Agenda Packet 1999-03-23
CITY COUNCIL ~Wy 0/
AGENDA ~ !fff~nde
Michael A. Lady Mayor Robert L. Hunt City Manager
Tony M. Ferrara Mayor Pro Tem Timothy J. Carmel City Attorney
Thomas A. Runels Council Member Nancy A. Davis City Cieri<
steve Tolley Council Member
Jim Dickens Council Member
NOTICE OF
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
Tuesday
MARCH 23, 1999
7:10 P.M.
Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande
AGENDA
1 . ROLL CALL
2. PUBLIC COMMENT on Special Meeting Agenda Items.
M embers of the public wishing to address the Council on any item described
in this Notice may do so when recognized by the Presiding Officer.
3. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT pursuant to Government Code Section 54957:
Title: Community Development Director
4. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION:
Announcement of reportable action from closed session, if any.
5. ADJOURN TO REGULAR MEETING.
CITY COUNCIL ~w, 0/
AGENDA ~ !fff~nde
Michael A. Lady Mayor Robert L. Hunt City Manager
Tony M. Ferrara Mayor prq Tem Timothy J. Carmel City Attorney
Thomas A. Runels Council Member Nancy A. Davis City Clerk
Steve Tolley Council Member
Jim Dickens Council Member
AGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 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: AMERICAN LEGION POST 136
RAY COOK, ADJUTANT
4. INVOCATION: PASTOR MICHAEL DENNIS
LANDMARK MISSIONARY BAPTIST
CHURCH, ARROYO GRANDE
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
a. Proclamation -"CIF Wrestling Champions"
b. Proclamation - "Month of the Child"
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 - MARCH 23, 1999
PAGE 2
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
a. Public Hearing - Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision to Deny
Variance Case No. 99-001, Coker Ellsworth (HAMILTON)
(Action Required: Adopt Resolution Denying the Appeal)
b. Public Hearing - Adoption of Revised Rates for Greenwaste
Collection Service (HAMILTON)
(Action Required: Approve Staff Recommendations and Adopt
Resolution)
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. Authorization to Solicit Bids - Recreation Software (HERNANDEZ)
(Action Required: Approval)
c. Award of Bid, Utility Service Body (SPAGNOLO)
(Action Required: Award Bid to Douglas Truck Bodies)
AGENDA SUMMARY - MARCH 23, 1999
PAGE 3
9. CONSENT AGENDA: (continued)
d. Authorization to Solicit Bids - The Scenic Creekside Walk Through
the Historic Village of Arroyo Grande, Phase IA - Project No. 90-
97-2 (SPAGNOLO)
(Action Required: Approval)
e. City Corporation Yard Fuel Facility Replacement Plan, City Project
No. 80-98-1, Progress Payment No.2 (SPAGNOLO)
(Action Required: Approval)
f. Consideration of Joint City/County Application for Agricultural Land
Stewardship Program (ALSP) Grant Funds (HAMILTON)
(Action Required: Adopt Resolution)
g. Waiver of Fees - Cardiac and Pulmonary Rehabilitation
Department of Arroyo Grande Community Hospital (HERNANDEZ)
(Action Required: Approve Waiver)
10. CONTINUED BUSINESS:
a. Consideration of General Plan Amendment Requests for Martin
and Sakamoto/Okui (HAMILTON)
(Action Required: Provide Direction to Staff)
b. Discussion Regarding Relinquishment of State Highway 227
(SPAGNOLO)
(Action Required: Provide Direction to Staff)
11. NEW BUSINESS:
a. Formation of a Subcommittee to Investigate Options for a Senior
Center (HERNANDEZ)
(Action Required: Senior Advisory Commission Recommends
Approval)
AGENDA SUMMARY - MARCH 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 FERRARA:
(1) Integrated Waste Management Authority Board (IWMA)
(2) Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC)
(3) Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
(4) Other
(c) COUNCIL MEMBER THOMAS A. RUNELS:
(1) Zone 3 Water Advisory Board
(2) County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC)
(3) Other
(d) COUNCIL MEMBER STEVE TOLLEY:
(1) Long-Range Planning Committee
(2) South County Youth Coalition
(3) San Luis Obispo Council of Governments/San Luis Obispo
Regional Transit Authority (SLOCOG/SLORT A)
(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
a. Correspondence from American Farmland Trust Regarding H.R. 701
and H.R. 798 - Council Member Dickens
14. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Correspondencellnformation for the City Council presented by the City
Manager
15. ADJOURNMENT
AGENDA SUMMARY - MARCH 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 with the Director of Administrative
Services and are available for public inspection and reproduction at cost. If you
have questions regarding any agenda item, please contact the Director of
Administrative Services at (805) 473-5414.
* * * * * * *
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special
assistance to participate in a City meeting, please contact the Director of
Administrative Services at the number listed above at least 48 hours prior to the
meeting to ensure that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide
accessibility to the meeting.
* * * * * * *
Note: This agenda is subject to amendment up to 72 hours prior to the date and
time set for the meeting. Please refer to the agenda posted at City Hall for any
revisions, or call the Director of Administrative Services at (805) 473-5414 for
more information.
www.arroyogrande.org
5.a.
-
:
Honorary . -
Proclamation
.+. ... ... ...
+ . . .
WHEREAS, this year the Arroyo Grande Eagles Wrestling Team has been led by seniors
Nathaniel Ybarra, Brett Everling, Manuel Galaviz along with sophomores Jeff Sato, and Jeff
Owens; and
WHEREAS, under the exceptional instruction of Head Coach Kent Hubert and Assistant
Coaches Tim Cano and Nate Erickson, the Northern League Champion Eagles Wrestling
Team of Arroyo Grande High School defeated 12 leagues and 75 schools at Rancho
Cucamonga High School to become the 1999 CIF Division N Champions; and
WHEREAS, the Eagles took 10 wrestlers after League Champion Manuel Galaviz broke his
leg at the Dual Meet Championships and these wrestlers combined for a total of 109.5
points, easily outdistancing runner-up Cajon High School's 93; and
WHEREAS, two-time CIF Champion Nathaniel Ybarra, a senior, and Jeff Sato, a
sophomore, took individual titles, and both Jeff Owens and Jose Velazquez took 4th place;
and
WHEREAS, other members of this winning team who made significant contributions were
Kirk Davis, Jesse Ramirez, Zachary- Johnson, and Brett Everling; and
WHEREAS, the Eagles faced a tough tournament schedule and took 6th place at the
Southern California Challenge, 3rd at the Atascadero New Years Revolution, and a team
championship at the Gold Coast Classic; and individually Nathaniel Ybarra has won three
tournaments and placed 2nd at the Cal Classic (108 teams) in Davis and 3rd at Five Counties
(63 teams), which meets are ranked the top five toughest in the nation; and
WHEREAS, this championship was earned through hard work and determination, both
mentally and physically, by members of this outstanding team.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, Michael A. Lady, Mayor of the City of
Arroyo Grande, do hereby officially proclaim March 23, 1999 as "EAGLES WRESTLING
DAY" in the City of Arroyo Grande and, on behalf of the City Council and the Citizens of
Arroyo Grande, congratulate COACHES KEN HUBERT, ASSISTANT COACHES TIM CANO,
and NATE ERICKSON, AND THE 1999 EAGLE CHAMPIONSHIP WRESTLING TEAM for
contributing to the excitement and admiration of a grateful community, Arroyo Grande High
School, and its excellent students. WAY TO GO, EAGLES!
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
hand and caused the Seal of the City of Arroyo
Grande to be affixed this 23rd day of March, 1999.
MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR
\ ~_n-_ .____
5.b
--.-
Honorary
Proclamation
.++ +++ .++ .++
+ + . .
RECOGNIZING APRIL 10, 1999 AS "DAY OF THE CHILD" AND
APRIL 1999 AS "MONTH OF THE CHILD"
WHEREAS, April, the Month of the Child, is a national celebration focusing public attention on the needs
of young children, our youth, and their families, particularly their need for programs of high quality; and
WHEREAS, Saturday, April 10, 1999, will commemorate the 21st annual "Day of the Child" celebration
during Children's Day in the San Luis Obispo Mission Plaza. A day where children and families interact with
the agencies and programs providing sezvices throughout the County; and
WHEREAS, in San Luis Obispo County, there are 35,870 children under the age of 12 who need access to
comprehensive, integrated sezvices and 69% need quality child care while their parents are working; and
WHEREAS, quality child care is no longer a' fringe benefit but a necessity for working parents to be
productive and happy employees, and local employers need to be champions in supporting the many
challenges facing these working parents and families; and
WHEREAS, the County of San Luis Obispo recognizes that every moment in a child's life is an opportunity
for that child to learn, and that the early years determine whether a child succeeds in school and in life, and
that all children need at least one caring and loving adult in their lives; and
WHEREAS, the activities of this day and month will provide an opportunity to acknowledge quality youth
and early childhood programs, their dedicated staff, and to applaud their efforts to improve the quality,
availability, and accessibility of such programs; and
WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo Child Care Planning Council, the Family Child Care Association of San
Luis Obispo County, the San Luis Obispo Association for the Education of Young Children, and the County
Commission on Children and Youth work cooperatively to coordinate the events and activities of the Day and
Month of the Child; and
WHEREAS, all citizens are encouraged to do what they can at work, at home, and within the community
to assure all children, youth, and families have the opportunity and support to thrive. And may we
remember to listen to and watch the children around us and remember to have patience and allow them to
enjoy the journey of childhood.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Michael A. Lady, Mayor of the City of Arroyo
Grande, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby proclaim April 10, 1999, as "DAY OF THE CHILD" and
April as "MONTH OF THE CHILD" in the City of Arroyo Grande.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
hand and caused the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande to
be affixed this 23rd day of March 1999.
MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR
- .--- .....- - --
7.8.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the City
Council of the City of Arroyo Grande on the following item:
APPEAL: Of a Planning Commission denial of Variance
Case No. 99-001, a request to reduce the
required rear yard setback from 20 feet to
approximately 12 feet.
APPELLANT: Ellsworth, Coker
LOCATION: 551 Fieldview Street, Lot 14, Tract 2217
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION: Categorical Exemption per CEQA Guidelines
REASON FOR APPEAL: Mr. Ellsworth states that he was not given a
copy of a letter against granting the variance and therefore was not able to
answer the letter at the Planning Commission meeting.
Any person affected or concerned by this appeal may submit written comments
to the Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk before the City Council
hearing, or appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the appeal at the
time of hearing.
Any person interested in the appeal can contact the Community Development
Department at 214 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California, during normal
business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.). The project application will be available
for public inspection at the above address.
IF YOU CHALLENGE AN ITEM IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO
RAISING THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE
PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN
CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT, OR
PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING.
FAILURE OF ANY PERSON TO RECEIVE THE NOTICE SHALL NOT
CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR ANY COURT TO INVALIDATE THE ACTION
OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY FOR WHICH THE NOTICE WAS GIVEN.
Page 2
Date and Time of Hearing: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 at 7:30 p.m.
Place of Hearing: Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
215 E. Branch Street,
Arroyo Grande, California 93420
Nancy A. Davis,
Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk
19.3
APPEAL-TOIME CITY CQUNCIL\QF THE
. '.CITYt'~AF$.OYo'GRAN6E' .
.
Date Z/24/~ct< '
, . "
'Name andAddr~CJfl\ppel1~fCo~.~l:l' . .,..
, ,',,',. , ',', "" -'" " .- ""-', .. ""
'.1Z.9@;~'O~"5t,$.urT6;.~,:,\tJG'>"
" '." '","-",.",',;:-." :., ":: '-"_,';:,':.'__,I.,,~,,',,;-'- "., ,(,',:__"._:~" '_,',<,'~:':>~
:' ".r '
AppeaFof. p~})o.1"l$HH~$~1~',.....'. ....
ApprOV~ni~,:PtiNH\\'~( ,.~..~.: '..
..' , .' , ",' ..' -, .. "" '~, ,- < ,'. '. . .
. ReasonforAP~al'~~I~~I~AP':B~.,G~~1~W 11&\~'.C\~
'W~~~~~~"~~i,\~i~~~'i4~l!Pt~.~.\I~tpl~t'J;
~B . Le.TIEi2-'+f~6JY~At~~k:r;.~;~~V~~i'4~_ ~~ ..~T;rtaz..
.' ',..-,.: ". - --_< ""-''"'':'" ",::"',., '.'_""_"""',i'";,,, '-:"_<,,,,:,,-"_,~ ':,,'~'~-\' ,- C;',,:,
'Ni~St\\~...~~eo~}1.~,,~~.~:li,{~.:..~.~j).c~~e'<'tl~. \--t1,
9"~~..~~]'M~~~WB~i~i..~~~'~(k>~$'~'M~ ..~M
" ...... . . ., .:.:.. .'. ....'.. ... , - .. .. .....'.. '.,
'. ...., '
,. -, "..'.:' , .~-
'. j . ,"."" ," ,.......-...-'. '. ..,', - "-"-^
.,.. ... .~~ ~~~r.'~~~'A~f~'~f{-1~.,f~t~ . ~:':
$i9naturead..~ .....,
, " .' . '. . , . . , '..... . ~ '<-,' ,-' '. -. .. '.", - ,
MailingAddre$$ '. \#~~~""'yS,.i.,...:.:e~~~'a4~ .' ,'.'
Telepho~ ..:..-'\:$)-FJ7\ ,
R.eceipt No. .. ... ..t!Jo3.'l fj37 ..
Date......... ~.:lql'1'l..'~. ..',"
lfI/..... .....'....... ..tt~~.. ' ""
. . ~1'CitYCI~rR.: ,.. . ..........
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JIM HAMILTON. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT grY-
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY,
VARIANCE CASE NO. 99-001, COKER ELLSWORTH, INC.
DATE: MARCH 23, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt a resolution denying the appeal of the
Planning Commission's decision on Variance Case No. 99-001.
FUNDING:
No fiscal impact.
DISCUSSION:
This appeal concerns lot 14 of Tract 2217.
Ordinance No. 483 C.S., adopted by the City Council on February 25, 1997,
approved the rezoning and subdivision of the 15-acre parcel located at the
southwest corner of East Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill Road. The rezoning
changed the classification from Residential Agricultural with a 40,000 square foot
minimum lot size (RA-B3) to Single Family residential (SF) which allowed 43
residential lots with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. Tract 2217 includes
43 residential lots, three open space lots, and a lot for a park. (Attachment B.) The
configuration of lot 14 of the tract is shown on Attachment C.
The Initial Study and Negative Declaration for Tract 2217 included a discussion of
potential environmental impacts in the area of land use compatibility. The Initial
Study identified a potentially significant impact in the following area:
Would the proposal affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
The Initial Study indicated that the County Agricultural Commissioner had
submitted comments on the potential impacts from the proposed residential use on
the adjacent farming operations. The Commissioner cited several impacts to
residents from the adjacent farming operations: generation of dust, noise from farm
machinery, odor from fertilization, and ground and/or aerial applications of
Appeal to the City Council
Variance Case No. 99-001
March 23, 1999
Page 2
pesticides. Noting the Commissioner's comments, the Initial Study included the
following discussion on mitigation measures:
The impacts listed above are common for all residential projects located
adjacent to agricultural operations, and as previously stated, do not
acknowledge the site-specific circumstances. Several factors, including
measures proposed by the applicant, will mitigate impacts on the site from
nearby agricultural practices:
. The 54-foot wide Branch Mill Road right-of-way will provide a
buffer, separating the homes and crop land.
. The subdivision perimeter will be enclosed by a solid wall with
screening trees and shrubs along the eastern property line.
. The building envelopes of lots 14 through 20, will be restricted,
and located between 20 feet from the front property line and 20
feet from the rear property line. This will slightly increase the
buffer distance (10 feet) between the agricultural operations
and habitable space.
. The City's Right to Farm ordinance will require the applicant to
disclose to prospective buyers the potential impacts from
agricultural operations.
. The prevailing wind direction over this property is from the west
and northwest to the east. This site specific circumstance will
help reduce the potential for dust and pesticide spray from
drifting towards the subdivision.
The Commissioner's staff supported reducing the requested buffer from 350 feet to
55 feet with the additional mitigation measures proposed in the negative
declaration. The Initial Study for Tract 221 7 concluded that the mitigation
measures reduced the potentially significant impact to a less than significant level.
The mitigation measures included the following:
Applicant shall limit the building envelope for residential lots 14 through 20
to between 20 feet from the front property line and 20 feet from the rear
property line. Building envelope limitations for lots 14 through 20 shall be
included in the CC&Rs.
The above mitigation measure was included as a condition when the City Council
approved the rezoning to Single Family residential.
Following the commencement of construction on Lot 14, the City received a
complaint that the applicant was constructing a residence on the lot within the
required rear yard setback. After the City determined the complaint was valid, the
applicant stopped construction activity on the property.
Appeal to the City Council
Variance Case No. 99-001
March 23, 1999
Page 3
At the time work was stopped, the foundation for the residence proposed for Lot
14 had been poured, and framing was partially complete. Attachment D shows the
project site from Fieldview Place. Attachment E is a photograph taken at the rear of
Lot 14, looking south, and Attachment F is taken looking to the north. Each
photograph is marked to show the location of the 20 foot setback line.
Attachment G is the application for variance in Case No. VAR 99-001.
Attachments H and I were submitted to the Planning Commission by the applicant
to show the effect of the 20 foot setback line on the residence under construction
on Lot 14. The applicant has estimated that approximately 33 square feet of the
residence encroaches into the setback area. Letters from the applicant dated
January 18, 1999 and January 26, 1999 are attached as Attachments J and K,
respectively.
The applicant sought a reduction in the required rear yard setback for Lot 14, Tract
2217, from the required 20 feet to approximately 12 feet. The applicant has
appealed a Planning Commission denial of the application for the requested
variance [Appeal to the City Council, Attachment A; Staff Report to Planning
Commission, Attachment L].
Development Code Section 9-02.150.8 provides that the appellant shall state the
specific reasons for the appeal. The appeal form states:
Evidence had been submitted to the city the week before from a party
involved in the variance. The letter was against granting the variance. This
letter was not forwarded to me nor was it in my package with my staff
report. Therefor when the commission asked me about the letter, I had never
seen it.
The letter to which Mr. Ellsworth refers is dated February 9, 1999, is addressed
MDear Commissioners," and is signed by Barry Yancosek (Attachment N). Mr.
Yancosek is the purchaser of the lot in question.
Fax records maintained by the City indicate that a three-page letter was faxed to
Mr. Ellsworth on February 9, 1999, the same number of pages as Mr. Yanosek's
letter and the same date Mr. Yancosek's letter was received (Attachment 0). The
Department Secretary recalls faxing a letter to Mr. Ellsworth. However, it cannot
be stated with absolute certainty that the faxed letter was the letter submitted by
Mr. Yancosek.
The chronology of events was as follows:
Appeal to the City Council
Variance Case No. 99-001
March 23, 1999
Page 4
Tuesday, February 9, 1999: Mr. Yancosek delivered his letter to the
Community Development Department.
Thursday, February 11, 1999: Packets were delivered to the Planning
Commission. Mr. Yancosek's letter was included in the packets. The letter
was not included as part of the staff report.
Tuesday, February 16, 1999: Planning Commission hearing on the
application for a variance. During the hearing, reference was made to Mr.
Yancosek's letter, and Mr. Ellsworth was asked to comment. He stated he
had not seen the letter.
The possible failure to provide Mr. Ellsworth with a copy of Mr. Yancosek's letter
would have been inadvertent. The normal procedure followed by the Department
would call for the letter to be provided to the applicant once it was received by the
Department.
Mr. Yancosek's letter consists of four paragraphs, as follows:
Paragraph 1: Mr. Yancosek explains that he is the purchaser of the home on lot 14,
and that he first learned of the problem in August, 1998.
Paragraph 2: Mr. Yancosek explains that a mediator met with the parties, and they
reached agreement on a way to fix the problem. Mr. Yancosek explains that even
though he agreed to pay more than a fair portion of the expenses in resolving the
problem, Mr. Ellsworth refused to accept their proposal.
Paragraph 3: Mr. Yancosek encourages the Planning Commission to deny the
variance.
Paragraph 4: Closing paragraph.
Because paragraph 3 of Mr. Yancosek's letter is the only paragraph that deals
directly with the variance, it is set forth below in its entirety:
To date it is our position that the Planning Commission reject a variance in
this instance as to move (sic) the applicant comply with any and all
mitigation measures and C. C. &R. regulations. Located in the C. C. &R. 's under
restrictions on page 8, section 7.6.2. it says "'Any structures placed on lots
14 and 20, inclusive, shall be limited to a building envelope located between
20' from the front property line and 20' from the rear property line. IF The
word inclusive means to include lots 14-20. It doesn't mean that you skip lot
14's property line coming from lots 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15 and then decide
that the rear property line to be inclusive is now up against the Hill. This
Appeal to the City Council
Variance Case No. 99-00 1
March 23, 1999
Page 5
would then not be IIlnclusivell or be in compliance at all with the mitigation
measures. It would have then read lots 15-20 inclusive. It is a concern of
ours that the home could be sitting too close to the agriculture and to the
street itself. We would most prefer that the home comply with mitigation
measures as not to affect any future salability of our home as well as
concerns for environmental impacts from being too close to the Ag land. On
02/08/99 a car plowed through the concrete fence jumping the curb,
smashing through our yard after clipping the corner of our home, and then
proceeded through out the front yard.
Four Commissioners were present during the Planning Commission hearing.
Commissioner Greene, one of the Commissioners, commented on Mr. Yancosek's
letter. Commissioner Greene noted that he might be favorably disposed toward the
application, but viewed the letter as additional support for denial. No other
Commissioners commented on the letter.
As set forth in the staff report, a variance may be granted only if certain findings
are made. Mr. Yancosek has not cited specific findings in his letter. His comments,
however, appear to address the general concept that the restrictions placed on lot
14 are not significantly different than those imposed on other lots with similar
characteristics. This issue was thoroughly discussed in the staff report.
The staff report concluded with a recommendation against approval of the
variance. The arguments made by Mr. Yancosek in his letter were consistent with
staff's discussion. Mr. Ellsworth was not, therefore, deprived of the opportunity to
respond to arguments or issues relevant to the decision.
Nor did Mr. Yancosek's letter raise factual issues relevant to the variance
proceeding that were not known to Mr. Ellsworth. While Mr. Ellsworth may dispute
Mr. Yancosek's assertions regarding mediation, costs of repair, or other issues,
these are not relevant to the variance issue. Variances relate to the relationship
between the parcel in question and neighboring parcels. Mr. Yancosek raised no
new issues or facts relating to this aspect of the case.
Mr. Ellsworth was provided with a full and fair opportunity to present arguments
regarding the variance, and the specific findings that must be made. To date, Mr.
Ellsworth has submitted the application for the variance, (Attachment G), letters
dated January 18, 1999 and January 26, 1999, (Attachments J and K),
illustrations of the site (Attachments H and I) and the appeal itself (Attachment A).
Staff has reviewed these materials, and has concluded that the appellant had failed
to satisfy the requirements for the approval of a variance. Mr. Yancosek raised no
new issues or facts that affected the review process.
Appeal to the City Council
Variance Case No. 99-001
March 23, 1999
Page 6
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Staff has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act, and has determined that there is no possibility the project would have a
significant effect on the environment. No action pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act is required.
Alternatives:
1. Adopt a resolution denying the appeal;
2. Direct staff to prepare a resolution with the appropriate findings of fact
upholding the appeal and return for adoption at the Council meeting of April
13, 1999;
3. Continue the item and provide additional information as directed by Council;
4. Provide direction to staff.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Appeal to the City Council
Attachment B: Tentative Tract 2217
Attachment C: Lot 14 configuration
Attachment D: Photograph: Lot 14 from Fieldview Place
Attachment E: Photograph: Lot 14 from rear, looking south
Attachment F: Photograph: Lot 14 from rear, looking north
Attachment G: Application for Variance, Case No. V AR 99-001
Attachment H: Ellsworth document submitted to Planning Commission (1)
Attachment I: Ellsworth document submitted to Planning Commission (2)
Attachment J: Ellsworth letter dated January 18, 1999
Attachment K: Ellsworth letter dated January 26, 1999
Attachment L: Staff Report to Planning Commission, February 16, 1999
Attachment M: Planning Commission Draft Minutes, February 16 1999
Attachment N: Letter from Mr. Yancosek, dated February 9,1999
Attachment 0: City fax log for February 9, 1999
Attachment P: Letter from Mr. Yancosek, dated March 17, 1999
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 VARIANCE CASE NO. 99-001 APPLIED FOR BY
COKER ELLSWORTH, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 551
FIELDVIEW PLACE
WHEREAS, on February 16, 1999 the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande
held a duly noticed public hearing to consider Variance Case No. 99-001 filed by Coker
Ellsworth; 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 Variance application;
and
WHEREAS, Mr. Ellsworth filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission decision to
deny the Variance application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on March 23, 1999 in
accordance with City Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information and public
testimony presented at the public hearing on March 23, 1999, the staff report and other
information and documents that are part of the public record; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, having considered the matter pursuant to the guidelines of
Government Code ~ 65906 finds, after due study, deliberation, and public hearing, the
following:
Variance Findings:
The City Council has reviewed and considered the application for a variance from the rear
yard setback requirements of Tentative Tract Map 2217, and has made the following
findings with regard to the application for a variance.
1. The strict literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would
result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship not otherwise shared by others
in the surrounding area.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
FINDING:
Although Lot 14 has an unusual configuration, the application of the 20 foot setback
does not present difficulties not faced by other lots in the subdivision subject to the
setback requirement.
2. 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.
FINDING:
The applicant has pointed to design constraints on Lot 14, Tract 2217, but these are
neither exceptional nor extraordinary. Similar constraints exist on other properties
affected by the setback provision.
3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties classified in
the same zone.
FINDING:
Other lots in the subdivision are burdened by the same setback requirements. The
configuration of Lot 14 presents similar design challenges to these lots, but this
would not prevent the applicant from constructing a reasonable single family
residence while observing the required rear yard setback. Several of the approved
models for the subdivision would fit on the property without projecting into the
required setback area.
4. 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.
FINDING:
Other lots in the subdivision are affected by the same setback requirement as
involved in this request. The configuration of Lot 14 does not present such
difficulties as to require special relief. Such relief would constitute a privilege not
enjoyed by others in similar circumstances.
5. 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.
FINDING:
The granting of a variance as requested could be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, and could be materially injurious to properties or improvements in
the vicinity by creating an encroachment into a buffer area specifically established to
avoid such impacts.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
6. The granting of a variance is consistent with the objectives and policies of the
General Plan and the intent of the Development Code.
FINDING:
The granting of the variance as requested would be contrary to the objectives and
policies of the General Plan. The Land Use Element of the General Plan, Objective
1.0, provides that the City will recognize and retain commercial agriculture as a
desirable land use and as a major segment of the community's identity and
economic base. The concerns raised by the County Agricultural Commissioner's
office during environmental review for rezoning of Tract 2217 focused on the
conflicts that can result by the juxtaposition of agricultural and residential uses.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande
hereby denies the appeal of Mr. Coker Ellsworth in Variance Case No. 99-001, based on
the above findings, which are incorporated herein by reference.
On motion of Council Member ,seconded by Council Member , and on the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 23rd day of March, 1999.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 4
MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
NANCY A. DAVIS, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
~LrrrLI~
ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
ATTACHMENT A 193
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Date '2/24 ~
Name and Address of Appellant W\Lee.. eust,~ L1
\'2.-9 t){2J'OGlG: Sr SunG- B b .6,
Appeal of PLP.NJ-...,\ l)-.l~ 6HM\ss'->J \11\'(G,t~ C1l1-ool
Case No.
Approved@ni~y 'P~N~ CoM.. on feB \to-gq
Date
Reason for Appeal E1 (OErJC2. I~ t D B830 t? U"@,M, "eo \0 11~~ c, \\'(
~t;.\N1=-W- ~E.k:Je~ "\=eOn ~ pp~~ i ~V~1-\Jro \N T)~E \//i::'Y2i,f\t--02.
~B u=..ne;z... '-N~5 Pr;..~i~l Gi~~)~~ ~lS. VfS'f..IIJr:t:/E. \):i\S Li-:i\F.iL
'M~S ~0\ ~l~eo"VJ \1f.. ~W~ \, \~ M'f \I.DO'..~Gt~ '{\Il\D ~'f
STJJ~ R~- "T\~~{.~ \(\J\-\~\~t c.:J\--n'-\IS~Y ~S\(Z() M& ~0Vf
~ e:.. \.f.. \\~, ~ \.j t::sD N alee. SEnJ (I,
J
Signature CLcL
Mailing Address \~ ~{2..,~u 5~ ~'-'\\!o '6 ~t.. Q342.:J
Telephone C\B )-7'07 )
Receipt No. {)O3~137
Date ~~~ /'-1'1
IJ!/tU~a. ~
I City Clerk
\ . ,
PROJECT: ATTACHMENT C
Oate:
Walnut View Estates ~ Tract 2217 9/18/97 rnm ~. ~~~rr & ~~~[~
CUENT: B)/:
mom CML and STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Coker Ellsworth lAND PlANNING & BUIlDING DESIGN
Sheet of 200 IBM (1). m ~ SIll UIS -. fA 9J401
{ll5154H2" FAr (1111 Sff-ZIII
"
15
7218 S.F.
)
'.-\
be:.
13
7251 S.F.
,
Scale: 1 "=20'
. . .
J
~ -,
. .
"'. . . ~
E ",., "y,
'* !iI!88' ~,
~r.~ :i ~ ~:~~ ..~..,::..
, i ~,.,~ ,$I'
, w ~ i'\, ~ ~ ;^::::!
"'-' J,"'.......
"t""'~""'" ~ ....,...
~"""'"~ ~..x-:-~
.....u___.._._: ..:,.-:_;-:.:.:.:....:.--:-:-:..'....,.-. ~
~@ ....~.. ~. .~. ! /_. ; :.<::.<
~~..
.......y.-:.;;: -~~
...~.:.jo)o:.:.~"".;-:>~.....HAO;/;.~>:'".:~ .~ ... ... ..-.... .:-....'....'..........
.....,~...~~... ....0.. ^. ...........:.~"
.~:.. ,...h'^":~..~:~~~~
...-
""'-",.- '............
""'~ ~.;?~~~~_ _.X.:~:;::::::~:~:~<%:....
, ,.
.
~-_..~'-Y$'~ ~_.
- ;:.:..~:................~ ~
'~~-'~
. ~..."" ~ "
....-/ ;y...... ,,/
., ......-.~,.. ~,/'"
"
,
.
A IT ACHMENT G CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE rC?1s ~~\~OC~\~
... 1
-. '--. ..... " .
- --
~ ~J@[Fa ~~@J~~lJ~ j .,
1 I I
.-- _.... '. "- ~.... '. _~ i::J
PLANNING APPLICATION -----_._~-.__.-.-._--------
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
The purpose of this form is to advise the City of the basic components of the proposed project so that the City may
i'eview the project and determine the level of environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality
Act of 1970, and compliance with applicable ordinances and policies. Providing accurate and complete information
will assure prompt processing of this application. Use additional sheets wherever necessary. Applications that are
inconsistent with the City's General Plan or Development Code will not be accepted as complete.
:~:~:$1J:~~lii1jjtii:~ji~j:j~~~j~j~~~ji~jill:~!~:::!!~:~!jim\!i:jii::~i:ji~*i~ijj~i:~illillt!jjr~~~1~~l1j:im~!gpB[ii$.T~Ej::t1~g\~~:Qfl.:~1i~tt~]i}1il~jU~~t!j:t!~~~I1Mi:~:j:!~\tjj!~~:::ji~*ii:t~iliii:!jii~~~::j~!j~l~~i:j:!~:::\i:t:~:~:!~::::ii:jt~ti::;!::::!::
:::::]:~~~:~gJ.i,tlppnp!:UBg::::~p~m!9i;:I\i~\*ffil:: ~~\~:~:piJi~\ilppIi~.j1.;~ij:::I~P!;p~:!t~U~JjtQgmp!iii~m :it1m\:lj\1m!j:!~\tg!:'!I~f1Ym:g!f;~~:\j:ttj:ji~\::~j::::\\::::
~i~~~~~~~j~~~1~~~~~~~~~~~i1~~~1~~~ij~~~~~~~~m~~~~~~~tj~~j~~~~~~~~~~i~!~~~~~~~~~!~~~~~~~~~~f~~~~~~~~~~r.~~~~~~~~~~I~~~~ \!i~:::ljM~\j~!:~\jm1i!~f~~mt~:~:::~:j:!i\!~~jm:~f=~::::@~r~~I:~~t[1~~~~jt~~j\~!j:t1~[~~!II::trili: .::mll::j~r.e1i1II::ll:~t~1i~~~:~ijj~~!:~~::;!!~~::~jt:
c..omphjti'0r10fthisform.:ishece.ssary.f6rlhefollowirigtypes ... of:applicatioriS. :<PI~as~indicateth~.type. of
application{s).youPare req.ut!stii1g:p.'... .. ... .:i:'.. . . .., . .. P
.0 .CdnditiOnalUsePermit ... ... .,... O.Planned.. U nitD.evetdpinentPeirnit .... ...
..... '...0 Amendment., ..... p. 0: Amendmen(PpP .. ... ......
..0 ..DevelopmentAgreerneht o SpeCific Plan ....... ..... . . .
0: Amendment . o AmendmenF .
Op Develop,rnent Code Amendrilent (inCludes Rezoning, o Surface Mining Permit
..... .Prezoning;and Planned Development Rezone) o TEmtativeParcelMap. . oYesting Map
o GeneralPlanAmendment ...>i ............ .0 Amendment .'......... .....'.. .'..<<< .
.0 Planned Development Amendment '0 Teritative TractMap. o Vesting Map
o Specific Development Plan . ..1It OpAmendment
. .0 General Development Plan Variance ......
0 Check here if this Is an application for a development permit.
.., ' "",
Information to be submitted withthis'applicatlon:).
A. Refer to the checklist (available from the Planning Department) B. Attach color photographs or slides of the site and of the
for those items required to be submitted for each type of vicinity. Indicate the location of each photograph and the date
project. taken. Keying the photographs to the site plan is helpful.
C. 0 Check here if Architectural Review is required for your D. 0 Check here if this is an application for a Condominium or
project (see Section 9-03.190 of the Development Code to Mobile Home Park Conversion. If so, see the checklist of items
determine if Architectural Review is required). If so, see the required for Condominium/Mobile Home Park Conversion. .
checklist of items required for Architectural Review Approval.
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: C~81-' iNf_ . ~\l'D::..~ ~ -' \ N.':: I Day Phone: 46i =1 a1 (
Applicant's Address: \2.0 6,,)'O~" st- Sv\~ is t::>.G. Ci31-Zo
Representative: S ~'HE I Day Phone:
I Representative's Address:
Property Owner: S~tiE. I Day Phone:
Owner's Address:
Architect (if any): i...\ i h I Day Phone:
Architect's Address:
Engineer (if any): ~ I to I Day Phone:
Engineer's Address:
-- - .
.... .... --....... ....- '..
. .. . . . . . . . .
........ ......'..'.. .";"'. .._-.......'-.._-.'.'.._..._..........
.... .;:... .....:;;.'..-.:::-.:-.:.::-:..;:....--.
... . .... .. - -... -. ,
-:.. ..... ....--.......-..........
.. .... """"
'H., ..... .
ineer
Describe the proposed project (ultimate use) in detail: .' . I
C()\W~~~ ~'SH'J<;U;. ~~\\;'( R.BS\omQ:;DN LO\ \11 ~ 22..-'
SE.G ~Ti~~eo i:)Qc.oMGNiS"
II. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Sy $Y
-"
General Plan Land Use Designation:~ Zoning: 'Vf
Assessor Parcel No.: '}\U\ ~~ t.",-,J;)"..j Ci Parcel Size: . 67 \ I S~ ~T.
Street Address: SS i ~ra...D-J\~ YL... .
Legal Description of Existing Lot: ~ \ 1.\ ~G1 2.2.\,
Building Sizes in Square Feet: Existing Proposed
II. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
A. COMPLETE THIS SECTION FOR ALL PROJECT TYPES:
i[~i~~~ti~~'~i!~'~!~f~ti~~'.~JA,i!~~~,'~j,~h.t1i~i~~~~1~~~~~~~~~;~~'1'1,~~~ni!t9!ii:',
a. Type of Subdivision: 0 Agricultural 8' Residential 0 Commercial 0 Industrial
b. Total number of Acres: Agricultural _ Residential ~l( \9i:Acommercial _ Industrial_
c. Number of Lots: Agricultural _ Residential 1-- Commercial - Industrial -
d. Average Size of Lots: Agricultural _ Residential1Lo:>t;b Commercial _ Industrial_
(in square feet)
,., .:', ... ... ..:. ....".. ........,.. . ." ... ....,.,.. "."".'.'''..,.' ........,."...,....../::::::':::::.:.....:..,::::'./...... "...".".... '..,.'., '."',
2. Describe 'the.' present and.. past uses.. of this 'site. .lndicateifahystructllres'c.ui'1'~ljt!y:f!*~st.on~tl~$i~~, .....
>>and if they\Vilrremain~ .. ,..... .......... .0' .::"...;"..... .....
t>~~.1\ \)~ \.\')~U~\JtOl2.QA~-o
~~\- p~s i 'O('">=s\1 f->i;.. 'Sv~N \'7\~
,..'3.D~sdfil)e~taepreS~hf~r1d.pijtuse$..ofadjaCenfsites:. \.: .... :.....,:::. .:: ..
~G.(L)~\J\5~L"'t' ~S\'Oe.J\1 /:)L
... ............ ..:............................ . ..... ......:... . .:.< .:... .... .....,.. ...:........... ... ...... .: .............. .... .... .i.
..5;Describe.~riypastproblern~'oi1 th~site .including . earthquakefault"s/floodi rig ~ . erosion~etc. .. ..
1-llD
~1:~'J3~Wj~!~~~~~~~\1~~~I:;:~l~~~~:'.il.. arid..arty .ni~i?;.c~~S$rQ~...lnI61~:j~.,. .[)..cHbs... . ..
~/~
B. COMPLETE THIS SECTION FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS ONLY
1;':6e~gtt~e::,6~:6umb~r~ijci'JY~~~fU~its)~:the':l5i8p:osei'-:::~!~J~~'~':::.::..:.:..::'i::::::=:'::::'::...:=:.';::;.=:.::.i.:::::...:.::...../?:..:.::.:::..:::.:y.:.:.?:":.':
ATTACHED UNITS Total Number: Number for Sale: Number for Rent:
DETACHED UNITS Total Number: Number for Sale: Number for Rent:
Number of lots to be built by applicant or developer:
Number of lots to be sold:
1;11'~\f~11il.r.'lf~~~*~t;1i.~iw~~f~~~~~I~~11.1~11r.i"~1~~.ii~~~~,(!I!:';l:'
't-1t~
C. COMPLETE THIS SECTION FOR COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS ONLY
:.:'..;....:.:::::.:.::.::::::;:-:::::.:::::;:.,:::;:.::.:::.:....:::..:::.: ::.:.>::::::. .;.';::.. '.: .. ....::..: :... ... .::.:.:.::. :.:::. . ..:.:: '::::.:';:.::::::':....';::'::::,::.:::..' .:::.::::.::;::.:::.:.::::.:.' : :.::.>. . . .>
f. :' Describel~~typeotlJse(s) and 'inajor. fuhctiol1sofcommeicialoriridtistrial:projects:) .
,',",- -, ".' .'-.-.- ...-.... "..", ..
.2.: .GlveihebulJclfhgsizes (In:squ~fe';fe~trf6H ..::.: .: . , , ,... -.. -. .. . -.". . ..
.. .....-. -.-. .-........ . ...... '-'-'
. ..' .. . .-. .... .'.
..'.".. ....... .. ,".".
. , ... ...... . . .
. . -. .
..0. ... . ,. ....." .. : .
. ,., ,-,.
. .-,. .., -...
. . ..... ..
Existing structures: I Proposed Structures: I Additions to Existing Structures:
... .
,- .-. '.'. ..
. - ,.. . ...
. ,...
3. ..,dicate1he"proposed hours ofopera1ion:
... .. ...... -. .
4. EstilTHitetl1enumber of employees:
Total: Maximum Shift:
:i. rndicat~:the:.nllrt1l:Jer()fpatr()ns.,:clientsi.customers~. etc~. ariticipatedS',():
Average per day: Peak Hour:
Use Garage (enclosed) Covered Open
,
i
.....:: :-:...,..,....0::.::'..,.,..........:....0: ......:... i...... .. . .i..... ... .: . ..... . .0:.. .::... . . . ...-c- . .... ...: ........ ... .. ... .:. .... .
, 7~ :Oe.scrlbe:.any.iriig hrihne~lig hting: ttiaf:':wm. .be provided;:. induCting the tYpe.01Jig htingto.b.e:Jnstaned:
\
\
i
\
i
i
I
\
I
I
1
I. ."-.'.'' ":.".:", : :::.:._, :-.: "::.:.--.".," -. '<. ' .---:
\. 8.~. Indicatethe'source,. type and amount of potentiat air' pollution emissions:
I
I
\
I
\
. ... ."... ..:i.: ...:.,.,::.:::...:......: 0: .:'.:. . .. . . ... . : ::
9; li1dicalethe':s:()urce:.arid. type' of potentiafnoise that may be. generated:..:
I
.
I
i
\10; . . .. ." .. . . .i.:'..'::."::":':":. ...,. ... .
o escribea ny. petroleum.: products,. pesticides, chemica Is~ radiation~. or" otHer.. potel1t"ialiy:tiaiardous
material that. will be used or" stored. on the site:" .: 0: ...
I
!
!
,
i I
!
3.D~;dtibejhepres~rft:jr1cf:Pa~tus~j"ofadjaCenrsites:" :,:;:".:,: .::):{::.:' ....
~G.~)~\JL1V(2..A\... "t' RE.S\D~I ~L
5l'Desdtlb~:~riyipastproblem~"0r1th~'~iteincludingearthqu~'kefatHs.fl~Od i rig ,eros(orl,etc. . .... .>..
. ... ... .....,.,.
'toll D
6.[):~~~r!~~~~~:':~~I~!i~g...~~~~~y:t~~"i()~:iHe:site and.'any maj~ra~~'ess:routes 'Into'i~~sitejDescftb.e . ... . ...
:>propose d:C arlge~ oe.roa:sys t!rTI~'d' .,. ...... .....,... ,'>d .:.... ..,:.. :.. . ..:' ... .d:
~/~
B. COMPLETE THIS SECTION FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS ONLY
:4;::'p~$gt~~e!iji~~~~~ti~Cr'~yp;~t~l1itSj~'the.':liiop:os~a#~t~li:~'~:i:;'!::'i.:..:"::i:~:!.::.:':;i.i::!:'i:j:.!):i:.)!..:;!.i.i:.\\..i:......,.:"=.::i;....:.;.:".!...:,.::".'):\:
ATTACHED UNITS Total Number: Number for Sale: Number for Rent:
DETACHED UNITS Total Number: Number for Sale: Number for Rent:
Number of lots to be built by applicant or developer:
Number of lots to be sold:
i!lI~ttI14.ftif~U~I~k'if,II~:~':~1~!r~~I'l'lt'lerjrlll~a\'fJg~'111'!'iitj
'\--1t~
C. COMPLETE THIS SECTION FOR COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS ONLY
::'. :.. . ..... .,,'..'x,',' '.:,"':.,::::,:,":;:":':'" ...,.,:::::. ..'."..":"'.':.. :.. . ..: . :. . .' .:..:: . ..' . :..:. ...:. :: ,.. .:::,. ...., .:",:..,,,:::,:.:.:::::.,,,,,:,".:': .,. '..":.: .:': .:':.::,.:,:::.'..,.... .,. : "::. . ::: . :,...:::
1. " DescribethEt.typeof.use(s) and 'inajor. functiol1s of commercial orindusti'ial'projects:: . :....
2.. Glvelheboildtngsizes(ln"~qujrefe~trf6h ..'
Existing structures: Proposed Structures:
.- ... '.,....
. . . -,_. - ...
3. Indicateth,fproposed hours of operation: :
......... .. ........
4. Estirristetl1enumber of employees:
Total:
. ... . - .
. 5. rncfic8te.'the:nom"6er'()fp~trons>clientsi'customers,e*c~. ariticipated:.',.:., ,....U.
Average per day: Peak Hour:
j' 6~:iN:tirii6~;';;:8f.\ij1f:~.it~i~t;~:~Wtl'#~~.i~r~'~;gi~.::til.i~:i":~'fo4i~l~a?i(if;::~~~I~tcii6i~r::~hgW:rPr~i'~~~Wri"::~~;:;i~):4.~~):~:::i;~:~~i::~::\~:::::':::;:i,:..:.,':;,.:':';::.:!';
Use Garage (enclosed) Covered Open
I
i
..."........,.:::,':.',.."..:....>,..",.,',',.,...,.,...'",. .,., "..' '. ;.'.'..' ". ':. .""............ ... ... .:' . :" . "":. ",........ '. .....'.,....'.' ...., .,...;..... . ...,.'. ,.'. .'.. . .... .. .'
, 7;:..De.scabEf;ariy:'r1igtittirTU~Jighting that'wm. be provided;:. inclUding thetYpe:'of;lightirig to'b'e.:jost'alled:
I
i
I
1
i
I
I
!
I
I
. .
1 --', _",'.'. '"':'".". ':':'_.-:-: _ ':::;"""-, , . -', _ '. _'_ '-'_:'
i .S';.'lndicate the'soUrce,.type and amount of potentiat air"pollution emissions:. .'.
I
I
I
I
. . ..... .
, . -.. . , . , . . . ' . -
/9~ thdlcal~ttie:'~t;:aff:~;.and'. tYp'~'of pot~ntiar noise that may be" generated::. '.
I
I
,
i
... . .
I 1 O~De~cribeanypetroreum products, pesticides, chemicals, radiam:m~or.oih'el'.poterit'H!illy:;Hazardous
material that will be used or' stored on the site:' . . .. ..
I
!
I
D. COMPLETE THIS SECTION FOR ALL PROJECTS
iIIJI.'J.iii.~i'~\.i.{llili1~ffi'~
Nl~
2. Due to recent interpretation and legal amendments to the Political Reform act of 1974, the City needs to be aware
of all entities (i.e. corporations, lending institutions, etc.) or individuals that may have a financial interest in the
proposed project. Please complete the following certification and provide your signature.
''f~~:f6''ia~i~~',;~:riti~y(i~sl.f1didKindlvidoal~.have. a' 'finariJral'h1terest($)/ih.this'p'foje6t; ...
C:,~~ \~
"t\<::x.. p~ ~ (.;;. I~c. .
ill!IIII'!t~~; i~r~~ff~~~~I~&~~lt:::::
"'an(fcorrect~::'f:understal'ii:mtiaUh&.:subm.ittal:'of'Uicorrec"tor 'false authorized::'agent; a.letter f~om the,'property,owner..r(1ust. be
~i~~!i~~:~~~;~i]~~~~(.~~ m.. .. ~~~'~n"'a""g.~.ffi~Og.nf~..m.'n.".w.aao" hls/ho<
. . .....
.'. . . . . H"
. .. .. . .. ..
....--... "".
.",.",
... ..
..
Signed...... Signed''':'. Date
----
I ! ..
! vlLLA. G E HOMES ATTACHMENT H
I
i PLAN 1680
\
I
/
lL.4.S'1'ER
~ OP'!'IONAL
SITI'ING
.AREA.
I
;
~
I i I }
I I
I I i
..GEEA'r ~ FA VTT':Y'
.HQQK .iQQ]i (
I
, ~
I I
DINING I
~
.. I
\ I
!'RONT P f..'l'IO I
i
i
FLOOR PLAN 2~A:R GARAGE
, /// " ,
I I
I , I
I / / , I
I / / , , I
I / , I
1 / " 1
1/ , 1
I / ',I
/
A WELC:JMING ~VERED fRONT PORCH
58'S "THE TONE FOR "THIS APPSAUNG
HOME.
1HIS HOME !S PSFECT FOR 1HE GROWING
F AMIL Y. I
8EDROOM ~ CAN BE CCN\lERiED TO A
DEN OR A PRIVA iE REiREA T OFF 1HE: I
MAS1ER BEDROOM. ,
ON lHE PRACilCAL SIDE. YOU'll APPRECA iE
THE HUGE UNEN CABINET IN iHE HALLWAY.
1HE := AMIL Y ROOM FEA 11JRES 1HE FiRE?LA~ I
I WITH AN ADJACENT ~ED1A ALC:JVE.
I
I
i
!
I
I
NO~ I
!lfMOERIHCS rs: ~"'1I0IIS >>fD fLOQR PUHS ARE ..IA1IS'11C
CO'ICEPlICI'IS JJID WAY NOT J,a::Jlu"m.y DEPIcr")€ HOMES i I
.\S BUI1.:r. N 10 c::otn1HU<XIS ~ 'it) IWROVE 00II ~
FUXII fUII:S. 3'U:IRC/o1lCllS ,1M) PMn IIIoT QWQ: 1I1ItDIJI' IICJICL
PRCJECT: ATTACHMENT I
1)ate; \
Walnut VIew Estates - Tract 2217 9/18/97 \ ffiffi ~ ~(H~TI & ~~OC~[~
...ENT: By:
mom CMl and SiRUCruRAL ENGINEERING
Coker Ellsworth l;NIJ P\.ANHING & 3UILQING DESIGN
Sh.,.,t of JII 'lIUf)II ~ gn[ A. 911l11S ami. a rnGl
~ .)jj.-i2I' flZ (~) ~,IHII!
15 .
\
721 8 S.F.
}
',> iQ2.3i'
) OJ.
~. \~
\ 1-
\~.....
.,/ \
-- ~
.....
__----1--
,,'
.,;
8""R.. I;;
--.~..:.~-~
.......
,r-...... ('-
~. \ I .
- Ie)
~O
/-
,~
~
~
-
.~
~..
,,,- '\
~
-
13
7251 S.t.
I
~ Scale: 1"=20'
~
I
Coker Ellsworth, c. A IT ACHMENT J
Real Estate Broker & General Contractor
129 Bridge Street, Suite B
P. 0. Box 1238
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421-1238
Office: (805) 481-7071 FAX: (805) 481-7171
License No. 357972
January 18, 1999
Tom Buford
Planning Dept.
City of Arroyo Grande
214 E Branch St.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Dear Tom,
The attached request is for a variance on the rear setback of lot 14 Tract 2217.
Under the original Conditions of Approval, Item 2 under attachment B requires a 20' setback from the
rear property line. As you can see on the attached site plan, Lot 14 is an irregular shaped lot that has 2
rear property lines. In looking back with the lots now finished, Lot 14 probably should not have been
included in this condition as the rear of Lot 14 is oriented towards the hillside and not Branch Mill Rd.
This home was pre-sold August 20, 1997. The buyer was made aware that the house would be tight on
the lot, depending on how the city interpreted the 20' rear property line. We submitted for the building
permit with the attached site plan. The City issued the building permit on July 20, 1998. We then
poured the slab and framed the house.
On August 13, 1998, the city received notification by a neighbor that the house was not in conformance
with the 20' setback. We stopped construction at that time.
The encroachment is a comer of the master bedroom and involves approximately 33 sq. ft. We have
researched every possible solution to come up with an acceptable fix. We have spent the past 5
months negotiating with the buyer, attorneys, engineers, architects, and an arbitrator. We have yet to
come up with a feasible solution that will satisfy all parties, short of demolishing the house and
redesigning an entirely new plan. This is an extremely costly solution to such a minor problem
considering the circumstances of the interpretation of the rear property line.
We feel we have exhausted all of our remedies and respectfully request a variance on Lot 14 to allow
completion of the house as shown.
Respectfully,
Qd -
Coker Ellsworth
CE~o
cc: Douglas Hilton, Esq.
Dan Pace
Coker Ellsworth, 'uc.
Real Estate Broker & Gener ___ ~ontractor A IT ACHMENT K
129 Bridge Street, Suite B
P. O. Box 1238
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421-1238
Office: (805) 481-7071 FAX: (805) 481-7171
License No. 357972
January 26, 1999 City of Arroyo Granae
Tom Buford Gommunity Development Dept.
Planning Dept. JAH 27 1999
City of Arroyo Grande
214 E Branch St.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Dear Tom,
This is in response to your letter of January 25, 1999.
Regarding Item 1, the strict enforcement of the condition would result in hardships to both the builder
and the buyer of this home. A portion of the master bedroom would have to be destroyed, thus leaving
a non-functional master bedroom.
Regarding Item 2: As mentioned in prior correspondence, Lot 14 has a different circumstance than Lots
15-20, which are included in the Condition. Lot 14 has 2 rear property lines thus creating an
interpretation discrepancy. Lot 14 is also different in that the rear of the home is oriented to the hillside
rather than to Branch Mill Road. This could not be seen at the time the map was presented to the City
for approval, otherwise we would have requested Lot 14 not be included in this Condition.
Regarding Item 3: If the 20ft Condition is enforced on Lot 14, it will deprive the applicant from
completion of the home as previously approved.
Regarding Items 4 and 5: Granting the requested variance will not only allow the owners to build a
home that is consistent with the other homes in the tract, but poses no detriment to public health, safety
or welfare. Issuance of this variance would not be injurious to the surrounding homes. It would pose
more injury to surrounding homes to deny the variance as this home would have to be tom down and
replaced with a plan that is inconsistent with the integrity of the surrounding homes. The neighbors
would like to see this home completed soon as it has been at a standstill for approximately six months.
Regarding Item 6: Granting the variance is consistent with the general plan, as the property is
designated for single family homes.
I would appreciate having this put on the Planning Commission Agenda as soon as possible.
Please feel free to contact me should you need further information.
Sincerely,
cui-
Coker Ellsworth
CEljo
ATTACHMENT L Hearing Date: February 16, 1999
Agenda Item No. II. A
PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARING TO BE HELD IN THE
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
215 EAST BRANCH STREET
APPLICANT: Coker Ellsworth, Inc.
PROJECT: Variance Case No. 99-001
PROPOSAL: Reduce the required rear yard setback from 20 feet to
approximately 12 feet.
LOCATION: Lot 14, Tract 221 7; 551 Fieldview Place
REPRESENTATIVE: Coker Ellsworth
Hearing Notices sent on February 5, 1999. Staff Report Prepared by Tom Buford.
Site Inspection by Tom Buford on January 28, 1999.
Parcel Size: 8,711 square feet
Residence Size: 1,660 square feet
Terrain: Level
Vegetation: Cleared for construction
Existing Land Use: Single family residence under construction
General Plan Designation: SF-Single Family Residential
Existing Zoning: SF-Single Family
Surrounding Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation:
North: Single family residential/SF/SF
South: Steep hillside with dense vegetation/RH/RH
East: Branch Mill Road; Agriculture/ AGI AG
West: Single family residence/SF/SF
Planning Commission
Variance Case No. 99-001
February 16, 1999
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the application for a variance.
A review of the circumstances surrounding the request, and a strict application of the
variance findings, would indicate that the request should not be approved.
However, it must also be noted that it is unlikely the small extent of the
encroachment (33 square feet of living area) would create any significant threat to
the public health, safety, or welfare, beca4se of the proximity of agricultural
operations. As currently configured, the developed property would meet all other
development standards including lot coverage (26%), height, parking, and all other
setbacks. In the event the Planning Commission decides to approve the application,
staff would need to prepare the appropriate resolution for Planning Commission
action.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is requesting a reduction in the required rear yard setback for Lot 14,
Tract 2217, from the required 20 feet to approximately 12 feet.
Ordinance No. 483 C.S., adopted by the City Council on February 25, 1997,
approved the rezoning and subdivision of the 1 5-acre parcel located at the southwest
corner of East Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill Road. The rezoning changed the
classification from Residential Agricultural with a 40,000 square foot minimum lot
size (RA-B3) to Single Family residential (SF) which allowed 43 residential lots with a
minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. Tentative Tract 2217 included 43 residential
lots, three open space lots and a lot for a city park. See Exhibit 1. The configuration
of Lot 14 is shown on Exhibit 2.
The Initial Study and Negative Declaration for Tract 2217 included a discussion of
potential environmental impacts in the area of land use compatibility. The Initial Study
identified a potentially significant impact in the following area:
Would the proposal affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses?
The Initial Study indicated that the County Agricultural Commissioner had submitted
comments on the potential impacts from the proposed residential use on the adjacent
farming operations. The Commissioner cited several impacts to residents from the
adjacent farming operations: generation of dust, noise from farm machinery, odor
from fertilization and groundand/or aerial applications of pesticides. Noting the
Commissioner's comments, the Initial Study included the following discussion on
mitigation measures:
The impacts listed above are common for all residential projects located
adjacent to agricultural operations, and as previously stated, do not
Planning Commission
Variance Case No. 99-001
February 16, 1999
Page 3
acknowledge the site-specific circumstances. Several factors, including
measures proposed by the applicant, will mitigate impacts on the site from
nearby agricultural practices:
. The 64-foot wide Branch Mill Road right-of-way will provide a
buffer, separating the homes and crop land.
. The subdivision perimeter will be enclosed by a solid wall with
screening trees and shrubs along the eastern property line.
. The building envelopes of lots 14 through 20, will be restricted,
and located between 20 feet from the front property line and 20
feet from the rear property line. This will slightly increase the
buffer distance (10 feet) between the agricultural operations and
habitable space.
. The City's Right to Farm ordinance will require the applicant to
disclose to prospective buyers the potential impacts from
agricultural operations.
. The prevailing wind direction over this property is from the west
and northwest to the east. This site specific circumstance will
help reduce the potential for dust and pesticide spray from drifting
towards the subdivision.
The Commissioner's staff supported reducing the requested buffer from 350 feet to
65 feet with the additional mitigation measures proposed in the negative declaration.
The Initial Study for Tract 2217 concluded that the mitigation measures reduced the
potentially significant impact to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures
included the following:
Applicant shall limit the building envelope for residential lots 14 through 20 to
between 20 feet from the front property line and 20 feet from the rear
property line. Building envelope limitations for lots 14 through 20 shall be
included in the CC&Rs.
The above mitigation measure was included as a condition when the City Council
approved the rezoning to Single Family residential.
By memorandum dated July 20, 1998, the Community Development Director
approved a minor exception to allow for a 10% reduction in sideyard setbacks as a
result of the irregular lot configuration for Tract 2217. See Exhibit 3. This did not
affect the rear yard setback involved in this request.
Following the commencement of construction on Lot 14, the City received a
complaint that the applicant was constructing a residence on the lot within the
required rear yard setback. After finding the complaint valid, the applicant stopped
construction on the property.
Planning Commission
Variance Case No. 99-001
February 16, 1999
Page 4
The foundation for the residence proposed for Lot 14 has been poured, and framing is
partially complete. Exhibit 4 shows the project site from Fieldview Place. Exhibit 5 is
a photograph taken at the rear of Lot 14, looking south, and Exhibit 6 is taken looking
to the north. Each photograph is marked to show the location of the 20 foot setback
line.
Exhibits 7 and 8 have been submitted by the applicant to show the effect of the 20
foot setback line on the residence under construction on Lot 14. The applicant has
estimated that approximately 33 square feet of the residence encroaches into the
setback area. Letters from the applicant dated January 18, 1999 and January 26,
1999 are attached as Exhibits 9 and 10, respectively.
VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS AND DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission may approve a Variance application only if all of the
following findings of fact can be made in an affirmative manner. Staff discussion
follows each of the findings.
1. That the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship not
otherwise shared by others within the surrounding area.
The 20 foot setback was imposed on Lots 14 through 20 as a result of the
environmental review process, and responded to the comments of the County
Agricultural Commissioner. There has been no indication that the 20 foot setback has
posed a difficulty in planning for or constructing homes on Lots 15 through 20.
The applicant has indicated that the difficulty in this case is due to the unusual
configuration of Lot 14, as the lot has, in effect, two rear yard lines. See Exhibit 2.
Staff agrees with the applicant that Lot 14 has an unusual configuration, and that the
application of the 20 foot setback present difficulties not faced by other lots in the
subdivision. Lot 20 of the subdivision, however, presents similar challenges. These
challenges can be resolved through selection of the appropriate footprint for the
structure, and placement of the structure on the lot. Other models offered for sale
within the development (Models 1486 and 1553), would fit with in the required
setback area. In addition, the model planned for the lot (Model 1660) would fit if it
were constructed in a "mirror image" on the lot (reversed plan).
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.
Planning Commission
Variance Case No. 99-001
February 16, 1999
Page 5
The applicant has, as noted, pointed to the unusual configuration of Lot 14 as
justifying relief. While staff agrees that the design difficulties posed by the
configuration of Lot 14 are unusual, staff does not agree they are exceptional or
extraordinary. The applicant designed the subdivision, and controlled the selection of
the residence that would be constructed on the lot. Similar limitations applied to Lots
15 through 20, and were not unique to Lot 14. Lot 14 is in fact the largest single lot
within the development.
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.
Lot 14 is burdened with a 20 foot setback. The same holds true for Lots 1 5 through
20. While this may present a challenge in design, the setback requirement does not
preclude construction of a single family residence on the site. As noted by the
applicant, only 33 square feet of the proposed residence are affected by the setback
issue. Staff believes it is apparent that the setback issue could have been avoided
either through placement of the proposed residence elsewhere on the lot, or selection
of another design for the residence.
The rear yard setback normally imposed in the SF district is 10 feet for single family
homes, and 15 feet for two story homes. The 20 foot setback imposed on Lots 14
through 20 of the subdivision resulted from the analysis of impacts on land use and
planning in the initial study conducted pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act. The initial study concluded that impacts on the agricultural activities
adjacent to the subdivision would be less than significant. Comments submitted by
the San Luis Obispo County Agricultural Commissioner, however, raised concerns
regarding the impact of the agricultural operations on the residential uses. The initial
study included the following discussion:
The Agricultural Commissioner's Staff originally suggested that the project be
redesigned to include an agricultural buffer of up to 350 feet from the
proposed residential parcels and the adjacent farm. After further discussion,
the Commissioner's staff supported reducing the buffer to a width of 65 feet
(with the additional mitigation measures proposed), and acknowledged that the
County's agricultural buffer policies were developed for use in the
unincorporated areas rather than within cities...
The 20 foot setback was imposed as a mitigation measure in the environmental
review process, and was specifically designed with Lots 14 through 20 in mind. The
mitigation measure required the setback of 20 feet, and specifically negated the
privilege otherwise available of building within 10 feet of the property line. Enforcing
the 20 foot setback would not deny the applicant a privilege enjoyed by other
property owners within the development, who are subject to the same restrictions.
Planning Commission
Variance Case No. 99-001
February 16, 1999
Page 6
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.
Lot 14 is burdened by a 20 foot setback. Lots 1 5 through 20 are also affected by the
setback. Permitting the applicant to avoid the operation of the setback would grant a
special privilege not enjoyed by the owners of the other parcels affected by this
setback requirement.
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.
During the environmental review process for the subdivision, the San Luis Obispo
County Agricultural Commissioner cited the following impacts to residential users
from adjacent farming operations: generation of dust due to soil cultivation, farm
vehicle traffic, and fertilization practices; noise from farm machinery operation; odor
from fertilization and decomposition of crop residue; and ground and/or aerial
applications of pesticides. The 20 foot setback was identified as one of the measures
that could be taken to reduce the threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.
However, the extent of the encroachment into the buffer area is small, and is unlikely
to result in a serious impact to the health, safety, or welfare of future residents.
6. That the granting of a variance is consistent with the objectives and
policies of the General Plan and the intent of this title.
The Land Use Element of the General Plan, Objective 1 .0, provides that the City will
recognize and retain commercial agriculture as a desirable land use and as a major
segment of the community's identity and economic base. The concerns raised by the
County Agricultural Commissioner's office during environmental review for rezoning
of Tract 221 7 focused on the conflicts that can result by the juxtaposition of
agricultural and residential uses. However, approving modification of the reduced
setback could be considered contrary to the objective supporting agricultural uses.
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
received the following comments or correspondence related to the proposed project:
Correspondence dated February 7, 1999, was received from an adjacent property
owner, Sara Dickens. See Exhibit 11.
Planning Commission
Variance Case No. 99-001
February 16, 1999
Page 7
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Staff has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental
Ouality Act. An initial study was completed and staff has determined, based on the
initial study, that there is no possibility that approval of the requested variance would
have a significant effect on the environment, and the project is therefore exempt from
CEOA pursuant to CEOA Guidelines Section 1 5061. A Notice of Exemption is
attached to the Staff Report.
Attachments:
Resolution Denying Variance Case No. 99-001
Financial Interest Form
Notice of Exemption
Exhibits:
1. Tract 2217 Site Plan
2. Lot 14 configuration
3. July 20,1998 Minor Exception for Tract 2217 (sideyard setbacks)
4. Lot 14 from Fieldview Place
5. Lot 14 setback view (from north)
6. Lot 14 setback view (from south)
7. Lot 14 floor plan
8. Lot 14 setback drawing
9. January 18, 1999 correspondence
10. January 26, 1999 correspondence
11. February 7, 1999 correspondence from Sara Dickens
RESOLUTION NO. 99-1682
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING VARIANCE CASE
NO. 99-001 LOCATED AT 551 FIELDVIEW PLACE,
APPLIED FOR BY COKER ELLSWORTH, INC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered Variance Case No. 99-
001, and has held a public hearing and considered testimony and documents in the
record on February 16, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the project is exempt
from review under the California Environmental Ouality Act pursuant to CEOA
Guidelines Section 15061; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission may approve a variance only if the
findings required by the Development Code can be made; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and
public hearing, that the required findings cannot be made, and that the following
circumstances exist with regard to each of the required findings, set forth below:
1. The strict literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship not otherwise shared
by others in the surrounding area.
Although Lot 14 has an unusual configuration, the application of the 20 foot
setback does not present difficulties not faced by most other lots in the
subdivision. Lot 20 has a similar configuration.
2. 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 lone.
The applicant has pointed to design constraints on Lot 14, Tract 2217, but
these are neither exceptional nor extraordinary.
3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties
classified in the same lone.
Other lots in the subdivision are burdened by the same setback requirements.
The configuration of Lot 14 presents some design challenges, but would not
prevent the applicant from constructing a reasonable single family residence
while observing the required rear yard setback.
4. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same lone.
Other lots in the subdivision are affected by the same setback requirement as
involved in this request. The configuration of Lot 14 does not present such
difficulties as to require special relief. Such relief would constitute a privilege
not enjoyed by others in similar circumstances.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-1682
Variance Case No. 99-001
February 16, 1999
Page 2 of 2
5. 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 granting of a variance as requested would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, and would not be materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
6. The granting of a variance is consistent with the objectives and policies of the
General Plan and the intent of the Development Code which
The granting of the variance requested would be contrary to the objectives and
policies of the General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Arroyo Grande hereby finds that the findings required by the Development Code for
the approval of a variance cannot be made based on the record, and hereby denies
the request for a variance in Variance Case No. 99-001.,
On motion by Commissioner Parker, seconded by Commissioner Costello, and
by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Costello, Keen, Parker and Acting Chair Greene
NOES: None
ABSENT: One vacancy exists on the Commission.
The foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16th day of February 1999.
ATTEST:
Kathleen Fryer, Acting Commission Clerk Laurence Green, Acting Chair
AS TO CONTENT:
Jim Hamilton, Community Development Director
;;~ I
t;h I
Hn
.~ ..........- - 1 H.
"T"T , \ I
I ,..I ~ -:.;: IJ 71 ~ .....- ,
I.I+--j' I ~.
'I' t 7 ~~:-n Ii?==. _\ i" ta;i
t""" \ 1 j l ~\ 1::(1iIZ 11 ; Q !;"I---~ "- ~ isli~
I ' . 0 1\ :~ I ~ ,~,..~.I Q\
't- I 1\. ~i! ;: 'I 'I. ~ .'- ~,,-
f --, IJ it ':! ~ ~ t~l1t!
co I, III II' " III N' , - ~li ;~! UI
t nUl
In! ',,1.1. f ~5i. \ - ii!. III
- ,~ 5 Li< ~l- 11 ~
x I~ -H-,-- ":i:).' I 11 - 0
r'
UJ ~ I I~ ::i Z i i I ~ ~ -,' I '1
\ I 1.::.= . III. I . . .J
I.. > , ......J .. Ii rI
It! . <- Iii 1 ' ' -' c(- oj \':r - 0
~ :....-; _11:1 - "s >
I' I}- U1 ~ l*/
\ I ~ , 1.11 ~ ~
II i, ~ 'II . !:! ,
i +-- a. b
jj! I / G I~LJ ~I 1 II. 1 ~ 01-1 I 1/1
I~~f. i;, I .n; c:: ~\.~ g
~ I I "t III
\\~;~ , f .,
~' ~
\ :",.' - ..
. Li' ! ...
..
\ -
,.
\ d: Xl
:1\
I (~
I /
- --- -------- ---- --- I
-- - i
I - ..- -- -
~)\ E~ . I
\ t:"
" :
'-'
'i i en!
1 ; , WI
"-. j ! ~I
i\ i i ~!
en!
'" ~ ~ 1 WI
! ~
. ", l i ~ 5'1
,...
I I I
:-- \ .: : WI
,... I I \ I i \ 51
::: \ \
~" -
\ \-,
'- \ ~I!
" ...If
\ <{ i
\ 3:~
\ "
\, I ~
~ ..-- t'~
!- ~t.
~
I
i
~! " .,
~.
~ --
i\ ""-
~:'hJ; e - ~-
,
.~. ::: :; -. ! it ;
..,
\ .! J~: , !i \ T!l""
:mo,c : P ~ Id~.,~.':".:ct\
I I ,. ., !llil :1jf'- '- -,"
I ' 'il" "
I . I oatIl ~ r; }!
~I'(: If! I ;. I
I e€r- J_::::; '",:",,"";.=f__":- 't...~~C ;, II 1;' .h' ~ r \
.---1 It ~; i'hli~'l \. I ;r
\ .'=u' ! !..' h-f
ni. b .. J~B!n!;;!Ii(.. Co
I
EXHIBIT 2
PROJECT: DatIl:
Walnut View Estates - Tract 2217 9/18/97 rnrn ~. ~(H~TI & ~~OC~[~
"IT: By:
mom aw. and STRUCTURAL ENGINEERJNG
Coker Ellsworth LAND ~tlING &: BUIlDING DESJGN
Sheet of 3D '1JUIIIII m. m. .\, 911 lIE I!mJ. CA !}IQI
~154H21i fI.1 ~154I-3IJI
15
7218 S.F.
~
,
.~ ~ 02.3 ~
)()).
Q.
~-\
~ \:Dr-
U\>
'_I 00'1
- . .
...:. , 0>
~\ OCXJ
\ - -
14
8711 S.F.
13
7251 S.F.
,
- ,.'
Scale: , "=20'
I
~.", of L..^nIDII .)
. ,;,vy P.O. Box 550
~ &~ 214 East Brandt Str~t
Arroyo Gnnde., CA .93421
Phone: (80S) 473-5420
.:O~ruNITY DEVELOPMENT FAX.: (805) 47~386
E-t"\f.:ul: agcity@f'JX.net
NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF A MINOR EXCEPTION
AMENDED - See DaraaraDh No. 1 belo w
DATE: July 20, 1 998
APPUCANT: Coker EHsworJ1 & Vic Pace Construction, Inc.
REPRESENTATIVE: Coker EJIsworth
PROJECT NO.: Minor Exception Case No. 98-033
PROJECT: Minor ExcepTIon to allow for a 10% reduction in sideyard
semacks as a resuit of irreguiar lot con-figuration for Tract
2217.
LOCA Tl0N: Tract 221 7 south of East Cherry A venue.
'"
Dear Property Owner:
The above applicant requested a Minor Exception to allow conSi:fuction of the
above described projec:. As part of the Minor Exception process, property owners
within i 50 feet must be notiTIed of said application after the determination to
approve the application has been made. P1ans are avaiiabie for review at the
Community Deve!opment Department in City Hall. a'L 214 E. Branch StreeT:. Office
hours are Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
The CommuniT'f Development Director has reviewed the proposed project and
made the foilowing findings:
i . That the strict or iiteral interpretation and endorsement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficuity or unnecessary physicai
hardship. Spec~fically, mee1:ing the strict seTback requiremenT would deorive
The appiicam: of proper siTe planning and archit:ectUral design consiSi:ent WiTh
the density allowed under the iecorded rract map. The Development
Code SectIon 9-03.120 Minor Exceptions , a/lows a
maximum deviation of 10%. For this project" reducing
-~,,.... the side yard setbacks by 10% will result in a maximum
reduction of 1.5 feet.
EJlsworth
Minor Exception No. 98-033
July 20, 1998
Page 3 of 3
defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant
of his/her obligations under this condition.
5. Development shall conform to the SF zoning requirements unless otherwise
approved.
If you disagree with the Community Development Director's approval of this
project, you may appeal the determination to the Planning Commission. Appeals
must be filed with the secretary of the Planning Commission within ten (10) days
following the date of this notice. Appeals shall be in writing on a form obtained
from the Community Development Department. The appellant shall state the
specific reasons for the basis of the appeal. Appeal applications shall include the
required fee and mailing labels for property owners within 300 feet of the project
being appealed.
If you have any questions please call me at 473-5420.
Sincerely,
&-t ("\11,
., J . ,lVt.'- -c:; Lc.... '/f_
-.-.- ..,
Helen M. Eider, AIC?
Acting Community Development Director
Attachment
c: Planning Commission
Don Spagnolo, Director of Public Works
Terry Fibich, Director of Building and Fire
Larry Schmidt, Chief Building Inspector
_ ExIEJl-mz__IIr072Oll8
I
---
~ \P\VY\.A- ~ ," ~m~
~w h..Cl{Jh'6Y\ tJo · '1-0'-033 . .. . uul
?" I \ II, - w __ , I 11:.
I" - u 'I - !~-l
t1 .0....- ~~ I I t Z i 1?'"~ _ ~.. .,.., .
i~ 1:\ \~~ · - :1 ! I . Q .. r':;;~ q\ ,I,p!!
~~ :.' ~\., '\ fV1 i.!~! 1\1\F-..:'.. fl ~ ,1L1lt. ~ ~ ~\. - ~r:ih~
\ \ \ ' bI \j~ 3 ~,.-1 !Ii\ 1 ., III. ~ tt: ~ III
,~~ 11 ;I ~ Ii "1:1t . - . I 0 - \ ~ ;h
,\r ~~, -: . III ~r~ ::i' J I~~' - r.Ib - ~ ~ . J I U I' ~:s'".l
. 1..1." - . 'f 11 :: - 1 ;1
~,. !....z... ...' . Id - . I ~ I
, rJ . >\ . \ \' ~ - - \ IJ Lu:=.; . ..1i ~ I .. !II I :i : '.:' '.
~l a: \ _ u 11 ' - - _' \_ 0
- rc _...' 0 ji
I I ~. ~ ~!l I:: ~! H'J j :II
. '1 "~ 'J ,>- It.., ' ~ 0
-. 1I:""~~1J J1. 6 . I,'L! "I \ \ ill l a: II '.. ~.. L oJ
.. I .11 ... - , .. . ,G .
.- . \' 1M -,}
.-. ,1 "'.. . ... -..._
- - .." . ~
_ '.W ...'
, .. t ~-
! 1 i,/ ! ! : ;. i /
tii!:;"'I; 1.1
- - "- : !. . ~; , .:...'./ ,f r' ,'; i
~ .
, , t
I ' ,
, .
, -
~ . .
~ . .. .
__ 0 :...-:....
"'" . :: 1 ~
'\ ';' . :
~
....
""
, ::::
,
,
-.'
,
\ .
\ ~;
\ . 1
....
I I
\
I
i II '" -"./;V"
_J i I ". , \ .~;.
\ i'" ,
\ . \ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ !i !1'lrl\:F,I\:.0~
\ \ ;z,..II'H'
I I , ; I rlt' It . 'U
t I ,. . - 'ff { " -
I .._ :\I t' "T" .....
\ ,~ .. ., ,1.' ".' . o' -
~ ,.,::::z~,~ ,.,,-- "....".~ ...
: '"
,~.. '....."'..,.cc""'" ,.", . ", ", ."'""../;,..~ ., " "".. 'Z;"'."',/,.. .. .II-~l
":. N,",: ": v. ",'. ... '." _. .-._ .."
' ..:"-,;",' W ," '" " V' ...... .....
. "'" '; .~:;;;)$"",' . "" . '" ~$::!:':;wfMh'W ."^~ .. . '. '_
" ../.' ~. ~4." ~ ~ N ~j,~~~~._ . _ . . ..:....
,", '::''''"''''''if':>>'k, , ..,,,' .''';'' Z ''''';'iW~1f '.'., ... ................. .
. ,.~'^ ~~.: " ',:... :"',''''-; " ". . .... : .. ...... ' ",:11...:... 1'.;,
' "'m. '. , .' ._ .. .
.........,'0.,., .. "" ...... . . ..
'+:,:, ':::~ . . . . II':';:.':' .. ......, II.... ",'~".
v.,Jt::""w;.::. . ... ._. ",., , ", ; ...""
:'.';( '::-':"'3;V" ...... ._.' . ....
Y.".,. '.. I... ..... .'.
.,. .. '... . . '. ..... "..
' ~i .'., . ~'. ..., ; /. ..:.:. ,.'. ..' .' '.., ." y :
. "'. :' ..' .>:.;. .-
..:.:.. ' -.. .. .." .,'... .....~_. .....'.:;. -":.~~
. , .''''~' i .,IT.t:III" ." f,! (1,,1., i_t...,.1~..".",:,,:w.,
0,) :$-: ::: ""..~ .^...~../,\;:...:::::.<~!,~<,......<....h') .._.., ".:::>kx(\...,"""",,~ ....~,....~~'.; .....-.r.;,..~,.
~ -;m 'r- ~ ",,' " - ~ . NA_'O.' ''''.^ y. :..."" ".. . "::' _,' ',";~"'" . .. .~', ......w....' ,
. . ",' ""j/ ;fi1Fj,~""':Jt:~., ,1"''''~ r':? 1":., J j; W-<>Cj I, :- . 'R'" '.. ".
, ! > .0~', ~;. > ! f~<.t1 !$J: 'A,~, ~. ')I""'ij,- 10<<<<; , ~.!IIIIIIIII!.. l1li
! . """ ~ , }' i. ",' I' , , y.. ~ '" ff, .. . III.
' ~: . ..~~tl .!L~. :j;~t~ ~~,,~;tA~~~fi, ~:}t~y~-:,~:4' iM~ k!)m.~ ^ .... ........ .......~WJ1_. .... "111. .
"'III( lIII"""IIi!IIi,-~;;(_.~'ttP,-j!iy~M.,~~'~~Y'Y~;~~:"o~~"",.J"~,&~~~ ;.~_ _,. III
~ . . ~ till" ''W;.;" ~~,'i:<<' "';.":~:.'""''''~,.':''''''''\Y'^'0-'''<=: '. ~ ,^ ~.~ '_",':;.;~., . .wW':':;"
.'W<.. ^.. ,,^ III,., ".#p,' XiiIiI^'IIIIII" >>>1IIIi'.' -', " ~, ,';- "'<' ~^~"" ' > . "', ^->>'",_ ,;:,: ~''''''''';>:;' ^ 0 ,-:-0-'"" .~ . ~'-"',~ '0 M" _.~ .....
~:...~i~:, w~..,~:~ liliiii ..~...." '111'" -' , ^- . '00~~:~,:2~~\,* -"'9~;'='<"::':;:":::'~:''''''';':':;:;~::'',.~ _:....:;~711!:1l111~~~::Z::..~...--iiIIII!' _:'" ~"~JIIIIi!"~""
,. ."., ,,1liiI' 11II1II11 --A"'" '<"_"'7.'_''''';._'<<*<7_ .,.. ."_--;Z'.I'~.~"~"'''''''''''' ,_ .__'.' ~!iII!IIII,,_,._ I11III
' ..,' II .. ^ .' - -,..~ Y . ""'*~ ' ON , >>: z" .~ ,
' '<' II1II. .- - .. . ' '~ . ",' " "^' . "," "/, ."",.=;,"".;......x,."'>>("'/..xw":.'~,.:::~ "'" '
' '.,... . nU'" . ....y.. .... ~~~"'::;>7~,;.-~X~.;.'..::v.. ........ .
../ -.' ,1IiIIIIIIiI' III! '...-:i:- .. __.,,:::::;;;:>,Y,, "". '. " .., .":;:;~Y~',_. 1liii' 1iiii~..~~_"'.1IIt!I!I^''''0'''~~~~~%''_1iIII~~'
"'......: ~.. ..... ~.. __.v~.=.......<>>;..;.;.....;IIIII-.~;;" 111,.. ~,~~x~..."".."Y..^~W"""'~~.. ....7MY"~..';:,.W...~~...""............~ ..
::':;; {'. Y -. ' .. .. ",11.,l1li,.. '." 'iii, _, ,.. ; iii' ""iilfIIII":.'IIlIiIfIIII, ~'.-IIIiiiIiI' "".'l1li'" '-="''-''':''''_=.''''''''''''' '.~ Y.Y .. "
' . -..' ....--..' ,., - " ~ 1111180'1!!, !!!II.'IIIII' _. . _" .1111, .' .
' . . ...,j", .. . .~........ '::,'-'-'.' .. :.:-..I....,....r~-.wr,::~...-.~:..!.:.,..,.,.:I~..^.:;'-. '..'IIIII'..............'.:-;.....,:,....E..,..........._.-:..i'.........:.............nlllll...I.......II;_,..1IIIIi....jillll;lIIIIIiIIj{-jilf+II'II.'I^...'.iilll
II'. II' .... I..... ...,...... .. ~,.. ' . ......'.......'..,..II1II....,._..........;.,.;....,.".."..:...:.:.::...,.::.1....,.
,.~ I' . ..1'....:. .~. > -,-....' . III. ......11: ... ~:..~:,.I ,.':':->~~ ' .' .... u-..,;.:..':."~...i. ..i.II.........~i;II.-...1II2;1II!;.......III.IIIII.-)~.!~.I\~.i!
. -.. pili, . ....'. .............,11....,._............,.......-.,..."..........'.....
· ., ' ,&II.... '..' ^.' I ., ... . ..:-.........'.:).-::IIIiIiIIIIL~.T~
l1li .'. II1II '... .. III ...:.11, - ...liI..lII. ..::.: .III:~..:,,,IIJIIJ,V~,~..~,.,.,IIII;;;,,,.:""::::.~<..
-
,
.
.
~
. .
.
~
'" ~ 0"'''-' .:.:;:~:
- ....:
<'::~::"
... .....,."
./ .:\::::::-
.,~~. :........-..-
.';;:::;.;::;:.
.........
;:;;::;::
.:;~:::::
::::.:;:::
.:'';.:-
';".;.;.;.
"::::::}::;:::::"
:::::::~:::. ........
I I EXHIBIT 7 i
I vllJ_,AGE HOMES I
,
I
I :
i PLAN 1680 I
I
I
i I
I
I
I
, ,;
I
i
i
~
..:rum OPTIONAL
SI'M'ING
.ABEA.
~ li'AVTTY'
.BQQK .RQQK
EgI;
DINING
ABU
.. I
I FRON'!' P A'l'IO
2~AR GARAGE
R-OOR PLAN
. , , ,
I I
I , / , I
I / " I
I , " I
I , , I
I , " I
1/ "
1 '
, ,I
A WELCOMING COVERED FRONT PORCH
SETS THE TONE FOR 1HIS APPEAUNG
HOME.
THIS HOME IS PERFECT FOR \HE GROWING
F AMIL Y.
BEDROOM #4 CAN BE CONVERTED TO A
DEN OR A PRIVATE REiREA T OFF \HE
MASiER BEDROOM.
ON lHE PRAC11CAL SIDE. YOU"Ll. APPREOA TE
THE HUGE UNEN CABINET IN THE HALLWAY.
THE P AMIL Y ROOM FEA lURES 1HE AREPLACE I
} 'MTH AN ADJACENT ~EDIA ALCOVE.
NOtE:
RatDERlHGS a: ELEVAl10NS AND Fl.COR PI..AHS NIE. AR'IIS'TIC
~CD'11Ct1S AND IoIAY NOT ACCUJU.'lB.Y OEPICT >HE HaMES \
~ BUILT. IN A CDII1INUOUS D'FtIIrT 11) IIII'IftM: OUR HOlle.
FIJXIt PI.IoNS, 9'mRCo\1ICJIS .l1li PIIaS KAT ~ 1I1ItOIII' IIO'ICE. :
----
EXHIBIT 8
PROJECT: Date: I rnm ~ ~~OTI & ~~OC~[~
Walnut View Estates - Tract 2217 9/18/97
By:
..ENT: mom CIVIL and STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Coker Ellsworth lAND PiANNING & BUILDING DESIGN
3D mBI m.. m A. 9/llJIS 1Im), \.\ i\!Ol
Sh_t of !151 ~121' f},I (1I!i1 ~-m!
- \
15
7218 S.F.
}
'~
~c9.
;,./.
- }
"
-~
~!
'J
-~ Ii:
.,'..~.-
......
(\ ("-
IC)
~
i
I
I
I
I I
~ r;? /'"' I /J
I~
I
...
13
7251 S.F.
,
Scale: 1 "=20'
Coker Ellsworth, Inc. EXHIBIT 9
~ Real Estate Broker & General Contractor
129 Bridge Street Suite B
P. O. Box 1238
Arroyo Grande. CA 93421-1238.
Office: (805) -!-81-7071 FA,X: (805) 481-7171
License No. 357972
January 18, 1999
T om Buford
Planning Dept.
City of Arroyo Grande
214 E Branch Sl
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Dear Tom,
The attached request is for a variance on the rear setback of lot 14 Tract 2217.
Under the original Conditions of Approval, Item 2 under attachment B requires a 20' setback from the
rear property line. As you can see on the attached site plan, Lot 14 is an irregular shaped lot that has 2
rear property lines. In looking back with the lots now finished, Lot 14 probably should not have been
inciuded in this ';Ondition as the rear of Lot 14 is oriented towards the hillside and not Branch Mill Rd.
This home was pre-sold August 20, 1997. The buyer was made aware that the house would be tight on
the lot, depending on how the city interpreted the 20' rear property line. We submitted for the building
... permit with the attached site plan. The City issued the building permit on July 20, 1998. We then
poured the slab and framed the house.
On August 13, 1998, the city received notification by a neighbor that the house was not in conformance
with the 20' setback. We stopped construction at that time.
The encroachment is a comer of the master bedroom and involves approximately 33 sq. ft. We have
researched every possicle solution to come up with an ac=eptable fIX. We have spent the past 5
months negotiating with the buyer, attorneys, engineers, architects, and an arbitrator. We have yet to
come up with a feasible solution that will satisfy all parties, short of demolishing the house and
redesigning an entirely new plan. This is an extremely costly solution to such a minor problem
considering the circumstances of the interpretation of the rear property line.
We feel we have exhausted all of our remedies and respectfully request a variance on Lot 14 to allow
completion of the house as shown.
Respectfully,
c:Ld -
Coker Ellsworth
CEljo
cc: Douglas Hilton, Esq.
Dan Pace
Coker Ellsworth, Inc.
~~5 Real Estate Broker & General CODtr:lctor EXHIBiT 10
129 Bridge Street. Suite B
P. O. Box 1238
Arroyo Grande. CA 93..\.2! -1238
Offic::: (805) 481-7071 F A.",,{; (805) 481-7171
License No. 357972
January 26, 1999 City of Arroyo Granas
T om Buford Gommunity Deve!opment Dept.
Planning Dept. JAN 2 7 1999
Cjty of Arroyo Grande
214 E Branch Sl
Arroyo Grande I CA 93420
Dear Tom,
This is in response to your letter of January 25, 1999.
Regarding Item 1, the strict enforcement of the ctJndition would result in hardships to both the builder
and the buyer of this home. A portion of the master bedroom would have to be destroyed, thus leaving
a non-functional master bedroom.
Regarding Item 2: As mentioned in prior colTespondence, Lot 14 has a different d~stance than lots
15-20, which are induded in the Condition. Lot 14 has 2 rear property lines thus creating an
interpretation discrepancy. Lot 14 is also different in that the rear of the home is oriented to the hillside
rather than to Brane.., Mill Road. This Quid not be seen at the time the map was presented to the City
.. for approval, otherwise we would have requested Lot 14 not be induded in this Condition.
"-
Regarding Item 3: If the 20ft Condition is enforced on Lot 14, it will deprive the applicant from
completion of the home as previously approved.
Regarding Items 4 and 5: Granting the requested variance will not only allow the owners to build a
home that is ct)nsistent with me other homes in the tract, but poses no detriment to public health, safety
or welfare. Issuance of this variance would not be injurious to the surrounding homes. It would pose
more injury to surrounding homes to deny the variance as this home would have to be tom down and
replaced with a plan that is inc:Jnsistent with the integrity of the surrounding homes. The neighbors
would like to see this home completed soon as it has been at a standstill for approximate!y six months.
Regarding Item 6: Granting the variance ~ consistent with the general plan, as the properry is
designated for single family homes.
i wouid appreciate having this put on the Planning Commission Agenda as soon as possible.
Please feel free to contact me should you need further information.
Sincereiy,
rLd
'-'
~-' Coker EJlsworth
CEijo
f,,;lty OT Arroyo ~rClflut:
Qommunity Development Dept.
FEB 0 8 1999
769 Branch i}'/ill Road
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 EXHIBIT 11
Home (310) 378-6787
Sara Dickens / Co-Trustee
l'vIEl\tlOR~~Dl:NI ............................................
TO: CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, PLANNING COMtvIISSION
Jllvf H.Al\tfIL TON, COMMlJNITY DEVELOP~1ENl DIRECTOR
FROM: SARA. DfCKENS, CO-OWNER OF DIXSON RA1'iCH
769 BRANCH MILL ROAD, ARROYO GRANDE
SlTBJECT: CA TEGORlCAL EXEtvfPTION - COKER ELLSWORTH,
REQUEST FOR VARlAt"iCE, LOT 14, TRACT 2217
DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 1999
.- Introd uction
City approval ofTenrative Tract 2117 on February 25, 1997 was the result of numerous
public hearings, pubiic testimony, City and County ~..aff input, engineering data and
environmental review. The applicant pursued this project for over ten (10) years with
final approval consisting of both --Conditions of Approval" and --Mitigation Measures".
The applicant's request for variance is a direct deviation from the approved Negative
Declaration" Land Use and Planning, Element c). This Element. was detennined to be
"Potentia/i.v Significanr unless lv!irigated".
Background
The City of Arroyo Grande. General Plan, Land Use Element, Objective L3.c states that
the City will "Work with the County olSon Luis Obispo and neighhoringjurisdictions [0
contain the growrh of rural residential development that competes with agricultural lands
und to ensure thaT Their planning and development review programs preserve exisTmg
agricultural/ands in long-term agricultural use in emd adjacent to the City ofA.rroyo
Grande. "
In a letter, dated May 1, 1996, John Warrick, from the County of San Luis Obispo,
Department of Agriculture, responds to the proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 2:217 at
t the request ofthe City of Arroyo Grande. In regards to approa~hes to avert impacts and
-,,}
conflicts. ivlr. Warrick writes, on page 4, paragraph 2: "In order [() reduce The potenTIal
for significam impacts and land use COnfliCl, and to protecl public health and safelyfrom
actual or perceived perturbation. the Jollowing suggestions are submitted lilr your
consideration:
1. Require a vegetacive screen oj evergreen. non-deciduous trees and or perennial. 8- J 0
fool high shrubbery along the west side oj Branch iv/ill Road 10 create a flfllUral-
looking, physical barrier to agricultural actlvil1es.
..., Require a distance buffer .,>eparating the western perimeter of the uctive~v Jarmed
..1..
Lund and the eastern properTy boundaries oj the residential 1m.'). l:vpicalZv we wuuld
suggest a distance oj aboul 350 feel in width including 75feet separarmg the eastern
property line af lhe parcels along Branch A,fill Road and the edge afthe ugriculLurul
fIeld
, Relocate the proposed park site to the west side of the vegetalive bz{frr to constitute
,).
parr of the distance buffer.
.+. Assure that the developer discloses. to prospeCfIve buyers ofparceis created by this
proposal. the potencial consequences of existing and intensive agricr.lilUrai operu[/ol1s
practiced on the adjacent land These impacts couid include bw are nOllimited /0:
dust, noise. odors and the use of agricultural chemicals. AdditLOnalZv. pro.<ipeC([Ve
buyers should by advised of the Intent and conten! of the City of Arroyo Grande's
Right to Farm Ordiflflnce. .,
In a lener, dated May 21, 1996, from the applicant to the City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Depamnent. M-. Ellswor..h responds to the dt-aft negative
dec larari on. His comments regarding the residemial set-back can be found on page 7,-
.. paragraph 4. Ht: states; 'ThIs common border would be buffered by the eXIstmg Branch
t. '..' lv/ill Road.. fences. and a vegetation buffer. which is a substantial improvement when
compu.red TV [he lucaliun of ocher eXlstmg adjacent residemiai development whIch are
not separated b.v Branch :Vfill Road or any vegetative buffers. Under (Jur proposal. the
t:u-!.:.!J.('!".YI( r!!..;uje~ces H:()!lif:! t.1c!?.f!lllv he set b!'lCk It}!) ff..~t 'f7{}!"ri ~l~!C?!!!"!.Jr,"!f ()r;!!....()!iC!:.~. ..
~ .......
S.lgn~d C.()k~ El1s\vi..irtn.
In the staff report to Arroyo Grande City Council dated February iI, 1997, Ms. Liberto-
Blanck states, page 3, paragraph 1, "As conditioned. [he distance between the
agrIcultural field east of the sIte and the nearest home is 8.+ feet. .. This distance
represents a 14 foot dirt road easement, a 36 foot paved roael a 14 foot greenbelt and a 20
foot restricted building envelope. Buffer distances, in this case, are typicaUy measured
from the edge of agricultural operations to the proposed developed property line. With
this in minel the actual buffer distance is only 64 feet.
Feedback
The added 20 foot reStricted building envelope was added to show compromise on the
part of the developer and yet failed to adequately address the future potential impacts on
our fanning operations generated by this proposaL The City of A.rroyo Grande was
remiss in not requiring an ample buffer distance between these incompatible land uses.
Since the approval of this project, the applicant has requested three (3) variances to lot
; configurations. Our fear is that these variances will continue to encroach inro the
.- restricted building envelope long after the applicanr is gone. If Jot 14 is granted an
exception, why shouldn't the owners OflOl 15 also request a variance to possibly expand
their living space. (And so on....)
. We feel it wholly inappropriate to build a 3 foot high fence, plam shrubbery which will
not mature in the next five (5) to ten (10) years, widen Branch Mill Road six (6) feet and
call it adequate buffer benveen two classic conflicting land uses.
In addition., it is my understanding that the buyers of 551 Fieidview have mediated a
mutual agreement with the applicant., which would solve this issue and not require a
variance. This would be a preferable solution as to not set precedence for future variance
applications.
Conclusion
As a family commined to Farmland Stewardship and the only property within the Arroyo
Grande City limits under the Land Conservation Act, we respectfully ask that this
categorical exemptIon be denied. This decision may appear insignificant and trivia! in
nature, yet your action will affect far more in the long run.
We are requesting the Planning Commission draw a clear line and stand firm on a
previous approval and mitigation measure. We ask you to respect the CEQA process and
honor the General Plan. The applicant was fully aware of the restricted building
.- envelope and which rear property line the measure referred to, yet choose to move
forward and build out-of-compliance. It seems reasonable to hold the applicant
accountable and require Mr. El1sworth to comply with all Conditio1"Js of Approval and
tvlitigation Measures.
Thank you.,
Sara Dickens
Co- Trustee., Dixson Ranch Agricultural Preserve
3638 Blair Wav
Torrance, CA 90505
Cc Richard Greek. SLO County AgriculturaJ Commissioner
Joy Fitzhugh. SLO County Farm Bureau
Brian Trautwein. Environmental Defense Center
City of Arroyo Grande
Qommunlty Development Dept.
FE8 08 1999
DixSOft Ran,ch Agri(::ultural P,*eserve
769 Branch Mill Road
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 EXHIBIT 11
Home (310) 378-6787
Sara Dickens / Co- Trustee
MEMORANDUM ............................................
TO: CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, PLANNING COMMISSION
JIM HAMILTON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
FROM: SARA DICKENS, CO-OWNER OF DIXSON RANCH
769 BRANCH MILL ROAD, ARROYO GRANDE
SUBJECT: CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - COKER ELLSWORTH,
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE, LOT 14, TRACT 2217
DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 1999
Introduction
City approval of Tentative Tract 2217 on February 25, 1997 was the result of numerous
public hearings, public testimony, City and County staff input, engineering data and
environmental review. The applicant pursued this project for over ten (10) years with
final approval consisting of both "Conditions of Approval" and "Mitigation Measures".
The applicant's request for variance is a direct deviation from the approved Negative
Declaration, Land Use and Planning, Element c). This Element, was detennined tQ be
"Potentially Significant unless Mitigated".
Background
The City of Arroyo Grande, General Plan, Land Use Element, Objective 1.3.c states that
the City will "Work with the County of San Luis Obispo and neighboringjurisdictions to
contain the growth of rural residential development that competes with agricultural lands
and to ensure that their planning and development review programs preserve existing
agricultural lands in long-term agricultural use in and adjacent to the City of Arroyo
Grande. "
In a letter, dated May 1, 1996, John Warrick, from the County of San Luis Obispo,
Department of Agriculture, responds to the proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 2217 at
the request of the City of Arroyo Grande. In regards to appro~9,4e~ to avert impacts and
conflicts, Mr. Warrick writes, on page 4, paragraph 2; "In orderioreduce the potential
for significant impacts and land use conflict, and to protect public health and safety from
actual or perceived perturbation, the following suggestions are submitted for your
consideration:
1. Require a vegetative screen of evergreen, non-deciduous trees and/or perennial, 8-10
foot high shrubbery along the west side of Branch Mill Road to create a natural-
looking, physical barrier to agricultural activities.
2. Require a distance buffer separating the western perimeter of the actively farmed
land and the eastern property boundaries of the residential lots. Typically we would
suggest a distance of about 350 feet in width including 75 feet separating the eastern
property line of the parcels along Branch Mill Road and the edge of the agricultural
field.
3. Relocate the proposed park site to the west side of the vegetative buffer to constitute
part of the distance buffer.
4. Assure that the developer discloses, to prospective buyers of parcels created by this
proposal, the potential consequences of existing and intensive agricultural operations
practiced on the adjacent land These impacts could include but are not limited to:
dust, noise, odors and the use of agricultural chemicals. Additionally, prospective
buyers should by advised of the intent and content of the City of Arroyo Grande's
Right to Farm Ordinance. "
In a letter, dated May 21,1996, from the applicant to the City of Arroyo Gxande
Community Development Deparnpent, Mr. Ellsworth responds to the draft negative.
declaration. His comments regardmg the residential set-back can be found on page 7,-
paragraph 4. He states; "This common border would be buffered by the existing Branch
Mill Road, fences, and a vegetation buffer, which is a.substantial improvement when
compared to the location of othere.xisting adjacent residential development which are
not separated by Branch Mill Road or any vegetative buffers. Under our proposal. the
adjacent residences would actualZv be set back 100 fiet from agricultural operations. "
Signed Coker Ellsworth.
In the staff report to Arroyo Grande City Council, dated February 11, 1997, Ms. Liberto-
Blanck states, page 3, paragraph I, "As conditioned, the distance between the
agricultural field east of the site and the nearest home is 84 feet." This distance
represents a 14 foot dirt road easement, a 36 foot paved road, a 14 foot greenbelt and a 20
foot restricted building envelope. Buffer distances, in this case, are typically measured
from the edge of agricultural operations to the proposed developed property line. With
this in mind, the actual buffer distance is only 64 feet.
Feedback
The added 20 foot restricted building envelope was added to show compromise on the
part of the developer and yet failed to adequately address the future potential impacts on
our farming operations generated by this proposal. The City of Arroyo Grande was
remiss in not requiring an ample buffer distance between these incompatible land uses.
Since the approval of this project, the applicant has requested three (3) variances to lot
configurations. Our fear is that these variances will continue to encroach into the
restricted building envelope long after the applicant is gone. If lot 14 is granted an
-.. ': ,
exception, why shouldn't the owners of lot 15 also request a variance to possibly expand
their living space. (And so on. . . .)
We feel it wholly inappropriate to build a 3 foot high fence, plant shrubbery which will
not mature in the next five (5) to ten (10) years) widen Branch Mill Road six (6) feet and
call it adequate buffer between two classic conflicting land uses.
In addition, it is my understanding that the buyers of 551 Fieldview have mediated a
mutual agreement with the applicant, which would solve this issue and not require a
variance. This would be a preferable solution as to not set precedence for future variance
applications.
Conclusion
As a family committed to Farmland Stewardship and the only property within the Arroyo
Grande City limits under the Land Conservation Act, we respectfully ask that this
categorical exemption be denied. This decision may appear insignificant and trivial in
nature, yet your action will affect far more in the long run.
We are requesting the Planning Commission draw a clear line and stand firm on a
previous approval and mitigation measure. We ask you to respect the CEQA process and
honor the General Plan. The applicant was fully aware of the restricted building
envelope and which rear property line the measure referred to, yet choose to move
forward and build out-of-compliance. It seems reasonable to hold the applicant
accountable and require Mr. Ellsworth to comply with all Conditions of Approval and
Mitigation Measures.
Thank you,
Sara Dickens
Co-Trustee, Dixson Ranch Agricultural Preserve
3638 Blair Way
Torrance, CA 90505
Cc Richard Greek, SLO County Agricultural Commissioner
Joy Fitzhugh, SLO County Farm Bureau
Brian Trautwein, Environmental Defense Center
ATTACHMENT M
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT
February 16, 1999
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Acting Chair
Greene presiding. Present are Commissioners Parker, Keen and Costello. One
vacancy exists on the Commission. Staff members in attendance are Community
Development Director Jim Hamilton, Contract Planner Tom Buford and Senior
Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell.
MINUTE APPROVAL
The minutes of the regular meeting of January 5, 1999 were approved as prepared
on motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and
unanimously carried.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
1. Letter from Ruth Power dated 2/15/99 concerning Item II.B. (Tentative Parcel Map
98-553 and Variance 98-215.
o PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE 99-001, REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO
REDUCE THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 20 FEET TO APPROXIMATELY
12 FEET; LOCATION: 551 FIELDVIEW PLACE (LOT 14, TRACT 2217); APPLICANT:
COKER ELLSWORTH.
Contract Planner Tom Buford reviewed the staff report dated February 16, 1999. Mr.
Buford explained that the applicant is requesting a reduction in the required rear yard
setback for Lot 14, Tract 2217, from the required 20 feet to approximately 12 feet.
Ordinance No. 483 C.S., adopted by the City Council on February 25, 1997,
approved the rezoning and subdivision of the 15-acre parcel located at the southwest
corner of East Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill Road. The Conditions of Approval
included the following: II Applicant shall limit the building envelope for residential lots
14 through 20 to between 20 feet from the front property line and 20 feet from the
rear property line. Building envelope limitation for lots 14 through 20 shall be
included in the CC&Rs.
Following the commencement of construction on Lot 14, the City received a
complaint that the applicant was constructing a residence on the lot within the
required rear yard setback. After finding the complaint valid, the applicant stopped
construction on the property.
Mr. Buford explained that the foundation for the residence proposed for Lot 14 has
been poured, and framing is partially complete.
Acting Chair Greene opened the hearing for comment and invited the applicant to
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT
February 16, 1999
Page 2
make his presentation.
Coker Ellsworth, 129 Bridge Street. applicant for the project, referred to his letters
included in the staff report and briefly reviewed some background of the project. He
advised that this project has been around for approximately 22 years, noting they had
entered into a contract with a prospective buyer in August of 1997. He stated a
building permit was actually pulled on July 20, 1998 and about three weeks later a
complaint was filed with the City saying the structure was encroaching within the 20
foot setback, and construction was stopped at that time which has been over 7
months ago. After many meetings with the prospective buyers, attorneys, engineers,
architects, etc., an agreement has not been reached or solution to the problem that
could satisfy both parties. Mr. Ellsworth referred to the site plan and noted that Lot
14 basically is different from the rest of the properties in that it has two rear property
lines and, in his opinion, it is really an interpretation of which line uses the rear
property. He commented it is their thought that the back one that shows the 30 feet
is further back and would be the rear property line. He further stated his opinion that
Lot 14 should have never been included in the conditions of approval because it is
basically oriented toward the hillside and not Branch Mill and the farming fields.
Mr. Ellsworth addressed some of the issues contained in a letter dated February 7,
1999 from Sara Dickens. She mentioned that the buffer was actually only 64 feet.
Mr. Ellsworth stated he went out and measured it himself from the back corner of the
house to the closest place to where they are actually farming and he came up with
111 feet. Another concern stated in the letter was that if a variance were granted
on this lot, would there be requests for variances on other lots in the future. Mr.
Ellsworth stated his idea on this is perhaps this is not a variance; maybe Lot 14
should just be eliminated from that Condition of Approval because, in his opinion, this
lot is not the same as Lots 15 through 20,
Acting Chair Greene asked if Mr. Ellsworth had reviewed the letter dated February 9,
1999 from Mr. Barry Yancosek, prospective buyer of Lot 141 Mr. Ellsworth indicated
he did not receive a copy of the letter.
Barry Yancosek, 385 McCarthv Avenue, Oceano, referred to his letter and stated he
would be happy to answer any questions the Commissioners may have.
There being no further comments from the audience, Acting Chair Greene closed the
public hearing and restricted further comments to the Commission.
Commissioner Keen stated he was on the Planning Commission when this project
came before the City originally for approval. He advised that there was a lot of
DRAFT
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
February 16, 1999
Page 3
discussion involved about the agricultural issue and also the drainage. As he recalled,
Lots 14 through 20 were not specifically referred to because at that time they were
not numbered and, as he remembers, lots adjacent to the agricultural land were
specified requiring 20 foot rear yard setbacks. With regard to the matter at hand,
Commissioner Keen commented that this lot is a little different than the other lots
because it is on the end. He stated that normally a setback would not necessarily be
a problem for him, however, he does have a problem with this because of the
agricultural part of the requirements, and he needs to be convinced that the residents
of the home are not going to be inconvenienced or at risk from having the house that
close. He further stated that he personally could not see where 4 or 5 feet are going
to make that much difference.
Commissioner Parker stated her feeling that it is too bad this problem has come this
far because it will be very time consuming for all parties concerned, plus quite costly
to move the footprint or change the configuration of the house so that it doesn't fall
within that area. She stated she looks at the farm land or the ag land as a buffer
zone and realizes that 5 feet shouldn't make much difference, however, when the
County Agricultural Commission is already decreasing its recommendation for
mitigation from 350 feet to 65 feet, which is the mitigation that Mr. Ellsworth agreed
to as well as the Council members, she would find it hard to go back and change that
65 feet. She commented, in her opinion, that would be setting a bad precedent
because when problems are mitigated to an agreed upon solution, they need to be
adhered to if at all possible. She stated she also believes the reason for the mitigation
is because different zones are to be buffered in between, especially now that people
are more concerned with agricultural sprays, night farming, dust, noise, etc. She
stated she feels that the encroachment issue of housing into the agricultural
community is a real serious problem, and especially in Arroyo Grande where our Ag
lands are important and we need to protect those lands.
With regard to the comment concerning the rear property line, Commissioner Parker
stated she doesn't feel the issue is whether the rear property line is the short line or
the long line per se, but the issue is the buffer between ag and the house footprint
is too short as per the mitigation. . She further stated she believes that the agreement
between the buyer and seller is a legal issue and not a Commission issue. Another
issue is the ditch and the drainage from not only the' Ellsworth property but also from
the Ag property on the other side, as well as on the other side of East Cherry. She
commented, to her knowledge, these concerns have not been resolved and,
therefore, the configuration of the ditch at this point is unknown and it does not seem
appropriate at this time to count the ditch in as a form of extended buffer zone.
Commissioner Costello agreed with Commissioner Parker that it was too bad this had
DRAFT
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
February 16, 1999
Page 4
to come before the Commission and could not be settled between the two parties.
He stated that the Agricultural Commissioner had agreed to a mitigation from a 350-
yard setback to a setback of only 20 feet. He felt that it was critical to abide by this
mitigation and not overturn what the Ag Commissioner had set forth.
Acting Chair Greene observed that it is not within the Planning Commission's
jurisdiction to modify or re-interpret the setback conditions as established by the City
Council. The 20-foot setback was established after a number of very long and
complex Planning Commission and City Council public hearings on this project. Mr.
Ellsworth is inviting the Commission to make the interpretation that the shorter
property line that parallels the hillside is the side from which the 20-foot setback is
to be drawn. Commissioner Greene stated he is not prepared to assume that
responsibility and that is a question that should be answered by the City Council. The
Commission is concerned with the variance and the issue of whether the applicant
has made a sufficient showing to establish that each and every element of the
variance standards as set forth in the Development Code has been met. He stated
he might be more inclined to take the applicant's side if Mr. Yancosek had been
supportive of the request and had asked the Planning Commission to make a special
finding. However, his letter dated February 9, 1999 indicates that he opposes the
variance and, therefore, the issue between Mr. Ellsworth and Mr. Yancosek is a
matter, which should be resolved in some legal form.
Acting Chair Greene stated it appears that the applicant's case has failed to meet its
burden establishing that each and every element of the variance requirements exists.
Hearing no further comments on this issue, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 99-1682
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE DENYING VARIANCE CASE NO. 99-001 LOCATED
AT 551 FIELDVIEW PLACE, APPLIED FOR BY COKER ELLSWORTH.
On motion by Commissioner Parker, seconded by Commissioner Costello, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Costello, Keen, Parker and Acting Chair Greene
NOES: None
ABSENT: One vacancy exists on the Commission.
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 16th day of February 1999.
PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 98-553 AND VARIANCE CASE NO. 98-
ATTACHMENT N
385 McCarthy Avenue #D
Oceano, CA 93445
02/09/99
Dear Commissioners,
My name is Barry Yancosek. My wife Nancy and I are the buyers oflot 14, floor plan
1660, in tract 2217 of the Village Homes development. This on going violation has been
a nightmare for my wife and our two children since August of 1998. It was
approximately August 13th, 1998 when Coker Ellsworth called my house to notify us that
there was "'a little problem on the job site". Needless to say that little problem has
become a nightmare for my family and continues to be a nightmare for us today. Our
estimated completion date was for September 1998. We are now in February. Our
current residence is being turned into vacation rentals so as of March 31, 1999, my family
needs to locate another place to live.
To remedy the mitigation vio lation Mr. Ellsworth made two or three suggestions (0 fix it,
they were drastic changes that would affect the resaIeability of our home, so in late
September a mediator was hired by my wife and I to talk with Mr. Ellsworth. Out of this
mediation a Mutual Proposal of Settlemem as a Result of Mediation was accepted to by
:Mr. Ellsworth and myself. This would or should have satisfied the violation tor all
parties involved early on. Frankly, I don't even know why we are here today. My wife
and I had agreed to pay for half of costs Mr. Ellsworth would have incurred to comply
with the set back and we also agreed. to pay for additional costs of fucing the house as a
result of Mr. Ellsworth having to comply with the mitigation measures, i.e. sloping and
tiling of exposed slab as a result of moving the Master bedroom over 8 feet to comply.
:Mr. Ellsworth costs were to be less minimal than ours: our mmivation LO pay any
additional costs was to move as rapidly forward as possible. Unfortunately, after many
frustrating months and a proposal drawn up by Mr. Ellsworth signed by my wife and I
based solely on the mediation Mr. Ellsworth surprised us by rejecting our agreed upon
proposals and the process of mediation and moved to seek a variance with the city in late
January. Our desire to move forward early on in this problem was displayed by
absorbing part of Mr. Ellsworth costs yet he decided not to move in that direction to
satisfy the vio lation.
To date it is our position that the P1:mnin~ Commission reject a variance in this instance
as to move the applicant to comply with any and all mitigation measures and C.C_ & R.
regulations. Located in the C. C.& R. ' s under restrictions on page 8, section 7.6.2. It says
'"Any structures placed on lots 14 and 20, inclusive, shall be limited to a building
envelope located between 20' from the front property line and. 20' f~t from the rear
property line". The word inclusive means to include lots 14-20. It doesn't mean that you
skip lot 14's property line coming from lots 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15 and then decide that the
rear property line to be inclusive is now up against the Hill This would then not be
'<Inclusive" or be in compliance at all with the mitigation measures. It would have then
read lots 15-20 inclusive. It is a concern of ours that our home could be sitting too close
to the agriculture and to the street itself. We would most prefer that the home comply
with mitigation measures as not to affect any future salability of our home as well as
concerns for environme~tal impacts from being too close to the Ag land. On 02108/99 a
car plowed through the concrete fence jumping the curb, smashing through our yard after
clipping the comer of our home, and then proceeded through out the front yard.
We respectfully ask the Planning Commission to oppose any request for a variance at this
time. We would like to have our home be in compliance with any and all measures and
or regulations.
Sincerely,
Barry Yancosek
*************** -JOURNAL- ************************* DATE FEB-09-1999 ***** TIME 16:15 ********
NO. COM PAGES FILE DURATI ON X/R IDENTIFICATION DATE TIME D I AGNOSTI C
01 OK 001 00=00'38 XMT a 5498704 FEB-08 16=27 6840450337000
02 OK 002 094 00=01 '28 ReV FEB-08 17=08 0110260A30000
03 OK 004 00:02'00 XMT a 5430620 FEB-08 17:58 0840450237000
04 OK 004 0121:02'32 XMT a 4899682 FEB-08 18:00 0840440A30000
05 631 000 0121:00'00 XMT a 7828528 FEB-eJ8 18:03 0A00400000000
1216 OK 004 00:1211'34 XMT a 7828529 FEB-eJ8 18:07 C84449eJ337000
~07 OK 002 121121=1211 '34 XMT PARKS&REC-DAN FEB-09 08:16 0800440A3eJ00eJ
08 OK 002 00:00'49 XMT CITYATTORNEY FEB-09 08= 19 0800450237000
1219 OK 12110 095 121121:1217'00 RCV FEB-eJ9 08=36 C0142OO337000
10 OK 12102 096 0121:1210'46 RCV 805 543 2136 FEB-eJ9 1219:0121 0150270337000
11 420 01210 00:00'38 RCV FEB-09 09:16 0010260200000
12 OK 002 097 00:00'51 RCV 1 51121 452 2174 FEB-09 09:27 0150270337000
13 OK 001 12198 0121:00'54 RCV 31397031114001211 FEB-09 11:28 121 15027eJA37000
14 OK 001 099 1210=00'45 RCV 805 781 1267 FEB-09 11:31 015027121337000
15 OK 1211213 00:1212'1218 XMT a 4817139 FEB-eJ9 11=38 484044023121000
16 OK 002 00:00'48 XMT a 4732198 FEB-eJ9 11:48 C84449eJ3370eJeJ
~
17 OK 01211 1210:121121'27 XMT a 4732198 FEB-eJ9 11:5121 C844490337000
18 OK 01219 10121 0121:05'33 RCV FEB-eJ9 12:53 0110260A30000
19 OK 001 00:121121'33 XMT a 4811398 FEB-eJ9 13:42 084045121337000
2121 S-OK 12101 121121:1210'55 XMT PARKS&REC-DAN FEB-eJ9 13:46 0A00440A30000
21 OK 002 121121=1211'30 XMT PARKS&REC-DAN FEB-09 13=47 080eJ440A3eJ0eJeJ
@ OK 1211213 121121=02'15 XMT a 4817171 FEB-09 13 = 59 484044023121000
23 OK 01212 11211 00=01'14 RCV 8055440189 FEB-eJ9 14:33 1211512126023121121121121
24 OK 1211211 00=1210'41 XMT CORP YARD FEB-eJ9 14:4121 12184044023001210
25 OK 001 00:0121'41 XMT CORP YARD FEB-eJ9 14:41 121840440230000
26 OK 001 102 0121=00'52 RCV 5430620 FEB-09 14:53 0150270237000
27 OK 003 103 00:01'26 RCV FEB-09 15=27 0110270337000
28 OK 12101 104 00:0121'59 RCV 8054892239 FEB-09 15=44 0150261212300121121
29 OK 01211 104 00:0121'48 RCV 8054892239 FEB-09 15:46 01502602300121121
30 OK 004 105 00:04'1210 RCV 805 7724697 FEB-09 15:49 0150270337000
31 OK 002 00:01' 16 XMT a 5471401 FEB-eJ9 16:10 084045023700121
32 OK 12103 106 1210=01'57 RCV FEB-09 16: 12 0110260A30000
-CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE -
***************** ( FAX-900 Vi. 12)** -ARROYO GRANDE - ***** - 805 473 121386- *********
A IT ACHMENT 0
A IT ACHMENT P ... 5P7/ftf
RECEIVED
CIIY OF ARROYO GR.~' ~JDE
......--.7.- .-- .. ....-- ..-
99 MAR 11 P . .... ~.,-" ".,,~., ....
ii' ... ,. .' '.' .... ..,.. ".,.'.. >, ",'~,,,..' . .
~ - - - - - - - .
..._.._.__.__.~___. ..__ _______...._..... ',_, _ ..____.__..__...:..::.~__.~._._..__._~.__._~.~___ ',___'''_' - . ._',." __.;. .c.. ....' :,_i;- " ,... ;)'-'-
!} N~ ~
~~t:::=~=~~~~~.~
-J1JdL-..hl.~r:gd-~~~--~
- ~ . ,
~7~m~--_..- --~~.~..~.
. ~... ~4l--i~?~----.- ---- .--- ----;;Mri
-.,.--. .-.. .......... ._.7~ 411-... ~~---- -~.
_.,~~,....._--_..____m_7'-___-' ~n_d~~-.~-..~
,_&Ad~_tNtf&/HY~~71/" :;J
,_~:P2<~~,d___.~_~,C~,1'_~-~-).. ~.
___~_42,.#N.~~~ ..~ ~ /71
._~~__kC_m~_d~ j(.....~...N4
: -~=-~--~
_~ifIHd(iC.h-~#& .2<J~~/:
'.<H _dh,~I!J~,.~-~-~'?J~..~
_..9 UJ.&1L....7:!l~~~~~~;/~
/nr... ...~____0!4 u___ /~~q.~
Tl~~_-_~_JL~___m'- ~ J .
+,~ _ ~:/(j~_&'I~__L&tf4e, ~
:/-r- ~....C~cd- d~~ .tXt..t()~
.__J/fh~U -erffa~-~~_~~d~ B~__~ B ~..
_.tk. ~~~ .~hCt ~
7 ~tIv_,&__~_~_n~.~
. ~,8auv ~ M.,,{ h!
"1, ~;;~--W~/;a;'1ltE
'k ~~-, ..~.-. ,
..,p ~ ~ ...... /'vhv
__/t)~~. ..~.... @~~_~~ i4.e
qj~ ~i
~__ __. ._......" ._n__.._.w___,_ _____. '_0_" _..__ .._,......_.... ____,__ _ __ _",,"._nU .,.._..._ __..._....._ ..._...__~___..__,_.___~"_._. _._._..__..>...____....____.,u..__.._ ...__.___._,'o.._.__._."".'__.'..__'___n.____" ",__ ...... ,-' ,- .. '0 ..- -"'- .'.
.. U" , ~// ~ ~ ~
m. ..._. ... . . .._ _.__.___u_____.._._.______ _ .____u___._ - -... -.. ~. - ... .
w...... ... ..~.. - . A. ~
............_m~_____ - . ~--~dimae ~
......~:.~~~-~_~~ijft~~~-_4--~~~_-~..
-==-=:=f=-~-~-~--- M~:z::. 1::::-
~ -~. <
___m___.. ,,----t;7--. ~/- M ~-&
==~====~ -~~~=-~-~
...._n__&~dL_4..._M.._A1"___~. _~<t~
...---......-:~:=~5:::~~~~~~./.
IJ:L . .. '. J~
-=~-~=b; *B~..#~
_=_m__nn:=:~~~-~:=n-=~-
~~ ~ A
_......._.d...__...._.~__. ...._. _..__.._.____.__.._... .----..----... ., -" -...---.- .'. ... ../. ...~...
...----~~-~~ ~-ff7 ~.--
_.:6&__~- ~U---t<d.~-A!~
......._........_u__ . __ __ _ _~- tt/~ -~~ ~
... ~_.....dq~.-_. ._~~_.--- .-_.-. - . .f.....-~
...~~.- .u__~,__~~_~~
...._. ......_ ..~._._Czt._~~.._~ ~.
~..~();~..~&;;;~-; zM
...- ~/_~__~_'M .- 4 /i.L;-
." ~ _-ae_....~~~~4L~
... ~/N~/kg~-~_u~ . . .....
.., ~... ....~.~_._-~..- ~-~_.~~
'fi-~-~-~--~~-.~'._~...'"
H'- _..___.~.~~__~~._.. - ~.__ddC~. .....
_iM-~--%..-. .__~/df?(~...........-...--............--
u,~~_lJZL._~ ~ ~~~~~ .~.. .... ...
._,-~~~~&t~~~Z-~-
-~~--~~~~~~-~-~:_~~::.:__.._:
"_JJ--.....-~~d~~~~<
A,~~.~~ ~~m._
'" - ..
fJ W
-~--p-- --7/3L_."!J_d&_IM..~
,,1 ~-~T---~~~
,..,---~~-~ .. --~- ~.
.._. ~ AAL.__ . ./. /J -A. -/ A....n ~ -/ -/ -
LV"Vl - ~_..~-~& .~~.
~~~ ~
. -"
-~.'J.-~- /--~---- .-..~. n: ...:/
"~:~ P7.. ~j-~-'~'
,-~~~ ~-_.~ ~
k. . - - ------~.--~ _.,.,m
+~m~m
~L~id2.d:o~~&\~ ~:..~
.J.lU~~-~-~ ____nm. ~
,~~/-l..~- hL
....~ ~rL~ ~ _.-...~
._~ tU4 ~__--ML_~_<" ..-9t?l-.. ~
,.~i//J~.~~ ~
-Jv:h ~~/?te~..~.~h fl>.
. .~.... ..uf eL..... .m_/]~.~ j
.-.NM~~~tf:i-/?~~ ~
~~~2JL~tl:._. cl&!.~(:{h .@pj. ...
..m__.t. ..... ~. ~ ~ lL ~
-- -- -- ----. -------.-------------- ----- - ---- -------- --- ----_._---------._.-.-- -.-- -..-- -- - ....--..-- --%
~
~ .
--.-..--------.------------.-- --- ~
. ~..~m.m--~- ...__m__'? ...
____________._._._____...___.____.~--..-..--~--.-~-.____A___ _ __ -________.__.___~..-. ('t}1~R
_________________ _ _ __~~__.~-~~ ~ -a ~ ~
'. - -,~--~._------_._------- -'.~._- --...---.-.-'-----.-...---.----...---'.,... .. -"'-,-"",,,,, -.-."-""--' ,-,---'....-.-- -,' . ..". ,-- -,....._.-"
.....=.=~.-JJ;;;;~~~~jf-~m~~ ..
._m.. ~ ~-I-~ ~
-. ..--. ~_._.- ...-.._.-...~--_._,~-_.__.- ---_........_----_._-~-,_._._.~-"~.._._,,._- - --- " . ' ,-,'
_ ___.___ ._H___ ____ ,.,"_.______,,_.__ -......,---..-....... ..h~.,_'....,_'._.., --'.,..,.,.
._..mum_ . _ _ _ .... __.~.- ____mono
_....... .____fi'-.i2.~.lfM-_~~M.~/J:{~.
....m._-~-.-fig-JrtL---q~~_~~iWL
_._____.._____~.----..c---- ~ ~L___L~9tf___~_.___~_g/~
~..~':m~ 1fL-e'~~~-~
__~~ ~ ? /92,1 ~ Nut ~
---------- ------ .-----.-- -------- ------=.--_._---/------_.__._- ---.--..-.---.--------------- -.--.--- -- - ... .---_..
m___ u__m~-~ ~..~'
______.___________. ._ ________.__________tU -------r-----~ -~ . .~..
~~~~.~
.__.__..,_._._~__~,_......._,_._......~_~. _' H_ - - --
___........... ~_&_~u_---.._-A-~-.~_~=~~......
_mm_m___.'kL..------~/~~ ~....;1
--~~~Ai~~-~-~:- i~: .~
n...nn...____.. ...P2~.__ ...m~..n ...._~n_~___n!t-n_n/fff:
.... -~
_.1~___ .~....Pie._..t2--4..~A
.... . ... ..........._..... n. ...._/.__~__.~ :2J 9f;p
__~:.~~a. ~~~...L5!
.L~wLfh_a&~L_._._~
,l IV~~~~
..~..~~~~~~~~
H~/d"-_~tM.~~_. ... ... . ~
..~~..~~~3~~/ I~
, .. -..... .._~.~ - -~~/?I.
_j~Jd'~~~~__.___ .n_~.f'3J>5 .. .
:~~_n~_f~~~~ ;:;- f&
_.-=~'~:J.__~_~~ .~. u~
n'~~..'ii.d.. .j__?N --~./!ti1l' __ t:Z-
.. ..~.dQ.~~.~..~...~..... ~
=..~~=~~~-~=~ ,rf~
-_....~ . ..~_d~L~~ ~ ~
~ ~ '
."
.~.._... ...-... ..-.-.. ..-......-..._..........__.. _._....._ . ._.._. __.._..___uu.u.... '_..U..U.. ..~
,J<<.~_~__~.
.- ... ..... dk ~
-~--tk~...4iiif2..~.1 / ~
jd~ ~thAh._~~/ ~d
~.7'. ... . ~ fL zi(; 'q1.
:_. ~ ~ -_.7e'_~---_.,t/~
___i1J.ttf... ~ '~H.~_~ ~
___~...9L9/J1/m~.kN........~ ~
-. aw-e/ d-
.M..~..&.~J~ ~
. ..~......ii;~~..._--_.......-_..._....~._~
- ~~
.. ... ..-... .--J-.-.. .--- ._-~. --/-. .._- .... --.. .... ...
...--....-..... .............. .... .. -...........-..,...........-.....--.. .. --- ---.. - ... _..- Y''''- .-... .........m... ..
--.....-.....- -_..-.-.. ..........-----~-;f~......
'--
._ .. _ .._._...._"_~. ~..__..." "~,...,__..,,.,.__..,__... ._,_.._.. _ ..."...,,_k_,_....".,_..._.____... .,.,..._. ..'..___.."_.__~~"___._.m_._.__._..___~.___..._._..._~.__~~.___._..______~_.,_.____"~~,,_ ~.._n."._...____ _..."....__ '..-" ,- - '"
, _ _ _.. _0 . "..".' ._~. ........,..____.______..._...__._...._..__._._.... ,_ .,_,___....,. .,._.,..._....... ',"_ ',._"._ .~._..._.._...'M_._._"._._._.., ..._.__.._,_..__._____.'.'. ._~'....._.__...U._...., ~_~._,___...-_____.__ 4'_._____..___.___.__,..._._..____~_,.___.".__ H' .....-."
__,.'..__ ....... ..-.-... _ ,_. .__.__".> ,. ...._'_.'."_'_'__" -'_ __ _. _. _.....,.,_ _._,..........__. '"'"~__ _.. '._' _.,,_....~.. ~. .._ .,_... __.^_"'~~.~..___..~.n_.__.....". ___".. "'_____"'~.__..~_._V___..___._'"..~_._....__,~.~._._.~ ,.....__...__.,...._... ~',"-'-'-'--"'" _.....,- -- .
"'_....___._.~_..__._.,_______....o>.,_. . ."__' .,___~_._...___.. _..'...'"__'_''' ....__.._______._. ._.~._._.._"..~_._n..."......."._.._..__".~___.._...... _._.,~.__'_. ,.__-"_ ."~.._. __,___..._...._... ,__,,_ .
~ . 'm'_" _._ ... ___.__..._.....__~ _,__.__.... ..._......._.. .~_. .._n',..,"__.._."..... _. ._,....._ ._._...._ ___.' ._. ...".."__..M'''..._.,....._~_____._~.__..._.__..".__.._.___,_,,_.--~_...~-_....-----'--.~..--"'----'.'--~..---.-.. '-...
,'-,"---" ......,' - . ._- _.,.--,,-,... .._..-..._... "'-'+-- --.-..-... -_...._---_.--. --..'''-..". ~---,'-" ...._,..._._._----_..._~, ,--...- ._..,.._....~._---_.._----_._._...._.~.._-..~.----~~~._-~-- .~.....~, ~.'-
.. _____ .'__'''_''. .... ~__"__"_' ......_ ..._...._._,..,..___..___....__. ....___,.... .__..... ._.-____.__..._. .,_,,___.._~_.. .._.._....__..'___~._._____,___.__.__~__,.__~..__..._~__._..,_.,..__'.__ ...___n'__.~'~",,'...._.. _,,_
.. ,____._______..__,",,_....,,__.>____.~_,..__....____..~_~.__....._._,._ ..... ... ~.._...._...,"__,~._....,.....,___._M_.~___._....___..____.______.___._.._..___ ~""~-,... ._.__~.___. .-~.',-...--..-._,--."..~- .-,,. ,...... - . '.... .,.'
-,,-._....~.. - - _..' .......-.--...._... -.--"'----" ._.~.. .-...."...,--. ,._...,..--_.._....._~-^_........-....-_-_...- ... ,"-. ,.,--.'''.''---'-'-''''..'' ~..._.. ...
_....<-~..-......".-.- "--', ..-,.--..~.- -,,' _. .. ...--..-. ....-. --..~-, --, -,. ....... ....-.... .----...__._..~....-'._,_.......- .._......._,-,-,...._'.~- --_._..,,~-~-,-~~._---------~_._..-~.._. .,,-------.-...--...-..-----'..--..-,--- .-.......-.........
- -- ---- . .~.~--_.... --. -----.-.--.---.-.-.- -_...._~.~,-" ,~.~_....... "-"'''--.-_.~._- -_..~.__.__._-_._-----" .-..---.- --_.__....._,.,~.._^---,---".--_._.. -.' ._...~..---......_---.--_..."-_..._~..--~ ."-
-'-"~,---...-.. .~,,--.~ ._.--"_..~.__.~.-,..._....-~"'-'"--'_.._--_...-_.._--~"... .. '.. ~._, ..--.._.._---_...~._---_._---_...._-~--"_..-_.-,_._..-.._-~.-_..._..._---,-,--~---._~...,_..-...._._,--".. .....
...--..... ..--.-... -...--_._----....~..._".._.
,.-.-. ..~.-_.
..........
. ,......- '-.--'" _ . ~_,,_,._"_"'..m_
........ . __~_,. .... ...._... '__"'__"M_.'''_'._~__ __.... ...____._..........__". ._.._.,.._"..__"'___~'''__"'___'''_.'''_''__'". "." .." .---.-.,..---
? ~6 ((J
- . ~;j~~
~7J~
.' Coker Ellsworth, Inc.
e- ~!.~ ~. .... . Real Estate Broker & General Contractor
129 Bridge Street, Suite B
<."1: ....A-
ec.: ." ...'.. !!!? P. O. Box 1238
(.;:J .. .,;."'" Arro'to Grande CA 93421-1238
o __ J ,
w~ a:: Office; (805) 481-7071 FAX: (805) 481-1l71
2: 0 License No. 357972
W~ r-
ua: _
W4:
0:: 0::::
u_ c::::: I I
o ~ \
>- CT\ August 27, 1998 E.
t- CT\ ,.
u
David Montanaro
Montanaro Real Estate
265 N. Elm St.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
,
A
Dear Dave,
..
I appreciate you meeting with me this week with regards to the revisions to Lot 14 at
Village Homes. It appears that we have exhausted all of our efforts to satisfy Barry &
Nancy.
As you are aware, I was contacted by the City of Arroyo Grande on August 13, 1998
regarding the comer of the home being approximately 6 feet over a buffer setback. ~
i:? and Nancy were told about a potential problem on this lot with the 1660 floor plan from
L",..-, the very first time I met with them. As you know, I have spent considerable time-aria"had
numerous meetings with Barry and Nancy before they ever decided to make an offer. I
explained to them about the 20 foot rear setback on Lot 14 and that we may have a
problem with the city, depending on how the city interpreted WFiichrear properfYliiie
would be used for the 20 foot buffer. I tried to convince them to move to another lot or
pick a different floor plan that would better fit Lot 14. They said they wanted Lot 14 with
the 1660 floor plan, so 1 told them I would submit it to the city for plot plan approval.
On July 20, 1998, the City of Arroyo Grande issued the building permit. \Nith the
issuance of this permit, I assumed there would not be a problem. Subsequently around
August 13th our neighborto the eastCO'i1iPla1n'ed tothecity about the encroachment. The
city subsequently informed us that we would have to modify the house to conform to the
setbacks.
"'.,, ,,,,'--
This results in modifying approximately 33 square feet in the master bedroom. Since
August 13th I have met or had at least ten conversations with Barry and Nancy to discuss
possible solutions. I have shown them several ideas on plan modifications.
I believe the modification you and I discussed yesterday, including the enlarged covered
back patio and bigger master closet is a practical solution and would not cause any loss
of square footage.
You informed me that this solution was not acceptable and that Barry and Nancy wanted
(, J the walls moved out 8 feet and approximately 160 square feet added to the family room
? 1/D
plus the addition of extra skylights. This solution is totally impractical and beyond , ",
reason.
Believe me, I understand this is a very emotional issue and I have tried all reasonable
means to satisfy Barry and Nancy. I even offered them the same floor plan on another lot
within the tract.
If we cannot resolve this issue by September 8, 1998, I will have no other option than to
cancel escrow and refund all mor;ies they have paid.
I appreciate your efforts. I hope we can work it out to keep the transaction together.
Sincerely,
;
CLC[L
Coker Ellsworth
CEljo
"""'"
9 ~ to
guarantee a price for the property considered nor does it require the seller to sell the
property to you at prices discussed at the time you signed the form." It was clearly stated on
our price sheets that they were preliminary prices and subject to change at the discretion of
the builder.
The changes Barry addressed in paragraph 4 are neither practical nor necessary. These are
items that Barry wants. He has added almost 300 square feet and numerous other changes
to compensate for approximately 33 square feet.
As the owner of the property, I am not willing to make these changes. If your buyer were
unable to close escrow after these changes were made, it would be a very costly
modification that could impact the salability to another buyer.
;
As far as a closing date, it is evident the home will not be completed by September 30, 1998.
I suggest your client not give his 3D-day notice until this issue is resolved.
I would be willing to submit an application to the City for a variance on. this lot. This will take
time, as it will probably have to go before the City Council. It is my feeling that, even though
this request is reasonable, the City will not approve the variance. I spoke with Jim Dickens
yesterday and he said he would protest the variance if I take it to the Council.
In a sincere effort to resolve this issue, I will make one final proposal to Barry. I have
submitted a modified floor plan incorporating most of the changes Barry has asked for. We
will add approximately 8 feet onto the master bedroom and bath, which will give him the -
identical size bedroom and bathroom on the original plan. This results in giving them an
approximate 8' by 20' covered patio off the master bedroom. I will have two 2'X4' skylights in
the great room to compensate for the lost window. As you can imagine, these changes will
be very costly and time consuming. It will probably set construction back 6 to 8 weeks
because the modified plans must be redrawn and engineered. The trusses will also have to
be reengineered and reordered to compensate for the additional 8 foot span. These changes
are subject to engineer's and city approvals.
Barry must understand that I do not feel these changes are warranted, but we are willing to
do them. He must also understand that if he cannot close escrow for any reason, we will
have suffered substantial damages as a result of these changes.
I hope this solution is satisfactory to all involved so that we may resume construction. I look
forward to a response by Friday, September 11, 1998.
Sincerely,
f'.,\ .-:..
. i ' .,
_l~,t
Coker Ellsworth
CE/jo ~
.
'F11 ~ CTJ ~\I
,~.2!I ~.
/6 1/0
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT
February 16, 1999
Page 2
make his presentation.
Coker Ellsworth. 129 Bridge Street. applicant for the project, referred to his letters
included in the staff report and briefly reviewed some background of the project. He
advised that this project has been around for approximately 22 years, noting they had
entered into a contract with a prospective buyer in August of 1997. He stated a
building permit was actually pulled on July 20, 1998 and about three weeks later a
complaint was filed with the City saying the structure was encroaching within the 20
foot setback, and construction was stopped at that time which has been over 7
months ago. After many meetings with the prospective buyers, attorneys, engineers,
architects, etc., an agreement has not been reached or solution to the problem that
could satisfy both parties. Mr. Ellsworth referred to the site plan and noted that Lot
14 basically is different from the rest of the properties in that it has two rear property
lines and, in his opinion, it is really an interpretation of which line uses the rear
property. He commented it is their thought that the back one that shows the 30 feet
is further back and would be the rear property line. He further stated his opinion that
Lot 14 should have never been included in the conditions of/approval because it is
basically oriented toward the hiltside and not Branch MUI.and the farming fields.
Mr. Ellsworth addressed some of the issues contained in a letter dated February 7,
1999 from Sara Dickens. She mentioned that the buffer was actually only 64 feet.
Mr. Ellsworth stated he went out and measured it himself from the back corner of the
house to the closest place to where they are actually farming and he came up with
111 feet. Another concern stated in the letter was that if a variance were granted
on this lot, would there be requests for variances on other lots in 'he future. Mr.
Ellsworth stated his idea on this is perhaps this is not a variance; maybe Lot 14
should just be eliminated from that Condition of Approval because, in his opinion, this
lot is not the same as Lots 15 through 20.
Acting Chair Greene asked if Mr. Ellsworth had reviewed the letter dated February 9,
1999 from Mr. Barry Yancosek, prospective buyer of Lot 147 Mr. Ellsworth indicated
he did not receive a copy of the letter.
Barrv Yancosek. 385 McCarthy Avenue. Oceano. referred to his letter and stated he
would be happy to answer any questions the Commissioners may have.
There being no further comments from the audience, Acting Chair Greene closed the
public hearing and restricted further comments to the Commission.
Commissioner Keen stated he was on the Planning Commission when this project
came before the City originally for approval. He advised that there was a lot of
7.b.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the City
Council of the City of Arroyo Grande on the following item: CONSIDERATION
OF A REVISED RATE STRUCTURE FOR WEEKLY GREEN WASTE
COLLECTION.
APPLICANT: City of Arroyo Grande
PROPOSAL: The Council will consider a revised rate
structure for weekly green waste
collection services.
REPRESENTATIVE: Jim Hamilton, Community Development
Director
Any person affected or concerned by the proposal may submit written comments
to the Office of the City Manager 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 proposal can contact the Community Development
Department at 214 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California, or by telephone
at (805) 473-5400 during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.). The
proposal will be available for public inspection at the above address.
IF YOU CHALLENGE AN ITEM IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO
RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE
PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN
CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT, OR PRIOR
TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING.
FAILURE OF ANY PERSON TO RECEIVE THE NOTICE SHALL NOT
CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR ANY COURT TO INV ALIDA TE THE ACTION
OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY FOR WHICH THE NOTICE WAS GIVEN.
Page 2
Date and Time of Hearing: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 at 7:30 p.m.
Place of Hearing: Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
215 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, California 93420
Nancy A. Davis,
Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JIM HAMILTON. AICP. COMMUNITY yv
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF REVISED RATES FOR GREENWASTE
COLLECTION SERVICE
DATE: MARCH 23, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council at the close of the public hearing:
1. Approve the first Amendment to the Franchise Agreement
between the City of Arroyo Grande and South County Sanitary
Services, Inc., for weekly greenwaste collection;
2. Select to continue or eliminate the current exemption policy for
greenwaste collection; and,
3. Adopt the attached resolution establishing revised rates for yard
refuse (greenwaste) collection services.
FUNDING:
There is no direct cost to the City; however, expanded greenwaste
collection services will affect service charges to individual customers.
Weekly greenwaste recycling service is necessary to meet the requirements
of the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AS 939).
DISCUSSION:
The City's current franchise agreement with South County Sanitary for solid
waste collection was adopted on November 12, 1997, and extends through
November 11, 2007. The proposed amendment will now provide weekly
greenwaste collection service to coincide with the term of the franchise
agreement.
The contract amendment provides that each residential customer will be
supplied with a 96 gallon "waste-wheeler" for collection of greenwaste.
The service will commence on or about May 1, 1999, for all customers.
South County Sanitary will provide a written notice to all solid waste
customers of the change in service in April. There may be some minor
disruption in service to greenwaste customers as the change over from bi-
monthly to weekly collection commences.
Effective with the first billing cycle following commencement of service,
greenwaste charges will appear on a combined solid waste/greenwaste bill.
It will no longer be included in the City utility billing as is the current
practice. For the immediate future, the City will continue to collect the
monthly curbside recycling fee ($.50) through the utility billing.
South County Sanitary currently provides solid waste collection service to
approximately 4,493 residential customers in the City. The Council may
decide to continue the existing program of granting waivers from the
greenwaste collection program. At present, the City has approved waivers
for approximately 700 residents.
Property owners or their authorized representatives may apply for
exemptions from the yard refuse (greenwaste) collection service program if
they meet the following criteria:
a. Residential 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
(greenwaste).
c. Property owners who compost yard refuse (greenwaste) in a
commercially sold or equivalent composting unit.
Depending on the Council direction regarding exemptions, the new rate per
customer will be as follows:
number of price per year price per customer
customers per month
No Exemptions 4493 $14.88 $1.24
Exemptions 3793 $17.40 $1.45
This fee includes the City's 6% franchise fee. There is a slight reduction in the
cost per pick-up from the current ($.75 per month) charge for twice a month
service. The number of accounts receiving service will normally fluctuate
throughout the year. However, monthly fees for succeeding years will be
determined following the adopted rate adjustment provisions contained within
the franchise agreement.
The following table shows the impact of the new rates on waste collection bills
for residents (assumes exemptions are granted). Active participation in the
curbside recycling and greenwaste programs may offset or reduce overall
garbage costs to individual customers by allowing the use of smaller
garbage container.
New Monthly 32 gal. waste 64 gal waste 96 gal. waste Cost prior to
rate wheeler wheeler wheeler Variable Can
Rate
Refuse $6.90 $9.90 $12.90 $8.55
Curbside $.50 $.50 $.50 $.50
Greenwaste* $1.45 $1.45 $1.45 $.75
Total $8.85 $11.85 $14.85 $9.80
*Cost comparison to current contract: $.75 for twice a month service;
$1.50 for collection every week.
Attachments
1. Amendment to Franchise Agreement.
2. City Council resolution establishing revised rates for yard refuse
(greenwaste) collection services.
3. Proposal from South County Sanitary
A TT ACHMENT1
FIRST AMENDMENT
TO
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN .
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
AND
SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY SERVICE, INC.
This FIRST AMENDMENT TO FRANCHISE AGREEMENT is made and entered
into this _ day of , 1999, by and between the CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE, a municipal corporation of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as
"CITY"), and SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY SERVICE, INC., a California Corporation
(hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR").
WHEREAS, the parties entered into a Franchise Agreement for the collection,
diversion and disposal of solid waste within the City of Arroyo Grande dated November 12,
1997 (hereinafter referred to as the "Franchise Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend certain portions of the Franchise
Agreement to now include weekly greenwaste collection services in addition to the present
solid waste collection service; and
WHEREAS, the greenwaste collection services provided by CONTRACTOR under
this First Amendment to Franchise Agreement are specifically intended to assist CITY in
meeting State requirements for waste reduction and recycling as mandated by the
Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939).
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein,
it is hereby agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows:
1. Paragraph 4.1 of the Franchise Agreement is hereby amended to add the
following:
CONTRACTOR further agrees to provide greenwaste collection
services beginning no later than May 1, 1999, as described in Exhibit
"A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Where
necessary to effectuate the terms of this Agreement to include
greenwaste collection services, all references to solid waste
collection shall be construed to include greenwaste collection.
~
2. Paragraph 4.2 of the Franchise Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety.
3. Paragraph 1.21 of the Franchise Agreement is amended to read in its
entirety as follows:
"Greenwaste" means tree trimmings, grass cuttings, dead plants,
leaves, branches, trees and scrap wood and similar materials
generated at the premises.
4. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein.
5. Except as modified herein, all terms and conditions of the Franchise
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY SERVICES, INC.
By:
AL RIZZOLl, PRESIDENT
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
By:
MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
NANCY A. DAVIS, DIRECTOR OF
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
~lfnL, ~-;-'
ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
EXHIBIT U A"
A. CONTRACTOR is to provide weekly curbside greenwaste collection service to all
commercial and residential solid waste collection accounts, less those accounts
which have been granted exemptions by the CITY. CONTRACTOR is to provide
each account holder with a 96 gallon greenwaste collection container wheeler.
CONTRACTOR is to combine billing for greenwaste collection services with solid
waste collection services billings.
2. Fees to be paid to CONTRACTOR:
The monthly fee for greenwaste collection services shall be as established by
resolution of the City Council. The fee shall be established per the standard
methodology and procedures as outlined in Article 9 "Service Rates and Review"
of the Franchise Agreement.
C. CONTRACTOR is aware that property owners or their authorized representatives
may apply for the following exemptions to the greenwaste collection service
program:
1. Residential parcels with no more than 500 square feet maintained as lawn,
garden, or other landscaping.
2. Property owners who have a contract with a licensed landscaper, which
provides for removal of yard refuse.
3. Property owners who compost yard refuse (greenwaste) in a commercially
sold or equivalent composting unit.
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE ESTABLISHING RATES FOR YARD
REFUSE (GREENWASTE) COLLECTION SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande may determine rates and charges for yard refuse
(greenwaste) collection services pursuant to Public Resources 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 yard refuse (greenwaste) collection services are set forth on Exhibit U 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 1999.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
NANCY A. DAVIS, DIRECTOR OF
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
th-, L. ~~
ROBERT L. HUNT CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
EXHIBIT" A"
1. The monthly fee for yard refuse (greenwaste) collection service shall be one dollar
and forty five cents ($1.45) per refuse account for single family homes.
2. The charge for multifamily and commercial uses shall be based on the level of
service requested, but shall not exceed one dollar and forty five cents ($1.45) per
96 gallon waste wheeler.
3. Property owners or their authorized representatives may apply for the following
exemptions to the yard refuse (greenwaste) collection service program:
a. Residential 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 (greenwaste).
c. Property owners who compost yard refuse (greenwaste) in a commercially
sold or equivalent composting unit.
EXHIBIT "A - 1"
NO EXEMPTIONS
1. The monthly fee for yard refuse (greenwaste) collection service shall be
one dollar and twenty four cents ($1.24) per refuse account for single
family homes.
2. The charge for multifamily and commercial uses shall be based on the
level of service requested, but shall not exceed one dollar and twenty four
cents ($1.24) per 96 gallon waste wheeler.
Tri-City Disposal Service 874 Grand Avenue Nipomo Garbage Company
(805) 489-3534 Grover Beach, California 93433 (805) 489-3534
City of Arroyo Grande
Jim Hamilton ATTACHMENT 3
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande; CA 93421
01/08/99
Re: Requested greenwaste proposal
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 * * Agreed to an approximate 81,12
NO 150/.
EXEMPTIONS EXEMPTIONS year term to match Franchise
Greenwaste program cost $63,127.00 $63,127.00 Agreement.
PAYING CUSTOMERS 4,255 3,617
COSTICUSTOME~EAR $14.84 $17.45
COST/CUSTOMER/MONTH $1.24 $1.45
ASSUMES 5 YEAR CONTRACT/DEPRECIATION
NO 150/.
EXEMPTIONS EXEMPTIONS
Greenwaste program cost $80,191.00 $80,191.00
PAYING CUSTOMERS 4,255 3,617
COSTICUSTOME~EAR $18.85 $22.17
COST/CUSTOMER/MONTH $1.57 $1.85
Sincerely,
~
Tom Martin, Controller
South County Sanitary Service, Inc.
-
\D L{ ~A R- DE P!2-f-uL/~ Tl Ot;J
South COUhlY Sanitary Service. Inc.
BASE YEAR RATE ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION
I II II 1f
Financial Information Pismo Pism( Arroy( I countJI Tota)
Commercia Residentia Grand
Section I-Allowable Costs
6. Direct Labor $50,194 $50,194
7. Corporate Overhead $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
8. Office Salaries $0 $0 $0 $0
9. Other General and Admin Costs $20,737 $0 $20,737
10 Total Allowable Costs $0 $0 $70,931 $0 $70,931
II. Operating Ratio 92% I 92~1 92% I 92~1 92%
12. Allowable Operating Profit $0 $6,168 $6,168
13. Greenwaste'Tipping Fees ~~ $21,945 ~ $21,945
14. Franchise Fees 5% INCREASE . $0 $0
16. Landfill Savings ($35,917 ($35,917
17. Total Pass Through Costs ($13.972 $0 ($13,972
18. Revenue Requirement II $011 $011 $63.12711 $011 $63.12711
19. Total Revenue Offsets $0 $0 $0 $0
(from Page 3)
20. Net Shortfall (Surplus) II $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
22. Percent Change Requirement ERR ERR 6.8% ERR 6.8%
23. Franchise Fee Adjustment Factor 90% 90% 94% 90%
24. Percent Change in Existing Rates ERR ERR 7.2% ERR
Fiscal Year: 1-:1-98 to 12-31-98 Pg. 20f6
...
~ L( ~A!0 DtE- PE6C:c:IATIO/
Soulb COlDly S;a'.jtary Service. Inc:.
BASE YEAR RATE ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION
I II II II
Financiallnforlllation Pism~ Pism( Arroy( I countJI Total
Commercia Residentia Grand
Section I-Allowable Costs
6. Direct Labor 550,194 $50,194
7. Corporate Overhead $0 $0 50 $0 $0
8. Office Salaries $0 $0 $0 $0
9. Other General and Admin Costs 536,436 $0 $36,436
10 Total Allowable Costs I' $0 I $0 I 586,6301\ $0 I $86,630 II
II. Operating Ratio 92% I 92~1 92% I 92~1 92%
12. Allowable Operating Profit $0 L- 57,533 $7,533
13. Greenwaste'Tipping Fees ~~ 521,945 ~ $21,945
14. Franchise Fees 5% INCREASE $0 50
16. Landfill Savings (535,917 ($35,917
17. Total Pass Through Costs (513,972 $0 ($13,972
18. Revenue Requirement IL $011 $011 580,191\1 $011 $80,19111
19. Total Revenue Offsets $0 $0 SO $0
(from Page 3)
20. Net Shortfall (Surplus) II $011 $011 $80,19111 soil $80,19111
21. Total Revenue without increase RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIA~ENUE
in Base Year (pg.3, lines 32+40) 5930,679 $0 $930,679
22. Percent Change Requirement ERR ERR 8.6% ERR 8.6%
23. Franchise Fee Adjustment Factor 90% 90% 94% 90%
24. Percent Change in Existing Rates ERR ERR 9.2% ERR
Fiscal Year: 1-1-98 to 12-31-98 Pg. 20f6
9.a.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: LYNDA K. SNODGRASS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES c;r
SUBJECT: CASH DISBURSEMENT RA TIFICA TION
DATE: MARCH 23, 1999
RECOMMENDA TION:
It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for
the period March 1 - March 15, 1999.
FUNDING:
There is a $596,419.64 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.
A TT ACHMENTS:
ATTACHMENT A - Cash Disbursement Listing
ATTACHMENT B - March 5,1999 Accounts Payable Check Register
ATTACHMENT C - March 12, 1999 Accounts Payable Check Register
ATTACHMENT D - March 12, 1999 Payroll Checks and Payroll Benefit Checks
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
INDEX FOR BUDGET DEPARTMENTS
EDEN COMPUTER SYSTEM
GENERAL FUND (010) SPEGAL REVENUE FUNDS
City Government (Fund 010) Park Development Fee Fund (Fund 213)
4001 - City Council 4550 - Park Development Fee
4002 - City Clerk Traffic Signal Fund (Fund 222)
4003 - City Attorney 4501 - Traffic Fund
4101 - City Manager Transportation Fund (Fund 225)
4102 - Printing/Duplicating 4553 - Public Transit System
4120 - Financial Services Construction Tax Fund (Fund 230)
4121 - Taxes/ Insurance/ Bonds 4556 - Construction Tax
4130 - Community Development Police Grant Fund (Fund 271)
4131 - Community Building (CDBG) 4202 - State AB3229 Cops Grant
4140 - Management Information System 4203 - Federal COPS Hiring Grant
4145 - Non Departmental 4204 - Federal Local Law Enforcement
Public Safety (Fund 010)
4201 - Police ENTERPRISE FUNDS
4211 - Fire Sewer Fund (Fund 612)
4212 - Building & Safety 4610 - Sewer Maintenance
4213 - Government Buildings Water Fund (Fund 640)
Public Works (Fund 010) 4710 - Water Administration
4301 - Public Works-Admin & Engineering 4711 - Water Production
4303 - Street/Bridge Maintenance 4712 - Water Distribution
4304 - Street Lighting Lopez Administration (Fund 641)
4305 - Automotive Shop 4750 - Lopez Administration
Parks & Recreation (Fund 010)
4420 - Parks CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS
4421 - Recreation 5501-5599 - Park Projects
4422 - General Recreation 5601-5699 - Streets Projects
4423 - Pre-School Program 5701-5799 - Drainage Projects
4424 - Recreation-Special Programs 5801-5899 - Water/Sewer/Street Projects
4425 - Children in Motion 5901-5999 - Water Projects
4430 - Soto Sport Complex
4460 - Parkway Maintenance
Dept. Index for Councilxls
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CASH DISBURSEMENTS
*JOlt ~ f't'litJd oI11ta1td 1 7~ 1It<vtd 15, 1999
". .~..~-
March 23, 1999
Presented are the cash disbursements issued by the Department of Financial Services for
the period March 1 to March 15, 1999. Shown are cash disbursements by week of
occurrence and type of payment.
March 5, 1999
Accounts Payable Cks #89225-89370 B $ 252,371.35
March 12, 1999
Accounts Payable Cks # 89371-89462 C 109,224.24
Payroll Checks and Payroll Benefit Checks D 234,824.05
344,048.29
Two Week Total $ 596.419.64
ATTACHMENT B
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 1
03/03/99 09:04 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 22
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
992 03/02/99 100995 ARROYO RANCH COMPANY ANNUAL RENT FOR RANGE 010.4201. 5553 1,200.00 1,200.00
89225 03/05/99 085176 3T EQUIPMENT CO VACTOR TUBES 612.4610.5603 314.00 314.00
89226 03/05/99 035412 4 WAY FLOORS CARPET REPR 010.4211.5303 65.00 65.00
89227 03/05/99 000234 A & R WELDING SUPPLY PRESSURE CYLINDERS 010.4211.5603 13.00 13.00
89228 03/05/99 000468 A T & T-L/DIST SVC. L/DIST 473-5100 010.4145.5403 6.31
89228 03/05/99 000468 A T & T-L/DIST SVC. L/DIST 489-6160 010.4211. 5403 7.56 13.87
89229 03/05/99 000700 ACCURATE AUDIO/VIDEO SERVICE TV 010.4211.5255 30.00 30.00
89230 03/05/99 100994 AFSS AFSS MEETING-FIBICH 010.4211. 5501 20.00 20.00
89231 03/05/99 100584 AIR LIQUIDE AMERICA COR OXYGEN/ACETYLENE 640.4712.5610 64.28 64.28
89232 03/05/99 100988 AL'S PUMP SERVICE CONCRETE PUMPER 010.4420.5605 170.00 170.00
89233 03/05/99 002340 JOHN ALLEN REIMB.GASOLINE-ALLEN 010.4201. 5608 60.00 60.00
89234 03/05/99 003042 AMERICAN EQUIPMENT SVCS DUMP BIN 010.4213.5604 1,250.00 1,250.00
89235 03/05/99 003120 AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SUP LENSWIPES 010.4420.5255 9.65
89235 03/05/99 003120 AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SUP SAFETY GLASSES 010.4420.5255 27.89 37.54
89236 03/05/99 003276 AMERICAN LASERTEK 3 PRINTER CARTRIDGES 010.4201. 5201 230.75 230.75
89237 03/05/99 100897 AMERICAN TEMPS HAWORTH SVCS-2/21 284.4103.5303 349.33 349.33
89238 03/05/99 004760 WILLIAM ANDREWS PD SYSTEM MAINT-JAN 99 010.4140.5303 1,300.00 1,300.00
89239 03/05/99 005772 ARROYO GRANDE COMM. HOS BEEMAN LAB/PHYSICAL 010.4211.5324 343.00 343.00
89240 03/05/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER ARSON CONF 010.4211.5503 240.00
89240 03/05/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER GASOLINE 010.4211. 5608 18.00
89240 03/05/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER INVITATIONS 010.4211.5255 31. 90
89240 03/05/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER ORAL BOARD SUPPLIES 010.4211.5255 57.94
89240 03/05/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER RENTAL-TABLE 010.4211.5255 19.79
89240 03/05/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER OFFICER STAFF SUPPLIES 010.4211.5255 36.28
89240 03/05/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER LOCC CONF-TOLLEY 010.4001.5501 223.15
89240 03/05/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER LOCC POLICY MEETING-TOLLEY 010.4001.5501 141.90
89240 03/05/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER LOCC CONF-FERRARA 010.4001. 5501 555.99
89240 03/05/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER LEADERSHIP CONF-SNODGRASS 010.4120.5501 331.77
89240 03/05/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER ORAL BOARD SUPPLIES 010.4301. 5201 48.36
89240 03/05/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4130.5201 83.20
89240 03/05/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER PARMA MEETING-ROOM 010.4420.5501 653.80
89240 03/05/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER PARMA MEALS 010.4420.5501 33.00
89240 03/05/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER PARMA FUEL 010.4421.5503 23.20
89240 03/05/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER MEDIATION HEARING-ROOM 010.4003.5327 662.64
89240 03/05/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER NAT'L P & R ASSOC 010.4421. 5503 35.00 3,195.92
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 2
03/03/99 09:04 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 22
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
89241 03/05/99 009438 BARKLOW'S FIRE TRUCK PA GASKET HOSE 010.4211.5601 66.80 66.80
89242 03/05/99 009750 BRENDA BARROW AM/PM REIMB.SUPPLIES 010.4425.5255 38.23
89242 03/05/99 009750 BRENDA BARROW REIMB.AM/PM SUPPLIES 010.4425.5255 91. 34 129.57
89243 03/05/99 011426 BLUEPRINT EXPRESS LARGE COPIES 010.4301. 5201 15.01
89243 03/05/99 011426 BLUEPRINT EXPRESS LARGE COPIES 010.4301. 5201 78.82
89243 03/05/99 011426 BLUEPRINT EXPRESS LARGE COPIES 010.4421.5504 45.04 138.87
89244 03/05/99 011700 BOB'S SELF SERVICE CAR CAR WASH TOKENS 612.4610.5603 14.58
89244 03/05/99 011700 BOB'S SELF SERVICE CAR CAR WASH TOKENS 612.4610.5601 14.58
89244 03/05/99 011700 BOB'S SELF SERVICE CAR CAR WASH TOKENS 640.4712.5603 14.58
89244 03/05/99 011700 BOB'S SELF SERVICE CAR CAR WASH TOKENS 640.4712.5601 14 .58
89244 03/05/99 011700 BOB'S SELF SERVICE CAR CAR WASH TOKENS 220.4303.5603 14.58
89244 03/05/99 011700 BOB'S SELF SERVICE CAR CAR WASH TOKENS 220.4303.5601 14.60 87.50
89245 03/05/99 012168 BOXX EXPRESS SHIPPING CHARGES 010.4120.5201 34.00
89245 03/05/99 012168 BOXX EXPRESS JAN.SHIPPING CHARGES 010.4201. 5201 89.21 123.21
89246 03/05/99 013026 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER BOLT 640.4712.5610 .35
89246 03/05/99 013026 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER HOSE END/CLASP 640.4712.5610 5.51
89246 03/05/99 013026 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER CHAIN/RAZOR BLADES 010.4201.5604 2.76
89246 03/05/99 013026 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER BRASS NIPPLE 640.4712.5610 7.28
89246 03/05/99 013026 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER PAINT BRUSH 640.4712.5610 6.41
89246 03/05/99 013026 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER PAINT 640.4712.5610 26.96
89246 03/05/99 013026 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER LADDERS 220.4303.5273 214.48 263.75
89247 03/05/99 013572 BRUMIT DIESEL,INC PRESSURE SWITCH 010.4211.5601 21.40 21.40
89248 03/05/99 013806 BURKE AND PACE OF AG LUMBER-R.G.BOOSTER BLDG. 640.4712.5604 17.07 17.07
89249 03/05/99 013884 KEVIN BURT B/BALL LGE.SCORER-K.BURT 010.4424.5352 42.00 42.00
89250 03/05/99 100301 RYAN BURT B/BALL LGE.OFFICIAL-R.BURT 010.4424.5352 225.00 225.00
89251 03/05/99 018408 CA.ST.DEPT.OF MOTOR VEH EMPLOYER TESTING PROGRAM TRAIN 010.4211. 5324 110.00 110.00
89252 03/05/99 016146 CALIF.HWY PRODUCTS & SI DELINEATORS 220.4303.5613 750.42
89252 03/05/99 016146 CALIF.HWY PRODUCTS & SI DELINEATORS 640.4712.5610 375.00
89252 03/05/99 016146 CALIF.HWY PRODUCTS & SI DELINEATORS 612.4610.5610 375.00 1,500.42
89253 03/05/99 016692 CALIF. PEACE OFFICER'S A ANNUAL LEGISLATIVE DAY 010.4201. 5501 95.00
89253 03/05/99 016692 CALIF. PEACE OFFICER'S A LEGAL UPDATE REVIEW SVC 010.4201. 5503 55.00 150.00
89254 03/05/99 016302 CALIFORNIA MENS COLONY JAN.CMC 220.4303.5303 3,857.10 3,857.10
89255 03/05/99 019266 CALIFORNIA UNIFORM CTR. UNIFORM-K.DEBLAUW 010.4201. 5255 323.90 323.90
89256 03/05/99 100842 CENTRAL & PACIFIC COAST OXYGEN H FILL 010.4211.5206 12.00 12.00
89257 03/05/99 021762 CENTRAL COAST PRINTING BUS.LIC VEHICLE/VENDING STICKE 010.4120.5201 373.23 373.23
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 5
03/03/99 09:04 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 22
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
89287 03/05/99 100547 HI-TECH EMERGENCY PRESSURE/RETURN HOSE 010.4211.5601 48.71 48.71
89288 03/05/99 042276 KARA HILL B/BALL LGE.SCORER-HILL 010.4424.5352 21. 00 21. 00
89289 03/05/99 043954 JOSH IANNEO B/BALL LGE.SCORER-J.IANNEO 010.4424.5352 42.00 42.00
89290 03/05/99 044050 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS,I COPY MAINT-2/22 010.4421.5602 243.92 243.92
89291 03/05/99 044304 IMPULSE MFG. REPR.STORAGE BOX 612.4610.5603 65.00 65.00
89292 03/05/99 046098 J C LANDSCAPING L/SCAPE MAINT-JAN 010.4420.5303 380.00
89292 03/05/99 046098 J C LANDSCAPING L/SCAPE MAINT-JAN 217.4460.5356 120.00 500.00
89293 03/05/99 046176 J J'S FOOD COMPANY CMC SODAS 220.4303.5613 58.26
89293 03/05/99 046176 J J'S FOOD COMPANY BBQ SUPPLIES 220.4303.5613 70.73 128.99
89294 03/05/99 0473 0 0 BLAIR JUAREZ B/BALL LGE.SCORER-JUAREZ 010.4424.5352 105.00 105.00
89295 03/05/99 100831 KARLESKINT-CRUM,INC DON ROBERTS FIELD/SOTO 350.5501. 7001 9,256.50
89295 03/05/99 100831 KARLESKINT-CRUM,INC DON ROBERTS FIELD/SOTO 350.5501.7201 3,407.34 12,663.84
89296 03/05/99 048516 KEYLOCK SECURITY SPECIA FORD KEYS 010.4201. 5601 4.83 4.83
89297 03/05/99 100783 KIRBY'S MOTORCYCLES R & R BATTERY 010.4201. 5601 240.03
89297 03/05/99 100783 KIRBY'S MOTORCYCLES FULL SERVICE/USING EXTRA OIL 010.4201.5601 266.95 506.98
89298 03/05/99 100991 L&S REPORT SVC.INC. REF.REPORT-WRONG CASE # 010.0000.4808 20.00 20.00
89299 03/05/99 052338 LINSON SIGNS EXPLOSIVES LETTERING 010.4201. 5255 16.09 16.09
89300 03/05/99 100985 DOUG LINTNER B/BALL LGE.OFFICIAL-LINTNER 010.4424.5352 180.00 180.00
89301 03/05/99 053092 LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES MAINT. PHONE 010.4211.5403 25.60 25.60
89302 03/05/99 053118 LUCIA MAR UN.SCH.DIST. BUS TRANS. AM/PM 010.4425.5303 720.00 720.00
89303 03/05/99 055536 MATCO TOOLS SOCKETS 010.4211.5273 90.36 90.36
89304 03/05/99 053820 MC CARTHY STEEL INC HINGE/SHEAR/PLATE-F106 010.4211.5601 305.66
89304 03/05/99 053820 MC CARTHY STEEL INC FLAT BAR/NIPPLE/BOLT 010.4211.5601 21.33
89304 03/05/99 053820 MC CARTHY STEEL INC FLAT BAR/NIPPLE/BOLT 010.4211.5601 9.65
89304 03/05/99 053820 MC CARTHY STEEL INC MISC. CUTS 010.4211. 5601 90.04 426.68
89305 03/05/99 100986 MARIANA MCCLANAHAN NEWSOM SPRINGS CONDEMNATION AC 350.5754.7301 5,000.00 5,000.00
89306 03/05/99 056580 MID STATE BANK ACH DISTRIB-2/6/99 010.4145.5319 18.30 18.30
89307 03/05/99 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAKE REPR.BRAKES 640.4712.5601 64.94 64.94
89308 03/05/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE CAULKING/CASTERS 010.4201. 5604 58.85
89308 03/05/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE CLAW HAMMER/LUBE STICK/LOCK KI 010.4213.5273 32.56
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 6
03/03/99 09:04 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 22
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
89308 03/05/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE NIPPLES 010.4420.5605 1.92
89308 03/05/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PLUMBING SUPPLIES 010.4211.5605 6.96
89308 03/05/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE DUSTER 010.4213.5273 10.18
89308 03/05/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE COMBO. WRENCH 640.4712.5273 64.10
89308 03/05/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE COMBO. WRENCH 612.4610.5273 64.11
89308 03/05/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE WASHERS/NUTS/SPRAYPAINT 010.4420.5605 52.07
89308 03/05/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE MASK TAPE/DRAIN CLEANER 010.4213.5604 31.07
89308 03/05/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE HAMMERS/CADDY POCKETT/APRON 220.4303.5273 102.37
89308 03/05/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE FLAGG TAPE/BLDG. SUPPLIES 010.4201.5255 14.66 438.85
89309 03/05/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE MATS/DUST MOPS 010.4213.5604 66.90
89309 03/05/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE MATS-ENG 010.4213.5604 35.00
89309 03/05/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE TOWELS/FENDER COVERS 010.4305.5255 25.00
89309 03/05/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS 010.4305.5255 26.00
89309 03/05/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 010.4213.5604 18.54
89309 03/05/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE MATS/TOWELS 010.4213.5604 53.22 224.66
89310 03/05/99 058578 MULLAHEY FORD INTERIOR TRIM 010.4201.5601 13.85
89310 03/05/99 058578 MULLAHEY FORD REPR.WINDOW 010.4201.5601 76.28
89310 03/05/99 058578 MULLAHEY FORD LUBE/TRANS. SERVICED/BRAKE 010.4201. 5601 112.22
89310 03/05/99 058578 MULLAHEY FORD TRANS.SVC/WIPER BLADES/OIL 010.4201. 5601 189.67
89310 03/05/99 058578 MULLAHEY FORD REPL.BATTERY 010.4201. 5601 193.98
89310 03/05/99 058578 MULLAHEY FORD REPR.WINDOW/TRANS.SVC/LUBE /.0 010.4201. 5601 193.52
89310 03/05/99 058578 MULLAHEY FORD LUBE/OIL/ROTATE/INSPECTION 010.4201. 5601 317.34
89310 03/05/99 058578 MULLAHEY FORD REPR.GLOVE BOX-PD932 010.4201. 5601 80.07
89310 03/05/99 058578 MULLAHEY FORD LUBE/OIL/TRANS.SVC/INSPECT 010.4201. 5601 100.50
89310 03/05/99 058578 MULLAHEY FORD WIPER BLADES/LUBE 010.4420.5601 154.96 1,432.39
89311 03/05/99 100095 NAPA AUTO PARTS V-BELT 010.4211.5601 35.44 35.44
89312 03/05/99 060840 NATIONAL SANITARY SUPPL CR:FLOOR CLEANER 010.4213.5604 42.48-
89312 03/05/99 060840 NATIONAL SANITARY SUPPL DEGREASER/CLEANER 010.4213.5604 42.48
89312 03/05/99 060840 NATIONAL SANITARY SUPPL CLEANING SUPPLIES 010.4213.5604 682.57 682.57
89313 03/05/99 100281 JEFFREY NIEMEYER B/BALL LGE.OFFICIAL-NIEMEYER 010.4424.5352 45.00 45.00
89314 03/05/99 100984 SCOTT O'CONNELL B/BALL LGE.SCORER-O'CONNELL 010.4424.5352 84.00 84.00
89315 03/05/99 062322 ONE HOUR PHOTO PLUS JAN.PHOTO CHARGES 010.4201.5255 48.22 48.22
89316 03/05/99 062712 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE VISE GRIPS/GRINDING WHEEL 220.4303.5273 130.09 130.09
89317 03/05/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 473-2041 010.4201. 5403 19.42
89317 03/05/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL PHONE 489-2174 010.4201. 5403 41. 27
89317 03/05/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL FAX 473-2198 010.4145.5403 24.20
89317 03/05/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL PHONE 489-2345 010.4211.5403 46.73
89317 03/05/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL SLO COMPUTER-271-6566 010.4145.5403 47.71
89317 03/05/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL PHONE 481-6944 010.4201.5403 125.50
89317 03/05/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 271-7480 010.4201. 5403 63.86
89317 03/05/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL SLO COMPUTER-473-9523 010.4145.5403 71.69
89317 03/05/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL PAY PHONE-489-9867 010.4201.5403 43.21 483.59
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 7
03/03/99 09:04 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 22
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
89318 03/05/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECT-TR-1769 L/SCAPE 217.4460.5355 7.29 7.29
89319 03/05/99 064258 PAGING NETWORK OF LA PAGER SVCS-2/99 010.4145.5403 31.74
89319 03/05/99 064258 PAGING NETWORK OF LA PAGER SVCS-2/99 010.4421. 5602 100.54 132.28
89320 03/05/99 064308 PAPER DIRECT,INC. CERTIFICATE JACKETS 010.4201. 5504 206.20 206.20
89321 03/05/99 100226 PEEK TRAFFIC BATTERY CHARG EXT 010.4301. 6201 96.53 96 .53
89322 03/05/99 066300 PEARL PHINNEY PHINNEY SVCS-2/16 010.4130.5303 150.00 150.00
89323 03/05/99 066924 PLAQUE SHAQUE PATCH PLAQUES 010.4201.5504 64.35
89323 03/05/99 066924 PLAQUE SHAQUE APPRECIATION PLAQUES 010.4130.5201 68.64
89323 03/05/99 066924 PLAQUE SHAQUE APPRECIATION PLAQUES 010.4421. 5201 68.64
89323 03/05/99 066924 PLAQUE SHAQUE APPRECIATION PLAQUES 010.4301.5201 34.32
89323 03/05/99 066924 PLAQUE SHAQUE APPRECIATION PLAQUES 010.4421. 5201 68.64
89323 03/05/99 066924 PLAQUE SHAQUE APPRECIATION PLAQUES 010.4130.5201 34.32
89323 03/05/99 066924 PLAQUE SHAQUE APPRECIATION PLAQUES 010.4130.5201 34.32 373.23
89324 03/05/99 100146 PLUS 4 ENGINEERING TESTING SOLUTION 010.4201. 5603 26.15 26.15
89325 03/05/99 067196 JASON POLE CRIME SCENE INVEST-POLE 010.4201.5501 50.00 50.00
89326 03/05/99 067548 POOR RICHARD'S PRESS COPIES 010.4130.5201 42.22
89326 03/05/99 067548 POOR RICHARD'S PRESS COPIES-DEV.CODE 010.4130.5201 262.53
89326 03/05/99 067548 POOR RICHARD'S PRESS COPY-DRAFT WATER SYSTEMS 010.4301. 5201 25.92
89326 03/05/99 067548 POOR RICHARD'S PRESS COPIES 010.4211.5201 88.78 419.45
89327 03/05/99 067890 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION,IN IND. HIGH PRESSURE GASES 010.4211.5325 16.12 16.12
89328 03/05/99 068200 PROMEDIX NECK COLLAR-BABY 010.4211.5206 228.39
89328 03/05/99 068200 PROMEDIX GAGE LENS 010.4211.5206 8.10 236.49
89329 03/05/99 090284 SHAWN PRYOR REIMB.GASOLlNE 010.4201. 5608 27.00 27.00
89330 03/05/99 069576 RADIO SHACK ADAPTER/CABLE 010.4201.5255 17.14
89330 03/05/99 069576 RADIO SHACK CR. CABLE 010.4201.5255 10.71- 6.43
89331 03/05/99 100432 RADISSON HOTEL RESV-TERBORCH LEGISLATIVE 010.4201. 5501 89.00 89.00
89332 03/05/99 069654 RALCCO CONTAINER COLL-1/99 761. 0000.2006 2,287.90
89332 03/05/99 069654 RALCCO GREEN WASTE COLL-1/99 761. 0000.2007 3,444.96
89332 03/05/99 069654 RALCCO R-1 RECYCLING-1/99 010.0000.4030 286.64-
89332 03/05/99 069654 RALCCO RECYCLING ADMIN-1/99 010.0000.4755 286.64- 5,159.58
89333 03/05/99 100979 REFLECTO PRODUCTS CO SCOTCHLITE FIRE DEPT. EMBLEMS 010.4211. 5324 355.95 355.95
89334 03/05/99 100989 REMEDIAL MANAGEMENT COR CORP. YARD FUEL REPL.PLAN 350.5401.7001 4,590.00 4,590.00
89335 03/05/99 070590 RICHETTI WATER CONDITIO JAN/FEB WATER COND.SYSTEM 010.4201. 5604 30.00 30.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 8
03/03/99 09:04 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 22
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
89336 03/05/99 071682 GREG ROSE B/BALL LGE.OFFICIAL-ROSE 010.4424.5352 225.00 225.00
89337 03/05/99 100981 RICHARD RUST REF. PARK DEPOSIT-RUST 010.0000.4354 25.00 25.00
89338 03/05/99 069496 RXLASER PERF. PAPER 010.4120.5201 326.31 326.31
89339 03/05/99 073320 SAN JOAQUIN SUPPLY CO. CLEANING SUPPLIES 010.4213.5604 75.35 75.35
89340 03/05/99 073476 SAN LUIS BUTANE BUTANE 010.4201. 5608 120.88 120.88
89341 03/05/99 100192 SAN LUIS MAILING SVC WATER BILL MAILING/SORTING 640.4710.5303 1,041.18 1,041.18
89342 03/05/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP INS-3RD QTR 98/99 010.4001.5141 48.08
89342 03/05/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP INS-3RD QTR 98/99 010.4101. 5141 343.42
89342 03/05/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP INS-3RD QTR 98/99 010.4102.5141 109.90
89342 03/05/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP INS-3RD QTR 98/99 010.4120.5141 487.64
89342 03/05/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP INS-3RD QTR 98/99 010.4002.5141 109.90
89342 03/05/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP INS-3RD QTR 98/99 010.4130.5141 501. 40
89342 03/05/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP INS-3RD QTR 98/99 010.4201. 5141 40,379.62
89342 03/05/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP INS-3RD QTR 98/99 010.4211. 5141 3,708.96
89342 03/05/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP INS-3RD QTR 98/99 010.4212.5141 789.87
89342 03/05/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP INS-3RD QTR 98/99 010.4301. 5141 1,002.79
89342 03/05/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP INS-3RD QTR 98/99 010.4213.5141 817.35
89342 03/05/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP INS-3RD QTR 98/99 010.4305.5141 1,229.45
89342 03/05/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP INS-3RD QTR 98/99 010.4420.5141 4,732.36
89342 03/05/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP INS-3RD QTR 98/99 010.4421.5141 137.37
89342 03/05/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP INS-3RD QTR 98/99 010.4422.5141 412.11
89342 03/05/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP INS-3RD QTR 98/99 010.4423.5141 240.40
89342 03/05/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP INS-3RD QTR 98/99 010.4425.5141 1,462.98
89342 03/05/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP INS-3RD QTR 98/99 010.4430.5141 1,057.74
89342 03/05/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP INS-3RD QTR 98/99 220.4303.5141 4,849.13
89342 03/05/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP INS-3RD QTR 98/99 284.4103.5141 171. 71
89342 03/05/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP INS-3RD QTR 98/99 612.4610.5141 1,559.14
89342 03/05/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP INS-3RD QTR 98/99 640.4710.5141 1,119.56
89342 03/05/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP INS-3RD QTR 98/99 640.4711.5141 563.21
89342 03/05/99 073554 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKERS COMP INS-3RD QTR 98/99 640.4712.5141 2,850.41 68,684.50
89343 03/05/99 100992 SCIENTIFIC VISION SYSTE 4 PRINTER PACKS 010.4201. 5255 237.51
89343 03/05/99 100992 SCIENTIFIC VISION SYSTE 2 SONY PRINTER PACKS 010.4201.5255 119.96 357.47
89344 03/05/99 078156 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIB. GASOLINE 010.4201. 5608 935.82
89344 03/05/99 078156 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIB. GASOLINE/DIESEL 010.4211.5608 300.41
89344 03/05/99 078156 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIB. GASOLINE/DIESEL 010.4211.5608 150.94 1,387.17
89345 03/05/99 100715 SECORP INDUSTRIES AIR SAMPLING LINE 612.4610.5303 52.34 52.34
89346 03/05/99 078468 SENSUS TECHNOLOGIES,INC WATER METERS 640.4712.5207 2,402.83
89346 03/05/99 078468 SENSUS TECHNOLOGIES,INC SOFTWARE SUPPORT PROGRAM 640.4710.5303 536.25
89346 03/05/99 078468 SENSUS TECHNOLOGIES,INC CR:WATER METER TRADE IN 640.4712.5207 105.00- 2,834.08
89347 03/05/99 075114 SLO CNTY GENERAL HOSPIT LEGAL TOX SCREENS 010.4201. 5324 168.00 168.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 9
03/03/99 09:04 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 22
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
89348 03/05/99 100983 AMANDA SMART B/BALL LGE.SCORER-SMART 010.4424.5352 84.00 84.00
89349 03/05/99 080340 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORP AIR HAMMER REPR 010.4211.5273 77 .22 77 .22
89350 03/05/99 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT SEWER SVC COLL-1/99 760.0000.2304 40,150.70
89350 03/05/99 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT SEWER HOOKUPS-1/99 760.0000.2305 58,770.00
89350 03/05/99 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 1-1 SAN.DIST-214 E.BRANCH 010.4145.5401 19.63
89350 03/05/99 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 1-1 SAN.DIST-215 E.BRANCH 010.4145.5401 13.47
89350 03/05/99 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 1-1 SAN.DIST-208 E.BRANCH 010.4145.5401 13.47
89350 03/05/99 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 1-1 SAN.DIST-211 VERNON 010.4145.5401 13 .47
89350 03/05/99 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 1-1 SAN.DIST-140 TRAP. WAY 010.4145.5401 13 .47
89350 03/05/99 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 1-1 SAN.DIST-STROTHER R/R 010.4145.5401 13 .47 99,007.68
89351 03/05/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY SPARK PLUGS/FUEL ADD/COUPLER 010.4211.5601 44.32
89351 03/05/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY BELT 010.4211.5601 11.41
89351 03/05/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY BELT/SQUEEGEE 010.4211.5601 34.35
89351 03/05/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY WASHER/OIL/SOLVENT 010.4211.5601 116.65
89351 03/05/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY BRAKE FLUID/THREADLOCK/ADHESIV 010.4211.5601 101. 59
89351 03/05/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY EXPLOSIVE STORAGE LOCKER 010.4201. 5604 16.74
89351 03/05/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY MOTORCYCLE PLASTIC CLEANER 010.4201. 5601 6.70
89351 03/05/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY PLASTIC POLISH 640.4712.5603 6.70
89351 03/05/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY AMP TEST CLIPS 010.4201. 5601 8.77 347.23
89352 03/05/99 080964 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICES 010.4145.5401 239.75
89352 03/05/99 080964 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICES 010.4145.5401 138.83 378.58
89353 03/05/99 082040 STAPLES OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4421.5201 83.73
89353 03/05/99 082040 STAPLES FRAMES 010.4211.5504 137.11
89353 03/05/99 082040 STAPLES OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4421. 6001 217 .41 438.25
89354 03/05/99 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS RADIO CONTRACT 3/99 010.4201.5606 995.00
89354 03/05/99 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS INSTALL TIMER 010.4201. 5603 140.35
89354 03/05/99 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS CREDIT ON ACCOUNT 010.4201. 5603 31.10-
89354 03/05/99 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS VISAR ULTRA HI CAP 010.4211.5603 117.98
89354 03/05/99 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS KEYBOARD SWITCHES/CONSOLE 010.4201. 5606 182.33 1,404.56
89355 03/05/99 082836 STREATOR PIPE & SUPPLY PIPE/FITTINGS 640.4712.5610 15.96
89355 03/05/99 082836 STREATOR PIPE & SUPPLY UNION 640.4712.5610 9.07
89355 03/05/99 082836 STREATOR PIPE & SUPPLY BRASS FITTINGS 640.4712.5610 43.31
89355 03/05/99 082836 STREATOR PIPE & SUPPLY FITTINGS 640.4712.5610 21. 59 89.93
89356 03/05/99 084278 TEE'S PLUS DARE SHIRTS/LAPEL PIN 010.4201. 5504 905.40 905.40
89357 03/05/99 084474 TELEGRAM TRIBUNE T-T SUBSCR TO 6/01/99 010.4120.5503 34.50 34.50
89358 03/05/99 084900 THOMA ELECTRIC CO. INSTL.BATTERY CHARGER 640.4712.5604 178.92 178.92
89359 03/05/99 086034 TRI-CITY DISPOSAL SERVI DISPOSAL SERVICES 010.4213.5604 258.58
89359 03/05/99 086034 TRI-CITY DISPOSAL SERVI DISPOSAL SERVICES 010.4213.5604 121.18 379.76
89360 03/05/99 088062 UNION ASPHALT INC COLD MIX 220.4303.5613 380.41 380.41
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 10
03/03/99 09:04 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 22
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
89361 03/05/99 088070 UNION INSTITUTE TUITION-HEATH SPRING 010.4201. 5502 1,984.00 1,984.00
89362 03/05/99 088084 UNITED GREEN MARK,INC. SPRINKLER PARTS 010.4430.5605 85.06
89362 03/05/99 088084 UNITED GREEN MARK, INC. SPRINKLER PARTS 010.4430.5605 66.43 151.49
89363 03/05/99 087672 UNITED RENTALS RENTAL-SAND BLASTER 220.4303.5552 161. 68 161. 68
89364 03/05/99 088842 VALLEY AUTO SERVICE BATTERIES 010.4211.5601 399.39
89364 03/05/99 088842 VALLEY AUTO SERVICE REPR.TIRE 010.4211.5601 12.00 411.39
89365 03/05/99 089426 VAVRlNEK,TRlNE,DAY & CO JAN.PROF.SVCS-TDA AUDIT 010.4120.5303 950.00 950.00
89366 03/05/99 090480 WAYNE'S TIRE TIRES 010.4201. 5601 257.80
89366 03/05/99 090480 WAYNE'S TIRE TIRES 640.4712.5601 128.38 386.18
89367 03/05/99 100431 WILLARD PAPER CO COPY PAPER 010.4102.5255 182.33
89367 03/05/99 100431 WILLARD PAPER CO ENVELOPES/PAPER 010.4102.5255 281. 22 463.55
89368 03/05/99 092586 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COM DEC. SIGNAL MAINT 010.4304.5303 834.00 834.00
89369 03/05/99 092976 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS TRAINING 1/13 010.4201. 5322 90.00
89369 03/05/99 092976 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS K-9 SUPPLIES 010.4201. 5322 174.82 264.82
89370 03/05/99 093210 WORKRITE NOMEX SHIRTS/PANTS 010.4211.5272 188.54
89370 03/05/99 093210 WORKRITE UNIFORM NAMES 010.4211.5272 19.91
89370 03/05/99 093210 WORKRITE NOMEX SHIRT 010.4211.5272 77.99 286.44
TOTAL CHECKS 252,371. 35
ATTACHHENT C
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 1
03/10/99 08:20 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 22
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
89371 03/12/99 000234 A & R WELDING SUPPLY HIGH/LOW PRESSURE TANKS 010.4211.5324 13.00
89371 03/12/99 000234 A & R WELDING SUPPLY HIGH/LOW PRESSURE CYLINDERS 010.4305.5303 13.00 26.00
89372 03/12/99 000468 A T & T-L/DIST SVC. L/DIST PHONE 010.4211.5403 7.26
89372 03/12/99 000468 A T & T-L/DIST SVC. L/DIST FAX 473-0386 010.4145.5403 33.14 40.40
89373 03/12/99 100479 A.G.CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SPONSORSHIP-BUSINESS ED.W/SHOP 010.4145.5309 750.00 750.00
89374 03/12/99 100897 AMERICAN TEMPS HAWORTH SVCS-2/28 284.4103.5303 639.78
89374 03/12/99 100897 AMERICAN TEMPS STOUPFER SVCS-2/28 010.4130.5303 125.60 765.38
89375 03/12/99 004914 APEX SHARPENING WORKS CABLE/LINE/BLADES 220.4303.5603 128.53
89375 03/12/99 004914 APEX SHARPENING WORKS MUFFLER-WEED-EATER 220.4303.5603 21.13 149.66
89376 03/12/99 005772 ARROYO GRANDE COMM. HOS HEP B IMMUNIZATIONS 640.4712.5303 110.00
89376 03/12/99 005772 ARROYO GRANDE COMM. HOS HEP B IMMUNIZATIONS 220.4303.5303 55.00
89376 03/12/99 005772 ARROYO GRANDE COMM. HOS HEP B IMMUNIZATIONS 010.4420.5303 55.00
89376 03/12/99 005772 ARROYO GRANDE COMM. HOS HEP B IMMUNIZATIONS 010.4305.5303 55.00 275.00
89377 03/12/99 006006 ARROYO GRANDE FLOWER SH PLANT-R.ROBINSON 010.4001. 5504 52.55 52.55
89378 03/12/99 101000 ATD-AMERICAN CO 2 OAK COMPUTER/DESKS 010.4120.6001 1,914.14 1,914.14
89379 03/12/99 007722 AVILA SIGN & DESIGN REPL.DOOR SIGNS/WALL SIGNS 010.4213.5604 247.60 247.60
89380 03/12/99 009750 BRENDA BARROW REIMB.TALENT SHOW SUPPLIES 010.4424.5252 12.84
89380 03/12/99 009750 BRENDA BARROW REIMB.SUPPLIES-BARROW 010.4425.5255 16.30
89380 03/12/99 009750 BRENDA BARROW REIMB.2 TRICYCLES 010.4423.5253 75.40
89380 03/12/99 009750 BRENDA BARROW REIMB.AM/PM SUPPLIES 010.4425.5255 82.82
89380 03/12/99 009750 BRENDA BARROW REIMB.SPEICAL EVENT SUPPLIES 010.4424.5252 29.35 216.71
89381 03/12/99 100069 MARY BASSETT TRAINING SUPPLIES-LIEBERT 010.4145.5501 93.96 93.96
89382 03/12/99 010628 BENS COMPUTER OUTLET 32MB SDRAM MEMORY 010.4140.6101 95.45 95.45
89383 03/12/99 012012 BOLLINGER FOWLER CO. LIABILITY INS-S/BALL 010.4424.5257 200.00 200.00
89384 03/12/99 012792 FLOYD BRIDGE REIMB.C/D BLANKS 010.4201. 5255 32.31
89384 03/12/99 012792 FLOYD BRIDGE REIMB.GASOLINE 010.4201. 5608 9.00
89384 03/12/99 012792 FLOYD BRIDGE REIMB. GASOLINE 010.4201. 5608 15.00
89384 03/12/99 012792 FLOYD BRIDGE REIMB.PARKING 010.4201. 5501 25.00 81. 31
89385 03/12/99 013 026 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER PIPE FITTINGS 612.4610.5610 2.51
89385 03/12/99 013 026 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER WOOD/BRACKETS 010.4201. 5604 13 .48 15.99
89386 03/12/99 013806 BURKE AND PACE OF AG LUMBER 640.4712.5609 291.84 291. 84
89387 03/12/99 100344 CA. FIRE ADMINISTRATION REGIS-FIBICH CFAC CONF. 010.4211.5501 299.00 299.00
89388 03/12/99 018018 CA.ST.DEPT.GENERAL SVCS L/DIST.PHONE 010.4145.5403 116.68 116.68
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 2
03/10/99 08:20 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 22
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
89389 03/12/99 018330 CA. ST. DEPT. OF JUSTICE FINGER PRINTING 010.4425.5255 91.00 91. 00
89390 03/12/99 018876 CA.ST.DEPT.TRANSPORTATI SIGNAL MAINT/POWER 010.4304.5303 11 7.53
89390 03/12/99 018876 CA. ST. DEPT. TRANSPORTATI SIGNAL MAINT/POWER 010.4304.5402 153.79 271. 32
89391 03/12/99 100712 CENTRAL COAST GROWERS IVY GERANIUMS 010.4420.5603 11.80 11.80
89392 03/12/99 022658 CHAPPELL INS.AGENCY,INC LIBILITY INS-S/BALL 010.4424.5257 500.00 500.00
89393 03/12/99 023088 CHERRY LANE NURSERY GERANIUMS 010.4420.5605 76.25
89393 03/12/99 023088 CHERRY LANE NURSERY PLANTS-DON ROBERTS 010.4420.5605 141.34
89393 03/12/99 023088 CHERRY LANE NURSERY PLANTS-DON ROBERTS 010.4420.5605 141. 34
89393 03/12/99 023088 CHERRY LANE NURSERY REPLANTING SUPPLIES 010.4420.5605 17.14 376.07
89394 03/12/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET SVC.TRANS/LUBE/OIL 010.4420.5601 154.78
89394 03/12/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET FLUSH BRAKE SYSTEM/WIPERS/OIL 220.4303.5601 79.85
89394 03/12/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET ROTATE TIRES/SVC WATER PUMP 010.4420.5601 106.71
89394 03/12/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET LUBE/OIL/FILTER 010.4301.5601 32.53 373.87
89395 03/12/99 024180 COAST NUT & BOLT MISC. BOLTS/NUTS 220.4303.5613 73.66 73.66
89396 03/12/99 024832 COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS PHASE MONITOR 612.4610.5610 334.31
89396 03/12/99 024832 COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS ADJ.VOLTAGE-POWER SPLY 640.4711.5603 70.00 404 .31
89397 03/12/99 100631 CUESTA CONSULTING CUESTA SVCS-3/7 010.4130.5303 6,855.00 6,855.00
89398 03/12/99 026832 CUESTA EQUIPMENT CO TOOL BOX 612.4610.5603 276.06
89398 03/12/99 026832 CUESTA EQUIPMENT CO SAFETY STRAP 010.4420.5255 45.26 321. 32
89399 03/12/99 100996 D.A.L.SAFETY CONSULTANT REGIS-T.SCHMIDT-MOTOR CARRIERS 010.4305.5501 180.00 180.00
89400 03/12/99 027534 D.G.REPAIR REPR.STARTER 010.4301. 5601 189.33 189.33
89401 03/12/99 029250 J.B. DEWAR, INC. RED DIESEL FUEL 010.0000.1202 144.07 144.07
89402 03/12/99 101001 ROBERT F. DRIVER CO. U/GROUND FUEL TANKS-99 010.4145.5578 1,149.12
89402 03/12/99 101001 ROBERT F. DRIVER CO. U/GROUND FUEL TANKS-99 612.4610.5578 164.16
89402 03/12/99 101001 ROBERT F. DRIVER CO. U/GROUND FUEL TANKS-99 220.4303.5578 875.52
89402 03/12/99 101001 ROBERT F. DRIVER CO. U/GROUND FUEL TANKS-99 640.4710.5578 547.20 2,736.00
89403 03/12/99 100998 ENVIRONMENTAL HORTICULT REGIS-MCCLURE(IPM CONF) 010.4420.5501 150.00
89403 03/12/99 100998 ENVIRONMENTAL HORTICULT REGIS-ROCHA(IPM CONF) 010.4420.5501 150.00 300.00
89404 03/12/99 032838 FAMILIAN PIPE & SUPPLY VALVE HAND WHEEELS/METER VALVE 640.4712.5610 137.38 137.38
89405 03/12/99 033150 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP SHIPPING CHARGES-EDD 010.4120.5201 23.50 23.50
89406 03/12/99 033702 TERENCE FIBICH REIMB-SAFETY BOOTS 010.4211. 5143 378.13 378.13
89407 03/12/99 100700 G & M MOBILE SERVICE TUNE-UP/REPL.SPARK PLUGS 010.4420.5601 714.27 714.27
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 3
03/10/99 08:20 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 22
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
89408 03/12/99 036972 GATOR CRUSHING & RECYCL CLASS #2 BASE 220.4303.5613 82.94
89408 03/12/99 036972 GATOR CRUSHING & RECYCL CLASS #2 BASE 220.4303.5613 88.36
89408 03/12/99 036972 GATOR CRUSHING & RECYCL CLASS #2 BASE 220.4303.5613 88.08 259.38
89409 03/12/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4201. 5201 18.18
89409 03/12/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4201.5201 25.35
89409 03/12/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4305.5201 5.32
89409 03/12/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4101. 5201 25.42
89409 03/12/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4102.5255 77.00
89409 03/12/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4120.5201 4.21
89409 03/12/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4421.5201 4.80
89409 03/12/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4301. 5201 2.69
89409 03/12/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4421.5201 11.26
89409 03/12/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4130.5201 50.73
89409 03/12/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4421. 5201 10.70
89409 03/12/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4101.5201 10.52 246.18
89410 03/12/99 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-448 DIXS 7/1/98-12/31/98 612.0000.4751 39.00
89410 03/12/99 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-456 DIXS 7/1/98-12/31/98 612.0000.4751 39.00
89410 03/12/99 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-464 DIXS 7/1/98-12/31/98 612.0000.4751 39.00
89410 03/12/99 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-472 DIXS 7/1/98-12/31/98 612.0000.4751 39.00
89410 03/12/99 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-480 DIXS 7/1/98-12/31/98 612.0000.4751 39.00
89410 03/12/99 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-488 DIXS 7/1/98-12/31/98 612.0000.4751 39.00
89410 03/12/99 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-1371 DIXS 7/1/98-12/31/98 612.0000.4751 39.00
89410 03/12/99 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-1374 DIXS 7/1/98-12/31/98 612.0000.4751 39.00
89410 03/12/99 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-1375 DIXS 7/1/98-12/31/98 612.0000.4751 39.00
89410 03/12/99 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-1378 DIXS 7/1/98-12/31/98 612.0000.4751 39.00
89410 03/12/99 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-1379 DIXS 7/1/98-12/31/98 612.0000.4751 39.00
89410 03/12/99 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-1382 DIXS 7/1/98-12/31/98 612.0000.4751 39.00
89410 03/12/99 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-1386 DIXS 7/1/98-12/31/98 612.0000.4751 39.00
89410 03/12/99 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-430 NOEL 7/1/98-12/31/98 612.0000.4751 39.00
89410 03/12/99 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-438 NOEL 7/1/98-12/31/98 612.0000.4751 39.00
89410 03/12/99 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-446 NOEL 7/1/98-12/31/98 612.0000.4751 39.00
89410 03/12/99 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-451 NOEL 7/1/98-12/31/98 612.0000.4751 39.00
89410 03/12/99 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-454 NOEL 7/1/98-12/31/98 612.0000.4751 39.00
89410 03/12/99 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-459 NOEL 7/1/98-12/31/98 612.0000.4751 39.00
89410 03/12/99 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-462 NOEL 7/1/98-12/31/98 612.0000.4751 39.00
89410 03/12/99 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-467 NOEL 7/1/98-12/31/98 612.0000.4751 39.00
89410 03/12/99 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-470 NOEL 7/1/98-12/31/98 612.0000.4751 39.00
89410 03/12/99 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-475 NOEL 7/1/98-12/31/98 612.0000.4751 39.00
89410 03/12/99 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-478 NOEL 7/1/98-12/31/98 612.0000.4751 39.00
89410 03/12/99 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-483 NOEL 7/1/98-12/31/98 612.0000.4751 39.00
89410 03/12/99 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-486 NOEL 7/1/98-12/31/98 612.0000.4751 39.00
89410 03/12/99 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-491 NOEL 7/1/98-12/31/98 612.0000.4751 39.00
89410 03/12/99 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-494 NOEL 7/1/98-12/31/98 612.0000.4751 39.00 1,092.00
89411 03/12/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-CONST INSP 010.4301. 5403 70.84
89411 03/12/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-PW DIR 010.4301. 5403 37.24 108.08
89412 03/12/99 100335 DANIEL HERNANDEZ REIMB.CA.P&R CONF-HERNANDEZ 010.4421.5501 126.00 126.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 4
03/10/99 08:20 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 22
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
89413 03/12/99 042302 HINDERLITER,DE LLAMAS SALES TAX REPORT 3Q 98/99 010.4120.5303 975.00 975.00
89414 03/12/99 044304 IMPULSE MFG. REPR. VI BRA PLATE 220.4303.5603 81. 25
89414 03/12/99 044304 IMPULSE MFG. FAB NEW SAMPLE STATION 640.4712.5610 319.12
89414 03/12/99 044304 IMPULSE MFG. FAB.SAMPLE STATION LID 640.4712.5610 164.74 565.11
89415 03/12/99 046098 J C LANDSCAPING L/SCAPE MAINT-FEB 010.4420.5303 380.00
89415 03/12/99 046098 J C LANDSCAPING L/SCAPE MAINT-FEB 217.4460.5356 120.00 500.00
89416 03/12/99 046176 J J'S FOOD COMPANY KITCHEN SUPPLIES 010.4301. 5201 9.99
89416 03/12/99 046176 J J'S FOOD COMPANY TRAINING SUPPLIES-LIEBERT 010.4145.5501 17.18
89416 03/12/99 046176 J J'S FOOD COMPANY W/SHOP SUPPLIES 010.4001.5201 16.24 43.41
89417 03/12/99 046956 JOBS AVAILABLE INC. DISPLAY AD-ASSOC. PLANNER 010.4130.5201 470.25 470.25
89418 03/12/99 047600 KAISER SAND & GRAVEL CO ASPHALT 220.4303.5613 90.24
89418 03/12/99 047600 KAISER SAND & GRAVEL CO ASPHALT 220.4303.5613 178.11
89418 03/12/99 047600 KAISER SAND & GRAVEL CO ASPHALT 220.4303.5613 59.87 328.22
89419 03/12/99 047814 KAUTZ CHEVRON SERVICE TOW-PW 2 010.4301. 5303 25.00 25.00
89420 03/12/99 048516 KEYLOCK SECURITY SPECIA KEYS-EXPLOSIVE SAFE 010.4201.5604 100.76 100.76
89421 03/12/99 053274 LYON & CARMEL PROF. LEGAL SVCS-FEB 010.4003.5304 6,936.26 6,936.26
89422 03/12/99 054494 CATHY MALLORY REIMB/PRE-SCHOOL SUPPLIES 010.4423.5253 27.87 27.87
89423 03/12/99 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAKE REPR.E BRAKE/LUBE/OIL/FILTER 010.4420.5601 45.71
89423 03/12/99 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAKE BRAKES/ALIGN/ROTATE 640.4712.5601 137.11 182.82
89424 03/12/99 056940 MIER BROS. CONCRETE-METER BOX 640.4712.5610 59.85 59.85
89425 03/12/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE CR:AA BATTERY/SURGE PROTECTOR 010.4420.5605 .50-
89425 03/12/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE RIVET AL/MISC.HARDWARE 010.4420.5605 8.82
89425 03/12/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BUSHING-WELL #9 640.4711.5603 1. 06
89425 03/12/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE HARDWARE-BACKSTOP 010.4430.5605 6.01
89425 03/12/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE CR:CEMENT/BUILDING SUPPLIES 010.4430.5605 107.23-
89425 03/12/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BASE PEGS/PLATES 010.4430.5605 32.43
89425 03/12/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE IRRIGATION SUPPLIES 010.4420.5605 15.84
89425 03/12/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PAINT/CAR WAX 010.4420.5605 138.44
89425 03/12/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE GRINDING WHEELS 010.4420.5605 19.17
89425 03/12/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE TUBING-WELL #9 640.4711.5603 4.67
89425 03/12/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE WRAP PIPE/FLAG TAPE/ELECT.SPLY 640.4712.5255 96.20
89425 03/12/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE SPRAY PAINT 640.4712.5610 7.92
89425 03/12/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PHONE CORD/APAPTER/COUPLER 010.4301. 5273 6.40
89425 03/12/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE HOG RING PLIERS 640.4712.5273 8.35
89425 03/12/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE FLAG TAPE/TOOL BELT/SURGE PROT 010.4420.5605 72 .22
89425 03/12/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE CABLE TIES 640.4712.5255 1. 81 311.61
89426 03/12/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS 220.4303.5143 97.00
89426 03/12/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE MAT/TOWELS 220.4303.5255 33.60
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 5
03/10/99 08:20 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 22
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
89426 03/12/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS 640.4712.5143 118.52
89426 03/12/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS 612.4610.5143 26.00
89426 03/12/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS 010.4420.5143 78.00
89426 03/12/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE TOWELS/FENDER COVERS 010.4305.5255 25.00
89426 03/12/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS 010.4305.5255 79.52
89426 03/12/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE MATS 010.4213.5604 18.54 476.18
89427 03/12/99 058578 MULLAHEY FORD TRANS.SVCS/FILTER/OIL 640.4712.5601 103.72 103.72
89428 03/12/99 061814 NOBLE SAW,INC. POLE PRUNER/BLADES 010.4420.5273 177.13 177.13
89429 03/12/99 100997 NTOA 99 NTOA MEMBERSHIP-ED ALLEN 010.4201. 5503 35.00 35.00
89430 03/12/99 062322 ONE HOUR PHOTO PLUS FILM/FILM DEVELOPED 220.4303.5255 50.41 50.41
89431 03/12/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL RADIO 451-0183 010.4145.5403 183.63
89431 03/12/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL DATA LINE-NETWORK 010.4140.5303 120.94
89431 03/12/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL FAX 473-0386 010.4145.5403 32.43
89431 03/12/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 473-1935 640.4710.5403 110.96
89431 03/12/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 841-3953 010.4211.5403 31.46
89431 03/12/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 841-3956 220.4303.5403 31.46
89431 03/12/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 841-3959 220.4303.5403 31.46
89431 03/12/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 841-3960 010.4211.5403 31. 46
89431 03/12/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL CENTREX PHONE-5400 010.4145.5403 1,419.81 1,993.61
89432 03/12/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 010.4304.5402 829.55
89432 03/12/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 640.4712.5402 199.50
89432 03/12/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 640.4711.5402 2,069.73
89432 03/12/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 612.4610.5402 661.00
89432 03/12/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 010.4145.5401 3,840.73
89432 03/12/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 010.4304.5402 11,285.86 18,886.37
89433 03/12/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE DELLEDONNE SVCS-2/19 220.4303.5303 208.32
89433 03/12/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE JACKSON SVCS-2/21 612.4610.5303 114.81
89433 03/12/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE JACKSON SVCS-2/21 640.4710.5303 172.23 495.36
89434 03/12/99 066690 PITNEY BOWES RENTAL-POSTAGE METER 010.4101. 5602 291.18 291.18
89435 03/12/99 066924 PLAQUE SHAQUE ARCH. REVIEW-NAME PLATE 010.4130.5201 64.35 64.35
89436 03/12/99 070356 RENNIE'S MOWER & ENGINE IGNITION COIL/SPARK PLUG 640.4712.5603 44.19 44.19
89437 03/12/99 069496 RXLASER CHECK STOCK-Alp 010.4120.5201 403.20 403.20
89438 03/12/99 076740 SANTA MARIA TIMES CLASS AD-MAINT. WORKER 1 010.4301. 5201 21. 66
89438 03/12/99 076740 SANTA MARIA TIMES CLASS AD-MAINT. WORKER 1 010.4301.5201 77.77 99.43
89439 03/12/99 077142 JOYCE SARUWATARI REIMB.SUPPLIES 010.4423.5253 33.48 33.48
89440 03/12/99 078468 SENSUS TECHNOLOGIES,INC 1 INCH WATER METERS 640.4712.5207 372.20 372.20
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 6
03/10/99 08:20 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 22
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
89441 03/12/99 100271 LYNDA SNODGRASS DEVELOPING LEADERSHIP W/SHOP 010.4120.5501 58.00 58.00
89442 03/12/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY BENCH SEAT COVER 612.4610.5601 88.79
89442 03/12/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY 120 WATT 3 WAY SPECKER 220.4303.5601 40.91 129.70
89443 03/12/99 100967 SJ SOUZA CONSTRUCTION C BEDLOE LANE MAINT.PROJECT 350.5808.7001 2,561. 77 2,561. 77
89444 03/12/99 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS RADIO REPRS 010.4301.5303 34.00
89444 03/12/99 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS RADIO REPRS 640.4712.5303 51. 00 85.00
89445 03/12/99 082836 STREATOR PIPE & SUPPLY PRESSURE TANK 640.4712.5610 392.45
89445 03/12/99 082836 STREATOR PIPE & SUPPLY PIPE FITTING 640.4712.5610 4.25 396.70
89446 03/12/99 082992 GREGORY STUMPH REIMB.SEWING MACHINE REPAIR 010.4211. 5603 8.50 8.50
89447 03/12/99 084804 TEXAS REFINERY CORP. CONCRETE MAGI-PATCH 220.4303.5613 287.97 287.97
89448 03/12/99 085020 THOMPSON PUBLISHING GRO ADA COMPLIANCE GUIDE 010.4212.5503 59.00 59.00
89449 03/12/99 100218 TRIGG INDUSTRIES INTL ROAD TUBE/CLAMP/NAILS 010.4301. 5403 180.30 180.30
89450 03/12/99 088062 UNION ASPHALT INC ASPHALT 220.4303.5613 245.41 245.41
89451 03/12/99 088084 UNITED GREEN MARK,INC. COUPLING FITTING SSC 010.4430.5605 20.53 20.53
89452 03/12/99 087672 UNITED RENTALS SAFTEY GLASSES 612.4610.5255 16.07 16.07
89453 03/12/99 088218 UNITED STATES POSTMASTE POSTAL PERM 23 010.4145.5201 100.00
89453 03/12/99 088218 UNITED STATES POSTMASTE POSTAL PERM 37 010.4145.5201 100.00
89453 03/12/99 088218 UNITED STATES POSTMASTE BUSINESS REPLAY 37 010.4145.5201 100.00 300.00
89454 03/12/99 088842 VALLEY AUTO SERVICE TIRE REPAIR 010.4420.5601 26.00 26.00
89455 03/12/99 100999 VALLEY MAZDA PARTS 010.4430.5601 56.76 56.76
89456 03/12/99 089700 VILLAGE ART EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION AWARD 010.4001. 5504 17 .18 17.18
89458 03/12/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. UG STORAGE TANK REPLACEMENT 350.5401. 7301 97.50
89458 03/12/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. DON ROBERTS FIELD 350.5501.7301 288.13
89458 03/12/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. GRAND AVE.CORRIDOR STUDY 350.5603.7301 290.14
89458 03/12/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. BIKEWAY PROJECT ONE 350.5606.7301 1,957.60
89458 03/12/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. CREEKSIDE PATH 350.5607.7301 87.50
89458 03/12/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. BRIDGE STREET BRIDGE DECK REHA 350.5608.7301 37.50
89458 03/12/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. STREET SEAL-COAT PROJECT 350.5612.7301 1,217 .14
89458 03/12/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 350.5613.7701 987.00
89458 03/12/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. BRISCO/101 INTERCHANGE ALTS 350.5615.7301 76.50
89458 03/12/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. EL CAMPO/101 INTERCHANGE ALTS 350.5616.7301 76.88
89458 03/12/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. CENTRAL COAST TOWN CENTER 350.5617.7301 21,827.73
89458 03/12/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. MONTEGO STREET SIDEWALKS 350.5622.7501 240.50
89458 03/12/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. PARKING LOT BEHIND CITY HALL 350.5623.7501 983.75
89458 03/12/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN/FINANCE A 350.5752.7701 165.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 7
03/10/99 08:20 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 22
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
89458 03/12/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. DISASTER SERVICES 1998 (DR-120 350.5755.7301 100.00
89458 03/12/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. DISASTER SERVICES 1998 (DR-120 350.5755.7501 3,150.30
89458 03/12/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. SEWER AND WATER RATE STUDY 350.5805.7301 135.00
89458 03/12/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. GRAND AVE. ELM TO HALCYON 350.5806.7501 821. 25
89458 03/12/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. BEDLOE LANE MAINTENCE PROJECT 350.5808.7301 920.00
89458 03/12/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. RESERVIOR NO.1 DESIGN 350.5903.7501 483.75
89458 03/12/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. WATER MASTER PLAN 350.5904.7701 1,900.39
89458 03/12/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. GENERAL CONSULTING SVCS 010.4301. 5303 12,387.73 48,231. 29
89459 03/12/99 090480 WAYNE'S TIRE TIRES 640.4712.5601 128.38 128.38
89460 03/12/99 091026 WEST PUBLISHING PAYMENT CA CODE UPDATE 010.4003.5503 101. 08 101. 08
89461 03/12/99 092586 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COM REPL.LAMP HALCYON/GRAND 010.4304.5303 148.29 148.29
89462 03/12/99 100834 WLC ARCHITECTS AG FIRE STATION STUDY 350.5402.7701 570.00 570.00
TOTAL CHECKS 109,224.24
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 8
03/10/99 08:20 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR PERIOD 22
FUND TITLE AMOUNT
010 GENERAL FUND 58,059.96
211 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 120.00
220 STREETS FUND 2,929.08
284 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND 639.18
350 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 38,915.33
612 SEWER FUND 2,115.11
640 WATER FUND 5,124.38
TOTAL 109,224.24
ATTACHMENT D
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION
PAY PERIOD 2/19/99 TO 3/04/99
3/12/99
FUND 010 212,973.63 5101 Salaries Full time 128,788.74
FUND 220 8,836.87 5102-03 Salaries Part-Time 27,608.98
FUND 284 - 5105-07 Salaries Over-Time 10,063.65
FUND 612 3,564.23 5108 Holiday Pay 4,098.19
FUND 640 9,449.32 5109 Sick Pay 1,513.37
234,824.05 5110 Annual Leave Pay -
5111 Vacation Buy Back -
5113 Vacation Pay 2,884.65
5114 Comp Pay 2,002.40
5115 Annual Leave Pay 1,078.94
5121 PERS Retirement 15,984.46
5122 Social Security 12,861.14
5123 PARS Retirement 232.21
5126 State Disability Ins. 68.02
5131 Health Insurance 19,022.88
5132 Dental Insurance 3,713.37
5133 Vision Insurance 678.44
5134 Life Insurance 484.61
5135 Long Term Disability -
5143 Uniform Allowance -
5144 Car Allowance 350.00
5146 Council Expense 3,015.00
5147 Employee Assistance 375.00
Total: 234,824.05
9.b.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DANIEL C. HERNANDEZ, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREA TION ~
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT BIDS - RECREATION SOFTWARE
DATE: MARCH 23, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Council authorize the solicitation of bids for recreation
software and authorize the City Manager to accept the lowest responsible bidder.
FUNDING:
The FY 1998-99 Management Information System budget includes $6,000 for the
purchase of recreation software.
DISCUSSION:
Currently, all program, facility reservations, and registrations are taken and scheduled
manually. Handwritten receipts are individually entered into the cash register at the end
of each day and forwarded to the Financial Services Department. Separate class lists
are handwritten and provided to instructors. Facility reservations are manually written
into eight (8) separate calendar books. In addition, continuing participants in programs
such as Children in Motion and Preschool are being entered into the system on a
recurring basis.
The purchase of registration software would increase the Department's efficiency and
customer service, allow for a reduction in paperwork, develop an easily accessible data
base for participant information and mailing lists, generate class rosters and invoices for
instructors, and eliminate potential double bookings of facilities. The system would be
networked at the Elm Street Community Center allowing any staff member access to
register a participant, rent a facility, or access participant information. Currently,
reservations and registrations can only be taken by staff at the front counter.
The bid proposal would be for program software with a minimum of two (2) days of
on-site staff training, a minimum of one (1) year software maintenance, and ability to
fully integrate with the City's Eden Financial System.
MEMORANDUM: AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT BIDS - RECREATION SOFTWARE
MARCH 23, 1999
PAGE 2
Alternatives:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
. Approve staffs recommendation;
. Modify staffs recommendation;
. Reject staffs recommendation; or
. Provide direction to staff.
S:\StaffRpt\RFPSoftwareMar23.99
.
BuildinQ and Life Safety
BUILDING PERMIT TRACKING SOFTWARE 3,500
This software will calculate fees, allow staff to track the progress of projects,
and track State and City License status. Building permits, permit forms, and
permit status reports can easily be printed for customers. Other reports
available to the public would include census reports, permit expiration reports,
permit register, permits finaled, fee reports, and monthly or yearly activity
summaries. Permits could also be sorted many ways, which is helpful in
serving the public. This software program would automate many functions that
are currently done manually. This software program is used by the City of San
Luis Obispo.
Parks and Recreation
RECREATION PROGRAM SCHEDULING SOFTWARE 6,000
Currently, program registration, facility reservation, and league scheduling are
handled manually by staff. Program registration is accomplished in a drop-in
basis with staff handwriting a receipt, handwriting on a separate sheet for
class rosters, and then entering the transaction into the City's Receipt
accounting System - Quadrant. Facility reservations are manually written into
eight (8) separate calendar books. League scheduling is also handled
manually and can take six to sixteen hours to complete with some margin for
error, particularly when several teams make special requests for game times
due to members' participation in other sports leagues. In an effort to more
efficiently serve participants of recreation services, the Department has
researched several vendors who offer software programs specifically for
recreation services. Once the Department computers are networked, access
to the recreation software will easily be accessible by all Department staff
members. This is a significant step towards increasing Department efficiency
and customer service. At ,this time, the Department is requesting the purchase
of one module of the software program - program registration. It is anticipated
that facilities, league, and telephone scheduling modules will be added in
future fiscal years to increase efficiency and customer service.
LASER PRINTER 1,200
The networking of the Department's computers will allow the sharing of a
printer. A laser printer would allow the Department to maintain productivity in
considerably less time, produce documents with higher definition print quality,
and fully utilize City standard software. The DeskJet color printer in the front
office will continue to be used for its color printing capabilities to produce
flyers for recreation activities, classes, and sports camps.
DESKJET PRINTER 200
The Parks Division is physically located in a separate building from the
Recreation Division. The computer workstation at the Parks Division currently
has no printer and staff must hand carry information to the Recreation Division
for printing. The new printer would allow for more efficient use of staff time.
8-4
9.c.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER ~
SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID, UTILITY SERVICE BODY
DATE: MARCH 23, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council:
. award the bid for the Public Works Utility Service Body to Douglass Truck Bodies,
Inc., in the amount of $20,187.72; and,
. authorize an appropriation of $2,300 from the Water Fund.
FUNDING:
Funding for this service body is included in the FY 1998-99 Water Distribution Division
Budget in the amount of $18,000 ($45,000 total; $27,000 for the truck and $18,000 for the
service body). An additional $2,300 will need to be appropriated from the Water Fund to
cover this purchase. The Water Fund is estimated to have an ending fund balance of
$540,166 as of June 30, 1999 (after the $2,300 appropriation).
DISCUSSION:
The purchase of the new 2-ton utility truck was authorized by the Council on September
22, 1998. The City took delivery of the replacement truck in December. On February 23,
1999 the Council authorized staff to solicit bids for the Utility Service Body for this truck.
On March 11, 1999, (3) three bids were opened for the Utility Service Body. The attached
bid results indicate Douglass Truck Bodies, Inc., as the apparent low bidder, with a total
bid amount of $20,187.72. The bid for the Utility Service Body has been reviewed and
found to be in compliance with the specifications.
Attachments: Budget Amendment Request
Bid Opening Log Sheet
February 23, 1999 Staff Report
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST NUMBER
N~ 088
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT FUND AMENDED FUND NO.
Public Works Water Fund 640
REVENUES
ACCCMn' DESCIUmON Acer. DETAIL CURRENT PROPOSED AMENDED
BUDGET AMENDMENTS BUDGET
- - . -
EXPENDITURES TOTAL
ACCOUNT DESCRIP110N OBI. CURRENT PROPOSED AMENDED
DEPT. BUDGET AMENDMENTS BUDGET
Vehicles 4712 6301 45,000 2,300 47,300
TOTAL 45,000 2,300 47,300
PURPOSE
To purchase a utility service bod v for the new utilitv truck.
DEPAJmOINJ' DI\lEClOIl DATE
crrY WANAOU. DATE
DllTIU8UT1IJ111, WHrrE: FINANCE CANARY: DEPAJm.tENT PINK: CITY MANAGER CM-7'
BID OPENING LOG SHEET
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
BID OPENING: MARCH 11, 1999
UTILITY SERVICE BODY
BIDDER'S NAME. CITY BID TOTAL
Industrial Truck Bodies $21,846.38
Santa Maria
Scelzi Enterprises, Inc. 22,468.79
Fresno
Douglass Truck Bodies, Inc. 20,187.72
Bakersfield
... .
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKSICITY ENGINEER ft6
SUBJECT: 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 1998199 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 o~
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
,
~ity 0/ P.O. Box 550
208 East Branch Street
~ &~ Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
Phone: (80S) 473-5440 Engineering
FAX: (80S) 473-5443
PUBLIC WORKS 1375 Ash Street
Phone: (805) 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 1999 Isuzu NPR HD Diesel Truck, 14,500 GVWR, with
a body length of 12 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 per drawing
. 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.
::.c
~
0
~
a::
0
w ~
4-
<3 0...
~
z
'\
a..
0
oc
0
~
otz
:z -
~~
~~
et:ex:: ~
00 w G)
lJ-u. ';{
~~ 0
a..~ g ~
\.JJ ~ ex::
z z ~
4- 3
ex:: ,
u 0- G-
o
et: ~
0
oc
--- -'
~
'0
en
0:
~
\\1
~
.... ~
~
, "- \
, ....
.::;::::::=---
" '.
~tj
~ ;f.
~i3
... ...
t.. ~
c-> or>
t-
Z
uJ
-:z
~
<(
D-
:2
0
<..)
uJ
--1
\=
0
cD
-'
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
9.d.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER ~
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT BIDS -
THE SCENIC CREEKSIDE WALK THROUGH THE HISTORIC VILLAGE
OF ARROYO GRANDE, PHASE IA - PROJECT NO. 90-97-2
DATE: MARCH 23, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Council authorize the re-advertisement of construction bids for
the Scenic Creekside Walk Through the Historic Village of Arroyo Grande, Phase IA.
FUNDING:
The FY 1998/99 adopted budget included $50,400 as the total construction budget
available ($47,000 for construction and $3,400 for construction contingencies) for the
Phase IA of the Scenic Creekside Walk Through the Historic Village of Arroyo Grande
project. During closeout of the FY 1997/98 budget, it was determined that there was a cost
savings of $4,253 from the conceptual design phase of the project. This $4,253 was
carried-over into the construction phase bringing the total construction budget available for
Phase IA to $54,653 ($51,253 for construction and $3,400 for construction contingencies).
The engineer's estimated cost for Phase IA is $42,500 for the base bid; $13,900 for bid
alternative #1; and $3,500 for bid alternative #2.
DISCUSSION:
Phase IA of the Scenic Creekside Walk Through the Historic Village of Arroyo Grande
project includes the removal and replacement of a non-standard stairway on the north bank
of Arroyo Grande Creek just east of the swinging bridge.
Because there may not be enough construction funds available at this time to complete all
of Phase lA, it has been split into a base bid plus two bid alternatives. The base bid
consists of removing the entire stairway and reconstructing the top portion of the stairway
from the sidewalk to the existing path. The bid alternatives are: 1) reconstructing the lower
portion of the stairway from the existing path to a proposed scenic outlook area and 2)
landscape maintenance for one full year.
On August 11, 1998, the City Council authorized the solicitation of construction bids .for
Phase IA. On September 8, 1998, three bids were publicly opened for the project. Only
one of the three bids submitted (the highest bid) met all the bid specifications. The bid of
$173,132.92 exceeded the available construction budget by $118,479.92. On September
22, 1998, the City Council rejected all bids and directed staff to re-bid the project in Spring
1999.
The contract time for the project is 45 calendar days. If acceptable bids are received, work
is expected to begin at the end of June and be completed in mid-August as shown in the
attached project schedule.
jep:232.5607/solicit.bid.2.wpd
,
\1 I:
. 1
~" .
L.._~. . _. b
East J3rQf'\ch ..5tree:t
_ \h .. 1,1
I ffJ · JJ ~
- J UJ
~
o . c
..c \ . 0 "
~ ,~.,,-:-:\ \'", ..
r @: . .> \". Expanded
.
Improved .
creekside traIl
Existing pedestrian New overtook
connection across
11istoric s'vvinging \
b r i dg e ~ 0 ,...........". .
...t::1 0 ~ "",-,0 t:::::3 '
~\ ~ \
o~o~o '
I I New 'walkway
Blong creek bluff ~:
. ~ I I
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
TENTATIVE PROJECT SCHEDULE
for
THE SCENIC CREEKSIDE WALK THROUGH
THE HISTORIC VILLAGE OF ARROYO GRANDE, PHASE I
(CITY PROJECT NO: 90-97-2)
Council Approval to Re-Bid Project ............................ March 23, 1999
1 st Notice to Bidders ........................................ April 16, 1999
2nd Notice to Bidders (min 5 days between publications) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., April 21, 1999
Job Walk Through (Tuesday, 2:00 p.m. at City Council Chambers) . . . . . . . . . . .. May 4, 1999
Receive Bids (Tuesday, 2:00 p.m.) ................................ May 18, 1999
Award of Bid (at City Council Meeting) ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 8, 1999
Notice of Award (within period specified in notice to bidders) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 11 J 1999
Notice to Proceed (within 14 calendar days from award) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 24, 1999
Start Work ................................................ June 28, 1999
Contract Completion - 45 calendar days ....................... August 11, 1999
jep:232.5607\projsch399.wpd March 11, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKSICITY ENGINEER fJo
SUBJECT: REJECTION OF BIDS, THE SCENIC CREEKSIDE WALK THROUGH
THE HISTORIC VILLAGE OF ARROYO GRANDE - PHASE lA,
PROJECT NO. 90-97-2
DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 1998
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council:
A. reject all bids received for the Scenic Creekside Walk through the Historic Village
of Arroyo Grande - Phase IA project; and
B. direct staff to re-bid the project in the Spring of 1999.
FUNDING:
The FY 1998/99 Capital Improvement Program budget includes $47,000 as the
construction budget available for the Scenic Creekside Walk through the Historic Village
of Arroyo Grande - Phase IA capital improvement project.
DISCUSSION:
Phase IA of the Scenic Creekside Walk Through the Historic Village of Arroyo Grande
project includes the removal and replacement of the existing stairway on the north bank
of Arroyo Grande Creek just east of the swinging bridge.
On September 8. 1998, three bids were publicly opened for Scenic Creekside Walk
through the Historic Village of Arroyo Grande - Phase IA project. Only one of the three
bids submitted was complete (or responsive) which was that of the highest bidder, Vernon
Edwards. Both B&H Communications or Sansone Company, Inc. failed to submit all the
information required to submit a complete bid package.
Based on information contained in the bids and subsequent conversations with the bidders,
staff has determined the following had contributed to the differences in the bids received
and the engineer's estimate:
. The apparent low bidder failed to include some of the bid items contained in the bid
schedule which would raise the bid total by approximately $7,000;
. the apparent low bidder wishes to branch out in this area of construction and,
therefore, has submitted a bid with a low profit margin in order to obtain jobs and
experience;
. the two highest bidders are large firms and have submitted bids that include a
substantial profit margin in order to make this relatively small job worth their efforts;
and,
. the estimate developed by the landscape architect did not take into account
substantial mark-ups currently being added to labor and material costs.
It is recommended that the City reject all bids now and re-bid the project in Spring 1999 for
the following reasons:
. the project schedule calls for a tight time frame in order to complete the project
before potential rains; and,
. due to the current economy and construction activity throughout the State, bid
results may be more favorable in six months.
Alternatives'
1. Reject all bids at this time and re-bid the project in Spring 1999 with a more refined
engineer's estimate; or
2. Award the bid to the lowest responsive bidder and allocate additional funds
necessary to meet the construction costs through either of the following:
a. Allocate $68,350 of the City's Urban State Highway Account (USHA) funds
now programmed as "projects to be determined"; or,
b. Request that SLOCOG advance $54,680 of TEA funds from the $250,000
programmed for Phase II of the Creekside Walk Project and allocate $13,760
of the City's USHA funds as the required local match. (This alternative is
dependent on TEA funds being readily available to SLOCOG and would
require that the project meet all federal requirements and regulations due to
the additional federal TEA funds.)
j ep :232.5607 /reject. bids. wpd
BID OPENING LOG SHEET
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
BID OPENING: September 8, 1998
SCENIC CREEKSIDE WALK THROUGH THE HISTORIC
VILLAGE OF ARROYO GRANDE - PROJECT NO. 70-97-2
PHASE 1A
BIDDER'S NAME. CITY BASE BID AL T. #1 ALT. #2 TOTAL
B & H Communications, Inc. $59,862.00 $17,409.00 $4,350.00 $81,621.00
Santa Margarita
Sansone Company, Inc. $102,957.90 $44,381.80 $1,326.00 $148,667.70
San Luis Obispo
Vernon Edwards $115,350.92 $53,390.00 $4,392.00 $173,132.92
Constructors, Inc.
Nipomo
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE: $43,100.00
ll~a.~
NANCY A. A VIS, CITY CLERK
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER ~
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT BIDS -
THE SCENIC CREEKSIDE WALK THROUGH THE HISTORIC VILLAGE
OF ARROYO GRANDE, PHASE I - PROJECT NO. 90-97-2
DATE: AUGUST 11, 1998
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Council:
A. approve the plans and specifications for Phase I of the Scenic Creekside Walk
Through the Historic Village of Arroyo Grande capital improvement project; and,
B. authorize the advertisement of construction bids for the project.
FUNDING:
The FY 1998/99 capital improvement program budget includes $47,000 for the
construction of Phase I. The engineer's estimated cost for this Phase I is $42,500 for the
base bid; $13,900 for bid alternative #1; and $3,500 for bid alternative #2.
DISCUSSION:
Phase I of the Scenic Creekside Walk Through the Historic Village of Arroyo Grande
project includes the removal and replacement of the existing stairway on the north bank
of Arroyo Grande Creek just east of the swinging bridge (see attached map).
The base bid consists of removing the entire stairway and reconstructing the top portion
of the stairway from the sidewalk to the existing path. The new stairway will be placed on
wood columns and frame to closely match the rustic creek setting as well as provisions for
new landscaping.
Also, two bid alternatives have been included as follows: 1) reconstructing the lower portion
of the stairway from the existing path to a proposed scenic outlook area and 2) landscape
maintenance for one full year. The additional bid alternatives were included to obtain costs
which could be included with Phase I construction costs, depending on the bids received.
After the bids are received, staff will retum to the Council with a recommendation for either
additional funding to complete all bid alternatives (e.g., through cost savings from other
capital improvement projects) or a selection of bid alternatives to be completed within the
available budget.
The contract requires project completion within 45 calendar days from the start of work.
Work is expected to begin in the middle of October and be completed by the beginning of
December, as shown in the attached tentative project schedule.
jep :232.5607 /solicit.bid. wpd
9.e.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER 1ft
SUBJECT: CITY CORPORATION YARD FUEL FACILITY REPLACEMENT PLAN,
CITY PROJECT NO. 80-98-1, PROGRESS PAYMENT NO.2
DATE: MARCH 23, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Council authorize payment in the amount of $45,195.61 to
Remedial Management Corporation for the City Corporation Yard Fuel Facility
Replacement 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.2 was received from Remedial Management
Corporation for work completed between February 4, and March 5, 1999. As of March 5th,
the contract time was 36% complete and 41 % of the contract funds had been requested
by the Contractor. This is due to the costs a Contractor incurs at the beginning of a project
in obtaining required permits, bond fees, and procuring products. No budget problems are
anticipated.
The current contract end date is April 1, 1999, which is 45 calendars days from the date
the contract-specified tanks became available. The contract end date may extend by
approximately one week due to delays caused by unexpected soils conditions/shoring
requirements and weather.
jep: 232.5401\prog.pay.2.wpd
Mar-11-99 03 : 14P JLWA Assoc P.02
APPLICAnON FOR PROGRESS PAYMENT NO.2
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL DATE: MARCH 23, 1999
CONTRACT DATE: September 16, 1998 11-Mar-99
SUBMITTED TO: City of Arroyo Grande 3:00 PM
CONTRACT NO: 10-88-1
CONTRACT FOR: City Corporation Yard Fuel Facility Replacement Plan
CITY ACCOUNT NO: 350-5401-7001 co $45,185.81; 350~1-7201 co $0.00
FOR THE WORK ACCOMPLISHED BY REMEDIAL MANAGEMENT CORP. FROM: Feb. 4, 1999 TO: Mar. 5, 1999
CONTRACTOR'S schedule of Values WORK COMPLETED
NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT
1. Permitting, Bond Fees, Engineering, Project $ 16,440.00 1 LS S 16,446.00 39% $ 6,413.94
Management, Procurement, Mobilization,
Trucks, & Transportation
2. Tank Removal $ 21,246.00 1 lS $ 21,246.00 85% $ 18,059.10
3. Equipment/Hardware $ 35,798.00 1 LS $ 35,798.00 65% $ 23,269.20
4. Tank Installation $ 16,834.00 1 LS $ 16,834.00 45% $ 7,575.10
5. Piping and Electrical (Materials and In8tallation) $ 20,845.00 1 LS $ 20,845.00 0% $ .
6. Resurfacing $ 6,579.00 1 LS $ 6,57900 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 $ 55,317.34
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS: Estimated Total % Billed Amount Paid
A. Remove and dispose of existing concrete pavement $ 40.00
A. Installation additional 31-sf of concrete pavement $ 232.00
TOTAL 1$ 272.00 I PAID I $ -
ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTATION: ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $135,165.00
Invoice #7391, dated 02J23I99 and Invoice '7394, TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS $272.00
dated 03lO8I99 from Remedial Management ADJUSTED CONTRACT AMOUNT $135,437.00
Corporation TOTAL VALUE OF WORK PERFORMED TO DATE $55,317.34
LESS 10% RETAlNAGE ($5,531.73)
NOTES: .LESS AMOUNTS PAID ($4,590.00)
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE THIS APPLICATION $45,195.61
CONTRACT START DATE February 15, 1999
ORIGINAL CONTRACT DAYS 45
PREVIOUS ADJUSTMENTS 0
ADJUSTMENTS THIS PERIOD 0
ADJUSTED CONTRACT DAYS 45
ADJUSTED CONTRACT END DATE April 1, 1999
Mar-11-99 03:14P JLWA Assoc P.03
CONTRACTOR'S ACCEPTANCE:
Dated: ~~~ ~ ,of1999. S#.p//~/"./ .c. Rt3/D/
emedial Management corpo~ratlon ,
. .
~ ~ .
Payment of the above AMOUNT DUE THIS APPLICATION is recommended:
Dated: . of 1999.
Engineer
By:
Signature
DIIted: . of 1999.
City Manager
By:
Signature
Send payment to:
Remedial Management Corporation
3833 Birch Street
Newport Beach. CA 92E!6O
(714) 445-9240
jep2325401\payhls
~
REMEDIAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION CONSTRUCTORS/ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
General Engineering lie. No. 65833~
INVOICE
city of Arroyo Grande Date: 23-Feb-99
Public Works Department RMC Job No.: 6549
P. o. Box 550 Project Mgr.: S. Abidi
208 East Branch Street Invoice No.: 7391
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
Attention: Mr. Don Spagnolo Project No.: 80-98-1
City Corporate Yard Fuel Tank Replacement
Service Description: Tank Removal, New Tank Delivery, Cavity Preparation, Diesel Cavity Backfi
Dates of Service: February 4, 1999 -
Contract Amount This Total Billed Balance
Amount To Date Remainin
Permitting, Bond Fees, Engineering, $16,446.00 39% $6,413.94 $10,032.06
Project Management, Procurement,
Mobilization, Trucks & Transportation
Tank Removal $21,246.00 85% :;'0.00 $1.8,059.10 $3,186.90
Equipment/Hardware $35,798.00 40% $0.00 $14,319.20 $14,319.20 $21.478.80
Tank Installation $16,834.00 15% $2,525.10 $14,308.90
Piping and Electrical $20,845.00 $0.00 $20,845.00
(Materials and Installation)
Resurfacing $6,579.00 $0.00 $6,579.00
ent Pipe, Provide and Install $1,165.00 $0.00 $1,165.00
General Construction Items $10,252.00 $0.00 $10,252.00 I
50 CUbic Yards of soil Disposal $6,000.00 $0.00 $6,000.00
\"-' j, i
cg(Q\~W
Contract Amount $135,165.00
Amount Previously Billed
Total this Invoice
Total Amount Billed Against Contract
Amount Remaining on Contract $93,847.66
I TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: $36,217.34 I
PROGRESS BILLING X FINAL BILLING
TERMS: NET'15 DAYS CITY OF
PLEASE REMIT PAYMENT TO:
REMEDIAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION ARROYO GRANDE
2900 BRISTOL STREET STE. G208
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626-7915 MAR 1 1999
2900 Bristol Street. Suite G-208. Costa Meso. CA 92626 . Tei (714) 445-9240 . Fox (714) 445-9250 PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
REQUEST FOR PAYMENT
FORM "C"
For Contracts
DATE: March 24, 1999
TO: Accounts Payable
FROM: Don Spagnolo, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Payment Request
Project Name: CITY CORPORATION YARD FUEL FACILITY
REPLACEMENT PLAN
Contract No. 80-98-1
Account Numbers: 350-5401-7001 in the amount of $ 45,195.61
350-5401-7201 in the amount of $ 0.00
Vendor: Remedial Management Corporation
3833 Birch Street
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Payment Request Number: 2
The attached invoice was received on the above mentioned project and is found to be in conformance
with the requirements of the contract approved by council. Please arrange for payment in the next
regularly scheduled check run. The retention amount has been withheld under the terms of the
contract.
Following is the status ofthe contract:
Contract Amount $135,437.00 100.0%
Completed to Date $ 55,317.34 40.8%
Less Previous Payments $ 4,590.00
Less Retention $ 5,531.73
Amount Due $ 45,195.61
Department/Division Director Date
2~~~ (3-//99
Date
Finance Director Date
Check No. Issued Date Issued Audited by Finance
FINAL PAYMENT APPROVALS:
INSPECTOR APPROVAL: LIENS CLEARED:
YES NO YES NO
9.f.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JIM HAMILTON, AICP, COMMUNITY 9U/
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF JOINT CITY/COUNTY APPLICATION FOR
AGRICULTURAL LAND STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM (ALSP)
GRANT FUNDS
DATE: MARCH 23, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council approve the attached resolution
authorizing City participation with the County of San Luis Obispo in a joint
ALSP Grant application.
FUNDING:
There is a 10% match of funds required should a grant application be
approved by the State. This requirement would be met through an allocation
of in-kind staff services.
DISCUSSION:
In December of 1997, the City Council approved the Coordinated Agricultural
Support Program (CASP). The overall purpose of the CASP was to develop
project recommendations that may be implemented toward preserving and
supporting the agricultural industry in the Arroyo Grande Valley. This
purpose was achieved with specific recommendations being outlined within
the document. The most favorable option recommended was the creation of
a nonprofit agricultural land trust (Attachment 1).
At the February 23rd Council meeting, staff was directed to pursue a possible
partnership with the County on preparation of an ALSP grant. The grant funds
will be used to explore opportunities to establish a non-profit agricultural land
trust within the Arroyo Grande Valley. Although the first grant application cycle
ended March 1st, grants are considered by the State throughout the year.
The Agricultural Land Stewardship Program provides grants that support the
efforts of local governments and non-profit organizations to conserve agricultural
lands. In 1998-99, approximately $14 million dollars has been made available for
this purpose, 10% of which is available for policy/planning projects (Attachment
2).
Agricultural land Trust. land trusts are nonprofit, private organizations that
are designed to protect open space or agricultural lands, scenic areas,
recreational, or historical sites. A land trust is typically governed by a
volunteer board of directors, and mayor may not employ staff to assist it.
Volunteers within the community carry out most of the work of the majority
of land trusts, and they rely largely on local volunteer and financial support.
Agricultural land trusts focus exclusively on farmlands and are characterized
by having substantial representation of agricultural interests on their boards
of directors.
San Luis Obispo County applied for an ALSP grant in 1997, but was
unsuccessful (Attachment 3). The City and County would jointly apply for funds
in the range of $20,000 to $30,000. The format of the grant application would
follow the 1997 County application with refinement based on current state
program guidelines. Funding would be used to:
A. Establish an advisory committee of local farmland owners to
explore opportunities for farmland protection, including possible
creation of an agricultural land trust for the Arroyo Grande Valley.
B. Determine the level of interest of farmland owners in the Arroyo
Grande Valley in forming an agricultural land trust which focuses
exclusively on agricultural land protection opportunities such as
obtaining voluntary conservation easements. If sufficient interests
exist, proceed with tasks C and D.
C. Provide the agricultural landowners in the valley with the needed
technical support for organizing and operating a land trust; and
D. As determined by the advisory committee, develop an agricultural
land protection mechanism such as a model agricultural
conservation easement, procedures, and methods for use in the
Arroyo Grande Valley.
Responsibility for management of the grant would be shared by both the County
and City; however, all contracts and funds would be managed by County staff.
On a $30,000 grant, the 10% match ($3,000), would consist of $1,500 of in-kind
services from the County, and $1,500 from the City (in staff time assisting with
the tasks described above).
Attachments
1. Excerpt from the CASP re: agricultural land trust.
2. AlSP Grant Application Information.
3. 1998 County Grant Application.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
APPROVING A JOINT APPLICATION WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FOR
GRANT FUNDS FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION'S
AGRICULTURAL LAND STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Legislature has established the Agricultural Land Stewardship Program
(ALSP) within the Department of Conservation, and through a grant program is
providing assistance to conserve important agricultural land resources that are subject
to conversion pressures; and
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande intends to pursue a partnership with the County
of San Luis Obispo for the purpose of obtaining grant funds to explore opportunities to
conserve priority agricultural land resources; and
WHEREAS. grant funds will be used for the purpose of implementing appropriate
provisions of the Arroyo Grande Valley Coordinated Agricultural Support Program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the grant application is consistent with the
intent and goals of the Arroyo Grande Valley Coordinated Agricultural Support
Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande hereby approves the filing of an application for funding from the Agricultural
Land Stewardship Program.
On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this th day of March 1999.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
NANCY A. DAVIS, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
altlJ L .Iflbi: -
ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
A IT ACHMENT 1
~~ ,
.- Introduction to
Summary : :~, the CASP Study
)'I~
Summary-
Report
~ of tile Coordinated
Action Programs AgI'icul1uPaI SUpport Existing Land
Program (CASP) Use Policies
Array. Grande Valey
~
Recent Proposals
Prepared for:
City of Arroyo Grande
and
The California State Coastal Conservancy
by
Stephen McGary, Ph.D.
Land use and planning policy of agricultural lands has been dictated through local County
and City zoning and planning restrictions. San Luis Obispo County, for example regulates the
conversion of agricultural land through the administration of its Land Use Element (LUE) and its
Coastal Zone Land Use Element (CZLUE). These two documents, along with their
corresponding Land Use Ordinances, are used to regulate all unincorporated land within the
County.
While each of the above programs is aimed at preserving agricultural lands, none are lIaIl_
encompassing" nor completely successful. Such a situation gave rise to the development of the
CASP.
Proposed CASP Programs
The overall purpose of the CASP was to develop project recommendations that may be
implemented toward preserving and supporting the agricultural industry in the Arroyo Grande
Valley. This purpose was achieved with specific recommendations being outlined within the
document prepared by Perspective Planning. Possible programs identified by Perspective
Planning include seven specific alternatives. The most favorable option recommended was the _
creation of a nonprofit agricultural land trust. Additional options reviewed by Perspective
Planning included: (2) Conservation easement acquisition and purchase of development rights;
(3) Transfer of development rights; (4) Additional Williamson Act incentives; (5) Direct
marketing oflocaI fann products; (6) Public financing for agricultural infrastructures; (7)
Securing adequate groundwater in support of continued agriculture. A brief description of the
first three alternatives will be presented here. For more complete detail, the reader is referred to
the fuIl CASP report. The following infonnation is summarized from the CASP document
prepared by Perspective Planning.
10
ATTACHMENT 2
Agricultural Land
Stewardship Program
.
-
-
Pete Wilson -" Douglas P. 'Mleeler Lawrence J. Goldzband
Governor Secretary for Resources Director
State of California The Resources Agency Department of Conservation
12-98
Department of Conservation Agricultural Land Stewardship Program
Grant Application Manual Fiscal Year 1998-99
Chapter 1 : THE ALSP GRANT PROGRAM
The Department of Conservation's Agricultural Land Stewardship Program (ALSP) provides
grants to local governments and qualified non-profit organizations for:
. voluntary acquisition of conservation easements on agricultural lands that are under
pressure of being converted to non-agricultural uses;
. temporary acquisition of agricultural lands as a phase in the process of placing an
agricultural conservation easement;
. restoration of and improvements to agricultural land already under easement; and
. agricultural land conservation planning and policy projects.
The ALSP is designed to work in concert with local planning and zoning strategies to conserve
agricultural land. The Program was created by the Agricultural Land Stewardship Program Act
of 1995, contained within Division 10.2 of the Public Resources Code (Sections 10200 to'
10277) and the Revenue and Taxation Code (Sections 421.5 and 422.5).1
This Grant Application Manual is intended to serve as a reference in understanding the
provisions of the ALSP, and includes instructions for the submission of applications for grant
funding.
ALSP Jurisdiction
The ALSP's enabling legislation provides the Department of Conservation with statewide
jurisdiction to work with local governments and non-profit organizations to conserve agricultural
land resources through the use of agricultural conservation easements. In addition, the State
Coastal Conservancy is vested with responsibilities for carrying out agricultural projects in the
coastal zone (as defined in Section 30103 of the Public Resources Code), including the
acquisition of agricl:lltural conservation easements. The ALSP does not alter th.e Conservancy's
responsibilities for the administration of state or federal funds that are allocated for the purpose
of preserving coastal agricultural lands. For ALSP projects within the coastal zone, the
Department of Conservation will consult with the Conservancy in developing the Department's
policies, priorities, and procedures for the allocation of funds (Public Resources Code Section
10225).
-
-
-
1 The Codes are available on the internet at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.htrnl, or upon request to- the
Department of Conservation.
Chapter 1: Introduction 1-1
Department of Conservation Agricultural Land Stewardship Program
Grant Application Manual Fiscal Year 1998-99
Application Eligibility
Eligible Applicants
The ALSP may award grants to cities, counties, and private non-profit organizations.
Non-profit organizations must:
. have among their defined purposes the conservation of agricultural lands,
. hold a tax exemption as defined under Section 501 (c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code, and
. further qualify as non-profit organizations under Section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) or 170(h)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code (Public Resources Code Section 10221).
Non-profit applicants must provide documents verifying their agricultural land conservation'
purpose, and their 501 (c)3 status. Non-profit applicants must also certify that ALSP funding
would present no conflict of interest on the part of the Board or its members. and provide
documentation of the organization's ability to carry out the proposed project (see page 4-1).
Eligible Projects
Agricultural Conservation Easement Acquisition Projects
Agricultural conservation easement projects are considered eligible for grant funding if they
meet the following criteria (Public Resources Code Section 10251):
. The parcel proposed for conservation is expected to continue to be used for, and is large
enough to sustain, commercial agricultural production. The land is also in an area that
possesses the necessary market, infrastructure, and agricultural support services, and
the -surrounding parcel sizes and land uses will support long-term commercial
agricultural production.
. The applicable city or county has a general plan which demonstrates a long-term
commitment to agricultural land conservation. This commitment shall be reflected in the
goals, objectives, policies, and implementation measures of the plan, as they relate to
the area of the county or city where the easement acquisition is proposed.
. The grant proposal is consistent with the city or county general plan, and the governing
body of the city or county, by resolution, approves the grant proposal.
. Without conservation, the land proposed for protection is likely to be converted to non-
agricy,ltural use in the foreseeable future.
-
-.
Chapter 1: Introduction 1-2
Department of Conservation Agricultural Land Stewardship Program
Grant Application Manual Fiscal Year 1998-99
Fee Title Acquisition Projects
In addition to agricultural conservation easements, grant funds may be used in certain cases to
obtain fee title (full purchase of title) to agricultural lands. In such cases, the following
conditions must be met:
. A grant recipient must agree, upon acquisition of the property, to encumber the land with
an agricultural conservation easement subject to Public Resources Code Section 10262
(Public Resources Code Section 10239(a)).
. The grant recipient must sell the fee title subject to the easement to a private landowner
within three years of the acquisition of the fee title (Public Resources Code Section
10239(b)).
. The grant recipient must reimburse the ALSP Fund by an amount equal to the fair
market value of the land less the value of the easement and associated transactior.1
costs within 30 days after the sale of the restricted fee title (Public Resources Code
Section 10239(c)).
Policy/Planning Projects
Policy and planning projects related to agricultural land conservation and the utilization of
agricultural conservation easements may also be considered (e.g., the consideration of
agricultural conservation easements as a local mitigation of agricultural land conversion, the
delineation of agricultural lands with the greatest local priorities for conservation, etc). No more
than ten percent of total available grant funds may be applied toward land improvement and
policy/planning purposes combined (Public Resources Code Section 10230 (c)). Before
proceeding with the application process, prospective applicants for policy/planning grants are
encouraged to contact the ALSP staff (916-324-0850, or alsp@consrv.ca.gov), to discuss the
preliminary details of the proposal.
Land Improvement Projects
Up to ten percent of total available grant funds may be applied toward land improvement and
policy/planning purposes combined (Public Resources Code Section 10230 (c)). Use of these
grants shall be limited to the improvement of lands protected by agricultural conservation
easements. If a proposed project includes the use of grant funds for land improvement, that
component shall be evaluated with respect to the extent to which it satisfies one or more of the
following (Public Resources Code Section 10246):
. The improvement will enhance the agricultural value of the land protected by the
easement, and promote its long-term sustainable agricultural use, such as water supply
development and revegetation of eroding streambanks.
.-
. The improvement will increase the compatibility of the agricultural operations with -
sensitive natural areas.
. The improvement will demonstrate new and innovative best management practices
which have the potential for wide application.
Chapter 1: Introduction 1-3
Department of Conservation Agricultural Land Stewardship Program
Grant Application Manual Fiscal Year 1998-99
. The improvement includes the financial and technical involvement of other agencies.
. The improvement is part of a coordinated watershed management plan or the
equivalent.
Ineligible Projects
Projects are considered ineligible if they fail to meet all of the eligibility criteria described under
Eligible Projects, and.if any of the following apply:
. The local government applicant has acquired, or proposes to acquire, the
agricultural conservation easement through the use of eminent domain, unless
requested by the owner of the land (Public Resources Code Section 10232).-
. The acquisition of the agricultural conservation easement would restrict husbandry
practices on the land (Public Resources Code Section 10238).
. The applicant and seller of the agricultural conservation easement do not agree to
restrict the use of the land in perpetuity, subject to review after a 25 year period
(Public Resources Code Section 10237).
. The proposed easement is part of a local govemmenfs condition placed upon the
issuance of an entitlement to use of a specific property (Public Resources Code
Section 10237).
-
-
-
Chapter 1: Introduction 1-4
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
.6 ... I If .!.r r~ iIf ~~.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING
ALEX HINDS
DIRECTOR
ATTACHMENT 3 BRYCE TINGLE
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
ELLEN CARROll
iVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR
BARNEY MCCAY
December 15, 1997 CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
NORMA SALISBURY ,
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES OFFICER
Mr. Charles Tyson
Department of Conservation
Office of Land Conservation
Agricultural Land Stewardship Program
80 I K Street, MS-13-71
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Mr. Tyson:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit grant applications for consideration under the Agricultural .
Land Stewardship Program (ALSP). The County of San Luis Obispo submits the enclosed two
applications in the planning grant category:
Implementation of the Arroyo Grande Valley Coordinated Agricultural Support Program (CASP).
The Coordinated Agricultural Support Program (CASP) was prepared for a portion of the Arroyo Grande
Valley with fimding nom the State Coastal Conservancy for the City of Arroyo Grande in consultation with
the County of San Luis Obispo. This proposal is to fund activities to create a non-profit agricultural land
trust designed to protect agricultural lands.
Antiquated Subdivisions and Intensifying Agriculture. The purpose of this project is to compile a
database of the antiquated subdivisions in areas of intensifying agricultural activities. The data collection
effort would focus on areas of the county where concentrations of antiquated subdivisions are known to
exist and the development of agriculture activities. especially vineyards. is expanding.
We appreciate the efforts of the Department of Conservation in administering this important grant
program. Please do not hesitate to call me at (805) 781-5982 or David Church, Associate Planner,
at (805) 781-5620 if you have any questions about either proposal.
Sincerely,
td . -
Warren Hoag. AICP
Principal Planner ".-
Advance Planning Division
CoUNTY GOVERNMENT QNTER . SAN LUIS OBISPO . CAuFORNIA 93408 . (805) 781-5600 . FAX (805) 781-1242 OR 5624
I
AGRICULTURAL LAND STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
Grant Application Cover Sheet
--
Name of Organization/Unit of Government San Lui s Obi SDO County /Pl anni ng Dena rtment
Mailing Address: County Government Center, San Luis ObisDO, CA93408
Contact Person Oavid Church, Assc. Planner Telephone (805) 781-5620 .
Fax (805) 181-~hZ~
Project Title: Establishin9 an Aprir:ultllr;tl l;tnrl TrJlc;t in thP Arrnyn .r,r~nrlp
Va 11 ey
Grant Request Amount $ 10,000.00 Total Estimated Project Cost $ 11 , ')00.00
Project Location (county and nearest city): San Luis Obisno County/Arroyo r,rande
Assessor's Parcel Number(s) [for acquisition projects1 Plannin" hrant
Landowner Name(s) [for acquisition projects1 Plannin~ r,rant -
Type of Grant Request:
Agricultural Conservation Easement
Fee Title Acquisition
-
Land Improvement . -
XX Policy/Planning
17
AGRICUL TURAL LAND STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
San Luis Obispo County project application:
Establishing an Agricultural Land Trust in the Arroyo Grande Valley
L Project Description
Implementation of the Arroyo Grande Valley Coordinated Agricultural Support Program (CASP)
The Coordinated Agricultural Support Program (CASP) was prepared for a portion of the Arroyo Grande
Valley with fimding from the State Coastal Conservancy for the City of Arroyo Grande in consultation with
the County of San Luis Obispo. The purpose of the CASP is to identify issues related to the efforts of
supporting and preserving the agricultural and environmental production and resources of the Arroyo
Grande Valley (AGV). The primmy recommendation of the CASP is to establish an agricultural land trust
for the AGV and surrounding area for the purpose of preserving the agricultural economic viability of the
land resources through the acquisition of agricultural conservation easements and other related preservation
techniques.
The Arroyo Grande Valley is located in southern San Luis Obispo County. Figure 1 on the next page
provides an aerial view of the AGV and the surrounding area. The specific focus of this proposal is the
unincorporated portion of the study area identified in the CASP. As can be seen in figure 1, development
is encroaching on the agricultural lands in this region. This proposal is to fund activities to create a non-
profit agricultural land trust designed to protect agricultural lands in the unincorporated portions of the
AGV. Funding would be used for the following tasks:
A. further determine the level of interest of farmland owners in the AGV of forming an
agricultural land trust which focuses exclusively on obtaining voluntmy conservation
easements;
B. provide the agricultural landowners in the valley with the needed technical support for
organizing and operating a land trust;
C. establish an advisory committee, and eventually a Board of Directors, to develop and
establish an agricultural land trust for the Arroyo Grand Valley, and
D. develop a model agricultural conservation easement and procedures and methods for its
use in the AGV.
This plarming effort would enable the interested agricultural land owners in the unincorporated portions
of the AGV to qevelop a land trust that would focus on obtaining conservation easements. The CASP study
indicates that many agricultural land owners are interested in establishing such an organization iri the- area.
Agricultural Land Stewardship Program (ALSP) funding would be used as seed money by the county to
hire a qualified consultant to coordinate the activities of developing the land trust.
Agricultural Land Stewardship Program Page 1
The CASP study was an effort funded by the California Coastal Conservancy and included a total area of
approximately 2,157 acres with 168 individual parcels (see figures 2A and 2B for the areas covered by the
CASP study). Unincorporated land comprises the majority of the study area and includes 140 parcels on
1,875 acres. The mild. conducive climate and prime farmland soils of the AGV provide the needed
resources for year-round fanning. The area has been known for producing high quality and high value
vegetables. The land trust would be designed to address the mutual concerns of both public agencies and
private landowners
II. Specific project considerations associated with goals of the ALSP
A. What is the quality of the agricultural land based upon soil survey, farm/and
mapping, or other measures? Are the soil, climate or vegetative factors that are
particularly significant for this property?
According to the CASP, 25 different soil types have been identified in this portion of
the Arroyo Grande Valley by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS). Of those 25 soil types, 12 are considered to be prime farmland soils.
Of the total acreage within the CASP study area, 91% (1,973 acres) are considered
prime soils (see figures 3A and 3B). The more dominate soil types found in the study
area include two series ofMocho Loam and two series of Marimel loam. These four
soil types account for 1,725 acres of prime soils, almost 75%.
A variety of high value vegetables are grown in the area, including broccoli, Brussels
sprouts, celery, cabbage, endive, lettuce, onions, peppers, spinach, squash, tomatoes,
cheny tomatoes, and strawberries. Avocados and walnuts are grown on a few parcels.
Agriculture in the AGV is generally intense commercial production by experienced
. growers, many whom represent third or even fourth-generation families, The climate
is mild enough to allow for year round production and most fields are able to produce
up to 2 ~ crops per year. Row crops are the dominant products, harvested typicalJy
by hand boxed in the field, cooled and stored at one of the 3-4 near terminals and
shipped fresh in remgerated trucks.
Irrigation is supplied though groundwater pumped from a shallow underflow of
Arroyo Grande Creek recharged through inflow regulated by the Lopez Reservoir.
This water source is relatively secure.
B. - Are there sllch additional natural resource considerations associated with this
proposal, including stich issues as open space preservation, wet/and protection, or
wildlife habitat conservation?
The Arroyo Grande Creek is a natural resource that is vital to not only agricultural
concerns but is also a significant visual and habitat feature defining community
Agricultural Land Stewardship Program Page 2
character in the area as well. Preservation of the creek would enhance the agricultural
and other interests in the area.
C. How do the general plan and related land use policies of the affected city or county
support a long term commitment to agricultural land conservation in general and
this proposal specifically?
San Luis Obispo County regulates the conversion of agricultural land through the
administration of its Land Use Element (LUE) and its Coastal Zone Land Use
Element (CZLUE). These two documents, along with the corresponding Land Use
Ordinances (LUO's), regulate the unincorporated land in the area. Almost all of the
unincorporated land in the AGV is designated (zoned) as "Agriculture" in the LUE
and CZLUE (see figures 7 A and 7B).
In the County's general plan the following goal has been adopted by the Board of
Supervisors:
"Encourage the protection of agricultural land for the production of food, fiber, and
other agricultural commodities." (Goal 10, page 1-3 Framework for Planning).
The LUE and CZLUE establish a minimum parcel size range of 320 to 20 acres for
land that is designated agricultural. The LUO also provides specific criteria for
detennining the parcel size of a an agricultural parcel. Various county policies restrict
development on prime agricultural land:
1. LUE Framework for Planning. Goal #9: "IdentifY important agricultural areas
between the cities and communities and work with landowners to maintain
their rural character" Goal # 18 states that new and additional public service
facilities should be located to allow for sufficient buffers to protect adjacent
rural and agricultural areas."
2. LUE Framework for Planning, Chapter 7, Purpose and Character Statements:
Purposes for the agricultural land use category include "to recognize and
retain commercial agriculture as a desirable land use and as a major segment
of the county's economic base". "To designate areas where a combination of
soil types, topography, water supply, existing parcels sizes, and good
management practices will result in the production of food and fiber", and "to
support conversion of agricultural lands to other uses only when such
conversion would be appropriate or because the continuing agricultural
- productivity of a specific site is infeasible."
. -
-
3. The Local Coastal Plan Policies contain generally more restrictive policies
than the inland LUE.
The County Agricultural Commissioner reviews and comments on land use permit
Agricultural Land Stewardship Program Page 3
applications that may affect agricultural land parcels. Building setbacks, buffers and
screening are the most common methods recommended for reducing conflicts
between different land uses.
The County has adopted a right-to-farm ordinance and amended it in 1992 to better
protect existing agricultural operations from nuisance complaints by adjacent, newly
developed residential uses. The amended ordinance states:
"No agricultural activity, operation or facility, or appurtenances thereof, conducted
or maintained for commercial purpose, and in a manner consistent with proper and
accepted customs and standards, as established and followed by similar agricultural
operations in the same locality, shall be or become nuisance... after it has been in
operation for more than three years, if it was not a nuisance at the time it began."
.
The County is in the process of adopting an Agriculture/Open Space Element for the
General Plan. This is a unique and innovative approach that links both resources and
brings a more coordinated approached to managing the resources.
D. Is the proposed project currently within a Williamson Act Preserve?
Of the cultivated agricultural land in the unincorporated portion of the CASP study
area, 972 acres are within established agricultural preserves under the Williamson Act
and subject to land conservation contracts with the County of San Luis Obispo (see
figures 5A and 5B).
E. Where is the proposed project in relatioll to a city's established sphere of influence?
The proposed project area is adjacent to the City of Arroyo Grande. Approximately
two-thirds of the area is within two miles of the City's Sphere ofInfluence boundary.
Please see figures 6A and 6B for the spheres of influence in the area.
F. What are the fiscal and technical capabilities of the applicant to carry out this
project?
The County of San Luis Obispo is a political subdivision of California and manages
an annual budget .of over $200 million each year. The County's Auditor's Office
monitors expenditures, documents expenses, using standard accounting principals.
Complete and accurate records are maintained using a computerized financial
management system. The Department of Planning and Building has successfully
-managed many different grant programs in the past. Currently the Department is
administering the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program from the
federal government as wen as recently awarded Coastal Resource Grants from the
state Resources Agency.
The Department of Planning and Building uses a charge code system to document
Agricultural Land Stewardship Program Page 4
staff costs on a daily basis. Consultants shall have contracts in accordance with
county policies and will be paid upon completion of the work and submittal of
deliverables. Records and documentation will be maintained so that the total cost of
the project is readily available.
G. Is there coordination among affected landowners, local governments, and nonprofit
organizations concerning this proposed project as well as other agricultural land
conservation activities?
Coordination between all the entities above has already begun with the preparation
of the CASP. Landowners have participated in developing the study as have the City
of Arroyo Grande and the County of San Luis Obispo. Non-profit organizations have
also been contacted and involved in its preparation. Please see the attached summary
report of the CASP study for more details about the participants.
It should be noted that the County is submitting this grant application only for the
unincorporated portions of the AGV-CASP study area now. The City has elected not
to submit its own grant application at this time for implementing the CASP
recommendations in the incorporated portions of study area. However, the City has
indicated that it does not object to the County going ahead with this application. If
the City decides to submit an application in the next round, the staffs of both agencies
will look at ways to cooperate jointly on the project. In any event, the County will
solicit input from and coordinate with the City in the implementation of the project
for at least the unincorporated portion of the AGV.
H. Are there any innovative agricultural land conservation approaches that would be
utilized in this project that might have application to other regions of the State?
The intent of this proposal is create a state of the art agricultural .land trust that is
focused on the AGV with strong hands-on involvement of the landowners and
growers. The model that is used in doing this would be adaptable and could be used
in other areas of the county as well as other regions in the state.
I Is there evidence that, by acquiring conservation easement on the proposed project,
development pressures 011 neighboring agricultural land will be reduced?
Yes. Please see the attached summary of the CASP for a detailed discussion of the
pressures facing the AGV and the benefits that would result from implementing the
CASP recommendations through activities such as the proposed project.
-
-
III. Project Timi1ig
The coordination activities will be completed within 18 months of having a signed agreement
with the state to complete the project.
Agricultural Land Stewardship Program Page 5
IV. Project Funding
Task County Staff - Contractorl Total
10% Match Consultant Budget
Prepare project specific
request for qualifications . $300.00 $300.00
Prepare project specific
contract with selected
consultant $300.00 $300.00
Manage cash disbursements
for the project $400.00 $400.00
Consultant completes $10,000.00 $10,000.00 .
coordination and land trust
set-up activities
Totals $1,000.00 $10,000.00 $11,000.00
v. Project Monitoring
In accordance with adopted County policies, the Department of Planning and Building will
administer the consultant contract and monitor perfonnance to ensure timely compliance with
the approved work scope and contractual responsibilities. After determining a sufficient level
of AGV landowner interest in order to proceed with establishment of an agricultural land
trust, the project shall be deemed completed when the land trust Boar~ of Directors is formed
.and a model agricultural conservation easement is prepared and ready for use in the AGV. .
VL Figures
The attached figures are from the October 1997 draft of the Arroyo Grande Valley
Coordinated Agricultural Support Program study prepared for the City of Arroyo Grande and
the California Coastal Conservancy by Perspective Planning.
VD. CASP Summary Report
Attached as supplemental information is the January 1997 draft summary report for the
Arroye-Grande Valley Coordinated Agricultural Support Program study prepared for the City
of Arroyo Grande and the California Coastal Conservancy by Stephen McGary, ph.D.- The
full-length draft CASP study prepared by Perspective Planning is available upon request if
needed for further supplemental information.
alspgmt.csp
Agricultural Land Stewardship Program Page 6
.
(NORTH OF HIGHWAY 101)
LEGEND
......... C.A.S.P. BOUNDARY
CITY UMfTS BOUNDARY .
... Unincorporated (county) land in CASP study area .-
.
(
N
r
0 leoo =00
~= . I
aoo 2MO <4000
.
.
HWY 101 .
.
I
- -
-
(SOURCE: CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE)
(C.A.S.P. COORDINATED AGRICULTURE SUPPORT PROGRAM)
FIGURE 2A C.A.S.P. STUDY AREA ,
(SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 101)
LEGEND
......... CA.S.P. BOUNDARY
_ CITY LIMITS BOUNDARY
::~:::~::$~ Unincorporated (county) land in CASP study area
~
....
{ QJ Will..
.....
,
0 1000 3200
~ ,
eoo ....".00 '000
-"
(SOURCE: CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE)
(C.A.S.P. COORDINATED AGRICULTURE SUPPORT PROGR~M)
FIGURE 28 C.A.S.P. STUDY AREA
(NORTH OF HIGHWAY 101)
LEGEND
......... C.A.S.P. BOUNDARY
CITY UMITS BOUNDARY
175* SOIL TYPE *
~ PRIME FARMLAND
* Soil types are described on the
page preceeding Figure 3A
.(
N
,
a Uloo :s2OO
~ .
IlOO 2400 4000
HWY 101
- -
-.
(SOURCE: CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE)
(C.A.S.P. COORDINATED AGRICULTURE SUPPORT PROGRAM)
FIGURE 3A SOIL TYPES
(SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 101)
LEGEND
HWY 101
.~ - v-
........... C.A.S.P. BOUNDARY ~
CllY LIMITS BOUNDARY
175* SOIL lYPE * ~
~//// ~ PRIME FARMLAND '(( \
.~y~~
'.iI'/~7~ 9 .
I ~
~
'l ~...
/. 1~4
y~ ~.
tt Z; V/
~
* Soli types are described on the page preceedlng Rgure 3A 111 'l ~ ~~? 19
~ y; ~
4 II' 91
..._. ,---'-q--. Z 1l9U .
H~~~ ~ ~u~~iI . . 18, .~ '0~/ ~
'S-It,.OOO ~ ~
~ K .= . ~~~///
. 1M - /. .~ ~ 'l~~~ ~
~ ~m~ 1 'l/ '/.// ~
fJZA! Z; /.
I-~ ~ /. ~
~:""'~'~/ ~ /% / ~
-134-- ~ IJ_ ~~ ~
~~ ~ ~/. /./. /. 'l /. 'D
~ .
= ... u z Z .:.. 'l.l Z ~1 ~ ~
~ . ~ / 7 /X;~~~~ ~/"AW .
::: ~ ~ /~~ 'l ~ z .I %/. ~ 1~
~ / '/.- ~/ .I 'l. '/
- ~ I. /. ~ /. Ij, //. /..1 /. ~~~ '/ (1:
= ~~ '/0f ~~~~ r ~ 223 .
= .. ///. /. '//.~ -/ all .I.'i '/~ _
= .... ~/. ::..~ t
= ':-C.~~//. '/' ~~~~ ~ ~
_ "~~:e'" ~ ~//. ~~ /. ~ t
= ...... ~ //, I. /::-... "V"-
~ 134 ...;: ~ 0- ~ z' \.. ~ ....h>\.~
--;::- ....~. I'l. % ~ \ 'W
. ~ Q)'II1'w -:. 'A "
= . lA.. ',-' r ~ ~~'1
= .~. ~
-, ". : 0. " ~ '\I '22 ~
-, . ~ ~
o 1000 -:1200 "'-..... ~ . ~
=:;;- 2.00' .~_~ 193~ I ~ ~~~"V -
HWY1
(SOURCE: CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE)
(C.A.S.P. COORDINATED AGRICULTURE SUPPPRT PROGRAM)
FIGURE 38 SOIL TYPES
(NORTH OF HIGHWAY 101)
LEGEND
.......... CAS.P. BOUNDARY
CITY UMITS BOUNDARY
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. LAND UNDER WIWAMSON ACT CONTRACT
~ .. .. . .. . . . . . ...
.
(
N
~
0 1800 =00
"","":,,, .
800 2400 .000
- -
-"
(SOURCE: CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE)
(C.A.S.P. COORDINATED AGRICULTURE SUPPORT PROGRAM)
FIGURE SA EXISTING AGRICULTURAL PRESERVES
(SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 101)
LEGEND
........i. C.A.S.P. BOUNDARY HWY101
CITY LIMITS BOUNDARY
:X::::::::::::::::::::::: LAND UNDER WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT
.'. .e._. .
HW'/' t
, QII'III....
....
I
r, 3200
. .000
r~ . -
00. ..00 .000
(SOURCE: CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE)
(C.A.S.P. COORDINATED AGRICULTURE SUPPQRT PROGRAM)
FIGURE 58 EXISTING AGRICULTURAL PRESERVES
(NORTH OF HIGHWAY 101)
LEGEND
.......... CAS.P. BOUNDARY
CITY UMITS BOUNDARY
SPHERES OF INFlUENCE
A.G..
-..-.. cm OF ARROYO GRANDE
..2.Sit~~"'" OCEANO COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
S.C.S.D. SOUTH COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
..........
PORT SAN LUIS HARBOR DISTRICT
P.S.LH.D. (INCLUDES ENTIRE PROJECT AREA)
COASTAl SAN LUIS RESOURCES
C.S.L.R.C.D. CONSERVATION DISTRICT
(INClUDES EN11RE PROJECT AREA)
!
,
0 Jooo 3200
r-,=, I
800 :z.coo 4000
HWY 101
- . -
-
(SOURCE: CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE)
(C.A.S.P. COORDINATED AGRICULTURE SUPPORT PROGRAM)
FIGURE 6A SPHERE OF INFLUENCE BOUNDARIES
(SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 101)
LEGEND
........... C.A.S.P. BOUNDARY
CITY LIMITS BOUNDARY
SPHERES OF INFLUENCE
A.G. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE HWY 101
...-..-
~~'~ OCEANO COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
: .... Ih."~ 1"'hMI'"
1I/tr.'fII!IIiIIIl SOUTH COUNTY SANITATION DlSmlCT
P.S.L.H.D. PORT SAN LUIS HARBOR DISTRICT
(INCLUDES ENTIRE PROJECT AREA)'
COASTAL SAN LUIS RESOURCES
C.S.L.R.C.D. CONSERVATION DISTRICT
(INCLUDES ENTIRE PROJECT AREA)
.
HWY I
~
~
....
..~
~.
\.
......
......
JII...........
~ Q) WIII.- ~
. lAke ~
, ".~
N .
-
, - ......
~ .........
0 1800 3200 h".".. 1.".
~ --'
ODO 24DO 'ODD
(SOURCE: CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE)
(C.A.S.P. COORDINATED AGRICULTURE SUPPORT PROGRAM)
FIGURE 6B SPHERE OF INFLUENCE BOUNDARIES
..::. .;:~, ,\~
(NORTH OF I:iIGHW A Y 101)
LEGEND
COUNTY
. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . AG AGRICULTURE
.. .. .. .. .. . . . .
. . . .. . . . . . .
>000 REC RECREATION
:t:::t=Q: RMF RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY
CITY
+ + + AG GENERAL AGRICULTURE
+ +. + .
(AG-D-2.1) = DESIGN OVERLAY ZONE
. ... ... A
... ... AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE
............ GC GENERALCOMMERC~
............
............
------...... (HC-D-2.11) = (HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL
DESIGN OVERLAY)
~ 0 OFRCE PROFESSiONAL
~ PF PUBUC/QUASl-PUBUC FACIU1lES
COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY
. .
;
.
(
N
,
0 1800 :s2OO
("----.0:::< .
1100 2400 4000
~ :.. .....
HWY 101- -
-'
(SOURCE: CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE)
(C.A.S.P. COORDINATED AGRICULTURE SUPPORT PROGRAM)
FIGURE 7A GENERAL PLAN / ZONING DESIGNATIONS
(SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 101)
LEGEND
......... C.A.S.P. BOUNDARY
- CITY LIMITS BOUNDARY
COUNTY
......... AG AGRICULTURE
VN REC RECREAnON
:tt:t:t: RMF RESIDENTIAL MULn-FAMILY HWY 101
~
+ + + AG GENERAL AGRICULTURE
. . .
(AG-D-2.1) . DESIGN OVERLAY ZONE
. +
+ + A AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE
iiiiiiiiiiii GC GENERAL COMMERCIAL
(HC-D-2.11) . (HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL
~ DESIGN OVERLAY)
0 OFFICE PROFESSIONAL
~ PF PUBUC/QUASI-PUBUC FACIUTlES
"............. COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY
. '. .
{ Q) Wolo.
IA..
~\
" 1800 . 3200
.r'\"7" ,
800 2400 4000
(SOURCE: CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE)
(C.A.S.P. COORDINATED AGRICULTURE SUPPORT PROGRAM)
FIGURE 78 GENERAL PLAN I ZONING DESIGNATIONS
..''''.
'-
\;
,"
IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS R!:C~
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA -- lVED
DEe
_!\l.~~____ day ___JLe..S.e..~'9.IlLJ_S:t._()__~,;J~~_
PLAN. ; COU^,
PRESENT: Supervisors Harry L. Ovitt, Laurence L. Laurent, Peg Pinard, ~G DEp"TY
Chairperson Ruth E. Brackett r.
ABSENT' Supervisor Michael P. ~n
. SOLUTION NO. .fl:479
RESOLUTION OF TIlE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
APPROVING TIlE APPQCATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM TIlE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION'S AGRICULTURAL LAND STEWARDSHIP
PROGRAM FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ARROYO GRANDE VALLEY
COORDINATED AGRICULTURAL SUPPORT PROGRAM (CASP)
WHEREAS, the legislature has established the Agricultural Land Stewardship Program within the
Department of Conservation, and through a grant program is providing assistance to conserve important
agricultural land resources that are subject to conversion pressures; and .
WHEREAS, the County of San Luis Obispo's Department of Planning and Building intends to implement
part of the Coordinated Agricultural Support Program, CASP, which was prepared for Arroyo Grande
Valley with funding nom the State Coastal Conservancy for the City of Arroyo Grande. The purpose of
the CASP is to identify issues and conflicts that were related to the efforts of supporting and preserving
the agricultural and environmental production and resources of the Arroyo Grande Valley. The valley is
located in southern San Luis Obispo County. This proposal is to help fund activities related to the creation
of a non-profit agricultural land trust designed to protect agricultural lands in the Arroyo Grande Valley
area. Funding would be used for several taslcs; l)to further determine the level of interest of land owners
in the Arroyo Grande Valley, 2) if sufficient interest exists, assist the agricultural landowners interested
in organizing a land trust, 3) establish an advisory committee to guide the development of an agricultural
land trust, and 4) develop a model agricultural conservation easement for use in the Arroyo Grande Valley.
NOW, TIIEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED TIIAT TIiE GOVERNING BODY OF TIiE SAN LUIS
OBISPO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEREBY:
Approves the filing of an application for funding ftom the Agricultural Stewardship Program.
Upon motion of Supervisor Ovi t t seconded by Supervisor Laurent . and on the
following vote, to wit:
A)1BS: Supervisors Ovitt~ ~aurent, Pinard, and Chairperson Brackett
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Ryan
ABSTAINING: None
the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted.
~~ "': '~.::.c.~
Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors
A TrEST: I
-
JULIE L. RODEWALD -
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
BY: CHERI~ AISPlJRO Deputy Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT:
~HOLM.JR. !~( ~0
By. 1') ~ ).... X Deputy Cowrty Couns~ Dated, \''L ! \
~ . {
, ~
.,
'- .
--'
9.g.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: rI'
DANIEL C. HERNANDEZ, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION
SUBJECT: WAIVER OF FEES - CARDIAC AND PULMONARY REHABILITATION
DEPARTMENT OF ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
DATE: MARCH 23, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council approve a waiver of the rental fee of $250 for a
luncheon at the City of Arroyo Grande and Woman's Club Community Center by the
Cardiac and Pulmonary Rehabilitation Department of Arroyo Grande Community
Hospital.
FUNDING:
Waiver of the rental fee would result in a reduction in revenue of $250.
DISCUSSION:
The Cardiac and Pulmonary Rehabilitation Department of Arroyo Grande Community
Hospital scored four (4) points on the Fee Waiver or Reduction Criteria Form
(Attachment 1). They are a non-profit organization that provides educational and
exercise programs for people with coronary artery disease and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease. The services are offered at reduced or no cost for low-income
individuals with limited or no medical insurance. The organization is requesting use of
the community center on Friday, March 26th from 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. (which includes
setup and cleanup). The organization in previous years was charged $50-$75 for use of
the community center to hold its annual luncheon. New fees established by the City
Council for rental of the community center became effective May 1, 1997. The
organization cancelled its scheduled use of the community center for March 1998.
Calculation of Costs:
Current fees charQed to user Qroup:
One day rental fee = $250
Actual costs to the City:
$47.81/hour x 6 hours = $286.86
MEMORANDUM: CITY COUNCIL
WAIVER OF FEES - CARDIAC AND PULMONARY REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT
OF ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
MARCH 23, 1999
PAGE 2
Alternatives:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
. Approve staff's recommendation;
. Do not approve staff's recommendation;
. Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendation;
. Provide direction to staff.
c:\Staffrpt\FeeWaiver-CardiacPulmAGCHMar23.99
~ CENTRAL COAST
~- HEALTH PARTNERS
Your Partner in Health and Hcaling
RFCFIVFn
ARROYO GRANDE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL 99 FEB 22
PH 12: 32
January 19, 1999
;
Arroyo Grande City Council
Post Office Box 550
214 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
Dear City Council:
I am writing on the behalf of the Cardiac and Pulmonary Rehabilitation Department of Arroyo
Grande Community Hospital.
For the past 15 years we have held a potluck luncheon at the Women's Community Center for
graduates of our two programs. We usually have 100 people in attendance, and this is an
anticipated annual event among our attendees.
In the past, the rental fee has always been waived, and we have paid only the building supervision
fee. As your employees can attest, we do our own set-up and clean-up and leave the facility in
excellent condition and in a timely manner.
In reviewing the fee waiver with our administrator, Dick Wools layer, we realize that we do not
fulfill the desired number of criteria items even though we are a non-profit organization and
active in community affairs. Our department had a historic policy even before the non-profit
status of offering our rehab programs at reduced or no cost to people who have had only medical
insurance or less. The service that we offer, in case you are not aware, is a telemetry and/or
oximetry-supervised exercise and educational program for people with coronary artery disease
and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We also offer a maintenance program for all
graduates at low cost. Our service area is the 5-Cities/Nipomo region, and many of our graduates
participate with local service groups and churches. Our department also sponsors the Better
Breather's Club which meets monthly at the hospital at no cost.
The luncheon allows us to continue to have outreach with our graduates. There is no fee tor
attendance. This year we are celebrating our 20th year of cardiac rehabilitation at the hospital.
Please continue to waive our building rental fee of $250.00. I fear that we will not be able to
continue this wonderful event if we do not have a low-cost meeting area for our luncheon. What
has always been most important to me in living and working in Arroyo Grande is our sense of
community. I hope you will continue to support us.
Thank you for your consideration.
ivd6 u-6~ tT.
Ruth L. Brown, PT.
345 South Halcyon Road
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
805/489-4261 . Fax:805/473-7603
A .:\/onprofit O~\?al1i;:atiofl L1ffiliated with Cmtral (.'oast Health Partners
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
. fJtt( Buurn. P.i. FEE WAIVER OR REDUCTION CRITERIA FORM
Name: c.A.~bIAC~PUUJ.J 1lff.IAB A(,CH Address: 31'5 Sd. l/al~ff(J ill. A.f.r Phone #: 9089- f'l.M. X 4-Z75
Type of Fee Requested to Be Waived: ~'n121 /'" Total Fee mt TolBe Considered: $ 250. on .
WAIVER OF FEES: All groupsJorganizationsJsponsors requesting a waiver of fees must submit a completed Fee Waiver
or Reduction Criteria Form with a letter stating: (a) the facility requested, (b) event, (c) which fees should be waived, and
(d) verification of information requested on the criteria form (e.g., organization donates 50% of its budget-supporting
programs in the Five Cities area). Please include all additional information on a separate sheet of paper along with your
letter of request. All forms and letters should be submitted to the Parks and Recreation Office and addressed:
For ReQuests for Fees Totalina S200 or Less: For Reauests for Fees Totalina S201 or More:
Parks and Recreation Commission Arroyo Grande City Council
c/o Parks and Recreation Office Attention: City Clerk
Post Office Box 550 Post Office Box 550
1221 Ash Street 214 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
Check. below each item that aD lies to our rou or 0 anization:
1. Local Arroyo Grande-based non:-profit group or organization # 77- (J 2(, I ~ I 9 (provide I.D. number).
.Local" is defined as 50% membership from the City of Arroyo Grande. ,
- 2. Non-profit group/organization services youth only, ages 6 - 18; and no specific program fees are charged
youth (other than registration fee). Number of youth served: Re'~istration fee charged to
youth: . u~E of COt-lftl\fl\.Jc.f P-.OOM., AT NO fEE FOf<. N../I.AJY Ofl.."AN l't.A:110W~
~ ( t ~ ",..r A8lf "I>tOO tJ" "",,,..OED FM 'UO>E "'~O A'E ON <I loA. rrE b 'tJtO",E!> l"'EbI!~L SO 'un ,AN
3. The group/organization donates 50% of its budget supporting programs/activities within the City of Arroyo '7JtND
Grande or the Five Cities area. Examples of programs/activities supported: A.D
A L.Y FIR.$T A/"D MOTHS, AT HAR.vEs.r S."".AWt.EA FEa/\JAL.> ft.t. CP jrAF'F HAVE P I IfM AT
L ROT~A.Y ~LU811(1IIVAt..rISJ SEN'O~ CITat CfNT~It. "P'ltBETE> SUf' &R..P) 6fTTi ~ 8MA-rHE/(,5 tJ./JIJ/ Eft,
4. The facility/activity requested and all proceeds will be used for a specific City of r.rroyo Grande/Five Cities
area public project, benefit, or cause. Example of sDecific service/project:
^EtJrJtOtJ $ o Pfol<.T I ~(ltJ fl>VCATIOJJ OF tAA.D/AJ: ?rx:J. PVLM. R..EH~8 &1<^'i>()A1E~ IN .5~ C./T/.fJ AM..,
i
L5. The event proposed is open ~e the --public, and the organization/sponsor is not requesting a donation or
charging a fee for entry or to participants (vendors, speakers, etc.). - - - .-
- 6. Group or organization provides a yearly donation (equipment, monetary, services-in-kind) to the City of
Arroyo Grande. Specific donation: . Date of donation:
7. Mid-week or shared sCheduling of facility. The group has requested a date during the week. (Monday -
Thursday), and another organization will be meeting at the same time.
1)lJI TD ~EEb fOR..FOLJ.C.f~iU.J(i<.ITCUflJ STAC:sf Au. ROo"~PAcE'.ANT"lPltrf 10011.1
TOTAL NUMBER OF CRITERIA ITEMS WHICH APPLY. ^T1EtJDANtEJI lJAJABJ.E 7D SHAKE AT SAME TIME -
- ^,vOTftfl\ fJR.()op ,JJ I)~ ItJ~ FAC./lI TY It..r 5: 00 "II\.,
QUALIFICATIONS: Groups meeting criteria items 1 - 7 above score 1 point each. A score of 5 or more points qualifies
a group for a waiver or reduction of fees.
DETERMINATION: All requests for the reduction or waiver of fees that require a Public Safety and Welfare Permit or
Police Department Auxiliary Police Services (e.g.. fees established by City Ordinance or Resolution) are appealed
directly to the City Council.
Field rental fees (excluding tournaments, lighting, and field preps) shall be waived for all youth sport activities scoring
five (5) points or more on a fully completed Fee Waiver or Reduction Criteria Form. .Youth sport activities. shall be
defined as any league/team roster having members under the age of 18, with the exception that a maximum of three (3)
members may be 18 or older, at the time the roster is submitted to the Parks and Recreation Department.
FOR FEES TOTALING S200 OR LESS FOR USE OF A CITY FACILITY: Waiver or reduction of the fees can be
approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission. All decisions made by the Parks and Recreation Commission can
be appealed to the City Council.
FOR FEES TOTALING $201 OR MORE FOR USE OF A CITY FACILITY: Waiver or reduction of fees must be
approved by the City Council.
c:\forms\FeeWaiver.fnn (Revised: 1112M:17)
-
User Fee Determination
Cost Analysis Worksheet
User Fee Description Fund Program Account Department/Division Date
Woman's Club Rental Fee per day 14 3400 001 Recreation Division 2-11-97
$250/$32.00 per hour
Description of Service, Demand, Subsidy and Other Comments:
This fee is bein~ revised to partially offset the cost incurred bli the City to operate, maintain, and staff the Woman's
Club Communl~ Center. 22 groups/organizations non-pro it and private meet at the center each month. the cost to
operate the fad ity is $47.81 per hour. For groups of 10-225. There is a high demand for use of the facility.
Personnel Costs
Rates'
Position Straight Time Fringe Benems Dept. or Div. Total Burdened Hours by Pos~ion Per Un~ Total Labor Cost per
Un~ of Service
Labor Overhead Labor CostJHr.
Building Coordinator $ 8.07 $1.75 23% $2.26 . $12.08 1.0 $12.08
Janitorial (Full Time) $12.78 $4.97 23% $2.13 $19.88 1.0 $19.88
Building Supervisor $ 6.27 $.52 23% $1.56 $ 8.35 1.0 $ 8.35
Total Burdened Personnel Costs Per Unit of Service $40.31
Material & Rental Costs
Description Cost Each Quantity Required Unit Cost
Janitorial Supplies - toilet paper, towels, cleaners, can liners $10.83 per day 10. hrs $1.08 per hour
Total Material & Rental Costs per Unit of Service $1.08
Other Costs (Equipment Building Usage, Part-time labor w/o Benefits)
Description Cost Each Quantity Required Unit Cost
Utilities (gas, electric, garbage) $325 mo. 30 days $10.83 per day 10. hrs $1.08 per hour
Total Other Costs per Unit of Service $1.08
Fee Comparison Data
Jurisdiction Fee per unit More or (Less) than Arroyo
Grande's Fee per Unit of Total Service Direct Costs
Service $ 42.47
City of Arroyo Grande $250.00 CityWide General & $
divided by 8 Dollars Percentage Administrative" 5.34
$31.251$32.00 Rate @ 12.57% $ 47.81
Grover Beach $43.75 +S12.50 +29% TOTAL SERVICE COST/UNIT
RECOMMENDED FEE $ 31.25/$32.00
Pismo Beach $70.00 +$38.75 +55% Recommended Fund Subsidy $ 15.81
San Luis Obispo $43.75 +12.50 +29% Current Fee Amount $ 15.00
Santa Maria $67.18 +$35.93 +54% Fee Increase (Decrease) +$ 17.00
Alascadero NlA
Paso Robles $55.00 +523.75 +43%
Morro Bay $49.50 $18.25 +37%
c:\budget\userfee.211
10.a.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JIM HAMILTON, AICP, COMMUNITY ~/-
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR /
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REQUESTS
FOR MARTIN AND SAKAMOTO/OKUI
DATE: MARCH 23, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council provide direction to staff on the
processing of General Plan Amendment No. 99-001 (Martin) and Pre-
application Request No. 99-002 (Sakamoto), and criteria for future
exemption requests.
FUNDING:
There is no direct cost to the City. If approved to proceed, the applicants
will pay adopted fees for the processing of the amendments.
DISCUSSION:
In October of 1997, the City Council adopted a policy requiring that all general
plan amendment requests received by the City after November 14, 1997 be
included in the General Plan Update. Since that time the City has received 25
requests for General Plan amendments. (Attachment 1)
The City has recently received two (2) requests seeking an exception from the
adopted policy.
1. General Plan Amendment No. 99-001 (Martin)
The request from Claire Martin is to change the General Plan
designation of Village Commercial on this property to Village
Residential. The approximately one acre property is located just west
of the intersection of Nevada Street and Le Point Street and is
currently undeveloped. The applicant has filed applications for a
General Plan Amendment, rezone, and tentative parcel map to create
four (4) 10,000 square foot residential parcels. The applicant has
provided a letter outlining the request. (Attachment 2).
2. Pre-application No. 99-002 (Sakamoto)
This request from James M. McGillis on behalf of the Sakamoto/Okui
family involves an approximately 1 Q-acre property located near the
intersection of Farroll Road and Fair Oaks Avenue. The applicant is
requesting that the Council consider a General Plan Amendment that
would permit development of a 33 unit residential planned development
on the property (Attachment 3).
The density of the proposed project would be approximately 3.3 units per
gross acre. The current General Plan designation on the property is
Residential Suburban (RS), with a Specific Plan Overlay. The RS
designation permits a maximum density of 2.5 units per gross acre. A
change in the General Plan land use designation to Single Family
Residential (4.5 dwelling units per acre) would be required before the
project density would be consistent with the current General Plan.
A case can be made that each of these requests contains merit. If the Council
approves these requests, they will continue through the normal project
processing steps. This would include submittal of a General Plan Amendment
application, environmental review, review by the Staff Advisory and Architectural
Review Committees, and finally Planning Commission hearings before
consideration by the City Council.
Should the Council exempt these requests from the October 1997 policy, it may
also become necessary to consider the remaining amendment requests as well
(if requested to do so by the applicants). Many of the amendments are small in
scope, and taken individually may not result in significant changes to the
General Plan. However, without specific criteria to use in evaluating whether a
request should be heard separate of the General Plan Update, issues of fairness
may arise.
Possible criteria to use in considering a request for exemption from the
policy might include:
. A change affecting parcels which are less than 5 acres in size.
. Change within the same land use category - for example a change from
Rural Residential to Suburban Residential.
. Requests that involve only text changes to the General Plan.
. Changes that benefit only public service uses - for example a church.
. Changes that recognize an existing situation and affect only fully
developed parcels.
Attachments
1. List of General Plan Amendment requests.
2. Martin request.
3. Sakamoto/Okui request.
4. October 1997 staff report on Update.
ATTACHMENT 1
Date: March 16, 1999
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
LIST OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REQUESTS
REQUESTS FILED BY PROPERTY OWNERS OR OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS
PROPERTY OWNER LOCATION REQUEST
P. Hughes/A. Jones 1189 Flora Rd. 10 Ac. Agriculture to
Residential Single Family
S. Runels Fair Oaks Ave. Agriculture To Residential,
and Commercial Office
H. Been/S. Been James & 1212 Flora Rd 5 Ac. Agriculture To
Evelyn Stava 1167 Flora Rd. Residential.
5 Ac. Agriculture To
Residential.
C. Carrick Huasna Rd.lCity-wide Agriculture To Public/Quasi-
Public Use
Lucia Mar Unified School City-wide Policies On School Impacts.
District
M. McClanahan City-wide General Issues.
Kirkpatrick, Nooker, Kirk Printz Rd. area Retain Rural Residential.
White
B.VanderVeen Branch Mill Rd. 5 Ac. - Agriculture To
Residential.
Milton Hayes E. of Traffic Way, S. of E. 5 Ac. - Agriculture To
Cherry Ave. Residential.
Reuel D. Estes 811 E. Cherry Rural Residential To
Residential Single Family
PROPERTY OWNER LOCATION REQUEST
Heather Jensen YMCA site on W. Branch St. Review Best Use Of Property
Grace Stilwell 734 Myrtle Ave. Rural Residential To
Residential Single Family
Velma Harris Halcyon @ Grand Ave. Allow Single Family And
Home Occupation In GC
Category
Patrick Williams South of Frederick's Ranch Annex 200 Acres
On east side of Hwy 101
Clinton LeFevre South Halcyon Allow Single Family And
Home Occupation InGC
Category
Church of Jesus Christ LDS Fair Oaks Change Agriculture To Allow
Church And Residential
Single Family
Ed Dorfman/Lee Webb Traffic Way/E. Cherry Ave. Change Agriculture To
Suburban Residential
Shetler/French Oak Park PD Amendment to allow 70
homes on 56 Acres within
PD.
Vandeveer 756 Myrtle St. Rural Residential To Single
Family Residential
Arroyo Grande Valley E. Cherry Ave. Agriculture To Residential
Japanese Welfare Assoc. APN 007-621-001 Single Family.
Linda Fibich 188 and 194 North Elm Single Family Residential To
Street Multiple Family To Reflect
The Existing Use Of The
Property.
R. Poltl 520-528 E. Branch St. Village Commercial To
Multiple Family -
CondominiumfT ownhouse.
Saint John's Lutheran 959 Valley Road Annexation And Land Use
Church Designation Of Single Family
Residential.
PROPERTY OWNER LOCA TION REQUEST
Sakamoto/Okui Farroll Road Suburban Residential To
Single Family Residential
Martin Le Point Street Village Commercial to
Residential Single Family
MARTIN
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MARCH 23, 1999
ATTACHMENT 2
-- ~'V ~'y .~ ~>. ~ ~:t::.
-t .. ~. , , I ~
,,'. '=--IJ I,l..;
, g~ 1 ~.. ~
.. . . I " '. _ 0 '-~r _11 -.J ~) ,":
,',' pD (:i } ~ (C1/7 ~~ .:f ~:i'~, '"
\" \ ...~; i: -". 1 yV ~ 1.--:__ . " ;'.
>I), ,.', ..' I \ ' ri. ' ,
, ,>;i I" ~ '(RR ~ .vr,,~
, ' ':',1, - )i~ Lr~ '
: ",'.1: PROJECT SITE :p, ~ ~~
F -4"" I /'j~,j~
.,.ttf1'l'1...,,- ~ 1", -i' I=' (.-"..sr · .
. 465 C.S. i.) \ ~~ .i
i~.. F '~ .-1
ltMMY~" SrVrNrH DAY' .
SDVm c wry ,4DvP/TlST VALLE:Y
F .~ ."M,~ R '* ~ .~
~ 'e" ~= ? 1 'Y'.. \ ~. ~
~ ~I. ~.G. CUlrtf/N .....:.JI ... "R-
~ ~ ''''rt'q P'/ L..\. I bl :v 'fr ~ -I.
-~ -- YrJHf;N'S l VI _ _ \!!' ~
~~ · ''TrIJ.W J3. '" ,
~~ ~ ~-~'r' \\:1 l~ ~ .
- ~-:~[ 11\ ". r A ./ ~
~~ . ;1':5_ ~ ~"'J.-UC'""~ ~~~-.-, '~/cM~~
.., . -/---~ ~~~ ~
, ~~ ~~ ~~ i-\ ," \ ~W~y'
"" ~ -f~\ IT\. }~ --- :\. /'
\i\~~~ g.g '~ ~ . ~ . .~
(Ii ~ ' ~ \
- j .~~~ J~ ~ PF ~ ~.
~~~~ AG J ~~~~
~~~ -~ (j~ L~.i\
~ .,..../ T :.~ M. :\' ,...'~ 3
Lf= ' it '- v'- .P A G ~ ~ ~
"t~- W-L'-. 0
jq'--=-I~1Tlt '" ~ ~ " /
-~ 1 ~
--- il {
'1 ., pot\U -' --1
.. \ ~ ,..
~ "..U ~I __ILL I ;( ~ ppOiO &s~.f\OO\. .
-INFI\ ~~= ~' \\\(,11 P F
- . IT :JrUIIC~ 7 I ' ~
.
February 11,1999
Planning Commission
City of Arroyo Grande
214 E Branch St.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
RE: Rezoning APN #007-191-049 from Village Commercial to Village Residential
Dear Commissioners,
I am requesting that my parcel located at the northwest comer of the intersection ofLe
Point and Nevada be rezoned ftom Village Commercial to Village Residential. The site
would be developed with four single family detached homes. This development would
be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood because there currently exist a mix of
single family detached homes and commercial uses.
The parcel is one acre in size, gentle to moderately sloping, with steeper slopes at the
most northeasterly comer. Currently, the land is undeveloped; it is covered with grasses
and a few shrubs and trees. Residential development would be highly suitable to this
type of te~ while commercial development would require more extensive grading .
Previously, commercial development of this site was explored. Through a feasibility
study, it was established that there exist no demand for additional commercial
development in this area and the cost to develop this site per commercial standards
would be prohibitive. Additionally, the noise and traffic from a commercial development
would negatively impact the adjacent residential neighborhood .
As stated in the zoning ordinance, Village Residential zoning is to provide for residential
uses while preserving the character of those areas which are historic or close to historic
structures. Furthennore, it is intended as an area for the preservation and development
of single family detached homes at a maximum allowable density of 4.5 dwelling units
per gross acre. The proposed development is consistent with these goals of Village
Residential zoning.
Supporting the rezone request for this parcel, would allow development that is
compatible with the surrounding area and would enhance the character of the
neighborhood.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact myself or my representative,
Westland Engineering.
Sincerely,
~~
Claire Martin
cc/ Jim Hamilton, Community Development Director
Don Spagnolo, Public Works Director
Michael Lady, Mayor
\. '.
'.
. S57"15'OO.W' 167,54' ,
\ .90.19' -
.. 77.35'
"
,
<D'
U I
;., (/)
"l u i-
tOT 1 '" '. LOT j"',
..
U\ "'. ... I .".,~~,
10,000 sO ~T .& 14.3IP so FT '....,.'. ~ ~'
", . ,., .~.
>J . ."". \
IJD -'" ," '\\
~ i I '. \
i r ' .
~) '\ ~lf.J :1 i ,., , , ~. i
\" ..' "I~.I I '1'
,.\: j j-.. I,
:.' j' f ..1 J..<<~ 1'.\.... I I ""_. ''/
. ':l,1. '~j(\ ,,~( " "'~" fl
,tt /)1
, .. ., " I!~' . ',- J I . .
" '..~ (/) I' . ;/
. ~: \ ~.' i U ':. ~.(
'" 1! ~ ./'~"" I"f;
.. /:',
,'"(J1
g I . ".
!O I'" ",_,,~,
",., "! 1
2114 OR 647 ~ ~ po: 8 q"
~ "I ~\ :E ( ..
'" ' ~if N
.&::: ,',; ;:3 '.
IJD \,i 8
,"; ~; LOT 2
.1 \,'j . I....<~ ::-,. .
10,000 SO fT .'
"~ I J..,.,,:
'~. ! f' \" ;
,. 0> 'j' i . .:")
f;' U\ ".' I
.i>> if ,
( ~ I'
",,' )
. , . """ \~. I :+::, ':'1
.~ . . \1' I
N57"15'OO.E 59.00'. 1 I'
,., ! L..
I )
I
LOT 4 , ~ . l
", 10,000 SO rT . ; ) '...g \..
I ~ ' ., ' ! 8 '\..:..
" \ "
j I, i ",
1 f.~'ij'~ DU h; "
... ~f---
" CD , . g "'-,-
ON ~:,......oL.~_.._
; , "..
j in
N58'00'OO.E 88.00.'., ""
-y
..0 " I LE PI
\ ,",~ ..., . " g i .. .,., :,' I -
, . in , ' \ i ~: : .. ;
N
.
ql' : I --- ..
\'(,
i. ,. ',. ...." ...-....-."..""........,. i
"
!I~:;:I ~~If,:;: I ,- ..., . . 1" E-t --
:j r:.:::I
, , .. r:.:::I
.' P::
!E-i
0, C/)
. I
J
2393 OR 679 PORTION OF 300 OR 96 2492 OR 520 a ,:<
PARCEL 2 :~
i '&;
I :Z
1'7' , 17'
SAKAMOTOIOKUI
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MARCH 23, 1999
ATTACHMENT 3
I
'L _
f RAMONA OAlIS;.o'
I~
. ~
' II) .
I . '" .... . .... ........ ........ ..... ...... ........ ...... ... ..,
. .. . . .. . . " ':..... ........ .... ... .......... ...... .. .. ... .,..,.. . ..
" . .. '.. .. .. ...... ... .... .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .... .............. ":... .......
I '"'''''''''''''' ':.,. .'.-..:or .:::.,. .. .....:::. '..:r:r: ..../.:::J1..---r::::::...:... ...:: :..,
U. ''Ce,' ..... :.. ../.... ... ... .... ':. j. ........ ':.1.. . ':..,... ':... :.
. ............. ...... ...... ....~ ... .... .... .........""'"
. ../ · ".~::.:. ::::: .:::: .:-:.: ::: ~ :::: . .....::. :::'. :.:. .'. .:: :'. .. ::.:-:.... c : ,
.... . :it.... .. . ..... . .. .. ... .. .. ......... ;: .. . . . . . . . :1[L
.~... U ...,...... ..;.....:.....~..: ... '.. .....::....... .
W. . . . " ..: 'I:" "1" '::.. ... .. I[t c.' .. ':1 ~... ":... .... .:: ... ,
. . ii..: .0:':. J.:.:.:.:.:.:.:::... . . . . "..: :.:.: '.:.:.:.:. :':'::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:: -:. I
-.l U ". ."" "-ffi .... !'-~II ..... . . . I J, mt: I If. .. .. .. .. . .. .r I
OJ ROrovAWAY, [] .... ... .... .) . t ...... . _
' -. "::.. "::". .:::.... .:: .' . .
Jc:: ....... .. ..... . , _",-,-, ..L'
. - .... .. '.. -
~ . . ":,.. .. . · .. .. ":. "'. A -= 'I'! ". ,
] [ ]~ ~.:.:.-t-:.:.:/- ':~':iiTii" .1811 Tl, 11 I I I 'i::t,.f=11~:i1
rv <.... ... '_., 'I., "11' I"'.-J""--I'" fT\{1t
u.. l<m ........ 0 ''''lI!:f/'" . j----l:;;/ JL!",;~ :::;j:::1 ~
W J[] =-..,~... -'. -.'. 1-I..lf'IJ'J~! ~-:- J '.:-~I
> · -. /f. . -<"tEE. I I ll""'1...!..l..!....L. . ~. ~
. :I!. 1'.' . It EIL!l t.1' r-1 __ __ !OJ '~"':-!.
:;; """ 1'. '..j.. I "t4.1:1 -- .... I
~ ._"''" '''' -- t;;~.#/ '. ......... S'.F' * i '. ,- II! '. I" ~~. ~ I:. +D
u?lJ I ". I --*. "" I "".. ~ ~Fr'"
~ -;.. . ... == ...... . . ..
". , .. . . ...l ... . . .. .. .' .
: - / RF", '. . ~ ',.. J..t '.' L .: ~~
"""""" '''' "- , Jr..: """!~ "" . .., .. I'. SR 31''':.'
"] " · I' ..... 1 1;)~.. -:1... !<= -C,1R3:
" -I ,7. ... "'.1. .. .. .. .. "
· · ~. -:==J~H." ..cID .. Iii: . ":0.:-' _~I
"... ..... .... 'I"W' ~ ~.....! I. .
"~ . I.. ..... . "
. ~ "< ~.. .~. 'miL ..... ':.!. ,
.. ~ . I~I.:..IIIII. J. ---..' ,[ ..,1 ~. :-:.. :'-1':'. ~. ':.:." rH
\II". '''' . ......, .,._ .... . ."
""" - . .. ~,. ,. ! C-:1. ...... _
... . , . 'r--o, .....
I - .., !. f.. .I:::::::i.;..~..,. _ ..... ,--
I i! .'. ... ...... '-"i
/ , I ~II.':"" ... .. .. . i I : ...J:.:r
/ -, .~~'.'.:"IJI!... ... j t; .~__
l L ; · :1 <:"'7-r"r7 .)r'i " . i1:: ~ .~'...
I .><0'" ~ ~ ,
/ :", . !",,,,..
/ .. rj l F' I Q.: . ...
- .~
/ " ~"i . ,~ '..
-. >''''"" I", . _
~ ~ ., ..
7':== : ,..:'1;;; i P ! ~ LU.:l.
. " ",- , , I'. ".
I . '" , , I.
I " 8 i . < 'i::I; ;'.1
.' " - , '1'1 ..., < ',1
I :', .-;j '-(,,~!/ " 1 , L.. ! 'I
/ . I" .;'!'"if.~ i ' ~\Ai;: I-)F' ~::0~' . 'i~':::Qfll:""..
/ , I · .&R<...\.t~~ . '..1",.> _ -::::.:L._ --'-'-I'i.'"\._.
' i ..... ".:' " .. ... :- .... ".J . "EI:17 .
I , :'. ':.. ':.i" R * ~--it: ::0'::'. +'. ..
I' ! . : ;... '-:'. '.. J; , '.. '" .:. '.:. : :.: .. . ! : ...
".. ~ .... ~ . ~ ..... . -<
I I 5.'-] ~~~~4.' ~t:J'" ~ " ,....".. . ::::':':':'T .:.i' I. '. ... .. ..
' ..~ ~ ., ..... I I I. .
a:;.. '1'1 ....\.: .. ~ I ~'~:fT'" :....,.:::,......
' I ..... "'. ~ ! '" .. . .
I ' .. c. r' r . I .
' ~.. .: .. .... , , ":. ..
I . . . "... . f ""'. ....
'I .1 ~'I~.~11:i] ".:.:." .. ,> l...j rn, i . __ l >.. _.'.
~... -.~'\H, rl . !\{F . ..
. ,.........- :::O':'~;aJct= :'.':: :. .. .. ,~ ".
, .~, ,C1~ Co'-' .. . '. .
- .ii"-.l~~. ,:... '. :..::.. ..... ~ r- _ '.. _
."". '., -... .... r- I I'
. . . ~ g.. u'd .,:' .::::;, :.::. :.: L" ~ .!-t-i[ ,. '.>
- - .. e:'-~"'- =-~: .::....::. -:.... ~l '~. lm r
. '..",. ,.. .. .. , '0 ~ "
". .. .., [M..... . :'T. ~I; -4' / .1;, r'
' . ....:......,..^."" .~, . . '.R' "F I! i. ~ Jd i i !:.
"-'.' ""=. +. ...... - =- DR. n
' ITE ~r.=-tT~i).~~.. ~: . ...... e'~' ,Y.\"llil~
ROJECT S ~..- ....lL f I ';. _. . ... . I , , , -'-
". < ~ '. . . - ~
P :t*''''''''"I' Hoo '~'''. . " I , , I I I , _I, .
~~~~:" ": lmi~~~.:".:,~. :T13~
. " . , ., I ' , . "-Ow" .~
rl ti, "/ i H,/
NORTH : I . H F-G-FI ~
.';'TANG ...--' . H-1 . 'u : _
~~ I, .
SChuGL ~-, .
.
JAMES MICHAEL McGILLIS
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
P.O. BOX 1127 ARROYO GRANDE CA 94321
750 FARROLL ROAD SUITE C GROVER BEACH CA 93433
PHONE (805) 489-4343 FAX (805) 489-0220 e-mail james.mcgillis;@thegrig.net
City of Arroyo Grande
Qommunity Development Dept.
fER 0 3 1999
January 28, 1999
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmen: <'
I am writing this letter on behalf of the Sakamoto/Okui FaIDily and their 10 acre farm on
Farroll Road,
50 years ago they were happy farmers. 5 years ago the were happy farmers. When the
city started their general plan update, more then 2 years ago, they were still able to farm
strawbenies on the 10 acres.
Now they are not farming because of the public fear on methyl bromide and the
encroaching homes, that have them SUITounded on three sides. Soto sports complex is on
the fourth side.
I have enclosed two articles ftom the local papers on this problem.
I have also enclosed a sketch plan showing the encroaching homes and; also, a plan of
what the family would like to do as far as development of their property. This sketch
shows 3.3 homes per acre and the present zoning is for 2.5 homes per acre. Please realize
that the family did not choose the timing for the development of their 10 acres; but in a
larger sense, the public at large did.
We need to apply for a general plan/zone change in order to allow the project, as
envisioned by the family, to proceed. However; we cannot apply because of a council rule
against accepting any application while the update of the existing general pian is being
processed. we would appreciate an opportunity to discuss with the council, an exception
to the rule and a council approval to process a general plan/zone change as well as the
SAN LUIS ENGR.
relaxation of the requirement for a specific pIan. we would process a tentative map
concurrently, so that the city may be certain that the 3.3 homes per acre, in the
configuration shown on the sketch p~ including the offer of parkland, would be the plan
that is adopted.
Please schedule us for the earnest council meeting available, so that we may discuss this
more fully.
Sincerely,
"-
Uc:, PLS 4442
Lie. expo 30 Sept. 2001
SAN LUIS EN GR.
I
'8-4 Monday, h1gust 31., 1998
San l.1Iis Obispo County Telegram-Tribune
Perspe~tive
Pesticides'
days are
numbered
,
By Warren Groshong
The latest reaction to the use of methyl bro-
mide in the county's. strawberry fields is an-
other chapter in the war of dangerous pesti-
cides vs. economics.
On the one hand, methyl bromide is a threat
to health. But on the other: it is considered
necessary to keep growth of strawberries and
other crops profitable.
The pesticide, a highly poisonous gas, is
used on more than 200 fruit, vegetable, nut,
nurser!, seed and grain crops in California.
Strawberry farmers in San Luis Obis-po
County say they can't make it without the pes-
ticide.
A university of California study said Cali-
fornia agriculture would lose $196 million in
annual profits if methyl bromide is banned
for soil fumigation.
On the flip side of the issue, the Clean Air
Act calls for the pesticide to be phased out of
production and importation in the United
States by Jan.1, 2001, because it is an ozone-
depleting substance.
Nations all over the world use methyl bro-
mide to control agricultural pests. Some, in-
cluding Hoiland, Italy and Denmark: have al-
ready taken steps to phase out the pesticide.
In 1995, signatory nations of the Montreal
Protocol. an international environmental
treaty, agreed to a 25 percent reduction by
2001, a 50 percent reduction by 2005 and a
phaseout by 2010 in developed nations of the
world.
Ag leader recommends larger buffer zones
OCEANO - Results released feder,d EPA. were not measured. however. resi-
last week by the California Depart- Richard Greek. county agricul- dents of the home did not report
ment of Pesticide Regulation about ture commis...ioner. requested the symptoms of methyl
tests conducted on an Oceano field tests as part of a statewide effort to bromide/chloropicrin exposure.
during a "bedded tarped" applica- detemtine the extent which current The tested field was treated
tion of methyl bromide indicated methyl bromide applications and with methyl bromide/chloropicrin
off-site air concentration." from the .equipment are protective of public by a shaJlow 'bedded carped' appii-
field exceeded DPR's methyl bra- health. cation method. In this method the
mide target exposure ievels at the '"It is clear from other data col- beds are formed prior to applica-
100- foot resident "buffer zone" lected around the state and these tion and a methyl bromideJchiorpi-
distance, but did not exceed federal results. that the IOO-foot buffer crin mixture is injected in the bed .
EPA exposure levels. . zone for this application method at a depth of six inches and imme-
California's safety target e:tpo- was inadequate and I fully concur diately covered with a high-<1ensity
sure level for methyl bromide is with the state's recent recommen- polyethylene tarpaulin and
considered the strictest in the dacion that the buffer zone be reshaped with an application rig.
nation and is 23 times more resu1C- inc~ed to 450 feet," he said. Results from a different applica-
tive that the standard set by the The tests conducted on Oct. 6 cion method conducted on Sept. 2 -
showed. that the highest air concen- "a carped fIac fumigacion" -
trations were 0.35 parts-per-mil- showed Chat off-sile air concentra-
lion at lOl fef:( from the tre:lted cions were well below state :lnd
edge. which e.'(c~ded DPR's car- federal unacceptable methyl bro-
get level of 0.11 parts-per-million mide target exposure levels at the
at the I CO-foot resident buffer residenc "buffer zone.' dislance.
zone. This 24-hour e.'(posure level Greek explained [hat within the
has a built-in safety factor which is past moth DPR has changed che
100 times lower than che safe buffer zone for the "bedded
exposure level detemtined by ani- carped" application method from
mal scudies. 100 feet co 450 feet and plans to
Air concentrations at che mobile continue evaluating data co ensure
home park located 195 feet from statewide consistency of applica-
che north edge of the field were cion methods.
below che state's unacceptable Methyl bromide is J pesticide
mechyl bromide target exposure gas used for che control of many
level. The air concentT:ltions at a kinds of serious agricultural pescs
house 150 feet of che south field such as insects. nematodes. weeds.
.. and pathogens. Methyi bromid.: is
mixed within chloropicrin. which
acts as bolh a pe.'\tic:tie and warn-
ing agent to alert peopie of polen-
cial e.'(posure.
,
I
JAMES MICHAEL McGILLIS
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
P.O. BOX 1127 ARROYO GRANDE CA 94321
750 FARROLl ROAD SUITE C GROVER BEACH CA 93433
PHONE (805) 489-4343 FAX (805) 489-0220 e-mail james.mcgillis,@thegrig.net
February 2, 1999 City of Arroyo Grande
Qommunity Development Dept..
FEB 03 1999
Jim Hamilton
Planning Director
City of Arroyo Grande ~ , '.
~'_.
AIToyo Grande City Hall
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Dear J~
I have enclosed copies of a letter with Exhibits, that I have sent to the City Council
on behaJf of The Sakamoto/Okui Family.
We would like to process a pretentative map as well H this would be in keeping
with good planning procedures, please caB me.
Thanks,
......
~U6s
PLS 4442
Lic. Exp. 30 Sept. 2001
SAN LUIS ENGR.
...
~ .
~ ~~ : t
.e- ,..
.c;:;:3 <=> -- -
.''L1~ '!t....7.0r"'., ':IJQIM ,0' ~ ~ t -
t:"_~~ c:/ ~ ~ ~ I1J 9 : 5 !
"'v.J. .."~,..,, .."... .0' ~ ~ ~ ~ . j!n ~ 1..___
.; 0 <;; QQ G> ~!j <t~:~fl~~.I'
g. ! Q ~ -z r:J.... >Ol I
a . 0 .1 pi ;: tv
~ ... '0 ( t ~ ! r r... g r:=Jt!1' '" '" I
c:: .. .:.;Z: I-' ~-
cQ) _", ~~O'A '" 1/)- zt. ".
~ e m - 0 0 ~"'''''''''' ao.... p ~ ~ !: ~ ": 5 i ~ l q i !
0. _ a.~ 0: .. "" 0 ""'.(,....., .! II
0.2 ...-""\ 1--07..,.:.J.... l.I..."~.'
>OQ)(Y') '\..jI''' :Z_O::-oli;
g~ 0 .. 0 0 '.I! ~o'~ iO dt1it7 (l.~S
<c a cO + r") a 0 0 . 1I!,;'d 0 cO Q.. ~ .J. I" :
o~ ~ ~ v ., :.. 1I..J.q C J
z:.C .} .
._ =' . ~ t" j;r
OE .. ~ .;~:
E "'-:~'.IJ"-" , .""'" ' II . ~ ~ - ft
8. !! 4 P ~ 3 HJt
~ _ _ a ; J 1 J.11 ~
____;: c. Ii S
_ ~ tCI ~ it;' "'
of' ~ ~ /\
.0 · "f \
. .. 1 ~.!II I
J J
~D~9"''''.) 0 ~
.... .....,,,,'" itertS
~ '. . . I I _~
J -----.J "II
p- ...o.....o( I ': !
. ")'''14 4...~. ,...0......, .. !.,
?- ~ ' (I.
~ 't-.. ~..-.... v~'d"a I I II rl
~ o~c
,I. %.."-
~ C'\ liT" II: '"
" . 0
l> . ~ E ... !;'I
...............1. I \
~ c~.,7k." Q. .,~ I
............ ~",." ",_.. . '.:ti:t
".... _ _ _ "" t
/" -",,; "..-,'1 ;::qg-...;i:i"'.=;;- -- - .~ - ./ I
....ro"l'!)'::..~
,/ I~ ...'\00'...... c.~ - .. - -j-- "JG.,.....71
'" " l J . I -----,,;-=--
J.- I =~ ~ <<' "'~... I ~'I :
~ :, ~ vi I, .S .. .~ ~ -.~ I. i '
III' C '" t
o ~ . f $ I ,.
p. \I) ~..... I o..!- ~ . ,J 0 . . I r
'I - - - , ...~, ' ~
\j} <t ~ >_____._ 1 (I I ~ 0
~I ....M ..... .y.-..-:;-~~~.---, i li;'
, I o. 1-
1"\ ;:! I ~-:: (> I '-
)! Q I -
'11 <1"1 - t' ,.... _" '" 11 Co, --_"!'~~---
o _ tJ ..., '1" I ?fY_...ve- ......r..l
" \~ J, N J
... ;:! I .,' 1('1 ~ a-
.... .. ... _I'" a-
", IJ..... 13 "or;.. ,
.. ..
n :. " 00 ~ ...I' ..) 0 g <I- I --(. "I
~ ~ _ - N N 11!
\f)o __------ . i.! i.
I -;.OI,.....,l~..H~--<4..-""'" ''''t- I> P
p .... 0 1'-\:1
. ~11 -.", ~"
I. IC i .. 'C.J
I {'"ft-V ~~ t....."""""'~ ~..,..,('O'~ J'~?: ... ~
~ : c; , LI ~.. I ' ~ co-I i
~1'5 f ~ I
0" I
z..... ~
"
....._.0.' ~ L'
<!-------.- --
'O,,,,Q. .....1::1...... .,......0. f
~ 3. . - --
i }
ATTACHMENT 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
VIA: ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGE~ ~
FROM: DOREEN LIBERTO-BLANCK, AICP, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - APPROVAL OF AMENDED SCOPE OF
WORK, BUDGET, CONSUL T ANT CONTRACT, AND POLICY FOR
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
DATE: OCTOBER 14, 1997
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Council:
1. Approve a contract in the amount of $286,876 with ENVICOM
CORPORATION for the General Plan Update with an amended scope of
work and budget to address issues raised in public scoping meetings.
2. Approve a budget appropriation of $119,800 from Fund 23, Traffic
Circulation, and an appropriation of $13,100 from the General Fund.
3. Approve a policy to require all General Plan Amendments received
subsequent to November 14, 1997 be included in the General Plan Update.
FUNDING:
The FY 1996/97 budget included an allocation of $77,000 for the General Plan
Update. The FY 1997/98 budget includes an additional $77,000 for the
General Plan Update for a total allocation of $154,000. The revised budget of
$286,876 is $132,876 more than the existing allocation. The additional
funding can be allocated from the Traffic Circulation Fund (Fund 23),
$119,800, and the General Fund, $13,100. Fund 23 is estimated to have a
fund balance of $234,500 by June 30, 1998 after the proposed appropriation.
In the General Fund, revenues are anticipated to exceed expenditures by
$110,700 as of June 30, 1998 (if the $13,100 appropriation is approved).
City Council
General Plan Update
October 14, 1997
Page 2
The General Plan Update budget allocations are as follqws:
1. Existing budget allocations:
FY1996/97 (General Fund) $ 77,000
FY 1997/98 (General Fund) $ 77,000
Subtotal: $154,000
2. Additional budget allocations requested:
From General Fund $ 1 3, 1 00
From Fund 23 $ 119,800
Subtotal: $ 132,900
3. Total cost and total allocations requested: $ 286,900
DISCUSSION:
In July the Council authorized the selection of ENVICOM Corporation to
prepare the General Plan Update and the setting of two public scoping sessions
prior to completion of the scope of work and approval of a contract with
ENVICOM.
The two scoping sessions were held on Wednesday, September 17, 1997.
The first session was held at 2:00 p.m. and repeated at 7:00 p.m., in
consideration of work and family schedules. The consultant acted as a
facilitator for the comments and suggestions from members of the public. The
afternoon session was attended by 20 persons; the evening by 11 persons.
Attached is the summary of issues discussed at these meetings.
As a follow-up to the public scoping sessions, the Council and Planning
Commission held a joint workshop on October 1 st to review and discuss the
items raised by the public and to consider how the consultant's scope of work
will be affected. The consultant gave an overview of the September 17th
sessions. The Council and Commission discussed the variety of comments,
with a consensus of both Council and Commission that the General Plan
Update should address all the issues raised, particularly focusing on traffic and
circulation and fiscal and economic implications of changes in land uses.
City Council
General Plan Update
October 14, 1997
Page 3
The total budget, including the amended items, is shown by the following
categories:
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
BUDGET FOR ENVICOM CORPORATION
Land Use Element: $ 28,875
Parks & Recreation Element: 14,215
Open space & Conservation Element: 6,610
Traffic and Circulation (amended scope): 59,990
Fiscal and economic analysis (amended scope): 34,880
Environmental Impact Report: 47,210
Development Code Update: 3,880
Public workshops and hearings: 56,820
Travel: 5,400
Project Management: 28.996
Total: $286,876
In addition to the traffic and circulation and fiscal and economic analysis
sections, the other tasks that were amended based on the public scoping
sessions are outlined as follows:
Land Use Element: Add school related policies and senior issues - $6,700.
Public workshops and hearings: Add $6,250.
Administration: Add additional management - $9,250
The ENVICOM budget, as presented, offers the Council the opportunity to
remove items if it is felt the overall cost is prohibitive. For example, should the
Council direct staff to remove consideration of the Parks and Recreation
Element at this time, there would be a minimum ,$14,215 savings; plus
concomitant savings in such areas as public workshops and the EIA. Should
the Council decide to remove an item (or items), staff recommends the Council
continue this report for two weeks so that staff and ENVICOM can recalculate
project costs.
If the contract is approved, the first step will be a series of visioning
workshops that will be tentatively scheduled before the holidays - mid
November to early December.
City Council
General Plan Update
October 14, 1997
Page 4
Policv for General Plan Amendments requests submitted during the ucdate of
the General Plan.
Related to the consultant effort on the General Plan Update, it is recommended
the Council approve a policy as follows:
All General Plan Amendment (GPA) requests received subsequent to
November 14, 1997 shall be included with and addressed in the General
Plan Update. For the ten (10) GPA requests submitted since August 1,
1997 (reference attachment), the individuals shall be notified that they
have until November 14, 1997 to submit a GPA application for
processing separate from the General Plan Update. Individuals who
decline to process a separate GPA application will have their requests
submitted to the consultant for consideration of as part of the General
Plan Update.
This pOlicy does not include the processing of the following projects:
1. Fredericks Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment, etc. (Arroyo Linda
Crossroads) .
2. Berry Gardens Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment (Kawaoka
property).
3. James Way Annexation/General Plan Amendment.
These three applications will continue to be processed separately from the
General Plan Update. For consistency, the General Plan Update will reference
these applications and incorporate proposed land uses for purposes of
projecting traffic impacts and other cumulative impacts.
Al TERNA TIVES:
The following alternatives are presented for Council consideration:
1. Approve staff's recommendations.
2. Deny staff's recommendations.
3. Approve the original scope of work and budget of $186,900 ($154,000
General Fund and $36,900 Fund 23).
City Council
General Plan Update
October 14, 1997
Page 5
4. Revise the scope of work and budget by selecting specific elements for
updating and deferring, to a date uncertain, the balance of items;
continue the item for two weeks for staff to revise project costs.
5. Provide direction to staff.
Staff recommends the Council approve the revised scope of work.
Attachments: Consultant Contract
Amended scope of work and budget dated Oct. 6, 1997
List of property owners requesting General Plan Amendments
and copies of letters
Summary of public comments from scoping meetings held
September 17, 1997.
HME-GP.cC.' Q-14-97..$R
10.b.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER tIJl5
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING RELINQUISHMENT OF STATE HIGHWAY 227
DATE: MARCH 23, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council provide direction to staff
FUNDING:
Costs to pursue the relinquishment process would be limited to staff time spread over the
course of the process, estimated at approximately a year with staff time estimated at 300
hours ($6,400 to $7,000). If relinquishment was to occur, first year maintenance costs are
estimated to be $14,000. Subsequent annual costs are estimated to be $14,000 plus any
inflationary increases.
DISCUSSION:
The City Council directed staff to investigate the possibility of the State of California
relinquishing SR 227, also known as East Branch Street, through the Village of Arroyo
Grande.
After discussions with the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments(SLOCOG), there are
advantages and disadvantages to relinquishing the State Highway designation.
~ Advantaaes - Removal of East Branch Street from the State Highway system would
allow the City to implement its own set of standards for the modification and use of the
roadway without Caltrans review and approval. These changes would include lane
widths, parking, sidewalk space, the kinds of curbs, landscaping, and signalization. The
City would also no longer be required to receive permission from Caltrans to hold events
such as the annual Harvest & Strawberry Festivals.
~ Disadvantaaes - Once the street has been removed from the State Highway system, the
City will be responsible for all maintenance including pavement, traffic signals, and
associated facilities. Also, the City assumes all tort liability for any damages related to
accidents or other causes along the portion of highway relinquished to the City.
It is the intent of the State Highway system to provide a network of highways to allow travel
along heavily traveled rural and urban corridors that connect the communities and regions
of the State. These highways should serve the State's economy by connecting centers of
commerce, industry, agriculture, and recreation.
Based on these guidelines, the State provides two methods for relinquishment of State
Highways, which are summarized below:
1. The State shall rel.inquish any portion of any State Highway within the City that has been
deleted from the State Highway system by legislative enactment. If only a portion of the
route is deleted, the City would be required to maintain proper signage directing traffic to
the remaining portion of the highway.
2. It may likewise relinquish any portion or all of any State Highway that has been
superseded by relocation.
In both cases, the Streets and Highways Code must be amended by the State Legislature to
provide the authority to proceed with the relinquishment. This can be accomplished by
having a specific bill proposed by one of our legislators or by including the necessary
language in another transportation related bill. The latter would only be acceptable if both
the State and the City agree on the terms.
In the first option, the City can request relinquishment of a portion of Route 227 by
resolution and it will be carried out subject to the terms and conditions negotiated with
Caltrans identified in a Cooperative Agreement, and adopted by the California
Transportation Commission (CTC).
For the second option to occur, the State Highway would likely be relocated to another
preferred street such as Price Canyon. In order for this to occur, the County of San Luis
Obispo would have to agree to accept responsibility for maintenance and liability of the
remaining portions of the previously designated Route 227 (in this example, the roadway
from Price Canyon to the Arroyo Grande City limit). The County has made it clear that it
would not support this plan.
Regardless of which option is used, Caltrans has established a set of procedures to be
followed which are summarized below:
(a) To begin the process of relinquishment, the City Council would need to pass a resolution
stating its intent to have the State Highway designation deleted. Staff would work with
SLOCOG and Caltrans on developing the appropriate language for the resolution. Once
the resolution to revise the State and Highways Code is prepared, it would be submitted
to the City's State legislators for them to direct through the Legislative process.
(b) Prepare the amended text for the Streets and Highways Code in order to authorize the
relinquishment and submit to the State Legislature for action (Estimated to take any
where from 4 to 6 months, depending on timing and coordination with State Legislature).
(c) Prepare and process a Cooperative Agreement between Caltrans and the City of Arroyo
Grande.
(d) Caltrans would prepare a Project Scope Summary Report (PSSR) or a Project Report .
(PR) defining the scope, cost, and schedule of work necessary to complete the
Relinquishment. This report will include all work necessary to bring the State Highway
up to a mutually acceptable condition of repair. Caltrans would pay for the cost of this
work. It is estimated this work could take from 6 to 8 months depending on repair work
necessary. This work cannot begin until legislative action has approved the
relinquishment.
(e) State law requires that relinquishment of roads or highways must be made by a
resolution executed by the California Transportation Commission. Once the above
process is completed, but prior to construction repairs of the highway, Caltrans will
prepare the relinquishment resolution and process it through the Chief of the
Engineering Service Center four months prior to the anticipated completion date of all
construction projects related to the previously designated State Highway.
Since the City would be requesting the relinquishment, the City would be responsible for all
staff time necessary to prepare all documents submitted to the State Legislature and
Caltrans.
The costs for annual maintenance include weed abatement, traffic signals, street sweeping,
pavement and sign maintenance. The annual maintenance costs would be required the first
year after relinquishment and each subsequent year. As a condition of relinquishment, the
State would be required to place the highway in a "state of good repair". This would include
an analysis of the pavement condition and any necessary repairs to bring it up to a mutually
acceptable condition. The State would be responsible for the costs of bringing the roadway
up to an acceptable condition.
In addition to annual maintenance, the City would be responsible for all future paving and
slurry seal work. Once the State brings the highway up to a "state of good repair", the City
would need to budget money for major capital project repairs within five years of
relinquishment. At five years, it is estimated that the street would need to be slurry sealed
at an estimated cost of $76,000. Approximately ten years after relinquishment, it may be
necessary to budget for an asphalt overlay project. The estimated cost of asphalt overlay is
$160,000 with a seven to ten year life span.
Alternatives:
The following alternatives are presented for the Council's consideration:
1) Direct staff to initiate the relinquishment process by returning within sixty (60) days with a
Resolution of Intention;
2) Direct staff to conduct a series of town hall meetings with impacted businesses prior to
initiating the relinquishment process;
3) Direct staff to return to a subsequent Council meeting with additional information as
requested by the City Council;
4) Take no further action;
5) Provide additional direction to staff.
Attachment:
Map of proposed relinquishment
Letter from San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
y
W
1..1
'"
W
N
N
~
~
C>
--
~
1
0
-,~ ,..
~
Qt-'Od-'
~
en
---
~
W
.
<Scfn Luis Obispo Council of Governlllents
~ Arroyo Grande
Regional Transportation Planning Agency Atascal!ero
-P:!~ Gnwcr Beach
Metropolitan Planning Organization ~10rTO Bay
Paso Rohks
Census Data Affiliate Pisl110 Beach
Service Authority for Freeways and Expressways San Luis Ohispo
Honald I.. D~Carli - Executive Dircl.:lor San Luis Obisp() COllnly
March 1, 1999
Don Spagnolo, Public Works Director
City of Arroyo Grande
214 E. Branch Street -
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Subje<;t: Relinquishment of a Portion of State Highway 227
Dear Don,
It has come to our attention that the City Council is considering seeking relinquishment of a
portion of Route 227 through the Village area. I am writing to provide you with additional legal
and technical information you may find helpful as the Council continues to consider requesting
relinquishment of a portion of State Highway 227 in the East Village. There are a number of
advantages and disadvantages to relinquishment that must be carefully considered prior to
proceeding with such an action.
. Advantages - Removal of a East Branch Street from the State Highway system would allow
the City to implement its own set of standards for the modification and use of the roadway,
including sidewalk space, the kinds of curbs, lane widths, shOlJlder widths, super-elevation,
parking, landscaping and signalization. The city would also no tongeI' be required to receive
permission from Caltrans to hold events such as the annual. Harvest & Strawberry Festivals.
. Disadvantages - Once the roadway is no longer part of the State Highway system, the City
will be responsible for pavement maintenance, upkeep of all traffic signals, and associated
facilities. Perhaps. more significant, the City also assumes all tort liability for any damages
related to accidents and other such causes.
Relinquishment Options - State law, and Caltrans Local Procedures Manual identify two
options for carrying out this action. In both of these cases the Streets and Highways code must
be amended by the legislature to provide the authority to proceed with the relinquishment
process on a particular route. This can be done by having a specific bill proposed by one of our
legislators or by including the necessary language in another tran~portation related bill. The
latter option would only be acceptable as long as the parties (Caltrans and the local jurisdiction)
agree on the terms. The options are:
. Relinquishment of a route superseded by relocation - In this case, Route 227 would be
relocated somewhere else, such as along Price Canyon Road. For this to happen, the
County of San Luis Obispo would have to agree to accept relinquishment of that portion of
Route 227 in the unincorporated area. The County has made it clear that it would not
support such a plan because it would require the County to accept responsibility for
maintenance of the roadway and tort liability for any damages due to accidents and other
such causes. CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE
. MAR 3 1999
PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
1
1150 Osos Street, Ste. 202, San L\.Iis Obispo, CA 9340 I . Tel. (805) 781-4219 . Fax. (805) 781-5703
E-mail. slocog@sloneLorg. Internet. http://www.slonet.org/-ipslocQg
,
. Relinquishment of route deleted by legislative enactment - In this case, the City can
request relinquishment of a portion of Route 227 and it will be carried out subject to the
terms and conditions negotiated with Caltrans identified in a Cooperative Agreement, and
adopted by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). By law, Caltrans is required
to place the highway in a "state of good repair", not including widening, new construction, or
major reconstruction, unless specifically directed by the CTC. Once the portion of the
highway has been relinquished to the City, it is responsible for continued maintenance, and
assumes all tort liability for damages due to accidents and other causes.
Terms and Conditions for Relinquishment- Section 73 of the California Streets and
Highways Code specifies the conditions under which the State may relinquish state routes to
local agencies. The Code states that "The California Transportation Commission (CTC) shall
relinquish to any county or city any portion of any State Highway within the county or city that
has been deleted from the State Highway system by legislative enactment." In such a case,
Caltrans is required to place the highway in a "state of good repair" prior to the date the
relinquishment becomes effective. Other than this basic guidance, State law does not provide
a detailed description of the specific actions which must be taken to carry out a relinquishment.
To address the absence of specific legislative requirements for carrying out the relinquishment
process, Caltrans has established a set of procedures (Chapter 25 of the Project Development
Procedures Manual) to be followed by its staff "to assure that maintenance funds are conserved
and potential legal liabilities are minimized". The major tool is a Cooperative Agreement
between Caltrans and the local jurisdiction describing the terms and conditions of the
relinquishment. Typically, all the City must do is maintain signage directing traffic to the
remaining portion of the highway. In addition, Caltrans will prepare a Project Scope Summary
Report (PSSR) or a Project Report (PR) defining the scope, cost and schedule of work
necessary to carry out the relinquishment. As early as possible in the process, Caltrans staff
are required to begin negotiations with the local agency to assure that there is a clear
understanding of each party's responsibilities.
To help assure that the roadway is in "a state of good repair", Caltrans procedures call for
preparation of a Pavement Deflection Study (PDS) by the Pavement Consultant Services
Branch of the Office of Materials Engineering and Testing Services. The deflection study and
resultant recommendations are to be based on truck traffic projections that consider both the
diversion of through traffic, as well as local traffic projections. Such projections must be in
agreement with the adopted local and regional (General) Plan. Following receipt of the
deflection study recommendations, and before completion of the PSSR or PR, a joint field
review must be carried out with the City to eliminate any understandings and to resolve any
differences. Subject to this work, at this point Caltrans may be required to program
rehabilitation of reconstruction of the applicable roadway segment.
CTC Action - State law requires that relinquishment of roads, streets, or highways must be
made by a CTC resolution. Once all the above noted work has been completed and the parties
have approved a cooperative agreement, a request for relinquishment resolution must be
forwarded by Caltrans District 5 to the Chief of the Engineering Service Center (ESC), Office of
Engineering Technology (OET) four months prior to the anticipated completion date of all
construction projects involving transfer of superseded State Highways. This will permit one
month for processing and mailing of the gO-day written notice of intention to relinquish, as
required by statute.
Possible Legislative language - In order to allow the relinquishment process to go forward it is
first necessary to amend the Streets and Highways Code to authorize the relinquishment. The
following language is based on information contained in previously approved amendments to
the Streets and Highways Code.
2
Based on our review of previous code amendments, it is possible, and potentially desirable to
include additional language as necessary to clarify the need, intent and justification for the
proposed relinquishment. It will be important to work closely with Caltrans District and our
Legislators to assure that the proposed legislative language appropriately and correctly
. addresses all the legal issues involved in the relinquishment
,
Proposed Legislative Text:
An act to amend Section 527 of the Streets and Highways Code, relating to
highways.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STA TE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 527 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:
527. Route 227 is from:
(a) Route 101 in the City of Arroyo Grande to Route 101 in the City of San Luis
Obispo.
(b) Upon a determination by the Commission that it is in the best interests of the
state to do so, the Commission may, upon terms and conditions approved by it,
relinquish any portion of Route 227 within the City of Arroyo Grande between
Route 101 and the intersection of Huasna Road to the City. The relinquishment
shall be effective on the date specified in the Commission's approved terms and
conditions with the City of Arroyo Grande. Thereafter, Route 227 shall not include
the portion so relinquished, nor shall the portion be considered for future adoption
in accordance with Section 81. If said portion of Route 227 is so relinquished, the
City of Arroyo Grande shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists
to the continuation of State Highway Route 227.
I hope that this information is of assistance to you as you consider whether or not to go forward
with a request for relinquishment of Route 227 through the Village. If you or your staff have any
questions, feel free to cal me anytime at 781-4219.
Sincerely,
~(1~
Ronald L. DeCarli
Executive Director
3
11.a
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DANIEL HERNANDEZ, PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR *
SUBJECT: FORMATION OF A SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE OPTIONS FOR
A SENIOR CENTER
DATE: MARCH 23, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
The Senior Advisory Commission recommends the City Council authorize the formation
of a subcommittee to research possible funding sources, designs, and locations for a
senior center and designate a Council Member to serve on the subcommittee.
FUNDING:
No funds for FY 1998/99 have been allocated for this subcommittee. Expenses would
be limited to staff time.
DISCUSSION:
In the spring of 1998, the Senior Advisory Commission directed the Parks and
Recreation Department to conduct a Senior Needs Assessment (attachment). The
purpose of the assessment was to try to determine what senior programs, activities, and
facilities were available in the City and what were needed. The Senior Advisory
Commission was particularly interested in determining whether a senior center was
warranted within the City limits. According to the needs assessment, 80% of the Arroyo
Grande respondents indicated that they would use an Arroyo Grande Senior Center and
70% responded that they would support a center through dues and volunteering. In
addition, results of the General Plan Update Citizens' Survey indicate that a senior
center ranked third for recreation facilities that residents would like in Arroyo Grande.
The Central Coast Senior Center, located in Oceano, currently serves the Five Cities
area and has a membership of 320. Approximately 70 to 80 of those members are from
Arroyo Grande.
Senior Advisory Commissioners have visited senior centers in Cayucos, Morro Bay,
San Luis Obispo, Oceano, and Santa Maria to gather ideas on facility design, budgets,
scheduling, programs, and activities. In addition, local seniors have made presentations
to the Commission regarding senior centers in the Cities of Cypress and Monterey.
Some suggested programs and activities that could be scheduled in a senior center
11.a
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DANIEL HERNANDEZ, PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR ~
SUBJECT: FORMATION OF A SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE OPTIONS FOR
A SENIOR CENTER
DATE: MARCH 23, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
The Senior Advisory Commission recommends the City Council authorize the formation
of a subcommittee to research possible funding sources, designs, and locations for a
senior center and designate a Council Member to serve on the subcommittee.
FUNDING:
No funds for FY 1998/99 have been allocated for this subcommittee. Expenses would
be limited to staff time.
DISCUSSION:
In the spring of 1998, the Senior Advisory Commission directed the Parks and
Recreation Department to conduct a Senior Needs Assessment (attachment). The
purpose of the assessment was to try to determine what senior programs, activities, and
facilities were available in the City and what were needed. The Senior Advisory
Commission was particularly interested in determining whether a senior center was
warranted within the City limits. According to the needs assessment, 80% of the Arroyo
Grande respondents indicated that they would use an Arroyo Grande Senior Center and
70% responded that they would support a center through dues and volunteering. In
addition, results of the General Plan Update Citizens' Survey indicate that a senior
center ranked third for recreation facilities that residents would like in Arroyo Grande.
The Central Coast Senior Center, located in Oceano, currently serves the Five Cities
area and has a membership of 320. Approximately 70 to 80 of those members are from
Arroyo Grande.
Senior Advisory Commissioners have visited senior centers in Cayucos, Morro Bay,
San Luis Obispo, Oceano, and Santa Maria to gather ideas on facility design, budgets,
scheduling, programs, and activities. In addition, local seniors have made presentations
to the Commission regarding senior centers in the Cities of Cypress and Monterey.
Some suggested programs and activities that could be scheduled in a senior center
MEMORANDUM: FORMATION OF A SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE OPTIONS
FOR A SENIOR CENTER
MARCH 23, 1999
PAGE 2
include: health screening, nutrition programs, club meetings, fitness, billiards, cards,
trips and travel, special events, and educational seminars.
The Senior Advisory Commission believes strongly that a senior center is needed in
Arroyo Grande. Members of the South County Seniors and the Retired Active Men's
Club (RAM) have attended Senior Commission meetings and have offered to assist with
the investigation of funding sources and building sites. They have also discussed
organizing groups of seniors to address the City Council. In addition, the Senior
Advisory Commission has previously discussed forming a subcommittee to investigate
funding, sites, and designs.
The Senior Advisory Commission has directed staff to solicit input regarding a possible
senior center. Specifically, the Commission wants to know if the Council supports the
idea of a senior center in Arroyo Grande and, if so, authorize the Commission to form a
subcommittee to research (a) possible funding sources, (b) design ideas, and
(c) possible sites.
The subcommittee's role would be confined strictly to research and reporting findings to
the City Council. The subcommittee would have no decision-making powers. The
findings of the subcommittee would not commit the City to construct a center.
The recommended composition of the subcommittee would include one Council
Member, one Parks and Recreation Commissioner, one Senior Advisory Commissioner,
and two Arroyo Grande citizens at large to be selected by the Senior Advisory
Commission. Parks and Recreation will staff the subcommittee.
Alternatives:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
. Approve the Commission's recommendation;
. Do not approve the Commission's recommendation;
. Modify as appropriate and approve the Commission's recommendation; or
. Provide direction to staff.
S:\StaffRpt\SeniorCtrSubcommitteeMar23.99
SENIOR SURVEY CONCLUSIONS
From the senior survey results, we can make the following conclusions:
1. Most seniors (86%) belong to a club or organization, many of which are senior
oriented.
2. Churches and restaurants are the top two places seniors to socialize with other
seniors.
3. 47% surveyed have never attended area senior centers.
4. How often seniors would or currently use a senior center varied widely:
-35% said they do/would use a center weekly,
-22% said they do/would use a center only once a month
5. Over half of the respondents (56%) preferred using a senior center on weekdays
and not weekends.
-Both mornings and afternoons received 35% votes in favor of a center at these
times
6. The top activities or services were:
-Information services -Community service
-Trips/travel -Nutrition programs
-Health programs -Lounge area
-Fitness programs -Club/organizational meeting
-Special events -Educational class/seminar
7. 73% of those surveyed said they would use a senior center if the City established a
center
- 60% of respondents would support the center by paying dues, volunteering,
etc.
- Only 4% noted that they would need transportation
- 80% of respondents would travel 3 or more miles or more miles to a center
8. 54% were 70-79 years old
22% were 60-69 years old
9. The surveyed was well representative of both genders,
-51% females
-45% males
10.50% of respondents live in Arroyo Grande
25% live in Pismo Beach and Grover Beach
11. Although 47% of those surveyed have never attended an area senior center, 73%
indicated they would use one if the City established one.
SOUTH COUNTY SENIOR ACTIVITY
INTEREST SURVEY RESULTS
As of May 15, 1998, 165 seniors had responded to the senior survey. The
following summarizes the results of each question, listing the number and
percentage of responses for each question. Please note that results may not
add up to 100% due to missing responses and rounding of figures.
Number PercentaQe
1. Do you belong to any of the existing
clubs or organizations listed below?
Yes: 142 86
No: 18 11
If yes, which ones?
AARP 63 38
RAMS 44 26.7
South County Seniors 42 25.5
Harvest Bag 33 20
Woman's Club 20 12
5 Cities Christ. Women Food Bank 17 10.3
Golden Coasters 11 6.7
Bridge Club 7 4.2
5 Cities Senior Singles 6 3.6
Golden 50 Senior Club 6 3.6
South County Historical Soc. 5 3
Garden Club 3 2
Beach City Seniors 3 1.8
CA Retired Teachers Assoc. 2 1.2
If no, what prevents you from joining?
Not interested 19 11.5
Doesn't meet my needs 11 6.7
Meeting time 11 6.7
Transportation 7 4.2
Cost 3 1.8
2. Where do you go to socialize with other seniors?
Church 68 41.2
Restaurant 65 39.4
Senior club/center 48 29
Theater 36 21.8
Mobile home park 33 20
Recreation center 32 19.4
6. Please rank how important each activity or service is to you (1=not
important, 5 =very important). The figures below represent the average or
mean score for each activity or service.
Information services 3.8
TripslTravel 3.7
Health programs 3.5
Fitness programs 3.4
Special event 3.4
Community service 3.2
Nutrition programs 3.1
Lounge area 3.1
Club/organization meeting 3.1
Educational class/seminar 3.0
Legal assistance 2.9
Computers 2.8
Performing arts 2.8
Arts/crafts 2.7
Tax insurance assistance 2.7
Disabled services 2.6
Cards 2.6
Billiards 2.6
Facility rental 2.6
Bingo 2.6
Cooking 2.5
Dancing 2.3
Photography 2.3
Book study club 2.2
Tutoring students 2.2
Golf 2.0
Woodworking 2.0
Bridge 2.0
Painting 2.0
Lawn bowling 1.8
3
Number Percentaae
3. Have you ever attended a senior center in:
Oceano 53 32.1
Santa Maria 27 16.4
San Luis Obispo 17 10.3
Nipomo 13 7.9
4. How often do you/would you
use a senior center:
Weekly 58 35.2
Less than once a month 37 22.4
Monthly 29 17.6
Daily 15 9.1
5. When do you/would you use a center:
Weekdays 93 56.4
Mornings 59 35.8
Afternoons 59 35.8
Evenings 40 24.2
Weekends 18 10.9
2
Number Percentaae
7. If the City established a senior center,
would you:
Use the center 121 73.3
Support the center 99 60
Not need transportation 81 49.1
Not support the center 17 10.3
Not use the center 14 8.5
Need transportation 7 4.2
8. How far do you/would you be willing
to travel to a center?
3-6 miles 68 41.2
Over 6 miles 64 38.8
Less than 3 miles 21 12.7
9. Please indicate your:
Age:
70-79 89 54
60-69 37 22.4
80+ 27 16.4
50-59 12 7.3
Gender:
Female 85 51.5
Male 74 44.9
Zip code:
93420 Arroyo Grande 83 50.3
93449 Pismo Beach 26 15.8
93433 Grover Beach 17 10.3
93445 Oceano 8 4.9
93444 Nipomo 8 4.9
93448 Pismo Beach 3 1.8
93483 Grover Beach 2 1.2
93455 Orcutt 1 .61
93422 Atascadero 1 .61
93405 San Luis Obispo 1 .61
93421 Arroyo Grande 1 .61
4
SOUTH COUNTY SENIOR ACTIVITY
INTEREST SURVEY
In an effort to provide better senior services, the City of Arroyo Grande's Senior
Advisory Commission is soliciting community input to determine what positive senior
programs and facilities are currently available and what are needed. Your honest and
thoughtful responses to this survey will assist in reaching this goal.
1. Do you belong to any of the existing clubs or organizations listed below?
-yeS(1) _nO(2)
If yes, please check those you belong to:
_South County Seniors(1-O) _AARP(1-O)
Golden 50 Senior Citizens Club(1-O) R.A.M.S.(1-O)
_Beach City Seniors(1-O) _Five Cities Senior Singles(1-O)
_Harvest Bag(1-O) _Woman's Club(1-O)
_Bridge Club(1-O) _Garden Club(1-O)
- Five Cities Christian Women's _South County Historical
Food Bank(1-O) SocietY(1-O)
_Golden CoasterS(1-O) - California Retired Teachers
- Other Association(1-O)
If no, what prevents you from joining? (check all that apply)
_ COSt(1-O) _ Transportation(1-O) _Doesn't meet my needS(1-O)
_Meeting Time(1-O) _Not interested(1-O)
2. Where do you go to socialize with other seniors?(check all that apply)
_Recreation facility/center(1-O) _ Church(1-O) _Mobile home park(1-O)
_Senior club/center(1-O) _Restaurant(1-O) _ Theater(1-O)
- Other
3. Have you ever attended any activities at senior centers in (check all that apply):
_OCeanO(1-O) _Santa Maria(1-O) _San Luis Obispo(1-O) _NipomO(1-O)
4. How often do you or would you use a senior center? (check one)
_DaiIY(1) _WeekIY(2) _MonthIY(3) _Less than once a month(4)
5. When do you or would you use a senior center most? (check all that apply)
_Weekdays(1-O) _WeekendS(1-O)
_MorningS(1-O) _Afternoons(1-O) _Evenings(1-O)
-OVER-
6. Please rank how important each activity or service is to you. (Circle the appropriate
response for each service area, 1 =not important and 5=very important)
Not Somewhat Very
Important Important Important
Information services 1 2 3 4 5
Nutrition program 1 2 3 4 5
Health programs 1 2 3 4 5
Fitness programs 1 2 3 4 5
Disabled services 1 2 3 4 5
Dancing 1 2 3 4 5
Golf 1 2 3 4 5
Lawn bowling 1 2 3 4 5
TripslTravel 1 2 3 4 5
Cards 1 2 3 4 5
Bridge 1 2 3 4 5
Billiards 1 2 3 4 5
Bingo 1 2 3 4 5
Photography 1 2 3 4 5
Arts and crafts 1 2 3 4 5
Painting 1 2 3 4 5
Woodworking 1 2 3 4 5
Cooking 1 2 3 4 5
Computers 1 2 3 4 5
Book study club 1 2 3 4 5
Performing arts 1 2 3 4 5
Tutoring students 1 2 3 4 5
Community service 1 2 3 4 5
Legal assistance 1 2 3 4 5
Tax/insurance assistance 1 2 3 4 5
Lounge area 1 2 3 4 5
Special event 1 2 3 4 5
Club/organizational meeting 1 2 3 4 5
Facility rental 1 2 3 4 5
Educational class/seminar 1 2 3 4 5
Other 1 2 3 4 5
Other 1 2 3 4 5
7. If the City of Arroyo Grande established a senior center offering many of above listed
activities and services, would you...
. .. Use the center -yeS(1) _nO(2)
. . . Need transportation to the center -yeS(1) _nO(2)
...Support the center (pay dues, volunteer, etc.) -yeS(1) _nO(2)
2
8. How far do you or would you be willing to travel to attend a program or activity?
_Less than 3 miles(1) 3-6 miles(2) _6+ miles(3)
9. Please indicate your:
Age: _50-59(1) _60-69(2) _70-79(3) _80+(4)
Gender: _male(1) female(2)
Zip Code:
10. The City of Arroyo Grande is trying to ascertain what senior activities, services and
facilities are available in the South County. Please list below any additional senior
activities, services, or facilities previously unmentioned that you are aware of.
11. If you have any other comments or ideas, please state them below.
Thank you for completing this survey. If you have any further questions regarding the
survey, please contact the Arroyo Grande Parks and Recreation Department at 473-
5474.
3
G-~
9,
/~
"6)~ ~~
9D 10
~ ~
~
~"
$~
~
~ ~O
~a ':1
V
'>G-~
(10- ~
CD /00
~ ()'a
s:. ~~
.9 ~
CD ~ ~
." :?~
~ ~..:
..:'
C)
0 ~~
~ ~b
"9-~
~6'
1 ~
== ,"'"
::s ~-1.i
0 ~*b
>-
." ~ ~..:
- ()' Q ~o
::s
0 ' <Y
~ ~~
Cf) 1iq.<2 ~~~
CD
.,
== ~, 'b--a
1)
:! rGr",
~ ,~
6 ~~ Q'~I).
~ tt> ~ ~ "en
..
f ~ 10~
e ~
~ ~
~ G-~
~~
~ ~
~'b ~~
$~ ()' 9
~9-h 9I-~
~ i1'~
~ &
~$~
9ge
..: ~~
~~
0 0 ~ g ~ g o ~YQ;
~ ~ - ~~
~
t-~
~~
\Uno:> ~~
American Farmland Trust http://www.fannland.orglpolicy/hr798.htm
13.a.
\,\',,181:-: 'i~~",:~::,tl;l:j;~";;:r!~l~,,(:::~~jC; ,,;:"'~,'r::,~::~, ., ~rES1'.IMONY
Americllll Fllrn,lllntl TrU,f(
Testimony on the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 (H.R.701)
and the
Resources 2000 Act (H.R. 798)
before the
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Resources
Ralph Grossi
President
American Farmland Trust
March 10, 1999
Mr. Chairman, American Farmland Trust (AFT) appreciates this opportunity to provide your
committee with our views on the merits of H.R. 701 and H.R. 798. I am Ralph Grossi, president
of AFT and the managing partner of a family farm that has been in the dairy, cattle and grain
business in northern California for over 100 years. American Farmland Trust is a national,
non-profit organization with 31,000 members working to stop the loss of productive farmland
and to promote farming practices that lead to a healthy environment.
Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest that it is time that working with private landowners be the
foundation of future conselVation policy. H.R. 798 contains provisions that move us in that
direction. American Farmland Trust supports the Resources 2000 Act because this bill recognizes
the role that private landowners play in the stewardship of our natural resources, protecting
their property rights, while compensating them for the environmental goods they produce for
the public. We cannot support H.R. 701 at this time because it does not contain provisions that
address the critical needs of farmers and ranchers.
My comments today will focus primarily on the specific provisions in H.R. 798 that direct
conselVation incentives toward private landowners. For the past quarter century conselVation
and environmental objectives in our country have been largely achieved by either imposing
regulations or through government purchase of private land. However, these actions have failed
to resolve conflicts over important environmental problems - like species or farmland protection,
for example - that rely on the participation of thousands of private landowners. At AFT we very
strongly believe that the in the 21st century new approaches to land conselVation will be
needed that address the concerns of private landowners.
The farmland protection provisions of the Resources 2000 Act recognize that America cannot -
indeed should not - buy all the land that needs protecting. Instead it acknowledges that
America's private landowners playa vital role in producing conselVation benefits for all
Americans to enjoy, and rightfully compensates them by providing $150 million annually for the
protection of America's best farmland, ranchland and forestland while leaving it in private
ownership. I urge you to consider similar provisions for H.R. 70l.
The easement acquisition, or purchase of development rights, approach proposed by H.R. 798
provides an innovative, voluntary opportunity for appropriate local agencies to work with
landowners by offering them compensation to protect the most productive farmland -- farmland
that is critical to both the agricultural economic base of our rural and suburban communities and
the environmental values provided by well-managed farms. It would also provide important
matching funds to the many local and state efforts working to protect farmland.
lof4 3/13/99 7:44 PM
American Fannland Trust http://www.fannland.orglpolicy/hr798.htm
Under the bill's provisions, protected lands would remain on the local tax rolls contributing to
the local economy. The value of this approach to local communities should not be understated.
AFT has conducted more than forty Cost of Community Services Studies around the country. In
every case, these studies have shown farmland provides more property tax revenue than it
demands in public services, while sprawling residential development almost always requires
more in services than it pays in taxes.
Conservation policy does matter to farmers and ranchers, who are strong believers in individual
freedom and private property rights. Their support for conservation policies is absolutely critical
because they own the land that is at stake in the increasing competition for its use. But as
competition for land has increased, so has disagreement over how to balance economic use with
conservation of natural resources and the increasing demands being placed on private
landowners to achieve objectives whose benefits accrue largely to the public. Debate over land
use has focused on private property rights and the appropriate role of government in protecting
resources while polarization on this issue has in many cases stalemated effective policymaking.
landowners often complain that government regulations infringe on their freedom and force
them to bear an unfair share of the cost of protecting the environment, while the public argues
that landowners have a duty to conserve resources for future generations.
But the fact remains that for most landowners the equity in their land represents the hard work
and savings of at least one if not numerous generations of the farm family. Their land is their
401(k)! As farmers we are proud of the abundant supply of food and fiber we have provided
Americans and millions of others around the world; and we are pleased that we also "produce"
scenic vistas, open spaces, wildlife habitat and watershed integrity for our communities to enjoy.
And in many instances, our farms and ranches serve as crucial buffers around our parks,
battlefields and other important resources. These are tangible environmental goods and services
that farmers should be encouraged to produce and appropriately rewarded for. It is only fair
that the cost of producing and maintaining these goods that benefit so many Americans be
shared by them.
Farmers are the caretakers of the land, and voters are starting to realize this fact. The recent
surge in local and state efforts to protect farmland suggests rapidly rising national concern over
the loss of farmland and the environmental benefits it provides.
In last November's elections 72 percent of 240 initiatives to protect farmland and open space
were approved by voters across the nation. In recent years Governors Engler, Voinovich, Ridge,
Pataki, Wilson, Whitman, Weld, Glendening and others have supported or initiated farmland
protection efforts to address this problem. Nearly every day this year major newspapers have
carried articles about sprawl and "smart growth", frequently citing farmland protection as one of
the key components of the latter. And the President highlighted the need to help communities
protect "farmland and open space" in his State of the Union speech.
Recent studies by American Farmland Trust have documented that more than 80% of this
nation's fruits, vegetables and dairy products are grown in metropolitan area counties or fast
growing adjacent counties - in the path of sprawling development. And a 1997 AFT study found
that over the past decade over 400,000 acres of prime and unique farmland were lost to urban
uses each year. The loss of soil to asphalt -- like the loss of soil to wind and water erosion -- is
an issue of national importance.
But one should not get caught up in the "numbers game". The fact is that every year we
continue to squander some of this nation's most valuable farmland with the expectation that this
land can be replaced with other land in this country or abroad, or with new technologies that
promise to help maintain the productivity gains of the past half century. The reality is that we
don't know whether new technologies will keep pace. What we do know is that whatever those
2 of4 3113/99 7:44 PM
American Farmland Trust http://www.fannland.orgipolicy/hr798.htm
..
technologies will be, it is likely that they will be more efficiently applied on productive land than
on marginal land where higher levels of energy, fertilizer, chemicals and labor per unit of output
are required. Simply put, It is in the nation's best interest to keep the best land for farming as
an insurance policy against the challenge of feeding an expanding population in the 21st
century .
However, food security is not the reason farmland protection has emerged as a national issue.
Communities all across the nation are working to protect farmland because it produces a lot
more than food and fiber.
· In many regions of the nation, enough farmland is being paved over to place the
remaining farms at risk, due to the lack of a critical mass of land and services to support
agriculture - farm machinery, supplies, marketing outlets, etc. Too often, while local
leaders work to bring new business to a community they overlook agriculture as a true
"wealth generator" - an industry that brings value to the community from renewable
natural resources. In many traditional farm communities citizens are awakening to the
prospect that this important, consistent economic base is at risk; and they recognize that
one of the solutions is to ensure that the land base is protected. This calculus has little to
do with the global food supply and everything to do with the value of farming to local
economies.
· Residents increasingly frustrated with long commutes, deteriorating public services and a
loss of the scenic views, watershed protection and wildlife habitat, that is so much a part
of their quality of life, are among the strongest advocates for farmland protection. The
working landscape around our cities adds value to the life and property of all the
residents of a given community. And in some cases, farms that are far from the city add
critical values; for example, the protection of farms hundreds of miles from New York City
is helping improve the water quality and reduce water treatment costs for the residents
of Manhattan.
Increasingly, farmland protection is seen as an inexpensive way to protect scenic vistas that
enhance the community for both residents and visitors while keeping the land in productive use
on local tax roles. Farmers are "producing" a valuable product for their new suburban neighbors
- environmental quality; and farmland protection programs such as purchase of development
rights and the use of conservation easements proposed by H.R. 798 have become mechanisms
to compensate them for these "products".
As more communities struggle with the problems of suburban sprawl, private lands protection is
emerging as a key strategy of smart growth. The techniques proposed by the Resources 2000
Act add an element of fairness to the difficult challenge of achieving public goals while balancing
private property rights, by providing a means of compensation for value received by the
community at large. They are a reasonable balance to the regulations that often lack fairness
when applied alone; and they are provisions that should added to H.R. 701.
The findings of a recent AFT survey show that most landowners are willing to share the
responsibility of protecting the environment with the public through "hybrid" programs that
combine reasonable regulations with adequate financial incentives. The Resources 2000 Act
helps to achieve this balance by adding carrots to the sticks of existing regulation.
This bill will help protect the working agricultural landscape of America, and do it In a manner
that shares the responsibility of stewardship between private landowners and the public at large
by fairly compensating for value received. The Resources 2000 Act is an excellent example of
how to govern in a better way, a way that involves communities and local and State
government, a way that empowers farmers rather than imposing on them.
3of4 3/13/99 7:44 PM
American Farm1and Trust http://www.tann1and.org/policyIhr798.htm
Mr. Chairman, during this Congress you win have unprecedented opportunities to develop
policies to encourage and reward stewardship on this natiOn's private lands; and to re-direct
financial resources in a way that shares the cost of protecting our great natural resources
between the taxpayers who enjOy them and the landowners that steward them. While it is not
the domain of this Committee, in closing I call your attention ta the federal farm programs. At a
time when the public is demanding more af private landowners every day, I ask yau and all of
Congress to consider a major shift of commodity support payments into conservation programs
such as farmland protection that help farmers meet those demands in a way that is fair to all.
Thank you for providing me with this opportunity to testify today, and I look forward ta working
with you to establish a truly farmer-friendly conservation policy.
11<1JO :H.!t!1 Si::/'eet, N 'IN " S~1jite ;E!:OI/JI W<"&.lrdngt~:I<I'i, DC .2:(Mt3~i 2f:ft :;1:" 3:,$ l ,.. J :~t~) II)
infQ~farmlang.org ;W2-6S9,H:n9 {f)
[ << AFT Home]
40f4 3/13/99 7:44 PM