Agenda Packet 2006-05-09 CITY OF
City Council � ' ' ' � � ' Agenda
,;
Tony Ferrara Mayor Steven Adams Ciry Manager
Jim Guthrie Mayor Pro Tem Timothy J.Carmel Ciry Attorney
Jim Dickens Council Member y�� Kelly Wetmore City Clerk
'f;��I/CALIFORNIA
Joe Costello Council Member 4 y�-� 9 �°
Ed Arnold Council Member Y�
AGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2006
7:00 P.M.
Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande
1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL
3. FLAG SALUTE: VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS 2829
4. INVOCATION: PASTOR GEORGE LEPPER
PEACE IUTHERAN CHURCH
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
5.a. Honorarv Proclamation Proclaimin4 Mav 2006 as "Bike Month" and Mav 15— 19.
2006 as "Bike to Work Week"
5.b. Honorarv Proclamation Prociaiminp Mav 2006 as "Foster Care Month"
5.c. Honorarv Proclamation Proclaiminq Mav 14-20. 2006 as "National Police Week"
6. AGENDA REVIEW:
6a. Move that all ordinances presented tonight be read in title only and all further readings
be waived.
AGENDA SUMMARY— MAY 9, 2006
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.
8. 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Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit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 April
16, 2006 through April 30, 2006.
8.b. Consideration of Aooroval of Minutes (WETMORE)
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the Special and Regular City
' Council Meetings of April 11, 2006, as submitted.
8.c. Authorization to Reiect Claims As�ainst the Citv (WETMORE)
Recommended Action: Reject claims and authorize the City Clerk to send a
standard rejection letter to the claimants as recommended by the City's Claims
Administrator.
8.d. Consideration of Resolution Acceatina Public Improvements for Tract 2532
Located at 1180 Ash Street. Constructed bv Mal-Hun. LLC (SPAGNOLO)
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution accepting the public improvements for
Tract 2532 located at 1180 Ash Street.
AGENDA SUMMARY— MAY 9, 2006
� PAGE 3
8. CONSENT AGENDA(continued):
8.e. Consideration of Reauest to Refund Application and Permit Fees to the South
Countv Historical SocieN for its Efforts to Restore "Rubv's House" (STRONG)
Recommended Action: Refund application and permit fees to the South County
Historical Society for its efforts to restore "Ruby's House".
8.f. Consideration of Adoption of Ordinance Addina Chapter 5.76 to the Arrovo
Grande Municipal Code Establishina Res�ulations for Peddlins� and Solicitins�
Activities and Adoation of a Resolution Establishin� a Solicitation Permit
Aaalication Fee (CARMEL)
Recommended Action: 1) Adopt Ordinance entitled: "An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Arroyo Grande Adding Chapter 5.76 to the Arroyo Grande
Municipal Code, Establishing Regulations for Peddling and Soliciting Activities"; and
2) Adopt Resolution establishing a solicitation permit application fee.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
9.a. Appeal of Plannina Commission's Denial of Plot Plan Review 05-027 and
Viewshed Review 05-020 for the Construction of a TwoStorv Sins�le Familv
Residence Located at 123 Whitelev (STRONG)
Recommended Action: The Planning Commission recommends the Council adopt
a Resolution to deny the appeal of Plot Plan Review 05-027 and Viewshed Review
05-020 for the construction of a two-story single-family residence located at 123
Whiteley.
9.b. Continued Public Hearina - Vestina Tentative Tract Maq No. 04-006. Planned Unit
Develoument No. 04-005 and Minor Exce�tion Case No. 05-015 to Subdivide a 1.8-
Acre Site into Nineteen (181 Lots Resuitina in 24 Densitv Eauivalent Town Homes
and Condominiums as a Mixed Use with Existina Fitness Club and Medical Offices:
Apalied for bv Russ Sheapel for Proaertv Located on Oak Park Blvd. and James
Wav (Oak Park Professional Plaza) (STRONG)
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
04-006, Planned Unit Development No. 04005 and Minor Exception No. 05-015.
10. CONTINUED BUSINESS:
10.a. Consideration of Ballot Measure for a Local Sales Tax Override (ADAMS)
Recommended Action: 1) Direct staff to prepare a final resolution and ordinance for
City Council consideration at the June 27, 2006 meeting to place a '/: cent local sales
tax override measure and four advisory measures on the November 2006 ballot; and
2) Comment on the draft language of the resolution, ordinance and ballot arguments.
AGENDA SUMMARY— MAY 9, 2006
PAGE 4
11. NEW BUSINESS:
11.a. Consideration of Memorandum of Understandins� (MOU) between the Citv of
Arrovo Grande. Lucia Mar Unified School District. J.H. Land Partnershiu and
� John Tavlor, Trustee Reuardins� Land Acauisition and Extension of Castillo Del
Mar to Vallev Road (ADAMS)
Recommended Action: Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the MOU
between the City of Arroyo Grande, Lucia Mar Unified School District, J.H. Land
Partnership and John Taylor, Trustee.
12. 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.
13. 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.
a. None.
14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:
Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Council.
15. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Manager.
16. 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.
17. ADJOURNMENT
�.**...**�,�..�..,�**�
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.
•+�++����xR+�x������i��tti
Note: 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.arrovoqrande.orq
�70��
� CITY OF
. • • ' •
. v
-
:o'
�.
� ' CALIFORNIA y ;'�j��
� '�� ,,A
�-�-� / � 9 1 � ����,I','�� .
�
PROCLAIMING MAY 2006 AS
"BIKE MONTH",
AND MAY 15 - 19, 2006 AS
"BIKE TO WORK AND SCHOOL WEEK"
WHEREAS, bicycle commuting is an effective means to reduce air pollution and
conserve energy and promotes the "livability" of communities by reducing traffic, noise
and congestion; and
WHEREAS, many businesses, organizations and schools have made efforts to help
customers, students and employees commute by bicycle, including installation of
bicycle parking and other commute facilities; and
WHEREAS, bicycle transportation is an integral part of the "multi-modal" trensportation
systems planned by federel, state, regional, and local trensportation agencies; and
WHEREAS, bike month is a San Luis Obispo Countywide celebretion of human powered
transportation which encourages people of all ages and abilities to ride bicycles to their
destinations; and
WHEREAS, bike month promotions such as "Bike-to-Work and School Week", 'I
"Commuter Bike Challenge", "Executive Commuter Bike Challenge" and "Bike Fest
2006" successfully encourages citizens to ride their bicycles, thereby reducing
vehicular emissions in the county; and
WHEREAS, "Bikes in Bloom° is the theme for 2006, an appropriate notion as this area is i
in bloom with cycling groups who are working together and individually to support
bicycling in all of its forms in San Luis Obispo County; and �,
WHEREAS, businesses are encoureged to take part in the "Bike Art Display" by
decorating their company's window in the "Bikes in Bloom" theme throughout the
month of May.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Tony Ferrara, Mayor of the City of Arroyo
Grande, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby proclaim May 2006 as "Bike Month",
and May 15 - 19, 2006 as "Bike to Work and School Week" in the City of Arroyo Grende
and encourege all citizens to ride bicycles to their destinations and support bicycle
trensportation. pROro
o�P �9
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the � �•�oaoo«..EO90
Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande to be affixed this 9'"day of May, 2006. " m
! JVLY 10.1911 } I
c'04FOaN`P
�
TONYFERRARA, MAYOR
. ,. ,
5.b.
� C1TY O�
. • • ' •
.
. e
_.. . _ _.__ - ---_ .-:��
r�
��'�', � �.
� CALIFORNIA
��-� i , `c��" �
� 9 ' E���`�!�:
Ho��� T�e-�e9�r���on R�ognizing
��y �� ��o�� Ge� R�on�a"
WHEREAS, the famify, serving as the primary source of fove. identity,
self-�steem and support, is the very foundation of our communities and our
State: and
WHEREAS, in San Luis Obispo County thera are 500 children and youth in fostar
care being provided with a safe, secure and stable home along with the
compassion and nurture of a foster family: and
WHEREAS, foster families, who open their homes and hearts to children, whose
familias are in crisis. play a vital role in helping children and famities heal and
r�conn�et and launching children into successful adulthood: and
i WHEREAS, dedicatad foster famities frequently adopt foster c6ifdren, resulting
in a greater need for more foster families: and
WNEREAS, there are numerous individuals, public and private organizations who
work to increase pubfie awareness of the needs of children who are in foster care
and those I�aving foster care, as well as. the enduring and valuable contribution
of foster parents.
--- NOW THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Tony Ferrara.
;�et Care,j�o, Mayor of the City of Arroyo Grande. on behalf of�the City
� j o,jx����'��. � Council, do here6y proclaim the month of May as FOSTER
� �`' � '`� CARE MONTH"" in Arroyo Grande and urga all citizens to
___ ' volunteer their talents and energies on behalf of children in
• ' ' • ' ' foster care, foster parents and the child welfare professional
' ' ' staff working with them during this month and throughout
the year.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF. I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the
City of Arroyo Grande to be affixed this 9}h day of May. 2006.
o�Paaoro c9
> ixconron•2eo 92
� O
ti ��L m
a �u�v m.�en w
Tony Ferrara. Mayor cq<IpOPN�P
5.c.
� CITY OF
. • • ' �
►
. o
-_ .___ __ _ -__ _. . _
- -- �� �
� i'�
��� f e
CArLIFORNIA
�y� //
_ � ' 9 1 � ! �� ����'��'�
�onorar�P�ol�a�tion
1�eoo�ia�$�
NATIONAL POLICE WEEN.�- ,F��� `� R �
May 14 - 20, 2006 r-���
MI.MUNAL f1NU
WHEREAS, of all the promises America offers, none is more precious or more elusive than
the right to be free from crime and violence;and
WHEREAS,the dedicated men and women who have chosen law enforcement as a cazeer face
extraordivary risk and danger in preserving onr freedom and sernrity;and
WHEREAS, daring the week of May 1420, 2006, NATIONAL POLICE WEEK is observed
Uuoughout the nation in order to recoguize the hazazdous work, serioas responsibilities, and
shong commitment of oar nation's peace officers;and
WHEREAS, in coqinnction witL this important observauce, May 17, 2006, is observed as
"PEACE OFFICERS MEMORIAL DAY" in San Lais Obispo Connty in commemoration of
those noble officers who have tragically sacrificed their lives in the line of d¢ty, inclnding
eighteen Peace Offrcers who died in the line of dnty in Califomia in 2005;and
WHEREAS, these special observances provide all Californians with the opportnnity ta
appceciate the heroic men and women who have dedicated tUeir lives to preserving pablic
safety;and
WHEREAS, the City of A:royo Grande desires to honar the valor, service, and dedication of
its own Police Officers.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I,Tony Ferraza,Mayor of the City of Acroyo
Grande,on behalf of the City Council,do hereby proclaim May 1420,2006, as"NATIONAL
POLICE WEEK" and May 17, 2006, as "PEACE OFFICERS MEMORIAL DAY" in the
City of Arroyo Grande, and arge all citizens of onr commanity to demonstrate their sincere
appreciation and gratitude to the Police Officers by deed,remazk,and attitnde.
IN W ITNESS WHEREOF,I have herennto set my hand and cansed the
Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande to be affixed tlus 9'"day of May 2006.
o�O,µROYp C9 .
TONY FERRARA�bIAYOR F ��convon�reo T2
0
� . m
f JUIY 10.1911 !
� c'�</FOP��p
� PaROro $.a.
° ��+
FINCORPORATED 92
" "' MEMORANDUM
� ���Y �o. ,B„ ,�
P
9��FORN�
To: cirY couNCi�
FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES��
BY: FRANCES R. HEAD, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISO
SUBJECT: CASH DISBURSEMENT RATIFICATION
DATE: MAY 9, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for
the period April 16 through April 30, 2006.
FUNDING:
There is a $552,077.91 fiscal impact. 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 staff's recommendation;
• Do not approve staff's recommendation;
• Provide direction to staff.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 — Cash Disbursement Listing
Attachment 2 —April 18, 2006, Accounts Payable Check Register
Attachment 3 —April 18, 2006, Accounts Payable Check Register
Attachment4 —April 21, 2006, Accounts Payable Check Register
Attachment 5 —April 24, 2006, Accounts Payable Check Register
Attachment 6 —April 28, 2006, Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks Register
Attachment 7 —April 28, 2006, Accounts Payable Check Register
ATTACHMENTI
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CASH DISBURSEMENTS
For the Period ofApri/16 Through Apri/30, 2006
May 9, 2006
Presented are the cash disbursements issued by the Department of Financial Services for
the period April 16 to April 30, 2006. Shown are cash tlisbursements by week of
occurrence and type of payment.
WE�K TYRE OF PAYMENT ATTACHMENT AMOUNT
April 21, 2006
Accounts Payable Cks 129680-125970 2 $ 149.97
(Exduo�s Payroll-relata�d�rks tota/iray
$511,391.18ix�t�in prior Payroll &�ts
mrals)
A�courits Payable Cks 125966 3 139.40
Accounts Payable Cks 125965-126067 4 64,235.72
$ 64,525.09
April 28, 2006
Acoourits Payable Cks 126068 5 $ 3,562.23
Payroll Checks &Benefit Checks 6 395,555.97
Aaourrts Payable Cks 126069-126145 7 88,434.62
$ 487,552.82
7Wo-WEEKTOTAL $ 552,077.91
U:\MSWORD\CITY COUNCIL F02M5\CASH DISBURSHMENT FORMS\CASH DISBURSEMENT SCHED wEXCEL WKS.doc
CITYOFARROYO GRANDE
INDEX FOR BUDGET DEPARTMENTS
EDEN COMPUTER SYSTEM
GENERAL FUND (O10) SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
CitvGove�nmentlFund 010) Park Development Fee Fund (Fund 213)
4001 - City Council 4550 - Park Development Fee
4002 - Administrative Services Traffic Signai Fund (Fund 222)
4003 - City Attorney 4501 - Tra�c Fund
4101 - City Manager Transportation Fund (Fund 225)
4102 - Printin9/Duplicating 4553 - Public Transit System
4120 - Financial Services Construction Tax Fund (Fund 230)
4121 - Taxes/ Insurance/ Bonds 4556 - Construction Tax
4130 - Community Development Police Grant Funds
4131 - Community Building (CDBG) 4201 - Law Enforcement Equip. (Fd 272)
4140 - Management Information System 4202 - State A63229 Cops Grant (Fd 271)
4145 - Non Departmental 4203 - Federal Universal Hiring (Fd 274)
Pub/ic Safetv/Fund 010) 4208 - Federal Local Law Enforcmt (FD 279)
4201 - Police Redevelopment Agency ( Fund 284)
4211 - Fire 4103 - Redevelopment Administration
4212 - Building &Safety ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Pub/ic Wo�kslFund OZO) Sewer Fund (Fund 612)
4301 - Public Works-Admin & Engineering 4610 - Sewer Maintenance
4303 - Street/Bridge Maintenance Water Fund (Fund 640)
4304 - Street Lighting 4710 - Water Administration
4305 - Automotive Shop 4711 - Water Production
Parks&RecreationlFund010) 4712 - WaterDistribution
4420 - Parks Lopez Administration (Fund 641)
4421 - Recreation 4750 - Lopez Administration
4422 - General Recreation CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS(Fund 350)
4423 - Pre-School Program 5501-5599 - Park Projects
4424 - Recreation-Special Programs 5601-5699 - Streets Projects
4425 - Children in Motion 5701-5799 - Drainage Projects
4426 - Five Cities Youth Basketball 5801-5899 - Water/Sewer/Street Projects
4430 - Soto Sport Complex 5901-5999 - Water Projects
4213 - Government Buildings
4460 - Parkway Maintenance
U:\MSWORD\CITY COUNCIL FORMS\CASH DISBURSEMENT FORMS\CASH DISBURSEMEN7'SCHED wEXCEL WKS.doc �
ATTACHMENT 2
vchlist ' Voucher List Page: 1
04/18/2006 4:44:36PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
124680 1/19/2006 000728 MID-STATE BANK&TRUST DDEP-2006-02 DIRECT DEPOSITS 2006-02
DIRECT DEPOSITS 2006-02
011.0000.1015 150,784.84
Total : 150,784.84
124747 1/20/2006 000728 MID-STATE BANK&TRUST FIT 2006-02 FED FIT W/H-2006-02
FED FIT W/H-2006-02
011.0000.2104 30,741.68
EE FICA/MEDICARE-2006-02
011.0000.2104 19,713.52
ER FICA/MEDICARE-2006-02
011.0000.2104 19,713.52
Total : 70,768.72
124857 1/27/2006 000729 PERS-RETIREMENT PR 2006-02 PERS 2006-02
PERS CONTRIBUTIONS-2006-01
011.0000.2106 67,491.42
Total : 67,491.42
124863 2/1/2006 000728 MID-STATE BANK 8 TRUST DDEP 2006-03 DDEP/PAYROLL 2006-03
DDEP/PAYROLL 2006-03
011.0000.1015 146,528.25
Total : 746,528.28
124864 2/2/2006 000728 MID-STATE BANK&TRUST FIT 2006-03 FEDERAL WITHHOLDING TAXES 2:
FED/FIT
011.0000.2104 30,398.17
EE FICA/MEDICARE
011.0000.2105 31,484.04
ER FICA/MEDICARE
011.0000.2105 8,035.10
Total : 69,917.31
125967 4/18/2006 005500 BROUSSARD, RYAN Ref000067032 UB Refund Cst#00000955
UB Refund Cst#00000955
640.00002301 60.31
Page: 1
vchlist Voucher List Page: 2
� 04118/2006 4:44:36PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode: b08
� Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125967 4/18/2006 005500 005500 BROUSSARD, RYAN (Continued) Total : 60.31
125968 4/18/2006 000729 PERS-RETIREMENT PR 2006-SPEC PERS 2006-SPECIAUUNIFORMS&
PERS CONTRIBUTIONS-2006-SPE
� 011.0000.2106 6,500.61
Total : 6,500.61
� 125969 4/18/2006 005501 QUINTANA,JOSEFINA Ref000067033 UB Refund Cst#00003188
UB Refund Cst#00003188
640.00002301 54.56
Total : 54.86
125970 4/18/2006 005502 RAINBOLT, KYLE Ref000067034 UB Refund Cst#00004026
UB Refund Cst#00004026
, 640.0000.2301 34.80
Total : 34.80
9 Vouchers for bank code: boa Bank total : 511,541.15
9 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 511,541.15
I
i
! Total reported on Attachment 1 excludes $511,391.18
' in payroll-related expenditures already included in prior reported Payroll & Benefits totals.
i
�
;
I
' Page: 2
ATTACHMENT 3
vchlist ' Voucher List Page: 1
0411812006 10:42:21AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE �
—,
Bankcode: boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# DescripUOnlAccount Amount
, 125966 4l18/2006 005479 GARNER, BRENDA Ref000066788 UB Refund Cst#00007259
UB Refund Cst#40007259
640.00002301 139.40
Total : 139.40
1 Vouchers for bank code: boa Bank total : 139.40
1 Youchere in this report Totai vouchers; 139.40
Page: 1
ATTACHMENT4
vchlist Vouche�List Page: 7
04/21/2006 10:18:56AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode: boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125965 4/17/2006 000403 MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENTS O41706 SEMINAR DINNER: R.CRUZ; D.CAR
SEMINAR DINNER: R.CRUZ, D.CAR
220.4303.5501 60.00
ToWI : 60.00
125980 4/21/2006 001050 AMERICAN TEMPS 00043900 PAYROLL DATE: 3/27 T03/31/06
, T.ALLEN
220.4303.5303 1,171.60
ToWI : 1,171.60
125981 4/21/2006 000034 APEX SHARPENING WORKS 26833 CHAIN SAW PARTS
CHAIN SAW PARTS
' 010.4211.5603 5325
Total : 53.25
125982 4/21/2Q06 002632 API WASTE SERVICES 64C00037 R/0 BIN-DUMP/RETURN SVCS.
R/0 BIN-DUMP/RETURN SVCS.
010.4213.5303 370.08
Total : 370.08
125983 4/21/2006 003745 ARROWHEAD SCIENTIFIC, INC 23367 DRUG TEST KITS
DRUG TEST KITS
010.4201.5255 113.30
Freight
010.4201.5255 11.93
Total : 125.23
125984 4/21/2006 000042 ARROYO GRANDE FLOWER SHOP 26943/26945 FLOWERS: CARDOZA&A.JOHNSC
FLOWERS: CARDOZA 8 A. JOHNS(
010.4201.5504 86.87
27423 FLOWERS FOR RETIRED SENIOR-
FLOWERS FOR RETIRED SENIOR-
010.4211.5504 46.12
Total : 132.99
125985 4/21/2006 005507 AT&T 4/7-0183 451-0183: RADIO
Page: 1
I
, vchlist Voucher List Page: 2
04/21/2006 70:18:56AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode: boa
' Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125985 4/21/2006 005507 AT&T (Continued)
451-0183: RADIO
010.4145.5403 186.94
4/73953 841-3953
841-3953
010.4211.5403 32.02
4/73956 841-3956:ALARM
8413956:ALARM
220.4303.5303 32.02
, 4/73959 841-3959:ALARM
841-3959:ALARM
i 640.4710.5403 32.02
Total : 283.00
125986 4/21/2006 001055 AVCO FIRE EXTINGUISHER CO 11907 ANNUAL FIRE EXTINGUISHER CHE
' ANNUAL FIRE EXTINGUISHER CHE
010.4211.5603 269.00
Total : 269.00
125987 4/21/2006 003074 BENDER 8 COMPANY, INC, MATTHEW 25709232 MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENT N
MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENT N
010.4002.5303 1,294.79
� 25984411 MUNICIPAL CODE ON CD
MUNICIPAL CODE ON CD
010.4002.5303 38.51
,
Total : 7,333.30
125988 4/21/2006 000077 BETTER BEEP,A 10724203 PAGER SERVICES:APRIL 2006
PAGER SERVICES:APRIL 2006
010.4201.5606 134.25
Total : 134.25
125989 4/21/2006 001917 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH MARCH 2O06 CAR WASH: 18 IN MARCH 2O06
CAR WASH: 18 IN MARCH 2O06
010.4201.5601 126.00
ToWI : 126.00
� Page: 2
vchlist Voucher List Page: 3
04121/2006 10:18:56AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : b0a
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125990 4/21/2006 000084 BOXX EXPRESS,THE 129 UPS SHtPPING CHARGES
UPS SHIPPING CHARGES
010.4211.5201 16.07
Total : 16.07
125991 4/21/2006 000090 BRISCO MILL&LUMBER YARD 127910 MILLING
MILLING
010.4201.5604 1.61
127946 PAINT SUPPLIES
PAINT SUPPLIES
010.4201.5604 13.28
128411 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
220.4303.5601 32.49
Total : 47.38
125992 4/21/2006 005504 BROUSE ELECTRIC, RAY 041906 TEXTURE MAIN HALLWAY-POLICE
TEXTURE MAIN HALLWAY-POLICE
010.4201.5604 500.00
Total : 500.00
125993 4/21/2006 005508 BROWN, ROBERT 041706 STAFF MEETING,GB-AG
STAFF MEETING,GB-AG
010.4211.5501 8.99
Total : 8.99
125994 4/21/2006 001577 BURDINE PRINTING 7346 PRINTING SERVICES: SALES TAX-
PRINTING SERVICES: SALES TAX-
010.4102.5306 63.66
7416 COPIES FOR HABITAT CREEK PLAI
COPIES FOR HABITAT CREEK PLAI
010.4301.5255 330.38
7486 PRINTING SERVICES:TOWN MEET
PRINTING SERVICES:TOWN MEET
010.4102.5306 159.86
Total : 553.90
Page: 3
vchlist Voucher List Page: 4
04/21/2006 10:78:56AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode: boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
125995 4/21/2006 000095 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, INC 2314570 POWER POLE FOR MODULAR UNI-
POWER POLE FOR MODULAR UNI-
350.5411.7001 268.13
Total : 268.13
125996 4/21/2006 001430 CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY 7826-194540 CREDIT ON CONDUIT
CREDIT ON CONDUIT
350.5411.7001 -315.55
7826-638526 SUPPLIES FOR MODULAR UNIT
SUPPLIES FOR MODULAR UNIT
350.5411.7001 831.67
7826-638774 CONDUIT
CONDUIT
350.5411.7001 126.37
ToW I : 642.49
125997 4/21/2006 004565 CAR SERVICE CENTER, INC 39320 993 SMOG INSPECTION
993 SMOG INSPECTION
010.4201.5601 69.36
ToWI : 69.36
125998 4/21/2006 000603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 46233 MINI FUSES
MINI FUSES
010.4201.5601 8.00
57354 WELDING ROD
WELDING ROD
220.4303.5255 126.21
63599 011 WIPERS
011 WIPERS
010.4201.5601 19.24
63621 CREDIT-WIPERS
CREDIT-WIPERS
010.4201.5601 -19.24
63623 011 WIPERS
011 WIPERS
010.4201.5601 14.44
Page: 4
vchlist VOUChef LISt Page: 5
04/2112006 10:18:56AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/ACCOUnt Amount
125998 4/21/2006 000603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS (Continued)
64072 014 WIPERS
014 WIPERS
010.4201.5601 19.66
67066 WIPER BLADES FOR PW27
WIPER BLADES FOR PW27
220.4303.5601 14.44
Total : 182.75
125999 4/21/2006 005374 CARTRIDGE INK 381592 BLACK INK FOR NETWORK PRINTE
BLACK INK FOR NETWORK PRINTE
010.4140.5602 95.35
Total : 95.35
126000 4/21/2006 003168 CELLULAR ONE 02292 CELL PHONE:4/9 TO 5/8/06
CELL PHONE:4/9 TO 5/8/06
010.4425.5255 126.68
Total : 126.68
126001 4/21/2006 001990 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS 805-473-5463 MIS CABLE MODEM:
MIS CABLE MODEM:
010.4140.5303 194.95
Total : 194.95
126002 4/21/2006 002389 CONAWAY, MARCUS O41906 B/BALL LGE.SCORER-CONAWAY
B/BALL LGE.SCORER-CONAWAY
010.4424.5352 22.50
ToWI : 22.50
126003 4/21/2006 000196 CUESTA EQUIPMENT CO 319401 CAP TO EXHAUST
CAP TO EXHAUST
220.4303.5601 8.57
319402 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
220.4303.5601 111.40
ToWI : 719.97
Page: 5
vchlist Voucher List Page: 6
0412112006 10:18:56AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
126004 4/21/2006 001854 DECECCO,JIM 041906 S/BALL LEAGUE UMP-DECECCO
S/BALL LEAGUE UMP-DECECCO
010.4424.5352 36.00
Total : 36.00
126005 4/21/2006 001840 DELL MARKETING LP M60174640 COLOR PRINTER CARTRIDGES—
' COLOR PRINTER CARTRIDGES—
010.4201.5201 536.14
Total : 536.14
126006 4/21/2006 000210 DIESELRO OF SLO, INC 18745 " B.I.T. INSPECTION & SERVICE TO f
B.I.T. INSPECTION 8 SERVICE TO f
220.4303.5601 382.29
18746 B.I.T. INSPECTION ON PW30 TRAIL
B.I.T. INSPECTION ON PW30 TRAIL
220.4303.5603 67.75
Total : 450.04
126007 4/21/2006 002673 DOCTOR'S MEDPLUS MEDICAL 13879223 PRE-EMPL.PHYSICAL-NIELSEN
PRE-EMPL.PHYSICAL-NIELSEN
010.4211.5315 225.00
13879238 PRE-EMPL.PHYSICAL-FARNSWOR'
PRE-EMPL.PHYSI CAL-FARNSWOR'
010.4211.5315 225.00
Total : 450.00
126008 4/21/2006 005106 ESGIL CORP 04-06-0150 PLAN CHECK 06-02
PLAN CHECK 06-02
010.4212.5303 496.88
ToW I : 496.88
126009 4/21/2006 001525 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC 1028675 PIPE FITTINGS,VALVES&FIRE HY
4301-00006 FOR THE CHRISTIE FAMILY FIRE H
640.4712.5610 900.00
Sales Tax
640.4712.5610 65.25
Page: 6
vchlist VouCher List Page: 7
04/21/2006 10:18:56AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode: boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Accaunt Amount
126009 4/21/2006 001525 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC (Continued)
1049720 FIRE HYDRANTS
FIRE HYDRANTS
640.4712.5610 1,930.50
1052934 SERVICE SADDLES
SERVICE SADDLES
640.4712.5610 171.60
1054401 PVC PIPE FPR PD STATION
PVC PIPE FPR PD STATION
640.4712.5610 38.45
ToWI : 3,105.80
126010 4/21/2006 000250 FIREHOUSE MAGAZINE 042006 SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL FOR O�
SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL FOR 0�
010.4211.5503 30.00
Total : 30.00
126011 4/21/2006 000818 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO 40012666 TITLE REPORT FOR VACANT LANC
TITLE REPORT FOR VACANT LANC
010.4301.5255 360.00
ToWI : 360.00
126012 4/21/2006 004790 FLOYD, DEANNA 041906 BASKETBALL SCORER
BASKETBALLSCORER
010.4424.5352 52.50
Total : 52.50
126013 4/21/2006 003590 FLOYD, SERENA 041906 B/BALL LGE.SCORER-FLOYD
B/BALL LGE.SCORER-FLOYD
010.4424.5352 75.00
Total : 75.00
126014 4/21/2006 000262 FRANK'S LOCK&KEY, INC 23864 REPAIR DISPATCH LOCK
REPAIR DISPATCH LOCK
010.4201.5604 65.00
Page: 7
vchlist Voucher List Page: 8
04/21/2006 10:78:56AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : b0a
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount .
126014 4/21/2006 000262 FRANK'S LOCK&KEY, INC (Continued)
23886 991 EXTRACT BROKEN KEY 8 KEY
991 EXTRACT BROKEN KEY 8 KEY
010.4201.5601 25.58
ToWI : 90.56
126015 4/21/2006 004825 GALBREATH, FLAVA 041906 BASKETBALL REFEREE
BASKETBALLREFEREE
010.4424.5352 126.00
Total : 126.00
126016 4/21/2006 004372 GARING TAYLOR&ASSOCIATES 6052 WELL N0.10 DESIGN &CONSTRUC
WELL N0.10 DESIGN 8 CONSTRUC
350.5934.7501 3,047.30
Total : 3,047.30
126017 4/21/2006 000605 GAS COMPANY,THE 4/10-200 GAS SERVICES: 200 N HALCYON R
GAS SERVICES: 200 N HALCYON R
010.4145.5401 346.84
4/11-1375 GAS SERVICES: 1375 ASH ST
GAS SERVICES: 1375 ASH ST
010.4145.5401 381.57
4/11-350 GAS SERVICES: 350 S ELM ST
GAS SERVICES: 350 S ELM ST
010.4145.5401 285.76
4/7-1500 GAS SERVICES: 1500 W BRANCH
GAS SERVICES: 1500 W BRANCH
010.4145.5401 10.36
4/7-910 GAS SERVICES:910 RANCHO PKV�
GAS SERVICES: 910 RANCHO PKV�
010.4145.5401 47.41
ToWI : 7,071.94
126018 4/21/2006 004142 GAXIOLA, STAN 041906 BASKETBALL OFFICIAL
BASKETBALL OFFICIAL
010.4424.5352 126.00
Page: S
vchlist Voucher List Page: 9
0412112006 10:18:56AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
126018 4/21/2006 004142 004142 GAXIOLA, STAN (Continued) Total : 126.00
126019 4/21/2006 003365 GLOBAL PHONE&WIRELESS SVCS 7766 031 REPAIR VIDEO UNIT
031 REPAIR VIDEO UNIT
010.4201.5601 65.00
7818 061 INSTALL IN CAR VIDEO
061 INSTALL IN CAR VIDEO
010.4201.6301 332.71
062 INSTALL IN CAR VIDEO
010.4201.6301 332.72
Total : 730.43
126020 4/21/2006 004789 HALE, KRAIG 041906 BASKETBALL REFEREE
BASKETBALLREFEREE
010.4424.5352 144.00
Total : 744.00
126021 4/21/2006 003366 HANCOCK COLLEGE JCCD,ALLAN 780180 REGISTRATION &MATERIAL FEES
REGISTRATION &MATERIAL FEES
010.4201.5501 422.00
Total : 422.00
126022 4/21/2006 002405 HARE, CHUCK 041906 B/BALL LGE.OFFICIAL-HARE
B/BALL LGE.OFFICIAL-HARE
010.4424.5352 54.00
Total : 54.00
126023 4/21/2006 004025 HARRIS, EDDIE 041906 SOFTBALL UMPIRE
SOFTBALL UMPIRE
010.4424.5352 72.00
Total : 72.00
126024 4/21/2006 005143 HAYASHI VEGETABLE STAND 803107 PRODUCT FOR SOUVENIR BASKE"
PRODUCT FOR SOUVENIR BASKE"
010.4001.5508 249.60
Total : 249.60
Page: 9
vchlist Voucher List Page: 10
04/21/2006 10:18:S6AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# DescriptionlAccount Amount
126025 4/21/2006 000301 HEACOCK TRAILERS&TRUCK 21063 BOX TUBING FOR FIELD DRAGS
BOX TUBING FOR FIELD DRAGS
010.4430.5605 17.37
21074 STEELSTRAP
STEELSTRAP
010.4430.5605 5.79
Total : 23.16
126026 4/21/2006 000928 HI-TECH EMERGENCY 113710 LIQUID TITANIUM
LIQUID TITANIUM
010.4211.5603 114.00
ToWI : 114.00
126027 4/21/2006 003910 ICC-INTL CODE COUNCIL, INC 041706 BLDG INSPECTOR CERTIF.-J.HUR:
BLDG INSPECTOR CERTIF.-J.HUR;
010.4212.5501 50.00
Total : 50.00
126028 4/21/2006 001793 KELLER&ASSOCIATES, INC,J J 006239963 OSHA COMPLIANCE MANUEL UPD�
OSHA COMPLIANCE MANUEL UPD,
220.4303.5501 140.85
Total : 140.85
126029 4/21/2006 004845 LARSON, JOHN 041906 SOFTBALL UMPIRE
SOFTBALL UMPIRE
010.4424.5352 72.00
Total : 72.00
126030 4/21/2006 001136 LINTNER, DOUG 041906 SOFTBALL UMPIRE
SOFTBALL UMPIRE
010.4424.5352 36.00
Total : 36.00
126031 4/21/2006 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST 060643' KINDERGARTEN BUS FOR MAR 20�
KINDERGARTEN BUS FOR MAR 20�
010.4425.5303 525.00
Page: 10
vchlist VouCher List Page: 11
04/2112006 70:18:56AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
126031 4/21/2006 000393 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST (Continued) Total : 525.00
126032 4/21/2006 005505 MAYFIELD, MICHELLE 13106 LIVE SCAN FINGERPRINTING
LIVE SCAN FINGERPRINTING
010.4120.5315 15.00
Total : 15.00
126033 4/21/2006 005414 MC CLELLAN, STEVE 041906 BASKETBALL OFFICIAL
BASKETBALL OFFICIAL
010.4424.5352 162.00
Total : 162.00
126034 4/21/2006 004279 MID STATE PLUMBING& 041206 WATER CONS.PROGRAM PHASE I
WATER CONS.PROGRAM PHASE I
350.5409.7001 21,807.10
Total : 21,807.10
126035 4/21/2006 000419 MIDAS MUFFLER&BRAKE 0013803 SERVICE TO PW6
SERVICE TO PW6
220.4303.5601 30.47
13653 014 L/0/F
014 UO/F
010.4201.5601 31.47
13725 011 L/O/F SERP BELT
011 L/O/F SERP BELT
010.4201.5601 130.79
13739 051 UO/F FLAT REPAIR
051 L/O/F FLAT REPAIR
010.4201.5601 46.65
13746 013 UO/F
013 UO/F
010.4201.5601 31.47
Total : 270.85
126036 4/21/2006 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC 78982 PAINT&TAPE
PAINT&TAPE
010.4201.5604 101.87
Page: 11
vchlist Voucher List Page: 12
04/2112006 10:18:56AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode: boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
126036 4/21/2006 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC (Continued)
79006 CYLINDER
CYLINDER
220.4303.5601 19.28
79042 PAINT
PAINT
010.4201.5604 96.51
79663 SANDPAPER
SANDPAPER
010.4201.5604 20.09
79696 PAINT/FASTENERS
PAINT/FASTENERS
010.4201.5604 71.32
79721 MOUNTING TAPE
MOUNTING TAPE
010.4201.5604 19.26
80104 KEYS FOR MODULAR UNIT
KEYS FOR MODULAR UNIT
010.4201.5604 3.41
80216 STATION SUPPLIES
STATION SUPPLIES
010.4211.5255 17.63
80262 TAPE/BUCKET/PAINT THINNER/RO
TAPE/BUCKET/PAINT THINNER/RO
010.4201.5604 40.17
80436 PLANTS
PLANTS
010.4420.5605 88.22
80631 OUTDOOR PLANTS
OUTDOOR PLANTS
010.4420.5605 166.80
80934 STATION SUPPLIES
STATION SUPPLIES
010.4211.5255 54.15
Page: 12
vchiist Voucher List Page: 13
04/21/2006 10:18:56AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
126036 4/21/2006 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC (Continued)
93314 PAINT; SPRAY
PAINT; SPRAY
220.4303.5601 100.68
95830 PAINT/STRIPING WAND
PAINT/STRIPING WAND
010.4420.5273 64.71
Total : 864.10
126037 4/21/2006 000441 MULLAHEY FORD 165742 LOF-TOP ALL FLUIDS;SAFETY INSF
LOF-TOP ALL FLUIDS;SAFETY INSF
010.4301.5601 32.77
FOCS166357 031 SPARK PLUGS/COIL
031 SPARK PLUGS/COIL
010.4201.5601 595.29
Total : 628.06
126038 4/21/2006 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 332304109-001 OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
010.4211.5201 144.84
ToWI : 144.84
126039 4/21/2006 001886 OFFICEMAX-HSBC BUS.SOLUTIONS 03041J0841 OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
010.4120.5201 16.08
040606 OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
010.4211.5201 31.48
Total : 47.56
126040 4/21/2006 004757 PLUMBERS DEPOT INC. PD4680/PD4681 SEWER HOSE
Page: 13
vchlist Voucher List Page: 14
04121/2006 10:18:56AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode: boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
126040 4/21/2006 004757 PLUMBERS DEPOT INC. (Continued)
4301-00009 Sewerhose
612.4610.6201 1,380.00
4301-00009 Leaderhose
612.4610.6201 110.00
4301-00009 Tigertail
612.4610.6201 42.00
Sales Tax
612.4610.6201 111.07
Total : 7,643.07
126041 4/21/2006 000523 R&T EMBROIDERY, INC 28685 EMBROIDER CITY LOGO ON SHIRT
EMBROIDER CITY LOGO ON SHIRT
010.4001.5201 27.35
Total : 27.35
126042 4/21/2006 005411 REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY 7460-06-012 FIVE CITIES SHUTTLE SERVICE
FIVE CITIES SHUTTLE SERVICE
225.4553.5511 1,568.36
Total : 1,568.36
126043 4/21/2006 000531 RICHETTI WATER CONDITIONING 42333 REVERSE OSMOSIS RENTAL:MAR
REVERSE OSMOSIS RENTAL:MAR
010.4201.5604 15.00
Total : 15.00
126044 4/21/2006 004833 ROMO, STEVE 041906 BASKETBALL OFFICIAL
BASKETBALL OFFICIAL
010.4424.5352 54.00
ToWI : 54.00
126045 4/21/2006 004365 RUIZ, DANIEL 041906 BASKETBALL SCORER
BASKETBALLSCORER
010.4424.5352 67.50
SOFTBALISCORER
010.4424.5352 15.00
Page: 14
vchlist Voucher List Paye: 15
04/21/2006 10:18:56AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
126045 4/21/2006 004365 004365 RUIZ, DANIEL (Continued) Total : 82.50
126046 4/21/2006 003649 RUIZ, DON 041906 BASKETBALL SCORER
BASKETBALLSCORER
010.4424.5352 67.50
SOFTBALL UMPIRE
010.4424.5352 72.00
Total : 739.50
126047 4/21/2006 000539 SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS, INC 0031334514 PARTS WASHER MAINT.AGREEM
PARTS WASHER MAINT.AGREEM
010.4305.5303 159.10
Total : 159.10
126048 4/21/2006 004659 SAN LUIS TRUCK 79270 RUBBER FLAP
RUBBER FLAP
220.4303.5601 72.80
Total : 72.80
126049 4/21/2006 000578 SARMIENTO,ANN 041906 SOFTBALL SCORER
SOFTBALLSCORER
010.4424.5352 45.00
Total : 45.00
126050 4/21/2006 003108 SBC/MCI T4817030 021-2713: 3/1 T04/10/O6
021-2713: 3/1 T04/10/06
010.4145.5403 289.63
T4846936 267-8633: 3/1 TO 4/6/O6
267-8633: 3/1 TO 4/6/O6
010.4145.5403 88.51
T4862482 489-2174: 3/1 TO 4/7/O6
489-2174: 3/1 TO 4/7/06
010.4201.5403 28.49
T4871262 473-2198:3/1 TO 4/10/06
473-2198: 3/1 TO 4/10/O6
010.4145.5403 19.08
Page: 15
vchlist Voucher List Page: 76
04/2712006 10:78:S6AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
8ankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
126050 4/21/2006 003108 SBC/MCI (Continued)
T4871279 481-6944:3/1 T04/10/O6
481-6944: 3/1 TO 4/10/O6
010.4201.5403 84.73
Total : 570.44
126051 4/21/2006 000587 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIBUTOR CFN92160 GASOLINE 3/16 TO 3/31/06
_ GASOLINE 3/16 TO 3/31/06
010.4201.5608 35.48
� ToWI : 35.48
126052 4/21/2006 003160 SILVA, JR,JOE A 041306 REIMBURSEMENT/TRAVEL
FUEL-ATTENDED TRUCK ACADEM'
010.4211.5501 44.19
FUEL
010.4211.5501 138.79
FUEL-ATTENDED CA FIRE MECHA�
010.4211.5501 41.69
FUEL
010.4211.5501 41.99
LODGING
010.4211.5501 488.75
Total : 755.41
126053 4/21/2006 000564 SLO COUNTY NEWSPAPERS 6336799 NOTICE OF PH-FAIR OAKS AVE
NOTICE OF PH-FAIR OAKS AVE
010.4002.5301 107.41
6339911 SUMMARY OF ORD-SOLICITATION
SUMMARY OF ORD-SOLICITATION
010.4002.5301 102.82
634051 PUBLIC NOTICE FOR:VSR INTERP
PUBLIC NOTICE FOR: VSR INTERP
010.4130.5301 163.40
6345312 SUMMARY OF ORD-CALPERS
SUMMARY OF ORD.-CALPERS
010.4002.5301 77.11
Page: 16
vchlist Voucher LiSt Page: 17
04121/2006 10:18:S6AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
126053 4/21/2006 000564 SLO COUNTY NEWSPAPERS (Continued)
6349643/6349644 TPM 05-005& PACE PPR 05-027
TPM 05-005& PACE PPR OS-027
010.4130.5301 207.47
6350732 AD FOR SUMMER CHILDCARE PO:
AD FOR SUMMER CHILDCARE PO:
010.4425.5316 269.48
Total : 927.69
126054 4/21/2006 000548 SLOCO DATA, INC 041806 DEPOSIT FOR 2006 WEED ABATEM1
DEPOSIT FOR 2006 WEED ABATEA
010.4211.5599 1,000.00
Total : 1,000.00
126055 4/21/2006 004860 SMITH,TAMMY 041906 SOFTBALL SCORER
SOFTBA�LSCORER
010.4424.5352 60.00
Total : 60.00
126056 4/21/2006 003641 SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY SVC, INC 1389654 DUMPSTERS-STROTHER PARK
DUMPSTERS-STROTHER PARK
010.4213.5303 102.89
1391997 DUMPSTERS- RANCHO GRANDE F
DUMPSTERS-RANCHO GRANDE F
010.4213.5303 102.89
1397647 DUMPSTERS- FIRE STATION
DUMPSTERS- FIRE STATION
010.4213.5303 200.40
ToWI : 406.18
126057 4/21/2006 000613 STATEWIDE SAFETY&SIGNS 47767 NO PARKING SIGNS/2WAY REFLE
NO PARKING SIGNS/2WAY REFLE
220.4303.5613 64.35
ToWI : 64.35
126058 4/21/2006 005506 STEPHENS JR INC, WALTER 0061305-IN POCKET BADGES
Page: 17
vchlist Voucher List Page: 18
04121/2006 10:18:56AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
126058 4/21/2006 005506 STEPHENS JR INC, WALTER (Continued)
POCKET BADGES
010.4201.5255 119.85
Freight
010.4201.5255 7.50
Total : 127.35
126059 4/21/2006 000616 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS 21524 D BUTTON ATTACHMENTS FOR Hl
D BUTTON ATTACHMENTS FOR Hl
010.4201.5606 85.80
21532 0621NSTALL RADIO&CELL PHONE
062 INSTALI RADIO&CELL PHONE
010.4201.6301 481.48
21560 SERVICE AGREEMENT-MAY 2006
SERVICE AGREEMENT-MAY 2006
010.4201.5606 974.00
Total : 1,541.28
126060 4/21/2006 000622 SUN BADGE CO 270616 MEDALS FOR MERIT(2)
MEDALS FOR MERIT(2)
010.4201.5255 221.28
Total : 221.28
126061 4/21/2006 005326 UNITED PORTFOLIO MGT INC 18898 PURCHASE CD W/INTN'L CITY BAN
PURCHASE CD W/INTN'L CITY BAN
010.4145.5508 148.50
Total : 148.50
126062 4/21/2006 000666 UNITED RENTALS 55286737 FORK LIFT KEYS
FORK LIFT KEYS
220.4303.5603 23.80
Total : 23.80
126063 4/21/2006 002000 VERIZON WIRELESS MESSAGING SVC L5245715GD PAGERS MONTHLY SERVICE
Page: 18
vchlist Voucher List Page: 19
04121/2006 10:18:56AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# DescriptionlAccount Amount
126063 4/21/2006 002000 VERIZON WIRELESS MESSAGING SVC (Continued)
FIRE
010.4211.5403 22.66
BLDG
010.4212.5403 11.33
Total : 33.99
126064 4/21/2006 000687 WAYNE'S TIRE, INC 757004 031 FLAT REPAIR/MOUNT& BALA�
031 FLAT REPAIR/MOUNT& BALA�
010.4201.5601 33.50
757304 062 FLAT REPAIR
062 FLAT REPAIR
010.4201.5601 15.00
757312 041 MOUNT 8 BALANCE TIRES
041 MOUNT& BALANCE TIRES
010.4201.5601 21.84
Total : 70.34
126065 4/21/2006 000699 WILSON ELECTRIC COMPANY, LEE 06018 BATTERY BACK-UP SYSTEM:COUF
BATTERY BACK-UP SYSTEM:COUF
010.4304.5303 5,260.00
0624 BATTERY BACK-UP SYSTEM:ELM&
BATTERY BACK-UP SYSTEM:ELM&
010.4304.5303 5,260.00
Total : 10,520.00
126066 4/21/2006 000704 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS T5105 MONTHLY TRAINING MAR 06
MONTHLY TR,4INING MAR 06
010.4201.5322 350.00
Total : 350.00
126067 4/21/2006 004764 XCEL SERVICES GROUP, INC. 3561 MONTHLY INSPECTION FOR MARC
MONTHLY INSPECTION FOR MARC
010.4305.5303 99.00
Total : 99.00
89 Vouchers for bank code: boa Bank total : 64,235.72
Page: 19
vchlist Voucher List Page: 20
0412712006 10:18:S6AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
89 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 64,235.72
Page: 20
ATTACHMENT 5
' vchlist Voucher List Page: 7
04/2412006 10:11:39AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
126068 4/24/2006 000058 BANK OF AMERICA 4/8-2059 TRAVEL
FUEL-AFSS MEETING IN CORONA
010.4211.5501 54.59
LODGING-AFSS MEETING IN CORC
010.4211.5501 54.65
- DINNER-AFSS CONFERENCE-L.BE
010.4211.5501 13.02
LUNCH-AFSS CONFERENCE-LONG
010.4211.5501 15.26
4/5-2083 MISC EXPENSES
COPIES-OFFICE MAX
010.4130.5201 7.45
COPY OF BOOK-OFFICE MAX
010.4130.5201 83.30
RESTAURANT-T.MC RWCB
010.4130.5501 13.92
COPIES OF GENERAL PLAN-OFFIC
010.4130.5201 97.59
RESTAURANT-RS/RADEMAKE SIGf
010.4130.5501 24.77
RESTAURANT-RS STEEL MOVER
010.4130.5501 38.04
4/8-2091 UNITED AIR-FLIGHTlTICKET CHAR�
UNITED AIR-FLIGHT/TICKET CHARi
010.4001.5501 10.00
UNITED AIR-FLIGHT TO LAX FOR P
010.4001.5501 170.61
REFUND FOR UNITED AIR TICKET
010.4001.5501 -170.61
4/8-2581 APWA CONFERENCE EXPENSES-C
APWA CONFERENCE EXPENSES-C
010.4301.5501 210.98
Page: 1
vchlist VoucherList Page: 2
04/24/2006 10:11:39AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
126068 4/24/2006 000058 BANK OF AMERICA (Continued)
4/8-4272 PURCHASE OF GASB BOOKS
PURCHASE OF GASB BOOKS
010.4120.5201 180.00
4/8-7762 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES FOR GAMES;SHIRTS;CP
010.4425.5255 961.70
SNACK SUPPLIES
010.4425.5259 361.53
PLAYC,ROUND SUPPLIES
010.4422.5256 224.97
EASTER CARNIVAL SPECIAL EVEN
010.4424.5252 221.10
4/8-9163 TRAINING/MEMBERSHIPS
TRAINING
010.4421.5501 490.14
NRPA MEMBERSHIPS
010.4421.5303 405.00
4/8-9436 LUNCH MEETING
RIVER GRILL-CHANNEL COUNTIES
010.4001.5501 9422
Total : 3,562.23
1 Vouchers for bank code: boa Bank total : 3,562.23
1 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 3,562.23
Page: 2
ATTACHMENT 6
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION
PAY PERIOD
0417/O6-04/20/O6
04/28/O6
FUND 010 354,777.57 5101 Salaries Full time 199,851.21
FUND 220 15,549.28 5102 Salaries Part-Time-PPT 16,653.87
FUND 284 - 5103 Salaries Part-Time-TPT 7,625.99
FUND 612 6,532.12 5105 Salaries OverTime 10,296.68
FUND 640 18,697.00 5107 Salaries Standby 354.00
395,555.97 5108 Holiday Pay 1,396.14
5109 Sick Pay 7,940.40
5110 AnnualLeave Buyback
5111 Vacation Buyback
5112 Sick Leave Buyback
5113 Vacation Pay 11,742.40
5114 Comp Pay 4,286.11
5115 Annual Leave Pay 2,728.29
5121 PERS Retirement 69,428.19
5122 Social Security 18,915.69
5123 PARS Retirement 344.70
5126 State Disability Ins. 1,086.26
5127 Deferred Compensation 775.00
5131 Health Insurance 34,309.27
5132 Dentallnsurance 4,291.77
5133 Vision Insurance 959.99
5134 Life Insurance 586.14
5135 Long Term Disability 971.52
5143 Uniform Allowance
5144 Car Allowance 500.00
5146 Council Expense
5147 Employee Assistance 237.35
5148 Boot Allowance
5149 Motor Pay 75.00
5150 Bi-Lingual Pay 200.00
395,555.97
y
ATTACHMENT 7
vchlist Voucher List Paye: 1
04/28/2006 1:48:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
126069 4/26/2006 000123 CA ST BOARD OF EQUALIZATION DG MT 57-425096 DIESEL FUEL TAX QTR 3-05/06
DIESEL FUEL TAX QTR 3-05/O6
010.0000.1202 386.64
Total : 386.64
126072 4/28/2006 002422 ACTIVE NETWORK, INC,THE INC000883 ANNUAL RECREATION SOFTWARE
ANNUAL RECREATION SOFTWARE
010.4140.5303 1,500.00
ANN. RECREATION SOFTWARE Sl
010.4421.5303 1,462.09
ToW I : 2,962.09
126073 4/28/2006 001259 AGP VIDEO, INC 1581 VIDEO PRODUCTION/TAPE DISTRII
VIDEO PRODUCTION/TAPE DISTRII
211.4101.5330 3,272.50
Total : 3,272.50
126074 4/28/2006 002395 ALERT-ALL CORP 6040174 VIDEO AND PUBLIC RELATION SUF
VIDEO AND PUBLIC RELATION SUF
010.4211.5504 1,064.75
Total : 1,064.75
126075 4/28/2006 001050 AMERICAN TEMPS 00043803 PAYROLL DATES 4/3 TO 4/7/06
T.ALLEN
220.4303.5303 1,098.38
Total : 1,098.38
126077 4/28/2006 003817 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SVCS 6093650 SHIRTS W/CITY LOGO FOR SPECIF
SHIRTSW/CITY LOGO FOR SPECIF
010.4001.5504 167.74
F019224 JACKET-JUAREZ
JACKET-JUAREZ
010.4305.5143 36.45
F019296 COVERALLS-BENNETT
COVERALLS-BENNETT
640.4711.5143 47.08
Page: 1
vchlist Voucher List Page: 2
04/2812006 1:48:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
126077 4/28/2006 003817 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SVCS (Continued)
F486937 FIRE DEPT MATS
FIRE DEPT MATS
010.4213.5303 21.15
F617561 FIRE DEPT MATS
FIRE DEPT MATS
010.4213.5303 21.15
F617564 BUILDING DEPT MATS
BUILDING DEPT MATS
010.4213.5303 6.31
F617565 CITY HALL MATS/TOWELS
CITY HALL MATS/TOWELS
010.4213.5303 10.75
F617566 ENGIN. DEPT MATS
ENGIN. DEPT MATS
010.4213.5303 5.00
F617567 COMM CENTER MATS
COMM CENTER MATS
010.4213.5303 9.45
F617569 SEWER DEPT UNIFORMS
SEWER DEPT UNIFORMS
612.4610.5143 5.60
F617570 STREET DEPT UNIFORMS
STREET DEPT UNIFORMS
220.4303.5143 16.80
F617571 ENGIN. DEPT UNIFORMS
ENGIN. DEPT UNIFORMS
010.4301.5143 1.40
WATER DEPT UNIFORMS
640.4711.5143 1420
F617572 PARKS DEPT UNIFORMS
PARKS DEPT UNIFORMS
010.4420.5143 19.60
SOTO UNIFORMS
010.4430.5143 2.80
Page: 2
vchlist Voucher List Page: 3
04/2812006 1:48:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
126077 4/28/2006 003817 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SVCS (Continued)
F617573 BUILDING MAINT. UNIFORMS
BUI�DING MAINT. UNIFORMS
010.4213.5143 2.80
F617575 AUTO SHOP UNIFORMS
AUTO SHOP UNIFORMS
010.4305.5143 4.11
F623451 POLICE DEPT MATS
POLICE DEPT MATS
010.4213.5303 12.13
F623452 RECREATION CENTER MATS
RECREATION CENTER MATS
010.4213.5303 21.50
F623453 SEWER DEPT UNIFORMS
SEWER DEPT UNIFORMS
612.4610.5143 5.60
F623454 STREET DEPT UNIFORMS
STREET DEPT UNIFORMS
220.4303.5143 16.80
F623455 WATER DEPT UNIFORMS
_ WATER DEPT UNIFORMS
640.4711.5143 14.20
ENGIN. DEPT UNIFORMS
010.4301.5143 1.40
F623456 SOTO UNIFORMS
SOTO UNIFORMS
010.4430.5143 2.80
PARKS DEPT UNIFORMS
010.4420.5143 27.48
F623457 CORP YARD MATS
CORP YARD MATS
010.4213.5303 11.03
BUILDING MAINT. UNIFORMS
010.4213.5143 2.80
Page: 3
vchlist VOUChe� LISt Page: 4
04/28/2006 1:48:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
126077 4/28/2006 003817 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SVCS (Continued)
F623458 AUTO SHOP UNIFORMS
AUTO SHOP UNIFORMS
010.4305.5143 10.41
F630109 FIRE DEPT MATS
FIRE DEPT MATS
010.4213.5303 21.15
F630112 BUILDING DEPT MATS
BUILDING DEPT MATS
010.4213.5303 6.31
F630113 CITY HALL MATS/TOWELS
CITY HALL MATS/TOWELS
010.4213.5303 10.75
F630114 ENGIN. DEPT MATS
ENGIN. DEPT MATS
010.4213.5303 5.00
F630115 COMM CENTER MATS
COMM CENTER MATS
010.4213.5303 9.45
F630117 SEWER DEPT UNIFORMS
SEWER DEPT UNIFORMS
612.4610.5143 5.60
F630118 STREET DEPT UNIFORMS
STREET DEPT UNIFORMS
220.4303.5143 16.80
F630119 ENGIN. DEPT UNIFORMS
ENGIN. DEPT UNIFORMS
010.4301.5143 1.40
WATER DEPT UNIFORMS
640.4711.5143 14.20
F630120 PARKS DEPT UNIFORMS
PARKS DEPT UNIFORMS
010.4420.5143 19.60
SOTO UNIFORMS
010.4430.5143 2.80
Page: 4
vchlist Voucher List Page: 5
04/28/2006 1:48:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
126077 4/28/2006 003817 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SVCS (Continued)
F630121 BUILDING MAINT. UNIFORMS
BUILDING MAINT. UNIFORMS
010.4213.5143 2.80
F630122 AUTO SHOP UNIFORMS
AUTO SHOP UNIFORMS
010.4305.5143 4.11
F636015 POLICE DEPT MATS
POLICE DEPT MATS
010.4213.5303 12.13
F636016 RECREATION CENTER MATS
RECREATION CENTER MATS
010.4213.5303 21.50
F636017 SEWER DEPARTMENT UNIFORMS
SEWER DEPARTMENT UNIFORMS
612.4610.5143 5.60
F636015 STREET DEPT UNIFORMS
STREET DEPT UNIFORMS
220.4303.5143 16.80
F636019 WATER DEPT UNIFORMS
WATER DEPT UNIFORMS
640.4711.5143 14.20
ENGIN. DEPT UNIFORMS
010.4301.5143 1.40
F636020 SOTO UNIFORMS
SOTO UNIFORMS
010.4430.5143 2.80
PARKS DEPT UNIFORMS
010.4420.5143 28.13
F636021 BUILDING MAINT. UNIFORMS
BUILDING MAINT. UNIFORMS
010.4213.5143 2.80
CORP YARD MATS
010.4213.5303 11.03
Page: 5
vchlist Voucher List Page: 6
04/28/2006 1:48:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code : boa
�
Vaucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
; 126077 4/28/2006 003817 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SVCS (Continued)
F636022 AUTO SHOP UNIFORMS
AUTO SHOP UNIFORMS
010.4305.5143 10.41
ToWI : 765.31
126078 4/28/2006 002632 AP�WASTE SERVICES 62X00045 R/O BIN-DUMP/RETURN SVCS.
R!0 BIN-DUMP/RETURN SVCS.
010.4213.5303 • 260.00
64K00030 R/0 BIN-DUMP/RETURN SVCS.
R/O BIN-DUMP/RETURN SVCS.
010.4213.5303 333.60
Total : 593.60
126079 4/28/2006 005507 AT&T 4/7-3960 841-3960-FD SIGNAL CONTROL
8413960-FD SIGNAL CONTROL
010.4211.5403 32.02
4/8-9816 489-9816
489-9816
010.4145.5403 78.01
ToWI : 110.03
126080 4/28/2006 000065 BARROW, BRENDA 042406 REIMBURSE SUPPLIES FOR PLAY(
REIMBURSE SUPPLIES FOR PLAY(
010.4422.5256 35.70
Total : 35.70
126081 4/28/2006 000069 BAUER COMPRESSORS, INC 80227 O-RINGS& LABOR
O-RINGS& LABOR
010.4211.5603 65.83
Total : 65.83
126082 4/28/2006 004150 BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS O41506 CDBG GRANT#290R6105AG06-
CDBG GRANT#290R6105AG06-
250.4806.8025 515.25
ToWI : 515.25
Page: 6
vchlist VouCher List Page: 7
04128/2006 1:48:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invaice PO# Description/Account Amount
126083 4/28/2006 000090 BRISCO MILL& LUMBER YARD 128467 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
220.4303.5601 17.14
Total : 17.74
126084 4/28/2006 000094 BRUMfT DIESEL, INC 88247 MISC PARTS F201
MISC PARTS F201
010.4211.5603 145.41
Total : 145.41
126085 4/28/2006 000110 CA ST DEPT OF CORRECTIONS 6202 CMC LABOR FOR MARCH 2O06
CMC LABOR FOR MARCH 2O06
220.4303.5303 3,81225
Total : 3,812.25
126086 4/28/2006 000603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 480052 REFILL WIPERS FOR PW51
REFILL WIPERS FOR PW51
612.4610.5601 7.76
67240 POWER CAR WASH
POWER CAR WASH
220.4303.5601 14.52
67762 SUPPL�ES
SUPPLIES
010.4420.5601 41.45
_ 67974 MISC PARTS
MISC PARTS
010.4211.5603 9.43
68663 BELT&OIL FILTER PW53
BELT&OIL FILTER PW53
010.4301.5601 39.53
69534 AIR&TANK CONV KIT
AIR&TANK CONV KIT
010.4305.5603 50.84
Total : 163.53
126087 4/28/2006 000158 CERTIFIED LA80RATORIES 132388 DE-MARK AEROSOL
Page: 7
�
vchlist Voucher List Page: 8
04128/2006 1:48:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code : boa
Vaucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
126087 4/28/2006 000158 CERTIFIED LABORATORIES (Continued)
DE-MARK AEROSOL
220.4303.5613 164.07
ToWI : 164.07
126088 4/28/2006 000171 CLINICAL LABORATORY OF 744278 WATER SAMPLES: MARCH 2O06
WATER SAMPLES: MARCH 2O06
640.4710.5310 295.00
Total : 295.00
126089 4/28/2006 004169 COAST ELECTRONICS 13009 PORTABLE RADIO BATTERY
PORTABLE RADIO BATTERY
010.4211.5603 46.12
Total : 46.12
126090 4/28/2006 000178 COLD CANYON LANDFILL, INC 135459 GREEN WASTE DUMP
GREEN WASTE DUMP
220.4303.5307 71.25
135511 GREEN WASTE DUMP
GREEN WASTE DUMP
220.4303.5307 58.00
Total : 129.25
126091 4/28/2006 002842 COMMERCIAL MAINTENANCE SVC 4156-0406 AG W/C FLOORS
AG W/C FLOORS
010.4213.5303 525.00
Total : 525.00
126092 4/28/2006 003599 COMMERCIAL SANITARY SUPPLY 86069145 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
010.4213.6401 127.63
Total : 127.63
126093 4/28/2006 000190 CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL LAB N1904 WATER SAMPLES
WATER SAMPLES
640.4710.5310 70.00
Page: 8
vchlist Voucher List Page: 9
04128/2006 7:48:39PM CITY OP ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
126093 4/28/2006 000190 000190 CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL LAB (Continued) ToWI : 70.00
126094 4/28/2006 000195 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER CO 48517 WATER
WATER
010.4301.5255 11.50
Total : 17.50
126095 4/28/2006 000198 CURTIS&SONS, L N 1097510-01 ADAPTORS
ADAPTORS
010.4211.5255 330.85
Total : 330.85
126096 4/28/2006 001854 DECECCO, JIM 0419 S/BALL LEAGUE UMP-DECECCO
S/BALL LEAGUE UMP-DECECCO
010.4424.5352 54.00
Total : 54.00
126097 4/28/2006 005091 DEERE LANDSCAPES, JOHN 09987925-0 CONTROLLER-TIGERTAIL PARK
CONTROLLER-TIGERTAIL PARK
010.4420.5605 23.10
ToWI : 23.10
126098 4/28/2006 001840 DELL MARKETING LP M58595600 DELL PRINTER SUPPLIES
DELL PRINTER SUPPLIES
010.4421.5201 91.18
Total : 91.18
126099 4/28/2006 005464 DESIGN SPACE MODULAR BLDGS 1328/1 FINAL PAYMENT FOR INSTALLATIC
FINAL PAYMENT FOR INSTALLATIC
� 350.5411.7001 26,789.69
Total : 26,789.69
126100 4/28/2006 000210 DIESELRO OF SLO, INC 18715 SERVICE TO PW32
SERVICE TO PW32
640.4712.5601 552.85
Page: 9
vchlist Voucher List Page: 10
04128/2006 1:48:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
126100 4/28/2006 000210 DIESELRO OF SLO, INC (Continued)
18761 SERVICE TO PW41 AND REPAIRS
SERVICE TO PW41 AND REPAIRS
220.4303.5601 1,032.17
18839 SERVICE TO PW52
SERVICE TO PW52
640.4712.5601 199.62
18840 REPAIR TO PW51
REPAIR TO PW51
' 612.4610.5601 82.46
ToWI : 1,867.10
126101 4/28/2006 000904 EDEN SYSTEMS, INC 4232 INFORUM GOLD UTILITY BILLING-
INFORUM GOLD UTILITY BILLING-
010.4120.5597 2,658.67
Total : 2,658.67
126102 4/28/2006 001525 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC 1068799 VALVES
VALVES
640.4712.5610 691.76
Totaf : 691.76
126103 4/28/2006 000247 FIBICH,TERENCE 042006 PUBLIC RELATIONS
PUBLIC RELATIONS
010.4211.5255 35.00
ToWI : 35.00
126104 4/28/2006 002358 GREAT WESTERN ALARM 060410026 ALARM REPAIRS
ALARM REPAIRS
010.4213.5303 64.50
Total : 64.50
126105 4/28/2006 005272 HAMILTON COATINGS 253259 FIELDMARKING PAINT
FIELDMARKING PAINT
010.4430.5255 25.74
ToWI : 25.74
Page: 10
vchlist Voucher List Page: 11
04/28/2006 1:48:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode: boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
126106 4/28/2006 004188 HARRIS, EDDIE 042606 SOFTBALL LEAGUE UMPIRE
SOFTBALL LEAGUE UMPIRE
010.4424.5352 108.00
Total : 108.00
126107 4/28/2006 000928 HI-TECH EMERGENCY 113815 PARTS, MATERIALS&LABOR F201
PARTS, MATERIALS&LABOR F201
010.4211.5603 1,442.91
113883 0-RINGS F201
0-RINGS F201
010.4211.5603 10.67
Total : 1,453.58
126108 4/28/2006 002820 INDOFF, INC 689601 OFFICE SUPPLIES-SEWER
OFFICE SUPPLIES-SEWER
612.4610.5201 66.14
OFFICE SUPPLIES-STREETS
220.4303.5201 63.20
OFFICE SUPPLIES-AUTO
010.4305.5201 14.36
Total : 143.70
126109 4/28/2006 000343 IRRIGATION WEST 0019137 PRESSURE GAUGE& FITTINGS FC
PRESSURE GAUGE& FITTiNGS FC
612.4610.5610 21.75
Total : 21.75
126110 4/28/2006 000345 J J'S FOOD COMPANY, INC 150758 BBQ SUPPLIES FOR CMC CREW AI
BBQ SUPPLIES FOR CMC CREW AI
220.4303.5255 183.84
Total : 183.84"
126111 4/28/2006 004829 JACOBS, DR. MICHAEL E. 041306 SAFETY GLASSES FOR MARK AND
SAFETY GLASSES FOR MARK AND
010.4213.5255 390.00
Total : 390.00
Page: 11
vchlist Voucher List Page: 12
04/28/2006 1:48:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : b0a
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
126112 4/28/2006 005509 JESSICA'S JOLLY JUMPS O42406 BOUNCE HOUSE FOR SPRING BRE
BOUNCE HOUSE FOR SPRING BRE
- 010.4425.5255 225.00
ToWI : 225.00
126113 4/28/2006 005510 KRAUSE, MIKE 042606 SOFTBALL LEAGUE UMPIRE
SOFTBALL LEAGUE UMPIRE
010:4424.5352 54.00
ToWI : 54.00
126114 4/28/2006 003903 LAHR ELECTRIC MOTORS 3016 REWIND 40HP ELECTRIC MOTOR F
REWIND 40HP ELECTRIC MOTOR F
010.4430.5605 1,186.25
Total : 1,186.25
126115 4/28/2006 002580 LAND CONSERVANCY,THE 7,8,9 SAVING SPECIAL FARMS IN AG
SAVING SPECIAL FARMS IN AG
010.4130.5303 SS5.00
Total : 885.00
126116 4/28/2006 004845 LARSON,JOHN 042606 SOFTBALL LEAGUE UMPIRE
SOFTBALL LEAGUE UMPIRE
010.4424.5352 90.00
Total : 90.00
126117 4/28/2006 005511 LINTNER, CHRiS O42606 SOFTBALL LEAGUE SCORER
SOFTBALL LEAGUE SCORER
010.4424.5352 22.50
ToWI : 22.50
126118 4/28/2006 001136 LINTNER, DOUG 042606 SOFTBALL LEAGUE UMPIRE
SOFTBALL LEAGUE UMPIRE
. 010.4424.5352 54.00
ToWI : 54.00
126119 4/28/2006 000417 ME�LO&SON'S PUMPS 8 MOTORS 1744 REMOVE& RE-INSTALL ELECTRIC
Page: 12
vchlist Voucher List Pa9e: 13
04128/2006 1:48:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode: boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
126119 4/28/2006 000417 MELLO&SON'S PUMPS& MOTORS (Continued)
REMOVE&RE-INSTALL ELECTRIC
010.4430.5605 380.00
Total : 380.00
126120 4/28/2006 000419 MIDAS MUFFLER& BRAKE 0013904 SERVICE TO PW62
SERVICE TO PW62
640.4712.5601 30.47
Total : 30.47
126121 4/28/2006 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC 79560 ELECTRICAL PARTS
ELECTRICAL PARTS
010.4211.5255 218.28
79893 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
010.4213.5804 6.39
79966 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
010.4213.5604 12.84
80231 SAFETY FENCE
SAFETY FENCE
010.4424.5252 64.34
80920 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
220.4303.5603 113.66
80924 TUBING
TUBING
010.4420.5605 6.96
81097 SUPPLIES
, SUPPLIES
010.4420.5603 17.65
81125 TAPE
TAPE
010.4213.5273 8.57
Page: 13
vchlist Voucher List Page: 14
04/2812006 1:48:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode: boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
126121 4/28/2006 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC (Continued)
81181 CAULK
CAULK
010.4213.5604 4.82
81211 PARTS
PARTS
010.4211.5255 5.35
81313 PANEL
PANEL
010.4213:5604 53.57
81843 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
640.4712.5610 10.65
81849 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
640.4712.5610 4.70
81955 PARTS
PARTS
010.4211.5603 30.00
94892 FIRE EXT.-SOTO TRUCK
FIRE EXT.-SOTO TRUCK
010.4430.5605 17.15
Total : 574.93
126122 4/28/2006 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 333736907-001 HP TONER-CDBG PRINTING
HP TONER-CDBG PRINTING
250.4806.8001 78.70
Total : 78.70
126123 4/28/2006 000451 PACIFIC GAS&ELECTRIC CO 4/12-620838 ELECTRIC
ELECTRIC
812.4610.5402 158.98
4/12-781296 ELECTRIC
ELECTRIC
010.4145.5401 13.93
Page: 14
vchlist Voucher List Page: 15
04/28/2006 1:48:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
126123 4/28/2006 000481 PACIFIC GAS& ELECTRIC CO (Continued)
4/14-654774 ELECTRIC: FLASHING LIGHT JAME
ELECTRIC: FLASHING LIGHT JAME
010.4304.5402 23.16
4/17-889211 ELECTRIC: BRISCO FLASHING LIGI
ELECTRIC: BRISCO FLASHING LIGI
010.4304.5402 19.68
4/18-235044 ELECTRIC: RES#4
ELECTRIC: RES#4
640.4712.5402 19.08
4/19-190318 ELECTRIC-LIGHTING FOR TRAFFIC
ELECTRIC-LIGHTING FOR TRAFFIC
010.4304.5402 99.39
Total : 334.22
126124 4/28/2006 000489 PERRIN, DOUG 0424 BBQ SUPPLIES FOR EGG HUNT
BBQ SUPPLIES FOR EGG HUNT
010.4424.5252 129.85
042406 BBQ SUPP�IES FOR EGG HUNT-Bl
BBQ SUPPLIES FOR EGG HUNT-Bl
010.4424.5252 58.38
Total : 188.23
126125 4/28/2006 000490 PERVO PAINT CO 38374 PAINT
PAINT
220.4303.5613 1,113.90
Total : 1,113.90
126126 4/28/2006 005284 R&B MOBILE EQUIPMENT REPAIR 0243 SERVICE TO 1280 MOWER& REPA
SERVICE TO 1280 MOWER& REPA
010.4420.5603 644.52
Total : 644.52
126127 4/28/2006 001303 REGIONAL WATER QUAL.CONT.BOARD 042606 NOTICE OF INTENT-STORM WATEf
NOTICE OF INTENT-STORM WATEf
350.5934.7301 . 1,100.00
Page: 15
vchlist Voucher List Page: 16
04/2812006 1:48:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode: boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/ACCOUnt Amount
126127 4/28/2006 001303 001303 REGIONAL WATER QUAL.CONT.BO. (Continued) Total : 1,100.00
126128 4/28/2006 002838 ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC 0017936 PROF. SERVICES:TAX INCREMEN'
PROF. SERVICES:TAX INCREMEN'
284.4103.5303 1,750.00
ToW I : 1,750.00
126129 4/28/2006 004365 RUIZ, DANIEL 042606 SOFTBALL LEAGUE SCORER
SOFTBALLLEAGUESCORER
010.4424.5352 45.00
Totai : 45.00
126130 4/28/2006 003649 RUIZ, DON 0328 SOFTBALL LEAGUE UMPIRE
SOFTBALL LEAGUE UMPIRE
010.4424.5352 108.00
SOFTBALL LEAGUE SCORER
010.4424.5352 22.50
Total : 130.50
126131 4/28/2006 000569 SAN LUIS PAINTS G07834 FIELDMARKING PAINT
FIELDMARKING PAINT
010.4430.5255 68.92
Total : 68.92
126132 4/28/2006 000578 SARMIENTO,ANN 0426 SOFTBALL LEAGUE SCORER
SOFTBALLLEAGUESCORER
010.4424.5352 37.50
ToWI : 37.50
126133 4/28/2006 000579 SARUWATARI, JOYCE 042406 REIMBURSE SCHOOL SUPPLIES
REIMBURSE SCHOOL SUPPLIES
010.4423.5253 38.09
Total : 38.09
126134 4/28/2006 003024 SCHAFFER, MARK 0426 SOFTBALL LEAGUE UMPIRE
SOFTBALL LEAGUE UMPIRE
010.4424.5352 54.00
Page: 16
vchlist Voucher List Page: 17
04/28/2006 7:48:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
126134 4/28/2006 003024 003024 SCHAFFER, MARK (Continued) Total : 54.00
126135 4/28/2006 000583 SCHOFIELD ELECTRIC,ALLEN 5487 HOOK UP IRRIGATION CONTROLLE
HOOK UP IRRIGATION CONTROLLE
010.4420.5605 348.46
5488 HOOK UP AND INSTALL NEW IRRIC
HOOK UP AND INSTALL NEW IRRI(
010.4420.5605 226.86
ToWI : 575.32
126136 4/28/2006 004860 SMITH,TAMMY 0426 SOFTBALL LEAGUE SCORER
SOFTBALLLEAGUESCORER
010.4424.5352 112.50
Total : 112.50
126137 4/28/2006 000609 SPEAR, BOB 042606 SOFTBALL LEAGUE UMPIRE
SOFTBALL LEAGUE UMPIRE
010.4424.5352 54.00
Total : 54.00
126138 4/28/2006 000620 STREATOR PIPE&SUPPLY 437722 REPAIR TO LIFT STATION#3
REPAIR TO LIFT STATION#3
612.4610.5610 31.92
440109 4" FITTINGS/PIPE FOR PD
4" FITTINGS/PIPE FOR PD
612.4610.5610 142.01
440110 4"CPLG FOR PD
4"CPLG FOR PD
612.4610.5610 2.25
440114 CREDIT(4"TEE)
CREDIT(4"TEE)
612.4610.5610 -4.58
440116 4"CU FOR PD
4"CU FOR PD
612.4610.5610 12.61
Page: 17
vchlist Voucher List Page: 78
04/2812006 1:48:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
126138 4/28/2006 000620 STREATOR PIPE&SUPPLY (Continued)
440168 4"BEND FOR PD
4"BEND FOR PD
612.4610.5610 3.67
440257 CREDIT
CREDIT
612.4610.5610 30.69
440258 SWEEPS FOR PD STATION
SWEEPS FOR PD STATION
612.4610.5610 34.40
440687 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
612.4610.5610 18.25
Total : 209.84
126139 4/2S/2006 002370 TITAN INDUSTRIAL 1011852 FIRST AID KIT REFILCFOR CORP Y
� FIRST AID KIT REFILL FOR CORP Y
640.4712.5255 37.42
1011894 RAIN GEAR FOR PAUL MARSALEK
RAIN GEAR FOR PAUL MARSALEK
640.4712.5255 106.60
Total : 144.02
126140 4/28/2006 005305 TODD ENGINEERS 46201 CONSULTANT SERVICES: GROUN[
CONSULTANT SERVICES: GROUN[
640.4710.5303 5,898.81
Total : 5,898.87
126141 4/28/2006 005326 UNITED PORTFOLIO MGT INC 18925 PURCHASE CD W/GRANITE COMM
PURCHASE CD W/GRANITE COMM
010.4145.5508 637.15
Total : 637.15
126142 4/28/2006 000666 UNITED RENTALS 54943207 LOG SPLITTER
LOG SPLITTER
220.4303.5552 92.68
Page: 18
vchlist Voucher List Page: 19
04/28/2006 1:48:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode : b08
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
126142 4/28/2006 000666 UNITED RENTALS (Continued)
55515018 PRESSURE WASHER
PRESSURE WASHER
220.4303.5552 185.35
55524672 WOOD FLOAT
WOOD FLOAT
220.4303.5613 74.99
ToWI : 353.02
126143 4/28/2006 002137 VERIZON WIRELESS 2032039627 CELL PHONE:440-7811-
CELL PHONE:440-7811-
010.4421.5602 60.78
2032266644 CELL PHONE:440-7601-
CELL PHONE: 440-7601-
010.4421.5602 40.41
208645197 CELL PHONE: 748-4974
CELL PHONE: 748-4974
010.4430.5605 118.38
ToWI : 219.57
126144 4/28/2006 002000 VERIZON WIRELESS MESSAGING SVC L5252720GD MIS PAGER MONTHLY SERVICE
MIS PAGER MONTHLY SERVICE
010.4140.5303 11.33
Total : 11.33
126145 4/28/2006 000685 WALLACE&ASSOCIATES,JOHN L 19517 SERVICES RENDERED 3/13/31/06-
SERVICES RENDERED 3/13/31/O6-
350.5642.7301 1,051.88
Page: 19
vchlist Voucher List Page: 20
04128/2006 1:48:39PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bankcode: boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
126145 4/28/2006 000685 WALLACE&ASSOCIATES,JOHN L (Continued)
19590 0019-ADMIN
0019-ADMIN
010.4301.5303 3,319.75
0041-DESAL WATER ANALYSIS
010.4301.5303 1,275.49
0049-CASTILLO DEL MAR EXTENSI
010.4301.5303 1,211.25
0051-1274-1286 CEDAR ST
010.4301.5303 136.00
0345-PLAN CHECK/DEVELOPMENT
010.4301.5303 1,906.02
� 19591 SERVICES RENDERED 11/1 - 11/30.
SERVICES RENDERED 11/1 - 11/30.
350.5809.7301 10,923.50
Total : 19,823.89
74 Vouchers for bank code : b08 Bank total : 88,434.62
74 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 88,434.62
Page: 20
� 8.b.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1. ROLL CALL:
Mayor Ferrara called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. Council Member Jim Dickens,,Council Member
Joe Costello, Council Member Ed Arnold, Mayor Pro Tem Jim Guthrie, City Manager Steven Adams,
and City Attorney Timothy Carmel were present.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
li 3. CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION:
a. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8:
Property: APN: 006-095-002; Parcel Located on Valley Road
Agency Negotiator. Steven Adams, City Manager
Negotiating Party: John Taylor, Trustee, E. & E. Taylor Living Trust
Under Negotiation: Price, Terms and Conditions of Potential Purchase
b. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8:
Property: APN: 007-192-038; Vacant Lot at 210 Le Point Street
Agency Negotiator: Steven Adams, City Manager
Negotiating Party: Dorfman Homes, Inc., A CA Corp.
Under Negotiation: Price, Terms and Conditions of Potential Purchase
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 6:55 p.m.
Tony Ferrara, Mayor
A7TEST:
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1. CALL TO ORDER
,
Mayor Ferrara called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
City Council: Council Members Jim Dickens, Joe Costello, Ed Arnold, Mayor Pro Tem
Jim Guthrie and Mayor Tony Ferrara were present.
City Staff Present: City Manager Steve Adams, City Attorney Tim Carmel, Director of
Administrative Services/City Clerk Kelly Wetmore, Director of Public
Works/City Engineer pon Spagnolo, Director of Financial Services Angela
Kraetsch, Director of Community Development Strong, and Associate
+ Planner Kelly Heffernon.
a
3. FLAG SALUTE
� Members of Girl Scout Troop 1016 led the Flag Salute.
4. INVOCATION
; Mayor Ferrara delivered the invocation.
� 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
i
5.a. Honorary Proclamation Declaring April 2006 as "Month of the Child".
� Mayor Ferrara presented an Honorary Proclamation declaring April 2006 as "Month of the Child".
� Jessica Morris, representing United Methodist Children's Center, accepted the Proclamation,
spoke about Month of the Child, and distributed pins and posters to the Council.
5.b. Presentation Regarding San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control DistricYs
Climate Protection Program by Larry Allen, Air Pollution Control Officer.
Larry Allen, Air Pollution Control Officer, gave a PowerPoint presentation (on file in the
Administrative Services Department) on the DistricYs Climate Protection Program. At the
conclusion of the presentation, Mr. Allen noted that local governments are being encouraged to
i endorse the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.
' 6. AGENDA REVIEW
6.a. Ordinances Read in Title Only.
Council Member Arnold, Council Member Dickens seconded, and the motion passed
� unanimously that all ordinances presented at the meeting shall be read in title only and all further
reading be waived.
'' 7. CITIZENS' INPUT. COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS
� None.
Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 2
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
8. CONSENT AGENDA
Council Member Arnold moved, and Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie seconded the motion to approve
Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.c., with the recommended courses of action. The motion
carried on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Arnold, Guthrie, Dickens, Costello, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification.
Action: Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period March 16, 2006 through
March 31, 2006.
8.b. Consideration of Resolution Amending the Annual Business License Fee
Schedule.
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3910 amending the annual business license fee
schedule.
8.c. Consideration to approve Final Tract Map 2709 Subdividing 7.72 Acres into Eleven
(11) Residential Parcels and One (1) Common Area Parcel Located at the Northeast
Corner of Maple Street and South Elm Street/
Action: Approved Final Tract Map 2709, subdividing 1.12 acres into eteven (11)
residential parcels and one (1) common parcel.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
9.a. Consideration of Request from South County Sanitary, Inc. for Integrated Solid
Waste Collection Rate Increase.
City Manager Adams presented the staff report and recommended the Council adopt a
Resolution approving an integrated solid waste collection rate increase of 3.76%.
Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing and invited comments from those in the audience who
wished to be heard on the matter. No public comments were received and the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
Council comments included acknowledgement of the terms of the existing Franchise Agreement;
that the request was within the scope, terms and conditions of the Franchise Agreement; and
that it was appropriate to review and adjust the rates on an annual basis.
Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie moved to adopt a Resolution as follows, "A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ESTABLISHING INTEGRATED SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE RATES". Council Member Dickens seconded the motion, and
the motion carried on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Guthrie, Dickens, Costello, Arnold, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 3
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
9.b. Consideration of Amended Conditional Use Permit Case No. 06-001 and
Administrative Sign Permit 06-007 to Allow a Financial Institution to Occupy
Building "J" of the Five Cities Shopping Center; 911 Rancho Parkway; Levon
Investments, LLC.
Associate Planner Heffernon presented the staff report and recommended the Council adopt a
Resolution approving Amended Conditional Use Permit Case No. 06-007. Staff responded to
questions from Council regarding conditions of approval related to the timeframe for installing
Phase 2 traffic improvements; clarification regarding the method of requiring a letter of credit to
be posted by the applicant for the proposed traffic improvements; whether the estimated
construction costs for the traffic improvements had been adequately determined; whether or not
the City could install the traffic improvements on private property if the applicant did not install
the traffic improvements within the required timeframe; and clarification regarding the traffic
improvement alternatives.
Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing and invited comments from those in the audience who
wished to be heard on the matter.
Carol Florence, Principal Planner from Oasis Associates, representing.the applicant, requested
the Council to approve the Amended Conditional Use Permit to allow a financial institution to
occupy a portion of Building J based upon findings and conditions shown in Exhibit A of the
Resolution, with a minor modification to Special Condition #7. She reiterated that it was the
applicant that offered to be conditioned to design and provide financial assurance; however, the
property owner did not include a trigger time and would prefer to delete the three-year
implementation date and revise the last sentence of the Condition to read "Phase 2 traffic
improvements shall be completed prior to Certificates of Occupancy for Pad I". Displaying
renderings, she reviewed the layout of Phase 2, including the proposed financial institution,
proposed signage, elevation, and site plan with site improvements. She reflected on the process
that the applicant started in 2004 to keep the Council informed and involved in decisions that
surround the Center. She stated that since the presentation to Council in January, they have
been trying to determine the process to implement the traffic improvements without waiting to
formally submit an application for Pad I. She noted that the applicant had, in good faith and at
considerable expense, prepared a comprehensive traffic improvement plan which would be
required as mitigation and conditioned as part of the Pad I project. She requested that the traffic
improvement plan be tied to the occupancy of Pad I and ensured that the applicant would be
providing up to $750,000 as financial assurance that the improvements would be installed and
have no intention of having the City act on the letter of credit.
Ms. Florence then responded to questions from Council. Significant discussion ensued
regarding timing of the design, permitting, and construction of traffic improvements as it relates
to this proposal as weil as to future proposals for the development of Pad I.
Ruth Jessup, Via Bandolero, stated that this hearing was supposed to be regarding the bank and
agreed that the empty building should be put to use. She stated that the adjacent neighbors were
not supportive of developing the remainder of the property without their input and approval. She
spoke in opposition to the proposed PetCo project as it relates to allowing animals in and around
the store, due to its proximity to the nearby restaurant, ice cream parlor, and grocery store. She
expressed concern that the Council was discussing and considering an item that was not on the
Agenda.
Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing.
Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 4
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Council Member Arnold provided the following comments:
— Referred back to the minutes of the March 8, 2005 City Council meeting which noted that he
could not support the proposed mitigation for Wells Fargo and commented that there needed
to be a comprehensive plan to address the traffic issues surrounding the Center. Additionally,
, he said the Mayor noted that if the owner of the Center wanted to act in good faith, they
� would take a look at the comprehensive behavior of the traffic circulation in the shopping
j center now and try to improve the circulation behavior to make it more effective;
— Expressed concern that the City would not get the traffic improvements if Pad I was not done
within the timeframe;
— Stated he could support the project if there is a two-year time limit, not three, for installation
of traffic improvements;
— Noted that the proposed traffic improvement plan may not address all the existing traffic
problems and more improvements may be needed later when Pad I is reviewed and
considered, such as a traffic signal;
— Suggested a requirement of an access agreement if the City has to act on the letter of credit
in order to complete the circulation improvements on private property;
— Noted that previous consideration of the Wells Fargo application included a right turn lane as
a traffic improvement;
— Stated that he supported a comprehensive solution for traffic improvements now.
Council Member Costello provided the following comments:
— Also referred back to the minutes of the March 8, 2005 City Council meeting which noted he
agreed that by putting in a right turn lane at the Phase 1 driveway on Rancho Parkway, there
would be an improved level of service; however, any improvements approved for this
amended Conditional Use Permit would have to fit with whatever the long-term solutions for
the Center are going to be and he could not support the project at this time.
— Assured the public that the Council was not approving or voting on any proposal for the
development of,Pad I tonight;
— Acknowledged that the Council had reviewed comprehensive solutions to existing traffic
problems and stated he could support the proposal with the traffic improvements that have
been recommended; however he could not support the proposal if the traffic improvements
are not included.
Council Member Dickens provided the following comments:
Acknowledged public comments and assured the public that the Council was committed to
making sure the public is heard when an application for development of Pad I comes
forward;
— Acknowledged that the owners of the Center are making a good faith effort and are moving
forward with traffic circulation improvements;
— Stated he wanted assurance that the City is adequately protected when moving forward;
Referred to the appiicanYs stated timeline of 18-24 months, which makes it reasonable to
include a requirement that the traffic improvements be installed within three years;
— Noted that the Center would be losing a portion of retail space and associated sales tax
revenue;
— Suggested additional language be added to the conditions of approval that restricts the non-
retail use in Building J to a maximum of 4,550 square feet and to add language in the
Resolution and its Exhibit A to state that this amendment to Conditional Use Permit 96-541
�� authorizes a financial institution (Wells Fargo Bank) to occupy "a portion of' Building J of the
Five Cities Shopping Center;
— Supported specific language in condition #7 that identifies the traffic improvements;
Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 5
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
— Suggested that staff bring back the traffic improvement plan as a separate item from Pad I.
— Suggested further traffic improvements may be needed when Pad I comes forward, such as
a traffic signal;
— Noted he could support the proposal with minor modifications as discussed.
Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie provided the following comments:
— Supports the concept of the proposed financial use;
— Noted that when the project first came forvvard, the original right turn lane mitigation measure
would have solved some of the circulation issues;
— Acknowledged the traffic study that was completed which quantified the current traffic
operating conditions at the Center;
— Expressed concern that the entire traffic improvement plan is tied only to Pad I;
— Stated he could support the financial institution if the right turn lane could be included now;
— Supported the three year time limit for installation of the traffic improvements; however,
expressed concern that some of the improvements on private property could not be
enforced.
Mayor Ferrara provided the following comments:
— Recognized that if the intent of the applicant is to move forward with build-out of Phase 2, a
good faith effort would be to make the traffic improvements now in order to measure
performance results;
— Suggested the City assist the applicant with fast tracking the steps required to install the
improvement;
— Stated he needed to see the results of the traffic improvements before adding to the intensity
of use;
— Stated it was unacceptable that the traffic improvements are tied to Pad I;
— Noted that it is still unclear about the status of the soils engineering study and its potential
impact on mitigation measures;
— Could not support the proposal without requiring installation of the traffic improvements.
Council Member Arnold suggested that based on discussion held, that condition #7 be amended
to require the traffic improvements be installed and completed within 18 months of approval.
Council Member Arnold moved to adopt a Resoiution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING AMENDED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 06-001, APPLIED FOR BY WELLS FARGO BANK,
LOCATED AT 911 RANCHO PARKWAY (FIVE CITIES SHOPPING CENTER, PHASE II" as
amended to include a modification to the Resolution and Exhibit A that states a financial use is
allowed in "a portion of' Building J; to include a modification in Condition of Approval No. 7 to
change three (3) years to eighteen (18) months, and with regard to Phase 2 traffic
improvements, add "as referenced in the Five Cities Center booklet dated April 11, 2006"; and to
add language that allows the City to perform the improvements on private property if the
applicant does not perform them; to restrict the financial use in Building J to no more than 5,000
square feet; and to renumber the conditions accordingly. Further, the name of the applicant
should be modified from Welis Fargo Bank to Levon Industries. Council Member Costello
seconded. City Attorney Carmel noted that Condition No. 7 should be modified to state the letter
of credit should be in a form approved by the City Attorney. The motion and second held, and
the motion carried on the following roll-call vote:
Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 6
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
AYES: Arnold, Costello, Dickens, Guthrie, Ferrara
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None
Mayor Ferrara called a recess at 9:25 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:38 p.m.
9.c. Consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 04-006, Planned Unit
Development No. 04-005 and Minor Exception Case No. 05-015 to Subdivide a 1.8-
Acre Site into Nineteen (19) Lots Resulting in 24 Density Equivalent Town Homes
and Condominiums as a Mixed Use with Existing Fitness Club and Medical Offices;
Applied for by Russ Sheppel for Property Located on Oak Park Blvd. and James
Way (Oak Park Professional Plaza).
Associate Planner Heffernon presented the staff report and recommended the Council adopt a
Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 04-006, Planned Unit Development No.
04-005 and Minor Exception No. 5-015. Staff responded to questions from Council regarding
storm water retention versus detention as it relates to the 100 year flood level/intensity; the
nature of soils as it relates to use of pervious pavers; open space requirements as it relates to
Planned Unit Developments; methods for collecting surface run-off; the structure of the
pedestrian trail as it relates to the proximity to homes; whether access gates would be included
for residents to access the trail; the height of the wall of the adjacent hotel building; mixed use
density calculations as it relates to the proposed land use; and the location of and planned
holding capacity of the detention basin.
Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing and invited comments from those in the audience who •
wished to be heard on the matter.
Kim Hatch, Pultz & Associates, architect representing the applicant, briefly reviewed the history
� of issues related to the project; reviewed the original and revised master plans for the site;
reviewed previous proposals which were not built; and then presented the proposed multi-family
' project including the site plan, elevations, color schemes, floor plans, amenities, parking, and
circulation. He then responded to questions regarding building height and the proposed drainage
system. Mr. Hatch noted that the Planning Commission had recommended the project include
methods for collecting surface run-off from the site for use on landscaped areas (minimum of
25% of landscaped areas) to reduce water use and minimize run-off to the extent feasible, and
requested the condition be changed to remove the word "collecting" and replacing it with
"reducing". Further discussion ensued regarding ingress and egress to the site; driveway
alignment; traffic circulation within the site; why an on-site parking study was not pursued; and
clarification regarding design options as it relates to garages and laundry facilities.
j Steve Ross, Garden Street, expressed safety concems regarding ingress and egress to the
'' project from James Way as it relates to the driveway's proximity to the Oak Park Blvd.
intersection.
Rebecca Fav, Meadow Way, expressed concern regarding the projecYs high density; impacts to
the large wildlife population; stated that she read the Environmental Review Initial Study which
included a wetland mitigation plan and felt the mitigation proposals will not adequately address
the potential impacts to the riparian corridor. She stated the wildlife corridor needs to be
protected; expressed concern with on-site parking availability; stated that the mitigation
measures for noise are not adequate for protecting the wildlife or the adjacent neighbors. She
referred to the City's Wastewater Master Plan (page 18) and expressed concerns about the
additional impacts to the sewer without sewer upgrades. She concluded by stating that the
Minutes: Cify Council Meeting Page 7
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
mitigation measures do not really address creek and wildlife protection very well. She noted that
the mitigation measures for building and construction was well addressed.
Dan Scarrv, representing Ray Bunnell, who owns the adjacent hotel, stated that Mr. Bunnell
approved of the original project; however, he does not necessarily approve of this version. He
stated Mr. Bunnell attended the Planning Commission meeting and agreed that the project was
not in scale with the rest of the area. He expressed concern with their existing access and
parking easements which allows additional parking spaces. He noted that the required open
, space is not contiguous to the residences; there is no buffer between the houses and the road;
there is no place for people to have outdoor activities; and noted that the access easement is not
a bi-lateral access easement and the hotel wants some control in and out of their property. He
suggested that notification process should be put in place to notify the Homeowners Association
that there is a shared parking agreement.
Richard Nuttinq, La Canada, expressed concern that there was no consideration of the existing
parking problem for the Kennedy Fitness Center and the project as presented does not provide
for additional parking.
Russ Sheqqel, applicant, noted that this project has been in the planning stages for three years
and he was pleased to present this proposal to the Council. He stated that the previous project
that was approved and not built was for a large medical office facility and he felt the City did not
need more medical offices. He stated the City needs low and moderate income housing and
opportunities for live-work residential units. He said the plan does provide for adequate parking
availability; and responded to concerns relating to environmental issues. He referred to the
Wetland Mitigation Plan which provides for drainage systems that will protect the creek and
riparian areas. He noted that the proposed walkway is a public benefit, and stated that the
continued and future success of the businesses requires parking availability. He addressed
parking provided for residential units and noted that he was confused about the comments made
on Mr. Bunnell's behalf as he endorsed the project at the Planning Commission meeting as long
as the shared parking was protected. He acknowledged there was a shared parking agreement
with the adjacent property owner, and noted that there would be fencing near the riparian area to
discourage public access. Mr. Sheppel responded to questions from Council regarding the
shared parking arrangement and stated the hotel has a locked gate between their parking lot and
his parking lot and can control access. He stated that this access is also used for emergency
access.
Mr. Scarrv, representing Mr. Bunnell, stated it was his understanding that their easement is not
just for emergency access, it is to allow unlimited ingress and egress. Discussion ensued
regarding the nature and intent of the access easement and the existing gate controlled by the
hotel.
Steve Orosz, traffic engineer representing the applicant, addressed the plan for improving the
configuration of the existing driveway (ingress/egress). He responded to concerns about parking
and noted that the applicant is preserving the total number of parking spaces that are needed for
the current uses and adding 100% of the required parking to meet the residential and visitor
parking standards. He also confirmed the status of the easement as an access easement and
not just an emergency access easement.
Council and staff discussion ensued regarding parking and the shared parking agreement on the
project site.
Brett Weaver, managing partner for Kennedy Club Fitness, spoke about the Club's hours of
operations (5:OOa.m.-10:OOp.m.); stated the parking lot was not impacted during those sixteen
hours; noted that peak hour usage was generally from 830-1030a.m. and again from 4:30-
7:OOp.m.; noted that the Club had once secured an arrangement with the church across the
street and with the hotel for off-site parking for their employees which could be reinstated; stated
Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 8
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
that different class schedules could be created to address parking issues; and stated that the
property owners (Kennedy and Sheppel) can work together for continued parking solutions.
Kim Hatch, Pultz & Associates, further responded to issues relating to the pathway and fencing;
stated that he was not clear about Mr. Bunnel's position as he supported approval of the project
at the Planning Commission meeting; and reiterated that the concept of developing residential
was initiated to try to help reduce the parking demand.
Mr. Orosz gave a brief synopsis of the results of the parking study and discussion ensued
regarding alternative parking configurations and circulation patterns.
No further public comments were received and Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing.
I
Council Member Dickens provided the following comments:
— Add mitigation measure to provide some type of barrier between the pedestrian path and
riparian area to prohibit and discourage public access without inhibiting any migration or
animal movement in that area;
— As it relates to wastewater, what is status of sewer line upgrade? (Staff responded that
increased capacity is needed and the Lift Station No. 1 project currently under construction
will address this need);
— Supported the suggestion to notify future residents and property owner regarding the access
agreement to avoid potential disputes (perhaps in the CC&R's);
— Noted that the project meets the City's needs for housing; the project is unique and will likely
attract young couples/professionals or retirees;
— Supports the project overall; applicant has addressed the issues;
— The design is attractive; private and public open space will be an asset; the amenities
provided will compliment the area.
Council Member Arnold provided the following comments:
— Impressed with most of project; townhouse design by creek is excellent;
— Concerned with building height issue for condominiums; cannot mitigate with landscaping;
— O tion ma be to brin condominium buildin closer to Oak Park and attach the ara es•
P Y 9 9 9 9 ,
— Concerned with traffic flow and circulation; housing component will be impacted the most;
suggested diagonal parking to address easier ingress and egress;
— Would like to see story poles to demonstrate building height;
— Density is adequate;
— Parking is working now; Kennedy Club is responsible to accommodate additional parking for
membership;
— Prefers not to approve the project tonight until looking further at the height issues or moving
the building back toward the road;
— Would like to see traffic flow studied; however, if everything else works, could move forward;
— Detention system should be doubled in size to catch some of the water from the parking lot.
Council Member Costello provided the following comments:
— Circulation one way in and one way out appears to be effective;
— No problem with two-foot height exception;
— Has concern with lack of open space; need more open space;
— Would like project density to be reduced closer to minimum density requirement with more
open space near the creek;
Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 9
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
- Supports fencing as barrier between the walkway and the creek;
- Cannot support the project with proposed density.
Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie provided the following comments:
- Would like further study of circulation issue;
- Open space provided is adequate;
- Agrees CC&R's should include provisions regarding shared parking;
- Acknowledged pathways next to environmentally sensitive areas and the need to protect
those areas;
I - Condo building design is awkward; understands it is impacted by drainage and parking
� easements; Could be designed better; however, he could support as proposed;
- Parking will work and there will be fewer� impacts with the residential use rather than
commercial use;
- Acknowledged the purpose of the Planned Unit Development process as it relates to
development of a mixed use project and open space requirements;
- Wants project to come back with a circulation analysis as it relates to one way in and one
way out. '
Mayor Ferrara provided the following comments:
I - Likes residential concept; however, has reservations about the design;
I - Design and amenities will not drive occupancy; price and availability will be factors to live in
Arroyo Grande; may attract families;
- The design of this mixed use project does not provide privacy between residential units and
i between other uses on the site;
- The style proposed for the residential units is addressed; however, there is a density issue as
it relates to scale, particularly the 3-story aspect;
- Would like to see larger structure reduced, in size, mass and scale, with more pleasing
transitions within the project;
- Applauded applicant for willingness to restore the bank and address the sedimentation and
erosion issues related to the creek; suggested resources that could help the applicant,
including Resource Conservation District, Salmon Enhancement, etc.;
- Traffic and circulation: Cannot make mandatory findings relating to compatibility or that the
design protects the public health, safety, and'welfare as it relates to the three-story structure.
There are no recreational areas; and the mix of cars, open pedestrian areas and the hotel as
it relates to traffic and access is problematic. ,
- Agreed that the property owners need to work effectively together to resolve parking issues;
- Not in position to move forward at this time; mass of the one building is not acceptable;
- Suggested a reduction in the density. �
There was further discussion regarding the circulation issues, the circulation plan, and design
issues.
At 12:15 a.m., City Attorney Carmel reminded the Council of the policy that requires a
unanimous vote to continue the meeting past 12:00 midnight. Mayor Ferrara requested a voice
I vote of all those in favor of continuing the meeting. Council Members Dickens, Arnold, Mayor Pro
I Tem Guthrie and Mayor Ferrara voted AYE. Council Member Costello voted NO. There being 4
AYES and 1 NO, the motion failed.
Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 10
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Brief discussion ensued with direction to the applicant regarding the traffic circulation plan and
design issues.
i Council Member Arnold moved to continue consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 04-
006, Planned Unit Development No. 04-005 and Minor Exception Case No. 05-015 to subdivide
a 1.8-acre site into nineteen (19) lots resulting in 24 density equivalent town homes and
condominiums as a mixed use with existing fitness club and medical offices; applied for by Russ
Sheppel for property located on Oak Park Blvd. and James Way (Oak Park Professional Plaza)
to the City Council meeting of May 9, 2006. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie seconded, and the motion
carried on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Arnold, Guthrie, Dickens, Costello, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
11. NEW BUSINESS ITEMS
None.
' 12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS
None.
13. CITY MANAGER ITEMS
None.
14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
15. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
None.
16. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
None.
17. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Ferrara adjourned the meeting at 12:25 a.m.
Tony Ferrara, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk
(Approved at CC Mtg )
E pRROYp 5���
� c?
hMICORVORATED 92
V T
# JULT 10. t911 *
i c4��FORN�P
MEMORANDUM
� �
' TO: CITY COUNCIL
I
FROM: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/CITY�
CLERK
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO REJECT CLAIMS FILED AGAINST THE CITY -
CLAIMANTS: 1) L. AIELLO-MADISON; AND 2) W. MCFARLANE
DATE: MAY 9, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council reject the claims and authorize the City Clerk to
send a standard rejection letter to the claimants as recommended by the City's Claims
Administrator, Carl Warren & Company.
1 FUNDING:
�� None.
DISCUSSION:
Linda Aiello-Madison filed a timely claim against the City on January 26, 2006. Carl
Warren & Company, the City's Claims Administrator, is recommending that the claim be
rejected on the basis of the claim administrator's investigation and authorize the City
Clerk to send a standard rejection letter to the claimant. The statute of limitations will
run six months from the date the rejection letter is sent.
Wanda McFarlane filed a timely claim against the City on January 8, 2006. Carl Warren
& Company, the City's Claims Administrator, is recommending that the claim be
rejected on the basis of the claim administrator's investigation and authorize the City
Clerk to send a standard rejection letter to the claimant. The statute of limitations will
run six months from the date the rejection letter is sent.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Reject the claims and authorize the City Clerk to send a standard rejection
letter to the claimants.
2. Take no action; however, this will extend the statute of limitations.
Attachments:
( None, claims on file in the City Clerk's office.
( 8od.
pRRO��
O� �,A
� INCORPORATED 9Z
° "' MEMORANDUM
� JULY 10, 1811 *
c4��FORN�P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 2532 LOCATED AT 1180 ASH STREET,
CONSTRUCTED BY MAL-HUN, LLC
DATE: MAY 9, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached Resolution accepting the public
improvements for Tract 2532 located at 1180 Ash Street, constructed by Mal-Hun, LLC.
FUNDING:
There is no fiscal impact at this time. Maintenance of these facilities will be funded
from Public Works maintenance funds in future years.
DISCUSSION:
On November 23, 2004, the City Council approved the final map for Tract 2532 located
at 1180 Ash Street. The City Council rejected without prejudice as to future acceptance
the offers of dedication for street tree and sewer easements. The City in the past has
not typically accepted easements until accepting the associated improvements for the
project.
The project was conditioned to perform the following improvements:
1. water service manifold,
2. sewer main on-site,
3. storm drainage retention basin on-site,
4. underground on-site and perimeter overhead public utilities,
5. curb, gutter and sidewalk along the frontage.
The homeowners will maintain the on-site storm drainage system and the City will
accept ownership of the sewer mains and the frontage improvements to Ash Street.
The applicant has provided the 10% warranty security as required by the Municipal
Code. The warranty security will be released after one year provided the improvements
are still in satisfactory condition. Staff has inspected the improvements and
recommends the City Council accept the improvements as constructed.
' CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR
; TRACT 2532 LOCATED AT 1180 ASH STREET, CONSTRUCTED BY MAL-HUN, LLC
� MAY 9, 2006
� PAGE 2
I
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
• Approve staff's recommendation;
• Do not approve staff's recommendation;
• Modify staff's recommendation as appropriate and approve; or
• Provide direction to staff.
' Attachment: Attachment 1 - Map of Tract 2532
Council Memo-Acceptance of Improvemenfs-Tract 2532.doc
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING CERTA�N
IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN TRACT 2532
WHEREAS, the City Council approved Final Tract Map 2532 located at 1180 Ash Street
on November 23, 2004; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council rejected without prejudice as to future acceptance the
following offers of dedication with approval of the final map:
1. Street Tree,
2. Sanitary Sewer; and,
WHEREAS, the developer has constructed the improvements required by the
conditions of approval for Tract 2532; and,
WHEREAS, the developer has provided the 10% warranty security as required by the
conditions of approval, to be released at the conclusion of the one-year warranty period,
provided the improvements are still in satisfactory condition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande does hereby accept the offers of dedication and associated public
improvements constructed for Tract 2532, as follows:
1. Street Tree,
2. Sanitary Sewer.
On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member � ,
and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of 2006.
RESOLUTION NO.
i 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
,
_ _ _ __ __ ___ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ .
�
i , TRACT MAP N0. 2532
I AN 8 UNIT P.U.D.
i i SUBDI�1510N OF A PORTION
OF LOTS 13 8 14
IN BLOCK 4
i CF THE FAIR OAKS TRACT
I (7 NB 82)
i
_ i Cily of Arroyo Gantle
�t Cwnty oT San Wis Obispo
Stata of Califomio
f-N
IAT 15 � I � I Jonuary, 2004
a x'
�° m�, �. i i
iu°cs wo.`��.v
WroasES w+u�n-vi
roas
9oom'99Y '_'_zn.ra' � •
fi 0'
_—_ - _
_— �.---S!.>S � — �9.00'_— � —'19.00' �_—' S9.00' i i
� I : 1 . L�_ � �
Cy e
� r II
�' � � I � LOT 6 le LOT � � j a LOT 8 i-i$I •.uE. � �
8i LOT 5 � n z.sw f z.wo r a.sas r i n,
gIg a.as�er �f j� r�;— ' IB w I �cENo
L-5'w0[ L�.uTy b puE I I n I
.._ �rui_____ ili .n �) �_uc. �li .. � � � i g+s/a'smusauznc
� s � i_____________^ r �___________ �, (ti P- c,wa�zaicncvrxxrxe
"j ��- i ^ri---L-------- � j=- 1-
IAT12 _______'i'�______________'____ �;�____"____-���ii'� i� I onc.vwisrvorzn
_�________ 9l0'm'AS 21LJ]' �we���4-�
�
_______ u
____ _______________ _ .�
..
51b5' �9N' •• p �9.O1' Sfl85' � � � �
n . � Nnl I .
1'
______"7 r_______ _'_______'r�-__'_______�___r�_� i
:� �I ___ � T I� � � � �
i rp'�m �� i�'rs'��' i i
n il .: i�i -- i i ,�I$
=I8 LOT 4 � LOT 3 �Ig LOT a i1� e �5�5 sr i i °�" �
lo 1.R94 ef � � $ 2.910 ef $iS x.aw i N I � i � r�s'°
� j $ I rltl —i � „1'' I
a�
I °�E NI I N � ; � %� � i
a � �
._1______________ __ _ ____J________________ _ _ _�y � �� i
5�.9)' N.W' �Y.00' S&l0' � I 3� JO I
_ _ ___________� ��-Q
� XW9B'39'W � 2�I.BT I
IPORTION I PoR770N I I
I IAT t3 I LOT 14 I
i D
I I I I SurveMq by'� D
� � I � �WRD Engineering 2
'i[yL�ii91,�5=nq LonE SuMn �
i I I P.0.Bv ]],Cre.er& G 9J�B]
Po:(W5)bi-t91� iM(BOS��BI-916 �
� SHEET 3 OF 3 �
�
pRRO y Soe.�
F ��
o ,p
FINCORGORATED y2
u m MEMORANDUM
� JULY ID. 1911 * ,
C4��F ORN�P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
BY: RYAN FOSTER, ASSISTANT PLANNER�
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO REFUND APPLICATION AND
PERMIT FEES TO THE SOUTH COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY FOR
ITS EFFORTS TO RESTORE RUBY'S HOUSE
DATE: MAY 9, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council refund application and permit fees to the South
County Historical Society for its efforts to restore Ruby's House.
FUNDING:
A refund of application fees will cost the City $1,318.00.
DISCUSSION:
The South County Historical Society has begun its efforts to restore Ruby's House at 134
South Mason Street, adjacent to Nelson Green. The Society has paid the following
application and permit fees to the City as part of these efforts:
■ Architectural Review, $78.00;
• Plan Check Fee, $31.00; and
■ Building Permit Fees, 1,209.00.
The Society has submitted a letter requesting that these application and permit fees be
refunded based on the community-oriented nature of the project. In the past, the Council
� has refunded application fees for a number of community-oriented events and
established a list of annual community-oriented events that are exempt from temporary
; use permit application fees. Although this request for refund of application fees is not
^ related to an annual event, the project serves the community by restoring a structure
reflective of the Village's historic character, which will be used in conjunction with the
Santa Manuela Schoolhouse and 'The Barn' to further educate both the community and
visitors regarding the heritage of the City of Arroyo Grande.
' S:\Community Development\CITY_COUNCIL�2006\OS-09-O6\SCHS_REFUND.doc
�
I
�
CITY COUNCIL
SCHS APPLICATION AND PERMIT FEES REFUND REQUEST
MAY 9, 2006
PAGE 2 OF 2
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are presented for the Council's consideration:
— Refund the application and permit fees;
— Do not refund the application and permit fees; or
— Provide direction to staff.
Attachment:
1. Letter from South County Historical Society
;
� S:\Communiry DevelopmenflClTY_COUNCIL�2006\OS-09-O6\SCHS_REFUND.doc -
)
j
i
ATTACHMENT1
South Coun Historical Socie '
tY tJ
P.O. Box 633 :"�I; '! �; :.:,;.`:� '
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
�J'_, .
Mazch 5,2006
Tony M. Ferrara, Mayor
Ciry of Arroyo Grande
214 E. Branch
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Deaz Mayor Fesara:
The South Counry Historical Society has proudly commenced the restoration of Ruby's
House at 134 Mason Street in the City of A.G. This restoration work is a condition of our
lease of the city-owned property and will include the addition of a small carriage house
adjacent to the existing structure.
The Society has taken every step to ensure that the project is handled competently and
appropriately and will result in an enhancement to the Heritage Squaze for decades to
come. Our azchitect, Gary A. Scherquist, has a strong background in historical
azchitecture, making him perfect for this project. Our builder, Tim Harris, is also
recognized locally as very experienced in the restoration of older structures.
Enclosed are three invoices showing fees paid for an initial plan check, ARC review, and
building fees paid for the Ruby's House restoration project:
1) Bldg & Safety Plan Check fee, dtd. 12/27/OS for$31.00
2) ARC review,dtd. 12/28/O5, for$78.00
3) Permit fees, Permit#013966, dtd, 1/6/06 for$1,209.00
It is our understanding that the Society is eligible for reimbursement of these fees. If this
is correct, we would appreciate your assistance in this matter.
S' rely,
G�k.C/
e Line
President
c: R. Strong
i
i E pRROY� ����
� O G`,p
� F MICORPOFATED y.l
V O
T
I� JULY f0. /Ylt }
C9��FORN�P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY�
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADDING CHAPTER
5.76 TO THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE, ESTABLISHING
REGULATIONS FOR PEDDLING AND SOLICITING ACTIVITIES AND
ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A SOLICITATION
PERMIT APPLICATION FEE
DATE: MAY 9, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Council: 1) adopt, by title only, the attached Ordinance
entitled: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande Adding Chapter
5.76 to the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, Establishing Regulations for Peddling and
Soliciting Activities'; and 2) adopt the attached Resolution establishing a solicitation
permit application fee.
FUNDING:
The adoption of the attached Ordinance and Resolution will not require any specific City
funding.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed Ordinance was introduced for first reading by the City Council at a public
hearing held on February 7, 2006. In response to several public comments received
following the initial public hearing, minor modifications were made to the proposed
Ordinance. Specifically, Sections 5.76.040(i) and'5.76.060(d) were slightly modified in
response to these comments to refine the solicitation permitting process and Section
5.76.120(c) now requires the Financial Services Director to periodically update the Do
Not Solicit Registry. The specific update process will be addressed through an
administrative policy.
The City Council held another duly noticed public hearing on April 25, 2006 to consider
' the revisions to the proposed Ordinance. Following a second public hearing, the
Council introduced the Ordinance for first reading. The Ordinance is now being
presented for second reading and adoption.
i
i
�
ICITY COUNCIL • _
ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR PEDDLING AND SOLICITING
i ACTIVITIES AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A SOLICITATION PERMIT
APPLICATION FEE
MAY 9, 2006
PAGE 2
'� Additionally, Section 5J6.050 requires the City Council to establish a fee to offset the
' cost to the City of processing an application for a solicitation permit. The attached
Resolution establishes the solicitation permit application fee at sixty-two dollars and fifty
cents ($62.50). The fee recommended by staff reflects approximately one half of the
' total cost for processing an application for a solicitation permit, in recognition of the fact
that most solicitors who apply for this permit utilize it for a limited period of time and that
, each permitee will be required to annually renew the permit.
It is recommended that the Council separately adopt the attached Ordinance and
' Resolution.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Approve staff's recommendation and adopt the Ordinance and Resolution by
separate motion;
- Do not approve staff's recommendation;
- Modify staff's recommendation as deemed appropriate; or
- Provide direction to staff.
i
i
I
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
'� OF ARROYO GRANDE ADDING CHAPTER 5.76 TO THE
ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE, ESTABLISHING
REGULATIONS FOR PEDDLING AND SOLICITING
ACTIVITIES
WHEREAS, persons and organizations have been and are visiting private residential
properties in the Cit of Arro o Grande "Cit " for the ur ose of eddlin and solicitin
Y Y � Y ) P P p 9 9
orders for the sale of goods, wares, merchandise or services; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that a variety of aggressive sales tactics,
misrepresentations, and frauds are at times employed in such activities and that such
peddling and solicitation activities are often considered by impacted residents to be
highly intrusive, disruptive and bothersome; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that public safety and welfare necessitates the
exercise of the police power of the City through the enactment and enforcement of this
Ordinance for the purpose of protecting the health, safety, welfare, and privacy of
residents.
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, correct, and incorporated herein.
SECTION 2: Chapter 5.76, entitled "Peddlers and Solicitors", is hereby added to Title 5
of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code to read in its entirety as follows:
CHAPTER 5.76 PEDDLERS AND SOLICITORS
5.76.010. Legislative findings.
The City Council finds that persons and organizations have been and are visiting private
residential properties in the City for the purpose of peddling and/or soliciting orders for
the sale of goods, wares, merchandise or services, and that some residents find such
visits and the tactics used by such visitors to be bothersome and highly intrusive. The
City Council further finds that a variety of misrepresentations and other frauds are at
times employed in such activities. The City Council further finds that the public safety,
welfare and convenience necessitates the exercise of the police power of the City
through the enactment and enforcement of this chapter for the purpose of protecting the
privacy of residents and preventing aggressive, threatening, abusive and fraudulent
practices by persons representing themselves as peddlers and solicitors.
i
i ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 2
5.76.020. Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, unless otherwise apparent from the context, "Peddler"
or "Solicitor" means any person who goes upon the premises of any private residence in
the City, not having been requested or invited by the occupant thereof, soliciting, selling
or taking orders for, or offering to sell or take orders for the sale of goods, wares and
merchandise for present or future delivery, or for services to be perFormed immediately
or in the future, whether or not such person has, carries or exposes a sample of such
goods, wares and merchandise, or not and whether or not the person is collecting
advance payments on such sales or not.
5.76.030. Solicitation permit required--Exemption.
(a) Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to act as a
peddler or solicitor within the City without having first obtained a solicitation permit
issued pursuant to this chapter. Each individual peddler or solicitor, shall obtain a
solicitation permit.
(b) Any person peddling or soliciting on behalf of any institution or organization
recognized by a tax board of the State and the Internal Revenue Service of the United
States, which institution or organization is conducted wholly for the benefit of charitable,
religious, or nonprofit purposes and from which profit is not derived, either directly or
indirectly, by any person, shall be exempted from the requirements of this chapter.
5.76.040. Application for a solicitation permit.
Applicants for a solicitation permit under this chapter shall file with the Chief of Police an
application in writing on a form to be furnished by the City, which shall give the following
information:
(a) Name and physical description of the applicant.
(b) Date of birth, driver's license or other identification number, Social Security number.
(c) Permanent home address.
(d) Local address and telephone number.
(e) The nature or character of the goods, wares, merchandise or services to be offered.
(f) If employed, the name, address and telephone number of the employer, or if acting
as agent, the name, address and telephone number of the principal who is being
represented, with credentials in written form establishing the relationship and the
authority of the employee or agent to act for the employer or principal, as the case may
be.
(g) The length of time for which the right to peddle or solicit is desired.
(h) Two photographs of the applicant, taken within sixty days immediately prior to the
date of filing of the application, measuring one inch by one inch, and showing the head
and shoulders of the applicant in a clear and distinguishing manner.
(i) The names of, and a means of contacting, at least two persons, who will certify as to
the applicanYs business reputation, or, in lieu of the names of such references, such
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 3
other available evidence as to the business reputation of the applicant as will enable an
investigator to reasonably and properly evaluate the applicanYs business responsibility.
(j) A statement as to whether or not the applicant has been convicted of any criminal
offense, whether felony or misdemeanor, other than minor traffic violations. As to any
such offense, the date and place of conviction, the nature of the offense, and the
punishment or penalty imposed must be provided.
(k) Proof of possession of any license or permit which, under federal, state or local laws
or regulations, the applicant is required to have in order to conduct the proposed
business, or which, under any such law or regulation, would exempt the applicant from
the licensing requirements.
5.76.050. Permit fee.
At the time the application for a solicitation permit is filed with the Chief of Police, the
applicant shall pay a fee sufficient to cover the cost to the City of processing the
application. The amount of the fee shall be set by resolution of the City Council.
5.76.060. Investigation and permit issuance.
(a) Upon receipt of an application, the Chief of Police, or authorized representative,
shall cause an investigation to be made of the applicant as deemed necessary for the
protection of the public health, safety and general welfare.
(b) The Chief of Police shall deny an application for a permit if he or she makes any of
the following findings:
(1) The applicant has failed to pay the application permit fee.
(2) The applicant has made one or more material misstatements in the application
for a permit.
(3) The applicant has ever been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, or any
felony or misdemeanor offense that reasonably and directly indicates a potential risk to
the public.
(4) The applicant has had a judgment in an action for fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation ente�ed against her or him by any court of competent jurisdiction
within ten years prior to the date of application.
(5) The applicant fails to provide proof of possession of any license or permit
which, under federal, state or local laws or regulations, the applicant is required to have
in order to conduct the proposed business.
(6) The applicant has previously been convicted for violation of any provision of
this chapter, or who has had any permit issued pursuant to this chapter revoked.
(7) The Chief of Police, or authorized representative, possesses any other credible
information concerning the applicant, his or her employer or principal that reasonably
and directly indicates the peddling or soliciting activities will likely be used as a means
of committing crime, fraud or deceit.
(c) If the application is disapproved, the reasons for disapproval shall be noted on the
application, and the applicant shall be notified that his or her application is disapproved
and that no permit will be issued. Notice shall be mailed to the applicant at the address
shown on the application form, or at the applicanYs last-known address.
� ORDINANCE NO.
I PAGE 4
(d) If the Chief of Police finds the applicanYs business responsibility to be satisfactory
based on the specific criteria set forth herein, he or she shall endorse his or her
' approval on the application and shall, upon payment of the prescribed fee, deliver the
� required solicitation permit to the applicant.
' S.76.070. Permit expiration.
� All permits issued under the provisions of this chapter shall expire one year from date of
, issuance, unless an earlier expiration date is noted on the permit.
5.76.080. Hours of operation.
It is unlawful for any person described in this chapter, whether permitted or unpermitted,
to enter upon any residential premises between the hours of seven p.m. and nine a.m.
5.76.090. Soliciting where "No Soliciting" sign is posted.
It is unlawful for any person described in Section 5.76.020 of this chapter, whether
permitted or unpermitted, to perform or attempt to pertorm the acts described in such
section by ringing the doorbell or knocking at the door or othenvise calling attention to
the person's presence of or at any residence whereon a sign bearing the words "No
Peddlers", "No Solicitors" or words of similar meaning is painted or affixed so as to be
exposed to public view, and no such person described in Section 5.76.020 shall perForm
or attempt to perform any of the acts described in such section in any building, structure
or place of business whereon or wherein a sign bearing the words "No Peddlers", "No
Solicitors" or words of similar import, is painted or affixed so as to be exposed to public
view. Additionally, no person described in Section 5.76.020 shall perform or attempt to
perform any of the acts described in such section upon any property which has
registered and been included on the City's "Do Not Solicit Registry."
5.76.100- Creation of a "Do Not Solicit Registry".
There is hereby created within the City a "Do Not Solicit Registry." The purpose of such
registry is to allow residents within the City to register their name and the address(es) of
such places that they do not want any peddling or solicitation.
5.76.110. Applicability of a "Do Not Solicit Registry".
The "Do Not Solicit Registry" shall only be applicable to residential addresses within the
City.
5.76.120. Maintenance of a "Do Not Solicit Registry".
(a) The Director of Financial Services shall maintain the "Do Not Solicit Registry" ("the
"Registry") which shall consist of a list of residential addresses within the City whose
residents wish to deny any and all peddling or soliciting acts at the described residence.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 5
(b) It shall be the duty of the resident to apply for such Registry, maintain current
addresses, and to remove their name and address(es) from such Registry when so
desired.
(c) It shall be the duty of the Director of Financial Services to have a current and true
copy of the Registry available during normal business hours and to periodically update
the Registry.
(d) At the time of issuance of a business license, the Director of Financial Services, or
his/her designee, shall provide a current copy of the Registry at no cost to a peddler or
solicitor who possesses a valid solicitation permit.
(e) Any person may acquire a current copy of the Registry subject to payment of
duplication fees.
(f) Upon the request of any duly licensed peddler or solicitor pursuant to this chapter,
the Director of Financial Services, or his/her designee, shall provide a current copy of
the City's "Do Not Solicit Registry" at no cost.
5.76.130- Compliance "Do Not Solicit Registry."
It is unlawful for any person to peddle or solicit on private property where the resident
has registered his or her address and such address appears on the City's "Do Not
Solicit Registry."
5.76.140. Other conditions and regulations.
The following conditions and regulations shall also apply to the exercise of the privileges
granted by solicitation permits issued under the provisions of this chapter in addition to
those set forth in other parts of this chapter or elsewhere in this code:
(a) Every person issued a solicitation permit must be in possession of the solicitation
permit, a current copy of the City's "Do Not Solicit Registry", and a current City business
license issued pursuant to Chapter 5.02 of this Code at all times when engaged in the
business herein permitted. The permittee must produce and show the solicitation
permit, business license, and copy of the "Do Not Solicit Registry" on the request of any
person solicited or of any public safety officer or official of the City. No person issued a
permit shall alter, remove or obliterate any entry made upon such permit, or deface
such permit in any way. Each solicitation permit shall be personal and not assignable or
transferable, nor shall any permit be used by any person other than the permittee.
(b) Every peddler or solicitor, upon the request of any public safety officer or official of
the City, shall sign the solicitor or peddler's name for comparison with the signature
upon the solicitation permit or the signature upon the permit application.
(c) Every peddler or solicitor who solicits orders shall, if requested by the customer,
provide a receipt plainly stating the quantity of each article or commodity ordered, the
price paid to be paid therefor, the total amount purchased or ordered and the amount to
be paid on or after delivery.
(d) Every peddler or solicitor shall, if requested by the customer, provide his/her name,
business address and telephone number and the name, business address and
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 6
telephone number of the person, organization, or entity on whose behalf solicitation is
being made.
5.76.150. Peddler--Revocation of Solicitation permit.
(a) A solicitation permit issued under this chapter may be suspended or revoked by the
Chief of Police for any of the following causes:
(1) Fraud, misrepresentation or false statement contained in the application for
permit;
(2) Fraud, misrepresentation or false statement made in the course of carrying on
the business of peddler or solicitor;
(3) Any violation of this chapter;
(4) Conviction of any crime including misdemeanors involving moral turpitude;
(5) Peddling or soliciting in an unlawful manner or in such a manner as to
constitute a breach of the peace or to constitute a menace to the health, safety or
general welfare of the public.
(b) This section shall be self-executing and the suspension or revocation shall be
effective immediately. The Chief of Police shall give notice of the suspension or
revocation of the permit and sufficient notice shall be given if mailed or delivered to the
permittee at permittee's address listed on his or her application.
5.76.160. Appeals to City Manager.
In the event that any applicant or permittee desires to appeal from any order, revocation
or other ruling of the Chief of Police or any other official of the City, made under the
provisions of this chapter, such applicant or any other person aggrieved shall have the
right to appeal such action or decision to the City Manager within fifteen (15) days after
the notice of the action or decision has been mailed to the person's address as shown
on the permit application. An appeal shall be taken by filing with the Police Department
a written appeal statement setting forth the grounds for the appeal. The Chief of Police
shall transmit the written statement to the City Manager within ten days of its filing and
the City Manager shall set a time and place for a hearing on the appeal. A hearing shall
be set not later than thirty (30) days from the date of filing of the applicanYs written
appeal statement with the Police Department. Notice of the time and place of the
hearing shall be given to the appellant in the same manner as provided for the mailing
of notice of suspension or revocation. The decision of the City Manager, or his
designee, on the appeal shall be final and binding on all parties concerned.
5.76.170. Violations.
Any person who violates a provision of this chapter is guilty of a separate offense for
each day or part of a day during which the violation is committed, continued or
permitted. Any person who violates any provision in this chapter shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 7
SECTION 3: Severability. If any section, subsection, or clause of this Ordinance is held
to be unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful, the validity of the remaining sections,
subsections and clauses shall not be affected thereby. The City Council declares that it
would have adopted the Ordinance regardless of the fact that one or more sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases may be determined to be unconstitutional
or unlawful.
SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days from its adoption.
SECTION 5: A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published
and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days prior to the City Council
meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full
text of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk. Within
fifteen (15) days after adoption of the Ordinance, the summary with the names of those
City Council members voting for and against the Ordinance shall be published again,
and the City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance.
On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member
, and on the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted this day of 2006.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 8
TONYFERRARA, 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.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE ESTABLISHING THE AMOUNT OF
A SOLICITATION PERMIT APPLICATION FEE
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has adopted Ordinance No.
, adding Chapter 5.76 to the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code establishing regulations
for peddling and soliciting activities; and
WHEREAS, newly adopted Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 5.76.050 contained
in Chapter 5.76 requires that the City Council establish a fee for the processing of an
application for a solicitation permit ("solicitation permit application fee"); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the documentation provided by the Police
Department and Financial Services Department regarding the cost to the City of
processing an application for a solicitation permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande as follows:
1. As authorized by Municipal Code Section 5.76.050, the solicitation permit
application fee is set at sixty-two dollars and fifty cents ($62.50).
2. This Resolution shall become effective upon the effective date of Ordinance No.
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 , 2006.
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
,
i
� s.a.
� ,
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CITY COUNCIL
� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
On TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2006, the Arroyo Grande City Council will conduct a public
hearing at 7:00 P.M. in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET,
� ARROYO GRANDE to consider the following item:
ITEM: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF PLOT
` PLAN REVIEW 05-027 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-020. The
ICity Council will consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's
denial of Plot Plan Review 05-027 and Viewshed Review 05-020
to allow the construction of a two-story single family residence.
LOCATION: 123 Whiteley
APPELLANT: Pace Brothers Construction
STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE: Community Development Director
The Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or after the item
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
i for any court to invalidate the action of the legislative body for which the notice was
j given.
Information relating to these items is available by contacting Arroyo Grande City Hall at
473-5414. The Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20.
! .;'�-�� ��,� � -�!i���%L�- ,
I Kelly Wetmor�City Clerk
Publish 1T, The Tribune, Friday, Aprii 28, 2006
�
�
i
� � PRROy�
� cP
' � INCONPOReTED 92
u m MEMORANDUM
. �t JULY 10. 1011 *
c4��FORN�P ,
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROB STRONG COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORI ��
,
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DENIAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-027 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-
020 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 123 WHITELEY
DATE: MAY 9, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the appeal of Plot
Plan Review 05-027 and Viewshed Review 05-020 for the construction of a two-story
single-family residence located at 123 Whiteley. It is recommended that Council take
tentative action to deny the appeal and direct staff to return with a supporting resolution.
� FUNDING:
No fiscal impact.
DISCUSSION:
Background
The applicant proposes to construct a house on Lot 4 of the Mason, Short and Whiteley
Addition, subdivided in 1887. Prior to demolition of a 1950 vintage house, Lots 4, 5 and 6
were under combined ownership and developed as a large single-family homesite.
Subsequently, Lots 5 and 6 have been separately developed, each with larger, two-story
single-family dwellings, secondary units and three-car garages approved by Plot Plan
Review 05-004 and Viewshed Review 05-008, including Architectural Review for
,I development in the Design Overlay D-2.4 Historical Character district.
� On May 17, 2005, the Planning Commission reviewed a project with a five-foot creek
bank setback and directed staff to return with a resolution to deny the project. Instead,
the applicant proposed a new design with a ten-foot creek bank setback. The Planning
,� Commission adopted Resolution No. 05-1966 denying this proposal as well. On August
� 23, 2005, the City Council also denied without prejudice both the applicanYs appeal and
the proposal to build a 2,716 sq. ft. two-story house and two-car garage with a 10-foot
minimum creek setback.
Lot 4 has been complex primarily because it contains a segment of Arroyo Grande Creek
and therefore involves creek setback issues. Lot 4 is 14,408 sq. ft., but more than half
� this area is composed of creek bank and channel, zoned Public Facility (PF). The portion
�L —
CITY COUNCIL
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-027 AND
VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-020
MAY 9, 2006
PAGE 2
of Lot 4 zoned Single Family Residential, D-2.4, is estimated to be approximately 5,860
sq. ft. compared to 6,780 sq. ft. each in Lots 5 and 6. The minimum lot size is 7,200 sq.
ft. for Single Family (SF) and 6,750 for Village Residential (VR). The limited usable area
of the lot is further constrained by creek setback policies and standards including General
Plan C/OS 2-1.3, which states:
"Where feasible, maintain a grading and building setback of 25 feet from top
of stream bank. Locate buildings and structures outside the setback.
Except in urban areas where existing development exists to the contrary,
prevent removal of riparian vegetation within 25 feet of top of stream bank."
In this instance, ARC and Planning Commission have approved plot plan reviews and
viewshed reviews for two larger, two-story houses on the adjoining lots. However, they
have rejected the previous designs for a similar house on this creekside lot, in part due to
house size and creek and riparian impact related issues.
This third submittal proposes a 2,105 sq. ft. two-story house and attached two-car garage,
with the ground floor setback 15 feet from top of creek bank (a rear portion of the second
story is proposed to cantilever approximately five feet into this 15 foot setback). A
biological resources assessment was prepared as part of the Initial Study to evaluate on-
'�,� site habitats and potential impacts to the creek area, including recommended mitigation
I measures to reduce impacts to less than significant.
' The detailed staff report and initial study from the April 4, 2006 Planning Commission
� meeting, outlining the stafPs recommendations for approval of Plot Plan Review 05-027
, and Viewshed Review 05-020, is Attachment 1. Also enclosed are the minutes from April
4, 2006 regarding the Planning Commission's denial, including a draft Resolution for
denial which was subsequently adopted on May 2, 2006 (Attachments 2 & 3). This
decision was appealed by the applicant on April 13, 2006 (Attachment 4).
Original recommendations from staff and the decision of the Planning Commission
� , appealed by the applicant reflect alternatives in what constitutes reasonable use and what
should be considered "feasible". While the proposed house is smaller than the two new
adjoining houses on Lots 5 and 6, it is larger than the apparent average existing homes in
I the neighborhood (The City does not have building size records for a factual
comparison). While Lot 4 is more than twice the size of other existing lots in the vicinity
�� and the lot across the street, it is largely composed of Arroyo Grande Creek and its
banks.
� In previous,reports, the staff estimated that the usable lot area, based on varying creek
setbacks, ranged from 2,820 sq. ft. with a 10-foot creek setback, 2,541 sq. ft. with a 15-
foot setback, 1,944 sq. ft. with a 20-foot setback, to 1,157 sq., ft. net with a 25-foot
Isetback, excluding normal front and side yard setbacks (Attachment 5). The useable lot
�
I
CITY COUNCIL
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-027 AND
I� VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-020
MAY 9, 2006
,� PAGE 3
jl area, excluding front and side yard setbacks, would be approximately 1,160 sq. ft. if the
I� City requires dedication of the creek and a 25-foot setback from top of creek bank.
ALTERNATIVES: '
1) Take tentative action to deny the appeal and the project applications, as
�� recommended by the Planning Commission, and direct staff to return with a
supporting resolution;
2) Take tentative action to uphold the appeal and approve the project applications,
, and direct staff to return with a supporting resolution;
' 3) Take tentative action to uphold the appeal and require a reduced house size, such
as 2,000 sq. ft. and an increased creek setback such as 20-feet minimum, and
direct staff to return with a supporting resolution;
4) If the Council concurs with the Commission that the proposed development is
inadequate and inappropriate, it could again deny the appeal without prejudice and
encourage the applicant to submit an additional design involving a substantially
' smaller house and a greater creek setback up to the 25-foot, either as an offer of
dedication or creek open space and maintenance easement.
Attachments:
1. Staff report and Initial Study from the April 4, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.
' 2. Minutes from the April 4, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.
3. Resolution of denial from the May 2, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.
4. Appeal to City Council dated April 13, 2006.
5. Setback site plan.
6. Site plans.
�
!
��
I.
��
II
� ATTACHMENT1
� � ��
CITY OF ARROYO GRAND� ���
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
HEARING DATE: TUBSday, ApI%/4, 20�6
AGENDA ITEM: //.A
CasE NunneeR: Plot Plan Review 05-027
Viewshed Review 05-020
APPUCaNT: Pace Brother's Construction
REPRESENTATIVE: SCOtt P8C2
PROJECT LOCATION: 'IZ3 WFlit@I0y
»PROJECT DESCRIPTION: COf1StNCtl011 of a two story, single-family house,
fifteen feet from the top of the bank of the Arroyo
Grande Creek.
PROJECT PLANNER: JlfTl B@�9fi18f1, Assistant Planner�
I
�
BACKGROUND
In April 2005, the Planning Commission was informed of an administrative
approval of a Minor Use Permit to build a house on an existing lot within 5-feet
from the top of bank of the Arroyo Grande Creek. The Planning Commission
appealed this decision and a revised project featuring a 10-foot creek setback
was ultimately denied. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission's
decision to the City Council and after a public hearing, the appeal was rejected
and the project denied without prejudice. At the two public hearings, the Planning
Commission and City Council provided findings for denial and also direction to
the applicant related to design aspects that are consistent with adopted City
policies (see Attachment 2, Resolutions and Minutes from the City Council and
Planning Commission). Findings and direction included: A biological report
indicating potential impacts to the creek and surrounding environment, mitigation
measures to decrease impacts to a less than significant level (this issue is
addressed in greater detail below), and an increased creek buffer distance that
could be obtained by decreasing the house size to a level consistent with other
houses in the surrounding neighborhood. This new project represents the
applicanYs changes based upon direction and input from the public hearing
process at both the Planning Commission and City Council level.
At the March 21, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, staff reported the
administrative approval�of Plot Plan Review 05-027 and Viewshed Review 05-
�
i�
020. Through a unanimous vote, Planning Commission requested tonighYs public
hearing following the process stated in Municipal Code Section 16.12.155.
SUBJECT PROPERTY
The project site is approximately 14,804 square feet in area and is located at the
end of a residential street. A substantial portion of the parcel is a channelized
section of the Arroyo Grande Creek. The top of the creek bank is well defined
and has been established and staked by a surveyor. The creek channel and
creek bank is covered by native and non-native vegetation. The portion of the lot
that is proposed for development is flat and has historically been used as a side
and front yard for a house, which was on an adjacent parcel. Several trees
(Persimmon, Wainut, Lemon, Pine, and Avacado), on the subject parcel and
adjacent parcels were removed. The site above the bank has been cleared of all
vegetation and was over excavated to a depth of six feet below the existing
grade. The surface was scarified, moisture conditioned, and re-compacted to a
minimum of 90 percent of maximum dry density and graded. This grading work
was completed during construction of the homes on the two adjacent lots.
PROJECT
The proposed project is to construct a 2,105 square foot, two-story house with
attached two-car garage. The first floor of the structure is to be located 15 feet of
the top of bank of the Arroyo Grande Creek while an approximately 13-foot
section of the second floor at the rear of the building will cantilever over the first
floor approximately 5 feet. Existing grading and a small foundationless wall/fence
� will direct storm runoff to the street and into a city maintained drop inlet which will
� be upgraded by the applicant with a fossil filter insert. Existing vegetation within
the creek channel and within 5-feet of the top of bank will remain untouched
while native xeric landscaping is proposed adjacent to the house. As compared
to the previous application, this project proposes a layout that includes a larger
creek buffer (15-feet), a foot print that has been decreased by 205 square feet
and total living area reduced by 147 square feet. The table below indicates
project changes.
Old Pro osal New Pro osal
Livin Area 2,252 2,105
FirstFloorArea 1,388 1,185
Second Floor Area 864 920
Gara e Size 464 462
Foot rint 1,852 1,647
Floor Area Ratio 1521% 14.22%
Creek Buffer 10 feet 15 fee
Attachment 3 is a letter from John Shoals, Project Manager for Pace Brother's
Construction indicating revisions to project plans in response to the City Council
and Planning Commission's concerns regarding the desired creek bank setback
and reduction of the house size to become compatible with the neighborhood.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Page 2 of 7
An Initial Study, per the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), was
completed and revealed that the project could have a significant effect on the
environment if mitigation measures were not implemented (see Attachment 3). A
Biological Resources Assessment was completed by Rincon Consultants, Inc.
and is included as an attachment to the Initial Study (see Attachment 4). This
assessment included a field survey by a biologist to generally characterize the
existing biological resources and to evaluate the on-site habitats that could
potentially support special-status species or otherwise be of concern to the City,
the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Marine Fisheries (NOAA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Biological Resources
Assessment reveled that one special botanical species (Black Flowered Figwort)
and three special-status wildlife species (California Red-legged frog, Southern
Steelhead, and Pacific Pond Turtle) have a potential to occur within the study
area. Due to the potential for these species to occur on the site and to comply
with Section 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Biological Resources
Assessment proposed mitigation measures necessary to reduce potential
impacts to a less than significant level under CEQA and to avoid the need for
regulatory permits. These mitigation measures were added to others in the
Negative Declaration and serve to protect the environment as identified in the
Initial Study by 1) limiting construction activities/effects to areas outside of the
creek, creek bank and riparian habitat, 2) limit human and domesticated animal
intrusion to patio areas by the use of a small wall and fence, and 3) planting side
and rear yard areas with riparian and native species.
SOIL STABILITY
Resolution No. 05-1966, adopted by the Planning Commission on June 21, 2005
indicates concern that soils at the property may become unstable and erode into
the Arroyo Grande Creek. Although the property is located on a well-defined
bank of the Arroyo Grande Creek, potential for landslides, mudsiides, subsidence
or erosion of soils is low due to metered flows of water from the Lopez Dam. In
addition, a report dated December 16, 2005, and stamped by Norman G. Hallin,
Geotechnical Engineer, states: "Based on our observation and testing during
grading and the newly proposed building footprint, it is our opinion that the
compacted fill constructed at the project site is suitable for both downward
bearing and lateral support of the proposed residence" (see Geotechnical
Reports in Attachment 3).
FINDINGS OF APPROVAL
Approval of this project by the Community Development Director is based upon
input from the City Council and Planning Commission during the pubiic hearings
related to the first application, additional documents requested as part of the
Initial Study and input from the Architectural Review Committee. Justification for
this approval is stated in the foilowing required findings.
Plot Plan Review
Page 3 of 7
I
1. The proposed project is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and
programs of the Arroyo Grande general plan;
The subject parcel was created prior to the 2001 General Plan, which states:
C/OS2-1.3 Where feasible, maintain a grading and building
setback of 25 feet from the fop of stream bank. Locate buildings
and structures outside the sefback. Except in urban areas where
existing development exists fo the contrary, prevent removal of
riparian vegetation within 25 feet of the top of stream bank.
The subject parce/ was also creafed prior to adoption of Section 16.64.060(R) of
the Municipal Code of the City of Arroyo Grande, which states:
Creek Dedications. For any subdivision or parcel map or
development project requiring discretionary review abutting fhe
Arroyo Grande Creek, including its tributaries (Tally Ho Creek,
Spring Creek, Newsom Springs Creek and Los Berros Creek), or
Meadow Creek, including its tribufaries, the subdivider or developer
sha/l dedicate to the city all the area that includes the stream bed
and fwenty-five (25) feef back of the sfream bank, areas designafed
as environmentally sensitive based on a biology reporf prepared by
a qualified bio/ogisf or other appropriate areas mutually acceptable
for the purposes of"open space,"flood control or"green belt."
Exceptions to the requiremenfs established in this subsection can
be made only upon a finding thaf its applicafion would violate
federa/or state law.
Strict application of these two policies as they relate to this proposed project
would deem 88.75 percent of the subject parcel un-buildable and leave a triang/e
shaped building area of approximately 1,666 square feet and lead to a situation
in which a court may defermine that the property owner has been deprived of all
economic use of his property. Staff believes that the statement in the Genera/
P/an `S�vhere feasib/e"and the excepfion clause of 16.64.060(R) were inserted to
for this fype of situation in an effort to protect basic property rights and to limit
City liability.
A/though this projecf does not inc/ude a full 25-foot creek setback, the provided
CEQA lnitial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration does, in staff's opinion,
identify and mitigate all significant environmental effects. The proposed
mitigation measures are designed to protect the creek by 1) limiting construction
acfivities and effects to areas outside of the creek, creek bank and riparian
habitat, 2) limit human and domesticated animal intrusion to patio areas by the
use of a small wall and fence and landscaping design, 3) p/anting side and rear
yard areas with riparian and native species in an effort to maintain the aesthetic
va/ue of the creek and to eliminate sedimentation from the development of a
single residential structure, and 4) provides an offer of dedicafion of an
irrevocable creek drainage and maintenance easement to the Cify for areas that
Page 4 of 7
include the stream bed and the creek, its banks and five feet (5� adjoining the
top of bank for fhe purposes of "open space, flood control, fufure creek pafh or
green belt."No development shall occur within the creek easement area.
' Previous direction from the Planning Commission indicated that the house cou/d
be smaller in size in an effort to increase the creek buffer distance and to creafe
a home fhat is more conducive to the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant
now proposes a 15-foot buffer from top of bank to the building wal/ and has
decreased the house to 2,105 square feet of living area.
2. The proposed project conforms to applicable performance standards and will
not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare;
Section 16.48.120 of the Municipal Code establishes performance standards for
development within the Cify of Arroyo Grande. These standards protect
neighboring properties from nuisances such as poor air quality, e/ectrical or
electronic interference, fire and explosive hazards, glare, odors, smoke and
vibration. The project; as proposed, meets the requirements of this Municipal
Code Section. In addition, the project safisfies all applicable provisions of the
Municipal Code including development standards for the single-family zoning
disfrict.
3. The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.
The physical location or placemenf of the use on the sife is compatib/e with the
surrounding neighborhood since fhe developmenf utilizes existing /ots of fhe
original Short, Mason and White/ey subdivision and complies with all
developmenf standards for the sing/e-family zoning districf inc/uding setbacks,
height, floor area ratio and lot coverage.
Applicable Historic Character Overlay District Findings
1. The construction, alteration, demolition, or relocation of any building or
structure or earth movement enhances, to the maximum extent feasible, and
does not interfere with, detract from or degrade the historic cultural, architectural
or archaeological resource values of the district.
The construcfion of fhe proposed residentia!structure enhances, to the maximum
extent feasible, and does not interfere with, detract from or degrade the historic,
cultural, architectural or archaeological resource values of the district due to
mitigafion measures imposed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the
projecYs compliance with the Design Guidelines for Historic Districts as
determined by the Architectural Review Committee.
2. ' The use proposed for a building, structure, or parcel of land shall be
compatible with the uses predominating in the designated area.
The use proposed for a building, structure, or parce/ of land is compatible with
the uses predominating in the designated area since the project utilizes existing
��
� Page 5 of 7
�
parcels and fhe proposed sing/e-family houses are similar to neighboring
residences.
Architectural Review Findings
1. The proposal is consistent with the architectural guidelines of the city, or
guidelines prepared for the area in which the project is located;
The proposal is a craftsman style single family home and has been reviewed by
the Architectural Review Committee based upon the Design Guidelines for
Historic Districts. The proposed house is similar in height, mass and scale and
utilizes compafib/e materials such as horizontal siding and composition roof tiles.
2. The proposal is consistent with the text and maps of the Arroyo Grande
general plan and this title;
The proposal is consistent with the text and maps of the Arroyo Grande General
Plan and complies with all development standards of the single-family zoning
district and has been reviewed by the Architectural Review Committee for
compliance with the Design Guidelines for Historic Districts
3. The proposal will not be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort and general
welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed
project;
The proposal will nof be defrimental fo the health, safety, comfort and general
welfare of the persons residing or working in fhe neighborhood of the proposed
projecf since it complies with the provisions of the Municipal Code of the City of
Arroyo Grande and mitigafion measures have been developed that reduces
environmenfal impacts below a significant leve/per CEQA guidelines.
� 4. The general appearance of the proposal is in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood;
The general appearance of the proposal is in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood due to satisfying al/ applicable provisions of the Municipal Code
and is consistenf wifh fhe Design Guidelines for Historic Districts.
5. The proposal is not detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of
the city;
The proposa! is not detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of
the City because it fulfills fhe deve/opment standards of the Municipa/ Code, and
has been reviewed by the Architectural Review Committee and found to be
consistent with the Design Guidelines for Historic Districts.
6. The proposal will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the
neighborhood.
The proposal will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the
neighborhood since the proposed development is similar in building style and
size as compared to surrounding residences.
Page 6 of 7
Viewshed Review Findings
1. The proposed structure is consistent with the intent of this section;
The proposed sfructure is consistent with the intent of Section 16.16.130 of the
Municipal Code since the house is designed fo balance the property owner's
request for reasonable development while preserving the existing scope and
characfer of the established single-family neighborhood and protects the views
and aesthetics of neighboring properties
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;
The proposed structure is consistent with fhe established scale and characfer of
the neighborhood and wil! not unreasonably or unnecessarily affect views of
surrounding properties since it complies with the height, floor area ratio, lot
coverage and other development standards for the single-family zone
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 strucfure. will not unreasonably or unnecessarily interfere with the
scenic view from any other property,judged in light of permitting reasonab/e use
and deve/opment of the property on which the proposed structure or expansion is
to occur due fo the design of the proposed structure is located at the fermination
of Whiteley Street. In addition the conditions of approval include an irrevocable
offer of dedication of a creek drainage and maintenance easement to the city for
the area that inc/udes the sfream bed including the creek, ifs banks and five feet
(5) adjoining the top of bank for the purposes of "open space, flood control,
future creek path orgreen belt."
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the proposed project and
adopt a Resolution approving Plot Plan Review 05-027 and View Shed Review
05-020
Attachments:
Resolution and Exhibit "A"
1. Project plans (Planning Commissioners, please utilize plans
circulated at the March 21, 2006 meeting).
2. Planning Commission Resolution and Minutes from June 21, 2005;
3. City Council Resolution and Minutes from August 23, 2005
4. Letter from John Shoals, Project Manager for Pace Brother's
Construction
5. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 7 of 7
�
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-027, AND
VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-020; 12,3 WHITELEY; APPLIED FOR BY PACE
BROTHER'S CONSTRUCTION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered Plot
Plan Review 05-027, and Viewshed Review 05-020 filed by Pace Brother's Construction,
to construct a two story, single family house; and
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2006, the Planning Commission requested a public hearing in
accordance with the City Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing on these applicationw in
accordance with the City Municipal Code on April 4, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that this project is consistent with the
General Plan and the environmental documents associated therewith; and
I WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this project in compliance with the
California Environmental Qualiry Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo
Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and has determined that a
Mitigated Negative Declaration can be adopted; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public
hearing, the following circumstances exist:
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
Plot Plan Review
1. The proposed project is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs
of the Arroyo Grande general plan;
The subjecf parcel was created prior to the 2001 General Plan, which states:
C/OS2-1.3 Where feasible, maintain a grading and building setback of
25 feet from the top of stream bank. Locate buildings and structures
outside the setback. Except in urban areas where existing deve/opment
exists to the contrary, prevent removal of riparian vegetation within 25 feet
� of the top of stream bank.
The subject parcel was also created prior fo adopfion of Secfion 16.64.060(R) of fhe
Municipa/ Code of the City of Arroyo Grande, which states:
Creek Dedications. For any subdivision or parcel map or development
project requiring discretionary review abutting the Arroyo Grande Creek,
including its tributaries (Tally Ho Creek, Spring Creek, Newsom Springs
Creek and Los Berros Creek), or Meadow Creek, including its tributaries,
the subdivider or developer shall dedicate to the city all the area that
includes the stream bed and twenty-five (25) feef back of the stream bank,
I
RESOLUTION NO.
PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-027 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-020
PAGE 2
areas designated as environmentally sensifive based on a biology report
prepared by a qualified biologist or other appropriate areas mufually
accepfable forfhe purposes of"open space,"flood confro/or "green be/t."
Exceptions to the requirements established in fhis subsection can be
made only upon a finding that its application would violate federa/ or state
law.
Strict applicafion of these two policies as they relate to this proposed projecf wou/d
deem 88.75 percent of the subject parcel un-buildable and leave a triang/e shaped
building area of approximately 1,666 square feet and lead to a sifuation in which a court
may determine that fhe property owner has been deprived of a/l economic use of his
property. Staff believes fhat fhe statement in the General Plan `tvhere feasib/e"and the
exception c/ause of 16.64.060(R) were inserted fo for this type of situation in an effort to
protecf basic property rights and fo limit City Iiability.
A/though this project does not include a fu1125-foot creek setback, the provided CEQA
lnitial Study and Mifigated Negative Declaration does, in sfaff's opinion, identify and
mitigate all significant environmental effects. The proposed mitigation measures are
designed to profect the creek by 1) limiting construction activities and effects to areas
oufside of the creek, creek bank and riparian habifat, 2) limit human and domesticated
animal intrusion to patio areas by the use of a small wall and fence and landscaping
design, 3) planting side and rear yard areas with riparian and nafive species in an effort
to maintain the aesthetic va/ue of the creek and to eliminate sedimentation from the
development of a single residential structure, and 4) provides an offer of dedication of
an irrevocable creek drainage and maintenance easement to the City for areas that
include the stream bed and the creek, its banks and five feet (5') adjoining fhe top of
bank for the purposes of"open space, flood control, future creek path or green belt."No
development shall occur within the creek easement area.
Previous direcfion from the P/anning Commission indicated that fhe house could be
� smaller in size in an effort to increase the creek buffer distance and fo create a home
' thaf is more conducive to fhe surrounding neighborhood. The applicant now proposes a
� 15-foof buffer from top of bank fo the building wall and has decreased the house to
I 2,105 square feet of living area.
II 2. The proposed project conforms to applicable performance standards and will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare;
Section 16.48.120 of the Municipal Code estab/ishes performance standards for
development within fhe City of Arroyo Grande. These standards protect neighboring
properties from nuisances such as poor air quality, e/ectrical or electronic interference,
�re and explosive hazards, glare, odors, smoke and vibration. The project, as proposed,
meets the requirements of this Municipal Code Section. In addition, the project satisfies
all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code including development standards for the
single-family zoning district.
RESOLUTION NO.
PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-027 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-020
PAGE 3
3. The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.
The physical location or placement of the use on fhe site is compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood since the development utilizes existing lots of the original
Short, Mason and Whiteley subdivision and complies with all development standards for
the single-family zoning district including setbacks, height, floor area rafio and lot
coverage.
Applicable Historic Character Overlay District Findings
1. The construction, alteration, demolition, or relocation of any building or structure or
earth movement enhances, to the maximum extent feasible, and does not interfere
with, detract from or degrade the historic cultural; architectural or archaeological
resource values of the district.
The construction of fhe proposed residenfial strucfure enhances, fo the maximum
exfent feasible, and does not interfere with, detracf from or degrade the historic,
cu/tural, architectura/ or archaeo/ogical resource values of the district due to mitigation
measures imposed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the projecYs compliance
with the Design Guidelines for Historic Districfs as determined by the Architectural
Review Committee.
2. The use proposed for a building, structure, or parcel of land shall be compatible with
the uses predominating in the designated area.
The use proposed for a building, sfructure, or parce/of/and is compatible with the uses
predominating in the designated area since the project utilizes existing parcels and the
proposed single-family houses are similar to neighboring residences.
Architectural Review Findings
1. The proposal is consistent with the architectural guidelines of the city, or guidelines
prepared for the area in which the project is located;
The proposal is a craftsman style single family home and has been reviewed by the
� Architectura/ Review Committee based upon the Design Guidelines for Historic
Districts. The proposed house is similar in height, mass and scale and utilizes
' compatible materials such as horizonta/siding and composition roof tiles.
2. The proposal is consistent with the text and maps of the Arroyo Grande general plan
and this title;
The proposal is consistent with the text and maps of the Arroyo Grande General P/an
and complies with all development standards of the single-family zoning district and has
been reviewed by the Architectural Review Committee for compliance with the Design
Guidelines for Historic Districts
3. The proposal will not be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort and general
welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed project;
RESOLUTION NO.
PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-027 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-020
PAGE 4
The proposa/ will not be detrimental to the hea/fh, safety, comforf and general we/fare
of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed project since it
'I complies with the provisions of the Municipal Code of the City of Arroyo Grande and
mitigation measures have been developed that reduces environmental impacts below a
signi�cant level per CEQA guidelines.
4. The general appearance of the proposal is in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood;
The general appearance of the proposal is in keeping with the characfer of the
neighborhood due fo satisfying all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code and is
consistent with the Design Guidelines for Historic Districts.
5. The proposal is not detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the
city; .
The proposal is nof detrimental to the orde►1y and harmonious deve%pment of the City
because it fulfills the development standards of the Municipal Code, and has been
reviewed by the Architectural Review Committee and found to be consistent with the
Design Guidelines for Historic Districts.
6. The proposal wi�l not impair .the desirability of investment or occupation in the
neighborhood.
The proposal will not impair the desi�ability of investmenf or occupation in the
neighborhood since the proposed deve/opment is similar in building style and size as
compared to surrounding residences.
Viewshed Review Findings
1. The proposed structure is consistent with the intent of this section;
The proposed structure is consistent with fhe infenf of Section 16.16.130 of the
Municipal Code since fhe house is designed to balance the property owner's request for
reasonable development while preserving the existing scope and character of the
established sing/e-family neighborhood and protects the views and aesthetics of
neighboring properties
` 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;
The proposed strucfure is consistent with the established sca/e and character of the
neighborhood and will not unreasonab/y or unnecessarily affect views of surrounding
properties since it complies with the height, floor area ratio, lot coverage and other
development standards for the sing/e-family zone
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
RESOLUTION NO.
PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-027 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-020
PAGE 5
development of the property on which the proposed structure or expansion is to occur.
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 due to the design of the proposed structure is located at the termination of
Whiteley Streef. In addition the conditions of approval include an irrevocable
offer of dedication of a creek drainage and maintenance easement to the city for
the area that includes the stream bed including the creek, its banks and five feet
(5) adjoining fhe top of bank for the purposes of "open space, flood control,
future creek path or green belt."
Required CEQA Findings:
1. The City of Arroyo Grande has prepared an initial study pursuant to Section 15063
of the Guidelines of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for Plot Plan
Review 05-004.
2. Based on the initial study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for
public review. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and related materials
is located at City Hall in the Community Development Department.
3. After holding a public hearing pursuant to State and City Codes, and considering
the record as a whole, the City Council adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration
and finds that there is no substantial evidence of any significant adverse effect,
either individually or cumulatively on wildlife resources as defined by Section 711.2
of the Fish and Game Code or on the habitat upon which the wildlife depends as a
result of development of this project. Further, the Planning Commission finds that
, said Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and
analysis.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Arroyo Grande approves Plot Plan Review 05-027 and Viewshed Review 05-020 to
construct a two story, single family house on located at 123 Whiteley Street with the
above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference and instructs the Secretary to file a Notice of
Determination.
On motion by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner ,
and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 4�' day of April 2006.
RESOLUTION NO.
PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-027 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-020
PAGE 6
ATTEST:
LYN REARDON-SMITH, CHUCK FELLOWS, CHAIR
SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION
AS TO CONTENT:
ROB STRONG,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
RESOLUTION NO.
PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-027 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-020
PAGE 7
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan Review 05-027 and Viewshed Review 05-020
Pace Brother's Construction
123 Whiteley
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City
requirements as are appiicable to this project.
2. The project shall substantially conform to the plans on file in the Community
Development Department.
3. The applicant shali agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought
against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said
approval, 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 fees 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 obiigations under this condition.
Building Department Conditions
BUILDING CODES
4. The project shall comply with the most recent editions of all California Building and
Fire Codes, as adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande.
FIRE FLOW/FIRE HYDRANTS
5. Project shail have a fire flow of 1,000 gallons per minute for a duration of 2 hours.
FIRE SPRINKLERS
6. Prior to occupancy, all buildings must be fully sprinklered per Building and Fire
Department guidelines.
OTHER APPROVALS
7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, County Air Pollution Control Board approval
is required for the demolition permit.
8. Project must comply with Federal and local flood management policies.
FEES TO BE PAID PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT
RESOLUTION NO.
PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-027 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-020
PAGE 8
9. Water Meter, service main, distribution, and availability fees, to be based on codes
and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
10. Water Neutralization fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
11. Tra�c Impact fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building
permit issuance.
12. Traffic Signalization fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
13. Sewer hook-up & facility Permit fees, to be based on codes and rates in effect at
the time of building permit issuance.
14. Building Permit fees, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
15. Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (SMIP) fee, to be based on codes and
rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance in accordance with State
mandate.
16. Park Development fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
17. Park Improvements fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
18. Street Tree fees, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building
permit issuance.
19. Community Centers fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of
buiiding permit issuance.
20. Fire Protection fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building
permit issuance.
21. Police Facilities fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
MITIGATION MEASURES
I and Ic . and Plannina
MM 1.1: The developer shall not remove riparian woodland
vegetation. This includes trimming native tree branches
or removing shrubs within the creek corridor. Doing so
would require a Department of Fish and Game Streambed
RESOLUTION NO.
PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-027 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-020
PAGE 9
Alteration Agreement.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande —
Community Development
Department
Timing: At all stages of development
MM 1.2: The developer shall not impact the creek bank or top-of-
bank area, specifically no grading or construction
activities shall occur within ,�feet of the top of bank.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande —
Community Development
Department
Timing: At all stages of development
MM 1.3: Prior to grading activities, the developer shall install
temporary orange construction fencing at least two feet
south of top-of-bank to discourage entry of equipment or
construction workers into riparian woodland habitat.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande —
Community Development
Department
Timing: At all stages of development
MM 1.4: Storage of construction materials, debris, or excess soil and
parking of vehicles or construction equipment shall be
prohibited within 15-feet of the top of the bank of the Arroyo
Grande Creek. �
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande —
Community Development
Department .
Timing: At all stages of development
MM 1.5: To reduce erosion hazards and the introduction of foreign
materials (petroleum products, refuse, etc.), due to
construction activities, grading shall be minimized within 15
feet of the top of the bank of the Arroyo Grande Creek, and
runoff and sediment control structures shall be used.
RESOLUTION NO.
PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-027 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-020
PAGE 10
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande —
Community Development
Department
Timing: At all stages of development
MM 1.6: Storage of construction materials, debris, or excess soil and
parking of vehicles or construction equipment shall be
prohibited within 15 feet of the top of the bank of the Arroyo
Grande Creek.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande —
Community Development
Department
Timing: At all stages of development
MM 1.7: Work shall be completed during the dry season (April 15 to
October 15) to reduce active construction erosion to the
extent feasible. If construction must extend into the wet
weather season, a qualified geohydrologist or geotechnical
engineer, and restoration biologist shall prepare a drainage
and erosion control plan that addresses construction
measures to prevent sedimentation and erosion of the
Arroyo Grande Creek.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande —
Community Development
Department
Timing: At all stages of development
MM 1.8: No fueling or maintenance of equipment shall take place at
the site. Mechanical equipment shall be serviced in
designated staging areas located outside of the creek
riparian area. Water from equipment washing or concrete
wash down shall be prevented from entering the creek.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agenc.y: City of Arroyo Grande —
Community Development
Department
Timing: At all stages of development
MM 1.9: All removed and excess material shall be disposed of off-
site.
RESOLUTION NO.
PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-027 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-020
PAGE 11
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -
Community Development
Department
Timing: At all stages of development
MM 1.10: The developer shall offer irrevocably a creek drainage and
maintenance easement to the city all the area that includes
the stream bed including the creek, its banks and five feet
(5') adjoining the top of bank for the purposes of "open
space, flood control, future creek path or green belt." No
development shall occur within creek easement area.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -
Community Development
Department
Timing: Prior to issuance of building
permits
MM 1.11: The developer shall record a deed restriction approved by
the Community Development Director with the County
Recorders Office that landscaping shall remain in substantial
conforma�ce to the approved landscaping plan.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -
Community Development
Department
Timing: Prior to issuance of building
permits
Water
MM 2.1: The applicant shall complete measures to neutralize the
estimated increase in water demand created by the
project by either:
Implementing an individual water program that utilizes
fixtures and designs that minimize water usage. The
calculations shall be submitted to the Director of Pub�ic
Works for review and approval. The .proposed individual
water program shall be submitted to the City for approval
prior to implementation; or,
Payment of an in lieu fee.
RESOLUTION NO.
PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-027 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-020
PAGE 12
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public
Works Department
Timing: Prior to issuance of building
� permits
Drainaa .
Mitigation Measures:
MM 3.1: The developer shall follow the submitted drainage plan,
which drains all storm water from the southern side of
the wall to Whiteley Street.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — PUblic
Works Department
Timing: At time of grading
MM 3.2: The developer shall install a fossil filter in the existing
drop inlet located at the terminal end of Whiteley Street.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public
Works Department
Timing: Prior to issuance of building
permit
MM 3.2: The developer shall install plant material in substantial
compliance to the adopted landscape plan.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande —
Community Development
Department
Timing: Prior to occupancy
Biologir.al RPSOUrces
MM 4.1: The developer shall implement mitigation measures 1 .1
through 1 .11 listed in this document.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Various
Timing: Various
MM 4.2: The developer shall use diffuse lighting, ground/low profile
" landscape" lighting or solar lighting in the northern
RESOLUTION NO.
PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-027 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-020
PAGE 13
portion of the site, and direct lighting only on the sides of
the house that won' t affect the creek and associated
resources.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande —
Community Development
Department and Building
Department
�It �ral R .so �r . .c
MM 5:1: The following note shall be placed on the grading and
improvement plans for the project:
"In the event that during grading, construction or
development of the project, and archeological resources
are uncovered, all work shall be halted until the City has
reviewed the resources for their significance. If human
remains (burials) are encountered, the County Coroner
(781-4513) shall be contacted immediately. The applicant
may be required to provide archaeological studies and/or
mitigation measures."
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande —
Community Development
Department
Timing: During all phases of
development
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO. 05-1966
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE DENYING PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-004,
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 05-008 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-008
(Lot 4 only); 135 WHITELEY; APPLIED FOR BY PACE BROTHER'S
CONSTRUCTION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered Plot
Pian Review 05-004, Architectural Review 05-008 and Viewshed Review 05-008 (Lot 4
only) filed by Pace Brothers Construction, to construct a two story, single family house;
and �
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2005, the Planning Commission requested a public hearing in
accordance with the City Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing on these application in
accordance with the City Municipal Code on May 17, 2005 and June 21, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that this project is not consistent with
the General Plan and the environmental documents associated therewith; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this project in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo
Grande Rules and Procedures for lmplementation of CEQA and has determined that a
Mitigated Negative Declaration cannot be adopted; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public
hearing, that all findings of approval cannot be made, specifically:
Findings of Denial�
Recommend Denial of the �r �'PCt on the following bacis (outlined bv
Commissioner Parkerl
1. Requirement: The proposed project is inconsistent with the goals, objectives,
policies and programs of the Genera/Plan including implementing policies:
Finding: The project is inconsistent with conservation and open space element
policies of the General Plan: C/OG2-1_1 and C/OS2-1.3, nor does it provide for
accessibility of the area to the public. The project also removes scenic
resources that are unique to the City and contribute to the character of the
neighborhood as well as the City. The project provides creek and bank
dedication, but then takes it away by building a fence along the bank.
2. Requirement: C/OS2 Safeguard important environmental and sensitive biological
resources contributing to healthy functioning ecosystem. Designate a!1 streams
and riparian corridors as Conservation Open Space. Shall include buffer area
� � corresponding at least to natural vegetation and or creek bank.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-1966
PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-004, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 05-008 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-008
(LOT 4 ONLY►
PAGE 2
Finding: The proposed project does not conform with applicable performance
standards and will be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare
since the project does not satisfy all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code
including development standards of the single-family Zoning district.
3. Requirement: C/OS2-1.3 - Where feasible, maintain a grading and building
setback of 25 feet from top of stream bank. Locafe buildings and structu�es
outside setback.
Finding: The house can be redesigned to fit into the area, with a smaller degree
of compromise that would lesson impacts to the environment and safety of the
area. The developer needs to present a plan that more closely follows the
Generai Plan and Development Code regarding the 25-foot setback (e.g. an
alternative providing an additional 5 feet, which removes the corners of this plan,
making the buffer 16 feet from the edge of the bank, the footprint would be
reduced by only 370 sf. The footprint would then be 1040 square feet. The
developer is proposing 1480, and a 2800 sf home. By allowing a second story,
as well as a 16 ft buffer, the square footage would be 2080, plus the garage.
4. Requirement: C/OS2-9.4: Creekside trails may be designed wifhin stream and
riparian cor�idors.
Finding: Although this states "May be designed", this. project does not provide for
use of a creek side trail as stated both in this section and in the Parks and Rec
Element.
5. Requirement: The physical location or placement of the use on the site is
compatible with fhe surrounding neighborhood.
Finding: According to surrounding neighboring homes, this project proposes a
much larger home than the surrounding neighborhood, making it incompatible.
6. Requirement for Historic Overlay District: The construction of any building or
structure enhances, to the maximum extent feasible and does not interfere with,
detract from or degrade the historic, cultural, architectural or archaeological
resource values of the district.
Finding: The use proposed for a building, structure, or parcel of land is
incompatible with the uses predominating in the designated area since the
proposed single-family house is not similar to neighboring residences. The
house footprint is large. A standard home in area is between 1,100 and 2,000
square feet. This home is 2,250 square feet pius garage. The estabiished scale
of the existing neighborhood is much smaller and unique in character.
� 7. Requirement: The proposal will not be detrimental to the health, safely, comfort
and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of
RESOLUTION NO. 05-1966
PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-004, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 05-008 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-008
(LOT 4 ONLY)
PAGE 3
the proposed project.
Finding: As per the General Plan, the project is too close to the creek bank which
could be or easily become unstable, and possibly erode into the federally
protected creek below.
8. Requirement for Viewshed Review: Section 16.16.130 of the Municipal Code:
purpose and intent: to preserve the existing scope and character of established
single family neighborhoods and fo protect views and aesthetics and other
property values in such neighborhoods in a manner that is compatible with
reasonable expansion on existing developed lots.
Finding: Character and scale of neighborhood is, as previously stated, much
smailer in size and scale. This structure if built within the scale and character of
the neighborhood will fit into the restraints of the property as well. The unique
character of the property along the creek will be hindered with this project.
9. Requirement related to fhe Safety Element of the Genera/ Plan: SE-1 Limit
development density in areas fhat may be subject to significant geologic and
other safety hazards. The risk of loss of life and property can be minimized. One
of the purposes of the Open Space Elemenf is to preserve open space for public
health and safefy, including areas that require special management and
regulation because of hazardous or special condifions (eg. earihquake, faulf
zones, flood plains, unstable soil conditions).
10.Requirement: SE-2 Land Use Planning: Future development should
always be planned with careful consideration foward reducing the threat of
property and environmental loss. While many considerations are involved in
developmenf, safefy should be paramount. Make land use decisions that
minimize fhe potential loss of life, injury, and property damage from natural and
human-caused hazards, it is necessary fo have an understanding of the causes
and potential effecfs of the hazards that may affect the City of Arroyo Grande.
Finding for 9 and 10: This is a hazardous risk that can be averted while still
achieving the individual or public objective.
11.Requirement related to the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan:
Implementation Measure PR2-1.2 Continue creek dedication required by
Subdivision Ordinance. Implemenfation Measure PR4-1.2 A regional trail should
be established along AG Creek green6elt from Strother Park to the Ocean.
Finding: The proposed project is inconsistent with these policie's.
� NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Arroyo Grande denies Plot Plan Review 05-004, Architectural Review 05-008 and
RESOLUTION N0. 05-1966
PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-004, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 05-008 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-008
(LOT 4 ONLY►
PAGE 4
Viewshed Review 05-008 (Lot 4 only) to construct a two story, single family house located
at 135 Whiteley Street with the above findings.
On motion by Commissioner Parker, seconded by Commissioner Fellows, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Parker, Fellows and Chair Brown
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioners Keen and Tait •
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 215�day of June 2005.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-1966
PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-004, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 05-008 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-008
(LOT 4 ONLY)
PAGE 5
ATTES'i:
LYN REARDON-SMITH, TIM BROWN, CHAIR
SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION
AS TO CONTENT:
ROB STRONG,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
MINUTES
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 21, 2005
6:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session
with Chair Brown presiding; also present were Commissioners Fellows and Parker.
Commissioners Keen and Tait were absent. Staff members in attendance were
Community Development Director, Rob Strong, and Assistant Planner Jim Bergman.
AGENDA REVIEW: Chair Brown noted Items III.B. and III.C. would be continued.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None.
I.A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
I.B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
II.A. CONSENT AGENDA AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS SINCE JUNE 7,
2005: None.
III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
A. (Continued from fhe meeting of June 7, 2005) PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO.
05-004; ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 05-008 AND VIEWSHED
REVIEW CASE NO. 05-006; APPLICANT — PACE BROTHER'S
CONSTRUCTION; LOCATION — 135 WHITELEY STREET.
Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, presented the changes to this project from the prior
meeting. Proposed construction of this house is now within 11' of the top of bank of the
Arroyo Grande Creek. The ground floor footprint and overall size of the house have
been reduced. They have obtained a geotechnical engineering report verifying the soil
can support the house. They now propose a picket fence topping the earth berm as a
safety measure near the creek. The mitigated negative declaration has been modified
to reflect the 11' setback from the creek.
Staff questions:
• At the last meeting, a flag was requested to be placed at the top of bank, but it's
not there. Mr. Bergman noted he hasnY been out to the site �ecently, but the
applicant put up a fence, which is about 9'to ihe house side of the top of bank.
• It looks like grading started today right next to the top of bank. Sfaff can look into
this further.
• Who will be responsible for the earth berm and what is the length? The property
owner will be responsible for it and it will run the length of the property line.
Chair Brown opened the public hearing to public comment.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMMISSION
JUNE 21, 2005
PAGE 2
Scott Pace, applicant, answered Commissioner questions in further detail.
. The activity noted on the lot is just tree root removal to a depth of 3'. They did
stay 10' away from the fence on the creek bank. They are grading the two
approved lots, but the third is just tree root removal per the soils report. (Site
inspection clarified that roof removal did occur closer than 10'.)
• It is their intent to pipe water from the downspouts of all three houses out to the
street. Greg Soto, architect, added that the "back drain" referred to in the
geology report particularly refers to a pipe on the back side of the retaining wall
(berm), so that water that leeches through the soil wiil be drained to the street
through French drains and ground pipes (no bio-filters are currently planned).
Discussion: In response to a question if a grading permit was required, Mr. Strong
answered no, the amount of dirt they have moved is less than 50 cubic yards. In
addition, when the building permit is sought, the foundation engineering, which is part of
the geotechnicai report, would be followed. It is proposed there be over-excavation and
re-compaction of the soils related to the foundation. That might appear similar to
grading, but the purpose is strictly site preparation for the foundation. Public Works will
oversee compliance, as well as the geotechnical engineer. They have a permit for tree
removal, which would include removal of tree roots, so they are not doing any work that
would require additional permits. .
Greg Soto, architect, noted one correction to the staff report — the newly proposed
setback is actually 10' (not 11').
Chair Brown closed the public hearing to public comment.
Commissioner comments:
Parker
• She made extensive comments based on CEQA, the mitigation measures, the
geotechnical engineering report and other concerns that are detailed in her notes
(on file in the Community Development Department).
' • She noted that Commissioner TaiYs letter (also on file at the Community
Development Department) was well-written and she agreed with him.
. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL-
1. The proposed project is inconsistent with the goals, objectives, policies
and programs of the Arroyo Grande General P/an, including implemenfing
policies:
■ Conservation and Open Space element of the General Plan
(CIOS2-1.1 and C/OS2-1.3)„nor does it provide for accessibility of
the area to the public. The project also removes scenic resources
that are unique to the City and contribute to the character of the
neighborhood as well as the City. The project provides creek and
bank dedication, but then takes it away by building a fence along
, the bank.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMMISSION
JUNE 21, 2005
PAGE3
2. The proposed project does not conform with applicable performance
standards and wil/ be detrimental to the public health, safety or general
we/fare, since the project does nof satisfy all applicable provisions of fhe
Municipal Code inc/uding development sfandards of the single-family
zoning district.
3. C/OS2 Safeguard imporfant envi�onmental and sensitive biological
resources confributing to healthy functioning ecosystem. Designate aN
st�eams and riparian corridors as Conservation Open Space. Shall
include buffer area corresponding at least to natura/ vegetation and or '
creek bank.
4. C/OS2-1.3 Where feasible, maintain a grading and building setback of 25'
from top of sfream bank. Locate buildings and structures outside setback.
5. C/OS2-1.4 Creekside frails may be designed within stream and riparian
corridors. Although this states "may be designed", this project does not
. provide for use of a creekside trail as stated both in this section and in the
Parks and Recreation Element.
6. #3 under findings for approval states: The physical location or placement
of the use on fhe site is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood
due to the fact the development utilizes existing lots of fhe original Short,
Mason and Whiteley subdivision and complies wifh all development
standards of the single-family zoned district fo include setbacks, height,
floor area ratio and lot coverage. According to surrounding neighboring
homes, this project comes in.very much larger, making it incompatible.
7. Historic Overlav District: The construction of any building or sfructure
enhances, fo fhe maximum extent feasible and does not interfere with,
det�act from or degrade the historic, cultural, architectura/ or
archaeo/ogical resource values of fhe district due to mifigafion measures
instituted in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the projects
compliance with the Design Guidelines for Hisforic Districfs as
recommended by the Archifectural Review Committee.
- The use proposed for a building, structure, or parcel of land is
incompatible with the uses predominating in the designated area, since
the proposed single-family house is not similar to neighboring
residences. Both house footprint and garage are too large. Standard
garage in this area is one or two cars at 400 sf. This garage is 440 sf.
A standard home in the area is between 1100 and 2000 sf. This home
is 2250 sf plus garage. The established scale of the existing
neighborhood is much smaller and unique in character.
- #3 The proposal will not be detrimentai to the health, safety, comfort
and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of the proposed project, since it complies with the
provisions of the Municipai Code. As per our General Plan, the project
is too close to the creek bank, which could be or easily become
unstable and possibly erode into the federally protected creek below.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMMISSION
JUNE 21, 2005
PAGE 4
- #6 The proposa! will not impair the desirability of investment or
occupation in the neighborhood since the proposed developmenf is
similar in site design, building style, and size as compared to
surrounding residences. This is not true.
8. Viewshed Review: #1 Section 16.16.130 of the Municipal Code:purpose
and intent: to preserve the existing scope and character of established
sing/e family neighborhoods and to protecf views and aesthetics and other
property va/ues in such neighborhoods in a manner fhat is compafible with
reasonable expansion on existing developed lots. Character and scale of
neighborhood is as previously stated much smaller in size and scale. This
structure, if built within the scale and character of the neighborhood, will fit
into the restraints of the property as well. The unique character of the
property along the creek will be hindered with this project.
Fellows:
• The main question is: would anything less than a 25' setback be okay?
. Just because the water has run off to the street in the past doesn't mean that
now isn't a good time to start improving the drop inlet with a fossil filter.
. The staff report stated that Buena Geotechnical Services had confirmed no work
will happen within 5' from the top of bank, but iYs already happened. This shows
that iYs too difficult to stay away from the creek bank.
. It was interesting that the second boring at 0' into the soil was moist, at 5' wet,
and 10' very wet. IYs a very sensitive site and will be even more interesting to
see what happens at excavation and compaction.
• Mitigated Negative Declaration concerns-
o I.a. — he would like further explanation for rating.
o I.b. — should be a "potentially significant impacY'.
o IV.c. — should be a "potentiaily significant impacY' unless mitigated (and
could be mitigated with a good fossil filter).
o Vll.c/d. —the riparian community will have a "potentially significant impacY'.
o Xlll.b. — the 25' creek impact, when followed, increases the value of the
entire neighborhood, so it should be a "{�otentially significant impact" if the
house ends up right by the creek, which he doesn't think it shouid.
o XVI.b. — The answer is "absolutely" if built within 25' of creek (so it should
be a "potentially significant impact").
. He appreciated Commissioner TaiYs letter, noting Tait is a Park Ranger and well-
tuned to the environment. He further commented as follows:
o Even if fertilizers and pesticides used on lawns just percolate straight
down through the soil, there's potential for contamination of the creek.
o He read most of the sections on takings, commenting that the Commission
should not be working under fears of a lawsuit.
. He read section 16.64.060(R) of the Development Code, which states: Creek
Dedications. For any subdivision or parcel map or development project requiring
discretionary review abutting the Arroyo Grande Creek, including its tributaries
, (Tally Ho Creek, Spring Creek, Newsom Springs Creek and Los Berros Creek),
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMMISSION
JUNE 21, 2005
PAGE 5
or Meadow Creek, including its tributaries, the subdivider or developer shall
dedicate to the City ail the area that includes the stream bed and twenty-five (25)
feet back of the stream bank, areas designated as environmentally sensitive
based on a biology report prepared by a qualified biologist or other appropriate
areas mutually acceptable for the purposes of "open space," flood control or
"green belt."
o He believes the Pace Brothers and Greg Soto could build a very nice
home outside of the 25' setback, maybe smailer than what they want, but
still highly profitabie. It would seil for a premium because of the proximity
to the creek greenbelt, so there's no question of a taking.
• 25' is the bare minimum to stay away from the creek environment, to protect it
and our water supply and downstream neighbors.
. .There are enough legal questions to deny this project as applied for, so the City
Attorney and the City Council can decide if the house can be built within 25' of
the creek bank or not.
• He agreed with Commissioner TaiYs finai conclusion that the project is not
consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Generai Plan and it does
not satisfy provisions of Municipai Code 16. 64.060(R).
Brown
• A balance has to be struck between the desire of the developer (to develop his
property) and that of the community (as spelled out in the General Plan and
Development Code).
• This project can get approved in some form and does not represent a taking.
• In terms of finding details for denial, Commissioner Parker's findings give clear
and definitive reasons why this project should not be approved in its current form.
. His own findings that cannot be met are:
o Plot Plan Review Finding #1 — It doesn't meet that criteria.
o Plot Plan Review Finding #2 - It doesn't meet that criteria.
o Additional PPR Review Findings for Historic Character Overlay District #2
— It doesn't meet that criteria.
o CEQA Finding #3 — It doesn't meet that criteria.
• In addition, both Commissioners Parker and Fellows mentioned shortcomings in
the negative declaration process that he agreed with.
• He was surprised this came forth as a consent agenda item, but the process is
working and this is a good way to deai with issues.
• The Geotechnical report needs to address issues like boring closer to the
creekbank for more realistic safety discussion. In lieu of news events on
mudslides, etc., he would hate to be in situation where the City has to pay house
repair bills due to creek erosion.
• He agreed with Commissioner Parker's opinion that the developer can build a
reasonabie home and increase the setback.
• He disagreed with Commissioner Fellows, in that he believes iYs possible to build
in a setback less than 25', but it has to be greater than what it is now.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMMISSION
JUNE 21, 2005
PAGE 6
• He doesn't like to send up denials to City Council and asked if the applicant
would be willing to redesign the project with a greater setback? John Belsher,
the applicanYs attorney, started fo explain fhat after the /ast meeting, they had
complied with Commissioners' request for an increased set6ack with what they
fhought would work. By their calculations, the triangle is less area even than
shown, so iYs not possible to build the house within the building area friangle. So
the basic answer is no? The answer is no.
Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fello'ws to deny PPR 05-004,
ARC 05-008 and VSR 05-006, lot four only, (with findings as noted in Commissioner Parkers
written comments on file at the Community Development Department and detailed above in her
comments) and adopt a resolution as follows:
RESOLUTION NO. 05-1966
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CIN OF
ARROYO GRANDE DENYING PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-004,
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 05-008 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-008 (Lot
4 oniy); 135 WHITELEY; APPLIED FOR BY PACE BROTHER'S
CONSTRUCTION
Discussion: Chair Brown expressed that he was very discouraged by the applicants'
unwillingness (to compromise). Based on the full public process, they've been clearly
shown they can build a home within the residential standards of those neighborhoods
and further increase the setback from the creek. The Planning Commission offered
alternatives that would have worked; the project is clearly is buildable; but they were
turned down by the applicant on redesign.
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Fellows, Parker and Chair Brown
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Keen and Tait
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 215� day of June 2005.
Mr. Strong stated this action is final unless an appeal is filed within ten (10) days.
B. (Continued from the meeting of June 7, 2005) VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NOS. 01-001 & LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 01-002; APPLICANT — CASTLEROCK
DEVELOPMENT, LLC; LOCATION —JAMES WAY & LA CANADA.
RESOLUTION NO. 3872 • �
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCiL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE DENYING PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-004, ARCHITECTURAL �
�REVIEW 05-008 AND VIEWSHED •REVIEW 05-008 (Lot 4 onty); 735
WHITELEY; APPLIED FOR BY PACE BROTHER'S CONSTRUCTfON
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held pubtic hearings on these subject applications
in accordance with the City Municipal Code on May 17 and June 21, 2005 and adopted
Resolution No. 05-1966 denying the proposed project; and �
WHEREAS, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's�decision on June
27, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has held a public hearing and
considered Plot Plan Review 05-004, Architectural Review 05-008 and Viewshed Review
05-008 (Lot 4 only) filed by Pace Brother's Construction, to construct a two story, single
famiiy house; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has found that this project is not consistent with the General
Plan and the environmental documents associated therewith; and -
WHEREAS, after ca�eful consideration of public testimony and the record in this matter
the Ciry Council finds as'foliows:
Findinas of DPniaL• •
1. The proposed project is not consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and
programs of the Arroyo Grande General Plan:
Genera/ Plan policy C/OSZ-1.3 states: "Where feasible, maintain a grading and.
building setback of 25 feef from the fop of stream bank. Locate buiidings and
structures ouiside fhe sefback. Except in urban areas where existing
development exisfs fo the contrary, prevent removal of riparian vegefation within
25 feet of the top of stream bank." The proposed project with a 10-foot setback is
inconsistent with this policy since a house of adequafe size, character and
funcfion consisfent wifh houses in the surrounding neigh6orhood and ihe D-2.4
historic overlay distNct (9,900 fo 2,000 square feef} can be built ufilrzing a larger
creek buffer. .
2. The proposed project does not conform to applicable performance standards and will
be detrimentai to the public health, safety and generai welfare:
Utilization of a creek setback smaller than one.required to consfruct a house of
adequate size, character and function consistent wifh houses in the surrounding
nerghborhood and the D-2.4 historic overlay district will be detrimental to the
. • pub/ic hea/tF�, safety and genera! welfare by leading to unnecessary impacts to .
ihe creek such as erosion, siope instability and sedimentafion.
RESOLUTION NO. 3872
PAGE 2
3. The physical location or placement of the use on the site is not compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood:
The proposed projecf places a house substantially larger than other houses in
the neighbo�hood in an unnecessarily small (10) ,creek setback, creating
negafive visual impacts to the creek corridor and surrounding neighborhood.
�
NOW, THEREFORE, BE !T RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande denies without prejudice Plot Plan Review 05-004, Architectural Review 05-OD8
and Viewshed Review 05-008 (Lot 4 only)to construct a two story, single family house on
located at i35 Whiteley Street with the above findings. ' ' . �
On motion by Council Member Arnotd, seconded by Council Member Guthrie, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Amvld, Guthrie, Qickens, Costello, and Mayor Ferrara
NOES: None -
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 23rd day of August 2005.
. ,
RESOLUTION NO. 3S7a-
PAGE 3
TON , MAYOR �
ATTEST:
l��2Q-- .
KELLY WE MO , ClTY CLERK "•
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: •
�'#--�`7�G-�_%.
S�E. N DAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
• 4 ��� � �j/1
Ga-..-�
TIM�AR,'16tL, CITY ATTORNEY
�
�
RESOLUTION NO. 3872
� OFFICiAL CERTIFICATION '
1, KELLY WETMORE, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San
Luis Obispo, Stafe of California, do hereby certify under penalty of.perjury, that
Resolution No. 3872 is a true, full, and correct copy of said Resolution passed
and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande
, on the 23rd day of August 2005.
WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 24"'
day of August 2005.
� KELL WET ORE, CITY CLERK
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
AUGUST 23, 2005
PAGE 3
In response to concerns expressed by Mayor Ferrara regarding the rising cost of fuel, he
inquired whether staff had taken into consideration buying trucks with smalier engines or
considered the purchase of aiternative fuel vehicles. City Manager Adams responded that staff
would investigate the use of alternative fuel vehicles in the future, where appropriate.
Council Member Dickens moved to approve staff recommendations for approval of Consent
Agenda Items 8.e., 8.f., and 8.h., Councit Member Arnold seconded, and the motion passed on
the following roli-call vote:
AYES: Dickens, Arnold, Guthrie, Costello, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
8.J. Consideration of Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Arroyo Grande Municipal
Code Chapters 16.04 and 16.36 of Title 16 to Define Formula Businesses and
Restrict Formula Businesses in the Village Core Downtown and Village Mixed Use
(VCD &VMU) Zoning Districts (Development Code Amendment Case No. OS-009).
Recommended Action: Adopt Ordinance Amending Arroyo Grande Municipal Code
Chapters 16.04 and 16.36 of Title 16 to Define Formula Businesses and Restrict Formula
Businesses in the Viliage Core Downtown and Village Mixed Use/Historic Character
Overlay Districts (Development Code Amendment 05-009).
In response to concerns expressed by Mayor Ferrara relating to the definition of fast food
restaurants and subsequent Councit discussion, staff was requested to address the issue in the
next clean-up ordinance for Title 16 (Development Code).
Mayor Pro'iem Costello moved to adopt the Ordinance as proposed. City Attorney Carmel read
the title of the Ordinance as follows: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande Amending Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Chapters 16.04 and 16.36 of Title 16 to
Define Formula Businesses and Restrict Formula Businesses in the Village Core
Downtown and Village Mixed UselHistoric Character Overlay Districts (Development Code
Amendment 05-009)". Council Member Dickens seconded, and the motion passed on the
following roll-call vote:
AYES: Costello, Dickens, Guthrie, Arnold, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
9.a. Consideration of Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of Plot Plan Review 05-
004; Architectural Review Case OS-008 and Viewshed Review Case 05-08;
Applicant: Pace Brothers Construction; Location— 135 Whiteley Street.
Assistant Planner Bergman presented the staff report and stated the Planning Commission
recommended the City Council adopt a Resolution denying Plot Plan Review 05-004,
Architectural Review Case 05-008 and Viewshed Review Case 05-008. Staff responded to
• ' questions from Council regarding correspondence received from Planning Commissioner poug
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
AUGUST 23, 2005
PAGE 4
Tait regarding the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and takings of private property;
clarification of mitigation measures in the proposed environmental negative declaration as they
relate to drainage; clarification on the size of other houses in the immediate neighborhood,
ciarification of zoning; and whether there was any public access to the creek.
Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing and invited comments from those in the audience who
wished to be heard on the matter. .
John Belsher, attorney representing the applicant, responded to questions concerning the taking
of private property; spoke about the developer's investment expectations; commented on the
setback issue; commented on the drainage issue; noted that a creek maintenance easement is a
co.ndition of approval for the project; commented on the sizes of the houses in the neighborhood;
and stated that the City would have access to the creek via an easement. in response to a
question by Mayor Ferrara, Mr. Belsher indicated that they had investigated the possibility of a
Lot Line Adjustment; however, it would have created issues that would have reduced the ability
to build on the lots.
Greq Soto, project architect, reviewed the proposed design of the project with a 5-foot setback;
spoke about drainage issues and commented that there was a potential to provide a detention
area; explained that following the Planning Commission meeting, the project was redesigned
with a 10-foot setback, and explained why the project would not be buildable if the required
setback was 10 feet or more.
Dan Pace, applicant, distributed and presented a comparable sales analysis (on file in the
Administrative Services Department) which included information on houses in the immediate
neighborhood regarding the year built, transfer date, originai size, and parcel size. He
commented that some of the houses in the area were bigger than what he is proposing. He also
distributed various economic scenarios for a housing development with a 25-foot setback from
creek, 20-foot setback from creek, 15-foot setback from creek, and 10-foot setback from creek.
John Belsher, attorney representing the applicant, commented further on the various setback
options that were presented to the Pianning Commission. He also noted that the goal for
establishing a setback, as designated in the General Plan, is to protect riparian vegetation, which
does not exist or apply in this case. He further addressed the setback issue, and the feasibility of
the project based on the actual costs for the project and actuai expense for the land.
Chuck Fellows, Planning Commissioner, expressed concern about legal issues related to the
project. He questioned the validity of the economic figures that were presented by Mr. Pace
based on his extensive experience in the local real estate industry and suggested that an
appraiser look into it. He referred to the Soils Report that was reviewed by �the Pianning
Commission and suggested the Council review it in more detail.
No further pubiic comments were received and Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing.
Council Member Guthrie inquired if creek setback distances couid vary along the project.
Director Strong indicated there were oniy provisions within the Development Code to allow
variable setbacks in a particular zone with a minor exception, unless a variance is applied for.
Council Member Guthrie commented that the sales prices presented were very low; commented
that there were a lot of other design possibilities where the intent of the General Plan to protect
the riparian vegetation and creek corridor could be achieved. He felt a feasible project could be
built with some adjustment to the creek setback to maximize the buffer and maximize the
- ' building envelope with a variable creek setback. He suggested continuing the item.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
AUGUST 23, 2005
PAGE 5
Council Member Dickens expressed concern that there are inadequate mitigation measures to
address potential impacts to biological resources. He felt the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration could not be supported as it relates to what impact the house will have on the creek.
He suggested a biological reporUanalysis is needed. He supported the Planning Commission's
action. He supported continuing the item for further environmental analysis. or deniai of the
applications without prejudice.
Council Member Arnoid stated he did not believe this is a taking. He commented that if a lot line
adjustment had been done earlier, this project could have worked. He said he drove by the
project and was overwhelmed by the size of the house being built on the adjacent parcel. He
suggested tandem garages might be an option. He supported the concept of variable setbacks
along the creek. He stated that the Planning Commission interpreted the Code correctly and felt
that denial was appropriate.
Mayor Pro Tem Costello commented on the setback issue and believed that a project is feasible
on this site. He supported deniai of the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's
decision.
Mayor Ferrara observed that older homes in the surrounding area are at least 25 feet from the
edge of the bank. He spoke about drainage issues and the proximity of homes to the creek and
stressed the high level of sensitivity to the creek. He recognized that the lot shape was not
typicai and stated that all lots should have been reviewed to maximize residential land use. He
stated that the size of the two proposed homes were not consistent with the direction the City is
going. He commented on the economics of the project and concurred that the sales prices as
presented are too low. He supported denying the appeal.
Council Member Arnold moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING PLOT PLAN REVIEW OS-
004, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OS-008 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-008 (LOT 4 ONLY);
135 WHITELEY; APPLIED FOR BY PACE BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION". Discussion ensued
clarifying that the motion included denial of the appeal and that the Resolution includes language
to deny the project applications without prejudice. Council Member Guthrie seconded, and the
motion passed on the following roli-cali vote:
AYES: Arnold, Guthrie, Dickens, Costello, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mayor Ferrara called for a break at 9:05 p.m. The Councii reconvened at 9:16 p.m.
9.b. Consideration of Amended Conditional Use Permit 05•001 to Remove a Deed
Restriction and Allow a Second Dwelling Unit on the Second Fioor of an Existing
Carriage House; Applicant: Terry Fowler-Payne; Location—212 Miller Way.
Assistant Planner Bergman presented the staff report and stated the Planning Commission
recommended the City Council adopt a Resolution denying Amended Conditional Use Permit
Case No. OS-001. Staff responded to questions from Council.
ATTACHMENT3
- � �
PACE
D�� � 2 ��':5
BROT HERS C�n, OF qRROYO C-"°+N`�E
COMMUN!TY DcVELG�MENi
CA LICENSE #77�1-{6
Office (80�) -181-�221 P.O.BO\ 519 ARROI'O GRANDE CA. 93�321 Fux (80�) -173-1-{�2
December 22, 2005
Mr. Robert Strong, AICP
City of Arroyo Grande
• Community Development Department
Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
RE: RE-SUBMITT'AL OF PLANS TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY SINGLE
FAMILY HOUSE AT 135 WHITELEY STREET, ARROYO GRANDE.
PREVIOUS CITY FILES: PLOT PLAN 05-004, ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW 05-008 AND VIEW SHED REVIEW 05-008.
Dear Mr. Strong:
Thank you for meeting with me and Scott Pace to discuss the above-referenced
project and the City's re-submittal requirements. We appreciate you and Jim
Bergman taking the time from your busy schedules to inform us of the City's
process and scheduling requirements. Your input was very useful in revising the
plans and providing the additional information needed to support our application.
Enclosed you will find the following items:
1. Completed planning appiication form;
2. Eight (8) sets of architectural plans, including site plan, floor pian,
grading, drainage and landscaping;
3. Building Elevations; and
4. Colors and Materials Boards (10 copies). The proposed colors and
materials are the same as those approved by the City's Architectural
Review Commission in May 2005.
It was our understanding that if we got you the revised information in December
that you could approve the project administratively, and it could be scheduled for
the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) in January 2006.
We have revised the project plans in response to the City Council and Planning
. ' Commission's concerns regarding the desired creek bank setback and reducing
the housing size to be compatible with the neighborhood. Those concerns and
how they have been addressed are discussed in the following paragraphs. All
other concerns raised by the Planning Commission have been addressed by the
applicant and his experts.
1. General Plan Consistency and Municipal Code Compliance
General Plan policy C/OS2-9.3 states: "VYhere feasib/e, maintain a grading and
building setback of 25 feet from the top of stream bank. Locafe buildings and
structures outside the setback. Except in urban areas where existing
deve/opment exisfs to the contrary, prevent removal of riparian vegetation within
25 feet of the top of stream bank."
We concur with the staff's previous conclusion that requiring a 25-foot 'creek
setback wouid significantly reduce the net building area creating an unsuitable lot
for a singie-family residence. Therefore, it is not practical or financially feasible
to provide the desired 25-foot creek setback due the lot's size and proximity to
the creek. .
In response to the Council and Commission's concerns, the project has been
redesigned to provide a greater setback from top of creek bank. The previous
plans provided a 5-foot setback and 10-foot setback, both of which were denied
by the City. The current plan provides an average 18-foot wide creek bank
setback varying between 14 and 22 feet (see Attachment 1). This was
accomplished by modifying the house design and reducing the building
footQrint from 1,852 square fest to 1,579 square feet.
2. Public Access
We concur with the staff conclusion that current improvement patterns make the
development of a creek side path on the south side of the creek difficult because
there are existing houses within 10 to 15 feet of the top of the bank. With the
increased setback (14 to 22 feet), the project is consistent with existing
development patterns and setbacks along this segment of the creek.
We would also note that construction of a single-family house on the property
does not preciude the public from accessing the creek from the end of Whiteley
Street. The project is not proposing to abandon the pubiic right-of-way or
designed in a way that would prohibit the City from building a pedestrian bridge
over to other side of the creek where a trail system behind the commercial uses
fronting East Branch may be more functional and desirable. This would be
similar to the creek side treatmerits between Bridge and Mason Streets, which
includes the swinging bridge at Short Street.
The applicant is still agreeable to granting the City an open space easement over
the creek setback area.
3. House Sizes
� The Planning Commission's concern.was that the proposed house size was not
in scale and character with the existing neighborhood. Earlier this year, Mr. Pace
surveyed the existing houses in the immediate area. Attachment 2 is a copy of
the survey. Using the available data on 17 existing houses, it was determined
� that the average house size is approximately 2,150 squars feet (1,615 to 3,678
' square feet) on lots ranging in size from 5,915 to 11,475 square feet (an average
lot size of 8,930 square feet). 10 of the 17 houses (59%) are over 2,000'square
feet in size. It should be noted that the square footages in the survey do not
include detached or attached garages, which would increase the size of the
houses. The naw house design was modi ied by reducing the living area
from 2,252 to 2,105 square feet
4. Lot Siae and Fioor Area Ratio
According to the San Luis Obispo County Assessor's maps, a majority of the
existing lots in the neighborhood have a lot area between 6,700 and 7,000
square feet with the creekside lots being slighter larger. The 14,480- square foot
project site exceeds the average lot size in the neighborhood.
There was also a concern regarding floor area to lot size ratio. According to
available data, the neighborhood has an average floor area ratio of 24%. The
projecYs floor area ratio of 14.2% (2,105/14,840 = 14.2) is substantially less than
the neighborhood average. Based on this information, the new design is
consistent with the neighborhood averages for lot size and floor area ratio.
5. BiologicallnformaYion
In August 2005, a council member inquired about a drainage report to confirm
that runoff from the project wouid not significantly impact the creek. After
discussions with qualified firms, it wa5 determined that the project design would
be graded so that stormwater would drain awiay from the creek thereby reducing
any potential impacts to Arroyo Grande Creek. Attachment 3 is a letter from
Buena Geotechnical Services (BGS) verifying the adequacy of the nev� building
pad. BGS performed a geotechnical engineering report in May 2005 and a rough
grading report in July 2005.
SUMi41AP.Y
We believe that tha revised house design complies with the Planning
Commission and City Council's direction to increase the creek bank setback and
to reduce the housing size to be consistent with the neighborhood. Therefore, we
request that you approve the revised house design.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions or n2ed additional
information.
Regar
Jo . s, roj ct h9anager
P ce Brot ers Construction
�ri
i
1
. - . �--1---`----; _
_. ._ . —� - 15%
' p� O aj� � � ' J � 1 i
.a ;
i� �y, ( ��n�vi
f�
� a . � �y
� � �: J��. .I ' rnNt
�
r ,. �
� - �
a �°. Na 72S � �
�' f � �g�� kf1 e .
n p � Ep - =_ P -
_., a _� .o.
/�,_ � w -0
. �
� ;� � �Y_
— A �
� t i5' i 6e
y�r(irlb
/7�.. ���! � .
� ..� j GM-�G� �
uPP�R- F�-�' PI"Q�� ��a� � �Y _....��
.�� �
I � X'a4
�� �
� � a,
� �
:
�
� ��
`_��
� ��_��_��.���.�'. �
------_'__. � �IµITELEY h'"f
�,Il� P��U� S'��
v�"; 1'�ue ��v�ab uas z�
/� � ��,
� � � � _ �
_ _ - - _ �
� � 4 �
� ---
._._... ..--- - — _ _ � . �—. ' -- "- ._ / ff
:8 � '
(n F- -.
" i- �U:
. , � � � , . , Z F�m
1 hDU-('Ff � L� V�'fIU1J • � _��
w w
• i/9^'I'-o" � Q a� a
� � rc
� O�
} ~�
z N o•o
�p
W � c
<
w �
� ONi
� U}.�-i
a'
....1L ' �O O
V�m
� � � . . - - -- • � a �o
<2; �; . �a
_ - i.s„ _..._
' ,'.� • I '�_'_ - .
- -3 b:' i u N p . _
9 -
_ �— F� _ —
w�5r � ���v. ._ � s:. � �PS,- ����:
- �-�--_�� eicrewoti EiEV,anaa riorES _ a
� �^ . ^
� ""_ ' __ Q �x te�e✓�M w+. li/�alrJI JN'TE{ °'
. ,�_. . f >x c.� BdTT:,�CNUT u
t• I ;
��I ' Iq — ) f x NwY �yAVAJO 'NIi17! a �
1 1WIIM pu� y1
_ ___ � Y1rYlb"F°l W`1 �
' t Yi°M-43��s}�tl � 2 � V
� j-7 F' .f 'r i u..uw�tiws.wa.�r.ua«.iM p g �
I 1If' - �. Z � � ��
j ��I���! � � L1 � e • wnaYW+++yf�..�xar.� GINP/�PM1A= U ��N
4Mm.wJ4-W��JwF�cW�sD G�DA0.
. ✓11�IRC M�wI�N�1�P�. d N J
� � . H..,.,.�.ti.w.-w--r�ti a °"$w
' �� 'C r«wye.m. . � ,� ���5.�
IJp�—(�-I � L�V�TIOIJ -
o.R��,�,,i�s
b 0.� rtw�q $eJa
� sruH_ aeuem
o�...,
e n.�.w....aWn..�.�e.w.
^ GoP-bCL�WOJD �`0502�G
� ix wmr.+usyMN.broy�q.
• l�suw4OVIY�ICCI���Mi�Fn:�fYM b� S1M1
y....�ia�r wae<.e�.I.w sa 1
Comparable Sales Anulysis for W6iteley Appeal
Referenee Number Street APN 7'ranskr Date Owner Year iiullt Original Size Parcel Size
1 127 S.Mnson Street 007-493•015 11/�6/2001 lEONAHD KfNNETH W&UNOA K l900 7.076 /l,47S
2 224 S.Mason Street A&B 007-543•019 10/16/1995 MILLER JOANNE E(TRE) Not avcilab/e 1,7I7 6,885
3 210 S.Mazon Sheet 007-543-014 I/26/2001 BAT�LES IARA No1 avatlabfe I,660 l0,115
4 l39 Whitelty 007-094-017 ]1/9/2001 CIARKGORDON(TRE) Notavaila6le l,6/S 7,000
- __�._.
� 5� 1391 Whitdey �007-494-021 � �PECK MERILEE �Not available I Vacant Lot �_�
��u� �ti29jtrcisun j � jriorav¢iiaoie Natnvaiiaoie Noravminnle Notavo�faole
I 71 dR� TfE�`.Q.^. .�..�.� � �: :v�v�vv: '?�..°�i: ' Iv � u I —I—�
�S 4 4 O �..UC(^'.:.i ,.uf avsi a��e
8 501 Nelson 007-494020 4/25/2003 HnMILTONCHARLESAJR l986 /.636 5,9/S
9 � 510 Nelson 007-501•027 6/1/2004 KOBAFiA,BRUCE T;KOBARA,IINDI(G Not available ?,918 7,500
10 I38 Whiteley 007-493-012 I I/7/199A RUBASH PATRICIA Not available /,952 8,704
I1 202Whitcley 007-545-008 09/l7/1999ARNOLDDALER3SANDRAL 1910 �1.SdS
12 214 Whiteley 007-545-0]0 3/21/2005 BROMLEY,�VIN H;TOLLEY BROMLEY,STACY R 1930 3.G7S I 5,230
13 226 Whiteley 007-545-014 5/7/1995 CURRVW/WDAL /998 1,693 7,210
14 309 Whiteley 007-548-020 12/2/2003 HERRING,STEVE;HERRING,RACHEL No1 avaifnble Not nvailable Noi availa6le
IS 509 IDE 007-501-025 1/27/2005 LINNEMANN,JOACHIM C;MCLEAN,MAUREEN A Not avai(able Not avaifobfe Not nvarlable
16 541 IDE 007-501-009 5/20/1994 PORTER DG(TRE) ' Not uvatlable Nof availob/e Not avoiloble
17 538IDE 007-502-033 ll/5l2002 BoWEN7EDB(TRE) /996 2,089 II,08J
I8 540 IDE 007-502-034 5/4/1995 BAR70W RONALD E 3 ELI7ABETH I99S 2,000 /O,S/S
19 542 IDE 007-502-035 1l23/2002 BAL57ER MICHAELA d MARUW e I99S 2,000 !/,06/
20 5441DE 007-502-036 3/21/2002MCCOMBSMICHAELL(TRE) 1995 2,111 � 11,155
21 213 Short 007-543-017 7/17/1998 GRIFFITH DAVID E&CINDY D Not avaifable l,944 6,998
22 320 Short 007-542-019 Snt1T}i RICFIAFiD C(TR� 1990 ?,604 6,750
21 505 HawkinSCircle 007-502-030 8/lB/2004 RnMONES,TOMAS;RAMONES,SANDI 1986 2,16G 7,1�8
, 1 ' V
1
� Companbte Properties.xls .
_ r . '
,.�_-_." . . ., ... � ' �.�' r�-",URER . � OO/ � `FJ
• '� . ��.,. . fIC�•M UN�7 W-r���•' �LCVHt
�1 �, . ��e'� � N07E--A3SESSOR'S BLOCK�tr �oEa �x ; Q � 2��'
by �, ��a�per� �a 40T•NUMBERS SNOMN �xreaclr' w t„__1__..�
�� ��o �p s r►yo.� ��a' iN CiNtLES � COYMOM trt[�. �_-�aowele :
� ` . 1
e° L� ���w+�'fOS �� `r r'"-7 • �I.EVfL '4'�'
pHO��'y''1�ClEy����13��o p� `� \t" IL YI I � ;B�VY �rc
wa'� ,�'.s d � L.__�L- -� �
E� Y�K.yYI�'3�iR.tYOS
� .bAST 9RANCH • '
� a' .etr.r[� �, .e ,+we• a �a t v �0 �
eo » ��n � ae.uew �• ze ise e� sn I n �o � ��� 00 � ao � � �siz .e.e 4ae eo Na n +� ,��+�e. ST � r
` !9 2 � O .a � F 1 x�toJ ra so '� ��,�e �xar °^oe, C
(n 2.1_ Lli44 _Si 64 : � �'Sf� 38 fl� � ' LT.• - e �
Azoe � ^_O« � ` � 1 � y� s � w }i. s• . p . J>
a p
w .� 52 _fi G4 � � °� @ ! ' I � y 4 � �� 1 17�i p/���_ 4 p 1
�---- _ .��i,r e .��'4 . 1 p� ux/T '1" _ Y - � f
^ X 9• 1]S76 's� M1; �a °e, �' a � OpY£. 1lDe ' �1[!! �L76 i
� ry
�O � •s! 4 e 3 0 . o• �. �� r o 4 � ` uw :u w Nea'w' j n f• '3°! -
� I ' � FASE EN i : '-ea3t U ° t�
•o����Y.it �_ II .! „ z � � „ � � i0 w /iN. a I a 80� 78 � �
NEV.49A TR CT a t "• e � w �+ re � � ° � �r. cx a
o ^ iv' l IS � t4 13 : � inaex r. a � 11 n O �j �
O a �� —O - 4 E4 „ _ ' O sxoa.oortR.u.ve � $
• `: n rx -�ro e � «
� 2.�3.�� �� • !0.'�+�OE dlMtlAL '
9 ,
a Y q '�0
/ a 1 - 1E sO e ! 1S � 1J6 7 d � e � I�
8 10�_p O 8 � ^ pY rs�.0 �3esa ' �GV
�� Y ' �, � + e e n P � F. 0 8 �8 $ 3 1Y °0 17e.s� 4 4 A 2i
a 498 � R
� - ;,O e „ ae i so s � ps eE S .OR � M SON� & WH T�LE 6 n ��_ UD! !ON ° � `15 � :
� n 7 � � L?ie.�� 11 ^ W oe 6 �6 �`
W v � 1 es � .e 33 $ �dl !B ,.FB iRax �3 � �e4s 9 ��s F OS t0 Q„�� � � � �
M
� � EO nl� �°„o � 0 6 0 � �.'LSB 90 �L]V 6279 � p� � ]. 1. S. g .
O . O 1 - O i �nl r3T ^p = O I � 8 1 N � OB 9 O '°" _ �,^ �g Q /9 �O �
� us � i e v •
� � e � 3
CO Q � ! o- N � I � ° �
$ � 7 �i � „ ROAD OEAT.
ea ne �� ao tl eo m ea y eo $��sse� os ° ao �s�a sa aia � er.» ` eo $ ilasr us. eo rR%��e �a e.
J.T!'K'M. � � � u� 45' � '' S T� � �E
� e NELSON {. N67°! '
REVISIONS ' - �-- JU� � ���
f' �` � r�1 �
rtw �A' p.�tP
� a-,,.m «NO• `J
Ta. �2oa, a.w. �P-2�• CfiY.OF ARROYO GRMIDE
s :� E0° C.C.9Rs.. 0.R.E680-A94.�CONDO. ALAN�0.R.26B0-47f. �pgR�� � � OF
' So� BOOK 007 PAGE<9
�� �T��r. TNACT N86, .R.M. J2-87
e NE4SON . ,�,,.� ,�ti `a j �� s ST. �------�-�q54
� no ��/ao� �� �w� • . ao = , �3 � � eo �vaoi ue.�e . eo tl ��.e� � �R., � �saa
}- °a O 'g~t/ O (`�/ � I � � h e 15 !6 1 1! � �'o '0 1 16 O e � O � tl zl '.�
N l R f7I � w N � � F _ � �'tb • N � ' =2 ; •
C � Y � L 10 l3 ' t IS s • Y 66 E I
e O Y 3 � 6 0 ! Y � 1 � O � ' 14 O = � .
iw eo eo aa» I ,,,t�e.n — — — ` ° � ���
�eo —o ioo n.d� q tin . �s � r� �+ � O s �s O ° ti �I�J� �
s eo � ens s»s � . - - - —�— q _— _� o i5 •'� ��
� w M Ia0.S� !1 w w� Z e e
48\ '" FR �^_ 6 Is $ � _ ^ � � � O t fS• .�a �=r !t 4 ` �
•. f Inn
\J W � „o°'��p 54' —�— y e x� �a e � O a •�: n~ = IDE MST. •••.�
� ------ .e � z y �s_ — � �/ — � r — _ � ° .xerc
I l � It I 11 3� � C� : ua3o e co ' �'
(r u� l'.J _ � Q 11 O Q 11 _ Q
m �-- --- � 1 � a� �w.eo- ° - / inae� w . e O 3� I �•
P � � 1 'y l
° ' h � ie �.+ s si sU r " Qa � � n .�3 11 ce , I�
- QaP OLE ' I oy � , g n s 20 e = Qs s � t �a �^ ' I� .
r no �r iaz )�• �x.e� ' e �uaa a.as•� to ° ° nse� a �
3 ° POOLE �� � �56�
.
e a e ' � `.
�_� M!T•[ s I JL f
fl[ ' � 1 1! ♦ 1 I 1 � 1 .
= �,L� ! TR�1C ' '_�s � � d � � w a o g � � �s�6 „ e is r „ i
� 29
R�a,s � �, ° ��'1 �j � „ = HO T' MAS N�r T EYQt �e �s A DI fON1e_ us i
.. a-„- � �--- e • � � s • � �o s �e _O s_ n O sO a u �4 W - - S r � i
i �
m _�...o� � 1
,�. > -L�aLei �� �ee �� � 4 22 J � �' �
4_ 20 � 10 O Z O � 10 !9 Y W � S6 � �
= 2! 2/ � r � � � _ .... �
4 �� q O 18 3 9 I� ' Q 2� E • .~. 2 OS 1 U
s.azz a e�oa. eaxw. oz'new.� �s o tl Q O y o iq s e ro� o � � t�—-- " 3 -- - � �' \
ra�o nxe� r �s . s $ nS8�6 i .e� ° g +Q � �0 � 33 \sj
u:s� re �za �r�o w �oy,� (� I
� P � • E �7 (�sl a Z' e O� o� � !7 IB ��9 �16 ^\.! � SO
� .'S O O �' O nO � _ , O 20 �! y � O N` i
�40 ITI N '
_ � e s ro u zs {N 0 $ „ O � �a :
i ,
� P! � i '�GG OR,� // Y � I• � I
' F I[� 10 17.! 4xlp • a �a,p� �p 107.! f0 ��l�� Otd1 t0 ll•'N l� ! Sf • OS �0.! 1
A LL EN ~ r �' ° p '°' "°°' `�x� $T. CRY OF ARROYO CRANDE
*• unr murm or
roo w ms wr rs wvru�n ron �02 SAN is
erwnm wssmo+r vuxnog.s aa.v. ;5/ 07 v 's�
. . / / � T-50
„
`i �
„ G A R DEN ,�.��,"a,�•,,•,,� "°"� � S,a+. S T. „
a c+ ' . ._. Lz �al",--�; eo • . . .. . . s�e
/�' �o O �h � ' � .. � �
yo i 'O'� : ~ .. . . . <'� ' .
, , /4 rs . ' � i7 neo� _ �gRtn .. . ' . ', •
�W : PAl RbQO; bi51 ��� a 4 ... . ` .. _� `, .. .. .._ ' .. ,
A (��P� Q '
. :. w. .
Ag � V • � � � ����Y001�_����i � / �O .
--------- -----�� BRIEGER'S �� ��
. „ �•
...• ,. :�� ' <.. �ees�
.. c
a�.n•O 31 � 33 � ro : . . _. . 77�swir�J��
. .Y 1 DO 9 p Y 3 � 4 � (e� � ' . . .
RM.PB.7!�.c' >• ,� • • .
��t � N�• `�b� �g SU�D�VfS10ld �y ' • . • .
.6d----� �AlN y � • est
— . . ' .
�% %� ' ,.�� re � » .:.,, 1 ... .. .•. . \J
' CFOSS . �' ST
�, ioo--�i��--ias'--- . ee�.3e . .
� � e/ , . .
� ,' % ,a/ 0 qs 501 •. � .. . ,
ye • �34,�%/ OO � SO 12 w� -. ` � ` _ Y . ..
��Z' w- , /� .�/h6S1 r `, �"��'� ' w 1. �. . .. ' 3 ;
_ ¢
.,� • x
'lQ b' � �V,� 1 'S1o� T . � ' . ' .
� _12�--J�o L_i�z`x.. V +ea.te , ,v .
LS¢.ro � �L.zi ios . " . ' . � .
.W ot .^u �Tb � 28 � . _ .. . ' � "' __' _
� O {.
o ' �. r M1 4 N l: y r
� Y�sq a Q w Y Y .
(/� ♦ �e - a �y fr M%• NLSI W
�. 0 reN� 7B ' Q 2� � � 4M•✓ d� a � �
(V RAtlCM05 fANflAL OE FIEORA B. 2 e O.� 2/ � �;� • •. •• • :'
risnw e eo�v oe cxew . a• a v B � '
0
so o•• � � �. x ... ..
eso rs �.�s NaSx'N °u. Z� • ,nr ios so �
i a ,
� FOR TH�Sp AREA��F�E MAPS T-4 8 4 P, C. R. R. � . �
i d �b �
�41 . I r 1
`f � r „ .: . �. :r. : .: . lJ
TR. 1137 R. M. fP-14. �T �.i ' • • . ' .
. � t:. .lY�::.'` ,
�' >i>•ea� CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
I.e/d-8y ' . .
�-e-., SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
,'.,�-76 , ' CALIFORNIA �Oli 0` ?996
� ' 007— 502
� �•. ,�
'�
s �J ,,, �. \ �." � �°� �.',J
�• .�
k� . �� � \ q �� .
`L
� \0�. .��8 A � ��9 � 42 $��
; �?� �s
� �� • + 18 p0
`� � � � `\ � �
�, S
Q�"�'0� � :� ;` 5a2 '� 0 t�E 5 .
/ � Y � � ` � c ��� .
1 \ � � � \ \
r �lv y 14
O �\ � �� \ C.'
\ � am G(. . �` � ��
� • � � 'P� p� � N�J�'
A �` 19 • a R��� ,�k 0.
9� $a� ,� � � \� �
� � g 3
�� a \`(T'�l1 � ' - -
V
�
`�*J �� �`�� �'-y � \.J
� �
� Z�
�
��
EW.STEE1.'S RESUB. RHO. CORRAL DE PIEDRA, PISMO, BOLSA DE CFNMISAL, R.M. Bk. A , Pg.63 �pp i o ts�s
sr e roe tao TRACT 1137; R.M. Bk. 12, Pg.14.
ClTY OF ARROYO GRANDE
yl 7M5 4AP IS PPEPARED FOR �E$$0���Nn OF �
u�� AS�.iQii R111P06FS d0.Y. BOpK�7 PACE SOZ
� � 007- 50�
' �J
, Y� N\� '� � s
� �R� �,� S'T• � . o ,
�h! • sr.a i,�
/�J�` 100
^•,1/�(J J " • � �{
B/V�,lirl � � q p � v�t �� •
�'ZQ.��� ` • �
s -� �� 4 ` � �
' � , � 4 � �� �. � ��9 � �� '` �,.0 �`�y LJ
� ti� (��
� ' �. �
� \` � •NPW� � V �
♦ � p0 1, �
.f. _�_ +,�( `
M�[IV � _ ' � ` � J \
.
: �� � ; � � ��..:••''�� sF ,.,,
� - _ _ • ��
- - . _ �
� � n. p �c. . �cs�n, � sV' ., w'in9...
- - - — �
�� _ fi ���.�;�.
°_ � �^: '
a. � ...... • . . ... .. a ,.:, . ` ..
\. . .N7
,:.'
, �
,.\. � � Ibs .:....A`` � `\� 4 •�� `�
,. ::..... �
�
� . .....` . . :.'.. : ., i i \
.,, �� � 501p•� � '� '° .���.�Js',�,�` �cs �
.,. �G � ' ,
. z � + a +. � � ar;
r. _ t ' Z .ej � ,y •
.� . , `` ��
�e � • 1. �� �
CJ a .o �,
0
�V r • `Q
� 5Z, �(. �
. �
t� d s �� �
5� �` .
�� q � �
.f
: ���
4
� .� �� �° ,�
� �.,
,� `nREVI90NS
.�v oi-m-m 'b �
m• e ue• eou• AUG 1 2 jp02
CRY OF ARROYO CR4N�E
,wv nus u�r is ortEruaa rors BRIEGER S SUB., RHO. CORRAL DE PlmRA, PlSMO dc B.D.C., R.M. Bk B, Pg.71. �xs tiur couNrr oF
�+�+��Y S7EELE'S RESUB., RHO. CORRAL DE PfEDRA, PfSMO dc B.D.C., R.M. Bk. A , Pg.63. K ��P���
o� PeROro� ATTACHMENT 4
P CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
, U INCOp�9m DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND
'�'�" ,°. +'�� ` DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4<<FORN\P
I
1. Project Title: Plot Plan Review Case No. 05-027 and Viewshed Review
Case No. 05-020
2. Lead Agency Name & Address: City of Arroyo Grande
P.O. Box 550/214 E. Branch Street ,
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
3. Contact Person & Phone #: Jim Bergman, Assistant Planner
(805) 473-5420
4. Project Location: 123 Whiteley
Arroyo Grande,�CA 93420
APN 007-494-003
5. Project Sponsor's Name & Address: Scott Pace
Pace Brothers Construction
P.O. Box 519
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
6. General Plan Designation: Conservation/Open Space (creek portion); Single Family
Residential Medium Density, inon creek portion)
7. Zoning: Public Facility (creek portion); Single Family Residential, D-
2.4 Overlay
8. Description of Project: (Describe ihe whole action invo/ved, inc/uding but not/imited to /ate�phases of
the p�oject, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its imp/ementation. Attach
additiona!sheets il necessary.l
The proposed project is to construct a single-family residence on a 14,804 square foot lot, which
abuts and includes the Arroyo Grande Creek. The single-family residence is proposed to be two
stories and 2,105 square feet square feet of living area and includes a two-car garage. The proposed
structure, at its closest point would be 15-feet from the top of the creek bank. Landscaping for the
project includes a pervious paver area, a small lawn, a foundationless wall/fence, and native drought
tolerant or riparian vegetation.
9. Other agencies whose approval is required (and permits needed):
None
1
ETERMINATION.
n the basis of this initiat evaluation: �
find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
�ECLARATION will be prepared.
find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
e a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have
een added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X
find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has
een adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
�dressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the
ffect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated". An `
NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be
jdressed.
gnature Date
VIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
; environmental factors checked below woutd be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a
)TENTIALLY SI�NIFICANT IMPACT" or "POTENTIALIY IS SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATED", as indicated by the checklist on
fotlowing pages.
_and Use and Pianning ✓ Biological Resources ❑ Public Services
'opulation and Housing ❑ Energy and Mineral Resources ❑Utilities and Service Systems
3eophysicat ❑ Hazards ❑ Aesthetics
Vater ❑ Noise ✓Cuttural Resources
ir Quality ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance O Recreation
rensportation/Circulation
ALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
A briel exp/anation is required lo�a//answers except 'No /mpact" answers that are adequately supported by the informafion
sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses fol%wing each question. A "No Impact" question is adequately supported if the
referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects �ike the one involved (e.g., the project
falls outsida a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project specific factors as
well as general standards (e.g., tha project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
All answers must take account of the whole action invotved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumuiative as well as project-
level, indirect as welt as direct, and construction as well as operations impacts.
"Potentially Significant Impact" is approp{iate if an effect is significant or potentially significant, or is the lead agency lacks
� information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from
"Potentiaily Significant ImpacY to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures
and 6riefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation meas�res from Section XVII, "Earlier
Analyses', may be cross referenced.)
Earlier analyses may 6e used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequateiy analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaretion. Section 15063(c)13)IDI. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section
XVII at the end of the checklist.
lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts le.g.,
general plans, zoning ordinances). A Source List should be attached and other sources used or individuals should be cited in the
discussion.
2
Potentially
- Potentlal/y Significant Less Than
Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Unless SigniTcanr No
/mpact Mitigated /mpact /mpact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Wou/d the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
Isource l/1s1: 1,2,3,4) X
bl Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? X
Isource klsl: 1,6,71
c) Affect agricultura�resources or operetions (e.g., impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)? Isource #Is): 2,4,9,111 X
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established communiiy (including a low•income or
minarity community)7 Isource #Is): 2,4,11) X
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would fhe proposa/.•
a1 Cumutatively exceed official regional or Iocal population
projections? (source �/(s): 1,5,9) X
b) induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructurel? x
(source #Isl: 9,10)
c1 Dispiace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
Isource #(s): 9,70,11) X
' III. GEOPHYSICAL: Would the proposa/resu/t In or expose
peop/e fo potenfialimpacfslnvo/ving:
a) Seismicity: fault rupture? Isource #Is): 5,6) x
b) Seismicity: ground shaking or liquefaction?
(source #Isl: 5,61 x
c) Seismicity: seiche or tsunami? (source #(s): 5,6) X
dl. Landslides or muds�ides? (source #Is1: 5,6,151 x
e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soils
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
(source �Is): 10) X
fl Subsidence of land? (source #Isl: 5,61 x
g) Expansive soils? (source #Isl: 5,6) x
,h) Unique geologic or physical features? Isource JIIs1: x
5,6,10,111
IV. WATER: Wou/dtheproposal�esuliin:
a) Changes in absorption retes, dreinage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? Isource lilsl: 10) X
b) Exposure to people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (source tlls): 81 x
cl Discharge into surface waters or other alteretion of
surface water quality (e.g., tempereture, dissoived
3
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than �
;ues (and Supporting Information Sources): Signircant Un/ess Significanr /ya
/mpaci Mitigated /mpact /mpact
oxygen or turbidity7 (source #Is1: 9) X
dl Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (source qlsl: 9, 10) X
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (source Jllsl: 9, 101 X
fl Changa in the quantity of ground waters, either through x
diract additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
(sourca +CIs1: 9, 10) •
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater7
Isource #Is): 9, 10) X
h! Impacts to groundwater quality7 (source #Is�: 9,10) X
il Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise
avaitable for public water supplies? Isource��sl: 6) X
AIR QUALRY: Wou/d the p�oposal.•
al Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? X
(source �Is): 7, 131
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (source #Is):
10. 11) x
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or tempereture, or cause
any change in climate? (source kIs): 9) X
d! Create objectionable odors? (source l/(sl: 9,10) X
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would tbe proposal
result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (source
p(sl: 13) X
bl Hazards to safety from design features le.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses -
Ie.g., farm equipmentl? (source �/Is): 9, 101 X
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby sites?
Isource !/(s): 9, 101 X
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (source
#Is): 3, 9, 10) X
el Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (source -
#(s): 9, 10) X
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting aiternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle rackslt
(source #Is): 9, 70) X
. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in
impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or tneir habitats X
(including but not limited to piants, fish, insects,
anima�s, and birds? Isource //Is): 6,14)
4
i
b) Localiy designated species le.g., heritage trees)7
Isource J/ls): 10, 11) X
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest,
coastal habitatl? Isource #(s): 10, 11,14) x
d1 Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal poop?
�source J1(s): 9, 11,14) X
e) Wildlife dispersal or migretion corridars? X
(source JJIs1: 71,14)
VIII.ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.•
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
Isource klsl: 1, 61 X
b1 Use non-renawabte resources in a wasteful and '
inefficient manner? (source #Is): 9, 10) • X
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidentat explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation? (source #(sl: 9) X
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation p�an? Isource #Is1: 9, 101
X
c) The creatian of any health hazard or potential heatth
hazard? Isource #Isl: 9, 70) X
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (source #�s): 9,10,11) X
e) Increased fite hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? Isource lflsl: 10, 11) x
X. NOISE. Would the proposal resu/t in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? Isource t/Is): t, 9) x '
b) Exposure of people to severa noise levels?
Isource IJlsl: 9, 101 x
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposa/have an elfect
upon, or result in a need lor new or altered government
services in any ol the lollowing areas:
a) Fire Protection? Isource #Is): 61 X
b) Police Protection? Isource #Is): 61 x
c) Schools7 Isource k(s): 6) X
d) Maintenance of public faciiities, inciuding roads?
�source 1JIs1: 6) x
e) Other governmental services? (source p(sl: 6) X
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Wou/d the proposal
result in a need lor new systems, or substanfial alterations
to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (source #(sl: 9, 10) x
bl Communications systems? (source 711s): 9, 10) x
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? Isource lflsl: 61 x
d1 Storm water drainage? Isource �Is): 6) X
5
e) Solid waste disposal? (source 111s1: 6) X
1. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: '
al Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X
(source #Is): 1, 10, 11)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effectt
Isource #Isl: 9, 10, 111 X
c) Create light or glare? (source #(s): 9,10) X
/. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Distu�b paleonto�ogical resources? (source X(s): 6, 11) X
b) Disturb archaeological resources (source tllsl: 6, 11) X
c) Affact historical resources? (source A(sl: 6, 11) X
dl Have the potential to cause a physical change which , .
would affect unique ethnic culturel values? (source #Is):
11) X
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within tha
potential impact area? (source #Is1: 10, 11) X
. RECREATION. Would the praposal.•
al Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
or other recreational facilities? (source #Is): 1, 31 X
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
Isourca #(s1: 1, 5) X
I. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) .Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of tha environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below setf-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the renge of a rare or
endangered plant or animai or eliminate important _ X
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goais? X
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerebte? 1"Cumulatively
considereble' means that the incrementai effects of a
project are considereble when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future X
. projects.)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
i cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, X
4 either directly or indirectly?
EARLIER ANALYSES.
I =arlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or oiher CEQA process, one or more effects have
. �een adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 150631c1(311D1. In this case, a discussion should �
dentify the following on attached sheets:
I a) Eadier analyses used. Identify eariier anaiyses and state where they are available for review.
b� Impacts adequateiy addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
6
�adequately analyzed by earlier documents.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated",
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporeted or refined from the earlier document and the extent to
which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
SOURCE LIST:
1. City of Arroyo Grende General Plan
2. City of Arroyo Grande Generai Plan Land Use Map
3. City of Arroyo Grende Development Code
�r. City of Arroyo Grende Zoning Map
5. City of Arroyo Grande Existing Setting and Community Issues Report
6. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan EIR
7. Air Pollution Control District Clean Air Plan
8. FEMA - Flood Insurance Rate Map
9. Project Description •
10. Project Plans
11. Site Inspection
12. Ordinance 431 C. S.
13. Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual
�4. Biologicai Resources Assessment, Rincon Consultants, Inc, February 1, 2006
15. Geotechnical Reports, Buena Geotechnical Services, LLC, July 8, 2005 and December 19, 2005
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
The project site is approximately 14,804 square feet in area and is located at the end of a residential street. A
substantial portion (greater than 50 percent) of the parcel is a channelized section of the Arroyo Grande Creek. The
top of the creek bank is well defined and is covered by native and non-native vegetation. The portion of the lot,
which is proposed for development, is flat and has historically been used as a side and front yard of a house,
which �vas on an adjacent parcel..Several trees (Persimmon, Walnut, Lemon, Pine, and Avacado), on the subject
parcel and adjacent parcels were recently removed with a permit from the Parks and Recreation Department of the'
City of Arroyo Grande. The site, above the bank has been cieared of all vegetation and was over excavated to a
depth of six feet below the existing grade. The surface was scarified, moisture conditioned, and re-compacted to a
minimum of 90 percent of maximum dry density and graded.
ty'i �f e_ . 17 . .cI,7 $o� .. ';�y� '. y'ti!:�u
.�� 4 � 1.�', � ql S � .�v�y� �C� FY�- . �j
'< Jf 'y1. 2 i j 'F tt'i6 ,ay s � , '1�'.`�'�
N<'. �,�..�'4�:.1'%J '! ,y t��t�x'.n �3 r'4�T{,� �/' j �
• �p�ay�r . ��:v�F , tt ; i .. r �iLy �
yx '� < . � 'tl����� ���.y� .. ,
�' .Y� �r �
r , :a�:.
. ° ,-<<'�tirn���"" F1 ;p' �6
{�F������,�����Qa�`"^`1'P C.��� '���� C '"��'4 !. . {` 1� � '� !
::'�� ..7.?ty ss 4��� rY�`y,,,ee8'���i�a.7 F "'.�'
� �J��Ln, < M r � e..s. � f ti ��' '. '.'i���
? ��M--� l 4.,� < N �- �.��ry�� fi .� �
.�����~ '1L r"�K #, w�.J'�i���'T✓� � � �. V T �
Y w
iv �{r G .-Ki �i�� Y� e '� �� �11 µt�* J'Fe.�.+� t n,i fq k �"�
.:at\��j rla�3 .� �F't' �,..a— . �
��'�'..-.' fa� t ..—�z2��pr�y, ' _ sr-i-r��;_-�� ��3
kt
=,.�yV�,l�x...+�s'µ �. v"��'"'
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project evaluated by this initial study is to construct a 2,105 square foot, two•story house with attached two-
car garage. The structure is proposed to be located within 15-feet of the top of bank of the Arroyo Grande Creek.
Project grading and a small foundationless wall/fence will direct storm runoff to the street. Xeric and native
landscaping is proposed.
7
PLANATIONS TO INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST:
LAND USE AND PL"ANNING
The subject parcel was created prior to the 2001 General Plan, which states:
C/OS2-1.3 Where feasible, maintain a grading and buitding setback of 25 feet from the
top of stream bank. Locate buildings and structures outside the setback. Except in urban
areas where existing development exists to the contrary, prevent removal of riparian
vegetation within 25 feet of the top of stream bank.
The subject parcel was also created prior to adoption of Section 16.64.060(R) of the Municipal Code of the
City of Arroyo Grande, which states:
Creek Dedications. For any subdivision or parcel map or development project requiring
discretionary review abutting the Arroyo Grande Creek, including its tributaries (Tally Ho
Creek, Spring Creek, Newsom Springs Creek and Los Berros Creek), or Meadow Creek,
including its tributaries, the subdivider or developer shail dedicate to the city all the area
that includes the stream bed and twenty-five 125) feet back of the stream bank, areas
designated as environmentally sensitive based on a biology report prepared by a qualified
biologist or other appropriate areas mutually acceptable for the purposes of "open space,"
flood control or "green belt."
Exceptions to the requirements established in this subsection can be made only upon a
finding that its application would violate federal or state law.
Strict application of these two policies as they relate to this proposed project would deem 88.75 percent of
the subject parcel un-buildable and leave a triangle shaped buiiding area of approximately 1,666 square feet.
Due to the fact that the proposed building area has historically been associated with a house and that riparian
vegetation is nori-existent in this area, potentially significant impacts would only occur if construction
activities/effects and sedimentation extended into the creek/riparian area. Mitigation measures are designed to
protect the creek by 1) limiting construction activities/effects outside of areas identified as creek, creek bank
and riparian areas, 2) limit human and domesticated animal intrusion to patio areas by the use of a smali wall
and fence, and 3) planting side and rear yard areas with riparian and native species.
Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated.
Mitigation Measures:
MM 1.1: The developer shall not remove riparian woodland vegetation. This includes
trimming native tree branches or removing shrubs within the creek corridor. Doing
so would require a Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monito�ing Ag¢ncy: City of Arroyo Grende — Community Development
Department
Tirrling: At all stages of development
MM 1.2: The developer shall not impact the creek bank or top-of-bank area, specifically no
grading or construction activities shall occur within 5-feet of the top of bank.
Responsible Party: Developer
MOnito�ing Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Community Development
Department
, . Timing: At atl stages of devetopment
8
MM 1.3: Prior to grading activities, the developer shall install temporary orange construction
fencing at least two feet south of top-of-bank to discourage entry of equipment or
construction workers into riparian woodland habitat.
Responsibie.Party: Developer
Monito�ing Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Community Devetopment
Department
Timing: At all stages of development
MM 1.4: Storage of construction materials, debris, or excess soil and parking of vehicles or
construction equipment shall be prohibited within 15 feet of the top of the bank of the
Arroyo Grande Creek. �
Responsible Party: oeveloper
Monito�ing Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Community Development
Department
Tltiling: At all stages of development
MM 1.5: To reduce erosion hazards and the introduction of foreign materials (petroleum products,
refuse, etc.), due to construction activities, grading shail be minimized within 15 feet of the
top of the bank of the Arroyo Grande Creek, and runoff and sediment control structures
shall be used.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monito�ing AgenCy: City of Arroyo Grande — Community Development
Department
Timing: At all stages of development
1.6: Storage of construction materials, debris, or excess soil and parking of vehicles or
construction equipment shall be prohibited within 15 feet of the top of the bank of the
Arroyo Grande Creek.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Community Development
Department
Timing: At all stages of development
MM 1.7: Work shall be completed during the dry season (April 15 to October 15) to reduce active
construction erosion to the extent feasibie. If construction must extend into the wet
weather season, a quaiified geohydrologist or geotechnical engineer, and restoration
biologist shall prepare a drainage and erosion controi plan that addresses construction
measures to prevent sedimentation and erosion of the Arroyo Grande Creek.
Responsible Party: Developer
MOnitofing AgenCy: City of Arroyo Grande — Community Development
Department
• TiRting: At all stages of development
MM 1.8: No fueling or maintenance of equipment shall take place at the site. Mechanical
equipment shall be serviced in designated staging areas located outside of the creek
riparian area. Water from equipment washing or concrete wash down shall be prevented
from entering the creek.
9
Responsible Party: Deveioper
MonitOfing Agency: City of Arroyo Grande - Community Development
Department
Timing: At all stages of development
MM 1.9: All removed and excess materiat shall be disposed of off-site.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monito�ing Age17Cy: City of Arroyo Grande - Community Development
Department
Timing: At all stages of development
MM 1.10: The developer shall offer irrevocably a creek drainage and maintenance easement to the
city all the area that includes the stream bed including the creek,�its banks and five feet
(5') adjoining the top of bank for the purposes of"open space, flood control, future creek
path or green beit" No development shall occur within creek easement area.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring AgenCy: City of Arroyo Grande - Community Development
Department
Timing: Prior to issuance of building permits
MM 1.11: The deveioper shail record a deed restriction approved by the Community Devetopment
Director with the County Recorders O�ce that landscaping shall remain in substantial
conformance to the approved landscaping pian.
Responsible Party: Deveioper
Mo�ltO�iltg AgBncy: City of Arroyo Grande - Community Development
Department
Timing: Prior to issuance of building permits
POPULATION & HOUSING
The project would provide one residential unit within the City of Arroyo Grande. The Program EIR associated
with the City' s 2001 General Plan encompassed projected residential units on undeveloped parcels.
Analysis of Significance: Less than significant impact.
GEOPHYSICAL
Although the property is locateii on a weil-defined bank of the Arroyo Grande Creek, potential for Iandslides,
mudslides, subsidence or erosion of soils is low due to metered flows of water irom the Lopez Dam. In a
report dated December 16, 2005, and stamped by Norman G. Haltin, Geotechnical Engineer, the following is
stated: " Based on our observation and testing during grading and the newly proposed building footprint, it is
our opinion that the compacted fitl constructed at the project site is suitable for both downward bearing and
laterai support of the proposed residence."
Based on the General Plan and review of the Alquist-Priolo Zone Fault maps, the proposed project is not
located on a known earthquake fault subject to rupture. The proposed project will be subject to the effects of
periodic seismic events in the region, including ground shaking. However, exposure of people to these events
can generaliy be mitigated to an acceptable levet of risk by following Uniform Building Code development
standards.
10
Analysis of Significance: .Less than significant impact. .
IV. WATER/DRkINAGE
Water. The City currently receives its water supply from both surface and groundwater sources. Ground
water extractions are derived from seven (7) welis and two (2) separate basin formulations. Surface water is
obtained from the Lopez Reservoir Project, which was constructed in the late 1960' s. Reclaimed storm
water collected by the Soto Sports Complex Storm Water Reclamation Project is also used as an irrigation
supply source. .
The City adopted a Water System Master Plan in 1999, which identified water resources as being a significant
issue, and identified methods to increase and diversify water supply to increase long-term reiiabiliiy of the
City' s water service to its residents. The report assessed potential methods to address the water supply
issue and prioritized alternatives.
The City used approximately 97.7°k of its available/allocated water supply between January 2004 and
December 2004. Per Chapter 13.05.010 of the City' s Municipal Code (Water Supply Conditions), this level
of water use is considered a "severely restricted" water supply condition that has not yet reached a "critical"
level. To manage its water supply deficiency, the City adopted a two-phased stretegy in November 2004 that
included alternatives to be pursued to meet the City' s water demand over the next 10- year period (phase 1),
and identified alternatives that will provide permanent water suppiy increases to meet the long-term demand
that are most desirable, feasible and cost effective (phase 2►. As part of phase 1, the City adopted a Water
Conservation Program in May 2003 that included:
• Plumbing Retrofit Program;
• Water Shortage Contingency Analysis;
• Pubiic Information and Education;
. Information System Assessment for Top Water Users;
• Enforcement of City' s Water Conservation Codes; and
• Optional components, including washing machine rebates, irrigation system or landscaping rebates,
and retrofit of cemetery with non-potable water.
Other components of phase 1 include consiruction of Well No. 10 (located on Deer Trail Circle), pursuing oil
fieid water on Price Canyon, implementing a tiered water and sewer rate structure as financial incentives for
water conservation, and a utility retrofit upon-sale program.
Phase 2 provides various permanent water supply options that include:
• Conducting a groundwater study;
• Pursuing water from the Nacimiento Project;
• Implementing a reclaimed water system;
• Studying feasibility of a desalination plant; and '
• Pursuing water from the State Water Project.
Conclusion. The City is currently in a severely restricted water supply situation, which is considered a
cumulatively significant impact. The projecY s contribution, however, is considered di minimis, meaning that
the environmental conditions wouid be the same whether or not the project is implemented. The City adopted
overriding considerations for cumulative water supply impacts identified in the Program EIR for the 2007
General Plan Update. This lot was included in the 2001 General Plan Update and therefore cumulative water
supply impacts were addressed at that time. However, the project shall implement the following restrictions
and measures to reduce water supply impacts to a less-than-significant Ievel.
Analysis of Significance: Poientially significant unless mitigated.
Mitigation Measures:
I1
MM 2.1: The applicant shall compiete measures to neutrelize the estimated increase in water
demand created by the project by either:
Implementing an individual water program that utiiizes fixtures and designs that
minimize water usage. The calculations shall be submitted to the Director of Public
Works for review and approval. The proposed individual water program shall be
submitted to the City for approval prior to implementation; or,
Payment of an in Iieu fee.
Responsible Party: Deveioper
MOnitO�ing Agency: City of Arroyo Grande - Public Works Department
Timing: Prior to issuance of building permits
Drainaae. Development of the site will increase impervious surfaces, which in turn will change absorption
rates and increase the amount of runoff. The site will drain to existing city infrastructure which will in-turn
drain to the Arroyo Grande Creek. Direct drainage to the creek would require plan review by State and Federal
agencies with jurisdiction over creeks.
Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated.
Mitigation Measures:
MM 3.1: The developer shall follow the submitted drainage plan, which drains all storm water
from the southern side of the wall to Whiteley street.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monito�ing AgenCy: City of Arroyo Grande - Public Works Department
Timing: At time of grading
MM 3.2: The developer shall install a fossil filter in the existing drop inlet located at the
terminal end of Whiteley Street.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monito�ing Agency: City of Arroyo Grande - Public Works Department
Timing: Prior to issuance of building permit
MM 3.2: The developer shall install plant material in substantial compliance to the adopted
landscape plan.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monito�ing Agency: City of Arroyo Grande - Community Development
Department
Timing: Prior to occupancy
AIR QUALITY
Development of the site will invoive grading and other activities that will produce emissions for which the
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District IAPCD) has established impact thresholds. Grading in
excess of four (4) acres will generate emissions that exceed the DistricYs threshold for respirable
particulate matter (PM,o). The project site is 0.33 acres in size, which falls under the threshold for
significance.
12
Analysis of Significance: Less than significant
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Traffic associated with one residential unit is considered below the threshold to trigger a traffic study.
_.�.,
Analysis of Significance: Less than significant
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potentially significant impacts may result to Speciai Status piants and wildlife including the Black Flowered
Figwort, California Red Legged Frog, Southern Steelhead, and the Pacific Pond Turtle. These impacts may
include harassment, injury, or mortality from construction activities including placement of debris, worker foot
traffic, restoration activities, temporary loss of habitat, temporary dispersal disruption, consumption by
predators attracted to the activities, and siltation and poliution of the habitat if cdnstruction activities/effects
were allowed in the areas identified as creek, creek bank and riparian areas. This is a potentially significant
impact that can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation mitigation measures 1.1
through 1.11 listed in Section I of this document.
Lighting. Arroyo Grande Creek is a wildlife corridor for common and special-status wildlife species. High
intensity lighting (flood lights, high wattage light bulbs greater than 60W) should not be directed towards the
riparian woodland area or creek. Instead, use diffuse lighting, ground/low profile "landscape" lighting or solar
lighting in the northern portion of the site, and direct lighting only on the sides of the house that won' t affect
the creek and associated resources.
Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated.
Mitigation Measures:
MM 4.1: The develope� shall implement mitigation measures 1.1 through 1.11 listed in
Section i of this document.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monito�ing AgenCy: City of Arroyo Grande — Various
Timing: Various
MM 4.2: The developer Shall use diffuse lighting, ground/low profile "landscape" lighting or
solar lighting in the northern portion of the site, and direct lighting only on the sides of
the house that won' t affect the creek and associated resources.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoting AgenCy: City of Arroyo Grande — Community Development
Department and Building Department
' VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Development of a residential unit will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans or result in the
wasteful use of non-renewable resources.
Analysis of Significance: No impact.
IX. HAZARDS
The project does not pose an undue risk to project occupants or occupants of surrounding properties.
13
Anaiysis of Significance: No impact.
NOISE
The development of a residential unit is consistent with the single-family neighborhood. Increased noise may
be associated construction, which will be limited to normal business hours through the building permit
process.
Analysis of Significance: Less than significant
. PUBLIC SERVICES
Adequate fire and police services exist in the community to serve the project.
Analysis of Significance: No impact. �
�. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The proposed project will not create a significant demand for new or altered power, gas, communication
systems and water treatment capacity.
Analysis of Significance: No impact. �
I. AESTHETICS �
The general appearance of the proposal is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood due to satisfying
all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code and the project has been reviewed by the Architectural Review
Committee (ARC) based upon the Design Guidelines and Standards for Historic Dist�icts.
Analysis of Significance: Less than significant
/. CULTURAL RESOURCES
C.A. Singer & Associates conducted a Phase One archaeological surface survey on the site on February 10
and February 23, 2005. Examined soils yielded no signs of former occupation by prehistoric people, no
evidence of 19'" century occupation nor any railroad or former maintenance yard debris. Based on the survey,
the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact on any known cultural resources.
However, if during construction excavation, any buried or isolated prehistoric cultural materials or historic
features are unearthed, work in that area shall halt until they can be examined by a qualified archaeologist and
appropriate recommendations made as outlined in CEQA. In such an event, C.A. Singer & Associates should
be contacted at (805) 927-0414, or the Community Development Department of the City of Arroyo Grande.
Anaiysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated.
Mitigation Measure:
MM 5.1: The following note shall be placed on the grading and improvement plans for the project:
"In the event that during grading, construction or development of the project, and
archeological resources are uncovered, all work shall be halted until the City has
reviewed the resources for their significance. If human remains (burials) are
encountered, the County Coroner (781-4513) shall be contacted immediately. The ,
applicant may be required to provide archaeological studies and/or mitigation
measures.".
14
_ Responsible Party: Deveioper
MonitO�ing Ageticy: City of Arroyo Grande - Community Development
Department
Timing: During all phases of development
XV. RECREATION
The proposed development would not significantly increase the demand for additional.recreation facilities, and
therefore the project would not have an impact on recreational opportunities or resources.
Analysis of Signiticance: Less than significant impact.
15
Rincon.Consultants,�nc.
� 1530 Monterey Street, Suite D �
San Luis 06isDO. Calilornia 93401
eos547 0900
rez 547 0901
inlo�rinconconsultants.com
www. rinconconsultants.com
February 1,2006 r• .-° •• � •- •
Job #06-90260 " " • _
Mr.John Shoals �:� . - •
P.O. Box 919 � " '
Grover Beach,CA 93483 . ._ _ . .
Subject: Biological Resources Assessment for the 133 Whiteley Street Property
(APN 007-494003), City of Arroyo Grande,California
Dear Mr. Shoals:
' Rincon Consultants has completed a biological resource assessment for the 133 Whiteley
Street property (property) located in the City of Arroyo Grande,San Luis Obispo County,
Califomia (Figure 1). As we understand,you are currently assisting Pace Brothers
Construction Company and Mr.Gregory Soto of Liv-In Environments with planning the
development of a single-family residence in the southem porHon of the 0.34-acre property.
� The purpose of our analysis was to characterize the existing biological resources on the
property and provide recommendaHons to reduce project-related impacts to biological
resources within the property to a less than significant level under the California
Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). The study area included all porHons of the property.
This letter report provides our analysis of these issues.
INTRODUCTION
The Arroyo Grande area has a typical Mediterranean climate with mild winters and
relatively warm summers and is a much cooler and moister climate than the hot,dry
summers of the County's interior. Temperatures are moderated by the proximity of the
Arroyo Grande area to the Pacific Ocean and the average annual precipitadon is
approximately 24.4 inches,with most of it falling between November and March. A'very
small amount of precipitation is attributed to summer fog. Natural habitats in the region
include grassland, coastal scrub,oak woodland,and riparian. Agricultural uses in the area
include culHvated annual row crops,orchard,vineyard,and open rangeland. In addition to
the natural and agricultural habitats,areas of residenHal,recreaHonal,and urban
development are located within the vicinity of the subject property.
The property is located approximately 0.5 mile east of Highway 101 and approximately 0.15
mile south of Branch Street within the City of Arroyo Grande (City) (Figure 2). The
property is trapezoidal in shape and is bounded to the east and south by residential
development, to the west by Whiteley Street,and to the north by Arroyo Grande Creek.
Residenrial development is also located across Whiteley Street and further north of Arroyo
, � Grande Creek. On-site topography is flat to steeply sloping with elevation ranging from
r . .. . _ . .., . .. . . i a - . • � . � s . . F , .. . . .
Mr.John Shoais
Biologicaf ResourcesAssessment
133 Whiteley Street(APN 007-494-003)
Page 2 of 10
approximately 80 feet mean sea level at the creek bed to 110 feet above mean sea level at the
proposed project site.
The property contains the channel of Arroyo Grande Creek to the north and an upland area
outside of the creek corridor to the south. The proposed project is located on an
approximately 5,921 square foot area in the flatter,higher elevaHon portion of the property
outside of the Arroyo Grande Creek corridor in the southem property boundary (Figure 3).
The project includes a single-family house with a two car garage on a 1,647 square foot
building pad. The single-family house includes a setback from the top:of-bank that varies
from 15 to 22 feet to the house comers and walls. Xeric landscaping is proposed for the
remainder of the project site. To deter pedestrians and domestic animals from entering the
Arroyo Grande Creek channel from the property,an 18-inch high retauung wall with an 18
to 24-inch picket fence is proposed to be constructed along top-of-bank from the northem to
southem property boundary. The grade of the project site will be a gentle slope to the west
to focus on-site runoff from rainfall and irrigation towards Whiteley Street.
METHODS
Rincon Consultants biologist John H. Davis N visited the study site on January 10 and
January 21,2006 to characterize existing habitat types and identify areas contauung special-
status biological resources. Dnring the surveys,plant and wildlife species observed were
listed. The entire siudy site was surveyed to generally characterize the existing biological
resources and to evaluate the on-site habitats that could potenHally support special-status
species or otherwise be of concern to the City, the Califomia Department of Fish and Game
(DFG),U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Aftministration, NaHonal Marine Fisheries (NOAA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps),and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). All portions of the study
area were inspected where access permitted.
Prior to conducting the field surveys,Rincon Consultants reviewed the site plan(Liv-In
Environments), an aerial photograph of the lot and surrounding area (Google Earth 2005),
the U.S.G.S.Oceano and Arroyo Grande Northeast 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle
maps. The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB,December 2,2005)was aLso
queried for informaHon on special-status species potentially occurring within the vicinity of
the property.
No specific surveys for special-status plants or wildlife were conducted during the
reconnaissance-level surveys. The potential need for subsequent,more intensive surveys
for special-status biological resources was assessed following literature review findings and
field survey observations. Conclusions about that assessment are included in the
recommendaHons section of this report.
RESULTS
The single natural habitat type observed within the study area was riparian woodland
located on the banks of Arroyo Grande Creek. The portion of the site proposed for
development was bare soil from recent grading activities. Classificarion of the on-site
• habitat type or vegetaHon community is based generally on Holland's classificaHon of
. i n . i i e n m e n t .. . a r � . r � � a r c F I a n n e r s F n c � n r • r �
� Mr.John Shoals
Biological Resources Assessment
133 Whiteiey Street(APN 007-494-003)
Page 3 of 10
terrestrial vegetation communities (1986) and Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf's vegetation
classificaHon system(1995). In addition,a segment of Arroyo Grande Creek flows along the
northem boundary of the study area. Based on the presence of flowing water within the
channel this area was classified as Riverine per Cowardin s Classification of Wetlnnds nnd
' Deeptunter Ha6ifats of d�e United Stntes (1985),
The northem portion of the study area consists of the riparian woodland habitat associated
with Arroyo Grande Creek. In the southem porHon of the study area,bare soil was
observed on the project site due to recent grading acHviHes. No vegetaHon was observed in
the southern area except for a pile of pruned tree branches near the southeastern property
boundary. The branches were from a non-native tree that was apparently part of the
previous on-site landscape. An approximately six-foot chain-link fence was recenfly
installed along the surveyed top-of-bank. The eastern portion of this fence followed a
"higher' top-of-bank and the western portion followed the"lower' top-of-bank. In
addition,excess dirt from grading activiHes was placed near the northern boundary of the
project site. A silt fence was installed between the chain-link fence and the graded bare soil
to protect the creek from sediment runoff(please refer to the attached Photo Plate). The
following discussion focuses on the habitat type observed on-site and describes the existing
conditions and potenHal occurrences of special-status species within the sludy area
boundaries.
Habitat Types
Riparian Woodland. The on-site riparian habitat type most closely corresponds to
the Central Coast Cottonwood-Sycamore.Riparian Forest as described by Holland and the
Califomia Sycamore Series described by Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf. Although some areas of
the riparian habitat are dominated by non-native species, mostly the understory, the
majority of the woodland contains intact naHve woodland species. Riparian woodland
communities are characteristic of drainage channels and stream banks where the vegetarion
has access to a shallow water table typical of these features. Arroyo Grande Creek supports
dense riparian woodland primarily consisling of an overstory of California•sycamore
(Platnns�s racemosn),black cottonwood (Populits bafsamifera ssp. trichornrpa),redbud (Cercis
occidentnlis),and non-native Eucalyplus (Eucnlyphrs sp.) and Monterey pine (Pinus radiatn)
[Note: Monterey Pine is not naHve to this area of San Luis Obispo County]. The understory
primarily consists of non-naHve invasive vines such as English-ivy (Hetlera l�elix),nasturHum
(Tropaeoluni nrnjus),periwinkle (Vincm m�jor),and morning glory (Cont�olvuh�s sp). NaHve
shrubs or subshrubs such as stinging nettle (Urtirn dioirn),Califomia blackberry (Ri�bi�s
i�rsin�is),and Douglas' nightshade (Solnnum doi�glnsiQ are found on the lower portion of the
bank above the creek bed.
Riparian communities help to stabilize creek bank soils and maintain water quality through
filtration. These communiries generally border watercourses such as streams,lakes, and
ponds and as a result,are of particularly high resource value due to the diversity of plants
and�vildlife they support. Riparian communities are important for many wildlife species
sincc aUundance of moisture and associated vegetaHon provide structure,materials, and
food sources for nesting and roosting animals. Many species forage within the understory
. and use riparian habit2t as cover and as a corridor for movement along the edges of open
_ ___.. ._ [ � _ . . . � � . .. . . r �' . : � • . • . C . • n a . : [ n • . � .. • .
Mr.John Shoals
Biologicai Resources Assessment
133 Whiteley Street(APN 007-494-003)
Page 4 of 10
areas. Common inhabitants of riparian woodland habitat in the Arroyo Grande area
include amphibians and reptiles such as the Pacific chorus frog (Pse:�dacris regilla),black-
bellied slender salamander (Bntrnclioseps nigriaentris),and westem fence lizard (Sceloponrs
occidentalis),and mammals such as raccoon(Pron�on lotor),opossum (Didelphis airginiana),
striped skunk (Mepl:iEis mephitis),and dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma sp.). Riparian
woodland habitat also supports a diverse number of resident and migratory bird species
including raptors. These species include warbling vireo (Vireo gilvus), Wilson s warbler
(Wilsonia pusrlln),common yellowthroat(Geoflrl�is trichns),black phoebe (Sa�o�nis nigricans),
goldfinches (Cnrduelis spp), and turkey wlture (Catluertes aura).The ott=site sycamore trees
provide structure necessary for hawking and nesting sites of many raptors. Several
Wilson s warblers and a turkey vulture wete observed during the site visits.
Riverine. Arroyo Grande Creek is a perennial creek that traverses the northern
portion of the study area. The headwaters of Arroyo Grande Creek begin northeast of the
property in the vicinity of Garcia Mountain. From the headwaters, the surface water runoff
flows west and eventually enters L,opez Lake. It then exits Lopez Dam and meanders
through mixed agriculture land uses where it confluences with Huasna Creek and then
continues through urban areas including the City of Arroyo Grande,ultimately reaching the
Pacific Ocean. The segment of Arroyo Grande Creek within the study area is located down
a very steep bank direcdy adjacent to the homesite. The riparian woodland habitat is found
on both sides of Arroyo Grande Creek and provides a buffer from the creek's channel to the
top-of-bank and surrounding development. The Arroyo Grande Creek provides aquaric
habitat for common macroinvertebrates, amphibians, reptiles,fish,and mammals. No
vegetation was observed growing within the bed of the creek nor were any wildlife species
observed within the water at the time of the site visits.
Special-Status Species
For the purpose of this letter report,special-status species are those plants and animals
listed,proposed for listing,or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by the
USFWS under the federal Endangered Species Act(ESA); those considered "species of
concem' by the USFWS; those listed or proposed for listing as rare, threatened,or
endangered by the DFG under the California Endangered Species Act(CFSA);azumals
designated as"Species of Special Concem" by the DFG; and plants occurring on Lists 1B, 2,
and 4 of the Califomia NaHve Plant Society's(CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered
Vascular Plants of California (CNPS, 2001).
Rincon Consultants developed a list of special-status plant and animal species that are
known or have the potenHal to occur within Arroyo Grande Creek and its associated
riparian habitat based on review of the CNDDB (Figure 4) and our own knowledge of the
area. Field reconnaissance to identify habitat types and an evaluarion of the on-site soils
helped refine the target list of species and focus our assessment of the actual or potenHal for
occurrence of special-status species on the property.
Special-Status Plants and Plant Communities of Special Concem
The CNDDB contains records of 24 special-status plants that are known from relarively
, • localized occurrences in the vicinity of the study area, and three plant communiHes of
! n r . r n n n: e n I a i S . � � i I � s 1 t V 1 � n n r � . ( n �: � n r . •
Mr.John Shoals
Biologicai Resources Assessment
_ 133 Whiteley Street(APN 007-494-003)
Page 5 of 10
special concern that occur in the greater Arroyo Grande area. Qur literature review and
knowledge of botanical resources in the vicinity of the study area identified an addirional
plant community of special concern that is known to occur in the region. The majority of
the special-status species identified have highly specialized habitat requirements that do not
occur within the study area (i.e.: Coastal Dune Scrub,Central Foredunes,and Coastal and
Valley Freshwater Marsh). Therefore,species such as surf thistle (Cirsiiru� rltotliophilunt),
Gambel's watercress (Roripprt ganibelie),sand mesa manzanita(Arctostapli�Ios n�dis),dune
larkspur (Delphinium pam,/i ssp.blochntanine),marsh sandwort(Arennrin pniudicoln),and
beach spectaclepod (Ditit�ren n�nritimn) are not expected to occur on-siEe based on the lack of
suitable habitat.
Of the 24 special-status species known to occur in the region,one of these species,black-
flowered figwort(Scrophulnrin ntrntrt),could potentially occur on the Whiteley property
because the site is within the known range of the species and appropriate habitat for the
species was observed on-site. The following species account briefly presents relevant
ecological and range information and legal status for the black flowered figwort:
• Black Flowered Figwort is a perennial herb in the figwort family (Scrophulariaceae)
included on the CNPS's List 1B. It typically blooms from April to July and is known
from both Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties. This species is knocvn from
a wide range of habitat types including closed-cone coniferous forest chapanal,
coastal dunes,coastal scrub,and riparian habitat types. This species was not
observed during the field surveys,but suitable habitat for this species was iiientified
within the study area in the riparian woodland habitat type.
Three rare vegetation communities or plant communities of special concem to the resource
agencies identified in the CNDDB as occuning in the vicinity of the site include Central
Foredunes,Central Dune Scrub,and Coast and Valley Freshwater Marsh. Our background
review and experience in the area identified an addiHonal plant community of special
concem that is known to occur in the area and included Riparian Woodland. Only the
Riparian Woodland habitat type was observed on-site and was located in the northem
portion of the study area.
Special-Status Wildlife
Thirteen special-status wildlife species were identified by the CNDDB as occurring within
the Arroyo Grande Creek corridor. Of these 13 species,l0 have specific habitat
requirements that do not occur within the study area. Several of these species such as the
Hdewater goby (Etraiclogobit�s nein6em,/t),westem snowy plover (C/tnradrimrs aiesn�tdrimis),
American badger (Tnsirten tnsus),sandy beach Hger beetle (Cicindela hirticollis graaida),and
Califomia brackishwater snail (Tn�a�in imrtntor)have known occurrences�vithin the vicinity
of the study area,but have specific habitat requirement that area not found within the study
area like brackish water,coastal dunes,and open grassland. While monarch butterflies
(Darintrs plexippt�s) and bank swallows (Ripnrin ripnria) could likely forage on the property,
they would not be expected to over-winter or nest on-site.
Our literature review and field surveys of the site,as well as our own kno�vledge of
biological resources in the region ic9entified a total of three special-status species that could
� potenHally occur within the proposed project area based on the presence of suitable habitat:
Mr.John Shoats
Biological Resources Assessment
1331Nhiteley Street(APN 007-494-003)
Page 6 of 70
1) California Red-legged Frog (Rnna nuro�a drn�tonii);
2) Southern Steelhead (Ondiorh�chus m�kiss iritieus);and
3) Pacific[SouthwestemJ Pond Turfle(Actinem�s marniorata pd11iA�)
The following presents listing status and relevant ecological information for the species with
potential to occur within the study area:
■ Califomia red-legged frog(CRL� is a federally-listed threatened species,and a
state Species of Special Concem. Preferred aquatic habitat of the CRLF is
characterized by dense shrubby,or emergent riparian vegetarioh,such as arroyo
willow,cattails,and bulrushes,associated with deep (greater than 2 feet),still or
slow-moving water. However,California red-legged frogs use a variety of habitat
types,including various aquatic,riparian,and upland habitats. They include,but
are not limited to,ephemeral ponds,intermittent streams,seasonal wedands,
springs,seeps,permanent ponds,perennial creeks,man-made aquatic features,
marshes,dune ponds,lagoons,riparian corridors,blackberry thickets,nonnaHve
annual grasslands,and oak savannas. Additionally,CRLF successfully breed in
artificial ponds with little or no emergent vegetation. It is believed that at any time
of the year,adult Califomia red-legged frogs may move long distances from
breeding sites. According Yo the final rule to list the CRLF as Federally Threatened '
(USFWS May 1996),habitat loss and alteraaon are the primary factors that have
negaHvely affected the CRLF throughout its range. The majority of extant localities
are isolated and fragmented remnants of larger historical populations. The CRLF is
expected to occur throughout the drainages in the greater Arroyo Grande area,
including Arroyo Grande Creek and its tributaries north of the study area. Several
of these known occurrences are within 1.0 mile of the property. CRLF is likely to
occui in the on-site segment of Anoyo Grande Creek.
■ Southern Steelhead,South/Central Ecological Significant Unit (ESU),is a Federally
Threatened Species. The steelhead trout is an anadromous (ocean-run) form of the
rainbow trout. Steelhead trout have extremely well developed homing abilities.
They usually will spawn in the same stream and area where they lived as fry.
However,steelhead are opportunistic spawners and will spacvn in other areas of a
stream if their particular tributary or reach is unreachable due to new dams,other
barriers,or pollution: When in fresh water, the steelhead trout prefer a fast flowing,
highly oxygenated,clear,cool stream where riffles tend to predominate pools. The
southern steelhead is documented in Arroyo Grande Creek from the Pacific Ocean to
Lopez Dam and further east in the upper reaches of the creek. Southern steelhead is
likely to occur in the on-site segment of Arroyo Grande Creek due to its low
gradient,overhanging vegetaHon,and narrow channel. No in channel pools were
observed within the on-site segment of Arroyo Grande Creek,and it is uncertain if
spawning occurs in this reach of the drainage.
• Southwestern pond turtle is a Federal Species of Concern and State Species of
Special Concem. Pond turtles are highly aquatic species that�+�ill inhabit streams
and ponds throughout central Califomia. The pond turtle requires permanent water
. and lays its eggs in the banks of creeks and can nest up to one-half mile in adjacent
� upl2nds if suitable habitat is present. Although no documented occurrences of the
• - • - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � , , . . . . . � . . . , . . . .
I Mr.John Shoals
Biological Resources Assessment
i _ 133 Whitetey Street(APN 007-494-003)
Page 7 of 10
southwestem pond turtle�vere found for this reach of Arroyo Grande Creek,it is
likely that this species occurs at least seasonally in the project vicinity. Based on the
� lack of defined deep water habitat(i.e.: pools greater than lwo feet deep) this species
likely moves through the subject property to areas of more suitable habitat further
upstream or downstream.
Special-status species including birds of prey,such as the golden eagle (Aquiln din�srretos),
Iwhite-tailed kite (Elnntu leucun�s),sharp-shinned hawk(Accipiter strinh�s),and Cooper's
hawk (Accipiter cooperit),all have extensive ranges that cover many habitats,and can be
expected as rare to common transients within the study area. These species are protected
I under California Fish and Game Code,and could potenHally nest in the northern porHon of
the property within the riparian woodland habitat. No nests were observed during the site
visits. In addiHon, the long-eared owl (Asio ohrs) and loggerhead shrike (Innii�s ludoviciamis)
may occur on-site to forage and may also potenrially nest in the riparian woodland habitat
on the property.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The 133 Whiteley Street property contains riparian woodland and riverine habitats. The
southem portion of the property was recently graded prior to the site visits and does not
currently support any vegetation. The riparian woodland has the potential to support one
special-status plant species, the black flowered figwort and the riverine habitat or active
channel has potential to support thi�ee special-status wildlife species, the CRLF,
' southwestem pond lurtle,and southern steelhead. The riparian woodland habitat may also
be used by the CRLF for dispersal and the southwestem pond turtle to bask and lay eggs.
In addition, the riparian woodland habitat is identified by the DFG as a plant community of
species concem. The significant biological issues on the property are associated with
riparian woodland habitat type, Arroyo Grande Creek,and the potential occurrence of
special-status plant and animal species within these habitats.
Should any special-status species or biological resources be impacted by the proposed
project, permitling would be required by state and federal resource agencies. The current
design and footprint of the project evaluated during this study is situated on a currently
disturbed area of bare soil adjacent to the riparian woodland habitat associated with Anoyo
Grande Creek. Due to the adjacent setting of the development area to the Arroyo Grande
Creek channel and riparian woodland habitat, direct and indirect impacts to onsite
hiological resources may result from development of the single-family residence. The
following recommendaHons represent measures necessary to reduce potential impacts to
biological resources to a less than significant level under CEQA on the 133 Whiteley Street
Property:
Riparian Woodland. The riparian woodland habitat type is of special concern to the
regulatory agencies,including the City and DFG due to the extensive loss of these habitat
types in coastal California. The DFG considers the riparian woodland habitat type as a
plant community of special concem and as such areas contauung riparian habitat should be
adequately protected during development of the property. Consequently, any acHvity that
• �vould remove or otherwise alter the riparian woodland habitat type (i.e.: vegetation
' trimming) would be regulated by the DFG under SecHon 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game
- - - - - - - � . . . , . . . , .
Mr.John Shoais
Biotogical Resources Assessment
133 Whiteley Street(APN 007-494-003)
Page 8 of 10
Cocie and would require a Streambed AlteraHon Agreement. If impacts to riparian
woodland habitat should occur from development of the proposed project, the DFG would
require compensatory mitigarion,most likely in the form of on-site revegetation using
native riparian plants. The following are recommendations to minimize unpacts to the
riparian woodland habitat and avoid the need for regulatory permitting(i.e.: a Streambed
Alteration Agreement).
• Riparian Habitat Setback. The on-site riparian woodland vegetation is primarily
confined to the creek channel with only secondary tree limbs ex�ending south of top-
of-bank over the project site; therefore,riparian woodland vegetation is not expected to
be direcdy impacted by the proposed placement of the single-family residence.
However, direct impacts may result during installation of the retaining wall proposed
to be constructed at the top-of-bank. Therefore,it is recommended that the retairring
wall be setback at least five feet from top-of-bank to avoid affecting the top-of-bank,
riparian habitat,and ultunately any regulatory permit requirements. In addiHon to the
setback, the following pracHces should be implemented to avoid regulatory agency
permit requirements.
1. Do not remove riparian woodland vegetation. This includes trimming native
tree branches or removing shrubs within the creek corridor. Doing so would
require a DFG Streambed AlteraHon Agreement.
2. Do not impact the creek bank or top-of-bank area.
3. Prior to grading activities,install temporary orange construction fencing at
least two feet south of top-of-bank to discourage entry of equipment or
construcHon workers into riparian woodland habitat.
• Landscaping. Incorporate narive drought tolerant native plants into the project site s
landscaping plan. The County of San Luis Obispo has a list of approved naHve plant
species that can be found at the following website:
http:/./www.sloplanning.org/Environmental/-County°�20plants.htm
In addition, the use of fertilizers and pesticides should be minimized to reduce water
quality impacts to Anoyo Grande Creek.
• Lighting. Arroyo Grande Creek is a wildlife corridor for common and special-status
wildlife species. High intensity lighting (flood lights,high wattage light bulbs
greater than 604� should not be directed towards the riparian woodland area or
creek. Instead,use diffuse lighting, ground/low profile "landscape" lighting or
so]ar lighting in the northem porHon of the site,and direct lighting only on the si�9es
of the house that wori t affect the creek and associated resources.
Arroyo Grande Creek. The segment of Arroyo Grande Creek on the property is subject to
Corps jurisdiction as waters of the United States pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act. The RWQCB would also require a Clean Water Act SecHon 401 water quality
cerHfication,or waiver,for any development project that would impact on-site water
resources as part of the Corps permit. The following are recommendations to reduce
, ' impacts to the Arroyo Grande Creek to a less than significant level and avoid the need for
regulatory permits.
Mr.John Shoals
Biotogical Resources Assessment
133 Whiteley Street(APN 007-494-003)
Page 9 of 10
• Creek Protection. Implementation of the following recommendations would reduce
impacts to Anoyo Grande Creek:
1. A five foot buffer from the top of bank should be established and protected to
ensure construcrion activiHes do not increase the erosion potential in the area
or facilitate construction related debris from entering the creek. The buffer
should be demarcated with highly visible construcHon fencing for the benefit
of contractors and equipment operators.
2. The applicant should prepare and submit for approval Eo the City a sediment
and erosion control plan that specifically seeks to protect waters and riparian
woodland resources adjacent to construcHon site. Erosion control measures
should be implemented to prevent runoff into Arroyo Grande Creek. Silt
fencing,straw bales, and/or sand bags should be used in conjunction with
other methods to prevent erosion and siltation of the stream channel. The
plan should specify locations and types of erosion and sediment control
shvctures and materials that would be used on-site during construction
activities. The plan should also describe how any and all pollutants
originating from construction equipment would be collected and disposed.
3. During construcHon activities,washing of concrete,paint,or equipment shall
occur only in areas where polluted water and materials can be contained for
subsequent removal from the site. Washing should not be allowed in
locaHons where the tainted water could affect sensiHve biological resources
(i.e. riparian woodland or Arroyo Grande Creek).
4. Site drainage should be contoured that all surface runoff originating from the
site is directed away from the creek and onto Whiteley Street and into a
storm drain with a City-approved filter system.
Svecial-Status Species. Suitable habitat for one special-status piant species, the black-
flowered figwort,was identified on-site. This plant species has a low to moderate potential
to occur within the riparian woodland habitat on the proper .ty. The active channel of
Arroyo Grande Creek and the associated riparian habitat on the property also have the
potenrial to support three special-status wildlife species,including the federally-threatened
Califomia red-legged frog,federally endangered southem steelhead,and DFG species of
species concern southwestem pond turtle. The property also contains potenHal nesting sites
for migratory birds in the riparian woodland area within the study area. Potential nesting
sites for migratory birds are protected by the Fish and Game Code of Califomia (DFG Code)
and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). In practice,abiding by the DFG Code and the
MBTA usually means to avoiding active nests until adults and young are no longer reliant
. on the ne'st site. Future construction acHvities should not cause the abandonment of an
active nest.
The development of the proposed project is not expected to directly impact special-status
plant or�vildlife species;however, the potential for indirect impacts from erosion,
se�9imentation,poor water quality, direct lighting, domestic animal predaHon,further
, encroachment on the riparian corridor and reducHon of upland habitat,are possible. It is
� recommended for the purpose of this project that presence of these special-status species be
_ . . . � . _ _ . . . . _ � , , , . . . . r � . , � . . , .
Mr.Jahn Shoals
Biologicat Resources Assessment
- 133 Whiteiey Street(APN 007-494-003)
Page 10 of 10
presumed and the above-recommended measures implemented to avoid"take" of the CRLF
and southern steelhead as defined by the federal Endangered Species Act. Ultimately,
implementaHon of these measures would protect Anoyo Grande Creek and its riparian
woodland habitat and eluninate the need for focused special-status species surveys.
In conclusion, the proposed project has potential to d'uecfly and indirectly impact special-
status biological resources in the northem portion of the property. If the recommended
measures iden6fied in this report are successfully implemented,focused surveys and ,.
permitting from the regulatory agencies would not be required. Moreover,any indirect
impacts from project development would be mitigated by the identified measures and all
impacts reduced to a less than significant level under CEQA.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide environmental consulting services for this project.
Please call me directly if you have any questions or concerns regarding our analysis or
would like to discuss these issues further.
Sincerely,
RI CON CO SULTANTS,INC.
k ,�� ,�,.
hn H. Davis N Kevin Merk
Associate Biologist Senior Biologist
Manager,Biological Resources Group
��Duane Vander Pluym,D. ESE
Principal Biologist
Attacim�enls: Figure 1-Projett Virinit�Map
� Figure 2-Sile Loivlion Mup
Figure 3-Site Plan �
Figure 4-CNNDB Resu(ts
Figure 5-Photo Plate
133 WhiteleyStreet PropeAy(APN 007-494-003) .
Blologieal Resources Assessment
� 41 � �
\•;, �Santa Margartta
W 101 '-�
���Morro Bay
'}Q� ` .,` :.,,
� ,� , � .
�� �r �• asl/. , �
/� j; ' u�PaO(f . �•>_
/ / ::.�aua:,y'a+'�-_rc (
��''_ , `.� ,�
, . ` -__ -___.
� � `o,�Sari Luis Obispo ` _ _ r"'.�
r�
t ' ` �. *e
1 `�%`-_ -_
-�. ,• `�,
,�r�` 101 � SAN LUIS 087SP0 CO.
1�'+' -.e �"''. ��•, ��
`� r� �.�
. - . -,
� 1 - � �� �� � --
� Pis�eh � '- '— �.•
\ ;�� r
._�"."'` .'`
� Oeeano \
�
� - �'_
�' `
�
�'�
n ' � ..._ '� Nipomo
� o 0
� + R � ....:.,�x�..��:.:
I p `i'. :-• �:
q `-_. ': `-^f"V
-r' � '-'" � �:' , � ".. �_" �
/ 7
C� ��r + _;��� ,
� Guadalupe.�.�___,_,' '�Sanla Marl�
Q o;- r-Z
' � - � .l
�, � � /Betteravia i _i;,;-;--�-,-.� :l
-��1 L^` 'e � �',. � j,_'_1J
`i � �b j - � o arey
�` _ _ -._- ......_.
- - Source: US Bureau ollhe Census Tl�ER 2000 dafa.
Legend N
A 0 2.5 5 Mites
�' Project Location � � '
_ • Project Vicinity Map Figure 1
� �� Pace Brothers Construction,lnc.
133 WhiteleyStreet Property(APN 007-494-003)
Biolo teal Resources Assessment .
/ yy� �t ��Royal Oak PI i
, �:
�'' aS� ,'; /.
� �o�° i3q �� �
m
0
/ pA �,p�:` �t `.. 9
j �y'%� �.i .
`� 'q "
i, C, • Sy '' /'
i aoyo .a F i�
i' oiyd � -pa �•
�� Y '� �:
/�
�' ` �'i. l
a • ,�T\
_. L°� �aT`°m ,�°4 � � \Q�a
a
,ta0ac �ay b`�� �� ` �'r' ��a5° i
. o�a o, �.
o` � i.
o � SS�a� y
ae j' FIaW Rd j
R� � .
Miller Cir i ` , `..��
`. �`US� cs 1�.
�Q-D r9` , Gko'� Gata(� , �d .
0 o i i ._._..� �hq
�a e���h S� �0ee� �.s�c�s� BS e m t�`'�e�` v
�s� WBto��Pl �eB s , �a �S
�.J�i �O'• � �IO
. eN �'i e�S� e�P c
pd P�B >•'-i� 'e P� G� e
G�y �.�. pa0 � � �._ —..`
. � i� ays 1 Z % �'�.
c � 2•�O '\,
� % �C �
/, ..i
� i.
= j ��
Ash St � ",� GS �.
� �� `'���Yyy) �:
� ,\ �r ;.
- 1� \.
Olive St � j '�-. �
Fa�rdi Ave f� � �
• -.` .
� � _
ameroa Cl � �iP� ��•-� �
�--� l �
Vi�9��� �o j E,a� @ip �•,�
0
, �. Sunrise Dr °O `• .._
I �"
I
7 �
Source: TemserveL 2005 end US.Bureau ot the Census 71GER 2000 dafa.
Legend � N
� ^ 0 025 0.5 Miles
Project Location N ' �
Site Location Map Figure 2
. Pace 8rathers ConsVUCtion,lnc.
�
1331Nhiteiey Street Property(APN 007�194-003)
Biological Resourees Assessment
Project Location �1�� `
USGS Quad: Oceano ' ,�
Tovmshiph2ange: j . \ «e
�T32S,R13E,Sectian 22 ' � � e
' � '°(� ��\ . � W c
~� `�.
.�..� __. , ��. F �
�l► �•• '• 1 ,s� ��'
e�
; i a
w ; j. , °�
. \ �i i �� ��� � W
/ . i f F� E
, ism �Qeach �� :`�. ���
�. �+ , . �.. g o
.� `\. • . � '� �
. � i%.. � � � , , 8_2
Q � ' _ .�... - - �a�
i-
.� p ' �—; 4► '� � _- - - .� a�g
r u -_-� -- � i
�A \� : � 01���^_� � mY0
2�. \ '_'" 'r--'�. • ` f1f18 � N o°�
o`�, ._.. .�_. , �.. _ �
�� :- ���
e
' . .� , � $�;
'`��o�a"° � t - ,i,� s��
a ;;
`p -- . ` . � s3 s��
� 1 Ot a.��
' ; � � Q�e
� • � \�� .. �F�
1
° `� ' ° �_
e °�
�� � . a�.�
Z �g
9 5�
` `.�`' � C
l; y� ^�� � �' , � ' , N U a�
.. . • � i 0 0.5 1 Miles `\ �gt�E
1 i I ��, §�
". _._..__.. __....'_" —; . r9i2�
� ProjectLocation , IIDIPt20t0.0aoFlamioOCerlly v POFA82B2GO.SanLulsOCispoCOU�rtyhiDine
r. IILEG49010.OmFIamflig�ikssmoN ` pOLAM1B070,uispmonardalla
O 6Mile Radius IILEPP2010,monarMDunertly
CfiticalHabitat � �MGASJ/0t0,CafdamiabacklsRxaterana0 � P���1B0%O,SanWisOCepomowideila
LaGraciosaThistle PDl5T3E1NO.LnGraGasaNislle FDONA05f11.Gismoclarkia
70PGNOCOSO,B�ewefssOineROVrer .
— S Calif Central Coast Steelhead '� PDPST2E2J0,SurtN[stle
�i /WABM01023,Califomp2Eaegge0M1O9 �� POPGN600NO,svaigMawnetlspNeMwer
.' A8NNB07Wt,wntem:nowypbver PDAST7M5-0.Bbrhman'skay0ahy � pORMOBiBt,tlunelaikspur
�-:.- AFCHA0209H,steel�eaE-aauWOerrtralCafdomucoaatesu pDA5TdR0U4,bafytarpiant P�ROSOW043,Kelbgga�orke0a
AFCON040f0,tidar.ater yoEy
� .wf AMAJFOd010,Ame�ican EnEger y PDASTEBOCO.San Bemartlmo ester 'PDROSOWD45,mesa�arkelia
+tp ARAAD020�2,souNwestempondWNe
�l._ ARNCF720Yl.Coaat(CaGfomla)MmeOlcard PDBRA10020,bead�apeazcbpod PDSCRODd57,OEispolMlanDalMCrvs1�
❑' CTT21220C0.Ce�rtralFOreEunes � �+�' PDBRA270VO,GamEe�swateruess � P0.SCRi5010,Ebck•fbwereEfiywort
Q' CTi71J20Cl�CenUal DuneSwD Pa���O.manA sanEwort PM�ILOD1f0.San LWS maApma I�y
V.- PMPOAOCOMO.Maovefsbenig2ss
Q CTT52atOG�COasUIanEValkyFrtsl�waterAlaM FOERIOf1E0,aanOmeamawn'ila
` IICOL02101,undyEeac011yer0eetle .�� PDER101280,WaviamaKan'na
1 IICOL87010.whheunEEearxanbDeelb �I�
� PDFAffi8111.Nipomo Alesa Ivpine
Sensitive Elements Reported by the
California Natural Diversity Database Figure 3
� Pace Brothers ConsUUCtion,lnc.
51TE�� f •
�,yauww+w�'
`�,T� a/N6 � �
4P M A ~����T���v++i
99.� _.. "^'^"` "� t. r�"
.^„"`N`.. 5 ..�.w.....�.. r
�yTILITY.NOTES . �-'-�---�'" _'� �� ...�.
pt 4 '° .�..._,— , �f
,�....�;� ..�..--- "..-�-�....«...—�-^-+—'"' ""�.
....:: __... ; �.�--_ -�- _�.��-=�.-�=� ,.
�=r,.:�:,-.._-� �. � .� �.:,... ; � ��
�:.:µ�:."'.�.'—== Y ' , m r� ' :��=�""���' '; --- � — — w��Sg
+'er,,:w.....:.�.�%.+�
:-^:•�'^ � . i � ` ..-� ' E
--^::.w..`== y .. f� ^"" ,,......�.« �` gTAT1 TI . Y1���<
��"'"""� i 4! t5'.d�2*W1'� .�. .....:.;........ ,r�,,,. Op �
'�^' ^�„� ...-.wY � �A�ut� T• tI fK p�y � a...�..:..�..^�"`...w �,<t�� .uaroo'�eeowtd � p��
.�,,,'i'...^„rr.-�..^" d� It i� �r �...+�....�"'� r w1W�I. ��N�
�a��r� U.MN�6 �lY Ji� IM�.w�+.r.�.�T•°..r.��w MRMC Z�1 �
"" Y��.�..�.`:.^^..:=.'. rv'jFD..FZN:°o� . � F�^""'.,....... � I 4ieu�a• rw�ti:� a W onY
r�..�^.��..•��. �° tea+«a+r�+t�M'. � � L'. .���'"�:�.�.'��"":„ °P�e�n u�a�w� � Z�a-�
�...:�.... ! l �„
�.r.�...� � o t t1 � �.�...�~,.'.r�..,,� t1 in w
.�„��.�++r�,','...��.,��- � w+rM P'�^'� � ,'� �� � �+ r+''..»�,.r.,..'�...+�.� I wtea�'natN�r ��.i>� ��wb�
'�'y'�."� w,,,�.n.w .�r^��i� vV 7i� ' � �^..M.-+i.n+^:+�:.. . tw�Y M.�a) '"� �• .
�.�.w�^•^,.+ww�..n � � O 4t ! �C�l \ t ��.�w�1,A,�rn^�.r+• ��w
- _ = s I(w I '"`4 �
("'i�+n � ���r 11�M� N�bS�M
�" � � = I \ � �y�.�r.w����
S . � . f.� T�� �w N �pp1
/ �f ���� V~ �n+r�` �� /.
�Of.O
'., . / �re . !('W�. n� Rt. � �o„��„��w.+....�.++�" � n i f9+�N7
����niurR-r ` ` . {,�, H, .,..,-_,,,....-..�._ , ,.�.�,a...�.
NOhG�`� �G£}.ID : � j B: 'r� �';�d . c �y,���.r._.,,+..... 1 �.w��eo.i.u^°'^'°°
h roc eew• /(. �M i �6
LCM caHl`UO" u� ',S�� �/�i•{at�. .�s � �����j I aW'��rW�^.rr.w
r�M 6ao�.+o�a.� r A y ��.�' . o �._� ,�6LSt+*'.�^ �+��'✓"
d . �r!�R Of �;' ''/!'p�- l ..sa�... ^ay
Gao�.+e ca3�e Bnse IfRiL�N 1.fTMtG"�,6t d �Y ��� .� . ..._._. G I iu °°"'� n� � �,+TF p A�LQIf
'. ` c°`a- cwscR arNK�a e°rN- � L. � „<,,.. or».... m�
' 6tN6N.�1. P.MVGY') PROI� ���� // � (✓� fI � ��a+�N v V�'�P'^'°
'd!Y` �'Z' v� W�GG ) � rl�i�' < `{ ��p.�� WIMW \�TIM
r J rp y I Y I
/�\p� pEGiotlNf *<N '�� ` 'i, i pa� �-e-- �".r '� � ...
V..'d �.r rw�.n. .+�
.nu""r�!' :YrK �I.1 li)/ � .�ar� �°°mr... ,�wM,...r.+. {
,WW��i /�p.1'i' •.� I.i�� �'1. } 1 ❑� M�ti� •V�p�I'r�ti�� ,
r�` .�- 4 5 �
�,; �� �;,�°I 'K_::�,..�.--- , �T� Qy wee�v. � ��w•w•vwn..r" 4
V j�.(' "� ^e\.•,. Y p. �Y ) ', ` � �e ��....���' .w+""'� Q y
, / 3/ ••,�, � �e ���. . L �i �� � �r«�+""'� •"r+'�r.. �p S�Sj
! Cd ���� !a t tl, -r� 1I � �, •am.n�re � ....rv^� �1FWI�V s�e• ]�it�g9z
dr ror 1 '1� \ �' `�: !K` � 4:a d.sw�� �w��r' Wl�L+n Nr'1 ���l�l
t • � 8 � 1K-� w V � �0' � ��t�'•r � �A j„�°'S3�Sr r+�n.r�•py?��o�r, B o
w yl Y ' eWaa. r1'"_mu.� w.n a
� i ' *a•'e'fl_' � . �w.ccuo"'° I a.r�� � Nn/n
G4 I a: (17 ' _m.r ��u�'�'.a�a�we�je4 ��j t•�iY 'r:�.�r
"�� { W .. . � • � •� • �pt4yplp�1110.�R�M 1lYl1
: ....�`���...-�• •
bI� W NIT6L6Y �T-��uG PI.�W�' � o�ewvu�^'�u.,ywara..o I �- • ......o...... � c
o:�.e-ro mv�.ecxww`u*+a "..,,�„^,�.r»�^"���-`.. r�.y�
� VR%I.IMINI� �<yp6(EKA�ll��O �_...:...,.- :�.n��.
y; �pN „vnowo�a° „�.......::-r °,,,..... rJ
�T e�wo�oa
'1' �•.r .���,•^.+y^^'��...:y:+� ,
. j�C ..^,�.��r+� , •
�
8io o9icat Resources Assessmen67�94-003) Y.^ �
? I
�r� . r'� '� .� i� �;��.' ��.'- .
�}, f t�`
,t `� � ..e.J
7 � r 1
�i �� �.x s -
w �ti 'g° �� > .,..; '�,�'��y'•'}::'�.ti- i ��� "*F ���r-�L -�v.l .A� .`°�_„
S� ,fS- .. +e �rrV�'�'�4+�y � 3�:V��'�. ^v��1, .�x N._� _ .,s.i"'s'>s.,'t�� r .y. '
i�Y.:4o,y1 j r�7 � . � t c t` r �t ',�"tit�R�..s#'2� t `��;�,$�� Qvr �,�,,,, .
r"S'� . �`i` s �-'Ii .t �<T 'i'�°`�cy �T5-y� 'L'ey'r' ti .'t« y,w r^ - �e r n i '� .
.( `Y Ai S �4 'l� 4 4.�' 1.�� MV�N��c...-,.'Y r ♦t: .i 1r� 3 '., .n
�
�r� l � �z�' � S1-�����akti'"r�.r+.-,��5.-,,;,. "�. ' *r���.•�.�. F:� S�y,..;.�
v��'�•ty � �i�+a' . 4 Y4rR�� � • �r� ����h� d�.s�� <�'"�e,"t_�
{.��`�} }
, �i� O � • R . t� � � _ !, t wYC'i4 �.�i .
C.. } , �j� s�,„ t,��„ 2.1.
*k<_.Y. �,.. j-!f �.d�� ,f �S� '".. � ... ' � r.♦ }} ����1�y'�y �' ,! ,k`a
'.oM� y.fi Y . �. _ .< . � '� . ��,R'.!S ♦.. . S�!r�`%S~
_� . . • • /. �C. .�v '� ' �` . . ; "' � 5.s �l j�"a''�i
. : l��w. . " . � . . . � "i't t.>`A L•'�'as'� '
�� t � ' . 1` Y• ♦ Y� : ♦ � a 1'v�^S �'i�. � � �. ��,y
Y : "J df" v - ��}wy�t - �t°+v� '`.`r::i. • �d �'J'`'�. !i'��'' . A'^T�-: '4.
�as �i� � . � �^�d+y`.� �S� S J S' `� 4�� C.r.1�`~�`� t _. � t�A`T�
�"" � �>.�. i '' i�.t�'st�,"`�a�1cn f eA� f t'�e'x.��r. :..r� .s,•
+* 7 s-w�},ly��.� r. > ;r �li�+,"Y,
"�t� - �t�3r'a`x•_t"r''t�I,i��.� r��: $
�yr. . �. A. .�.� '!v' i - '
53�� �
� eit�, �e pro}ect site
em ortion of the PT°P hoto was taken on
of-bar'k (near the Eence l�e).
This p
View northeast e Y�ds the sou � F
Photo Poink 1. _ � y{
� graded area to th �,r�=�?J.s 7 ' +
� IttC1tiCl25 e k�, . , .- s' ��,f,`P. � ' "_. .'
` U2t 21�2�' s� .,�"',.'}„�:Y.�r � i� ,.� •� ke�, '. ,� � " tr�' ��.9.
Jan .r.•y r• '}t '�`!'\ �S .��;r�'• ., y','�y�' �. . ,:.�.a�����.� ..,.,�'
, 4a y 3s� ��� ; '
v��r� \ti �� hs�yl�,Jty�. aiv ur�jwj�]:ai�.{7�-��r ��.1._ •i � �. i `
y ,� � R ��i�RL�.>r • ���l'ly+�l.� � ��,�`P 1��;�;t t',S�C� �#��q ' `�` `�,.
i�i�)�'� � � . S : v .e /i, y��a�.� :�:'F �*�"> �.t� - ,,j r� 4
�r r � r �T.i�+e�Y� �i�r .r� � "S ' �f
y 4 ` � �� .a:y��s f. � � ♦ . . a �u 2�
�S f}U C�SS 4��' iC.v�'i'f,�'a �{ �� ' ' . •h�,� �,SS.�;iF..
y.c;�:,�, y. .j r�'R .a.i .�..'rr..J,..i.^' ' ' � .
h � �}
y f'� T �q � ��'::,4*'�,:'fa. . d�f �a . ' .' � �� F'^''.
� i ���'S�, - �'� ,i�r �s' .. .•Y•-,—h�'�
��� . ` ,,�] � i � '+� . . �`. . - -s. � - �< �•r.:+
� � 'a!�.�`Y' 4� S'S�' . �� �Z4� �' 't - • ; . 15 r .1' .4y"=:�
�(q* � �' , �y. i�1 {.. e "`.-r .� _ 1 a � .... �'�..'r. '�yK�CY��
S T � �;��:����' ' ✓ M i 'L t 4 �'�S�aY�
� ' '� . Tr` . tl,�. . C . . : �-� � � ='`� '�`�^c+2^'_y1
r . ..:'q•- r " �
�, � {[�� � ` `4;��\ { r �2y y .�M L. � 1�f„�,?. a ,�,�i ;�
� � � ��' •'f.��• sY A" � r.^'� � �+'J�wr'�^�`��l-.
i:•'`- b Y � ' + r' ? � 4
1j ).` ✓. i/ � � L4� �F� t , �' � i,..�.� ,��, ..,ia •�yo i>i
1 ' {r N � ., � -.s �`ry �a Y`� �aa �i', ay . f�''•� ��T � r`K i�a�-.'q��:
, . . , y�. ^,� a .8 tir '• ".' C' +♦ �
\ � � � ` ��,: .• r >�'„�"3�ii
). 1' ( �Y . Y�.( '�Q �41/1S �r�•.'� �" \T::���Y
,' �•- �r �', �y ya �I� ' ., 4 1 �;-'i' �:.�,:n1if'.,.�,i . f ZaJ.'.ti-',aAl
� .�� r 1��� i {d 1-� 1> h��" f 11 }�y�� • �it•�4 {, !y��� �j' ` � °ii
F. �_'M�?�'� S. S�.f��- � tK.S 4. My1C.T�K �����.h{ `�lt •• 17�•:�1 S�
�• � a���� ' ! �{�.�.{: � �`�}q�ry. •�t`�:!y`-". :
. ♦ a .�. .t'fi;:��T 'C F�d2.� s . • .� . f
� � ;�fi ., '�� :.�.• ��tir ti�,.�.�'�i`'.5^•- To the left o
, •� �� rt;3.� e�`":�;;,• ,f,yr}..�,...i Creek.
t. - �'.,,1.�::�.:: Grande
, r �,��..�z.�' • rro 0
oE-bank oE A ) to the right is d'e
,� � � _�:°��r �e northem toP" Grande Cree�: and
�r.' - rro 0
photo point 2. v1e�v easc along
arian woodland habi anuaTy 21 20�y.
the top-of-rank is the riF hoto was taken on l
(nc.
graded Pro��t site. �is�' PhoEo Plate
pace 8rothers Construct�on,
. , 1
�
�' l��
7�1g4_p03) �,.�.,,., t��;. ,x'�,�;�
�APN pd � �t � ti ��
et Pro4g� ent 1 , i r� ,'�� .
�33WhReley Sto c 5 As�ssm .,� ���r �Q�� •,;;.!,4� i!�' a2, .
S1Res V ce ..r., �:.�� �-..s,�i; _+�'' �•1'
giolo9lG . . :F.-s.s�.� r:��%. ' + w' `' /�': �m ',�:i�.
r�..`�'n .5� �•,:3,�..��' {F .'} ��:• n,i:'
4•V^ �'.�T.���'�'�� .';r3,'l'��'. . . G,.�'1-�:�` :�M", 'y, ..c.��'� ♦
, ...;c .a;pj�Y. _�... y 7l`i 1 yS'�a�^•.'•%j. :_� .,�y.� �a ' ... � ,.� .
� �.Cz.� .•' � . k�j%� �� �, , �
"�.a�:==`���}�.',�• . . , . `li'� '� . .,'�E? �s:t=;'�':` - :: . .' '� �c ', � ..
-x}.l: � �5`� . 3; !k }�t. �i ,,�i'Y IY�� .i.^ .r �`�•.
y d,Z,�• 9 �t iC �c+.�'.9r Y.� �'i�5g� ♦ �i �' d. ` ���� y ��� i. s.
.�:.�i.;���`E '°'d'-' �.�i 1:S' ;,�e�]'. r� :.,,.s�. , .�,
� �• y. � ay:,,,.��r3.,:• ` �ti' _ . =$3'. ��e�{
. .L.:Ar:�.��r`.,''� �?'.h����� ` .... � , >,�"�:.�"��.-a��:o-��.%i•'•`�,
�.� .,..�.;r;�.,;���;'?����.�!�+ ..:^�` .�g". • ` -� - r t,g. ,
� �ff 1...M �i �y d'JQ �A�.iv � � `v�
�'vi, i �! c h� i �$i f B* y� ' _3 . 0 '
. < �f �r}, �'F1� i'��,Jy�, r r N� :R . �T� {� �, ;� y 4 .,r "i.
•�,4�'�.. !' y.i"ltrey�_� A�`0.. •ti±�''' �y�+,} fr+tv��*'�r�� '. ' r. ►
} �3y�"� �N i-F'
}.•�t-'S,a. Qy�jQ�Y�.••t��r. 4.��� ��� '.� `
S' �,f `.�V�N iJ:'..5 `�,y ��:;f..� �SS
s�gr` S,�;` r
`. ~'`�`,��ffJS"7L/t��:iL��y.�''� g�YY4�� �� �'y��"°}�s�N ,
`�,1-rn�-y,afLi..+l'�t V �Yyfq! g i '!t:+ LJS`w� ° f` I
�� j VJ.f�S��: �jsj'�.�� ni;� C .,�y` �'i �'i,�il i l
f �� I.. Oi a! ! ♦ I:Y �T e {
h• � � I � �I�I
�`�. #��r ' = '�-�' -•� „ �� ' � � ' � r � I
•d�� 5,., �,i�Y •s� .�^.y�' "}y".rR
�y��Art ^ `X' ��.' ..�,y/1¢�,� '
� n :�. ' r, .�a..
� s�' 'rs� . ^oodland�'abitat
;'`: . .�cy `� '� k from d'e nFa��gle of the northern
�` � 5 �Q top-o4-b� oto is the steeP . _..
� � ou'�east towat�tslble in this Ph ua�,21,2G06;. .�f,�;�,���r'y��;:r;t�;..
r.�• " View 5 us�dary' taken�nl�` - . :�_� , . ;•'sv.,,=.:,r��:'•;;t:
t 3. bo .�vas . r:;�' „j__:.;,,:�..;s<�;;.;._:�
yhoto Yoin St rn proPerty k.,�.his ph°to _ • =�`:� . � . ti �'^`='�`;-~:�:a s.r:,:>
e -,. . ,
neyr the we Gr�de�zee _:. :"" . :+�'. ;- ,��, <c' •. � �- ::" '..s��-�:
f ArroY° �s�'.. -'• .� ;':;;-':�=:� - �-, �: .;���: �. '; :':=,;�;,.. ,,.; ..r;i
b��`O ,�tkk�:�y . . ii. .r _ � . . .- . • J. �.r . �.:�-+! 'r r : .NY
� �Sx� � �+✓ , ?. , .,.. ,r i � .. t:.,rv%l.,,I�:lArv! . ?'� /L
7i ��"-.� ft�, . ��^wtY , ,,u.r-.'v s..4.�v 1 r � �i����1in'^_ � . •�
�,y�z�... •
�r3� d�" �s �':•Y�ri , 4�r
��c,��y"„b_ .d.3�n ' �� . .4 fY . . .� .. .� ' .
p 'L +r� ,f.?5'�'�.T
� `,�rt �;�,,,a,. K �,� «
:'S�e . � � k. ti� ..} ��L=�,K�yy��j �.� � t: r��"�?�. � . , � , ...
♦ �r. � ,ra •�. <'�k- '�`i5; ,y'„ � J..l`'�'^f`� vr ,s;s'f"�� � ', . .
' �„� i 5�3 «y� �'Y r� �. y ,r
� �} � � �'� � � y �c sr� .t . ..
�'�f"G•ir ...n J' ^'✓-�'�L.'�`E f; .� . Y>l���T..f"'4,.�£�'k s ~.� a-:
� • .� ;, a 2. A�Sc�!M�. :�� ♦ f 6 'p"' "'s ai""��� . .� .
� Yy+..r,��i.�y�i'-3-��,� i a 4,5� 'lid .gl),J',�'t�'n��' v i1 Yx: t 'y� � '~ ;• �'`�'� 4
- ry .a�'� L .� r'k''"4 t �F�. a Y� :Cf'F-.. l
.�y�, �y�tY�. .1f. � t ! ��,�Q�`` `+ Y:�''dr,� ro.
_i :'�Pr..�'_Y-fiy+�.'�K fih+.'tit �1 Y�w�j2 S ^� '" — `3; 4�s "I?�� a- y f
•�R� .'Y��' �� �� t.t.H l��lY Y �. ♦ C �.i�Y�ti� I t �� '1 � �
.r � . s lva �.. �'-�.�'r1�.4'�j', ,�, ,� �.� ,�
.:- �.o;..�..i' • r . 4d e � •t3�* r P�.,sa 'z�l'
=ar �,a, � y.� s �db� t� 51�..r.r- •. �+ �'i�jf.o, .+ ..asl�i ...f+_..�� ti•x.�''r
�'-. .�i j, �y.,�"K�j�i���Ry{�.�F � .r��tic Dv-+' . ��..�.�. -�.�y"" `�..� '�T�'^ti
r. ;�(F� •C}i� ��1�' �������}. ' nE'.
� ^ e� ,-� 'r l rcl� �
t ,� 9„` �,,`����,,Jf/ ',y �s'�'.�3s'. `�Yq� L i' R y�:� �,. ';�. L a �
♦a�r, ���} j•� ♦ V' .7. y, n . �} �
y !� `i'i].�"�� S� �.r 7 2� ♦?�� G�a� . � •
.�s' �'� • ' ��.�` j��� �r �.I`1 �J!'.����•�. � � r'
\
� ; . " 1�._,t� '. 's , � _r .
,.s. � \, i. t:._� �►�, » s. ' �1: ' pLYO}r0
"�` '��� s , k.
�y4��`� ' - �-- � ' `�� 1.�:�,, ';�,:� �� ' of-ban ern
,- �,�� �, � :,.J pear top� South
�._ �., : ..:.�;.!':,.,� ' ,=>a<<-5 ?��, frott'
'> _; � Creek including
. � 4 t��.'°'. �.. ;i, . x: the AYro�'eC a�as d�s �,•ildlife sFa�uaT`.2�,20o6.
r f��� LYY� t0��'aY�s
�^ w no �eral sp hoto was taken on) ���.
ule hatyitat fot $e � �,is p
Palnt 4. stN�tion,
Photo tovides ae�- roshers
Gran�e Cree�Califomia �eSge��rog•�hoto Plate Pa�e g Co
SYQe�ead and 2
. �
Mar 03 2006 6: 17Ph1 RIryCOH COnSULTRnTS [9051641 -1072 p, z
II �
' I RlnconConwltanSa,lnc.
153Q IAanterey Street, Sult� D
San Luic OCi�po, Calitarnie 93401
ao6 547 0900
r�x 5�7 09D1 �
in(agrinCOneon�ultlnt6.e ottf
� wHw. rinconconsultants.eom
March 3,2iJ06
Job#06-90"�60
Mr.John S�oala
P.O. Eox 91� ,
Grover Bexrh,CFt 93483
SubjecG Laadscape Plan Review Por the 133 Whiteley Street Property(APN 007-494-
00;�),City af Arroyo Gzat�de,California
Dear c1�L�.517oa1s:
Rincon Coru:ultan.ts has completed a review of the Landscape Plan (1'lan)for the 133
Whiteley S1a•eer,pxoject eite located in the City of Arroyo Grande,San Lvis Obiapo County,
Califomia. ,As we undex�stand,you are currently sssisting Pace Brothers ConstrucHon
Company with pl�ruvng the development of a sir�gle-fanvly sesidence in the southern
portion of tY�e 0.39-acre property. �n Marcii 2,2006,you provided us with the propert�e
PIar►ae deei�;ne:d Fry Ambience Garden Design dated February 27,2006. The purpose of ttv.s
lettes is to F•rovide our methods and results of our Plan reviecv.
The P'lan fos the properiy was reviewed by Rincan Consultants biologist joHn H.Davis N
on March S, 2IX16. The focue of the review was to concur that plant apecie9 (or horticu]tural
variety)pro�>osed for installation on the project aite were drought tolerant plants listed an
the County nf San Luis Obispo's Depar�it of Plannhlg and Building Counfy Approced
Zandecape Plrmfi:lu�t (County�s Plant Liat)as recommexded in the Biological Resources
Assessment ;Rinccm Consvltante,2006). In addiHon,the invasive potential of each plant
species was verified using the Calflora(h�tp://www.calflora.org/1 on-line database,the
G'd�fOTYl�B I11V8:i1Vf?Plant PestCouncil(http://www.cal-ivcorg/;Cal-IPi'C_7 on line weed
lists,azui ou� lu�oti�rledge of the region aa well as the property. Plant apecie9 on the Plan that
are on the Cc�ur�ty's Plant Liet and do not have potenHal to be invasive within the Aaoyo
Grande Crer•_k ha1r.'tab were considered auitable,whlle plants thatare either on the Count;�s
Plant Ldst or not:;but have potential to be invasive were considered not suitable and should
be replaced cvitlz a�lother plant epecies or removed completely. SuE}stitute piant species aze
not provided as part of thie letter.
Of the Plan';s twen�.y.-three plants,two were considered not suitable due to their potentlaI or
cuirent fnva[Lve�ne.sa within Arroyo Grande Creek habitab. The first,foxglove (Digffalfs
pttrpurea),is c:ur.rently on the County's Plant List,but was deemed invasive by Calflora anci
peraonal obscrvations. It cuaYently is an the CaI-IPPC limited invaeiveness list;however,it
received a m�:dium potentisl for umvasiveness on the Cal-Il'FC Plant Assessmmt Form. It!s
our condtteic¢ti tha�:this plant epecies should not be irtcluded in the Plan. T'he secand,
[ n r I i e n n e n t � 1 S e 1 -� a 1 i � e r f 1 a n o r � � C � � f n � r r i
I
nar ua zUU6 6: 17Ph1 RInGOh COHSULTflnTS [8051641 - 1072 .p. 3
Mr..lohn Shobls '
Land�eepe Plen Review
733 Whiteley Street(/1PN 007�494-003)
Aage 2 of 2
nasturrium(T}aprreo2um tturjus),is not cunently on 4he Count}/s Plant LiSt,but was deemed
invasive by Celflc�ra. Tn addition,the property already has an invasive poguletIon of
nasturtium �n the south bank of Anoyo Grande Creek. Cal-IPI'C dces not currently list
nestuxtium �s snvaeive. It is our conclusion that this plant should not be induded in the
Plan.
In concluaion,;2lncon has deterrnined that foxglnve and nashutium are not suitable as
landscape p:!anb for the 133 Whiteley Street project eite and ehould be ieplaced or removed
completeIy iro�n the plan. All other pIant epedes or horHcultural varieties within the
Lsndecape I'lan are suitable for�llation on the project site.
Tl�ank you:�7r 1he opportunity to provide enviranmental consulting services for this project.
Please call rr.e clirectly iE you have sny ques�one or mncems regazdic�g our ana]ysu or
would like ixi diacius our findings further.
Sincerely. .
N C{� LTAIVTS, INC. �
� / _ /
� �
hn H. Da"vi�9 I�� Kevin Merk
sodate Siclo��st Senior Biologiat
Manager,Biologi�al Resources Group
E e • I r e n m � e t � 1 ! e � r n t 1 � t � P i � n n � r � [ e � i � � 1 � t
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. � � _
�
- „
� � ` � �_ . Page 1
- .�.
�' � C.A. SINGER & ASSOCIATES, Inc.�E�EIVED
Archaeology�Cultural Resources & Lithic Studies
; r�a� t 5 2005
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
:�•tr. Scou Pace March 1, 2�O�OMMUNIiY DEVELOPMEh
Pace Brothers Construction
P. O. Box 519 e
Arroyo Grr:zde, CA 93421-0519
Subject: Cuitu*al resources survey and impact assessment for a residential propezty at 135
�'Vhitelv Street in the City of Arroyo Grande, Sar,Luis Obispo County, Ca�ifom�a
[APN 007-049-003]: informat;oa on historic ���all nP4�J-041161.
Dear'�1r. Pace;
As reqaested, a cultural recources survey and impact.ssessment ��•as conducted for a resident:a] ,
p:opert}�at 135 VVhiteley St*eet in the City of Arro}�o Grande. The subject propeny is located in
ihe do«nto�tin area just east of Arroyo Grande Creek at the westezi end of�'�'huely Street. The
Arroyo Grande commercial district along Branch Strzet is about 1�0 m no:th of the property and
U. S. Hi�hway 101 is about 1 km southwest. Desi�nated APiv' 007-494-003, the pro?erty is
rectan�ulaz in oudine (a�edge shapzd)and includes three adjacent pazcels,viz. 4, 5 an3 6. Parcel4
corresponds with the overgrown south bank of Arroyo Grande Creek,whereas Parcels 5 and 6 a*e --
situated on the flat alluvial surface south of the creek channel. Pucels 5 and 6 host a sin�le family
dwelling, a dozen mat,ire trees, an overgrovm]awn, and a section of dressed stone and concrete wali
built during the 1930s by the U. S.Works Progress Administration (W.P.A.). A sma?1 wooden
shed rests on Parcel4. '
=,ttache.d herew�ith are four rnaps that show the locztion and dimer.sions of the pr�pery surveyed,
lon� ��•ith a set of Pruna-y Record Fo:r.is (DPR 523) t};at describe Lhe W".P.A. wall. Map 1 is a
portioa of the USGS Arroyo Grande NE, Calif., 7.5' topographic quadrar.Lle; Map 2 is part of the
Councy Assessor's Map with APN 007-049-003 indicated; Map 3 �s a�ain part of the County
Assessor's T�I2p showin� �he s!one wali at the souLiern edge of Parcel 6; Map 4 is a p!an of the
� surveyed property showing ihe wall and some details. Attachment A(4 pages) is a co�}'of tt�,e
Primary Record for the wall section an3 assib ed Histozcal PropeRy#P40-0."t1161.
The Archaeologicai Information Center at Lhe Unive*sity o;Czli:omia, Santa Barbara(iTCSB},
prepared a records search for the do�vnto���n area of r'uroyo Granda in 1990(cf. Sin�er and At�;�ao�
i990). At that tune, UCSB h2d no record oi an eariier sw-ve}' an3 no recorded archa�alo�ical si:es,
histo:ic or prehisto:ic, on or nsar the p:operty. Tne 1958 surve}� of the P>rroyo Gran3e VVatershed
(Wallace 1962) di3 not include the subject propertv. The t��o sites neares:Lhe p:operiy a*e
CA-SLO-413 and CA-SLO-1206,both about G.81m? a�va}�. The r.earest recoraed study u�as a
r.earb}' survey of the"S�vin�in� Brid�z Approaches" ovzr Arroyo G:an3e Creei:done m 19S7 by
Col. �S'. B. Sawye: (1987).
The Cit�� of Arro}'o G:�.Zde falls �vithin the terri?or}•histo:ically occupied by Obispeno Chumash.
northe:runost of the Ch��m2shan spea_l•in� Indias,s of Ca!ifoniia (Heizer 1975; i�roebz: :9�3). f,t
the time o,Eurepeaz contzct, ir. 1769,two i:,di�eraus co*nm?:nities probab2y existed i^.Lhe v=cuiicy
P.O. Box 99 - Cambria • California 934Z8-0099
phone: 805/927-0455 • fax: 805/927-0414
Page 2
oi the modern City of Ar:o}'o Gra=de (Apple�ate 19i�). One �vas zpparer.dy located neaz the
cor.fluence of Arro}'o Grande and Tar Sprinos Creek, while the other��•zs nzar the conver�ence of
Arroyo Grar_de, Co*bit Canyon and Czrpenter Canyon C:eeks. Kin�(197�} pl�ces the viliase oi
Seleq•'�ii in diis area but the p!2�ename has not yet been coselated�vith ar.y a:chzeolooicat daia.
Archaeoioeical ir.vest+sat;or,s cenductzd zc Diablo Canyon b}•Greem��ood (1972 j. and i�Lhe to«n
of CamUria U}'Gibson(1979), d�monstreted diat uuescors of Lh2 Chun;ash havz occunied the
cenLal California coasta; re�io,fcr morz th�n 9,000 vea:s. Today, the Chumash mairi:ain s=.rong
ties�vith their�ast and attach hish value ta ptaces and ;hin�s identified�:�iu�Lzei:heritage.
Prehisto:ic and some historic azchaeological sites 2e impo:tan[places to many Iv'ative Caiifomia�s.
Generally speaking,the 05ispeno and the'u ancestors followed an annual cycle of oce�.� and river
fishin„fowling,terres�-ial hunting, and harvesting of native plans,particulaziy balbs, grains and
seeds. Vi2lage populations generally consisted of several related families,or extended kin groups.
People lived in permanent villages as.d to�ms alons the coastline ar.d also i*� in?erior canyons and
valleys. An extensi��e comrnerce had flourished s;nce eazliest times, ce;�terino fizst azound the
exchange oi luxu*y iiems, znd la:zr ea:endin� to consu:ner p:odurs and foods. Over the miile�u:ia,
pop:�lations adapted to chaziges in clima:e, shifrs in plu�t.,nd animal resources, and altered secia:
conditions. Before 1,000 C.E., Chumash society had evo;�•e1 into a lu��e a:l� comp!ex,mo;ietize3,
ronasziculh�ral social syste:n (Gibson 19S3; King 1952). ?.borigin2l societies in Califomia beean
!o collapse soon after the introduction of Europea�z diseases, in 1769. Native societies �
disinte�*ated in lazge patt from epidemic disezses with hish morta'•ity ratzs, plus the exacerbatins
effects of Spanish,Mexican, and American colonial practices. y
The archaic view of Califomia lndians as "sirnple folic";or moze derisively as "digger Indians",has
no;yet been replaced by the recogniuon that aboriginal societies had particulaziy sophisticated ar.d
comp?ez social,political,and economic systems long before European colonists set foot on
American soil. Furthermore, al!of Califomia's native societies,some 80 or more in num5er wFen
the Spanish first arrived,were wuqueiy adanted to theu particulaz environments and lived in ralative
contentment with t�heir neighbors. Many aspects of ancien?society survive among the Chumash of
today. One such tradition is a fi:m attachment to tha sea and land of their ancestors, znothe:is an
interest in traditional sites xnd azchaeolosicai materials. Chumash peo�le,like many Native
Americaas, aze�reztly distressed by the con;imiing destruction of natu:al habi*.ats and
archaeo!ogicai sites in pazt;culaz. They are particulazly upset by Lhe desecration of sacred�laces,
such as sprinss,human burials and mortuary areas, and oth�r loca:ities associzted with traditional
religion. v
Due in lazge pan to the ab•�ndaat resources associa?ed with Arroyo Grande Creek,many
prehistoric sites zre neaz Lhe project azea. Archaeologic2l sites have been recorded alon�borh sides
of Arroyo G;ande and Los Barros Creeks, and on nea;b}'Nipomo Mesa. The summazy report on
the 1955 Arreyo Grande W2tershed Sun�ey(�Vallace 19b2), and the analysis of momizry remzi�s
from the Fowler Site,CA-3L0-405. (Tainter 1971), are tv;o publica;ioas that address the
arch2eoloey of Arroyo Grande. The Infor:nx:ion Cen!er at UCS3 now has more than 300
documents for P.rroyo Granc�e;ncl�d'.no surface surveYS, subsvrface tests, a,-�d mitigation:epo:ts.
The subject property w�as examu�ed by Ciay A. Sinoe:ar.d Dou�las A. Greer.f`ielc�, on Febnaary 10,
and aoain on February•23, 2005. Loca;ed :n 2 resi�zr•tia] neighborhood on the norih side of a
paved street,tne propert;�is fznced on:�*ee sides hxs an overaro��:n�rass lan�n, a dozen ma?ure
exo!ic �ees an�bushes, an unoccapied ��•ood-frame house, a s:nall :vooden shed, and a promine;n
stone wall �ei,h an atiached hronze p?aqu� n:azk��� Citv of A::oyo Grande Histo*ic *�.enun:ent No.
2. The p!a�ue, attached to Lhe wes:er�end of the wall,rezds:
- P3Ee �
FORMER SITES
i
Oi- THE Pr",C:FIC CO�,ST RF 1LRC)AB S":.4TI0\
; AND S.L.O. COU?�'TY ;vL4INTEtiANCE Z'ARDS.
' 19�?-1979, ARE �i�'LRKEll BY THiS ��`.�`.LL
\VHICH IS REPRESEtiTAT1VL- OF 19±0'S
�-/.P.A. CO?v'STRUCTIO?ri I� THE ARE�_.
Tne house�t ?35�'�'h.:teley Street is a single story, �voo3-frame, ranch s:yle bur�aio�v with a roorn
ad3ition�+erched above an attached one-caz gurage. I:has an irregular floor plar, �i•ith a concrete
perimeter feundation 2n3 raised floors.The exterior is clad w�ith white painted 1 by 4 ver.ic21 boazds
over regululy spaced stud framing. Above the plate line,where the roof gahles end,the spaces are
infilled �:i�ti�•ertiea!boarc�s with sca!loped ends,however,Lhe space at the northezs:comer is fi;led
r�ith horizontal l by 4 boa*d�. Eaterio:comers aze finished�Y�ith ��ertical 1 b;•^ boards pai^ted
�reen [o r.ia[ch .hz hi�h'i�hted doo:aad wirdo�r sun�ounds. There is a lo�v �ab;�e rooi�cith shed
e:emer.0 et er die house e;itrv and grL*age entry� COICiT�OS1iC LOOi1S1�has reg:2CZ� 2?SL1CI R CO3
shinsies. Ea�•es pro;ect 30 inch�s or..he r�1:e er.ds and 24 inches on L`�e eable ends; rafte:s are
exoosed on[he seconc� sto.ry and a fascia marks the lo���er eati�es. �
Except fo:d:e fixed fronc�vindo�v, a:l Lhe siidi:.�w�indows �vith alemLhum frarn�s a*e replacements.
T7te 12 p2r.e;, flat�;-idow flankin�iae front doorw2y is origin2l, a true divide�, 31�i�h .zd 4 wide,
window. All of the windows have plain 1 by 4 exterior trim with muumal drip sil.s; the surrounds
ue painted�reen. The front and rear doors have also been replzced. The fron!ent:ance has a
concrete ste�platfo.—,n covere3 by a shed roof that extends late:aliy to shelter the gara�e entrance;
the roof overhang is supported by 4 by 4 wood posts.
Aboec 40 feet northeast o:the house is sma118 by 12 foot wooden shed,overgro�vn with ivy(see
Map 4). I:has a stud frame covere�by vertical boards and battens xnd a low gabled roof with
exposed rafrer tails. The south end has ve:�ical plank doo:with laz�e str2p hinQes; a smalt fixed
window is in Uie�+�all opposite the door.
:he h�use is surrounded by r.iature trees and shrubs, a11 of chem e;cocic species p:anied 40 to 50
year� aQo,probzbly �vhen the house�.•as built. Sha:ing the enmo���ed grass aze t:��o la:�e �rafted
En�lish�val,^.ut trees, aloc;v:ic�.severa!pires and eucaly�tus, an avocado, a e��-�.r`!emon, cametlias
and fiichsias,an omaznental yucca, a palm, artichoke and rhubarb. Native pi�:zts are absent from the
sw-�•eJ ed areas,ho�l�ever, Lhe westem part of Parcel4,which is L'�e south bsnk of Arroyo G;ande
Creek,retains mar.}'na?ive planis such as willows and o�ks.
Althou�n sut2ce visioility in r*',ost places was poor(< 10%)due te:'ne gr2ss a.^.d other ��eoetation,
surficial soils ���ere exanined a:�und the house foundation,uader all,he trees an3 b��shes.�alon�tihe
base ef the stone wa;l, and r.ext to Lhe stream bank. Soils obsen•ed were the san�e e��er�where,
i:am.ly b:o��n to ria:�k bro�vn, compact siliy to s2r.�y aI1L!vium coctainin�smaIl rirvial Q:a��els.
Examined so+.,s �ieided ne s;gns of former oxupation by p*e5istoric people,no e•:ider:ce o` 19*h
� .
CCIILLi}� CCCU�'3[tOil, i Oi elly railroad or fo:mer maintenance vzrd d�D:15.
Orienced ncrtheast-souin�xes:, die��'.P.A. <<:all is I30 ieet lone and 12 :cet .:i�h. excei: fo.23 fee:
ai the �:�es[end ��•hi.h is just f ve feet high. T:ie «•zIl is 24 ir,ches «:de �ci,�.� �fL-:: [o� a�j n S:zD'�e1
b�se 36 ir,che; �eide �.�d 12 irci:es h;�4 (cf. Map 4 and A:cachmer; F). "Cn:s i� •� fi�� ��:aii made
from dre�seli i710Ci:� Or }'�1�O1\'lSti IO Cif-\V!?t�C�.�15�0 �L:�. '�':�i� I'i?O:'i2T2d �'�:�}i �=OGC: CC1II.re,e� iI
Pa�e 4 '
defines the soutiiem bou^aa.ry of Lhe property znd s!�.�d bet�vzea t���o relztively n�v:houses. Tt�e
Uro.ize plaeue instaiizd or. che sou:h er.d of u'�e �va?1 (see u�ove) sa}'s cha:the waet :+�as constn:c:zd
in �he 1430s. A quicl:rev+.ew of referer,ces on ti:e?acific Coast Railv:ay(e.�. Jo'mscn 1981, 19E2,
e!c.) revealed r.o�7�11? about t�e�ra;t. Se�•er21 old o:,o.no:�3pl�s that s`:a�v the PcCliiC R21�iC3C�i
Seaeion i:: An�o}•o Gi<^.IIdz :a0 P,O[ IRCIL(�.Z LIllS IOCaIlO!l G:; �;h;teley Strzet. ?ublisl�ed :e`e:er.ces
�i6:�1l.^t;d !10 ll1fO7elI3!!Jil C�iif�:T.L'l�I�:C }'8.'.i�5� OT Mi:S'u*UCilOil, [':te exact p�liji0$2 C;fli*'iCCIC:� Oi
ll]C \i'cli, OL C1C f8i� Q2 [fC associa*ed raihvay BRC� Ma:fiiEP.B.^.Ce yard f2Ci�ihES.
� Tax records and otLe:documencs have not beer. chec'::ed and exact year of house coas��action has
ieo[been deceiminzd. tLrch;tectural style (i.e. posnv2u bunga;ow),construction rria?erials,physiczl
location, �nd the 2ssociated trees to�ether su�eec; a constnc;ion date around 19�0: Alte:ations
probably took place in the late 1950s. Th.e little�vooden shed is older than the house and was likely
erected in the 1930s or 1940s. It likely functioned as a garden shed,a!�hou�h a co:uiection with the
raiL-oad,or the main[enance yud,cannot be ruled out w:thout fur�her historical rese2rch. At ti�,is
time, r.ei.her buildir.o h2s been recorded as an historical property because of ambi�uities in the da:a
and d?e need for fa*ther research on Arroyo Gr�,de history.
The plaque on the ���all im�p!ies a construction da:e 50^l2ilIi}Z�UCiII� :he 1930s. Tl.is date can oe
narro���ed to bet�veen 1935 and 19�0,Lhe peried �vhee i,�fe \3'.P.A. v:as in operauo*.:. The on�y
4:nu���n purpose of tne stone«�a?1 seems to sepa:ate and isolate o;the fonne:CO'1I:iy�2�*'i[eII2RCe
Yard from i's nei�hbors. Since it was not a supportu�g o:retainins wa:l, and has no ap�arent
conn�ction with the forrtzr Pacific Coas:Railroad Stscica located o�t'r�e opposi,e side o`the creek,
it ���as likely built specificalIy:or San Luis Ob:spo Ccunty; men employed by the W.P.A. also built
bridae supports and other en�ineered structures for che county. Because the wal! is more than 50
years old, and because it has been aecognized ss Historical Monumeat No. 2 by the Ci?y of Arrayo
Gran�e, it was documented and assigned Ca�ifomia Historical P:operty�P40-041161 (see
Attschment A).
To co�clude, an irnpact an2lysis fo: 13�Whiteley Street cou?d not completed at this time because
project plaas for the prope*_ty we=e r.o:snbmitted for review. The p:esent investigation iden?ified
one historic resource, a dressed stone wall built by the�V.P.A. (#P40-041161) , and a second
po�sib?e historic resource, ;he 1950s remcdeled tun�alaw. 13'heLher or no:thz house and sned a:e
recorded and assi�ned a P�mary Number�vill dzpend on theii futu;e,that is,ho�:�ihey wi:i be
affected b}' a pia�.ne3 redeve�opment. I;future pl:ns require:he existin,house to be demo!ished
then it should be fuliy documeated and fo:mall;recerded beforehand. �
Thz W.P.A. s?one wal:,#P40-042161, a!though ir,comp:etely documented,meats several criteria for
desi�natioa as a si�r.ificant historicai resource as cu:rzatly deFined by the Ca;ifomia Enviror.mental
Qua?it}'Act of 1970 (CEQA), 2s amen3ed. I�ot on!y is i:a fine exzmp!e oi dressed stoe�masor�*y,
i: is probably uniq�e and re�resents a very• specific period ir:American h:story, a time when many
thi:.�s �ti�e:edifferent and s.one�valls�ve*e bu;lt b�hane�s. While no;confonning u�ith L�:e late 14�h
Cer.�ury archi:ecture of the neishbo*hood, the�.•a?1 does, somehow�, fi:in. Exactly how it fi;s should
be d�!en::ined b;•examinir:g Sar.borne Insurance Co. ?�4aps, ane documer.ts and mzps o:Arroyo
Grande at the Soie�h County Histo:ical S�ciet}'.
Addi:ional investigations oi the propen}' a:e no! reco;n_mended a[ this n.me. Two recomr.�er.datiais
are o?ierzd if the a:ea is to 5e redevelo�ed. Fi:sc, zcdi:iona! b;ci:«rour.d research should be dozz to
est2blis;-i z fim? da!e a_�e� functior.for the �i'.P..4. �val!, ar3 seccr.d, additional rese2rch s'�ould bz
C:1:iCu OUI O?7 L:C COP.SIZUC?tOP.Ci1:0:10�0�\' n:lG fl.�C}:II.°.CIi!*2i i]ISi01'1' Oi�he house at 1�J «�}fiL�ity
JIT:�:.
" Pzoe :, .
$h6iild \'Oti R::VC?:^.�' qU2�:10:^.S C6IIC2II1!L'i� LFe �vor�done OI t118 CO:CI:iS10tiS e>:pres��d IR L�1C
:epor[, ple2se do not hesi.a!e ?o c211 04;Camb:ia o::ice.
?��I9sC s;;�eercly.
��� J
Cla�• . . t:ice!� / ��
An,h �opolo�is: /
' P.efcrerces Cited
App:egate,Richazd
1975 "An Ir.dex of Churr.ash Piacena,-nes". In Papers on the Chumash San Luis Obispo
Co«nN Archaeologica:Socie�� Occasional Papers 4:17-46.
Gibson,Robert O.
19?9 "Pi2il:Riil"nry In.encor;� a::d ;c;essm�nt of Indian Cultural Resources �e Lod�e Hiil,
Ca,:bria,San Lui: O�ispu Ceanty, C�". Re�,ort orep2reU fo:the San Lais Obispo
Count}�En�ineeru�? Dep::rm.ent.
19S� 'Bth�oeeograp:y of che Sal:r.an Peop�e: A Sys:ems A�proach". Unpub;isned maste:�
ther.s, Deparmer.:o'r��:nropology, Ca,ifomia Sta.e Uni��ersity, Hay�vard.
Greenwood,Roberta S.
1972 "9000 Years of P:ehis!ory at Diahlo Canyon, San Luis Obispo Cou:zty, Califon:ii'.
San Luis Obispo Cour,ty tlrchaeological Sociery Occasional Papers 7.
He=_zer,Robert F. (Volume Editor)
1978 Handbook of Norrh Am.erica�: Indinns - California 3. Smithsonian Institution,
Washinaton D.C.
Johnson, Cha.rlie H.,Jr.
19S 1 T�ie Par.;rc Corsr Railira� Comes To.4rroyo Gra�icle -A Cettten�:ial Histo»�.
Be;u�ett-Loomis Arc!:ives ar:d Sou!h County Historical Society, Arroyo Grar.i c.
1452 The Pacific Coast Rnil�e-n}•: Sorrthbour.d To Los Aiamos -A Ceiitenr.iai Hisrorv.
BerLzett-I.00n:is Archi�•es and South Co•.uity Historical Society,Arroyo Grande.
Kino.Chester D.
?97� ''The Names a.^.d Lo�a;ions of H;s:o:ic Chumash Viliages". The Journnl of
Ca!ifo»iin Ar::*itropo.og�•2(2):171-179.
i9S'_ T7<e Fvoli�;ion of tJ:z Ci::�r�:cs?t Socien•. University Microfilms, Ann Ar'�or.
Kroebzr, P..L.
14�3 Hnr.c�book oj tite L�?inrs c•.,•`Cnli,fort,in. Califomi4�ook r'ompany. Ltd., Ber��iey.
, S2w��er, �i`. S.
li'b'7 ':4.*Ch22G:C�IC::� .��,l:Cl2�: ?°:Oi:R3iS$:IlCL O:IS':E $:•llil`Ltl� BLIG�ECl�vzJ'Q2CH.°,c. S'O'i $F'_�i.
A.�oti�o Crande". ;JC�c mc r E-S;Q
Pagz 5
Sin�er,Clay A. and Jo;ui E. Atwood
I990 "Cultural Resources Survey And ImQact Assess:nent For The V ista Dei :�Sa:Pro;ect
In A.ROyo Gr2nde, San Luis OUispo County, Cali:o:nia". Report prcp�red fo:
b:cCle!land Consultanu (West), Ir.c.,Ver.tura.
:air:ter,Joe
1971 "Salva�e Exca�•atioas a[the Fowler Site: Scn:e Aspects of tlie Social O;a2;11Z8::o::
oi the Northem Chumash". Smi Luis Obispo Couut}•Archaeologicaf Socieq�
Occasioital Papers 3.
VVallace,Williazn J.
1962 "Archaeological investigatioas in the Atroyo Grande watershed,San Luis Obispo
Counry". Annual Reports of the Archaeological Survey 4:23-90,University of
Califonia,Los Angeles.
At,ac�unzats
Mag l. A compesite of poitions of L•'�e USGS Arrovo Gr�i�e ?�TE and dceane, Czl',f., 7.�'
topog:aphic quadra�gles widithe surveyed azeaindiczted.
ivlap 2. ?art of the County Assessor's Map showing thz su;veyed property a; 13� White2ey Street,
t�p\ 007-494-Od3.
Map 3. Part of the Co�.mty Assessor's Map showing the surveyed property,APhT 007-494-003
zt 135 Whiteley S�eet, and the dressed stone and concrete wali along the southern edge of Pazce16.
Map 4. Pian of the property at 135 Whiteley Street showing the existin�house and the dressed
stor.a wal:,historical property�P40-041161.
Attactvmer.t A-Prunazy Reco:d Forms [DPR 523 series 1l9�J for the �'�'.P.A. s;one wall,
Histerical Resource nP40-041161 (4 pages).
Page 7 -
ii t ,.. ._ �� ..=Yi`S�:G.'� i .i i'.' r%'�. 7�/.�-J"`�t�':' �':�:1�`'����\�•li���.?i��.�i . � p,f,>.:?Q'
� �i: � ,Y� C�.
�i�j{:.'�'. ``"�'� i. '[,: � �.^. :
;� ARROYO GRANDE NE,4CAL1F. . •r, ��-��,`�' �' � .. �•��� '•- %
,,� �'�-��1 .1'� ._L SI.`.' `� �a, ; � �.. ��
� 357208STF-024 � t��� '� •�� , .� 's ��
'. 1965 �'� r�� � % l��''�,��i ^�.�./.. C�, . �m,� !/.;,�`�
�� //� - ;tl "-' � ' �
r REVISED 1993 � f � q �..�� • G�b / ,`.`�•
V x'°
`� DN.A 1854 0 NE�SFRIES V895 ��•�•O - � �'
F—s�yl - / �_°- 'L�� P�� +' \�� _�..� �•@`�.�y "
• '-\�1.� '. •./ // • � •. I°'.�� �e� eQP�� �"1��`�' -��.
v.i \�� � • � Strolh�r�� � ,Q' ��i-� ��/^.�•[
���'+. \:• ,.f E:����•• ••.' . ���� :�Rark.y! . �p e . iC�� (!r-
y�Y.1'r`�j 1.�, ''�, g,,;,� =�p • �U,r%'�s'�:�' ^�`�`` �����6`7\'i�l j/�;�
_ �^r ���� � .�,:. ;2 -uns • .• '`,�.o � �`.Q�a i%�\�'-�'-==�li�'. '
^ /''� `^� � • • j;'r . � � .xe'v •f�.K��+ ?, i(��. �\ ��-'_ � .j/.i_
6.`VPL'L1�B ;� s ���iy � .....:';ti.�l .: 1}?� �ei � 17'���\� a /r�"_��� f /.-.-.
\��/ i.•. �� 1:•'�C �,..:y:�' / �. K '� • q. / � l`l'•�� \ f 1 �i^"—.- i�J ..
�� t �/ � �AA�. .�:f:�=. �I' �� "� l��`i �E�� ���^ � 1 �' .
�• l+`.;�p '�'7,) . '��N i ���� BOLSA " �,F ,J,',�� � ;1,� � (��o; `~f:,� � \
,�� � � .� �?�r?�-�-- . ;�a..y.� �v � 11, ��,.:1 ��.-��. :.,)
�, a F��:� �F. ' 't; �. .� AN: 'L ,�•.w,J/'. \�`�:`` �'L�'_i��'L_'
� �� • �wu�%,e.?-://J���:. ' �"S�� '�'�'. (� � ' .
�i���.�.��6 . �;- ^xas�nC��H . .�� I� �'t�e N f��z `. �6)/' ���� U ` �,��
�I . �'a•�' `' •:•.. �zb's'���'.tioW' �.` � '" �'V r' a' -' �'�" �.
t o ' 9 + ' tv. r o. � .�e7%..:
pc� 'N � �� �'�' �' f � o � •���`i �`"���
•' :.. N •• :P weu ` . c?:. �� i.
` ;pp ��� ..�Ne ar ` J .�� ;� �3
q ^— �:-_ .�.�---�. �
�/�� � �, ' n�cn / , :,:y
Mo e ' �F � ' _ j - �
__.--��
NDE �, ' � � �� - '�
� °� _, `� '/ ��..� - ° �
I:J' .��Rr h�� a� .:'\ ��_� `.� C\�J� 5 �J_•^+�""
• ' �,`,� / J \���� � � �� � `�i '�l /•� , �\�
�;,---'i o- .� ...��r; t �L. `'� ,n�✓.% ` '�a
P��V_.. � ��]�:^�� ���j}� - OCEANO, . CALIF. �
Q' ° �` � �( x��� °� 35120-ASTF-024 �
• t' �
� �� •� ' � ' �
I F, ,` , \ J� '�n ��.. ' 'O �.Q6S E
,"� �i . � / REVISED 7994 i
�y'-8 � ��. 1 � � D.MA 1854 11 SESFItlPS VS95 =
? ' ,�v�`�-L�� C �
...-i�, :_�. .=-zl// �I;�\ ) ��. n:'-�\��� ' �l'-'::\ `V���su�sti.��v���
Diap 1. A composite of por[ions of the USGS Arroyo Grande NE and Oceano,
Calif. , 7.5' topographic quadrangles with the surveyed property indicated,
135 Whiteley Street.
. . Page $ -
Lu•r: �'.- w y,e'
� SO "6� i7.IL• '
,.�,. q�,e C
,. <
, r
�� .. }± t� _ e `s >o
6 17 ' �- R �r ! ° � •
+a.ae i o �ese�se�s 1 •
�36'JO' � � N s°d0' I
_ ; � �72 V N
'7N. �
q 1e a � o S e 80 O79 �
� - � o rn. w � „I
�_ � u �
-L-� RN09. GOR7UL DE ` � y
•�! .>:' —RSYU 4 ' �
� dO�SA OE GfEYML
I �v;':�� � �//�,'-.
T o �:�o; , 3°� i�D
"�n � ��,.aY'�p:,.
�o` ,;�fi. r �.
58 e...ei. . qy..
;w�;':d� . 3: h �,;�,
e *,t.; . .� .
�s�, 4 �.
'�"'r..�+x<�aa:3e�'�:`� 2!
b
Y� �1 . � L�
�`i ` D�' .�y��"+�N. "�e 1.
, �5 ,ti 2.• �,�
'�— A� � O � ..
!6
f ,.^' �
w'
� „ ; � ,..��� .,� . , .s � r
a n
3 8 v �8 . g t9 �O . w
a 60 7R/fO6 Roan oEar.
. 7
' <+ «a .�. ea �m
s r. 1-- .�
� �r�E
sur� s c z000
, 4T�_ Cf7Y OF ARROYO GR4NDE
�v ASSESSORS MaP CWHJY OF
BOOK 0�07OP GE��9
Map 2. Part of the County Assessor's Map showing the surveyed
property at 135 Whiteley Street, APN 007-494-003 (shaded) .
. Page 9
II .!o-.r. -�,_ a�c
� SO .r `
6�1 43.11 111• a. -
�� J�� �
�/ 1 • ` %'
LY ` La ti� v. _ •S � •
R 'f L • �Q
6 1T ' �� £ �� 1 ° j '
� �
+9.as I °�e.x: s�`K I ,
136'30' � ^ M 'DO't I
. i � �S.x i'.S �.
�7N. °— i .. 3 ., 80� 79 �
'a IB o � � (,� . rn. O � � I
� -tev9"" _`_( L..� ^ f+c ` � �
� NM09. GORAAL DE � u
.>J_ t RSUO G � w
„ � .� � x ac.rw� �
T � w ` . ,.ct.. ��D
, 1�
Se e
L�
e A.
u�.s� `1' 4 2�
� s D[�J t�l�1 a ,�
'�_ A? ?S e --�a���';•ti z.
u� ,�Jr��� �
� 0 16 �
�lr`.. S
.;..
� o � ~ 7. .� B.
�' 3 g� ia � rs ,,` ,
�a a ` . �� . �
� ao YR%ias Ra� DEPX
, a
+. wa « aw •
s r. �.. .� �
� � 'e E
JUN 3 C�pppp
, 47l. Cl7Y�$ OF ISRROYO GRANDE
� SnN LU75�•0815PO. �� �
?OOK 007 PAGE 49
Map 3. Part of the County Assessor's Map showing the location
of the W.P.p, stone wall along [he southern edge of Parcel 6.
y
NIHITELEY 5T ' �-II
.wue.w. «.w •—.—.—.—.—.—._.—'—.—._._._._._. U
._._._._._ -.�•—�—�—•—•—�—�--'r'—•—�—�—'—'—�--•—'—•--' i
r-._._._._._._._._._._._._ ——-—'—'— 'I .+ � i
� ti, � � � WALNU4TRCG �/
j '"� ' 1 .�.��I_'l^o %/
i �I} . � � in i
I A.CSIDCNGC i— ` ' �
I n_ � /
i I j .y, I . n", �i)��_.� a i
1 19q ' �LEMONTRCE � � //oI C J „ /
1 ; �;� � , � t°'_�.,_,,, . �
� 1:.Y� � p / .
I 0
� � t �.".EL I)ETAILS � C7.S�::I �.. � /
i `�'! i.§ `•`r-yr,.-s� 4r
i r i � %� a
i u
N � i � � 0
� WwLNUTTREE i �� �`
1 � AVOGAOOTRCE
0 I i _ _ I � �
J I b� p 1 j/ J,�
e �
z � � i De • �°° ° i i� a
� " °O 4 RESIDCNGE i %/ �
� � 1�S � / /
� � hi j /
� � ° � /
1 I � I
I
j � � � l
I, � � � �
i � SHEO '
I I
I � �, __._._._._._._�
i._._._._._._._._._._._._.S— ._._._._._._._._._._._.�._._._._._._._._._._._. ._._._._. .
II
" nnr c
���—� GA Sw6CR�A590LIATES ING
� ' r. AG.
( � �— VAI.L�f,TAII.S
`J .
ATTACI�fENT A
�S:z:aolCz!ilornia-TheRewurces.4ger.cy Primzry � Y[n-oG1161 -- ---'—:i"
D'c?ARTFdEt�i OF Pi.P.KS AND RECREA710N
PRIt41ARY RECORD �R� g --- '
Trinomia! �
hRHP Status Code 4Y �'
Other Listings
Revie�v Coda _ Reviewer— -- �Jate _____�
o,,ge of 4 Resaurce Name or E: (ASSigr.ed by recorder) L:hi:efeyS.;ee!1'a.'f
.- �. Oiher ldentifie:: iNPA L"✓z/.'
?<. Leca.ion: � No' for Publieation `� Unrestrictad z. County SanLuisObis��
i znd (P2b antl P2c or P2d. Attach 2 Loc2ticn h7ap as necessary.)
b. USGS 7.5' Ouad Ocear.� Cate 1994 T 32S : R 73E ;�•- 7/4 ot -• '1/4 0* Sec r.s. ; M1": E.t:1.
c. AdSress: ? �����_�°y City Ar.oycC-rands Z:c 93:2G�
�. UTiJ:(Give more than cne icr iaroe andtire2r rescures) f0 , 727,f00 ns' 3.dS9.`L�J mN
e.Ct1er Locatior.ai Data (Enter Farcel n, Izgal c�escription,directions;o resource, elevation, atc., as speropria:e?
Located bet:veen two houses or.Gtie north side o!Whiteley Street
Parce;Nc. �o?- �'�/9`rt-o b 3
'r3.�Jescript;on(Des:,rbe 2seurce a.M is rzjcr eler.:er;s.I:�uCe design,ma!eri�ls,ca.�ciEon,zltere!'ons,s¢e,s:W'ng,and�u:iCz�23;
A section o/mortared stone wall cehveen t.vo houses at the weste�n end o/Whi:e!y Street just east ot A�ro}ro Gra.�de Creek. Ft the
south end o!the wall a bronze?plaque idantif.�es Ci y of Arroyo Grande Histohcal Monumant No.2. The viail m2r;cs ihe/ormer sites
of a Pacific Cozst Railway Station,circa 7900, and a County Main!er.ance Yard, 1944-1979. It also represents construction work in
:.he area done Gy the Works P�oo�e>s Adm•'nistration(W.P.A.)du^ng the 1930s.
Tha wzll is made!rom d�essed bio•=k;o;Obis?o T✓N morta:ed witn concrefe.
P3b. Fesource Attributes: (Li;t at;ributes anC codes) H?Sc"- NJZII/gateAence NP46- Lsall92!e/fe.�ce
P4. �Resources Present ❑Bui'dir.g ��Structure ❑Object ❑Site G Districi O Element of District L Other (Iso!a:es, etc.)
�PSa.Photog:aph or Drawing(Photoaraph reGuirzd for baildngs,svuctures,zrd oG,�ecrsl - I PSo.Des�ription o!F,�a:(VEw,C..=;e,aaession:j
� i Yewolvre:lfookingeash.vard
I
� P"o. Date Cors4ructed/Age and Sources:
� , � ❑Prehistoric $I Historic O eoth
� .°;';' I builtdur,ng 1930s .
� �<:,'.,,. � 7
� � ` • �i} ! P7. Owner and Address
, j Pax 8ro!hers Cons7✓ctior,
��_� ' j Ar,oyo Gra�e,CA
:-+v`:`
' � �
1 r� i
� y°� � �' � I P8. Recorded by:;�3^�e,eri5auo�,aad add!essj
fqSi � , i�, ��� � "S !, C�ayA.S:nger
Il..a� 7 , �; I C.A.S/ngrr d A:icci=(es
' 4��h� n F.0.8xS9
I� �P �p ii` � i Czmb�a,CA9.it23
%��'i�-+�`,� I
�,Y��t
���i � +• I P°_. Date Recorded: 2/25I2005
i �1 i ,� �� l. i�r f+ i i
� �r ,�,> � ,. . „� � �;�,�., + '�t • � P70. Survay Type: (Desc;ib2)
"c�a o}-+.`f.ivse3'�1 �.±�'�R;s<..lF,;�y�14 Eldt�'�.
. ..: ,_;:�,�:• � �. ._ I Pi�:selRec�rneis�a.^r_e
i �
� �
_J
P71.Repor Cita!ion:(Cite survey repoR xnC other sources,or r.nter"none�
'S::q%ect Cultural resources survey anC imp;c;assessment lu . �
:.'!aehmer,ls ❑NONC S Contir.ca'im Sh2et ❑DiS:^G RecarG � Rm<A�ReccrC � OC�e::(_�:j
& Lecatbn btap E BuilCing.StvcWre.and Object Fecord ❑Unea Fezwre Record � A:it;ci Record
❑Sk_ICh h!ap p Archaeologicz!Re;urd ❑hlii:ins Statio.^.Record = F"ctxraoh nerard
CPR 5?�A 1:.95:HsY7V.ai.� $a+9�.e-:ven�,;�s P.esea<�Msx+:�s
S!eteotCe§'omia—TheRasourcesngeny primsr ��.�o-�� 1161 "
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND FECRFJ,TION Y --1
8U[LDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECY RECORD HR� � '
'____'___' J
Page 2 of 4 NRHP Staivs Code 4X
Resource Name or S: (Assigr.ed by record2r) N✓.':i!e/zy S!rae! V/2i!
3:. Histe:ic Name: Au City H,'storic h1cnumenf A'o.2
52. Co�mon Name: a mo.^.ared stone wal!
£3. Origir,al Use: u�F:�own ES. P;eseni Use: nist�:;ca:n. nnumer.!
65. Architeetur2i Style: m�rta�ed�valielund�essecblcckso.`ObispoTuN.
85. Cor.s:ruetion History: (Ccns;ruction dste, alteratior.s: and Qat= o` �!:erz;iors)
Buil!during the 7930s by the V✓.P.A.
Si. h!oved?�I No ❑Yes ❑ Unkr,ow� Da:e : ' Original Location:
68. Related Features: Paci!icCoasFRailwayStation2nCSLOCountyfdain!enanceYard ,
B9a. Architect: unknown b.Builder: Works P�ogeress Administra;ior,
B10. Signiticance: Theme: Rarlroads Araz: SLOCounty �
Period of Significance: 1900•1550 p:operty 7yFe: Residenfial Appticable Cri:eria:
(Disu:ss imyertx�ce in terms o`his:oi:.al or architecNrai ccr.tex:as EefinrJ by;heme,,^.erx a�C geca:a�ti c scope.Aiso zOdress;tegrir�.)
A;�ee standir.g mo7a�ed wan made e`C:essed bloc:cs ol Obispo Tuf! by IN.P.A. worke�s dur.+ny the 1930s. Tr,e•rral�is ahout 735
faet Jong. If has a base 36 inches:+ide and 12 inches high. The 24 inch wide wa!!rises i:orr::^a ce,�ter cf tha 3o inc`wio2 bas=
and has a flet top. Tne entire wa.'!is 121eet hryh excep!tor a 23 foot lo�;g section at the v:=s?e�C lY,at is or,ly S/ee;.high. A s,^:e:'?
bronze plaque wiLti a,�infonr,ative ir,scription is m.ounted on the v�ester,^end o!Ihe vi21i. Tre v.•�l;is l�ce?eC be:s5•�en!v.•o hous�;
a:i39 a�:d 133 Whiteley Street.
67 5. Additionai fiesource A!tr:outes: (List 2riributes and codes) HPa6- INall/gate%`ence iiP46- '+Yall/g21a!ler,ce
872. References: ----------
(Sket�h Map��ilh non.h arow reGUf:eC.) �
Johnson, C.H. (793f}The Paci/,`c Coast Raihvsy Comes To P.rroyo �
Grande.South County Historical Society. �
.-� :,..�.:;;^r—._..: - ..::�.
Gi ";_:?:1;i.:I�'x`"_FL • �.;;:'=r•''•%q_ '
���Y.4j� j i-i�C�jJj y L2 !iC�� �
Y
h
� 4l t 4�}.s3 � �qiVx`�n
613. Remarks: a n•'ce�iz': �r� �: ` 3 4� t ~A�`�!
�fi � �..���`� z
I ,�,,�� � ' uiixu auE'ow vu�� }Kfrr,,�b�;� �;•
y S M�l1lLl'�42C!lY.R(yOL�U111S{\l�Sl Y'�F��t24 ��� k a
,� '"��` 1ClL�LiL1�� S1'lLEi��"�M"``�%s � "i �
874. Evaluzio:: CISyA.Singer I • . �`+��.{ctliccene�;:eraieu�it�ldi3�,*,s�`'i���' �`���,
Dz.e o! Evaluation: 3/1/2005 � ' '' ��ivei�Eiis iiitnnn��,[ny��ii�i i�nii-as.��z�'�i��� � ��
x y.VW[L Itl.LLtGLi'Lf 1A1SCl CI I42f 6' 4f i i
i ' � �F��.4 Nfc1'CI alCU�170J::JR iLL f L/'�i�`{, �' � .�� ..
(This spzce resen•ed for oYCia!commants.) -,_,._ � - V... � - -
� I -:.:'.sf.:x=xR'.'c��'3i�5' �C;a:.::,_sr�: .4,:w.".a-.
I ,:
i � �,�.` , , �
: Y
I � � t .1'. : ' .4.;
�
I i f R,�T-�;�"l�`'';�.` : A . .y.��J.� ��{�.y��
� �
I � � � �fi_' �. t+ �� T i � ;w� i s
I � I
=------- -------- " �- '
' State of'Californle�The Aesources Agency ` . , '� 'Pnmary R �40 041:161'
DEPARTMENT'OFPARKS"AND RECREATION ' ' x^ ' t �,HRIU.
LOCA'T(ON'MAP. , x . Y_- ,� ,�,� , ; ; � _ �} �, 4 :
`s ,' ' r:Trinomlai °
Page�3 of� 'Reso/�urce Name or#(Assigned by recorder) the wall of AG
•Map Name: �� O Y�`�-d�-- � � •Scale: ��Z'F; o'O° 'Date o}Map:��
)i 1 .. -� " .:1^��':C.'�r, i .1 i':• (�i J//.� ;�e�C��i J?II:'• � �` 1\�i, � .
GRANDE NE �r"; �` ���.�3 \�` �'��%���� K °" �%�
_ ARROYO CAL.IF. P,�- •-=�. k' ; :�� �, � ,,,.. �, .. Q�;_.;
3572P95-Tf-024 � N � "��`:���% "��i-':� /\�" "" :. ��m.. � �1 .,
,` , .r ��� � � ` E` /• .�. �'.. �9 �i �.:
xi�
, 1965 �. , ���'�,a�� ,C�." s� , v i(1-�'e
� J / -J.:
° REVISED 1993 4, � • �/ � � ' %"_.. • G�b' �`�.. .
`� aSA 1854 Q NE-SERIS V895 ��; , ` ' � ✓//� / �� � � � �
i .y__.��. _ ' __ _°" �����.•'P�PO ��� �� �r^ , �
'� � q�Py �� •''��,�'•• ^�, -
� � '�� :�. �• 6 �� �� �' '��`, - �3
� � . . .��, ��.�.`7 ° >� �.
w` . . . •i ' . �� o e ��
_ � �• 0 �.
`��.�� :�/w�� , /•.,: ��$:.oth�j-:e Q' ��,�'i �t �.-�--,':,:R
r : ' � �:\Qar ".: i .. � � ^ `
i _ -"�y i 7�. -' , �' i �x�': *. �6 J 1��,'���
:.d'���C �, ' �• : .� '_� unse+*• . �o ' �`.Q�° :i!� '`��-�� f i `
6•� � .�• � ,.:• . ' -.x$N� �. :, �j � �
(�-� �\�� . , J�l / : r�..:�, , ; `/�1;l`Cj�, ' �oo--�,�
.f;,�Gt/ .� . � j , ;1d�' �f.'"•:�.il�'�• "• � ;• � r�•
is� 1 �. ��. o`�! ,� BOI.SA " � �., % � ���` -. ��� ,.��/ ,��� i �.
,J ��� * .�; . ,i.n��\- ti� � -.
?a R. !i//Y����ANI ,L I:re;i•y�_ �in�.�— /]! i. �iJr
`�� n: �
ti�H . ��6 . . ' ' �. 1 �;�.r•5��2 . �.�'� ��• '•�'�: N� � �6?i• v �%'✓ f
�.Y� ♦. ��tiOW' i �` �� �� � a�+-j�
'�`�' .:�0 / 9 ' .,��. . / a°� / •% � %I \ „ 1 z�.��
� ' y� a .[ F.:• o� j�/ ' �/', �...:
N,� 1L` M • �. rV_ �/ � , / `v^l O� `•rn�W �rs=`°,-, ... ."'�j�
. :� �`,e 'Qw.' m ••' . P ' well j s4. ' ��r`�\���\'�`�'�� �i�:�,:m��-
� �� '- ' r.^�� n � �'l. 9� s,, �r�
/i p0 i `�E P f ':• : ..J./^-��' '" . �:j� ; `_ •`. °.' I���' �, �-
/// � . � �1 • J' .
J�/ � � � �` �:.� - ._��ti�. .� �����_.
�'� ' 1 �+' llJ6Y, / w r,•,.���. �� u ---�_=;1�
NDE �s:' ao ,� �'e�� t� � � `•. l;,l;i �--�i��J�J� .�'�
��°�' ;J' ' f-�'��J�1 .�_ l/'4G��:"l
� � / � �'�
!\\ � �.� � _ //�i��..sc / - ,��,C�
:�V �7:°�'� •� ,'6 :� ����� �C.���vj��y� � y , �
x� r.s�n
! . . � •..> \, �
_-, •� % " j-��;, ��; . ,\�� ��:%�` ,,��,I ,� �:� /:.:.> �����
, - t
�¢V � � ��� �!I:\\ i � .i.i� � n \ � %n!�``/�l:i \�(
!O/ �J � '�.. ��. W- � �' 1 \���I ' �/ ��� �ii��j\
----I�1. ��� .. �- � �� � `��'.\ /; �/ � �� t� ��
: a� � r n\ � �`..��"(j�:�,�� �,\��--,� r. .
P P I �. •�';m'J����`"'�\�' ,° °'�'_�`'��' -��"�/-o C� OCFAN.O, CALIF. '
' af�:� ��� o \.�� � �r:�, :.:! x,,.� �\�^ as,za.csrF-oza �
�, • �� �l ,,,�� `--�� � ° 4 >
� � '� ♦ i � � ��\",,- �. n � '1965 =
� i '��S',,� _ ' �"i/J�> �\��,ir�� � ���'!� REVISED 7994
``� _ j �; �l��/���� �\:. \ D�1A I6S7 II SE-SF3LE�5 Vg95 l
��i.� - ii�-� r � /'..� -`° � ."���- �% �
� . . �w ^--�' i _ .
""-/ 1-.�J"�`�.._ ;�%/� � ti- �,�. � �., .� . ` .
! �::\ '!`.� ,` ����•� r�. /�'.l� ..\ ��=��'�:.��..�:.•:��
DPR 523J(U95) 'ReGulred Informebon
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '
Stete of Cellfomla=The Resources Agency.::'.;.�;�_:-,,::;;j: •;:`i'P.flmary 8, ''�.:P'1�0 —04�161..;.' ,,.:?-• •
, DEPARTMENT.OF PARKS AND RECREATION �- ` NRI# •.�. � � � .�. � '`_ :
.. _ : : . . - . '
CONTINUAT(ON'SHEET °�_ ' �f �``''"` ` ' ' _ ` '` = '
, ; Tdnomlal _ - -. � •
Page of,� . •Resource Nama or 7t`(ASSlgned Dy recorCer) W�A f«�- o �
•Recorded b C�A.SrNC�Q� •Date 3 � as 1�Continuation ❑Update
Photo of SdPA k'all on [dhiteley Street in Arroyo Grande.
.. �ti`y�''. �� ��'��.L? � �. ,� ,y' .
. . %` ` \ �1�� _.
_. ...i'. L° ' . �:�'• �1�-�i�.,T�.. � .�.�'..ti. .��
, , aV £ f.�; �.�. 'i.
_:--�: z � i « :� ;;t,.
;i...S �'�' � �F'r �'�"� - n !
. �, :
;!, � ,1•. i111 {� 14
a '^�� s "'F� ' :x� .
X ' � i° �f i1t :y ;
T��, It`� SI��• . . . '. •rjY
'¢yT Y )Y . O 5%
�'hR. f1' l � `. �1R��;���aYi�������1h ti�yjA,�A��a •
�")1:.� �A\. . �iAyf: y iRh"�' ��Yyrfii" p�YSL� Y 'µ�F��l.
i`1�S�i�Afti9fkel YT�.�li.a�..:�.'�+i ' Y ���+'��+{A�.�.:fiYTrl .,,a/�,w��+: ��
y�`i{.c_. a ..- .`pj + t.r �.��ng� : �cfl$ti . ..rr4 T�
�r� \ 2 � f�:�t �� ���� �\A��E� A \�.� £��. ) h1 ffiF.
'7 Y�'�� �h . 41 1 y�) :� s `�A?ab \ � . �tryy�,a.C. i � 4 4i a
� /.l ���sY `. i� r,c* Y'� n. yy rf.� E F �
t > .i ` 't4 ir _){.`��'ti..�i 1 J]��� c,� � . . �{r'�'�x 2.. �+.R�f. . '}'4
+5.rK4'G`}M`�.` �4 �y.yi,• y i. 'E [ �. j. ��..p� .� 1c YaY�
\�., l�Y i�'C�0
x"'.r'L. < . �y .V� �� ` � ��3.�"i� it oi.alu�iu�i�3 uudu E y1t.���'' 'i
� jj. 3
�O�i � a � � hk Y��+4i�uuGLFll�l VYUii1$C: y� r �.3t�
r ` tkn r+�'``"I�OLCLfZSIt FLYL6��k `�' iKs .7
�S•. '`>�,���`.':� .r�r� � r.r.rr �`r�? A .� � . :.�
X. � r�} e�rm.t��einc,cunn etu�nr h�Y.3u�i���� �?c,.,?I
< r:tn�fa/LcCCUIttWYneu.�n��)1�vwt4GUe� Z ��
F�• 4�' -�; , S �.c. ..� y��uii yii�6ce�c'turt�l�v ai�iiies��y�7'. ' •['3
? ' !. C��. euileuG 1CJt In lv`nu[a r jr r . ), �;�
v�.ak�1 Y4 S� �iN. '
�': ir�,i
, ;ur.y r. I.. e`fl'vt �1 ity` }L�' " , f: ) l�'.?,�j�
v ` 9 �� a' r ��' � 1 :
� V ..��
� �t r si� • ��yy � �yy^��1 r�
I
•.,.! _ � � i' .±1ti . } I��.ti;3sx.rk�.'�'i':.�cYh�` �.��•w1�if '�
il
DPR 527L(tN5) •pequired Intormetlon
.
ATTACHMENT1
� Geotechnical Engineering Report
• For
Proposed Singte Family Residence
135 Whiteley Street • "
� Arroyo Grande, California
�
1
i
May 25, 2005
• B-054452
Prepared For
Scott Pace
'
� BY
� Buena Geotechnical Services
3850 Ramada Drive, #A-2
1 Paso Robies, California
,
� '
�
�
�
y �
� � BUENA GEOTECFINICAL SERVICES� LLC
� P.O. BOX 2857, ATASCADERO, CA 93423
I
May 25, 2005 -
` Scott Pace
I P.O. Box 519 .
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
Project: Proposed Single Family Residence
; 135 Whiteley Street
Arroyo Grande, California _
i Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report
�. As authorized, we have pertormed a geotechnicai study for the above
� referenced project. The accompanying Geotechnical Engineering
Report presents the results of our subsurtace exploration, laboratory-
testing program, and conclusions and recommendations for
' geotechnical engineering aspects of project design. Our services were
performed using the standard of care ordinarily exercised in this
locality at the time this report was prepared.
� Based on ouc study, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the
, proposed development from a geotechnical engineering standpoint
provided that the recommendations of this report are successfully
implemented.
, We have appreciated this opportunity to be of service to you on this
project. Please cail if you have any questions, or if we can be of further
� service.
�� QROFESS/p�,9
Respectfully submitted� `,`c�,o��,PN G. y9�`!�
`Buena Geotechnical Services • � a c�� ,/y� z .
//�
fib
c � �
Douglas Hallin �T'�JFO�ECNK�R,��4:
CAL14�
Project Manager �
Norman G. Hailin �
Geotechnical Engineer
805-434-9490 • 805-544-Q333
FAX 805-434-9098 • 831-385-3170 (King City)
May 25, 2005 B-054452
INTRODUCTION
A. Project Descriotion
This report presents results of a Geotechnical Engineering Study
performed for the proposed new single family residence to be
located at 135 Whiteley Street in Arroyo Grande, California.
1. We anticipate that the site will be developed by conventional
grading methods to construct a relatively flat pad. The proposed
structure will be constructed on or near existing grade.
2. The proposed structure will be a 1 or 2 story residence of wood
frame construction. A slab-on-grade with conventionai perimeter
foundation is proposed for the structure. -
� 3. Structural considerations for maximum wall loads of 1.5 kips per
lineal foot (kl� were used as a basis for the recommendations of
thls report. If actual loads vary significantly from these assumed
loads, Buena Geotechnical Services should be notified since re-
evaluation of the recommendations contained in this report may
be required.
B. Purpose and Scope of Work
The purpose of the geotechnical investigation that led to this report
was to evaluate the soil conditions of the site with respect to the
proposed structure. These conditio�s include surFace and subsurface
soil types, expansion potential, settlement potential, bearing
capacity, and the presence or absence of subsurface water. The
scope of our work included: '
1. Reconnaissance of the site.
2. Driliing, sampling and logging of 3 borings to investigate soils
� and ground water conditions.
3. Laboratory testing of soil samples obtained from subsurface
exploration to determine their physical and engineering
properties.
' 4. Geotechnical analysis of the data obtained.
' S. Consultation with owner representatives and design
professionais.
6. Preparation of this report.
� Contained in this report are:
� 1. Discussions on local soil and groundwater conditions.
! 2. Results of laboratory and fieid tests.
� 3. Conclusions and recommendations pertaining to site grading and
• � structural design.
�
�
May 25, 2005 B-054452 .
C. Site Settina
T. The site of the proposed improvements is located in the Old
Town area in the City of Arroyo Grande, California. See the
Vicinity Map in Appendix A.
2. The building site is currently vacant and sets adjacent to Arroyo
Grande Creek. An existing single family residence has been
demolished and hauled ofFsite.
3. The building area is relatively flat. Minor debris from the
previous structure and numerous roots are present'at the site.
SOIL CONDITIONS
A. Evaluation of the subsurFace indicates that soils are generally loose
and moist to near saturated silty clays to depth.
B. Soils encountered at approximate bearing depths are characterized
by low in-place densities.
C. Expansion determination indicates that bearing soils lie in the
"Medium" expansion potential range in accordance with Table 18-I-
B of the Uniform Building Code.
D. Groundwater was not encountered to a maximum depth of 15 feet
below existing grade, however very moist to near saturated
conditions were encountered in both borings.
LIQUEFACTION
A. Earthquake-induced vibrations can be the cause of several
� significant phenomena, inciuding liquefiaction in fine sands and siity
sands. Liquefaction results in a complete loss of strength and can
' cause structures to settle or even overturn if it occurs in the
bearing zone. If liquefaction occurs beneath sloping ground, a
phenomenon known as lateral spreading can occur. Liquefaction is
typically limited to the upper 40 feet of the subsurface soils and to
soils that have a relative density of less than 70%.
B. It is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction under the
structure will be minimai provided the recommendations offered
herein for grading of the building pad are followed and .verified by
this firm.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ,
The site is suitable for the proposed development from a geotechnical
engineering standpoint provided the recommendations contained
� � herein are properly implemented into the project.
May 25, 2005 B-054452
A. Gradinq
1. General Gradin4
a. Grading, at a minimum, should conform to Chapter 33 of
the 1997 Uniform Building Code. '
b. The existing ground surface shouid .be initially prepared for .
grading by removing vegetation, trees, large roots, debris,
non-complying fill, and any other organic material.
Voids created by removal of such material should not be
backfilled unless the underlying soils have been observed by
the Geotechnical Engineer.
c. The resulting surtace of all excavations should be observed
by a representative of this firm prior to processing or placing -
fill.
d. Fill and backfill placed at near optimum moisture in layers
with loose thickness not greater than 6 inches shouid be
compacted to a minimum� of 90% of the maximum dry
density obtainabie by the ASTM D 1557 test method.
e. Import soils used to raise site grade should be equal to, or
better than, on-site soiis in strength, expansion, and
compressibility characteristics. Import soils can be
evaluated, but will not be pre-qualified by the Geotechnical
Engineer. Final comments on the characteristics of the
. import will be given after the material is at the project site.
f. Roof draining systems should be designed so that water is
not discharged onto bearing soils or near structures.
g. Final site grade should be such that all water is diverted
away from all structures and leach fields, and is not allowed
to pond.
� h. It is recommended that Buena Geotechnical Services be
retained to provide intermittent Geotechnical Engineering
services during site development, grading, and foundation
construction phases of the work to observe compliance with
the design concepts, specification.s and recommendations,
and to allow design changes in the event that subsurFace
conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of
' construction.
i. Plans and specifications should be provided to Buena
Geotechnical Services prior to grading. Plans should include
the grading plans, foundation plans, and foundation details.
Structural loads should be shown on the foundation plans.
May 25, 2005 B-054452
j. It is possibie that the underlying soils will become unstable -
during grading due to excessive moisture content,
alternatives to correct instability, including aeration or use
of gravel or geotextifes are addressed in the following
section. '
2. Site Grading/Development
Gradina Pads
a. The primary concern from a geotechnical engineering
standpoint is the near saturated conditions, the
compressible loose native soiis and the •potential for
excessive and/or differential settlement. Due to the
presence of low density soils at the proposed bearing depth,
over-excavation and re-compaction will be necessary to -
decrease the potential for differential settlement and to
provide more uniform bearing conditions. Ail soiis shouid be
removed to a minimum depth of 6 feet below existing grade.
The over-excavation should extend to a distance of 5 feet
beyond the building perimeter. The resulting surFace should
be scarified to a depth of 1 foot, moisture conditioned and
recompacted to a minimum of 90% of maximum dry
density. Should the exposed bottom of the overexcavation
exhibit yielding due to excessive moisture content, 1.5 inch
gravel may be placed in thin (< 4") lifts and track-walked
, into the exposed surtace until moderate stability is achieved.
The exposed bottom of the overexcavation shouid then be
covered by placement of a woven geotextile stabilizer fabric,
such as Amoco 2044 or equivalent. The geotextile layers
should overlap a minimum of 12 lnches and be securely
anchored up the sides of the excavation. Care should be
� taken to not excessively wrinkie the geotextile during the
backfill process. The previousiy removed material may be
piaced in thin lifts, moisture conditioned and compacted to a
minimum of 90% of maximum dry density. The intent of
these recommendations is to provide a minimum of 6 feet of
compacted material below the building and above the
geotextile fabric. We recommend that a self propelled
' vibratory compactor be used to provide compaction of the
fill material in the overexcavation.
b. Areas outside the building to receive fill, exterior slabs-on-
grade, sidewaiks or paving should be overexcavated to a
depth of 1 foot. The exposed surface shouid be scarified,
moisture conditioned and recompacted to a minimum of
90% of maximum dry density.
May 25, 2005 B-054452
The previously removed material may then be placed In thin
lifts, moisture conditioned and compacted to a minimum of
90% of maximum dry density.
c. On-site soils may be used for fiil once they are cleaned of all
organic material, rock, debris and irreducible material larger
than 8 inches in diameter. Should any trash or other debris
be encountered during grading, complete removal will be
necessary to adequate depths and horizontal limits as
recommended by this firm.
3. Slo�e Construction
. a. Any hiliside grading or construction of fill slopes should
conform to the minimum standards listed in Chapter 33 of
the Uniform Building Code. It is recommended that the -
Geotechnical Engineer review the grading pians prior to
grading and site development. �
b. Fill slopes should be keyed and benched into firm natural
ground when the existing slope to receive fill is 10:1,
horizontal to vertical, or steeper,. The keyways should be
tilted into the slope, should be a minimum of one equipment
width wide, and should be a minimum of 2 feet deep at the
outside edge.
c. Fill siopes should be overtilled, compacted, and cut back to
planned configurations. This will yield better compaction on
. the slope faces than other methods.
d. Lined dralnage swales and down drains should be provided
at the tops of cut and fiil slopes to divert drainage away
from the slope face.
4. Utilitv Trenches
a. Utility trench backfill should be governed by the provisions
� of this report relating to minimum compaction standards. -
In general, service lines inside of the property lines may be
• backfilled with native soiis compacted to 90% of maximum
dry density. Backfill of off site service lines will be subject to
i the specifications of the jurisdictional agency or this report,
whichever more stringent.
� b. Backfili operations should be observed and tested by the
� ' Geotechnical Engineer to monitor compliance with these
recommendations.
� c. ]etting of native soils is not recommended.
1 B. Structural DesiQn .
Foundations
' a. Conventional continuous footings may be used for support of
' structure.
�
1 '
May 25, 2005 B-054452
b. Footings should bear entirely into firm and dense re-
compacted soils.
c. Conventional continuous footings may be designed based on
an allowable bearing value of 1500 psf.
d. Allowable bearing values are net (weight of footing and soils
surcharge may be neglected) and are applicable for dead
plus reasonable live loads.
e. Bearing values may be increased by one-third when
transient loads such as wind and/or seismicity are included.
f. Lateral loads may be resisted by soils friction on floor slabs
and foundations and by passive resistance of the soils acting
on foundation stem walls. Lateral capacity is based on the
assumption that any required backfill adjacent to _
foundations and grade beams is properly compacted.
g. For structures to be constructed above slopes, the outside
faces at the bottom of footings should .be at a minimum
horizontal distance of 5 feet�from the slope face.
h. Conventional continuous footings for buildings where the
ground surFace slopes at 10:1, horizontal to vertical, or
steeper should be stepped so that both top and the bottom
are level.
i. Reinforcement of footings bottomed in soils in the "Medium"
expansion potential range should be designed by the project
'. Structural Engineer. Soils should be presaturated to 130%
of optimum moisture content to a depth of 27 inches below.
lowest adjacent grade prior to piacement of concrete.
j. Foundation excavations should be observed by a
representative of Buena Geotechnical Services after footing
excavation but prior to placement of reinforcing steel or
' formwork.
k. The soiis profile type in UBC Table 16J should be Se. The
seismic zone factor (Z) in UBC Table 16J should be 0.40.
The seismic sburce is the San Luis Range Fault, South
Margin (Type B Fault), with a distance of less than 2 km.
2. Siabs-On-Grade
a. Concrete slabs should be supported by compacted structural
fili as recommended earlier in this report.
b. It is recommended that perimeter slabs (walks, patios, etc.)
be designed relatively independent of footing stems (i.e.
free floating) so foundation adjustment will be less likely to
cause cracking.
c. Slabs should be underlain with a minimum of four (4) inches
of clean sand.
May 25, 2005 B-054452 .
Areas where floor wetness would be undesirabie should be
underlain with a moisture barrier to reduce moisture
transmission from the subgrade soils to the slab. The
membrane should be placed at mid-height in the clean sand.
d. Reinforcement and slab thickness should be determined by
the project Structural Engineer. Soils underlying slabs in the
"Medium" expansion potential range should be presaturated
to 130% of optimum moisture content to a depth of 27
inches below lowest adjacent grade prior to placement of
concrete. .
3. Frictional and Lateral Coefficients
a. Resistance to lateral loading may be provided by friction
acting on the base of foundations. A coefficient of friction of -
0.32 may be applied to dead load forces. This value does
not inciude a factor of safety.
b. Passive resistance acting on the sides of foundation stems
equal to 300 pcf of equivalent fluid weight may be includetl
for resistance to lateral load. This vafue does not include a
, factor of safety. However, when passive resistance is used
� in conjunction with friction, the coefficient of friction should
be reduced by one-third in determining the total lateral
resistance.
� c. A one-third increase in the quoted passive value may be
', used when considering transient loads such as wind and
� seismicity.
; 4. Settlement Considerations
a. Maximum expected settlement of less than 1 inch can be
! . anticipated for foundations and floor slabs designed as
recommended.
� b. DifFerential settlement between adjacent load bearing
members should be less than one-half the total settlement.
c. The majority of settlement should occur during construction.
Post construction settlement should be minimal.
5. Retaining Walls
a. Conventional cantilever retaining walis backfilled with
compacted on-site soils may be designed for the lateral
� ' pressures listed below:
Active Case 45 pcf
; At Rest Case � 70 pcf
1 Passive Case 300 pcf
Max. Toe Pressure 1500 psf
� b. The pressures listed above were based on the assumption
that backfilled soils will be compacted to 90% of maximum
I • dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 Test Method.
I
May 25, 2005 B-054452
c. The lateral earth pressure to be resisted by the retaining
walis or similar structures should include the loads from any
structures or temporary loads that inFluence the wall design.
d. A back drain or an equivalent system of backfill drainage
should be incorporated into the retaining wall design.
e. Backfiil immediately behind the retaining structure should be
a free-draining granular material. Alternat'ively, the back of
the wall could be lined with a geodrain system.
f. Compaction on the uphill side of the wall within a horizontal
distance equal to one wall height shouid be pertormed by
hand-operated or other lightweight compaction equipment.
This is intended to reduce potential "locked-in" lateral
pressures caused by compaction with heavy grading -
equipment.
g. Water should not b allowed to pond near the top of the wall.
To accomplish this, the fnal backfill site grade should be
such that all water is diverted from the retaining wall.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
This report is based on the assumption that an adequate program of
monitoring and testing will be per�ormed by Buena Geotechnical
Services during construction to check compliance with the
recommendations given in this report. The recommended tests and
observations include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:
1. Review of the building and grading plans during the design phase of
the project.
' 2. Observation and testing during site preparation, grading, placing of
engineered fill, and foundation construction.
3. Consultation as required during construction.
LIMTATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIOAIS
The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based
in part upon the data obtained from the borings drilled on site. The
nature and extent of variations between and beyond the borings may
not become evident until construction. If variations then appear
evident, it may be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of
this report.
May 25, 2005 8-054452
! The scope of our services did not Include environmental assessment or
' geological study. The scope of services did not inciude investigation
? for the presence or absence of wetiands, hazardous or toxic materials
� in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air. Any statements in this
report or on the soil boring logs regarding odors, unusUai or suspicious
items or conditions observed a�e strictly for the information of the
' client.
� Findings of this report are valid as of this date, however, changes. in a
' condition of a property can occur with passage of time, whether they
be due to natural processes or works of man on this or adjacent
, properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standard
may occur whether they result from legislation or broadening _
� knowledge. Accordingly, findings of this report may be invalidated
; wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this
report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period
i of one (1) year. �
1
� In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the
structure and other improvements are planned, the conclusions and
recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid
� unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report
modified or verified in writing.
i This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility
of the owner or his representatives to insure the information and
recommendations offered herein are called to the attention of the
project architect and engineers.
� It is also the responsibility of the owner or his representatives to
insure the information and recommendations offered herein are
• incorporated into the project plans and specifications and the .
� necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and
subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field.
� Buena Geotechnical Services has prepared this report for the exciusive
use of the client and authorized agents. This report has been prepared
in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering
� prectices. No other warranties, either expressed or implied, are made
as to the professional advice provided under the terms of this
• agreement.
�
� .
a
May 25, 2005 B-054452 .
It is recommended that Buena Geotechnical Services be provided the
opportunity for a general review of final design and specifications in
order that . earthwork and foundation recommendations may be
properly interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications.
If Buena Geotechnical Services is not accorded the privilege of making
this recommended review, we can assume no responsibility for
misinterpretation of our recommendations. �
END OF TEXT
.
- r�
�• :1 O
-y4F-tia ' '•Jd_ o. ' �'� t��1
, : � 'P��� 'hes. ?% %j' `° 'r` �r
> ;�, �o` � �Tyay � 4a �E' i/ I
,y,� t-�-�-1
�� �. _ . yc�;� \��,° . r'dm O�!
•� �, �--� �a�✓ ���� {U �/6 ,
�� �' � ' �� // , `�� G �
'�''� @,, �� '�' �✓
/ Y
l " a� `
,
1� $ �` � .�, �'� �•<�`�j
.j m`O -Gsacl9e:%:,
�•13.�'�Y/hReley SC':E�Y°�-.. .
�� �.ei � 135YJhneleY`'�C493420,...__.._..
�� � / prtayoG@nde,,.._
�` � t� � 'J /l
�` S /' �
� � �� .. � �; �
�1 ' t*. //�'d„\ ��c'�
�Y � `� ' w'' �'�.// /o.•. �'���1.�
( �` h//�
� � .=j p�y6:Gra� LS's\ �� � �%
�
I ka���� � \ ��j� �
�' �:t�''^� %� 'e���/c� ^�J y` � \
�"'�::�--�:,;�—�!`�':��' '�\�� �e'� �� \e� /O .
. � '��.,_ 227f'`\ f( `�,�� �o �P y /
•�a ..� f a Q ?" ��P �c�O �,°
\� ��/�, �� ; .�.\ F,-✓ �,� ,ce� ``v j�:
�� �" �"`�o ,��Go. a � :�� � !�c
1 ��� �, . ': �'�...�G� j �a
����t'a ,. •..,V .`� r t.�
,
' �\� i
, ;� a� ;�� c.;./�
� i a�\ � �:� /`
� �\� ��` � �S:
in ' � ;`��� �m'b, /� ary;' a
c_
,�--� �f`: Y.
�___--. ;`rf d% �� 101,
m�__� " y�o;.
I: '
PROJECT No. B-054452 ����r,�,i,� ��A�
BUENA GEOTECt-INICP,L SERVICES
. • �—�+ '
( �� ,�' ''
r j11 , '
, _ �'7'm ,r�` 1
1:=� � � �� ��
Y �
�
r
� •� Y�°� �� 8 �
q �,� G . •yLl
�/ ��.
EX SO �
�mX �, tio�� ��..�l� � s �
4
U t��. • Ae�� Q
r f �,yr �
• � P,a,,.� .� - t � f .
�N t, Vv ♦ � �„`�-.._
T���rin�*i'" N V �p�'� �"`�� + e Ob TF` - '�.` .
�P ��
?Q. �FD�bM a �� ,1� ro�.�r5 �
01 .� . ' E o i'r�` � NG �oe.�l•N_ \
N' � � Ki y ' ��µ �y��iy�,j
' �1 ,9`/ �y 1 Q`�y � . 2
� ��! ��� �, ��°� � '
� � 1 ,� ,��� .
( � 79og
' 1 I .1U�/ At . .
)/ / d p
i ) " �. � / b5 •
�G•+"�. ! �•
� `".^ C'r� f �°d�' �aoso-
7 V ~,.�� �1�� /
3 �ttr� �� o
/ � i`�¢.`.�%'f'°�'� S] p0's�• 1 �
,l �,��`� . �j �
, �' �i �''��^ �. � _ �
� � ��
`�, �
. ' � °A � � �J(��.
. , ; e=��,,,��. ' '� Y
. � !.7 o s''�.,,,��w ,6�� : � �
^y��y a Pi ` ... o
' � yb��• """ � M1 �
a 1 �y. ��pw "`�-•
7 9! 1 ~ aM. , �6 �
�� �
�tiQ" �YOd • a �� ,� , . _ �� ' �
� / � � ��• WN� Q . .{ LO�� ,
Ph'^
O tl
'+ ` - � � � E,Sj .
�
1s � xoXimate Locatlon o� Soxin9
� � _ ApP
�tT� ��`�
j �Q �_p59952
' pR.OJE�
. p GEOTEC�NICA�- SER�CES
. gU�N
May 25, 2005 8-054452 _
A-1
FIELD INVESTIGATION
A. The Borings were drilled to a maximum depth of 15 feet below the
existing ground surtace to observe the soii profile and to obtain
samples for laboratory analysis. The borings were driiled on May 4,
2005 using a mobile drill rig. The approximate locations of the
borings were determined in the field by pacing and sighting, and
are shown on the Site Plan in this Appendix.
B. Samples were obtained within the test borings with a Modified
California (M.C.) Ring Sampler. The samples were obtained by
driving the sampler with a 140 pound hammer dropping thirty (30)
inches in accordance with ASTM D 1586.
C. Bulk samples of the soils encountered were gathered from the
auger cuttings.
'. D. The final logs of borings represent our interpretation of the
contents of the field logs and the results of laboratory testing
pertormed on the samples obtained during the subsurface
investigation. The final logs are included in this Appendix.
,
�
,
LOG OF BORING
- for:
Site Location: Arroyo Grande 135 Whiteley Street Job No. 8-054452
, Driller/Helper:
Rig Type: BORING N0. 1
� Auger Oiameter: 4"
�
Date: Ma 4 2005
� Depth Bag Blows Drilling _ Buena
� fL Sam le erft comments oids Moisture Descri Gon USCS oiIID
; 0 Soft Moist Brovm sii cla CL C1
1
I
5 �
� Wet
'O
i
15
� Total de th= 15'0'
i
i
` 20
�
25 '
I
30
i
35
i
j
40
GROUNDWATER SAh1PLE TYPE
Time Depth U=Undisturbed ring sample
, • N.E. 5=5tandard penetration tube
T=Shelby tube [ ] 3" [ ] Other:
�
LOG OF BORING
- for:
Site Location: Arroyo Grande 135 Whiteley Street Job No. B-054452
Driller/Helper: ,
Rig Type: BORING NO. 2
Auger Diameter: 4"
Date: Ma 4 2005
Depth Bag Blows Drilling ' Buena
ft am le erft comments oids Moisture Descri tion USCS SoiIID
0 Soft Moist Brown si cla CL C1
5 �
Wet
10 V-wet
15
Totai de th = 'i5'0"
20
25
30
35
I
40
GROUNDWATER SAMPLE TYPE
Time Depth U=Undisturbed ring sampie
. ' N.E. 5=5tandard penetra[ion tube
T=Shelby tube [ ) 3" [ ] O[her:
_ LOG OF 80RING ,
for:
Site Location: Arroyo Grende 135 Whiteley Street Job No. B-054452
Driller/Helper:
Rig Type: BORING NO. 3
Auger Diameter: 4"
, Date: Ma 4 2005 •
Depth Bag Biows Drilling - Buena
R Sam le er ft comments oids Moisture Descri tion USCS Soil ID
0 Soft Wet Brown sil cla CL C1
5
10 V-wet
15
Total de th= 15'0°
20
25
30
35
40 �
GROUNDWATER SAMPLE TYPE
, Time Depth U=Undisturbed ring sample
• N.E, 5=5tandard penetration tube
T=Shelby tube ( j 3" [ j Other;
.
i
�
�
� MAJOR DIVISIONS $YUBO� Yg�+so� TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS
? 'GRAVEL .'t'%'%'%'t wfu-0suoEOaruvE�4aa,w�.
CLEAH .���!��•�•� Gw DM04LXiVREl.LRitEDRNOFl.E6
. AND GRJIYELS '•,•,••'• . �
QRAVE�.LY �IfRLE0AH0 �•�:�i i i PpOALY-0MDEDOMYEIII.GMVEL.
COARSE SOIIS F�e� 'Y'o':l: ap BFTALUfTURED.L�TTLEORHOFNED
' GRAINED ':'�':':','
SOILS • • • • • •
' GRIIVELS • • • • • sLnan.��u.c�uv�•su+o.
uoaenw+eox . . . . GM eLruottuaEs
cFCa�we � . . . . .
7 FIUCTqNAEilUli� FINES , . . . . .
� are+o.�s� G� eurrau�ta.naav�aiu+a
µarr+�cua� . . . . . , curd�va�a
1 waxrroFCwEe� . . . . •
� S w wel-0w�oEV swoe,oruveur
SAND .; auros.tmt�oar�oFr+Ea
y��y�, CLEAN SAND r
OFYAiEPW.Ii �� M1fR�EORNOFWE9) :: ➢C7�RlY-0F1.lCEDLA1rJS.OMVEUY
��� SANDY ::;; g p . . .
�.xo s�a¢E SOILS 9J1.0e.LIftLE OFNO FriF!
1
' uo+�nLweox SM e4nau+�s.au�stiTUUauaee
SAND WITH FINES .•
OF CM0.1E
� FRtCiION►AtMNO ���Fa y) CUIYEY81�7b�.WiD�LAY4tUC7URED
. ONHO.{B�VE �$Ci
� ldOFiM117C 8LT3 NAYeRYFNE bV+�0.
FlNE HL raac�ou0.anoncurErFr+ewoa�
GR.aINtD oa euret a�re mrH xprrr Rur�rtt
SILTS NoFnui�c cuva cctow rq w�a.0
S�ILS AND UOUIDLII�T CL .�snem.oiuvEUreun.au�vr
CLAYS ��T�� aa'n.a�naiira,t�wcura
� ' : i ' � O L a�++c s�.ra�w e�x�scn
. t � � : cura cF irnx vustcm
• � . . ,
�
. ; � � .
. �H �ar�o.vro��n.uraccara o�
SILTS p^ra'�O�F�s"'A«+etttw-zs
' ��� AND V�IDLItJAT
twu.annw� CLAYS aREATER CH s,...."^'x%+�curaccwarrvu-�m,
FA7 CU'A
�p.zoa a�aaE THAN 5�
� .i i i . i p H o�au+c cun cF uEO+w tu Nn�t
� � i i i � rwrcm.o�w�catn
� , HKiHLY OROANIC SOILS . P T °�N�o���°��
130TE: DUAL 91TA°.AL$ARE USED TO I�:DICATE BOFIDERLINE SOIC CLR.431 FICATrJK9.
�
�
�
' - - �
May 25, 2005 B-054452
APPENDIX B
Laboratory Testing
Test Resuits
Bench and Keyway Detail
Transition Lot Detaii
,
May 25, 2005 B-054452 .
B-2
TEST RESULTS -
Boring Depth , 1@ 0'-15'
Soil Type C1
USCS CL
Maximum Density (pcf) 101.0
Optimum Moisture (%) 16.4
Expansion Index 52
,
, -
fiypical .
NO'�T'O SCALE
. . pddGon�l bench�b2ckdrins, . .
' Mz3mum S(ope;21 '. � , , , • 1
. ' . ' ' • ' , '• ,• 1 2 , , . �� /// - •
' . 2a�0 .3� •• •rr
��� � • CiORIp2CS
i • �w
Remava alf e:�sl�ng so�l � r ' � ' ' � • ��'�r '.
. • •M1• • • •. • ' • . ` ' • ++ � � • ,• • ' � •r'~^rrr ` • •�'����1��
Etis6ng s(ope � • . .. • • ,• , :^^~~ • , ' •• N� �,
. . � �S'�r ' • � ���2-3i lyp.:'�,--}- +�•
. . � � � • '�. • • ��t. S • • •'l
. . . . .; • � . .''p � /, • , , '
T,oe oLSlope . ,� �:.'r r r~ • • •��\n•�i:iie.il���/.• • • � • ��J
�'" . � • •�i: . 3.
, •, . . • :�r •. • • • . • .O�O'��\� •• . • . . ^k - • •
• •' • I:�:i l�J,/.I�/�J`/,�
� . � ��� ��• �•0' ),� � . • �,
� . \�\�\�'� � \'\\ '�1 \ ` � ' '�• �• '
. • !.�/�I ' . ��.�����\\!h/;� .• � . .
.��\ � ' .'. .
Keywzy 6ac'c draid
lo• min_ .
. �
BUENA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES BEhlCFI AMD F:c"YWAY DETAIL
GENERAL GRADING REGOMMENDATIONS
CUT LO7 .
�����ORIGI}iAl.
. ' ��.�� GROUND
`_—f� i/�
��� �j .
���'� i -
�^.� r 70PSOIL, COLLUVIUH AND ��� , -
����� 5 W°ATHERED B=DRO�K�i� 6� _
' J/�
��
i�
�� .
�/ �OYc�r�XCAVA7'c AHD
i� R=GRAD�
��� UNW'cATH-RED BEDROCK _
CUT/FILL LOT (TRANSRIO,N) '
� � ,i ORIGWAL
��j/GRGUHD ,
''� /�
� • ��/��� a'
i �
✓/��i �� �.
COM?ACTED FILL
'''� // .
i �
�� � OVER'e7CCAVATE l�H�
TOPSOIL,�' r�� REGRADE
�iCOLLUVIIIM AHD , UNWEA71{?AED BEDROCK
� WEATHe�iED /
�BEDROCK/�
/�
i�
i BUENA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES TR4FvS_i FO�1 LO i DE i AFL
I .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
: i9 05 11 : i5a Buena GeeLechnical 805434909H p• 4 .
� BC7ENA GEOTECHNICAL 5ERVICES� LLC
P.O. BUX 2857, ATASCAUSRU, CA 4342�
July 8, 2005 B-054452
Scott Pace
P.O. Box 519
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 •
Pro�ed: 135 Whiteley Street - Creekside Lot
Arroyo Grande, Cdiffornia
Subject: Report of Observations and Testing During Rough Grading -
Creekside Lot
Reference: Geotechnica) Englneering Report for 135 Whiteley StreeL
arroyo Grande, California dated May 25, 2005
� Submltted herewith is a report of testing and intermittent observatlons
performed during the rough grading on the above referenced project.
Grading operations were performed hy T)N Excavating using
Conventtonal heavy equlpment.
Test results are presented on L�e attached test report sheet with the
esUmated Iocations ptotted for the accompanying ptan. Compaction tests
were performed In ac�ordance with ASTM D29Z2-81 and ASTM D3017-
88, Nuclear Density Test Method.
Maxlmum density-optimum molsture was determined in the laboratory in
accardance with ASTM D1557-78, Method A or C.
Test resuits are as follows:
Soil pesCriotion � Max Densitv - Ontimum Motst�re
Brown fine to very
Flne sandy clayey
sllt with shale
fragments. M� 90.2 28.0
• � A05-434-9a90 • SUS-544-0333
FAX ROS-434-9U9li - 831-365-317U (King City)
� 18 OS 13 � i5a Huena Geatechhical 8054349098 P• 5 "
]uly 8, 2005 8-�54452
a..The scope of our work was based on the referenced Geotechnlcal
Engineering Report.
b. The project is located at 135 Whiteley Street in Arroyo Grande,
CaliforNa.
c. Prlor to grading the site consisted oE a flat vacant lot.
d. 7he proposed development wlil include a single farntly residence of
wood framed construction.
e. The project area was cleared of aU vegetatfon and debris prior to
the start of grading operotio�s.
P. The building area was over-excavated to a depth of slx (6) feet
below the existing grade. The resulNng surface was scarified;
molsture conditloned, and recompacted to a minimum of 909'o af
maximum dry denstty.
g. FIII materials consisting of import soils were placed in thln layers
and compacted into place.
h, Fiil mateNals were compacted using a rubber tlre Ioader.
i. A total of eight (8) density tests were Perfo�med.
j. 7est results indicate that a minlmum of 90% of maximum dry
density has been obtalned In the areas tested.
k: Locations and elevatlons of In-situ tests were dete�mined in
accordance with their importance, accuracy and .proxlmlty of the
provided survey control. Unless otherwise noted, their locations
and elevations were determined by pacing and vlsual sighting.
1. Based upon intermittent observations and testing during the
g�ading operatlons on June 24, 2005 through June 27, 2005 on
this project, It is oUr opinion that the ordinances of the Clty of
Arroyo Grande have been met and the pad Is sulta6le for the
structure.
18 OS 11s15a Buena GeoLeohniaal 8054349098 p. 6 -
)uly 8, 2005 8-054452
m.We make no warranty expressed or Implled, except that our
services were performed In atcordance wlth engineering princtpies
generatly accepted at this time and location.
n. As used herein, the term ^observations" Implles only that we
observed the progress of work we agreed to be Involved wlth, and
performed tests on which we based our opinlon as to"whether the
. work essentlally compiles wlth the )ob requlrements.
o. It is recommended that the soll engi�eer be provided the
opportunity for a general revtew of any changes to the flnai design
and/ar tocations of the proposed stnictures In order that earthwork
� and foundation recommendations may be property interpreted. (If
Buena Geotechnicai Services, I.LC is not accorded the privflege of
making this recommended revlew, we can assume no responsibllity
for misinterpretatlon of our recommendations).
if there are any Questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate
tu conta�t the underslgned.
RespectfuUy submttted,
���o QaoFESS,a'�
Q �
�r �
Douglas Hal{tn GE�e j.
Project Manager `
d}� lE H `GO,� ir
�F CAUFO��
Norman G. HalUn
Geotechnlcal Englneer
Attaehments: Test Report Sheet, Ptan
Coples: 3-Scolt Paoe
1-Flle
o i9 05 11 : i5a Buena Geooechnical 8054349098 p• � -
July 8, 2005 B-054452
TEST REPORT SHEET
135 Whlteley Street
DATE TEST LOCATION DRY % REL_ MAX.
NO. DEN. MOLST= COMP_ DEN.
O6 24 05 1 PP 4;5_�FG 81.3 25.4 9U 90.3
06 24 05 2 _ PP 4.5 BPG 82.6 27.6 92 90.3
O6 24L0$ 3. PP 3.0 BFG 83.4 26.0 92 9a.3
06 4 OS 4 PP 3.0 BFG B1.7� � 25.4 91 90.3
0�7,[05 5 PP 1.5 BFG 84.9 26.5 94 90.3
O6 7 D5 6 PP 1.5 BFG 84.2 26.0 93 90.3
06 27 05 � PP FG 83.1 25.4 92 90.3
06 27 OS 8 PV FG 82.,� 24.8 91 90.3
PP - Per Plan
FG - Finish Grade Elevatton
BFG - Below Finish Grede Elevation
0 19 os 1laisa Huena Gentechnioal 8054349098 P• 8 - '
.
�7
Creek --► � 1
�4 Existing Existing
•5 House House
�6 � �e
2
�3
Whiteley St.
• =Approximate 7est Locations
PRO)ECT No. B- 054452
SITE WIAP
BUENA GEOTECHIVICAL SERVICES
� 19 05 S1 � ISa 8uena Geoteohnioal 6054348098 P • 2 " 'T
_�_. . �
� BUENA GEOTECHNTCAL SERVICES, t.r.c
P.O. [3UX 2�5�, ATASCADERO. CA 93423
December ib, 2005 B-054452
Scott Pace
Pace Bros. Construction '
, P.O. Box 519
Arroyo Grande, G4 93421
ProjeCt: 135 Whiteley Street — Creekside Lot
Arroyo Grande, California
, Subject: Verification of Adequary ot Building Pad
Reference: 1. Geotechnlcal Engineering Report dated May 25, 20a5
2. Rough Grading Report dated July 8, 20�5
As requested, this flrm provided testing and observation services
during grading operations for the creekstde parcel at 135 Whltely
Street. Prior to grading, trees and weeds were present in the proposed
bullding area. A single family, 2 story residence Is proposed to be
constructed on the pad_
Prior to grading, the existing trees and vegetation was removed from
the site. The soll In the bullding area, and to a distance of 5 feet
beyond the building perlmeter, was over-excavated to a depth of 6
feet betow existing grade. The removed soli was used to construct the
adjaceni bultding pad. The exposed surPace of the over-excavation was
determined to be stable and remediai stablUzation measures were not
necessary. In observing the sidewall of the over-excavation _at the
north side, no Instability or excessive amount of organics was noted.
The exposed surFace was then scarified, moisture conditioned and re-
compaceed. Imported soils were placed in thin lifts, molsture
, conditioned and compacted to a minimum of 90% of maximum dry
density.
We have been informed that the proposed residence for the subject
site has been redeslgned and moved further away from the top of
slope adjacent to the creek.
' R0.5-43d-9490 • 2t05-544-U333
FAX 8U5-434-9Q9R • 831•385-3170 (King Ciry)
0 19 OS 11s15a Huena Geuteohnical 8�54349098 P• 3 : '
December 19, 2005 8-054452
The residence will be construaed to maintain a minimum setback of
14 feet from the top of siope. Furthermore, the overexcavation for the
original build�ng footprint will provTde additlonal compacted flll outside
of the new footprint.
'Based on our observatlons and testing during greding and the newly
proposed bullding footprint, It is our opinion that the compacted flil
, constructed at the pmject slte is suitable for both downward bearing
� and lateral support of the proposed residence.
If there are any further question5, please do not hesitate to contact
thts offlce.
Respectfully submitted,
� Buena Geotechnlcai Sewlces QRO essr
�@�° • `�����
�. �
. . � : � '
OE � �
, � "�
' pouglas Hallin '1,;, TEC N�G�'.t,�?
Project Manager �.:'oF �o�
No�man G. Hallfn
Geotechnicel Engineer
I
" � ATTACHMENT2
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
APRIL 4, 2006
II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
A. PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 05-027 & VIEWSHED REVIEW CASE NO. 05-
020; APPLICANT — PACE BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION; REPRESENTATIVE —
JOHN SHOALS; LOCATION — 123 WHITELEY STREET
Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, presented the staff report giving the background on
the project and explaining that in April 2005 the Planning Commission was informed of
the administrative approval of a Minor Use Permit to build a house on an existing lot
within 5-feet from top of the Arroyo Grande Creek. The Commission appealed this
decision and a revised project featuring a 10-foot creek setback was ultimately denied.
The applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision to City Council; after public
hearing the appeal was rejected and the project denied without prejudice. The Planning
Commission and City Council provided findings for denial and gave direction to the
applicant related to design aspects consistent with adopted City policies. At the March
21, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, the administrative approval of the Plot Plan
Review and Viewshed Review was reported by staff; subsequently the Planning
Commission voted unanimously to request that it be reviewed at public hearing as per
i the process stated in Municipal Code Section 16.12.155.
a
1
� The subject property is approximately a 14,804 square foot lot, which abuts and
includes the Arroyo Grande Creek and was originally created in 1887. The proposed
project for a single-family residence with a two-car garage is proposed to be two stories
and 2,105 square feet of living area. The proposed house, at its closest point would be
15 feet from the top of the creek bank and a second floor of the building will be
cantilevered over the first floor. Existing grading and a small foundation wall and fence
will direct storm water runoff to the street, into a drop inlet upgraded by the applicant
(with fossil filter insert). The most notable changes from the previous project is that the
creek buffer has been increased to 15-feet and the size of the house has been reduced
, by approximately 200 sq. ft.
� In conclusion, Mr. Bergman stated that staff recommends the Planning Commission
review the proposed project and adopt a Resolution approving the Plot Plan Review and
Viewshed Review.
Commission questions:
Commissioner Ray asked for clarification on the Draft Mitigation Study and the Mitigated
3 Negative Declaration in regards to issues that related to the creek itself. Mr. Bergman:
f The issues related to the creek are addressed in numerous chapters, buf there is
� nothing on the impact on the creek as a whole. Director Strong: This is a standard
Initial Study checklist out of the CEQA Guidelines the creek is evaluated on the adjacent
� developments and what might impact the creek.
� In reply to a question from Commissioner Tait, staff replied:
• Part of the second floor(cantilevered) would be 10-feet from the creek.
• The fossil frlter will trap petroleum residue, but not pesticides.
r
�
,
i
PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 3
MINUTES
APRIL 4, 2006
. The General Plan and Municipal Code does apply to this pro%ect, but this parcel
was created before land use planning policies were formed.
• MM 1.4 (for 15-foot buffer) is for consistency's sake in case equipment is
required in this area.
. MM 1.5 grading within 15 ft fop of bank —re inconsistency with MM's 1.2 & 1.3.
appreciated this being pointing out.
• No fueling or maintenance of equipment will take place on the entire site and
water from concrete wash down will be collected with straw wattles and be taken
away from the site.
. MM 1.11: The applicant has to construct the landscape as it is shown on the
plan in order to get the Certificate of Occupancy of the property and it would be
included in a recorded document for future purposes.
• MM 4.2: A document could be prepared if required to protect the creek from
future lighting that would stay with the property.
John Shoals, applicanYs representative, answered Commission questions:
• He clarified that the second floor, cantilevered section, would be within 13 feet
not 10 feet if this is an issue the applicant has said that it could be eliminate.
• Re the fencing: When we went out to the site it was a weekend in which there
was projected rain, the biological study was underway and in order to make sure
there was no erosion into the creek and no impact we directed the consultant to
erect the fencing prior to the completion of it.
• The 15-foot setback: It is their intention to plant this with native plant species.
• This project has a controversial history and he only came into the project
recently. There has been some confusion on the applicanYs beha/f that may
have contributed to the process being difficult, such as the lot being created (late
1800's) prior to fhe latest General Plan update. This was considered as an infill
project and there was a misundersfanding fhat this would require a discretionary
permit and be considered a new subdivision.
• He agreed that the General Plan consistency does apply and they have tried to
make a ba/ance between protecting the creek and creating a home that is livable:
The setback varies between 1�22 feet (averages about 18 feet) from top of
creek bank.
• Re public access: After review of the area they determined that existing homes
are 10-15 feet from top of bank, so with the revisions that have made to the plan
they believe it is now consistent with existing development plans in the
neighborhood; there continues to be access from the end of Whitely Street to the
creek.
. Their survey revealed that there are 59% of homes in area are over 2,000 sq. ft.
so this house is consistent with the neighborhood; floor/area ratios in this area
average about 24% and this project is 14.2%.
. Re viewshed: The design also respects the issue of viewshed from a public way.
. Rincon consultants were hired at a great expense as the applicant wanted to get
it right this time and is agreeable to the mitigation measures recommended by
the Commission to minimize impacts to the creek.
PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 4
MINUTES
APRIL 4, 2006
Further Commission questions to Mr. Shoals:
Tait:
• How will the wash-down water be prevented from going into the creek? Mr.
Shoals: Straw wattles of plastic create a concrete wash to stop this running into
the creek. Mr.Pace: Anderson Burton will build the concrete washout and there
will be no oils or fuels on site— that will all happen off-site.
• How can you have drought resistant and riparian plants on the same site? Mr.
Shoals: Rincon has reviewed the landscape p/an, but we can go back in and put
in plants that have the same watering requirements. Tait: It is a good idea to
have drought resistant plants, but the site calls for riparian and he is not sure how
you can do both. Greg Soto, project architect: The p/ants are riparian that
require very little water and there are some already at the site.
Parker:
• Bank landscaping planting: It says native plants are to remain, does this mean
that you intend to leave the invasive ivy? Mr. Shoals: It is their intention not to
touch anything within fhe creek bank but to enhance the 15-foot area from top of
creek bank.
• Why was the grading done after the Planning Commission requested that the
grading be part of the mitigation plan and the applicant did said he was not going
to be doing any grading? Mr. Pace: They did remove roots, the rest of the site
had nof been touched, grading is anyfhing over 50 cubic yards; all they had
heard was not to do anything to the creek; they put up the chain link fence and
they have taken measures to effectively keep any water from running off the
bank. Parker: Rincon's report, her view of the site and photographs of the site,
show that six feet of earth has been removed and that the land was compacted
and fill was brought in to build it up (six feet of earth) to the edge of the bank. Mr.
Pace replied thaf he did not agree.
• When the Commission approved the other two houses, one of the conditions of
approval was that all the runoff from the house would go directly to Whiteley
Street. She had a call from Fish & Game stating they were concerned and upset
about the grading and that the houses were draining their runoff directly into the
creek. Mr. Pace stated he completely disagreed with this statement— they drain
into the street. Mr. Shoa/s: When he first saw the site he was a/so concerned
and after questioning, Mr. Pace explained that the contractor had taken the soils
from the other two sites and spread it over this site; they have discussed with
staff how to identify what was the existing grade so that it could be turned back to
existing grade and enhanced (a self-imposed mitigation); Rincon's determination
was made without discussion with either Mr. Pace or himself, and they do not
have this correct
• Regarding the survey on the 17 homes the report does not indicate where these
homes were? Mr. Shoals said they had gone a block or two in each direction
from the assessor's map and they would be glad to provide their information to
the Commission. �
Ray:
PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 5
MINUTES
APRIL 4, 2006
Ray:
• How far away from the chain link fence will the 18" fence be? Mr. Soto: The
biologist has suggested that it be brought in two feet towards the proposed
home.
• Why was the lot line adjustment not done as suggested by City Council in the
early stages of this project? Mr. Pace gave history, explaining that they had
looked at doing the lot line adjustment, but this wou/d have resulted in one good
lot and two tough lots; what we now have is two good lots and one tough lot.
• There are issues with the survey done by the applicant as after doing her own
survey, within two blocks of the site, she found there are 39 properties that are
not listed on their survey, including three houses that are directly across the
street and are all less than 1,000 sq. ft. Why were the properties closest to this
site not included? The information provided is incomplete and does not draw the
conclusion that you are saying it is. Mr. Pace: When he did his survey it was a
di�cult assignment as out of 70 addresses the Building Department could only
find 3 or 4 houses with square footage numbers and even the assessors o�ce
did not have this information.
Fellows:
• There is a tree diagramed that he could not find on the key. Mr. Shoals: He
would check this out.
• What does the "very weY' comment in the borings indicate? Mr. Scott: At the
time of the year this was taken the ground was wet, but the soils engineer
explained fhat this would have no bearing on being able to provide a pad for the
infended use of the homes.
Chair Fellows opened the public hearing.
Madeline Poulin, 139 Whitelev, stated she had no concerns with the proposed project,
but would like a streetlight installed at the end of Whiteley Street for safety.
Colleen Martin. 855 Olive Street, stated a concern that if this project is approved it
would set a precedent for size of building lots in the Village. She asked what the
percentage of the structure was (versus the size of the lot) after the creek and creek
setback area is deducted; stated that the cantilevered part of the structure should be
considered as part of the footprint and included in the percentage. Mr. Bergman stated
that in his experience he had never separated the calculations in this manner. Mr.
Strong replied that if the setback were 25 feet the lot area wou/d be 2,032 sq. ft.
(including the front and side yard setback and for a 15 foot setback the net wou/d be
1,1057 sq. ft. (inclusive of area for a garage); the standard is to consider the entire
parcel
Chair Fellows closed the hearing to public comment.
Commission comments:
Commissioner Tait stated that this project does not conform to the spirit or the letter of
the General Plan; he does not agree that the proposed mitigation measures would
PIANNING COMMISSION PAGE 6
! MINUTES
APRIL 4, 2006
protect the creek; he couid not make finding number two, #hat "the proposed project
, conforms to appiicabie performance standards and wiil not be detrimentai to the pubiic
heaith, safety or generai weifare'; what has been done to the site does effect the creek;
� if a lot line adjustment had been done initiaily this situation couid have been prevented
as the other fin+o homes already buiit at this site, by the applicant, are too large.
Commissioner Parker stated that the grading #hat had aiready been done was a huge
issue for her; the deveioper had stated he was not planning on doing any grading so the
conditians were ignored; there is no way of knowing whether or not soi� has been
brought in and what it contains; the Department af Fish & Game notified her of the
� drainage from the house next door; she disagreed with the developer that this wouid not
affect the site. The developer shouid make restitution for ignoring these measures: the
Commission should be provided proof that the fili that has been brought into the site, is
ciean and wili not harm the creek; in future any negative declaration that goes forward
for this project shouid be foilowed up to make sure the mitigations are adhered to,
permits should be obtained {not be optional) and ali agencies noti�ed and responses
adhered to; ff this project goes forward a bond should be required and be in piace until
the project is compiete and aIl conditions have been met; she couid not approve the
negative deciaration as in her opinion it does not do enough to protect the environment.
Commissioner Parker then gave her reasons for deniai of the project, stating that they
were mostly environmentai and safety issues. Condensed comments: the proposed
house could be redesigned to fit into the area; asking the property owner to scale down
the house to fit with the environmental constraints is not a "taking"; a creekside trail
shouid be allowed for; the project is too ciose to the creek bank; the invasive ivy on the
creek bank at this site will have to be removed and needs to be a mitigation (repiaced
with native vegetation to hoid up the siope), This is a better plan than the previous plan,
but it needs more work. This building is maximiiing the lot, is not consistent with the
neighborhood, the Development Code, the General Pian, or environmental constraints:
the developer needs to fit within these boundaries.
Cammissioner Ray stated that there is more compromise to be dane; the Commission is
not saying that nothing can be built here, but the applicant made a decision not to do
the lo# line adjustment, to buiid the other two large houses, and is now left to deai with
this lot. After doing her own research she had found a number af homes on Whitely
Street that were aii very sma0 and did not agree with the applicant that being required to
build a 2,400 square foot house was "a taking"; there are flaws in what is driving this
praject; building a smailer house would fi# in with the character of the neighborhood.
However, it is unfair to ask the appiicant to go back to the drawing board again. Some
direction should be given to the appiicant as to how a smailer house cauld be achieved:
There shouid be nothing less than a 20-foot creek setback, the area above the garage �
could be used #o gain more square footage; the side yard setback could be reduced.
i
Chair Feilows stated that the other Commissioners had made great points and he would ��
only repeat the ones he feit were reaily important: Objective CJOS2, Ag Consenration '
PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 7
MINUTES
APRIL 4, 2006
and Open Space Element of the 2001 General Plan states "safeguard important and
environmentally sensitive biological resources contributing to healthy functioning eco
systems: The Interim Urgency Ordinance 574, states the City Council believes that it is
in the best interests of the public to maintain protection of iYs riparian resources in order
to maintain equilibrium between the natural features of and manmade alterations to the
City's creek and riparian environment, and details the necessity for adequate creek
buffers. The Rincon report contained a lot of education on the importance and
sensitivity of the creek, but he did not agree with the mitigations they offered; the staff
report states a 15-foot buffer, but patios and overhangs would project into this buffer;
riparian woodland vegetation within the creek corridor should not be removed without
Fish and Game streambed alteration and agreement; he agrees with Commissioner
Parker's comment that some of this has already been done; a creek buffer is needed
and 25-feet may be too little; diffused lighting should be used; fertilizers and pesticides
should be prohibited; the fossil filter installed is a good idea; the soils report is
satisfactory; the offer of dedication of irrevocable creek drainage is a good, but 5-feet is
not enough.
Commissioner Fellows further stated that he agrees with Commissioner Ray that it is
definitely possible for the applicant to build a home at this site; there have been homes
built on 25-foot lots. He suggested the size of the house be reduced to stay outside of
the 25-foot buffer and that it be moved a couple of feet into the 5-foot setback so it is
further away from the creek buffer; reduce the driveway to 18-feet instead 20-feet and
move the house closer to the street; have a one-car garage with adequate on street
parking; this will enable the house to be out of the 25-foot setbacks and still make a
reasonable profit.
Commission Parker stated that in the event that this does come back her additional
recommendations for further review by the Commission would include: The non-native
vegetation (such as ivy) on the edge of the bank should be removed (as a mitigation);
the landscape plan should come back after review by a specialist and prior to
commencement; a sediment and erosion control plan should be reviewed by the City,
specifically to protect waters and riparian resources. In addition, the mitigation for noise
has not been addressed; it is important to keep patios etc. out of the buffer area; it might
be better to pull in the berm a couple of feet and have some natural filtration on the
other side of it. As long as the house fits into the neighborhood it would be acceptable
to reduce the driveway to pull the house forward and redesign it to give extra room.
Commissioner Tait agreed with the other Commissioner's comments, but stated he was
not prepared to design the applicanYs project.
Commissioner Fellows stated that he believed about one third of the plants proposed �
were not native (he had not found them listed in the Guide to California Plants); within �
the 25-foot buffer they should be native plants
PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 8
MINUTES
APRIL 4, 2006
Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, denying Plot
Plan Review Case No. 05-027 & Viewshed Review Case No. 05-020, located at 123
Whiteley Street, without prejudice, and that findings Nos. 1, 2 & 3 cannot be made.
The Planning Commission directed staff to bring back a Resolution of denial.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Parker, Tait, Ray and Chair Fellows
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Brown
Mr. Shoals asked if this action could be appealed? Mr. Strong replied that it could be
appealed to the City Council and it is a 10-day appeal period.
8:00 PM.
The Commission took a 10-minute break.
B. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE! NO. 05-005 & PLANNED UNIT
:N
DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 05-004;�APPLICANT — OHM OF THE CENTRAL
COAST; REPRESENTATIVE — PE RY NARAN; LOCATION — 263 SPRUCE
� STREET
Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, pres,�nted the staff report for review of a certified
arborist report that was initially acquired�to examine the Cypress trees and the approved
development plan in the process of c�mpleting conditions of approval for �project. The
arborisYs report stated that three o��he trees are dead, four have structural problems
and one appears to be in good co�r�dition, but development will have a negative impact
on the root system. The arbori�t recommended removal of all eight trees, but did
include recommendations to be� implemented for tree number six if the Commission
gives direction to save it. In ad ion, staff sought a second review by a certified arborist
who concurred with the reco �endations.
Mr. Bergman further stated at staff recommends that the Aristocrat Pear tree and oak
tree at the front of the pro erty, between the first unit and the sidewalk, act as street '
trees and that they be u �raded to 24-inch box specimen plantings as mitigation for the
removal of the Cypres� trees. In conclusion, Mr. Bergman recommended that the
Planning Commission review the arborist report and adopt a Resolution altering the
condition of approval number 106 to require the planting of a specimen Aristocrat Pear
tree and oak tree. �
Commissioner q stions to staff: ,
Parker:
• The a orist report says that the project impacts tree No. 6 (not that it is
unh�thy); could the project be altered in order that it not impact this tree? Mr. �
Ber man: The arborist will answer fhis question.
Tait: ,
ATTACHMENT3
RESOLUTION NO. 06-1997 '
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE DENYING PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 05-027
& VIEWSHED REVIEW CASE NO. 05-020; APPLIED FOR BY PACE
BROTHER'S CONSTRUCTION; LOCATED AT 123 WHITELEY STREET
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered Plot
Plan Review 05-027, and Viewshed Review 05-020 filed by Pace Brother'.s Construction,
to construct a two story, single family house; and
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2006, the Planning Commission requested a public hearing in
accordance with the City Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing on these applications in
accordance with the City Municipal Code on April 4, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that this project is not consistent with
the General Plan and the environmental-documents associated therewith; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this project in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo
Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and has determined that a
Mitigated Negative Declaration cannot be adopted; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public
hearing, the following circumstances exist:
FINDINGS OF DENIAL
Plot Plan Review
1. The proposed project is not consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and
programs of the Arroyo Grande general plan;
Secfion C/OS2-1.3 of the 2001 General Plan states:
Where feasible, maintain a grading and building setback of 25 feet from
the top of stream bank. Locate buildings and structures outside the
setback. Except in urban areas where existing development exisfs to the
contrary, prevent removal of riparian vegetation within 25 feet of the top of
stream bank.
In addition, Section 16.64.060(R) of the Municipal Code of the City of Arroyo Grande
states:
Creek Dedications. For any subdivision or parcel map or development
project requiring discretionary review abutting the Arroyo Grande Creek,
including its tributaries (Tally Ho Creek, Spring Creek, Newsom Springs I
Creek and Los Berros Creek), or Meadow Creek, including its tribufaries,
the subdivider or developer shall dedicate to the city all the area that
includes the stream bed and twenty-five (25) feet back of the stream bank,
RESOLUTION NO. 06-1997
PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-027 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-020
PAGE 2
areas designated as environmentally sensitive based on a biology report
prepared by a qualified biologist or other appropriate areas mutually
acceptab/e forthe purposes of"open space,"flood control or "green belt."
Excepfions to the requirements established in this subsection can be
made only upon a finding that its application would violate federal or state
law.
The Planning Commission finds that the project violates these two provisions and that
there is adequafe room on the property to construct a home of a size commensurate
with existing homes within the surrounding neighborhood.
2. The proposed project conforms to applicable performance standards and will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare;
Section 16.48.120 of the Municipal Code establishes performance standards for
development within the City of Arroyo Grande. These standards profect neighboring
properties from nuisances such as poor air quality, electrical or electronic interference,
fire and explosive hazards, g/are, odors, smoke and vibration. The project, as proposed,
including mitigation measures does not protect su�ciently protect the creek as outlined
in the General Plan or Municipal Code.
3. The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.
The proposed size of fhe house is too large for the buildable portion of the property
outside of the 25-foot creek buffer area. A house similar in area of other houses in the
neighborhood could be built on the property and still comply with the 25-foot creek
buffer.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Arroyo Grande denies Plot Plan Review 05-027 and Viewshed Review 05-020 to
construct a two story, single family house on located at 123 Whiteley Street with the
above findings.
On a motion by Commissioner Ray, seconded by Commissioner Tait, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Ray, Tait and Chair Fellows
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Parker
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Brown
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 2nd day of May 2006.
RESOLUTION NO. 06-1997
PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-027 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-020
PAGE 3
areas designated as environmentally sensitive based on a biology report
prepared by a qualified biologist or other appropriate areas mutually
acceptab/e for the purposes of"open space,"f/ood control or "green belt."
Exceptions to the requirements established in this subsection can be
made only upon a finding that its application would violate federal or state
law.
The Planning Commission finds that the project violates these two provisions and that
there is adequate room on the property to construct a home of a size commensurate
with existing homes within the surrounding neighborhood.
2. The proposed project conforms to applicable performance standards and will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare;
Section 16.48.120 of the Municipa/ Code estab/ishes performance sfandards 'for
development within the City of Arroyo Grande. These standards profect neighboring
properties from nuisances such as poor air quality, electrical or electronic interference,
fire and exp/osive hazards, g/are, odors, smoke and vibrafion. The project, as proposed,
including mitigation measures does not protect su�ciently protect the creek as outlined
in the General Plan or Municipal Code.
3. The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.
The proposed size of fhe house is too large for the buildable portion of the property
outside of the 25-foot creek buffer area. A house similar in area of other houses in the
neighborhood could be built on the property and still comply with the 25-foot creek
buffer.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Arroyo Grande denies Plot Plan Review 05-027 and Viewshed Review 05-020 to
construct a two story, single family house on located at 123 Whiteley Street with the
above findings.
On a motion by Commissioner Ray, seconded by Commissioner Tait, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Ray, Tait and Chair Fellows
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Parker
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Brown
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 2nd day of May 2006.
ATTACHMENT 4
� IVE�?.
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ''�� �� �'` `"" °'r�' �';`.'` .:-
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE 06 �PR 1 f�i +;� 56
Date � � ��
Name and Address of Appellant �i�'i ��1�'r'�p('/l (�NS���I(�N
�
��6�r� C��_�____�� ° �°2�
Appeal of � �`i � �� D�- o?i0
Case No.
Approve Denied y T" 1�►G��`+���`0� w�����on �i
Da
Reason for Appeal v/�'cY r\ 1�7�%��) �'►'/
Signature G/L2 �S• � 1���
Mailing Ad ress 1" ��� �" I 7"�Y�!/ la �/�� �VIC ��' Z.� ,
Telephone��� a —/ � �O
Fee - 224.00 Receipt No. O - Oa-7g�
Date y�� �J� ��p
��
Direc or Ad nistrative ervices/City Clerk
:,
APPEAL TO THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
DATE: April 12, 2006
PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 05-027
VIEWSHED REVIEW CASE NO. 05-020
APPLICANT/APPELLANT: PACE BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION
LOCATION: 123 WHITELEY STREET, ARROYO GRANDE, CA
This communication constitutes an appeal of the Planning Commission decision
reached on April 4, 2006 denying the request by Pace Brothers Construction to
construct one single-family residence on a 14,804-square foot lot. The Planning
Commission denied the project finding that the project is inconsistent with the General
Plan; does not conform to the applicable perFormance standards; and is not compatible
with the neighborhood. The applicant disagrees with the Planning Commission's
decision based on the following reasons:
1. General Plan Consistency
The Planning Commission found that the project is not consistent with the goa/s,
objectives, policies and programs of the Arroyo Grande General Plan. The Commission
did not believe that the proposed project conforms to the spirit or the letter of the
General Plan.
The applicanUappellant believes that the project is consistent with General Plan goals
and policies relating to land use, housing, ci�culation/transportation, noise, safety and
creek protection. Planning Commission discussion focused on the General Plan Goal
C/OS2 and Policy C/OS2-1.3. General Plan Goal C/OS2 calls for safeguarding
important environmental and sensitive biological resources contributing to healthy and
functioning ecosystem. General Plan Policy C/OS2-1.3 states "Where feasible,
maintain a grading and building setback of 25 feet from the top of stream bank. Locate
buildings and structures outside the setback. Except in areas, where existing
development exists to the contrary, prevent removal of riparian vegetation within
25 feet of the top of stream bank."
The applicant/appellant does not believe that it is feasible to provide a 25-foot creek
setback for the following reasons.
• The site is an existing legal lot in an area where development exists contrary to
the desired 25-foot setback. Existing residences in the immediate area are
located 10 to 15 feet from top of stream bank. The applicant/appellant is
requesting a similar setback to other properties in the existing
neighborhood. The applicanUappellant has previously submitted photographs
of buildings constructed closer than 25 feet from Arroyo Grande Creek.
,
PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2
MINUTES
APRIL 4, 2006
• The site is an irregular shaped lot with a reduced buildable area due to the
Creek. Imposing a 25-foot creek setback would prohibit the owner from
building a functional and marketable home on the property.
• The applicant/appellant provided evidence to the Council in a previous
meeting. The site is an existing legal lot that was created prior to the
Subdivision Map act and the 2001 General Plan. In a previous staff report
based on discussions with the City Attorney (May 17, 2005), staff determined
that the 25-foot creek setback is a desired goal but not a mandated zoning
standard. Based on_this information, the applicant/appellant does not
believe that the project should require discretionary review as it is an
infill existing lot and the 25-foot policy was adopted after the lot was
legally created.
Based on City Council discussion and direction on August 23, 2005, the project was
redesigned to provide a minimum 15-foot setback from top of creek bank. The current
project provides 15 feet to 22 feet (18 feet average) between the residence and stream
bank. This larger setback was created by reducing the size of the building footprint and
the living area. The applicanUappellant believes that the revised project provides a
setback that is consistent with the neighborhood and respectFully of the creek. It
is also complies with the prior direction given by the Planning Commission and
City Council.
2. Compliance with Performance Standards
The Planning Commission found that the project does not conform to applicable
performance standards and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general
welfare.
The project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare as it
meets or exceeds the applicable development standards, which include lot coverage,
building setbacks, building height, landscaping and parking. We have also submitted
evidence that demonstrates that all potential impacts to the creek can be reduced to
less than significant with proper mitigation. Creek protection is discussed in greater
detail below.
Viewshed Protection: The project preserves views from the public right-of-way (street
and sidewalk) towards the creek. Specifically, the first floor of the house is setback 20
feet from the property line (back of sidewalk) and the upper floor setback 42 feet from
the property line. In addition, the residence is setback a minimum of 15 feet from top of
stream bank.
PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 3
MINUTES
APRIL 4, 2006
The Commission also discussed potential impacts to the creek. Those concems are
addressed in the following paragraphs.
Creek protection measures are included as conditions of approval in the Planning
Commission staff report dated March 21, and April 4, 2006, and project design. All
runoff is directed to Whiteley Street and a low berm ensures no runoff will go over the
top of the bank. A fence will be installed to discourage foot traffic into the creek. In
addition, a creek maintenance and drainage easement will be granted to the City,
including an "open space" easement. �i
At the suggestion of Council member Dickens and the concurrence of the City Council,
qualified professionals (Rincon Consultants, Inc.) were hired to perForm a biological
resources assessment of the project to determine if there could be impacts on the
Creek. The biological assessment was completed in February 2006. The assessment
concludes that while the project could potentially impact biological resources in
the northern portion of the property, those impacts can be reduced to less than
significant levels with mitigation measures. The applicant is agreeable to
implementing the mitigation measures contained in the biological report.
Adoption of a mitigation monitoring plan, as required by State law, will insure
implementation of the measures.
Creek bank failure: There is no historical evidence of creek bank erosion at this
location. The creek bank, on this particular stretch of creek, contains 100 year old trees
on its banks, evidencing the security of this bluff. Geologic concerns are addressed by
the Geologic Engineering Report on file. This report included soil borings showing the
soils to be acceptable.
Pesticides: The Commission felt that the fossil filter will trap petroleum residue, but not
pesticides. No fueling or maintenance of equipment will take place on the site and
water from concrete wash down will be collected with straw waddles and be taken away
from the site. The landscape plan calls for native plant materials and places turf
outside of the 15-foot minimum setback to reduce the potential of pesticides
draining into the creek.
3. Neighborhood Compatibility
The Flanning Commission found that the physical location or placement of the use on
the site is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
The applicanUappellant believes that the revised house design is compatible with the
neighborhood based on the following:
• According to the Assessor's Parcel Maps, a majority of the lots in the
neighborhood are between 6,700 and 7,000 square feet with creek side lots
being slightly larger. The 14,480-square foot site exceeds average lot size.
PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 4
MINUTES
APRIL 4, 2006
• According to available data, the neighborhood has an average floor area to lot
area ratio of 24%; the project has a 14.2% ratio. A citizen stated that the creek
should be excluded from this calculation. City staff noted that current Code
does not require exclusion of the creek and that the project compliances with
City Code.
• Using City data, the applicant was able to find information on 17 dwellings
(most of which were newer homes, remodels or additions) in the immediate
• area. Using available information, it was determined that the 17 existing
houses had an average size of 2,150 square feet, and that 59% (10 of 17) of
those houses are over 2,000 square feet. The revised house has a 2,105
square foot living area, down from 2,252 square feet.
Commissioner Ray correctly pointed out that the survey did not include
information on the three existing older homes on the west side of Whiteley.
While these homes are less than 1,000 square feet, they are more than 60
years old and in varying condition. For example, the home closest to the creek
appears to be in need of some major repairs and upgrades. If these homes
are inherited by a family member or purchased by a family of four, it is very
likely that they would have to increase the size of the homes to fit their needs.
Would they be made to maintain a 1,000-square foot home or would they be
allowed to build a functional home that fits the family's needs? i
In summary, this project has received a great deal of scrutiny from the City Council, City I
staff and its advisory bodies. The applicanUappellant believes that the site plan and
house design have been revised to address a majority of the City Council's concerns. It
is consistent witti the General Plan, complies with all applicable development and
performance standards, and provides adequate protection to safeguard the creek as
evidenced by the biological resources assessment prepared by Rincon Consultants.
Viewshed approval was granted three times by the planning staff and upheld by the
Architectural Review Commission (ARC) three times. The applicanUappellant believes
that he has compromised to create a better project, and he asks the City Council to be
fair and reasonable with respect to this property.
ATTACHMENT 5
UTILITY NOTES � V�CINIT_t"_M4P __�. ��
,� ' S�TE WORK .
. ..��... .,�...i..r xv'Z.�: ruoreemwoxrtww�ror _____ _.'.""'_
F i �,xF�IB �
.....~.�.�.�.....�.�...�.-�• - �9.o i`.._ _ _ _
�.....�.........................-.+� . __.___' "'__ . .... : _'_'
._.... ..._. ._ _. . _ . . .
_ "ey I.
�w.y.�m �ti w � .. � ` F wW.r-....+.�w��++W�.. .� .. _�..
r�,`y'r`w.nw�r.+r+�~...�y /(! IH: I ""'�"" L. ���
F..��—n�...���wu.Myw�.Y+ V I� I i� '�V/ I r�rr�arnru���..r..�r.+�w�. �w.�� � �
�tiwur w•ti���rr� / ..y+w.. �.
•m�. ���. ��.�VV4�• / � �� �4�. I �
�:.`..��N�.«.:��...'� ' V �n WJ .,pl� .�..s`.e�-��.�.�-`r-��..v-~��..-•.. _—___— ���w�
...wy...�....�........ � m+.mrvr__ _10 0' ? � I H.U,
���r�r�~�wr��y' N . 1 1�0T �/ rry N�e.e�ti ~ ��W j��.
� �� �/ 4���v(iN�! / ���\ r,.��.�wY..n.u�r��raw'Mw�l• U :n
� .o � s STATIS71G5. L;;rc;�,
...���...�n..-.�..�,..�.A �x F`w°Fs��FOF�� �P� N � ..�....+.........�...-..� U a':.�
�r w Yr� 0 EfMI CPITRrnr 1 •T` /d rr�p/�4��w�ar��� �JhGf. tMDFGV'�MlIGfN:P �
^• V G / � � � 1 .....�w+�..r........ ��¢0a:
u��xr.��wr�++��.���w P W.TK RI.uT! �� � I l l �a� Y n��w•rw�P•.�rr^v eire.vs.��uro+er. \NOi.
rr�w�W��rtiu�.y �
"""'� � NW.G/9eY- 7 I �l�`. i � .I 1 �",����y WIWUCLE CO+FRd6E��n•�.1 p � Uln
Yo f-b�lnl�'1 l C � w�rwv.r CU�LDW.YE1� YlMnl •IV� : u'il
/ V v i �' t.Y��f .....».....,..s.�� �wrr. :x5x. c.�.ti:� ncr- a�
� u 7 '�I' iti/n�; � .a��.-... �d.�nxf,iona..r Z:Y° �
� b .� .ei ins.;: ��.
i � r-r'�..✓."�.r—r F.A.F . o�i�.. Ihti . .n.
PRELIM IN�`f�Y n � ;�' � ' � -w._..��..-'".:.�"...::. �xoecae avea.� . nr., �¢w a�'
LANOS�nr'c L�G�.ID i' / ' ,` '';� 'x \ ..�.�.^-'.�:.'."�...,s.o.�......-...- n.o-...w� iti..s ins.o;, ._� ,�.
$IAla LoW ZNFUb- vas cat.oa , V ' /� • /'. � _ � .o � � � �.+r-........:.F..=:�..�r rA.�ou��� ew>s R•1 ..
�� °I .../ F /L¢. y, laee.v�Ol 15.5�.1
�'�/ Y�K U ..�� ���.wr+��..c...�...
p N 6ROUNOCO�ri.f-�O�qt � � � .N �• .w.s........�..�.. �ax.n�aauao� :c.ucavaae
l�N C�uTRa�. ! � M � ...�...�:�•Y-.��.::�..:�i.� ,
; � /o' M���!� n .'� �uaun'ww�oeo� �-c�wo.vv.ne
7 ' � _ �4"^1
y,�!'°.x� GawNO uvea. Faa- / � .` . ' / �f '" �' �;i rv.:e.. :c.e� x
aaoa-c ov.n e�5e � � �/ I,t.
IfRE�E CFi`ER Of �' rY �s ocov<uc+rsur. n.� "
Otolcn7loN A'TIIG �eK� �I ,o: R�l ... �_�
d.�,,,y�. �.I.I.<+o�w.L ft.aVr�23 GREBK 6I�HK�N�O5 FEET �. I � 1 . LEGEND ccw�ax+v.wnre� w , .. .,
FaR cc�oz PRaH iNE Tof/m GNi� � e �� / �i . .. . „ — G _ __ _ �c
r..,�e.�.ue cceae�raeu. unn
� � � mt�i«rn
VC.GIDUOUS TP-PE 9AL , 1 I � fE� �+'e�w
.oun.rx-aNnoc y / I � N, ,i�,� �i;; �,,, „,,,� SITE PLAN NOTES �
wlNtta- 5a/a-wl� I �' 1+7�rr.nN.r. ww�'
�� ��� !lfCI1LK
� i I . fn. ,A
! �;/ � t��� ; :��. 1 . —w— �.,�,.. >.,,....._..
d �'�' � ��j f �
% Vf�/ / J, � R1' ^7' i��-..� � ,� ._a— e....� . .,v..... .
J . !^ �I �( .¢�� v . E� " I _er— uurrrownerv...e.c . �g.�.«.m...,s.r�aw
p . y E' . '•��. 4' ��' ' I p�n rnwrtru a.....u�ro�ra.rry
� P °b�. h � �� IF O� 1 ( k �G eurirzw wraen.�mwap.ry�w.w
-- � --" � � J� I d�'� Jr\�. Y b (. _ �; I 4¢ ¢�n.cnn..�.eno� � ��w.e..1u�uw.s.wvwn. r
Y BIA° pN i ����. I 20 ".�w�iesaw.°P' •w......r Y
� � � � — o..a.�. � � D
�+ • as. r N = �'" ,�,o"a � o � ...,.�..m.... � �
��I I y ,IRI % T�¢�4Y.:0� �LT 66J[Y: V MW ti p� � D
�
, . T�.$ Ib' t zo4.i �l� 4..:�.ni. •..• 5 �\� „J� Ey�"i�OPYrt II.HNa�T w.1nwIYF WfV- (I�•
...k ... ...--
,, a.,""+�__. . ._ ° y�.J� � iz cNa*i wlu..: vl�F�fm ta•n �'y �
.
" --""
.. . � . . . ... ...... .�o rr..�,aur o.��,,.nc u, ka =
wHI�EtEY ST ... u�ucreceuaumw�ccomare a..r. rr--in�.:�'�xn y
uv.u[�oae.��ewwrmDrv wr.r }� � :%iY �
(�RELIMIIJPR'I 61�-NJIN( R.f.N.�. � uwoeoii.�e��ir�i�,H[MErii�' nrv. ���}P'n " ". .. RI
�3 SITE PL/aN i.erm�aruo�wei�.v�e.wce i ra�.rntwu:`::�`� `='�t Z
J�. onaGLeoa�ccbf�wv�s�anKVm w�c anew�riax
y�'.Y N L'Nnr�lR IT(F MF C?LfONV , �
CWLDNG GWE lL9Gl.ML TE CiM1(F
4VYl�O4R'JY)�CIUN.VCO 4D --I�
i �It�n_ r.,u 10. �)r1/c�U Y �45a.f ]3.5M �Ofu1 Bf.uDA40. — aro�
n u���vi+ �U :1].�NNIaUr.f: 1Y)1��;lul : �..��.. v .�✓ew�..
tio. .r. .� .�.1N .�f.M :N� 11i..z: zH11IH�w1 � ' ......��...�-...��...,.�.,.v.�. r7
]s �\���..� :I..at ..v v 1fr'�i:Iil•li�t.5 : ]A�i III.M� � ••
i '� �I
�o
�
z
w =
� — _ — - - —
x ` �
Q — --�_ �
� _
� 1 =
¢ I ���w
Z F '�'
WWi�B
<iDl1TF1 EL�V^TIOIJ Z�c�oi .
ve�.I'-o� �&�_$
3°
0
- °o°
' _ _ 4�.A�PV� � z�N'�
-_ _ - ____.. ...__ "' I
- Wa <
0 o ap� . g -- ora
� z���'s
� -il a ' ��o!
ii,nb . � Y � iHAN i . . _ ��Wm
� � P/ / v�nn.y • .=� - ._. -. --_ -..._ c�
���o�
� ` � �s —
min o � �p'•H•. _ '_ - _ _ _ _
� _ , ` /� we ' N _ - _
r . _
/ , '.
d i�. p = I
y / _. � ._ ' . _._. ...__
31: � . .. . . . . . .
�z. n�.os � W�ST �L��/. « 1 EPST ELEV.
�q ti kii
M}pA4 �
h ° - P
_ w �/ee � -�o � o
p� �
/�d. L 15� I K'.�S
� 5ii111� i
6e
11PPEf� PLR. PLf�N ::•.zr i �� —�; �oFe �variori raree
- 92a Y. ��� .�� � G/�¢PLB ' _ - .... N� I
� EHtt O�F �. o„ alt�ieRXUU�R♦ ;
I 7 -TL u..� IISJPJO WNiF ,( �1
is� - Y Y
�,,_� •. --.- -- _ • Y�s..rr:w � � �
S ' � . � � ' � �+:�:.�
�+� .� ' �«.�r��^. �;;xs^` p ���
s�. �. i,
-- -- � , �������
r , „ • .�:�....,_ ;
WNITELEY h'f NORTH �LEVf�TIOf� �nn.,es ��
�,li��FI.� fLN� . :,:�^���.
I�y"' I'�0� LIrING II85 sp. _ .wa...s..,....
— ���
.. __... ._ _ _-- -____ - • cewec�,w000
' oGOxc
— "_ �..�.w>M...a oFV �
^r VIY
i � . . . . . . raw.r�.mrw �..
Revisions Date B
PLA N T L E G E N D Re,�, 3-3-°s T,�
SYM90L QUFNTITY SLIENTIFIC NCME COMMON NAME PLANTING SRE HEIGHT WIDTH RevX'I 3-8-OB TAJ
� q E%ISTING SPECIES E%ISTING
� 4 ACHILLEA 'HEI�I' PINK VARROW I GA� 2 FT I.S FT �emey:
Amblence GeMen Design
21 ANEMONE JAPONICA JAP4NESE ANEMONE I GAL 4 FT 2 FT 7173EICeminoReal#A
L ANIGOZCNTHOS 'BUSH SUNSEY KANGAR00'S PAW I GFL b FT 2 FT ArmyoG2ntle,CA9342
� /j i/��� Phone: (805)473A606
� 2 ARTEMESIA 'POWIS CAST�E� ARTEMESIA I GAL 2 FT 6 FT j N � �'•��oeraererqn.mm
� I ARBUTUS 'MARINA� STRAWBERRY MADRONE IS-G4L SO Fi 25 FT � �' wmFm:
Pace Bras Conslruction
� 23 BERGENIC COR�IFOLIA WINTERBLOOMING BERGENIp I GGL 2 FT 2 FT �� � Q P.O.BOZ519
ya� �� / Artoyo Grande,CA 93427
>� 6 CALYCANTHUS OCCIDENTALIS WESTERN SPICE BUSH 5-GAl 5 FT 5 FT � . // � �
� I CAMELLIA JAPONICA CAMELLIF 5-GAL IS FT 10 FT / ; /
� I CASSIA LEPTOPHYLLA GOLD MEDALLION TREE 15-GAL 25 FT 20 FT z .�j, , �/��
�t
3 CROSCOSMIA CROCOSMIFLORA MONTBRETIA I-GAL 2.5 FT 2.5 FT ' "�"
� / fRF1 ��? C
O 16 ERODIUM CHAMAEDRVOIDES CRANESBILL GERPNIUM I GAL O.5 FT I FT �n,4 � ��yGi i�l �
7 HARDENBERGIA VIOLALEA LILAC VME 5-GAL 8 FT B FT '� � �� � �r�� I ^
^ .� w€ � . �`��'" L.L
`y) 3 HELIANTHEMUM NUMMU�ARIUM $UNROSE I-GAL 0.5 FT 3 FT ���'��� ' �
0
� 4 LAVATER4 BIWLOR MALLOW 5-GAl 6 FT 4 Fi /� Q�
� 3 MELIANTHUS MAJOR HONEYBUSH I GAL 8 FT 8 FT /, � �� ' U
°�° 5 MIMULUS AURIANiIANS MONKEYFIOWER I-GAL 4.5 FT 4.5 FT �g���� � / ��� Q . �
� I PHILADELPHl15 LEW 511 MOCK ORGNGE S-GAL S FT 10 FT ��.//�� � �
� 7 RIBES SFNGl11NEUM PINK WWTER CURRANT I GAL 12 FT 8 FT / �'�.,, �O
� 8 RUBUS URSINUS CALIPoRNIA BLACNBERRV I GPL 3 FT B FT j� , /� �� J
� 4 SALIX LASIOLEPIS ARROYO WILIOW S-G4L 10 FT 10 FT �� . P� �5� L
� I SAMBUCl15 ME%ICANA MEXICAN ELDERBERRY S-GAL 20 Fi 20 F / /���� �� � ��
� 3 TEUCRIUM CHCMGEORYS GERMANDER I GAL I FT 2 FT ���i / o �.�} O�'�
;i' � / �° Y �
P�nNt MixES e,. ,� '
� NORTH
SYMB01. �l1ANTITY SCIENTIFIC NAME PLANTING SIZE �.///� /j�,� tl. G��
528 S.F FESTUCA SPR FESCUE BLEN�TURF SOD ��� '
/i � j/, �G3 3 Betlroom Resitlence
� �Gi �/ Whileley5tree�
�� �/. � ° � �° Arroyo GranCe.CA
, �� � p9 �
�/ , / ,� �� � o � — _
� � �
� ���is i ��' � m - 0 Srale: i/B•=7•-0•
� � /, Date: 03/OB/2006
!'��/�/�. /�;
Drawn By: TAJ
��� � e..s..�..0 Job Na.
:..�:;,;_: , L-1
q�} �j��;�4$! �1``9�� �g����? i O
� � z
��SiM1�`�7 '�iS�k�� ;�� ��y 3t��1�s �
-_---- �f �3 ��;1}'A �i3 iS {!�`�a�
" �1 i� 3�j �f* s q
�6 �i 9���� rj sT ;°.�i[�1
�`�� �� �1ai` �$� �� �;�t� �
__� ��
'``"�..�_- . _
�_
` +9, \
�v�
< .._ ��a�
— < 3�;�
�
s W��, p��
� ��
_ ,' �� ' _ �___,,, $��
o '"
� c 4t �
..� &J <eW RF ¢OYp G�!ea
. m ` QQ� � ��� `
J
C�9 � T 4" s � �
pas o"�'' ...
p.e.�v i rt � �g -.. ��� �
��� {� e-4��x e
� rM LL/ � � L �P//O � W
` � {�� "�-
�-Oy` F ` �g 3
� .-��'t';? " � y--�-�-'"�-�� g,
'_'� _ ut _
1 r: `""[�]-`_ }
L�;1`'� 1 y, 11 � .. � � , � j� J "'l .. 13 Y . ^-'� -._. w�- ��F
p'p', ' % � � / ��
Zp��� � � �..,..:4. � A400 _..' °�k � , � �
� e�. � w
� �� _� °� /�� � � w �
. � ° �
' sa / $a r
a$/ �� �: ..--
� t �
r
.°pi'i. " .r✓' 1� _„r�"' °_ P � a� `fi° '� �� ,
>o_Q r_ � �--- �
`4` '�� '.-`.� �..- o c/� . � ` e fY�? �S �8� g i�tt
1 .. D.✓- �_N I3SiL '""__--.-... .... qtqi �� Ysjt95 2 � �
. n e
°.� . . .. ( ' ' �lt jq t
� ` �� {�i 6 $ ��i4 �t���, a 6�5� ;}� q� ; q �
` � ��° t �yti �" ��. a
_ +� s c k i
_- - � ��� I� ��� t � 1[ �
� � ,�7� it�a>; 1 4�� c. y=a� t � �
' . � ��jl�klS ii ;}q�Q�l rj:}� .A` i!i° itqi� �1T . �� R
' ' ' 1 q 1' ��}{c�� �a�t��isi 3'��Y ���� 1�q ii4i ��9 � i� �
4 o L " L3t i g �t { t y �c; q� ts
a 4 4
���go����k -�'x ° , 6 g � � � � I � 1i�S1i �r���4 �}1 �;}� 3a� =`it �`� 2 ;�
�������°-���� �'� � ���'$� � ���Q� �� a � � "z i���'� ���1�1 ��� 11� ' s t a`t1 ��� �
p'��a,F^�"�,>� � �� g�,� R °F }i�;i l itd a d�
�������G�� g �i�y� � � � � � '� �
�����dsp � A ,V Y q � A xg g �i" D' '' �
a � � s 5 §� g�� � � r � D
, r :� 3p `d �q ��N' ���� � ��Lg,� ay a �, � � � � — �
; 6i9R . i�1� g � �� bPPo �.I £.. �� � � �
i y
f;5�����; � n$x= � � [ g � � � a�� � g�� o �� 3� ' $ , y � c9 .. �-'�
� ., �"_.
�9 $ ��
��i.��i� ; F�� e � � � � A � � � z' �W �� $ a � `A $ �
G
Rt1� � s � �' �,� ` �
if�5 °y i g '' i '�C .
i r a ,• : �„�EtyYS
�� 1`Z � 'O�E � � � �IR�� nNc
����q��t 'i��E'�F5 �g� � � G�E�Ry�p. a���A��.2
����Y�i� �} \a.o i u�. �
� 1 . YS nC� � aewar-e"O""
�p°�nc�
. q
�� � � g ��„a„��.a�°
`+� � ^ � ��,....+w�^°
9.b.
� pRROYQ
� c?
FINCORFORATED 9z
u m
� JULV t0. 1911 y
c4��FORN�P MEMORANDUM �
� I� TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROB STRONG �
i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
� BY: �_,�', KELLY HEFFERNON
��� ASSOCIATE PLANNER
'� SUBJECT: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 04-006, PLANNED UNIT
''� DEVELOPMENT NO. 04-005 AND MINOR EXCEPTION NO. 05-
� 015 TO SUBDNIDE A 1.8-ACRE SITE INTO NINETEEN (19)
� LOTS RESULTING IN 24 DENSITY EQUIVALENT TOWN
HOMES AND CONDOMINIUMS AS A MIXED USE .�WITH
EXISTING FITNESS CLUB AND MEDICAL OFFICES; APPLIED
FOR BY RUSS SHEPPEL.
DATE: MAY 9, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends the Council adopt a resolution approving
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 04-006, Planned Unit Development No. 04-005 and
� Minor Exception No. 05-015 (continued from the April 11, 2006 City Council meeting).
4
'' FUNDING:
There would be additional City costs associated with landscape maintenance within the
creek setback area and pedestrian path easement if the City accepts the offer of
dedication.
PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast corner of Oak Park Blvd. and James Way.
��" � ��� _
�'
f ;
�� r
' " ��,. .r J *r
: ;* �,:` t'.�}'�. � �'�!`'...
�r,� t�2f j; �
��� '+v...�H .-i�.,.`"tir' I'. • e
� � J h
.�'.� * ,��!� .
� _
.!
�'� .tp.:: � g"
� "^.:<b.}.c 't:. *� �.
� + i y Y
"{ ° ss ... �,
,
f -
, ,
CITY COUNCIL'
MAY 9,2006
V1TM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 2
DISCUSSION
Backqround
The City Council considered this project on April 11, 2006 and discussed issues related
to access, traffic and circulation, drainage, building mass and height, open space, and
fencing along the creekside pedestrian trail (see Attachment 1 for April 11, 2006 staff
report, less attachments). The item was continued to May 9, 2006 in order for the
applicant to address these concerns. The applicant has responded with the following
project amendments and actions:
1. The condominiums have shifted approximately five feet (5') to the west
towards Oak Park Boulevard and five feet (5') to the south towards the motel,
reducing the courtyard area between the building and garages from thirteen
feet (13') to eight feet (8') wide. This modification enables the addition of four
(4) large planters along the lower parking area on the east side of the building
to help soften building mass. A continuous five-foot (5') wide planting strip is
also included on the north side of the building, and the planters around the
garages in front of the building has increased in size as well (as
recommended by the Architectural Review Committee).
2. The overhang on the east side of the building has been significantly reduced
and a trellis has been added, additionally softening the appearance of the
building.
3. The "towers" located on the east side of the building have been lowered five
feet (5'), reducing building mass from this perspective. This change,
however, also eliminates the utilitarian storage areas on the roof decks.
4. The two (2) shingle colors on the back (east) side of the condos have been
revised to show one natural wood color to play down the vertical dimension of
the building.
5. The overall building height has been lowered by one foot (1'). A one-foot (1')
deviation is still required for the 36' average building height.
6. The applicant met with two representatives from the Natural Resources
� Conservation Service (NRCS) and Resource Conservation District (RCD) to
discuss the drainage/detention design, and both endorsed the plans as
submitted. Modifications have therefore not been made to the drainage plan.
7. The applicant is agreeable to provide a fence along the pedestrian creek path
(see condition of approval no. 16).
8. Sheet AC-1 has been revised to show three (3) driveway access options for
Council's consideration (all other plan sheets remain unchanged). Outlined
i below are the three driveway alternative designs:
CITY COUNCIL
MAY 9, 2006
V1TM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 3
Option 1: This is the original access design with all traffic directed towards
the lower, easterly driveway. This configuration has the advantage
of lining up the driveways of the project and New Hope Church and
is further away from the Oak Park Boulevard/James Way
intersection. A surplus of five (5) parking spaces is provided with
this option. Council expressed safety concerns about having all
traffic going through the residential portion of the project.
Option 2: This option includes a one-way entrance at the upper, westerly
driveway with angled parking, and a one-way exit at the lower
driveway, also with angled parking. A total of six (6) parking
spaces are lost with this alternative, one (1) space below the
parking requirement.
Option 3: The third option has all traffic directed towards the upper driveway
and closes off the lower driveway. This is the applicanYs preferred
option. A total of five (5) spaces are lost, bringing the overall
parking in compliance with the City's parking requirements.
Attached is a Memorandum from the Director of Public Works, Don Spagnolo, to the
City Manager outlining the advantages and disadvantages of the different driveway
options in light of the effects each would have on circulation within the site and the
public right-of-way (see Attachment 2 for Memo). Mr. Spagnolo concludes that Option 1
is the preferred driveway design based on minimal conflicting movements and least
impact to the existing level of service. Also attached is a Memorandum from Steve
Orosz to City staff summarizing field data from monitoring the project and church
driveways (see Attachment 3). Based on his observations, Mr. Orosz concludes that
any of the three driveway alignment options provide reasonable operation for site
access and access to the church.
Attachments:
1. April 11, 2006 City Council staff report, less attachments
2. Memorandum from Don Spagnolo, Public Works Director, to City Council dated
April 28, 2006
3. Memorandum from Stephen Orosz to City staff dated April 26, 2006
S:\Communiry DevelopmenflPROJECTS\TTM\04-005 Sheppel\CC 2 staff rpt-Sheppel.doc
�
:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04-006, PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 04-005 AND MINOR
EXCEPTION CASE NO. 05-015, APPLIED FOR BY RUSS
SHEPPEL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON OAK PARK
,� BLVD. AND JAMES WAY (OAK PARK PROFESSIONAL
PLAZA)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 04-006, Planned Unit Development 04-005 and Minor Exception
05-015, filed by Russ Sheppel, to subdivide a 1.8-acre site into nineteen (19) lots
resulting in 24 density equivalent town homes and condominiums as a mixed use with
existing fitness club and medical offices and to deviate from the maximum building
height; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing on this application in accordance
with City Code; and
i'
' WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this project is consistent with the City's General
Plan, Development Code and the environmental documents associated therewith, and
has reviewed the draft Negative Declaration with mitigation measures under the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the
1 following circumstances exist:
,� Tentative Tract Map Findings:
, 1. The proposed tentative tract map is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies,
plans, programs, intent, and requirements of the General Plan map and text and
the requirements of the Development Code.
j 2. The site, as shown on the tentative tract map, is physically suitable for the
� proposed density because all necessary easements, parking, open space, and
�i setbacks can be provided.
' 3. The design of the tentative tract map or the proposed improvements are not likely
�' to cause substantial damage to the natural environment, including fish, wildlife or
'i their habitat.
'j� 4. The design of the subdivision or proposed improvements is not likely to cause
public health problems.
i
� .
k RESOWTION NO.
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 2 of 27
5. The design of the tentative tract map or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements acquired by the public at large for access through, or use of,
property within the proposed tentative tract map or that alternate easements for
access or for use will be provided, and that these alternative easements will be
substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public.
6. The discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community
sewer system will not result in violation of existing requirements a prescribed in
Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the California Water Code.
7. Adequate public services and facilities exist or will be provided as the result of the
proposed tentative tract map to support project development.
Planned Unit Development Permit Findings:
1. The proposed development is consistent with the goals, objectives, and programs
� of the Arroyo Grande General Plan.
2. The project site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use and all
; yards, open spaces, setbacks, walls and fences, parking areas, landscaping, and
� other features required by the Development Code.
3. The site for the proposed development has adequate access, meaning that the
site design and development plan conditions consider the limitations of existing
� streets and highways.
; 4. Adequate public services exist, or will be provided in accordance with the
� conditions of the development plan approval, to serve the proposed development;
and that the approval of the proposed development will not result in a reduction of
public services to properties in the vicinity so as to be a detriment to public health,
safety, and welfare.
5. The proposed development, as conditioned, will not have a substantial adverse
effect on surrounding property, or the permitted use thereof, and will be compatible
� with the existing single-family residential, hospital and medical o�ce uses in the
surrounding area.
6. The improvements required, and the manner of development, adequately address
� all natural and man-made hazards associated with the proposed development of
the project site, including, but not limited to, flood, seismic, fire and slope hazards.
� 7. The proposed development carries out the intent of the Planned Unit Development
� Provisions by providing a more efficient use of the land and an excellence of
� design greater than that which could be achieved through the application of
� conventional development standards.
8. The proposed development complies with all applicable performance standards
listed in Development Code Section 16.32.050.
RESOLUTION NO.
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 3 of 27
Required CEQA Findings:
1. The City of Arroyo Grande has prepared an initial study pursuant to Section 15063
of the Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 04-006 and Planned Unit Development 04-006.
2. Based on the initial study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for
public review. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and related materials
is located at City Hall in the Community Development Department.
3. After holding a public hearing pursuant to State and City Codes, and considering
the record as a whole, the City Council adopts a negative declaration and finds
that there is no substantial evidence of any significant adverse effect, either
individually or cumulatively on wildlife resources as defined by Section 711.2 of the
Fish and Game Code or on the habitat upon which the wildlife depends as a result
of development of this project. Further, the City Council finds that said Mitigated
Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande hereby approves Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 04-006, Planned Unit
Development No. 04-006 and Minor Exception No. 05-015, as presented to the City
Council on May 9, 2006 and as shown in Exhibits B1-627 on file in the Administrative
! Services Department and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full,
with the above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
On a 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 9�h day of May 2006.
i
, RESOLUTION NO.
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 4 of 27
� TONY M. FERRARA, MAYOR
�
, ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/
, CITY CLERK
� APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
'� APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
�
�
i _
il
�
I'
�
RESOLUTION NO.
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 5 of 27
'I EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 04-005,
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 04-006 and
MINOR EXCEPTION 05-015
Russ Sheppel
Oak Park Blvd. and James Way (Oak Park Professional Plaza)
f�MM INITY D V �PM NT D PARTMENT
N RA .ONDITI�NS
This approval authorizes the subdivision of a 1.8-acre property into nineteen (19) lots resulting
" in 24 density equivalent town homes and condominiums in eleven (11) buildings as a mixed
!� use with existing fitness club and medical offices. Also approved is a two-foot (2') deviation
from the maximum building height.
1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and City
requirements as are applicable to this project.
2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 04-005 and Planned Unit Development No. 04-006.
3. This Tentative Map and Planned Unit Development shall automatically expire on April
�� 11, 2008 unless the final map is recorded or an extension is granted pursuant to
Section 16.12.140 of the Development Code.
4. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the City
Council at the meeting of April 11, 2006 as shown in Exhibits 61-B27 on file in the
Administrative Services Department.
I'
5. The applicant shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought against
the City, its present or former agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of
said approval, or in anyway relating to the implementation thereof, or in the alternative,
to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers,
I, 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.
6. Development shall conform to the OMU zoning requirements except as otherwise
approved.
I RESOLUTION NO.
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 6 of 27
SP C:IA ONDITIONS
7. Consistent with the City's Housing Element policies, the project shall restrict fifteen
percent (15%) of the units, or 3.3 units, to qualified families earning a moderate-
income (based on the City's afFordable housing standards). The developer shall pay
an affordable housing in-lieu fee for any fraction of a unit (see also MM 9.1).
8. The Final Tract Map shall show an irrevocable offer to dedicate the 25' creek setback
area to the City, including the pedestrian path.
9. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall record a new, non-exclusive
pedestrian trail easement that coincides with the project plans. The applicant shall
submit construction plans for the pedestrian trail for review and approval by the
Departments of Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Facilities. Prior to issuing
a certificate of occupancy, the developer shall install the pedestrian trail in
accordance with the approved construction plans. The pedestrian trail shall either be
maintained by a homeowners association with maintenance responsibilities outlined in
the CC&Rs, or by the City if the offer of dedication is accepted.
10. The pedestrian trail shall connect to the public sidewalk on James Way by means of
an ADA ramp and stairs.
11. Only native plants shall be planted within the 25' creek setback area.
12. Signs shall be posted prohibiting the use of herbicides or other toxic substances
potentially harmful to creek habitat.
13. The CC&Rs shall prohibit privately installed lighting adjacent to the creek.
I 14. The City shall receive all documentation submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to satisfy requirements outlined in the "Wetland Mitigation Plan".
15. The ro'ect shall rovide bic cle arkin in a location acce table to the Community
N J � Y ' 9 '
Development Director.
� 16. Fencing shall be installed along the pedestrian creek path that does not prohibit
migration of fauna between the path and riparian area.
AR .HIT T 1RA R VI W OMMITT (ARC) CONDITIONS
17. Soften the two purple building colors of the town homes.
, 18. Provide more landscaping in the three islands where the cantilevered building projects
out (pending no loss of parking spaces).
19. Plant two Liquidambars in the diamonds on the north side of the condos.
i
RESOLUTION NO.
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 7 of 27
20. Change the Flax plants to Pittosporum undulatum and change the planter area to
j project as far as possible into the parking space on the west side of the condos on
� either side of garage doors.
� 21. Submit a final landscape to the Architectural Review Committee for review and
approval prior to issuance of building permit.
' 22. Provide decorative paving in the driveways between garages of the town homes.
I �J91S.E
23. All residential units shall be designed to mitigate impacts from non-residential project
noise, in compliance with the Citys noise regulations.
24. Construction shall be limited to between the hours of 8am and 6pm Monday through
Friday. No construction shall occur on Saturday or Sunday.
' DEVELOPMENT CODE
25. Development shall conform to the Office Mixed Use (OMU) zoning requirements except
as otherwise approved.
� 26. All fences and/or walls shall not exceed six feet (6') in height unless otherwise approved
with a Minor Exception or Variance application.
' 27. The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 16.20, "Land Divisions".
28. The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 16.64, "Dedications, Fees
and Reservations."
�'� 29. The following shall be induded in the CC&Rs regarding open space:
, a. The dedicated open space area (Lot A) shall not be further subdivided in the
future;
b. The use of the open space shall continue in perpetuity for the purpose
specified;
c. Appropriate provisions shall be made for the maintenance of the open space;
' and
d. Common undeveloped open space shall not be turned into a commercial
enterprise admitting the general public at a fee.
30. For zero lot line projects where detached dwelling units are to be constructed upon a
lot line, a five-foot maintenance easement shall be provided on the adjacent lot, along,
and parallel to, the zero lot line dwelling. The easement shall grant access to the
owner of the zero lot line dwelling for purposes of maintaining the zero lot line wall.
i
RESOLUTION NO.
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 8 of 27
31. A property owners' association and covenants shall be established to ensure that
! common areas are owned and maintained by Planned Unit Development property
� owners.
a. The homeowners association must be established before the homes are sold;
b. Membership must be mandatory for each home buyer and any successive
� buyer,
c. The open space restrictions must be permanent, not just for a period of years;
d. The association must be responsible for liability insurance, local taxes, and the
maintenance of recreational and other facilities;
e. Homeowners must pay their pro rata share of the cost, and the assessment
, levied by the association can become a lien on the property if allowed in the
master deed establishing the homeowners association; and
� f. The association must be able to adjust the assessment to meet changed
; needs.
� PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMIT
32. All walls, including screening and retaining walls, shall be compatible with the approved
architecture and Development Code Standards, and shall be no more than 3 feet in
height in the front setback area, subject to the review and approval of the Community
Development Director.
PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL MAP
33. The applicant shall submit final Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) that
are administered by a subdivision homeowners' association and formed by the applicant
for common areas within the subdivision. The CC&Rs shall preclude private property
owners from utilizing the 25' creek setback area for private use. The CC&Rs shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and recorded with the final map.
34. A landscaping and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect
subject to review and approval by the Community Development and Parks and
� Recreation Departments. The landscaping plan shall include the following for all public
street frontages and common landscaped areas:
(1) Tree staking, soil preparation and planting detail;
(2) The use of landscaping to screen ground-mounted utility and mechanical
equipment;
(3) The required landscaping and improvements. This includes:
i. Deep root planters shall be included in areas where trees are within five
i feet (5') of asphalt or concrete surfaces and curbs;
ii. Water conservation practices including the use of low flow heads, drip
irrigation, mulch, gravel, drought tolerant plants and mulches shall be
incorporated into the landscaping plan; and
iii. All slopes 2:1 or greater shall have jute mesh, nylon mesh or equivalent
material.
iv. An automated irrigation system.
RESOLUTION NO.
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 9 of 27
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
35. All fencing shall be installed.
' PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT CONDITI�NS
36. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance 521 C.S., the Community
Tree Ordinance.
37. Linear deep root barriers shall be used for all trees within six feet (6') of curb, gutter or
' sidewalks.
38. All street front trees shall be 24-inch box and shall be located a minimum of one (1) tree
for every seventy-five feet (75') of street frontage.
39. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit a trail improvement
plan for the pedestrian trail looated within the creek setback area.
B �ILDIN � AND FIR D PARTM NT .ONDITIONR
UBG/�1FC
40. The project shall comply with the most recent editions of the California State Fire and
Building Codes and the Uniform Building and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of
Arroyo Grande.
41. The project shall provide complete compliance with State and Federal disabled access
requirements. Per S.B. 1025, 10% of the primary entry levels of multistoried dwelling
units must comply with the HCD's accessibility provisions.
42. The applicant shall show al� setback areas for each lot on the tentative tract map prior
to map recordation.
FIRE LANES
43. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall post designated
fire lanes, per Section 22500.1 of the California Vehicle Code.
44. All fire lanes must be posted and enforced, per Police Department and Fire Department
guidelines.
FIRE FLOW/FIRE HYDRANTG
RESOLUTION NO.
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 10 of 27
45. Project shall have a fire flow based on the California Fire Code Appendix III-A.
46. Prior to bringing combustibles on site, fire hydrants shall be installed per Fire
Department and Public Works Department standards. Locations shall be approved by
the Fire Chief.
FIR SPRINK R
47. Prior to Occupancy, all buildings must be fully sprinklered per Building and Fire
Department guidelines.
48. The project shall provide Fire Department approved access or sprinkler system per
National Fire Protection Association Standards 13d or 13R as appropriate.
OPTI OM D VI .
49. An opticom traffic signal pre-emption device shall be installed that meets Building and
Fire Department requirements as determined by the Director of Building & Fire for traffic
signal at West Branch Street and Oak Park Boulevard.
ABANDONMENT/NC�N-CONFORMING
50. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, the
applicant shall show proof of properly abandoning all non-conforming items such as
septic tanks, wells, underground piping and other undesirable conditions.
OTHER APPROVALS
� 51. The project shall comply with Federal and local flood management policies.
52. Any review costs generated by outside consultants shall be paid by the applicant.
;
� PIJBLIG WORKS DEPARTMENT G�NDITION�
All Public Works Department conditions of approval as listed below are to be complied wifh
i
prior to recording the map or finalizing fhe permit, unless specifically noted othenvise.
53. Fees - The applicant shall pay all applicable City fees at the time they are due. (For
your information, the "Procedure for Protesting Fees, Dedications, Reservations or
Exactions"is provided below).
PROCEDURE FOR PROTESTING FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR
EXACTIONS:
(A)Any party may protest the imposition of any fees, dedications, reservations, or other
exactions imposed on a development project, for the purpose of defraying all or a
porfion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project by meeting
RESOLUTION NO.
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 11 of 27
both of the following requirements:
(1) Tendering any required payment in full or providing satisfactory evidence of
arrangements to pay the fee when due or ensure performance of the conditions
necessary to meet the requirements of the imposition.
(2) Serving written notice on the City Council, which notice shall contain all of the
following information:
(a) A statement that the required payment is tendered or will be tendered when
due, or that any conditions which have been imposed are provided for or
satisfied, under protest.
(b) A statement informing the City Council of the factual elements of the dispute
and the legal theory forming the basis for the protest.
(B) A protest filed pursuant to subdivision (A) shall be filed at the time of the approval or
conditional approval of the development or within 90 days after the date of the
imposition of the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions to be imposed on
a development project.
(C) Any party who files a protest pursuant to subdivision (A) may file an action to attack,
' review, set aside, void, or annul the imposition of the fees, dedications reservations, or
other exactions imposed on a development project by a local agency within 180 days
after the delivery of the notice.
(D) Approval or conditional approval of a development occurs, for the purposes of this
section, when the tentative map, tentative parcel map, or,parcel map is approved or
; conditionally approved or when the parcel map is recorded if a tentative map or
tentative parcel map is not required.
(E)The imposition of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions occurs, for the
purposes of this section, when they are imposed or levied on a specific development.
54. Fees to be paid prior to plan approval:
, (1) Plan check for grading plans based on an approved earthwork estimate.
(2) Plan check for improvement plans based on an approved construction cost
estimate.
(3) Permit Fee for grading plans based on an approved earthwork estimate.
(4) Inspection fee of subdivision or public works construction plans based on an
approved construction cost estimate.
PU6 I 'WORK4 D PARTM NT SP .IA �NDITIONS
All Public Works Department conditions of approval as listed below are to be complied with
RESOLUTION NO.
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 12 of 27
prior to recording the map, unless specifically noted otherwise.
55. Relocate the existing water main from James Way to the southern project limits to ten
feet (10') west of the sanitary sewer main and provide the appropriate fifteen-foot (15')
easement.
56. Abandon the existing water main connection to James way per the requirements of
the Director of Public Works.
57. The applicant shall extend the sewer main across the project frontage to City
standards and provide the appropriate twenty-foot (20') wide easement due to depth
of line.
58. The applicant shall pay the fair share for the impacts to the following wastewater
capital improvement projects:
a. EI Camino Real Upgrade.
b. Walnut Street Upgrade.
59. The applicant shall overlay James Way from the easterly project driveway to Oak Park
Boulevard with 1 'h " of asphalt from gutter to gutter.
60. Replace the driveway approach adjacent to Kennedy Club Fitness with City standard
curb, gutter and sidewalk.
61. The applicant shall provide on-site below ground stormwater retardation facilities
designed and constructed to Public Works and Community Development requirements,
and the following:
a. The facilities shall be designed to reduce the peak flow rate from a post-
development 100-year storm.
b. The 100-year basin outflow shall not exceed the criteria provided by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE).
c. The 100-year basin outflow shall be limited to a level that does not cause the
capacity of existing downstream drainage facilities to be exceeded.
d. The basin design shall include freeboard equal to twenty percent (20%) of the
basin depth, to a minimum of twelve inches (12").
e. The basin shall be fully constructed and functional prior to occupancy for any
building permit within the project.
f. The basin shall be maintained by a homeowner's association. The City shall
approve the related language in the association CC&Rs prior to recordation.
62. The applicant shall provide access from top of bank for creek maintenance.
RESOLUTION NO.
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 13 of 27
PUBLIC WORKG DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS
GENERAL GONDITI�NS
63. Clean all streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks at the end of the day's operations or as
directed by the Director of Public Works.
64. Perform construction activities during normal business hours (Monday through Friday, 7
A.M. to 5 P.M.) for noise and inspection purposes. The developer or contractor shall
refrain from performing any work other than site maintenance outside of these hours,
unless an emergency arises or approved by the Director of Public Works. The City may
hold the developer or contractor responsible for any expenses incurred by the City due
to work outside of these hours.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
65. All project improvements shall be designed by a registered civil engineer in the State of
California and constructed in accordance with the City of Arroyo Grande Standard
Drawings and Specifications.
66. Submit four (4) full-size paper copies, one (1) full-size mylar copy; and one (1) electronic
copy on CD in AutoCAD of approved improvement plans for inspection purposes during
construction.
67. Submit as-built plans at the completion of the project or improvements as directed by
the Director of Public Works. One (1) set of mylar prints and an electronic version on
CD in AutoCAD format shall be required.
68. The following Improvement plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the Public Works Department:
(1) Grading, drainage and erosion control,
(2) Street paving, curb, gutter and sidewalk,
(3) Public utilities,
(4) Water and sewer,
(5) Landscaping and irrigation,
(6) Any other improvements as required by the Director of Public Works.
69. Landscape and irrigation plans are required for landscaping within the public right of
way, and shall be approved by the Community Development and Parks and Recreation
Departments. In addition, The Director of Public Works shall approve any landscaping
or irrigation within a public right of way or othervvise to be maintained by the City.
70. Improvement plans shall include plan and profile of existing and proposed streets,
RESOLUTION NO.
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 14 of 27
utilities and retaining walls.
71. The site plan shall include the following:
(1) The location and size of all existing and proposed water, sewer, and storm
drainage facilities within the project site and abutting streets or alleys.
(2) The location, quantity and size of all existing and proposed sewer laterals.
(3) The location, size and orientation of all trash enclosures.
(4) All existing and proposed parcel lines and easements crossing the property.
(5) The location and dimension of all existing and proposed paved areas.
(6) The location of all existing and proposed public or private utilities.
WATER
72. Whenever possible, all water mains shall be looped to prevent dead ends. The Director
of Public Works must grant permission to dead end water mains.
73. Construction water is available at the corporate yard. The City of Arroyo Grande does
not allow the use of hydrant meters.
74. Each parcel shall have separate water meters. Duplex service lines shall be used if
feasible.
75. Lots using fire sprinklers shall have individual service connections. If the units are to be
fire sprinkled, a fire sprinkler engineer shall determine the size of the water meters.
76. Existing water services to be abandoned shall be properly abandoned and capped at
the main per the requirements of the Director of Public Works.
77. The applicant shall complete measures to neutralize the estimated increase in water
demand created by the project by either:
(1) Implement an individual water program consisting of retrofitting existing off-site
high-flow plumbing fixtures with low flow devices. The calculations shall be
submitted to the Director of Public Works for review and approval. The proposed
individual water program shall be submitted to the City Council for approval prior
to implementation; OR,
(2) The applicant may pay an in lieu fee of$2,200 for each new residential unit.
78. All units to be sprinklered shall have individual water services.
79. The on-site water systems that supply water to fire hydrants shall be a public facility.
This will require public improvement plans and dedication of a fifteen-foot (15') wide
easement.
RESOLUTION NO.
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 15 of 27
SFWFR
80. Each parcel shall be provided a separate sewer lateral.
81. Both units on each parcel will utilize the same sewer lateral.
82. All new sewer mains must be a minimum diameter of 8".
83. All sewer laterals within the public right of way must have a minimum slope of 2%.
84. All sewer mains or laterals crossing or parallel to public water facilities shall be
constructed in accordance with California State Health Agency standards.
85. Existing water laterals to be abandoned shall be properly abandoned and capped at the
main per the requirements of the Director of Public Works.
86. The applicant shall obtain approval from the South County Sanitation District for the
developmenYs impact to District facilities prior to final recordation of the map.
P 18 I . UTI ITI S
87. Install all new public utilities as under ground facilities in accordance with Section
16.68.050 of the Development Code.
88. Underground improvements shall be installed prior to street paving.
89. Submit all improvement plans to the public utility companies for approval and comment.
Utility comments shall be forwarded to the Director of Public Works for approval. All
utility companies shall sign the improvement plans prior to final submittal.
90. Submit the Final Map to the public utility companies for review and comment. Utility
comments shall be forwarded to the Director of Public Works for approval.
91. Prior to approving any building permit within the project for occupancy, all public utilities
shall be operational.
STREETS
92. Obtain approval from the Director of Public Works prior to excavating in any street
recently over-laid or slurry sealed. The Director of Public Works shall approve the
method of repair of any such trenches, but shall not be limited to an overlay, slurry seal,
or fog seal.
93. All street repairs shall be constructed to City standards.
94. All trenching in City streets shall utilize saw cutting. Any over cuts shall be cleaned and
filled with epoxy.
RESOLUTION NO.
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 16 of 27
95. Street structural sections shall be determined by an R-Value soil test, but shall not be
less than 3" of.asphalt and 6" of Class II AB.
GLIRB GL1T� AND SIDEWALK
96. Repair or replace any cracked or broken curb, gutter and sidewalk along the project
frontage with James Way.
97. Utilize saw cuts for all repairs made in curb, gutter, and sidewalk.
98. Install tree wells for all trees planted adjacent to curb, gutter and sidewalk to prevent
damage due to root growth.
GRADING
99. PerForm all grading in conformance with the City Grading Ordinance.
100. Submit a preliminary soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and supported
by adequate test borings. All earthwork design and grading shall be performed in
accordance with the approved soils report.
101. Submit all retaining wall calculations for review and approval by the Director of Public
Works for walls not constructed per�City Standards. All retaining walls subject to
vehicular loading shall be designed for H2O-44 loading.
DRAINAGE
102. All drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate a 100-year storm flow.
103. All drainage facilities shall be in accordance with the Drainage Master Plan.
104. The project is in Drainage Zone "C" and allows for drainage to the creek.
105. The applicant shall install an in-line filtration system to remove hydrocarbons,
sedimentation and pollutants from stormwater prior to discharging to Meadow Creek.
106. The grading and drainage plans shall be reviewed by the Coastal San Luis Obispo
Resource Conversation District. The applicant shall reimburse the City for this review.
D DI ATI�N AND A4 M NT �
107. All easements, abandonments, or similar documents to be recorded as a document
separate from a map, shall be prepared by the applicant on 8 1/2 x 11 City standard
forms, and shall include legal descriptions, sketches, closure calculations, and a current
RESOLUTION NO.
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 17 of 27
preliminary title report. The applicant shall be responsible for all required fees, including
any additional required City processing.
108. Abandonment of public streets and public easements shall be listed on the final map, in
accordance with Section 66499.20 of the Subdivision Map Act.
109. Street tree planting and maintenance easements shall be dedicated adjacent to all
street right of ways. Street tree easements shall be a minimum of 10 feet beyond the
right of way, except that street tree easements shall exclude the area covered by public
utility easements.
110. Easements shall be dedicated to the public on the map, or other separate document
approved by the City, for the following:
a. Sewer easements as described in these conditions of approval. The
easements shall be a minimum of fifteen feet (15') wide.
b. Water easements as described in these conditions of approval. The
easements shall be a minimum of fifteen feet (15') wide.
111. A Public Utility Easement (PUE) shall be dedicated a minimum 6 feet wide adjacent to
all street right of ways. The PUE shall be wider where necessary for the installation or
maintenance of the public utility vaults, pads, or similar facilities.
112. A blanket Public Utility Easement (PUE) shall be dedicated over the drive isles and
parking areas.
PERMITS
113. Obtain an encroachment permit prior to performing any of the following:
, (1) Performing work in the City right of way,
(2) Staging work in the City right of way,
(3) Stockpiling material in the City right of way,
(4) Storing equipment in the City right of way.
114. Obtain a grading permit prior to commencement of any grading operations on site.
ArRFFMFNTS
115. Inspection Agreement: Prior to approval of an improvement plan, the applicant shall
enter into an agreement with the City for inspection of the required improvements.
116. Subdivision Improvement Agreement: The applicant shall enter into an agreement
for the completion and guarantee of improvements required. The agreement shall be on
a form acceptable to the City.
117. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions: The subdivider shall prepare project
�
RESOLUTION NO.
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 18 of 27
CC&Rs for maintenance and repair of all privately owned improvements. The CC&Rs
shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney and the Director of
Public Works.
IMPROVEMENT SECIIRITIFS
118. All improvement securities shall be of a form as set forth in Development Code Section
16.68.090, Improvement Securities.
119. Submit an engineer's estimate of quantities for public improvements for review by the
Director of Public Works.
120. Provide financial security for the following, to be based upon a construction cost
estimate approved by the Director of Public Works:
(1) Faithful PerFormance: 100% of the approved estimated cost of all subdivision
improvements.
(2) Labor and Materials: 50% of the approved estimated cost of all subdivision
improvements.
(3) One Year Guarantee: 10% of the approved estimated cost of all subdivision
improvements. This bond is required prior to acceptance of the subdivision
improvements.
(4) Monumentation: 100% of the approved estimated cost of placement of all
subdivision monuments.
OTHER DOCUMENTATION
121. Preliminary Title Report: A current preliminary title report shall be submitted to the
Director of Public Works prior to checking the map.
122. Subdivision Guarantee: A current subdivision guarantee shall be submitted to the
Director of Public Works prior to checking the final submittal of the map.
123. Tax Certificate: The applicant shall furnish a certificate from the tax collector's office
indicating that there are no unpaid taxes or special assessments against the property.
The applicant may be required to bond for any unpaid taxes or liens against the
property. This shall be submitted prior to placing the map on the City Council agenda
for approval.
PRIOR T� ISS�IING A BUILDING PERMIT
124. The Final Map shall be recorded with all pertinent conditions of approval satisfied.
PRIOR TO I 4 IIN A RTIFI .AT �F OC . 1PAN Y
RESOLUTION NO.
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 19 of 27
125. All utilities shall be operational.
126. All essential project improvements shall be constructed prior to occupancy. Non-
essential improvements, guaranteed by an agreement and financial securities, may be
' constructed after occupancy as directed by the Director of Public Works.
127. Prior to the final 10% of occupancies for the project are issued, all improvements shall
be fully constructed and accepted by the City.
MITIGATION MEASLIRES
A negative declaration with mitigation measures has been adopted for this project. The
� following mitigation measures shall be implemented as conditions of approval and shall be
monitored by the appropriate City department or responsible agency. The applicant shall be
responsible for verification in writing by the monitoring department or agency that the
mitigation measures have been implemented.
Mitigation Measures:
MITIGATION MEASURES�
MM 1.1: The applicant shall submit a lighting plan verifying that all exterior lighting
for the development is directed downward and does not create spill or glare to
adjacent properties and Yiparian habitat.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD; Police Dept.
Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit
MM 1.2: The applicant shall develop design alternatives for the condominium
stairway housing for Architectural Review Committee (ARC) review and approval.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD
Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit
, MM 1.3: The applicant shall submit final exterior colors and materials of the town
homes and condominiums for ARC approval.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD
Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit
MM 3.1: All dust control measures listed below (MM 3.2 — 3.6) shall be followed
during construction of the project and shall be shown on grading and building plans.
The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control
program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off
RESOLUTION NO.
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 20 of 27
site. The name and telephone number of such person(s) shall be provided to the APCD
prior to land use clearance for map recordation and finished grading of the area.
MM 3.2: During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to
keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent airborne dust from leaving
the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning
and after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour.
Reclaimed (non-potable)water shall be used whenever possible.
MM 3.3: Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or
treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation.
MM 3.4: All vehicles hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be
covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance
between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114.
MM 3.5: Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads on to
streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. Vehicle speed for all
construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the
construction site.
MM 3.6: Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried on to
adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where
feasible.
MM 3.7: To mitigate the diesel PM generated during the construction phase, all
construction equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned according to
manufacturer's specifications.
The measures below (MM 3.8 — 3.10) shall be clearly identified in the project bid
specifications so the contractors bidding on the project can include the purchase and
installation costs in their bids.
MM 3.8: All off-road and portable diesel powered equipment, including but not
limited to bulldozers, graders, cranes, loaders, scrapers, backhoes, generator sets,
compressors, auxiliary power units, shall be fueled exclusively with California Air
Resources Board (ARB) motor vehicle diesel fuel.
MM 3.9: To the maximum extent feasible, the use of diesel construction equipment
shall meet the ARB's 1996 certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines.
MM 3.10: Prior to any grading activities at the site, the project proponent shall
ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if Naturally Occurring
Asbestos (NOA) is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present,
an exemption request must be filed with the APCD. If NOA is found at the site, the
applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos Air Toxins Control
RESOLUTION NO.
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 21 of 27
, Measure (ATCM) regulated under by the California Air Resources Board (ARB).
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande - Public Works Dept., Building
and Fire Department
Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit and during
construction
Ooerational PhasP Emissions
MM 3.11: To encourage walking within the development and provide a safer
pedestrian environment, the applicant shall use textured and/or colored concrete at
pedestrian crossings.
MM 3.12: Provide continuous sidewalks separated from the roadway by landscaping
with adequate lighting.
MM 3.13: Provide shade tree planting along southern exposures of buildings to
reduce summer cooling needs.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD, Public Works Dept.,
and Building & Fire Dept.
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit
MM 4.1: The applicant shall revegetate the 0.18-acre mitigation area as outlined in
the "Wetland Mitigation Plan" prepared by the Morrow Group, Inc., dated May 21, 2002.
Any plants that do not survive shall be replaced in kind and monitored until established.
Temporary irrigation shall be provided for all planting areas for three (3) years or until
plants are established. An independent consultant specializing in biological resources
shall be hired by the City and paid for by the applicant to monitor the mitigation for a
minimum of five (5) years.
Responsible Parly: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD; ACOE
Timeframe: Installation of plant material shall occur before
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Monitoring of
plants shall occur for at least 5 years.
MM 4.2: All non-native plant species shall be eliminated from the 25' wide creek
setback area.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD
Timeframe: Prior to a Certificate of Occupancy
RESOLUTION NO.
, VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 22 of 27
MM 4.3: The developer shall record an irrevocable offer of dedication open space
agreement and twenty-five foot (25') creek easement on the property measured from
top of bank. No structures shall occur within 25' creek setback area.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD, Public Works Dept.
Timeframe: Prior to Grading Permit
� MM 4.4: Siltation/sedimentation control measures shall be implemented along the
entire eastern property boundary prior to site construction. Such control measures shall
include sediment fences and/or hay bales placed into the crux of the bank of Meadow
Creek. Erosion/sediment control barricades shall be placed around the perimeter of
each construction zone with the potential to drain to Meadow Creek.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept.
Timeframe: Prior to Grading Permit
MM 4.5: Soil shall not be stockpiled in areas located near the eastern property
margin adjacent to Meadow Creek, or in areas that have potential to drain to Meadow
Creek. Stockpiled soil should be properly covered at all times to avoid wind and water
erosion, and consequent siltation to Meadow Creek.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept.
Timeframe: During grading activities
MM 4.6: No heavy equipment shall be allowed within the Meadow Creek corridor.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept.
Timeframe: During grading
MM 5.1: The note below shall be placed on the grading and improvement plans for
, the project:
"In the event that during grading, construction or development of the project, and
archeological resources are uncovered, all work shall be halted until the City has
reviewed the resources for their significance. If human remains (burials) are
encountered, the County Coroner (781-4513) shall be contacted immediately. The
applicant may be required to provide archaeological studies and/or mitigation
measures."
Responsible Party: Developer
I
RESOLUTION NO.
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 23 of 27
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept.
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of grading permit and during grading
activities
MM 6.1: To address specific conditions concerning grading, utility trenches,
foundations, retaining walls and drainage, the contractor or builder shall adhere to the
mitigation measures identified in the Geotechnical Engineering report by Earth
Systems Pacific dated January 29, 2001. An updated soils report shall be submitted
with deeper borings. A slope stability analysis shall also be prepared.
MM 6.2: Construction operations, especially grading operations, shall be confined
as much as possible to the dry season, in order to avoid erosion of disturbed soils.
MM 6.3: Permanent soil control measures identified in the landscape plan shall be
implemented as soon as possible following completion of soil disturbing activities.
MM 6.4: Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater
than one month after initial grading should be sown with fast-germinating native grass
seed and watered until vegetation is established.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept.
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of grading permit and during
construction
MM 8.1: Construction activities shall be restricted to the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.
Monday through Friday. No construction shall occur on Saturday or Sunday.
Equipment maintenance and servicing shall be confined to the same hours. To the
greatest extent possible, grading and construction activities should occur during the
middle of the day to minimize the potential for disturbance of neighboring noise sensitive
uses.
MM 8.2: All construction equipment utilizing internal combustion engines shall be
required to have mufflers that are in good condition. Stationary noise sources shall be
located at least 300 feet from occupied dwelling units unless noise reducing engine
housing enclosures or noise screens are provided by the contractor.
MM 8.3: Equipment mobilization areas, water tanks, and equipment storage areas
shall be placed in a central location as far from existing residences as feasible.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD, Public Works Dept.
Timeframe: During construction
MM 9.1: Fifteen percent (15%) of new units constructed shall be sold to qualified
families earning a moderate-income (based on the City's affordable housing
RESOLUTION NO.
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 24 of 27
standards). The developer shall pay an affordable housing in-lieu fee for any fraction
of a unit. An affordable housing agreement between the City and developer shall be
recorded that stipulates the details of the terms and conditions for producing and
selling affordable ownership housing within the project. Said agreement shall be
reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and City Attorney,
and shall be recorded prior to recordation of the final tract map.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD, City Attorney
Timeframe: Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map
MM 10.1: The applicant shall pay the mandated Lucia Mar Unified School District
impact fee.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Building & Fire Dept.; Lucia
Mar Unified School District
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit
MM 11.1: The developer shall pay all applicable City park development and impact
fees.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Building & Fire Dept.; PR&F
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit
MM 11.2: The applicant shall submit a path/trail improvement plan.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — PR&F
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit
MM 12.1: The developer shall pay the City's Traffic Signalization and Transportation
Facilities Impact fees.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Building & Fire Dept.; Public
Works Dept.
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit
MM 13.1: The applicant shall pay the projecYs proportionate share of South San Luis
Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD) sewer upgrade impact fees.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande —Public Works Dept.
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit
RESOLUTION NO.
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 25 of 27
MM 13.2: The developer shall pay the Citys sewer hookup fees and fair share of
sewer upgrade impact fees.
� Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Building & Fire Dept.; Public
Works Dept.
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit
MM 14.1: The applicant shall submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) and Erosion Control Plan that specifies the implementation of Best
Management Practices to avoid and minimize water quality impacts as required by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). At a minimum, the SWPP and
Erosion Control Plan shall include:
. Designation of equipment and supply staging and storage areas at least
150 feet from the outside edge of the Meadow Creek 25-foot setback
area. All vehicle parking, routine equipment maintenance, fueling, minor
repair, etc., and soil and material stockpile, shall be done only in the
designated staging area.
. Major vehicle/equipment maintenance, repair, and equipment washing
shall be performed off site.
. A wet and dry spill clean up plan that specifies reporting requirements
and immediate clean up to ensure no residual soil, surface water or
groundwater contamination would remain after clean up.
. Designating concrete mixer washout areas at least 150 feet from outside
I edge of the Meadow Creek 25-foot setback with the use of appropriate
� containment or reuse practices.
. A temporary and excess fill stockpile and disposal plan that ensures that
no detrimental affects to receiving waters would result.
. Requiring all grading and application of concrete, asphalt, etc. to occur
during the dry season from April 15 to October 15.
j . Required site preparation and erosion control BMPs for any work that
may need to be completed after October 15.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept.;
RWQCB
' Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
MM 14.2: An independent consultant specializing in biological resources shall be
hired by the City and paid for by the applicant to monitor the restoration of the riparian
corridor for a minimum of seven (7) years.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept.
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
RESOLUTION NO.
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 26 of 27
MM 14.3: To reduce erosion hazards due to construction activities, grading shall
be minimized, and project applicants shall use runoff and sediment control structures,
and/or establish a permanent plant cover on side slopes following construction.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept.
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
MM 14.4: Work shall be completed during the dry season (April 15 to October 15)
to reduce active construction erosion to the extent feasible. If construction extends
into the wet weather season, a qualified hydrogeologist or civil engineer shall prepare
a drainage and erosion control plan that addresses construction measures to prevent
sedimentation and erosion of Meadow Creek.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept.
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit and during
construction
MM 14.5: Erosion control and bank stabilization measures shall be implemented to
ensure that the creek bank does not erode. In addition, alternative bank protection
methods, such as restoration of native vegetation, root wads, or other bioengineering
methods of stabilization, shall be used. In order to reduce long-term effects of soil
compaction and changes in topography, construction vehicles and personnel shall not
enter the low flow channel and wet areas. Construction mats and other devices shall
be used to reduce impacts associated with soil compaction.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept.
Timeframe: During construction
MM 14.6: All temporary fill placed during project construction shall be removed at
project completion and the area restored to approximate pre-project contours and
topography.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept.
Timeframe: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
MM 14.7: No construction debris or materials shall be allowed to enter the creek
bed, either directly or indirectly. Stockpiles should be kept at least 50' from the
topological top of bank to prevent material from entering the creek bed.
RESOLUTION NO.
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 27 of 27
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept.
Timeframe: During construction
MM 14.8: The project shall comply with the City's required water conservation
measures including any applicable measures identified in any applicable City Water
Conservation Plans.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept.
Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit
MM 14.9: The project shall install best available technology for low-flow toilets,
showerheads and hot water recirculation systems.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande —Building Dept.
Timing: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
MM 14.10: The final landscape plan shall show low-water use/drought resistant
species and drip irrigation systems rather than spray irrigation systems.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Parks, Recreation and
Facilities Dept.
Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit
MM 14.11: The project plans shall include methods for collecting surFace run-off
from the site for use on landscaped areas (minimum of 25% of landscaped areas) to
reduce water use and minimize run-off to the extent feasible.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande —Public Works Dept.
Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit
MM 14.12: Inline filters shall be installed for stormwater prior to creek outfalls.
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande —Public Works Dept.
_ Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit
' S:\Communiry Development\PROJECTS\TTM\04-005 Sheppel\CC reso-Sheppel.doc
pRROy� ' ATTACHMENT 1
O� C�
FINCOHPORATEO 9Z �
V T `—
� JULY 10. 1011 y
c4��FORN�P MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROB STRONG
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
BY: KELLY HEFFERNON
ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
04-006, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 04-005 AND
MINOR EXCEPTION NO. 05-015 TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.8-ACRE
SITE INTO NINETEEN (19) LOTS RESULTING IN 24 DENSITY
EQUIVALENT TOWN HOMES AND CONDOMINIUMS AS A
MIXED USE WITH EXISTING FITNESS CLUB AND MEDICAL
OFFICES; APPLIED FOR BY RUSS SHEPPEL.
DATE: APRIL 11, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends the Council adopt a resolution approving
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 04-006, Planned Unit Development No. 04-005 and
Minor Exception No. 05-015 (Sheppel 3 and 4).
FUNDING:
There would be additional City costs associated with landscape maintenance within the
creek setback area and pedestrian path easement if the City accepts the offer of
dedication.
PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast corner of Oak Park Blvd. and James Way.
-� , ai,
}�,�., ,�,- x.,. ��I i
,�
�;;;� � ,
� � n� ��� � �bl
� �
�� ., � �.
, ,;
.� �
�'� _ .,�'w ��; r`#
�
'R ���s
�� , . '`` .
� � �-�.,, , ,�
`� €
�"� iz ta
f�t ,�uar t , : f .
r� '
�� }.�; r� _.s 5,.;� ? . x `' :;'.�:
:� `,.��,`-`. �` #�?�
_.,, tH .
i
CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 11,2006
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 2
DISCUSSION
This project is an integral part of a prior Planned Development (PD 1.1) area, and
therefore requires City Council action to amend the previous approved plan.
Backqround
The project site is located within the Oak Park Professional Plaza (the "Plaza") on the
southeast corner of James Way and Oak Park Boulevard in the Office Mixed-Use
(OMU) zoning district. The 3.74-acre Plaza is developed with two medical office
buildings (Sheppel 1 and 2) and a health club (Kennedy Club Fitness). Surrounding the
property is a church to the north, the Best Western Casa Grande Inn to the south,
Meadow Creek and Leisure Gardens condominiums to the east, and commercial
development within the City of Pismo Beach to the west. The eastern portion of the site
is constrained by an existing access from James Way and a twenty-five foot (25')
setback from Meadow Creek, leaving a narrow strip of approximately seventy-feet (70')
wide for development.
The applicant obtained entitlement on May 22, 2001 to construct a 25,000 square foot
medical office and surgery center on the remaining 1.8-acre vacant property that was
never constructed (Sheppel 3). As part of the approval process for the medical office
development in 2001, the Army Corps of Engineers required mitigation for disturbance
of a manmade wetland. Accordingly, a Wetland Mitigation Plan was prepared that
requires restoration of the riparian corridor along the bank of the Meadow Creek
drainage basin, which the City owns (see Attachment B of the Initial Study for the
Wetland Mitigation Plan). As compensation for using City property to perform the
required mitigation, the City required a dedication of a 6' wide pedestrian path within the
25' creek setback area. On December 26, 2002 an "Irrevocable and Perpetual Offer to
Dedicate Path/Trail Access EasemenY' was recorded that granted a six-foot (6') wide
pedestrian easement along the creek side property boundary (see Attachment E of the
Initial Study). The subject 1.8-acre site is currently used to a limited extent for parking.
As part of the original approval for the Plaza, a Master Plan was developed that
established a shared access, parking and drainage easement agreement. This
easement agreement encumbers four of the six original parcels. A new easement
agreement was approved with Sheppel 3 that connected all of the final developed
parcels. A lot line adjustment was also approved that reconfigured and reduced the six
(6) existing parcels into four (4). Because the Conditional Use Permit for Sheppel 3 was
never pursued, the lot line adjustment did not record and therefore the lot configuration
and Master Plan remain as approved in 1999 with CUP 98-572 (Sheppel) and CUP 98-
573 (Kennedy).
There are two (2) other easements on the lower two lots owned by Mr. Sheppef that
relate to circulation and parking. These easements are for the benefit of the motel
owned by Ray Bunnell. One easement is for ingress and egress to James Way from
the motel, and the other is for shared parking. Mr. Bunnell has reviewed the proposed
plans and has agreed with Mr. Sheppel to accept the design proposed. New
easements will be recorded for parking and access with the proposed project, if
approved.
. _ ___
CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 11, 2006
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX OS-015
PAGE 3
After the Kennedy Club Fitness Center and Sheppel 2 office building were occupied, a
series of issues arose with regarii to parking and circulation. The two property owners
(Kennedy and Sheppel) agreed that for any spaces marked for limited use in the
easement area for Sheppel 1 and 2, an equal number of spaces would be provided as
additional parking for Kennedy Club Fitness on Sheppel's other lots. Mr. Kennedy had
also made a request to the City to allow the old driveway entrance closest to the
Kennedy building reopened. The City had previously required that the old driveway be
closed and the new lower driveway be the only access from James Way. The City
established a trial period to study the two-driveway design. Mr. Kennedy is no longer
requesting the driveway revision, and therefore there is no longer an issue regarding the
circulation or parking related to the Kennedy and Sheppel easements.
Since November 2003, the Planning Commission held four (4) public hearings to
consider revocation of the aforementioneii use permits due to non-compliance of shared
parking and driveway agreement between the professional office and fitness club uses.
On June 1, 2004 the Commission specifically considered the following:
1. Review of Parking and Access Study, April 2004;
2. Proposed schedule for further common area changes;
3. Design issues for Sheppel 3, residential mixed-use concept plan and Pre-
Application.
Project plans for the Pre-Application showed a phased mixed-use development divided
into twenty-two (22) multiple-family duplex units configured along the creek side of the
access driveway (Phase I, Sheppel 3) and a professional office component (Phase II,
Sheppel 4). The residential units were oriented to focus toward the creek and away
from commercial-related impacts, and the office building was positioned in the same
location as the original Sheppel 3, with significantly less square footage (approximately
7,000 square feet).
The City Council considered the Pre-Application on July 27, 2004. Discussion focused
on site access, parking, traffic, top of bank determination, and future water availability.
Council members supported the concept of mixed-use at this location, and tentatively
concurred with the top of bank determination (see Attachment 1 for City Council
meeting minutes). The Pre-Application site plan is included as Attachment 2.
The Planning Commission first considered the current project during a Study Session
on January 24, 2006. Issues discussed included:
• Parking and circulation.
• Stability of creek bank.
. Maintenance of creek bank landscaping (as required by the U.S. Army Corps.
of Engineers).
. Maintenance responsibility of the 6' pedestrian path located adjacent to the
creek.
• Top of creek bank determination.
CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 11, 2006
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 4
• Intent of the 25' creek setback.
• Description of the in-line stormwater filter system.
• Stormwater detention vs. retention.
• Use of porous pavement
Below is a response to the issues brought up during the Study Session.
Parking and circulation. Due to previous parking and circulation problems experienced
within the Oak Park Plaza, Commissioners asked for an explanation of how the project
resolves these issues. Circulation has been adequately addressed with providing one
primary access from James Way and closing the top driveway to allow emergency
access only. Parking is considered adequate without any mixed-use parking reduction.
Sfability of creek bank. With implementation of the Wetland Mitigation Plan (Attachment
B of the Initial Study), the creek bank will be planted with native riparian vegetation that
will bind with the soil and stabilize the creek bank. In addition, the project is conditioned
to submit an updated soils report supported by adequate test borings, which will include a
slope stability analysis to ensure the buildings will not have an adverse effect.
Maintenance of creek bank landscaping. The following language has been added to
MM 4.1 to address maintenance: "An independent consultant specializing in biological
resources shall be hired by the City and paid for by the applicant to monitor the
mitigation for a minimum of five (5) years."
Maintenance responsibility of the 6'pedestrian path located adjacent to the creek. The
following conditions of approval have been added in response to this issue:
• The Final Tract Map shall show an irrevocable offer to dedicate the 25' creek
setback area to the City, including the pedestrian path.
• Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall record a new, non-
exclusive pedestrian trail easement that coincides with the project plans.
The applicant shall submit construction plans for the pedestrian trail for review
and approval by the Departments of Public Works and Parks, Recreation and
Facilities. Prior to issuing a certificate of occupancy, the developer shall
install the pedestrian trail in accordance with the approved construction plans.
The pedestrian trail shall either be maintained by a homeowners association
with maintenance responsibilities outlined in the CC&Rs, or by the City if the
offer of dedication is accepted.
. The applicant shall submit final Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
(CC&Rs) that are administered by a subdivision homeowners' association and
formed by the applicant for common areas within the subdivision. The CC&Rs
shall preclude private property owners from utilizing the 25' creek setback area
for private use. The CC&Rs shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Attomey and recorded with the final map.
� ___ __
CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 11, 2006
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX OS-015
PAGE 5
Top of creek bank determination. The applicant has submitted a top of bank exhibit with
cross sections that graphically illustrate the hydrological top of bank determination (see
Attachment 3).
Intent of the 25' creek sefback. Based on research of previous General Plans for the
City, the earliest mention of reserving areas adjacent to creeks was in 1966 for the
purpose of establishing green belts. The City's 2001 General Plan states the following
regarding the purpose of creek setbacks:
C/OS2: Safeguard important environmental and sensitive biological resources
contributing to healthy, functioning ecosystem.
C/OS2-1: Designate all streams and riparian corridors as Conservation/Open
Space (C/OS).
C/OS2-1.1: 'Streams' and `riparian corridors' shall include buffer area
corresponding at least to natural vegetation and/or creek
bank.
C/OS2-1.2: Preserve stream and riparian corridors in their natural state
except that periodic flood control maintenance consistent
with State and Federal permits shall be allowed.
C/OS2-1.3: Where feasible, maintain a grading and building setback of
25 feet from the top of stream bank. Locate buildings and
structures outside the setback. Except in urban areas where
existing development exists to the contrary, prevent removal
of riparian vegetation within 25 feet of the top of stream
bank.
C/OS2-1.4: Creekside trails may be designed within stream and riparian
corridors and building setback providing design and grading
are consistent with State and Federal permits and are
sensitive to natural vegetation and include landscape
mitigation.
C/OS3: Plan for a well-maintained system of footpaths and non-vehicular trails
that provide access to areas of non-urban environment.
As described further below, the purpose of establishing a creek setback ranges from
protecting biological resources, helping to prevent erosion and sedimentation (flood
control), providing open space amenities and passive recreational opportunities. Each
property has its own unique circumstances (amount of existing riparian vegetation,
steepness of slope bank, proximity to existing development, potential for linking
creekside trails, etc.), and therefore the specific purposes may vary.
Description of the in-line stormwater �Iter system. There is an existing inline filtration
system (oil and water separator) located in the planter area where the access driveway
turns up towards the existing development. This system is proposed to remain. The
CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 11, 2006
' V7TM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 6
project is conditioned to install an in-line filtration system to remove all pollutants and
sedimentation from stormwater prior to discharging into Meadow Creek (see Condition
of Approval No. 102).
Stormwater detention vs. retention (information from www.stormwaferauthority.org):
Detention is the short-term storage of stormwater. The objective of a detention facility is
to regulate the runoff from a given rainfall event and to control discharge rates to reduce
the impact on downstream stormwater systems. Retention is the permanent storing of
stormwater indefinitely. Water is stored until it is lost through percolation, taken in by
plants, or through evaporation.
Stormwater detention basins are specifically designed and engineered to receive and
temporarily hold large amounts of stormwater to protect downstream areas from
flooding. Detention facilities can keep existing drainage systems from exceeding
capacity. New sites and development, which typically increase impervious surfaces and
thus increase flow rate and volume of run-off, use detention basins to mitigate the
effects of downstream flooding. Storage facilities can be either constructed above or
below ground as a vault. Buried vaults can be prefabricated concrete, corrugated
aluminum, polyethylene, or fiberglass structures. Design and pertormance criteria for
stormwater detention and water quality treatment is typically found in the state and local
water quality manuals.
The proposed project uses a subsurface detention system. The detention system is
designed to reduce the peak flow rate resulting from a post-development 100-year
storm and limit the release flow rate to the pre-development flow of a 100-year storm
event. The detention areas will outlet to the existing storm drain system using a pipe
that restricts flow. OverFlow from the subsurface system will go into a drop inlet and be
conveyed to an existing outfall location. As mentioned above, .the stormwater will be
, filtered by means of an in-line system. Based on additional information provided by
Earth Systems Pacific, percolation of underground detention basin water into existing fill
soils is "very inadvisable" from a geotechnical standpoint for this filled site (see
Attachment 4).
Use of porous pavement. The Planning Commission originally suggested the use of
pervious pavers and/or porous pavement in the access driveway and common parking
areas. Based on additional comments from Earth Systems Pacific, the use of pervious
pavers is strongly discouraged based on the soil composition of the site (see
Attachment 5). The conditions have therefore been amended to eliminate reference to
pervious pavers.
On February 21, 2006, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project
with the following amendments (see Attachment 6 for Meeting Minutes):
• Connect the creekside path to the public sidewalk on James Way by way of an
ADA ramp and stairs.
CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 11, 2006
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 7
• Include methods for collecting surface run-off from the site for use on landscaped
areas (minimum of 25% of landscaped areas) to reduce water use and minimize
run-off to the e�ent feasible.
• Use all native plants within the 25-foot creek setback area of the path.
• Post signs that prohibit the use of herbicides or other toxic substances potentially
harmful to creek habitat.
• Prohibit the use of privately installed lighting adjacent to the creek (for protection
of creek habitat).
• Include APCD comments in the Initial Study.
The above changes have been made to the conditions of approval.
Proiect Description
Design of the proposed project is largely based on Planning Commission and City
Council feedback during the Pre-Application process. Changes include eliminating the
phasing, replacing the professional-office component with more residential units (the
same number of units, 22, are proposed), redesigning the residential units to include
garages instead of carports, orienting the garages away from the main access driveway,
and overall improved architectural design. Because this is an infill project within a
partially developed site, and because the different uses are linked by means of common
access and parking, there are many constraints that must be considered in the project
design. The mixed-use standards of the Development Code were written to allow
flexibility for infill projects.
Proposed Sheppe/ 3 and 4 is a Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit
Development to subdivide three (3) parcels into nineteen (19) lots resulting in a total of
twenty-two (22) town homes and condominiums in eleven (11) buildings (24 density
equivalent units - see below for density equivalency table). Lots range in size from
3,710 to 12,890 square feet. A 3,980 square foot landscaped open space parcel (Lot A)
is proposed adjacent to James Way to serve as a buffer to the street and provide
passive recreational amenities (picnic table and barbeque area). A total of fifty-one
(51) parking spaces are required and one hundred ten (110) spaces are proposed. The
additional fifty-nine (59) spaces are intended to offset the parking demand for Sheppel 1
& 2 and Kennedy Club Fitness, as well as off-site shared parking and secondary access
easement for the Best Western Casa Grande Inn. Access to the site will be provided at
an existing driveway off of James Way. The project site is subject to an easement
agreement for access, parking, circulation and drainage with adjacent parcels, and a
new easement agreement is proposed that will connect all of the final developed
parcels. Construction of a six-foot (6') wide pedestrian trail is proposed within the 25'
creek setback. A new pedestrian trail easement will be recorded to reflect the actual
location of the trail since the recorded easement does not coincide with the proposed
project plans. A homeowners association will maintain all common areas.
CITY COUNCIL �
APRIL 71, 2006
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX OS-015
PAGE 8
Density Equivalency Table
_ .
' Residential Dwelling Unit
'IType Density Equivalent
_ _ __ _'
-- - - - --
' Live/Work Unit .5
_ _ _ _ . _ .
�Studio � .5
_------_ _ _
I 1-bedroom 75
— ----_ -- -- '
;�2-bedroom � „ 1
---=—m _.
;�3-bedroom ;� 1.5
__ .. _.. .
---
;i4-be�droom v v (_ 2
The ten (10) town homes are three (3) levels with the option for a one-bedroom unit on
the first floor (652 square feet of living area) and a two-bedroom unit on the second and
third floors (2,066 square feet of living area) for four (4) of the units (4 one-bedroom
units, 4 two-bedroom units, and 6 three-bedroom units). The eight (8) condominiums
include 1,172 square feet of living space in two levels, although the elevations appear to
show three (3) levels. The top level is an enclosed access to the decked roof area that
serves as private open space. A Minor Exception is required to exceed the 35' height
limit by two feet for the condominiums. The town homes also have decks for private
open space. Resident and guest parking complies with Development Code Standards.
Proposed colors and materials for the town homes and condominiums are summarized
in the table below; the architectural style is considered "Contemporary Craftsmen". The
conceptual landscape plan includes location of fences, pedestrian pathways, and
decorative paving in addition to plant selection. Project statistics are also summarized
below.
Colors and Materials
Trim Roof La Sidin Accent Shin les -
Lot 2 Pure white Presidential shake Weather boards "HedgerovJ' Weatherboards with
autumn blend in "O rea House" natural wood stain
Lots 3&4 Pure white Presidential shake Weather boards "Scenic Rose" Weatherboards with
autumn blend in "Hed ero�' natural wood stain
Lots 5& 6 Pure white Presidential shake Weather boards "Cadet Blue" Weatherboards with
autumn blend in "Em ire" natural wood stain
Lots 7&8 Pure white Presidential shake Weather boards "Crimson Weatherboards with
autumn blend in "Grape Red" natural wood stain
H acinth"
Lots 9 8 Pure white Presidential shake Weather boards "Smokey Weatherboards with
10 autumn blend in"Golden Glass" natural wood stain
Tower'
Lot 11 Pure white Presidential shake Weather boards "Hedgero�N' Weatherboards with
autumn blend in "O rea House" natural wood stain
Condo- Hawaiian Craftsman nla n/a Weatherboards in
miniums Blue Hawaiian Blue Ma le and Slate
CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 11,2006
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX OS-015
PAGE 9
PROJECT SUMMARY
Zonin : Office Mixed Use OMU
Site Area: 78,924 s.f. 1.8-acres
Proposed Subdivision: Existing: 3 lots Proposed: 19 lots ranging in size
from 3,710 to 12,890 s.f.
Buildin Foot rint: 20,419 s.f.
Lot Coverage: 26% (20,419/78,924) Allowed: 70%
Floor Area Ratio: 0.6 Allowed: 1.0
Number of units proposed: (6) 3-bed units Maximum density: 27 units (15 du/ac
(12)2-bed units x 1.8 ac)
(4) 1-bed units Minimum density: 75%, or 20 units
Total units: 22
Townhouse:
• 1 bed unit —� Lower level 652 s.f.
• 2 bed unit --► Middle level + 1,139 s.f.
Upper level 927 s.f. (2,066 s.f. =2 bed unit)
• 3 bed unit —► Total 2,718 s.f.
Garage 737 s.f.
Lower level deck 84 s.f.
Middle level deck 220 s.f.
U er level deck 141 s.f.
Condominium:
• 2 bed unit Lower level 586 s.f.
Upper level 586 s.f.
Total 1,172 s.f.
Garage 450 s.f.
Lower level deck 78 s.f.
Upper level deck 78 s.f.
Roof deck 260 s.f.
Buildina Heiaht: Maximum ailowable: 35' above Maximum proposed: 37' (Minor
avera e rade under buildin Exce tion re uired
Parkinq required: . 1 bed unit 1 space per unit within an enclosed
garage and .5 uncovered spaces per
unit for developments over four units.
2 spaces per unit within an enclosed
garage and 0.5 uncovered space per
• 2+ bed units unit for developments over four units
Parkina Proposed: (6)3-bed units = 15 spaces required
(12)2-bed units = 30 spaces required
(4) 1-bed units = 6 spaces required
Total required: 51 spaces
Total provided: 110 spaces
Net difference: 5 spaces surplus
Densitv: 1.8 acres x 15 du/ac= 27 dwellings allowed
75%of 27 = 20.25 dwellings minimum
22 dwellings proposed
CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 11, 2006
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 10
Open space:
• Private open space: Townhouse:
- Total deck area per unit = 445 s.f.
- 10 units x 445 s.f. = 4,450 s.f.
Condominium:
- Total deck area per unit = 400 s.f.
- 8 units x 400 s.f. = 3,200 s.f.
Total private open space = 7,650 s.f.
• Common open space: Lot A: 3,980 s.f.
Other common areas: 4,020 s.f.
Total common open space = 8,000 s.f.
Total open space(private +
common) = 15,650 s.f.
• Open space required: 350 s.f. per unit x 26 units = 9,100 s.f.
Net difference = 6,550 s.f. surplus
Development Standards — Office Mixed Use (OMU)
The proposed project is subject to the Office Mixed Use (OMU) Development Standards
(Section 16.36.020), General Mixed Use Development Standards (Section 16.48.065),
and Planned Unit Development standards (Section 16.32.050). Note that most of these
standards have been written to allow flexibility to compensate for site constraints and
allow for more creative design and an overall better project than through conventional
zoning. Below are the development standards for the OMU District. The project meets
all OMU standards except for minimum lot size (addressed through the PUD process)
and building height (Minor Exception proposed).
Table 16:36:020(H)-Qifice"Mixed Use(OMU) '� `
,
1. Maximum Density Mixed Use Projects 20 dwelling units/acre
2. Maximum Density Multi-family housing 15 dwelling units/acre
3. Minimum Density 75% of maximum density (measured on
residential portion horizontal mixed use project
area or 50% of ro'ect area, whichever is less .
4. Minimum Lot Size 10,000 sq. ft. (20,000 sq. ft. for residential
ro'ects
5. Minimum Lot Width 100 feet
6. Front Yard Setback 0- 10 feet. Exceptions may include entrance
courtyards and areas for outdoor dining
determined throu h discretiona review.
7. Rear Yard Setback 0— 15 feet.
8. Side Yard Setback 0 - 5 feet.
9. Street Side Yard Setback 0— 15 feet. Exceptions may include areas for
outdoor dining, or architectural/landscape
features determined through discretionary
action.
CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 11,2006
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 11
Table 16:36!020(H)=Office Mizetl Use(OMU) : " ^
.,,: , ,
10. Building Size Limits Maximum height for mixed
residential/commercial use is 35 feet or three
stories, whichever is less.
Maximum buiiding size is 50,000 square feet.
Three-story building components aliowed only
with substantial transitional space and/or lower
story elements adjacent to residential districts or
uses.
11. Site Coverage and Floor Area Ratio Maximum coverage of site by structures is 70%.
Maximum Floor Area Ratio is 1
12. Site Design and Signs See OMU-D-2.20. Please note General Plan
Policies LU5-11. For mixed-use projects, refer
to Section 16.48.065.
Additional si n standards also in Section 16.60.
13. Off-Street Parkin and Loadin Section 16.56.020.
Mixed-Use Proiects (Section 16.48.065)
This section of the Development Code outlines design considerations, mix of uses, site
layout standards, performance standards, and requirements for mixed-use discretionary
projects. Listed below are the specific mixed-use standards followed by how the project
meets or falls short of these standards.
A. Desiqn Considerations. A mixed-used project shall be designed to achieve the
following objectives.
1. Potential noise, odors, glare, pedestrian traffic, and other potentially
significant impacts on residents shall be minimized to allow a compatible mix
of residential and nonresidential uses on the same site. (The town homes are
oriented away from the commercial uses and towards the creek, and are
setback from fhe road with an open space parcel in between that serves as a
buffer. The garages act as a buffer from the commercial uses as well. The
side-loaded garages for the town homes minimize traffic conflicts, and the
detached garages for the condos also will shield residents from the
commercial development. There are no known odor issues associated with
o�ce and health club uses. The amount of glass incorporated into the project
and existing uses is nominal, reducing glare potential. Pedestrian walkways
and sidewalks are included throughout the development).
2. The design of the mixed-use project shall take into consideration potential
impacts on adjacent properties and shall include specific design features to
minimize potential impacts. (The residential units will be screened from the
existing condominiums to fhe east with additional landscaping and enhanced
riparian vegetation).
I -
CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 11, 2006
V1TM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 12
3. The design of a mixed-use project shall ensure that the residential units are of
a residential character, and that privacy between residential units and
between other uses on the site are maximized. (Each unit will have private
space, either within enclosed yards, decks, or both).
4. The design of the structures and site planning shall encourage integration of
the street pedestrian environment with the non-residential uses through the
use of plazas, courtyards, walkways, and street furniture. Design amenities
shall encourage travel by walking, bicycling and public transit. (The project
includes walkways, areas to sit above the Meadow Creek, an open space
picnic area, and there is a proposed p/aza/walkway in front of the condo units
between the garages and entries. There are benches in the p/azas and
courtyards in fronf of both Sheppel buildings, and Kennedy Club Fitness
provides a pool, cafe, and exercise facilities).
5. Site planning and building design shall be compatible with and enhance the
adjacent and surrounding residential neighborhood in terms of scale, building
design, color, exterior materials, roof styles, lighting, landscaping and
signage, to preserve the rural nature and small town character of Arroyo
Grande. (The style proposed for the residential units during the Pre-
Application process was considered overly commercial, and changes were
made to soften the look. The proposed "Contemporary Craftsmen"
architectural style of the units was selected to match the style of the
condominiums across the creek and fit with the existing commercial
buildings).
B. Mix of Uses.
1. A mixed use project may combine residential uses with any other use allowed
in the applicable zoning district by Section 16.36.030, provided that where a
mixed use project is proposed with a use required by Section 16.36.030 to
have Minor Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit approval in the applicable
zoning district, the entire mixed use project shall be subject to that permit
requirement. (All existing and proposed uses within the Oak Park
Professional Plaza are allowed, and the P/anned Unif Development serves as
a Conditional Use Permit. The entire site is being considered through
necessary revisions to the Master Plan regarding parking, access, circulation,
drainage, easements, etc.).
2. For substandard lots, a mixed-use project that provides commercial and/or
office space on the ground floor with.residential units above (vertical mix) is
encouraged over a project that provides commercial structures on the front
portion of the lot with residential uses placed at the rear of the lot (horizontal
mix). (This project completes the residential component of an existing
commercial development. If the site were vacant, there would be more
flexibility for vertica/mixed-use).
I
CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 11,2006
V7TM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX OS-015
PAGE13
C. Site Lavout Standards. Each proposed mixed-use project shall comply with the
property development standards of the applicable zoning district, and the following
requirements:
1. Open Space. A minimum of three hundred fifty (350) feet of any combination
of public or private open space shall be required for each residential unit and
be permanently maintained. (The project exceeds this requirement by 6,550
square feet);
2. Loadin Areas. Commercial loadin areas shall be located as far as ossible
9 9 p
from residential units and shall be screened from view from the residential
portion of the project to the extent feasible. (There is no specific "loading
zone"for the existing commercial development. What loading and unloading
occurs is within the commercial parking area away from the proposed
residential developmenf);
3. Refuse and Recycling Areas. Areas for collection and storage of refuse and
recyclable materials shall be located on site in locations that are convenient
for both the residential and non-residential uses. (The trash enclosure area
for the fitness club and condominiums is centrally located. The town homes
will have private waste wheelers for trash and recycling).
D. Performance Standards.
1. Lighting. Lighting for the commercial uses shall be appropriately shielded to
minimize impacts on residential units. (The existing commercial uses already
incorporate shielded lighting).
2. Noise. All residential units shall be designed to mitigate impacts from non-
residential project noise, in compliance with the City's noise regulations.
(This is handled through the building permit process and will be a condition of
approval).
3. Hours of Operation. A mixed-use project proposing a commercial component
within three hundred (300) feet of a residential unit, that will operate outside of
the hours of from eight am to six pm shall require a minor use permit (unless
the proposal involves a conditional use permit as required by Section
16.36.030(A)(1) to ensure that the commercial use will not interfere with the
residential uses within the project. (PUD required).
E. Requirements for Use Permit Proiects. A mixed-use project that requires minor use
permit or conditional use permit approval in compliance with subsection (B) is subject to
the following requirements:
1. Property Development Standards. The approval of a minor use permit or
Planned Unit Development for a mixed-use project may include:
I
CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 11, 2006
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 14
a. Conditions of approval that require provisions and standards in
addition to, or instead of the property development standards of the
applicable zone district to ensure compatibility of uses and
surroundings; or
b. Variation or exception to standards required by the applicable zoning
district, to the extent allowed by use permit approval in other sections
of these regulations, to make particular use combinations more
feasible.
2. Mandatory Findings for Approval. The approval of a minor use permit or
conditional use permit for a mixed use project shall require that the review
authority first make all of the following findings, in aiidition to the findings
required for the permit approval as applicable.
a. The mixed uses are consistent with the general plan and are
compatible with their surroundings, with neighboring uses, and with
each other;
b. The design protects the public health, safety, and welfare; and
c. The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single-use
development of the site. This finding must enumerate those benefits,
such as proximity of workplaces and housing, automobile trip
reduction, provision of affordable housing, or other benefits consistent
with the purposes of this section.
3. Mandatory Findings for Variation or Exception to Standards. To allow property
development standards that deviate from those of the underlying zone, the
review authority must make one of the following findings:
a. Site-specific property development standards are needed to protect all
proposed uses of the site, in particular residential uses; or
b. Site-specific property development standards are needed to make the
project consistent with the intent of these regulations.
Planned Unit Develoqment
The purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development process is to "facilitate
development of properties designated for residential and commercial uses or planned
development in the General Plan and Development Code. This process is used where
greater flexibility in design is desired to provide a more efficient use of land than would
be possible through strict application of conventional zone or land use district
regulations." (Development Code Section 16.16.060).
Therefore, Planned Unit Development applications provide a basis for deviating from
other Development Code standards if the proposed project is found to meet these
goals, as long as the overall permitted density of the project area is not exceeded. This
requirement is specified within the required findings. In particular, since Planned Unit
Developments frequently cluster units in order to achieve other design goals, deviations
from lot size standards are normally involved. The proposed project (24 density
equivalent units) is within both the maximum (27 units) and minimum (20 units)
CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 11, 2006
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 15
allowable density for the OMU zoning district. The Leisure Gardens condominiums
across the creek from the project have a similar high density (14 du/ac).
Section 16.32.050(E) of the Development Code outlines additional perFormance
standards for Planned Unit Development projects. Listed below are the specific
standards followed by how the project meets or falls short of these standards.
1. When lot sizes less than that permitted by the underlying zoning district are
proposed for a subdivision, a Planned Unit Development permit application
(Section 16.16.180) shall be submitted concurrently with the subdivision
application. (Proposed lot sizes are /ess than 10,000 square feet, and therefore a
PUD application has been submitted a/ong with fhe Tentative Tract Map).
2. Lot size, lot width, and lot depth for each unit shall be determined through the
Planned Unit Development review process. (Proposed lot sizes and lot width are
less than OMU requirements; there are no standards for lot depth).
3. Building setbacks required by the underlying zoning district may be reduced or
waived for lots created through a Planned Unit Develop'ment, provided the lot
coverage requirements of the district are met for the project. (The project meets
lot coverage requirements; proposed is 26% and allowed is 70%). In no case
shall the minimum separation between buildings on adjacent lots be less than ten
(10) feet or less than required by other state or local laws; excepting, however,
for adjacent lots where a common wall is shared in a zero lot line attached
project. (Project meefs requirement).
4. For zero lot line projects where detached dwelling units are to be constructed
upon a lot line, a five-foot maintenance easement shall be provided on the
adjacent lot, along, and parallel to, the zero lot line dwelling. The easement shall
grant access to the owner of the zero lot line dwelling for purposes of maintaining
the zero lot line wall. (The project will be conditioned to provide said easements).
5. A Planned Unit Development must meet the following performance standards in
order to be approved:
a. The project shall be unobtrusive and environmentally compatible with
adjacent property. (The majority of the Oak Park Professional Plaza is
• already developed with commercial buildings. Developing the project
site with residential units is more compatible with the condominiums
located across the creek and with the adjacent motel to the south. A
mutual benefif will occur between the residential units and existing
health club).
b. The project shall provide all infrastructure necessary to support the
project. (Yes).
c. The project shall provide adequate emergency facilities and access.
(Yes).
CITY COUNCIL
� APRIL 11, 2006
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 76
d. Circulation systems shall be designed to promote smooth-flowing and
non-conflicting vehicular and pedestrian traffic. (Sife circulation and
access improve wifh the proposed project).
e. The project shall provide adequate and well-landscaped parking and
ample drainage facilities. (Yes).
f. The project shall provide screening, as required, to separate different
land uses, minimize nuisances to and from adjacent property, and
guarantee convenient access to preserved open space. (Yes).
g. A property owners' association and covenants shall be established to
ensure that common areas are owned and maintained by Planned Unit
Development property owners. (Condition of approval).
h. All signs shall be appropriately integrated with the overall architectural
theme of the development. (Signage not proposed).
i. Pedestrian/bike paths shall provide safe, convenient routes within the
development and link with other systems on the perimeter of the site.
Unobstructed visibility shall be provided from and of these paths at
intersections. (Sidewalks are provided within the development and a
pedestrian pafh will be placed a/ong the creek, which will eventually
connect to a path on the adjacent motel property).
j. Recreational facilities shall comply with City standards, be made
available to residents, and shall be maintained by local property
owners. The project shall be designed to group dwellings around
common open space and/or recreational features. (The project has
placed a 3,980 square foot common open space lot adjacent to James
Way to act as a buffer instead of the midd/e of the project. A
homeowners association will maintain all common open space).
k. Planned Unit Development design must promote an attractive
streetscape and discourage monotonous streets dominated by asphalt,
concrete, garages, and cars. (The garages are side loaded for the
town homes and the condos face west towards the Sheppel 1 building
and away from the internal road. The proposed'landscaping will soften
the proposed open parking areas, the open space parcel, the riparian
corridor, and the James Way ingress and egress).
I. Open space shall be provided in accordance with Table 16.32.050-C
and the following requirements (the project does not meet PUD open
space requirements; this issue is discussed further below):
i. The area of each parcel of common open space designed for
active recreational purposes shall be of such minimum
dimensions as to be functionally usable.
ii. Common open space parcels shall be located convenient to the
dwelling units they are intended to serve. However, because of
noise generation, they shall be sited with sensitivity to
surrounding development.
iii. Developed Common Open Space. The Planning Commission
and/or City Council (if project is appealed or Council is decision-
making body) may require the installation of recreational
facilities, taking into consideration:
CITY COUNCIL
� APRIL 11, 2006
V7TM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE77
(A) The character of the open space land;
(B) The estimated age and the recreation needs of persons
likely to reside in the development;
(C) Proximity, nature and excess capacity of existing
, municipal recreation facilities; and
(D) The cost of the recreational facilities.
iv. Undeveloped Common Open Space. As a general principle,
undeveloped open space should be left in its natural state. A
developer may make certain improvements such as the cutting
, of trails for walking or jogging, or the provisions of picnic areas,
etc. In addition, the Planning Commission and/or City Council (if
project is appealed or Council is decision-making body) may
require a developer to make other improvements, such as
removing dead or diseased trees, thinning trees or other
vegetation to encourage more desirable growth, and grading
and seeding. (The Army Corps. of Engineers has required
implementation of mitigation ouflined in the Wetland Mitigation
Plan —Attachment 8 of the Initial Study).
v. The Planning Commission may permit minor deviations from
open space standards when it can be determined that:
(A) The objectives underlying these standards can be met
without strict adherence to them; and/or
(B) Because of peculiarities in the tract of land or the
facilities proposed, it would be unreasonable to require
strict adherence to these standards.
vi. Any lands dedicated for open space purposes shall contain
appropriate covenants and deed restrictions approved by the
city attorney ensuring that:
(A) The open space�area will not be further subdivided in
the future;
(B) The use of the open space will continue in perpetuity for
the purpose specified;
(C) Appropriate provisions will be made for the
maintenance of the open space; and
(D) Common undeveloped open space shall not be turned
into a commercial enterprise admitting the general
public at a fee.
(This will 6e a condition of approval).
vii. The type of ownership of land dedicated for common open
space purposes shall be selected by the developer, subject to
approval of the Planning Commission. Type of ownership may
include, but is not necessarily limited to, the following:
(A) The city, subject to acceptance by the City Council;
(B) Other public jurisdictions or agencies, subject to their
acceptance;
(C) Quasi-public organizations, subject to their acceptance;
CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 11, 2006
V1TM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX OS-015
PAGE 18
(D) Homeowner, condominium or cooperative associations
or organizations; or
(E) Shared, undivided interest by all property owners in the
subdivision.
(Proposed is a homeowners association, wifh the 25'creek setback
area to be irrevocably offered to the City as a dedication. The City
Council has the authority to either accept o� reject the offer of
dedication).
viii.lf the open space is owned and maintained by a homeowner or
condominium association, the developer shall file a declaration
of covenants and restrictions that will govern the association, to
be submitted with the Planned Unit Development application.
The provisions shall include, but are not necessarily limited to,
the following:
� (A) The homeowners association must be established
before the homes are sold;
(B) Membership must be mandatory for each homebuyer
and any successive buyer;
(C) The open space restrictions must be permanent, not
just for a period of years;
(D) The association must be responsible for liability
insurance, local taxes, and the maintenance of
recreational and other facilities;
(E) Homeowners must pay their pro,rata share of the cost,
and the assessment levied by the association can
become a lien on the property if allowed in the master
deed establishing the homeowners association; and
(F) The association must be able to adjust the assessment
to meet changed needs.
(This will be required as a condition of approval).
PUD standards require a mix of private and common open space in larger percentages
(see table below) than the general development standards for mixed-use projects (350
square feet). However, the PUD standards do allow deviations from open space
standards when it can be determined that:
1. The objectives underlying the standards can be met without strict
adherence to them; and/or
2. Because of peculiarities in the tract of land or the facilities proposed, it
would be unreasonable to require strict adherence to these standards.
The primary objective of PUDs is to allow the creation of a more,desirable environment
through the application of flexible and diversified land development techniques than
would be possible through strict application of conventional zoning standards. In this
case, the project introduces a residential use to the site that complements the Kennedy
Club Fitness center and is compatible with the other surrounding uses (motel and
condos). The design allows for private open space in the form of decks, patios, and
I
CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 11, 2006
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 19
small yards with a landscaped common open space area for picnics and sound buffer to
the adjacent street. The site is constrained by Meadow Creek, existing development,
access driveway, and other easements. Because the density requirements cannot be
waived through the PUD process, the project is further constrained by the OMU district
requirement to be within both the maximum (15 du/ac) and minimum (75°/a of maximum)
density. This level of density is difficult to achieve if PUD open space standards are
applied. The City Council will need to find that the PUD underlying objectives are met,
and/or the aforementioned site constraints are enough to warrant deviation from open
space requirements. Due to site constraints and underlying OMU zoning, then,
deviations from open space, lot size and lot width requirements are necessary.
Tabie 16.32.050-C: Open Space Requirements for Planned Unit Developments
� General Gj�qeCal��3'� ��,. ReGeneral General �
Requirement Requirettlent�;���-µ� quirement Requirement
___ .. _ .
-- ----
'Private open 100-224 �25-�199��� ° 500-999 ° � +1000
��Spacea (average � '- �'���`r : i
s.f. per lot) ' (�V$ for prr���eX i� � j
.
� .�as.9u,are��tj�s<«t, I
_...... _ _.._ . _._ ._.__ ,
__ .._ __.,... _._ __.._
Common Open 35% ",3Q°/n�OC 23y67�7�5 f � 10% 0%
Spacea (minimum �, �(ezclud�ng��`f � ��
•% of project area) � ; c{hve+,vays,�and�,>. ��
� p2rking}
x �s
� t«�sF
i {proposed�is 8 QQQ=
( s i, or110"%a) �
t:a� � i ." ;k � ¢� ,
�_._._�_ . .
� E,liu.._:�.�a��' �t...� _....__ .. .._..�. .._._......__., ._ .
Usable 40% 'l�Ab%;O(�31�5'7dS�f��s", 45% ' 45%
open Ix , `�""'��. ��� ,
,Space a {proposetl�ts,��85p�
(minimum � sf ctt'2Q°to) �
% of � ' �
�t� k� � (
project `„ °�; x , "
,
.. ..... ��°� �s
are�.�.�. . , S`,�u„v�.4f,�9s'�����,:�,� �
a . ._.._— �----. . ,.. .... __._.
_w. _,....._..�, .� _ ,...___
a See Section 16.04.070 for`Open Space"definitions.
General Plan.
The project is consistent with the following General Plan objectives and policies:
LU5: Community commercial, office, residential and other compatible land uses shall
be located in Mixed-Use (MU) areas and corridors, both north and south of the freeway,
in proximity to major arterial streets.
LU5-1: Provide for a diversity of retail and service commercial, offices,
residential and other compatible uses that support multiple neighborhoods and the
greater community, and reduce the need for external trips to adjacent jurisdictions, by
designating Mixed Use areas along and near major arterial streets and at convenient,
strategic locations in the community. (The project site is within walking distance to
shopping and restaurants within the K-Mart shopping center and across Oak Park Blvd.
CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 11, 2006
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX OS-015
PAGE 20
� in the Pismo Beach commercial center. Kennedy Club Fitness provides recreational
amenities).
LU5-3: Ensure that all projects developed in the MU areas include
appropriate site planning and urban design amenities to encourage travel by walking,
bicycling and public transit. (Given its proximity to shopping and public transit, the
project encourages walking and/or cycling).
LU5-11: Promote a mixture of residential and commercial uses along Mixed
Use corridors including substantial landscaping and streetscape improvements. (The
project adds residential development to existing and compatible o�ce and recreational
uses. Proposed landscaping within the project area along James Way, within the open
space parcel and along the creek will enhance the overall look of the existing
commercial area).
Issues
Parking and access. One of the goals of the applicant in pursuing a Planned Unit
Development on this site was to not only provide parking that meets the needs of the
proposed project, but to address existing parking issues of the existing commercial
development. The existing parking and access concerns for the overall Plaza as
mentioned above have been addressed with the proposed development of Sheppel 3
and 4. Based on previous driveway and circulation analysis and safety concerns, the
final access design shows one ingress and egress driveway from James Way towards
the eastern property boundary, and an emergency access from James Way connecting
to the Kennedy Club Fitness Center parking area. This is the current access design,
which resolves the previous circulation concerns of providing two (2) driveways to the
project site. Improvements proposed to the existing access include widening and
providing a landscaped median to clearly separate the entrance and exit lanes. Another
proposed circulation improvement within the development is to reconfigure the central
parking island for safer turning movements.
A Parking and Traffic Study was prepared by Orosz Engineering Group, Inc. (OEG)
dated January 17, 2006 (see Attachment F of the Initial Study). According to the
parking study conducted for the existing uses on the site, a minimum of 162 parking
spaces are currently required with existing uses and 159 are provided (deficit of 3
spaces). With the requisite 51 spaces for the proposed project, the entire site would
need 213 spaces (162 + 51). As proposed, the project would provide 56 spaces in the
residential area in addition to the 162 existing spaces allocated for commercial uses.
The net five (5) surplus spaces (218 provided — 213 required) are intended to handle
the parking demand for the overall site, as shared with Sheppel 1 & 2 and Kennedy
Club Fitness as well as Casa Grande/Bunnell.
Density. The density for the project is based on the above density equivalency table.
Although the project is considered "mixed-use" in the context of the entire Master Plan
area, the project itself only includes residential development. Hence, an allowed density
of fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre (du/ac) is applied. Given the site area, a total of
twenty-seven (27) units are allowed, and the minimum density is 75% of the maximum,
CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 11,2006
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX OS-015
PAGE 21
or twenty (20) units. Based on the density equivalency calculation, twenty-four (24)
units are proposed (22 physical units), which is within both the maximum and minimum
density requirements.
It should be noted that the City's certified Housing Element (Table 15 - Preliminary
Housing Opportunity Sites Inventory) identified the project site as providing twenty-two
(22) residential units. Certification by the State Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) was based on the City's ability to meet its regional housing needs,
which the City demonstrated in the Preliminary Housing Opportunity Sites Inventory
table.
Open space. Various definitions of open space are included in the Development Code.
These are listed below:
Open Space. "Open space" means land used for recreation, resource protection,
amenity, and/or buffers and dedicated, designed or reserved for public or private
use. Open space may include, but is not limited to, lawns, decorative planting,
walkways, active and passive recreation areas, playgrounds, fountains,
swimming pools, wooded areas, and watercourses. Open space shall not be
deemed to include driveways, parking lots, or other surfaces designed or
intended for vehicular travel or areas covered by buildings or accessory
structures (except recreational structures).
Open Space, Common. "Common open space" means open space within a
project owned, designed and set aside for use by all occupants of the project or
by occupants of a designated portion of the project. Common open space is not
dedicated to the public and is owned and maintained by a private organization
made up of the open space users. Common open space includes common
recreation facilities, open landscaped areas, greenbelts, but excluding pavement
or driveway areas, or parkway landscaping within public right-of-way.
Open Space. Private. "Private open space" means usable open space which
adjoins and is directly accessible to a residential or nonresidential unit; may be
reserved for the exclusive use of the residents, owners or lessees of the unit and
their visitors, customers, or employees; and which is maintained by a private
entity. Private open space includes private patios or balconies and front, rear or
, side yards on a lot designed for single-family detached or attached housing.
Open Space, Public. "Public open space" means open space that is accessible
and used by the general public for active or passive recreational purposes or
resource protection.
Open Sqace. Usable. "Usable open space" means outdoor or unenclosed area
on the ground, or on a roof, balcony, deck, porch or terrace, designed and
accessible for outdoor living, recreation, pedestrian access, or landscaping, but
excluding parking facilities, driveways, utility or service areas.
I -
CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 11, 2006
V1TM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX OS-015
PAGE 22
The general development mixed-use standards allow for any combination of public or
private open space to meet the minimum 350 square foot open space requirement per
unit, and the Planned Unit Development standards are specific about the amount and
type of open space required in a project. As indicated in the project summary table, the
total amount of "open space" provided (as defined above) is 15,650 square feet, or an
average of 711 square feet per unit. Depending on whether the general development
mixed use standards or PUD standards are used, the project is either over the open
space requirement by a total of 6,550 square feet or under the requirement by a total of
15,677 square feet (see common and usable open space table above). As mentioned
above, the PUD standards do allow deviations from open space standards.
Building height. Building height is measured as the vertical distance between the
average of highest and lowest points of natural grade under a building to the highest
point of the structure. The proposed height of the condominiums is two (2) feet above
the thirty-five foot (35') maximum height in the OMU district, requiring a Minor
Exception. The purpose of the two-foot (2') height increase is to provide for the
enclosed stair and walkway to the upper roof deck. This is a creative method of
providing additional private open space in a mixed-use environment. The alternative
would be to remove the stairs, which would reduce the height, but the project would lose
2,080 square feet of private open space.
Setbacks. The project meets all applicable setbacks for the OMU district.
Affordable housing. The project is subject to the inclusionary policies of the Housing
Element, which requires 15% of the units to be restricted to families earning a
moderate-income level as defined in the County's Affordable Housing Standards. With
twenty-two (22) units proposed, the project is required to restrict 3.3 units to the
moderate-income level. The applicant is proposing to restrict four (4) units to the
moderate-income level.
Top of Stream Bank Determination. On July 10, 2001 the City adopted Ordinance No.
527 to expand the City's creek dedication requirement for discretionary projects to
include a twenty-five foot (25') setback area from the top of stream bank for Meadow
Creek and its tributaries for the purpose of preservation and protection of riparian and
biological habitats. Previously, this requirement was for projects abutting Arroyo
Grande Creek and its tributaries only. The Ordinance offers no specific criteria for
determining "top of stream bank". Therefore, this determination must be performed
based on site-specific conditions.
The applicant provided a top of bank study conducted by Triad/Holmes Associates that
identifies the top of bank at the seventy-one foot (71') elevation line (see Attachment A
of the Initial Study). Based on a field survey, the bank constraining Meadow Creek to its
channel is on the easterly side (across from the project site) because of its lower
elevation. Hence, Meadow Creek would start to overflow on the easterly side of the
creek at the 71' elevation mark. Given this determination, the applicant requested that
the twenty-five foot (25') creek setback commence at this 71' elevation, allowing the
proposed structures to be well outside the setback line.
�
CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 11,2006
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
PAGE 23
During the Pre-Application discussion, the consensus of the City Council was that the
' _ 71' elevation serves as the top of bank for this particular project. Therefore, the
applicant proceeded with design, and staff has processed the formal applications,
based on this direction and determination.
This site is unique due to the significant amount of previous grading that occurred many
years ago in anticipation of future development. As a result, the natural topographical
top of bank was extensively altered and the area above the proposed top of bank is
largely a manufactured extension of the natural bank. Staff recommends that this
hydraulic method be used to measure the top of bank in this case.
The City is currently preparing a comprehensive study to determine how creek setback
requirements will be interpreted and regulated in the future: However, when the study
was initiated and existing moratorium was established, it was determined that it would
not apply to projects already in the process with completed and accepted applications.
Therefore, because this project has been in process for over a year, it is not subject to
the City's Interim Urgency Ordinance.
Creek setback and Pedesfrian trail. Section 16.64.060(R) of the Development Code
states the following regarding creek dedications: "For any subdivision or parcel map or
development project requiring discretionary review abutting the Arroyo Grande Creek,
including its tributaries (Tally Ho Creek, Spring Creek, Newsom Springs Creek and Los
Berros Creek), or Meadow Creek; including its tributaries, the subdivider or developer
shall dedicate to the city all the area that includes the stream bed and twenty-five (25)
feet back of the stream bank, areas designated as environmentally sensitive based on a
biology report prepared by a qualified- biologist or other appropriate areas mutually
acceptable for the purposes of"open space," flood control or "green belt." Exceptions to
the requirements established in this subsection can be made only upon a finding that its
application would violate federal or state law."
The purpose of the setback requirement is to protect biological resources, help prevent
erosion and sedimentation (flood control), provide open space amenities, and where
feasible, to provide for passive recreational opportunities such as pedestrian trails.
Because the City already owns the portion of creek abutting the project site, the project
will be conditioned to dedicate to the City the 25'- creek setback area. As previously
mentioned, the City required an easement on the property within the 25' setback to
allow for a pedestrian traiL
The creek setback study being prepared is intended to clarify the intent, goals and
future application of the City's creek setback policies. One of the original goals of the
setback requirement was to establish pedestrian trails, which this project will provide.
Environmental Review. The Initial Study (Attachment 7) addresses environmental
issues in the following categories: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources,
Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Noise, Public Services/Utilities, Recreation,
Transportation/Circulation, Wastewater and Hydrology and Water Quality. Please refer
to this document for detailed discussion.
CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 11, 2006
VTTM 04-006; PUD 04-005; MEX 05-015
, PAGE 24
Architectural Review Committee (ARC)
The ARC considered the project on December 5, 2005 (see Attachment 8 for meeting
notes). The Committee discussed the possibility of live-work units (possible, but not
required), whether a homeowners association would maintain common areas (yes),
Creek setback, pedestrian trail along the creek, building colors and materials, parking
and landscaping (suggested reducing the number of spaces in-lieu of more
, landscaping), porous paving, location of common lot area and visual impact of the third
floor stairway. The ARC recommended the following changes:
1. Tone down the two purple colors. (Applicant agreed).
2. Change the native California Sycamore to London Plane Sycamore, subject
to Army Corps. of Engineers approval. (Applicant agreed pending Corps.
approval).
3. Provide more landscaping in the three islands where the cantilevered
' building projects out. (Applicant agreed, but only if parking is unaffected).
4. Plant two Liquidambars in the diamonds on the north side of the condos.
(Applicant agreed).
5. Change the Flax plants to Pittosporum and change the planter area to project
as far as possible into the parking space on the west side of the condos on
either side of garage doors. (Applicant agreed).
6. Develop design alternatives for the third story stairway housing, so it is not as
massive and return to ARC for review prior to building permit application.
(Applicant did not agree, as it would require a complete redesign of the
project. The stair enclosure provides access to the roof decks and privacy
from the o�ce buildings. Privacy is important in mixed-use projects, and
necessary if the owners are to utilize the roof decks. Removing the
enclosure requires removing fhe stairs, and therefore removing the roof
decks).
7. Return with landscape plans before building permit is issued. (Applicant
agreed).
8. Provide porous pavers in the driveways between garages of the town homes.
(Project is condifioned to use decorative paving in the private driveways.
Porous pavement is precluded in the access driveway and common parking
areas due to site soils conditions).
9. Match the color on the ends of the condo building towers to the main body of
the buildings, so the cantilever effect is de-emphasized. (Applicant has
already made this change, as shown in the booklets the Commissioners
i received under separate cover).
� �
� pRROyO
o �
' ; INCORPOR�TE z i ATTACHMENT 2
" � m MEMORANDUM
� JULY t0, t911 y
/
c4��FORN�P .
TO: STEVE ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER �
SUBJECT: TRACT 2713 — SHEPPEL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (JAMES
WAY) ,
DATE: MAY 1, 2006
The Public Works Department has reviewed the access to the residential development
for Sheppel project, Tract 2713 and the report from Orosz Engineering Group (OEG)
dated April 26, 2006 regarding access to the project and turning movements to and
from the site. It is our understanding that the following criteria was utilized in comparing
the driveway alternatives:
➢ Minimize conflicting vehicie movements,
➢ Minimize vehicle delay/optimize level of service,
➢ Reduce potential pedestrian/vehicle conflicts,
Three access options. have been developed for the project. An easterly ingress/egress
' driveway that aligns with the driveway across James Way, a westerly ingress/egress
driveway and an easterly egress and a.westerly ingress.
The major factor in reviewing and evaluating each access option was the effects each
I would have on site circulation within the site and in the public right-of-way. The main
objective of the Public Works Department is to minimize the impacts to right-of-way
from new developers.
One issue that needs to be included in the OEG report is the through movement vehicie
ivolumes on James Way. Volumes taken from the City's 2004 Traffic Model Update are
as follows:
� Eastbound James Way PM Peak Hour Trips:
' 0 417 total trips leaving the intersection of Oak Park and James Way passing
the driveways,
0 109 trips utilizing the Sheppel/Kennedy Compiex and the church driveway,
! 0 308 through trips eastbound on James Way,
: Westbound James Way PM Peak Hour Trips:
0 276 trips approaching the intersection of Oak Park and James Way,
' 0 18 trips utilizing the Sheppei/Kennedy Complex and the church driveway,
Io 258 through trips westbound on James Way,
Adding the through movements to the respective movements described within the OEG
report may increase delay and stacking lengths to make left hand turns.
i
Tract 2713—Sheppel Residential
Public Works Recommended Oriveway Configuration
Page 2 of 3
5/1/2006
Easterly ingress and egress:
� Provides the least conflicting vehicle movements based on data from the OEG
report,
i � Maximizes level of service due to minimized vehicle conflicts and additionai
stacking length for vehicles on James Way between the driveways and Oak Park
Boulevard,
� � Current configuration operates without incident.
! It is recommended this option also include the installation of on-site speed humps
adjacent to Lot Nos. 2 and 4 to reduce vehicle speed and to increase reaction time for
Ipedestrian movements. This is the preferred option since it provides the least
conflicting movements and the least impact to the existing level of service.
Westerly ingress and egress:
➢ Increases conflicting vehicle movements,
➢ Provides less stacking distance between the driveways and Oak Park Boulevard,
Y Provides fewer options if future problems arise with the access configuration due
to the limited space in the right-of-way.
r Vehicle stacking for the proposed project conflicts with the stacking for the
Church driveway.
➢ Through traffic creates a potential for delay.
This option is less desirable since it increases conflicting vehicle movements and
potential lowers level of service.
Westerly ingress and easterly egress:
➢ Increased conflicting vehicle movements,
� Provides less stacking distance between the driveways and Oak Park Boulevard,
➢ Provides fewer options to correct any future problems due to the limited space in
the right-of-way.
This option is the least desirable since it increases the conflicting vehicle movements
more than the movements and lowers the level of service other options and lowers the
level of service.
Another access configuration that may be considered is to utilize the existing easterly
ingress and egress in conjunction with the westeriy access as an ingress for eastbound
vehicles only. It was our understanding that this option was to be tested as requested
by the Planning Commission. This option does not increase the conflicting movements
but allows access for a majority of the vehicles entering the site.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
S.^,PUhlic Works\Engineering\Development Projects\Tract MapsSract 2713-Sheppel PAixed Use�Memo-Tract 2713-Sheppel Residential-Driveway
Recommendation.doc
i „
- Tract 2713—Sheppel Residential
� - Public Works Recommended Driveway Configuration
Page 3 of 3
5/1/2006
C: Community Development Director
�
Assistant City Engineer
Associate Engineer—Development
Project File
f
S�Public Works'�Engineering�Development Projects'�Tract Maps\Tract 2713-Sheppel FAixed Use�Prtemo-Tmc12773-Sheppel P.esidential-Dnveway
Recommentlatiorttloc
�
,
ATTACHMENT3
�
� s �?
OroszEngineering Grou{alnc
I Memorandum
� To: Kelly Heffernon
Don Spagnolo
City of Arroyo Grande
From: Stephen Orosz, PE, PTOE
Orosz Engineering Group, Inc
Date: April 26, 2006 OEG Reference 050305
Subject: James Way Driveway Monitoring —Sheppel/Kennedy/New Hope Church
This memorandum documents the field data collected at your request in association with the
driveway options for the Sheppel Residential Project. At our meeting last week, the need to
document the vehicular turning movements at the existing Kennedy/Sheppel driveway and
those of the New Hope Church/School driveway was identified.
I The City was interested in finding out the amount of tuming tra�c at these two driveways in
i presenting information to the City Council for their consideration. The goal of the traffic wunt
� data collection was to determine the number of conFlicting movements that may occur with the
three access options for the Sheppel Site. The three options include the existing conditions
(one Sheppel driveway opposite the existing Church driveway), a single upper driveway on the
Sheppel site (offset about 50 feet from the church driveway) and two Sheppel site driveways
(an entrance only at the upper driveway and exit only at the existing lower driveway).
The traffic count data was to be collected during peak church site hours to determine the
maximum potential vehicle conFlicts. The New Hope church site has a church, pre-school and
private elementary school (K-6 grades). The New Hope church has one service on Sunday
morning at 10:00 AM. The pre-school/school before and after school care has hours of 7:00 AM
' through 5:30 PM for child care and 8:25 AM — 3 PM for the schools.
The data collection occurred on a Sunday morning (9:30 AM — 12:30 PM) and on a Tuesday
' (6:30 - 9:00 AM and 2:30 — 6:00 PM). During these nine hours, all turning movements were
( documented by 15-minute totals. The data is summarized in Tables 1, 2 and 3 for the Sunday,
' Tuesday AM and Tuesday PM periods.
' Once the data was collected, it was tabulated by Sunday peak hour for the start of church and
peak hour for the end of church. For the weekday, the data was tabulated by peak hour of
each driveway (school or Sheppel Site). During the AM peak hour, the peak driveway hour was
the same for both driveways (8:00 —9:00 AM). During the PM peak hour, the school peak
occurred between 2:45 and 3:45 PM, while the Sheppel site driveway peaked between 4:45 and
5:45 PM.
1627 Calzada Avenue . Santa Ynez . CA . 93460 . 805-688-7814 . oeg@quixnet.net
Page 2
; During the data collection, the number of opposing left turn vehicles totaled less than one per
minute for each of the survey time periods. During the nine hours, only one pair of opposing
left turning vehicles met each other. For the remainder of the time, left turn vehicles did not
have to wait any more than about 5-10 seconds to complete their turn. Most vehicles did not
have to wait at all to complete their turn.
The driveway turning movements for each of the three driveway options is depided on Exhibiks
1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 for the various data collection time frames. Based on these observations, any
of the three driveway alignment options provide reasonable operation for site access and access
to the school/church.
Should you have any questions, feel free to contact.me.
End of Memorandum
1627 Calzada Avenue . Santa Y�ez . CA . 93460 . 805-688-7814 . oeg@quixnet.net
�
i
From: "Steve Orosz" <oeg@quixnet.net>
To: "Kelly Heffernon" <KHeffernon@arroyogrande.org>
Date: 4/262006 3:0624 PM
Subject: Fw: Sheppel
-----Original Message-----
From: "Steve Orosz" <oeg@quixnet.net>
To: "Kelly Heffernon" <KHeffernon@arroyogrande.org>
Cc: "russ sheppel"<rsheppel@sbcglobai.net>; "Kim Hatch"<khatch@pults.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: Sheppel
> Kelly-
>
> Here are the data sheets and exhibit maps.
>
>The three field data sheets are Sunday, Tuesday AM and Tuesday PM field
>data.
>
>The rest of the exhibits are for the three options
>
> Sunday 1, 2, Tuesday 3, 4 & 5 are for the upper driveway only
>
>The iwo driveway option is for the in on the upper driveway and the out
>for
>the lower driveway.
>
>The aligned driveway is the existing condition.
>
>
> Exhibits 6&7 are the project added traffic to the various options.
>
> I will be sending a brief letter summary of what data was collected a�d my
> opinion on the driveway alignments.
>
> In essence, any of the options will work ok. The number of potential
> conflicts is small and during the 9 hours of counts one once did two
> opposing left turn vehicles end up face to face making their turns.
>
>
> Steve Orosz
>
} > -----Original Message-----
> From: "Kelly Heffernon" <KHeffernon@arroyogrande.org>
�! >To: <oeg@quixnet.net>
� >Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 12:07 PM
> Subject: Sheppel
>
,' >
» Hi Steve -
»Just checking in on status of counts and turning movement graphics...
� »
»Thanks,
, » Kelty H.
�
NEW HOPE
CHURCH
� o
J JAMES WAY -� �-
m -
---------
Y �---------------
NEW HOPE
CHURCH
0
� JAMES WAY
m
�----------- ------- -- -- -- ---
Y �-----------
NEW HOPE
CHURCH
�
� JAMES WAY
m �
� ----- --------
Y �------- -------- - - - - - - - - -
- - - -
� � `�==°a�====_______�_____=—==—sJ—.��---
NEW HOPE
CHURCH
�
J JAMES WAY
m
�--------- --------- --- -- --
Y �------------------
NEW HOPE
CHURCH
�
J JAMES WAY
m
-- -----
Y �---------------- °— - — - - - — _ - --
� �--`�r=°_______________—`��--_____°==--1J'—`�—��_--___---==--1��t
Q 2�
� ------------------------
Y � �
Q O N
O
SHEPPEL
PROJECT
TUESDAY
� PROJECT ADDED
� 8: 00 - 9: 00 AM
, � WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR
Orosz Engineering Group, Inc.
50303 50305ex01.dwg N.T.S. �
NEW HOPE
CHURCH
�
J JAMES WAY
m
�---------- ----------------------- ------
Y �------------------ -------_---=----_=-----
NEW HOPE
CHURCH
0
� JAMES WAY
m _ �
-----------------
Y -----------
� Table 2
Tuesday AM Data Collection
Sheppel-Kennedy Site
Time
Period Church Driveway Sheppel Driveway 15 min
Begin Left In Right Out Left Out ' Right In Right In Leit Out Right Out Left In Totals
6:30 0 0 0 0 8 6 3 3 20
6:45 2 0 0 0 12 10 5 3 32
7:00 1 6 0 3 7 15 8 3 43
7:15 2 4 1 1 6 12 3 0 29
7:30 5 3 0 4 7 8 4 1 32
7:45 6 8 0 6 20 4 3 9 56
8:00 4 6 1 1 18 4 4 5 43
8:15 6 15 5 2 16 12 0 1 57
I 8:30 14 39 5 3 19 6 0 1 87
�� 8:45 4 12 4 3 33 14 3 8 81
�
Table 3
Tuesday PM Data Collection
Sheppel-Kennedy Site
Time
Period Church Driveway Sheppel Driveway 15 min
Begin Left In Right Out Left Out Right In Right In Left Out Right Out Left In Totals
2:30 3 0 0 1 10 10 0 2 26
2:45 8 10 0 6 S 9 5 0 46
3:00 7 31 10 0 11 13 6 2 80
3:15 3 9 3 2 7 7 1 3 35
330 3 7 3 1 12 8 1 1 36
3:45 1 5 3 1 13 5 5 5 38
4:00 3 5 2 3 21 11 3 4 52
4:15 6 5 2 1 13 � 8 4 5 44
4:30 3 4 1 2 13 8 3 5 39
� 4:45 2 6 4 1 32 10 9 7 71
5:00 1 4 0 2 26 14 7 3 57
5:7 5 3 3 2 2 29 15 9 2 65
I
NEW HOPE
CHURCH
J JAMES WAY
� �
m
� ----�,-o-------
----___ --=- - - - -
---------- -
� � `�_______°_____===--r�--==____—°--�'r-`s -�4=--���---===--f` Lr
Q 49�
-- ---
d
-----------
---------- -
Y � (�
Q � �
N �
O
SHEPPEL
PROJECT
SUNDAY
� PEAK HOUR
� 9: 30 - 10: 30 AM
� START OF CHURCH
Orosz Enqineering Group, Inc.
50303 50305ex01.dwg N.T.S. �
NEW HOPE
CHURCH
J JAMES WAY -� �-
m
� �,o
Y �--------------- =----_—_---=----=---_--
� �`�_________________—`��--______�_�'3 iz� � �' 3
4
--
NEW HOPE
CHURCH �
� JAMES WAY
� �
m
F �,o
Y �----------------
NEW HOPE
CHURCH
? JAMES WAY
J �
m
� ---------�o ---- -
Y �- ---------
NEW HOPE
CHURCH
0
> JAMES WAY -� �-
J
m
F--------------------- -------------------------------
Y �------------------- °_----___----- ��_=- -
� L��_����sa���m���___��__--�a�a==-s-�--
NEW HOPE
CHURCH
0
? JAMES WAY
J �
m
F ----------
Y �-------------
Table 1
I Sunday Data Collection
Sheppel-Kennedy Site
Time
Period Church Driveway Sheppel Driveway 75 min
Beqin Left In Riqht Out Left Out Right In Right In Left Out Right Out Left In 'Totals
9:30 1 0 0 0 22 10 7 2 42
9:45 4 0 0 2 11 9 3 1 30
10:00 6 2 0 7 9 6 3 0 33
10:15 1 0 0 1 7 3 2 1 15
10:30 0 0 1 0 8 10 1 2 22
10:45 0 0 0 0 12 15 9 4 40
11:00 0 0 0 0 6 12 4 1 23
11:15 0 1 1 0 8 12 4 0 26
, 11:30 0 3 0 0 8 4 2 0 17
11:45 0 2 0 0 6 11 2 0 21
Noon 0 34 B 0 3 11 3 0 59
12:15 1 7 2 0 4 9 0 0 23
I
(
NEW HOPE
CHURCH
Q' N
> JAMES WAY -� �-
J
m
I---- -------------------------------------------
�-------
NEW HOPE
CHURCH
Q' N
� JAM ES WAY -� �-
m �
� �9
Y �-------------- ------_---=_ ---- - - --_--
� � `�___=____________�______-_�-`�---=--28� �15 4�
---------=
a -------------- -----------------86�-------------
�
Q � r-
0
�
SHEPPEL �
PROJECT '
TUESDAY
� PEAK HOUR
� 8: 00 - 9: 00 AM
� PEAK BOTH DRIVEWAYS
Orosz Engineering Group, Inc.
50303 50305ex01.dwg N.T.S. J
NEW HOPE
CHURCH
Q N �
J JAMES WAY � �-
m
�------------------------ ----------------
Y �-----------------
NEW HOPE
CHURCH
� � �
> JAMES WAY -� �-
J
m
F------------------------ -----------------�g----------
Y �------------ - - - - - -
� � `-�________________�°______—__�-`�-�6=---?��---==--s L�
a ------- ----------------------38�----------------------
�
Q -� r
O M �
SHEPPEL
PROJECT
TUESDAY
� PEAK HOUR - SCHOOL
� 2: 45 - 3: 45 PM
� WEEKDAY PEAK
Orosz Engineering Group, Inc.
50303 50305ex01.dwg N.T.S. 4
NEW HOPE
CHURCH
� � �
> JAMES WAY -� �-
J
m
F---- ----------------- --------------------L9----------
Y �--------------- -----_-_--___----__-_--_---
� � `�_________________-��--______- - 4-`4 - - Z�� � � s
6
---- ----------------------
Q 38�
� -------------------------------------------------------
Q � �
O M �
SHEPPEL
PROJECT
TUESDAY
� PEAK HOUR - SCHOOL
� 2: 45 - 3: 45 PM
� WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR
Orosz Engineering Group, Inc.
50303 50305ex01.dwg N.T.S. 4
NEW HOPE
CHURCH
� � �
> JAMES WAY -� �-
J
m
I----------------------------------------- ----------
Ls –=-----
Y �--------------
NEW HOPE
CHURCH
0 � o
� JAMES WAY � �-
m
�----------- --------------------- -�5--
Y �---------------
NEW HOPE
CHURCH
� � o
J JAMES WAY -� �-
m
�------------------- ---------------�5--------
Y — - - - - - - - _
� � `�________________°��--______—=Q-`�--
' oEpRROY�c 7��a�
i �
� � WICOAVOR�TED 9Z
u °
T
� '""� ��' i°" } MEMORANDUM
c9��FORN�P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGERV�
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF BALLOT MEASURE FOR A LOCAL SALES TAX
OVERRIDE
DATE: MAY 9, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council: 1) direct staff to prepare a final resolution and
ordinance for City Council consideration at the June 27, 2006 meeting to place a '/Z cent
, local sales tax override measure and four advisory measures on the November 2006
ballot; and 2) comment on the draft language of the resolution, ordinance and ballot
arguments.
FUNDING:
The proposed sales tax measure would generate an estimated $1.4 million in additional
annual revenue. The total cost of placing the measures on the ballot is estimated to be
approximately $8,000, which would need to be appropriated from the General Fund
unappropriated fund balance.
DISCUSSION:
Backqround
At the January 25, 2005 meeting, staff presented draft budget goals to the City Council
for consideration for FY 2005-06, along with an analysis of future funding needs
identified as part of the City's long-range financial planning process. As a result, the
City Council directed staff to identify alternatives for generating additional future
revenue to address these needs.
At the May 18, 2005 Budget Study Session, staff presented to the City Council the
results of the update of the City's Long-Range Financial Plan. The findings indicated
that the City can continue to support ongoing operations in the long-term. However, a
signi�cant funding gap was identified when future long-term additional needs were
programmed into the plan. Funding alternatives were also presented. The preferred � ..
option agreed upon by the City Council was a local option sales tax measure. If a '/z
cent sales tax increase were approved, it would generate an estimated additional $1.4
million annually. As a result, staff was directed to proceed with efforts aimed at
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF LOCAL SALES TAX OVERRIDE BALLOT MEASURE
MAY 9, 2006
PAGE 2
proposing a sales tax measure and present findings to the City Council for
consideration.
At the December 13, 2005 meeting, alternatives regarding a potential sales tax measure
were reviewed, along with recommendations for a coordinated public education effort.
The City Council directed staff to proceed with the public education program and obtain
public feedback.
Advantacaes of Sales Tax Measure
The local option sales tax was identified as the preferred option due to a number of
advantages over other alternatives identified. They include the following:
. It would generate the revenue sufficient to meet the City's long-term needs;
• Since other jurisdictions in the County are considering similar measures, the timing
provides an opportunity to coordinate a countywide effort and proposed tax policy;
. The existing sales tax rate is currently lower than that paid by most residents in
California;
• It would minimize the burden on local property owners and residents because the
sales tax is paid by all those who visit the community and utilize the City's services
and infrastructure.
Lonq-Term Needs Identified
The needs identified in the Long-Range Financial Plan generally fall into the following
four categories:
. Transportation Improvements
The first and probably most significant are transportation improvements that the
City had expected to primarily pay for through State and Federal funding - most
notably the Brisco Road — Halcyon Road Interchange project. However, due to the
State financial crisis, that funding has been delayed by as much as 10 to 15 years.
Therefore, the City will need to devise a strategy to improve the schedule. Part of
the strategy will likely involve the need to fund a major portion of the project locally.
Staff has estimated needing approximately $400,000 annually to finance the
matching funds needed to move that project up to a 5 to 7 year schedule.
• Infrastructure
This includes a variety of needed improvements related to the City's infrastructure.
However, the primary areas identified include street improvements and the
drainage system.
S:�Administration\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports\Sales Tax Measure
5.9.06.doc
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF LOCAL SALES TAX OVERRIDE BALLOT MEASURE
MAY 9, 2006
PAGE 3
The City has gradually been increasing funding for the annual pavement
management program each year, but approximately $75,000 in additional revenue
is needed annually to fund the program properly. In addition, it is recommended
that $200,000 should be budgeted annually for major street improvements that
formerly the City had been successful in obtaining State and Federal funds for.
The City adopted a Drainage Master Plan in December 1999, but has never been
able to identify funding to implement the plan. This includes maintenance of an
aging drainage system, improvements needed to meet new Federal regulations to
prevent stormwater pollution, and measures necessary to prevent erosion and
sedimentation in the creek system. It is estimated that annual costs to implement ,
the plan range from $200,000 to $250,000. '
• Public Safety
Police and Fire needs identified include facilities, staffing and equipment. The
primary need in the Police Department is expansion of the Police Station. Fire
Department needs include replacement of the existing ladder truck and limited
additional staffing.
Since the Police Station facility was acquired by the City and began to be used for i
this purpose in 1973, the Police Department has grown from 12 full-time and 6
part-time staff to 36 full-time and 20 part-time. As a result, space is limited and i
new needs have developed for storage of records and equipment, meeting places I
for community programs, and expansion of the City's Emergency Operations
Center. As a result, plans have been in existence for several years to add a '
second floor and at one time the City was supposed to receive grant funding from
the Federal Emergency Management Agency. However, the funding was never
appropriated by Congress.
The Fire Department ladder truck is over 20 years old. As a result, reliability of the
equipment has diminished and it does not meet many current safety standards.
New equipment costs are estimated to be approximately $750,000, which would
result in an annual cost of about $100,000 if the equipment is acquired through a
lease purchase agreement. In addition, studies have identified the need for some
limited staffing additions in the Fire Department as the City transitions from a fully
volunteer department to a partially paid full-time department. I
• City Facilities and ADA Improvements
The last category includes City facilities and ADA improvements, the most notable
project being the City Hall Complex. The City has a plan in place to renovate the
City Hall building and construct an adjacent new building to house Community
Development, Public Works Engineering, Building and Life Safety and a new City
Council Chambers. The existing funding plan for the project will require about '
S:Wdministration\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports\Sales Tax Measure ',
5.9.06.doc
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF LOCAL SALES TAX OVERRIDE BALLOT MEASURE
MAY 9, 2006
PAGE 4
$210,000 annually beginning in four years in order to finance debt for a portion of
the project costs.
Initial estimates of funding needs are as follows:
. Transportation Improvements $400,000
- Brisco — Halcyon /Highway 101 Interchange
- E. Grand/W. Branch Street Intersection
. Infrastructure
- Street Improvements $275,000
- Drainage System and Creek Protection $250,000
• Public Safety
- Police Station Expansion $150,000
- Fire Equipment $100,000
- Fire Staffing $100,000
• City Facilities and ADA Improvements
- Upgrade of City Hall Complex $200,000
- ADA Improvements 50 000
Total $1,525,000
The Long-Range Financial Plan assumed $1.4 million of this amount could be
generated by the sales tax increase. The remainder would be generated from the City's
economic development efforts, including an increase in Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
from the hotel/motel attraction strategy and an increase in sales tax from the City's
efforts to attract new retail businesses in the Redevelopment Area.
An updated copy of the Long-range Financial Plan is provided in Attachment 1.
Scenario I consists of projections to simply maintain existing operations with current
revenues, which is balanced over the 10-year period. Scenario IIA presents projections
for expenditures to meet these additional needs identified, which results in a significant
funding gap. Scenario IIB forecasts the addition of revenue from the sales tax measure
and economic development efforts, which again is balanced in the long-term future.
Public Education Effort
The following steps have been implemented over the last few months to educate the
community regarding these funding needs and obtain feedback:
• Articles were placed in two issues of the City's newsletter - the Stagecoach
Express.
• Information was outlined in the City Manager's monthly Time Press Recorder
article.
• Press releases were issued outlining the City's efforts.
S:�,4dministration\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports\Sales Tax Measure
5.9.06.doc
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF LOCAL SALES TAX OVERRIDE BALLOT MEASURE
MAY 9, 2006
PAGE 5
. The Mayor and City Manager made presentations to 12 business, community and
neighborhood organizations.
• A survey insert was included in the City Newsletter (See Attachment 2)
• An informational insert was included in utility bills to all households (See
Attachment 3).
. A Cable Television City Government Channel program was created and cablecast
daily for over a month.
• A Community Oversight Committee consisting of community, business, City union,
and City board and commission representatives was formed and has held three
meetings.
• The City Manager has conducted 30 individual meetings with community leaders to
brief them on the funding needs and the potential sales tax measure.
• A Town Hall meeting was held on April 27, 2006, which was advertised by sending
post cards or utility billing flyers to all households.
Citv Newsletter Fundinq Needs Survev
Respondents to the funding needs survey were asked to rank in priority the funding
needs identified from 1 to 8, with 1 being the highest and 8 the lowest. The following
results are the average scores after receiving over 250 responses:
• Repairing and maintaining the City's Streets 2.88
. Transportation Projects 3.16
• Upgrading the City's aging storm drain system 3.80
• Improving storm water and erosion control measures to 4.15
protect the City's creeks
• Replacement of Fire Department equipment 4.6
• Upgrading the City's Police Station to meet existing space needs 5.41
• Hiring additional Fire personnel 5.63
• Upgrading the City Hall Complex to meet ADA requirements 6.89
Survev of Other Cities Who Have Adopted Local Sales Tax Measures
Attachment 4 presents the results of a survey of other cities that have adopted local
sales tax measures. Cities were asked what is the amount of their sales tax override,
whether it was a special or general tax, whether there was a sunset clause, and
whether any businesses have complained that it has impacted their sales after it went
into effect.
S:Wdministration\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports\Sales Tax Measure
5.9.06.doc
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF LOCAL SALES TAX OVERRIDE BALLOT MEASURE
MAY 9, 2006
PAGE 6
Potential Impact on Local Sales
The actual amount of proposed increase in the actual sales tax is minimal when it is
compared to the actual cost of a product sold. However, there have still been concerns
expressed by local businesses regarding the impact on sales if the measure were to
pass in Arroyo Grande and not in neighboring jurisdictions. This situation already exists
in Santa Maria, who now charges a sales tax of 7.75% compared to the 7.25% in Arroyo
Grande and has not deterred customer sales in that community. More importantly, the
survey of other cities with measures in place indicated that no city has received
complaints from businesses after the measure was enacted that it negatively impacted
their overall sales.
Benchmark Studv
Requests have been received to prepare a benchmark comparison study to determine
the level of existing efficiency. While the sales tax is largely under consideration to fund
capital projects rather than operations, it is important to demonstrate that existing
resources are being utilized effectively before concluding that additional resources are
necessary to meet future needs.
A copy of the benchmark study is presented in Attachment 5. The study compared
staffing and perFormance levels for administration, police, fire, development services,
and streets and parks maintenance with other full service jurisdictions of similar size,
population, age, and growth rate.
In comparison to the other jurisdictions, the study indicated that the City has very low
overhead and generally low level of staffing given the output that is being provided.
Specific findings include the following:
• General administrative staff per capita is lower than any of the jurisdictions
included in the study. This indicates that the City maintains a low administrative
overhead.
• Per capita staffing for Community Development and Building & Life Safety
operations are about average, but the number of land use permits processed per
staff position is the second highest of all the jurisdictions included in the study.
Therefore, a high workload is maintained given existing staffing.
. Full-time paid Fire staffing is both the lowest per capita and per number of service �,
calls when compared to the jurisdictions studied. Average response times are the '
second highest, but are within the national standard and are being decreased by
ongoing efforts.
• The City has maintained the third lowest Part I (major) crimes, while at the same
time has the second lowest per capita Police staffing of the cities studied.
• Street maintenance staff per capita is the third lowest and average pavement
condition is the third highest.
. Per capita staffing and acres per staff for parks maintenance is about average
when compared to the otherjurisdictions.
S:Wdministration\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports\Sales Tax Measure
5.9.06.doc
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF LOCAL SALES TAX OVERRIDE BALLOT MEASURE
MAY 9, 2006
PAGE 7
Alternatives Involved in Draftinq a Sales Tax Measure
If the City Council decides to move forward with a sales tax measure, it will require
decisions on the following key issues in order to draft the measure:
' • Amount of Increase
Staff recommends that .5% be proposed as the local sales tax override amount.
As stated above, that amount is necessary in order to produce revenue sufficient
to meet the needs identified. The survey of other cities who have adopted local
sales tax measures shows that .5% is the amount adopted by the majority of
cities. It also appears to be the amount that will be proposed by other cities in
the County.
' • Sunset Clause
� The majority of jurisdictions in San Luis Obispo County considering a sales tax
� measure are proposing inclusion of a sunset clause in the measure with the
, expectation that renewal by the voters would be required at the end of five years.
Most professional campaign consultants advise that a sunset clause is important
in order to obtain community support. Interestingly, the majority of cities in the
survey did not incorporate a sunset clause in their measure.
Such a clause would present difficulties for the City of Arroyo Grande since the
majority of future needs identified includes major capital projects. As a result, a
sunset clause would limit the City's ability to issue debt for capital projects based
upon the new revenue if there is no assurance the revenue would continue
beyond the first five-year period.
If the City desired to establish a sunset clause, two options are available. The
' first is an option utilized by the City of West Sacramento, which established a
sunset clause for '/4 cent of the sales tax increase. The other '/< cent was
approved in perpetuity. The Citys financing of projects could probably be timed
in a way to accomplish the goals established under this type of structure.
Secondly, a lengthy sunset provision timed consistent with financing timelines
could be established, such as 25 - 30 years.
Staff has received feedback from some individuals who indicated that they would
, not support a measure unless it included some type of sunset clause. The
general consensus of the Community Oversight Committee was that a sunset
clause was not desirable given the City's financing issues and subsequent
elections would be costly and time consuming. It was agreed that there are other
preferred options for creating accountability, which should be a goal in the
measure.
One unique variation that three cities in the survey utilized is to have the
measure either require City Council approval to continue it after a specified �
S:\Administration\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports\Sales Tax Measure
5.9.06.doc
�� CITY COUNCIL
I CONSIDERATION OF LOCAL SALES TAX OVERRIDE BALLOT MEASURE
MAY 9, 2006
� PAGE 8
period of time or have it reviewed by the City Council and provide the opportunity
for them to discontinue it after a specified period of time. Another feature
included in some of the measures is to require that an annual report be provided
' to each household outlining how funds are expended.
Therefore, staff recommends that the measure not include a sunset clause. It is
recommended that a review by the City Council be required every five years to
determine if the sales tax is still necessary, that the City Council have the
authority to suspend or eliminate the local sales tax override if it is determined to
no longer be necessary due to other revenue generated, and to require that an
annual report be provided to every household outlining how the funds have been
expended the prior year and proposed to be expended during the upcoming
fiscal ear.
Y
• Special Tax or General Tax
A special tax legally restricts the revenue for a specific purpose and requires a
2/3 vote for adoption. A general tax places the funds in the City's General Fund
and requires a majority vote for approval. As can be seen by the survey, the
number of general tax measures is very close to the number of special tax
, measures passed.
Staff is recommending an option that has been used by three of the cities
contacted, which is to accompany a general tax measure with an advisory
measure or measures specifying the intended uses of the revenue. Advisory
measures are not legally binding on the City, but do provide the community an
opportunity to establish what their preference for use of the revenue is. It is
proposed that an advisory measure for each of the funding needs identified be
, placed on the ballot in addition to the sales tax measure. The advisory measures
would ask if the voter would like to use a portion of the sales tax proceeds to fund
each of the needs if the sales tax measure is approved. The advisory measures
provide the City Council needed community input and a sense of community
priority.
Generally, community feedback to this suggested option has been favorable.
However, a number of individuals have indicated that legally restricting the
funding for the proposed purposes through a special tax is important to them.
Draft Ordinance, Resolution and Ballot Arquments
Initial drafts of the ordinance, resolution and ballot arguments have been prepared and
are presented in Attachments 6 and 7. Staff is interested in obtaining comments at this
time prior to drafting the final documents for consideration, if directed to proceed. If
directed to proceed, staff recommends that the resolution and ordinance be presented
to the City Council for consideration at the June 27, 2006 meeting.
S:�Administration\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports\Sales Tax Measure
5.9.06.doc
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF LOCAL SALES TAX OVERRIDE BALLOT MEASURE
MAY 9, 2006
PAGE 9
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Direct staff to present the resolution and ordinance as recommended for
consideration at the June 27, 2006 meeting;
- Direct staff to incorporate changes to provisions regarding whether to include a
sunset clause, whether to establish the sales tax override as a general or special
tax, whether to require an annual financial report, or whether to require City
Council review every five years and present at the June 27, 2006 meeting for ,
consideration; �,
- Direct staff to make language changes to the ballot arguments and present at the
June 27, 2006 meeting for consideration; II
- Direct staff not to proceed '
- Provide direction to staff.
Attachments:
1. Updated Long Range Financial Plan ,
2. City Newsletter survey insert I
3. Utility bill insert
4. Survey of cities with approved local sales tax measures I
5. Benchmark study '
6. Draft Resolution and Ordinance I,
7. Draft ballot arguments I
I�i
il
�i
S:Wdministration\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports\Sales Tax Measure I�,
5.9.06.doc �,
Attachment I
General Fund Ten Year Financial Plan Scenario 1 - Existing Service Levels
._.._ _�_,��� _
AcNal AcNal Aclual Acmal ProjeCted Projected - :�.i,� , ...y,.,�'�� TEN�YEAR'lUNANCL1l��PLAN, '".+.,..;� '����... "�'+;
:�::. ��..,.
InThousanda 2001A2 2002-03 200I-04 2004-OS 2005-06 2006-0] 200]-OB �� 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014d5 y2015-16 2016-17 �
REVENUES&OTHER SOURCES
Taxes
SalesTan-General $ 2,990 $ 3,II0 $ 3,221 $ 2,608 $ 2,770 $ 2,840 $ 2,925 $ 3,013 $ 3,103 $ 3,196 $ 3,292 $ 3,391 $ 3,493 $ 3,598 $ 3,706 $ 3,817
SalesTax-Proposition172 79 92 95 92 103 108 I1I IIS I18 122 125 129 133 137 141 145
Propeny7az 2,263 2,364 2,723 4,519 5,001 5,572 6,129 6,742 7,349 8,010 8,691 9,430 IQ231 II,101 12,045 13,069
Transient Occupancy Tu 348 370 400 39i 391 461 475 489 504 519 534 550 567 584 602 620
Business Licenses 55 61 68 76 77 81 84 88 91 95 99 103 108 112 117 12I
FranchiseFees 443 409 515 527 531 557 585 614 645 677 711 746 784 823 864 907
RealPmperty'LansferTax 122 130 129 151 I65 I85 193 201 209 218 227 236 246 256 266 277
Aid From Other Governmenis
Motor Vehicle In Lieu back-fill - - - 280 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Motor Vehicle In Lieu 901 940 755 107 114 l62 172 183 195 208 221 235 250 266 283 301
Other Subven[ions&Grants 220 189 190 454 291 221 227 234 241 248 229 236 242 249 257 264
Servitt Charges
Recreation Fees 525 516 510 530 532 559 582 606 631 657 685 713 742 773 805 838
Building Permits&Licenses 437 327 263 316 340 357 372 387 403 420 437 455 474 494 514 535
Communiry Development Charges 148 151 I50 144 168 177 182 187 193 198 204 210 216 222 229 236
Other Service Charges 156 157 254 361 289 290 298 307 316 325 335 344 354 365 375 386
Other Revenua
Fines&Forfeitures 127 147 138 128 137 144 148 152 157 16I 166 171 176 I81 186 192
Use of Money&Praperty 175 180 107 l93 246 25'7 264 272 280 288 296 305 314 323 332 342
OtherRevenues 347 655 213 467 369 239 249 259 270 281 293 305 3I7 330 344 358
Transfers
Personnel&O erztin Transfers 855 880 898 956 1,141 1,217 1,284 1,355 1,429 1,508 1,591 1,678 1,770 1,868 1,970 2,079
TotalRevenues 10,191 IQ678 10.629 12,300 12,665 13,427 14,282 15,205 16,134 17,131 18,136 19,238 20,418 21,682 23,036 24,488
EXPENDITURES&OTHER USES
Salary&Benefits 6,957 7,612 8,628 9,311 10,155 10,767 11,359 11,984 12,643 I3,338 14,072 14,846 15,663 16,524 1"7,433 18,392
Operating Programs I,811 1,894 1,984 2,084 I,946 1,950 2,067 2,189 2,3t4 2,448 2,590 2,740 2,899 3,067 3,245 3,433
DebtService 37 207 25 25 119 219 219 219 219 219 50 50 50 50 50 50
Capital OuNay&CIP Program 493 465 520 717 613 491 550 575 600 625 650 675 700 725 750 775
Totsl Ex nditures 9,298 1Q178 11,157 12,137 13,033 13,427 14,195 14,965 15,776 I6,630 17,362 18,311 19,312 20,36b 21,478 22,650
Reveoua,Overt Rd'w' $x end _ a----:893 -.SQO�.'=' --($28.,�. ct„ t43 . :(�368 !,�_._���: ....;87�:-,��'a"4240'S�".'S.. 35&. ....�::.SOL.,�,.n...,.77A • ,`.a9?7t*a�E,L�1,106�!w� 1,316 .,-�1,558x��1$3$t
FundBalanceGoal-20%Ex ditures 2,607 2,685 2,839 2,993 3,155 3,326 3,472 3,662 3,862 4,073 4,296 4,530
FUND'BAI:ANCEx��:°•,�n. ,b..�5�;::� � „t..n°4:,:�rS°:.,,,,.�vt.<.znC+��r�<e�::':�.'%,s,. .x;�:',�ir�F .'..'t, . s + �-.�.,, st k �,: v K ;x+� ° ,:t ?t
f :.°:S.w�r°RV,''�"... ...+.w.. .°rst'.^��' -,4x�s�".�.'#*.,.hY` � +4f".;*Alic.-s�.� ?.k�;�
STARTOFYEAR 1,606 2,499 2,999 2,471 2,634 2,266 2,266 2,353 2,593 2,951 3,452 4,226 5,153 6,260 7,575 9,133
ENDOFYEAR 2,499 2,999 2,471 2,634 2,266 2,266 2,353 2,593 2,951 3,452 4,226 5,153 6,260 7,575 9,133 ]0,971
IfUNDBAI:ANCEGOA[,-Etcess/Ga i�,,.y'�,'_ , . ,7;:&t��4va'i:."> , .:e341 ...., :=:319) . r� 48�:_ ., A043},.';, (��3 ,r�1?6_x.,"�753 � �.:.1,491's ','� 2397:v� �3.SQ2= �'„W,$3S. .-:6.49[��:
Base Plan: �
■ Assumes no change in service Ievels
■ Repayment of Manda[ed Cost Recovery beginning in FY 06-07 @$22,000 per year .;ExGes8l(Gap)towaM,
.-Fu�d Balance Goal
375
Scenario I - Existing Service Levels
x _ _ �_..,.�,
HismricalTrends , <` �.- , . ,.. '.-:' , , „„ 'TENiYEARF[NANCIACPI.AN'�,PROJF,Cf;ONS�. ' _� ...[ .. ,yi,.:;,�� :._.
Last Las[ Last Lazt T
PROJECTIONFACTORS Year SYrs IOYrs ISYrs 2005-06 2006-0] 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-IS 2015-Ib 2016-I1
DEMOGRAPHICS Annualiud Percent Changes
Popula[ion -0.l% 0.9% 1.2% I.1% 12% 1.2% 1.2% 11% 12% 12% 12% 1.2% 11% 11% 11% 1.2%
UCSB Etortomic Oullook 1001 0.3% 0.3% /.8% na na rtrs nn na nn na na na
HausingUnits -2.3% 0.9% I.0% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% I.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3%
InFlation 1.9% 2.4% 2.4% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 29% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9%
UCSB Economic Outlook 1001 3.3% 3.0% 3.!% 3.8;'0 3.0% na nn nrs rca nn na na na
CompoundPop&InFlation 1.9% 3.4% 3.6% 4.0% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% q.i% 4.1% q.t%
UCSB Economic Outlook 200! 3.3% 3.3% 3.4% 4J% nn na nrs na nrs nrt na nn na
I(EY REVENOES Annua/ized Perem�Changes
SalesTax(SimsSales) 3.6% 10.8% 9.6% 6.3% 2.5% 2.5% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
UCSB Erortomic Out(ook 2004 4.3`/u SJ% 6.9% 6.9% 6.9% na rta na na nn nn nn na
PropertyTax(AssessedValue) 14.3% 10.0% 5.5% 5.6% II.O% I1.0% 10.0% 10.0% 9.0% 9.0% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5%
UCSB Etonomic Outlook 1004:Median Housing Paluu Chortge 13.8% 8.9% 8./% 8.0% 8.0% na rtn na 3.8% 3.8% na na na
TOT S.l% 17.4% 10.2% 9.7% 3.0% 5.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
Business License/!ax 2003-04 Projeciion Plus Compourtd Papu/ntion and lnflatian
FranchiseFees 26.1% 27.1% 14.8% 11.1% 3.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%
MomrVehiclelnLieu -19.6% 2.1% 3.6% 3.5% 3.0% 5.0% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4%
Development Review Fees 2003-04 Projection P(us Compourtd Papulalion and/nf/ation
Recrea[ion Fees Z003-04 Projection Plus Compouttd Populntion and/nflation
EXPENDITURES
AnnualludPercmt CM1anges Adju9edAnnud/y by/n/lation and PoDularion
Salary&Benefi�s 13.4% 8.9% 8]% 9.0% 9.0% 6.0% 5.5% 5.5°/u 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5%
OpeatingPrograms 3.7% 2.3% 6.4% 4.8% -7.0% 0.0% 6.0% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8%
Debt Service Eased on Lense Purchase Contract for Compuler System Upgrades
_Detailed Factors Used�:in �
k "" Making the Ten Year�-.
r-;Projectlons
376
General Fund Ten Year Financial Plan Scenario II A -Enhanced Service Levels
AcnW Acmal Acmal Attual Projected Projencd � �_.; :. ., . :-:�'('&NYF.kR�.�FINANCL�LYLr1N-' � '. .M�� >
InlLOUSandf 2001-02 2002-03 200J-04 2004-05 3005-06 2006-09 200]-O8 2008-09 �2009-IO 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-IJ 2014-IS 2015-I6...�.�� 201fi-0]...
REVENUES&OTNERSOURCES
Taxes I
SalesTax-Grneral $ 2,990 S J,110 $ 3,221 $ 2,608 $ 2,770 $ 2,840 $ 2,925 $ 3,013 $ 3,I03 $ 3,I96 8 3,292 $ 7,391 $ 3,49J 8 3,598 $ 3,706 $ J,817
SalesTax-Proposi[ion 172 79 92 95 92 103 108 111 115 118 122 RS 129 13J U] 14I Iq5
PropertyTax 2,2fi3 2,364 2,723 4,519 5,001 5,572 6,129 6,742 7,349 5,010 8,691 9,430 10,231 I1,107 12,045 13,069
TransirntOccupancyTaz 348 J70 400 J91 391 461 475 489 504 519 534 550 567 584 602 620 �
BusinessLicrnses 55 61 68 76 77 81 84 88 91 95 99 103 108 112 117 121
FravcLiseFtts 443 409 515 527 531 557 585 61A 645 6�7 711 766 784 823 864 907
RealPmpertyTransferTax 122 130 129 I51 165 I85 193 201 209 218 227 236 246 256 266 2]7
Aid From O�M1er Govemmenfs
Moror Vehicle lu Lieu back-fill - - - 280 - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _
Momr VeLicle In Lieu 901 940 755 107 I I4 I62 172 183 195 208 221 235 250 26b 283 30t
O�M1erSubventions&Grants 220 I89 I90 454 291 221 227 23A 24l 248 229 236 242 249 257 26C
Service CM1arges
RecrtationFees 525 516 510 530 532 559 582 606 631 657 685 773 742 773 805 838
BuildingPertnits&Licrnses 437 327 263 J16 340 357 372 387 403 420 437 455 474 494 514 535
CommwiryDevelopmenlCM1arges 148 ISI I50 l44 l68 1]7 182 187 19] 198 204 210 216 222 229 2J6
OthttSm�ireChar6es 156 I57 254 361 269 290 298 307 376 J25 335 344 354 765 375 386
Other Revenues
Fices&ForRimrcs 127 147 138 128 137 144 148 152 157 Ibl I66 171 176 I81 I86 192
Use ofMOney&Property 175 ISO 107 193 246 2S7 264 272 280 288 29fi 305 314 323 332 342
OtherReveuues 347 655 213 467 769 239 249 259 270 281 293 305 3I7 330 344 358
7nns(en
Perwmel& ratin Transkrs 855 880 898 956 1,161 1,217 1,285 1,356 1,431 1,511 1,595 1,683 1,776 1,875 I,979 2,089
To[alRevenues 10,191 IO,fi78 Iqb29 12,300 12,665 13,A2] 14,283 15,206 Ifi,136 17,i36 18,140 19,243 20,424 21,689 23,044 24,497
EXPENDITURES&OTNER USES
Salary&Brnefits 6,957 ],612 8,628 9,311 10,155 10,]67 11,359 11,984 12,64J 13,338 14,072 14,846 15,663 16,524 17,433 18,�92
I OpenfingPrograms I,81I 1,894 i,984 2,084 1,946 1,950 2,067 2,187 2,310 2,448 2,590 2,740 2,899 3,067 3,245 7,433
DebtService 37 207 25 25 119 219 28 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Capi�al Outlay&CIP Prognm 497 465 520 717 813 491 550 575 600 625 650 675 700 725 750 775
StrutMainlrnanceandPmjects 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275
Transportation Projec6 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400
City Hall Complex Improvemenfs 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 2t0 210 210
ADAlmprovemrnfs 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Poiice Suriov 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 700
Dreivagelmprovements 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
Vehicle Hepla<ement I50 I50 I50 l50 l50 I50 I5o I50 I50 I50
Fire E ui mrnt 100 100 !00 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
TatalEZ endi[ures 9,298 IQ178 11,157 12,137 13,033 13,427 15,539 16,331 V,142 17,996 18,897 19,846 2Q847 21,901 23,0t3 24,185
Revenua:Over Uoder Fs' d...r.. " (l . 893.. -Pac.,..500 ,..i,t,i 328 : .'.ib3 '�.,� . 368 .... .z- �:;. d� SE' :-1'1?4�:-109 .''r': '.Sb2 . .
,u : T52=. "603 '- :5� 433 'c-312 .. .:a2? ` `5332;
FundBalanceGoal-20%E endimtts 2,607 2,685 3,708 1,266 3,428 3,599 3,779 3,969 4,I69 �4,380 4,603 4,837
FOND$X1!ANCE: .S< u.' ..k.�, �s
. n wi . -_ ,r � w . ., ,�, .. .,
S7'ARTOFYEAR 1.606 2.499 2999 2.471 �� 2.634�. .2,266 2,266 1,010 115 1,120 1.982:; ' 2.739 3.342 .• . 3.765 3977 � 3 45.
ENDOFYEAR 2,499 2,999 2,471 2,fi34 2,266 2,266 I,OIO 115 1,120 (1,982 2,739 3$42 3,765 3,977 3,945 3,673
4UlYD�:BAWNCEfiAA4=�, ._ Gi ..` .. . :. ;: : ','. ' 1 341 ...]�;.�.4I4 "� 2099°-'= 8t : �.�.':4,548 . �. Si554 . ' G,St$!�. .7,311 ' -':F ,9 . .
. .'.:.;.. '3'.. 8:33� � :c S 5?V$ '�:;'. SA7b�
Base Plan:
■ Transfers increasing by 5.55%each year
■ Flat sales Gz eowth Q 3% .EXteasl(Gap)fowaM '
■ Increase in property tar in FY OS-06 of 11%;increase of 10°o in FY 06-07 8.8%NereaRer '.FU11t1 B]Id1,1Ce Goal
■ Salaries&brnefi6 intrease at 9°o for FY OS-06 avd 5.5%Ihereafler
■ Repaymrnt of Mandated Cost Recovery begimivg in FY 06-07 Q$22,000 per year
377
Scenario 11 A -Enhanced Service Levels
111smriul Tnnds °.�.,i�„�. '? ,:�°ii;.".-�.$r5*��t�'+�iSh°�,�',.,ti-�+'+�TEN�?TAR'FRlANCIAL PWIi PNOJEGTIONS�3�v� _ »c�'i F........�.'�ru�,r_,.,�.a'�',i
lan Lazt Laz� I.azt
PROJECTIONFACTORS Yw 5Yrs 10Yrs ISYrs 3005-06 2006-0] 2009-08 2008�09 2009-10 3010-II 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 ]OIC-IS 2015-16 2016-❑
DEMOCRAPHICS Annueliud Percmt Changa
Populatlon -0.1% 09°G I.2% I.1% 12% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2"0 1.2% 12% 1.2% 12% 12% 11% 12% 12%
UCSB Ecanomic Outlook 1001 0.34�n 0.?% 1.8°o nn nn nrs nn nn nn nn nn
HousivgUni6 -23Y 0.9% 1.0% 13°0 1.3% 13% 13% 13% 13°0 13% 13% 13% 13°0 1.7% 13% 13%
Intlatlov 1.9Y 24%� 2.4% 2.9% 2.9% 29% 2.9% 2.9"/0 2.9% ?.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9%
UCSBEconamicOurlook100/ 3.3:6 3.�0 3.I% 2.8°0 3.0'� nn nn na nn nu nn na nn
CompoundPOp&InOarion 1.9% 3.6% 3.6% 4.0% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4J% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1°0
UCSBECOnomicOudoak2001 33% 3.3°6 3A% 47% nn nn nn nn nn nn na nn nn
KEY REVENUES MnualiudPacmtChanges
SalesTax(SimsSalcs) 7.6% 10.8'i 9.6% 63% 2.5°a 2.5% 3.0% 3.0°0 3.OYO J.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
UCSBEconomicOutlaok2004 43% SJ% 69°0 6.9% 6.9% na nrs na nn nn nn na na
PropertyTax(ASSessedValue) 143% 10.0% 5.5% 5.6% ILO% 11.0% 10.0% 10.0% 9.0% 9.0% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5% fl.5% S.5% 8.5°0
� UCSB Economic Oudoak 1004:A4edinn Housing Vnlues Chnnge 13.8% 8.9,°6 8 1% 8.0'� 8.0",� nrz nn nrz 3.8'� 3.8°'o nn na na
TOT 8.1% 1].4% 102% 9]% 3.0°0 5.0% 7.0% 3.0% 3.0% J.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 7.0%
Busiuess LicrnsKl'an 2003-04 Projection Plus CompounAPOpWntiom m�dlnJlmion
FreuchiseFees 26.1% 27.1% 14.8% 11.1% 3.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%
MororVehiclelnLieu -19.6% 2.1% 3.8% 3.5% 3.0% 5.0% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.6%
Development Review Fees 1003-04 Projection Plus Compound Popu(ntion and InJ/rsrion
Recreation Fees ' 1003-04 Projecnon Plus Comyaund Populntion and Inflution
EXPENDITURES
AnnvaGUd Percenf CAanga Adju#edAnnuaGy by lnJlm(sn an0 Popu/afiaro
Salary&BrnefiLt 13.4% 8.9"� 89°0 9.0% 9.0% 6.0°o SS% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5%
OperanngProgrems 3.7Yo 2J% 6.4% 4.6% 4.0% 0.0% 6.0% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8%
Debt Service Based on Lense Purchase Comm�ct far Compurer Sysrem Upgrades
,:Detailed Factor8lUSed in �.
Making the Ten Year
��: Projettions
378
General Fund Ten Year Financial Plan Scenario II B -Enhanced Service Levels
AcNal AcWal Acmal EsOmated PrtieCled Pro'wld � �� �� T�m.•,�... . ... � °,.'.
J 1 � . . <<_�& .'._ .,: SER,YEAA.FiNANGIAL PLAN ... ».m .. . ,I . .:���:.
3nTM1ousands 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-OJ 200Z08 �� 2008-09 ?009�10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-U 2013-14 2014-IS 2015-16 2016-1'/
REVENU ES&OTHER SOURCES
Taxes
SalesTax-Geneal $ 2,990 $ 3,110 $ 3,221 $ 2,608 $ 2,770 8 2,840 $ 4,388 $ 4,SI9 $ 4,655 $ 4,794 $ 4,938 $ 5,086 S 5,239 $ 5,396 $ 5,558 $ 5,725
SalesTax-Proposition 172 79 92 95 92 103 108 119 123 126 130 134 138 142 106 I51 155
PropenyTax 2,263 2,364 2,723 4,519 5,007 5,572 6,129 6,742 7,349 S,O70 8,691 9,430 10,23i 11,101 12,045 13,069
TnnsientOcwpancyTax 348 370 400 391 391 461 575 592 710 731 75J 776 799 823 848 873
BusineSSLicenses 55 61 68 76 77 BI 84 88 91 95 99 103 108 112 117 121
FancM1iseFees 443 409 SIS 527 531 557 585 614 645 677 711 746 784 823 864 907
RealPropetlyT�ansferTax li 130 129 I51 165 IBS l93 20l 209 218 227 236 246 256 266 277
Ald From Ofher Covernments
Momr Vehicle In Lieu bacA-fill - - - 280 - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _
Mobr Vehicle In Lieu 901 940 755 107 I 14 162 172 183 195 208 221 235 250 266 283 301
Other Subvmtions&Gnnts 220 189 190 454 291 221 227 234 241 248 229 236 242 249 257 264
Service Charges
Recreation Fees 525 516 510 530 532 559 582 606 631 657 685 713 742 773 805 838
Building Pe�mits&Licenses 437 327 263 316 340 357 372 387 403 420 437 455 474 494 514 535
CommwityDevelopmenlCharge5 148 751 I50 144 168 177 182 187 193 198 204 210 276 222 229 236
O�M1erServiceClurges I56 157 254 36l 289 290 298 307 376 325 335 344 354 365 375 386
O[her Revenuea
Fines&FodeiNres 127 147 138 I28 137 144 I48 152 157 161 166 171 176 187 786 192
UseofMoney&Property 175 180 107 193 246 257 264 272 280 288 296 305 314 323 332 342
Othtt Revenues 347 655 213 467 369 239 249 259 270 281 293 305 317 370 344 358
Tnnsfen
Personnel& e Tnnsfers 855 880 898 956 1,141 1,217 1,285 1,356 1,431 1,511 1,595 1,683 1,776 1,875 1,979 2,089
Total Revenues 10,191 10,678 10,629 12,300 12,665 13,427 15,853 16,824 17,902 18,953 20,013 21,172 22,411 23,736 25,153 26.669
EXPENDITURES&OTHER USES
Salary&Benefits b,957 7,612 8,628 9,3t1 IQI55 10,767 11,359 11,984 12,643 13,338 14,072 14,846 15,663 16,524 17,433 18,392
Open[ingProg2ms 1,611 1,894 1,964 2,084 1,946 1,950 2,067 2,187 2,314 2,448 2,590 2,740 2,899 3,067 3,245 3,433
DebtService 37 207 25 25 119 219 28 W 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Capilal Outlay&CIP Program 493 465 520 7I7 813 491 550 575 fi00 625 650 675 700 725 750 775
Stree�MaintenanceaodProjecfs 275 275 DS 275 275 275 275 ?75 275 275
TansportatlonPmjecfs 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 q00 400 400
CityHallComplenlmprovements 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 2(0 210
ADA Improv<meots 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Police SUaon 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 I00 100
Dreinagelmprovements 2S0 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
Vehicle Replacemenl 150 I50 150 I50 150 l50 I50 150 150 I50
Fire ui ment 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ]00 100 100
To[s1Ez ndiNres 9,298 10,178 11,157 12,137 13,033 73,427 15,539 16,331 17,142 17,996 18,897 19,846 2Q847 27,901 23,013 24,185
Revenoes Over� oder &t d:,� . s ¢��..'�893� �: . 500 �."4 528�'?�.,..Ib3 ;. 5 368 �':v,v-.�1�" "�: � 314: .„443i' : ..1b0.: . .:957. _ _k116T . '
..t.326::3.1565._.,,w3:&i5. .�.�.Z:L4D..:.i2,4&J`
FundBalanceGoal-20%Ex enditures 2,607 2,685 3,108 3,2fi6 3,428 3,599 3,779 3,969 4,169 4,380 4,603 4,837
NTtND BAI:ANGE_ .. ,....',�. T_..r_...:�._�..# � ".� ..x_sa,.'a : _. .: ,.�., �.�$'�a . . . .:- .. >:`�Xs.F3�` ... . . ...:. , .L�r$.�.,_' ,.. ':r E.s, ���n a , . .��..�'_"..:
STARTOFYEAR I,fi06 2,499 2,999 2,471 2,634 2,266 2,266 2,580 3,072 3,833 4,790 5,906 7,232 8,797 1Q632 12,771
ENDOFYEAR 2,499 2,999 2,471 2,634 2,266 2,266 2,580 3,072 3,833 4,790 5,906 7,232 8,797 IQ632 12,77t 15,255
FOND'iBA'W' NCEGOAL'-Ezi&sJGa i'�fis,'v'«.w.t.,r:,...r;$�`# ,§�...r.�?l�i',r'�' , w�, 341 ab"��419 X�3..:528�:::..r_ 194`�.v d94,,.,i��t�t90:'�":t�2;13bR. .,r.•3263�,+`�:�?"4'627�'�7;6251'"x,.:;�5�¢9.f.^.".:'�IOJIB:
RevenueEuhaocement:
■ Assumes 1/2 cent sales-tax inerease in FY 2007-08
■ Assumes Tnnsieut Occupancy Tax from addi6onal hotels in FY 2007-05 and FY 2009-10
■ Program cosis for long-term priority needs idrnti(ed ..Excess/(Gepi WWafd.,� ,
Pund�Balance Goa� -.�
379
Scenario II B -Enhanced Service Levels
�. , _._.� . _ _,�M..
HieloriealTrcnES s:�- a� x. t �„�SENYEARFINANCIALPti'ANPRO.IECTTQNS . - „».�3�'�vv..:e."y'�t
� tan �ri �tt
PROJECTIONFACTORS Year SYrs IOYrs ISYrs 2005-06 2006A] 200]-OB 2008-09 20p9-10 2010�11 2011-12 2012-U 2013-10 201415 2015-I6 2016-I1
DEMOGRAPHICS AnnualixdPrrcrnlChanga
Populalion -0.1°0 0.9% 1.2% i.l% 12% 12% 12% 12% 1.2°0 12% 1.2% 1.2% i.2% 1.2% 12% 12°0
UCSB Emnomic Oullook 1001 0.3'/0 0.340 /.8% nn na nn na na na nn na nn
RousingUni6 -29% 0.9% I.0% 13% 13% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 13% 13% 13% 1.3% L3% 13%
In�ation 1.9% 2.4% 2.4% 2.9% ?.9% ?.9% 29% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9%
UCSBEconomicOurlook1001 3.3% 3.0% JJ% 2.8% 3.0% na na nn na na na na na
CompoundPOp&InFlation 1.9% 3.4% 3.6% 4.0% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% J.I% 4.0 4.1%
UCSBEwnomicOuNook?00f 3.3% 33°,'0 3.4% 4J% na na no na na no na na nn
ICEY REVENUE$ �nnuali;ed Percsnt CFOngu
SalesTax(SitusSales) 3.6% 10.8% 9.6% 63% 2.5°/, 2.5% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3A% 3A% 3.0% 3.0^/ 3.0%
UCSB Economic OuOook 100< 434b SJ% 6.9'� 6.9'� 6.945 na na na na na nq nn nn
PropertyTax(AssessedValue) 143% 10.0% 5.5% 5.6% 11.0% 11.0% 10.0% I0.0% 9.0% 9.0% 8.5% S.5% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5%
OCSBEronomicOutlook2004:MedianHausingVOluesChonge /3.8% 8.9% 8J% 8.0°5 8.0% rta na nn 3.8°,0 3.8% na no na
I'OT 8.1% 17.4% 102% 9J% J.0% 5.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
Business License/Tax 2003-04 Projertion Plus Compound Popu(olion md ln/!alion
FrznchiseFees 26.1% 27.1% 14.8% 11.1% 3.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0°/ SA% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0°/, 5.0%
MowrVehiclelnLieu -19.6% 2.1% 3.8% 3.5% 3.0% 5.0% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4%
Development Review Fees 2003-04 Projection Plus Compoand Population and lnJlafion
Recrealion Ftts 2003-04 Projection Plus Campound Popu(alion and InJlalion
EXPENDITURES
AnnmlisWPercm(Chrtnga AdjuslMAnnuaGybpin/lafionanQPOpulanon '
Salary&Becefits 13.4% 8.9% BJ% 9.0% 9.0% 6.0% S.S% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5%
OpentingPmgrams 3]% ?d% 6.4% 4.8% -7.0% 0.0% 6.0% 5.8% 5.8°0 5.8% 5.8% 5.6% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8%
Debt Service Based on Lense Purchase Contracf for Camputer Syslem Upgrades
�DeWiled Faeto"rs Used m"�'",�
'i�Maktfig Che Ten Year `--
�Projections
380
Attachment 2
�� CITY OF
_ . • -
�`~«:,' � � � � � �� � � � � � ■� �� � �
,; �-�......_in`'r s ,
�w, p
�Ii,I!CAIIFORNIA . %j
��� n.� �fi{
WHAT ARE YOUR PRIORITY NEEDS
FOR THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE?
❑ 1 agree that it's important to pian for future City service and infras[ructure needs.
My priorities ure,from 1 (most imporrant) to 8 (least impor[a�t),as follows:
_ Transportation projects,including addressing deficiencies at die Halcyon Road/Brisco
Road-Highway 101 interdiangc
_ Repairing and maintaining d�e City's streets
_ Upgnding tlie City's aging storm dr.wi systcm �
_ Improving srormwa[er and erosion convol measures to protcct the City's creeks
_ Upgrading the City's Police Station ro meet existing space needs far the Poliee Depu[me�t
_ Upgrading thc City Hall complex to meetADA requirements
_ Replacement of needecl Fire Department equipment
_ Hiring additional Fire personnel
_ Your own ideas/priorities?
❑ Please keep me infotmed (optional):
Name c-mail
Address
❑ I have die following questions:
�'£ NEED Y00� INPV� ��G��DING �UTURE C��Y N£�DS AND P�IORI�IES!
�s r�« R»��- x ���;g„��- ,- � The City of operations in the long-term due to efforts dtat have
E�w}5��F`Z?' '� , ':'; x S��g��� Arroyo Grande's been implemented to increase efficiency,it also
.�� , ' annual budget is identifies a number of important fiiture needs that
balanccd and service cannot bc addressed with existing revenue sources.
Icvcls have been Thc City would
- maintained despite a ��ke your feedback to ,
numbcr of financiat ��elp in prioritizing ` ':�,
� '"r t challenges over the these needs. Plcase ,���
past fcw ycars duc complete,fold,tape
ro increasing costs aod reve�mes ta{:en by the State. "fo �o��ther and return '`
provide for better longterm decision making a��d the followi��g sucvey. �'
__
planning,[he City has instituted a long-range financial postage has been --
planning process. While the Long-Range Financial Plan �rovided for your �� ' - "
indicates the City r.m con[inue to fund ongoing convenience.
'Phe sales t:uc is primarily being considered ro genente
DID YOU KNOW? ��h� s«« h:� �1k�„ additional revenue because the cost burden on local
over $4.0 million of our commu��ity's revenue over the residents would be minimized since it woulct be paid by
past 15 years and continues to take nearly $700,000 ;i�� thosc who utilire the City's services and
from us each year. infrastructure. The City is
III�IIQ
A potei�tial sales tax ballot measure is being ,c,,,� still early in the planning
considered at no more [han a half-cent iiicrease, :,_,_,_. � process a��d will continue
although the specific rate is still under mview. With the ` � to update the community
incre:ise,the City's sal�s tax ra[e would still be tlie samc - - - = - and solicit input prior[o
or lower than that paid by 85% of[he S[ate's residents. making a final decision.
lOLD 96RE AND A6TORq. PL6118L NO BTAPL68 OR T11PE
III�ul�luu�llll�llll��lflul'1I11'u1111'illll��l
zoss-�zvss e� 3aNda� o,�oaad
o5s xoe od
� 3aNda� o,�obav �o ,�li�
�
e 33ss3aaav ne arod 3a��iM 3�vlsod
�
� v� 3aNVa�oAOaavi ce oN liwa3d iivw sstnalsai�
— � idw ��d�� ss� Nisna
—
—
—
—
_
—
_
S31V1S 4311Nf1
3H1NI II I I II
O3lIVW jl
A2iHSS3�3N
3�JV1SOd ON
Attachment 3
' Ciry ofArroyo Grande ;� CITY OF
� Important Information About � � � �
� City Services and Future Funding Needs ?� �A�,��
OX�---�'='rs�ra-F=�,-`. 9
What is the status of the City's finances?
. The annual budget is balanced and service levels have been maintained despite a number of financial challenges
facing the City over the past few years. The City has been able to accomplish this by restructuring a number of
City operations to increase efficiency.
. Financial challenges have largely been due to the State, who has taken over $4.6 million of our City revenue
over the past 15 years and continues to take nearly $700,000 each year to help balance the State budget. As a
result, the City is working to establish financial independence from the State.
. The City has developed a long-range financial plan to provide for better long-term decision making and
planning. This 10-yeaz financial plan indicates the City's existing revenues will be sufficient to provide ongoing
operations in the long-term, but will not be able to meet future additional needs identified. These needs consist
largely of major capital projects that the City had planned to fund with State and Federal grant funding, which is
now projected to no longer be available.
What are the future needs identified?
Future needs fall into the following four categories:
• Transportation Projects
The primary project is improvements to the Brisco/Halcyon—Highway 101 Interchange. Due to the State
financial crisis, funding has been delayed 10-15 years. As a result, the City is developing alternate strategies,
r; which will require a substantial increase in ]oca] funding to advance the schedule to the tazgeted 5-7 years.
' • Infrastructure
I� Increased funding is needed in order to properly fund annual preventative maintenance on the City's road
(; system, street improvement projects, upgrade of the City's aging drainage system, and improvements needed to
p� meet new Federal regulations and to protect the City's creek system.
� ' Public Safety
� The existing Police Station needs to be expanded in order to address operational space needs. Major Fire
Department apparatus is in need of replacement and increased Fire Department staffing is needed to ensure
necessary personnel are available to meet emergency response demands.
• City Facility and ADA Improvements
Improvements are needed to City facilities to complete implementation of the City's plan to meet full ADA
� compliance. The most urgent is the City Hall complex, which involves a plan to renovate the existing City Hall
� and construct a new adjacent building to house the Council Chambers and the Community Development, Public
Works Administration, and Building & Life Safety operations.
What are the City's efforts to address these needs?
• In addition to cost control measures and economic development efforts, the City is also strongly considering a
potential sales tax measure at no more than a half-cent increase, although the specific rate is still under review.
• With the increase, the City's sales tax rate would still be the same or lower than that paid by 85% of residents in
Califomia.
• The sales tax has been identified as an option for serious consideration because the cost burden on local residents
would be minimized since it would be paid by all those who utilize the City's services and infrastructure.
What is the status of these efforts?
• Nothing has been formally proposed or approved. The City is in the process of educating the community
regarding these needs and seeking feedback.
• To provide your input, contact City Hall at 473-5400 or agcity@arroyogrande.org.
Attachment 4
SURVEY OF CITIES WHO HAVE ADOPTED LOCAL SALES TAX MEASURES
C� Amount GeneraUSpecial Tax Sunset Clause Impact on Sales
Avalon .5% Special—Hospital No No
Calexico .5% Special—Hospital 10 Years - No
Capitola .25% General 5 Yeazs No
Clearlake .5% Special—Police No No
Clovis 3% Special—Public Safety Facilities 15 Years No
Davis .5% General 10 Years No
El Cajon .5% Special—Public Safety Facilities 10 Years No
Farmersville .5% General No No
Lakeport .5% GeneraUAdvisory Vote No No
Los Banos .5% Special—Public Safety Council can vote to end in 20 years No
Montclair .25% General No No
Placerville .25% Special —Police Services No No
Point Arena .5% Special—Transportation No No
Richmond .5% Special—Youth Center, Police, Fire No No
San Juan Bautista .75% General No No
Sand City .5°/a General No Yes
Santa Cruz .25% General 5 yeazs No
Santa Rosa .25% Special—Public Safety No No
Sebastopol .125% General No No
South Lake Tahoe .5% General
Stockton .25% Special—Public Safety No, but City reviews after 5 years No
Truckee .5% Special—Road Maintenance 14 yeazs No
Visalia .25% Special—60%Police/40% Fire Council must approve by 4/5 every 8 years No
West Sacramento .5% General/Advisory Vote 50% 10 years/50%Perpetual No
Willits .5% Special—Road Maintenance No No
Woodland .5% General/Advisory Vote 6 Years No
i
; Attachment 5
�
•
�
•
''`„�`',' C��� ��
=`!:�-`�:[..
. , , �
, � � g. . a
• ' O
� _.. », .
-�,.
�, :
Ii
v
�
' %, � �
� �i��'� i
���' CALIFORNIA /
�--- n.-�.__ �E=�.-
_�_,�`3.'-s�?� \�� t �
O
�
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
SERVICE BENCHMARK STUDY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City is currently considering a potential sales tax measure for the ballot in
November 2006 to address funding needs identified through its long-range financial
planning process. A key step in the process of identifying and pursuing additional
funding to meet future needs is to first maximize efficiency of existing operations. To
measure and demonstrate current efFiciency, a benchmark analysis was prepared to
compare staffing and performance of the City's primary operations with other full service
jurisdictions in California with similar size, age, area and growth rates.
The primary findings include the following:
• General administrative staff per capita is lower than any of the jurisdictions
included in the study. This indicates that the City maintains a low administrative
overhead.
• Per capita staffing for Community Development and Building & Life Safety
operations are about average, but the number of land use permits processed per
staff position is the second highest of all the jurisdictions.included in the study.
Therefore, a high workload is maintained given existing staffing.
• Full-time paid Fire staffing is both the lowest per capita and per number of service
calls when compared to the jurisdictions studied. Average response times are the
second highest, but are within the national standard and are being decreased by
ongoing efforts.
• The City has maintained the third lowest Part I crimes, while at the same time has
the second lowest per capita Police staffing of the cities studied.
• Street maintenance staff per capita is the third lowest and average pavement
li condition is the third highest.
• Per capita sta�ng and acres per staff for parks maintenance is about average
when compared to the other jurisdictions.
Accuracy of comparisons are difficult to achieve given variations in priorities,
organizational structure, data consistency, demographics and socioeconomic
characteristics of different jurisdictions, but the findings of the study generally support
that the City of Arroyo Grande is currently utilizing resources in a cost effective and
efficient manner.
BACKGROUND
I The City is currently considering a potential sales tax measure for the ballot in
' November 2006 to address funding needs identified through its long-range financial
' planning process. As a result, requests have been received to prepare a benchmark
comparison study to determine the level of existing efficiency. While the sales tax is
largely under consideration to fund capital projects rather than operations, it is important
f City of Arroyo Grande Benchmark Study
Page 2
to demonstrate that existing resources are being utilized effectively before concluding
that additional resources are necessary to meet future needs.
In addition to the benchmark analysis, it is important to review actual measures
implemented to maximize efficiency. The City has faced a number of financial
challenges over the past several years in balancing the budget, largely due to funds
taken by the State. Throughout this effort, the City has established maintenance of
existing service levels as its top priority. As a result, the City has taken a number of
steps to increase efficiency and budgets have been balanced without negatively
impacting service levels. The following are some examples:
. The fleet maintenance operation was restructured, which resulted in the elimination
of one part-time position.
. City Hall office assistance functions were restructured to provide for a shared
reception area between the City Manager's Office and the Financial Services
Department. This replaced a full-time position with a part-time position, resulting in
both cost savings and improved customer service.
. The Code Enforcement Program was reorganized and renamed Neighborhood
� Services. This change replaced a full-time position with a part-time position. As a
result, costs have been reduced, while both productivity and customer service
Ihave increased.
. The Economic Development program was restructured, which resulted in the
elimination of two positions by assigning functions to existing staff in Administration
and Community Development Departments.
. The City has contracted for custodial services, which both reduced costs and
increased the service level.
. A significant savings in Worker's Compensation costs was achieved through
implementation of a safety program and participating in a statewide risk sharing
pool.
. Computer costs were reduced through installation of a fiber network provided by
the cable company at no cost in exchange for extension of their franchise
agreement.
. DARE services were provided to the City of Grover Beach under contract.
• Joint Fire service administration has been implemented with the City of Grover
' Beach.
1
I .
�
�
�
i
City of Arroyo Grande Benchmark Study
Page 3
LIMITATIONS TO BENCHMARKING
There are a number of limitations to the validity of benchmark comparisons regarding
municipal government operations, which include:
• Operations, expenditures and funding are organized differently in each jurisdiction,
which makes it difficult to provide accurate comparisons.
. Each community has different priorities and service level expectations that are
reflected in the way resources are allocated and managed.
. In many jurisdictions, service levels are dictated more by available revenues than
community objectives. In other words, resource allocation is constrained artificially
based upon the revenue circumstances in each jurisdiction rather than allocating
resources to most efficiently achieve the desired service level outcomes.
. Each city has unique environmental, demographic and other factors that strongly
influence issues, needs and services. For example, factors such as level of
community involvement, sense of community, criminal behavior, community
activities, special needs populations, tourism, number of community facilities,
� divisive issues in the community, climate, age of residents, socioeconomic
; conditions, open space and wildlife areas all impact staffing needs and how
� operations are handled and organized.
. Data collection and tracking practices vary in differentjurisdictions regarding many
of the operations.
METHODOLOGY
� The most substantial portion of municipal service expenditures are related to personnel
costs, which are largely driven by the local cost of living. Therefore, accurate cost
comparisons would require utilizing jurisdictions with a comparable cost of living. This
severely limits the number of potential jurisdictions that can be used for comparison
purposes. As a result, the City determined that cost is not the most effective
determination of efficiency.
Instead, efficiency is based upon inputs and outputs. The less inputs utilized to produce
the desired outputs, the more efficient the operation is. In providing municipal services,
the primary input is staffing. Outputs vary with each specific operation. Therefore, the
City's proposed methodology is to compare staffing for each category of operation with
key outputs reflecting the key objectives of each service area. By defining services in
broad categories, it helps to reduce the difficulties caused by each jurisdiction
organizing their operations differently.
BENCHMARK CITY SELECTION
Cities were selected based upon similar characteristics of size, demographics, age and
operations. This was important in order to: 1) create as much of an "apples to apples"
, comparison as possible; and 2) establish objective criteria for selection of comparison
�
I
i
City of Arroyo Grande Benchmark Study
Page 4
jurisdictions to avoid any perception that cities were purposely selected to provide
positive results.
Utilizing these characteristics, it was attempted to select cities from throughout
California for comparison. The final list of cities were selected based upon jurisdictions
meeting the following criteria:
• Full service
i� • Population of 10,000 to 20,000 (based upon 2005 California Department of
Finance data)
• Area between 3 to 8 square miles
• Community incorporated prior to 1960
• Average growth rate of between .3% and 4% annually as measured over last 15
years
All cities in California meeting these criteria were included in the study.
BENCHMARK CITIES
�� C� County Population Area Incorporation Growth Rate
�� Arroyo Grande SLO 16,537 5.5 1911 1.00
Grass Valley Nevada 13,006 3.5 1893 2.92
Healdsburg Sonoma 11,711 3.4 1867 1.58
Mill Valley Marina 13,686 4.7 1900 .33
Pinole Contra Costa 19,604 5.1 1903 .82
Red Bluff Tehama 13,712 7.3 1876 .73
; San Marino Los Angeles 12,959 3.8 1913 .37
, Ukiah Mendocino 15,959 4.7 1876 .62
FINDINGS
Since each organization, organizational structure, and programs are unique to their
respective communities, the study does not include an analysis of the entire
organization. Instead, the study focused on primary operations that tend to provide
services that are structured relatively consistently from city to city. The operations also
include those services that are considered the most "traditional" core local government
functions.
Administration
The first area reviewed was administration. The operations of City Manager's Office,
� City Clerk, Human Resources and Finance were all combined in order to evaluate the
� level of resources devoted to primary administrative function. It was felt that this is
� important because the amount of resources dedicated to administration in comparison
�� to resources allocated for operational functions is one reflection of efficiency.
�
i
I
i
City of Arroyo Grande Benchmark Study
Page 5
Citv Staff Staff Per Capita
Arroyo Grande 9.50 .000574
Grass Valley 9.50 .000788
Healdsburg 18.85 .001609
Mill Valley 8.50 .000621
Pinole 11.50 .000587
Red Bluff 10.00 .000729
San Marino 9.00 .000694
Ukiah 18.00 .001128
General Administration Staff Per Capita
0.0018
0.0016 '
0.0014 ��
0.0012 =
}rtttF
0.001 � ��� ���_
�.���8 � '�t 4�r _ r;,�! _ i;� — �,—
�.0��6 � s� �. :Jw �� { .
�.0�04';" 4.: W' — � � ` — a's �;4
F�� �.��02 �� ,$r� g i *4h`i f� :°'n7
�� � . . c-. ' :. ._. �,.. .
ca� \ma ���A a�e� `co�m �\�+�i �`\co �\ar
� �a J'a a�i �l Q a �. J
P��G G�aye ��a �: �.� �9c
Based on this data, the City of Arroyo Grande has the least staff per capita dedicated to
j these functions when compared to the other benchmark cities. Therefore, the
conclusion can be made that Arroyo Grande is operating with the lowest amount of
general administrative overhead when compared to similar operations.
Development Services
For the purpose of assessing development related staffing, the Community
Development and Building & Life Safety operations were combined since some
jurisdictions include them in the same department. Total staffing was compared to the
amount of land use and building permits issued.
City of Arroyo Grande Benchmark Study
Page 6
Inputs
Citv Staff Staff Per Caqita
Arroyo Grande 9.00 .000544
Grass Valley 9.75 .000750
Healdsburg 7.00 .000598
Mill Valley 6.50 .000475
Pinole 7.00 .000357
Red Bluff 7.00 .000511
San Marino 6.00 .000463
Ukiah 7.00 .000540
De�lopment Services Staff Per Capita
0.0008
0.0007 '�
0.0006 ' �;
�,,
0.0005 �' ��r� �� �' — � '� �;
0.0004 ' �"� '`� � �r ';�
� s
i �.�QO.� I � '. �, �� `� _� ;� _
� �.�QO2�� � � . �� � '.��
I.' v2'b � � � �n
' 0.0001 � �, � � � ?�x �
� st �. �
m
G`�cam ,��e� `ay���A ,��e� Q`co� 0a���'�` ������ J��ar
ili P o�o G`ay5 ��a �. � yac
OUt UtS
p
Citv Land Use Permits Buildinq Permits
Arroyo Grande 372 521
Grass Valley 71 548
Healdsburg 127 817
Mill Valley 225 1,000
Pinole 51 760
Red Bluff 19 793
San Marino 256 955
Ukiah 63 668
According to the data comparison, overall staffing per capita is slightly above the
median when compared to the cities included in the study. When compared to output
criteria, Arroyo Grande staff is processing the second highest amount of total land use
, permits per position, while building permits are the second lowest per staff position.
I
I
City of Arroyo Grande Benchmark Study
Page 7
Additional research appears to explain the relatively low number of building permits per
staff in comparison to some of the other jurisdictions. First of all, it was discovered that
some jurisdictions are counting trade permits separately rather than as one combination
permit. Arroyo Grande tracks each combination permit as one permit. Mill Valley and
San Marino have a low growth rate, but are processing a large number of remodel
permits, which are less staff intensive. Lastly, some of the jurisdictions also have
limited counter hours. This requires less staff, but is a lower level of service.
Land use permits are also difficult to accurately compare because some jurisdictions
require permits for land use actions that others do not. However, the data appears to
support that the City is processing a large number of land use actions given existing
staffing.
Land Use Permits Building Permits
Citv Per Staff Per Staff
Arroyo Grande 41.33 57.89
Grass Valley 7.28 56.21
Healdsburg 18.14 116.71
Mill Valley 34.62 153.85
Pinole 7.29 108.57
� Red Bluff 2J1 113.29
; San Marino 42.66 159.17
Ukiah 9.00 95.43
�
� Land Use Permits PerStaff
� 45 '
9 40 '��
i - x� �1
� 30 ,- i � �r'i
25 -' suli � �'":
i�� �
20 ' a'>E,. � a.,
15 �a�..: t.. �.
� � — ,�3� �L
10 � � �: �r� ��;
� �°
5 � °��...`� r.r � s� � � —
0 ,
`�ca� ,���� ay���A ,��m� Q`co�m ae\J�i ��cco J�`ar
P��G G`ay0 �0a `j: �0 ��c
Fire
Fire services were evaluated by reviewing full-time paid staffing, number of service
calls, and response times. Volunteer and provisional staffing were not included in the
comparison since use of this type of personnel are a key measure to increase cost
' efficiency.
i
�
I
City of Arroyo Grande Benchmark Study
Page 8
Inputs
Full-Time Full-Time
Citv Staff Staff Per Capita
Arroyo Grande 8.0 .000484
Grass Valley 15.0 .001153
Healdsburg 9.0 .000769
Mill Valley 22.0 .001607
Pinole 20.0 .001020
Red Bluff 13.0 .000948
San Marino 22.0 .001698
Ukiah 19.5 .001222
Fire Staif Per Capita
0.0018
0.0016�' �
0.0014 :�� _
0.0012 " _ � �'
0.001 .� 4 �, � `
0.0008 ', ,. — x ; � �r
0.0006 ' � � ` �"
, 0.0004 " a> " M`{ � —}� x �
0.0002 �' , �-�. �' �_ � �� �
0
. ``o�GacG`y Ja`0�e ayv��Ja��� Q�c°���eae`�ya a�c� J�ar
� � �
a
P
I OUfpUfS
Citv Service Calls Average Response Time
Arroyo Grande 1,504 5:03 minutes
Grass Valley Not available
Healdsburg 1,455 3:47 minutes
Mill Valley 1,522 3 —4 minutes
Pinole 2,318 5:40 minutes
Red Bluff 2,241 3:54 minutes
� San Marino 1,638 3:54
( Ukiah 2,000 Not available
I
' As a result of the City's use of volunteer and provisional staffing, Arroyo Grande has the
lowest full-time paid staff per capita and responds to the highest number of service calis
� per full-time paid staff position. Average response times are the second highest
City of Arroyo Grande Benchmark Study
Page 9
amongst the comparison jurisdictions. However, response times have improved as a
result of recent additions of full-time paid positions.
The national standard that is used for comparison of fire departments is five minutes,
which is based upon progression and development of a fire, as well as ideal times for
preservation of life in medical emergencies. Since Arroyo Grande is only three seconds
over five minutes, the City is essentially meeting this standard given a standard
deviation of error in recording of the response times. The geography of the City is also
a key issue in the response time since the size, topography and land use of the City
make it difficult to exceed the standard in outlying areas, yet the City's area size does
not justify location of a second station. Additionally, circulation deficiencies contribute
to congestion delays.
A number of efforts are under way to further enhance response times. Coordination
with neighboring jurisdictions on mutual aid, automatic aid and boundary drop
agreements will enhance response times to outlying areas of the City. In addition,
traffic improvements and Fire staffing are key objectives identified in the City's long-
range financial plan to be addressed through the potential sales tax measure.
Citv Service Calls Per Staff
� Arroyo Grande 188.00
iGrass Valley -----
Healdsburg 161.67
' Mill Valley 69.18
Pinole 115.90
Red Bluff 172.38
San Marino 74.45
Ukiah 102.56
I Service Calls Per Staff
200 '
180 ' � �
160 . �
140 ' _ � �
� �i
120 ' � �'.
100�' � �,�i'�I a'`t ?° ��»
80 � "'
40�� ��." — s �. ' — :�
� '
s: � �
20 ��� �'� E� : �'`� E.�; :i
,��:� --�� F.�::
0 _ :'� , _
�`�ca� \ay�J�o, ,a\e� Q\co�� ea�\J� ��c�o J�`ar
I `o�o �'0m �� � �ao
� P�
i
II
City of Arroyo Grande Benchmark Study
Page 10
Police
For the Police operation, staffing levels were compared to crime rates with regard to
Part I crimes. Part I crimes are considered the most serious and include rape, robbery,
assaults, burglary, homicide, arson, larceny and auto theft. While crime rates involve a
number of socioeconomic and demographic factors, maintaining a safe community is
the ultimate goal of police services and is a key indicator of the effectiveness of public
safety operations.
Inputs
Citv Staff Staff Per Capita
Arroyo Grande 36.00 .002177
Grass Valley 46.15 .003548
Healdsburg 30.00 .002562
Mill Valley 26.50 .001936
Pinole 46.88 .002391
Red Bluff 41.00 .002990
San Marino 40.15 .003098
Ukiah 35.50 .002224
I Police Staff Per Capita
j 0.004 (�
0.0035 � �;-
0.003 ' �; !�;�
0.0025 : ": x "�
{�s � s� .
0.002 ' � M '�
0.0015 � �„ �: " �� "�,� �
0.0011j __: � s;�,� � �� �
0.0005� =�� ��
0 �: � � �` .�u�
G�acae J�\�� �ayJ`� �a\e� Q�co`� ma�\J� ��cco J�`�r
4��� ��yy �0a �• �. ��c
G
P
Outputs
Part I Crimes
Citv Part I Crimes Per Caaita
Arroyo Grande 445 .026909
Grass Valley 568 .043672
Healdsburg 433 .036974
Mill Valley 272 .019874
�� Pinole 1,474 .075189
�I Red Bluff 1,009 .073585
li San Marino 182 .014044
� Ukiah 665 .041669
i
City of Arroyo Grande Benchmark Study
Page 11
Part I Crimes Per Capita
0.08 '
0.07 � � ��
0.06 ' �� �
0.05 � � �
0.04� � � �
0.03 �' �h �` � ��' �'
0.02 ���E� � �; -
VE� +F` �... � ' 'yj
�� — v
— iws' i
0.01 � � '�� ,�`�' � ��� �
0 . �.
`�cae ,\e.� y�J�A ,�\eq Q\co�m a�\�� �c�o J�\ar
a
oe5 e'°�a �y`� 4''° ��`
�o� Gca 1` 9
P
Of the cities included in the study, the City's staffing levels per capita are.the second
lowest. At the same time, Part 1 crimes per capita are the third lowest only to the City
of San Marino and the City of Mill Valley, both afFluent communities and San Marino has
a significantly higher per capita staffing level. As a result, these services appear to be
highly productive for the resources dedicated to this function. This is particular
j important given that the Police Department is responsible for approximately 41% of the
,i City's General Fund Budget appropriated expenditures.
!�
'�
Street Maintenance
The effectiveness of street maintenance operations was measured by comparing
y, staffing with street miles maintained and average pavement condition. The primary
difficulty in comparing these functions is that while ongoing maintenance is typically
f provided in-house (with the exception of Healdsburg), street improvement projects are
; typically contracted out. The level of work performed in-house and the amount invested
in street improvement projects both vary from city to city and impact the workload of in-
j house crews.
Inputs
Citv Staff Staff Per Capita
Arroyo Grande 7.0 .000423
Grass Valley 9.0 .000692
I Healdsburg Provided under contract
i Mill Valley 5.5 .000402
Pinole 4.0 .000204
Red Bluff 8.4 .000613
' San Marino 6.0 .000463
i Ukiah 7.0 .000439
i
�
City of Arroyo Grande Benchmark Study
Page 12
Street Maintenance Staff Per Capita
0.0007
0.0006 �—;� �aq
�:•� ��.:
0.0005 � " �
s�°� x
0.0004 � ; ��` _�"' � �r�
0.0003 :. �, - � s� —
i ,� '� �- , � . '� �� �;� —
0.0002 '
0.0001 � � �,n�' '�' �, —
,�d Ih.'
0 :
G��ca� 5�� ,a\0� Q�co\0 �a�\J� �a�`co J��r
4°a� ��y � � ��c
G
P
Outputs
Average
City Street Miles Pavement Condition
Arroyo Grande 70 68
Grass Valley 50 40
Healdsburg 42 67
Mill Valley 60 67
Pinole 54 72
Red Bluff 104 53
San Marino 65 Not Available
Ukiah 53 71
A�.erage Pa�ement Condition
80 ' �,
70 - �
`��i N <:� �
60 �-; �, �; �'�
, ; ��„ � � ,,,�,
50 ' ,�.[
� �' —
{. ej�ph'`^ �Y ..5.^ ��<l}
40 '� '� ' -�� N —�'�„ a--- �,� _
y, �
30 � �� � �, � _
� " k t
1
20 � r i s .: — �: .: h� .
�� i/ a�h �'St Sf�' � .: �� z�.
0 'p� "'�., ;�;j � s-^ �.
`�ca� ,a\�� ay���o, ,a�m� Q`co�a a�\�� J�ar
h��G �ayy ��a `j: ��
0
G
P
%
� City of Arroyo Grande Benchmark Study
Page 13
Outputs
Citv Street Miles Per Staff
Arroyo Grande 10.00
Grass Valley 5.50
Healdsburg --------
Mill Valley 10.91
Pinole 13.50
Red Bluff 12.38
San Marino 10.83
Ukiah 7.57
Street Miles Per Staff
14 �
�' :£
12=' _-" �,
r Mx� ya
i f u�� �
�Q " vr � � °�TMa
f — � �
$ �/�3}� �. _ _ ��,�.�.�. _
6` , p ' �ro « $iu �c
4 �� ' �, �� � `
� � �� , �
2 � "'e ; p dt"; �� �
i �k�� ,fiti� ��
;; i
0 .,, _. ... _.. .. .., .-'..
acae ,a\e� ,'D\e� `co�z �\�� �c�a J�`ar
�o�G� `�yy �`� Q �ma �a�
G
P
Of the cities that provide in-house street maintenance, Arroyo Grande has the third
lowest staffing per capita and the third highest average pavement condition. Therefore,
productivity appears to be appropriate given dedicated resources.
The goal of the City is to maintain an average pavement condition of 75. Therefore,
even though the City's pavement condition appears adequate when compared to the
other jurisdictions, it is somewhat an indication of the problem of investing appropriate
funding in maintenance of infrastructure faced by jurisdictions throughout the state.
Increased funding for maintenance of infrastructure has been identified as a key goal in
the City's long-range financial plan and discussion of a potential sales tax measure.
Park Maintenance
Probably the most difficult of the areas identified to compare is park maintenance. The
level of maintenance differs significantly based upon emphasis placed on parks by each
jurisdiction, the design and uses of existing parks and the amount of developed
parkland versus open space. Some cities contract for park maintenance, while others
combine parks and public works maintenance crews. The following analysis provides a
�
�
City of Arroyo Grande Benchmark Study
Page 14
comparison of staffing dedicated to park maintenance in those jurisdictions that operate
with specific park maintenance crews, along with a comparison of total park and open
space acreage maintained.
Inputs
Citv Staff Staff Per Capita
Arroyo Grande 6 .000363
Grass Valley Combined with Public Works
Healdsburg Provided under contract
Mill Valley 8 .000585
Pinole 3 .000153
Red Bluff 3 .000219
San Marino 8 .000617
Ukiah 8 .000501
Per Capita Parks Maintenance Staff
0.0007 '� _
� 0.0006 ' �
���e: ��
0.0005 x'� '` � a.:: —
i ' ,� ': �; �s:
�! 0.0004 � —t z� ��g —
�� 0.0003 ' ��" 4« ' �'�'+
� 0.0002�� =� _�� �`� _ �
� *= i
i0.0001 II � . �� ,��,,;r ;�?�',` �� a�. -
i �
cag a��a c°\� 0`�� a�co J`k-��r
9 G`� �;, Q �a �`
� �a�
�o
P
Of the jurisdictions included in the study, the City of Arroyo Grande's operations fall
somewhere close to the middle with regard to per capita staffing, acres of parkland and
open space maintained, and acres per staff maintained. The data is somewhat
unbalanced by some of the jurisdictions that have a substantial amount of dedicated
unimproved open space, which requires less maintenance per acre than improved park
facilities. In addition, the City's parks crews are responsible for maintaining street trees,
which is not a responsibility of the crews in many of the comparison jurisdictions.
I
City of Arroyo Grande Benchmark Study
Page 15
Outputs
Acres Parkland
Citv & Open Space Acres Per Staff
Arroyo Grande 101 16.83
Grass Valley 108 NA
Healdsburg 103 NA
Mill Valley 33 4.13
Pinole 260 86.67
Red Bluff 100 33.33
San Marino 45 5.63
Ukiah 181 22.63
Totai Acres Parks & Open Space Maintained
3001
2501'�
�
200-' , '
150 ' ��
: �?'� �;
100 ." ': 4 r:. �
� ? �:a
50 ' � � ' �
� ` � � �� � � �`°
`�cam ,��m� ay�J�A ,��� Q`co�z aO��Y` ���oo J�ar
�i-
P��G G`�y� ���\ �\ �e yac
Acres Per Staff
90 � ,A�;,,,
80 � "�';;
70 �
60 '
50
40 ��—��"
30 �—�s —� _ —
20 / ki !( Y &Q�
44�[
,�O / �� i
L� s §�
. rm. ^�.,x.. � �n ' �
�
`�cam ,a\0q Q\co�� a0\�+t� ��``co J�ar
`1°G �j� �0 '°c
o `�
P
��
City of Arroyo Grande Benchmark Study
Page 16
CONCLUSION
Accuracy of comparisons is difficult given variations in priorities, organizational
structure, data consistency, demographics and socioeconomic characteristics of
different jurisdictions, but the findings of the study generally support that the City of
Arroyo Grande is utilizing its resources in a cost effective and efficient manner. Since
the circumstances and priorities in each jurisdiction vary, the study should not be
interpreted to conclude that any of the other cities' operations are inefficient. In
addition, given the limitations of benchmarking, conclusions cannot be made based
exclusively on the study's findings. However, it does serve as one .valuable tool to
measure perFormance and is a strong indication that the City's productivity level is high
given available resources.
A[tachmen[1
General Fund Ten Year Financial Plan Scenario I - Existing Service Levels
Acmal Auual Acmal Actval ProjeCted ProJec[ed . ' ''� � �,� .�. ,.. � �
. ,. -.,� .. Q...
.:r .,._...,,_._.^ _ . ._.,_..CTENXEARFINANCIAU'.PLAN. __....__....:._ � , . � �+i.'.„;...
InTAouunds 21q1-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-OS 2005-06 200G-07 2007-OB 2008-09 2009-10 20I0-II 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-IS 2015-Ib 2016-17
REVENUES&OTHER SOURCES
Taxes
SalesTax-General $ 2,990 $ 3,110 $ 3,221 $ 2,608 $ 2,770 $ 2,840 $ 2,925 $ 3,013 $ 3,103 $ 3,19G $ 3,292 $ 3,391 $ 3,493 $ 3,598 $ 3,706 $ 3,817
SalesTax-Proposition172 79 92 95 92 103 108 III IIS 1I8 122 125 129 133 137 141 I45
PropertyTax 2,263 2,364 2,723 4,519 S,OOI 5,572 6,129 6,742 7,349 8,010 8,691 9,430 10,231 11,101 I2,045 13,069
Trnnsient Occupancy Tax 348 370 400 391 391 461 475 489 504 519 534 550 567 584 602 620
Business Licenses 55 61 68 76 77 81 84 SS 9I 95 99 103 108 112 117 121
Frznchise Fees 443 409 5I5 527 531 557 585 614 645 677 711 746 784 823 864 907
Real Property Tnnsfer Tax 122 130 129 151 I65 185 193 201 209 218 227 236 246 256 266 277
Aid From Other Governments
Motor Vehicle In Lieu back-fill - - - 280 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Motor Vehicle In Lieu 901 940 755 107 114 162 172 183 195 208 221 235 250 266 283 301
Other Subventions&Grants 220 189 190 454 291 221 227 234 241 248 229 236 242 249 257 264
Service Charges
Recrea�ion Fees 525 516 510 530 532 559 582 606 631 657 685 7l3 742 773 805 838
Building Permits&Licenses 437 327 263 3l6 340 357 372 387 403 420 437 455 474 494 514 535
Community Development Charges 148 151 150 144 168 177 I82 l87 193 198 204 210 216 222 229 236
Other Service Charges 156 157 254 361 289 290 298 307 316 325 335 344 354 365 375 386
Other Revenues
Fines&Forfeiwres 127 147 138 128 137 144 148 152 157 161 166 171 176 181 186 192
Use of Money&Property 175 180 107 193 246 257 264 272 280 288 296 305 314 323 332 342
OtherRevenues 347 655 213 467 369 239 249 259 270 28I 293 305 3l7 330 344 358
Transfers
Personnel& ratin 7ansfers 855 880 898 956 1,141 1,217 1.284 1,355 1,429 1,508 1,591 1,678 1,770 1,868 1,970 2,079
TotalRevenues 10,191 10,678 10,629 12.300 12,665 ]3,427 14,282 15,205 16,134 17,131 18,136 19,238 20,418 21,682 23,036 24,488
EXPENDITIJRES&OTHER USES
Salary&Benefits 6,957 7,612 $628 9,311 IQI55 10,767 11,359 11,984 12,643 13,338 14,072 14,846 15,663 16,524 17,433 18,392
OperatingPrograms I,811 1,894 1,984 2,084 1,946 1,950 2,067 2,187 2,314 2,448 2,590 2,740 2,899 3,067 3,245 3,433
DebtService 37 207 25 25 119 219 219 219 219 219 50 50 50 50 50 50
Capital OuNay&CIP Pmgram 493 465 520 717 813 491 550 575 600 625 650 6")5 700 725 950 775
TotalEx enditures 9,298 10,178 11,157 12,137 13,033 13,427 14,195 14,965 15,776 16,630 17,362 18311 19,312 20,366 21,4"78 22,650
ReveuuesOver ntler'E end: !: _ _-�893. .::� 59Q: .'_.. 528 .."�:�' :1d3 .* ;��'�368)_. _...-:: .� :�.. ' 87..., „240Ra�.: a..358, :n'.,4S0t �>...,. `774 '.��>427�.. ....1,}96,:�:': . i31b.. :�.�it1.558_.",��Is�B"
Fund Balance Goal-20%Ex nditures 2,607 2,685 2,839 2,993 3,155 3,326 3,472 3,662 3,862 4,073 4,296 4,530
FllND'BALANCE "" . . .`' w..��,..i..... . a. . ' � ��. o s .- .. � �..
�_�F.. t�8,� .,�i< ._.4.�..: . . .r�, . ., '., ,.,�,E+�s�.-, ' ;.
� ..,... ....._.__...:... _ .. ,.>.:::.._r.w.::.:.-_:__ .�a..___. .. .'.:��.. .kt_ _„ ..�. .��..
. . . ..:. ...�. ��:.....
STARTOFYEAR 1,606 2,499 2,999 2,471 2,634 2,266 2,266 2,353 2,593 2,951 3,452 4,226 5,153 6,260 7,575 9,133
ENDOFYEAR 2,499 2,999 2,471 2,634 2,266 2,266 2,353 2,593 2,95] 3,452 4,226 5,153 6,260 7,575 9,133 10,971
FUND�.BAI;ANGE'GOAti-EZCess/(Ga�)-�.�.�.•':-°� _.: =�ss_���":._a...... ..i�_:341.�.� � ;419 �.,*a..486�<<c.s�..400.�;,„.�t�. 204 '`;:'.126','_v"_..��]SA.. :�1;991�°.�r°."2;397:';ei,�3562."'..�:�iA.%38._�b;d41��.::.
Base Pisu: . .. . � ::.
■ Assumes no change in service levels
■ Repayment of Mandared Cost Recovery beginning in FY 06-07 @$22,000 per year .
�•Excess!{Gap�towBYtl _
-Funtl'EalaneeGoal
375
i
i Attachment 6
f
� RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED
ELECTORS OF THE CITY A MEASURE AND FOUR ADVISORY
MEASURES RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A LOCAL
i SALES TAX OVERRIDE AT THE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD
ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2006, AS CALLED BY RESOLUTION
� NO.
� WHEREAS, on October 6, 1997, Assembly Bill 1472 became law, adding Chapter 2.93
(commencing with Section 7286.52) to Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 1472 authorizes the City of Arroyo Grande (hereinafter "the
City"), subject to approval by a majority vote of the qualified voters of the City voting in
an election on the issue, to levy a transactions and use tax pursuant to the Transactions
and Use Tax Law at a rate of 0.25% or 0.5% for general revenue purposes; and
WHEREAS, Section 2(b) of Article XIII C of the California Constitution, added by
Proposition 218 effective November, 1996, requires that the measure proposing a
general tax be submitted to the voters at an election consolidated with a regularly
scheduled general election for members of the governing body of the local government;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Constitution Article XIII C, Section 2(b) and Elections
Code section 10201, the City has determined to submit a measure to enact an
ordinance establishing a transactions and use tax to the voters at the City's next regular
general municipal election; and
WHEREAS, a request for consolidating the General Municipal Election has been called
by Resolution No. ; and
WHEREAS, the General Municipal Election to be held in the City on Tuesday,
November 7, 2006, for the election of certain officers of the City has been called per
Resolution No. ; and
�, WHEREAS, the City Council also desires to submit to the voters four advisory questions
and a question relating to the establishment of a local sales tax override; and
NOW, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande as follows:
�I SECTION 1. That the City Council, pursuant to its right and authority, does order
Isubmitted to the voters at the General Municipal Election the following questions:
i
�
�
�� RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
�
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
ADVISORY MEASURE
YES
Advisory Vote Only
If the proposed sales tax measure
(Measure _) is approved, should a
portion of the proceeds be used to fund
transportation improvements, including, NO
but not limited to, upgrade of the Brisco
Road/Halcyon Road - Highway 101
Interchan e?
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
ADVISORY MEASURE
Advisory Vote Only YES
If the proposed sales tax measure
(Measure � is approved, should a
portion of the proceeds be used to fund
maintenance and upgrade of the City's
infrastructure, including, but not limited
to, street maintenance and
improvements, upgrade of the City's NO
drainage system, and projects to
prevent pollution, erosion and
sedimentation in the City's creek
s stem from storm water runoff?
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
� ADVISORY MEASURE
YES
Advisory Vote Only
If the proposed sales tax measure
(Measure � is approved, should a
portion of the proceeds be used to fund
public safety expenses, including, but NO
not limited to, expansion of the Police
Station, purchase of Fire apparatus, and
additional Fire De artment staffin ?
f
�
�
i'
I�
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
ADVISORY MEASURE
YES
Advisory Vote Only
If the proposed sales tax measure
(Measure � is approved, should a
portion of the proceeds be used to fund
improvements to City facilities to meet
Federal Americans with Disabilities Act NO
(ADA) requirements, including, but not
limited to, upgrade of the City Hall
Complex?
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
MEASURE
Shall the City of Arroyo Grande enact a YES
one-half cent sales tax to fund
community needs, with a requirement to
�I publish an annual report to be
distributed to each household on the
revenues and expenditures from the
proceeds, and requiring a review and NO
public hearing by the City Council every
five years to determine whether the
sales tax is necessary to remain in
effect?
SECTION 2. That the full text of the measure is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
incorporated herein by this reference and will be included in its entirety with the ballot
measure arguments.
SECTION 3. That in all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the election shall be
held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.
SECTION 4. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the
City Clerk is authorized, instructed, and directed to give further or additional notice of
the election, in the time, form and manner as required by law.
SECTION 5. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.
�
i
i
�
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 4
On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member
, and on the following role call vote, to wit:
� AYES:
' NOES:
; the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 27ih day of June, 2006.
i
EXHIBIT "A"
FULL TEXT OF MEASURE _
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADDING
CHAPTER 3.22 TO TITLE 3 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL
CODE ESTABLISHING A TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX TO BE
ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE VOTERS OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF CODE.
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Title 3 is hereby amended to add Chapter 3.22 to
read as follows:
CHAPTER 3.22. TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX.
3.22.010. TITLE.
This ordinance shall be known as the "Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance of the
City of Arroyo Grande". The City of Arroyo Grande hereinafter shall be called "City."
This ordinance shall be applicable in the incorporated territory of the City.
3.22.020. PURPOSE.
This ordinance is adopted to achieve the following, among other purposes, and directs
i that the provisions hereof be interpreted in order to accomplish those purposes:
A. To impose a retail transactions and use tax in accordance with the provisions
of Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation
Code and Section (7285.9 or 7285.91) of Part 1.7 of Division 2 which authorizes the
City to adopt this tax ordinance which shall be operative if a majority of the electors
voting on the measure vote to approve the imposition of the tax at an election called for
that purpose.
' B. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that incorporates
provisions identical to, those of the Sales and Use Tax Law of the State of California
insofar as those provisions are not inconsistent with the requirements and limitations
contained in Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
C. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that imposes a tax and
provides a measure therefore that can be administered and collected by the State
Board of Equalization in a manner that adapts itself as fully as practicable to, and
requires the least possible deviation from, the existing statutory and administrative
procedures followed by the State Board of Equalization in administering and collecting
the California State Sales and Use Taxes.
D. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that can be administered
in a manner that will be, to the greatest degree possible, consistent with the provisions
, of Part 1 .6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, minimize the cost of
,
collecting the transactions and use taxes, and at the same time, minimize the burden of
record keeping upon persons subject to taxation under the provisions of this ordinance.
3:22.030. OPERATIVE DATE.
"Operative Date" means the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more
than 110 days after the adoption of this ordinance, the date of such adoption being as
set forth below.
3.22.040. CONTRACT WITH STATE.
Prior to the operative date, the City shall contract with the State Board of
Equalization to perform all functions incident to the administration and operation of this
transactions and use tax ordinance; provided, that if the City shall not have contracted
with the State Board of Equalization prior to the operative date, it shall nevertheless so
contract and in such a case the operative date shall be the first day of the first calendar
' quarter following the execution of such a contract.
3.22.050. TRANSACTIONS TAX RATE.
For the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail, a tax is hereby
imposed upon all retailers in the incorporated territory of the City at the rate of .5% of
the gross receipts of any retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property sold at
retail in the City on and after the operative date of this ordinance.
3.22.060. PLACE OF SALE.
For the purposes of this ordinance, all retail sales are consummated at the place of
business of the retailer unless the tangible personal property sold is delivered by the
retailer or his agent to an out-of-state destination or to a common carrier for delivery to
an out-of-state destination. The gross receipts from such sales shall include delivery
charges, when such charges are subject to the state sales and use tax, regardless of
the place to which delivery is made. In the event a retailer has no permanent place of
business in the State or has more than one place of business, the place or places at
which the retail sales are consummated shall be determined under rules and
regulations to be prescribed and adopted by the State Board of Equalization.
3.22.070. USE TAX RATE.
An excise tax is hereby imposed on the storage, use or other consumption in the
City of tangible personal property purchased from any retailer on and after the operative
date of this ordinance for storage, use or other consumption in said territory at the rate
of .5°/a of the sales price of the property. The sales price shall include delivery charges
when such charges are subject to state sales or use tax regardless of the place to
which delivery is made.
3.22.080. ADOPTION OF PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW. Except as otherwise
provided in this ordinance and except insofar as they are inconsistent with the
provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, all of the
provisions of Part 1 (commencing with Section 6001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code are hereby adopted and made a part of this ordinance as though fully
set forth herein.
z
3.22.090. LIMITATIONS ON ADOPTION OF STATE LAW AND COLLECTION OF
USE TAXES.
In adopting the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code:
A. Wherever the State of California is named or referred to as the taxing
agency, the name of this City shall be substituted therefor. However, the substitution
shall not be made when:
1. The word "State" is used as a part of the title of the State Controller,
State Treasurer, State Board of Control, State Board of Equalization, State Treasury, or
the Constitution of the State of California;
2. The result of that substitution would require action to be taken by or
against this City or any agency, officer, or employee thereof rather than by or against
the State Board of Equalization, in performing the functions incident to the
administration or operation of this Ordinance.
3. In those sections, including, but not necessarily limited to sections
referring to the exterior boundaries of the State of California, where the result of the
substitution would be to:
a. Provide an exemption from this tax with respect to certain sales,
storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property which would not
otherwise be exempt from this tax while such sales, storage, use or other consumption
remain subject to tax by the State under the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code, or;
b. Impose this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use or other
consumption of tangible personal property which would not be subject to tax by the
state under the said provision of that code.
4. In Sections 6701, 6702 (except in the last sentence thereof), 6711,
6715, 6737, 6797 or 6828 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
B. The word "City" shall be substituted for the word "State" in the phrase
"retailer engaged in business in this State" in Section 6203 and in the definition of that
phrase in Section 6203.
3.22.100. PERMIT NOT REQUIRED. If a seller's permit has been issued to a retailer
under Section 6067 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, an additional transactor's
permit shall not be required by this ordinance.
3.22.110. EXEMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS.
A. There shall be excluded from the measure of the transactions tax and
the use tax the amount of any sales tax or use tax imposed by the State of California or
by any city, city and county, or county pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local
' Sales and Use Tax Law or the amount of any state-administered transactions or use
tax.
3
B. There are exempted from the computation of the amount of transactions
tax the gross receipts from:
1. Sales of tangible personal property, other than fuel or petroleum
products, to operators of aircraft to be used or consumed principally outside the county
in which the sale is made and directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as
common carriers of persons or property under the authority of the laws of this State, the
United States, or any foreign government.
2. Sales of property to be used outside the City which is shipped to a
point outside the City, pursuant to the contract of sale, by delivery to such point by the
retailer or his agent, or by delivery by the retailer to a carrier for shipment to a
consignee at such point. For the purposes of this paragraph, delivery to a point outside
the City shall be satisfied:
a. With respect to vehicles (other than commercial vehicles)
subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000) of
Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with Section 21411 of the
Public Utilities Code, and undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5
(commencing with Section 9840) of the Vehicle Code by registration to an out-of-City
address and by a declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, stating that
such address is, in fact, his or her principal place of residence; and
b. With respect to commercial vehicles, by registration to a place
of business out-of-City and declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer,
that the vehicle will be operated from that address.
3. The sale of tangible personal property if the seller is obligated to
furnish the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the
operative date of this ordinance.
4. A lease of tangible personal property which is a continuing sale of
such property, for any period of time for which the lessor is obligated to lease the
property for an amount fixed by the lease prior to the operative date of this ordinance.
5. For the purposes of subparagraphs (3) and (4) of this section, the
sale or lease of tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated
pursuant to a contract or lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract
or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice,
whether or not such right is exercised.
C. There are exempted from the use tax imposed by this ordinance, the
storage, use or other consumption in this City of tangible personal property:
1. The gross receipts from the sale of which have been subject to a
transactions tax under any state-administered transactions and use tax ordinance.
2. Other than fuel or petroleum products purchased by operators of
aircraft and used or consumed by such operators directly and exclusively in the use of
4
� such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property for hire or compensation under
a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued pursuant to the laws of this
State, the United States, or any foreign government. This exemption is in addition to
the exemptions provided in Sections 6366 and 6366.1 of the Revenue and Taxation
Cod`e of the State of California.
3. If the purchaser is obligated to purchase the property for a fixed price
pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this ordinance.
4. If the possession of, or the exercise of any right or power over, the
tangible personal property arises under a lease which is a continuing purchase of such
property for any period of time for which the lessee is obligated to lease the property for
an amount fixed by a lease prior to the operative date of this ordinance.
5. For the purposes of subparagraphs (3) and (4) of this section,
storage, use, or other consumption, or possession of, or exercise of any right or power
over, tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a
contract or lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has
the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not
such right is exercised.
6. Except as provided in subparagraph (7), a retailer engaged in
business in the City shall not be required to collect use tax from the purchaser of
tangible personal property, unless the retailer ships or delivers the property into the City
or participates within the City in making the sale of the property, including, but not
limited to, soliciting or receiving the order, either directly or indirectly, at a place of
business of the retailer in the City or through any representative, agent, canvasser,
solicitor, subsidiary, or person in the City under the authority of the retailer.
7. "A retailer engaged in business in the City" shall also include any
retailer of any of the following: vehicles subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1
(commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in
compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, or undocumented vessels
registered under Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840) of the Vehicle Code.
That retailer shall be required to collect use tax from any purchaser who registers or
licenses the vehicle, vessel, or aircraft at an address in the City.
D. Any person subject to use tax under this ordinance may credit against
that tax any transactions tax or reimbursement for transactions tax paid to a district
imposing, or retailer liable for a transactions tax pursuant to Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code with respect to the sale to the person of the property the
storage, use or other consumption of which is subject to the use tax.
3.22.120. AMENDMENTS.
All amendments subsequent to the effective date of this ordinance to Part 1 of
Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code relating to sales and use taxes and which
are not inconsistent with Part 1.6 and Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code, and all amendments to Part 1.6 and Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code, shall automatically become a part of this ordinance,
5
provided however, that no such amendment shall operate so as to affect the rate of tax
imposed by this ordinance.
3.22.130. ENJOINING COLLECTION FORBIDDEN.
No injunction or writ of mandate or other legal or equitable process shall issue in any
suit, action or proceeding in any court against the State or the City, or against any
officer of the State or the City, to prevent or enjoin the collection under this ordinance,
or Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, of any tax or any amount
of tax required to be collected.
3.22.140. ANNUAL REPORT.
City shall annually mail to each household an annual report, which presents in
summary form expenditures from the prior fiscal year from revenue generated from the
, Transactions and Use Tax and budgeted expenditures for the upcoming fiscal year.
' 3.22.150. PERIODIC REVIEW.
The City Council shall consider suspension, reduction or repeal of the Transactions
� and Use Tax at public hearings every five years after the effective date of this
ordinance.
SECTION 2. USE OF TAX PROCEEDS.
All proceeds of the tax levied and imposed hereunder shall be accounted for and
paid into the City of Arroyo Grande General Fund, and may be used for any lawful
, purpose as designated by the City Council.
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance and the application of such
provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
SECTION 4. STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR TAX.
This ordinance is adopted pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 7285.9.
SECTION 5. ELECTION REQUIRED.
This ordinance shall not become operative unless and until a majority of the electors
voting on this measure vote to approve the imposition of the tax at the general
municipal election to be held on November 7, 2006.
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
If this ordinance is approved by a majority of the electors voting on the issue at the
November 7, 2006 general municipal election, pursuant to Elections Code Section
9217, the tax shall be become effective ten (10) days after the City Council accepts the
certified results of the election.
6
Attachment 7
DRAFT
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF ADVISORY MEASURE
Ongoing funding for improvements to the City of Arroyo Grande's transportation
system is needed to reduce and prevent traffic congestion. Your "YES" vote on
Measure will provide the funding needed and your "YES" vote on Measure
will identify transportation improvements as a community priority.
In particular, the Brisco Road/Halcyon Road — Highway 101 interchange and
underpass is deficient for existing and future projected volumes of traffic. This
traffic bottleneck negatively impacts pedestrian and vehicle safety, as well as
inhibits prompt emergency response by police, fire and paramedics. Expensive
fuel is wasted and unnecessary air pollution is created. In addition, the
constraints created by the limited capacity of this interchange restrict the ability to
move forward with projects to meet important needs in the community, including
economic development, affordable housing and a proposed recreation center.
The City is currently developing plans for improvements in coordination with
Caltrans and the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments. However, State and
Federal funding originally projected to pay for a major portion of this and other
transportation projects has been significantly delayed and/or is no longer
available. As a result, increased local funding is needed in order to implement
improvements.
If Measure is approved, the City can utilize a portion of the increased
sales tax revenue to finance the increased amount of local funds needed for
transportation improvements. These improvements are important to both the
community's future quality of life and planned economic growth. Your City
Council urges you to vote "YES" on Measure
Tony Ferrara, Mayor Jim Guthrie, Mayor Pro Tem
Jim Dickens, Council Member Joe Costello, Council Member
Ed Arnold, Council Member
DRAFT
j ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF ADVISORY MEASURE
d
Maintenance and upgrade of the City's roads, drainage and other infrastructure is
important to the community's future. Your "YES" vote on Measure will
provide the funding needed and your "YES" vote on Measure will identify
infrastructure maintenance and improvements as a community priority.
Due largely to funds taken from the City by the State and the lack of State and
Federal grants that used to be available for capital improvement projects, many
needed improvements to the City's infrastructure have been deferred or not
� sufficiently funded. If Measure is approved, the City can use a portion of
! the revenue to meet the following needs:
. Annual preventative maintenance on the City's road system
• Street improvement projects
. Upgrade of the City's aging and deficient drainage system
• Projects to prevent pollution, erosion and sedimentation in the City's creek
system from storm water runoff
. Maintenance and upgrade of the City's street trees and natural open spaces
These projects are a critical investment in the communitys future. Appropriate
maintenance and infrastructure improvements reduce long-term reconstruction
costs, increase safety, reduce the risk of injury and property damage, minimize
the City's liability costs, increase property values, and protect valuable natural
resources.
The City has developed a master plan for each area of its infrastructure, which
identifies a specific list of projects and maintenance activities needed to most
effectively manage the City's resources in the long-term. If Measure is
approved, it will provide a reliable funding source to implement these plans. Your
City Council urges you to vote "YES" on Measure
Tony Ferrara, Mayor Jim Guthrie, Mayor Pro Tem
Jim Dickens, Council Member Joe Costello, Council Member
�
Ed Arnold, Council Member
I'�
�
�
DRAFT
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF ADVISORY MEASURE
The community depends on its Fire and Police Department personnel to protect
lives and property. However, they need adequate facilities, equipment and
staffing to perform their jobs effectively. Your "YES" vote on Measure
will provide the funding needed and your "YES" vote on Measure will
identify public safety needs as a community priority.
The Police Department does not have adequate space for all personnel to
; perform necessary functions. Staffing has grown from 12 full-time and 6 part-
y time to 36 full-time and 20 part-time since the facility began use as the Police
r Station in 1973. The addition of an adequate Emergency Operations Center is
also needed to coordinate citywide incident response activities in the event of a
disaster. A Federal grant was initially approved for the addition of a second
story, but Congress never approved the funding. As a result, the project will now
need a new funding source. A modular unit has been installed on the Police
Station property to provide needed space on a temporary basis. However,
approval of the sales tax measure will provide funding needed to proceed with
the permanent Police Station expansion project.
The Fire Department ladder truck is in need of replacement. It is over 20 years
old and no longer meets current safety standards. The ladder truck is important
to respond to structure fires and emergency response involving extended
heights. Limited additional staffing needs have also been identified in the Fire
Department as the City completes its transition from a fully volunteer to a
combination volunteer/paid Department.
Approval of Measure will help provide the resources needed to
address public safety needs in the most cost efficient way. Public safety services
are a critical function of local government. Your City Council urges you to vote
"YES" on Measure
Tony Ferrara, Mayor Jim Guthrie, Mayor Pro Tem
Jim Dickens, Council Member Joe Costello, Council Member
Ed Arnold, Council Member
DRAFT
i
i ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF ADVISORY MEASURE
It is important that all City facilities meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
requirements in order to comply with Federal law and to ensure that everyone
has equal access to City services. Your "YES" vote on Measure will
provide the funding needed and your "YES" vote on Measure will
identify ADA projects as a community priority.
The City has a master plan in place to meet ADA requirements. Progress has
been made each year in implementing that plan by utilizing limited funding
available. However, additional revenue necessary to accelerate implementation
� of the plan has been identified as an important need to the community.
i
The most significant ADA project is upgrade of the City Hall Complex. A number
of improvements have been made, but full compliance is not possible without
making additional costly modifications. It would not be an efficient use of
resources if a major investment were made to facilities that will not meet the
City's long-term needs. Therefore, a plan has been developed to renovate the
existing City Hall and construct a new building next door to house Community
Development, Public Works Administration, Building & Life Safety and a new
Council Chambers. This plan was developed as part of a process that involved
numerous public workshops and community input.
Approval of Measure will provide funds necessary to move forv✓ard
with this and other ADA projects expeditiously. It is important that funding be
directed to meet the needs of everyone in the community. Therefore, your City
Council urges you to vote "YES" on Measure
Tony Ferrara, Mayor Jim Guthrie, Mayor Pro Tem
Jim Dickens, Council Member Joe Costello, Council Member
Ed Arnold, Council Member
�
'+ DRAFT
' ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE
,
Your "YES" vote on Measure will provide important local funding to meet
local needs. Despite nearly $700,000 in City revenue taken by the State annually,
the City has maintained services by increasing the efficiency of its operations.
However, the City's long-range financial plan has identified important projects that
� cannot be funded with existing revenues. Measure will establish financial
independence from State and Federal governments so we can control our own
destiny.
Of the current 7'/<% sales tax our Cit receives onl 1%. Your "YES" vote will
� Y Y
raise the City share to 1'/z % to address important needs, such as:
. Transportation projects, including upgrade of the Brisco/Halcyon interchange;
. Infrastructure improvements, including the street, drainage and creek systems;
• Public safety needs, including Police and Fire Department facilities, equipment
and staffing; and
. City facility upgrades to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
requirements.
Your "YES" vote provides the most fair and economical way to fund community
needs. Everyone who utilizes our infrastructure and services pays sales tax. A
� significant amount of the money will likely come from people who live outside the
City of Arroyo Grande. We will pay a lower or equal sales tax than approximately
85% of Californians even after the '/2 % proposed increase.
City government will be held accountable. Citizens will receive an annual report
on money received and how it is spent. The City Council will be required to
conduct a review and public hearing every five years to determine whether to keep
the tax in effect.
Measure is important to meet future needs, maintain the City's
infrastructure in the long-term and preserve the special quality of life in our
community. Your City Council urges you to vote "YES" on Measure
Tony Ferrara, Mayor Jim Guthrie, Mayor Pro Tem
Jim Dickens, Council Member Joe Costello, Council Member
Ed Arnold, Council Member
` , _ _
PaROro 11.a.
pE c,P
FINCORYOAATED 92
U �
m
* '�`Y 10. "" ' MEMORANDUM
c4��FORN`P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
� FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER `v`�"
y
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF 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
DATE: MAY 9, 2006
I RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the
proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Arroyo Grande,
Lucia Mar Unified School District, J.H. Land Partnership and John Taylor, Trustee.
FUNDING:
Under the proposed Agreement, J.H. Land Partnership will provide a traffic mitigation
payment to the City of $600,000. Approximately $400,000 will be needed to complete
the road improvements. The remaining amount of about $200,000 will be used for
mitigation of the loss of agricultural land. The City will also be responsible for
reimbursement of costs for planning services associated with implementation of the
provisions of the MOU. This is estimated to be $15,000 and would be appropriated
from the City's Unappropriated General Fund Balance at the 3rd Quarter budget report.
DISCUSSION:
Backqround
In April 2003, a joint meeting of the City Council and Lucia Mar Unified School District
Board of Education was held and potential traffic improvements to the Fair Oaks
Avenue/Orchard Street intersection were discussed. At the meeting, City and Caltrans
staff coordinated presentation of traffic model simulations that tested a number of
alternatives identified, including intersection modifications, installation of a traffic signal,
and adjustments to both Orchard Street ingress and egress. Unfortunately, the
simulations showed that each option would either result in increased congestion or
would create some other problem within the street or freeway offramp. As a result, the
only option that was agreed would provide relief to the intersection was to create an
alternative access from Orchard Street to Fair Oaks Avenue in order to provide an
option for residents of Vista Del Mar to exit.
CITY COUNCIL
CASTILLO DEL MAR EXTENSION MOU
MAY 9, 2006
PAGE 2
Castillo del Mar currently includes a private drive through Arroyo Grande High School
that is owned by the Lucia Mar Unified School District ("DistricY'). The most feasible
way identified by the City to create a connection was to extend Castillo del Mar by
providing public access to this road. However, this would not only require District �'
approval, but would also require acquisition of a small portion of agricultural land
adjacent to the High School in order to create an appropriate intersection at Valley
Road.
In September 2004, the City Council considered a request by J.H. Land Partnership to
allow use of Orchard Street for access to a proposed 16-unit development in the County
adjacent to Vista Del Mar in the City. During the approval of the Vista Del Mar
development, the City maintained a one-foot access easement at the southeast end of
Castillo del Mar. As mitigation for the traffic impacts to Orchard Street, J.H. Land
Partnership offered a mitigation payment of $613,632 to the City. The City Council
denied the request, indicating that any additional vehicle trips generated were
unacceptable unless an alternate access could be developed. The City Council
directed staff to continue to work on proposals for an extension to Valley Road.
Issues
Until recently, a number of issues have impacted the City's ability to extend Castillo del
Mar, which include the following:
! ■ Cost of road improvements;
■ Inability to obtain District approval for use of the private road; and
■ Cost and inability to acquire adjacent agricultural land needed from John Taylor,
the property owner.
Provisions of MOU
The proposed MOU includes a number of terms involving the District, J.H. Land
Partnership and John Taylor, Trustee that may enable the City to accomplish the
extension of Castillo del Mar to Valley Road at no cost to the City. The key terms
include the following:
■ J.H. Land Partnership will acquire approximately one acre of agricultural land
from John Taylor, Trustee, which they will deed to the City at no cost;
• J.H. Land Partnership will pay to City $600,000 for the cost of road improvements
and mitigation of loss of agricultural land;
• District will relinquish the private road to the City at no cost upon approval by City
of a General Plan amendment and rezoning to hillside residential of 10 acres
owned by the District on the south side of the roadway ; and
• The existing access easement and access control located at the south end of
� Castillo del Mar will be moved to the southern access point of the development
proposed by J.H. Land Partnership.
, ■ Remaining land deeded to the City by J.H. Land Partnership not used for road
construction will be deeded to the District.
S:�Administration\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports\Cas[illo Del Mar Extension MOU 5.9.06.doc
CITY COUNCIL
CASTILLO DEL MAR EXTENSION MOU
MAY 9, 2006
PAGE 3
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Authorize the Mayor to execute the proposed MOU;
- Modify the terms as appropriate and authorize the Mayor to execute the MOU;
- Postpone consideration of the MOU;
- Do not approve the MOU;
- Provide direction to staff.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Memorandum of Understanding with the Lucia Mar Unified School
District, J.H. Land Partnership and John Taylor, Trustee
S:Wdministration\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports\Cas[illo Del Maz Extension MOU 5.9.06.doc
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
AMONG
� LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE,J.H. LAND
I PARTNERSHIP, L.P. AND JOHN TAYLOR, TRUSTEE
REGARDING EXTENSION OF CASTILLO DEL MAR ROADWAY
1. MEMORANDUM OF iJNDERSTANDING
� This Memarandum of Understanding ("MOU")between the Lucia Mar Unified School District,
(the "DISTRICT"), the City of Arroyo Grande (the "CITY"), J.H. Land Partnership and John
, Taylor, Trustee (collectively the "Parties") constitutes a conceptual agreement framework for
the Parties to wark cooperatively and to further coordinate and develop the proposed extension
of the existing CITY roadway known as Castillo Del Maz, from its present terminus, to Valley
Road to serve the existing Vista Del Maz development located within the CITY limits and the
, J.H. Land Partnership proposed development ]ocated within the unincorporated area of San
, Luis Obispo County. The proposed roadway extension will traverse the DISTRICT's existing
I Arroyo Grande High School ("AGHS")property.
I
I 2. THE ROADWAY EXTENSION PROJECT
I'� Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein, illustrates, in conceptual form, an
� intended general location for the roadway extension from its present terminus, through a
portion of the AGHS property and a portion of Assessor's Parcel No. 006-095-002 (the"Taylor
Property"), to Valley Road. The exact design and location of the proposed roadway extension
will be established through cooperation and agreement of the Parties. All Parties recognize the
� need to provide safe access to the existing and proposed parcels and the importance of this
proposed roadway extension in improving existing circulation conditions and as a safe, viable
transportation corridor in the CITY'S long-term traffic and circulation plan.
3. PLJRPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of this MOU is to express the Parties' conceptual agreement for the roadway
extension and related issues. Specifically, the Parties are in conceptual agreement on the
following:
(a) The CITY and DISTRICT will plan for, design, and develop a local public roadway to
improve circulation and enhance public safety and to provide vehiculaz, bicycle, and
pedestrian access from the present terminus of the Castillo Del Maz roadway, through
the AGHS Property and Taylor Property, to Valley Road. The Parties will work
cooperatively to ensure the road location is consistent with the needs of the DISTRICT
� and the CITY. It is the intention of the Parties that the final roadway design and location
be established as soon as feasible.
4 May 2006
1 of 5
(b) Subject to fulfillment of the provisions of this MOU, the DISTRICT will provide land
consistent with the terms herein described, through the AGHS Property, to serve as par[
of the location for the roadway extension project. The DISTRICT will deed or dedicate
the necessary land to CITY concunently with, or upon, final approval by CITY, upon
� terms and conditions acceptable to DISTRICT, of DISTRICT'S General Plan
iAmendmenbrezoning application referred to below.
(c) The CITY will design and construct the proposed roadway extension, including all
surveying, engineering, utility construction or relocation, grading, and drainage
improvement costs, and shall comply with all required mitigation measures for the
project, at no cost to DISTRICT, J.H. Land Partnership or John Taylor, Trustee.
Thereafter, the roadway extension shall be maintained by CITY at no cost to
DISTRICT, J.H. Land Partnership, or John Taylor, Trustee.
(d) The Parties will provide each other necessary information and assistance regarding the
development of the proposed roadway extension, including without limitation,
executing, acknowledging, and delivering all documents reasonably requested by one of
the Parties or required by any governmental authority.
(e) The DISTRICT intends to create a separate 10-acret parcel on the south side of the
proposed roadway extension ("DISTRICT'S New Parcel") for present allowed use and
potential future development. DISTRICT will process a public land parcel map
application to separate this new parcel from the AGHS school and grounds.
(� The DISTRICT will apply for and CITY will expeditiously process a General Plan
AmendmenUrezoning application to designate/ zone the New Parcel for "Residential
Hillside"uses.
(g) If CITY approves the DISTRICT'S General Plan Amendmend rezoning application
upon terms and conditions acceptable to DISTRICT, then DISTRICT shall
subsequently apply for and CITY shall expeditiously process a tentative tract map
application to subdivide the New Pazcel consistent with its new zoning designation,
subject to compliance with all laws. The DISTRICT'S proposed tentative tract map
application may include a request for approval of"density bonus" units (in excess of the
number of units otherwise permitted by the CITY'S "Residential Hillside" zoning), in
accordance with the CITY'S density bonus and affordable housing bonus incentives and
consistent with State law— SB 1818 and SB 435.
(h) John Taylor, Trustee agrees to sell to J.H. Land Partnership and J.H. Land Partnership
agrees to buy from John Taylor, Trustee approximately one acre of land at the south
side of the Taylor Property for a total sum of eight hundred thousand dollars
($800,000). J.H. Land Partnership shall obtain the right to access said road extension
subject to issuance of a CITY encroachment permit.
(i) J.H. Land Partnership agrees to deed to the CITY at no cost to CITY the entire property
of approximately one acre acyuired from John Taylor, Trustee for the purpose of
4 May 2006
2of5
enabling the connection of the roadway extension to Valley Road as partial mitigation
for traffic impacts associated with access through City from Vista Del Maz and the
development proposed by J.H. Land Partnership.
(j) J.H. Land Partnership agrees to pay CITY six hundred thousand dollars ($60Q000) to
further mitigate impacts and related costs for the road extension and the loss of prime
agricultural property.
(k) CITY and J.H. Land Partnership agree to relocate the existing access easement and
access control located at the south end of Castillo del Maz to the southern access point
of the development proposed by J.H. Land Partnership.
(1) The CITY agees to deed to the DISTRICT the remainder portion of the Taylor
Property created by the new roadway (the "Remainder Pazcel") and re-designate and
rezone the Remainder Parcel from Agriculture to Public Facilities. CITY shall mitigate
all impacts from said redesignation and rezoning of the Remainder Parcel.
' (m) CITY and DISTRICT will jointly determine the allowed uses of the Remainder Pazcel,
which generally will be combined with AGHS facilities and grounds, including, but not
' limited to, possible parking, landscaping or school buildings. No water, sewer, drainage
or other utilities relocation or improvements are proposed for the Remainder Pazcel as
part of this MOU.
(n) The CITY will waive the DISTRICT's application and processing fees for the General
Plan Amendment/rezoningf applications.
(o) The Parties will work cooperatively to cause the proposed roadway extension design
and alignment to be modified through the planning process for the project to meet the
needs of the DISTRICT and the CITY.
(-�} The CITY will reimburse the DISTRICT for any costs DISTRICT incurs for planning;
services for the preparation and administration of this MOU for the roadway extension
project and related General Plan AmendmenUrezone so long as DISTRICT complies
with terms set forth in this MOU. It is specifically understood that the CITY will not be
responsible for costs in connection with the planning, engineering, and/or other
professional services related to processing the vesting tentative tract map application for
the DistricYs New Parcel.
I (q) The CITY and DISTRICT jointly will prepaze a schedule for accomplishing each of the
tasks set forth in this MOU, including a schedule for the roadway extension
construction.
(r) The Parties are cognizant of the current fiscal constraints facing the DISTRICT, the
need to creatively ameliorate the concomitant impacts to the DISTRICT'S students and
the related need to minimize DISTRICT outlays associated with this MOU.
4 May 2006
3 of 5
4. GENERAL PROVISIONS
The following are general provisions of this MOU:
I (a) All coordination, assistance and services rendered as party to the development of
reasonable and feasible solutions to improve cunent and future traffic safety and
circulation needs for the roadway extension under this MOU will be carried out in
compliance with the objectives and responsibilities of the Parties. Nothing in this MOU
shall be in conflict with the responsibilities of any participating party as defined in
Federal, State, or local law, statue, regulation, or participating parties' policies and
procedures.
(b) The Parties will exchange information and consult with each other before implementing
the provisions hereof that may affect the ability of any other party to perform under this
MOU.
(c) The CITY will address environmental issues related to the development of the proposed
, roadway extension project, including acting as the "Lead Agenc}�' for the project under
the California Environmental Quality Act.
5. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The Parties shall each designate in writing a single point of contact to ensure their respective
responsibilities are satisfied. All future correspondence regarding this MOU shall be directed to
the designated single points of contact.
6. EFFECTIVE DATE. TERMINATION AND MODIFICATION
This MOU will become effective when executed by all Parties. This MOU will terminate upon
an impasse in the negotiation among the parties, or by the mutual consent of the parties. This
MOU may be amended by written instrument executed by all the parties.
7. MUTUAL INDENINIFICATION
Each of the Parties shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, indemnify and hold each of the
other parties harmless against any and all costs, expenses, losses, claims, suits, damages, and
liabilities (including reasonable attorney's fees) for acts or omissions arising out of or in
� connection with this MOU.
///
///
///
///
4 May 2006
4of5
i
�
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
By: , By:
Mayor President of the School Board
Dated: Dated:
J.H. LAND PARTNERSHIP
By:
JOHN TAYLOR, TRUSTEE
Dated: Dated:
J:\wdocs\00353\034�agt\00125 820.DOC
4 May 2006
5 of 5