Agenda Packet 2007-05-22CITY OF
City Council
Tony Ferrara
Ed Arnold
Joe Costello
Jim Guthrie
Chuck Fellows
CALIFORNIA v
9th
Agenda
Steven Adams City Manager
Timothy J. Carmel City Attorney
Kelly Wetmore City Clerk
AGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2007
7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER:
2. ROLL CALL:
3. FLAG SALUTE:
4. INVOCATION:
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL/RDA
COUNTY LINE 4-H CLUB
PASTOR PAUL JONES
RETIRED
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
5.a. Mavor's Commendation Honoring Bob Behme Upon His Retirement and
Recognizing His Service to the Community
5.b. Honorary Proclamation Proclaiming June 5.2007 as "Hunger Awareness Day"
5.c. Honorary Proclamation Proclaiming Mav 20-26, 2007 as "National Public Works
Week"
6. AGENDA REVIEW:
Mayor
Mayor Pro Tem
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande
6a. Move that all ordinances presented tonight be read in title only and all further readings
be waived.
AGENDA SUMMARY -MAY 22, 2007
PAGE 2
7. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present
issues; thoughts, or suggestions on matters not scheduled on this agenda.
Comments should be limited to those matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City
Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council from taking formal action on matters not
published on the agenda. In response to your comments, the Mayor or presiding
Council Member may:
• Direct City staff to assist or coordinate with you.
• A Council Member may state a desire to meet with you.
• It may be the desire of the Council to place your issue or matter on a future
Council agenda.
Please adhere to the following procedures when addressing the Council:
• Comments should be limited to 3 minutes or less.
• Your comments should be directed to the Council as a whole and not directed
to individual Council members.
• Slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member or
member of the audience shall not be permitted.
CONSENT AGENDA:
The following routine items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group.
The recommendations for each item are noted. Any member of the public who wishes
to comment on any Consent Agenda item may do so at this time. Any Council
Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit
discussion or change the recommended course of action. The City Council may
approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda on one motion.
8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification (KRAETSCH)
Recommended Action: Ratify the listing of cash disbursements for the period May 1,
2007 through May 15, 2007.
8.b. Consideration of Statement of Investment Deposits (KRAETSCH)
Recommended Action: Receive and file the report of current investment deposits as
of April 30, 2007.
8.c. Consideration of Fiscal Year 2007-08 Appropriation Limit (KRAETSCH)
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution establishing the appropriation limit from
tax proceeds for Fiscal Year 2007-08.
8.d. Consideration of Approval of Minutes (WETMORE)
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the Special (Closed Session) City
Council meeting of April 24, 2007 and the Regular City Council/Redevelopment
Agency/Public Financing Authority meeting of April 24, 2007, as submitted.
8.e. Consideration of Revisions to Telephone Usage Policv (ADAMS)
Recommended Action: Approve proposed Telephone Usage Policy.
AGENDA SUMMARY -MAY 22, 2007
PAGE 3
8. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'dl:
8.f.
Station Expansion Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study (ADAMS)
Recommended Action: Approve and Authorize the Mayor to execute an Agreement
with BFGC Architecture for preparation of a Police Station Expansion Needs
Assessment and Feasibility Study.
8.g.
S.h Consideration of Adoption of Ordinance to Comply with SB53 (ADAMS)
Recommended Action: Adopt Ordinance to comply with requirements of Senate Bill
53, Chapter 591 of Statutes of 2006, as codified in California Health and Safety Code
Section 33342.7, by describing that the Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Agency does
not have authority to acquire real property by eminent domain and therefore has no
program to acquire real property by eminent domain.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
9.a.
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution denying the appeal and approving Viewshed
Review 06-006 as submitted.
9.b.
Recommended Action: Review the Draft EIR prepared for the Newsom Springs
Regional Drainage Plan, receive public comment, and provide input to staff.
9.c.
Recommended Action: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council
introduce an Ordinance amending Municipal Code Chapter 16.60 related to Signs.
10. CONTINUED BUSINESS:
None.
Recommended Action: Approve Final Parcel Map AG 04-0123, subdividing one (1)
.55-acre parcel into three (3) parcels.
AGENDA SUMMARY -MAY 22, 2007
PAGE 4
11. NEW BUSINESS:
11.a. Consideration of Fiscal Year 2006-07 Third Quarter Budget Status Report
(KRAETSCH)
[COUNCIL/RDA]
Recommended Action: It is recommended the City Council/RDA Board 1) Approve
detailed budget adjustments listed in the 3~d Quarter budget report; 2) Approved
Schedules A & B; and 3) Approve (Deny) requests for additional appropriations in the
General Fund.
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 TONY FERRARA:
(1) San Luis Obispo Council of Governments/San Luis Obispo Regional
Transit Authority (SLOCOG/SLORTA)
(2) South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD)
(3) Other
(b) MAYOR PRO TEM ED ARNOLD:
(1) Integrated Waste Management Authority Board (IWMA)
(2) Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC)
(3) Other
(c) COUNCIL MEMBER JOE COSTELLO:
(1) Zone 3 WaterAdvisory Board
(2) Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
(3) Fire Oversight Committee
(4) Fire Consolidation Oversight Committee
(5) Other
(d) COUNCIL MEMBER JIM GUTHRIE:
(1) South County Area Transit (SCAT)
(2) California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA)
(3) Other
(e) COUNCIL MEMBER CHUCK FELLOWS:
(1) South County Youth Coalition
(2) County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC)
(3) Other
AGENDA SUMMARY -MAY 22, 2007
PAGE 5
13. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS:
The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by a Council Member who would like
to receive feedback, direct staff to prepare information, and/or request a formal
agenda report be prepared and the item placed on a future agenda. No formal action
can be taken.
a. None.
14. CITY MANAGER ITEMS:
The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by the City Manager in order to
receive feedback and/or request direction from the Council. No formal action can be
taken.
None.
15. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:
Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Council.
16. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Manager.
17. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present
issues,. thoughts, or suggestions. Comments should be limited to those matters that
are within the jurisdiction of the City Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council
from taking formal action on matters not published on the agenda.
18. ADJOURNMENT
This agenda was prepared and posted pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2. Agenda reports
can be accessed and downloaded from the City's website at www.arroyogrande.org
All staff reports or other written documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the agenda
are on file in the City Clerk's office and are available for public inspection and reproduction at cost. If
requested, the agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a
disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities, Act. To make a request for disability-related
modification or accommodation, contact the Administrative Services Department at 805-473-5414 as soon
as possible and at least 48 hours prior to the meeting date.
City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meetings are cablecast live and videotaped for replay on Arroyo
Grande's Government Access Channel 20. The rebroadcast schedule is published at www.slo-span.org.
~.a.
~,~
.~;.
OF
,,
,,,
.,,.
or's Comm¢nQation
Presented to
~jjo6 ~jjehme
On this 22"d day of 9btay, Zoo?
In Recognition of your
Retirement andService to t6ie
Community and its Citizens
Ton e~ara, Mayor
CITY
CITY
~~.7
OF
3fonorary Proclamation
Proclafming June s, soot as
"3-longer ..~ltivareness Day"
WHEREAS, the Food Bank Coalition of San Luis Obispo County is a countywide
organization dedicated to eliminating hunger; and
WHEREAS, the Food Bank assists 130 local organizations by providing food at
pennieson-the~lollar costs; and
WHEREAS, the Food Bank works with other food banks nationwide to share food,
including meat and dairy products and fresh fruits and vegetables; and
WHEREAS, the Food Bank last year helped feed 25,000 SLO County residents;
and
WHEREAS, the Food Bank is coordinating a countywide event to promote Hunger
Awareness Day on June 5~"; and
WHEREAS, the Food Bank believes that the people of SLO County will help in a
one day push via the Internet, phone and in person to raise funds needed to
stamp out local hunger; and
WHEREAS, people giving one dollar on one day, June 5, 2007, can raise the funds
needed to end hunger.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Tony Ferrara, Mayor of the City of
Arroyo Grande, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby join in this effort and
proclaim June 5, 2007 as "Hunger Awareness Day" 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 22n° day of May 2007.
~~ PRROro
o` 09
Tony Ferrara, Mayor ~ '"`°""°"°Y`° 90
~ T! m
f JVLY 10. ,911 ~
C'qt/pORR~p
5.b.
~ CITY OF
- - - .
WHEREAS, public works services provided in our community are an integral part of our
citizens' everyday lives; and
WHEREAS, the support of an understanding and informed citizenry is vital to the
efficient operation of public works systems and programs such as water, sewers,
storm drains, and streets; and
WHEREAS, the heakh, safety and comfort of this community greatly depends on these
facilities and services; and
WHEREAS, the quality and effectiveness of these faa'lities, as well as their pkmning,
design, construction and maintenance is vitally dependent upon the dedication and
sb'~ of public works professionals; and
WHEREAS, °National Public Works Week" is celebrated during May zo-z6, zoo? to
recognize the irrvaluable contn'bution of public works professionals.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that 1, Tony Ferrara, Mayor of the City of Arroyo
Grande, on behalf of the City Couna'I, do hereby proclaim the week of May zo"' through
May zb`" as "NATIONAL pUBL1C WORKS WEEK° in the City of Arroyo Grande and call
upon all citizens and civic organizations to acquaint themselves with the issues
irrvolved in provid'mg our public works and to recognize the contn'butions which public
works professionals make every day to our heakh, safety, comfort, and quality of life.
1N WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal
of the City of Arroyo Grande to be affixed this zz'" day of May zoo7.
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
of PRROro c9
a INOONPOfl1TEV 92
~ O
v ._ m
t JVLY 10, 1911 }
c'0<iFORN~P
5.c.
8.a.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES
BY: FRANCES R. HEAD, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR
SUBJECT: CASH DISBURSEMENT RATIFICATION
DATE: MAY 22, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for
the period May 1 through May 15, 2007.
FUNDING:
There is a $893,620.44 fiscal impact that includes the following items:
Accounts Payable Checks 131151-131384 $ 449,696.72
Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks $ 443,923.72
All payments are within the existing budget.
DISCUSSION:
The attached listing represents the cash disbursements required of normal and usual
operations. It is requested that the City Council approve these payments.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
• Approve staffs recommendation;
• Do not approve staffs recommendation;
• Provide direction to staff.
Attachments:
Attachment 1-May 1, 2007-May 15, 2007, Accounts Payable Check Register
Attachment 2- May 11, 2007, Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks Register
apCkHist
05/14/2007 3:39PM
Check History Listing
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
ATTACHMENTI
Page: 1
Bank code: boa
Check# Date Vendor
131151 05/04/2007 002627 STEVEN ADAMS
Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
131152 05/0412007 003817 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SVCS V
131153 05/0412007 003817 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SVCS
042007 04/20/2007 108.40 108.40
05/04/2007 0.00 0.00
F039224 03/2012007 4825
F129520 03/13/2007 34.90
F141054 03127/2007 34.90
F123770 03/06/2007 18.20
F129519 03/1312007 1820
F135330 03/20/2007 1820
F141053 03/27/2007 1820
F 12 3781 03/06/2007 1725
F135342 03/2012007 1725
F129534 03/1312007 15.00
F141068 03/27/2007 15.00
F129527 03/13/2007 11.80
F 141061 03/27/2007 11.80
F123785 03106/2007 10.35
F135346 03/20/2007 10.35
F129533 03/1312007 9.50
F141067 03/27/2007 9.50
F129526 03/13/2007 8.80
F141060 03/27/2007 8.80
F123787 03/06/2007 8.50
F135348 03120/2007 8.50
F123784 03106/2007 6.00
F135345 03/20/2007 6.00
F123789 0310612007 5.60
F129535 03/13/2007 5.60
F135350 03/20/2007 5.60
F141069 03/27/2007 5.60
F123786 03/06/2007 5.00
F135347 03/20/2007 5.00
F123776 03/06/2007 2.80
F135336 03/20/2007 2.80
F123777 03/06/2007 2.80
Page:1
apckHist Check History Listing Page: 2
0517412007 3:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
F135337 03/20/2007 2.80
F123771 03/06/2007 24.08
F135331 03/20/2007 22.40
F123790 03/06/2007 19.60
F129536 03/13/2007 19.60
F 135351 03/20/2007 19.60
F141070 03/2712007 1960 533 .73
131154 05/04/2007 003175 AQUA-METRIC SALES 0016718 05/03/2007 2,962.67 2,962 .67
131155 05/04/2007 000042 ARROYO GRANDE FLOWER 37459 03/26/2007 79.36
36893 03/01/2007 67.04
37337 03/31 /2007 53.63 200 .03
131156 05/04/2007 005615 AT&T/MCI T6309843 04/06/2007 34.46 34 .46
131157 05/04/2007 001055 AVCO FIRE EXTINGUISHER 12768 04/17/2007 218.50 218. 50
131158 05104/2007 000069 BAUER COMPRESSORS, INC 92721 04/11/2007 270.19 270. 19
131159 05104/2007 003074 MATTHEW BENDER & 47748036 04/27/2007 1,401.04 1,401. 04
131160 05104/2007 005726 BRENNTAG PACIFIC INC 665087 04/18/2007 501.30 501. 30
131161 05/04/2007 000090 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER 132907 04/17/2007 111.53
132805 04/0912007 84.11
132985 04/26/2007 9.34
132916 04/19/2007 8.74
133047 05/01/2007 7.28
133036 05/01/2007 6.87
132955 04/24/2007 3.22 231. 09
131162 05/04/2007 000094 BRUMIT DIESEL, INC 97698 04116/2007 74.22
97541 04110/2007 16.83 91. 05
131163 05/0412007 000096 BURTON'S FIRE, INC. 38036 04/18/2007 75.32
38103 04/19/2007 27.77 103. 09
131164 05104/2007 000134 CA ST DEPT OF JUSTICE 613404 03/09/2007 2,491.00
618351 04/11/2007 2,095.00 4,586. 00
Page: 2
apckHist Check History Listing Page: 3
05/1412007 3:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
131165 05/04/2007 006111 CACEO 041707 04117/2007 75.00 75.00
131166 05/04/2007 000603 CAROUEST AUTO PARTS 7314-156907 04/19/2007 192.87
7314-157185 04/20/2007 77.02
7314-156035 04/16/2007 28.79
7314-157183 04/20/2007 11.65
7314-156963 04/19/2007 8.28 318.61
131167 05104/2007 001314 CDF/STATE FIRE TRAINING 043007 04/30/2007 30.00 30.00
131168 05/04/2007 003988 CENTRAL COAST 46552 04/0112007 625.86 625.86
131169 0510412007 006109 CENTRAL COAST WINDOW 2658 04/10/2007 238.00 238.00
131170 0510412007 002842 COMMERCIAL 4167-51107 04/16/2007 4,050.00
4137-4147 04/16/2007 490.00 4,540.00
131171 05/0412007 000195 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER 4/4-017922 04/04/2007 51.00
4/4-63949 04/04/2007 15.00
4/4-018068 04/04/2007 11.50 77.50
131172 05/04/2007 000198 L N CURTIS 8 SONS 1126578-00 04/23/2007 51.71 51.71
131173 05/04/2007 001854 JIM DECECCO 050207 05/02/2007 60.00 60.00
131174 05/04/2007 005091 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 11846145 04/19/2007 81.23
11836667 04/18/2007 74.59
11798689 04/12/2007 46.61
1183668 04/18/2007 22.88
11846146 04/19/2007 7.28 232.59
131175 0510412007 001840 DELL MARKETING LP V04040935 04/13/2007 1,366.08
098131261 04/10/2007 576.89
V03529531 04/13/2007 512.01 2,454.98
131176 05/04/2007 000210 DIESELRO, INC 21646 04/13/2007 618.92 618.92
131177 05/04/2007 002673 DOCTORS MEDPLUS 13883838 03/06/2007 580.00 580.00
131178 05/0412007 000225 EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC 224122 04/0312007 1,086.25 1,086.25
Page: 3
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 4
05HM2007 3:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
131179 05/04/2007 004610 ECMS INC 104242-00 04/20/2007 443.79 443.79
131180 0510412007 006113 FAIRWAY DEVELOPMENT 050307 05103/2007 2,500.00 2,500.00
131181 05104/2007 004164 FEDEX 8-799-07055 04/13/2007 22.00 22.00
131182 05/04/2007 001525 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, 1289429 04/16/2007 194.60 194.60
131183 05/04/2007 004790 DEANNA FLOYD 041907 05/03/2007 72.00 72.00
131184 05/04/2007 003590 SERENA FLOYD 050207 05/03/2007 48.00 48.00
131185 05/04/2007 004142 STAN GAXIOLA 050207 05/03/2007 120.00 120.00
131186 05/04/2007 000499 GRAND AWARDS, INC 70545 05/01/2007 80.44 80.44
131187 05/0412007 000288 CITY OF GROVER BEACH 042607 05/03/2007 139.40 139.40
131188 05/04/2007 000943 NANCY HAGLUND 050307 05/03/2007 626.41 626.41
131189 05/0412007 001237 HANSON AGGREGATES INC 99444 04/12!2007 686.34 686.34
131190 05/0412007 004188 EDDIE HARRIS 050207 05/03/2007 40.00 40.00
131191 05/0412007 000301 HEACOCK TRAILERS & 23882 03/16/2007 18.58 18.58
131192 05/04/2007 006108 HOME MOTORS CTCS219071 04/18/2007 127.50 127.50
131193 05/04/2007 005648 ICOM AMERICA INC 7813811 02/28/2007 80.76 80.76
131194 05/04/2007 000345 J J'S FOOD COMPANY, INC 157560 02/23/2007 108.69
157562 02/23/2007 23.94
157370 02/21/2007 8.70
157371 02/21/2007 6.99
157569 02/28/2007 -23.94 124.38
131195 05!04/2007 000348 J W ENTERPRISES 199052 04/26/2007 85.00 85.00
131196 05/04/2007 001793 J J KELLER & ASSOCIATES, 006748123 04/19/2007 146.90 146.90
131197 05104/2007 005833 KERN TURF SUPPLY INC 247133 04/27/2007 1,010.05
245904 04/10/2007 138.58 1,148.63
Page: 4
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 5
05114/2007 3:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check# Date Vendor
131198 05/0412007 003949 KERN'S PAPER
131199 05/0412007 000365 LINDA KEY
131200 0510412007 004845 JOHN CARSON
131201 05/04/2007 000379 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA
131202 05/04/2007 005511 CHRISTOPHER IINTNER
131203 05/04/2007 001136 DOUG LINTNER
131204 05104/2007 006088 MATCO TOOLS
131205 05104/2007 006020 RYAN MICHAEL
131206 05104/2007 004279 MID STATE PLUMBING &
131207 0510412007 000419 MIDAS AUTO SERVICE
131208 05/0412007 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE,
Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
20810 04/12/2007 269.91 269.91
050207 05/03/2007 46.59 46.59
050207 05/02/2007 80.00 80.00
050107 05/03/2007 27.00 27.00
050207 05/02/2007 80.00 80.00
041907 04/19/2007 180.00 180.00
10521 04/11/2007 97.51 97.51
050207 05/0212007 60.00 60.00
042507 04/25/2007 11,576.30 11,576.30
17679 0412612007 36.58 36.58
202148 04120/2007 136.98
202550 04/23/2007 85.43
203132 04/27/2007 62.42
203491 04130/2007 57.03
203537 04/30/2007 48.41
203024 04/26/2007 34.96
201947 04/18/2007 27.51
202593 04/23/2007 26.91
202876 04/25/2007 25.82
203480 04/30/2007 25.39
202124 04/20/2007 19.38
125049 03/29/2007 16.08
202890 04/25/2007 15.06
203310 04/28/2007 15.04
203135 04127/2007 11.48
902703 04/24/2007 10.76
202948 04/26/2007 10.07
201413 04/14/2007 6.62
200447 04/07/2007 5.92
200439 04/0712007 4.46
Page: 5
apckHist Check History Listing Page: 6
05/14/2007 3:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
203162 04/27/2007 -11.84 633.89
131209 05/0412007 000441 MULLAHEY FORD FOCS177616 04/18/2007 399.10
FOCS 177431 04/16/2007 159.65
FOCS177583 04/17/2007 62.05
FOCS177637 04/1912007 34.59 655.39
131210 05/0412007 005869 MURRAY & ASSOC, BOB 2483 04/16/2007 4,751.29 4,751.29
131211 05104/2007 005744 OCEANO COMMUNITY AG-7 05/02/2007 930.00 930.00
131212 05/04/2007 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 382413287-001 04/06/2007 123.10
382048952-001 04/06/2007 92.61
380749103-001 03/3012007 33.77
384035167-001 04/20/2007 29.08
382386774-001 04/13/2007 17.35
382055494-001 04/06/2007 9.33 305.24
131213 05/0412007 006110 OHLER, J. W. REFUND 05/02/2007 505.00 505.00
131214 05/0412007 000477 P J'S TOP SHOP 050107 05/0112007 363.58 363.58
131215 0510412007 000492 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH 05/0312007 58.73 58.73
131216 05104/2007 004158 PHOENIX GROUP 32007157 04/17/2007 107.85 107.85
131217 05104/2007 003265 PLATINUM PLUS FOR 4/20-6347 04/20/2007 312.43
4/20-6321 04/20/2007 199.64
4/20-6313 04/2012007 186.90
4/20-6289 04/2012007 181.47
4/20-6263 04/20/2007 80.00
4/20-9702 04/20/2007 69.69
4/20-9686 04/20/2007 57.59
4/20-6404 04/20/2007 51.23
4120-6362 04/20/2007 2.86 1,141.81
131218 05104/2007 004757 PLUMBERS DEPOT INC. PD-6629 04!17/2007 170.53 170.53
131219 05/04/2007 000503 POOR RICHARD'S PRESS, 123525 03/30/2007 50.74 50.74
131220 05/0412007 005284 R & B MOBILE EQUIPMENT & 0779 04/13/2007 267.38
Page: 6
apckHist
05/1412007
3:39PM Check History Listing
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: 7
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
0805 04/19/2007 69.60
0806 04/19/2007 69.60
1102 04/12/2007 33.94 440.52
131221 05104/2007 000523 R & T EMBROIDERY, INC 30861 04/16/2007 26.94 26.94
131222 05/04/2007 003031 ROBERTSON SUPPLY 6656 04/27/2007 89.50
6657 04/2712007 7747 166.97
131223 05104/2007 004833 STEVE ROMO 050207 05/03/2007 180.00 180.00
131224 05/04/2007 000536 GREG ROSE 050207 05/02/2007 40.00 40.00
131225 05104/2007 006021 BLAKE ROSKELLY 050207 05/03/2007 180.00 180.00
131226 05104/2007 000810 RRM DESIGN GROUP 12061406563 01/0812007 4,493.15
02071406563 03/14/2007 737.50
03071307502 04/30/2007 565.20
01071406563 02/14/2007 506.85 6,302.70
131227 05/04/2007 003649 CHARLES D (DON) RUIZ 050207 05/03/2007 144.00 144.00
131228 05/04/2007 006022 LEAH RUIZ 050207 05/02/2007 40.00 40.00
131229 05/04/2007 006067 SANTA MARGARITA FIRE 0427 05/03/2007 995.77
043007 04/30/2007 48.70 1,044.47
131230 05104/2007 000578 ANGELITA ANN SARMIENTO 050207 05/03/2007 16.00 16.00
131231 05/0412007 006080 MARTINA SARMIENTO 050207 05/03/2007 48.00 48.00
131232 05/0412007 003024 MARK SCRAPPER 050207 05/03/2007 100.00 100.00
131233 05/04/2007 001876 KAREN SISKO 050307 05/03/2007 79.54
043007 05103/2007 66.06 145.60
131234 05/04/2007 000556 SLO COUNTY IN0050771 04/10/2007 174.00 174.00
131235 05/0412007 000548 SLOCO DATA, INC 27282 04/20/2007 2,297.14 2,297.14
131236 05/04/2007 004860 TAMMY SMITH 050207 05/03/2007 32.00 32.00
131237 05104/2007 003641 SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY 1900817 05/0112007 207.72
Page: 7
apCkHist Check History Listing page: s
OSH4/2007 3:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
131238 05/04/2007 000602 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT
131239 05/04/2007 000613 STATEW IDE SAFETY &
131240 05/04/2007 000620 STREATOR PIPE & SUPPLY
131241 05/0412007 000624 SUPERIOR QUALITY
131242 05/0412007 000642 TOSTE GRADING & PAVING
131243 05/0412007 000653 DOROTHY TRULOCK
131244 05/0412007 006112 ROBERT VANG
131245 05/04/2007 002137 VERIZON WIRELESS
131246 05/04/2007 000687 WAYNE'S TIRE, INC
131247 05/04/2007 000689 WEST PAYMENT CENTER
131248 05/0412007 000866 JAMIE WHARTON
131249 05/0412007 000699 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC
131250 05/04/2007 006115 JPG CONSTRUCTION INC
131251 05/07/2007 000822 US POSTMASTER
131252 05/0712007 000481 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
131253 05/0812007 000620 STREATOR PIPE & SUPPLY
131254 05/0812007 000620 STREATOR PIPE & SUPPLY
131255 05/0812007 004548 CARMEL & NACCASHA, LLP
1901646 05/01/2007 106.76
1900672 05/01/2007 106.76
1792041 05101/2007 5.62 426.86
033107 03/31/2007 81,764.61 81,764.61
54103 04/19/2007 485.45 485.45
S1038303.001 04/04/2007 94.76
S1038273.001 04/04/2007 55.38 150.14
34308 04/18/2007 26.76 26.76
0003736-IN 03122/2007 16,325.00 16,325.00
042607 04/26/2007 891.20 891.20
050207 05/02/2007 1,245.38 1,245.38
2128647174 04/17/2007 37.26 37.26
766347 04/19/2007 93.00
766452 04/23/2007 15.00 108.00
813532116 04/20/2007 205.38 205.38
0502 05/03/2007 72.00 72.00
0703 04/19/2007 1,593.75
0702 04/19/2007 1,593.75
0701 04/19/2007 1,593.75 4,781.25
PW 2006-05 05/01/2007 8,105.49 8,105.49
050407 05/07/2007 1,020.70 1,020.70
4/19-194097 04/19/2007 14,668.59 14,668.59
SI040508.001 04/24/2007 6.82 6.82
SI1040697.007 04/2512007 18.92 18.92
10817/10818 05/04/2007 15,216.50 15,216.50
Page: 8
apckHist Check History Listing Page: 9
05/14/2007 3:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check q Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Pald Check Total
131257 05111/2007 002422 THE ACTIVE NETWORK, INC inc004022 03/31/2007 2,738.87 2,738.87
131258 05111/2007 000038 AG CHAMBER OF 50 05/01/2007 1,000.00
050707 05/09/2007 950.00 1,950.00
131259 05/11/2007 000014 ALL THE KING'S FLAGS, INC 25395 05/03/2007 430.04 430.04
131260 05/11/2007 006130 ALLIANCE READY MIX, INC 2161 04/26/2007 778.39
2183 05/01/2007 735.29
2193 05/02/2007 735.29 2,248.97
131261 05/11/2007 005180 APEX OUTDOOR POWER 28061 04/20/2007 88.19
28014 04/05/2007 27.91
28027 04/11/2007 8.57
28070 04/23/2007 2.69 127.36
131262 05/11/2007 003175 AQUA-METRIC SALES 0016845 04/27/2007 381.85 381.85
131263 05111/2007 000042 ARROYO GRANDE FLOWER ACCT 106 04/30/2007 2.20 2.20
131264 05/11/2007 006083 ARROYO GRANDE IN BLOOM 1001 05/09/2007 180.00 180.00
131265 05/11/2007 005615 AT&T/MCI T6372545 04/23/2007 287.67
T6423884 04/08/2007 30.35 318.02
131266 05/11/2007 001944 BASIC CHEMICAL SI5301563 04/23/2007 600.76 600.76
131267 05/11!2007 006118 LORIE BLAN 050307 05108/2007 30.00 30.00
131268 05111/2007 000090 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER 132742 04/02/2007 50.63
132971 04/25/2007 33.62
132965 04/25/2007 10.75
133060 05/02/2007 8.15 103.15
131269 05/11/2007 000094 BRUMIT DIESEL, INC 97851 04123/2007 67.43 67.43
131270 05/11/2007 000095 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, 2343484 04/25/2007 89.76
2341837 04/03/2007 25.50
2342916 04/18/2007 14.24 129.50
131271 0511112007 004077 CA ST DEPT OF HEALTH 0504 05/04/2007 130.00
Page: 9
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 10
05/14/2007 3:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor
131272 05111/2007 000603 CAROUEST AUTO PARTS
131273 05/1112007 002376 CENTRAL COAST BEARING
131274 05/1112007 006040 CERTIFION CORP
131275 05/11/2007 006131 BRETT CHAPMAN
131276 05/11/2007 001990 CHARTER
131277 05/11/2007 000163 CHERRY LANE
131278 05/1112007 002407 CINGULAR WIRELESS
131279 0511112007 006123 JEFFERSON CLARKE
131280 0511112007 005973 CLEATH & ASSOCIATES
131281 05/11/2007 004120 COASTAL DEMO
131282 05111/2007 003599 COMMERCIAL SANITARY
131283 0511112007 006129 CONTRACTOR'S GLASS CO
131284 05111/2007 005997 COOK PAGING INC
131285 05/11/2007 006122 ERIKA COTA
131286 05/1112007 000195 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER
Status ClearNOid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
050707 05/08/2007 90.00 220.00
161822 05/08/2007 98.11
7314-144759 03101/2007 48.97
7314-158136 04124/2007 24.76
7314-148255 03/15/2007 14.20
7314-158073 04/24/2007 4.28 190.32
41589 04/13/2007 87.41
41625 04117/2007 47.71 135.12
8371 04130/2007 84.95 84.95
D28663 05/08/2007 30.00 30.00
050207 05/02/2007 194.95 194.95
21175 04/17/2007 403.86
21363 04/25/2007 94.55
21308 04/16/2007 68.74
21097 04/11/2007 53.77
21274 04/11/2007 32.00
21280 04/12/2007 16.15
21272 04/11/2007 16.00 685.07
123079092 04/26/2007 43.87 43.87
050307 05/03/2007 30.00 30.00
2942 04/15/2007 5,175.00 5,175.00
1296 05/0112007 600.00 600.00
10497 04127!2007 547.91 547.91
58738 04127/2007 294.00 294.00
6695959 05/01/2007 71.60 71.60
050307 05/03/2007 30.00 30.00
513-017922 05/03/2007 90.50
Page: 10
apckHist Check History Listing Page: 11
05/14/2007 3:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
5/3-018068 05/03/2007 23.00 113.50
131287 0511112007 001250 CTINALUEIINE 385618 04/17/2007 508.86 508.86
131288 0511112007 000196 CUESTA EQUIPMENT CO INC 334379 04/22/2007 16.16
334456 04/3012007 6.44 22.60
131289 05/11/2007 000198 L N CURTIS & SONS 1127385-00 05/02/2007 533.46 533.46
131290 05111/2007 000201 D G REPAIR (DBA) 1778 04/20/2007 124.05 124.05
131291 05111/2007 006128 DAY CONSTRUCTION 050407 05/04/2007 315.00 315.00
131292 05111/2007 001854 JIM DECECCO 050707 05/07/2007 60.00 60.00
131293 0511112007 000208 J B DEWAR, INC 930533 04130/2007 282.88 282.88
131294 0511112007 000210 DIESELRO, INC 21774 04130/2007 598.69 598.69
131295 05/1112007 001525 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, 1293811 04/24/2007 1,680.96
1292830 04/23/2007 410.26
1288353 04/23/2007 183.18
1294808 04/24/2007 53.63 2,328.03
131296 05/11/2007 004202 CLAIRE FLOYD 050707 05/09/2007 24.00 24.00
131297 05/11/2007 004790 DEANNA FLOYD 050707 05109/2007 40.00 40.00
131298 05/11/2007 003590 SERENA FLOYD 050707 05/09/2007 16.00 16.00
131299 05/1112007 004372 GARING TAYLOR & 7538 03/31/2007 227.50 227.50
131300 05/11/2007 000605 THE GAS COMPANY 5/2-140 05/02/2007 408.32
5/2-211 05/02/2007 54.07 462.39
131301 05/11/2007 004142 STAN GAXIOLA 050207 05/09/2007 140.00 140.00
131302 05111/2007 000272 GIBBS INTERNATIONAL 78913N(04/30/07) 04130/2007 444.20
78821 N 04124/2007 160.85
78913N(05/01/07) 05/01/2007 -160.88 444.17
131303 05/11/2007 000499 GRAND AWARDS, INC 70555 05102/2007 113.69
70552 0510212007 26.87 140.56
Page: 11
apCkHist
05/14/2007
3:39PM Check History Listing
CITY OP ARROYO GRANDE page; 12
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
131304 05/11/2007 000288 CITY OF GROVER BEACH 050807 05/08/2007 50.00 50.00
131305 0511112007 006116 GUARDIAMEN 050307 05103/2007 350.00 350.00
131306 05/11/2007 001237 HANSON AGGREGATES INC 834612 04/26/2007 174.43 174.43
131307 05111/2007 004188 EDDIE HARRIS 050507 05/05/2007 40.00 40.00
131308 05111/2007 000928 HI-TECH EMERGENCY INC 118538 05/02/2007 397.93 397.93
131309 05111/2007 002820 INDOFF, INC 949735 04/12/2007 117.99 117.99
131310 05/11/2007 005201 JAS PACIFIC INC BI 9333 05/07/2007 2,184.00 2,184.00
131311 05/11/2007 004959 CRAIG JUNGHANDEL 050307 05/03/2007 30.00 30.00
131312 05/11/2007 005150 KEEP KIDS ALIVE DRIVE 25 2007-48 03/05/2007 495.00 495.00
131313 05/11/2007 006120 CAROL KELL 050307 05/03/2007 30.00 30.00
131314 05/11/2007 005782 KEM-PRO INDUSTRIAL 44042 04/06/2007 401.59 401.59
131315 05/11/2007 005833 KERN TURF SUPPLY INC 247401 05/01/2007 68.16 68.16
131316 05/11/2007 003949 KERN'S PAPER 20844 04/19/2007 37.69 37.69
131317 05111/2007 004845 JOHN CARSON 050707 05/09/2007 80.00 80.00
131318 05111/2007 006117 LEVESOUE, CARMEN 050307 05/08/2007 30.00 30.00
131319 05111/2007 005511 CHRISTOPHER LINTNER 050707 05109/2007 32.00 32.00
131320 05/11/2007 001136 DOUG LINTNER 050707 05/07/2007 100.00 100.00
131321 05/11/2007 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL 070774 04/04/2007 2,311.29
070737 05/02/2007 975.00 3,286.29
131322 05111/2007 006088 MATCO TOOLS 10904 05/0212007 246.33
10905 05102/2007 235.27 481.60
131323 05111/2007 005389 MGE UNDERGROUND INC PW 2005-02 04117/2007 60,122.73 60,122.73
131324 05/11/2007 006020 RYAN MICHAEL 050707 05/09/2007 60.00 60.00
Page: 12
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 13
05/1412007 3:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
131325 0511112007 000419 MIDAS AUTO SERVICE 0017695 04/27/2007 53.64 53.64
131326 05/11/2007 000426 MIER BROS LANDSCAPE 127441 04/17/2007 168.09
126811 04/04/2007 163.78
126922 04/06/2007 163.78
127821 04/26/2007 102.36
126848 04/04/2007 81.89
127238 04/12/2007 66.81
126822 04/04/2007 63.57
127860 04/27/2007 63.57
127679 04/23/2007 31.25 905.10
131327 05/11/2007 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, 203800 05/02/2007 114.39
204352 05/07/2007 60.32
903776 05/0212007 54.93
904457 05/07/2007 48.46
204034 05/03/2007 43.09
903839 05/02/2007 34.72
203853 05/02/2007 33.88
203807 05/02/2007 30.86
125582 04/02/2007 25.77
203740 05/01/2007 23.59
122206 03/06/2007 22.49
203802 05/02/2007 18.04
202801 04/25/2007 17.20
203485 04/30/2007 16.15
202968 04/26/2007 14.52
203660 05/01 /2007 12.90
203721 05/01 /2007 11.84
124198 03/22/2007 11.77
122775 03/10/2007 9.15
204171 05/04/2007 5.38
203814 05/02/2007 -1.93 607.52
131328 05/11/2007 000441 MULLAHEY FORD FOCS17790 04/25/2007 60.34
177675 04/20/2007 32.32
FOCS177777 04/25/2007 32.32 124.98
Page: 73
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: la
OSH4/2007 3:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
131329 05111/2007 000454 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSN 15362348 05/08/2007 52.00 52.00
131330 05/11/2007 001560 NATL NEIGHBORHOOD 703421 03/05/2007 380.97 380.97
131331 05111/2007 000452 NFPA -NATL FIRE 050807 05/08/2007 150.00 150.00
131332 05/11/2007 000466 NOBLE SAW, INC 168126 04/05/2007 175.86
168125 04/05/2007 128.28 304.14
131333 05/11/2007 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 382564399 04/13/2007 46.43
384765345001 04/27/2007 24.23
384976045-001 04!27/2007 0.96 71.62
131334 05111/2007 006121 DONALD ORGERON 050307 05/03/2007 30.00 30.00
131335 05111/2007 000975 PITNEY BOWES PURCHASE 040107 04/01/2007 33.53 33.53
131336 05111/2007 000513 BEAU PRYOR 043007 04/30/2007 375.00 375.00
131337 05/11/2007 000518 PAUL QUINLAN 050307 05/10/2007 30.00 30.00
131338 05/11/2007 005284 R & B MOBILE EQUIPMENT & 1124 04/27/2007 37.44 37.44
131339 05111/2007 005542 MARY RECCHIA 050307 05/03/2007 30.00 30.00
131340 05/11/2007 004833 STEVE ROMO 050207 05/0912007 40.00 40.00
131341 05/11/2007 000992 ROWS NURSERY 8206 04/18/2007 199.27 199.27
131342 05/11/2007 000536 GREG ROSE 050707 05/09/2007 100.00 100.00
131343 05/11/2007 006021 BLAKE ROSKELLY 0507 05/09/2007 40.00 40.00
131344 05/1112007 004558 RUFFONI'S SERVICES INC 95305 05/07/2007 602.32 602.32
131345 05/11/2007 003649 CHARLES D (DON) RUIZ 050707 05/09/2007 104.00 104.00
131346 05/1112007 006022 LEAH RUIZ 050707 05/09/2007 16.00 16.00
131347 05/1112007 002932 RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP 500344 04/17/2007 771.00
500376 04/18/2007 175.00 946.00
131348 05/1112007 000538 S & L SAFETY PRODUCTS 201872 04/20/2007 82.37 82.37
Page: 14
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 15
OSH4/2007 3:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date invoice
131349 05/1112007 000803 SAN LUIS MAILING SERVICE 31688
131350 05/1112007 000578 ANGELITA ANN SARMIENTO 050707
131351 05/1112007 006080 MARTINA SARMIENTO 050707
131352 05/1112007 003024 MARK SCRAPPER 050707
131353 05/11/2007 000583 ALLENSCHOFIELD 5627
131354 05/11/2007 005544 SHARON SCUDDER 050307
131355 05/11/2007 002624 SERVICEMASTER CBM 125354
131356 05/11/2007 003838 SILVAS OIL COMPANY, INC 218881
131357 05/11/2007 000731 SLO COUNTY SHERIFF'S 041707
131358 05/11/2007 005428 SLOCNTF 07-AG-COSGRV
131359 05/11/2007 004860 TAMMY SMITH 050707
131360 05/11/2007 000602 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 43007
131361 05/11/2007 004393 SP MAINTENANCE 18539
131362 05/11/2007 000609 BOB SPEAR 050707
131363 05/11/2007 000613 STATEWIDE SAFETY & 54312
131364 05/11/2007 000632 TEE'S PLUS 241690
131365 05/1112007 002370 TITAN INDUSTRIAL 1019128
1019154
131366 05/1112007 002606 TRAINING INNOVATIONS, INC 07-69
131367 05/11/2007 002377 TURF STAR, INC 6509237-00
6508955-01
131368 05111/2007 000666 UNITED RENTALS 64360604
64425964
64052683
Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
05101 /2007 1,987.45 1,987.45
05/09/2007 32.00 32.00
05/07/2007 32.00 32.00
05/07/2007 100.00 100.00
04125/2007 138.00 138.00
05/0812007 30.00 30.00
04/30/2007 4,068.80 4,068.80
05/03/2007 3,683.65 3,683.65
04117/2007 8,354.50 8,354.50
04/30/2007 731.76 731.76
05/09/2007 56.00 56.00
04/30/2007 89,508.35 89,508.35
05/01/2007 6,994.40 6,994.40
05/09/2007 40.00 40.00
04/30/2007 270.91 270.91
04/20/2007 66.00 66.00
04130/2007 743.48
04130/2007 10.68 754.16
05/01/2007 575.00 575.00
04/03/2007 130.48
04/17/2007 24.58 155.06
04/27/2007 850.39
04/26/2007 156.58
04/09/2007 119.09
Page: 15
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: ~s
05/14/2007 3:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status Clear/VOid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
131369 05/1112007 000660 USA BLUE BOOK
131370 05111/2007 002137 VERIZON WIRELESS
131371 0511112007 000687 WAYNE'S TIRE, INC
131372 05/11/2007 006119 BONNIE WERRING
131373 05/11/2007 000866 JAMIE WHARTON
131374 05/11/2007 006132 KEITH WILLIAMS
131375 05/1112007 000699 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC
131376 0511112007 004897 WOOD RODGERS INC
131377 0511112007 002289 WULFING'S BACKGROUND &
131378 05/11/2007 006124 JAMES BURNES
131379 05/1112007 006127 JACK CHEN
131380 05/1112007 006091 BILL ECHO
131381 05/11/2007 006134 WENDY HOBBS
131382 05/11/2007 006133 ANDREW KRUMM
131383 05111/2007 006125 LISA MILLER
131384 0511112007 006126 MARGARET VOGE
233 checks in this report
63700536
63243293
63820782
351441
353809
2133461662
2133642645
766493
050307
050707
042707
0672
55171
043007
Ref000076628
Ref000076631
Ref000076627
Ref000076852
Ref000076851
Ref000076629
Ref000076630
03128/2007 86.20
0310612007 62.99
03/29/2007 49.50 1,324.75
04/09/2007 208.30
04/12/2007 113.79 322.09
05/1712007 109.91
04/22/2007 105.61 215.52
04/26/2007 23.13 23.13
05/08/2007 130.00 130.00
05/09/2007 24.00 24.00
04/27/2007 696.40 696.40
04/24/2007 4,690.00 4,690.00
04/16/2007 18,178.53 18,178.53
04/30/2007 200.00 200.00
05/03/2007 30.40 30.40
05/03/2007 36.60 36.60
05/03/2007 4.73 4.73
05/0812007 95.95 95.95
05/0812007 106.74 106.74
05/03/2007 72.21 72.21
05/03/2007 61.40 61.40
boa Total: 449,696.72
Total Checks: 449,696.72
Page: 16
ATTACHMENT 2
DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION
PAY PERIOD
4120/07 - 5(3107
05111107
FUND 010 397,489.33 5101 Salaries Full time 217,950.10
FUND 220 18,539.54 5102 Salaries Part-Time - PPT 22,185.36
FUND 284 700.27 5103 Salaries Part-Time - TPT 11,026.64
FUND 285 700.32 5105 Salaries OverTime 15,201.41
FUND 612 6,722.67 5107 Salaries Standby 372.28
FUND 640 19,771.59 5108 Holiday Pay 8,226.78
443,923.72 5109 Sick Pay 3,714.20
5110 Annual Leave Buyback
5111 Vacation Buyback
5112 Sick Leave Buyback
5113 Vacation Pay 6,099.97
5114 Comp Pay 2,912.08
5115 Annual Leave Pay 5,408.87
5121 PERS Retirement 75,549.57
5122 Social Security 21,054.29
5123 PARS Retirement 371.45
5126 State Disability Ins. 638.45
5127 Deferred Compensation 725.00
5131 Health Insurance 44,611.36
5132 Dentallnsurance 4,893.42
5133 Vision Insurance 1,136.79
5134 Life Insurance 595.70
5135 Long Term Disability
5143 Uniform Allowance
5144 Car Allowance 975.00
5146 Council Expense
5147 Employee Assistance
5148 Boot Allowance
5149 Motor Pay 75.00
5150 Bi-Lingual Pay 200.00
443,923.72
8.b.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES j~
BY: FRANCES R. HEAD, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR
SUBJECT: STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT DEPOSITS
DATE: MAY 22, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Council receive and file the attached report listing the current
investment deposits of the City of Arroyo Grande, as of April 30, 2007, as required by
Government Code Section 53646 (b).
DISCUSSION:
This report represents the City's investments as of April 30, 2007. It includes all
investments managed by the City, the investment institution, investment type, book value,
maturity date, and rate of interest. As of April 30, 2007,' the investment portfolio was in
compliance with all State laws and the City's investment policy.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
• Approve staffs recommendation;
• Do not approve staffs recommendation;
• Provide direction to staff.
Attachment: Portfolio Summary
CITY OF
.• ~
~$ ~
V"~ CALIFORNIA/
/vl
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Summary
April 30, 2007
City of Arroyo Grande
214 E. Branch St.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93430
Phone: (805)473-5400
Interest
Investments Book Value Interest Rate Rate PY Date of Purchase Term Maturity Date %of Portfolio
Local Agency Investment Funds $ 9,904,401.42 5.22% 4.31 % 87.73%
CeRicates of Deposit -Banks
Redding Bank of Commerce 99,000.00 4.60% April 8, 2007 14 Mos. June 8, 2008 0.88%
Granite Community Bank Matured April 23, 2007
Golden Security Bank 90,000.00 5.62% June 20, 2006 360 June 20, 2007 0.80%
State Bank of India 200,000.00 5.64% December 8, 2006 213 July 8, 2007 1.77%
Mission NB 100,000.00 5.75% July 10, 2006 365 July 10, 2007 0.89%
First Credit Bank 99,000.00 5.70% July 26, 2006 365 July 25, 2007 0.88%
Redding Bank of Commerce 500,000.00 5.48% February 18, 2007 9 Mos. November 17, 2007 4.43%
First Standard Bank 99,000.00 5.46% December 2, 2006 365 December 2, 2007 0.88%
Bank of Santa Clarita 99,000.00 5.50% March 10, 2007 365 March 10, 2008 0.88%
Metro United Bank 99,000.00 5.85% September 12, 2006 730 September 12, 2008 0.88%
Total Certificates of Deposit $ 1,385,000.00 12.27%
Totallnvestments $ 11,289,401.42 100.00%
8.c.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL '
FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2007-08 APPROPRIATION
LIMIT
DATE: MAY 22, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached Resolution establishing
the appropriation limit from tax proceeds for Fiscal Year 2007-08.
FUNDING:
There is no fiscal impact
DISCUSSION:
Annually, the City is required to calculate the expenditure appropriation limit from
tax proceeds to determine compliance with Propositiohs 4 (Gann Initiative) and
111 (Spending Limitation Act of 1990). This calculation is based on the previous
year's appropriation limit ($14,976,882) multiplied by the per capita personal
income percentage increase (4.42%) and multiplied again by the population
percentage change (1.20%). The State Department of Finance provides both the
population change and the per capita personal income change for the previous
fiscal year. The City is responsible for dividing citywide revenues between tax
and non-tax revenue and applying the formula to the cumulative appropriation
limit. For Fiscal Year 2007-08,the appropriation limit has been calculated to be
$15,827,355.
This calculation means that the City cannot receive more than $15,827,355 in
tax-based revenues in Fiscal Year 2007-08. The estimated tax-based revenues
for Fiscal Year 2007-08, have been calculated to be $12,959,798, approximately
$3 million less than the appropriation limit. Therefore, the City is in compliance
with Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
Attachment:
1. Categorization of Estimated Revenue
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A TAX PROCEEDS
EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR
2007-08
WHEREAS, Sections 7900 et seq. of the Government Code provide for the effective and
efficient implementation of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 7901 through 7914 provide that each year, the
governing body of each local jurisdiction shall, by resolution at a regularly scheduled
meeting, establish the annual adjustment factors to be used and the tax proceeds
expenditure appropriation limit.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande
as follows:
The California per capita income and the population of San Luis Obispo County,
California are recognized as the annual adjustment factors for Fiscal Year 2007-08.
The appropriation limit for Fiscal Year 2007-08 is hereby set at Fifteen million, eight
hundred and seventy-seven thousand, three hundred and fifty-five dollars
($15,827,355).
3. Documentation used in determination of the tax proceeds expenditure appropriation
limit is attached hereto, as Exhibit A, incorporated herein by this reference.
4. This Resolution is effective on its date of adoption.
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 ,2007.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
Exhibit A
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CALCULATION OFAPPROPRIATIONLLMIT FROM TAX PROCEEDS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007-08
Appropriation limit for 2006-07
Multiplied by the appropriation limit change factors
Per Capita Personal Income Change: 4.42%
Conversion to ratio: 4.42% + 100
100
Population Change:
2006 16,557
2007 16,759 1.2053%
Change 202
Conversion to ratio: 202 1.2053+100
16,759 100
APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007-08
ESTIMATED 2007-08 PROCEEDS OF TAXES SUBJECT TO
APPROPRIATION LIMIT
$ 14,976,882
1.0442
1.01205
$ 15,827,355
$ 12,959,798
Attachment 1
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CATEGOR/ZATION OF ESTIMATED REVENUE
Proceeds Non Proceeds
Revenue Sources From Taxes From Taxes
Taxes
Property Tax 4,521,750
Sales Tax 4,999,500
Sales Tax-Safety t 17,000
Transient Occupancy Tax 558,000
Business License Tax 82,000
Other Taxes 607,700
Licenses and Permits
Building Dept. Permits 288,530
Other Licenses and Permits 44,425
Fines
M.V. Code Fines 95,200
Local Ordinance/Parking 36,100
Use of Property
Rent 281,900
NSF Fees/CcBur.Co11. 300
Aid From Other Gov't A¢encies
M.V. License Fees 1,311,600
Homeowners Prop.Tax Relief 37,100
P.O.S.T. Reimb. 41,200
Other Subventions
Mandated Cost Recovery 7,000
P.D.Officer GrantfSharing 142,550
Other Grants 456,889
Gas~Tax 332,900
Streets Revenues 355,654
Charees For Curren[ Services
Community Development Fees 135,850
Safety Tmpact Fees 88,100
Recreation Program Fees 652,000
Public Access Fees 38,000
Sewer Utility Billings 704,000
Park Development Fees 276,000
District Assessments 70,100
Traffic Signal Assessment 61,000
Transportation Facility Impact 168,000
Water Neutralization Impact Fees 155,000
[n-lieu Affordable Housing 0
Other Current Services 190,760
Attachment 1
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CATEGOR/ZAT/ON OF ESTIMATED REVENUE
Proceeds Non Proceeds
Revenue Sources From Taxes From Taxes
Charges For Curcen[ Services
Sewer Facility Charges 66,000
Hydrant Water 6,000
Water Utility Billings 2,173,650
Meter Installations 25,000
Lopez Water Avail.Charges 146,000
Lopez Utility Billings 3,140,000
Water Distrib/Main Charges 94,000
Taxi Coupon Sales 0
Assessments-Parking District - 11,000
Other Revenue
Sales of Property 16,000
Expenditure Recovery 229,900
Miscellaneous 33,600
Other Revenue 715,100
Total Revenue, Not Including Interest 12,806,204 10,706,154
Interest Percentage 54.47% 45.53%
Interest %Applied 153,594 128,406
Total Revenue, Including Interest ]2,959,798 10,834,560
Grand Total Budget City Revenue 23,794,358
8.d.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2007
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 275 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1. ROLL CALL:
Mayor Ferrara called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. Council Member Joe Costello, Council Member
Jim Guthrie, Council Member Chuck Fellows, Mayor Pro Tem Ed Arnold, City Manager Steven Adams,
and City Attorney Timothy Carmel were present.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
3. CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION:
a. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Government Code Section
54957.6:
Agency Negotiator: Steven Adams, City Manager
Represented Employees: International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Local 4403
b. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Government Code Section
54957.6:
Agency Negotiator: Steven Adams, City Manager
Unrepresented Employees: Management Employees
c. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c): one (1)
potential case.
4. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION:
Mayor Ferrara announced that there was no reportable action from the closed session.
5. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:07 p.m.
Tony Ferrara, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2007
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor/Chair Ferrara called the Regular City Council/Redevelopment Agency//Public Financing
Authority meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
CC/RDA/PFA: Council/Board Members Joe Costello, Jim Guthrie, Chuck Fellows, Mayor
Pro Tem/Vice Chair Ed Arnold and Mayor/Chair Tony Ferrara were present.
City Staff Present: City Manager Steven Adams, City Attorney Tim Carmel, Director of
Administrative Services/City Clerk Kelly Wetmore, Director of Financial
Services Angela Kraetsch, Interim Parks, Recreation & Facilities Director
Doug Perrin, Director of Public Works Don Spagnolo, Director of Building and
Fire Mike Hubert, and Chief of Police Tony Aeilts.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Alvin Evenson and Allen Olivares, representing American Legion Post 136, led the Flag Salute.
4. INVOCATION
Pastor Robert Banker, Open Door Church, delivered the invocation.
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
5.a. Honorary Proclamation Recognizing "Arbor Day" -April 27, 2007.
Mayor Ferrara presented an Honorary Proclamation recognizing April 27, 2007 as Arbor Day.
Interim Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities Perrin accepted the Proclamation and
announced Arbor Day activities and tree planting would take place at Elm Street Park on Saturday,
April 26'".
5.b. Honorary Proclamation Recognizing "Bike Month" -May 2007.
Mayor Ferrara presented an Honorary Proclamation declaring May 2007 as "Bike Month", and May
14 to May 18, 2007 as "Bike to Work and School Week". Lisa Quinn, representing RideShare,
accepted the Proclamation and spoke about upcoming bike challenge events to promote the
reduction of vehicular emissions in the County.
5.c. Honorary Proclamation Recognizing "Peace Officers Memorial Month" -May 2007.
Mayor Ferrara presented an Honorary Proclamation declaring May 13-19, 2007 as "National Police
Week" and May 16, 2007 as "Peace Officers Memorial Day". Chief of Police Aeilts accepted the
Proclamation.
6. AGENDA REVIEW
6.a. Ordinances Read in Title Only.
Council/Board Member Costello moved, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair Arnold seconded, and the
motion passed unanimously that all ordinances moved for introduction or adoption at the meeting
shall be read in title only and all further reading be waived.
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency/Public Financing Authority Meeting Page 2
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
7. CITIZENS' INPUT. COMMENTS. AND SUGGESTIONS
None.
8. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Ferrara invited members of the public who wished to comment on any Consent Agenda Item
to do so at this time. No public comments were received.
Council Member Fellows requested that Item 8.i. be pulled.
Mayor Pro Tem Arnold noted that he would abstain from voting on Item 8.d.
Action: Council Member Fellows moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.h., with
the recommended courses of action. Mayor Pro Tem Arnold seconded the motion. The motion
passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Fellows, Arnold, Costello, Guthrie, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Arnold (Item 8.d. only)
8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification.
Action: Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period April 1, 2007 through April
15, 2007.
8.b. Consideration of Statement of Investment Deposits.
Action: Received and filed the report of current investment deposits as of March 31, 2007.
8.c. Consideration of Rejection of Claim -Chad Johnson.
Action: Rejected Claim.
8.d. Consideration of Council Appointment to the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Action: Approved the recommendation of Council Member Joe Costello to appoint Kathy
Arnold to the Parks and Recreation Commission.
8.e. Consideration of a Resolution Accepting Public Improvements and Easements for
Tract 2669, Located at the Northwest Corner of Le Point Street and Nevada Street,
Constructed by Fairway Development.
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 4007 as follows "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING EASEMENTS AND
IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 2669, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LE
POINT STREET AND NEVADA STREET, CONSTRUCTED BY FAIRWAY
DEVELOPMENT."
8.f. Consideration of Award of Bid for Custodial Services to Commercial Maintenance
Service.
Action: Awarded the bid for custodial services to Commercial Maintenance Service in the
amount of $4,050 per month and authorized the Mayor to execute the Agreement for
Contractor Services.
8.g. Consideration of Authorization to Close Branch Mill Road for the Annual Strawberry
Stampede on May 27, 2007.
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 4008 as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AUTHORIZING THE CLOSURE OF
BRANCH MILL ROAD FOR THE ANNUAL STRAWBERRY STAMPEDE ON MAY 27,
2007".
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency/Public Financing Authority Meeting Page 3
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
8.h. Consideration of Acceptance of the City Hall Reception Area Renovation Project.
Action: 1) Accepted the project improvements, as constructed by Anderson Burton
Construction, Inc., in accordance with the plans and specifications for the City Hall
Reception Area Renovation; 2) Directed staff to file a Notice of Completion; and 3)
Authorized release of the retention of $2,996.90 thirty-five (35) days after the Notice of
Completion has been recorded if no liens have been filed.
8.i. Consideration of Revised Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of
Arroyo Grande, Lucia Mar Unified School District, J.H. Land Partnership and John
Taylor, Trustee Regarding Land Acquisition and Extension of Castillo Del Mar to
Valley Road.
Recommended Action: 1) Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the revised
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Arroyo Grande, Lucia Mar
Unified School District (District), J.H. Land Partnership and John Taylor, Trustee; and 2)
Appropriate $7,500 for reimbursement to John Taylor, Trustee for expenses related to the
project.
In response to a concern expressed by Council Member Fellows that there was a conflict between
Sections 4Q) and 4(k), and 4(n) of the MOU, City Manager noted that staff had distributed to Council
a proposed revision to Section 4(k) of the MOU as follows: "City and District will jointly determine
the allowed uses of the Remainder Parcel, which will be combined with AGHS facilities and
grounds, and will be generally restricted to agriculture and agricultural education related uses. No
water, sewer, drainage or other utilities relocation or improvements are proposed for the Remainder
Parcel as part of this MOU."
Action: Council Member Fellows moved to approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the
revised MOU between the City of Arroyo Grande, Lucia Mar Unified School District (District), J.H.
Land Partnership and John Taylor, Trustee, as modified; and to appropriate $7,500 for
reimbursement to John Taylor, Trustee for legal expenses related to the project.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
9.a. Consideration of Adoption of the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Director of Building and Fire Hubert introduced Bob Newman from Category Five Professional
Consultants, Inc. Mr. Newman gave a presentation regarding multi-hazard mitigation planning to
minimize property damage, save lives, and reduce recovery effort spending subsequent to natural
or man-made disasters. He explained that local governments are required to develop and submit
mitigation plans in order to qualify for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program project funds; reviewed
the process for creating aMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan; reviewed mitigation goals for
the City of Arroyo Grande; and ongoing responsibility for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the
Plan.
Council comments and questions ensued regarding the joint efforts for the study between the
participating agencies (Cities of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach and the Lucia Mar Unified School
District); that the demographic categories for each agency should be consistent (page 14), with
some exception of the School District; how job growth projection figures were determined (page
14); that source information should be extracted directly from the City's documents; that to
accurately portray the City's flooding history, the March 2001 event should be included (page 41);
that the Multi-Hazard Emergency Response Plan is currently being reviewed and includes the
Continuity of Operations Plan (page 111); concern that there was not enough public attendance or
involvement at the various workshops; concern that there were no elected officials (who represent
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency/Public Financing Authority Meeting Page 4
Tuesday, Apri124, 2007
the public's interest) in the Planning Group; concern that Mitigation Action 3.D. proposes to
eliminate the threat of "potentially" hazardous trees and a request to remove the word "potentially'
(page 122); an observation that school campuses are devoid of trees and additional concern about
Mitigation Action 3.D. (page 130); emphasis on the benefits of trees on school campuses; and that
the Plan would benefit from additional public input.
Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing, and upon hearing no comments, he closed the public
hearing.
Mayor Ferrara inquired whether the Council had the ability to provide comments and
recommendations on the portions of the Plan related to the other agencies (Lucia Mar, Grover
Beach). Mr. Adams noted that the City entered into a partnership to create aMulti-Jurisdictional
Plan and he stated the City could pass on any comments or concerns about the data to the other
affected agencies if it relates to the City's policies and goals.
Council Member Costello noted that the Plan serves as a compliance document in order to receive
mitigation funding in the event of a disaster; that the goals and objectivess are broad and gives
some room for growth; that the Plan does not need further public review; that additional public
participation in mitigation efforts would be welcome when moving forward; that the Hazard Maps in
the Plan should be more specific to Arroyo Grande rather than the County; and he supported
moving forward with the Plan.
Council Member Guthrie noted that beyond the cost savings of the cooperative effort, it was good to
see the coordinated goals and objectives of all the agencies; agreed that the issue requires a
certain amount of expertise to compile and create the Plan; that he was not opposed to allowing
further public review and comment, however, he noted the public would have additional input when
the City moves forward with the goals and objectives; and he supported moving forward with the
minor changes to the Plan as proposed.
Council Member Fellows stated he could not support the Plan as proposed, with input received from
only fifteen (15) members of the public.
Mayor Pro Tem Arnold supported the Plan with the modifications suggested by the Mayor and
Council Member Fellows.
Mayor Ferrara commented that the format of the Plan is mostly mandated by law; information needs
to be inserted and become an institutional standard; that public input is much more valuable during
the implementation phase of some of the mitigation strategies rather than for formulation of the
goals; emphasized that the structure of the Plan itself is in most parts standard; that some
enhancements to the Plan should be made to seek parity with the demographic information for
Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach; and expressed support for the Plan.
Mr. Newman gave a brief overview of the methods used for promoting and advertising the public
workshops.
Action: Council Member Costello moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A MULTI-
JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN", as submitted, with revisions to the demographic
charts and hazard maps, the elimination of the word "potential" when dealing with tree hazards, and
including information regarding the March 2001 flooding event. Council Member Guthrie seconded,
and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote:
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency/Public Financing Authority Meeting Page 5
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
AYES: Costello, Guthrie, Arnold, Ferrara
NOES: Fellows
ABSENT: None
9.b. Consideration of a Proposed Ordinance Amending Section 16.68.050 of the Arroyo
Grande Municipal Code Regarding Underground Utilities.
Assistant Planner Bergman presented the staff report and recommended the Council introduce an
Ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 16.68.050 regarding underground utilities.
Council questions and comments included concern for eliminating the in-lieu fee for a project where
the in-lieu fee would be more than 40% of the project cost, rather than scaling it down; concern
about making exceptions under certain circumstances when there is a benefit to public facilities or
projects; and concern about eliminating in-lieu fees for small commercial projects.
Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing, and upon hearing no comments, he closed the public
hearing.
Council discussion ensued concerning the criteria for establishing rules for the consideration,
imposition, use and/or exemption of in-lieu fees for underground utilities; that there should be a
certain amount of discretion or flexibility for determining when in-lieu fees are appropriate for certain
projects; a suggestion to implement a sliding scale for in-lieu fees; and the impact of
undergrounding utilities on applicants, particularly deed restricted affordable housing units and
projects with a beneficial public component.
City Attorney Carmel suggested that the item be continued so that staff could further research the
matter based on Council comments and direction.
Action: Council Member Costello moved to continue the item to a date uncertain. Mayor Pro Tem
Arnold seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Costello, Arnold, Guthrie, Fellows, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
10. CONTINUED BUSINESS ITEMS
10.a. Consideration of 10-Year Strategic Plan.
City Manager Adams presented the staff report and recommended the Council adopt a Resolution
approving the proposed 10-Year Strategic Plan (the "Plan").
Mayor Pro Tem Arnold referred to the Affordable Housing goals and strategies on page 2 of the
Plan and requested that language be inserted to address both "for sale" and "rental" affordable
units; expressed concerns about the City's economic ability to provide housing assistance to City
employees; and expressed concern with the City's ability to "fully" implement all programs identified
in the Housing Element within ten (10) years. Mayor Ferrara suggested that the latter goal be
modified to remove the word "fully", to provide clarification that the City's goal is to implement the
programs identified in the Housing Element.
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency/Public Financing Authority Meeting Page 6
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter,
and upon hearing no public comments, he closed the public comment period.
Council comments ensued in support of the Plan with minor modifications in the language regarding
tactical goals and strategies for affordable housing, as discussed; acknowledged the additional time
provided for public review and input, some of which was incorporated into the Plan; emphasis on
the importance of the document as a 10-year Strategic Plan that established future goals and
direction and is not intended to identify specific projects or project implementation; asuggestion to
place stronger emphasis on requiring payment of in-lieu fees for low and very-low rental units; that
the Plan identifies realistic goals, however, the Plan does not prioritize the goals; commending staff
for completing the Plan in-house using existing studies and resources; and that the Plan will provide
strategic guidance and direction for the City's future.
Action: Council Member Costello moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING A CITY 10-YEAR
STRATEGIC PLAN" as modified. Council Member Fellows seconded, and the motion passed on
the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Costello, Fellows, Guthrie, Arnold, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mayor Ferrara called for a break at 8:50 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:05 a.m
11. NEW BUSINESS ITEMS
11.a. Consideration of Issuance of Redevelopment Agency Tax Allocation Bonds in a
Principal Amount Not To Exceed $7,000,000. [COUNCIL/RDA/PFA]
City Manager/Executive Director Adams presented the staff report and recommended the City
Council, RDA Board, and Public Financing Authority Board adopt Resolutions by the City,
Redevelopment Agency, and the Public Financing Authority, respectively, as follows: 1) A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande Approving the Issuance by the Arroyo
Grande Redevelopment Agency of its Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Project Area, 2007 Tax
Allocation Bonds and Making Certain Determinations Relating Thereto; 2) A Resolution of the
Board of Directors of the Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Agency Authorizing the Issuance of 2007
Tax Allocation Bonds of Said Agency in a Principal Amount of Not to Exceed Seven Million Dollars
($7,000,000) to Finance a Portion of the Costs of a Redevelopment Project Known as the Arroyo
Grande Redevelopment Project Area and Approving Certain Documents and Taking Certain Other
Actions in Connection Therewith; and 3) A Resolution of the Arroyo Grande Public Financing
Authority Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of a Purchase Contract By and Among the Arroyo
Grande Redevelopment Agency, the Arroyo Grande Public Financing Authority, and E. J. De La
Rosa & Co., Inc.
City Manager/Executive Director Adams introduced the City's Redevelopment Agency Consultant,
Tim Mulrenan, from Tierra West Advisors.
Mr. Mulrenan gave an overview of the bond issuance process and the costs related to issuing the
bonds; noted that the actual amount of bonds would be $6,325,000 which would be issued in one
series; explained that they would be Federally taxable bonds due to overall cost considerations
associated with the financial terms of the bonds and flexibility in how the proceeds could be spent;
Minutes: City CounciURedevelopment Agency/Public Financing Authority Meeting Page 7
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
explained that the Agency requested other taxing agencies to subordinate to the lien of the bonds
and the agencies agreed; noted that the County of San Luis Obispo would enter into a Repayment
Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency; stated that the bonds would be rated and insured;
reviewed the current estimates of the debt service and interest rates; and highlighted the proposed
use of the bond proceeds, which would include paying back internal borrowing, undergrounding
utility projects, billboard removals, streetscape projects, and affordable housing projects. He then
introduced Eric Scriven, from E.J. De La Rosa & Co., the bond underwriter.
Mr. Scriven gave a brief description on the underwriting and insurance aspects associated with
issuance of the bonds. He explained that the City had received an A- credit rating, which will save
significantly on bond insurance costs.
Mr. Stan Wolcott, Rutan & Tucker, said these are Federally taxable bonds, that the interest is not
excludable on Federal tax returns; however, they would be tax exempt on the California income tax
return. He explained the necessary actions required by the Council, RDA Board of Directors, and
Public Financing Authority Board of Directors to issue the bonds.
Mayor/Chair Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the
matter, and upon hearing no public comments, he closed the public comment period.
CITY COUNCIL:
Action: Council Member Guthrie moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE
ISSUANCE BY THE ARROYO GRANDE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF ITS ARROYO
GRANDE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, 2007 TAX ALLOCATION BONDS AND
MAKING CERTAIN DETERMINATIONS RELATING THERETO". Council Member Costello
seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Guthrie, Costello, Fellows; Arnold, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
REDEVELOPMENTAGENCY:
Action: Board Member Guthrie moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ARROYO GRANDE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF 2007 TAX ALLOCATION BONDS OF SAID AGENCY IN A
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS ($7,000,000) TO
FINANCE A PORTION OF THE COSTS OF A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT KNOWN AS THE
ARROYO GRANDE REDEVLOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND APPROVING CERTAIN
DOCUMENTS AND TAKING CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH".
Board Member Costello seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Guthrie, Costello, Fellows, Arnold, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency/Public Financing Authority Meeting Page 8
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY:
Action: Board Member Guthrie moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE
ARROYO GRANDE PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND
DELIVERY OF A PURCHASE CONTRACT BY AND AMONG THE ARROYO GRANDE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE ARROYO GRANDE PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, AND
E. J. DE LA ROSA & CO., INC.". Board Member Costello seconded, and the motion passed on the
following roll-call vote:
AYES: Guthrie, Costello, Fellows, Arnold, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
11.b. Consideration of Revisions to SLOCOG Traffic Model Population and Employment
Projections.
Community Development Director Strong presented the staff report and requested the Mayor, as
the City's SLOCOG representative, to advise the SLOCOG economic consultant to reconsider and
reduce employment projections for Arroyo Grande used in the 2030 Traffic Model. He then
introduced Steve Devencenzi from San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG).
Steve Devencenzi, representing SLOCOG, presented a Summary of Findings of the Long Range
Socio-Economic Projections (2005-2030) conducted by Economic Research Associates to develop
estimates of future population and employment growth, in five-year increments, to be used in the
SLOCOG Regional Transportation Model for the year 2030. He reviewed the allocation
methodology and data sources for population and employment projections; reviewed how
population and employment allocations were determined by region; and concluded by noting that
the SLOCOG Board modified the Arroyo Grande estimated employment growth rate from 1.6% to
1% at its April meeting. Mr. Devicenzi and Mr. Mike Harmon from SLOCOG staff responded to
questions from Council.
Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter,
and upon hearing no public comments, he closed the public comment period.
Mayor Ferrara indicated he brought this subject up at the last Mayor's meeting to clarify the reason
for the City's concern with the employment projection figures. He expressed concerns about
consulting firms or the State of California making projections that represent the City, either
demographic or some other category, where the City is held accountable for those projections. He
stated he was concerned about having a Regional Traffic Model that portrayed the City of Arroyo
Grande unrealistically. He proposed that when participating in any regional study that is driven by
demographics from member agencies that comprise SLOCOG, there needs to be a more accurate,
factual assessment of figures and forecasts that come from an agency's General Plan and not from
a consultant or State agency. He stated he was comfortable with the 1 % rate if the Council agreed
and requested feedback from the Council regarding the origin of data for future regional studies.
Council Member Guthrie stated he could support the 1%/yr employment growth rate; noted it is
counterintuitive that jobs would grow one and a half times faster than population in Arroyo Grande
as portrayed in SLOCOG's figures; acknowledged that locally, job growth is hard to predict;
believed that 1% is a more appropriate employment growth rate for Arroyo Grande; and suggested
a policy should be developed that the City have early input on demographic information prior to
SLOCOG approving any regional study.
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency/Public Financing Authority Meeting Page 9
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Council Member Costello agreed that the 1% employment growth rate is a more reasonable
projection and that it seems reasonable and consistent with the City's data for regional studies.
Council Member Fellows supported the 1% employment growth rate and agreed that consultants
should work directly with City staff for data used in regional studies.
Mayor Pro Tem Arnold agreed that data used should be generated internally; supported the 1%
employment growth rate, although 0.9% or less is more realistic.
Mayor Ferrara suggested that staff generate a letter to SLOCOG indicating the City's position on
the employment growth rate and the interest in having City staff coordinate employment and
economic projections with the City.
Action: Council Member Guthrie moved to request that the Mayor carry forth to SLOCOG the
City's recommendation that a 1% employment growth rate projection be used for the City in the
Regional Traffic Model and that the City have an opportunity to provide its own demographic data
for future regional studies. Mayor Pro Tem Arnold seconded, and the motion passed on the
following roll-call vote:
AYES: Guthrie, Arnold, Costello, Fellows, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
11.c. Consideration to Authorize Staff to Pursue Temporary Closure of Northbound
Brisco/Route 101 On/Off Ramps with Caltrans.
Director of Public Works Spagnolo presented the staff report and 'recommended the Council
authorize Staff to pursue temporary closure of the northbound Brisco/Route 101 on/off ramps with
Caltrans.
Council Member Guthrie asked if traffic counts would be conducted at the northbound Oak Park
Blvd. off-ramp and asked why the City was not proposing alternative routes. Director Spagnolo
responded that the City would provide information on alternative routes on traffic signs; however,
detour signs would not be posted in order to avoid impacting traffic counts.
Mayor Ferrara emphasized the need to explain the temporary closure as much as possible in the
signage, such as including language stating "Traffic Study Underway" and listing the dates. Director
Spagnolo agreed and stated staff was also considering implementation of an information hotline.
Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter.
John Keen, N. Elm Street, stated that in the big picture, the two off ramps should be closed. He
asked what the traffic counts would accomplish and how they would help. He recognized it would
indicate where the traffic is going to go during construction, but otherwise he did not think it would
tell us anything. He said if this were to see if the current traffic system would handle the traffic if the
hook ramps were not installed, it did not seem logical on a functional basis. He said he did not
understand the benefit of the closure.
Director Spagnolo responded that the major goal for the temporary closure was to see where the
traffic would go; what the impacts will be; and if, in the project, the City is addressing those impacts
adequately. He noted there were proposals at Grand Avenue and Camino Mercado that would be
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency/Public Financing Authority Meeting Page 10
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
included as part of this project and this test was to see if those are adequate to deal with future
impacts. He also noted this will help determine how and when the hook ramp alternative will fit in.
Upon hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public comment period.
Council comments included support for the temporary closure, which would provide valuable data
for the Brisco/Halcyon Interchange project; acknowledgement of the inconvenience to the public;
emphasis on the need for obtaining accurate data to make good decisions in the future; an
observation that this proposal closes 1 of 4 northbound ramps and 1 of 3 southbound ramps in the
local vicinity; and recognizing that staff is taking a progressive approach by continuing to work
closely with Caltrans District 5 on the Brisco/Halcyon Interchange project.
Action: Council Member Fellows moved to authorize staff to pursue temporary closure of the
northbound Brisco/Route 101 on/off ramps, and to include traffic counts at Oak Park Blvd. Mayor
Pro Tem Arnold seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Fellows, Arnold, Costello, Guthrie, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
11.d. Consideration of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 8.08 of the Arroyo Grande
Municipal Code Relating to the Sale and Use of Fireworks.
City Manager Adams presented the staff report and recommended the Council introduce an
Ordinance amending Chapter 8.08 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code relating to the use and
sale of fireworks. He also referred to supplemental information distributed to Council amending
Section 8.08.040.1. relating to the eligibility requirements for applicant organizations as it relates to
fireworks stand permits and recommended the Ordinance be introduced, as modified.
Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter.
Tom Lebens, AYCO Commissioner and Vice President of the Central Coast Youth Sports
Association, spoke in favor of the proposed amendments to the Ordinance.
Upon hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public comment period.
Council comments included support for the proposed Ordinance, with the modified language; that it
would allow non-profits organizations the ability to more efficiently plan their annual budgets; and
that the proposed rotation would be an equitable solution for all organizations.
Action: Mayor Pro Tem Arnold moved to introduce an Ordinance, as follows: "AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING CHAPTER 8.08 OF
THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE SALE AND USE OF
FIREWORKS" including the modification to Section 8.08.040.1. as recommended by staff. Council
Member Costello seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Arnold, Costello, Guthrie, Fellows, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Minutes: City CounciURedevelopment Agency/Public Financing Authority Meeting Page 11
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
a. MAYOR TONY FERRARA:
(1) San Luis Obispo Council of Governments/San Luis Obispo Regional Transit
Authority (SLOCOG/SLORTA). SLORTA continues to move towards a joint use
maintenance facility for SLORTA and RideOn which will be located on S. Higuera in
San Luis Obispo.
(2) South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD). The sewage
treatment plant continues to operate within required standards and limits; the Board
and staff were very complimentary of the City's Public Works staff for the assistance
in clearing the sewer line along Bakeman Lane.
(3) Other. None.
b. MAYOR PRO TEM ED ARNOLD:
(1) Integrated Waste Management Authority Board (IWMA). No report.
(2) Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC). Meets tomorrow; the Annual Retreat is
coming up in May where goals will be discussed and encourage Council Members to
provide input prior to the Retreat.
(3) Other. None.
c. COUNCIL MEMBER JOE COSTELLO:
(1) Zone 3 Water Advisory Board. Budget expenditures are on target; Awaiting the
implementation of the Habitat Conservation Plan.
(2) Air Pollution Control District (APCD). Received follow up information on the
Mower Exchange Program; Efforts are underway for replacement of diesel engines
and APCD is seeking grants to help fund the replacements; Reviewed the APCD
goals and strategic plan update of the 5-Year Plan.
(3) Fire Oversight Committee. Met on April 6'" with the new Fire Chief; Cooperation
between Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach Fire Departments continues to be
exceptional with a heavy emphasis on training.
(4) Fire Consolidation Oversight Committee. No report.
(5) Other. None.
d. COUNCIL MEMBER JIM GUTHRIE:
(1) South County Area Transit (SCAT). Announced that the new hybrid bus is in
operation which has been successful so far in fuel efficiency; Working on funding
plan for improvements to bus stops; Announced significant schedule change
targeted for August 1s` to move RTA routes to hourly and realigning the local SCAT
system to fit with the RTA routes.
(2) California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA). No report.
(3) Other. None.
e. COUNCIL MEMBER CHUCK FELLOWS:
(1) South County Youth Coalition. Meets on Thursday.
(2) County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC). Nipomo Community
Services Districts presented the draft version of the State Water Resources Control
guidelines; Discussed the importance of reviewing California Supreme Court ruling
on the Vineyard Area Citizen's for Responsible Growth vs. City of Rancho Cordova;
Announced that Waterfest 2007 is scheduled for May 5'h at the Irish Hills Plaza in
San Luis Obispo; Reported that Lopez Lake is at 33% average rainfall and at 82%
capacity as of 30 days ago; Received summary of water supply on the Nipomo
Mesa; and the Santa Margarita Ranch Draft EIR was discussed.
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency/Public Financing Authority Meeting Page 12
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
e. COUNCIL MEMBER CHUCK FELLOWS (cont'd):
(3) Other. None.
13. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS:
None.
14. CITY MANAGER ITEMS:
None.
15. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:
Mayor Ferrara reported he met with a local farm family regarding potential new State regulations as
a result of the recent contamination in the spinach crops and suggested that the City may need to
meet with legislative representatives Sam Blakeslee and/or Abel Maldonado to determine the
impact of the proposed legislation on the City and its agricultural community.
16. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
17. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
John Keen, N. Elm Street, thanked Randy Robinson and the Public Works street crew for the good
job in replacing a lot of curb, gutter and sidewalk in the N. Elm Street neighborhood.
18. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor/Chair Ferrara adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m.
Tony Ferrara, Mayor/Chair
ATTEST:
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk/Secretary
(Approved at CC Mtg
8.e.
TO: CITY COUNCIL
MEMORANDUM
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF REVISIONS TO THE CITY'S TELEPHONE
USAGE POLICY
DATE: MAY 22, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council approve the recommended new telephone usage
policy.
FUNDING:
No material change to the cost to the City from telephone usage is projected from the
proposed changes to this policy.
DISCUSSION:
Policies and procedures regarding City employee assignment of use of cell phones are
outlined in the City's existing telephone usage policy, Poficy A-007. Current policy
requires employees to reimburse the City for any cost of personal calls and allows for
minimal personal use that does not interfere with the conduct of City business.
It was recently determined that City assigned cell phones are considered a taxable
benefit by the Internal Revenue Service if any portion of the usage is related to personal
calls. The percentage of usage related to personal calls is taxable, but the ability to
track, calculate and administer the taxable portion is difficult. As a result, many
organizations are now in the process of revising procedures regarding assignment of
cell phones.
Based on research and discussions with a number of organizations, the most common
alternative is to provide an allowance rather than assigning a phone to staff for whom
use of a cell phone has been determined important. In reviewing this alternative with
union representatives, concerns were expressed from employees that oppose any
requirement to acquire their own phone for work purposes. As a result, the proposed
policy provides two options for employees.
S:\Administration\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports\Telephone Policy Staff Report 5.22.07.doc
CITY COUNCIL
TELEPHONE USAGE POLICY
MAY 22, 2007
PAGE 2
The first option is to accept a cell phone allowance, which would be $45 per month.
The policy also includes provisions fora $70 monthly allowance for department
directors authorized for use of a personal digital assistant (blackberry device or PDA).
This has been identified as important given the amount of a-mail currently being
received. Amounts are based on the cost of basic access plans and amortization of the
cost of a phone purchase over a 2-3 year period.
The second option provided is for the employee to be assigned a City issued cell phone.
In such instances, no personal use of the cell phone would be allowed, including
incoming or outgoing calls.
Staff believes the proposed policy will reduce staff administrative costs involved in
overseeing cell phone usage, as well as liability issues created from use of City owned
cell phones. Although this is an administrative policy, staff is presenting it to the City
Council for consideration since it includes the creation of a new allowance payment.
The proposed policy has been distributed to representatives of each of the employee
associations for review. A copy of the proposed policy is attached, as well as a copy
identifying the proposed changes and a list of positions currently issued cell phones.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Approve proposed changes to the City's telephone usage policy;
- Modify the proposed policy to allow only a cell phone allowance or City issued
cell phones with no personal use allowed;
- Direct staff to modify the policy to establish one other alternative available, which
is to continue existing assignment of cell phones, but require employees to
submit statements tracking personal calls. This alternative was not
recommended due to the administrative burden that would be created to the
Financial Services Department;
- Request additional research and/or information;
- Provide other direction to staff.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Telephone Usage Policy A-007
2. Proposed Telephone Usage Policy A-007 with changed identified
3. List of positions assigned cell phones
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
POLICY #: A-007
ISSUED: 7/1/07
EFFECTIVE: 7/1/07
CANCELLATION DATE: N/A
SUPERSEDES: 6/1/03
POLICY:
SUBJECT: TELEPHONE USAGE
The City's telephone system exists for conducting City business. The use of the system
by employees for making personal calls may be permitted if it does not interfere with the
conduct of City business. The frequency and duration of such calls must be in
accordance with the following procedures:
PROCEDURE:
1. System Usape
A. All telephone calls should be limited to the shortest possible time.
B. Service charges are incurred by the City for the use of optional telephone
company services such as directory assistance, busy signal confirmations,
and emergency interrupts. As such, the use of these services is restricted
for business purposes and should be used only when required.
2. Personal Calls
A. Personal calls may be permitted if it does not interfere with the conduct of
City business.
B. Personal calls outside the local dialing area that incur any charge must be
either billed to the employee's home telephone on athird-number or
personal credit card basis or reimbursed to the City by the employee when
the bill is received, depending upon the procedure instituted by the
department. If reimbursed, a personal check along with a reconciled bill
shall be submitted to the Finance Services Director. It is the responsibility
of the City official or employee to ensure that bills are promptly handled.
C. The City's telephone lines shall only be used minimally for personal
incoming calls. It is prohibited to list the City's number in classified
advertising or for any other promotional purposes not related to the
conduct of City business.
POLICY #: A-007
TELEPHONE USAGE
PAGE 2
D. Persons found to have abused the City's telephone usage policy will be
required to compensate the City for telephone charges. In addition, other
disciplinary action may be taken particularly where the use of City time for
personal activities justifies such action.
E. City telephone lines or City-issued cellular telephones shall not be used
for any illegal or inappropriate activities.
3. Reporting of Telephone Calls
A. An automated record is made of all telephone calls placed on City
telephones. Reports are generated monthly for each Department that
details the calls made by each extension in the Department. Each
Department Director is responsible for ensuring that the calls made on
Department telephones are legitimate calls for the conduct of City
business.
B. The Finance Department can be contacted to request called-party
information from the telephone company for calls that appear to be
exceptions to the City's Telephone Usage Policy.
C. At the discretion of the Department Director, manual telephone logs may
be required to be maintained by each Department employee. Such logs
are for internal use by the Department requiring them.
4. Business Trips and Irregular Hours
A. Procedures involving reimbursement for telephone calls during business
trips is set forth in the Travel Policy, A-012, Section F.
B. If City business requires an employee to work irregular hours, personal
calls are allowed to communicate changed plans.
5. Cellular Telephones
A. ACity-issued cellular telephone or cellular telephone allowance may be
authorized for City employees where the urgency of communication
requires the use of the cellular telephone access. Such authorization shall
require prior approval of the City Manager.
B. Personal digital assistants (PDAs) may be authorized for Department
Directors when determined necessary to carry out department functions in
an effective manner.
POLICY #: A-007
TELEPHONE USAGE
PAGE 3
C. Employees authorized for City cellular telephone or PDA use shall select
one of the following options:
1. City-issued Cellular Telephone or PDA
a. The cellular telephone or PDA shall be purchased by the
City and enrolled in a Citywide monthly access plan.
b. No personal use of the cellular telephone or PDA shall be
allowed for outgoing or incoming calls except for
emergencies.
d. Monthly invoices shall be reviewed and a statement signed
by the employee that there has been no personal use of the
equipment. The Department Director shall then review and
approve all invoices to ensure employee statements have
been provided prior to submitting to the Financial Services
Department for final review, approval and payment.
e. Any cellular telephone or PDA equipment issued to an
employee shall be returned to the City at the conclusion of
their employment. If not returned, the original cost of the
equipment shall be deducted from the employee's final
paycheck
f. Any personal or improper use of the cellular telephone or
PDA shall be grounds for disciplinary action.
g. All other restrictions involving telephone calls outlined in this
policy shall apply to use of the cellular telephone or PDA. All
restrictions outlined in the City's Information Services Policy,
A-016, shall apply to use of the cellular telephone or PDA for
text messaging ore-mail.
2. Cellular Telephone or PDA Allowance
a. Employees approved to receive a cellular telephone
allowance shall be responsible for purchasing their own
cellular telephone or PDA device and enrolling in their own
monthly access plan.
b. The employee shall receive a monthly cellular telephone
allowance of $45 for use towards the cost of the telephone
and monthly access plan payment.
POLICY #: A-007
TELEPHONE USAGE
PAGE 4
c. Department Directors authorized for use of a PDA shall
receive a monthly PDA allowance of $70 for use towards the
monthly access plan payment.
e. Cellular telephone and PDA allowances shall be reported as
taxable income by the Financial Services Department.
f. Employees shall provide a copy of a valid cellular telephone
or PDA invoice or contract to the Financial Services
Department on an annual basis in order to be issued the
cellular telephone or PDA allowance payments.
g. Personal use of equipment paid for through a monthly
allowance is allowed. However, use of the equipment, use
of the equipment, as well as use of other personally owned
cell phones, for personal calls, text messaging or a-mail
during working hours shall be minimal, shall not interfere
with normal business, and shall not involve any inappropriate
or illegal behavior.
B. Hand held cellular telephones or PDAs shall not be used while driving a
vehicle during work hours without the use of a headset or other hands free
device.
C. Department Directors, with the approval of the City Manager, may issue
cellular telephones to members of staff on a temporary basis to enhance
communication capabilities during City emergencies and disasters or other
City business as required.
D. City public safety vehicles may be equipped with cellular telephones to
enhance communication capabilities for public safety personnel while
engaged in the performance of their duties.
Steven Adams
City Manager
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
POLICY #: A-007
ISSUED: 7/1/07
EFFECTIVE: 7/1/07
CANCELLATION DATE: N/A
SUPERSEDES: 6/1/03
POLICY:
SUBJECT: TELEPHONE USAGE
The City's telephone system exists for t#ae conducting e~City business. The use of the
system by employees for making personal calls may be permitted if it does not interfere
with the conduct of tkie City business. The frequency and duration of such calls must be
in accordance with the following procedures:
PROCEDURE:
Svstem Usaae
A. All telephone calls should be limited to the shortest possible time.
B. Service charges are incurred by the City for the use of optional telephone
company services such as directory assistance, busy signal confirmations,
and emergency interrupts. As such, the use of these services is restricted
for business purposes and should be used only when required.
Personal Calls
A. Personal calls may be permitted if it does not interfere with the conduct of
City business.
B. Personal calls outside the local dialing area that incur any charge must be
either billed to the employee's home telephone on athird-number or
personal credit card basis or reimbursed to the City by the employee when
the bill is received, depending upon the procedure instituted by the
department. If reimbursed, a personal check along with a reconciled bill
shall be submitted to the Finance Services Director. It is the responsibility
of the City official or employee to ensure that bills are promptly handled.
C. The City's telephone lines shall only be used minimally for personal
incoming calls. It is prohibited to list the City's number in classified
advertising or for any other promotional purposes not related to the
conduct of City business.
POLICY #: A-007
TELEPHONE USAGE
PAGE 2
D. Persons found to have abused the City's telephone usage policy will be
required to compensate the City for telephone charges. In addition, other
disciplinary action may be taken particularly where the use of City time for
personal activities justifies each such action.
E. City telephone lines or City-issued cellular telephones shall not be used
for any illegal or inappropriate activities.
3. Reporting of Telephone Calls
A. An automated record is made of all telephone calls placed on City
telephones. Reports are generated monthly for each Department that
details the calls made by each extension in the Department. Each
Department Director is responsible for ensuring that the calls made on
Department telephones are legitimate calls for the conduct of City
business.
B. The Finance Department can be contacted to request called-party
information from the telephone company for calls that appear to be
exceptions to the City's Telephone Usage Policy.
C. At the discretion of the Department Director, manual telephone logs may
be required to be maintained by each Department employee. Such logs
are for internal use by the Department requiring them.
4. Business Trips and Irregular Hours
A.
B. If City business requires an employee to work irregular hours, personal
calls are allowed to communicate changed plans.
5. Sity-Fss~+ed Cellular Telephones
n..{tina~n{inn Fnr
A rew Jnr 4nlnntin.. nn .., ,tin .. .,irtn,4 Fnr ~ n ti., {tie ~;{.,
.
,ai{L. {L.nnn m m L.n rn n4 {L.n (`i4.ib Cmnrnnn n.. ~~nnnnnw.nn4 Tnnm .Inrinn
Dnronnnl nollc orn nn4 nlln~.,n.4 {n hn nhnrnnr! 4n {F~n l~ihi .uhnn nn
cmnlnann i .. h of Ln..,n n h~~ninnnn w.h~~rnew.nn4 Fnr ~ nL. nnll~
POLICY #: A-007
TELEPHONE USAGE
PAGE 3
A:
•A.,GityF;issued cellular:.itelepl%one or,cellula~~telephone~, allo,'wance may: tied
~<=~~ authorized for City employees: where"~tfie'~-`ur enc of~"~commwnication
re "ui~esl~theuse of the'":cellular.-,'tele horiey'access: Such;au"thorization stialf
i '
4 -. require'priorapproval'ofiahe City:.Manage'r`i;:;" ° ,~ry;,:
;:,, :,,
B. Personal digital assistants.,{PDAs} maysb"e authorized 'for Departmenf~
f;.:': Directo"r§•when determinednecessary,to;:c'arry out department-functions iri
~:~ .;: : ' ;:~ .. ,.:::,:. -:.. fit.,, .,,,• ,. ~ ,
~:::::,;..:an:;effective~manner:,`;n~~~t,?F~:~;_~::." ,~:,,:~~.;~a:, ~,;;~fi.:•.t_F~~.:
:. ,..
..v na........ ..v~.t .r..0.i .. ,....y!~~: ~h.J 44 ~. _ _ .Cl}n .z i .2,-' ~.il'''i~('a
~..~....
F_+ ..:: ..-? -:: q..e!: Ci'!;~:; ~.'..:... .:' .:.° ?::, i.'t:.J (:;~aJ4It:.:i: :~(i.~,' ~ ~ ~~~~°+t:d: :.:PY.
G.;: -: :Emgloyees.authonzed for: Gitys cellular'telephone'or-PDQ~yse: shall; select
• one::of~thefollowing options: "" " ~~' `*`' ''''`"" `!
;.,, ; : i
~. ~.. .
i. ;. 3
1"::. <:~City-issued: Gellular::Telephone"or::PpA ! ; .~
";.tit... ~::?:,.,_.
......., ~"~~': ~,b.',~:;a;.:.-: ...:u..:Rk ~ ~~„C:?... ~ ~t aka;^`;;v; ~.., ~;ih;:i,;~ ' .:i~~
~ai~:: The cellular:::telephoneor;':PDAstialfaie,pu~cfia§ed-by".tt.e:
~`~~ F'; City and~enrolled in a Citywide"monthly access;plan
't"i?::;; ~ No personal. use of the cellular telephorie .or: PDA shall be`
~;:~
i!~a"; allowed ;;;fob outgoing oi; incoming ,calls, except for;
t:,}F~ : .... ~, ,. ~ :
~.~;,:: :emergencies'., .. °": ~'_ :;~;::;' ,
~,,.;
~. . .
4i: ...: ~d .:.
r :i x.
. .,~: .. ...., ... ~.~T.. ;
~.1. ..,h~i":.
. ,m i.:..~ ..`
POLICY #: A-007
TELEPHONE USAGE
PAGE 4
egwpment:r The.Department Director sFalhthen review~and
' approve;; all invoices to:.erisUre employee; statements, Have'
~' ', been `provided .prior; .to: ;submitting. to the: `Financial Services
,,,,,,'~ "'Department:for'final.review~approval,and~payment: `?~:•
~. .. ..i,, ... a•*'~Ji ~~^: 'a`xi "t .:. k:~~.a:.a :.'4:;' _:.pl,,.:'ak, ; ~.H
:'lip ::...: ... ..:::!i.n.Ya.'ar. ' =r'.:.:' . - r.ti~•. _ ... 1:;~ _ '~~'~:.
k: i:,.. . , ~ :~..:,
:;:4!'G^"''i::.tt:::'hi^:.'~'ii::w~Ni.: _z7;,.,.;L, ..i:, i.i.HN.'fjt "'y::!~;':' 1'~'i'=i~./:`"''. ).a.'+ '..^I±~'~pa_y.
le Any .cellular telephone~or PDA equipment issued to~~ari
r~' '" err to"ee+shall"'~be returne"dao the~Ci ate-the conclusion,"
j p y,,. ,. .. t3!~ r.,:.. ~ of
their employment.., If ~not:~~eturned, th@ "original cost of the
,'_ equipment shall be.,deducted from ;tlie "~employee's;;:final
~.
IIp:.' ~,' ...:. e:. n:•.i4 ..,.:f... '' ~nitii:~~ 'A•:. .-, ~%^~:r' i,~ilNy i'~•
i:.W;fr ::: ~ ';"~<is. .Jf Y~'i.j~u:nr "r~' ~ r4~i..Y4•hr i.:.,Y'~'° ~.li ~., .'.: !.{h.,~'iv
F "..: •#.f,-.u: ".il'i p' i:.::jla.:}.: i:: : .~ .. .;G. d+F~fpi ^ .. (~i5r Aii . inn
...... ,. ' .:: .. 7
f< °. _ =An ersonal orzim 'ro er"'use 'of:;the 'cel~lular•: teleplone~~or;
(,t~;, : :..':. ' ''i?;t -~.., .:.: ,..:.. p,; ~ ,. , cwt.
;;' PDA';'sliall'~tie.grounds fo%iisciplinary ac ~on:,;~.,:': .
:.•
~..,..1., ,.::.
,g. . .
+ r ~~ All:,otne~,festrictions involving telephone~.calls outlined in tFi§
olic sHall'a I ' 4`'
p ya,,...r•;, ppy.touse,':of;tfiecellularteleplone;orPDA:;AII
,:. -:.. ;estrictiorisoutlined iri;ttieiCity.'s InformationiServices Rolicy!
i•ii', ::.^ tyF::i" i44v .' ':.: ~ .: ~,dz\•y!f"'. .~ { :
E~:;:;;-' _; ;;, A?,01:6ssFiall-=:applyto'_use~of:~tte:;cellular>telephoone: or' P.!DA!4fo~
~ r
!t 0.
;, text=messaging or'i# mail 4`'f '^ ~ ' ~ ,
: ., •:':i ~ ~" .i" '... ~' ,~' a.j.'~?'yi14 i' :. y'4: {"ri.::~ .: .. ~~~' ~ - ~':4 i.~.~r
' v.r",.a~' ., .. 1~e hey. ~{;. .. .. - ~ A'~!y'. 4'i liy. ~:
i ::.:.,~, ,;,...' .r~..:.::!. .',i. '.'tea; :. .(:.
Ci ~m .
2. `i;~;:° :Cellular Telephone or PDA Allowance '': ~ s''i
;.,~.
;a ' Employees°, approved:!kto, .receive ; a~..,cellular telephone
k-`':;' allowance'xshall ;bew responsible-for;;pi'rct"iasing theirownl
r.. ' .. '.... ~ ~ _ .
n-:'~:: .cellula~~;;;telepfiona o~ f?DAi~deGice:=and=sen~ollirigi'in:;aheiri+owr~
c:...., ;_. monthlyYaccessplan3 -~~~~
t
w.3»5 ...: ... .... .... ~•..._:.:"..e~a.. i.: a `'{ei.t: ~,: ~ ~ ..:,f '. .{ :;,r i§' .~': .., i .{ '.
~b: The employee shall>;receive a monthly cellular telephone
t allowance of $45 for user,towards the cost:~of`:'the telephone`
,.,-a...>: I, ::.: ;and;monthly access plan payment. ~ ~`;„i~,;.,.;:' i:;
ti
u: tl. {{~.c.' i r'....:i%t.: rr,~Yl r, p=c.. ...'. ..: k.,: x:4.:.v j~ ~j,y~' .' fi, u.4' ~-i?;i!1°"~ .:~ ::;Li'. ~.~t- :]t
r~.:!+,.r.::.... ....1:.:bL::3.A:.vei !tl,; r.,. :.:!•'pf.:;.~":';'4. ;. :, ~.:......-. r:.;:e?:fai... vr'.y:.'; ~~:r'.;:h.'I: -
:' .
~aa:;d.i .:i:r, rwP++°'i a:~ '. .:. .....!~. hN: ur„,L ~~~~:'... _. .'b'._:illir:,a ;:=^r.: "..::':",, :.':.~,'..; 'I ~ ..
!cxa-: Departmgnt;~,p¢ectors';;3autl,%o~ized~~:.fo~.''usey~of'a:::R A,{shall
1,.,•p,,., .., „'.{:.;x,~9.~:.,~., ... • :: - ~ „':.'.'~: ~ wGr, .,.. ... ;. _ .,,E
j.; ~_, receive~a~monthly PDA;;allowance of $7,,0`nforiise;towatds tfie;
44 rrionttly~acce'ss plan"payment. _ j:
e. CelJula{rtelephone and>PDA`allowances shalf;be reported:~as;
:_; .:
!.
,;;!. ...taxable income by the, Financial Services,.Department.~;; i;ii'::;~
~;
_; ::
"': ':
'v.:. ......._
... ..:..:b'-r{~: ~,. :ronv::i.."n„v..:::d;~:::a'ti~'`:.~.`:''~'~a~,.:~~~..,. ir~ia' Yf;l~,;..,;~~' ~:: ~k:jfj:;i;wvii
:•. ^ z.Y.... ::
f.y^^:?:; %Eniploveesshall provide;xa,copy of a;~validacellular.teleplione
t; .. or PDA: invoice or eonfrect to' 'the Financial Services{
t... .,,. ., a„-. s ....:
'': - Department on an .annual basis in order to be issued°''tlie;
. ,.,. ,. ,
cellulae{telephone or. PDA allowance payments. '' +
i Mi:.' r
((g. - Fersgnala~s;use,.:of .equipmen# .paid;,for~~tl~r~ough. a. montflyl
1.;. _. _....
POLICY #: A-007
TELEPHONE USAGE
PAGE 5
E. Department Directors, with the approval of he City~Mana~er, may issue
cellular telephones to members of staff on a temporary.lass to enhance
communication capabilities during City emergencies and disasters or other
City business as required.
F. City public safety vehicles may be equipped with cellular telephones to
enhance communication capabilities for public safety personnel while
engaged in the performance of their duties.
Steven Adams
City Manager
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CELL PHONE LISTING
Citv Administration
459-7020: City Manager
Parks
440-7811: Parks & Rec Director
440-7601: Parks Supervisor
748-4974: Sports Facilities Coordinator
710-4014: Ocean View School
710-4015: Harloe School
710-6205: Elm Street
710-4366: Branch School
Public Works
459-1757: Public Works Director
459-4859: Public Works Supervisor
459-5855: Fleet Maintenance Coordinator
441-0872 :Public Works (Field Phone)
459-7411: Public Works Supervisor
550-9589: Public Works Inspector
Police
305-8805: Chief of Police
748-2371: School Resource Officer
748-2372: K-9
748-2405: Patrol Unit 071
748-2436: Patrol Unit 072
748-2439: Patrol Unit 012
748-2440: Patrol Unit 021
748-2501: Patrol Unit 022
748-2502: Patrol Unit 011
440-3674: Support Services Commander
440-6299: Investigator
441-1280: Motor 043
441-1538: Motor 023
441-1722: DARE
441-2553: Property
441-5358: Investigator-froperty
441-6183: Operations Commander
441-6532: Investigator -People
458-2391: Watch Commander
540-9474: Investigator -Sergeant
540-9475: I nvestigator
Community Development
704-5716: Community Development Director
Fire
431-1413: Fire Chief
431-1415: Fire Captains
431-1417: Fire Strike Team
431-5853: Chief Building Inspector
8.f.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AGREEMENT WITH BFGC ARCHITECTURE
FOR PREPARATION OF A POLICE STATION EXPANSION NEEDS
ASSESSMENT AND FEASIBILITY STUDY
DATE: MAY 22, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the
attached agreement with bfgc architecture for preparation of a Police Station Expansion
Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study.
FUNDING:
The total proposed cost of the study is $33,555. The City Council approved $25,000
from local sales tax revenue for FY 2006-07 for this project. The remaining costs are
proposed to be paid for from local sales tax revenue proposed in the FY 2007-08
budget.
DISCUSSION:
At the February 27, 2007 meeting, the City Council approved initial funding for the
preparation of a needs assessment and feasibility study for expansion of the Police
Station. The Police Department does not have adequate space for all personnel to
perform necessary functions. The Police Station was acquired from the phone
company in 1973 and was last expanded in 1989. Staffing has grown to 36 full-time
and 20 part-time from 12 full-time and 6 part-time since the facility began use as the
Police Station and from 28 full-time and 15 part-time since the facility was last
expanded. Key needs include space for the detective unit, the addition of an adequate
Emergency Operations Center to coordinate citywide incident response activities in the
event of a disaster, and expansion of the dispatch center.
A Federal grant was initially approved for the addition of a second story, but Congress
never approved the funding. As a result, the Police Station expansion was identified as
one of the key needs in both the City's long-range financial plan and proposal of the
sales tax measure. A modular unit has been installed on the Police Station property to
provide necessary space on a temporary basis. Approval of the sales tax measure now
enables the City to proceed with the permanent Police Station expansion project.
S:\Administration\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports\Police Station Expansion Feasibility Study
5.22.07.doc
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF AGREEMENT WITH BFGC ARCHITECTURE FOR
PREPARATION OF A POLICE STATION EXPANSION NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND
FEASIBILITY STUDY
MAY 22, 2007
PAGE 2
The first step is to develop a more detailed analysis of specific facility needs and
conceptual plan for the project. One key issue important to address is whether a
vertical or horizontal addition to the existing structure should be proposed. Addition of a
second story has been historically assumed based upon previous proposals. However,
upgrades necessary to meet requirements for essential service facilities often make
construction of additional levels cost prohibitive. In addition, the City has been
approached by the VCA Animal Hospital regarding potential acquisition of their property
if they are successful in relocating to another site within the City. Therefore, staff is
recommending the study provide a cost comparison of these alternatives as quickly as
possible.
Staff issued a Request for Proposals for the study in April. Three proposals were
received from the following firms:
^ bfgc architecture
^ jh associated
^ rrm design group
A Review Committee evaluated the proposals, which was composed of the City
Manager, Director of Community Development, Director of Public Works, and Police
Commander. After determining the qualified firms, proposals were rated based on the
following criteria:
^ Experience
^ Proposed Process
^ Schedule
^ Cost
• Overall Ability of the Proposal to Meet the City's Needs
The proposal submitted by bfgc architecture was both the lowest cost and scored
highest overall by the Review Committee. They have extensive experience with public
agencies and public safety facilities. In addition, very positive feedback was obtained
when references were contacted.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Approve and authorize Mayor to execute Agreement;
- Modify as appropriate and approve Agreement;
- Do not approve Agreement and direct staff to solicit additional proposals and/or
recommend an alternate firm;
- Provide direction to staff.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF AGREEMENT WITH BFGC ARCHITECTURE FOR
PREPARATION OF A POLICE STATION EXPANSION NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND
FEASIBILITY STUDY
MAY 22, 2007
PAGE 3
Attachments:
1. Consultant Services Agreement
AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of May 23, 2007, between bfgc
architecture ("Consultant"), and the CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, a Municipal
Corporation ("City"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth
herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. TERM
This Agreement shall commence on May 23, 2007 and shall remain and continue
in effect until August 31, 2007, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of
this Agreement.
2. SERVICES
Consultant shall perform the tasks described and comply with all terms and
provisions set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference.
3. PERFORMANCE
Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his/her
ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall
employ, at a minimum generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons
engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in
meeting its obligations under this Agreement.
4. AGREEMENT ADMINISTRATION
City Manager shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the administration of
this Agreement. Project Architect shall represent Consultant in all matters pertaining to
the administration of this Agreement.
5. PAYMENT
The City agrees to pay the Consultant in accordance with the payment rates and
terms set forth in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE
(a) The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend
or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Consultant at
least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall
immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides othervvise.
If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or
termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.
Page 1
(b) In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City
shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of
termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination
of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the
City pursuant to Section 5.
7. TERMINATION ON OCCURRENCE OF STATED EVENTS
This Agreement shall terminate automatically on the occurrence of any of the
following events:
(a) Bankruptcy or involvency of any party;
(b) Sale of Consultant's business; or
(c) Assignment of this Agreement by Consultant without the consent of City.
(d) End of the Agreement term specified in Section 1.
8. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT
(a) The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement
shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the
terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating
Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this
Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the
Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes
beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it
shall not be considered a default.
(b) If the City Manager or his/her delegate determines that the Consultant is in
default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, he/she
shall cause to be served upon the Consultant a written notice of the default. The
Consultant shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure
the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant
fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right,
notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to terminate this Agreement
without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be
entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement.
9. LAWS TO BE OBSERVED. Consultant shall:
(a) Procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all
notices which may be necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the
services to be performed by Consultant under this Agreement;
(b) Keep itself fully informed of all existing and proposed federal, state and
local laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees which may affect those
engaged or employed under this Agreement, any materials used in Consultant's
Page 2
performance under this Agreement, or the conduct of the services under this
Agreement;
(c) At all times observe and comply with, and cause all of its employees to
observe and comply with all of said laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees
mentioned above;
(d) Immediately report to the City's Contract Manager in writing any
discrepancy or inconsistency it discovers in said laws, ordinances, regulations, orders,
and decrees mentioned above in relation to any plans, drawings, specifications, or
provisions of this Agreement.
(e) The City, and its officers, agents and employees, shall not be liable at law
or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this Section.
10. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
(a) Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to
sales, costs, expenses, receipts, and other such information required by City that relate
to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain
adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of
services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant
shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable
times to such books and records; shall give City the right to examine and audit said
books and records; shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary; and
shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to
this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained
for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment.
(b) Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this
Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files,
surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to
be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and
may be used, reused, or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the
Consultant. With respect to computer files, Consultant shall make available to the City,
at the Consultant's office and upon reasonable written request by the City, the
necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling,
transferring, and printing computer files.
11. INDEMNIFICATION FOR PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY. To the fullest extent
permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City
and any and all of its officials, employees and agents ("Indemnified Parties") from and
against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including attorney's
fees and costs which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness,
or willful misconduct of the Consultant.
Page 3
12. INSURANCE
Consultant shall maintain prior to the beginning of and for the duration of this
Agreement insurance coverage as specified in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and
incorporated herein as though set forth in full.
13. INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT
(a) Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly
independent Consultant. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement
on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and
control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, or agents shall have control over
the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents, except
as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner
represent that it or any of its officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officers,
employees, or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur
any debt, obligation, or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner.
(b) No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with
performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in
the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant
for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or
indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services
hereunder.
14. UNDUE INFLUENCE
Consultant declares and warrants that no undue influence or pressure was or is
used against or in concert with any officer or employee of the City of Arroyo Grande in
connection with the award, terms or implementation of this Agreement, including any
method of coercion, confidential financial arrangement, or financial inducement. No
officer or employee of the City of Arroyo Grande will receive compensation, directly or
indirectly, from Consultant, or from any officer, employee or agent of Consultant, in
connection with the award of this Agreement or any work to be conducted as a result of
this Agreement. Violation of this Section shall be a material breach of this Agreement
entitling the City to any and all remedies at law or in equity.
15. NO BENEFIT TO ARISE TO LOCAL EMPLOYEES
No member, officer, or employee of City, or their designees or agents, and no
public official who exercises authority over or responsibilities with respect to the project
during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect,
in any agreement or sub-agreement, or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed
in connection with the project performed under this Agreement.
Page 4
16. RELEASE OF INFORMATIONICONFLICTS OF INTEREST
(a) All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall
be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior
written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, or subcontractors,
shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the
City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at
depositions, response to interrogatories, or other information concerning the work
performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the
City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary"
provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
(b) Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers,
employees, agents, or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint,
subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for
admissions, or other discovery request, court order, or subpoena from any person or
party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder or with respect to
any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no
obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing, or
similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide the
opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant.
However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by
City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.
17. NOTICES
Any notice which either party may desire to give to the other party under this
Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii)
delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal
Express, which provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in
the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested,
addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that
party may later designate by notice:
To City: City of Arroyo Grande
Steven Adams
214 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
To Consultant: William Tuculet, AIA
Principal Architect
4115 Broad Street, #B-6
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Page 5
18. ASSIGNMENT
The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part
thereof, without the prior written consent of the City.
19. GOVERNING LAW
The City and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of
California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties, and liabilities of the parties to this
Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation
concerning this Agreement shall take place in the superior or federal district court with
jurisdiction over the City of Arroyo Grande.
20. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to
the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous
agreements, understandings, representations, and statements, or written, are merged
into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into
this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each
party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material.
21. TIME
City and Consultant agree that time is of the essence in this Agreement.
22. CONTENTS OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND PROPOSAL
Consultant is bound by the contents of the City's Request for Proposal, Exhibit
"D", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and the contents of the
proposal submitted by the Consultant, Exhibit "E", attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference. In the event of conflict, the requirements of City's Request for
Proposals and this Agreement shall take precedence over those contained in the
Consultant's proposals.
23.
The parties agree that each has had an opportunity to have their counsel review
this Agreement and that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be
resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in the interpretation of this Agreement
or any amendments or exhibits thereto. The captions of the sections are for
convenience and reference only, and are not intended to be construed to define or limit
the provisions to which they relate.
Page 6
24. AMENDMENTS
Amendments to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be made only with
the mutual written consent of all of the parties to this Agreement.
25. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT
The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant
warrants and represents that he/she has the authority to execute this Agreement on
behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of
its obligations hereunder.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CONSULTANT
Bv:
Tony Ferrara, Mayor
Attest:
Its:
(Title)
Wetmore, City Clerk
Approved As To Form:
Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney
Page 7
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
Consultant shall prepare a needs assessment and feasibility study for expansion of the
City of Arroyo Grande Police Station, which shall include the following tasks:
1.0 Project Initiation Meeting
Consultant shall meet with City Project Team to orient all participants to the
project vision and the planning process. City Management and Consultant shall
meet to identify key study issues and overriding constraints and review the
approach and schedule.
2.0 Evaluation of Existing Facilities
Consultant shall provide an assessment of the existing facilities and site.
Consultant and subconsultants shall field verify and evaluate the general
conditions of the existing facility, including structure, envelope, roof, interior
finishes, mechanical and plumbing, electrical, and telecommunications systems.
An analysis of the existing site shall also be included. The site analysis is a
graphic display of the Consultant team's examination of the site. Natural
surroundings of sun orientation, wind direction, noise sources, weather patterns
and views shall be considered. Development factors, such as topography,
surrounding facilities, existing vehicle and pedestrian traffic patterns, maximum
allowable building areas and separations, and utility locations that have an
impact on the station layout shall be identified.
3.0 Police Department Assessment Meetings
Consultant shall conduct two (2) programming meetings with Police Department
and other City staff to discuss:
a. Vision and Process
b. Functionality relative to existing and proposed programs and/or operations
c. Policies and Procedures
d. Occupants and Users
e. Activities
f. Department Circulation
g. Quantity of Space
h. Spatial Relationships
i. Furniture and Equipment
j. Future Trends
k. Shared/ Common Facilities
I. Safety/ Security (Operational Aspects)
m. Other issues as necessary
Page 8
4.0 Draft Needs Assessment
Consultant shall prepare a draft of the Needs Assessment, which will summarize
the facility needs and include the assets, deficits, opportunities, and challenges
presented by the existing facility and site(s). The following information shall be
included in the report:
a. Existing Facility Assessments
b. Existing Department Assessments
c. Projected Growth
d. Departmental =Functional Relationship Diagrams
e. Existing Site Analysis
f. Space Identifications with Square Footages
g. Statement of Probable Cost
h. Other Information as Required
5.0 Management Review
Consultant shall coordinate with City Project Team to review and discuss the
report and findings. Revisions shall be made and resubmitted by Consultant, as
required.
6.0 Feasibility Conceptual Studies
Consultant shall study all options identified for expansion of the Police Station,
including both vertical and horizontal expansion, and then develop two final
alternatives. Consultant shall develop preliminary design ideas to delineate
building layouts and character, including conceptual floor plans, exterior
elevations, and a site plan.
7.0 Statement of Probable Construction Cost
Consultant shall prepare a Statement of Probable Cost coordinated with the
anticipated timeline.
8.0 Final Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study
Consultant shall prepare a report which includes all of the information obtained in
the tasks above, as well as recommendations for future development.
9.0 Review Meeting
Consultant shall meet with the City Project Team to receive comments for
incorporation into the final product.
10.0 Presentations
Consultant shall present the Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study to City
staff and to the City Council, as required.
11.0 Final Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study Report
Based on the input received, Consultant shall finalize the Needs Assessment and
Feasibility Study.
Page 9
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
Task Fee
Project Initiation Meeting $2,220
Evaluation of Existing Facilities $4,460
Police Department Assessment Meetings $1,760
Draft Needs Assessment $2,250
Management Review $950
Feasibility Studies $14,155
Final Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 2 360
Sub-Total $28,155
Sub-Consultant Fees $5,400
Total $33,555
For additional services requested by City and agreed upon, the following standard
hourly rates shall be charged:
Senior Principal $185
Principal Architect $175
Associate/Project Architect $150 - 170
Project Architect $125 - $145
Project Manager $90 - $125
Interior Designer $90 - $125
Technical I: (Senior/Licensed) $75 - $85
Page 10
Technical II: (Licensed) $70
Technical III: (Intermediate) $65
Technical IV: (Assistant/Junior) $55
Administrative
Support/Clerical
$78
$50 - $65
Expert Witness Services $250
Page 11
EXHIBIT C
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Prior fo the beginning of and throughout the duration of the Work, Consultant will
maintain insurance in conformance with the requirements set forth below. Consultant
will use existing coverage to comply with these requirements. If that existing coverage
does not meet the requirements set forth here, Consultant agrees to amend,
supplement or endorse the existing coverage to do so. Consultant acknowledges that
the insurance coverage and policy limits set forth in this section constitute the minimum
amount of coverage required. Any insurance proceeds available to City in excess of the
limits and coverage required in this agreement and which is applicable to a given loss,
will be available to City.
Consultant shall provide the following types and amounts of insurance:
Commercial General Liability Insurance using Insurance Services Office "Commercial
General Liability" policy from CG 00 01 or the exact equivalent. Defense costs must be
paid in addition to limits. There shall be no cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by
one insured against another. Limits are subject to review but in no event less than
$1,000,000 per occurrence.
Business Auto Coverage on ISO Business Auto Coverage from CA 00 01 including
symbol 1 (Any Auto) or the exact equivalent. Limits are subject to review, but in no
event to be less than $1,000,000 per accident. If Consultant owns no vehicles, this
requirement may be satisfied by a non-owned auto endorsement to the general liability
policy described above. If Consultant or Consultant's employees will use personal autos
in any way on this project, Consultant shall provide evidence of personal auto liability
coverage for each such person.
Workers Compensation on astate-approved policy form providing statutory benefits as
required by law with employer's liability limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident or
disease.
Excess or Umbrella Liability Insurance (Over Primary) if used to meet limit
requirements, shall provide coverage at least as broad as specified for the underlying
coverages. Any such coverage provided under an umbrella liability policy shall include a
drop down provision providing primary coverage above a maximum $25,000 self-
insured retention for liability not covered by primary but covered by the umbrella.
Coverage shall be provided on a "pay on behalf' basis, with defense costs payable in
addition to policy limits. Policy shall contain a provision obligating insurer at the time
insured's liability is determined, not requiring actual payment by the insured first. There
shall be no cross liability exclusion precluding coverage for claims or suits by one
insured against another. Coverage shall be applicable to City for injury to employees of
Page 12
Consultant, subcontractors or others involved in the Work. The scope of coverage
provided is subject to approval of City following receipt of proof of insurance as required
herein. Limits are subject to review but in no event less than $1,000,000 per
occurrence.
Professional Liability or Errors and Omissions Insurance as appropriate shall be written
on a policy form coverage specifically designated to protect against acts, errors or
omissions of the Consultant and "Covered Professional Services" as designated in the
policy must specifically include work performed under this agreement. The policy limit
shall be no less than $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. The policy must "pay
on behalf of" the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to
defend. The policy retroactive date shall be on or before the effective date of this
agreement.
Insurance procured pursuant to these requirements shall be written by insurer that are
admitted carriers in the state California and with an A.M. Bests rating of A- or better and
a minimum financial size Vll.
General conditions pertaining to provision of insurance coverage by Consultant.
Consultant and City agree to the following with respect to insurance provided by
Consultant:
1. Consultant agrees to have its insurer endorse the third party general
liability coverage required herein to include as additional insureds City, its officials
employees and agents, using standard ISO endorsement No. CG 2010 with an edition
prior to 1992. Consultant also agrees to require all Consultants, and subcontractors to
do likewise.
2. No liability insurance coverage provided to comply with this Agreement
shall prohibit Consultant, or Consultant's employees, or agents, from waiving the right of
subrogation prior to a loss. Consultant agrees to waive subrogation rights against City
regardless of the applicability of any insurance proceeds, and to require all Consultants
and subcontractors to do likewise.
3. All insurance coverage and limits provided by Consultant and available or
applicable to this agreement are intended to apply to the full extent of the policies.
Nothing contained in this Agreement or any other agreement relating to the City or its
operations limits the application of such insurance coverage.
4. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these
requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been first
submitted to City and approved of in writing.
5. No liability policy shall contain any provision or definition that would serve
to eliminate so-called "third party action over" claims, including any exclusion for bodily
injury to an employee of the insured or of any Consultant or subcontractor.
Page 13
6. All coverage types and limits required are subject to approval, modification
and additional requirements by the City, as the need arises. Consultant shall not make
any reductions in scope of coverage (e.g. elimination of contractual liability or reduction
of discovery period) that may affect City's protection without City's prior written consent.
7. Proof of compliance with these insurance requirements, consisting of
certificates of insurance evidencing all of the coverages required and an additional
insured endorsement to Consultant's general liability policy, shall be delivered to City at
or prior to the execution of this Agreement. In the event such proof of any insurance is
not delivered as required, or in the event such insurance is canceled at any time and no
replacement coverage is provided, City has the right, but not the duty, to obtain any
insurance it deems necessary to protect its interests under this or any other agreement
and to pay the premium. Any premium so paid by City shall be charged to and promptly
paid by Consultant or deducted from sums due Consultant, at City option.
8. Certificate(s) are to reflect that the insurer will provide 30 days notice to
City of any cancellation of coverage. Consultant agrees to require its insurer to modify
such certificates to delete any exculpatory wording stating that failure of the insurer to
mail written notice of cancellation imposes no obligation, or that any party will
"endeavor' (as opposed to being required) to comply with the requirements of the
certificate.
9. It is acknowledged by the parties of this agreement that all insurance
coverage required to be provided by Consultant or any subcontractor, is intended to
apply first and on a primary, noncontributing basis in relation to any other insurance or
self insurance available to City.
10. Consultant agrees to ensure that subcontractors, and any other party
involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in the project by Consultant,
provide the same minimum insurance coverage required of Consultant. Consultant
agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for
ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this
section. Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with subcontractors and
others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.
11. Consultant agrees not to self-insure or to use any self-insured retentions
or deductibles on any portion of the insurance required herein and further agrees that it
will not allow any Consultant, subcontractor, Architect, Engineer or other entity or
person in any way involved in the performance of work on the project contemplated by
this agreement to self-insure its obligations to City. If Consultant's existing coverage
includes a deductible or self-insured retention, the deductible or self-insured retention
must be declared to the City. At the time the City shall review options with the
Consultant, which may include reduction or elimination of the deductible or self-insured
retention, substitution of other coverage, or other solutions.
Page 14
12. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to
change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Consultant ninety
(90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial
additional cost to the Consultant, the City will negotiate additional compensation
proportional to the increase benefit to City.
13. For purposes of applying insurance coverage only, this Agreement will be
deemed to have been executed immediately upon any party hereto taking any steps
that can be deemed to be in furtherance of or towards performance of this Agreement.
14. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on
the part of City to inform Consultant of non-compliance with any insurance requirements
in no way imposes any additional obligations on City nor does it waive any rights
hereunder in this or any other regard.
15. Consultant will renew the required coverage annually as long as City, or
its employees or agents face an exposure from operations of any type pursuant to this
agreement. This obligation applies whether or not the agreement is canceled or
terminated for any reason. Termination of this obligation is not effective until City
executes a written statement to that effect.
16. Consultant shall provide proof that policies of insurance required herein
expiring during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other
policies providing at least the same coverage. Proof that such coverage has been
ordered shall be submitted prior to expiration. , A coverage binder or letter from
Consultant's insurance agent to this effect is acceptable. A certificate of insurance
and/or additional insured endorsement as required in these specifications applicable to
the renewing or new coverage must be provided to City within five days of the expiration
of the coverages.
17. The provisions of any workers' compensation or similar act will not limit
the obligations of Consultant under this agreement. Consultant expressly agrees not to
use any statutory immunity defenses under such laws with respect to City, its
employees, officials and agents.
18. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this
section are not intended as limitations on coverage, limits or other requirements nor as
a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any given policy. Specific reference to a
given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue,
and is not intended by any party or insured to be limiting orall-inclusive.
19. These insurance requirements are intended to be separate and distinct
from any other provision in this agreement and are intended by the parties here to be
interpreted as such.
Page 15
20. The requirements in this Section supersede all other sections and
provisions of this Agreement to the extent that any other section or provision conflicts
with or impairs the provisions of this Section.
21. Consultant agrees to be responsible for ensuring that no contract used by
any party involved in any way with the project reserves the right to charge City or
Consultant for the cost of additional insurance coverage required by this agreement.
Any such provisions are to be deleted with reference to City. It is not the intent of City to
reimburse any third party for the cost of complying with these requirements. There shall
be no recourse against City for payment of premiums or other amounts with respect
thereto.
22. Consultant agrees to provide immediate notice to City of any claim or loss
against Consultant arising out of the work performed under this agreement. City
assumes no obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty) to
monitor the handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve City.
Page 16
EXHIBIT D
CITY'S REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
Page 17
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE POLICE STATION EXPANSION
NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FEASIBILITY STUDY
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
CITY OF
APRIL 2007
I
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE POLICE STATION EXPANSION
NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FEASIBILITY STUDY
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
PROPOSAL INTENT
The City of Arroyo Grande, California intends to contract for professional services
to prepare a needs assessment and feasibility study to identify needs, costs and
alternatives for expansion of the City's Police Station.
II. BACKGROUND'
The City of Arroyo Grande is afull-service city located on the Central Coast of
California midway between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The City of Arroyo
Grande comprises 5.45 square miles and serves 16,537 residents.
The Police Station building is currently 6,771 sq. ft. To address the Department's
space needs onla temporary basis, a 1,440 sq. ft. modular unit has also been
installed on the site. The Station building was originally constructed in 1950 for
the phone company and was purchased by the City in 1973. At that time, the
building was 3,300 square feet. The additional footage was added through a
remodel in 1990. Since the Police Station facility was acquired in 1973, the
Police Department has grown from 12 full-time and 6 part-time staff to 36 full-
time and 20 part-time. Primary expansion needs include increased staffing work
area, an emergency operations center, and an expanded dispatch center.
I
III. SCOPE OF WORK
The City is interested in contracting with a consultant to:
A. Prepare a space needs analysis to determine the amount of expansion
necessary to meet the operational needs of the department.
B. Prepare three alternatives for expansion. Generally, the three alternatives
will likely include: 1) addition of a second story to the existing structure,
which will require some level of structural analysis to determine feasibility; 2)
horizontal addition to the northern side of the building, which will require
acquisition of the adjacent property for parking; and 3) some combination of
expansion to the north and south sides of the building. Based on the results
of the needs assessment, the City and Consultant may mutually agree to
add other alternatives.
i
C. Prepare general cost estimates for each alternative. The cost estimates are
for comparison and budgeting purposes only.
D. Consultant shall be required to make a minimum of one presentation of a
draft report to staff and one presentation to City Council of the final report.
IV. PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CONTENT
Each proposal shall include as a minimum the following information in this
format:
A. Introduction'
Present an introduction to the proposal describing the firm's understanding
of the desired work and experience as it relates to this project. List all
proposed subconsultants, if any.
B. Qualifications
Include a description of the firm's background, resumes of those proposed
to work on the project, and the specific role of each in the project effort.
Provide the same for each subconsultant, if applicable. List other Police
building projects prepared by the individuals proposed to perform the work.
C. Work Plan
Provide a brief description of the work plan proposed to carry out the tasks
set forth in Section III - Scope of Work.
D. Schedule
Present a proposed schedule for completion of each task described in
Section III -Scope of Work. Time is of the essence on this project due to
pending budgetary and property acquisition decisions.
E. Cost Proposal
Submit a cost proposal in a separate sealed envelope. The fee proposal
will not be reviewed until the review panel determines the qualified firms and
finalists. The cost summary shall include:
1. Anot-to-exceed lump sum fee based on an hourly rate for each design
task described in Section III -Scope of Work, including all expenses.
2. A schedule of all hourly rates for extra design services for all
classifications of positions proposed to be associated with the project
effort.
VI. SELECTION PROCESS
A review committee composed of the City Manager, Police Chief, Director of
Public Works and Director of Community Development will evaluate the
proposals based on relative experience, qualifications, and ability of proposed
approach to meet the needs of the City. Once the qualification of firms proposed
have been verified, a final selection will be recommended to the City Council
based on the following criteria:
3
i
1. Relative experience and qualifications
2. Ability of proposed approach to meet the needs of the City
3. Cost effectiveness
A telephone or personal interview may be requested.
VII. SUBMITTAL !
A. Submit a total of 4 copies to:
Steven Adams
City Manager
P.O. Box 550
214 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
I
B. Show the following information on the outside of the package:
• Consultant's name and address
Police Station Feasibility Study and Needs Assessment
C. Closing Date: All proposals must be received by Monday, April 23.
2007 at 5:00 p.m.
D. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals for any or no
reason. I
For more information, please contact Steven Adams at 805-473-5404.
EXHIBIT E
CONSULTANT'S PROPOSAL
Page 18
'P
~•~
Proposal.
rofess~onal_ Services,
s
i
~..~
s II IZC :!F1
,,,.,~~ :~. o to c . ,,,.. .
Polices Station Expansion,,- M,.eeds.,
_~
'=~ smen#and~;Feas~b~.lityr{$tudy~
~.~ Asses
City::. of~ Arroyo; Grande,
P.O. Box 550
214 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
(805)473-5404
Monday, April 23, 2007
,!
~I
An::hitedure
i911'..q Illnl I
Monday; April 23, 2007
I
Steve Adams
City Manager
City of Arroyo Grande
P.O. Box 550
214 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
RE Police Station Expansion Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study
I
i
Understanding the needs of the Police Station expansion and providing appropriate
studies presents a focused and challenging project for architects, city administration, and
the Police Department. We are prepared to work closely with you to better understand the
unique requirements of the Police Department to facilitate a solution that contributes
equally to the success of each individual, to your success as a City and Department, to
make a positive contribution to our Community, and to do so in acost-effective manner.
BFGC understands the importance of these challenges and has assembled this proposal
indirect response to vour needs. We offer several advantages:
• Recent needs assessment and feasibility study efforts for public projects,
• An experienced project team composed of leaders who understand and care
about your requirements;
• We have an exemplary history of successful public designs. We encourage you to
call our client references whose satisfaction with our services is reflected in our
record of over 86% repeat work with our clients; and,
• We have a strong history of local projects in the area.
I appreciated the time your Police Chief took from his busy schedule to meet with one of
our staff a few weeks ago to review the Department's current facility. After touring the site,
' we understand the City's unique circumstances better. We look forward to providing our
`'" expertise and services for the assessments and studies to get you through to the next
I I phase. ~
i_ J We would be pleased to make a presentation to you and the City to further showcase our
experience and discuss how we can provide the required services necessary for
i i successful completion of your Police Station Expansion project.
[__ i
I ~p $, 757 Si ;:alit .4).1
LI JO/15SLUt 11
lI 90f~ ° 4 (!BaJ
www.biac.com
I_~
I
t~~~
William R. Tuc et, AIA
Principal Architect
00_LOl.doc
~,
i+
Table of Contents
i Cover Letter
;: "`
I ~ i Table of Contents
~ A. Introduction
i
-~ i
'_ B. qualifications
_! - ~ ' Relevant Recent Experience
Y -__~;--~~,.,._. . Related Relevant Architectural Projects
Project Team
Resumes
~~ '. Related Project Portfolio
I
i I
i
{~ I
l ~' ~'
I
i
1~
(~l
1J
C. Work Plan
D. Schedule
I E. Cost Proposal (under separate sealed envelope)
.. ;
:...
. , . j;
,. i t
P ..%':.
l..
" t'.
j.. i
_'F:;
City of Arroyo Grande -Police Station Expansion fJeeds Assessment and Feasibility Study
A. Introduction
bigc san luis Obispo
4115 Broad Street
Suite B6
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805)546-0433
bigc Bakersfield
5500 Ming Avenue
Suite 450
Bakersfield, CA 93309
(661)836-4300
bfgc san Jose
150 South First Street
Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95113
(408) 924-0841
www.bfgc.com
• BFGC has served more than 1,000 clients. BFGC serves the Central Coast,
the Central Valley, and the Bay Area, in the pursuit of excellence in public
facilities planning and design. This diverse project experience includes essential
service facilities.
• 86%of BFGC's work load comes from repeat clients. We build relationships
not just buildings. BFGC is committed to provide service and value to our clients.
• 80+ talented staff members including over 20+ licensed architects.
BFGC's "deep bench° insures adequate staff to meet your review and advisory
needs, your schedule's needs, and provides expertise in all project types.
• BFGC has received numerous awards for excellence in design and
energy conservation. Our commitment to design excellence can provide you
with a facility that functions well, is aesthetically pleasing, and conserves
resources.
• Established, formalized systems for
and Quality Control. These procedure
schedule and on budget.
City of Arroyo Grande Project Team
As the Client, you become an integral
external observer/endorser of work.
contributing members of the Team,
architectural personnel.
Project Management, Delivery, Cost
s assure that your project will be on
member of the design team -not just an
We work collaboratively to assemble
including client/users, consultants and
Our goal: To form a cohesive unit motivated to meet the specific requirements
established for your project and our community.
Project Team Organization
bigc architects planners inc
BFGC Firm Profile
• 5&years experience in facility planning and design. BFGC Architects
Planners Inc. is an established firm with a complete understanding of the
planning and design process.
Your projects will receive the service of our San Luis Obispo studio,
directed by Bill Tuculet, AIA, Principal-In-Charge and Craig
Atkinson, AIA, Project Architect. The Team selected for
your project is organized by the matching of your project
needs and the experience and talents of the studio
members.
f'
'f
i.-,
City of Arroyo Grande -Police Station Expansion Plee~ls P.ee,es::ment and Feasibility Study
I
J
i .
B. Qualifications
.. .~
r-~ .
'~
I'•
~,; -.
~:~~
(I
f
Relevant Recent Experience
City of Santa Maria
Facility Assessment, Programming, and Master Planning
Old Library Conversion to City Government Facilities, and City Hall
Expansion
This project encompassed a fairly heavy assessment and programming process.
As an adaptive reuse of the City's Old Library, it was important to analyze how
the new City functions fit, assess the existing building conditions, and identify
what changes needed to occur in order to accommodate the new and future
programs.
City of Santa Maria Siting Studies
BFGC Architects was initially selected to furnish Siting and Conceptual Design
Services for the establishment of a Headquarters Fire Station and future Fire
,Administration and Emergency Operations Center. Prior to commencing work on
,the Headquarters Fire Station Conceptual Design, the City added to the scope of
work the Siting and Conceptual Design of a Headquarters Police Station. BFGC,
together with Fire and Police representatives, developed several Conceptual
Site/Floor Plan Schemes for both the Fire and Police' Headquarters on the same
site. Eventually, as the concept design evolved, k was determined that a phased
' project would be required in order to work with the City budget established to
cover the total project costs.
' County of San Luis Obispo, Sheriff's Department
BFGC Architect Planners, Inc. provided architectural services for the County of
San Luis Obispo Sheriff's Administration Building Design Program. Our role was
to assist Greg Allen Barker /Jay Farbstein and Associates as their architectural
'consultant to discuss architectural implication during input meetings with each
~'.'~ 'department; develop criticaVfunctional relationships for each department and for
?':a the entire building; provide space analysis for current as well as future needs;
... and to develop standard work space modules for planning purposes. The Project
-: will be approximately 60,000 s.f. when completed.
;.k ~ `• City of Guadalupe, Guadalupe Fire, Police Station and City Hall
---~-=a: BFGC recently completed Master Plan Services for replacement facilities for the
~+ City of Guadalupe. The project will include City Administrative Offices; a
`•`=""- 'Multipurpose Meeting/City Council Chamber; a one-stop Community
Development Center, Fire Department and Police Department Facilities. The
new 15,000 s.f. facility will reflect the Spanish Revival character of the existing
,.City Hall.
City of Annyo Grande -Police Station Expansion Needs AssessrnerA and Feasibility Study
,,
i1
.~
B. Qualifications
i
Related Relevant Architectural Projects
Santa Maria Police Department Ezpansion/Remodel
Project Location: Santa Maria, CA
Brief Description: Expansion of the Police Station consists of the
remodel of the existing Fire Station into a Police Station Annex which includes
training room, training office, dispatch center, traffic sergeant's office, traffic
bureau, men's locker roam, a nd records storage. The remodel of the existing
station includes conversion of dispatch facility into live scan and fingerprint room,
conversion of men's locker room into women's locker room, remodel of
lieutenant's office, and lobby.
Architect's Involvement: Architectural and engineering services for
Schematic Design, Design Development, Construction Documents and
Construction Administration
Status of Completion: Completed
Key Personnel: William Tuculet, Principal Architect
Craig Atkinson, Project Architect
Name of Owner: City of Santa Maria Police Department
220 and 222 East Cook Street
Santa Maria, CA 93454
Contact: Mr. Danny R. Macagni, Chief of Police
(805) 928-3781 ext. 271
Santa Maria Headquarters Fire;Station No. 1, Phase 1
Project Location: Santa Maria, CA
Brief Description: 7,000 s.f. Headquarters Fire Station which
includes three (3) two (2) engine deep apparatus bays, living quarters,
kitcheNdining area, day room, ', turn-out gear storage lockers, work area and
associated site development. Phase 2 of this project has already received
planning approval and includes an emergency operations center and fire
administration offices. Phase 2 will not commence until the City has reached its
response time goals by constructing community based fire stations.
Architect's Involvement: Architectural and engineering services for
Schematic Design, Design Development, Construction Documents and
Construction Administration
Status of Completion: Completed
Key Personnel: William Tuculet, Principal Architect
Craig Atkinson, Project Architect
Name of Owner: City of Santa Maria Fire Department
314 West Cook Street, #8
Santa Maria, CA 93458-5557
Contact: Mr. Frank Ortiz, Fire Chief
(805) 925-0951 ext. 255
City of Arroyo Grande -Police Station Expansion Needs Assessment and Feasibility Sludy
i
~l
t
-~
r-~
~r ' a;'- f
4~`h '!
,_ !i
I
. .. L_~
it
~~
i.:;
~l
~..
` i
i!
.: `.;;
Y ,.._
~ :. _.
i-h% I i
B. Qualifications
Craig Atkinson, Project Architect
- 'Name of Owner: CRy of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
Pismo Beach, CA 93449-2056
_ 'Contact: Mr. Dennis Delzeit
Public Works Director/City Engineer
(805)773-7037
Pismo Beach -Shell Beach Fire Station
Project Location:' Pismo Beach, CA
Brief Description: The proposed project which is currently in
schematic design includes the expansion of the existing facility to include a
ktchen, office, day room, decontamination room, storage, ADA compliant
restroom, and associated site development. The approximately 750 s.f. addition
will result in a 4,200 s.f. neighborhood fire station. The project also includes
exterior cosmetic upgrades designed to fit into the context of the surrounding
residential neighborhood.
Architects Involvement: Architectural and engineering services
Status of Completion: Currently in Schematic Design
Key Personnel: William Tuculet, Principal Architect
San Luis Obispo County Carrizo Plains Fire Station
Project Location: Carrizo Plains, CA
Brief Description: The project is a rural Fire Station which will be
;housed in two (2) adjacent buildings to be placed on site by the Owner. The first
is a 2,150 s.f. modular building which houses an office, kitche/dining areas, day
'room, training area, and living quarters. The second building is a 1,900 s.f. pre-
fabricated metal building which will house two (2) apparatus bays,
.decontamination, and shop areas.
,Architects Involvement: Architectural and engineering services for
,Schematic Design, Design Development, Construction Documents and
Construction Administration
"" - ~
¢!
, .Status of Com letion: Current) m Construction Documents
~ ~
~,~_ ~,~ ,Key Personnel William Tuculet, Principal Architect
~4~
'r
~
{
~
~
~ Craig Atkinson, Project Architect
r`f
r
~
'
~
^'~
~*
.:„S Cost• $360,000
` z ,~4 =x T .,aa jName of Owner: County of San Luis Obispo
~ , r; 1087 Santa Rosa Street
~;~ a I San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
3 ..;-, ..Contact: Mr. Steve Neer, Department of General Services
~
-!
~ r i (805) 781-5168
~
~
Santa Maria Fire Station #4
Project Location: Santa Maria, CA
Brief Description: 5,600 s.f. neighborhood based Fire Station
which includes (2) two engine deep apparatus bays, living quarters,
kitchen/dining area, day room, turn out gear storage locker area, work area,
City of Arroyo Grande -Police Station Expansion Needs Pssessment and Feasi6ilify Study
f I :+€
IJ '
B. Qualifications ~'
exercise room, and associated site development. The design of this project is a
prototype for the City's neighborhood fire stations. Station No. 5 is currently in
conceptual design and site acquisition stage.
Architect's Involvement: Architectural and engineering services for
Schematic Design, Design Development, Construction Documents and
Construction Administration
Status of Completion: Construction 95% Complete
Key Personnel: William Tuculet, Principal Architect
Craig Atkinson, Project Director
Cost: $1,471,000
Name of Owner: City of Santa Maria
Contact: Mr. Bruce Nybo
110 South Pine Street, #221
Santa Maria, CA 93454
(805) 925-0951 X 225
. .
Gity of Arroyo Grande -Police Station Expansion Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study
r;
L1
, : .
..~. J
~~
i
f
E ~
i
ii
rl
~~
-i
i~
~N,..,~.4 . _ .
f.:• r': j,. ~ i'a WI
,L -
~ _~
-,,:
B. Qualifications
Project Team
BFGC recognizes that clients select design professionals on the experience and
strength of the "team". We have a substantial amount of experience with a
~, variety of public facility planning, modernization, and design projects, thus
allowing for special assignments within the job to be handled by those individuals
who specialize in each specific area.
Client
City of Arroyo Grande /Police Department
The most important member of any architectural team is the client/user. It is, after
' all, your needs and desires that provide the basis for this process.
Principal-In-Charge
William R. Tuculet, AIA -BFGC Principal Architect
Principals at BFGC are responsible to the client for all aspects of management of
the project team, overall quality control, and commitment of firm resources. As
Principal-In-Charge of the San Luis Obispo office of BFGC, William R. Tuculet,
AIA, pledges his talents and experience along with the Team for the successful
completion of your project.
Project Architect
Craig Atkinson, AIA -BFGC Associate Architect
~ Craig Atkinson, AIA is the Team's Project Architect and the main point of contact
'throughout the needs assessment and feasibility study process. In this role, he
coordinates the entire project and has the day to day responsibility for the project
.from inception to completion. He is responsible for schedule, budget, data
'management, and any required consultant coordination. Mr. Atkinson's recent
experience with city government facilities, including police stations, fire stations
and city administration buildings, add to Craig's credentials to lead this effort. He
,pledges his talents and experience, along with the Team, for the successful
;completion of your project.
Sub-Consulting Team
,BFGC fully realizes that a significant determinant of our ability to form a
successful and productive team with you is the quality and consistency of the
group of consulting engineers that we are able to assemble for your project. We
therefore place great emphasis on using "tried-and-true" consultants who we
know, from experience on prior projects similar to yours, can and will perform
;well with us, and have proven that fact with a history of excellence that we can
demonstrate.
Our relationships with our consultants are as important to us as the relationships
.that we enjoy with our clients. We respect and value those long-established
'relationships, and we work hard to keep them.
City of Arroyo Grande -Police Station Expansion Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study
~l
I . aw
` _ ~
>~ ,~
i i f~_ t .- ~° f
ti
B. Qualifications
Cost Estimating
BFGC believes the "marketplace" is too volatile to rely on historical cost data
bases or in-house staff. 1Ne retain construction cost estimating specialists who
are in this region dealing with local contractors. BFGC success rate has been
98% on or under allowable budgets when utilizing professional cost estimators.
For your projects, we have selected Cumming Clarke.
Cumming Clarke provides cost estimating, scheduling, value engineering,
and change order analysis/negotiation services to design professionals
and owners. They offer their clients the latest in aggressive lime and cost control
methods available to the industry. They provide a higher level of service and an
accurate end product that enables our clients to save time and money on their
projects. By combining the most advanced database, graphic, and spreadsheet
capabilities with exceptional professional expertise and experience, Cumming
Clarke creates estimates that become valuable management tools. Their user
friendly formatting is custom fit to meet each client's needs. Their construction
professianals provide reliable, accurate cost estimates and are able to meet the
most crkicai deadlines. They are able to respond to client needs with staff
resources located in Sacramento, Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Diego.
Cumming Clarke is completely committed to achieving its clients' objectives and
exceeding their expectations. There is no cost estimatinylcost control assignment
too large or too small for us to provide the highest level of service.
Structural Engineering
Advanced Structural Design, inc. is a structural engineering design firm
dedicated to functioning as a true partner to the architect and owner, broadening
design possibilities and smoothirig the transition from concept to reality. Through
the application of technology and experience, ASDi's Robert E. Deck provides
creative structural solutions appropriate to the architectural design, using efficient
construction methods, while meeting the owner's requirements.
To accomplish these goals, the ptincipals of ASDi bring the architect and owner a
broad range of building experience including commercial, educational and
institutional buildings, hotels, and parking structures, using the full spectrum of
building materials. Regardless of the project scope, each structural design
benefits from the strength of their technical knowledge.
Electrical Engineering
The Electrical Engineering division of Thoma Electric, Inc. provides design and
consulting services in all facets of the electrical construction and communications
industry throughout California. A variety of projects have been successfully
completed over the years. These include many projects in the area of
educational, communications, residential, commercial, institutional, industrial,
miiftary, and health care.
~,
I"'~
r~
.:
'I
j~,
t~
i
ii
ti
j~
i
i _',
City of Arroyo Grande -Police Station Expansion Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study
t
fi.
i;.-
;- t'.. ,
I
i
I_,
,:~
.
~,:>
i~ ,
-I _ _ {
t.
B. Qualifications
The Electrical Engineering division of the company is unique in its ability to
,maintain closeness to the construction community because of the association
with its sister Construction division founded in 1959. They share information
regarding new products and existing or new work methods. This allows the
Engineering group to consider the cost, quality, success and failure of systems
with which the Construction division has had experience. This tool is of benefit to
an owner as it provides quality planning and "value engineering" during design,
rather than after design. Practical solutions to problems have always been a
strength for Thoma Electric, Inc.
Mechanical Engineering
Brummel, Myrick and Associates (BMA) formed in 1989 to provide mechanical
engineering services to the construction community. They have designed a wide
variety of projects. Their project list ranges from educational and universfty
projects to commercial, municipal and utility projects. The firm principals are
personally involved in every project as the project engineer. They believe that
principal involvement in every project is the major key to success. In striving to
`produce the best product available, the most important asset to the firm is the
excellent staff of design professionals who are dedicated tb quality and "on-time"
performance.
i - ~ '~ ~ ~ Specialty Consultants
" ' BFGC maintains relationships with a number of specialty consultants such as
acoustical, landscape, technology, energy and other which can augment the
,,.
;. ;
,.:-_ ., consultant team on projects requiring specialized expertise.
r,.- r ,~.
'
i I >
,
''
" ~
''
~ ~9
~ ~
j
+ +
(
i J r .ii I
_.
~_I
' `~ D. i
z ~ F ~
r 9' ~
- ~ rxti c ~~ T"q
`} J - ~ Y
'F. ., a1~
:! * f
:Stir e ~~'
~~ rsu",
ie
. !r , ~
wf Y ?
5r ~ .~
3 ~v ZS pp
a 'a ~`; ~~. 'syYi d 1p t
4 f T~
~'
r ~ i
- .,~. r ~ _
~.~
City of Arroyo Grande -Police Station Expansion t`leeds Assessment and Feasibility Study
-;
_,
~ - - ~ _i
~~ - 1 _ ,,
B: ,Qualifications ~.
,~,
_ ~ ..
I _
,.
{ _-
. - :. _ ..
,. ...
i:.
,.
~ ,
,~ _ t
.-.. , _ ~ "
i , ._ _ _ « ,: ~ Resumes
~ ... `.a
_ .. ,. ; -.
,„ -
:may' i „ :, _ -
~ -
•. ,.
6 _- - _ -
:. ~ - :.
r _
i _ _ ...
, , ._ ,
„_
-i::' _
'` ,,
,, ,
_. . .
_. _ ,' ,
'. :. r. J
r .,,, .. :._, ..
e '
-_ I: _ C.
-_; ..r
1 _~ pp ~
t ~ F _
fs 1 5 f.. e 1 _
I t .v .3 'v - ~.tc 'o- e a _
r } ~t.
~+
-~. :~ ~ Y -
3 ~ j e ~~ - = y rx y t k
i ~ F e
~ ' s x r ~ y ,
~; a t" z i
..L
.f I ~ ~... 1 _ .._, ., .,
Y 1 1
~ - ~ - - - - -..:--z -
3 i
- ~'
i ~ ~ t ~ -
}
3 J J F
y ~ ~ ~'.g : > .` n .$-~ A v z ~ t 1§x 'x z ~•- 7 ? ~`o ~ xt~ '7 L ~ 4? M
+~ F J
+F+ ~+ ~ x ', y ~, ? l n .+. r.., e r 4
A 4, ._ ) '
r ~ i _E ~ :_
y ~ T ti J - ~. J 3V .. .. i
lT ' i x ,. F y + .
Ch _. ~ J i ~ r. s o 3. .
~;~ ~ ~ r a' "' Cary of Arroyo Grende~= Police Station Expansion Needs Assessment and Feasibildy Study ~ -i •~'
i. z t,F ~' ,~ . r ~^ s - x ,;
~-,
i'
Education
Califomia Polytechnic State
~~~ ! Universiy, San Luis Obispo
Bachelor of Amhitecture
(1x71)
Registration
I NCARB 28698
1978/Registered Architect,
Califomia G8702
1987/Registered Architect,
', Nevada#1950
1,
I~
I_!
~. i
( i
~_
j_I
Professional Service
Member, American Institute of
An:nitecfs- (197s-Current)
Past Presiden6 Golden Empire
AIA (1983)
Resume
Resume -BFGC Architecture
William R. Tuculet, AIA
Principal-In-Charge
Bill is the Corporation's Vice PresidenVSecretary, as well as the Principal-In-Charge of
our San Luis Obispo Office. With over 30 years of professional experience and 25 as
Principal Architect, Bill remains active as the office leader and designer. He has received
many awards over the years. Bill is a "hands-on" manager and has personally led the
modemization and design of dozens of educational facilities and districts. His "can do"
attitude has generated a successful team approach to projects at BFGC.
Relevant Project Experience
County of San Luis Obispo Sheriff's Administration Building Programming -BFGC
served as consulting architect for the development of the new San Luis Obispo Sheriff's
Administration Building Program. Our role included development of Functional
,Relationships and Program Analysis to assist the Sheriff's staff understanding and
!implication of their written program. Each department was analyzed independently and
'then as a whole to create an efficient functional program.
cnarter Memlxir (ts80) City of Santa Maria Police Department -The expansion and modemization of an
.existing fire station into a new Police facility. The remodeled station houses the
Deslgn Instructor, Bakersfield communications and dispatch center, locker rooms, the Traffic Bureau office, as well as, a
Col~ege(ts74197s) training classroom and additional offices.
Member, Hisroric Preservation
Commission (1983-1986) ~Cit of Santa Maria Essential Service Sitin and Conce fuel Desi n -BFGC
Y 9 P 9
~Archilects was initially selected to furnish Siting and Conceptual Design Services for the
Awarda establishment of a Headquarters Fire Station and future Fire Administration and
oesigntorExcenence, Emergency Operations Center. Prior to commencing work on the Headquarters Fire
soutnem Caldomia Edison, .Station Conceptual Design, the City added to the scope of work the Siting and
Emilie Kitchen Elementary
School Conce fual Desi n of a Head uarters Police Station. BFGC, to ether with Fire and Police
P 9 q 9
representatives, developed several Conceptual Site/Floor Plan Schemes for both the Fire
Honor Award, GECAIA, Kem and Police Headquarters on the same site.
County Hall of tierwrds ~.
City of Guadalupe Facilities -BFGC recently completed Master Plan Services for
Design at Excellenceaward,
GECAIA, Custom Residence ~replecement facilities for the City of Guadalupe. The project will include City
Administrative Offices; a Multipurpose Meeting/City Council Chamber, a one-stop
Award of Merit Community Development Center, Fire Department and Police Department Facilities. The
GECAIA, Apartment Complex 'new 15,000 s.f. facility will reflect the Spanish Revival character of the existng City Hall.
Award of Merit, ApartrneM '
Complex
General Oua Iiiicati on s
Awaro o/Ment, office Building Mr. Tuculet has served as Principal Design Architects and/or Master Plan Architect for
Bakers#e~d eeeut#ulawanis: literally hundreds of projects throughout Central California. Recent Master Planning
Josephina•s liestaurem 'efforts have included facilities for the City of Guadalupe and Santa Maria. In addition, Bill
Kem Land Company Building
B.B. Butler Retail Shop has completed several city governmental projects including fire stations, police
sandstone Educational center departments, and city administrative projects.
' City of Arroyo Grande -Police Station Expansion Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study
U
.-,
`'
,. ,
i Resume
I
-i
Resume -BFGC Architecture
education Craig Atkinson, AIA -Associate
Calitomia Polytechnic State
~ PfOject AfChitect
i University, San Luis Otdspo
(
' Bachelor of Science,
' ' grchitecture(isso) Craig is a BFGC Associate and Senior Project Architect with more than 10 years
experience on Industrial, Commercial and Educational projects. Craig offers
- Danish IMemational Studies
' extensive experience in essential services design and city facility projects.
Kobenhavn
s UniversRetet
. ~ Copenhagen, Denmark
(tsea-tsas)
Relevant Project Experience
Santa Maria Police Department -The expansion and modernization of an existing
Registration fire station into a new Police facility. The remodeled station houses the
Registered architect, communications and dispatch center, locker rooms, the Traffic Bureau office, as well
Calitomia c-25387 as, a training classroom and additional offices.
City of Santa Maria, New Public Library and Parking Structure -The City of
Santa Maria launched the first phase of a two-year construction project to build a
$28.3 million, 60,000-square-foot Main Library, and a new two-level parking
i , structure. The new two-story library will be built next to the existing Santa Maria
I Public library in the Civic Center at East Cook Street and Broadway. It will be twice
as large as the existing library and contain many more resources.
' ,City of Guadalupe Facilities -BFGC recently completed Master Plan Services for
j j replacement facilities for the City of Guadalupe. The project will include City
Administrative Offices; a Multipurpose MeetinglCity Council Chamber; aone-stop
~ ,Community Development Center, Fire Department and Police Department Facilities.
I
~ The new 15,000 s.f. facility will reflect the Spanish Revival character of the existing
City Hall.
City of Santa Maria, Fire Station No. 1, Phase 1 -BFGC provided complete
i ~ architectural service for the design and construction of this 7,068 square foot fire
' station, with three (3) drive-through bays. It staffs a crew of 8 to 10 people and
features daily living quarters, kitcheNdining area, turn-out gear storage lockers, and
(i a dispatch center. BFGC started our service by working with the City and fire station
l ~ personnel to form a specific project program. BFGC previously provided the site
analysis/study services (under previous contract) to coordinated the uses, vadous
possible sites with needed functions of this new facility. Phase 2 of this project is the
~ 1
~ addition of an Administration and Emergency Operations Center, when funding
I becomes available.
i I General Qualifications
i ~ Mr. Atkinson has completed several projects for public clients throughout California.
- He is a recognized leader within the BFGC organization. He currently sits on the
firm's Quality Management Committee, and serves on the North Santa Barbara
i I County Board of Architecture Review
IJ
~f
City of Airoye Grande -Police Station Expansion Needs Pssessment and Feasibility Study
U
`~
~
~
i -' - ,,--
~~
:_, -
'. B. Qualifications ~~
.. ,;
- , _
- .,
r
E
'
1 ~ ~ " _ ..
`
_,,
~ .
~.
l
~.:
'
~ _
I.; ~
_; .
;.;.
. ,- Related Project Portfolio
,
r ~: _
_ ..
;:.. •`
-: ,;z
..,
._:
,.:
-
...
,. ,.
-
.,
.:
,_
~: .
r
,,; ,: .
- .
.. ,:
-.
f- v
.
I ... .
.'
~ _
".~: , ,
~: 7.
_,
t
' ~..
~ ..
_.:
i .
- , .
_.
,
y
. _
~.:.,
.-
~ .-
,: ~
? ,, _
~
,
L
} .
-
t
u ,
~
,
z E
~ ~
F -~ ~
d. ~ -
2 f t -
~ -
' _ ..
~ . `
_
_
s
y y y
j} y e '
'
it `
~r t T C 3
~
i) T s~I'
~ w -
-, c
~ - i y ?
,,
~ ~
~.. '
~ C
F
.. .. '. .: ..
~.. x
~..
.a.-. - .. r.. .i -.- ,'
v.
.~.
: ?_
M ~ ~
~. ( { i.' .i
y
y
y ~
~ ~ 2
/ 1 5 > ..
xA T
! ~ ~
'
}
S
7 {
, f fit
t
, ~
.
x
~ ~ T ~ z ,. ~
~
'
~
~
c , .
<r .. a r. 3 y
n,ia -
-a
-
', i
,+~'
~~;
1`
i'
~:i
I
I
I ~
(_
it
I ;
t _.
t'.
11
i_~
r
(.J
LJ
~---
r-~
i
~ i
1
I
I
1
I
i ~
1
1
1
1
i
i
i
i
~-'---i
i
2nd Floor Bubble Diagram
1st Floor Bubble Diagram
,~aSS R'6 J
y~tr i ' 'l I
i
I
i
I
I
I
1
r_l
~,
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
S'~- -~
:._ _ J'•
gboriff's AdminCountty osSale Luis ObisP
i...~
+ 4
~_....
i
1
_~
i
r ,
i ~.l
~ i
~ ,
i
~ i
f
I
!i
I ~
~l
Ij
~~
The concept for this project provided for the
expansion and modernization of an existing fire station
into a new Police facility. The remodeled station houses
the communications and dispatch center, locker rooms,
the Traffic Bureau office, as well as, a training classroom
and additional offices.
This 11,000 SF project added a second level
within the existing apparatus bay envelope. It involved
foundation work and structural upgrades to carry the new
second floor loads. The project also provides for a phased
construction approach to minimize the impact on the on-
going Policefunctions.
Fire 8tation/Poliee Department
Expansion and Remodel
City of Santa Maria
U
r'.
+i
I
'- t
.~'
l I
i ~
i i
i
I
~ ~
"~
it
41
i
;I
ii
li
t.
'i
~I
~_ i
~)
i
i~
I1
IL.;
l~
I~
_~I
f
1,
~~
it
l_i
WEST
I Remodel/Addition
iAST City of Pismo Beach, CA ~ ~
i
SMELL BEACH ROAD
w-
SITE/FLOOR PLAN
LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
~. _, _ ,
A 7,068 s.f. main fire station with three (3) drive-
throughbays. Itstaffs screw of 8 to 10 people and features
daily living quarters, kitchen/dining area, tum-out gear
storage lockers, and a dispatch center. The project
includes complete integration of the electrical and
computer aided dispatch systems.
The project was completed in October of 2002.
The BFGC construction cost estimate was within 1 % of the
low bid on this project.
Fire Station No. 1
Fire Department Headquarters Facility
City of Santa Maria, California
j
i
Y aI S
k i Y ~ `
L
}i. v L
1 ' '*
>a ~ 5.4 h~ t F ~E K" etry~~ t:e
' ':~ yti °x'}i` tel.
~.~ e T ,
' _ ~ ~ ~ ~ t~ k k~i
' ?rhr'~1.2,
~rk~ki 5i ,~ ..r yp`r ,~«s~+-. x i / typ r~ ~' y' r
fY ST f
of C~ }'b ~ "i' srI'>~b~~y ~,'' Y,i-~s." n e}'T.~'' t ..,4~ {{ 3~' ^ ~.
~r}~`a ~qx ~,.~ y~ F~ ~ v ~~ '.s 7 x~l '~~ r '. ~'; y~'.w..,r.~? ~ y}~"".~` ~__ v
~~ a ~ °~~ <} ~ +~ ~~x,`t z k ~ fY,~~ir~.~f ADMINISTRATI ^
x s Y ~ `~'v yr
~} ~ F 4 ~~ _
~ .i s
Y f~~ x t;' .. ~ Y ,
h' rt. 9.r :~ y t -~ st
" '~°'~ v SLEEPING QUARTERS - .
,~.. ~ ~ ,
~r ~ ~ ~
~ +fr~~ r':: ~ .. .:
~ ~ _. c
,* ~+ ~'~~~ :~ V APPARATUS B_AY _ ~ -
I Y _.; {F f k
S ~~~nr '-~7 ~ "~,~ LIVING AREA ~ TORAGT/.
yk*A G ~ n. 1
~` AILS ~~"$~ty~~ ~~q
'.~}}Y i ~ ~ ~ O I l Y_
Mv+Ik `~~
~~MZ ~`~{ ~ b `~~.^[~. ITCH DINING ,. OFFICE w "~ -~
yyyy AREA ,` .. `s -
A 6,662 s.f. prototype, neighborhood fire station
with two (2) drive-through bays. It is to staff 8 people and
feature daily living quarters, kitchen/dining area, tum out
gearstorage lockers, and office spaces.
This project started construction in March 2004
and completed in Februaryof2005.
Fire Station No. 4
Santa Marta, CA
_,,,.,
i
-- ~
i
r:
it
i j
I
l i
r'~
I
t
'_I
i i
~ This 14,000 square foot facility serves as a County
'-' Sheriff's Substation, City Police Department, Courthouse
and Jail.
f
~_i
i
~_
U
Ridgeerest Justice Building
County of Kern
Ridgeerest, California
r-~
f ~
~ 1
C. Work Plan
.. Project Approach
! The process we propose is intended to be interactive and inclusive -allowing for
informal work sessions as well as formal decision-making and approval
l~ milestones at the end of each step.
j I ,,
The basis for the Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study must be grounded in
_ the support of operational programs. The planning premise is to be "soft" on
i participants, but "hard" on conclusions that must weather the rigors of approvals,
schedules, and budget.
~ BFGC prides itself in creating custom, tailor made solutions that respond to the
j ~ specific project conditions, client input, and the character of the area. The
following is a detailed, conceptual Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study
approach proposed for your project.
r~
i .l Note: We recommend this Assessment and Study are developed in conjunction
with aCity/Police Planning Team composed of representatives from the City and
~ the Department. BFGC will receive continuous input and review on objectives,
_, direction, issues, and findings through a series of meetings with this Planning
Team.
~ l Our process includes a high degree of client collaboration. This collaboration
L_I -_ ensures the Assessment and Study are responsive to the unique operations of
the Arroyo Grande Police Department. The techniques used to gather user
information are developed with the Planning Team in an effort to solicit the most
J - ~ useful information about the department. Ultimately, we develop a Needs
Assessment and Feasibility Study that is complete, clearly illustrated and written,
( 't and, organized for easy use.
l_i ~3 ; s ` The following describes the proposed scope of work by task:
,~
f
I-, a ' 1.0 Project Initiation Meeting
I J E ~, The Planning Team meets with BFGC to orient all participants to the project
~ ~_:; ;` vision and the planning process.
-~ _ _' City Management and BFGC meet to identify key study issues and overdding
` ~'r ~y" constraints, review the approach and schedule, and negotiate a contract in direct
~t a -
.' response to those needs.
'k. ': <u i ~ -~
I-) 2.0 Evaluation of Existing Facilities
-~ ; z
r,. This task provides an assessment of the existing facilities and site. BFGC, along
f I ~ with consuRing engineers, field verifies and evaluates the general conditions of
~_ ~ ~ - ~ the existing facilities including structure, envelope, roof, interior finishes,
mechanical and plumbing, electrical, telecommunications systems.
I_~ = ..,
~.
~~ ~ M.,~ ~ ... ~..~
,.N[..-µ,vw.
S: p
City of Anoyo Grande -Police Station Expansion tJeeds Assessment and Feasibility Study
C. Work Plan
An analysis of the existing site is also included. This site analysis is a graphic
display of the team's examination of the site. Natural surroundings of sun
orientation, wind direction, noise sources, weather patterns and views are
considered. Development factors such as topography, surrounding facilities,
existing vehicle and pedestrian traffic patterns, maximum allowable building
areas and separations, and utility locations that have an impact on the station
layout are identified.
All available documents including plans, specifications, and inspection reports
are reviewed. Existing plans are entered into our CAD system and field verified.
3.0 Police Department Assessment Meetings
The Planning Team provides BFGC the following studies for review:
• Listings of current Police staffing levels, projected growth, and
organization charts
• Statistical and other data provided by such agencies as the California
Police Chief's Association, Police Officers Standards of Training, etc.
• Other documents/reports as needed and available.
The BFGC Team, conducts meetings with members from the Police Department
to discuss:
• Vision and Process
• Functionality relative to existing and proposed programs and/or
operations
• Policies and Procedures,
• Occupants and Users
• Activities
• Department Circulation
• Quantity of Space
• Spatial Relationships
• Furniture and Equipment
• Future Trends
• Shared /Common Facilities
• Safety /Security (Operational Aspects)
• Other issues as necessary
Two (2) programming meetings have been included in the fee proposal (provided
under separate, sealed cover).
4.0 Draft Needs Assessment
A draft of the Needs Assessment is prepared. It summarizes the facility needs
and includes the assests, deficits, opportunities, and challenges presented by the
existing facilities and site(s). The following information is included in the report:
• Existing Facility Assessments
• Existing Department Assessments
-,
.:
~~
i~
I)
i
~:
i .
r
P
;:
~_ _
a:
i~
~~~..
i"" .
.. ,:; °;:
~~ i
k_I
__".~ ~~.
_`i _)
f yl.
n..'t-
' ~,
• _ ~~~
is
~~ L1
City of Arroyo Grande -Police Station Expansion Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study
~,
C. Work Plan
Projected Growth
• Departmental =Functional Relationship Diagrams
• Existing Site Analysis
rj Space Identifications with Square Footages
' Statement of Probable Cost
• Other Information as Required
j ' S.0 Management Review
a -. BFGC coordinates with the Planning Team to review and discuss the report and
- "" ' findings. Revisions are made and resubmitted, as required.
'_': .
i ~ "' ! 6.0 Feasibility Studies
- 6.1 Conceptual Studies
-1 = - ~'' Three (3) alternatives are developed for the expansion of the Police Station.
~ . ~ The addition of a second story to the existing structure. Structural
. -_ i Analysis will be required.
,•-~ - Horizontal Addition to the Northern side of the building. This will require
!~ y, ` -°'.' acquisition of the adjacent property for parking.
~ Other Options as required.
Preliminary design ideas are developed to delineate building layouts and
character. Conceptual Floor Plans, Exterior Elevations, and a Site Plan are
provided as a basis for future architectural design.
6.2 Statement of Probable Construction Cost
A Statement of Probable Cost coordinated with the anticipated timeline is
prepared.
7.0 Final Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study
BFGC prepares a report which includes all of the information obtained in the
tasks above as well as recommendations for the future development.
7.1 Review Meeting
BFGC meets with the Planning Team to receive comments for incorporation into
the final product.
i
7.2 Presentations
BFGC will present the Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study to City Staff and
to the City Council, as required:
7.3 Final Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study Report
,Based on the input received, the Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study is
'finalized.
City of Arroyo Grande - Polir-e Station Expansion Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study
4
~.
_ D. Schedule
~:,; ;,;
~ ~ "~ 'The following schedule is reflective of typical needs assessment and feasibility
! 1 ''` ; 'study.
.::~t:.
~,
i -
Total Time
~~ ~ ask
1
i 1.0 Project Initiation Meeting 1 Day
~ .~°.° ~ ' ~ 2.0 Evaluation of Existing Facilities 1 Week
,'-! 3.0 Police Department Assessment Meetings 2 Weeks
1 ~ 1 Week
' i 4.0 Dreft Needs Assessment
•,
i , 5.0 Management Review 2 Weeks
' J 6.0 Feasibility Studies 1 Month
7.0 Final Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 3 Weeks
f
i ~
I
l_
t.i .. '.U
' r
' ? f
t I 4 ~..".
x ~ :,
_ 1• -
c
I
Li
(' "-~
i
i I
F
l
{ 1
~.~ s
1~
L_I jo
(J!
ff ~I t
1.. 2,
. _1,5 `
g'r,. .,. „~.-i.,
L~ :
~I • •
City of Arroyo Grande -Police Station Expansion Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study
L~
E. Cost Proposal
,r:~~-
~'-+"~ ~ BFGC understands the constraints of public work finance, and have worked
"'4, successfully within negotiated fee schedules as appropriate. We attempt to
°' :negotiate our fee relationship with our clients in the manner most appropriate to
-' make necessary and requested services available.
1
j The following summary outlines the anticipated professional fee-for-service for
€ the City of Arroyo Grande Police Station Expansion Needs Assessment and
_, --- _, Feasibility Study. Consultants are included within the outline based upon staffing
..-. -• ~ ~` ;" support and task assignments from the Architect.
Eve
' ~~ Task Total Hrs. (Est.l Fee
' ~~ ~ '~> 1.0 Project Initiation Meeting 14 $ 2,220
^-r~'t
,,,
2.0 Evaluation of Existing Facilities 48 $ 4,460
~~`-~~°
"
`s 3.0 Police Department Assessment Meetings 14 $ 1,760
.
.
_;
`; 4.0 Draft Needs Assessment 22 $ 2,250
-- ~ <
i .
;- t„, : 5.0 Management Review 8 $ 950
•"'" ,f; 6.0 Feasibility Studies 160 $18,155
~ # ~ r.
~
~'
~ 7.0 Final Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 17 2360
• . ,-~
i :
._
i'
Sub-Total
$ 32,155
%
~~ jF`. :
r
-`.°
Sub-Consultant Fees
5 400
- ~ Total $ 37,555
We have included (on the other side of this page) our Standard Houdy Rate Schedule for
reference.
We look forward to discussing the fee basis most appropriate to your project.
V;
r=
~:`
J..
J H
City of Arroyo Grande -Police Station Expansion Needs Assessment and feasibility Sludy
E. Cost Proposal
2007 STANDARD HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE
BASIS FOR COMPENSATION
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
Senior Principal $ 185/Hr.
Principal Architect $ 175/Hr.
Associate/Project Architect $ 150-170/Hr.
Project Architect $ 125-145/Hr.
Project Manager
~ $ 90.125/Hr.
Interior Designer $ 90.125/Hr.
Technical l: (Senior/Licensed) $ 75-85/Hr.
Technical II: (Licensed) $ 70/Hr.
Technical III: (Intermediate) $ 65/Hr.
Technical IV: (AssistanUJunior) $ 55/Hr.
Administrative $ 78/Hr.
SupporVClerical $ 50-65/Hr.
Expert Witness Services $ 250/Hr.
Houdy.Rates are in eXecl unlit December 37, of the current relative year, end are subject to
annual adjustments in accordance with the normal salary review practices of the Architect.
Gity of Arroyo Grande - Prlice Station E>:pansion Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study
8.g.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE FINAL PARCEL MAP AG 04-0123
SUBDIVIDING ONE .55-ACRE RESIDENTIAL PARCEL INTO THREE
RESIDENTIAL PARCELS LOCATED AT 154 PINE STREET
DATE: MAY 22, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the Council approve Final Parcel Map AG 04-0123, subdividing one
.55-acre parcel into three parcels.
FUNDING:
There is no fiscal impact.
DISCUSSION:
The real property underlying Final Parcel Map AG 04-0123 is owned by Robert del
Campo and is located at 154 Pine Street. Approval and recordation of the final map
subdivides one residential parcel with an area of .55-acres, into three lots ranging from
7,200 to 9,600 square feet in size. The current zoning for this parcel is Single Family
(SF).
There is an existing residence with detached garage on the site. The residence will
remain in its current location. The garage will be relocated to the north side of the
house. Anew driveway will be constructed to service the relocated garage. The
existing driveway will service the two new residences. The final map is consistent with
Tentative Parcel Map 03-004, approved by the Planning Commission on October 7,
2003. The applicant has complied with all the conditions of approval and it is
recommended the Council approve Final Parcel Map AG 04-0123.
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; or
• Provide direction to staff.
Attachment: Final Parcel Map AG 04-0123
S\Public Works\Engineering\Development Projects\Parcel Maps\Parcel Maps - 2003\TPM 03-004 DEL CAMPO 154 PINE\CITV COUNCILNAAP
APPROVAL1Council Memo -Acceptance of Final Map for Parcel Map 04-0123.doc
NOTE:
AT TXE IIME OF OEYElI1PMENT OP P/JKEL$ 3 NiD 3.
THE MLLO"~ P" IRE 5 SYNLLDL'Y6E P~HO`AYDFA W~1111~A : ~ -\ 1
SEPAflATE WATEfl UTEILLL MID YEIER. ~.-
B. SMD PARCELS SHML BE P(iWlOm WITH A \~" Py~I ~h- p/" RJ
SEPAMTE 5 LA
--~I I
Op b 5 ~ ~ ~,~a~b N ' l
F rme rum p' '~ % p' /pV"85 \ i, fI ~~ I DRAINAGE EASEMENT NOTE:
ur mmasi ~ ~ ~}'•{w, YI. UYCDaaMam 1eLTMlglstuns sRYL
~i r.assa/ - _.__ ' h ~+' TMN rMS°EES m nEaa a
\ mYmD PAOYGf! asxus AL EarRmm
mm.Ya t~s~~ti \ \ W~~~
i . pP / ma's'B ` \ ~ W smws vaL a wlmnsn.
~" ~ `\ ~
N ' `\ \ ~ 1
i ~~/[ 1 / Dn~N[ 2 s\\ ~ I I EASEMENT LINES:
S f/rlM Y \ , LI gPSFICY q.V
.xvmR/Y' rsr ryrL~ ,ssrm'intls'yJ/ ~y \ \1 ~ u xssclvY sc.xs•
p 1$¢ p Y prnY nLJf (M/ .B9lJiW ]lJ.IY (~'1 p R I I u xe"~i3c~~ s~
i O rt0[ r/ n main ucr~l wsTa~IU PU ' / \ I u xersewrY rm
~/ ~y re]rl>nr ~~ u swaruL ].i.w
__ __ 29_9
~ ]m:AS~fi' ace- .+elslt~~".~r~ri~tifw -1 - -~ S$ u mM°°mwrmi i''arv
, ~, ~~ u xasewrY lus•
'~ ~ 11 I V 1.1,
~~ iti-N 1~ ~ SRES RRC
I~ 3~`MF•~ ~~ ~ i I ~ ~4 REFERENCE KEY
ti R~tl .~ Cppwppj. I I I i al -]Ywsn p-auN
~;~y ~ P. I I m-Iwss a-uux
I ~
~ y~~ a ~ I/ 1 i 30'1' a6 q - N PY N Ile - 31 RI 31
, bs
g$~~ 2r rMm irrr g raq¢r'au s MgOrm ''
ib I~g amt Timsmrt•arsr aDS mum 2.alar aae aasm n.. nn,Y. i'g 6g I ~ urucs~ nn6. m'~aL4s
J 8`y YE exam rx.nra rs t4 rn.~xmrmrt=nmr w rm ne]m ~.arM Ae
IW Lops ~ V ~ R 11i1. W V -__ CDO6aN6 uFAg~yO~ SEYW
i i N ~ ________ ELSdEM 1I6
~V-E~~ ~ n ~ u ~,~ I ' ~I `~ ~'~ eeY. cvalurm ®vmase unnr
', ~ ~ ~ ,F ~ i~ i 1111=--~$$ ' L~$r, ~ ~quro~uwugas u w'nwE
~ I Op T S'am' ~ ~ IY / ~i j' a/d i i g~ O sLT r P, xo: mw] ® ~rtrmur
Ih L ps ,y ~ `~~ y/MplyA ~ •$~~ sQ ~~ I i >4 ie
y ~ 6 ~` ~tl u p" i i MONUMENT „KEY
•~ YI ~ ~ fdlm l IP pW, LS M)1 ffA q
.: a .~ I I pi 4 Rs q .... RMYq m PIDYDW Yla rm RI
] ~ L w ~ ~ roam r Iv avl ~ lc~m~ sm q Z
MAS6'b'P 16.W' = :9YS(SY[ !/iq': n . roam r \P naG ]sses, q
. ~ ~' ~ Ye room yr u, as aeoe, ru q
' ,Ymnwrmmm s PARCEL MAP AG-04-0123
,mssrl. mar (a`,! ]ros~atar lt'aEl v~i W So.o~ f
Z~------ --- ~ PARCEL "I" OF PARCEL MAP
_ __ ___ ~I al' K AG-66-106, IN THE CITY OP ~
I
Ot p ----- - --- -------- Op = --- ~ LOp 5 p~ SAN LUIS OBISP~O CSTATE OF
L YI L ps -- ~ CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP =
_.-_
g ~ -- RECORDED OCTOBER 10, 1966 I ~
' LOTI LOPS' f LOp 6. ps BK. 1 PC. 55 OF PARCEL MAPS s
~ ~ CIvY bYlgtrueri+p
5~~~{
-- Ropci ~Inpnur~t
f _ __________MA_ PLE _STREE_T _______ ` ~ "' ~°'"" °m ]'^"
~ ~ L rmYa GenJ,. G 93N0
L Oagye yµE (.p IIEBggy G00-NMI]31
' a® DEcemEer, 200 sMee s e 9 ..,, ,;a,^O'~"'n°n°3
8.h.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE TO COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS
OF SENATE BILL 53, CHAPTER 591 OF STATUTES OF 2006, AS
CODIFIED IN CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION
33342.7, BY DESCRIBING THAT THE ARROYO GRANDE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO
ACQUIRE REAL PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN AND
THEREFORE HAS NO PROGRAM TO ACQUIRE REAL PROPERTY BY
EMINENT DOMAIN
DATE: MAY 22, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance to comply with
requirements of Senate Bill 53, Chapter 591 of Statutes of 2006, as codified in
California Health and Safety Code Section 33342.7, by describing that the Arroyo
Grande Redevelopment Agency does not have authority to acquire real property by
eminent domain and therefore has no program to acquire real property by eminent
domain.
FUNDING:
There is no cost impact to the City from the proposed action.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed Ordinance was introduced by the City Councii at the May 8, 2007
meeting. SB 53 was adopted by the California State Legislature during the 2006
legislative session and became effective January 1, 2007. It requires the legislative
body of every community that has a redevelopment plan to adopt an ordinance
describing the redevelopment agency's "program to acquire real property by eminent
domain." As a result, it is referred to as an "SB 53 Ordinance."
According to the City's redevelopment legal counsel, the Legislature and Governor were
apparently unaware that no redevelopment agency has a "program" to adopt real
property by eminent domain. Agencies follow what is in their redevelopment plans and
in the California Eminent Domain Law. The Legislature also did not differentiate
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF SB 53 ORDINANCE
MAY 22, 2007
PAGE 2
between communities that have redevelopment plans that authorize the acquisition of
real property by eminent domain from those communities with redevelopment agencies
with no eminent domain authority, such as Arroyo Grande.
Nonetheless, the City is required under the legislation to adopt the SB 53 Ordinance to
comply with State law by identifying that its redevelopment plan does not authorize the
acquisition of real property by eminent domain. The attached SB 53 Ordinance
contains language that complies with all of the SB 53 requirements, which must be
adopted by the City Council no later than June 30, 2007.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the City Council's consideration:
- Approve staffs recommendation and adopt the Ordinance;
- Make modifications as appropriate and reintroduce the Ordinance;
- Do not adopt the Ordinance and direct staff to take other action to seek
compliance with SB 53;
- Provide staff with direction.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE TO COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS OF
SENATE BILL 53, CHAPTER 591 OF STATUTES OF 2006, AS
CODIFIED IN CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
SECTION 33342.7, BY DESCRIBING THAT THE ARROYO
GRANDE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DOES NOT HAVE
AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE REAL PROPERTY BY EMINENT
DOMAIN AND THEREFORE HAS NO PROGRAM TO ACQUIRE
REAL PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Declaration of Purpose
A. The Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") is organized and
existing under the California Community Redevelopment Law which is codified at Health
and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq. (the "CRL").
B. By adoption of Ordinance No. 487 C.S. on June 17, 1997, the City Council of
the City of Arroyo Grande, in compliance with the CRL and other applicable law, adopted
the Redevelopment Plan for the Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Project, as amended from
time to time with technical amendments as authorized by the CRL (the "Redevelopment
Plan"). The Redevelopment Plan delineates the Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Project
Area (the "Project Area").
C. By enactment of Senate Bill 53 (Stats.2006, Ch. 591), the CRL was amended
to add Health and Safety Code Section 33342.7 to require that communities with
redevelopment plans adopted prior to January 1, 2007 must adopt an ordinance prior to
July 1, 2007, that contains a description of the redevelopment agency's program to acquire
real property by eminent domain. It is the purpose and intent of the City Council, with the
adoption of this Ordinance, to comply with Senate Bill 53 by describing that the Agency
does not have a program to acquire real property by eminent domain because the
Redevelopment Plan does not authorize the Agency to acquire real property by eminent
domain.
Section 2: The_ Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Aoencv Does Not Have A Program to
Acquire Real Property By Eminent Domain.
A. The Redevelopment Plan does not grant the Agency the authority to authority
to acquire real property by the use the power of eminent domain and therefore the Agency
does not have any program to acquire real property by eminent domain. The foregoing
limitation on the Agency's authority may be changed only by amending the Redevelopment
Plan pursuant to the CRL.
B. Nothing in this Ordinance is intended to, or shall, act to limit or extend the
authority of the Agency or the City as may be provided in the Redevelopment Plan or the
CRL or other applicable law or regulation.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 2
Section 3: Adoption of Ordinance Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
The City Council finds and determines that the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) [14 C.C.R. § 15061(b)(3)] which sets forth the rule
that "CEQA" applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect
on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the
activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not
subject to CEQA." This Ordinance merely restates Redevelopment Plan provisions and
does not cause or implement any specific application or project. The City Clerk is hereby
authorized to file a Notice of Exemption with the County of San Luis Obispo pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15062(c).
Section 4: Required Proceedings. All required proceedings and considerations
precedent to the adoption of this Ordinance have been regularly taken in accordance with
applicable law.
Section 5: Severabilitv. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause,
phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid by a final judgment
of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have
adopted this Ordinance and each, section subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion
of this Ordinance irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subdivisions, sentences,
clauses, phrases, or portions of this Ordinance be declared invalid.
Section 6: Ordinance Not To Be Codified. This Ordinance shall not be codified in the
Municipal Code but shall be an uncodified ordinance.
Section 7: Publication. A summary of this Ordinance has been published in a
newspaper published and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days prior
to the City Council at which this Ordinance has been adopted. A certified copy of the full
text of this Ordinance has been posted in the in the office of the Director of Administrative
Services/City Clerk. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of this Ordinance, the summary
with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance shall
be published again, and the Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk shall post a
certified copy of the full text of this adopted Ordinance.
Section 8: Effectiveness. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its
adoption.
On motion by Council Member seconded by Council Member
,and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this day of , 2007.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 3
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL
CITY ATTORNEY
9.a.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
On TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2007, the Arroyo Grande City Council will conduct public hearings at
7:00 P.M. in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET, to consider the following
items:
y 1. .Appeal of Viewshed Review Case No. 06-006 - 190 Fairview Drive; Appellant: David
and Rolanda Tennant. The City Council will consider an appeal of the Planning
Commission's approval of Viewshed Review Case No. 06-006 allowing expansion of the
ground floor and addition of a second story to an existing single-family residence.
2. Newsom Springs Regional Drainage Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
The public is invited to provide public comments on the Newsom Springs Regional
Drainage Plan Draft EIR. The public review period began on April 23, 2007 and ends on
June 7, 2007. After June 7, 2007, City consultants will respond to comments and
release the Final EIR. The Final EIR is tentatively scheduled to be considered at the July
24, 2007 City Council meeting. The public may request a copy of the Draft EIR (hard
copy or electronic) from the City of Arroyo Grande's Community Development
Department. Copies are available for review at the Public Works Department at 208
East Branch Street and at the South County Library at 800 West Branch Street. The
document is also available for viewing and /or downloading on the City's website at
www.arroyogrande. org.
3. Development Code Amendment 07-002 -Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter
16.60 of Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Relating to Signs. The City
Council will consider changes to Chapter 16.60 (Signs) of Title 16 of the Municipal Code
related to clean-up language needed for internal consistency, as well as changes to
substantive and procedural standards regarding accessory, exempt, and prohibited
signs.
The Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or after the items listed
above. If you challenge the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Failure of any
person to receive the notice shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the action of
the legislative body for which the notice was given...
Information relating to the above items is available by contacting the Community Development
Department at 473-5420. The City Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable
Channel 20.
/s/ Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk
Publish 1T, The Tribune, Friday, May 11, 2007
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROB STRONG COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
BY: RYAN FOSTER, ASSISTANT PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S
APPROVAL OF VIEWSHED REVIEW 06-006; 190 FAIR VIEW DRIVE
DATE: MAY 22, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached Resolution, denying the appeal
and approving Viewshed Review 06-006 as submitted.
FUNDING:
No fiscal impact.
DISCUSSION:
Background
Viewshed Review 06-006 was originally approved by the Community Development Director
and reported to the Planning Commission on June 6, 2006 (Attachment 1). Due to two (2)
letters from neighbors opposing the project (one of which was later retracted), the Planning
Commission appealed the Community Development Director's decision. A public hearing
before the Planning Commission was held on July 13, 2006 at which time the Commission
continued consideration of the project to allow for the project to be revised based on
Commission discussion (Attachment 2). On March 20, 2007, the Planning Commission
reviewed revised plans and unanimously approved the project (Attachment 3). The
Commission's decision was appealed to the City Council on March 29, 2007 (Attachment
4). The applicant has submitted a letter outlining the process that the project has been
through to this point (Attachment 5).
Project Description
The proposed project consists of a ground floor addition and construction of a second-
story to a single-story, single-family home located at 190 Fair View Drive. The existing
home totals 1,400 square-feet with a 408 square-foot garage. The proposed plans
include expanding two areas of the ground floor, totaling 1,285 square-feet and adding a
445 square-foot second-story over the garage, bringing the total floor area of the
structure to 3,130 square-feet. The proposed plans also include a covered deck that
would wrap around the west and south sides of the second-story addition.
S:\Community DevelopmenflPROJECTS\VSR\06006WPL_CC_RPT.doc
CITY COUNCIL
VIEWSHED REVIEW 06-006 APPEAL
MAY 22, 2007
PAGE 2 OF 4
Development Standards
The proposed project complies with all applicable development standards for the Single-
Family (SF) zoning district as illustrated in the following table:
Standard Minimum/Maximum Pro osed
Front and setback 20' 20' existin
Side and setbacks 5' 6'-5" new , 5' existin
Rear and setback 15' 26' new
Lotcovera a 40% 38.2%
Floor area ratio FAR 0.50 0.387
Buildin hei ht 30' 23'-2" new
' Balconies antl decks are not inClutled in Ca1CU/a6ons for either lot coverage or floor area ratio (both are
considered to be open space)
Project Revisions
When the project was first approved by the Community Development Director, the
proposed second-story (covered deck) was located flush with the front of the garage.
Based on direction from the Planning Commission (July 13, 2006), the applicant has
revised the project to move the second-story back 5' and move the supporting columns
back 2' in an effort to preserve a limited southern view from the structure at 1239
Brighton Avenue (this is the project that was approved by the Planning Commission on
March 20, 2007).
Basis of Appeal
The Planning Commission's approval of the project was appealed for several reasons, as
stated in Attachment 4. Most of these reasons are based on the Planning Commission's
findings, which are required to either approve or deny an application for viewshed review.
The required findings are discussed below.
Reouired Findincts
When considering approval for a viewshed review, there are three (3) findings that must
be made by the approving authority. It is important to note that while the viewshed
review process is intended to preserve the existing scale and character of single-family
neighborhoods and to protect views, aesthetics and other property values, this must be
balanced against allowing reasonable use and development of the property in question.
The viewshed review process does not guarantee that existing views will be
preserved, only that existing views will not be unreasonably or unnecessarily affected by
new construction. The Planning Commission made each of these findings as illustrated
below:
1. The proposed structure is consistent with the intent of this section
(16.16.110).
The stated purpose of Development Code Section 16.16.110 is "...to
preserve the existing scope and character of established single-family
neighborhoods and to protect views and aesthetics and other property
S:\Community Development)PROJECTS\VSR\06-0O6VaPL_CC_RPT.doc
CITY COUNCIL
VIEWSHED REVIEW 06-006 APPEAL
MAY 22, 2007
PAGE 3 OF 4
values in such neighborhoods in a manner that is compatible with
reasonable expansion on existing developed lots and/or a new development
on existing undeveloped lots': The existing scope and character of the
neighborhood will be preserved with construction of the proposed second-
story addition as it is consistent with other two-story structures in the vicinity;
additionally, the bulk of the proposed ground Floor addition is located at the
rear of the structure, keeping its scale and mass when viewed from the
street consistent with other structures in the vicinity. Views, aesthetics and
other property values will be protected fo the extent allowed by reasonable
expansion of the structure located at 190 Fair View Drive, where reasonable
use is judged in light of other second-story additions that have been built in
the vicinity.
2. The proposed structure is consistent with the established scale and
character of the neighborhood and will not unreasonably or unnecessarily
affect views of surrounding properties.
Although the proposed structure approaches the maximum lot coverage
allowed in the Single-Family (SF) zoning district, the entire ground floor
addition will be located at the rear of the existing structure -the existing side
yard setback on south side of the property will be reduced by 4; however,
the addition is set back 77' from the front of the property. While the total
proposed floor area is larger than other structures in the vicinity, it is
important to note that the scale and character of a structure is based on
perception, not raw square-footage. The proposed structure is well below
the maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) -the second-story addition
constitutes only 14.3% of the total floor area. Additionally, the second-story
addition is set back from the front of the garage -the covered deck is set
back 5' from the front of the garage and the wall is set back 12' from the front
of the garage. This addition will change the scale and character of the
structure; however, the structure will still be consistent with the established
scale and character of the neighborhood, which includes both homes that
were built as two-story structures and homes that have added second-
stories over existing single-story structures. There are no significant views
of surrounding properties that will be affected by the proposed structure.
3. The proposed structure will not unreasonably or unnecessarily interfere with
the scenic view from any other property, judged in light of permitting
reasonable use and development of the property on which the proposed
structure or expansion is to occur.
The proposed structure will interfere with the scenic view from the second
floor of the structure located 1239 Brighton Avenue, to an extent. The
structure at 1239 Brighton Avenue has two second-story decks, one located
at the front of the structure and one located at the rear of the structure. The
S:\Community Development\PROJECTS\VSR\06-0O6V+PL_CC_RPT.doc
CITY COUNCIL
VIEWSHED REVIEW 06-006 APPEAL
MAY 22, 2007
PAGE 4 OF 4
front deck has scenic views to both the west and south, while the rear deck
has scenic views to the south. There is also asouth-facing second-story
window located towards the front of the structure. The proposed structure
will obstruct the scenic views to the south from the rear deck; however, no
scenic views to the west from the front deck will be affected. and the scenic
views to the south from the front deck and window will be minimally impacted
due to the second-floor setback of the proposed structure. In staff's and the
Planning Commission's opinion, the interference with the scenic views from
1239 Brighton Avenue caused by the proposed structure are not
unreasonable or unnecessary when fudged in light of oermittinp reasonable
occur.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are presented for Council consideration:
1. Adopt the attached Resolution, denying the appeal and approving Viewshed
Review 06-006 with the required findings as discussed above;
2. Do not adopt the attached Resolution, tentatively uphold the appeal, provide
supporting findings for denial of the project and direct staff to return with a
supporting Resolution; or
3. Provide direction to staff
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission minutes, June 6, 2006
2. Planning Commission minutes, July 13, 2006
3. Planning Commission minutes, March 20, 2007
4. Appeal of Planning Commission's approval of Viewshed Review 06-006
5. Letter from applicant
S:\Community Development\PROJECTS\VSR\06.OO6V~PL_CC_RPT.doc
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF VIEWSHED
REVIEW 06-006 AND APPROVING VIEWSHED REVIEW
06-006; LOCATED AT 190 FAIR VIEW DRIVE; APPLIED
FOR BY MIKE AND NANCY ATKISSON
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande adopted Resolution
No. 07-2028, approving Viewshed Review 06-006 on March 20, 2007; and
WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was filed with the City
Clerk on March 29, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered this appeal at a
duly noticed public hearing on May 22, 2007 in accordance with the Municipal Code of
the City of Arroyo Grande; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the
following findings can be made in an affirmative manner:
1. The proposed structure is consistent with the intent of this section (16.16.110).
The stated purpose of Development Code Section 16.16.110 is "...to preserve
the existing scope and character of established single-family neighborhoods and
to protect views and aesthetics and other property values in such neighborhoods
in a manner that is compatible with reasonable expansion on existing developed
lots and/or a new development on existing undeveloped lots" The existing
scope and character of the neighborhood will be preserved with construction of
the proposed second-story addition as it is consistent with other two-story
structures in the vicinity; additionally, the bulk of the proposed ground floor
addition is located at the rear of the structure, keeping its scale and mass when
viewed from the street consistent with other structures in the vicinity. Views,
aesthetics and other property values will be protected to the extent allowed by
reasonable expansion of the structure located at 190 Fair View Drive, where
reasonable use is judged in light of other second-story additions that have been
built in the vicinity.
2. The proposed structure is consistent with the established scale and character of
the neighborhood and will not unreasonably or unnecessarily affect views of
surrounding properties.
Although the proposed structure approaches the maximum lot coverage allowed
in the Single-Family (SF) zoning district, the entire ground floor addition will be
located at the rear of the existing structure -the existing side yard setback on
south side of the property will be reduced by 4;' however, the addition is set back
77' from the front of the property. While the total proposed floor area is larger
than other structures in the vicinity, it is important to note that the scale and
character of a structure is based on perception, not raw square-footage. The
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
proposed structure is well below the maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) -
the second-story addition constitutes only 14.3% of the total floor area.
Additionally, the second-story addition is set back from the front of the garage -
the covered deck is set back 5' from the front of the garage and the wall is set
back 12' from the front of the garage. This addition will change the scale and
character of the structure; however, the structure will still be consistent with the
established scale and character of the neighborhood, which includes both homes
that were built as two-story structures and homes that have added second-
stories over existing single-story structures. There are no significant views of
surrounding properties that will be affected by the proposed structure.
3. The proposed structure will not unreasonably or unnecessarily interfere with the
scenic view from any other property, judged in light of permitting reasonable use
and development of the property on which the proposed structure or expansion
is to occur.
The proposed structure will interfere with the scenic view from the second floor of
the structure located 1239 Brighton Avenue, to an extent. The structure at 1239
Brighton Avenue has two second-story decks, one located at the front of the
structure and one located at the rear of the structure. The front deck has scenic
views to both the west and south, while the rear deck has scenic views to the
south. There is also asouth-facing second-story window located towards the
front of the structure. The proposed structure will obstruct the scenic views to
the south from the rear deck; however, no scenic views to the west from the front
deck will be affected, and the scenic views to the south from the front deck and
window will be minimally impacted due to the second-floor setback of the
proposed structure. In staff's and the Planning Commission's opinion, the
interference with the scenic views from 1239 Brighton Avenue caused by the
proposed structure are not unreasonable or unnecessary when ~~~dged in light of
permitting reasonahle use and development of the ~pPny on which the
proposed e~~nansion is to occur.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande hereby denies the appeal and approves Viewshed Review 06-006, with the
above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference.
On motion by Council Member ,seconded by Council Member ,and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 22nd day of May, 2007.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 4
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VIEWSHED REVIEW 06-006
190 FAIR VIEW DRIVE
This approval authorizes the expansion of the ground floor and addition of a second-floor
to the existing single-story, single-family residence located at 190 Fair View Drive.
The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and City
requirements as are applicable to this project.
The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Viewshed Review 06-
006.
The applicant shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought
against the City, its present or former agents, officers, or employees because of
the issuance of said approval, or in anyway relating to the implementation thereof,
or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the
City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorney's fee's
which the City, its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay
as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its
own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not
relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this condition.
4. Development shall conform to the approved plans for Viewshed Review 06-006,
on file in the Community Development Department.
5. Development shall conform to the Single-Family (SF) zoning requirements
except as otherwise approved.
ATTACHMENT1
Commissioner Ray requested Administrative Item 4, be pulled and scheduled for public
hearing due to the number of letters received from the public regarding this item.
Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to pull
Administrative Item 4, Viewshed Review 06-006, located at 190 Fairview Avenue, for a
public hearing.
AYES: Commissioner Ray, Brown, Parker and Chair Fellows
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Tait
ATTACHMENT 2
B. VIEWSHED REVIEW CASE NO. 06-006; APPLICANT
ATKISSON; LOCATION -190 FAIRVIEW DRIVE ` '
Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster, presented the staff report for consideration of a second
story addition to an existing 1,400 sq. ft. residence with garage. The addition includes
1,728 sq. ft. of new living space, of which 479 sq. ft. is on the second floor. For the
record, he noted that the Tennants had sent an additional letter with photos to Planning
Commissioners earlier this morning (copies on file in Community Development
Department).
In response to Commissioner questions, Mr. Foster stated the time from application has
been about six weeks, which is fairly normal turnaround for a Viewshed Review that
goes to public hearing; the deck/balcony at 1231 Brighton seems to be from a single
story home (not 2-story), but he wasn't sure; and with the addition, the new square
footage of the home (not including garage) would be just under 3,100 square feet.
Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment.
Mike and Nancy Atkisson, applicants, spoke in support of the project. She noted that
the Gastineaus had spoken with them and decided to withdraw their objection. They
have owned this property for 17 years, always planning to remodel for when they
retired. They discussed the compatibility with development and building codes,
consistency with the character of the neighborhood, equal property rights and equal
protection of views (shared photos), and privacy issues. They have offered two
concessions for the Tennants: no windows on that side and a privacy wall.
Commissioner questions to Mr. and Mrs. Atkisson and their replies.
Brown:
• Have you talked to neighbors about the plans? We've known them 17 years,
talked to them about the plans, and wish they would have discussed their
concerns before writing an objection letter.
• Letters from both sides show quite a bit of animosity - is anything else going on?
No, we were stunned.
Parker:
• Would it help if the roof style were modified (less peaked)? It seems like if
wouldn't make much difference -that the concern is the bulk of the addition.
Tait
• How would it block the lower bathroom window if the addition were moved toward
the back? The end wall would be too close for a window, and there would have
to be a vent fan, but we're concerned about moisture problems. Also, if if were
moved back, it would block the view of 1231 Brighton and the Gastineaus.
Fellows
• Won't the balcony be even with the Tennants' balcony? About that and the wall
would add privacy.
Jeanne Barks. 1231 Brighton Ave., submitted comments in writing (read aloud by Chair
Fellows and on file at Community Development Department). She noted that she would
also be losing some of her view and that the home would be much larger (a different
character) than the rest of the neighborhood.
Rolanda Tennant. 1239 Briohton Ave., voiced opposition to the project based on two
issues: obstruction of view (which will devalue their property value) and size (out of
scale with the neighborhood). She requested more accurate information for review
before deciding. In response to Commission questions, Mrs. Tennant responded that
she's more concerned with the view than with privacy (in reference to the privacy wall
offer); height is only part of the issue; and in regards to CEQA, her understanding is
they can only increase the house to a certain size and the proposal more than doubles
the square footage.
David Tennant. 1239 Brighton Ave., discussed some of the main points from his letter
dated July 10, 2006 (on file in Community Development Department). He never felt
he owned the view, but didn't feel they need to give up as much as proposed. He wants
his neighbors to enjoy their house. He discussed measurement challenges, average
neighborhood square footage, location of second stories on neighboring homes,
difference in building heights, and loss of property value and use along with loss of
view. He believes there's room for common ground and equitable solutions. In
response to Commission questions, Mr. Tennant responded that the photos (#1-4) show
views from anywhere on the south side of the house; he pointed out view areas on the
photos which would . be blocked by the second story and back balcony; and his
understanding is there's a 5' difference from his balcony to the new one. In conclusion,
he agreed the Atkissons had told them about an addition, but he hadn't seen the plans
or had much chance to talk to them much about it.
Nancy Atkisson agreed with the need for accurate information and noted that her
architect has correct calculation information for her house only. She noted that size isn't
part of the viewshed issue, as the bulk of the addition is at ground level in the back.
The Tennants will lose a portion, but not all of their view.
Chair Fellows closed the hearing for public comment.
Commission comments:
Tait
• Are the Tennants' measurements different from the staff report? Mr. Foster
replied that the measurements on file are for the proposed project only, not for
the neighbors' houses, which is fypical.
• How do the setbacks compare for the second stories of the Atkisson and
Tennant houses? The only way fo be precise is to hire a professional to do a
survey.
• Does square footage of the entire addition apply for this viewshed review in
terms of "scale and scope of the neighborhood"? Normally, discussion for
viewsheds focuses on views from public right of way only, such as the massing
of the second story. Although a 3,000 sf house might not be in character with the
existing neighborhood, the rear ground Floor addition won't affect the viewshed.
• He agreed that accurate information is important. Staff information is unbiased,
so he relies on staff reports.
• He appreciated the end of the Tennant's letter and really hopes there is room for
common ground for a solution. He would prefer the neighbors get together over
coffee or even with a mediator to try to work things out, and doesn't feel he can
make a decision right now.
Parker
• She agreed with Commissioner Tait at the end.
• It does fit the character of the neighborhood, since there are several 2-stories.
• Since the size of the house meets development code standards and the bulk is
on the ground floor, that's not an issue.
• In regards to viewshed issues, she initially thought it would block the Tennants'
partial view from the back balcony, but so long as the front was good, that would
just be a compromise. After presentation, it seems the entire south view will be
blocked, so she would like to see the upper floor minimized to the rear.
Brown
Viewshed reviews are highly subjective, but he feels the Community
Development Director made the right decision the first time. They're not
protected from losing some view. If commissioners believe, as he does, that the
neighbors could work out a better solution between themselves, he would be
amenable to continuance for additional time for discussion between the
neighbors.
Although additional information could be presented, commissioners must have a
certain amount of faith and trust in the Community Development Director. He
trusts his judgment and planning background to make good decisions.
Ray
• She agreed with Commissioner Brown, but there's still a lot of misunderstanding
and she wished the architect here were present to add to available information.
At the same time, she hasn't seen anything to convince her the Community
Development Director made a bad decision.
• She inclined to approve it, but if it's the will of the commission to continue it for
further discussion between the neighbors she's okay with that as well
Fellows
All three findings need to be made and he agrees with 1, but has problems with 2
and 3. In regards to 2 (character of the neighborhood), both second stories are
over the garage, which isn't seen in new homes. Instead they're usually setback
from the front, which is better design. If the second story addition was at the
rear, it appears it would be less in the way of the neighboring views. In regards
to 3 (opposing views), the Atkisson's second story does interfere with the
Tennants' view. As proposed, the two front decks would be side by side, and the
Tennants would have to look through pillars or at their neighbors for views of
Point Sal and the dunes. It would be better to setback the addition. He agreed,
as a real estate agent, that a view can be worth thousands of dollars. He would
like the neighbors to work things out amongst themselves, however, if possible.
Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment.
Ms. Barks reminded commissioners that the rear addition to the house would
completely block her view of the ocean from the single story deck.
Chair Fellows closed the hearing for public comment.
Further comments:
Mr. Strong suggested reducing the roofline by pulling back the balcony overhang
about 5', to allow for more view. If that would be considered by the Atkissons, it
may be a middle ground for both parties to agree upon.
o Chair Fellows suggested pulling it back as much as 7' and/or changing the
location of the second story addition.
o Mr. Strong responded that if the second story addition was completely
relocated (instead of just pulled back), an additional notice would need to
be sent to neighbors, as it could affect different ones' views.
o Commissioners Ray and Parker were amenable to pulling the roofline
back if it's acceptable to both the Atkissons and Tennants.
Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment.
Mr. Atkission said he had considered pulling back the roof overhang, but wasn't ready to
make a decision at this time. Mrs. Atkisson requested the suggestion in writing (to be
provided via a copy of these minutes).
Mr. Tennant restated that he would like to see accurate, verifiable measurements and
added that he's willing to compromise.
• Commissioner Ray requested that a rendition of the south side silhouette of the
two homes be prepared if further review is needed.
Mrs. Tennant agreed that professional measurements of their house would be welcome.
Consensus was the commissioners would like both parties to work together on an
agreeable solution, instead of having to live with whatever is resolved by someone else.
They would like to offer the quickest permit path through Planning Commission by
leaving open options for Administrative Approval of a redesign, and/or appeals to
Planning Commission and City Council as necessary.
Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to continue the
item in order to allow applicants and their neighbors time to discuss the design and to
allow the Community Development Director to approve the project as an Administrative
Decision for future report or bring it back to public hearing as he sees fit.
Discussion on motion: Commissioner Parker asked about holding a place on the
September 5 agenda. Mr. Strong noted it depends on the agendizing process - as an
Administrative Decision or further Public Hearing. Either way, each party can appeal
and delay approval an additional 2-3 months as things are now.
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Brown, Ray, Parker, Tait and Chair Fellows
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTACHMENT3
B. VIEWSHED REVIEW CASE NO. 06-006; LOCATION - 190 FAIRVIEW DRIVE;
APPLICANT -MIKE AND NANCY ATKISSON
Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster, presented the staff report for consideration of a
proposal to expand the ground floor and add asecond-floor to an existing single-story,
single-family residence. In conclusion, Mr. Foster explained that after the Community
Development Director's approval (by consent agenda) was contested by two neighbors
and appealed by Planning Commission; a public hearing took place July 13, 2006. At
that meeting the Planning Commission continued the matter to proposal to give the
applicant time to work out the differences with the neighbors and submit revised plans.
One of the neighbors has since withdrawn their opposition. Mr. Foster then described
the revised plans and stated that in staffs opinion the viewshed review meets all the
required findings and recommended approval of the Viewshed Review Case No. 06-
006.
Chair Ray opened the public hearing for public comment, and stated that this proposal
had caused much contention between neighbors, the Commission has received an
enormous amount of information in their packets, and asked that public testimony not
include past history which they had already received.
Steve Babcock, representative, described how the plans had been revised to
accommodate the panoramic view of the neighbors concentrated on their primary view;
they were aware that some of their view would be affected.
Mike Atkisson, applicant, gave some recent history of efforts to appease their neighbors
concerns, and explained that due to ill health he and his wife wished to make the
modifications to increase the size of the home (ADA requirements) to enable them to
retire in their home.
Nancy Atkisson, applicant, stated they had taken their neighbor's concerns very
seriously and had done all they could to lesson the impact on their neighbor's view.
However, it seemed that no matter what they proposed it was impossible to presence all
of their neighbor's views (as requested by the Commission at the last meeting).
Dave Tennant, 1239 Brighton Avenue, they do have a problem with the modified plans
as they like to use the view from their back deck and this will block that view; wherever
the applicants put their second story they will gain a 100% view and we will still loose
70-78% of their view. The views that are in question are clearly to the south and
southwest; an equitable solution would be to move the second story addition back 20
feet to preserve some of their rear deck view; he believes the proposed addition does
not fit the scale and character of the neighborhood.
Rolanda Tennant, 1239 Brighton Avenue, stated why she believed the findings for the
viewshed review could not be made; the proposed remodel is out of scope, scale, and
character and if approved will set a precedent and ultimately harm the neighborhood.
Chris Macer, Brighten Avenue, stated that the Atkisson's are taking views and are
therefore taking property values; she is against the proposal.
Bob Stierwalt, Fairview Avenue, stated homeowners should have a right to do what they
like with their properties (taking into consideration their neighbors). At this point he
believed the Atkisson's have done everything possible to accommodate the concerns of
their neighbors and they should be allowed to improve their property.
Chair Ray closed the public hearing for public comment.
Mr. Babcock: addressed issues raised by public comment, explaining why the proposed
addition would not severely impact the Tennant's primary view. However, if they moved
the addition further back on the property as suggested it would impact two other
neighbor's views.
In reply to questions regarding the plans, from Commissioner Keen, Mr. Babcock noted
the discrepancy on Plan Al and stated that he would correct this; re the elevator/roof
height -the architect had found an elevator that did not need so much room above it
and that would still be to code.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Barneich, Mr. Foster stated that the 3,150
square feet was floor area living space, but the scale and massing was not visible from
the front.
Chair Ray closed the public hearing for public comment.
Commission comments:
Kristen:
• It is an insurmountable task to preserve everyone's view; the Commission works
within the Community Development Guidelines and makes the findings.
• With housing prices in Arroyo Grande being what they are and people not being
able to afford bigger houses it is only a matter of time that many of the smaller
houses will have additions built on.
• This is a nice compromise -moving the deck back 5-feet does preserve some of
Tennant's view.
• The viewshed review does not guarantee that all views will be preserved.
• She could make the three findings and approve the plan as submitted.
Keen:
The house next to the Tennant's (1235) will be losing a lot of their view also and
if the Atkisson's moved the addition back 20 feet as suggested by the Tenants
they would lose a substantial amount of their view, only preserving Tennant's
view is not a fair option.
• The plan that is proposed now is a reasonable design to try to offset everyone's
view and is the best plan for now.
Tait:
• He hopes the neighbors will become good neighbors in the future.
• The Atkisson's cannot preserve any neighbors entire view - it is not an option to
move the second story back as it will lose other neighbors views.
• The applicants have bent over backwards to make this work.
• He cannot deny the viewshed and deny one persons reasonable use of his
property.
• He recommends approval and hoped they would be good neighbors.
Marshall:
• He concurs with other Commissioners -property value should not be assumed.
• It is not fair to not allow some neighbors to add a second story when some in the
neighborhood have already done this.
• He appreciates that Arroyo Grande has a viewshed review.
• This project is reasonable and he can support staff recommendation.
Ray:
• The Community Development Director did not initially make a bad decision in
approving this.
• What the Tennants were asking for was not possible- but we came out with a
better solution - we got compromise, she concurs with Commissioner Keen.
• This will blend in with the neighborhood and is within the limits of reasonable
development.
• She agrees with the other Commissioners comments and recommends denial of
the appeal.
Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Chair Ray, to approve the Viewshed
Review Case No. 06-006 with modifications as submitted,
and adopt:
RESOLUTION 07-2028
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING VIEWSHED REVIEW CASE NO. 06-
006; LOCATED AT 190 FAIR VIEW DRIVE; APPLIED FOR BY MIKE
AND NANCY ATKISSON
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioner Keen, Chair Ray, Commissioners Barneich, Marshall, and
Tait
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20~' day of March 2007.
~~
.-
,''
ATTACHMENT 4
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL O
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Date Ma rnh 7A 90M
Name and Address of Appellant ~~avic9 and Rolanda Tennant
1239 Brighton Ave.Arroyo Grande, Ca. 93420
Appeal of Planning commission 190 Fairview Dr 06-006
Case No.
i
Approved enied by Planning commission on 3/20/2007
Date
Reason for Appeal Please see attached "reasons for appeal"
letter.
Telephone 805-474-8962
Fee - 240.00 Receipt No. ~~- ~Oa-~Da(p
Date la 4/0 ~
Director of
Services/City
.c
Mailing Address 1 239 Brighton Ave Arro'~ Grande, Ca. 93920
Reasons for Appeal
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission improperly approved Viewshed Review 06-
006 (190 Fair View Drive, Arroyo Grande -Atkisson), which involved a proposal to
expand the ground-floor and add asecond-floor to an existing single-story, single-family
residence at 190 Fair View Drive. The approval was erroneous, constituted an abuse of
discretion, and was not supported by substantial evidence for the following reasons:
(1) The project is not consistent with the City's General Plan, Development Code
and the environmental documents associated therewith;
(2) The proposed structure is not consistent with the intent of Arroyo Grande
Municipal Code section 16.16.110;
(3) The proposed structure is not consistent with the established scale and
chazacter of the neighborhood and will unreasonably or unnecessarily affect
views of surrounding properties;
(4) The proposed structure will unreasonably or unnecessarily interfere with the
scenic views from other properties, judged in light of permitting reasonable
use and development of the property on which the proposed structure or
expansion is to occur; and
(5) The conditions of approval aze not sufficient to protect the health, safety, and
general welfare with respect to the required findings set forth above.
ATTACHMENT5
1359 Stephora.
Glendora, Califi
May 15, 2007
Tony Ferrara, Mayor
Ed Arnold, Mayor Pro Tem
Joe Costello, City Council Member
Jim Guthrie, City Council Member
Chuck Fellows, City Council Member
P.O. Box 550
214 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
Dear Members of the Arroyo Grande City Council,
~~~~~
MAY 1 4 2007
CIlY ~f: ACdROV~CD ta,Rrli~G~G
CCIr~h.9(iiVliY L1F'+IELbPMENT
Our project, VSR Otr006 at 190 Fairview Drive in Arroyo Grande, will be coming up before you May
22, 2007. For 17 years, we have saved and planned for remodeling our home so we could retire and live in
Arroyo Grande. Our plans were initially submitted over a year ago in April 2006, and were recommended
for approval the Tirst time by the Community Development Director, Rob Strong and his Staff. After
notice was given, the neighbors at 1239 Brighton wrote a letter of objection. On July 13, 2006, our project
was considered at the Planning Commission Public Hearing, and after further investigation by the
Community Development Staft; our project was recommended for approval the second time. The
Planning Commission did not make a decision, but asked that we find a way to lessen the view loss to the
neighbor, in addition to clarifying misunderstandings about measurements and completing a survey
showing view loss and gain with our modifications. We completed everything asked of us and modified
our original plans utilizing the specific suggestions made a{the 7/13/06 meeting by Commissioner
Fellows (move it back), Commissioner Parker (change roof pitch/minimize second story) and Mr.
Strong (cut back the balcony root line). On March 20, 2007, our project was resubmitted to the Planning
Commission with modifications lessening the impact to the Tennants' view. Again, the Community
Development Director and Staff recommended approval for the third time ,and after a comprehensive
review of all the information, the Planning Commission voted unanimously 5-0 to approve our oroiect
coofirmina that it met all three criteria for the view shed review.
We now find ourselves before the City Council. Our plans have been modified to lessen the impact on our
neighbor's view obstruction complaint. We have analyzed at least 5 different layout options for our
project, including two suggested by the neighbor (building it in the back or moving it back 20 feet), and no
matter where we place our second story, it will impact one or more of our other neighbors' views to some
degree, with placement towazds the back affecting more than one neighbor at the same time. We have
selected the one plan that affects every one to the lesser degree as much as we have choice in the
matter. Not only have we had to consider the impact on the Tennants' view, and all of our other
neighbors' views, we also Gave financial limitations that affect the construction options we can
afford, in addition to limitations in design choice due to building codes, eaisting access to gas, sewer
and electrical connections, and making the new construction logically conneMed to our existing house
and door plan for handicap accessibility. Our plan has been modified as much as we possibly and
reasonably can in order to lessen the impact on all of our neighbors' views. No matter what we do, it is
literally I1IZPOSSIBLE for us to preserve the Tennants' entire view. However with this plan, we have
preserved their "most fiuaucially valuable" view of the ocean, dunes and Pt. Sal from their front
balcony and small south side window.
On March 20m, we were impressed at the Planning Commissioners' ability to thoroughly comprehend and
acknowledge the dilemma we've faced, the facts of our situation, the enormous efforts we've made to
compromise and the impossible expectation placed on us by our one neighbor. We can't think of a better
way to present our project issues to you, than to summarize the incredibly insightful comments made by
each Commissioner, as they reflect the difficulty of ow situation and the reasons for thew unanimous
approval of ow project as submitted.
Commissioner Ray reiterated her original support for approval of ow first plan submitted a yeaz ago and
agreed with the Community Development Drrector and Staffthen, but now after seeing ow modifications
she was even more pleased, because what came out of the initial hearing was an opportunity for
compromise which we did. She understands that it is not possible to make the Tennants happy and that we
are as she puts it, "in between a rock and a hazd place". However, she believes that after the first hearing
we came out with a better solution, we did provide compromise, and what the Tennants asked for isn't
possible. Mrs. Ray confirmed that ow new proposal with the modifications is an even better solution. She
can make the three findings for approval saying that ow project is well with in the scale and scope of the
neighborhood. She notes that scale and mass is a perception and not a measurement, and ow project will
look like what is around it, it's designed logistically with the existing structure, and that it would be
unreasonable to ask us to rebuild what already exists in order to add onto ow home. What we have now in
ow new plan is even more within the limits of reasonable development. Mrs. Ray contends that the
Planning Commission has to weigh and balance the partial loss of view for the Teanants with ow loss of
value in being able to build and develop ow own property. With ow modified plan, neither of us loose.
She recommended approval of ow project and denial of their appeal.
Regazding the concern about loss of value to property, Commissioner Bameich said the viewshed review
process cannot guarantee to maintain the exact worth of everyone's property. It would be an
insurmountable task for the Planning Commission to preserve everyone's property value. It's their job to
make the findings. She also noted how ow property's worth will also go down when a neighbor south of us
or across the street builds up impacting ow value. This has already happened to us with the second story
remodel at 187 Fairview, which when built, completely blocked ow west view to the ocean. She stated that
small neighborhoods aze building up due to the cost of housing in Arroyo Grande, and this is the way that
people can increase squaze footage without the huge cost for the foundation work She noted that ow
project is a common way for addifions to be constructed and it's seen all over town. She believes ow
modified plan is a nice compromise, and although it's not perfect for the Tennants, moving the front deck
back five feet and the structure back 12 feet, it does preserve some of the Tennent's view, at least half of it,
in her opinion. The view shed review doesn't guarantee all existing views aze preserved. That is an
impossible task.
Commissioner Keen noted that trying to satisfy the Teumants' view complaint by using the solution Mr.
Tennant suggested of moving ow stmcture back 20 feet is not a fair option. Mr. Keen has a problem with
only trying to take caze of the Tennaots concerns at the expense of other neighbors' view. Mr. Keen
believes the plan we have submitted now is a reasonable plan to try to offset everybody's problems. In
considering the neighbors, as well as still letting us build, which we are entitled to do, he believes the plan
we submitted is the best we can do at this point. He also noted that in futwe years others will also buildup
and block ow views.
Commissioner Tait said that be never ezoected us to have to preserve our neighbor's entire view as
that's impossble for us to do. He also agreed with Mr. Keen that the Tennants proposed solutions are also
not an option because what be suggests will impact another neighbor's view in order to save his own.
Using Mr. Tennant's solutions won't work. Mr. Tait believes we have minimized ow structure, made
compromises to help give the Tennants back some of their view, and he stated that we have bent over
backwards" to make this work. He can'[ deny this view shed and deny the right of one person's
reasonable use of their property.
Commissioner Marshall appreciates the concerns about property value, but asserted that the Tennants'
current property value is an invalid premise because property values change over time due to many
circumstances for all homes in neighborhoods. It's also not fair of the Tennants to assume that some
houses in a neighborhood can have a second story while others cannot. He did not agree with the
Tennant's statement that since they pwchased a home that had a second story and we purchased one with a
single story, that we should not be allowed to build a second story now. Mr. Marshall drove through ow
neighborhood and noted that it's well established that second story homes are common, therefore, it's not
fair to prohibit us form having a second story when the neighborhood already has this. Mr. Marshall
agees that our project is reasonable and be supports the staff recommendation to approve our project.
You must know we aze deeply frustrated and disappointed after all we've been through to accomplish
everything we needed to get our project approved. We know that we will never please everyone, especially
the Tennants, but we have tried our very best and this is the last option we have.
We would be more than happy to talk with you or answer any questions you have about our project.
There aren't any words to describe how much we hope you will approve our project this time. This is
our last hope, as we have truly run out of options. Please feel free to call us at home in Glendora after 4:30
PM at626-963-4923.
Sincerely,
~~ ~~~
M~ d Nancy Atkisson
MEMORANDUM
REVISED
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL REGARDING AGENDA ITEM 9.a. -
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S
APPROVAL OF VIEWSHED REVIEW 06-006: 190 FAIRVIEW DRIVE
DATE: MAY 18, 2007
The attached supplemental information regarding the Appeal of Planning Commission's
approval of Viewshed Review 06-006; 190 Fairview Drive was received subsequent to the
distribution of the Council agenda on May 17"'.
~R~~~ °,~
May 16, 2007
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Arroyo Grande
215 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
MAY )i 7 2007
CIiY OF ApkOYCi ~;;lei~,i`1DE
COMIs4tJNITY DI:VEL~".:r'rVIENT
Re: Appeal by David and Rolanda Tennant of Arroyo Grande Planning
Commission Approval of Viewshed Review number 06-006
Project Location: 190 Fairview Drive
Applicants: Mike and Nancy Atkisson
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
This proposed project at 190 Fairview Avenue should not be approved as is; it is
a contradiction of the Development Code 16.16.110.
We received the Notice of Approval dated May 10, 2006 from the Community
Development Department for the proposed project at 190 Fairview and read:
1. The proposed structure is consistent with the intent of the Section
16.16.30 of the Development Code.
2. The proposed structure is consistent wfth the established scale and
character of the neighborhood and will not unreasonably affect views of
surrounding properties.
3. The proposed structure will not unreasonably or unnecessarily interfere
with the scenic view from any other property, judged in light of permitting
reasonable use and development of the property on which the proposed
structure or expansion is to occur.
We contacted the Community Department Office with our concerns and
objections. It was suggested to us to write a letter expressing our specific
concerns on this project. In our letter dated June 2, 2006 we described how this
project will unnecessarily and unreasonably affect the south and southwest views
and have a sign cant impact on the market value of our home. We expressed
how this is not to character and scale of the neighborhood; the size and design
are not consistent.
A Special Planning Committee meeting was held on July 13, 2006. During this
meeting the applicants presented information that was incomplete and
inaccurate. Dave and I explained that these measurements and plans did not
address the affect it would have on our home, directly adjacent. According to
the Development Code, 16.16.110 Minor Use Permits -Viewshed Review
Section D. Submittal and Review Requirements:
1. An application for a minor use permit for viewshed review shall be filed
with the Community Development Director and shall be accompanied by the
following:
...c. Building height and elevation data for the proposed structure or addition and
for existing structures on adjacent and surrounding properties;
d. Photographs of project site and surrounding views.
The Atkisson's application was accepted and approved without the required
information. (Required information is mandatory not optional.)
At the close of this meeting it was requested by the Commissioners that we meet
with the Atkissons to see if something could be worked out together. We met
with the Atkissons on February 3, 2007. Plans offered were rough drafts and we
felt we could not comment, but did note to both Mike and Nancy that their minor
modifications did not alleviate the view obstruction.
On February 20, 2007 final plans were submitted and available to copy and
review. In reviewing the plans, the very minor mod cations proposed did little to
come to an "equitable" solution. The Atkissons can place their second story
addition anywhere and they will have unobstructed views and add value to their
property; while negatively impacting the enjoyment and value of our home.
During the March 20, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting we understood that
when considering approval for a viewshed review there are three findings that
must be made by the approving authority:
1. The proposed structure is consistent with the intent of this section 16.16.110
The stated purpose of Dev. Code. 16.16.110 is "...to preserve the existing
scope and character of established single-family neighborhoods and to protect
views and aesthetics and other property values in such neighborhoods in a
manner that is compatible with reasonable expansion on existing developed lots
andlor a new development on existing undeveloped lots."
As presented this evening by Garing and Taylor, the impact is significant and will
affect the enjoyment and value of our property. There are second story additions
in the neighborhood, these additions are set back preserving scenic views. This
would be the only house built out in front over the garage.
2. The proposed structure is consistent with the established scale and character
of the neighborhood and will not unreasonably our unnecessarily affect views of
surrounding properties.
A 'farm package" provided information on properties within 300 feet of 190
Fairview. There were forty-eight properties included in this report; twenty-seven
included the square footage of the residences. The average is 1609 sq. ft...At
190 Fairview the current living space is 1428 square feet, adding 1249 sq ft to
ground level and 479 sq ft for the second story will total 3156 sq feet of living
space, not including the garage. How can a home that is 96% larger than the
average home, and 25% larger than the next largest home be "consistent with
the established scale of the neighborhood"?
3. The proposed structure will not unreasonably or unnecessarily interfere with
the scenic view from any other property, judged in light of permitting reasonable
use and development of the property on which the proposed structure or
expansion is to occur.
The location of the proposed second story does unreasonably and unnecessarily
interfere with views from our home. The materials presented this evening clearly
demonstrate this fact.
We have provided accurate and reliable information. The proposed project is not
consistent with Arroyo Grande's Development Code 16.16.110.
In conclusion we believe that serious thought and consideration must be given to
this matter. The extreme loss of view, diminished enjoyment of property and our
resulting toss of value should not benefit one at the complete expense of another.
Sincerely,
;~ ~~~
David Tennant
G'~~~~
Ro anda Tennant
_.. ~d~
ADAMSKI MOROSKI ~qy 172607
MADDEN & GREEN LLP
Pos'r OFFICE BoX 3835 T,~l.epxo,^rveEfp:~~($OS) 543-0990
SAN Luis OffiSPO, CA 93403-3835 ATTORNEYS Ar Law Clll' C°r~ ~T~':ACBI~A~IIEE:y>{GB~S~~~lD980
www.ammglew.com COMNRUNITS' DEVtLOPMENT
info@ammglew.com
May 17, 2007
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Arroyo Grande
215 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Re: Appeal by David and Rolanda Tennant of Arroyo Grande Planning
Commission Approval of Viewshed Review number 06-006
Project Location: 190 Fairview Drive
Applicants: Mike and Nancy Atkisson
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
The undersigned attorneys represent David and Rolanda Tennant with regard to the
vewshed review appeal referenced above. The grounds for our appeal result from the Arroyo
Grande Planning Commission's improper approval of Viewshed Review 06-006, which involved
a proposal to expand the ground floor and add asecond-floor to an existing single-story, single-
family residence at 190 Fairview Drive owned by Mike and Nancy Atkisson. The approval was
erroneous, constituted an abuse of discretion, and was not supported by substantial evidence for
the following reasons: '
• The project is not consistent with the City's General Plan, Development Code and
the environmental documents associated therewith;
• The proposed structure is not consistent with the intent of Arroyo Grande
Municipal Code section 16.16.110;
• The proposed structure is not consistent with the established scale and chazacter
of the neighborhood and will unreasonably or unnecessarily affect views of
surrounding properties;
• The proposed structure will unreasonably or unnecessarily interfere with the
scenic views from other properties, judged in light of permitting reasonable use
and development of the property on which the proposed structure or expansion is
to occur; and
• The conditions of approval are not sufficient to protect the health, safety, and
general welfare with respect to the required findings set forth above.
Proposed Project:
The project applicants aze proposing to considerably expand their existing single-story,
single-family home located at 190 Fairview Drive. Their existing home is athree-bedroom, two-
bath house, with atwo-caz garage, consisting of approximately 1400 square feet of living space
PASO RoQLes OFFICE: 1200 VINE SrrsEE'r fi PASO Roai.ES, CA 93446-2268 •:• TELEPHONE (805) 238-2300 •:• FACS1MiEE (805) 238-2322
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
May 17, 2007
Page 2
with a 400 square foot garage. As currently built, the Atkissons' home is consistent with the
established scale and character of the neighborhood.
The applicants seek to maximize the bulk of the existing house by expanding two areas of
the ground floor, totaling 1285 square feet and adding a new second-story over the garage
totaling an additional 451 square feet. The plans also include a covered deck that would wrap
around the west and south sides of the second-story addition. As recognized by the staff report
before the Planning Commission, the proposed structure approaches the maximum lot coverage
allowed in the Single-Family (SF) Zoning District and the existing side-yard setback on the south
side of the property will be reduced by four feet. The staff report to the Planning Commission
further noted that "[t]his addition will change the scale and character of the structure," although
the staff report concluded that the structure would somehow still be consistent with the
established scale and character of the neighborhood.
The structure proposed by the Atkissons, will essentially destroy all of the scenic ocean
views enjoyed by their neighbors, David and Rolanda Tennant and substantially diminish both
their property value and their enjoyment of their home. The Planning Commissions' approval of
the viewshed review for this project pursuant to Arroyo Grande Municipal Code
section 16.16.110 constituted a prejudicial abuse of discretion, was not supported by substantial
evidence for the reasons stated more fully herein and was erroneous.
The Community Develoament Director and the Planning Commission Could Not Aaarove
the Proaosed Project Consistent with Arroyo Grande Municipal Code section 16.16.110.
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code section 16.16.110 E. required the Community
Development Director and the Planning Commission to make all of the following findings of
fact:
1. The proposed structure is consistent with the intent of this section;
2. The proposed structure is consistent with the established scale and
character of the neighborhood and will not unreasonably or unnecessarily
affect views of surrounding properties; and
3. The proposed structure will not unreasonably or unnecessarily interfere
with the scenic view from any other property, judged in light of permitting
reasonable use and development of the property on which the proposed
structure or expansion is to occur.
Li addition, Arroyo Grande Municipal Code section 16.16.110 F. provides as follows:
In granting a minor use permit for a viewshed review, the community
development director (or planning commission) may impose such conditions as
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
May 17, 2007
Page 3
may be deemed necessary and desirable to protect the health, safety, and general
welfaze, in respect to the facts listed in subsection (E) of this section.
With regard to the first required finding of consistency with the intent of section
16.16.110, the purpose and intent of the section is to:
...preserve the existing scope and chazacter of established single-family
neighborhoods and to protect views and aesthetics and other property values in such
neighborhoods in a manner that is compatible with reasonable expansion on existing
developed lots and/or a new development on existing undeveloped lots.
Clearly, the applicants may have a legitimate right of "reasonable expansion" of their
existing residence consistent with the "existing scope and chazacter" of the neighborhood. The
existing scope and character of the neighborhood on Fairview Drive, consists of mostly single-
story low street profile residences that preserve the views of adjacent properties. To the extent
that there aze two-story residences on the street (including the Tennants' residence), the second
story in all cases, except one, is set back from the street in a manner which preserves the scenic
views from adjacent properties (the second story at 1304 Brighton Avenue, is adjacert to a cul-
de-sac and does not block anyone's views).
The set back of second stories also minimizes the bulk at street level and in most cases,
the second story fagade is broken up by the roofline of the gazages in the neighborhood. In this
case, however, the applicants are proposing to add a second story over their garage, which would
be one of the only such structures in the neighborhood, in such a manner as to maximize the
potential build out of the property. As our visual presentation at the appeal hearing will show,
the proposed maximal build-out of the structure will ultimately, completely destroy the ocean
views of their neighbors, the Tennants.
One wonders about the notion of reasonability with such expansion -surely reasonable
expansion under the viewshed ordinance does not support maximal build-out at a neighbor's
expense. The viewshed ordinance reference to views and aesthetics supports the proposition that
ocean views are a commodity that can and should be shared wherever possible, not traded
wholesale by one party to another.
The viewshed ordinance seeks to protect the views and aesthetics, and other property
values in established single-family neighborhoods in a manner compatible with reasonable
expansion. The Tennants have never azgued that the applicants should not be allowed to build
anything on applicants' existing home; they have only asked that such expansion only reasonably
affect their ocean views and thus their enjoyment of their property. As this project in its current
proposed state will completely destroy their views of the ocean, the project is inconsistent with
the purpose and intent of the viewshed provisions accorded by section 16.16.110.
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
May 17, 2007
Page 4
Section 16.16.110 E. 2
Section 16.16.110 E. 2 requires that the proposed structure is consistent with the
established scale and chazacter of the neighborhood and will not unreasonably or unnecessarily
affect views of surrounding properties. The Planning Commission could not reasonably make
the required finding in that regard. The existing home currently totals 1808 squaze feet
(including the garage). The proposed addition would add 1736 squaze feet in the form of a
second floor addition, resulting in an increase in' building mass of approximately 96%. The
average house size in the neighborhood is 1609 square feet, with the lazgest in the neighborhood
being 2276 square feet. The Atkissons' home as currently proposed will total 3156 square feet,
meaning that the resulting house will be far greater in terms of lot coverage and building mass
than the other houses within the neighborhood. It should be noted that even those houses which
currently have a second floor addition (including the Tennants' house) incorporate a second floor
design that sets back the second floor addition to minimize view impacts on adjacent properties
and imposition of building mass on the street. For whatever reason, the applicants have failed to
demonstrate any sensitivity in protecting both their neighbors' views and impacts upon the street.
This structure would be only the second of its kind in this neighborhood. As a result, the
expansion is not only inconsistent with the established scale and character of the neighborhood,
but will unreasonably and unnecessarily impact the Tennants' ocean views.
If scale and chazacter of the neighborhood means roughly the size of the homes in the
neighborhood as well as their basic aesthetic presentation to street traffic, then the structure, as
proposed, is not in conformity with the ordinance. One of the delightful things about this
particular neighborhood is the open spacing between the homes; by allowing homeowners to
expand their homes to cover most of their lots including a large mass on the second. story of their
lots, the City Council will risk the creation of a congested azea of homes that resembles the
beach communities of southern California. The viewshed ordinance clearly contemplates` and
rejects this type of development, preferring an aesthetic approach that keeps the established
chazacter of the neighborhood, protects others' views and does not create a disparity in home
sizes and styles.
Consequently, the Planning Commission was unable to make the required finding that
the proposed structure was consistent with the established scale and chazacter of the
neighborhood pursuant to section 16.16.110 E. 2.
Section 16.16.110 E. 3
Section 16.16.110 E. 3 requires that the Planning Commission find that "[t]he proposed
structure will not unreasonably or unnecessarily interfere with the scenic view from any other
property, judged in light of perrnitting reasonable use and development of the property on which
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
May 17, 2007
Page 5
the proposed structure or expansion is to occur." Amazingly, the staff report to the Planning
Commission recommended that "the proposed structure will in fact interfere with the scenic view
from the second floor of the structure located [at) 1239 Brighton Avenue, to an extent."
Nevertheless, the staff report recommended that "[t]he interference with the scenic views from
1239 Brighton Avenue caused by the proposed structure are not unreasonable or unnecessary
when judged in light of permitting reasonable use and development of the project on which the
proposed expansion is to occur."
As will be established through a visual presentation by the appellants at the hearing on
this appeal, it is cleaz that the proposed project will not only interfere with the scenic views from
the appellants' property, but such interference is unreasonable and unnecessary. The Planning
Department's recommendation and its resulting determination were, thus, clearly erroneous and
not supported by substantial evidence in view of the record. There are numerous alternative
designs for the proposed project which would minimize the visual impacts resulting from the
project. For whatever reason, the applicants have been unwilling to incorporate into their project
design appropriate measures which would preserve the existing scenic views enjoyed by their
neighbors. Consequently, the Planning Commission improperly determined that the proposed
structure will not unreasonably or unnecessarily interfere with the scenic view from any other
property, judged in light of permitting reasonable use and development of the property on which
the proposed structure or expansion is to occur.
The Tennants understand that there aze bounds for "reasonability" in protecting their
view, but they also note that the viewshed ordinance requires the balancing of interests. The
project as it is currently conceived is a direct transference of the value of the view, both the
enjoyment and the economic, from the Tennants to the Atkissons without a balancing at all.
Simply taking the Tennants' ocean, sand and dunes view and giving it to the Atkissons in clear
violation of the viewshed ordinance, not only causing them to lose the enjoyment of the view
they have had for eighteen years, but also drastically impacting the value of their home violates
the letter if not also the spirit of the intent of the ordinance. A realtor told the Tennants that their
view was worth tens of thousands of dollazs to their property value. One supposes that the same
could be said for the view the Atkissons will be creating in their property by way of the
expansion. Thus, by allowing the Atkissons to build, unimpeded, and completely obstructing the
Tennants' view reflects what is essentially a transference of these same thousands of dollars
worth of equity from the Tennants to the Atkissons -unreasonably. More important, however, is
the unquantifiable value of such a sea view - to wake up in the morning and see the ocean, to
watch the sun set at night, is to many, priceless. These are things that appeal to the owners of
both properties and are precisely the reason why the Tennants and the Atkissons chose to live in
that neighborhood.
By approving the plans as they are now presented, the Council will violate the principle
underlying the viewshed ordinance, namely that views and property values should be reasonably
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
May 17, 2007
Page 6
maintained against inevitable expansion such that the character and scope of the neighborhood
can be retained. Such an ordinance exists to ensure that the very reason that people bought
property in the neighborhood, and have chosen to make it their home, remains viable. Surely
there is a middle ground solution that will allow both to shaze in the beauty of Arroyo Grande
and its proximity to the ocean on a daily basis.
Conclusion•
The proposed project circumvents the purpose and intent of protecting views, aesthetics,
and property values as intended by the viewshed review process set forth in Arroyo Grande
Municipal Code section 16.16.110. The applicant could reasonably develop a new residence,
with comparable square footage and amenities, while only minimally interfering with the
Tennants' ocean views. As proposed, the residence would not be consistent with the established
scale and character of the neighborhood. Furthermore, the residence would unreasonably and
unnecessarily affect views of surrounding properties, especially including scenic views from the
Tennants' property. As a result, there is no substantial evidence in the record to support the
findings required by section 16.16.110 E.
Requested Action:
The applicants can reasonably build a new residence without violating the purpose and
intent of section 16.16.110. Approval of the project as is would set a negative precedent which
would ultimately impact properties in the azea which were intended to be protected by the
Viewshed Review procedures. Consequently, we respectfully request that the City Council
reverse the Planning Commission's determination and grant this appeal. In the alternative, we
respectfully request that the City Council impose redesign conditions pursuant to
section 16.16.110 F. that aze sufficient to protect the Tennants' views and, therefore, protect the
health, safety, and general welfaze of the community.
Respectfully submitted,
ADAMSKI MOROSKI MADDEN & GREEN LLP
~~.---
RAYMO A. BIE~
Of Counsel
RAB:Ip
G:\TennantDWtkisson\Cor\Flonomble Mayor and City Council Members.doc
cc: Clients
Jeffrey J. Emrick, P.E., AIA
Allan Real Estate InvestmenMAY 1 7 2007
clly n~ a,~P~~~Y~_s ~~~1aDl:
COPJIf~34lN!TY G~`IEi.OPsN~N7
Memorandum
To: David Tennant
From: Dennis Allan, Broker/Owner
Allan Real Estate Investments
(805) 473-7500-phone
(800) 44ALLAN-toll free phone
(805) 473-2753-facsimile
dennia C? deuuitiallnu.com-emai I
Re: 1239 Brighton Avenue, Arroyo Grande
Date: May 16, 2007
Deaz Dave:
The undersigned real estate broker personally inspected your home located at 1239
Brighton Avenue, Arroyo Grande in order to evaluate the impact on your view corridor
of the second story addition proposed on the home adjacent to you. In my opinion the
proposed construction at 190 Fair View Drive will cleazly have an adverse material
impact on your view corridor and, accordingly, the value of your home.
Please feel free to contact the undersigned to more thoroughly discuss this issue.
Very truly yours,
Dennis Allan, Broker/Owner, Realtor®, CRS, CRB, GRI, SRES, MBA
Ptat Map, (GIF)
O S
r
g
3
a
z
x~
F
S
1
~'
n
Y
Y
.rc ee • a
M
~ ~ :
~.e,
.. eo .: C
~ ,, ..... .
N
R 8
' w
O
~~ '
„
^
0 ~
o ~
;
,~
BRIGHTON OVENUE
_ o
C
~
!
3
W ~
~ a NC
r
'
e m
p
\
/I44i ~ 2
C
_~sc cn ..' ..__. ~
1~ )
C
NEWPORT a) AVENUE
Y
I
g EASr
¢ •~ _ _
~ ___
_ ri _~ __
eo
:es..'a~r / ~~ee ~.
`~ GR9ND
b
~^
gNN
~yo
SpotT~
~~~tl
~~
d
^
z
a O
3
W
2 R
A b
o m
~ ~
oG
;~a5 G
b ~
~~
.~
Z
~~
~~~
2
a
~ ~~~a
o ~~o
~ ~~~
IE
@@`6
5 ~2
n
i
~€.
E$
R ~
'¢ig ~I i'
~~& it
AVE.
® 2007 DaraQuick Information Systems. 77tis informa4cm is compiled from public records and is not guaranteed
Page 1 of 2
http://www.gotitle.com/cgi-bin/plat.asp?rmt=TOPS&dcounty=SL&accno=10221327&graphic=%2Faccoun... 5/ 16/2007
Property Profile
`~:1~~1 ~ar~~~~al'1'~s1~ ~'1:~~~i~i~'J
Property Profile
Primary Owner: ATKISSON,MICHAEL D & NANCY L
Secondary Owner:
Mail Address: 1359 S STEPHORA AVE
GLENDORA, CA 91740
Site Address: 190 FAIR VIEW DR
ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93420
Property Characteristics
Bedrooms: 3
Bathrooms: 2.0
Total Rooms: 7
%oning:SF
1{eating/Cooling:
Sale & Loan Izzfornuztion
'Transfer Date: 08-17-1989
'Transfer Value: $185,000
First Loan Anu: $129,500
Loan "Type:
Telephone Number:
APN: 077-092-006
Reference APN:
Census Tract: 119.003
Houshfg Tract Number: 109
Lot Number:
Page Grid Old: 243-B2
Page Grid New: 714G5
t,egal Description: CY AG TR 109 BL 2 LT 6
Subdivision:
Year Built 1958 Square Peet-. 1,428
Garage: Y l.ot Sire: 8,000 sq ft / 0.18 acres
Fireplace: Number of Units: 1
Pool/View: 1Js'e Code: Single Family Residence
Seller: Document. 0000055619
Cost/Sq Feet: $129.55 Title Co.: Ticor Title
Lender: Security Pac Bk Last Trans W/O$:
Interest Rate "Cype: F Last Trans W/O$ Doc:
Assessed & Tax Inforzzzatiozz
Assessed Value: $249,043
Land Value: $168,278
Improvement Value: $80,765
Percent Improvement 32.43
'fax Amomtt $2,593
Tax Stahts: current
I{omcowner Exemption:
Tax Rate Area: 1000
~ 2007 DataQuick Information Systems. This information is compiled from public n;cords and is not guarameed
Page 1 of 2
http://www.gotitle.corn/cgi-bin profile.asp?rmt=TOPS&accno=10221327&graphic=%2Faccounts%2F1000... 5/16/2007
Property-Profile
`~~1~#r~ j`1~:~~~~r1 °]`331 ~~~J~;~~l~J
Property Profile -
Property Characteristics
Primary Owner: TENNANT,DAVID & ROLANDA
Secondary Owner:
Mail Address: 1239 BRIGHTON AVE
ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93420
Site Address: 1239,f3RIGHTON AVE'~
ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93420'`
Telephone Number:
APN: 077-092-007
Reference APN:
Census 'T'ract: 119.003
Housing'I'ract Number: 109
Lot Number:
Page (:rid Old: 243-B2
Page Grid New: 714-G5
Legal Description: CY AG TR 109 BL 2 LT 7
Subdivisiar.
Bedrooms: 4 Year Built: 1958 Square Feet 1;697
Bathrooms: 2.0 Garagc: Y Lot. Sire: 6,700 sq ft / 0.15 acres
Tota] Rooms: 7 Fireplace: Number of Units: 1
Toning: R1 PoolNiew: Use Code: Single Family Residence
Beating/Cooling.
Sale & Loan Information
'Transferllate: Seller: Document:
'Transfer Value: Cost/Sq Feet: $0.00 Tile Co.:
First Loan Ann: Lender: Lasl Trans W/O$:
Loan'I'ypr. Interest Rate "Cype: Last'I'rans W/O$ Doc:
Assessed & Tax Information
Assessed Value: $187,665 Percent Improvement 55.22 Homeowner P,xemption: Y
Land Value: $84,036 "Tax Amount $1,881 Tax Rate Area: 1000
Lnpmvemem Value: $103,629 'Tax Starts: current
2007 DaraQuick Information Systems. 'This information is compiled from public records and is not guaranteed
Page 1 of 2
http://www.gotitle.com/cgi-bin/profile.asp?rmt=TOPS&accno=10221327&graphic=%2Faccounts%2F1000... 5/ 1612007
9.b.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
On TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2007, the Arroyo Grande City Council will conduct public hearings at
7:00 P.M. in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET, to consider the following
items:
1. Appeal of Viewshed Review Case No. 06-006 - 190 Fairview Drive; Appellant: David
and Rolanda Tennant. The City Council will consider an appeal of the Planning
Commission's approval of Viewshed Review Case No. 06-006 allowing expansion of the
ground floor and addition of a second story to an existing single-family residence.
2. Newsom Springs Regional Drainage Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
The public is invited to provide public comments on the Newsom Springs Regional
Drainage Plan Draft EIR. The public review period began on April 23, 2007 and ends on
June 7, 2007. After June 7, 2007, City consultants will respond to comments and
release the Final EIR. The Final EIR is tentatively scheduled to be considered at the July
24, 2007 City Council meeting. The public may request a copy of the Draft EIR (hard
copy or electronic) from the City of Arroyo Grande's Community Development
Department. Copies are available for review at the Public Works Department at 208
East Branch Street and at the South County Library at 800 West Branch Street. The
document is also available for viewing and /or downloading on the City's website at
www. arroyogrande.org.
3. Development Code Amendment 07-002 -Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter
16.60 of Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Relating to Signs. The City
Council will consider changes to Chapter 16.60 (Signs) of Title 16 of the Municipal Code
related to clean-up language needed for internal consistency, as well as changes to
substantive and procedural standards regarding accessory, exempt, and prohibited
signs.
The Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or after the items listed
above. If you challenge the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Failure of any
person to receive the notice shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the action of
the legislative body for which the notice was given.
Information relating to the above items is available by contacting the Community Development
Department at 473-5420. The City Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable
Channel 20.
/s/ Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk
Publish 1T, The Tribune, Friday, May 11, 2007
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DON SPAGNOLO, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ,.(~j~
BY: TERESA MCCLISH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER !NC/
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
NEWSOM SPRINGS REGIONAL DRAINAGE PLAN
DATE: MAY 22, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council review the previously distributed Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared for the Newsom Springs Regional Drainage
Plan (sometimes referred to as the "project"), receive public comment, and provide input to
staff. The final EIR will be scheduled for consideration by the Council after the closing of
the public comment period on June 7, 2007.
FUNDING:
There is no fiscal impact.
DISCUSSION:
Proiect Description
The Newsom Springs Regional Drainage Plan Project is a series of actions to be
implemented over time to improve drainage and reduce flooding in parts of the City. The
project area is generally bounded by Branch Mill Road and Arroyo Grande Creek in the
southeast portion of Arroyo Grande. The primary objectives of the project include:
^ Remedy flooding in areas identified in the Storm Water Drainage Master Plan
(SWDMP)
^ Improve runoff water quality as it enters Arroyo Grande Creek
• Remedy existing creek bank erosion sites dependent on the selected stormdrain
outfall point
^ Maintain the ongoing viability of existing agricultural operations and protect prime
agricultural soils.
The purpose of the public hearing is to receive both comments from the public and City
Council early on in the process so that any issues can be resolved prior to Council
consideration.
CITY COUNCIL
NEWSOM SPRINGS REGIONAL DRAINAGE PLAN DRAFT EIR
MAY 22, 2007
PAGE 2
Backaround
Based on an initial study and responses to the Notice of Preparation, the following impact
categories were identified as potentially significant and, therefore, require detailed analysis:
• Flooding, erosion, sedimentation and water quality
• Biological resources
• Agricultural resources
• Cultural resources
Cumulative and growth inducing impacts
The DEIR did. not identify any significant unavoidable environmental effects. Significant,
but mitigable, effects were identified on agriculture, flooding, hydrology, water quality,
biologic resources and cultural resources.
An alternative analysis (in this case alternative alignments for drainage improvements) was
also included as a required part of the DEIR. A few of the items for comparison of
alternatives include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Construction activities to place stormdrain pipes could result in the displacement of
prime topsoil and permanently disrupt farming operations if the pipe is less than 36
inches deep or if the pipe placement disrupts existing subsurface drains in the fields.
• Construction of a new drainage channel along Branch Mill Road to carry a 100 year
storm would require conversion of 1.34 acres of farmland. Additionally, expansion of
a ditch could result in more potential erosion, pipe inlets and outlets could cause
local scouring and the outlet from the bioswale could cause scouring.
Proposed stormwater basins for detention may not function adequately due to high
groundwater levels and the southerly basin conflicts with the State Water Project
pipeline.
• stormwater detention basins could have a beneficial effect by reducing sediment but
also may have a potentially significant effect (cumulatively) on flooding downstream
if not designed accordingly.
• Based on hydraulic modeling, storm drain ouffall locations further upstream from the
existing gaging station have the potential to increase flood state creek levels
significantly.
Future Actions
Consideration by the City Council to certify the Final EIR as adequate and complete
under the CEQA Guidelines Is tentatively scheduled for July 24, 2007.
• Consideration by the City Council to approve the Final Drainage Master Plan for the
Newsom Springs Drainage Area by City Council is also tentatively scheduled for July
24, 2007 or at a subsequent meeting.
CEQA Review
The purpose of the DEIR is to identify potential environmental impacts connected with
necessary drainage improvements for the Newsom Springs Watershed, disclose the
impacts to decision-makers and the public, and make recommendations on feasible
alternatives and mitigation measures to avoid or mitigate the impacts. CEQA requires that
CITY COUNCIL
NEWSOM SPRINGS REGIONAL DRAINAGE PLAN DRAFT EIR
MAY 22, 2007
PAGE 3
the decision-making body for the project certify that the CEQA process has been
completed, and that significant environmental impacts created by the project will be
avoided or mitigated, where feasible, before approving the project.
CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative, other than the no project
alternative, is identified in an EIR. The EIR identifies the Branch Mill Road alignment
(proposed project) with mitigation as the environmentally superior project (please refer to
Section V of the DEIR).
Public Notice
Notices regarding the DEIR for the project were sent to property owners within 300 feet of
the project area, and a notice was published in the Tribune.
ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives are presented for City Council consideration:
1. Review the EIR and open public comment.
2. Provide direction to staff and consultant.
Attachment:
1. Draft ElR previously distributed to Council on Apri123, 2007 and is on file at the
Community Development Department and Public Works Department for public
review.
9.c.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
On TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2007, the Arroyo Grande City Council will conduct public hearings at
7:00 P.M. in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET, to consider the following
items:
1. Appeal of Viewshed Review Case No. 06-006 - 190 Fairview Drive; Appellant: David
and Rolanda Tennant. The City Council will consider an appeal of the Planning
Commission's approval of Viewshed Review Case No. 06-006 allowing expansion of the
ground floor and addition of a second story to an existing single-family residence.
2. Newsom Springs Regional Drainage Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
The public is invited to provide public comments on the Newsom Springs Regional
Drainage Plan Draft EIR. The public review period began on April 23, 2007 and ends on
June 7, 2007. After June 7, 2007, City consultants will respond to comments and
release the Final EIR. The Final EIR is tentatively scheduled to be considered at the July
24, 2007 City Council meeting. The public may request a copy of the Draft EIR (hard
copy or electronic) from the City of Arroyo Grande's Community Development
Department. Copies are available for review at the Public Works Department at 208
East Branch Street and at the South County Library at 800 West Branch Street. The
document is also available for viewing and /or downloading on the City's website at
www. arroyog rande.org.
3. Development Code Amendment 07-002 -Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter
16.60 of Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Relating to Signs. The City
Council will consider changes to Chapter 16.60 (Signs) of Title 16 of the Municipal Code
related to clean-up language needed for internal consistency, as well as changes to
substantive and procedural standards regarding accessory, exempt, and prohibited
signs.
The Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or after the items listed
above. If you challenge the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Failure of any
person to receive the notice shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the action of
the legislative body for which the notice was given.
Information relating to the above items is available by contacting the Community Development
Department at 473-5420. The City Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable
Channel 20.
/s/ Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk
Publish 1T, The Tribune, Friday, May 11, 2007
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
BY: JIM BERGMAN, ASSISTANT PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 16.60 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE
REGARDING SIGNS
DATE: MAY 22, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends the City Council introduce an Ordinance
amending Municipal Code Chapter 16.60 related to signs.
FUNDING:
No fiscal impact.
DISCUSSION:
Background
The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended staff identified minor changes to
Municipal Code Chapter 16.60 related to internal document consistency, newly adopted
zoning district names, clarification of allowed, exempt and temporary signs and other
changes prior to a comprehensive revision of City sign provisions.
Proposal
The proposed changes to the sign provisions of the Municipal Code as shown in Exhibit
"A" of the attached Ordinance include minor edits such as correcting references to
associated chapters and sections of the Municipal Code, updating names of zoning
districts and the correction of typographical errors. Some changes reduce sign
entitlements and are specifically discussed in the following section. Staff intends to bring
forward a comprehensive revision of the sign code in the future, which will include public
workshops designed to garner input from a wide variety of stakeholders, including
individual citizens, business owners, commerce organizations, sign makers and City
advisory bodies.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16.60 OF
THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING SIGNS
MAY 22, 2007
PAGE 2
Overview of Recommended Changes to Chapter 16.60
16.60.030.E -Accessory Signs
The proposal reduces the amount of sign area for accessory signs from 20 percent of the
wall or window area to 10 percent, unless recommended by the Architectural Review
Committee. If approved, accessory signs greater than 10 percent of a window or wall area
would be counted toward total permitted sign area.
16.60.030.E - Incidental and Supplemental Signs
The proposed changes reduce the amount of sign area for incidental and supplemental
signs from 32 square feet to 16 square feet, unless recommended by the Architectural
Review Committee. If approved, incidental sign area greater than 32 square feet would be
counted toward total permitted sign area.
Table 16.60.040-A
Section B.4. This section currently allows the consideration of up to a 20-foot ground sign
for any business within 300 feet of Highway 101. The proposed changes allow a maximum
sign height of 8 feet.
Section B.12. The proposed changes reduce the maximum height considered for ground
signs for automotive service stations within the Highway Mixed Use zone from 50 feet to
20 feet, unless considered through the Conditional Use Permit process.
Section B13. The proposed changes reduce the maximum height considered for ground
signs associated with fast food restaurants, restaurants, motels and mini-marts within the
Regional Commercial and Mixed Use zones and within 300 feet of Highway 101 from 50
feet to 20 feet, unless considered through the Conditional Use Permit process.
16.60.050.A.2. -Exempt Signs
The proposed changes remove gas and hot air balloons and inflatable displays from signs
exempt from sign permits. If the proposed changes are approved, sections 16.60.060 O.
and P. will prohibit these types of advertising devices unless approved through the
Temporary Use Permit process with a recommendation from the Architectural Review
Committee.
16.60.050.0.1. -Exempt Signs; Residential Dwellings Offered for Sale
The proposed changes require the removal of for sale signs within 10 days of the sale,
rental or lease of a property instead of the current 15 days.
16.60.050.D.2. -Exempt Signs; Subdivision Signs
The proposed changes require the removal of subdivision signs after 90 percent of lots
have been sold.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16.60 OF
THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING SIGNS
MAY 22, 2007
PAGE 3
16.60.050.J. -Exempt Signs; Government and Non-Commercial Flags
The proposed changes allow flags greater than 10 feet by 15 feet with the
recommendation of the Architectural Review Committee instead of the approval of City
Council.
16.60.060 -Prohibited Signs
N. Outdoor signs. The proposed changes remove requirements related to transparent
covering of neon tubes due to technological advances in materials and adding
consideration of LED strips with similar size limits.
O. and P. The Planning Commission recommends adding language that will prohibit these
types of advertising devices unless approved through the temporary use permit process,
with a recommendation from the Architectural Review Committee.
V. Section V. is added to prohibit commercial signs held or supported by a person.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Introduce the attached Ordinance;
- Modify as appropriate and introduce the attached Ordinance
- Do not introduce the attached Ordinance;
- Provide direction to staff.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE AMENDING CHAPTER 16.60 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SIGNS
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande ("City") regulates signs pursuant to Municipal Code
Chapter 16.60; and
WHEREAS, signs have an obvious impact on the character, quality of life and economic
health of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to provide for consistent formatting of the Municipal Code and
to provide clarification and revision of the existing Code sections; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 17, 2007 to
consider staff recommended changes to Municipal Code Chapter 16.60 and adopted a
Resolution recommending the City Council introduce an Ordinance amending Municipal
Code Chapter 16.60 -Signs; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of all testimony and all evidence, the City Council has
determined that the following findings can be made in an affirmative manner:
A. The proposed revisions to the Municipal Code are consistent with the goals,
objectives, policies and programs of the General Plan, especially LU12-12 which
seeks to establish design guidelines, which includes signs.
B. The proposed revisions to the Municipal Code will not adversely affect the public
health, safety, and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern since the
proposed changes allow the City to better implement the sign provisions of the
Municipal Code.
C. The proposed revisions to the Municipal Code are consistent with the purpose and
intent of Municipal Code chapter 16.60, which seeks to regulate signs in a manner
that will benefit the public and maintain a high quality of development throughout the
City.
D. The potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed revision to the
Municipal Code are less than significant since they aid in the City's ability to regulate
signs in a manner that will benefit the public and maintain a high quality of
development throughout the City.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande, as
follows:
SECTION 1: The above recitals and findings are true and correct.
SECTION 2: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Chapter 16.60 is hereby repealed and
replaced in its entirety as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference.
SECTION 3: If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause of this
Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unlawful, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City
Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision,
paragraph, sentence, or clause thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section,
subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence,. or clause be declared unconstitutional.
SECTION 4: A summary of this Ordinance has been published in a newspaper published
and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days prior to the City Council
meeting at which this Ordinance has been adopted. A certified copy of the full text of the
Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk.
Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the Ordinance, the summary with the names of
those City Council Members voting for and against the Ordinance shall be published again,
and the Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full
text of such adopted Ordinance.
SECTION 5: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.
On motion by Councilmember
and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
seconded by Council Member
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this _ day of , 2007.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 3
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 4
EXHIBIT "A"
CHAPTER 16.60 -SIGNS
16.60.010 Purpose and intent.
Signs have an obvious impact on the character, quality of life and economic health of the city.
As a prominent aspect of the scenery, they either attract or repel the viewing public, and may
affect the safety of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Their suitability and appropriateness helps
define the character of a neighborhood and the larger community. The purpose of this chapter is
to regulate signs in a manner that will benefit the public and maintain a high quality of
development throughout the city. The regulations contained in this chapter are intended to:
A. Direct persons to various activities and enterprises in order to provide for the
maximum public convenience;
B. Provide a reasonable system of regulations for signs in order to ensure the
development of a high quality visual environment;
C. Encourage signs that are well designed and pleasing in appearance, recognizing that
a well-designed sign enhances a business's image and economic vitality;
D. Provide incentive and latitude for variety, good design relationships, and spacing of
signs;
E. Encourage a desirable urban character that has a minimum of overhead clutter;
F. Enhance the economic value of the community and each area thereof through the
regulation of such things as size, number, location, design and illumination of signs;
G. Encourage signs that are compatible with adjacent land uses and that provide
pedestrian-scale atmosphere;
H. Reduce possible traffic and safety hazards through good signage;
I. Ensure the maintenance of signs; and
J. Implement the community design goals, objectives, policies and programs of the
general plan, design guidelines for historic districts, and other applicable city guidelines and
ordinances.
This chapter establishes the legal framework for a comprehensive system for the regulation of
signs. It presents a set of reasonable, nonarbitrary, and nondiscriminatory standards and
controls that are designed to optimize communication between the citizens and their
environment, to facilitate the protection not only of the public, but the aesthetic character of the
city, and to ensure the availability to the community of adequate, high quality signs.
16.60.020 Administration.
Unless expressly exempted in this chapter, no sign may be erected, displayed, reconstructed or
altered until a permit is approved as set forth in Sections
16.16.170, 16.16.180, 16.16.190 and 16.16.200 of this title and a building permit has been
issued or building department clearance has been received.
The four separate methods of planning review are established for the following reasons:
1. To provide a means of review appropriate to the magnitude of the proposed signage;
2. To recognize the planned character of large or multitenant centers;
3. To provide a means of flexible application of the sign regulations so as to encourage
maximum incentive and latitude in the design and display of signs in order to achieve, not
circumvent, the intent of this chapter.
A. Planned Sign Program. Planned sign programs shall be processed in accordance
with Section 16.16.a6~190 of this title. A planned sign program shall be required for the
following:
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 5
1. Multitenant developments of nine or more separate, permitted uses, that share
either the same legal parcel or building and use common access and parking facilities;
2. Projects or developments with a total aggregate sign area exceeding one
hundred fifty (150) square feet;
3. Ground signs between twenty (20) and fifty (50) feet high.
4. Two or more contiguous legal parcels may be combined for purposes of
calculating sign area and number, with the permission of the property and business
owners and at the written request of the sign applicants.
The purpose of a planned sign program shall be to integrate signs with building and
landscape design into a unified architectural unit, and to ensure the magnitude of the proposed
signs is consistent with existing and proposed buildings and the character of the area within
which the signs are proposed. This shall be achieved by:
1. Requiring that sign colors be generally compatible with building color;
2. Using the same type of cabinet supports or method of mounting for signs of
the same type; by using the same type of construction material for components, such as
sign copy, cabinets and supports; or by using dissimilar signing that is determined by the
approval authority to be compatible;
3. Using the same form of illumination for all signs, or by using varied forms of
illumination that have been determined by the approval authority to be compatible; and
4. Requiring that signs not overpower buildings, and be of appropriate scale and
character with existing signs in the general area.
B. Administrative Sign Program. Administrative sign programs shall be processed in
accordance with Section 16.16.180 of this title. An administrative sign program shall be
required for the following:
1. Multitenant developments of two to eight separate, permitted uses that share
either the same legal parcel or building and use common access and parking facilities;
2. Projects or developments with a total aggregate sign area exceeding one
hundred (100) square feet but less than one hundred fifty (150) square feet;
3. Ground signs between eight and twenty (20) feet high;
4. Minor tenant signs in older multitenant developments (regardless of the
number of tenants) without an established lap nned sign program.
C. Administrative Sign Permit. All signs not required to have a planned sign program or
administrative sign program must receive approval of an administrative sign permit if not exempt
by Section 16.60.050. Administrative sign permits shall be processed in accordance with
Section 16.16.44A-170 of this title.
D. Mural Permit. All murals shall receive approval of a mural permit in accordance with
Section 16.16.a7~200 of this title. Murals are not considered signs and shall not include the
name, logo, or other representation that advertises a business, product, service or other
commercial activity. Murals are considered a means to enhance the architecture or aesthetics of
a building or wall and not a form of advertisement. If a mural is proposed that contains
advertising materials, it shall be treated as a sign and reviewed pursuant to subsections A, B or
C of this section and shall comply with Table 16.60.040-A. The mural permit process allows city
review of murals to ensure that size, location and placement is consistent with the character of
the district within which it is located; the character of the building or wall upon which it is placed;
and that the mural is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.
16.60.030 General provisions.
Unless exempt by Section 16.60.050, off-site signs shall not be allowed. Signs may be erected,
altered and maintained only for those uses permitted in the zone in which they are located.
Signs shall be located on the same legal parcel as the permitted use and shall be clearly
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 6
incidental, customary and commonly associated with the operation of the permitted use. For the
purposes of this chapter, a shopping center shall be considered a single parcel regardless of
whether the center is comprised of more than one legal parcel.
A. Determining the Number of Signs.
1. For the purpose of determining the number of signs, a sign shall be considered
to be a single display surface or display device containing sign faces physically
connected and having a coterminous boundary, with the following exception:
combination canopy and under-canopy signs shall be considered as one sign.
2. A two-sided or multisided sign shall be regarded as one sign subject to the
following:
a. A "V-type" sign shall be regarded as a single sign only if the two sides
are separated by no more than three feet at any point.
b. Double-faced (back-to-back) signs shall be regarded as a single sign
only if the distance between the backs of each face of the sign does not exceed
two feet.
B. Computation of Sign Surface Area and Height.
1. All Signs Except Awning Signs.
a. The surface area of a sign shall be the total number of square feet
calculated by enclosing the extreme limits of the writing, logo, representation,
emblem, or other display, together with any frame, background area, structural
trim, or other material or color forming an integral part of the background of the
display or used to differentiate the sign from the backdrop or surface against
which it is placed, within a single continuous perimeter composed of circles,
squares or rectangles. The surface area of spherical signs shall be the actual
sign surface area calculated by the following formula: Area = 12.56 x ~; where r
= radius of the sphere. See Figure 16.60.030-A for an illustration of how surface
area is calculated. Notwithstanding Figure 16.60.030-A, the community
development director may allow an increase in sign area in rough proportion to
the open area in a sign not comprised of squares or rectangles.
b. Supporting framework or bracing that is clearly incidental to the display
itself shall not be included as sign surface area.
c. If the sign consists of more than one section or module, all of the area,
including the area between the sections of modules, shall be included in the
computation of sign surface area. Sections or modules must touch one another
to count as one sign.
d. For multisided signs, the sign surface area shall be computed by
including the total area of all sides designed to attract attention or communicate
information.
e. For two-sided signs, the sign surface area shall be computed by
including the total area of only one side; provided, that double-faced (back to
back) signs have a distance of two feet or less between the backs of each face;
or provided, that faces of "V-type' signs are separated by no more than three feet
at any point.
2. Awning or Canopy Signs.
a. The sign surface area of a canopy or awning sign shall be calculated
by enclosing the extreme limits of the writing, logo, representation, emblem, or
other display within a single continuous perimeter composed of circles, squares
or rectangles.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 7
b. If more than one surface of the awning or canopy is utilized for signage
or if an under-canopy sign is attached to the main canopy, the aggregate sign
area shall be calculated by totaling the surface area of each surface.
3. Height of Signs. The height of a sign shall be determined by measuring the
distance from the average adjacent ground level within five feet of the base of the sign to
the top of the sign.
Figure 16.60.030-A
Computation of Sign Area
~~ `mss ,,
~3 ~~
~~ ~~~ .
#~ y ~
46WA(~A-W[Onf.NE~6~
C. Illumination of Signs.
1. All sign illumination shall be from the interior or by indirect lighting that shall be
turned off after business hours, or at ten p.m., whichever is later.
2. Neon tubing as a sign material shall be permitted to the extent that it
composes twenty (20) percent or less of the total allowable sign surface area for the use
as set forth in Table 16.60.040-A. Neon tubing used as an architectural detail is
prohibited in the village-Village Core and Village Mixed Use
^~P;-districts. Neon tubing as an architectural detail may be used in limited
quantities in the ther mixed-use_districts
subject to approval as part of a sign application or architectural review. All neon tubing
used as an architectural detail shall be integrated into the design of the building. Visible
neon tubing outlining the interior of a window shall be considered a sign.
D. Projecting Signs and Sign Clearances.
1. All projecting signs, except awning or canopy signs, must be double-faced.
2. An encroachment permit from the city engineer is required for signs that
project more than two inches over the public right-of-way.
3. Projection Allowed.
a. No awning or canopy sign may project more than six feet over a public
right-of-way.
b. No projecting sign may project
more than six feet over a public right-of-way; however, the sign itself may not
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 8
occupy more than four feet of the projection. The remaining two or more feet may
be a gap between the building wall and the sign or the distance between the
edge of the sign and the sign support.
c. The outside face of a wall sign may extend no more than twelve (12)
inches from the surface of a building or wall.
4. All signs that project more than two inches over a public right-of-way shall
have a minimum height clearance of seven feet.
5. No permit for any sign shall be issued and no sign shall be constructed or
maintained that has less horizontal or vertical clearance from communication lines and
energized electrical power lines than that prescribed by the laws of the state of California
or rules and regulations duly promulgated by agencies thereof.
E. Accessory Signs. Signs that advertise products sold or services provided on the
premises, such as beer signs or an automated teller machine (ATM) signs, shall be considered
accessory signs and do not count towards the permitted signage listed in Table 16.60.040-A if
they are restricted to ten (10) percent or less of the window or wall area on which it is placed.
wish-itis-placed- Accessory signs between 10 and 20 percent of the window or wall area can
greater than ten (10) percent shall be considered toward total permitted sign area. The design,
number, location and size of accessory signs shall be reviewed and approved as part of an
administrative sign permit, administrative sign program, or planned sign program by the
architectural as#viseq~ review -committe .
if the following findings are made:
1. The proposed general design, arrangement, texture, colors, and lighting
placement are consistent with the purposes and regulations of this chapter and any
applicable design guidelines; and
2. The appropriateness of the proposed accessory signs is-are compatible with
other signs and other structures on the premises and contiguous area and do not
exceed twenty (20) percent of the window or wall area on which thev are placed..-
F. Incidental and Supplemental Signs. Signs that are incidental or supplemental to the
use of the property, such as drive through menu boards or vending machine signs do not count
towards the permitted signage listed in Table 16.60.040-A if thev are no larger than sixteen
square feet. Incidental and supplemental signs between 16 and 32 square feet can be allowed
with a recommendation from the architectural review committee, however areas greater than 16
square feet shall be considered toward total permitted sign area. Incidental or supplemental
signs ~"°" "° ^^'°~^°~'"^^'"~~'•• *••^ ~"` ° ^'^^' ^^-' shall not be legible to a person of
average eyesight standing on any property line. The design, number, location and size of
incidental or supplemental signs shall be reviewed and approved as part of an administrative
sign permit, administrative sign program, or planned sign program ~ with the recommendation
from the architectural aduiseq-review committee T"° ^~^"~«°,.«,,...~ ..a.,;~ ..,++,.,, ...
if the following findings are made:
1. The proposed general design, arrangement, texture, colors, and lighting
placement are consistent with the purposes and regulations of this chapter and any
applicable design guidelines; and
2. The appropriateness of the proposed signs are compatible with other signs
and other structures on the premises and contiguous area.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 9
16.60.040 Permitted signs.
Table 16.60.040-A lists the sign regulations for different uses and specifies if planned sign
program or administrative sign program review is required. In addition to the following
regulations, the requirements of any applicable design guidelines shall be incorporated into the
size, design and placement of signs.
Table 16.60.040-A
Standards for Signs Requiring Planning Permits
r m_, __ __._~~ ~. -- --
I Sign Type j
sand Number ;Maximum .Maximum Sign Location/Min.
(Primary Uses Permitted jHeight ;Area ~ Spacing 'Special Regulations
A. Res;dent~al Uses
1. Single-Family 2 wall; or ~ 20 s.f. for each At major Limited to name and
Neighborhood ~ sign entrances logo of neighborhood.
Identification 1 ground per major 4' ; Maintenance
~ lentrance ~ '' responsibility shall be ii
i~ ! that of an appropriate
' maintenance district or
'~
' homeowners'
,
__. association.
___
2. Multiple-Family 2 of the follow;ng: 20 s.f. for each At major ~Mmimum of 11 units
;Complex ( wall; or 6' ! sign entrances ' to qualify as M.F.
:Identification neighborhood.
,( ground 4' Limited to name, logo
_._ _..- _a .._.~
._..._ » ___ ---_ .~ ..._ ~_
_. _ ~ _~_
-..,.._..._. and address.
_._ _. ~~
3. Apartment Below roof . Total area not to
Rental or Leasing ' 1 wall; or line or top of ~
~ exceed 12 s.f.
Office ~wall structure
-- 1 ground '4' - ')
-
-
;4. Temporary
model or Leasing
2 of the following: (Below roofline ;
for top of wall ;
Total area not to ~
exceed 12 s.f. ;
At public street :
frontage with ;
Sign shall not be
illuminated. Sign must
;Office wall; or structure direct access to be removed after all
I : model homes are sold: or
ground 4' ; when the Temoorarv
__
-.
Use Permit expires.
5. Mobilehome ; 2 ofof the 6' 20 s.f. for each - At major Limited to name, logo ?~
;Park Identification wall; or ; sign ! entrances - and address of i
neighborhood.
i ground 4' j
I
IB. Commercial Uses `
'1. Commercial i
1 ground; or _ _
8' `
Total area for all i
- _
Wall signs to be -
Admmistrative Sign
;Businesses not I signs, except separated by 6' Program regwred if
'within commercial 1 projecting Below roof portable signs, minimum : total sign area
;complex within the line or top of : shall not exceed permitted according to
';6eaera~ Regional wall structure 2 s.f. of sign i Portable signs formula exceed 100 s.f.!
Commercial ev T clearance : area per linear ! shall be located Planned Sign Program
(6~#ise-Pre#essieaal required. foot of building ; on private !. required if total sign
and all Mixed use ' frontage for the ; property, and I. area permitted
zoning districts and . and one of the ': first 25 feet of I shall be ' according to formula
:more than 300 feet ' following per public building frontage; prohibited in the ' exceeds 150 s.f.
'from HWY 101 ( street frontage: I , than 1-1 /2 s.f. of public right-of- ' Maximum of 4 signs
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 10
Sign Type
g
and Number Maximum MaximMaxim Location/Mm
Primary Uses Permitted Height ' IArea Spacing ; Special Regulations
nght-of-way combination canopy - Below roof - sign area for ways. ; per site, and maximum ;!.
.land under-canopy line or top of each linear foot of one ground or
li(see illustration in ' iwall structure ' of building projecting sign per site.;
Definitions chapter); ', ~T clearance ! frontage for the j
or ! required ! next 75' of Ground signs shall be j
building ' located in a
Iwall : Below roof frontage, then ; landscaped area equal
line or top of 1/2 s.f. of sign ! to a minimum of 2
! '
i wall structure urea for each ; times the area of the
~ i
. linear foot of ; sign.
!OR 2 of the following ; ;Below roof ' building frontage!
j -iper public street ' line or top of thereafter. Each : i Portable signs shall not
frontage:
' wall structure ' sign not to interfere with building I
j T clearance '. exceed 70 s.f. ingress or egress or ~
required. ' with traffic sight
Portable signs' ' distance at
~
.'combination canopy '! Below roof !~ surface area '. intersections, shall not ~
-
and under-canopy ' I line or top of ~ I shall not exceed ~ ~ obstruct onsite parking ;.
(see illustration in ! wall structure Ij 6 s.f. per side ' or pedestrian
(Definitions chapter); ' " with a maximum. ! circulation, shall be
'or ' of 2 sides per ; removed after daily
',i 5' to include ; sign. ~ ; business hours, shall
I wall , the supporting I not be internally
structure ; : illuminated, and shall
(and 1 portable sign ' j have no electrical
I and/or other
connections to any
......... .
building.
2. Commercial !1 ground per public ij 8' 70 s.f. Parking area or ; Planned Sign Program j
Complex ,Istreet frontage listing , ; adjacent tc i required. Ground signs
Identification for .the complex name : access drive to j shall be located in a i
Commercial only. ~ parking area I landscaped area equal
Complexes with 9 ; ~; i to a minimum of 2
or more tenants ~ 'i ! times the area of the
within6enefal I i ',) ' sign.
Regional
Commercial er s j
E>{fi
R
f
i
l ' I
' j
se-
re
eaa
(
ess
and all Mixed Use ; ~ ,
I
~
zoning districts and'j
more thah 300 feet I
from HWY 101' ~ ~
~ ~
~ I
fright-of-way
~
~3. Commercial 11 ground per public ( 8 '! 50 s.f. ' Parking area or ~ Administrative Sign
;Complex with 2 to Istreet frontage that ~ '. adjacent to ! Program required.
8 tenants within !lists the wmplex ~ ~ access drive to ' Ground signs shall be '.
6enera~ Reoional name and/or tenants , I parking area , located in a
Commercial er land street address I~ ' landscaped area equal
9ffise-RrefessienaF ; to a minimum of 2
and all Mixed Use times the area of the
zoning districts and
~ ; sign.
i
more than 300 feet ' ~ j
from HWY 101
right-of-way .. ~
~
. _ __. ........... I . _._..___ ......
!
I
,
!
i
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 11
_-_ -
Sign Type _--
,
land Number . Maximum : Maximum Sign : Location/Min.
'
Primary Uses (Permitted I lHeight ' Area ' Spacing Special Regulations ';
_
'4 Commercial h ground; or _
20-8' Below
__
CTotal area for all
-----
Wall signs to be _
Administrative Sign
,Business not within'.] :roof line or top
~ signs, except ' separated by 6' : Program required if ~'',
commercial '1 projecting ! of wall ' portable signs, ; minimum ~ total sign area
complex within ( structure T shall not exceed Portable signs ' permitted according to ;
6eaera~Regional land one of the i clearance 2 s.f. of sign ! shall be located formula exceeds 100
Commercial or (following per public ' required. area per linear on private s.f. Planned Sign
6lffise-Prefess~eaal'street frontage:
' . foot of building ! property and j Program required if
all Mixed Use , i ' frontage for the they shall be , total sign area
honing district and icombination canopy ] Below roof '. first 25 feet of ' prohibited in the : permitted according to
~naere-than}within :and under-canopy pine or top of '. (building frontage', public right-of- : formula.
;300 feet from HWY ](see illustration in wall structures then 1-1/2 s.f. of : ways.
101 right-of-way ;Definifions chapter); T clearance i sign area for Ground signs shall be
for ; required. I each linear foot ' located in a
I ! of building , landscaped area equal '
wall Below roof ! frontage for the ~ ', to a minimum of 2
( line or top of ' neM 75' of : times the area of the
wall structure ! building sign.
!i ' frontage, then
~ i,OR 2 of the following',I Below roof ' 1/2 s.f. of sign Portable signs shall not;
i Viper public street '.. line or top of '
' area for each : interfere with building I
.(frontage: wall structure linear foot of ; ingress or egress or
T clearance : building frontage; i with traffic sight
i required. + thereafter. Each ~ distance at I
` sign not to intersections, shall not
combination canopy !( Below roof exceed 70 s.f. obstruct onsight
and under-canopy line or top of ; parking or pedestnan '
(see illustration in. wall structure - Portable signs : circulation, shall be
Definitions chapter); :) surface area ~ removed after daily
for shall not exceed = ; business hours, shall '
i 5' to include . 6 s.f. per side '. not be internally
wall ', the supporting;! with a maximum !. ! illuminated, and shall I
~ i structure ! of 2 sides per ! have no electrical
land 1 portable sign i sign. !; and/or other '
i connections to any
~ i
_...
__ ; building.
5. Commercial 1 ground per public 20' ; 120 s f. Parking area or ; Planned Sign Program'.
X
Complex istreet frontage listing . adjacent to j required. Ground signs
Identification far ;the complex name i _ ' access drive to ~ shall be located in a
Commercial only. ~ , parking area ! landscaped area equal
Complexes with 9 ~ 'j ! to a minimum of 2
or more tenants ; ! ~ ; times the area of the j
within Idighaay ~ ', ! sign. '
~
Regional ~ !~ i
Commeroial and all i
(Mixed Use zoning 'I
'district OR within j !~
6eaeral
'
within 300 feet of
'
~
HWY 101 right-of- I
' '
way
-
6. Commercial 1 ground per public 20' 50 s.f.
~ P
asking area or i Administrative Sign
Complex with 2 to !street frontage that adjacent to , Program requred '
8 tenants within ilists the complex access drive to '; Ground signs shall be
(
kiehwav-Regional .name and/or tenants ( , parking area ; located in a
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 12
iSign Type
and Number Maximum Maximum Sign Location/Min. I '
Primary Uses (Permitted Height Area ; Spacing Special Regulations ;'
'Commercial and all land street address
i
r
; _ --'--
landscaped area equal
Mixed Use zoning ( t ? to a minimum of 2
districts 8R-wilhia ! ; times the area of the
~
SemmersiaLer
blffise-Rrefessieaal ' sign. j
~~ ,
within 300 feet from.,
HWY 101 right-of- i
way ! I I '
7. Commercial 1 ground per public ~6' 36 s f ; Street frontage i Planned Sign Program
Complex street frontage !i ! or adjacent to ! required. Signs in D !
Identification within : access drive to ; overlay districts shall
the Village ; parking area ' comply with applicable i
Seramersia~ Core : Design Guidelines.
and Mixed Use
Districts I ~
_. ..._ ...... ..
L. .. .. _. ''
_..... .. :'
'8. Business I;1 wall; or : Below roof ' Total area for At bulding To be considered with
Identification within ~ ' line or top of ; each tenant's ' frontage Administrative Sign
Commercial or i wall structure sign shall not Location of ! Program or Planned
Mixed Use Centers ~
exceed 1-1/2 s.f..
signs for ~
Sign Program, rf any.
i1 combination ( Below roof of sign area for : businesses ' Signs in D overlay
icanopy and under- a line or top of ' each linear foot ' without building ; districts shall comply
canopy (see ( wall ! of building i frontage to be ' with the applicable
jillustration in structures. T '! frontage for the - determined ~ Design Guidelines.
(Definitions chapter); ;! clearance (! business for the : during Sign
for " required. l first 100' of ! Program review.
i frontage, then i !
~,1 projecting Below roof ' 1/2 s.f. of sign !
~ I line or top of I area for each F !
i 'per public street " wall structure.' linear foot of
jfrontage ' T clearance ' building frontage;,
required. ' thereafter.
' Individual sign
'
j '. not to exceed 70 '-
s.f.
9. Major Tenant N groundr and 8' Total area for At building I To be consistent wdh '
(20.000 square feet] each tenant's frontage I Administrative Sign i
for lar er !1 wall; or '. Below roof sign shall not ~ Program or Planned
Identification within '( line or top of ' exceed 1-1/2 s.f.' ! Sign Program, if any.
Commercial or j wall structure ' of sign area for Signs in D overlay
!Mixed Use Centers each linear foot districts shall comply
'.1 combination Below roof '.
! of building ~- with the applicable
icanopy and under-. line or top of ! frontage for the ! Design Guidelines. i
~ icanopy (see wall structure. business for the ~ j
illlustration in T clearance first 100' of ! Ground signs shall be
IDefinifions chapter), required. ' frontage, then ' located in a !
or '. 1/2 s.f. of sign ' landscaped area equal
! i ' area for each to a minimum of 2
',1 projecting Below roof '.; linear foot of ~ times the area of the
i „ line or top of .! building frontage . sign.
!per building frontage ,i
wall structure. '
thereafter. I
for each business II T clearance ' Individual sign
required. ' not to exceed 70'
' s.f. !
... I
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 13
Sign yTSign pe
and Number Maximum Maximum Sign
- Location/Min.
Primary Uses . !Permitted Height Area Spacing - Special Regulations '
~10. Business 'Major tenant; 2 Below roof ~Ma1or tenant: To : Planned Sign Program
Identification within ~eMerior wall and 1 line or top of 'be determined 's required. .~
Shopping 'interior wall per wall structure ' during Planned '
A4aFIsCenters interior store i Sign Program
i entrance Minor I review Minor
tenant: 1 interior wall : tenant: 1 s.f. per'.
' each linear foot -.
iof building
( i frontage in , I '
mteriorofwall
11. Business i1 ground per public 5 `32 s f In pedestrian
Directory Signs (for street frontage access area
( !
multi-tenant sites) I I !
__.
12. Automotive 1 of the following: ~ ( Total area for all Walls signs to ; Planned Sign Program
~
Service Stations J signs shall not be separated by requred Price sign
Signs ground, 8 (50' 20 in exceed 300 6' minimum : can be combined with i
Highway square feet. I other signs as long as y
' 6emraersiat ' Each sign not to no single sign exceeds
~ ' Mixed Use ' exceed 70 s.f. , 70 s.f. Signs ii
i ~enezone)_ ; advertising such
~ ! accessory uses as
projecting; and '•, Sians ! food markets, car
between 20 ; washes and
i and 50 feet ~ automotive repairs are
i can be ': included in permitted
'
considered ; sign area and number
~ I through the
Conditional ` Ground signs shall be
j { Use Permit ~ located in a i
( ; roa cess' '
~ landscaped area equal
i ~ ~ Below roof to a minimum of 2
j , line or top of ' ( i times the area of the
i { wall structure I ; sign.
I
~ ',~ Tclearance ~
! required. ' ': ~
i 4 wall ; Below roof ( j
I line or top of i
( ~
~ ; t
wall structure „ ~ I
__
d
_
1 ground, and
s
all
e _
Sign Program
l
i ~9 ,
9 c
x sepaia ~d by 6
; quved.
re
Restaurants, 0 fee
', portab e
s
(Motels, and Mini- i ; can be shall not exceed' Portable signs ' Ground signs shall be
(Marts within the ' considered i 1 1/2 s.f. of sign .' shall be located i located in a
~
~IdigFtway '. through the '. urea for each ',i on private : landscaped area equal
!
erRegional ' Conditional ' linear foot of property and ~ to a minimum of 2
Commercial and - Use Permit street frontage, ; they shall be I times the area of the
all Mixed Use i roa cess' ' ten 1/2 s.f. of prohibited in the ~ sign.
zones ewvithia~Fie : ! ',i sign area for ' public right-of-
6eneral 1 ground; ': 8' each linear foot ways. Portable signs shall nod
6emmersia!-zene I 'i ofstreet I interferewithbwlding !
and within 300' of ~ or ' frontage i
~ ingress or egress or ;
HWY 101 right-of- _`
thereafter. Each
; )
with traffic sight
way j 2 wall per street ' Below roof sign not to distance at
frontage line or top of ', exceed 70 s.f. ~ intersections, shall not ',
~~ wall structure '.i i obstruct onsite Dorking
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 14
,;Sign Type
'and Number Maximum
Maximum Sign
Location/Min.
Primary Uses Permitted Height Area ~ Spacing , Special Regulations
and 1 portable sign (5' to include '. Portable signs ~ or pedestrian
i ''the supporting! surface area circulation, shall be
?structure shall not exceed removed after daily
' 6 s.f. per side '. ' business hours, shall
'I I
~ with a maximum ' not be internally
! of 2 sides per ' illuminated, and shall
; sign. have no electrical
and/or other
connections to any
... .......... I _ _ .I
.'~ ... .......... i building........
14. Bed and ' ___
~1 of an e, as ~~As a roved '
y typ I pp ______
pproved
Asa
As approved _ __
As approved through
Breakfast Inns approved throughthrough the ! through the : through the - the conditional use
the conditional use ',jconditional conditional use ' conditional use i permit process. Signs
permit process >use permit ! permit process '; permit process may not be internally
process '
' illuminated and shall
~ not contain the words
~ "hotel," "motel" or "bed
'c . and breakfast"
C. Office Uses
!~1. Site Identification 1 ground per public 16' 50 s.f. At street ; Planned Sign Program
eF-9ffise-aad-within street frontage with i frontage with ; required.
'Mixed-Use
ElHfi
/6
i
l access
~ ' access
;!j
se
enKaers
a
c
commercial/
l
d
F
i
l
'' j
a
us
F
a
GerHplexescomalex ,
I d
'es
2. Office Building 1 wall Below roof 12 s f Limited to name,
.Identification line or to of
P s mbol or address
Y
wall structure ' only.
3. Business 1 wall; or Below roof Total area for At building To be consistent with
!Identification within i line or top of each tenant's frontage. Administrative Sign
9ffise-andMixed '. wall structure ; sign shall not - Location of . Program or Planned
!Use 9#ieelor ' ' exceed 1-1/2 s.f.': signs for ' Sign Program, if any.
Commercial/ 1 combination Below roof of sign area for businesses Signs in D overlay
{aduetrial ;canopy and under- '. line or top of each linear foot . without building ( districts shall comply
Scomplexes ;canopy (see 'wall structure. of building frontage to be with the applicable
.illustration in '~T clearance •. frontage for the -,. determined Design Guidelines.
Definitions chapter); ;(required. ; business for the : during Sign
or ,i first 100' of Program review
~
'I
~1 projecting
(Below roof ' frontage, then
1/2 s.f. of sign
I
bli
t
t
(line or top of
w
ll
t
t
area for each
li
f
t
f
I ree
(,per pu
c s
;frontage wa
s
ruc
ure.
'~T clearance near
oo
o
building frontage; '~
i jrequired. thereafter.
'j ' Individual sign ;~
: ~ not to exceed 70
~3 j 'I S.f. ',
4. Business
(Di
Si '1 ground per public
f ~5 32 s f In pedestnan
rectory
gn street
rontage j access area
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 15
Sign Type
and Number Maximum Maximum Sign Location/Min. '
(Primary Uses Permitted Height ;Area Spacing ilSpecial Regulations ,'
!~D. Industnal Uses
i
i
~1. Business
Identfication 1 ground; or 8' ~
~ . Total area for all
signs shall not Wall signs to be
separated by 6
~ Planned Sign Program
required if total sign
'Single Tenant Sites ' i
' exceed 2 s.f. of ~minimu ~area permitted
1 projecting (Below roof sign area per ,according to formula
: .line or top of . linear foot of l iexceeds a total sign
iwall structure : building frontage, ' area of 150 s.f. Limited I'
' I, ',~ T clearance : for the first 25 - to maximum of 4 signs i
;and one of the ~ required. feet of building ; per site, and a
following per public ' frontage then 1- ' maximum of 1 ground ,
street frontage: ' 1/2 s.f. of sign or projecting sign per
- area for each ~ site.
i Below roof linear foot of
~ combination canopy jline or top of building frontage', ; Ground signs shall be ~
'I ' and under-canopy . wall structure i for the neM 75' '.. located in a
'~ (see illustration in ! T clearance of building landscaped area equal
, Definitions chapter) ! required ' frontage, then I to a minimum of 2
or a ! 1/2 s.f. of sign ' times the area of the
area for each sign.
: wall ! Below roof ' linear foot of
; line or top of ' building frontage'.
wall structure I thereafter. Each
( ' sign not to ' ~
OR 2 of the following ' i exceed 70 s.f. ' i
( per public street I j
( frontage: ( ~)
~~ ( ! Below roof
line or top of '!
' wall structure
combination canopy ', T clearance
; and under-canopy ' required.
(see illustration in
Definitions chapter);
or
i' ; Below roof
wall line or top of
; wall structure
12. Complex ~ 1 ground per public ( 8' 36 s.f. Parking area or '. Planned Sign Program !.
'Identification. street frontage ( '~ adjacentto required.
;Multiple Tenant - access drive to
Sites ; parking area
,i3. Business 1 wall;or . Below roof : Total area for : At building '. To be consistent with
i;ldentification: ! line or top of i each tenant's frontage. ' Administrative Sign
;~MUltiple-Tenant ~ wall structure : sign shall not : Location of ' Program or Planned
;Sites . exceed 1-1/2 s.f.: signs for . Sign Program or
i 1 combination `
' Below roof of sign area for '. businesses Planned Sign Program,li
canopy and under- line or top of ' each linear foot ! without building !. if any. Signs in D
canopy (see ? wall structure. ' of building '. frontage to be : overlay districts shall
1 -. illustration in T clearance : frontage for the ' determined - comply with the
Definitions chapter); ; required. ' business for the ': during Sign ' applicable Design
or ; first 100' of ' Program review ' Guidelines for Historic
: frontage, then Districts. '
1 projecting ' Below roof ~ 1/2 s.f. of sign '~
~ line or top of : area for each
',~ ' oer oublir. street ; wall structure. ' linear foot of
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 16
Primary Uses
Type
Number Maximum
pitted Height
age ' 1T clearance i
iximum Sign • Location/Min
as ;Spacing
~ecial Regulations
Business
~ectory Signs:
iltiple Tenant
es
..........
Other Uses
ground per public
reef frontage
Public and 1 ground; or
uses
1 wall; or iBelow roof
;line or top of
.;wall structure
1 combination 'iBelowroof
canopy and under- 'dine or top of
canopy (see ',wwall structure
illustration in !'T clearance
Definitions chapter); !Irequired.
projecting
street
Iding frontage',
~reafter. i
lividual sign
to exceed 70
--
s.f. ~In pedestrian
access area
s.f. of sign
ea for each
;ear foot of
iilding frontage
~t to exceed 70
street
.............. ......... ..........
ound signs shall be
sated in a
rdscaped area equal
a minimum of 2
res the area of the
16.60.050 Exempt signs.
The following signs shall be exempt from the administrative sign permit, administrative sign
program, and planned sign program requirements, and shall be permitted subject to the
limitations contained in this section. A greater number of signs or signs of larger size than
specified below shall be prohibited, unless elsewhere specifically permitted by, and an
appropriate permit obtained consistent with, the provisioris of this chapter.
A. Temporary advertising signs or special event displays painted on a window or
constructed of paper, cloth, or similar material, including banners, flags, pennants and balloons;
provided, that all of the following conditions are met:
1. Window Signs, Banners, Flags and Pennants.
a. The total area of window signs does not exceed twenty (20) percent of
the window area.
b. The sign is no greater than twenty-four (24) square feet.
c. The sign is displayed for no more than thirty (30) days prior to an event
^^•' °°~•°^ ~'^~•° ^F'^^~•^~~'; and for no more than sixty (60) calendar days each
calendar year, to promote events or sales of products or merchandise.
d. No more than one such sign is allowed per street frontage.
e. Roof signs are not permitted.
o r_..~ ^^a u,.r n;. rZ^u..,,.,~ r L.FI~.M L. L. n~....i..,,
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 17
rl'. .d.. ..4 ..v4n n f.. ..I o n4..
,,..,.., w•,• gr ... .,,..,,.....,,..,, ,.,, cpc
...4 .+ rL'n .+I L..
mfln4nhle .4io..l ~..o ..0 6..Nr!'i.. , hcnn4'.... /A\Ml/.+\ ..f 4hic cnr4i....
.. „r~,.~ .. .................................. \• v\~/\ rte,-.*„~ ~~o.*o„
a. Use of a beacon/searchlight may not exceed a consecutive three-day
period for a maximum of twelve (12) such periods in each calendar year.
b. Beacons must be directed into the atmosphere and not at any point on
land.
1A/inrin... ham......... fl..,.... nM h.+l L.....~ .. n.4 i..fL.ML. L.
dicnln .. ho 0.4 i L~....ti.... ..d4h h.. ~.....nc ..c Go4o.4 i ,h~..n4'n.. /A\/Z\/.+\ .+...4
/h1 of 4h'c nn4inn
vrr.
B. Permanent window signs limited to hours of operation, address and emergency
information; provided, that all of the following are met:
1. The total area of such signs does not exceed twenty (20) percent of the
window area.
2. The sign is no greater than four square feet.
C. Real estate signs for sales, rental or lease subject to the following regulations:
1. Residential dwellings offered for sale, rent or lease on an individual basis not
in association with a subdivision or apartment complex, one sign per separate street
frontage not exceeding six square feet each and six feet in height. Such signs shall be
removed within #+fteen-(1~-) ten 10 calendar days after the sale has been closed or the
property has been rented or leased. Signs shall not create sight distance hazards.
2. One sign per street frontage to advertise the sale, lease or rent of commercial
or industrial property, provided all of the following are met:
a. Such signs shall have a maximum area of thirty-two (32) square feet
each, and be no greater than eight feet in height.
b. Signs shall not create sight distance hazards for pedestrians or
vehicles.
c. Such signs shall be removed within ten (10) calendar days of the close
of the sale or termination of the lease or rental agreement.
d. Where a project has in excess of six hundred (600) lineal feet of street
frontage, one additional sign shall be permitted for each full six hundred (600)
lineal feet of street frontage.
D. Subdivision signs subject to the following regulations:
1. Off-site unlighted signs advertising subdivisions within the city, containing only
the name of the subdivision, the name of the developer and/or agent, an identification
emblem and a directional arrow shall be permitted, provided:
a. There shall be no more than three such signs located within the city
limits for each subdivision. Signs must be located on private property.
b. The total area of each sign shall not exceed thirty-two (3032) square
feet.
c. The total height of each sign shall not exceed eight feet.
d. Directional subdivision signs may be displayed during the two years
following the date of recordation of the final map or until ninety (90) percent of the
lots have been sold, whichever is earlier.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 18
2. One on-site subdivision sign per subdivision entrance shall be permitted
provided the total area per sign is not greater than thirty-two (3932) square feet and sign
height does not exceed eight feet. Such'on-sig#t-site signs shall be permitted to remain
only as long as a sales office is maintained in the subdivision_or until 90 percent of the
lots have been sold and provided that such signs are maintained in good condition as
determined by the building official.
E. Architect, contractor or construction signs, providing the name of architect(s) and/or
contractor(s) working on the site, subject to the following:
1. For residential projects greater than four dwelling units, up to two signs may be
placed on the construction site; provided, that the total area of each sign shall not
exceed twelve (12) square feet, maximum height shall be six feet, and the sign is located
no closer than ten (10) feet to any property line.
2. For commercial and industrial projects, up to two signs may be placed on the
construction site; provided, that the total area of each sign shall not exceed thirty-two
(32) square feet, maximum height shall be six feet, and the sign is located no closer than
ten (10) feet to any property line.
3. For all other projects, a total of two signs may be placed on the construction
site, provided that the total area of each sign shall not exceed eight square feet,
maximum height six feet, and the sign is located no closer than five feet to any property
line.
F. Future tenant identification sign to advertise the future use of an approved project on
the property may be placed on vacant or developing property to give the location where
information may be obtained, subject to the following:
1. Only one future tenant identification sign per parcel may be permitted.
2. Future tenant identification signs shall be limited to a maximum of thirty-two
(32) square feet and four feet in height.
3. The sign shall be placed no closer than ten (10) feet to any property line.
4. Such signs shall not be erected until a building permit is issued for the
development and shall be removed within one year from the date of the building permit.
5. Where a project has in excess of six hundred (600) lineal feet of street
frontage, one additional future tenant identification sign shall be permitted for each full
six hundred (600) lineal feet of street frontage.
G. Residential Signs.
1. Multiple-family residential building identification signs limited to address and
building number or letter. One wall sign per building frontage located below the roof line,
limited to a maximum area of two square feet and a maximum letter height of four
inches.
2. Residential name plate: one name plate per parcel for single-family residential
or agricultural uses, limited to a maximum area of two square feet and a maximum letter
height of four inches.
H. Agricultural signs identifying agricultural products grown or raised on the premises
subject to the following:
1. The number of such signs shall be limited to one per street frontage.
2. If wall mounted, the sign shall be located below the roof line.
3. Freestanding signs shall be no higher than six feet.
4. Each sign shall have an area no greater than sixteen (16) square feet and
shall be erected only during the growing and harvest season.
I. Exempt Signs. Political and religious signs which are no larger than sixteen (16)
square feet, placed on private property with the express consent of the property owner and
which comply with all other applicable provisions of this chapter. If the political sign pertains to
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 19
an upcoming election, the sign cannot be posted sooner than sixty (60) days prior to the election
and must be removed no later than seven days after the election.
J. Government and noncommercial flags: An official flag, except when displayed in
connection with commercial promotion; provided, that such flags are no greater in size than ten
(10) feet by fifteen (15) feet or as approved ~e-sit~seansil with a recommendation from the
Architectural Review Committee.
K. Miscellaneous Signs.
1. Interior signs completely within a building when not visible or readable or
intended to be read from off-site or outside of the building or structure;
2. Memorial tablets, plaques, or directional signs for community historical and
cultural resources installed by the city or by acity-recognized historical society or civic
organization;
3. Official and legal notices issued by any court, public body or officer, or in
furtherance of any nonjudicial process by federal, state or local laws;
4. Public utility signs indicating danger or that serve as an aid to public safety, or
that show locations of underground facilities or public telephones;
5. Safety signs on construction sites;
6. Public transportation vehicle signs, including, but not limited to, buses and taxi
cabs;
7. Signs on licensed commercial vehicles that are not used or intended for use as
portable signs and that are not specifically prohibited by the provisions of this chapter;
8. Change of copy within an approved planned sign program or administrative
sign program that conforms to the provisions of the approved sign program;
9. Holiday decorations to celebrate nationally recognized holidays and local
celebrations;
10. Vehicle-oriented convenience and directional signs solely for the purpose of
guiding traffic and parking on private property, and not bearing advertising material,
limited to a maximum area of two square feet and a maximum letter height of four
inches;
11. Directional, warning or informational signs as required or authorized by law or
by any federal, state, county special district or city authority and "No Trespassing," "No
Parking," "Neighborhood Watch" and similar warning signs, limited to a maximum area of
two square feet and a maximum letter height of four inches;
12. Incidental signs for auto-related uses, motels and hotels that show notices of
services provided or required by law, trade affiliations, and credit cards accepted,
provided such signs are attached to an otherwise approved ground sign, structure or
building and limited to a maximum area of twa- eight square feet and a maximum letter
height of four inches;
13. "Open" and "Closed" signs: one sign per entrance no larger than one square
foot in area;
14. Automobile service stations are permitted to have the following additional
signs, provided they conform to the height and setback requirements of the district in
which they are located.
a. State-authorized testing centers. Four square feet per sign, wall
mounted only,
b. Price signs: One single- or double-faced sign per street frontage,
twenty (20) square feet maximum per face. This exception is intended to allow for
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 20
full compliance with state law for posting of gasoline prices. Portable price signs
are not permitted,
c. Pump signs: One sign for each gas pump unit not to exceed two
square feet per pump face or one sign per bank of pumps, not to exceed eight
square feet per face, identifying the gasoline brand and rating only;
15. City-sponsored civic signs for community entrance, identification, direction or
information.
L. Any sign as determined by the community development director to be similar in use
and size to the signs listed above.
16.60.060 Prohibited signs.
A. Any sign not in compliance with the provisions of this code. Potential violations shall
be processed pursuant to development code Section 16.08.100;
B. Roof signs extending above the eave or parapet line, except when, in the opinion of
the architectural advisery-review committee, the sign is a complementary architectural feature of
the building. This provision does not apply to integral roof signs;
C. Flashing signs, except time and temperature signs specifically permitted pursuant to a
site development approval, such as but not limited to architectural review, plot plan review,
conditional use permit review; or sign approval;
D. Animated signs conveying the illusion of or actual motion;
E. Revolving or rotating signs;
F. Signs emitting audible sounds, odors or visible matter;
G. Vehicle-mounted commercial signs when parked or stored on property or within the
public right-of-way to identify a business or advertise a product;
H. Portable signs not specifically permitted by the provisions of this chapter;
I. Off-site signs not specifically permitted by the provisions of this chapter;
J. Signs within the public right-of-way except those required by a governmental agency;
K. Signs within the public right-of-way (including planted strips, tree wells, fences, and
street medians), on public property or in any location which interferes with vehicular, bicycle, or
pedestrian circulation or safety;
L. Signs in proximity to utility lines that have less horizontal or vertical clearance from
authorized communication or energized electrical power lines than that prescribed by the laws
of the state of California, or rules and regulations duly promulgated by agencies thereof;
M. Signs blocking door or window openings or fire escapes;
N. Outdoor si ns containin li ht bulb strin s ~~;:^^_^~' ^__^ 4_h'nn (nl..n ~. 4_L.inn f,llell
g g g g r~ - ~ ~ .a•--- o
outside of the building except for temporary uses such as, but not limited to, Christmas tree
lots, carnivals, and other similar uses subject to prior approval of a temporary use permit;
O. Banners, flags, pennants, balloons, and sail or wing signs-aad-beasef}s~,-~~a~
enen'fin.~lh... m44e.1 4.., 4L.o .. of 4L.in nh.,..4n~ unless approved through the temporary
use permit process upon the recommendation of the architectural review committee;
P. Inflatable advertising devices, including hot air balloons unless approved through the
temporary use permit process upon the recommendation of the architectural review committee:;
c..ne..4 0 .~ f'n.olL... .r.i4lcrl ti.. 41.n n of 4Ko nL.....4e.•
y O. Statuary (statues or sculptures) advertising products or logos of the business that are
located outside of the structure that houses the business;
R. Electric reader board signs that are not exempt by virtue of being interior signs, and
that are not otherwise specifically permitted by the provisions of this chapter;
S. Signs that purport to be or are an imitation of or resemble official traffic warning
devices or signs that, by color, location or lighting, may confuse or disorient vehicular or
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 21
pedestrian traffic. This prohibition shall not include traffic or directional signs installed on private
property to control on-site traffic;
T. Signs in connection with a home occupation;
U. Strobe or revolving lights used as an attention-getting device, e;:c~rt v~ ~rc^;ficw!!y
n~ mi44e..1 L... 4L... r ..F 4L.'e nL.....4e.r
~~~~~..~.. ..~ ~.., p.rv...,......°, vrznrr-vr~upacr.
V. Commercial sions held or supported by a person.
16.60.070 Revisions.
Revisions to existing signs shall be processed as follows:
A. Revisions to Planned Sign Programs.
1. If the project consists of nine or more tenants or has a total aggregate sign
area of more than one hundred fifty (150) square feet and revisions are proposed that
increase the total number of signs by more than ten (10) percent ef-or increase the sign
area for a tenant by more than ten (10) percent, the revision shall be proposed pursuant
to the provisions of a planned sign program.
2. If the project consists of nine or more tenants or has a total aggregate sign
area of more than one hundred fifty (150) square feet and revisions are proposed that
increase the total number of signs by less than ten (10) percent and increase the sign
area for a tenant by less than ten (10) percent, the revision shall be processed pursuant
to the provisions of an administrative sign program.
3. If the project consists of eight or fewer tenants with a total aggregate sign area
of less than one hundred fifty (150) square feet, the revision shall be processed pursuant
to the provisions of an administrative sign permit.
B. Revisions to Administrative Sign Programs.
1. If revisions are proposed that increase the total number of signs by more than
ten (10) percent or increase the sign area for a tenant by more than ten (10) percent, the
revision shall be processed pursuant to the provisions of an administrative sign program.
2. If revisions are proposed that increase the total number of signs by less than
ten (10) percent and increase the sign area for a tenant by less than ten (10) percent,
the revision shall be processed pursuant to the provisions of an administrative sign
permit.
C. Administrative Sign Permit. Revisions to administrative sign permits require a new
administrative sign permit and shall be processed pursuant to the provisions of Section
16.60.020.
D. Nonconforming Signs. Signs existing prior to February 13, 1987 that do not comply
with the provisions of this chapter shall be regarded as nonconforming signs and the following
provisions apply:
1. Historical Signs. Upon written request by a sign owner, the city council may
determine that a sign is historical based on the following findings:
a. The sign is more than forty (40) years old or represents an important
period in the city's history;
b. The design of the sign is unique because its shape, colors, materials,
or other aspects of sign design are indicative of the historical period within which
it was constructed; or
c. The design of the sign is unique because it is integrated into the design
of an historical building and removal of the sign would jeopardize the historical
integrity of the building.
Historical signs may be maintained, reconstructed, modified or expanded consistent with
the historical nature of the sign through the administrative sign permit process. New signs
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 22
proposed on the property shall comply with this title and shall be complementary to the historical
sign.
2. Signs not qualifying for historical status shall be permitted to remain until such
time as:
a. There is a change in the use of the property on which the sign is
located and discretionary approval for the change of use is required;
b. There are alterations or enlargements to the site or building on the
property in excess of twenty-five (25) percent or more of the existing site or
building. The amount of alterations shall be cumulative over time; or
c. Expansion, movement or modification of the sign. A change of copy or
normal maintenance and repair does not constitute grounds for modification of a
nonconforming sign.
3. Any business with a nonconforming sign shall not be entitled to any additional
signs unless the nonconforming sign is made to comply with the provisions of this
chapter. This subdivision shall not apply if the existing nonconforming sign is located
within the same commercial complex but at a different business location, or if the
existing nonconforming sign is not owned or controlled by the sign permit applicant, or if
the applicant is not the agent of the business that owns or controls the existing
nonconforming sign.
16.60.080 Abandoned signs.
A. Any sign that pertains to a business or occupation, which is no longer using the
particular property or which relates to a time or event that no longer applies, constitutes false
advertising/identification. In such case the sign copy shall be removed within thirty (30) days
and the sign structure within ninety (90) days after the associated business or occupation has
vacated the property or the associated event has ended. An abandoned sign is prohibited and
the sign removal shall be the joint responsibility of the owner of the sign and the owner of the
property.
B. Any sign copy that no longer identifies the subject matter for which it was intended
shall be removed or changed by the owner of the sign or the owner of the property upon which it
is located within thirty (30) days of the event causing the improper identification. The structure
shall be removed or replaced subject to the appropriate approvals required by this chapter.
16.60.090 Signs required to be removed.
Signs that are not removed in the specified time periods pursuant to the provisions of this
chapter shall constitute a nuisance, and shall be subject to removal under the provisions of this
title.
16.60.100 Construction specifications and safety.
A. Compliance with Building Code. All signs shall comply with all applicable provisions of
this code, including, but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Sign Code
relative to design and construction, structural integrity, connections and safety. Signs shall also
comply with the provisions of all applicable electric codes and the additional construction
standards set forth in this section.
B. Construction of Signs.
1. All signs shall be structurally safe; shall be made of rust inhibitive materials;
and shall be fabricated, constructed, erected or installed and maintained in such a
manner as will comply with the provisions of this code.
2. Each sign hereafter erected or remodeled shall bear, in a permanent position,
clearly legible identification decals stating the firm or corporation responsible for its
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 23
construction and erection. Electric signs shall be marked with input amperages at the full
load input.
3. No sign shall be attached in any form, shape or manner that will interfere with
an opening required for ventilation, except in circumstances when not in violation of the
building or fire codes.
4. Signs shall be located in such a way that they maintain horizontal and vertical
clearance of all overhead electrical conductors in accordance with the electrical code
and the regulations of the affected entity and the public utilities commission.
5. Certain signs may be required to be properly guttered and connected with
down spouts to storm drains so that water will not drip or flow into public sidewalks or
streets.
6. All permanent free-standing signs or poles shall be self-supporting structures
erected on and permanently attached to concrete foundations. Such structures or poles
shall be fabricated only from steel or other such materials as approved by the building
official.
7. All signs shall be constructed to withstand wind loads, acceptable to the
building official.
8. No sign shall be suspended by chains or other devices that will allow the sign
to swing due to wind action. Signs shall be anchored to prevent any lateral movement
that would cause wear on supporting members or connections.
C. Maintenance of Signs.
1. Every sign and all parts, portions, components and materials thereof shall be
maintained and kept in good condition and proper repair. The display surface of all signs
shall be kept clean, neatly painted, and free from rust and corrosion. Any cracked or
broken surfaces and malfunctioning or damaged portions of a sign shall be repaired or
replaced within thirty (30) calendar days following notification by the city. Noncompliance
with such a request shall constitute a nuisance and may be abated in accordance with
the provisions of this code.
2. Any maintenance, except a change of copy not specifically exempted, shall be
permitted.
11.ai.
v
~* JULY 10, 7B1
~F
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD OF DIRE TORS
FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES~~
SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 THIRD QUARTER BUDGET STATUS REPORT
DATE: MAY 22, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council/Agency Board:
Approve detailed budget adjustments listed in the 3`d Quarter budget report
Approve Schedules A & B
Approve (Deny) requests for additional appropriations in the General Fund.
FUNDING:
The General Fund ending balance will be impacted by the approval of the recommended
revenue and appropriation adjustments as follows:
Projected Fund Balance at Mid Quarter Report: $2,022,844
Net Council Approved Adjustments (82,437)
Revenue increase 63,473
Proposed Adjustments (111.238)
Total Decrease to General Fund Balance (121,202)
Adjusted Fund Balance 6/30/2007 $1.892.642
Because some projects, operations, and orders are not complete by the June 30 year-end
close, it is common for the projected fund balance to be reduced by expenses (carryovers) to
be paid in the current fiscal year.
DISCUSSION:
Background
Each year, the City Council/RDA Board of Directors adopts a budget, which commits
resources to the accomplishment of its policies. The Financial Services Department routinely
prepares quarterly budget updates for the City Council.
CONSIDERATION OF THIRD QUARTER BUDGET STATUS REPORT
MAY 22, 2007
PAGE 2
The purpose of the City's Third Quarter budget review is to:
• Compare revenues received and expenditures made to budgeted amounts to determine
appropriate adjustments.
• Comment on any significant budget trends that will impact financial planning.
• Provide a link between the City budget, the financial records, and the independent
financial audit.
• Compare current revenues and expenditures against the prior fiscal year.
Summary
• The projected "Budgeted" General Fund Balance for FY 2006-07, after proposed budget
adjustments, is approximately $1,892,642. The General Fund Balance is 13% of
appropriations. However, this assumes all budgeted amounts will be expended at year-
end. Staff expects that expenditure savings will increase the General Fund Balance to
meet or nearly meet the 20% goal.
FY 2006-07 General Fund reports an approximate $250,801 year-to-date increase in
revenues and approximately $515,678 increase in expenditures over the prior fiscal year.
The receipt of cyclical revenues and the accrual of revenues earned in FY 2006-07, but
received after July 1, 2007, will substantially increase General Fund revenues. In
addition, not all budgeted capital transfers and expenditures will be needed by year-
end, thus resulting in expenditures less than budgeted.
Council approved additional adjustments of $83,437 from the General Fund in the third
quarter. An increase of $7,500 for tree trimming, $4,400 for the OPEB (Other Post
Employment Benefits) study, $500 for America in Bloom, $16,500 for the Police Chief
recruitment, $39,473 for the Regional Wildland Fire grant (this is offset by an increase
in grant revenue of $31,578 and a transfer in from the Local Use Tax Fund of $7,895),
$7,064 additional funds for the purchase of a hybrid vehicle for the Building and Safety
department, $500 for Destination Imagination, and $7,500 to reimburse legal costs to
John Taylor related to the Castillo Del Mar road extension.
Staff is requesting an overall increase in General Fund appropriations of $111,238 and an
increase in General Fund revenues of $24,000. These adjustments are listed on
Schedule B in the attached report.
Additional increases are being requested in the PEG Fund ($8,400), Park Development
($62,000), Park Improvement ($89,607), Local Use Tax ($7,895), In-Lieu Affordable
Housing ($180,824), State Cops Grant ($62,967), and Sewer Facility Fund ($100,000)
These adjustments are explained in more detail in the attached report.
Staff is requesting reductions in several of the funds due to changes in estimates, deleted
CIP projects and projects being moved to future years. They include: Fire Impact Fund
CONSIDERATION OF THIRD QUARTER BUDGET STATUS REPORT
MAY 22, 2007
PAGE 3
($20,000), Traffic Signal Fund ($10,000), Transportation Facility Fund ($152,628), CIP
Fund ($408,007), Sewer Fund ($49,700), Water Fund ($44,000), and Water Facility Fund
($94,900).
• This report includes an additional schedule (Schedule C), which lists all of the current CIP
projects, expenditures to date, and remaining balances.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for City Council consideration:
Approve the following Schedules A, B, and C included in the Third Quarter Budget
Status report that summarizes budget adjustments;
2. Do not approve staff recommendation;
3. Modify staff recommendation and approve the schedule;
4. Provide direction to staff.
Attachment(s): Quarterly Financial Report
Schedule A
Schedule B
Schedule C
CITY OF
Quarterly Financial Report
Third Quarter of Fiscal Year 2006-07
May 22, 2007
OVERVIEW
This report summarizes the City's overall financial position for
the fiscal year through March 2007. Except as noted below,
revenues and operating expenditures are generally on target
based on past trends for the first quarter.
Adjusted Budgets: The revenue projections and budgets
include the adjustments for encumbrances, carryovers, and
expenditures that are included in this report.
GENERAL FUND
General Fund Financial Condition:
With 75% of the year complete, General Fund revenues are
slightly down when compared to the prior year and
expenditures are at 70%. The projected General Fund balance
is approximately 13% of appropriations. While this is below
the City Council reserve goal of 20%, it is anticipated that the
actual percentage will be higher at the end of the year. The
Fiscal Year 2007-08 & 2008-09 Bi-Annual Budget includes a
recommendation to Council to reduce the reserve goal from
20% to 15%. With revenues staying relatively consistent and
expenditures increasing at a higher rate, it is becoming difficult
to maintain the 20% goal. In addition, the Local Use Tax
Fund, which is technically General Fund revenue, can be used
to provide additional reserves.
T! yy#~ 1:4+Y... y t .,
'M e!!Ll~.xy~tl!!~ f 1 4. ~,
Ggneral~Fund
~
l i. Ti~pp,*,,,~~~~ ,.~'a~
"R~{$ Y'~~f~l~'~'
f
~' , ~ N
~:! $ t
STD ~
l ~!
'S^'~hA! 'tt
<
°f
~~'
~
~
c~
,~~c ,.,~.-a F~:~n ee tt
~ ~„
o
Revenues 13,751,664 7,851,674 57%
Expenditures 14,218,102 9,926,888 70%
Beginning Fund Balance 2,359,080 17%
Ending Fund Balance 1,892,642 13%
Top Ten Revenues: The top ten revenues account
for 78% of the General Fund revenue. By
highlighting these, we can get a better understanding
of the City's revenue position. Overall, these
revenues are generally performing as projected
based on payment schedules and past trends. Any
significant variances are noted on the next page.
3rd uarter -Current Fiscal Year
n z+ .£ a, y'. x
~~Tu M1'en`n w "ues~;2
Property Tax ~'~CRrlI'ent
~"rrBud etr ~
4,220,660 ~` " ~
'~~YTDActiiiih
2,279,167
.%~
54%
Tripe Flip -Sales Tax 947,305 473,652 50%
Triple Flip -VLF 1,131,341 565,671 50%
Sales Tax 2,648,150 1,581,388 60%
TOT 461,000 289,444 63%
Franchise Tax 557,050 236,532 42%
Building Permits 228,533 130,751 57%
VLF 112,000 63,843 57%
Children in Motion 268,000 223,506 83%
Telecommunication site
leases
164,700
103,826
63%
Total 10,738,739 5,947,780 55%
3rd Quarter -Prior Fiscal Year
c
To" i~Gen~ a hues
Property Tax
8~dd et ~
3,584,110 a:S IN~cES~„~~ap ~°
:14YTD pctual%
2,318,554 L
.`0lo i
65%
Triple Flip -Sales Tax 798,666 399,333 50%
Triple Flip -VLF 1,026,511 485,060 47%
Sales Tax 2,873,000 1,475,306 51%
TOT 391,400 282,087 72%
Franchise Tax 530,500 249,649 47%
Building Permits 217,650 140,158 64%
VLF 114,000 60,826 53%
Children in Motion 255,000 199,577 78%
Telecommunication
site leases
135,000
75,394
56%
Total 9,925,837 5,685,944 57%
Quarterly Financial Report Third Quarter of Fiscal Year 2006-07
By comparing the YTD prior year revenue to the current YTD
revenue we can see an overall increase in the third quarter
revenue of 5%.
Comparison of Actual YTD Revenue to Prior YTD
Revenue
'-~'' e~§~~i[
~'ap T~en~ v)lnues
Property Tax
~'. .; bh 1i1~
YTD' Aep~at
2,279,167 T
i~`fyt't?:h Qr..
~_1~'~r ,~
2,318,554
aC' n~ry.,~ '<y~
Deercas
(39,387)
y {~..
-2%
Triple Flip -Safes
Tax
473,652
399,333
74,319
19%
Triple Flip -VLF 565,671 485,060 80,611 17%
Sales Tax 1,581,388 1,475,306 106,082 7%
TOT 289,444 282,087 7,357 3%
Franchise Tax 236,532 249,649 (13,117) -5%
Building Permits 130,751 140,158 (9,407) -7%
VLF 63,843 60,826 3,017 5%
Children m Motion 223,506 199,577 23,929 12%
Telecommunication
site leases
103,826
75,394
28,432
38%
Total 5,947,780 5,685,944 261,836 5%
Comparison of 3rd Qtr Current Year Budget to Prior Year
Budget
Top Ten>13e~enttes
}'Bodget ;i ~ r
~"~'~'Budg@] ;,
't-~ ~
'~+%o
Property Tax 4,220,660 3,584,110 636,550 18°/
Triple Flip- Sales
Tax
947,305
798,666
148,639
19°/
Triple Flip-VLF 1,131,341 1,026,511 104,830 10°/
Sales Tax 2,64$150 2,873,000 (224,850 -8°/
TOT 461,000 391,400 69,600 18°/
Franchise Tax 557,050 530,500 26,550 5°/
BuildingPemtits 228,533 217,650 10,883 5°/
VLF 112,000 114,000 (2,000 -2°/
Children in Motion 268,000 255,000 13,000 5°/
Telecommumication
site leases
164,700
135,000
29,700
22°/
0 10,738,739 9,925,837 812,902 8°/
• Property Tax: The City receives the majority of its
property tax revenue in December and April. As of
May, this revenue is at 93%. Staff is requesting an
increase of $300,000 based on revised estimates. The
City is expected to reach 100% of the budgeted amount
by the end of the year. The prior year Property Tax is
higher than the current year due to timing differences.
Two property tax payments were received on April 40'
therefore they are in the 4a' quarter. In the prior year
these payments were received on March 31s' and
were included in the 3`~ quarter report.
• Triple Flip - Sales Tax: This revenue is
received 50% in February and 50% in May.
• Triple Flip -VLF: This revenue is received
50% in February and 50% in May.
• Sales Tax -This revenue continues to show a
decline and staff is recommending that the
budget be reduced by $300,000 (from
$2,948,150 to $2,648,150). The City has
received 7 months of revenue (60% of the year)
and this reduction will put the budget on target
with actual revenue received. Sales tax is
higher than the prior year due to timing
differences. The prior year only includes 6
months of revenue.
• Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT): This
revenue dropped from the months of November
through January by 4% when compared to the
prior year. This can be attributed to colder
weather than usual and higher gas prices. The
City has received 8 months of revenue and
should be at 67% of the budget. The month of
February increased by 5% over the prior year
and staff believes that this revenue source will
continue to increase and reach 100% of the
budget by year-end.
• Franchise Fees: This revenue is low due to late
payments that were not received by the end of
the third quarter. As of this report, revenue is
currently at 85% of budget.
• Building Permits - This revenue source
continues to decline due to the decrease in
building projects. However, there are several
large projects that are anticipated to pull their
permits in the next few months: Hampton Inn,
Applebees, and Chili's. Staff is not
recommending a decrease in this revenue source
based on the anticipated increase.
• Telecommunication Site Leases: This revenue
is higher than the prior year due to the addition
of a new Cingular cell tower located on Ash
Street. It is lower than 75% due to timing
differences; three payments were received at the
beginning of April. This revenue is currently at
73 %.
2
Quarterly Financial Report Third Quarter of Fiscal Year 2006-07
Expenditures: Operating costs are less than budgeted in the
3`d quarter as summarized below:
et ! ~
RAE ~ dxturrs ~ ~ ~ i, 4
~~'ix>&va ~ ~ '~
_ iM Y" I J
. ^~°~~F~
~
Salaries and Benefits 10,900,727 7,908,899 73%
Supplies 275,682 160,819 58%
Services 1,274,894 895,512 70%
Other o rating costs 1,360,230 727,537 53%
Capital purchases 406,569 234,121 58%
Total 14,218,102 9,926,888 70%
• $16,500 for the Police Chief recruitment.
• $39,473 for Regional Wild land Fire grant
expenditures. This is offset by $31,578 in grant
revenue and $7,895 from the Local Use Tax
Fund for the required local match. There is no
impact to the fund balance.
• $7,064 in additional funds needed to purchase a
hybrid vehicle for the Building and Safety
department.
The key variances "by type" are supplies, other operating costs
and capital purchases. These expenses are below 75% due to
the diligence of all departments to contain their expenditures
and capital equipment that had not been purchased at the time
of this report.
Departmental operating expenditures are also on target as
summarized by the following (this chart reflects requested
budget adiustments:
Gk4lF~u~
e
`~: ~~9 8rtfil8fltl"~'.. ~~" .5~~~
~i..'iBtrd ne~~ 2~~ ~~ p• n
4
~1'?~J~Cttl&~~ ,~*'~~ s,~
:;~`~%~?~~~
Cit Mana er 639,956 439,296 69%
Ci Clerk 183,691 124,786 68%
Ci Attorne 255,250 178,615 70%
Finance 533,060 361,404 68%
IT 252,934 147,094 58%
Communit Dev 610,583 444,809 73%
Police 5,630,173 4,077,006 72%
Fire 2,126,363 1,476,638 69%
Public Works 1,350,345 935,364 69%
Parks and Recreation 2,118,988 1,560,779 74%
Non-De artmental 516,759 181,097 35%
Total 14,218,702 9,926,888 70%
The primary variance in departmental expenditures is in Non-
departmental, which is due to the fact that capital transfers for
CIP projects will not be made until year-end.
THIRD QUARTER ADJUSTMENTS
General Fuud:
The Council approved a net $42,964 in new appropriations in
the 3rd quarter. The adjustments are as follows:
• $7,500 for tree trimming on the Pike.
• $4,400 for the Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB)
actuarial study.
• $7,500 for reimbursement to John Taylor for
legal costs related to the Castillo Del Mar road
extension MOU.
Staff is requesting an additional net increase in
appropriations of $87,238:
• ($7,881) reduction in non-departmental capital
transfers budget due to the completion of the
Woman's club roof replacement.
• $419 increase in non-departmental capital
transfers for the Streetscape project.
• $7,200 increase in the Police department's
booking fees account. Historically, the City has
paid for the last quarter of the booking fees in
the new fiscal year. However, due to new
legislation, the State will now be reimbursing
counties directly for booking fees. Staff did not
include booking fee expenditures in the new
budget. Therefore, funds are needed to pay the
last quarter fees in this current fiscal year.
• $34,000 increase in Fire overtime for Fire Strike
team reimbursement. This is offset by an
increase in Fire Strike Team revenue of $34,000.
Therefore, there is no impact to the fund
balance.
• $300,000 increase in Property tax revenue based
on revised estimates.
• ($300,000) decrease in Sales tax revenue based
on revised estimate.
• $70,000 increase in the CiTy Attorney's budget
for ongoing litigation costs.
3
Quarterly Financial Repots Third Quarter of Fiscal Year 2006-07
• ($90,000) reduction in non-departmental budgeted lease
payments. The mid yeaz report included a reduction for
the revenue side, but the expenditure side was omitted.
This was budgeted for the lease purchase of Police
dispatch equipment. The lease is no longer required as the
equipment is being paid for from State COPS grant funds.
• $4,500 increase for the purchase of Microsoft Project
licensing for City departments. This software will be used
by all departments to track ongoing projects.
• $14,000 increase in Community Development for part-
time interns. This budget amount was omitted in the
original budget.
• $54,500 increase in Public Works contractual services for
the costs related to the Castillo Del Mar road extension.
• $14,500 increase for annual leave payout costs for the
retiring Police Chief.
• $10,000 reduction in Personnel transfers-in that was
originally budgeted from the In-Lieu Affordable Housing
Fund. This transfer is being reduced in order to keep the
In-Lieu Fund from incurring a negative fund balance.
• $10,000 increase in Contractual Services to assist in
developing recommendations to reduce long-term retiree
medical costs.
4
Quarterly Fiuaucial Report Third Quarter of Fiscal Year 2006-07
OTHER FUNDS
Fire Impact Fund: Staff is requesting a decrease of $20,000
that was originally budgeted for Fire radio equipment. This
equipment is going to be purchased in the future with funds
from the Local Use Tax Fund.
PEG Fund: Staff is requesting an increase of $10,000 for
estimated cablecasting expenses and $2,400 increase for the
purchase of a laptop computer. An increase in estimated
interest revenue of $4,000 is also being requested.
Park Development Fund: Staff is requesting an increase in
budgeted transfers of $80,000 for ADA improvements and a
decrease in transfers of ($18,000) for the Soto Park security
lights. The Soto Park security lights funds should have
originally been budgeted from the Park Improvement Fund.
Park Improvement Fund: Council approved $46,052 for the
Elm Street Picnic shelter and $25,555 for the Village Green
Improvements. Staff is requesting the $18,000 for the Soto
Park security lights be moved from the Park Development
Fund to the Park Improvement Fund.
Senior Housing project. An increase in estimated
interest revenue of $20,600 is also being
recommended.
State Cops Grant Fund: Council approved the
appropriation of $1 ]4,002 for the purchase of Police
dispatch equipment on May 8, 2007. The original
budget was for $90,000 of which $38,965 was
already appropriated. An additional appropriation of
$62,967 is required.
Redevelopment Agency (RDA): A decrease of
($50,000) is recommended. This was the budgeted
payment to the Sewer Facility Fund towards the
RDA outstanding debt. However, once the bond
proceeds are received, this debt will be repaid in full.
Council approved the bond issuance, which will
increase the RDA revenue by $3,512,291. This
equals 63.7% of the proceeds. The remaining
revenue will be budgeted in the Redevelopment Set-
Aside Fund. The RDA will finally have a positive
fund balance of $809,681 once the bond proceeds
are received.
Local Use Tax Fund: Council approved $7,895 in matching
funds for the Regional Wild land Fire grant. These funds will
be transferred to the General Fund. This is offset by an
increase in the projected revenue therefore there is no fund
balance impact.
Traffic Congestion Relief Fund: Staff is requesting a
reduction of ($113,377) in Prop 42 funds. These funds were
recognized in the prior fiscal year per the Auditors
instructions. The revenue is in the beginning fund balance
number
Traffic Signal Fund: Staff is requesting a reduction of
($10,000) that was originally budgeted for lighted crosswalks.
This project was deleted from the CIP due to proposed routes
being ineligible for approved grant funds. Lighted crosswalks
are proposed in the Village Streetscape project.
Transportation Facility Fund: Staff is requesting a decrease
of ($150,000) for the Brisco Road/101 Interchange project.
These funds are being replaced by Local Use Tax Funds. Staff
is requesting that transfers be reduced by ($2,628) due to the
completion of the EI Campo/Route 101 Interchange PA & ED.
In-Lieu Affordable Housing Fund: Staff is requesting a
decrease in personnel transfers of ($10,000) and an increase of
$211,424 for the payment to Meta Housing Corporation for the
Redevelopment Set-Aside Fund: An increase of
$2,001,509 or 36.3% of the bond proceeds
mentioned above.
Capital Project Fund (CIP): Staff is requesting an
overall reduction of ($408,007) in CIP projects.
These reductions are shown individually on
Schedule B. An additional schedule (Schedule C) is
included in this report. This schedule lists all of the
CIP projects, the current budget and expenditures to
date.
Sewer Fuud: The Sewer Fund ended the 2005-06
Fiscal Year with a fund balance of $299,769. Two
budget amendments are proposed in the Sewer Fund.
A reduction of ($50,000) related to the Fair Oaks
Sewer project. This portion of the cost is being
moved to the Sewer FaciliTy Fund. An adjustment
of $300, was approved by the Council for the OPEB
actuarial study. The estimated ending fund balance
for the Sewer Fund is $316,882. This does not meet
the City Council's goal of 60 days of operating
expenses plus $500,000. A new rate study is
currently budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2007-08 CIP
budget. Maintaining the City Council goal will be
addressed during the study.
5
Quarterly Financial Report Third Quarter of Fiscal Year 2006-07
Sewer Facility Fund: A reduction in revenue of $50,000 is
recommended. This is the budgeted debt payment from the
RDA. The RDA bond proceeds will be used to pay off the
debt in full. Staff is also requesting an increase in
appropriations of $50,000 for the Fair Oaks Sewer project.
Water Fund: The Water Fund reports an audited fund balance
of $2,151,513 at the end of fiscal year 2005-06. Council
approved an additional appropriation of $300 for the OPEB
actuarial study during the 3`" quarter. Staff is requesting a
reduction in appropriations of $25,300 (originally budgeted for
Reservoir No. 6) and $19,000 (budgeted for Waterline Install
at Chilton & EI Camino). These CIP projects aze being moved
to future years. The estimated ending fund balance in this fund
is $2,141,890. This will meet the City Council's policy goal of
60 days of operating expenses plus $500,000.
Water Facility Fund: The Water Facility Fund has a
beginning fund balance of $931,703. Staff is requesting a
decrease of $75,900 (Reservoir No. 6) and $19,000 (Waterline
install at Chilton & El Camino). As mentioned above, these
projects were moved to future years. This leaves $843,889
currently budgeted for capital improvement projects. The
estimated fund balance for Fiscal Year 2006-07 is $200,114.
6
City of Arroyo Grande
Fund Balance -Control
All Funds Operating Budget
2006/07 Budget
As of May 22, 2007
Schedule A
Estimated
Total Total
Unreserved Unreserved
Fund Balance Adjustment Operating Operating FY 2005-06 Adjustments to Fund Balance
Jul 1, 2006 Revenues to Revenues Transfer >n Transfer Out Ca overs A ro nations A ro nations June 30, 2007
General Fund
010 General Fund: $2,359,080 $12,457,059 $73,473 $1,191,132 ($157,114) $217,503 $13,964,076 $193,637 $1,892,642
Special Revenue Funds:
210 Fire Protection Impact Fees $236,635 $75,570 $0 $0 (520,000) 34,385 $0 $0 $297,820
211 Public Access Television 39,682 38,000 4,000 0 0 39,350 12,400 29,932
212 Police Protection Impact Fees 18,712 13,930 0 0 0 1,927 0 0 30,715
213 Park Development Fees 499,019 131,500 0 0 124,000 65,630 0 0 440,889
214 Park Improvement Fees 480,402 92,140 0 0 96,607 15,0(10 0 0 460,935
215 Recreation Community Center 30,563 6,080 0 0 0 0 0 36,643
217 Landscape Maintenance District 35,889 6,410 0 0 1,900 3,60(1 0 36,799
218 Local Use Tax Fund 0 250,000 7,895 0 250,000 0 7,895 0
219 Assessment Districts 28,317 0 0 0 0 0 0 28,317
220 Streets 0 351,900 0 461,695 0 813,595 0 0
221 Traffic Congestion Relief 219,231 113,827 (113,377) 0 150,377 69,109 0 0 195
222 Traffic Signal 568,092 74,630 0 0 (10,000) 458,228 0 0 194,494
223 Traffic Circulation 249,467 1,500 0 0 5,000 162,484 0 0 83,483
224 Transportation Facility Impact 2,407,721 194,800 0 0 597,372 320,979 0 0 1,684,170
225 Transportation 109,044 273,628 0 0 249,543 12,000 0 121,129
226 Water Neutralization Impact 588,276 244,800 0 0 200,000 141,585 0 0 491,491
230 Construction Tax 31,312 0 0 0 0 28,862 0 0 2,450
231 Drainage Facility 30,459 9,900 0 0 0 29,625 0 0 10,734
232 In-Lieu Affordable Housing 1,000,896 45,600 0 0 530,000 5,000 211,424 72
233 [n-Lieu Underground Utility 69,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 69,600
241 Lopez Facility Fund 1,525,887 192,500 0 0 0 0 0 1,718,387
250 CDBG Grant Funds 0 314,065 0 0 0 205,711 108,354 0 0
260 Federal Fire Act Grant 15,969 0 0 0 0 0 0 I5,%9
271 State COPS Block Grant 102,454 100,550 0 0 0 90,000 62,967 50,037
284 Redevelopment Agency (2,726,572) 494,700 3,512,291 830,000 236,511 1,064,227 0 809,681
285 Redevelopment Set Aside 349,500 112,550 2,001,509 0 10,000 20,122 0 2,433,437
Total Special Revenue Funds $5,910,554 $3,135,580 $5,412,318 $1,291,695 $2,721,310 $1,533,525 $2,156,248 $294,686 $9,047,379
City of Arroyo Grande
Fund Balance -Control
All Funds Operating Budget
2006/07 Budget
As of May 22, 2007
Estimated
Total Total
Unreserved Unreserved
Fund Balance Adjustment Operating Operating FY 2005-06 Adjustments to Fund Balance
July 1, 2006 Revenues to Revenues Transfer In Transfer Out Carryovers Appropriations Appropriations June 30, 2007
vital Proiect Funds:
350 Capital Improvement Fund $109,838 $4,482,709 (237,824) $1,992,994 $0 3,371,159 3,274,727 ($408,007) $109,838
Total Capital Project Funds $109,838 $4,482,709 ($237,824) $1,992,994 $0 $3,371,159 $3,274,727 ($408,007) $109,838
Fire Station Bond $323,030 $0 $0 $4 $0 $0 $D $0 $323,030
Total Debt Service Funds $323,030 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $323,030
612 Sewer $299,769 $758,800 $0 $Q $350,801 120,060 $270,526 $300 $316,882
634 Sewer Facility 555,480 78,000 0 0 50,000 534,235 0 0 49,245
640 Water Fund 2,151,513 2,144,360 0 0 877,970 70,300 1,205,413 300 2,141,890
641 Lopez Water Availability 1,768,518 2,104,600 0 0 211,900 2,388,318 0 1,272,900
642 Water Facility 931,703 112,300 0 0 419,900 423,989 0 0 200,114
Total Enterprise Funds $5,706,983 $5,198,060 $0 $0 $1,910,571 $1,148,584 $3,864,257 $600 $3,981,031
751 Downtown Parking $115,556 $11,900 $0 $D $1,050 $D $2,800 $0 $123,606
Tota] Trust & Agency Fund $115,556 $11,900 $0 $0 $1,050 $0 $2,800 $D $123,606
Grand Total All Funds
$14,525,042 $25,318,308 $5,247,967 $4,475,821 $4,475,821 $6,270,771 $23,262,108 $80,916 $15,477,526
8
Ciry of An•oyo Grande
Approved and Recommended Adjustments
Fiscal Year 2006/07
Mid Year Budget Report -Reported May 22, 2007
Estimated
Transfers-Out
Fund Balance
Y 2006-07 ADJUSTMENTS
'FIY COUNCIL APPROVED ADJUSTMENTS
010 4145-5904 Capital Transfers $ - $ - $ - $ 7,500 $ (7,500) Tree trimming of trees on the Pike
010 4120-5303 Contractual Services 4,900 (4,400) OPEB study
0104101-5316 Job recruitment 16,500 (16,500) Police chief recmitment
010 00001498 Fire -Regional W ildland grant 31,578 31,578 Fire-Regional Fire grant
010 OIX10-4902 Transfers in -operating 7,895 7,895 Regional Fire grant match Erom Sales Tax Fund
010 4216-Various Misc Expenditures 39,473 (39,473) Fire-Regional Fire grant
010 4212-6301 Vehicle 7,064 (7,064) Additional funds needed for Bldg dept's hybrid vehicle
010 4145-5904 Capital Transfers 7,500 (7,500) Reimbursement for legal cost to John Taylor related to MOU
Total Council approaed adjusMrents 31,578 7,895 7,500 74,937 (42,964)
ROPOSED ADJDSTMENTS
010 4145-5904 Capital Transfers (7,881) 7,881 Woman's Club roof replacement complete
OIO 4145-5904 Capital Transfers 419
(2
tscape funding per CIP
010 4201-5323 Jail expense/booking fees 7 200 (7
00 g~k nR f~
010 4211-5105 Overtime 34,000 34,000 - Fire strike team reimbursement
010 OOOO~RIll Sales tax (300,000) (300,000) Decrease in estimated sales tax
010 0000-9001 Property tax 300,000 300,000 Increase in estimated property tax
0104003-5304 Professional Services y0,0pp
(20,000)
Increase in City Attomey costs due to ongoing cases
010 4003-5327 Services-lifigation 50 000 (50,000) Increase m City Attomey costs due to ongoing cases
O10 4145-5603 lease purchase (9
~
~) 90,000 Dispatch equipment is being purchased from COPS grant
OIO 4]90-6103 Computer licensing/software ~
5 (4,500) Microsoft project licensing
010 4130.5103 Salaries Temporary pan time 14,000 (14,000) Community Dev interns that were not budgeted
010 4301-5303 Contractual Services 54,500
(54,500)
Castillo Del Mar extension
010 4201-5110 Annual Leave buyback 14,500 (14,500) Buyout for Police chief retirement
010 4101-5303 Contractual Services 10,000 (10,000) Consultant for retiree health benefits
010 0000-4901 Personnel Transfer in (10,000)
(10,000)
Reducing transfer from In-Lieu fund
Total Pro osed ad ustments
P 7 34 Opp
(10,000) (7,462) 118,700 (87,238)
Tofal General Fund Adj 65,578 (2,105) 38 193,637 (130,202)
Approved and Recommended Adjustments
Fiscal Year 2006/07
Mid Year Budget Report -Reported May 22, 2007
Estimated
Capital Transfers
Budget Update Total
(20,000)
- (20,000)
Ftmd Balance
Comments
20,000 Radio equipment to be purchased by sales tax in next budget
20,000
211 4101-5330 Cable Casting Expense 10,000 (10,000) increase in estimated expenditures
211 4101-6201 Machinery & Equipment 2,400 (2,400) purchase of laptop
211 0000-0301 Interest 4,000 .4,000 Interest revenue that was not budgeted
Budget Update ToW 4,000 12,400 (8,400)
Pazk Development (2131
213 4550-5904 Capital Transfers 80,000 (80,000) ADA improvements
213 4550-5904 Capital Transfers (18,000) 18,000 should have been budgeted m Pazk Improvement Fund
Budget Update Total 62,000 (62,000)
Park Improvement (2141
214 4550-5904 Capital Transfers 46,052 (46,052) Council approvedPicnic Shelter
219 9550-5904 Capital Transfers 25,555 (25,555) Village Green improvements
214 4550-5904 Capital Transfers 18,0(10 (18,000) Soto Park security lights, originally budgeted from Park Dev
Budget Update Total 89,607 (89,607)
218 0000-5904 Capital Transfers
Budget Update Total
221 0000-9495 Traffic Congestion relief
Budget Update Total
222 4501-5904 Capital Transfers
Budget Update Total
7,895 7,895 - Council approved: Regional Wildland Fire grant match
7,895 7,895
(113,377) (113,377) Recognized this revenue in the prior year per Audirors
(113,377) (113,377)
(10,000)
(10,000)
10,000 Lighted crosswalk project deleted from CIP
10,000
10
clty of Arrovo~'°°~~ ustments
Approved and Recommended Adj
Mid Yeaz Budget Report - Reported MaY 22, 2007
Fund $alance
ana artation Facitl r " `~-Capital Transfers
224 4557-5904 Capital Transfers
2244557-5904 Budget Update Total
-Lieu Affordable House, ` "_ Personnel Transfer
232 4558-590] Contractual Services
232 4558-5303
23200004301 Interest
Budget Update Total
Machinery and Equr9n`ent
Budget Update Total
tve_-- 150,000
(150,000)
2,628 ~ ---~- 15228
- _._~ 152,628 ~_
10,000
(10,000) 424 (211,424)
217
,
20,600
~
600 ~ ~
Brisco Roadf 101 Interchange replaced wrth gales Tax funding
EI canrpo (Route lOl interchange PA&ED project completed
reduced personnel transfer
Meta Housing Corporation Payment for $enlor Housing
Match budget with estimated revenue
~ roved Police dispatch e9ufPment
62 q6 Council app
62,967 62,96
~-
J-l - ~ ~ ~ Cancel pVmt t° `.~er+'er Facdrty fund, Wnds aze paY1nR off loan
ss~ s
(50,000) 3,512.2901 Council approved Bond prod
-~_
3,512291 ^-~ ~SO.000 ~
2,001,509
_---~ 2W1509
~- s~ ~ ~
2,001,509 ~
:develo went A en LOi pperating transfer
~ 4lpppp.481fi Bond Proceeds
Budget UpdateTotal
:develo ent Set-ASru~ `" Bond proceeds
2850000'1816 Budget Update Total
350 5404-vanous
350 5g04-Various
350 5412-Various
350 5417-Varfous
gy0 5415-Various
350 5516Various
3y0 5526-Various
350 5526-Various
City Ha11 Extension and ADA Imptt
City Hall Extension o dcADA Improv
Creekside lighting P I
City Hall Complex
Radio Communication upgrades
Woman s CPubruooheltelr cement
Elm Stree
Elm Street Picnic Shelter
(34,000) 80,000
419
5,000 (20,000)
(7,881)
75,000 86,052
(39,000)
80,000
479
5,000
(20,000)
(7,881)
75,000
46,052
Council approved Bond PTOCeeds
Reducfion in CDBG a pment funding
Increase in Park Ile
Cover actual expenditures
City HaII Front Counter remodel
pelere Protect
Project complete
Increase in actual costs ted expenditures
Council aPProped to cover esttma eovements
:n» Green imp
11
City of Arroyo Grande
Approved and Recommended Adjustments
Fiscal Year 2006/07
Mid Year Budget Report -Reported May 22, 2007
Estimated
350 5642-Various
350 5656-Various
350 5661-Various
350 5668-Various
350 5668-Various
350 5678-Various
350 5910-Various
350 5910-Various
350 5910.Various
350 5916-Various
350 5916-Various
612 4610-5303
612 4610-5904
Brisco Rd/101 Interchange (150,000) (150,000)
EI Camino Real Rehab (184,000) (184,000)
EI Campo Rd/101 Interchange PA & ED (2,628) (2,628)
Lighted Crosswalks (90,000) (90,000)
Lighted Crosswalks (10,000) (10,000)
Casfillo Del Maz Road ext/Valley road drainage imps 7,500 7,500
Reservoir No 6 Constmcfion (4,824) (4,824)
Reservoir No 6 Construction (25,300) (25,300)
Reservoir No 6 Constmction (75,900) (75,9(10)
Waterline Install -Chilton & El Camino (19,000) (19,000)
Waterline Install -Chilton & EI Camino (19,000) (19,000)
Budget Update Total (237,824) (170,183) (408,007)
Contractual Services
Capital Transfers
Budget Update Total
300
(50,000)
(50,000) 300
Fund Balance
Comments
Replacing Transportation Facility Funds with Sales Tax funds
USHA funds are not available unti12007-08
Project complete
Did not receive OTS grant, Droiect deleted
Project deleted
Legal costs related to the MOU with Lucia Mar School Dist
Project moved out to future years
Project moved out to future years
Project moved out to future years
Project moved out to future years
Project moved out to future years
(300) Council approved OPEB study
50,000 Moved to Sewer Facility Fund
49,700
634 00001902 Transfers in -Operating (50,000) (50,000) Reduce pYmt from RDA, bond proceeds will pay off debt
634 4610-5904 Capital Transfers 50,000 (50,000) Moved from Sewer Fund
Budget Update Total - (50,000) 50,000 - (100,000)
titer Fund (6401
640 4710-5303 Contractual Services 300 (300) Council approved OPEB study
640 4710-5904 Capital7ransfers (25,300) 25,300 Project moved out to future years
640 4710-5303 Capital Transfers (19,000) 19,000 Project moved out to future years
Budget Update Total - (44,300) 300 44,000
titer Facility Fund (6421
642 4710-5904 Capita] Transfers (75,900) 75,900 Project moved out to future years
642 4710-5904 Capital Transfers (19,000) 19,000 Project moved out to future years
Budget Update Total - - (94,900) 94,900
mtrol Total $5,260,672 ($222,288) ($222,286) $73,021 $5,187,651
12
City of Arroyo Grande
CIP
Expenditures to Date
2006/07 Budget
As of May 22, 2007
Schedule C
Year to Date
Pro'ect # Pro'ect Descri tion Pro'ect Bud et Expenditures Balance
5404 City Hall Extension &ADA Improvements $ 291,000 $ - $ 291,000
5409 Water Conservation Program 341,585 88,080 253,505
5410 Fire Station Addition 14,385 14,385 -
5411 Police Pazking Lot 10,099 10,064 35
5412 Creekside Lighting Project 37,186 7,186 30,000
5413 FEMA 1505-San Simeon Earthquake 17,070 5,364 11,706
5417 City Hall Complex 35,000 28,364 6,636
5418 The Pike Eucalyptus Tree Trimming 22,000 22,000 -
5419 Creek Ivy Removal Project 20,000 - 20,000
5420 Police Dept. Expansion Feasibility Study 25,000 - 25,000
5515 Park Imprints-Vazious Loc's 7,322 3,321 4,001
5516 Woman's Club Roof Replacement 22,119 22,119 -
5522 Turf Renov-Elm St & Strother PK 11,392 9,385 2,007
5523 Playground Equip Replace 9,916 9,968 (52)
5526 Picnic Shelter Q Elm St Park 196,027 8,388 187,639
5527 Irrigation Sys Replacement ~ Elm St Pk 10,000 1,221 8,779
5528 Picnic Table Replacemt W/ADA Tables 8,000 1,684 6,316
5529 Replace Security Lights-Soto Spts Cmplx 18,000 - 18,000
5530 Picnic Area Improvements 15,000 - 15,000
5531 Village Green Master Plan 28,555 565 27,990
5632 Annual Concrete Replacement Prog 39,241 22,463 16,778
5637 Grand & Halcyon Signal Rplmt 89,513 29,190 60,323
5638 Pavement Mgmt Program 309,164 289,904 19,260
5642 Brisco RD/101 Interchange 913,182 140,726 772,456
5652 Traffic Signal-West Branch 357,263 284,661 72,602
5653 Traffic Count/Model U date 35,012 - 35,012
13
City of Arroyo Grande
CIP
Expenditures to Date
2006/07 Budget
As of May 22, 2007
Schedule C
Pro'ect #
Pro'ect Descri lion
Pro'ect Bud et Year to Date
Expenditures
Balance
5655 Brisco RD Pavement Rehab 10,000 - 10,000
5657 Farroll Ave Rehab 20,000 - 20,000
5660 Valley Gardens Project - (94) 94
5662 Benchmazk Survey 7,931 - 7,931
5663 E. Grand Ave Enhancemnts ~ Courtland St 4,594 - 4,594
5664 ADA Program & Retrofits 10,000 - 10,000
5666 Mason/Nelson ADA Ramps 13,300 - 13,300
5667 Left Tum & Signal ~ W Branch/Oak PK Blv 25,000 - 25,000
5669 Stop Signs/ADA Ramp-James WY & Rodeo Dr 15,420 15,420 -
5670 Rubberized Sidewalks 5,000 5,000 -
5671 East Branch Streetscape 708,000 57,206 650,794
5672 Traffic Way Streetscape 100,000 465 99,535
5673 East Grand Ave Microsurfacing 86,000 - 86,000
5674 Poole Street Sidewalks 18,000 - 18,000
5675 James Way Street Repairs 18,000 17,411 589
5676 Rancho Parkway Striping 11,000 - 11,000
5678 Castillo Del Mar Road Ext/Valley road drainage improvements 7,500 - 7,500
5752 Drainage Master Plan 4,350 - 4,350
5754 Newsom Springs Project 362,293 66,222 296,071
5760 Poplar St Drainage Basin Improv 8,750 - 8,750
5776 Drainage Pumps/Piping-Soto Spts Cmplx 150,000 35,678 114,322
5777 Storm Water Study 15,525 9,600 5,925
5809 Sewer Lift Station No.l Rplcmt 149,295 120,635 28,660
5815 Fair Oaks Ave Sewer Upgrade 505,000 - 505,000
5822 Tally Ho RD Sewer Upgrade 1,273 - 1,273
5826 Woodland Drive Sewer U ade 337 - 337
14
City of Arroyo Grande
CIP
Expenditures to Date
2006/07 Budget
As of May 22, 2007
Schedule C
Year to Date
Project # Project Description Project Budget Expenditures Balance
5830 EI Camino Real Sewer Upgrade 24,878 - 24,878
5531 Walnut Street Sewer Upgrade 13,081 - 13,081
5832 Ash Street Sewer Upgrade 41,972 - 41,972
5904 Water Master Plan 30,000 - 30,000
5918 Pressure Zone Connection 552,000 - 552,000
5924 Waterline Upgrade -Nevada & Le Point 59,460 12,650 46,810
5934 Water Well #10 291,889 43,594 245,295
5935 Upgrades For Water Security 40,000 - 40,000
5936 Water Well No. 7 Rehabilitation 45,000 - 45,000
.Grand Total $ 6,237,879 $ 1,382,825 $ 4,855,053
15