Agenda Packet 1999-02-23
CITY COUNCIL
Michael A. Lady
Tony M. Ferrara
Thomas A. Runels
Steve Tolley
Jim Dickens
Mayor
Mayor Pro Tem
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
~ity 0/
~ [ff1'an4e
AGENDA
Robert L. Hunt
Timothy J. Carmel
Nancy A. Davis
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
AGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23,1999
7:30 P.M.
Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande
1.
CALL TO ORDER:
7:30 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL
3.
FLAG SALUTE:
CUB SCOUT PACK 327
FIVE CITIES
4.
INVOCATION:
JEAN BOWSER, BAHA'I FAITH
OF ARROYO GRANDE
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
Plaques for Former Commission/Board Members
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 - FEBRUARY 23,1999
PAGE 2
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
a. Public Hearing - Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision to
Deny. CUP 98-565. and Variance No. 98-002. Village Creek
Promenade (HAMILTON)
(Action Required: Approve Staff Recommendations)
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.
Upon completing your comments:
. You may be directed to staff for assistance;
. A Council Member may indicate an interest in discussing your
issue with you subsequent to the Council meeting;
. The Council may direct staff to research the issue and
subsequently report back to the Council (generally in the form of
a memorandum or staff report); or
. No action is required or taken.
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Any Council Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the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. Annual Review of City Investment Policy (SNODGRASS)
(Action Required: Approval)
c. Minutes of City Council Meeting of February 9. 1999 (DAVIS)
(Action Required: Approval)
d. Award of Bid to Spectrum Painting for Painting of Government
Buildings in the Civic Center Complex (FIBICH)
(Action Required: Award Bid to Spectrum Painting)
AGENDA SUMMARY - FEBRUARY 23,1999
PAGE 3
9. CONSENT AGENDA: (continued)
e. Authorization to Solicit Bids for Purchase of a Utility Service Body
(SPAGNOLO)
(Action Required: Approval)
f. Request to Purchase Budget Items - Computers for the City
Council and City Manager (DAVIS)
(Action Required: Approval)
g. Progress Payment No. 1 - City Corporation Yard Fuel Facility
Replacement Plan. City Project No. 80-98-1. Progress Payment No.
1 (SPAGNOLO)
(Action Required: Approval)
h. Don Roberts Field-Soto Sports Complex. Project No. 80-98-2. Final
Progress Payment (SPAGNOLO)
(Action Required: Approve Staff Recommendations)
10. CONTINUED BUSINESS:
a. Selection of Weekly Green Waste Collection Service (HAMILTON)
(Action Required: Approve Staff Recommendations)
b. Proposed Joint Meeting of the City Councils of Arroyo Grande.
Grover Beach. and Pismo Beach (HUNT)
(Action Required: Approve Date of April 15, 1999 for Joint
Meeting of City Councils)
11. NEW BUSINESS:
a. Rancho Grande Park Schematic Plan (HERNANDEZ)
(Action Required: Approval)
b. Status of House at 134 South Mason Street (HERNANDEZ)
(Action Required: Provide Direction to Staff)
c. Traffic Commission's Guidelines. Ad Hoc Committee (SPAGNOLO)
(Action Required: Establish Ad Hoc Committee)
AGENDA SUMMARY - FEBRUARY 23, 1999
PAGE 4
12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
This item gives the Mayor and Council Members the opportunity to present
reports to the other members regarding committees, commissions, boards,
or special projects on which they may be participating.
(a) MAYOR MICHAEL A. LADY:
(1) South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District
(SSLOCSD)
(2) Other
(b) MAYOR PRO TEM TONY M. FERRARA:
(1) Integrated Waste Management Authority Board (IWMA)
(2) Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC)
(3) Other
(c) COUNCIL MEMBER THOMAS A. RUNELS:
(1) Zone 3 Water Advisory Board
(2) County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC)
(3) Other
(d) COUNCIL MEMBER STEVE TOLLEY:
(1) Long-Range Planning Committee
(2) South County Youth Coalition
(3) San Luis Obispo Council of Governments/San Luis Obispo
Regional Transit Authority (SLOCOG/SLORTA)
(4) Other
(e) COUNCIL MEMBER JIM DICKENS:
(1) South County Area Transit (SCAT)
(2) Economic Development Committee
(3) Other
13. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:
Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Council
14. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Correspondence/Information for the City Council presented by the City
Manager
15. ADJOURNMENT
AGENDA SUMMARY - FEBRUARY 23, 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 Director of Administrative
Services' Office and are available for public inspection and reproduction at cost. If
you have questions regarding any agenda item, please contact the Director of
Administrative Services' 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 Director of
Administrative Services' 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 Director of Administrative Services' Office at (805) 473-5414
for more information.
www.arroyogrande.org
7.8.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JIM HAMILTON. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVelOPMENT VV
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY, CUP 98-
565, AND VARIANCE NO. 98-002, VILLAGE CREEK PROMENADE
DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt the mitigated negative declaration, adopt
a resolution upholding the appeal of the Planning Commission denial of Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) No. 98-565 (thereby approving CUP No. 98-565 as conditioned),
and adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 99-002.
FUNDING:
No fiscal impact.
DISCUSSION:
On January 26, 1999, the City Council heard the appeal from the Planning
Commission decision of December 1, 1998 in this matter. Following the staff
presentation, public hearing, and discussion, the City Council tentatively upheld the
appeal, and directed that supporting documentation be brought back to the City
Council on February 23, 1999 for a final decision.
The applicant seeks 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 A.
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.
As previously mentioned, the City Council directed staff and the applicant to
engage in further discussions with the goal of resolving outstanding issues. These
discussions have occurred. This staff report provides an update of the status of the
issues.
Staff Report: Appeal to the City Council
VI'llage Creek Promenade; CUP 98-565
February 23, 1999
Page 2
As a result of the discussions, the applicant has filed a request for a variance from
the landscaping setback requirements. The case number is Variance No. 99-002.
Attachment B is a table setting forth the development standards for the General
Commercial district, and the project status with regard to each.
REPORT TO CITY COUNCil ON STAFF AND APPLICANT DISCUSSIONS
The staff report to the Planning Commission identified several deficiencies in the
proposed project. These deficiencies were discussed at the City Council meeting on
January 26, 1999. The following sets forth a summary of the status of each
deficiency:
1. The lot size and associated calculation shown on the plans are
inaccurate.
STATUS: The applicant has submitted revised plans that reflect an accurate
calculation of lot size.
2. The plan details showing the right-of-way and landscaping areas are not
drawn to scale and are misleading.
STATUS: The applicant has submitted revised plans that accurately reflect the
existing and proposed right-of-way, and the landscaping areas.
3. The proposed landscaping design requires a variance application that has
not been submitted.
STATUS: The applicant has filed an application for a variance from the required
landscaping setbacks. The application has been assigned case number Variance
Case No. 99-002. A proposed resolution approving the variance request is
attached.
4. The applicant has not demonstrated that the drainage plans can be
implemen ted as proposed.
STATUS: The City Council directed staff to encourage Caltrans to respond to
the proposal to drain the project to the existing Caltrans ditch in a timely
fashion. Attached to this staff report as Attachment C is correspondence from
Craig Campbell to Steve Senet dated February 5, 1999 requesting such
consent. As of the date this report was prepared, Caltrans had not consented
to the proposal.
In anticipation of Caltrans' consent to the request, the applicant revised the
project plans regarding drainage. The revised plans indicate that drainage
would be directed to the south to a drop inlet, which would drain to the'
Staff Report: Appeal to the City Council
VI'llage Creek Promenade; CUP 98-565
February 23, 1999
Page 3
Caltrans ditch. The conditions of approval include a requirement that the
applicant demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works that
adequate drainage is available, including any easements that might be required
to facilitate such drainage (Condition 52).
5. The parking lot access needs revision, which may affect the number of
parking spaces provided.
STATUS: The revised plans reflect the applicant's proposal to revise the
location of Building 3. Building 3 would be moved six feet to the south, and
this would provide additional space for maneuvering and an increase in the
radius of the parking lot islands, thus facilitating access to the parking spaces.
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.
STATUS: The applicant has submitted revised plans that reflect a change in
design of the retaining wall. The wall is now capped with a railing. The design
is adequate and meets City standards.
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.
STATUS: The revised plans reflect the applicant's proposal to change the
location of Building 1. Building 1 would be moved six feet to the south, and
this would provide additional space for construction of a loading dock. No
modification of the curb on the neighboring parcel would be required.
The location and design of sidewalks were discussed during the previous City Council
hearing. The applicant has submitted a revised design that will:
1) Remove the existing sidewalk adjacent to the street along the project
frontage; and
2) Replace it with a new sidewalk connecting to the existing parts of the
development. Pedestrians will be able to follow the sidewalk within
the development to its terminus with Traffic Way.
In addition, the applicant would construct a sidewalk on the east side of Station
Way to a point approximately opposite the driveway closest to the Station Way/Fair
Oaks Avenue intersection.
Staff Report: Appeal to the City Councl'l
Village Creek Promenade; CUP 98-565
February 23, 1999
Page 4
VARIANCE APPLICATION:
The applicant proposes using a portion of public right-of-way as part of a 10-foot
landscaping setback required by the Development Code. 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 has therefore requested a variance from the landscaping setback
standard. If approved, the landscape design would be similar to the elevated,
shrubby landscape strip already constructed on portions of Village Creek
Promenade.
The City Council may approve a variance application only if all of the following
findings of fact can be made in an affirmative manner. A discussion on the basis
for making the findings follows each of the findings.
1. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship
not otherwise shared by others within the surrounding area.
The Development Code requires that, where off-street parking is
located within a building setback area, a minimum 10-foot wide
landscape buffer be provided between the public right-of-way and
parking lots in all commercial districts (~9-07 .040.B.). Both the
subject properties, and the parcels immediately adjacent to it, have
been designed to function as a single development. The previously
developed portions of the project provide the 10-foot landscaped
buffer by using a portion of the right-of-way. The existing on-site
circulation system is designed based on this landscape configuration.
A literal interpretation of the requirement, if applied to this property,
would result in a six- (6) foot offset in the main parking lot drive aisle
at the property line. This will lead to practical difficulties in designing
on-site vehicle and pedestrian circulation in a manner that functions
efficiently, and in concert with the adjacent property.
2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of
the property that do not apply generally to other properties classified
in the same zone.
.Exceptional circumstances exist in regards to the site design of Village
Creek Promenade. The public improvements fronting the existing
portions of the development are designed in a fashion that directs
pedestrians onto the property, and away from the street. This is
Staff Report: Appeal to the City Council
VI'llage Creek Promenade; CUP 98-565
February 23, 1999
Page 5
reflected in the fact that the original approval did not require a
sidewalk along the property frontage. Instead, a direct pedestrian
connection is provided between Traffic Way and the property, near the
intersection of Traffic Way and Station Way.
Along the street front of the existing development, the right-of-way
normally used for a curb adjacent sidewalk has been landscaped in a
fashion that discourages pedestrians from crossing the street except
at the street intersections. To ensure that this intent is respected in
the remainder of the development, it is necessary that the developed
landscaping and sidewalk pattern be continued for the length of the
project.
3. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the
owners of other properties classified in the same zone.
The adjacent properties have been allowed to develop with an onsite
landscaped buffer area of a width less than required under the current
code standard. A part of the right-of-way was also landscaped to
serve as a part of the buffer area between the parking lot and Station
Way. The adjacent properties are within the same zoning district
(General Commercial) as the project. The strict or literal interpretation
of the regulation would deny the applicant the same design privileges
enjoyed by adjacent properties.
4. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified
in the same zone.
(See response to Findings 1 and 3, above)
5. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
The project as designed will result in a continuation of the existing and
planned pattern of public and private improvements within the area
immediately surrounding the project.
6. That the granting of a variance is consistent with the objectives and
policies of the General Plan and the intent of this title.
Staff Report: Appeal to the City Council
Vi'llage Creek Promenade; CUP 98-565
February 23, 1999
Page 6
Objective 3.0 of the General Plan land Use Element requires that
commercial and office uses have safe and easy pedestrian and
vehicular access in order to serve the retail and service commercial
needs of Arroyo Grande residents. General Plan Implementation Policy
6.8 emphasizes the incorporation of landscape themes and areas in
new development. General Plan Objective 7.0, and Policies 7.1 and
7.2 encourage new development to respect the design and pattern of
existing land uses.
By continuing the pattern of landscaping, pedestrian and vehicle
access, established by the existing portions of Village Promenade, the
proposed project will be consistent with the policies and intent of the
General Plan.
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 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was distributed for public
review and comment. The close of the public comment period was 5:00 p.m.
December 1, 1998. No comments have been received.
The environmental document is attached as Attachment D.
CONCLUSION:
The project as recently revised, and subject to the conditions of approval contained
in the Council resolution, would meet the requirements of the Development Code.
Alternatives
The following alternatives are presented for City Council consideration:
1. Uphold the appeal of the applicant and adopt a resolution approving the
application for a conditional use permit and variance
2. Uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and direct staff to prepare a
resolution denying the application for a conditional use permit and variance.
3. Provide direction to staff.
Staff Report: Appeal to the City Council
Village Creek Promenade; CUP 98-565
February 23, 1999
Page 7
Attachments
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Project plans
Relevant Development Standards
Correspondence dated February 5, 1999 from Craig Campbell to
Steve Senet
Final Negative Declaration
Appeal to the City Council and Staff Report for January 26,
1999 City Council meeting.
Correspondence
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Village Creek Promenade
CUP 98-565; V AR 99-002
Attachment A
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
GENERAL CONDITIONS
This approval authorizes construction of four commercial/retail buildings totaling
27,350 square feet.
1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and
City requirements as are applicable to this project.
2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Conditional
Use Permit 98-565.
3. This application shall automatically expire on February 22, 2001 unless a
building permit is issued. Thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the
approval, the applicant may apply for an extension of one (1) year from the
original date of expiration.
4. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans
presented to the City Council at the meeting of February 23, 1999 and
marked Exhibit "A".
5. The applicant shall defend indemnify and hold the City harmless from any
claim, proceeding or action brought against the City, its present or former
agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said approval, or
in anyway relating to the implementation thereof, or in the alternative, to
relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents,
officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorney's fee's ~hich the
City, its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as
a result of such action. The City may, in its sole discretion, participate at its
own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall
not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this condition.
6. Prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy, the developer shall
provide mail receptacles for the units as required by the Postmaster of the
Pismo Beach Post Office.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CUP 98-565; VAR 99-002
February 23, 1999
Page 2 of 14
LIGHTING
7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, an exterior lighting plan and site
lighting footcandle plan shall be prepared subject to the review and approval
of the Community Development and Police Departments which shall comply
with the provisions of Development Code Sections 9-10.080, 9-12.070
C(3), and 9-15.040.
NOISE
8. Construction shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00
p.m. Monday through Friday and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on
Saturday or Sunday.
DEVELOPMENT CODE
9. Development shall conform with the City of Arroyo Grande zoning
requirements except as otherwise approved.
10. Signage shall be subject to the requirements of Development Code Chapter
9-13. Prior to issuance of a building permit or recordation, any illegal signs
shall be removed.
11. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all ducts, meters, air
conditioning equipment and all other mechanical equipment, whether on the
ground, on the structure or elsewhere, shall be screened from public view
with materials architecturally compatible with the main structure. It is
especially important that gas and electric meters, electric transformers, and
large water piping systems be completely screened from public view. All
roof-mounted equipment which generates noise, solid particles, odors, et
cetera, shall cause the objectionable material to be directed away from
residential properties.
12. Setbacks, lot coverage, and floor area ratios shall be as shown on the
development plans, Attachment 2, Site Plan, except as specifically modified
by these conditions.
13. All parking spaces adjacent to a wall, fence, or property line shall have a
minimum width of 11 feet.
14. The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 9-14,
"Dedications, Fees and Reservations."
2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CUP 98-565; VAR 99-002
February 23, 1999
Page 3 of 14
15. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the developer shall comply
with Development Code, Chapter 9-12, "Parking and loading
Requirements" .
lANDSCAPI NG
16. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, a landscaping and irrigation
plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect subject to review
and approval by the Community Development, Police, Building and Fire, and
Parks and Recreation Departments. The landscaping plan shall include the
following:
a. Tree staking, soil preparation and planting detail;
b. The use of landscaping to screen ground-mounted utility and
mechanical equipment;
c. The required landscaping and improvements. This includes:
(1) Deep root planters shall be included in areas where trees
are within five feet (5') of asphalt or concrete surfaces
and curbs;
(2) Water conservation practices including the use of low
flow heads, drip irrigation, mulch, gravel, drought
tolerant plants and mulches shall be incorporated into
the landscaping plan; and
(3) All slopes 2: 1 or greater shall have jute mesh, nylon
mesh or equivalent material.
(4) An automated irrigation system.
SOLID WASTE
17. Solid waste pick-up location as identified is acceptable.
18. In cases where trash bin enclosures are to be installed abutting structures,
the common wall shall be of a noncombustible masonry type material with
no openings for vents or windows.
19. Trash enclosures shall be reserved exclusively for dumpster storage.
Miscellaneous boxes, bins, racks, etc., will not be allowed within the
enclosure, and may not be stored outside except for days on which they will
be collected.
20. Interior vehicle travelways shall be designed to be capable of withstanding
loads imposed by trash trucks.
3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CUP 98-565; VAR 99-002
February 23, 1999
Page 4 of 14
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
TREE PRESERV A TION/TREE REMOVAL PLAN
21. Prior to issuance of grading permit and during construction the applicant
shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance 431 C.S., the Community
Tree Ordinance.
22. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the developer shall submit
a tree preservation and tree removal plan to the Director of Parks and
Recreation/City Arborist for undeveloped parcels or lots with trees. The
plan shall include the location, size and specie of all trees located on the lot
or on adjoining lots, where development could affect the roots or limbs on
trees or adjacent property.
23. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, all trees to remain on site shall be
marked with paint/ribbon and protected by a five (5') foot vinyl or chain link
fence. The fence shall be located at a minimum of eight (8') foot radius
from the trunk of the tree.
24. Street Planting Fee: The developer shall pay the current street planting
fee/deposit. One 15-gallon size or larger street tree is required for every
fifty-feet (50') of project frontage. Prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy, the developer, with the approval of a Park and Recreation
Director, may install all 15-gallon trees and receive a refund of deposit. All
plantings to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building
permit issuance, in accordance with Ord. 431 C.S.
POLICE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
25. Prior to issuance of building permit, applicant to submit exterior lighting plan
for Police Department approval.
26. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall post
handicapped parking, per Police Department requirements.
27. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall install a
burglary [or robbery] alarm system per Police Department guidelines, and
pay the Police Department alarm permit application fee of ($30.00).
BUilDING AND FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
4
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CUP 98-565; VAR 99-002
February 23, 1999
Page 5 of 14
UBC/UFC
28. The project shall comply with the most recent editions of the California
State Fire and Building Codes and the Uniform Building and Fire Codes as
adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande.
FIRE lANES
29. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall post
designated fire lanes, per Section 22500.1 of the California Vehicle Code.
30. All fire lanes must be posted and enforced, per Police Department and Fire
Department guidelines.
FIRE FLOW/FIRE HYDRANTS
31. Project shall have a fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute using 75%
reduction allowable for sprinklers for a duration of 4 hours.
32. Prior to bringing combustible materials on site, fire hydrants shall be
installed, per Fire Department and Public Works Department standards.
SECURITY KEY BOX
33. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, applicant must provide an
approved "security key vault," per Building and Fire Department guidelines.
FIRE SPRINKLER
34. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all buildings must be fully
fire-alarmed per Building and Fire Department guidelines.
ABANDONMENT INON-CONFORMING
35. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs
first, applicant shall provide proof of properly abandoning all non-conforming
items such as septic tanks, wells, underground piping and other undesirable
conditions.
OTHER PERMITS
36. Any review, processing, and inspection costs generated by outside
consultants required by this approval, including compliance with mitigation
monitoring measures, shall be paid by the applicant.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
5
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CUP 98-565; VAR 99-002
February 23, 1999
Page 6 of 14
37. Special Conditions
a. Project to comply with all California Title 24 accessibility
requirements.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS
38. All project improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance
with City standards and specifications. Plans within the right-of-way shall
include profile drawings. Improvement plans (including the following) shall
be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Public Works
Department:
a. Grading, drainage and erosion control.
b. Street paving, curb, gutter and sidewalk.
c. Striping and signage plan.
d. Water and sewer mains and laterals.
e. Public utilities.
39. Upon approval of the improvement plans, the applicant shall provide a
reproducible mylar set and 3 sets of prints of the improvements for
inspection purposes. Prior to acceptance of the improvements, the
applicant shall provide reproducible mylars, and 2 sets of prints of the
approved record drawings (as-builts).
40. The developer shall be responsible during construction for cleaning city
streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks of dirt tracked from the project site.
The flushing of dirt or debris to storm drain or sanitary sewer facilities shall
not be permitted. The cleaning shall be done after each day's work or as
directed by the Director of Public Works or the Community Development
Director.
41. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining an encroachment permit for
all work within a public right-of-way (City or Caltrans).
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
42. Prior to finalizing a building permit, Station Way on the east side of the
street shall be improved as follows:
a. Approximately 266 feet of concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk shall be
constructed, within the project property and extending north to the
existing curb and gutter and sidewalk. The sidewalk shall be 6 feet
wide. The width of Station Way shall be 40 feet from curb to curb
(matching existing).
6
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CUP 98-565; VAR 99-002
February 23, 1999
Page 7 of 14
b. The construction shall include sawcutting and repaving a minimum 2 feet
of street paving to match the new curb and gutter, the removal andlor
abandonment of existing facilities.
c. Transitions to existing grades at driveways and at the back of walk,
including offsite driveway construction, small retaining walls at back of
walk, and the reconstruction of existing fencing.
d. The traffic index for structural design shall be 5.5.
43. Prior to finalizing a building permit, Station Way on the west side of the
street shall be improved as follows:
a. The existing 4 feet wide concrete sidewalk shall be removed. A 6 feet
wide concrete sidewalk shall be constructed from the southerly drive
entrance, south to Fair Oaks Avenue.
b. The area behind the curb and gutter may be used for landscaping subject
to the following; concrete pads shall be constructed around fire
hydrants, meter boxes or similar facilities, landscaping at entrances shall
be designed to provide for adequate sight distance.
44. Prior to finalizing a building permit, Fair Oaks Avenue on the north side of
the street shall be improved as follows:
a. New concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk shall be constructed. The new
curb shall line up with the curb at the highway bridge.
b. The curb return at station Way shall include a handicapped access ramp,
and shall connect to the onsite sidewalk system.
c. The traffic index for structural design shall be 6.5.
45. The parking lot shall be designed so that the cross-fall slope of the driving
lanes does not exceed five per cent (5%).
DEDICATIONS AND EASEMENTS
46. All easements, abandonments, or similar documents to be recorded as a
document separate from a map, shall be prepared by the applicant on
8 %x11 City approved forms, and shall include legal descriptions, sketches,
closure calculations, and a current preliminary title report. The applicant
shall be responsible for all required fees, including any additional required
City processing.
47. Prior to the issuance of a permit to construct street improvements, the
property owner shall offer for dedication to the public, right-of-way for
Station Way, consisting of that area between the easterly property line and
the west edge of the existing offer of dedication (6 feet behind curbface).
7
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CUP 98-565; VAR 99-002
February 23, 1999
Page 8 of 14
48. Prior to the issuance of a permit to construct street improvements, the
property owner shall offer for dedication to the public, right-of-way for Fair
Oaks Avenue, consisting of that area as shown on the approved site plan.
The right of way shall include the curb return and sidewalk at the
intersection with Station Way.
49. Prior to the issuance of a permit to construct street improvements, a
minimum 6-foot wide public utility easement (PUE) shall be dedicated
adjacent (on the north and west) of the street right-of-ways. The PUE shall
be adjusted where necessary for the installation or maintenance of the
public utility vaults, pads, or similar facilities, as approved by the Public
Works Department
50. Prior to the issuance of a permit to construct street improvements, street
tree planting and maintenance shall be dedicated adjacent (on the north and
west) of the street right-of-ways. Street tree easements shall be a minimum
of 10 feet beyond the right of way.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
51. All grading shall be done in accordance with the City Grading Ordinance.
52. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a grading
and drainage plan. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the Director of Public Works that downstream facilities have adequate
capacity and that appropriate easements are in existence or that
downstream property owners have agreed to accept any increased drainage.
53. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare an
erosion control plan for review and approval by the Public Works.
54. Subject to approval by the Director of Public Works, a rough grading plan
may be approved prior to the final grading plan.
55. All drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate a 100-year storm
flow.
56. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a revised preliminary soils report for
the project shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and supported by
adequate test borings. All earthwork design and grading shall be performed
in accordance with the approved soils report.
57. Street structural sections shall be determined by an R-Value soil test.
58. The property owner shall privately maintain all onsite drainage facilities.
8
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CUP 98-565; VAR 99-002
February 23, 1999
Page 9 of 14
WATER
59. The applicant shall prepare a conceptual water and sewer plan for approval
by the Director of Public Works. All site water and sewer systems shall be
subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works.
60. Existing water meters serving the site shall be modified to utilize the "touch
read" system.
61. A Double Detector Check (DDC) backflow device is required on the water
service line to the onsite fire sprinkler system.
62. Existing water services to the site which are not utilized by the project shall
be properly abandoned.
W ASTEW A TER
63. All sewer mains or laterals crossing or parallel to public water facilities shall
be constructed in accordance with California State Health Agency
standards.
64. Existing sewer laterals to the site that are not utilized by the project shall be
properly abandoned.
65. If the project uses the existing private sewer lift station or sewer main,
approval by the owner of the facilities shall be demonstrated.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
66. All new public utilities shall be installed as underground facilities.
67. Prior to approving any building permit within the project for occupancy, all
public utilities shall be operational.
68. All improvement plans shall be submitted to the public utility companies for
and comment. Utility comments shall be forwarded to the Director of Public
Works for approval.
69. In lieu of the water neutralization program, the applicant may pay a water
mitigation fee. The payment shall be a deposit of $2,200.00 for each
amount of use equivalent to a single family residence. The deposited funds
may be partially refunded if the City Council adopts a lesser fee amount for
the water neutralization program.
FEES AND BONDS FOR All CITY DEPARTMENTS
9
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CUP 98-565; VAR 99-002
February 23, 1999
Page 10 of 14
The applicant shall pay all applicable City fees, as specified below:
70. FEES TO BE PAID PRIOR TO PLAN SUBMITTAL
a. Plan check for grading plans.
Based on an approved earthwork estimate
(Chapter 33 of 1994 Uniform Building Code).
b. Plan check for improvement plans.
Based on an approved construction cost estimate
(1 % of construction costs up to $100,000), plus
( Y2 % of construction costs over $100,000).
c. Permit Fee for grading plans.
Based on an approved earthwork estimate
(Chapter 33 of the 1994 Uniform Building Code).
d. Inspection Fee of subdivision or public works construction
plans.
Based on an approved construction cost estimate.
(4% of construction costs up to $500,000), plus
(3% of construction costs between $500,000 and
$1,000,000), plus (2 % of construction costs over
$1,000,000).
71. FEES TO BE PAID PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT
a. Water Mitigation fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect
at the time of building permit issuance, involving water
connection or enlargement of an existing connection.
b. Water Distribution fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect
at the time of building permit issuance, in accordance with
Municipal Code 6-7.22.
c. Water Service charge to be based on codes and rates in effect
at the time of building permit issuance, in accordance with
Municipal Code 6-7.22.
d. Water Supply charge, to be based on codes and rates in effect
at the time of building permit issuance, in accordance with
Municipal Code 6-7.22.
e. Traffic Impact fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at
the time of building permit issuance, in accordance with Ord.
461 C.S., Res. 3021.
f. Traffic Signalization fee, to be based on codes and rates in
effect at the time of building permit issuance, in accordance
with Ord. 346 C.S., Res. 1955.
g. Sewer Permit fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at
the time of building permit issuance, in accordance with
Municipal Code 6-6.405.
10
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CUP 98-565; VAR 99-002
February 23, 1999
Page 11 of 14
h. Park Development fee, the developer shall pay the current
parks development fee for each unit approved for construction
(credit shall be provided for existing houses), to be based on
codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance
in accordance with Ord. 313 C.S.
I. Street Tree Planting fee, the developer shall pay the current
street tree planting fee/deposit. One 15 gallon size or larger
street tree is required for every fifty feet (50') of project
frontage. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the
developer, with the approval of the Park and Recreation
Director, may install all 15 gallon trees and receive a refund of
deposit. To be based on codes and rates in effect at the time
of building permit issuance, in accordance with Ord. 431 C.S.
j. Construction Tax, the applicant shall pay a construction tax
pursuant to Section 3-3.501 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal
Code.
k. Alarm Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time
of development in accordance with Ord. 435 C.S.
I. Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (SMIP) Fee, to be
based on codes and rates in effect at the time of development
in accordance with State mandate.
m. Building Permit Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at
the time of development in accordance with Title 8 of the
Municipal Code.
OTHER CONDITIONS
72. Dust generated by the development activities shall be kept to a minimum
with a goal of retaining dust on the site. Applicant shall follow the dust
control measures listed below:
a. 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.
b. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used
to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust
from leaving the site. At a minimum, this shall include wetting down
such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the
day, and whenever winds exceed 15 miles per hour.
c. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist,
or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation.
11
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CUP 98-565; VAR 99-002
February 23, 1999
Page 12 of 14
73. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the
dust control program and order increased watering as necessary to prevent
transport of dust off-site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend
periods when work may not be in progress.
74. The loading zone shown on the north end of the project site shall be
relocated adjacent to the trash enclosure.
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM NEGATIVE DECLARATION
75. Dust generated by the development activities shall be kept to 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 shall be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to
create a crust after each day's construction activities cease.
Monitoring: Condition shall be included on all building plans.
Response on a complaint basis.
Responsible Department: Building Department
Timeframe: During all construction activities.
76. 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
12
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CUP 98-565; VAR 99-002
February 23, 1999
Page 13 of 14
77. 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 and Recreation Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of a building permit
78. 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
79. All runoff water from impervious areas shall be conveyed by impervious
conduits to existing drainage facilities. A drainage plan which incorporates
the above shall be submitted to 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 grading permit
80. The applicant shall pay the City's Traffic and Signalization impact fee (based
on the fee adopted at the time of building permit issuance).
Monitoring: Condition of approval on all plans.
Responsible Department: Public Works Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permits
81. The following note shall be placed on the grading and improvement plans for
the project: "In the event that during grading, construction or development
of the project, archaeological 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 and/or additional mitigation measures as required by
the California Environmental Quality Act if archaeological resources are
found on the site. II
13
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CUP 98-565; VAR 99-002
February 23, 1999
Page 14 of 14
Monitoring: Review of grading plans and site visits by the
Public Works Inspector
Responsible Department: Public Works and Building Departments
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and during
site grading
14
ATTACHMENT B
VILLAGE CREEK PROMENADE
(ANDERSON CUP)
RELEVANT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Development Standards - General Commercial District w/Village Design
Overlay
Villaae Creek Promenade (Anderson CUP)
Standard Required Provided
lot Area (square feet) 10,000 square feet 90,965 square feet
lot Width 80 feet Irregular
lot Depth 1 00 feet Irregular
Front Buildinq Setback 1 5 feet Varies-15 feet minimum
Interior Side Building o feet 40 feet
Setback
Street Side Building 1 5 feet 1 5 feet
Setback
Rear Building Setback o feet 5 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage 45% 30%
Maximum Floor Area 0.5 0.30
Ratio
Maximum Building 30 feet or 2 stories 28'8 % II
Heiqht whichever is less
Required Parking (1 109 spaces 110 spaces
space per 250 Sq. ft.)
<",~,~~tf~~~~*~t~/~~:f:;~t3~t~~;;;ib;r;,\;,~~'i~i~~d~~0(;i;\1~~~~'~~~~"-;~'::iSi;~~i:
.'....'.,,:~";":~:;;;~-,~,:;~;"-.. _.-..,>'>;~t~~l:
i,:;~b'<~:~~~~~<',' ..,~~~7JoS4A Cotp,y~"
::";':,o"~::~:"<~'::i ; '........, . . " '. :-..'Ji'AX-.'(805)4' 7":ll ~AL'"
"J. ....>....-:./ -';:':_h'..-: .,..,...~
." .~. . _.,' '.~-~~ ~l';' -". . > _' ~
: :~': ~~~:alci"@arro'yogrand~: :':.~:~.
~ ,,:,,''-.~:'':-'_'''J>..<. ~ :.'.
, . " ,,' Febn):a'w' 5; '19~9 .
. '.. ~ (~~ :'~ ':, :",;'
", ';,'_ .~;: ,', ,". ,J.:,: '_'t.-':..;,:::-"
..- ~, '\. v -. ,'"
.' ".
ATTACHMENT C
;. ,~",. :.,"
, "
. ," ~. '. .
. Mr:';'Ste.VeSenef .' .
'~ Ciiltran, s.'DistnctS
. '. 50-Hi~;iueraStreet ,
San Luis Obispo: California 93401-5415
Subject:
Arroyo Grande CUP 98-565, Village Creek Plaza, Station Way
Dear Mr. Senet:
",' ,"
. . .-,
Aswe~iscussed.on the'phone, this letter is to identifyplanned'drainage modifications
within the City of Arroyo, Grande, as they relate to the Village Creek Plaza project
propbsedon Station Way. . The planned modifications will significantly reduce drainage
flow to the existing concreteswale in the Caltrans right otway,.
The amount of ~rainage flow the Caltrans swalecLJrrEmtly r~cei"es is very difficult to
quantify. Currently, the swalereceivesthe majority of itsflow:as.a result of runoff partially
'diverted:from the Newsom Springs drainage area. A portion;9fthe~i1off from this
wa,te..shed is diverted through aculvert at Branch ~.i1f Road. This diversion is limited by
.. the culveftcapacity toaboutJOO cfs. This flow is.thensplit.againupstream of Traffic
W.ay.~ Aportion is div~rted through an.existing 24.inchpipe and carried under Highway
.101 to.tne west side. The.remaining flow ends up in the Caltransconcrete swale behind'
Station' Way. . '. .' .
. Becau~~ the flow delivered to the swale.is the resul~ of multiple overflow diversions, it is
difficult to quantify. In this case, the bestevalu,ation of the..existirjgcapability to handle
f1ciwsmay be to rely on the field experience of your main~en~nce personnel. It is my
understanding thatthe swale has handledthela.rge storms of recent years without
capacity. problems. The additional flows that would be contiibutedby the Village Creek
Plaza gevelopment are estimated to be minor in relation to the overall. flows currently
being ~elivered to the swale. '
The City has planned two projects which will more than offset allY increase in flow from
the Station Way project. These are described as follows:
1 . The Newsom Springs Drainage project will divert all drainage from Newsom
Springs Canyon direct to Arroyo Grande Creek. This will eliminated the diversions
across Branch Mill Road'which eventually contribute to the flows in the concrete
swale. This project is expected to be implemented within the next two years.
",' ,- ....
- . February 5, .1999
. Mr;:Steve Senet
Page 2
'-
. - - .,
'2. Development of the parcel atthegomerQfTrafficWay and Cherry Avenue has
been conditioned to divert flows. to an existing storm drain. This includes the.
majority of the'runoffcurrently draining to the Caltrans swale.
B.ased on the above, we believe that ,any drainage impacts that the Village Creek Plaza
project may haveon the Caltrans swalewill be both minor and temporary. In the end, the
. Caltrans facility will see much less drainage than it has in the past. Therefore, we request
that Caltrans accept the drainage for the Vill.age Creek Plaza. .
Attached for your reference are marked copies of our drainage atlas maps to iIIustate the
drainage patterns. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and please call me at 473-
5440 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
~.. 0/ (
~. A~ (~~. ~/(
rai am ell, RCE
De~me . of Public Works
"Dr;linage. wpd"
~
i
I,
"
Ii
"
ii
I, '.
j: p
'I
i:i I,
" ,I
i.i il
! ! I
I :,
I. ,
!: I
:. i
<>
.'
c::
~~ :: /PO cIs MAx
TI, iJ //,,,, FN"'// "e.
I I 'I' IO-"Z-fJ clJ
rtdv~e' ~
Neu.so#>t .yl,:/J /"'Y -0. ..
.t:
,/'
,/'
",.::::............ /,/
..............::::,......-.,/ '/
-~
o 100
~_..
3CAU
400
I
~
ATTACHMENT D
FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
VillAGE CREEK PROMENADE PROJECT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-565, VARIANCE 99-002
FINDING: The City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed the above project in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City of
Arroyo Grande Rules and Regulations for Implementation of CEQA and finds
that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment,
mitigation measures identified in the attached Initial Study and required as
Conditions of Approval reduce these impacts to less than significant.
REQUEST: Request of Dr. Robert Anderson for a Condition Use Permit
allowing development and construction of four buildings for commercial use.
The project also includes adjacent parking area totaling 110 spaces, loading
areas, pedestrian walkways and landscaping.
APPLICANT: Robert Anderson
SITE lOCATION: The project site is located 200 Station Way adjacent to
the intersection of Fair Oaks and Station Way. Assessor's Parcel Number:
007-482-024.
Vicinity Map
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
INITIAL STUDY
1. Project Title:
2. Lead Agency Name & Address:
Village Creek Promenade
City of Arroyo Grande
P.O. Box 550/214 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
3. Contact Person & Phone #:
Lezley Buford, Contract Planner, 473-5420
4. Project Location:
200 Station Way
5. Project Sponsor's Name & Address:
Dr. Robert Anderson
201 Station Way
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
General Commercial
6. General Plan Designation:
7. Zoning:
General Commercial
8. Description of Project:
Construction of four buildings containing a total of27,350 square feet of
commercial/retail space; parking, sidewalk and loading areas; and
landscaping.
9. Other agencies whose approval is required (and permits needed): None
DETERMINA TION.
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENT AL IMP ACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1)
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if
the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated". An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to
beV__~~ /!/~oh:5
Sig Date / /
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMP ACT" or "POTENTIALLY IS SIGNIFICANT UNLESS
MITIGATED", as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
o Land Use and Planning
o Population and Housing
~Geophysical
I!tW ater
[l('Air Quality
IJ;YfransportationlCircul ati 0 n
o Biological Resources
o Energy and Mineral
Resources
o Hazards
o Noise
o Mandatory Findings of
Significance
o Public Services
o Utilities and Service Systems
o ~sthetics
~Cultural Resources
o Recreation
2
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
SigniflCairt
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
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)
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.,
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? (source #(s):9, 11)
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income
or minority community)? (source #(s): 2,4,11)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (source #(s): 1,5,9)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
(source #(s): 9,10)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (source #(s): 9,10,11)
III. GEOPHYSICAL: Would the proposal result in
or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Seismicity: fault rupture? (source #(s): 5,6)
b) Seismicity: ground shaking or liquefaction?
(source #(s): 5,6)
c) Seismicity: seiche or tsunami? (source #(s): 5,6)
d) Landslides or mudslides? (source #(s): 5,6
e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soils
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
(source #(s): 10
f) Subsidence ofland? (source #(s): 5,6
g) Expansive soils? (source #(s): 5,6
h) Unique geologic or physical features? (source
#(s): 5,6,10,11)
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
x
X
X
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
SignifICant
Impact
Potentially
SignifICant
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
SignifICant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. WATER: Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (source
#(s): 10
b) Exposure to people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (source #(s): 8
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration
of surface 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,] 0
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? (source #( s): 9, 10
t) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations?
(source #(s): 9,10
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? (source #(s): 9,10
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (source #(s):
9,10)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public water
supplies? (source #(s): 9,10)
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
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
(source #(s): ] 0,] 1
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? (source #(s): 9
d) Create objectionable odors? (source #(s): 9,] 0
4
_X_
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. TRANSPORTA TION/CIRCULA TION. Would
the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(source #(s): 13
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
(source #(s): 9,10
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby sites? (source #(s): 9,10
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(source #(s): 3,9,10)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(source #(s): 9,10)
t) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (source #(s): 9,10
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? (source #(s): 6)
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)?
(source #(s): 10,11)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
oak forest, coastal habitat)? (source #(s): 10,11)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)?
(source #(s): 9,11)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
(source #(s): 11)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans?
(source #(s): 1,6)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (source #(s): 9,10)
5
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation?
(source #(s): 9)
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
(source #(s): 9,10)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? (source #(s): 9,10)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? (source #(s): 9,10, II)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? (source #(s): 10, 11)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (source #(s):
1,9)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
(source #(s): 9,10)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have
an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government senJices in any of the following
areas:
a) Fire Protection? (source #(s): 6)
b) Police Protection? (source #(s): 6)
c) Schools? (source #(s): 6)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
(source #(s): 6)
e) Other governmental services? (source #(s): 6)
XII. 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)
b) Communications systems? (source #(s): 9,10)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (source #(s): 6)
d) Storm water drainage? (source #(s): 6)
e} Solid waste disposal? (source #(s): 6)
6
x
x
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
xm. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
(source #(s): 1,10,11)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
(source #(s): 9,10,11)
c) Create light or glare? (source #(s): 9,10)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:'
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (source #(s):
6,11)
b) Disturb archaeological resources (source #(s):
6,11)
c) Affect historical resources? (source #(s): 6,11)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
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)
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
(source #(s): 1,3)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
(source #(s): 1,5)
XVI. MANDA TORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage oflong-term,
environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
7
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
d) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
8
x
x
EXPLANA TIONS:
III. GEOLOGIC (DRAINAGE): Development of the proposed project would increase the volume
of surface runoff from the site. This runoff may contain pollutants from parking areas.
1. All runoff water from impervious areas shall be conveyed by impervious conduits to
existing drainage facilities. A drainage plan which incorporates the above shall be
submitted to 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 grading permit
IV. 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 neutralization program.
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 and 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
9
V. AIR QUALITY: Grading and site preparation would result in the generation of dust and
contribute to PMlO in the area. This impact could be mitigated through implementation of
the following measure.
5. Dust generated by the development activities shall be kept to 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 shall be used to
prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's construction
activities cease.
Monitoring:
Condition shall be included on all building plans.
complaint basis.
Building Department
During all construction activities.
Response on a
Responsible Department:
Timeframe:
VI. TRANSPORT A TION/CIRCULA TION: The proposed project would contribute new vehicle
trips to roadways in the vicinity.
6. The applicant shall pay the City's Traffic and Signalization Impact Fee (based on the fee
adopted at the time of building permit issuance).
Monitoring: Condition of approval on all plans.
Responsible Department: Public Works Department
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permits
X. NOISE: The project is adjacent to an arterial street and there are no sensitive land uses
within approximately 500 feet of the project 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. Residual impacts are less than significant, and no
mitigation measures are required.
XIV. 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 site the following mitigation measure shall be implemented.
7. The following note shall be placed on the grading and improvement plans for the project:
"In the event that during grading, construction or development of the project,
archaeological 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 and/or additional mitigation measures as
required by the California Environmental Quality Act if archaeological resources are found
on the site."
Monitoring: Review of grading plans and site visits by the Public Works
Inspector
Responsible Department: Public Works and Building Departments
10
Timeframe:
Prior to issuance of a grading permit and during site grading
SOURCE LIST:
1. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan
2. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Land Use Map
3. City of Arroyo Grande Development Code
4. City of Arroyo Grande Zoning Map
5. City of Arroyo Grande Existing Setting and Community Issues Report
6. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan EIR
7. Air Pollution Control District Clean Air Plan
8. FEMA - Flood Insurance Rate Map
9. Project Description
10. Project Plans
11. Site Inspection
12. Ordinance 431 C. S.
13. Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual.
11
ATTACHMENT E
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT:
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY,
CUP 98-565, VILLAGE CREEK PROMENADE
/-[ -g
r~rr
FROM:
JIM HAMilTON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
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.
Aoril 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 with design details, including materials, color.
boards, and roof design details.
Aoril 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 proporti<:>ns) .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 identified 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 the density and intensity of the use
causing parking and circulation and aesthetic problems.
. The proposed use wi I.! 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.
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
Dresented 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
Village 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 and are 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 desigQ 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 Pla~ning Commissi<?n
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 Counct1
VI'llage 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 9-10.070B
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 sit~,
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 Counct1
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 Citv's Develooment. Code. the General Plan and the oublished
develooment oolicies 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
Villa(}e 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 Develooment
Code. the General Plan and the oublished develooment oolicies and standards
of the Citv.
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 entirelv consistent with the character of the
neighborhood and, indeed. is of lesser densitv than the surroundino
develooed oarcels and is an "in-fill" buildout of a oreviouslv aooroved
commercial oroiect, the remainder of which has alreadv been built-out in a
manner consistent with the orooosed oroiect and the aooroved alan 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 oroiect 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 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.
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.
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
Council Member
vote, to wit:
, seconded by
, and on the following roll call
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this
,1999.
day of
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
MICHAEL A. lADY , MAYOR
ATTEST:
NANCY A. DAVIS, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
lbkrrL.~
ROBERT l. HUNT, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
.APPEAL TO THE CITY. COUNCil' OF THE
.' '.:'CITY OF ARROYO.GRANO'E .: .:.<. .'
...,... -.;...
Date
DECEMBER.-."8; 1998.>. . .
j', .
. N' . "d' Add ." fA;' . \,\' ROBERT. .'D.. ANDERSON c/o. GERALD c.... WEAV~R.. ;:Esq .'.,
am~ ~n ress ~ '. pp~ ant. . .' . ; . '.. .... " .
P~o. SOX 451,. S'AN'LUIS:OBISPO; CA:.93~06
. Appeal of.' .DENIAT.'OF P!;.ANNING COMMISSIO~ OF APPLICATIO!'I ',POR' cop. .98-565
...., '. . Case No.'
'. APprov~d/D~ni~by PLANNING COMMISSION
on" DECE~~ER .1 ,1":9"98.'
'Date
R~ason for Appeal
SEE EX~IBIT "A" ATTACHSD HERETC:~'"
. .
.' . .
. . .".
". .",
Signature
. Mailing Address: .'. P.O. BOX 451,' SAN LUIS OBISPO CA"93.406.
".' .....;. ".
. Te\ePh.one
805-543....6010
Receipt No.:03 C, 3:0
Date . . 1.R./8!f8
. .
.' .:;.
. .... ."
'fl. a.~
. ~y Clerk .
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
a~ .
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-fiUft 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. .
.c
.'
Community Development Department
P.O. Box 550
214 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
Phone (805) 473-5420
FAX (805) 473-0386
c7t~~oyo~~an~
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.omplete. 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 9-02.1 50 of
the Development Code.
Please contact me should you have any questions.
Sincerely, .'
Doreen Liberto-Blanck
Community Development Director
B~. SLW~~~
Bruce BUCkingh~
Associate Planner
Attachments:
List of Additional Materials
c: Craig Campbell
LIST OF ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
Please submit the below listed information. If you have any questions, please contact
Bruce Buckingham, Associate Planner, at 473-5420:
1 . Submit a parking table indicating the existing number of parking spaces and the
required number of parking spaces (based on existingbuitding 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 9-12.150"8nd 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 ar.e 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 A12 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.
13. Nqise mitigation may be necessary for the proposed project. Please submit the
necessary information to determine that noise levels would be below 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.
1 5. 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 Commi1tee 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 proposed project should provide 100% of the
required parking for the project on-site (i.e., no surplus parking should be used on
adjacent sites to the west or north). . .
.~
. 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 integrated into
the building design and meet the applicant's intent.
. The project is within the Village Design Guidelines. All guidelin~s 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 1'" transparency of each sheet.
'l
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 Biskunskv .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 descnoed 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 requirement for individU3l sewer lines. He
further stated that constructing 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
Commission.
Commissioner Haney stated he feels it is irnporomt to follow as closely as possible to the
standards of the Development Code and try to implement those requirements in condominium
conversions. Commissioner Greene stared the project appears to present significant deviations
from the standards in the Development Code, and he could noc'recommend going forward 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 stared 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 con~omed 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 ~ with the reasons for the change in the laterals or the change
in the fire walls, however, standards are established in the Development Code, and we ne""...d to
follow the Development Code.in tenns of utilities, fire and safety.
. PEL'IDING APPLICATION REVIEW - CONDmONAL USE PERl\fiT 98-565
/TE1.'ITATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 98-548, DISCUSSION OF PLAl'fS TO
CONSTRUCT 27,250 SQUARE FOOT COrvfi\.1ERCIALlRETAIL BUILDING Ai'ID A LOT
SPLIT; APPUCANT: ROBERT Ai'ffiERSON; LOCATION: 200 STATION WAY
(VlLLAGE CREEK PLAZA).
Acting Community Development Director He!.e.'l Eder advised that the St4ff Advisory
Committee (SAC) reviewed the application for this project on March 24, 1998, and provided
comments to the applicant regarding parking and sire access, 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 Architecmral
Advisory Committ~ (AAC) 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
should connect pedestrian acceSs to the buildings via a stamped decorative treatment pavement
through the parking lot. They reouesred the aDolicanr rerum with nf"'\lO"n ripr,::il~ ;nrlnri;no-
\ !/
materials, color boards, and roof design details. She stated that since that time, Dr. Anderson
reviewed the comments provided by the MC 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. Shepointed out that previously the Development Code
allowed 1 parking space to 200 square feet of space; the current ratio is 1 to 250 square feet.
Robert Anderson. 2775 Coast View Drive. applicant, stated he proposes to build the last 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
Code, 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
parking. is an issue because it is determined by the Development Code.
Dr. Anderson stated the issues that were discussed during the Me 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 e:u:then berm
between the street and parking lot. This would also provide consistency With the rest of the
shopping center.
Mike Miner, 316 Oro 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 information contained in his
letters dated April20lh and April 2r~ and copies of the Planning Deparnnenr's approval of Mid
Coast Land's Lot Merger of 1994, 3.1,d the Corrected Parking Supplement, stating that the
documents stipulate that Parcel /12 must use parking from Parcel #3, which 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 parAing not be
allocated from his parcel to alleviate parking deficiencies across the street. 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 ~cussion and
restricted further comments to the Commission.
Deputy Public Works Direc..or Craig Campbell stated, in his opinion, it would be desirable to
have sidewalks on both sides of the street, and the CUITe.'1t standards call for sidewalks on both
sides of the street. He further SI4.ted he recommended. the 4 ft. wide sidew.aIk be widened to 6.
ft. because of the fire hydrants and utility poles. .
In answer to Commissioner Haney's question wr~ing original approvals and e:ttitlements,
Acting Community Development Director Eder 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 wiil take rime to rP<:~rr!' rhp hIp..
Commissioner Haney stated that in looking at the Development Code, loading docks are
required. Ms. Eder noted that this item was discussed at the AAe 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 AAe's detennination
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 seems there is enough parAing proposed based on what is
shown and, in his opinion, the parking appears to meet the requirements oj 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'ror the applicant to do what he had originally intended. As far 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 feels
more work needs. to be done to make it more pleasing. He also stated he could not nnderstand
why there were no ~dewalks, and he feels sidewalks should be installed on both sides from Fair
Oaks Avenue up to a point where you cross the street. He commented 27,000 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 down sizing the project
to help mitigate the traffic problems. With regard to parking, Commissioner Greene stated he
would like to reserve judgement on parking problems Wlti1 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 Tulage area.. He
preferred that the sidewalks 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 em move ahead.
He expressed a conc~ aboUt: the loading and unloading facilities, which is a requireme.~t of the
Development Code and would require a Variance or some other means to delete that
requirement. Regarding the issue of landscaping, Commissioner Haney refe.'Ted to the
Development Code, Section 9-12.130 requiring a minimum of 10% of the gross lot area used
for off-street parAing 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 visIlJle from Fair Oaks Avenue and, in his opinion,
those need to be looked. at a little more closely. He also suggested perhaps going to 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 wodcing with Miner's Hardware on the parking problems,_
Chair Lubin spoke regarding the parking issue, commenting that the tenants need 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 landsoping, Chair Lubin stated he would like to see the
required landscaping as called for in the Deve!opment Code and, in his opinion, enough
landscaping has to be provided to make this an attractive project. He further stated he feels the
. ';'~.Joo _..; <oJ _..___ -~. .~.....~ '-4,,1..,....
."""'A.J.
.. April 21, 1998
i
loadin~ docx: issue neeCs to be aridressed., ma he ~ wirlI Commi~oner Raney rez-::rciin~
- - - ::0
the back or the brnlrfin~ facing Fair Q-c.k:s Ave:rue.. Be c:ommem:.e.d he :feds the a:pplicam: is
fighting an up.in1l ~. ~ s~ ~ the ~ however., he is snpporrive of the proje:: and IT
is just a. quesnon or trn; lrn1~ l! won.-:. .
PLAl~f-{lNG COMMISSIONlCO:MM:m-tTIY DEVELOPMENT DmECIOR ITEMS Al'ID
COiv.IM:EN1S. .
A.. Pennln~ Projects in San Lnis Obispo County. Acting CoIII lllllll;ry Devciopme:tt:DI:re::or
Helen EoC" .L~d m the IlO~ re::ived from the Coum:y .L~diug a. reqnesr for a. se::ond.a.t.-y
dwellina unit at 188 V'ailev VIeW. She ~ the notic:e was Tnc-tnriP!i wii:h the 22:e:lda ua.c~
::0 'J _ _
in eping with. the Commis:sicn's ~ to be notiiied of ~mn~ Counq devciopme:J.~
B. Update of Proje:!s. Ms... ~ri~ arivT.sed the te:It3rive dares for the upcoming Crry
Counci1lPhnnin~ Commis:sicn mporin~ have b~ submitted to the City Coun.cJ.... They 4:re 6:30
W. . J 1" 'T"1 . . - 1 QU1 'T"1 . -'---IIl
P.M. on P'!TT1~, lIne _\J 1 J..aII:I:Saay, JtIIle _0 or J.,~~, Jlll.Y LJ .
c. Ge!le..T"2.l Pm upd2te.. M!.. 2de: arivT..se:i th:a:t the ne= worl3frop is ~rTvciy s6eduied
for June 1311l, and ~!:l.I.U.x.illl:rrpJy &,000 noric::s will. be imll~ OJ res:ide:1rs notL.-=ying the:n. of the
Goe.....u Plan W aricshop~
D. Writi:e!1. CulllllllllliMtions
1. (Ag~ Ji:em IIL..A.} R.esaiurions 95-bUO irlli 95-!.SeE
1. (A~~ Item TILC-) ~ from W. V on Bi.sknpsk:y~ ci4rei f...pril 20, 1998_
3. (A.g~ Item. DLD_) Two Ie:!e::s from Mike Mine:" of ~s ~ 'P."AIUW<U.~
dared April 20., 1998 and the ome:- d4Ici .A !'IT" 21, 199&..
(.... - . T.__ III..D ) n~" n.l' t.~ . C14.-1,j:;O
.o..g~ .w::.u - ~ITmQn~ ~~ .:..10 ema .; . _-:o:l....
5. DLdi: b.yiJ.Uilllle:IIal-;~ R.~ori: for tile 3e::::y C4!tie::s Spe:::nc P~ Proje=..
one
!!.
A.DJOU&~
Tne..""""e being no fm:rb.e::- bn~~ before the Commi~rnr, the m~~ W2S aa]oumci at 11:20
u.m. on marion iJv Commi~nnC" O:Jonnd.. se=mcied. bv Commi~cne::- G.re::le. and.
.- 4< . ~ .
unani..s.ilousiy c-:n-;-iPd
A.TTEST;
AS TO CONTENT::
r---..\ . J
~ I"
~\
.' ! J-- - / .I
<-- ~~~ Obrir; :
- / 'j /
L--- ../
( ~l &fp,~-/ ~I r..U
. .
---
-' M -.\ ir-"'l
l'iele:r ~ _ .t::.ae:"~ ~\-::
. _....:__ r__--=- ':""\____~__ T"\~__._
. ".;
l:;ll Y Ut' At1tiU Y U uHANOl:
ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY COMMit 1 tt
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 Sder.
A. Design Review T~ct 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. (Rve Cities Center) out of order
and place the item last on the agenda.
c.
Applicant:
Representative:
Case Number:
Location:
Proposal:
Investec (Lu~' s}
Maurice Macare.
Variance 98-207 & Planned Sign Program 98-126
1404 - 1488 Grand Avenue
Revision to signage .at Town & Country 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
Representative:
Case Number:
Location:
Proposal:
Robert Anderson
Same
ConditionaJ Use Permit 98-565 & Tentative Parcel.Map
98-548
200 Station Way
Construct p ,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 following conditions.
1 . Continuous sidewalks adiacent to and alone the complete length of
the buildings.
'..-1 .., . ---
2. Building color~ to closely match Lemos buildings with Old Zinc Grey
for roofcolor.
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 aarbaae dumoster had to be moved.
B.
Applicant
Representative:
Case Number:
Location:
Proposal: .
AGRA.. LLClFive Cities Center
Mike Heinrich
Planned Sign Program 97-124
West Branch Street and Rancho Parkway
Signage Program for Center
Staff member Helen Sder gave a brief overview of the proje~ 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.
Tne following is a summary or 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 Buitdina 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 theWal-Mart.
BUILDING A-2 - The sign shown fits with the scale of the fac;ade..:
BUILDING C- LUCKY-SAV ON - Sign as shown is okay.
NON CORPORATE SIGNS (SUCH AS -BAKERY"', "'PHARMACY., Ere} - These
signs should be of a uniform character and use one type-face.. such as
"GARAMOND BOLDd,as suggested in the PSP. To avoid clutter of small
signs, these signs should not be used to advertise 01Pic::! :~cms items tvoicallv
found in a arocerv store. but can be used for bank, pharmacy, 1-hour photo.
Seafood, Food and not considered acceptable. Where these signs are shown
~_.. r ,. ..
. .
OFF1CE MAX CStaoles-8uildina Ol - 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 rrENANTn 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 sincen: 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.
HOLLYWOOD VIDEO Buildina H - Member Hoag suggested that the sign does
not need to be shown o~ 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. PIa :lcon, one ~c-:::~:-inG cr.l'!, Jr: :~c sat:"...": :!c'/;:!"ticn. On the
north elevation; -reduce the size to.' 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 fac;ade; lettering should be reduced to 5.feet in height.
BUILDING J - Biminate signs on east elevation, facing St. Patrick"s School;
they are not needed and take off south and north elevation.
BUILDING K Biminate 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.
~~<Iit)
COMMENTS REGARDING SIGNS VlSI8LE FROM RANCHO GRANDE
RESIDENTIAL AREAS - Throughout the di~cussion the Members commented
on the direction of signs facing motorist going southr 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 signs pe visible for adjacent residents. .
Member Detweiler commented that, in genernlr 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: 8iminate the enny 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 street 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 basinr use
an optional entry monument sign instead, with just the "'Rve' Cities CenterJ1
lettering and logo.
GATBNAY TOWER: Biminate Gateway Tower for Phase II. One gateway
tower is needed for the main part of the center only. It could just list four
maror tenants rather than 5 major tenants.
EX1STlNG 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 the 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' Haag 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 PSP into cioser comprlance with
the sign ordinance. The motion was unanimously approved.
Down liahtina instead of backliahtina is oreferred.
The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
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
SUBJECT:
Application Regarding Parcel 3 of Village Creek Plaza
FilE/INDEX:
PROPOSAL:
TPM 98-548; CUP No. 98-565
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 on 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 16, 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:
Parcel 2:
Parcel 3:
Parcel 4:
Parcel 5:
Video Thyme
Miner's Hardware/Kennedy Fitness Center/Roger Dunn Golf
Vacanti Site of Anderson application
Vacant
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
-.I
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 7,500 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 lot 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 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 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:
Parking: 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).
------- :-P-age 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
approval, 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 noted above, 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 / 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:
1985 APPROVAL SQUARE FEET PARKING REQ'D PARKING
PROVIDED
BLOG "A" 8,960 45 spaces 68 spaces
BLOG "B" 20,200 1 0 1 spaces 50 spaces
BLOG "C" 17,200 86 spaces 105 spaces
BLOG "0" 4,260 22 spaces 1 6 spaces
BlOG "E" 4,800 24 spaces 40 spaces
TABLE 1
AS BUILT SQUARE FEET PARKING REQ'D PARKING
@ 1 PER 250 PROVIDED
BLOG "A" 10,500 42 spaces 68 spaces
BLOG "B" 19,600 78 spaces 50 spaces
PROPOSED 27,250 109 spaces 11 5 spaces
BLOG lIe"
BLOG "0" NOT BUILT
BLOG "E" 4,882 20 spaces 40 spaces
Access and Loading: Section 9-12.170 A of the Development Code provides as
follows: II 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 include loading
areas, and the applicant has been requested by staff to revise the site plan in this
regard. . .
ISSUES:
Parking: Staff believes the issue with regard to parking can be stated as follows: /s
the applicant required to provide a specific number of spaces for the use of other
tenants in the Village Creek Plaza development? While the lot line adjustment
conditions imposed in 1994 required the creation of easements for mutuaJ 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.
Landscaoing: 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. IThe 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 required 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 m,ust be revised to show
landscaping consistent with the requirements of the Development Code before the
project can be approved.
Plannina 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
Page 7
- v__._ -, -.....--________ ____
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 lighting 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:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
Exhibit F:
Exhibit G:
Exhibit H:
Exhibit I:
Exhibit J:
Exhibit K:
Exhibit L:
Site Plan (Distributed with April 21, 1998 materials)
May 21, 1998 from Robert M. Anderson, D.D.S.
May 19, 1998 from Norman & Vasquez Associates, on behalf of owners and
tenants of Miner's Hardware Building
April 21, 1998 Memo from Mike Miner (fax) with Scott Spieling letter dated
January 31, 1997 attached
April 20, 1998 Memo from Mike Miner with attachments
April 15, 1988 letter from Robert M. Anderson, D.D.S.
December 4, 1997 from Mike Miner
1985 Approved Master Plan
AAC Meeting notes for May 4
Draft Minutes for April 21, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting
Initial Study/Draft Negative Declaration
CCRs/Conditions of Approval referencing parking easements
ARROYO GRANDE P! ~G COl\1MlSSION
JUNE 2, 1998
~ .:~
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Lubin presiding.
Present are Commissioners Rondeau, Parker and Haney. . Commissioner G~e is absent. Also
in attendance are Acting Co~munity Development Director Helen. Eder, Associate Planner
Bruce Buckingham and Contract Planner Lezley Buford.
INTRODUCTION OF NEW PLAi~G CO~fMISSIONER
Chair Lubin introduced new Commissioner Manci Parker and welcomed her to the Plamring
Commission.
i\1JNUTE APPROVAL
Hearing no corrections or additions, on motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by
Commissioner Rondeau, and carried, the minutes of the regular meeting of April 2:1, 1998 were
approved as prepared. .
ORAL COlVIl\1ONICATIONS - None
PlJBLIC HEARlNG - CONDmONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 92-502, REQUEST FOR
A ONE YEAR E.."'ITEN'SION; A.l~D CONDmONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 94-527,
REQUEST TO OPERATE THE LOPEZ CONTINUATION IDGH SCHOOL Ai'ID THE
TEEL'fAGE ACADEMIC AND PARENTING PROGRA.J."\1, AL'ID Ai\1END THEHOORS OF
OPERATION FOR CHILD c..~ FROM 8:QO A.Nt. TO 3:30 P.M. TO 7:30 A.M. TO
11:30 P.M.; APPUCAi'IT: LUCIA MAR WllllliD SCHOOL DISTRICT;
'REPRESEJ.'ITATIVE: SAi'IDY DAVIS; LOCATION: 227 BRIDGE STREET
Associate Planner Bruce Buckingham reviewed. the staff report dated June 2, 1998. He stated
that in August 1992 the Gornmission 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 94-521 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 exrension for both CUP's because of
the failure of school bonds to secure the nereisary funding for a pe..'1Il3.I1ent 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 e..ttension for
both Conditional Use Permits to allow additional time to complete the faCJity. In addition the
District is requesting that Condition No. 10 of CUP 94-521 be amended changing the hours of
operation for child care se....-yices from 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.lU. 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 acceptabie, and staff recommends the Planning Commission:
approve the one Ye:iJI time extension for both Conditional Use Permits and the amendment to the
hours of operation for the child care se..""Vices. 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 pl~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.
Perrv Judd. Lucia Mar Unified School District. stated he is representing Sandy Davis, who
could not be present tonight. He further stated he concurs with staff's recommendation for a
one year extension. of the Conditional Use Pennits and amendment to the hours of operation 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 discussion between the Commission and applicants, the Commission indicated their
support for the programs, and the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 98-1~"3
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRA1.'IDE APPROVING A ONE YEAR TIME KxTu'fSIONFOR
CONDmONAL USE PERMIT 92-502 AND CONDmONAL USE PERMIT
94-527, FOR THE OPERATION OF LOPEZ CONTINUATION' ffiGH
SCHOOL Ai.'1D THE TEENAGE ACADEL\1IC AND PARENTING
PROGRAM (TAP) AT 227 BRIDGE STREET, APPLlED FOR BY LUCIA
MAR Ul'lll!1.I!JJ SCHOOL DISTRICT
On motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and by the following
roll call yote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Cornmi~oners Haney, Rondeau, Parker and Chair Lubin
None
Commissioner Greene
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 2= day of June 1998.
RESOLUTION NO. 98-1654
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMl\l1ISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRAJ.'1DE APPROVING AN AJ."-IENDMENT TO CONDmONAL
USE PERMIT CASE NO. 94-527, APPLIED FOR BY LUCIA MAR LUCIA
MAR mu~.l.Iill SCHOOL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 227 BRIDGE.
STREET
On motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and by the following
roll call Yote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissione..~ Haney, Rondeau, Parker and Chair Lubin
None
Commissioner Greene
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 2ud day of June 1998.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
June 2, 1998
Page 3
PUBLIC HEARING- - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 98-548 AND
CONDmONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 98-565, CONSTRUCTION OF A 27,250
SQUARE FOOT COMl\1ERCIALIRETAIL BUILDING AND LOT SPLIT; APPLICANT:
ROBERT ANDERSON; LOCATION: 200 STATION WAY -
Contract Planner 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-application 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 for a commercial 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 "An
easement for parking purposes over and across the parking areas within the Shopping Center
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 there were 40 developed
parking spaces on the subject parcel. Before the Commission 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 Develop,I]1ent Code
have been changed to 1 space per 250 square feet of building space, and (2) the divelopment
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 project, 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 spaces 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 project. Therefore, staff recommends the Commission
continue this item so that the applicant can move forward with redesigning the project to meet
the City's requirements for parking, loading areas and landscaping.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
June 2, 1998
Page 4
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 clw 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 parking accessibility. He referred
to the 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. Miner's claims of entitlement
to parking on the project site, nevertheless the proposal is still providing 10 to 12 surplus spaces.
With regard to site coverage, Mr. Anderson stated the proposal of22% 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 possible.
Mark Vasquez. Norman. Vasquez & Associates. representing Mr. Miner, stated they agree with
the staff report, plus they and Mr. Miner encourage Mr. Anderson to pursue his development,
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 construction in
1986. Building E was subsequently built under the original approval in 1987. With regard to
Buildings C and D, that part of the overall approval was not exercised; building permits 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 adjustment to allow 5 individual
parcels for each structures. At that time a finding was made that parking 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, B and 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 approval. He
requested that the parking be required consistent with the original conditions approyed in the
Master Plan. -
~
~
Jay Johnson. P. O. Box 3. Grover Beach. stated he represents Miner'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 existing tenants.
William Bo~den stated he was looking for a building to lease and was directed to Mr.
Anderson's project over a year ago. In talking to Mr. Anderson last week he was intormed th~t
the parking had become a problem for the project. Mr. Bogden referred 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. He requested that the
Commission take action on the project tonight with appropriate conditions of approval to resolve
the minor issues.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
June 2, 1998
Page 5
Nancy Wise stated she uses the Village Creek Plaza Center quite frequently and has never had
a problem parking there even during peak hours. She further stated she would like to encourage
the Planning Commission to make a decision tonight in favor of the project because she would
to see more small retail and office businesses in this area.
Mr. Anderson stated there seems to be a misunderstanding because he never requested a waiver
of the Conditions of Approval of the CC&R's. It shows clearly in the CC&R's that those 40
spaces are to remain open for all owners of the center; it is a reciprocal parking easement and
he is not disputing that. He noted that Miner's Hardware has painted parking stalls in front of
their store indicating parking for Miner's Hardware customers only, which is a violation of the
CC&R's. He further stated, in his opinion, it is Mr. Miner's attitude that all owners abide by
the original plan of the center, and yet he has made additions to Building 1 with his nursery
operation, expanding well beyond the original plans of the center. He commented he is
assuming his responsibility by abiding by the CC&R's, and that is all that is required by him.
Mr. Vasquez stated, for clarification, their concern is not that Mr. Anderson would be violating
the CC&R's; their concern is regarding the original approval requiring 146 spaces.
Chair Lubin noted that in the 1985 approval, there was a total required spaces of 278 and a total
of 279 spaces provided, including the 40 spaces; there are 249 spaces required now for the entire
project and 273 spaces provided, which would be 24 excess spaces. His question to Mr.
Vasquez is whether or not the discussion is about 3 parking spaces?
_ Mr. Vasquez advised that the original approval was for the entire project. The key is not with
regard to this particular issue, but the fact that as it was originally approved, there were so many
square feet in Buildings A and B, and that square footage required 146 spaces. Buildings A and
B and Building E were the only ones included in the original approval. Any change now for
parking requirements for any of. those three buildings would violate the original approvals. He
commented that Mr. Anderson can make an application for whatever he would like on his
property, however, the original approval encumbered part of that property, which was not a
separate parcel at that time and the spaces were based on square footage of the bu~ings.
Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chair Lubin closed the public hearing portion
and restricted further discussion to the Commission.
Commissioner Rondeau stated when this matter was last reviewed, it was the Commission's
recommendation that Mr. Anderson and Mr. Miner attempt to solve this parking issue, however,
it appears tonight that this has not been accomplished. He further stated that the map provided
by Mr. Anderson is not adequate and would have to be re-drawn to scale, and include all of the
recommendations and conditions that are required.
Commissioner Parker stated that in her opinion, this is a good project. She agreed with
Commissioner Rondeau's comments that the map presented by the applicant is not adequate for
the Commission to make a decision. She stated one of her concerns is providingJ:enants and
customers adequate parking and, in her opinion, Building 4 parking doesn't look like it is going
to work very well. Also, the tenants at the eastern end of the building are going to have a long
way to walk, so there may be a problem renting out those buildings. She commented she
doesn't feel Mr. Anderson is obligated or responsible to provide parking for adjacent parcels,
however, she does believe he is responsible for offering his tenants adequate parking. With
regard to the Negative Declaration relative to light and noise, in her opinion, this is a perfect
location for this type of development. She suggested that the lighting for Building 4 along Fair
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
June 2, 1998
Page 6
Oaks Avenue be taken into consideration and cut back if possible because of the lighting and
noise from the auto dealership, the Log Cabin Market and the schooL With regard to the
loading docks, she questioned if one loading dock would be adequate for the 4 buildings. With
regard to the landscaping, she stated the proposed 10% should be a minimum, and she would
like to see how that would work with the parking. -
Commissioner Haney stated, in his opinion, it is a fundamental requirement that adequate site
plans have to be provided to staff, to the Commission and to the public for their infonnation,
both for review to assure compliance with the Development Code, for the public's infonnation,
and for a pennanent and complete record of what has been approved. He further stated what
has been presented to the Commission for review is inadequate for those purposes. He
suggested adopting Items 1 and 2 of the staff's recommendation requesting that Mr. Anderson
submit an adequate set of site plans for review. He further stated he is not convinced that, with
all of the modifications being proposed, everything is going to fit on the site and still give the
square footage proposed. There are still a number of issues to be dealt with, and putting them
on paper in the fonn of a site plan, gives both the staff and Commission an opportunity to
adequately review the project.
Regarding the initial study that has been prepared by staff, Commissioner Haney referred to two
issues regarding traffic relating to the intersections at Fair Oaks and Traffic Way, Traffic Way,
Grand A venue and West Branch Street. He advised that those intersections currently operate
at a Level of Service (LOS) C, D and E, depending on which report is referenced. He stated
his concern is, that with the addition of project-generated traffic the LOS for these intersections
will fall below a LOS "D". The General Plan makes it clear that the Planning Commission cannot
approve a project without a solution that will bring us back to a LOS C. A solution may be
traffic signalization, and this may be worth considering in the Initial Study. He further stated
he feels the view corridors along the back of the freeway are more than just the freeway views
and he would like to see an attractive presentation of those buildings for the benefit of those
traveling on the freeway who fonn an impression of Arroyo Grande. He stated he would like
to see more architectural details on the rear elevations of the buildings.
.
...
Chair Lubin addressed the comment by Mr. Jay Johnson regarding reliance on approvals given
by the City in tenns of a lease or the purchase of a project. He stated his feeling, as a Planning
Commissioner, he would certainly want any decision made by the Commission to be relied upon
and would not subsequently change such a decision on a whim. However, the issue here is
trying to understand what the process was and what was trying to be accomplished at that time.
He further stated his concern is that with all of the input received up to this point, it still comes
down to a shared reciprocal parking agreement that was provided by the CC&Rs and required
by the Planning Commission in the early '90's. In looking at the shared reciprocal agreement
and in looking at total parking required and total parking built, it still comes down to very few
additional spaces. He stated his belief that the Planning Commission, under the first approval
required the additional spaces in anticipation of the total project being built out with the
reciprocal parking agreement so that anyone would have a right to park anywhere... He read
from the parking study dated June l, 1998 as follows: ... "Without reaching specific conclusions
about how this data is interpreted or applied to a particular situation, it is notable that for the
entire period studied, 67.33% (approx. 106) of the spaces were available, and at no time were
more than 48% (76 stalls) occupied..." Chair Lubin stated this indicates to him there is not a
total parking problem; what we have is a potential parking problem in front of one or two
tenants, and that would be up to the owners to resolve.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
June 2, 1998
Page 7
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 information 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:
1. 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. 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 COMMISSION/COMMUNITY DEVELOP.ME1'IT DIRECTOR ImIS AND
CO~IMENTS.
A. Pending Project in San Luis Obispo County. Acting Community Development
Director Helen Elder stated that in keeping with the Planning Commission's request 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, etal
General Plan Amendment, which is also from San Luis Obispo County.
Ms. Elder also listed items that will heard at the June 16th Planning Commission meeting as
follows:
.....
1. YMCA Time 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 Council/Planning Commission
study session scheduled for June 18th at 6:30 p.m. Items to be discussed at that meeting include
the Redevelopment Agency implementation and General Plan Update.
With regard to the General Plan Update, Ms. Elder advised that Workshop No.2 on Land Use
Alternatives is scheduled for Saturday, June 20th from 9:00 a.m. to noon at the Arroyo Grande
High School Gym. Also, Thursday, June 4d1 at 6:30 a meeting is being held fQI the Core
Outreach Team members to obtain information on the' Workshop. She further advised that.a
notice for the Workshop will be published in the newspaper in two weeks, and next week notices
for the Workshop will be delivered to 8,000 addresses in the City.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
June 2, 1998
Page 8
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
1. Notice Of Preparation of an EIR for Hampton, et al. General Plan Amendment from San
Luis Obispo County.
2. Agenda Item II.A. - Letter dated June 2, 1998 from Ruth Weece.
3. Agenda Item No. II.B. - Resolution No. 94-1458.
4. Agenda Item No. II.B. - Resolution No. 94-1459
5. Parking Study from Ganador Associates, Inc., dated June 1, 1998.
6. Revised explanations for the Initial Study Checklist prepared for the Anderson project.
r-
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the
Chairman at 9:30 p.m.
ATTEST:
AS TO CONTENT:
..
~~/~v tv1. ~le~
Helen M. Elder, AICP
Acting Community Development Director
-.
"
.
Hearing Date: 11/4/98
Agenda Item No. II. ;<.13..
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-
Recorder on October 9, 1998. Site inspection by Helen Elder on 10/13/98. Staff
report prepared by Helen Elder, AICP, Associate Planner.
/
~b
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:
East:
South:
West:
Commercial/General Commercial/same
Commercial office/General Commercial/same
Commercial/residence/General Commercia I/Hig hway
Highway 101
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 (BA'> Commercial Site Develoomeri"t
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 genial of applications
which do not provide information necessary to clarify, amplify, correct, or
otherwise supplement the information required for the app'lication, 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 Code, staff recommends the Commission deny the applications.
The findings for denial are shown in 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 98-565 and
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 98-548, APPLIED FOR BY ROBERT
ANDERSON, lOCATED AT 200 STATION WAY (VILLAGE CREEK
PLAZA)
WHEREAS, the Planning 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
materially injuri~lI~ _ to .pr~~ert!es and imp'r.ovemen~s. in the vicinity because. the
increased density and lack of adequate landscaping and other site improvements
would adversely impacts the neighborhood.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VEO that the Planning Commission of. the City of
Arroyo Grande hereby denies, withou~ 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
following roll call vote, to wit:
, seconded by Commissioner
. , and by the
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
Hearl...:l Date: Decerjlber 1,1998
Agenda Item No. II.A.
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:
PROPOSAL:
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 98-565
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
S.urrounding 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 Commissh.
CUP No. 98-565
December 1 J 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 the 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:
Previous 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 CommissL
CUP No. 98-565
December 1, 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, without 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:
Parcel 2:
Parcel 3:
Parcel 4:
Parcel 5:
Video Thyme
Miner's Hardware/Kennedy Fitness Center/Roger Dunn Golf
Vacant/ Site of Anderson application
Vacant-located at Mullahey Ford
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 a~d
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
Planning Commissk
CUP No. 98-565
December 1 J 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 6.1 (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. H
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:
Parkinq:
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 parki~g
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 spaces 68 spaces
Parcel 2 20,200 80 spaces 50 spaces
Parcel 3 27,350. 109 spaces 110 soaces
TORAL I 58,050 232 spaces 228 spaces
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, 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 Loading:
Section 9-12.170 A of the Development Code provides as follows: II 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.
Staff has raised concerns regarding the design and space allocation 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 h~s
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 Commissh.
CUP No. 98-565
December 1 J 1998
Page 7
the existing parking lot on Parcel 2. Staff has requested that the applicant
demonstrate the rit)ht to direct the site drainage to Parcel 2, and demonstrate that the
Parcel 2 drainage 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 fol/owing 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 "natural storm channel flow.'" The available topographic maps
indicate otherwise.
The applican~ 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 owner'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 by
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.
Landscaoina
There are several issues relating tQ landscaping which concern the project.
The Development Code requires a 1 5' front building setback (Development Code
Table 9-07.040-A) 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 J 1998
Page 9
STAFF ADVISORY COMMITTEE: 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 reqlJired
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 forCaltrans
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 COMMITTEE: The AAC reviewed 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 Commissk
CUP No. 98-565
December 1 J 1998
Page 10
Attachments:
Resolution Denying This Item
Financial Interest Form
Exhibits
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
Exhibit F:
Exhibit G:
Exhibit H:
Exhibit I: .
Site Plan
Initial Study/Draft Negative Declaration
Minutes for April 28, 1998 Planning Commission meeting
Staff Report for June 2, 1998 Planning Commission meeting
Minutes for June 2, 1998 Planning Commission meeting
Staff Report for November 4, 1998 Planning Commission meeting
Staff letter to Dr. Anderson re: incompleteness, December 29, 1997
AAe Minutes for May 4, 1998 meeting .
Letter from Brad Anderson, Brad Anderson Construction, Inc., dated
November 20, 1998
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 1,1998
The Arroyo Grande Planning eommission met in regular session with ehair Lubin
residing. Present are eommissioners Parker, Greene and ,Keen.' eommissioner Haney
is absent. Also in attendance are eommunity Development Director Jim Hamilton,
eontract Planner Tom Buford and Senior Consultant Engineer eraig eampbell.
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; APPLICANT: 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 eommission. He noted that the
applicant is requesting approval to develop Lot 3 of the Village Creek Plaza with four
buildings totaling 27,350 square feet.
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 eommittee 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 staffs
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
applicant's 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
eal Trans to accept drainage from the improved site have been unsuccessful. The Ce&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...". Staffs concern is that the natural storm channel flow is to the
south not to the northwest. 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 staffs 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
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
December 1, 1998
Page 2
appear to be any sound reason why Cal Trans would not accept the drainage, however,
they 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 2 ,to 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 U 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 eity 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 eity sidewalks.
Senior Consultant Engineer Craig eampbell 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.
A,-nr- t6"l1hlH'\n
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
December 1, 1998
Page 3
Commissioner Parker questioned the usability 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~ believes the spaces will be useable and they do meet the development standards
of the eity.' .
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 staffs 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. eo-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 'curband 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 eommission was to
somehow keep the sidewalk on the other side of the street. In response to eommissioner
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.
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 in a year's
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
December 1, 1998
Page 4
time, and it seems unlikely that all of a sudden during construction, they are going to be
taken care of. She stated her concerns that lighting remains a problem, parking remains a
big problem, the ramp is a problem, and drainage mayor may not be a problem, depending
on what can be worked out. Also, the sidewalk mayor 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 hate to see it thrown aside because of issues
that she feels could still be worked out.
eommissioner Keen stated he believes the two loading docks are necessary because the
project 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 concrete
crosswalks. He stated 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 are concerned. Also, he stated that the
grading plan needs to be established before plan check. Regarding landscaping,
eommissioner 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.
ehair Lubin stated, in his opinion, the project is acceptable according to eode; 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 another. 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 the property
owners.
There being nofurther comments, the following action was taken:
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
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:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Greene, Parker and Lubin
Commissioner Keen
Commissioner Haney
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 151 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:
70'W. BRANCH STREET
Comm 't Development Director Hamilton reviewed the staff report dated December 1,
1998. He ised that the Sizzler site is located adjacent to the Five Cities Center. In 1986
the Sizzler rec . ed approvals from the Architectural Review Committee for the existing
building and asso . ted signs. Four signs were approved totaling approximately 145
square feet, and inclu a double-faced monument sign and three parapet mounted wall
signs. Mr. Hamilton advi that the applicant is requesting a modification to the sign
program; they would like to a an additional 32 square foot sign on the northeast facing
elevation. As a result of the Five 'ties Center, a redesign of the circulation and parking
around this property necessitated tha the existing monument sign be relocated. They
are also planning to re-face all of the sign s part of a corporate identity change and they
will be replacing' the sign faces in each of the p pet mounted wall signs.
Mr. Hamilton noted that under the current zoning ordin ce, this project would not meet the
standards for the number of wall signs. The monument s is conforming and does meet.
the current standards for size, height, location, etc. However, der the current ordinance,
they would only be allowed two wall signs; they currently have ee, and the additional
sign would make four wall signs on the property. The sign ordinan equires before any
additional signs can be approved where there are non-conforming signs, signs must be
brought into conformance with the City's Sign Ordinance or a Variance must approved.
In this case a Planned Sign Program and Variance have been applied for. He s ed that
the Architectural Advisory Committee has reviewed the project and have made eir
recommendation for approval to allow the additional sign and to approve the overall si
package establishing a Planned Sign Program for the Sizzler Restaurant.
AGPC. 12/1/98
...........
(
('
B.AC
BRAD ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION, INC.
November 20, 1998
City of Arroyo Grande
Mr. Jim Hamilton
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
'_ ; ..~ ;J ~ .; . .
Communi ;.~j :J ::';'2.,_.:: :'-. ;::;~t C:.~p~.
~~;j :; 1993
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 4111.
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 attorr.ey in the same staff report, therefore we will provide the 109 parking spaces
as reqlJ!red by the development code and no more.
_ As for the question of the den~.ity 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
s~gnificantly 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
IJru.1ect is also in excess of which is already installed on the rest of the previous
dsvelopm-3nt. We removed the Concrete promenade across the front of the project and
added considerable landscaping in it's place which 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
wit:' 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: Bob J-~,derson, Jerry Weaver, Esq., and Bob Hunt
PO. BOX 1161. ARROYO GRANDE. CA 93421 · 805-489-4575. FAX 805-489-8335
Miner's
RECEIVED
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
9.9. JAN 29. PM, {; 51
1056 Grand Ave
Grover Beach, CA 93433
TEL: 805-489-2931
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 concerned 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 Stafffor 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
,.. ",~_J~' . . f)' I I
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 from 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 thatthe City Council
uphold the Planning Commission's denial of Anderson's Project.
Sincerely,
$J~
Mike Miner
..
ATTACHMENT F
I_mIDI
Mullahey I' uru
February 13, 1999
(")
\D -i
\D -<
..." <:)
f'T1 .."
CD l>~
CD ;:0 (")
;:Om
0-
-u -<<
:x o~
~ ~
o ~
-./ 0
fT1
.... _lllo..Mr. Robert Hunt
City Manager
POBox 550
Arroyo Grande, California
This is in reference to the request to build a 27,350 square. foot building on Station
Way (Village Creek Promenade). It is of great concern of the business owners in. h I l~~
the area that this project will be detrimental to the area and the city. f ~
1. The 27,350 square feet of commercial/retail buildings is unrealistic in size for ~
the property and surrounding area. p
2. This property sits along the freeway, professional traffic and parking is \
confined on one side to 180 degrees that will cause mass congestion.
3. This block already has significant conjestion from the high school, both car
dealerships, a driver up post office, and a retail center, Miner's, etc. ...c..;
Our business has increased substantially in recent years for a total of 6-;/;;~
$40,000,000.00 in 1998. This has also increased the tax revenue for the city. ...-
Parking and traffic circulation are essential to our continued growth and service ~ ~
our customers. 7'- ~ ,/
We are not requesting denial of the project, we are requesting moderation and . I-
continuity with the area and off-freeway traffic for our employees and customers.
We invite you down to show you in person our concerns.
Thank~YOU in advance for your ~=~~~o # ~
>M ' ~~)V~
The emp oyees ofMullahey Ford '?'~"~'_,j. ' //
'~~};~
Page 2 of 2
., Mr. Robert Hunt
( , City Manager
9.a.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: LYNDA K. SNODGRASS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICE~
SUBJECT: CASH DISBURSEMENT RATIFICATION
DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for
the period February 1 - February 15,1999.
FUNDING:
There is a $390,951.80 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 - February 5, 1999 Accounts Payable Check Register
ATTACHMENT C - February 11,1999 Accounts Payable Check Register
ATTACHMENT D - February 11, 1999 Payroll Checks and Payroll Benefit Checks
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
INDEX FOR BUDGET DEPARTMENTS
EDEN COMPUTER SYSTEM
GENERAL FUND (010)
City Government (Fund 010)
4001 - City Council
4002 - City Clerk
4003 - City Attorney
4101 - City Manager
4102 - Printing/Duplicating
4120 - Financial Services
4121 - Taxes/ Insurance/ Bonds
4130 - Community Development
4131 - Community Building (CDBG)
4140 - Management Information System
4145 - Non Departmental
Public Safety (Fund 010)
4201 - Police
4211 - Fire
4212 - Building & Safety
4213 - Government Buildings
Public Works (Fund 010)
4301 - Public Works-Admin & Engineering
4303 - Street/Bridge Maintenance
4304 - Street Ughting
4305 - Automotive Shop
Parks & Recreation (Fund 010)
4420 - Parks
4421 - Recreation
4422 - General Recreation
4423 - Pre-School Program
4424 - Recreation-Special Programs
4425 - Children in Motion
4430 - Soto Sport Complex
4460 - Parkway Maintenance
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Pari.< Development Fee Fund (Fund 213)
4550 - Park Development Fee
Traffic Signal Fund (Fund 222)
4501 - Traffic Fund
Transportation Fund (Fund 225)
4553 - Public Transit System
Construction Tax Fund (Fund 230)
4556 - Construction Tax
Police Grant Fund (Fund 271)
4202 - State AB3229 Cops Grant
4203 - Federal COPS Hiring Grant
4204 - Federal Local Law Enforcement
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Sewer Fund (Fund 612)
4610 - Sewer Maintenance
Water Fund (Fund 640)
4710 - Water Administration
4711 - Water Production
4712 - Water Distribution
Lopez Administration (Fund 641)
4750 - Lopez Administration
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS
5501-5599 - Park Projects
5601-5699 - Streets Projects
5701-5799 - Drainage Projects
5801-5899 - Water/Sewer/Street Projects
5901-5999 - Water Projects
Dept. Index for CounciLxls
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CASH DISBURSEMENTS
77M tk 'PeItid ~ 77~ 1 7~ 77~ 15, 1999
February 23, 1999
Presented are the cash disbursements issued by the Department of Financial Services for
the period February 1 to February 15, 1999. Shown are cash disbursements by week of
occurrence and type of payment.
February 5, 1999
Accounts Payable Cks #88903-88926
B
$ 20,699.34
February 11, 1999
Accounts Payable Cks # 88927-89047
Payroll Checks and Payroll Benefit Checks
C
D
140,458.33
229,794.13
370,252.46
Two Week Total
390,951.80
VOUCHRE2
02/04/99 10:57
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
88909
88910
88911
88912
88913
88914
88915
88916
88917
88918
88918
88918
88918
88918
88918
88918
88918
88918
88918
88918
88918
88918
88918
88919
88920
CHECK
DATE
88903
02/05/99
VENDOR
NUMBER
100802
100954
100954
009750
100301
023400
100631
028548
100896
030810
042822
043290
043954
100947
100953
047300
052455
052455
052455
052455
052455
052455
052455
052455
052455
052455
052455
052455
052455
052455
054494
100945
VENDOR
NAME
ALAMEDA CNTY.SHERIFF'S
B & B TECHNICAL SVCS.
B & B TECHNICAL SVCS.
BRENDA BARROW
RYAN BURT
ROBERT CHUBBUCK
CUESTA CONSULTING
DAYS TAR INDUSTRIES
LISA DEL VAGLIO
EOC COMMUNITY PARTNERS
LINDA HOLT
CHERI HULGAN
JOSH IANNEO
SHELLY IANNEO
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
BLAIR JUAREZ
SUSAN LINTNER
SUSAN LINTNER
SUSAN LINTNER
SUSAN LINTNER
SUSAN LINTNER
SUSAN LINTNER
SUSAN LINTNER
SUSAN LINTNER
SUSAN LINTNER
SUSAN LINTNER
SUSAN LINTNER
SUSAN LINTNER
SUSAN LINTNER
SUSAN LINTNER
CATHY MALLORY
JESSICA MORENO
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 21
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
W/S REGIS-CHUBBUCK
TYPEWRITER MAINTENANCE
TYPEWRITER REPAIR
REIMB-AM/PM-BARROW
B/BALL LGE.OFFICIAL"BURT
DELIBERATE CLEARING-CHUBBUCK
CUESTA SVCS-l/24/99
STREET SWEEPING
REIMB.AM/PM SUPPLIES
W/SHOP-6 PEOPLE
COMMUNICATION-HOLT
REIMB.CCS DARE GRAD.CAKE
B/BALL LGE.SCORER-J.IANNEO
B/BALL LGE.SCORER-S.IANNEO
REGIS-FERDOLAGE-SOLVING AUTOM
B/BALL LGE.SCORER-JUAREZ
POSTAGE
STAND FOR EMD CARDS-DISPATCH
SHUTTER RELEASE CABLE-CAMERA
SCHEDULED MEETINGS
FILING FEE NOTARY BOND-LINTNER
ADDTL MEMBERSHIP FEE-BROMBY
SANTA COP DELIVERY EXPENSES
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COUNCIL
DARE TEEN MODEL
DARE GRADUATION CAKE
K-9 CAR CLEAN UP
ENTRY COMPUTER SHOW-MUMAW
COMPUTER HARD DRIVE
GASOLINE
REIMB.PRE-SCHOOL SUPPLIES
88921 02/05/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC
REF.PARK DEPOSIT-MORENO
88904
88904
02/05/99
02/05/99
88905
02/05/99
88906
02/05/99
88907
02/05/99
88908
02/05/99
02/05/99
02/05/99
02/05/99
02/05/99
02/05/99
02/05/99
02/05/99
02/05/99
02/05/99
02/05/99
02/05/99
02/05/99
02/05/99
02/05/99
02/05/99
02/05/99
02/05/99
02/05/99
02/05/99
02/05/99
02/05/99
02/05/99
02/05/99
02/05/99
02/05/99
ATTACHMENT B
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
010.4201. 5501
107.00
010.4120.5602
010.4130.5602
45.00
67.52
010.4425.5255
23.36
010.4424.5352
75.00
010.4201. 5501
390.72
010.4130.5303
6,390.00
612.4610.5303
4,547.32
010.4425.5255
68.51
010.4421.5501
60.00
010.4201. 5501
468.70
010.4201.5504
28.95
010.4424.5352
14.00
010.4424.5352
14.00
010.4201.5501
450.00
010.4424.5352
21. 00
010.4201.5201
010.4201.5255
010.4201. 5255
010.4201.5501
010.4201. 5501
010.4201. 5503
010.4201.5504
010.4201. 5504
010.4201. 5504
010.4201.5504
010.4201. 5601
010.4140.5607
010.4140.5607
010.4201. 5608
29.24
10.69
6.38
106.07
19.00
13.85
11.50
46.65
12.72
5.94
17.24
5.00
16.16
18.10
010.4423.5253
15.39
010.0000.4354
50.00
010.4304.5402
873.92
PAGE 1
CHECK
AMOUNT
107.00
112.52
23.36
75.00
390.72
6,390.00
4,547.32
68.51
60.00
468.70
28.95
14.00
14.00
450.00
21. 00
318.54
15.39
50.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 2
02/04/99 10:57 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 21
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
88921 02/05/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 640.4712.5402 230.24
88921 02/05/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 640.4711.5402 777.48
88921 02/05/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 612.4610.5402 657.70
88921 02/05/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 010.4145.5401 4,304.67 6,844.01
88922 02/05/99 066300 PEARL PHINNEY PHINNEY SVCS-1/5 010.4130.5303 285.00 285.00
88923 02/05/99 071682 GREG ROSE B/BALL LGE.OFFICIAL-ROSE 010.4424.5352 75.00 75.00
88924 02/05/99 079522 BEVERLY SILVA SUPPLIES FF AWARDS CEREMONY 010.4211. 5255 236.32 236.32
88925 02/05/99 084708 RICK TERBORCH REIMB.COMM.ADVISORY SUPPLIES 010.4201. 5504 54.00 54.00
88926 02/05/99 089600 VENTURA COMMUNITY COLLE REGIS-COMMUNICATE-HOLT 010.4201. 5501 50.00 50.00
TOTAL CHECKS 20,699.34
VOUCHRE2
02/10/99 09:52
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
88927
88928
88929
88929
88929
CHECK
DATE
988
02/01/99
VENDOR
NUMBER
100288
000468
000858
068127
068127
068127
VENDOR
NAME
EINSTEIN'S COMPUTER OUT
A T & T-L/DIST SVC.
ADAMSON INDUSTRIES
AG PRINT N COPY
AG PRINT N COPY
AG PRINT N COPY
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 21
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
MEG/PIN MEMORY
L/DIST.FAX 473-0386
WINCHESTER AMMUNITION
CITY NOV.NEWSLETTER
COLORED COPIES
COLORED COPIES
88930 02/12/99 100584 AIR LIQUIDE AMERICA COR WELDING GLASSES
88931
88932
88933
88933
88933
88933
88934
88934
88934
88934
88934
88934
88935
88936
88937
88938
88938
88939
88940
88940
88940
88940
88941
88941
88942
88942
88943
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
100802
002340
003120
003120
003120
003120
100897
100897
100897
100897
100897
100897
007176
009164
009750
010412
010412
010842
100948
100948
100948
100948
012168
012168
013026
013026
013052
ALAMEDA CNTY.SHERIFF'S
JOHN ALLEN
AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SUP
AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SUP
AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SUP
AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SUP
AMERICAN TEMPS
AMERICAN TEMPS
AMERICAN TEMPS
AMERICAN TEMPS
AMERICAN TEMPS
AMERICAN TEMPS
ATCO INTERNATIONAL
BANNER'S UNLIMITED
BRENDA BARROW
ALBERT BEATTIE
ALBERT BEATTIE
RICHARD BERRY
CASEY BONNER
CASEY BONNER
CASEY BONNER
CASEY BONNER
BOXX EXPRESS
BOXX EXPRESS
BRISCO MILL & LUMBER
BRISCO MILL & LUMBER
GARETT BROWN
REGIS-BERRY-DYNAMIC CLEARING
CSAIA CONFERENCE-ALLEN
CEDAPRIN/IBUPROD
FIRST AID SUPPLIES
FIRST AID SUPPLIES
FIRST AID SUPPLIES
HAWORTH SVCS-1/10
DAVIDSON SVCS-1/10
HAWORTH SVCS-1/17
DAVIDSON-1/17
HAWORTH SVCS-1/24
DAVIDSON SVCS-1/24
HAND CLEANER
AMERICAN FLAGS
AM/PM SUPPLIES REIMB.
REIMB.TUITION-BEATTIE
REIMB.BOOKS
DYNAMIC CLEARING-BERRY
REF.C.B.DEPOSIT-BONNER
BLDG. SUPER-BONNER
EXTRA.CLEANING
OVEN CLEANER/PAPER TOWELS
DEC. SHIPPING
12/98 SHIPPING
FLAT WASHERS
RAKES/SHOVEL SCOOP
TENNIS CLASSES-BROWN
ATTACHMENT C
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
010.4140.6101
010.4145.5403
271.4202.5255
010.4002.5201
350.5617.7301
350.5615.7701
010.4305.5303
010.4201. 5501
010.4201.5501
220.4303.5255
220.4303.5255
612.4610.5255
640.4712.5255
284.4103.5303
010.4130.5303
284..4103.5303
010.4130.5303
284.4103.5303
010.4130.5303
010.4305.5255
220.4303.5613
010.4425.5255
010 '. 4201. 5502
010.4201. 5502
010.4201. 5501
010.0000.2206
010.0000.4353
010.4213.5101
010.4213.5255
010.4211.5201
010.4201. 5201
220.4303.5613
220.4303.5273
010.4424.5351
ITEM
AMOUNT
1,508.69
44.95
129.36
2,563.12
23.86
181. 67
24.30
107.00
40.00
27.03
12.87
12.86
12.86
620.15
471.00
612.30
628.00
541. 65
510.25
109.00
386.01
127.98
605.00
66.70
390.72
250.00
94.50-
47.86-
7.35-
6.02
42.54
4.28
71. 81
235.20
PAGE 1
CHECK
AMOUNT
1,508.69
44.95
129.36
2,768.65
24.30
107.00
40.00
65.62
3,383.35
109.00
386.01
127.98
671.70
390.72
100.29
48.56
76.09
235.20
VOUCHRE2
02/10/99 09:52
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME
88944 02/12/99 100037 BRUCE BUCKINGHAM
88945 02/12/99 100958 SHERRI BUVICK
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 21
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
SOl REFUND
REF.PARK REFUND-BUVICK
88946 02/12/99 021940 C.COAST TAXI CAB SERVIC TAXI SVCS-JAN 15
88947 02/12/99 014548 CA.ASSN.HOSTAGE NEGOTIA 99 MEMBERSHIP-ANDREWS
88948 02/12/99 018096 CA.ST.DEPT. GENERAL SER L/DIST DEC 98
88949
88950
88950
88951
88951
88951
88951
88951
88952
88953
88954
88955
88955
88956
88956
88957
88957
88957
88958
88959
88959
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
018018
018876
018876
017706
017706
017706
017706
017706
100574
016692
016302
023010
023010
024832
024832
026286
026286
026286
026300
026754
026754
CA.ST.DEPT.GENERAL SVCS
CA. ST. DEPT. TRANSPORTATI
CA. ST. DEPT. TRANSPORTATI
CA.ST.EMPL.DEVEL.DEPT.
CA. ST. EMPL. DEVEL. DEPT.
CA. ST.EMPL.DEVEL. DEPT.
CA.ST.EMPL.DEVEL.DEPT.
CA.ST.EMPL.DEVEL.DEPT.
CAL-COAST INSIGNIA
CALIF.PEACE OFFICER'S A
CALIFORNIA MENS COLONY
RICHARD CHECANSKY
RICHARD CHECANSKY
COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS
COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS
L/DIST.PHONE
NOV SIGNAL MAINT
SIGNAL MAINT/POWER
U/INS-EDAR
U/INS-MATHE
U/INS-BRITTON
U/INS-MILTON
U/INS-REYNOLDS
EXPLORER SHOULDER PATCHES
99 PENAL CODES-QUICK REF
DEC CMC
REIMB.TUITION-CHECANSKY
TUITION/BOOK REIMBS.
SCADA SYSTEM UPDATE
SCADA SYSTEM UPGRADE LIFT#3
CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL LAB WATER SAMPLES
CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL LAB WATER SAMPLES
CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL LAB WATER SAMPLES
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
011.0000.2111
010.0000.4354
225.4553.5507
010.4201. 5503
010.4145.5403
010.4145.5403
010.4304.5303
010.4304.5402
010.4213.5142
010.4211.5142
010.4211.5142
010.4420.5142
284.4103.5142
010.4201. 5255
010.4201.5255
220.4303.5303
010.4201. 5502
010.4201. 5502
612.4610.5303
612.4610.6201
640.4710.5310
640.4710.5310
640.4710.5310
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMN.A CRIMINAL JUSTICE MEMBER-TERBOR
010.4201. 5503
CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER C BOTTLED WATER
CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER C BOTTLED WATER
88960 02/12/99 100957 CSAIA
88961 02/12/99 100959 CUB SCOUT PACK#13
88962
88962
88962
88962
88962
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
100631
100631
100631
100631
100631
CUESTA CONSULTING
CUESTA CONSULTING
CUESTA CONSULTING
CUESTA CONSULTING
CUESTA CONSULTING
CSAIA CONF.ALLEN
REF.PARK DEPOSIT-CUB SCOUT PK
CUESTA SVCS-2/3
CUESTA SVCS-2/3
CUESTA SVCS-2/3
CUESTA SVCS-2/3
CUESTA SVCS-2/3
010.4212.5201
010.4001. 5201
010.4201. 5501
010.0000.4354
010.0000.2325
010.0000.2326
010.0000.2497
010.0000.2494
010.0000.2499
ITEM
AMOUNT
23.28
25.00
1,534.75
25.00
54.27
116.11
6.88
188.34
1,840.00
2.00
31. 00
11.00-
130.00
172.40
399.90
2,295.15
785.00
915.46
1,800.00
446.36
70.00
140.00
70.00
35.00
15.00
10.00
260.00
25.00
45.50
91.00
45.50
45.50
65.00
PAGE 2
CHECK
AMOUNT
23.28
25.00
1,534.75
25.00
54.27
116.11
195.22
1,992.00
172.40
399.90
2,295.15
1,700.46
2,246.36
280.00
35.00
25.00
260.00
25.00
VOUCHRE2
02/10/99 09:52
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
88962
88962
88963
88964
88964
88964
88964
88964
88964
88964
88964
88965
88965
88965
88966
88966
88967
88968
CHECK
DATE
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
VENDOR
NUMBER
100631
100631
028548
029250
029250
029250
029250
029250
029250
029250
029250
029484
029484
029484
100956
100956
031160
032214
VENDOR
NAME
CUESTA CONSULTING
CUESTA CONSULTING
DAYSTAR INDUSTRIES
J .B. DEWAR, INC.
J .B. DEWAR, INC.
J .B. DEWAR, INC.
J.B. DEWAR, INC.
J .B. DEWAR, INC.
J.B. DEWAR,INC.
J .B. DEWAR, INC.
J.B. DEWAR, INC.
DIESELRO INC.
DIESELRO INC.
DIESELRO INC.
DOKKEN ENGINEERING
DOKKEN ENGINEERING
EASI FILE CORP.
ENTENMANN-ROVIN CO
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 21
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
CUESTA SVCS-2/3
CUESTA SVCS-2/3
STREET SWEEPING
OIL
#2 RED DIESEL FUEL
OIL
CR:92 OCT.GASOLlNE
#2 RED DIESEL
#2 RED DIESEL FUEL
#2 RED DIESEL FUEL
#2 RED DIESEL FUEL
SVC.AIR COMPRESSOR-PW249
SVC WHEELS-PW249
HAZARD LIGHT
DOKKEN ENG.SVCS-12/31
DOKKEN ENGINEERING SVCS-12/31
HANGERS FOR MAPS
2 MOTORCYCLE HELMET BADGES
88969 02/12/99 032260 EVERGREEN ANIMAL CLINIC VET SVCS-FANNI
88970
88970
88971
88972
88973
88973
88973
88974
88976
88976
88976
88976
88976
88976
88976
88976
88976
88976
88976
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
032838
032838
033424
033540
100691
100691
100691
100700
038454
038454
038454
038454
038454
038454
038454
038454
038454
038454
038454
FAMILIAN PIPE & SUPPLY
FAMILIAN PIPE & SUPPLY
FENCE FACTORY
JOHN FERDOLAGE
FIVE CITIES-TIMES
FIVE CITIES-TIMES
FIVE CITIES-TIMES
G & M MOBILE SERVICE
GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY
GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY
GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY
GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY
GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY
GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY
GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY
GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY
GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY
GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY
GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY
CUSTOMER BALL VALVE
PLUGS
REPR.MAIN GATE
SOLVING AUTOMATION-FERDOLAGE
LEGAL#899
LEGAL #926
LEGAL #927
REPR.TURN SIGNAL-PW14
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
010.0000.2495
010.0000.2484
612.4610.5303
010.4305.5601
010.0000.1202
010.4305.5601
010.0000.1202
010.0000.1202
010.0000.1202
010.0000.1202
010.0000.1202
220.4303.5603
220.4303.5603
010.4305.5601
350.5616.7701
350.5615.7701
010.4301.5255
010.4201. 5255
010.4201. 5322
640.4712.5610
640.4712.5610
010.4201. 5605
010.4201. 5501
010.4002.5301
010.4002.5301
010.4002.5301
010.4301. 5601
010.4301. 5201
010.4301. 5201
010.4120.5201
010.4120.5201
010.4301. 5201
010.4002.5201
010.4102.5255
010.4101. 5201
010.4120.5201
010.4301. 5201
612.4610.5201
ITEM
AMOUNT
32.50
45.50
112.50
125.80
373.66
60.81
1,293.91-
347.49
117.14
231.66
206.25
201.74
69.42
9.27
16,996.00
18,855.00
95.59
108.10
181. 94
418.28
10.42
553.06
174.00
72 .00
73.50
54.00
69.36
12.74
10.53
7.71
63.28
74.96
44.88
77 .01
37.69
7.26
4.77
11.67
PAGE 3
CHECK
AMOUNT
370.50
112.50
168.90
280.43
35,851. 00
95.59
108.10
181. 94
428.70
553.06
174.00
199.50
69.36
VOUCHRE2
02/10/99 09:52
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
88976
88976
88976
88976
88976
88976
88976
88976
88976
88976
88976
88977
88978
88978
88978
88978
88978
88978
88978
88978
88978
88978
88979
88980
88981
88982
88983
88984
88984
88985
88986
CHECK
DATE
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
VENDOR
NUMBER
038454
038454
038454
038454
038454
038454
038454
038454
038454
038454
038454
039312
036426
036426
036426
036426
036426
036426
036426
036426
036426
036426
039992
100335
042510
044496
100241
046176
046176
046488
046722
VENDOR
NAME
GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY
GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY
GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY
GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY
GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY
GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY
GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY
GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY
GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY
GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY
GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY
CITY OF GROVER BEACH
GTE WIRELESS
GTE WIRELESS
GTE WIRELESS
GTE WIRELESS
GTE WIRELESS
GTE WIRELESS
GTE WIRELESS
GTE WIRELESS
GTE WIRELESS
GTE WIRELESS
DONNA HAMILTON
DANIEL HERNANDEZ
BERNADE'ITE HISER
INFORMATION SERVICES
INTL CONF OF BUILDING 0
J J'S FOOD COMPANY
J J'S FOOD COMPANY
C.R. JAESCHKE,INC
JERRY'S SPORT CENTER, I
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 21
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
DOG OBEDIENCE-21 STUDENTS
CELL PHONE - CM
CELL PHONE-CODE ENFORCE
CELL PHONE-ENG 1
PD CELL PHONE
PD CELL PHONE
PD CELL PHONE
PD CELL PHONE
PD CELL PHONE
PD CELL PHONE
PD CELL PHONE
SHOP TRAINING-HAMILTON
P & R CONF-HERNANDEZ
AEROBICS CLASS-HISER
DP ON LINE TRANS-12/31/98
SCHMIDT CCCICBO MEMBERSHIP
CMC SUPPLIES
COMMUNITY ADVISORY MEETING
HUSTLER PARTS
35 BERE'ITA 96F HANDGUNS
88987 02/12/99 048438 KEY TERMITE & PEST CONT ANT SPRAY
88988 02/12/99 048516 KEYLOCK SECURITY SPECIA DUP.KEYS
88989
88989
88990
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
100783 KIRBY'S MOTORCYCLES
100783 KIRBY'S MOTORCYCLES
100952 L & B INDUSTRIAL
CLUTCH CABLE
CLUTCH CABLE
CHEST WADERS
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
010.4211. 5201
010.4130.5201
010.4211.5201
010.4130.5201
010.4130.5201
612.4610.5201
010.4002.5201
010.4101.5201
010.4130.5602
010.4001. 5201
010.4101. 5201
010.4424.5351
010.4145.5403
010.4301. 5403
010.4211.5403
010.4201. 5403
010.4201. 5403
010.4201. 5403
010.4201. 5403
010.4201. 5403
010.4201. 5403
010.4201. 5403
010.4201. 5501
010.4421. 5501
010.4424.5351
010.4201. 5606
010.4212.5503
220.4303.5613
010.4201.5504
010.4430.5603
271.4202.6201
010.4201. 5604
010.4201. 5604
010.4201.5601
010.4201. 5601
220.4303.5255
ITEM
AMOUNT
7.68
15.02
7.51
11.45
37.74
52.08
1. 21
92.19
85.78
27.47
27.47
152.00
24.83
50.74
18.09
62.84
18.38
16.94
21. 83
20.48
19.97
36.06
40.00
126.00
172.80
59.94
60.00
70.21
36.50
194.32
13,590.50
40.00
9.38
32.32
32.32
286.82
PAGE 4
CHECK
AMOUNT
718.10
152.00
290.16
40.00
126.00
172.80
59.94
60.00
106.71
194.32
13,590.50
40.00
9.38
64.64
286.82
VOUCHRE2
02/10/99 09:52
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
88991
88992
88993
88994
88994
88994
88995
88996
88996
88998
88998
88998
88998
88998
88998
88998
88998
88998
88998
88998
88998
88998
88998
88998
88998
88998
88998
88998
88998
88999
88999
89000
89001
89002
89003
89005
89005
89005
89005
CHECK
DATE
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
VENDOR
NUMBER
053274
054522
100951
056628
056628
056628
056706
056394
056394
057096
057096
057096
057096
057096
057096
057096
057096
057096
057096
057096
057096
057096
057096
057096
057096
057096
057096
057096
057096
058578
058578
060840
100949
100402
062712
063960
063960
063960
063960
VENDOR
NAME
LYON & CARMEL
CYNDI MALMEN
MD COMMUNICATIONS
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 21
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
PROF.LEGAL SVCS
CHILDREN'S DANCE-MALMEN
REPL.WIRE JUMPER/ALIGN
MID STATE BANK-MASTERCA GASOLINE
MID STATE BANK-MASTERCA MEALS-TRAINING
MID STATE BANK-MASTERCA LOCC-HOTEL
MID STATE CONCRETE PROD MANHOLE FRAMES/COVERS
MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAKE
MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAKE
MINER'S ACE HARDWARE
MINER'S ACE HARDWARE
MINER'S ACE HARDWARE
MINER'S ACE HARDWARE
MINER'S ACE HARDWARE
MINER'S ACE HARDWARE
MINER'S ACE HARDWARE
MINER'S ACE HARDWARE
MINER'S ACE HARDWARE
MINER'S ACE HARDWARE
MINER'S ACE HARDWARE
MINER'S ACE HARDWARE
MINER'S ACE HARDWARE
MINER'S ACE HARDWARE
MINER'S ACE HARDWARE
MINER'S ACE HARDWARE
MINER'S ACE HARDWARE
MINER'S ACE HARDWARE
MINER'S ACE HARDWARE
MINER'S ACE HARDWARE
MULLAHEY FORD
MULLAHEY FORD
NATIONAL SANITARY SUPPL
RON NISHIDA
ODV, INC.
ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE
PACIFIC BELL
PACIFIC BELL
PACIFIC BELL
PACIFIC BELL
941 FIN TIE ROD ENDS/ALIGN
BALL JOINTS
CUTTER TUBE
FILES/FILE HANDLES
POOL CHEM/BLDG.MATERIAL
FOOD DISPOSER
WIRE/CONNECTORS
DRAWER SLIDES/BLDG.MATERIAL
DRAWER SLIDES
PLUMBING SUPPLIES
TAPE RULER/FLAG TAPE/BATTERIES
TOILET PARTS
DRILL BITS/DOOR PULL
DRILL BIT/INSERT SETS
BATTERY TOOL
COUPLER
CLOROX
FLUOR. LITE
PLASTIC TAPE/STORAGE HOOK
BALL VALVE/ELBOW/NIPPLES
PLUMBING SUPPLIES
SCREWDRIVER SET/HOSE ADAPTER
SVC.TRANS/LUBE/OIL/WIPERS
CHARGE/TEST BATTERY
P.TOWELS/CLEANER
REF.PERF.BOND-122 DIAMANTE
IDENTATION MATERIALIZER
RAKES/SHOVELS/HANDLE
RADIO 451-0183
DATA LINE 473-0379
L/DIST.FAX 473-0386
ALARM 473-1935
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
010.4003.5304
010.4424.5351
010.4211.5603
010.4201. 5608
010.4201. 5501
010.4201. 5501
612.4610.5610
010.4201. 5601
010.4201. 5601
010.4420.5605
612.4610.5273
010.4211.5255
010.4213.5604
010.4420.5605
010.4211.5255
010.4211.5255
010.4213.5604
010.4420.5605
010.4213.5604
010.4213.5604
010.4213.5604
220.4303.5273
010.4420.5605
640.4712.5274
220.4303.5255
612.4610.5603
612.4610.5603
612.4610.5610
640.4712.5273
010.4201. 5601
010.4201. 5601
010.4213.5604
010.0000.2210
271.4202.6201
220.4303.5273
010.4145.5403
010.4140.5303
010.4145.5403
640.4710.5403
ITEM
AMOUNT
10,600.52
175.00
235.71
56.54
36.34
146.90
441.78
123.88
165.75
22.51-
26.88
8.52
55.76
6.56
60.70
1. 29-
107.24
38.35
21. 07
5.76
17.24
66.47
6.42
1. 60
45.03
4.04
15.13
1. 05
29.79
156.45
65.00
174.82
1,200.00
3,344.76
147.93
192.32
120.96
25.78
20.12
PAGE 5
CHECK
AMOUNT
10,600.52
175.00
235.71
239.78
441.78
289.63
493.81
221.45
174.82
1,200.00
3,344.76
14 7.93
VOUCHRE2
02/10/99 09:52
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
89005
89005
89005
89005
89005
89005
89005
89005
89005
89005
89005
89005
89005
89005
89005
89005
89005
89005
89005
89005
89006
89007
89007
89007
89007
89007
89007
89007
89008
CHECK
DATE
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
VENDOR
NUMBER
063960
063960
063960
063960
063960
063960
063960
063960
063960
063960
063960
063960
063960
063960
063960
063960
063960
063960
063960
063960
063570
065050
065050
065050
065050
065050
065050
065050
066690
VENDOR
NAME
PACIFIC BELL
PACIFIC BELL
PACIFIC BELL
PACIFIC BELL
PACIFIC BELL
PACIFIC BELL
PACIFIC BELL
PACIFIC BELL
PACIFIC BELL
PACIFIC BELL
PACIFIC BELL
PACIFIC BELL
PACIFIC BELL
PACIFIC BELL
PACIFIC BELL
PACIFIC BELL
PACIFIC BELL
PACIFIC BELL
PACIFIC BELL
PACIFIC BELL
PB LOADER MFG. CO.
PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE
PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE
PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE
PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE
PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE
PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE
PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE
PITNEY BOWES
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 21
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
ALARM 473-2041
PHONE 489-2174
FAX 473-2198
ALARM 841-3953
ALARM 841-3955
ALARM 841-3956
ALARM 841-3959
ALARM 841-3960
ALARM 841-3961
ALARM 841-3962
ALARM 841-3963
ALARM 841-3964
CENTREX PHONE-5100
CENTREX PHONE-5400
SLO COMPUTER 271-6566
PHONE 481-6944
ALARM 271-7480
SLO COMPUTER 473-9523
PAY PHONE 489-9816
PAY PHONE 489-9867
POWER JET HAND TORCH
VELDHUIS SVCS-1/15
VELDHUIS SVCS-1/22
JACKSON SVCS-1/17
JACKSON SVCS-1/17
JACKSON SVCS-1/24
JACKSON SVCS-1/24
GOMEZ SVCS-1/17
RENTAL-POSTAGE MACHINE TO 5/15
89009 02/12/99 100961 PLANNING COMMISSION JOU PLAN COMMISS.JOURNAL RENEWAL
89010
89011
89012
89013
89014
89015
89015
89016
89017
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
067782 DENNIS PORTE PUPPY PLAY SCHOOL-PORTE
100955 PRODUCERS DAIRY FOODS,I ICE CREAM-FF AWARDS DINNER
068562 PRYOR INDUSTRIES, INC. DESK GROMMIT
090284 SHAWN PRYOR REIMB.BOOKS
069576 RADIO SHACK MINI FAN FOR COMPUTER
100482 ROBOTRONICS PC PATROL CAR PACKAGE
100482 ROBOTRONICS CREDIT-PC PATROL PACKAGE
069496 RXLASER W-2 FORMS/COMPOSITION
073320 SAN JOAQUIN SUPPLY CO. BOWL CLEANER
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
010.4201. 5403
010.4201. 5403
010.4145.5403
010.4211. 5403
640.4710.5403
220.4303.5403
640.4710.5403
010.4211.5403
612.4610.5403
612.4610.5403
612.4610.5403
612.4610.5403
010.4145.5403
010.4145.5403
010.4145.5403
010.4201. 5403
010.4201.5403
010.4145.5403
010.4145.5403
010.4201. 5403
220.4303.5601
220.4303.5303
220.4303.5303
640.4710.5303
612.4610.5303
640.4710.5303
612.4610.5303
220.4303.5303
010.4201. 5602
010.4130.5503
010.4424.5351
010.4211.5255
010.4301. 5255
010.4201. 5502
010.4140.5607
277.4206.6201
277.4206.6201
010.4120.5201
010.4213.5604
PAGE 6
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
19.82
42.31
22.90
32.94
230.80
32.94
32.94
32.94
32.94
32.94
32.94
32.94
592.51
1,328.30
49.96
121. 88
66.87
75.10
41. 66
43.21
3,258.02
77.85
77.85
416.64
416.64
218.59
145.73
172 . 22
114.82
416.64
1,901.28
185.28
185.28
32.00
32.00
570.50
570.50
60.48
60.48
39.11
39.11
64.90
64.90
21.43
21.43
6,300.00
27.95-
6,272.05
505.31
505.31
17.83
17.83
VOUCHRE2
02/10/99 09:52
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
89018
89019
89020
89021
89021
89021
89022
89023
89023
89024
89024
89025
89025
89025
89026
89027
89028
89029
89030
89031
89032
89032
89032
89032
89033
89033
89034
89034
89035
89036
89037
CHECK
DATE
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
02/12/99
VENDOR
NUMBER
078156
073944
100950
080340
080340
080340
100271
080886
080886
080964
080964
082328
082328
082328
082640
100798
083382
085674
086736
100852
087438
087438
087438
087438
088084
088084
088296
088296
087672
088826
088842
VENDOR
NAME
SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIB.
SLO CO.ANIMAL REGULATIO
SLOFIST
SNAP-ON TOOLS CORP
SNAP-ON TOOLS CORP
SNAP-ON TOOLS CORP
LYNDA SNODGRASS
SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY
SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 21
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
GASOLINE
2QT.ANIMAL SCS.CONTRACT
SLOFIST MEMBERSHIP-MCBRIDE
DRILL BIT SHARPENER
DRILL BIT SHARPENER
LOCKING PLIERS
CSMFO ANNUAL CONF-SNODGRASS
SMART BATTERY/CORE
TIRE PATCHES/RUBBER LUBE
GAS SERVICES
GAS SERVICES
STERLING COMMUNICATIONS MICROPHONE COVERS-WIND SOCKS
STERLING COMMUNICATIONS INSTL.NEW LIGHTS
STERLING COMMUNICATIONS TIMER FOR CAMERA
STRADLING,YOCCA,CARLSON
SUMMIT UNIFORMS
SUPERIOR QUALITY COPIER
TOWN & COUNTRY FENCING
DOTTIE TRULOCK
TUCKFIELD & ASSOCIATES
U.S.A.WRESTLING
U.S.A.WRESTLING
U.S.A.WRESTLING
U.S.A.WRESTLING
UNITED GREEN MARK,INC.
UNITED GREEN MARK, INC.
UNITED STATES POSTMASTE
UNITED STATES POSTMASTE
US RENTALS, INC
PEGGY VALKO
VALLEY AUTO SERVICE
PROF.SVCS-RDH
CLASS A HATS
CLEAN/REPR.FAX MACHINE
DON ROBERTS BACKSTOP
DOG OBEDIENCE-TRULOCK
WATER/SEWER RATE STUDY
CLUB REGISTRATION
ADTL INS-LUCIA MAR DIST.
PARTIC.MEMBERSHIP
COACHES REGISTRATION
REP.SPRINKLERS-DON ROBERTS
PVC CAP
POSTAGE
POSTAGE
RENTAL-TRASH PUMP
ART CLASSES-VALKO
REPR.TIRE
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
010.4201. 5608
010.4201. 5321
010.4211.5503
010.4305.5273
220.4303.5273
010.4305.5273
010.4120.5501
010.4201. 5603
010.4305.5255
010.4145.5401
010.4145.5401
010.4201. 5603
010.4201. 5603
010.4201. 5603
284.4103.5303
010.4201. 5255
640.4710.5602
350.5501.7001
010.4424.5351
350.5805.7701
010.4424.5257
010.4424.5257
010.4424.5257
010.4424.5257
010.4430.5605
010.4430.5605
010.4201.5201
010.4145.5201
220.4303.5552
010.4424.5351
010.4212.5601
ITEM
AMOUNT
879.25
7,750.00
15.00
91.14
91.13
64.30
129.00
14 9.53
27.10
241. 81
185.39
5.36
1,062.00
102.35
181. 50
389.70
89.00
11,040.00
896.00
1,445.00
50.00
20.00
700.00
80.00
14.72
2.21
1,000.00
2,000.00
71.86
441. 60
12.00
PAGE 7
CHECK
AMOUNT
879.25
7,750.00
15.00
246.57
129. 00
176.63
427.20
1,169.71
181. 50
389.70
89.00
11,040.00
896.00
1,445.00
850.00
16.93
3,000.00
71.86
441. 60
12.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 8
02/10/99 09:52 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 21
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
89038 02/12/99 089426 VAVRINEK,TRlNE,DAY & CO DEC.PROF.SVCS 010.4120.5303 2,700.00 2,700.00
89039 02/12/99 100960 VECTOR PDTS, INC ICE PACK/ANTI BACT.SOAP DISPEN 010.4201. 5272 46.49 46.49
89040 02/12/99 090480 WAYNE'S TIRE TIRE REPAIR 220.4303.5603 57.00 57.00
89041 02/12/99 091026 WEST PUBLISHING PAYMENT CA CODE UPDATES 010.4003.5503 22.52 22.52
89042 02/12/99 091806 WESTS IDE AUTO PARTS/TIR SPARK PLUGS 220.4303.5603 36.68 36.68
89043 02/12/99 100431 WILLARD PAPER CO COPY PAPER 010.4102.5255 291.72
89043 02/12/99 100431 WILLARD PAPER CO PAPER 010.4102.5255 367.12 658.84
89044 02/12/99 100834 WLC ARCHITECTS WLC ARCHITECT SVCS-FIRE DEPT. 350.5402.7701 300.00 300.00
89045 02/12/99 100262 WOMAN'S CLUB OF A.G. DEPOSIT-PIANO 010.4424.5252 50.00 50.00
89046 02/12/99 093522 XEROX CORPORATION 2510 COPIER MAINT 010.4301. 5602 261.30 261.30
89047 02/12/99 093794 SHARON YOUNG SEXUAL HARASSMENT AWARENESS 010.4145.5501 400.00 400.00
TOTAL CHECKS 140,458.33
VOUCHRE2
02/10/99 09:52
FUND TITLE
0,10 GENERAL FOND
011 PAYROLL CLEARING FUND
220 STREETS FUND
225 TRANSPORTATION FUND
271 STATE COPS BLOCK GRANT FUND
277 98-99 FED LOCAL LAW ENF BL GRT
284 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND
350 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
612 SEWER FUND
640 WATER FUND
TOTAL
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 21
PAGE 9
AMOUNT
54,501. 07
23.28
5,302.15
1,534.75
17,064.62
6,272.05
2,085.60
48,841. 53
3,316.66
1,516.62
140,458.33
9.b.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: LYNDA K. SNODGRASS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICEq
SUBJECT: ANNUAL REVIEW OF CITY INVESTMENT POLICY
DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council approve without changes the City of Arroyo
Grande Investment Policy.
FUNDING:
There is no funding involved with this policy review.
DISCUSSION:
Attached is the City's recommended Investment Policy, which was last reviewed
by the City Council on February 14, 1998. State law requires the treasurer or
chief fiscal officer of local governments to annually submit a statement of
investment policy to their governing body. In compliance with that State law, the
City's Investment Policy is presented for City Council review.
The City's Investment Policy authorizes only the more conservative investments,
requires monthly investment reports to City Council, and requires that the due
diligence of a "prudent person" be followed in the investment of City funds.
Outside of modifications to dates, the Investment Policy, presented at this time, is
the same policy that was approved February 24, 1998.
CIIT OF ARROYO GRANDE
INVESTMENT POLICY
FEBRUARY 23, 1999
Prepared by the Financial Services Department
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
mvesbnent Policy...................... ... ........................... ... ........ ...... ......... ..... ...................... ............1
mvesbnent Objective .............................................. ....... ....................... ........................ ...........1
Prudence Standard.................................................................................................................. 1
Areas of mvesbnent Policy:
I. Auth.orities, Control, and Care ........... ...................................... ...........................2
II. Portfolio Diversification
Eligible Financial mstitutions ...... ......................................... .........................3
Code Auth.orized mstruments and Portfolio Limitations......................... 3
City Placement Practice ........ .................................................... ......................4
ill. Cash Management and Maturities .......................................... .... ....................... 5
mvesbnent Reporting, Policy Review and Effective Policy Term ....................................6
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY
February 23,1999
INVESTMENT POLICY:
It is the policy of the City to invest public funds in a manner that will provide
maximum security, adequate liquidity, and sufficient yield, while conforming to all
statutes governing the investment of public funds.
INVESTMENT OBTECTNE:
The investment objective of the City of Arroyo Grande is to optimize the following
goals:
Security
Liquidity
Yield
Security of principal is the foremost objective of the City. Security means preserving
the safety of City monies, via credit-worthiness study of various depositories,
brokers, and issuers; insurance and collateral protection; and diversification of the
portfolio.
Liquidity means availability of money when needed. Liquidity of the investments
guarantees the City's ability to meet operating requirements.
Yield means the rate and amount of interest earned.
Optimization means striving to achieve a balance between all three objective goals.
Should a demand be perceived to prioritize the three goals, they are listed in
preferred order.
PRUDENCE STANDARD:
The standard of prudence to be used by the Financial Services Director/designee
shall be the "prudent person rule" and shall be applied in the context of managing
City investments. Persons acting in accordance with written procedures and
exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for a individual
investment loss, provided that deviations are reported in a timely fashion, and
appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments.
1
AREAS OF INVESTMENT POLICY
AUTHORITIES, CONTROL AND CARE:
A. The City currently invests only in the State Local Area Investment Fund. City
Manager approval shall be required prior to any other allowable investment vehicle
being utilized.
B. The Director of Financial Services has been authorized, via Resolutions #2260 and
#2261, to establish deposit and investment agreements and undertake
depositj investment transactions on behalf of the City of Arroyo Grande. The
Director of Financial Services may delegate to another official the individual
placement of monies in depositjinvestment transactions, but must review and
approve each one.
C. The Financial Services Department is responsible for implementing this policy,
and maintaining a system of internal control designed to prevent employee error
or imprudent actions, misrepresentation by parties to an investment agreement,
fraud, or unexpected changes in the financial market place.
State of California Government Code Sections 53600 et seq. 53683 and 16429.1
regulate the depositjinvestment activities of general law cities. See Sec. 53635
and 16429.1. Based upon the relatively small size of the City's portfolio,. the City
does not utilize a professional investment manager. Rather, Arroyo Grande's
investment program is simply a part of the City's financial management activity.
D. The Director of Financial Services (and any delegate) shall use good judgement
and care, as a "prudent person" would, when entering contracts for deposits and
investments, and when placing individual investment transactions. Such care is
that which would be exercised by a person concerning his/her own affairs; not
for speculation, but for safe investment and earned interest.
Some level of risk is present in any investment transaction, however. Losses could
be incurred due to market price changes, technical cash flow complications such as
the need to withdraw a non-negotiable Time Certificate of Deposit early, or even the
default of an issuer. To minimize such risks, diversification of the investment
portfolio by institution and by investment instruments will be used as much as is
practical and prudent.
2
PORTFOLIO DNERSIFICATION:
A. Eligible Financial Institutions:
Government Code Section 53635 distinguishes between "deposits" and
"invesbnents". It provides that "as far as possible" City monies shall be
"deposited" in State or National banks, or State or Federal savings and loan
associations; or may be "invested" in specified instruments. Thus, eligible
financial institutions would include:
1. Banks plus savings and loans, primarily for active demand deposits
(checking accounts and passbook savings) and inactive deposits (non-
negotiable Time Certificates), also for invesbnent instruments. See
Government Code Sec. 53638 for maximum deposit limitations for banks and
savings and loans, involving bank paid up capital and saving and loan net
worth.
2. Brokers and issuers, for various invesbnent instruments listed below.
B. Authorized Instruments and Portfolio Limitations as provided in Government
Code Section 53635 and 16429.1:
1. Bonds issued by the City of Arroyo Grande. No limit
2. U.s. Treasury Notes, bonds, bills, or other certificates of indebtedness. No
limit
3. California State registered notes, bonds, or warrants. No limit
4. Other local agencies within California, bonds, notes, warrants, or other
indebtedness. No limit
5. Bank issued obligations for Federal agencies as the Government National
Mortgage Association (GNMA'S), the Federal National Mortgage Association
(FNMA'S), and the Small Business Administration (SBA notes), etc. No limit
6. Bankers acceptances (bills of exchange or time drafts) drawn on and accepted
by a commercial bank, and which are eligible for purchase by the Federal
Reserve System. These are limited to 30 percent of the City's surplus funds,
and limited to 270-day maximum maturities.
7. Commercial paper of "prime" quality, as rated by Moody's Investor Service or
Standard and Poor's Corporation. These are limited to 15 percent of the
3
City's portfolio, and limited to 180-day maximum maturities, plus some other
qualifications.
8. Negotiable Certificates of Deposit, issued by either a National or State bank
or savings and loan. These are limited to 30 percent of the City's available
reserves.
9. Repurchase agreements or reverse repurchase agreements, whereby the seller
of securities will repurchase them on a specified date and for a specified
amount
10. Local Agency Investment Fund, State of California, per Government Code
Sec. 16429.1. Pooled monies of various agencies within California. Limit of
$20,000,000 account balance.
CITY PLACEMENT PRACTICE:
1. The following financial institutions will be used by the City of Arroyo
Grande, for non-negotiable Time Certificates of Deposit
a) Commercial banks having offices in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo
Counties, especially in the Five Cities area.
b) Savings and loans maintaining offices in San Luis Obispo County,
especially in the Five Cities area.
2. The State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (L.A.I.F.) will be
utilized, to pool current surplus City monies for demand deposit earnings.
3. For other investment instruments, three institutions may be selected from a
list of qualified primary dealers in government securities, which maintain
offices in the State of California.
4. Prior to establishing a contract for deposit of monies per Sec. 53649, or
placing an individual investment, the credit-worthiness of each financial
institution will be determined. As a minimum, the ratio of net worth (equity)
to total assets shall be 3.0% or more.
5. No more than 30% of the City's available surplus shall be placed with any
one financial institution (excluding the State L.A.I.F. and government agency
issues).
4
6. No more than 50% of the City's available surplus shall be placed with savings
and loan institutions.
7. The City, as authorized in Government Code Sections 53635 and 16429.1,
may use all deposit and invesbnent instruments; except repurchase and
reverse repurchase agreements shall not be used. However, non-negotiable
time certificates with commercial banks and savings and loans, plus
deposits in the State Local Agency Invesbnent Fund, will be the primary
instruments used by the City, along with possible U.s. Treasury bills and
bankers acceptances.
8. Collateral security on Certificates of Deposit will be provide in according to
Government Code Sections 53651and 53653 by the commercial banks and
savings and loans, at 110% when government securities are used, or at 150%
when promissory notes secured by 1st mortgages or 1st trust deeds on
improved residential real property located in California are used.
9. Individual placements of deposits and invesbnents will be made based upon
highest rate quotes, in most instances.
10. Within the context of any portfolio limitations and quoted rates, deposits
shall be distributed between institutions as evenly as practical or possible.
CASH MANAGEMENT AND MATURITIES:
A. A maximum invesbnent of all City monies, not needed to meet current cash flow
needs, will be maintained as closely as practical. A sufficient compensating
balance will also be provided, regarding the City's banking service agreement
B. All monetary resources will be pooled for invesbnent purposes, to maximize
interest earnings, which will be periodically allocated to the various funds of the
City based upon average cash balances at month ends. No interest will be
credited to individual accounts within the various funds.
C. Time deposits and invesbnents will be held to maturity, unless it is absolutely
necessary to withdraw a depositor sell an invesbnent early due to an unexpected
liability.
D. Maturities of deposits and invesbnents will be scheduled in such a manner as to
provide a steady stream (weekly) of available cash to meet a cash flow need. The
California State Local Agency Invesbnent Fund deposits of the City of Arroyo
Grande are available on a same-day /next-day telephone call basis.
5
INVESTMENT REPORTING, POLICY REVIEW AND
EFFECTIVE POLICY TERM
Government Code Section 53646 requires a report of earned interest be prepared following
each calendar quarter. On a sunset basis, the text was amended to be operative in its
revised form until January I, 1991 (through 12-31-90). At that time, the revised text is
repealed unless re-enacted or extended.
The amended, temporary text requires the Director of Financial Services to submit annually
to the City Council a statement of invesbnent policy. In addition, the temporary text
requires the Director of Financial Services to submit to the City Council a monthly report,
providing the following information:
A. Type of invesbnent.
B. Financial institution (bank, savings and loan, broker, etc).
C. Date of maturity.
D. Principal amount.
E. Rate of interest.
F. Current market value for all securities having a maturity of more than 12 months.
G. Detail of invesbnents in repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements.
H. Relationship of the monthly report to the annual statement of invesbnent policy.
The City of Arroyo Grande shall review and present to the City Council, pursuant to the
temporary text of Government Code Section 53646:
A. The current invesbnent policy with technical updates each year. This policy
generally will remain in force unchanged, unless significant requirements arise
necessitating change.
B. Monthly reports of invesbnents held on the last day of each month.
The City's independent certified public accountant shall review and make recommendations,
when appropriate, regarding the City of Arroyo Grande's invesbnent policy.
6
9.c.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9,1999
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.
There was no reportable action taken at the 7:00 p.m. Special Council Meeting.
2. FLAG SALUTE
Marilyn Vickers, Quota International of Five Cities
3. INVOCATION
Rabbi Norman Mendel, Congregation Beth David, San Luis Obispo
4. ROLL CALL
Council: ..lLLady ..lLFerrara -X-Runels ..lL Tolley ..lLDickens
STAFF PRESENT
X City Manager
X City Attorney
X City Clerk
X Chief of Police
X Director of Building and Fire
X Director of Community Development
X Director of Public Works
X Director of Parks and Recreation
X Director of Financial Services
_ Senior Consultant Engineer
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
a. Excellence Award - Children in Motion - Accepted by Parks and Recreation
Director Dan Hernandez and the program staff.
b. Recognition of the Arroyo Grande Valley Agricultural Lands Conservation
Workshop - Accepted by Ella Honeycutt of the Coastal Resource Conservation
District.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 9, 1999
c. Proclamation - "Spay Day USA" - Accepted by Barbara Wilkins of the Animal
Rescue Coalition Humane Society.
6. AGENDA REVIEW
City Manager Hunt said there were supplemental reports on Agenda Items 10.a.
and 11.b.
6.A. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES READ IN TITLE ONLY
Council Member Runels moved, Mayor Pro Tern Ferrara seconded, and the
motion passed unanimously that all resolutions and ordinances presented at the
meeting shall be read in title only and all further reading be waived.
7.A. PUBLIC HEARING-
None.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
The following members of the public spoke to the City Council:
Ms. Wilkins said there should be a "no kill" animal shelter in San Luis Obispo
County.
Charles Tenborg of 427 Plomo Court said the City should institute weekly green
waste pickup and the Council should resolve the matter at this meeting with no
increase in rates.
9. CONSENT AGENDA
Council Member Runels moved and Council Member Dickens seconded the
motion to approve Consent Agenda Items 9.a. through 9.i., with the recommended
courses of action.
Mayor Pro Tern Ferrara spoke about Consent Agenda Item 9.h. and asked Public
Works Director Spagnolo, in relation to the density or the layout of this tract map,
if the secondary road that cuts through Tract 1998 was to stall or not be approved
would the density or design of Tract 1834 be affected? Mr. Spagnolo said he did
not believe the road (Rosemary Lane) affects this project.
Council Member Tolley said he had a potential conflict of interest on the matter
and would not be speaking on or voting on Item 9.h.
2
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 9, 1999
Council Member Runels referred to Item 9.d. and said on Page 7 of the January
26, 1999 Minutes his name should be corrected to read "COUNCIL MEMBER
THOMAS A. RUNELS."
a. Cash Disbursement Ratification
b. Cash Flow Analysis/Approval of Interfund Advance From the Sewer Facility
Fund
c. Statement of Investment Deposits
d. Minutes of City Council Meetings of January 22 and January 26. 1999
e. Update of SLOCOG and SLORT A Joint Powers Agreements
f. Progress Payment #1 - Bedloe Lane Maintenance Project, Project No. 60-
90-98-3
g. Approval of Final Map - Tract 2197 (Armstrong)
h. Approval of Final Map - Tract 1834. Unit No.4
i. Appointment to Downtown Parking Advisory Board
_Voice Vote
LRoll Call Vote
~Lady
~Ferrara
Aye Runels
~ Tolley (Abstained on Item 9.h.)
Aye Dickens
There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed.
10. A. CONSIDERATION OF WEEKLY GREEN WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE
Staff recommendation:
1. Select a firm to provide weekly green waste collection service, based on
a review and comparison of the proposals submitted by RALCCO and
County Sanitary Service (Tri-City Disposal Service);
2. Direct staff to prepare necessary contracts, or contract amendments, for
Council review and approval; and
3. Conduct a public hearing on March 9, 1999 to consider a revised rate
structure for green waste collection.
Community Development Director Hamilton said Bill Worrell, manager of the San
Luis Obispo Integrated Waste Management Authority, was present to speak to the
3
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 9, 1999
Council. Mayor Lady said RALCCO and Bedford Enterprises had requested a
continuance of two weeks on this matter.
Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara said he would be willing to vote at this meeting on
establishing weekly green waste pickup and then decide in two weeks which
vendor should receive the recycling franchise. Council Members Runels,
Dickens, and Tolley agreed.
Mr. Worrell said instituting a variable can rate, which the City has done, and
weekly green waste pickup were the most effective ways to increase recycling.
Council Members discussed with Mr. Worrell the details of weekly green waste
pickup, how landscapers could be involved in the program, how to track what
green waste goes to the landfill, what is diverted, and the fact that Arroyo
Grande's diversion rate was hurt because the base rate was set in a drought year.
The following members of the public spoke to the Council on this matter:
Tom Martin of South County Sanitary Service said the City should implement
weekly green waste pickup immediately and not delay to another meeting the
decision on a firm to provide the service.
Ms. Honeycutt, 560 Oak Hill Road, spoke in favor of weekly pickup and said the
recyclers should provide pickup to people living on hills.
Michael Fuller, 131 Callie Court, said the City needs to be aggressive in solving
its diversion rate problem. He said there should be weekly pickup of green waste
and more incentive (a larger spread in the rates) should be built into the variable
can rate program.
Greg Shipley, agent for RALCCO & Bedford Enterprises, Inc., said he would like
more time to prepare a report on a green waste program involving the use of
construction and demolition waste.
Ron Kautz, 271 Tally Ho Road, spoke in favor of weekly green waste pickup.
Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara moved and Council Member Tolley seconded a motion to
adopt a policy of weekly green waste pickup and select a vendor for recycling at
the Council Meeting of February 23, 1999.
Voice Vote
lLRolI Call Vote
~Lady
~Ferrara
~Runels
~Tolley
4
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 9, 1999
~Dickens
There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed.
11. A. PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE
Staff comments and recommendation: Staff recommended Council approve the
City's updated Pavement Management Program. Public Works Director Spagnolo
said Valerie Beard of John Wallace and Associates was present to answer
questions about the program.
Council questions of staff: None
The following members of the public spoke to the Council on this matter: None
Council discussion:
Council Member Runels referred to Map 1, FY 1999-2000 and asked if blocking
(grouping of streets in close proximity for repair work) was planned?
Public Works Director Spagnolo said when construction begins, there will be
blocking.
Council Member Runels moved and Council Member Tolley seconded a motion to
approve the updated Pavement Management Program.
lL Voice Vote
Roll Call Vote
Aye Lady
Aye Ferrara
Aye Runels
Aye Tolley
Aye Dickens
There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed.
11.B. FISCAL YEAR 1998/99 MID-YEAR BUDGET STATUS REPORT
Staff comments and recommendations: Staff recommended Council:
1. Approve detailed budget adjustments and recommendations as shown
on Schedule B.
2. Approve (Deny) requests for additional appropriations in the General
Fund as detailed in the Funding Section below.
3. Approve addition of crossing guard at Harloe Elementary School.
4. Approve (Deny) funding of Community Requests and Policy Items as
presented on Schedule F.
5. Approve Schedules A through F included in the Mid-Year Status Report.
5
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 9, 1999
Director of Financial Services Snodgrass listed the purposes of the budget review
and summarized the key mid-year points. She said Jeanne Nix, Executive
Director of the Red Cross, and Clifford Clark of the South County Performing Arts
were present to speak to the Council.
Council questions of staff: None.
The following members of the public spoke to the Council on this matter:
Ms. Nix spoke of the need for the City to donate allocated money to the Red
Cross.
Mr. Clark, Bernie Kautz, and Gracie Bello asked for the City's support of the
proposed South County Performing Arts Center.
Council Discussion: There were Council questions concerning the bids on
constructing the Center and what items have been deleted; what the Council had
previously promised; what City costs would be in services; and where the item
would be paid for in the budget.
Council Members discussed whether or not the Performing Arts Center should be
funded. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara said he had strong reservations in light of other
needed items in City departments and the cost of infrastructure improvements.
Mayor Lady spoke of the benefits the Center would bring to the City such as
improved quality of life, sales taxes, and transient occupancy taxes paid by
tourists. He spoke of the benefits to youth and seniors and said the City should
abide by its agreement.
Council Members began voting on Policy Items they supported.
It was moved by Council Member Dickens and seconded by Council Member
Tolley to approve the detailed budget adjustments and recommendations as
shown on Schedule B.
_Voice Vote
X Roll Call Vote
Aye Lady
Aye Ferrara
Aye Runels
Aye Tolley
Aye Dickens
There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed.
6
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 9, 1999
It was moved by Council Member Dickens and seconded by Council Member
Tolley to approve requests for additional appropriations in the General Fund as
detailed in the Funding Section and approve addition of a crossing guard at
Harloe Elementary School.
Voice Vote
-X Roll Call Vote
Aye Lady
Aye Ferrara
Aye Runels
Aye Tolley
Aye Dickens
There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed.
Council Member Tolley moved and Council Member Runels seconded the motion
to approve an allocation of $10,000 to the South County Performing Arts Center.
Voice Vote
X Roll Call Vote
Aye Lady
No Ferrara
Aye Runels
Aye Tolley
Aye Dickens
There being 4 AYES and 1 NO, the motion is hereby declared to be passed.
Council Members discussed various policy items in which they were interested.
Council Member Tolley said he would like to discuss in greater detail at FY 1999-
2000 budget time the Policy Item on Page R-2 concerning Fire Department
captains.
After hearing from the Community Development Director about funding a Code
Enforcement Officer, it was moved by Mayor Pro Tern Ferrara and seconded by
Council Member Tolley to fund a Code Enforcement Officer for $18,000, and do a
cost benefit analysis for next fiscal year.
Voice Vote
-X Roll Call Vote
Aye Lady
Aye Ferrara
7
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 9, 1999
No Runels
Aye Tolley
Aye Dickens
There being 4 AYES and 1 NO, the motion is hereby declared to be passed.
Council Member Tolley moved and Mayor Lady seconded a motion to approve an
allocation of $500 to the Red Cross.
Voice Vote
-X. Roll Call Vote
Aye Lady
Aye Ferrara
Aye Runels
Aye Tolley
Aye Dickens
There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed.
Mayor Pro Tem said with regard to the Economic Vitality Corporation, the City
should wait until the General Plan Update is completed to give further monies to
the EVC.
Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara moved and Council Member Tolley seconded the motion
to postpone allocation of an additional $5,000 to the EVC and review the matter
at the end of 1999 (FY 1998-99 third budget quarter).
Voice Vote
-X. Roll Call Vote
Aye Lady
Aye Ferrara
Aye Runels
Aye Tolley
Aye Dickens
There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed.
Council Member Tolley moved and Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara seconded a motion to
approve Schedules A through F included in the Mid-Year Status Report.
Voice Vote
L Roll Call Vote
8
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 9, 1999
Aye Lady
Aye Ferrara
Aye Runels
Aye Tolley
Aye Dickens
There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed.
11.C. FISCAL YEAR 1999-00 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES AND
CALENDAR
Staff Comments and recommended action: Staff recommended Council:
1. Approve the Budget Development Guidelines for the preparation of the
Fiscal Year 1999-00 Preliminary Base Budget; and,
2. Approve the attached calendar for the development and review of the
Fiscal Year 1999-00 Preliminary Base Budget.
Council questions of staff: None.
The following members of the public spoke to the Council on this matter: None.
Council discussion: Council Members said they strongly approved the budget
work done by the City Manager and Financial Services Director.
Council Member Runels moved and Council Member Dickens seconded the
motion to approve the staff recommendations.
Voice Vote
lL Roll Call Vote
Aye Lady
Aye Ferrara
Aye Runels
Aye Tolley
Aye Dickens
There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed.
12. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Council Member Tolley proposed and there was Council consensus to direct staff
to investigate the benefits and drawbacks of changing Branch Street from a State
Highway to a City-maintained street. Staff was directed to develop maintenance
costs, options, and the legal authority to change.
9
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 9, 1999
Mayor Lady gave Council Members a staff report and resolution from the City of
Santa Maria regarding issues of retaining non-taxable sales percentages in "big
box" stores. He asked Council Members to review the documents and said Chris
Ivey would be in touch with them to explain the issue.
13. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
None.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Council Member Tolley moved, Mayor Lady seconded, and the motion passed
unanimously to adjourn the meeting.
Time: 10:08 p.m.
MICHAEL A LADY, MAYOR
NANCY A. DAVIS, CITY CLERK
10
9.d.
MEMORANDUM
CITY COUNCIL
TERRY FIBICH, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND FIR4
SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID TO SPECTRUM PAINTING FOR PAINTING OF
GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS IN THE CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
FEBRUARY 23, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Council approve the award of bid to Spectrum Painting in
the amount of $23,156 to paint the government buildings in the Civic eenter
Complex.
FUNDING:
The adopted FY1998/99 Government Buildings Budget contains $25,000 for the
painting of the Civic eenter Complex buildings.
DISCUSSION:
On November 10, 1998, Council authorized staff to solicit bids for the painting of
the interior and exterior of the Government Buildings in the Civic Center Complex
(City Hall, Council ehambers, Engineering Building, and Building & Life Safety
Building.) The structures were last painted in 1990. The present condition of the
paint is unacceptable in appearance and durability. Three companies were
solicited for bids and three bids were submitted.
The following vendors provided bids:
Spectrum Painting, Pismo Beach
Quality Painting, Grover Beach
Douglas Ingham Painting, Arroyo Grande
$23,156
$30,720
$52,165
The low bid of Spectrum Painting is $1,844 less than the budgeted amount of
$25,000.
If approved, the project will begin March 1, 1999, and conclude June 30, 1999.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 <Xl 0 0 II) 0 0 N N .., N
(J) N <Xl ....... CD ...... .., <Xl ...... 0 ......
-.i -.i <'i ..; <D <'i <'i N ui 0
...... .... M
(J) tit
W
U
~
w
(J)
t
z
w
(.!)
c::
w (J) an ...... an CD 0 an an 0 0 CD
~ Oi ...... ...... C') 0 0 ...... N an an an
w ...... 0 eo II) an ...... q ......0 M ....
-.i <'i <'i N M <'i N as M
o/S .... N
W tit
c::
u::
.:.:
z
w
:E
~
c(
a.
w
Q
0 an 0 0 an an 0 an 0 0 an
eo ;1i <Xl ...... 0) <Xl C;; N an .... CD
<Xl ...... eo "':. <Xl C') <Xl M ....
~ <D <D -.i <'i .... as -.i -.i N 0 N
...... M N an
tit
<t
w:E
C:E
z::::)
~(I)
C)~
~~
0::::)
O::...J
o::~
<tW
LLZ
00
~i=
-<t
01-
0
::::) U) U)
a (!) (!)
~ ~
Q .,.J
:::! :5
;:)
!Xl !Xl
ffi ffi
'"
'" Gi
Gi
(,) (,)
(,) ~
(J) 50:
(J) 0 (j (j
(J) z ~
...... ::::> (J) ~ ~ ~
oj ...J Z
~ .?;- .?;-
~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
:r: ~ ro j:: ro
<( j:: l!1 .2 (J) l!1 .2 (J)
::::> t ~ Q) :c ~ ~ Q) :c ~
c:: 0 .0 ::l : .0 ::l
CD Z ::::> : E a. :::i E a. :::i
w <( 0 ro C, '0 ~ ro C, '0
U. Z Z ~ .s::: c: c: .s::: c: c: N
U 'C: ro S U 'C: ro iii 0
w Iii Q) Cl i2 Iii Q) Cl 0
Q 1= it '0 Q) c: 'G Q) c: '0 --
:r: c: 0 ~ :r: c:
~ c: 32 - c: 32 - .....
w >= a: .?;- ::l 00 ,g .?;- ::l 00 ,g 0
It:: ~ 0 c: 'S ::l 0 c: 'S ::l 0
c( II! 3: C3 u w CD l1) C3 u w CD l1) I
a. Q ()
W w :it
It:: It:: N C') .., N C') ..,
a. c( o~
w a.
!;( w
It:: 0
Q a. a..
9.e.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT:
DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER r/f6
AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF A
UTILITY SERVICE BODY
DATE:
FEBRUARY 23, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Council authorize staff to solicit bids for the purchase of a
utility service body for the new utility truck, for the Public Works Department, Utility
Division.
FUNDING:
Funding for this service body is included in the FY 1998/99 Water Distribution Division
Budget in the amount of $18,000.
DISCUSSION:
The purchase of the new 2 ton utility truck was authorized by the Council on September
22, 1998. This purchase replaced a 1985 Dodge 1 ton truck. The City took delivery of
the replacement truck in December. The next step is to have a custom utility body
fabricated and installed on the truck chassis.
Staff has specified the body design which will meet the needs of the Department. The
service body includes steel cabinets, tool boxes, working platform, pipe rack, and a
hydraulic hoist. There are additional electronic accessories such as a traffic control
arrow stick, emergency strobe light and night spot lights. There will also be a hydraulic
tool system to power jackhammers and pumps.
Attachments: Bid Notice
Vendor Bid List
PUBLIC WORKS
P.O. Box 550
208 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
Phone: (80S) 473-5440 Engineering
FAX: (80S) 473-5443
WUy 0/
~~~
1375 Ash Street
Phone: (80S) 473-5460 Corp. Yard
FAX: (805) 473-5462
E-Mail: agcity@arroyogrande.org
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
BID NOTICE
FEBRUARY 24, 1999
The City of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department is requesting bid proposals for
one new utility service body, which meets the following specifications.
UTILITY SERVICE BODY SPECIFICATIONS
The body shall be installed on a 19991suzu NPR HD Diesel Truck, 14,500 GVWR, with
a body length of12 ft. (109 WB), and an inside rail fuel tank.
SERVICE BODY:
The body shall be fabricated and installed per the attached drawings. The body
construction shall have the following features.
. 12 GA. Diamond Plate floor
. 14 GA. Galvanized Steel body panels
· 10 GA. Steel Crossmembers, with 2 full body length sills
. Exterior fuel filler
. Front splash guards
· Lock-in place shelving adjustable on 2" centers
. Adjustable steel dividers on 4" centers
· Recessed polished stainless steel "T" handle pocket on doors
. Three point latching mechanism
. One piece neoprene gaskets
. Self lubricating nylon hinge bushings
. Rain gutters above all doors
. Tailgate shall be double panel construction
· Flip top lids shall have dual self-supporting pneumatic lid risers
· Full length interlocking weather proof hinge
ACCESSORIES/OPTIONS
. Oxygen/Acetylene bottle compartment perdrawing
. Over cab rack for pipe. Rack shall pivot to allow cab to be raised.
· Electric-Hydraulic Truck Crane Venturo Model ET5500 5 ~ - 9ft. boom or approved
equal.
. Combination Ball hitch Pintle Hook. Buyers part No. BH8 2000, with Draw Tite
Receiver.
. Trailer Light connection point
HYDRAULIC TOOL CIRCUIT
The Truck shall have a hydraulic tool circuit to power hydraulic jackhammers, pumps,
impact wrench etc.
HYDRAULIC TOOL CIRCUIT SPECIFICATIONS:
. The tool circuit shall be a closed system.
. The system shall be capable of 8-12 gpm @ 2,000 psi.
. The circuit shall have a PTO designed to mount to the transmission, AISIN 450-
43LE Auto 4 Speed with lock up 2nd and 4th PTO ready.
The circuit components shall consist of the following:
1 ) Pump
2) Relief Valve
3) Flow Control
4) Hydraulic Fluid Reservoir
5) Selector
6) Suction Strainer
7) Filter Assembly
8) Cooler
9) Retractable hose reel
10) 30' of 3,000 psi. hose
. The hose reel shall be mounted in rear compartment on the street side. The flow
control valve shall be located in the rear compartment on the curb side.
BODY PAINT
. The service body paint shall be resistant to the exposure of fuels and chemicals,
and resist the signs of abrasion and impact.
. The body finish color shall be white to match the cab color.
All proposals shall include all applicable taxes and delivery charges. All proposals shall
be sealed and on company letterhead with the envelope marked "Utility Truck Body".
Please submit your sealed bid to:
City of Arroyo Grande
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
Attn: Nancy Davis, Director of Administrative Services
Bid proposals must be received by 2:00 P.M. March 11, 1999. Bids will be opened at that
time at the City of Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers, located at 215 East Branch
Street, Arroyo Grande, California. The City of Arroyo Grande reserves the right to accept
or reject any or all bids upon recommendation of the City Manager.
If you have any questions, please contact Shane Taylor, Public Works Supervisor, at (805)
473-5464.
VENDOR BID LIST
1) Industrial Truck Bodies
1701 North River Rock Court, Unit C
Santa Maria, CA 93454
2) Douglas Truck Bodies, Inc.
231 21 st Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
3) California Truck Equipment Co.
12351 Bellflower Boulevard
Downey, CA 90242
4) Scelzi Enterprises, Inc.
2772 South Cherry Avenue
Fresno, CA 93706
0::
8
-'
U.
III
U
a:
o
~
"
UJ
rr
~
ll5
g
Ul
~
Iii
~
,
"
"
W :r:
o t:>
~ -
:r:
""
M ld
"" ""
1,..'
C"'4 :,;
~
I-
o
CD
I-
Z
W
~
I-
0::
<(
0...
~
o
u
W
..--1
l-
I-
a
OJ
w
';;(
:l
~
~
1
0..
o
0:
o
~
U
W
o
~
0:::
~
a..
o
:J
I. O~
n zZ
<W
<D ::ii
Cl. :!w
0 ll::U
~ Oll::
u..O W
Cl. ~~
::J ~
u.. Cl.W t.')
ll:: ...J >-
W ~ ll::
Z 0
c( Z u..
ll:: ~
U I
Cl.
0 0-
0::: 0:::
0 ~
0:
irJ
co
N
9.f.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
NANCY A. DAVIS~COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY
COMMITTEE CHAIR 1JtjJJ
REQUEST TO PURCHASE BUDGET ITEMS
COMPUTERS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL AND CITY
MANAGER
SUBJECT:
DATE:
FEBRUARY 23, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
The Computer Technology Committee recommends the purchase from
Computer Discount Warehouse/Government of six IBM ThinkPad i1411 laptop
computers in the amount of $9,830.00, including network hardware, cases, and
shipping for the City Council and City Manager.
FUNDING:
Funding is available in the FY 1998-99 City Management Information System
(MIS) budget, specifically for this purchase.
DISCUSSION:
Funds were allocated in the FY 1998-99 MIS budget for the six (6) laptop
computers to provide access to the City's Computer Network, which was installed
earlier this month. The computers also will allow immediate communication
among the City eouncil, City Manager, Department Directors, and the public via
E-mail and will allow the Council to access City information including staff
reports, ordinances, resolutions, and other City information from remote sites.
In addition, the purchase of the computers will be the first step in establishing a
"paperless City Council agenda," whereby the Agenda will be entered into the
computer system for the Council to access.
Also in the FY 1998-99 budget are funds for training the Council and staff in
using the software program that will allow for communication (E-mail) with City
staff and the public.
After establishing bid specifications for this purchase, price quotations were
solicited by the City's Computer Technician Steve Doerr on Toshiba 330 COT
Page 2
Laptop and a IBM ThinkPad i1411. All quotations conform to the City's
Computer Policy A-017 (attached). The following quotations were received:
. PC Zone, Internet Website, IBM
. IBM Direct, Internet Website, IBM
. CDW/G, Vernon, Illinois, IBM $9,180.00
. Circuit City, Santa Maria, TOSHIBA
. Shopping.COM, Internet Website, TOSHIBA
. TOSHIBA, Internet Website, TOSHIBA
$9,594.00
$9,594.00
$9,000.00
$8,874.00
$9,000.00
Mr. Doerr recommended the purchase of the IBM laptops because of the
following:
. The IBM is faster having a 300 megahertz clock speed compared to the
Toshiba's 266 megahertz.
. The IBM has a faster CD Rom.
. The IBM has a larger hard drive.
. IBM offers more support services.
The cost breakdown for the six (6) computers is as follows:
TOTAL
$9,180.00
300.00
50.00
300.00
$9,830.00
. Laptop Computers (6)
. Network Hardware (ethernet cards)
. Shipping
. Cases (6)
Alternatives
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
. Approve staff's recommendation;
. Do not approve staff's recommendation;
. Modify as appropriate and approve staffs recommendation;
. Provide direction to staff.
..
,fJ
~
!
).4
td
~
Q
d..
:>. ~
).4
-8 I
a tIJ rr
'II a-
t.4 ~ ,
e 0...,..
0 ort .
~ ,
~ ~ rtt
~ ...
.., td
< ,> ..
'104 III "C
0 ., ..
8 ).4 >.
>. III CQ
+' :j t "
ooof td t.4 C)
tJ ., ~ ~
0 III
g ., t
04-1
., ).4
Q ,:l..
m
8
:j
If
+'
0
~
11 01
8 t)
:j 8
l! -&
0 Q)
::J ....
0 4)
lot
C ......
-l
., II
+' .Q
-P1 )0.1
~ :
Ii tG 'd HH'
., + ,\.
i ~~ ~G)
f .:J~ ~ cQ
-
,. o t.4 ~
III ~ tL ..~ c;: *
~ ~ J
t.4 ~
. B
... ~ ..
.... ~ G) ~
8: a .... 04-10
~ .... .... \(\
=' u ~.t
foG -
I 1 ~ ~ .
"'8
-+ .3.... ~
liS o 104 f2'i"
III fi ~ "Dc <9- *
..
t.4 1: ,.
I) 'E
... cr"
.... ~ G) $
8: loo\ .,0
.~~
=' 8~ .-
(t)
; ~ ~
+ .... ~
:L~
.. o ... \~ Clr
~ ~ .
81 So4~ cs- *
~ 1 ')
.... t3 ~
.,
... C) 9.
~
8: &.. r- +'0 ~
.... ....
c:s Bt
foG -
~
. ....
0 ~
.
e ~ t.4
8 .t' -8
.... t "C ....
.g os 04-1 ..9 ....
C) ~ a 0
! .... II ~
. ~ g 0
E-t Cl
~
t 0..
.~
- .:;q G)
- -I i
8 -:r
.- lli'.
...-
i Q) III
IcJ Ii 8
..!J ~ t)t() 104
.... r+'J J \- (!'" G) '104
.... '< 8 t4 IW
I <<'l ~ ~ ~ ~ 0601
.... ~
\=- ... +' a
~ . Q ., g
')( ". ~ ...
~, j .- 4- 0
r:r co< -
.9 & III >.
~ t:"'I &J) - .... ....
0 . ~
.... m
I . If.c ..-1
~ at 0 ....
~o o . · 4)
ON ...ra fu aJ..o
6 G 8L G LL 90 8== -~d L : V -666 l . V .
('II
o
o
...
o
o
I
tJ
..
..
~
.r!
....
o
qe~ ~
------ -~~---- ---~-
! ~8 -t~
""'....
115 o W
III ..~ l5"" <<I)-
.. ~
~
. - ~
0004 .j
~ G) CS""
8: .~ ~o
00040004 ~
.. 0 a Sol
oiJ CQ O~ .,.,..
J ...., "t
w .so "'7
II ~....
0.. o ... i
G) ..~ ~
Q
It) (b
....0
.pt 0004
>. g~
Sol
lIS
-8 ! +
a ~I) ti'
lIS .,0
... A~ j oiJorf 1 <t
0 o Sol
~7 fot~
0 ~ .
~ CIS~ ... ..... ~
e
.ol s:s .... -
....
M lIS .... ,
flC ~ .. 8: ""'0
" orf .pt
'M I) .. 0 eM
0 ~ CQ O~ ,-
S 104
:>, lIS
.... :j t " +>
.pt ~ ... G) ....
u .
~ 104 0 ~
0 CIS lIS
::s G) ~
0 ~ t) ~
II W 8 ~ ...
Q ~ -8
'" '8. "tS orf ~
.g .! ~ 104
e s:l 0
III ! .... 0 lIS '+-4
8 . 0 0 0
Eoe Ot 01
or! ~
oiJ 0..
C ..;
~ 4)
0 i
::3 6
II) or ClI:
S ore ~ III
e ~ ~ B 8 N
~ 8 0.
.pt GI Sol 0
~ '! '" . 1t ~ t ~ () 8 fot l4-4 0
t) ~
0 ~-J.. lD J. 0 .pt ~ B r-l
g I) Q ~ a - .IJ a 0
G) \II 0 u ~ cd 8 orf 0
~ ~ ?' 'J!. ~ E-t I
i ,. ~ 0 t) u
i..t .Q 0 0 II e-
.fJ :3 Ot 0004 ..
..-
.... 0 . G) ....
.pt '" '1 .... .~ ~ >t
104 ~~ I . Ilf ~ · I:)
~ .fJ lD 0 .... ....
....0 o II u:. ~ .-I
'If 8 'd. HH'oN Hrz 6ZU ZLL 908 ~d28: vO.666l 0
n 'qaj ~
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
POLICY #: A-017
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY AND PROCEDURES
SUBJECT: COMPUTER POLICY
ISSUED: 02/10/98
EFFEeTIVE: 02/10/98
CANeELLATION DATE: N/A
SUPERSEDES: 01/13/97
POLICY:
It shall be the policy of the eity of Arroyo Grande to protect data, information, computer
programs, and hardware that are the property of the City of Arroyo Grande from
unauthorized access, data loss, andlor corruption. (Council Approved 2-27-96)
PROCEDURE:
1. All computer data hardware and software in City facilities shall be the property of
the City of Arroyo Grande and used on City property for business purposes only,
unless prior consent from the eity Manager is obtained.
2. Prior to using any computer, consent from the person assigned the computer
should be obtained. There may be proprietary information on the computer.
3. All software run on eity computer systems shall be verified free of computer
virus, including software that has been commercially obtained. A virus-checking
program is recommended for checking disks before running them.
4. All computers shall use quality U.A. Approved surge protectors or a better
solution such as an uninterrupted power supply battery-backup system.
5. Hard drives shall be optimized on a quarterly basis to reorganize the data in a
logical sequence.
6. Backups shall be done on a routine basis.
7. Employees should be aware that any information contained in City-controlled
computer systems may be subject to public release under the California Public
Records Act and the federal Freedom of Information Act. This includes
information of a personal nature or rough drafts that employees may have in a
system or on individual computer hard drives. Information not required to be kept
under the Public Records Act shall be removed from the computer hard disks.
Revised: May 1,1998
POLICY #: A-017
PAGE 2
8. Use of copyrighted software without proper authorization or possession of the
software license is strictly forbidden.
9. Department Directors or their designees shall act as computer systems
administrators for their departments. Department computer systems shall be
compatible with other Departments' systems. When new equipment is added to
the Department, the Director shall decide where the new equipment shall be
placed within the Department.
10. Replacement Equipment - When equipment is replaced Within a department, the
Computer Technology Committee shall make the decision as to where and how
the old (replaced) equipment shall be utilized within the City.
11. Computer files two years old or more shall be archived (transferred from the hard
drive to diskettes) yearly at the close of the fiscal year.
12. The City reserves the right to monitor computer systems for any reason,
including the right to review, audit and disclose all matters sent over and/or
stored in the systems.
13. Employees shall be required to sign a form acknowledging that they have read,
understood, and will abide by the eity's Computer Policy A-017.
14. Computer Technology Committee - The City Computer Technology Committee
will consist of a member from each City Department. The committee will meet at
least monthly to discuss computer hardware, software, and training issues
citywide. The committee will review all proposed purchases to ensure that
proposed hardware and software comply with eity standards.
15. Hardware/Software Standards:
The PC hardware specifications below should be viewed as minimums for new
purchases. Departments may find it necessary to exceed these specifications on
certain individual machines subject to City Manager approval.
I. Hardware (standard)
A. All computers will be IBM compatible (Le., using
80486/P5/etc CPU)
B. Case to be of full-tower design unless location of installation
mandates deck-top design. Computers to be used as file
servers may be mini-tower or larger, as needed.
C. CPU to be 133MHz or faster
POLICY #: A-017
PAGE 3
D. 16MB RAM (60 ns or faster); preferred that motherboard
should accept both 32 and 70 pin SIMMS
E. SVGA video card with 1 MB RAM
F. SVGA monitor (.28mm dot, non-interlaced), 15" screen
G. Mouse, Microsoft compatible
H. Two serial and one parallel 110 port
I. Enhanced (104+) keyboard
J. 1.2GB or larger hard drive recommended for non-networked
computers. Hard drives in networked servers to be
determined based on desired usage
K. one 3.5" 1.44 MB floppy drive
L. 8x CD-ROM drive
II. Hardware (supplemental)
A. Modem: external, V34 (plus V32N32b) compatible
B. Sound card: 16 bit (Sound Blaster compatible, with speakers
included) (optional)
e. Printer: none specifically recommended. Inkjet and
bubblejet printers offer good quality, low noise, and speed
for their price (purchasing and upkeep). HP Laserjet (model
III or better) should be considered for high-volume and multi-
user printers.
III. Hardware (Notebook Computers)
A. 100 MHz
B. Fax Modem
e. 3.5" Drive
D. Dual-scan screen
E. 8x eo ROM
F. 1 GB hard drive
POLICY #: A-017
PAGE 4
IV. Software
A. Universal (standard for all machines)
1. MS-DOS 6.2 (or greater)
2. Access to anti-viral software
B. Windows environment
1. Windows 3.11 (or greater) - should come installed on all
new computers without additional cost.
2. MicroSoft Office, Professional version - should come
installed on all new computers.
3. WordPerfect 6.0 (or greater) may be used.
C. DOS environment
1. WordPerfect (either 5.1+ or 6.0) may be used.
2. Optional- Telix (version 3.22 or greater) - recommended
communications program for use with single-user
modems - Citywide site licensing should be explored.
16. E-Mail Policies
A. E-Mail is a means to enhance communications for business purposes
only. All employees are encouraged to use E-Mail as a tool for fulfilling
their assigned duties.
B. The City will not tolerate improper use, such as messages that are
derogatory, defamatory, obscene, or otherwise inappropriate or unrelated
to business. Violation of the policy may result in discipline, up to and
including dismissal.
C. Employees shall be aware of the fact that deletion of a message or file
may not fully eliminate the message from the system.
D. Employees shall be aware of the fact that, under some circumstances,
communications sent by E-Mail may be subject to disclosure under the
Public Records Act or litigation.
E. Every effort shall be made to respond to E-Mail communications from the
public within 24 hours Monday through Friday. Inter-departmental
communications shall be answered within 8 hours Monday through Friday.
POLICY #: A-017
PAGE 5
17. Network Policies
A. The loading of software onto the file servers shall be restricted activity.
Only authorized MIS personnel will perform this function.
B. Each network user shall be assigned hislher own unique log-in user name
and log-in user password. The names and passwords should not be
shared with anyone in order not to compromise the integrity of the
network.
e. Each of the file servers is configured with an automated tape backup
system, and shall be available for recovery from catastrophic failure of the
network and for the restoration of individual files or documents that might
have been inadvertently deleted. While each of the file servers are
protected, data stored on the local "e" drives of individual PCs shall be
protected by performing a local diskette backup. This is the responsibility
of each individual PC user.
D. The fundamental document transfer policy shall require that as long as an
individual is working on a document, that document is in his/her control
and shall exist in no other electronic form anywhere else in the eity. Once
the individual electronically transfers a document to another, either for
correction, approval, review, or any other purpose, then the one and only
copy of the document shall be transferred. A copy shall not be retained on
either the 10cal"C" drives or within an individual's personal directory on the
network. This policy is intended to prevent the problems associated with
"version" confusion.
18. Remote Access Policies
A. The eity shall provide members of the Arroyo Grande City Council and
designated staff with laptop computers, modems, and software for
accessing eity Hall, as funds become available. Printing to the network
printer at eity Hall will be available; the eity will not support home printing.
B. Training on eity applications and remote access to the eity Hall network
, shall be provided to the Council Members and staff.
e. At the end of the eouncil Members' term of office or employees'
employment with the City, the computer equipment and software shall be
returned to the City.
POLICY #: A-017
PAGE 6
D. Council Members and staff shall abide by the Brown Act, Council Policies
and Procedures, and the eity's General Computer, E-Mail, Network, and
Remote Access Policies.
E. Remote access modem lines shall have security systems to prevent
unauthorized access to City computer systems.
~L.J-ttw-)
ROBERT L. HUNT
CITY MANAGER
POLICY #: A-017
PAGE 7
AGREEMENT TO COMPUTER POLICY
All staff members of the City of Arroyo Grande assigned a computer are responsible for
seeing that the eomputer Policy A-017 is followed. Computers are tools to be used in
an effective, efficient, ethical, and lawful manner. Violations of this policy will be dealt
with in the same manner as violations of other eity policies and may result in a
disciplinary review. In addition, violation of some of the above policies may constitute a
criminal offense under the California Penal Code and/or Federal Law.
I have read the City of Arroyo Grande General Computer Policy A-017 and agree to the
terms of its use. I understand and accept the consequences that may result from
violations of this policy.
Employee's Name (Please Print)
Employee's Signature
Date
9.g.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER ~
CITY CORPORATION YARD FUEL FACILITY REPLACEMENT PLAN,
CITY PROJECT NO. 80-98-1, PROGRESS PAYMENT NO.1
FEBRUARY 23, 1999
SUBJECT:
DATE:
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Council authorize payment in the amount of $4,590 to
Remedial Management Corporation for the City Corporation Yard Fuel Facility
Replacement Plan capital improvement project.
FUNDING:
On August 25, 1998, the Council awarded the City Corporation Yard Fuel Facility
Replacement Plan construction contract to Remedial Management Corporation in the
amount $135,165 and authorized a contingency of $2,435 to be used for unanticipated
costs during the construction phase of the project.
DISCUSSION:
An Application for Progress Payment No. 1 was received from Remedial Management
Corporation for work completed between September 1, 1998, and February 4, 1999, for
the City eorporation Yard Fuel Facility Replacement Plan project. This Application for
Progress Payment is for the costs the Contractor incurred at the beginning of the project
in obtaining required permits, bond fees, and initial mobilization.
The current contract end date is April 1, 1999, which is 45 calendars days from the date
the contract-specified tanks became available.
jep: 232.5401\rec\prog.pay.1.wpd
APPLICATION FOR PROGRESS PAYMENT NO.1
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL DATE: FEBRUARY 23,1999
CONTRACT DATE:
SUBMITTED TO:
CONTRACT NO:
CONTRACT FOR:
CITY ACCOUNT NO:
September 16,1998
City of Arroyo Grande
80-98-1
City Corporation Yard Fuel Facility Replacement Plan
350-5401-7001 = $4,590.00; 350-5401-7201 = $0.00
9-Feb-99
1:00 PM
FOR THE WORK ACCOMPLISHED BY REMEDIAL MANAGEMENT CORP, FROM:
Sept. 1, 1998 TO:
Feb. 4, 1999
CONTRACTOR'S schedule of Values WORK COMPLETED
NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT
1. Permitting, Bond Fees, Engineering, Project $ 16,446.00 1 LS $ 16,446.00 31% $ 5,100.00
Management, Procurement, Mobilization,
Trucks, & Transportation
2. Tank Removal $ 21,246.00 1 LS $ 21,246.00 0% $ -
3. Equipment/Hardware $ 35,798.00 1 LS $ 35,798.00 0% $ -
4. Tank Installation $ 16,834.00 1 LS $ 16,834.00 0% $ -
5. Piping and Electrical (Materials and Installation) $ 20,845.00 1 LS $ 20,845.00 0% $ -
6. Resurfacing $ 6,579.00 1 LS $ 6,579.00 0% $ -
7. Vent Pipe, Provide and Install $ 1,165.00 1 LS $ 1,165.00 0% $ -
8. General Construction Items $ 10,252.00 1 LS $ 10,252.00 0% $ -
9. 50 Cubic Yards of Soil Disposal $ 6,000,00 1 LS $ 6,000.00 0% $ -
$ 135,165.00 TOTAL $ 5,100.00
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS: Estimated Total % Billed Amount Paid
TOTAL I $ - I PAID I $ -
NOTES:
ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT
TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS
ADJUSTED CONTRACT AMOUNT
TOTAL VALUE OF WORK PERFORMED TO DATE
LESS 10% RETAINAGE
LESS AMOUNTS PAID
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE THIS APPLICATION
$135,165.00
$0.00
$135,165.00
$5,100.00
($510.00)
$0.00
$4,590.00
ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTATION:
Invoice #7385, dated 02105/99 from
Remedial Management Corporation
CONTRACT START DATE
ORIGINAL CONTRACT DAYS
PREVIOUS ADJUSTMENTS
ADJUSTMENTS THIS PERIOD
ADJUSTED CONTRACT DAYS
ADJUSTED CONTRACT END DATE
February 15, 1999
45
o
o
45
April 1 , 1999
CONTRACTOR'S ACCEPTANCE:
Dated ?~6' /5, / j ;1;;
, of 1999.
Payment of the above AMOUNT DUE THIS APPLICATION is recommended:
Dated: I3it. /7 . ,of 1999.
Dated:
, of 1999.
Send payment to:
Sherwin Abidi
Remedial Management Corporation
2900 Bristol Street, Suite G-2Q8
Costa Mesa, California 92626
(714) 445-9240
5#cr~~/Ai ~ /98/.0/
/?/!!.weD/,,:)L '+?-4,v~t!ffIEPpr.dr Q~.
By ~-:~~:"ogo~~~.
-- Sign re
By)J;rnr~
nature
City Manager
By:
Signature
jep:232.5401\pay1.xls
~
REMEDIAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
CONSTRUCTORS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
General Engineering Lie, No. 658338
INVOICE
City of Arroyo Grande
Public Works Department
P. O. Box 550
208 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
Date:
RMC Job No.:
Project Mgr.:
Invoice No.:
05-Feb-98
6549
s. Abidi
7385
Attention: Mr. Don Spagnolo
Project No.:
80-98-1
City Corporate Yard Fuel Tank Replacement
Service Description: Procurement, Bonds, and Project Management.
Dates of service:
September 1, 1998 through February 4, 1999
Contract Percent Previously Amount This Total Billed Balance
]tmO'.l~t c: Ccm~l,:;tcd. Billed To Date Remainin
permitting, Bond Fees, Engineering,
Project Management, Procurement,
Mobilization, Trucks & Transportation
$16,446.00
$0.00
$5,100.00
$11,346.00
50 Cubic Yards of Soil Disposal
$21,246.00 $0.00 $0.00 $21,246.00
$35,798.00 $0.00 $0.00 $35,798.00
$16,834.00 $0.00 $0.00 $16,834.00
$20,845.00 $0.00 $0.00 $20,845.00
$6,579.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,579.00
$1,165.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,165.00
$10,252.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10,252.00
$6,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,000.00
Tank Removal
Equipment/Hardware
Tank Installation
piping and Electrical
(Materials and Installation)
Resurfacing
Vent Pipe, Provide and Install
General construction Items
Contract Amount
$135,165.00
Amount previously Billed
Total this Invoice
Total Amount Billed Against Contract
$0.00
$5,100.00
$5,100.00
Amount Remaining on Contract
$130,065.00
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE:
$5,100.00
PROGRESS BILLING
x
FINAL BILLING
PLEASE REMIT PAYMENT TO:
REMEDIAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
2900 BRISTOL STREET STE. G208
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626-7915
CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE
TERMS: NET 15 DAYS
FEB 11 1999
PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
2900 Bristol Street, Suite G-208. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 . Tel (714) 445-9240 . Fax (714) 445-9250
9.h.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER ~
DON ROBERTS FIELD-SOTO SPORTS COMPLEX,
PROJECT NO. 80-98-2, FINAL PROGRESS PAYMENT
SUBJECT:
FEBRUARY 23, 1999
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended the City Council:
DATE:
A. authorize payment in the amount of $12,663.84 to Karleskint-Crum, Inc.;
B. direct the Director of Administrative Services to file a Notice of Completion; and,
C. release the retention of $9,302.88 on or about thirty days after filing of the Notice
of Completion, if no liens have been filed.
FUNDING:
The total construction budget, including contingencies, available for the Don Roberts Field-
Soto Sports Complex project is $105,410 as approved by City Council.
DISCUSSION:
An Application for Progress Payment NO.3 was received from Karleskint-Crum, Inc. for
work completed between November 14, 1998, and February 5, 1999, for the Don Roberts
Field-Soto Sports Complex project. As of February 5, 1999, the project was deemed
substantially complete. The amount needed to complete the project is $93,028.84 or 88%
of the total construction budget available.
The City had requested the Contractor wait to complete the final construction contract work
until the City had an opportunity to acquire and install a backstop, dugouts, and fencing.
The Contractor agreed to wait for the City's backstop and was able to complete its work
on February 5, 1999.
jep: 232.5501 \rec\donrobertsprogresspay223.wpd
APPLICATION FOR PROGRESS PAYMENT NO.3
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL DATE: FEBRUARY 23,1999
CONTRACT DATE
SUBMITTED TO
CONTRACT NO
CONTRACT f=OR
CITY ACCOUNT NO
July 15, 1998
City of Arroyo Grande
80-98-2
Don Roberts Field-Soto Sports Complex
350-5501-7001 = $9,256.50; 350-5501-7201 = $3,407.34
11-Feb-99
2:00 PM
FOR THE WORK ACCOMPLISHED BY V-ARLESKINT-CRUM, INC, FROM:
Nov. 14, 1998
TO:
Feb. 5, 1999
CONTRACTOR'S schedule of Values WORK COMPLETED
NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT
1 Compliance with OSHA Requirements $ 450.00 1 LS $ 450,00 100% $ 450.0C
" Construction Survey & Earthwork $ 8.290.00 1 LS $ 8,29000 100% $ 8.29000
,.
3 Surfacemprovements $ 11.130.00 1 LS $ 11,130,00 100% $ 11 . 130 DC
4. I mg atien $ 15.750.00 1 LS $ 15,75000 100% $ 15.75000
5, Planting $ 11.800,00 1 LS $ 11,80000 100% $ 11,80000
6. Maintenance $ 3.200.00 1 LS $ 3,200,00 100% $ 3,20000
B-1. Dugouts and Bleachers $ 9.445.00 1 LS $ 9,44500 100% $ 9,44500
B-3. Soil Amendments $ 8.050,00 1 LS $ 8,050.00 100% $ 8,05000
$ 68,115.00 TOTAL $ 68,11500
CONTRACT CYANGE ORDERS: Estimated Total % Complete Amount Paid
A Costs to repair the existing liner $ 32,00000 100% $ 20.11555
8 Costs for additional irrigation $ 1,01236 1000;\, $ 1.012,36
C City Inspection services on non-working day $ (20610) 100% $ (20610)
D, Elec::ricalllne repairs $ (395,00) 100% $ (39500)
E. Sleeve fo' controller wires $ 548.45 100% $ 54845
F Modifications to concrete area at bleachers/dugout $ 1,18750 100% $ 1.1875C
G, Grading behind new concrete area $ 1,72366 100% $ 1.72366
H Soil added to field from retention basin $ 927.42 100% $ 92742
TOTAL 1$ 36,798,29 I PAIDI $ 24,913.84
ACCOMPANYING DOCJMENTATION
InVOice #28304-03, dated 01131199 from
Karleskint-Crum. inc.
NOTES
ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT
TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS
,Il,DJUSTED CONTRACT AMOUNT
TOTAL VALUE OF WORK PERFORMED TO DATE
LESS 10% RETAINAGE
LESS AMOUNTS PAID
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE THIS APPLICATION
$68,115.00
$36,79829
$104.913.29
$93,028,8<1
($9.302.88)
($71.06212)
$12,663.84
CONTRACT START DATE
ORIGINAL CONTRACT DAYS
PREVIOUS ADJUSTMENTS
ADJUSTMENTS THIS PERIOD
ADJUSTED CONTRACT DAYS
ADJUSTED CONTRACT END DATE
August 31. 1998
60
9
89
158
February 5, 1999
Dated
CONTRACTOR'S ACCEPTANCE:
d- I.;LJ
,of 1999,
Dated
Payment of the above AMOUNT DUE THIS APPLICATION is recommended:
Dated
2. -/9
,of 1999,
,of 1999.
Send payment to
T""Q ~JI.." P"'I.....
Karlesklnt-Crurn, Inc
POBox 5358
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
(805) 543-3304
By:
~.u~:::77~
Signature ~e-L/
By J&;;-n ~ EO:iM"' Yv-
~
City Manager
By:
Signature
lepn:.55C'1 Ireclpay.;.x 5
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
P.O. BOX 550
ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93421
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:
1. The undersigned is owner or agent of owner of the interest or estate stated below the property hereinafter
describe.
2. The FULL NAME of the OWNER is: The City of Arroyo Grande
3. The FULL ADDRESS of the OWNER is: 214 East Branch Street. Arroyo Grande, California 93421
4. The NATURE OF THE INTEREST or ESTATE of the undersigned is: in fee
5. THE FULL NAME and FULL ADDRESS of ALL PERSONS, ifany, who hold such interest or estate with the
undersigned as JOINT TENANTS or as TENANTS IN COMMON are:
NAMES ADDRESSES
None
6. THE FULL NAMES and FULL ADDRESSES of the PREDECESSOR'S in interest of the undersigned if the
property was transferred subsequent to the commencement of the work of improvements herein referred to:
NAMES ADDRESSES
None
7. All work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was COMPLETED February 5, 1999
8. The NAME OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR, ifany, for such work of improvement is:
Karleskint-Crum, Inc., P.O. Box 5358, San Luis Obispo, California 93403
9. The street address of said property is: None
10. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San
Luis Obispo, State of California, and is described as follows:
Don Roberts Field-Soto Sports Complex, City Project No. 80-98-2
Verification of NON-INDIVIDUAL owner: I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
State of California that I am the Public Works Director of the aforesaid interest or estate in the property described in
the above notice; that I have read the said notice, that I know and understand the contents thereof, and the facts
stated therein are true and correct.
Don Spagnolo, PE, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
February 16, 1999, Arroyo Grande, California
END OF DOCUMENT
jep:232.550 1 \rec\notice.of.completion. wpd
10.8.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JIM HAMILTON, AICP, COMMUNITY ~ Z
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR !/
SUBJECT: SELECTION OF WEEKLY GREEN WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE
DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council:
1. Select a firm to provide weekly green waste collection service,
based on a review and comparison of the proposals submitted by
RALCCO/Market Target Research and South County Sanitary
Service (Tri-City Disposal Service);
2. Direct staff to prepare necessary contracts, or contract
amendments, for Council review and approval; and
3. Conduct a public hearing on March 23, 1999 to consider a revised
rate structure for green waste collection.
FUNDING:
There is no direct cost to the City; however, approval of weekly greenwaste
collection will increase service charges to individual customers. Active
participation in the curbside recycling program, combined with the effective
use of the variable can rate system may offset or reduce overall garbage
costs to individual customers. Lastly, approval of expanded greenwaste
service may substantially reduce potential exposure to State imposed fines
for AS 939 non-compliance.
DISCUSSION:
At the February 9, 1999 City Council meeting, the Council determined that
weekly green waste collection was a necessary element of the City's solid
waste reduction efforts. At the meeting, a request was made by Mr. Greg
Shipley, on behalf of RALCCO and Market Target Research, to allow
submittal of a revised weekly green waste proposal. The Council granted
this request, and continued action on selection of a firm to provide this
service until the February 26TH meeting.
Staff received a proposal from RALCCO/Market Target Research on
February 16TH, and this proposal has been included as Attachment 5. The
following analysis is focused on the use of 96-gallon waste wheelers as the
preferable method for collection. However, an option that uses the current
collection methodology has been included in Tables 2 and 3.
South County Sanitary ProDosal (SCS)
The proposal from SCS includes the following elements:
. Weekly greenwaste collection for a yearly fee of $80,191, based on a
five (5) year contract term. The yearly cost would be $63,127 if the term
of the contract were extended to ten (10) years.
. Provision of 96 gallon green waste wheelers.
. Combined billing for green waste and solid waste.
RALCCO ProDosal (Original)
The original proposal from RALCCO includes the following elements:
. Weekly greenwaste collection for a yearly fee of $141,497, based on a
five (5) year contract term. A ten (10) year contract proposal has not
been provided.
. Provision of 96 gallon green waste wheelers.
. Billing for green waste service would be conducted by the City as part of
the City's utility billing.
RALCCO & Market Target Research ProDosal
The new proposal from RALCCO/MTR includes the following elements:
. Weekly greenwaste collection for a yearly fee of $88,844, based on a
five (5) year contract term. The yearly cost would be $85,830 if the term
of the contract were extended to ten (10) years.
. Provision of 96 gallon green waste wheelers.
. Billing for green waste service would be conducted by the City as part of
the City's utility billing.
Based on a review of the proposals, staff is recommending that South
County Sanitary be selected as the provider of weekly green waste
collection service for the City of Arroyo Grande. This recommendation is
based on the following analysis:
1. South County Sanitary has provided the lowest cost proposal.
2. South County Sanitary will provide combined billing for solid waste and
greenwaste services. This will allow the City's Financial Services
Department to focus resources used to support billing services on other
critical elements of Department operations.
3. South County Sanitary currently provides solid waste collection services
to the City. The City receives very few complaints on the quality of this
service.
4. South County Sanitary has current experience in operating the preferred
green waste collection program.
Alternatives
The following alternatives are presented for Council consideration:
1) Select South County Sanitary, Inc., to provide weekly green waste
collection service, direct staff to return with necessary contract
documents for Council review and action, and conduct a public
hearing on March 23rd to consider a revised rate schedule.
2) Select RALCCO/MTR to provide weekly green waste collection
service, select the method of collection (customer container or waste-
wheeler), direct staff to return with necessary contract documents for
Council review and action, and conduct a public hearing on March
23rd to consider a revised rate schedule.
3) Provide direction to staff.
Attachments
1 ) TABLE 1 - Comparison of Contract Costs/Collection Methods on A Per
Customer Basis.
2) TABLE 2 - Comparison of Contract Proposals on a Per Year Basis.
3) TABLE 3 - Comparison of 5-year contract costs vs. 10-year costs.
4) Revised RALCCO/MTR proposal.
5) RALCCO proposal.
6) South County Sanitary proposal.
7) February 9, 1999 Council Report and attachments.
~
I-
2
w
~
:J:
o
<t
1=
<t
en
Ci5
<(
co
cr:
LU
~
o
I-
en
:::l
u
cr:
LU
ll.
<(
Z
o
en
o
o
J:
I-
LU
~
Z
o
i=
u
LU
-'
-'
o
u
Z ~
o
i= en
u tn
LU 0
:J U
o I-
U U
LU ~
I- I-
en Z
~ 0
Z U
LU LJ..
LU 0
cr: en
<.9 Z
-' 0
<( en
i=enCi::
zl-<(
LUenll.
go~
enuO
LU~u
cr: I
>-~..-
sZOLU
LU--'
~~~
>01-
*'
c:
Q) 0
~ 16 .~
Q) ... U Ul
ti~~t)
..5 .5 8 8
16 --- a;
o $~Q)
1-0) UlC~
>.5 > ; .~ ~
:SE::i2cu$-
c::s Q) Q).! Ulen
OUlQ)~OcaU
::!~~CJu~~
c
Q) 0
~ C .~
Q) ._ U iii
..-ca.!'"
g*,oo~
--...uu
co ___ ;
"'0 Q) ~ Q) -'"
... Q) ""
1-0) ~SJ:O
~.5 > ~ .~ ~ U
...E::i2cu$U_
c::s Q) Q).! Ul..Ja:
OUlQ)~Oca~1-
::!~~CJu~!;::!
c
Q) 0
~ c .~
Q) ._ U Ul
...-1a..!.....
g*,oo~
__....0(.)
>
1:
...
c
0-
::!:9
_ 0
::: I-
Q)
... -
0) ~SO
.5>~,~u
E::i2 c U U
::SQ)Q).!..J
UlQ)~O~
~~CJu!;
... >
c1:
Q)...-";
t:C:9Ul
::s 0 0 0
u::!I-U
Q)
...
.. Ul C
>o~cao
-.... ~ ~.~
';;UlQ)CU
c: ... Q) Q) Q)
OUl~Q)=
0:::: 0 ._ .. 0
o:::UIX)CJU
0)
~ 0 ~.5
J: .... 'w "0
E t) -f:! >
o 0 ::s U
::!uu~
>"Q)Q)
1:.E gu
E t) -f:! 'S;
o 0 ca Q;
::!uCJen
..
Q)"C
..c Q)
E >
::s Q;
Zen
Q)
.!~Q)
i a: .~ -
'': C c:: ~
~J~~
*'*'*'
C'\/LOC'\/
r- r- r-
LOLOLO
C'\/C'\/C'\/
O>~~
<f)o<f)o<f)o
*'*'*'
M<OM
r- r- r-
000000
MMM
o>C'\/LO
0;;;;;:
*'*'*'
0>1"'-<0
1"'-1"'-1"'-
0>0>0>
00r-<<t
0(1)-;;:;;;
~~~
00r-;!
0;;;0(/)0
LOLOLO
1"'-1"'-1"'-
000
LO LO LO
000"':
0> 0> Ol :g
<oo)C'\/~
<f)o <f)o ~ C
o
U
1J
Q)
1J
;;
o
....
c.
0><00
~~I"'-
- r-
r-C'\/
....
Q)
E
o
....
Ul
C C c: ::s
to to to U
UUU
r-C'\/Mr-
E
to
....
Cl
o
....
c.
c
o
.~
U
~
o
u
Q)
....
Ul
ca
~
c:
Q)
Q)
....
Cl
C
Q)
....
~
C
o
.;;
c.
E
Q)
X
Q)
*'
LO
E
::s
E
'c
'E
ca
Cl
c:
'E
::s
Ul
Ul
ca
Ul
....
U
ca
....
....
C
o
U
C
o
1J
Q)
Ul
to
.0
Q)
....
to
Ul
Q)
....
to
a:
LU
I-
o
Z
N
I-
Z
w
~
Z
(,)
<t
J:
<t
(f)
Z ....J
o ~
~ 0
<.) a.
W 0
....J a::
....J a.
o I-
<.) <.)
I=! ~
(f) I-
~ Z
Z 0
W <.)
W LL
a:: 0
(9 Z
....J 0
<( (f)
~(f)~
Zl-<(
W(f)a.
QO::E
(f)<.)0
W0c5<.)
0:: I
>-(f)N
s2~w
w-....J
WI-CD
~~~
>-
<.:>
o
..J
o
<.:>0
zO
-J:
..JI-
:::!w
m:!
-=0::: LI)
cW III
<(0.. Q) :;.::-
..Jffiw E ~
<(""I-O::::J ..
I-OW<(III....
OO::OwIII IIlC
l-o..o>-~~8
0::: 'z
~ t5Q
0::: LI) I-Z~ Vi
o:::w"C1 O~o.. I-
W:!c <(0 z
0.. 1IlJ: o:::LI)(3 :::::l
I-~O::I-ZO:::I-~i="'O
WW<( <(ZI-O::....O
O:::::lW~WOS;<(riO
00>--=>-0>0.._<(
0:::
w III
0.. C
0::: ._ I- .2 B Vi
0::: W "C .., 0 'S.'- I-
w:!c I <(E~ Z
~~~~0::~~lJlLl)5
ww<(zO<(z Q) E~o
O:::::lW uJOoo ~o
oo>-:!>-oz.t:~<(
0::: S
1-0000wO::l{l
z~:!~~
~1-~>-5i-
o::wwo:::e~
a8a~Q.6
0:::
I-O:::w
zw:!
wo..O J:
0:::1-1- I-
0::: W W 0::: Zo
:::::lO:::::lw
0000..:!
Z
o
i=o
frlo
..JJ:
..JI-
ow
o:!
0::
WW
00
>>
0:::0
wo::
wo..
'0 '0 :2-0
t: !lit: !ligiSc:
~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
U) +:: III U) +:: co <.) 0 0)
co::).cco::).czt:=
~~<..)~~<..)-_~8
:.o.c ~ :.o.c ~ (f) U) 0) ,
~ 'E .~ ~ 'E .~ (f) nl 1ii .~
C3~5lC3~5l~:5~:5
U) .
0) ..
U) 0)
:J.5
.. co
0)....
E 5
o <..)
....
U) c:
:J 3:
<.)0
(0
0>
......
......
co
~
r--
co
......
~
o;t
o;t
N
N
~
r--
1.0
......
~
1.0
co
cO
......
~
o
o
oj
~
1.0
r--
~
c: ..
0) 0)
~Q)
ClO)
l.c
.3:
'iUs
ClU)
(0 co
0> 3:
a
<.)
<.)
....J
~
oc5
o
U
:30:::
~~
o;t
o;t
co
cxi
co
~
......
0>
......
o
co
~
co
0>
1.0
co
......
~
(')
r--
M
N
~
......
~
r--
......
N
N
~
co
~
......
~
r--
......
d
N
~
r--
1.0
......
~
1.0
co
cO
......
~
<(
z
<(
z
<(
z
<(
z
c: ..
0) 0)
0)-
.. 0)
ClO)
,.c
.3:
'iUs
ClU)
(0 co
0> 3:
u
c:
~~~
.c c: .!)l .!:!
'5 :J'e: 2:
OOCOO)
(f)<.)(f)(f)
::C
I-
Z
o
:::s
~
u.1
~
on
"
&'i
CI)
.....
]
...
\:l
o
"0
'tii
~
o
o
"
>,
Qj
~
s
.>(
8
c..
g.
R
s
o
~
b
E v
o~
S ~
u .-
0"8
.- a
u<l::
o
~.q
.u
~~
60~
8~
c..;:l
0'0
-B .S
S ...
8 g
<.;:; 0
"0"0
~ ~
o c:;
..... ....
e;; 0
~ ~
.9 ~
... r::
S'o
o ~
~Cl
~l
.0 0
~ a
r:: \:l
o .9
-Bo
-B~
.~ 8
-E
;s ~
l5 ~
.~ ~
_0/)
~~
... 0
'l> ~
E: ._
~.o
::i 0
I..l-B
~ .S
I::l..\:l
o 0
.~ .~
~ c..
~:g
'c;~
'" c..
'Vi S
8 8
0<';:;
~tJ
E g
o u
Z g
~
~
U
I-
~
~
u
o
-B
]
CI)-
.....
CI)
<J::
CD
>-
g
u.1
~
I
;:0
<J::
Z
o
Q
~
U
u.1
~
~
o
u
~
~
CI)
~
~
~
Cl
~
u.1
Q
:>
~
~
I-
~
~
u
u.1
:r:
I-
~
o
u
u
~
~
,-,
-
'-'
M
....
2:
w
~
J:
()
et
....
....
et
00
I-
00
o
()
I-
()
~
I-
Z
Z 0
o ()
i= ex::
() US
~ >-
...J 0
o ......
U 00
W >
I- ex::
00
~ US
Z >-
W II)
W u..
ex:: 0
<.9 Z
...J 0
<( 00
i=oo~
ZI-<(
WooQ.
Qo~
oo()o
W~()
ex:: I
>-OOM
~~W
W-...J
WI-CO
~~~
:!a: a:
ctct ~
a:W >-
(!1>-
Oa: iiil-
a:w -U
0..0.. ~ct
...J(I) ~a:
ctl- I-
1-(I)a::;-2
OOO~O
I-UU-I.OU
-
(I)
a: I-
ffict Z22
o..~ oQ5
a: 1-21-U
a:WOUl-ctU
~:!'";"~::)~ct
o 1-0_1.0
~~a:2i:~~
O::)~O-ct .
UU>-u3:o..::t
en
a: I I-
a: 222
~~ 005
a:>-1-2i=u
a:wOu~ctu
w:!....ct1.09: ct
O"o'a:....u
1-(1) I- a: !; J: i= ~
(I) ct..... 1-a:(D
O::)wO-ct .
uu>-u3:o..~
2
o
i=e
Uo
WJ:
::II-
Ow
u:!
a:
W
e
:;:
o
a:
0..
W
U
:;:
a:
W
(I)
<0
0>
00<(
<noZ
~~
c:
?:
o
VI
Cll
VI
::l
~ ~
.s '(6
VI....
::l c:
U 8
-:to
-:tM
coco
oom
coco
<no <no
~Cii
Cll
:0
111
'(6
>
<(
....
o
Z
Cll
:0
J!!
.(6
>
<(
....
o
Z
c: ...
Cll Cll
Cll-
... Cll
ClCll
,..c
.?:
iii.l9
ClVl
<0 111
0> ?:
o
U
U
...J
<(
0:
0:
I-
:;?;
o(j
00>
U~
U<o
...J~
<(--
o:~
~I"-
O>N
OM
co <0
<no <no
~~
I"-
~
o
N
<no
-:t
CO
.,f
~
<no
M
I"-
M
N
<no
1.0
-:t
I"-
~
<no
c: ...
Cll Cll
Cll-
... Cll
ClCll
,..c
. ?:
iii.l9
ClVl
<0 111
0> ?:
o
c:
Cll
o
>.-
.... >
c: ...
::l Cll
O(f)
U>
...
..c 111
+-' .~
::l c:
o 111
(f)(f)
RALCCO/MTR
PROPOSAL FOR WEEKLY GREEN WASTE
COLLECTION
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
FEBRUARY 23, 1999
ATTACHMENT 4
STEPHEN.A.MCGRATH
ee5 544 5462 p.el
. MAlUNG ADDRESS: p,O. DRAWEllll10
NIPOMO. CAllfORMA 9H~4
· PlANTS; HIGHWAY 1 & aOl AALCOA WAY
NIPOMO. CALIfORNIA 93444
1291 MESA VIEW DRIVE
AIlROYO GAANDE. CALIFORNIA 9341('
· PHON(: (805) 343-2289
· FAX: (80S) 343-SSU
RETURNING TO A RESOURCEFUL AMERICA
Jim Hamilton
Community Development Director
City of Arroyo Grande
P.O. Bo" 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
February 16, 1999
Dear Mr. H~n& t-J'-
Thank you for your, and the CouncH's, consideration at the last meeting.
Due to the innovative and proprietary nature of the Recovennat process. and the partnership between MTR and
RALCCO, RALCCO is able to offer Arroyo Grande fully automated gl'een waste collection. .
Given the efficiencies inherent in such a system. and the availability to RALCCO of the Recovennat process for
handling of the green waste collected, we are pleased to offer the fOllowing proposal (0 Arroyo Grande:
1 Collection methodology: Collection of green waste will be by a fully automated side loading tl'uck,
utilizing green 96~gallon waste wbeelers, which shall be provided to the residents at no additional charge.
2 Total estimated annual cost:
Five year contract:
Ten year contract
$94.103
$91,089
$1.84 per resident per month
$1.44 per resident per month
These costs include a 6% franchise fee. and allow for a 15% exemption rate. The savings in the ten year contract
are not as great as one might hope, as the bin cost can only be amortized over 6 years. the expected life of the bin.
3
Cost breakdown:
Customer billing:
see attached
We suggest that the City continue to bill for recycling and green waste collection.
4
TransfeJ:lhandling location:
R<<ycling method:
Bedford Enterprises facility. 1498 Black Road, Santa Maria
See attached Recovennat proposal
5 Green waste experience: All route operation, collection and hauling will be handled by the same
RALCCO staff who have been perfonning this fWlction in Arroyo Grande since the inception of the green waste
program, as well as in Cambria and Morro Bay.
I hope that this satisfactorily adrdresses all issues related to our proposal. As requested in my last leller. I trust
that there will be sufficient time for Mr. Greg Shipley to make a presentation regarding the Recovennat process,
and its advantages.to the City.
Sincerely
~
Stephen A. McGrat
~'een waste costs. Arroyo Grande 2/16/99
~ ---.--
-
Month ..
Labor cost $1,299.00 -.-....--.-..--
($12 X 1.25 ins etc., X20 hrs, X 4.33 wks) . ---_...'--
T ruck cost $860.00 -~ ,-.
(1/2 of $120,000 vehicle at 12% over 10 years) -- ....-----...
Fuel, maint .. -_........-. .-
$250.00
Lic. Ins ! .- ." ..
$100.00
Total vehicle $1 ,210.00 -+-----~=~
I
1-- I I
Bins, (4000 @$50, 5 yrs) $3,013.96 l .-..---...----.
(80% participation) --r. ----..
Overhead and admin 25% $1,380.74 -=r=- -----.,
,v____._.____
Subtotal , $6,903.70 _._..~'--
i
. ....----
. I
Franchise fee @ 6%i $414.22 -----
I .. .---.-----.-.
I
- ---,,,--
Disposal cost: -,-----
I I
- -.------
tpm 80 $5 $400.00
--.- -
[
Overhead and admin 25% $1 oo.oo~ ~ ...--.-----.---..>
i
- ~._---
Fran fee, @ - 6%1 $24.00 =1=- :==
Annual
I -~---'-
-- ,
Total, monthly I $7,841.92 $94.1 0300j __~~~~:~
Customer count, 4255
-
Exemptions at 15% ~ I i=-
. I I $1.8i1
Monthly GW customer cost ~ ~ ----.- - --- -.....,...
I - I
$2.34 I- I .,.-.--.----
Incl recycling. @ _~_50 .--- ---
i
....-.-----..- ._-
; -_.-
Using 10 year contract; --..-----...-
Total monthly cost 1- $7,590.76 $91 ,089.08 -t-=.,.=~~.~=
-+---------
Monthly OW customer cost $1.44 I I
RECOVER MAT PROCESS
DIVERSION OF C&D MATERIALS AND LANDFILL ADC
ARROYO GRANDE PROPOSAL
As specified in LEA Advisory #48, Section 20690; OAL (Office of Administrative Law) approved; Construction
and Demolition (C&D) Waste materials are approved for ADC materials.
BEl, as a result of it's strategic partnership with RALCCO, proposes to provide the City of Arroyo Grande, CA
with diversion credits for C&D Materials processed through the Recovermat facility on the following basis:
· Record state mandated information on diversion of materials and submit proper documentation to
the City of Arroyo Grande, CA to confirm diversion credits.
· As a subset of the Green Waste Element of Arroyo Grande's municipal waste stream, we would
suggest the following alternative methods of increasing the City's share of C&D Waste; they are:
1. Notify BEl of all construction permits taken out in the City, so that we may contact them and
arrange for our sales person to call on them.
2. Inform all roll off companies of the Recovermat facility. We will offer each company hauling
C&D Materials from Arroyo Grande a discount off of the landfill tipping fee.
3. Require all C&D Materials from Arroyo Grande to be taken to the Recovermat facility for
credit to the City. This alternative would ensure 100% compliance and result in a full 28%+
diversion credit to the City of Arroyo Grande, CA.
· To otherwise demonstrate that the Recovermat Material meets or exceeds all General Standards
for all ADC use as specified in Title 27, California Code of Regulatiion, subsection 20690(b)(1-
10). .
· To work closely with the LEA on the Recovermat Processed Material as Diversion and arrive at
what percentage diversion requirements the City of Arroyo Grande set to meet AB 939 standards.
BEl proposes to pay for all independent testing and capital expenditures required to comply with all applicable
LEA permits and testing procedures.
All questions, correspondance and materials should be forwarded to:
GREG SHIPLEY
MARKET TARGET RESEARCH
4004 STAG'S LEAP
PASO ROBLES, CA 93446
805-239-8714
805-239-0517 - fax
mtr@tcsn.net - Email
or
STEVE MALFO
BEDFORD ENTERPRISES, INC.
1498 BLACK ROAD
SANTA MARIA, CA 93458
805-922-4977
805-928- 7241 - fax
bedford@thegrid.net - Email
PAGE 4
BEDFORD ENTERPRISES, INC.
INTRODUCTION TO RECOVERMAT PROCESS
DIVERSION CREDITS & LANDFILL ADC
OUR GOAL:
We intend to use the Recovermat Process to divert materials from the landfill and then, to use that
diverted material as an Alternative Daily Cover; that meets ali conditions of Subtitle "0".
BENEFITS TO THE RECOVERMAT PROCESS: A C&D MATERIAL DIVERSION PROCESS
.
DIVERTS UP TO 28% OF THE
WASTE STREAM
A CLOSE LOOPED SYSTEM -
USING WASTE PRODUCT
FROM THE LANDFILL;
INCLUDING METHANE GAS &
LEACHATE TO PROCESS MAT.
PRODUCT HELPS "FILTER"
LEACHATE
REDUCED COSTS OF
IMPORTING CLAY DAILY
COVER MATERIAL OR
EXPENSE OF T ARPS, ETC.
BEl INVESTS IN THE
TECHNOLOGY & MACHINERY
AT NO COST TO LANDFILL.
.
.
.
.
.
MEETS CIWMB LEA
ADVISORY #48
WHAT IS THE RECOVER MAT PROCESS?
. A QUALIFIED ADC MATERIAL -
ALTERNATIVE DAILY COVER
. COMPACTION OF PRODUCT
RECLAIMS VALUABLE "AIR
SPACE" - EXTENDS LANDFILL
LIFE
. FIRE RETARDENT MATERIAL
. MATERIAL CAN ALTERNATIVELY
BE USED AS ROAD BASE,
PREVENTS MUD FROM
ACCUMULATING DURING RAIN.
. SUBCONTRACTED SERVICE,
LANDFILL PAYS ONLY ON
VOLUME THROUGHPUT OF
MATERIALS.
. MEETS CIWMB LEA
ADVISORY #40
Recovermat is a patented process that recycles construction waste, demolition debris, and selected
commercial debris into an Alternative Daily Cover Material; recovering these portions of the solid waste
stream which would otherwise go into sanitary landfills. The benefits to the landfill include: diversion of
materials to meet AS 939, compaction of ADC that Reclaims "Air Space", use of the diverted materials as
ADC, and the ability to convert methane gas and leachate into usable products in the process.
This process is a new technology and has been successfully tested and implemented at the Charles County
Landfill in Maryland, the Cumberland County Landfill and Lancaster Landfill in Pennsylvania and now being
evaluated by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Solid Waste.
PAGE 1
RECOVERMAT PROCESS
DIVERSION OF C&D MATERIALS AND LANDFILL ADC
CLOSE LOOPED SYSTEM
The Recovermat Product is a composition of landfill materials, processed through a wet shredding system
using water or treated leachate from the site. The machinery is powered by methane gas from the landfill or a
combination of natural gas and methane gas recovered from the landfill site. The product can then be used
either as Alternative Daily Cover, Intermediate Cover and/or road base to handle daily traffic at the landfill.
This is a total closed-looped system; incorporating landfill generated waste into the product and the process.
Recovermat Product Composition:
Stone
Brick
Concrete
Plaster
Wood
Drywall
Plastic
Laminate Products
Insulation
Furniture
Paper/Cardboard
Other non-putruesibles
These materials will be processed into a fiborous material with a uniform size, consistency, and moisture
content. The final product has a high capacity to absorb moisture and exhibits good compaction and loading
characteristics. The product resembles a mulch material, with variations of tan, gray and brown colors.
QUALITY CONTROL METHODS
To maintain consistency. a quality control system incorporates the following elements:
. Inspection of the raw material at the scales and at the unloading area, where loads are rejected if
items of environmental concern are found or if the loads do not fit the product mix catagories.
. Ferrous and non-ferrous metals are automatically extracted through the system and salvaged for
recycling by BEl.
PAGE 2
RECOVERMAT PROCESS
DIVERSION OF C&D MATERIALS AND LANDFILL ADC
. BEl controls the feedstock of the daily blending stockpile
. Testing of key physical properties
. Modification of the product composition if required
By controlling the feedstock blend and by flow testing of the outbound material, Recovermat's Product
exhibits physical properties that comprise of (on average):
Only 32% of the total product content is inert material. The remaining content is subject to decomposition,
evaporation or re-used during the close-looped system. The organic matter consists of wood and cellulose
fibers.
PARTICLE SIZE
. 95% of particles are less than 1" (one inch) in size
TESTING METHODS used to determine physical properties include:
. ASTM Method 02974 for moisture
. ASTM Method 02974 (c) for inert content
. Modified ASTM Method 0422 for particle size analysis
. Sampling and testing of outbound materials for TCLP metals and PCB's
PAGE 3
RALCCO
PROPOSAL FOR WEEKLY GREEN WASTE
COLLECTION
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
FEBRUARY 23, 1999
ATTACHMENT 5
RETURNING TO A RESOURCEFUL AMERICA
. MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. DRAWER 1170
NIPOMO, CALIFORNIA 93444
. PLANTS: HIGHWAY 1 & 801 RALCOA WAY
NIPOMO, CALIFORNIA 93444
1291 MESA VIEW DRIVE
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 93420
. PHONE: (805) 343-2289
. FAX: (805) 343-5515
Jim Hamilton
Community Development Director
City of Arroyo Grande
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
January 19 1999
Dear Mr. Hamilton,
At your request. I have reviewed the numbers for our recent green waste proposal, and while the overall revenue
requirements remain the same, the monthly cost per resident must increase to accommodate the anticipated 15% of
exemption requests.
At this level of exemptions, the monthly cost per resident is $3.26 with RALCCO provided waste wheelers, and
$1.76 without. Additionally, the monthly cost per account will increase by $0.05, with each additional 100
customers who opt for exemption for the program, and similarly decrease by $0.05 per 100 accounts who, while
currently exempted from the program, opt to participate.
These rates are based on assumptions of green waste tons collected., participation rates and minimum revenue
requirements as stated in our letter of 11.10.98. Consequently, we recommend a review of the program after one
year
I hope that this sufficiently clarifies our proposal for you. Of course, please call me with any questions or
concerns.
Sincerely
~
Stephen A. McGrath
ri .llING ADDRESS:
P,O. DRAWER 1170
NIPOMO, CALIFORNIA 93444
HIGHWAY 1 & 801 RALCOA WAY
NIPOMO, CALIFORNIA 93444
1291 MESA VIEW DRIVE
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 93420
(805) 343-2289
(805) 343-5515
. PLANTS:
RETURNING TO A RESOURCEFUL AMERICA
. PHONE:
. FAX:
Jim Hamilton
Community Development Director
City of Arroyo Grande
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
November 10, 1998
City of A,(,-:,':/o C;-::;;;de
Community Development Dept.
NOV '1 J 1998
Dear Mr. Hamilton,
Pursuant to your letter of November 2, I hope that the following responses supply you with all the information
you need:
. 1 Collection methodology: I trust that this was satisfactorily addressed in my letter of 10.29.98
2 Annual cost: as stated in the letter of 10.29.98, the total annual cost of the program is $81,196. When
apportioned amongst the 4496 water accounts, for billing purposes, that amounts to $1.50 per account per month.
However, if we must assume up to a 5% non-participation, through the exemptions program, the total annual cost
then becomes divided by a smaller number, pushing the monthly cost to $1.57 per account.
3 At this point, I am assuming that the 4496 number of accounts is the number of residential water accounts.
My understanding is that there are approximately 600 businesses in Arroyo Grande. Should you desire that
commercial customers be included, the monthly 'per account' cost remains $1.57. Currently, commercial
accounts are billed on a basis of number of units, or area of building. We recommend simplifying this such that
each water meter account is one billing unit.
4 The total program costs, as originally calculated, are as follows, and include an administrative and
overhead factor of 16%, and a profit of 8%:
Collection costs: $55,775
Processing costs: $18,040
The franchise and city administrative fees of 5% each are assessed on revenues, and do not include the overhead
and profit margins: $7,381
5 By using all recycling options available, and reducing garbage service to the one can rate of $6.90, the
resident will see a monthly reduction of $0.68 from current rates:
Old rate
Garbage
Recycling
Green waste
Total
$8.40
$0.50
$0.75
$9.65
New rate
Garbage
Recycling
Green waste
Total
$6.90
$0.50
$1.57
$8.97
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this quote. Please call me with any additional
comments or questions.
Sincer~' 1'\ A ~ f . 0 0
\ ~I)}'v~~tv--
Stephen A. MbGrath
RETURNING TO A RESOURCEFUL AMERICA
.1 .ING ADDRESS: P.O. DRAWER 1170
NIPOMO, CALIFORNIA 93444
. PLANTS: HIGHWAY 1 & 801 RALCOA WAY
NIPOMO, CALIFORNIA 93444
1291 MESA VIEW DRIVE
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 93420
. PHONE: (805) 343-2289
. FAX: (805) 343-5515
Jim Hamilton
Community Development Director
City of Arroyo Grande
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
October 29, 1998
Dear Mr. Hamilton,
Further to our conversation of Monday, the following addresses the issues raised:
Collection methodology:
It is anticipated that the current collection methodology will continue, namely the use of RALCCO
provided stickers on customers containers.
Annual cost:
As stated in the proposal of October 20, the anticipated cost per customer is $1.50 per month. This
is arrived at thus:
Collection:
Labor, vehicle, insurance, fuel, etc.
$55,775
$18,040
$7,381
$81,196
P rocessi ng
Franchise and admin fees
Total annual cost
Landfill Diversion:
This is difficult to anticipate. Currently the City of San Luis Obispo is diverting approximately 250 to
300 tons per month. This suggests that the potential diversion in Arroyo Grande is 60 to 80 tons per
month through this program.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to present this proposal to the City of Arroyo Grande.
Sincerely L
Q4~ ~L~J
Stephen A. McGrath
RETURNING TO A RESOURCEFUL AMERICA
Ii ,lUNG ADDRESS: P.O. DRAWER 1170
NIPOMO, CALIFORNIA 93444
. PLANTS: HIGHWAY 1 & 801 RALCOA WAY
NIPOMO, CALIFORNIA 93444
1291 MESA VIEW DRIVE
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 93420
. PHONE: (805) 343-2289
. FAX: (805) 343-5515
Jim Hamilton
Community Development Director
City of Arroyo Grande
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
October 20, 1998
..-' ';" : -, -",>=>nt Dppt.
'. "~\iCl.''')U:,(.~1 '-'
Commun\T,y '..1--'~ :
OCT 2 l 1998
Dear Mr. Hamilton
In response to your letter of September 24, RALCCO agrees that a comprehensive green waste program, coupled
with a variable can rate for garbage selVice, is one of the most effective ways of reducing waste to the landfill, and
thus the City's exposure under the terms of AB 939.
RALCCO first introduced green waste collection as a monthly program. Due to the overwhehning response to
this program, RALCCO voluntarily increased the collection to twice monthly, at no additional cost to the City or
the residents. To move this program to the next level of efficiency, and maximize diversion from the landfill,
RALCCO will be pleased to offer weekly greenwaste collection to the City.
~
Currently RALCCO collects green waste in the City semi-monthly, or 24 times per year, for $0.75 per account per
month.
RALCCO proposes to collect green waste weekly, or 52 times per year, for $1.50 per account per month, based
upon full participation. This reflects a 7% decrease in 'per pick-up' costs.
Timin~:
If green waste selVice is to be expanded, participating residents should be able to receive a reduction in the level of
garbage selVice delivered and paid for. This is the intent and effect of a variable can rate. My understanding is
that this will be implemented in the near future. RALCCO strongly recommends implementing weekly green
waste at the same time as the introduction of a variable can rate for garbage customers. This will greatly enhance
the acceptance of the new program by the residents.
Promotion:
We suggest that the promotion for this program run in conjunction with the promotion of the variable can rate; this
will allow residents to see the connection between increased recycling and cost of garbage selVice.
Other:
An important consideration for the City must be the issue of exemptions from the green waste program. The goals
of AB939 are for all of the City to attain; any penalties will be paid by all of the City. It is necessary for all
residents to participate in this program. RALCCO strongly recommends that, upon introduction of the new
weekly green waste program, no exemptions be allowed from participation in the program.
Respectfully~a~~.'~ed
I\~~
Stephen A. McGrath
) 1 (7 ;\
A . (~L-. ~ ('AJV^--
SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY
PROPOSAL FOR WEEKLY GREEN WASTE
COLLECTION
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
FEBRUARY 23, 1999
ATTACHMENT 6
Tri-City Disposal Service
(805) 489-3534
874 Grand Avenue
Grover Beach, California 93433
Nipomo Garbage Company
(805) 489-3534
City of Arroyo Grande
Jim Hamilton
P.o. Box 550
Arroyo Grande; CA 93421
Re: Requested greenwaste proposal
01/08/99
As you can see from the enclosed cost estimate, I assume an 80% participation
rate. The total cost of $63,127 for the greenwaste program will be the same
regardless of whether the city grants exemptions or not.
ASSUMES 10 YEAR CONTRACT/DEPRECIATION
NO
EXEMPTIONS
$63,127.00
Greenwaste program cost
PAYING CUSTOMERS
4,255
3,617
COST/CUSTOMERlYEAR
$14.84
$1.24
COST/CUSTOMER/MONTH
15'%
EXEMPTION~
$63,127.00
$17.45
$1 .45
ASSUMES 5 YEAR CONTRACT/DEPRECIATION
NO
EXEMPTIONS
$80,191.00
Greenwaste program cost
PAYING CUSTOMERS
4,255
3,617
I COST/CUSTOMERlYEAR
I
I COST/CUSTOMER/MONTH
$18.85
$1.57
Sincerely,
~~
15'%
EXEMPTIONS
$80,191.00
$22.17
$1.85
Tom Martin, Controller
South County Sanitary Service, Inc.
J
'-( ~/tlL
~ k::- 'P ~~ I ATlf!;
Soutb COUIIIY Sa:"iL1lry Service. Inc.
BASE YEAR RATE ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION
Financial Information
I II II II
Pism~ Pism( Arroy~ I countJI Tota!
Commercia Residentia Grand
Section PAllowable Costs
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
Direct Labor ~ $50,194 $50,194
Corporate Overhead $0 $0 $01 $0
Office Salaries $0 $0 $0 $0
Other General and Admin Costs $36,436 $0 $36,436
Total Allowable Costs II $011 $0 I $86,630 II $011 $86,630 II
II. Operating Ratio
12. Allowable Operating Profit
92% I 92~1 92% I 92~1 92%
$0 L- $7,533 $7,533
13.
14,
16.
17.
Greenwaste'Tipping Fees ~~ $2 I ,945 ~ $2 I, 945
Franchise Fees 5% INCREASE $0 $0
Landtill Savings ($35,917 ($35.917
Total Pass Through Costs ($13,972 $0 ($13,972
18. Revenue Requirement IL $011 $011 $80,191 II $Oil $80.191 II
19. Total Revenue Offsets $0 $0 $0 $0
(from Page 3)
20, Net Shortfall (Surplus) $011 $011 $80,191 II $011 $80,191 II
21.
Total Revenue without increase RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIA~ENUE
in Base Year (pg.3, lines 32+40) $930,679 $01 $930.679
Percent Change Requirement ERR ERR 8,6% ERR 8.6%
Franchise Fee Adjustment Factor 90% 90% 94% 90%1
Percent Change in Existing Rates ERR ERR 9.2% ERR 1
22.
23.
24.
Fiscal Year: 1-1-98 to 12-31-98
Pg. 20f6
S".IIII COIl.ly S..il.ryScryiec, I.e.
Base Year Rate Adjustment AQPlication
Cost Summary for Base Year
GREENWASTE,FRANCHISE, & VARIABLE RATES
Description of Cost
48.
Labor
Pa roll Taxes
Total Direct Labor
49, Corporate Overhead
Less limitation
Total Corporate Overhead
Office Salary
Pa roll Taxes
50. Total Office & Yard Salaries
Computer Servicess
Depreciation on Bldg and Equi
Depreciation on green waste ca
Depreciation on garbage carts
Billing switch
Gas and oil
Hauling
Interest Expense
Laundry
Legal and Accounting
Miscellaneous and Other
Non-Deductible
Office Expense
Operating Supplies
Other Insurance
Other Taxes
Outside Services
Public Relations and Promotio
Recycling
Rent
Telephone
Tires
Travel
Truck Insurance
Truck License
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
Total Greenwaste Tipping Fe
Total Franchise Fee
Total landfill savings
56.
Total Cost
Pg. 40f6
Fiscal Year: 3-31-96
Section VIII.B..e Year Cost Allocation
$47,151
$3,043
$50,194
CUSTOMERS PARTICIPATION
$31,398 4,255 80%
4,255 100%
$1,950
$488
$2,600
$21.945
1,463 TONS@ $15
$35,917
I
1,463 TONS @ $24.55
t~~\4i9~8'I.f*iJii265itl
96 GAL
WW
$46.12
$46.12
YEARS
5
7
\ -0 L( 't-A f2- 0 fI:- -p J/.-'t:- 0l/~., T { 0 t;-J
South County Silllitary Service. Inc.
BASE YEAR RATE ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION
Financial Information
I II II II
Pism~ Pism( Arroy, I countJI Total
Commercia Residentia Grand
Section I-Allowable Costs
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
Direct Labor $50,194 $50,194
Corporate Overhead $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Office Salaries $0 $0 $0 $0
Other General and Admin Costs $20,737 $0 $20,7371
Total Allowable Costs $0 $0 $70,931 $0 $70,931
11. Operating Ratio
12_ Allowable Operating Profit
92~1 92~1 92% I 92~1 92%
$6,168
$6.168
13.
14.
16.
17.
Greenwaste'Tipping Fees ~~ $21,945 ~ $21,945
Franchise Fees 5% INCREASE $0 $0
Landfill Savings ($35,917 ($35,917
Total Pass Through Costs ($13,972 $0 ($13,972
18_ Revenue Requirement $011 $011 $63,12711 $011 $63,12711
19. Total Revenue Offsets $0 $0 $0 $0
(from Page 3)
20. Net Shortfall (Surplus) $011 $011 $63,12711 $011 $63,12711
21.
Total Revenue without increase RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIA~ENUE
in Base Year (pg.3, lines 32+40) $930,679 $0 $930,679
Percent Change Requirement ERR ERR 6.8% ERR 6.8%
Franchise Fee Adjustment Factor 90% 90% 94% 90%
Percent Change in Existing Rates ERR ERR 7.2% ERR
22.
23.
24.
Fiscal Year: 1-1-98 to 12-31-98
Pg. 2 of 6
SOMI' C...ty S.lIit.ry Scrvie.. lac.
Base Year Rate Adjustment AQPlication
Cost Summary for Base Year
GREENWASTE,FRANCHISE, & VARIABLE RATES
Description of Cost
48.
Labor
Payroll Taxes
Total Direct Labor
49. Corporate Overhead
Less limitation
Total Corporate Overhead
Office Salary
Pa roll Taxes
50. Total Office & Yard Salaries
51.
Computer Servicess
Depreciation on B ldg and Equi
Depreciation on green waste car
Depreciation on garbage carts
Billing switch
Gas and oil
Hauling
Interest Expense
Laundry
Legal and Accounting
Miscellaneous and Other
Non-Deductible
Office Expense
Operating Supplies
Other Insurance
Other Taxes
Outside Services
Public Relations and Promotion
Recycling
Rent
Telephone
Tires
Travel
Truck Insurance
Truck License
Truck Repairs
Utilities
Total Other Gen/Admin Cost
52.
53,
54.
55.
Total Greenwaste Tipping Fe
Total Franchise Fee
Totallaod fill savings
56.
Total Cost
Pg. 4 of6
Fiscal Year: 3-31-96
S.ctloo.. VIII.BaHY.ar.C.st AU.cation
1.$4,v,1'511
I '..
$47,151
$3,043
$50,194
CUSTOMERS PARTICIPATION
$15,699 4,255 80%
4,255 100%
$1,950
$488
$2,600
$21.945
1,463 TONS @ $15
$35,917
1,463 TONS @ $24.55
. . ~ ,-,,. 14',1-- I
; .": .;,". $.56;,,5'9; ~.Wr~,;:$$6.9'59
96 GAL
WW
$46.12
$46.12
YEARS
10
7
"
i.... Juth County Sanitary Servit Inc.
(805) 489-4246
._~
~~:~rr-"-
Tri-City Disposal Service
(805) 489-3534
874 Grand Avenue
Grover Beach, California 93433
Nipomo Garbage Company
(805) 489-3534
City of Arroyo Grande
Bob Hunt
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
10/22/98
Dear Bob,
South County Sanitary Service, Inc. is proposing to provide weekly greenwaste service to the
City of Arroyo Grande for an annual fee of $63,127. Every participant would receive a green
96 gallon Waste Wheeler to put their greenwaste in. I have enclosed a copy of the Pismo
Beach program that will start soon. There are several approaches to incorporate the
$63,127 into the rate structure. The breakdown of the $63,127 is in appendix C.
Greenwaste Option #1 (this is what pismo did) see appendix A
Include both commercial & residential in the greenwaste program. This will maximize the
recycling effort and spread the cost over a larger revenue base.
$6.90
$9.90
$12.90
7.2%
increase
$7.40
$10.61
$13.83
current
plus all commercial rates would increase by 7.2%.
Greenwaste Option #2
Include only residential customers in raising the $63,127.
see appendix B
$6.90
$9.90
$12.90
14.5%
increase
$7.90
$11.34
$14.77
current
Greenwaste Option #3
Adopt same rates as Pismo Beach residential and commercial. Raise franchise fee to
10%. AG would pay curside recycling costs to whatever vendor they choose. The $0.50
per month recycling fee vanishes from AG water bills. The 4.6% that Ralcco bills
commercial customers is eliminated.
Si~
i, .----y ~
I I -
U
Tom Martin, Controller
South County Sanitary
(
BASE YEAR RATE ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION
li'fp3f}~ l;f A
South County Sauilllry Service. Inc.
Financial Information
I II II II
Pismo Pism~ Arro~jl countJI TotJ
Commercia Residentia Grand
Section I-Allowable Costs
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
Direct Labor $50,194 $50,194
Corporate Overhead $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Office Salaries $0 $0 $0 $0
Other General and Admin Costs $20,737 $0 $20,737
Total AIIowable Costs $0 $0 $70,931 $0 $70,931
II. Operating Ratio
12. AIIowable Operating Profit
92~ I 92~1 92% I 92~1 92%
$6,168 $6,168
13.
14.
16.
17.
Greenwaste'Tipping Fees ~~ $21,945 ~ $21.945
Franchise Fees 5% INCREASE $0 $0
Landfill Savings ($35,917 ($35,917
Total Pass Through Costs ($13 ,972 $0 ($13,972
18. Revenue Requirement $011 $011 $63,12711 $011 $63,12711
19. Total Revenue Offsets $0 $0 $0 $0
(from Page 3)
20. Net Shortfall (Surplus) $011 $011 $63,12711 $011 $63,12711
21.
Total Revenue without increase RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIA~ENUE
in Base Year (pg.3, lines 32+40) $930,679 $0 $930,679
Percent Change Requirement ERR ERR 6.8% ERR 6.8%
Franchise Fee Adjustment Factor 90% 90% 94% 90%
Percent Change in Existing Rates ERR ERR 7.2%1 ERR
22.
23.
24.
Fiscal Year: 1-1-98 to 12-31-98
Pg. 2 of 6
Allpn~:.t ~.
Soulh County Sanitary Service. Inc:.
BASE YEAR RATE ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION
Pism
Commercia
TotJ
I
countJI
Financial Information
Pism
Residentia
Section I-Allowable Costs
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
Direct Labor $50,194 $50,194
Corporate Overhead $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Office Salaries $0 $0 $0 $0
Other General and Admin Costs $20,737 $0 $20,737
Total AIIowable Costs $0 $0 $70,931 $0 $70,931
II. Operating Ratio
12. AIIowable Operating Profit
92% I 92~1 92% I 92~1 92%
$6,168
$0 $6,168
13.
14.
16.
17.
Greenwaste'Tipping Fees ~~ $21 ,945 ~ $21,945
Franchise Fees 5% INCREASE $0 $0
Landfill Savings ($35,917 ($35,917
Total Pass Through Costs ($13,972 $0 ($13,972
18. Revenue Requirement $011 $011 $63,12711 $011 $63,12711
19. Total Revenue Offsets $0 $0 $0 $0
(from Page 3)
20. Net Shortfall (Surplus) $011 $011 $63,12711 $011 $63,12711
21.
Total Revenue without increase RESIDENTIAL REVENUE ONL ~
in Base Year (pg.3, lines 32+40) $462,588 $0 $462,588
Percent Change Requirement ERRR 13.7% ERR 13.7%
Franchise Fee Adjustment Factor 90% I 90% 94% 90% I
Percent Change in Existing Rates ERRII ERRI 14.5% ERR I
22.
23.
24.
Fiscal Year: 1-1-98 to 12-31-98
Pg. 20f6
-~--- ( .
Base Year Race Adjustment AQPlicatlvn
/""'~Pa""y1/?( / 'k.' (
Cost Summary for Base Year
GREENWASTE,FRANCHISE, & VARIABLE RATES
Description of Cost
48.
Labor
Pa roll Taxes
Total Direct Labor
49. Corporate Overhead
Less limitation
Total Corporate Overhead
Office Salary
Pa roll Taxes
50. Total Office & Yard Salaries
Computer Servicess
Depreciation on Bldg and Equi
Depreciation on green waste ca
Depreciation on garbage carts
Billing switch
G as and oil
Hauling
Interest Expense
Laundry
Legal and Accounting
Miscellaneous and Other
Non-Deductible
Office Expense
Operating Supplies
Other Insurance
Other Taxes
Outside Services
Public Relations and Promotio
Recycling
Rent
Telephone
Tires
Travel
Truck Insurance
Truck License
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
Total Greenwaste Tipping Fe
Total Franchise Fee
Tolallandfill savings
56.
Total Cost
Pg. 40f6
Fiscal Year: 3-31-96
Section VIII-Blse YearCOst.AI.....do.
$47,151
$3,043
$50,194
CUSTOMERS PARTICIPATION
$15,699 4.255 80%
4,255 100%
96 GAL
WW
$46.12
$46.12
$1,950
$488
$2.600
$21945
1,463 TONS@ $15
$35,917
1,463 TONS@ $24.55
1f:;\;"::'*$$~"?59.1~%;~1
YEARS
10
7
WEEKLY GREEN WASTE COLLECTION
SERVICE - CITY COUNCIL REPORT OF
FEBRUARY 9, 1999
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
FEBRUARY 23, 1999
ATTACHMENT 7
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JIM HAMILTON, AICP, COMMUNITY~/-
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (/ /-
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF WEEKLY GREEN WASTE COLLECTION
SERVICE
DATE: FEBRUARY 9, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council:
1. Select a firm to provide weekly green waste collection service,
based on a review and comparison of the proposals submitted by
RALCCO and County Sanitary Service (Tri-City Disposal Service);
2. Direct staff to prepare necessary contracts, or contract
amendments, for Council review and approval; and
3. Conduct a public hearing on March 9, 1999 to consider a revised
rate structure for green waste collection.
FUNDING:
There is no direct cost to the City; however, the cost for weekly green
waste collection will affect individual customers. Active participation in the
curbside recycling program, combined with the effective use of the variable
can rate system may reduce cost impacts to individual customers.
DISCUSSION:
Under AS 939, cities must reduce refuse going to landfills by 50% by the
year 2000. As of August 1998, Arroyo Grande had a diversion rate of
approximately 29%, down from a high of 32%. Like many cities, it will be
difficult meeting the 50% reduction by the year 2000. Failure to achieve the
50% reduction target could result in fines of up to $10,000 a day levied by
the California Integrated Waste Management Authority (CIWMA).
To address this issue, the City has taken aggressive steps to encourage
recycling including the Curbside Recycling Program, and recently,
implementation of a Variable Can Rate structure, Additional measures will be
necessary to achieve the required 50% reduction in solid waste mandated
by AS 939. One of the areas in which the City can make progress is by
increasing the diversion rate of yard clippings and debris, commonly called
Ugreen waste." An active green waste diversion program is a significant
element of the City's adopted Source Reduction and Recycling Element
(SRRE Executive Summary pg. ES-3, Attachment 9).
In May of 1996, the City Council established a program of green waste
collection and recycling for City residents. The fee for this service is
currently 75 cents per household per month, and the waste is collected
twice a month. Residents place a tag, provided by RALCCO, on a bag or
other container to designate it for green waste pick-up.
In May of 1998, a workshop on solid waste issues was held with the City
Council. Information on the role that a variable can rate system and
expanded green waste recycling can serve in meeting the State mandated
diversion rates was provided. In June, the Council adopted the "Variable
Can Rate" system, and directed staff to review the option of weekly green
waste collection.
GREEN WASTE COLLECTION AND RECYCLING EFFORTS
Green waste is now collected on a semi-monthly basis from residents, with
75 cents collected on City water/sewer bills to cover the cost of this
service. During fiscal year 1997-98, the San Luis Obispo IWMA estimated
that green waste comprised approximately 1,500 tons of the solid waste
stream, or about 10% of the City's total solid waste.
However, last year only 305 tons (20%) of this green waste component
was actually recycled through the current program. Projections on the
amount of additional green waste, which can be diverted by moving to
weekly versus semi-monthly collection, range from 60% to 80%.
The use of waste wheelers for green waste collection also appears to be a
significant element in these increased participation levels. The commonly
used green waste wheelers are easily identified by operators, avoiding
confusion between solid waste and green waste containers. They also
provide a more efficient method of collection, and a convenience for the
consumer that helps encourage participation in the program. Escalating
workers compensation claims and increasing costs for labor services are
dictating the move to automated collection systems. Automation only
becomes practical with the use of waste wheelers.
The experience of other local communities illustrates the impact that weekly
green waste collection, combined with the use of 96 gallon "waste-
wheelers" and a variable can rate system, can have on green waste
diversion (Attachment 6).
According to the San Luis Obispo IWMA, the City diverts approximately 12
Ibs. of green waste per home per month. In the City of San Luis Obispo this
figure is approximately 80 Ibs. per month per home, and in Los Osos this
figure is approximately 90 Ibs. per month per home, Both San Luis Obispo
and Los Osos combine weekly green waste collection with a variable can
rate system and the use of waste-wheelers. The San Luis Obispo Integrated
Waste Management Authority estimates that the combination of weekly
green waste collection, the use of waste-wheelers, and a variable can rate
system will increase total solid waste diversion rates in Arroyo Grande by
1 0 to 1 5 % .
PROPOSALS
The tables on the following pages provide an analysis of the costs
associated with various green waste collection options. The tables are based
on the information provided by the two firms which currently provide refuse
or recycling service in the Arroyo Grande area.
Table 1 compares the cost of the current rate structure and semi-monthly
collection, with that of weekly collection, on a per household basis, and
includes the total refuse bill based on the level of service chosen.
Table 2, compares total contract cost per year for the service. It assumes a
five- (5) year contract period. The table also compares the contract costs
assuming no exemptions from the service, and the contract costs with a
15% exemption rate. The City currently exempts approximately 700
residences from green waste collection. As the number of exemptions rises,
the cost per customer increases. Under the City's Refuse Ordinance, the
collection and payment of refuse and recycling services are mandatory,
except in the specific case of green waste, where the Council may choose
to grant exemptions.
The City currently allows exemption from green waste collection service
under the following four circumstances:
. Residential parcels covered by buildings to the extent that no more than
500 square feet of lot area remains which is maintained as lawn, garden,
or other landscaping.
. Commercial lots whereon an area of 500 square feet or less is
maintained in lawn, garden, or other landscaping.
. When residents have contracted with a licensed landscaper, which
provides for removal of green waste; or
. The resident conducts composting with a commercially sold, or
equivalent, composting unit.
To reduce the per user cost of weekly green waste service, the Council
could choose to eliminate or reduce the number of exemptions from green
waste collection service. This would also have the beneficial affect of
increasing the City's solid waste diversion rate.
In addition, the Council could choose to grant a ten-year contract to provide
service. This would allow the costs of the waste-wheelers to be amortized
over a longer period, resulting in a lower monthly charge per customer (See
Table 3).
The effective date of the contract (or contract amendment) would be April
1, 1999. The City's current curbside recycling contract will also expire on
April 1, 1999. Staff will be returning to the Council within 45 days with a
report concerning the status of the curbside recycling program, and a
recommendation to extend the current contract or solicit proposals.
Alternatives
The following alternatives are presented for Council consideration:
1) Select South County Sanitary, Inc., to provide weekly green waste
collection service, direct staff to return with necessary contract
documents for Council review and action, and conduct a public
hearing on March 9th to consider a revised rate schedule.
2) Select RALCCO to provide weekly green waste collection service,
select the method of collection (customer container or waste-
wheeler), direct staff to return with necessary contract documents for
Council review and action, and conduct a public hearing on March 9th
to consider a revised rate schedule.
3) Provide direction to staff.
Attachments
1 ) TABLE 1 - Comparison of Contract Costs/Collection Methods on A Per
Customer Basis.
2) TABLE 2 - Comparison of Contract Proposals on a Per Year Basis.
3) TABLE 3 - Comparison of 5-year contract costs vs. 10-year costs.
4) RALCCO proposal.
5) South County Sanitary proposal.
6) Memo from William Worrell, Manager, to Integrated Waste Management
Board on green waste diversion rates in Los Osos.
7) 1997 -98 Residential Curbside Recycling Table.
8) 1997 -98 Commercial Curbside Recycling Table.
9) City of Arroyo Grande Source Reduction and Recycling Element - Vol. I
10) Materials from Council workshop on Variable Can Rate system.
11) Documentation on current RALCCO Greenwaste & Recycling program.
12) Related general recycling and solid waste information.
'I"'"
I-
Z
w
:E
%
o
<t
J:
<t
(/)
(/)
<(
OJ
a::
w
:!:
o
l-
(/)
::J
(.)
a::
w
a.
<(
Z
o
(/)
o
o
I
I-
w
:!:
Z
o
i=
(.)
W
..J
..J
o
(.)
Z ~
o
i= (/)
(.) ~
w 0
::l (.)
o I-
(.) (.)
w ~
I- l-
(/) Z
~ 0
Z (.)
W U-
W 0
a:: (/)
<.9 Z
..J 0
<( (/)
i=(/)~
ZI-<(
w(/)a.
QO:!:
(/)(.)0
w~(.)
a:: I
(/)
>-Z"-
sZow
w-..J
~~~
>01-
-
'#.
-
c
Q) 0
:g ca .~
Gl ... " U)
'- 0 Gl ...
" ... = U)
.5 .5 8 8
Cii .......0;
c; Gl~Qj
I- ticGl,....
CD IllO.c en
>c>:>._~
:c 'E- - ;> tl Gl co
... ~cQ)"'t;;-<I>
c~mm=:gU
,g U):> '-0:>(1)
C::1ll>C'U>_
c
Q) 0
U) .-
III C t)
!=ca~f!
g'#.C;O:g
--...""
'#.##
.-entO
en <.0 to
,....,....
en en
.-o:i
.- .-
-<I> -<I>
'#.'#.#
tOv.-
Menu-)
N.-.-
cu ....... Q)
... Q)~Qj
(:!. ... Q) _ <.0 <.0 <.0
CD :g g .c 0 <.0 <.0 <.0
~.:: > ~ .~ ~ U 0 M <.0
-5E:ic"!U,-,-,-
C::lGlGl.!!!U)..J-<I>-<I>-<I>
OU)Q)~OIllc(
:!::g3:C'u3:!:
c
Q) 0
U) .-
III C tl
Q) .- - Q) tJ
U-~=cn
C'#.OOO
__.....00
Gl
... -
~ CD :ggo
-5 .:: > ~ .~ U
g_E:ic~~
:!:f!~mm=c(
:: (:!. :g3:t58!:
... >
5i~-..:
l: c f! U)
::l 0 0 0
U:!:I-U
Q)
...
,->:gC
~ .E :i ~ .g
-5U)Q)C"
c ... Q) Gl Q)
OU)~Gl=
~O._'-O
c::UlnC'U
'- Gl g'
~O"C=
.c - 'ijj "
... ... .c >
c U) '- "
o 0 ::l Q)
:!:UUa:
~oQ)Q)
.c- CD"
... III ._
C....c>
o U) ... ...
~ 0 III Q)
c::UC'(I)
'-
Gl"C
.c Q)
E ~
::l Gl
2(1)
Q)
Gl ...
:c III ~
III a: .- -
.~ C ~ ~
III III Gl C1l
>U(I)..J
###
.-entO
m<.OtO
,....""''''''
en en en
CO::o:i
00;;
tO~~
.-
CO.-o:i
0;;:;;;
to to to
,....,....,....
000
to to to
000'"
enenen~
<.0 en N 'IS
-<I>-<I>;;:C
o
"
"C
Gl
"C
.::;
o
...
a.
en <.0 0
~~,....
- .-
.- N
...
Q)
E
o
...
U)
c: c: c: :J
C1l C1l C1l U
(.)UU
.-NM
c:
o
'+J
()
.!!!
o
()
Gl
...
U)
C1l
~
C
Q)
Q)
...
CD
.5
Q)
...
C1l
...
c
o
'+:;
C1l
a.
'(3
'~
...
C1l
a.
I
c
o
c:
~
o
to
E
::J
.~
c:
'E
C1l
CD
c:
'E
::l
U)
U)
C1l
U)
C1l
...
~
...
()
C1l
...
...
c
o
"
c
o
"C
C1l
en
C1l
.0
Q)
...
C1l
en
Q)
...
C1l
a:
w
I-
o
Z
N
....
Z
w
2
:I:
U
cd:
....
....
cd:
en
Z -J
o ;J;
i= 0
(,) 0-
UJ 0
-J 0::
-J 0-
o
(,) I-
UJ (,)
I- ~
en I-
<( Z
S 0
z (,)
UJ U.
~ 0
<.9 Z
-J 0
<( en
i=eno::
Zl-<(
UJenO-
90::2:
en (,)0
UJ~(')
a:: I
>-enN
525UJ
UJ--J
~\i:~
>01-
>-
G
o
-l
o
GO
zO
-:I:
...JI-
...Jw
m:E
'0 '0 :2-0
t uit uii5'3c:
ro >. ~ ro >. ~ ~ (I) .Q
0.= t:' 0.= t::' . ~o U
(I)'.;:::ro(l);:ro(,) 0)
ro::::>-,=ro::::>-'=zt=
(I)>.U(I)>.u_roo
=_0)=_0) o.u
i5 :S .2 i5 :S .2 en fIl 0) !2J
>. c: c: >. c: c: en ro 1ii .!;
~oO)~oO)(,)=ro=
(,)::2:fIl(,)::2:(I)eni5~i5
~ -0 c:
:Ew It) c: 0
~Q. 1/1 IV,;
Q) ....c:IV
...J en E u 0.9-
~GI-~:::S Ec:u
f-O~~~;c;;etQ)
~g:u~~~8~ [~
~ 'Z
~ ~Q
a:: f-Z~ en
a::w It) " ..... f-
W:E-g I ~;;e9: Z
Q.OIV:I: ~~U :J
f-f-~f-Z~f-:I:~""'O
enen~ ~zl-~<<iU
O:JwOwOS;<CM'U
uu>-:E>-u>o.._<C
~
w 1/1
0.. c:
~ f-.2 Q) en
0::: w It) u.... .~ f-
W:E-g I <C C-c: Z
o..OIV:I: ~~Q) :J
f-f-~f-0:::f-)(1/I1t)0
cnen<cz<czQ)E~u
O:JwOwOoo..;u
UU>-:E>-UZ':=_<C
~ !
f-~W~~
Z~:E<Cw ~
W 0 c:
O:::f-f->-Q)-
o:::enen~Q)~
~8~~~8
~
f-O:::w
ai~~ :I:
O:::f-f- f-
~enen~Oz
:JO:JW
UUUQ.:E
Z
o
~o
frlo
-l:I:
...JI-
OW
U:E
0:::
wW
UO
55
0:::0
wo:::
cnQ.
fIl ...;
5l 0)
:::s .!;
... IV
0)....
E 5
o u
1ii c:
:::s ~
(,)0
<0
en
T'"
..-
(X)
ffi
.....
(X)
T'"
t.9
-
'<:t
'<:t
N
N
t.9
.....
l()
T'"
ffi
-
l()
(X)
cO
T'"
ffi
o
o
en
ffi
l()
.....
EA-
c: ...
0) 0)
0)-
... 0)
0l0)
,-'=
.~
(ij~
Olfll
<oro
en ~
o
U
(,)
-J
<(
a::
.....
en
'<:t
T'"
en
T'"
6
(X)
ffi
T'"
'<:t
T'"
ffi
<0
N
M
ffi
-
N
T'"
cri
C')
ffi
l()
(X)
T'"
ffi
-
.....
T'"
N
N
t.9
'<:t
en
N
ffi
-
(X)
N
ui
C')
ffi
.....
l()
T'"
ffi
-
l()
(X)
cO
T'"
ffi
<(
Z
<(
Z
<(
Z
<(
Z
c: ...
0) 0)
0)-
... 0)
0lQ)
,-'=
.~
(ij~
Olfll
<0 tll
en ~
o
U
U
-J
<(
a::
u
c:
>. i::' a;
-'= --c: 2 .!d
:5 :J 'c c:
o 0 ro 0)
enU en en
:C
I-
Z
o
~
~
UJ
0-
V")
r--
r..;
~
UJ
o
~
::r::
u
l-
I
u
u
-5
-0
C
<<I
:1
en
<
a:l
>-
g
UJ
~
.l.
a:l
<(
Z
o
o
UJ
I-
U
UJ
,.J
...J
o
U
~
UJ
I-
en
<(
~
Z
UJ
~
o
ci
UJ
o
:>
o
~
0-
l-
I
u
~
I-
en
-
~
C
<U
-0
.;;;
u
....
o
o
r--
>.
V
~
E
.)(
o
....
c.
C.
<<I
'"
C.
E
u
)(
u
.?:-
C
u
....
....
:l
U
.~
U
u
..c
l-
E
<<I
....
00
e
c.
u
-5
o
u
u
~
E
o
,::
-0
QJ
~
.Q
e;
'"
c
.9
c..
E
u
)(
u
'0 E
.... <<I
<U 60
..c e
E c.
:l
C C
u .9
-5ti
..c~
.~ "0
~ u
2
~ ~
.... ~
o C
<U <U
'" u
"i: ;0
:: ~
~32
... <U
:=! ~
~:o
::; Q)
0-5
~ .5
~c
<u 0
.~ .~
1: c.
1A :g
'05
'" c.
r;; E
8 e
u=
..c '"
I- 5
<u 15
'0 u
z ~
M
I-
Z
w
~
::I:
()
<t
S
en
I-
en
o
u
I-
U
~
I-
Z
Z 0
o u
i= a::
u ~
~ >-
..J 0
o ....
u en
W >
I- a::
en <(
<( W
~ >-
2 It)
W li.
~ 0
C> Z
..J 0
<( en
i=ena::
21-<(
WenD.
Qo~
enuO
W~U
cr: I
>-enC')
2~W
W-..J
~li:~
>01-
~o: 0:
<(<( <(
o:w ~
~>-
00: 001-
O:W oU
0-0- ....<(
~~ oll~
I-(I)O:::;Z
OOO~O
I-ULLlnU
en
0: I-
ffi~ ZZ~
0-> 020
0: I-ZI-U
O:WOUI-<(U
~~~<(;:)~<(
o 0:0""'1t)
1-(1) I- 0: I-Z X i= It)
(1)<( I-O:N
O;:)wO-<( .
UU>U~O-~
(I)
0: I I-
0:<( ZZZ
~W Oog
O:>I-Zi=u
O:WOU~<(U
W~""<(It)e:<(
0-0 I O:....U
1-(1) I- 0: I-Z X i= ~
(1)<( I-O:c.o
O;:)wO-<( .
UU>U~O-~
Z
o
i=c
Uo
Wx
:::JI-
ow
U~
0:
W
C
:>
o
0:
0-
W
U
:>
0:
W
(I)
(0
en
00<(
<Il-Z
~iii
c:
~
o
U)
0)
U)
::J
CD ~
E ~
S 'iij
U) ....
:J c:
u 8
o
u
U
...J
<(
II:
"
en
-.:t
....
:!<(
<Il-Z
~~
0)
:c
.!2
'iij
>
<(
....
o
Z
0)
:c
.!2
'iij
>
<(
....
o
Z
c: ....
0) 0)
0)-
.... 0)
0)0)
I.c:
~
Iii 0)
0)....
U)
(0 co
en ~
o
u
U
...J
<(
II:
...."
enN
.... ....
oM
co (0
<Il-<Il-
~iii
--
0)
:c
.!2
'iij
>
<(
-.:t
co
~
....
<Il-
....
o
Z
~
.0
~
co
>
<(
In
-.:t
"
....
<Il-
....
o
Z
c: ....
0) 0)
0)-
.... 0)
0)0)
I.c:
~
Iii~
O)U)
(0 co
en ~
C.J
c:
0)
C.J
>'-
.... 2:
c: 0)
6(/)
U 2:
.c: co
...., :!::
:J c:
o co
(/)en
RALCCO
PROPOSAL FOR WEEKLY GREEN
WASTE COLLECTION
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
FEBRUARY 9, 1999
ATTACHMENT 4
RETURNING TO A RESOURCEFUL AMERICA
. MAILING ADDRESS: P,O, DRAWER 1170
NIPOMO, CALIFORNIA 93444
. PLANTS: HIGHWAY 1 & 801 RAlCOA WAY
NIPOMO, CALIFORNIA 93444
1291 MESA VIEW DRIVE
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 93420
. PHONE: (805) 343-2289
. FAX: (805) 343.5515
Jim Hamilton
Community Development Director
City of Arroyo Grande
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
January 19 1999
Dear Mr. Hamilton,
At your request, I have reviewed the numbers for our recent green waste proposal, and while the overall revenue
requirements remain the same, the monthly cost per resident must increase to accommodate the anticipated 15% of
exemption requests.
At this level of exemptions, the monthly cost per resident is $3.26 with RALCCO provided waste wheelers, and
$1.76 without. Additionally, the monthly cost per account will increase by $0.05, with each additional 100
customers who opt for exemption for the program, and similarly decrease by $0.05 per 100 accounts who, while
currently exempted from the program, opt to participate.
These rates are based on assumptions of green waste tons collected, participation rates and minimum revenue
requirements as stated in our letter of 11.10.98. Consequently, we recommend a review of the program after one
year
I hope that this sufficiently clarifies our proposal for you. Of course, please call me with any questions or
concerns.
Sincerely
~
Stephen A. McGrath
RETURNING TO A RESOURCEFUL AMERICA
. ,lUNG ADDRESS: P.O, DRAWER 1170
NIPOMO, CALIFORNIA 93444
. PLANTS: HIGHWAY 1 & 801 RALCOA WAY
NIPOMO, CALIFORNIA 93444
1291 MESA VIEW DRIVE
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 93420
. PHONE: (805) 343-2289
. FAX: (805) 343.5515
Jim Hamilton
Community Development Director
City of Arroyo Grande
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
November 10, 1998
. f ^ '~I"':-'~C''''
City 0 ,,,t \:1: d;; ;'"
Community Development Dept.
NOV '1 J 1998
Dear Mr. Hamilton,
Pursuant to your letter of November 2, I hope that the following responses supply you with all the information
you need:
'1 Collection methodology: I trust that this was satisfactorily addressed in my letter of 10.29.98
2 Annual cost: as stated in the letter of 10.29.98, the total annual cost of the program is $81,196. When
apportioned amongst the 4496 water accounts, for billing purposes, that amounts to $1.50 per account per month.
However, if we must assume up to a 5% non-participation, through the exemptions program, the total annual cost
then becomes divided by a smaller number, pushing the monthly cost to $1.57 per account.
3 At this point, I am assuming that the 4496 number of accounts is the number of residential water accounts.
My understanding is that there are approximately 600 businesses in Arroyo Grande. Should you desire that
commercial customers be included, the monthly 'per account' cost remains $1.57. Currently, commercial
accounts are billed on a basis of number of units, or area of building. We recommend simplifying this such that
each water meter account is one billing unit.
4 The total program costs, as originally calculated, are as follows, and include an administrative and
overhead factor of 16%, and a profit of 8%:
Collection costs: $55,775
Processing costs: $18,040
The franchise and city administrative fees of 5% each are assessed on revenues, and do not include the overhead
and profit margins: $7,381
5 By using all recycling options available, and reducing garbage service to the one can rate of $6.90, the
resident will see a monthly reduction of $0.68 from current rates:
Old rate
Garbage
Recycling
Green waste
Total
$8.40
$0.50
$0.75
$9.65
New rate
Garbage
Recycling
Green waste
Total
$6.90
$0.50
$1.57
$8.97
RETURNING TO A RESOURCEFUL AMERICA
. ..INe; ADDRESS: P.O, DRAWER 1170
NIPOMO, CALIFORNIA 93444
. PLANTS: HIGHWAY 1 & 801 RAlCOA WAY
NIPOMO, CALIFORNIA 93444
1291 MESA VIEW DRIVE
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 93420
. PHONE: (805) 343-2289
. FAX: (805) 343-5515
Jim Hamilton
Community Development Director
City of Arroyo Grande
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
October 29, 1998
Dear Mr. Hamilton,
Further to our Qonversation of Monday, the following addresses the issues raised:
Collection methodology:
It is anticipated that the current collection methodology will continue, namely the use of RALCCO
provided stickers on customers containers.
Annual cost:
As stated in the proposal of October 20, the anticipated cost per customer is $1.50 per month. This
is arrived at thus:
Collection:
Labor, vehicle, insurance, fuel, etc.
Processing
Franchise and admin fees
$55,775
$18,040
$7,381
$81,196
Total annual cost
Landfill Diversion:
This is difficult to anticipate. Currently the City of San Luis Obispo is diverting approximately 250 to
300 tons per month. This suggests that the potential diversion in Arroyo Grande is 60 to 80 tons per
month through this program.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to present this proposal to the City of Arroyo Grande.
~~~
RETURNING TO A RESOURCEFUL AMERICA
.. ,lUNG ADDRESS: P,O, DRAWER 1170
NIPOMO, CALIFORNIA 93444
. PLANTS: HIGHWAY 1 & 801 RAlCOA WAY
NIPOMO, CALIFORNIA 93444
1291 MESA VIEW DRIVE
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 93420
. PHONE: (805) 343-2289
. FAX: (805) 343-5515
Jim Hamilton
Community Development Director
City of Arroyo Grande
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
October 20, 1998
Dear Mr. Hamilton
com;;;~~\~Y Deveiopcnent Dept.
OCT 2 1 1998
In response to your letter of September 24, RALCCO agrees that a comprehensive green waste program, coupled
with a variable can rate for garbage service, is one of the most effective ways of reducing waste to the landfill, and
thus the City's exposure under the terms of AB 939.
RALCCO first introduced green waste collection as a monthly program. Due to the overwhelming response to
this program, RALCCO voluntarily increased the collection to twice monthly, at no additional cost to the City or
the residents. To move this program to the next level of efficiency, and maximize diversion from the landfill,
RALCCO will be pleased to offer weekly greenwaste collection to the City.
1dW;.
Currently RALCCO collects green waste in the City semi-monthly, or 24 times per year, for $0.75 per account per
month.
RALCCO proposes to collect green waste weekly, or 52 times per year, for $1.50 per account per month, based
upon full participation. This reflects a 7% decrease in 'per pick-up' costs.
T"'
Imine:
If green waste service is to be expanded, participating residents should be able to receive a reduction in the level of
garbage service delivered and paid for. This is the intent and effect of a variable can rate. My understanding is
that this will be implemented in the near future. RALCCO strongly recommends implementing weekly green
waste at the same time as the introduction of a variable can rate for garbage customers. This will greatly enhance
the acceptance of the new program by the residents.
Promotion:
We suggest that the promotion for this program run in conjunction with the promotion of the variable can rate; this
will allow residents to see the connection between increased recycling and cost of garbage service.
Other:
An important consideration for the City must be the issue of exemptions from the green waste program. The goals
of AB939 are for all of the City to attain; any penalties will be paid by all of the City. It is necessary for all
residents to participate in this program. RALCCO strongly recommends that, upon introduction of the new
weekly green waste program, no exemptions be allowed from participation in the program.
Respectfully;
A.k~Q);--
~~o/
~~~
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
P.O. Box 550
214 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
Phone: (805) 473-5420
FAX: (805) 473-0386
E-Mail: agcity@rlX.net
September 24, 1998
RALCCO
C/O STEPHEN A. MCGRATH
P. 0, Drawer 1170
Nipomo, CA 93444-1170
RE: PROPOSAL FOR WEEKLY GREENWASTE COLLECTION
Dear Mr. McGrath:
The City Council, at its meeting of September 22, 1998, voiced its concern that the
City's diversion rate had dropped from approximately 32% to 28%.
The Council also spoke regarding the need to increase efforts to ensure attainment of
the 50% diversion rate by the year 2000.
One option to improve the City's diversion rate would be to modify the greenwaste
collection to a weekly basis. Therefore, please provide a comprehensive proposal
detailing the logistics to implement a weekly greenwaste program.
Please submit the proposal no later than October 16, 1998. Please contact me or
Helen Elder should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
aLL
~~MILTON, ICP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
J H/jv
c: City Council
City Manager
Assoc. Planner
SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY, INC.
PROPOSAL FOR WEEKLY GREEN
WASTE COLLECTION
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
FEBRUARY 9, 1999
ATTACHMENT 5
Tri-City Disposal Service
(805) 489-3534
~~.!.. "-
, ~:BtL.rr-"-
874 Grand Avenue
Grover Beach, California 93433
Nipomo Garbage Company
(805) 489-3534
City of Arroyo Grande
Jim Hamilton
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
Re: Requested greenwaste proposal
01/08/99
As you can see from the enclosed cost estimate, I assume an 80% participation
rate. The total cost of $63,127 for the greenwaste program will be the same
regardless of whether the city grants exemptions or not.
ASSUMES 10 YEAR CONTRACT/DEPRECIATION
NO
EXEMPTIONS
$63,127.00
Greenwaste program cost
PAYING CUSTOMERS
4,255
3,617
COSTICUSTOMERNEAR
$14.84
$1.24
COSTICUSTOME~MONTH
15%
EXEMPTIONS
$63,127.00
$17.45
$1 .45
ASSUMES 5 YEAR CONTRACT/DEPRECIATION
NO
EXEMPTIONS
$80,191.00
Greenwaste program cost
PAYING CUSTOMERS
4,255
COSTICUSTOMERNEAR
$18.85
$1.57
COST/CUSTOME~MONTH
15%
EXEMPTIONS
$80,191.00
3,617
$22.17
$1.85
Sincerely,
~//).//'-'
Tom Martin, Controller
South County Sanitary Service, Inc.
5 L{ ~A!G
pE.- ~!0C0IATl&~
Soulh County Sa:'itary Service. Inc.
.BASE YEAR RATE ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION
Pismol
Commercia~
II
Arroyu I
Grandi
Financial Information
Pisml
Residentia
c....Jo
20,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10
Direct Labor $50,194 $50,194
Corporate Overhead $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Office Salaries $0 $0 $0 $0
Other General and Admin Costs $36,436 $0 $36,436
Total Allowable Costs I $011 $0 1 $86,630 I $0 I $86,630 I
11. Operating Ratio
12. Allowable Operating Profit
I 92%11 92%1 92% 1 92~1 92%
$7,533
$0L- $0 $7,533
13.
14,
16,
17,
Greenwaste'Tipping Fees 8~ $21,945 ~ $21,945
Franchise Fees 5% INCREASE $0 $0
Landfill Savings ($35,917 ($35,917
Total Pass Through Costs ($13,972 $0 ($13,972
18,
Il
$011
$80,191 II
$011
$011
$80,19111
Revenue Requirement
19.
Total Revenue Offsets
$0
$0
$0
$0
Net Shortfall (Surplus)
$011
$80,19111
$011
$80,19111
$011
21.
22.
23.
24,
Total Revenue without increase RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIA~ENUE
in Base Year (pg,3, lines 32+40) $930,679 $0 $930,679
Percent Change Requirement ERR ERR 8,6% ERR 8,6%
Franchise Fee Adjustment Factor 90% 90% 94% 90%
Percent Change in Existing Rates ERR ERR 9,2% ERR
Fiscal Year: 1-1-98 to 12-31-98
Pg. 20'6
Soulh County Sanitary Service, Inc.
Base Year Rate Adjustment A(;!plication
Cost Summary for Base Year
GREENWASTE,FRANCHISE, & VARIABLE RATES
48.
Labor
Pa roll Taxes
Total Direct Labor
Description of Cost
$47,151
$3,043
$50,194
49. Corporate Overhead
Less limitation
Total Corporate Overhead
Office Salary
Pa roll Taxes
50. Total Office & Yard Salaries
Computer Servicess
Depreciation on Bldg and Equi
Depreciation on greenwaste car
Depreciation on garbage carts
Billing switch
Gas and oil
Hauling
Interest Expense
Laundry
Legal and Accounting
Miscellaneous and Other
Non-Deductible
Office Expense
Operating Supplies
Other Insurance
Other Taxes
Outside Services
Public Relations and Promotio
Recycling
Rent
Telephone
Tires
Travel
Truck Insurance
Truck License
Truck Repairs
Utilities
51. Total Other Gen/Admin Cost
$31,398
CUSTOMERS
4,255
4,255
PARTICIPATION
80%
100%
96 GAL
WW
$46,12
$46,12
YEARS
5
7
$1,950
$488
$2,600
52, Total Greenwaste Tipping Fe 1,463 TONS @ $15
53, Total Franchise Fee
54. Total landfill savings 1,463 TONS @ $24,55
55,
56, Total Cost =,~_....r"
Fiscal Year: 3-31-96
Pg. 40f6
\D L(f-A62- OEP!2--E0l/\T70~
South County Sanitary Service, Inc.
BASE YEAR RATE ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION
Financial Information
I II II II
Pismo Pismq Arroyu I counJI Tot'/
Commercia Residential Grand€
20,
6.
7,
8,
9.
10
Direct Labor $50,194 $50,194
Corporate Overhead $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Office Salaries $0 $0 $0 $0
Other General and Admin Costs $20,737 $0 $20,737
Total Allowable Costs $0 $0 $70,931 $0 $70,93 I
II, Operating Ratio
12. Allowable Operating Profit
I 92~ I 92~1 92% I 92%1 92%
I $6,168
$6,168 $0
13,
14.
16,
17,
Greenwaste'Tipping Fees ~~ $21,945 ~ $21,945
Franchise Fees 5% INCREASE $0 $0
Landfill Savings ($35,917 ($35,917
Total Pass Through Costs -.1$13,972 $0 ($13,972
18,
$011
$011
$011
$63,1271/
$63,12711
Revenue Requirement
19.
Total Revenue Offsets
$0
$0
$0
$0
Net Shortfall (Surplus)
21.
22.
23,
24.
$011
$011
$011
$63,12711
$63,12711
Total Revenue without increase RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIA~ENUE
in Base Year (pg,3, lines 32+40) $930,679 $0 $930,679
Percent Change Requirement ERR ERR 6,8% ERR 6.8%
Franchise Fee Adjustment Factor 90% 90% 94% 90%
Percent Change in Existing Rates ERR ERR 7.2% ERR
Fiscal Year: 1-1-98 to 12-31-98
Pg. 20f6
South County Sanitary Service, hlc.
Base Year Rate Adjustment A0)lication
Cost Summary for Base Year
GREENWASTE,FRANCHISE, & VARIABLE RATES
48,
Labor
Pa roll Taxes
Total Direct Labor
Description of Cost
$47,151
$3,043
$50,194
49. Corporate Overhead
Less limitation
Total Corporate Overhead
Office Salary
Pa roll Taxes
50. Total Office & Yard Salaries
Computer Servicess
Depreciation on Bldg and Equi
Depreciation on greenwaste car
Depreciation on garbage carts
Billing switch
Gas and oil
Hauling
Interest Expense
Laundry
Legal and Accounting
Miscellaneous and Other
Non-Deductible
Office Expense
Operating Supplies
Other Insurance
Other Taxes
Outside Services
Public Relations and Promotio
Recycling
Rent
Telephone
Tires
Travel
Truck Insurance
Truck License
CUSTOMERS PARTICIPATION
$15,699 4,255 80%
4,255 100%
96 GAL
WW
$46.12
$46,12
YEARS
10
7
$1,950
$488
$2,600
51.
52.
53.
54.
55,
$21,9451
I
($35,9I7j
I
1,463 TONS @ $15
Total landfill savings
1,463 TONS @ $24.55
56.
Total Cost
.~'I~)_I.I_""
Fiscal Year: 3-31-96
Pg. 40f6
.Inc.
Tri-City Disposal Service
(805) 489-3534
874 Grand Avenue
Grover Beach, California 93433
Nipomo Garbage Company
(805) 489-3534
City of Arroyo Grande
Bob Hunt
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
10/22/98
Dear Bob,
South County Sanitary Service, Inc. is proposing to provide weekly greenwaste service to the
City of Arroyo Grande for an annual fee of $63,127. Every participant would receive a green
96 gallon Waste Wheeler to put their greenwaste in. I have enclosed a copy of the Pismo
Beach program that will start soon. There are several approaches to incorporate the
$63,127 into the rate structure. The breakdown of the $63,127 is in appendix C.
Greenwaste Option #1 (this is what pismo did) see appendix A
Include both commercial & residential in the greenwaste program. This will maximize the
recycling effort and spread the cost over a larger revenue base.
$6.90
$9.90
$12.90
7.2%
increase
$7.40
$10,61
$13.83
current
plus all commercial rates would increase by 7.2%.
Greenwaste Option #2
Include only residential customers in raising the $63,127.
see appendix B
$6.90
$9.90
$12.90
14.5%
increase
$7.90
$11.34
$14.77
current
Greenwaste Option #3
Adopt same rates as Pismo Beach residential and commercial. Raise franchise fee to
10%. AG would pay curside recycling costs to whatever vendor they choose. The $0.50
per month recycling fee vanishes from AG water bills. The 4.6% that Ralcco bills
commercial customers is eliminated.
Si~
() -~~
Tom Martin, Controller
South County Sanitary
flffe17~;;e A
South County Sanitary Service. Jnc.
BASE YEAR RATE ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION
Financial Information
Commercia
Pism
Residentia
Tot.!
I
countJI
6.
7,
8.
9.
10
Direct Labor $50,194 $50,194
Corporate Overhead $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Office Salaries $0 $0 $0 $0
Other General and Admin Costs $20,737 $0 $20,737
Total Allowable Costs $0 $0 $70,931 $0 $70,931
11.
12.
92~ I
92%
$6,168
92~1
92% I
$6,168
92%[
$0
Operating Ratio
Allowable Operating Profit
13,
14,
16.
17.
Greenwaste'Tipping Fees ~~ $21,945 ~ $21,945
Franchise Fees 5% INCREASE $0 $0
Landfill Savings ($35,917 ($35,917
Total Pass Through Costs ($13,972 $0 ($13,972
18, Revenue Requirement $011 $011 $63,12711 $011 $63,12711
19, Total Revenue Offsets $0 $0 $0 $0
(from Page 3)
20, Net Shortfall (Surplus) $011 $011 $63,12711 $011 $63,12711
21.
22.
23,
24,
Total Revenue without increase RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIA~ENUE
in Base Year (pg,3, lines 32+40) $930,679 $0 $930,679
Percent Change Requirement ERR ERR 6.8% ERR 6.8%
Franchise Fee Adjustment Factor 90% 90% 94% 90%
Percent Change in Existing Rates ERR ERR 7,2% ERR
Fiscal Year: 1-1-98 to 12-31-98
Pg. 20'6
AI/~~~ /3
South County Sanitary Service. Inc.
BASE YEAR RATE ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION
Pismo
Commercia
Tot.!
I
countJI
Financial Information
20.
Pism
6,
7,
8.
9,
10
Direct Labor $50,194 $50,194
Corporate Overhead $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Office Salaries $0 $0 $0 $0
Other General and Admin Costs $20,737 $0 $20,737
Total Allowable Costs $0 $0 $70,931 $0 $70,931
11.
12.
92~ I
$6,168
92%1
$0
92% I
$6,168
92~1
Operating Ratio
Allowable Operating Profit
92%
13,
14,
16,
17,
Greenwaste'Tipping Fees ~~ $21,945 ~ $21,945
Franchise Fees 5% INCREASE $0 $0
Landfill Savings ($35,917 ($35,917
Total Pass Through Costs ($13,972 $0 ($13,972
18.
$011
$011
$63,12711
$011
$63,12711
Revenue Requirement
19,
Total Revenue Offsets
$0
$0
$0
$0
Net Shortfall (Surplus)
21.
22,
23.
24,
$011
$63,12711
$011
$63,12711
$011
Total Revenue without increase RESIDENTIAL REVENUE ONL ~
in Base Year (pg.3, lines 32+40) $462,588 $0 $462,588
Percent Change Requirement ERR ERR 13,7% ERR 13,7%
Franchise Fee Adjustment Factor 90% 90% 94% 90%
Percent Change in Existing Rates ERR ERR 14.5% ERR
Fiscal Year: 1-1-98 to 12-31-98
Pg. 2of6
'i,outh (:ounly S..iluy Service, lac
A{;PL/~L'~ G
Base Year Race Adjustment AlW1icatlvn
Cost Summary for Base Year
GREENWASTE,FRANCHISE, & VARIABLE RATES
48,
Labor
Pa roll Taxes
Total Direct Labor
Description of Cost
$47,151
$3,043
$50 194
49. Corporate Overhead
Less limitation
Total Corporate Overhead
Office Salary
Pa roll Taxes
50, Total Office & Yard Salaries
Computer Servicess
Depreciation on Bldg and Equi
Depreciation on greenwaste car
Depreciation on garbage carts
Billing switch
Gas and oil
Hauling
Interest Expense
Laundry
Legal and Accounting
Miscellaneous and Other
Non-Deductible
Office Expense
Operating Supplies
Other Insurance
Other Taxes
Outside Services
Public Relations and Promotion
Recycling
Rent
Telephone
Tires
Travel
Truck Insurance
Truck License
CUSTOMERS PARTICIPATION
$15,699 4,255 80%
4,255 100%
96 GAL
WW
$46,12
$46,12
YEARS
10
7
$1,950
$488
$2,600
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
Total Franchise Fee
Total landfill savings
$21,9451
I
($35,917)
I
1,463 TONS @ $15
1,463 TONS @ $24,55
56.
Total Cost
~il:II~\_lilfl_.~
Fiscal Year: 3-31-96
Pg. 40f6
1~~:'1.f1.Al/:.':~'~':J.:I:".:.'~I:~.:.'.:5.."'t. :ur"lIJ:~$"tt... €'Jo~~[.l'A~i'jl:i~ ::...l:IH;
State law requires that cities and counties reduce the volume of materials placed in the landfills by 25%
by 1995 and by 50% in the year 2000, Through curbside recycling and education programs, Arroyo Grande
met the 1995 diversion requirement. However, in order to meet the 50% goal, additional efforts are needed.
Other areas in the country have acheived a 50% reduction by adding a curbside recycling, a greenwaste
program and a variable can garbage rate (also referred to as .pay as you throw. or unit pricing), The curbside
recycling and greenwaste programs are already in place in Arroyo Grande. Now for the variable can rate structure:
The basic premise of a variable can rate structure is customers who throwaway lots of garbage will pay
dramatically more than customers who minimize their garbage, It rewards those who take the time and effort
to participate in ALL of the recycling options, In fact, if you diligently work at minimizing your trash, you may end
up paying less than you used to for garbage and recycling, Here's how. The city put out a request for
proposal on the greenwaste program. The lowest suitable proposal called for an increase of $2.05 to
the old rates,
under the old method
garbage $8.55
Under the new variable can system you controi how much you spend for garbage,
NEW RESIDENTIAL RATES EFFECTIVE 11.1.98
(garbage only)
32 gallon garbage WASTE WHEELER (same as 1 can)
64 gallon garbage WASTE WHEELER (same as 2 cans)
96 gallon garbage WASTE WHEELER (same as 3 cans)
$6.90 per month
$9.90 per month
$12,90 per month
EXAMPLE #1
A retired couple recycles curbside, recycles greenwaste, and puts out 1 can of garbage each week.
under the old pricing system they would've paid
under the new svstem thev will oav
$8,55 per month
$6,90 Der month
EXAMPLE #2
A family of four recycles curbside, recycles greenwaste, and puts out 2 cans of garbage each week,
under the old pricing system they wouid've paid
under the new s stem the will a
$8.55 per month
$9.90 er month
EXAMPLE #3
A family of four recycles sometimes, parents or kids have a weekly party and they set out 3 cans
of garbage each week.
under the old pricing system they would've paid
under the new s tern the will a
$8.55 per month
$12,90 er month
Under the old pricing system, the more ga, _ ",ge you threw away the cheaper it was, kind of a quanlllY
discount. It rewarded wastefulness, exactly the opposite message that AB939 (the 50% recycling law)
was trying to send to Californians.
Those who throwaway very few gallons will pay substantially less than those who throwaway
lots of garbage. This is exactly the message that AB939 wants to convey. It doesn't mandate anything to
anyone. Its fair to everyone because you "pay as you throw",
How do I decide which service level I will need?
Take a look at what you throwaway now and average it out over the course of a month. Then select the
the appropriate box on the mail-in card, You aren't stuck with that level forever. You can change twice
per year without a charge.
What do I do if I want to change service levels?
For the first selection, we ask that you mail the card in with your best guess as to what size garbage can
you will need, We suggest you try your first choice for 4 weeks before changing. There are 4,000 customers
in Arroyo Grande. If all of them call the office in the first week, the phone lines will melt down, we ask for
your patience during the beginning phases of this new system. After we get over the big push on startup,
you can call the office and get your billing level changed and request a different size can right over the phone,
Our office number is 489-4246. The phone is answered 24 hours a day, If you don't have to speak to the
office directly, the best time to call is in the evening. Our answering service deals with the phones from
4:00 PM to 9:00AM, The office answers the phones from 9:00AM to 4:00PM.
What should I do if I have extra garbage?
OPTION #1 If its just an occasional event, you may put it beside the can and your garbage man will
will pick it up and we will add $2,25 for each bag (32 gallons or less) to you next bill. Anything over two
bags must be called into the office prior to your pickup day, The garbageman will only take two bags worth
if he doesn't have a extra slip from the office, Don't leave the lid up and just pile the bags on top. The
WASTE WHEELER is designed to be emptied with the lid closed. Piled high garbage just falls on the ground
when the hydraulic lift empties the can. You will still be charged for the extra. Please don't lean extras against
the can, they just fall over a make and mess when we move the can.
OPTION #2 If you put out one extra bag per week you will end up paying $9,00 per month more, It
will be cheaper for you to move to a one size larger WASTE WHEELER. That way you will have the
convenience of getting all your trash in one can. Call the office at 489-4246 to adjust your service.
Do I have to use WASTE WHEELERS? What do I do with myoid garbage cans?
Yes, you have to use waste wheelers. In the near future, we will be replacing our trucks with automated
ones. These new trucks reduce workers compensation injuries (mainly backs & knees) and allow one man to
pick up the same amount of garbage as two men could with the older trucks. In the long run this will keep
the cost of collection as low as possible. Your old garbage cans make great holders for dry dog food,
During the week of Dec 7-11, 1998 we will be picking up and recycling any metal or plastic trash that you
want to get rid of, Just put them out empty on collection day from Dec 7-11, 1998,
What if I need more than three can garbage service?
You can subscribe to 4 can, 5 can, 6 can , etc..... Each 32 gallons of subscribed service will cost an additional
$3.00 per month. You just have to combine various sizes to get the volume you want.
128 gallon garbage service $15.90 per month you would have two 64 gallon WASTE WHEELERS
160 gallon garbage service $18.90 per month one 64 & one 96 gallon WASTE WHEELERS
192 gallon garbage service $21.90 per month you would have two 96 gallon WASTE WHEELERS
Won't this increase just make profits higher for the garbage company?
No, the profits of the garbage company are governed by the franchise agreement. The allowable profit
is limited to 8% of expenses excluding franchise fees, landfill expense, income taxes and political donations.
MEMORANDUM
TO: ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER ~
SUBJECT: RECYCLING OF STREET SWEEPING DEBRIS
DATE:
JANUARY 19,1999
At the November 24, 1998 Council meeting, Council Member Runels suggested that staff
investigate the possibility of applying for a credit for recycling street sweeping debris to
help meet the City's requirement for landfill diversion.
Staff contacted Tom Martin of South County Sanitary and Bill Worrell of the Integrated
Waste Management Authority (IWMA). They both indicated that since the City's street
sweeping contractor did not dispose of debris at the County landfill during the base year
that eliminating the debris at this time would not serve as a credit to the City's required
reduction of 50% by the year 2000. This also applies to green waste from grass clippings
the City generates from the sports fields since they are mulched by mowers on site.
However, Bill Worrell indicated that he is attempting to gain approval from the State IWMA
to provide a credit for greenwaste producers that now mulch grass clippings in place.
Additional research was also conducted into the City of Long Beach's street sweeping
recycling program. The City used to dispose of all street sweeping debris at the City
landfill. They have recently established a program to recycle this debris by having an
independent contractor compost the material which effectively reduces waste to the landfill
and contributes to their overall reduction in accordance with AB 939.
ATTACHMENT 6
DATE: January 13, 1999 ITEM: 10
o Approv~ 0 Deny
o Continue to
TO: Integrated Waste Management Authority
FROM: William A. Worrell, Manager
RE: Status of Annual Reporting and Implementing Green Waste Collection (Receive
and File) Update on the Annual Reports and Green Waste Program.
RECOM:MENDATION
Receive and file.
DISCUSSION
All jurisdictions must meet a 50 diversion mandate by the year 2000. Implementation of weekly
green waste recycling programs continues to have a large impact on waste diversion. Attached is a
chart which shows the diversion in Los Osos from their new program. Those communities which
have not yet implemented weekly green waste collection should consider doing so.
The IWMA is still in discussion with the California Integrated Waste Management Board
regarding adjusting the 1990 base year numbers to reflect a "normal" generation of green waste. If
approved, this would significantly increase the existing diversion rates.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
ATTACHMENTS: Los Osos diversion chart
10-1
,...
...~
ZS
IIItI)
:&(,J
z
a
ti
en
en
....
I
""-
en
en
....
w
C
Z
~
~
o
>
o
a:
a:
<
LL.
o
~
(j
~~.
~~:
......
111~~~!:
:-:.:
*;: .:~
~~.: ..
;$~ .::;.:~%
~:~.'~,~:~:\.. ::: ...
. ::"]
~
~:j:~::::::: ':~
.,~
:~:r" ,.. ~~
~~r .":'.~
',-
~~t.:.......... ......~:~~
~
z
::i
(.)
>
(.)
w
a:
....
<
~
z
w
C
Ui
w
a:
~
Z
::)
I
~
....
::)
:i
-
>
....
:i
<
LL.
W
....
~
z
-
en
>
....
:x:
~
z
o
:i
.J
~ III
o i
~ ~
~ ~
2
5
I
i
ClI
I.
~
.
!!
...
!
I!!.
.
~
~.
~
~
o
d
~
~
~
2
i!
~
~
C1
~
I
...
i
%
l:;
..
e
~N
Q) ..
~
~
..
:I
~
It
...
c
=
~
ii
~
s::
;
~
c
~
2
N
,..
CD
..
II)
N
~
..
Pi
II)
~
1"1
.
~
.
N
.
..
I
~
iii
N
.
..
..
,..
N
i
l:!
~
N
..
s
,..
o
..
~
It
..
.
,..
.
..
N
N
..
.
N
N
~
":
..
;
..,
II
II)
"j
II)
N
s
CD
N
Ul
:
I
1"1
,..
1"1
..
.
II)
N
I
~
o
II)
N
!
,.:
N
N
R
.
,..
,..
..
..
N
..
.
,..
,..
o
..
~
.
..
~
,..
.
N
N
~
N
N
~
..
..
~
!
!
c
..
.
,..
N
.
N
o
N
N
Pi
Ul
::
Ul
,..
P!
,..
.
N
N
I
8
..
..
1"1
~
,..
,,;
N
I
N
,..
l'l
,..
..
N
..
.
N
.
o
..
i
.:
i
..
N
.
.
II)
N
N
N
II)
..
..
15
I
'"
I
CD
I"i
CD
N
~
..
iii
Ul
o
N
N
:
.
~
..
tt
N
I
CD
N
.
g
I
Ul
,,;
N
i
..
,..
3
~
..
:
,..
o
..
1"1
l'l
CD
.:
.
..
,..
..
N
~
N
N
~
..
.:
15
.
o
~
g
!
N
:i
N
~
..
g
~
..
:
.
..
,..
N
.
..
I
l'l
.
,..
Pi
l'l
.
N
Ul
.
N
,..
.
,..
i
N
,..
o
N
..
~
,..
o
..
l!I
CD
.:
.
l'l
.CD
.
N
.
,..
l'l
N
N
N
.
..
..
15
.
iI
>
i
i
,.:
.
N
~
~
Ul
Ul
~
.
CD
.
s
..
,..
.
o
..
.
~
l'l
l'l
o
,.:
N
Ul
!
~
~
N
..
i
o
..
1"1
.
It
..
2
g
~
N
N
:
":
..
15
.
iI
u
III
00
II)
I
i
N
o
N
..
,.:
II)
o
..
Ul
,..
i
s
..
I
,..
~
Pi
l'l
.
N
.
,,;
N
N
II)
..
..
,..
CII
N
o
N
..
.
CII
CD
o
..
..
N
CD
..
~
II)
.
N
lil
..
o
N
III
..
..
~
i
c
..,
CII
I
iii
N
N
~
l=i
Ul
Ul
CD
N
.
l'l
.
R
,..
.
,..
,..
l'l
.
l'l
.
..
II)
Pi
N
II)
CD
..
Pi
.
.
~
..
..
i
.
..
CII
,..
.
..
N
N
N
.,..
N
!
CD
..
.
~
..
~
~
IC
Cl
...
N
en
.
;
N
S
l'l
N
ID
o
..
.
~
N
..
o
I
.
..
.
,.:
l'l
~
Ul
l'l
N
Ul
R
Pi
.
,..
..
..
..
..
Ul
I
.
l'l
I
..
..
.
N
,.:
N
I
.
,..
..
N
ID
o
%
U
IC
C
2
i
..
II)
N
~
i
~
.
,..
,..
~
..
o
i
,..
.
.
~
.
N
..
.
N
i
:
.
,..
I'!.
..
..
II)
..
..
o
..
N
N
...
..
CD
N
.
,.:
N
...
lil
,.:
po
CD
,..
o
..
i
c
i
..
:i
N
lil
.
~
o
N
N
N
CD
i
o
N
.
CD
po
Ul
~
i
.;
N
.
,..
..
,,;
.
CD
..
tit
..
po
~
l'l
o
po
.
Ie
..
..
N
Ul
ri
N
,..
CD
N
ri
..
.
.
~
..
>-
C
2
.
,..
CD
l'l
II)
N
2
.
II)
Ul
~
..
.
N
..
l'l
l'l
N
po
o
.
CD
II)
N
.
III
.
II)
.
1"1
N
!
i
CD
.
~
..
..
i
o
..
o
..
,..
..
..
l'l
...
...
N
~
...
..
.
CD
~
..
~!a I
c Z 0
~ ~2;
:I
..,
:8 g
... ~
o
N
l'l
.
.
.. ~
3 II)
Pi ..
2
.
l'l
;
P!
o
..
..
po
.
N
I
po
..
i
..
.
po
po
..
... ~
N CD
., ..
,,; I"i
~ 2
.
..
.
,..
~
III ~
. ~
Pi ..
N ..
CD .
...
III
II)
.,
en
CD
~
.
~ !
ID N
~ .
..
.
..
ID
~
..
N
.
!
,..
~
.
~
ID
.
N
.
,..
.,
.,
..
II II
gl~
c:
-!
..
,..
~
i
...
.. ~
i i J -
1; ! ~ t
: _ :.. i
,.a i1 .a
. . ::' _JI ·
ii 'C
': !f :. !
.. 11 E
= i ,t 1
~l ilcl
~ ".JI:
s::1=-al
fl~:lil
o.!~.!t:.!
~!Z;~;
f!~!i!
liiili
a!a!a!
~
Ul
o
II)
II)
~
o
i
iii
N
,..
o
1
1
oS
1
1
t
c
.
:i
::
:I
j
,..
ID
ID
o
.
lil
I"i
II)
..
vi
Z
~
C
U
U ClI
t; :il
~ i
iAilC
~t~
"lc-
"81%
2~:
o!~.. .
· . . z I!!
I C ~ ~ ..lit
"lI'c -'C
..~... u~
~81iilii
iA!ClIS,~
zzc...".
c..toe'"
~~~!si
2~>t~iA;I
~o''''a;
~ ; I ~ ~~
'''f~l.
;i!igS
a ~ J c ~I
ZZit ....
8tc~;1
l!~i~G:1
otli~..o
vi::Cz:;C
~~~f9g
C:r~c~i
~4C~CI
:) o~u::!
!~i~:o
~t88!E
~~,C~C
..fit~~
~~cf~::
If :!l i :!: ..~
~lI!ilt>tJ:
L~~~~~
1'I
~
o
..
!
I"i
,..
..
ID
en
i
N
N
..
I
iii
E
..
~
II)
c(
~
Z
III
III
a::
=
II)
II)
III
...
Z
o
...
a::
~
g
0 0 0
..
.. ~ ~
. en en
co M
Q G) N
Z . N
~ po
z .
0 CD ~
;j ~
a:: CD ('I)
III
> en N
is N
P.-
o
Z
::::;
(J
>-
(J III
III Z
IE :I
..,
z
o
1=
c(
&
III
~
('f)
o
en
()
co
0')
0')
-
I
r0-
O')
0')
-
w
C
z
<C
a:
G
e
>
e
a:
a:
<C
Ll-
e
>
!:::
(.)
:: ........
l:p
.:-;..
$:
fJ.
I:~':,:'
I~::::;::'
~i~~:~~:
w
...
Z
III
:IE
z
a
ta
G
Z
...I
(.)
>
(.)
w
a:
...I
<C
(.)
a:
w
~
~
e
(.)
>
...I
J:
t-
Z
e
~
~
< en
~ Q
o Z
~ ~
:E: 0
~ A.
~ ~
:t
a::
w
A.
<
A.
Q
w
x
i
Q
a::
<
o
ell
Q
a::
<
o
a::
w
A.
<
A.
en
~
w
Z
....::~::
'.:.
.}
:-:<<:
:.,:::~:
.,.~
:;
.....jj.
.....:.:.
.......:.:::.;~;
,...
-
~
a::
:E:
~
C')
-
en
o
i=N
~-
~
A.
.-
-
en
en
S
e
~
<
~
w
~
iii
Z
i=
::E
~
z
i
~
~
<
:E:
~
z
o
:t
!
i
"II'
,...
N
,..:
III
.-
.-
~
ID
"II'
....
~
....
,...
o
ID
N
l')
en
~
....
o
....
.
o
N
ID
,...
en
ID
....
N
>-
~
~
..,
o
ID
en
i
III
N
III
f&i
~
....
ID
ID
ID
N
~
....
N
....
ID
N
ID
en
o.
....
o
~
o
N
en
III
Gl
ID
.-
N
~
en
~
e
~
<
III
o
,...
i
N
ID
"II'
rzi
$
N
(f)
ID
~
"!
....
"II'
N
ID
N
o
o
....
....
o
ID
ID
o
N
,...
....
o
f&i
N
N
a::
w
ell
::E
w
~
A.
W
en
en
l')
N
~
Gl
CD
....
"II'
rzi
l')
Gl
III
N
CD
,...
,...
"!
....
o
....
ID
N
"II'
en
~
....
o
$
o
N
"II'
III
en
ID
....
N
a::
w
ell
o
~
o
o
N
ID
,...
~
III
,...
III
....
rzi
Gl
....
,...
N
ID
ID
N
"!
....
l')
o
ID
N
....
Gl
~
....
o
III
l')
o
N
,...
CD
Gl
ID
....
N
a::
w
ell
::E
w
>
o
z
III
....
l')
f&i
Gl
l')
CD
l')
ai
....
N
Gl
(f)
ID
o
Ul
"!
....
....
Ul
Ul
N
N
....
or:
....
o
....
....
o
N
N
III
o
f&i
N
N
a::
w
ell
::E
w
o
w
Q
CD
III
III
(f)
Gl
CD
o
....
ai
"II'
en
"II'
N
ID
en
CD
"!
....
"II'
en
"II'
N
....
III
~
....
o
....
l')
o
N
~
l')
ID
....
N
>-
a::
<
~
z
<
..,
....
Ul
"':.
CD
....
III
en
II!.
Gl
....
....
ID
ID
ID
ID
N
....
....
en
en
N
N
N
o
~
....
o
....
....
II!.
....
o
l')
Gl
~
o
N
>-
a::
<
~
a::
ell
w
u..
~
,..:
....
en
III
N
o
....
l')
ID
....
.n
ID
en
N
....
....
ID
o
l')
N
ID
o
~
....
o
....
....
II!.
....
ID
CD
CD
~
o
N
:E:
o
a::
<
::E
i
rzi
....
o
l')
ID
o
....
ID
ID
o
,..:
ID
ID
ID
....
....
Gl
ID
l')
N
III
N
~
....
o
....
N
Cl!,
....
ID
....
....
~
o
N
~
iX
A.
<
ID
....
ID
o
III
l')
ID
....
o
....
ID
ID
N
rzi
Ul
o
III
....
....
Gl
o
"II'
N
o
Ul
~
....
o
....
ID
Cl!,
....
ID
....
III
~
....
N
>-
<
::E
ID
III
N
rzi
....
ID
ID
"II'
o
....
l')
ID
ID
cD
Ul
....
.
....
....
N
~
N
....
N
~
....
o
....
o
Cl!,
....
....
"II'
....
~
o
N
w
Z
~
..,
~
<
~
o
~
Q
~
>-
en
ell
...
C')
o
,...
.;
III
G)
....
III
It)
o
....
....
o
CD
III
,.:
N
,...
C')
III
CD
.;
....
It)
....
C')
oi
N
co
,...
,...
N
....
o
G)
CD
OIl
cwi
N
,...
OIl
C')
&0
CD
o
It)
N
en
Q
Z
~
o
A.
tIl
Z
o
...
It)
....
It)
C')
N
G)
"II'
co
N
aD
It)
C')
G)
c.;
CD
l')
"II'
C')
,..:
CD
~
"II'
....
G)
C')
ui
vi
Z
o
...
a:
<
I,)
o
o
'"
o
a:
fii .. ~
~~f
~fx
"'l!!1,)
-' S .
l=",~
oz<
ID . ID
. a: >-
fIl~a:
fIl<'"
~~g
fii",~
~~~
~~f
-'tit
~<~
~~llt
.... 0 .
m"'a:
z!S~
t=~<
:!.!.~
",oil",
z..x
~~i
ZZo
8~~
-'00
~il!:
vi~~
Z .1,)
<"'0
~~~
~.~
;:l~;:l
;!:;",a:
~...a:
3z8
< Q .
ci)t:~
~~~
a: OlD
~ll!~
< . <
::E_I,)
I,)
~
~
o
C')
G!
...
...
It)
C')
G)
CD
N
C')
C')
...
o
en
z
o
~
'" I!i
~ ",fIl
i: s;! ~
.. :t 0
a:~a:
~ . ~
f lZ vi
e Ii ~
II: ~ ....
o ... fIl
5 ~ <
~ fii~
II: 0 II)
... < i:
ga::t
'" .1,)
-' 0 .
~ Z '"
~ ! ti
S g ~
a: ~ ffi
~ :t '"
f b ~
5 u:2
o ..0
!Z ~ ~
- 0...
IE ~ 0
a: ...::E
'" < .
... I,) -'
i viO
::E '" '"
o ;!:;...
~ ~ ~
II: 0 ~
~ <..
f ~;
~ ~ffi
iLol=
~ 16 ~
..
0 0
~ U)
~ ~
C) N
('f) 0)
~ -i
~
LO co
..- M
0) N
M 0)
''It
0
I-
w a:w
z <tl-
~ w<t
.., >-0
III
...
tIl
i
...
...
a:
III
:2
~
z
e
~
8
~
...
01
Q
Z
~
z
2
III
15
~
Q
III
Z
:::::J
u
>-
u
...
IE
Z
2
~
;:l
o
...
ATTACHMENT 9
City of Arroyo Grande
Source Reduction and
Recycling Element
Volume 1
Prepared by Brown, Vence & Associates
EXECUTIVE SUM:MARY
The Source Reduction and Recycling Element is required by the State of California. It is
comprised of mandated component sections organized to include specific issues and concerns as
specified in the state regulations (Title 14, Chapter 9 of the California Code of Regulations).
The documents for the cities and County of San Luis Obispo are organized as a series of
volumes.
Volume 1
Volume 2
Volume 3
Volume 4
Volume 5
Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE)
Includes the required components
SRRE Appendices
Background and technical information
Solid Waste Generation Study (SWGS)
Waste generation data
Household Hazardpus Waste Element (HHWE)
Required Household Hazardous Waste Plan
Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
SRRE and HHWE environmental analysis
The following is a brief summary of each section of the SRRE.
Note: The waste diversion figures in the Solid Waste Generation Study have been adjusted
based on revised statutory restrictions.
ES-l
F:\SW\90036\F\EXEC\ARROYO 07/14/94 4:19 am
June 1994
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
The Introduction provides background information on the California Integrated Waste
Management Act and an overview of the SRRE. The general requirements of the SRRE are
described and the regional and local planning context of the approach is discussed.
Regionalized programs include the formation of an Integrated Waste Management Authority to
administer countywide programs for source reduction, public information and education, and
coordinate the planning and development of material recovery and composting facilities that are
anticipated to meet the goals established by the legislation.
Existing and proposed local programs are identified. The diversion goals are discussed and
identified, and estimates of the program cost to the consumer is estimated.
SECTION 2: EVALUATION PROCESS
This section describes the process used to select the most feasible waste diversion alternatives.
The detailed rankings are provided in each component section. The selection criteria include
consideration of the following issues:
· Waste diversion potential
· Cost effectiveness
· Operating experience
· Environmental impacts
· Capital cost
· Conformity with market conditions
· Private-sector participation
· Time requirements for implementation
· Environmental acceptability
· Conformity with the state's waste management hierarchy
F:\SW\90036\F\EXEC\ARROYO 01/14/94 4:19 am
ES-2
June 1994
· Ability to accommodate changing economic, technological, and social
conditions
· Changes in waste type, generation, or use
· Expansion of an existing program or facility
· Market reliability
· Technical feasibility
· Economic feasibility
SECTION 3: SOURCE REDUCTION
The Source Reduction Component describes strategies and programs to accomplish quantifiable
source reduction. Programs are divided into five categories:
· Local govermnent programs
· Technical assistance, education and promotional activities
· Rate structure modifications
· Economic incentives
· Regulatory programs
Projected diversion from Source Reduction activities is estimated at 1.8 percent for 1995, and
1.8 percent for the year 2000. Priority waste types selected for targeting include:
· Miscellaneous materials (diapers, paper, whole wine bottles, reusable
items)
· Yard debris (backyard composting is considered under source reduction
rather than composting because of CIWMB regulations)
· Food waste (reduced disposal of food waste in regular trash)
'* The goals identified for Source Reduction include:
F:\SW\90036\F\EXEC\ARROYO 07/14/94 4:19 am
ES-3
June 1994
· To divert 24 tons of miscellaneous materials from the waste stream by
January 1, 1995, and 33 by January 1, 2000.
· To divert 190 tons of food waste from the waste stream by January 1,
1995 and 208 tons by January 1, 2000.
*
.
To dive of ard debris from the waste stream b January 1,
1995, and 270 tons by January I, 2000.
~
-
The objectives for Source Reduction include:
· Establish local government source reduction programs by June 1995.
· Establish technical assistance, education and promotional programs by
January 1995.
· Develop regulatory programs by December 1995.
· Establish economic incentives programs by June 1996.
· Establish rate structure modifications by January 1995.
Existing source reduction activities are described and alternatives are evaluated. The
implementation of the various selected programs is discussed. Table 3-5 summarizes the
programs, presents a schedule, and shows estimated costs.
SECTION 4: RECYCLING
This section describes the recycling programs selected. Priority waste types for recycling
diversion programs are defined as:
· Paper - corrugated containers, mixed paper, newspaper, and other paper
· Plastics - HDPE containers, PET containers
· Glass - Refillable glass
· Metals - Aluminum, bi-metal, ferrous/tin, nonferrous
· Other Organics - Textiles
F:\SW\90036\F\EXEC\ARROYO 07/14/94 4:19 am
ES-4
June 1994
Market development efforts are critical to the success of recycling programs. Local markets for
recycled products need to be encouraged and supported. Business activities that utilize recycled
feedstock in product manufacturing processes as well as those that produce products that are
recyclable should be fostered and encouraged. The establishment of a local Market Development
Zone is supported by all of the jurisdictions in the County.
The following goals are established for the selected programs:
· To reduce the total waste stream by 16.2 percent by January 1995.
· To reduce the total waste stream by 24.7 percent by January 2000.
The following objectives are to be implemented during the short term planning period (1991-
1995):
· Establish site-targeted drop-off sites by January 1995.
· Expand curbside programs.
· Develop and implement multiunit, mobile home, and group quarter
recycling programs by February 1995.
· Expand commercial cardboard collection and recycling by September
1994.
· Develop bar and restaurant glass program by July 1995.
· Expand existing office paper recycling immediately.
· Strengthen and expand local government procurement of recycled products
immediately.
The proposed medium-term (1996-2000) activities are to consider the design and development
of material recovery capacity for the Cold Canyon Wasteshed. Greater material quantities, more
constrained landfill opportunities and higher costs will require a larger and more complete
facility than is being evaluated in the North County. Combining recycled materials processing
and organic composting facilities with a proposed MRF will create economies of scale. Also
recommended is a collection systems study which will help design a system that will best serve
this kind of facility and still support source reduction programs, produce marketable commodities
F:\SW\90036\F\EXEC\ARROYO 07/14/94 4:19 am
ES-5
June 1994
(hopefully for local businesses), maximize composing opportunities, reduce hazardous materials
reaching the landfill, and maximize diversion.
A summary of Recycling Program Implementation is contained in Table 4-7.
SECTION 5: COMPOSTING
This section describes composting alternatives. Compostable organic materials comprise about
45.8 percent of the waste stream. Priority wastes are defmed as:
· Yard debris - grass, leaves, prunings
· Other organics - wood debris, food debris
The following goals are established for the composting program:
· Short-term: reduce the waste stream by 7.6 percent by January 1995 by
composting 1,921 tons per year of organic material.
· Medium-term: reduce the waste stream by 20.0 percent by January 2000
by composting 5,515 tons per year of organic material.
A Composting Marketing Program is needed to ensure markets for the compost produced. Local
governments need to establish procurement policies to use the materials and private markets must
also be developed to keep pace with production and ensure diversion from the landfill.
The following objectives are established for the composting program:
· Conduct a yard debris collection and composting system cost comparison
study by June 1995.
· Participate in the design, siting, permitting, and implementation of a pilot
program by September 1995.
F:\SW\90036\F\EXEC\ARROYO 07/14/94 4:19 am
ES-6
June 1994
· Determine the site location and design criteria for the proposed facility by
January 1996.
· Begin operation of a permanent facility by September 1996.
Table 5-8 contains the Summary of Composting Programs Implementation and describes the
tasks, schedule, and costs.
SECTION 6: SPECIAL WASTES
The Special Waste Category includes a variety of hard-to-handle and specialized items. The
selection programs target:
· White goods
· Construction and demolition debris
· Tires
Other materials evaluated in this section include:
. Asbestos
. Auto bodies
. Sewage sludge
. Ash
. Shredder waste
. Industrial sludge
Diversion projected for Special Waste Programs for 1995 is 14.8 percent; for 2000, it is 17.2
percent.
Inert materials in construction and demolition debris, which are currently diverted from landfills,
are included in the diversion rate. Inerts account for 64 percent of the materials currently being
F:\SW\90036\F\EXEC\ARROYO 07/14/94 4:19 am
ES-7
June 1994
diverted from the waste stream. The regulations on how these inert materials ultimately will be
counted are being reconsidered by the CIWMB at the time of this writing. Due to the
uncertainty of future application of credits for inert materials, overall SRRE program
development should not rely too heavily on this diversion to meet the 25 percent and 50 percent
diversion goals.
The Summary of Special Waste Program Implementation is shown in Table 6-7.
SECTION 7: EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INFORMATION
Education and public information will be critical to the ultimate success of all source reduction
and recycling efforts. The program alternatives include an extensive list of activities to be
pursued, including:
. Newsletters
. Internship programs
. Public service announcements
. Videos
. Technical assistance
. Recognition awards
. K -12 curriculum programs
. Block captain programs
. Speakers' bureau
. Recycling mascot
. Consumer information
. Utility bill inserts
Table 7-1 Education and Public Information Activities summarizes the objectives, tasks, and
estimated costs of the various educational programs.
F:\SW\90036\F\EXEC\ARROYO 07/14/94 4:36 am
ES-8
June 1994
SECTION 8: DISPOSAL FACILITY CAPACITY
This Section evaluates and projects solid waste disposal facility needs for each jurisdiction over
the 15 year period beginning in 1991. Existing facilities are described and evaluated.
Additional capacity needs are identified for the Cold Canyon Wasteshed (an application for
expansion of the Cold Canyon Facility is pending as of the writing of this document).
SECTION 9: FUNDING
This Section summarizes funding needs, analyzes funding sources, and estimates program costs.
Facility and program costs have been calculated without assuming cost savings based upon the
use of older equipment or use of existing rolling stock or structures. This was done to avoid
creating financial expectations that may not be achievable. Alternative approaches could result
in cost savings of up to 30 percent for some facilities should various creative means be employed
by the operations or these systems.
Estimated Local Program Costs and Revenues are shown in Table 9-1.
SECTION 10: INTEGRATION
This section describes the overall integration of the jurisdictions' plan. The component outlines
the prioritization of programs promoting integrated waste management and describes the
regionalized coordinated efforts. The Implementation Schedule is contained in Table 10-5.
F:\SW\90036\F\EXEC\ARROYO 07/14/94 4:36 am
ES-9
June 1994
ATTACHMENT 10
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 9, 1998
7.A. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF MODIFICATION TO
EXISTING WATER NEUTRALIZATION POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
City Manager Hunt said staff needed more time to research this issue.
After being assured that the Public Hearing had been duly published and all legal
requirements met, Mayor Dougall declared the hearing open and said all persons
would be heard regarding the matter. When no one came forward to speak,
Mayor Dougall closed the hearing to the floor.
It was moved by Runels/Lady and the motion passed unanimously to continue
this Agenda item to a date uncertain.
*
7.B. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF VARIABLE CAN
RATE STRUCTURE
Acting Community Development Director Elder said staff recommended Council
select a variable can rate, adopt a Resolution setting a rate structure, and
approve reportinglimplementation measures.
After being assured that the Public Hearing had been duly published and all legal
requirements met, Mayor Dougall declared the hearing open and said all persons
would be heard regarding the matter.
Tom Martin, Controller, South County Sanitation District, said the goal of the
variable can rate would be to throwaway less and recycle more. He showed
three containers in different sizes that would be used in the program. He noted
that if the Council selected one of the Variable Rates, the Franchise Fee will
increase by 10 cents at each level.
When no one further came forward to speak, Mayor Dougall closed the hearing
to the floor.
Council Member Fuller said it is crucial for Arroyo Grande to adopt a variable can
rate to meet the requirements of AB 939. He said the financial incentive of
Option B would motivate people. He said, with automation, many cities use only
one person to pickup the trash. Council Member Tolley agreed with Council
Member Fuller.
Council Member Runels said he could support either Option A or B, but had
concerns about possible increases in recycling costs to the City and the large
institutions in the City that create more trash.
Mayor Pro Tern Lady was concerned about Option B containing too severe a rate
increase between one and two cans.
2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 9, 1998
Council Members discussed the need for greenwaste pickup every week and the
number of exemptions that have been allowed. City Manager Hunt said 600 to
700 Greenwaste exemptions exist in the City.
Mayor Dougall said he preferred Option A with a one-year review.
It was moved by Tolley/Lady (5-0-0, with Tolley, Lady, Runels, Fuller, and
Dougall voting aye) to Amend the Waste Disposal Service Rate Structure to
Require a Variable Can Rate of $6.90 for one can, $9.90 for two cans, and
$12.90 for three cans, to review the program in six months after it is implemented
on October 1, 1998, and direct South County Sanitary to implement a public
information campaign announcing the rate changes.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Tony Ferrara of 759 Via Bandolero referred to a flyer regarding a Community
Workshop on the General Plan Update mailed by the City to all Arroyo Grande
residents. He said, with regard to agriculture lands, the issue was how to
preserve, not sell, agriculture lands.
Lorraine Vaught of 532 East Branch Street presented a petition recommending
the City install speed bumps and cross walks on East Branch Street in the 500
block. She said a child had been injured and animals injured or killed on the
street.
Otis Page of 606 Myrtle Street said he agreed with Mr. Ferrara and the four
points in the flyer were suggestions, not conclusions.
9. CONSENT AGENDA
Council/Board Member Tolley said he had a potential conflict of interest on
Consent Agenda Item 9.e. and would not be voting on it.
It was moved by Council Member Runels and seconded by Council Member
Tolley (Runels, Tolley, Lady, Fuller, and Dougall voting aye) to approve Consent
Agenda Items 9.a. through 9.e. (Tolley abstaining on 9.e.) and 9.g. through 9.i.,
with the recommended courses of action.
It was moved by Agency Vice Chair Lady, seconded by Agency Board Member
Tolley, and on a unanimous vote, Board Members approved Consent Agenda
Item 9.f., with the recommended course of action.
9.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification. Approved.
9.b. Cash Flow Analysis/Approval of Interfund Advance from Sewer Facility
Fund. Approved.
9.c. Statement of Investment Deposits. Received and Filed.
3
San,Luis Obispo County
Integrated Waste Management Authority
~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0" . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . '.10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. ... . . . . . . . . . . .
IWMA BOARD MEMBERS .
ATTACHMENT 10
Laurence Laurent. President, :
County of San Luis Obispo :
Mike fuller, :
City or Arroyo Gr.ande :
Variabie' Can 'Rate'
. .
Overview
Dave Romero '. Vice President, : .
. City of San. Luis Obispo :
George Luna. .: .
City of Atascadero :
Bob Reed, :
. City of Grover Beach :
by
Cathy Novak, :
City of Morro Bay :
Bill Wo'rrell
John Brown, :
City of Plsmo Beach :
Harry Ovitt. :
San Luis Obispo County:
Peg Pinard. :
San Luis Obispo County :
Ruth Brackett, :
San Luis Obispo County :
Mike Ryan. :
San Luis Obispo County :
Bill Worrell. Manager:
Carolyn Goodrich, Secretary. :
Raymond A. Blering, Counsel:
3220 South Higuera. Suite 210 :
San Luis Obispo,.CA 93401 :
, Post Office Box 8a7 :
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 : .
8051782.8530 :
fAX805/782.8529 :
E-mail: iwma@iwma.com :
Variable Can Rate Workshop
March.31, 1998
Recycling, Compost '&> Haz. :
Waste Info. 800/400-0811 :
School Programs Information :
. 8051782-8424 :
~'. ~~-<:t-/I Iqf
I
o PriiJted on "100% recycled paper (100% post-consumer w(jste)
~
~
~
0,
L.
-C:
1-'
. I :
:S.
0:
)-,
I :
UI . .
<C
I
>- .'.
m '
D..
~
~
cu
~
{II
~
~
't- -C.
o .-.
t).()O
t:(/)
.-
.~ ~
s.. C.
11. .u
~.-
._ t:
t: ~
:JE
43
b1) aJ
......
=, ~
.- =
~ ~
.-
J. ~
~ 0
...... ......
.- ==
=
~ =
0
" a
~ aJ b1)
...... = =
= .-
QJ ~ aJ ......
--= =
.- = ...... Q..
~ = = .-
~
u 0 .-
......
.. aJ ~ ~
QJ ...... aJ =
~ ~ ~
~ = = ~
.- ~
J. aJ
0 = ...... .-
......
;> ...... .-
.- =
~
" =
~ --= a
0 ~
= a
J. J.
--= ...... 0
...... ~ U
I
= "
0 J. ~ Q
aJ Q
~ a aJ
I ...... Q
~ = = M
= ~ J. J.
I aJ
~ = = aJ
= 0 aJ ;>
~ u b1) 0
. . .
L
~
(It
E
'(1)
..,
(It
>-.
U)
(I)
L
::s t).() .
t r::
::s .u ..
L._
.., L.
U)D..
(I)..,
.., .-
. ~ r::
D::)
-
~
C
o
--
~~
I.. I..
o RS
Q., cu
o C
I.__
a..:::,
~.._..
'_.,i
1'-..-,
I..
Q) CU
_ c
.c --
t'CSJS
-t: c
~ 0
>U
.........-c
-c
., cu cu
I.. I..
cu
cu--
-- ~
~ .
. --
O~
~ :J
J-!:
}r~~~.
,
r
if
J
1_, .
, llllf'
" 1.) f! ....'
l~
17
s..
cu
~
.-
m
. ~
~
o
U
cu
s..
::s
~
.u
::s
s..
~ ~.
(I) 0 .
11\ .-
~.~
~c.
0:::0
j.'
. .
I
f
j
(It
t).()
m
l-
.
en
t).()
m
~
......~_ln
~~f.J II . . 11I..co. ;.
..... '....
. ~. I :.
:"'- II'" .
:.:- __ f~
en
C
m
U
11
00
~
~
~
~
z
~
~.
~
~
~
~
z
~
~
o
~
rIl
.......
rIl
o
U
=
o
.-
.......
~
=
~
QJ
~
QJ
.......
rIl
=
~
~
=
rIl
o
Q.
rIl
.-
~
QJ
.......
rIl
=
~
~
QJ
~
=
~
QJ
~
.
.
b1)
=
.-
~
. ~
.~
~
QJ
~
~
=
=
b1)
=
.-
......
~
o
Q.
a
o
U
=
.-
=
o
.-
......
=
Q.
.-
~
.-
.......
J.
=
~
~ ~
QJ a
; E
QJ b1)
~'o
= ~
;....!~
QJ
..~
=
.......
(,J
=
~
.......
00.
QJ
QJ
~
.......
=
QJ
a
QJ
~
=
=
=
~
QJ
.......
rIl
=
~
QJ
~
~
=
.......
.-
=
~
~
QJ
~
o
~
.
.
00
~
~
~
~.
~
<
~ rI:l
......
rI:l
~ 0
u
~
< ~
rI:l
rI:l =
~ ~ ~
~ rI:l ~
= ~
~ =
z bJ) ~ ~
= .~ ~
.- ~ 0
~ ~ bJ) =
= = 0
~ = .- .-
.. ~
~. ~ ~
0 > ~
.... ~
= 0 -.
bJ) ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
.... ~
....
~
.
.
.
PAYT: Largest Communities with Pay-As-You-Thr...
;~", '"'-: ;:'~,"'>, Hom~
- ,<' ,-"-
, ~ . ' - - . <
7: 'ntroduction"
>)- , " - - .- ~- ,., , ~,
::~ Communities-"
, '- -:...... ,.', ~ ~ ,-
.T~~l~,&'~~v(mts; ,
:_,.~,.-~,' ,-- ,.:Topf(!1'
> ," , <.,' -, ,...
".:,;',:',' ".~~~~~rt~;
'. " 'I"AQ
-' >... ~: r -' rl
';:- '" i,..',-.: :~'r':"- .!-......J ~
SEPA
;J:,.i~';:_f S:'~F .';~~
Pay. As-You. Throw
..,,~:.!t1'i>i '~1i"i:'ti!'iii.
~:. w,u.t.~_wJ.... ~,,4,'f'
. . . '.' ."- '". .' - ... -" '.~- -..... - "
[ '; I.':.~':I :~;i: ..:: L'~': i,~ :.:! i; ::",;,-:
.""'!;.;:< '1
Largest Communities with
Pay-As- You-Throw by Population
Source: Unit Based Prtcln9. 10 the
, ~
United 5!.1te!o: A Tally o( Communities.
M.L. Miranda. Duke University. 1997.
Community
300,000 - 800,000
1. San Jose,.CA
2. San Francisco. CA
3. Seattle. WA
4. Portland. OR
5. Albuaueraue. NM
.6. Oakland. CA
7. Minneapolis. MN
200,000 - 300,000
8. Colorado Sprinas. CO
9. St. Paul. MN ,
10. Akron, OH
150,000 - 200,000
11. Grand Rapids. MI
12. Glendale, CA
13. Spokane. WA
14. Tacoma. WA
15. Fremont. CA
16. Worcester. MA
17. Modesto, CA
100,000 - 150,000
18. Hampton. VA
Population
782,248
723,959
516,259
437,319
384,736
372,242
368,383
281,140
272,235
223,019
189,126
180,038
177,196
176.664
173,339
169,759
164,730
133.793
Page 10f2
NH
MA
Rl
CT
HJ
De
MO
PAYT~ Largest Communities with Pay-As-You-Thr...
19. Pasadena, CA
20. Lansina. MI
21. Euaene. OR
22. Concord, CA
23. Salem. OR
24. Thousand Oaks. CA
25. Berkelev. CA
131,591
127,321
112,669
111 ,348
107,786
104,352
102,724
... Click here for a summary of the dati and methodology for the Tally
of Communities report.
MAPS BY:
fit(
A.--"J"".~. ~ (----.""t/
\-r' ... ". -' .' .~
. \"...,....- -~ '. - \.'... . ..j" \.:.
State
Container Case Study
SEARCH EfJA .' FEEDBACK' OSW HOME : EPA HOME
Managed by: The OSW Web Site Manager
URL: http://www.epa.gov/payt/comm-3.htm
Last Updated on December 19, 1997
Page 2 of2
In
E
ns
s-
t).()
o
s-
A.'
~
ns
.,
c:
cu
E
cu
c.
E
o
u
I.
~
(II
c
o
.-
~
u
(II Q)
c =
o 0 (II
__ u C.
~ ::::s
u (II ~.
Q) t).O U
,- c .-
o -- c.
u E t).O (II
t).O . E _5 E
c ._ ~ GJ
.- I.". ~
U .... 0 --
~"EEC.~
Q) ns -
a:: >-8 ~
.
81
. - s..
:s cu
o .c
... fit
~ . 11\
'CU ... W
CU s.. :s
E &. ~
c.. >
E :s cu
m (It s..
s.. (It -C
go~. ~ ;
s...!! cu
C. m -C ",. fit
o .- E ~ ",.
CU bO en ~ CU
.c CU ~ U
~~ s..s.. Uc
- -bO-...
- - 0 - \\1
.- <<n.- .- -
.~!: ~ a. ~ ~
..
57
City of San Luis Obispo:
Residential Solid Waste Services and Programs
Service Level Rate Volume
Orange Bag $2.40 Base Charge 32 gallon
$1.20/Bag
I
I Standard $15.75 64 gallon
I waste wheeler
I Premium $21.45 up to 192 gallons
customer cans
I
Current Residential Service Levels
All service levels include weekly curbside collection of recyclables and
green waste. Green waste is collected in a 96 gallon waste wheeler
provided by San Luis Garbage Company.
Service Level Volume
Orange Bag 32 gallons/Bag
I Economy 32 gallon
waste wheeler
I Standard 64 gallon
I waste wheeler
I
I
I
I Premium 96 gallon
I
waste wheeler
Proposed Residential Service Levels
All waste wheeler service will be collected by automated trucks and will
include the current recycling and green waste collection services.
Public Invited
(
WHAT: Variable Garbage Can Rate Workshop
WHEN: 6:30 p.m., Tuesday, March 31, 1998
WHERE: Ramona Garden Park Center
993 Ramona Ave.
Grover Beach, CA
WHY: The Cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach and Pismo Beach are
considering changing the method used to charge for garbage and
recycling services. Currently residents pay a flat rate for up to 6
garbage cans. Under a variable can rate structure, residents would pay
based on the number of cans actually used. For example the garbage
rate would be lower for a resident that used only 1 can instead of 6
cans.
.....
-' .'
WHO:
This workshop is being sponsored by the Cities of Arroyo Grande,
Grover Beach and Pismo Beach and the San Luis Obispo County
Integrated Waste Management Authority.
AGENDA
1. Call to Order and Roll Call.
2. Introduction. Mike Fuson, City Manager, Pismo Beach
3. Variable Can Rate Overview. Bill Worrell, Manager, San Luis Obispo County
Integrated Waste Management Authority
4. City of San Luis Obispo Experience. Ron Munds, Utilities Conservation
Coordinator, Utilities Departmen~ City of San Luis Obispo
5. Local Options. Tom Martin, Controller, South County Sanitation
6. Adjournment.
Printed on 100% Recycled Paper (50% post consumer)
AITACli1Ei:IT 11
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
CITY COUNCIL
ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGE~
ESTABLISHMENT OF A GREEN WASTE RECYCLING PROGRAM,
FEE FOR SERVICE, AND APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO
THE CURRENT RECYCLING AGREEMENT
TO:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
MAY 14, 1996
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council: 1) approve RALCCO's revised proposal for green waste
recycling services; 2) adopt a resolution establishing fees for recycling services; and 3) approve
an amendment to the current Recycling Agreement.
FUNDING:
Under the approved contract with RALCCO, the City is reimbursed for its administrative cost
of collecting recycling fees. '
DISCUSSION:
The City Council on March 6th approved an agreement with RALCCO Recycling for curbside
collection services in the City of Arroyo Grande. An element of the program is the collection
of green waste.
The City Council conducted a public hearing on April 23rd on RALCCO's proposed green
waste program and after closing the public hearing and confining the comments to Council, staff
was directed to add composting to the three proposed exemptions to the green waste recycling
program. Staff was also directed to add language to the resolution establishing fees and the first
amendment to the curbside recycling agreement addressing the exemptions to the green waste
program.
Based on Council direction, staff has revised the resolution and first amendment to the recycling
agreement to include language regarding exemptions to the green waste program. In addition,
the exemption form has been modified to add a fourth exemption category, which reads as
follows: "Conducts composting with a commercially sold, or equivalent, composting unit (City
reserves the right to inspect the unit)".
RESOLUTION NO.
ARESOLUTIONOFTImCITYCO~CaOFTImCITYOF
ARROYO GRANDE ESTABLISHlNG RATES FOR RECYCLING COLLECTION
SERVICES AND YARD. REFUSE (GREEN WASTE) COLLECTION SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande may determine rates and charges for recycling
collection services and yard refuse (green waste) collection services pursuant to Government Code
Section 40059(a) and Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 6-4.19;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande that the rates for recycling collection services and yard refuse (green waste) collection
services are set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this 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
, 1996.
A.K. "Pete" Dougall, Mayor
A'ITEST:
Nancy A. Davis, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
~. f/:LU:J1
Robert L. Hunt, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Timothy J. Carmel, Assistant City Attorney
I, NANCY A. DAVIS, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis
Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of peIjury that the foregoing
Resolution No. is a true, full and correct copy of said Resolution passed and adopted at
a regular meeting of said Council on the day of , 1996.
WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City' of Arroyo Grande affixed this _ day of
, 1996.
Nancy A. Davis, City Clerk
EXHIBIT IAA-
1. ' The monthly.fee for residential recycling collection service shall be Fifty Cents ($.50) per
residential refuse account for single family dwellings.
2. The monthly fee for recycling collection services for multi-unit dwellings and commercial!
industrial businesses shall be 4.8% of the monthly charge billed by South County Sanitary
Services for refuse collection service.
3. The monthly fee for residential yard refuse (green waste) collection service shall be
Seventy-Five Cents ($.75) per residential refuse account for single family homes and
Seventy-Five Cents ($.75) per unit for multi-unit dwellings (e.g., condominiums,
apartments and trailer parks).
4. The monthly fee for yard refuse (green waste) collection service for commercial structures
shall be Seventy-Five Cents ($.75) per unit or per 2,000 sq~are feet, whichever is greater.
5. Property owners or their authorized representatives. may apply for the following
exemptions to the yard refuse (green waste) collection service program:
a. Residential or commercial parcels with no more than 500 square feet maintained
as lawn, garden or other landscaping.
b. Property owners who have a contract with a licensed landscaper, which provides
for removal of yard refuse (green waste).
c. Property owners who compost yard refuse (green waste) in a commercially sold or
equivalent composting unit.
EXHIBIT "A"
1. 'The monthly.fee for residential recycling collection service shall be Fifty Cents ($.50) per
residential refuse account for single family dwellings.
2. The monthly fee for recycling collection services for multi-unit dwellings and commercial/
industrial businesses shall be 4.8% of the monthly charge billed by South County Sanitary
Services for refuse collection service.
3. The monthly fee for residential yard refuse (green waste) collection service shall be
Seventy-Five Cents ($.75) per residential refuse account for single family homes and
Seventy-Five Cents ($.75) per unit for multi-unit dwellings (e.g., condominiums,
apartments and trailer parks).
4. The monthly fee for yard refuse (green waste) collection service for commercial structures
shall be Seventy-Five Cents ($.75) per unit or per 2,000 sq~are feet, whichever is greater.
5. Property owners or their authorized representatives. may apply for the following
exemptions to the yard refuse (green waste) collection service program:
a. Residential or commercial parcels with no more than 500 square feet maintained
as lawn, garden or other landscaping.
b. Property owners who have a contract with a licensed landscaper, which provides
for removal of yard refuse (green waste).
c. Property owners who compost yard refuse (green waste) in a commercially sold or
equivalent composting unit.
FIRST AMENDMENT
TO
CURBSIDE COLLECTION RECYCLING PROGRAM' AGREEMENT
This FIRST AMENDMENT TO CURBSIDE COLLECTION RECYCLING PROGRAM
AGREEMENT is made and entered into, this _ day of , 1996, by and between
the CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, a municipal' corporation of the State of California
(hereinafter referred to as "CITY"), and RALCCO, a California Corporation (hereinafter referred
to as "CONTRACTOR").
WHEREAS, the parties entered into a Curbside Collection Recycling Program Agreement
dated , 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Recycling Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend certain portions of the Recycling Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises herein contained, it is agreed by
and between the parties heret~ as follows:
1. Exhibit "B" to the Recycling Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with Exhibit
"B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
2. Except as modified herein, all terms and conditions of the Recycling Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect. .
RALCCO
By:
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
By:
A.K. "Pete" Dougall, Mayor
A TIEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Krb-~L.+t~
Timothy J. Carmel, Assistant City Attorney
Robert L. Hunt, City Manager
EXHIBIT lOB"
A.Fees to be paid to CONTRACTOR:
1. The monthly fee for residential recycling collection service shall be Fifty Cents
($.50) per residential refuse account for single family dwellings.
2. The monthly fee for recycling collection services for multi-unit dwellings and
commercial/industrial businesses shall be 4.8% of the monthly charge billed by
South County Sanitary Services for basic refuse collection service.
3. The monthly fee for residential yard refuse collection service shall be Seventy-Five
Cents ($.75) per residential refuse account for single family homes and Seventy-
Five Cents ($.75) per unit for multi-unit dwellings (e.g., condominiums,
apartments and trailer parks).
4. The monthly fee for yard refuse collection service for commercial structures shall
be Seventy-Five Cents ($.75) per unit or per 2,000 square feet, whichever is
greater.
The number of residential accounts shall be determined by the CITY Finance Department
and shall include the number of residential accounts within the CITY which are presently
collected by the private hauler within the CITY limits. .
The number of accounts upon which the CONTRACTOR's monthly collection fee shall
be based shall be determined by the CITY's Finance Department as of June 30, 1995, for
the first year of the Agreement. The number of accounts shall remain constant until June
30, 1996, when a review shall be conducted. The number of accounts and corresponding
monthly fees for succeeding years shall be determined by the CITY's Finance Department
based upon the number of residential refuse accounts on June 30 of each subsequent year
of the Agreement.
B. Property owners or their authorized representatives may apply for the following
exemptions to the yard refuse (green waste) collection service program:
a. Residential or commercial parcels with no more than 500 square feet maintained
as lawn, garden or other landscaping.
b. Property owners who have a contract with a licensed landscaper, which provides
for removal of yard refuse.
c. Property owners who compost yard refuse (green waste) in a commercially sold or
equivalent composting unit.
C. Invoice Procedure:
Payment of collection fees shall be made once per month based on the billable charges as
described above. '
EXHIBIT "B"
A.Fees to be paid to CONTRACTOR:
1. The monthly fee for residential recycling collection service shall be Fifty Cents
($.50) per residential refuse account for single family dwellings.
2. The monthly fee for recycling collection services for multi-unit dwellings and
commercial/industrial businesses shall be 4.8% of the monthly charge billed by
South County Sanitary Services for basic refuse collection service.
3. The monthly fee for residential yard refuse collection service shall be Seventy-Five
Cents ($.75) per residential refuse account for single family homes and Seventy-
Five Cents ($.75) per unit for multi-unit dwellings (e.g., condominiums,
apartments and trailer parks).
4. The monthly fee for yard refuse collection service for commercial structures shall
be Seventy-Five Cents ($.75) per unit or per 2,000 square feet, whichever is
greater.
The number of residential accounts shall be determined by the CITY Finance Department
and shall include the number of residential accounts within the CITY which are presently
collected by the private hauler within the CITY limits.
The number of accounts upon which the CONTRACTOR's monthly collection fee shall
be based shall be determined by the CTIY's Finance Department as of June 30, 1995, for
the first year of the Agreement. The number of accounts shall remain constant until June
30, 1996, when a review shall be conducted. The number of accounts and corresponding
monthly fees for succeeding years shall be determined by the CITY's Finance Department
based upon the number of residential refuse accounts on June 30 of each subsequent year
of the Agreement.
B. Property owners or their authorized representatives may apply for the following
exemptions to the yard refuse (green waste) collection service program:
a. Residential or commercial parcels with no more than 500 square feet maintained
as lawn, garden or other landscaping.
b. Property owners who have a contract with a licensed landscaper, which provides
for removal of yard refuse.
c. Property owners who compost yard refuse (green waste) in a commercially sold or
equivalent composting unit.
C. Invoice Procedure:
Payment of collection fees shall be made once per month based on the billable charges as
described above. '
EXEMPTION TO
GREENW ASTE COLLECTION
The property, located at
based on the following:
, is exempt from, gr.eenwaste collection
Check One or More
( )
Residential parcel of land covered by buildings to the extent that no more than 500
square feet of lot area remains maintained as lawn, garden, or other landscaping (e.g.,
front yard xeriscaped, back yard maintained with turf); , .
( )
Commercial lot whereon an area of 500 square feet or less is maintained in lawn, garden,
or other landscaping;
( )
Contract 'with licensed landscaper, which provides for removal of green waste (attach
contract or most current invoice); or
:::r~[lglitl'&tllli.~~ilqmiIBE~flKii~j~
I certify the above to be true and correct:
Signature - Owner/Occupant
Print Signatu~e
Date
Exemption is good for one (1) year from the above date.
Extension of the exemption must be requested in writing by the
owner/occupant - Keep a copy for your records.
Return to:
City of Arroyo Grande
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Bob Hunt
City Manager
City of Arroyo Grande
214 E. Branch 8t
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
April 26 1996
. MAIUNG ADDRESS: P.O. DRAWER 1170
NIPOMO, CALIFORNIA 93444
. PLANTS: HIGHWAY 1 & 801 RALCOA WAY
NIPOMO, CALIFORNIA 93444
1291 MESA VIEW ORNE
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 93420
. PHONE: (805) 343-2289
. FAX: (805) 343-5515 C')
Ll I(
::t:D 0
-0 -.,
:;0 ::;0
:r:>-fTl
v:> :::CO
;:0 fTI
0-
-o~
3 00
r C)
.. ::;0
N 2;
.--J C
fTI
iETURNING TO A RESOURCEFUL AMERICA
Dear Bob.
Th~nk you for working so hard with us to craft a green wa~e program that
answers the needs of the City. We look forward to implementing this program in
Arroyo Grande, and seeing it succeed as it has done in other cities.
We have a concern however over the matter of the exemptions that are
available to the residents. As Mayor Dougall pointed out at the Council meeting of
April 23. with reference to garbage service, there are certain fixed costs to operate a
program. regardless of participation. As the number of exemptions granted under this
program increases. so the fixed costs must be spread over fewer residents. We have
estimated fixed costs for the program, and on those fixed costs, based our initial
proposal to the City.
While we certainly do not wish to burden the City with the accounting nightmare
of fixed cotsts spread over only the participating residents, and the variable rate
structure that would ensue, we do feel that at some point, revenues from the program
may fall below that neccessary to continue operation. Consequently we would like to
reserve the right to re-examine the program on, at least, a semi-annual basis, and
determine at that time whether a different rate structure is warranted.
We trust that this is agreeable to the Council, and would like to move forward
with the green waste program on that basis.
Sincerely
Stephen A. McGrath
Bob Hunt
City Manager
City of Arroyo Grande
214 E. Branch St
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
April 26 1996
. MAIUNG ADDRESS: P.O. DRAWER 1170
NIPOMO, CALIFORNIA 93444
. PLANTS: HIGHWAY 1 <<801 RALCOA WAY
NIPOMO, CALIFORNIA 93444
1291 MESA VIEW DRM
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 93420
. PHONE: (805) 343-2289
. FAX: (805) 343.5515 C")
tf. I(
:t:D 0
-0 -rt
::;:0 :;:0
:t>rn
c.,.) :::c 0
:;;0 fTl
0-
-v~
3: o~
.r- G")
.. :;:0
N ~
.--J S
rr1
~ETURNING TO A RESOURCEFUL AMERICA
Dear Bob,
Thank you for working so hard with us to craft a green wa~e program that
answers the needs of the City. We look forward to implementing this program in
Arroyo Grande, and seeing it succeed as it has done in other cities.
We have a concern however over the matter of the exemptions that are
available to the residents. As Mayor Dougall pointed out at the Council meeting of
April 23, with reference to garbage service, there are certain fixed costs to operate a
program, regardless of participation. As the number of exemptions granted under this
program increases, so the fixed costs must be spread over fewer residents. We have
estimated fixed costs for the program, and on those fixed costs, based our initial
proposal to the City.
While we certainly do not wish to burden the City with the accounting nightmare
of fixed cotsts spread over only the participating residents, and the variable rate
structure that would ensue, we do feel that at some point, revenues from the program
may fall below that neccessary to continue operation. Consequently we would like to
reserve the right to re-examine the program on, at least, a semi-annual basis, and
determine at that time whether a different rate structure is warranted.
We trust that this is agreeable to the Council, and would like to move forward
with the green waste program on that basis.
Sincerely
Stephen A. McGrath
ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING
NOTICE ~ HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council of
the City of Arroyo Grande on the following item:
App licant:
RALCCO Recycling
Location:
Proposal:
Representatiye:
CityWide . '
Establishment of a Greenwa.ste Recycling Program and Fee for Service
Roben L.' Hunt, City Manager
Any person affected or concerned by this item may submit written comme'nrs to the Ciry
Clerk before the City Council hearing or appear and be heard in suppOrt of or opposition to the
proposal at the time of hearing.
Any person interested in the item can contaCt the City Manager's Office at 214 East:
Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California during normal bUsiness hours (8 a.m. to 12 Noon and
1 to 5 p.m.).
IF YOU CHALLENGE AN ITEM IN COURT, YOU MAYBE LIMITED TO RAISING
ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBUC HEARING
DESCRIBED IN TIllS NOTICE OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONPENCE DELIVERED TO
THE CITY COUNCIL AT, OR PRIOR TO, TIlE 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 WInCH THE NOTICE WAS GIVEN.
Date and Tune of Hearing: Tuesday, April 23, 1996 at 7:30 p.m.
Arroyo Grande City Council Chamber
215 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, California 93420
-r7 . {i. ~
c~ .
MEMORANDUM
,- ...
\
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
APRIL 23, 1996
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City, Council at the close of the public hearing: 1) approve as presented
or modify as deemed appropriate RALCCO's proposal for green waste recycling services; 2)
adopt a resolution establishing fees for recycling services; and 3) approve an amendment to the
current Recycling Agreement. .
FUNDING;
Under the approved contract with RALCCO, the City is reimbursed for its administrative cost
of collecting recycling fees. .
DISCUSSION:
The City Council on March 6th approved an agreement with RALCCO Recycling for curbside
.collection services in the City of Arroyo Grande. An element of the program is the collection
of green waste.
At the March 6th meeting, the Council modified the agreement in two areas. Item 0, Exhibit
A, was changed to read, "Contractor shall prepare green waste program for the collection of
residential yard waste and, shall submit it to the City Council for review and approval on or
before July 1, 1996. Green waste shall be collected once a month commencing after Council
approval of the program."; and Item Cl of the same Exhibit. was modified to read "A
promotional campaign highlighting the addition of green waste collection shall occur for a period
of 90 days after Council approval."
Based on Council direction, RALCCO has prepared the attached Green Waste Recycling
Program. As indicated, during the first full week of each month, commencing May 6, 1996,
RALCCO will collect from residential and commercial customers compostable yard debris.
Collection will occur on the customer's regular service day. Customers will be provided with
green waste stickers for attachment to their containers, which will then be placed on the curb
MEMORANDUM
r-"
\
FROM:
CITY COUNCIL ,
ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGE~
ESTABLISHMENT OF A GREEN WASTE RECYCLING PROGRAM,
FEE FOR SERVICE; AND APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO
THE CURRENT RECYCLING AGREEMENT
TO:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
APRIL 23, 1996
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City, Council at the close of the public hearing: 1) approve as presented
or modify as deemed appropriate RALCCO's proposal for green waste recycling services; 2)
adopt a resolution establishing fees for recycling services; and 3) approve an amendment to the
current Recycling Agreement.
FUNDING:
Under the approved contract with RALCCO, the City is reimbursed for its administrative cost
of collecting recycling fees.
DISCUSSION:
The City Council on March 6th approved an agreemeilt with RALCCO Recycling for curbside
.collection services in the City of Arroyo Grande. An element of the program is the collection
of green waste.
At the March 6th meeting, the Council modified the agreement in two areas. Item 0, Exhibit
A, was changed to read, "Contractor shall prepare green waste program for the collection of
residential yard waste and. shall submit it to the City Council for review and approval on or
before July 1, 1996. Green waste shall be collected once a month commencing after Council
approval of the program."; and Item Cl of the same Exhibit, was modified to read "A
promotional campaign highlighting the addition of green waste collection shall occur for a period
of 90 days after Council approval."
Based on Council. direction, RALCCO has prepared the attached Green Waste Recycling
Program. As indicated, during the first full week of each month, commencing May 6, 1996,
RALCCO will collect from residential and commercial customers compostable yard debris.
Collection will occur on the customer's regular service day. Customers will be provided with
green waste stickers for attachment to their containers, which will then be placed on the curb
CITY Co.UNCIL ."
ESTABLISHMENT OF A GREEN WASTE RECYCLING PROGRAM, FEE FOR SERVICE,
AND APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CURRENT RECYCLING AGREEMENT
APRIL 23, 1996
PAGE 2
with the stickers visible from the street. Customers will be limited to six containers, each
container weighing no more than 65 pounds. Acceptable material~ include clippings, plants and
weeds, leaves, and branches (cut to 4'). Non-acceptable materials include dirt, rocks, and
branches longer than 4'. RALCCO's promotional campaign will include direct solicitation of
customers and advertising in the print media.
Per Council direction and after meeting with Council Member Fuller and staff, the program
proposed by RALCCO includes an exemption to participation. in the program wh~n: 1) a
residential parcel of land is covered by buildings to the extent that no more than 500 square feet
of the lot area is maintained as lawn, garden, or other landscaping; 2) a commercial lot where
an area 500 square feet or less is maintained as lawn, garden, or other landscaping; or 3) there
is a contract with a licensed landscaper that provides for the removal of green waste.
The promotional material will advise customers that an exemption form is available from the
City and the form must be returned to the City (central point of collection). Consistent with the
terms of the Agreement for non-green waste recycling collection service, the City will be
responsible for billing and the processing of exemption requests for residential customers and
RALCCO will retain responsibility for all nonresidential customers. Based on observations by
RALCCO 'during routine collection, should it be determined thai an exemption may not be
warranted, it is the City's responsibility, per the recently adopted Refuse ordinance, to follow-up
with a series of letters and/or other actions to ensure compliance with the program.
The proposed collection fee for green waste recycling is 75 cents per household per month,
condominiums/apartments/trailer parks based on the number of units, and commercial structures
75 cents per unit or per 2,000 square feet, whichever is grea~er.
Because the proposed green waste program identifies fees in greater detail than the Recycling
Agreement, staff is recommending an amendment to the current agreement to ensure consistency
between the two documents.
The City agreed to implement a green waste program as part of the City's Source Reduction and
Recycling Element (SRRE). Green waste makes up approximately 18% of the City's residential
waste stream and 10.7% of the total waste stream. The City's SRRE estimates a green waste
program would divert 7.6% of the City's waste from the landfill. Implementation of a green
waste program would have a positive impact in the City's ability to attain the 50% diversion by
the year 2000, pursuant to AB 939. The statewide average cost for green, waste recycling is $1
to $2 per month per household. '
CITY COUNCIL
ESTABLISHMENT OF A GREEN WASTE RECYCLING PROGRAM, FEE FOR SERVICE,
AND APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CURRENT RECYCLING AGREEMENT .
APRIL 23, 1996
PAGE 3
(
The following alternatives are presented for Council consideration:
A) Green Waste Recycling Program
1) Approve the Program as presented;
2) Approve the Program with modifications;
3) Not approve the Program and direct RALCCO to provide other options.
B)
Resolution Establishing Fees
1) Approve the resolution as presented;
2) Approve the resolution with modifications;
3) Not. approve the resolution and retain the fees as
Recycling Agreement.
identified in the current
C)
Amendment to the Recycling Agreement
1) Approve the amendment as presented;
2) Approve the amendment with modifications;
3) Not approve the amendment.
I..
It is recommended the City Council take public input and, at the close of the public hearing,
approve as presented or modify as deemed appropriate RALCCO'S proposal for green waste
recycling services; adopt a resolution establishing fees; and approve an amendment to the current
Recycling Agreement.
KM/N.
CITY COUNCIL
ESTABLISHMENT OF A GREEN WASTE RECYCLING PROGRAM, FEE FOR SERVICE,
AND APPROV AL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CURRENT RECYCLING AGREEMENT '
APRIL 23, 1996
PAGE 3
(
The following alternatives are presented for Council consideration:
A) Green Waste Recycling Program
1) Approve the Program as presented;
2) Approve the Program with modifications;
3) Not approve the Program and direct RALCCO to provide other options.
B) Resolution Establishing Fees
1) Approve the resolution as presented;
2) Approve the resolution with modifications;
3) Not approve the resolution and retain the fees as identified in the current
Recycling Agreement.
C) Amendment to the Recycling Agreement
1) Approve the amendment as presented;
2) Approve the amendment with modifications;
3) Not approve the amendment.
It is recommended the City Council take public input and, at the close of the public hearing,
approve as presented or modify as deemed appropriate RALCCO'S proposal for green waste
recycling services; adopt a resolution establishing fees; and appr~ve an amendment to the current
Recycling Agreement.
KMlJV .
RALCCO RECYCLING
. GREEN WASTE SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE' ,
APRIL 23 1996
(-
BACKGROUNQ
As is every other city in California, Arroyo Grande is approaching the next A.B. 939
deadline, that requires 50% landfill diversion by the year 2QOO.
To that end Arroyo Grande sought proposals for curbside collection of recyclables and
green waste. The contract was awarded to RALCCO, based on cost, programs and a
history' of successful service to the City.
A part 'Of that contract is the institution of a green waste collection program.
Spring is the season responsible for the majority of green waste generation. At this
time of year, yards are being cleaned, fruit trees pruned,' lawns mowed. To make the
most of this opportunity for green waste diversion from the landfill, RALCCO wishes to
' implement the program as described below for the monthly collection of residential.
green waste, as outlined in our proposal dated September 8 1995.
)"HE PROGRAM
During the first full week of each month, commencing May 6th 1996, RALCCO
will collect from residential and commercial customers compostable yard debris.
Collection wiff occur on the customer's regular service day.
Customers will be provided with green waste stickers for attachment to their
containers, which will then be placed on the curb, with the stickers visible from the
street.
Customers will be limited to six containers, weighing no more than 65 pounds
each.
t
Material may also be cut and bundled, no longer than four ,feet.
Acceptable materials include clippings, plants and weeds, leaves, branches (cut to
4').
Non acceptable materials include dirt, rocks, containers, branches longer than 4'.
EQUIPMENT
Material will be collected by a 30 cubic yard side loader, and transported to other
composting and recycling facilities, until development of RALCCO's composting
facility on the Nipomo Mesa
PROMOTION
RALCCO will institute a promotional campaign for the implementation of the program.
This will include direct solicitation of ~ur existing customers and print
advertising. Our experience in both Morro Bay and Cambria suggests that public
acceptance of the program will be fast and enthusuaistic. Upon callingRALCCO at
489-CURB for the institution of service, customers will be mailed detailed
instructions and green waste stickers. Informational materials and stickers will
be available on an ongoing basis at City Hall, or by calling RALCCO.
COST
The additional cost for the once monthly collection of residential green waste, as
outlined in our initial proposal, is 75~ per household per month. Condominiums,
apartments and trailer parks will be assessed 75ft per residential unit; commercial
properties will be assesse9 75ft per unit or per 2.000 square feet whichever total is
greater. .
EXCEPTIONS
It is understood that certain properties may not generate yard debris. To address that
issue, the following exceptions to the mandatory pay program for yard debris collection
shall apply:
1 Residential or commercial parcels with no more than 500 s.t maintained as
lawn, garden or other landscaping
2 Property owners having a contract with a licensed landscaper, which provides
for removal of green waste (contract or recent invoice required).
Exemptions to the green waste mandatory pay program must be applied for in writing
to the CitY, and are good for one year. Extensions must be requested in writing, by the
owner or occupant. Green waste will not be collected from properties with a valid
exemption in place.
COMING SOON
TO THE CURB NEAR YOU:
ARROYO GRANDE
GREEN WASTE
COLLECTION
AND
RECYCLING
(
WHAT IS GREEN WASTE?
ANYrHING COMPOSTABLE {
THAT COMES OUT OF YOUR GARDEN:
Lawn Clippings · Shrubs · Tree Branches · Plants · Weeds
. Call RALCCO at 489-CURB for complete
instructions for Green Waste Recycling,
including the Green Waste Stickers
to apply to your can.
PLEASE NOTE:
· Six Containers Maximum, 65 Pounds Per Can
· No Rocks, Dirt, Plant Containers, Or
Other Inorganic Material
· Branches Must Be Cut To A Maximum Of 4' Long
\
r
>'~6VJ
::> S!nl uC!S
.~ l!WJCld
!IVd
3lC!1:I 'lIng
,..~ " ~
a 0
z :c
-
.,. .... v
~ v e: ~
>
-- V LLlZLLl
a ~ LLI LLI " c-::;)
Cc: <00'
-
\I ~LLI c:G::z
Z =... <s<
0- D::", Co...... =
'$ 83
" LLlLLI<
<0....
era (c, z .... <
LLI V
.~ LLI -
D:: V
" LLI
c:
4)C: ,......,..
-:;:.2~~:C
10. :..... 0\ E I-
~~~4)cic:h
o-g>~ooS
........>>001
c: '" 10 > N c: a..
::J 0' - 0 ... ~ ...J
o Vl 4) c: 10 jij UJ
E N "Ca "0 ~..c: J:
104)-:;:C: v 0
..c. 104).....
~1-~Vl-5 0 J-
.......:E~>-E J-
~cgr-.o 4) c:::
::J "0 -... ..c: <(
"0 c: 10 10 c: ..., a..
4)~U4).24) _
... >- >., ....0 .....
o~.o4)~= :J
... -:; "0 -5 "0 o~ 0
""04)>.,f! >-
E.........o c:
jij.s"3"O~.2 0
O"4)OU 0
O~~C:Vl::J
'" ~ .,.. on; 10 "0
",C:IO~ f!
.CV mr-
~
...
G:c=
OC:
,,=
~"
CC I
CO-
-CO
~~
"
L1. V'l"
ot)
zEo
OOZ
J- c::: <( .
U a.. .. UJ
UJc:::V'lJ-
::lUJV'lV'l
oa..::S~
U~(,J:>
UJ_ ..Z
_L-IV'lUJ
==zUUJ
V'l<(-c:::
co J-,.,
c:::C:::V'l-
:J~::S
U<:(a..
c:::a.:
o ...J"
L1. -
.......
a
o
",e::
we::
"'0
a:
,=~
00
",...
we::
e::w
e::....
==
o~
we::
>c:a
C::c::
'"
c::
o
vtVf:6 VIN~O:H1VJ 'OV'lOdIN .
OL L L 1I3MV1Ia 'OOd .
0))1UU
z
-
o
0:::
-<
-
c:
l-
'll
~
e
z
c:
II
c:
..
c:
.
II
a:
~
"
'II
:c
l-
I-
-I
W
o
V)
o
:c
u
w
V)
w
o
-<
0:::
-<
c..
w
'-
-<
-I
U
-
U
w
0:::
.
l:)
Z
::i
u
>-
u
w
0:::
w
l-
V)
-<
3
z
w
w
0:::
l:)
~
<
o
m
\0
V'I
<
-l
0::
o
C-
o::
LU
U
o
U
LU
0::
LU
o
<
,-
o
-l
LU
~
en
e
,-
.::e
=e
~.-
.cl;i
"'~~
C\~~
e::.c
"'en;::
E -c ...
Eec
.C fa fa
-
... ... C.
~c"'C
~<<Sc
~-
.... C. <<S
T
.
>-
<
o
z
o
t=
u
LU
-l
-l
o
U
0::
::J
o
>-
Z
o
~
<
o
m
\0
>-
a:l
'" v
'"0 vo....
~ -6Eg~
~ '" c .c v '"0
0.. V f! 0) ... c
... .0 .0 ._ <<I ~
o <<I V ",.0
- '"0 3 0)...
O).c c <<I 0
.S .~ <<I 0 .0 '"
.=: 3 '" c u ...
'" .0 '- v
, .c.... c
.c; c E .... :a .-
- <<I .- 0)' _ <<I
.~ u '"0 C 0.. C
'"0 ~~ ~ '"0 8
v <<I '"0 C C
- .0 C .- <<l '0
'"O"'~"""'c
C <<l V ,v
~ 0) co v .0 <<l
.ou ......E-5
v .=- 0 "'tf" ~ v
.o",u'"O-l'"
<<I U V 0
'"O--lV"'E
- 0..<( u'"O .
gc~xco'"O
.c.2>.v~zo
"'-.0....0 .c
<<l 0 0.. . v
;;; 0)'"0 c VI ~ ~
.;:: 0 .~ '"0 '0 .... 0
~t""I 0..:5 c fr.c
<<l <<I 0.. 0 <<l U ...
.~ .s a -t; -5 ~ 8.
u
Z
G:lZ"
LUZ'
~-'lIt
,U
LU
co
.c >. ell ell
u -c v-. V
10 ::> 10
elI:;..;o..
....0 0 "'"0
ell c:
~......EIQ
Q.I Q.I co ....
tU""'.....cu
~elIS.E
=.cv~
~"t;; g' g
t;::;,=u
.;,~ ~~
~~~::;
... .:Co..
O1>'''''C:
c: 10 ~ 0
~ ~ .....".:=
::I c: E v
"Ooo:!
1l'€-=~
tl~~B
~8~l:!
S... ~~ .
~ 5 ::.~ 1U
>-ut;;~
~ ..!!!dJt;;
""cc..-:::Q.I
~o '1O.c
>...E~...
c:-::;IOc:01
~s~al-a
~ E.o o,~
ca
Y.I=
=:J
0"1
:E~
Q"lt
Z..J
<..J
<
I.I"lv
ffiz
:11:::0
v-
i=~
1.I"l:E
==
00
1.1.1.1.
Z
-
1.)
Z
G:lZM
LUz'
~_M
U
LU
co
u
Z
G:lZM
LUZ'
~_N
U
LU
co
~
...
<<S
u
<<S
N
,
~ ~ W')
-eta
e......
.c~e
~<<Sta
ta =--a.
~ '
-c~~
~--c
~faW')
...lI.ta
~~~
e.s.c
u <<S.-
~E\t-
c: ~
.
'" v :a c
B.....'"O~..;..;~
:5 ~ 'v '"0 e <<I <<I
.0 .- > 0.0 '"0 0)
0.. 0 0.. = <<I 0
~ '0 Ci. 0 VI a..c
",~",c'O~<<I
.8c~OV<<l~
",:JCU:'"OcU
v c 5- ~ '" '<I:J V
~ V ~ .0 '<I:JE Qj '"0
.", V C '" '"
:a 0 '" v ... 0 0
t;~~~~c:'::
v~cEcuo~
v 0 0.. u
~ 0.. U f! .- =- 0
0" 0 ",' >. c.:a '"
c<<lCU",O-~
'<I:J'"OCvO)o..c
......o-:avv
'"0 ~ C<i <<IE - '"0 'a..
C u 0) v '" .-
.~ <<IO~'"O ~ ~
",ct""l ,~o'"
~ ~ cuO'-.o'O
.~ C ,'"0 U 0.. >. v
Qjof!u"'tf"",'"O
.....u~....J...<<l'"
<<l",,,,<(v...'<I:J
EO<<lo::'"OvE
'"0 .0 v '"0
'" <<l ... U <<l 0
S~~&.~~Z
:':3 . ~ . ,..
~ E ~.~
QJ~~ ~~ =
v<;!....;c;:::l =
~ \Q .~ c: .!!'! :;:)
- '" '" <11 V
-;Q ~ ~::: .~ '" I
"'~~~~ <0\
'" ... '" c: 00
~vv~~("lt
Ec-" c:
ell '" c: c: ClI ....J
...., "".~ ~~ .,... <
o .9 .g-u.g I.I"l ""
"OvCIJ~ c: ~~
c: :J ... c: 10 r-.:::
CIJ c.. >. ClI"O "":5
en ... ~,l::! 0 :J'
o 10 :J"O..... 1"'1
ut:;""'CUCU w-"
'~ CIJ ~ :J g. -
<11 <11 0"-0'" Z
",:J.!!!",o ""0
c 0"" C1I ~ U _
.-C:"OCIJ>.<v
'E~ClIg.o =<
.~CIJt..v <~
c;i="'CIJ~ c.,.:::
'"O..:g.:::;~ =
",CIJ",~c.. 0
9g'01OClI 1.1.
U u lij 01"0 Z
~ ~ g' ~~
ClI <11'0 CIJ c:
o -0 0.. -0 .S:!
"'.
'II
...
'"
c:
a
c
c:
e::
>
:>
:e
::
...
-
53
o
c
,0
a:
~ z
:.:: 0
'"' ~
~ :;
a:' =
::) "C ~ 0
OCC::'-
..c<<sZ
>-SCi-
:2 E'" ~
... (1.1 C'.
i.~ ;,
_ .o:z::
= g'~ =
:E .- c:: 0
..... ai:= :a
:r:"Cu'"
t!- :a:i \:I
\:I en E Z
:2 "C "C -
_ c:: c:: t-
..~~~
~>....o
,",:s~c.
..... c:: 0- :;
= (1.1= 0
> :E ~u
-= >.- Cl
~ -;;; -5 Z
= 1: 0;:: <(
~ <a (1.1 ~
~ E~ ~
... c:: <a :;)
zEti::z:
..... :>"C U
:ccC::o
'"' (1.1 <<s c::
t: i:i -=
:z::""c.=
o -:i 0
Z g'c w.
<....c =
Clo:e=
c:- Co.... :;)
<( E -:: ':'
>0::10\
c::'"'cco
::)"C>'~
o~el-
> ~.g <
a~~O
..... ca 0
:; -
o
~
....
~
~
I6a
-
z
e::
V
'II
'"
-
'II
l-
e::
::
:3
=
..&
.-
<C
U
.
.._ ... ...... _____.. ..____H_._....__ .... ..."___ ._..
. .... ...-..... .._-----:-
\ \
~~~NWA8~~ I G-~~~NWA8~~ r e~~~NWA8~~
,\ I
\ \
1 \ ~.~
= w ~~.
'-~ ~ ~
~
5 ~ ~
o u
I I
\ I '
~~CYC\,S~e ! . .~~CYC\-\.G- ! ~~CYC\-\.G
WEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED 60 LBS ~ CAN WEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED 60 LBS ~ C,AN WEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED 60 LB,
.' ... .----.-
EXEMPTION TO
GREENW ASTE COLLECTION
(
..
The property, located at
greenwasre collection based on the following:
, is exempt from
Check One or More
() Residential parcel of land covered by buildings to the extent that no more
than 500 square feet of lot area remains maintained as lawn, garden, or
other landscaping (e.g., front yard xeriscaped, back yard maintained with
ttrrO; .
() Commercial lot whereon an area of 500 square feet or less is maintained
in lawn, garden, or other landscaping; or '
() Contract with licensed landscaper, which provides for removal of
green waste (attach contract or most current i,nvoice).
I certify the above to be true and correct.
C'.
SignatUre - Owner/Occupant
~rint Signature
Date
. .
Exemption is good for one (1) year from the above date.
Extension of the exemption must be requested in writing by the
owner/ occupant - Keep a copy for your records.
Return to:
Cityof Arroyo Grande
P. O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
EXEMPTION TO
GREENWASTE COLLECTION
('
..
The property, located at
greenwaste collection based on the following:
, is exempt from
Check One or More
() Residential parcel of land covered by buildings to the extent that no more
than 500 square feet of lot area remains maintained as lawn, garden, or
other landscaping (e.g., front yard xeriscaped, back yard maintained with
nrrO; ,
() Commercial lot whereon an area of 500 square feet or less is maintained
in lawn, garden,. or other landscaping; or
() Contract with licensed landscaper, which provides for removal of
greenwaste (attach contract or most current i,nvoice).
I certify the above to be n:ue and correct.
C'.
Signature - Owner/Occupant
~rint Signature
Date
. .
Exemption is good for one (1) year from the above date.
Extension of the exemption must be requested in writing by the
owner/ occupant - Keep a copy for your records.
Return to:
City of Arroyo Grande
P. O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
AGREEMENT.
CURBSIDE COLLECTION RECYCLING PROGRAM
THIS AGREEMENT is made upon the date of execution, as set forth below, by and
between RALCCO, with its principal place of business located in the County of San Luis Obispo
(hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR"), and the CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, a
Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY").
RECITALS
WHEREAS, CITY is required to comply with various solid waste legislation aimed at
reducing the amount of the CITY's waste stream; and
WHEREAS, CITY has determined it is in the public interest to proceed with the
work hereinafter described as "Project"; and
WHEREAS, CITY has dete~ined the Project involves performance of services of a
temporary nature; and
WHEREAS, CITY does not have available employees to perform the services for the
Project; and
WHEREAS, CITY has requested CONTRACTOR to perform services for Project;
and
WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR is a California Division of Recycling Certified
Processor for aluminum, glass and plastic and CONTRACTOR has met the requirements of
obtaining CITY business license; and
WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR's services are intended to assist the CITY in meeting
the State requirements for waste reduction and recycling as mandated by the Integrated Waste
Management Act of 1989 (AB 939);
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, in consideration hereof of the mutual
covenants contained herein, hereby agree to the following terms and conditions:
1.00 GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.01 GRANT OF FRANCHISE: TERM: AND ACCEPTANCE
A. CITY does hereby give and grant to the said CONTRACTOR the
exclusive right and franchise to provide a recycling program in the CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE for a period of three (3) years, commencing April 1, 1996, plus
one (1) two year extension based on performance, subject to Council approval, and
subject to earlier termination as set forth herein.
B. ,CONTRACTOR hereby accepts the franchise and agrees to provide a
Citywide Curbside Recycling Program at the rates hereinafter provided, in accordance
with this Agreement and all applicable laws, rules, and regulations of any governmen-
tal agency, including CITY.
c. The CITY Manager, or his designated representative, shall be the
representative of CITY for all purposes under this Agreement. Contract
Administrator shall be the representative of CONTRACTOR for all purposes under
this Agreement; should circumstances arise requiring a substitute representative for
CONTRACTOR hereunder, the substitute representative designee shall be subject to
the prior written acceptance and approval of CITY. '
1.02 FRANCHISE PAYMENTS: DELINQUENCY: GUARANTEE: COLLEC-
TION OF ACCOUNTS
A. In consideration for the exclusive grant of franchise herein, CON-
TRACTOR agrees to pay to CITY the sum of five percent (5 %) of annual curbside
recycling collection revenues within the CITY, payable monthly on or before the last
business day of the following month, during the term of this Agreement. Curbside
recycling collection revenues shall be calculated on an accrual basis. Gross revenues
shall be calculated on a cash basis for all residential accounts collected by CITY.
Payment shall be made to CITY at City Hall, P.O. Box 550, Arroyo Grande, CA
93421.
B. Payments made more than thirty (30) days after the date due shall be
delinquent. CONTRACTOR or CITY shall pay a late charge of five percent (5 %)
per month, or any part thereof on the amount delinquent, to cover added administra-
tive expenses on the part of CITY or CONTRACTOR by reason of such delinquen-
cy. The parties agree that such sum represents a fair estimate of such added expens-
es.
C. CITY agrees to bill CONTRACTOR's residential cuStomers on said
CITY's water billing when CITY water customers are identical to CONTRACTOR's
customers, and CONTRACTOR requests CITY to do so in writing. CITY shall
deduct a 5 % Administrative service fee from all customer collection received by
CITY on behalf of CONTRACTOR. CITY shall remit to CONTRACTOR all
customer colleCtion, less the franchise fee of five percent (5 %) of the gross plus the
administrative service fee, as referenced above, on or before the last business day of
the month following the month of collection.
D. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for all billing not done by CITY
. pursuant to Paragraph C hereinabove and shall make all collections for services
rendered under this Franchise Agreement.
1.03 TIME FOR PERFORMANCE
CONTRACTOR shall continue uninterrupted all current curbside recycling
services and shall perform other services within the time frames specified in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and in other sections of this agree-
ment.
CONTRACTOR shall not be responsible for performance delays beyond the
CONTRACTOR's control, and such delays shall extend the times for performance of the
work by the CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR shall immediately advise CITY in writing
2
of any such delay and the specific reason therefor.
1.04 SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY CONTRACTOR
CONTRACTOR agrees to perform or provide the services specified in
"CONTRACTOR - SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED" attached hereto as "Exhibit A" .
CONTRACTOR shall determine the method, details and means of performing
the above-referenced services.
CONTRACTOR maYt at CONTRACTORts ownexpenset employ such
assistants as CONTRACTOR deems necessary to perform the services required of CON-
TRACTOR by this agreement. CITY may not controlt direct or supervise CONTRAC-
TORts assistants or employees in the performance of those services.
1.05 ANNUAL REVIEW
No later than sixty (60) days prior to each anniversary date of this agreementt
the CITY and the CONTRACTOR shall review the operationst procedurest and terms of
this agreement.
1.06 PA YMENTTERMS
CITY agrees to pay CONTRACTOR in accordance with the payment terms
set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
2.00 OBLIGA nONS OF CONTRACTOR
2.01. MINIMUM AMOUNT OF SERVICE BY CONTRACTOR
CONTRACTOR agrees to devote the hours necessary to perform the services
set forth in this agreement in an efficient and effectivemanner~ CONTRACTOR may
representt perform services for and be employed by additional individuals or entitiest in
CONTRACTOR's sole discretiont as long as the performance of these extra-contractual
services do not interfere with or present a conflict with CONTRACTORts duties and
obligations as set forth herein.
2.02 TOOLS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES
CONTRACTOR shall provide all tools and instrumentalities necessary or
helpful to perform the services under this agreement except those listed in "CITY -
SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED" attached hereto as "Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by
this reference.
2.03 WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND OTHER EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
CITY and CONTRACTOR intend and agree that CONTRACTOR is an
independent contractor and agree that CONTRACTOR's employees and agents have no right
to workers' compensation and other employee benefits. If any worker insurance protection is
3
desired, CONTRACTOR agrees to provide worker's compensation and other employee
benefits, where required by law, for CONTRACTOR's employees and agents.
CONTRACTOR agrees to hold harmless and indemnify CITY for any and all claIms for
damages due to injury, disability or death of CONTRACTOR and/or CONTRACTOR's
employees or agents.
2.04 INDEMNIFICATION
CONTRACTOR hereby agrees to, and shall, hold CITY, its elective and
appointive boards, officers, agents and employees, harmless from any liability for damage or
claims for damage, or suits or actions at law or in equity which may be alleged to arise from
CONTRACTOR's or any of CONTRACTOR's employees or agents' negligent actions or
failures to act under this agreement, whether such actions or failures to act are the result of
passive or active negligence or may give rise to legal responsibility under any other legal
theory (including, but not limited to, strict liability), provided as follows:
A. That the CITY does not, and shall not, waive any rights against CON-
TRACTOR which it may have by reason of the aforesaid hold-harmless agreement,
because of the acceptance by CITY, or the deposit with CITY by CONTRACTOR,
of any of the insurance policies hereinafter described.
B. That the aforesaid hold-harmless agreement by CONTRACTOR shall
apply to all damages and claims for damages of every kind suffered, or alleged to
have been suffered, by reason of any of the aforesaid operations of CONTRACTOR
or any agent or employee of CONTRACTOR regardless of whether or not such
insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages
or - claims for damages.
2.05 INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
The contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract
insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from
or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the CONTRACTOR, his
agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.
A. Minimum SCQpe of Insurance
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office form number GL 0404 covering Broad
form Comprehensive General Liability; or Insurance Services Office Commercial
General Liability coverage (occurrence form GC 00(1).
2. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/78)
covering Automobile Liability, Code 1 any auto and endorsement CA 0025.
3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of
California and Employer's Liability Insurance.
4
B. Minimum Limits of Insurance
CONTRACTOR shall maintain limits no less than:
1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bo(lily injury,
personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or
other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit
shall apply separately' to this program or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the
occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury
and property damage.
3. Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury
or disease.
c. Deductible and Self-Insured Retentions
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and
approved by the CITY. At the option of the CITY, either:' the insurer shall reduce
or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the CITY, its
officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the CONTRACTOR shall procure a
bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claims administration
and defense expenses.
D. Other Insurance Provisions
The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain,or
be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
1. The CITY, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are
to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by
or on behalf of the CONTRACTOR and completed operations of the
CONTRACTOR, premises owned, occupied or used by the CONTRACTOR, or
automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the CONTRACTOR. The
coverage shall maintain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to
the CITY, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
2. For any claims related to this program, the CONTRACTOR's
insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the CITY, its officers,
officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by
the CITY, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shaH be in excess of the
CONTRACTOR's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3. Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the
policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the
CITY, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
5
4. The CONTRACTOR's insurance shall apply separately to each
insured against whom a claim is made or suit is brought" except with respect to the
limits of the insurer's liability.
5. Each insurance policy required. by this clause shall be endorsed
to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party,
reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by
certified mail, return receipt requested, 'has been given to the CITY.
E. Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's
rating of no less than A:VII.
F. Verification of Covera~e
CONTRACTOR shall furnish the CITY with original endorsements
effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsement for each insurance
policy is to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its
behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved before work commences.
The CONTRACTOR's insurer shall provide complete, certified copies of all required
insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these
provisions.
G. Subcontractors
CONTRACTOR shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its
policies or shall furnish separate certificates and' endorsements for each subcontractor.
All coverage for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements as stated
herein.
3.00 OBLIGATIONS OF CITY
3.01 COOPERATION
("CITY agrees to c~mply with all reasonable requests of CONTRACTOR
necessary to the performance of CONTRACTOR's duties under this agreement,
specifically including those duties listed in Exhibit" A," hereby incorporated.
4.00 TERMiNATION OF AGREEMENT
4.01 TERMINATION ON NOTICE
Notwithstanding any other provision of this agreement, any party hereto may
terminate this agreement, at any time, without cause by giving at least 90 days prior written
notice to the other party to this agreement.
6
4.02 TERMINATION ON OCCURRENCE OF STATED EVENTS
This agreement shall terminate automatically on the occurrence of any of the
following events:
1. Bankruptcy or insolvency of any party;
2. Sale of the business of any party;
3. Dissolution of the corporation;
4. The end of the ninety (90) days as set forth in Section 4.01;
5. Assignment of this agreement by CONTRACTOR without the consent
of the CITY.
6. Expiration of the term of this agreement as set forth in Section 1.01.
4.03 TERMINATION BY ANY PARTY FOR DEFAULTOF CONTRACTOR
Should any party default in the performance of this agreement or materially
breach of any of its provisions, a non-breaching party, at their option, may terminate this
agreement, immediately, by giving written notice of termination to the breaching party.
4.04 TERMINATION
This Agreement shall terminate as specified in Section 4.02 unless extended as
set forth in this Section. Otherwise, the CITY, with the agreement of CONTRACTOR, is
authorized to extend the term of this three year Agreement beyond the termination date, as
needed, under the same terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Any such
extension shall be in writing and be an amendment to this Agreement.
5.00 SPECIAL PROVISIONS
5.01 AFFIRMATNEACTION
During the performance of this agreement, CONTRACTOR shall not
discriminate against any employee or applicant because of race, religion, creed, color,
national origin, sex or age. CONTRACTOR shall take affirmative action to ensure that
applicants employed, are treated during employment, without regard to their race, religion,
creed, color, national origin, sex or age.
5.02 EXCLUSNITY
All reports and other documents prepared by the CONTRACTOR pursuant to
this agreement shall be the property of the CITY; CITY is entitled to fun and unrestricted
use of such reports and other documents prepared by the CONTRACTOR pursuant to this
agreement.
7
5.03 RECORDS
The CONTRACTOR shall maintain adequate records to permit inspection and
audit of CONTRACTOR's services provided and charges imposed under this agreement.
CONTRACTOR shall make such records available to CITY for inspection at any reasonable
time. CONTRACTOR will ensure that its record keeping permits the preparation of
financial statements that are in conformance with generally accepted accounting practices and
standards. CITY, however, retains the absolute right to conduct its own audit at any time.
CITY and its auditors will have the right to examine all records and accounts at any time
during CONTRACTOR's office hours. Subject to the terms of Section 5.02 or unless
otherwise required by law, nothing herein shall convert such records into public records and
they shall be available only to the CITY or CITY's authorized agents. Such records shall be
maintained by CONTRACTOR for a minimum of three years from completion of the work
under this agreement. New and unforeseen work shall be classed as, extra work when
determined in writing by the City Manager for the CITY of Arroyo Grande that such work is
not covered by the terms of this agreement. Agreed upon extra work shall be paid for on a
time and material basis.
5.04 CONFIDENTIALITY
, '
CITY and CONTRACTOR agree that until final approval by CITY or unless
otherwise required by law, all data, reports and other documents are confidential and shall
not be released to third parties without the prior written consent of both parties.
6.00 MISCELLANEOUS
6.01 REMEDIES
The remedies set forth in this agreement shall not be exclusive but shall be
cumulative with, and in addition to, all remedies now or hereafter allowed by law or equity.
6.02 NO WAIVER
The waiver of any breach by any party of any provision of this agreement
shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of this
agreement.
6.03 ASSIGNMENT
,This agreement is specifically not assignable by CONTRACTOR to any
person or entity. Any assignment or attempt to assign by CONTRACTOR, whether it be
voluntary or involuntary, by operation of law or otherwise, is void and is a material breach
of this agreement giving rise to a right to terminate as set forth in Section 4.03.
6.04 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
CONTRACTOR and CITY agree that in case the work called for under the
Contract and related documents is not completed within the stipulated due date, damages will
be sustained by the CITY and that it is and will be impracticable and infeasible to determine
8
the actual damage sustained by the CITY in the event of and by reason of such tfelay; it is
therefore agreed that the CONTRACTOR shall pay to the CITY of Arroyo Grande, as
damages and not as a penalty, the sum of One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150) per day for each
and every calendar day's delay in finishing the work in excess of the stipulated due date.
Imposition of liquidated damages shall be at the sole discretion of the City Manager.
6.05 ATTORNEY FEES
In the event of any controversy, claim or dispute between the parties hereto,
arising out of or relating to this agreement, or the breach thereof, the prevailing party shall
be entitled, in addition to such other relief as may be granted, to a reasonable sum as and for
attorney fees and costs.
6.06 TIME FOR PERFORMANCE
Time is expressly declared to be of the essence of this agreement. Except as
otherwise expressly provided for in this agreement, should the performance of any act
required by this agreement to be performed by either party be prevented or delayed by
reason by any act of God, strike, lockout, labor trouble, inability to secure materials, or any
other cause except financial inability not the fault of the party requiredtoperfonn the- act,
the time for performance of the act will be extended for a period of time equivalent to the
period of delay and performance of the act during the period of delay will be excused;
provided, however, that nothing contained in this Section shall excuse the' prompt payment by
either party as required by this agreement, or the performance of any act rendered difficult
or impossible solely because of the financial condition of the party required to perform the
act.
6.07 NOTICES
Except as oth~rwise expressly provided by law, any and all notices or other
communications required or permitted by the agreement or by law to be served on or given
to any party to this agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly served and given
when personally delivered or in lieu of such personal service when deposited in the United
States mail, first class postage prepaid to the following address for each respectiv~ party:
PARTY
ADDRESS
A.
RALCCO
Contract Administrator
P.O. Box 1170
Nipomo, CA 93444
B.
City Manager
City of Arroyo Grande
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA
93421
6.08 GOVERNINGLAW
This agreement and all matters relating to this agreement shall be governed by
the laws of the State of California in force at the time any decision or holding concerning
this agreement arises:
9
6.09 BINDING EFFECT
This agreement shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs,
executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties hereto, but nothing in this
Section shall be construed as a consent by CITY to any assignment of this agreement or any
interest in this agreement.
6.10 SEVERABILITY
This agreement constitutes the sole and entire agreement between the parties
with respect to the subject matter hereof. This agreement correctly sets forth the obligations
of the parties hereto to each other as of the date of this agreement. All agreements or
representations respecting the subject matter of this agreement not expressly set forth or
referred to in this agreement are null and void.
6.11 DUE AUTHORITY
The parties hereby represent that the individuals executing this agreement are
expressly authorized to do so on and hi behalf of the parties.
6.12 CONSTRUCTION
The parties agree that each party and counsel have reviewed this agreement
and that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the
drafting party shall not apply in the interpretation of this Agreement or any amendments or
exhibits thereto.
The captions of the Sections are for convenience and reference only, and are
not ~ntended to be construed to define or limit the provisions to which they relate.
6.13 AMENDMENTS
Amendments to this agreement shall be made only with the mutual written
. consent of all of the parties to this agreement.
Executed on March 21
, 1996, at the CITY of Arroyo Grande.
CONTRACTOR:
~.kc~
RALCCO
CITY:
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
10
ArrEST:
~ .
~a.~
Nancy Davi City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
~LUTL,ftUiJI
Robert L. Hunt, City Manager
1.1.
EXHIBIT "A"
CONTRACTOR - SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED
The operation of residential curbside collection shall be in accordance with the following
outline:
A. TARGETED MATERIALS TO BE COLLECTED BY CONTRACTOR
Materials to be collected by the CONTRACTOR shall include, but not be limited to
the following:
- Styrofoam
- Aluminum Cans
- Bi-Metal Beverage Cans
- Glass Beverage Cans and other Jars and Bottles
- Plastic Containers (#1-7)
- Newspapers, Magazines, Junk Mail, Phone Books
- Aluminum Foil, Pet Food Cans, T.V. Dinner Trays, Pie Plates and other Food
Containers
- HDPE Plastic Milk Jugs, Water Jugs and other Non-Food Containers
. - Textiles consisting of non-usable clothing and rags
- Kraft Paper Grocery Bags
- Cardboard, Office Paper, and 'Computer Printout Paper (Commercial Accounts,
Schools, Churches, and Government Agencies)
- 11 sed Motor Oil .
- Greenwaste
- Any and all other materials mutually agreed upon by CITY and CONTRACTOR or
required under Public Resources Code Section 40000 et seq.
B. COLLECTION CONTAINERS
All single family residences may be required to use designated curbside collection
containers to be provided free of charge by CONTRACTOR. Only customers who
specifically request containers shall receive them. CONTRACTOR shall advise
customers of the availability of collection containers. Customers. shall receive as
many containers as they require for curbside services. In the event any containers are
damaged, they shall be recycled as they are constructed of HDP~ plastic, for which
CONTRACTOR has developed recycling markets. Stolen or damaged containers
shall be replaced at no charge to residents or the CITY. The recycling containers
shall have a highly visible label that provides CONTRACTOR's name and phone
number, a space for the resident's address as well as a large recycling logo for easy
identification. A separate designated container for used motor oil shall be provided to
customers upon request. Customers shall only use the containers provided by the
CONTRACTOR unless approved by the CITY.
c. CONTAINER DELIVERY
Container delivery shall be accomplished in the following manner:
12
1. A promotional campaign highlighting the addition of greenwaste collection
shall occur for a period of 90 days after Council approval.
2. The customer's name, address, phone number, recycling service day, and the
number of containers requested shall be entered into a computer data base and
shall be available to the CITY. This information shall be made available to
the City no later than 120 days after approval of the contract and by June 30th
'of each subsequent year of the contract.
3. Residents who call in before the initial service start date shall receive their
containers one week prior to that date. After initiation of the program, drivers
shall be issued a "new service" list daily. Containers shall be delivered within
one week of the customer's phone order and service shall commence on the
customer's next garbage/recycling day. Recycling'instructions and 'educational
information shall be provided with delivery of containers.
D. COLLECTION
. Collection shall take place once a week on each resident's garbage collection day.
The CONTRACTOR shall establish records of driving route directions on a
computer disk for the training of drivers or in case of an emergency driver
replacement. All materials shall be collected, co-mingled, with no customer sorting
required. Customers shall be required to have their containers set out by 6:30 a.m.
on their trash day. Newspapers shall be required to be string tied or stacked flat in a
paper grocery bag. Collectors shall be trained to place empty containers upside down
to prevent wind from rolling or moving them to other locati<?ns.
A recycling container, distinguishable from other recycling containers, shall be issued
to all handicapped residents. Handicapped participants shall receive front door pickup
service.
E. BROKERAGE AND MARKETING OF COLLECTED MATERIALS
CONTRACTOR shall assume the responsibility to broker and market all 'recyclable
materials collected through the program. It shall be the prerogative of the CITY to
direct the flow of the materials collected by the CONTRACTOR at any and all
times. CONTRACTOR has the required infrastructure at its Nipomo Mesa facility
to provide the CITY of Arroyo Grande with the collection, hauling, sortitig,
processing and marketing of recyclable solid waste materials.
F. SERVICE AREA
CONTRACTOR shall agree to service all.accounts within the incorporated CITY
limits currently receiving refuse collection by private hauler. Service collection shall
begin concurrently to all areas of the CITY. The CITY Finance Department shall
identify the service area as that area for which refuse collection services are provided
by private hauler.
13
G. MUL TI-LNING/COMMERCIAL UNITS
CONTRACTOR shall agree to service all multi-family housing units and
commercial/industrial businesses. CONTRACTOR shall solicit multi-units,
commercial and industrial establishments for appointments to review their service
needs. CONTRACTOR shall provide, at no cost to the commercial/industrial
business and CITY, waste "audits" to determine if they can reduce a significant
percentage of waste by recycling.
Each quarter, beginning in June 1996, 25% of all non-participating multi-unit,
commercial, and industrial businesses will be contacted directly by CONTRACTOR
either by mail, phone, or personal visit. A minimum of 30% of the contact shall be
by telephone or personal contact. Within 20 days from the end of the quarter,
CONTRACTOR shall provide a report certifying to the number of contacts, type of
contacts (mail, telephone, visit), meeting the 30% requirement, and result of the
contacts.
H. ONGOING PUBLIC OUTREACH AND EDUCATION
All materials associated with Public outreach and education may include the CITY
logo of which an example shall be provided by the CITY. CONpL\CTOR's
promotional and educational program shall contain the following and shall be subject
to approval by the CITY:
1. Contractor shall pay for publishing a semiannual City newsletter, which will
contain articles about the Curbside Recycling Prog~ and be printed on
recycled paper. The City will prepare and write articles for the newsletter,
with the assistance of the CONTRACTOR. The City will be responsible for
mailing the newsletter to all City residents, businesses, and post office
boxes.
2. Contact of the local print and broadcast media to obtain mass coverage of the
continuing curbside recycling program. (Information shall include AB 939
education, behind the scenes program preparation, recycling and waste
reduction facts, and local business and Chamber of Commerce involvement.)
3. Ongoing purchasing of media advertising. At a minimum, media advertising
shall include 3 ten second and 1 thirty second spots on local radio and/or
television stations and 6 1/8 page ads in local newspapers each calendar year.
Media advertising shall be included in CONTRACTOR's annual report to the
CITY.
4. A semiannual newsletter, "The Curbside Communicator": shall be distributed
to all participating residents. Other educational pieces shall include how to
identify new materials that are recyclable and materials that shall not be
accepted. All educational information shall be delivered free of charge via
curbside containers.
14
5. Press releases shall be written and distributed to the local newspapers. A
minimum of five press releases per calendar year. Press release efforts shall
be included in CONTRACTOR's annual report to the CITY.
6. CONTRACTOR shall perform ongoing public speaking engagements and
presentations for businesses, service groups, schools, churches and other
interested organizations. Educational presentations to K-12 shall take place in
cooperation with, and at the request of, individual teachers. Each school will
be contacted and given promotional materials to distribute to individual
teachers. CONTRACTOR will attempt to perform 20 classroom presentations
in each school year.
Service organizations, trade associations and other groups will be contacted
individually. CONTRACTOR will attempt to perform, eightpresentations to
such groups per year.
7. Current residential sign-up exceeds 80%, and set-out is at over 50%.
CONTRACTOR will attempt to increase the set-out rate by 5 % annually
during the term of the contract. Each existing client will be contacted directly,
through flyers placed in the recycling bins, at least twice 'annually, in order to
increase diverted tonnage. Such contacts will not occur during the winter
holiday period (November 15 - January 2), or during the summer months
(June 15 - August 30).
8. Vehicles shall be available for participation in local parades and community
festivals where a waste reduction display and information are provided.
9. CONTRACTOR shall also provide educational materials as part of
CONTRACTOR's ongoing promotional and educational campaign pertaining
to recycling. Such materials may include but shall not be limited to the
following:
- Children's coloring books
- Recycling posters
- Stickers
- Pencils and note pads
- ButtonslBalloons
- Kitchen Magnets
- Key chainslbottle openers
- Video presentations
Quantities of materials distributed and number of video presentations shall be
included as part of CONTRACTOR's annual report to the City.
10. CONTRACTOR shall publish annually other recycling alternative listings for
businesses free of charge to help divert waste from entering landfills.
CONTRACTOR shall act as a referral service for customers who need to
locate their nearest recycling center or disposal alternative.
15
11. CONTRACTOR shall distribute a survey once each year during the term of
this agreement to all nonparticipating residents to encourage participation. The -
survey will not be distributed during the winter holiday period or during the
summer months. Results of the survey will be included in CONTRACTOR's
annual report to the City.
12. CONTRACTOR shall provide participating merchants with a window sticker
for their participation.
13. It shall continue to be CONTRACTOR's policy to continually create new
avenues for education. .
14. CONTRACTOR to submit promotion program encompassing all of the above
for review and approval by CITY within 180 days after approval of the
contract and by June 30th of each subsequent year. of the contract. Annual
expenditures on promotions should not be less than an average of $15,000 over
the three (3) year period. Promotion cost for the two (2) year extension
period will be subject to further negotiations between the City and Contractor.
CONTRACTOR may involve other cities in any promotional program.
15. CONTRACTOR shall keep accurate records of the services and other duties
required by this Section H, sufficient to enable CITY to determine if the terms
hereof have been satisfied and shall provide said records in the program
reports required by Section I. below.
16. All information for Spanish speaking customers shall be provided in -both
English and Spanish.
17. CONTRACTOR shall provide, at least twice annually, a composting
demonstration at special events as specified by CITY.
T. PROGRAM REPORTS
CONTRACTOR shall be required to submit to the CITY program reports necessary
to comply with any and all current and future requirements. Additionally, the .
CONTRACTOR shall be required to provide a monthly report of activities to the
City Manager. At the conclusion of each year of operation the contractor shall
submit a comprehensive year-end report to the City Manager in conjunction with the
annual review required by Paragraph 1.05, of the Agreement.
At a minimum, reports shall summarize: (1) Monthly: weight, by material, of all
material collected; participation and sign up rates; dollar contribution to the City's
recycling development program, (2) Quarterly: summary of the above; records
required by Sections G and H15, (3) Annual: summary of the above; evaluation of the
success of the program; recommendations for changes in the program. All reports
shall be in accordance with the participating agencies and in compliance with the
Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan and AB 939.
~6
Monthly reports shall be furnished to the City within twenty (20) days of the end of
the calendar month. The year-end report shall be submitted to the City within thirty
(30) days from June 30th of each year beginning June 30, 1997.
J. VEHICLES AND EMPLOYEES
CONTRACTOR shall operate multi-compartment collection vehicles on all
residential routes. Vehicle shall be maintained in a clean and serviceable condition
during all collections. CONTRACTOR shall also provide back up collection vehicles
and pick up trucks to handle special service needs. The graphics on the collection
vehicles shall be eye catching to stimulate a positive response from the community
toward recycling subject to CITY approval.
K. ADDITIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES
All collection vehicles shall be equipped with two-way radios to service customer
complaints, missed containers or special calls. Any and all spills shall be the
responsibility of the CONTRACTOR to promptly clean. Brooms and dust pans
shall be aboard all vehicles to clean up spills or breakage. Fire extinguisher, flash
lights and first aid kits shall also be available to handle complaints or missed
containers. A twenty-four hour answering service shall be provided by the
CONTRACTOR for optimal customer service. All promotional and educational
material shall designate the CONTRACTOR as the point of contact for the purposes
of complaint. Copies of complaints shall be provided to the City on a quarterly basis
(March-June-September-December). Complaint forms shall include date of complaint,
customer's name, nature of complaint, resolution of complai~t, date of resolution.
L. Upon collection of used motor oil, CONTRACTOR shall transport said used motor
oil to an appropriate disposal site approved by the CITY.
M. A household recyclable hazardous waste disposal program in conformance with CITY
household hazardous waste element shall be established. CONTRACTOR shall
prepare a program for review and approval by the City Manager on or before April 1,
1996. As requested by the CITY, on a date mutually agreed upon by the parties and
designated as "Residential Hazardous Waste Roundup Day," CONTRACTOR will
conduct a collection event for recyclable household hazardous wastes, specifically oil
and oil filters, latex paint, automobile batteries and anti freeze. Said event shall take
place at a central location designated by the City. CONTRACTOR agrees to prepare
all applications and manifests and to obtain all necessary approvals. One such event
shall be held in the first year of the contract. If total material amount collected at the
event is less than 50 % of total hazardous materials collected curbside during the
previous twelve months (oil collection at the curb averages about 1800 gallons per
year), then it shall be determined that there is no need for subsequent events, and
promotion shall be aimed at increasing collection at the curb. All costs for this
service shall be the responsibility of the CONTRACTOR.
N. CONTRACTOR shall prepare a tire recycling program, in conformance with Public
Resources Code Section 42870 et seq. and shall submit it to the City Manager for
review and approval on or before May 1, 1996.
~7
O. CONTRACTOR shall prepare a greenwaste program for the collection of residential
yard wastes and shall submit it to the City Council for review and approval on or
before July 1, 1996. Greenwaste shall be collected once a month commencing after
Council approval of the program.
P. RECYCLING DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
For every ton of recyclable material, exclusive of greenwaste, collected in Arroyo
Grande, CONTRACTOR will deposit $10 into a fund established by CITY for a
recycling development program. Payment into the program shall be remitted on a
monthly basis.
This program will act as an incentive to increase recycling in both residential and
commercial programs. The use of program funds shall be at the.sole discretion of the
City.
Based on a projection of 1995 residential and commercial tons of recyclables
collected, $10 per ton for 1995 will be $18,593~
Q. SCHOLARSHIPS FOR COLLEGE STUDIES FOR RESOURCE'MANAGEMENT
CONTRACTOR will award $1000 college scholarships each year to five (5) Arroyo
Grande resident high school students. Totaling $5000 (each year), the awards will be
made to students for college studies in resource management fields.
CONTRACTOR will work with representatives of the Lucia Mar Unified School
District and Arroyo Grande High School to develop criteria .for the awarding of
scholarships. The scholarship program shall be in place by June 1996.
R. CONTRACTOR shall prepare other local programs necessary for City's compliance
with the recycling provisions of AB 939 (Public Resources Code Section 40000 et seq
the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989).
~8
EXHIBIT "B"
I. Fees to be paid to CONTRACTOR
A. The monthly collection fee, per residential refuse account, shall be fifty (.50)
cents for residential refuse recycling and seventy-five (.75) cents for green
waste recycling.
The number of residential accounts shall be determined by the.CITY Finance
Department and shall include the number of residentiaL accounts within the
CITY which are presently collected by the private hauler within the CITY
limits.
The number of accounts upon which the CONTRACTOR~s monthly collection
fee shall be based shall be determined by the CITY Finance. Departtrient as of
June 30, 1995, for the first year of the agreement. The number of accounts
shall remain constant until June 30, 1996, when a review shall be conducted.
. The number of accounts and corresponding monthly fees for succeeding years
shall be determined by the CITY Finance Department based upon the number
of residential refuse accounts on June 30, of each.subsequent year of the
agreement. .
B. The monthly collection fee for multi unit dwellings.and commercial/industrial
businesses shall be 4.8% of the monthly charge billed by South County
Sanitary Services for refuse service.
II. Invoice Procedure.
A. Payment of collection fees shall be made once per month based on the billable
charges as described in A & B above.
~9
EXHmIT "C"
CITY - SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED
1. Approval of the direct mail brochure sent to all residences with instructions on how to
participate in the curbside program and encouraging participation in the program, as
well as any ongoing educational materials. Also permission to use the CITY logo on
any promotional material.
2. Use of the CITY's municipal bulk rate mailing permit number, for annual
CITY ICONTRACTOR direct mail piece. CONTRACTOR, however ,shall pay the
cost involved.
3. Use of CITY maps containing street names and index.
4. Routing plans will be reviewed to ensure. coordination with refuse collection trucks.
5. Review and comment on CONTRACTOR's plan of collection.
6. Administration of contract.
7. Receive and review all programs required pursuant to this agreement, receive and
review reports required by current and future solid waste legislation as well as all
information, calculations, and proposals.
8. Process payments as submitted by the CONTRACTOR and approved by the Contract
Administrator. . .
9. Monitor and direct the flow, at CITY's option, of all. materials collected by the
CONTRACTOR.
10. Prepare and mail newsletter for semiannual City newsletter.
20
t-.. \::n
~ California
~ ~ n~ -<.~~.~
E n VIr 0 n me.. n t a I .Lr 0 tee t
o n
In-.
-- -,.",..
.-
Agency
~
f
j
Attn: Environment Editor
For Immediate Refuse
December 15. 1998
98-149
Contact John Frith
Eric Lamoureux
(916) 255-2296
opa@ciwmb.ca.gov
STATE ANNOUNCES FIVE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
CITIES EXCEEDED GARBAGE-CUTTING MANDATE
TWO OTHER CENTRAL COAST CITIES RECOGNIZED FOR GOOD FAITH EFFORTS
TOWARD MEETING MANDA TE
SACRAMENTO-The California Integrated Waste Management Board - the state's primary
recycling agency - announced today that the San Luis ObispO County cities of Grover Beach, Morro
Bay. Paso Robles, Pismo Beach, and San Luis Obispo have exceeded the state requirement to reduce
the amount of garbage in landfills. and have helped the state keep 100 million tons of waste out of
landfills since 1990.
The Waste Board today formally determined the 1995 and 1996 recycling rates for the five San
Luis Obispo County cities.
Also at its meeting today, the Waste Board agreed to approve the recyCling rates for the San Luis 1 .
Obispo County city of Arroyo Grande, and the city of SO/Yang in Santa Barbara County, although their ./
recycling rates fell below required rates in either 1995, 1996, or in both years. (See table on page 2 for
complete list of cities and recycling rates.)
The Board agreed that although these cities' 1995 rates were low, the cities had shown a good
faith effort in implementation of programs necessary to keep waste out of landfills. It also directed its staff
to monitor the cities' future progress, as well as work with them to determine if there are additional
reasons for the low recycling rate. If needed, the Board will provide technical assistance for the cities.
"California is leading the nation today WIth a 32 percent recycling rate and our success IS uu~ Ifl
large part to the recycling efforts of communities like these we recognize today," said Waste Board
Chairman D~niel G. Pennington. "It is with sincere gratitude that we thank these Central Coast cities for
their efforts to help California reach its first recycling milestone. not to mention their contributions In
helping the state keep 100 million tons of waste out of landfills since' 990.
"As for those jurisdictions that have fallen short of the goal. we acknowledge the hard work
you've put in thus tar and remind you that this recognition should not signal an end to your hard work. In
order for your cities to reach the ambitious 50 percent goal set for 2000, it will require an eamest and
sustained effort,. Pennington added.
These Central Coast jurisdictions join 13 other cities and counties from San Luis Obispo to
Ventura counties that have had their 1995 and 1996 recycling rates approved by the Board this year.
The 1995 and 2000 recycling requirements were established in 1989 with the passage of the
Integrated Waste Management Act. Cities and COunties are reqUlrea to Implement recycling programs to
meet these requirements. Since the Act was implemented in 1990. state residents have recycled at an
average rate of 1 ton every three seconds. equaling the 100 million tons of waste kept out of landfills _
enough to fill 84 pyramids the size of the Great PyramId at Giza.
(more)
P.02
DEC-16-1998 13:31
Central Coast Recycling
2-2-2-2-2
Today's announcement came as part of a Board Biennial Review of jurisdictions' implementation
of recycling and other waste diversion programs and their recycling rates. Since May. when the reviews
began, the Board has determined the 1995 and 1996 diversion rates for 247 cities and counties. Of
those, 53 have already met or surpassed the 50 percent recycling mark for 2000. The Board expects to
complete the reviews of nearly all 531 cities and counties statewide by early 1999,
The Waste Board is required to conduct its review every two years as an evaluation of a
jurisdiCtion's progress in implementing programs it had previously outlined to the Board. Because the
annual recycling figures do not have to be reported until August of the following year, the Board's staff
was unable to begin examining the combined 1995 and 1996 data untiltast fall.
Once the Biennial Review is complete. the Board either finds the city or county in complianCe, or
puts it on a compliance schedule to assist it in meeting the goal. r=ailure to meet the compliance schedule
can mean the city or county could face fines of up to $10.000 per day.
Many of the communities lauded today have found that a combination of waste prevention,
recycling, and composting programs are the most effective- means of reducing the amount of garbage
going to landfills. Some of the recycling programs include purChaSing reeycled-content products; drop..off
and buy.back centers and curbside programs for recyclables collection; and regional composting
programs and community education events on how to compost yard wastes.
In addition. many citiee end counties have implemel'lted waste reduction programs In the schools.
as wen as provided teaching materials and curricula to K -12 teachers. Waste audits for businesses.
and brochures, public service announcements, and newsletters have also become popular methods of
educating residents about waste reduction techniques and the importance of conserving landfill space
and natural resources.
The six.member Integrated Waste Management Board is responsible for protecting the public's
health and safety and the environment through management of the 52 million tons of solid waste
generated in California each year. The Board's mandate is to work in partnership with local government,
indU$try, and the public to achieve a 50 percent reduction in waste disposed by the year 2000. while
ensuring environmentally safe landfill disposal capacity. Currently. California's diversion rate is at an all-
time high of 32 percent. exceeding the naliona! average.
The Waste Board is one of six boards and departments within the California Environmental
Protection Agency (CallePA).
####
VISit tl'le Waste Boarel on the Int.met at '/Vww.cn.ymQ.ca.!lOV
Jurisdiction 1995 Dive1'8ion Percentage 1996 Diversion Percentaae
ArroyOGNnde 20 zt
Graver Beach 38 39
Morro8ay 28 31
Paso Robles 30 .2
Plsmo Such 36 30
San Luis ObIspo 32 35
Solvand 20 21
"/.
TOTAL P.02
10.b.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGE~ \It\~
r
SUBJECT: PROPOSED JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCILS OF ARROYO
GRANDE, GROVER BEACH, AND PISMO BEACH
DATE: FEBRUARY 23,1999
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council approve a joint meeting of the three South County
City Councils for Thursday, April 15th.
FUNDING:
There is an approximate $500 General Fund impact, which can be absorbed within the
existing City Council budget.
DISCUSSION:
The City Council, at its meeting of January 12, 1999, directed the City Manager to meet
with the other South County City Managers to discuss the logistics of conducting a joint
City Councils meeting. The last such meeting was late in March 1997. Pursuant to
Council direction, the Managers met on January 28th to discuss particulars. It is the
recommendation of the three City Managers that the joint meeting consist of both a
social component and a business component because of the significant number of new
Council Members (two new Council Members on each of the three City Councils).
Specifically, it is recommended that there be a dinner followed by a business session.
In this way, the Councils can get better acquainted on a less formal basis prior to
entering into discussion of business items.
It is further recommended the meeting take place on Thursday, April 15th at the Arroyo
Grande Community Center. Dinner would commence at 5:30 p.m., with the business
session starting at 6:30 p.m.
The proposed topics of discussion would be (1) the possibility of consolidation or closer
coordination on Parks and Recreation programs, (2) increasing efforts in the area of
intergovernmental relations, and (3) consensus on the frequency of future joint
meetings, including the possible involvement of other agencies such as the Lucia Mar
Unified School District and/or the County.
The Cities of Pismo Beach and Grover Beach will be requesting approval from their
respective City Council in the near future.
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 Tern 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 Tern 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 Tern 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 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed.
12. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
a. Mayor Pro Tern 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 Tern Ferrara met with Pismo
Beach Council Members at a League of California Cities Conference and a joint
meeting was discussed. There vias Council consensus to direct staff to set up
such a meeting.
c. Mayor Pro Tern 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
11.a.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
CITY COUNCIL
DANIEL C. HERNANDEZ, DIRECTOR PARKS AND RECREATION ~
SUBJECT: RANCHO GRANDE PARK SCHEMATIC PLAN
DATE:
FEBRUARY 23, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the
attached schematic plan for Rancho Grande Park.
FUNDING:
Funds currently budgeted for this park total $80,000 (Fund 213 - Park Development).
DISCUSSION:
Staff has held community workshops regarding drafting a plan since May 1998. These
meetings have been held in conjunction with the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Members from all segments of the City were invited and participated in the discussion
process. Mr. Jeff Ferber from RRM Design Group volunteered time to assist in drafting
the schematic plan. In addition to the four public meetings, the schematic plan was
distributed with a cover letter (Attachment 1) to all residents located within 300 ft. of the
Rancho Grande Park and a press release (Attachment 2) was also issued to the local
newspapers. A total of six responses was received via letter or e-mail (Attachment 3).
While all were favorable responses toward the plan, other comments included the
addition of tennis courts, lawn bowling, and of keeping all 1 0 acres.
In March 1998, the City Council decided Rancho Grande Park would be a passive park
with "Strother-like amenities". In May 1998, staff performed an amenities inventory at
Strother Park to develop cost estimates for similar amenities for Rancho Grande Park.
The $127,200 estimate for amenities does not include plan design, infrastructure,
irrigation, grading, or landscaping (Attachment 4). Cost estimates for the
aforementioned items are contained in the attached memorandum dated March 2, 1998
(Attachment 5) and, if calculated for a 10-acre park, are approximately $948,200. The
majority of the initial cost is related to parking, grading, restroom facilities, utility
hookups, and irrigation. Cost associated to meadow hydroseed the open area adjacent
to Callado Corte is minimal. This area is approximately 1.5 acres.
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO GRANDE PARK SCHEMATIC PLAN
FEBRUARY 23, 1999
Page 2
The cost breakdown is as follows:
. Parking, Roads and bathroom facilities
. Grading
. Irrigation
. Electrical (parking/safety lighting)
. Landscaping and fencing
. Sewer
. Hydroseed
. Picnic tables, play structures, benches
$175,000
$250,000
$156,000
$ 80,000
$ 80,000
$ 30,000
$ 50,000
$127.200
COST ESTIMATE TOTAL INCLUDING AMENITIES
~a02
A more detailed cost plan will be developed once the schematic plan has been finalized.
Due to the expense of undertaking such a project, construction may be "phased" over a
three to four year period of time. Staff is currently exploring various options and will
include a proposed project schedule, as part of the Five-year Capital Improvement
Program. Based on Council direction at the May 1998 publiC hearing, staff has
researched the possibility of funds that could be raised based on the potential sale of
lots located on Callado Corte.
An appraisal was performed on an approximate 1.5 acre portion of the 10 acre park site,
which was divided with three hypothetical parcels of approximately 0.5 acres each
(Attachment 6). The total appraised value of all three hypothetical parcels, based on
current market values, is $470,000. If it is decided at a subsequent meeting to offer
these parcels for sale, the property must be subdivided using a parcel map and re-
zoned from PF (PublidQuasi-Public District) to P-D-1.2 (Residential). The re-zoning
process could take approximately four to six months.
Staff has also explored grant possibilities on a limited basis since this 'NOuld require
more definitive information for a complete grant proposal to be submitted.
Finally, project savings can be achieved by using volunteers and various fundraisers,
such as an "Adopt a Tree" or "Adopt a Bench" program. The specific amount of
potential savings through this approach is part of the overall cost accounting once the
schematic plan is approved.
Staff will return at a later date with an analysis of the various funding options.
Recommended Council action at this point is approval of the schematic plan.
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO GRANDE PARK SCHEMATIC PLAN
FEBRUARY 23, 1999
Page 3
Alternatives:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
Approve the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission to
adopt the attached schematic plan for Rancho Grande Park;
Do not approve the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation
Commission;
Modify as appropriate and approve the Parks and Recreation Commission's
recommendation;
Provide direction to staff.
c:\StaffRpt\RGPrkSchematicPlanFeb23.99
Attachment 1
~ity 0/
~61~
PARKS AND RECREATION
P.O. Box 550
1221 Ash Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
Phone: (805) 473-5474
FAX: (805) 473-5479
E-Man: agcity@rax.net
January 5, 1999
SUBJECT: RANCHO GRANDE PARK PLAN
Dear Interested Citizen:
On May 12, 1998, the City Council gave direction to staff to develop a "Passive Park"
design for Rancho Grande Park. Furthermore, it was stated that this park would mirror
Strother Park in terms of amenities and activities. After a total of three public
workshops held in conjunction with the Parks and Recreation Commission meetings
and numerous staff and volunteer hours, the attached plan has been developed for
consideration by the City Council. The plan has received the support of the Parks and
Recreation Commission, numerous citizens that have been involved in this process, and
the professional advice of RRM Design Group of San Luis Obispo.
At its meeting of December 9, 1998, the Parks and Recreation Commission
recommended that the City Council adopt the plan with the following recommendations:
(1) align the entry of the park to the new street that will be located across the street in
the Rancho Grande Phase 6 development and (2) complete the cement walkway on
James Way that borders Rancho Grande Park
At this time, the City is requesting your review of the attached plan. If you have any
comments, please forward them to the Parks and Recreation Department c/o Daniel
Hernandez, Director, P.O. Box 550, Arroyo Grande, CA 93421. This plan is tentatively
scheduled to be presented to the City Council on February 23rd, so please submit any
comments you may have no later than January 22"d. Thank you in advance for your
time and comments.
Sincerely,
2J~~ ~
DANIEL C. HERNANDEZ
Director of Parks and Recreation
c: City Manager
Enclosure
c:\PandR\RanchoGrandePrk-ResidentLtr.105
~
f ~,,/I' ~ul"f
i
.... s i
.H
.;.~~
~
-e
..
.€.
..
o
&
..
"
.~
"
~
..
.,;
%!l.
:'0
,;,r
.,.. '.. ......
_0:>099\10';)
-8
c
~
...
~
o
>..
O.
.-
...~
<-
- ,
O.
~;
U~
0. ~
~ ..,
-<
o .
'" r
u 1
...%~
=u1
- ,.
:1
_ f
"" ~
~ ~
~
-<
c:
as
-
a.
CJ
--
i
E
CD
.c
(.)
(fJ
Attachment 2
PRESS RELEASE
ISSUE DATE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
RANCHO GRANDE PARK AMENITIES PLAN
Public comment is being accepted until Fridav. January 22nd on the amenities plan for
the Rancho Grande Park recommended for approval to the City Council. The Arroyo
Grande City Council directed staff on May 12, 1998 to develop a "Passive Park" design
that would mirror Strother Park in terms of amenities and activities. After a total of three
public workshops held in conjunction with Arroyo Grande Parks and Recreation
Commission meetings and numerous staff and volunteer hours, a plan has been
developed for consideration by the City Council. The plan has received the support of
the Parks and Recreation Commission, numerous citizens that have been involved in
this process, and the professional advice of RRM Design Group of San Luis Obispo.
Copies of the plan are available at the Arroyo Grande City Hall, 214 E. Branch Street
and at the Arroyo Grande Parks and Recreation office, 1221 Ash Street.
At the December 9, 1998 meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission
recommended that the City Council adopt the plan with the following recommendations:
(1) align the entry of the park to the new street that will be located across the street in
the Rancho Grande Phase 6 development and (2) complete the cement walkway on
James Way that borders Rancho Grande Park
If you have any comments regarding the approved amenities plan, please forward them
to the Parks and Recreation Department c/o Daniel Hernandez, Director, P.O. Box 550,
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421, or bye-mail atagcity@arroyogrande.org.This plan is
tentativelv scheduled to be presented to the City Council on February 23rd,
-g41
ROBERT L. HUNT
CITY MANAGER
I !'t;!~
Date
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, CONTACT:
DOUG PERRIN, RECREATION SUPERVISOR
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
(805) 473-5478
c:\PressRelease\RanchoGrandePrk.114
January 14,1999
Attachment 3
ELIZABETH K. DEJARNETTE
661 Victoria Way
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
489-4613
Dan Hernandez, Director
Parks & Recreation Department
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Re: Rancho Grande Park Design
Dear Mr. Hernandez:
While most of the amenities contained in the proposed development plan for Rancho Grande
Park are pleasing and acceptable, I wish to submit the following comments for consideration at
the upcoming City Council meeting to review the plan:
There are an estimated 15,000 Arroyo Grande residents. Currently the City has four
tennis courts, which by National Recreation & Parks Association (NRP A) standards (1
tennis court/2000 people) serve only 8000 people. I would like to see one or two tennis
courts in the area currently designated for the volleyball court. Because lighting is an
issue in neighborhood parks, the courts could be for day use only. I believe the Park
Master Plan supports the need for additional tennis courts within the City.
The children's play area should have surfacing which permits access for people with
disabilities over the entire play area rather than just to a certain number of pieces of
equipment (as recommended by ADA). Partial surfacing in accessible materials assumes
the user ofthe play equipment is the person with a disability. Assuming such fails to
acknowledge that a person with a disability might be the parent of a child using the
equipment and need to have access to the entire area should the child be injured while
playing. Although expensive, it meets the intent of the law rather than just the letter of
the law.
Lastly, under no circumstance should the City sell any of the acreage currently designated
as Rancho Grande Park. The area adjacent to Collado Corta (proposed Meadow
Hydroseed) should, at the very least, be preserved as open space. Replant the area in the
native oaks that originally existed in great numbers on those hillsides, but resist selling it
for residential development.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input into this most sensitive issue.
Sincerely,
Betsy Dejarnette
Resident
~"? 0/
~8J~
PARKS AND RECREATION
P.O. Box 550
1221 Ash Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
Phone: (805) 473-5474
FAX: (805) 473-5479
E-MaD: agcJty@fIx.net
January 5, 1999
SUBJECT: RANCHO GRANDE PARK PLAN
Dear Interested Citizen:
On May 12, 1998, the City Council gave direction to staff to develop a "Passive Park"
design for Rancho Grande Park. Furthermore, it was stated that this park would mirror
Strother Park in terms of amenities and activities. After a total of three public
workshops held in conjunction with the Parks and Recreation Commission meetings
and numerous staff and volunteer hours, the attached plan has been developed for
consideration by the City Council. The plan has received the support of the Parks and
Recreation Commission, numerous citizens that have been involved in this process, and
the professional advice of RRM Design Group of San Luis Obispo.
At its meeting of December 9, 1998, the Parks and Recreation Commission
recommended that the City Council adopt the plan with the following recommendations:
(1) align the entry of the park to the new street that will be located across the street in
the Rancho Grande Phase 6 development and (2) complete the cement walkway on
James Way that borders Rancho Grande Park
At this time, the City is requesting your review of the attached plan. If you have any
comments, please forward them to the Parks and Recreation Department c/o Daniel
Hernandez, Director, P.O. Box 550, Arroyo Grande, CA 93421. This plan is tentativelv
scheduled to be presented to the City Council on February 23rd, so please submit any
comments you may have no later than January 2'2d. Thank you in advance for your
time and comments.
Sincerely, - I ( V ~
D~:: ~~R~ \2j/ ~ cv1 ~ -r; ~
Director of Parks and Recreation ~ ~:Lv ~, ?
c: City Manager r~ ~~) k~'_ OAf) AJ'
Enclosure CY"'. 1 C\ ,N .
c:\PandR\RanchoGrandePrk-ResidentLtr.105
~/~
. /()-S
70: J,j~ i~v~~
I~v(:j : ; cf2A/( . .7f; (q 9 <1 .
Sv--l~ " ;(~(/~, ,/i~/v~4 rJa..LiL
H ~,
t ~--l~ y~ f:'-L _~__,-.t(.v"')_
.dv ~~"'Y' y;'-v'. t''L /t-~
Il CL~/t"-'(,l .flL~>~ I~CA-, \,k ,
;t~ 4"1 ~~~ r<.4t:%]" .
0) C)/J ,o.~ c~ /~-L-\A /t .
tLU-"",~~ ~ -0:rLh,-,--<,'0
,1.. . -1. . . ,. U ) .. J "
A . -e ~~V\ ~v....L~"6 - /~(,~.l.'f/~l'_/C"-t'L~'r
r:;; ':U ~ > J ;1 ' L'1
Y :., V .~)J'V{,~ .,/"-t.l.f A.~1 . d-:-G~/
.~ ~ ~ )..vr;'y; /L1-YVL-J
t-(PJ/~~. Lh/I 7Z'-W-0 '~'~,j -, )-
(A/JL-h..Q.~'-1/:.xt.~) cY, 2-, .J..(2.....v-~ ,~J
r1u~~ ~~/ ,
/J-c-LA,/l./VL<:l /~V~
...(1 /l. Ii I 2:) /J /
/ yy (/~-<- I~~~-"\..~l /, u....'
Rancho Grande Park Plan
Subject: Rancho Grande Park Plan
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 199915:49:16 EST
From: M1 stMate@aol.com
To: agcity@fix.net
Daniel C. Hernandez, Director of Parks and Recreation
Last week, I received a copy of the proposed Rancho Grande Park Plan. The
plan looks very good but I do have one suggestion. Why not make the
basketball court a tennis court also? Many residents would enjoy the playing
of tennis in addition to basketball. If this plan is approved, when might the
park be started?
Thank you, Marilyn D. Henry, 172 Avenida De Diamante, Arroyo Grande
1 of 1
1/11/99 2:04 PM
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
<Hasslerx4@aol.com>
Director <agcity@arroyogrande.org>
1/22/9912:42PM
Rancho Grande Park Amenities Plan
Dear Mr. Hernandez
As a citizen within walking distance of the new park, I would like to
suggest tennis courts in addition to, or instead of the volleyball court.
Lights would be nice, but not necessary to bring lots of recreational
enjoyment to the east side of Arroyo Grande. Thanks for your consideration.
Carl Hassler
399 Miller Way
Arroyo Grande, CA
473-3073
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
<Reillyrnch@aol.com>
CAGGW5.CityHall(agcity)
1/22/993:50PM
To: Daniel Hernandez (Rancho Grande Park)
93420
Daniel Hernandez
Director of Parks and Recreation
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
Re: Rancho Grande Park Amenities Plan
Dear Mr. Hernandez,
I would like to ofter the following comments regarding the Rancho Grande Park.
First of alii would like to state that we have lived at our current home for
just over 9 years and when we purchased this home we were told that there
would be a park within walking distance for our, then, young family. My baby
is now going to be 9 in April and my oldest is 12. I believe it would be nice
for them to have a park in their community but I am beginning to doubt that
this will happen. I would like to encourage you to proceed with a park as
quickly as possible so we might enjoy it with our children rather than wait
for our grandchildren!
This current plan would appear to be adequate to fulfill some minimal needs of
this community. I would, however, like to add comments regarding the
possibility of selling oft any land. It would be a travesty to give up land
for more homes, buildings that are currently taking over the landscape. This
land would never be replaced as no one seems to want to have a park in their
neighborhood. In traveling around the state my husband and I have paid
particular attention to parks, as it is so obvious that Arroyo Grande lacks
this basic need. We have seen a beautiful park in Winters, a very small,
rural town; made by the community, completely surrounded by residential
properties. We had dinner in a park in Barstow, it had a large community
building with a beautiful swimming pool as well as verandas for eating. I
would bet that most people living here would say that we live in a much nicer
area then either of these two towns yet we lack, so vividly, in a very basic
need for any family community. We just came back from Antioch and I couldn't
believe their park system, it appeared that there was a playground about every
mile or so. What is wrong with this community that the needs of children and
families seem to be so low on the priority list!
I would like to suggest that tennis courts be added to this plan, perhaps
replacing, or in addition to, the "seasonal volleyball court." There are no
tennis facilities on this side of town and the number of courts are seriously
lacking for this size of a community.
On a more technical matter, it appears the driveway is very narrow, and from
my term on the planning commission and the issues brought up several years
ago, I would like to be assured that our emergency equipment would have
333 Miller Way
Arroyo Grande, CA
January 22, 1999
adequate access to the area.
It is also a concern that all areas be accessible for not only the children
but for adults as well. We must strive to meet the needs of our community in
all of its diversity.
I appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments and hope that some
action, at last, will occur!
Sincerely,
Maureen M. Reilly
481-0626
RECEIVED
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
January 22, 1999
99 JAN 22 PH 2: 46
To the Arroyo Grande City Council,
Ron and I would like to congratulate the city Parks and Recreation Committee for putting
together a very nice plan for the Rancho Grande Park site. As residents of the neighboring
property, across Ave. De Diamante from the park, we have been following these plans very
carefully. We feel that our personal input to the Parks and Recreation Committee has been
applied beautifully. We are in full support of the plans that will be presented to you in February,
and encourage you to accept them without further changes.
Weare very much looking foreword to the clay when we can look out our windows onto this
park as it is currently planned.
Sincerely,
l/Jd
C It.LUWJ :
Holly Black and Ron Nishida
122 Avenida de Diamante
tJt/
.~
...,~"._......,..~
r,t.'t!.;, .. .... .~..
~~'~'" ",::.~ ,..~~),-'~"';~
Attachment 4
INVENTORY OF STROTHER PARK AMENITIES
PARK ACREAGE 7.21
AS OF 5/13/98
16 trash containers
2 park benches
1 basketball court (4" concrete pad, rebar enforced, 45' x 70')
2 playground systems with rocking animals (due to be installed 6/98)
4 stand alone picnic areas (each includes one trashcan, one double grill, and
one picnic table)
1 youth league baseball backstop
3 large picnic areas containing:
. 1 with 8 picnic tables and large set-in-concrete grill (4 grills)
. 1 with 8 picnic tables and extra large set-in concrete grill (8 grills)
. 2 stand alone picnic tables adjacent to this larger area
. 1 with 6 picnic tables and large set-in concrete grill (4 grills)
2 horseshoe pits
Volleyball court sleeves (seasonal)
1 bathroom structure (men's with 1 urinal and 1 toilet, women's with 2 toilets)
54 parking stalls (2 handicap stalls)
$ 5,040
$ 1,040
$ 1 ,030
$ 30,000
$ 2,950
$ 30,000
APPROXIMATE COST ESTIMATES FOR SIMILAR AMENITIES
RANCHO GRANDE PARK SITE 10 ACRES
16 model 500 trash receptacles ($315 ea.) by Outdoor Creations
16 rain covers for trash receptacles ($65 ea.) by Outdoor Creations
2 model 407 contour benches ($515 ea.) by Outdoor Creations
Concrete work for 45' x 70', 4" pour, rebar enforced basketball court
2 Tomark "Monument" model supports, backboards and rims systems
Playground system, 2 components for ages 2 and under, and 3-13 years
of age with ADA accessible fall safety material
INVENTORY OF STROTHER PARK AMENITIES
PARK ACREAGE 7.21 AS OF 5/13/98
Page 2
$ 3,672
$ 1,470
$ 16,230
4 Individual picnic areas including picnic table (model 1 OOS by Outdoor
Creations $545 ea.), double surface barbecue grill (model 1193-BHC by
Belson Outdoor $123 ea.), trash receptacle (priced above, cost not
included here), and concrete pad for tables ($250 ea.)
Steelcraft model Junior Size baseball backstop
3 large picnic area with 24 tables (model100S by Outdoor Creations $545
ea.), 2 large group barbecue grills (model 300A by Outdoor Creations
$$570 ea.), and 1 extra large group grill (model 3001 A by Outdoor
Creations $2,010)
$ 500 2 regulation horseshoe pits (materials and installation cost for both pits)
$ 205 Volleyball posts (model 2211-02 by PW Athletic Company $135) and net
(model 8362 by PW Athletic Company $70)
$ 1,000
$ 34.000
'~27 .200
Park Signage (entry sign similar to that at Strother Park)
1,000' x 5' wide concrete paths to basketball court, playground area,
picnic areas, and restrooms as per ADA access requirements @ $6.80 per
square foot.
TOTAL COST FOR AMENITIES EQUAL TO THOSE AT STROTHER
PARK. NOTE: COST ESTIMATES DO NOT INCLUDE SHIPPING,
APPLICABLE TAXES, OR INSTALLATION UNLESS OTHERWISE
NOTED.
c:\StaffRpt\StrotherPrkAmenitiesLstF eb23.99
Attachment 5
MEMORANDUM
TO:
ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER
DOREEN LIBERTO-BLANCK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DON SPAGNOLO, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DANIEL C. HERNANDEZ, DIRECTOR PARKS AND RECREATIOI'
FROM:
SUBJECT: REVISED COST ESTIMATES FOR RANCHO GRANDE PARK
DATE:
MARCH 2, 1998
On February 26, 1998, Don and I had a chance to walk the Rancho Grande Park site in
order to get a better idea as to cost for grading and infrastructure. Based on updated
information, we have arrived at the following cost estimates:
Cost Breakdown
Parking, roads and bathroom facilities
Landscaping and fencing
ADA accessible playground component
10 Picnic tables @ $600 each
10 benches @ $450 each
4 double surface barbecue grills @ $280 each
10 litter containers @ $240 each
2 stationary bike racks @ $265 each
Softball backstop with dugouts and benches
Softball field materials and installation
50' x 84' concrete pad and basketball rims
Grading (5 acres)
Irrigation (5 acres)
Electrical (parking/safety lighting)
Sewer
Hydroseed
Estimated cost for development of 3-5 acre park
Estimated cost estimate per acre of developed park
$175,000
$ 40,000
$ 35,000
$ 6,000
$ 4,500
$ 1, 120
$ 2,400
$ 530
$ 10,000
$ 25,000
$ 75,000
$125,000
$ 78,000
$ 50,000
$ 30,000
.$ 25.000
~~82,550
$136,510 per acre
Using the cost estimate per acre of development, if we assume that we will be
developing all 10 acres, the estimated total cost of this project would be $955,570 to
$1,365,100 for a 7-10 acre park. Included in this estimate for a larger park are the
following additional amenities:
MEMORANDUM
REVISED COST ESTIMATES: RANCHO GRANDE PARK
MARCH 2, 1998
PAGE 2
. A second, age appropriate ADA accessible play structure
. Gazebo/Large Picnic area for groups of 25+ people
. 5 additional picnic tables
. 10 additional benches
. 10 additional litter containers
. 4. additional barbecue grills
. 8 foot wide decomposed granite jogging/walking path % mile
. 2 additional bike racks
c:\DC H\MemoRanchoGrandePrkRevisedEst. M2
Attachment 6
-
b
~
-
~~
~~
~~
!::)...
~I
Site(s) Plat Map
(i)
-
o
..,.
~
tit
~
fJf
N
Q)0l
~C\I
~M
-lEI
rt>.
-:Q:
.acd
lEI ..
.
~~
~.,
N.
nu
- .
-u
I-
U
~
a::
I-
TARVIN & ASSOCIATES
REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL AND ACQUISITION SERVICES
229 MILLER WAY, ARROYO GRANDE CA 93420
(805) 489-0147, (805) 489-9480 FAX
February 16, 1999
City of Arroyo Grande
Public Works Department
Owner: City of Arroyo Grande
AP No: 007-784-020
Don Spagnolo
Director of Public Works
City Engineer, City of Arroyo Grande
208 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
Reference: Appraisal of City Property located adjacent to Collado Corte Street in the
City of Arroyo Grande
Dear Mr. Spagnolo:
As requested by the City of Arroyo Grande, Public Works Department, I have prepared a
Summary Real Property Appraisal of a portion of the property, subject to certain assumptions,
identified as AP No: 007-784-020 and located between James Way and Collado Corte. This appraisal
is to be used in connection with the City's desire to sell a portion of this ten acre parcel ofland.
The subject report has been prepared in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practices and State and Federal Appraisal Guidelines.
It is the opinion of the undersigned that the Fair Market Value of the fee simple interest of each the
subject properties (sites) as of February 15, 1999 is as follows:
Site A - $155,000.00
Site B - $160,000.00
Site C - $155,000.00
As previously noted, this appraisal has been prepared subject to certain reasonable assumptions
outlined in a later section of this report. The above value conclusions mayor may not be affected
should it be determined that one or all of the assumptions are invalid.
Thank you for the opportunity to be of service to the City of Arroyo Grande.
A & SSOCIA TES
R.H. Tarvin SR/W A, IF AS
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser #AGO 16894
AN APPRAISAL ANALYSIS
OFA
PORTION OF THE RANCHO GRANDE PARK
LOCATED
SOUTH OF JAMES WAY IN THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT
AS REQUESTED BY
DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR
PREPARED BY
TARVIN & ASSOCIATES
REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL & ACQUISITION CONSULTANTS
TARVIN & ASSOCIATES
REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL AND ACQUISITION SERVICES
229 MILLER WA ~ ARROYO GRANDE CA 93420
(805) 489-0147, (805) 489-9480 FAX
February 16, 1999
City of Arroyo Grande
Public Works Department
Owner: City of Arroyo Grande
AP No: 007-784-020
Don Spagnolo
Director of Public Works
City Engineer, City of Arroyo Grande
208 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
Reference: Appraisal of City Property located adjacent to Collado Corte Street in the
City of Arroyo Grande
Dear Mr. Spagnolo:
As requested by the City of Arroyo Grande, Public Works Department, I have prepared a
Summary Real Property Appraisal ofa portion of the property, subject to certain assumptions,
identified as AP No: 007-784-020 and located between James Way and Collado Corte. This appraisal
is to be used in connection with the City's desire to sell a portion of this ten acre parcel ofland.
The subject report has been prepared in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practices and State and Federal Appraisal Guidelines.
It is the opinion of the undersigned that the Fair Market Value of the fee simple interest of each the
subject properties (sites) as of February 15, 1999 is as follows:
Site A - $155,000.00
Site B - $160,000.00
Site C - $155,000.00
As previously noted, this appraisal has been prepared subject to certain reasonable assumptions
outlined in a later section of this report. The above value conclusions mayor may not be affected
should it be determined that one or all of the assumptions are invalid.
Thank you for the opportunity to be of service to the City of Arroyo Grande.
A & SSOCIATES
RH. Tarvin SR/WA, IFAS
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser #AG016894
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter of Tra n s m itta) ... ............................. ........ ... ............. .......... ..... .............................. 1
Table of Con ten ts ....................................................... ............................................... .....2
S tatemen t of Limiting Conditions .................................................................................3
Other Information and Definitions ................................................................................4
C ertifi ea te of A p praiser . ...... ........ ... ........... ........ ....................... ...................................... 5
I.
D.
ID.
IV.
V.
VI.
VD.
VID.
IX.
In trod u cti 0 n ............................. ..................... ........... .................. .... .... ........ ......... 6
6
7
7
7
7
7
9
9
Neigh bo rh ood Analysis ....... .......... ................. ............ ....... ..... ........ ....................
Area Analysis ........ ........ .... ......... .... ..................... ...... ........ ..... ............................
Specific Property Data - Larger Parcel............................................................
Hazardous and Toxic Waste ..............................................................................
Expos u re Tim e ...... ..................... ... ................. ... ........ ...... ...... ....... .............. ........
Parcel An alys is .......... ... .... .............. ...... Ii.. ............. ....... ...... ..... .......... ....... ...........
Highest and Best Use ........................................................................................
Valuation - Su b j eet Sites ................................................................................ ...
Add en d a .................... ......................... ................................ ...... ........... ............................ 13
Site(s) Plat Map
Subject Property Photos
Location andComparable Map
Appraiser Qualifications
Tarvin & Associates - Real Estate Appraisal and Acqnlsltion Services
Page 2
STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS AND OTHER INFORMATION
. For purpose of clarification, this report has been prepared subject to the following limiting
conditions:
This appraisal covers the property described herein and no opinion is rendered herewith in respect to
the title of said property This appraisal assumes a good title. The property has been appraised as
though free of all indebtedness, and other similar liens.
No responsibility is assumed by the appraiser for matters which are legal in nature.
No survey of the boundaries of the properties has been made. All areas and dimensions furnished the
appraiser are assumed to be correct. All factual information and maps received from public agencies
and/or municipalities or other sources are assumed to be accurate and correct.
The appraisal of any value pertaining to oil and mineral rights has not been considered as a part of this
appraisal.
Any factual data pertaining to this appraisal which is discovered or occuring after the date of the letter
of transmittal of this report mayor may not affect my opinion of value.
The appraiser is not required to give testimony or appear in court because of having made this
appraisal with reference to the property in question, unless arrangements have been previously made.
Any distribution of the valuation in the report between land and improvements applies only under the
existing program of utilization. The separate valuation for the land and buildings must not be used in
conjunction with any other appraisal and is invalid if so used.
Neither all, nor any part of the contents of this report, or copy hereof (including conclusions as to the
property value, the identity of the appraiser, professional designations, reference to any professional
appraisal organization, or the firm with which the appraiser is connected), shall be used for any
purpose by anyone but the client specified in this report nor shall it be conveyed by anyone to the
public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media also without the written
consent and approval of the appraiser.
This appraisal is subject to a Title Report with Compatible Map, which describes all easements and
related exceptions to coverage.
No investigation has been made in respect to the soil condition of the subject properties, easements or
restrictions which may affect the subject properties, including easements appurtenant, and drainage
and it is assumed that no adverse conditions exist with regards to these items.
Tarvin & Associates - Real F~tate Appraisal and Acquisition Services
Page 3
OTHER INFORMATION AND DEFINITIONS
. Value Appraised - Fair Market Value
Fair Market Value defined:
(a) The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market
under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and
knowledgeable, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is
the consumption of a sale. as of a specific date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under
conditions whereby:
1. buyer and seller are typically motivated;
2. both parties are well informed, well advised, and acting in what they consider their best
interest;
3. a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
4. payment is made in terms of cash in United States dollars or in terms of financial
arrangements comparable thereto; and
5. the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or
creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale.
. Date of Report - February 16, 1999
. Effective Date of the Appraisal - February 15, 1999
. Estate Appraised - Fee Simple subject to normal easements
. Type of Report - Summary
Tarvin & Associates - Real Estate Appralw and Acquisition Services
Page 4
CERTIFICATE OF APPRAISER
I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief:
. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.
. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and
limited conditions, and are my personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions and conclusions.
. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and I
have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved.
. My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in
value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a
stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event.
. My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in
conformity with the Uniform Standards of the Professional Appraisal Practice.
. I have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report.
. Scott Dickinson - (Assistant Appraiser) provided significant professional assistance to the person
signing this report.
That I understand that such appraisal is to be used in connection with the sale or disposal of the
property owned by the City of Arroyo Grande.
That such appraisal has been made in conformity with the appropriate State Laws, Title VI of the 1964
Civil Rights Act, regulations, and policies and procedures applicable to an appraisal for such purpose;
and that to the best of my knowledge no portion of the value assigned to.the properties consists of
items which are not compensable under the established law of said State.
That I have not revealed the findings and results of this appraisal to anyone other than the proper
officials of the City of Arroyo Grande and I will not do so until authorized by City officials, or until I
am required to do so by due process oflaw, or until I am released from this obligation by having to
publicly testify as to such findings.
That my opinion of the total fair market value of the subject site(s) as of February 15, 1999, is
as follows: Site A - $155,000.00, Site B - $160,000.00, Site C - $155,000.00 and that such
conclusion was derived without collusion, coercion, or direction as to value.
;<-/6-/lyf
. .H. Tarvin, SRW A, IF AS, Date
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser # AG016894
Tarvin & Associates - Real Estate Appraisal and Acquisition Services
Page 5
I. INTRODUCTION
This Summary Appraisal Report has been prepared for the purpose of establishing the Fair Market
Value of three hypothetical residential land parcels. The three hypothetical parcels are currently a part
of a larger ten acre site belonging to the City of Arroyo Grande. The City Public Works Department
desires to sell approximately 1.5 acres of the larger parcel to raise funds needed to develop the
remainder (i.e. park). The 1.5 acres is to be divided into residential building sites consistent with
current neighborhood trends and the City Zoning Ordinance. The following assumptions have been
made in respect to this assignment:
1) Approximately 1. 5 acres are to be separated from the larger parcel (See
larger parcel map attached)
2) 1.5 acres are to be divided into hypothetical residential lots of a size
consistent with City residential zoning requirements and existing neighborhood
trends.
3) All value conclusions (market) are to be based upon hypothetical sites with
all utilities accessible and ready to be marketed.
II. AREA ANALYSIS
The properties appraised herein are located in the City of Arroyo Grande in San Luis Obispo County.
The City of Arroyo Grande is located on the coast south of San Luis Obispo approximately 15 miles.
The City of Arroyo Grande has a population approximating 15,500 residents.
Local beaches, lakes and many golf courses lure golfers, tourists, outdoor enthusiasts and other
travelers to the area throughout the year. Cool ocean breezes fan the south coast throughout the year.
Climatic conditions for the south coast are considered mild when compared to the north county.
Topography ranges from flat fertile farmland to the higher elevations of the nearby Santa Lucia
Mountain Range.
The County of San Luis Obispo is fortunate to have a broad economic base to support employment.
Retail trade, agriculture, services and government account for the majority of all jobs in the area.
Economic indicators for the months ahead forecast a moderate, but positive, growth pattern in all
business sectors.
Transportation requirements necessary to sustain a healthy economic climate are provided by truck
and major rail and air carriers. State Routes 1 and 101 along with a network of other state highways,
county roads and city streets serve area travelers. The San Luis Obispo County Airport provides a
quick and convenient air shuttle service to the Los Angeles and San Francisco International Airports.
Domestic and commercial utility needs are provided by local public servers. New development is
noticeable. Higher education needs are available through the California State University and the
Cuesta Community College Campus.
Tarvin & Associates - Real Estate Appraisal and Acquisition Services
Page 6
III. NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS
The neighborhood in which the subject property is located is entirely within the limits of the City of
Arroyo Grande. Neighborhood boundaries encompass the limits of the Rancho Grande Development.
This neighborhood is primarily devoted to large, custom-built homes. Building sites are larger than
that associated with the normal tract housing development. Ocean and valley views are common.
Streets are new and well maintained. Pride of ownership is very evident.
Considerable residential and commercial development is currently underway. Many-custom built
homes have recently been completed or are under construction. Simi-custom or tract housing under
construction tends to sell quickly. The nearby recently opened Wal-Mart retail complex, while
creating considerable controversy, tends to be driving other commercial ventures. Local growth
concerns continue to affect and impact community development decisions. Future water needs and
perceived threats to a desired "quality oflife" fuel current and future growth issues.
IV. SPECIFIC PROPERTY DATA - LARGER PARCEL
Property Address: South of James Way and north of Collado Corte
APN: 007-784-020 Owner: City of Arroyo Grande
Local: City of Arroyo Grande Zoning: Public/Quasi-Public (PF) District
Present Use: Vacant Total Property Area: 10 acres
Improvements: None Highest and Best Use: Recreation
Shape: Irregular Topography: Sloping to level
V. HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC WASTE
No evidence of toxic or hazardous waste was observed during the appraiser's inspection of the subject
property. The property has been vacant for several years and, though quite unlikely, contamination
and spillage may have occurred sometime in the past. An appropriate Environmental Survey (phase I)
is recommended.
VI. EXPOSURE TIME
Exposure time, briefly defined, "is the estimated time the property being appraised would have been
offered on the market prior to the hypothetical consummation of a sale at market value on the effective
date of the appraisal". Based on data obtained from the market, along with the character of the
property involved, and discussions with knowledgeable real estate representatives, the exposure time
for the subject property, subject to certain conditions, is estimated to be six month to one year.
VII. PARCEL ANALYSIS
As mentioned previously, this report has been prepared for the purpose of determining the value of
approximately 1.5 acres of City owned land now a part of a larger property consisting of 10 acres.
The 1.5 acres is to be valued assuming it was or as if it were already divided into several residential
lots.
Tarvin & Assodates - Real Estate A.ppraisal and A.cqulsitIon Services
Page 7
At present the property in question is zoned PF (Public/Quasi-Public District). The PF zoning was
created for the purpose of designating and identifying land to be used for conducting public, .
quasi-public and institutional activities, including the protection of areas needed for such future
facilities (See Arroyo Grande Development Code Section 9-09-040). As such, the current PF
property zoning is inconsistent with the needs of a residential development.
To be considered in connection with a residential development, the property in question (1.5 acres)
must undergo a primary zoning amendment. A rezoning will require that proper application be made
to the City of Arroyo Grande Planning Development Department. Eventually it may be necessary to
apply for a parcel map.
The City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department (Lezley Buford - Planner) was
contacted to determine what change would be most reasonable or most acceptable in respect to the
subject property. Ms. Buford indicates that any request for a residential zoning change that deviates
from that shared by the surrounding neighborhood (p-D-l.2) would most likely be rejected by the
City. Ms. Buford further indicated that uses other than that representative of the surrounding
residential neighborhood would also encounter considerable public opposition. As such, it has been
concluded that the most likely rezoning for the subject property (1.5 acres) is one consistent with the
P-D-1.2 zoning.
The P-D-l.2 zoning designation imposes a minimum lot size requirement of 7,200 sf Restrictions
pertaining to front, rear and side yard set-back along with height limitations and off-street parking
must also be considered. Based on this criteria, as well as other pertinent input, it has been concluded
that the the 1.5 acres parcel can best be divided into three workable building sites. The three
possibilities are depicted on the attached sketch. Calculations and lot lines shown on this sketch are
approximate. Some flexibility should exist in the event it is desired or necessary to shift one or several
of the lot lines to accommodate a more workable development scheme.
Per the attached site allocation, the three hypothetical lots would possess the following pertinent
physical features:
Lot/Site "A" "B" "C"
Size 22,500 sf 21,000 sf 24,200 sf
(0.52 acres) (0.48 acres) (0.56 acres)
Shape irregular irregular irregular
Topography flat to sloping flat to sloping flat to sloping
Location corner lot interior lot cui de sac
OfT-site Improv. sidewalks sidewalks sidewalks
curb & gutters curb & gutters curb & gutters
View some good some
Utilities all all all
Tarvin & Associates - Real F.state A.ppralsal and AcqJllsltlon Services
Page 8
VIII. HIGHEST AND BEST USE ANALYSIS
A Highest and Best Use Analysis is unnecessary due to the hypothetical nature of this assignment.
It is assumed that the Highest and Best use of the three lots is residential. The following is a definition
of Highest and Best Use:
That reasonable and probable use that supports the present value, as defined, as of the date
of the appraisaL Alternately, the highest and best use is the use, from among reasonably
'probable and legal alternative uses, found to be physically possible, appropriately
supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest present land value.
IX. V ALUA TION - Subject Sites
The valuation approach most applicable to this assignment and employed in this report is the Direct
Sales Comparative Approach. This valuation method is one of three recognized approaches used by
appraisers. The two remaining valuation methods available to the appraiser are the Income
Approach and the Replacement Cost New Approach (RCN).
Replacement Cost New Approach - This approach involves a process of determining the
replacement cost new of the improvements being appraised. From the improvement replacement cost
new conclusion, accrued depreciation from all causes (physical, functional and social/economic) is
deducted to arrive at the depreciated in-place value of the improvement. The resultant is then added
to the bare land value as indicated by the market. The vacant nature of the properties involved renders
this approach inapplicable in respect to this assignment.
Income Approach - This methology is applicable to properties that produce income (commercial
etc.). As a result, this approach is not considered applicable to this assignment.
Direct Sales Comparative Approach - This approach is based upon a principle of substitution
that advocates that a prudent buyer would pay no more for a site than the cost associated with
acquiring a satisfactory alternative site possessing similar physical, economic and financial features.
Accordingly, this valuation method utilizes a direct comparison of recent sales and listings of
comparable properties. Adjustments for differences such as financing, conditions of sale, time of sale
and appropriate physical conditions such as size, location, shape and specific other factors, are made
as necessary.
This appraiser has interviewed several real estate representatives and appraisers familiar with the
subject property. The information obtained from these knowledgeable sources has been blended with
sales data obtained from the market in forming this appraiser's opinion of value in respect to the
property being appraised.
A search of the market for residential land sales occurring during the last five years was conducted.
Approximately 10 unimproved property sales in proximity to the subject were investigated. Some of
the sales investigated had to be discarded due to poor or marginal comparability.
Tarvin & Associates - Real Estate Appralsaland Acquisition Services
Page 9
The following market transactions are considered pertinent in respect to the subject sites:
No.. Address Sales Price Date of Sale Sizf.* Shape. Yim ThJHl Lw:
1 174 Via Bandolero $150,000 Aug. - 97 0.38 ac. irreg good sloping interior
2 720 Via Bandolero $112,500 July - 98 0.50 ac. irreg. some sloping interior
3 357 Via Bandolero $179,900 Listing 0.52 ac. irreg. good steep interior
4 656 Via Vaquero $145,000 Oct. - 96 0.90 ac. irreg. good sloping interior
5 300 Via Las Aguilas $141,500 Apr. - 97 0.64 ac. irreg. some sloping interior
6 170 Refugio Place $160,000 Feb. - 98 0.47 ac. irreg. good sloping cul-de-sac
7 555 Palos Secos $150,000 Nov. - 96 0.76 ac. irreg. good sloping cul-de-sac
8 558 Palos Secos $145,000 June. - 96 0.59 ac. irreg. good sloping cul-de-sac
All of the above properties possess all needed public utilities as well as off-site improvements such as
sidewalks, curbs and gutters. * Area estimates are approximate.
Time. - From late 1989 until 1994 the market for non-rural and rural properties witnessed a steady
decline. Since the beginning of 1994, some relief in this negative trend has resulted and there are signs
of stabilization and even growth in some markets. As a result, property sales occurring since 1994 are
felt to also be, with some exceptions, representative of today' s market. All of the vacant land sales
listed above took place after June, 1996.
Size. - It is generally acknowledged that unit price will decrease as property size increases. This
relationship is valid up to a point. At some point, unit values cease to change in respect to size, and
other factors such as location and utility tend to gain more significance. Residential properties (vacant
lots) such as those being considered herein are generally valued on a site bases rather than a per square
foot bases.
Corner Influence - Residential properties fronting on two intersecting streets tend to be exposed to
more traffic and traffic controlling devices (stop signs). Some buyers place special emphasis on this
concern, while other buyers view it as an advantage.
Location - In considering location, the appraiser analyzed many factors such as access to and from
public roads, proximity to main highways, schools, parks, shopping outlets and distance from major
marketing centers. Flood plain factors and other physical characteristics, including proximity to
undesirable elements, are also considered. The physical location within the development i.e. corner,
interior, cul-de-sac are also important factors. The proximity to the remaining park (Rancho Grande)
property is a major concern in respect to the three sites in question. Parks bring with them such
concerns as increased traffic and parking needs, crowds in connection with soccer and softball
practice, picnickers and holiday users. Buyers seeking a measure of privacy will not located next to a
public park. Families with children, however, may view parks as an added benefit.
Shape - For the most part all of the above sales and one listing are irregular in shape like the subject
sites. Shape concerns tend to be less important when weighed in respect to residential properties.
Clever architectural and landscaping schemes hide or deflect most negative concerns associated with
this physical feature.
Topography - Topography conditions are also important in respect to overall property utility. The
subject properties (sites) are flat to rolling and in some places property elevations are above the street
grade. Certain types of topography (steep hilly side) tend to lose utility and cost more to develop and
Tarvin & AssocIates - Real Estate Appraisal and Acquisition Services
Page 10
in severe cases may render a property totally incapable of development. In other instances,
topography concerns can be remedied by the construction of retaining walls. Extensive retaining
walls, however, will tend to increase development costs.
Soil Conditions - The utility of a property is often directly related to the type of soil conditions it
possesses. Soil conditions, from a commercial and residential standpoint, that provide good
foundation and drainage are considered adequate for residential and commercial purposes. Soils
common to the area appear to be suitable for residential zoning.
All of the above sales are vacant residential lots in proximity to the properties being valued herein.
These sales and one listing range from a low of$112,500 to a high of $179,900. The lower sale
appears to have been influenced by the Wal-Mart development controversy. As such it is not felt to be
a reliable indication of the market and has been included for information purposes. The single listing is
also included for information purposes. It, too, is not felt to be a reliable indication of the market as it
is reported that the seller purchased the property in question several years ago for $200,000. It is now
the sellers desire to recover as much of his investment as possible. No offers have been made to date
in respect to this listing.
The remaining sales range from a low of$141,500 to a high of$160,000 with the later sale occurring
in February, 1998. Two of these remaining sales are properties located in the Rancho Grande Phase 1
subdivision and are located near the subject sites. The remaining sales are located within the nearby
Los Robles 1994 Tract and the Los Jollas 1997 Tract. Homes built in all three tracts are considered to
be representative of the "high-end" in respect to price.
At present there is a substantial amount of residential development taking place on the central coast.
Favorable new and existing home interest rates and a moderately robust local economy have had the
affect of driving demand for residential properties to a high level. 1998 state and regional market
reports depict a sales level approaching the all time high reached 1989. If it were not for what is
predicted to be a shortage of marketable properties in California as a whole, 1999 sales could exceed
even the 1989 all-time high. Central coast homes valued under $200,000 have been know to sell
within hours of being placed on the market. The sales market for housing valued above $200,000,
though not as vigorous, is, however, reported to be very good when compared to the early 1990's. As
such, many real estate representatives report that, at present, it is a good "sellers market".
Based upon the Sales Comparative (Market) Approach, in particular vacant land sales 1,4,6,7 and 8
listed above, it is the opinion of this appraiser that the three hypothetical sites as of February 15, 1999
have a Fair Market Value as follows:
Proposed Site A - This site is a corner location and will have some view in a south westerly direction.
Considering its size, location, proximity to the adjoining park and other physical features - $155,000.
Proposed Site B - This site is an interior lot. When compared to the other two parcels this site has
the best view. A two story dwelling, properly oriented will benefit greatly from this attribute.
Considering its size, location, proximity to the adjoining park and other physical features - $160,000.
Proposed Site C - This site is a cul-de-sac lot. It has some view in a south westerly direction.
Considering its size, location, proximity to the adjoining park and other physical features - $155,000.
Tarvin & Associates - Real FAtale A.ppl'lllllal and Acquisition Services
Page 11
Caveat!! The market for real estate is not static. National, state and local economies have a driving
affect on property values. A small shift in the prime interest rate by the Federal Reserve can change
markets overnight. Value and selling price is as much a product of timing as the property itself. While
a major shift in the market is not foreseeable at this time, it is important to remember that the market
can and will eventually change.
Tarvin & Associates - Real F.state Appraisal and AcqJIlsltion Services
Page 12
Subject Property Photos
Top - Viewing westerly toward larger parcel from James Way.
Bottom - Viewing southerly toward larger parcel from Avenida De Diamante.
Subject Property Photos
Top - Viewing easterly at subject sites located left of Collado Corte.
Bottom - Viewing northerly toward subject corner parcel from A venida De Diamante.
....HII,Rd.
;n
/"'\
q,
.Ql~
LOCATION AND COMPARABLE MAP
...... PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS ......
R. H. Tarvin, SRW A, IF AS
Right of Way Project Manager and Real Estate Appraiser
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIA nONS
. Past President International Right of Way Association
. Registered Senior Member, International Right of Way Association
. Appraisal Foundation Member Representative
. Past Director - Council of Appraisers and Property Professional Society.
. Chairman - Appraisal Foundation Advisory Council
. State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser - State of Calif. #AGO 16894
. Appraisal Foundation - Trustee
. California Real Estate Brokers Licensee - #01196512
. Designated Member (IFAS) National Association of Independent Fee
Estate Appraisers
EDlJCA TION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
California State University at Sacramento, Bachelor of Science Degree - Business
Administration
PROFESSIONAL COIJRSES (partial listing)
FHW A Appraisals Under Eminent Domain
Appraisal and Appraisal Review for Federal-Aid Highway Programs
Adventures in Appraising Real Property - SREA
Industrial Valuation - AIREA
Right of Way Academy (Department of Transportation)
Case Studies in Real Estate Valuation - AIREA
Valuation Standards and Report Writing - AIREA
Litigation Valuation - AIREA
Standards of Expert Testimony
Appraisal Principals Courses - Cuesta College
Principles of Ethics - IRW A
Appraisal of Partial Acquisitions - IRW A
COURT EXPERIENCE
Qualified as Expert Witness in Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and Santa
Barbara County.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
January 1994 to Present - Tarvin and Associates - Real Estate Appraisal
and Acquisition Services.
October 1969 to January 1994- Department of Transportation Right of
Way Staff Appraiser, Acquisition Agent and Local Agency Program
Manager
Also performed contract assignments for:
City of Arroyo Grande
City of Santa Maria
County of San Luis Obispo
Santa Barbara County Association
of Government
California Department of Water
Resources
County of San Benito
Council of Governments
PSOMAS Engineering Inc.
Martin and Kane Inc.
Quincy Engineering Inc.
JANMAC Inc.
City of Seaside
Robert Bein, William Frost
& Associates
City of Santa Barbara
City of San Luis Obispo
City ofPismo Beach
City ofLompoc
County of San Benito
City of Oxnard
Buellton Union School District
County of Monterey
Boyle Engineering Corporation
Mark Thomas Engineering Inc.
Dokken Engineering Inc
PARSONS Transportation Group
City of Atascadero
North Coast Engineering
Carollo Engineers
Appraisal and acquisition experience includes residential, agricultural, commercial
and special purpose properties.
Experience includes appraising and negotiating for rights of way in Monterey, San
Benito County, Santa Barbara County and San Luis Obispo County, Ventura
County, Kern County i.e. (prunedale bypass, State Highways 183, 1,129, 101,
Santa Barbara Cross Town Freeway etc.). These activities included highway
rights of way, sound walls, material acquisition and disposal sites, utility
easements, pipeline rights of way and involved both lessee and lessor interest.
INSTRUCTOR
Certified appraisal course instructor for the International Right of Way Association.
11.b.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
CITY COUNCIL
DANIEL C. HERNANDEZ, DIRECTOR PARKS AND RECREATION ~
SUBJECT: STATUS OF HOUSE AT 134 MASON STREET
DATE:
FEBRUARY 23, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council direct staff regarding the disposition of the vacant
house at 134 Mason Street adjacent to the South County Historical Society building.
FUNDING:
Approximately $3,000 would be needed from the General Fund to install new carpet,
paint the interior and exterior of the house, and upgrade electrical service to Uniform
Building Code standards. An appropriation of $3,000 would result in an approximate
ending fund balance (June 30, 1999) of $468,573 in the General Fund
DISCUSSION:
The parcel on which the house sits and an additional parcel was originally purchased in
1985. A total of five (5) parcels was purchased from the Mallory Trust. Since that time,
six (6) other houses that were located on those parcels were razed as they became
vacant. With the exception of the structure leased to the South County Historical
Society located at 126 Mason Street and the parcel recently leased for the Santa
Manuela School, the 134 Mason Street property has the last remaining structure.
Based on a site inspection by the City's Building Inspector, it would cost approximately
$3,000 to bring the structure up to Building Code standards in order to continue using it
as a rental property. This would include replacing the electrical service, painting, and
new carpet. Staff believes this structure could be rented for $700 per month, which is
fair market value, as compared to the previous monthly rental of $375. The house was
rented for the last 1 0+ years and was just recently vacated by the tenant.
If the structure was removed, a total of 1.5 acres would be available for a civic center or
park. If the City chose to construct a civic center at some time in the future, the largest
structure would be approximately 30,000 square feet for a single story building. This
would consolidate City Hall, Public Works-Engineering, Building and Life Safety, Parks
and Recreation, the Council Chambers, and extra conferencelmeeting rooms. These
figures assume the existing house would be razed/removed.
Should the house remain on the property, the size of the parcel would be reduced by
6,500 square feet. Due to required parking, the overall civic center structure would be
MEMORANDUM: CITY COUNCIL
134 MASON STREET - HOUSE STATUS
FEBRUARY 23, 1999
PAGE 2
reduced to a total of approximately 27,000 square feet (as per Building Code estimates
of 40% lot coverage).
In the minutes of the City Council meeting of August 27, 1985, the City Council voted to
approach the property owners of these parcels to purchase their properties for possible
future development as the new Civic Center site. This motion passed on a 3-2 vote,
(Attachment 1). The resolutions pertaining to this matter were adopted at the
September 10, 1985 meeting (Attachment 2).
The majority of the site is currently used by the City as an open space park that hosts
such events as the Parks and Recreation Department's Halloween Carnival and
Haunted Maze. No amenities are currently located on the site. If this site remains an
open space park, staff \YOuld recommend the Parks and Recreation Commission
review, for recommendation to the City Council, the possible addition of picnic tables
and barbecue grills for small gatherings due to its scenic location adjacent to the Village
and Swinging Bridge. Estimated cost for these amenities \YOuld be approximately
$2,000.
The South County Historical Society has been notified this item has been scheduled for
Council consideration.
Alternatives:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
_ Raze the structure, grade the site, and incorporate it into existing open space;
Invest $3,000 to bring the structure to Code and continue to use it as a rental;
Sell the property and permit the house to remain on site;
Sell the property with the condition that the structure \YOuld be removed from
the site; or
Provide direction to staff.
c:\StaffRpt\134MasonStHouseFeb23.99
Attachrnent1
CITY COUNCIL
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
AUGUST 27, 1985
PAGE TEN
AGRICULTURE SOILS AND CURRENT ZONING REPORT Continued
On motion of Council Member Gallagher, seconded by Council Member Moots,
and on the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Gallagher, Johnson, Moots, Porter and Mayor Smith
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution of Intention was passed and adopted on the 27th day
of August, 1985.
SOUTH BANK SITE ACQUISITION DECISION
Mr. Mack said that the question on this matter is shall the City purchase
properties with the intention, at some later date, of development by the City.
He showed an aerial photograph of said property bounded by Mason, Nelson and
Short Streets. He described the numbered lots on the photograph as 1. a lot
owned by the City of Arroyo Grande, 2. a lot owned by the Carpentiers, 3. a lot
owned by the Mallory Trust, 4. a lot owned by Zimmerman, 5. a lot owned by
Lockhart, and 6. a lot owned by the Mallory Trust. He said there are 79,400
square feet of basically flat property to build on, and referring to his report
entitled "South Bank Acquisition:1 said the City has option agreements for the
Zimmerman property for $85,000 and for the Lockhart property for $92,000.
These options are in effect until October 18, 1985, he said. He requested
the Council to authorize him to offer to purchase the Mallory properties
for an amount not to exceed $360,000, the Carpentier property for an amount
not to exceed $87,000, the Zimmerman property for an amount not to exceed
$85,000, and the Lockhart property for an amount not to exceed $92,000.
Council Members discussed the issue, and Council Member Porter expressed
concern about the City incurring large expenses involved with relocating
renters living in the houses on said properties. City Attorney Art Shaw
said that where the City is not in a hurry, the City is not going to be hurt
much by relocation costs.
MARIE CATTOIR, 195 Orchid Lane, asked why there was a variation in the
various land values. Mr. Mack answered that there are different improvements
on the properties. .
DICK FRANKS, 879 Fair Oaks Avenue, said that purchasing the property would
be a good investment even if the City doesn't build the Civic Center there.
However, he said, the new Civic Center should be on that property.
On motion of Council Member Moots, seconded by Council Member Gallagher,
to Authorize the City Manager to approach the property owners to purchase
their properties, and in the case of the Mallory Trust the amount should not
exceed $360,000, in the case of the Carpentier property the amount should not
exceed $87,000, and to exercise the options on the Zimmerman and Lockhart
properties for a future City complex, on the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Gallagher and Moots and Mayor Smith
NOES: Council Members Johnson and Porter
ABSENT: None
Attachment 2
CITY COUNCIL
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
SEPTEMBER 10, 1985
PAGE NINE
RESOLUTIONS ACCEPTING REAL PROPERTY FORCI\lIC CENTER Continued
Mr. Mack read the title of the Resolution. On motion of Council Member
Gallagher, seconded by Council Member Moots, and unanimously carried, to
dispense with further reading of the Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 1892
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY DEEDED BY THE ESTATE OF
MARIE MALLORY AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
TO EXECUTE A CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
(GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 27281)
On motion of Council Member Gallagher, seconded by Council Member Moots,
and on the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Gallagher and Moots and Mayor Smith
NOES: Council Members Johnson and Porter
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was passed and~adopted on the 10th day of September, 1985.
PACIFIC COAST RAILWAY PLACE DISCUSSION
Mr. Karp described the road situation on Railway Place between Cherry and
Allen Streets. He referred to a map and showed the City's right of way and existing
improvements. He indicated that it was the City's intent to redevelop the alignment
concurrent with development. The City Council directed Mr. Karp to contact Robert
Baldwin, property owner, to inquire if he would be interested in remapping his
property. The Council also directed Mr. Karp to contact Mr. Baldwin and Hansel
Burns to request that they install curbs, gutters and sidewalks in exchange for the
City paving the street and abandoning excess right of way.
LOPEZ SCHOOL/SOTO SPORTS COMPLEX JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
Mr. Mack said that the City has worked out with the Lucia Mar Unified
School District an agreement whereby the school district leases the pad,
parking lot and access at Elm Street Park for Lopez Continuation School.
He said the lease would ~e set up for five years, and the City would be
getting the use of the school restrooms and classroom facilities if there is
no conflict with school activities. After Council discussion, Council Members
decided to renew the lease for five years but to ask the School District to
do some long-range planning concerning another site for Lopez School in five
years. The Council said it would like to use the property as part of a parks
complex. Council Members amended the agreement to:
1. Delete Item 2 on Page 1
2 Change the second sentence of Item 5 to read, "All other improvements,
including, but notlimited to foundations, buildings, fences, roads, parking
lots and walkways, shall be removed by the District within six months after
termination of the lease, and the site restored to original condition and graded
to conform with adjoining non-leased City property.I'
3. Change the first sentence on Page 2 to read, liThe replacement road
improvements shall become the responsibility of the District, and both parties
shall enjoy the right of use.11
I I I ..__!1 u__L...._ "_'1__.........._
~
)>
en
o
z
en
-I
:;0
m
m
-I
(")
6
~~
N_
N"Tl
cOm
<ollJ
~
11.c.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEE~
TRAFFIC COMMISSION'S GUIDELINES;
AD HOC COMMITTEE
SUBJECT:
DATE:
FEBRUARY 23, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council establish an ad hoc committee to review the Traffic
Commission's guidelines and appoint a Council Member to serve on the subject
Committee.
FUNDING:
There are no funding impacts at this time.
BACKGROUND:
The Commissioners' Handbook, which was developed by staff and the respective boards
and commissions, is an informal document to assist the various boards and commissions
in understanding their procedures and responsibilities. The Handbook includes discussion
of the Traffic Commission. The Municipal Code, Section 4-3.21, sets forth Traffic
Commission duties. Resolution 2998 reaffirms those responsibilities.
In reviewing the duties established in the Commissioners' Handbook, Municipal Code, and
Resolution 2998, there are several differences in the Traffic Commission's duties. In
particular, the Municipal Code states that the Commission should act as an advisor to the
Public Works Director; however, the guidelines in the Commissioners' Handbook
establishes the role of the Commission as an advisory body to the City Council. The
Commissioners' Handbook also adds development review for traffic related impacts prior
to the acceptance of the formal application.
At the August 17, 1998, Traffic Commission, it was recommended the City Council
establish an ad hoc committee consisting of two members of the Traffic Commission, one
member of the Planning Commission, and one member of the City Council to review the
Traffic Commission's Guidelines and the City Municipal Code Section 4-3.21 to provide
uniformity between the documents.
TRAFFIC COMMISSION'S GUIDELINES;
AD HOC COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 23, 1999
PAGE 2 OF 2
Once reviewed, the revIsions will be submitted to the Traffic Commission for
recommendation and to the Council for approval.
Ifformation ofthe Ad Hoc Committee is approved, reports to the Planning Commission and
Traffic Commission will be presented seeking members.
Attachments:
Traffic Commission staff report - August 17, 1998
Traffic Commission duties- Commissioners' Handbook
ajd:cc022399
MEMORANDUM
TO:
TRAFFIC COMMISSION
FROM:
DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC COMMISSION GUIDELINES; DUTIES
DATE:
AUGUST 17,1998
RECOMMENDATION:
Information item.
FUNDING:
No fiscal impact.
DISCUSSION:
As requested by the Planning Commission, the attached documents including duties set by
ordinance, and guidelines relating to the Traffic Commission's role in reviewing Traffic issues
for the City were submitted to the Planning Commission (see Memorandum to Planning
Commission dated August 12, 1998).
This information is provided to the Commission to facilitate a clear understanding of its role
and the framework of the documents which guide it in accomplishing its work.
Attachments:
Planning Commission staff report
Municipal Code Section 4-3.21 - Traffic Commission
Traffic Commission Guidelines
Resolution No. 2998 - Director of Public Works authority
ajd:081798
10-1
MEMORANDUM
TO:
PLANNING COMMISSION
CRAIG CAMPBELL, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT {l ~
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC COMMISSION - ASSIGNED DUTIES
FROM:
DATE:
AUGUST 12, 1998
As requested by the Planning Commission, I have reviewed the duties assigned to the
Traffic Commission. For your review, I have attached the following documents:
1. Municipal Code Section 4-3.21. This section of the Municipal Code is the governing
document for the Traffic Commission.
2. Traffic Commission guidelines as included in the Commissioner's Handbook. The
Commissioner's Handbook is an informal document prepared to assist the various
commissions in understanding their procedures and responsibilities. The Handbook
was developed by staff and the commissions, and has not been reviewed or
approved by the Council. The guidelines were considered by the Traffic
Commission on June 22, 1996.
3. Resolution 2998. This resolution reaffirms the Traffic Commission duties as set
forth in the Municipal Code. It also clarifies that public requests on matters
pertaining to traffic, transportation, and parking shall be brought to the Traffic
Commission, and that the Director of Public Works has the authority to establish,
modify, and rescind limited parking zones, prohibited parking zones, and stop sign
locations on City Streets and other areas under City traffic authority.
There are some differences in the duties described within the Commissioner's Handbook
and the other two documents. In particular, the Municipal Code states that the
Commission should act as an advisor to the Public Works Director; however the guidelines
in the Commissioner's Handbook elevate the role of the Commission to an advisory body
to the City Council.
Also, the Commissioner's Handbook adds development review to the list of responsibilities,
and specifies that it should occur before applications are considered complete. Traffic
commission review of projects prior to completed applications is impractical for the
following reasons:
August 12, 1998
Memo to Planning Commission
Page 2
1. Prior to a completed application there is usually insufficient information to review.
2. Permit streamlining law requires all discretionary applications to be reviewed for
completeness within 30 days of receipt of materials. With Traffic Commission
meetings held only once a month, it is likely that scheduling conflicts would occur.
As stated above, the Municipal Code is the governing document, and should be used as
the basis for related discussions. Based on the Municipal Code, the Traffic Commission's
assigned duties are summarized below:
1. Act in an advisory capacity.
2. Provide a sense of public sentiment in matters pertaining to traffic, transportation
and parking, both current and future.
3. Conduct public hearings on such matters.
4. Present its determinations to the Director of Public Works.
5. Additional duties as may be presented by the Council.
c: City Council
Traffic Commission
City Manager
Acting Director of Community Development
Director of Public Works
4-3.20
4-3.21
this subsection are to be interpreted and enforced consistent with a public policy against
long-term storage of vehicles upon public streets. A copy of this subsection shall be
included as a part of any notice or citation placed on a vehicle concerning the 72-hour
parking limit.
(b) Any vehicle that is left parked or left standing upon a street or highway,
when such parking or standing is prohibited by ordinance or resolution of this City and
signs are posted giving notice of such removal.
(c) Any vehicle that is parked or left standing upon a street or highway, 'Nilere
the use of such street or highway, or a portion thereof, if necessary for the cleaning, repair
or construction of the street or highway for the installation of underground utilities or 'Nilere
the use of the street or highway, or any portion thereof, is authorized for a purpose other
than the normal flow of traffic or where the use of the street or highway, or any portion
thereof, is necessary for the movement of equipment, articles or structures of unusual size
and the parking of such vehicles would prohibit or interfere with such use of movement;
provided that signs giving notice that such vehicles may be removed are erected or placed
at least t'vventy-four (24) hours prior to the removal.
(d) Any vehicle that is. blocking designated fire lanes or alleys where parking is
prohibited.
(Sec. 1, Ord. 401 C.S., eff. February 24, 1989)
Sec. 4-3.21. Traffic Commission.
(a) Created: Membership and Terms of Office.
There is hereby created a Traffic Commission,' which shall consist of five (5)
members who shall serve for a term as specified by resolution of the City Council.
(b ) Terms of office: Appointments and Vacancies.
Appointments for the Traffic Commission and the filling of vacancies shall be
made in the manner provided by resolution of the Council. Vacancies shall be filled for
116-2.1
Reprint No. 57 (4/11/97)
4-3.21
4-3.21
unexpired terms only. All Traffic Commission Members shall serve at the pleasure of the
Council.
(c) Meetinqs.
The Traffic Commission shall regularly meet once each month during the
evening at the City Hall or Council Chambers on a day and time designated by the
Commission, provided sufficient topies of consideration are present, and may meet at
such other times as the Chairman deems necessary or advisable.
(d) Purpose and scope.
The Traffic Commission shall serve in an advisory capacity to provide a sense of
the public sentiment in matters pertaining to traffic, transportation, and parking, both
current and future, and shall have the authority to conduct public hearings on such
matters. The Commission shall rely upon the technical and administrative input of the
Director of Public Works and shall present its determination to the Director. The
Commission shall have such additional related duties and authority as may from time
to time be presented by the Council.
(e) Authority to prohibit parkinq.
The Traffic Commission may from time to time prohibit, by motion or resolution,
the stopping or parking of vehicles within twenty feet (20') of any intersection and
within twenty feet (20') of any commercial driveway within the City.
(Sees. 1, 2, 3 and 4, Ord. 214, as amended by Sec. 1, Ord. 72 C.S., eff. October 12,
1972; Sees. 1 and 2, Ord. 116 C.S., eff. March 27, 1975; Sec. 1, Ord. 121 C.S., eff.
June 26,1975; Sees. 1,2 and 3, Ord. 234 C.S., eff. November 13,1980; Sec. 1, Ord.
294 C.S., eff. July 28, 1983; and Sec. 2, Ord. 445 C.S., eff. June 12, 1992; Sec. 1,
Ord. 469 C.S., eff. November 24, 1995; Sec. 2, Ord. 481 C.S., eff. February 14,1997)
116-2.2
Reprint No. 57 (4/11/97)
TRAFFIC COMMISSION,
INTRODUCTION'
The Traffic Commission is an advisory body acting on behalf of the City Council.
The Traffic Commission shall be responsible for public meetings on matters pertaining to
traffic and parking within the City.
QUALIFICATIONS.
The Traffic Commission shall consist of five members who are residents of the
City, and have an interest in matters relating to traffic, traffic safety, and pedestrian
safety. The members shall have a personal interest in local plus regional traffic concepts
and issues.
GENERAL PURPOSES AND DUTIES
The Traffic Commission shall act in an advisory capacity to the City Council in
the review and development of traffic facilities, policies, and programs as reiated to the
movement and parking of vehicles within the City.
The Traffic Commission shall assist other commissions and committees in
providing input to the planning and implementation process for traffic control within the
projects with traffic related impacts. This review shall not be limited to the Pre-
Application Review but should be considered prior to the acceptance ofthe Formal
Application.
The Traffic Commission shall review issues having to do with traffic and parking
matters and shall recommend solutions.
The Traffic Commission shall recommend ways and means to improve existing
traffic condition within the City and review regional traffic as it relates to the City.
AUTHORITY
The Traffic Commission is authorized by the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code
Section 4-3.21.
17
MEETINGS
The meetings shall be held on the Monday before the third Tuesday of the month
at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Special meetings may be called as required.
TERMS OF OFFICE
Members of the Commission shall serve for a term ending the January 31 st
following the expiration of the term of the respective appointing Mayor or Council
Member, as applicable. Members of the Commission may be removed prior to expiration
of their term by a majority vote of the Council.
ORGANIZATION
The meetings shall be conducted by the Chairperson or in the event of his or her
absence the Vice-Chairperson. These offices shall be selected in January of each year by
a majority of the commissioners present and shall serve for one year.
STAFF LIAISON
Staff shall consist of the Director of Public Works and/or the City Engineer or his
or her designated appointee. The Police Department will be available for consultation.
AGENDA ITEMS
Items are placed on the agenda by the Chairperson in conjunction with the
Director of Public Works. Any citizen may request an item be placed on the agenda for
hearing, provided it is submitted in writing to the City Manager, the Director of Public
Works, or any member of the City Council. Members of the commission may request an
item be placed on the agenda in the same manner or on subsequent agendas during the
discussion period of any regular meeting.
APPEAL OF COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Any citizen may appeal a recommendation or decision of the Traffic Commission
to the City Council. The appeal must be submitted in writing to the City Clerk.
NOTE - TRAFFIC COMMISSION UNDER REVIEW -
POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS TO FOLLOW.
18
WIIEI~EAS. thc City Council has the l\uthorily under State law I<l estahlish limited~.plnking 1.Onel',
1,,"hlhH"'I"""'" ""'''. ",," ""I' "." ""..I im" ." l'"hl1< ,I "elS wi, hi" Ihe C11 Y "I ^,"'yo G ta",le; ;m"
RESOLUTION NO. 299B
A RESOLUTION orTIlECrrY COUNCILOr'll1EciTY OF ARROYO
o.l~AN\)E DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO ESTA13L1Stl LlMITED
PARKING ZONES, PROlllOlTEO PARKING ZONES, AND STOP SIGN
LOCATIONS TO TilE D\lmcrOR or PU13LlC WORKS
WIIEI~ EAS, the City Council has exercised said lIuthorily in responl'e I<l public requests; and
WIIEI~EAS. the Direclor of Puhlic Workl' has exercised similar lIuthority through the development
Iprovcment process; lllld
I
I
wllEREAS, Municipal Code section 4-3.21(d) provides that the purp()se IInd scope of the Traffic
("nnllnission, an mlvisory body of the City of Arroyo Grande, is "to provide II senl'e of the puhlic sentiment
in mailers pertaining to traffic, transporlation, and parking, both current and future," and that the Traffic
COllllnission has, "the authorily 10 conduct puhlic heariugs. on such mailers" anti "present its delermination
10 t hc I) i rcclor"i. lllld
WI I EIt EAS. all puhlic requests pertaining 10 such mailers will be hroughl to the Traffic Commission for
fnllsideratioll; and
WllEREAS,the prescnt puhlic request process o[ the City Council and the Traffic Commission is
dnplicative; and
WIIEREAS, the consistent application of profes..~iom\1 standards and efficient consideration of issues is in
lhe interest of Ihe City, Including the public; .and
WI \I~R EAS, Ihe Direclor of Puhlic Works is dunged wilh upholding the professional engineering
slandards of the City;
NOW TIIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thai the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande herehy
.':lcgaleS to Ihe Director of Puhlic Works of the CilY of Arroyo Grande the aUlhorily to eSlablish, \llodify,
\(1 rescind Iimiled parking zones, prohihited parking zones, and stop sign locations on City streets amI
Iher areas under City traffic authority.
1\11)' dclcflnillation of the Director or Conlluission is appealahle to the City Council per Municipal Code
profcdures.
()n 11Inlinn of Council Memher Burke
following roll call vole, III wil:
, seconded hy Council Memher Sou za
, amI on the
AYES: council Members Burke and souza and Mayor Gallagher
NOES: None
ABSENT: council Members I3randy and Moots
,i" Im,."I". He",I,,""" w,,, I'.."ed ..",I ml"I'I,,, lhi, IO~~ ~3.f2, I
A\TEST: () tullhew Peler Gallaghe( I \I
/'
_~rli1/1~.CL{ . a - ~
Nalll"Y A. I~avis. City Clerk
AI'I'I~OVED AS TO CONTENT:
. ,,-:..y..
:.\
Ito!?-cr C( Attorney
I. NANcY I)A VIS. CilY C1eok of ,he C'ly 01 Am'Yo Gmn"e. C"'mly or S.." Luis Ghlspo. SlUle 01
C:lliforllia. do herehy cerlify Ihat lhe foregoing Resolution No.2998 is a true, full amI correct copy of said
Itcsolulion passed and adopled al a regular meeling of said Council on Ihe 10th day of August, 1993.
WITNESS lilY hand :\IId the scal of lhe City of Arroyo Grande affixedlhis 17th day of August, 199.\.
_~rJ.~:1?d:;(1. ~
Nallcy A. [.hvis, City Clerk