Agenda Packet 2007-01-09
CITY OF
Tony Ferrara
Ed Arnold
Joe Costello
Jim Guthrie
Chuck Fellows
Mayor
Mayor Pro Tem
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
Agenda
City Council
"'"
~H~L I FO R I~J.~/J'
"'Y::::7~~'-'
Steven Adams City Manager
Timothy J. Carmel City Attorney
Kelly Wetmore City Clerk
AGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 9,2007
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:
ARROYO GRANDE LIONS CLUB
4.
INVOCATION:
PASTOR JERRY NELSON
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
5.a. Mayor's Commendation - Roy Mumaw. Arroyo Grande Police DeDartment
6. AGENDA REVIEW:
6a. Move that all ordinances presented tonight be read in title only and all further readings
be waived.
AGENDA SUMMARY - JANUARY 9, 2007
PAGE 2
7. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present
issues, thoughts, or suggestions on matters not scheduled on this agenda.
Comments should be limited to those matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City
Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council from taking formal action on matters not
published on the agenda. In response to your comments, the Mayor or presiding
Council Member may:
. Direct City staff to assist or coordinate with you.
. A Council Member may state a desire to meet with you.
. It may be the desire of the Council to place your issue or matter on a future
Council agenda.
Please adhere to the following procedures when addressing the Council:
. Comments should be limited to 3 minutes or less.
. Your comments should be directed to the Council as a whole and not directed
to individual Council members.
. Slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member or
member of the audience shall not be permitted.
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Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit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
December 01, 2006 through December 15, 2006.
a.b. Consideration of Statement of Investment Deposits (KRAETSCH)
Recommended Action: Receive and file the report of current Investment Deposits
as of November 30, 2006.
a.c. Consideration of Annual Financial Report - Fiscal Year 2005-06 Receipt and
Use of Water and Sewer Capacitv and Connection Fees/Charaes (KRAETSCH)
Recommended Action: Receive and file the annual report of the receipt and use of
water and sewer capacity and connection fees and charges, in compliance with
Government Code Section 66013.
a.d. Consideration of Resolution Acceptina the Status Report on Development
Impact (AB-1600) Fees (KRAETSCH)
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution accepting the status report on the receipt
and use of AB-1600 fees for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006.
AGENDA SUMMARY - JANUARY 9, 2007
PAGE 3
8. CONSENT AGENDA (continuedl:
8.e. Consideration of Annual Adiustment of Development Impact Fees (KRAETSCH)
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution approving the annual adjustment to the
City's Development Impact Fees.
8.f. Consideration of Adoption of Resolution Authorizina Examination of
Transactions and Use Tax Records (KRAETSCH)
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution authorizing the City Council, City Manager,
City Attorney, Director of Financial Services and the firm of Hinderliter, de Llamas,
and Associates to examine the City of Arroyo Grande's transactions and use tax
records.
8.g. Consideration of Approval of Minutes (WETMORE)
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the Special (Closed Session) City
Council Meetings of November 14 and 28, 2006; the Regular City
Council/Redevelopment Agency Meetings of November 14 and 28, 2006; the Special
City Council Meeting of December 11, 2006, and the Regular City
Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting of December 12, 2006, as submitted.
8.h. Consideration of a Contract Amendment with Wood Rodaers. Inc. to Include a
Roundabout Feasibility Analvsis in the Brisco Road-Halcvon Road/Route 101
Proiect Approval and Environmental Document (PA&EDl (ADAMS)
Recommended Action: 1) Do not approve the previously proposed contract
amendment with Wood Rodgers, Inc. to include a roundabout feasibility analysis in
the Brisco Road-Halcyon Road/Route 101 Project Approval & Environmental
Document (PA&ED).
8.1. Consideration of Revised Memorandum of Understandina (MOUl Between the
City of Arrovo Grande. Lucia Mar Unified School District. J.H. Land Partnership
and John Tavlor. Trustee Reaardina Land Acauisition and Extension of Castillo
Del Mar to Vallev Road (ADAMS)
Recommended Action: Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the revised
MOU between the City of Arroyo Grande, Lucia Mar Unified School District, J.H. Land
Partnership and John Taylor, Trustee.
8.j. Consideration of Revisions to the Citv's Travel Policv (ADAMS)
Recommended Action: Approve the recommended new travel policy.
8.k. Consideration of Appropriation of $7.500 for Trimmina of Eucalvptus Trees on
The Pike (ADAMS)
Recommended Action: Appropriate $7,500 for trimming of eucalyptus trees on The
Pike and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract not to exceed $22,000 to
Mustang Tree Care to perform the work.
8.1. Consideration of Approval of Temporary Emplovment Aareement for Actina
Director of Buildina & Fire (ADAMS)
Recommended Action: Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the
Temporary Employment Agreement between the City of Arroyo Grande and Doug
Hamp.
AGENDA SUMMARY - JANUARY 9, 2007
PAGE 4
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
9.a. Consideration of DeveloDment .Code Amendment Case No. 04-005B. and General
Plan Amendment 06-004. Amendments to Title 16 of the City of Arrovo Grande
MuniciDal Code Pertainina to Residential DeveloDment Standards. Rezonina
Portions of the Residential Rural DistricUo Residential Suburban in the Vicinity of
La Barranca. Canyon Way and Trinitv Avenue and Amendina all Desian
DeveloDment Overlav Districts Intended to Make Title 16 Consistent with the City's
General Plan: and a ProDosed Chanae in General Plan Land Use
Desianation/Zonina for the ProDertv at 1110 Sunset Drive (STRONG)
Recommended Action: The Planning Commission recommends: 1) the City Council
introduce an ordinance to amend standards applicable to the City's residential
districts and the Zoning map affecting portions of the Residential Rural District and
Design Development Overlay Districts D-2.2 through D-2.19 inclusive: and 2) provide
staff direction to notice the proposed general plan amendment pertaining to Sunset
Drive (MFA-2.13) for Planning Commission's formal recommendation prior to
consideration of adoption of the proposed ordinance tentatively scheduled for January
23, 2007.
10. CONTINUED BUSINESS:
None.
11. NEW BUSINESS:
11.a. Consideration of E. Branch StreetscaDe Enhancement Proiect
(STRONG/SPAGNOLO)
Recommended Action: 1) Approve the proposed E. Branch Streetscape
Enhancement Project; 2) Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with RRM
Design Group to survey and prepare engineering plans and specifications for
proposed crosswalks, bulbouts and landscape components of the E. Branch
Streetscape Enhancement Plan not to exceed $65,000; 3) Authorize the City
Manager to direct Omni-Means to prepare and coordinate related "Design
Exceptions" to State Highway Standards to Caltrans for review and approval under
the existing City contract and not to exceed $29,000; 4) Authorize the order of trash
receptacles, planters, benches and light fixtures; 5) Eliminate prior appropriation of
$92,000 in local matching funds from the General Fund; and 6) Direct staff to pursue
the relinquishment process if the proposed design exceptions are not approved by
Caltrans.
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.
AGENDA SUMMARY - JANUARY 9, 2007
PAGE 5
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.
**************************
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
**************************
City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meetings are cablecast live and videotaped for repiay on Arroyo
Grande's Government Access Channel 20. The rebroadcast schedule is published at www.slo-soan.orq.
5.8.
OF
, .::-p-.
""" "1ft
. ""',:',,\,1 /,1.~"
%Jt-~" C A L'I FOR ~I A......'.,..,"r
ft\,~ ~~ >;~~{,l J
"'" r \I\J: t:. "'"
-"c 7 9 1 '\ ~]J i~ .
Mayor's Commendation
Presented: to '
Roy Mumaw
Support Services
Technician/Dispatcher
On tfiis 9th day of January, 2007
In 'Recognition of your 30 years of
Vedicatea Service to tlie :Arroyo Grande
Pofice Veyartment ana our Community.
8.a.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
CITY COUNCIL
ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES At-
FRANCES R. HEAD, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISO~
CASH DISBURSEMENT RATIFICATION
BY:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
JANUARY 9, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for
the period December 1 through December 15, 2006.
FUNDING:
There is a $792,322.29 fiscal impact that includes the following items:
. Accounts Payable Checks 129235-129528
. Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks
$ 333,414.90
$ 458,907.39
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 staffs recommendation;
. Provide direction to staff.
Attachments:
Attachment 1- December 1- December 15, 2006, Accounts Payable Check Register
Attachment 2- December 8, 2006, Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks Register
apCkHist
12/20/2006 10:39AM
ATTACHMENT 1
Check History Listing
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Page: 1
Bank code: boa
Check #
Date
Vendor
129235 12/01/2006 001050 AMERICAN TEMPS INC
129236 12/01/2006 003817 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SVCS
129237 12/01/2006 003817 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SVCS
Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
00045858 11/21/2006 1,113.56 1,113.56
V 12/01/2006 0.00 0.00
F817396 10/31/2006 97.10
F028928 09/26/2006 89.77
F805719 10/17/2006 85.75
F805721 10/1712006 56.25
F805722 10/17/2006 40.00
F794039 10/03/2006 32.94
F799837 10/10/2006 32.94
F811520 10/24/2006 32.10
F805720 10/17/2006 25.00
F805701 10/17/2006 19.60
F817377 10/31/2006 19.60
F794038 10/03/2006 18.20
F799836 10/10/2006 18.20
F811519 10/24/2006 18.20
F817376 10/31/2006 18.20
F794049 10/03/2006 17.25
F805710 10/17/2006 17.25
F817387 10/31/2006 17.25
F805700 10/17/2006 16.80
F811535 10/24/2006 16.80
F799850 10/10/2006 15.00
F811533 10/24/2006 15.00
F794060 10/03/2006 14.00
F799854 10/10/2006 14.00
F794045 10/03/2006 11.80
F799844 10/10/2006 11.80
F811527 10/24/2006 11.80
F794053 10/03/2006 10.35
F805714 10/17/2006 10.35
F817391 10/31/2006 10.35
F799849 10/10/2006 9.50
F811532 10/24/2006 9.50
Page: 1
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 2
12/20/2006 10:39AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
F794044 10/03/2006 8.80
F799843 10/10/2006 8.80
F811526 10/24/2006 8.80
F794055 10/03/2006 8.50
F805716 10/1712006 8.50
F817393 10/31/2006 8.50
F794052 10/03/2006 6.00
F805713 10/17/2006 6.00
F817390 10/31/2006 6.00
F799852 10/10/2006 5.60
F805718 10/17/2006 5.60
F811534 10/24/2006 5.60
F817395 10/31/2006 5.60
F794054 10/03/2006 5.00
F805715 10/17/2006 5.00
F817392 10/31/2006 5.00
F805706 10/1712006 2.80
F817382 10/31/2006 2.80
F805707 10/1712006 2.80
F817383 10/31/2006 2.80
F794058 10/03/2006 2.80
113006 12/01/2006 -0.12 953.83
129238 12/01/2006 005897 API FUND FOR PAYROLL 1 0/26/06 10/26/2006 464.00 464.00
129239 12/01/2006 002632 API WASTE SERVICES (DBA) 6BOOO022 11/24/2006 274.75 274.75
129240 12/01/2006 000042 ARROYO GRANDE FLOWER 33414/33415 10/31/2006 97.60 97.60
129241 12/01/2006 005507 AT & T 11/8-9816 11/08/2006 156.87
11/8-9867 11/08/2006 79.42
11/7-7480 11/07/2006 67.64 303.93
129242 12/01/2006 005615 AT&T/MCI T5716307 10/11/2006 1,031.68
T5691124 10/07/2006 88.32
T5716319 10/11/2006 88.23
T5707135 10/08/2006 29.66
T5716302 10/11/2006 18.08 1,255.97
Page: 2
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 3
12/20/2006 10:39AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
129243 12/01/2006 001944 BASIC CHEMICAL SI5216205 11/13/2006 650.11 650.11
129244 12/01/2006 000069 BAUER COMPRESSORS, INC 87739 11/09/2006 10,573.99 10,573.99
129245 12/01/2006004150 BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS 10302006 10/30/2006 434.50 434.50
129246 12/01/2006 001917 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH OCT 2006 10/30/2006 196.00 196.00
129247 12/01/2006 000087 BREZDEN PEST CONTROL, 61361 11/16/2006 77.00 77.00
129248 12/01/2006 000090 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER 131155 11/21/2006 249 09 249.09
129249 12/01/2006 000105 CA CONTRACTORS V12949 11/07/2006 281.02 281.02
129250 12/01/2006 005843 CALIFORNIA B10170053718 10/30/2006 10.57
124920306 10/30/2006 3.95 14.52
129251 12/01/2006 003608 CARD INTEGRATORS CORP 0042273-IN 11/09/2006 1,316.73 1,316.73
129252 12/01/2006 005420 CARING CALLERS GRANT#290R6105AG07 11/30/2006 342.00 342.00
129253 12/0112006 000603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 7314-118307 11/06/2006 14.23
7314-120444 11/15/2006 8.15 22.38
129254 12/01/2006 000158 CERTIFIED LABORATORIES 205676 11/13/2006 168.36 168.36
129255 12/01/2006 005901 LISA CLARK 112906 11/30/2006 30.00 30.00
129256 12/01/2006 005902 CLEAR CHANNEL RADIO 112906 12/01/2006 116.00 116.00
129257 12/01/2006 000171 CLINICAL LABORATORY OF 745982 08/08/2006 1,609.00 1,609.00
129258 12/01/2006 004952 COLLINGS & ASSOCIATES . 14510 11/29/2006 325.00
14511 11/29/2006 250.00 575.00
129259 12/01/2006 005903 TIFFANY COOK 113006 12/01/2006 55.00 55.00
129260 12/01/2006 000982 COPWARE 79225 11/01/2006 375.00 375.00
129261 12/01/2006 000794 COUNTRY CHRISTMAS 112906 11/30/2006 115.00 115.00
129262 12/01/2006 000190 CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL N6778 11/14/2006 120.00
N6896 11/16/2006 15.00 135.00
Page: 3
Page: 4
apCkHist . Check History Listing Page: 5
12/20/2006 10:39AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
237901 11/14/2006 88.29
237566 11/08/2006 21.25
CREDIT 905103 11/08/2006 -25.59 301.40
129283 12/01/2006 004969 JOHN KING 113006 11/30/2006 61.64 61.64
129284 12/01/2006 000376 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC 5040186 11/14/2006 42.49 42.49
129285 12/01/2006 000387 LINSON SIGNS(DBA) 5204 11/15/2006 560.00
5195 11/06/2006 560.00 1,120.00
129286 12/01/2006 003818 LITERACY COUNCIL CDBG 11/01/2006 351.00 351.00
129287 12/01/2006 000407 MANKINS FAMILY RENTALS 112706 11/27/2006 2,848.36 2,848.36
129288 12/01/2006 001120 MAXIMUS, INC 1000760-01 F233 03/31/2003 2,575.00
1001113-021233 03/31/2003 2,254.00 4,829.00
129289 12/01/2006 005898 ANGELA MC KIM 112906 11/29/2006 30.00 30.00
129290 12/01/2006 000419 MIDAS AUTO SERVICE 15994 11/06/2006 46.47
16026 11/09/2006 31.32 77.79
129291 12/01/2006 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, 109993 11/22/2006 91.74
110477 11/27/2006 56.79
110468 11/27/2006 41.71
108948 11/15/2006 32.13
108087 11/08/2006 26.24
109872 11/21/2006 20.86
108904 11/15/2006 20.70
126342 11/17/2006 20.59
109713 11/20/2006 18.36
109823 11/21/2006 15.00
107757 11/06/2006 13.91
109866 11/21/2006 11.79
107722 11/06/2006 10.71
110472 11/27/2006 10.70
108789 11/14/2006 8.03
107907 11/07/2006 4.28 403.54
129292 12/01/2006 005904 DON MOORE 113006 12/01/2006 55.00 55.00
Page: 5
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 6
12/20/2006 10:39AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
129293 12/01/2006 001478 SHANISTA MORALES 112706 11/27/2006 75.00 75.00
129294 12/01/2006 000441 MULLAHEY FORD 115216 11/14/2006 155.68
FOCS173085 11/02/2006 38.79
FOCS173059 11/01/2006 32.22 226.69
129295 12/01/2006 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 361240032-001 11/17/2006 55.76 55.76
129296 12/01/2006 000472 ORCHARD SUPPLY 00025065 11/28/2006 16.06 16.06
129297 12/01/2006 005350 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 112706 11/27/2006 2,395.38 2,395.38
129298 12/01/2006 000481 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 11/15-654774 11/15/2006 27.40
11/15-704689 11/15/2006 26.08
11/14-889211 11/14/2006 19.83 73.31
129299 12/01/2006 002494 PARMA 112806 11/30/2006 250.00 250.00
129300 12/01/2006 000492 PETTY CASH PO-PETTY CASH 11/30/2006 266.12 266.12
129301 12/01/2006 000505 POSITIVE PROMOTIONS 2574871 11/08/2006 173.20 173.20
129302 12/01/2006 002363 PRIMARY CARE DOG & CAT 46018 10/23/2006 112.74 112.74
129303 12/01/2006 000521 RHF, INC 49158 11/14/2006 134.56 134.56
129304 12/01/2006 000531 RICHETTI COMPLETE WATER 47354 11/01/2006 15.00 15.00
129305 12/01/2006 000575 SANTA MARIA TIRE, INC 539324 10/30/2006 873.86
CREDIT 11/23/2006 -142.78 731.08
129306 12/01/2006 000587 SEBASTIAN OIL CFN97409 10/31/2006 26.51 26.51
129307 12/01/2006 000553 SLO COUNTY CLERK- 120106 12/01/2006 25.00 25.00
129308 12/01/2006 003831 RANDY 0 SMART, 00 112006 11/30/2006 273.00 273.00
129309 12/01/2006 005899 ANNAB ELL SMITH 112906 11/30/2006 30.00 30.00
129310 12/01/2006 000616 STERLING 22280 11/01/2006 974.00 974.00
129311 12/01/2006 000623 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH 959 10/31/2006 391.85 391.85
Page: 6
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 7
12/20/2006 10:39AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
129312 12/01/2006 002370 TITAN INDUSTRIAL 1016049 11/15/2006 77.72
1016027 11/15/2006 22.37 100.09
129313 12/01/2006000669 UNION ASPHALT, INC 256952 11/14/2006 345.08 345.08
129314 12/01/2006 000666 UNITED RENTALS 60980768-001 11/17/2006 206.37 206.37
129315 12/01/2006 002137 VERIZON WIRELESS 2087000771 11/04/2006 302.95
2087978698 11/21/2006 46.98
2087814321 11/21/2006 37.27
2088199503 11/21/2006 32.28 419.48
129316 12/01/2006 002609 WATERBOYS PLUMBING 14364 11/18/2006 265.00 265.00
129317 12/01/2006 000687 WAYNE'S TIRE, INC 762316 11/03/2006 36.84
762711 11/18/2006 15.00 51.84
129323 12/06/2006 004548 CARMEL & NACCASHA, LLP 10630/10629/10631 12/05/2006 16,807.14 16,807.14
129324 12/06/2006 000127 CA ST DEPT OF FISH & GAME 120606 12/06/2006 1,500.00 1,500.00
129326 12/08/2006 005908 AERIS INC 10028914 11/20/2006 64.94 64.94
129327 12/08/2006 001050 AMERICAN TEMPS INC 00045914 11/28/2006 692.58 692.58
129328 12/08/2006 000812 APA - AMERICAN PLANNING 079946-060903 12/05/2006 372.00 372.00
129329 12/08/2006 004042 APA PLANNERS BOOK 109502 12/07/2006 3.50 3.50
129330 12/08/2006 002168 ASCE 112206 11/22/2006 205.00 205.00
129331 12/08/2006 000065 BRENDA BARROW 120106 12/07/2006 202.81 202.81
129332 12/08/2006 002791 JOANNE BREWER 120606 12/06/2006 164.50 164.50
129333 12/08/2006 000087 BREZDEN PEST CONTROL, WORK ORD#61362 11/30/2006 98.00 98.00
129334 12/08/2006 000090 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER 131276 11/30/2006 19.29 19.29
129335 12/08/2006 004077 CA ST DEPT OF HEALTH 120406 12/07/2006 165.00 165.00
129336 12/08/2006 002376 CENTRAL COAST BEARING 39963 11/14/2006 78.94 78.94
Page: 7
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 8
12/20/2006 10:39AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Jnv. Date Amount Paid - Check Total
129337 12/08/2006 005909 CENTRAL COAST 604 11/21/2006 2,350.00 2,350.00
129338 12/08/2006 000168 CITY NATIONAL BANK 02-091-AF 11/01/2006 19,283.13 19,283.13
129339 12/08/2006 002842 COMMERCIAL 1124-11256 11/27/2006 525.00 525.00
129340 12/08/2006 002868 MICHELLE COTA 120406 12/04/2006 136.00 136.00
129341 12/08/2006 005365 CPRS CPRS111706-1 12/05/2006 75.00 75.00
129342 12/08/2006 005671 DEATHRJAGE & CO. 5037 11/07/2006 99.00 99.00
129343 12/08/2006 005435 CHARLES DICKEY 120606 12/07/2006 75.01 75.01
129344 12/08/2006 000267 GALLS, INC 586159201013 11/29/2006 77.22 77.22
129345 12/08/2006 000605 THE GAS COMPANY 11/30-211 11/30/2006 103.21 103.21
129346 12/08/2006 002358 GREAT WESTERN ALARM 061100713101 12/01/2006 60.00
061100013101 12/01/2006 28.00 88.00
129347 12/08/2006 001237 HANSON AGGREGATES INC 600981 11/17/2006 276.38 276.38
129348 12/08/2006 000301 HEACOCK TRAILERS & 23176 11/25/2006 51.48 51.48
129349 12/08/2006 000928 HI-TECH EMERGENCY INC 116602 11/21/2006 72.52 72.52
129350 12/08/2006 005910 IBEW LOCAL 639 120606 12/07/2006 205.00 205.00
129351 12/08/2006 000343 IRRIGATION WEST 0020292 11/16/2006 3,992.98 3,992.98
129352 12/08/2006 000345 J J'S FOOD COMPANY, INC 158194 12/03/2006 99.37 99.37
129353 12/08/2006 005201 JAS PACIFIC INC BI9143 11/06/2006 5,640.00 5,640.00
129354 12/08/2006 005915 HEATHER JENSEN 112906 11/29/2006 88.85 88.85
129355 12/08/2006 005862 PHILLIP JOHNSON 120606 12/06/2006 500.00 500.00
129356 12/08/2006 005911 KING CONCRETE & CONSTR. PW 2006-08 12/07/2006 13,878.00 13,878.00
129357 12/08/2006 004969 JOHN KING 112606 11/26/2006 17.80 17.80
129358 12/08/2006 005187 ANGELA KRAETSCH 120706 12/07/2006 16.50 16.50
Page: 8
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 9
12/20/2006 10:39AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
129359 12/08/2006 005912 EVAN LARSON 120606 12/07/2006 375.00 375.00
129360 12/08/2006 000373 LAUTZENHISER'S 6988 11/26/2006 171.22 171.22
129361 12/08/2006 004279 MID STATE PLUMBING & 120506 12/07/2006 1,710.90 1.710.90
129362 12/08/2006000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE. 128454 12/04/2006 164.95
110811 11/29/2006 91.55
110587 11/28/2006 75.06
111114 12/01/2006 71.11
127768 11/29/2006 65.93
111627 12/05/2006 37.48
109800 11/21/2006 36.41
111189 12/02/2006 32.16
110704 11/29/2006 30.01
110045 11/22/2006 27.32
110367 11/26/2006 25.70
111711 12/05/2006 2(43
111492 12/04/2006 12.93
111081 12/01/2006 10.70
111852 12/06/2006 9.95
110245 11/25/2006 8.02
111667 12/05/2006 4.98
111542 12/04/2006 4.55
110196 11/24/2006 4.28
111178 12/02/2006 4.28
111673 12/05/2006 4.28
111538 12/04/2006 2.67
127703 11/28/2006 1.63 747.38
129363 12/08/2006 002849 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 933066312-061 10/29/2006 132.83 132.83
129364 12/08/2006 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 360302100-001 11/10/2006 164.41
363617617-001 11/24/2006 162.00
363224760-001 11/17/2006 55.33
361864550-001 11/17/2006 4.05 385.79
129365 12/08/2006 000472 ORCHARD SUPPLY REF#00016381 11/30/2006 10.17 10.17
Page: 9
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 10
12/20/2006 10:39AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
129366 12/08/2006 000481 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 11/20-853299 11/20/2006 27,221.18
11/16-190318 11/16/2006 132.46
11/17-019097 11/17/2006 46.08
11/16-235044 11/16/2006 19.11 27,418.83
129367 12/08/2006 003265 PLATINUM PLUS FOR 11/20-2611 11/20/2006 1,401.39
11/20-0918 11/20/2006 1,094.73
11/20-6313 11/20/2006 856.25
11/20-9702 11/20/2006 554.39
11/20-6321 11/20/2006 440.09
11/20-6404 11/20/2006 421.11
11/20-9686 11/20/2006 382.29
11/20-6347 11/20/2006 201.50
11/20-6263 11/20/2006 80.00
11/20-6305 11/20/2006 53.86
11/20-7583 11/20/2006 37.75
11/20-6354 11/20/2006 23.12
11/20-6362 11/20/2006 4.25 5,550.73
129368 12/08/2006 005411 REGIONAL TRANSIT 7460-07-026 11/16/2006 931.07 93107
129369 12/08/2006 000803 SAN LUIS MAILING SERVICE 31169 12/01/2006 1,542.54 1,542.54
129370 12/08/2006 004659 SAN LUIS TRUCK 91190 11/20/2006 65.51 65.51
129371 12/08/2006 002624 SERVICEMASTER CBM 124939 11/28/2006 1,350.00 1,350.00
129372 12/08/2006 005913 STEVE SHURICK 120606 12/06/2006 182.50 182.50
129373 12/08/2006 000556 SLO COUNTY 47253 11/06/2006 1,050.00 1,050.00
129374 12/08/2006 000564 SLO COUNTY NEWSPAPERS 6468562/6472943 11/07/2006 820.40
6478602 10/27/2006 135.86
6461794 09/29/2006 135.86
6471188 10/13/2006 121.18
6465380 10/05/2006 84.46
6471407 10/13/2006 84.46
6471410 10/13/2006 77.11
6466449 10/05/2006 75.28 1,534.61
Page: 10
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 11
12/20/2006 10:39AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
129375 12/08/2006 000598 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORP 159768 11/22/2006 46.06
159757 11/22/2006 33.73 79.79
129376 12/08/2006 004393 SP MAINTENANCE 15308 08/01/2006 6,994.40
16754 12/01/2006 6,994.40 13,988.80
129377 12/08/2006 000613 STATEWIDE SAFETY & 51835 11/28/2006 583.18
51834 11/28/2006 139.96 723.14
129378 12/08/2006 005914 JEFF TIPAY 091206 09/12/2006 58.42 58.42
129379 12/08/2006 002370 TITAN INDUSTRIAL 1016242 11/20/2006 1143 11.43
129380 12/08/2006 005916 TRUCK DEPOT STOCK#8094 12/08/2006 24,454.46 24,454.46
129381 12/08/2006 002137 VERIZON WIRELESS 2092529892 12/17/2006 108.61 108.61
129382 12/08/2006 000699 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC 0610 11/28/2006 1,616.23 1,616.23
129383 12/08/2006 004897 WOOD RODGERS INC 50938 11/10/2006 18,959.24 18,959.24
129384 12/08/2006 005917 THALIA PRODUCTIONS 120806 12/08/2006 190.00 190.00
129385 12/11/2006 005918 SPEEDWAY MOTORS order#249-9468 12/11/2006 108.16 108.16
129386 12/12/2006 001928 WAL-MART 121206 12/12/2006 500.00 500.00
129387 12/12/2006 000843 ARROYO GRANDE BAKERY 121106 12/11/2006 100.95 100.95
129404 12/15/2006 000038 AG CHAMBER OF 110106 11/01/2006 5,000.00 5,000.00
129405 12/15/2006 001259 AGP VIDEO, INC 1980 11/13/2006 3,157.50 3,157.50
129406 12/15/2006 004815 AIRGAS WEST INC 103237716 11/30/2006 18.10 18.10
129407 12/15/2006 001050 AMERICAN TEMPS INC 00045965 12/05/2006 1,086.40 1,086.40
129408 12/15/2006 005923 ANYTIME PRODUCTS 66203 11/15/2006 1,078.46 1,078.46
129409 12/15/2006 005180 APEX OUTDOOR POWER 27660 11/27/2006 14.91 14.91
129410 12/15/2006 003175 AQUA-METRIC SALES 0015095 12/06/2006 424.46 424.46
129411 12/15/2006 005615 AT&T/MCI T5834107 12/03/2006 1,019.59
Page: 11
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 12
12/20/2006 10:39AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
T5776529 11/20/2006 289.04
T5808947 11/30/2006 88.32
T5834119 12/03/2006 88.18
T5834100 11/11/2006 29.61
T5824988 12/01/2006 29.60
T5834102 12/03/2006 19.92
T5834101 11/11/2006 14.65 1,578.91
129412 12/15/2006 001944 BASIC CHEMICAL SI5253088 12/04/2006 482.31 482.31
129413 12/15/2006 002119 BERNARD'S H D SPECIAL TV 112206 11/22/2006 195.00 195.00
129414 12/15/2006 004967 RYAN BIRD 121406 12/14/2006 30.00 30.00
129415 12/15/2006 005924 BLR 2-6009775 10/26/2006 320.08 320.08
129416 12/15/2006 000078 BLUEPRINT EXPRESS(DBA) 29759 11/27/2006 64.35 64.35
129417 12/15/2006 003385 BMW OF FRESNO 4025312 12/05/2006 1,303.97 1,303.97
129418 12/15/2006 000084 THE BOXX EXPRESS 185 10/30/2006 39.70
193 12/01/2006 32.22
186 11/30/2006 31.79
194 12/01/2006 12.53 116.24
129419 12/15/2006 001266 BRANCH STREET DELI 1230 12/04/2006 294.40 294.40
129420 12/15/2006 000085 CARL BRANDT 121406 12/14/2006 30.00 30.00
129421 12/15/2006 000090 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER 131368 12/07/2006 83.69
130916 11/01/2006 70.77
130902 10/31/2006 15.32
130918 11/27/2006 2.78 172.56
129422 12/15/2006 000094 BRUMIT DIESEL, INC 93932 11/16/2006 100.34
94363 11/06/2006 36.25 136.59
129423 12/15/2006 005925 CHERYL BURGESS 121306 12/13/2006 42.00 42.00
129424 12/15/2006 000101 CA APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES 511760 11/30/2006 240.00 240.00
129425 12/15/2006 000110 CA ST DEPT OF 6635 12/04/2006 4,294.88 4,294.88
Page: 12
apCkHisl Check History Listing Page: 13
12/20/2006 10:39AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Dale Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
129426 12/15/2006 005843 CALIFORNIA 5457311 12/02/2006 43:41 43.41
129427 12/15/2006 000603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 7314-123908 12/01/2006 47.22
7314-123907 12/01/2006 17.55
7314-125151 12/06/2006 17.55
7314-123910 12/01/2006 17.55
7314-125595 12/08/2006 8.15 108.02
129428 12/15/2006 000145 CHRISTOPHER CASH 121406 12/14/2006 20.00 20.00
129429 12/15/2006 000160 CHAPARRAL 249684 12/08/2006 188.52 188.52
129430 12/15/2006 005926 CHEMSEARCH 319602 11/22/2006 381.95 381.95
129431 12/15/2006 000163 CHERRY LANE 20130 11/22/2006 17.11 17.11
129432 12/15/2006 004680 ROBERT CHILD 121406 12/14/2006 30.00 30.00
129433 12/15/2006 002407 CINGULAR WIRELESS 123079092 11/27/2006 38.04 38.04
129434 12/15/2006 004952 COLLINGS & ASSOCIATES 12054 12/11/2006 300.00 300.00
129435 12/15/2006 002842 COMMERCIAL 1226-1206 12/04/2006 425.00 425.00
129436 12/15/2006 003599 COMMERCIAL SANITARY 10312 12/01/2006 282.28
10311 12/01/2006 176.43 458.71
129437 12/15/2006003992 CPRS DISTRICT Viii 121406 12/14/2006 40.00 40.00
129438 12/15/2006 000195 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER 11/30-14273 11/30/2006 71.75
11/30-48517 11/30/2006 23.00 94.75
129439 12/15/2006 000196 CUESTA EQUIPMENT CO INC 328265 11/03/2006 124.69 124.69
129440 12/15/2006 005671 DEATHRIAGE & CO. 5253 12/04/2006 99.00 99.00
129441 12/15/2006 005927 JEANNIE DEKOCK 120806 12/08/2006 25.00 25.00
129442 12/15/2006 004046 MATTHEW 01 SALVO 121406 12/14/2006 30.00 30.00
129443 12/15/2006 005928 DIRECT DOCUMENT 1015 11/27/2006 478.93 478.93
129444 12/15/2006 000853 EXECUTIVE 29220P 11/28/2006 825.83 825.83
Page: 13
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 14
12/20/2006 10:39AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
129445 12/15/2006 000240 FARM SUPPLY CO 183703 11/25/2006 107.24
182231 11/22/2006 81.51
168845 11/07/2006 72.01
166702 11/04/2006 24.00
164716 11/02/2006 10.17 294.93
129446 12/15/2006 004164 FEDEX 8-553-66500 12/08/2006 23.28 23.28
129447 12/15/2006 001525 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, 1210857 12/05/2006 71.94 71.94
129448 12/15/2006 005779 FIVE CITIES SWIM CLUB INC R.PARIS 12/14/2006 88.00 88.00
129449 12/15/2006 000262 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY 24292 11/28/2006 111.00
24371 12/08/2006 6.11
24186 11/13/2006 1.61
24283 11/20/2006 1.61 120.33
129450 12/15/2006 000605 THE GAS COMPANY 11/30-140 11/30/2006 606.30
12/7-200 N 12/07/2006 233.88
12/8-1375 12/07/2006 227.04
12/8-350 12/07/2006 227.04
12/4-200 E 12/04/2006 100.68
12/4-214 E 12/04/2006 68.01
12/6-910 12/06/2006 30.40
12/4-208 12/04/2006 19.02
12/6-1500 12/06/2006 10.85
12/4-215 12/04/2006 3.97 1,527.19
129451 12/15/2006 003365 GLOBAL PHONE & WIRELESS 7932 11/27/2006 550.00 550.00
129452 12/15/2006 000499 GRAND AWARDS, INC 61605 12/14/2006 129.58 129.58
129453 12/15/2006 000291 HAAKER EQUIPMENT, INC C51055 11/22/2006 32.38 32.38
129454 12/15/2006 001066 SEAN F HAGERTY 121406 12/14/2006 30.00 30.00
129455 12/15/2006 005929 BILL HART 121306 12/13/2006 18475 184.75
129456 12/15/2006 002820 INDOFF, INC 838431 11/07/2006 46.05 46.05
129457 12/15/2006 000345 J J'S FOOD COMPANY, INC 153909 10/31/2006 12.52
Page: 14
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 15
12/20/2006 10:39AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
153886 10/31/2006 4.17 16.69
129458 12/15/2006 000348 J W ENTERPRISES 193532 12/07/2006 95.73 95.73
129459 12/15/2006 000356 JAMES E JOHNSON 121506 12/15/2006 680.00 680.00
129460 12/15/2006001793 J J KELLER & ASSOCIAT.ES, 006398358 08/08/2006 329.99
006542482 11/21/2006 207.12
006553489 12/01/2006 146.22 683.33
129461 12/15/2006 004020 KERN'S FITZGERALD 70369 11/10/2006 73.22 73.22
129462 12/15/2006 003949 KERN'S PAPER 18851 11/21/2006 720.49
18998. 11/29/2006 254.45
18940 11/21/2006 179.11
18974 11/29/2006 107.66 1,261.71
129463 12/15/2006 004969 JOHN KING 121406 12/15/2006 30.00 30.00
129464 12/15/2006 002878 KIWANIS OF GREATER 121306 12/15/2006 227.50 227.50
129465 12/15/2006 000376 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC 5102524 12/05/2006 195.81 195.81
129466 12/15/2006 005583 GEORGE LEPPER 121406 12/15/2006 30.00 30.00
129467 12/15/2006005511 CHRIS LINTNER 121106 12/11/2006 45.00 45.00
129468 12/15/2006 005710 LIVE OAK LANDSCAPES 5324 12/01/2006 975.00 975.00
129469 12/15/2006 005930 GLORIA LOVETERE 121306 12/13/2006 100.00 100.00
129470 12/15/2006 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL 070255 11/30/2006 307.50
070254 11/30/2006 307.50
070253 11/30/2006 307.50 922.50
129471 12/15/2006 005931 MARKSMAN ENTERPRISES 11047 09/19/2006 10.62 10.62
129472 12/15/2006 003163 KEVIN J MC LEAN 121406 12/15/2006 30.00 30.00
129473 12/15/2006 000417 MELLO & SON'S PUMPS & 1907 12/07/2006 498.61 498.61
129474 12/15/2006 000419 MIDAS AUTO SERVICE 16328 12/09/2006 571.84
16221 11/29/2006 218.93
Page: 15
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 16
12/20/2006 10:39AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
16209 11/28/2006 178.50
16298 12/06/2006 147.71 1,116.98
129475 12/15/2006 000426 MIER BROS LANDSCAPE 122045 11/17/2006 326.04
121411 11/03/2006 233.81
121643 11/08/2006 102.96
121537 11/06/2006 81.51 744.32
129476 12/15/2006 004899 MATTHEW MIHLHAUSER 121406 12/15/2006 30.00 30.00
129477 12/15/2006 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, 112251 12/08/2006 53.61
112235 12/08/2006 48.21
112680 12/12/2006 43.08
129260 12/08/2006 41.81
110416 11/27/2006 32.67
129243 12/08/2006 32.14
111825 12/06/2006 30.52
112132 12/08/2006 27.83
112489 12/11/2006 15.00
111866 12/06/2006 12.57
112079 12/07/2006 12.23
111745 12/05/2006 11.25
111026 12/01/2006 8.03
112012 12/07/2006 6.39
112191 12/08/2006 5.34
112508 12/11/2006 4.27
112041 12/07/2006 3.74
111579 12/04/2006 1.92
112894 12/13/Z006 1.37 391.98
129478 12/15/2006 003762 MLS CAMPS SUMMER 06 12/15/2006 1,198.00 1,198.00
129479 12/15/2006 000439 MOSS, LEVY & HARTZHEIM 1784 11/30/2006 11,000.00 11,000.00
129480 12/15/2006 000441 MULLAHEY FORD 115207 11/14/2006 295.31
FOCS173842 11/30/2006 176.12 471.43
129481 12/15/2006 005869 MURRAY & ASSOC, BOB 2215 11/18/2006 7,045.87 7,045:87
129482 12/15/2006 000445 DAVID NACCARATI 121406 12/15/2006 30.00 30.00
Page: 16
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 17
12/20/2006 10:39AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
129483 12/15/2006 005228 KERI NELSON 121106 12/11/2006 7.21 7.21
129484 12/15/2006 005932 MARK NIELSEN 121406 12/14/2006 15.00 15.00
129485 12/15/2006 000466 NOBLE SAW, INC 161285 11/01/2006 120.65
162493 11/30/2006 69.16
162337 11/27/2006 32.12 221.93
129486 12/15/2006 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 364183441-001 12/01/2006 111.14 111.14
129487 12/15/2006 000474 RANDY L OUIMETTE 121406 12/15/2006 30.00 30.00
129488 12/15/2006 001073 MATTHEW J PALM 121406 12/15/2006 30.00 30.00
129489 12/15/2006 003462 PEPPERBALL 0017891-IN 11/16/2006 132.99 132.99
129490 12/15/2006 004158 PHOENIX GROUP 102006157 11/16/2006 193.65 193.65
129491 12/15/2006 005938 PITNEY BOWES 490384 11/18/2006 141.52 141.52
129492 12/15/2006 000513 BEAU PRYOR 121406 12/15/2006 . 218.00 218.00
129493 12/15/2006 000473 MADRIGALE QUAGLlNO 120806 12/08/2006 122.50 122.50
129494 12/15/2006 000518 PAUL QUINLAN 120306 12/03/2006 25.58 25.58
129495 12/15/2006 000520 QUINN COMPANY PC030137770 12/01/2006 36.58 36.58
129496 12/15/2006 000531 RICHETTI COMPLETE WATER 48261 12/01/2006 15.00 15.00
129497 12/15/2006 002670 RICOH LEASING 06121786853 12/08/2006 155.28 155.28
129498 12/15/2006 003363 NINA RIPPY 121106 12/15/2006. 324.10 324.10
129499 12/15/2006 003556 ROADLlNE PRODUCTS, INC 5153 12/01/2006 1,077.68 1,077.68
129500 12/15/2006 000538 S & L SAFETY PRODUCTS 164351 12/05/2006 549.98
164352 12/05/2006 64.78 614.76
129501 12/15/2006 005933 RACHEL SALERNO 121306 12/15/2006 30.00 30.00
129502 12/15/2006 000579 JOYCE SARUWATARI 121106 12/11/2006 49.32 49.32
129503 12/15/2006 003525 SBRPSTC 121406 12/15/2006 95.00 95.00
Page: 17
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 18
12/20/2006 10:39AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
129504 12/15/2006002246 JEROME H SCHULTZ 121406 12/15/2006 15.00 15.00
129505 12/15/2006 000594 JEFF 0 SILVA 121406 12/15/2006 30.00 30.00
129506 12/15/2006 003160 JOE A SILVA. JR 5171 12/13/2006 30.03 3003
129507 12/15/2006 000595 JOE A SILVA, SR 121406 12/15/2006 30.00 30.00
129508 12/15/2006 005417 SLO COUNTY BICYCLE JAN-DEC 2007 12/15/2006 25.00 25.00
129509 12/15/2006 000731 SLO COUNTY SHERIFF'S 120106 12/01/2006 19,489.50 19,489.50
129510 12/15/2006 003831 RANDY 0 SMART, 00 120706 12/15/2006 360.00 360.00
129511 12/15/2006 001801 DENNIS SMITH 121106 12/15/2006 55.00 55.00
129512 12/15/2006 003641 SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY 1641434 12/01/2006 207.72
1646287 12/01/2006 106.76
1636022 12/01/2006 106.76
1642828 12/01/2006 5.62 426.86
129513 12/15/2006 003288 JEFFREY SOUZA 121506 12/15/2006 498.00 498.00
129514 12/15/2006 005934 KRISTEN STEPHENSON 120706 12/15/2006 75.00 75.00
129515 12/15/2006 000616 STERLING 22370 12/02/2006 239.07 239.07
129516 12/15/2006 000618 DANIEL T STOCKS 121406 12/15/2006 30.00 30.00
129517 12/15/2006 005194 BRAD SULLIVAN 121306 12/15/2006 55.00 55.00
129518 12/15/2006 004045 STEVE TALLANT 121406 12/15/2006 30.00 3000
129519 12/15/2006 005935 THOMAS CONSULTING 34338 10/30/2006 3,935.00 3,935.00
129520 12/15/2006 005936 TIMES PRESS RECORDER ACCT#117359 12/15/2006 24.00 24.00
129521 12/15/2006 005326 UNITED PORTFOLIO MGT INC 19336 12/07/2006 351.00 351.00
129522 12/15/2006 000666 UNITED RENTALS 61302610-001 12/01/2006 52.79 52.79
129523 12/15/2006 000678 VALLEY AUTO SERVICE 015524 11/01/2006 20.00 20.00
129524 12/15/2006 005937 CORINNE VAN BUSCHBACH 121206 12/12/2006 66.00 66.00
Page: 18
apCkHist
12/20/2006 10:39AM
Check History Listing
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Page: 19
Bank code: boa
Check #
Date
Vendor
Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
121406 12/15/2006 30.00 30.00
2092716589 11/22/2006 1 04.48 104.48
T5595 12/04/2006 350.00 350.00
06-65 12/11/2006 1,748.98 1,748.98
boa Total: 333,414.90
Total Checks: 333,414.90
129525 12/15/2006 005329 JASON VASQUEZ
129526 12/15/2006 002137 VERIZON WIRELESS
129527 12/15/2006 000704 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS
129528 12/15/2006 004918 DAVID WOLFF
272 checks in this report
Page: 19
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION
PAY PERIOD
11/17/06 - .11/30/06
12/08/06
FUND 010
FUND 220
FUND 284
FUND 285
FUND 612
FUND 640
412,784.78
19,050.00
681.27
681.33
6,833.11
18,876.90
458,907.39
5101
5102
5103
5105
5107
5108
5109
5110
5111
5112
5113
5114
5115
5121
5122
5123
5126
5127
5131
5132
5133
5134
5135
5143
5144
5146
5147
5148
5149
5150
Salaries Full time
Salaries Part-Time - PPT
Salaries Part-Time - TPT
Salaries OverTime
Salaries Standby
Holiday Pay
Sick Pay
Annual Leave Buyback
Vacation Buyback
Sick Leave Buyback
Vacation Pay
Comp Pay
Annual Leave Pay
PERS Retirement
Social Security
PARS Retirement
State Disability Ins.
Deferred Compensation
Health Insurance
Dental Insurance
Vision Insurance
Life Insurance
Long Term Disability
Uniform Allowance
Car Allowance
Council Expense
Employee Assistance
Boot Allowance
Motor Pay
Bi-Lingual Pay
179,851.56
24,064.48
8,378.52
15,739.08
399.59
48,425.44
5,109.77
12,365.67
3,860.73
6,555.09
80,293.89
19,095.77
413.00
1,054.56
775.00
44,801.89
4,853.31
1,123.21
596.83
875.00
75.00
200.00
458,907.39
8.b~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
CITY COUNCIL .
ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICEs!(
FRANCES R. HEAD, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR ~ I
STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT DEPOSITS V
BY:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
JANUARY 9, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Council receive and file the attached report listing the current
investment deposits of the City of Arroyo Grande, as of November 30, 2006, as required by
Government Code Section 53646 (b).
DISCUSSION:
This report represents the City's investments as of November 30, 2006. It includes all
investments managed by the City, the investment institution, investment type, book value,
maturity date, and rate of interest. As of November 30, 2006, the investment portfolio was
in compliance with all State laws and the City's investment policy.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
. Approve staff's recommendation;
. Do not approve staff's recommendation;
. Provide direction to staff.
Attachment: Portfolio Summary
CITY OF
!:..;z-,.
~~1tc A LIFO R N I A/"lI
.~~~O-
City of Arroyo Grande
214 E. Branch SI.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93430
Phone: (805)473-5400
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Summary
November 30, 2006
Interest
Investments Book Value Interest Rate Rate PY Date of Purchase Term Maturity Date % of Portfolio
Local Agency Investment Funds $ 8,968,799.73 5.13% 3.64% 82.63%
Celticates of Deposit - Sanks
First Standard Bank 99,000.00 5.46% December 2, 2006 365 December 2, 2007 0.91%
Redding Bank of Commerce 99,000.00 4,95% February 8, 2006 14 Mos. April 7, 2007 0.91%
Bank of Santa Clarita 99,000:00 5.05% March 9, 2006 365' March 9, 2007 0.91%
Granite Community Bank 500,000.00 5,20% April 23, 2006 365 April 23, 2007 4.61%
Redding Bank of Commerce 500,000:00 5.48% May 17,2006 9 Mos. February 17, 2007 4.61%
Golden Security Bank 90,000.00 5.62% June 20, 2006 360 June 20, 2007 0.83%
Mission NB 100,000.00 5.75% July 10, 2006 365 July 10, 2007 0.92%
First Credit Bank 99,000.00 5.70% July 26, 2006 365 July 25, 2007 0.91%
Metro United Bank 99,000.00 5.85% September 12, 2006 730 September 12, 2008 0.91%
State Bank of India 200,000.00 5.64% December 8, 2006 213 July 8, 2007 1.84%
Total Certificates of Deposit $ 1,885,000.00 17.37%
Totallnvestments $ 10,853,799.73 100.00%
B.c.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CI~ COUNCIL . .~ (
ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES Itl
I
,
C0NSIDERATION OF ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT - FISCAL YEAR
2005-06 RECEIPT AND USE OF WATER AND SEWER CAPACITY AND
C0NNECTION FEES/CHARGES
DATE:
JANUARY 9, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
,
It is recommended the City Council receive and file the annual report of the receipt and
use of water an'd sewer capacity and connection fees and charges, in compliance with
Government Code Section 66013.
FUNDING:
No outside funding is required.
DISCUSSION:
Government Code Section 66013 requires that within one hundred and eighty days of
the close of the! fiscal year, a financial accounting of the transactions dealing with water
and sewer capacity and connection fees and charges (development fees) shall be made
available to the public.
The basic accounting and reporting responsibilities under the Government Code require
the following:
1. A description of the charges deposited in the fund;
2. The beginning and ending balance of the fund and any interest earned from
investment of moneys in the fund;
3. The amo'unt of charges/fees collected in the fiscal year;
4. The pUblic improvements on which charges were expended;
5. The percentage of the total cost of the public improvements that was funded by
these charges;
6. The completed public improvements on which charges were expended;
7. Each public improvement that is anticipated to be undertaken in the current fiscal
year.
Attached to this staff report is the financial information (Attachment A) as required by
Government Cbde Section 66013 as of June 30,2006. The information consists of
beginning and ~nding fund balances for each fee charged by the City, including interest
earned and details of all expenditures made from these sources. The information
CITY COUNCIL
WATER 'AND SEWER DEVELOPMENT FEES-ANNUAL REPORT
JANUARY 9, 2007
PAGE 2
i
provided is consistent with the financial records. Pursuant to Governmeht Code Section
66013, this report is for review purposes only. . I
The City utilizes fund. acc6unting to segregate development related fees: from ,other City
revenues. Although the City pools its cash for investment purposes, interest incOme is
allocated to the facility funds based on their rE!spective cash balances. I' ,
The City accounts for water and sewer development fees or charges in' three separate
funds, the Water Facility Fund, the Sewer Facility Fund, and the Lope~ Facility Fund,
The information in Attachment A is presented in a format consistent with the annual
audit of the Fiscal Year from July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006. . 'I
The following is a description of the City funds used to track w~ter and sewer
development related fees:
. Water Facility (Fund 642)
Water Main Charges, enacted pursuant to the provision of Section 13.04.030 of the
. - -,
City Municipal Code, are accounted for in the Water Facility Fund. These revenues
are to be used for future water infrastructure improvements.
. Sewer Facility (Fund 634)
Sewer Connection fees, enacted pursuant to the provision of Section 13.12.190 et
seq. of the .City Municipal Code, is collected to help pay for Improvements and future
sewer system capacity as necessary to meet the needs of the CitY resulting from
growth and expansion. I:
. Lopez Facility Fund (Fu'nd 241) '. . I
This fund is used to account for the accumulation of water availability charge
revenues. This charge was enacted pursuant to the provision of S~ction 38743 of
the Government Code, and Section 13.04.220 of the City Municipal Code. .
AL TERNA TIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for City Council consideration:
- Approve staff recommendation and accept the report;
- Do not accept staff recommendation;
- Modify staff recommendation and approve;
Provide direction to staff.
I
.1
DeveloPJTIent
Fees and
Attachment:
A. Statement of Fund Balances for Water and Sewer
Charges
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Water and Sewer Development Fees and Charges ,
, I
,Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances .
. -.' I
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2006
Sewer Water Lopez
Facility , F acUity , Availability
Revenues:
Interest Income $ 21,977 - $-- 19,630 $ 31,920
Sewer Facility Charges 85,807 "
Water Main Charges ,5,250
Distribution Charges 166,070
Water Availability Charges 178,450
Deer Trail Well Mitigation Fee
,
Total Revenues 107,784 190,950 210,370
Expenditures
Operating Expenses
Excess of Operating Revenues Over .... ;
Operating Expenditures 107,784 190,950 210,370
Other Financing Uses
Prior Period Adjustments I
Capital Transfers Out 576,380 172,956 I
I,
576,380 172,956
Excess of Revenues Over
(Under) Expenditures and
Other Financing Uses (468,596) 17,995 210,370
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 1,024,076 913,708 1,315,516
Fund Balance, End of Year $ 555,480 $ 931,703 $ 1,525,886
,
I
L
. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Water and Sewer Development Fees and Charges
Sewer Facility Transfers .
,
Fiscal Year 2005-06 Completed Work
Sewer Lift Station No. 1
Total Capital Transfers
'Fiscal Year 2006-07 Current Projects
Sewer Lift Station No. 1
Fair Oaks Avenue Sewer Upgrade
Total Funding for Currept ProjectS
Transfers
$ 576;380
$ 576,380
Allocation.
119,295
414,940
$ 534,234
% of Project
100%
% of Project
16%
78% .
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Water and Sewer Development Fees and Charges.
Water Facility Transfers
. Fiscal Year 2005-06 Completed Work
Reservoir No 1 Replacement
Water Well No. 10
Total Capital Transfers
Fiscal Year 2006-07 Currerit Projects
Reservoir NO.6 Construction
Waterline Installation on Chilton & EI Camino
Pressure Zone Connection
Water Well No. 10'
Total Funding for Current Projects
Ln__ n
Transfers
$ 1,541
26,097
$
27,639
Transfers
75,900
.19,000
552;000
291,889
$ 938,789
% of Project
0.1%
100%
% of Project
8%
4%
100%
60%
ATTACHMENT A
% Complete
. 84%
. % Complete
100%
5%
B.d.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
DATE:
CITY COUNCIL
ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES Ax.
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE STATUS
REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (AB-1600)
JANUARY 9, 2007
FROM:
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt a Resolution accepting the status report on
the receipt and use of Development Impact Fees (AB-1600) during the fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006.
FUNDING:
There is no fiscal impact from this action.
DISCUSSION:
Govemment Code Sections 66000 et seq. (enacted via AB-1600) requires local agencies
to provide an accounting of impact fees imposed on development projects. These fees
(typically titled AB 1600 fees) are intended to mitigate certain cost impacts of development
projects on existing City facilities and infrastructure.
The basic accounting and reporting responsibilities require the City to provide a detailed
reporting of the use of development impact fees every five years (beginning with FY
'1997-98). The City last complied with this five-year reporting requirement in December
2004. Due to the fact that several of the impact fees have different reporting periods it
was decided by staff to report the status of Development Impact Fees on a yearly basis
so as not to miss a reporting date in error.
The City must comply with two basic requirements. First, the City must report findings
on the amount collected for each fee, the use of the fees, and any unexpended fees at
year-end. After the first report on collections and expenditures up to June 30, 1998, the
City is required to report every five years thereafter. These findings must:
1. Identify the purpose for the fee;
2. Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for
which it was charged;
3. Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing
of incomplete improvements;
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (AB-1600)
JANUARY 9, 2007
PAGE 2
4. Designate the approximate dates these funding sources are expected to be
deposited into the appropriate account or fund.
When sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing of public
improvements in progress but not completed, the City has 180 days to identify an
approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will begin or be
completed.
The second requirement provides that the City shall establish separate capital facility
accounts for each improvement funded by project development impact fees. Interest
shall be earned and recorded in each account. The City is required to make available to
the public the following information:
1. A brief description of the type of fee in the account.
2. The amount of the fee.
3. The account's beginning and ending balance.
4. The amount of fees collected and the interest earned.
5. A description of the improvements on which the funds were expended and the
amount expended on each improvement, including the percentage of the
improvement funded with development fees.
6.- An approximate date by which the construction of a public improvement will
begin if the City determines that sufficient funds have been collected to
complete financing on the incomplete improvement.
7. A description of each inter-fund transfer or loan made from the account.
8. The amount of any refunds.
Attached to this staff report is the required financial information as of June 30, 2006
(Attachments A-F). The information consists of beginning and ending fund balances for
each fee charged by the City, including interest earned, and details of all expenditures
made from these sources. The information in the Attachments is consistent with the
yearly audited financial records.
There are eight active Development Impact Fees identified as subject to AB1600
reporting requirements. Three of the eight fees were reported in January 1999
complying with the five-year reporting requirement. Those three fees are the Traffic
Signalization Fee, the Transportation Facility Fee, and the Drainage Facility Fee. The
Water Neutralization Fee was required to report for the first time in 2003. The
remaining four Development Impact Fees were required to report financial activity in
2005. The remaining four fees are the Fire Protection Fee, the Police Facilities Fee,
Community Center Fee, and the Park Improvement Fee. A summary of financial activity
for the four fees (Attachment F) is attached. The City also charges a Park Development
Fee, which is a Quimby fee (Government Code 66477) and does not fall under the
AB1600 reporting requirements so it is not included in the attached report.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (AB-1600)
JANUARY 9, 2007
PAGE 3
The City utilized the following funds to track development impact fees:
. Traffic Signalization Fund (Fund 222)
Ordinance 346 was adopted in May of 1986 as a mechanism for assessing
fees on new developments in proportion to the amount of anticipated traffic
generated by a given development. The fees were restricted for funding the
construction of traffic signal systems, signing, and other traffic control
devices. This development impact fee came under Government Code Section
66000 in January 1989, when AB-1600 fees were recognized.
. Transportation Facility Impact (Fund 224)
The fund was established in January 1994 to track fees paid by developers
for the construction of improvements to streets throughout the City. When a
project serves both new and existing development, only the portion related to
new development is charged against this fund.
. Drainage Facility Fund (Fund 231)
This fund was established in January 1986 to track fees collected from
developers to acquire and construct drainage facilities with a designated
drainage zone attributable to new development. This development impact fee
came under Government Code Section 66000 in January 1989, when AB-
1600 fees were recognized. As with the Transportation Facility Impact fees,
when a project serves both new and existing development, only the portion
related to new development is charged against this fund.
· Water Neutralization Impact Fund (Fund 226)
This fund was established in October 1998 to account for mitigation fees
collected from developers to neutralize projected water demand of
development projects above historical usage amounts. When a project
serves both new and existing development, only the portion related to new
development is charged against this fund.
· Fire Protection Fund (Fund 210)
The Impact Fee Study of March 2000 instituted the Fire Protection Fee. This
fee is to be used for facilities to house fire fighting personnel and equipment
serving future development. This fee was established pursuant to AB-1600.
. Police Facilities Fund (Fund 211)
The Police Protection Fund was established in March 2000 to account for
monies that were collected from new development for the expansion of police
facilities. This fee was established pursuant to AB-1600.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (AB-1600)
JANUARY 9, 2007
PAGE 4
. Park Improvement Fund (Fund 214)
This impact fee resulted from the Impact Fee Study of March 2000. This fee
is to be used to improve parklands in order to maintain 4.0 acres of
neighborhood and community parks per thousand residents. This fee was
established pursuant to AB-1600; however, FY 2000-01 was the first year
monies were collected for Park Improvement.
. Community Center Fund (Fund 215)
The Impact Fee Study of March 2000 instituted the Recreation Community
Center Fee. The fee was enacted to ensure community center facilities be
maintained at 542 square feet per thousand population.
The City utilizes fund accounting to segregate Development Impact Fees from other
City revenues. Although the City pools its cash for investment purposes, interest
income is allocated to each of the eight funds based on their respective cash balances.
Staff examined the accounts to determine if any Development Impact Fees collected
between January 1989 and June 30, 2006 remained unexpended. It was determined
that a majority of the Drainage Facility Fees had been expended within the time period.
The remaining balance of $30,459 is allocated towards the Poplar Street drainage basin
improvements, drainage master plan, Newsom Springs drainage project, and the storm
water study. Sufficient funds have been accumulated in the Traffic Signalization Fund
for two traffic signals. The Capital Improvement Program includes $65,965 for a traffic
signal at E. Grand Avenue and Halcyon Road and $357,263 for a signal at West Branch
Street at Camino Mercado. In addition, approximately $2.4 million of impact fees have
accumulated in the Transportation Facility Impact Fee Fund. The Capital Improvement
Program includes $979,791 for the Brisco Rd-Halcyon/Route 101 interchange, $23,548
for the Grand Avenue and Halcyon Road traffic signal, $35,012 for a project study report
on West Branch Street and Camino Mercado, and $2,628 for a project study report on
EI Campo Rd/Route 101 interchange: The Water Neutralization Fund has accumulated
$588,276 in impact fees. The Capital Improvement Program includes $341,585 for the
Water Conservation Program. Additionally, several critical supplemental water projects
are in process. The Fire Protection Impact Fund has a balance of $236,635. The
Police Facilities Impact Fund has a balance of $18,712. The Community Center and
Park Improvement Impact funds are scheduled for various park improvements.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (AB-1600)
JANUARY 9, 2007
PAGE 5
The attachments to this report are as follows:
· Attachment A - Traffic Signalization Fund history for a ten year period from
Fiscal Year 1996-97 through Fiscal Year 2005-06.
· Attachment B - Ten year history for Fiscal Year 1996-97 through Fiscal Year
2005-06 for the Transportation Facility Impact Fund.
· Attachment C - The Drainage Facility Fund history for a ten year period from
Fiscal Year 1996-97 through Fiscal Year 2005-06.
· Attachment 0- Eight year history for Fiscal Year 1998-99 through Fiscal Year
2005"06 for the Water Neutralization Impact Fund.
· Attachment E - This schedule, which is not required by the Government
Code, summarizes the fees received and expended for the four funds since
either the inception of the fund or the date AB-1600 became effective,
January 1, 1989. This schedule demonstrates that the City is actively using
the fees collected for the intended purposes.
· Attachment F - The revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balance for
the Fire protection, Police protection, Community Center and Park
Improvement impact fee funds.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for City Council consideration:
- Approve staff recommendation to adopt resolution accepting and filing the
report;
Do not approve staff recommendation and request further information;
Modify staff recommendation and approve;
Provide direction to staff.
rJ;J
~
~ -'>
~ ~
,
tit(
\ ~
\
, ~
\
~
\
\
ATTACHMENT A
OTYOFARROYOGRANDE
Traffic Signalization Fund
Comparative Statement of Revenues, Expenditures
and Changes in Fund Balances
Fiscal Years Ending June 30,1997-2006
FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual
Revenues:
Traffic Signal Assessments $ 8,903 $ 24,477 $ 226,007 $ 18,523 $ 37,577 $110,055 $ 24,519 $ 94,817 $ 67,189 $ 62,842
Interest Income 19,789 8,958 14,920 23,779 27,507 14,591 9,279 6,706 11,147 21,649
Total Revenues 28,692 33,435 240,927 42,302 65,064 124,646 33,798 $101,523 $ 78,336 $ 64,491
Expenditures:
Operating Expenses
Excess of Revenues Over
Expenditures 28,692 33,435 240,927 42,302 65,064 124,646 33,798 101,523 78,336 64,491
Other Financing Uses:
Capital Projects 27,645 2,010 9,931 56,530 136,889 13,282 169,672
Excess of Revenues Over
(Under) Expenditures and
Other Financing Uses 1,047 31,425 240,927 32,371 8,554 (12,243) 33,798 101,523 65,054 (85,180)
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 150,817 151,864 183,289 424,216 456,587 465,141 452,898 486,696 588,219 653,273
Fund Balance, End of Year $151,864 $183,289 $ 424,216 $ 456,587 $465,141 $ 452,898 $ 486,696 $ 588,219 $ 653,273 $ 568,092 .
Capital Project Detail
Opticom Devices $ 27,645 $ $ $ 65 $ $ $ $ $ $
Traffic Loop-Fair Oaks/Halcyon 2,010
Grand Avenue Corridor Study 31
Fair OaksNalley Traffic Signal 9,381 17,480
Grand/Halcyon Traffic Signal 454 13,026 13,282 137,135
Fair Oaks AveNalley Rd Reconst 26,024 136,889
West Branch StlCamino Mercado 32,537
Total Capital Projects $ 27,645 $ 2,010 $ $ 9,931 $ 56,530 $ 136,889 $ $ $ 13,282 $169,672
. $458,228 of this fund balance is to be used to finance various traffic projects as included in the Capital Improvement Program within the budget for FY 2006-07.
7
-~
ATTACHMENT B
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Transportation Facility Impact Fee
Comparative Statement of Revenues, Expenditures
and Changes in Fund Balances
Fiscal Years Ending June 30,1997-2006
FY 96-97 FY 97 -98 FY 98-99 FY g9-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual
Revenues:
Transportation Impact Fee $ 64,993 $ 72,840 $ 1,272,982 $ 68,444 $ 93,134 $ 261,625 $ 68,836 $ 258,987 $ 171,926 $ 172,840
Interest Income 5,664 9,915 39,592 83,772 93,796 55,846 38,697 26,059 40,565 57,246
Total Revenues 70,657 82,755 1,312,574 152,216 186,930 317,471 107,533 285,046 212,491 230,086
Expenditures:
Operating Expenses
Excess of Revenues Over
Expenditures 70,657 82,755 1,312,574 152,216 186,930 317,471 107,533 285,046 212,491 230,086
Other Financing Uses:
Capital Projects 26,900 74,372 31,457 237,490 62,013 39,799 44,702 93,288
Excess of Revenues Over
(Under) Expenditures and
Other Financing Uses 43,757 82,755 1,312,574 77,844 155,473 79,981 45,520 245,247 167,789 136,798
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 59,983 103,740 186,495 1,499,069 1,576,913 1,732,386 1,812,367 1,857,887 2,103,134 2,270,923
Fund Balance, End of Year $ 103,740 $186,495 $ 1,499,069 $1,576,913 $1,732,386 $1,812,367 $1,857,887 $2,103,134 $ 2,270,923 $ 2,407,721 *
Capital Project Detail:
Traffic Way to Garden Street $ 26,900 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Brisco Road/101 Interchange 25,233 16,650 (433) 29,798 44,336
Parking Lot-Council Chambers 36,546
1999/00 Pavement Mgmt Project 12,593 14,807
EI Campo Road/Route 101 All. 36,019 9,746 771
Oak Park Boulevard Widening 201,904 51,963
Infrastructure Inventory 10,000
Traffic Count ProgfTraffic Model 30,053 14,133
Grand Avenue & Halcyon Signal 48,952
Total Capital Projects $ 26,900 $ $ $ 74,372 $ 31,457 $ 237,490 $ 61,963 $ 39,799 $ 44,702 $ 93,288
**$1,070,979 will be used to finance Brisco Rd-Halcyon/ Route 101 interchange, a project study report on EI Campo Rd/Route 101 interchange, a project study report on West Branch Street
and Camino Mercado, and the pavement management program as detailed in the Capital Improvement program within the budget for FY 2006-07
8
ATTACHMENT C
aTYOFARROYOGRANDE
Drainage Facility Fees
Comparative Statement of Revenues, Expenditures
and Changes in Fund Balances
Fiscal Years Ending June 30,1997-2006
FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual
Revenues:
Drainage Fees $ 16,209 $ 9,744 $ 6,647 $ 2,958 $ 5,607 $ 21,397 $ 7,221 $ 4,725 $ 12,619 $ 47
Interest Income 5,360 3,228 842 514 685 890 515 363 734 834
Total Revenues 21,569 12,972 7,489 3,472 6,292 22,287 7,736 5,088 13,353 881
Expenditures:
Operating Expenses
Excess of Revenues Over
Expenditures 21,569 12,972 7,489 3,472 6,292 22,287 7,736 5,088 13,353 881
Other Financing Uses:
Capital Projects 69,132 83,021 9,300 4,079 800 19,300 15,525
Excess of Revenues Over
(Under) Expenditures and
Other Financing Uses (47,563) (70,049) (1,811) (607) 6,292 22,287 7,736 4,288 (5,947) (14,644)
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 130,477 82,914 12,865 11,054 10,447 16,739 39,026 46,762 51,050 45,103
Fund Balance, End of Year $ 82,914 $ 12,865 $ 11,054 $ 10,447 $ 16,739 $ 39,026 $ 46,762 $ 51,050 $ 45,103 $ 30,459 .
Capital Project Detail:
Soto Bleeder Line/Drain $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Don Roberts Field 5,000
Bikeway Project Two 9,765
Via La Barranca Storm Drain 52,778
Drainage Master Plan 1,516
Aerial Photography 73
EI Nino Storm Preparation 75,100
Drainage Master Plan 7,921 4,079
Newsom Springs Drainage 9,300
Popular Street Drainage Basin Imprv 800 19,300 11,150
Storm Water Study 4,375
Total Capital Projects $ 69,132 $ 83,021 $ 9,300 $ 4,079 $ $ $ $ 800 $ 19,300 $ 15,525
. The fund balance is to be used to finance the Poplar Street Drainage Basin Improvements, Drainage Master Plan, Newsom Springs Drainage project and the Storm Water study
as detailed in the Capital Improvement program within the budget for FY 2006-07. 9
ATTACHMENT D
~TYOFARROYOGRANDE
Water Neutralization Fees
Comparative Statement of Revenues, Expenditures
and Changes in Fund Balances
Fiscal Years Ending June 30, 1999-2006
FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual
Revenues:
Water Neutralization fee $ 2,110 $ 19,688 $ 142,962 $ 319,654 $ 208,921 $ 109,398 $ 231,430 $ 181,152
Interest Income 78 698 4,710 10,731 13,730 10,333 16,293 27,365
Total Revenues 2,188 20,386 147,672 330,385 222,651 119,731 247,723 208,517
Expenditures:
Operating Expenses 16,638 8,259
Excess of Revenues Over
Expenditures 2,188 20,386 147,672 330,385 222,651 103,093 239,464 208,517
Other Financing Uses:
Capital Projects 10,000 97,252 228,823 350,005
Excess of Revenues Over
(Under) Expenditures and
Other Financing Uses 2,188 20,386 147,672 330,385 212,651 5,641 10,641 (141,488)
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 2,188 22,574 170,246 500,631 713,282 719,123 729,764
Fund Balance, End of Year $ 2,188 $ 22,574 $170,246 $ 500,631 $ 713,282 $ 719,123 $ 729,764 $ 588,276 .
Capital Project Detail:
Water Conservation Program $ $ $ $ $ 10,000 $ 97,252 $ 228,823 $ 350,005
Total Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ 10,000 $ 97,252 $ 228,823 $ 350,005
. $341,585 of this fund balance is to be used to finance the Water Conservation Program as detailed in the Capital Improvement Program within
the budget for FY 2006-07.
10
---~.
ATTACHMENT E
OTYOFARROYOGRANDE
Summary of Development Fees and Related Expenditures
TRAFFIC SIGNALIZATION FEES
Underspent Fees Percent of
Year Fees (Overspent) Cumulative Cumulative Over (Under) Fees
Collected Collected Expended Fees Fees Expenditures Expenditures Expended
FY 1989 $ 57,713 $ 20,900 $ 36,813 $ 57,713 $ 20,900 $ 36,813 36%
FY 1990 24,254 24,254 81,967 20,900 61,067 0%
FY 1991 43,883 (43,883) 81,967 64,783 17,184 79%
FY 1992 15,623 15,623 97,590 64,783 32,807 66%
FY 1993 20,496 20,496 118,086 64,783 53,303 55%
FY 1994 26,829 26,829 144,915 64,783 80,132 45%
FY 1995 6,282 6,282 151,197 64,783 86,414 43%
FY 1996 7,877 7,877 159,074 84,783 94,291 41%
FY 1997 8,903 27,645 (18,742) 167,977 92,428 75,549 55%
FY 1998 24,477 2,010 22,467 192,454 94,438 98,016 49%
FY 1999 226,007 226,007 418,461 94,438 324,023 23%
FY 2000 18,523 9,931 8,592 436,984 104,369 332,615 24%
FY 2001 37,577 56,530 (18,953) 474,561 160,899 313,662 34%
FY 2002 110,055 136,889 (26,834) 584,616 297,788 286,828 51%
FY 2003 24,519 24,519 609,135 297,788 311,347 49%
FY2004 94,817 94,817 703,952 297,788 406,164 42%
FY2005 67,189 13,282 53,907 771,141 311,070 460,071 40%
FY2006 62,842 169,672 (106,830) 833,983 480,742 353,241 58%
$ 833,983 $ 480,742 $ 353,241
11
ATTACHMENT E
OTYOFARROYOGRANDE
Summary of Development Fees and Related Expenditures
TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPACT FEES
Underspent Fees Percent of
Year Fees (Overspent) Cumulative Cumulative Over (Under) Fees
Collected Collected Expended Fees Fees Expenditures Expenditures Expended
FY 1994" $ 15,524 $ $ 15,524 $ 15,524 $ $ 15,524 0%
FY 1995 15,243 15,243 30,767 30,767 0%
FY 1996 24,048 24,048 54,815 54,815 0%
FY 1997 64,993 26,900 38,093 119,808 26,900 92,908 22%
FY 1998 72,640 72,640 192,648 26,900 165,748 14%
FY 1999 1,272,982 1,272,982 1,465,630 26,900 1,438,730 2%
FY 2000 68,444 74,372 (5,928) 1,534,074 101,272 1,432,802 7%
FY 2001 93,134 31,457 61,677 1,627,208 132,729 1,494,479 8%
FY 2002 261,625 237,490 24,135 1,888,833 370,219 1,518,614 20%
FY 2003 68,836 62,013 6,823 1,957,669 432,232 1,525,437 22%
FY 2004 258,987 39,799 219,188 2,216,656 472,031 1,744,625 21%
FY 2005 171,926 44,702 127,224 2,388,582 516,733 1,871,849 22%
FY 2006 172,840 93,288 79,552 2,561,422 610,021 1,951,401 24%
$ 2,561,422 $ 610,021 $ 1,951,401
"Represents 6 month period from January 1-June 30, 1994
12
ATTACHMENT E
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Summary of Development Fees and Related Expenditures
DRAINAGE FEES
Underspent Fees Percent of
Year Fees (Overspent) Cumulative Cumulative Over (Under) Fees
Collected Collected Expended Fees Fees Expenditures Expenditures Expended
FY 1989 $ 3,366 $ $ 3,366 $ 3,366 $ $ 3,366 0%
FY 1990 2,116 2,116 5,482 5,482 0%
FY 1991 1,895 1,895 7,377 7,377 0%
FY 1992 4,985 31,980 (26,995) 12,362 31,980 (19,618) 259%
FY 1993 4,572 31,478 (26,906) 16,934 63,458 (46,524) .. 375%
FY 1994 8,406 8,406 25,340 63,458 (38,118) .. 250%
FY 1995 1,869 1,869 27,209 63,458 (36,249) .. 233%
FY 1996 32,554 32,554 59,763 63,458 (3,695) 106%
FY 1997 16,209 69,132 (52,923) 75,972 132,590 (56,618) .. 175%
FY 1998 9,744 83,021 (73,277) 85,716 215,611 (129,895) .. 252%
FY 1999 6,647 9,300 (2,653) 92,363 224,911 (132,548) .. 244%
FY 2000 2,958 4,079 (1,121) 95,321 228,990 (133,669) .. 240%
FY 2001 5,607 5,607 100,928 228,990 (128,062) .. 227%
FY 2002 21,397 21,397 122,325 228,990 (106,665) 187%
FY 2003 7,221 7,221 129,546 228,990 (99,444) .. '177%
FY 2004 4,725 800 3,925 134,271 229,790 (95,519) .. 171%
FY 2005 12,619 19,300 (6,681) 146,890 249,090 (102,200) 170%
FY 2006 47 15,525 (15,478) 146,937 264,615 (117,678) .. 180%
$ 146,937 $ 264,615 $ (117,678) ..
.. This deficit was funded from fund balance accumulated before AB-1600 was enacted, and from interest
earnings that are not subject to AB-1600 provisions,
13
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Summary of Development Fees and Related Expenditures
WATER NEUTRALIZATION FEES
Underspent Fees Percent of
Year Fees (Overspent) Cumulative Cumulative Over (Under) fees
Collected Collected Expended Fees Fees Expenditures Expenditures Expended
FY 1999 $ 2,110 $ $ 2,110 $ 2,110 $ $ 2,110 0%
FY 2000 19,688 19,688 21,798 21,798 0%
FY 2001 142,962 142,962 164,760 164,760 0%
FY 2002 319,654 319,654 464,414 464,414 0%
FY 2003 208,921 10,000 198,921 693,335 10,000 683,335 1%
FY 2004 109,398 113,890 (4,492) 802,733 123,890 678,643 15%
FY 2005 231,430 237,082 (5,652) 1,034,163 360,972 673,191 35%
FY 2006 181,152 350,005 (168,853) 1,215,315 710,977 504,338 59%
$ 1,215,315 $ 710,977 $ 504,338
14
ATTACHMENT E
ATTACHMENT F
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
2006 Impact Fees
Comparative Statement of Revenues, Expenditures
and Changes in Fund Balances
Fire Protection
FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual
Revenues:
Impact Fees $ 1,617 $ 52,454 $ 67,936 $ 46,271 $ 44,861 $ 104,568 $ 86,450
Interest Income 1,437 2,767 3,395 2,537 5,276 6,150
Total Revenues 1,617 53,891 70,703 49,666 47,398 109,844 92,600
Expenditures:
Operating Expenses 8,608
Excess of Revenues Over
Expenditures 1,617 53,891 62,095 49,666 47,398 109,844 92,600
Other Financing Uses:
Capital Transfers Out 173,271 7,206
Excess of Revenues Over
(Under) Expendiutres and
Other Financing Uses 1,617 53,891 62,095 49,666 47,398 (63,427) 85,395
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 1,617 55,508 117,603 167,269 214,667 151,240
Fund Balance, End of Year $ 1,617 $ 55,508 $ 117,603 $ 167,269 $ 214,667 $ 151,240 $ 236,635
15
ATTACHMENT F
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
2006 Impact Fees
Comparative Statement of Revenues, Expenditures
and Changes in Fund Balances
Pollee Protection
FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual
Revenues:
Impact Fees $ 392 $ 7,032 $ 25,374 $ 6,741 $ 15,464 $ 10,588 $ 11,205
Interest Income 215 437 629 531 984 1,994
Total Revenues 392 7,247 25,811 7,370 15,995 11,572 13,199
Expenditures:
Operating Expenses 4,802
Excess of Revenues Over
Expenditures 392 7,247 25,811 7,370 15,995 6,770 13,199
Other Financing Uses:
Capitai Transfers Out 58,073
Excess of Revenues Over
(Under) Expendiutres and
Other Financing Uses 392 7,247 25,811 7,370 15,995 6,770 (44,873)
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 392 7,639 33,450 40,820 56,815 63,585
Fund Balance, End of Year $ 392 $ 7,639 $ 33,450 $ 40,820 $ 56,815 $ 63,585 $ 18,712
16
ATTACHMENT F
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
2006 Impact Fees
Comparative Statement of Revenues, Expenditures
and Changes in Fund Balances
Community Center Fee
FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual
Revenues:
Impact Fees $ 1,503 $ 2,565 $ 2,883 $ 4,828 . $ 8,361 $ 8,882
Interest Income 43 81 130 134 323 830
Total Revenues 1,546 2,646 3,013 4,962 8,664 9,712
Expenditures:
Operating Expenses
Excess of Revenues Over
Expenditures 1,546 2,646 3,013 4,962 8,664 9,712
Other Financing Uses:
Capital Transfers Out
Excess of Revenues Over
(Under) Expendiutres and
Other Financing Uses 1,546 2,646 3,013 4,962 8,664 9,712
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 1,546 4,192 7,205 12,167 20,851
Fund Balance, End of Year $ 1,546 $ 4,192 $ 7,205 $ 12,167 $ 20,851 $ 30,563
Capital Project Detail:
Park Equipment Installation
$
$
$
$
$
$
17
I~ ---.---
ATTACHMENT F
aTYOFARROYOGRANDE
2006 Impact Fees
Comparative Statement of Revenues, Expenditures
and Changes in Fund Balances
Park Improvement
FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual
Revenues:
Impact Fees $ 25,993 $ 30,702 $ 31,126 $ 83,378 $ 149,138 $ 154,861
Interest Income 752 1,339 1,610 1,755 4,826 12,922
Total Revenues 26,745 32,041 32,736 85,133 153,964 167,783
Expenditures:
Operating Expenses
Excess of Revenues Over
Expenditures 26,745 32,041 32,736 85,133 153,964 167,783
Other Financing Uses:
Capital Transfers Out 8,418 1,319 8,263
Excess of Revenues Over
(Under) Expendiutres and
Other Financing Uses 26,745 32,041 24,318 85,133 152,645 159,520
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 26,745 58,786 83,104 168,237 320,882
Fund Balance, End of Year $ 26,745 $ 58,786 $ 83,104 $ 168,237 $ 320,882 $ 480,402
Capital ProjecfOetail:
Park Equipment Installation $ 8,418 $ 1,319
Turf Renovations 3,000
Park Improvements 263
Replacement pump & pipe 5,000
$ $ $ 8,418 $ $ 1,319 $ 8,263
18
8.e.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY COUNCIL d
ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES I~~
CONSIDERATION OF ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEES
DATE:
JANUARY 9, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving the annual
adjustment to the City's Development Impact Fees.
FUNDING:
The adoption of the attached Resolution will increase the development impact fees
charged for new development projects in 2007. The revenue generated from this
increase is dependent on the amount of new development in the community during the
coming year.
DISCUSSION:
In order that development impact fees remain current with inflation, Section 3.36.040 of the
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code states that the fees shall be adopted by resolution and
shall be adjusted each year by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index.
The calculation specified in Section 3.36.040 adjusts the fees as follows:
Factor = 1 + Current Index-Base Index For Date of Adoption
Base Index For Date of Adoption
The calculation is 'as follows:
1.0315 = 1 + 7888 -7647
7647
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for City Council consideration:
- Approve staff recommendation to increase Impact Fees;
Do not approve staff recommendation and retain current fee structure;
- Modify staff recommendation and approve;
Provide direction to staff.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE ADJUSTING DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEES BY THE CHANGE IN THE ENGINEERING
NEWS RECORD CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3.36.040 of the Municipal Code, Development Impact
Fees are to be adjusted annually by modifying the adopted value up or down in
conformance with the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande hereby adopts the fees and fee schedules set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. This Resolution shall take effect sixty
(60) days after its adoption per Government Code Section 66017.
On motioh of Council Member seconded by Council Member
and on the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of ,2007.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
TONYFERRARA,MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
EXHIBIT "A"
Definitions:
Development Tvpes -Residential and commercial development divided into sub-
categories.
Units of Development - A standard measure of the cost to provide services. The
acre is the fundamental unit measure, which is divided into a smaller component,
the dwelling unit (DU).
Asset Cost Per Acre - The calculated cost to provide additional services/facilities
to new development.
Calls Per Unit - The number of yearly additional police calls generated by new
development.
Facilitv Cost Per Call - The cost per call to expand current police facilities to
accommodate new development.
Persons Per Unit - The number of persons expected to reside in the unit of
development.
Costs Per Capita - The cost of new or additions to the current community center,
on a per person basis, to maintain the current level of service of recreation
facilities.
Impact Fee Per Unit - The fee to be levied per unit of development in order to
recover future cost of new or expanded facilities.
Fees:
A person seeking to construct a residential or non-residential development project shall pay
Development Impact Fees for fire protection, police facilities, traffic signalization, transportation
facilities, community centers, park improvements, and water facilities based upon the following
schedule:
Exhibit A
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
REVISED 1/09/07
Fire Protection
Development Fee per Acres Fee
Type Units Acre Per Unit Per Unit
Residential - Estate Dwelling Unit $ 1,596.83 2.500 $ 3,992.09
Residential Rural Dwelling Unit $ 1,596.83 1.000 $ 1,596.83
Residential - Si~gle-Family Dwelling Unit $ 1,596.83 1.000 $ 1,596.83
Low- income Dwelling Unit $ 399.21 1.000 $ 399.21
Very Low-income Dwelling Unit 1.000
Residential - Multi-Family , Dwelling Unit $ 1,596.83 0.090 $ 143.72
Low- income Dwelling Unit $ 399.21 0.090 $ 35.93
Very low-income Dwelling Unit 0.090
Residential Mobile Home Dwelling Unit $ 1,596.83 0.120 $ 191.62
Low- income Dwelling Unit $ 399.21 0.120 $ 47.91
Very Low-income Dwelling Unit 0.120 $
Commercial. General Thousand Square Feet $ 1,596.83 0.091 $ 145.31
Commercial - Service Thousand Square Feet $ 1,596.83 0.091 $ 145.31
Hotel/Motel Thousand Square Feet $ 1,596.83 0.050 $ 79.84
Professional Office Thousand Square Feet $ 1,596.83 0.077 $ 122.96
Industrial Thousand Square Feet $ 1,596.83 0.067 $ 106.99
Police Facilities
Development Fee per Calls Fee
Type Units Call Per Unit Per Unit
Residential - Estate Dwelling Unit $ 133.27 0.250 $ 33.32
Residential Rural Dwelling Unit $ 133.27 0.250 $ 33.32
Residential - Single-Family Dwelling Unit $ 133.27 0.750 $ 99.95
Low- income Dwelling Unit $ 33.33 0.750 $ 25.00
Very Low-income Dwelling Unit 0.750
Residential- Multi-Family Dwelling Unit $ 133.27 1.320 $ 175.92
Low- income Dwelling Unit $ 33.33 1.320 $ 43.99
Very Low-income Dwelling Unit 1.320
Residential Mobile Home Dwelling Unit $ 133.27 0.750 $ 99.95
Low- income Dwelling Unit $ 3333 0.750 $ 25.00
Very Low-income Dwelling Unit 0.750
Commercial - General Thousand Square Feet $ 133.27 3.909 $ 520.96
Commercial - Service Thousand Square Feet $ 133.27 2.273 $ 302.89
Hotel/Motel Thousand Square Feet $ 133.27 1.195 $ 159.26
Professional Office Thousand Square Feet $ 133.27 0.095 $ 12.71
Industrial Thousand Square Feet $ 133.27 0.045 $ 6.04
Transportation Facilities
Development Fee per PeakTrips Fee
Type Units Trip Per Unit Per Unit
Residential - Estate Dwelling Unit $ 1,602.80 1.2 $ 1,923.36
Residential Rural Dwelling Unit $ 1,602.80 1.2 $ 1,923.36
Residential - Single-Family Dwelling Unit $ 1,602.80 1.0 $ 1,602.80
Low- income Dwelling Unit $ 400.70 1.0 $ 400.70
Very Low-income Dweliing Unit 1.0
Residential - Multi-Family Dwelling Unit $ 1,602.80 0.7 $ 1,121.96
Low- income Dwelling Unit $ 400.70 0.7 $ 280.49
Very Low-income Dwelling Unit 0.7
Residential Mobile Home Dwelling Unit $ 1,602.80 0.5 $ 80140
Low- income Dwelling Unit $ 400.70 0.5 $ 200.35
Very Low-income Dwelling Unit 0.5
Commercial - General Thousand Square Feet $ 1,602.80 7.0 $ 11,219.57
Commercial - SelVice Thousand Square Feet $ 1,602.80 4.0 $ 6,411.19
HotellMotel Thousand Square Feet $ 1,602.80 1.8 $ 2,88503
Professional Office Thousand Square Feet $ 1,602.80 2.8 $ 4,487.83
Industrial Thousand Square Feet $ 1,602.80 0.8 $ 1,282.24
Exhibit A
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
REVISED 1/09/07
Community Centers
Development Fee per Persons Fee
Type Units Capita Per Unit Per Unit
Residential - Estate Dwelling Unit $ 43.77 2.7 $ 118.17
Residential Rural Dwelling Unit $ 43.77 27 $ 118.17
Residential - Single-Family Dwelling Unit $ 43.77 2.7 $ 118.17
Low- income Dwelling Unit $ 10.94 2.7 $ 29.55
Very Low-income Dwelling Unit 2.7
Residential- Multi-Family Dwelling Unit $ 43.77 2.0 $ 87.53
Low- income Dwelling Unit $ 10.94 2.0 $ 21.89
Very Low-income Dwelling Unit 2.0
Residential Mobile Home Dwelling Unit $ 43.77 1.5 $ 65.65
Low- income Dwelling Unit $ 10.94 1.5 $ 16.42
Very Low-income Dwelling Unit 1.5
Park Improvements
Development Fee per Persons Fee
Type Units Capita Per Unit Per Unit
Residential - Estate Dwelling Unit $ 755.25 2.7 $ 2,039.19
Residential Rural Dwelling Unit $ 755.25 2.7 $ 2,039.19
Residential- Single-Family Dwelling Unit $ 755.25 2.7 $ 2,039.19
Low- income Dwelling Unit $ 188.81 2.7 $ 509.78
Very low-income Dwelling Unit 2.7
Residential - Multi-Family Dwelling Unit $ 755.25 2.0 $ 1,510.51
Low- income Dwelling Unit $ 188.81 2.0 $ 377.61
Very Low-income Dwelling Unit 2.0
Residential Mobile Home Dwelling Unit $ 755.25 1.5 $ 1,132.88
Low- income Dwelling Unit $ 188.81 1.5 $ 283.21
Very Low-income Dwelling Unit 1.5
Water Facilities
Meter Size Fee
5/8 inch - 3/4 inch $ 830.26
1 inch $ 1 ,383.78
11/2 inch $ 2,767.52
2 inch $ 4,427.54
3 inch $ 8,302.61
4 inch $ 13,837.68
6 inch $ 27,688.51
8 inch $ 55,377.08
8.f.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY COUNCIL ~ vi
ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES ff!\-
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
EXAMINATION OF TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX RECORDS
DATE:
JANUARY 9, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:I
It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the City
Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Director of Financial Services and the firm of
Hinderliter, de Llamas, and Associates to examine the City of Arroyo Grande's
transactions and use tax records.
FUNDING: .
There is no fiscal impact with the adoption of the attached Resolution.
DISCUSSION:
In March 2002, Resolution No. 3582 was adopted to authorize the release of sales tax
information to the City Council, the City Manager, certain department directors and the
firm of Hinderliter, de Llamas and Associates (HDL). With the recent passage of
Measure 0-06, which enacts a one half-cent sales tax increase, an amendment to the
current resolution is required authorizing the designated employees, officials and HDL
to examine the transactions and use tax records.
The City currently contracts with HDL to perform sales tax analyses and management
support. HDL translates the City's sales tax data into comprehensive quarterly analyses
and reports on sales tax trends by individual business, business type, and strategic
economic areas. In addition, HDL serves as a resource for staff on sales and use tax
related issues, including budget projections, legislative proposals, and sales tax voids
and opportunities. Since the raw data and the reports generated by HDL are
confidential, the reports can only be reviewed by those positions listed in the attached
resolution.
ALTERNATIVES:
The alternatives available to the City Council are as follows:
· Approve staff recommendation and adopt the attached Resolution;
· Make additional modifications and approve the attached Resolution;
CITY COUNCIL
AUTHORIZATION OF TRANSACTION AND USE TAX RECORDS
JANUARY 9, 2007
PAGE 2
. Do not approve staff recommendation;
. Provide direction to staff.
Attachments:
1, Resolution No. 3582, adopted March 21, 2002
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
AUTHORIZING EXAMINATION OF TRANSACTIONS AND
USE TAX RECORDS
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 579, the City of Arroyo Grande ("City") entered
into a contract with the State Board of Equalization ("Board") to perform all functions
incident to the administration and collection of local transactions and use taxes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande deems it necessary for
authorized representatives of the City to examine confidential transactions and use tax
records of the Board pertaining to transactions and use taxes collected by the Board for
the City pursuant to that contract; and
WHEREAS, Section 7056 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code sets forth
certain requirements and conditions for the disclosure of Board records and establishes
criminal penalties for the unlawful disclosure of information contained in, or derived from
the transactions and use tax records of the Board; and
WHEREAS, Section 7056 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code requires that
any person designated by the City shall have an existing contract to examine the City's
sales and use tax records.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande as follows:
Section 1. That the following City Officials, or other officer(s) or employee(s) of the
City designated in writing by the City Manager to the State Board of Equalization are
hereby appointed to represent the City with authority to examine transactions and use
tax records of the Board pertaining to transactions and use taxes collected for the City
by the Board pursuant to the contract between the City and the Board.
Members of the City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
Director of Financial Services
The information obtained by examination of Board records shall be used only for
purposes related to the collection of City transactions and use taxes by the Board,
pursuant to the contract.
Section 2. That the City's existing contract with Hinderliter, de Llamas and
Associates is hereby amended to add thereto the examination of the transactions and
use tax records of the City pertaining to transactions and use taxes collected for the City
by the Board. The entity designated by this section meets all of the following conditions:
RESOLUTION NO.
(a) Has an existing contract with the City to examine those transactions and use
tax records;
(b) Is required by that contract to disclose information contained in, or derived
from, those transactions and use tax records only to the officer(s) or
employee(s) authorized under Section 1 of this resolution to examine the
information.
(c) Is prohibited by that contract from performing consulting services for a retailer
during the term of that contract; and
(d) Is prohibited by that contract from retaining the information contained in, or
derived from those transactions and use tax records, after that contract has
expired.
The information obtained by examination of Board records shall be used only for
purposes related to the collection of City transactions and use taxes by the Board
pursuant to the contract between the City and the Board.
Section 3. The City Clerk of the City is hereby directed to certify adoption of this
Resolution and to send a copy to:
State Board of Equalization
Local Tax Section MIC: 27
POBox 942879
Sacramento, CA 94279-0001
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
of ,2007.
day
RESOLUTION NO.
TONYFERRARA,MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 3582
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE AUTHORIZING EXAMINATION OF
SALES AND USE TAX RECORDS
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 308 C.S., the City of Arroyo Grande entered
into a contract with the State Board of Equalization to perform all functions incident to
the administration and collection of local sales and use taxes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande deems it desirable and
necessary for authorized representatives of the City to examine confidential sales and
use tax records of the State Board of Equalization pertaining to sales and use taxes
collected by the Board for the City pursuant to that contract; and .
WHEREAS, Section 7056 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code sets forth
certain requirements and conditions for the disclosure of Board records, and establishes
criminal penalties for the unlawful disclosure of information contained in, or derived
from, the sales and use records of the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande as follows: .
1. The following City officials, or other officer or employee of the City designated
in writing by the City Manager to the State Board of Equalization (hereafter
referred to as Board), are hereby appointed to represent the City with authority to
examine sales and use tax records of the Board pertaining to sales and use
taxes collected for the City by the Board pursuant to the contract between the
City and the Board:
Members of the City Cou ncil
City Manager
Financial Services Director
Economic Development Director
The information obtained by examination of Board records shall be used only for
purposes related to the collection of City sales and use taxes by the Board
pursuant to that contract.
2. The firm of Hinderliter, de Llamas & Associates is hereby designated to examine
the sale~ and use tax records of the Board pertaining to sales and use taxes
collected for the City by the Board. The entity designated by this section meets all
of the following conditions:
RESOLUTION NO. 3582
PAGE 2
a. Has an existing contract with the City to examine those sales and use tax
records;
b. Is required by that contract to disclose information contained in, or derived from,
those sales and use tax records only to the officer or employees under Section 1 of
this resolution to examine the information;
. c. Is prohibited by that contract from performing consulting. services for a retailer
during the term of that contract; and .
d. Is prohibited by that contract from retaining the information contained in, or
derived from those sales and use tax records, after that contract has expired.
The information obtained by examination of Board records shall be used only for
purposes related to the collection of City sales and use taxes by the Board pursuant to
the contract between the City and the Board.
3. This resolution supercedes all prior resolutions of the City Council of the City of
Arroyo Grande adopted pursuant to subdivision (b) of Revenue and Taxation code
Section 7056.
On motion of Council Member Dickens, seconded by Council Member Ferrara, and on
the following roll Call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Council Members Dickens, Ferrara, Lubin, Runels, and Mayor Lady
None
None
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 26th day of March, 2002.
..
RESOLUTION NO. 3582
PAGE 3
= ~cjfi-
MICHAEL P.. LADY, MA
ATTEST:
1J/l1L9-
RE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESI
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
ST~~ITY MANAGER..-
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RESOLUTION NO. 3582
OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION
I, KELLY WETMORE, Director of Administrative Services/Deputy City Clerk of
the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do
hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that Resolution No. 3582 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 26th day of March, 2002.
WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 29th
day of March, 2002.
~
ORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES'
DEPUTY CITY CLERK .
8_g_
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1. ROLL CALL:
Mayor Ferrara called the meeting to order at 6:20 p.m. Council Member Jim Dickens, Council Member
Ed Arnold, Mayor Pro Tem Jim Guthrie, City Manager Steven Adams, and City Attorney Timothy
Carmel were present. Council Member Joe Costello was absent.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
3. CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION:
a. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8:
Property:
Agency Negotiator:
Negotiating Party:
Under Negotiation:
APN: 077-127-017; Located at 1454 Jasmine Place, Arroyo Grande
Steven Adams, City Manager
Lorraine Kitman
Price, Terms and Conditions of Potential Purchase
Council Member Dickens declared a conflict of interest on Item b. due to his indirect
financial interest in the Dixson Ranch and left the closed session.
b. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c): one potential case.
4. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION:
City Attorney Carmel gave the report out of closed session and announced that the Council had
concluded real property negotiations pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. He stated that
City staff was authorized to exercise the City's option to purchase the affordable restricted house
located at 1454 Jasmine Place, the purchase price to be determined by an appraisal with the
affordability covenants intact, as specified in the affordable housing agreement recorded against the
property.
5. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:08 p.m. to the Regular City Council meeting.
Tony Ferrara, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor/Chair Ferrara called the Regular City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting to order at
7:10 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
City Council/RDA:
Council/Board Members Jim Dickens, Ed Arnold, Mayor Pro TemNice Chair
Jim Guthrie and Mayor/Chair Tony Ferrara were present. Council/Board
Member Joe Costello was absent.
City Staff Present:
City Manager Steven Adams, City Attorney Tim Carmel, Director of
Administrative Services/City Clerk Kelly Wetmore, Director of Financial
Services Angela Kraetsch, Police Chief Tony Aeilts, Director of Parl<s,
Recreation and Facilities Dan Hernandez, and Director of Public Works Don
Spagnolo.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Members of Cub Scout Den #4 of Pack 13 led the Flag Salute.
4. INVOCATION
Pastor George Lepper, Peace Lutheran Church, Arroyo Grande, delivered the invocation.
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
None.
6. AGENDA REVIEW
6.a. Ordinances Read in Title Only.
Council Member Arnold moved, 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
Gail Liahtfoot, Mesa Drive, representing SLO County Public Access, spoke about their plans for
publiC access television throughout San Luis Obispo County and announced that in cooperation
with Charter Communications, their goal is to assist anyone with an idea to create the programs
seen on Charter Channel 2. She stated that SLO County Public Access provides the guidelines for
channel use so that the channel represents the public and said they would appreciate the
opportunity to put PEG funds collected from Charter subscribers in Arroyo Grande to good use.
Ed Moss, S. Elm Street, representing SLO County Public Access, stated he serves on the
scheduling committee and he invited the public and non-profit organizations to produce new
programs for public access Channel 2.
8. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor/Chair Ferrara invited members of the public who wished to comment on any Consent
Agenda Item to do so at this time. There were no public comments received.
Minutes: City CounciVRedevelopment Agency Meeting
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Page 2
Council/Board Member Guthrie pulled Item 8.h. for separate roll-call vote.
Mayor/Chair Ferrara pulled Items 8.f. and Item 8.j.
Mayor/Chair Ferrara referred to Item 8.f. and commended the City Manager and Director of
Financial Services' efforts relating to the viability of the Redevelopment Agency.
Council/Board Member Dickens moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.k, with the
exception of Items 8.h. and 8.j., with the recommended courses of action. Council/Board Member
Arnold seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Dickens, Arnold, Guthrie, Ferrara
None
Costello
8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification.
Action: Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period October 16, 2006 through
October 31, 2006.
8.b. Consideration of Approval of Minutes.
Action: Approved the minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of September 26, 2006;
the Special (Closed Session) City Council Meeting of October 10, 2006; and the Regular
City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting of October 10, 2006, as submitted.
8.c. Consideration of Rejection of Claim Filed Against the City - D. McCallister.
Action: Rejected claim.
8.d. Consideration of Authorization to Close City Streets for the 4th Annual Arroyo Grande
Village Improvement Association Christmas Parade, November 26, 2006.
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3967 as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO
CLOSE CITY STREETS FOR THE 4TH ANNUAL ARROYO GRANDE VILLAGE
IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION CHRISTMAS PARADE, NOVEMBER 26,2006".
8.e. Consideration of Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue Sharing Agreement for the
Hampton Inn & Suites Hotel Project.
Action: Approved and authorized the Mayor to execute the proposed Transient Occupancy
Tax (TOT) agreement with Arroyo Hotel, LLC for the Hampton Inn & Suites hotel project.
8.1. Consideration of Approval of Agreements for Financial Advisor, Underwriter and
Disclosure Counsel to the Redevelopment Agency for Issuance of Bond Financing.
[COUNCIURDA]
Recommended Action: The City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors
approved and authorized the Mayor/Chair to execute agreements with Harrell & Company
Advisors for financial advisor, E.J. De La Rosa for underwriter; and Jones Hall for disclosure
counsel for tax allocation bond financing proposed by the Redevelopment Agency.
8.g. Consideration of Appropriation of Funds for Startup Costs for East Grand Avenue
Business Improvement Association.
[COUNCIURDA]
Action: The City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors appropriated and
authorized the City Manager/Executive Director to expend an additional $3,000 for startup
costs for the formation of an East Grand Avenue Business Improvement Association.
Minutes: City CounciVRedeve/opment Agency Meeting
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Page 3
8.i. Consideration of a Contract Amendment with Wood Rodgers, Inc. to Include a
Northbound Auxiliary Lane in the Brisco Road-Halcyon Road/Route 101 Project
Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED).
Action: 1) Approved a contract amendment with Wood Rogers, Inc. to include a northbound
auxiliary lane in the Brisco Road-Halcyon Road/Route 101 Project Approval &
Environmental Document (PA&ED); and 2) Authorized the City Manager to execute the
contract amendment.
8.j. Consideration of a Contract Amendment with Wood Rodgers, Inc. to Include a
Roundabout Feasibility Analysis in the Brisco Road-Halcyon Road/Route 101 Project
Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED).
Action: 1) Approved a contract amendment with Wood Rogers, Inc. to include a
roundabout feasibility analysis in the Brisco Road-Halcyon Road/Route 101 Project
Approval & Environmental Document (PA&ED); and 2) Authorized the City Manager to
execute the contract amendment.
8.k. Consideration of an SHAlSTP Cooperative Agreement with the San Luis Obispo
Council of Governments. .
Action: 1) Adopted Resolution No. 3969 as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS SHAlSTP COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENT NO. AG-STL-01"; and 2) Directed the Director of Administrative Services to
submit the SHAlSTP Cooperative Agreement No. AG-STL-01 and the Resolution to the San
Luis Obispo Council of Governments.
8.h. Consideration of Resolution Denying Without Prejudice Vesting Tentative Tract Map
Case No. 04-004 and Planned Unit Development Case No. 04-001; Applicant - DB&M
Properties, LLC; Location - 415 East Branch Street.
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution denying, without prejudice, Vesting Tentative
Tract Map Case No. 04-004 and Planned Unit Development Case No. 04-001 (Creekside
Mixed-Use Center).
Action: Council/Board Member Arnold moved, and Council/Board Member Dickens seconded the
motion to approve Consent Agenda Item 8.h. with the recommended course of action. The motion
passed on the following roll-call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Arnold, Dickens, Ferrara
Guthrie
Costello
Resolution No. 3968 was adopted as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04-004 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE
NO. 04-001 (CREEKSIDE MIXED-USE CENTER) FOR A MIXED-USE PROJECT ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 415 EAST BRANCH STREET, APPLIED FOR BY DB & M
PROPERTY, LLC"
Minutes: City CounciVRedeve/opment Agency Meeting
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
8.j. Consideration of a Contract Amendment with Wood Rodgers, Inc. to Include a
Roundabout Feasibility Analysis in the-Brisco Road-Halcyon Road/Route 101 Project
Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED).
Recommended Action: 1) Approve a contract amendment with Wood Rogers, Inc. to
include a roundabout feasibility analysis in the Brisco Road-Halcyon Road/Route 101 Project
Approval & Environmental Document (PA&ED); and 2) Authorize the City Manager to execute
the contract amendment.
Page 4
Action: Mayor/Chair Ferrara moved to postpone this item to a future meeting to allow staff to make
initial inquiries on the feasibility and viability of the proposal as it relates to public right of way
issues. Council/Board Member Arnold seconded, and the rnotion passed on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Ferrara, Arnold, Dickens, Guthrie
None
Costello
Mayor Ferrara requested, and the Council concurred, to move Agenda Item 10.a. up on the Agenda
for consideration prior to Item 9.a.
10. CONTINUED BUSINESS ITEMS
10.a. Consideration of Approval of Lease Agreement between the City of Arroyo Grande
and the 5 Cities Community Services Foundation.
Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities presented the staff report and recommended the
Council approve and authorize the Mayor to execute a Lease Agreement with the 5 Cities
Community Services Foundation, leasing City owned real property located at 400 West Branch
Street to the 5 Cities Community Services Foundation for a proposed public recreation facility. City
Attorney Carmel reviewed the terms of the Lease Agreement. .
Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter,
and upon hearing none, he closed the public comment period.
Council comments included support for the concept of the lease agreement; however, concerns
were expressed concerning the timeframe for commencing and completing the recreation center
project as it relates to the Brisco/Halcyon interchange improvements. City Attorney Carmel noted
that approval of a future recreation center project would include specific project related conditions,
the same as with any conditional use permit, such as timeframes for making progress on the
project.
Council Member Arnold moved to approve and authorize the Mayor to execute a Lease Agreement
with the 5 Cities Community Services Foundation for property located at 400 W. Branch Street, as
amended to modify the timeframe to four (4) years from lease approval for obtaining project
approval with the option to return to Council for a two (2) year extension, if needed, and for
construction to commence no later than three (3) years after the completion of the Brisco/Halcyon
interchange improvements and five (5) years for completion of the project. The motion failed for
lack of a second.
Minutes: City CounciURedeve/opment Agency Meeting
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Page 5
Action: Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie moved to approve and authorize the Mayor to execute a Lease
Agreement with the 5 Cities Community Services Foundation for property located at 400 W. Branch
Street, as amended to modify the timeframe to three (3) years for pulling building permits and
starting construction, ten (10) years from the time that final funding is available for the
Brisco/Halcyon interchange improvements for completion of the project, and four (4) years for
obtaining project approval with the option to return to Council for a two (2) year extension. Council
Member Arnold seconded the motion.
Discussion ensued clarifying the intent of the articulated timelines as they relate to the design and
funding for the Brisco/Halcyon interchange improvements. City Attorney Carmel clarified that the
proposed Lease Agreement currently tied commencement and completion of project construction to
the completion of the Brisco/Halcyon improvements; the discussion and proposed motion were tied
to final design and funding which would require substantial lease modifications. He stated that the
action should be tentative and the revised lease agreement would be brought back for final action,
likely on the consent agenda. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie agreed that his proposed time frames were
triggered by final design and approval of all funding for the Brisco/Halcyon improvements.
Following discussion with staff, it was determined that commencement of improvements to the site
should begin upon final design completion and approval of all funding necessary for improvements
related to the Brisco/Halcyon interchange (rather than the completion of the Brisco/Halcyon
interchange improvements). Discussion ensued and Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie suggested the terms
be changed as follows: 1) four (4) years to obtain project approval (Section 2.2), plus up to a two
(2) year extension if approved by the City; 2) three (3) years from final funding and design to
commence construction; and 3) Ten (10) years from final funding and design to complete all
improvements. After discussion, there was Council' consensus for Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie's
modified timeframes. City Attorney Carmel clarified that any proposed action would be tentative
and staff would return with a revised Lease Agreement for final Council consideration and approval.
He indicated this would also allow time to address the proposed modifications with the Foundation.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Guthrie, Arnold, Dickens, Ferrara
None
Costello
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
9.a. Consideration of an Appeal of Planning Commission's ~pproval of Plot Plan Review
Case No. 06-015 to Convert Twelve (12) of the Sixty (60) Previously Approved
Condominium Units from Two (2) Bedrooms to Three (3) Bedrooms; Applicant -
Ocean Oaks Builders; Location - 579 Camino Mercado
Associate Planner Heffernon presented the staff report and recommended the Council adopt a
Resolution upholding the Planning Commission's approval of Plot Plan Review Case No. 06-015 to
convert twelve of the sixty previously approved condominium units from 2-bedroom to 3-bedroom
units.
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Page 6
Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing, inviting the applicant or representative to address the
Council first. There were no public comments received, and Mayor Ferrara closed the public
hearing.
Council Member Arnold provided the following comments:
- Commented on overall affordability of the units and noted that the project was originally
approved as 1 and 2-bedroom units then it was converted to all 2-bedroom units;
- Expressed concern that the applicant would sell all the 3-bedroom units as affordable units;
- Could support 3-bedroom units; however, would limit the number of 3-bedroom units to not
more than three.
Council Member Dickens provided the following comments:
- Noted that there may be a demand for 3-bedroom units; provides potential buyers in the
affordable housing range with a choice of units;
- Provides the applicant with flexibility in selling the units;
- Can uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve.
Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie provided the following comments: ,
- Acknowledged that these are senior units and did not think there were other senior restricted
condominium projects that include 3-bedroom units;
- Concerned mostly with quality of units if 3-bedroom design is approved;
- Does not favor including any 3-bedroom units.
.
Mayor Ferrara provided the following comments:
- Agreed with concerns expressed by Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie;
Questioned whether there was a need for 3-bedroom units for seniors;
Would like to see a survey and feedback from seniors to determine whether a demand for 3-
bedroom units exist;
Noted that this was the fourth proposed change to this project;
Not in favor of moving forward, and would support the appeal.
Action: Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie moved to take tentative action to deny the Plot Plan Review and to
direct staff to return with a supporting Resolution. Council Member Arnold seconded the motion.
Council Member Dickens asked staff what would happen if a survey came back which
demonstrated that there is a demand for the three-bedroom units. City Attorney Carmel noted that
since the item would be coming back at the next meeting for formal adoption, the issue could be
further discussed at that time prior to taking formal action on the Resolution.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Guthrie, Ferrara. Arnold
Dickens
Costello
Council Member Costello arrived at 8:p.m. and took his place at the dais.
Minutes: City CounclURedeve/opment Agency Meeting
Tuesday, November 14,2006
Page 7
Council Member Dickens declared a conflict of interest due to his indirect financial interest
in the Dixson Ranch and stepped down from the dais for Item 9.b.
9.b. Consideration of Development Code Amendment 06-003, Neighborhood Plan 04-
001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 04-002, and 'Planned Unit Development 04-002;
Applicant - Creekside Estates of Arroyo Grande, LLC; Location - 9 Acres East of
Noguera Place and North of East Cherry Avenue Extension (Cherry Creek Project)
Associate Planner Heffernon presented the staff report and stated the Planning Commission
recommended the City Council introduce the Ordinance implementing Development Code
Amendment No. 06-003 and deny Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 04-002 and Planned Unit
Development No. 04-002. Staff responded to questions from Council regarding the open space
along the creek at Myrtle Street and whether it could be a pocket park; abandonment of the
easement along Noguera Place; development impact fees which could be used for traffic
improvements on \raffic Way at E. Cherry Avenue; conditions of approval which address the
timeframe for cons~ruction of the affordable units within the proposed project; spacing distance
between street trees on the site plan versus the written conditions of approval; paving over water
and sewer mains on private property; inconsistencies on the plans regarding gutter and sidewalk;
whether native plant species is the best resource for the proposed bioswale; whether secondary
units are allowed; whether the City had received any comments on the revised Mitigated Negative
Declaration' (MND) from the State Clearinghouse; design guidelines as it relates to location. of
garages; access to the creek; and access and traffic signs for "dirt" Cherry.
Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing, inviting the applicant or representative to address the
Council first.
John Kniaht, RRM Design, Planner and Project Manager representing the applicant, responded to
questions and explained that a path going through the bioswale was originally included and was
removed based on environmental, safety, and privacy concerns; noted that there would be open
fencing along the rear yards; stated the applicant was willing to install a 3-way stop at E. Cherry and
Branch Mill Road if directed by the City Public Works Department to control traffic at that
intersection; clarified that street trees are proposed to be spaced about 30-40 feet apart and noted
that while the applicant is willing to plant 24-gallon trees, they believed that a 15-gallon tree will
typically catch up to a 24-inch box tree fairly quickly; referred to existing trees surrounding the
existing stone (Vanderveer) house and noted there is a Coastal Live Oak tree that is worth saving
that can be relocated; and requested the Council introduce the Ordinance, adopt the revised and
recirculated MND. approving the Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Planned Development, and direct
staff to return with a supporting Resolution of approval.
Cliff Branch, co-applicant, responded to issues regarding a proposed pocket park and stated they
could go either way, noting that some people want to protect the natural environment; referred to
the affordable housing component and noted that the units would have to be deed restricted;
addressed the concern about the tree size and said they could provide either 15 or 24-inch box
trees; stated every tree on the site was surveyed and it was to their benefit to save as many trees
as possible; referred to the bioswale and noted the safety concerns with providing a path within the
bioswale; noted that the bioswale provides a good buffer for the residences; and supported the
placement of a 3-way stop at E. Cherry and Branch Mill Road.
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Page 8
Council Member Arnold asked if Mr. Branch would oppose restricting secondary units on the lots.
Mr. Branch did not oppose that suggestion as a developer; however, he noted would be up to the
City to determine through a separate process. .
Council Member Arnold asked how deep the bioswale would be. The applicant's representative
replied it would be 6-7 feet at the deepest point in order to maximize its width.
Further discussion ensued concerning the proposed fencing along the bioswale, as well as the
proposed landscape design for the riparian area based on recommendations from the appliCant's
biologist and the City's consulting biologist.
The following members of the public addressed the Council:
Neil Havlik, representing Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District (RCD), stated that their
interest in this matter is primarily focused on the Dixson Ranch in which the District is the holder of
a Conservation Easement. He noted the District has no particular interest in the design criteria of
the project with the exception of the drainage. He supported the Concept of the bioswale; however,
he expressed concern that as the project moves forward into the design phases that the District
would be able to participate and provide input on the design of the overall drainage solution.
Pollv Tullis, Garden Street, expressed concerns with the proposed Tract Map and the Mitigated
Negative Declaration as proposed and requested the Council consider continuing the item until
some studies are done to clarify some of her concerns. Her concerns included loss of prime soil
and appropriate mitigation for that loss; waiting until the environmental impact report for the
Newsom Springs regional drainage project is completed prior to approving the tract map and
adopting an ordinance to approve a zone change; lack of a sidewalk on the north side of Myrtle
Street; and expressed support for a pedestrian pathway through the bioswale.
Colleen Martin, Olive Street, distributed a letter to the Council and read it into the record (on file in
the Administrative Services Department) urging the Council not to vote on the .Cherry Creek
application, maps, and Development Code amendments this evening and waiting until the Council
has all the facts about the project, including comments from the recirculated MND, the minutes from
the November 7th Planning Commission meeting, and a certified EIR for the Newsom Springs
Drainage project. She then outlined undecided project specific details involving dirt Cherry,
engineering for the bioswale, the ag buffer, impermeable surfaces, landscape mitigation monitoring,
transitional zoning, lot size, traffic and parking impacts, and regional drainage. She concluded by
stating this was a very complicated project with many unknown features, especially how the flood
control channel would work, and asked the Council to wait to approve the project until after all the
facts are known.
Doua Tait, Asilo, supported condition of approval #7 requiring a certified EIR for the Newsom
Springs Drainage project prior to issuance of a grading or building permit; referred to condition #95
and requested consideration of more extensive traffic calming devices such as a narrower interior
street design and a lowered maximum vehicle speed; supported revised mitigation measure 3.2 for
use of reclaimed non-potable water during construction to minimize airborne dust; requested that
language from mitigation measure 4.2 be added to mitigation measure 2.2 relating to a five-year
monitoring program; and requested the Council continue to consider a future pedestrian/bicycle
connection at Stanley Street.
Maureen Cataneo, Short Street, spoke about the charm of the Village, stated that she currently
rents, commented about the lack of available housing in the Village, and supported a project that
would create more housing opportunities for families. She said the project seems to be in keeping
with the current density of the adjacent neighborhoods and has the potential to become a wonderful
extension of the community and supported approval of the project.
Minutes: City CounclURedevelopment Agency Meeting
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Page 9
Tonv Janowicz, Lierly Lane. referred to the Arroyo Grande East Village Neighborhood Plan dated
August 31, 2006 that he had recently reviewed. He referred to Subarea 2 and spoke about future
development potential and requested that before any decisions are made for potential downzoning,
he suggested the City should hear what the homeowners in this area propose for their individual
properties. He stated it was felt among the majority of property owners that the area should remain
as Medium Density or 4.5 units/acre with each parcel applying individually for new lot development
and should be treated on a case-by-case basis.
Nora Loonev, Lierly Lane, distributed a letter to the Council dated November 13. 2006 signed by 9
of the 11 property owners in Subarea 2 (on file in the Administrative Services Department)
expressing support for the proposed Cherry Creek development in Subarea; that the homeowners
prefer the zoning for Subarea 2 be 4.5 units per acre as specified in the General Plan; and that they
would voluntarily work with the City regarding "dirt" Cherry.
Cliff Branch, co-applicant, reiterated that they have worked on this project for several years and
acknowledged the support for the project from 9 of 11 property owners. He acknowledged there are
some loose ends, referred to the conditions of approval associated with the project, and noted that
the City has control over how the project evolves. He noted they would continue to work with the
City and the neighbors in a cooperative effort.
Scott Stokes, project engineer, referred to the drainage component and noted they have been
working with The Wallace Group to coordinate efforts.
John Kniaht responded to comments made by Mr. Havlik and noted that condition #120 which
requires the applicant to coordinate directly with the RCD; clarified that the General Plan has
already been updated to allow 4.5 units per acre, however, the zoning is currently inconsistent with
the General Plan and must be updated for consistency; referred to several conditions of approval
that address drainage issues; noted that the MND was recirculated and is not the first time the
responsible agencies have seen it and they do not anticipate any additional conditions or
comments; referred to condition #7 which requires a certified EIR for the Newsom Springs Regional
Drainage project prior to issuance of grading or building permits; clarified that the density for the
proposed project is lower than what is allowed; noted that there is a separate process for approving
secondary units; noted the applicant agreed to install a 3-way stop sign at Branch Mill and E.Cherry
if there is a need; and concluded by requesting that the Council close the public hearing and direct
staff to bring back a supporting Resolution of approval.
Mike Miner, E. Cherry, spoke in favor of the proposed project.
There were no further public comments received, and Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing.
Council Member Costello provided the following comments:
~ Acknowledged this as a complex project;
- Referred to and read the findings that must be made for approving the Development Code
Amendment;
- Stated that the land use designation for this property was changed in 2001 to single family
residential and noted it has not been an agricultural piece of property;
- Supported the project as an appropriate use of the property;
- The proposed density is 3.3 units/acre; originally concerned with smaller parcels, however.
those are reserved for the affordable housing units; most parcels are over 6,000 square feet;
- Supports single story units on parcels next to Noguera Place;
- Acknowledged that Planned Unit Development process allows deviation from some
development standards
Minutes: City CounciURedeve/opment Agency Meeting
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Page 10
- Noted that the City is not removing any agricultural use; however, there is some loss of prime
soils and he noted the applicant was willing to mitigate that loss. He did not originally think this
needed to be mitigated; however, he expressed concern about establishing a precedent for
mitigating a loss of prime soils on land that is not zoned agricultural.
- Supported increase in buffer zone to 130 feet, which would continue into Subarea 2;
- Acknowledged that the constraints of the Creek will prevent the development of 4.5 units per
acre;
- Believed that adequate environmental analysis had occurred resulting in an appropriate
Mitigated Negative Declaration;
- Noted that the 25 foot setback from the creek is adequate;
- Not in favor of creating a pocket park on the north side of Myrtle due to the area's environmental
sensitivity;
- Supported 3-way stop at E. Cherry and Branch Mill;
- May need a 3-way stop at E. Cherry and Traffic Way;
- Noted that additional traffic from the project is not going to result in a level of service less than
C; however, he acknowledged the safety issues which may warrant a 3-way stop sign;
- Supported drainage solution through use of the bioswale and stressed that it should not
negatively impact the Dixson Ranch;
- Can support approving the Development Code Amendment; adopting the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, and directing staff to return with a Resolution approving the project.
In response to a question from Council Member Arnold regarding traffic safety concerns at the
intersection at E. Cherry and Traffic Way, discussion ensued regarding further study to determine if
safety issues could be used as criteria for requiring traffic improvements and imposing a condition
requiring the applicant to pay a share of the improvement costs.
Council Member Arnold provided the following comments:
- Inquired and clarified that the homes next to Noguera Place are deed-restricted to remain one-
story;
Commented on the issue regarding prime soils mitigation as it relates to the requirement for an
ag buffer;
Referred to the design guidelines, page 9, and noted inconsistencies with the design of the
garages;
Stated that the design should go back to the Architectural Review Committee for final review;
Agreed that the creek bridge idea should not be abandoned as it would provide a good
circulation element; however, this should be pursued by the City and not the developer;
Acknowledged sensitive habitat in the creek; however, a small pocket park could provide some
community open space and be a nice amenity; would forego the park if there is outflow from the
bioswale;
Encouraged the developer and community group to establish a community garden on the
Stilwell property;
Agreed that the Noguera Place easement should be abandoned;
Supported improvement of E. Cherry Avenue;
Would like to see an Agreement between the City and developer on the timetable for
construction of the affordable units;
Spacing between trees should be a minimum of 40', but prefers 30 feet; ok with 15-gallon trees;
If agreement for a park is reached, would support a sidewalk on the north side of Myrtle; if
remains native, sidewalks are not necessary;
Prefers to restrict secondary units;
Minutes: City CounclURedevelopment Agency Meeting
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Page 11
- Expressed concern about the look of the fencing near the bioswale; and
- Agreed that mitigation measure 2.2 should include a 5-year monitoring plan.
Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie provided the following comments:
- Referred back to decision to upzone this area in 2001; reviewed history of flooding in the area
and noted this was an opportunity to develop a comprehensive drainage plan with future
development; referred to discussions concerning the ag-urban interface and how to manage
that by establishing a buffer zone; and referred to opportunities for additional residential
development where there is existing infrastructure;
Reflected on the Berry Gardens development and concerns expressed about higher density
housing that proved to be unfounded;
Satisfied that this project will provide a key link to the regional drainage solution;
Not convinced that the traffic generation will not create a problem; however, it is not a volume or
flow problem, it is tied more to safety which the City is addressing through the Traffic Way
Streetscape Plan;
Disappointed that reduced density will reduce impact fees to solve some of the traffic problems;
Disappointed that a pedestrian bridge is not included;
Satisfied that that the Neighborhood Plan addresses infrastructure for the area;
Preferred higher density as there is less opportunity for affordable housing;
Satisfied that the buffer is sufficient; need to refine the buffer policy;
Supported the 5-year mitigation monitoring plan for proposed measure 2.2;
Supports the project; meets all the General Plan objectives; and will be a good addition to the
community;
Supported keeping the riparian area in the bioswale;
Agreed that Architectural Review Committee should have final design review and approval.
Mayor Ferrara provided the following comments:
- Acknowledged the many letters received regarding the project; one in particular concerning
preservation of the City's agricultural heritage;
Reflected on the 2001 General Plan update when agriculture conversion was studied and his
voting history to preserve agricultural zoning on certain properties;
Supported 30-40 foot spacing between street trees with 24-gallon trees;
Would not support allowing secondary units in this project;
Supports a pedestrian bridge if it will work to increase circulation; referred to letter from LMUSD
which expressed concerns; however, City should pursue while being mindful of sensitive issues
surrounding the creek;
Referred to agriculture issue and policies and pointed out the City's policy to promote
agricultural production; big issue is to minimize and control the intrusion of flood waters through
comprehensive drainage improvements;
Acknowledged traffic issues; need to improve "dirt" Cherry and address traffic safety issues on
E. Cherry;
Agreed with Council Member Costello regarding mitigation of prime soils and the potential for
setting a precedent; would rather see the applicant work with neighbors to create a community
garden instead of requiring mitigation of one acre of prime soils;
Agreed with incorporating language in mitigation measure 2.2 regarding maintenance related to
the agriculture buffer;
Believes that the agriculture buffer policy has flexibility to review and determine appropriate
distances on a case-by-case basis;
Minutes: City CounciURedeve/opment Agency Meeting
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Page 12
- Acknowledged that this was a tough decision; however, there is an opportunity for critical City-
wide drainage improvements which will help to return the backyards on Noguera Place by
abandonment of the easement; to utilize infrastructure' in the form of utilities to implement a
good neighborhood plan; and to provide additional housing for families in the community;
- Supported the project.
Further discussion ensued regarding improvement of E. Cherry, tree spacing requirements, a
monitoring plan for the agricultural buffer, traffic issues from Highway 101 onto Traffic Way, open
space, and clarification that State law and City Code regulate secondary units.
Action: Council Member Arnold moved to adopt the revised and recirculated Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Council Member Costello seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
. NOES:
ABSENT:
Arnold, Costello, Ferrara
Guthrie
Dickens
Council Member Arnold moved to introduce an Ordinance as follows: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO
DESIGNATE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS SINGLE.FAMIL Y RESIDENTIAL (SF);
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 06-003, APPLIED FOR BY THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED EASST OF NOGUERA PLACE AND NORTH OF EAST
CHERRY AVENUE EXTENSION" and further moved to take tentative action to approve Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 04-002 and Planned Unit Development No. 04-002 and direct staff to
return with a supporting Resolution as modified, that the Design Guidelines go back to the
Architectural Review Committee (ARC) for final review; that improvement of "dirt" Cherry is included
in the proposal and that there be a 3-way stop sign at Branch Mill and E. Cherry; that the tree
spacing be a minimum of 40 feet; that the fence on the Cherry Creek side of the bioswale be
removed; that Mitigation Measure 2.2 include a 5-year monitoring plan of the buffer similar to
Mitigation Measure 4.2; that the 24-gallon trees remain; and adding language that ensures the
affordable housing units are built in a timely manner. Council Member Costello seconded, and the
motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Arnold, Costello, Guthrie, Ferrara
None
Dickens (recused)
Action: Council Member Arnold moved to introduce an Ordinance as follows: "AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP
TO DESIGNATE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SF);
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 06-003, APPLIED FOR BY THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF NOGUERA COURT AND NORTH OF EAST
CHERRY AVENUE EXTENSION". Council Member Costello seconded, and the motion passed on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Arnold, Costello, Guthrie, Ferrara
None
Dickens (recused)
Council Member Dickens returned to the dais.
Minutes: City CounciVRedeve/opment Agency Meeting
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Page 13
11. NEW BUSINESS ITEMS
None.
12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS
a) Request staff to provide alternatives for consideration of changes to traffic study
requirements in the City's traffic study policy. (ARNOLD)
Council Member Arnold requested, and the Council unanimously concurred. to direct staff to
provide alternatives for consideration of changes to traffic study requirements in the City's traffic
study policy for consideration at a future Council meeting.
13. CITY MANAGER ITEMS
None.
14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
15. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
None.
16. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Colleen Martin, Olive Street, referred to the traffic safety issues at Traffic Way and E. Cherry which
need to be resolved and suggested that parking should be prohibited on Traffic Way in front of the
Five Cities Swim Club adjacent to the agricultural land.
17. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor/Chair Ferrara adjourned the meeting at 11 :30 p.rn.
Tony Ferrara, Mayor/Chair
ATTEST:
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk/Agency Secretary
(Approved at CC Mtg
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1. ROLL CALL:
Mayor Ferrara called the meeting to order at 6:30 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.
3. CITY COUNCil CLOSED SESSION:
a. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Government Code Section
54957.6:
Agency Negotiator: Steven Adams, City Manager
Unrepresented Employees: Management Employees
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 6:48 p.m.
Tony Ferrara, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor/Chair Ferrara called the Regular City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting to order at
7:01 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
City Council/RDA:
Council/Board Members Jim Dickens, Joe Costello, Mayor Pro TemNice
Chair Jim Guthrie, and Mayor/Chair Tony ,Ferrara were present.
Council/Board Member Arnold was absent.
City Staff Present:
City Manager Steve Adams, City Attorney Tim Carmel, Director of
Administrative Services/City Clerk Kelly Wetmore, Director of Financial
Services Angela Kraetsch, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Don
Spagnolo, Chief of Police Tony Aeilts, Community Development Director
Rob Strong, Assistant Planner Ryan Foster, and Assistant Planner Jim
Bergman.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Members of Girl Scout Cadet Troop 829 of Tres Condados led the Flag Salute.
4. INVOCATION
Mayor Ferrara delivered the invocation.
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
5.a. Mayor's Commendation - Michele Stearns, Arroyo Grande Police Department.
Mayor Ferrara presented a Mayor's Commendation to Michele Stearns in recognition of her
outstanding work and exemplary skills in managing volunteers, designing and conducting crime
prevention programs and representing the Arroyo Grande Police Department and community.
6. AGENDA REVIEW
6.a. Ordinances Read in Title Only
Council Member Costello moved, Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie 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.
8. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor/Chair Ferrara invited any member of the public who wished to comment on any Consent
Agenda item to do so at this time. There were no public comments received.
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Page 2
Council Member Dickens declared a conflict of interest on Item 8.j. due to his indirect financial
interest in the Dixson Ranch and stated he would recuse himself from voting on the item.
Mayor Pro TemNice Chair Guthrie moved, and Council/Board Member Dickens seconded the
motion to approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.1., with the recommended courses of
action. The motion carried on the following roll-call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Arnold, Dickens, Costello, Guthrie, Ferrara
None
None
Dickens (recused on Item 8.j. only, due to conflict of interest duly noted)
8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification.
Action: Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period November 1, 2006
through November 15, 2006.
8.b. Statement of Investment Deposits.
Action: Received and filed the report of current investment deposits as of October 31,
2006.
S.c. Consideration of Lease Agreement Between the City of Arroyo Grande and the 5
Cities Community Services Foundation (400 West Branch Street).
Action: Approved and authorized the Mayor to execute a Lease Agreement with the 5
Cities Community Services Foundation for property located at 400 West Branch Street.
8.d. Consideration of a Resolution Accepting Public Improvements and Easements for
CUP 01-014, Courtland Senior Housing, Located at N. Courtland Street and E.
Grand Avenue, Constructed by Cobalt Construction.
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3970 as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING EASEMENTS AND
IMPROVEMENTS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01-014, COURTLAND SENIOR
HOUSING".
S.e. Consideration of Agreement with Parking Design Group for Preparation of Parking
Structure Feasibility Study.' [CC/RDA]
Action: The City Council/Redevelopment Agency approved and authorized the City
Manager/Executive Director to execute the proposed Agreement with Parking Design
Group to prepare a parking structure feasibility study and appropriate $10,500 from the
Redevelopment Agency Fund.
S.f. Consideration of Cancellation of December 26, 2006 City Council Meetini'
Action: Canceled the regularly scheduled Council meeting of December 26 due to the
holiday.
S.g. Consideration to Approve the Plans and Specifications for the Picnic Shelter
Structure at Elm Street Park, PW 2006-05.
Action: 1) Approved the plans and specifications for the Picnic Shelter Structure at Elm
Street Park, PW 2006-05; 2) Found that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA
pursuant to Section 15301(d); 3) Directed the Director of Administrative Services to file a
Notice of Exemption; and 4) Appropriated $10,000 from the Park Development Fund.
S.h. Consideration to Approve Final Tract Map 2236 - Grace Lane; Subdividing 29.5
Acres into Nineteen (19) Residential Parcels, One (1) Open Space Parcel, and One
(1) Open SpacelDrainage Easement Parcel.
Action: Approved Final Tract Map 2236 - Grace Lane, subdividing 29.5 acres into
nineteen (19) residential parcels, one (1) open space parcel, and one (1) open
space/drainage easement parcel.
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Page 3
8.i. Consideration to Approve Bicycle Transportation Account Project Applications.
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3971< as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AUTHORIZING TWO 2008-08
BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION ACCOUNT PROJECT APPLICATIONS FOR
PROPOSED EAST GRAND AVENUE AND JAMES WAY BIKE LANE RESTRIPING
FUNDING ASSISTANCE".
8.j. Consideration of Ordinance Approving Development Code Amendment 06-003 and
Adoption of Resolution Approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 04-002 and Planned
Unit Development 04-002; Applicant - Creekside Estates of Arroyo Grande, LLC;
Location - 9 acres located East of Noguera Place and North of East Cherry Avenue
Extension (Cherry Creek).
Action: 1) Adopted Ordinance No. 583 as follows: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO
DESIGNATE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SF);
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 06-003, APPLIED FOR BY THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF NOGUERA PLACE AND
NORTH OF EAST CHERRY AVENUE EXTENSION"; and 2) Adopted Resolution No.
3972 as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 04-002 AND
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 04-002, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN
EAST CHERRY AVENUE AND MYRTLE STREET, APPLIED FOR BY CREEKSIDE
ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE, LLC".
8.k. Consideration of Resolution Upholding an Appeal of the Planning Commission's
Approval of Plot Plan Review 06-015 to Convert Twelve (12) of the Sixty (60)
Previously Approved Condominium Units from Two (2) Bedrooms to Three (3)
Bedrooms; Applicant - Ocean Oaks Builders; Location - 579 Camino Mercado.
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3973 as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 06-015
TO CONVERT TWELVE (12) OF THE SIXTY (60) PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
CONDOMINIUM UNITS FROM TWO (2) BEDROOMS TO THREE (3) BEDROOMS;
APPLICANT - OCEAN OAKS BUILDERS; LOCATION - 579 CAMINO MERCADO".
8.1. Consideration of Increasing the Total Contract Cost for the 2006 Annual Street
Maintenance Project, PW 2006-07.
Action: 1) Increased the total contract cost for the .2006 Annual Street Maintenance
Project, PW 2006-07, to Granite Construction from $249,252 to $343,575; and 2)
Approved the expenditure of $37,000 from Proposition 42 Funds and $15,789 from the
Urban State Highway Account (USHA) Fund.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
9.a. Consideration of Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of Conditional Use
Permit 06-005; Location: 231 South Halcyon Road.
Assistant Planner Foster presented. the staff report and recommended the Council adopt a
Resolution denying the applicant's appeal of Condition of Approval #15 for Conditional Use
Permit 06-005, and upholding the Planning Commission's approval.
Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing, inviting the applicant or representative to address the
Council first. .
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Page 4
Mark VasQuez, representing the property owner, explained the reasons for appealing project
condition #15 which requires an overlay of the entire street width for the project frontage, and
responded to questions from Council.
Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the
matter, and upon hearing. none, he closed the public hearing.
Council comments and discussion ensued regarding interpretation of the City's pavement cut
policy; potential impacts to the lifespan of the street, if cut; approximate costs to repave the
street; consensus that the policy provides flexibility in determining necessary pavement cuts on a
case-by-case basis and that there was no need to amend the policy; and consensus to uphold
the appeal based on the information presented.
Action: Council Member Dickens moved to tentatively uphold the appeal and direct staff to
return with a supporting Resolution. Council Member Costello seconded, and the motion passed
on the following roll-call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Dickens, Costello, Guthrie, Ferrara
None
Arnold
9.b. Consideration of Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of Conditional Use
Permit Case No. 06-006; East Branch Street and Stanley Avenue (Paulding Middle
School and the Bus Barn).
Assistant Planner Bergman presented the staff report and recommend the Council: 1) Consider
the applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit Case
No. 06-006 regarding conditions of approval related to Stanley Avenue improvements, storm
drainage and development impact fees; 2) Approve changes to staffs recommended conditions
of approval including waiving of project impact fees; 3) Uphold conditions of approval generated
by the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Committee; and 4) Adopt a Resolution
upholding the appeal and approving Conditional Use Permit 06-006, as modified. Staff
responded to questions from Council regarding the width of the proposed pedestrian path, the
length of the bioswale, and what methods would be used to ensure completion of the drainage
system.
Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing, inviting the applicant or representative to address the
Council first.
Carol Florence, Principal Planner, Oasis Associates, representing the appellant, requested the
Council uphold the appeal. She also referred to the conditions of approval and requested that
reference to the three modular office buildings be removed due to this portion of the project
being reviewed by the State Architect's office.
Kevin Baker, Director of Facilities, Lucia Mar Unified School District, responded to questions
from Council regarding the location of the maintenance staff on the site; scope of maintenance
activities and hours of operation; how often vehicles/busses are fueled; that bus traffic would
remain the same; and clarification that the City would take over the maintenance of Stanley
Avenue only when Lucia Mar improves the road to City standards.
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Page 5
i
Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the
matter.
Cliff Branch stated he had no objections to the project; however, he referred to the future
development of two-story homes along Myrtle Street and expressed concern about the viewshed
across the creek looking toward the site and requested that this be taken into consideration.
Upon hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing.
Council comments and discussion ensued in support of the project with the modified conditions
of approval; how the project could be conditioned to ensure completion of the drainage
improvements; concern about the increase of traffic on Stanley Avenue, the lack of sidewalk, and
the need for separation of uses between the Junior High School and the Lucia Mar maintenance
operations.
City Attorney Carmel suggested a modification to condition #51 as follows: "All drainage facilities
shall be designed to accommodate a 100-year storm flow and shall be installed prior to issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancv." The appellant's representative agreed with the modified condition.
Action: Council Member Costello moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE UPHOLDING THE APPEAL OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL, THEREBY APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 06-002 APPLIED FOR BY LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, BUT
CHANGING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONSISTENT WITH STAFF
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE MODIFIED PROJECT AND WAIVING
ASSOCIATED IMPACT FEES", as modified to eliminate the reference in the General Conditions
to the three modular office buildings, and to amend condition #51 as noted by the City Attorney.
Council Member Dickens seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Costello, Dickens, Guthrie, Ferrara
None
Arnold
Mayor Ferrara called for a break at 8:40 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:45 p.m.
9.c. Consideration of General Plan Amendment Case No. 06-002, Bikeway and
Sidewalk/Pedestrian Enhancement Plans.
Director of Community Development Strong presented the staff report and recommended the
Council adopt a Resolution approving General Plan Amendment Case No. 06-002 to approve
the Bike Plan and Sidewalk/Pedestrian Enhancement Plan along with related amendments to be
integrilted into the CirculationlTransportation Element and the Parks and Recreation Element of
the 2001 General Plan. Staff responded to questions from Council regarding identified project
priorities, parking issues. and clarification of proposed bike lanes and various maps.
Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing, and upon hearing no comments, he closed the public
hearing.
Minutes: City CounciURedeve/opment Agency Meeting
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Page 6
Council Member Dickens provided the following comments:
- Acknowledged the Bike and Sidewalk/Pedestrian Plans as part of a Master Plan for the
future;
Noted that the proposed documents, in conjunction with the General Plan amendments,
address the constraints and prioritize the areas in which the City can request funding for
future projects;
Noted that there will be concerns specific to some of the bicycle transportation projects as
they come forward individually for formal consideration and approval as they relate to traffic
circulation and parking;
Acknowledged that the Plans will provide a tool to pursue grant funding;
Supported as proposed.
Council Member Costello provided the following comments:
- Agreed that it is appropriate to update the Bike Plan; pleased to see the Pedestrian/Sidewalk
Plan included;
Acknowledged that there are a number of neighborhood sidewalks that need to be improved;
Expressed concern with some of the parking issues on a number of the priorities identified;
however, he acknowledged they would come forward on an individual basis for review;
Stated it is important to approve these documents so grant funding can be pursued;
Supported as proposed.
Mayor Pro Tern Guthrie provided the following comments:
- Requested specific changes for consideration, including the route on Sunset which does not
appear to be useful and may create a dangerous situation at Elm Street; he stated it would
be better to extend the bicycle route down Alder connecting at Fair Oaks and consider
eliminating the lanes on Farroll between Elm and Halcyon;
Questioned the reference to the bicycle route on Branch Mill Road as it relates to a No
Trespassing sign near the entrance to the City's water reservoir;
Supported the first five identified priority projects; however, he felt that Brisco would be
difficult to use;
Need to prioritize pedestrian path projects; noted that there were several areas in the City
that need to be fixed regardless of grant fund availability;
Referred to intersection at Elm and Farroll which is a route to school for both N. Oceano and
Harloe Elementary Schools which need pedestrian enhancements, especially when Farroll is
improved.
Council Member Dickens requested that Coastal Christian School on Farroll Avenue be labeled
on the map.
In response to questions by Mayor Ferrara regarding grant eligibility and acquisition as it relates
to the area of developing the bicycle network, Director Strong explained the application process
and requirements for State grant funding. He also explained that modifications could be made to
the Plans without formally amending the General Plan. Mayor Ferrara supported the documents
as proposed.
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Page 7
Action: Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-002, TO
ADOPT THE BIKE AND SIDEWALK/PEDESTRIAN ENHANCEMENT PLANS AND AMEND
THE 2001 GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATIONITRANSPORTATION & PARKS AND
RECREATION ELEMENTS AS INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE". Council
Member Dickens seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Guthrie, Dickens, Costello, Ferrara
None
Arnold
9.d. Consideration of a Resolution Ordering Formation of the Grace Lane Assessment
District, Confirming Assessments, District Diagram and Approving the Levying of
Assessments.
City Attorney Carmel presented the staff report and recommended the Council adopt a
Resolution ordering formation of the Grace Lane Assessment District, confirming assessments,
assessment district diagram and approving the levying of assessments. He noted that the
applicant, Greg Nester, the Petioner indicated his support for the District and offered to answer
any questions.
Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing, and upon hearing no comments, he closed the public
hearing.
Action: Council Member Costello moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ORDERING FORMATION OF THE
GRACE LANE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS, ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT DIAGRAM, AND APPROVING THE LEVYING OF ASSESSMENTS". Council
Member Dickens seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Costello, Dickens, Guthrie, Ferrara
None
Arnold
10. CONTINUED BUSINESS
10.a. Consideration of Adoption of the Five-Year Radar Speed Survey for West Branch
Street, East Grand Avenue and Olohan Alley.
Director of Public Works Spagnolo introduced Assistant City Engineer Mike Linn, who presented
the staff report and recommended the Council: 1) Adopt a Resolution certifying the five-year
radar speed survey for West Branch Street and East Grand Avenue; and classifying Olohan
Alley as an alley and establish a posted speed limit of 15 miles per hour; and 2) Direct staff to
implement striping revisions to Rancho Parkway and perform a follow-up radar speed survey on
Rancho Parkway for future consideration by Council.
Mayor Ferrara expressed concern that the issue with cross traffic and ingress/egress from
shopping centers along E. Grand Avenue was not addressed. He believed there were
extenuating circumstances that exist along E. Grand Avenue and W. Branch Street that would
justify keeping the lower speed limit in place.
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Page 8
Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the
matter, and upon hearing no comments, he closed the public comment period.
Council comments and discussion ensued regarding concerns with increasing the speed limit on
E. Grand Avenue and the portion of W. Branch Street between Vernon and Brisco Road due to
pedestrian safety issues; support for establishing a 15-rnph speed limit on Olohan Alley; support
for increasing the speed limit on W. Branch Street from Brisco Road to Oak Park to 40 mph; and
support for implementing striping revisions to Rancho Parkway. Council directed staff to further
research the issues related to W. Branch and E. Grand Avenue and to speak with the Court's
Traffic Commissioner to determine if extenuating circumstances exist that warrant leaving the
speed limit as is.
Council Member Dickens moved to adopt a Resolution, as amended, as follows: "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
ESTABLISHING SPEED LIMITS ON A PORTION OF WEST BRANCH STREET AND
OLOHAN ALLEY" and further, to direct staff to implement striping revisions to Rancho Parkway
and perform a follow-up radar speed survey on Rancho Parkway for future consideration by
Council. Council Member Costello seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Dickens, Costello, Guthrie, Ferrara
None
Arnold
11. NEW BUSINESS
11.a. Consideration of Fiscal Year 2006-07 First Quarter Budget Status Report.
Director of Financial Services Kraetsch presented the staff report and recommended the City
Council/Agency Board: 1) Approve carryover appropriations as shown in Schedule A; 2) Approve
budget adjustments and recommendations as shown in Schedule A.
Mayor/Chair Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on
the matter, and upon hearing no comments, he closed the public comment period.
Action: Council/Board Member Costello moved to approve carryover appropriations as shown in
Schedule A and approve budget adjustments and recommendations as shown in Schedule A.
Council/Board Member Dickens seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Costello, Dickens, Guthrie, Ferrara
None
Arnold
12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
a. MAYOR TONY FERRARA:
(1) San Luis Obispo Council of Governments/San Luis Obispo Regional Transit
Authority (SLOCOG/SLORTA). No report. Meets next week.
(2) South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD). Held special
meeting regarding the sewer rate fee study.
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting
. Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Page 9
(3) Other. None.
b. MAYOR PRO TEM JIM GUTHRIE:
(1) County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC). No report. Meets next
Wednesday.
(2) Other. Attended the Zone 3 meeting and reported that action was taken to
change the release amounts for the habitat preservation and changing it to fit the
flows in the streams rather than a constant release. Gave update on status of
Habitat Conservation Plan.
c. COUNCIL MEMBER JIM DICKENS:
(1) South County Area Transit (SCAT). No report.
(2) South County Youth Coalition. No report.
(3) Other. None.
d. COUNCIL MEMBER JOE COSTELLO:
(1) Zone 3 Water Advisory Board. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie attended and reported.
(2) Air Pollution Control District (APCD). Currently updating the Strategic Plan;
have lost two long-term staff members; losing 3 or 4 of the current Directors due
to term expiration or election results.
(3) Fire Oversight Committee. Cooperation efforts with City of Grover Beach
continue to go 'well; in process of recruiting for a new Fire Chief; still having
trouble filling the Training Officer position; continuing to work on a joint EOC.
(4) Fire Consolidation Oversight Committee. No report.
(5) Other. None.
e. COUNCIL MEMBER ED ARNOLD: (ABSENT)
(1) Integrated Waste Management Authority Board (IWMA). No report.
(2) California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA). No report.
(3) Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC). No report.
(4) Other. None.
13. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS:
Mayor Ferrara stated he had been approached by several people who inquired as to the status
of State relinquishment of Highway 227 and requested an update from staff and discussion at a
future meeting. City Manager Adams noted that on January 9, an item has been scheduled to
present the Village Streetscape Enhancement Plan and part of that strategy involves
recommendations regarding the relinquishment process. Mayor Ferrara requested that the
Village Improvement Association be kept apprised of this item.
14. CITY MANAGER ITEMS:
None.
15. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:
Mayor Ferrara expressed thanks to Council Member Dickens for his service to the City as this
was to be his last regular City Council meeting. He noted that much more recognition would be
forthcoming for Council Member Dickens at a later date. !
16. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Page 10
17. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
None.
18. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor/Chair Ferrara adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m.
Tony Ferrara, Mayor/Chair
ATTEST:
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk/Agency Secretary
(Approved at CC Mtg
)
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Ferrara called the Special City Council meeting to order at 6:36 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
City Council:
Council Member Jim Dickens, Council Member Joe Costello, Council
Member Ed Arnold, Mayor Pro Tem Jim Guthrie and Mayor Tony Ferrara
were present.
City Staff Present:
City Manager Steven Adams; City Attorney Tim Carmel; Director of
Administrative Services/City Clerk Kelly Wetmore; Director of Financial
Services Angela Kraetsch; Director of Parks, Recreation, and Facilities
Dan Hernandez; Director of Public Works Don Spagnolo; and Executive
Assistant Bassett.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Mayor Ferrara led the Flag Salute.
4. INVOCATION
Pastor George Lepper, Peace Lutheran Church, delivered the invocation.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
6. REMARKS BY DEPARTING COUNCIL MEMBER JIM DICKENS
Council Member Dickens thanked the public and expressed his thoughts about serving the
public stating it was an honor and a humbling experience. He reflected back eight years ago
when he began on the Council and stated it has been a challenging, but rewarding time. He
thanked all those that had faith in him and voted for him. He said it has been a wonderful
experience and if it were not for his supporters, it would have been far more difficult. He said he
would not replace the experience for anything and stated there were numerous people to thank;
acknowledged the support of his family, including his wife and two kids; and stated that although
it is with regret that he must step down at this time, he hoped the public understands that the
City has a fabulous Council, a fabulous staff, and a fabulous community that is going to continue
to do the things that he supports. He said he would not be going away and would go back to
being a community activist. He thanked his honorary chairs, Gordon and Manetta Bennett who
have been there since day one, and in follow-up for Gordon Bennett, he presented some
historical information concerning Olohan Alley and requested that the Council honor Olohan
Alley and not change its name. He reflected back to his campaign brochure and stated that the
items listed are still near to his heart and the City has made many strides to uphold his and the
community's vision. He concluded by thanking the public, his colleagues, and staff.
7. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CERTIFICATES OF THE COUNTY CLERK CERTIFYING
THE RESULTS OF THE CANVASS OF ALL VOTES CAST AT THE NOVEMBER 7.2006
CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTION (WETMORE)
Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk Wetmore presented the staff report and
recommended the City Council: 1) Adopt a Resolution accepting the Certificates of the County
Clerk certifying the results of the canvass of all votes cast November 7, 2006 at the
Minutes: Special City Council Reorganization Meeting
December 11,2006
Page 3
Consolidated General Municipal Election, City of Arroyo Grande; and 2) Adopt a Resolution
authorizing the City Manager to execute Agreements with the State Board of Equalization for
Implementation of a Local Transactions and Use Tax.
Mayor Ferrara opened up the item for public comment, and upon hearing no comments, he
closed the public comment period.
Action: Council Member Dickens moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING THE
CERTIFICATES OF THE COUNTY CLERK - RESULTS OF CANVASS OF ALL VOTES
CAST AT THE NOVEMBER 7, 2006 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTION". Council
Member Arnold seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Dickens, Arnold, Costello, Guthrie, Ferrara
None
None
Action: Council Member Dickens moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY ARROYO GRANDE AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS WITH THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF A LOCAL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX". Council Member
Arnold seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Dickens, Arnold, Costello, Guthrie, Ferrara
None
None
8. OATH OF OFFICE ADMINISTERED BY CITY CLERK WETMORE
City Clerk Wetmore administered the Oath of Office to Mayor Tony Ferrara, Council Member
Costello, and Council Member Fellows.
9. REMARKS BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHUCK FELLOWS
Council Member Fellows stated it was his pleasure to be seated with the most famous people in
Arroyo Grande, that he was honored to be part of this elite group and to have the opportunity to
also become famous or to remain infamous depending on point of view. He thanked all those
who helped him get to this point; thanked everyone who voted for him; thanked those involved
in his election campaign; gave special thanks to his campaign manager, Caren Ray, co-
treasurers Linda Shiraci and Betty Guthrie, and his sign guy Bill McCann. He recognized and
thanked his family, including son Matt, daughter Amy, daughter Kristen, and wife Linda. He
referred to his campaign brochure where he made pledges to advocate for our small town rural
character; to protect the prime farmland while supporting the agriculture industry; to follow smart
growth principles when evaluating development applications; to vote for projects that benefit the
community and not special interests; to support bringing dining, lodging and shopping
opportunities to Arroyo Grande; to provide open accessible government with respect for the
process which includes polite discourse; and to use his knowledge of the environment to think
globally and act locally. He said during the next four years he will honor the trust placed in him
by remembering those pledges.
10. REMARKS BY COUNCIL MEMBER JOE COSTELLO
Council Member Costello thanked the people who voted for him in this past election and
reaffirmed his dedication to the City, his willingness to serve on the Council, and to do the
business of the City. He urged the public to stay involved and commended those who do
Minutes: Special City Council Reorganization Meeting
Decetnber11,2006
Page 3
participate. He hoped to justify the public's confidence in him to serve for four more years. He
thanked those involved in his election campaign; thanked his treasurer, wife Eileen; and
expressed special thanks to his wife and son Zack for their support. He pledged to do his best,
stated he takes this position very seriously, and looked forward to working with the Council and
the staff to make sure the City continues to move forward.
11. REMARKS BY MAYOR TONY FERRARA
Mayor Ferrara spoke about Council Member Dickens and stated he and Jim go back a long
ways, that they compared ideologies back in 1997 and ran for Council together in 1998. He
reflected on their experience when they were first elected to the Council and noted that over
time they were able to effect the changes that ultimately comprised their primary agenda. He
noted that early next year there would be a special night to honor Jim. He said that it was a
pleasure and an honor to work with Jim Dickens and he wished him well. Mayor Ferrara said he
felt fortunate and honored to have run unopposed in this election; said he does not take this
responsibility lightly; and said he was going to continue to work hard over the next two years to
earn the confidence that the public has shown in him. He said there are a few things he hoped
to improve on, but for the most part, in looking back, the Council has had the opportunity to
make some significant and positive direction changes for the City. He referred to the charming
Village as an example. He said he was thankful to Jim for the education and commitment to
preserving agriculture and that this experience has allowed him to get to know more about the
City's agricultural history, the contributions it makes to the City's economy, the wonderful farm
families, and protection of agriculture is now a priority of the City. He stated that over the.
course of the next two years, his next challenge is to finish what has started on E. Grand
Avenue to enhance the business area. He said that Council decisions are not always easy, but
he wanted everyone to know that the Council does this job because they care. He invited the
community to stay engaged; said he was optimistic about the future; and said he was looking
forward to serving over the course of the next two years.
12. SELECTION OF MAYOR PRO TEM
City Manager Adams presented the staff report and recommended the Council appoint Council
Member Arnold as the Mayor Pro Tem for the next one-year period, pursuant to Council policy.
Action: Council Member Costello moved and Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie seconded to appoint
Council Member Arnold as the Mayor Pro Tem for the next one-year period. The motion passed
unanimously by voice vote of all those present.
13. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Ferrara adjourned the meeting at 7:06 p.m. to the Regular City Council Meeting of
Tuesday, December 12, 2006 at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers located at 215 E.
Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California.
Tony Ferrara, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk
(Approved at CC Mtg
)
r
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor/Chair Ferrara called the Regular City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting to order at
7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
City Council/RDA:
Council/Board Members Chuck Fellows, Joe Costello, Jim Guthrie, Mayor
Pro TemNice Chair Ed Arnold and Mayor/Chair Tony Ferrara were
present.
City Staff Present:
City Manager Steven Adams, City Attorney Tim Carmel, Director of
Administrative Services/City Clerk Kelly Wetmore, Director of Financial
Services Angela Kraetsch, Police Commander Craig Hendricks, and
Director of Community Development Rob Strong.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Dave Sanchez, representing Knight of Columbus, led the Flag Salute.
4. INVOCATION
Retired Pastor Richard Scharn delivered the invocation.
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
None.
6. AGENDA REVIEW
Mayor Ferrara remembered Mr. Don Talley, who recently passed away, noting that he was a
prominent member of the community, had served on the City's Parks and Recreation
Commission in the late 1960's, had served on the City Council as a Council Member and then
as Mayor, and noted that tonight's meeting would be adjourned in his memory.
6.a. Ordinances Read in Title Only.
Council Member Costello moved, Mayor Pro Tem Arnold 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
Bob Lloyd, AGP Video, encouraged the pUblic to contact them at 772-2715 if they noticed any
problems with the City's government access channel.
8. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor/Chair Ferrara invited members of the public who wished to comment on any Consent
Agenda Item to do so at this time. There were no public comments received.
Council Member Guthrie pulled Item 8.j. for clarification.
Mayor Pro Tem Arnold pulled Item 8.e. for separate roll call vote.
Mayor Ferrara pulled Item 8.h. for comment.
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting
Tuesday, December 12,2006
Page 2
Action: Council/Board Member Costello moved, and Council/Board Member Guthrie seconded
the motion to approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.k., with the exception of Items 8.e.,
8.h. and 8.j., with the recommended courses of action. The motion passed on the following roll-
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Costello, Guthrie, Fellows, Arnold, Ferrara
None
None
8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification.
Action: Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period November 16, 2006
through November 30, 2006.
8.b. Consideration of Acceptance of the Redevelopment Agency's (RDA) Annual
Financial Reports. [COUNCIURDA]
Action: Received and filed the RDA's Annual Financial Reports for the Fiscal Year
ended June 30, 2006.
8.c. Consideration of Approval of Minutes.
Action: Approved the minutes of the Regular City Council/Redevelopment Agency
Meeting of October 24, 2006, as submitted.
8.d. Consideration of Salary Adjustments for Management Employees.
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3980 as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING SALARY
ADJUSTMENTS FOR MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES FOR FY 2006-07".
8.1. Consideration to Award a Contract to R.J. Myers & Co. for Removal and
Replacement of the Diesel Underground Dispenser Containment Pan.
Action: Awarded contract to R.J. Myers & Co. Inc., for the removal and replacement of
the diesel underground dispenser containment pan (UDC) in the amount of $13,300.00.
8.g. Consideration of a Consultant Services Agreement with FIRMA for the
Environmental Review of the Newsom Springs Regional Drainage Project.
Action: Approved a consultant services agreement with Firma in the amount of $75,675
for the environmental review of the Newsom Springs Regional Drainage Project and
authorized the Mayor to execute the Agreement.
8.i. Consideration of Authorization to Purchase Replacement Police Radio
Transmitters and Receivers. .
Action: Authorized staff to purchase replacement radio transmitters and receivers for
the Police Department from Sterling Communications for $38,965.
8.k. Consideration of Approval of Temporary Employment Agreement - Director of
Building and Fire.
Action: Approved and authorized the City Manager to execute a Temporary
Employment Agreement between the City of Arroyo Grande and Terry Fibich.
Mayor Pro Tem Arnold noted he was absent from the last meeting and he would abstain from
voting on Item 8.e.
8.e. Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Upholding an Appeal of the Planning
Commission's Approval of Conditional Use Permit 06-005; 231 South Halcyon
Road.
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Page 3
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution upholding an appeal of the Planning
Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit 06-005 and approving Conditional
Use Permit 06-005 as modified.
Action: Council Member Costello moved, and Council Member Guthrie seconded the motion to
approve Consent Agenda Item 8.e. with the recommended course of action. The motion
passed on the following roll-call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Costello, Guthrie, Fellows, Ferrara
None
None
Arnold
Resolution No. 3981 was adopted as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-005
AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-005 AS MODIFIED; LOCATED
AT 231 SOUTH HALCYON ROAD; APPLIED FOR BY JEFF HOLLISTER".
a.h. Consideration of Establishing a Capital Improvement Project Budget for the East
Branch Streetscape Improvements and Authorizing Development of Preliminary
Plans and Cost Estimates by RRM Design Group.
Recommended Action: 1) Establish a capital improvement project budget for the East
Branch Streetscape Improvements; and 2) Authorize RRM Design Group to prepare
preliminary plans and cost estimates for the project.
In response to a question from Mayor Ferrara regarding the Highway 227 relinquishment issue,
City Manager Adams explained that the proposal was to authorize RRM Design Group to
proceed with design of the streetscape project and in January the plans would then be brought
to the Council which would include a request for direction regarding the relinquishment.
Action: Mayor Ferrara moved, and Mayor Pro Tem Arnold seconded the motion to approve
Consent Agenda Item 8.h. with the recommended course of action. The motion passed on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Ferrara, Arnold, Fellows, Costello, Guthrie
None
None
a.j. Consideration of Safe Routes to Schools Project Applications.
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution authorizing Community Development to file
three Safe Routes to Schools Applications for sidewalk improvements: 1) Near Paulding
Middle School at Crown Hill Street and Corbett Canyon Road/227; 2) Near Ocean View
Elementary School, Montego Ave; and 3) Near Harloe Elementary School, Farroll Ave.
Minutes: City CounciURedeve/opment Agency Meeting
Tuesday, December 12,2006
Page 4
In response to a question from Council Member Guthrie about the application process, Director
Strong replied that staff would be submitting three separate grant applications. Discussion
ensued regarding the time lines for application and notification as it relates to scheduled capital
projects occurring in 2007.
Action: Council Member Guthrie moved, and Council Member Costello seconded the motion to
approve Consent Agenda Item 8.j. with the recommended course of action. The motion passed
on the following roll-call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Guthrie, Costello, Fellows, Arnold, Ferrara
None
None
Resolution No. 3982 was adopted as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AUTHORIZING THREE (3) 2007-08
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM PROJECT APPLICATIONS FOR PROPOSED
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS NEAR PAULDING MIDDLE SCHOOL, OCEANVIEW
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND HARLOE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL".
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mayor Ferrara requested, and the Council concurred, to move public hearing item 9.c. up on the
Agenda for consideration prior to item 9.a.
9.c. Consideration of Request for Continuance of Development Code Amendment
Case No. 04-005B, and General Plan Amendment 06-004, Amendments to Title 16
of the City. of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code.
Community Development Director Strong requested the Council open the public hearing and
take public comment and then continue the item to the January 9, 2007 City Council Meeting.
Mayor Ferrara opened the publiC hearing. No pUblic comments were received.
Council Member Costello moved to continue the publiC hearing to the Regular City Council
Meeting of January 9, 2006. Mayor Pro Tern Guthrie seconded, and the motion passed on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Costello, Guthrie, Fellow, Arnold, Ferrara
None
None
9.a. Consideration of Preliminary Approval of Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Projects for Year 2007.
Assistant Planner Bergman presented the staff report and recommended the Council provide
preliminary approval of proposed projects to be funded with the City's allocation of CDBG funds
for the Year 2007.
Minutes: City CounciURedevelopment Agency Meeting
Tuesday, December 12,2006 ' .
Page 5
Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing and invited comments from those in the audience who
wished to be heard on the malter.
The following members of the public addressed the Council, thanking them for consideration of
each funding request and briefly spoke about their respective organizations:
Anna Bovd-Bucy. representing Big Brothers/Big Sisters
Carol Florence, representing Big Brothers/Big Sisters
Sheri Neil, representing Lifesteps
Wanda McFarlane, representing Caring Callers
No further public comments were received and Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing.
Council Member comments included support for the proposed projects to be funded with the
City's allocation of CDBG funds; noted all the organizations represent worthy causes; noted that
Harvest Bag has consolidated with the Food Bank; support of the ongoing plan to improve the
City's public restroom facilities and ADA access at various parks; and support for continued
funding for the City's Fa98de Improvement program, especially along E. Grand and the Village.
Action: Council Member Costello moved to provide preliminary approval of the proposed
projects to be funded with the City's allocation of CDBG funds for the Year 2007. Council
Member Fellows seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Costello, Fellows, Guthrie, Arnold, Ferrara
None
None
9.b. Consideration of Amended Conditional Use Permit 06-004 and Planned Sign
Program 06-001 to Establish a Chili's Restaurant in "Building M" of the Five Cities
Center (Formerly Vigneto's)
Council Member Fellows announced that when he was on the Planning Commission a few
weeks ago, he had participated in this agenda item and the Commission made a
recommendation to the Council. As a result, to ensure a fair hearing and to avoid any
appearance of impropriety, he will step down. Council Member Fellows left the room.
Assistant Planner Bergman presented the staff report and recommended the Council adopt a
Resolution approving Amended Conditional Use Permit 06-004 and Planned Sign Program 06-
001 to establish a Chili's Restaurant in "Building M" of the Five Cities Center. He responded to
questions from Council regarding the proposed signs, specifically details concerning neon signs.
Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing, inviting the applicant or representative to address the
Council first.
Carol Florence, Principal Planner, Oasis Associates, representing Brinker International and
Chili's Restaurant, noted that Chris Donner from Brinker International was present to answer
any questions the Council may have. Ms. Florence respectfully requested approval of the
Amended Conditional Use Permit and Planned Sign Program and requested one change to
Minutes: City CounciVRedeve/opment Agency Meeting
Tuesday, December 12,2006
Page 6
condition #9 to extend the construction hours to Sunday, which could be limited to interior work
on the building. In addition, she gave a Five Cities Center update as it relates to the application
for Pad I which has been submitted to the City; the applicant is working on the design of the
traffic mitigation measures; and construction documents are being prepared.
Chris Donner, Property Development Manager for Brinker International, thanked the Council for
its consideration; stated that Chili's is excited to locate in Arroyo Grande; and noted that Chili's
does not typically like to remodel an existing building. He addressed the concerns expressed
about neon signs, noting that technology has advanced and they have not experienced any
safety issues. In response to a question from Mayor Ferrara, Mr. Donner replied that the
restaurant does not have a meeting room. Mayor Pro Tem Arnold suggested to Mr. Brinker that
they include an outdoor seating/waiting area.
There were no further public comments received, and Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing.
Council Member Guthrie provided the following comments:
- Supported request for extended hours due to location being in a commercial zone;
- Expressed concern about sufficient parking; however, he acknowledged the parking meets
the development standards;
- Supports project as proposed.
Council Mernber Costello provided the following comrnents:
- Believes there will be a parking problem;
- Supported extending interior construction hours from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and on Sunday
for interior work only;
- Not concerned about proposed neon sign;
- Supports project as proposed.
Mayor Pro Tem Arnold provided the following comrnents:
- Ok with neon signs;
Supports extended construction hours;
Acknowledged parking will be tight; however, it is by design only as there are enough
spaces; additional parking will be available in the evening at the adjacent financial office;
Ok with size of signs;
Concerned with light pollution;
Supports project.
Mayor Ferrara provided the following comments:
- Concerned about impact of construction noise to Rancho Grande residents;
Ok with 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday-Friday; Ok on Sunday for interior modifications only;
Sign size is ok; noted that restaurant will be successful regardless of signs;
Suggested architectural feature under neon sign;
Stressed the importance of re-evaluating traffic and parking impacts once restaurant is in
business;
Noted that traffic improvements were to be incrementally installed prior to Pad I; intent was
to implement improvements progressively;
Supports project.
Minutes: City CounciURedeve/opment Agency Meeting
Tuesday, December 12,2006
Page 7
Action: Mayor Pro Tern Arnold moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING AMENDED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 06-004 AND PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM CASE
NO. 06-001, LOCATED AT 925 RANCHO PARKWAY; APPLIED FOR BY BRINKER
INTERNATIONAL (CHILI'S)" as amended to modify condition #9 regarding the hours of
construction from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; until 7:00 p.m. on Saturday;
from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday; that the hours may be reviewed and revised based on
noise related complaints; that the Architectural Review Committee has final determination on
sign sizes; and that the applicant shall comply with regulations established by the City requiring
lighted signage to be turned off at specified hours. Council Member Guthrie seconded, and the
motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Arnold, Guthrie, Costello, Ferrara
None
Fellows (recused)
Council Member Fellows returned and took his place at the dais.
10. CONTINUED BUSINESS ITEMS
None.
11. NEW BUSINESS ITEMS
11.a. Consideration of Appointment of Council Members to Various Regional Boards,
Commissions, and Committees
City Manager Adams presented the staff report and recommended the Council make
appointments to those regional boards, commissions, and committees with Council
representation.
Mayor Ferrara invited public comments on this item. No pUblic comments were received.
The following appointments to regional boards, commissions, and committees were discussed
and assigned:
AGENCY
PRIMARY
SECONDARY
South County Area Transit (SCAT)
Staff Representative: City Manager
Jim Guthrie
Chuck Fellows
Council of Governmentsl
Regional Transit Authority
(SLOCOG/RTA)
Staff Representative: Public Works Directorl
Community Development Director
Tony Ferrara
Joe Costello
Minutes: City CounciVRedeve/opment Agency Meeting Page 8
Tuesday, December 12,2006
AGENCY PRIMARY SECONDARY
City Selection Committee (Mayors) Tony Ferrara Ed Arnold
Staff Representative: Not Applicable
South San Luis Obispo County Tony Ferrara Ed Arnold
Sanitation District (SSLOCSD)
Staff Representative: Not Applicable
Integrated Waste Management Ed Arnold Chuck Fellows
Authority Board (IWMA)
Staff Representative: Community
Development Director
Zone 3 Water Advisory Board Joe Costello Ed Arnold
Staff Representative: Public Works Director
County Water Resources Chuck Fellows Jim Guthrie
Advisory Committee (WRAC)
Staff Representative: Public Works Director
Economic Vitality Corporation Ed Arnold Jim Guthrie
(EVC)
Staff Representative: City Manager/
Economic Development Director
Air Pollution Control District Joe Costello N/A
Board (APCD)
Staff Representative: Not Applicable
South County Youth Coalition Chuck Fellows Jim Guthrie
Staff Representative: Chief of Police/
Director of Parks. Recreation and Facilities
California Joint Powers Insurance Jim Guthrie Staff Representative
Authority (CJPIA)
Staff Representative: City Manager/
Human Resources Manager
Fire Oversight Committee Joe Costello Jim Guthrie
Staff Representative: City Manager/Fire Chief
Brief discussion ensued regarding an Ad-hoc approach for sending City representatives to Village
Improvement Association and E. Grand Merchants Association meetings.
Action: Council Member Costello moved to approve the appointments to the regional boards,
commissions, and committees, Mayor Pro Tem Arnold seconded the motion, and the motion
carried unanimously by voice vote.
Minutes: City CounciVRedeve/opment Agency Meeting
Tuesday, December 12,2006
Page 9
12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS
None.
13. CITY MANAGER ITEMS
None.
14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Council Member Fellows inquired whether the Council would be interested in starting the
Council meetings at an earlier hour. There was consensus of the Council to direct staff to place
the matter on a future agenda for discussion.
15. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Adams reminded the Council and the public that the Regular Meeting scheduled
for December 26th has been cancelled.
16. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
None.
17. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor/Chair Ferrara adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
Tony Ferrara, Mayor/Chair
ATTEST:
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk/Agency Secretary
(Approved at CC Mtg
)
a.h.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER filr
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH WOOD
RODGERS, INC. TO INCLUDE A ROUNDABOUT FEASIBILITY
ANALYSIS IN THE BRISCO ROAD - HALCYON ROAD/ROUTE 101
PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT (PA&ED)
DATE: JANUARY 9,2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council not approve the previously proposed contract
amendment with Wood Rodgers, Inc. to include a roundabout feasibility analysis in the
Brisco Road - Halcyon Road/ Route 101 Project Approval and Environmental
Document (PA & ED).
FUNDING:
It is estimated that $25,540 would be needed to include a roundabout feasibility analysis
in the PA&ED. The $25,540 would be funded from Regional State Highway Account
(RSHA) funds through the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG).
DISCUSSION:
At the November 14, 2006 meeting, staff recommended City Council approve a contract
amendment with Wood Rodgers, Inc. to include a roundabout feasibility analysis in the
Brisco Road-Halcyon Road/Route 101 PA&ED. The purpose of the analysis would be
to determine if roundabouts could mitigate the need to widen the Brisco Road
undercrossing. It would also determine conceptual roundabout design and identify
additional areas of impact that will most likely need environmental study.
The City Council directed staff to first make contacts to determine potential opposition
and/or concerns of those with interests in adjacent right-of-way that could be impacted.
Representatives of the Cemetery District and Brisco's Hardware were both contacted
and expressed opposition to the concept. They also both identified a concern regarding
the feasibility of large trucks' ability to maneuver the traffic circle given the adjacent
industrial area. As a result, the consultant agreed to prepare an initial conceptual
drawing of the potential traffic circle layout in the size necessary to accommodate
projected traffic, which is attached. Please note that this drawing is not based on the
detailed analysis that was proposed for the PA&ED study. However, it does indicate a
more significant impact to adjacent properties than originally projected. Therefore,
feasibility appears doubtful and staff does not recommend proceeding with the analysis.
I
CITY COUNCIL
ROUNDABOUT FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS IN THE BRISCO ROAD - HALCYON
ROAD/ROUTE 101 PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
(PA&ED)
JANUARY 9, 2007
PAGE 2
In addition, staff has been notified that impacts to the cemetery from this alternative
would require preparation of an EIR. This would delay the project beyond the deadline
necessary to request funding for the 2008 State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP).
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
Do not approve contract with Wood Rodgers, Inc. to include a roundabout
feasibility analysis in the Brisco Road - Halcyon Road/ Route 101 Project
Approval and Environmental Document (PA & ED);
Even though the feasibility of the traffic circle option appears unlikely, the City
Council may determine it would be worthwhile to pursue the analysis given the
significant cost savings of this option if it was determined feasible. Therefore, the
City Council could approve a contract with Wood Rodgers, Inc. to include a
roundabout feasibility analysis in the Brisco Road - Halcyon Road/ Route 101
Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA & ED) and work with
adjacent parties to mitigate the impacts once the specific impacts have been
determined;
Provide direction to staff.
Attachments:
1. Conceptual Roundabout Layout
S:\Administration\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council ReportslRoundabout Feasibility Study 1.9.07.doc
I-
CJ
III
., "QOE.OOll.
0
II:
A- Y
.....
l- I-
z Z .
w .
.
~ III ~
:I: :E i
() .
<{ III
l-
I- > I
<{
0 I
II: I
A- I
:E
-
- \
~III~I
::s c:I "<: ~
~ Z ~ ~
C-'l~
~ Z 23.
-CJ
II:
III
I-
Z i , I"
- i
i
0 ;
Z
C
II: ;;
.
c:I ~ ..
.
0
CJ
en
-
II:
m
.-
. r....&-
~..\;. .
~IH
irS ..~
u~ U
w."
Dl;;
a -.
A.. 0; 'I'
Va: .
all;
01'-
Olil
3..
.
.
~
,
u
.
.
I
I
. I { ~
I o.
I z '"
1Ft
<,
Xw
- wu
~ !
I'
,
i
;
a.i.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
CITY COUNCIL
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER 5fr
CONSIDERATION OF REVISED MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE, LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, J.H. LAND
PARTNERSHIP AND JOHN TAYLOR, TRUSTEE REGARDING LAND
ACQUISITION AND EXTENSION OF CASTILLO DEL MAR TO VALLEY
ROAD
SUBJECT:
DATE:
JANUARY 9, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It IS recommended the City Council approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the
revised Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Arroyo Grande,
Lucia Mar Unified School District (District), J.H. Land Partnership and John Taylor,
Trustee.
FUNDING:
The cost of road and drainage improvements is estimated to be $700,000. In addition,
the City established a cost of $200,000 for mitigation of loss of agricultural land. Under
the proposed Agreement, J.H. Land Partnership will provide a traffic mitigation payment
to the City of $750,000. The City will need to budget the remaining $50,000 for the road
and drainage improvements in the FY 2007-08 budget. Staff recommends the
agricultural mitigation fee be reduced to $100,000 because the District has agreed to
maintain a portion of the impacted property in agricultural use and establish an
agricultural conservation easement.
DISCUSSION:
In May 2006, the City entered into an MOU with the District, J.H. Land Partnership and
John Taylor, Trustee to enable the City to accomplish the extension of Castillo del Mar
to Valley Road. The key terms included 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;
CITY COUNCil
CASTillO DEL MAR EXTENSION MOU
JANUARY 9, 2007
PAGE 2
. 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; and
. Remaining land deeded to the City by J.H. land Partnership not used for road
construction will be deeded to the District.
Subsequently, when staff completed initial design of the roadway, it was determined
that additional improvements would be necessary to maintain and/or improve existing
drainage. As a result, an additional cost impact of $300,000 was identified. J.H. land
Partnership agreed to increase their payment from $600,000 to $750,000 contingent
upon agreement that any future developer of the District property would reimburse them
for a proportional share of this total mitigation payment based upon the number of units
approved. The City Council approved reducing the initial agricultural mitigation fee to
$100,000 if future development of the District property was also be required to
reimburse the City for the remaining $100,000. The General Plan amendment and zone
change was completed at the October 10,2006 City Council meeting.
Since that time, the District has requested two changes, which have been agreed to by
J.H. land Partnership. First, any future reimbursement by a potential developer of the
District's 10-acre parcel would be limited only to the additional $150,000 paid by J.H.
land Partnership for the drainage improvements. Secondly, the District will agree to
maintain in agricultural use the land deeded to the District through an agricultural
conservation easement, thus eliminating the need for the City to be reimbursed for the
additional $100,000 for agricultural mitigation. The attached MOU includes these
modifications for City Council consideration.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the proposed MOU;
Modify the terms as appropriate and authorize the Mayor to execute the MOU;
Do not approve the MOU and direct staff to prepare an item necessary to rezone
the District's property back to Public Facility;
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:\Administration\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Conncil Reports\Castillo Del Mar Extension MOU 1.9.07.doc
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
AMONG
LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, J.H. LAND
PARTNERSHIP, L.P. AND JOHN TAYLOR, TRUSTEE
REGARDING EXTENSION OF CASTILLO DEL MAR ROADWAY
1. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
This Memorandum 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 work cooperatively and to further coordinate and develop the proposed extension
of the existing CITY roadway (sometimes hereinafter the "roadway extension") known as
Castillo Del Mar, from its present terminus, to Valley Road to serve the existing Vista Del Mar
development located within the CITY limits and the J.H. Land Partnership proposed
development located within the unincorporated area of San Luis Obispo County. The proposed
roadway extension will traverse the DISTRICT's existing Arroyo Grande High School
("AGHS") property.
2. THE ROADWAY EXTENSION PROJECT
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 one
acre portion is referenced to herein as the "Taylor Property"), to Valley Road. The exact design
and location ofthe 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. PURPOSE 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 vehicular, bicycle, and
pedestrian access from the present terminus of the Castillo Del Mar 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
10f5
(b) Subject to fulfillment of the provisions ofthis MOD, the DISTRICT will provide land
consistent with the terms herein described, through the AGHS Property, to serve as part
of the location for the roadway extension project. The DISTRICT will deed or dedicate
the necessary land to CITY concurrently with, or upon, final approval by CITY, upon
terms and conditions acceptable to DISTRICT, of DISTRICT'S General Plan
Amendment/rezoning 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 lO-acrei 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.
(f) The DISTRICT will apply for and CITY will expeditiously process a General Plan
Amendment/rezoning application to designate/ zone the DISTRICT'S New Parcel for
"Residential Hillside" uses.
(g) If CITY approves the DISTRICT'S General Plan Amendment/ 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 DISTRICT's New Parcel 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 ofthe 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) Within sixty (60) days of and subject to the approval of the Tentative Tract Map by the
County of San Luis Obispo of the J.H. Land Tract, 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 ofland at the north side ofthe Taylor Property for a
total sum of eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000). J.H. Land Partnership shall
4 May 2006
20f5
obtain the right to access said road extension subj ect 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 acquired from John Taylor, Trustee for the purpose of
enabling the connection of the roadway extension to Valley Road as partial mitigation
for traffic impacts associated with access through City from Vista Del Mar and the
development proposed by J.H. Land Partnership (the "J.H. Land Tract").
G) The CITY agrees to deed to ihe DISTRICT the remainder portion of the Taylor
Property created by the new roadway (the "Remainder Parcel") and re-designate and
rezone the Remainder Parcel from Agriculture to Public Facilities. CITY shall mitigate
all impacts from said redesignation and rezoning ofthe Remainder Parcel.
(k) CITY and DISTRICT will jointly determine the allowed uses of the Remainder Parcel,
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 Parcel as
part of this MOD.
(I) Within sixty (60) days of final map approval by County of San Luis Obispo ofthe J.H.
Land Tract, or by March 1,2008, subject to prior approval by the County of San Luis
Obispo of the J.H. Land Tract, whichever is earlier, J.H. Land Partnership agrees to pay
CITY one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for mitigation of loss of prime
agricultural property and the actual cost to construct the roadway extension and
drainage improvements up to six hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($650,000).
(m) A portion of the funds described in paragraph 3 (I), above, shall be subject to
reimbursement by the owner ("Reimbursing Party") of the DISTRICT's New Parcel.
Reimbursement shall be paid by Reimbursing Party to J.H. Land Partnership within
forty- five (45) days of recordation of a final map further subdividing the DISTRICT's
New Parcel. Reimbursement shall be equal to the amount of payment from J.H. Land
Partnership to CITY for construction of roadway extension and drainage improvements
in excess Of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) up to a maximum of one hundred
and fifty thousand dollars ($150,000).
(n) DISTRICT agrees to maintain Remainder Parcel for agricultural purposes by use of an
agricultural conservation easement as approved by the CITY.
(0) Subject to payment to the CITY by J.H. Land Partnership of the funds described in 3(1)
above, CITY and J.H. Land Partnership agree to relocate the existing access easement
and access control located at the south end of Castillo del Mar to the southern access
point of the J.H. Land Tract.
(P) The CITY will waive the DISTRICT's application and processing fees for the General
Plan Amendment/rezoning! applications.
4 May, 2006
30f5
(q) 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.
(r) The CITY will reimburse the DISTRICT for any costs DISTRICT incurs for planning,
services for the preparation and administration ofthis MOD for the roadway extension
project and related General Plan Amendment/rezone so long as DISTRICT complies.
with terms set forth in this MOO. 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 District's New Parcel.
(s) The CITY and DISTRICT jointly will prepare a schedule for accomplishing each of the
tasks set forth in this MOO, including a schedule for the roadway extension
construction.
(t) 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 MOO.
4. GENERAL PROVISIONS
The following are general provisions of this MOO:
(a) All coordination, assistance and services rendered as party to the development of
reasonable and feasible solutions to improve current and future traffic safety and
circulation needs for the roadway extension under this MOO will be carried out in
compliance with the objectives and responsibilities of the Parties. Nothing in this MOO
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
MOO.
(c) The CITY will address environmental issues related to the development of the proposed
roadway extension project, including acting as the "Lead Agency" for the project under
the California Environmental Quality Act.
5. ROLES AND RESPONSffiILITIES
The Parties shall each designate in writing a single point of contact to ensure their respective
responsibilities are satisfied. All future correspondence regarding this MOO shall be directed to
the designated single points of contact.
4 May 2006
40f5
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 INDEMNIFICATION
Each ofthe 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.
/
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
By:
By:
Mayor
President of the School Board
Dated:
Dated:
J.H. LAND PARTNERSHIP
JOHN TAYLOR, TRUSTEE
By:
By:
John Taylor, Trustee
Dated:
Dated:
4 May 2006
50[5
8.j.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
~.
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF REVISIONS TO THE CITY'S TRAVEL POLICY
DATE:
JANUARY 9, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council approve the recommended new travel policy.
FUNDING:
There is no direct fiscal impact projected from this policy. However, it will enable the
City to more efficiently manage travel expenses.
DISCUSSION:
On October 7, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger approved Assembly Bill 1234. In
addition to ethics training requirements, it also establishes restrictions on travel expense
reimbursement for legislative body members. Most significantly, it restricts
reimbursement to actual expenses, which requires the City to amend its existing
practice of providing per diem reimbursements.
As a result, staff felt this would be an appropriate time to perform a thorough review and
update to the City's travel policy. While Assembly Bill 1234 requirements only apply to
the legislative body, it is recommended that the City's travel policy be consistent for all
employees and officials.
Travel policies from a number of jurisdictions were studied. Based on the results, the
attached recommended travel policy was drafted.
One of the purposes of surveying policies from other cities was to determine a standard
for meal reimbursement limits. Policies identifying specific limits were found to include a
range of amounts. However, it was also found that a number of policies include limits
established by the U.S. General Services Administration, which is recommended in the
attached proposed policy. Doing so provides three advantages. First, it is an objective
outside source based on research for actual meal costs and is used by many
jurisdictions throughout the country. Second, it is automatically updated on an annual
basis. Third, it is a more fair method of determining amounts because it is based on
geographic area so reimbursements are higher for cities that are more expensive.
S:\AdministrationlCITY MANAGERISTEVEICoWlcil ReportslTravel Policy Staff 1.9.07.doc
CITY COUNCIL
TRAVEL POLICY
JANUARY 9, 2007
PAGE 2
The proposed new policy also includes more detail on allowable expenses than has
been identified in the past. This will help provide a higher level of consistency in
application of the policy and will reduce questions regarding appropriate travel
practices.
Lastly, AB 1234 requires Council Members to make an oral report on conferences and
meetings attended, which is included in the policy. Staff would recommend this be
covered under normal monthly City Council reports during regular meetings.
The proposed policy was first presented to the City Council for consideration at the
September 12, 2006 meeting. At that time, a subcommittee of Mayor Ferrara and
Mayor Pro Tem Arnold was identified to work with staff on revisions. Minor revisions
have been incorporated as a result of that process.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Approve proposed changes to the City's travel policy;
Make changes as desired and approve the proposed travel policy;
Request additional research and/or information;
Provide other direction to staff.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Travel Policy
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY AND PROCEDURES
SUBJECT: TRAVEL
POLICY #: A-012
ISSUED: 1/15/07
EFFECTIVE: 1/15/07
CANCELLATION DATE: N/A
SUPERSEDES: 11/1/03
POLICY:
It is the City's policy to authorize City employees and officials for travel outside the City in
order to participate in regional meetings, training and conference activities for professional
development and to represent the City's interests. However, it is the City's policy to
manage travel expenses in an efficient manner and to limit such expenses to matters that
are necessary and provide a direct benefit to the City. The City shall reimburse travel
expenses directly related to travel on approved City business. All costs incurred for travel-
related expenses are subject to budgeted amounts and this policy is applicable to all City
employees, elected officials and appointed officials. Travel expense reimbursements are
tax-free.
PROCEDURE:
1. Authorized Travel
City funds, equipment, supplies, titles and staff time must only be used for
authorized City business. Expenses incurred in connection with the following types
of activities generally constitute authorized expenses, as long as the other
requirements of this policy are met:
A. Communicating with representatives of regional, state and national
government on City adopted policy positions;
B. Attending educational seminars designed to improve skill and information
levels;
C. A conference or organized educational activity relating to topics important to
City policy and operations;
D. Attending meetings involving activities and/or decisions important to the City's
interests;
POLICY #: A.Q12
TRAVEL
PAGE 2
E. Preparing research for City projects and/or implementing City approved
strategies.
2. Authorization and Cash Advances
A. Travel on City business shall be claimed on an itemized basis. Employees
and officials attending a conference, training or out of town meeting shall
itemize all daily expenses. Funds can still be advanced. However, the
employee or official must itemize all expenses and may be eligible for
additional reimbursement or need to refund some of the cash advance to the
City. Receipts should be kept and submitted on all expenses.
B. Whenever possible, conference and training should be specified during the
budget process.
C. On all travel on City business that exceeds $200 or involves a cash advance,
regardless of whether it is a one-day conference or involves overnight travel,
a Travel Request and Expense Report form (Exhibit A) must be submitted.
Travel authorizations should detail all expenses associated with a trip. This
would include, but not be limited to, meals, lodging, registration fees, air
fare/mileage reimbursement, and estimated car rental.
Travel authorizations and accompanying Travel Request and Expense Form
require approval of the Department Director or his/her designee.
Out-of-state travel or travel that exceeds the Department's budget allocation
for travel must be approved by the City Manager.
D. Travel authorizations should be submitted a minimum of 10 business days
prior to the scheduled travel for approval" and within 10 business days
following the travel for reimbursement.
E. If a receipt is lost, a Travel Substitute Receipt Form (Exhibit B) may be
submitted in its place.
F. All individuals traveling on City business who are not City employees (i.e.,
Planning Commission, Traffic Commission), where the total cost of the travel
exceeds $100, must have the prior approval of the City Council. In cases
where prior approval at a Council meeting is not possible due to a last-minute
necessity, the City Manager will make the determination and inform the City
Council at the earliest opportunity.
G. Police Department personnel attending P.O.S.T. training courses will be
allocated the per diem rate currently approved by P.O.S.T.
POLICY #: A-012
TRAVEL
PAGE 3
3. Reimbursable Expenditures
A. Registration
The City shall pay for or reimburse primary registration costs for authorized
training and conferences. The City shall not reimburse costs for additional
optional social and entertainment conference activities offered. The City shall
not reimburse conference registration costs for family and friends
accompanying the employee or official.
B. Transportation
1. Air travel shall be reimbursed at the lowest reasonable coach rate
available. Tickets should be purchased through the Enhanced local
Government Airfare Program whenever possible as long as they
represent the lowest rate available at the time. This program entitles
member agencies to reduced airfares through the State of California
YCAl rating agreement and also provides rental car and hotel
reservations.
2. In cases where air travel would be the normal means of transportation
on City business, an employee or official may drive one's personal
vehicle with the permission of the Department Director. Costs shall be
reimbursed at the City Council established per mile rate. In no case
shall the cost of mileage exceed the cost of coach air travel to the
conference or training.
3. An employee may leave from home for a meeting, conference, training
session, etc. However, the mileage reimbursement for travel from
home to the conference, etc., shall not exceed what would normally be
the mileage reimbursement for travel from employee's work site to the
conference.
4. Use of City vehicles may be authorized for travel on City business
outside the local area when this method of transportation can be
demonstrated as the most economical means available. There shall
be no reimbursement for transportation when a City-owned vehicle is
used. Any out-of-pocket expenses incurred in operating the vehicle,
such as gasoline, shall be reimbursed if receipts are provided.
5. Carpooling is encouraged when more than one employee or official are
attending the same event or activity.
6. Rental rates that are equal or less than those available through the
State of California's website (www.catravelsmart.com/default.htm)
shall be considered the most economical and reasonable for purposes
POLICY #: A-012
TRAVEL
PAGE 4
of reimbursement under this policy. The most economical car make
and models sufficient to meet the needs of the travel shall be utilized,
subject to vendor availability.
7. Taxi, bus and shuttle fares may be reimbursed, including a 10%
gratuity per fare when applicable, when the cost of such fares is equal
or less than the cost of car rentals, gasoline and parking combined, or
when such transportation is necessary for time efficiency.
c. Lodging
1. Lodging expenses at the single room rate will be reimbursed or paid
for when travel on official ~ity business reasonably requires an
overnight stay.
2. If such lodging is in connection with a conference, lodging expenses
shall not exceed the group rate published by the conference sponsor if
such rates are available at the time of booking.
3. Employees and officials shall request government rates when
available.
4. Gratuities of $1 per night for hotel maids shall be reimbursed and $1
per bag for bellhops when necessary.
5. Lodging incidental costs that are not listed as reimbursable expenses
in this policy shall not be reimbursed.
D. Meals
1. Meals shall be reimbursed at actual cost not to exceed the U.S.
Government Per Diem Schedule for the specific geographic area, as
stated on the U.S. General Services Administration web site
(www.gsa.gov).whichshallincludetaxanda15%to20%gratuity.as
appropriate.
2. To determine the maximum reimbursement amount for daily meals,
access www.qsa.qov and take the following steps:
a. Access the per diem rates table
b. Identify the M&IE rate for the area where the travel will take
place.
c. Access the Meals and Incidental Expense table and apply the
M&IE rate to determine the daily limit for meals by adding the
amounts for all meals identified.
POLICY #: A-012
TRAVEL
PAGE 5
d. If meals are provided by the event or hotel and consumed by
the employee or official, the amount identified in the Meals and
Incidental Expense table for that meal shall be deducted from
the allowable reimbursement amount. Employees and officials
are encouraged to take advantage of meals provided unless
infeasible due to times or business necessity. To determine the
amount to be deducted from the daily limit for a specific meal,
access the Meals and Incidental Expense table and apply the
M&IE rate to identify the specific limit for each meal.
3. Alcohol and personal bar expenses are not reimbursable.
E. Parking
1. Parking fees shall be reimbursed at the actual cost, including a $2
gratuity for valet parking when necessary.
2. Parking fees at hotels and conference sites will be predetermined
whenever possible and included in the employee's travel expenses.
When parking costs cannot be predetermined, employees will be
reimbursed for any required parking fees.
3. Long-term parking shall be used for any airport parking for travel
exceeding 24 hours.
F. Communications
1. Employees and officials shall be reimbursed for actual telephone, fax
and internet access occurred on City business.
2. Telephone bills should identify which calls were_ made on City
business.
3. If travel requires an overnight stay, the cost of one telephone call per
day up to 10 minutes shall be reimbursed.
4. Staff needing internet access for City related business while on City
travel and/or training may purchase high speed internet access from
the employee's place of lodging if available at the City's expense.
Determination of the need for internet access shall require approval of
the Department Director. Internet access paid for by the City shall be
subject to the provisions of the City's Information Service Policy (A-
016).
POLICY #: A-012
TRAVEL
PAGE 6
G. Other
Expenses for which City officials receive reimbursement from another agency
are not reimbursable. No costs associated with family members and friends
accompanying an employee or official shall be reimbursed.
4. Follow-Up
Council Members shall make an oral report on the meeting or conference during
Council Communications as appropriate. Written reports of the highlights of a
conference or training program may also be required for employees at the discretion
of the City Manager or applicable Department Director, particularly when other
individuals in the organization could benefit from such information.
5. Audits of Expense Reports
All expenses are subject to verification of compliance with this policy.
6. Exceptions
I
Questions or interpretation of exceptions to the above must be clarified and/or
approved by the City Manager in advance of the proposed travel.
Steven Adams
City Manager
INSTRUCTIONS:
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
TRAVEL REQUEST AND EXPENSE REPORT
FORM "T" FOR TRAVEL
Part I - TRAVEL REQUEST
Prior to travel, prepare Part I, list checks to be issued, obtain required approvals and
s'ubmit to the Financial Services Department (Accounts Payable).
EXHIBIT A
POLICY A-012
1. Name & Title of Requester
2. Date of Request
4. Conference or Meeting
6. Location
8. Was travel included in the Department budget? Yes
9. Advance Payments Requested:
Date Requested Payable To:
3. Date of Trip
5. Estimated Cost of Trip
7. Account Number
No
Amount
Total Requested:
10. Signature of Requester
Department Director Approval
City Manager Approval
INSTRUCTIONS:
PART II - EXPENSE REPORT
Following travel, complete Part II and submit to the Financial Services Department with
receipts, printout of U.S. Government per diem meal schedule for the location of travel,
and any balance due to the City if applicable.
Final Costs
Registration Fees
Transportation: Air ( ) Rail ( ) Rental Car ( ) Private Car ( ) Taxi/Bus ( )
Lodging (room charges & taxes only)
Meals
Garage/Parking
Communications
Gratuities
Other (please itemize)
Total Expenses
Less Total Advanced
Balance Due To: Traveler ( ) City ( )
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT STATEMENT OF MY EXPENDITURES
Amount
Employee
Department Director Approval
City Manager Approval
Audited By
Date
Check or Receipt No.
L
PROCEDURES FOR TRAVEL EXPENSE ALLOWANCES AND ROUTING
1. Describe travel, obtain authorizing signatures and indicate any advance checks to be issued and dates
needed.
2. Indicate on Part II the method of travel. Private autos may be used with Department Director approval
for mileage reimbursement.
3. Attach copy of registration form to Travel Request. Retain original registration form as checks will be
returned to departments for mailing in case of last minute changes.
4. Out-of-State travel or travel which exceeds the Department budget allocation for travel must be approved
by the City Manager.
5. Send completed request to Financial Services.
6. When travel is complete, traveler will complete Part II and attach all required receipts within 10 days of
travel, obtain department approval and return completed form to the Financial Services Department. If
advances exceed actual expenses, include money due City.
7. A copy will be returned to the department following audit.
8. The City will pay for the following expenses for approved travel and training:
. Registration
. Hotel room rates and applicable taxes
. Mileage or transportation costs
. Garage and/or parking fees
. Meals
. Telephone calls to home, UP to 10 minutes per dav (cannot be averaged)
. Tips to waiters, bell hops, baggage handlers
9. Meals shall be reimbursed at actual cost not to exceed the U.S. Government Per Diem Schedule amount
for the specific geographic area. Amounts for any meals consumed that are provided by the hotel or
event shall be deducted from the daily limit. To identify daily limits for meal costs:
. Access the U.S. General Services Administration web site at www.osa.oov.
. Access the per diem rates table.
. Identify the M&IE rate for meals for the area where travel will occur.
. To determine the amount to be deducted for a specific meal, access the Meals and Incidental
Expense table and apply the M&IE rate to identify the specific limit for each meal.
10. Attach a printout from the U.S. Government Per Diem Schedule rate and M&IE rate with this form.
11. The City will not pav for personal entertainment, i.e., movies, alcoholic beverages, sightseeing, etc.
12. Consult Policy# A-012 for specific policies and procedures regarding allowable reimbursable travel
expenses.
13. All check requests should be on the appropriate Travel Request - Form "T".
14. After approval by the City Manager, any balance due traveler will be issued by Accounts Payable.
CITY OF
~
~
'<!i.~~IFO"N-LA~;tfI
-'.7~'='-'
EXHIBIT B
POLICY A-012
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
TRAVEL SUBSTITUTE RECEIPT FORM
INSTRUCTIONS: If a receipt for eligible travel reimbursement expenses is lost, complete the
following and submit with itemized expenses along with Travel Request and Expense Report.
1. Name & Title
2. Date of Request
3. Date of Expense
4. Amount of Expense
5. Description of Expense
6. Name of Business
7. Location of Business
8. Reason Why Receipt is Not Available
Signature of Requester
Department Director Apwoval
City Manager Approval
8.k.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER ~
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATION OF $7,500 FOR TRIMMING
OF EUCALYPTUS TREES ON THE PIKE
DATE: JANUARY 9,2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council appropriate $7,500 for trimming of eucalyptus trees
on the Pike and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract not to exceed $22,000
to Mustang Tree Care to perform the work.
FUNDING:
The project cost is estimated to be $22,000. Staff recommends the City fund $7,500
from the General Fund. The City has received approval from PG&E for $9,500. The
two adjacent property owners have agreed to each pay $2,500.
DISCUSSION:
The City has received a number of complaints from residents along the north side of the
Pike regarding the debris in the yards from the eucalyptus trees on the south side of the
street. In addition, staff has reported problems with branches in the street and a lack of
appropriate clearance for trucks. It creates an unusual situation because the homes on
the north side of the street are within the City limits. The area on the south side of the
street is in the unincorporated Town of Halcyon. Two property owners are involved with
the property on which the trees reside. It has been over five years since the trees have
been trimmed. Several years ago, the City assisted in trimming the trees in preparation
of EI Nino storms that year.
As a result, staff has worked with the property owners and the County of San Luis
Obispo to develop a cooperative approach to resolving the problem. It is proposed that
the parties involved share in the cost. Each of the two property owners have agreed to
contribute $2,500. The County is unwilling to participate financially, but was instead
instrumental in securing the grant funds from PG&E. In addition to the proposed
funding, the City will assist by providing staff to help with traffic control and debris
removal in order to reduce the contract cost. Cost proposals were obtained and
Mustang Tree Care provided the most cost effective proposal.
S:\Administralion\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports\The Pike Tree Trimnuning 1.9.07.doc
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATION OF $7,500 FOR TRIMMING OF
EUCALYPTUS TREES ON THE PIKE
JANUARY 9, 2007
PAGE 2
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Approve funding and contract;
Do not approve funding and contract and request County's assistance in
requiring property owners to perform all necessary trimming;
- Take no action;
- Provide direction to staff.
8.1.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
CITY COUNCIL
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER :f
./
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT FOR ACTING DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & FIRE
SUBJECT:
DATE:
JANUARY 9, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council approve and authorize the City Manager to execute
the attached Temporary Employment Agreement between the City of Arroyo Grande
and Doug Hamp to serve as the Acting Director of Building & Fire.
FUNDING:
The hourly rate provided for in the Agreement is based on current salary for the Director
of Building & Fire, in addition to costs for the PARS retirement benefit. No other
benefits are provided. Therefore, there will be no impact to the existing budget.
DISCUSSION:
The Director of Building & Fire retirement was effective on December 29, 2006.
Recruitment for the position has been under way for several months. Applications have
been received and initial interviews are being scheduled. However, due to the difficulty
in scheduling interviews during the holidays, the selection is not expected to be
completed until January 2007 and the starting date is projected around March 1, 2007.
As a result, I have appointed Doug Hamp to serve as Acting Director of Building & Fire
until the recruitment is completed.
Mr. Hamp is a former Fire Chief with the City of Arroyo Grande and served as Acting
Fire Chief with the City of Grover Beach. He was instrumental in development of the
existing joint services agreement with Grover Beach. Therefore, he is uniquely qualified
to serve in this capacity. The agreement is proposed for a two-month period, but can be
extended if necessary. His service in this position began on January 2nd.
S:\AdministrationICITY MANAGERISTEVEICouncil ReportslFire Chief Temporary Employment Agreement
1.9.07.doc
CITY COUNCIL
TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT FOR ACTING DIRECTOR OF
BUILDING & FIRE
JANUARY 9, 2007
PAGE 2
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
Approve Temporary Employment Agreement;
- Modify Agreement as appropriate and approve;
- Do not approve Temporary Employment Agreement;
- Provide direction to staff.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Employment Agreement
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
This Employment Agreement is entered into this _ day of , 2007 between
the CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, State of California (hereinafter referred to as
"CITY"), and, DOUG HAMP, a temporary employee (hereinafter referred to as
"EMPLOYEE").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, CITY has need for a temporary full-time Director of Building and Fire and
WHEREAS, EMPLOYEE represents that he is qualified to perform the services required
by this Employment Agreement; and
WHEREAS, EMPLOYEE desires to accept temporary employment as a temporary, full-
time Director of Building and Fire, pursuant to the terms and conditions herein set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do mutually agree as follows:
1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. EMPLOYEE shall be employed by CITY as a
temporary full-time Director of Building and Fire. EMPLOYEE agrees to
devote as much time as is reasonably necessary to effectively perform the
services required from a range of zero (0) hours up to a maximum of forty
(40) hours per week.
2. COMPENSATION. EMPLOYEE shall be compensated as follows:
a. EMPLOYEE shall be paid at the base rate of $58.53 per hour for all
hours worked within the term of the Agreement.
b. EMPLOYEE shall be enrolled in the PARS retirement plan in lieu of
Social Security.
c. EMPLOYEE shall be entitled to no other compensation or benefits.
1
3. TERM OF EMPLOYMENT. Employment shall commence on _' 2007, and
shall terminate on , unless terminated earlier as provided herein.
Termination of the Agreement may be effectuated by the City Manager or his
designee without the need for action, approval or ratification by the City
Council. Employment may be extended by mutual agreement of the parties.
4. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT FOR CONVENIENCE. Either party has
an absolute right to terminate this employment at any time by giving to the
other party fifteen (15) days written notice of such termination, specifying the
effective date of such termination. Termination shall have no effect upon the
rights and obligations of the parties arising out of any transaction occurring
prior to the effective date of such termination. EMPLOYEE shall be paid for
all work satisfactorily completed prior to the effective date of such termination.
EMPLOYEE agrees that the notice provisions of this paragraph shall limit the
liability of CITY in the event that a termination action taken by CITY pursuant
to Paragraph 5 is subsequently found to be improper.
5. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT FOR CAUSE. If EMPLOYEE fails to
perform his duties to the satisfaction of CITY, or if EMPLOYEE fails to fulfill in
a timely and professional manner his obligations or if EMPLOYEE shall
violate any of the terms or provisions of this Agreement, or EMPLOYEE has a
physical or mental incapacity that precludes EMPLOYEE from performing the
duties, or if EMPLOYEE fails to exercise good behavior either during or
outside of working hours which is of such a nature that it causes discredit to
CITY, or impairs his ability to perform these duties, the CITY shall have the
right to terminate employment effective immediately upon CITY's giving
written notice thereof to EMPLOYEE. Termination shall have no effect upon
the rights and obligations of the parties arising out of any transaction
occurring prior to the effective date of such termination. EMPLOYEE shall be
paid for all work satisfactorily completed prior to the effective date of such
termination.
2
6. NON-ASSIGNMENT OF WORK. This Agreement is intended to secure the
individual services of EMPLOYEE and thus EMPLOYEE shall not assign,
transfer, delegate, or sublet this work, or any interest herein, without the prior
written consent of CITY, and any such assignment, transfer, delegation or
sublet without CITY's prior written consent shall be considered null and void.
7. COVENANT. This Employment Agreement has been executed and delivered
in the State of California, and the validity, enforceability and interpretation of
any clauses of this offer shall be determined and governed by the laws of the
State of California. All duties and obligations of the parties created hereunder
are performable in the City of Arroyo Grande and the County of San Luis
Obispo shall be that venue for any action, or proceeding that may be brought
or arise out of connection with or by reason of this offer.
8. ENFORCEABILITY. If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this offer
is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or
unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions hereof shall remain in full
force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated
thereby.
9. NONDISCRIMINATION. There shall be no discrimination against any person
employed pursuant to this Agreement in any manner forbidden by law.
10. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. EMPLOYEE agrees that, during the term of
this Agreement, he will not maintain any financial interest or engage in any
other employment, occupation, work, endeavor, or association, whether
compensated for or not, that would in any way conflict with, or impair
EMPLOYEE's ability to perform, the duties described in this offer.
11. ENTIRE AGREEMENT AND MODIFICATION. This Employment Agreement
constitutes the entire understanding of the parties hereto. This Employment
Agreement supersedes all previous offers, agreements, negotiations, or
3
understandings, whether written or oral, between the parties. EMPLOYEE
shall be entitled to no other benefits than those specified herein, and
EMPLOYEE acknowledges that no representation, inducements of promises
not contained in this Agreement have been made to EMPLOYEE to induce
EMPLOYEE to enter into this Agreement. No changes, amendments, or
alteration hereto shall be effective unless in writing and signed by both
parties. EMPLOYEE specifically acknowledges that in entering into and
executing this Agreement, EMPLOYEE relies solely upon the provisions
contained in this Agreement and no others.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and EMPLOYEE have executed this
Employment Agreement on the day and year first set forth above.
EMPLOYEE:
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE:
By:
Steven Adams
City Manager
4
9.a.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCil
FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO~
BY: TERESA MCCLISH, ASSOCIATE PlANNER\\\J\v
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE
NO. 04-005B, AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 06-004,
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, REZONING PORTIONS OF THE
RESIDENTIAL RURAL DISTRICT TO RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN IN
THE VICINITY OF lA BARRANCA, CANYON WAY AND TRINITY
AVENUE AND AMENDING. All DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
OVERLAY DISTRICTS INTENDED TO MAKE TITLE. 16
CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN; AND A
PROPOSED CHANGE IN GENERAL PLAN lAND USE
DESIGNATION/ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY AT 1110 SUNSET
DRIVE
DATE: JANUARY 9,2007
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends:
1) the City Council introduce an ordinance to amend standards applicable to the City's
residential districts and the Zoning map affecting portions of the Residential Rural
district and Design Development Overlay Districts D-2.2 through D-2.19 inclusive;
and
2) provide staff direction to notice the proposed general plan, amendment pertaining to
Sunset Dr. (MFA-2.13) for Planning Commission's formal recommendation prior to
consideration of adoption of the proposed ordinance tentatively scheduled for
January 23, 2006.
BACKGROUND
As a final part of the update to Title 16 "Development Code", the proposal includes several
revisions that pertain to residential standards and districts within the City. The purpose of
the update is to ensure General Plan consistency and provide for needed clean-up or
clarification within the Development Code.
The proposal also addresses potential revisions for Design Development Overlay Districts
(overlays). During the 1991 Development Code update, twenty (20) overlays were adopted
and denoted on the Zoning Map by a black line around specific neighborhoods. Some
overlays include developments approved with "optional design standards" (which is a
process no longer part of the City's Code). Others simply provide for some kind of unique
characteristic of the neighborhood. Provisions relating to these districts, most of which are
CITY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 12, 2006
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-005B, AND
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 06-004
PAGE 2 OF 24
from the 1970's and 1980's, are incorporated into the Development Code by reference
through individual implementing ordinances or other various information that is appended to
the Development Code in the Community Development Department (Attachment 3). As
such, the current overlays are in need of re-tooling. They are an imperfect mechanism that
is difficult to administer and it is proposed that provisions found to still be applicable be
properly immerged into the Development Code.
As part of the Development Code update for residential districts, staff will bring
forward potential alternatives for areas currently with an overlay district if:
.:. the overlay is no longer consistent with policies in the General Plan;
.:. the provisions of the overlay are ambiguous and require amendments for
clarification; or
.:. the intent of the overlay can be better addressed by amendments to the
underlying zoning district that are being considered as part of the residential land
use update.
A summary of proposed changes affecting overlay districts is below. Attachment 4 includes
a summary of standards for each overlay zone as determined by staff from appended
information to the Development Code. Further discussion is provided under specific issues
of discussion.
T bl 1 5
T bl f
d
d
t t D . D
to
d' t . t
a e ummary a e 0 orooose amen men S 0 eSlan eve oomen ver av IS rlC S
Existing Zoning .' Proposed Zoning . ....
AG-D-2.1 Not affected by this ordinance
RR-D-2.2 RS
RR-D-2.3 RS
D-2.4 Historic Character Overlay District Not affected by this ordinance
SF-D-2.5 SF-D-2.5 amended
RS-D-2.6 RS-D-2.6 amended
SF-D-2.7 SF-D-2.7 amended
RH-D-2.8 SF and PF (with existinq open space easement)
RR-D-2.9 Not affected by this ordinance
RR-D-2.10 Not affected by this ordinance
D-2.11 Not affected by this ordinance
RS-D-2.12 RS
MFA-2.13 FOMU-D-2.13 amended to require residential only on
Sunset AYe. (REQUIRES General Plan Amendment)
MF-D-2.14 MF
MF-D-2.15 MF
SF-D-2.16 SF
MF-D-2.17 MF
SF-D-2.18 MF
D-2.19 Replaced by modified chapter 16.32
OMU-D-2.20 Not affected by this ordinance- previously revised
(DCA-04-005Al as part of Development Code update
(Ord. 581) in October 2006
CITY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 12, 2006
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-005B, AND
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 06-004
PAGE 3 OF 24
The following discussion is organized by specific topics that are categorized below.
1. RRlRS Map chanqes: Discrepancies in the General Plan Land Use Map and the
Zoning Map in the vicinity of Miller Way, La Barranca and Canyon Way as well as
Trinity Ave. This issue also includes analysis of standards for the Residential
Suburban (RS) district, standards for flag-lot subdivision on sloped lots, the review of
reversionary setbacks (D-2.19), and discussion of overlays 2.2, 2.3, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10
and 2.12.
2. Viewshed: Review of viewshed protection provisions in accordance with General
Plan policies to preserve viewsheds and related issues in processing Viewshed
Review permits. Included in this discussion is a review and proposed modification of
overlay districts 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 as well as amendments to Section 16.04.070 -
Definitions for "basement" and "story".
3. Sunset Drive: Amendment to the Zoning map and General Plan land use
designation for the property located at 1110 Sunset Drive.
4. Small 10tlPUD: Review amendments to existing overlays on areas of small lot and
twin-home subdivisions and Planned Unit Development (PUD) provisions. Included
are a review of overlays D-2.14 through 2.19, and proposed amendments to the
PUD process including changes to perimeter setbacks for PUDs and conditionally
permitting single-family attached homes in the Single Family (SF) district.
5. Appeals: Amendment to clarify appeal provision (Section 16.12.150.)
Over the past year, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered numerous
important land use issues and potential amendments to the Development Code.
Attachment 1 includes a summary of dates, items reviewed and actions by the Planning
Commission. Attachment 2 includes applicable meeting minutes.
DISCUSSION
1. RRlRS Map Chanaes
Rural Residential (RR) and Residential Suburban(RS) - General Discussion
The RR district is intended for large lot residential development at 1 du/acre. The RS
district, at 2.5 du/acre, is intended to transition from the larger lots in the county or City's
Rural Residential district to higher density development in the Single Family or Village
Residential districts. Many areas within the RS district have varying lot sizes and include
development in the character and design of a single family district - some with the
application of an overlay and some without a specific overlay designation (e.g. a prior
rezone from former R-1 or conditionally approved through other discretionary action).
Varying lot sizes are considered appropriate for the RS district as long as neighborhoods
are developed within the density designated in the General Plan (Single Family-low density,
2.5/du per acre).
Although lot sizes vary, standards for the RS district reflect those appropriate for a 12,000
sq. ft. lot; including larger setbacks. Similarly, the standard for a second residential unit in
the RS zone is 850 sq. ft., smaller than that allowed in the RR district, but larger than that
allowed for the SF district. Such standards do not always work well in a transitional
CITY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 12, 2006
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-o05B, AND
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 06-004
PAGE 4 OF 24
district where there are a variety of lot sizes. It should be noted that the PUD process,
which allows flexibility for some standards, is not allowable in the RS district since that
process is intended for use only in higher density residential districts or to cluster homes
utilizing open space for the Residential Hillside district.
The proposal includes necessary Zoning Map changes, as well as recommendations to
revise development standards to better reflect the intent of the General Plan and RS
district. Additionally, the proposed changes remove the need for several overlay districts.
Map changes in Vicinity of Canyon Way and flag-lot subdivision standards citywide. The
only map change proposed outside of design overlay districts is in the vicinity of Canyon
Way where the 2001 General Plan land use designation changed from Single Family
Residential - Low DensityjQ Single Family Residential - Low-Medium Density. To make
the zoning map consistent, the area is proposed to be re-zoned from Residential Rural
(RR) to Residential Suburban (RS). This is a change in maximum potential density from 1
dwelling unit per acre to 2.5 dwelling units per acre. The General Plan land use
designation changed for this area because the existing density and lot sizes strongly reflect
the character of the Low/Medium areas.
"""
/',
"Y
~'~ /. '''',..<' ''''>'' .;
/'., / ~:>>'" -< ' _~ 1
. "., - ",-,. ~ "- ,
/""'~~ "' / '" ..'(~" ~,_ 1/
/-,~,.,,->:_.~~-;/,~""-y '; " '''~ '''-~. ~''''''''''''"'.y;/
.",,~ /"A...:.;r...... '~..(_ '< /' '-" )'-.., '_'<~' /_.jl
" ... / '::'<~"~ "T"__'--", "/ /' ,"'- ''-., "y:,_ _'. (/
.' "< / /.~,j(''':7 .......'" '" ','y,...., .7/
~.-.,..~ ',..<-,,('/ ~ !~'~\' --,);,(.--'''j "- ""'<" ,,<,<~, . 'y ~'-/~'--~-=/!
,'_'__'_ ~-,--""\.._\o.~,,~";..\~~r--:<::::,~//<,":,, / ,./ ''', i!
=- t"y\ \''\./ />'.:::::~>:< '>~\~'\:'>;~~ \'\
J /~.. . ..<'-'< . ,'-..', .~ ' ''''->'~''..'\''''-'''
,.. -'~'--'~".~ ./' --...~. --V'<"~">" ''f~'' _ '-';\..~~;>.:~\:-~--::::;'""^;y-~--
~ r....-.....).> ..z.... '~. . \." -y/ .'"
~ >.,,,....--- <, ')";',' ,-.<~,,,,-::,,>,,,,>,:,<.,,>,::,,~:~,~~_::~:~
~,f'..,./ \'__>---.. '--" '...... " \:>.~,.~"",.':>\~,'(:c;;;:....... .""
..,"i JlI-: f . J.... /\ Y' "" ~,,,,,C\\-.......
'" / '.' T'''''" ,/-....... .. ,\,.......... \
..' ,. ... ...... I..L. ... /.........1....'""..,................L......,........",'\...\0:.'5':<....,.. .. ....., \,...... .
Area to be rezoned from RR to RS - shaded areas denote lots with area between 24,000-40,000 sq. ft..
Concerns identified with rezoning this area included the potential for higher density in an
area with steep slopes and existing flag lots. A review of existing lot sizes in the area
indicate that all lots are less than 40,000 sq. ft., which is the minimum lot size for the RR
CITY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 12, 2006
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-005B, AND
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 06-004
PAGE 5 OF 24
district. Lot sizes average approximately 9,000 sq. ft. The minimum lot size in the RS
district is 12,000 sq. ft. Since the lots are sloped, existing criteria in Section 16.20.050-A. is
triggered, allowing for a minimum lot size of 20,000 sq. ft. for lots with slopes greater than
15%. . For such lots, a minimum of 40,000 sq. ft. would be required to subdivide into two
parcels. However some lots may have average slopes of between 7% and 15%. Minimum
lot size for this category is 10,000 sq. ft., which is below the average for the RS district, so
this slope provision would not apply. The minimum size required for two lots on flat or
mildly sloped properties is 24,000 sq. ft. There are several lots that are greater than 24,000
sq. ft., however it is unknown how many of these have slopes between 7% and 15%. To
discourage further flag-lot subdivision on slopes greater than 7% in the RS district,
including the vicinity of Canyon Way, a provision for slope criteria specific to flag lots is
shown in Table 16.20.050-A (and Exhibit "8") which is applicable citywide. While
deviations from these slope standards are sometimes approved, it is only through the PUD
process which is not applicable to the RS district.
Table 16.20.050-A
Minimum Lot Size For Parcels with Slope Greater Than 7%
Topography
7-15%
slope
10,000 s.f.
Minimum
Frontage
80 feet
Minimum
Average
Depth
110
feet
Ratio
Maximum
Depth to
Width
3:1
Percent of
Ground
Surface to
Remain in
Natural State
20%
Minimum Area
15-25%
slope
2Cj,OOO s. f. nsf buildinli
sile:area.f61: f1a'ii: lotS
20,000 s.f.
40:0005:f.oel builCiinq
sile.area for f1aa 101
N/A*
10
o
fe
el
NI
A*
150
feet
3:1
50%
25% and up
slope*
N/A*
N/A*
100%*
Second Residential Unit size in the RS district.
Another factor concerning the RS district raised at previous workshops includes the
maximum size of second residential units (granny units or flats). According to Section
16.52.150, the maximum size of second dwelling units allowed in the RR zone is 1,200 sq.
ft. and for the RS district, 850 sq. ft. This is because lots are generally larger in the RR
district. However, since the RS district is a transitional zone with varying lot sizes, the
following changes are proposed to allow for the larger second dwelling units only on lots
that may appropriately accommodate such units if all the criteria in section 16.52.150 are
met. The portion of the Development Code section that includes the proposed change is
shown below (and also Exhibit "8").
16.52.150.C.5. Maximum Size. Table 16.52.150-A defines the maximum square footage
allowed for a second dwelling in each residential zoning dislrict In no case shall the square
footage of a second dwelling exceed fifty (50) percent of the square footage of the primary
residence.
CITY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 12, 2006
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-005B, AND
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 06-004
PAGE 6 OF 24
Table 16.52.150-A
r------.~.._.~.-- ..
Maximum Size of
Second Dwelling
640 square feet
....m......._. "n
850 square feet
. ~u-:ailflilt>0r';;~12.000--~
I sauare feet then 1.200
i . sauare feet
ibl Iflot <: 12.000 sauare
I feet - 850 square feet
-........--.....".......
1.200 square feet
1 1,200 square feet" ......
.._......-T~OOsqu.are feet ..-..--..
1,200 square feet
-- ------ - -----.--
,
,
I
-;........'i
lzoning Designation
IVillage Residential (VR)
ISingle Family (SF)
----....------..---.... ....---......--,---..
IResidential Suburban (RS)
!Residential Rural (RR)
jResidential Hillside (RH)
I...... ....... . -........ .. .-...
Residential Estate (RE)
!Condomi;;lum"iTownhouse
kMF)
[Apartments (MFA)
r........~.......................................
iSenior Housing (SR MFVH)
'Mobile Home Park (MHP)
1,200 s<luare feet
"""---''Cr-''---'' .........m.m..... -----..
: 1,200 square feet
. i--Not Permiiied(t.ip)'
Reversionary Setbacks (0-2.19)
Staff has also identified recent trends in development that require re-examination of
standards in the Development Code in light of General Plan consistency. Overlay district
D-2.19 does not refer to a specific district. Rather it refers to standards applicable to
"infill/additions" citywide for existing residential lots that were subdivided prior to 1991. D-
2.19 is triggered by an asterisk in Table 16.32.050.8. which includes setback standards for
single-family districts. The asterisk refers to a note: "If a lot is located within a residential
zone and was created prior to June 13, 1991, effective date of the development code,
buildings may conform with the setback and lot coverage standards of the previous zone as
outlined in Appendix C.W.-D-2.19". When the Development Code was adopted, it included
setbacks and lot coverage standards more conservative (i.e. larger) than those previously
in place. This was to better accommodate General Plan policies that called for
implementation of standards (larger setbacks and smaller lot coverage) that reflect a more
rural, small town character. New subdivisions are subject to the current setbacks and lot
coverage requirements listed in Table 16.32.050.8, and the asterisk allows owners of
existing lots to use the older less stringent standards. A general review of development
trends since 1991 reveals that the more conservative standards are rarely used: existing
lots revert to old setbacks and new subdivisions often request deviations from the more
conservative setbacks via the PUD process (applicable to the RH, SF, VR and multi-family
districts.) The proposal allows for continued use of previously entitled setbacks for infill
projects now defined in chapter 16.04, and address the need to meet General Plan goals
and objectives by revisions to setbacks and PUD standards (please refer to the discussion
for Issue 2. Smalllot/PUD. below.) Overlay D-2.19 is proposed to be repealed because it
creates a set of standards applicable to now repealed zones that have been
revised/rezoned over time.
CITY, COUNCIL
DECEMBER 12, 2006
,CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-005B, AND
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 06-004
PAGE 7 OF 24
For front yard setbacks: it is proposed that front yard setback standards be revised
in all districts to allow infill development, including subdivisions of four or fewer lots
and additions, to utilize the average of the front setbacks for existing adjacent
development as the minimum standard. This will allow for continued variation in
front yard setbacks consistent with General Plan policies.
Other Setbacks- for lots within the SF, VR and MF districts: recent development
trends in the City indicate that most residential subdivision approvals are for creation
and development of smaller single-family lots. It is recommended that the setback
standards be revised as shown underlined in Table 16.32.050.B and according to
the new asterisk footnote as described below (also refer to Exhibit "B".) This would
replace the current reversionary front yard setbacks in Appendix CW,-D-2.10 (overlay
0-2.19).
TABLE 16.32.050.8. (Shaded text for informational purposes only. Highlighted asterisks are
deletions \
~~fQj RE RH RR RS SF VR !tord~Rf1
(~~ '.' j (p~rtqf
Pf~i~l:l)
D72" 9
1. Maximum 0.4 0.67 1.0 2.5 4.5 4.5
density
(DU's per
cross acre)
2. Minimum 92,500 49,000 40,000 12,000 7,200 6,750
building
site" (Net [reduced lot
area in sq. size
ft.) new allowed
subdivisions with
conveyance
of open
space in
perpetuity]
3. Minimum 200' 130' 120' 80' 70' 50'
lot widthC
new subdivisions
4. Minimum 250' 200' 200' 100' 100' 100'
lot depth new
subdivisions
~9~~.d.h 5. Minimum 501 351 351 2 20 15'. 20',f11;;iY
nO"/case front $f~9giir
Cl9$~r yard' ~:
thanm;i:'f;'OY - New
...",".",;,."",i...>>.,~
from subdivisions of
9Eln!eti 5+ lots
line;Y()f
,~.!t~~L__ ..".-.............------....- ........................ .....__....u.n.......... __.u__......._. .....................--....---.........--.--.--.--...................-..............-------.--...... ..... .....................---..--.-------
- Infill and The averaoe setback of structures to the street on
additions either side and directly across block face for
orooerties in the same district.
CITY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 12, 2006
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-0058, AND
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 06-004
PAGE 8 OF 24
ola RE RH RR RS SF VR ::ola:!R81
~'RA~ (patlQf
(paltiriot 082:1~)
1)-2.19)
!'j! 6. Minimum 301 10% 10% 5' one side, Infill - 5" 51 5:
.
interior of lot of lot 10' other New
side yard width. width. sidetilQr: subdivision
setback" lots < - 5' one
-
12.000 sq. side, 10'
ft. use SF) other side~
1Q; 7. Minimum 30'. 15% 15% 151 15'. 10'. 1.9
street side of lot of lot
yard width width.
setback"
{Note; 8. Minimum 501 401 251 2~1 10' (1 10 10
fP',€,W1Q rear yard (For lots < story) (1- W(1$00
W/4!';QQ setback" 12.000 Sq. 15' (2- story) j;q;r;.;..at!
~q,l\; story). {,'- -"y"-:,,,',;'-,;-.':..,_.;-.;-.r'
ft. use SF) 15' siaeJrear
...,.......',...,..,.,
sideJrear (2- total
oilieiWjSl;j story) otherwiSe
25 ' 20r' . .
$0% 9. Maximum 35% 35% 35% 30% 40% 40% 4Q%
lot (For lots
coverage" <10,000 sq.
ft. use SF)'
10. Maximum 30' or2 stories, whichever is less, 14' for accessory
height for buildings
buildings
and
structures
11. Minimum 20' 20' 6' 10' 10' 10'
distance
between
building
(including
main
dwellings
and
accessory
structures )e
Notes to Table 16.32.050-A and B: Residential Site Development Standards
a See Table HI.J2.050 ^ fer miniml.lrA let sizes fer ~arGels '.\lith slepe gr-eater than seven
percent. In slopinQ terrain, parcel size shall increase with increasinQ slope as provided in
16.20.050-A. As an option. an area equal to the area required to meet ,the density
requirements may be dedicated as open space in order to reduce the minimum lot size. The
open space area shall be either dedicated to the City or protected by a perpetual open
space easement aQreement at the option of the City.
b Area shall be increased to five acres for slope conditions exceeding twenty (20) percent for
the RE district.
C Width measurements for cul-de-sac or otherwise odd-shaped lots shall be determined on
the basis of the ayerage horizontal distance between the side lot lines, measured at right
CITY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 12, 2006
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-005B, AND
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 06-004
PAGE 9 OF 24
angles to the lot depth at a point midway between the front and rear lot lines.
. If 3 lot is loc3led within 3 residenti31 zone 3ns '/I3S cre3ted priar ta J~ne 1~. 1 QQ1, effecli'lo
d3ls sf tAe Ets\'slapR'lenl csEte, s~ilEtinQs R'l3Y canferR'l '....ith the sets3ck 3m! lat cover3Qe
sl3nd3rds af the previa~s zone 3S o~lIined in /\ppendix C.W. 0 2.1 Q
. Infill Development on a Parcel Within a Previouslv approved Proiect. Where the citv has
established specific setback requirements for sinQle-familv or multifamilv residential parcels
throuQh the approval of a specific plan. subdivision map. Planned Unit Development or other
discretionarv entitlement. Those setbacks shall applv to infill development and additions
within an approved proiect instead of the setbacks required bv this Tille.
Nqte, othe(.footnotes remaiiFun(:hanged)
Design Development District Overlays
Provisions required through an overlay may be in addition to requirements in an underlying
zoning district or may replace a standard in the underlying zoning district. The Development
Code describes the purpose and requirements of forming new design overlay districts in
Section 16.44.020.
Specific Overlay - RR-D-2.2 and RR-D-2.3 Vicinity of Tally Ho and La Barranca
. Property at NW corner of James Way and Tally Ho. This property was rezoned
from RA-B2, residential agriculture to RA-B1-D to accommodate the existing
development. However it does not meet the General Plan density. The General
Plan and proposed change in zone increases density and brings existing density
closer to the maximum allowed density by the General Plan. The zoning is
proposed to be changed from RR-D-2.2 to RS.
RRD-2.2
."
,
,,(
. Vicinity of La Barranca, The current zoning is RR-D-2.3. The RR zoning allows
for 40,000 sq. ft. minimum lot sizes and a density of 1 dwelling unit per acre. The
intent for the design overlay district 2.3 is to restrict the number of lots to 39.
There are no other provisions of the design overlay district. The General Plan
designation for this area is Low/Medium density with a maximum density of 2.5
dwelling units/acre. The General Plan land use designation also includes a
Conservation/Open Space designation for a portion of the D-2.3 neighborhood.
CITY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 12, 2006
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-005B, AND
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 06-004
PAGE 10 OF 24
This General Plan overlay requires that any proposals within the vicinity of this
designation comply with provisions in the Agriculture, Conservation and Open
Space element.
It is recommended that the underlying zoning district be amended to reflect
existing conditions in the vicinity of D-2.3, and for consistency with the
General Plan. The zoning district that is considered consistent with the
General Plan designation of Low/Medium density is the RS district with a
density of 2.5 dwelling units/acre. All but two of the thirty-nine lots are less
than 40,000 square feet, and most lots are closer to 10,000 - 12,000 sq.
ft. Although the average slopes for specific properties in the area are not
known, there are two parcels that, by their gross area, may be large enough to
subdivide. However, the maximum number of lots would depend on
discretionary review of individual applications for subdivision, including review of
revised slope provisions, the conservation/open space designation and other
potential environmental impacts and resulting density may be less. Attachment 5
includes additional history and discussion of this area.
Specific Overlay - RR/PF-D-2.8 Vicinity of Trinity Avenue
Design Development District Overlay RR-D-2.8 is proposed to be replaced by Single
Family (SF) and Public Facilities (PF) zoning designations to reflect current character,
as well as the General Plan land use designation of Single family Residential - medium
density and Community Facility/Church/Lodge. There is an open space easement on
the PF zoned property.
RRO.2.B
Specific Overlay - RR-D-2.9 and 2.10 Vicinity of Miller Way
Several discussions occurred at workshops and at the Planning Commission regarding
zoning in the vicinity of Miller Way, currently zoned RR-D-2.9 and RR-D-2.10 but with a
General Plan designation that supports more density. Generally, residents were concerned
about the possibility of non-conforming structures, desired second residential units and
were conflicted on the prospect of potential subdivisions with the majority in opposition.
The General Plan land use designation has changed in this area to support a rezone to RS
CITY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 12, 2006
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-005B, AND
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 06-004
PAGE 11 OF 24
since there are many lots that are smaller than 40,000 sq. ft. and the existing density
exceeds the RR district maximum for the neighborhood. However, no change in zoning is
proposed at this time. The existing density was provided by a "D-override" at the time of
development approval. However, there are restrictions on the tact map and noted in the
history of the tract approvals concerning density. The developed density was not intended
to be further exceeded for the steeply sloped area. Additionally, a significant portion of
many lots are within the Conservation/Open Space combining land use designation shown
on the General Plan Land Use Map. Although there are controls on further subdivision of
sloped parcels that address hillside areas citywide, a change in zone for this area would
allow application for further subdivision not consistent with general plan policies including
those policies that require increased density be directed to areas without environmental
sensitivity (Ag/C/OS.10, LU2-2.4, LU10-1, LU11-1 and LU12-1.)
Specific Overlay - RS-D-2.12
RS-D-2.12
Oakcrest Estates (Tract 555) was approved in 1982, with lots ranging in size from
approximately 6,500 sq. ft. to 11,800 sq. ft. The zoning was changed during the 1991
Development Code update to Residential Suburban (RS) with a D-overlay to acknowledge
that the R-1 desi nation that existed at the time were a licable to the develo ment:
Front yard 20 ft., may stagger with a 3 ft. variation from setback lines; side yard 5 ft.; street
side yard 10ft.; rear yard 10ft. if 1500 sq. ft. open area is maintained to side or rear
otherwise 20 ft; Lot coverage 40%.
RS 0-2.12
The proposed residential setback standards shown above in Table 16.32.050.8 allow
owners of lots smaller than 12,000 sq. ft. in RS districts utilize standards for the SF district.
As such, the D-2.12 overlay district would no longer serve any purpose, and it is proposed
that it should be repealed.
2. Viewshed:
CITY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 12, 2006
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-005B, AND
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 06-004
PAGE 12 OF 24
Design Development Overlay Districts 0-2.5, 0-2.6 and 0-2.7 have been grouped together
as they each address regulations for private viewshed protection. Although most viewshed
ordinances concern protection of public views, (i.e. views from areas accessible to the
public, including roads and highways) the City's General Plan (Conservation/Open Space
Element) includes requirements that are used to provide some protection for both private
and public views. Accordingly, the primary concern regarding the subject overlay districts
is not aesthetics of the hillside neighborhoods, but rather the views to the ocean from the
neighborhood, and height control is the currently implemented tool used to affect view
protection. During the review of these overlay districts, the emerging issue became how to
balance viewshed protection and existing neighborhood character with the desire to
remodel or redevelop existing homes to allow for growing families, market trends and
modern design amenities (generally resulting in larger homes). Public comment at the
Planning Commission hearings regarding the modification of height standards and the use
of the viewshed review process may be best summarized as having conflicting objectives:
"we want the ability to ask [for a reasonable home addition]" and "we want certainty [that
our views are forever protected)". Additional history and discussion regarding this issue is
included in Attachment 6.
The existing requirements, as well as proposed modifications for each overlay district, are
summarized as follows (please refer to Attachment 3 for implementing ordinances.)
. Existing Requirements for Design Development Overlay District SF 0-2.5: vicinity of
Montego Street. Approved by Ordinance 86 C.S. in June 1973. This overlay sets a
maximum height of 11 ft. from curb to peak of house for the south side of Montego
Street. There are no other additional standards established.
SF 0-2.5
. Recommended modifications to Design Development District SF-D-2.5. It is
proposed that the SF-D-2.5 overlay be expanded to include seven additional
properties. This district has a clear height requirement (11 ft. from curb) for single-
story construction that is easily applied because it concerns only the downslope side
(south side) of the street. The proposed change concerns the westerly seven
CITY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 12, 2006
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-005B, AND
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 06-004
PAGE 13 OF 24
properties on the north side of Montego that back up to an upslope residential
property (the other properties on the north side of Montego back up to public
property used for water storage.) The expansion of the 0-2.5 overlay was raised
previously by the Planning Commission during consideration of a minor use permit
for Viewshed Review on the north side of Montego Street, as well as in previous
public workshops and during the September 5, 2006 public hearing. Since two story
construction of the westerly seven properties would significantly obstruct views from
the upslope residential properties, this area is proposed to be included in Design
Development Overlay District SF-D-2.5, thereby providing the same protections on
the north side as exist on the south side of Montego.
Since the seven properties on Montego Street to be added to the overlay are
upslope from Montego, height is proposed to be measured as 11 ft. from the highest
existing grade elevation at the perimeter of the development envelope (net lot area
inside the required yard setback) or the maximum height of the existing roof,
whichever is greater. Although "average grade" is used elsewhere in the City to
measure height, this alternative measurement is recommended because average
grade refers to the natural grade prior to construction and all lots in the overlay are
developed. Use of the existing roof height as an alternative measure was discussed
at the September 5, 2006 public hearing and has been included to avoid the
potential for non-conforming structures. The 11-foot height limit, as measured from
highest existing grade of net building area, is consistent with the height limit imposed
on the south side of Montego Street, and it is considered to be consistent with the
approximate existing height of single-story residences on the north side of Montego
Street. This requirement is intended to provide for viewshed protection from adjacent
properties to the north, as well as allow for redevelopment or the addition of
subterranean garages, basements or living space to be integrated into remodeled
residential structures. There are currently three such designs in the proposed 7-lot
expansion area.
'\,
; ~ ,
..' ~ .
!'i
I ! !
Proposed amendment to Zoning Map for SF-D-2.5
/"/::~;.,'?/7":::~', j"
:' '~ '...,
",
. ..~~~~~H~:'::';"
CITY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 12, 2006
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-0058, AND
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 06-004
PAGE 14 OF 24
. Existing Requirements for Design Development Overlay District RS-D-2.6: vicinity of
Newport Avenue. Approved by Ordinance 360 C.S. in September 1987, this overlay
establishes the following standards: maximum height of two-stories which shall not
exceed 30' and no main building shall exceed 15' from the highest corner of the
property; minimum net building site area: 12,000 square feet for residential use,
20,000 square foot for churches and other public uses; minimum lot width: 60 feet
for residential uses and 100 feet for public uses; minimum lot depth: 90 feet. There
are no other additional standards established.
RS 0-2.6
. Proposed modifications to Design Development District RS-D-2.6~
It is proposed that the RS-D-2.6 overlay be modified to remove standards applicable to
lot size and 'leave the standards specific to lot width and depth for additional height
control. Since this overlay was put in place prior to implementation of the RS district,
the requirements of this overlay district are the same or very similar to requirements of
the underlying RS district. These standards are used when evaluating proposed
subdivisions. Although modification of the lot width and depth standards would not
affect subdivision potential, it would cause several lots to be non-conforming.
Therefore, revision is not recommended at this time.
The only height requirement is that "no main building shall exceed 15' from the highest
corner of the property", which was also imposed prior to existing regulations for
viewshed review. It is proposed that the 15 ft. height requirement remain as measured
from the highest existing grade elevation at the perimeter of the development envelope
(net lot area inside the required yard setback) for consistency (instead of measuring the
height from the highest point on the lot).
Additionally, it is proposed that the two properties at 200 Hillcrest be included in the 0-
2.6 overlay. However, no specific building height (replacing citywide standard) is
CITY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 12, 2006
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-005B, AND
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 06-004
PAGE 15 OF 24
proposed for this portion of the overlay because of the shape and topography. of the
properties, as well as their location near the top of the grade. Inclusion in the overlay
will require that a viewshed review permit be approved prior to any development or
redevelopment on the properties.
,
,", '
"',', '
/ i /////?'~"!!~~,
. _.c' '" : : .0 2.6 '.
J l"'L.L.~.J""--- t"--'I_.,~:,'~-'
" I! I !! i--.~"J
I!! i
" ,', v!_{
::<;,<9~~1
: ~'~,"""'.,.,"~"~,'~~-, > .~~, ," ,,'
~" " ' , '~;~>' ,,/,
/ ,/'<'1'1'" I" ,-
1/, /:I/'::::>~;"'/'/'/:'
".
'j
"
: ~.
r:
--"'j [
I';
"").
",
,,~..~ou 4VO
: '~'"
;
Proposed amendment to Zoning Map for RS-D-2.6
. Design Development Overlay District SF 0-2.7 in the vicinity of Ruth Anne Way was
approved by Ordinance 138 C.S. in June 1976. This overlay sets a maximum
building height of18 feet from established curb height, except lots 1,2,3 of Tract 554;
Lots 1 & 2 of Parcel Map AG 73-383; and Lot 1 of Parcel Map AG 74-293, where
maximum height is 22 feet from established curb height. There are no other
additional standards established.
SF 0-2.7
CITY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 12, 2006
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-005B, AND
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 06-004 .
PAGE 16 OF 24
Most of the area covered by the overlay includes an 18 ft. height requirement from
curb with the exception of six lots as shown below which have a maximum height
standard of 22 ft.
~"...
SF-D-2.7 -18 and 22 foot height restrictions
. Proposed modifications to Design Development DistriCt SF-D-2.7.
The proposed alternative is to leave the Design Development Overlay District SF-D-2.7 in
place, but allow application for minor modifications of JJ.Q.jQ 22 ft. in height for those
properties currently restricted to 18 ft. using the following standards and process:
. the floor area for a second-story shall not exceed 50% of the first story;
. any roof area that is proposed to exceed the height limit of 18-ft. height shall not
exceed 50% of the total floor area;
. a minor use permit for Viewshed Review is required to include the installation of
story poles and shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and
action.
Attachment 7 includes summary information regarding second story additions in the vicinity
of D-2.7. This summary shows additions with second stories that are between 16% to 47%
of the lower-level floor areas. While the Planning Commission supported a 50% standard
for the upper story, an alternative lower standard may be considered. It is likely that some
such additions would not block neighboring views and would provide for remodel flexibility.
However, applications would require detailed review and extensive required public hearing.
. Viewshed Process
In addition to specific height requirements through the use of zoning overlays, the City
requires a process for view consideration citywide. The City's current viewshed provisions
CITY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 12, 2006
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-005B, AND
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 06-004
PAGE 17 OF 24
are included in Development Code Section 16.16.110. and were implemented during the
1991 Development Code update. Another concern previously raised concerning viewshed
review includes the potential for a tall single story addition to block views in a similar way as
a second story addition. Additionally, since the viewshed review process has been
implemented (1991), there have been developments within the Residential Hillside district
and projects within these developments do not currently require viewshed review. Exhibit
"B" includes modifications that are proposed to address these issues, as well as a few
minor clerical additions to text that are needed to clarify standards.
. Basement/Story
Additional concerns have also been raised about common definitions of basement and
story. Some requested additions within and outside of overlay districts included a
subterranean component to achieve additional square footage without affecting neighboring
views. However, existing regulations restrict height to two-stories or 30 ft. The proposal
includes removing the references to story for the purposes of viewshed review. Exhibit "B"
includes modifications that may reduce additional ambiguities relating to definitions.
Basement and story definitions are consistent with the definitions in the Uniform Building
Code incorporated by reference in the Development Code.
3. Sunset Drive:
Existing language for the Multi Family Apartment (MFA)-D-2.13 is included in Appendix 3
and 4. The properties located within this district include seven dwelling units, the density of
which was considered conforming specifically by the zoning overlay. The General Plan
changed the density for the land use designation (Multi-family high density) equivalent to r
the MFA zone from 11 du/acre to 14 du/acre.
MFA D-2.13
The existing built density of the MFA-D-2.13 properties is approximately 13.5 du/acre,
which is now consistent. However, the MFA district is intended for multi-family attached
housing. It is proposed that the underlying zoning be changed from MFA to Fair Oaks
CITY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 12, 2006
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-005B, AND
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 06-004
PAGE 18 OF 24
Mixed Use(FOMU) which allows for density up to 15 dulacre for residential uses and 25
dulacre for mixed use. This change would also allow for the same zoning as adjacent
properties instead of different zoning for an isolated property. Future redevelopment of the
property (although none is proposed at this time) may potentially include a project that
transitions from single-family residential on the Sunset Dr. frontage to multi-family or office
to retail on E. Grande Ave. The overlay would be revised and kept in place to ensure that .
any redevelopment includes only single-family residential use fronting Sunset Drive with
vehicle access.
The proposed zone change to FOMU would have to include a General Plan amendment to
the Land Use map, changing the designation from Multiple Family- High density to Mixed
Use. This part of the proposal, while recommended by the Planning Commission, was not
noticed as a General Plan amendment for the Planning Commission meeting as the
previous proposal was to keep the zoning MFA, despite the isolated zone and existing
detached dwellings. Staff proposes that if the Council is supportive of the proposal, the
General Plan amendment be renoticed for Planning Commission and brought back to
Council at the same time the proposed ordinance would be adopted.
Proposed language:
Design Development Overlay District MFA FOMU-D-2. 13. Provide for sinole-familv
residential use on all development frontino Sunset Drive.
Alternative language:
Design Development Overlay District MFA-D-2.13. Zoned at the time of the 1991
Development Code update for consistency with the General Plan designation. No
additional standards.
4. SmalllotlPUD:
PUD Process
Also established during the 1991 Development Code update, the PUD process was
developed to allow for design flexibility for residential development in some districts similar
to the repealed optional design standards. Over the past six years the City has approved
approximately twenty-four PUD applications with deviations in development standards to
achieve more compact development in the Single Family, Multi Family and mixed use
districts. The legislative process of approving design development overlays (or PD zones)
and the quasi-judicial process of approving PUD development are two tools the City uses to
evaluate and approve development where the one-size-fits-all zoning regulations do not
otherwise afford alternative or creative design.
Several issues have been brought up by staff and the community involving PUDs. Below
are changes proposed to address issues of the potential need to amend PUD
developments over time, clarification of when PUD applications are required, and the need
for perimeter setbacks for PUD development to fit in with surrounding development.
CITY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 12, 2006
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-005B, AND
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 06-004
PAGE 19 OF 24
16.16.060 Planned unit development permits.
(proposed text highlighted and underlined)
B.
.l. Authority. The planning commission is authorized to approve planned unit development
permits, subject to the appeal provisions of Section 16.12.150 of this title. The community
development director, staff advisory committee, and architectural review committee shall
provide recommendations to the planning commission regarding planned unit development
permits. A public hearing pursuant to Section 16.12.160 of this title shall be required.
2. Application for a planned unit development shall not constitute an application for
subdivision. If a subdivision of land is proposed in conjunction with a planned unit
development project, separate application, review, and findings shall be made in
accordance with the provisions of the code.
3. Application for a planned unit development may be used when an amendment is
reauested for development standards applicable within a planned development or other
previous discretionary entitlement for which there is no provision for the process of
amendment.
F. Revisions/Modifications. Revisions or modifications of planned unit development permits
may be reauested by the applicant. Further. the plannina commission may periodically
review or modify a planned unit development permit.
1. Revisions/Modifications Reauested by Applicant. A revision or modification to an
approved planned unit developmentpermit. such as. but not limited to. chanae in conditions
of approval. expansions. intensification. setbacks. or landscape reauirements. may be
reauested by an applicant. The applicant shall supply necessary information. as determined
by the city. to indicate reasons for the reauested chanae. The reauested revision or
modification shall be processed in the same manner as the oriainal planned unit
development permit.
2. Review by Plannina Commission. The plannina commission may periodically review any
planned unit development permit to ensure that it functions in a manner consistent with
conditions of approval. If. after review. the commission deems there is sufficient evidence to
warrant a full examination. a public hearina date shall be set. At such public hearina. the
plannina commission may modify the permit to ensure the intent of reauired conditions and
miliaation measures are met.
CITY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 12, 2006
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-005B, AND
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 06-004
PAGE 20 OF 24
Additionally, many PUDs and existing overlay districts were approved for the same
purpose: to allow small lot single family (mostly attached). The MF district does not have
the lot size and setback standards to provide for the small lot single family subdivision
although the allowed density, uses and intent of the district is consistent with that type of
development design. For the single- family district, attached single-family homes are also
not allowed without the application of an overlay or through PUD development. Below (and
in Exhibit "B)" are changes to reflect the fact that there is a history of such approvals and
this type of development is supported by General Plan (including the Housing Element)
policies. This would allow for projects with a mix of residential types: e.g. single-family
detached on a portion facing similar development and attached on another portion of the
same project. Several other changes are for clarification purposes.
Table 16.32.040-A
Uses Permitted Within Residential Districts
Legend
P
pp ,
MUP i,
BUD i;' :.; ,. ,}
C
NP
Permitted
:c:~xPermittedS~b' eGtts :PlatPIElFl ;Re'/ie;'-}
.. ... . .1...,,,,,... . .......
. inor Use Permit
-,.. ..:'''''',',' : .....:...:... .. ':.. ..: ',::' '., . ,'<m" 4.~..'., :~.n:".~.._.,;.,;!'>:;.:;.:;.:;::;.:;..;.:;:, ;"''':'H'::~;':,'''''^'^''!t't;.:,,:,...,_... .;::....,.:..T;~:'-;.:.,.,;J.'.m'.;.-",.,~"'r":'.~'I'jlI,t,',,':"'::"'''''' """":."":.,'.:.:-',:,'''''-''
.,ermittea Suoiectito>lssuanceiof.aii8Ianned.tJnitDevelopment Permit
Permitted Suoject to Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit
Not Permitted
USE RE RH RR RS SF VR MF MFA SR! MHP
D,. MFVH
2;4"
A. Residential Uses
1. Single-family detached P P P P P 8 po po NP NP
'standard lot sizes) M1!JR
2. Small lot single-family NP R NP NP P P 8 NP NP NP
detached (PUD permit PUD PUD RLJD RUD
.,
3. Single-family attached NP R NP NP Np, NP R g NP NP
':',.'..,'! RLJID ".:'t............
(twin home, triplex, BUD RUD 8UD
fourplex)
10l,n . OM"
4. Condominium (air space) NP NP NP NP NP NP C C C NP
,,...,,n .,
5. Multiple-family attached (2 NP NP NP NP NP NP MUP MUP NP NP
- 4 units) P
6. Multiple-family attached (5 NP NP NP NP NP NP C C ,Np, NP
more units) ~,,_. '.~-"
or C
" , .
N0;f;E:.i:6l!:1Il1."ffiEXl"-OF'fABI!Ei: N01iSH0WN
^"....m.;.;..;,;;"';.;;.;;.,;.,'_"''',....'.~M_~::i.....'''';;,,;,;'^.^."'.,;.;;,;";".,',''';_;,_4..,......~..M_,~..<...'m_."";..,.:.,_.,..;..,..___~;_.,";_,_._".;.,,4.:::
Notes:
a Senior residential (SR) z{)ne limits residential ~ses to senior citizens.
" IDesian-reiiiEiwiis reoulreaforifhe HIstoric Character OverlavDistrictD-2.4 per Section
16.16.130:'and: 16.32,050,F.1-"'throuilh the oermit.:abbroval oroceSs:Jor conditional..;use,
rlanned unif"aevelooment or minor useoemiitforarchitectural review:
If parcel area is oelow minimum ouilding site area. .
CITY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 12, 2006
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-005B, AND
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 06-004
PAGE 21 OF 24
16.32.050.E. Additional Performance Standards for Planned Unit Developments
1. When klt sizes less than that permitted by the underlying zoning district are
proposed for a ~esra:erntial subdivision, a planned unit development permit application
(~~~~Q~f6f:1'6r060.i!::j~~~'€ljr~Q) shall be submitted concurrently with the subdivision
application.
2. Lot size, lot width, and lot depth for each unit shall be determined through the
planned unit development review process.
3. Building setbacks required by the underlying zoning district may be reduced
~r. ",:,aiv~.d_f~r.l?ts. c~ea!!:~,!~E~u9~,~..pl,a.~~~~}J!!itd~y~lgp~~n!I,E~~vide~ "ffl~ij~etb~cks
a~e'jimet\for;~tl:iei'DerimeteiJjofriitl:ie;;j:jr6iecHiareaiiifinecessarvlrto;'aChieve!'coA'sistell10viwith
theWcbaracter,ofltheWClisflfict:'Wa'nd the lot coverage requirements of the district are met
for the project. 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.
MF-D-2.14. MF-D-2.15. and MF-D-2.17
These overlay districts include single-family attached developments in the MF zone. Since
the minimum lot size for the MF district is 10,000 sq. ft., an overlay was needed in the past
to approve such subdivisions. A review of approved development in the City indicates the
continued application of the PUD process to facilitate small lot subdivisions. This is still
consistent with General Plan policies and the intent statement of the MF district. As
proposed changes to standards include a provision that entitlements and special conditions
attached to a development through the City approval process prevail over standards in the
Development Code, it is recommended the overlay districts be repealed.
MFD-2.14
CITY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 12, 2006
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-005B, AND
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 06-004
PAGE 22 OF 24
MFO.2.UI
MFD-2.11
SF-D-2.16 and SF-D-2.18
These neighborhoods include twin homes approved within the Single Family zoning district.
Since compact development is desired in some areas of the City that may involve a variety
of residential types, it is proposed that attached single family residential units be ,'allowed in
the SF district through the PUD process,as previously discussed. If this is approved, there
is no need for an overlay district for SF-D-2.16 and SF-D-2.18 and it is proposed that these
overlays be repealed.
CITY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 12, 2006
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-005B, AND
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 06-004
PAGE 23 OF 24
SF 0-2.16
5. Appeals:
The proposal also includes a clean up provision regarding the City's appeal provIsions.
Amended language is as follows:
N9~imstl:lQ2jl}g.~Qy.oth~t..e,rQ.Yis,.L9!1_S!!.,!~.i~,,~<<;!~,.,~!1yJ8QJ~i~,~::JigWl!::~~.~'~r;,~~i,~
ti!1(3;ffaooroval:"1denial:i:sl..lsoeri'sion .,"or'revocation"of,a;'Ucehse.'ITm'oefmiti:or
iilntitlement'f'referencednnSections'2L17;03()iA.2:~'or16:08,060 shall be subject
to the appeal provisions set forth in this section.
Environmental Review
As the proposed modifications are necessary for consistency with the General Plan,
clarification purposes, or related to changes in an underlying zoning district proposed to
implement policies in the General Plan, the impacts fall within the scope of the Program
Environmental Impact report prepared for the General Plan update. An Initial Study and
Draft Negative Declaration was prepared and is included in Attachment 7.
CITY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 12, 2006
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-005B, AND
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 06-004
PAGE 24 OF 24
Attachments:
1. Summary Table 1 :-Review of actions and recommendations for Development
Code update relating to residential di~tricts, (DCA 04-005)
2. Meeting minutes applicable to DCA 04-005
3. Development Code Appendix for subject overlay districts.
4. Summary Table 2 - Summary of D-overlay districts
5. PC report from August 1, 2006
6. PC report from October 2, 2006
7. Draft Negative Declaration
i'
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE AMENDING PORTIONS OF TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO
GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 04-
005B) PERTAINING TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS,
REZONING PORTIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL RURAL DISTRICT TO
RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN IN THE VICINITY OF lA BARRANCA AND
CANYON WAY AND AMENDING DESIGN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY
DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande adopted the updated General Plan
which became effective on October 9, 2001 and requires a comprehensive review and
necessary revisions from time to time to the Development Code and zoning map for
consistency in accordance with Government Code Section 65860 and updating provisions
based on new legislation and clarifications necessary for internal code consistency; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held public hearings/public workshops on
December 6,2005; February 23,2006; June 6, 2006; August 1,2006; September 5,2006;
October 3, 2006; and November 21, 2006 and recommended approval of the proposed
amendments to the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code for the purposes of General Plan
consistency and implementation of its goals and policies and clarifications necessary for
the consistent administration of the Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the
following circumstances exist:
A. The proposed amendment will be consistent with the General Plan for reasons that
include, but are not limited to:
1. The proposed ordinance will satisfy Objectives lU2 and lU3 of the Land
Use Element of the General Plan, which states "Accommodate a broad
range of Single family Residential housing densities.. and Multiple Family
Residential and special needs housing types and densities within the City".
2. The proposed ordinance will satisfy LU12 of the land Use Element of the
General Plan which states "Components of "rural setting" and small town
character" shall be protected.
3. Current development for the Miller Way neighborhood is found to be
consistent with the General Plan given the need to balance all applicable
General Plan policies in accordance with LU11-1.1 which states ",.treat the
densities and intensities outlined in the land Use Element as the maximum
allowable.. consistent with the provisions and intent of the Arroyo Grande
General Plan and City ordinances."
4. The proposed ordinance is consistent with the goals and policies Housing
Element including but not limited to Goal A, which states" The City shall
adopt policies, programs and procedures that attempt to meet present and
future needs of residents in the City".
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 2
B. The proposed change revisions to Title 16 preserve the fabric of existing residential
neighborhoods in the City, accommodates infill development and will not adversely
affect the public health, safety, and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern.
C. The proposed change of zones and revisions to Title 16 satisfy the intent and
purpose of the Development Code, specifically the intent of 16.32 (Residential
Districts) and 16.44 (Special Districts) of the Municipal Code.
D. The proposed ordinance is within the scope of the Program EIR prepared for the
2001 General Plan Update, and a Negative Declaration has been prepared in
Accordance with CEQA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande, as
follows:
SECTION 1: The above recitals and findings are true and correct.
SECTION 2: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.24.020 (Zoning Map) is hereby
amended as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 3: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Sections set forth hereinbelow are hereby
amended as shown in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference:
a. Amend Sections: 16.04.070(C); 16.12.150(A)(1); 16.16.060(B); 16.16.110(C);
Table 16.20.050-A; 16.32.020; 16.32.030; Section A of Table 16.32.040-A; Table
16.32.050-A; Table 16.32.050-B; 16.32.050(B); 16.32.050(C); 16.32.050(E);
16.48.060; 16.52.150(C)(5); and Table 15.52.150-A.
b. Add Sections: 16.16.060(F); 16.44.020(D).
c. Subsections M, N, 0 and P of Section 16.08.110 of the Municipal Code are
hereby repealed.
SECTION 4: The following ordinances are repealed in their entirety: 86 C.S., 89 e.s., 135
e.s, 138 C.S., 329 C.S., and 360 C.S.
SECTION 5: If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause of this
Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unlawful, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City
Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision,
paragraph, sentence, or clause thereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more section,
subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause be declared unconstitutional.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 3
SECTION 6: Upon adoption of this Ordinance, the Director of Administrative Services shall
file a Notice of Determination.
SECTION 7: 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 Director of Administrative
Services/City Clerk. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the Ordinance, the summary
with the names of those City Council Members voting for and against the Ordinance shall
be published again, and the Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk shall post a
certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance.
SECTION 8: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.
On motion by Council Member
by the following roll call vote to wit:
, seconded by Council Member
, and
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this
day of
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 4
TONY M. FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
0-2.6 expanded across Hillcrest, 0-2.5
expanded across Montego
Underlying zone for 0-2.13 changed from SF
to FOMU
EXHIBIT A
/
,J
/-\
~ "-.
/
.=~J
I
"'-.
Highlighted area rezoned from RR to RS
Highlighted area rezoned from RR to SF, 0-2.8
removed
EXHIBIT "B"
Amend Section 16.04.070.C. [Definitions] (in part)
"Bosement" moeRs aRyar~i:iof the !>uiiEiing baving .its fle~r s(;!6gra,de; Le.,tJ:alo','i
grsllR9 10\'01 en all siaes.
~Basement"Asidentjfjed inthe.Uniform.BuildinQ Code. Generally meaninQ.that
portion of a "buildina betiNeenJldor and ceilina: which is entirely below,or partlv
below and partly above Qrade anlfCloes not QualifY as a "storv"'(See "StOry;")
:'BI6ckFront"'means ali the, prooertiesfrontina on:one side of a street betweeri
lntersectinastreetsor a street and awateiWay, cul:de:sac, orunsubdivided land.
Dwelling, Single-Family Detached. "Single-family detached dwelling" means a
dwelling unit that is not attached to any other dwellings by any means and
houses one family, Includinamooile arid manl:Jfactured homes on" permanent
foundations.
"Infill Development" Development of vacant land (usually individu"allots or left-
overproPelties)wlthinare~~.thi:ltare~lre~gy lamelyg~veI9Pe<;l, " ,
"Story" As identified inthe UniformB~ildinQ Code', Qeneraiivmealiirll:i ffiCaf\S
that portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor
and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story
shall be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the
topmost fl<?()r and,the ceilinll above. If the finished floor leveldii:ectlyabove
us'able or unused underfloor space is more than 6 feet above finished !:)rade
as defined,Herein.,for, more 'than 50 percent of the total oerimeter or ismore
than 12 feet abbve"finished Q'i:adeas defihedhereinata.nvooil1t, such usable
orunus~d. ~nderfl()oi: space shall, be considered asa storV;!A~ bSS(l':"CAt er
cellar 3halll1!>~ be.~eAsiileril(l eatery l:JAleSIl tAe..Ul'll3er .surfseeef. tAe. fleer
, , " , " """ ,'_':":",:.._'.:',,_,_,,'<,,:"':"'; .,.; ..,:,:::,_:..\.';:,:.::::.::....:_. ...... ......::......:.. '., ..';'::':.:':. ,.: ,; ,; ': ';.;;''';'.:;-_;-';'~!'.Y'---::.:':::_:.-..::' ... ....:..:..-.:.,.-.:.-.;.-.-;'.-'<.-.-::..::.-...__.-.c._.-__._.-__._.-._ ...__.-..-.-.-...-.-.-.-;....-.-':. "-''--.-:'---':':-,-''.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-' ."..""'''-.-.-''.:--..-.:..-.. .,.-,.........-. "'-__'-','.-";"
abe'.'e is ffie,fC thlm six feet ab'e:Je thc.avers!jele...c[efthC.tlii!ncst. SAd
'ci"_.-::.._ '::": ---:---:;.;':;;.'.; ;"';"":~"\':.. .... : .. ....... .:::::' . .......-:::::::::::::-::> ':"::::::::-:::<':::::-' ...:.'...::;,:,..:_-....::..:::::::::::.. . .'-
lewcst paiAt(3 ef till:!, !jreufld sut1~cc iffimel:li!'ltely adjEieeAt" te .tAe exterielr
..\.(:~.u~;;:~~.t:;..!b:~;:::~:y,;'~,i,~d:~;
Repeal Subsection M and N of Section 16,08.110 is hereby repealed.
Amend Section 16.12.150 [Appeals.]
A. Appeal of Action.
1. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, any do.oisiol'l maGc unGer this
titte approval. denial. suspension or revoeatiorlof a license: Dermit or entitlement
referenced iriSectlons 2;17~03Q.A.2..or16.Q8.Q6Q shall be subject to the appeal
provisions set forth in this section.
1
Amend Section 16.16.060(B) [Planned unit development permits.]
B.1.: Authority. The planning commission is authorized to approve planned unit
development permits, subject to the appeal provisions of Section 16.12,150 of
this title. The community development director, staff advisory committee, and
architectural review committee shall provide recommendations to the planning
commission regarding planned unit development permits. A public hearing
pursuarit to Section 16.12.160 of this title shall be required.
2-, Application for a planned unit development shall not constitute an application
for subdivision. If a subdivision of land is proposed in conjunction with a planned
unit development project, separate application, review, and findings shall be
made in accordance with the provisions of the code.
3. Application for a planned unit devei60mentmaybe used when an amendment
is req'uestedfor,development standards applicable withiri a planned development
orotnerpreviousdiscretionarventitlemenffor which there is noorovision foi<the
process of amendment.
Add Section 16.16.060(F) [Planned unit development permits.]
F. ReviSions/Modifications. Revisions ,or modifications ,of planned unit
development permitsmavbereauestedbvthe'applicant.' Further,. the plannina
commission 'mayoeriodicallvreviewor modify a blanned unit developmerit
oermit.
1 : RevIsIons/Modifications Reauested' bv Appjicant. A revision or modification to
anaoproved'olanned unit development permit. such as.' but: not :limitedto.
chanaeinconClitions"of approvaL" expansions, intensificati6n. setbacks. or
laridscaoereauii'Emients:mav be requested bv an. aoplicanCThe;applicant shall
supolvnecessarv information:, asdetermineifbv the citv:to jr'fdidate'reasdnsfor
the requested ch€ulqe:Therequested,revisionor modification'shall:beprocessed
in the same manner as the oriClinalpll3riried unit developmen[permit.
2: 'Review bv PlanninaGommission: Theplannin6 commission may periodicallv
review anvolan'nedunitdevelooment pelmittc ensure that iffundions' in a
manner consistent with'conditions of, approval: If: after review. the commission
deems there is.sufficient: evidence to warrant a .full.examination,a, public hearino
date shall be set. Atsuch public hearinQ. the planninQcommissiori mavnmcdifv
the'permit t6ensuietheintent6f required 66nditi6ns. and mitiaati6n measures
are met.'
Amend Section 16.16.11 Ole) [Minor use permits - Viewshed review]
C. Applicability. This section applies to all areas zoned RR, RS, SF, RH;.andJllilfi'.
2
including those with a design development (-D) overlay. These provisions would
not apply to development in MFA or8ID districts, since architectural approval is
required before the issuance of a building permit.
1. Areas Zoned RR, RS, SF, RH and MF. No seClQl1d::;~ry, addition . that
":;':'::::''''::'::':''::.::-'',::.::.-.::.:'''':.::,.:'-:'::_::r..-...:.::.;.:.:::.--.::::.."........:........_;:-;: ::::;::::':,: ":":::::"::::' .,.~,: '~':"1h~::: .:_~_~:..'" :::< _': ':.' ,",' :,.,........,..,. :,::":,:""",,,_~:.- ....,.'.,...,',' ,',.:.,", "':":':",:,:: ::',; ,.:..c,:"'::';'::_':,:,:'::',:',:: .,:",," ,:.:.,,>,-,;_:._ ':~":''1''''-'':'::'':':'''''i':
increases;tIiEiDuildina.,'nejQnt.;witfi;theexcePtioiii?fa.~fr()ofina,':proi.ect. shall. be
erected or enlarged on any single-family home ;;-"itnil"\tt:\~:PQ;c;:I?,~,~F1'<ll'l~M~
~.!~tfj~~ until a minor use permit for viewshed review is obtained, in accordance
with the procedure set forth in this section.
2-"'T...'AP..m'.."TI'Z"''''"''~.R' "R' "i"'1iR-S'"I'!''S''''E1lI!'R'''''iEi,,,",,,md~''Mc'''E''''''fN'''''''~'''''""""""."''''''''.''t-'''''.'''';'''''''''''''''''f''''''''''tw'''''.'.....'t.=."1.
";;'.m,,,reaSi:l"Oneu~ . . ,.;;.. ,.""";';:; ,,,,,Fan F; F.,'i!:I",. O~tleWFCOn$ ru,,1I0nti.ODa,,0=S 01;)/
sinalellifamjiV1;!or:.'rrrulti~familv'I.i'esldence:or.l'a'nv~sti:U'ctureover';22'itt:!ninWtleiatlt!ilon
anexistin""'llundevel 'le"'allllot'.'ma""ibe"'eremeduntil'.'s"'.m'inorF;tJse....... .ermit,lfor
liiewsned.'rrevlew"fls....o edJin'Asccordsnce"twitl1.,tl1e [ocedU'reksef..f8r1:11.'..ln'tl1e
sectiOI1.
6- ~. Areas Zoned RR, RS, SF, IRH and MF with a -D Overlay Regulating
Height. No new construction, addition or improvement thereof shall be erected or
enlarged on any lot that lies within the RR, RS, SF, RH or MF districts that have
a -D overlay regulating height until a minor use permit for viewshed review is
obtained, in accordance with the procedure set forth in this section.
~ 1. Areas Zoned PD. The viewshed review process would not apply to
properties situated in approved planned developments with required architectural
review of all new or remodeled residences by the city or by the development's
board.
Amend Table 16.20.050-A
Minimum Lot Size For Parcels with Slope .Greater Tfian 7%
2oRlooslf.ne't
iliiilding site
area for flag
'iois,
Ii
,Ratio
iMaximum
iDepth to
IWidth
"'I~~"-""
,3:1
I
,Percent
'of
IGrOUnd
;Surface
:to
'Remain
'in
.Natural
IState
120%--'-
Minimum
Topography :Area
".~---_...__.. 0--'--".'.'--"-----
7 - 110,000 s.f.
;15%
'slope
Minimum
HMinimum . Average
...liFrontage .' Depth
......"-.1180 (eel-'-- i'10feet"'"
.15 - :20,000 s.f.
125%
Islope
,1100 feet
,
.!
--- 11-50 feel
-- fi-i-m--------
,
i
I
,
,
I
50%
,
Ii
I:
ii
ji
.25%
.and
'uo
NIA"
iNIA"
"
!;
.~-...-rNIA" ---
INIA"
00%"
':
3
'"'"'~"~"<:'''''''!J:!'''~~'''''_.''''
Amend Section 16.32.020 Residentiallil~~~~(R!i!) Districts.
A. Residential Estate (RE) District. The RE district is intended to
permit single-family residential development on estate size lots
commensurate with the rural character and lifestyle of adjoining
county developments. This district is intended as an area for
development of low density, large lot, single-family detached
residential dwelling units at a maximum density of 1.0 dwelling unit'
per 2.5 gross acres.
B. Residential Hillside (RH) District. The primary purpose of the RH
district is to provide for and protect rural atmosphere and lifestyles,
as well as to provide for protection of existing hillside areas in
accordance with general plan policies. This district is intended as
an area for development of low density, large lot, single-family
detached and small lot single-family detached residential dwelling
units at a maximum density of 1.0 dwelling unit per 1.5 gross acres.
Cluster development is encouraged in order to protect the
environment. Other uses may be considered through a planned unit
development or similar mechanism.
C. Rural Residential (RR) District. The primary purpose of the RR
district is to provide for and protect rural atmosphere and lifestyles.
This district is intended asan area for devel()pmentoflow density,
large lot residential '(1YI'i::~2r~!lr9~~RI!1Jlli:lliir-nfj~r2~j'!'~~) dwelling
units at a maximum density of 1.0 dwelling unit per 1.0 gross acre.
D. Residential Suburban (RS) District. The primary purpose of the RS
district is to provide a transition between rural and urban density
development areas, and to provide for a suburban lifestyle on
residential lots larger than those commonly found in suburban
subdivisions. This district is intended as an area for development of
moderate sized lot, single-family detached residential dwelling units
at a maximum allowable density of 2.5 dwelling units per gross
acre.
E. Single-Family Residential (SF) District. The primary purpose of the
SF district is to provide for residential development on common
sized suburban lots. This district is intended as an area for
development of single-family detached r,esi8ential, small lot single-
family detached residential;~h~;.;m9.~i!~b!'lIl:l!3~ at a maximum
allowable density of 4.5 dwelling units per gross acre.
F. Village Residential (VR) District. The primary purpose of the VR
district is to provide for residential uses while preserving the
character of those areas which are historic or close to historic
structures. More particularly, the village residential district is
intended to protect historical resources which add interest, identity
and variety to older neighborhoods, contributing to the area's
4
J.
G.
quality of life by providing a visual focus on the city's rural heritage.
The district is intended as an area for the preservation and
development of single-family detached homes at a maximum
allowable density of 4.5 dwelling units per gross acre.
CondominiumlTownhouse (MF) District. The primary purpose of the
MF district is to provide for a variety of residential uses, encourage
diversity in housing types with enhanced amenities (common open
space and recreation areas), or provide transitions between higher
intensity and lower intensity uses. This district is intended as an
area for development of small lot single-family detached, single-
family attached, and multifamily attached residential dwelling units,
Planned Unit Developments, condominiums, and certain senior
housing types, at a maximum allowable density of 9.0 dwelling units
per gross acre.
Multifamily Apartment (MFA) District. The primary purpose of the
MFA district is to provide a broadened range of housing types for
those not desiring detached dwellings on individual parcels, and
with open space and recreational amenities not generally
associated with typical suburban subdivisions. This district is
intended 'as an area for development of single-family attached and
multifamily attached residential dwelling units, and certain senior
housing types at a maximum allowable density of Ql~:{~I1'(t1)
,";;....,.,-~w"'-,y~';- ';'-
fourt~~~\(~~)d",,~lli~gunit,sper.Qross.~~~~,:,. ................... ",""'. ....
~.l'-lI1!gr~;J:-1gl"l~i!'!g(~B) Multi4Farnilv(:SlerMHian,Der:'isitV,i'(MFVH)
District. The purpose of the ~~'MFiMHdistficti~t~ provide suitable
locations for the provision of \ferM fiial'flaenSjt\f~muHi"farrlfiv housing
i!:"jjif1!'~~:n,'i'itiii"!nT'''I"1l'FT;':r;;;;".;:tl;~i<!iililmp!m;;;mo~;;;i!H'':i:' ''-;;:.,.,' ";Lii.iW;(h:"7'i'::i'i;:;;;,; -- :;;;\1 .
!:IQ.~Jg!1Qg.:;;:)nclualna:"'lf!!!.>5JtI!1~1',1~!~ ~ fjouslna>.~:f?r. senior and
handicapped citizens, in!;l!l;lgilil9 independent livina, congreQate
c.~.~e:~~s.isted living, and convalescent living arrangements. .~erlibt
housinaridevelopments within the $R~IIiIE.VRi district may ~hOlII be
age-restricted to senior citizens (for nonhandicapped households)
~~:;'mt~;~~+17.~~(~~..",R,~~~!~~'~"'ii~Y",;~:~.~~~......!.~.~,;,jli~~~im~~'.~p;;~~~',!,~;'~~R.'g
H.
I.
;:,';:f8r'f -: -';'ihtt""i"'-';'!:;~~'~""--'- -----;----i-l-"'m;~,~,.,"'_",,_'~i"!.' -,:'.:!:;. "',',':'!'1'"r":",,,,'.:?;iith;:,i,:,:?:^_;1nn::,[;:-::;;--->-/;;:_;;;_-__<;^Jj'Hit-",. -~-J:U;;;;;:M"''',",":M
~tf~Qg~m~6J:fJ.L-shall be tl'lii1y:fQIlr;;;.(~1):':)twentV+fiveT,f25) dwelling
units per gross acre.
Mobilehome Park (MHP) District. The purpose of the MHP district is
to provide suitable locations for the development of mobilehome
parks and subdivisions as a means of providing a range of housing
5
types as called for in the general plan housing element. The
maximum allowable density shall be M tWelve(12) dwelling units
per gross acre.
Amend Section 16.32.030
Districts.l
IS.?
[Residential
Densities
for
Residential
..For all single familv residential units within a residential zoning
district.eachdwellimi unit counts. as onedensitv unit. For multi
familvdwellinaswithin a residential zonina district. a 1 bedroom or
studio is equal to 0.5 unit and a 2 bedroom and above is eaual to
1.0uniLDensitv in Mixed Use .districts are defined in Section
16.36,030,C:2~
13; The ultimate density allowed in any residential district shall be
determined through the residential land division and land use
permit and approval review process and public hearings as
described in Chapters 16.12, 16.16 and 16.20 of this title. The
planning commission and city council shall have the authority to
reasonably condition any residential development to ensure proper
transition and compatibility to' adjacent residential developments,
existing or proposed.
Amend Table 16.32.040-A, Section A (Residential uses)
[Uses Permitted Within Residential Districts]
Legend
P
PP
MUP
PUD
Permit
C
NP
Permitted
Permitted SuBject to Plat Plan Review
Minor Use Permit
Permitted Subiect to Issuance of a Planned Unit Develooment
Permitted Subject to Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit
Not Permitted
USE RE RH RR RS SF VR MF MFA $R* MHP
Dl2;4~ MFW
A.
Residential
Uses
1. Single- P P P P P ~ P" P" NP NP
family Mup
detached
(standard lot
sizes)
2. Small lot NP ~ NP NP ~ P P NP NP NP
single-family pUO eUD PUD pUb
6
USE RE RH RR RS SF VR MF MFA SlR~ MHP
~"'7""";:';-'-'a: IIIIEW
D.2.4
detached
(eV~
p~[ffll! .n
3. Single- NP R NP NP ~ NP P R NP NP
RUD ;,;"Jj,",-_ PUD eOO
family PUID
attached (twin
home,
triplex,
fourplex)
fPtID
~
. ...,
4. Condomini NP NP NP NP NP NP C C C NP
um (air space)
fGIJ.P
5. Multiple- NP NP NP NP NP NP MUP MUP ~ NP
family B
attached (2 -
4 units)
6. Multiple- NP NP NP NP NP NP C C ~ NP
family MOl?
attached (5 or
more
units)
7. e e e e e e e e e e
Mobile-
home
subdivis
ions
8. e e e e e e e e c e
Mobile-
home
loarks
9. N N N N N N e e e N
Boardin p P P P P P P
g/roomi
ng
houses
10. N N N N N N e e e N
Senior p p p p p p p
indepen
dent
living
uses
11. N N N N N N e e e N
ConQre p p p p p p p
7
USE RE RH RR RS SF VR MF MFA $R" MHP
15:;2,4" MFVa
gate
care,
assiste
d living
12. N N N N N N C C C N
Conval p p p p p p p
escent
care
13. p P P P P P P P P P
Reside
ntial
care
facility
(6 or
fewer
persons
14. Bed N C C C C C C C N N
and p p p
breakfa
st inns
15. p P P P P P P P P P
Second
resident
ial
dwelling
unit
16. p P P P P P P P P P
Small
family
day
care (6
or fewer
children
NOTE~FUt1 TE:((:'fOFTAI3LE (SECTrONSBTflROUGHG IN TABLE 1632,~Oj
NOT SHOWN .
Nates:
· Senier FesieleAtial (SR) zenEr limits resielential ~ses te senier,citizens,
· Architectural review is required for the Historic CharacterOverlav Dilitrict 0-2.4
oar Section 16:S2.050.F.1andin accordance>with 16.16:130 throuah the permit
approval process for conditional use. planned unit development. or minor use
~rmit for architectural review.
If parcel area is below minimum building site area.
Amend Table 16.32.050-A
8
Residential Site Development Standards - Single Family Zones (Note to
codifier: Hiqhli hted asterisks are deletions)
RE RH RR RS SF VR
I Maximum 0.4 0.67 1.0 2.5 4.5 4.5
density
(DU's per
gross acre)
2. Minimum 92,500' 49,000 40,000 12,000 7,200 6,750
building
sitea (Net [reduced lot
area In sq. sIze allowed
ft.) new with
subdivisions conveyance of
open space In
perpetuity]
3. Minimum 200' 130' 120' 80' 70' 50'
lot width'
new subdivisions
4. Minimum 250' 200' 200' 100' 100' 100'
lot depth new
subdivisions
5. Minimum 50'0'1, 35'.* 35'~ 25'. 20'. 15'~
front
yard"
- New
subdivisions of
5+ lots
.. . ... ....:' ':':rilfiiilin(j Setbacks"iistedabove' ottlieaverage seiiiack:;;fStructures'toiii.e'street';;n ....
additions eithersitle imtl directl across block front for nronemes in the same tlistrict.
6. Minimum 30'* 10% of 10% of lot 5' one side, 10' Infill- 5'; 5'*
interior lot witlth* other side ""(for New
side yard width" lots < 12.000 subtlivision.=
setback" sq. ft. use SF) 5' one sitle.
10' other
sitle~
7. Minimum 30'. 15% of 15% of lot 15'* 15'* 10'*
street side lot width width*
yard
setback*
8. Minimum 50'* 40'* 25'. 20'* 10' (1 story) 10 {I'
rear yard (For lots <: 15' (2, story)
setback" 12.000 sa. ft. story)~ 15' (2-
use SF) story)
9. Maximum 35%
lot coveraged
10. Maximum
30%
(For lots
<10,000 sq. ft.
use SF)
30' or 2 stories, whichever IS less, 14' for accessory builtlings
35%
35%
40%
40%
9
RE RH IRR ' IRS SF VR "
height for
buildings
and
structures
II. Minimum 20' 20' 6', 10' 10' 10'
distance ,
between
building
(including
mam
dwellings
and
accessory
structures)'
Amend Table 16.32.050-8
Residential Site Development Standards
M If I F .1 d Oth Z
u :rpre amllY an er ones
MF M FA SR--MFVH MHP
1 Maximum density 9.0 44-,Q 25.0 M
(DU's per gross 14';0\ 12.0
acre) O?~~Fri9t:inp,l~aea~nsit\l',b,?n~~::?~>~~~~da,bl~~OUSihQ,mh~111~~i~~111:a.Il?Wa61~
d~n~it\l'..,:,...fo[(;oriare~ate'."..,.,?~.~~;"""',a~i~i,~t;dd',livinp;"",,::,.':ana,':...pp~~~,1~~.p~nt..':'..':',li."ing
arrangements"shall,:6ethiltV"fol.lr:(34),'dwellinilil.lnitS',per'Qross:.'acre,'asallowea"ibv
statelaWJ ,
2 Minimum building 1 0,000 1 0,000 20,000 5 acres9
site
(Net area in sq
ft. )
3. Minimum lot 80' 80' 80' 60'9
widthC
4. Minimum lot 1 00' 1 00' 1 00' 1 00'9
depth
5. Minimum front 20'. 20'. 20' 20'
vard setback
6. Minimum interior 1 0'. 1 0'. 1 0' 5'
side vard setback
7. Minimum street 1 0'. 1 0'. 1 0' 1 5'
side yard setback
8. Minimum rear Average 1 5'" Average 1 5,n Average 1 5,n 5'
yard
setback
9. Maximum lot 40% 45% 60% I 50%
coveraCled
10
10. Maximum height 30' or 2 30' or 2 30' or 2 stories, 30' or 2
for buildings and stories, stories, whichever is stories,
stru ctu res whichever is whichever is less, 14' for whichever
less, 14' for less, 14' for accessory is less, 14'
accessory accessory buildings for
buildings buildings accessory
buildinos
11. Minimum 10' 10' 10' 5'
distance between
buildings
(including main
dwellings and
accessory
structu res)e
Notes to Tables 16.32.050A and B: Residential Site Development Standards
(Note to codifier: Footnotes d through; are not shown.)
"If a let is located'Nit-RiA a r-eslsentialzene'aFid "':.'3& createdp~or to luna
1 J,1 991; effsst!\'e' j;jateaftl:le~eval~ilmol1t Gada, buila iFi€lsmtiy' Ga~fOr:m
witf-l, fl:leElet~~sK a~~ "Ia~ "S9VeFa!l~ "~ttitidard,fil,,, 01 )!1!il:,IH.Q'tiQ,\!~ '~aAQ ,(IG
outliRed iA :'\I'lf3eAd}XC:W: D 2.1 9 , .. , ' ,
. 'Infill Developmento" a Parcel: Within a . Previouslv.approved ,Proiect.
Where the ciWhas' established, specific 'setbackreduirements for. sinole"
familv or. multifamilv residential parcels throuoh the' aoprovalof a specific
plan. subdivision map. Planned Unit; Development or'otherentitlement
those' setbacks shall aoplv ; toinfill. development and; additions within. the
;;<,';<;;',;;,/:<;:;;;,-:':-',;::;;-,;:';-';::>;;;;,:;:;',:;.:.....;;:.:::.;...;......;::.::.;:.::-.;:..::.'..;::"-::":;;'::"';';',;..;-'::"";.-.;:-;.-.;.;:.;:..,;.:;:.;:._,.-....;:.;.;....:.:;-.:;>,.....;.'::...:.;...::.;;:::::;.,.::.;:.':.:;:.,.;..;..;..........;......................,..........;........;....;..............}.);....;;..;.......................<....;
approved proiect instead of the setbacks re~uired bv~this Title.
~See Taelb 16;32;050 !'..formiriimQmlot>Gize6~ fer parsels.....rt~ slaee
Qr:eateF'tl:laA sew:~A",efSeAt. Onslooinq;terrain. standards for oarcel,siie
~halrincrease, with' increasinaslooe asorovidedin 16:20.050~A. · 'As
an option. .an areaeauaJ to ,the> area required. to meet the densitv
requirementsmav 'be<dedicatedasooen soacein 'Order toreduc~the
minimum lot size:. The open space area. shalf be eittlerdedicateClto
"......,......'......'..',......,...._,,_....'_"_',',"....,',',,',,',..........,',',',....._"_,....,_',',..,,,','....,,.......,','....>',,'....,,',',..>',',',.....,'.'",..,','"'"'"...._,,:_......_'..-..',,f,",,,',....~........,',,"',',''....','"',,',.....',',,',,'_i.,,....', ,.....',....,......"",..',':"'..'..,....'..'".."..,..,..',','..';.,;,,,..,'..........,',.._..,....',........,.'.';,;..,........,..,'....,..............,'..,.';,J.'>....,..;....11'
theCitv. or.protectedbvaoeroetual' oDensoaceneasement . O'r
aoreement.at the.>ootionof the chv;
b Area shall be increased to five acres for slope conditions exceeding
twenty (20) percent.
C Width measurements for cul-de-sac or otherwise odd-shaped lots shall
be determined on the basis of the average horizontal distance between
the side lot lines, measured at right angles to the lot depth at a point
midway between the front and rear lot lines.
Amend Sections 16.32.050 (B) and (C)
B. Special Residential Development Standards.
11
1. Public and quasi-public uses. within any residential district shall
maintain a minimum setback of fifty (50) feet measured from the
property line from any single family district.
2. In any residential district, front yard setbacks in subdivision
developments may be reduced by twenty (20) percent subject to
approval of a conditional use. permit, provided the average of all
such setbacks is not less than the minimum required for the district.
3. In all residential districts, air conditioners, heating, cooling
ventilating equipment and all other mechanical, lighting or electrical
devices shall be so operated that they do not disturb the peace,
quiet and comfort of neighboring residents and shall be screened
from surrounding properties and streets. Additionally, no such
equipment with the exception of ground mounted air conditioning,
shall be located in the required front yard setback, street side yard
setback, or closer than twenty (20) feet to any residential dwelling
on adjacent properties. All .equipment shall be installed and
operated in accordance with all other applicable city ordinances.
4. Developments offive or more dwelling units in the SF,HIi;!1MF:1: MFA
....;.'.;.'TiT'n,"".'.......':T.ri'
and ~RJMF'iZ1'I districts shall be required to provide front and street
side yard landscaping consistirtg of predominantly CirouaHt:resistant
plant materials, except for necessary walks, drives and fences.
5. In the tlISCME, MFA, and MHP districts, a minimum of thirty-five (35)
percent of the site area shall be landscaped. bbnsistillaJof
predomlnantlv dro'uaHti1Wfesista'nt PlamiJ:materlals, and/or provided
with an adequate underground irrigation system. The required
landscaping shall include required setback areas and may include
outdoor recreation areas.
6. In the Hf;..>Mlti Ht",,~:MItA and ~!RforV1F"'iZH districts, multi-family
attached or singleEfamily attached dwelling unit's exceeding one
story in height shall maintain a minimum setback of twenty (20) feet
from any single-family residential district.
C. Additional Standards for the Development of Senior Housing
Developments.
1. All senior housing developments within the ~B.MF:Vffl district shall
be age restricted to senior citizens to the extent permitted by state
law.
2. Within two-story attached residential developments, elevators shall
be provided that shall have an alternative back-up power source
and meet or exceed minimum state requirements, subject to review
by the planning commission.
3. An internal and/or external security system shall be provided by the
developer and reviewed and approved by the chief of police.
12
Amend Section 16.32.050.E. Additional Performance Standards for Planned
Unit Developments
1. When lot sizes less than those per,!!itted by the underlying zoning
district are proposed for a residential subdivision, a planned unit
development permit application (Section ~6.~61060l1~;I~.~1~) shall
be submitted concurrently with the subdivision application.
2. Lot size, lot width, and lot depth for each unit shall be determined
through the planned unit development review process.
3. Building setbacks required by the underlying zoning district may be
reduced or waived for lots created through a planned unit
de,':'.~t<;>ETent, provi.~~9...".theitea.~ir~a.E'.~~t.~aCk!;".are.......usE!fCl...'.fo,.......the
oeriiTfetet...OfJlhe....Proh9ct!..area iif,"oecessar;y'.ito'.'achieve'l!coi:1sistencv
witl:\!ttffiel!'ctlaracter.'6fi!tfleii'Clistfict;'anCl the lot coverage requirements
of the district are met for the project. 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.
A"d(jWSectlon';;;16J~1020(ID)'Standaras;;fo.r..iAdopted~besian~DeveIopmint
(:)verlav'Disti'ict$
'A.; Desiqn.DeveIooment Overiay.. District AG~0~2.1 - Thirty-five' acres
between Strother Park and iBrarnbhMil1 Road.iAdootedbv 0i'aioance 153
e.s. Mioirri'um . Parcel size 'five":t5) acremiiiimum.' Noottler!!ladditional
standards!
EE [besion !OeveiOpment'GVeriay;i'[)jstrlctiFvcifjJID'!:'2\4~.viiiiU'b~2:4:iJ!;VR:br2l4~
... SF D.2.4'ik~ncf;MF 0.2:4 Referred to astnet'Historic CharaCler!'iOiterlav
District. 'Appr6ved by Ordimariee439C:S..to'soed/yiDesign";Guidelihes
and Standards'for. Development. Guidelines:;a'nd ... Stahdardsfor'.Historic
Districts apply~and. are 'onfileliiil:the CommunitV:lDeveloomerit. Department.
NoothediaClitionalstancliirds~
t>: DesianDeveioomenfovetia~' : District . RS-D::2'.6... Vicinity -;6f:Newport
>',",;'-'-';""';' ...... ,--;';-'''';'; .._>/;....;.. ,_;,';,,;' ", ,','" .. ,-c-,-,-,_.... ....: ;',': '.. --j"'"f.:<'-::':"':":":: ',.::0": .. ,-:,- ,.".. '":",>,,,.-....-:: .... "".:",'v_': : -"T ....,.:::.::..:::.:' .': ,,:.:.:::.:::.::. :....".:.:.::.::::.:...: .-.,.-.:.....,. "'-', --W' ',"-:::' .. ;'<',f<-',
Avenue, ?'Aooroved,bYnOrdinance, 360>C.S:~j;"Maximum~heiQnt.:for. all
orooerties.exceot:200 Hillcrest Avenue.(APN:.'67t~d6~ ~01.i:'~1I1(jH);j5:' twoJ
13
stories thafshallnotexceed 30' :and not)ulldina ,shall exceed 15' from the
hiallest DOint of the net buildinoarea insidereauiied yard setbacks: For
the propertvat 200 Hillcrest (APN071;~061..::.o14and:015Lconstruction of
new residential struCtures subiecf to obtainino,a'minof use permiUor
Viewsl'iedReview: minimum lot width: m60 feef' for ,residential uses:'
minimum lot deptn: 90,feet f\lootlier, additional standards!
t;.DesionDevelopment Overlav District SF D~2,7. Vicinity of Ruth Anne
Wav:Approved' bvOrdinance 138' C.S!, Maximum buildinolleiaht 22'feet
ffomestablished curb heioht aPDlicableto lots, 1,2.3 of Tract 554: Lots 1 &
2 of Parcel Map AG 73-383:and.Lot1 ot:ParcelMaDAG 74~293:0ther
lots have a'maximum heiohtof ,18 feet fromestablishedncurb.with the
potential to increase to a maximum. heiohtof 22feetif 1) tlie floor area for
a second-storvdoes n'6texceed'50% of the first storv: 2lanv roof .area
that is proposed to.exceedtheheiohUimitof 18-fLlleiaht shall notexceed
50% of the total..floor.area: 3)a minor use permit for ViewshedReview.
includino :installation 'ofnstorv.' poles. nis submitted. to, the Plannino
CommissioriifOrreview andactiori! No other additional standards;
F. DeslonDevelopment Overlay District RR D-2.9. VicinitV of Miller Way!
ApprovedbliOidinance 439.C.S. Resolution No. 1185 approved tract 577:
for cluster' sinole familv . hillside develobment witli ."Obtional [lesion 'and
Improvement "Standards"n with condition of tract approval for deed
restrictions to provide for riomore than.'271ots. No additional, standards.
G. Desion Development Overlav [)istrlct:RR 0-2::1<0. Vicinitv.of Milier Way.
ADDrovedbVOidinance 439!C!S:. Resdlution. No. . 76456 approVed tract
599 for cluster simile familv, hillside.develoDmeritwith ,"Optional" Desion
Standards"..to allow 14 lots on 12:57 acres; Lots witnless4han85 feet
froritaaereduired to have s50 ,ft. front yard setback to. allow-for offstfeet
oarkina.
H: Desion Development Overlav [)istrictsVMU D~2.H: TMU[)-2,11;HMU [)~
2.11 andPF D~211: ,AoDrovedibv Ofdimirice 439.C:S;tospecifYDesion
Guidelines and Standards for Development. . See Guidelines, and
Standards for theD!2.11.
I. Desion Develooment,Overlav District 2'.20:
, MedicaLMixed Use
Obiectiveof District; . To provide forsufflcieht land forn the
,.. "",, ., '.'-"""" "___ '.' '-'-'" " "'''''', " ,,' '",. :!f,^ ' " : ^,^,^ ". :":>^^,,c, ,,':: " 'P,^,' .. ,',^:',^ ^,^
development of Arrovo., Grande" Hospital, and, "functionallv
medical facilities,
orderlv
related
Descrlption:ofParcels: ',' APNs: 006-39-044..046. 047. 048; and
049 (see'ZohinaMap OMU~D-2i20, l
14
Use Reaulations: .' . Mixedusedeveloorilei:ltwith' a minimum of
75%. of the 'net buildino site (or eQuivalent area:for vertical mixed use
proiects as' determinedbv .tlleCommunitv' Development. Director) shall
bedevelooedfor offlciillJse to be compatible witl:1 the anticipated needs
for .the Arroyo Grande HosoitaL! Deviations UP to 25% (reservlna a
minimum..of 50% of the>net area forofficeuse)mav. be determined to
be acceptable,as'dEltermined bYilCitvCounciCiHhev. are needed to
achieve a loqical imd:conerent site plan that meElts:the objectiveoftllis
district.... All otl'1er uses are as specified. in underlvina zoninodistrict
(OMUr
Site DeveloDITlElntCriteria: . ....... . .
1. As speCified in the underlvino.ionina districUOMUli
2, Three-storVbuildino'" COml>Onents allowed... onlv with substantial
transitionalsl>ace and/or lower stOry elements adiacentto residential
districts or uses.
:t Future hospital.redevefoomentshall Include oublic transportation
imi;>rovements. (reference developmentapprovaICUP02~006. Planning
Commissions Resolutions03-1839.imd021, 1841.)
4. . Maximum wBuildingSize -may . exceed the maximum standard of
50,OOOsauarefeet specified in underlving zoning. district (OMU).
Performance.Standai-ds: Section .16.48.065. Mixed . use
developments. Section 16.48.120!Pertormance Standards:
Desion Guidelines: . none.
Additional.lnformation: . m These, oarcels were zoned . with a. "':D
ovei1av aftlle time .of the. 2004' Develoomenf'Code Update to ClarifY
aevelopmenfstandards .that oertairitothe subiectoarcels(referehce
Ordinance .' 557)' and : amended .bY Ordinance . 581~ Demonstiationof
Droiect comDatibiJitv with the':Arrovo Grande' HosDital';indlor
coordination.with.a.Hosoital Facilities Plan must be:Submitted. to the
Communit\tDeveJbf:)ineilt . Director Drior to any use Dermit aDmuvaJ
within the OMIJ~D~2.20;f:Jistrict.
Amend Section 16.48.060 Development density,
The general plan classifications specify the maximum allowable development
density per gross acre of land owned In fee by the applicant (including street
right-of-way that would revert to the property owner if abandoned). Rounding up
to the next whole number is not applicable when figuring density except when
calculating density for the provision of affordable housing or for mixed use
districts where rounding to the next half number is appropriate. Density for mixed
use districts Is discussed in Sectlon111l~~11l:(tIij9;1e;3e$OaOFC.i
15
Amend Section 16.52.150.C.5. - Table 16.52.150-A. Maximum Size.
Table 16.52.150-A defines the maximum square footage allowed for a
second dwelling in each residential zoning district. In no case shall the
square footage of a second dwelling exceed fifty (50) percent of the square
footage of the primary residence.
Table 16.52.150.A
1~().r1!r1ll.~_es i.!;I n_~ti()r1___m_______ ......
Village Residential (VR)
.......,-......",.........-----.-
Single Family (SF)
.-. - ........".....~~.
IResidential Suburban
I(RS)
".'"'"~~~_,__ 'w_________ __
Maximum Size of
Second Dwelling
640 square feet
;
850 square feet I
. .. a)ilfiLot~:r~~fooo..---. .... J
;ni~lIi'i'if"i'''I''''''."-,,'',',''!',,..,,''''!l.'''., ;i":"~"'-
sauafe,feettHen"J:200
$~;tllirei'fe~t
':;"';""""':;:;;"':,~-' :':;r;:""";'~
b),If'IJot!;,,;12i000
satiafe\Ieetrit850
square feet
,-@",".~.'.....".._.__..._._-_._. ,.
1,200 square feet
.'-,-"--"'-"--~.'--'.'...__.----_.'''-,---,,,,,,----,..
1,200 square feet
1,200 square feet
1,200 square feet
i
i
'j
!Residential Rural (RR)
IResi<ieniiafHmside(RHy---m- ......
iResidential Estate (RE)
Condominium I
Townhouse (MF)
..-..............-.....-
Apartments (MFA)
..... .................-.-.-.........
:~e._r1!()~~Housin~;\~~L; .
jMobile Home Park
!(MHP)
1,200 square feet
.... ... ..1,200s9LJare feet
i Not Permitted (NP)
16
11
ATTACHMENT 1
Table 1 - Review of actions and recommendations for Development Code update relating to residential districts
Date
10/18/05
I'
I
11/15/05
12/6105
1117/06
2/23/06
6/6106
8/1/06
DCA-04-0051
Aaenda Item
PC discussion item; general
overview of issues concerning
residential districts, Mixed Use
issues by guest speaker George
Garcia
PC discussion item Minimum
Site Area and Measurement of
Density in Multi-Family Districts
PC Public Workshop on Design
Development Overlay Districts
2.3, 2.9 and 2.10
PC - continued to allow for
additional Dublic workshoD
Public Workshop; discussion of
development standards and
solicitation of public comment for
D-overlay districts
PC Public Hearing: amendments
to Sections 16.04, 16.16. 16.20,
16.32,16.44, and 16.48 and
discussion for all Design Overlay
Districts D-2.2 through D-2.18
PC public hearing- Discussion
of D-2.2; D-2.3, 2.8 and D-2.20
Action
nla
nla
nla - received public comment
nla - received public comment
nla - received public comment
Discussed and Continued to 8/1/06
Reso recommending amendment to 16.12 (appeal
provisions). 16.32.020 (minor text changes),
16.32.030 (Calculation 'of density), 16.32.050
modification of residential dev. standards
Public Notice
nla, non- public
hearing item
nla
Newspaperl all
property owners
within & 300 ft. of
subiect districts
nla
Newspaper and all
property owners
within & 300 ft. of
all D-overlay
districts
Newspaper
Newspaper and
property owners
with i n & 300 ft. of
subiect D-overlav
)>
-I
-I
)>
o
:I:
5:
m
z
-I
....
ATTACHMENT 2
,
v
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
pCTOBER~18; 20_05:.:c..i
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
(A~ Development Code-Amenament CaseN5:-04=005:-workplan-review-for-residentiall
densities r' -~ -'
Associate-Planner, Ms. McClish, stated that to complete the Development Code update,
staff would be bringing forth an Ordinance with proposed amendments to Title 16
chapters 16.32 (Residential Districts), 16.48 (General Development Standards) and
16.80 (Affordable Housing) to maintain consistency between the Municipal Code and
the 2001 General Plan and Housing Element update. Ms. McClish then reviewed the
proposed amendments under the heading of "Other". She stated that in addition to the
items listed, residential parking standards would also be reviewed in the update. In
addition, the schedule in the staff report may need to be modified due to the priority of
the Creek setback study.
PAGE 8
In reply to a question from Chair Brown, Ms. McClish clarified there is a provision in the
Development Code regarding reverting back to pre-1991 setback standards and staff
will present alternatives to remove this provision. In reply to a question from
Commissioner Parker, Ms. McClish explained that the provision would be looked at first
by area in single family zones, then multi-family zones and include antiquated small lot
sub-divisions.
Commissioner Parker stated that the PUD in mixed-use, multi-family should be
reviewed because in some cases very large homes are being requested.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Tait, Ms. McClish explained that the creek
setback study is being done concurrently with the Development Code update.
The Commission had no further comments or questions.
Mr. Strono stated that architect Georoe Garcia was present and would like to address
the Commission on mixed-use development.
George Garcia, Garcia Architecture and Design, spoke at length and passionately about
mixed-use projects. Mr. Garcia stated that he is seeing a lot of mixed use with both
small lots and infilllots. He described his experience with local communities (both with
City planning departments and the public) and stated the main issues and concerns that
he sees repeatedly with mixed-use projects are parking, density and height.
Commissioner Fellows asked why so many mixed-use projects are coming forward and
if they are successful? Mr. Garcia replied that they are successful and that the
residential portion is popular because of affordability and the fact that they sell quickly.
Mr. Garcia then gave examples of such projects in the County. He stated that parking
requirements are always at the top of the list, but there are alternatives to onsite
parking: a key element in design is diversity (providing a variety of housing for a variety
of needs): affordable housing should be integrated.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
OCTOBER 18, 2005
PAGE 9
In reply to Commissioner Parker, Mr. Garcia stated that vertically integrated mixed-use
projects which allow more density are typically seen in downtown projects (like the
Village) and can be encouraged using cost as a tool; separate units with parking lots
between cost a lot more; phasing is also discouraged as that also costs more. Mr.
Garcia agreed with Chair Brown that with vertical mixed-use it is important to educate
the community to show how it works and why it is a good thing.
The Commission thanked Mr. Garcia for the information on mixed-use projects and
stated that they would like to have him come back.
B. Develo ment Code Amendment Case No. 05-010' w k Ian review for The Arro 0
Grande Creek Setback Policv and Standards studv
Ms. McClish presented the staff report for a prelimin work plan for a creek setback
study and stated that on September 2th the City ouncil adopted a 45-day interim
urgency Ordinance prohibiting development on operties adjacent to the creeks or
areas within 25-feet of top of creek bank or edg of riparian vegetation (or whichever is
greater). She explained that this is a prohibiti on new applications for development,
and does not affect anything that is in the pi eline. It is to allow time for staff to study
the foreseeable ramifications of allowing de lopment in these areas and to recommend
regulations that may be deemed necessa or appropriate.
Ms. McClish .then stated that an exte sion of the Ordinance would go to City Council
November 8, 2005, to review the p ential issues related to impacts on public health,
safety and welfare and to consid if an extension of the Ordinance is warranted to
continue the necessary studies. he work plan being suggested was adapted from the
City of San Luis Obispo and t e City of Berkeley from creek projects that have been
developed. The work pia is divided into three objectives: definitions, setback
provisions and consistency ith watershed policy. Staff will be coming forward with a
development code amen ment to establish an open space overlay district. Staff is
hoping to complete wor on this by Spring 2006.
VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM NO COMMENTS:
In answer to the Commission, Mr. ong gave an update on the Nelson Green paving
and stated it would be on the AR genda November 7, 2005.
Regarding Consent Agenda ems, Mr. Strong stated that he had been out sick for the
last two weeks, but he wo d endeavor to increase his discretion and not allow projects
to be added at the elev th hour that were not on the agenda. In addition, staff would
also communicate h the Chair regarding larger scale projects in the Village
Commercial and Vi ge Mixed-Use areas for planned distribution prior to consent.
The Commissio said they were in favor of information being faxed or emailed to them if
it would help ,staff relate information to them quicker
(
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
rNOVEMBER 15, 2005\
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
PAGE 6
_A. Minimum.Site.Area-and-Measurement'of-Densitv-in-IIi101ti=FamilvDistricts. ?
{Associate Planner,_T:eresa_McClish,-led-a-discussion-with-the-Commission-on-alternatives
regarding measurement and definitions for density in multi family and mixed-use districts in
order to be in compliance with the General Plan. Re Multi-Family (MF) zoning, staff will be
bringing forward some alternatives for consideration to allow minimum site areas to be
smaller and more in line with what the density would allow (something less than 5,000 sq ft).
Re the Multi-Family Apartments (MFA) zoning, staff is not proposing to make any changes
at this time as we are trying to keep bigger lots for apartments (rental units).
VII. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND CO
None.
VIII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECT R COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP:
Mr. Strong stated that Tentative Parcel Map nd Planned Unit Developrnent Case Nos. 01-
001 (formerly Tract 1998), recommended f r denial by the Planning Commission, would be
going to City Council Novernber 22, 2005.
Mr. Strong then stated that early ne year staff would be providing the Commission and
City Council a calendar to give an verview of the simultaneous work programs under
review.
In conclusion, Mr. Strong info ed the Cornrnission of a "Low Impact Development
Workshop" on Friday, Novernb r 18, 2005, at the Embassy Suites, San Luis Obispo.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourne
ATTEST:
ITH
THE COMMISSION
TIM BROWN, CHAIR
ROB ST ONG,
COMMU ITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 5
MINUTES
(D~CEMBER 6, 2009
B~PUB[lC-WORKSHOP-TO CONSIDER A[TERNATIVES-FOR~THE----,
L-MODlFICATIOWOF-DESIGN-OVERLAY-D1STRICTS-D;2:3;-Do2:9-AND-Do2:1 O~
(DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-005); LOCATION - IN
THE VICINITY OF MILLER WAY AND VIA LA BARRANCA
Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, presented the staff report and stated that as part of
the City's Development Code Update, several Design Overlays would be discussed in
the next few months; some overlay districts had been put in place by the City well over
20 years ago and had been appended to the City's Development Code.
The three overlay districts D-2.3, D-2.9 and D-2.10, being examined first concerned
neighborhoods in the vicinity of Miller Way and Via La Barranca. The current Rural
Residential (RR) zoning allows for 40,000 sq. ft. minimum lot sizes and one (1) dwelling
unit per acre. In addition, the subject overlay districts involve properties in a hilly region
of the City so discussion will also include the City's provisions regarding development
on slopes exceeding 7%. Ms. McClish further explained the history of the overlay
districts and described the open space overlay. Ms. McClish then described the subject
design overlays, RR-D-2.10, RR-D-2.3 and RR-D-2.9, in detail. She stated RR-D-2.9 is
the most complicated design overlay and it appears that the optional design and
improvement standards were put in place by Resolution 1885, before the map was
approved, restricting the tract to no more than 27 lots; the subdivision is built out; there
may also be CC&R's in effect for this tract; it appears thaf the overlay could be
removed; there may be deed restrictions placed on these properties which would restrict
any further subdivision, but it is unknown whether each and everyone of these
properties has a deed restriction.
Ms. McClish further stated that staff is also considering a change in the RR districts in
the City to reduce the minimum lot size from 40,000 to 20,000 square feet without
changing the density (this would allow clustering without going through any more
Planned Unit Developments (PUD); this would also change many non-conforming
parcels to become conforming as a large portion of the properties in this neighborhood
are already less than the 40,000 square feet. Slope provisions would still prevail, but
not exceed 25% and could be clustered to avoid the slopes. If the RR zoning were.
changed there would be some potential subdivisions available and in many cases these
would only be with a provision of a density bonus (consistent with the City's Housing
Element) and would be restricted to affordable housing.
In conclusion, Ms. McClish explained that if the overlays were removed and the RR
district changed to 20,000 square foot lot sizes, there could be up to six lots that may be
subdivided into two in the three different neighborhoods combined. Any ordinance with
proposed zoning changes would have to be accompanied by environmental review as it
appears there could be some significant impacts associated with this proposal. At this
time we are just looking at these neighborhoods and are seeking to find out, 1) if the
property owners in these districts are interested in having the overlays lifted and, 2) if
they are interested in changing the underlying zoning to indicate a 20,000 square foot
lot size. In some cases, if the overlay was removed it could change the status in some
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DECEMBER 6, 2005
PAGE 6
properties from conforming to potentially legal non-conforming zoning. However, if a
property owner wanted to make changes staff would just need to make sure that they
were in conformance with the existing zoning setbacks etc. and not in conflict with the
RR zoning.
Chair Brown wanted clarification that the changes were being brought forward to clean
up the Development Code and make it easier to get through the maze of regulations.
Ms. McClish agreed and stated that there are overlays all over the City and staff is
proposing to remove them where it is appropriate and it will make it easier over time to
administer the ordinance.
Chair Brown questioned that if the overlay for RR-D-2.9 is removed (making some
conforming lots into non-conforming) are we making the process more arduous? Ms.
McClish replied that lot size really does not matter unless you want to subdivide or have
a structure close to a lot line.
In reply to concerns from Commissioner Parker, Ms. McClish clarified how this proposal
would move forward if approved; explained in more detail how the modifications to
standards in the RR district would work and what the environmental review would
involve.
Commissioner Fellows asked for clarification on the "Alternatives" listed in the staff
report and noted that the APN number at the top of Page 4 was incorrect. Ms. McClish
clarified:
. Alternative No.4, last sentence, meant that six lots could come in with
subdivision applications and if all of them were approved at the maximum
number of residential units, it could be as many as 15 lots.
. The table on page 5 shows four total lots so there could be three additional units.
In reply to questions from Commissioner Ray, Ms. McClish stated:
. If the lots are legal non-conforming now, but with the proposed changes become
conforming, it would not make much difference to an owner when they apply for
an addition etc., but would make it easier for staff to review requested to
changes; staff would just have to make sure that that they would be complying
with the setbacks and standards set forth in the code.
. Alternative 1: Potentially, only one lot in the RR-D2.10 (a 4-acre lot) could be
subdivided without the overlay being removed.
Chair Brown opened the hearing to the Public.
Terri Fowler, 212 Miller Way, stated as this was a workshop she wanted to address her
neighbors that were present; after review of the staff report she had strong concerns
that if the development overlay were to be removed (and their properties became
"existing non-conforming use") and a property owner wanted to make changes they
would be required to go before the ARC and Planning Commission; the subdivision was
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DECEMBER 6, 2005
PAGE?
initiated in 1976 and the development overlay was used as the same tool as a PUD is
today. The staff report states, "that the development overlay districts were placed to
ensure that the particular requirements or characteristics for the neighborhood remain
over time". With regard to doing environmental review, is the City going to pay for an
EIR on a piece of property that is totally developed? There is a requirement for our
subdivision that says that Tract 577 should have no more than 27 lots and to have this
condition removed we would have to go before the Planning Commission for approval
(and there would have to be 100% owner agreement to do this). The one parcel on
Tract 599 that has adequate area to do a second unit is currently designated as an
"open space" area, so they cannot build. Ms. Fowler asked who initiated the request for
the removal of the overlays?
Chair Brown stated that this was a public hearing and Ms. Fowler had now spoken for
approximately 10 minutes; would like to give someone else time to speak, but requested
that they not repeat Ms. Fowler. He then asked the audience for a show of hands on
who agreed with Ms. Fowler's comments that lifting of the overlay goes against it's
original intent and that it would cause homeowners in the future to have to come before
Planning Commission for any changes in their property and cause more complications.
A majority of the audience agreed with Ms. Fowler.
Ms. Fowler then spoke again asking if this proposal was initiated so that the City could
help meet the State's affordable housing requirements? If so, she advised it would be
better to go for secondary units (as allowed by the State).
Doug LeSage, 297 Miller Way, stated his confusion as to why this proposal was being
pursued; he would like to get a copy of the hearing as it would be helpful to anyone
planning a subdivision (so that they could do it legally); asked how it would affect the
rest of the lots in the City to remove overlays and are we the test case; what are the RR
standards to get a second unit? He stated that some time ago there was a land survey
going on in the area and wondered who ordered the survey, who paid the bill and what
lots were being surveyed?
Ms. McClish stated that the City has now completed the commercial update, is
beginning the residential update and this is being done for consistency purposes with
the General Plan; each zoning district is being examined to make. sure there are no
other items to be taken care of whilst we are looking at these districts. This is the first of
several workshops that the City will be holding to determine what potential changes
might come forward in the future in the form of an ordinance.
In reply to a question from Chair Brown, Ms. McClish stated that we now have
provisions in place in the Development Code such as slope provisions etc., which make
the necessity for the overlays ambiguous.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DECEMBER 6, 2005
PAGE 8
In reply to a question from Commissioner Ray, Ms. McClish explained that if the non-
conforming lots were changed to conforming (except in the case of some lots in the RR-
0-2.9) it would not make it more difficult for an owner to come forward with changes.
John Runels, 213 Miller Way; stated concerns that there was a non-conforming property
presently being built right below his property and wondered how this came about? Mr.
Strong explained in detail that this was done through a Lot Line Adjustment application
and that it has nothing to do with the overlay.
Terri Fowler spoke again to clarify that currently the lots in their district were conforming;
they were approved under the development overlay and if the overlay is removed we
would have eight non-conforming lots and would have to return to the City in order to
change this. Ms. Fowler then spoke at length regarding the development that John
Runels had referred to, stating that what was taking place was illegal and should not
have been allowed.
Chair Brown stated that given the level of concern expressed by the public this evening
this proposal should be further discussed at another workshop.
Ms. McClish stated that staff would bring forward example projects in each overlay and
how it would be treated with and without the overlay and the changes.
In reply to a question from Ms. Fowler, Mr. Strong stated that it was the City that had
initiated Development Code Update; it had been on the Department's work program for
2005-06 and is being done in a systematic manner. The City is proposing more
workshops to get input from the public before going forward to make any decisions.
The City's Development Code should be consistent with the 2001 General Plan. Mr.
Strong then described in some detail why the development standards do not work in
many cases and cause extremely complicated administration.
Discussion on RR-D-2.3 Overlav:
Commissioner Fellows requested to be excused from this discussion as he lived within
approximately 300 feet of this district.
Tait:
At this time he had no specific comments on the proposed changes; he would like to
have a lot more information before doing so; he appreciated staff's comments that the
City is just trying to achieve consistency.
Parker:
. Her understanding of the proposal was not the same as the publics. If she
understood correctly (re Page 4 of the staff report) having a second unit on a lot
would not require affordable housing.
. Suggested the changes be put in a direct form with examples to show how they
would affect the individual lot owners rather than how they would affect the
~
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DECEMBER 6, 2005
PAGE 9
General Plan; show the difference as it is now and what would happen with the
proposed change. She believed the public was confused at this point.
Ray:
. Sited that there was a great example in the table on page 4 & 5 of the staff report
. to show what the changes would do; she would like to see more information like
this available, even in public notice to the related neighborhood.
Brown:
. Asked for clarification on comments in the staff report for this overlay. After
clarification from Ms. McClish he stated that this overlay appears fairly simple in
nature and he believed that lifting of it would not cause a material effect on the
property owners; he would still like to see it in chart form showing the differences
and believed he could then approve of this overlay.
Mr. Strong spoke at length explaining that it was not the 0-2.3 overlay that was the
basic problem, but the RR designation; he urged the Commission to discuss in future
public hearings a change of the RR zone to a more appropriate lot size and to eliminate
the 0-2.3 completely. A Development Code Amendment to make the majority of the
lots conforming would simplify the administration.
Ms. Fowler spoke again, asking why the City was not hiring a consultant to prepare this
evaluation as it would be in everyone's best interest and asked why the planning staff is
doing this?
Chair Brown stated that the Planning Department has been charged to do this and if
after going through the process the City Council decides a consultant is required then
they will decide this.
Ms. Fowler replied that if this update is not going to be done by a consultant then it
should be done by a committee.
Discussion on Overlav RR-D.2.9
Commissioner Ray asked to be excused from this discussion as she lived within 300
feet of this district.
Commissioner Fellows returned to the meeting.
The Commission took a 10-minute break.
Commissioner Brown stated that this overlay is more complicated than 0-2.3 and he
would like to have a chart to show optional design and improvement standards before
giving direction on this.
Commissioner Fellows and Parker agreed with Commissioner Brown.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DECEMBER 6, 2005
PAGE 10
Ryan Kelly, 296 Miller Way, asked for more information on Attachment I, of the staff
report.
Ms. McClish gave a detailed explanation of Attachment I, General Plan land Use
designation, Conservation/Open Space Overlay. and in conclusion stated that it's
purpose is to protect areas that should remain in open space and was so designated to
preserve the steep slope areas in this particular canyon.
Mr. Strong explained that the 2001 General Plan shows a conservation overlay in this
specific area, but the Development Code does not reflect this intent; he stated he would
like the Commission to decide where the boundary of the overlay should be after being
provided with more information about the area.
Ms. McClish then described the areas that the General Plan presently encompasses.
Chair Brown asked Ms. McClish to prepare an overhead to show this.
In reply to further comments from Ms. Fowler, Ms. McClish stated that one of the
findings that has to be made with every subdivision is that it must be consistent with the
General Plan; if a particular project included homes in the steepest portions of a lot and
was clearly included in the Conservation Overlay area land use, then this finding would
not be able to made.
Marina Pitkyanen, 312 Miller Way, stated that previously it had been said that the only
parcel in this district that could be subdivided was her parcel; it was a big surprise when
she learned that her house was put in the open space in the General Plan; she
understands what open space is, but she has a big problem with the fire department
and how this area it has to be taken care of.
Chair Brown stated that when this proposal gets into more detail they would be able to
deal with this.
Ms. McClish stated that this discussion would be continued to the January 17, 2006
meeting.
Ms. Fowler requested that the staff report be given to the public two weeks before the
next meeting so the neighbors could get together to discuss this.
Ms. McClish stated she would have the staff report ready by January 3, 2006 for
distribution to the property owners.
Chair Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fellows, to continue the
hearing to the meeting of January 17, 2005 with the staff report prepared for distribution
to property owners by January 3, 2005.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DECEMBER 6, 2005
PAGE 11
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Chair Brown, Commissioner Fellows, Parker, Ray and Tait
None.
None.
IV. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE NO
A public hearing is not required for the following items unless n administrative decision
is appealed or called up for review by the Planning Commissi n through a majority vote:
1. PPR 05-025 Charles 602 Cornwall existing A R. Foster
Sauerbier non-
2. VSR 05-019 Robert Moore 536 Woodland A R. Foster
3. TUP 05-026 EGC Health 1152 E. Grand Ave. A T. Richard
Services
4. CU P 04-008 Joe Timmons 136 Bridge Street A Rob Strong
Mr. Strong stated that Administrative Decision . 4: Case No. Conditional Use Permit
04-008 was not listed on the original Agenda, t had been approved; the interpretation
is to clarify condition No. 14; and that it was to orrect the word "and" to "or".
Commissioner Parker asked for c1arificatio on Administration Item No.1, Plot Plan
Review Case No. 05-025. Mr. Strong exp ined that a Plot Plan Review is required to
accommodate exceptions to the Develo ent Code and why these exceptions were
required in this case.
Commissioner Parker asked if the nei bors were agreeable to this addition and asked
if the deck would hang out over the ighbor's deck? Mr. Strong circulated a copy of
the site plan to the Commission to clarify what was proposed and stated that after
sending out the notice to neighbors within 300 feet they had not received any letters
back.
estions on the Administrative Items and Mr. Strong
eal period on all the items approved.
The Commission had no further
stated that there was a 10-day a
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
None.
VI. PLANNING COMMISS N ITEMS AND COMMENTS:
Commissioner Fellows sta d that an Olive tree had been cut down from the front of
Midstate Bank and also a liialf dozen Pear trees had been removed from Poor Richards
(a few doors away) some ~ime ago; he asked what action the City is taking with Midstate
I
PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2
MINUTES
CJANUARY 17, 2006 ?
II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
CA-;--CONTINUED ITEM: 'PUBLIC WORKSHOP TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES FOR
THE-MODIFICATION of DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICTS 0-2.3, 0-2.9 AND 0-2.10
(DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-005); LOCATION - IN THE
VICINITY OF MILLER WAY AND VIA LA BARRANCA.
Staff requested the Commission continue this item to a special public workshop scheduled
for February 16, 2006, at 5:30 p.m.
Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to continue the
above item the public workshop scheduled for February 16, 2006, at 5:30 p.m. The motion
was approved on a 5/0 voice vote.
B. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 0 -006 & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
CASE NO. 04-005; APPLICANT - R S SHEPPEL; LOCATION - OAK PARK
BLVD. AND JAMES WAY (OAK PAR ROFESSIONAL PLAZA)
Associate Planner, Ms. Heffernon, stated at the applicant had requested this item be
continued to the meeting of February 21, 006, provided that a study session can be held
with the Planning Commission prior to th date (already scheduled for January 24, 2006).
Chair Brown made a motion, seconde by Commissioner Fellows, to continue the above
item to the regular meeting of Februa 21, 2006. Commissioner Ray stated she may not
be able to attend the study sessi n January 24, 2006. Mr. Strong suggested that
Commissioner Ray forward any qu stions she may have to staff after review of the staff
report, but prior to the meeting of J nuary 24; the motion was approved by a 5/0 voice vote.
III. NON-PUBLIC HEARING I EM:
A. PRE-APPLICATION RE IEW CASE NO. 05-015; APPLICANT - SO. COUNTY
VETERINARY CLINIC; OCATION - 270 N. HALCYON
Assistant Planner, Ryan Fo er, presented the staff report for review of conceptual plans to
demolish an existing veteri ary clinic and construct a new two-story clinic on the south end
of property. Mr. Foster discussed the parking, and stated that a Development Code
Amendment may have t be pursued, or a Variance, based on the physical aspects of the
property; the ARC revi ed the project January 4, 2006, and they were supportive of the
overall design of the b ilding, but indicated that they would like to see all onsite Eucalyptus
trees retained even i it. would require some specialized foundation system to do so. In
conclusion, Mr. Fost r stated staff would like the Commission's direction on the parking and
the trees (City pref ence would be to replace the Eucalyptus trees with Redwood trees).
Chair Brown re ested the applicant speak first, explaining that this was not the normal
format; after tha they would take public comment and then the Commission would ask their
questions.
Architects & Joseph Echeverri, Project Manager, presented a model of the
proposed p ject and described the layout; stated their biggest issues are the parking and
the trees 0 the back portion of the site; for safety reasons they had been advised that they
should be removed.
Commi sion questions:
Tail:
(WORKSHOP ?
POTENTIALAMENDMENTS TO
THE RR ZONING DISTRICT AND
DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICTS D-2.3, D-2.9 & D-2.10
CFEBRUARY-23;-2~
AGENDA
I. Welcome (Teresa)
.:. Community Development Department Staff
introductions
Rob Strong, Community Development Director
Teresa McClish, Associate Planner
Ryan Foster, Assistant Planner
Brian Sol~nd, Planning Intern
Tim Ri9ard, Planning Intern
.:. Why you have received a notice
II. Introduction to Residential Zoning Update (Teresa)
.:. Zoning districts and overlay districts
.:. Touch Base w/neighborhoods to determine
neighborhood needs
.:. Consistency with the City's General Plan
.:.
III. Zoning Update Schedule and General Q & A
(Teresa/Rob)
IV. Break out into groups by neighborhood/Overlay
Districts (all)
V. Conclusion (Teresa)
PLANNING_COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 5
II. . PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: ~---
{,k.'-- DEVELOPMENT C~DE AMENDME. N. T CA. SE NO. 04-005; APPLICANT - CITY ~.--/
ARROYO.GRANDE,.LOC./ATION - G.ITyYVIQE._ ~~~__-----
Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, presented the staff report, explaining that the
Development Code Amendment is related to Design Overlay Districts and modification of
standards for residential districts. In conclusion, Ms. McClish stated that due to concerns
that some items need to be further discussed before bringing forward an ordinance, staff is
proposing to discuss each of the overlays in a workshop format and receive Commission
direction for alternatives for each district. Proposed changes to the Development Code that
may also affect the design overlays are:
. Minor Use Permits - Viewshed Review: Areas zoned RR, RS, SF & MF - no
'second-story addition, or increase in building height greater than the average of the
two adjacent residences shall be erected or enlarged on any single-family home until
a minor use permit for viewshed review is obtained...
. Residential Development Standard - minimum building site area: For new
subdivisions in the RS district, area shall be increased to 40,000 sq. ft. for slope
conditions exceeding 15%.
. Residential Districts - Small lot single-family attached (twin home, triplex, fourplex)
allowed with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) permit in SF district; MF district -
minimum building site area 10,000 sq. ft. or as approved with PUD.
Ms. McClish then explained where the General Plan allows for potential increases in
density:
. MFA district is increasing from 11 to 14 du/acre.
. MHP is increasing from 6 t012 du/acre.
. Neighborhoods near Miller Way, Via La Barranca and a portion of Canyon Way, will
change from Rural Residential (RR) 1 du/acre to Residential Suburban (RS) 2.5
du/acre.
. The density bonus provisions in the Housing Element.
Chair Fellows explained that Ms. McClish would proceed to explain each overlay,
Commission would ask their questions, public could then ask their questions and make
comment before proceeding to the next district.
Chair Fellows then opened the public hearing to allow public comment.
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT o VERLA Y DISTRICTS PROPOSED CHANGES &
AL TERNA TIVES:
No.1: Agriculture AG-D-2.1:
35-acres between Strother Park and Branch Mill Road; minimum parcel size 5 acres. No
change proposed in development standards.
Otis Paae. 606 Mvrtle Street, stated his objection to the fact that no detailed staff report had
been prepared for the meeting; this leads to confusion for the public and he did not
understand how the Commission could make a decision without the correct information.
Ms. McClish explained that staff is in process of preparing a fairly detailed staff report to
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 6
bring forward with a proposed ordinance; there had been a prior workshop, the public was
legally noticed and this meeting was being held to get additional public input and
Commission direction before moving forward with staff recommendations.
Terrv Pavne. 212 Miller Wav. stated that Mr. Strong had informed her that the meeting
tonight would be continued to a study session; it is inappropriate for a hearing to take place
without any material for the public to review; she recommended continuance until study
sessions have taken place and time for review of materials given. Chair Fellows stated that
they _vyould like to get public input, Commission questions answered, then if needed
continue the item and that no decisions would be made tonight.
Ms. Payne stated that at her request, staff had provided her with a copy of the mailing list of
residents who had been noticed regarding this meeting; it was hard to conceive that 616
notices were sent out due to the low turnout. Chair Fellows replied that it is not uncommon
that many notices are sent out and not many people show up at the meetings.
Commissioner Ray excused herself from the discussion and left the dais due to the fact that
she resides in the vicinity of this overlay.
Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment:
Mr. Page, expressed his concern that there is no staff report for this proposal and he does
not understand how the Planning Commission can make recommendations without detailed
information.
Ms. McClish restated that this evening staff is looking for Planning Commission
recommendation and public comment before coming forward with a final staff report and
ordinance.
The public had no further comment and the Commission had no questions on AG-D-2.1.
No.2, Rural Residential, (RR) 0-2.2
225 Tally Ho Road - to provide for developed design and density.
Proposed: Zone change to RS consistent with General Plan - repeal overlay.
Alternate: Zone change to RS - leave overlay.
Commissioner Ray returned to the dais.
Chair Fellows excused himself from discussion on this overlay and left the dais as he
resides in the vicinity.
In reply to a question from Vice Chair Brown, Ms. McClish explained that repealing this
overlay allows the lot sizes and structures to become closer to RS, but would still be non-
conforming; however, this area is already built out so there could not be further subdivision"
or units added with or without overlay; the plus would be that the RS has more flexible
setbacks and second residential dwelling unit size, staff is proposing amendments to
increase second dwelling unit size for the RS district in accordance with the lot size.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 7
Commissioner Parker expressed confusion with this overlay change and stated it would
have been more helpful if they had alternatives in a table to relate to.
Commissioner Ray agreed it would have been easier if they had a table to look at.
Ms. Payne agreed with Commissioner Parker and Ray that a graph or chart showing the
difference between the existing and proposed changes would make it a lot clearer for
everyone. Ms. Payne then proceeded to read a letter, for the record, stating concern with
the City's statement that the current zoning is not consistent with the General Plan and that
this should have been considered some two years ago with the update; the development
overlays were initiated some 30 years ago before we had ordinance guidelines and are
consistent with what the City calls a Planned Unit Development (PUD), which are being and
have been approved all along; in 1991 a Development Code Update was done and the
overlays were not removed at that time and there was a reason for this; the City should look
at the reasons.
Ms. McClish stated there is a concern that some of the approvals done with the 1991
Development Code Update (and placed separately in the back of the Development Code)
may be inconsistent given the 2001 General Plan Update and are difficult to decipher; the
issue of wanting to have variable standards and achieve better design is why the City would
like to be able to have a consistent process.
Vice Chair Brown commented that he would be uncomfortable approving a change that
created more legally non-conforming lots; he would like the upcoming staff report to state
the ramifications of keeping things legally conforming, versus not legally conforming, to be
included.
Ms. Payne, stated that when the Development Code Overlays were initiated it was clearly
stated to reserve the right in perpetuity; in addition, their area (referring to the vicinity of
Miller Way) is completely built out so it is inconsistent to make any changes.
No.3. Rural Residential (RR) 0-2.3
Vicinity of .La Barranca - Tract 453, with a maximum density of 39 units.
Proposal: Rezone RR to RS consistent with the General Plan, with provision that new
subdivision be restricted to 40,000 sq. ft. for lots exceed 15% slope.
Alternative: Leave as RR and leave overlay.
In reply to Commissioner Parker, Ms. McClish clarified that the purpose of the 'D' overlay in
this district related to how many units were allowed which is now allowed with the 2001
General Plan Update. Commissioner Parker expressed concern that it could be dangerous
if a blanket removal was done, especially if it had to do with clustering due to environmental
reasons.
Ms. McClish said staff is cognizant of this and the ordinance will have an environmental
review to evaluate these concerns. Commissioner Parker requested that when the
ordinances come forward the Commission receives information as to why each individual
overlay was originally put on these areas.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 8
Dale Arnold. 597 Via La Barranca, requested that each of the design overlays be
considered separately. Vice Chair Brown stated that based on public cornrnent received
this is probably what will happen.
Carolvn Freedman. 192 Ruth Ann Wav. suggested that the General Plan EIR document be
looked at for the environmental review, as an alternative to an Initial Study/Negative
Declaration for the overlay modifications, to save time and energy.
Sandv Arnold. 590 Via Le Barranca, stated the reason not so many people were present at
the meeting tonight was probably because most of those noticed were in support of the
proposed changes and thought they were a good thing; she suggested that the overlays
where the public was expressing concern should be considered separately.
Vice Chair Brown stated he considered the proposal for this overlay was acceptable and
that Commissioner Parker's concern should be duly noted.
8:00 D.m.
Vice Chair Brown requested a 5-minute break.
Mr. Strong left the meeting due to not feeling well having had tooth surgery earlier.
8:15D.m.
Chair Fellows returned to the dais.
No.4. VCO, VCM, VR, SF, MF 0-2.4
Historic Character Overlay Districts - to specify Design Guidelines and Standards for
Development.
Proposal: No change.
Alternative: None
No.5. Single Family, SF 0-2.5
South side of Montego Street - maximum height is 11 ft. from curb to peak of house.
Proposal: No change (Amending viewshed provisions)
Alternative: Revise to include six lots north side of Montego Street if viewshed
amendments are not recommended by the Planning Commission.
Tom Parsons. 1219 Monteqo Street, asked if the overlays could be written to include
landscaping in relation to viewshed concerns? Ms. McClish stated that staff had considered
this and after research felt that it would be a very extensive process with no enforceability
and would not be an appropriate provision to include at this time. Cities that do implement
these report that they are onerous and the mediation process long.
Howard Mankins. 200 Hillcrest Drive, stated that Montego Street is a fully developed street;
regarding the viewshed review he has concern that staff is proposing to take an average
limit of two houses (on each side of an applicants') and if this had been done with the home
in front of his it would have blocked 50% of his view; he suggested staff write in language to
state "in order to protect the viewshed of the property above not build higher than the
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 9
existing roof line"; he asked if this would include the entire northside of Montego Street. Ms.
McClish stated the "alternative" was to provide for additional protection for the six lots. Mr.
Mankins stated that after walking around the neighborhood found that there was great
concern in the area (Newport, Sierra, Hillcrest, and Montego Streets) about conversion of
garages to living quarters and making them two-story.
Richard Duffin. 1398 Newport Avenue, stated that the south side of Newport Avenue should
also be included in the viewshed process as they also have basements, could rebuild, and
block the views of properties on the north side; they should have to maintain the heights
that they have now; he would like to see landscaping included also (esp. trees).
Wend v Beckam. 220 Hillcrest Avenue, stated concern with the language for the viewshed
and asked for clarification on "average height of two homes should be taken". Ms. McClish
explained the intent was to look at the height of two homes (on either side of the applicant's)
to assess if this would trigger a viewshed review if the average was going to be exceeded.
Ms. Beckam stated that the language is a concern as there are three houses on the other
end of Montego Street that are higher than the rest and this language could trigger a
domino effect.
No.6. Residential Suburban, RS 0-2.6
Vicinity of Newport Avenue - maximum height two-stories, NTE 30 ft. and no main building
to exceed 15 ft. from the highest corner of the property. Minimum net building area 12,000
sq. ft; 20,000 sq. ft. for churches and public uses; minimum lot width 60 ft. residential and
100 ft. public uses; minimum lot depth 90 ft.
Proposal: Repeal. Amended viewshed and other standards consistent with RS.
Ms. McClish stated that there is a possibility that the lots fronting Newport Avenue might be
rezoned to SF to match the neighborhood across the street; this was a concern brought up
in the prior public workshops.
Mr. Duffin stated that this is exactly what they do not want as this would trigger flag lots.
Harry Harland. 1350 Hillcrest Avenue, also stated concern with the proposed change in the
viewshed language as it does not talk about height in general; the definition as proposed
could be a problem and it would be better to state, "no addition or increase in the existing
building height will be erected without triggering a viewshed review process"; if there is a
vacant lot the height of the adjacent residences could be used and the lower of the two
trigger the process.
Ms. Freedman suggested it may be more simple to state "no increase in building height
shall be permitted on any single family home until a viewshed review permit is obtained; if
someone wants to build on a vacant lot then they should be required to get a viewshed
review permit also.
Commissioner Ray advised staff to include more than one alternative in the staff report to
cover public comment.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 10
No.7 Single Family, SF-D-2.7
Vicinity of Ruth Anne Way - maximum building height: 18 ft from established curb height,
except lots 1, 2 & 3, of Tract 554 and lots 1 & 2 of Parcel Map AG 73-383, and lot 1 of
Parcel Map AG 74-293, where maximum height is 22 ft. from established curb.
Proposal: Amend to allow up to 22 ft.
Alternative 1: No change.
Alternative 2: Repeal and rely on amended viewshed.
Mr. Parsons, stated if the height on Ruth Ann Way is raised, resident's ocean views would
be obscured and this would not be good for the neighborhood; he would highly recommend
against this.
Ms. Payne stated she had lived in this neighborhood in the past, and that the height
limitations were evaluated at the time the subdivision was put in and the reasons for this
should be reviewed; she does not see why this should be changed.
Mr. Parsons stated he would like to see the height limitation expanded easterly (this is area
that affects his view).
Ms. Freedman stated she lives in this neighborhood and the elevation of lots, starting three
or four down from the top and continuing all the way down to Priscilla Street, stair step
down; she believes that good design could provide a vehicle for additions of second story
without blocking a view; her own house is a case in point and she would like to do an
addition; given the rising costs of homes that families need, she would like this overlay
repealed and go through the process of viewshed review.
Daniel Rodriquez. 1320 Hillcrest Drive, stated everyone wants to keep their view, but his
house is on the highest point on Hillcrest so where would he stand it he wanted to build up?
He would be penalized; he would like time to discuss this overlay separately.
Steve Gastineau. 1232 Briqhton Avenue, stated he agreed with Ms. Freedman that
everyone should go through a viewshed review.
Debra Gastineau. 1232 Briqhton Avenue, stated that there is a viewshed being considered
at 190 Fairview Avenue which will partly block their view and nothing can be done about it
as they are outside of the overlay.
Mr. Parsons, stated that people bought their property knowing what they had.
No.8 Rural Residential, RR-D-2.8
Tract 1513 - approved for cluster single-family development, includes a church and open
space easement.
Proposal: Repeal and rezone SF (homes) and PF/OS (church), consistent with the
General Plan.
Alternative: No change.
There was no public comment and no Commission questions regarding this.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 11
No.9 Rural Residential, RR-D-2.9
Commissioner Ray recused herself from overlay 0-2.9 and 0-2.10, and left the dais as she
lives in the vicinity of this area.
Vicinity of Miller Way - approved Tract 577, for single-family hillside development with
"Optional Design and Improvement Standards", with condition for deed restrictions to
provide for no more than 27 lots.
Proposal: No change.
Alternative: Rezone RS and repeal overlay with provision that new subdivision restricted
to 40,000 sq. ft. lots for slopes exceeding 15%.
Ms. McClish clarified for Commissioner Parker that the intent is to average out the whole
property in respect to properties with a 15% slope.
Ms. Pavne. 212 Miller Wav, representing the neighborhood, stated she was in agreement
with what Ms. McClish was proposing: no change in the overlay for their district.
No. 10, Rural Residential, RR-D-2.10
Vicinity of Miller Way - approved Tract 559, for single-family hillside development with
"Optional Design Standards" to allow 14 lots in 12.57 acres. Lots with less than 85 ft
frontage required to have 50 ft. front yard setback to allow for off-street parking.
Proposal: No change.
Alternative: Same as 2.9.
Ms. Payne stated that this area was Phase 2 of the overall Miller Way project and the
conditions on both are the same and consistent.
Mrs. Wais stated that her son had also written a letter, for the record, regarding her property
in this overlay; the three concerns are traffic, fire and CC&R's if property below her is built
on; in addition there is a conservation and open space classification that was passed a few
years ago by the City Council (COS5-1) that prohibits division of the property below hers.
No further public comment and no Commission questions.
Commissioner Ray returned to the dais.
No. 11 Rural Suburban, RS.D-2.12
Vicinity of La Cresta Drive - development setbacks apply for previous R1 district. Front
yard setback 20 ft., may stagger with a 3 ft. variation from setback lines; side yard 5 ft.,
street side yard 10ft., rear yard 10ft., with 1,500 sq. ft. open area to rear or side otherwise
20 ft.
Proposal:
Alternative:
No change.
Repeal with amendments allowing setbacks with prior entitlement.
No further public comment and no Commission questions.
No. 12 Multi-Family Apartments, MFA-D-2.13
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 12
No. 12 Multi-Family Apartments, MFA-0-2.13
Zoned at the time of the 1991 Development Code Update for consistency with General Plan
designation.
Proposal:
Alternative:
Repeal overlay, leave MFA.
No change.
No further public comment and no Commission questions.
No. 13 Multi-Family, MF-0-2.14, MF 0-2.15, SF 0-2.16, MF-0-2.17, SF 0-2.18
All twin home subdivisions - allowed with amendments to SF and MF standards.
Proposal: Repeal overlays.
Alternative: No change.
Ms. McClish stated these changes will require an update in the Development Code.
After discussion the Commission agreed to have an extra Planning Commission meeting
Thursday, July 13, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. so as to enable this hearing to be continued to a date
certain.
Commissioner Ray stated that until they received a staff report with some detailed
information for their consideration they will not know if further workshops are necessary.
Dave Robischotti. 187 S. Elm Street, asked if there will be other areas that will be looked at
in the future as there are many different developments around his area and yet he cannot
do anything with his property. He has been asking the City to consider his area, but has
been told it cannot be addressed at this time. Ms. McClish explained that this area is not in
an overlay and is consistent with the General Plan so that is why it has not come forward
yet. However, staff has reviewed this area and there is good argument for rezoning the
west side of Elm Street to Multi-Family (for those properties facing Elm Street) and add in
some density, but this would require a General Plan Amendment.
Ms. Payne requested a comparative chart be included with the staff report for each one of
the development overlay designations that shows the existing overlays and proposed
changes.
Ms. Beckham, 220 Hillcrest Drive, stated she did not get a public hearing notice for this
meeting. Ms. McClish stated staff would check this out.
Chair Fellows closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to continue the
pubic hearing to August 1, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. when the staff report will be considered; the
Commission will make recommendations at that time and decide if further workshops are
required.
Commissioner Ray stated she would not be present at the August 1 meeting, but would like
to request that a comparison chart with some tables be included with the staff report (for the
next meeting) on just the overlays that are proposed to be changed; she would like to see
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 13
some history on the intent of the overlays; a discussion of an alternative viewshed review
and possible triggers for the view shed review.
Chair Brown stated there should also be mention of the overlays not being changed,
included in the staff report, so the public will be aware of which these are.
Commissioner Parker requested more information included as to why the City is proposing
'no change', to enable the Commission to agree with this status. Regarding the viewshed
review alternative, she would like to see these reviews simplified; sometimes they get into
so much detail that it becomes very difficult to make an informed decision.
Commissioner Brown expressed concern that if the viewshed review process is' simplified,
to a great degree, so that any kind of change will trigger a review, staff could be inundated
with them and this could create havoc.
Chair Fellows suggested that when the staff report on the overlays has been prepared that
a Commissioner review it prior to finalization to make sure it is clear for the public.
Commissioner Ray volunteered to review the materials even though she would not be
present at the August 1st meeting.
Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to continue the
public hearing to the regular meeting of August 1, 2006.
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Brown, Parker, Ray and Chair Fellows
None
Commissioner Tait
III.
None.
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Commissioner Brown aske for clarification on whether Commissioners need to excuse
themselves due to contlic of interest, when considering items that have to do with the
General Plan (no econo 'c interest involved). Ms. McClish stated that she will recheck with
the City Clerk, but som discretion has to be used when looking at neighborhood specific
conditions and in such ases it might be good judgment to step down.
Commissioner Bro asked for an update on the creek workshop held last Wednesday, as
he was not able t be present and had a concern about how this will affect applications
already in the Cit . Ms. McClish stated that the creek workshop was held last Wednesday,
by the City, wit speakers from Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Luis Resource
Conservation istrict, and Salmon Enhancement and included looking for ways to protect
the creek; ap licants that are not included in the moratorium and are in process of review
are being m de aware that we are considering alternatives.
PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 8
[MINUTES ?
fUGUST 1, 20M7
B.-DEVE[OPME~T CQDE AMENOMENT-CASE-NO:-04;Q05;APP(ICANT~CITY~
L-OF-ARROYO GRANDE;[OCATION--=-CITYWIDE-(Continued-discussion from 7
June 6, 2006) -
Ms. McClish presented the staff report for consideration of proposed modifications to
development standards applicable to the RS, SR, MHP and MFA, residential districts,
and for consideration of alternatives for the existing Design Overlay Districts (D-2.2, D-
2.3, D-2.8 & D-2.20), as part of the Development Code Update relating to residential
districts for consistency with the 2001 General Plan; public comments would also be
received for discussion of forthcoming proposals on other Design Overlay districts
tentatively scheduled for September 5, 2006. In conclusion, Ms. McClish recommended
that the Planning Commission approve the Resolution recommending the City Council
adopt a proposed Ordinance making modifications to the Zoning Map and portions of
Title 16.
Desiqn Overlay District D-2.20
Only a change in the text is being proposed. In 2004 an ordinance was passed to make
sure that 75% of a project would be devoted to office use. The Council has recently
directed staff to revisit this issue in terms of the percentage of office use to be dedicated
for potential medical offices and reduce this to 50%, which would provide adequate
expansion or compatibility with future needs of the hospital.
Ms. McClish explained that the Commission could vote on each Design Overlay
separately and adopt the Resolution (which covers all four Design Overlays) after
Commission discussion if it is still applicable.
In reply to questions from the Commission, Ms McClish clarified that these changes only
effect the requirements of what has to be devoted for office use and what could be
available for other uses in the OMU district.
Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment.
Jason Blankenship, Central Coast Real Estate Development, stated his support of the
proposed change.
Rick Castro, President of the Arroyo Grande Hospital, stated they are in support of the
proposed change.
Hearing no further comment Chair Fellows closed the public hearing.
The Commission had no further concerns and stated their support of the text change to
the D-2.20 Overlay.
Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to recommend
to the City Council approval of the text changes to Design Overlay D-2.20.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
AUGUST 1, 2006
PAGE 9
The motion was approved by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Brown, Chair Fellows, Commissioners Tait and Parker
None
Commissioner Ray
Desiqn Overlav District D-2.8
Ms. McClish explained that this area is zoned Rural Residential (RR)and that this
design overlay was placed to allow a clustered area of single family homes with a large
open space area (includes a church); staff is proposing to repeal the overlay and rezone
a portion of the RR area to single family (SF), consistent with the 2001 General Plan
designation and keep the remaining open space as Public Facility (PF) with the open
space area included.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Parker, Ms. McClish stated the area zoned
open space (with a church) does have a dedicated easement for open space recorded
on the parcel.
Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment and hearing none closed it.
The Commission had no further concerns.
Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to
recommend approval of the change to Design Overlay district D-2.8 to City Council.
The motion was approved by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Brown, Parker, Tait and Chair Fellows
None
Commissioner Ray
Desiqn Overlav District RR D-2.3
Ms. McClish stated this neighborhood is in the vicinity of La Barranca north of Tally Ho
Chair Fellows excused himself from the discussion due to his residence being in the
vicinity of this overlay.
Ms. McClish explained that the area that includes the Overlay area D-2.2 & D-2.3 and
stated some residences on the west side of James Way are currently zoned RR, but the
General Plan classification is low/medium density which is equivalent to the RS zoning
district; this is an area where the character of development and the current lot sizes also
support the change to RS district; staff is therefore proposing that it be rezoned from RR
to RS; the second unit dwelling size standard does differ in each of these districts, 850
sq. ft. versus 1,200 sq. ft. Staff will discuss potential modifications in the upcoming
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
AUGUST 1, 2006
PAGE 10
zoning discussions to propose that 1,200 sq. ft. units be allowed on the larger lots in the
RS district and 850 sq. ft. on the smaller lots.
Vice Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment and hearing none
closed it.
Commissioner Tait made a motion to repeal the overlay and rezone to RS, seconded by
Commissioner Parker, to recommend approval of the changes to the Design Overlay
District 2.3 to the City Council.
The motion was approved by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioner Brown, Parker and Tait
None
Commissioner Ray
Chair Fellows
Commissioner Tait made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker recommending
repeal of the Design Overlay District 2.2 and the change in the designated area from
RR to RS.
The motion was approved by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioner Brown, Parker and Tait
None
Commissioner Ray
Chair Fellows
Chair Fellows returned to the meeting.
Ms. McClish then further discussed revisions contained in Exhibit "A":
Appeals 16.12.150 A. - Appeal of Action: Language revised for clarification of this
section.
16.32.020 and 16.32.050: Multi Family Apartment district (MFA) currently 11 dwelling
units per acre changed to a maximum of 14 dwelling units per acre to provide
consistency with the General Plan. The Senior Housing Residential District (SR), is
proposed to be renamed to Multi-Family Very High Density (MF-VH) District, to provide
consistency with the General Plan and in response to 2003 State law changes.
Mobile Home Parks District (MHP): Density change from 6Y. to 12 dwelling per gross
acre, also to provide consistency with the General Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
AUGUST 1, 2006
PAGE 11
16.32.030 A. - Residential Densities for Residential Districts - Proposed language to
clarify how density units are counted for multi-family dwelling units in response to the
City's Housing Element.
Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment and hearing none closed it.
Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to recommend
approval of the Resolution to City Council, amending portions of Title 16 of the Arroyo
Grande Municipal Code, and adopt:
RESOLUTION NO. 06-2006
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
AMEND PORTIONS OF TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE
MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO.
04-005) MODIFYING THE ZONING MAP AND CHAPTERS 16.04, 16.12,
16.32 & 16.44 TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH THE ARROYO
GRANDE GENERAL PLAN
The motion was approved by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners Brown, Parker, Tait and Chair Fellows
None
Commissioner Ray
Chair Fellows (abstain from Design Overlay District 2.2 & 2.3 only)
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 1st day of August 2006.
Ms. McClish stated that discussion on this item will continue to the September 5, 2006
meeting.
C. GENERAL PLAN AME DMENT CASE NO. 06-002 - BIKE & PEDESTRIAN
PLAN; APPLICANT C Y OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION - CITYWIDE
Community Development Irector, Rob Strong, presented the staff report for review of a
bike and pedestrian pia prepared by Planning Intern, Brian Soland and himself, and
the recommendations f Parks and Recreation Commission and Traffic Commission to
amend Circulation ansportation and Parks & Recreation Elements of the 2001
General Plan. I conclusion, Mr. Strong recommended the Planning Commission
approve the Re lution recommending that City Council adopt the 2006 Bikeway and
Pedestrian En ancement Plan.
eplied to Commission questions:
PLANNING.COMMISSION PAGE 4
,---- ~
(MINUTES../
SEPTEMBER 5, 2006/-
)
B'C(Continued from 8/1/06) DEVELOPMENT-CODE-AMENDMENT~C~SE NO. ~
005;,A~P-L1CANT---CITY-OF-.ARROYO-GRANDE;-bOCAT.ION-=-CITyw!DE~
Ms. McClish presented the staff report for consideration of proposed modifications to
development standards for residential districts, applicable to Design Development
Overlays including the 0-2.5, 0-2.6, and 0-2.7 Districts, and amendment to Section
16.16.110 regarding Minor Use Permits for viewshed review. In conclusion, Ms.
McClish recommended that the Planning Commission accept public comment and
discussion on preliminary alternatives concerning Design Overlay Districts SF-D2.5, in
the vicinity of Montego Street, RS 0-2.6, in the vicinity of Newport Avenue, and SF 0-
2.7, in the vicinity of Ruth Ann Way. Ms. McClish reminded the public and Commission
that the hearing would be continued to the October 3, 2006 Planning Commission
meeting, as noticed, to provide an extra opportunity for public comment.
Ms. McClish answered Commission questions for clarification on the staff report
regarding viewshed review; described the three overlay districts, then suggested that
the Commission receive public comment after her presentation and deal with each
overlay separately.
Ms. McClish then made her presentation:
Desion Development Overlay District SF 0-2.5. (Approved by Ordinance 86 C.S. in
June 1973.) Maximum height is 11 ft. from curb to peak of house for the south side of
Montego Street; no other additional standards:
Alt. 1: revise to include westerly six lots north side of Montego Street (11 ft from highest
existing grade elevation at perimeter of development envelope).
Alt. 2: No change
Commissioner Ray: If Alt. 1 was chosen, how many non-conforming lots would be
created out of the six houses? Ms. McClish: Measurements for all six homes have not
yet been done, but she knew of at least two that would not be.
Commissioner Tait: If other properties were developed would they be affected (Alt. 1 re
the six homes)? McClish: In the future there may more homes behind the proposed
expansion area which meet the provided viewshed protection with Alt 1. Although it is a
fairly severe restriction, it has worked well on Montego Street.
Commissioner Tait: If Alt. 1 was chosen, has staff looked at whether homeowner's
policies would be affected (concerns addressed in letters received from the
Fredricksons and George Haugen? Ms. McClish: Their letters were received after
preparation of the staff report; however, staff will be considering these concerns before
the October ;rct Planning Commission hearing.
Desion Development Overlav District RS-D-2.6. (Approved by Ordinance 360 C.S. in
September 1987.); maximum height: two-stories shall not exceed 30' and no main
building shall exceed 15' from the highest corner of the property; minimum net building
site area: 12,000 square feet for residential use, 20,000 square foot for churches and
other public uses; minimum lot width: 60 feet for residential uses and 100 feet for public
uses; minimum lot depth: 90 feet; no other additional standards:
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 5, 2006
PAGE 5
Alt. 1: No change other than to measure height from building envelope.
AIt.2: Repeal. Amended viewshed and other standards consistent with Rural Suburban
(RS).
Alt. 3: Expand to lots fronting the south side of Newport Drive.
In reply to questions from Commissioner Ray regarding the alternatives, Ms. McClish
stated that:
. Alt. 1 would be more conservative for height control, offer more protection, but
harder for someone to build a second story addition.
. Alt. 2, if repealed, would be less conservative for viewshed protection; any
addition would be considered on a case-by-case basis and possibly with the use
of story poles (if so directed by the Commission).
. Staff initiated alt. 3, after a public workshop held by some of the neighborhood: It
may preserve some views, but it may also mean more onerous requirements for
a neighborhood that doesn't currently have them.
Commissioner Fellows: If the overlay were removed would it cause flag lots on the
north side of Newport? Ms. McClish: It would have no impact on flag lots.
Desian Development Overlav District SF 0-2.7. (Approved by Ordinance 138 C.S. in
June 1976); maximum building height: 18 feet from established curb height, except lots
1,2,3 of Tract 554; Lots 1 & 2 of Parcel Map AG 73-383; and Lot 1 of Parcel Map AG
74-293, where maximum height is 22 feet from established curb height. No other
additional standards:
Alt 1: No modification
Alt 2: Modify to allow up to 24 ft height for all within the overlay, with viewshed review
process.
Alt 3: Remove several properties from the southern half of the overlay district and rely
on citywide viewshed process.
Commissioner Ray: Re Alt. 3, how were specific lots chosen for modification in this
overlay district? Ms. McClish: Alt. 3 was brought forward by the neighborhood after a
public workshop and staff has since received comments both for and against this and
she believed the modification considered the geography in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Tait: Would more viewshed reviews be required if Alt. 2 and 3 were
chosen? Ms. McClish: There may be more applications, but it would depend on the
heights that the Commission recommends.
Veaetation
Ms. McClish: During previous workshops, public comment has included a request for
regulation upon private trees since such vegetation often will obstruct views. Since
regulation of private vegetation includes many controversial elements and vegetation
also provides enhanced views, staff is not recommending regulation at this time.
However, a mediation process works for the City of Santa Barbara in included in the
packet for informational purposes.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 5, 2006
PAGE 6
Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment.
Public Comment on Overlay D-2.5:
Howard Mankins. 200 Hillcrest Drive, stated he went through a long ordeal last year
with a viewshed review issue that affected his property and he would not like to go
through that again. The Planning Commission and City Council upheld his position on
the viewshed review. Viewshed is a very important issue. He suggested that property
owners have a height limit on the north side of Montego Street and that the existing
roofline be the limitation on any modification (this may still allow a two-story if one is
subterranean) and it would simplify the process. Seven lots, (not six) [Alt 1]should be
included on Montego Street (seven of the lots could affect his property).
Rodqer Fredrickson. 1234 Ruth Ann Street, stated he agreed with Mr. Mankins that
existing roofline would be a fair way to protect viewshed; the definitions on the staff
report were difficult for him to understand (he did not receive notice until the day before
the meeting); his biggest concern was that these changes could have an impact on the
value of his property and that his homeowner's insurance would also be affected; if he
wanted a second story he would not want to affect his neighbor's view so he would
excavate under his property.
Jim Dunn. 1247 MonteQo Street (south side). stated he supports using the existing roof
line; this an excellent solution and the way to go as it's more simple; the definition of the
basement story etc. is more confusing and difficult to measure.
Eric Hawkins. 1215 & 1213 BriQhton (south side). and 1203 Priscilla Lane, they have
concerns that their views of the ocean would be diminished, if not taken away, even with
a 3-foot change in height; he is opposed to removal of any overlays that would affect
their ability to see the ocean.
Joseph Beckham. 220 Hillcrest Drive. stated he agreed with Mr. Mankins; he would like
to see the first seven homes on Montego Street be looked at first, this would make a
more consistent height requirement.
Nina Crosswell. 1204 Priscilla Lane, when they bought their house years ago it was
included in the height restriction, they had to have a flat roof, and in order to build their
garage they had to excavate. To alter the elevation now, particularly on Ruth Ann Way,
would take away their viewshed.
Tom Parsons. 1219 MonteQo (south side). stated he also supports having the existing
rooflines as a height restriction, rather than 11-foot, to preserve views and keep the
character of the neighborhood; there should be some restriction on properties on the
north side too; he is glad to see that the vegetation may also be considered in the
viewshed review.
7:50 p.m.
The Commission took a 10-minute break.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 5, 2006
PAGE 7
Public Comment on Overlay D-2.6:
Carolyn Freedman Johnson. 192 Ruth Ann Way. advised that she would recommend
against including the south side of Newport Avenue in the overlay; this would not work
on this side of the street and would just add another neighborhood to an overlay.
Ken Levine. 1420 Hillcrest Drive (south side), stated he supported All. 1; he would not
like to see this repealed, as everyone would have to go through the viewshed review
process.
Larry Harlan. 1315 Hillcrest Drive. re the viewshed trigger recommendations, he
supports All. 2, and that anything beyond existing heights (not a story definition) would
be subject to viewshed review; new construction should also be viewshed review. In
addition, as Commissioner Brown always reminds us, viewshed review is a not a right
but a privilege that the City has granted to residents. Re viewshed on vegetation. there
are significant things that can be done: The City has placed several trees on the level
of Newport Avenue (and they need to keep them trimmed otherwise they will affect
views); however, there are City trees below him. on the west end of Newport Avenue,
that significantly affect property owners viewshed at this time; they need to be properly
maintained.
Public Comment on Overlay 0-2.7:
Ted Akland. 1222 Briqhton Avenue (north east of Ruth Ann Way). stated
inconsistencies in the old way of determining height limit, as there is a house down the
hill from him on the corner of Ruth Ann Way and Brighton Avenue that has a higher
roofline than his house. He supports the 24-foot height recommendation and use of the
roofline.
Mr. Dunn. 1247 Monteqo, stated that 0-2.5 district overlooks the 0-2.7 district; they
purchased their property after much research and they understood that they were
protected by an overlay that limits those houses to 22-feet (there are approximately six
houses below their property that could affect their view if the height was changed to 24-
feet; this would also affect the value of their property; making changes puts them into
the viewshed review and would require them to defend something that was already
theirs.
Edward Grover. 260 Ruth Ann Way, the primary consideration when they purchased
their home was the viewshed and character of the neighborhood, both of which are
protected by the height limitations; they are opposed to any changes in the height
limitations.
Terry lavicoli. 227 Ruth Ann Way. they have lived in their home for 26 years and when
they purchased it their primary concerns were the area and protection of their views by
the overlay that was in place; they strongly oppose any change in the height limitation.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 5, 2006
PAGE 8
Brent Moonev. 227 Fairview Drive. adiacent to Ruth Ann Wav; stated that what happens
on Ruth Ann Way could also affect them; they had a small view, which they lost, and he
would now like to have the opportunity to build a two story and go through the viewshed
review process.
Rick Anderson, 212 Ruth Ann Wav. stated they also bought their house because of the
height restrictions that were in place; he strongly recommended that the 18-foot height
limitation be maintained; he agrees with Mr. Mankins that any change in height should
trigger the viewshed review process; they travel a lot and do not want to have to worry
that they might miss notice on a viewshed review.
Ms. Freedman spoke again, stating that if the City decides to regulate vegetation for
viewshed review they will also need to include a request for additional staff and attorney
fees; after listening to public comment she suggests the 0-2.7 overlay remain intact for
upper streets - Ruth Ann Way and Montego Street; she would like staff to consider Alt. 2
as she is interested in adding a 450-600 sq. ft. addition upstairs and excavating would
be too expensive; there could be a limit on any second floor to say to 40% so as to not
impact the neighbors; with a viewshed review requirement it could be considered; the
population is changing and at least property owners should have the chance to ask; if
story poles or a photo montage are chosen it could be expensive for a homeowner.
Janice Anderson. 191 Ruth Ann Wav, stated the reason she bought her house was
knowing her view would not be blocked; she would prefer Alt. 1.
Dana Fenance. 244 Ruth Ann Way, (top of hill), stated opposition to any changes on the
height requirements on Ruth Ann Way; if the home next door to her were to go up even
four feet her view would be blocked; they also bought their home with the understanding
this could not happen.
Chris Barrett, 1340 Newport Avenue (north side), stated he would like to see the south
side of Newport Avenue included in the viewshed overlay (many of the existing houses
are two-story and large). .
Chair Fellows closed the public hearing for public comment.
Commission Comments and questions:
Tait:
. Is the existing roofline for height restriction an alternative for the north side of
Montego Street? Ms. McClish: It will be included for 10/03, as it was previously
requested, but if a restriction is applied to a district it has to be consistent for
everybody; using the existing roof line for height restriction could cause more
severe restrictions on some homes (such as not being able to raise a ceiling
height or not being able to have a different style of roof; a standard must allow
fairness and consistency within a specific district.
. He would like to see the viewshed review process simplified so he would like to
see these ideas included at the next hearing; we do not want to require more
hoops for applicants to jump through; suggested looking at removing "second
,
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 5, 2006
PAGE 9
story" as a definition.
Fellows:
. He was not ready to make comments on building heights now; he could not
support getting into controlling the height of vegetation - it would be too costly for
the City.
Ray:
. If the City' restricts to the height of rooflines could we get into a into legal
situations? Ms. McClish: There are two issues with using existing rooflines; 1)
should the existing roofline be a height requirement? 2) In other places should it
be used as a trigger to require a viewshed review instead of "story"?
. Re the discussion regarding other jurisdictions and whether or not we could
specify a "primary view", she does not like this idea; if the second story definition
is not removed the proposal that marries it to the California Code makes it
clearer.
. After research on viewshed review and the use of story poles- although there is
an increased cost for a project up front there could be a decreased cost down the
line as it could speed up the process.
. 0-2.5 Overlay: She is still listening to information on the 0-2.5 Overlay.
. 0-2.6 Overlay: She likes the idea of the more conservative viewshed review and
the proposed change to the building envelope rather than the corner of the lot.
'. Re the south side of Newport Avenue and Montego Street, she is not sure at this
time - there is still some confusion on this.
. 0-2.7 Overlay: She is still listening to information on this also.
. She is really concerned about removing the overlays, putting a heavier reliance
on the viewshed process, whether the City could handle this, and what the cost
to the applicant could be; she likes the idea of simplification.
A discussion followed on story poles, with Commissioner Ray stating that the City of
San Leandro uses story poles and they will not even notice a project until the story
poles go up. In reply to a question from Commissioner Fellows, Ms. McClish stated that
in the jurisdictions that require story poles her research found that people do put them
up themselves with some verification to make sure they are at a correct height.
Commissioner Tait made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to continue
discussion of 0-2.5, 0-2.6, and 0-2.7 Overlays to the Planning Commission meeting of
October 3, 2006.
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Tait, Ray, and Chair Fellows.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Brown and Parker.
III. NON-PUB)it HEARING ITEMS: None.
PLANNIN.G COMMISSION
. MiNUTES 7
OCTOBER 3,_ 2006 ?
A.---DEVE[OPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE-NO~-O":005;~APP[ICANT-=-CIT-Y-OF---.
L--ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION - CITYWIDE AREAS (Continued from 9/5/06~
rrleeting) .
Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, presented the staff report to continue consideration of
an Ordinance with proposed modifications to viewshed review provisions and development
standards applicable to Design Development Overlays, SF-D-2.5, RS-D-2.6, and SF-D-2.7.
Ms. McClish then explained the proposed changes to each of the overlays, as well as
process changes as to what triggers a Viewshed; specific standards to the three design
Development Overlay Districts and the definition of story/basement modified on the
presentation slides (essentially referring to the Uniform Building Code).
In conclusion, Ms. McClish stated that staff recommends that the Commission adopt the
Resolution recommending to the City Council that they modify the Zoning Map and
Standards for Design Development Overlay Districts as stated above.
PAGE 4
The Commission asked questions for clarification on each of the Overlays and proposed
modifications included in the staff report.
Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment.
0-2.5 Comments
Fave Oaden. 1211 Monteao Street, stated she would like the maximum height to remain as
is - does not want change.
Howard Mankins. 200 Hillcrest Drive, asked for clarification on the definition of a basement.
Ms. McClish explained the proposed modification would work.
Jim Dunn. 1247 Monteao Street, south side, stated he was in support of the revision to D-
2.5 presented at the meeting of September 5, 2006.
Richard D. 1390 NewDort Avenue, would like the RS-D-2.6 height controls to be extended
to include all of lower Newport Avenue/private drive; this would preclude any possibility of
confusion over the basement definition (previously recommended by him and another
neighbor at the last meeting). Ms. McClish explained that with the proposed change in
process, if someone wishes to increase the height of their property on the south side of
Newport Avenue/private drive, it would trigger a viewshed review; this should be enough
protection.
0-2.6
Carolvn Freedman. stated her support of the proposed viewshed review process for lower
Newport Avenue.
0-2.7
Marilvn Grover. 260 Ruth Ann Wav. (lives at top of hill) stated she and her neighbors had
spoken against raising the height and asked why the proposed alternative for Ruth Ann
Way was included? Ms. McClish: Staff had considered historical requests received at the
counter to remodel (as many of the homes in this area are fairly small), comments received
at previous workshops and meetings. Even though their was not much support at the
September 5th meeting there was partial neighborhood consensus for removal of height only
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
OCTOBER 3, 2006
PAGE 5
for several properties in the district). Ms. Grover then stated her concern that a homeowner
may not receive a public hearing notice if they are traveling and miss the opportunity to
comment on a viewshed review- what happens then? Mr. Strong: Any discretionary
decision can be appealed to City Council; there is no assurance that the maximum height
would be approved - this is just a threshold.
Terry lavicoli. 222 Ruth Ann Wav, in support of "no change" and would like this overlay to
stay the same; strongly opposes going to 22-feet. Could a variance be requested for a
change in height? Mr. Strong stated it is very difficult to make findings with a variance and
most would be denied.
Mr. Dunn, 1247 Monteqo Street, supports leaving the Overlay the way it is, primarily
because people bought their property that way and it would save a lot of review process.
Ms. Freedman spoke aqain, regarding Ruth Ann Way and the neighbors concern regarding
notification for public hearings for viewshed review, suggested that a 30-day notice could be
given. In addition, the suggestion to restrict the floor area of a second story to 50% of first
story - suggest to make this 40% (this would still be a good size and would be more
suitable for the neighborhood; suggested to add language to limit the increase to the date
this Ordinance is adopted.
Chair Fellows closed the public hearing for public comment.
Commission comments:
Tail:
. 0-2.7 is the most controversial, but he agrees with staff's recommendation on all
three overlays; it's important to-simplify.
Parker:
. Agrees with all the changes made to date - it's important for the future to have
language that everyone can understand.
. Has the most concern with 0-2.5 for Montego Street (and Mankin's property), but
with the triggers for viewshed review included, this should work.
. Agrees that using Variance for modifications does not work.
. Agrees with Ms. Freedman's suggestion on the 30-day notice, or two notices, this
would give the public enough time to comment or appeal a decision,
Brown:
. Agrees with the proposed changes.
. Also agreed that trying to make findings for a variance is very difficult.
. Increase in height limit is a great improvement over story definition.
Fellows:
. Does not agree with changing the height on the 0-2.7 Overlay because of the effect
it may have on the people who already own homes in this area;'this would change
what a person paid for (even though it may create value in one or two cases).
. Agrees with the changes to the 0-2.5 Overlay, although he would be surprised if all
the homeowners are in favor of this.
. 0-2.6 Overlay: There does not seem to be any problems with the changes as
proposed.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
OCTOBER 3, 2006
PAGE 6
Commissioner Brown made a motion to approve the Resolution recommending that City
Council amend portions of Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (Development
Code Amendment 04-005B), modifying the Zoning Map and Chapters 16.04, 16.12, &
16.44, as applied to Viewshed Review and Design Development Overlays SF-D-2.5, RS-D-
2.6 & SF-D-2.7, including Exhibit "A" as revised and Exhibit 'B', to ensure consistency with
the Arroyo Grande General Plan. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion to adopt:
RESOLUTION 06-2015
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
AMEND PORTIONS OF TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE
MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 04-005B),
MODIFYING THE ZONING MAP AND CHAPTERS 16.04, 16.12, & 16.44
AS APPLIED TO VIEWSHED REVIEW AND DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
OVERLAYS SF-D-2.5, RS-D-2.6 AND SF-D-2.7 TO ENSURE
CONSISTENCY WITH THE ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN
The motion was approved by the following roll call votes:
Overlav SF-D-2.5:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Brown, Parker, Tait, and Chair Fellows
None
Commissioner Ray
Overlav RS-D-2.6:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Brown, Tait, Parker, and Chair Fellows
None
Commissioner Ray
Overlav SF-D-2.7:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Brown, Parker, and Tait
Chair Fellows
Commissioner Ray
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 3'd day of October 2006.
The Commission took a 10-minute break.
B. PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO -015; APPLICANT - OCEAN OAKS BUILDERS;
LOCATION - 579 CAMINO CADO
Associate Planner, Kelly ernon, presented the staff report for consideration of a
proposal to convert tw e (12) of the sixty (60) previously approved condominium units
from two (2) bed roo to three (3) bedrooms. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff
recommends th e Planning Commission approve, by minute action, a request to convert
/
J
/
~/-
--------../,"
/~~/
,-
-........-
/'
ATTACHMENT 3
j
/~-
AG;;D-2.1
168-,
ORDINAlICE 110. IS} C.S.
AW OItDINANCE OF TIlE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE MENOING A"
PORTION OF THE ZONfNG IIAP OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRAIIDE"
REFERREO TO IN SECTION .302 OF TITLE 9. 'C"APTER 4 OF
THE HUN I C I PAL CODE SO AS TO REZONE cE-RTAItI PROPERTY IN
TIlE CITY OF ARROYO GRANOE.' .
THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF ANROYO GRANOE .OOES'ORDAIN AS FOLLDYS:
SECTION 1: That certain Ordinance known ns "ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO CRANDEll is herewit.h amended .os follow~:
The "ZONING IiAP OF THE CITY OF ARROYO CRANDEI'. referred to in Sccticm .)02
of' Ti r lr. 9. Chapter ,. of the Hun i ci pa I Code Is amended so th...t thc 7.ones and
boundill"ics of ccrtilin dlslrlcls shown therein God thereon arc changed so as to be
the :zone.. and bound"ries as shown and des,ignollcd on tile HOlp CJUac.hcd hereto. and
by this reference Incorporated herein, which Map is entitled "A Section of the [I
Zonin~J Hap of the Ci ty of Arroyo Grande, Amended by Ordinance No. 153 c.s. of ..~
the City of Arroyo Grande", and s<lid Map .nnd all notoltions and references sho~n
thereon 5h~11 be as much a polrt of this Ordinance as If the matters shown on said
M~p were fully described herein. 'and the Oistricts.and zones and boundaries of
the property shown therein from and after the effective date of the adoption of
thi s Ord inancc. The propert i es intended to he rezoned and the changes In the
.zoning ",ccOlnpJished hereby are described on Exhibit H8" attached. consisting
of two (2) pages and made a part hereof by reference.
Said property Is rezoned from "A" Agricultur.nl District, to "A-Oil.
Agricultur.'ll District with the "-D" override to provide a basic five (5)
acre minimum parcel size.
SECTION 2: This Ordinance shall be In full force and.effect thirty (3D)
day:; after its passage. and within fifteeon (15) days aftl:r its passage, It shall
be pub1 ishee! once. together wi tb the names of the Councilmen voting the'reoo. in
the Five Cities Times-Press-Recorder.
On mot ion of Counei 1man Hi 11 i s t seconded by. Counci Iman Ga 11agher and
on the following roll call vote. to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilman Spierlin~. Gallagher. Schlegel. Hillis and Mayor de Leon
Hone
Hone
the foregoing Ordinance was passed and
adopted this 9th day of Hay. 1977.
(~/I ....;0 ~ (. /
.~ Ct. "'. t?.; ,.t~ ( ~::--? 'L--"'"'
,I" HAYOR
ATTEST: ",i4-C... A-ddr?-.-/-=
. CITY CLERK
I. Incs A. dcl CCJmpo. Ci ty Clerk of the Ci ty of Arroyo Grande. County
of San lui~ Ohispo. State of California. do hereby certify th~t the foregoing
Ordin.)nce No. 153 C.S. is.. true, full and correct copy of said Ordinance passed
and illJOP[cd bythcCTtv Council of the City of Arroyo Crande at a regular ml!:~ting
of said Counei I held on the 9th day of H.JY. 1977.
~
ll1
\JITtIE::SS (uy h.:lnd and the Seal of the Ci ty of Arroyo Grande affixed
this lOLh d.'lY of HdY. 1917.
.~
~.d.4- ..8.n:d..G.Y7I/~
City Clerk of the .City of. I}.rroyo Cr,)nde
(SEAL)
....
-.:: .,
'~....- . """'." -...
~s.~
Srrothlll'
Park
~..,..~
ra600'
.;
s', .
f\oto.
35 ACRES
ZONE CHANGE
"*A" to "A-O"
"
_5t9Q5ih...hlIU Rt!
,-
I
ExHi1JTT"A.,i---- .----. -
. A Section of the 20,,;n9 Hap of the Ci ty 0
Arroyo Crande, lImended by Ordinance flo.
tS3 C.S. of soid City.
-
RR-D-2.2
OROINANCE NO. ~C.S.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING
A ZONE CHANGE FROM RA-B2 RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL
DISTRICT TO RA-BI-D RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT
COMBINED WITH DESIGN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, APPLIED FOR
BY JEFFREY CARRITHERS, AGENT FOR PATRICIA LAUTHBURY,
ON PROPERTY DEFINED AS 225 TALLY HO ROAD, ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 7-002-01.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION Ie The City Council of the City of Arroyo Crande has considered
Zone Change Application No. 85-190, filed by Jeffrey Carrithers, as agent for
Patricia Lauthbury. to amend Section 9-~.302 of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone
property at 225 Tally Ho Road '(County Assessor's Parcel No. 7-022-01) from RA-B2
Residential AgrIcultural District to RA-BI-O Residential Agricultural DIstrict
Combined with Design Development District.
SECTION 2. The City Council has held public hearings and determined that
the public interest and general welfare does require such an amendment; that the
rezoning is consistent with the general plan and policies set forth therein; that
the rezoning will not create any environmental impact, and is, therefore, subject
to a Negative Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30)
days after its passage, and within fIfteen (15) days after its passage, it shall
be published'onte, together with the names of the Council Hembers voting thereon,
in a newspaper of general circulation within the city.
On the motion of Council Member Gallaghe~ seconded by Council Hember Johnson,
and on the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:; Council Members Gallagher, Johnson, Moots, Porter
NOES: Hayor Smith
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted this 11th day of June
1985.
BlAnn Smith
-Id'(L.,(h) ~
HAYOR
ATTEST:
,711111- a. Q~
CITY ERK
I, Nancy A. Davis, City Clerk of the'City of Arroyo Grande, County of
San Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Ordinance No..329 C.5. is a true, full and correct copy of said Ordinance passed
and adopted at a regular meeting of said Council on the 11th day of June, 1965.
WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this
21st day of June 1985.
~a..Q~
C It CLERK
Description of Parcel(s): See map below.
VC.D.2.4
VR..D..2.4
PF.D..2.4
SR-D-2.4
Design Overlay: 0-2.4 (Village District Design Overlay)
Use Regulations: As specified in the underlying zoning district.
Site Development Criteria: As specified in the underlying zoning district.
Performance Standards: As specified in the Development Code.
Design Guidelines: Village Design Guidelines, as amended.
.,C_1H
vf""ST i
ilL. '\<<;:t'tOVt,;
-PF
.,,~\..\..1.-<.
p'o"O
PFD
ORDUJ~.liCE NO. H$ ~
AN ORDIN.o\NCE or 'tUE CI'J:":( OF AP..R(lt~') GF..ftSnE A~INC A
pnR-rIO~ Ot.. '11i:!: ?.oNINC ~.Al' OF T:m C [Ty OF ..\RRO"IO (iHANDE
REfo'lmRcD 'l:O r:~ SECTION .302 (IF '1'1'1'11-; 9 f CH.".PTER l~ OF 11lE
MUNICn'f\!. CODI'; so At; 'ro RE7.C'NJ:: CER'r.'~ II. PROPERTY IN nlE
crrl OF ARR("YO CR:\HDE.
TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF 'I't[g CI1."i OJt lUlRt;YO (:a.:\~:Dr:: DOES OR1)AIN AS FOI.J.D',",S:
SEC1'lON 1: n\3.t .:ertR.in Oi:'dinance knovm .as I1Z0NL~G ORDIN.~CE OF TILE CITY
OF ARROYO CRANDEll is herewith ame.nJed as follows:
The "7.0SntG MAP OF THE Cll'Y OF ARROYO r.KA~DE", rcfp..rrc:d to) in Section
.302 of Title 9, Chapter 4 of the >>~nici~al Coue i~ amended so that the zones
and boundaries of clJ;["tnln Olt>trl"cts shoun t1.tercdn and thercor.. .arc changed so
as to be the zones and hC"ul\uad.p.a ~3 C1.ttNll llc>d ucu:l.gnnted 011 the Hap attached
hereto. and by r.hb refc:o:enr.e im:ot'poo:-atccl hF!.t"cb.. ...,.ht~h H.."'\p i:t cr.titled "A
SECTION 01" 1.11E ZONINO }V~P 010' T:le C I1Y 01-. ARROYO CRANCE, AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE NO. 86 C.S. OF 1"HE CITY OF ARROYO CP.AlIDE", nnd salel Map and all
notations and references sha....n theo:-eon .shall be aG much s. pi'l:rt of t.bls Oi:'dlnance
as if the matters shO'.m on :laid l-t.1.p 'Were fully dnscrlbed h~rein, and tbe
Dis tricts and zone:l and b('un~arles of the property shown thereln from and after
the effective dates Dr the adoption of th~s l'rclicu'.:\cc. Th~ propcrti~s intended
to be rezoned and t:1C changec in the zoning accomlllish~d berehy arc described
as lollow3:
In the City of Arr~yo Grande, County of San Luis Obisro,
State uf CnHforni2., all lots 'Withi:l bll..'Cks 2 and 3,
Tract 1'10. ISO. on thp. :south sld~ of MonteRo St.reet.
Sn.id propert)' in rE"zotlp.d fr.:n:\ a-I Sln~lc Family Residentl~l District to
R-I-O, Single Family Rcsid~n::ial Oistr1c~ with the "0" overridc for height limit
control of eleven feet (il') trore t?P uf CU~l to hi~l~ct punk of th~ ha~se.
excluding any chlmncY3 an~l t.ther apimrtcnan-:.es.
SECTION 2: 1.11is O.....dinance 81m!1 be f.n lull force and effect thirty (30)
day:: after its paSSil!;C, and ""'!..thin fiftcen (15) days aftcl" its passage it shall
be published once, tos;cthcr with the names of the Councilmen voting thereon, in
the Five Cities TuncG-Pre~s-Reccrder.
On motion ~f. Co~nciln~n ~e ~on, sc~onded by Councilman Talley and on the
fOllowing roll call v~te. to wit:
AYES: Councilmen 'i'a.lley, 'Woo..!. de I.con n'1.d Hayor S-::hlegel
NOES: tlol"~e
ABSENT: COlJnd.lt~Uln M:ll~is
the foregoing Ord!n:J.nce was passed and 8do?tl~d this 12th day of June. 1973.
~J2~~~~.P?
}.',A'lOR P'
A'rTEST~t.I\,.~ A:,~_
CITY o1;;R~ ~
I, POLLY S. KINGG1.EY I City Clarb of ~nc City of Arcoyo Ct"antl~. Count:! of
San l.utn Oh1.:;pu. Stntc of. Cnliiorn.ln. do:> hereby (:r.~tify clM.t the rot'cr.oing
OL'ui.llance tlo. 66 c.s. i~ n tOlO. :ull nnd t:t1;:":'C::t copy of :;;'1'-\1 Ordlnnll':'c p.1!isC'u
and udapt.!d by the l~ity Counr.l1 ol the City of .~:n:'.:lytJ Gr.'lndc at a regular meeting
of said Council held on th~ 12td day of, June. 1973.
13th
WITNESS my hand and the seal of t~lC C~ty of Ari:'oyo Crande affixed thi3
day of June, 1973.
_c=~~~,
CLti' Ctp'i" of ~~;;;of 1;;foyo
(SEAT.)
Crande
SF;'O"2.5
.
, ,.
"
ORDINANCE NO. 360 C.S.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
REZONING PORTIONS OF IlILLCREST DRIVE/NEWPORT AREA
FROM R-l TO R-l-D(87-ll TO REGULATE
LO'r SIZE, BU1LDING HEIGHT, AND t'RONT YARD SETBACK,
AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP
WIlEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo
Grande, California has held a public hearing on the application
of the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission to rezone all property
shown on the attached map, identified as Exhibit "A", from -R-1"
Single Family Residential District to "R-l-D" Single Family
Residential District with a --D" Design Development Overlay; and
WHEREAS, after due study, deliberation and public hearing,
said Planning Commission recommended approval of said amendment;
and
WHEREAS, this Council' has held a duly noticed public hearing
on said application and finds that said amendment should be
approved,. and
WHEREAS, this zoning amendment Is consistent with ~he
General Plan; and
WHEREAS, this Council finds that a Negative Declaration is
appropriate.
NOW, THEREFORE, TilE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY Ot' ARROYO
GRANDE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Those certain real properties fronting on
Hillcrest Drive and Newport Avenue, generally described as ,1315
to 1529
Hillcrest Drive And 1300
to 1470
Newport Avenue,
And as more specifically described And depicted upon Exhibit "A"
attached hereto, are rezoned from R-l to R-l-D(87-ll, with lot
size, building height, front yard setback, and all other
conditions and provisions Bet forth on said Exhibit -AM
applicable to said properties AS described thereon.
,
RS"O-2.6
"'7
o
CD
)0"" ":..-. OJ:
,-
I
,
ORDINANCE NO. 360 C.S.
PAGE TIIO
Section 2. The Zoning Map of the City of hrroyo Grande is
hereby amended to designate the zoning of the areas cross-hatched
on said Exhibit "A" as -R-l-O(B7-1)".
Section 3. The Planning Department shall maintain the
Zoning Map and copies of this Ordinance and Exhibit "h" on file
for public use and perusal during ell regular business hours.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall be 1n full ~orce and effect
thirty (301 days after its passage, and within. fifteen (15) day.
after its passage it shall be published once, together with the
names of the Council Members voting thereon, in a newspRper of
general circulation within the City.
On' motion of Council Member Moots
. seconded by Council
Member Millis
, and on the following roll call vote, to wit:
hYES: Coune 11 Members Moots. Mi 111 s. Porter and Mayor Mank I ns
NOES: None
hBS_ENT: Council Member Johnson
the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted at this reading on
the 22nd day of September. 1987.
~ ___ \ L.
.L~.~
AYOR
mEST: ~~ a.~
CITY CLERK
I. NANCY A. DAVIS, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County
of San Luis Obispo, State of California. do hereby certify under penalty
of perjury that the foregoing Ordinance No. 360 C.5. is a true, full
and correct copy of said Ordinance passed and adopted at a regular meeting
of said Council on the 22nd day of September, 1987.
IIITNESS my hand and the Seal ~f the City of Arroyo Grande affixed
this 24th day of September, 1987.
/1"",-"" a. ~
m'r([~
......
,
PAG.E TIIREE
89
ORDINANCl NO. 360 C.S.
Zooo R-I-D (81-1)
Exhibit "A"
SECl10N I. Pertaining to the rezoning or. properly In the aly or Arroyo Grande, County or
Sun LuI:I OlJl>po, SUste 0[. OillIomJa, Lo13 4 t.hroogh 8, D1ocl< 6; PIlrce1 A or PM 2~-44; and
Lots 1 t~ 9, lllock 1, oJl In 'Inlet No. 46 and ldenUtled "".
_ 8, .Tr1octNo. 44
Lot 4 - 1450 1lllJcre,1 Drive
Lot 5 - H20 IIll1creot Drive
Lot 0 - 1410 Illl1creot Drive
Lot 1 - 1380 end 1360 IlUl.....t Drive
Lot 8 - 1320 IIU1cl'C:lt Drive'
l'orccl A 01 I'M U...H - 1300 i1na.ot DrI...
Illod< 1, 'lRct No. 48
Lot 1 - 15Jll end 1521 UUJ.,.....t. Drive
Lot 2 - 1485 IIWe....t Drive
Lot 3 - 1<15 end 14'/3 Illl1creot Drive
Lot 4 - 1451, IUS, 1401 and 1365 11111"...4 Drive
Lot 5 - 1<10 Nowport Avenue
. Lot 8 - 1450, 1440, 1430 end 1434 Nowport Avenue
Lot 1 - 1398 end 1390 Newport Avenue
Lot 8 - 1353 IIW.....t Drive, 1340 end 1320 Newport Avenue
Lot 0 - 1341 WId 1315 IIDI"""'I Drive end 1310, 1306 and 1300 Nev.port
Avenuo . > '
"
."
'7~..~ "_1_T'\ IR'7_1\ lr"l.lIH !lAh
!
,
,
,
i
I
J
~v
rAGl" fOUlt
ORDINANCII NO. 360 C. s.
Zone R-I-D (87-1)
F.xhIblt "A"
A. The rou~ ~Inc requlronents sMlJ sWly In the "n-I-D" (87-1) Single Fsmlly
Residential District.
(1) MIWn.m ._ble l>e!gIrt.
Tho rmJdmun olIowuule heIght sMlJ be ... rou""".
, (0) IMIn ~ Two (2) stories, not to exceed thirty reol (30') but In . .1
no Ctl.'lO oholl MY main building be hlgl...r then fitteen Ceet (15') .bove
the hlghesl comer or the """er'a Iolj and
(b) A=-:ry buIJdIrw!. Fourteen feet (14').
(2) Mlnmrn ~ sIlo and Jot 1IIdth req.IIrecl.
11... mlninun building sit. and lot widlh required aMlJ be ... rouow.! Ulless the
OpUonnl nc.lgn nnd Jnp-ov<ment StancIanls are used ... sel rcrU, In Section 9-
4.6ll of this ortlele.
(e) Iolinmm ~ aile. Twelve UlOlBOncI (12,000) squors reet or lot ereo
for resldmtlnl wes, and 20,000 IIqUIlt'8 teet tor churehes and olher
pLbUo uses..
(b) Iolinmm Jot width. Sixty teet (60') tor resldentle1 wes, end 100 reet
(100') tor churches and other pLbUc .......00
(c) Min\n.rn lot depth. Ninety (90') teel.
(3) Iolinmm Ynnlf RequIred.
Minlmun yords required U1!ess ou...rwl... required In ArtIcle 25 of UUs Chapter,
""tllbUshlng building Un..., or Ulless OpUooal D..1gn 5tnndsrds heve been IJ'le<l
os set out In Secllon 9-Ull, ahnli be .. lo\Jowll
(0) Pront Y.rd. FJlch lot ahell heve . troilt yard elrlcndil'4t (except r",
"ocess drlv,," Md wnlks) .0..... the rull width or tl.. ..,bJect property of .
dc:plh of nol .""" thnn !welly reet (20') on ell lols ex""Pt Ihooe lots Crontm.:
lIillc","t Drive In Dlock 0 where the rront ynrd aMlI !love e depth of nny
rr.ct (50'); provlde<I, however, U..I the Flllnnlng Director ...y require
aloggerlng 01 ..tbocks, with . vsrlBUoo, of three reot (3') Iran setbAck Un.....
\
Excepl ror .""""" drlvewsys end wolks, there al'll11 be no atnJcture locnted In
the l'lqUlred hoot ynrds, C>r In the roquIred aldeyar<llo ebultlng tt>e street. No
boot or troller s!loll be kept In ..Id Cront yer<l II U" prcperty lvl.. ."
ndcqunle old. ynrd providing e..,... to the reAr yer<l, then seJd boot or trsl1er
lIYly be kept In AOld side 0< reor yard subject to setbock requlr<mcnts ror
structures. 11.. keep~, repoJrIng, 0< dI1rnon~ or <II>1lbled vohlcle:'l, 0< ttoo
slorogc 01 building 0< oirilRr IMterle1s shall nol be pennltled In tl.. rront or
side yard or drIvcwny; .
(4) STRUCI1lRI:s IN EXISTENCI! PRIOR TO AUGUST I, 1987 WHlOI ARF.
DAMAGFD OR DESrnOYED AND wHIm ARE RENDERED LP.GAL NON-
CONFORMING WilEN l111S ORDlNANCF. WAS ADOPTED ARE IIEREWITII
PERMITTED TO REBUILD TO TIlF.1R PREVIOUS S1'EC1nCA110NS AND AT
TIlE PRE-EXISTING LOCA110N.
(5) AU ou...r provlsloos or the DosIe R-I Zone not In conCUct herewith sron orply In
Zooe R-I-D (87-1).
.,
\
, .
Zona R-1-D (B7-1) ExhIblt "A"
\
\
\
i
SF.D.2.7
" '.
'"
~... . :-..':'~: . -' ",
(,I\DI~4NC[:'HO'~':.rJ.8 [,S,'
AN ORDINANCE 0' THE C'TY OF ARROYO CRANDE AMENDING A PORTION
OF 7HE ZONING HAP OF THE CITY OF ARROYO CRANOE REFERRED TO
IN SECTIOM .302 OF TITlE ,. CHAPTER 4 OF THE HUNICIPAL CODE
SO AS TO REZONE CERTAIN 'PROPERTY IN TNE CITY OF ARROYO CRANDE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE C!IY OF ARROYO CRANDE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOIIS:
SECT! etl 1:
of Arroyo Grande"
That ccrt~ln Ordinance known as "Zoning Ordinance of the tl ty
Is herewith amended as follows:
L
Th~ "Zonlng Hap of the CI ty of Arroyo Grande", referred to In Section .302
of Title 9, Chapter 4 of the Hunlclpal Code Is amended so that the Zones and
boundaries of certain Dlstrlct~ shown therein and thereon are changed so as to be
the zones .,nd boundaries as shown and deslgnatod on the Hop attachod herotD, and
by this reference Incorporated hereIn, which Hap Is entitled itA Section of tho
Zoning Hap of the City of Arroyo Grande, Amended by Ot'dlnance No. 138 C.S. of the
CIty of Arroyo Grande", and sa I d Hap and a II notl1t Ions nnd references shown thereon
shnll be Q~ much ~ part of thIs Ordinance as If the matter, shown o~ 5~ld Hap were
fully described heroin, and the Districts and zones And 'boundaries 'of the property
-shown therein from and after the effective dates of the adoption of this Ordinance.
The properties Intended to be rezoned and the changes In the zoning accomplished
hereby arc described os follows:
In the City of Arroyo Grande. County of San Luis Obl~po.
5tat~ of California. all lot5 within Ruth Ann Way Assessment
~istrict No. 7~-1. as recorded In Assessment District Haps
8oo~ 2. Page 39. Offlcl.1 Reoords of San Luis Obispo County,
Said property Is rezoned from "R-l". Single Family Residential District. to
nR~l-D". Single Family Residential District. with the if_Oil over~lde for height
limit control. as follows:
All lots shall be limited to iJ building height of eighteen feet-
(18') frQffl established curb heIght, excepting chimneys. vents,
and associated appurtenances; excepting Lots 1, 2. 3 of Tract 554;
Lots .1. 2 of Parcel H.'lp AG 7)-)8); and lot I of Parcel "'O'lp
AG 7.-293. which shall be limited to. bul Idln9 height of twenty-
two feet (22') from established curb height, excepting chimneys,
vents. and associated appurtenances,
SECTION 2: This Ordln~nce sh.11 be In full force and effeot thJ~ty (30)
days nfter its pO'lssage. and within fifteen (IS) days after Its passage It shall
b~ publl~hed onc~1 t0gether wIth the names of the Councilmen voting thereon, In
the five Cities Tlmes-Press-Recorder.
On mot I on of Councllmcm Sch lege 1, seconded by Counei 1man Spl crllng and on
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
flOES:
ROSEIIT:
Councilmen Splerllng, Gallagher, Schlegel and Hayor de Leon
tlone
touncllman HillIs
..
the foregoing Ordinance was passed and
day of June, 1'76,.
c:rLe-- /-<:-e~
HA R
[
ATTEST:~-d,-", A. dT/(?~,fb
CITY CLERK
I. IN:5 A. dcl CClmpo. City Clerk of tho City of ,'rroyo CriJfldo. CC"unty
of San lul~ Oblspo~ Stato of CMllfornla. do horeby certify that tho (oregolng
Ordlnunc~ tir). 1)8 c.s. Is a tru~. full ..nd correct copy of said Ordln.3nr.e
pas~nd -:;,n,1 &hloptad by the City t()u~cll of th~. City of Arroyo GI"'.)0(l8 at a rcguliu.
mcctln9 of said Co~ncll ~cl~ un rh~ 8th d~y nf Junc. 1~?~. '
UITUESS my hand Clod the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed
this 9th day of June, 1976. -
--i!-:...
Cfty Clerk
:;I dd' (-'~~
of the Cfty of rroyo Grande
(SEAL)
OROINANCE NO. ~C.S.
AN OROINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING
A ZONE CHANGE FRDH RA-BZ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL
DISTRICT TO RA-BI-D RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT
COHBINED WITH DESIGN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, APPLIED FOR
BY JEFFREY CARRITHERS, AGENT FOR PATRICIA LAUTHBURY,
ON PROPERTY DEFINED AS 225 TALLY HO ROAD, ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 7-00Z-DI.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered
Zone Change Application No. 85-190, filed by Jeffrey Carrithers, as agent for
Patricia lauthbury, to amend Section 9~~.302 of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone
property at 225 Tally Ho Road (County Assessor's Parcel No. 7-022-01) from RA-B2
Residential Agricultural District to RA-BI-D Residential Agricultural District
Combined with Desig" Development District.
SECTION 2. The City Council has held public hearings and determined that
the public interest and general welfare does require such an amendment; that the
rezoning is consistent with the general plan and policies set forth therein; that
the rezoning will not create any environmental Impact, and is, therefore, subject
to a Negative Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act.
SECTION 3. This Drdin.nce sh.ll be in full force .nd effect thirty (30)
days after its pi:lssage, and within fifteen (15) days after ,its passage, It shall
be published ante, together with the names of the Council Members voting thereon,
in a newspaper of general circulation within the city.
On the motion of Council Member Gallaghe~ seconded by Council Member Johnson
and on the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Council Members Gallagher, Johnson, Hoots, Porter-
Mayor Smi th
None
the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted this 11th day of June
1985.
BlAnn Smith
'/d'()A//L) ~
IlAYOR
ATTEST:
. 71au1. a. 0~
_ CITY ERK
I, N~ncy A~ Oavis, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of
S~n Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify that the fo~egoing
Ordinance No..)29 C.S. Is a true, fuJI and correct copy of said OrdInance passed
and adopted at a regular meeting of said Council on the 11th day of June, 1985.
WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this
21st day of June 1985.
~Cl..Q~
C It CLERK
RR-D-2.2
RRaD-2.3
~-.
OROINANCE NO. 135 C.S.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING A
PORTION OF THE ZONING HAP OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
REFERRED TO IN SECTION .30Z OF TITLE 9, CHAPTER 4 OF
THE HUNICIPAl CODE SO AS TO REZONE ~ERTAIN PROPERTY
IN THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE. .
THE CITY COUNCil OF TNE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DOES ORDAIN AS FOllOWS:
SECTION I. That certaIn Ordinance known a!> "Zoning Ordinance of the City
of Arroyo Grande" Is herewi th amended as fol1ows:
The "Zoning Hap of the City of Arroyo Grandell, referred to In SectIon .302
of Title 9. Chapter ~ of the Municipal Code Is amended 50 that the zones and
boundaries of certain Districts s~own theretn and thereon are changed $0 as to
be the zones and boundaries as shown and designated on the Hap attached hereto,
and by this reference Incorporated herein, which Hap is entitled IIA Section of
the Zoning Hap of the CIty of Arroyo Grande, Amended by Ordinance No. 135 C.5.
of the City of Arroyo Grande"" and said Hap and all notations and references
shown thereon shall be as much a part of this Ordinance as If the matters shown
on said Hap were all fully described herein, and the Districts and zones and
boundaries of the property shown thereIn from and after the effectIve date of
the adoptIon of thIs Ordinance. The properties Intended to be rezoned and the
changes In the zoning accomplished hereby are described as follows:
PARCEL 10 ALL OF PARCEL I OF PARCEL MAP FILEO IN 800< 9 AT
PAGE 62 IN Tt-E SAN LUIS OBISPO ColNTY RECOROER'S OFFICE CN
SePTEMBER 29, 1972.
SaId property Is rezoned from IIRA-B3" ResidentIal Agricultural District,
to IlRA-B2-D" Res I dent ia 1 Agricultura 1 District, wi th the 11-011 overrt de to
IndIcate a maximum of thirty-nIne (39) lots, with a density transfer.
PARCEL 2. THAT PORTION OF LOT 26 OF nE RESlI3llIVIS1CN OF ^ PART OF
Tt-e RANCHJS CORRAL. DE PIEDRA. PISMJ >>D Bo..SA DE CI-EMISAl.., ACCORDING
TO THE MAP RECORDED f'bVEfoSER 24, 1886. IN Booc. A. PAGE 63 CF MAPs,
OESeR I BEO AS FOLLOWS I
BEGI"""ING AT TI-E KIST NORTI-ERLY CQRl\ER OF SAID PARCEL 11_
Tt-ENCE. fltJRTH Am EASTERLY AL(J\IG TI-E NJRT~ST SO\.NDARY' OF
SAIO LOT 26 TO A REDWOOO STAKE MARKED S. tb. 3 AT TIE MJST NJRT1-ERt..Y
CORNER OF SAro LOT 261
TI-ENCE. sovrHERLY ALONG 1'tt NCJRTl"EAST eOLNOARY OF l~T 26.
1262.28 FEET TO A POINT,
Tt-ENCE. SolJTH 34.30' WEST 208.71 FEET TO A POINT ON ne EASTERLY
8Ol.t;-IOARY OF SA I D PARCEl. II
nENCE, NORnEr{LY ALrnG 11-E NCR'n"EAST BiJU'lOARY OF SAID PARCEL 1
TO THE POINT OF BEGIN'lING.
Said property Is I"ezoned from "RA-B311 ResIdential Agricultural District,
to "RA-B211 Residential Agricultural District.
SECTION 2: This Ordinance shall be In full force and effect thirty (30)
days after Its pa~sage, and within fifteen (15) days after its passage It shall
be published once, together with the names of the Councilmen voting thereon, In
the Five Cities Times-Press-Recorder.
On motion of Councilman Spierling, seconded by Councilman Schlegel and
on the rollo~ing roll call vote. to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Splerllng, Gallagher,Jr., Schlegel, HIllIs and Mayor de Leon
None
None
the foregoing OrdInance ~as passed and adopted thIs 23rd day of March, 1976.
..5 ~y:;e- /!2 -G/)
ATTF.ST:~;il.02.- :;0. r:&1 t?a4~
CITY CLEkK
l.
C!TY COUNC I L
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
JUNE 9, 1987
PAGE TWO
.;1- ST. BARNABAS EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH TRAFFIC WAY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
NO. 1,13 AND DETERMINATION OF ENVIRDNMEN AL F ECT Contlnued from Ma
1!6, 198~C.FILE -1
Mr. R090way referred to his memo of June 4, 1987, and said the
Plannin9 Commission had met June 2, 1987; reconciled Staff Advisory Committee
conditions on the project, and recommended approval by the Council providing
it ac~epted the conditions as amended.
He referred to a June 5, 1987, memo from City Manager Robert Mack,
which included the Planning Commission recommended conditions and the
tract map. Mr. Rogoway pointed out the areas of conflict between the
Staff Advisory Committee and'the requests of the applicant.
Council Members asked questions of Staff. Council Member Millis
brought Staff .attention to needed' corrections on Mr. Rogoway's memo of
June 4, 1981. Paragraph 3. "Drainage,11 second sentence should read,
"The drainage basin located on Lot 1 shall be maintained by the owner'
of Lot 1." Pardgraph'4, "Drainage," third sentence, should read, liThe
applicant will install curb and gutter on the North side of the street
and construct the following street section: 10 feet utility area, curb,
gutter, and sidewalk, 8 feet parking lane, two 12 foot travel lanes,
and an asphalt berm on the South side edge of the improvement, making
a total width of 32 feet between the new curb and the berm."
DAN LLOYD of Engineering Development Associates,representing the
applicant, discussed the Planning'Commission's recommended conditions
with the Council and Staff. '
KEITH CROWE of Engineering Development Associates spoke about the'
drainage and detention basin on Lot 1. He said it would hold about 7,000
cubic feet of water. and wat~r would be continuously released at a rate
not to exceed the projected flow from runoff from a lItwo-year" intensity
storm. There was a discussion of how drainage water would be handled
on the entire project, with Council questioning where water would be
released to from the basin, drainage from the lower part of the project,
on Traffic Way, on the culde-sac, and on the neighboring properties.
KIRBY GORDON of 401 India Drive, Pismo 8each, attorney for the
applicant, Objected to Condition 1 under "Desfgn,'l which requires 'a deed
restriction indicating the lot may not' be re-subdivided.
Mayor Mankins opened the'Hearing for public testimony.
ELLA HONEYCUTT of 560 Oak Hill Road showed pictures to the Council
of flooding in the area in 1978, and said good watershed planning is
needed. ' ,
Others asking questions of the Council and developer and expressing
cnncerns about traffic and drainage were CARROL AND MARJORIE DEAN of
111 Orchid Lane, JIM 81GELOW of 781 Cardinal Court, ,and DR. J. O. PENCE
of 134 E. 8ranch Street.
Mayor Mankins closed the public portion of the Hearing.
Council Members discussed a negative declaration on the Envir~nmental
Impact Report and the Planning Commission conditions which reflect mitigating
measures; Planned Development vs. Optional Design Standards Zoning on
the project; traffic problems caused by conflicting church services times,
and the use of asphalt berms.' ,
THE,REV. DANIEL MCHUGH, pastor of St. 8arnabas Church, said the
church would accept the deed restriction, if necessary, but urged the
Council to approve the project this night because of time constraints.
Council Members considered the Installation of sidewalks, and it
was moved by Johnson/Millis (5-0-0) to add a condition under the "Street"
section. IlSix foot curb, gutter and sidewalks shall ~e required on one
side of South Traffic Way."
RR-D-2.8
PF-D-2.8
CITY COUNCIL
ARROYO GRANDE, CALifORNIA
JUNE g, 19B7
PAGE THREE
ST. BARNABAS CHURCH TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 1513 (Continued from Paqe Two)
The CouncIl and Mr. Rogoway approved the following conditions to
the Tentative Tract Map 1513:
DRAINAGE:
1. A geological study shall be prepared showing the conditions surrounding
the detention basin and suitability for ponding. The drainage basin.
located on lot 1, shall be maintained by the owner of lot 1. Improvement
water shall be detained on-site.
2. The applicant shall prepare a drainage and siltation plan for the
property and submit it to the Director of Public Works for approval.
3. The applicant's engineer shall show how the present drainage flows
along Traffic Way in the areas flooding in the vicinity southerly of
the proposed subdivision. He shall prepare an analysis indicating whether
waters emanating from the subdivision property will increase or not affect
the flooding areas on Traffic Way. Improvements shall be constructed,
to safely conduct drainage discharged to Traffic Way to a point of discharge
in the Cal Trans facilities as existing rights of way may permit.
4. The typical 52 ft. local street right of way on the tentative map
shall be dedicated in addition to the 10 foot wide Public Utility Easement
and Street tree casement on the north side of the road. Although the
street right of way abuts the adjoining property, in order to conform
to present standards for local streets, there would need to be dedicated
a second ten-foot easement, norma 11y reserved for ut 11 it ies and street
trees. That easement would be dedicated from the adjoining property
when it develops. The applicant will install curb, gutter and sidewalk
on the north side of the street and construct the following street section:
8-foot parking lane, two 12-foot travel lanes and an asphalt berm on
the south side edge of the improvement, making a total width of 32 feet
between the curb and the berm.
5. The applicant shall provide a Waiver of Protest, signed and executed,
against future assessment districts on Traffic Way on forms provided
by the Ci ty.
STREETS:
1. All street grades shall be shown in accordance with City Standards.
No slopes or tangents between v~rtical curves shall exceed 15 percent
grades. The main access road shall have a right of way contiguous with
lhe southerly property line (no horizontal curves as shown in the proposed
tentative map). Vertical curves shall be designed to provide a safe
stopping sight distance for speeds of 30 MPH.
2. The proposed driveway on the church property shall be constructed
to 24 ft. to the parking lot, and the alignment of the driveway shall
match future street profiles.
3. All public utilities shall be underground. There shall be no private
utilities, other than laterals, within the right of way.
4. All easements serving the tract, both on- and off-site, shall be
secured by the developer at no cost to the City.
5. The intersection of the new street with South Traffic Way shall meet
City Standards for frontage road pavement width northerly of the intersection.
Vertical curves on Traffic Way adjacent to the intersection shall provide
for a safe stopping site distance for speeds up to 35 miles per hour.
".
CITY COUNCIL
ARROYO GRANOE, CALIFORNIA
JUNE 9, 1987
PAGE FOUR
ST. BARNABAS CHURCH TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 1513 (Continued from Page Three)
6. Six-foot curbs, gutters and sidewalks shall be required on one side
of South Traffic Way between the project and the northerly end of South
Traffic Way Extension.
DESIGN:
1. A deed restriction shall be recorded against Lot 11 indicating the
20ning under which Tract No. 1513 was .divided. Wording shall be approved
by the Director of Planning. which indicates that the lot may not be
ro-subdividod.
2. An opon space casement over the vacant portions of the property shall
be dedicated to the City for the' use of Lot 1, and Lot 1 is to maintain
_the open space, including the detention basin.
3. All structures on Lot 1 shall be provided with automatic fire sprinkler
systems.
4. Local street improvements shall be constructed to the church to allow
access by emergency vehicle.
5. The open space shall be no less than 50 percent of Lot-l.
FIRE:
1. Fire flows in the water lines on all lots shall be approved by the
Fire Chief, with minimum standards of 1,200 gallons per minute, with
a 20-pound residual on Lot 1 and 750 gallons per minute, with a 20-pound
residual on Lots 2 through 13, at locations specified by the Fire Department,
prior to the delivery of combustibles to the tract.
2. The water line comin9 from the storage tank- on the property and through
the property shall be 10" minimum to Traffic Way.
UTILITY SERVICES:
1. Subdivision requirements include street lights, cable television.
and telephone underground. The owner shall be responsible to install
street trees and pay park fees and appropriate portions of sewer fees
in advance of recordation. School fees shall be payable at the building
permit stage of development.
Council Member Porter said he objected to the project on the basis
of soil drainage and steep slopes not being provided for adequately.
Moved by Johnson/Moots (4-1-0, Porter voting "no") to approve the
Tentative Tract Map No. 1513 with the Conditions outlined by Mr. Rogoway
and Corrections and additions made by the City Council. and finding a
Negative Declaration on the Environmental Impact Report.
Council Member Millis said the developers have assured the Council'
that the detention basin is adequate, and asked City Engineer Karp for
the same assurance.
Mr. Karp referred to Condition 1 under .Orainage" and said once
that condition was resolved and details worked out as to basin size,
it was his opinion that the concept would work.
Mayor Mankins directed City Staff to process a General Plan change
that would add four feet to right of way on the south side of the new street
within Trace 1513, making it 14 feet overall and available for a.co1lector
street.
Corrected
at 6/23/87
Coune i 1
Meeting
,0
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1988
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH'STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
The City Council met in regular session at 7:30 P.M. with
Mayor Howard Mankins presidinq. Also present were Council Members
Corace Johnson, Hark H. Millis, Gene Moots and D. G. Porter.
Fr.>..G SALUTR ANn TNVOCATJON
, Mayor Mankins led the Pledge of Allegiance to our Flag, and
Council Member Hoots -delivered the invocation.
PUOT,le APPEARANCES
Council Members passed a Resolution honoring Current Planner
Paul Lanning, who 'will be leaving the city. Moved by Moots/Porter
(4-0-1, Moots, Porter, Millis and Mayor Hankins voting aye, Johnson
absent), to adopt a Resolution Commending Current Planner Paul
Lanning for his Service to the City. '
MARGARET DABBS of 4022 Tanner Lane objected to ,the city not
sending a representative to the Board of Supervisors hearing on a
land development near the city boundaries at Branch Mill Road. She
objected to the development on the basis of the.narrow road and
poor drainage.
MARIE CATTOIR of 195 Orchid Lane gave the ' Council a letter
dated November 9, 1988, concerning the road profile of Trinity
Avenue in St. Barnabas Tract ~513. The City Clerk read the letter
into the record.
CONSENT AGF.NOA
Moved by Moots/Mrllis
Consent Agenda Items C .1.
courses of action.
'( 4-0-1, Johnson absent) to approve
through C. 4 ., with the recommended
C.l. October 25, 1988, City Council Minutes. Approved.
C.2. October, 1988, Investment Report. Information.
C.3. Rancho Grande Park Construction Bid Documents (1988/89
Budgeted Item). Approved.
1.4. Grand Avenue Fire Hydrant Improvements, Project No. 60-88-2.
uthorized and approved. ,
c.s. TRA.~T 1513 FINAT. M1>.P A.PPROVAI.. ~T. RA'RNABAS CHURCH
Public Works Director Paul Karp, referring to'his staff Report
of November. 2, 1988, listed Lour items leading'to the approval of
Tract 1513. 'He asked that the fourth item be amended to ,read:
"Authorize the Mayor and city Clerk to execute the improvement
agreement, resolving ~he security for the agreement with the
approval of the City Attorney prior to the recordation.11
Mr. Karp then read the title and "Nowl Therefore" paragraph
of a Resolution accepting an open space easement on Lot 1. He read
a paragraph from a paper entitled "Restriction to Lo't 1 of Further
Subdivision of Tract 1513," which described the open space
easement.
Moved by Moots/Hillis (4-0-1, Hoots, Millis,porter and
Mankins voting aye, Johnson absent) to approve Resolution No. 2268
Accepting a Grant of a Perpetual open Space Easement on Lot ~ of
Tract 1513 Pursuant with the Open Space Easement Act of 1974
1
./'
/
...."
(Government Code, Chapter 6.6), and to approve Tract 1513 Flnal
Tract Map with the additional recommendation resolving the security
of the improvement agreement.
!,F.TTER OF REOUEST BY DAVID AND ANITA G1\SKIl,T. RF.GARDING REAR YARD
REO{JTREMl-:HTS AND LOT COVERAGE
MR. and MRS. GA.SKILL of 633 Cerra Vista Circle expressed
concerns that, on property at 629 Cerra Vista Circle, 1'0 40 percent.
lot coverage is exceeded, 2. minimum rear yard requirements are not
met, and J. the plan approved by the Planning Commission is not
being followed.
Planning Director Doreen Liberto-Blanck gave a history of
staff discussions with the Gaskills,and referred to her Staff
Report of November 3, 1988. In the report Ms. Liberto-Blanck said
that Staff feels that the building permit was issued in compliance
with the Planning Commission's height requirement, zoning code and
Uniform Building Code. .
There was further discussion between the Gaskllls, staff and
the Council. Hayor Mankins gave 8 copy of the November 3, 1988
. staff Report to the Gaskills and recommended that the staff and the
Gaskills meet to share information and talk further abOut the
contested points. .council Member Moots agreed. Mayor Mankins
said if the Gaskllls do not come to a satisfactory understanding
with staff, they could come back to the next council meeting.
RESJ:2J.trrIoN APPROVING 1\PPI.TCATIO~$..U."QO,O. 00 TN CRANT FUNDS
UNDER THE C'AI.TFORNl^ WTT.nLIFE. COASTAr. ANn PARK I,ANn CONSERV~
ACT OF 19M
Parks and Recreation Director John Reisler .explained that the
Council was being asked to approve application for 8 $41,000.00
grant under the California Wildlife, Coastal, and Park Land
Conservation ^ct of .1988. He said the money would be used for
playground rehabilitation at Strother, Terra'De Oro and Elm street
Parks for $20,500.00, and tennis court lighting and basketball
court construction at the Seta Sports Complex for $20,500.00.
He said that the Council would be certifying that the city will
have funds to operate and maintain the projects.
Koved by Millis/Koots (4-0-1, MillIs, Hoots, Porter and
Mankins voting aye, Johnson absent) to adopt Resolution No. 2269
^pproving the Application for $41,000.00 1n Grant Funds Under the
California wildlife, Coastal and Park Land Conservation Act of
1988.
VCREATION OF TWO PERMANENT POSITIONS: BUTT,DING INSPECTOR AND PUBI,TC
!'I~ON INSPECTQR
City Manager Chris Christiansen referred to his memo of
November J, 1908, and recommended that the city Council create two
permanent positions of Building Inspector and Public Works
Construction Inspector.
Moved by Moots/Porter (4-0-1, Johnson absent) to approve Mr.
Christiansen's recommendation.
v
SF-CONO RF.^OTNG OF ORDINANCE. ROYAL OAKS PROJECT - SIDEWALKS
Mayor Hankins and Council Member Hoots said they would not
take part in the discussion or voting on this item due to possible
conflicts of Interest. There was not a quorum of Council Members.
The item was continued to the meeting of November 22, 1988.
SF.CONO READING OF ORDINANCF.oS AHENOTNG THE MUnICIPAl. COOP. RELATING
TO BUrr,OING CODES. TF.HPOAARV RESTROOM AND SANITATION FACILTTTF.S ON
THF. .TOB SITE. ANn HATNTENANCF- AND Cr.F.^NI.TNESS ON CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT SITES
Mayor Mankins pointed out that new fees charged by the City
must be In accordance with the Cann Amendment passed by the voters
in the late 1970s, which saId that fees must reflect actual costs.
2
IUOOLtrrlO1I 110. 2268
A n100I.trI'lOIl 01' 11m CITY COUIICII. 01' 'I1IE cny 01'
AItIlOYO GllAIIDP. ACCIlI'I1NG A GRANT 01' A PBlU'E1"UAL
omll WAC\! I!^S1!MI!IIT 011 1m' 1 01' 'mAar 1513
I'UI~"UANT WI1'Il 11lE 011rn WACI~ P.ASI!MI!IlT Aar 01'
1974 (GOVI!lIIlMJ!NT CODP~ C1W'Illil 6.6) ..
WlllmEA5, the Plonnl~ Cann",ion nnd Cily Counell round, In opproving Troet 1531, thut a
PcrpcluoJ Open Spoce Ensanenl Is desirable; and
WIIHUl!A8, the City or Arro)'o Gnmde ~ the lH"CSerYutloll or ClopCn fo-puC'C, the Oty
ocCC'pls a Pcrpctuul Opcn Spucc EnscO'Jenlover I..AJt 1 ot'l'rllct 1513,~ant to the fOllowing f"Cqujrcd
!1ndil'~s:
1. 1bc preservution or the land as open space Is co~Isttml wrth the Cily's gcnerDl planj Gnd
2. The preservation or lhe lonel os open spnce Is In the btst inl<'l"CSI or the Cily beeOl>le II is
In the public Inlerest thul tbe hlO<I bo relnlned .. cpon spl,eo beeouse liUCh Inlld wUl help pc-cscrve the
rural ehnroelcr or the lIreO In which the Innd Is locolc<l.
WIII!REAS, the Grnnl or Eoscn.,nt shoJI be reccroc<l conotn,,,nUy with the recordalion or
1roel 1513.
NOW. T111!Rm'OIU~ n!! rr JtI00LVI'Jl thnlll., City Cooncil or Ihe Cily or Arroyo Grnndc
hereby occepts a Gnull or a Perpetual Opon Spn<.'e El......lCIII 011 lvi 1, Truel 1513.
On ",ollon by Counell Mcrrbcr Moots, secon<lcd by Coolleil Member Millis, ond on the rollowing
roll cLlll vole, to wit:
AYIlS:
NOI'S:
An5ENT:
Coonell Membors Moots, MUlls, Porter 011<1 Muyer Mnnkins
None
Council Member JoIUlSOn
1'11e roregolng Resolution w.. passed und o<lopled lids Olh day or lIovunbar, 1088.
\t~::.. \ L
--1- _ .'.IO'.~~~!.~~
MAYall
A1'ffsr:_'{l~~_,:" a. ~
CIT~-~t1-W-=
I, NANCY A. OAV[~, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County
of San Luis Obispo, State of C.liforni., do hereby certify under penalty
of perjury that the foregoing Resolution No. 2260 is . true, full .nd
correct copy of said Resolution passed and adopted at a regular meeting
of s.i<l Council on the 9lh <I'y of November, 1900.
WITNESS my han<l .n<l Ihe Se.l of the City of Arroyo Gr.nde .ffixed
this 10th day of November, 1900.
11
RESOLUTION NO. ~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE GRANTING "OPTIONAL DESIGN AND IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS"
TO TRACT NO. 577. .
WHEREAS, a petition (or cons'der~ltlon of 1I0ptlonal Design and Impro.....ement
Standards" for that area unapproved as Tentative Tract Hap No. 577 has been duly
subml tted; and
YHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has
considered the petition and has submitted same to the City CouncIl with a
recommendation of approval for same.
NOY, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEO by the City Council of the City of
Arroyo Crande tha't said "Optional Design and Improvement Standardsu be app"roved
for said area unapproved as Tentative Tract Hap No~ 577, on the basis that deed
restrictIons provide for no more than twenty-seven (27) lots In said Tract.
On motIon of Councilman Schlegel, seconded by Councilman HillIs and on the
followIng roll call vote, to wIt:
AYES: Councilmen de Leon, Schlegel, Hillis and Hayor Talley
NOES: None
ABSEIIT: Councilman Splerllng
the foregoing Resolution was.passed and adopted this 28th day of October; 1975.
~(~
IIA YOR .
ATTEST:~. 'A. dcl ~,A!J
CITY CLERK '
I, Ines A. del Campo, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County.
of San Lul. Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 1185 Is a true, full and correct copy of said Resolution passed
and adopted, by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande at a regular
meeting of said Council held o~ the 28th day of October, 1975.
YITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed
thIs 29th day of October, 1975.
~ :;{. cRd &...bV
CI ty Clerk of the Ci ty of Arroyo Grande
(SEAL)
RR-D"2.!
.
,.
-1'/
\,..,,/
\,..,,/
RESOLUTION NO. 76-456
~SOLUTION OF THE pLANNING "COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FO~
TRACT NO. 599, "LOOMIS HEICHTS, UNIT II", AND REFERRAL
TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.
The Planning Commission of the City of ArrQYo Grande, havlpg quIy
reviewed Tentative Subdivision Map for Tract No.. 599.. "Loomis Heights, Unit
11", 8S presented by .1ohn Miller. and the repol't of the Arroyo Grande
Planning Commission Subdivision Review Board, does hereby resQlve and accept
said Tentative Map, subject to recommended condltJona Aa.8et forth 1n the
Subdlvls1pn Review Board Report, dated 3une 9, 1976.
On motion by Commissioner Mathews, seconded by Commlpsloner Ries,
4nd by the following roll call vote to wit:
AYES:
Comm~8sioner8 Cole, Gerrish,. Mathews, Ries and
~ctlng Chairman Pope
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Vice Chairman MOots
..__.. .._..._~_H _____
the foregoing Resolution WAS adopted th 8 15th day of June 1976.
ATTEST:
Acting Chd1:1l>an
Secretary
RR-D-2.10
.'
. .-
.1
Arro)"o Cranda Plalll,-",~ Commission. b-15-76
,,,..,
Page 4
On motion by Commisslon~r Gerrish, seconded by Commlssion~r Cole. and
by the following roLL call vote. to wit:
AYES:
Commissioners Cole. Ries. and Acting Chairman Pope
NOES:
Commissioner Gerrish
j\BSTAINING:
Commissioner Mathews
ABSENT:
Vice Chairman Moots
th~ foregoing Resolution was adopted th~s 15th day of June 1976.
REZONING CASE_NQ. 75"84. OAK EARK ACRES
Acting' Chairman Pope not.ed that public heflrlng. for Rezoning Case No..
75-84 had been closed at the lase regular ~eeting and discussion now would be
b ~ :";:: '. :onuni::,:. ~"-',)~:: The Planning Director added that the Cou:mission
would be consldcrin~ acceptance of the Tentative Subdivision Map 1n connection
with the r~qu~stcd zone chanse to I.'P-DII Planned Development.
Planning Director Gallop then reviewed in'detail the staff recom-
mendations for the proposed development.
After a lengthy discussion. the Commi~slon made the following
changes to the Staff Report: '11\8t red~sign and reconstruction of the inter-,
section of Oak Park Bo~levard and Frontage Road is tbe responsibility of the
applicant and shall be bonded for performance with the recordation of the map
with construction to be completed before any of the lots are sold or developed;
that James Way be paved only to the easterly ~orner of Parcel 5 with tne
recordation of the map and full underground utilities to be placed on
James Way as it develops; that a water supply of adequate sized line and
pressure shall be developed and bonded for construction to the intersection of
Oak puelt Uoulevard Bnd Frontaga Road prior to any lot '.being developed or sold,.
After further.discussion. the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 76-454 Z
RESOLUTION OF THE .PUlNNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT.
1"0 .11lE MUNICIPAL CODE OF. THE CIn OF ARROYO GRANDE j\S
PROVIDED BY CHAPTER 4 ZONING, ARTICLE 32, OF SAID CODE,.
On motion by Commiss~oner Gerrish. seconded by Commissioner Cole. and by
the following roll call vote. to wit:
AYES:
Commissioners Cole. Gerrish. Mathews. Ries. and Acting
Chair.man Pope
,NOES:
None
ABSENI:
Vice Chai~n Moots
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 15th"day of June 1976.
'..
...-/ !!YlliVIUQlL..Egy];gw .'B~R!LRECOt!M..J;l!MTIO!L:..1:ID!:r~nYLTRt,S;L~P NO~222....
. U!Qt!l~ HEIC.!!~, UNIT II (t!lggn
Director Callop noted that this 1s the second unit of LPomis Heights,
and lies to the west of LOOMis Heights. Unit X. It will consist of 12.57 acres.
which \lou~d permit 13.7 lots lie then reviewed the Subdivision Review Board's
Tecommendations. which lneluued a recommendati~n thaL a variance be given on
.3 lot I which would allow 14 lots, They also recommended that any lot h.Qving
less than 85 ft, frontage be required to have a 50 ft. front yard setback;
this would alloW' for offstreet parking on the parcE.l itself. rather than in the
right of wa$.
On motion by Commissioner Mathews. seconded by Commissioner Ries.
.!.r.o. ;.mAn1mc~sl.~, carrleci. rt.&.t Loomis Heights SubC11vislc~l. Unit'II. 1s
Arro:'o Crandc Plann~ Commission. 6-15-76
~
Page 5
in conformance with the Land Use Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.
/:
i.
.
The Commission now considered the request for a Negative Environmental
Declaration.
. .
,. j
i
!
Ht'S. Simmons. 150 Tally Ho Road. and Ella Hone:rcutt. 560 Qak l!-i.ll Road.
expressed concern about the traffic at the corner of Hason and ~ Point.~nd
Mason and Branch. .City Engineer Garcia stated that. from an engine'ering stand-
point. the intersections could handle quite a lot more traffic before there ~as
a problem. However. the City planned to watch this carefull)' and \lould peti-
tion Cal Trans for a stop light when the traff~c \.1a,:"anted\ Mrs. Honeycutt
also asked that it be noted t.hat the City has a letter on file from Dr.
Hoagland of the Lucia Mar School District stating that the schools are full.
After a brief discussiQn. the following ac~ions were taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 16-455 EIR
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION.
On motion by Commissioner Cole. seconded bi Commissioner Mathews. and
by the foJlo\ling roll call vote. to \lit:
AYES:
Commissioners Cole. Gerrish. Mat.hews. and Acti'ng
Chairman Pope
NOES:
Commissioner Ries
. ,.
c
ABSENT:
Vice Chairman Hoots
.'the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 15th ~ay of June 1976
RESOLUTION NO. 76-456
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIlE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR
TRACT NO 599. "LOOMIS HEIGHTS, UNIT IIII. AND REFERRAL
TO THE CITY COUNGIL FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. .
On motion by Commissioner ~the\ls. seconded by Commissioner Ries, and
by th~ foll~ing roll call vote. to wit:
AYES:
Commissioners Cole, Gerrish. Mathews. Ries, and Acting
Chairman Pope
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Vice Chairman Moots
the foregoing Re8ol~tion was adopted this 15th day of June 1976.
/'
..... ...,
~BDIVISION_B~VIEW-DQaBO_BE~Q~~FD6!IQNS-=~NThIIY~_l]a~!_~6~NQ.-&OO.
~~~QQP_6gRES (~B~~NHQQPl
COMHISSIONER MATHEWS EXCUSED HIMSELF DUE TO A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF
INTEREST AND IS NOW ABSENT.
Director Gallop stated that t~ls tentative map is in compliance \lith
the 1% acre lot developments allowed on "An Agricultural Zoned Districts. The
proposed 8ubdlvJ.slon is located ea:Jterly of the present Creenwood Subdivision.
Director Gallop reviewed the recommendations of the Subdivision Board. including
a recommendation of the Public Works Department that Greenwood Drive be extended
to intersect with Creen Acres Drive. Commissioner Gerrish corrected an error
on Page 3 of the Subdivision Review. Board's recommendations; it should rpad
II. . _below the 51 ft. elevation.... II
'.... ;
Bill McCann, 428 Tanner Lane. noted that on Page 14 of the Land Use Plan.
Paragraph 3, it states there is a 5 acre minimum set for parcels In "A" zoning.
'.. ..
"
w
v
TO:
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
FROM:
Robert C. Gallop, Planning Director
SUBJECT:
Subdivision Review Board r~commendations -
Tentative Hap';' Tract No. 599, "Loomis Heigh.ts, Unit 2"
DATE:
June 9, 1976
The Subdivision Review Board met on June 9, 1976 with the following
persons present:
Ed Nolan P. G. & E.
William Gerrish A. G. Planning Commission
Morgan Hathews A. G. Planning Commission
Joseph E. Anderson, Jr. City of Arroyo Grande
Robert C. Gallop City of Arroyo Grande
Tentative Hap subdividing "R-A-B-3" zoned property into 40,000 sq.
ft. lots. "Optional Design Standards" for the design of this:subdivision
have been approved by both the Planning Commission and the City Council.
After discussion, the following recommendations were made:
PUBLIC UTILITIES
P. G. & E.: No special easements were required other than.the.standard
6ft. PUE On the front of each parcel adjacentt to all right of ways.
P. T. & T.. Cable T. V..: P.
and therefore, it is assumed
these other utilities.
T. & T. and Cable T. V. were not present;
that the above noted easements will service
Southern California Gas Co.:
No comment
COUNTY DEPARTMENTS
All County 'offices were informed and only the Health Department
noted that the development should be served by City water and sewer. No
obher County department remarked on the development.
Lucia Har School District: Was notified but neither appeared nor submit-
ted a letter.
CITY DEPARTMENTS
South Countv Sanitation District: Indicated no concern.
Public Works: Recommend the extension of Hiller Way to be continued
with same improvements as approved Tract No. 577.
Water - The water system being developed for Tract No. 577 ttb be adapt-
ed and extended to serve Tract No. 599. The proposed enlarged. water
takk maybe used provided pumping modifications are made to Public Works
requirements.
~
/
'-
v
-2-
Se~ers - To be connected to the City's collection system. A pum~,~ay-
be required to accomplish this.
Drainage ~ To be developed to the approval of the City of Arroyo
Grande Engineering and Public Works Departments.
Grading Plan will be required for the project, and all graded
areas "to be protected subject to development by planting or other means.
Fire Department: Fire flo~s memo, dated June 7, indicates ,fire flo~ and
three ~ydrants to Fire Department specifications.
Planning Department:
the three tonths of a
(See note belo~)
Would concur with the Committee's recommendation on
lot variance On the development of this ,subdivision.
There are several lots ~hich have less than a 90 ft. frontage being
propos~d on rural street sections. Would recommend requiring any lot less
than 85 ft. frontage be noted as . having, a 50 ft. front yard setback to
guarantee area for off-street parking requirements.
The grade of this development to be restricted to right of way de.e
velopment and Lots 1, 2, and 3. All other lots to remain in current
conditions and no mass grading allowed.
Parks Department: Would require $48.50 park fee per lot.
One street tree to every 50 ft. of lineal frontage. Trees to
be paid for by developer at rate of $12.50 each.
NOTE: When "optional Design Standards" were discussed, there was some
question as to proper number of lots allowed on this acreage. This
matter was clarified and is.:no:tl\q by,~the,.deve>toper\'s:;Engi,neer..,.there is
12.59 acres, every "R-A-B-3" lot is 40,000 sq. ft.; and, therefore, the
property would permit 13.7 lots. After discussion, the Committee
recommended that the .3 of a lot be waivdd, and allow 1I'i lots ih"the
'development in view of the many large lots proposed.
9-:.4.608
9-4.608
Sec. 9-4.608. M.irlim!m! Ym:m Required ,e:R-l").
Mininum yards required in the "R-1" Distric~, mESS etR€f'/kle reqHired in .\Ftidc 25,
-Of too eheptcf, estebfuhiflg 8tlilding linc3, ('L I1llk.3:l Optio..al De.,;"u Stl4.Jen..b I.bvc-Lot,,,," ~
..as::.set Slit iR 8eetiefi 9 1.1>11 shall be as follow.>:
(a) Front Ym:Q, Each lot in the "R -1" District shall have a front yard extending
(except for access drives and walks) across the full width of the subject property of a depth of
not less thnn twenty feet (20'); provided, however, that the Planning DirectOl" may require
staggering of setbllcks, with a variation of three feet (3') from setbllck lines. In no case shall
a setback of less than seventeen feet (17') be allowed, except on cul-de-sac, where the
Planning Director may approve a setback of fifteen feet (15') as a part of a total development
plan.
/
Except for access driveways and walks, there shall be no structures located in the
required front yards, or in the required side yards abutting a street. No boat or trailer shall
be kept in said front yard when the property has an adequate side yard providing access to the
rcar yard, then said boat or' trailm' may be kept in said side or rear yard; nor shall it be
pel1lutted to cllirnantle, repair or keep any disabled vehicles in this front or sitie yard or
driveway; nor shall storage of ElllY material be permitted,
(b) Side Ym:Q, There shall be a side yard on each side of the lot, extending from
the front yard to the rear yard, of not less than five feet (5') of an interior lot line. A
corner lot shall hnve a side yard abutting the street of not less than ten (10') feet.
(c) R~ Ym:Q, Each lot shall have a rear yard extending across the full width of
the lot of not less than ten feet (10'), provided thnt a minimum of fifteen hundred (1500)
square feet of open area is maintained to the side or rear of the main building or in any ell or
"U" design; otherwisef, twenty feet (20') shall be required. AcccsSIJry buildings are permitted in
the rear yard. Any rear yard' covered by structures shall be replaced elsewhere on the lot,
exclusive of required yard areas. No more than one (1) wrecked, dismantled, inoperative or
disabled vehicle shall be stored or be under repair in a rear yard. All such vehicles remaining
in a rear yard more than ninety (90) days shall automatically constitute a nuisance and may be
abated under Section 4-11 of the Municipal Code. All such vehicles creating a nuisance as
defincdby Section 4-11 and other provisions of the Municipal Code may be abated at any tirOO
and prior to the foregoing ninety (90) day provision.
(Ord. 24 e.s., eff. February 27, 1969, as amended by Ord. 327 C.S., eff. May 23, 1985)
. (d) ~atelJite 00.4. !2k!h .'\.-,teflfla5. The in3tB:1:!tltr ef Satellite: Elf ather Dish :.tlteRR85
~l:>nll 00 prQhibited in any required froRt 61' side YMW If on l!Il~ roof III ed". Sa;d Satellite Vl
103
Reprint No. 36 (12/30/85)
._0'.-
GC-D-2.11
HC-D-2D 11
Design Overlay: 0-2.11 (Traffic Way Design Overlay)
Description of Parcel(s): See map below.
Use Regulations: As specified in the underlying zoning district.
Site Development Criteria: As specified in the underlying zoning district.
Performance Standards: As specified in the underlying zoning district.
Design Guidelines: Village Design Guidelines (as amended) until Traffic Way Design
Guidelines are adopted.
,
(Y "ll" "':~UCJL.
,
..;,,\..\..t.~
_~O
p~ n
RS-D-2.12
Design Overlay: 0-2.12
Description of Parcel(s): Oakcrest Estates. See Map Below.
Use Regulations: As specified in underlying Zoning District.
Site Development Criteria: "R-1" standards in effect prior to 1991 Development Code update.
See attached.
Performance Standards: None.
Design Guidelines: None.
Additional Information: These parcels were zoned with a -0 overlay at the time of the 1991
Development Code update to clarify development standards that pertain to this development.
,
,
,
,
,
,
".
"
"'
,
,
.-
VOL
.
.
.
\
\
AG
1.--""'\' \."~ \
__\.\ ,:,..;....lRR......
\ 0:.\\..- '\_~".1
--
\
\.
,
'.
'.
............-\
...... ...... '.
MFA-b-2.13
Design Overlay: 0-2.13
Description of Parcel(s): APN 77-211-025, 1110 Sunset Drive
Use Regulations: Parcel is conditionally zoned MFA (Apartments) only while under the
ownership of Holly Ziegler. The zoning will revert to SF (single family) upon the sale of the
property. The buildings may be maintained or restored to their original size and configuration
if accidently destroyed by act of God, terrorism, or war. The structures may not be enlarged or
the use expanded. The structures can not be Intentionally demolished and rebuilt.
Site Development Criteria: MFA development standards would apply.
Performance Standards: None.
Design Guidelines: None.
Additional Information: This parcel was zoned with a -0 overlay at the time of the 1990
Development Code update in order to maintain consistency with the Land Use Element of the
General Plan adopted on May 22, 1990.
"
...
I
Design Overlay: 0-2.14
Description of Parcel(s): Farroll Heights, Tract No. 1050. See Map Below.
MF -D-2.14
Use Regulations: Twin home subdivision was approved through Use Permit Case No. 82.335.
All other uses are as allowed in the underlying Zoning District.
Site Development Criteria: As shown on development plan approved for Tentative Tract No.
1050, approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 82.902. Development approved through
Use Permit Process, Case No. 82-335, Resolution No. 82.900 U.
Performance Standards: None.
Design Guidelines: None.
Additional Information: These parcels were zoned with a ,0 overlay at the time of the 1991
Development Code update to clarify development standards that pertain to this tract.
I~'~.q f', I I '-i' , ~r~:~:~ '-sIFj i U:I
. ;--'~F 'SR .:T.. r' PF ; ;., .: 'j
:::.t~i~~' .<~. ..-..i' _..~. ~MFAi".' ~." '-t.::. . T;~ "L~.~.:':;;j
~~..: "l't-.:.~.~._~ -.- r:-.: II': .' --.. . i . ,:....'..
" ! ~.. ..;: ~r'l ~..~,.; r".. ," ~~T ;: I ;!~..:...,
'.~__.. .. .." I ,._._ ._. .,. .._.J '-"-'. __,( ., l. .._.J
r".', .--, I~ .....-~ 1"'1"--'"'' ..-~
:. 'f:~F; l..l.~ ,'-i,; ,i :. I SF ~...
: I ..::.. ~ :'::,' ~f:t- .
. ------I ~ ,,-,.. '. "':" : j"
1:B~t:')~- ~ : :'.. . :'-'.
: :.' 18.. i . l~ . '.':
------' .-," -. '''-''~'
.u
-, r- .-, r-r-'
.~ ~..~ ~- -~ -I r- - t .. ~
::; ; .j.l-: ~. i :.
n! r' un. ". . t . "I:
I' .~.......,.. ~:r."l i- lit,. . 1':
,>.. . -I , .., . !
...~. '1~- '! '1~' I .
';:::;'.:> ""-1'- l ;
: : . I t. ,'j .... ,
~,I.. _.
"1:J' ,-- '['-';:-j', r I ;
'~.~_l :",Fl' 11 i
r .., \..'\' l
I .' t t 1 I
... ,', I 'I, I
! 1-'-' i II 'l'
~--~\.,~~' , ;:! i7 L
. ,. ~ ,:; I '.f
, . Ie - 1:' ,
I flT'fTJ
,'W( L.i.-l.;,l,
7 '.
~ ..!~1" ~ \~
~ ~;1.-rTrrri~
~. ~l~~7t
m/
t\v"":. :~.,'
~
-
(,It
:~.,.o...."o..
· l .
~r SR
-.
PF
tAMt.
~
..!....:....:.....J :
FA'_
::: rr":'--":
0'" 'l'~r:Ur~i.
'. . t/I.. ,......
" ': I'
-...... .--
'--!--
i :
, ,
: '
, ,
~f :
..
. .. ~ .
.. .
...- ,"
:-- ......:-
... ",
: .. .
Pop,
1(5
~S*
pf
'+~t~~~'
..~~h" . ~.
.-...T....
Z<:<
... F . f--
- - N'o;( c:f' tJ\f
:"r(l'!T",-. . .. . ~D. 1 \
I ~~-ftgft
. ~J :rli\-\'trI
.~~r;;r
::t'rFI
h.
\.11'
,.......
. . +.
l"Ofl,'~
I
I
I __ ...
'"
I oci.p.~O
I Sc:.y\QOL
.- ...--- .--.-
I'..U.I....-___.____ ..______
,."
"".II~
,
uJe
nESOL~TION NO. 82-900 U
RESOLUTION OF 'l'HE. PUNNING COMMISSION OF THE CI'l'Y OF
AIw'OVO CRANDi:: Cf(AN'.rINC A use PEIUiI'l'". CASE NO. 112-335.
The Planning Commission finds that the Use Permit applied lor by Caring, Taylo.r'.:,,"'.'.~'"
& Associates" Inc., Agents for the applicants, meets the requirements of the
1\rroyo Crande Municipal Code to allow for developlni::nt of 63 Planned Residential
Units on tho south side of Farroll Avenue, immediately west of the Crandmothers'
Mobilchome Park in the lOp-DOl l;olanned Development Oistrict on the following
described property:
Being the Subdivision of Lot No. 18 of Pismo Beach Gardens
(Dook 3 of Maps, Page 4S), in the City of Arroyo Grande,
eounty of San Luis Obispo~ State of CAlifornia: Also
identIfied by A~ses~orls Varcel No. 70-432-03
and qrants said Use Permit for the following reasons:
1. permissive use within the District subject to Use Permit procedures.
2. W~uld n~t adversely. affect abutting properties.
'On llIotion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded by commissioner Pilkington,
and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES,
commissioners Hoots, ~ilkin9ton,. Sebastian and
Vice Chairperson Cole
None
NOES,
J\llSENT.
Commissioners Benhardt, Saruwatari and Chairman Cerrish
the fQregoing Resolution was adopted this 4th day of May 19D2.
Vd' ~
~TTEST. ,
. -UiA.I d!! ~j....,~~ ~.. p J
secrot.t..ry f/.. Vice Chairperson.
~
." '.
,
. f/,-(-::.
.)........'1
01.,0
REsOLUTION NO. 82-902
RESOLtrrION OF 'l1m PIJ\NNING COMHI!iSION OF TilE CITY OF
AIUlC)YO CIWlDE API~ROVrNG 'l'ENTJ\'rIVE 'l'MC'I' Ki\P NO. 1.050.
"1-'ARROLL )-JEICU1'S", ANt) RJ:::FERRAL '1'0 THE CITY' COUNCIL
FOR INFORMA'rIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.
WIIERE.1\S, the Arroyo Crande Planning COIMlission, on May 4, 1902, held a
public hearing on tlle request for'approval of a tentative ~ap of subdivision
No. 1050, filc~ in March of 1902 by Caring, Taylor & Associates, Inc., ^9cnts
for. the Applicants, for OJ Planned Residential Units on the south side of
Parroll Avenue, inwediatcly west of the Grandmothers' ~bilehome Park: and
WIIEru:"..J\S, all qovcrnmental Clnd utility Agencies affected by the development
of this lanu have been notified and given the opportunity to respond thereto;
and
WHEREAS, a negative declaration was approved for this .proposed tentative
map on MOlY 4, 1902, the P1anning Commission having found that no substantial
adverse illlpacts wi11 occur as a result of . this project; and
,"U1-;REJ\S, this Commission has considered the effects that approval of this
subdivision wou1d have on the housing needs of San Luis Obispo County; and
~IBREAS, the map has been reviewed by the San Luis Obispo Planning
Department staff and found to be in conformance with tho subdivision regulations
in all respects.
NOW, THE~ORE, DE IT RESOLVED that the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
certifies that the Ne9ative Dec14ratlon has been prepared in compliance with
CEQA, State and City Guidelines and that it has reviewed and considered the
information contained therein; ~\d
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission finds that none of
the conditions described in Government Code, Section 66474, Subsections (a)
throulJh (CJ) inc1usive, exists with respect to said subdivision; and
DE IT FUnniER RESOLVED that the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, after
rcvicwint) the proposed subdivision, toc:;ether with" its d~sign and improvements,
finds said subdivision to be consistent with app1icablc generdl and specific
p1ans and with the zoning on the property; and
nE IT FURTHEa RESOLVED that the benefits of additional housing is-greater
than any negOltive effect the subdivision would have on fiscal and environmental
resources; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the tentative map of Subdivision No~ 1050 be
approveu subject to the below li$ted conditions:
1. That a 6 ft. perimeter fence shall be constructed around the entire
Z.ubllivision. Interior fences to be installe..! .:2;nu to be approved by
the Planning Director.
2. That the applicant shall prepare a Master Drainage Plan for the entire
Stem Area. The p1an shall "be approved by the Director of Public Works
~nd auopted by the City Council, and applicant shall be responsible for
necessary improvements required for their project. Easement to Elm
Street rark and Soto Sports Complex to be shown on drainage plans~
B~~itab1c plan to be work~d out for u~er b~nefit on both sides of
}o'arr011 AVenue.
3. Parroll l~ad to be improved to minimum width of 34 ft. of pavement plus
curb, 9utter and ~idewalk on the south fronta~e~
4. ~ppropriotc dedicOltions for Farroll Avenue and interior streets.
S. Interior streets to be improved with minimum of 52 ft.' right of way, with
concrete curbs, CJutt~rs and sluewa1ks. Street lights on ornamental poles
to P. G. & 1::. ::>tllncJards.
6. All 10ts to have under9rounu utilities, inc1uding Cable T.V.
7. Wutcr and sewer connections to each lot.
o. Firu hydr~nt~ to b~ located as required by th~ Fire Chief and shall meet
minimwn flow requirements.
~. Water line to be looped between two cul-de-sacs through Lots 52 and 57,
or alternOlte design as approved by the Director of Public Works.
1
L
L
Arroyo Grande Plnnning Commi~sion
Hcsolution No.. 02-902
'l'ract No. 1050, "Farroll Heights"
Page 2
10. Sewer easement dedication may be required for as-built condition of
sewer trunk line. Xnstall new manhole with paved nccess from City
street at approximately mid-point between Farroll Avenue And south
property line.
11. Access to trunk lIne casement shall be provided through interior fences
via gates at each property line from Farroll Avenue to the southerly
prop~rty line, or blanket-easement to be prov!de~ over Lots 20 through
44 for Access from interior streets, or sOlne other approvt!d plan.
12. Appropriate fees to be paid with recordation of final map, e.g. park
fees, street tree fees, "drainaye fees.
13.
That subdivision map be found to be consistent with Zoning and General
Plan of the City.
On
by the
motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded by Commissioner Hoots, and
following roll c~ll vote, to wit:
AVES:
Commissioners Moots, Pilkington, Sebastian and
Vice Chc\irperson Cole
None
Commissioners Denhardt, Saruwatari and Chairman Gerrish
NOES:
ADSI::NT:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 4th day of May 1992.
~ :/A \
ATTEST:
. AiL . ~~~'o
Secr~ tary
--,(?"\ J _ /J-e.
vic~ Cha1.rperDOn
U4J.
MF -D-2.15
Design Overlay: D-2.15
".r
I'> ,J \
\. L\'I''>~ , ~ ,.
Description of Parcel(s): Golden West Homes, Tract No. 398. See Map Below. JV"J F')' I
Use Regulations: Twin home subdivision was approved through Tract Map 398:'Other uses i, ~\v
as specified in underlying Zoning District. - (~'."J.
Site Development Criteria: As per Tentative Tract No. 398, Planning Commission Resolution F
70-166 S. cb.AJ.t'+ .f1',J
. I
1'\1,\ 1<1 l2et,O
Performance Standards: None.
Design Guidelines: None
Additional Information: These parcels were zoned with a -D overlay at the time of the 1991
Development Code update to clarify development standards that pertain to this tract.
- -
~III
:""'1'010"'1,0", PF
'''NI.
~ ~/....:::;
~p. ....
1;5 ~S
!~~:1 I' 1.1 I I" ,:I:::::~ '-IF''II:T
. I I SR L .... S',
--.- .,. MF " -'j P.F.; 'L-"T' "'f"'"
:'::::C~f~' ...,. 4- - ,.J fMFA ".;.,. -t ~ ; -- 1--": L,:
~:--- ,-jl ~- '.' --d :~ :. r'" : i " '-.j:'.~
n. . . .. ..J'. :,' ',,' n-., .._~;.' . .
u; r. . -j_t ;_~4" ..' ~.' ~""MJ 1.-.1. '.( ... L. ..~
r':.;-~MF:IIT Ij fJiJr: ;SF ~
I .', ,',;, ~f
· I;:SR - -. r~~--1;L :~:' .~ ':: :" :
~' : ':3:~" jE''!:' I ~ ,.....,
: : .. u;.:. '.' :
.-" ., , . . ...,--
... "'I
, "!-'! .....-, 1-"'--' r-"l-~
. . . .; ~..~ -r "' r- . t -
:_~.\..;' .:: -t-' ~- r I r . "I
'" .:: c,:,' '1 J:j !
I. .' II .
I ~ ,... .... ~:~r~ 1 r' , . r .
)' ..-...:!. ~.. .
...~. -- E- :_ ~:3.- :
"~~'1'" ; , '..: l"L I "'1"'.1
!:.:. . J J
u:-.t.:-'"-.1.. --~ ..
";:'t'. r lfill
'-'~ ;- ',51 ;: ~\
~.. .:. I I 1 r
I '}--. 'III 1
I \.. ~ . I I
~"~(ltl' ii: !
, / \. 1:: '
... In'
~"'-7 ,~/~:
~ ~ .
.~- < ""(J'r+T
;-1~iW7
fILl tll'
'-11. L.i.ll~
pr
L ~ .:..... ~ :
'Ai_
::': TI.' -.....
.... J. ::: :
.. ~ ::.:; .
o I' 1 : '~r~~h'
1 '. .: ~_L:
-'~':"'r'"
~
- . ,~~ e,E
'-Yr.:f.~~.
i-~~ ';,
: c~:ff,1 ~
n.,.'rh.'........
,
.~
t-/lr
, .
; ~
t-/lHP.
co
, '
tJ\r :
I. ~O~,~
L,
''''
I octp.~O
l 'SCr\OO\"
r-lI.L...-,.:::--::::-.... .-
./
/) 2.11
RESOLUTION NO. 70-166 S
RESOLUTION OF THE. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP
OF TRACT NO. 398, GOLOEN WEST HOM(S UNIT NO.2.
The Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande ~aving duly reviewed Tenta-
tive Subdivision Map for Tract No. 398, Golden West Homes U~lt No.2, as presented by
Hr. C. L. Martin and the City of Arroyo Grande Subdivision Review Board, does hereby
resolve and accept said Tentative M3p subject to the fOllowing conditions and require-
ments, to wit:
1. All electric services, including street lighting, to be installed undergro:.Jnd
within public right-of-way and ea$ements.
v
2. Street lighting as required by the Planning and Public Works De~artments.
3. Existing overhead ele~tric service on Farroll ,Ave~~e to remain overhead.
4. Telephone service to be provided underground on five foot (51). rear yard
utility ea-sements per map en file.
5. C~ble T.V. Service to be prGvided by joint trenching and e~sement use,
subject to coordination with P.T.&T., P.G.& E., and the developer.
6. Gas service to be provided from publi~ right-of-way; joint trenching
possibly within the truct.
7. The County Road Department requests that no additional water be generated
from the tract on Farroll Avenue into the Co~nty are3. Alia, that Farroll
Avenue grade conform to County road grdde t!) City Limits.
8. The County Health Department requires all development to be served by City
water and sewer services.
9. The Fire Department requires two Greenberg #74, or equal, hydrants;. one
located at the northeasterly corner of the Intersection of Golden West
place and Farroll Avenue, and the second hydrant to be ~ocated between
Lots 8 and 9.
10. All off site improvements to be installed to City specifications and
Inspected as follows:
a. Curb and gutter Gn Farroll Avenue frontage.
b. 4tl sidewalk integral to curb, and full street Improvements on Colden
West Place.
c., 5' sidewalk integral to curb on Farroll Avenue, and paving to existing
surfacing.
d. 611 water line on Farroll Avenue across entire frontage of subject
property to City requirements.
.....
e. 1211 sewer ltne across entire frontage of subject property to City
specifications.
f. Sewer and wdter line construction plans and Individual house services
to b~ approved by the department and all installations be inspected
by the City.
g. Street and traffic control signs to be provided by developer as re-
quired by the Public Works Department.
h. .Lot ~o. 19 to be graded as required and reserved for drain pond usage
subject to area wide drainage being resolved. Title to remain with
developer. (Note: This lot may be developed for recreational purposes
by property OWners in the Tract, subject to approval of the City,
until such time it is released for development).
......":",
II. front yard setb;;scks to be staggered from minimum of :15' and more as required
by'the Planning Director.
-~-
. tf:" 'ttree\hla'rtIe 41'~:ll~a~t;d''''';;,''~p''.i:;;;ep'tab-'I'e.' ;.~'"
13. 61 walkway easement between lots 9 and 10 to provide access to communIty
park and the 611 sewer line to be Installed by developer to the northerly
property 1 tne.
14.
Street tree
frontages.
purposes.
planting easement of 10' to b~ shown on map along all street
Said ease~ent to Include 61 easement to ~.G.& E. for utility
IS. Street tree planting program to be developed by the Parks Department and
trees to be paid for by developer, not to exceed $5~OO per tree. Also
see Item"No. 13 pertaining to pedestrian walkway between lots 9 and 10.
. On motIon of Commissioner Combe, seconded by Commissioner Strother. and by the
_. following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Combe, Kane, Porter, St. Denis, Strother and Hoss
None
Commissioner McMillen
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 5th day of May, 1970.
ATTEST: 4 t1 x7!?L. .
-'>A ';/
..,... Secr~tary
~~/ ~, '}?1.~
tha I rman '
'.
I
...)
.J
SF-D-2.16
Design Overlay: 0-2.16
Description of Parcel(s): Villa Los Berros, Tract No. 954. See Map Below.
Use Regulations: Although the tract is zoned SF, single family attached homes are an allowed
use per Tentative Tract No. 954, Planning Commission Resolution 81-817. All other uses are as
per the underlying Zoning District.
Site Development Criteria: Optional Design Standards provide for a development that
conforms to adjacent structures on Bambi Court and permits varying lot dimensions, lot areas,
frontages and configuration as shown on approve Tentative Tract No. 954, Planning Commission
Resolution 81-817.
Performance Standards: None.
/
Design Guidelines: Elevations to be reviewed and approved by the Planning' Director. The
exterior shall conform with the elevations noted on Exhibit "AU for Tentative Tract. 954, Planning
Commission Resolution 81-817.
Additional Information: These parcels were zoned with a -0 overlay at the time of the 1991
Development Code update to clarify development standards that pertain to this tract.
" y-
...
p.G
..
f-' r......g.~.~ r',;:::..''I.
., /............,
_. -0\ ~y...-....
, -. "', .........fj
'1"1" . . ""-, '-
~:: ,flfii'
I . i ....~.
L ~ _ . .1 '. pf
I",T :-.
'SF'':- F
IS . l)
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
I
.
.___.J____n__
)1.
p.G
~m
~~
I
I "'- -- '"
I -',
. \
,
. pf
r--" .
.
.
.
,
.u .______.___._...
.
,
._.. on ._.._._~...:.:: n .__
/
I
.l~~t~~ _
:t-AllfD
'.
................
~..:...-.
......;.....
"",;..'
, -
, ,
:,....
- -.-.=:: _ ".-_"::.: -:- .\.9f. \f,,"".- JliU..IQrt .-,b.Q.u....:.-::.:=-=:.-
'1
.,
: ~
Sf-O'
'l.;'\6
I
I
l.,
HESOLUTION NO. 01-017
rtESOLU'l'ION OF THE PUNNINC CON.'tISSION OF 'rUE CITY OF
1\HnOYO CHl\NUI-: JWPROVINC 'Cl::N'l'f\'fIVl;; SUBDIVISION l"'hP"
.1.1U\(...J.. ~5" "VILLl\ LOS lll::RHOS", NIO kEf'EiutAL '1'0 TilE
CITY COUNCIL FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.
The Planning ~ommission of the City of Arroyo Grande, having duly
reviewed TenL1.tive Subdivision }Olap for Tract 954 "Villa Los Berros" as
prepared by Garing Farms" and the report by Public Works Director Paul
Karp" dated April 15,<1901, does,hereby resolve and A9cept said Tentative
Hap for Tract No. 954 and finds that it is in confonnance with the City's
Cener~l Plan and Zoning_ Said approval and acceptance subject to recom-
mended conditions as set forth in the Public Works Director's report..
dated April 15.. 1981 and the following additional conditions:
10. Elevations to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director.
11. The exterior shall '~onform with the elevations noted on Exhibit
"A"..
On Dlotion by. Commissioner Moots, seconded by CQmmissioner Fischer, and
by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
commissioners Fischer, Gerrish, Moots and Chairman
Gorsline
NOES:
l\BSENT:
None
Commissioners Cole, Pilkingbon and Sebastian
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 21st day of April 1981.
N1"l'''S1': ~
AhtJ
Secretary
x
)Z?L~:""if -
QD.l
[\ '" I:'..,
) ;,~ I ~.
Chainuan
I
I
1
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
;
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
,-,.
''--'
SUBJECT:
Ricardo J. Castro, Planning Director
'0"' J. ~op. MHo Noo'. D'O..'OO~~
Subdivision Review -
Tenta~~ye Subdivi:.s,ion Map, Tract 954 J "Villa Lo~ Berrosll"
Los Berros and Valley Road. (Garing Farms).
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
April 15, 1981
Commissioner Gerrish was absent and, therefore, the Board/could not meet
as' an Archi tectural- Review Board.: Actions ,taken were only those: .wi th; r.egard to
lot spli tand tract aPProval. 'I.n light. of that proceeding; the map was
approved'w~th the following conditions and findings.
1. That Optional Design Standards be approved for the tract as per-
mitted by the Zoning Ordinance for the "R-2" Zone. Those Optional
Design Standards are to provide for a development that would con-
form to the adjacent structures on Bambi Court. The Optional
Design Standards will permit varying lot dimensions, areas, frontages
and configuration.
2.. Improvements to City Streets will include installation of paving,
water main, sewer main, underground utilities, curb, gutter and
sidewalk, as shown on the tentative map.
3. The fire hydrant locations. shall be in accordance with the require-
ments of the Fire Chief.
4. Street lighting will be required per P. G. & E. standards.
5. Street tree easements, fees and park fees will be required as per
the Subdivi~ion Ordinance~
6. Prior to issuance of a building permi.t, a projection af the 100 year
flood elevation shall be procured from the Corps of Engineers in
order to set elevations for the new structures.
7. Prior to recordation of the final map, architectural approval by
the Planning Commission will be required.
B. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan will be required for the
review and approval of the Planning Director prior to recordation
of the final map.
9. C. C. & R.'s shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Director prior to recordation of the map.
Findings ,were made that the tentative map, as conditioned, will be
consistent with the General plan and Zoning.
MF -D-2.17
Design Overlay: 0-2.17
Description of Parcel(s): Pacific Pointe. Tract No. 1395. See Map Below.
Use Regulations: Twin home subdivision was approved through optional design standards
on Tentative Tract 1395. Other uses as specified in the underlying Zoning District.
Site Development Criteria: Final map approval was subject to Architectural Review prior to
recordation. See Tentative Map Case No. 1395. City Council Resolution 1947. and Architectural
Review Case No. 86-366.
Performance Standards: As detailed in Tentative Tract. No. 1395. Resolution 1947.
Design Guidelines: As shown in approved Architectural Review Case Mo. 86-366
Additional Information: These parcels were zoned with a -0 overlay at the time of the 1991
Development Code update to clarify development standards that pertain to this tract.
: z
- .~ - - :"'r'''' .
: i
: I
: I
i
I
I
,
I
i
L.
fill
nil
~ .~.~ ~ ; I ..PLI ..'
~=~"-~\~'-MF ' ~.;_. ~~--\. ~Fi.:!:; ~":: '~~U11
~~t-1At~~': '1-- -j! ~~~Ar'.-- -~,c--".:-"'h;~~.;;~
\':--'-;:' --:T~l';"~""-'f':.io; I.; ;.... ~::! L~"":-=-1
~ _.: ":.-: ...= :_~: . I......... ._.....J L.:.....i..... _Ai. ~_J
r"'" , . 'II~ -'-'--1 f-I .., ,. "I .. . ~"l
:....h~F L :':. -j .l.:~; : > .SF~;~~
· :,. . - " .:=-;1......... ~..;. Fj':
.,.SR : :r;;,;:.[:-::;:. t: ;.,.'.....
"' : '~':-' ~ =:..~.t ~ ,::"
I : : ..... i.:. .' ,:
L,t:":'-- J. .--... _..1 _.... _.___
'.1- ., .'1'
", , ..'~;-:-- "T-, rOOT -, r-'.'.--'
. . . .~ L ...'- I -. - I....
," -., : 1 r i. \,., . ;
:"" :~".~ .-~? : P1--t t-i. I .
--, ,.., ,..".,
~~r:.t r- r' I t"'-. 1
.. .1 I ,-," . .
...... 1~. "! "13.,: I :
';T:l:>t .~I :1~r.': I.. ;
,.J ...] . 1 ._
~'"..l:r ; f'j:F1l11
~'I (4 "' ~ 1-.
~..t '" I' l r I I
I .1- -, I I I 1 J
I \.. ~ I ~ I ,
,.. (" I.' I'
1,1..1 ~.I i.
. : LtD~}'1T:
I...t LJ.......
~ 7/,1:',
, '), ^ .' ,
. , >;(1,J,.rr'
~ --..,lJ. lllJ
~ll1m1
~ --
(,f,
..11..0....',<1"
PF
u..u.
~
?p.
1;5
v/..a:" ",'
. . I .. .{. r-~ ....
J:: ..
t-/lr~,_... ~'~H' ;
__'_ ~ :. I. ..~~.i..
~
11~T
':~I"'~'t
. . .,
~.:. .~ F:.
.' .''\ .'
~ :ffilf ~
\.,-rl . rtt ' ,...,",:
t-/lr
MHP
~r
,
I. tIoO<;l.1.....
I oct.p.~o
1
J _._sc~~oc_
'11.1" .. n_._.. ____._
.
!
r ~I R' . I
"III L.1.11~
237
IlESOLunON NO. 1.947
A RESOLUnON OF 'I1lE CITY COUNCIL OF 'I1lE
CITY OF ARnOYO GRANDE AFPROVING REVISED
'I'ENTAUVE mAcr MAP NO. 1395 "PACIFIC
POIN1", UNDER Ol'TlONAL DFSIGN STANDARDS.
. WHEREAS, the Oty O>uncU ot the Oty' ot Arroyo Grande has considered the
Tentative 'freet Mop .ot 'fract Mop No. 1395, med by Mld-State. Ell:ineers, .lnc., Agents tor
Strav.berry Putch, urAcr Optional Design Staa:!llrdlln accccdance v.lth the Oty Cbdej and
WHERRAS, said tentetlve. map WllS referred to the Plannlng O:mrissIon,.yarlous pubIlc
utility cooip<l/l1es, Oty depe.rtrrents, and the Stalt Advisory Camittee tor reclXllJlOOClatlons.
NOW, 'llmlUlFOIlE, RIl IT lU!SOLVED by the Oty ClluncU of the Oty of Arroyo
Grande that the tollowinlr tind!nj:s were mode: .
(
1. 'That the project Is consistent with the General Plan. .'
2. '!hut II negative declaration ot environmental Itrpect can.be adopted urAer the
provisions ot the Oilitornle Envlrorroental QualIty Act (c.E.Q.A.).
3. Thut the project Is COlclstent with the genortil provisions of the Zocllr1ir Ordlnonce
os m:<lIlIed by the Optional DesJgn Suuv:!arW.
4. That the ~ type, lot el2e and the general nature ot the \X'OPClSO<l deve1o{:ment
is con.istent with the GOIili WJd Objectives of the HOU:Iinc' Element ot the General
Plan, .. adopted In 1985. .
.RIl IT PtlllTBER lU!SOLVED thet the Oty Oluricn of the Otyof .hToyo Grande
hereby approv<:! seId Tenllltive Map, llUbJect to the tollowlng CondltlOllS'
L The map shall be conditioned so thnt the final treet map may not be recerded
and no lots may be sold untU the project design has been epproved by the Stalt
Advisory Callnlttee and the 1'IllnnIng ~on. 111e purpose ot this .conditlon Is
to assure that the patio hare design, ~ the location ot gurages and the
etteclent u:;e ot land or... tor drlvewa:f.l Is llS"ured. A notation lIIluU be atthed
to Ille tenllltive mup, which read! "ThIs map Is subject to the project design
llpptoval prier to recerdlltion".
2. Final project design shall carbin8 driveways so as to ~ ourb cuts and
Il'ollXimlze tile on-street perking cllpllbWty of the slJixllvislon design, ..nere teos!ble.
3. interior local streets shall be constn>::te<I to Oty standards per Standard
CbmtnIction .Drll~ A<l.
4. A slum draln extension shall be required !ran tho intersection of Fnrroll Avenue
and Elm Street to the existing draln west ot Golden West PlAce. ThIs requirement
to be met or tully bonded tor lit 125% ot estimated coot Wore recordlltion ot
fl1llll mup.
5. Elm Street shall be Improved with cLrb, gutter .and sidewalks, and the necessory
otters ot dedlcatlon to adopted plan shall.be provided.
6. Street lights consistent mth the requlrements and staMnrds of P. G. and E. shnll
be provided, mounted on omamental poles, subject to the design approval of the
l'uhlic \Yorks Depertrrent on.ell streelS.
7. A fmol map shnll be recorded prlCl' to the Issuance ot buJldillg permits.
8. Ott-s1te hnfrOvement .p1are, lneludirg grading, drnlnege and water, shall be
submitted to the sntisteetion of the Publlc Works Dirt:Ctor prior to recordation ot
thl! tinlll trnet map. .
9. All utility 1nstellation shall be urAerground.
10. Retaining walls between lots on beck or site and perimeter shnll be shown on
grading and dralnoge p1are.
11. ~ Dql6rtment 1tequireWents.' One IS gallon street tree per lot. set beck and
planted e.lIiIliInm ot 5 ft. !ran tront sidewalk. 'fre.. to be Installed by
conlrllCw..: S1"-"I<:1 of trees to be determined by the the Perks and Recreation
Dirt:ctor. ::
Resolution No. 1947
Page 2
Avoid planting n<!Xt to utility sernces.
Pl.anUng epecltlcotIons CPlantInc sn:l stnrllng. plam) to be. suI:rrltted by the
controctcr sn:l llpfC'Oved by the Dlrectcr ot Pnrl<s sn:l Recreotlon.
Paxk developirenl tees resonSlbUlty per lot.
12. ~ D<.vu-bw,l. Requlrement. 4 ft. pivole sldewa1ks, to be 10cated within
the required front yard setback at Inlerlcr lots.
On motion by Councu Merrber Jo!11Son, seconded by O:l\mcU Membe!- Moots, sn:l by the
fonovMg ron call vole, to will
AYESI MayO<' Snith sn:l O:luncU Merrbers Johnson, Moots sn:l Pa'ter
NOES: O:luncU Merrber Gallagher
~ None .
.the toregolng Resolution WllS adopted this 8th -day at AprI1, 1986.
Y.3 0~AU ~
MAYOR
AITFST. _ CZ. ~
CITY CLERK
I, NANCY A. DAVIS, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County
of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify that the
forcgolng Resolution No. 1947 Is a true, full and correct copy of said
Resolution passed and adopted at a regular meeting of said Council on
the 8lh day of April, 1986". .
WITNESS my hand arid the Seal of "the City of Arroyo Grande affixed
this 14th day of April, 1986.
~~
:
.. ".....
L:JL- "'.":.h.
......... .
. ... a .....i.
.':.,~:.. :,
..
.: ...:.~~: :;.::' .'
.:;'..'... . ~:.. . '.
RESOLUTION NO. l!&-1080
A RESOLUTION OF THE I'LANNING mMMISSION OF THE:
CITY OF IillROYO GRANDE RECXlMMENDlNG APPROVAL OF
REVISED 'illNTATIVE 'IRACf MAP NO. 13D5 UNDER
Ol"110NAL DESIGN 51'ANDAltDS
. WHF.REAS, the PJnnning Olmrission of the aty of /uTOYO Grande has considered the
Tentative 'Ii'act Map of Truct Map No. 1395, med by Mid-Stote Engine...., Inc., Agents for
Stru"boarry futch, under Optional DesiJo{n Standards. In accordonee with the aty Code) and
l'/lrrillEAS, soid tentative map was referred to various public utility componies, aty
dep""tJrents, und the Staff Adv'.soI'Y Oomnittee for reco<tTnendotiol1S) w1d .
WHEREAS, the C'armission finds, after due st~dy and . deliberation, the followiIlg
circun5tunc~ exist; .
1. That the project is coreistent with the GeneroJ. Plan. !,
2. '!hat a negative declaration of envlrorurentoJ. Impact con boa 'adopted under the
pl'Ovbio'" of the Oilifomia Environmental Quulity Act (c.E.Q.A.). I
3. 'fi,at the project Is consistent with the generoJ. provisions of the Zoning Ordinance ..J
. .._ as nxxlified by the Optional Design Standards.
4. '!hat the housing type, lot size fllld the generoJ. nature of the proposed develo{:<rent
Is consistent with the GoaJs and Objectives of the Housing Element of the GeneroJ.
Plnn, l\S adopted In '1985,
NOW, THERl!l'ORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Plannlng CcmnissIon of the aty of
Arroyo GrWlde hereby recoorr.eods approvoJ. of said Tentative Map, .ubject to the follov.ing
coOOitiofd;
1. The mop shall boa conditioned so that the fllloJ. tract mop moy not
be recorded and no lots rray be sold unW the project design has been approved by
the Staff Advisory Corrmittee and the Plannlng Coamission. The purpcse of this
condition Is to assure that the patio hane desi],{O, lilC!udlng the location of ger,,!:'"
and the efteeient use of land erea .for driveways Is llSSlJ1'ed. A notation shall be
affLxed to the tenlotive map, which reads "1his mop Is subject to the project
design approvlll prior to recordation".
2. PInIIl project design shall ccablne driveways so as .to mininize curb
cuts Md lIlIlldnUze the on-street parking capability of the ."ubdivision design, where
. feasible. .
3. Interior local streets shall be constructed to aty s1nndsrds per
StMdard C'onstruetion Drawings A4.
4. A stolm drain extension shall be required fran the intersection of
P"rroll Avenue and Elm Street to the existing drein west of Golden West P\D.ce.
'fi,is requirement to be met or fully bonded for at 125% of estirrated coot before
recordation of linlil map.
5. Elm Street shall be improved with curb, gutter and sldewalJ<s, and
the necessbry "rCers of dc<lieation to adopted pion shllll be provided.
Ii. Street lights co~istent with the requlrerr.ents luKl standttr'ds or
P. G, end E. shull be provided, . mounted on omamentoJ. poles, subject to the dcsign
opprov.u oC the Public Works Department on all streets.
7, A finoJ. mop shall be recorded prior to the issuflllCe of building
pe.1I1its.
8. Orc-s;te imfT'Ovement plans, Including grading, dreinage and ""ter,
,holl be' subtitted to the satisC"cUon of the Public Works Director prior to
rt:cordation or the fuud truct n1ilp.
9.' All utility Instll!Jaticn shall be undeq:round.
10. Retaining wulls. between lots on beck or site fllld pcrlrrP.ter shall be
.hown on grudirg fllld dr.inage pinos.
11, f'Jrks ~t ~,ts. Onc 15 gallon street tree per lot, set bock and
plnnted n ninin:um of 5 ft. frall front sidewli!k. '!l'e"" to be installed by
contructor. Species of trees to be dcterlT'loed by the the !'arks and Uecreatioo
Dif(octor .
.'
L,
,"
L
Avoid plBnting next to utility services.
Planting specifieaUorn (Planting nnd starling pJare) to be
SlJbnirtod by the contractor nnd awoved by the Director
Hecreetion.
of Psrks nnd
Perk dc'ielop<Tent fees reoonsibllity per lot.
12 P!onnirg DOl>Orlrr.ent ~l. 4 ft. private sidewtUks, to be located within
the required front yard setbeck of Interior lots.
On n'Otion by Conmi...-..sioner Moore, scconded by COlTITli..."Sioner Olsen, end by the follO\'vir:g
roll cnll vote, to wit:
AYES: Conmissioners Moore, Olsen end Vice OlElirrr.an Carr
NOT::>: Comrission.rs Soto nnd D01\1;"",
ACSENT: Connissioner Flores Blld Q18inr:.nn Gerrish
the f""<going Resolution ",os adopted this 16th day of March 1986.
ATll'SJ~ .lloJ>. (2
Secretary
::z ~ :~d
ftJJtI ~
Vice Olai.rman
233
r'
{
Arroyo Gran:le ~ O:mrissian, 6-3-80
Page 4
the request for additional office area deleting the two recomrended conditions. Motion seccnded
by Calmissioner Flores and was )art by a split vote. O:mrissioner MO<re rooved to aP{rOved
the request with the ~lusion of the tm reccmr~nded conditions. Motion wns seconded by
O:m11i>sioner Olrr and ""'" loot by a split vote.
Chnirrren Gerrish suggested aP{rOving the irr{rovement and rooking a'reccmneodation ta
the aty Oluncil to evaluate thnt area and make a detenrdnetion as to what they are going to
do there. Olnmissioner Sata ccinnented that We seem to go out of our wuy to get new
businesses In the aty, Wld then we make these .demands on the established ones.
l.,
After furtha- discussion, on rootion by Chnirrren Gerrish, secoooed by Camissioner
Cllrr, and carried by a 4 to 2 vote, J\rchitectural Review 01se No. 86-367 was aP{rOved
deleting the two reccmnended conditions, with a reccmnendntion ta the Oty Oluncil that they
evallUlte that porticular comer to detemine what they are going; to do there.
PUinning DirL'Ctor Eisner advised that this matter is rmal with the Planning Comrission
WlIess appellled to theOty Couneil within 10 days.
AROlITIlClURAL REVDlW CASE NO. 8&-366, "PAOFIC FOlNTIl", SO. ELM STllEET
('mACr NO. 1395 - STRAWBllItRY PATal).
Planning Director Eisner advised this project was aP{rOved as a design option tract map
nod, at the time of the approval, there was a stipulation. that the fmal design would have to
cane back to both ple Planning Comrission and Oty Oluncil tar approval. He noted that as a
part of the StafC Advisory review there were a couple at things thnt .were brought up. by. the
Publie Worl<s Department thnt still need to be resolved.
At the time oC the original subdivision approval, less than Jrinirrun standards were
ap""ved tar a street section as part at the Optionlll Design package, and the applicant was
also pel1llitted to place the side\'<lllk on the "isJand Jots" In the area normally used Car front
yard setback. In Uleir review, the Public woiics Deparllrent finds thnt this design, with the
shortfall In the drlvewuy area, will pemit cars to be parked In the drivewuy apron across the
sidewall<. The lllternntive v.ouJd be to roove the house farther back on Ule Jot, thus aIJoMr'G
the 20 ft. apron to be measured to the back oC sidewalk. In so doing, however, the rear ylltd
v.ooId be reduced Crom the 10 ft. required to 4.5 ft. Pub1ic Warl<s Departnlent is asking that
these designs be rrodified. '!he options available are 1) altaw the driveways to be used with
vehicles potentially over the sidewalk as subrritted, with the understanding it is a lrivate
sidewall< and was approved as such; or 2) advise the applicant to redesign the buiJding on the
"lsUind lots" to accomplish a 20 .ft. clear apron.
O:mrissioner Soto Inquired as to v.l1y this Is a problem at the time at architecturaJ
review and not at the project review'! Mr. Eisner ccmnented that the applicants have a 57
unit project approved now, and the 4 ft. private sidewalk was a trade oft for the lower density
project of 42 units.
Marshllll Ochylski, representing the applicants, described the design of the proposed
project, stating it will be sinliWr to the project on DukcmlJ1 !..u.ne.
After disclJSSion, Architectural Review 01se No. 86-366 was aP{rOved on rootion by
Coon;..ion.;r Flores, seccnded by Coonissioner Carr, and carried by a 4 to 2 vote, with the
conditions that perimeter fencing be Incorporated Into the plnn on tile north sldc oC UlO project,
and thnt fencing (going from east to """t) be provided betw<:en the hoOles In the "island" urea.
'-.
OOMMUNlCA110NS.
Planning Director Eisner revielWOd that &P{rOxirrately 4 weel<s ago the O:mrission
approved a 60 day temporary pcmit for Perry Fife to operate out of a Gazebo at Leisure Mart
for the purpose of selling fruits and vegetables. They are now asking for penrission to use a
truek In the same f.,hion as they do at the Fnml8rS' Market. StaCC's reccmnendntion is for
denial of tilC request to avoid setting a precedent. After discussion, on rootion by Cormissioner
Macre, seconded by Conn;..!oner Olsen, and unnnIroously carried, the request was denied.
Planning Director Eisner advised he v.ouJd be on vacation Crom July 7th thru July 16th,
and asked the Coonission to consider cancelling the July 15th Planning Ccmnission meeting,
After a brief discussion, it WllS agreed that the second meeting In July v.ouJd be cancelled.
D1OCOSSION - GREENBELT SYSTIlM RECOMMENDA110N
Chnirrren Get'rish continued the discussion at this item to the next regular meeting of
June 17, 1986.
273
. '.
-: .:..' .' . '. ",-.~. '. . . . . .
. . . ....: '.", -,' . , '. "~":.' ". '., '.' ' . ,.
.;'. '.. . . .. '.... ..' . '" .". . . . .:~
", ' ::....,; .~. . I' _ :" :':.: t".;t. ':". ,;. I . . . . . ~.
:;:-",:},? ~,{';\ .,i:):~Y':.'~',;if~~ft:;t!:f~1;:ep,::, "'.,.';>;::';;<;'
.;; ..:.,.....PROJECTNAME.....:... .;.:.',-.r::;":::Y",<".,;,'''."':~ ...:.: ..:,F'aclfk:'PClInle ".:" . '.':.'
. . ::';::: '.~;'.:... .~. '.:' ~:: .' . . ... : '; .... . . ,'::: ~:",: .~:.;.~:;...: :',:'.:.\'.~5:~.". ~.:~:?:.< ,".'-:::',,;. ',,: -:. .:: >," :: ~ ':~" '.. :.."' ......~.: :.:<. ':. ':. .;. . ','
... '::':~;':PROJECT'ADDRESS:"'""<.;-"""~,,,,, ....;;,'..;. "::.1.;: ./<'~:...: "ElmSlrseL' '.: .....:....... -::.
\" :'.:c:~! :< {:.: .y:. \!.~;:; :.:.~ :.':'?::\:7~~::/~;\"':~ {r:.'.: ;~Y.::;f::;'::~~'.;:,'~ :~.':::::~;:.:' :.: :A:r:f.~~~a~~:.. c,^ "', ':
'. ..... OWNER..'. '. ...:...... .:' ;. ;..,......., :.,..:............ :"c-" .; ......:.. Strawberty Patch
.::.. ,.. .'.' ':.. '.:'.: ,,:'::<':~:',' ..../.:.~:'::.:..:::.:'~.: .,....;:.:.P.O:Box 3605, ':
..' .' .>-~;:i<<:/'.:;:~:':\>' /:,:<,:;,:" ;..:,;--. ',,:,.,,:", :'.': . .: ..San luIs Obispo, CA.,
....<..::.>. '.: ';::--< :"'::<:." .::...; :.~ ...:~\ ':t;:';:~:~'iY<t:;~::Y.: :;<..::~:' ;.:;-' ... . . . . .... .
". .'. .' .:.PROPERTYINFORMAIiON.... .':' .', ~d :~;"'''. -,." ..... . .',.,.
.;.::...(.:.\...,~:.:..A..<.. :.:...~..<.::......:'~.~:;::;...:;.;.<'.:.\.~.,::....:..:-;':':"~:' ..:".."..' :""
;..... . ..:: :,,; Legal'OeScllpllorl: <.::t:-' ;.: .... r,<';That ~rtion 61 blod<s' 26 ahd 27 and of Huber and.
. '.'.. ::-.... '.. .....,.;;: :.c<'..>...::;'.:....,;;:.: .,,\::',:,::::.~;:; Y'af~t Streel~:antl.of Central.Al/enue, In Beckell:s' .
. .'. ". " : ,,' ..... ,'.,:.',' "<'::":C" :">'..:'; ~.:, ,.", Acld,t,onto the'Town of O~ano .In the Clty'ol Arroyo
.'.::..::.~..::.: ',~':,'; /:.::..:.':.~;::.:,:..;-,;. ":,:!..:. .:,J'.~....;:.:Grande;'Co~iily of San LuIs 6b1~pO, Slale of CalHomla.
:.':' '. ',' ':- . <:;~~".,,<:':,: .,' ...:' ;,.,\";,,:. ":-=:./. ;. .. 8eool'd1rig to. maps recorded. In Book 1, Page 103 In the
:~':.; .. ";";::":'':!t;' ...,.,.;:,.,; ,"i . .:....;... ... Book.of Records, 'jApl-J' .n -1,'1 1-0 e... .' ~
. :.:-:.'.:'~ -', :!..r;:;: ~<::'~~ ;~~:-: :.: ..\.'.", -#':.'~: f :.~'.~,::, ~..,;. ~'~~.::/:' :t.:...:~~ ~'.,5 :...~...:. !~.:.~~:.. b~: "':'>~:~': r"-\<~; :..:.:.::~\'~:": ~> .." ~ :'-.- ::'....: , . . ..
.'. .:'. .. ::2"LaMd'U;e'zone; . ::;.:":.-...: .:: '........:.!...:. .">::':'.' '. ......R-3
:....~:':;.t;~kz:t:;!;';(.:i,:~";;'1:.,;L:~(,::.&i;;":::;=~~,;~.. .".
. '.':'.5"'Ar~a ofSh~'.:, :. . '.,';.... ~,':-'" ;'. . "'"
...' ..::.:....~.. .:-.:'.:':::-.:;~.~:~' ..1:...... ,.. I:, ';~.'~'
. 6: -o~e'opable..Area(,~'.:.:':..\.>. '. .. ., ..:.
. BUILDING INFORMATlONIBUil DING A:>," .....
'.:, :~tio~p~~Y'rf~'~:~}~:~::~;,;':~~?:~~::: .:,:~:4~ ~:~r;';;;~~~~'~7~::~~':"':"!<~I;~;'~:?~;::;.~''-~:. . ~:.,;;
'. ::',2: NUmtl~.r?' ~1.o~le~~:::.:;-' .":' ',.": ..' .......2... ..
".3. T~ilesi8UlldingHe'i~hls:.. '.';
.4; lMrliiArea:'. >>,:' ::..,-:..:. ,
. '.: .. "";:'5;...Si!~.'~?~efag~;>'..' . :',:
. ,:,' :. .:~
::,:.;; >~'~\';:::;::"'.:<!':;'~~'~~ngg:~d''o~~~: ..'-
. ....:;. :. ;";":'::;-':'" :t:andsc~s:le,and Walks{ t> ''''.:'
';" ::',;"":~'''''~.'~.'/ . ;.~~. ..::.~.\~.~.~:::..~~:~~:..:.:. ,.~.' .-'., ~:"'.:.:. ....
: .>.......,.:,.~..Selbacks....., ...: ..... ..Front......
...~:.. .:... .~.:_: "~:'~' .~./...~.:. .:~~::~..~.:~~,-.;:.Rea~ .,; _:....
~::t\<~{-~'.:{:'\~..:.t... ..'.?~.:<:'::.;-.:.. ..Sl~e~atd:'.. ,
. . '.. . " ': . ....." '.' ....~. ,,',
'..- ..... "'. -..' :.:. ';-': '.
.. . . . ,,: '. .....,.... :..:...:......~..... .
. . ..' . ... .;.:~.];tr:.. . '.
:.....:..:.:...;. 'i..'.':.~'...,.;.:.'/.' ...... '.'
~.. :. . .' - :' .. .. .~. ,," .'
.'
~.
.. 3.75 acres
.'
3.'n? acres
..
. .' . - ."~' .
.!'~::":;7.'l~:~-';.t>-~:.;:~"~ t'::
'~..j '...
26':0- .
'1:
..'
1346 sQ. fl
.,
, .
'.
.'
'.
.. 1231.5 sQ. fl.
.380 sil; It.
._. 1060.75 sq. It..
'20'
10'
-~: 5"
'.
'.
..'
'.
'.
....
'.
.'
.....
SF-D-2.18
Design Overlay: 0-2.18
Description of Parcel(s): Tract Nos. 501 and 525, see map below.
Use Regulations: Twin home subdivision approved as an allowed use through Tentative Tract
Nos. 501 and 525. All other uses are as allowed in the underlying Zoning District.
Site Development Criteria: See Tentative Tract Nos. 501 and 525, Planning Commission
Resolution 73-310.
Performance Standards: None.
Design Guidelines: None.
Additional Information: These parcels were zoned with a -0 overlay at the time of the 1991
Development Code update to clarify development standards that pertain to this tract.
,
,
,
,
.
I
,
,
,
,
.
__...1'____0 .___
.
.
'\
"
-;:ITIl-: , ~ 'L . 'f).. - Z
f UI' J'~ 1~"r,.::;~- ,
~' ''I''l: .:.::,,~,~
i! '!'r..~. ' 0'"
.. ~ _1 a . .~.. -.. ..- r
. ~," :TI1'T.; -.
r _:.., Sf~.; 1= .
'3 ' '\
'Qi ..,. '~:k~
~~\~
. ......,.. J!" '}~\... , .. .., ._...:
~'=i"l:"t.'f'''. IE~,'\ nO::: i
Hl '11"\"f I '~l,'" ". ' ...~ !
", :t.r !'fT J~~-_.- .~ t..........................
~ "fYrJrr1"i~:' '::: \--.-..' ."}..................
1m ...... i~ c .. ~~~.;_m'
I .
I ,........... .____....::... ....'
!
~
~~ -- ,... -_-;~-: ~~ :::'~ ~::-:: ..........- "O""'~"""(-= .-. -:,::'':.'.-
~1
~ p..G'
p..G
I
. J ...... ".
I
,
"
,
--
-'-
-.
-~~;:--
~ ~ .....
.' ,
,':......'
........
.' ....
..
RESOLUTION NO. 73-310
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNIli~ '::',,:.,'rSSION. OF THE CITY OF
ARRO~O' GRANOE APPROVING Tn.': '.T rYE SUBDIVISION HAP FOR
'i'Met' NO~. SOl, IIARROYO VlI.. ;1.... ~ AND REfERRAL '1'0 THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR ItlFORMA'rll~N':'J. :',. POSES ONLY.
The Planning ~ommisslon of the Ci~y or ~~r~yo Grande, having duly reviewed
Tentative Subdivision Map for Tract No. 50l, as presented by Colden West H~mes.
Ine:. and the report of the Arroyo Grand.;; Planning Commission Subdivision"
Review Board, does hereby. resolve and accept said Tentative Map subject to
recommended conditions as set forth in ~he Subdivision Review Board Report,
dated July 26, 1973.
The Arroyo Crande Planning Commission hereby forwards said Tentative
'-'
Tract Map, and conditions as approved, to the Arroyo Crande City Cauncil for
informational purposes.
On motion by 'Commission~r Splerllng, seconded by C~3".~s~loner Cullickson,
and by the fOllowing roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
Commissioners Calhoon, Coulart, CullicKson, Spierling and
Chainnan Pope
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioners Porter and Jones
The foregoing Resolution was adopted this 7th day of August, 1973.
ATTEST: '. /). . j _~ j7/ .
s~iary 0< 7:;',{,.----'J
~?{.I~L
ChalrUla
.:...
,
-'
''y'
I, Incs A. dr.1 Cl:U'l.pn, City Clerk of thr. Cit). I.lf Ar.t:i/Y'.1 Cl:unde, County of
5ltn Luis Obispo, 5tetc of CR.lif('l'rnia, do heraby c~rtlfy tI.Llt: tfll:.~ ('.)r~K~ling
Ordinance No. B9 C.S. i~ u true, full and correct copy of said Ordinanca p3ssed
and adopted by tbp.'Cit)o Council of the City of Arruyo CrAnd~ ~t a r~b~lar meeting
of said Council held on the 10th day of July, 1973.
WIl'NESS my hand and the seal of the City of Arroyo Gr.inde arfi.x~~tl this
11th day of July, 1973.
~, 'A.dd~
City Clerk of th~ City of Arroyo Gra.nde
(S EAL)
.'.
>-"
.....
ORDINANCE NO. 89 C.S.
AN ORDINANCE OF 1'HE CITY OF ARRO~O CRANDE AKl,NDINC A
POR1:IuN 0,' TIlE ZONmo MAP OF TIlE CI'l'Y OF ARROYO CRANDE
REFERR.ED 'i'O IN SECTION .302 OF TI'l'LE g, CHAP-rER I, OF TUE
MUNICIPAl. CODE SO AS TO REZONE CER'rAIN pROp,:R1'Y IN '11''<:
C I'l"i OF ARROYO CRAIIDE.
TIlE CITI COUNCIL OF TIlE crIT OF ARROYO CRANDE OOES ORDAIN AS FOLlJ)WS:
SECTION 1: Ttldt certain Ordinance krl.0wn 8::1 "ZOrUNG ORDINAKCE OF TIlE
CrTY OF ARRO~O GRANDe" is her~witp aDltmded as follc;ws:
The "ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF ARROYO CRAh1>E", l.'t:fc"rr.::d to 'in Section .302
of Title 9, Chapter it of th;: Municipal Cod~ 1s iiloondt.:d so that the zonUli and
boundaries of ccrtJ.1iu DLstricts shown therein and tharecm acc: changed so as to be
tha. :lonas anll hQUClcw:t'lcs as shown and designat.~d. on tM }ob.p attached h..'lreco, and
by thi::t rcfur~I':.cc irl1.":vrp('Jrd.t..'ld herein, which ~.Lp is cmtltl.:d "A SECTION OF THE
ZONING MAP 0,' 'l.'llli CUY OF ARROYO CRANDE, AMENDEO BY ORDINANCE NO. 89 C.S. 01' THE
CI'l'Y OF ARROYO CltANDE" J and ~aid Map a.nd all notation::s and r,,~fel.'Hncds shown th~re.
on shall be as Dluch .a V~Lrc or thh Ordinance as if th.:: no,attc:ra ~hcr.....n on said Map
were fully d~dcTibed h~Le1n, and the Diatricts and zonas and boundaric~ of th~
property :::hW:'L th~l:cin irvlll and at:tcr the cffdctiv,,! d:it", of tl~ adoptlo,)n o)f this
Ordinuccc. The l'ropi":r:i~s Intc:nded to be rezoned ulUl che cls..in~t'!;;:; in the zoning
acclJLnplished hc.;r~by ar...: d..:scribed as follOWllJ:
"'rhat p()rtic.n of 1/.,:1:: 101 of. Jame:1 T. Stratton'a Surv.:q flf pal:ta of tho'! Ranch,js
Curr.3.l de Pi~dra, Pisoc.;) and Bolsa ~;J Chendsal, in thi: City ot' Arroyo erandoa,
Count'J 0(' S:J.n Luis Obi~p...., State of California, as shcr...-n on J:lUl) filed in Book A,
pag~ 65 of Maps in the ...,fficc: of the C"unty Re(~order of sa.id Counl:'/, described
as follOW".3:
IlECIlfflINC 1::Lt: a pulnt on the E.'ut'l!rly line ot' Valley Road, as shwn on tlle 1I\3p
of '!"ract N". 18610 T.1,~;)rLlcd in Rook 6, pt1J:1;e 52 of liap.:l in the office of said
Count.y Rec(.rdift' that i~ dlstdr..t il10ng saId Eastl.!r1y lin~:! North 00 09 I Eas t,
1411.05 f.::ee frfA';~ th.:: Southnr1~1 line of sa.id 1..l')t 101; '11iENCE along the
Southerly b(lundary ot' th~ land described in thL! De.::d to B.A. Colburn an~ wife,
record~d Oceo~~r 30, 1957 1n Bouk 914) page 125 of OfficiKl R~cord~, as follows:
South 890 51' Eu.:!:It 685.60 feet and South 410 461 1511 Eu~t 374.00 feet to the
IllOSt Easterly co'rner of ~a.id land of Colburn; 'l'HENCE parallel with the South-
easterly lim:: of said Lot 101, South 550 311 30" We:;:;t, 119.)2 fuet, 'l1IENCE
South 340 28' 3011 East 387.82 fc~t to a 1im: that is parl.111E:1with and distant
30 feee lfo'rthW'li:$tcrly fl.'em th~ Scutheasterly lin~: of said Lot 101; 'l'HI::NCE a.long
said parallel lit\(.l South 550 31' 30" West 274.31 f~~t to the ~outhwcsterly
tenninus ()J: th~~ course recited as IISouth 550 311 30" West, 274.31 feet" in the
Det~d to th~ San Luis Obispo Ct>unty Flood Control end Water ConsE::rvation
District) recorded Dec(mlber 30, 1959 in Book 1040, pagu 162 of Official Records;
'l1lENC~ W.:sterly along th...~ N01.~therly boundary oi the land de~crlbed in said last
nu~nt:ion(:d D\:;l~d to the NvrtMas terly line of County Road N". lJ/~ as described in
the D~~d tco, tb.-.: County of San Luis Obispo) recorded in Book 42, page '''~8 of
D\!i:ds; THENCE alc.ng ~3id County Road No. 134, North 470 1.1' W.est, 498.9/. feet,
lllO'C~ or le'::I~ tu thc~ Ensterly line of Valley RoaLl as 6h.:JW1l on said Map of
'l'ntct No. 186; Tlffi"&CI=: along ::laid Valley lL>ad, North 0" 091 East 350.60 .feat,
nlor(~ or li=sS to tl~ ,point of b~ginning.n
Said property is r~~on~d from R-I Single Family R~sid~ntial Di~trict to
p.n Plann~d n~ve:lo~~"t District.
SECTION 2: This Ordinane~ shall be in full force aud effect thirty (30)
days aftt~r it:3 pdSS~g.::, and Yithin fifteE::n (IS) day~ after itt! pas saga It shall
b~ publi.::Ih~d onc..:, togi::th~r with thl!' l1.BIIIeS of th..:= Counclbllen voting thereon, in
the Five Cities 'rjJlIl~~-.Pr~l:Is~ll,::co'rt.lE::r.
On motion (.f Coum~iiJnan d~ Leon, seconded by Mayor Schlegel and on the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Counci!:n1;n Talley, Hillis, W."Jod, do-! Leon and Mayor Schlegel
l-Iooo
None
tha foregoing Ordinance was passed and
adcr~
MA~OR
ATTEST: ""iz-I:.<1~, ')t. dd (7~
CITY CI.EllK
'ro:
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
'/ ..,..r)
r' -
( ,..f. .-
.'
;,.-
'ROH:
Subdivisi~n Review Board
o
.31
'?-
1-
SUBJECT:
Tentative Map - Tract 501 - "Arroyo Village"
DATE:
July 26. 1973.
The Subdivision Review Board met on this date to consider the final
Tentative Map, which was approved in the pre-tentative stage under the re-
zoning hearing from R~l to P-D District.
The following are the Committee's recommendations for Commission
consideration.
That the o.ap be approved with the following requirements:
COUNTY
Public Health Department
1. That the new subdivision be served by public water mains and sewer lines
in accordance with past policies', and that said instal'lation adhere to '
department requirements on separations.
County Engineer's Office
1. That the drainage facility structure into Los Berros Chanriel be approve~
by the County Engineering Department, and that Encroachment Permit for !
J
the work involved be issued by the County. :
...-:.
PUBLIC UTI~ITY COMPANIES
1.
P. G; and E." telephone, 'gas and cable television installations to be l
~acedunderground and within proposed public rights-of-way, plus an I
additional 6' public utility easement on all roads adjacent to public \
rights-of-way. .'
- ..........,..
Southern California Gas Company:requests protection of an existing \ ~\,,\ . r.~\'
easement within Lots 13 thru 21, in which an 8" high pressure gas 1inel.\'~~;, -~-
is located. ,Map of proposed gas line installation and high pressure i
lin~ submitted. . __
2.
CITY DEPARTMENTS
Fire Department
1. Six hydrants located as noted on memo dated July 13th, which also
states types of hydrants acceptable.
Public Works Department
1. Street lighting as recommended by P. G. &
of said recomnendation to be .furnished to
City for approval prior to maping.
E. to their standards. A copy
developer's engineer and [0
I
;.;..1' ~:
'j.:r
,
-- ,
.
2: An acceptable written agreement between C. L. Martin, Golden West Hom.,s,
Inc., Developer, and Mr. H. C. Elliott, developer of Sunrise Terrace
Mobilehome Park, as to the improvement of the drainage channel across
both developments which empties into the Los Berros Channel.
3. The improvement of the channel within the s~bdivision, and the facility
into Los -Berros Channel to be approved by the City Public Works Director
and -the City Engineer. -
4. Temporary cui-de-sac to be provided at the easterly end of ''Mesa nrive"
through a recorded document with the property owner, and if this is not
possible, then a permanent cul-de-suc within Lots 53, 54, 55, and 56
";ith a minimum I' "spite strip", and said strip to be numbered as n
separate parcel which may be used as an easement to the abutting property
owner. The above noted cul-de-sac to be designed on a 40' radius.
5. All necessary regulatory and informational street signs as required by
ehe Public Works Department.
6. The developer is responsible for installation of full utility and
street improvements within the Tract, including Valley Road frontage and
stree t.
7. Public Utility Easement noted on Lots 13 through 21 should also be noted
as a green belt area, as should the drainage channel urea.
Parks Department
1. The parks_ area between Bambi Court and the drainage easement should be
noted as such on the map.
2. The developer has indicated that he will sod and install an automatic
irrigation system within the drainage easement green belt, and this
improvement should also include the park area. The park area/drainage
easement sodding and irrigation system for these areas will more than
meet the park requirement for thls development.
NOTE: The 6' Public Utility Easement on all lots adjacent to the streets,
shall also be noted as a str~et tree easement.
3. The two median strips on Tiger Tail Drive shall also be equipped with
automatic irrigation systems and sodded.
4. The development will require 99 street trees at $7.50 each; a total of
$7/.2.50.
I'ROHT YARD
Eoch building .hail hoya
o I,onl yo,d, .xlendlr'D
ocro.. Ih. lull wldlh 01
Iho ploporly, 01 a doplh
01 nol 10.. Ihon 25', bul
'In no cO$O clo..r Ihan 50'
Itom Ihe cenl.r IIno "f 0
.1'..' or road. EXcopllor
&CCf1SS dllvbways und
walk., Iho,. .holl bo no
$llucIUI€I JoclIlvd In Iha
r.qull.d Itonl yard.1 or In
Iho roqulrod .Ide yords
obullln9 o.ilool.
Eoch 101 .holl hovo 0
Itonl YOld oxlor,dlno
(Oxcopllor occ... drl.o.
lind VlalltS) f;lCJO~5 Ihu hili
wldlh 01 Ih. plopony 01 0
doplh 01 nOli... Ihon 20',
howo.or, 1"0 Plonnlr,u
Ol,oclor moy r.qulr.
.Iogoorlno ..'bocl,., wllh a
vOllollon 01 3' Ito,n .eluock
lines. In no case .Iulll a
.olback ollo.~ thon 17' bo
ollowod, ncopl on cul,de.
.oc, whero Iho Planning
Oil oClo, moy OPP'OYO 0
.elbock oilS" o. pon 01 0
10101 doyolopmolll pIon.
Except fOf flCCElSS ",I~f:W8YS
ond walk., Ihe,e .hoil bo no
.(ruCIUlo. localod In Iho
lequlted llOnl yald., 01 In
Ihe lequltod .Ide yo,d.
ouulllno 0 .lreM,
.-, ....-.
rn
::J:
m
n
<;'
rtl
"
'p
'J"
:1
II
~.
\)
.1)
\:)
.L
o
.0
'I
.....-. ~ -- .....---.-.. --..---...-. --_...
~. 0" ''\J1.'')! ',;'j ""IlY" ''''.'l'tRIWlID11 .""l"..N.... '....fi 'W'"
: ~.,..'~~~~i~~\~~ .~~J~~}ji~~~UJtl@~~~~l~~'
Eoch 101 .hall ha.. 0 I,onl
.yord .xlondlno (~xcepllor
i&(':cc:~~ t.lllvffS and walh:~)
bO,,,.. Iho lull wldlh 0111\0
.ul.>locl p,oporly 01 a doplh
of nOllo.. thon 20';
ployldod Ihollllo Planning
Olroclor may roqulre
.'ooo."no ..'bock., with 0
.0,101lon of 3' bolwaon
houuss. In no clase dlllll 8
,oluocl, olIo.. Ihon 17' be
oltowed oxc.pl on cul-de-
..c, wh.,. Ihe Plannlno
C0ll1l1d$5lon may approve 8
.olt.eck 01 IS', Excepl lor
IsCC6S& cJrh,lf,ways and
wAlkli, thElle 511611 be no
"fUClu,. IOC610d In Ihe
r.qulrod tronl ye/ds, 0' In
Ih. ".'lulred .Ido yard.
obullI"9 . .11.el.
RA
{:i'}.{.~- ~li~~i~~)i1t~ik~fri~,~~~ffi~t~.
~~.,. ..",,: .M ,;;W~:i/':!..~, ,J,;,<:"'l..:~'!l~' ~':>..:..~.!L ,~M, !
Each 101 .hall haye 0 f10nl
YOld .xlondlno (.xcapl lor
oeea.. drlye and walks
OCIO", Iho full wldlh ollho
,,,uJ_cl p,oporty 01 0 d.plh
of nollo.. Ihan 15' pro.idod
Iholllle Plonnlng
Con,llll..lon moy ollow
.,eoo.rlno of ..It.ack. wtlh
e ve"ollon 01 3' bolwoon
tit,uclulfts. In no clIse tihall
o ..,back 01,... Ihon 12'
1.>. allowed.
Each building .lie .hall
haye 0 f10n! yord e'1endino
.CIO.. Iho full widlh ol'lho
.ublacl p,oi,orty 01 a d.pll\
of nol I.., Ihon 20', bul In
no case cloSl,;1 Itlltn 50'
f10m Iho coni., Jlna of e
.'1001 or road, Excepl for
bccess drlvBs I:Ind walks.
Ihoro .hoff b. no .',ucl"re
loco led In Ih. r.qullod I,onl
YOld, 0' In 6 loqub.d .Ide
yo,d abulllno.. .1'..10
,>
-n
-n
rn
z
o
X
o
<
.::
o
!"
~
If)
~-t.<_,;;;.,,_ :
'; ~;
. ;'h'i
..-:. :;,}.:{..t~;;..:{~}i:;~,1f~: .
~;. ;:..::t-~:\~ -.'. ~.. ..s:,di,:/AD; ut~;:f;:;':;'::J;i.:0-r
SETBACK
REAR YARD
~
SlOt: YARD
STREt:T SinE YARD
III
:l:
N
fi.
<
N
."
.
O'
2
~
.~
10
'"
10
10
I.'
ZONt:
A
:PW ~}{*ti-;i.ill'?fk;ii:~i~;g~t.~;lj~Lni~;'.M j:::J~iij0~1t~i:ii'~~iT~~.j~i:~5M~~~~il~;;~. ~f:~ijt~:;T ~ -;~~.~!~i~1i1~i?~~1tf';~:~fri~~~J;ff'~. ~,.
1~'tE-{c%fr1W.~'~J.mM~~_~~~M..~nJlq~~i ~~4tk&~~!i1~~J,:~1~141~~~Jt'.m, hj:l7';E~'::.~i.~~Mt[4~-uJt\~:;~~-!i1.P0~$'~~f, ~~; .oM?
R.t
A-2
A-3
t'!iiEVj\;;';'.'i'iZ!f.-uJ.n;{f~lilfilr~i~ W@H1jHjf
~f:.i!:;r.\*ffi.'im'~~ffut?#~~t~ i~~lf
Each lot shall have a raar
yard, exlendlng across Iha
lull wldlh of Iha 101, 01 nOI
le.s Ihan 30',.
ThaI' shall ba a .Ida yard
all aach .1<1. of Ihe lot,
",'endlng horn the llonl
yerd 10 Iha rear yard, of nol
lass than 10' on ttilhaf a
cornor or Inlarlor 101.
Each 101 shall have a r.ar
yard axlendlng across 1110
full wldlh ollhe 101 01 nol
less Ihan 10', provld.d Ihat
a wlnhmuo 011.500 squard
1001 01 op.n a,oa Is
InPlnt&inad to tha :illfld Of
roar ollhe lIIalll building 0'-
In all or 'U' d.s'gll,
olherwl.a 20' shall ba
required. Accassory
buildings ara p.l/nllled In
ilIa ,oar yard. Any rear yard
cova'ti:d by stfuctu,es shall
l:ll.l f-::placed dl:ittwhuHl on
III. 101, axcluslva ollequlred
y~~~ ar~~:_..._ . ._'._'_H . H'
11,ara shall ba a 51da yald
on each alda 01 Ihe 101,
axlendlng from Iha fronl
yald 10 Ihe reor yard 01 nOI
less Ihan 5' on an Inlarlor 101
IIna. A cornar lot shall havo
o side ya,d obulllng Iha
.Iraal olllolla.. lI1an 10
I.el.
10'
Each 101 shall have a roar
yard o"omllng across Ihe
lull wldlh ollha 101 01 nol
I..s Ihan 10', provided 11101
it minimum 011,500 SQU&16
feut c.1 Opafl alifa Is
,nalnl..Ir,.J 10 'he slJa or
fei:H 01 lfll:! main bulldlno; Of
any all or 'U' "..Ign,
olherwlse 20' shall be
required. Acce.sory
building. ara p.rmilled In
Iha roar ya/d. Ally roar yard
cov.:tud uy ~ilUclu,as shall
ba r.placod .Is.whera In
Ihll 101, aXClllslve Of ,aquhed
yar~.r!~:. .... _.... _.. ....
111.r. .h_1I be . 51de yard
on aach sl<la olllle 101,
axtenulng from the flonl
yard 10 Iha raar yard, 01 not
la.. Ihan 5' on an Inl.rlor 101
IIna. A cornel 101 shall havo
a sldo yald abulllng Ihe
stuutl 01 f1o1 jq$S than 10
I.al.
10'
Eech 101 shall have a rear
yard exl.ndlng ocross Iha
lull wldlh o/lhe 101 01 not
105$ than 1 DI.
AA
Eech 101 .hall have a rear
yard aClos. Iha full wldlh 01
Ihe lot 01 nolla.. man 10'
provldad Ihal a minimum 01
1,500 squalo leal 01 open
araa Is malntalnad 10 Iha
raar 01 the walls of Ihe main
building or In an ell or U'
daalgn; olherwlse, 25' 511.11
be raqulred,
. . .. .. . .... .n. ..... . ._.. ......_..__. .._..... ._.n..._. . .... . . .. ..._...._._ ....~. .
There shall lie a slda yaru
on each .Ide of Ihe 101,
axtending from Ihe front
yard 10 the rear yard, of not
lass Ihan 5' on an Inlerlor Jot
line.
Thare shell be 0 side yald
on aach side 01 Iha lot,
extending ham Iha front
yerd 10 Iha raar yald, of nol
lass Ihan 5' on an Inl.rlor
lolllna. A cornor 101 shell
have a sid a yard ebl/lllng
Ihe slle.1 01 nOlless Ihon
10'.
)>
"U
"U
In
Z
o
X
()
~
o
i0
-'
(0
~:~~l:: f:!N;~~;~.~it~~6~~t~it[:f~~~~t~~Jf~t;fi
._,_. _._..... ... ._. .. .. .u. ._.. n. ...._......__.. .. .... ._.__...~._
. .,."." -~...- .~"'..., r.'.. ~~i&\~~!(t>>':ri..~~~:?;::~e.t!g~lirlh\1}A !.fW.i;ip
':: ~., ..!a~;.fjif}~~!j1\i.,~~4i~:'i~.~~1c~j~i.~\: ZON E ~itllt~~~~~~f~~~ it.,nW
SETBACK
SPECIAL YARDS
LOT COVERAGE
A
A-l
A-2
..-~Wk&f}~~t.~};I>>f.~.~;~i~ri~-~~~E}~~~~1~~~~+~t~ljf1!iiI~~lJifJ.;~~:r~t .
A-3
AA
~1'rt!!RtEW'MJ1~.'4;tt}~i\WJ'l!l!nf
1\lJiM!j;';,;'j,arultL,,~\i'J!\l\i1il~~?1i,
Accessory buildings used ..
quest ho~s&S ot as lHuns.
slables, or farm buildings
shall b. noli".. than 20'
110m eny side plop"rty Iin.,
or 30' 110m any r"ar
prop.rly IIno, and not J.ss
Ihan 50' Irom Ihe Irani
properly IIn., nol I"ss Ihan
20' ',om any dwolllng unll
on Ih. ploporly
35% ollhe 101 alea
The maximum dllowabltt lot
coyorogo by all slruclur.s
shall nol .xceed 35% ollha
lot art:ta; howc:v&l. bny
,ootad pallo SllUClu'd whIch
1$ \Iud solely '01 oenaral
opvn U$~ shElII nol be
counted as a sllucluI8 In
ascerlalnlng coyelage, nor
shall swimming pools b.
counl"d; and proylded
100 led pall"s and swimming
pools shall be localod S' .
leolll Iho leonl proporly line.
The covelage ollha ,ear
Yard by II cove,ed pallo 01
any slructUt8 611all not
oxcood 30% ollho I.qul,od
loar yard. .
40% 011110 101 .,oa.
Howevel, bny covl!l,od pallo
slrucluro which Is used
solely 101 oane, al 01'0" us.
shall nol ()& counl6d b5 a
sl'uclul~ In Hsciillalnlng
cOV81a08j and provIded,
turthar pallas and &wlmmln{J
pool. shall be local.d a
minimum 01 S' 110m Ih" slda
Olle.1 proporty line and 50'
'rom Ih. 110'" plop"f1y IIn.,
unll!lss it vallancli Is
oblalned apploylng a losser
selllaclc. The covetagt! of
lhc= lObI yald by a covaled
pallo or any slruclure shall
nol "xcood 30% of lI,a
,e'lulftld ,dbr yald.
"', af. allY ambiguities, Iho old zoning oldlnance shali ba I.ylowed.
50% o/lho 1\,1 aloa,
l'foWl!IYul. allY covl!l,ed pallo
.Iruclure which Is used
solely lor go"elal opan use
sha.1I nol b~ COulllttd it$ a
slructUle In bSCE:flblnlng
cov6' itOit; lulU pfovldtld.
lurlller polI"s and swimming
pools shall ba localed a
minimum '" 5' 110m Iho slda
or laar proporly IIna and 50'
Itom Ihe Itonl property /ina,
unlass a yarlance I.
oblalned a"proylng a lessar
sillback. The covd,aga 01
the ,eal yald by a covated
pallo 01 Blly Slluclulll sh&1I
nol exeo.d 30% 01 Iha
fttLluherd 'bat yard.
50% olll'e 101.1 101 araa,
which .halllncl"d. main
and acc"ssory bulidlngs,
parking .raas, drlyaways
alld COVf:llecJ pallas. The
lernalnlng 50% of Ihe 1"1.1
101 alBa shall be provided as
open araa.
50% of Ihe 101.1101 aro.,
which shalllncludo main
..nd accessory buildings,
palklng areas, cJrlvaways
anLt covered paUos. The
rorn.lnlng 50% of Ihe lolal
lot ale a shall ba provided
as open area.
)>
."
."
rn
Z
o
><
()
.~
o
'J
','
ATTACHMENT 4
'---
ATTACHMENT 4 - Summary of Existing Overlay Districts
1. Design Development Overlay District AG-D-2.1 - Thirty-five acres
between Strother Park and Branch Mill Road. Approved by Ordinance
153 C.S. Minimum parcel size five (5) acre minimum. No other
additional standards.
2. Design Development Overlay District RR D-2.2. 225 Tally Ho. Road.
Approved by Ordinance 329 C.S. to provide for developed design and
density. No other additional standards.
3. Design Development Overlay District RR-D-2.3. Vicinity of La
Barranca. Approved by Ordinance 135.C.S. for Tract 453 with a
maximum density of 39 units. No other additional standards.
4. Design Development Overlay Districts VCD D-2.4, VMU D-2.4, VR D-
2.4, SF D-2.4 and MF D-2.4 Referred to as the Historic Character
Overlay District. Approved by Ordinance 439C.S. to specify Design
Guidelines and Standards for Development. Guidelines and Standards
for Historic Districts apply and are on file at the Community
Development Department. No other additional standards.
5LJDesign Development Overlay District SF D-2.5. Vicinity of Montego
Street. Approved by Ordinance 86 C.S. Maximum height is 11 ft. from
curb to peak of house for the south side of Montego Street.
6. Design Development Overlay District RS-D-2.6. Vicinity of Newport
Avenue. Approved by Ordinance 360 C.S. Maximum height two-
stories that shall not exceed 30' and no main building shall exceed 15'
from the highest point of the lot; minimum net building site area: 12,000
square feet for residential use, 20,000 square foot for churches and
other public uses; minimum lot width: 60 feet for residential uses and
100 feet for public uses; minimum lot depth: 90 feet. No other
additional standards.
7. Design Development Overlay District SF D-2.7. Vicinity of Ruth Anne
Way. Approved by Ordinance 138 C.S. Maximum building height: 22
feet from established curb height applicable to lots 1,2,3 of Tract 554;
Lots 1 & 2 of Parcel Map AG 73-383; and Lot 1 of Parcel Map AG 74-
293: Other lots have a maximum height of 18 feet from established
curb No other additional standards.
8. Design Development Overlay Districts RR D-2.8 and PF D-2.8. Tract
1513 approved for cluster single family development, a church and
open space easement.
9. Design Development Overlay District RR D-2.9. Vicinity of Miller Way.
Approved by Ordinance 439.C.S. Resolution No. 1185 approved tract
577 for cluster single family hillside development with "Optional Design
and Improvement Standards" with condition of tract approval for deed
restrictions to provide for no more than 27 lots. No additional
standards.
10. Design Development Overlay District RR D-2.10. Vicinity of Miller
Way. Approved by Ordinance 439.C.S. Resolution No. 76-456
approved tract 599 for cluster single family hillside development with
"Optional Design Standards" to allow 14 lots on 12.57 acres. Lots with
less than 85 feet frontage required to have a 50 ft. front yard setback to
allow for offstreet parking.
11. Design Development Overlay Districts VMU D-2.11, TMU D-2.11, HMU
D-2.11 and PF D-211. Approved by Ordinance 439.C.S. to specify
Design Guidelines and Standards for Development. See Guidelines
and Standards for the D.2.11.
12. Design Development Overlay District RS D-2.12. Vicinity of La Cresta
Drive. Approved by Ordinance 439 C.S. Development setbacks apply
for previous R1 district : front yard 20 ft., may stagger with a 3 ft.
variation from setback lines; side yard 5 ft.; street side yard 10 ft.; rear
yard 10ft. if 1500 sq. ft. open area is maintained to side or rear
otherwise 20 ft; Lot coverage 40%.
13. Design Development Overlay District MFA-D-2.13. Zoned at the time
of the 1991 Development Code update for consistency with the
General Plan designation. No additional standards. Design
Development Overlay District MFA FOMU-D-2.13. Provide for
residential use on all development fronting Sunset Avenue.
13.Design Development Overlay District MF-D-2.14. Zoned at the time of
the 1991 Development Code update to clarify development standards
and conditions for tract 1050 allowing an 83 unit twin home
subdivision. [repeal - development may be amended w/PUD permit.
Alt. leave in place blc no tracking to look up provisions]
14.Design Development Overlay District MF D-2.15. Zoned at the time of
the 1991 Development Code update to clarify development standards
and conditions for tract 398 allowing a twin home subdivision. Front
setbacks are staggered from a minimum of 15 feet. Lot 19 is reserved
fro drainage. If regional drainage resolves site drainage, lot may be
developed for recreational use. [Note: same as D2.14]
c'
15. Design Development Overlay District SF D-2.16. Zoned at the time of
the 1991 Development Code update to clarify development standards
and conditions for tract 954 allowing single family attached homes.
"optional Design Standards provide for varying lot dimensions, lot
areas, frontages and configuration. Design Review required by the
Community Development Director according to tract approval. [Note
same as D-214}
16.Design Development Overlay District MF D-217. Zoned at the time of
the 1991 Development Code update to clarify development standards
and conditions for tract 1395 allowing a 42 unit twin-home subdivision
with "Optional Design Standards". Design Guidelines as showb in
approved Architectural Review Case No. 86-366. [Note. Same as D-
2.14]
17. Design Development Overlay District SF D2.18. Zoned at the time of
the 1991 Development Code update to clarify development standards
and conditions for tracts 501 and 525 for twin home subdivision. No
additional standards. [Note: same as D-2.14]
18. [Note D-2.19 is appendix CWD.2.19 previous zone setbacks]
20. Design Development Overlay District 2.20: Medical Mixed Use
Objective of District: To provide for sufficient land for the orderly development
of Arroyo Grande Hospital and functionally related medical facilities.
Description of Parcels: APNs: 006-39- 044, 046, 047, 048, and 049 (see Zoning
Map OMU-D-2.20.)
Use Regulations: Mixed use development with a minimum of 75% of the net
building site (or equivalent area for vertical mixed use projects as determined by the
Community Development Director) shall be developed for office use to be compatible
with the anticipated needs for the Arroyo Grande Hospital. Deviations up to 25%
(reserving a minimum of 50% of the net area for office use) may be determined to be
acceptable, as determined by City Council, if they are needed to achieve a logical
and coherent site plan that meets the objective of this district. All other uses are as
specified in underlying zoning district (OMU).
Site Development Criteria:
1. As specified in the underlying zoning district (OMU).
2. Three-story building components allowed only with substantial transitional space
and/or lower story elements adjacent to residential districts or uses.
3. Future hospital redevelopment shall include public transportation improvements
(reference development approval CUP 02-006, Planning Commissions Resolutions
03-1839, and 021-1841)
4. Maximum Building Size may exceed the maximum standard of 50,000
square feet specified in underlying zoning district (OMU).
Performance Standards: Section 16.48.065 Mixed use developments. Section
16.48.120 Performance Standards.
Design Guidelines: none.
Additional Information: These parcels were zoned with a -D overlay at the time
of the 2004 Development Code Update to clarify development standards that pertain
to the subject parcels (reference Ordinance 557) and amended by Ordinance 581.
Demonstration of project compatibility with the Arroyo Grande Hospital and/or
coordination with a Hospital Facilities Plan must be submitted to the Community
Development Director prior to any use permit approval within the OMU-D-2.20
District.
ftal/n0"~ ~
DRAFT UJt1
MEMORANDUM
ATTACHMENT 5
"
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: TERESA MCCLISH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 04-005 FOR RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS; AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING MAP AND TITLE 16,
PERTAINING TO THE RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN DISTRICT,
MULTI FAMILY APARTMENT DISTRICT, MOBILE HOME PARK
DISTRICT, SENIOR HOUSING DISTRICT AND DESIGN
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICTS D-2.2, D-2.3, D-2.8 & D-2.20
DATE: AUGUST 1, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Resolution
recommending the City Council adopt a proposed ordinance making modifications to
the Zoning Map and portions of Title 16 concerning modifications to residential districts
and the Office Mixed Use District Design Development Overlay District (D-2.20) for the
purposes of clarification and consistency with the General Plan. The Planning
Commission may wish to discuss the proposed changes and continue the hearing to
September 5, 2006 when additional zoning modifications will be considered, including
proposed changes in the Viewshed Review process, lot coverage and floor area ratios,
reversionary setbacks, Planned Unit Developments and other Design Development
Overlay Districts. .
BACKGROUND:
As part of the on-going Development Code update concerning residential districts,
modifications are being proposed for the Residential Suburban (RS), Multi Family
. Apartment (MFA), Mobil Home Park (MHP), and Senior Housing (SR) districts, and the
Design Development Overlay Districts D-2.2, D-2.3, D-2.8 and D-2.20. Changes are
being proposed at this time primarily for consistency with the General Plan Land Use
and Housing Elements as well as to clarify some ambiguities in the code.
Many portions of the City's residential zoning districts are combined with overlay
districts to ensure that particular requirements or characteristics for a development or
neighborhood remain over time. As the update of the City's residential districts
progresses, staff is examining if all of the overlay districts need to remain, given
proposed changes in some districts as prescribed by the City's 2001 General Plan and
2004 Housing Element. For example, the 2005 amended Housing Element Policy A.1 0
requires the City review and revise development regulations, standards and procedures
to encourage increased housing supply. Most of the implementation measures
including in the Housing Element refer to Multi-family housing and affordable housing.
However, the City is required to continually inventory vacant and underutilized land
(A.12).
PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 1, 2006
PAGE30f4
"
Table 2
Comparison of existing and allowed densities for Design Development Overlay
Districts 2.2 and 2.3
Existing Existing densi~
Existing Approx. size ot number of of overlay Approx. allowed Allowed density
Zoning district (in Single district lots in RR distric in RS district
acreage) family lots (du/acre) (1 du/acre) (2.5 du/acre)
RR - D-2.2 .76 acre 3 3.9 1 1.9 or 1
RR - D-2.3 21 39 1.8 21 52.5
However, when looking at potential subdivision of the areas, there are only two parcels
that may be affected, both in the D-2.3 neighborhood. A brief history and analysis of the
D-2.3 area is provided below.
D-2.3 IN THE VICINITY OF VIA LA BARRANCA
Historv:
Ordinance 135 C.S., adopted by the City Council in March 1976, approved a zoning
amendment for the area off of Via La Barranca from RA-B3 to RA-B2, both designations
being Residential! Agriculture, with a "D" override to indicate a maximum of thirty-nine
(39) lots (Attachment 2). There are no other provisions of the overlay: As the restriction
of lots is required in a zoning provision, it may be modified upon the adoption of a
rezoning ordinance. The subdivision (Tract 453) includes lots ranging from
approximately 10,000 sq. ft. to a 2.6 acre City owned parcel that was set aside for park
purposes at the time Tract 453 was approved and that is currently used for water
detention for the adjacent Royal Oaks subdivision (PD 1.3). There are no other
remaining vacant parcels.
Zoninq: The current zoning is RR-D-2.3. The RR zoning allows for 40,000 sq. ft.
minimum lot sizes and a density of 1 dwelling unit per acre. The intent for the design
overlay district 2.3 is to restrict the number of lots to 39. There are no other provisions
. of the design overlay district.
General Plan:
The General Plan designation for this area is Low/Medium density with a maximum
density of 2.5 dwelling units/acre. The General Plan land use designation also includes
a Conservation/Open Space overlay for a portion of each of the D-2.3 (Attachment 1).
This General Plan overlay requires that any proposals within the vicinity of the overlay
comply with provisions in the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space element.
Specific objectives include provisions to identify and protect scenic resources and view
sheds, including open space, hillsides,' ridgelines and canyons among others (C/OS1-
1). Additionally, policy C/OS1-1.4 requires the location of development below prominent
ridgelines and hilltops such that they are not silhouetted against the sky.
Implementation measure Ag/C/OS.10 allows clustered development to locate
development on the least environmentally sensitive portions of properties where the
balance of land is preserved in permanent Open Space.
ATTACHMENT 1
.'
~/\. ,~
,/~l(~
, ' ,
i /-"
General Plan Land Use Map
Conservation/Open Space Overlay
po. -n po.CrtN\EN1' 2.
,\:300
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBT "A" (AUG 1,2006)
16.04.070.C. Definitions (in part)
"Block Front" means all the properties frontino on one side of a street.
between intersectino streets or a street and a waterway. cul-de-sac. or
unsubdivided land.
"Single-family detached dwelling" means a dwelling unit that is not attached
to any other dwellings by any means and houses one family, includino mobile
and manufactured homes on permanent foundations.
16.12.150 Appeals.
A. Appeal of Action.
1. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, any deeiGion made
under this title approval. denial. suspension or revocation of a license.
permit or entitlement referenced in Sections 2.17.030.A.2. or 16.08.060
shall be subject to the appeal provisions set forth in this section.
16.32.020
A.
B.
C.
Residential Estate (RE) Districts.
Residential Estate (RE) District. The RE district is intended to
permit single-family residential development on estate size lots
commensurate with the rural character and lifestyle of adjoining
county developments. This district is intended as an area for
development of low density, large lot, single"family detached
residential dwelling units at a maximum density of 1.0 dwelling unit
per 2.5 gross acres.,
Residential Hillside (RH) District. The primary purpose of the RH
district is to provide for and protect rural atmosphere and lifestyles,
as well as to provide for protection of existing hillside areas in
accordance with general plan policies. This district is intended as
an area for development of low density, large lot, single-family
detached and small lot single-family detached residential dwelling
units at a maximum density of 1.0 dwelling unit per 1.5 gross acres.
Cluster development is encouraged in order to protect the
environment. Other uses may be considered through a planned unit
development or similar mechanism.
Rural Residential (RR) District. The primary purpose of the RR
district is to provide for and protect rural atmosphere and lifestyles.
This district is intended as an area for development of low density,
large lot residential (1.0 aore groGs minimum paroel size) dwelling
units at a maximum density of 1.0 dwelling unit per 1.0 gross acre.
J.
16.32.030
A.
B.
de:;igned includinq exclusively for housinq for sE')nior Cjt1d
handicapped citizens, including independent living, congregate
care, assisted living, and convalescent living arrangements. Senior
housina developments within the MFVH district shall be age-
restricted to senior citizens (for nonhandicapped households) to the
extent permitted by state law. The FRa)(imum allowable den:;ity for
independent living development:;, Ghall be cleven dwelling units por
groGG aero., unless a FRinimum of twenty five (25) percent of the
tetal units me to be reserved for low and moderate income
residents. If such a mservation is modo, the density for
indepen€lent living developments FRay Be incr<lased to up to t,\'enty
five dwelling I:Jnits per gr<lss acre. This density bonus is intended to
implement slate law and shall not be eonsidemd in addition to that
authorized by state regulations. The maximum allowable density fef
congregate eme, assisted living, and convalescent living
arrongements,-shall be twenty-five (25) dwelling units per gross
acre, or equivalent population intensity.
Mobilehome Park (MHP) District. The purpose of the MHP district is
to provide suitable locations for the development of mobilehome
parks and subdivisions as a means of providing a range of housing
types as called for in the general plan housing element. The
maximum allowable density shall be M twelve (12) dwelling units
per gross acre. (Prior code ~9-06.020)
Residential Densities for Residential Districts.
Density is the number of dwellina units per aross acre. measured in
density units. For all sinale familv residential units within a
residential zonina district. each dwellina unit counts as one density
unit. For multi family dwellinas within a residential zonina district a 1
bedroom or studio is eaual to 0.5 unit and a 2 bedroom and aboye is
equal to 1.0 unit. Density in Mixed Use districts are defined in
Section 16.36.030.C.2.
The ultimate density allowed in any residential district shall be
determined through the residential land division and land use
permit and approval review process and public hearings as
described in Chapters 16.12, 16.16 and 16.20 of this title. The
planning commission and city council shall have the authority to
reasonably condition any residential development to ensure proper
transition and compatibility to adjacent residential developments,
existing or potential. (Prior code ~ 9-06.030)
16.32.050 Residential Site Development Standards.
The following property development standards shall apply to all land and
permitted, or conditionally permitted buildings located within their respective
residential districts. The standards stated herein shall not be construed to
RE RH RR RS SF VR ,-
8. Minimum rear 50'* 40'* 25'* 20'* 10' (1 1-' (1-
yard story) story)
setback* 15' (2- 15' (2-
storv)* storY)
9. Maximum lot 35% 35% 35% 30% 40% 40%
coveraQed
10. Maximum 30' or 2 30' or 2 30' or 230' or 2 30' or 2 30' or 2
height for stories, stories, stories, stories, stories, stories,
buildings whichev whichever whichever whichever whichever whichever
and er is is less, is less, is less, is less, is less,
structures less 14' for 14' for 14' for 14' for 14' for
accessory accessory accessory accessory accessory
buildinQs buildinQs buildinQs buildinas buildinas
11,. Minimum 20' 20' 6' 10' 10' 10'
distance
between
building
(including
main
dwellings
and ,
accessory . '
structures)"
Table 16.32.050-8
~esidential Site Development Standards
M If I F "I d Oth Z
U Iple amllY an er ones
MF MFA-MFHD SR-MFVH MHP
1. Maximum density 9.0 44-:-G 25.0 M
(DU's per gross 14.0' 12.0
acre)
[Does not include
density bonus for
affordable housinql
2. Minimum building 10,000 10,000 20,000 5 acresg
site
(Net area in sq.
ft.)
3. Minimum lot 80' 80' 80' 60,g
widthC
4. Minimum lot 100' 100' 100' 100,g
depth
5. Minimum front 20'* 20'* 20' 20'
streets. Additionally, no such equipment with the exception
of ground mounted air conditioning, shall be located in the
required front yard setback, street side yard setback, or
closer than twenty (20) feet to any residential dwelling on
adjacent properties. All equipment shall be installed and
operated in accordance with all other applicable. city
ordinances.
4. Developments of five or more dwelling units in the SF, HF
MF, MFAMFH and SR MFVH districts shall be required to
provide front and street side yard landscaping consisting of
predominantly drouaht resistant plant materials, except for
necessary walks, drives and fences.
5. In the HF MF, MFA MFH and MHP districts, a minimum of
thirty-five (35) percent of the site area shall be landscaped,
consistina of predominantlv drought resistant plant materials.
and provided with an adequate underground irrigation
system. The required landscaping shall include required
setback areas and may include outdoor recreation areas.
6. In the HF-MF, HFAMFH and SR MFVH districts, multi-family
attached or single. family attached dwelling unit's exceeding
one story in height shall maintain a minimum setback of
twenty (20) feet from any single-family residential district.
C. Additional Standards for the Development of Senior. Housing
Developments.
1. All senior housing developments within the SR MFVH district
shall be age restricted to senior citizens to the extent
permitted by state law.
2. Within two-story attached residential developments,
elevators shall be provided that shall have an alternative
back-up power source and meet or exceed minimum state
requirements, subject to review by the planning commission.
3. An internal and/or external security system shall be provided
by the developer and reviewed and approved by the chief of
police.
D. Additional Standards for Mobilehome Parks. In addition to any
conditions imposed upon the granting of a conditional use permit,
the following minimum standards shall apply to mobilehome parks:
1. The minimum site that may be developed for a mobilehome
park shall be five gross acres.
2. The minimum area for each mobilehome site shall be three
thousand (3,000) square feet with a minimum width of thirty
(30) feet.
3. Mobilehome parks existing as of the date of the original
adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall not be
deemed nonconforming by reason of failure to meet the
minimum development standards prescribed in this section
and 100 feet for public uses; minimum lot depth; 90 feet. No other
additional standards.
7. Desiqn Development Overlav District SF 0-2.7. Vicinitv of Ruth Anne
Wav. Approved bv Ordinance 138 C,S. Maximum buildinq heiqht: 18
feet from established curb heiqht.except lots 1.2.3 of Tract 554; Lots 1
& 2 of Parcel Map AG 73-383; and Lot 1 of Parcel Map AG 74-293.
where maximum heiqht is 22 feet from established curb heiqht. No
other additional standards.
8. Repealed. Design Development Overlay Districts RR 0-2.8 and PF
0-2.8. Tract 1513 approved for cluster single family development,
a church and open space easement. JNote: repeal and rezone SF
and PF]
".
9. Desiqn Development Overlay District RR 0-2.9. Vicinitv of Miller Way.
Approved by Ordinance 439.C.S. Resolution No. 1185 approved tract
577 for cluster sinqle family hillside development with "Optional Desiqn
and Improvement Standards" with condition of tract approval for deed
. restrictions to provide for no more than 27 lots. No additional
standards.
10.Desiqn Deyelopment Overlay District RR 0-2.10. Vicinity. of Miller
Way. Approved by Ordinance 439.C.S. Resolution No. 76-456
approved tract 599 for cluster sinqle family hillside development with
"Optional Desiqn Standards" to allow 14 lots on 12.57 acres. Lots with
less than 85 feet frontaqe required to have a 50 ft. front vard setback to
allow for offstreet parkinq.
11. Desiqn Development Overlay Districts VMU 0-2.11. TMU 0-2.11. HMU
0-2.11 and PF 0-211. Approved by Ordinance 439.C.S. to specify
Desiqn Guidelines and Standards for Development. See Guidelines
and Standards for the 0.2.11.
12.Desiqn Development Overlay District RS 0-2.12. Vicinity of La Cresta
Driye.Approyed by Ordinance 439 C.S. Development setbacks apply
for previous R1 district : front yard 20 ftoo maystaqqer with a 3 ft.
variation from setback lines: side yard 5 ft.: street side vard 10 ft.; rear
yard 10ft. if 1500 Sq. ft. open area is maintained to side or rear
otherwise 20 ft: Lot coveraqe 40%.
13. Desiqn Development Overlay District MFA-D-2.13. Zoned at the time
of the 1991 Development Code update for consistency with the
General Plan desiqnation. No additional standards
b. Three-story building components allowed only with .
substantial transitional space and/or lower story elements
adjacent to residential districts or uses.
c. Future hospital redevelopment shall include public
transportation improvements.
d. Maximum Building Size formedical facilities may exceed
the maximum standard of 50,000 square feet specified in
underlying zoning district (OMU). .
e. Performance Standards: Section 16.48.065 Mixed Use
developments. Section 16.48.120 Performance Standards.
f. Design Guidelines: none.
g. Additional Information: These parcels were zoned with
a -0 overlay to clarify development standards that pertain
to the subject parcels. Demonstration of project
compatibility with the Arroyo Grande Hospital and/or
coordination with Hospital Facilities Plan in progress must
be submitted to the Community Development Department
prior to any use permit approval within the OMU-D-2.20
Overlay.
a.
16.48.060 Development density.
The general plan classifications specify the maximum allowable development
density per gross acre of land owned in fee by the applicant (including street
right-of-way that would revert to the property owner if abandoned). Rounding up
to the next whole number is not applicable when figuring density except when
calculating density for the provision of affordable housing or for mixed use
districts where rounding to the next half number is appropriate. Density for mixed
use districts is discussed in Section 16.36.050 16.36.030.C. (Ord. 544 ~ 3, Exh.
B (part), 2003: prior code ~ 9-10.060)
E)(\-\\6\1' 6
/
.'
/,.,
,,~;
.'
/
tRR)
EXH\6\1 c
.
I -
02.8
~f
/\
\
,,,' \
;' >'"
/
./,/
//
..../.......
//
// ,-
/~-l~ ///
Yo''\.
~,
,/,,/_- //
? /'/ //'
Q ,/
\' /
~- \ ,/ ~ //
. ;;~ //" ~P/,. /
A/~", . V' / '- /1P'~ /'" ,/
Ie /' '-- ,_t<<-V
...... . /o~ ...../
"'-_ -1 y"-- />"///
~~:x-"r--, 6 r'_
. . d 1 be re_zoned lrom ilesldenll~1 ilural (ilil)
"rea propose 0 " \' - c.',." ,\ '
10 Single-familY (Sf) a'. ' '" ''" ,-." , , , .-' ,
ATTACHMENT 6
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
PLANNING COMMISSION
-.1V'\. .....
TERESA MCCLISH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER \
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FROM SEPTEMBER 5, 2006:
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 04-005B FOR. SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; RECOMMENDATIONS TO
MODIFY STANDARDS FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY
DISTRICTS -D-2.5, -D-2.6 AND -D-2.7.
OCTOBER 3, 2006
SUBJECT:
DATE:
[NOTE: Italizized text is added or modified language from the September 5, 2006 staff
memorandum. Discussion for the overlays is specific to the proposed ordinance. Please
refer to the September 5, 2006 memorandum for the discussion of the previously
considered alternatives and public comment letters.]
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution to modify
the Zoning Map and standards for Design Development Overlay Districts SF-D-2.5, RS-D-
2.6 and SF-D-2. 7 within the City of Arroyo Grande.
BACKGROUND
On September 5, 2006, the Planning Commission considered alternatives for modification
of zoning standards relating to Design Development Overlay districts SF-D-2.5, RS-D-2.6,
and SF-D-2.7 and continued the public hearing to October 3, 2006. Please refer to draft
minutes in Attachment 1.
Some portions of the City's residential zoning districts are combined with overlay districts to
ensure that particular requirements or characteristics for a development or neighborhood
remain over time. As the update of the City's residential districts progresses, staff is
examining if all of the overlay districts need to remain, given proposed changes in some
districts as prescribed by the City's 2001 General Plan or 2004 Housing Element. Some
overlay districts were placed well. over 20 years ago, as shown in ordinances and
resolutions appended to the Development Code and are sometimes difficult to decipher
and administer. Additionally, there have been concerns raised.during review for individual
projects in the vicinity of the subject districts, particularly concerning viewshed review.
The Planning Commission held a public workshop and discussed each residential overlay
district on January 31, 2006 and subsequently considered issues concerning specific
overlays at additional hearings and public workshops through the year, including the public
workshop on June 6, 2006. The Planning Commission recommended modifications for
another three Design Overlay districts (0-2.3, 0-2.9 and 0-2.10) at a public hearing on
August 1, 2006. Should the Commission make a recommendation on the subject overlay
PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 3, 2005
Page 2 of 11
districts, staff will group the recommendations together into a single ordinance for the City
Council public hearing.
DISCUSSION
Definition of a Desiqn Development Overlav
A design overlay zoning district is a zoning tool for addressing unique characteristics in a
particular area; common examples include a flood hazard overlay district or an historic
character district (like D-2.4 for the Village). Provisions required through a design overlay
district may be in addition to requirements in an underlying zoning district or replace a
standard in the underlying zoning district. For example, within Design Overlay district D-
2.5, a 30-foot maximum height limit in the Single Family (SF) zoning district is superceded
by a standard to control height to 11 ft. from top of curb to highest peak of the house. The
Development Code describes the purpose and requirements of forming new design overlay
districts in Section 16.44.020. Overlay zoning has been in use since the 1960's, although
its application includes a wide array of public interests including viewshed protection.
As part of the Development Code update for residential districts, staff is considering
potential alternatives for areas with an overlay district if:
.:. the overlay district is no longer consistent with policies in the General Plan;
.:. the provisions of the overlay are ambiguous and require amendments for
clarification; or
.:. the intent of the overlay can be better addressed by amendments to the
underlying zoning district that are being considered as part of the Residential
update.
The modifications proposed for the subject overlay districts are included in the attached
ordinance. For clarification purposes, staff is proposing to include standards for all overlay
disricts within the text of the Development Code instead of relying on ordinances
incorporated by reference.
Design Development Overlay Districts D-2.5, D-2.6 and 0-2.7 have been grouped together
as they each concern regulations for private viewshed protection. Although most viewshed
ordinances concern protection of public views, I.e. views from areas accessible to the
public including roads and highways, there are requirements that are used to provide
protections of both private and public views. These include limitations on house sizes,
design guidelines specific to hillside homes, requirements to reduce the massive
appearance of homes, and vegetation height limits or a mediation process. However, since
the primary concern regarding the subject overlay districts is not aesthetics of the hillside
neighborhoods, but rather the views to the ocean from the neighborhood, "height control is
the currently implemented tool used to effect view protection. During the review of these
overlay districts the emerging issue is how to balance viewshed protection and existing
neighborhood character with the desire to remodel or redevelop allowing for growing
families, market trends and modern design amenities (generally resulting in larger homes).
The public comment at the September 5, 2006 Planning Commission hearing regarding the
modification of height standards and the use of the viewshed review process may be best
S:\Community Development\PROJECTS\sPEClAL\DEV _ CODE_ UPDA TE\RESIDENTIAL PLUS \overlay dismctsWiewshed\PC Sf l00306.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 3, 2005
Page 3 of 11
summerized as conflicting objectives: "we want the ability to ask [for a reasonable home
addition]" and "we want certainty [that our views are forever protected)".
The existing requirements as well as proposed modifications for each overlay district are
summarized as follows (please refer to Attachment 2 for implementing ordinances.)
I. ExistinQ Requirements for DesiQn Development Overlav District SF D-2.5: vicinity of
Montego Street. Approved by Ordinance 86 C.S. in June 1973. Maximum height is 11 ft.
from curb to peak of house for the south side of Montego Street. No other additional
standards.
SF 0-2.5
',' /'-,,/ '.< /
f I .<' ,~
/ / .' <-. "-,"
/';'/?/ '"
Recommended modifications to DesiQn Development District SF-D-2.5. It is proposed that
the SF-D-2.5 overlay be expanded to include seven additional properties. This district has
a clear height requirement (11 ft. from curb) effecting a single-story construction that is
easily applied because it concerns only the downslope side (south side) of the street. The
proposed change concerns the westerly seven properties on the north side of Montego that
back up to an upslope residential property (the other properties on the north side of
Montego back up to public property used for water storage.) The expansion of the D-2.5
overlay was raised previously by the Planning Commision during consideration of a minor
use permit for Viewshed Review on the north side of Montego Street, as well as in previous
public workshops and during the September 5, 2006 public hearing. Since two story
construction of the westerly seven properties would obstruct views from the upslope
residential properties, it is proposed to be included in Design Development Overlay District
SF-D-2.5 thereby providing the same protections as they are afforded by having the same
requirement imposed on the south side of Montego. Correspondingly, the large parcel on
Hillcrest Drive to the north and immediately adjacent to the proposed expansion area is
also proposed to be included in a Design Development Overlay district for height regulation
but since it is zoned Residential Suburban (RS) it is proposed to be included in Design
Development Overlay district RS-D-2.6. (Please refer to discussion for the 0-2.6 overlay
below.)
S:\Community Development\PROJECTS\SPECIAL\DEV _CODE_UPDA TE\RESIDENTIAL PLUS \overlay districts\Viewshed\PC, Sf I00306.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 3, 2005
Page 4 of 11
Since the seven properties on Montego Street to be added to the overlay are upslope from
Montego, measurement is proposed to be made as 11 ft. from the highest existing grade
elevation at the perimeter of the development envelope (net lot area inside the required
yard setback) or the maximum height of the existing roof, whichever is greater. Although
"average grade" is used elsewhere in the City to measure height, this alternative
measurement can be used since average grade refers to the natural grade prior to
construction and all lots in the overlay are developed. The existing roof height is a
measure discussed at the September 5, 2006 public hearing and has been included to
avoid the potential for non-conforming structures. The 11-foot height limit, as measured
from highest existing grade of net building area, is consistant with the height limit imposed
on the south side of Montego Street, and it is considered to be consistent with the
approximate existing height of single-story residences on the north side of Montego Street.
This requirement is intended to provide for veiwshed protection from adjacent properties to
the north as well as allow for redevelopment or the addtion of subterranian garages,
basements or living space to be integrated into remodeled residential structures. There are
currently three such designs in the proposed l-Iot expansion area.
At the September 5, 2006 Planning Commission public hearing seven people that spoke on
the 0-2.5 overlay, most of whom stated support of either the specific expansion of the 0-
2.5 overlay or in favor of height control in the general vicinity. (Attachment 1.) Concerns
expressed included the proposed height standard of 11-feet in that it is too restrictive and
the potential effect on obtaining insurance for reconstruction. The revised height standard
and measurement, and option of using existing building height is anticipated to provide for
design flexibility. Additionally, the proposal, as revised, is not expected to create non-
conforming structures due to additional height restrictions and it is not anticipated that the
proposal would impact the ability to obtain necessary construction insurance.
: ~', ""
'?~'f~(~~l~
..., 1 : ;
'-f---"---'-"'-'~-'-'~---;
! --, j ! !
-----i~._,\ :~'--;"'-~_~"~iL~~~l::.L-;~;;(.,.__;;",-,. __ ;~=I_.~-. T ~ "-"("~' ,
~.~--;,~~;;~-c-_.., / ,- - . -- - - - ,
'!!':"~"-...) " ' ,! iD2.~ ! I I I 1"
~_,,',; ,'.','/- ',1,_",:,;,1."."" .,i'ii_,'"":...."..,:'-,:,_;.,,.~,':,,'!.,...~:!I~,",/.;.;.~,:.~,:,.,.._~"..."'!.i,..,,._. '. : 'm~-
: . /~ _ . -___ ~ ..' ~~:~~.,L-~~:..,'~--j:'.,:~~~-i
'}_,__. "_ ...__ ....;" i I ....--! i r I
Proposed amendment to Zoning Map for SF-D-2.5
S:\Community Development\PROJECTS\SPECIAL\DEV _ CODE_ uPOA TE\RESIDENTIAL PLUS\overlay dismcts\Viewshed\PC Sf I00306.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 3, 2005
Page 5 of 11
II. Existina Requirements for Desiqn Development Overlav District RS-D-2.6: vicinity of
Newport Avenue. Approved by Ordinance 360 C.S. in September 1987. Maximum height:
two-stories shall not exceed 30' and no main building shall exceed 15' from the highest
corner of the property; minimum net building site area: 12,000 square feet for residential
use, 20,000 square foot for churches and other public uses; minimum lot width: 60 feet for
residential uses and 100 feet for public uses; minimum lot depth: 90 feet. No other
additional standards.
RS 0-2.6
Prooosed modifications to Desiqn Development District RS-D-2.6.
It is. proposed that the RS-0-2.6 overlay be modified to remove standards applicable to lot
size, and leave the standards specific to lot width and depth for additional height control.
Since this overlay was put in place prior to implementation of the RS district, the
requirements of this overlay district are the same or very similar to requirements of the
underlying RS district. For example, the 12,000 sq. ft. lot size for the 0-2.6 district is the
same as the RS standard (and the 20,000 sq. ft. requirement for Churches are what is
generally needed as churches citywide are subject to a conditional use permit that requires
land area for adequate parking.) Lot width for the RS district is 80 ft. and lot depth is 100
feet which are larger than the 60 ft. and 80 ft. corresponding standards for the existing 0-
2.6 overlay district. These standards are used when evaluating proposed subdivisions.
Although modification of the lot width and depth standards would not affect subdivision
potential, it would cause several lots to be non-conforming and therefore revision is not
recommended at this time.
A homeowner in the RS-0-2.6 district has requested that staff look at the potential for
rezoning the lots fronting Newport Ave. from RS-0-2.6 to Single Family (SF). The historic
zoning was R1 and many of the lots are smaller than 12,000 sq. ft. and could be
characterized by the SF standards (7,200 sq. ft.) which is what is zoned and developed on
the south side of Newport Avenue. If these properties were rezoned, it could be
anticipated that approximately four lots could be subdivided, most likely in the form of flag
lots. Moreover, the SF district allows for applications for PUO development. Although it is
S:\Community Deve!opment\PROJECTS\sPECIAL\DEV _CODE _ UPDA TE\RESIDENTIAL PLUS\overlay districts\ Viewshed\PC Sf I00306.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 3. 2005
Page 6 of 11
often favorable to formulate standards that allow for consistent development on both sides
of a street, a change to SF for the north side of Newport Avenue would likely result in
changes that would change the character of the neighborhood to the north and would be
inconsistent with the intent of preserving rural character housing stock on the City's
hillsides that is characterized by the RS district. A modification to the underlying RS district
in this vicinity would also require an amendment to the General Plan.
The only height requirement is that "no main building shall exceed 15' from the highest
corner of the property", which was also imposed prior to existing regulations for viewshed
review. It is proposed that standards applicable to the 0-2.6 overlay are repealed except
for the 15 ft. height requirement as measured from the highest existing grade elevation at
the perimeter of the development envelope (net lot area inside the required yard setback)
for consistency (instead of measuring the height from the highest point on the lot).
Additionally, it is proposed that the two properties at 200 Hillcrest be included in the 0-2.6
overlay. However, no specific building height is proposed for this potion of the overlay
because of the shape and topography of the properties as well as their location near the
top of the grade. Inclusion in the overlay will require that a viewshed review permit be
approved prior to any development or redevelopment on the properties. These properties
have the potential for lot line adjustment or subdivision in the future.
~i\l;\J?1!jj1~(65~~:~~~~
f; '-~-( ," "" '" 04,.,,/'-- /. ..,~ ,"'- / j..,.'
el/ ,", '''. /:,;?~;~~~;)?;~
, / " / D 2"6 ....." . / :. '<;; '..'
j-_.:'-r-/,_J~~"..:___.:........_. :';-<~~...,/ / ,/ .>-." .,,-t
I L ii, -r--:~. ! -.,><. : ",,"/ / I
I I, J ! I,' , I' '..! ,,/ ,-' / .
. /; 1--- f r-:'---~ f -'-..,':;:- ", --- . /
III I I I . f',_~ 'I' ,
I ,! I , i ! i ,..... '-_.1 ! i I ! Ii
. (N~''''''~'.,,( ! If! ...... I~_"'_' ~~3,~~...1__.L_'_'."
;; j --r-"---"'--T-~~~7 ~~'v~w.r J I J i I-r-T-j
I r-=f-LI-.LJ TrrrTT ;JTj-rJ7.~~T~-\,i7
.. 1_.__1', . "I I . I ! '! , ! 1----....\ " l' ...... /" <\__
. ,L_~..__ .r'--.~.~. r-+-.-.1TL)___r-" ,Jy.1--l..---___..J )-"'-l..._.--2~ /..
Proposed amendment to Zoning Map for RS-D-2.6
III. Desiqn Development Overlav District SF 0-2.7: vicinity of Ruth Anne Way. Approved
by Ordinance 138 C.S. in June 1976. Maximum building height: 18 feet from established
curb height, except lots 1,2,3 of Tract 554; Lots 1 & 2 of Parcel Map AG 73-383; and Lot 1
of Parcel Map AG 74-293, where maximum height is 22 feet from established curb height.
No other additional standards.
S:\Community Development\PROJECTS\sPEClAL\DEV _CODE_UPDA TE\RESIDENTIAL PLUS\overJay districts\Viewshed\PC sr l00306.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 3. 2005
Page 7 of 11
SF 0-2.7
Most of the area covered by the overlay includes a 18 ft. height requirement from curb with
the exception of six lots as shown below:
~~....... "-j ,.U t', I 1
LLI' (~~ \ / I IJ..' I
v '--\. _ ,I )1~~L ~ (
(=::::-i ~~/Y ~ - T
. --j Il/ I r ~ -
. m ~""'-)T~"" ~ 1 l;j I Q r--J (t
~~I~/T[]llfIT
~r\ f-- L -'
/ '18-H "'~7)
~- "" - -
~ ~ -
1/ I ~ r--~ \ \-= e-
If R--,- -1 ~--j
SF-D-2.7 -18 and 22 foot height restrictions
Proposed modifications to Desian Development District SF-D-2.7.
The propsed alternative is to leave the Design Development Overlay District SF-D-2.7 in
place but allow application for modification for .!dQ.JQ 22 ft. for those properties currently
restricted to 18 ft. using the following standards and process:
. the floor area for a second-story shall not exceed 50% of the first story;
. any roof area that is proposed to exceed the height limit of 18-ft. height shall not
exceed 50% of the total floor area;
. a minor use permit for Viewshed Review is required to include the installation of
S:\Community Development\PROJECTS\SPEClAL\DEV _CODE_UPDA TE\RESIDENTIAL PLUS\overlay districts\Viewshed\PC Sf I00306.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 3, 2005
Page 8 of 11
story poles and shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and
action.
The proposal includes consideration of comments made at the September 5, 2006
Planning Commission hearing. Everyone that spoke was in favor of the height restrictions
in the neighborhood in general, some however were requesting that the process allow
consideration for potential additions or design considerations that are small in scale and
that may not block views given the varying topography in the vicinity of the 0-2.6 district.
Other speakers, including those from outside the 0-2.6 overlay district, noted that any
increase in height had the potential to block views. Comments regarding story-poles were
. mixed in that the poles would be helpful but potentially expensive to the applicant. The
proposal allows for a maximum increase in height of 4 ft. for up to 50% of the floor area
(excluding garages), with a mandatory public hearing. Although this reduces the certainty
for all existing views to be fully maintained, the proposed modifications limit the potential for
viewshed obstruction while allowing for some flexibility in design of
remodels/redevelopment over time. One additional letter was submitted in opposition to
modification of the design overlay (Attachment 3).
Viewshed Process
In addition to specific height requirements through the use <if zoning overlays, the City's
requires a process for view consideration citywide. The City's current Viewshed provisions
are included in Development Code Section 16.16.110. and were implemented during the
1991 Development Code update. These provisions are partially included below:
A. Purpose and Intent. It is the intent of the city, by requiring minor use permits for
the viewshed review process, to preserve the existing scope and character of
established single-family neighborhoods and to protect views and aesthetics and
other property values in such neighborhoods in a manner that is compatible with
reasonable expansion on existing developed lots and/or a new development on
existing undeveloped lots.
B. Authority. The community development director is authorized to approve minor
use permits for viewshed review, subject to the provisions of subsection (D) of this
section and the appeal provisions of Section 16.12.150.
C. Applicability. This section applies to all areas zoned RR, RS, SF, including those
with a design development (-D) overlay. These provisions would not apply to
development in MFA_districts, since architectural approval is required before the
issuance of a building permit.
1. Areas Zoned RR, RS, SF and MF. No second-story addition shall be erected or
enlarged on any single-family home within the PO, PS, SF and MF districts until a
minor use permit for viewshed review is obtained, in accordance with the procedure
set forth in this section.
2. Areas Zoned RR, RS, SF and MF with a -0 Overlay Regulating Height. No
new construction, addition or improvement thereof shall be erected or enlarged on
any lot that lies within the RR, RS, SF or MF districts that have a -0 overlay
regulating height until a minor use permit for viewshed review is obtained, in
accordance with the procedure set forth in this section.
3. Areas Zoned PD. The viewshed review process would not apply to properties
S:\Community Developmef!t\PROJECTS\sPEClAL\DEV _CODE_UPDA TE\RESIDENTIAL PLUS\overlay districts\Viewshed\PC sr 100306.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 3, 2005
Page 9 of 11
situated in approved planned developments with required architectural review of all
new or remodeled residences by the city or by the development's board.
16.16.110.E
E. Required Findings. The community development director or planning
commission may approve an application for a minor use permit for viewshed review
only if all of the following findings of fact can be made in an affirmative manner:
1. The proposed structure is consistent with the intent of this section;
2. The proposed structure is consistent with the established scale and character
of the neighborhood and will not unreasonably or unnecessarily affect views of
surrounding properties;
3. The proposed structure is 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.
F. Conditions of Approval. In granting a minor use permit for a viewshed review,
the community development director (or planning commission) may impose such
conditions as may be deemed necessary and desirable to protect the health, safety,
and general welfare, in respect to the facts listed in subsection (E) of this section.
(Ord. 573 Exh. A (part), 2005: Ord. 544 !}3, Exh. B (part), 2003: prior code !}9-
03.130)
The cost information for story poles and photo simulations range from approximately
$150.00 for the most basic addition and $3,000 for a more complicated analysis.
Basement/Storv
Additional concerns however have been raised about common definitions of basement and
story. Some requested additions within and outside of overlay districts included a
subterranean component to achieve additional square footage without affecting neighboring
views. However, existing regulations restrict height to two-stories or 30 ft. The proposal
includes removing the references to story for the purposes of viewshed review. Below are
potential modifications that may reduce additional ambiguities relating to definitions.
Basement and story definitions are consistent with the definitions in the Uniform Building
Code incorporated by reference in the Development Code.
16.04.070.C. Definitions (in part)
"Bacement" moanc any moa of tAo building having itc floor e:u13gmdo, Le., balm\'
ground lovel on all e:idoe:.
"Basement" As identified in the Uniform Buildina Code. Generallv meanina that portion of
a buildinq between floor and ceilinq, which is partlv below and partlv above qrade but so
located that the vertical distance from finished qrade to the floor below is less than the
vertical distance from finished qrade to ceilinq. (See "Storv.")
"Story" As identified in the Uniform Buildina Code. aenerallv meanina that portion of a
building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor
next above, except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building included
S:\Community Development\PROJECTS\sPECIAL\DEV _CODE_UPDA TE\RESIDENTIAL PLUS\overlay districts\Viewshed\PC Sf l00306.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 3, 2005
Page 10 of 11
between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling above. The basement or
cellar sholl not be considered a story unless the uppor surface of the floor above is more
than six f-oet above the overage level of the highest and lowest points of the ground surface
immediately adjacent to the exterior walls of the building. If the finished floor level directlv
above a basement. cellar or unused underfloor space is more than 6 feet above finished
qrade as defined herein for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter or is more than 12
feet above finished qrade as defined herein at anv point. such basement. cellar or unused
underfloor space shall be considered as a stOry.
Triqqers for Requirinq Viewshed Reveiw
. Another concern previously raised concerning veiwshed review includes the potential for a
tall single story addition to block views in a similar way as a second story addition.
Additionally, since the viewshed review process has been implemented (1991) there have
been developments within the Residential Hillside district and projects within these
developments do not currently require viewshed review. Below are modifications that are
proposed to address these issues as well as a few minor clerical addition to text that is
needed to clarify standards.
B. Authority. The community development director is authorized to approve minor use
permits for viewshed review, subject to the provisions of subsection (D) of this section and
the appeal provisions of Section 16.12.150.
C. Applicability. This section applies to all areas zoned RR, RS, SF, RH, and MF. including
those with a design development (-D) overlay. These provisions would not apply to
development in PD districts, since architectural approval is required before the issuance of
a building permit.
1. Areas Zoned RR, RS, SF, RH and MF. No addition that increases the buildinq heiqht.
with the exception of a re-roofinq project. shall be erected or enlarged on any single-family
home No second-story addition shall be erected or enlarged on any single-family home
within tho PD, PS, SF and MF districts until a minor use permit for viewshed review is
obtained, in accordance with the procedure set forth in this section.
2. Areas Zoned RR. RS. SF. RH and MF. No new construction of a two-stOry sinqle-familv
or multi-familv residence on an existinq undeveloped leqallot may be erected until a minor
use permit for viewshed review is obtained. in accordance with the procedure set forth in
the section.
3. Areas Zoned RR, RS, SF, RH and MF with a -D Overlay Regulating Height. No new
construction, addition or improvement thereof shall be erected or enlarged on any lot that
lies within the RR, RS, SF, RH or MF districts that have a -D overlay regulating height until
a minor use permit for viewshed review is obtained, in accordance with the procedure set
forth in this section.
4. Areas Zoned PD. The viewshed review process would not apply to properties situated in
approved planned developments with required architectural review of all new or remodeled
residences by the city or by the development's board.
16.16.110.E
E. Required Findings. The community development director or planning commission
may approve an application for a minor use permit for viewshed review only if all of the
following findings of fact can be made in an affirmative manner:
S:\Community Development\PROJECTS\sPECIAL\DEV _CODE_UPDATE\RESIDENTIAL PLUS\overlay districtsWiewshed\PC Sf I00306.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 3, 2005
Page 11 of 11
1. The proposed structure is consistent with the intent of this section;
2. The proposed structure is consistent with the established scale and character of the
neighborhood and will not unreasonably or unnecessarily affect views of surrounding
properties;
3. The proposed structure is 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.
Environmental Review
Staff has evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the proposal and a Draft
Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with CEQA (Attachment 4).
Alternatives:
. Adopt the Resolution
. Revise and adopt the Resolution
. Provide direction to staff
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2006.
2. Specific information for Design Overlay Districts 0-2.3, 0-2.9 and 0-2.10.
3. Letter from Helen Patricia Yager, dated September 25, 2006.
4. Draft Negative Declaration
S:\Community Development\PROJECTS\SPEClAL\DEV _ CODE_ UPDA TE\RESIDENTIAL PLUS\overlay districts\Viewshed\PC sr l00306.doc
ATTACHMENT 7 - Nei hborhood canvass of second sto additions in SF.D.2.7
Address/ What was Building Total Downstairs Upstairs Upstairs Photograph
approved approved? height building percentage
sIze oflower
level
590 s.f. 590/1,870
=31%
1236
Brighton!
January
2004
266 Elm!
November
1989
2" level
bedroom,
bathroom
and deck
Living
area
23.3'
from
site
grade
23'
from
site
grade
2,460
s.f.
1,870 s.f.
1,953
s.f.
1,320 s.f.
633/1,320
=47%
633 s.f.
I
)>
~
()
:r:
s.::
m
z
-f
"-.J
174
Fairview/
April
2004
242N
Elm/
July 2004
Lower
level
addition
to garage
and 2nd
level
bedroom,
10ft area,
bathroom
21'
from
site
grade
21'
from
site
grade
2,503
s.f.
Lower
level Y,
bath,
family
room and
storage,
upper
level
master
bedroom
and
bathroom
Submitted by resident C. Johnson
3,220
s.f.
2,062 s.f.
2,760 s.f.
441 s.f.
441/2062
=21%
460 s.f.. 460/2,760
=16%
~7
ATTACHMENT 8
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
INITIAL STUDY &
NEGA TlVE DECLARA TlON
)
1. Project Title:
City of Arroyo Grande Development Code Update;
Development Code Amendment 04-005B
City of Arroyo Grande
P.O. Box 550/214 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
2. Lead Agency Name & Address:
3. Contact Person & Phone #:
Teresa McClish, Associate Planner
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
(805) 473-5420
tmcclish@arroyogrande.org
4. Project Location:
Arroyo Grande, California - Citywide
5. Project Sponsor's Name & Address:
City of Arroyo Grande
214 E. Branch Street
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
6. General Plan Designation:
.:. Single Family Residential Low Density; Low -Medium
Density; and Medium Density: Muliple-Family
Residential Medium High, High and Very High Density
7. Zoning:
Existing Zoning:
.:. 1) RR in the vicinity of La Barranca and Tally Ho and
Canyon Way
.:. 2) RR-D-2.2; RR-D-2.3; SF-D-2.5; RS-D-2.6; SF-D-2.7;
RH-D-2.8; RS-D-2.12; MFA-2.13; MF-D-2.14; MF-D-
2.15; SF-D-2.16; MF-D-2.17; SF-D-2.18 and D-2.19
Proposed Zoning:
.:. 1) RS in the vicinity of La Barranca and Tally Ho and
Canyon Way
.:. 2) RR D 2.2 RS; RR D 2.d RS; SF-D-2.5 (amended);
RS-D_2.6 (amended); SF-D-2.7 (amended); RH D 2.8
SF & PF; RS D 2.12; MFAFOMU-2.13 (amended); MF-
D444; MF D 2.15; SF D 2.Hl; MF D 2.17; SF D 2.18
and D 2.19
8. Introduction:
This document is an Initial Study and Negative Declaration (ND) prepared pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for the City of Arroyo Grande Development Code Amendment 04-005
(the "Proposal"). This ND has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections
21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines.
This ND is a public document to be used by the City to determine whether the Project may have a
significant effect on the environment. The Program Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2001
Arroyo Grande General Plan Update was used as a resource for this ND. The Program EIR contains
supporting environmental studies. as well as extensive goals, policies. and implementation programs
designed to identify and address the environmental impacts of development within the City over the long-
term.
9. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) .
The City of Arroyo Grande has prepared an update of its Development Code amendment in order to bring
it into compliance with the 2001 General Plan update. The current Development Code was adopted by the
City in 1991. Amendments were made to the Development Code since that time including amendments
for the purposes of consistency with the 2001 General Plan for all commercial and mixed use zoning
districts in the City.
The Development Code amendment has been prepared in accordance with development policies
contained in the City's General Plan Land Use Element, which establishes the location. type, intensity and
distribution of land uses throughout the City; and the Housing Element adopted in 2003 and amended in
2005. The project affects the existing residential areas of the City that are already largely developed. The
purpose of the Development Code amendment is to:
. Implement the policies of. and ensure consistency with, the 2001 General Plan as regards development
and redevelopment within Residential and Conservation and Open Space land use designations;
. Clarify processes, standards and discretionary review criteria for project approvals; and
. Update provisions for consistency with relevant federal and State law.
The proposal includes a change in zoning from RR to RS in the vicinity of Canyon Way where the
General Plan land use map and zoning maps differ. Additionally, design development overlay districts
are proposed to be amended to reduce redundancy in application of requirements in existing and
proposed underlying zoning districts. The proposal also includes some changes in the PUD process to
clarify the process for reviewing requested changes within approved PUD developments over time as
well as negate the potential necessity for additional overlay districts. Revision of setback standards
and second dwelling unit size are consequently proposed to be modified consistent with proposed
changes. The proposal amends three existing overlay districts that include special height provisions for
the neighborhood in the vicinity of Newport Avenue, Brighten Avenue and Montego Avenue near the
western edge of the City limits to accommodate moderate increases in height for remodel and reduce
ambiguities in the measurement of building height. There are no changes made to zoning designations
that result in increased density, increased population potential or major infrastructure upgrades than
those already evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR.
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
See discussion of setting under "Evaluation of Environmental Impacts".
11. Other agencies whose approval is required (and permits needed):
n/a
'l
DETERMINATION.
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially X
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to
applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to the earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing
further is required.
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to
the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially
significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated". An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
'~"'J~ ~"G(~ Cf/U.!Ob ~811D@ l[~{(Jb
Signature -q Date
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a
"POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT' or "POTENTIALLY IS SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATED", as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages. '-
o Land Use and Planning 0 Biological Resources 0 Public Services
o Population and Housing 0 Energy and Mineral Resources 0 Utilities and Service Systems
o Geophysical 0 Hazards 0 Aesthetics
o Water 0 Noise 0 Cultural Resources
o Air Quality 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 0 Recreation
o T ransportationiCirculation
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for aI/ answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a
lead agency cites In the parentheses fol/owing each question. A "No Impacf' question is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A "No Impacf' answer should be explained where it is based on project specific factors as well as general standards
(e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level,
indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operations impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate 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 Impacr' entries when the determination is made,
an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from
"Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and
briefiy explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses",
may be cross referenced.)
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEOA process, an effect has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end
of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general
plans, zoning ordinances). A Source List should be attached and other sources used or individuals should be cited in the discussion.
.,
, ,'< :: , '. " PotentiaIiy "."
"
.. Potentially Significant Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significimt Unless Significant No
" Impact Mitigated Impact "Impact
"<.:, ",
,"
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (source
#(s): 1,2,3,4) X
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? X
(source#(s): 1,6,7) , "
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to ;:i:
soils or fannlands, or impacts from incompatible land X
uses)? (source #(s): g, 11) ..
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an I"
established community (including a low-income or minority I,. X
community)? (source #(s): 2,4,11) I'"
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population : I'
projections? (source #(s): 1,5,9) x
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or
extension of major infrastructure)? X
(source #(s): 9,10) ~
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ",
(source #(s): 9,10,11) :,:i X
III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Seismicity: fault rupture? (source #(s): 5,6) X
b) Seismicity: ground shaking or liquefaction? , '1',i
"
(source #(s): 5,6) " X
c) Seismicity: seiche or tsunami? (source #(s): 5,6) , X
{-:
d) Landslides or mudslides? (source #(s): 5,6) ,', X
e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soils "
conditions from excavation, grading or fill? , X
(source #(s): 10)
f) Subsidence of land? (source #(s): 5,6) , X
h
g) Expansive soils? (source #(s): 5,6) , X
h) Unique geologic or physical features? (source #(s): , X
5,6,10,11)
"
IV. WATER RESOURCESI DRAINAGE: Would the proposal result in:
a) Ch~nges in a~sor~tion rates, d~ainage ~~tle~_~, or the rate I I ' I I
A
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Unless ,Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
and amount of surface runoff? (source #(s): 10) X
b) Exposure to people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (source #(s): 8) X
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface
water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity? (source #(s): 9) X
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (source #(s): 9, 10) X
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (source #(s): 9,10) X
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of X
an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
(source #(s): 9, 10)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (source X
#(s): 9,10)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (source #(s): 9,10) X
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise
available for public water supplies? (source #(s): 6) X
V. AIR QUALITY: Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing
or projected air quality violation?
(source #(s): 7,13) X
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (source #(s): 10,
11) X
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any
change in climate? (source #(s): 9) X
d) Create objectionable odors? (source #(s): 9,10) X
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (source #(s):
13) x
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., X
farm equipment)? (source #(s): 9,10)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby sites?
(source #(s): 9,10) X
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (source
#(s): 3, 9, 10) X
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (source X
#(s): 9, 10)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (source X
#(s):9,10)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to:
"
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals,
and birds? (source #(s): 6) X
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)?
(source#(s): 10,11) X
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest,
coastal habitat)? (source #(s): 10, 11) X
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(source #(s): 9, 11) X
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
(source #(s): 11) X
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(source #(s): 1, 6) X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner'? (source #(s): 9, 10) X
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous X
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation? (source #(s): 9)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or X
emergency evacuation plan? (source #(s): 9, 10)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential heaith X
hazard? (source #(s): 9, 10)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health X
hazards? (source #(s): 9,10,11)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, X
or trees? (source #(s): 10, 11)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (source #(s): 1, 9) X
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
(source #(s): 9,10) X
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire Protection? (source #(s): 6) X
b) Police Protection? (source #(s): 6) X
c) Schools? (source #(s): 6) X
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X
(source #(s): 6) X
e) Other governmental services? (source #(s): 6) X
'"
.. , :'d""
Potentially ..
'. Potentially Significant ,iess Than
Issues (and Supporting.lnf6rmationSource~): Signific.mt Unless Sig~ificant No
Impact Mitigated I,iit" Impact linpact
,', .Hi ;" , ,,;;'(
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (source #(s): 9, 10) X
b) Communications systems? (source #(s): 9,10) X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? .'
(source #(s): 6) .' X
d) Storm water drainage? (source #(s): 6) .,., I,:', X
e) Solid waste disposal? (source #(s): 6) X
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? '.
(source#(s): 1, 10, 11) X
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ,
(source#(s): 9,10,11) X
c) Create light or glare? (source #(s): 9,10) X
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (source #(s): 6, 11) 10:< , X
,''''
b) Disturb archaeological resources (source #(s): 6, 11) ::i'::, :Ii X
.,.
c) Affect historical resources? (source #(s): 6, 11) X
d) Potentially cause a physical change that would affect X
unique ethnic cultural values? (source #(s): 11)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the X
potential impact area? (source #(s): 10, 11)
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or I.'
other recreational facilities? (source #(s): 1,3) ,.
I.' X
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? , I',
(source #(s): 1,5) ,". X
....
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a "
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or "
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory? X
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? t,
X
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
'7
Issues. (and Supporting Informatiori'Sources):
.. . "..;
I'.;, "
'" ,'i': .,~ ,.
Poteiitially
Significant
Impact
Potentially,!!
Significanii
Uiiless
Mitigated "
,
'Lllss Than,
. Significant
Impact
,
I':;:,
!~~'. 'NOi
'impact
'",
X
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
.,
d) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
:",.
" :.
, X
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEOA process, one or more effects have been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
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 incorporated 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 Grande General Plan (October 2001)
2. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Land Use Map (October 2001)
3. City of Arroyo Grande Development Code
4. City of Arroyo Grande Zoning Map
5. City of Arroyo Grande Existing Setting and Community Issues Report
6. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Program EIR (October 2001)
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 521 C. S.
13. San Diego Council of Governments - Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates
<I
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
The project relates to the entire City of Arroyo Grande, located in the southwestern portion of San Luis Obispo
County. The City is 5.45 square rniles in size and is bounded by the Cities of Grover Beach and Pismo Beach to
the southwest and west, and to the unincorporated County to the north, east and south. U.S. 101 extends
northwest and southeast through the middle of the City, and Highway 227 runs east from U.S. 101 through the
Village Area. Residential Rural and Suburban development characterize unincorporated areas to the north and
southeast, and Agricultural uses dominate the Arroyo Grande Valley that extends northeast and south of the City.
The topography of the City ranges from moderate and steep hillsides to the north of U.S. 101 to relatively flat
parcels toward the center of town, to moderate slopes further south. Several creeks traverse the City, including
the more prominent Arroyo Grande Creek that runs in a generally north-south direction through the eastern
section of the City. The Wilmar Avenue fault is a potentially active fault adjacent to the City, and the Pismo fault
underlies portions of Arroyo Grande but is inactive and poses very low potential fault rupture hazard to the City.
The areas in the City affected by the proposal include existing developed neighborhoods ranging from low
density to very high density areas. Future projects are anticipated to consist of moderate infill development and
redevelopment over time. The area of the SF-D-2.5, RS-D-2.6 and SF-D-2.7 Design Development Overlay
districts is currently development with single family homes. The RS districts includes a density of 2.5 du/acre and
a minimum lot size of 12,000. sq. ft. The SF districts includes a density of 4.5 dulacre and a minimum lot size of
7,200 sq. ft. There are substantial views of the Pacific Ocean, Mountains and the Nipomo Mesa from these
neighborhoods for which height provisions enacted through overlay zoning are intended to preserve.
EXPLANATIONS TO INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST:
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING
The project includes revisions to expand an existing overlay district for the purposes of height control and
view protection. There are seven properties proposed to be added to SR-D-2.5 and two properties to be
added to RS-D-2.6. The underlying zoning is not proposed to change. Additionally, SF-D-2.7 is
proposed to be amended to allow for limited increases in height from 18 ft. to 22 ft. where it can be
demonstrated that views from surrounding areas will not be obstructed. The modifications will allow for
continued use and reconstruction of homes in the existing character for the neighborhood. There are no
changes proposed that result in increased density, increased population potential, manor infrastructure
upgrades, or the other development that would have a significant impact on land use planning.
Analysis of Significance: Less than significant impact
II. POPULATION & HOUSING
The 2003 population of the City is approximately 16,500 according to the California Department of
Finance, and is projected to reach 20,000 by 2020 according to the General Plan. This estimate is
consistent with regional projections, and does not require major displacement of existing housing.
However, some sub-area increases may require infrastructure changes or involve different traffic impacts.
Most of the population distribution is expected to occur in the new Mixed Use and Village Commercial
expansion areas.
The projects does not increase the projected population in the City beyond that identified in the 2001
General Plan and considered in the program EIR. The proposal increases the maximum density potential
in the vicinity of La BarrancalTally Ho/Caynon Way, however only within the density prescribed by the
General Plan. Additional land use controls that are existing or included within the proposal that limit
density potential for areas with slopes exceeding 7% and for flag lot subdivisions.
Analysis of Significance: Less than significant impact
o
XIII. AESTHETICS
State CEQA Guidelines consider an impact significant if the project will have "a substantial, demonstrable
negative aesthetic effect". Aesthetic considerations, such as damage or degradation of scenic resources
or visual character, effects on scenic vistas, and new sources of light and glare will be considered at the
time site specific projects are proposed. The project includes revisions to expand an existing overlay
district for the purposes of height control and view protection. There are seven properties proposed to
be added to SR-D-2.5 and two properties to be added to RS-D-2.6. The underlying zoning is not
proposed to change. Additionally, SF-D-2.7 is proposed to be amended to allow for limited increases
in height from 18 ft. to 22 ft. where it can be demonstrated that views from surrounding areas will not
be obstructed. The modifications will allow for continued use and reconstruction of homes in the
existing character for the neighborhood. Modifications to clarify maximum height provisions are also
included as well as the process for evaluation proposed buildings and additions in relation to viewshed
protection. Theses standards are considered to be an implementing tool to protect the character of
established neighborhoods, still allowing for updating and remodeling of homes, and mitigate potential
aesthetic impacts as discussed in the program EIR.
Analysis of Significance: Less than significant impact
li\,
.,
1\ \.
'\\' "\.
.. '"
" .
-->-~
---.
,[)
11.a.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
CITY COUNCIL
ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO~ S
DON SPAGNOLO. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
SUBJECT:
CONSIDERATION OF E. BRANCH STREETS CAPE ENHANCEMENT
PROJECT
DATE:
JANUARY 9. 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council: 1) approve the proposed E. Branch Streetscape
Enhancement Project; 2) authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with RRM
Design Group to survey and prepare engineering plans and specifications for proposed
crosswalks, bulbouts and landscape components of the E. Branch Streetscape
Enhancement Plan not to exceed $65,000; 3) authorize the City Manager to direct Omni-
Means to prepare and coordinate related "Design Exceptions" to State Highway Standards
to Caltrans for review and approval under the existing City contract and not to exceed
$29,000; 4) authorize the order of trash receptacles, planters, benches and light fixtures;
5) eliminate prior appropriation of $92,000 in local matching funds from the General Fund;
and 6) direct staff to pursue the relinquishment process if the proposed design exceptions
are not approved by Caltrans.
FUNDING:
SLOCOG has approved $588,000 from Regional State Highway Account (RSHA) funds
and up to $120,000 from SAFE funds for lighted crosswalks. At the December 12, 2006
meeting, the City Council also appropriated $92,000 from the General Fund for local
matching funds. However, after revising the project recommendations, staff believes the
project can be accomplished with no use of local funding. Therefore, staff recommends
the appropriation from the General Fund be eliminated at this time. It is also unlikely that
construction will occur until FY 2007-08. Therefore, funding options for local matching
funds can be reconsidered during the upcoming budget process if it becomes necessary
after bids are received.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF E. BRANCH STREETSCAPE ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
JANUARY 9, 2007
PAGE 2
The proposed projects costs are as follows:
Construction
Site preparation and demo
Striping and signage
Bulbouts and sidewalks
Lighted/stamped crosswalks
Street furniture
Street lighting
Storm drain improvements
Construction continaencies
Subtotal
$54,700
$30,000
$89,900
$152,000
$80,700
$44,000
$104,630
$48.400
$604,330
Desian and Administration
Contract administration
Design
Desian exception process and submittals
Subtotal
$10,330
$65,050
$28,290
$103,670
$708,000
Total
DISCUSSION:
Backaround
Approximately five years ago, the City and the Village Improvement Association (VIA)
developed a preliminary Branch Streetscape Enhancement Plan, which was approved by
City Council after public workshops and input. Subsequently, the City applied to SLOCOG
for grant funds. The conceptual improvement project included E. Branch Street/State
Highway Route 227 from Traffic Way to Mason Street, approximately three blocks within
the heart of the historic Village downtown core.
The objective of the plan was to improve pedestrian accessibility and safety, enhance
Village character and aesthetics, and at the same time maintain efficient traffic flow and
existing parking. The plan consists primarily of bulbouts, crosswalk enhancements, new
street fumiture, and decorative streetlights. Due to delays in obtaining the grant funding,
the "Let There Be Lights" program was established to solicit private contributions for the
streetlights. As a result, the majority of the light fixtures have already been installed.
Staff has coordinated with Caltrans on development of the plan in order to achieve future
approval. Some of the features still do not meet their guidelines and will require design
exceptions. However, feedback has been obtained from Caltrans' representatives that
approval is feasible under the current design.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF E. BRANCH STREETSCAPE ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
JANUARY 9, 2007
PAGE 3
The City has contracted with RRM Design to prepare more detailed drawings of the
concepts originally developed by staff. See Attachment 1. It is recommended the City
further contract with RRM Design for construction drawings and with Omni-Means for
preparation of engineering and coordination necessary to submit an application for the
design exceptions to Caltrans.
Crosswalks
Installation of stamped asphalt is proposed at crosswalks at the intersections of Mason
Street, Short Street, Bridge Street and Traffic Way for both safety and aesthetic purposes.
Safety lighting is proposed at the crosswalks at Short Street and Bridge Street. Lighting
will make the crosswalks more visible in the evening and the stamped asphalt will improve
visibility in the daytime.
Bulbouts
At the two intersections within the Village downtown core - Bridge/Nevada and Short
Streets across East Branch Street - the streetscape design concept includes corner
"bulbouts" or curb and sidewalk projections into the street pavement to shorten the
crossing distance and emphasize the pedestrian traffic at these key locations. Generally,
the bulbouts are proposed in what would otherwise be an on-street parking lane with wide
curb radius to facilitate truck or other large vehicle turns from travel lanes. However, on
Nevada Street and Short Street, the narrow street width without on-street parking
eliminates the need for new bulb-outs. Based on Caltrans recommendation regarding
extent of projection from typical curb alignment, the proposed bulbouts on the west side of
Bridge Street, both sides of E. Branch Street at Bridge Street, and Short Street is limited
to four feet, reducing the Branch Street crosswalk length by eight feet. New handicap
(ADA) ramps will also be integrated into each corner.
One mid-block bulbout is also proposed, located at the end of a pedestrian pathway
adjoining Broadway Jewelry and Village Gift Shop. This bulbout would provide for
existing fire hydrant precluding on-street parking, pedestrian amenities such as bench,
trash/recycle receptacles, and street tree or decorative planters placed to discourage mid-
block crossings. It provides an effective location for enhanced landscaping without
elimination of anyon-street parking.
Street Liahts
The voluntary "Let There Be Lights" program during the last three years has
accomplished replacement of 16 former generic post and lantern PG&E street lights with
heritage character decorative pole and glass acorn fixtures including custom finials, ribs,
bands, and banner arms along Branch Street from Traffic Way to Short Street. Two
existing poles and lanterns and two proposed new decorative poles and fixtures remain
within the Village downtown core streetscape project area for a minimum of four new
lights in the City Hall block. Additionally, ten existing poles and lanterns remain on Bridge.
Street, Nevada Street, Mason Street and the East Branch Street frontage east of Mason .
Street to the foot of Crown Hill, which also need to be replaced with the decorative poles
,
CITY COUNCIL
. CONSIDERATION OF E. BRANCH STREETSCAPE ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
JANUARY 9, 2007
PAGE 4
and heritage character fixtures. The City Council separately authorized approximately
$50,000 for two contracts with PG&E to complete the street light conversion before
additional cost escalations occur. It is estimated the "Let There be Lights" program
contributions in the next year would reimburse approximately $30,000 toward remaining
street light conversion. The two new pole locations would be on East Branch Street near
Mason Street to fill a gap in decorative street light spacing.
Street Furniture
The City has two sample black powder coated metal strap benches located in front of the
Car Corral parking lot and the bus stop adjoining the Council Chambers. With
approximately 12 planned locations within the three-block area, one at each end and one
mid-block on each side of E. Branch Street, the City will need 10 more benches at a cost
of approximately $1,200 each. Attachment 2 includes a picture of the eight-foot long
bench design.
The City has one sample of the black powder coated, side door metal strap trash/recycle
receptacle located at the bus stop adjoining the Council Chambers. At least 12 additional
trash/recycle receptacles are needed to accompany the 12 benches and if budget
permits, an additional 6 to 12 would be ordered and placed at strategic locations within
the downtown core to encourage convenient usage. These new receptacles replace the
existing round and square concrete containers that require the trash liners be lifted out
from the top. Therefore, there is also an operational advantage to the new design.
Attachment 2 includes a picture of the 24" diameter by 40" tall receptacle. A total of 12
trash receptacles and 6 matching recycle containers are proposed.
Although one of the primary objectives of the Branch Streetscape Enhancement project
concept was to integrate street trees into the Village downtown core, it was determined
that water, sewer, power, gas, cable TV, phone and other underground utility locations
under sidewalk and parking lane portions of street right-of-way would preclude in-ground
placement. - Therefore, the City has worked with the VIA to propose uniformly spaced
street tree planters, approximately fifty feet (50') apart, at the outer edge of ten-foot wide
sidewalks on both sides of Branch Street. They are generally located between on-street
parking designated spaces to avoid vehicle conflicts and facilitate passenger door
openings.
This uniform pattern enables up to seventy steel strap custom planters to replace the
recently redistributed concrete planters, which were positioned to demonstrate the
proposed locations. Staff was unable to identify an appropriate manufactured planter with
sufficient size to accommodate the trees. Therefore, a proposal for a custom designed
planter has been obtained. The custom planters are 24" diameter cylinders and 24" tall,
which would contain custom plastic liners in which the new ten-foot tall ficus trees would
be replanted. Each would be anchored to the sidewalk to prevent unauthorized relocation
or toppling by wind. It is estimated that these trees may grow to 20 ft. maximum height
within ten years, but not survive longer or grow larger due to limited planter size.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF E. BRANCH STREETSCAPE ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
JANUARY 9, 2007
PAGE 5
Relinauishment
Prior to the plan development, the City Council previously directed staff to initiate the
relinquishment process in order for the City to assume control of E. Branch Street from the
State of California. The first step requires the City to work with the San Luis Obispo
Council of Governments (SLOCOG) to prepare a request for State legislative approval to
amend the Streets and Highway Code to relinquish a 'portion of Route 227, which was
completed. However, due primarily to the costs involved in assuming maintenance of the
roadway, the City Council determined at that time not to proceed with relinquishment if
approval of the proposed improvements could be obtained from Caltrans.
The bill containing the amendment to Section 527 of the Streets and Highway Code was
signed by the Govemor on September 27,2000. This amendment does not have a sunset
clause and remains in effect if the City Council directs staff to further pursue
relinquishment. Caltrans would be the lead agency in this process. In order for them to
begin preparing the necessary documentation, the City would have to pass a resolution
stating its intention to pursue relinquishment. A Project Scope Summary Report (PSSR) is
then prepared by Caltrans and presented to the Califomia Transportation Commission
(CTC). The PSSR consists of several individual agreements and studies, including the
condition of the right-of-way to be relinquished, mapping and legal descriptions and
historical/cultural assessments. Once the City's resolution has been accepted by Caltrans,
it could take eight to twelve months to prepare the documents for CTC consideration.
Therefore, staff is concerned with unnecessary time delays this process could add to the
project if the design exceptions could otherwise be achieved under the existing process.
However, there are reasons that the City Council may want to consider initiating the
relinquishment process separate from the proposed streetscape project. First, staff is
concerned with the long-term ability to provide for outdoor dining and other sidewalk
features given Caltrans restrictions. Second, relinquishment would ease the process for
organizing special events and activities in the Village. Third, relinquishment would provide
increased control by the City regarding future roadway modifications. For example,
difficulties are currently. being addressed with Caltrans staff regarding the impact of
Caltrans standards on a proposed turn lane at the E. Village Plaza project.
An additional alternative for consideration would be to modify the boundaries of the
proposed relinquishment to include only the area of Route 227 in the Village. Currently,
relinquishment assumed the entire area of Route 227 through the City limits. This
modification would accomplish City control in the area desired, but reduce future
maintenance costs. It would require an amendment to the original enabling legislation,
significantly increasing the time required to complete the entire process. However, if the
City concurrently pursued approval of the design exceptions for the project, it could be
achieved without impacting the project timeline.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF E. BRANCH STREETSCAPE ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
JANUARY 9, 2007
PAGE 6
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
Approve the proposed E. Branch Streetscape Enhancement Project; authorize the
City Manager to execute a contract with RRM Design Group to survey and prepare
engineering plans and specifications for proposed crosswalks, bulbouts and
landscape components of the E. Branch Streetscape Enhancement Plan not to
exceed $65,000; authorize Omni-Means to prepare and coordinate related "Design
Exceptions" to State Highway Standards to Caltrans for review and approval;
authorize the order of trash receptacles, planters, benches and light fixtures;
eliminate prior appropriation of $92,000 in local matching funds from the General
Fund; and direct staff to pursue the relinquishment process if the proposed design
exceptions are not approved by Caltrans
In addition to the preceding approvals, direct staff to proceed at this time with the
relinquishment process
Direct staff to pursue relinquishment, but modify the boundaries to include only the
Village area of Route 227 rather than the entire route through the City limits
Direct staff to proceed with the relinquishment process and study other altematives
that could be possible under City control, such as wider bulbouts, wider sidewalks,
and altemative parking and loading designs
Provide direction to staff
Attachments:
1. Streetscape plan
2. Pictures of bench and trash receptacle
',~ \: .,
".,"
,i ! ';fI)" I.:. "
'. .
. .
'<oJ, .
, ,1.':'
.,
'. ,- .' :1'~'~r:~~Tf"r {' ,.j
[lililqS ililV~Ulllf)lew ' _--::-:-__:-~~ .
,- . ,l.1 J~,
';,',
'..C'::,.
"k;"
"
"
.,-,
".,-
,..,'
'Y!,<'" ');;\:~~~":~
:'f'!'~:';;!;+.";:'IX; 'I" '
l.".l'~; ,;, ~!. ". . ,_
'I
.
i'~'
' "
,.at \
~ ,,' ',"
"........- :;~f,i.
r:IwaP ". '~""l"t.
. .....~,.~.; <I-Jill
:m"'"
<II Yi~ -"
; ~:I:,
.'
~'~":
j'o',
'c)'Eo' .
~.
-~ II'
'./ I~" r
, \~,
,.'jl,
,','\
::,jlr.
i}~W~_::;
~", ,
. \l~(\ I .
: '/l[~..
",i~":"
: :,.~: ~~j
_ : .:;~'r ,)~ "
:111',',
,,;,~~~';;;' "
"',",,':'
:~;L,. "-
,~
. ,
~I
..11
-tl
.",
.(~
~I
.,
I
. ,
, I
. .,
,
-~.: :;.~~..:p .-.
:-:-J :,L;;'
,-,'~ - -. r~?:
l~ :.
!:;.>-
.l...
, - t ~
..f
,.
Reptace~~xlstlng
5ldewat~andcurb
"ramp ilt~orner
ExistlngllQht"
(subject 10 relocation)
- .
Provide p~a~ter
POUwlth\lowplant
materlat al curb
extension'.: '
'-.;;.-'~::-~--
,':~._E~i.~}in9)J?~~ .~~,:_ :~';
.. . . ..' ."...... .. "l:;i; ;;;;;':', ;,',On. o;;~h' .. : . .............;... .. .,..:; ';;ii~;~~~~i;~~~ ,''''
~'NeWbrjCk""" ~__...-~- :::":~h...n'-:: --, '...~-. "__f1owe!.!..ng5hrub"- .1-
n n ~ "'"~ _ ~_ ....... 'd - >"'....,. ..,. _A' c' .~- ,- "~-I'
.,_' _ ~5tampeda$phalt ',"1 ...~~<....^'r: ~~, . '",;;.j. .l1a"i' "...-. ,-~. """:";],'" --,,'., .-' "-:i"'~-''"'" ~... ~.,-- ,;,;
," ;..-~ . . .3""~~- ~\~'" ~..~~ ;... - ~~'-.:>-J:t~~~.s>..., ...~;. -. ~=~~--:; "", ~~.;.,~:7' _f'""" U
.' _,"o"w.Ik..,-..J _,='_'~~'==~"- '""J.....,.=.,"'.. --.,'. ' ',""o,w""'" .'.
,::~ - ~-:~.~.:.- .,:: ,..-~" - '.'- .. ...:.' ", ':. '. '.::~E B~NCH ;TRE~ .:..~>:~;~~~"in"dF"""'" n;,"2i:I;':
i. ~'';:lliE~%~~~~4;;:~~~~~~~,~~;j. ,~"I"
,'..'m,,,n,1. M"'"'' '" d,,, lti> t." of - '.' ..::.:: .~..~. 3.~.:~~.~ ~.."'~n i ~
b~'"~~~'...;;~.. .....,. r
~~.,I...~~.~f~.~~n;:.., .
?J1~c.llif~i~?~;;it~;~:~ii! ..
I ' ." travel distance across'
~'I~E";;;n.'~;;'~il~~'';''~:' . '. ::::", ::::''''''''00';'' '.'
~-..~'_...,.ll ,"-'..~.,:,.'..'.:':'..'3;',.7".:~.'::.:4:~~,:::':: '.'.:~ ':;:~~a~,e,~~c,,'\Pedestrlan ._-~;,. ~,~ \
',_ .' __,' ._......,_aO~-l'r.rou~-I\'.
Br~d.g~ S~,.eet ,---'~~ ;_:~:: ._-
:-'Of J,,' "~':;": ...;.
_ .,:,:,::,,:,-'::,:"-2-..1
. ., ,,'
;::'1; ,~: ~.t ": "~":.: '
, "I ,RElplae'e'existlng sidewalk 1
'I afj'd curb ramp ill corner.
: l~provl.d(.~!.~.-~O~_.""'l"
IIOW"Plantmaterlal'll~;'"
_ eX.le~sli:i~.Miiijta.!~.;,1~,\:.
_ ~l . clear fr~[lna1l!lpf;cu~o <., \.
" , .:'_:I~t ru~nl~lngs;r.~ti.i~:.1L.I<
'i~";" '. :..';" ..'t-
o . _ . - -
'r: . ...,.1 .' '. ~'. .
~ ~-:~.:_~. :.;......1.... ~
_ ......-f _...9 mn-,~,' I
. I .' _.~~ Te_. _.I"~~ ~.. I
-.;: ,~...~~'t~.:. f~~;'!~" \
I .. .....c .re.,
I .." > .'-,- ~ " ...r I
~~~~~~~ I
.~
.
r}J;.:;;:{,F':,~"t'
. '-...........---
.;,...,.,....;..i...-..
-'* .,,':J;
~Ar~~', '
i.."~':_r,~, " .,,~ :::
,;, .,1; ',~,~'.:,~ '_,l:r;j ,,".,'
.. - ,~"',
~,~',~ ~lj {Jif:.~ ;;",i';
,:~~'~'L:~' . ,~'~t ;1, <"
,i'
,1
, Jl
~ ,
iW:
l... ...
',\'
l'~:" ,,'
, ",.....
~r:..f.i r~
~'~ ",
'~. e.,.:::,
{" .
ill
"Si:
, '
i.':;
RECEPTACLE 157
.Ii
!I
I.
,I
'i
I'
157-22-25BT
22'9a1l00 AII.Steel Receptacle. 2291bs. $1,011
15).32.2581
32.gallon AIl.Steel Raceptatle. 2sa lbs. $1.228
Comes wiu-. large bonnet top
Hmged siCe door design
Eas1 open.close latch design
t
['
'I
MA"ERIALS
Top ElIge: 518'-diameter steel bar
Vertical Straps: 1/4' J( 1.112' steel bar
Reveal Strip: 1/4' x 2" steel bar
Cover: 12-gauge spun s~eer
lnternal Steel Shield: 18-gaugeCR steel
Liner: 22- or 32.ga1l0l1 plastic
Finish: See page 4 lor choice of po/yester
powcIerfloish. IShowoin BlackJ
. 'I .. "I"
'I' e .' I ,j::,::r
i .\;.., ..... .
.~1k-""::5~~. r
" _Jt~... ,
,.,...:..~".:..,,\ .'t); ,{
~;!'.~:~';'f< . ~' '
_I
0"'''' NEW, "A,,"1 Of'EN<CLOSE STAINLESS STEEl.. LATCH
O~SIC"CO"'ES sY.....oMmON RECEPTI.CLE: 157.
'i::",: _'~:,:::~:~:~.i..:.~~~~?t:
PLANTER '11?J~,\t.(tl,:{
114.00 A11-SteerPlanter, sa Ibs.
$560
Companion to Receptacle 84,and Ash Urn 80
Heavy-duty polyethyfene liner
MATf:;:RIALS
Top Edge:
VerticaISr.raps:
Reve.aIStl'i~:
UMr,
Size:'
Finisn:
518" -diameter steel bar
1(4" x Hf2" steel bar
1(4' x 3" steal bar
i'<lije\hylene
26.1(4' 1I 23' (Cia 1I H)
Sea page t1 for choice of polyester
powder frish. {Shawn in Deep Red.}
ATTACHMENT 2
.4
~d;'
;~':4?{;~'31t~~:;1
,.",). ,<,,~l;:z
:.~,~..~
'~',", .~ . .' ,:.
.'I...-~
:.\\' " .<
." 'U
. ~
~;' .:l;