEN MARK,INC, VALVE BOX/BODY 010.4420.5605 18.18
88498 01/01/99 088084 UNITED GREEN MARK,INC. HUNTER PGP ROTOR 010.4420.5605 253.65
88498 01/01/99 088084 UNITED GREEN MARK, INC. UNAPPLIED CREDIT 010.4420.5605 18.54-
88498 01/01/99 088084 UNITED GREEN MARK, INC. UNAPPLIED CREDIT 010.4420.5605 14.53- 238.76
88499 01/01/99 087672 US RENTALS, INC LOG SPLITTER RENTAL 220.4303.5552 362.56 362.56
88500 01/01/99 090480 WAYNE'S TIRE TIRES-PW21 220.4303.5601 231. 84 231. 84
TOTAL CHECKS 25,371.19
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 5
12/29/98 08:26 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 20
FUND TITLE AMOUNT
010 GENERAL FUND 14,406,32
220 STREETS FUND 2,125.90
284 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND 1,034.36
350 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 5,300.00
612 SEWER FUND 457.40
640 WATER FUND 2,047.21
TOTAL 25,371.19
~~---- -~.._--
ATTACHMENT C
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 1
01/06/99 08:47 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 20
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
979 01/04/99 100905 TONY M. FERRARA LOCC CONF-FERRARA 010.4001. 5501 144.00 144.00
980 01/04/99 100036 STEVE TOLLEY LOCC CONF-TOLLEY 010.4001.5501 318.40 318.40
88505 01/08/99 000468 A T & T-L/DIST SVC, L/DIST PHONE 010.4211.5403 6.05
88505 01/08/99 000468 A T & T-L/DIST SVC, L/DIST,PHONE 010.4211.5403 5.76
88505 01/08/99 000468 A T & T-L/DIST SVC, L/DIST FAX 473-0386 010.4145.5403 23.19 35.00
88506 01/08/99 000898 ADDICTION MEDICINE CONS DOT DRUG & ALCOHOL TESTING 010.4145.5501 1,100.00 1,100.00
88507 01/08/99 002340 JOHN ALLEN DELINQ.CONTROL W/SHOP-ALLEN 010.4201. 5501 4,208.00 4,208.00
88508 01/08/99 003120 AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SUP RAIN GEAR 220.4303.5255 145.06 145.06
88509 01/08/99 100897 AMERICAN TEMPS HAWORTH SVCS-12/20 284.4103.5303 423.90 423.90
88510 01/08/99 100902 AVCO FIRE EXTINGUISHER ABC FIRE EXTING/BRACKET/PIN 010,4211.5601 98.67 98.67
88511 01/08/99 009438 BARKLOW'S FIRE TRUCK PA GAGES 010.4211. 5601 269.30
88511 01/08/99 009438 BARKLOW'S FIRE TRUCK PA CR:GAGES 010.4211.5601 174.23- 95.07
88512 01/08/99 009750 BRENDA BARROW REIMB.AM/PM SUPPLIES 010.4425,5255 160.61
88512 01/08/99 009750 BRENDA BARROW GAMES/SPORTS EQUIPMENT 010.4424.5252 200.00 360.61
88513 01/08/99 012480 CARL BRANDT REIMB.PORTABLE RADIO 010.4211.6301 500.00 500.00
88514 01/08/99 017160 CA.ST,BOARD OF EQUALIZA 1998 USE TAX-STOP STICK 010.4201.5272 116,00
88514 01/08/99 017160 CA. ST. BOARD OF EQUALlZA 1998 USE TAX-STOP STICK 275.4204.5255 110.64
88514 01/08/99 017160 CA.ST.BOARD OF EQUALIZA 1998 USE TAX-TARGET TURNER 010.4201. 5605 84.09
88514 01/08/99 017160 CA. ST . BOARD OF EQUALI ZA 1998 USE TAX-WRESLING UNIFORMS 010,0000.2205 57.01
88514 01/08/99 017160 CA.ST.BOARD OF EQUALlZA 1998 USE TAX-BLEACHERS 350.5506,7001 62.25
88514 01/08/99 017160 CA. ST. BOARD OF EQUALlZA 1998 USE TAX-CASH REGISTER TA 010.4120.5201 4.13
88514 01/08/99 017160 CA.ST.BOARD OF EQUALlZA 1998 USE TAX-CASH REGISTER TAP 010.4421.5201 2.73
88514 01/08/99 017160 CA. ST. BOARD OF EQUALlZA 1998 USE TAX-CASH REGISTER 010.4201. 5201 1.41
88514 01/08/99 017160 CA. ST ,BOARD OF EQUALlZA 1998 USE TAX-FASTPOST SOFTWARE 010.4120.5602 108.74 547.00
88515 01/08/99 018096 CA,ST.DEPT. GENERAL SER NOV 98 L/DIST 010.4145.5403 60.38 60.38
88516 01/08/99 016692 CALIF.PEACE OFFICER'S A PUBLIC RECORDS ACT-PRYOR 010,4201. 5501 144.00 144.00
88517 01/08/99 016302 CALIFORNIA MENS COLONY CMC LABOR-NOV 98 220.4303.5303 2,980.06 2,980.06
88518 01/08/99 021918 CENTRAL COAST SUPPLY SEAL & WAX 010.4213.5604 73.90 73.90
88519 01/08/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET SMOG TEST-PD 932 010,4201.5601 33.00
88519 01/08/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET SMOG TEST 220.4303.5601. 33.00
88519 01/08/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET SMOG CHECK 010.4211.5601 24.95 90.95
88520 01/08/99 100898 CYNTHIA COLLINS REF. PARKING CITE #6033/6000 010.0000.4203 40.00 40.00
88521 01/08/99 100904 COMPU-D INTERNATIONAL, I HP 4000TN LASER PRINTER 010.4140.6101 1.585.55 1,585.55
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 2
01/06/99 08 :47 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 20
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
88522 01/08/99 025428 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL LIGHT BULBS 010.4213.5604 217.08 217.08
88523 01/08/99 100901 RANDALL COOPER REF. WATER DEP-265 SPRUCE #F 640.0000.2302 140.00
88523 01/08/99 100901 RANDALL COOPER CLOSING BILL-265 SPRUCE #F 640.0000.4751 69.53-
88523 01/08/99 100901 RANDALL COOPER CLOSING BILL-265 SPRUCE #F 640.0000.4751 35.16- 35.31
88524 01/08/99 026286 CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL LAB WATER SAMPLES 640.4710.5310 35.00 35.00
88525 01/08/99 026754 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER C BOTTLED WATER 010.4301. 5201 15.00 15.00
88526 01/08/99 100306 DELINQUENCY CONTROL INS REGIS-JOHN ALLEN DELINQ.CONTRO 010.4201. 5501 700.00 700.00
88527 01/08/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. REPL.FILTERS/WIPERS/LUBE 612.4610.5601 685.92
88527 01/08/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. REPL.FILTERS/HEATER CONTROL 640.4712.5601 168.11
88527 01/08/99 029484 DIESELRO INC, REPL.FILTERS/HEATER CONTROL 612.4610.5601 168.11
88527 01/08/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. REPL.FILTERS/HEATER CONTROL 220.4303.5601 168.12
88527 01/08/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. OIL/FILTER/LUBE 220.4303.5601 281. 35
88527 01/08/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. OIL/FILTER/LUBE 220.4303.5601 328.50
88527 01/08/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. OIL/FILTER/BELTS 220.4303.5601 241.59 2,041.70
88528 01/08/99 032838 FAMILIAN PIPE & SUPPLY FLANGE/NIPPLE 640.4712.5610 21.45 21.45
88529 01/08/99 034164 FIRE DEPT. SAFETY OFF.A FIRE DEPT. SAFETY OFFICERS DUES 010.4211.5503 75.00 75.00
88530 01/08/99 100100 HERMAN H. FITZGERALD NEWSOM SPRINGS/CALDWELL CONDEM 350.5754.7301 7,356.24 7,356,24
88531 01/08/99 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES 5C TPR SUBSCR TO 1/2000 010,4130.5503 42.00
88531 01/08/99 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES 5C TPR.SUSCR TO 7/1/99 010.4120.5503 21. 00
88531 01/08/99 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES 5C TPR SUBSCR TO 1/2000 010.4101.5503 42.00
88531 01/08/99 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES 5C TPR SUBSCR TO 1/2000 010.4212.5503 42.00
88531 01/08/99 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES 5C TPR SUBSCR TO 7/99 010,4002.5503 21.00
88531 01/08/99 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES 5C TPR SUBSCR TO 1/2000 010.4301.5503 42.00 210.00
88532 01/08/99 100700 G & M MOBILE SERVICE REPR.YARD GATE 010.4201.5605 200.00 200.00
88533 01/08/99 100907 GRACE BIBLE CHURCH REF.O/PAY-FlRE HYDRANT REPR 640.0000.4807 5.0'0 5.00
88534 01/08/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4420.5201 11.15
88534 01/08/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4211.5201 12.15
88534 01/08/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4301.5201 1.44
88534 01/08/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4211.5201 9.44
88534 01/08/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4211.5201 51. 86 86.04
88535 01/08/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-CM 010.4145.5403 25.49
88535 01/08/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-PD CHIEF 010.4201.5403 56.47
88535 01/08/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-WATCH COMMANDER 010,4201. 5403 19.02
88535 01/08/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-PD PORTABLE 010.4201.5403 18.24
88535 01/08/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-INVEST. PROPERTY 010,4201.5403 21.11
88535 01/08/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-SUPPORT SVCS 010.4201.5403 20.26
88535 01/08/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-OPERATIONS COMMAND 010.4201.5403 19.97
88535 01/08/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-INVEST. PERSONS 010.4201.5403 24.80
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 3
01/06/99 08:47 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 20
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
88535 01/08/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-PK DIR 010.4421.5602 45.88
88535 01/08/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-PK SUPER 010.4421.5602 18.47 269.71
88536 01/08/99 100583 NANCY HAGLUND REIMB.AFSS QTLY MEETING 010,4211.5501 43.60 43.60
88537 01/08/99 042862 HONEYWELL, INC. MAINT TO 3/31/99 010.4213.5303 6,467,75 6,467.75
88538 01/08/99 044304 IMPULSE MFG, REPR.TAILGATE 220.4303.5601 130.00 130.00
88539 01/08/99 044496 INFORMATION SERVICES SEPT 98 ON LINE TRANSACTIONS 010.4201.5606 93.55
88539 01/08/99 044496 INFORMATION SERVICES NOV 98 ON-LINE TRANSACTIONS 010.4201.5606 31. 06 124.61
88540 01/08/99 100903 INTERMOTlVE,INC, OVERDRIVE INVERTER 010,4211.5601 144.80 144.80
88541 01/08/99 046176 J J'S FOOD COMPANY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4301.5201 5.99 5.99
88542 01/08/99 046722 JERRY'S SPORT CENTER, I 15 BERETTA 96F CLIPS 271.4202.6201 359.25 359.25
88543 01/08/99 047600 KAISER SAND << GRAVEL CO ASPHALT 220,4303.5613 177.22
88543 01/08/99 047600 KAISER SAND << GRAVEL CO ASPHALT 220.4303.5613 176.34
88543 01/08/99 047600 KAISER SAND << GRAVEL CO ASPHALT 220,4303.5613 354.15
88543 01/08/99 047600 KAISER SAND << GRAVEL CO ASPHALT 220,4303.5613 355.04 1,062.75
88544 01/08/99 048516 KEYLOCK SECURITY SPECIA KEYS/PADLOCK/SHACKLE GUARD 010.4305.5603 29.57 29.57
88545 01/08/99 052144 LIEBERT,CASSIDY << FRIER C. COAST EMPLOYMENT RELAT. DUES 010.4145,5501 1,600.00 1,600.00
88546 01/08/99 054834 PAUL MARSALEK REIMB.GRADE 3 WATER EXAM-MARSA 640.4712,5501 52.00 52.00
88547 01/08/99 055536 MATCO TOOLS 3 SOCKETS 010.4211.5273 84.57 84.57
88548 01/08/99 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER << BRAKE SLAVE CYLINDER/THERMOSTAT 010.4420.5601 362.82
88548 01/08/99 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER << BRAKE THERMOSTAT/GASKET/OIL 220,4303.5601 193.09 555,91
88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE MISC. HARDWARE 010.4430.5273 84.56
88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE DUGOUT ROOFS 010.4430.5605 56.82
88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE C2 BATTERIES 640.4712.5255 19.24
88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE SMITH RODS/MINI BULBS 640.4712.5255 9.62
88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BATTERIES/BULBS 010.4213.5604 20.55
88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE STRAP HANGERS 010.4211.5601 3.20
88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE SNIP/JIG BLADE 010.4211.5273 28.58
88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE SPREADER 010.4430.5273 30.56
88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BULBS 010.4213.5604 5.24
88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE SIMPLE GREEN/CLOROX 010.4213.5604 16.60
88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE D2 BATTERIES/MAGLITE 010.4420.5605 33.00
88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE SIMPLE GREEN/CONDUIT 010.4211.5255 23.04
88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PLUMBING SUPPLIES 010.4420,5605 23.58
88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE 9V BATTERIES/PUTTYKNIFE 010.4213.5604 16.47
88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE SPRAY PAINT 640.4712.5610 23.08
88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE EPOXY 640.4712.5610 31. 09
88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE WHITE GREASE 640.4712.5610 4.60
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 4
01/06/99 08:47 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 20
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BARK 010.4420.5605 21.41
88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE SPRAY EPOXY 640.4712.5610 12.84
88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE DRILL BITS/SCREWS 640.4712.5610 10.69
88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE ROLLER FRAME/MOUSE TRAPS 010.4420.5605 17.30
88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BRASS NIPPLES 640.4712.5610 1.28
88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE FLEXOGEN HOSE 220.4303.5255 90.07
88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE CEMENT/BUILDING SUPPLIES 010.4430.5605 107.23
88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE DRILL BIT/KEYLESS DRILL 010.4430.5273 155.78 846.43
88551 01/08/99 058578 MULLAHEY FORD INSPECT STEERING/LUBE/OIL 010.4201. 5601 91. 30
88551 01/08/99 058578 MULLAHEY FORD ROTATE TIRES/PITMAN ARM/LUBE 010.4201.5601 319.26
88551 01/08/99 058578 MULLAHEY FORD INSPECT STEERING 010.4201. 5601 275.68
88551 01/08/99 058578 MULLAHEY FORD COOLING SYS.FLUSH/WIPERS 010.4201. 5601 245.22 931. 46
88552 01/08/99 060060 NAT'L CRIM.JUSTICE ASSN NAT'L CRIMINAL JUSTICE DUES 010.4201.5503 85.00 85.00
88553 01/08/99 060840 NATIONAL SANITARY SUPPL SEAT COVERS/WRINGER BUCKET 010,4213.5604 482.18 482.18
88554 01/08/99 062712 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE GALV.NIPPLE 640.4712,5610 10.71
88554 01/08/99 062712 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE ANT/ROACH SPRAY 640.4712.5610 5.35 16.06
88555 01/08/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL DATA LINE 473-0379 010.4140.5303 120.50
88555 01/08/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL L/DIST FAX 473-0386 010.4145.5403 29.08
88555 01/08/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 473-2041 010.4201.5403 19.88
88555 01/08/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL FAX 473-2198 010.4145.5403 23.65
88555 01/08/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL CENTREX PHONE 473-5100 010.4145.5403 681.59
88555 01/08/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL DATA LINE 473-5141 010.4145.5403 78,23
88555 01/08/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL PHONE 481-6944 010.4201,5403 127.66
88555 01/08/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL SLO COMPUTER 473-9523 010.4145.5403 70.87 1,151.46
88556 01/08/99 064308 PAPER DIRECT,INC. CERT.JACKETS/CERTIFICATES 010.4001.5201 113.60 113.60
88557 01/08/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE VELDHUIS SVCS-12/18 220.4303.5303 416.64
88557 01/08/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE JACKSON SVCS-12/20 612.4610.5303 161.19
88557 01/08/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE JACKSON SVCS-12/20 640.4710.5303 241.77
88557 01/08/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE GOMEZ SVCS-12/20 220.4303,5303 475.23
88557 01/08/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE STEARS SVCS-12/13 010,4213.5303 548.00
88557 01/08/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE STEARS SVCS-12/20 010.4213.5303 548.00 2,390.83
88558 01/08/99 066924 PLAQUE SHAQUE DOOR SIGN 010.4425.5255 10.73
88558 01/08/99 066924 PLAQUE SHAQUE HALLOWEEN CONTEST RIBBONS 010.4424.5252 5,63
88558 01/08/99 066924 PLAQUE SHAQUE HOLIDAY DECORATE. RIBBONS 010.4424.5252 42.22
88558 01/08/99 066924 PLAQUE SHAQUE PICTURE PLATES/DESK SIGNS 010.4001.5201 98.61
88558 01/08/99 066924 PLAQUE SHAQUE SR.ADV. COMM. SIGN 010.4421.5201 14.00
88558 01/08/99 066924 PLAQUE SHAQUE EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION AWARDS 010.4001.5504 90.63
88558 01/08/99 066924 PLAQUE SHAQUE UPDATE PERPETUALS/AWARD PLAQUE 010.4201.5504 128,70 390.52
88559 01/08/99 068200 PROMEDIX GLOVES/COMPACT MANUAL RES 010.4211.5206 252.41 252.41
88560 01/08/99 068562 PRYOR INDUSTRIES,INC. DESK/COUNTER DOOR 010.4301. 6001 1,209,20 1,209.20
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 5
01/06/99 08:47 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 20
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
88561 01/08/99 070668 RYAN RIPLEY REIMB.VAC.BELT 010.4213.5604 1. 90 1. 90
88562 01/08/99 072638 S & L SAFETY PRODUCTS SHOP TOWELS/SAFETY GLASSES 220.4303.5255 260.34 260.34
88563 01/08/99 100192 SAN LUIS MAILING SVC BUSINESS LICENSE POSTAGE 010.4145.5201 425.92
88563 01/08/99 100192 SAN LUIS MAILING SVC BUSINESS LICENSE MAILING SVCS 010.4120.5201 41. 95 467.87
88564 01/08/99 076830 SANTA MARIA TIRE INC. TIRES/STEMS/WEIGHTS 010.4211.5601 245.78 245.78
88565 01/08/99 078156 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIB. DIESEL/GASOLINE 010.4211.5608 173.67 173 . 67
88566 01/08/99 078468 SENSUS TECHNOLOGIES,INC 2SR WATER METERS-CCTC PROJECT 640.4712.5207 565.94 565.94
88567 01/08/99 080340 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORP CIRCUIT TESTER/SHEARS 010.4305.5273 102.85 102.85
88568 01/08/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY FUSE HOLDER/POLISH/RELINE BRAK 010,4211.5601 4.74
88568 01/08/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY RAD.CAP/HEATER HOSE 010.4211.5601 9,46
88568 01/08/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY COOLANT/WATER OUTLET 010.4211.5601 9.80
88568 01/08/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY WEATHERSTRIP 010.4211.5601 21.02
88568 01/08/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY COOLANT/LONGNOSE PLIERS 010.4211.5601 35.55
88568 01/08/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY COOLANT/SPARK PLUGS 010.4211.5601 17.90
88568 01/08/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY AIR FRESHNER 640.4712.5601 8.55 107.02
88569 01/08/99 100899 SOUTHERN CA. GAS COMPANY CLAIM 272-S0UTHERN CA. GAS CO 010.4145.5577 187.65 187.65
88570 01/08/99 100906 SPECTRUM HYDROSEEDING HYDROSEED BASIN 010.4420.5605 2,000.00
88570 01/08/99 100906 SPECTRUM HYDROSEEDING HYDROSEED BASIN 010.4430.5605 2,000.00 4,000.00
88571 01/08/99 082486 STEWARD CO PRINTING SUPPLIES/DEVELOPER 010.4102.5255 159.32 159.32
88572 01/08/99 083226 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH SEPT. CAR WASH 010.4201.5601 355.00
88572 01/08/99 083226 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH CAR WASHES 010.4420.5601 7.50
88572 01/08/99 083226 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH CAR WASHES 010,4301.5601 60.00
88572 01/08/99 083226 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH CAR WASHES 220.4303.5601 16.00
88572 01/08/99 083226 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH CAR WASHES 640.4712.5601 15.00 453.50
88573 01/08/99 085878 TRANS-KING TRANSMISSION TRANSMISSION SERVICE 220.4303.5601 43.58 43.58
88574 01/08/99 088084 UNITED GREEN MARK,INC. SPRINKLER SUPPLIES 010.4430.5255 43.89 43.89
88575 01/08/99 087672 US RENTALS, INC PAINT 010.4430.5274 16.95 16.95
88576 01/08/99 088826 PEGGY VALKO ARTS & CRAFT CLASS 010.4424.5351 473.60 473.60
88577 01/08/99 088842 VALLEY AUTO SERVICE TIRE REPR 010.4212.5601 14.00 14.00
88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC, UG STORAGE TANK REPLACEMENT 350.5401. 7301 394.79
88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. DON ROBERTS FIELDS 350.5501. 7301 523.12
88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. TENNIS COURT RESURFACING 350.5504.7301 12.50
88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. GRAND AVE CORRIDOR STUDY 350.5603.7301 438.00
88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. OPTICOM DEVICES 350.5604.7501 25.00
~
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 6
01/06/99 08 :47 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 20
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. BIKEWAY PROJECT ONE 350.5606.7301 325.37
88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. CREEKSIDE PATH 350.5607.7301 76.50
88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. STREET SEAL-COAT PROJECT 350.5612.7301 188.50
88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 350.5613.7701 1,550.50
88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. BRISCO/101 INTERCHANGE ALTS 350.5615,7301 303.16
88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. EL CAMPO/101 INTERCHANGE ALTS 350.5616.7301 230.20
88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. CENTRAL COAST TOWN CENTER 350.5617,7301 13,203.99
88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. MONTEGO STREET SIDEWALKS 350.5622.7501 1,603.00
88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. PARKING LOT BEHIND CITY HALL 350.5623.7501 1,437.50
88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN/FINANCE 350.5752.7701 4,318.53
88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. NEWSOM SPRINGS 350.5754.7701 955.00
88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. DISASTER SVCS 1998(DR-1203) 350.5755.7301 126.00
88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. DISASTER SVCS 1998 (DR-1203) 350.5755.7501 2,783.75
88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. SEWER/WATER RATE STUDY 350.5805.7301 91.33
88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. GRAND AVE/ELM TO HALCYON 350.5806.7501 4,627.25
88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. BEDLOE LANE MAINT,PROJECT 350.5808.7301 440.10
88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. RESERVOIR #1 DESIGN 350.5903.7501 1,416.99
88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. WATER MASTER PLAN 350.5904.7701 3,320.49
88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. GENERAL CONSULTING SVCS 010.4301.5303 11,947.05 50,338.62
88580 01/08/99 090480 WAYNE'S TIRE STOCK TIRES 010.4201.5601 211. 93
88580 01/08/99 090480 WAYNE'S TIRE TIRES 010.4201,5601 191. 63 403.56
88581 01/08/99 092508 NANCY WILLIAMS REIMB.PRE-SCHOOL SUPPLIES-WILL 010.4423.5253 68.21 68.21
88582 01/08/99 092586 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COM INSTL,CIRCUIT/RECEPTACLE 010.4430.5303 366.35
88582 01/08/99 092586 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COM REPL.LAMP-EL CAMPO/OAK PARK 010.4304.5303 30.25 396,60
88583 01/08/99 100900 TRISH WILSON REF. CLASS FEE-WILSON 010.0000.4605 12.00 12.00
TOTAL CHECKS 101,284.88
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 7
01/06/99 08:47 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 20
FUND TITLE AMOUNT
010 GENERAL FUND 45,423.80
220 STREETS FUND 6,865.38
271 STATE COPS BLOCK GRANT FUND 359.25
275 96-97 FED LOCAL LAW ENFORMT GT 110.64
284 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND 423.90
350 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 45,810.06
612 SEWER FUND 1,015.22
640 WATER FUND 1,276,63
TOTAL 101,284.88
ATTACHMENT D
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 1
01/13/99 09:31 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 20
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
981 01/11/99 100911 TOASTMASTERS INTL MEMBERSHIP-SPAGNOLO 010.4301. 5503 43.24 43.24
982 01/12/99 100036 STEVE TOLLEY LOCC POLICY COMM-TOLLEY 010.4001.5501 64.00 64.00
88584 01/15/99 000234 A & R WELDING SUPPLY OXYGEN/ACETYLENE 010.4305.5303 64.93
88584 01/15/99 000234 A & R WELDING SUPPLY OXYGEN/ACETYLENE 010.4305.5303 13.00 77.93
88585 01/15/99 000858 ADAMSON INDUSTRIES AMMUNITION 271.4202.5255 1,594.81 1,594.81
88586 01/15/99 068127 AG PRINT N COPY COPIES-GRAND AVE CORRIDOR 350.5603.7301 106.18
88586 01/15/99 068127 AG PRINT N COPY COLORED COPIES-ST. SWEEPING 010.4301. 5201 3.39 109.57
88587 01/15/99 003120 AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SUP RAIN GEAR 220.4303.5255 251.46 251. 46
88588 01/15/99 004760 WILLIAM ANDREWS PD COMPUTER MAINT-DEC 010.4140.5607 1,300.00 1,300.00
88589 01/15/99 004914 APEX SHARPENING WORKS REPL.PARTS-WEED EATERS 220.4303.5603 136.05
88589 01/15/99 004914 APEX SHARPENING WORKS OIL 220.4303.5603 12.87
88589 01/15/99 004914 APEX SHARPENING WORKS HUSQUARNA BLOWER 220.4303.5273 359.23
88589 01/15/99 004914 APEX SHARPENING WORKS OIL 220.4303.5603 12.87
88589 01/15/99 004914 APEX SHARPENING WORKS WEED EATER PARTS 220.4303.5603 70.52
88589 01/15/99 004914 APEX SHARPENING WORKS WEED EATER LINE 220.4303.5603 129.99 721. 53
88590 01/15/99 008190 B & T SERVICE STN, CONTR SVCS-FUEL TANKS 010.4305.5603 46.00 46.00
88591 01/15/99 009906 RITCHIE BARRETT FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00
88591 01/15/99 009906 RITCHIE BARRETT FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00 60.00
88592 01/15/99 009750 BRENDA BARROW REIMB.SUPPLIES-BARROW 010.4425.5255 161.75 161.75
88593 01/15/99 010296 BEACH FRONT AUTO SERVIC REPR-PW29 FOR SMOG 220,4303.5601 409.46
88593 01/15/99 010296 BEACH FRONT AUTO SERVIC SMOG-PW29 220.4303.5601 32,75
88593 01/15/99 010296 BEACH FRONT AUTO SERVIC REPL.COOLANT HOSE/ADJ. BRAKES 010.4430.5601 41. 87
88593 01/15/99 010296 BEACH FRONT AUTO SERVIC BATTERY/WATER PUMP. THERMOSTAT 010.4201. 5601 477 .48 961.56
88594 01/15/99 010608 MICHAEL BEEMAN FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00
88594 01/15/99 010608 MICHAEL BEEMAN FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211,5145 30.00 60.00
88595 01/15/99 100618 BERCHTOLD EQUIPMENT CO INSTL A CROSS KIT/YOKE 010.4420.5603 93.54 93.54
88596 01/15/99 011856 KIMBERLY BOESE REIMB.BOOK-BOESE 010.4201. 5502 152.27 152.27
88597 01/15/99 012558 CARL BRANDT FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00
88597 01/15/99 012558 CARL BRANDT FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00
88598 01/15/99 100196 PETER BRINKERHOFF FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00
88598 01/15/99 100196 PETER BRINKERHOFF FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00
88599 01/15/99 013026 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER PLASTIC WRAP/TAPE 640.4712.5610 17.14
88599 01/15/99 013026 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER TUBING/TUBING CUTTER 640.4712.56l0 27.18 44.32
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 2
01/13/99 09:31 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 20
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
88600 01/15/99 100923 ROBERT W. BUCY REF. VARIANCE APP.#98-214 010.0000,4503 343.80 343.80
88601 01/15/99 100921 JOSEPH E BUTTERS FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00
88601 01/15/99 100921 JOSEPH E BUTTERS FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00
88602 01/15/99 021940 C.COAST TAXI CAB SERVIC TAXI SVCS-11/16-11/31 225.4553.5507 1,186.50 1,186.50
88603 01/15/99 017472 CA,ST.DEPT.CONSERVATION S.M.I.P,2Q 98/99 010.0000,2208 1,745.89 1,745.89
88604 01/15/99 015160 CALIFORNIA CONTRACTOR S DRILL BITS-HIGH SPEED 010.4305.5603 182.83 182.83
88605 01/15/99 020514 CHRISTOPHER CASH FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00
88605 01/15/99 020514 CHRISTOPHER CASH FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00 60.00
88606 01/15/99 023010 RICHARD CHECANSKY CA,JUVENILE OFFICERS-CHECANSKY 010.4201.5501 86.00
88606 01/15/99 023010 RICHARD CHECANSKY JUVENILE LAW UPDATE-CHECANSKY 010.4201.5501 110.30 196.30
88607 01/15/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET SMOG-PW2 010.4301. 5601 24.95
88607 01/15/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET SMOG-PW36 010.4305.5601 24.95
88607 01/15/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET SMOG-PW3 010.4301.5601 24.95
88607 01/15/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET SMOG-P20 010.4420.5601 24.95
88607 01/15/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET SMOG-P33 010.4420.5601 24.95
88607 01/15/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET SMOG-P5 010.4420.5601 24.95
88607 01/15/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET SMOG-P15 010.4430.5601 24.95
88607 01/15/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET LUBE/OIL/FILTER-P13 010.4420.5601 23.84
88607 01/15/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET LUBE/OIL/FILTER-P-28 010.4420.5601 22.66
88607 01/15/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET CR:SMOG-PD932 010.4201.5601 8.05-
88607 01/15/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET CR:SMOG-PW4 220.4303.5601 8.05- 205.05
88608 01/15/99 023634 CLASSIC TEES SWEAT SHIRTS 010.4422.5256 462.46 462.46
88609 01/15/99 100912 TROY COLEMAN FIRE MlLEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211,5145 30,00
88609 01/15/99 100912 TROY COLEMAN FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00
88610 01/15/99 024832 COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS REPR.ALARM PROBLEM-LIFT#l 612.4610.5610 70.00
88610 01/15/99 024832 COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS REPR.RADIO SYSTEM-LIFT#l 612.4610.5610 266.02
88610 01/15/99 024832 COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS REPR.ELECT.CONTROL LIFT#l 612.4610.5610 210.00
88610 01/15/99 024832 COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS MATERIALS-SCADA SYS UPGRADE 612.4610,6201 238.40 784.42
88611 01/15/99 026598 JOHN CRO'ITY FIRE MlLEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00
88611 01/15/99 026598 JOHN CRO'ITY FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00
88612 01/15/99 100631 CUESTA CONSULTING CUESTA SVCS-12/27 010.4130,5303 6,540,00 6,540.00
88613 01/15/99 026832 CUESTA EQUIPMENT CO CHEST WAITERS 220.4303.5613 74.00 74.00
88614 01/15/99 028548 DAYSTAR INDUSTRIES STREET SWEEPING 612.4610.5303 3,471.70 3,471. 70
88615 01/15/99 100896 LISA DEL VAGLIO AM/PM SUPPLIES 010.4425.5255 80.00
88615 01/15/99 100896 LISA DEL VAGLIO AM/PM SUPPLIES 010.4425.5255 100.00 180.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 3
01/13/99 09:31 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 20
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
88616 01/15/99 100197 JEREMY DENTON FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00
88616 01/15/99 100197 JEREMY DENTON FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00 60.00
88617 01/15/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. OIL/FILTER/WIPER BLADES-P31 010.4420.5601 205.35
88617 01/15/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. SAFETY INSPECT-PW30 220,4303.5603 27.50
88617 01/15/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. SMOKE TEST-PW27 220.4303.5601 45.01
88617 01/15/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. SMOKE TEST-PW32 640.4712.5601 45,01
88617 01/15/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. SMOKE TEST-PW51 612.4610.5601 45.01
88617 01/15/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. SMOKE TEST-PW50 640.4712.5601 22.51
88617 01/15/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. SMOKE TEST-PW50 612.4610.5601 22.50
88617 01/15/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. SMOKE TEST-PW19 220.4303.5601 45.01
88617 01/15/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. SMOKE TEST-PW41 220.4303.5601 58.00
88617 01/15/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. SMOKE TEST-PW33 220.4303,5601 45.01
88617 01/15/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. CR:SMOKE TEST-PW41 220.4303.5601 12.99- 547.92
88618 01/15/99 032682 FAIR OAKS PHARMACY ACE BANDAGE 612,4610.5255 5.63 5.63
88619 01/15/99 032838 FAMILIAN PIPE & SUPPLY COUPLINGS 640.4712.5610 88.77 88.77
88620 01/15/99 033696 HOWARD FERGUSON FIRE MlLEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211,5145 30.00
88620 01/15/99 033696 HOWARD FERGUSON FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00
88621 01/15/99 034850 SEAN FLEMING FIRE MlLEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00
88621 01/15/99 034850 SEAN FLEMING FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00
88622 01/15/99 035802 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY INC LOCK-ELM ST.REC. 010.4420.5605 108.32
88622 01/15/99 035802 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY INC DUP.KEYS 220.4303.5255 8.04
88622 01/15/99 035802 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY INC DUP.KEYS-P7 010.4420.5605 19.14
88622 01/15/99 035802 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY INC DUP. KEYS- BABE RUTH 010,4420.5605 9.65
88622 01/15/99 035802 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY INC MASTER LOCKS-WATER METERS 640.4712.5255 140.15 285.30
88623 01/15/99 100700 G & M MOBILE SERVICE REPR. PUMP MOTOR 612.4610.5603 408.36 408.36
88624 01/15/99 037206 GIBBS INTERNATIONAL TRU MIRROR BRACKET-PW32 640.4712.5601 14.28 14.28
88625 01/15/99 100485 GOLD COAST FLORAL FLOWERS-FERDOLAGE/HAMILTON 010.4201. 5504 53.63 53.63
88626 01/15/99 038376 GRAND AUTO PARTS WIRE BRUSHES 010.4305.5255 14.70
88626 01/15/99 038376 GRAND AUTO PARTS GLUE 010.4305,5255 10.81 25.51
88627 01/15/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 640.4710.5201 2.63
88627 01/15/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4002.5201 17.58
88627 01/15/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4421.5201 28.93
88627 01/15/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4430.5201 4.64
88627 01/15/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 640.4710.5201 2.68
88627 01/15/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4101.5201 17.95
88627 01/15/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4002.5201 24.94
88627 01/15/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4101. 5201 17.14
88627 01/15/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4120.5201 42,43
88627 01/15/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4002.5201 23.94
88627 01/15/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4305.5201 21.43
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 4
01/13/99 09:31 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 20
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
88627 01/15/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4120.5201 70.79
88627 01/15/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 640.4710,5201 2.69 277,77
88628 01/15/99 038688 GLENN GRAVES FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00
88628 01/15/99 038688 GLENN GRAVES FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00 60.00
88629 01/15/99 036504 GTE MOBILNET CAR ADAPTERS-CELL PHONE 640.4710.5403 18.74
88629 01/15/99 036504 GTE MOBILNET CAR ADAPTERS - CELL PHONE 612.4610,5403 18.74
88629 01/15/99 036504 GTE MOBILNET CAR ADAPTERS-CELL PHONE 220.4303.5403 37.49 74.97
88630 01/15/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-AUTO 010,4305.5403 31.40 31. 40
88631 01/15/99 100913 SEAN F HAGERTY FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00
88631 01/15/99 100913 SEAN F HAGERTY FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00
88632 01/15/99 100635 HARRY'S RADIATOR SVCS REPL.RADIATOR/THERMOSTAT/GASKE 010.4420.5601 356.27 356.27
88633 01/15/99 041808 CRAIG HENDRICKS TUITION-HENDRICKS ALCO SENSOR 010.4201.5501 10,00 10.00
88634 01/15/99 042158 BOB HICKS TURF EQUIPMEN TURF EQUIPT.CLASS-SOARES 010.4430.5501 40.00 40.00
88635 01/15/99 100914 CASEY L. HIDLE FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00 30.00
88636 01/15/99 100193 DAN HORN FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00
88636 01/15/99 100193 DAN HORN FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00
88637 01/15/99 043134 MICAH B. HOWZE FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 30.00
88638 01/15/99 039584 HPC/EAGLE ENERGY DTE LIGHT OIL 640.4711.5603 61. 27
88638, 01/15/99 039584 HPC/EAGLE ENERGY DTE LIGHT OIL 640.4711.5603 30.64 91.91
88639 01/15/99 100915 PATRICK J. lREY FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00 30.00
88640 01/15/99 100910 AMBER JOHNSON REF. PARKING CITE #D5795 010.0000.4203 20.00 20.00
88641 01/15/99 047600 KAISER SAND & GRAVEL CO ASPHALT 220.4303.5613 88.46 88.46
88642 01/15/99 047736 JERRY KAUFMAN FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010,4211.5145 30.00
88642 01/15/99 047736 JERRY KAUFMAN FIRE MlLEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00 60.00
88643 01/15/99 100922 MICHAEL R KING FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00
88643 01/15/99 100922 MICHAEL R KING FIRE MlLEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010,4211.5145 30.00 60.00
88644 01/15/99 100783 KIRBY'S MOTORCYCLES FULL SERVICE-PD983 010.4201,5601 234.21
88644 01/15/99 100783 KIRBY'S MOTORCYCLES REPR,LEFT HAND GRIP 010.4201. 5601 12,00
88644 01/15/99 100783 KIRBY'S MOTORCYCLES CLUTCH CABLE-PD983 010.4201.5601 18.32
88644 01/15/99 100783 KIRBY'S MOTORCYCLES AIR FILTER/OIL/VALVE STEMS 010,4201.5601 191.36 455.89
88645 01/15/99 100916 GREG KLOSINSKI FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 30.00
88646 01/15/99 052280 LIMBERG EYE SURGERY PRES. SAFETY GLASSES-lNESS 010,4305.5303 223.00 223.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 5
01/13/99 09:31 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 20
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
88647 01/15/99 053118 LUCIA MAR UN.SCH,DIST. GYM USE-9/29/98 010.4424.5251 42.00 42.00
88648 01/15/99 053196 MEL LUSARDI FIRE MlLEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00
88648 01/15/99 053196 MEL LUSARDI FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00
88649 01/15/99 053274 LYON & CARMEL PROF. LEGAL SVCS-12/98 010.4003.5304 10,573.67 10,573.67
88650 01/15/99 100917 RYAN S. MALONEY FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00
88650 01/15/99 100917 RYAN S. MALONEY FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00
88651 01/15/99 054912 MICHAEL MARSDEN FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00
88651 01/15/99 054912 MICHAEL MARSDEN FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60,00
88652 01/15/99 100918 CHRISTOPHER L. MARSHALL FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00 30.00
88653 01/15/99 053820 MC CARTHY STEEL INC DIAMOND PLATE STEEL-BEDLOE 612.4610.5610 140.78 140.78
88654 01/15/99 056628 MID STATE BANK-MASTERCA GASOLINE 010.4201.5608 75.07
88654 01/15/99 056628 MID STATE BANK-MASTERCA CHRISTMAS CARDS 010.4201.5201 81. 24
88654 01/15/99 056628 MID STATE BANK-MASTERCA BUSINESS LUNCH/TRAINING 010,4201.5501 430.78
88654 01/15/99 056628 MID STATE BANK-MASTERCA COMPUTER HUB 010.4140.5607 166.24 753.33
88655 01/15/99 056940 MIER BROS. FLOAT ROCK 640.4712.5610 24.13
88655 01/15/99 056940 MIER BROS. CONCRETE 640.4712.5610 39.58
88655 01/15/99 056940 MIER BROS. CONCRETE 640.4712.5610 39.58
88655 01/15/99 056940 MIER BROS. CONCRETE 640.4712.5610 83.01
88655 01/15/99 056940 MIER BROS. CONCRETE 640.4712.5610 59.85 246.15
88656 01/15/99 056950 BRIAN MILLER FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00
88656 01/15/99 056950 BRIAN MILLER FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00
88657 01/15/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE DUP.KEYS 010.4420.5605 1.06
88657 01/15/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE FLAGGING TAPE 220.4303.5255 24.32
88657 01/15/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PAINTBRUSHES 640.4712.5610 6.82
88657 01/15/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE NIPPLES/PLUGS/BALL VALVE 640.4711.5603 71. 53
88657 01/15/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE TEFLON TAPE 640.4712.5610 1.60
88657 01/15/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE CLOCK 640.4712.5255 8.35
88657 01/15/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE GREASE/PAINT 640.4712.5610 5.57
88657 01/15/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PLUGS/VALVES/COUPLER 640.4711.5603 9.18
88657 01/15/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE ALLEN BOLTS 640.4712.5610 6.51
88657 01/15/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE ROOF NAILS 640.4712.5604 4.08
88657 01/15/99 057096 MINER I S ACE HARDWARE BACK FLOW FI'ITING 010.4420.5605 2,09
88657 01/15/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE GREASE 640.4712.5610 4.60
88657 01/15/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BUSHING/NIPPLE/FOAM 640.4712.5610 5.97
88657 01/15/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BALL VALVE/COUPLER 640.4712.5610 5.31
88657 01/15/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE C2 BA'ITERY 612,4610.5255 2.56 159.55
88658 01/15/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE MATS/DUST MOPS 010.4213.5604 41. 00
88658 01/15/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE MATS 010.4213.5604 28.00
88658 01/15/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 010.4102.5255 7.30
88658 01/15/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 010.4213.5604 53.22
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 6
01/13/99 09:31 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 20
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
88658 01/15/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 220.4303.5143 229.09
88658 01/15/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 220.4303.5255 42.00
88658 01/15/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 640.4712.5143 115.35
88658 01/15/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 612.4610.5143 32.50
88658 01/15/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 010.4420.5143 97.50
88658 01/15/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE TOWELS/FENDER COVERS 010.4305.5255 45.00
88658 01/15/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 010.4305.5255 67.42 758.38
88659 01/15/99 100925 CITY OF MONTEREY REGIS-SNODGRASS 010.4120.5501 305.00 305.00
88660 01/15/99 058382 LAW OFFICES OF SARAH MO PROF. LEGAL SVCS 010.4003.5327 1,237.50 1,237.50
88661 01/15/99 100239 N.CA.JUVENILE OFFICERS REGIS-JUVENILE UPDATE-CHECANSK 010.4201.5501 40.00 40.00
88662 01/15/99 100909 N.CA.JUVENILE OFFICERS REGIS-CHECANSKY-CA.JUVENILE 010.4201.5501 155.00 155.00
88663 01/15/99 059436 DAVID NACCARATI FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00
88663 01/15/99 059436 DAVID NACCARATI FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00
88664 01/15/99 100782 NETWORK ASSOCIATES TAX-ANTI-VIRUS LIC. 010.4140.5607 121. 66 121. 66
(
88665 01/15/99 100919 MATTHEW M OSBORNE FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 30.00
88666 01/15/99 063258 RANDY OUIMETTE FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00
88666 01/15/99 063258 RANDY OUIMETTE FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00
88667 01/15/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 010.4304.5402 860.84
88667 01/15/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 640.4712.5402 222.30
88667 01/15/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 640.4711.5402 1,179.63
88667 01/15/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 612.4610.5402 642.96
88667 01/15/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 010.4145.5401 5,256.89
88667 01/15/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 010.4304.5402 11,285.86
88667 01/15/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 010.4304.5402 44.70 19,493.18
88668 01/15/99 100920 MATTHEW J PALM FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 30.00
88669 01/15/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE JACKSON SVCS-12/27 640.4710.5303 145.73
88669 01/15/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE JACKSON SVCS-12/27 612.4610.5303 97.15
88669 01/15/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE VELDHUIS SVCS-12/25 220.4303.5303 364.56
88669 01/15/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE VELDHUIS SVCS-1/1/99 220.4303.5303 364.56
88669 01/15/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE JACKSON SVCS-1/3 640.4710.5303 165.60
88669 01/15/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE JACKSON SVCS-1/3 612.4610.5303 110.40
88669 01/15/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE GOMEZ SVCS-12/27 220.4303.5303 364.56
88669 01/15/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE GOMEZ SVCS-1/3 220.4303.5303 364.56 1,977.12
88670 01/15/99 066300 PEARL PHINNEY PHINNEY SVCS-12/15 010.4130.5303 262.50 262.50
88671 01/15/99 100198 MATTHEW POLKOW FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00
88671 01/15/99 100198 MATTHEW POLKOW FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00
88672 01/15/99 100908 TOM PRELESNIK REF. WATER DEP-559 LE POINT 640.0000.2302 180.00 180.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 7
01/13/99 09:31 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 20
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
88673 01/15/99 068874 PAUL QUINLAN FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00
88673 01/15/99 068874 PAUL QUINLAN FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00
88674 01/15/99 100432 RADISSON HOTEL RESV-R.CHECANSKY 010.4201. 5501 267.00 267.00
88675 01/15/99 070668 RYAN RIPLEY FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00
88675 01/15/99 070668 RYAN RIPLEY FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00
88676 01/15/99 071292 LARRY D, RODKEY FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00
88676 01/15/99 071292 LARRY D. RODKEY FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010,4211.5145 30.00 60.00
88677 01/15/99 071838 CHARLES RUDA FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010,4211.5145 30.00
88677 01/15/99 071838 CHARLES RUDA FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00
88678 01/15/99 076740 SANTA MARIA TIMES CLASS AD-CLERK TYPIST-PW 010.4301. 5201 63.75
88678 01/15/99 076740 SANTA MARIA TIMES CLASS AD-OFFICE ASST I-RDA 284.4103,5201 87.40
88678 01/15/99 076740 SANTA MARIA TIMES CLASS AD-ASSOCIATE PLANNER 010.4130.5201 204,20
88678 01/15/99 076740 SANTA MARIA TIMES CLASS AD-ADMIN.SECY-CDD 010.4130.5201 102.10 457.45
88679 01/15/99 077766 JERRY SCHULTZ FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00
88679 01/15/99 077766 JERRY SCHULTZ FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00
88680 01/15/99 078156 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIB. GASOLINE 010.4201.5608 980.05 980.05
88681 01/15/99 079560 JEFF SILVA FIRE MlLEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00
88681 01/15/99 079560 JEFF SILVA FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00
88682 01/15/99 079638 JOE SILVA FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00
88682 01/15/99 079638 JOE SILVA FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010,4211.5145 30.00 60.00
88683 01/15/99 073660 SLOCO DATA, INC, MAILING LIST-RANCHO GRANDE 010.4421. 5504 50.00 50.00
88684 01/15/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY RUBBER STRAPS W/HOOKS 010.4305.5603 12.76 12.76
88685 01/15/99 080964 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICES 010.4145.5401 111.26
88685 01/15/99 080964 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICES 010.4145.5401 447.33
88685 01/15/99 080964 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICES 010.4145.5401 46.47
88685 01/15/99 080964 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICES 010.4145.5401 144.38
88685 01/15/99 080964 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICES 010,4145.5401 102.42
88685 01/15/99 080964 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICES 010.4145.5401 57.19 909.05
88686 01/15/99 082212 RANDY STEFFAN FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00
88686 01/15/99 082212 RANDY STEFFAN FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00
88687 01/15/99 082836 STREATOR PIPE & SUPPLY FITTINGS 640.4712.5610 115.10 115.10
88688 01/15/99 082992 GREGORY STUMPH FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00
88688 01/15/99 082992 GREGORY STUMPH FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00
88689 01/15/99 084084 TAYLOR'S TUNE-UP SHOP ADJ.CARBURATOR/CLEAN/SCOPE 010.4201.5601 65.06 65.06
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 8
01/13/99 09:31 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 20
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
88690 01/15/99 084630 JASON P. TENYENHUIS FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010,4211.5145 30.00
88690 01/15/99 084630 JASON p, TENYENHUIS FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00
j
88691 01/15/99 100371 TOSCO REFINING COMPANY REF.C/B DEPOSIT-TOSCO 010.0000.2206 250.00
88691 01/15/99 100371 TOSCO REFINING COMPANY BLDG.SUPER-TOSCO 010.0000,4355 103.50- 146.50
88692 01/15/99 085956 TREADWAY GRAPHICS DARE TEE 010.4201.5504 4.25 4.25
88693 01/15/99 086932 WINTON TULLIS FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00
88693 01/15/99 086932 WINTON TULLIS FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00 60.00
88694 01/15/99 087204 DIANE ULIBARRI REIMB,SIGN-CNTY CRAFT JAMBOREE 010.4424.5351 33.46 33.46
88695 01/15/99 088084 UNITED GREEN MARK,INC. SPRINKLER SUPPLIES 010.4430.5605 34.65
88695 01/15/99 088084 UNITED GREEN MARK, INC. RAINBIRDS 010.4420.5605 11. 33 45.98
88696 01/15/99 089114 JUSTIN VANDERLINDER FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00
88696 01/15/99 089114 JUSTIN VANDERLINDER FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010,4211. 5145 30.00 60.00
88697 01/15/99 089388 MARSHALL VAUGHAN FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00 30.00
88698 01/15/99 089600 VENTURA COMMUNITY COLLE REGIS-HENDRICKS-ALCO SENSOR 010,4201.5501 30.00 30.00
88699 01/15/99 091026 WEST PUBLISHING PAYMENT PENAL CODES 010.4201. 5255 168.92
88699 01/15/99 091026 WEST PUBLISHING PAYMENT CA CODE UPDATES 010.4003.5503 581. 73 750.65
88700 01/15/99 092274 STEVE WHITNEY FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00
88700 01/15/99 092274 STEVE WHITNEY FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00
88701 01/15/99 092586 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COM REPR.PED BUTTON-COURTLAND 010.4304.5303 241.50 241.50
88702 01/15/99 100183 SCOTT WHIZ FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00
88702 01/15/99 100183 SCOTT WHIZ FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00 60.00
88703 01/15/99 093480 KEVIN WYMAN FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00
88703 01/15/99 093480 KEVIN WYMAN FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00
TOTAL CHECKS 67,168.63
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 9
01/13/99 09:31 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 20
FUND TITLE AMOUNT
010 GENERAL FUND 51,861.63
220 STREETS FUND 3,576.33
225 TRANSPORTATION FUND 1,186.50
271 STATE COPS BLOCK GRANT FUND 1,594.81
284 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND 87.40
350 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 106.18
612 SEWER FUND 5,782.71
640 WATER FUND 2,973.07
TOTAL 67,168.63
-----
ATTACHMENT E
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION
PAY PERIOD 12/25/98 TO 1/07/99
1/15/99
FUND 010 218,289.95 Salaries Full time 115,726.17
FUND 220 9,351.01 Salaries Part-Time 27,609.17
FUND 284 - Salaries Over-Time 4,418,06
FUND 612 3,356.24 Holiday Pay 4,232.91
FUND 640 9,706.95 Sick Pay 2,234.41
240,704.15 Annual Leave Pay 2,383.00
Vacation Pay 8,873.20
Comp Pay 4,795.62
Annual Leave Pay 2,342.59
PERS Retirement 17,672.38
Social Security 13,396.52
PARS Retirement 197.91
State Disability Ins. 70.00
Health Insurance 18,577.04
Dental Insurance 3,672.11
Vision Insurance 667.61
Life Insurance 485.45
Long Term Disability -
Uniform Allowance 12,625.00
Car Allowance 350.00
Council Expense 375.00
Employee Assistance -
Boot Allowance -
Total: 240,704.15
.
.. - -~- - --.------
9.11.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM: LYNDA K. SNODGRASS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES ~
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF AUDITED ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORTS
DATE: JANUARY 26,1999
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors receive
and file the respective Audited Annual Financial Reports and the Management Letter for
the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1998,
FUNDING:
There is no fiscal impact from this action.
DISCUSSION:
The firm of Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP was hired to audit the City of Arroyo
Grande's/Redevelopment Agency's financial records for the fiscal year ended June 30,
1998. Audit services are retained for two reasons, First, to have an independent review of
internal control and secondly to ensure that the resulting financial reports fairly represent
the financial position of the City/Redevelopment Agency,
The auditors conducted testing of the internal control in early July 1998. The procedures
for receiving and disbursing cash, the accounting methodology used to record
transactions, the separation of duties to avert collusion, and asset security were reviewed.
As part of the auditing process, a Management Letter detailing areas of internal control
that need to be strengthened is issued at the conclusion of an audit. There were forty
Findings and Recommendations listed in the June 30, 1996 Financial Report that impacted
all areas of financial accounting, The auditors have been favorably impressed with the
progress the City has made in implementing those recommendations. The Management
Letter from Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co. issued this year listed five
findings/recommendations. Even though there are five remaining Audit Findings and
Recommendations, it should be recognized that much was accomplished with the removal
of thirty-five findings. The remaining findings/recommendations required foundation work
(Le. installation of a financial management system) before implementation could take
place, It is expected that implementation of the remaining findings/recommendations will
occur during the next twelve months,
In November of 1998 an audit was conducted on the 1997-98 financial transactions.
Documentation in support of the assets, liabilities and fund balance of all the funds in the
City was examined and verified. This process assures an impartial review and
ACCEPTANCE OF AUDITED ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORTS
Page 2
substantiation of the City's/Redevelopment Agency fund balances. The result of this review
is the attached Financial Reports.
Generally Accepted Accounting Principals (GAAP) require that the expenditures in the
Governmental Funds (General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, etc.) be compared with the
authorized budget. This comparison on Page 5 shows that total expenditures in the
General Fund and the Special Revenue Funds exceed budget by $113,494 and $142,885,
respectively. This unfavorable variance resulted from an accounting entry to record the
assets purchased with lease purchase financing. The City Council authorized the
purchase of assets through lease purchase financing, however, an appropriation of
$192,500 in the General Fund, and $172,100 in the Special Revenue Funds was not
recorded for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 assets. Therefore, when the assets were recorded
an unfavorable variance occurred.
Auditors may issue three different types of opinions at the conclusion of an audit, an
Unqualified, Qualified, or Adverse Opinion. In August 1998 the Governmental Accounting
Standards Board required that all entities receiving Unqualified Opinions have
implemented extensive year 2000 compliant programs. The City's auditing firm of
Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co. determined that Unqualified Opinions would not be issued to
any of its clients after the new requirement was implemented. This Auditor decision was
predicated on the uncertainty surrounding the year 2000 compliant issue. Despite the fact
that the Computer Technology Committee has been actively working to ensure that the
City is year 2000 compliant, the City of Arroyo Grande and the Redevelopment Agency
were issued Qualified Opinions, The opinion basically says that the auditing firm cannot
provide assurance that the City/RDA will be year 2000 compliant but except for this one
item the financial position of the City of Arroyo Grande and the Redevelopment Agency is
fairly presented,
~
. .
9.c.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12,1999
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING ,
Mayor Lady called the meeting to order at 6: 15 P.M. Mayor Pro Tern Ferrara, Council Members
Tolley, Runels, Dickens, City Manager Hunt 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 matters:
a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - existing litigation pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9(a):
i. Campbell v. City of Arroyo Grande: California Workers' Compensation
Appeals Board Case No. GRO 0017282
ii. Blanck v. City of Arroyo Grande. et al.: United States District Court.
Central District of California. Case No. 95-5118 DDP lRZX)
b. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - anticipated litigation, pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9(b) involving one (1) potential case
c. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EV ALUA TION pursuantto Government
Code Section 54957:
Title: City Manager
3. RECONVENE TO REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:34 P.M. to the regular City Council meeting.
4. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS:
There was no reportable action from the closed session.
MICHAEL A. LADY, Mayor
ATTEST:
NANCY A. DAVIS, City Clerk
j
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 1999
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
215 EAST BRANCH STREET,
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Honorable City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande met in regular session at
7:30 p.m.
Reportable Action taken at 6:15 p.m. Special Meeting: Mayor Lady said no
reportable actions were taken.
2. FLAG SALUTE
David Irwin, Arroyo Grande Rotary Club
3. INVOCATION
Reverend Wayne Lidbeck of Huasna Valley Community Church
4. ROLL CALL
C~uncil/Board: X. Lady X Ferrara X. Runels X Tolley X. Dickens
ST AFF PRESENT
X. City Manager
X. City Attorney
X. City Clerk
X. Chief of Police
X. Director of Building and Fire
_ Director of Community Development
X. Director of Public Works
_ Director of Parks and Recreation
X. Director of Financial Services
X. Senior Consulting Engineer
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A Culinary Award Plaque was presented by the Mayor to Donna Hunt, who has
provided cookies for the Council, staff, and the public at the Council Meetings for
three years.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 12, 1999
6. AGENDA REVIEW
None
6.A. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES READ IN TITLE ONLY
Council Member Runels moved, Council Member Ferrara seconded, ~nd 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.A. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
None
8. CITIZEN INPUT, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS:
None
9. CONSENT AGENDA
Council Member Runels moved and Council Member Tolley seconded the motion
to approve the following Consent Agenda Items 9.a. through 9.f., 9.j., and 9.k.,
with the recommended courses of action. Council Member Tolley said he would
not vote on 9.j., as he had a potential conflict of interest. City Attorney Carmel
read the title of Ordinance 500 C.S. in item 9.f. f
- Voice Vote
X- Roll Call Vote
A'JJ! Lady
~ Ferrara
~ Runels
A'JJ! Tolley (Abstain on 9.j.)
~ Dickens
There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, and one abstention on 9.j. only, the motion is
hereby declared to be passed.
a. Cash Flow Analysis/Approval of Interfund Advance from the Sewer Facility
B.IruI
b. Authorization to Solicit Bids - Replacement of Traffic Enforcement Radar
c. Cash Disbursement Ratification
d. Statement of Investment Deposits
e. Minutes of City Council Meetings of November 1 0 and 24 and December 3
and 8, 1998
2
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 12,1999
f. Adoption of Ordinance No. 500 C.S. Modifying the California Public
Employees' Retirement System (PERS) Contract - Ordinance No. 500 C.S~
j. Acceptance of Improvements for Tract 1834 Phase 3 - Resolution No. 3344
k. Annual Adjustment of Traffic Signalization Fee - Resolution No. 3345
Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara asked questions and made comments concerning
Consent Agenda Item 9.g., Award of Contract - Grand Avenue/East Branch Street
Corridor Study. He suggested changes in the timing of traffic counts for the
Corridor Study and the Project Study Report on Brisco Road/Route 101.
Council Member Runels asked when the traffic signals near the 5 Cities Center
would be working and Public Works Director Spagnolo said January 18 and 22,
1999.
Council Member Dickens asked for clarification on the Corridor Study funding
source; the difference between traffic forecasting and a corridor study, and
whether or not the work being done is compatible with the City's General Plan
and the traffic model.
It was moved by Council Member Dickens and seconded by Council Member
Tolley to approve Consent Agenda Item 9.g.; award the Grand Avenue/East
Branch Street Corridor Study contract to Higgins Associates, and direct the City
Clerk to forward the City's standard consultant services agreement to the
consultant for execution.
.
Council Member Dickens and Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara spoke about Consent
Agenda Item 9.h. Approval of Employment Agreement (for the City Manager).
They said they were not qualified to evaluate the performance of the City Manager
during the past year because they were not on the City Council. Council Member
Dickens said the Employment Agreement has now been amended to say the
performance evaluation shall occur no later than the end of October of each year.
Council Members Tolley and Runels and Mayor Lady said they w~re extremely
proud and fortunate to have Mr. Hunt as the City Manager.
Council Member Tolley moved and Council Member Runels seconded the motion
to approve Consent Agenda Item 9.h. Approval of Employment Agreement.
Voice Vote
X Roll Call Vote
Aye Lady
Abstain Ferrara
Aye Runels
3
_ "'_~_' '___'__"m~'....__...._
,
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 12, 1999
Aye Tolley
Abstain Dickens
There being 3 A YES and 2 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed.
Council Member Dickens said he had concerns about Consent Agenda Item 9.i.
Change in Position title from City Clerk (Staff) to Director of Administrative
Services. He said he wanted the public to understand what the Council was
doing. He asked what the elected City Clerk would be responsible for.
The City Manager said primary examples of duties include canvassing the votes,
protecting the City Seal, and updating the City Code. He said other duties fall
under the staff position.
Council Member Dickens asked if the title change were to be denied, the Council
could use a recruitment process to employ a new City Clerk?
The City Manager said yes, but a modification of the Municipal Code would be
necessary.
Council Member Dickens said he appreciated the benefits of the proposal but he
feared the public could misunderstand. He said the voters were recently asked if
. they wanted the position to be appointed and they voted no. He said he thought
the voters wanted to keep the job duties in tact.
Council Members Tolley and Runels, Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara, and Mayor Lady
agreed with the staff recommendations.
Council Member Tolley moved and Council Member Runels seconded the motion
to approve staff recommendation, as follows:
. Adopt Resolution No. 3346 approving a change in name from City
Clerk (staff) to Director of Administrative Services;
. Authorize staff.to initiate recruitment for the aforementioned Director
of Administrative Services position;
. Assuming an April 1999 hire date, authorize an overlap between the
current City Clerk (staff) and the new Director of Administrative
Services through April 30, 1999 for purposes of orientation and
training.
Voice Vote
X Roll Call Vote
Aye Lady
4
-_.'-"--'--~ .....~-~ .-
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 12, 1999
Aye Ferrara
Aye Runels
Aye Tolley
No Dickens
There being 4 A YES and 1 NO, the motion is hereby declared to be passed.
1 O. A. REVISION TO THE FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
Staff comments and recommendation: Staff recommended Council conduct the
first reading of the Ordinance. Public Works Director Spagnolo said the
proposed Ordinance requires floor elevations in new structures to be constructed
one-foot above the flood plain elevation as opposed to equal or above the
floodplain elevation in the current Ordinance. He said the proposed Ordinance
will bring the City's standards into current compliance with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Council questions of staff: Council Members asked for explanation of one-foot
requirement and if the new Ordinance follows FEMA's model.
Council discussion: Council Member Runels said some remodels could require
15 feet of fill. He said the entire Arroyo Grande valley is in a floodplain. He asked
about insurance rates and the Public Works Director said rates would be reduced
according to what flood zone a resident was in.
Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara moved and Council member Runels seconded the motion
to introduce the revised Floodplain Management Ordinance for first reading.
X Voice Vote
Roll Call Vote
Aye Lady
Aye Ferrara
Aye Runels
Aye Tolley
Aye Dickens
There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed.
11.A. WATER MASTER PLAN
Staff recommended Council authorize the distribution of a Draft Water Master
Plan and return in 45 days with a summary of public comments, make
modifications, and approve the Water Master Plan.
5
-
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 12, 1999
Council questions of staff: Questions were asked about "unaccountable water,"
the "Gentlemen's Agreement," and agricultural diversion.
Council discussion: Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara and Council Member Dickens asked
that references on Pages 1..1 and 1-2 concerning annexation, agricultural
conversion, and water rights be modified. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara referred to the
last paragraph of Page 5-3 and asked that the statement that recycled water is not
cost-effective be modified. Council Member Runels said reclaimed water is
expensive. He said Residential Rural and Residential Hillside lots use a lot of
water and the numbers need to be noted. He referred to Page 4-1 showing 10-
year water usage and said it should be known that Lopez Dam had enough water,
after a seven-year drought, to supply all the water that was needed and that was
before the supplementation of State water into the project.
Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara moved and Council Member Dickens seconded the
motion to approve staff recommendations as modified.
Voice Vote
X Roll Call Vote
X Lady
X Ferrara
X Runels
X Tolley
X Dickens
There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed.
12. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
a. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara said he had a positive meeting with some local small
business owners and planned to have more meetings in the future.
b. Council Member Tolley said he and Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara met with Pismo
Beach Council Members at a League of California Cities Conference and a joint
meeting was discussed. There was Council consensus to direct staff to set up
such a meeting.
c. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara passed out copies of City Resolution No. 2133 and
Ordinance No. 355 C.S. Concerning Royal Oaks Estates and restrictions placed
on Lot 182. He said a concerned citizen asked that the documents be distributed
in connection with the Rodeo Heights Project.
6
. -,
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 12, 1999
d. Council Member Runels said a kickoff luncheon was held for Mayors of the
South County Cities to hear about the Zone 3 retrofit of Lopez Dam to make it
seismically safe.
e. Mayor Lady brought up the matter of Council/Staff and Commission/Staff
Leadership workshops. There was Council consensus to direct Staff to check
dates and options with Council Members for the Council/Staff workshop.
13. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
None
14. ADJOURNMENT
Council Member Runels moved, Council Member Dickens seconded, and the
motion passed unanimously to adjourn the meeting.
Time: 8:42 p.m.
MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR
NANCY A. DAVIS, CITY CLERK
-7
9.cL
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAG~
SUBJECT: COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS TO VARIOUS BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS
DATE: JANUARY 26,1999
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council approve the appointments to various Boards and
Commissions pursuant to the attached lists.
FUNDING:
This is no fiscal impact.
DISCUSSION:
On January 14, 1997, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 481 C.S. amending the
composition of applicable Commissions and Boards from seven to five members and
adopted Resolution No. 3192 establishing Council policy as it relates to the appointment
procedure to various Commissions and Boards.
Council Members have solicited applicants to serve on the various Commissions and
Boards. The recommended appointments of each respective Council Member are
attached. Although not required under the Ordinance or the resolution, the applicants
have submitted Reservoir of Citizens to Serve forms.
Staff will notify all applicants of their appointment and provide relevant information
regarding their respective Board or Commission.
jv
MAYOR LADY
RECOM MENDED APPOINTMENTS
+- PLANNING COMMISSION Nancl Parker
+- TRAFFIC COMMISSION Kirk Scott
+- SENIOR ADVISORY
COMMISSION Marilynn Fairbanks
+- DOWNTOWN PARKING
ADVISORY BOARD - Pending -
+- PARKS AND RECREATION
COM MISSION Leslie Brown
+- ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COM MITTEE Chet Klelan
c:\ooundlappg.canm.
_._----_..."_....._-_.,_.,'~
",
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
RESERVOIR OF CrnZENS TO SERVE
./' Planning Commission ~
- Parks and Recreation Commission Years Uved in Arroyo Grande
Traffic Commission Registered Voter of Arroyo Gra~
_ Senior Advisory Commission Yes_ No_
_ Special Committees O.e. Teen Advisory, Architectural Advisory, etc.)
NAME t\\ Po ~~\. ":\) A(Z.Ke.~ "
HOME ADDRESS \."2. 01.. E. C. \-\ E ~~'( f\\)6 PHONE 4-7 ~ . ~:>'3.3
PRESENT PRESENT
EMPLOYER POSITION
OFFICE BUSINESS
ADDRESS TELEPHONE
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
High School (r)f.Jc.oRu j c..A. College ~ '" P\-S~oc. . S('~\ 6 \.1c..6
. "
ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION \c.u) ~lC.u J ~C.L'5>
c va.. ~ E.M"" t. '-{ EN~O\.LC~ ~L8c!.~ '51"r-tl't V 1>.)\ \)€ a..s. 1,,"1.1 ~f.A.LT" .5 ~"E..s "
,
"'\~\S \fl.Y\ 11 0 N
~I=' p,- CDOa~\~~~ C.Af2 t"),\ f\~ PUL YV\o~ An. ~ {2.. G t\-~ L I \'1\-\\ n.J
COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS
rII\... \ w\"li2E~T<:; L( E It--.> ~{:;" P L t:+N W \ t-) G- o~ c;... (C Ow T\-\- "'" C€\fE LOP Mf ~T
\
\~ ?~~-S ~R~\rJ(_ ouR \ ~ YV'\ A-LL mu)N c. ~ It c"U:fi<.. .....) \-4\l"G
C I\-{ 5
? eoW\ D" tJ (;..- PL ~~N t:b R ~'hP()",~\gl.b 6-1'C.ow~
.
The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References:
NAME ADDRESS
1. aT\. So. PA6-~ ~oCo M'{(.2.,TLt=
2. ::] lH... \ b Ln~~oN :t~7 Lf.:\ Clt.~ G-rA
3. FA- I\'" \-\ wF~cO~ '2.0~ E . c..~E'R~~
ARE YOU WilLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION MEETING TIMES SHOWN BELOW:
I
Yes~ ..t
Planning Commission, First and Third Tuesday of each month. 7:30 p,m. No_
Parks and Recreation Commission, Third Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m.; Yes_ No~
Traffic Commission, Monday Previous to Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes_ No_
Senior Advisory Commission, First Wednesday of each month. 7:00 p.m. Yes_ No_
Special Committee O.e. Teen Advisory, Architectural Advisory, etc.), Various
meeting times and dates Yes_ No_
Slgr'jature ~~~. ~~ Date~~ /.5'" /998--
, The Arroyo Grande City Council requests information about your interest, (and education. if applicable) in serving on a commission,
specifically your comments and views relative to the role and responsibilities of the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation"
Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Commission or a Special Committee. Please note such information on the reverse
side of this form. Thank you for your i~erest.
THIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD
IF APPOINTED. COMPLETION OF A STATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM IS REQUIRED (01!2:W7)
..
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
RESERVOIR OF cmZENS TO SERVE
. . . RFCFiVED
___ Planning Commission " ~v DC" ~[tRoyn ~r~' T'',:" -?
~Parks and Recreation Commissio~ I I I i-.\ \ ~ 1.::.\..1 d-'.... Years Uved in Arroyo Grande ,<.
-L. TraffIC Co~ission. G~) J~!! r:> ') r ~; q: C; I Registered Voter of Arroyo Grande
_ Senior AdvISory COmmISSion )(j L':.-. L. o.J ,.:.1 J '" I YesX No_
_ Special Committees (Le. Teen Advisory, Architecturai Advisory, etc.)
NAME R'llfl( S-corr
HOME ADDRESS S-rl C> V/11 VA C)VEIt 0 A. C. PHONE.. //t? /- ~~.?.s-
PRESENT ~ PRESENT
EMPLOYER c'TI If,f /J POSITION
OFFICE BUSINESS
ADDRESS TELEPHONE
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
HighSchooIFIJIR/J~vJIIT /11(11- /)IJ YTDU 01110 CollegeBA.-OII/o JTIJ1C ttAJllI€IfSJ7 Y
ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION
L.(C~Jc/J ~64L eS7A'Tcg~o~U-5r~7E Or C~LI,c.
COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS
The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References:
NAME ADDRESS
1. !)EL 4fl1llE)I /99 1/11/ 3//,v~(JL.!"A'o /J.b.
2. 'nAlY r-rCtftf/J,(/} 7~lJ VIii SlJvf)dLE,<r; A.(;.
3. ~/1 7"'"/lLSQr /t)/S" ;'IJ~,,/J()V J,//J Y II. C.
ARE YOU WILLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION MEETING TIMES SHOWN BELOW:
Planning Commission, Rrst and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.rn. Yes_ No_
Parks and Recreation Commission, Third Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. ~ Yes V No_
Traffic Commission, Monday Previous to Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes_ No_
Senior Advisory Commission, Rrst Wednesday of each month, 7:00 p.rn. Yes_ No_
Speciai Committee O.e. Teen Advisory. Architectural ~dvIsory, etc.), Various
meeting times and dates Yes_ No_
~- y, "M Date pj!9?
The Arroyo Grande City Council requests information about your interest, (and education. if applicable) in ~1Ving on a commission,
specifically your comments and views relative to the role and responsibilities of the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation
Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Commission or a Special Committee. Please note such information on the reverse
side of this form. Thank you .for your interest.
THIS FORM IS A MATIER OF PUBLIC RECORD
IF APPOINTED. COMPLETION OF A STATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM IS REQUIRED (011ZW7)
, 4" CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE .
RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS TO SERVE
Planning Commission RECEIVED
- Parks and Recreation Commission CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Years Lived in Arroyo Grande 7 ~.
_ Traffic Commission Registered Voter of Arroyo Grande
~ Senior Advisory Commission 97 FEB 21 PH~: 44 Yes~ No_
_ Special Committees (Le. Teen Advisory, Architectural Advisory, ete.)
NAME M~~~ ~~~) .
HOME ADDRESS. <i?'( ~ /-(}~-1 . . PHONE t/r/-- ZJ-%--t
PRESENT JG:;t-~ PRESENT .-
EMPLOYER ---- . POSITION
OFFICE BUSINESS
ADDRESS TELEPHONE
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND ..
H~gh School e.;-6f..L';::'-1 ~ 'U-.,~ ~ College - ."_~__~~ ___
ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION
COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS ~A'l~a.tj ~ II-~. ~~ .
a ~ ~ ~ -.. (~~.'f~. --,M)
s~- . ~~
B~t-~J,i~p' d?L- [;i~ - rr~~ ~
The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References: .
NAME ADDRESS
~. ~ IKJ1 rJJ~.r !i4. -'- 4. w'q~
~. - ~~ g07:7~ tt$
3. B/~ ~ .~r ~ . - t(., .,
ARE YOU WIlLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION MEETING TIMES SHOWN aa.ow: .. -
Planning Commission, First and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes_ No_
Parks and Recreation Commission, Third Wednesday of each month, 6;00 p.rn. Yes_ No_
Traffic Commission, Monday Previous to Third Tuesday of each month~ 7:30 p.rn. Yes No
Senior Advisory Commission, First Wednesday ot each month, 7:00 p:m. Yes.-+ No_
Special Committee (Le. Teen Advisory, Architectural Advisory, etc.), Various .
meeting times and.dates Yes_ No_
Slgnatu.. '>>1~ ~~ Dme ~~tf-97 .
The Arroyo Grande City Council requests information about your interest, (and education, if applicable) in serving on a commission,
specifically your comments and views relative to the role and responsibirtties ot the Planning CommiSsion, Parks and Recreation
Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Commission or a Special Committee.. Please note such inforrnaDon an ttre reverse
side of this form. Thank you for yo.ur interest.
. THIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD
IF AP~OINTED. COMPLETtON OF A ~ATE CONFUCT OF INTEREST FORM IS REQUIRED
_.~-~.--
-- _.~---,._-
" CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS TO SERVE
-"~--~ -- .--- --- ~llgDI4q~
. A~Einmlsslon Driver's License No. ~~
~F ARROYO GRA~iDE Years Lived In Arroyo Grande 2.
. -Parks and Recreation Commission
96 JU<<.~nc ~;sMfn Registered Voter of Arroyo Grande
_ Senior Advisory Commission Yes~ No_
----:- Special' Committee (I.e. Teen Advisory, Architectural Advisory, etc.)
Mr.: Mrs.: Miss W\s. I .€9it. D(OL0~
(Please circle one) LJ DO ~ fA ~ PHONE LJ &'1- Cf1" D
HOME ADDRESS 0 0 \J't...
MARITAL STATUS Mttrrftcl NUMBER OF CHILDREN L
PRESENT -E' ait-. J d<< t.!tj Ii . ( PRESENT LMo<< rYltlA'tu 'P1\)1~ C()()(d,.
EMPLOYER (I)) 11\.5 ~ POSITION
OFFICE BUSINESS
ADDRESS~~ -S. rAJIAMA.. ~t. TELEPHONE 1&' - 1..7. DO
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
High School kJDDtiS)tit. ~^- 0tN:o 1 collegef:>>A .~oclolCZf4 - ut..s~ ~
ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION (l t:f-=1T )
M5. r t.lb"4-c. AdmtlYU sty"a:tf M.. - Vrli~l~ {)'/~~ I~r~
Are you aware that you may be required to fill out a CONFLICT OF INTEREST Form. Yes.K.. No_
EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE (If Applicable}
rv J'A L'")
I
Do you represent any special groupl Yes_ NoK If so, please give name of group.
COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS'
If.ttclM".s~ p ~~ W.s Dbi.:sP!~if1' S'
..'S lU\ u,u"".s ObI lJ.Jet/lJ 'j
The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References:
.HAME ADDRESS
~~:~~~ I//Ill ~,'"- ~/U"/)
~fl;.l B-f
WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION MEETING NIGHTS SHOWN BELOW:
Planning Commission,. First and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Y85_ No~
Parks and Recreation Commission, Third Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. YesX- No_
Traffic Commission, Monday Previous Third Tuesday of each month. 7:00 p.m. Yes_ No2S:-
Senior Advisory Commission, First Wednesday of each month, 7:00 p.m. Yes - No~
Special Committee (I.e. Teen Advisory, Architectural Advisory, etc.t Various
mee"~ .... da'es Ye. _ HeX
SIGNATURE ~. bY7Ylh'-- - DATE--.io..)C;:rlq(P
The Arroyo Gr. City Council needs some information about yoc.r interests, (and education, If applicable)
in serving on a Commission, specifically yo... comments and views relative to the role and responsibilities
of the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Com-
mission or a Special Committee. Please note such Information on the reverse side of this form. Thank you
for your Interest.
THIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD
~~_..._"----,.- -~---~
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
RESERVOIR OF CmZENS TO SERVE
_ Planning Commission F;ECEI'/EO
- Parks and Recreation Commission CiT\! OF J\RRO'{O GRA.:!OE Years Uved in Arroyo Grande 12
Traffic Commission Registered Voter of Arroyo Grande
- ., . . C'" 111' ro,,. r~1 '1. "-7
_ Senior AdvISory CommISSIon J 0 '"' '.' ~ .) U r 1- '-''; I Yesx..- No_
....!- Special Committees O.e. Teen Advisory, Architectural Advisory, etc.)
NAME Chet Kielan
HOME ADDRESS 174 Pin~ st. Arroyo Grande,CA . PHONE 805-481-5013
PRESENT PRESENT
EMPLOYER Self POSITION. Architect/Principal.
OFFICE BUSINESS
ADDRESS Same as above TELEPHONE ~nmA n~ nhOVA
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND Lawrence Institute of
Technologr Detroit Mi.
High School Hazel- Park High School CollegeKenyon Co lege, Gami>ier
Hazelgark Mi. Ohio. Univ.Of Mich.Ann
ADDITIONAL EDUCATI NAL INFORMATION :a,rbor Mi. Calif.State
Bachelor of Arts/Architecture t}ni V! , F~~s.no , Calif.
Bachelor of $cience/Engineerin9, Graduate studies in Art and
Design
COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS
Rotary Club of Arroyo Grande, YMCA Advisory Board, Architectural
Advisory BOnrd for r.l nrk ThAnt-F'!r fnr t-hA PArfnrmi ng ~rt-~ Fr~. &
Acc~ptAd Mn~on~ Of r.nlif ,~hrinAr~ nf r.nlif . ~mArir";:In Tn~tit-nt...
.of Architects., RAMS (Retired Active Men.
The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References:
NAME ADDRESS
1.
2.
3. None at this time
ARE YOU WILLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION MEETING TIMES SHOWN BELOW:
Planning Commission, First and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 P.rn. Yes_ No_
Parks and Recreation Commission, Third Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes_ No_
Traffic Commission, Monday Previous to Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes_ No_
Senior Advisory Commission, First Wednesday of each month, 7:00 p.rn. Yes_ No_
Special Committee (i.e. Teen Advisory, Architectural Advisory, etc.)"Various Yes~
meeting times an es No_
Signature ,. Date July 29,1998
The Arroyo Grande C' Council requests information about your interest, (and education, if applicable) in serving on a commission,
specifically your comments and views relative to the role and responsibilities of the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation
Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Commission or a Special Committee. Please note such information on the reverse
side of this form. Thank you for your interest.
THIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD
IF APPOINTED. COMPLETION OF A STATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM IS REQUIRED (01123'97)
MAYOR PRO TEM FERRARA
RECOM MENDED APPOINTMENTS
. PLANNING COMMISSION Joseph M. Costello
. TRAFFIC COMMISSION Gary L. Borda
. SENIOR ADVISORY
COM MISSION Jeannette Tripodi
. DOWNTOWN PARKING
ADVISORY BOARD John Gutierrez
. PARKS AND RECREATION
COMMISSION Philip V. Lozano
. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMITTEE B. David Sachson
o:\oouncllappttl.comll'l.
,-----------...-
. .
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS TO SERVE
,)<i. Planning Commission
- Parks and Recreation Commission ?
Traffic Commission Years Lived in Arroyo Grande
_ Senior Advisory Commission Registered Voter of Arroyo Grande
_ Special Committees (Architectural Review, etc,) Yes~ No_
NAME 00s <:.f h f'A.. CD~Jlo
HOME ADDRESS {DfjB 2:>6,"" C, ~<;.-{c::..- PHONE 1f-7 J-.2 ~v. J
PRESENT PRESENT
EMPLOYER S7JI7T OF CA. Cr,v. O-P;a.. e>f E;,., SuoJftr'-5 POSITION Ct"V"7 A-oA'N'S"f"/ftP770~
OFFICE BUSINESS
ADDRESS PD f3D,Io fia.,3 ,u,..,p J-trJ 6.;,~ OIJI.rjO.; S'(...{} TELEPHONE 6"~ 'i. 3 ~$" 3
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
1'-11 II I'J II
High School Sr. Mo "', C4s /<;J.<i-_j.~ College tJtVlf/. 0;:- S...... ~~c,s.c.-O, ':gA /9')2-
ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION
COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS
V, [oJ /0 rn-Il. hcw"i?J/l.. _ () Ct:.""N tI ( o.J & It;.y.,e>t ~'J
-
The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References:
NAME ADDRESS
1,13 rJ'rD O'LA<J &~f.,11o.....J 70,tt G.r.t. ,.J .., A.. 6-.
2, 101'" '"'1\0 I'" P .sON 100 ~q,,.J Grc-/~ A. (1.,.
3. -120 /c f;.--r" r ::r 6 h A.I S Tl).\) t.",-/() U 8-r-k PL ;.... 6- '
ARE YOU WILLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION/COMMITTEE MEETING TIMES SHOWN BELOW:
Planning Commission, First and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p,m. Yes ../ No -
Parks and Recreation Commission, Second Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes - No -
Traffic Commission, Monday Previous to Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes - No -
Senior Advisory Commission, First Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes - No -
Special Committee (i.e. Architectural Review Committee, etc.), Various meeting
times and da s Yes - No -
~,~ Date I;LIJI /1 t
c ,
The rroyo rande City Council requests information about your interest (and education, if applicable), in serving on
a co . ion or committee, specifically your comments and views relative to the role and responsibilities of the
Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Commission, or a
Special Committee. Please note such information on the reverse side of this form, Thank you for your interest.
THIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD
IF APPOINTED. COMPLETION OF A STATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM IS REQUIRED (11/02198)
..
-
~ '"
..
--
___u _~." C I T Y ARROYO
o F 9RANDE
RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS TO SERVE ~-"------'----"--
~Parks and Recreation Commission Driver's Li~ense No. ;JJ Df"L/ift. 90
\ _Planning Commission Years Lived in Arroyo -Grande. :J-.,fJ ~.
~parking and Traffic Commission Registered Voter of Arroyo Grande
YESk NO ----
_Special Committee ITHIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD. I
~i Mrs. i Miss &Pt~'f t. ,.1bte.6A
(Please circle one) , RESIDENC~
HOME ADDRESS JI..r-.p t..J 11-I-D w Lv . A /f./l. 0 frO ~AI~.e PJI>NE 'r/1.9'- 7?J-,/
;' .
MARITAL STA'lUS /'7 NUMBER OF CHILDREN d-
PRESENT A Co. PRESENT A (;$";"-
EMPLOYER J-L.. f .., A '7 &: ;1",.;.(" POSITION ...rk , A cC.O,,"'/ r
.
OFFICE hJ. f? (lj-;. 11/ CJJ . BUS INESS tTrI/-tj t j I
ADDRESS I....r ...rb /::J. (;. TELEPJI>NE
/
EDUCATIONAL Bigh School AU(I Yr' GApW~~ G,!. 4 Lv Jt~,,/".GlfrJ 71,., ,r.t Q
BACKGROUND College
. r. ;' /
ADDITIONAL &IZAj) I..I.R 'iff"IJ ~/.. .LJ5/j...E /14/ ;/ ~ .1/14/.# od....t
ED. 'L. INFO Ah 71-1 f....r. 4.E~~~
I
Are you aware that you may be required to fill out a YES V:o
CONFLICT OF INTEREST Form. -
EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE (If Applicable)
NO V - If so, please give name of grou~.
Do you represent any special .groupT YES_
COHKJNI'lY AND CIVIC INTERESTS
'l11e City Council would like to have the Name of three Arroyo Grande References:
JWm ADDRESS
1. "1/;;~If"'j )./A~~C~ /,J:>.. f. trRArJCH I A~il()vn tfl'Z.Aw"~
2. (l.d..../ ~ I) A Y t:",r H I ..p...r') W 1L..J-rII..v LJV . (. I ,
3. 'it11P:: ~ "'&:f"'rJ~~ ... l.,t~ i'tM~~ I. I,.
W01J E WI ING ERVE ON THE COMMISSION TI BELOW:
PAlUCS & RECREATION CO!tfISSION MEETINGS, 2nd Wed. of Ea. Month YES - NO -
PlANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS, 1st 7 3rd Tues. of Ea. Month YES ~ NO _
PARKING & TRAFFIC COMHISS ION HEEnNGS, Monthly Meetings YES NO -
SPECIAL COHHITTEE, Various YES NO -
DATE ) -,r>dJ9 SIGNA'lURE. ~ ~il -
The Arroyo Grande Council needs some information about your interests, (and education, if
applicable) in serving on a Commis~ion, specifically your comments and views relative. to
the role and responsibilities of the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Coauds810D,
the Parking and Traffic Commission or a Special Committee. Please note such Infor.atlon on
the reverse Bide of tbis form.
-- ---~--_._-_.,,-_.~
-- ----
~ \...- .
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS TO SERVE
_ Planning Commission
Parks and Recreation Commission
Traffic Commission Years Lived in Arroyo Grande
~ Senior Advisory Commission Registered Voter of Arroyo Grande
_ Special Committees (Architectural Review, etc.) Yes - No -
NAME J -e" ,., n ~ ::1+ ~ T p ;.p () d ;
HOME ADDRESS 51.( E, CA..ev-f'Y PHONE ~~Cf-~7' (
PRESENT ~\r- rCeL PRESENT
EMPLOYER POSITION
OFFICE BUSINESS
ADDRESS ~ TELEPHONE
---
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
High School ..3~ " 4- ~ 'I JI\. e 2- ~o. II e r College U. c.. Sa f\ f rot '" e../S'c-<> " Il rs ,,) J
ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION
COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS
PC(f F> II\. ~IJ.. i er fe~t
J... '^-C.., a. f'ft C{ ar ~c hDCJ ( -...J 0 'I..( f\. --I~ e f/'
C \"'l)\f ~\'" f!..eac" V't'!l-r--eA..fl"Y\ - ejC -€ C c.. c;. t""
The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References:
NAME ADDRESS
1, ~c.(\ -+ T ~ "T;IY\ g '1"'0 W 1""\ AI l--e V'
2. '\)1 5'+ Y"A.', t ka a t\-A.... 4 V\- "'f
3.~ -r:l tl; ~ ~(;(rd~n ~
ARE YOU WILLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION/COMMITTEE MEETING TIMES SHOWN BELOW:
Planning Commission, First and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes - No -
Parks and Recreation Commission, Second Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes - No -
Traffic Commission, Monday Previous to Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes No
- -
Senior Advisory Commission, First Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes+- No_
Special Committee (Le. Architectural Review Committee, etc.), Various meeting
times and dates Yes No
Signature ~A1""""~~ ~~ . Date I ~ 7 - 11 -
The Arroyo ~de City Council requests information about your interest (and education, if applicable), in serving on
a commission or committee, specifically your comments and views relative to the role and responsibilities of the
Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Commission, or a
Special Committee. Please note such information on the reverse side of this form. Thank you for your interest.
THIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD
IF APPOINTED. COMPLETION OF A STATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM IS REQUIRED (11/02/98)
_._.m____~__.__,.
.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS TO SERVE
_ Planning Commission
Parks and Recreation Commission -.tL
= Traf!ic Co~mission .. Years Lived in Arroyo Grande
- Semor AdvIsory Commission p. ~ Registered Voter of Arroyo Grande
-X- special;r:.mittees (Architectural Review, etc.) DrJ-n. ~ Yes ----.2S.... No_
NAME :J 0 t-h0 E( u T L 8~'"l..f=t
HOME ADDRESS L-{f{2- ?R-l0Tt~ ~, PHONE
PRESENT ~ ST "\)c-U PRESENT ~EfC
EMPLOYER ~l+ POSITION
OFFICE ~l C, D~Ci4- ~I' BUSINESS 8: q tJ...
ADDRESS TELEPHONE -=v/ ~~ q
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
High School \..-0 i 0 LA- ~lA-- ~ College ~AKJ ~~ ~ L.tN\J,
ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION
~ .--
t:D~
COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS
~~L ~, /~~ ~ ~,
,
The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References:
NAME ADDRESS
1, ~~ 9, } ~L- Atbl
-
2,~"'T) ~\A~ V \'v4- LA- ~~_~
3. _lj(2fIT) lli t- L--- t~, ~Lfu-)3) cJ-1
.
ARE YOU WILLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION/COMMITTEE MEETING TIMES SHOWN BELOW:
Planning Commission, First and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes - No -
Parks and Recreation Commission, Second Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes No
~-
Traffic Commission, Monday Previous to Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Ye No
Senior Advisory Commission, F t Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes_ No_
Special Committee (Le. Archit ct ral Review Committee, etc.), Various meeting
times s
Signatur
The Arroyo G a (je City Council request ormation about your interest (and e tion, if applicable), in serving on
a commission or committee, specifically your comments and views relative to the role and responsibilities of the
Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Commission, or a
Special Committee. Please note such information on the reverse side of this form, Thank you for your interest.
THIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD
IF APPOINTED. COMPLETION OF A STATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM IS REQUIRED (11/02/98)
~"~- .,
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS TO SERVE
Planning Commission
=sL Parks and Recreation Commission ~
_ Traf!ic Co~mission ,. Years Lived in Arroyo Grande ~
_ Semor AdvIsory Commission Registered Voter of Arroyo Grande
_ Special C . e:s A~chitectural Revi w, Yes ~ No_
NAME
HONE 47~ - 0<.- / / .7
PRESENT E~E~.' ~~
EMPLOYER OSITI
OFFICE USINES
ADDRES~ TELEPHONE - /
EDUCAT~CKGROUN~
HighScho __~4JI/r:;( /. #-
ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION
The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References:
NAME
1.
ARE YOU WILLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION/COMMITTEE MEETING TIMES SHOWN BELOW:
Planning Commission, First and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p,m. Yes _ No_
Parks and Recreation Commission, Second Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes ~ No_
Traffic Commission, Monday Previous to Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes _ No_
Senior Advisory Commission, First Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes _ No_
Special Committee (i.e. Architectural Review C mittee, etc.), Various meeting
times and dat Yes _ No_
Date /-/~-~"
r r
The Arroyo Grande City C unci! requests' ation about your interest (and education, if applicable), in serving on
a commission or committee, specifically ou omments and views relative to the role and responsibilities of the
Planning Commission, Parks and Recre . n Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Commission, or a
Special Committee. Please note such information on the reverse side of this form. Thank you for your interest.
THIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD
IF APPOINTED. COMPLETION OF A STATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM IS REQUIRED (11/02198)
, .
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS TO SERVE
_ Planning Commission RECEIVED
_ Parks and Recreation Commission CITY OF' ARROYO GR~DE: . I
_ Traffio,!Commission ears Lived in Arroyo Grande 1 ,1 2
_ Senior Advisory Commission 99 JAN 1 1 AH 10: ~gistered Voter of Arroyo Grande
~ Special Committees (Architectural Review, etc.) Yes --LX.... No_
NAME B . DAVID SACHSON
HOME ADDRESS 391 CHAPARRAL LANE PHONE 481 4309
PRESENT PRESENT
EMPLOYER ARCHITECT RETIRED POSITION
OFFICE BUSINESS
ADDRESS TELEPHONE
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
High School STUYVESANT H.S College. U . OF PENNSYLVANIA
ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION
U. OF PERUGA, ITALY
U. OF ROME, ITALY
COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References:
NAME ADDRESS
1. (JERRY TUFTE 542 Avenida deDiarnonte
2, lURK SCOTT Arrovo Grande
3. JIM WEBSTER 207 Rodeo Dr.
ARE YOU WILLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION/COMMITTEE MEETING TIMES SHOWN BELOW:
Planning Commission, First and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m, Yes XX No -
Parks and Recreation Commission, Second Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes No
Traffic Commission, Monday Previous to Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes XX No -
Senior Advisory Commission First Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes - No -
Special COl)1mittee (i. r i ctural Review Committee, etc.), Various meeting
times and dat / (;S-ZL No_
Signature Date
I 11 1
, I
The Arroyo Grande City Council requests information about your interest (and education, if applicable), in serving on
a commission or committee, specifically your comments and views relative to the role and responsibilities of the
Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Commission, or a
Special Committee. Please note such information on the reverse side of this form. Thank you for your interest.
THIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD
IF APPOINTED. COMPLETION OF A STATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM IS REQUIRED (11/02/98)
As a retired architect, I have a trained sense of design and
and construction, as well as code standards. I have made
numerous presentatio~s to Design Review Boards, Planning
Commissions and City Councils. T have worked with various
.!. City and State Departments of Fire Prevention, Building &
Safety, Disabled Access, Traffic et ale
My training and experience will allow me to see and under-
stand many items that the average person will not.
I have no business interests in Arroyo Grande, I have little
history in the City, so I believe all of my observations
and/or comments would be based solely on the Prcject.
I do believe, however, that unrestricted growth would be a
disaster fot this city, and all growth should be carefully
considered and evaluated before approval.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS TO SERVE
_ Planning Commission RECEIVED'
_ Parks and Re~reation Commission CITY Of ARROYO GR~DE . . .
_ TraffiQ,Commlssion ears Lived in Arroyo Grande 1 1/2
_ Senior Advisory Commission 99 JAN 1 1 AM 10: ~gistered Voter of Arroyo Grande
-*20 Special Committees (Architectural Review, etc,) Yes --LL No_
NAME B . DAVID SACHSON
HOME ADDRESS 391 CHAPARRAL LANE PHONE 481 4309
PRESENT PRESENT
EMPLOYER ARCHITECT RETIRED POSITION
OFFICE BUSINESS
ADDRESS TELEPHONE
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
High School STUYVESANT,H.S CollegeU. OF PENNSYLVANIA
ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION
U. OF PERUGA, ITALY
U. OF ROME, ITALY
COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References:
NAME ADDRESS
1. (JERRY TUFT[' 542 Avenida deDiamonte
--
2. KIRK SCOTT Arrovo Grande
3. JIM WEBSTER 207 Rodeo Dr.
.
ARE YOU WILLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION/COMMITTEE MEETING TIMES SHOWN BELOW:
Planning Commission, First and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m, Yes XX No -
Parks and Recreation Commission, Second Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes No
Traffic Commission, Monday Previous to Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes XX No -
Senior Advisory Commission First Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes - No -
Special Cor:nmittee Q. rc i ctural Review Committee, etc.), Vartous meeting
times and dat ill/hi-=- No_
Signature Date
I ·
The Arroyo Grande City Council requests information about your interest (and education, if applicable), in serving on
a commission or committee, specifically your comments and views relative to the role and responsibilities of the
Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Commission, or a
Special Committee. Please note such information on the reverse side of this form. Thank you for your interest.
THIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD
IF APPOINTED. COMPLETION OF A STATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM IS REQUIRED (11/02198)
-- -'---'~---'- "._--,,--,.,,---- ---...- -
retired archi t'ec't,' I; ha:ve 'a . ; T .
As a trained sense of design and
.. -' ~ ,..~ C'
., - ..,. .'-' -
and construction, as' 'weit' as ' code standards. I have made
numerous presentatio~s to Design Review Boards, Planning
Commissions and City Councils. I have worked with various
City and State Departments of Fire Prevention, Building &
Safety, Disabled Access, Traffic et al.
My training and experience will allow me to see and under-
stand many items that the average person will not.
I bave no business interests in Arroyo Grande, I have little
history in the City, so I believe all of my observations
and/or comments would be based solely on the Project.
I do believe, however, that unrestricted growth would be a
disaster fot this city, and all growth should be carefully
considered and evaluated before approval.
----------- -~~--.._-,--_.,_._- _ _m______
COUNCIL MEMBER TOLLEY
RECOM MENDED APPOINTMENT
. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMITTEE Craig R. Smith
c:\oounollappls.comm-:
TEL 805 5443380 P. 1
-- ......... ...,. c........ '.. j " '.'1"" I'":I':~:U i t) 1J~:Ht11.lt. 805 473 e3eG P.03
crrv OF ARROYO GRANDE
R F ~
_ Planning Commission CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE "". i{' ~O
- Parkt and R~E!8tiOn Commission 99 JAM 18 PH 2. '" . 1,' ~
_ TtIfIIc COmmiSSIon · rs I..l\fed in Arroyo O,.nde . g
StnlOf AdVisory Commi$Jlon Registeted VotX' ~ Arroyo Grande
:x: Speci8f Commtttees (Art"..hitectural Review, etc.) Yes No_
NAMe~<#
HOME ADDRESS . PHONE ~ ... U~ I
PRESENT PRESENT
EMPlOYER ~1i1I (t.. 5MI..'m.~ t 1611JG_ POSITION C$O
OFFICE BUSINeSS
ADDRESS 6~ M/JIl"('J)l4y Sr. ~."'. c,t. TeLEPHONE~-M#O
emJCATIONAL BACIS,GROUNO "ifi'!
HighSchoOI~S~. ~.,} -C'J1': _College C-1rJ- WJt.--( jl() - ~ 1"
, " · (Jc.t..A - 1M.A*tt ..
hDDtTIP~ !DUCA~L INFOR.,MATION
. -
- .
~MY.N!r~N9 CIVIC iNTERESTS
J!J:)T f'UhJIA pJ(, ~"'f~~h_",.~L CIty " f't~ .~J
~~ eMS ()1ftJ '" . - ....... .-...~- . ~ -
.- -
...... J!:1~6~ DI'- 1t..t..A...!.-..,____
-_. ,
The City couoar would li1(e 10 have the names of thrae (3) Arroyo Grandt References:
ADM..
1. _ t; t 1... Afl.{lt>( () $0..,.. . A.G.
2. ~(~ ArfaYd $):-. 4 &~dT
3. 1-5!O~Y~ Jr6
ARE YOU WILLING TO SERVE ON THe COMMISSIONlCOMMI11"EE MEETING TIMES SHOWN BeLOW:
Planning CommisSion, fl'irst and Third rlAesday of each month. 7:30 p.m. Ve,_ No_
Parks end Recreation Commission. second Wednesday of flam month, &:00 p.m. Ves_ No_
Tr1IIfi& Commission. Monday PrevfOtI$ to Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes_ No_
senior ~ CommiMton. FIt"St Wednesday of eacn month. 6:00 p.rn, Y"_ No_
Special CornmJttee (i.e. Architectural Review Committee. etc.), VariOUS meeting LV...x.. No_
times and die"
Signature Dare ~/i/qr
The Arroyo Gl'llnde City Cou . requests information about your interest (and edUC8tlon, If .~).Ift eeMflg on
it comtI'IIIIIOn or comrnlltee, SpecificaUy your comments and views relative to the role and '.......1 of the
Planning OOmmiS$ion, Pam and Recreation Comrrnmon, Traff'1C Commission. Senior AdvlsofJ CO"'1I1'.on. or .
SpecIal Committee. Please note such informatiOn on 'he reverse side of utis fonn. Thank you for your ifIte.-t.
THIS fQRM IS A MATTER OF PU8UC RECORD (11102198)
iF A~PotK{ED. COMPL&TION OF ASTATE CONFuc;T OF 'NTERqT FORM 8 _0I1NIFl1
TOTAL F'. 03
- ~.. ..- - - - - - .-. -~ - - - - - ", - - - - - _. _. - - - - - .... - .- - - -- -.. - - - - - .- - - - - - - ~... - - -
COUNCIL MEMBER DICKENS
RECOMMENDED APPOINTMENTS
+ PLANNING COM MISSION - Pending -
+ TRAFFIC COMMISSION L. George Tappan
+ SENIOR ADVISORY
COM MISSION N. Imogene "Jean" Hubbard
+ DOWNTOWN PARKING
ADVISORY BOARD Gary Andreini
+ PARKS AND RECREATION
COMMISSION Colleen T. Martin
+ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMITTEE Warren E. Hoag
-
C:\COIjtIoIlappta.comm.
----
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS TO SERVE
_ Planning Commission RECEIVED
Parks and Recreation Commission CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
=x Traffic Commission Years Lived in Arroyo Grande ~
_ Senior Advisory Commission 99 JAN 22 A~.sldied Voter of Arroyo Grande
_ Special Committees (Architectural Review, etc.) , Yes~ No_
NAME ,-, 6EOR.6E T APPA,I\!
HOME ADDRESS If) 90 SUNSET DR-~ PHONE ~~I [4'~
PRESENT PRESENT
EMPLOYER LvelA MA(J.. VNlrl ED SCc-bOL..S Q'ST~ POSITION OA'f c.~:s -rOO'..4M A"- OCEANo
OFFICE he;... BUSINESS -1734110 (~M"~
ADDRESS OfLfUAtto ST Afl.P.tJ'(o G1~E TELEPHONE
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
High School SI. Pl\J.5 Z VtoUJ~Y(!,A:; CAt..a F College :L y~ 6Ewc'1l.A1- Eo. q 1 AlIa" HetIt6~1t
ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION
COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS
()C$NJo e t...€""" ENTAfly ~t'fvOL- FAC-, {...tTIC5 COMM ('I --rEE
OAMp.A-lGN W To E L- E::1::.:r -:JIM D lcJ<E:N5 to Ccry COUNC.L
The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References:
NAME ADDRESS
1.~C(--thr P r\ iDk-ctrcl 6, 10 HV/tStJA ~D
2. Sir pH-EN S(!\lDO~ " 8'-' SV!\15E1 DtL
3. LtWPA W, fVc e ~I2...S ~" 11>1: S of r-ee t.
ARE YOU WilLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION/COMMITTEE MEETING TIMES SHOWN BELOW:
Planning Commission, First and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes_ No~
Parks and Recreation Commission, Second Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes No )<
Traffic Commission, Monday Previous to Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes2L- No=
Senior Advisory Commission, First Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes_ NO-1-
Special Committee (Le. Architectural Review Committee, etc.), Various meeting No~
times and dates Yes_
Signature Date ,-~-.JY
The Arroyo Grande City Council requests information about your interest (and education, if applicable), in serving on
a commission or committee, specifically your comments and views relative to the role and responsibilities of the
Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Commission, or a
Special Committee. Please note such information on the reverse side of this form. Thank you for your interest.
THIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD
IF APPOINTED. COMPLETION OF A STATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM IS REQUIRED (11/02198)
.- .~. . .". "
- .' :'j"/ c ",:;;,,' .~. . 'I' :
, ." , -'.-
. ',,-' . ,.-, - ' '.' "........
-w \N Hv "^ \ T MA'f (!(J}jC:e:t<N
rr 15M'1 ..r J-rrvt e:5T ""00 S -Dl. v ~ 01" 1'"t~
~OY1J ~",D-E: T~P(C. C<::I.N'\M \ 55t (jJJ.
,
.:t \AAV-e- Sc)t'AE :t.9EA5 A&ouT STi.eAN\W fJ itJ~
\AAFFlC- '.n.ttlo v €i t1 l)ur't "TOWN. .r W,../V'i -C-o
L,.f;AttfJ /"^O~ Aev,.:'f \...10 \IV O~~ DEPAttTM€"W'lS
QA,..J W~(!J,,< '"(D Gtlt~ -\"0 wHLt) A (J;)MMC^,
60 Al-.. J: v fa, ""\ --r 0 MA teE: ~ v ~t O€V t:l.-O PEJ2...>
A(l..€ f"I".b 4 ~s ~u.N S 1'B L E ro~. ~tv'\ ~\ eo v1"' N G-
&' prC" IN"'Co "'t"~ ,AO:JAC-eN--r COJA,.M.VNl-r( t 5 \tI
(
w- \\\ <:l..4; ""'( {~(t \' '(l.c> '":S' tc- "T 5 AFF-EC.'T. J: t>. L..l"-C
~O 5~ fN> (1-,,- w Q..L Pert JVE:'D e t K{: P f\-i ft 5 I
\-'-,A '" Q l (A-f Ace f" 55 AA-f\^.p 5 , l Ot: wA{..K 5 5 I 6 tV A- E) {;:
I f
AND lA 6t+'T{ 1\\ Q 0Et-o!'l\(; S'\ArJt?N'--D.
.:etA AL-So CON C(f;'(l.../V f;""'J) FoJt- -roc SArTey OF-
()V'f.... C.{.(-iL...vl'Z..elV' wHv 'f'LAy ANt) '(L\.Q€: AUN6- OV~
S\~"TI E.5Y€ClA-LL'1 Ovf4l'Jcr Tttr? bAA-Nt> AVE:t-IvE.
t~(AvA-'T ,J ~
(0 aoJ"€C-T "" l+t c."" \IJ l(.L fVO PouBT
\)~ ~"'lo'(1-\.JT5 -Co frL-TE:M"A-TE f'JE t Gr\"e:oJf!.t\oot>
~v"'ie-5
,
WE" IM-So fJR:r> \:D MAr-..E ,A.- 0DU) AN \) (.(l.e-.A-"t ( ~
~ t.A-N <!:>F ~w To MD\J~ t'4-SIDC'f'J'lS
E;A5T 0 ~
\"Wt V([..LM~ ,M:.t1o 55 TO\;J,J \,v li11bvT
t? rAtJCH fLt> · /'^O fl.t: . CctV'-es7 IN'
() v €}z... At...<...... --rN\ ~ f\I'(~S t1)
ANO CAi'A-\3' . . ~ I~ T~ ~)€S(~N
lLrr~5
Do \0 CFFI fk Or \N ~'T ~yo Gf.A.NDc ~AN
OF \~(C N7"t.Jj Co~~L- T(ff:- I.fJt:Vt'TAf/L€." 6t.4i#TH
Q.5 (3) tI~ 'TOWN C)CPA/VO s.
rt~K ~6u ~r l~vr Ccf'-'~<H:"'___ L, G.g;>~-e Tott~
--~~---- ------,
-"
. .
-rf> \N Hv ft^ t T MAl (1()Ne.~N
~-r \ S M't 5JV""C"EYZeST W S-D'LV~ 0# 7"t-h;:
~O~1) C.-{<A/'JD-6 -r~P(C. Cc;)MM \ SSt <IN. .
x. ~ SoN\.f: :t:t>€A5 A&DU( STleAMl-t '}oJ i ,v~
\(l,AFF\c- --rtt(lov 6 l1 ()u(l 'tOwN. :r Wf'+s'l -c-o
L-{;A.fl../J ~ ~ ~~ ,:'f \.-\0 W O'T~ D€P Att"T M€ N"iS
QA,J 'Wo{4< \:'t) GEll~ -("e wNt-'\) A CO""-t<AotJ
60Ac.-, J: V~f'J\ -to ,,^~\CE: ~I,.; fl.t t>€V-E1-0 P~5
~fL€ fV"-D U '(2..€:S "0 J'i" S\ '8 L e roil- ~'\ ~ \ \3> \J"'T' N G-
&' AC.K \N'CO ""t~ AOJ'AC1;N1""" CO~M.VtV rTr E" 5 \,.1
(
'W- ~ c. \:-\ ~ (~(t ~ '(2-c '"! tc-l' 5 A F FaT" :r: t:>" L-l ,,"C-
,1"D 5.f:1;" f'^c~~ v.sQ<- OEf'l JV€\> 0\ Kt: PATf+5,
~A,v'Ol cPrf Ac.c.f"55 ~,?5 , lOt W'A<..K5 5 16N'A-6,="
I " I
A~O L,..t 6 \t'T ll\\ Q e€"t-ol'^~ S '\AtJ t/.A1LD .
J:~ ALSo C.ON C6YL/'It1') FotL -rffC SArrSY OF
Ov~ G~L-t)(L€rJ '#\+0 ~4 ANi) ~Df: Pd.o.toJG- OV(l..
S"t~5 E.SY€ClI'rU'1 OukNG- THE" GAA,.',f'P A\J~vc.
t)<(AVA-l tJ ~
(Q acJ'€cr \.AI ~c.\-\- \N\.LL. IVC Pc uS"
\)~ Mc>"Toh5TS -Co .A1.--r€~A-Tt f'.JEl5n~Jltt-\vot>
~v-re-5
~
'WE p.L$o N"~ \:0 MAr~ ~ 00LO ,A.N1) Q2.e-.A-1'(VC
~ LA-N c!>F ~w To /v\cvr; ~StDE,...1"S
~Tor
\~ Vl~~ ~S5 TO\JJ ,J \N \"rHt>~T
t? rPrtJCH P-O. I'^<:>~ , CotJG..es'T iN ~
Ov€)t... ~ '1:M 1: tJ'(€lL€S
AN 0 <:,Af A-6' . . -r€t) I ~ T~ ~€S t Ej 1\1
lLlT~5 ·
~Da \0 Cff=1 SEN-G o~ wHA" ~yo G..A""SD~ C:AIJ
of \~(C: a ~. Co..vr~l- -rfff:' IJV t:Vt7"AeL~ 61kL-vrH
5 <P~(l. l"o",",',v t}(PAN~S,
~~K '[ou ~r L~vr Cc.,-,~c:.~~ __ L, G~1-e Totta-/
_._~..,
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS TO SERVE
_ Planning Commission RECEIVED
_ Parks and Recreation Commission CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
- Traffic Comm,ission 99 JAN 19 AM 90 O,;Years Lived in Arroyo Grande 32
-L Senior Advisory Commission 0 "'Registered Voter of Arroyo Grande
_ Special Committees (Architectural Review, etc.) Yes ~ No_
NAME N.' Imogene "Jean" Hubbard
HOME ADDRESS 251 North Elm, Arroyo Grande PHONE 489-1701
PRESENT PRESENT
EMPLOYER POSITION Retired - Writer
OFFICE BUSINESS
ADDRESS TELEPHONE
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
High School ~r~nnl1~ tp College ? Years
ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION
An Historian is never through learning. All the State and Regional
organizations are continually hosting seminars that add to ones
COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS 1<nowledge.
Local, County and State Historical Societies.
I am active in my church. (Methodist)
The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References:
NAME ADDRESS
1. Mrs. Billie Swigert 127 Nelson Street.
2, Mr. and Mrs. Al Gauss 221 North Elm Street
3. Carrol Pruett 2878 Huasna Road ( Outside the city?)
Dic~ Blankenburg 997 Magnolia Drive
ARE YOU WilLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION/COMMITTEE MEETING TIMES SHOWN BELOW:
Planning Commission, First and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes _ No_
Parks and Recreation Commission, Second Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes _ No_
Traffic Commission, Monday Previous to Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes _ No_
Senior Advisory Commission, First Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p,m, Yes ---X.... No_
Special Committee (Le. Architectural Review Committee, etc,), Various meeting
times and dates Yes _ NO_,
Signature Date
The Arroyo Grande City Council requests infonnation about your interest (and education, if applicable), in selVing on
a commission or committee, specifically your comments and views relative to the role and responsibilities of the
Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Commission, or a
Special Committee. Please note such infonnation on the reverse side of this fonn. Thank you for your interest.
THIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD
IF APPOINTED. COMPLETION OF A STATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM IS REQUIRED (11/02198)
. '''.''\ -.....,
. . ..--' .
.. ~ " . '. . > .,
. .
~ . .. '. I .' \ # . .......;,...: i'
(". Q:O' :):! ';"'~I
.J "-!........ I . '. .'-# ..... \.
None of my education prepared me to any great extent for t"he
problems I nm., face in my 70s.
However, "having lived long enough to be well into the so-called
"Golden Years," I am intereste<'l in a num~er of tnings that would en-
hance a senior's life. More housing 'for moderate income seniors.
Transportation for those who do not drive.
.
None of my education prepared me to any great extent for the
problems I now face in my 70s.
However, having lived long enough to be well into the so-called
"Golden Years," I am interested in a num~er of tnings that wouln en-
hance a senior's life. More housing -for moderate income seniors.
Transportation for those who do not drive.
~.. "~-"-"-'-'''-
APPOINTMENT TO DOWNTOWN PARKING ADVISORY
BOARD - GARY ANDREINI
RECEIPT OF COMPLETED RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS
FORM PENDING.
..--.- --~._- .----..-,,-
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS TO SERVE
Planning Commission RECEIVED
X Parks and Recreation CorGhTi~sWi ARROYO GRANDE
_ Traffic Commission Years Lived in Arroyo Grande 10 Y r5.
_ Senior Advisory Commissi099 JAN - 8 PM I: 12 Registered Voter of Arroyo Grande
_ Special Committees (Architectural Review, etc.) Yes 1- No_
NAME )J]f5 Co//un -r jJf Vlf'-h'y/
HOME ADDRESS %'5 0/ /Ve Sfree.-r PHONE 60'7. 1'61.21 C:7f
PRESENT PRESENT
EMPLOYER POSITION
OFFICE BUSINESS
ADDRESS TELEPHONE
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
High School ~hfLt6()JOr1;-h College ,fA. c. Vavl".s} C. $. (J. Nor+hricfJ
ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION
Rea) ~6mte / /cen6ee /0 yea../'-.:5
COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS
(},OJY)p .171-0 leader 6 :leafS
1t.C:,.. try Cnre ~U,D member -for'ihe.. &.neraJ j)/CU)
scroo/ :site Covncil.:5 HQ/lo~CL Pau/d/f?9 SchoolS
The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References:
NAME . ADDRESS
1. LeslIe., Bec-h~~..J /0/5' S.!j{;OJY>or6 '-If117tJ3 g
2, 5a.nde va U 1-5 57CJ D/a...nCL P/a...c.eJ t/~ og-~;2.
3. Rog.e.-r Jd-t -rn'nif:j tf~ {)~7'
ARE YOU WILLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION/COMMITTEE MEETING TIMES SHOWN BELOW:
Planning Commission, First and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p,m. Yes _ No ~
Parks and Recreation Commission, .Second Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p,m. Yes ~ No_
Traffic Commission, Monday Previous to Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes _ No X
Senior Advisory Commission, First Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p,m. Yes _ No-K..
Special Committee (Le. Architectural Review Committee, etc.), Various meeting
times and dates. Yes No
Signature ~0.~ Date~[JLqq1
The Arroyo Grande City Council requests infonnation about your interest (and education, if applicable), in serving on
a commission or committee, specifically your comments and views relative to the role and responsibilities of the
Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Commission, or a
Special Committee. . Please note such infonnation on the reverse side of this fonn. Thank you for your interest.
THIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD
IF APPOINTED. COMPLETION OF A STATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM IS REQUIRED (11/02198)
/ippt'''-- y, ;/rtLAd. C."""ik~~;'ju ("!f'I"'-4;::t [2 ~ ~ ~ n '/J ~ lID
~-' ~iAo iN
.....---^-/~ ~ ~/fJ(J/9.3 CITY OF ARROYO G~~D~ ~) 'FEB 1 1993
RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS TO SERVE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
ARROYO GRANDE
- Planning Commission Driver's License No. R0253812
_ Parks and Reaeation Commission Years Lived in Arroyo Grande 17
'_ Traffic Commission Registered Voter of Arroyo Grande
_ Senior Advisory Commission Yes...!.- NO_
~ Spe~;lI. Committee (i.e. Teen Advisory! ~Itectural Adv~ etc.)
~'Mn.; Miss warren E. Hcag
Please drcle one) 622 Taylor p1cice Arroyo Gran3e ___h
HOME ADDRESS. - .. ... '. . "' ~ PHONE ,489-8782
MARITAL STATUS married NUMBER OF CHILDREN 2
#
PRESENT .- PRESENT Prin:::ipal Planner - Advance Plannin;J
EMPLOYER SLO CWnty Plann:in1 & Bldg Dept. POSITION . .
OFFICE CWnty Gov't Center BUSINESS
ADDRESS_.San I1lis Obispo, CA. 93408 TELEPHONE 781-5982
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
High School' Sierra H. s., Whittier, CA.; College_ U.c. Santa Barbara; B.A. in
- graduated 1967 Gecx;1raIi1y,1971
ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION
Carpleted one year of two year Masters of Urban an:i Regional Plann:in1
program, Cal state Fresno, 1974-75. Participated in 1'IIJIDe1:'OUS .
CXII'1tinuirq education ooorses, seminars an:i wcrkshops on a wide variety
of p1.arlnin] an:i CXIImJt1ity deve10puent subjects an:i issues.
Are you aware that you may be required to fill out a CONFLICT OF INTEREST Form. Yes-L No_
EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE (If Applicable)
OYer 1'3 years eap10yment as a lccal goI/erI1IDent lan:t use planner,
inc11.1dirq two years with the City of Graver BeIId1 am 15 years with SID
Q:Iunty. ~ experience 00IIerS a wide ran;,e of cIevelq:ment review,
advance plamin;J am CCIIIIIJlIity cIevelq:ment matters, inc11.1dirq
administratiat of lan:t use and zcrUnq regulaticxlS, fOrDLllatiat of
design 9Uidelb1es ani review of cIevelq:ment projects.
Do you represent any special group? Yes _ No _ x_ If so, please give name of group.
-
COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS
~ specific interest is to serve at the Arc:hitecbD:al J\dvisary
O:mIIi.ttee as a way to cx:nt:rib.tte JSrf professional experience and
1cncw1edge to the city's efforts in prc1IIDI:jJ'q quality dew1c:IpIIent am
maintainiJq its dist1nc:t1ve visual character. I also hav8 a general
interest in IIIIlintainirq livable ~, ~ effective ani .
mlanced CCIIIIIJlIity PlarInin:1 and lllllXiJDizing educational ani recreational
~tJ.es for ddldren.
The City Council w 10 liKe 'to nave 'tne names OJ 'tnree (3) Arroyo Grande References:
.NAME ADDRESS
1._ Mark Matson . 624 Taylor Place }J:rayo Gran:le
2._ Bob BaJ:ris . 245 Walnut street Arroyo Grande
3.--,: Ab1:ri Gallagher .1064 Rodgers ecm-t Arroyo Gran:le
WOUI.,D YOU BE WILLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION MEETING NIGHTS SHOWN BELOW:
Plann!ng Commission, . First and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. 'fes_ No_
Parks and Reaeation Commission, Third Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes_ .No_
Traffic Commi~ion, Monday Previous Third Tuesday of each. month, 7:00 p.m. Yes_ No_
Senior Advisory Commission, First Wedne onth. 7:00 p.m. Yes_ No_
Special Committee (I.e. Teen Advisory ectural Adviso etc.}. Various Yes--!- No
meeting times a dates -
-,---
SIGNATURE DATE January 28, 1993:
The Arroyo Grande City COlmcil needs some i tion about your interests. (and education. if applicabie)
in serving on a Commission, spedfically your comments and views relative to the role and responsibilities
of the Planning Commission, Parks and Reaeation Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Com-
mission or a Special Committee. Please note such Information on the reverse side of this form. Thank you
for your interest. --..-.-
-~--~,---- ----- --."
9.e.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL ~
FROM: DANIEL C. HERNANDEZ. DIRECTOR PARKS AND RECREATION
SUBJECT: WAIVER OF FEES - HARVEST BAG. INC.
DATE: JANUARY 26, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council approve a waiver of the $250 fee for renting the City of
Arroyo Grande and Woman's Club Community Center for a craft fair hosted by Harvest
Bag, Inc., to be held on Saturday, March 6, 1999.
FUNDING:
Approval of the request for a fee waiver YIOuld result in a reduction in the Community
Center's rental fees of $250. Harvest Bag, Inc., is not requesting a waiver of the
$250 refundable deposit.
DISCUSSION:
Harvest Bag, Inc., has requested a waiver of rental fees in the amount of $250 for use of
the City of Arroyo Grande and Woman's Club Community Center for its craft fair to be held
Saturday, March 6,1999, from 6:30 A.M. to 3:30 P.M. There is a c;teposit of $250 that may
be refunded to applicant after the event. For the last four years, it has been the practice of
past City Councils to grant a 100% waiver of the fee. Revenue from the craft fair helps
support Harvest Bag's operating costs.
Harvest Bag, Inc., meets five of the seven criteria listed on the Fee Waiver or Reduction
Criteria Form (Attachment 1). In support of the requested fee waiver, it is recommended
consideration be given to the numerous local organizations supported by Harvest Bag, Inc.,
including food donations to the City's Parks and RecreatiOn Department for programs and
special events. The organization of volunteers distributes over 3,600 bags of food every
month on Wednesdays at the Soto Sports Complex.
Calculation of Costs:
Current fees charced to user crouP:
Rental Fee $250
Actual costs to the City:
$47.81/hr. x 9 hours (6:30 A.M. - 3:30 P.M.) = $430.29 (Attachment 2)
MEMORANDUM: WAIVER OF FEES - HARVEST BAG
JANUARY 26, 1999
PAGE 2
Alternatives:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Approve staff's recommendation;
- Do not approve staff's recommendation and charge the entire fee of $250;
- Modify the fee as appropriate; or
- Provide direction to staff.
c:\StaffRpt\FeeWalverHarvestBag,126
Cfbe C)(vv~st Cfla<<J.. Jpc:.
p.o. tJ301(628J OceanoJ C9L 93445
tIe!. (805) 489-4223
January 12, 1999
City of Arroyo Grande
Attn.: City Clerk
Post Office Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
Re.: Waiver of Fees
Council Members:
Harvest Bag, a local non-profit organization that provides fooq for the
needy in this community, requests waiver of all fees for use of the Women'$ Club
Hall. We wish to reserve and use the Hall on March 6, 1999 for our spring Craft
Faire. Our nOJ;l-profit ill number has been included on the application, Our
charitable se~e. is provided to anyone in need. At least 50% of those who avail
themselves of our service are residents of Arroyo Grande and at least 500.10 of 091'
membership resides in Arr(\yo Grande.
Your consideration ofthif\ request will be appreci~~d.
Sincerely,
....~
L..--c;
Hennan Olave, President
HO:pc
~.--.",---_._..._.._--_.'_.- - _._.~_..- .---.- --.-..-
Att;lchment 1
~ .
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
! '" FEE W IVER OR REDUCTION CRITERIA FORM
Name: . v.s:: P,,, c A~ess: ?p~ i>> /Y~Phone#: Yf1-t~"'3
Type of ee Requested to Be Waived: ~tL. 't1'1iJ.1- Total Fee Amt. To Be Considered: $ ,1.J"
WAIVER OF FEES: All groups/organizations/sponsors requesting a waiver of fees must submit a completed Fee Waiver
or Reduction Criteria Form with a letter stating: (a) the facility requested, (b) event, (c) which fees should be waived, and
(d) verification of information requested on the criteria form (e.g., organization donates 50% of its budget-supporting
programs in the Five Cities area). Please include all additional information on a separate sheet of paper along with your
letter of request. All fonns and letters should be submitted to the Parks and Recreation Office and addressed:
For Reauests for Fees Totalina $200 or Less: For Reauests for Fees Totalina $201 or More:
Parks and Recreation Commission Arroyo Grande City Council
c/o Parks and Recreation Office Attention: City Clerk
Post Office Box 550 Post Office Box 550
1221 Ash Street 214 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
Check below each item that acclies to vour arOUD or oraanization:
.JL.... 1. Local Arroyo Grande-based non:-profrt group or organization # tJ? ")Sf 1/ 7t (provide 1.0. number).
"Local" is defined as 50% membership from the City of Arroyo Grande.
-- 2. Non-profit group/organization services youth only, ages 6 - 18; and no specific program fees are charged
-
youth (other than registration; Number of youth served:\.,(tf> . Registration fee charged to
~3. youth: 0 . ~ J,k;:h-~~.J-'~.
The group/organization donates 50% of its budget supporting programs/activities within the City of Arroyo
Grande r the Five Cities area. Exam les of ; p. 9Qrams/activities supported:
, J-
L 4. The facility/activity requested and all proceeds will be used for a specific City of Arroyo Grande/Five Cities
are .public project, benefit, or cause. Example of specific service/project:
;
vi 5, The event proposed is open to the public, and the organization/sponsor is not requesting a donation or
-
charging a fee for entry or to participants (vendors, speakers, etc.).
(~6. Group or organization provides a yearly donation (equipment, monetary, services-in-kind) to the City of
Arroyo Grande. Specific donation: .fbOoPl i""'~ + "~ " ,f t/.w.Ju.() , Date of donation: .fa."..i1, Zj)'f/t..J
- 7, Mid-week or shared scheduling of facility. The group has requested a date during the week (Monday-
Thursday), and another organization will be meeting at the same time.
~S TOTAL NUMBER OF CRITERIA ITEMS WHICH APPLY.
QUALIFICATIONS: Groups meeting criteria items 1 - 7 above score 1 point each. A score of 5 or more pOints qualifies
a group for a waiver or reduction of fees,
DETERMINATION: All requests for the reduction or waiver of fees that require a Public Safety and Welfare Permit or
Police Department Auxiliary Police Services (e.g., fees established by City Ordinance or Resolution) are appealed
directly to the City Council.
Field rental fees (excluding tournaments, lighting, and field preps) shall be waived for all youth sport activities scoring
five (5) points or more on a fUlly completed Fee Waiver or Reduction Criteria Fonn. .Youth sport activities- shall be
defined as any leaguelteam roster having members under the age of 18, with the exception that a maximum of three (3)
members may be 18 or older, at the time the roster is submitted to the Parks and Recreation Department.
FOR FEES TOTALING 5200 OR LESS FOR USE OF A CITY FACILITY: Waiver or reduction of the fees can be
approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission. All decisions made by the Parks and Recreation Commission can
be appealed to the City Council.
FOR FEES TOTALING 5201 OR MORE FOR USE OF A CITY FACILITY: Waiver or reduction of fees must be
approved by the City Council.
c:\forms\FeeWaiverJrm (Revised: 11124197)
u____.._
"
. ,-
Attachment 2
User Fee Determination
Cost Analysis Worksheet
User Fee Description Fund Program Account Oep8ltmenl/OiYlsion Date
Woman's Club Rental Fee per day 14 3400 001 Recreation Division 2-11-97
$2501$32.00. per hour
Description of Service, Demand, SubsidY and Other Comments:
This fee is beinQ revised to partially offset the cost incurred bYi the City to operate, maintain, and staff the Woman's
Club Commu",~ Center. 22 groups/organizations non-pro it and private meet at the center each month. the cost to
operate the faci ity is $47.81 per hour. For groups of 10-225. There is a high demand for use of the facility.
Personnel Costs
Rates'
Position Fringe Benefits Dept, Of Div, Total BUldened Hours by Position Plr Unit Total Labor Cost per
Straight Time Unit at Service
Labor Overhead Labor CostIHr.
Building Coordinator $ 8.07 $1.75 23% $2.26 $12.08 1.0 $12.08
Janitorial (Full lime) $12.78 $4.97 23% $2.13 $19.88 1,0 $19.88
Building Supervisor $ 6.27 $ .52 23% $1.56 $ 8.35 1.0 $ 8,35
Total Burdened Personnel Costs Per Unit of Service $40.31
Material & Rental Costs
Description Cost each Quantity;;e~irl: Unit Cost
Janitorial Supplies - toilet paper, towels, cleaners, can liners $10.83 per day 10, hrs $1.08 per hour
Total Material & Rental Costs per Unit of Service $1,08
Other Costs (EQuipment. 8uildinQ UsaQe, Part-time Labor w/o Benefits\
Description Cost Each Quantity Reauir.c Unit Cost
Utilities (gas, electric, garbage) $325 mo. 30 days $10,83 per day 10, hrs $1,08 per hour
Total Other Costs per Unit of Service $1,08
Fee Companson Data
Jurisdiction Fee per unit More or (Less) than Arroyo
Grande's Fee per Unit of $ 42.47
Service Total Service Direct Costs
City of Arroyo Grande S250.oo Dollars Percentage City-Wide General & \ 5,34
divided by 8 Administrative'
53t 251$32.00 Rate @ 12.5~. 47.81
Grover Beach 543.75 +$12,50 +29% TOTAL SERVICE COST/UNIT
RECOMMENDED FE: $ 31.251$32.00
Plsmo Beach $70.00 +$38,75 +55% Recommended Fund Subsidy $ 15,81
San Luis Obispo 543.75 +12,50 +29% Current Fee Amount $ 15,00
Santa Maria S67.18 +$35.93 +54% Fee Increase (Decrease) +$ 17.00
Atascadero NlA
Paso Robles $55.00 +$23.75 +43%
Morro Bay $49.50 $18.25 -+37%
c:\budgel\userfee211
_.._._---_._~---_..._----- ---~
.
.
9.f.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON SPA~NOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER #
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
REVISING THE FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
DATE: JANUARY 26,1999
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Council adopt Ordinance No. 501 C.S., repealing and replacing
Section 9-09.050 of Chapter 9 of Title 9 and amending Section 9-18.030 of Chapter 18 of
Title 9 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code.
FUNDING:
No direct fiscal impact. Possible savings on insurance premiums by property owners.
DISCUSSION:
The City Council, at its meeting of January 12, 1999, introduced without modification
Ordinance No. 501 C.S. for first reading. Therefore, it is recommended the City Council
adopt Ordinance No., 501 C.S.
Attachment: Ordinance 501 C.S.
ORDINANCE NO. 501 C.S.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE REPEALING AND REPLACING SECTION 9-09.050 OF
CHAPTER 9 OF TITLE 9 AND AMENDING SE,CTION 9-18.030 OF
CHAPTER 18 OF TITLE 9 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Statutory Authorization. The Legh;lature of the State of California has in
Government Code Sections 65302, 65560, and 65800 and in Water Code Sections 8400
et seq. conferred upon local government units authority to adopt regulations designed to
promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizenry. Therefore, the City
Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby adopt the following floodplain
management regulations.
SECTION 2: Findings of Fact. The flood hazard areas of the City of Arroyo Grande are
subject to periodic inundation which results in loss of property, health and safety hazards,
disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for
flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the
public health, safety, and general welfare. These flood losses are caused by uses that are
inadequately elevated, flood proofed, or protected from flood damage. The cumulative
effect of obstructions in areas of special flood hazards which increase flood heights and
velocities also contribute to the flood loss.
SECTION 3: That Section 9-09.050 of Chapter 9 of Title 9 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal
Code is hereby repealed and deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new Section 9-
09.050 of Chapter 9 of Title 9 as shown in Exhibit "A" attached. hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference as though fully set forth.
SECTION 4: That Section 9-18.030 of Chapter 18 of Title 9 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal
Code is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference as though fully set forth.
SECTION 5: If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase
of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part
thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section,
subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the
fact that anyone or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause
or phrases be declared unconstitutional.
-'-- ----.---- __n____
ORDINANCE NO. 501
PAGE 2
SECTION 6: A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published
and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days prior to the City Council
meeting at which the propo$ed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full text
of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk. Within fifteen (15)
days after adoption of the Ordinance, the summary with the names of those City Council
members voting for and against the Ordinance shall be published again, an~ the City Clerk
shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance.
SECTION 7: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final passage.
On motion of Council Member , seconded by
Council Member and on the following roll call vote,
to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this day of ,1999.
.
. -......--.----..-.- -~"._----_. ----
ORDINANCE NO. 501 C.S.
PAGE 3
MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
NANCY A. DAVIS,
DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/CITY CLERK
~ROVED AS TO ~T:
~TL, tfLLl.J1
ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
I, NANCY A. DAVIS, Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk of the City of
Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify
under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Ordinance No. 501 C.S. is a true, full,
and correct copy of said Ordinance passed and adopted at a regular meeting of
said Council on the 26th day of January, 1999.
WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this
day of .1999.
NANCY A. DAVIS,
DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/CITY CLERK
EXHIBIT A
SECTION 9-09.050 FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT(FH) DISTRICT
A. Statement of Purpose and Intent
It is the purpose of this Section to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare,
and to minimize public and private losses do to flood conditions in specific areas by
provisions designed to:
1. Protect human life and health.
2. Minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects.
3. Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and
generally undertaken at the expense of the general public.
4. Minimize prolonged business interruptions.
5. Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains,
electric, telephone and sewer lines; and streets and bridges located in areas of
special flood hazard.
6. Help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development
of areas of special flood hazard so as to minimize future blighted areas caused by
flood damage.
7. Ensure that potential buyers are notified that property is in an area of special flood
hazard.
8. Ensure that those who occupy the areas of special flood hazard assume
responsibility for their actions.
B. METHODS OF REDUCING FLOOD LOSSES.
In order to accomplish its purposes, this ordinance includes the following methods and
provisions:
1. Restrict or prohibit uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to
water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or flood
heights or velocities.
1
2. Require that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses,
be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction.
3. Control the alteration of natural flood plains, stream channels, and natural protective
barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters.
4. Control filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood
damage.
5. Prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert
flood waters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas.
C. General Provisions
1. Lands to which this ordinance applies
This ordinance shall apply to all areas of special flood hazards within the jurisdiction
of the City of Arroyo Grande.
2. Basis for establishing the areas of special flood hazard
The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal Insurance Administration
(FIA) of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the Elood.
Insurance Study (FIS) dated March 19,1984 and accompanying Flood Insurance
Rate Maps (FIRMs) and Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps (FBFMs), dated
September 19, 1984, and all subsequent amendments and/or revisions, are hereby
adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. These areas are
the minimum area of applicability of this ordinance and may be supplemented by
studies for other areas which allow implementation of this ordinance and which are
recommended to the City of Arroyo Grande by the Floodplain Administrator. The
study, FIRMs and FBFMs are on file at the Department of Public Works, 214 East
Branch Street, City of Arroyo Grande, California 93421.
3. Compliance
No structure or land shall hereafter be constructed, located, extended, converted,
or altered without full compliance with the term of this ordinance and other
applicable regulations. Violation of the requirements (including violations of
conditions and saf~guards established in connection with conditions) shall constitute
a misdemeanor. Nothing herein shall prevent the City of Arroyo Grande from taking
such lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation.
2
_..._u.".. "-
4. Abrogation and greater restrictions
This ordinance is not intended to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing
easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this ordinance and
another ordinance, easement, covenant, or deed restriction conflict or overlap,
whichever imposes the more stringent restrictions shall prevail.
5. Interpretation
In the interpretation and application of this ordinance, all provisions shall be:
a. Considered as minimum requirements;
b. liberally construed in favor of the governing body; and
c. deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers granted under state
statutes.
6. Warning and disclaimer of liability
The degree of flood protection required by this Section is considered reasonable for
regulatory purposes and is based on scientific and engineering considerations.
Larger floods can and will occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased
by man-made or natural causes. This ordinance does not imply that land outside
the areas of special flood hazards or uses permitted within such areas will befree
from- flooding or flood damages. This ordinance shall not create liability on the part
of City of Arroyo Grande, any officer or employee thereof, the State of California, or
the Federal Insurance Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
for any flood damages that result from reliance on this ordinance or any
administrative decision lawfully made hereunder.
D. Administration
1. Establishment of development permit
A development permit shall be obtained before any construction or other
development begins within any area of special flood hazard established in Section
9-09.050 C. Application for a development within an area of special hazard shall be
made on forms furnished by the Floodplain Administrator and may include, but not
be limited to: plans in duplicate drawn to scale showing the nature, location,
dimensions, and elevation of the area in question; existing or proposed structures,
fill, storage of materials, drainage facilities; and the location of the foregoing.
Specifically, the following information is required:
a. Proposed elevation in relation to mean sea level, of the lowest floor
(including basement) of all structures - in Zone AO, elevation of highest
3
-.. ----..'-.....,-.,-- -----.--..----
- -----
adjacent grade and proposed elevation of lowest floor of all structures; or
Proposed elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any nonresidential
structure will be flood proofed, if required in Section 9-09.050 E1c(3).
b. All appropriate certifications listed in Section 9-09.050 D3d of this ordinance.
c. Description of the extent to which any watercourse will be altered or
relocated as a result of proposed development.
2. Designation of the Floodplain Administrator
The Director of Public Works is hereby appointed to administer, implement, and
enforce this ordinance.
3. Duties and responsibilities of the Floodplain Administrator
The duties and responsibilities of the Floodplain Administrator shall include, but not
be limited to the following.
a. Permit Review.
Review all development permits within the special hazard areas to determine
that;
(1 ) Permit requirements of this ordinance have been satisfied,
(2) The site is reasonably safe from flooding, and
(3) The proposed development does not adversely affect the carrying
capacity of areas where base flood elevations have been determined .
but a floodway has not been designated. For purposes of this
ordinance, "adversely affects" means that the cumulative effect of the
proposed development when combined with all other existing and
anticipated development will increase the water surface elevation of
the base flood more than one foot at any point.
b. Review and Use of Any Other Base Flood Data
When base flood elevation data has not been provided in accordance with
Section 9-09.050 C2, the Floodplain Administrator shall obtain, review, and
reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and flooc;tway data available from
a federal or state agency, or other source, in order to administer Section 9-
09.050 E.
4
------
c. Notification of Other Agencies
Whenever there is an alteration or relocation of a watercourse:
(1 ) Notify adjacent communities and the California Department of Water
Resources prior to alteration or relocation.
(2) Submit evidence of such notification to the Federal Insurance
Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
(3) Assure that the flood carrying capacity within the altered or relocated
portion of said watercourse is maintained.
d. Documentation of Floodplain Development
Obtain and maintain for public inspection and make available as needed the
following:
(1 ) Certification required by Section 9-09.050 E1c(1) (lowest floor
elevations ).
(2) Certification required by Section 9-09.050 E1 c(2) (elevation or
flood proofing of nonresidential structures).
(3) Certification required by Section 9-09.050 E1c(3) (wet floodproofing
standard).
(4) Certification of elevation required by Section 9-09.050 E3b
(subdivision standards).
(5) Certification required by Section 9-09.050 E6a (floodway
encroachments ).
e. Map Determinations
Make interpretations where needed, as to the exact location of the
boundaries of the areas of special flood hazard, for example, where there
appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field
conditions. the person contesting the location of the boundary shall be given
a reasonable opportunity to appeal the interpretation as provided in Section
9-09.050 F.
f. Take action to remedy violations of this ordinance as specified in Section 9-
09.050 C3.
5
"-".--.....---- -..- --------------
E. Provisions for Flood Hazard Reduction
In addition to the development standards of the District with wich the FH district has been
combined and the standards contained in Chapter9-10 and 9-11, the standards contained
in this shall apply. In the event of a conflict in the applicable regulations, the provisions
of this Section shall govern.
1. Standards of construction
In all areas of special flood hazards thefollowing standards are required:
a. Anchoring
(1 ) All new construction and substantial improvements within special
flood hazard areas shall be adequately anchored to prevent flotation,
collapse or lateral movement of the structure resulting from
hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of
buoyancy.
(2) All manufactured homes shall meet the anchoring standards of
Section 9-09.050 E4.
b. Construction materials and methods
All new construction and substantial improvement with special flood hazard
areas shall be constructed;
(1 ) with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage;
(2) using methods and practices that minimize flood damage;
(3) with electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning
equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or
located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within
the components during conditions of flooding; and if
(4) within Zones AH or AO, so that there are adequate drainage paths
around structures on slopes to guide flood waters around and away
from proposed structures.
c. Elevation and flood proofing.
6
-----------
See Section 9-18.030 for definitions for "basement," "new construction,"
"substantial damage" and "substantial improvement".
(1 ) Residential construction, new or substantial improvement, shall have
the lowest floor, including basement,
(a) in an AO zone, elevated above the highest adjacent grade to
a height exceeding the depth number specified in feet on the
FIRM by at least one foot, or elevated at least three feet above
the highest adjacent grade if no depth number is specified.
(b) in an A zone, elevated at least one foot above the base flood
elevation, as determined by the community.
(c) in all other Zones, elevated at least one foot above the base
flood elevation.
Upon the completion of the structure, the elevation of the
lowest floor including basement shall be certified by a
registered professional engineer or surveyor, and verified by
the community building inspector to be properly elevated.
Such certification or verification shall be provided to the
Floodplain Administrator.
(d) For floodplain management purposes the term lowest floor
means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area, including
basement definition. An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure
below the lowest floor that is usable solely for parking of
vehicles, building access or storage in an .area other than a
basement area, is not considered a building's lowest floor
provided it conforms to applicable non-elevation design
requirements, including, but not limited to:
The flood proofing standard in Section 9-09.050 E1c(3).
The anchoring standards in Section 9-09.505 E1a.
The construction materials and methods standards in Section
9-09.050 E1b.
The standards for utilities in Section 9-09.050 E2.
(2) Nonresidential construction, new or substantial improvement, shall
either be elevated to conform with Section 9-09.050 E1c(1) or
together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities;
7
(a) be flood proofed below the elevation recommended under
Section 9-09.050 E1 c(1) so that the structure is watertight with
walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water;
(b) have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic
and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; and
(c) be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect
that the standards of this Section 9-09.050 E1c(2) are
satisfied. Such certification shall be provided to the Floodplain
Administrator.
(3) All new construction and substantial improvement with fully enclosed
areas below the lowest floor (excluding basements) that are usable
solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage, and which
are subject to flooding, shall be designed to automatically equalize
hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and
exit of floodwater. Designs for meeting this requirement must exceed
the following minimum criteria:
(a) be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect;
or
(b) have a minimum of two openings having a total net area of not
less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed
area subject to flooding. The bottom of all openings shall be
no higher than one foot above grade. Openings may be
equipped with screens, louvers, valves or other coverings or
devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit
of floodwater.
(4) Manufactured homes shall also meet the standards in Section 9-
09.050 E4.
2. Standards for utilities
a. All new and replacement water supply and sanitary sewage systems shall be
designed to minimize or eliminate:
(1 ) infiltration of flood waters into the systems, and
(2) Discharge from the systems into flood waters.
b. On-site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them,
or contamination from them during flooding.
8
3. Standards for Subdivisions
a. All preliminary subdivision proposals shall identify the flood hazard area and
the elevation of the base flood.
b. All subdivision plans within special flood hazard areas will provide the
elevation of proposed structure(s) and pad(s). If the site is filled above the
base flood elevation, the lowest first floor and pad elevations shall be
certified by a registered professional engineer or surveyor and provided to
the Floodplain Administrator.
c. All subdivision proposals shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood
damage.
d. All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as
sewer, gas, electrical and water systems located and constructed to
minimize flood damage.
e. All subdivisions shall provide adequate drainage to reduce exposure to flood
hazards.
4. Standards for Manufactured Homes
a. All manufactured homes that are placed or substantially improved within
Zones A1-30, AH, and AE on the community's Flood Insurance Rate Map,
on sites located:
(1 ) Outside of a manufactured home park or subdivisions
(2) In a new manufactured home park or subdivision
(3) In an expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision
or
(4) In an existing manufactured home park or subdivision on a site upon
which a manufactured home has incurred "substantial damage" as the
result of a flood,
shall be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the
manufactured home is elevated at least one foot above the base flood
elevation, and shall. be securely fastened to an adequately anchored
foundation system to resist flotation collapse and lateral movement.
b. All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved on sites in
an existing manufactured home park or subdivision within Zones A 1-30, AH,
AE on the community's Flood Insurance Rate Map that are not subject to the
9
.-.-._-
provisions of Section E4a will be securely fastened to an adequately
anchored foundation system to resist foundation collapse and lateral
movement, and will be elevated so that either the;
(1 ) Lowest floor of the manufactured home is at least one foot above the
base flood elevation, or
(2) Manufactured home chassis is supported by reinforced piers or other
foundation elements of at least equivalent strength that are no less
than 36 inches in height above, grade.
5. Standards For Recreational Vehicles
a. All recreational vehicles placed on sites within Zones A 1-30, AH, and AE on
the community's Flood Insurance Rate Map will either
(1 ) be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days, and be fully
licensed and ready for highway use. A recreational vehicle is ready for
highway use if it is on its wheels or jacking system, is attached to the
site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices; and
has no permanently attached additions, or
(2) meet the permit requirements of Section 9-09.050 D and the elevation
and anchoring requirements for manufactured homes in Section 9-
09.050 E4a
6. Floodways
Located within areas of special flood hazard established in Section 9-09.050 C2 are
areas designated as floodways. Since the floodway is an extremely hazardous area
due to the velocity of flood waters which carry debris, potential projectiles, and
erosion potential, the following provisions apply.
a. Prohibit encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial
improvement, and other new development unless certification by a registered
professional engineer or architect is provided demonstrating that
encroachments shall not result in any increase in the base flood elevation
during the occurrence of the base flood discharge.
b. If Section 9-09.050 E6a is satisfied, all new construction, substantial
improvement, and other proposed new development shall comply with all
other applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of Section E.
10
F. Variances and appeals
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande shall hear and decide
appeals and requests for variances from the requirements of this Section.
2. The Planning Commission shall hear and decide appeals regarding any decision or
determination made by the Floodplain Administrator in the enforcement or
. administration of this section may be appealed to the City Council of Arroyo Grande
3. The variance criteria set forth in this section are based on the general principle that
variances pertain to a piece of property and are not personal in nature. A variance
may be granted for a parcel of property with physical characteristics so unusual that
complying with the requirements of this ordinance would create an exceptional
hardship to the applicant or the surrounding property owners. The characteristics
must be unique to the property and not be shared by adjacent parcels. The unique
characteristic must pertain to the land itself, not to the structure, its inhabitants, or
the property owners.
4. Review of Variance Requests
In passing upon requests for variances, the Planning Commission shall consider all
technical evaluations, all relevant factors, standards specified in other sections of
this ordinance, and the;
a. danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others;
b. danger of life and property due to flooding or erosion damage;
c. susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and
the effect of such damage on the existing individual owner and future owners
of the property;
d. importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the
community,
e. necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable;
f. availability of alternative locations for the proposed use which are not subject
to flooding or erosion damage;
g. compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development;
h. relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and floodplain
management program for that area;
11
i. safety of access to the property in time of flood for ordinary and emergency
vehicles;
j. expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of
the, flood waters expected at the site; and
k. costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions,
including maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities such as
sewer, gas, electrical, and water system, and streets and bridges.
5. Conditions for Variances
a. Generally, variances may be issued for new construction, substantial
improvement, and other proposed new development to be erected on a lot
of one-half acre or less in size contiguous to and surrounded by lots with
existing structures constructed below the base flood level, providing that the
procedures of Sections 9-09.050 D and E of this ordinance have been fully
considered. As the lot size increases beyond one-half acre, the technical
justification required for issuing the variance increases.
b. Variances may be issued for the repair or rehabilitation of historic structures
upon a deten;nination that the proposed repair or rehabilitation will not
preclude the structure's continued designation as an historic structure and
the variance is the minimum necessary to preserve the historic character and
design of the structure.
c. Variances shall not be issued within any mapped regulatory floodway if any
increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result.
d. Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the
"minimum necessary" considering the flood hazard, to afford relief.
"Minimum necessary" means to afford relief with a minimum of deviation from
the requirements of this ordinance. For example, in the case of variances to
an elevation requirement, this means the City need not grant permission for
the applicant to build at grade, or even to whatever elevation the applicant
proposes, but only to that elevation which the City believes will both provide
relief and preserve the integrity of the local ordinance.
e. Variances shall only be issued upon a;
(1 ) showing of good and sufficient cause;
(2) determination that failure to grant the variance would result in
exceptional hardship to the applicant; and
12
(3) determination that the granting of a variance will not result in
increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety; or
extraordinary public expense, create a nuisance cause fraud or
victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or
ordinances.
Hardship as used herein means the exceptional hardship that would result
from a failure to grant the requested variance. The hardship must be
exceptional, unusual, and peculiar to the property involved. Economic or
financial hardship alone is not exceptional. Inconvenience, aesthetic
considerations, physical handicaps, personal preferences, or the disapproval
of one's neighbors likewise cannot, as a rule, qualify as an exceptional
hardship.
Public safety and nuisance as used herein means, that the granting of a
variance must not result in anything which is injurious to safety or health of
an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of
persons, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary .
manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin.
Fraud and victimization as used herein, means that the variance granted
must not cause fraud on or victimization of the public. In examining this
requirement, the City will consider the fact that everY newly constructed
building adds to government responsibilities and remains a part of the.
community for fifty to one-hundred years. Buildings that are permitted to be
constructed below the base flood elevation are subject during all those years
to increased risk of damage from floods, while future owners of the property
and the community as a whole are subject to all the costs, inconvenience,
danger, and suffering that those increased flood damages bring. In addition,
future owners may purchase the property, unaware that it is subject to
potential flood damage, and can be insured only at very high flood insurance
rates.
f. Variances may be issued for new construction, substantial improvement, and
other proposed new development necessary for the conduct of a functionally
dependent use provided that the provisions of Sections 9-09.050 F5a
through F5e are satisfied and that the structure or other development is
protected by methods that minimize flood damages during the base flood
and does not result in additional threats to public safety and does not create
a public nuisance.
g. Upon consideration of the factors of Section 9-09.050 F4 and the purposes
of this ordinance, the Planning Commission may attach such conditions to
the granting of variances as it deems necessary to further the purposes of
this ordinance.
13
6. Any applicant to whom a variance is granted shall be given written notice that;
a. the issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood level
can result in substantially increased premium rates for flood insurance, as
determined by their in.surance carrier,
b. such construction below the base flood level increases risks to life and
property;
7. The Floodplain Administrator will maintain a record of all variance actions, including.
justification for their issuance, and report such variances issued in its biennial report
submitted to the Federal Insurance Administration, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
.
14
-----..-..-
EXHIBIT B
DEFINITIONS
The following definitions add to, or replace (as noted) existing definitions contained in
Section 9-18.030 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code.
ADDED DEFINITIONS
Area of Shallow Flooding: A designated AO or AH Zone on the Flood Insurance Rate
Map (FIRM). The base flood depths range from one to three feet; a clearly defined
channel does not exist; the path of flooding is unpredictable and indeterminate; and
velocity flow may be evident. Such flooding is characterized by ponding or sheet flow.
Area of special flood-related erosion hazard: Is the land within a community which is
most likely to be subject to severe flood-related erosion losses. The area may be
designated as Zone E on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).
Area of special flood hazard: See "Special flood hazard area."
Encroachment: For floodplain management purposes means the advance or
infringement of uses, plant growth, fill, excavation, buildings, permanent structures or
development into a floodplain which may impede or alter the flow capacity of a
floodplain.
Existing manufactured home park or subdivision: For floodplain management
purposes means a manufactured home park or subdivision for which the construction of
facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed
(including, at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and
either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed before the
effective date of the floodplain management regulations adopted by a community.
Flood, flooding, or flood water: see Flood Hazard
Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM): The official map on which the Federal
Emergency Management Agency or Federal Insurance Administration has delineated
both the areas of special flood hazards and the floodway.
Flood Insurance Study: The official report provided by the Federal Insurance
Administration that includes flood profiles, the Flood Insurance Rate Map, the Flood
Boundary and Floodway Map, and the water surface elevation of the base flood.
Floodplain or flood-prone area: Any land area susceptible to being inundated by
water from any source - see "Flooding".
1
Floodplain management regulations: Section 9-09.050 and other zoning ordinances,
subdivision regulations, building codes, health regulations, special purpose ordinances
(such as grading and erosion control) and other application of police power which
control development in flood-prone areas. This term describes federal, state or local
regulations in any combination thereof which provide standards for preventing and
reducing flood loss and damage.
Floodproofing: Any combination of structural and nonstructural additions, changes, or
adjustments to structures which reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or
improved real property, water and sanitary facilities, structures, and their contents.
Floodway fringe: The area of the floodplain on either side of the "Regulatory
Floodway" where encroachment may be permitted.
Highest adjacent grade: For floodplain management purposes means the highest
natural elevation of the ground surface prior to construction next to the proposed walls
of a structure.
Historic structure: Any structure that is
1. listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a listing
maintained by the Department of Interior) or preliminarily determined by
the Secretary of the Interior as meeting the requirements for individual
listing on the National Register.
2. certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as
contributing to the historical significance of a registered historic district or
a district preliminarily determined by the Secretary to qualify as a
registered historic district;
3. individually listed on a state inventory of historic places in states with
historic preservation programs which have been approved by the
Secretary of Interior, or
4. individually listed on a local inventory of historic places in communities
with historic preservation programs that have been certified either by an
approved state program as determined by the Secretary of the Interior or
directly by the Secretary of the Interior in states with approved programs.
Levee: A man-made structure, usually an earthen embankment, designed and
constructed in accordance with sound engineering practices to contain, control or divert
the flow of water so as to provide protection from temporary flooding.
Manufactured home park or subdivision: A parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land
divided into two or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale.
Obstruction: For floodplain management purposes, includes, but is not limited to, any
dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment, protection, excavation,
2
___,_._,,,.,", ~d ,.,._.. ---._~ ---
channelization, bridge, conduit, culvert, building, wire, fence, rock, gravel, refuse, fill,
structure, vegetation or other material in, along, across or projecting into any
watercourse which may alter, impede, retard or change the direction and/or velocity of
the flow of water, or due to its location, its propensity to snare or collect debris carried
by the flow of water, or its likelihood of being carried downstream.
Regulatory floodway: The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent
land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without
cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot.
Substantial damage: For floodplain management purposes, means damage of any
origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before
damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the
structure before the damage occurred.
Substantial improvement: For floodplain management purposes, means any
reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or othe~ proposed new development of a
structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the
structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement. This term includes
structures which have incurred "substantial damage", regardless of the actual repair
work performed. The term does not, however, include either
1. any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations or
state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have
been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the
minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions, or
2. any alteration of a "historic structure", provided that the alteration will not
preclude the structure's continued designation as a "historic structure".
DEFINITIONS WHICH ARE MODIFIED
Basement
Old definition: A portion of building partly or wholly underground and having more
than one-half of its height below the average level of the adjoining ground.
New definition: Any area of the building having its floor subgrade - i.e., below
ground level on all sides.
New construction
Old definition: For floodplain management purposes, structures for which the
start of construction commenced on or after the effective date of a floodplain
management regulation adopted by Ordinance 312 C.S. effective July 26, 1984,
as amended by Section 1 , Ordinance No 366 C.S., effective January 8,1988.
New definition' For floodplain management purposes, means structures for
which the "start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of
floodplain management regulations adopted by the City, and includes any
3
subsequent improvements to such structures (Ordinance 312 C.S. effective July
26, 1984, as amended by Section 1, Ordinance No 366 C.S., effective January .
8, 1984, and as modified by Ordinance No 501 C.S.
4
9.g.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: RICK TerBORCH, CHIEF OF POLlCE~
SUBJECT: WAIVER OF FEES - SOUTH COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY
DATE: JANUARY 26, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council approve a request by the South County
Historical Society for waiver of a $20.00 public safety and welfare permit fee and a
$300.00 exhibition fee for its Annual Antique Show and Sale.
FUNDING:
This would result in a reduction of fees to the City of $320.00.
DISCUSSION:
The South County Historical Society has requested a waiver of permit fees for its
Annual Antique Show and Sale. The South County Historical Society will sponsor this
event at the South County Regional Center on February 13 and 14, 1999 from 9 a.m.
to 9 p.m. daily. This event is one of the Society's major fund raisers. An entrance fee
of $3.50 will be charged, with discount coupons available reducing the entrance fee
to $3.00.
The South County Historical Society meets six of the seven conditions listed on the
Fee Waiver or Reduction Criteria Form. The organization has worked for 22 years to
open a museum to the public and to preserve the heritage of the Arroyo Grande area.
Profits from this fund raising event will fund retrofitting of its building on Bridge Street.
The organization participates in the annual Strawberry and Harvest Festivals. It also
provides historical programs for schools and leads walking tours of Arroyo Grande.
Alternatives
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Approve staff's recommendation;
- Do not approve staff's recommendation.
.-- -.. -----_._-
16th Annual Antique Show to benefit the South County Historical Society Museum Fund
Feb. 13 -and 14, 1999. FEE WAIVER OR REDUCTION CRITERIA FORM So Co Regional Center
Name Douglas 1-1. Le Sage . Address 297 Miller Way A. G. Phone 489-1735
~s Ways and Means Chairman
1. Local Arroyo Grande-based non-profit group or organization # 95-3539454 (provide Ld. number).
Local is defined as 50% membership from City of Arroyo Grande. 501 (C) IRS exempt
Prior years fees were waived by the Council _ .
y'~
r- Non-profit group/organization services, youth only, ages 6-19; and no specific program fees are charged youth.
. t.s when accompanied by adults
ye
3. The group/organization donates 50% of its budget supporting programs/activities within the City of Arroyo Grande
or Five Cities area. The SCHS has worked for 20 years to open a museum to ,the public and.
~ to preserve the heritage of our area. See brochure.
4. The facility/activity requested and all proceeds will be used for a speclfte City of Arroyo Grande/Five Cities area,
public project, benefit, or cause'MuselUi1 Fund to retrofit our building on Bridge Street.
i/~
5. The event proposed is open to the public, and the organization/sponsor is not requesting a donation or charging a
fee for entry or to participants (vendors, speakers, etc.).
k
6. Group or organization provides a yearly donation (equipment, monetary, services-in-kind) to the City of Arroyo
Grande. Donation to Explorer Scouts for traffic direction at this show. Participation
in Strawberry and Harvest Festivals. Provides historical programs for schools and
NV leads walking tours of our city.
7. Mid-week or shared scheduling of facility-The group has requested a date during the week (Monday-Thursday),
and another organization will be meeting at the same time.
~ Total
Oualifications: Groups meeting the criteria 1-7 score 1 point each. A score of 5 or more points qualifies a group for
consideration of a waiver or reduction of fees.
Waiver of Fees: All groups/organizations/sponsors requesting a Waiver of Fees must submit a completed Fee
Waiver/Reduction Criteria form with a letter stating the facility requested and/or event, which fees should be waived, ad
verification of information requested on the criteria form (e.g., organization donates 50% of its budget-supporting
programs in the Five Cities area). All forms and letters should be addressed to:
City of Arroyo Grande
Attention: City Clerk
POBox SSO
214 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
Determination: All requests for the reduction or waiver of fees that require a Public Safety and Welfare Permit or Police
Department Auxiliary Police Services (e.g., fees established by City Ordinance or Resolution) are appealed directly to the
City Council.
For fees totaling $200 or less for use of a City facility, waiver or reduction of the fees can be approved by the Parks and
Recreation Commission.
All decisions made by the Parks and Recreation Commission can be appealed to the City Council.
For fees totaling $201 or more for use of a City facility, waiver or reduction of fees must be approved by the City CounciL
~
.stlI3IT""'E.~ I-Ie-~
-----. ---~---- -~-,------_...._-
&udh~ 7{;~~
RE~ IVEO
f'j)tUl 0/.I1n- r&z 633 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
cbnupJ ~ @of 93421 99 JAN 15 PM 12: "3
MEMORANDUM
TO: ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL
VIA: ~~~;-RUNT, CITY MANAGER
FROM: SOUTH COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY
DATE: JANUARY 14, 1999
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR FEE WAIVER, ANTIQUE SHOW & SALE
On behalf of the South County Historical Society, I request a waiver of City Exhibition
Ordinance fees for our annual antique show and sale to be held at the South County
Regional Center on February 13 and 14, 1999,
This show and sale is a fund raiser to benefit the museum fund of the South County
Historical Society, a non-profit organization located in Arroyo Grande that is dedicated to
preserving the heritage of the local area,
Your consideration of this request is appreciated.
Douglas M. LeSage
P. O. Box 633
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
(805) 489-1735
---...-^ ._-------~_.
10...
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER ~
SUBJECT: DATE FOR WORKSHOP ON WATER RECLAMATION
PROJECTS/ISSUES
DATE: JANUARY 26, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council select a date to conduct a workshop on water
reclamation projects/issues.
FUNDING:
There are no funding impacts at this time.
BACKGROUND:
On July 14, 1998, the Council considered a staff recommended program to revise the
City's current water neutralization policy. Part of the proposed program established an in-
lieu fee to allow ease of administration and less processing time for projects. As part of the
program, a list of specific supplemental water projects needs to be identified.
Potential projects include those intended to provide for the reclamation of water currently
being discharged to the ocean to replenish groundwater as well as harvesting of
underground fresh water sources.
On December 10, 1998 a Council workshop was scheduled to discuss reclamation issues
with representatives from the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District and County
staff operating Lopez Reservoir to review projects currently in development or discuss new
projects that might be appropriate for applying any fees received from the City's program.
The meeting, however, was canceled due to a lack of a quorum.
It is recommended the workshop be rescheduled. The following Thursdays are being
presented for Council consideration:
February 25, 1999 March 11, 1999
March 25, 1999 April 8, 1999
The workshop will be scheduled for 6:30 pm in the Council Chambers.
Attachments- Draft Press Release
Staff Report of July 14, 1998
Sanitation District Letter dated October 7, 1998
Sanitation District Letter dated September 16, 1998
Article on Water Recycling
- ---~.._- .... -..- .._~- . ----._- -
PRESS RELEASE
ISSUE DATE: IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCES WORKSHOP ON WATER RECLAMATION
PROJECTS/ISSUES
The Arroyo Grande City Council has announced that a workshop will be conducted on
,6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber to exchange information
and ideas on various options, opportunities regarding potential water reclamation projects.
The educational effort will include presentations by staff from the South San Luis Obispo
County Sanitation District and County staff operating the Lopez Reservoir.
Information gained from the workshop will assist the City in developing a revised water
neutralization program/policy.
Citizens are encouraged to attend.
ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER
DATE
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:
DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER
(805) 473-5440
------~-_.__.__._- _____d_______.__.._
_' MEMORANDUM
-
TO: CITY COUNCIL
VIA: ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGE~
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER r!:f8
SUBJECT: WATER DEMAND NEUTRALIZATION POLICIES/PROGRAMS FOR NEW
DEVELOPMENT
DATE: JULY 14, 1998
<.
. RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council approve, in concept, the revised water
neutralization program and direct staff to return ~ith specific measures to implement the
program.
FUNDING:
Not applicable at the present time; however, the proposed water neu~ralization program
modifies the City's fee structure to provide funding for future water projects. Studies must
be undertaken to establish the amount of an in-lieu fee. The cost of such studies will be
a component of the in-lieu fee and will be recovered through collection of the fee.
BACKGROUND:
Since February 1992, discretionary development projects have been required to mitigate
increased water demand above historical usage to ensure an adequate water supply. A
standard mitigation measure has been included in the conditions of approval for each
project, requiring the applicant to submit. for review and approval by the City Council, an
individual water program that will neutralize projected water demand for the proposed
project.
Mitigation of additional water usage above historical levels has been required for
approximately 20 developments since 1992. Approximately 100 acre feet per year (AFY)
of additional water usage has been "neutralized" through project requirements.
Water Source~
The City of Arroyo Grande relies upon local groundwater and surface water stored in Lopez
Reservoir. The Arroyo Grande Sub-basin lies within the larger Tri-Cities Groundwater
Basin which in turn is geologically connected as part of the Santa Maria Groundwater
Basin. In addition to the City's allocation of the Arroyo Grande Groundwater Basin, Well
---.." -----.._---
- ~"'-","
WATER DEMAND NEUTRALIZATION POLICIES/PROGRAMS .'.: .
FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT -
-
JULY 14,1998
PAGE 2
#9 pumps from the Pismo formation and is able to produce 100 acre .feet per year.
Although not to be included in the City's reliable .Iong term sources, surplus water from
Lopez Reservoir is available on an average of 500 acre feet per.year.
Water releases from Lopez Reservoir serve the cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, .
Pismo Beach, the Oceano Community Services District, and CSA No. 12 (serving the Avila
Beach CSD and the adjoining area). In addition to the 4,595 acre feet of water released
for the above entities, approximately 4,200 acre feet of water is available for release into .
the Arroyo Grande Creek for downstream vested interests and groundwater recharge.
Development Potential
The further development of the City is currently being studied as. part of the General Plan
Update. Current figures indicate that the build out population will be approximately 18,700.
At the present time, the City has 927 new dwelling units either approved (483) or in
process (444). Two hundred twelve (212) units of the 927 units pending approval are
proposed increases to the existing General Plan density and are likely to require water
quantities above historical usage. If so, these units are subject to a water neutralization
program.
Water Neutralization Alternatives
The present procedure: At the present time development is being conditioned to mitigate
its increased water usage above hi~toricallevels for the site. For example, if a duplex is
proposed where only one single family residence existed before, the mitigation requirement
is equivalent to the amount of water projected to be used by the proposed duplex minus
the existing water usage. . Developers are required to submit a "water neutralization" plan
indicating how they will make up the difference in usage. Overwhelmingly, this
neutralization involves some type of retrofit program. Staff reviews these plans and
submits them to Council for final approval. Projects with approved plans are permitted
through the Building Division and inspected for compliance once completed..
Local Programs
Many other local agencies require water neutralization using various methods. Some. of
the methods' utilized are:
-mandatory retrofit for any increased usage (City of San Luis Obispo) at a two for one
offset. This means that any new development (even a ministerial building permit or
proposed development in conformance with the City's general plan) must offset its
calculated water use by twice that amount. It is estimated that a developer must retrofit
WATER DEMAND NEUTRALI~TION POLICIES/PROGRAMS
FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT -
JULY 14,1998
PAGE 3
approximately 10 to 12 single family residences to obtain enough water savings for each
new unit. The costs are estimated to be approximately $3,500 to $4,500 for the necessary
retrofits to gain each new unit. This approach is similar to Arroyo Grande in that there is
no in-lieu fee and retrofit is the primary method of gaining compliance. '
-retrofit fee (City of Grover Beach). The City of Grover Beach has calculated a fee of
$1 ,936. for new development based on retrofitting enough watertoprovide.aone for one
offset. The fee is paid to the City which then hires contractors to retrofit residences and
J businesses that have signed up for low flow fixtures. All residential development is
required to pay the fee; however; commercial development is exempt.
SUMMARY:
-Based on available data, the City's water supply is sufficiel1tfor its.projected usage at
buildout and provides enough water for development in accordance with the City's adopted
General Plan.
-The dependable yield of the groundwater basin is currently being studied by the County,
and a draft report from the Department of Water Resources is under review and comment.
It is uncertain whether that report will conclude that the City's existing groundwater
allocation under the "Gentlemen's Agreement" will continue at its existing level. If an
overdraft is determined, then calculations for.water supply and demand should be revised.
-The present water neutralization program imposed upon development by the City is
difficult to administer. This requires review by the City staff of the data and method used
to calculate the amount to be neutralized as well as confirming that all of the items listed
in the plan have been completed.
-A simple approach providing for an "in-lieu" water neutralization fee would be preferable
to the existing system.
-Water consumption can be related to a fee which can then be used for water projects or
to retrofit businesses and residences wishing to install water conserving fixtures in existing
units. .
RECOMMENDED PROGRAM:
Because existing development has relied upon the City's past actions to provide a reliable
water supply for General Plan buildout, it would be appropri~te to allow that development
to continue without extraordinary water neutralization requirements. However, it is
recommended any water usage above historical usage continue to be mitigated.
Furthermore, it is recommended that an in-lieu fee can be established to allow for ease of
administration and less processing time. It is anticipated that a fee, based on fees
currently being collected by other agencies, could be approximately $2,000 to $3,000 per
equivalent single family dwelling unit. This proposed fee will need to be refined and
supported with standardized water use factors and calculations in compliance with the
Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600) before being incorporated into an ordinance. Also, any such
fee must be indexed for inflation. As water studies are concluded which better refine the
.--.."---- _. ...._._...._.m..._._
----~
'----
WATER DEMAND NEUTRALIZATION POLICIES/PROGRAMS .h..
FOR NEW DEVELOPMENt -
JULY 14,1998
PAGE 4
amount of the City's w~ter supply, further adjustments to this program can be implemented.
The recommended program will not negatively impact staff workload since it is anticipated
that time spent on administration of the new program will be equivalent or less than the
workload under the existing program.
Potential projects for the City administered program could include installation of a grey
water pipe to be connected to an upstream point of the Arroyo Grande Creek to replenish .
groundwater and harvesting of underground fresh water sources. immediately off sh9re.
Another program could involve-the City's Redevelopment Agency. The Agency is required
to assist low and moderate income residents/families with various housing. needs.
Coupling the water mitigation in-lieu fees with the Agency's housing set-aside funds, the
Agency ccmld develop a program to retrofitlre-plumb low and moderate income housing to
promote water conservation efforts.
.
Based on an average fee of $2,200 per equivalent single family dwelling unit, the 212
dwelling units in process, which are above the existing General Plan density and likely
require an increase in water above historical usage, would generate a total of $466,400.
This amount would fall short of funding required for the large scale projects. However, this
program could be combined with Water Facilities funds (640) as a way of meeting the fiscal
requirements of larger projects. The Water Facilities Fund will have an estimated fund
balance of $2,885,137 as of June 30, 1998.
For those projects currently in the pipeline and subject to the existing water neutralization
mitigation program, staff is recommending, until ,a new program/policy is in place, project
proponents be given the option to continue under the existing program (Le. developer
proposed program for retrofitting approved by the Council) or the developer can offer a
cash deposit of $2,200 per unit with the understanding that if the final fee is less, a refund
of the difference will be made.
Altel:natives
,
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
1. Continue the existing program that requires the developer to neutralize increased water
usage above historical usage.
2. Direct staff to develop a program for water neutralization of all new development with
water requirements in excess of historical usage. The program will allow
developer/applicant the option to pay a fee or develop their own plan for water
neutralization.
3. Continue to explore other options.
4. Provide direction to staff.
'_n -~...'_. -~._-
--~._-- ---'-
STANDARD MITIGATION MEASURES
A negative declaration with mitigation measures has been adopted for
this project. The -following mitigation measures shall be implemented as
, . conditions of approval and shall be monitored by the appropriate City
department or responsible agency. The applicant shall be responsible for
verification in writing by the monitoring department or agency that the
mitigation measures have been implemented. .
WATER
->Ja._ The applicant shall submit, for review and approval of the City Council,
an individual water program that will neutralize projected water demand
for the project. The approved program shall be implemented prior to
issuance of building permits.
Time Frame: Prior to issuance of building permits.
Monitoring Department: Public Works Department
(NOT APPLICABLE TO SUBDIVISION MAP ACT PROJECTS)
_>1b._ The applicant shall submit, for review and approval of. the City Council,
an individual water program that will neutralize projected" water .demand
for the project. The approved program shall be implemented prior to
recordation of final/parcel map.
Time Frame: Prior to recordation of final/parcel m~p
Monitoring Department: Public Works Department
(SO)
2. All construction shall utilize fixtures and designs which minimize water
-
usage. Such fixtures and designs shall include,' but are not limited to,
low flow shower heads, water saving toilets, instant water heaters or
hot water recirculating systems, drip irriga~ion with drought tolerant
landscaping and so forth.
Time Frame: During building plan check
. Monitoring Department: Building and Fire Department
3. All water conserving designs or fixtures shall be installed.
Time Frame: Prior to final o~cupancy of any structure.
Monitoring Department: BuildingOand Fire Department
4. All landscaping shall be consistent. with water conservation practices
-
including the use of drip irrigation, mulch, gravel, and bark. To the
greatest extent possible, lawn areas and areas requiring spray irrigation
shall be minimized.
Time Frame: During building plan check
Monitoring Department: Parks and Recreation Department
ARCHAEOLOGY
5. In the event that during grading, construction, or development of the
- project, any archaeological resources are uncovered, all work shall be
halted until the City has reviewed the resources for their significance. If
human burials are encountered, the County Coroner (781-4513) shall be
-.
,-
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO .
WATER USE OFFSETS
II .0 .
January 1996
Purpose
Water use offs~ts are intended to allow development which will not increase City water use and
to encourage water savings which otherwise would not occur. They are a way to. comply with
the City's Water Allocation Regulations (Municipal Code Chapter 17.89),.which aim fora
balance between normal levels of water demand and the amount of supply the City can count on
during droughts.
.-
Overview & Relationsbip to Otber Programs
~::.
The Water AllOcation Regulations allow you to build a project when no water. allocations are
'available, if you make changes in existing development that will permanently reduce water use
equal to twice the water allocation you . would need. For example, if you want to build a single- .
family residence on a 6,000 square-foot lot, you need an allocation o~ 0.30 acre-foot ~ual
water use. To, build without a water allocation, you w~':l!~ .~~Y~Jou.i~~~.pefl!}_~.entw~!~=-...
saving features that would reduce water use in existing development by 2 X .0~30 = 0.60 acre-
foot. Replacing or modifying plumbing fixtures so they will use less water is called.
"retrofitting." . . .. , .. . .....,
The City gives rebates to water customers who perform certain retrofits. However, retrofits
receiving rebates are not eligible for offset credits toward new development. Certain retrofits
are required when property is sold, remodeled, or changed to another type of use. Those
retrofits can be counted as offsets toward new development, or they may be eligible for rebates,
but not both.
Calculations
>
The fast step is determining the amount of offset required for your project.. The City has.
prepared a schedule of "Water Use Factors." These factors are intended to reflect average w~ter
use over the life of a project. All quantities are expressed in acre-feet annual water use, usually
rounded to the nearest one-hundredth acre-foot. The water use factors give the q~antity otacre- .
feet for each dwelling, or for each 1,000 square feet of gross building area. for most
nonresidential projects. For a few types of development, water use correlates more. closely wi~
site area, so the factors relate to acreage. Staff will determine the most appropriate factor. If
a factor has not been determined for your particular type of development, staff will prepare an
estimate based on metered water use of similar types of development in the City (or elsewhere,
if no such use exists within the City). The normal factors can be reduced if you demonstrate
a history of lower usage in a similar project, or that your project will use less City water
; because it will include sp~ial water recycling or reuse features. When a project will replace
other uses or buildings on a site, credit is given for the hig1.test type of water usage established
on the site since January 1, 1987, according to the water use factors.
Once the required allocation is known, you double it to find the required offset..
--'''-'''''- ,----~-
--
'"
-
-
To find out the amount of credit for retrofits, see the following tables and forms. Not,all toilets.
are labeUed with,their flow rate. If it is not practital for you to check the ones. you propose to
retrofit by flushing and ref11ling them with a container, City staff will complete the credit
calculations as inspections are done. .
Procedures
A retro~t proposal must be for a particular type of project and a specific site. Once the offset .
credit has been earned, changing the ownership of the site or the details of the project will not
affect the offset credit that has been earned. Once the offset credit is earned for a specific site,
it can be transferred to another site' only if both sites are owned by the same party at the time
of the transfer and the credit will be applied to a similar proj~t. .
-
To assure you receive the proper credit, you must have a proposal on file at the City and arrange
the necessary City inspections. You may start retrofitting before you app)yJor.planning or
building project approvals. You may start retrofitting before your proposal file ,lists . all the
places you will need. (On projects with multiple building permits, your. file can act as an offset
account, with credits earned as retrofits are completed and debits made as building permits are .
issued.) There is no time limit for completing the retrofits. However, the City cannot issue the
building permit for your project until you complete the required amount of retrofitting, and the
City has insp~ted and approved the work.' . .. ,. ;..,., ._'."_ -.-.-....
.- -. .. .... .. _.' -. ...............-.-- ..... ....-..-." .... .. .. .
. Describe the specific water-saving changes when you make a retrofit propo~, as shown on the.
following forms. City staff will then check to see that the existing features are as you describe' .
them. You also must have the property owner's written permission to do the retrofit.
. .
Arrange City inspections of each retrofit before and after the work is done. The places to be
inspected must be accessible by the inspector at the scheduled time. To arrange inspections,
contact the Utilities Conservation Office (805 781-7217). In large complexes, spot-checks can
be arranged. Usually, inspections can be done within one working day of the request.
Fees and Costs
. The City charges $50 for the overall proposal, plus $10 for'each location to,be inspected, which,
must be paid before inspections are done. Projects which complete offsets pay a .smaller "water
impact fee" than otherwise would be required. You cannot pay fees to the City in place of doing
. the retrofits. The City is not party to any financial or liability arrangements between the 9wner
or occupant of the property being retrofitted and the person doing the retrofitting or recetving
the credit. Like any construction' or maintenance work, Y9U may want to get bids from seve~
qualified people. Check with the Building Division (805781-7180) concerning impact fees.
-Pennits
Plumbing permits are not required to change toilets, showerheads, or faucet aerators: They may." .. I.
be required if the retrofit is part of a larger remodelling, if the work involves pipes in ~alls or ..
under floors, or if commercial or industrial equipment is involved. Cheek with the }Juitding
Division (805781-7180) to see if a permit is required. .
" .. .. ....-
"--., , "-."-"'-.-.--"
-
Who Can Do the Work -
,
Anyone can replace toilets, showerheads, and faucet aerators'. 'There are advantages to using
a licensed contractor, and such contractors may be required for other types of retrofits.
What Can Get Credit
You may propose any change which will permanently reduce water use. rhe City will
determin~ the amount of water savings. The City has prepared schedules of offset. credits for .
common retrofit situations (following tables 2-A, 2-B and 3). Note" that some. types of
retrofitting may be more cost effective than others. When retrofitting a dwelling, a motel unit, or an office suite, you must retrofit each toiletand
shower, and each sink other than a laundry sink, which does not already m~t minimum City
standards for water efficiency". The offset credit for a unit will not be reduced from that shown
in the schedules if the shower heads or sink faucets are already low-flow. You will not be
required .to replace the whole sink if that's the only way to make it 10w-flQw. Flow restrictors
and aerators are generally .sufficient for sink faucets. Shower heads must be replaced; flow
restrictors alone are not acceptable. Toilets (tank plus bowl) must be replaced; bric~, bottles,
bending the float arm, or adjustable float devices are not acceptable. Urinal retrofits may be a
valve change or replacement. You must also check for and repair any leaks in the water 'systeiri-:- -.-,
on the customer's side of the water. meter.
After inspecting, the City may find that a proposal cannot be given the amount of credit listed
on the proposal form because the existing or new fixtures are not as described. You may want
to find a few more retrofit locations than you think you will need, in case problems arise. If
it turns out that you do not need the additional locations, you need not complete their
retrofitting.
Generally, new toilets cannot exceed 1.6 gallons per flush. However, where sewer lateral slope.
or alignment is substandard, 5-gallon toilets can be replaced with 3.5-gallon to~ets for so~e
credit. Contact staff for details.
The City does not give offset c~edit for changes to irrigation systems or planting, .because.
landscape water use is so dependent on the habits and preferences of the people maintaining the
landscaping, and the planting can easily be changed.
Fmding Places to Retrofit
You must find the piaces to be retrofitted. (Some people who do the fixture replacement as a
business also will find the places to retrofit and take care of the City forms and inspections.)
The Utilities Conservation Office (805 781-7217) can help you find places to retrofit.
..
3
\
. ..,
-
- . '
Table 1 ,..
I
APPROXIMATE NUMBERS OF DWELLINGS OR MOTEL
UNITS TO RETROFIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION
.
These are approximate amounts to' help builders estimate offset requirements and' costS~ The
required offset amount will be expressed in acre-feet, not as a number of dwellings or toilets.
Note: assumes changing from 3.S-gallon to l.S-gallon toilets.
)?roposed construction . Number of one Number of
bathroom units . . two-bathroom units
-
House, standard lot -
12 10
Residential condominium 9 7
Apartment in complex 8 6
Apartment added to house 5 6
-
Nonmedical office ' . 2 1
(per 1,000 square feet)
Downtown store . 1 1 -..------ ..... .
. (per "1~ooo-square feet) -
Service commercial building 1 1
(per 1,000 square feet)
One motel unit 5 5
Full-service restaurant 53 44
(per 1,000 square feet)
Table 2-A
OFFSET VALUES - DWELLINGS AND MOTEL OR.HOTEL UNITS
7
This table applies on"y to units with whole bathrooms, where the -before- and -after- capacities .,
qf all toilets are ihe same. If these conditio":f do not apply, see Table 3. .
Toilet gallqns Offset value
Before After (acre-feet)
One-bathroom dwelling 5 1.6 0.06
3.5 1.6 0.05
. Two-bathroom dwelling ... 5 .. _ : - .. .~ ..1.~ . ..- , . 0.08 ..... ,..- - - ... .... ... .
0~06 ..... .....
3.5 1.6
-.
Three-bathroom dwelling 5 1.6 0.10
3.5 1.6 0.08
"
~--~"_.__....__....._.- -- ---... --
\
.
Table 2-B I
OFFSET CREDIT FACTORS
SELECTED NONRESIDENTIAL RETROFITS
AsswnptionS:o. All toilets and urinals serving the building are replacedl' . new are "1.6-
gallon maximwnl' no other features are modified.
Credit factor (acre-feet per 1000 square-feet gross building area)
Type of use . From 5-gal. toilets. urinals From 3.5-gal. toilets. urinals,
Auto repair, sales 0.013 0.011
Bank, S & L 0.031 0.025
-
Bar 0.17 0.14
Church 0.031 0.026
Inc1. school, day care 0.05 0.041
Commercial, mixed tenants:
Service commercial 0.03 0.024
Neighborhood comm'l 0.17 0.14
. ,... ....-.--.- ...-.- .--- -------------:--.-----....-....
. ......__._.... Food service . " 0 __ e- o .
Full service
(3 meals; dish washing) 0.73 0.59
Convenience
(fast food; prep. on site) 0.30 0.24
Take-out, deli (min. prep. on
(site; min. seating) 0.17 0.14
Group housing . 0.017 0.014 loccupant
Hair salon, barber 0.079 0.064
Health club'
With aquatics 0.072 0.Q58
No aquatics 0.031 0.026
Manufacturing 0.071 0.057
(excl~ beverages, chemicalS)
Offices .
Building trades contr 0.015 0.012
Medical, dental 0.079 0.064
Other nonmedical 0.03 0.025
Service station 0.47 0.38 lacre of site area
Store, retail 0.020 : 0.016 "
Warehouse, wholesale 0.029 0.024
..".. .' .._ _.0.
5 ..0 ._.___.___._ ...-.-........ .- -.--..-.-.............. -
~...W'
\
-
Table 3 I
FIXTURE OFFSET VALUES
. .; .
In a house, .condo, apartment, mobile Offset value .
home. or motel/hotel unit: replace .Witb (acre...feet)
First S-gallon toilet New 3.S-gallon toil~t 0.0175
Ea~h add!tional S~gal19n toilet New 3.S-gallon toilet. . 0.0075
First S-ga11on toilet New I.S-gallon toilet 0.0350
:
Each additional S~gallon toilet New I.S-gallon toilet 0.0150 -
First 3.5-gallon New I.S-gallon toilet 0.0234
Each add!tional3.5-gallon toilet N~w I~S-gallon toilet 0.0100
. .'
First old sbowerhead New showerhead, 2.5 gal.
. per rninuteor less 0.0175
. -----
0.. .-- Eachoa"dditional old showerheacr '''- -.. New'siiowerhead~2.5'-gai:-'"
per minute or les~ 0.OQ?9. . ::0
First bathroom, old sink faucet New faucet, 2.2 gallons
per minute or l~s 0.0050
Each additional bathroom sink faucet New faucet, 2.2 gallons
per minute or less 0.0012 .
Old kitchen sink faucet New kitchen sink faucet,
2.2 gal./rnin. pr less 0.0025
': .
. .
Notes: These 'values do not appli in nomesidential buildings. The l~ger
"before"toilet gallonage is considered the rust toilet if a dwelling has two toilets
of different sizes. . . .
.
.
For more information, contact:
Utilities Conservation Of (ice
. 888 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo,' CA9340i
805 781-7217
OFFSETS.WTR.
. -...- ...
~
...
.'
/' City of Grover Beach
~. .....
-
,
1 to 1 1/2 inch meter - $11,000
2 inch meter - $19,000
3 inch meter - $44,000
". Fee;s forIarger sized meters to be determined on the ratio of size of meter. (Ord.91-: "
9)
See. 7191. Credit for Demolition..~. Credit for demolitions shall be given for demolition of dw~Uin~
commercial or industrial units that were connected to the sanitaIy sewer system on the basis of $65
per fixture unit when an application for new construction is made. (Ord. 91-9)
See, 7192. Payment for Connection. The pennit for water and sewer connections shall be made at
such time as any building permit is issued. (Ord. 91-9)
_.
CHAPTER 2 - MANDATORY WATER CONSERVATION
PART 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 7200. . Enabling Authority. This chapter is adopted pursuant to authority granted by the
Constitution and laws of the State of California which allow a City to adopt r~gu1ations intended to
protect the water resources available for use as a municip~ water s~pply and to provide for the
general health, safety and welfare of its residents.
~ee. 7201. Superior Effect. Notwithstanding any other provision in tbis code to the contrary. the
provisions of this Chapter shall supersede and have effect over any other regulatio~ policy or rule
currently existing, or which may be adopted in the future, which is or may be in conflict.
~ec 7202 Administrative Authoo~. The City Administrator shall have the authority to adopt and
promulgate reasonable administrative rules, policies and guidelines intended and designed to
implement the provisions of this chapter. \
~ec. 7203. Definition~. Except where specifically set forth. wor~ terms and phrases used herein
shall have the same meaning as those defined elsewhere in this code or as maybe set forth by the. City .
Administrator pursuant to his authority under Section 7202. (Ord. 89-3)
Part 2 - Water Fee Surcharge and Part 2.5 - Excessive Use Surcharge repeal~ by Ordinance Q2-7.
PART 3 - WATER CONSERVATION
Sec. 7230. New Structures or Buildings. All new construction. commercial or residential, shall
install and maintain water conservation devices that meet or exceed ~e following criteria:
(A) Toilets: Ultra-low flush type of no more than 1.6 gallons per flush.
(B) Showers: No more than 3 gallons per minute. -
(C) Faucets: No more than 4 gallons per minute. (Ord. 89-3)
" VII-ll
..
"
~_.- ..--- -..---. ._--~,.,,"_._.- ---,---~-----_.-
. :.:--:,., t-\.
.11; .--_.-. \
/ . . .
.
.
.
. MEMORANDUM .
'.
;a,,;,:'j~.~;~.
)A'l'E: Harch 22, 1989 ,
\E: ADJUSTMENT .~ORETROFIT FORMULA . - _.
- . , ..
..
rbe retrofit formula .(tielow) which provides a per fixture sav.ings, is based
on the dsumption that utilizing. the formula provides a 2:1 savings.
The 1988 Annual Water Report states that the savings which is shown to
occur is slightly less than'1:1.
.
The City. Cou~cil Resolution No. i4-89 (attached) requires that retrofit
achieve A 1:5.1 savings;
. .
The fox:mula which establishes the savings .per fixture, therefore, w.1.11 need
to be adjusted to allow for this. savings. . .
If the current formula achieves ~proximately a 1:1 rflther than fl ~i: 1
savings, the. savings per fixture is actually 1/7. of the current amount
stAted. ' Please note the following formula change:
Previous ~
1) new toilet with 3.5 gallons or less flush . .07(equiv) .035'
2). second toilet/ same residence .03 .015
3) new showerhead with 3.0 gpm~ or less .07 .035
4) second showerhead/ same residence .02 .01
5) . new lavatorY/~.75 gpm~ or less ." ..02 .01
6) second lavatory/same residence. .005 .0025
.
7) ne~ kitchen sink with. 2.75 gpm or less .01 .005. "
. '. . -
. TOTALS. (reflects 'the exchange of all fixtures .225 .1125.
. within ~ 2..bath nome)
.
(reflects the exchange of all fixtures within' .17 .085 '.
. 'a 1 bath home)
- ga~lons per rninu~e
.
Und~r.the current formula an applicant was required to retrofit ~sa~:~:
fixtures 8S necessary to show a savings of 2. This ~equired aproX~~ture
10 to 12 h~rnes for a full retrofit depending on . the number of ~1~ 5
exchanged and 4-6 homes under the blend, with the City a1locat1n~ .
pipeline equivalency.
,
. .
";''''':'-:::::'(:.' Memo - lletrof it
. , . . Page Two
: ....:.
. . .
Under the modified formu16 a full .retrofit would requ~~e the exchange of
fixtures 'in ~proximately 14-1~ homes 'depending onth~ number of fixtures
e~changed to reach the required saving~ of 1:1.5~
14 x .1125 = 1.57 (2 bath home) .
18 x .085 = 1. 53 (1 bath home) Note: a combination of 1 and 2 bath homeS
-- -- -- '-- . will alter th~ number of homes to be done.
Under the Blend program the City sh.all allocate .50 equivalency .or 112 of
the 1.00 equivalency req~ired' for sing)e family residential construction,
and the applicant shall achieve the remolning .50 equivalency through the
. . . " retrofit program at a 1:1.5 ratio. Ie:' .50 x 1.5 = .75 equivalenc~ This
would involve retrofitting aproximately 7-9 homes.
. .. ~:"..:. ':.. ...... .; '".
2 bath home: ,7 x .1125 = .787
.
1 bath home: 9 x .085 = .765
.
.
.
.
.
. .
".' . '.
..
- .
, -
,(
'.
-
~ETROFIT FORMULA FOR CALCULATING WATER SAVINGS UNDE~ RETROFIT
. .
Use the. .following formula for estimating water equiyalencies.
.... new toilet with 3.~ gallons or less/flush = .035 equiv.
- second new toilet in t~e same residence = .015 equiv.
- new s~owerhead with 3.0 gpm- or less = .035 equiv..
- second new showerhead in the same residence = ~01 equiv.
- new lavatory/ 2.75 gpm.or less = .01 equiv.
- second new lavatory/same residence = .0025 equiv.
- new kitchen sink with 2.75gpm or less = .005
Use the fOllowing formulas for fixtures whichsave_.more.than
those listed above (eg: 1.5 gallon/flush toilet):
- for new toilet: (.035)+ [A-B-l.5)x(.03)] =
- for second toilet: + .015
- for new showerhead: (.035)+[(A-B-2)x(.02)) =
- for sec9nd showerhead: +.01
- for new lavatory: (.01)+[(A-B-2.5)x(.OO8)) =
- for second new lavatory: .0025
- for kitchen sink: (.005)+[(A-B-2.5)x(.004)] =
Where A= fJow rate or capacity of old fixture to be replaced (eg:
5.0 gallon/flush or 5.0 gallons/minute flow) and wher~ B= floPV
rate or capacity of the new fixture to be installed (eg: 1.5.
gallons/flush o~ 1.~5 gaTIOns/minute flow).
FULL RETROFIT MUST SAVE A TOTAL .OF 1.5.
BL~ND PROGRAM MUST SAVE A TOTAL OF .75
NOTES: No additional credit is given for additional toilets,
showers or lavatories beyond 2. h9wever ALL of. each
type of fixture must be retrofitted to ge~red1t for
any of . that type of fixture (eg: all tOllets must be
retrofitted br n~ credit for any toilets).
-
---~
.,.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 14, 1998
-
neutralization. The motion also included authorization to staff to allow
developers an interim program to pay an in-lieu fee until the permanent water
neutralization program is in place.
.x. Voice Vote
_Roll Call Vote
Yes Dougall
Yes Lady
Yes Fuller
Yes Runels
Yes Tolley
There being 5 A YES an~ 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
The following members of the public spoke to the City Council on .thernatter:
Bill Foster of 102 Via Bandolero Subject: Agenda Item 11.A.
Tim Brown of 125 Allen Street Subject: General Plan Update
Otis Page of 606 Myrtle Street Subject: 1998 Election Candidates' Platforms
9. CONSENT AGENDA
Council Member Lady moved and Council Member Runels seconded the motion
to approve the following Consent Agenda Items 9.a. through 9.rn., with the
recommended courses of action.
_Voice Vote
X-RolI Call Vote
. Yes Dougall
Yes Lady
Yes Fuller ,
Yes Runels
Yes Tolley
There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed.
g.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification.
9.b. Statement of Investment Deposits.
9.c. Minutes of June gth special Meeting, June 18th Joint City Council/Planning
Commission Meeting, and June 23rd Special Meeting.
4
--..------ --_....~
SOUTH SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
-
Operations Address: - Business Address:
1600 Aloha Post Office Box 339
Oceano, California 93445 Oceano, California 93445
(805) 489-6666 (805) 481-6903
MEMORANDUM lblS'DLfh. ~
DATE: October 7,1998 Lu I.] tfbkl\L :
TO: Board of Directors J}
FROM: John L. Wallace, District Administra r
L:~~
SUBJECT: Presentation of Reclamation Status to the San Luis Obispo County Flood
Control and Conservation District (Zone 3) Advisory Committee on Recycled
Water
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board;
Receive this report and provide direction to staff.
FUNDING:
The Water Recycling Facilities Planning Grant provides for a $75,000 matching fund to be used to
study the feasibility of recycling treated wastewater. The approved total study cost is $150,000.
DISCUSSION:
The recycled water service area to be investigated will include a portion of the Arroyo Grande Creek
watershed managed by the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
(Zone 3). The study will also include targeted market service areas of Arroyo Grande, Oceano,
Grover Beach, Pismo Beach, CalTrans (101) and unincorporated areas in San Luis Obispo County,
including the Nipomo Mesa.
There is also potential groundwater recharge areas that will be identified in the Los Berros and
Nipomo Mesa groundwater sub-basins.
Arrangements have been made to begin project planning with a presentation to the Zone 3 Advisory
Committee to create an open forwn for discussions with service area agencies. Staff is proposing
to discuss the scope of the Planning Grant and the feasibility of delivering recycled water within the
servIce area.
To begin this process, a presentation/workshop is tentatively scheduled for 10:00 am Thursday,
November 5, 1998 meeting with the Zone 3 Technical Advisory Committee at the Grover Beach
City Hall.
A presentation is also tentatively scheduled at the Zone 3 Advisory Committee Meeting on
Thursday, November 19,1998 at 7:00 pm, also at the Grover Beach City Hall.
A:zone3. wpd
~:e~~ irJ5l9( -----------
"\
.
-.
Revised schedule Waste water Recycling Facilities Grant for Facilities Planning
Grant Application Submitted to OWR....................................................................February, 1998
OWR Reviews Application.......................................... ...................................... ........ .March, 1998
Application Review Meetings with SWRCB.............. ..................................... ........ ......... April, 1998
SWRCB Authorizes Grant...................... ......................... .................. ...... ...................... ...May, 1998
Cost Reimbursement Eligible Date....................................................... ... .... ...... ..............June 18, 1998
Grant Contract Execution.............................................................................. ..... ........ ...October, 1998
JL W A I KJC I District Meeting (Start Date).........................................................November, 1998
Begin Facilities Planning Tasks.................. ...... .......................... ....................... ....... ..January, 1999
Negotiations with Service Area Agencies..........:.................................................... February, 1999
District Submits Draft Facilities Plan............. ........................................... .............. ......April, 1999
Plan Review by OWR........... ...... ............ ....... ............. ............. .... ......... .......... ...... ...... ...June, 1999
OWR processes 50 percent of Grant Payment.................................................................July, 1999
Final Facilities Plan and Report Submittal (Completion Date)..............................September, 1999
A:grntscb.wpd
----- .--
. 41,~6twWJ:
" &1
SOUTH SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
... ~
-.
Operations Address: Business Address:
1600 Aloha Post Office Box 339
Oceano, California 93445 Oceano, California 93445
(805) 489-6666 (805) 481-6903
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 16,1998
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: John L. Wallace, District Administrato I
/
SUBJECT: Water Recycling Grant - Status Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board;
Receive and file this report.
FUNDING:
The grant provides for a $75,000 matching fund to be used to study the feasibility of recycling treated
wastewater. The approved total study cost is $150,000.
DISCUSSION:
The District's grant proposal to fund a study for the feasibility of delivering recycled wastewater has
been approved by the California State Water resources Control Board (SWRCB) under the Division
of Clean Water Programs.
The schedule to begin the study and completing the specific tasks associated with the study has been
delayed due to health problems experienced with administrative personnel of the Office of Water
Recycling. The attached schedule is a revised edition of the original app.roved schedule as
recommended by the Office of Water Recycling. Although the completion date called for in the
resolution is May 31, 1999, State staff has recommended a completion date of September 1999 to
be more realistic and to accommodate their staffs delays in authorization.
The attached resolution adopted by the SWRCB authorizes reimbursement for expenditures that are
incurred after June 18,1998.
The next step in the grant process is for the SWRCB to execute the Grant Contract with the State
and for the District to set up a "kick off" meeting with Kennedy Jenks Consultants and staff. Staff II
will also meet in the next several weeks with representatives of our parent agencies as well as
representatives of Zone 3 (Lopez) to discuss opportunities for water recycling and groundwater
recharge.
026. 02grant. wpd
t.~ e.ctij~ ,/.d<L ^ ..._._.__.._-~~----_..-._._,------_.-._-
. " JlIJ+~i.dJ<~
WATER RECYCLING -
CALIFORNIA'S SUSTAINABLE ee'
~------
WATER SUPPLY L\ D, KU-brtA-
"'Y
~ Next~ air, water is our most precious natural resource. ute Is not possible Without water.'We
:. se . '. n our iiomes, businesses and just about everywhere else. From high technology to agriculture,
wate ,is the " blood of California's economy.
?". ,. gt~ms a~d in.tricate water delivery systems play an important role in sustaining t~e ~~owing
jthlrst for '. "r.n California. However, the state has been forced to reassess the Iongtenn rellabtllty of
,;, its major ',r supply systems. Between now and the year 2020, California's population is expected to
\rise from . illion to 50 million residents. Additionally, there is a growing recognition of the need to
restore and preserve our aquatic ecosystems by allowing larger volumes of water to remain within the
banks of the streams plunging down from the Sierra Mountains and all the way out to sea.
The fastest growing water supply in California is recycled water. In fact, California stands at the
forefront of the water recycling movement in the United States. This year alone, enough water wilt be
recycled to meet the needs of over 2 million people. In addition to the 250 water recycling systems
currently operating in the state, 165 new projects are in the works. By 2010, enough water will be
recycled to meet the needs of 5 million people.
Current and planned usage of recycled water includes irrigation of a wide varie1y of crops and
ornamental landscapes, wildlife and fisheries enhancement, industrial supply, groundwater recharge
and many more innovative and creative applications. Industries with names like Gallo, Korbel, Wente,
Chevron, Mobil and Bethlehem Steel, to name a few, all rely on recycled water for their water supply
needs. A winner of thoroughbred horse racing's premier event, the Kentucky Derby, was raised on a
California pasture irrigated with recycled water. The 4gers training field in Santa Clara is irrigated with
recycled water. Water recycling is very much alive and well from Santa Rosa to the Mexican Border and
from the Sierra foothills to the Pacific Ocean.
The recent surge in water recycling activi1y can be attributed to improvements in technology,
strong public ~ceptance and greater recognition of the economic, social and environmental benefits of
recycling. Experience, innovation and creativity have greatly expanded the utility and acceptance of
recycled water. Communi1y leaders recognize that recycled water presents an opportunity to enhance
the reliability of local water resources and strengthen the local economy.
For mmy oommunmes, M investtMnt In ~ -: solves many probIerm slm~. ..' .... c.~
It may solve a difficult water pollutio~ control, problef!l, o~ ~IR,~~re a wetland or mal'Sh.~,~ ,for!".', ,(!. 11]1'l-
stall a severEt.,watershortage orproVlde.d~O,yght ., ,00-" " offsetc~~;.w.. ~., "'H~'~~\',,:!),
'- . -" '-'-"_:'>l~::'_~' :-("':::.-" .- <:/'.-- ,.. '-~:'; -{~:;<;\:,,_:",->'~f '-:i:t~'~'~i;:."'; :."',",J':- " . ..~.~ .;.;;: .~'~",:,~t~~::. '~~':'~~;f '-r"J?~- . .~' '-. . ~""i\~~-:' ~:;..,..;~:{,'r(.,_
RECYCLING WATER TO MEET
CALIFORNIA'S NEEDS
VOLUME 8, ISSUE 8 · SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998 ASSOCIATION Of CALIfORNIA
Board Ado,-ts New Strategic Plan
Vision for the Future Reinforces Committee Structure
A heightened level of The following five the dissemination of the of the initiatives for each
activity in the next strategic goals were findings of this valuable of the five strategic goals
three years, including addressed: advocacy, information. listed abaft, increased
Inaeased committee education, research, Strategic Goal 4: stafIIng, devdopment of a
R!SpODSibllity, an membership, and baud membership
agressive public . organization infrastructure. Membership success10n plan, and
education campaign and Strategic Goal 1: Membership includes deftlopment of a multi-
expanded partidpation in enhancing member year budget.
state and federal water Advocacy services, expanding the -nus strategic plan
policy decision-making, is Advocacy addresses membership base, seeking provides the framework
part of the new strategic several challenges and out influential leaders who for suc:c:essfully achieving
plan adopted by the opportunities including can serve on the the Association's
WateReuse Board of influencing the CALFED Association's committees vJsion/mJss1on of being
Directors. Bay-Delta solution, and Board, and to look CaUfomIa's leading water
-nte Board recognizes . increased member outside of California to . recydIng advocate,. said
that the needs and partidpation in the increase the influence of Executtve Director Peter
interests of the advocacy program, a closer the Association. ).{vI ~n. -rogether, the .
membership are becoming link with the public interest The final area, Association's Board,
much more sophisticated,. in the environment and the COD1IDIttees and members
said Lois Humphreys, need to form strategic Si=~ Goal s: wD1 make the WateReuse
WateReuse President. .We alliances with the o tion vision a reality, and
wanted to ensure that environmental interest In astructure increase the amount of
WateReuse continues to groups interested in Organization water recycling in
provide a wide array of increased water recycling. Infrastructure is based on CalIfornia..
valuable membership the Association's
benefits into the next Strategic Goal 2: commitment to be a high
century. · Education performing organization.
The Board's highest Education will focus on This goal addresses the
priority during the the implementation of the successful implementation
sttategic plan discussion Assocj.ation's public
was to channel finandal education master plan,
and staff resources to fulfilling the need for
committees to encourage educational information
Inaeased activity at that on water recycling, the
level. .We would like to home page and efforts to
1ft a greater number of increase the presence of
WateReuse members regulatory offidals and
involved in our technical external audiences at the
committees,. stated Association's programs.
Humphreys. .Our
members are our greatest Strategic Goal 3:
RSOUrCe and we want to Research
utilize the membership to ReseaICh looks at both
help us achieve our five
strategic goals.. the need for additional
research and development
in water recycling but also
SEPl1!NBEIIOCTO 1998 WA1DI!USE 1
..
---'-"-~--'------"---'-
WATEREUSE FACT SHEET
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
WHAT IS WATER RECYCLING"?
The California Water Code defines recycled water as "water which, as a result of treatment of
waste, is suitable for a direct beneficial use or a controlled use that woufd not otherwise occur."
In keeping with Water Code provisions prohibiting the waste of water, recycling allows water
managers to match water quality to specific reuse applications. This reduces the amount of
fresh water required for non-potable uses, ensuring that the best and purest sources of water
will be reserved for the highest use - public drinking water.
WHY IS WATER RECYCLING IMPORTANT?
Water is in short supply in California. Most of the State's developed water is transported from
water-rich rural mountain areas for use in Central Valley agriculture and the urban areas of San
Francisco Bay and Southern California. This dependency on imported water, coupled with the
occurrence of drought, makes future water supply- reliability a concern. Water conservation
efforts help, but are not enough. The Department of Water Resources estimates that the State
will need to increase its water supply by 3 to 5 million acre-feet per year by the )'ear 2020.
Water recycling is an important part of increased reliability. One acre-foot of water is enough to
meet the needs of two families for a year. Each acre-foot of potable water replaced by recycled
water helps extend the local supply and helps "drought proof" the community.
WHAT MA.lOR LAWS REGULATE THE TREATMENT AND USE OF
RECYCLED WATER?
In California, the State Water Resources Control Board regulates the production, conveyance,
and use of recycled water through its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The State
Department of Health Services regulates the level of treatment through California Administrative
Code Title 22. Local health agencies help enforce these requirements, which are among the
most stringent in the world.
WHAT IS THE QUALITY OF RECYCLED WATER?
The final use of the water dictates how much additional treatment is required over and above the
baseline treatment required for discharge into a waterway. Recycled water that has the greatest
potential for human contact must have the highest level of treatment and reliability. Treatment
requirements are less intense for non-potable uses where human contact is less likely to occur.
How IS RECYCLED WATER TREATED?
Wastewater goes through primary, secondary and advanced tertiary treatment at reclamation
plants. During primary treatment, large solids are removed. Secondary treatment uses bacteria
to remove approximately 9!?-98 percent of the remaining solids and organic material. Tertiary
treatment employs filtration to remove any remaining solids and uses a disinfectant, such as
chiorine, to destroy bacteria, viruses and other pathogens. For many reuse applications, an
advanced treatment process, such as filtration or reverse osmosis, is required. These processes
duplicate nature's own purifying actions.
WateR..... AssocIatIon of Califomia · (916) 442.2746 · www.w8t.r......rC/U.
_..~..~~-------
FREQUENTL Y ASKED Qu ESTIONS (CONTINUED)
\
How IS RECYCLED WATER USED?
California isa pioneer in the field of water recycling. Successful projects exist for practically any
type of reuse imaginable. Landscape irrigation has been practiced for more than 50 years, and
recreational uses and industrial recycling are also common. Agricultural irrigation, always an
important reuse for forage crops, has expanded in recent years as a result of major studies dem-
onstrating that tertiary treated water is safe for raw-eaten (uncooked) crops. There are many
examples of recycled water being used to support and enhance aquatic habitat, fish and wildlife.
ARE RECYCLED SUPPLIES KEPT SEPARATE FROM DRINKING WATER?
Yes. Standard practice requires separate pipes for drinking water and recycled water. Guidelines
set by the Department of Health Services ensure that recycled water facilities are clearly distin-
guishable from other water facilities to avoid mixing of supplies. Pipes are made of purple material,
and labeled with the words '"Recycled Water - Do Not Drink."
Is RECYCLED WATER SAFE TO DRINK?
Indirect potable reuse occurs in many communities as recycled water from an upstream community
rejoins a river and becomes part of a downstream water supply. In addition, several milestone
groundwater recharge projects in Southern California have an excellent track record of success,
with over 30 years of history and no outbreaks of water-borne disease linked to recycled water.
Through groundwater recharge, recycled water is percolated into groundwater basins, mixes with
naturally-occurring groundwater, and eventually is pumped out for domestic use. The next step,
using recycled water to augment surface water supplies, has occurred in several areas in the
t United States and abroad. Recycled water currently supplements supplies in Virginia, and San
Diego is developing a project to produce repurified water to supplement imported water in a local
storage reservoir. Treatment technologies are constantly improving, and indirect potable reuse is
likely to become a well accepted part of future water supply planning.
WHAT IS THE COST OF RECYCLED WATER?
Costs vary depending on the type of project being developed, the degree of treatment required,
and the proximity of the water treatment plant to the location where the recycled water will be
used. Many agencies have been resourceful in obtaining federal, state, and local grants and/or
low-interest loans that help defray the cost of the recycled water and make it more competitive
with other sources. However, the cost of producing recycled water is frequently a deterrent to
developing a successful project. This is likely to change in the future because recycled water is
becoming more competitive with the cost of other new water supplies.
How CAN I GET MORE INFORMATION ABOUT WATER RECYCLING?
Call the WateReuse Association of California at (916) 442-2746.
EUSE
CA..'FORNIA
(916) 442.2748 · www.wlltere..e.orgJh2o
~- _.u,_.__._
WATEREUSE FACT SHEET
TITLE 22, HEALTH AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
With the adoption of the Porter-Cologne Act in 1969, the Legislature declared its intent to "un-
dertake all possible steps to encourage development o(water recycling facilities." Although
water recycling and reuse projects operated successfully before that time, laws enacted in 1969
set forward a basic structure for water reuse projects that has been in place for nearly 30 years.
The California Water Code articulates a clearly-cJefined strategy favoring the beneficial reuse of
water to the maximum extent practical. Under this structure of laws and administrative regula-
tions,. the California Department of Health Services (DHS) is responsible for the adoption of
regulations for the use of recycled water. The California Regional Water Quality Control Boards
issue requirements for individual projects in conformance with the regulations adopted by DHS.
HIGHEST TREATMENT FOR THE HIGHEST USE
DHS establishes water quality standards and treatment reliability criteria for water recycling
under Title 22, Chapter 4, of the California Code of Regulations. Requirements for a use of
recycled water not addressed by the uniform statewide criteria are established by DHS on a
case-by-case basis. The table called "Recycled Water Uses Allowed in California" illustrates the
wide variety of successful reuse applications and the level of treatment required.
Title 22 sets bacteriological water quality standards on the basis of the expected degree of
public contact with recycled water. For water reuse applications with a high potential for the
public to come in contact with the reclaimed water, Title 22 requires disinfected tertiary treat-
ment. For applications with a lower potential for public contact, Title 22 requires three levels of
secondary treatment, basically differing by the amount of disinfection required.
OTHER HEALTH AND SAFETY PROTECTIONS
In addition to establishing recycled water quality standards, Title 22 specifies the reliability and
redundancy for each recycled water treatment and use operation. Treatment plant design must
allow for efficiency and convenience in operation and maintenance and provide the highest
possible degree of treatment under varying circumstances. For recycled water piping, DHS has
requirements for preventing backflow of recycled water into the public water system and for
avoiding cross-connection between the recycled and potable water systems.
Other regulations include the Uniform Plumbing Code, which contains requirements for the
installation, construct!on, alteration, and repair of reclaimed water systems intended to supply
toilets, urinals, and trap primers for floor drains and floor .sinks. Use of recycled water for these
applications is limited to non-residential buildings. The California-Nevada Section of the American
Water Works Association has issued guidelines for planning, designing, constructing, and operat-
ing recycled water systems. These guidelines provide essential design criteria and specifications
for the construction of transmission, storage, pumping, and other facilities. Also incllfded is a
description of system operation and maintenance requirements pursuant to applicable state
regulations.
WATE
ASSOCIATION OF
(916) 442-2746 . www.w8tereu...orgjh2o
--,,-----_.
RECYCL~D . WATER USES *ALLOWE~lri:d~EIFORNi~A:~::i/~;~:;-;:'-~t~.j!;{;:.i2._;~~.,
"..~:~.,,'., ..',~ ;..tf:<'\,.:,)o.....!'.~..'~ ': ,"
This summary is prepared by WateReuse Association of California, from the March 1997 draft of proposed
Title-22 revisions and supersedes previous versions.
Use of Recycled Water
Treatment Level
Disinfected Disinfected DIsInfected lladislnfected
T.tI8ry SecoI.....y4.2 SecaR".1'J"23 .u.....,
Recycled Water Recycled Water Recycled ___ Reqded Water
Irrigation of:
Food crops where recycled water contacts
the edible portion of the crop, including
all root crops Allowed Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed
Parks and playgrounds Allowed Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed
School yards Allowed Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed
Residential landscaping Allowed Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed
Unrestricted access golf courses Allowed Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed
My other irrigation uses not prohibited by other
provisions of the California Code of Regulations Allowed Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed
Food crops where edible portion is produced
above ground and not contacted by
recycled water Allowed Allowed Not allowed Not allowed
Cemeteries Allowed Allowed Allowed Not allowed
Freeway landscaping Allowed Allowed Allowed Not allowed
Restricted access golf courses Allowed Allowed Allowed Not allowed
Ornamental nursery stock and sod farms Allowed Allowed Allowed Not allowed
Pasture for milk animals Allowed Allowed Allowed Not allowed
Nonedible vegetation with access control to
prevent use as a park, playground or
school yard Allowed Allowed Allowed Not allowed
Orchards with no contact between edible
portion and recycled water Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed
Vineyards with no contact between edible
portion and recycled water Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed
Non food-bearing trees, including Christmas
trees not irrigated less than 14 days
before harvest Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed
Fodder crops (e.g. alfalfa) and fiber crops
(e.g. cotton) Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed
Seed crops not eaten by humans Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed
Food crops that undergo commercial
pathogen-destroying processing before
consumption by humans Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed
Ornamental nursery stock, sod farms not
irrigated less than 14 day before harvest Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed
. Refer to the full text of the latest YefSion 'of TltJe.22: California Water Recycling Criteria. This chart is only a guide to the March 1997 version.
WateR..... Assod8tIon of California · (916) 442.2746 · www.water.u...or~h2o
RECYCLED'WAt~ll~j~6TI~CAtf~_i
." :-. ';1: ';;.'~'I' ;:,....'. :.. ..
..
Use of Recycled Water
Treatment Level
Disinfected Disinfected DisInfected Uadlslafected
Tertiary Secondery-2.2 hcGtId..,.z3 ~
" . Recycled Water Recycled Water R8CJded Water Recyded Water
Supply for impoundment:
Nonrestricted recreational impoundments, with
supplemental monitoring for pathogenic organism Allowed** Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed
Restricted recreational impoundments and
publicly accessible fish hatcheries Allowed Allowed Not allowed Not allowed
landscape impoundments without decorative
fountains Allowed Allowed Allowed Not allowed
Supply for cooling or air conditioning:
Industrial or commercial cooling or air conditioning
involving cooling tower, evaporative condensers
or spraying that creates a mist Allowed*** Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed
Industrial or commercial cooling or air conditioning
not involving cooling tower, evaporative
condensers or spraying that creates a mist Allowed Allowed Allowed Not allowed
Other uses:
Groundwater Recharge Allowed under special case-by-<:ase permits by RWQCBs****
Rushing toilets and urinals Allowed Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed
Priming drain traps Allowed Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed
Industrial process water that may contact workers Allowed Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed
Structural fire fighting Allowed Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed
Decorative fountains Allowed Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed
Commercial laundries Allowed Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed
Consolidation of backfill material around
potable water pipelines Allowed Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed
Artificial snow making for commercial outdoor uses Allowed Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed
Commercial car washes excluding the general
public from washing process Allowed Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed
Industrial boiler feed Allowed Allowed Allowed Not allowed
Nonstructural fire fighting Allowed Allowed Allowed Not allowed
Backfill consolidation around nonpotable piping Allowed Allowed Allowed Not allowed
Soil compaction Allowed Allowed Allowed Not allowed
Mixing concrete Allowed Allowed Allowed Not allowed
Dust control on roads and streets Allowed Allowed Allowed Not allowed
Cleaning roads, sidewalks and outdoor work areas Allowed Allowed Allowed Not allowed
Rushing sanitary sewers Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed
· Refer to the full text of the latest version of TItle-22: California Water Recycling Criteria. This chart is only a guide to the March 1997 \/eI'S1on.
.. With "conventional tertiary treatment". Additional monitoring for two years or more is necessary with direct filtration.
... Drift eliminators and/or biocides are r~ired if public or employees can be exposed to mist,
.... Refer to Groundwater Recharge Guidelines. California Department of Health Services.
WateReuse AssocIation of CalIfomIa · (916) 442-2746 . www.watereuse.org;1I2o
WATEREUSE FACT SHEET
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
Studies over the past two decades have shown increasingly positive public attitudes about water
recycling. This is particularly true in areas where use of recycled water has been an ongoing
practice. The higher the level of familiarity with the subject, the more favorable the response.
Without public acceptance, it would be difficult for any local government or special district to
site, finance, construct, and operate a water recycling project. This Fact Sheet summarizes the
"who, what, when, and how" involved with public education and outreach programs.
WHEN SHOULD A PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM BE INITIATED?
People tend to favor water recycling projects if they are informed in advance. Thus, a public
education and outreach program should be implemented early in the planning process. An
effective strategy is to establish an early customer base, Le., users of the recycled water, to
help generate project understanding and support. In addition to the initial public education and
outreach program, an ongoing availability of information will help respond to public inquiry.
WHAT ARE KEY ISSUES OF CONCERN?
Water recycling projects will frequently raise many, and in some cases all, of the
fOllowing issues:
· Facility siting
· Environmental impacts
· Quality of recycled water and specific use
· Safety of operation and protection of public health
· Cost, allocation, and financing
· Construction impacts
· Customer acceptance of products produced with recycled water
How CAN THE PUBLIC BE INVOLVED?
To build strong support, it helps to go beyond the public involvement requirements of
the state and federal environmental review process. To supplement participation through public
hearings and review, it is a good strategy for the agency sponsoring the water recycling project
to establish a Customer Forum and/or a Community Task Force. By being proactive and by
getting a head start on public involvement, it will be possible to identify and address
users' concerns, to design a project which best meets the community's needs, and to develop
community advocates.
WATE
ASSOCIATION OF
(916) 442.~746 · www.weterea...orgfh2o
-~--
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH (CONTINUED)
To WHOM SHOULD THE PUBLIC EDUCATION EFFORT BE DIRECTED?
A new water recycling project is typically intended to extend the community's water supply. This-
and the environmental benefits frequently associated with water reuse - provide an ideal founda-
tion upon which to build a public education and outreach program. To reach the public, the
project proponent needs to determine the appropriate target audiences. Obviously, the public at
large is the ultimate audience. However, it may be more effective and efficient to reach the
public through the media, elected officials, schools and various interest groups and community
leaders. Selecting the most appropriate target audience for each project is critical to the ulti-
mate success of the program.
WHAT ARE THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A PUBLIC EDUCATION
PROGRAM?
A number of ingredients can be a part of a successful public education program, including
written materials (brochures, fact sheets, lists of experts, bibliographies/article reprints,
Internet sites); community outreach (briefings for elected officials, presentations before affected
communities, school programs, speakers' bureaus); media liaison (press releases, public
service announcements, editorial board meetings); and special activities (videos, slide presenta-
tions, 1-800 number with interactive message, and events such as groundbreaking ceremonies,
openings, and awards ceremonies). The particular components will be determined in part, by the
requirements of the project, and the budget available. One of the most successful ways to
develop pUblic acceptance is to point to existing projects with a track record of success. By
actually seeing and learning about efficiently-<>perated reclamation treatment plants and properly-
used recycled water, the public will gain a better understanding of, and willingness to support
current and future water recycling projects.
WHO SHOULD CONDUCT A PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM?
Some of the larger agencies have established in-house public information offices with talented
individuals and adequate resources dedicated to maintaining liaison with their communities.
Other agencies, particularly those just starting their water reuse projects, choose to hire special-
ists in public affairs and public relations. Either way, it should be recognized that there is a
wealth of experience among the California water and wastewater managers who have already
succeeded with excellent public education programs. These agencies are typically willing to
share their experiences and the materials they have developed with other public entities. Agen-
cies wanting information about whom to contact should consult the WateReuse expert list, which
can provide names of individuals whose successful experiences "match" the specific require-
ments of the new water recycling project being considered.
EUSE
CALIFORNIA
(916) 442.~746 · www.w.ereu.e.org/h2o
-
'WATEREUSE FACT SHEET
INDIRECT POTABLE REUSE
For more than 50 years, California has been a pioneer in water recycling. Advances in technology
and new philosophies about praventing the "waste" of water have combined to make water
recycling an increasingly important part of water resources planning. The next challenge is to
expand the existing uses of recycled water to encompass potable reuse (drinking, cooking, and
bathing). Direct potable reuse - where the product water is released into a municipal distribution
system immediately after treatment - is practiced only in Windhoeck, Namibia at this time and is
probably far in the future in the U.S. However, indirect potable reuse is more widely practiced
and becoming more accepted. The following paragraphs provide an overview of the principles
involving indirect potable reuse.
WHAT Is INDIRECT POTABLE REUSE?
With indirect potable reuse, a highly treated recycled water is returned to the natural environ-
ment (groundwater reservoir, storage reservoir, or stream) and mixes with other waters for an
extended period of time. Then, the blended water is diverted to a water treatment plant for
sedimentation, filtration and disinfection before it is distributed. The mixing and travel time
through the natural environment provide several benefits: (1) sufficient time to assure that the
treatment system has performed as designed, with no failures, (2) opportunity for additional
treatment through natural processes such as sunlight and filtration through soil, and (3) in-
creased public confidence that the water source is safe. Unplanned indirect potable reuse is
occurring in virtually every major river system in the United States today.
WHAT TECHNOLOGY Is USED To TREAT WATER FOR INDIRECT
POTABLE REUSE?
Membrane treatment is the most advanced technology for removal of the tiniest particles -
including small ions such as sodium and chloride - from the recycled water. The most common
membrane process employed is reverse osmosis (RO). Under relatively high pressure, water is
forced across the semi-permeable RO membranes in special vessels to produce nearly pure
water. Impurities are collected in a separate brine stream for disposal.
How PROVEN Is INDIRECT POTABLE REUSE?
The Denver Water Board, with assistance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, con-
ducted an intensive study of potable reuse, using a one million gallon per day pilot plant for five
years. Several combinations of treatment processes were tested, and potable water was pro-
duced and analyzed for nearly all known contaminants. In addition, feeding studies were per-
formed on rats and mice. Over several generations, rats and mice were given recycled water
concentrates, while similar control groups were given water concentrates from the snowmelt
from the highest peaks of the Rocky Mountains. No significant health differences were found
between the two groups.
WATE EUSE
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA
(916) 442.2746 . www.watereu...org,th2o
~_..- J
, ,
INDIRECT POTABLE REUSE (CONTINUED)
WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF INDIRECT POTABLE REUSE?
For more than 20 years, the Upper Occoquan Sewage Authority (UOSA) Regional Water Reclama-
tion Plant has been discharging to the Occoquan Reservoir, a principal water supply source for
approximately one million people in northern Virginia. Because of the plant's reliable, state-of-
the-art performance and the higtH:1uality water produced, regulatory authorities have endorsed
UOSA plant expansion over the years to increase the safe yield of the reservoir. UOSA recycled
water is now an integral part of the water supply plans for the Washington metropolitan area.
Other major projects with proven track records are in Los Angeles County and Orange County,
California, and in EI Paso, Texas. After decades of research, pilot studies, and demonstration,
the City of San Diego is designing a 20-mgd indirect potable reuse project.
WHAT ARE THE REGULATORY CONTROLS FOR INDIRECT
POTABLE REUSE?
A basic regulatory structure for water recycling and reuse projects has been in place in California
since 1969. However, projects involving indirect potable reuse were traditionally evaluated on a
case-by-case basis, making it difficult to plan for this type of water recycling application. A
breakthrough occurred in January 1996 when a regulatory framework for potable reuse was
adopted by a Committee convened jointly by California's Department of Health Services and
Department of Water Resources. Eighteen individuals, representing these Departments and
major water supply and sanitation organizations, signed the framework. The framework estab-
lishes six criteria that must be met before a potable reuse project proceeds. With these "ground
rules" in place, agencies will find it easier to evaluate the feasibility of implementing an indirect
potable reuse project.
WHAT ARE MULTIPLE BARRIERS?
One of the most important concepts contributing to the growing acceptance of indirect potable (
reuse is that of multiple barrier protection. While RO is the heart of a potable reuse process,
several other treatment processes are normally added to provide as near a fail-safe system as
humanly possible. Primary and secondary treatment, dual media filtration, chemical additions,
disinfection, and pretreatment are provided prior to the RO step. Each of these treatment steps
removes a certain portion of the initial conceotration of microorganisms and pollutants in the
water. Additional removal capabilities follow. 'This combined treatment capability not only adds up
to an impressive cleansing power, but also act as back-ups to one another in case any step in
the system fails to perform. Storage is also viewed as an important barrier to contaminants. In
addition to multiple-treatment processes, multiple barrier protections also include source control
programs (preventing introduction of pollutants at the source) and strict operations and mainte-
nance procedures.
WATE
ASSOCIATION OF
(918) 442.~748 · www.wetereu...orgfh2o
- --
--~'----'---'--'_.... ---...-----.- -_._,~_._--
CIJy oJ 4rnyo GrCVr1de--.
PUBLIC
NOTICE.
DUE TO A LACK OF A QUORUM,
THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL
WORKSHOP OF THURSDAY,
DECEMBER 10TH
HAS BEEN CANCELLED.
THE WORKSHOP ON WATER
R.ECLAMA TION PROJECTS/ISSUES
WILL BE RESCHEDULED AND
NOTICED FOR A LATER DATE
'11~a.~
Nancy A. Davis, City Clerk
~~o/ P.O. Box SSG
208 East Branch Street
~ /ff~ Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
Phone: (80S) 473-5440. Engineering
FAX: (80S) 473-5443
PUBLIC WORKS 1375 Ash Street
. Phone: (80S) 473-S4A Corp. Yard
FAX: (80S) 473-54'2
January 22, 1999. E-MaD:agclty@arroYoarande.org
Residents/Owners
Newport Avenue
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Subject: . Residents' petition for speed humps
Dear Residents/Owners:
Thank you for you concerns on the upper portion of Newport Avenue.
At the November 16, 1998, Traffic Commission meeting, it was recommended to consider
the installation of speed humps on the upper portion of Newport Avenue east of Courtland
Street to Montego Street.
Staff will forward the Traffic Commission's recommendation to the City Council. According
to the adopted Speed Hump Policy, the City Council will make the final determination of
the installation of any speed humps. The following is the date, time, and location of the
City Council meeting:
Date: January 26, 1999
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Location: Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
215 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande,CA
You are invited to attend this meeting to provide input about your neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Don Spagn .10, P .
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
c: City Manager
ajd:newportspdhmps
1.....
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER ~
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR SPEED HUMPS:
UPPER PORTION OF NEWPORT AVENUE
DATE: JANUARY 26, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council review the homeowners' request to install speed
humps on the upper portion of Newport Avenue as recommended by the Traffic
Commission and provide direction on funding if the decision is to install the speed humps.
FUNDING:
The costs to install the speed humps at the designated location is estimated to be $6,000.
DISCUSSION:
On February 26, 1996, the Traffic Commission recommended a set of Design Guidelines
which the City would use to evaluate requests for the possible installation of speed humps.
Subsequently, on March 26, 1996, the Council adopted a policy establishing criteria for the
installation of speed humps for speed control on residential streets.
The Design Guidelines include evaluation of the street type (the requirement is for the
street to be a local street generally with less than a 6% grade); traffic volume (minimum
volume to be 1,000 trips per day); traffic speed (65% of the vehicles must be exceeding
the speed limit by 5 mph); and traffic shift (an evaluation will be made as to possible shifts
in traffic to other streets). In addition, the guidelines require that 60% of those residents
affected by the speed humps sign a petition requesting installation.
On July 23, 1998, the City received a petition from the homeowners on Newport Avenue
showing support of 8 of the total 11 (73%) affected properties. Staff evaluated the criteria
for speed humps in accordance with the adopted policy and determined that all of the
criteria have been met except for 1) the minimum length of 1/4 mile (1,320 feet); and, 2)
the minimum traffic volume of 1000 vehicles per day.
Over the next several months, staff met with the property owners, held a workshop and
presented traffic calming alternatives at the Traffic Commission to address their concerns.
As a result of the July 20, 1998, Traffic Commission meeting, several traffic control devices
were installed on Newport Avenue including 25 MPH signs, pavement markings, and an
"Entering Residential Neighborhood" sign. After these improvements were completed,
property owners requested that speed humps still be considered by the Traffic
Commission.
'---- -
UPPER PORTION OF NEWPORT AVENUE
REQUEST FOR SPEED HUMPS
JANUARY 26, 1999
PAGE20F4
At the November 16, 1998, Traffic Commission meeting, based on staffs evaluation of the
speed hump criteria it was recommended to 1) deny the request for speed humps on the
upper portion of Newport Avenue, 2) advise the residents to participate in the
"Neighborhood Traffic Watch" program; and, 3) advise the Police Department to increase
the traffic enforcement in the neighborhood.
The Commissioners, after considering input from the affected residents, recommended
the installation of the speed humps on the upper portion of Newport Avenue from
Courtland Street to Montego Street. At the meeting, the Commissioners reasoned that
the minimum length criteria should include the entire stretch of Newport Avenue (1,050 feet
in Arroyo Grande, and 1,050 in Grover Beach) to meet the minimum length of 1,320 feet.
It was also reasoned that the speed hump request was based on the "maximum traffic
volume of 1000 vehicles per day" as stated in the City's Speed Hump Policy flyer instead
of the "minimum traffic volume" as stated in the Adoption of Design Guidelines for Speed
Humps. Newport Avenue has a volume of 658 vehicles per day. Staff researched this
typographical error (which has since been corrected) and found that the "minimum traffic
volume" is correct. The reason for the "minimum" is because the primary purpose of speed
humps is to reduce the speeds of vehicles traveling along a well traveled roadway which
is defined by 1000 or more vehicles. Under the "maximum" wording, a street with 1001
vehicles per day would not be eligible. Thus under the "maximum" wording, streets with
less than 1000 vehicles per day (lightly traveled roadway) are eligible; while heavily
traveled streets (1000 or more vehicles per day) would not be eligible. Therefore,
"minimum traffic volume" is correct. In an effort to find a lower alternative to the standard
asphalt hump, staff was also advised to consider other types of materials (e.g., rubber,
plastic, etc.) that are cost-effective.
In response to the Traffic Commission's request, staff has identified various materials.
However, prefabricated materials which are less expensive are only used as speed
"bumps." Speed humps normally have a maximum height of approximately three inches
with a travel length of approximately twelve feet and a width that crosses the entire street
which are used on residential streets. Typical costs have been $2,000 per hump (labor
and material), with a minimum of three humps required at any installation (3 X $2,000 =
$6,000).
A speed "bump" is a raised area of plastic or rubber material with varying heights and travel
lengths. Typical costs for the most expensive material is $1,000 per bump, with a minimum
of three bumps required at any installation (3 X $1,000 = $3,000).
From an engineering standpoint, humps and bumps have critically different impacts on
vehicles. As defined by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, speed humps and
other pavement undulations are not traffic control devices but geometric design features
of the roadway. Within typical residential speed ranges, humps result in most vehicles
slowing to 15 miles per hour or less at each hump and 25 to 30 mph between properly
UPPER PORTION OF NEWPORT AVENUE
REQUEST FOR SPEED HUMPS
JANUARY 26, 1999
PAGE30F4
spaced humps in a system whereas a bump results in vehicles slowing to 5 mph or less
at the bump. At high speeds, bumps tend to have less overall vehicle impact because the
suspension quickly absorbs the impact before the vehicle body can react thereby
encouraging faster speed over bumps. In general, bicycles, motorcycles and other
vehicles with rigid or near-rigid suspensions are more susceptible to damage and loss of
control from "bumps" than vehicles with flexible suspensions. The City has not sufficiently
studied nor has an adopted policy as it relates to speed bumps.
Items to be considered before speed humps are installed are their initial construction
estimated to be $6,000 and continuing maintenance costs (estimated to be $ 750
biannually), the potential negative impacts on emergency fire, ambulance, and police
vehicles, and the increases in vehicle noise. In addition, it is mandatory that they be
supported with a combination of signs and/or pavement markings to wam motorists" of their
presence. Well constructed humps should maintain their shape for several years;
however, the striping associated with them must be maintained biannually.
If the Council decides that Newport Avenue does not meet the minimum traffic volume
criteria as stated in the adopted Speed Hump Policy, the residents may elect to fund the
full cost of the speed hump installation. Typical costs have been $2,000 per hump (labor
and material), with a minimum of three humps required at any installation (3 X $2,000 =
$6,000). The funds are to be deposited with the City prior to any work being done. Once
installed, if the cost is less than the amount of funds deposited, a refund will be made to
the appropriate parties. The City will provide ongoing maintenance of the humps.
If the Council decides to fund the speed humps, the costs related to the speed hump
installation would have to be appropriated from the General Fund Reserve which has an
estimated ending fund balance $519,373 as of June 30, 1999 or could be considered as
part of the Capital Improvement Program for FY 1999-2000.
As a follow-up of any installed speed humps, a "before/after" analysis considering vehicle
speeds and traffic counts will be performed to ascertain if the humps have achieved the
desired results without creating unexpected problems.
Alternatives
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
Installation of speed humps
- Approve the Traffic Commission's recommendation;
- Do not approve the Traffic Commission's recommendation;
- Modify as appropriate and approve the Traffic Commission's
recommendation;
- Provide direction to staff.
UPPER PORTION OF NEWPORT AVENUE
REQUEST FOR SPEED HUMPS
JANUARY 26,1999
PAGE40F4
Funding
1) Direct the residents to deposit with the City the necessary funding;
2) Authorize an appropriation from the City's General Fund Unreserved Fund
balance to cover costs for the installation;
3) Authorize a cost-sharing formula, as determined by the Council, with the
residents;
4) Provide direction to staff.
Attachments: November 16, 1998 Traffic Commission staff report
November 16, 1998 Traffic Commission minutes
March 26, 1996 Council report
March 18, 1996 Traffic Commission report
Speed Hump flyer
ajd:cc012699
'..',
MEMORANDUM
TO: TRAFFIC COMMISSION
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER~
SUBJECT: UPPER PORTION OF NEWPORT AVENUE;
REQUEST FOR SPEED HUMPS
DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 1998
.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Traffic Commission:
.~
1. deny the request for speed humps on the upper portion of Newport Avenue; and,
2. advise the residents to participate in the "Neighborhood Traffic Watch" program as
being implemented by the Arroyo Grande Police Department to help control the
speeding problem in their neighborhood; and, ~
3. suggest increased traffic enforcement on the upper portion of Newport Avenue.
FUNDING:
Typical costs have been $2,000 per hump (labor and material), with a minimum of three
humps required at any installation (3 X $2,000 = $6,000).
If the City decides to fund the speed humps, the costs related to the speed hump
installation would have to be absorbed by the Road Maintenance Program which may
materially impact future Road Maintenance Programs. There would also be unknown
future maintenance costs. In the event the City decides not to install the speed humps, the
residents along the affected street may elect to fund the full cost of the installation of the
speed humps. The funds will have to be on deposit with the City prior to any work being
done. Once installed, the City will provide for their ongoing maintenance.
HISTORY:
At the May 18, 1998, Traffic Commission meeting, residents living at the upper portion of
Newport Avenue requested help in controlling the vehicle speed on their street. The
Commission requested that staff investigate the potential uses of traffic calming measures
along the upper portion of Newport Avenue.
At the July 20, 1998, Traffic Commission meeting, staff presented several traffic calming
measures and alternatives during a workshop involving the residents.
6-1
-- ~_._---_. - - -----.--..---.
On August 7, 1998, on behalf of the Traffic Commission, staff distributed a letter to the
residents informing them of the remedial measures to the traffic and speeding problems
(letter attached). On the upper portion of Newport Avenue, the Public Works Department
installed a "25 MPH" sign and pavement markings and installed an "Entering Residential
Neighborhood" sign. Staff also suggested that the residents participate in the new program
called the "Neighborhood Traffic Watch."
DISCUSSION:
On October 15, 1998, staff met with Elizabeth Sarrett of 1340 Newport Avenue. Ms.
Sarrett informed staff that the residents along the upper portion of Newport Avenue would
ultimately like to see speed humps installed on their streets,
A petition was received on July 23, 1998, showing support of 8 of the total 11 affected
properties. This 73% support is above the 60% required by the adopted policy. -
Staff has evaluated the criteria for speed humps specifically for the residents living ot) the
upper portion of Newport Avenue. Staff conducted traffic counts between April 21 through
April 28, 1998, and determined that the results were less than. the minimum 1 000 vehicles
criteria.
More recently, staff requested the Police Department place the Radar Trailer on Newport
Avenue for a period of one week starting Thursday, November 5, 1998. The stlrvey was
taken "in the blind" that is, the speed indication was not energized and the driver had no
indication of their actual speed. The survey ran for 6 days and 20 hours or 6.8333 days.
A total of 4495 vehicles were counted with an average of 658 vehicles in a 24-hour day.
The average speed was 27.17 MPH. The 85th percentile was 33 indicating an 8-MPH
differential. This indicates the need for an increase in enforcement. The requirement for
. 1000 vehicles per day has not been met. A total of 3078 vehicles exceeded the posted
speed limit thus 68.5% of the vehicles exceeded the speed limit. This meets one
requirement for speed humps.
Staff also investigated the area and observed that some portions along the upper portion
of Newport Avenue do not have existing sidewalks, curb and gutters. These portions are
in front of 1398,1340,1320,1310, and 1306 Newport Avenue (see Exhibit 6-1). Staff
concludes that because of the lack of sidewalks, curb and gutters, motorists will tend to
drive off the pavement to avoid the speed humps thus endangering property and
pedestrians.
The LMUSD Transportation Department has noted that school buses travel along this route
(see attached letter dated November 2, 1998). Staff concludes that because of this, the
installation of speed humps would unsuccessfully control all types of heavy-weight vehicles
(e.g., school buses, fire trucks, etc.) Staff believes that for school buses, speed humps
would not be ideal for the bus' suspension and would affect the bus' schedule. Staff also
believes that the installation of speed humps would affect the emergency responses.
6-2
- ------------------
---
Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the driver of a softsprung sedan is
actually encouraged to increase speed for a better ride over a bump that may cause
motorists to lose control,
SUMMARY:
Staff concludes that the installation of speed humps on the upper portion of Newport
Avenue would shift traffic to other parallel residential streets and affect emergency
response times.
Due to the recommended 400' spacing requirements with a minimum of three speed
humps to be effective, the installation of speed humps on the upper portion of Newport
Avenue would not have sufficient room since the distance on Newport Avenue east of
Courtland Street to Montego Street is approximately 1,050 feet.
Because all the warrants for the installation of speed humps were not met, namely the
minimum length of a 1/4 mile (1,320 feet), minimum traffic volume and the shift oftraflic to
other residential streets, speed humps are not ideal. The Fire Department and the Police
Department concur with the recommendation.
However, it is recommended that the Traffic Commission advise the residents to participate
in the "Neighborhood Traffic Watch" program as being implemented by the Arroyo Grande
Police Department to help control the speeding problem in their neighborhood: It is also
recommended that the Traffic Commission direct the Arroyo Grande Police Department to
increase police enforcement on the upper portion of Newport Avenue.
Attachments: Exhibit 6-1 - Speed Hump Evaluation
Survey Summary
Ocean View Elementary School's Letter
Neighborhood Traffic Watch Program
Newport Avenue letter to residents
Speed Hump Policy
A copy of the residents' petition
ajd:tc111998
6-3
--
s (Y) (\J (\J (\j
~... ru
~~ ......, 3
~:: t.n (/)
~
0 (Y) 15
ru z
......,
V)
t.n ......, ru
z ~ ru ......,
0 ru ru
i=
~ ......,
0..
C
W
Z
(!)
en 8~
...
rIP' ......, (Y)
......,
(\J
(:) i
Z ~ S€>NI.LSVH. (\j r z
~ (Y) i
......, s
0 t: c
- w
w (:) i ~
fl: v
! (Y)
.....-i
... It.
0 (:) i
:r
0 0\ u
0 (Y) <
Ii
... ......, ~~
z OJ ()
ii: (J)
IL. 0\ C
::1 (Y) Z
c ......, S
...
(:) g (J;B~ I OJ
(Y) . (Y) ,
~ i ~ r 4 ~ (Y)
......,
... B ~ ......,
OvvI i i t.n
c t.n
as ~
>'
III ......,
Of;v r ~25 ......, '" .....-i
t.n (Y) (\j
(Y) (Y) (Y)
e:!
B8
~ ~ N
I ('t) Ii V)
w (:) (:) OJ (\J
co ::iE '" !i!~ V) t.n (Y) ru
I- ::iE v ~~.L (Y) (Y) (Y) (Y)
::1 ......,
- en 30~E> OAO}:fW :fO AJJ~
m ...
- --
J: -- H::>V38 M3AO~E>:fO AJJ~ -
X -- -lS aNYll~nO~
SlIWll AllJ
W
--- - -,,-- --------
~ucia .Alar UnilieJ Sc/"ool ~iAtrict
602 ORCHARD ST, · ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93420
(805) 473-4390. FAX (805) 481-1398
November 2, 1998
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Public Works Department
P.O. Box 550
208 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
Subject: Response to the "Residents' petition for speed humps on Newport Avenue" ." .
After careful consideration, investigation, and actual on site examination I feel a speed hump 'f"
solution may not be the most lIeffective solution" to reduce speed to the speed limit. If speed
humps are the most effective solution, shouldn't they be used everywhere? Make. the size of the
hump proportional to the size of the speed problem Then all the drivers would visually and
physically sense the size of the problem I'm not trying to be facetious. Speed humps may be a
solution, but they are not the most effective solution because they create as many problems as
they may solve (ie. damaging vehicles, creating road rage, etc.). We do road improvements
to increase and improve usability. 1t is very regressive to put "humps". in an improved road.
I also sensed that speed compliance was not the only concern. Discouraging cut-though traffic
seemed to be part of the issue. Speed limit compliance I do agree. Trying to regulate access to
public property ( Newport, Courtland, Montego/Hillcrest ) I do not agree should be done.
The residents requests to regulate speed is reasonable, but their attempt to regulate public
property as if it were their private property is not right especially disguised as a safety concern.
My solutions are two fold. First speed compliance should be regulated by the proper authorities
and violators pay for their transgressions not penalizing everyone using the road as speed humps
do. Second, ifl'm successful in getting the loading zone at Ocean View Elementary made safe as
proposed, the buses ITom Ocean View will not be using Newport Avenue.
Sincerely,
~~~
Dwain Turner
Director of Transportation, Lucia Mar USD
Attachment: Exhibit A with Bus routes and one Paulding stop indicated
~. ---~~.- ---..-.-----.- ---.-. -----
80547'3544'3 ell\' Of' r:.G ~ 1)€?i
l/l998 1,0:1,&
....
~ ~
;:p. ~
; ~ '-, / / I
__ I
__ I
. ~ -, / /
, , / - 0 s-r
,'/ 7':Z0
Q:-
f f "Z: ill :t:. "$
W 7' ~mQ
I Q ;.I (/)
!J' OUl S 't
<f ~ .
~ n ~. ~
.f \J ~R T' <-
" c- '- \--- \
/ c- '-(n ~ _so '-
I '- 'jS 3' "Jr' \ -
,'- ',\ \ ~. . '-
VD. c- '- be \--- ~ .T ~ '
<( c- '" · , :111 ..b1io3 ~H' - ~
~ 12-- ~
~ _ 7 I-- '- TI \ ..:..-'j"
I-- \ . \--- ~ 1:1 [;!;
~ . ,c-f ~ 1 ccrz t
~' . 1\> ~ c- '" f--.. ~,,\ ""~ i-- ,1m" .
5(. "~ ~ oo'{ . -' ----- ~ L---
\1.1 ' : ">>,: T" \--- '-- \ \ \~ 1
~ ) ~ ~~ D- ~,.. ~al" 1 \ ,\- . ~.
'd- ~"r f ...- ~rl L--- ~ ~
: ~ ~ ~ . >-~, 0;'
L---- . 3 1 .:: ,,"
'--' . . ' ,,' -
.r- ' . i .C( ·
fJ !~ "t .. .,. " - 1/' I
q;, I '
. '(J" 1:,\7 ~~ ...' ;
. " . \ L---' l.--- ~.
~ ' ~ .
,~ ~ ~" . - 0
I " ' )..........= ~ ;; .
~ c. / \' ,,\'L--
. "'1 l.--- ..
.~ "
<J -~-_....... -=>0.. ~
;:1 _~ _ ~~~" ] 1$ f1NOI7)iJ(1I>> c.---
n1t11' ,&.,. ~ ~ OIl
. )..;, Et
c-- CY~ e "- ~ -
~ "'~ ~
I~
\ c .,,~
- ~~
---
'j~_.:-:-<~~J~~.,.,~:'-i'
. .---',-..
.,.- .~-
a, i . ')
'""
-. ",~"
PLEASE
HELP!!
Dear fellow residents, July 22, 1998
Your neighbqrs on Newport Ave. are concerned about.an qngoing
speed probl~lJtQetw~en Courtland and the intersect,Qn of .
. . '. - _~. ':. :-"". 'f ': ".. , _ ,. , . . - _.. . -. ...
Montego,' Hillcrest and Newport. We have been' working, with the
Arroyo Grande Traffic Commission to find ways to r~uee..the
median speed down to the 25mph speed limit. Between'May 18
and May 30th the AG Police Department wrote 23 speeding.
tickets. Sadly, ,14 of the 23 tickets written were to residents living
within 300 yards of Newport Ave.
We are asking that as you travel on Newport Ave. PLEASE
check your speedometer and be aware of our 25 mph speed limit. '
The residents of Newport Ave, their children and pets.
THANK YOU for your support and help in our effort to make our
neighborhood safer!!!
U /300
~ Ne....r~-t
/.3?t:) ~
~~ j)~I!-0
139~ ~
'?oD Nc=...wpor""T
----.----.- '-
~
; ~CD
: :>'"
I ;)0
! ~~
, 9
I ..
, 0
i
I
I~
I w \
'>
1-
.1-
i<(
Iz
~
w~
I-~
....J ~1
A'" ~;_-7t_'
~~
~
~
~ .1
"...,
.~_:
~j
'iil
t~-~ / "
, .-. I \
I ,
\ I
\ I
\ /
,
"
~ '---
I ~~ :tl~_.
.. as _,,;
o .. g ~C'I~~
~ .2 ~3 -to,
~"C ~ '" ~I_ '~-
~ i "<r '% ~,.
I- ~~i. 8
- '"':+
~ ~- 1&
U-I . ~
- ~ -----------------
I J , 'j
>< ----- ----~-- ~~ r T . _
W _ . _. . _ __ _ __ ___ OK. _.__ _
" . '. ,
. '..~. ; . . ,.';= , '....: . (-..' .,...;". '.. '. . . . '.
f '. . ," ...,. ........: .":
. ' .\
....:~~f " . ., ,._', :. .' . .. 'P.O.'BOx550 ' . . '.' '..: '"
,'" .. ..... .
208 East BranchStf~t " . ", .'~ : :'.
'. . . . ...,'
...~~... ArroY9 Grande,CA.~~l . :" '. .:. ). ': '/
.,...~ Phone: (.!OS)' 473-s440.' .: ':E~giri~riJig';_
. . . 0" . . - ,
. . . . .
. . " .
. . . .
. . .
. . FAX: (80S) 473-5443 . '. .... -'.' .
. . .
. . .. "
'.' "
.. .
~7'; ~':
. . .
PUBUC WORKS . 1375.Ash Street .. .
Pho.ne: (~OS) 473-~O ~.".t~~: :
F AX..(80S) 473-546.2
,Augi.Jst7,1998 E-Mail: agc:ity@rlX.net . '
. ,Resident
Newport Avenue '.
Arrbyo Grande CA93420
Subject: Newport Avenue Workshop;
Traffic Calming -Measures
Dear Resident: ~
. The City received a letter dated July 21, 1998, addressing the July 20th workshop.
At the July 20th'Traffic Commission meeting, ~taff presented-5 alternatives: 1) speed
-humps, 2) rumble strips, 3) chokers, 4) regulatory signs, and 5) a "Neighporhood Traffic
Watch" . program. After hearing the testimon.ies from the residents, the Traffic
Commission approved the request for the following:
) 1) Installation of stop signs at Courtland Street and Newport Avenue along with a
.J crosswalk, (Staff to coordinate with the City of Grover Beach).
2) Installation of sidewalks on the north side of Newport Avenue. (Staff to include
as a future capital improvement project)..
3) Installation of a 25 MPH sign and p:avement markings.
4) Installation of an "Entering Residential Neighborhood" sign.
, 5) Extend the existing southerly red curb to the existing curve ahead sign.
The letter signed by the petitioners objected to the above recommendations as
apgroved by the Traffic Commission. The letter further stated that the r~sidents would
ultimately like to see the installation of speed humps and going forward with the
"Neighborhood Traffic Watch" program.
As discussed in the meeting, the residents along the affected street may elect tofund
the full cost of the installation of speed humps. The typical installation of a speed hump
ranges between $1,500 and $2,000 per speed hump,. with a minimum of three speed
humps required at any installation (Speed Hump Policy attached).
Also during the meeting, the "Neighborhood Traffic Watch" program was discussed but
did not seem to have a positive response from the residents. However, the letter from
the petitioners dated July 21, 1998, stated that the res!dents would like to go forward
,) with the program. As discussed in the meeting, the "Neighborhood Traffic Watch"
program will be implemented on Rodeo Drive by the Arroyo Grande Police Department
and the residents. This program has been proven to be effective for correcting the
speeding problems in the 'City of Santa Barbara. Staff will continue to monitor the
results on Rodeo Drive. Onc~ information is available, staff will notify you of the results
. .' .'
. '.' " .,.~,.::,..:....:...:. .'. .....( ....:... ,."...:...': .'..: ....:.~.~... ',r ',........:..,. . ". .;..:.:.>.:::,;:?'}.~;:;:~.
..... .';'.' ::.. :'. ':.~.' .~_...... .....'.' '. :' ~..:..~.' ...... .' ~..:..,~.\ ::.:....~.:~~:.:-.:..;.
. :':..~.'~?.~'~'.:.,:.(-,..:::~::~.::::..:.... <," ,.., ..: :::.'.' .::.:.:....... .,.:.<::' :..': '., .- ..:' ':':: .:::<.:: ::..=:.:,'~::.::,
. .. "., - and effectiveness.. . , . '..... . . . '.' '.
. '~~~~edialmeasUre iothe tffimc and~ediri9 problems, ~taff"'U move ahead wi~.: ("
. .:" :'. '. th'e.foIl6w.in~nraffic'calming':iiieasures.alori.g the north. side of NeWport Av.enue: '.. . .'..
.'. .., .. . .' ': _. . ~.: ." ' ". . . . . . .... . . .... :~'.
, .
. . . .
. . . . .
,. . '..1 )In~tali.a~ibn of a 2S~PH' sig~ ahd. pavement ri1arkirigs~' .' ' .
2) Installation of an "Entering R~sidential Nei9hborhoodD. sign.
3) . tmpleme~tationof a. "N.~ighborh~(Jd T raffi~ .WatCh~ prograJ11' i?S appr~priate.
" However, we will not proceed with the extension of the existing sbLitherly red curb to the.
existi"ng curVe.ahead sign becausa this:m~y not reduce'the traffic vohime or speed, but
.' only 1.ncrease.speed; ", ' ,
. Staff will. continue to monitor the effectiveneSs of the above traffic calming measures. "
."If it]sdetermined that the speeding ptoblems remain after the implementation of the. .
.' above traffic calming measures, then st~ffwill discuss the p6tei1ti.~I'fortJ1EHnstallation -
.of speed.humps based on the ,adopted Sp~ed Hump policy (attached).
Thank you for your cooperation.
. Sincerely,
/
.
.
,
Attachment: Exhibit - Signs and markings
Speed Hump Policy
c: Traffic Commission
City Manager
ajd:081798
TRAFFIC COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1998
ARROYO ,GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 7:30 PM
Commissioners present: Tony Ferrara, Nan Fowler, Thomas Owen, and Gary Borda.
Commissioner absent: Derril Pilkington.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Don Spagnolo, Commander Dan Wulfing, Engineering
Technician Albert Ducusin, and Traffic Commission Clerk Debbie Weichinger.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 19,1998
It was moved by Commissioner Owen, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, and unanimously carried
to approve the minutes for the meeting of October 19, 1998.
NEWPORT AVENUE; REQUEST FOR SPEED HUMPS
Mr. Ducusin briefed the Commission indicating that in May 1998 residents living at the upper portion
of Newport Avenue requested help in controlling the vehicle speed on Newport Avenue. Staff then
was directed by the Commission to install a "25 MPH" sign and pavement markings and install an
"Entering Residential Neighborhood" sign, and suggested that the residents participate in the
"Neighborhood Traffic Watch" program. Staff indicated that the residents are now requesting speed
humps on Newport Avenue. Mr. Ducusin indicated that staff has reviewed the criteria for speed
humps and Newport Avenue does not meet the criteria for speed humps. He also said Ocean View
Elementary School is not in favor of these speed humps.
Commissioner Owen asked why is Grover Beach's portion of Newport not included and suggested
including all of the traffic up to Oak Park Boulevard. Commissioner Ferrara concurred with including
the length up to Oak Park Boulevard. Mr. Ferrara referred to the Speed Hump Policy with regard to
minimum traffic volume stating the maximum traffic volume was correct. The intent was not to install
speed humps where there is high volume of traffic. Mr. Ducusin indicated that staff researched this
and found that the word "minimum" traffic volume was approved by the Council. Commissioner Borda
indicated that minimum is what was approved -- if it was maximum this would qualify many streets.
Commissioner Owen indicated this should be maximum traffic volume.
Elizabeth Barrett, 1349 Newport Avenue indicated she is in favor of the speed humps. She provided
a letter dated November 14 from residents in favor of the speed humps. She indicated that Newport
Avenue meets all the criteria for speed humps at the cost of the City.
Maggie Summers, 1470 Newport Avenue indicated that speed is a problem on Newport Avenue and
this is the fourth meeting on this issue in less than one year. She indicated even with the trailer in
place on Newport Avenue the speed did not change. She indicated that she contacted residents on
Rodeo Drive regarding the rumble strip and they indicated that the rumble strips do not slow traffic
down. She said she is in favor of the speed humps. She indicated she is against installation of stop
signs on Newport Avenue.
Bruce Summers asked when the speed humps were presented at the workshop was this just an idea?
Mr. Spagnolo indicated that staff presented several alternatives at the workshop.
Chuck Kline, 1566 Hillcrest suggested stop signs at Courtland be installed on a temporary basis.
Barbara Kline, 1566 Hillcrest Drive, suggested to close Montego Street and make it one way and take
the chain link fence at the school.
-..---.....------------ -----
Chris Barrett, 1349 Newport Avenue said the traffic increased approximately five years ago with the
overpass being built and never declined. He indicated he is in favor of the speed humps.
Commissioner Ferrara suggested staff look into using other material for the speed humps and the
costs.
After discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Borda, seconded by Commissioner Owen and
unanimously carried to advise that speed humps be installed on the upper portion of Newport Avenue
and that staff investigate prior to installation the different options as it relates to material as soon as
possible.
ALDER STREET AND GRAND A VENUE; REQUEST FOR RED CURB
Mr. Ducusin indicated that on October 8, 1998 staff received a letter from Billie Phillips, 209 Alder
Street requesting red curbing be installed on the east side of Alder Street south of Grand Avenue to
allow vehicles to make a left and a right turn at the same time onto Grand Avenue. After a field review
by staff, it was found that this request is not warranted.
After discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Owen, seconded by Commissioner Borda and
unanimously carried to deny the request for red curbing on the east side of Alder Street south of
Grand Avenue.
1585 HILLCREST DRIVE; REQUEST FOR NO PARKING SIGNS
Mr. Ducusin indicated that staff received a letter dated October 9, 1998 from Virginia Kraatz, 1557
Hillcrest Drive requesting that no parking signs be installed along the stretch of Hillcrest Drive just
south of upper Sierra Drive due to the road being narrow and vision being. obscured because of the
hill. Mr. Ducusin said after a field review, staff is suggesting "No Parking Any Time" signs on both
sides of Hillcrest Drive around the radius curve and to advise the property owner at 1590 Hillcrest
Drive to trim the existing shrubbery growing around the curve to improve the sight distance for both
northbound and southbound vehicles.
The following spoke in favor of the "No Parking Any Time" signs on both sides of Hillcrest Drive around
the radius curve: George Powers, 1601 Sierra Drive; Virginia Kraatz, 1557 Hillcrest Drive; Barbara
Kline, 1566 Hillcrest Drive; and Bill Brooker.
After discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Borda and
unanimously carried to install "No Parking Any Time" signs on both sides of Hillcrest Drive around the
radius curve and to advise the property owner at 1590 Hillcrest Drive to trim the existing shrubbery.
WOMAN'S CLUB PARKING LOT; REQUEST FOR RESTRICTED PARKING SIGNS
Mr. Spagnolo indicated the Parks and Recreation staff has observed vehicles parked for extended
period of times in the parking lot at the Woman's Club. Apparently, the nearby residents use the
parking lot for additional parking and the school uses it for their overflow parking.
Commissioner Fowler expressed concern with the wording of the proposed signage as this lot is used
for events in the City and people may not park there due to the wording. Commissioner Owen
indicated that if the signs were installed, the manager can contact the Police Department to have the
vehicle towed.
Commissioner Owen indicated there may need to be another sign installed as you come in from the
School.
-
-._. f~
.- ~',".'
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
VIA: ROBERT L HUNT, CITY MANAGE~
FROM: JOHN L. WALLACE, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WO
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF I. DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SPEED
HUMPS
. ,
DATE: MARCH 26, 1996
~1'
RECOMMENDATION:
The Traffic Commission recommends that the Council approve design guidelines for the
installation of traffic humps.
FUNDING: ~
The approval of the Design Guidelines has no. immediate funding impact However, the
funding for the installation of these facilities at a later time will be evaluatec;t,on a case by
case basis and, in some. instances, cost sharing between the City and,prop8di$S,benefitting
from the improvement is recommended by the Traffic Commission.
DISCUSSION:
At the present time, the City does not have a standard design or guidelines. for installation
of speed humps. On January 22, 1996 the Traffic Commission considered proposed
guidelines and standard plans. Su~sequently, on February 26, 1996 the Commission
approved a proposed set of Design Guidelines which the City would use to evaluate requests
for the possible installation of speed humps as traffic calming devices.
The Design Guidelines include evaluation of the street type (the requirement is for the
street to be local street generally with less than a 6% grade); traffic volume (minimum
volume to be 1,000 trips per day); traffic speed (65% of the vehicles must be exceeding the
speed limit by 5 mph); and traffic shift (an evaluation will be made as to possible shifts in
traffic to other streets).
In addition, the guidelines further address: the need for 60% of those residents affected by
the speed humps to sign a petition requesting their installation; the need for Traffic
Commission review prior to Council action; and cost sharing with requesting residents if a
specific request does not meet all of the required guidelines.
----.------------ - ---
I. ."
,.
. " .'~ '.' . .
,
All speed humps shall consist of qeflections in the paved street surface that provide for 'a
uniformly varying height to a maximum of 2-5/8" plus or ~us 1/8" over a 12 foot long
base. Speed humps should generally be installed at approximately 400 foot spacing. If
street lighting exists on the street, humps should be installed as close as possible to the lights
for maximum illumination. Speed humps should not be installed on streets without curbs
and gutters. The suggested minimum number of speed humps constructed on any street
shall be three in order to be effective. The average cost to install three. speed humps is
$6,000. (labor and material).
Attached are supporting articles and other information pertinent to the installation of speed
humps from the County of San Luis Obispo and the City of San Luis Obispo which have
recently installed these traffic control devices. Their standards were considered in
formulating the proposed City standards. Likewise, because of the nature of the.installation
and its impact on fast moving traffic, staff has utilized the Institute of Traffic Engineer's
design guidelines (attached) in developing the recommended City standards.
...
Staff recommends that the Council adopt the Design Guidelines in accordance with the
Traffic Commission recommendation for the installation of speed humps and direct staff to
evaluate each particular installation on a case .by case basis, bringing back. all requests for
Council approval prior to installation. .
------------ ----
" . ~l' ,.~...' .'
.. ,
.'
.'
-
..............
MEMORANDUM
TO: TRAFFIC COMMISSION
JOHN 1.. WALLACE, DIRECOOR OF PUBUC WORKS CJJ
FROM: ~-
SUBJECT: DRAFT OF DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SPEED HUMPS
.1-
DATE: 18 March, 1996
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff.recommends that the Traffic Commission review the attached guidelines and .standard plans
for speed humps. and provide direction to Staff
DISCUSSION:
The Traffic Commission at the meeting on 22 January 1996 had the opportunity to review the
speed hunip requirements and specificatioos from the County of San Luis Obispo and the City of
San Luis obispo. It was suggested that staff condense and compile the information and resubmit
to the Traffic Commission a draft of specifications for the (::ity of Arroyo Grande.
All of the guidelines listed below must be met before "speed humps" can be installed on any city
streets.
.
1. REQUEST
A request for the installation of a traffic calming device known as a "speed hump" designed as
means of slowing the speed of traffic on a particular street must be made in writing. This
document must demonstrate substantial support by the residents affected. To that end , a petition
bearing the names, signatures, addresses, and phone numbers of at least 60% of the affected
households must be submitted. It shall be the responsibility of the individual maJrn,g the request
to circulate the petition.
2. THE STREET
All streets calSidered for speed humps shall be a minim1Jm Of 1/4 mile in length and confonn to the
definition of "Resident District" as coo.tained in the California Vehicle Code (Section 515), and
qualify for a 25 miles-per-hours speed limit. Streets shall also meet the requirements for local
streets as defined in the Arroyo Grande Circulation Element The streets shall also meet the
~-----~----._------- -----
,
,-
t-
) - }...
2
-
requirements as defined in the Traffic Manual and further meet the requirements of the City of
Arroyo Grande standards, drawing number 163-AG.
Streets classified above local and streets without curbs will not be considered for speed humps. The
grade of the street shall not exceed a sustained grade 0 6%. Exception for the street grades up to
8% may be considered where the steeper grade prevails over a relative short distance.
3. LOCATION
Speed humps should generally be installed at approximately 400 foot spacing. If street lighting
exists on the street, humps should be installed as close as possible to the lights for maximum
illumination. Care must be taken to avoid driveways, utility'vaults, and manholes. On curving
streets, the humps should be placed at or near tangent sections of the street. Care must be taken
with regard to visibility over the crest of vertical curves. Appropriate warning signs will be placed
including signs warning of curves in the road.ahead,
Speed humps should not be installed on streets without curbs and gutters. Motorists will drive off
the pavement to avoid the humps thus endangering pedestrians and damaging property.
The su~ested minimum number of speed humps constructed on any street shall be three in order
to be effective.
4. TRAFFIC VOLUME
Streets shall have a minimum daily volume of 1000 vehicles before humps are considered. This
volume of traffic is the level at which the quality of life and the character of the residential street
deteriorates.
5. TRAFFIC SPEED
A speed survey should demonstrate that 60% of the vehicles using the street are exceeding the 25
miles-per-hour residential limit by at least 5 miles-pre hour. Further more the finding of excessive
speed should be made only after attempts at controlling the speed using alternative means such as
specialized enforcement has been proven ineffective, Residents should first contact their neighbors
and enlist their cooperation in reducing speeding.
6. DESIGN
The design profile of the speed humps shall generally be consistent with the attached exhibit that
details the recommended dimensions. All speed humps shall consist of deflections in the paved
street surface that provide for a unifoImly varying height to a maximum of 2-5/8" plus or minus
lI8" over a 12 foot long base. The construction, marking and warning of the hump shall comply to
the appropriate and most recent city, state, and federal standards.
Additional infonnation on the design of speed humps may be found in the Institute of
Transportation Engineers proposed recommended practice entitled "Guidelines for the Design and
Application of Speed Humps"
,.,
--
I ,
't -) e
..,
J
7. TRAFFIC SHIFT
Prior to the installation of speed bumps and estimate of the amount of traffic that will shift to other
streets must be made. What streets affected and to what extent must be considered.. After.speed
humps have been installed, a shift in traffic may occur. A estimate of the amount of traffic that
might shift and to what streets will be made. Shifting the traffic to other local streets is undesirable
This information will be considered when the final recommendation is made regarding the request
for the installation of speed humps.
8. TRAFFIC COMMISSION
Prior to any recommendation made to the City Council, the, request will be reviewed by the Traffic
Commission. The Traffic Commission shall conduct public meetings so that all interested residents
may be heard. The Traffic Commission will make a detennination and this will be forwarded to the
City Manager for inclusion at the next meeting of the City Council.
9. STREETS NOT MEETING GUIDELINES
If a request is made and the streets fail to meet the minimum traffic volume, the citv mav still
decide to install the speed humps. In the event the citv decides not install the speed bumps the
residents along the affected street may elect to fund the full cost of the installation of the speed
humps, The Department of Public Works will provide an estimate of the construction cost. The
funds will have to be on deposit with the City prior to any work being done. Once installed the City
will provide for their ongoing maintenance.
10. FINAL DETERMINATION
The Arroyo Grande City Council upon the advice of the Traffic Commission and the Director of
Public Works will the final determination on the installation or removal of any speed humps.
Enclosures include the following:
Local Street Profile, City of Arroyo Grande, Drawing No. 163-AG
Road Bump construction details, City of Arroyo Grande, (City of San Luis Obispo)
Road Bump location, striping, and signs, City of Arroyo Grande, (City of San Luis Obispo)
Recommended Speed Hump Profile, City of Arroyo Grande,(County of San Luis Obispo)
Street Definitions, copy of pages 4 & 5 of the City of Arroyo Grande Circulation Element
Note: The italicized wording in Section 3 (Locations) and in Section 9 (Streets Not Meeting
Guidelines) are the suggested revisions made by the Traffic Commission during the 26
February 1996 review of the Design Guidelines.
file: humpdes, trf
03/18196 12:37 PM
rf
..,
-
-.--------
I ..
.
,'.
. .
0 . . ~ , , -
.. .......
, I
. '"
,
26' 30' :-..
.~
I I.- ' =". ..
52' R/W 60' R / W
TYP1CAL HALF TYPICAL HALF
STREET SECTION STREET SECTION
ct.
20/0 I 2%
.. . --
J.
... .....;:('..... ,. . r.- "~... "." _>II". .. . - . ,.,,-
. .. .:'
I
10' 6' 20' 20' . ff 4' 6'
s:r: a S/W S/w S.T. a
P.U.E. 60' R/W P. U. E-
ll.. ( 52' ALTERNATE ) fl.
-
LOCAL STREET
NOTE: FINISH GRADE AT CENTERLINE OF ROAD TO UE I"
. BELOW TOP OF CURB.
.
CITY OF ARROYO GRA'NDE IIf;VISION
'-00 MOrE .
MOVE FtRE-HYORAJlT LOCATION
"",""OVED
<::OJ~ LOCAL STREET 163-AG
OAT!: ~ - 1:J-1J (
.
-'-.-.-- - ----I
-- -------.--------- ..-----------
.. (':I
.. 1''' ..~ -:' ,
. . .
.
.. ....~:,... I _
...
. ..-
HOTI!S
I - Sumo. ...... aM p(OCM ... t..... aoua' osohalt .-
.cuiaa. SttudllAI ..ctl... .....n 1M A04IC'M
\ or ,._CleM," ....d", pri<< t. pCada, ~
2 - It. lad coat iNlI be ClClCllled prior 10 ploclnq .... ...
a.um~ PGvl",- '
3 _ sumo _II aM constructed '" MOMIt concnf.,
type .8~""'" ~ IIIGX. oq~ot.. .
4 ~F<< location, Itrfolnq. and lip ,.. ENGINEERING
STANDARD
'.
(
~
......E -J.
eo, . ... . . .....
.~..-. ,.. _ ....... J-" .
. . - .." .. ' .. ..
~ ..:.........>..- --
.. -. .... .-
. .
GUTTER SECTlON A.A
A. Co IV."
'-WIT'" ~ Co ,.YUCII1'
PROF1 LE
. '
,
OEPTH OF A.c. SUMP .
i~":'<3. = . 0 2.0 <4.0 G.O <4.0 2.0 0
. 0G'11I 01
. 'UT 0 .1-4 ..22 .25 .22 .J 4 0
CITY OF ARROYO. GRANDE ROAD BUMP
.. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCT1OH DETAILS
. .. .-.. .- --.. ...
u,.
'"
--~--- .-
.' .. - J' ,
- , .
......."
t.
, { ~"'P" SICN)
.
.
r ~ '--!
~
: )")
(C;j~~)
..-..
50' 3q" x 30-
BIodt on ~Iow
ft's.n.. !lAtf...
AefledorfftCf .
-GUTTER-
'BUMP. SICNj . C""-SIOEW..lJ(......,
STRIPING ~ SIGNS
NdTes
I - All povlfMRf 'nG,.d,. .an M ,pplled by tIM 01,.
. Z. --ROAO BUMps. """ IIIota ""oeat" ." CIS directed by
the Cty EntllMer
:5 - ForOG.~..d'.. d.ton. ... ENGINEERING STAHDARO
4- For"9ft post defoll. '" ENGINEERiNG STANDARD
, - SltM IMII conform to Sto!. Speclncetl.....
,Ite "rdronf \ I
- flow
.,' . '" .''-;(OCATtON
I
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ROAD BUMP
DEPARTMENT OF" PUBLIC WORKS '.- LOCATION, STRIPIN&, ~ SIGHS
.... -~
....
.-J
. "'. ~.
'.. ..:. .:.... ...::~...: f.':,:'~'~~::.~' ..
,,/ , ~".'.. 2 .1.,
~ '.. . --, I'" ,
.. - -'- i,~! !
'., Lqi;
I 1....'i !
- : 't, . I
. < 'e -; ,
= !.- -~ ; I
.' ;~. ", I
-.:: . . I
'-': :~- ,
I ....-1
<( j:~() 91
/- -'
i r: q:.
; to: '0 .
~J.~;.~
~,<l~ .-
IjJ~~(\
,--.. D-- ..
~.. . .r
., ,-- ~ .
r:{r;".~. i ;
! '\l\\'t, ..-, _ I
= 1.:- .~~, C'.J
......-I-j<i .. _, _
~ -~..-,~. ~ J. "
= ('.j "'Q ~ ~, -I . I.
-, :J'.~..__ I
(,Q . -. "I
. ..~ b... ,"\1 t
N ~') ~ R''1~:~ I
o -- . C1 '--I I I
' ~ , :,-. :,. :;
~ '"""; !-. ~ ~ -- : :
-. ~ '~" :- ! .j :
... = \ ':' <I'd' . : I ~
..... - '~I". ~ .
. ., - _! ~.e. . : .
or, -:- \ - "I :! J;.J
. . '1: A .'1. '. Q
. -., I..... __ . ,
" ," Old..,. , , en
. .....y " ""
-, "l....' . ..". _
....: :-.... \--~. - , , ,c... co:
:. '". . --. - I . (!o. , .....
.." ~~. ~O
I :._ ~ ':~"''-- ! ~ :>
. , ., ^I. ...... .,
..... . ~ . Ii::.~ - I r'" U
- ~ ~:I I ~_
: ~~ I 0 ..J
Lf") . - ~ -L I . CO
~ - " -: ....... ::J
- O~ - I ....... ""
ro ~ I 0 .
' ~. 0 . : ~~ ~ ~ ~
' O~ ~~
~l' <~
'. ~ r~. 2:
~E-
' t5. 0 co:
.< <
"- .......""
~ .......~
::> ,E-Q
(f) .. '"""
r U
< .
~ ,
C
<{
O. "
!!::. ..
. ~""\..: ..., . -~.,' .'
' . . .
..... i..: :'.':":" '.. . .". ,., "'~'_. :;.:. . '" '
: '.' ',.~. -:., -. . . ,
.:' :>.:.~;:.> .' -
:"':.-.10
\
cl\
i ~. Q In il~~
A. ~CI)~
~~p5~ W ~tiBrl
0
~ ffi ~ gH== C) w2 ~IU
~ o ~Z a. =:)
U)rJ:JrJ:Jo~ ~ ~~
~
~ u~ en z
~ a Ei~ ~ .
t!itf~~~
PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
POSTomCE BOX 550
ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93421
~ u ~ 0
c u .....
G) .~ ~ .~ "0 .:a. . ~ t)I) 13 5" ~
oS Do.8 u ~ i ~ 5'~ . ~ 50 -~ .~ ~
t)I):S><:>~ "0 . ]b :=....
C'--- c ..... u u ~ .... fi 'm ~ g ~ ' ~ 0
,- ..... u u ..... "0
0 '> ~ J! > 5'0 6. . ~ "is "0 u I!..r;. 5. 'f?j ~ 'j
s:: io~! ~!ti~~~i~~ ~~~ci
0 'S ,I
"'0 .~:ii ~ ~ i .e ~ .~ :a 1 i.., g I ~ ].a,s: ~ 1::
0 cS ~ :g CIS ,> o. C) ~ e 1i ~ '.g ~ ~ ~ M & .1 i
.,0 co:s~~~~ 00 ~CIS ~c ~ i
o ~ 0 8'iS "0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'i .... ~ 13 8 g ~ c e
00 ''j..c: ~ e J:3 0 0 ..... U 0.....' _ .~ :1
s:: 'U ~ ~ oS u -..... 5 \;. :a ti ~ . 3 1. c V\ ,( 8:
-- f ~&gj~1 ~~3 ~ ~ 1.8.",1 8 ~ ~~ Cd
..d 1 rg
~ o ~.... '-"..c:- 0 U Do:= d' ~ ~ oS B Cd ! 8
..... ,- 0 ~ _ ~ c oS U C - 6
a .8 _~ U "8 ~ 5 i ~ n co] .g c.o U .~ ..... 5 c
0 t u
-.." U ~ 0 U 0 a CIS 1 U ~ ~ e .., .~ ,~
a 8~.!~]:~~g11 E5'~'~1' E5~i~ 'fi
~ u ~ u
U 'i~~ uUC) 0 ~o c is'
~~.....~~j8~.s i~.s~. 8~Q . . . .
"---....._--' .--,..- ." ..-- --- _...._-~..._--
c:: dO]
o rfc...UJ -sa. >.
0 .... 0 .- 0 0 =
5 6 "" ~ ~ (Ij -s -S oS sics oS'2. 0 fa
en '+3 .a c - c... 0 . Q,:= oS c...
~ o . fj'i$ ~ 0 0 fi 0 ~ . 0 -s c... ~ A H 13 ~ i o. e 0
,rJ.s:::"" \O.s:::,rJ de 00 "'0 i -
101 ," '" '" H,,:q '" 0 i';" i 5 "is '~I 1:' 1::'" " '0
::s = 1 .~ -< 'r;; ~ 0 sol eB .~'j - >. ~. = 0 ..(Ij '~1. ~ ~~
...c: e d 1:: . rf - ..8 -s 1 -s 0 .t:: e ~ ~ F-o. ..g 'iI oS 8.
UJ 0 o. ] ~.... bO c... -S U . c.i if .~
Q, Q, c.i 000 _ "c:tU (Ij_ ....
"'0 ~ 'j go cs j .!j g. ~ -S .5 ~ oS fa ~ I J -S j = S .~ :-' 0 .~~A
0 5 UJ :g 0 6 ... ~ a ii i 'i [ri 0 0.6 C,)\O
0 ..s::: 'iI ~ cf: Q,:s c.i .... . 0 ct:i .~
c.. 11 5,.,H -;'.8 ~ '" n ] 8'1 i ~ q ) 0': ~ ,!I :5 iI h ~~
en :- ~ J.~d ~ 3i ~ R h : .. ,; ] 'I ~'" ] 1;1 I & ~ ~ ) .~ ~
0 eBB ~ .8 ,rJ 8 ..8 ~ g e S bO g ~ .~ . ~ ~] ~ ~ u '0 g.~
bO ~
~ c--. fj '~ ~ 11 ) i ~ ~ i ~ ~ :I.a '~ I ,!I ,!I ~ 81 ~ ~ ,~ ,!I ~
a 0 ~ tJ E ." ..c 0 '~~ I 1:' 8 0 - 1I.t ,
(.,) ~. E! U .g fa ) t= UJ .:: 0 :: .~ ~ (Ij ~ = ~ a.'i j ~.a .6 a.
>. S UJ fj ~ 0 =' -S 0 .t:: "c:t ~ ~ ca . ~
~ en ~ 1 i 11..8 !II ~ 11 ~ ] 1:' ~ 8. S "d Jd ] ~ jj !j -1-1 ...
~~ f~~~~oS~1]1 ~1{~]]jJ gl~~1
c...
- 8 . d 0 UJ -g i1 ri
- .~ (Ij fi 0 oS (Ij en -
c.. . ~ .s:::.~ "c:t -s ..8 -WI "c:t 'iI .s::: _ I
.t:: UI U .,J
S "c:t . tl .2 ~ 'i U Q, fa ~ ooS oS ~ ~ 1oS"c:t] ~
- 8 -= . 'i d e (Ij eo..
::s E - ~ 0 0 ~ = ~ UJ 0
::r= d ,3 lib f 's ;] ..0 oS If ~ -s"8 >> ... 0 0-5 .s:::~
8 8' d .- d ct:i ] bI) = C ~ 5 e ,rJ'~ 0 1 g. I E'
"'0 U u~.8F-i ~ ~~ Q,~~~ Co) ct:i 1';; "B;..... ~ co.... 1 In S
.-
0 e (Ij fj "c:t CS -S - fa =UJ ; . ~ - "B= d ]i~- CS.... Nu
0 e"B~~o~~ooQ,~~ 0 "" e t+:: \O'iI c.i'il o~ _
~ o -8 Q, - 0 .... .~ -S 00
c.. "c:t.... 0"" . Q\
; .~ 0 ~ B ~ c... ~ -S .5 ; -5 8 .-.- :-' ~ 0 UJ 8 ~ .8 8 ~ 61 I
00 UI '8 .- 8 0 e "c:t = ~ ;g UJA e '8 .s::: >. - _ "c:t c... ~
- .- CO ] 8 <::i 0 d 5 e ct:i 8 Q, 'O:t = u E' 8 UJ. ~ ~ o'~ 0 0
-
0 =Q, >>'fi (Ij =Q, ~ 0 cf: 5 e ... 8 ,,5 :::: 'i ~ on ,.;.!i. " -5 I! $1 ::.
E5 ~1 e "B 0 g ~ ~ c;, go ~ 0 ::s ,rJ .s::: i . U N g ~ .~ oS i1 ii
.s::: oQ,f~;acs~g'i) 8 ~ ::r= ;12Jji5~~!ls 1~'dDJ
1. ~.g,rJ -0 (Ij.... ~ ~ -a ..2 "'0
. . .-a-~ (Ij"B~ 5~!€ -a a:z o 58.. 1"'0 ~!!lil.
- 0 1';; cs .~ 5 's i1 = 8.5 ~ c.... .~
0 =UI 0 . ,2 go . ~ ..8 .~ 8 ~ ~A ~ 0 .. 0 5,~:!! oS!!3l j P -3 j 0 ,- 6
0 ~ ,2 1. e ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ c.. ... 0 bO fj .- 1 . :::e ~ 1II:g
.....,a 00 o 'a . ~ 'iI 8. c 0 e
0 .s::: UJu -8 ~ "c:t e @ .s::: Q,..c ~ ~ .!!! .~ :::e = u 0' CI1 ;a * U ~ Z
U -a . g'- u'" c 0 ~,g.. .. .. ..
c:: .- .- 0 ~ bO ~;a:a 0 0 8
-=i~ C'" -Set:: E5
0 ~ ~(Ij .::~oo... '0
. ct:i
c--.
- ..5 0 8 ~ c--.
0 -
b ...., .... u- I. 8 0 .~ 1
-Q.51)>>~0
c:: ]8._~~ :E~i $..t
d - >>
0 . Q,0"c:t8..0~5 8.. ,rJ of
U ~ ~-S,2-"c:t lJct:i d 0 15 I~R .8
III - Efa8~d Co)
"'0 fj :::e 'iI ~ I:i .... (Ij .S! 0"'0 g 'i ~ 1:1ib
0 5 ... .- 0 ~ 1';; ~ ~
~ 0 'UJ ] .~ u u ct:i 'iI 8 ..0 0 u ..011.8 g! ~ -
o c.. = 0 ] (Ij.- 0 0 a 0
,rJ ~-S lII=dQ, c.. 11 -e Q, III :i c... S
enoo -a '"' bO AQ,U-8~~ -aO 60 III
- fa oS .5 e CI1 ~ .- ~ Co) en ~ UJ~~fa~ . 6:<<1~
roo o 0"8 fj .- en ~ EUJ]08 o'+3J
o 0 i1l11bO::O _...,rJu o .- fj bO 0 -
III - 0 0 tI 0 ... 0 .~ 0..0 'i Q, ~ c; u S i '~:i f,
bOb 5ii3 ~ 6.CI1 ~ 5~,rJ .e:: ~ CI1 III -'+:/ ~..2 Q .-
000 .s::: i ~ .111 'iI 6. d .- -a .....,a 0 'iI .~ 0 8 Ii'- 0.. c:I.:> 8.. ~ =
...c:_ ~ 0 :s '+3 5 0 . ~ fa Co)~ '+3 .g u U ,rJ 8 u... B'
~ d.~;.o 5 :a~o AQ,"c:t~~oS6
.....,aro C ~-8o~ofj o en bOo Q,fjofa . '2
o .....,a .~ ...... .:g.~:> ~ :E~ bO . e a ~ B
~ ~ .... ~ .- - c... -S .- ..0 -
~ c:: o ~-5"c:t fj ~ 0 bOt3 o c.. ~ 0.8 8 I 0 ~ 8 8 1'+3'
0 e '2 ~ (Ij .c.5 c. ~ S ~=:S:S' e5u==';a~
~:g -< ~ ~ 0 0 .!!! ~ .5 e oeB"B"B S U ~'8"B d'
.- .- F -S ~ :s S Q, ~ oS ~ ~ fij .~ tfi :s ~ ~ fij 8::e
...c: en u 8 '"B bO 0".5 ~ ~ 0
~.~ o ... 8 0 (Ij ~ ~ ,2... . . . . .
-SO Q,lJ-seo
c. ... 0 _ ...
tt.b.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER~
SUBJECT: FINAL MAPS. APPROVAL PROCESS
DATE: JANUARY 26, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Council direct staff to prepare an ordinance designating the City
Engineer as the official to approve final subdivision maps, accept offers of dedication, and
enter into agreements to construct subdivision improvements.
FUNDING:
There is no fiscal impact.
DISCUSSION:
Currently, subdivision projects are processed under a two step process. The first step is
approval by the City Council of a tentative or vesting tentative map. During the tentative
map process conceptual review is performed and conditions of approval are set. The
tentative map process also involves environmental review and public hearings. Approval
of a tentative map by the City Council essentially answers the question "Should this
subdivision be authorized?".
Once a tentative map is approved, the second part of the subdivision process begins. This
is the final map process. The final map is a technical mapping document which identifies
the new lots and offers of dedications for public easements and right of ways. Prior to
recording a final map, a subdivider must comply with conditions of approval that were
established by the City during the tentative map process. Approval of a final map
essentially answers the question "The City previously decided the subdivision should be
authorized, now has the subdivider complied with all of the conditions?".
Complying with conditions of approval is a technical process. Typically the conditions
would include constructing or bonding for improvements, payment of fees and taxes, and
offering easements and dedicating street right of ways. Because the requirements for final
map approval are technical, the approval of a final map is considered non-discretionary.
By law, a final map must be approved once all conditions (established during the tentative
map process) have been met.
Historically, the Government Code (Subdivision Map Act) has required that final maps be
approved by the legislative body, in this case the City Council. Staff has typically placed
final maps on the consent agenda because of the lack of discretionary issues.
__.~~_ u_ --.--- "---
Effective January 1, 1999, Senate Bill 1660 became law. SB 1660 amended the
Government Code to authorize local agencies to establish an ordinance providing that the
City Engineer or other designated official may approve final maps and accept or reject
offers of dedication that are made on the map. The bill also authorizes the Council to
designate an official with the authority to enter into an agreement with the subdivider for
the provision of public improvements required as conditions of approval (commonly
referred to as a Subdivision Agreement).
Additional provisions that must be included in the ordinance are noticing requirements, an
appeal process, and a periodic review of the delegation of authority. A notice must be
posted of any pending approval or disapproval of a final map. The notice must be posted
with the regular Council agenda and mailed to interested parties who request such notice.
The official must approve or disapprove the final map within 10 days following the meeting
that was proceeded by the posted notice. The actions by the designated official are
appealable to the City Council. Staff recommends, if an ordinance is adopted, the Council
review the delegation of authority annually during the budget process.
Designating the City Engineer to approve final maps will expedite the subdivision process
and remove non-discretionary items from the Council agenda. Therefore, staff
recommends that the Council direct staff to return with an ordinance that would include the
following provisions:
1. Designate the City Engineer as the official with the authority to approve or
disapprove final subdivision maps.
2. Designate the City Engineer as the official with the authority to accept, accept with
conditions, or reject offers of dedication shown on the final subdivision map.
3. Designate the City Engineer as the official with the authority to enter into
agreements for the completion of improvements required as a condition of a final
subdivision map.
4. Require notices of pending map approvals or disapprovals to be posted with the
regular Council agenda.
5. Require the City Engineer to act on final maps within 10 days following the Council
meeting in which agenda the item was noticed.
6. Establish provision for appeal of the City Engineer's action to the City Council.
7. Require an annual review of the delegation of these authorities.
Attachment: SB 1660
~'-"
BILL NUMBER: SB 1660 CHAPTERED
BILL TEXT
CHAPTER 604
FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE SEPTEMBER 21,1998
APPROVED BY GOVERNOR SEPTEMBER 18, 1998
PASSED THE SENATE AUGUST 28, 1998
PASSED THE ASSEMBL Y AUGUST 24, 1998
AMENDED IN ASSEMBL Y AUGUST 21, 1998
AMENDED IN ASSEMBL Y JUNE 30, 1998
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 26, 1998
INTRODUCED BY Senator Lewis
FEBRUARY 13, 1998
An act to amend Sections 66458, 66462, and 66477.1 of the Government Code, relating
to local agencies.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 1660, Lewis. Local agencies: subdivisions.
Under existing law, the Subdivision Map Act requires the legislative body of a local
agency that receives a map at a meeting or at the next regular meeting after the meeting
at which it receives the map, to approve or disapprove the map if it conforms or does not
conform to specified requirements.
This bill would authorize the legislative body to provide by ordinance for approval or
disapproval of final maps by the city or county engineer, surveyor, or other designated
official, who may also accept, accept subject to improvement, or reject dedications and
offers of dedications that are made by a statement on the map. The bill would also require
. the designated official to notify the legislative body at its next regular meeting after the
official receives the map that he or she is reviewing the map for final approval, subject the
official's action to appeal to the legislative body, and would require periodic review by the
legislative body of the delegation of authority to the designated official.
The bill would also require that notice to the general public of any pending approval or
disapproval of any final subdivision map be posted with the legislative body's regular
agenda and mailed to interested parties who request notice. The bill would require that the
designated official approve or disapprove the final map within 10 days following the
meeting of the legislative body that was preceded by the posted notice.
This bill would also authorize the delegation to a designated official of the authority to
enter into an agreement with the subdivider for the provision of public improvements as a
condition precedent to the approval of a final map, provide for the appeal of those actions,
and require the periodic review of that delegation of authority.
----..--
\
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 66458 of the Government Code is amended to
read:
66458. (a) The legislative body shall, at the meeting at which it receives the map or,
at its next regular meeting after the meeting at which it receives the map, approve the map
if it conforms to all the requirements of this chapter and any local subdivision ordinance
applicable at the time of approval or conditional approval of the tentative map and any
rulings made thereunder. If the map does not conform, the legislative body shall
disapprove the map.
(b) If the legislative body does not approve or disapprove the map within the prescribed
time, or any authorized extension thereof, and the map conforms to all requirements and
rulings, it shall be deemed approved, and the clerk of the legislative body shall certify or
state its approval thereon.
@ The meeting at which the legislative body receives the map shall be the date on
which the clerk of the legislative body receives the map.
(d) The legislative body may provide, by ordinance, for the approval or disapproval of
final maps by the city or county engineer, surveyor, or other designated official. The
legislative body may also provide, by ordinance, that the official may accept, accept subject
to improvement, or reject dedications and offers of dedications that are made by a
statement on the map. Any ordinance adopted pursuant to this subdivision shall provide
that (1) the designated official shall notify the legislative body at its next regular meeting
after the official receives the map that the official is reviewing the map for final approval,
(2) the designated official shall approve or disapprove the final map within 10 days
following the meeting of the legislative body that was preceded by the notice in (4) below,
(3) the designated official's action may be appealed to the legislative body, (4) the
legislative body shall provide notice of any pending approval or disapproval by a
designated official, which notice shall be attached and posted with the legislative body's
regular agenda and shall be mailed to interested parties who request notice, and (5) the
legislative body shall periodically review the delegation of authority to the designated
official. Except as specifically authorized by this subdivision, the processing of final maps
shall conform to all procedural requirements of this division.
SEC. 2. Section 66462 of the Government Code is amended to read:
66462. (a) If, at the time of approval of the final map by the legislative body, any public
improvements required by the local agency pursuant to this division or local ordinance
have not been completed and accepted in accordance with standards established by the
local agency by ordinance applicable at the time of the approval or conditional approval of
the tentative map, the legislative body, as a condition precedent to the approval of the final
map, shall require the subdivider to enter into one of the following agreements specified
by the local agency:
(1) An agreement with the local agency upon mutually agreeable terms to thereafter
complete the improvements at the subdivider's expense.
(2) An agreement with the local agency to thereafter do either of
the following:
(A) Initiate and consummate proceedings under an appropriate special assessment act
or the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, Chapter 2.5 (commencing with
Section 53311) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 for the financing and completion of all of
the improvements.
-
\
(B) If the improvements are not completed under a special assessment act or the
Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section
53311) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5, to complete the improvements at the subdivider's
expense.
(b) The standards may be adopted by reference, without posting or publishing them,
if they have been printed in book or booklet form and three copies of the books or booklets
have been filed for use and examination by the public in the office of the clerk of the
legislative body.
@ The local agency entering into any agreement pursuant to this section shall require
that performance of the agreement be guaranteed by the security specified in Chapter 5
(commencing with Section 66499).
(d) The legislative body may provide, by ordinance, that the agreement entered into
pursuant to this section may be entered into by a designated official, in accordance with
standards adopted by the local agency. The designated official's action may be appealed
to the legislative body for conformance with this chapter and any applicable local
subdivision ordinance. Any ordinance adopted pursuant to this subdivision shall provide
that the legislative body shall periodically review this delegation of authority to the
designated official.
SEC. 3. Section 66477.1 of the Government Code is amended to read:
66477.1. (a) At the time the legislative body or the official designated pursuant to
Section 66458 approves a final map, the legislative body or the designated official shall
also accept, accept subject to improvement, or reject any offer of dedication. The clerk of
the legislative body shall certify or state on the map the action by the legislative body or
designated official.
(b) The legislative body of a county, or a county officer designated by the legislative
body, may accept into the county road system, pursuant to Section 941 of the Streets and
Highways Code, any road for which an offer of dedication has been accepted or accepted
subject to improvements.