Loading...
Agenda Packet 1999-01-26 CITY COUNCIL ~~o/ AGENDA ~ 8f~nde Michael A. Lady Mayor Robert L. Hunt City Manager Tony M. Ferrara Mayor Pro Tern Timothy J. Carmel City Attorney Thomas A. Runels Council Member Nancy A. Davis City Clerk Steve Tolley Council Member Jim Dickens Council Member AGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1999 7:30 P.M. Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers 215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande ! 1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 P.M. ~ l, ,""""", 2. FLAG SALUTE: HE WA WIN SU DISCOVERY CAMPFIRE CLUB, ARROYO GRANDE 3. INVOCATION: FATHER BUTTERS, ST. PATRICK'S CATHOLIC CHURCH, ARROYO GRANDE 4. ROLL CALL: COUNCIL/AGENCY 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None 6. AGENDA REVIEW: 6A. Move that all resolutions and ordinances presented tonight be read in title only and all further readings be waived. ----~-~.~-,._-. -------.--,.----- --- AGENDA SUMMARY - JANUARY 26, 1999 PAGE 2 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 98-565 to Construct a 27 .250-Square-Foot Commercial/Retail Building. 200 Station Way - Dr. Robert D. Anderson (HAMILTON) (Action Required: Adopt Resolution Upholding Planning Commission's Decision) 8. CITIZENS' INPUT, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS: Persons in the audience may discuss business not scheduled on this agenda regarding any item of interest within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Council will listen to all communication but, in compliance with the Brown Act, will not take any action on items that are not on the agenda. 9. CONSENT AGENDA: The following routine items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group. The recommendations for each item are noted in parentheses. Any Council Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit discussion or change the recommended course of action. The City Council may approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda on one motion. a. Cash Disbursement Ratification (SNODGRASS) (Action Required: Approval) b. Acceptance of Audited Annual Financial Reports (SNODGRASS) [CITYI (Action Required: Receive and File) AGENCY] c. Minutes of City Council Meetings of January 12. 1999 (DAVIS) (Action Required: Approval) d. Council Appointments to Various Boards and Commissions (HUNT) (Action Required: Approve Appointments) e. Waiver of Fees - Harvest Bag. Inc. (HERNANDEZ) (Action Required: Approval) f. Adoption of an Ordinance of the City of Arroyo Grande Revising the Flood Plain Management Ordinance (SPAGNOLO) (Action Required: Adopt Ordinance No. 501 C.S.) -----------.....~.----- ---_.'- -----'--~_._--- ---~- - AGENDA SUMMARY - JANUARY 26, 1999 PAGE 3 9. CONSENT AGENDA: (continued) g. Waiver of Fees - South County Historical Society (TERBORCH) (Action Required: Approval) 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS: a. Date for Workshop on Water Reclamation Projects/Issues (SPAGNOLO) (Action Required: Select Date) 11. NEW BUSINESS: a. Request for Speed Humps: Upper Portion of Newport Avenue (SPAGNOLO) (Action Required: Provide Direction to Staff) b. Final Maps - Approval Process (SPAGNOLO) (Action Required: Approve Staff Recommendations) 12. CITY COUNCIL/AGENCY REPORTS: This item gives the Council/Agency Members the opportunity to present reports to the other members regarding committees, commissions, boards, or special projects on which they may be participating. (a) MAYOR MICHAEL A. LADY: (1 ) South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD) (2) Other (b) MAYOR PRO TEM TONY M. FERRARA: (1) Integrated Waste Management Authority Board (IWMA) (2) Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC) (3) Air Pollution Control Board (4) Other (d) COUNCIL MEMBER THOMAS A. RUNELS: (1) Zone 3 Water Advisory Board (2) County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) (3) Other - -"-'~._.,._---,._._-~-- AGENDA SUMMARY - JANUARY 26, 1999 PAGE 4 12. CITY COUNCIL/AGENCY REPORTS: (continued) (e) COUNCIL MEMBER STEVE TOLLEY: (1 ) San Luis Obispo Council of Governments/San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLOCOG/SLORT A) (2) South County Youth Coalition (3) Long-Range Planning Committee (4) Other (c) COUNCIL MEMBER JIM DICKENS: (1) South County Area Transit (SCAT) (2) Economic Development Committee/Chamber (3) Other 13. COUNCIUAGENCY COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Council/Agency Board 14. ST AFF COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Information for the City Council/Agency Board presented by the City Manager/Executive Director 15. ADJOURNMENT: 8:30 A.M. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1999 AT ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL CONFERENCE ROOM, 345 SOUTH HALCYON ROAD, FOR A COUNCIUSTAFF LEADERSHIP WORKSHOP --'''--~'--'_...-'----- AGENDA SUMMARY - JANUARY 26, 1999 PAGE 5 * * * * * * * Copies of the staff reports or other written materials relating to each item of business referred to on this agenda are on file in the City Clerk's' Office and are available for public inspection and reproduction at cost. If you have questions regarding any agenda item, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (805) 473- 5414. * * * * * * * In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at the number listed above at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to ensure that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting. * * * * * * * Note: This agenda is subject to amendment up to 72 hours prior to the date and time set for the meeting. Please refer to the agenda posted at City Hall for any revisions, or call the City Clerk's Office at (805) 473-5414 for more information. ---~--~.._-----,-~._----- 7... CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande on the following item: Appeal: Appeal of Planning Commission denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 98-565 to construct a 27,250 square foot commercial/retail building. Appellant: Robert D. Anderson Representative: Gerald C. Weaver Esq. Location: 200 Station Way Reason for Appeal: The appellant states the Resolution denying the project was deficient and did not have sufficient findings; the conclusions were not supported by evidence, and the denial was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to the City Development Code, General Plan policies, and standards. Any person affected or concerned by this appeal may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing, or appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the appeal at the time of the hearing. Any person interested in the appeal can contact the Community Development Department, 214 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California, during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) or call 473-5420. Copies of the appeal and related documents are available for inspection at City Hall. IF YOU CHALLENGE AN ITEM IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING. FAILURE OF ANY PERSON TO RECEIVE THE NOTICE SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR ANY COURT TO INVALIDATE THE ACTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY FOR WHICH THE NOTICE WAS GIVEN. DATE AND TIME OF HEARING: Tuesday, January 26, 1999, 7:30 p.m. PLACE OF HEARING: City Council Chambers, 215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande 11 a.~ NANC~IS, CITY CLERK ----- - MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: f..,( -g . JIM HAMIL TON, DIRECTOR OF CQMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~6)t- . SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY, CUP 98-565, VILLAGE CREEK PROMENADE DATE: JANUARY 26, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: . It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution upholding the decision of the Planning Commission of December 1, 1998 and deny the application for a conditional use permit. FUNDING: No fiscal impact. DISCUSSION: The Appeal to the City Council is attached as Attachment A. The applicant sought a conditional use permit to construct four commercial buildings in the Village Creek Promenade on Station Way. Village Creek Promenade, while originally developed under single ownership, eventually was subdivided into several parcels, one of which (Parcel 3) was conveyed to the applicant. The project plans are included as Attachment B. The parcel size is 2.7 acres gross and approximately 2.3 acres net. The project site is zoned General Commercial and has a General Commercial designation under the General Plan. The project includes landscaping, parking, and drainage improvements. Access to the site is via Station Way. All buildings constructed as part of the project would be sprinklered to Fire Department specifications. Parcel 3 is subject to numerous site constraints. The parcel is relatively narrow and is bordered on the south by U.S. Highway 101 and on the north by Station Way. In addition, Parcel 3 is subject to constraints in connection with drainage, parking, -- Appeal to the City Council Village Creek Promenade; CUP 98-565 January 26, 1999 Page 2 loading areas, landscaping, and specific development review criteria, as discussed below. The proposal has been the subject of extensive consideration by the Planning Commission, Architectural Advisory Committee, and staff: November 26. 1997: Application filed. ' December 29.1997: Letter of incompleteness to applicant (Attachment C). . March 24. 1998: The Staff Advisory Committee considered the proposal. The SAC provided comments to the applicant regarding parking, site access, landscaping, loading areas, public improvements, and other site design issues. The relationship of the proposed project to existing development in the center was also discussed. The applicant was encouraged to maintain an architectural style consistent with the existing .development, and to assure that the proposed development avoided, to the extent possible, conflicts in terms of parking, access and circulation. ADril 6. 1998: The Architectural Advisory Committee (AACf reviewed the project. The AAC comments included issues such as a common design theme for all phases, consideration to be given to having sidewalks connect pedestrian access to the buildings via a stamped decorative treatment pavement through the parking lot. The applicant was requested to return wit~ design details, including materials, color, boards, and roof design details. Amil 21. 1998: The Planning Commission considered the matter on pre-application screening. Commissioner comments at the pre-application screening related to the proposed loading dock, parking, issues, sidewalks, pedestrian access, and landscaping, (Minutes attached as Attachment D). Mav 4. 1998: The Architectural Advisory Committee reviewed the proposal. The AAC unanimously approved the project (Minutes attached as Attachment E), with, the following conditions: . Continuous sidewalks adjacent to and along the complete length of the buildings. . Building colors to closely match Lemos buildings with Old Zinc Grey for roof color. . Need loading zone depending on tenant use. . Add more surface mounted open lattice work (spaced proportic::ms) to front and rear of buildings. . Concrete (textured) crosswalk. . Confirm that garbage dumpster had to be moved. . _.__._...._....~--_...-... . Appeal to the City Council Village Creek Promenade; CUP 98-565 January 26, 1999 Page 3 June 2. 1998: The Planning Commission reviewed the application. The staff report recommended that the Planning Commission continue the item to a date uncertain and direct the applicant to submit a revised site plan to include the items listed on the incompleteness letter (Attachment C) and a revised parking plan that complied with the Development Code. Following presentations by staff and the applicant, the Planning Commission accepted the staff recommendation and continued the item to a date uncertain. The applicant was directed to submit a revised site plan and a revised parking plan which complied with the Development Code. In addition, the applicant was required to provide parking and loading areas consistent with the Development Code, based on the proposed square footage, (Staff Report attached as Attachment F, Minutes attached as Attachment G). November 4. 1998: The Planning Commission considered the matter on staff's recommendation to deny the project, without prejudice, which would have allowed the applicant to respond to continuing concerns. At that meeting, the applicant indicated, and staff confirmed, that revised plans for the project had been submitted shortly before the meeting. Staff had not had an opportunity to review the recently submitted plans. After discussing the project in general, the Pla.nning Commission continued the matter directing staff to review the revised plans and reschedule the matter for further Planning Commission consideration (Staff Report attached as Attachment H; Minutes are under review by the Planning Commission). November 17. 1998: The Staff Advisory Committee considered the project. The SAC identi.fied concerns with the revised plans and recommended that the applicant revise the project plans prior to further Planning Commission review. The applicant declined to make further changes to the plans. December 1. 1998: The Planning Commission denied the application for a conditional use permit to construct four commercial buildings with a total of 27,350 square feet in floor area and 110 parking spaces. (Staff Report attached as Attachment I; Minutes attached as Attachment J, approved but not signed; Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-1676 attached as Attachment K, approved but not signed). APPLICANT'S APPEAL STATEMENT AND RESPONSE BY STAFF The appeal document filed by applicant (Attachment A) sets forth the reasons for the appeal. For the Council's convenience, the reasons supporting the appeal stated by the applicant are set forth below in italics and underlining, followed by the staff response. Appeal to the City Council Village Creek Promenade; CUP 98-565 January 26, 1999 Page 4 A. The resolution adooted bv the Planning Commission and denYing the oroiect on December 1. 1998 is deficient in that it does not set forth findings sufficient to determine for or to suooort the conclusions that were reached. STAFF RESPONSE: Development Code Section 9-03.050D provides that the Planning Commission may approve a conditional use permit in whole or in part, with or without conditions, only if certain findings of fact can be made in an affirmative manner. The Planning Commission concluded it could not make such findings to approve the project. The Planning Commission instead adopted findings which set forth' the basis for its denial of the project. The following findings, adopted by the Planning Commission in Resolution 98-1676, addressed each of the relevant issues: . The proposed use is permitted within the General Commercial District; however, the project does not comply with all the applicable provisions of the Development Code, the goals and objectives of the General Plan, and the development policies and standards of the City. . The proposed use will impair the integrity and character of the neighborhood in which it is to be established because the proposed commercial use is not consistent with the Development Code requirements for parking, landscaping and density and is too intensive for the site creating conflicts with adjacent uses in the neighborhood. . The site is not suitable for the type and intensity of the proposed use because the 2.7 acre gross and approximately 2.3 acre net site is not large enough to accommodate th.e density and intensity of the use causing parking and circulation and aesthetic problems. . The proposed use wilJ be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity because the increased density and lack of adequate landscaping and other site improvements would adversely impact the neighborhood. The findings adopted by the Planning Commission responded to each of the main issue areas involved in the consideration of conditional use permits. The Planning Commission clearly stated its conclusion that the applicant had failed to satisfy the requirements of the Development Code. The findings set forth in the resolution were sufficient to identify the reasons for, and basis for, the Planning Commission decision. ;I ,.-" ,. .---.... Appeal to the City Council Village Creek Promenade; CUP 98-565 January 26, 1999 Page 5 B. The conclusions that were reached were not sUDDorted bv the evidence presented before the Commission. STAFF RESPONSE: Planning Commission review of the project included consideration of the project plans, materials presented in the staff report for the Planning Commission meeting of December 1, 1998, other supporting materials and testimony at the hearing. The . evidence presented to the Planning Commission provided substantial support for each finding and conclusion of the Planning Commission. The staff report identified several deficiencies in the proposed project. The deficiencies identified are as follows: 1. The lot size and associated calculation shown on the plans are inaccurate. 2. The plan details showing the right-of-way and landscaping areas are not drawn to scale and are misleading. 3. The proposed landscaping design requires a variance application which has not been submitted. 4. The applicant has not demonstrated that the drainage plans can be implemented as proposed. 5. The parking lot access needs revision, which may affect the number of parking spaces provided. 6. The retaining wall and fence combinations are shown as being over 6 feet in height. This requires a design revision or a variance request. 7. The plan utilizes offsite relocation of a parking lot curb to make sufficient room for a loading dock. The applicant has not demonstrated a . right to perform this work. In addition, staff indicated during the hearing that the overriding issue was the intensity of the development proposed for the site. Each of the proposed project's deficient areas identified by staff in the staff report were addressed either in written materials, oral testimony, or both. The deficiencies were identified as follows: Deficiency 1: The lot size and associated calculation shown on the plans are inaccurate. Appeal to the City Council Vl11age Creek Promenade; CUP 98-565 January 26, 1999 Page 6 Deficiency 2: The plan details showing the right-of-way and landscaping areas are not drawn to scale andare misleading. These deficiencies relate to the project plans. These deficiencies had been identified early in the development review process, and had not been corrected at the time of the hearing. Deficiency 3: The proposed landscaping design requires a variance application which has not been submitted. This deficiency related to the landscaping design proposed by the applicant. Staff had advised the applicant early in the development review process that project plans appeared to indicate that a portion of the landscaping was located in the public right-of-way. This did not satisfy the requirements stated in the Development Code for landscaping, and staff advised the applicant that if this plan was to be implemented a variance would be required. No variance application was filed by the applicant. Applicant's response at the December 1, 1998 Planning Commission hearing was that staff was not correct, the landscaping proposed meets the requirements of the Development Code, and no variance application was required. This deficiency was addressed in the December 1, 1998 Planning Commission staff report, and at the Planning Commission hearing. The Planning Commission's ,conclusion to deny the application, based in part on this deficiency, was supported by the testimony and exhibits considered at the Planning Commission hearing. Deficiency 4: The applicant has not demonstrated that the drainage plans can be implemented as proposed. Deficiency 4 related to the drainage plans proposed by the applicant. The project site (Parcel 3), has historically drained to the south. Caltrans, which owns the right- of-way to the south, has not consented to allow the applicant to perpetuate this drainage pattern. As an alternative, the applicant proposed draining the site to Parcel 2. The applicant based this design on the CC&R's for Village Creek Plaza, which establish a drainage easement u...to accommodate the natural storm channel flow within the Shopping Center." In response to staff concerns, the applicant asserted at the Planning Commission hearing that the Unatural" storm channel flow is the same as the drainage that would result from his planned grading and paving for the final project. Staff did not believe this was a reasonable interpretation of the language in the CC&R's. The project plans, the staff report, testimony of the applicant, other tenants in the -~,--_."--- Appeal to the City Council Village Creek Promenade; CUP 98-565 January 26, 1999 Page 7 shopping center, and the text of the CC&R's support the Planning Commission's conclusion. Deficiency- 5: The parking lot access needs revision, which may affect the number of parking spaces provided. Staff pointed out that the proposed design created numerous constraints in terms of access and circulation. The Development Code requires 109 parking spaces, and the applicant's plans indicate 110 parking spaces would be provided. The neighboring property owner testified that he disagrees with staff's parking space calculations and believes that the applicant has substantially less on-site parking. One of the concerns raised at the Planning Commission concerned specific parking spaces shown on the project plans. The Commission questioned whether automobiles could actually enter and leave those spaces given the design of the parking area, thus limiting their practical use as parking spaces. The applicant responded that the spaces were in fact useable, but this did not satisfactorily respond to the concerns raised. As noted, the applicant's plans showed 110 parking spaces. The plans, however, revealed that several aspects of the project required revision that would reduce the number of parking spaces: . Contrary to City policy, applicant utilized public right-of-way as part of a landscaping setback required in the Development Code (Deficiency 3). If the applicant complied with City policy, reconfiguration of the parking area would be required, with a loss of several parking spaces. Any reduction in excess of one parking space, however, would result in a deficiency in required parking, and the need for a variance. The applicant was therefore advised that a variance would be required if he wished to pursue the proposed design for landscaping, but no such application has been filed. . The Planning Commission felt that the parking area was not well- designed. In response to Planning Commission concerns regarding the radius of parking islands and the feasibility of the parking design, the applicant simply asserted that these concerns were unfounded. Redesign of the parking islands and parking lot circulation would have the probable result of reducing the parking spaces provided, thus creating the need for a variance from parking requirements in the development Code. . The plans submitted by the applicant indicated that a loading dock, required by the Development Code, would be installed on a Appeal to the City Council Village Creek Promenade; CUP 98-565 January 26, 1999 Page 8 neighboring property. The applicant provided no documentation that permission had been received for such work, or that such consent would be obtained. Using an alternative area for the loading dock could result, again, in a reduction in the number of parking spaces provided, and the need for a variance. Deficiency 6: The retaining wall and fence combinations are shown as. being over 6 feet in height. Development Code Section 9-' 0.0708 states that this requires a design revision or a variance request. Deficiency 7: The plan utilizes offsite relocation of a parking lot curb to make sufficient room for a loading dock. The applicant has not demonstrated a right to perform this work. Deficiency 6 related to the retaining wall and fence shown on the project plans, and Deficiency 7 related to the project plans, and proposed off-site improvements. In each case discussion at the hearing was based on evidence in the record. The Planning Commission findings concerning each of the deficiencies were based on evidence presented at the hearing. Staff's recommendation for denial was based on the conclusion that the proposed development was simply too intensive for the site. While the applicant had proposed parking which met the minimum requirements of the Development Code, responding to deficiencies in the areas of parking, access or landscaping would probably require a reduction in the number of parking spaces, creating a deficiency in parking. This was discussed at the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission determined that the project site is not large enough to support the proposed development. This determination, as with the findings regarding deficiencies in the project, was based on evidence at the hearing. At the heart of the appeal is the applicant's assertion that he has proposed a development which does not exceed the maximum size allowed on the parcel, and is therefore entitled to approval of the application for a conditional use permit. The applicant indicated at the hearing that the proposed development was, in fact, less intensive than what he would be entitled to build. This was apparently based on Development Code Table 9-07.040-A which places limits on the maximum floor area ratio in the General Commercial district (0.5) and which would establish a limit of approximately 50,000 square feet of commercial space for the project site, based on the net site area. The Development Code, as asserted by the applicant, establishes standards for maximum lot coverage and floor-to-area-ratio. Other considerations apply, however, ---_._._._~ Appeal to the City Council Village Creek Promenade: CUP 98-565 January 26, 1999 Page 9 most notably the standards which must be met, and findings that must be made by the Planning Commission, for conditional use permits. The purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide for project review which takes into account the -many components of a project which may have an impact on those who visit the facility, and those who own businesses or work or live in the vicinity. Section 9-03.050 of the Development Code states, in part: The [conditional use permit] application process allows for the review of the location and design of the proposed use, configuration of improvements, and potential impact on the surrounding area from the proposed use. The review shall determine whether the proposed use should be permitted, by weighing the public need for and benefit to be derived from the use against any adverse impact it may cause. - The floor area ratio is only one of many factors considered in the development review process. The Planning Commission considered the applicant's assertion, but denied the project based on the inability to make .the findings required for conditional use permits. C. The denial was arbitrary, caoricious and contrary to the aoolicable orovisions of the City's Develooment Code, the General Plan and the oublished development policies and standards of the City. STAFF RESPONSE: As noted in the discussion above, the Planning Commission determination was supported by substantial evidence in the record, and was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The Planning Commission action was consistent with standards set forth in the Development Code, as previously explained. The Planning Commission action was consistent with the General Plan. One of the primary goals of the Land Use Element is: Achieve an overall design statement for the City of Arroyo Grande that will establish a visually perceivable and unique rural, small town image throughout the City. Many of the concerns raised by staff relate to this goal of the Land Use Element. Reasonable design of commercial centers, safe routes for vehicles and pedestrians, and adequate landscaping and access requirements for parking areas, each support the goal of creating a community which has a small-town ambience. Appeal to the City Council Village Creek Promenade; CUP 98-565 January 26, 1999 Page 10 The applicant did not cite specific portions of the General Plan which are claimed to have been violated. Some sections of the General Plan which are applicable to the project, however, are: . Land Use Element: Objective 3.0 Provide commercial areas within the City which are conveniently located, efficient, attractive and have safe and easy pedestrian and vehicular access in order to serve the retail and commercial needs of Arroyo Grande residents. . Land Use Element, Objective 7.0: Achieve a pattern of land use which protects the integrity of existing land uses. Policy Statement 7.1 : Require that new developments be at. an appropriate density or intensity based upon compatibility with the majority of existing surrounding land uses. Implementation Action: a. As part of the development review process, treat the densities and intensities outlined in the Land Use Element as the maximum allowable; do not approve the maximum allowable density or intensity unless the proposed project is consistent with the provisions and intent of the Arroyo Grande General Plan and City ordinances. (emphasis in original) Policy Statement 7.2: Require that new development should be designed to create pleasing transitions to surrounding development. . Circulation Element: Goal C: COORDINATE POLICIES FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT AND CIRCULATION Policy B: Review the impact of land use proposals on the circulation system. Program 1: Development proposals will be reviewed according to the provisions of the zoning and subdivision ordinance to ensure that Appeal to the City Council Village Creek Promenade; CUP 98-565 January 26, 1999 Page 11 adequate access, on-site circulation, parking and loading areas are provided. Policy D: Establish the circulation system as a positive element of community design. Program 2: In the development review process, include the consideration of the visual aspects of a development from roadways, including Highway 101. Aesthetic consideration shall include architectural compatibility and landscaping. The Planning Commission findings and action were consistent with the General Plan, including the provisions of the General Plan set forth above. D. The oroiect does comolv with all aoolicable orovisions of the DeveloDment Code. the General Plan and the oublished develooment oolicies and standards of the City. STAFF RESPONSE: The applicant has not cited any specific provisions of the General Plan or Development Code. The provisions set forth in the discussion above establish that the Planning Commission approval is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. E. The orooosed use is en tirelv consistent with the character of the neighborhood and, indeed. is of lesser density than the surrounding develooed oarcels and is an "in-fill" buildoutof a oreviouslv aoproved commercial oroiect. the remainder of which has already been built-out in a manner consistent with the orooosed oroiect and the aooroved olan for the entire oroiect. STAFF RESPONSE: The evidence presented at the Planning Commission hearing included evidence which examined whether the project as proposed was consistent with the character and use of surrounding properties. The Planning Commission concluded, based on the evidence, that the project was too intensive for the site. The applicant disagrees with that conclusion, but has not set forth facts which support his claim. The applicant references a previously approved commercial project. As originally approved in 1985, the project included a building approved for 17,200 square feet on the project site. .--.--- ---_._-_..~._-_..,.,.- Appeal to the City Council Village Creek Promenade; CUP 98-565 January 26, 1999 Page 12 In February, 1990 the owner of the site obtained Architectural Review approval for development of a 21,816 square foot commercial building on Parcel 3, with 118 parking spaces. The approved. building contained fewer square feet than the applicant's current proposal, and provided more parking. The building was not constructed, and the entitlements have expired pursuant to Development Code Section 9-02.140. The proposed project is, therefore, more intensive than the previously-approved building on the project site. F. Denial of the oroject denies the aoolicant the same use of his orooertv as that enioved bv the owners of the other oarcels in the oroiect and therefore is in violation of the eaual orotection clauses of the California and United States Constitutions. STAFF RESPONSE: The applicant has been required to comply with the General Plan and Development Code provisions in effect at the time of the application. The General Plan and Development Code have been duly adopted, and are in compliance with California law. Requiring the applicant to. comply with these provisions does not deny any rights recognized under state or federal law. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff has reviewed this project in compliance with the CalifQrnia Environmental Quality Act, and has determined that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was distributed for public review and comment. The close of the public comment period is 5:00 p.m. December 1, 1998. No comments have been received. The environmental document is attached as Attachment L. CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING PROJECT Copies of correspondence from Brad Anderson, applicant, dated November 20, 1998 and Mike Miner, dated January 19, 1999 are attached as Attachment M and Attachment N, respectively. Appeal to the City Council Village Creek Promenade; CUP 98-565 January 26, 1999 Page 13 Alternatives The following alternatives are considered for City Council consideration: 1. Uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and adopt a resolution denying the application for a conditional use permit. 2. Uphold the appeal of the applicant and direct staff to prepare a resolution for City Council consideration at its meeting of February 9, 1999 approving the application for a conditional use permit. 3. Provide direction to staff. ATTACHMENTS (NOTE: Staff Report attachments or exhibits have been removed where they would duplicate attachments to this Staff Report.) Attachment A: Appeal to the City Council Attachment B: Project plans Attachment C: December 29, 1997 letter of incompleteness to applicant Attachment D: Minutes of April 21, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Attachment E: Minutes of May 4, 1998 Architectural Advisory Committee meeting Attachment F: Staff Report for June 2, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Attachment G: Minutes of June 2, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Attachment H: - S~aff Report for November 4, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Attachment I: Staff Report for December 1, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Attachment J: Minutes of December 1, 1998 Planning Commission meeting (approved but not signed) Attachment K: Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-1676 (approved but not signed) Attachment L: Draft Negative Declaration Attachment M: Correspondence dated November 20, 1998 from Brad Anderson Attachment N: Correspondence dated January 19, 1999 from Mike Miner RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-565 APPLIED FOR BY DR. ROBERT D. ANDERSON, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 200 STATION WAY (VILLAGE CREEK PROMENADE) WHEREAS, on December 1, 1998 the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande held a duly noticed public hearing to consider Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Case> No. 98-565 filed by Dr. Robert D. Anderson to construct a 27,350 square foot commercial office and commercial retail complex; and WHEREAS, as part of its consideration of the application, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information and public testimony presented at the public hearing, the staff report and other information and documents that were part of the public record; and WHEREAS, after due study, the Planning Commission denied the CUP application; and WHEREAS, Dr. Robert D. Anderson has filed an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to deny the CUP application; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on January 26, 1999 in accordance with City Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the information and public testimony presented at the public hearing, the staff report and other information and documents that are part of the public record; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: 1. The proposed use is permitted within the General Commercial District; however, the project does not comply with all the applicable provisions of the Development Code, the goals and objectives of the General Plan, and the development policies and standards of the City, as specifically set forth in the staff report. 2. The proposed use will impair the integrity and character of the neighborhood in which it is to be established because the proposed commercial use is not consistent with the Development Code requirements for parking, landscaping and density and is too intensive for the site, creating conflicts with adjacent uses in the neighborhood, as specifically set forth in the staff report. 3. The site is not suitable for the type and intensity of the proposed use because the 2.7 acre gross site and approximately 2.3 acre net site is not large enough to -.-..----.-.-...-.... -,._-- --~---_...- RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 accommodate the proposed density and intensity of use causing parking, circulation, and aesthetic problems as specifically set forth in the staff report. 4. The proposed use will be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, and materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity because the proposed density, lack of adequate landscaping and, other site improvements would adversely impact the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby denies the appeal of Dr. Robert D. Anderson in Conditional Use Permit Case No. 98-565 and upholds the decision of the Planning Commission based on the above findings which are incorporated herein by reference. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of ,1999. ._-"--'-~ ------,--- ___._.____n_.________ ----,-...- RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: NANCY A. DAVIS, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ~L,~ ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: . TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY . __ '_ _ ____,.. _ _____ . .~ ..___., _ ~ttac~ment A . A~PEA~ TO THE .CITY. COUNCIL. OF THE - . .' ..:.CITYOF ARROYO.GRAND'E ..<.....,'. :. .' ...... . . , . - I ., .. . # . . " .... . . ,- .~. . . .: ,; . . :. . .: .'. - ." . . '.., . Date.' 'DECEMBER.S; 1995', .... .:.':' - .: ',- .'. " .. .' .' . ..-. ,".. . '" . ., . ,". . . ',' Name a~d Add f A'. 1'1' t ROBERT iD... "AN.~ERSON cio' ~ER.AiDC'. ..' W~A V~R ~:.isQ ~.~.. '. . . . ' '. .. re~s 0 . ppe an,. ..' . .,. ,. . , . '. P.;O .... BOX 4;51;. .~:~~'. L~is ':OBISPO;" 'CA :,'93~06 : . . . . . .'".. .. .. ,.... , - - -APpeal of ,DENIAL OF P~ANNIN~ coliMr SSI O~ _ - OF~PPLIC~;~ ON __'~0R.-~UP98-56S' - _ ;; , . ....~. '." ,', '. . ... . .' :..- . . ...... CaseN~' .... '. '.- : .' r '. . . ," ~ - . . '.' .. :'. .... . . .. " : ~ . . . .'APprovedlD~ni~dbY PLANN;rNG COMtU.SS~ON ~n' D.ECE~~ER -.1,1'~.'98.~. '. '. ' '.' . . D'ate" .' -. ,.' :.,.., . .... .. . .: . . ." . '.': ~.~. :'. . . . SEE EX=IIBIT "Ai. l\.TTACH~D HERE'ro:"'~: :' ,.. ,. , '- R~ason for Appeal ,.' ,. . " . . . -, - . . . .. ; . .' '"". . .. .' . 0" ." .', , . . .... .eo. .:" . . .. " ".' . .. . . . . ",'., 'Signat.ufe . ,: . -. " .'. ... .. ;,' . . ,. : Mailing Address' ,P.O. BOX 451, SAN, LUIS OBispo C~'-9~:4~~_____:-; - ' , , -._, ". 'TelePD.on~: S05:-543...6010 , .." '..:' ::...... .. .... :.......:.:~.. .:.. .:~.'. . ' . . ., . . ..... '." ," .". .....,' " ... . ". '.' .' . . ..' .' . ReceiptNo.':Oj C, j:O . ,-. ",' :..... ":'< .... . .~ .,.. .:. ", Date, /.R.!8/flJ ' ',' ,'..., .~' ',', . ," .. , ' , .. '.' . . '., ......... '. .., ... .', . . . . ... . . . .' . .....11.'a~~ .... .. . ~YClerk' . _._4 Exhibit "A" .. . Appeal to the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande Case # 98-565 Denial of Planning Commission on CUP 98-565 1. The resolution adopted by the Planning Commission. and denying the Project on December 1, 1998 is deficient in that it does not set forth findings sufficient to determine for or to support the conclusions that were reached. 2. The conclusions that were reached were not supported by the evidence presented before the commission and 3. The denial was arbitrary, capricious and contrary to the applicable provisions of the City's Development Code, the General Plan and the published development policies and standards of the City. In support of the appeal, the applicant states the following: 1. The project does comply with all applicable provisions of the Development Code, the General Plan and the published development policies and standards of the City. 2: The proposed use is entirely consistent with the character of the neighborhood and, indeed, is of a lesser density than the surrounding developed parcels and is an "in-fill" build out of a previously approved commercial project, the remainder of which has already been built-out In a manner consistent with the proposed project and the approved plan for the entire project. 3. Denial of the project denies the applicant the same use of his property as that enjoyed by the owners of the other parcels in the project and therefore Is in violation of the equal protection clauses of the California and United States Constitutions. . '. 178 .. APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCILOF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE . Date DECEMBER 8, 1998 Name and Address of Appellant ROBERi'D. ANDERSON C/O GERALD e. WEAVER.ESQ., P.O. BOX 451 f- SAN LUIS OBISPO , CA. 93406 . - Appeal of DENIAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION OF APPLICATION 'FOR CUP .98-565 . . . . . Case No. . Approved/Denied by PLANNING COMMISSION - - on DECEMBER .1,1098. Date Reason for Appeal SEE EXqIBIT "A" ATTACHSD HERETC - Signature Mailing Address. P.O. BOX 451, SAN LUIS OBISPO CA93406 Telephone 805-543-6010 Receipt No. t!)"3 b '30 Date IR./~ /f8 11.a..~ ~YClerk- .". -------~--_._-~-- " Exhibit "A" Appeal to the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande Case # 98-565 Denial of Planning Commission on CUP 98-565 1. The resolution adopted by the Planning Commission and denying the Project on December 1, 1998 is deficient in that it does not set forth findings sufficient to determine for or to support the conclusions that were reached. 2. The conclusions that were reached were not supported by the evidence presented before the commission and 3. The denial was arbitrary,. capricious and contrary to the applicable provisions of the City's Development Code, the General Plan and the published development policies and standards of the City. In support of the appeal, the applicant states the following: 1. The project does comply with all applicable provisions of the Development Code, the General Plan and the published development policies and standards of the City. 2. The proposed use is entirely consistent with the character of the neighborhood and, indeed, is of a lesser density than the surrounding developed parcels and is an "in-fill" build out of a previously approved commercial project, the remainder of which has already been built-out in a manner consistent with the proposed project and the approved plan for the entire project. 3. Denial of the project denies the applicant the same use of his property as that enjoyed by the owners of the other parcels in the project and therefore is in violation of the equal protection clauses of the California and United States Constitutions. --._--_.-------_.---- ------ ..._-..._~--- . . . AttachmentC --pO ~____' -.- . . -- ---------- -_._--- ~-. . --- - cI!-'l, 'l,0!J 0 g'l,andE. P.o. Box 550 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 Phone (805) 473-5420 Community Development Department FAX (805) 473-0386 - December 29, 1997 Robert Anderson 201 Station Way Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 . Subject: Determination of Incomplete Application, Conditional Use Permit & Tentative Parcel Map, Located at 100 Station Way Dear Mr. Anderson: Thank you for the opportunity to review your proposed development project. City staff. has reviewed the materials you resubmitted. on November 26, 1997 and has determined that your application is inc~mplete. Some revisions, additions and additional materials are necessary for further processing. Your application materials will be complete when all the information on the attached sheets have been submitted. If you disagree with the Community Development Director's determination that your application is incomplete, you may appeal the determination to the Planning Commission. Appeals must be filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 9-02.150 of. the Development Code. Please contact me should you have any questions. . . ' Sincerely, I Doreen Liberto-Blanck Community Development Director B~. SLW~-'~ - Bruce BUCk!ngh~ Associate Planner Attachments: List of Additional Materials c: Craig Campbell . . __ ______,' __.,_'_______.,'______ u_ .-- ,~- ,,--- - LIST OF ADDITIONAL MATERIALS Please submit the below listed information. If you have any questions, please contact ~ruce Buckingham, Associate Planner, at 473-5420: 1. Sub{TIit a parking table ind!cating the existing number of parking spaces and the required number of parking spaces (based on existing building square footage and uses) for the entire Village Creek center and indicate the location (i.e., the . distribution) of the parking spaces on a plan. Please incorporate this information with the number. of proposed and required parking spaces for the . proposed project and indicate the total number of parking spaces for the center. 2. Indicate location of required bicycle and motorcycle' parking spaces as required by Development Code Section 9-12.1S08nd 9-12.080:-respectively. , 3. Submit a copy of the current CC&Rs 'for the Village Creek center. . . 4. Revise the zoning designation on sheet T1. 5. Indicate proposed lot line on Sheet C1. . 6. Provide a table indicating that minimum landscape area requirements are met as required by Development Code Section 9-12. 130. ~ 7. Clarify if the unshaded area on Sheet L 1 are untreated concrete areas. 8. Indicate/clarify the architectural treatments' for the building elevation sheets (e.g., metal roof, siding, multi-pane windows, etc~) and provide material and color boards. 9. Clarify treatments under windows (e.g., Sheet A 1-2 north elevation) and on roof (e.g., Sheet A 12 west elevation). 10. ,Indicate proposed lot coverage and floor area ratios for each lot on Sheet T1. 11. Indicate proposed lighting and samples of fixture designs. 12. Identify the loading areas as required by Development Code Section 9-12.170. )J'/ 13. Nqise mitigation may be necessary for the proposed project. Please scbmit the necessary information to determine that noise levels would be b~low the adopted thresholds as specified in the City's General Plan Noise Element ana Municipal Code Chapter 21. . 14.' Indicate if any roof mounted equipment is proposed, and if so, how would it be screened. 15. Provide drawings for the trash enclosures, mailboxes, raised planters and any other/features to be. reviewed by' the Architectural Advisory Committee. . The following issues have been identified by. staff. Although these items are not required to be addressed in order to process your application, staff will discuss these issues at the Staff Advisory Commi1!ee and Architectural Advisory Committee meetings. . Access to the proposed trash enclosures is not adequate. Please revise to illustrate how dumpsters can be accessed when vehicles are parked in, adjacent parking spaces. . Although a reciprocal parking agreement may exist for the entire site (to be verified), staff believes that the proP9sed project should provide 100% of the required parking for the project on-site (i.e., ."<? surplus parking should be used on adjacent sites to the west or north). 's . . The proposed project has the potential to employ many people. In order to encourage employees to remain on-site during lunch and breaks, 'patio or seating 'areas should be considered. '.' . A Sign Program will ultimately need to be reviewed and approved' for the project. It can be beneficial to review the proposed sign type and locati.on as part of the architectural review.to insure that the signage will be architecturally mtegrated into the building design and meet the applicant's intent. . The project is within the Village Design Guidelines. All guidelin~ should be adhered to including site design, building design, construction materials, building colors. and signage. Please submit the below listed information. If you have any questions, please contact Craig Campbell~ "Assistant Public Works Director,:at 473-5440: 1. Indicate existing private and public sewer lines~ the location of easements, and where the proposed project would connect to sewer on the Parcel Map Sheet. 2. -Indicate elevations and contours on the Parcel Map Sheet. 3. Indicate size of existing utilities (e.g., water and sewer). 4. Clarify the location of the proposed right of way. 5." Two. Preliminary Grading and Drainage plans have been submitted. Please combine all information into one plan and indicate the proposed lot line and lot numbers. Also, verify that CalTrans will accept increased drainage from the project and whether increased drainage flowing to the adjacent lot to the west is acceptable (Le., is there an existing drainage easement). 6. Indicate how the areas between the buildings will drain. 7: Indicate the use of concrete gutters for parking lot drainage. ' 8. Indicate the existing width of sidewalk. and obstructions (e.g., posts, fixtures, etc.). Indicate location and materials of sidewalk widening in order to conform to the ADA requirement of a four: foot wide unobstructed area. -After the above revisions have been made, submit 10 sets of plans (folded and . , stapled), .and one. 8-1/2" x 11" transparency of each sheet. . . 'J --- , 't., Attachment D - .Ms. Buford noted that the Staff Advisory Committee reviewed this project on March 24, 1998, and expressed concern regarding the proposal and the likelihood of meeting all of the _ Code requirements, particularly building and fire. After further comments from the Commission and staff, Chair Lubin opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. W. Von Biskuuskv.2927 De La Vina Street. Santa Barbara. applicant, referred to his letter to the Community Development Department, dated April 20, 1998. He reviewed -- the requirements for condominium conversion and descnlJed how he proposed to meet the majority of those requirements. He stated the main problem is the requirement for separate utility services, -noting that the issue in dispute is the req~ment for- individual sewer lines. He further stated that construc~g separate laterals would not be feasible and would require opening walls, slabs and footings. He stated the requirement for one hour fire walls, water and electricity are no problem. With regard to open space, he offered three apartments for low cost housing as a concession for the open space requirement. Hearing no further discussion from the audience, Chair Lubin restricted further comments to the Comniission. Commissioner Haney stated he feels it is important. to fonow as closely as possible to the standards of the Development Code and try to implement those requirements in condominium conversions. Commissioner Greene stated the project appe31'S to present significant deviations from the standards in the Development Code, and he could not recommend going f()rward. with the project as presented. Commissioner Rondeau inquired if the buildings would have to brought up to the Code with regard to earthquake standards. He stated in this particular instance he doesn't feel he has enough information to make a recommendation at this time. Commissioner O'Donnell stated he is concerned about the issues of health and safety, and the issue of utilities as far as the plumbing is concerned. He commented he would have a difficult time recommending something that doesn't meet the requirements of the Development Code. Chair Lubin stated he is not sure he agrees with the reasons for the change in the 1atera1s or the change in the fire walls, however, standards are established in the Development Code, and we need to fonow the Development Code.in tenns of utilities, fire and safety. .. PENDING APPLICATION REVIEW - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-563 /TE1.'ITATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 98-548, DISCUSSION OF PLAL'fS TO CONSTRUCT 27,250 SQUARE FOOT COMl\ilERCIAlJRETAIL BUILDING A1"ID A LOT SPLIT; APPUCANT: ROBERT AJ.'IDERSON; LOCATION: 200 STATION WAY (VILLAGE CREEK PLAZA). Acting Community - Development Director Helen Eder advised that the Staff Advisory - Committee (SAC) reviewed the application for this project on March 24, 1998, and provided comments to the applicant regarding parking and site~, landscaping, loading areas, pub~c improvements, and other site design issues. They also discussed the relationship between tlie proposed project as Phase 3 of the Village Creek commercial development. _ The Architectural Advisory Committee (AAq also reviewed the project on April 6, 1998. Their comments included issues such as a common design theme for all three phases, and the issue that sidewalks \V should connect pedestrian acceSs to the buildings via a stamped decorative treatment pavement through the parking lot. They requested the applicant return with design details, including \J/ -- materials, color boards, and roof design details. She stated that since that time, Dr. Anderson reviewed the comments provided by the AAC and SAC and requested a study session with the Planning CommisSion. She further noted that staff is currently reviewing the project regarding parking, landscaping, sidewalk improvements, etc. Staff is also in the process of reviewing the previous master plan approved in 1985. She pointed out that previously the Development Cooe a1low~ 1 parking space to 200 square f~t of space; the current ratio is 1 to 250 square feet. Robert Anderson. 2775 Coast View Drive. applicant, stated he proposes to build the 1ast phase of Village Creek Plaza, and has re-designed the project to four smaller buildings with mixed uses of office and retail.. He noted that parking has been an issue with some of the owners in the Association. He stated he has reviewed the history of the project and the Development I Cooe, and at no time during the history of the project did the City ever require any particular ratio other than what is defined in the Development Code. He further stated he doesn't think parkilig is an issue because it is determined by the Development Code. Dr. Anderson stated the issues that were discussed during the MC meeting were the substandard sidewalks and the landscape strip. He proposed removing the existing substandard sidewalk and creating a ten foot landscaped strip between the street and p~king.lot, and provide a new: sidewalk on the northeast side of Station Way. This would allow continuation of the existing parking lot in its present form, without a ten foot, mid-block jog to the other side and would satisfy the requirement for a ten foot landscape strip with a three foot high earthen berm betw~n the street and parking lot. This would also provide consistency. With the rest of the shopping center. . Mike Miner, 316 Ora Drive, owner of Parcel 2 of Village Creek Plaza I, reviewed some of the history of the Plaza and expressed concern with regard to potentially serious parking problems with the proposed development of Parcel 3. He referred to the infonnation contained in his letters dated April201h and April 21st and copies of the Planning Department's approval of Mid Coast Land's Lot Merger of 1994, and the Corrected Parking Supplement, stating that the docu,ments stipulate that Parcel #2 must use parking from Parcel #3, whi~h is the reason the parking lot was installed there by the original developer. Tom Thompson,.900 Robin Circle, owner of Parcel 5, and his concern is that parking not be allocated from his parcel to alleviate parking deficiencies across the ~t. He spoke of a judgement and the outcome was the developer would have to separate the parcel he acquired and would have to provide him the building and the parking lot. He suggested looking at the scope of the project to meet everyone's needs. He referred to Parcel 5 and Building ~ stating he hopes that the City requires that parking be contiguous to the building. Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chair Lubin closed the ~cussi.on and restricted further comments to the Commission. Deputy Public Works Director Craig Campbell stated, in his opinion, it would be desirable to have sidewalks on both sides of the street, and the CUIre.'1t standards call for sidewalks on both sides of the street. He further stated. he recommended -the 4 ft. wide sidewalk be widened to 6' ft. because of the fire hydrants and utility poles. In answer to Commissioner Haney's question reo~ing original approvals and e.'1titleme.'1ts, Acting Community Development Director Elder advised that staff would have to go back and look at the previous ordinance under which the original project was approved. She commented this is a complicated issue and will take time to research the files. - . ..._- " Commissioner Haney stated that in looking at the Development Code, loading docks are required. Ms. Eder noted that this item was discussed at the AAC meeting. Dr. Anderson proposes that there be a limitation of the uses to commercial/retail and office uses. With regard to architectural design of the buildings, Ms. Eder advised the MC's determination was to basically work with the applicant and his design with the intent complement the existing buildings but that the architectural character of the new building did not have to be the same as the existing buildings. Dr. Anderson commented that the Architectural Advisory Committee liked the design of the buildings shown in the design element. ,Commissioner O'Donnell stated it s~ms there is enough parking proposed based on what is shown and, in his opinion, the parking appears to meet the requirements of the Development Code. However, he does have a problem with the loading. dock. The way it is designed now, there will be some problems and he would like to see that issue addressed. . With regard to the sidewalks, he stated crossing the street seems like a viable solution and, at this time, it would be acceptable .for the applicant to do what he had originally intended. As fur as the. landscaping, Commissioner O'Donnell stated he would need to look at the landscaping when the plans come back to the Commission. Commissioner Greene stated his feeling that the Village Project is not up to the standards that the community expects and this particular project is not an aesthetically pleasing 'one. He fecls more work needs. to be done to make it more pleasing. He also stated he could not understand why there were no ~dewalks, and he feels sidewalks should be installed on-both sides from Fair Oaks A venue up to a point where you cross the ~t. He commented ,?-7,000 square feet may be too much space, and the issue of traffic is a concern, and more development will increase demands on Fair Oaks, Station Way and Traffic Way. He suggested downsiZing the project to help mitigate the traffic problems. With regard to parking, Commissioner Greene stated he would like to reserve judgement on parking problems until he has a chance to review the history. As far as landscaping, he stated he would like to see more landscaping, more open space' and greenery, and less concrete. Commissioner Haney stated this is a ve..ry important project to sustain the V~ae area. and he is strongly supportive of this site being developed to pull people into the Village area. He preferred that the sidewaJ.ks be continuous to Fair Oaks Avenue. He encouraged the applicant to work with the other tenants to solve the parking problem so that the project can move ahead. He expressed a concern about the loading and unloading facilities, which is a requirement of the .Development Code and would require a Variance or some other means to delete that requirement. Regarding the issue of Iandscaping~ Commissioner Haney xeferred to the Development Code, Section 9-12.130 requiring a minimum of 10% of the gross lot area used for off-street parking and access be provided in landscaping in the interior of the parking area. With regard to the design and architectural elements, he pointed out that at the rear of the buildings there are large blank walls that are visible from Fair Oaks A venue and, in his opini(;m, those need to be looked. at a little more closely. He also suggested perhaps going'1o a two story building with a new design and he would be closer to a 22,000 square feet. He suggested moving forward with the project and working with Miner's Hardware on the parking p~blem~. Chair Lubin spoke regarding the parking issue, commenting that the tenants n~ to find a way to work together, and he agreed with the suggestion to down size the project to what was originally proposed. With regard to landscaping, Chair Lubin stated he would like to see the required landscaping as called for in the Development Code and, in his opinion, enough landscaping has to be provided to make this an attractive project. He further stated he feels the _......_-",---,- . ~............. "J OJ ...................~ - ...............-~ '-U~"'U&..L - April 21, 1998 i i ioac:fing doc.x: issue nds to be ad~ and he ~ wii:h Commi~oner Haney regarding the back or the bm1ciings facing Fair Oaks Avcme.. He c:ommenn::d he feds the applicant is fighting an uphill bcmle on some of the ~ howe're:, he is snpporrive of the project and it is just a. croesricn of ~ nnO' it work. . . ~ pLA!'{'"NING COMM:ISSIONlCOMMIJr-iITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECIOR ITEMS A.L'ID COl\1MENTS.. . A. Pending Projects in San Luis Obispo County. .Acting Colllllllllliry Deve!~t~..or Helen Eeier refem:d to the notie: re=ived from the County l~diug a. request..for a. seconci.aJ.-y dwelling unit at 188 .VaIlcy V1.eW. She $Wed the nct:ic= was incind~ with. the agenda p~~ in ~ing with the Commission's request iD be ncri:fiedof pe:JriTn~ Co~ developments.. B. Update of Projects. Ms. Beier" arivT..sed the tcIta!ive dates fer the tIpCOming ClIY CouncillPhTmin~ Comnri~on lU~ting hzve b~ submitted to the City CotmciL They are 6:30 M W' . J 10m Th . .- 18= ']j . -ul ,..... P._ . on ~~, une _ , . msaay, June or rm:rso~, J Y LJ _ C. Gene..?'3l PIan Update.. M$. Ede::' advi.se::i th2t the ~ woranop is rP!m;rive!.y sc.heduied for June 13111, and ~!!lU.;(;m~!y 8,000 na~ will. be m~;ied DJ reside:1rs notL..:ying the:n af the Gene.."'4l P1an W<ri:shop~ D. WritteJ. ColllllllllliMtiOns ,L (.Agenda Item TIU.) R:soiurians 95-1500 and 95-1503 2. (.A~..nda Item IILC-) I..=rer from W. Van "Ri~~~$icyf dared April 20, 1998. ... (~..nda. Item IILD_) Two 1ette:s frorit Mike Miner of M:ine::'s ~ ~ one .:I. dared April 20, 1998 and the otb.e: dated April 21, 1998- 4. (Agenda Jt.em ITLD.) R::soimions 94-1.458 and 94-1459. 5. Draft E:IVi:romne:n:al-Inmac: 'R=1orr: for the Be::!v G-arcicIs Sue::ffic P1an Proi~ - _. 4 . .. ADJOURNMENT T.!le..~ be~g no further bnc;m~ before the Cammi~nn T the m~~ was acijoumed at 11:20 p.rn. on motion Dy CommT<:~ntIer O~armd, se=mded by Commi~oner Gre::le, ami Unanimously ~~ ATTEST; ~~ ~ , .. !).--. ) .I . C <auerr~' AS TO CONTENT: rlY~~-/ L7 C.U , . , --- .ti.elen M. 1-!c1I"!!'", Ala? Ac:i.ng Community De'Ie!opme=It Dire:::cr --'...-.- " Attachment E \,;11 T ua- AHt1UTU uHANDt: ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY COMMJ 1 I t:ti MONDAY, MAY 4,1998 AS AMENDED AND APPROVED ON MAY 18, 1998 The meeting of the City of Arroyo Grande Architectural Advisory Committee was called to order at 4:30 p.m. Present were Chair Tony Orefice, Vice-Chair Warren Hoag, and. Committee Member Fabbian Detweiler. Also present were staff members Bruce Buckingham and Helen 8der. A. Design Review Ta:act 1997 - Lot 16, Castferock Development ,. Doug Davidson, . Cannon Associates. discussed the 2 '. deviations, height of retaining wall and 2 feet over fill limit. .. : After a short discussion the. AAC on motion by Tony Orefice, seconded by Fabbian Detweiler and unanimously approved. The Committee' and staff agreed to take item B. (Five Cities Center) out of order and place the item last on the agenda. c. Applicant Investec (Lu!=ky's) Representative: Maurice Macare. Case Number: Variance 98-207 & Planned Sign Program 98-126 Location: 1404 -1488 Grand Avenue Proposal: Revision to signage .at Town & Cauntry Square After some discussion the AAC on motion by Tony Orefice, seconded by Fabbian Detweiler, aft unanimously dc~:sion decided to continue this item to the June 1, 1998 meeting if revised plans are received one week in advance of said meeting. Some of the concerns are as follows: 1. Unity and consistency of design of signage. 2. Need matching parapets and monument sign no higher than it is now. . D. Applicant Robert Anderson Representative: Same Case Number: Conditional Use Permit 98-565 & Tentative Parcel.Map 98-548 Location: 200 Station Way . . Proposal: Construct ?:1 ,250 square foot commercial/retail building and a lot split After some discussion the AAC on motion by Tony Orefice, seconded by Warren Hoag and unanimously approved will the fo((owing conditions. 1. Continuous sidewalks adiacent to and alono the complete length of the buildings. --.---..--..--.-----.....---.--- ......., -.., ."IIII""~~ - --- - --- - - .. ~ ~ -- ..... 2. Building color~ to closely match Lemos buildings with Old Zinc Grey for roof color. 3. Need loading zone depending on tenant use. 4. Add more surface mounted open lattice work (spaced proportions) to front and rear of buildings. 5. Concrete (textured) crosswalk. 6. Confirm that oarbaoe dumoster had to be moved. . B. Applicant AGRA. llClRve Cities Center Representative: Mike Heinrich Case Number: Planned Sign Program 97-124 Location: West Branch Street and Rancho Parkway Proposal: . Signage Program for Center Staff member Helen Elder gave a brief overview of the project, summarizing a staff report forwarded to the Planning Commission. Mike Heinrich, architect and representative for the applicant gave a presentation of the planned. sign program for the center. The following is a summary of the comments: . " The committee had a brief discussion regarding separating the two phases of the project to make two projects for purposes of calculating the number of signs. Member Detweiler said she was opposed to this due to oroiect aooroval . was under one entitlement and same stioulations . Le. one commercial center. . Wal-Mart SIGN Buildino A-1 - It was discussed that the 5 foot lettering was modest and in proportion with the scale of the building. The sign is shown on only one elevation, the south (front) elevation and this is the only place where a" sign should be loc~ted for the Wal-Mart. BUILDING A-2 - The sign shown fits with the scale of the fac;ade~ BUILDING C- LUCKY -SA V ON - Sign as shown is okay. . NON CORPORATE SIGNS (SUCH AS "BAKERY., .PHARMACY., ETC) - These . signs should be of a uniform character and use one type-face, such as "GARAMOND BOLD", .as suggested in the PSP. To avoid clutter of small signs, these signs should not be used to advertise ~pic~! r~cm3 items tvoicallv found in a orocerv store. but can be used for bank, pharmacy, 1-hour photo. Seafood, Food and not considered acceptable. Where these signs are shown on towers they should be balanced and proportional to the tower fa9ade. --- -_.~_.- . . - . . OFFICE MAX CStaoles-8uitdina D) - The lettering should be indented from both sides the approximate width of the pilasters so that the lettering is better balanced. The height of the lettering should also be reduced proportionately. . BUILDING E TENANT - The proposed "TENANT- lettering is too large. Member Orefice suggests using the width of the columns/pilasters for each side of lettering as an appropriate .margin- on the left and right side of all signs. , . BUILDING F - No signs on the east elevation since it will face the residential area. SMALLER TENANT SPACES - Member Hoag suggests that one tenant sign per tenant space on all the smaller buildings with multiple tenants is appropriate. BUILDING G - On the south east elevation it may be appropriate to keep the size of the signs to 70 sq. ft., reduce the number of signs to one sign and remove the three smaller signs. . HOLL YWOOD VIDEO Buildina H - Member Hoag suggested that the sign does not need to be shown 011 the three sides. It was discussed that the sign is a strong graphic statement, but that might not be a detractor and may actually add interest. No neon, one :ct:c:-ing only, on the 30~'1 clevation. On the north elevation,. 'reduce the size to'1 00 s.f. and eliminate the mountains and neon. Signs on the west and south elevation would be okay. BUILDING I - No sign should be shown on the west elevation where the angled wall is shown, because of the visibirrty of the sign from the residential area is not' needed. The sign on the south elevation (front elevation), needs. better spacing betWeen the top and bottom of the sign area to better balance . it with the fa<;ade; lettering should be reduced to 5.feet in height. BUILDING J - 8iminate signs on east elevation, facing St. Patrick's School; they are not needed and take off south and north elevation. BUILDING K -. Eliminate signs on eastwest and south sides. Use the monument sign at the southwest comer of site at St. Patrick's comer for both J and K building tenants. BUILDINGS L & M - Remove Building M from PS? since no building elevations have been approved. In general, no signs should be placed on the rear elevations of either building. . . - COMMENTS REGARDING SIGNS VISIBLE FROM RANCHO GRANDE RESIDENTlAL AREAS - Throughout the discussion the Members commented on the direction of signs facing motorist going south, that signs would not be needed since most of that traffic would be local and not need the advertising signs as direction. Also the Committee discussed concerns about the not having signspe visible for adjacent residents. Member Detweiler commented that, in general, the sign program showed too many signs and signs that were too large, beyond what would be permitted under the Sign Ordinance. She stated that the PSP should be found consistent with the Sign Ordinance, that it was important to remember that Rancho Parkway was a gateway to a residential area. She stated that the colors were too bright and that more uniform signs were needed to unify the center. The signs should announce the tenants but not advertise. She was also concerned about the height of the gateway signs. MONUMENT SIGNS: Eliminate the entry monument sign on the second driveway into Phase II side. These entry monument signs on both sides of Rancho Parkway can be reoriented at an angle to the sueet and made one sided and no sign copy on the side facing toward residential area. ,For the monument sign on West Branch Street near the detention basin, use an optional entry monument sign instead, with just the "Rve Cities Center" lettering and toga. . GATEWAY TOWER: Eliminate Gateway Tower for Phase II. One gateway ~ tower is needed for the main part of the center only. It could just list four malar tenants rather than 5 major tenants. EX1STtNG SIGNS FOR THEATER 'AND SIZZLER. The members. discussed how 'the existing signs should be updated and encouraged to be designed to fit in with the PSP for th~ center. It was discussed that these existing uses are not a part of the center that they are on separate parcels. It was suggested that a sign similar in design to the gateway tower could be .used for the theater. Upon completion of the' discussion, a motion was made by Chair Orefice, seconded by Member Hoag to accept all comments above as changes recommended to the applicant, and to request the applicant revisit the sign ordinance together with the comments and see if there are additional areas where signs could be eliminated, bringing the PS? into closer compliance with the sign ordinance. The motion was unanimously approved. . Down liahtina instead of backliahtina is oreferred. The meeting adjourned ~ 7:35 p.m. . Attachment F. ----'--- .___u - --- - -..-- ~._--- PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING TO BE HELD IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 215 EAST BRANCH STREET ! APPLICANT: Robert Anderson I 200 Station Way Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 SUBJECT: Application Regarding Parcel 3 of Village Creek Plaza FILE/INDEX: TPM 98-548; CUP No. 98-565 , PROPOSAL: Proposal to develop Lot 3 with four buildings totaling 27,250 square feet and 109 parking spaces LOCATION: ' Lot 3, Village Creek Plaza; 201 Station Way REPRESENTATIVE: See application Hearing Notices sent oil May 8, 1998. Staff Report Prepared by Lezley Buford, AICP. Reviewed by Tim Carmel, City Attorney. Site Inspection by Lezley Buford on May 1, 1998. - Parcel Size: 2.7 acres Terrain: Level Vegetation: Vacant parcel has been cleared with little remaining vegetation Existing Land Use: Vacant General Plan Designation: General Commercial Existing Zoning: General Commercial Surrounding Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation: North: . Station Way; General commercial uses/General Commercial South: U.S. Highway 101 East: Auto Dealership, U.S. Post office/General Commercial . " West: . U.S. Highway 101 --. --....--..-..---- .... .-.-------. _.. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue this item to a date uncertain and direct the applicant to submit a revised site plan that contains the items listed on the incompleteness letter dated December 29, 1997, and a revised parking plan which complies with the Development Code. 2. Find that the applicant is required to provide parking and loading areas consistent with the Development Code, based on the proposed square footage of buildings proposed for Parcel 3. 3. Find that Parcel 3 is not obligated to provide additional parking spaces for the benefit of other parcels in the Village Creek Plaza development. 4. In the alternative, deny the application and direct staff to return to the June 16, 1998 meeting of the Planning Commission with a resolution to deny. 5. In the alternative, deny the application without prejudice, and direct staff to return to the June 1 6, 1998 meeting of the Planning Commission with a resolution to deny. BACKGROUND: The application concerns the Village Creek Plaza, located on Station Way. For ease of reference, staff will refer to the parcels as they were eventually configured by the lot line adjustment in 1.990. The major occupants of the parcels are: Parcel 1: Video Thyme Parcel 2: Miner's Hardware/Kennedy Fitness Center/Roger Dunn Golf Parcel 3: Vacant/ Site of Anderson application Parcel 4: Vacant Parcel 5: Offices of Dr. Thomas Thompson, D.D.S. Development of the Village Creek Plaza commercial development was initiated in 1985. Since that time some parcels have been developed, ownership changes have occurred, and the City has approved a lot line adjustment and merger which changed the configuration of some of the parcels in the development. The current applications have generated the opposition of other occupants in the Village Creek Plaza, primarily based on parking and access. Other issues include design of proposed landscaping, sidewalks, loading areas, and architectural character. The applicant seeks to develop the 2.7 acre parcel (Parcel 3) with four buildings totaling 27,250 square feet and 109 parking spaces. The Village Creek Plaza project was first approved in 1985, when an application was submitted by Mid-Coast Land to develop the overall 8.5-:acre site with a 59,540 square foot commercial center, comprised of three buildings (see Master Plan). The Staff Advisory Committee and Architectural Advisory Committee found that the --"...,..__._---,--~- -- ____n____.._ ~ ..-.-'---. proposal was consistent with development requirements of the zoning ordinance, including off-street parking. Buildings were constructed on Parcels 1 and 2. In 1987 approval was received for approximately 1,500 square feet of outdoor nursery storage and sales activity adjacent to Miner's Hardware (Parcel 2). In February, 1990, the Planning Commission approved development of a 21,816 square foot commercial building on Lot 3. The development included provisions for 118 parking spaces. This building was not constructed, and the entitlements have expired pursuant to Development Code Section 9-02.1.40. A I'ot line adjustment and lot merger was approved in 1995, resulting in the existing five-lot configuration. Approval of the lot line adjustment and merger by the City was conditioned on the recording of reciprocal easements for, inter alia, access and parking. CC&Rs were recorded in May, 1995 which appeared to satisfy this condition. Section 6.1 (c) of the CC&Rs provided: 6.1 Easements for Common Facilities: Each parcel, each Owner and the Association shal/ have and is hereby granted the following easements: (cl An easement for parking purposes over and across the parking areas within the Shopping Center as reflected on the Map. " This easement has been reviewed by the City Attorney, who confirmed that although this easement grants reciprocal parking, it does not reserve a soecified number of soaces for use bv develooment on adioining oarcels. The City has received no formal development proposals for Lot 4. The current owner of Lot 5 has notified the City that he does not believe Lot 5 is encumbered with any obligation to participate in parking cooperative arrangements with the owners or tenants of other parcels in Village Creek Plaza. Staff does not believe Parcel 5 issues are relevant to this proceeding, as the owner's claim is based on the specific facts of his case, and not an interpretation of the Development Code or the language of the CC&Rs. DISCUSSION: Parkin9: Table 1 shows the parking requirements for the project and for existing uses on Parcels 1 and 2. The City's existing Development Code requires 1 parking space per 250 square feet of general retail and office use in the Village. (Section 9-12.060, matrix 3.a.) The ordinance also provides that common parking facilities may be provided in lieu of individual requirements if the total number of parking spaces is the sum of the requirements for individual uses and the parking facilities are located within two hundred feet (200') of the associated use (Section 9-12.050). --,---- --- .--.-- -------- -- ---------:-Page 4 Village' Creek Plaza was originally' proposed as a single development, and included three separate parcels (see Master Plan dated 1985). In general, it was anticipated that parking deficiencies for the building located on Parcel 2 would be satisfied by parking surpluses for buildings constructed on Parcels 1 and 3. At the time of appr~val, however, no condition was implemented which created a binding obligation on each lot within the development to provide a specific number of parking spaces for other parcels, nor was the developer required to create access and parking easements for common enjoyment. The City required the developer, at the time the buildings on . Parcels 1 and 2 were constructed, to also construct 41 parking spaces on what is now Parcel 3 to accommodate the parking then required under the Development Code. Parcels 1 and 2 have continued to utilize parking on Parcel 3 since the initial development of the site. As Qotedabove, the existing configuration of the parcels in the Village Creek Plaza development were created in 1994 with the approval of a lot line adjustment. As part of the approval process, the applicant was required to create easements for common access and parking, which are set forth above. The applicant in this case agrees that Parcel 3.is subject to the easements for access and parking, but does not agree that he is required to provide a specific number of parking spaces for the benefit of other parcels in the development. The owners and tenants of Parcel 2 claim that the requirement for access and parking easements, and the history of the project, prevent the applicant from utilizing some existing parking spaces on Parcel 3 to meet parking requirements for the building to be constructed on Parcel 3. Required parking is determined by reference to Chapter 9-12 the Development Code. General retail, office and commercial uses are required .to provide one parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area. The applicant has requested approval for four buildings comprising a total of 27,250 square feet, which would require 109 spaces (27,250 I 250). The applicant's plan as submitted is unclear with regard to the actual parking spaces proposed, lacking details regarding motorcycle parking, compact spaces, loading areas etc. Under the provisions of the previous Development Code,. parking was calculated at one space per 200 square feet for commercial and office space, and the 1985 approval was subject to this requirement. The Development Code standard for parking has been changed, and the current standard is one space per 250 square feet. The parking required in the 1985 approval, and the parking requirements for the project to date, as built, are shown in the following table: -..------- TABLE 1 1985 APPROVAL SQUARE FEET PARKING REQ'D PARKING PROVIDED BLDG "A" 8,960 45 spaces 68 spaces SLDG "B" 20,200 1 0 1 spaces 50 spaces SLDG "C" 17,200 86 spaces 105 spaces BLDG "D" 4,260 22 spaces 16 spaces SLDG "E" 4,800 24 spaces 40 spaces AS BUlL T SQUARE FEET PARKING REQ'D PARKING. @ 1 PER 250 PROVIDED BLDG "A" 10,500 42 spaces 68 spaces BLDG "B" 1 9,600 78 spaces 50 spaces PROPOSED 27,250 109 spaces 11 5 spaces BLDG "c" BLDG "D" NOT BUlL T BLDG "E" 4,882 20 spaces 40 spaces Access and Loading: Section 9-12.170 A of the Development Code provides as follows: "All industrial and commercially zoned developments shall be designed with truck approach and backup areas so as to prevent truck maneuvering within public rights-of-way. " Developments of 14,000 square feet or less are exempted from loading area requirements under some circumstances. This exception does not apply to this project. The site plan submitted by the applicaot does not inclu(je loading areas, and the applicant has been requested by staff to revi~e the site plan in this regard. . ISSUES: _ Parking: Staff believes the issue with regard to parking can be stated as follows: Is the applicant required to provide a specific number of spaces for the use of other tenants in the Village Cr!Jek Plaza development? While the lot line adjustment conditions imposed in 1994 required the creation of easements for mutual access and . - --- - June 2, 1998 Page 6 parking, the conditions did not require the allocation of a specific number of spaces to specific parcels. The parking available to Parcels 1,2 .and 3 would satisfy the requirements of the Development Code if the applicant constructed buildings with the requested square footage. Staff believes, therefore, that the applicant is not required , to provide a specific number of parking spaces in addition to the number of spaces required for the project. However, planning for the parking spaces must be carefully considered. The applicant has not provided sufficient information to enable staff to make a determination regarding this issue, and a revised site plan should therefore be submitted. ,. Access: The Development Code contains specific requirements regarding loading areas for industrial and commercially zoned property. The site plan submitted by the applicant does not identify adequate facilities for loading. The applicant should be required to submit a revised site plan. LandscaDing: The Development Code requires a 15' front building setback (Development Code Table 9-07.040-A). Additionally, the setback must be landscaped, and where off-street parking areas are situated such that they are visible from any street, an earthen berm, wall, or combination wall/berm three feet in height must be erected within the required landscape area. 'The Development Code also provides that if parking is located in the building setback area, a minimum ten foot landscaped area must be provided between the property line and the parking area with an additional minimum landscaped area of ten feet also requ.ired between the parking area and the building. This item has been discussed with the applicant at SAC, the Planning Commission meeting of May 18, 1998, and at other meetings and telephone conversations with the applicant. The site plan must be revised to show landscaping consistent with the requirements of the Development Code before the project can be approved. Planning Commission: The project was reviewed and discussed at the May 18, 1998 Planning Commission at the applicant's request. The Commission expressed concerns regarding parking, loading, landscaping, design and density of development (see Exhibit J). In his letter dated May 21, 1998, the applicant requests that the application be approved. Staff does not believe the applicant has provided an adequate site plan needed to accurately assess the project and to determine whether the application satisfies the requirements of the Development Code. For example, the design and landscaping of the setback and parking areas may affect the building design and size. STAFF ADVISORY COMMITTEE: SAC reviewed the project on July 1, 1997. . Comments were made concerning frontage on U.S. Highway 101, and the need to architecturally match the existing buildings. The pedestrian walkway in front of the existing buildings should continue through the proposed project, and landscaping trash enclosures and light fixtures should match the existing site. The Building and . ----------- ..__..._._u v....._ _, ___~__.______ ___ Page 7 Fire Department commented regarding compliance with the most recent editions of the California State Fire and Building Codes, and abandonment of non-conforming services such as septic tanks. Public Works department commented regarding sewer service and dedication of utility easements, driveways and water neutralization plan. Parks and Recreation commented regarding street trees and the park development fee. The Police Department commented regarding adequate .Iighting for the project. ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE: The AAC reviewed the project on May 4, 1998 (see Exhibit I), commenting on colors' and materials, compatibility of proposed project with existing architecture, pedestrian walkway to be improved with stamped pattern concrete across street and through parking area. PUBLIC COMMENTS: A public notice was sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project, and a public notice was placed in the Times-Press-Recorder. Staff has not received any comments or correspondence related to the proposed project, with the exception of the correspondence set forth below from owners and tenants of the Village Creek Plaza development and their representatives. . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff' has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and has determined that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration was issued with a hearing date of June 2, 1998. Staff does not anticipate that this project will have an adverse effect on the environment. Attachments: Resolution Continuing This Item Financial Interest Form Exhibits Exhibit A: Site Plan (Distributed with April 21, 1998 materials) Exhibit B: May 21, 1998 from Robert M. Anderson, D.D.S. Exhibit C: May 19, 1998 from Norman & Vasquez Associates, on behalf of owners and tenants of Miner's Hardware Building Exhibit 0: April 21, 1998 Memo from Mike Miner (fax) with Scott Spieling letter dated January 31,1997 attached Exhibit E: April 20, 1998 Memo from Mike Miner vvith attachments Exhibit F: April 15, 1988 letter from Robert M. Anderson, D.D.S. . Exhibit G: December 4, 1997 from Mike Miner Exhibit H: 1985 Approved Master Plan Exhibit I: AACMeeting notes for May 4 Exhibit J: Draft Minutes for April 21, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting Exhibit K: Initial Study/Draft Negative Declaration Exhibit L: CCRs/Conditions of Approval referencing parking easements ---"--~'~.~. , . Attachment G . . ARROYO GRANDE P! ~G COl\1i.\1ISSION : -:'<C .. . ... JUNE 2, 1998 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Lubin presiding. Present are Commissioners Rondeau, Parker and Haney. .Commissioner Greene is absent. Also in attendance are Acting Co~munity Development Director Helen. Eder, Associate Planner Bruce Buckingham and Contract Planner LezJ.ey Buford. , INTRODUCTION OF NEW PLAt.~G COMMISSIONER Chair Lubin introduced new Commissioner Nanci Parker and welcomed her to the Planning Commission. . MINUTE APPROVAL . Hearing no corrections or additions, on motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Rondeau, ~d canied, the minutes of the regular meeting of April ~ 1, 1998 were . approved as prepared. o. ORAL COM:M:ONICATIONS - None PtI8LIC HEAlUNG - CONDIDONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 92-502, REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR L"'ITEN'SION; Ai"ID CONDmONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 94-521, REQUEST TO OPERATE THE LOPEZ CONTINUATION IDGH SCHOOL AND THE. TEENAGE ACADEMIC AND PARENTING PROGRAJ.'\1, AND AM:END THEHOURS OF OPERATION FOR CHILD CARE FROM 8:00 A.M. TO 3:30 P.M. TO 7:30 A.M. TO 11:30 P.M.; APPLICAt.'IT: LUCIA MAR ~.un.JID SCHOOL DISTRICT; oREPRESEL'ITATIVE: SAL"IDY DA VIS; LOCATION: 227 BRIDGE STREET Associate Planner Bruce Buckingham reviewed the staff report dated June 2, 1998. He stated . that in August 1992 the C;omrnission approved Conditional Use Pennit 92-502 to allow Lopez Continuation High School to. operate at 227 Bridge Street for a. four year period. Subsequently, in November 1994 the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 94-527 to allow the high school to operate a Teenage Academic Parenting program at the same location. In July 1996 the Planning Commission approved a two year time extension for both CUP's because of . the failure of school bonds to secure the necessary funding for a. permanent school facility. Since that time, the School District has received the funding and has started construction of the new Lopez Continuation High School in Nipomo, however, the new facility will not be ready this Fall and, as a result, the School District is requesting a final one year time extension for both Conditional Use Pennits to allow additional time to complete the fucility. In addition the District is requesting that Condition No. 10 of CUP 94-527 be amended changing the hours of operation for child care services from 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. This is the result of a recently approved State funding the School District received. Mr. Buckingham advised that the Staff Advisory Committee has reviewed the applicant's requests and finds the projects to be acceptable, and staff recommends the Planning Commission: approve the one Ye3I time extension for both Conditional Use Pennits and the amendment to the hours of operation for the child care services. He noted there is one correction on the CUP Amendment Resolution, Attachment A, hours for the child care center, should be correctly stated. as 7:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. . . . . . . .,- Arroyo Grande PJ~nning Co(--- ission . June 2, 1998 Upon completion of staff's presentation, Chair Lubin opened the hearing for public comment and invited the applicant to make his presentation. . Peny Judd. Lucia Mar Unified School District. stated he is representing Sandy D~vis, who could not be present tonight. He further stated he concurs with staffs. recommendation for a one year . extension. of the Conditional Use Pennits. and amendment to the. hours of opexation for the child care services. He advised. the new facility is being built and is slated for use around - Easter of the 1999 school year. After a brief disc~ssion between the Commission and applicants, the Commission indicated their support for the pro~7 and the following action was taken: .-. . RESOLUTION NO. 98-1~"'3 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COl\lIMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRAi.~E APPROV1NG A ONE YEAR 1'Il\1E EXTEN'SIONFOR .. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-502 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-527, FOR THE OPERATION OF LOPEZ CONTINUATION.mGH SCHOOL AND THE TEENAGE ACADEMIC AND PARENTING PROGRAM (TAP) AT 227 BRIDGE STREET, APPLIED FOR BY LUCIA MAR UNIJ!lJill SCHOOL DISTRICT On motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: . AYES: Commissioners Haney, Rondeau, Parker and Chair Lubin NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greene the foregoing resolution was adopted this 2= day of June 1998. RESOLUTION NO. 98-1654 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COl\lIMISSION OF THE CITY OF . ARROYO GRANDE APPROV1NGANAMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 94-527, APPLIED FOR BY LUCIA MAR LUCIA MAR m.UlJill SCHOOL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 227 BRIDGE. STREET . On motion by Commissioner Haney,. seconded by Commissioner Parker, and by the following roll call vote, to wit AYES: Commissioners Haney, Rondeau, Parker and Chair Lubin NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greene the foregoing resolution was adopted this 2Dd day of June 1998. . . . Arroyo Grande Planning COL. ...ission : , . June 2, 1998 After further discussion between the Commission and staff, Chair Lubin opened the hearing for public comment. , Robert Anderson. applicant, thanked staff for their hard work and dedication. He stated he has agreed to revise the plans based on staff's comments. He commented, that it is clear he is not obligated to provide additional parking to the adjoining properties. He stated he is willing to abide by the reciprocal. parking agreement to help ensure the parlcing accessibility. He refeIred to th~ study that was commissioned on his behalf, stated the report clearly supports the _ claim that the parking is adequate and, and he does not agree with Mr. Miners claims of entitlement to parking on the project site, nevertheless the proposal is still providing 10 to 12 smplus spa,ces. With regard to site coverage, Mr. Anderson stated the proposal of 22% is minimal-and a project with less than 20%. coverage is not economically feasible. Regarding staff's recommendation for continuance, Mr. Anderson stated he would like to get this project going and requested that the Commission make a ruling tonight if possibl~. Mark Vasquez. Nonnan. Vasquez & Associates. representing Mr. Miner, stated they agree with the staff report, plus they and Mr. Miner encourage Mr. Anderson to pursue hisdevelopnient, however, they still feel there is an issue regarding the parking. They believe the key to this issue is the fact that the original approval and the documents associated -with: that approval in 1985 specifically stated that Phase 1 involving Buildings A and B shall include constrUction of 146 spaces specifically for those two buildings. The developers completed the consn:uction in 1986. Building E was subsequently built under the original approval in 1987. Wlth regard to Buildings C and D, that part of the overall approval was not exercised; building pemiits were not issued and, therefore, the approvals expired and new approvals are required. In 1994 it was decided by the develoPers to do a lot merger and lot line adjustmeIltto allow 5 individual parcels for each structures. At that time a finding was made that parlcing had to be adequately provided. In order to do that the, CC&Rs were recorded requiring a reciprocal parking easement. Mr. Vasquez commented that in order for the original approval to be valid, when Buildings A, Band E were constructed, there had to be 146 spaces allotted to those buildings,' and their concern is that the proposed project be in compliance with the original awiO'val. He requested that the parking be required consistent with the original conditions approved in the ~~P~. ' . Jay Johnson. P. O. Box 3. Grover Beach. stated he represents. ~er's Hardware and also the . current owners of the property. He stated his feeling that the public should be able to rely on. Conditions of Approval adopted by the City, and requested that the City enforce the original, conditions. Don Selbv noted that most cities allow for at least 20% of the parking spaces to be compact. The City Code requires that all spaces shall be 9 x 18, and questioned why spaces above and beyond what is required by the Code be allowed to be compact'?, He stated this would benefit_ the applicant and the exi.st:ing tenants. William B'o\!den stated he was looking for a building to lease and was directed to Mr.. Anderson's project over a yem: ago. In talking to Mr. Ande...~on last w~k he was infonned th~t the parking had become a problem for the project. Mr. Bogden refe...'TeCi to the parking survey presented to the Commission submitted by Ganador Associates, Inc. He stated, that, they went out and counted parking spaces every 15 minutes, and the last sheet of their report shows - the totals for a 3 day period, indicating there is more than enough parking. H~ requested that the .. ,. " - - LL - ---=-~ .__=_1-. ...:.'" "..................;...~~ ,..nnrl;rinn~ nf ~nnmva.1 to resolve ...... ...... . . Arroyo Grande PIann. Commi~on June 2, 1998 c PUBLIC BEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 98-548 AND CONDmONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 98-565, CONSTRUCTION OF A 27,250 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIALJRETAIL BUJLDING Ai'ID LOT SPLIT; APPliCANT: . ROBERT ANDERSON; LOCATION: 200 STATION WAY Contract P1.3.nner Lezley Buford reviewed the staff report dated June 2, 1998.' She stated the project was reviewed by the Planning Commission sometime ago as a pre:'appIi~on discussion item. At that time the Commission provided many comments with regard to the design and other issues, particularly with regard to the master plan that was approved in 1985, and also with regard to the existing parking, and the Development Code parking requirements. Since the last discussion, all of the materials relating to the history of the project have been forwarded to the City Attorney for his review, and it is staff's opinion that the issues and questions regarding the requirements and any property entitlements have been resolved. Ms. Buford briefly reviewed the history of the Village Creek Plaza development. She also noted that in February of 1990 the Planning Commission approved development of a 21,816 square foot commercial building on Lot 3. The development included provisions for 118 parking spaces. At that time, the City's parking requirement fG a ccmmercial development Was 1 per 200 square feet of building area. The building was not constructed and the entitlements have since expired. Ms. Buford advised that a lot line adjustment and lot merger was approved in 1995, which was mainly to reconfigure 10 parcels into five the parcels that exist today. At that time, there was a discussion with regard to the parking situation, and as a condition to the lot line adjustment and lot merger, the property owner was required to file reciprocal parking easements across the entire site. The CC&Rs were recorded in May 1995. Section 6.1(c) of the CC&Rs states Co\ An easement for parking purposes over and across the parAing areas within the Shopping Cenrer as reflected on the Map." She stated that the map was the parcel map and lot line adjustment at that time, showing all parking that existed on the site. At that time the..."e were 40 developed parking spaces on the subject parcel. Before the Commi.sSion tonight is the proposed development of Parcel 3, where the previous development was proposed. She noted there have been two changes since that time: (1) the parking requirements per the City's Development Code have been ch3:I1ged to 1 space per 250 square feet of building space, and' (2) the development has changed, in that the proposal is 4 buildings totaling approximately 27,000 square feet, instead of one building as previously proposed. Also shown on the site plan are a total of 115.... spaces; some of which are compact spaces, which the City does not allow. . Therefore, the total number,of parking spaces could be reduced to 109 spaces. Ms. Buford reiterated that the City Attorney has reviewed the history of the proj~ the project site. and the development of Village Creek Plaza, and has concluded that while there 'is a reciprocal easement for parking purposes and access across the entire site, there is no specific agreement regarding a specific number of spare; for any of the parcels, . and also there has never been any condition or any requirement that any future development provide spaces other than what is, required by the Development Code, which would be the minimum requirement. With regard to the plans that have been submitted, Ms. Buford stated it is staff's opinion that the plans are close to meeting the Development Code. However, there are several design issues including landscaping, parking and loading areas, that need to be revised, and may affect the overall development and design of the proj~t. Therefore, staff.recommends the Commission continue this item so that the applicant can move forward with redesi~nimJ' th~ nmiP.ct tn mp~t . . . . ArroYo Grande PIanniI :ommiC\Sion .f~_.(.'':'' -..; June 2, 1998 . Chair Lubin further indicated that he is in total agreement with the other Commissioners and he would like to see a complete site plan with all of the changes made. He wants to be sure that all of the parking and landscaping fits, and that the infonnation submitted to staff can be relied upon. After further disCussion, on motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by' Commissioner Rondeau, and unanimously carried, staff recommendations 1 and 2 were approved as follows: l. That the Planning Commission continue this item to a date uncertain and direct the applicant to submit a revised site plan that cQntains the items listed on the incompleteness letter, dated D~mber29, 1997, and a revised parking plan which complies with the Development Code. 2. The applicant is required to provide parking and loading areas consistent with the Development Code, based on the proposed square footage of buildings proposed for, Parcel 3. pLANNING COl\tRvJISSION/CO:Ml\fiJNITY DEVELOPl\tIENT DIRECTOR ITEMS AND COl\lIMENTS. A. Pending Project in San Luis Obispo Coun~y. Acting Community Development Director Helen Eder stated that in keeping with the Planning Commission's requ~ to be notified of pending projects in San Luis Obispo County, a Project Referral for the Nipomo Valley Mutual Water Company is being referred to the Commission. Also, the Planning Commission received a handout tonight of a Notice of Preparation for an EIR for Hampton, eta! General Plan Amendment, which is also from San Luis Obispo County. Ms. Eder also listed items that will heard at the June Ifrh Planning Commission meeting as follows: 1. YMCA Tune Extension. 2. 5 Cities Center Planned Sign Program. 3. K-Mart Planned Sign Program. 4. Beacon Planned Sign Program. Ms. Elder also reminded the Commission that there is a joint City CounciIlPlanning Commission ," study session scheduled for June 18m at 6:30 p.m. Items to be discussed at that m_eeting include the Redevelopment Agency implementation and General Plan Update. With regard to the General Plan Update, Ms. Eder advised that Workshop No.2 on Land Use Alternatives is scheduled for Saturday, June 20111 from 9:00 a.m. to noon at the Arroyo Grande High School Gym. Also, Tnursday, June 4111 at 6:30 a meeting is being held for the Co~ Outreach Team members to obtain infonnation on the Workshop. She funhe- advised that.a notice for the Workshop will be published in the newspaper in two weeks, and next wee..fc notices for the Workshop will be delivered to 8,000 addresses in the City. ,..,-.,. Arroyo Grande Planning Commi'5S'ion . .~- . ,. . '. ". ...... . June 2, 1998 . WRlTI'EN .COJM:MUNICATIONS L L Notice OfPrepara1::ion of an ER for Hamptony et aL Gene::al PIan Amendment from San Lnis Obispo County. 2. Agenda Item 1L.A. - Letter dated June 2y 1998 from Ruth w~. 3. Agenda Item No. !LB. - Resolution No. 94-1458. 4. Agenda !temNo. !LB. - Resolution No. ~1459 . , 5. Parking Study from Gamdor Associatesy Inc.y dated June 1, 1998. . 6. Revised explanations for the ~ Study Checklist J:I.L~ed for the Ande:son project.. ADJOURNMENT T.nere being no further business before the Commi~on7 the ~tin~ was. adjoumed by the Chairman at 9:30 p.rn. . ATTEST: ~~ ~~~ro / ~ .~ .AS TO. CONTENT: ~/VM,~~. Helen M. Eder, AlCP Acting Community Deve.!opme:J.t Dire:"..or . . . . . r~~ L ~ . Attachment H Hearing Date: 11/4/98 Agenda Item No. 1I.}(-I3". PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING TO BE HELD IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS . 215 EAST BRANCH STREET APPLICANT: Robert Anderson PROJECT: ' Conditional Use Permit 98-565 Tentative Tract Map 98-548 PROPOSAL: Construction of a 27,520 SF commercial retail and office building and lot split LOCATION: 200 Station Way REPRESENTATIVE: Brad Anderson 18 Public Hearing Notices. Public hearing notice published in the Times-Press- i Recorder on October 9, 1998. Site inspection by Helen Elder on1 0/13/98. Staff ~ report prepared by Helen Elder, AICP, Associate Planner. Parcel Size: 119,123 SF (2.7 acres) Terrain: Flat Vegetation: Shrubs and trees along northern edge of property between existing parking area and street. . Existing Land Use: Vacant General Plan Designation: General Commercial Zoning Designation: General Commercial (GC), Design 2.11 Overlay Surrounding land Use, Zoning,' General Plan Designation: North: Commercial/General Commercial/same East: Commercial office/General Commercial/same South: Commercial/residence/General Commercial/Highway West: Highway 101 i VillAGE CREEK PLAZA NOVEMBER 4, 1998 Page 2 of 5 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission deny, without prejudice, the above referenced applications. DISCUSSION: An application for a conditional use permit and tentative parcel map was submitted on November 26, 1997 by. Robert Anderson. for construction of a 27,000+/- commercial office and commercial retail complex at 200 Station' Way. On December 29, 1997 the applicant was notified in writing that the application was incomplete. A list of the incomplete items was also sent to the applicant. At the March 24, 1998 meeting, the Staff Advisory Committee provided comments to the applicant regarding items needed for completion of the application. Staff. met with the applicant and his representatives on several occasions to provide direction on the items needed for a complete application. . On April 21, 1998, the project was scheduled as a non-public hearing item before the' Planning Commission at the request of the applicant. The Commission provided comments regarding the application. The item was again heard by the. Commission at a public hearing on June 2, 1998. After much discussion, staff recommended, and the Commission concurred, that the item should be continued to allow the applicant time to revise the site plan to provide adequate information for the Commission to make a decision on the project, and to be in conformance with the Development Code for parking, loading areas and landscaping. On September 1, 1998 the applicant submitted revised plans. Staff reviewed the plans and has determined that the revised plans are not in conformance with the Development Code for building and property setbacks for landscaping, parking and lot coverage. The plans do not include the minimum landscaping requirements of 10 feet of landscaping between parking areas and the property line, with an additional minimum of, 10 feet of landscaping between the buildings and the parking lot (Development Code Sec. 9-07.040 (B.4') Commercial Site DeveloDrT'-erit Standards). The inclusion of this landscaping area is a basic' site constraint that. will provide the basis' for determining the amount of parking and the size of' the buildings. The applicant was provided written notification of staff's determination and that the item would be scheduled for a public hearing on a recommendation for denial for this meeting. Development Code Section 9-02.110 Denials allows for the denial of applications which do not provide information necessary to clarify, amplify, correct,. or otherwise supplement the information required for the application, or information without which the City's decision to approve a project would not be supported by substantial evidence. , VILLAGE CREEK PLAL,", . ' NOVEMBER 4, 1998 . Page 3 of 5 Based on the incompleteness of the revised plans and the lack of conformance with the Development Co~e, staff recommends the Commission deny the applications. .The findings for denial are ~hown hi the attached resolution. Attachments: Site plan Resolution of Denial, without prejudice. Planning Commission minutes for meetings of April 21 and June 2, 1998. Letter dated September 23, 1998 to applicant with attachment outlining items of non-conformance. Development Code sections . VILLAGE CREEK PLA . NOVEMBER 4, 1998 Page 4 of 5 RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO. GRANDE DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-S65 a.nd TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 98-548, APPLIED FOR BY ROBERT ANDERSON, LOCATED AT 200 STATION WAY (VILLAGE CREEK PLAZA) WHEREAS, the P.lanning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered a Conditional Use Permit 98-565 and a Tentative Parcel Map 98-548, filed by Robert Anderson, to construct a 27,350 square foot commercial office and commercial retail complex; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a duly noticed public hearing on November 4,1998 in accordance with City Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information and public testimony presented at the public hearings, the staff report and other information and documents that are part of the public record; and WHEREAS, the Development Code Section 9-02.110 Denials, allows the denial of a permit, license or entitlement for a development project in the event that the following information is not provided by the applicant within the time limits specified by the Development Code: 1. Information necessary to clarify,amplify, correct, or, otherwise supplement the information required for the application; or 2. Information without which the City's decision to approve a project would not be supported by substantial evidence. . WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: 1. The proposed use is permitted within the General Commercial District; however, the project does not comply with all the applicable provisions of the Development Code, the goals and objectives of the General Plan, and the development policies. and standards of the City. 2. The proposed use will impair the integrity and character of the neighborhood in which it is to be established because the proposed commercial use is not consistent with the Development Code requirements for parking, landscaping and VILLAGE CREEK PLAZA '. . NOVEMBER 4, 1998 Page 5 of 5 density and is too intensive for the site creating conflicts with adjacent uses in the neighborhood. 3. The site is not suitable for the type and intensity of the proposed use because the . 119,123 square foot site is not large enough to accommodate the proposed density . and intensity, of the proposed use, causing parking, circulation and aesthetic problems. 4. The proposed use will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materi~lIy . injuri~~~ _ to J?~~~e.rt!es and imp,~overn~n,tsu. in t~e yicinity ~ec~use, t~e in,creased density and lack of adequate landscaping and other site improvements would adversely impacts the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby denies, without, prejudice, Conditional Use Permit Amendment 98-565 and Tentative Parcel Map 98-548 based on the above findings incorporated herein by this reference. On motion by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner ' , and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 4th day of November 1998. ATTEST: Pearl Phinney, Commission Clerk Sandy Lubin, Chair . AS TO CONTENT: Jim Hamilton, AICP, Community Development Director . ?-- Attachment I . Hearl" ~ Date: Decer:nber 1, -1998 Agenda Item No. ItA. PLANNING COMMISSION ) HEARING TO BE HELD IN THE . CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 215 EAST BRANCH STREET APPLICANT: Robert Anderson 200 Station Way Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 PROJECT: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 98-565 PROPOSAL: Proposal to develop lot 3 with four buildings totaling 27,350 square feet and 110 parking spaces lOCATION: .. lot 3, Village Creek Plaza; 201 Station Way REPRESENTATIVE: Brad Anderson Hearing Notices sent on November 18, 1998. Staff Report Prepared by Tom Buford. Reviewed by Craig Campbell, Public Works. Site Inspection by Tom Buford on November 16,1998. Parcel Size: 2.7 acres gross; approximately 2.3 acres net Terrain: Level Vegetation: Vacant parcel has been cleared with little remaining vegetation Existing Land Use: Vacant General Plan Designation: General Commercial Existing Zoning: General Commercial; D-2.11 design overlay . Surrounding land UselZoning/General Plan Designation: North: Station Way; General commercial uses/General Commercial --- South: U.S. Highway 101 East: Auto Dealership, U.S. Post Office/General Commercial West: U.S. Highway 101 Planning Commissi\ . CUP No. 98-565 December 1, 1998 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the application for a conditional use permit. In the event the Planning Commission decides to approve the project, staff will prepare tha appropriate resolution and conditions and reschedule the matter before the Planning Commission. \ Staff's recommendation is based on the following deficiencies in the proposed project: 1. The lot size and associated calculation shown on the plans are inaccurate. 2; The plan details showing the right-of-way and landscaping areas are not drawn to scale and are misleading. 3. The proposed landscaping design requires a variance . application which has not-been submitted. 4. The applicant has not demonstrated that the drainage plans can be implemented as proposed. 5. The parking lot access needs revision, which may affect the number of parking spaces provided. 6. The retaining wall and fence combinations are shown as being over 6 feet in height. This requires a design revision or a variance request. 7. The plan utilizes offsite relocation of a parking lot curb to make sufficient room for a loading dock. The applicant has not demonstrated a right to perform this work. BACKGROUND: Previo~s Planning Commission consideration: The Village Creek Plaza project as proposed by the applicant, has previously been considered by the Planning Commission on three occasions. On April 21, 1998, the project was before the Planning Commission as a non-public hearing item at the request of the applicant. The Planning Commission provided comments regarding the application. Staff had previously advised the applicant regarding items that would need to be provided to make the application complete. See Minutes of the meeting attached as Exhibit C, and staff's letter to applicant attached as Exhibit G. Planning Commissi, CUP No. 98-565 December 1 J 1998 Page 3 On June 2, 1998, staff recommended that the Planning Commission continue the item, and direct the applicant to submit a revised site plan responding to the items of incompleteness identified in the City's letter to the applicant dated December 29, 1997, and a revised parking plan. The Planning Commission accepted staff's recommendation. The staff report for the June 2, 1998 meeting is attached as Exhibit D. Minutes of the meeting are attached as Exhibit E. On November 4, 1998, the Planning Commission considered staff's recommendation to deny the project, wi~hout prejudice, which would have allowed the applicant to respond to continuing staff concerns. At that meeting, the applicant indicated, and staff confirmed, that revised plans for the project had been submitted shortly before the meeting. Staff had not had an adequate opportunity to review the recently submitted plans. The project was generally discussed, and the Planning Commission continued the matter, directing staff to review the revised plans and reschedule the matter for further Planning Commission consideration. The staff report for the November 4, 1998 .meeting is attached as Exhibit F. History: The applicant seeks to develop the subject parcel (Parcel 3) with four. buildings totaling 27,350 square feet and 110 parking' spaces. The parcel size is 2.7 acres gross, and approximately 2.3 acres net. The application concerns the Village Creek Plaza, located on Station Way. A lot line . adjustment was approved in 1995 and the lots renumbered. For ease of reference, staff will refer to the parcels as they were eventually configured by the lot line adjustment. The major occupants of the parcels are: Parcel 1: Video Thyme Parcel 2: Miner's Hardware/Kennedy Fitness Center/Roger Dunn Golf Parcel 3: Vacanti Site of Anderson application Parcel 4: Vacant-located at Mullahey Ford Parcel 5: Offices of Dr. Thomas Thompson, D.D.S. Buildings have been constructed on Parcels 1, 2 and 5. In 1987, approval was received for approximately 7,500 square feet of outdoor nursery storage and sales activity adjacent to Miner's Hardware (Parcel 2). The current applications have. generated the opposition of other occupants in the Village Creek Plaza, primarily based on parking and access. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission and staff include design of proposed landscaping, sidewalks, loading areas, and architectural character. Lot 3 History In February 1990, the Planning Commission approved development of a 21,816 _ _____.________,,__.,..,___ _,M'_ Planning Commissi~ CUP No. 98-565 December 1, 1998 Page 4 square foot commercial building on Lot 3. The development included provisions for 118 parking spaces. This building was not constructed, and the entitlements have expired pursuant to Development Code Section 9-02.140. Approval of the lot line adjustment and merger by the City in 1995 was conditioned on the recording of reciprocal easements for access and parking. CC&Rs were recorded in May, 1995 which appeared to satisfy this condition. Section 6.' (c) of the CC&Rs provided: 6.1 Easements for Common Facilities: Each parcel, each Owner and the Association shall have and is hereby granted the following easements: (c) An easement for parking purposes over and across the parking areas within the Shopping Center as reflected on the Map. " This easement has been reviewed by the City Attorney, who confirmed that although this easement grants reciprocal parking, it does not reserve a specified number of spaces for use by development on adjoining parcels. The City has received no formal development proposals for Lot 4. The current owner of Lot 5 has notified the City that he does not believe Lot 5 is encumbered with any obligation to participate in cooperative parking arrangements with the owners or tenants of other parcels in Village Creek Plaza. Staff does not believe Parcel 5 issues are relevant to this proceeding, as the owner's claim is based on the specific facts of his case, and not an interpretation of the Development Code or the language of the CC&Rs. DISCUSSION: Parking: Village Creek Plaza was originally proposed as a single development under single ownership. At the time the buildings on what are now identified as Parcels 1 and 2 were developed, the owner was required to construct an, additional 41 spaces' on Parcel 3, now owned by the applicant. This requirement reflected the standard for . parking then in effect, which required 1 space for each 200 square feet of developed commercial space. Since the original approvals on the project, the City has revised its parking requirements for commercial zones, from 1 space for each 200 square feet to 1 space for each 250 square feet. Table 1 shows the parking requirements for the project and for existing uses on Parcels 1 and 2 based on existing parking standards. The occupants of businesses on Parcels 1 and 2 have used the parking spaces on Planning Commissk CUP No. 98-565 December 1, 1998 Page 5 Parcel 3 since the project was completed. No requirement for reciprocal parking easements or arrangements was in effect until the applicant was. required to create easements for common access and parking as part of the approval process for the lot line adjustment (see above for text of Section 6.1 (c)). The CC&R's do not contain an exclusive reservation of any parking spaces on Parcel 3 for use by occupants of buildings on Parcels 1 or 2. The owners and tenants of Parcel 2 have argued that the original project. approval and requirement for access and parking easements prevent the applicant from utilizing some existing parking spac~s on Parcel 3 to meet. parking requirements for the building to be constructed on Parcel 3. The Development Code provides that common parking facilities may be provided in lieu of individual requirements if the total number of parking spaces is the sum of the requirements for individual uses and the parking facilities are located within two hundred feet (200') of the associated use (Section 9-12.050). That provision may apply in this case. If Parcel 3 were developed with buildings totaling 27, 350 square feet, the parking computation for the center would be as follows: PARCEL SQUARE FEET . PARKING @ 1/250 PARKING PROVIDED Parcel 1 10,500 42 soaces 68 soaces Parcel 2 20,200 80 soaces 50 soaces Parcel 3 27,350 109 soaces 110 soaces TORAL . 58,050 232 soaces 228 soaces Staff believes the Planning Commission resolved the parking issue at its June 2, 1998 meeting. The motion approved at the conclusion of the Commission's discussion at that meeting provided: 1. That the Planning Commission continue this items to a date uncertain and direct the applicant to submit a revised site plan that contains the items listed on the incompleteness letter, dated December 29, 1997, and a revised parking plan which complies with the Development Code. Planning Commissk CUP No. 98-565 December 1 J 1998 Page 6 2. The applicant is required to provide parking and loading areas consistent with the Development Code, based on the proposed square. footage of building.s proposed for Parcel 3. Staff therefore concludes that sufficient parking has been provided in connection with the project. Access. and Loadi.ng: Section 9-12.170 A of the Development Code provides as follows: "AII industrial and. commercially zoned developments shall be designed with truck approach and backup areas so as to prevent truck maneuvering within public rights-of-way." Developments of 14,000 square feet or less are exempted from loading area requirements under some circumstances. This exception does not apply to this project. Staff has raised concerns regarding the design and space allocatio~ for the loading area proposed on the western portion of the site. The applicant has proposed modifying an existing curb on Parcel 2 to provide for additional turning' and loading space. The applicant's representative has indicated the CC&R's permit such action. Staff has not been provided with a reference to the CC&R's which establishes this right in a clear and unambiguous manner, nor has the applicant provided consent of the property owner of Parcel 2 to such a modification. In the absence of such information, staff has concluded that the loading area is inadequate. Drainage: The site currently drains to the Caltrans drainage ditch running along the southern boundary of the site. The applicant would prefer to continue to drain the site in this manner. .. The revised site plan presented at the November 4, 1998 Planning Commission meeting proposed a new grading and drainage concept. Previous submittals had proposed draining the site to the existing Caltrans drainage ditch adjacent to the project site on the southerly boundary. In response to staff requests, tt)e applicant obtained a letter from Caltrans addressing the use. of the ditch. The letter indicates that Caltrans will not accept increased drainage to its ditch. Staff has been informed that the applicant is continuing to interact with Caltrans on this issue, and staff has encouraged the applicant to attempt to resolve the drainage issue through cooperation with Caltrans if possible. In response to the Caltrans letter, the applicant's November 3 and November 20, 1998 submittals were revised to show grading which directed flow away from the Caltrans ditch. The drainage would .instead be directed to the parking lot and exit to . Planning Commissk . CUP No. 98-565 , December 1, 1998 Page 7 the existing parking lot on Parcel 2. Staff has requested that the applicant demonstrate the right to direct the site drainage to Parcel 2, and demonstrate that the Parcel 2 ~rainage facilities can properly convey the drainage. The applicant has asserted that the CC&R's on the site allow for such drainage. Section 6.1 (f) of the CC&R's, identified by the applicant's representative as providing authority for such drainage, provides as follows: 6.1 Easements for Common Facilities: Each Parcel, each Owner and the Association shall have and is hereby granted the following easements:... (f) An easement for drainage purposes through and over portions of Parcels 1 and 2 as reflected on the Map, as necessary to accommodate the natural storm channel flow within the Shopping Center. Staff questions whether draining the site in the manner proposed by the applicant is consistent with the Mnatural storm channel flow.". The available topographic maps indicate otherwise. The applicant has not produced satisfactory evidence of a right to drain the site in the manner proposed, and has not provided the requested information regarding the capacity of Parcel 2 drainage facilities to convey the drainage proposed. In the absence of such information, staff cannot support the grading and drainage system proposed. Right to apoly for Conditional Use Permit: It has been suggested that the applicant may not have the right to apply for a conditional use permit on the property without including other property owners within the project as signatories to the application. The basis for this claim appears to be that the project .site was originally part of a larger parcel and that site conditions,. including parking, were applied to the site as a whole. The applicant's effort to modify such conditiof)s, it is .argued, requires all affected property owners to join in the application. Section 9-02.030 of the Development Code provides that applications for permits may only be made by the affected property owner or the owne(s authorized agent. Notice is given of such applications, and the neighboring property owners have the. right to comment on the proposed project. To the extent property owners affected ~y provisions of the CC&R's believe the applicant is not in compliance with such provisions, legal relief may be available through private action. Staff believes the applicant has the right to file and proceed with the application. Planning Commissk.. CUP No. 98-565 December 1. 1998 Page 8 Access and Circulation Section 9-12.100 provides that the. location and design of entrances and exits onto public rights-of-way is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. In this case, the design of the parking lot contains islands or bump-outs which have a short radius which would make ingress and egress, and parking within the lot, difficult at best. The City Engineer has indicated that a radius of twenty feet should be used for these structures. The plans submitted by the applicant do not satisfy the requirements of the City Engineer. landscaDing There are several issues relating t9 landscaping which concern the project. The Development Code requires a 15' front building setback (Development Code Table 9-07.04Q-Al measured from the front property line (right-of-way). Section' 9- 07.040-8 requires that the setback be landscaped. Where off-street parking is located in the building setback area, as is the case here,' a minimum landscaped area of 10 feet shall be provided between the property line and the off-street parking area, with an additional minimum landscaped area of 10 feet required between the parking area and the building. The applicant in this case has proposed using a portion of the right- of-way to meet the 10' landscaping requirement, which would require a variance. Off-street parking areas containing five or more parking spaces' are subject to additional landscaping requirements pursuant to Section 9-12.130. A minimum of 10% of the gross lot area used for off-street parking and access shall be provided in landscaping "...in the interior of the parking area." The Section provides: "The planting areas shall be a minimum size of twenty (20) square feet and distributed throughout the parking area." Given the configuration of the site, and the narrowness of the parking area, the applicant has suggested that he should be credited with landscaping installed along Station Way, and that satisfying the landscaping requirement as stated would be unreasonable. Staff agrees that placement of landscaping areas within the parking lot would unduly hamper circulation within the parking area, and consideration should be given to the applicant's request. Fire safety The applicant has agreed to fully sprinkle all buildings, and to provide up to $10,000 toward the purchase and installation of an Opticon traffic signal controller. The Fire. Department has indicated that this will result in a benefit for fire and public safety. -_..._-,~. Planning Commissi, . CUP No. 98-565 December 1, 1998 Page 9 STAFF ADVISORY COMMIITEE: The revised plans were considered at the Staff Advisory Committee meeting of November 17, 1998. Issues remaining of concern to staff were .identified. The applicant's representative was present, arid discussion ensued regarding these issues. Issues discussed included: areas designated for loading and proposed off-site improvements; landscaping required for the project, including landscaping areas required between the street and parking area and between the parking area and the building; applicant's proposed inclusion of reql,lired landscaping in area to be credited for 10% parking area landscaping requirement; location of right-of-ways and areas of dedication; drainage, and the need for Caltrans approval for drainage to the Caltrans drainage ditch; parking area design and access; retaining wall design; and applicant's proposal to sprinkle the buildings and provide funding for Opticom traffic signal controller. At the conclusion of the meeting, the applicant's representative indicated that the plans most recently submitted should be considered the final plans for the proposed project. The plans before the Planning Commission are, therefore, identical to the plans submitted by the applicant just prior to the Planning Commission meeting of November 4, 1998. ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY COMMllTEE: The AACreviewed the project on May 4, 1998 (see Exhibit H), and approved the design with the following conditions: 1. Continuous sidewalks adjacent to and along the complete length of the buildings. 2. Building colors to closely match Lemos buildings with Old Zinc Grey for roof color. 3. Need loading zone depending on tenant use. 4. Add more surface mounted open lattice work (spaced proportions) to front and rear of buildings. 5. Concrete (textured) crosswalk. 6. Confirm that garbage dumpster had to be moved. PUBLIC COMMENTS: A public notice. was sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project, and a public notice was placed in the Times-Press-Recorder. Staff has not received any comments or correspondence related to the proposed project since the November 4, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, with the exception of the lertter dated November 20, 1998 from Brad Anderson, attached as Exhibit I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and has determined that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was distributed for public review and comment. The close of the public comment period is 5:00 p.m. December 1, 1998. No comments have been received. .--. - Planning Commissi... . CUP No. 98-565 December 1, 1998 Page 10 Attachments: Resolution Denying rhis Item Financial Interest Form Exhibits Exhibit A: Site Plan Exhibit B: Initial Study/Draft Negative Declaration Exhibit C: Minutes for April 28, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Exhibit D: Staff Report for June 2, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Exhibit E: Minutes for June 2, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Exhibit F: Staff Report for November 4, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Exhibit G: Staff letter to Dr. Anderson re: incompleteness, December 29, 1997 Exhibit H: AAC Minutes for May 4, 1998 meeting , Exhibit I: . Letter from Brad Anderson, . Brad Anderson Construction, Inc., dated November 20, 1998 . ; I . . Attachment. J ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Lubin residing. Present are Commissioners Parker, Greene and Keen.. Commissioner Haney is absent. Also in attendance are Community Development Director Jim Hamilton, Contract Planner Tom Buford and Senior Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Letter from John Harrison dated November 10, 1998, including photographs, regarding the . proposed road at the eastern base of Equestrian Way and Noyes Road. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 98-565 APPROVAL TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 27,350 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL OFFICE SPACE; APPUCANT: ROBERT ANDERSON; LOCATION: 200 STATION WAY Associate Planner Tom Buford reviewed the staff report dated December 1, 1998. He reviewed history of the project and prior reviews before the Commission. He noted that the applicant is requesting approval to develop lot 3 of the Village Creek Plaza with four buildings totaling 27,350 square feel Mr. Buford listed major concerns at this time are parking, access and loading, and landscaping issues. He advised that the revised plans were reviewed by the Staff Advisory Committee on November 17, 1998 and by the Architectural Advisory Committee on May 4, 1998. A letter from Brad Anderson, dated November 20, 1998 was the only written communication received in terms of public comments. Mr. Buford advised that environmental review was a mitigated negative declaration and the comment period closed at 5:00 P.M. today, with no comments being received. He stated it is staff' 5 recommendation to deny the pr9ject based on the deficiencies identified on Page 2 of the staff report. In response to Commissioner Greene's question regarding drainage, Mr. BUford advised that it is his understanding, based on the drainage plan and the statements of the applicanfs representative, that the natural drainage on the site is to the south to the Cal Trans drainage ditch. The attempts by the applicant to obtain approval and consent from Cal Trans to accept drainage from the improved site have been unsuccessful. The CC&R's for the project, Page 7, indicate that an easement for drainage purposes was. created over. portions of Parcels 1 and 2 as necessary ....to accommodate the natural storm channel flow within the shopping center...". Staff's concern is that the natural storm channel flow is to the south not to the northwesti, and if the drainage is modified to send it to the northwest, there may be a dispute created with regard to the obligation to accept the drainage at that point He stated that, from staff's perspective. it makes the most sense to have the drainage directed to the Cal Trans drainage ditch as proposed by the applicant. There doesn't A"nr- .-L~~4 N'\O. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2 December 1, 1998 appear to be any sound reason why Cal Trans would not accept. the drainage, however, ~ey have not done so to date. Staff is also aware that there have been continuing concerns expressed by tenants in the shopping center with regard to approval of Parcel 3, and a primary. concern is to have a project approved when there may be a dispute somewhere down the line, and drainage may not be feasible to run in that direction without some sort of legal action. The other' aspect of drainage is adequacy of the drainage facilities on the site at Parcel 2 to accept the drainage from Parcel 3. This has been a concern raised by Public Works, and it has not been demonstrated to their satisfaction that it is adequate to handle the drainage. With regard to the plan utilizing off-site relocation of a parking lot curb to allow additional space for loading and turning, Mr. Buford pointed out that the location for work is on Parcel 2. The applicant has indicated he has the right to do that work based on language in the CC&R's. Mr. Buford stated that staff is not aware of a consent being given by the owner of ParCel 2to allow that work being done, and staff has not been satisfied that the applicant can show clearly that he has the right to go on to Parcel 2 and do the work. Commissioner Parker commented with regard to the Negative Declaration, No.8, stating that "A light source is potentially significant unless mitigated". She pointed. out that there was no mitigation measure listed. Community Development Director Hamilton advised it should have been listed as a mitigation measure to comply with the City Development Standards regarding light fIXtures, cut-off shields, etc., and that can be added at this time. Commissioner Keen commented regarding the sidewalk along the front of the property, stating it is his understanding that is going to be replaced with standard City sidewalks. Senior Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell explained the proposal is that the sidewalk on the frontage of this project would be removed and a full sidewalk would be constructed on the other side of the street. The theory was that would provide a continuous sidewalk all on one side of the street instead of a sidewalk that goes half way down one side of the street and then crosses and continues on the other side of the street. Relating to that, Mr. Campbell advised he has reviewed the documents and found that the right of way does exist and he has contacted some of the owners who have indicated some concerns on their part with that idea. Chair Lubin announced this item is a continued public hearing and invited the applicant to make his presentation. Brad Anderson. representing the applicant, addressed various issues listed in the staff report with regard to drainage, parking, loading docks, sidewalks, setback requirements, aesthetics regarding the metal roof and view of the back side of the building from the freeway. With regard to density of the project, Mr. Anderson pointed out that the Code. allows for up to 45% coverage, and this project is well below the allowable limit. With regard to landscaping, Mr. Anderson advised they are providing landscaping consistent with the existing development and the existing' shopping center that is there, and as he expressed to the Planning Commission last month, the applicant would do whatever needs to be done as a condition of the project with regard to landscaping. ^r-.Dr ~ 'lL~ lnc " Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3 December 1, 1998 Commissioner Parker questioned the ~sability of the six parking spaces in front of Building #4 stating she personally does not believe those spaces will be workable. Mr. Anderson stated h~ beJieves the spaces will be useable and they do meet the development standards of the City. . Mr. Anderson stated that the applicant wants to move on with this project and get it built. It is they're feeling that the project should not be denied on staff's recommendation because they have not provided a compelling argument. Therefore, they are requesting that the project be approved and move forward through the permit process, where cOncerns. raised by staff can be addressed including the drainage, the landscaping and the lighting issues. Mike Miner. Co-owner of Miner's Hardware, stated that tonight is the first time he had heard that the drainage was planned to go through Parcel 2. He advised that last winter during the storms, even though they were only getting drainage from that one section, both Kennedy Nautilus and Roger Dunn experienced flooding on two occasions, and they have pretty strong feelings about the drainage problem. He stated the curb and the sidewalk issue, and the loss of parking are issues that have been going on and on, and now the developer is saying those issues can be solved in the construction process as we go along. Mike Mullahey. Mullahey Ford. stated he had just this afternoon heard about the proposal for the sidewalk and he doesn't like the idea. He stated they are extremely constrained for space right now, and the particular part they are talking about putting a sidewalk on represents about 25 to 30 spaces where they park their new vehicles, and this proposal would be a step in the wrong direction for them. His request to the Commission was to somehow keep the sidewalk on the other side of the street. In response to Commissioner Greene's question regarding ownership of that property, Mr. Mullahey stated the property is owned by his family and they would not choose to put a sidewalk on the property. Anthony Diaz. stated he owns one of the businesses in the shopping center, noting that there are a lot of seniors that come into the center and the parking is really beneficial for them because of the easy access. He stated he is concerned that the parking spaces in his section will be used for other businesses, and it would be harder for his customers to find parking close to his business. Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chair Lubin closed the public hearing and reserved further comments to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Greene stated notwithstanding the merits the project has ancl .the need for the Village to continue to develop retail and office space facilities, he cannot in good conscience go forward with the project in view of the strong and valid objections raised by the City staff. He commented that staff doesn't often raise these kinds of objections and. when they do, he tries to pay careful attention to them. . . Commissioner Parker stated at. this point there are issues that have come back again and again; they are the same issues and they still need to be addressed. She commented that there are many issues involved and many of them were concerns when the applicant first brought the project to the Commission a year ago. They haven't been solved ln a year's Anaya Grande Planning Commission Page 4 December 1, 1998 time, and it seems unlikely that all of a sudden during construction, they afe going to be taken care of. She stated her concerns that lighting femains a problem, parking remains a big problem, the ramp is a problem, and drainage may Of may not be a problem, depending on what can be worked out. Also, the sidewalk may.or may not be a problem depending upon what can be worked out, and since Mr. Mullahey's testimony, this becomes a whole different issue. She commented she would like to see the project back here in a month if concerns could be worked out, and she would nate to see it thrown aside because of issues that she feels could still be worked out Commissioner Keen stated he believes the two loading docks are necessary because the prQject is strung out, however, he didn't think they needed to be as drastic because, in his opinion; the use will be mostly office space. He further stated he does have a problem with the sidewalk situation because there needs to be a sidewalk on one side of the street or the other as far into the project as possible to Fair Oaks Avenue. He also commented regarding an issue that was brought up sometime ago referring to stamped conaete crosswalks. He stat~d he has observed people in wheelchairs having a difficult time trying . to cross that type of walk. He further stated he has a problem regarding the drainage going . into the other property as far as the CC&R's afe concemed. Also, he stated that the grading plan needs to be established before plan . check. Regarding landscaping, Commissioner Keen stated if it becomes necessary, he would be in favor of eliminating some landscaping on the front property line to get a sidewalk in there. Chair Lubin stated, in his opinion, the project is acceptable according to Code; the size of the project is acceptable and it is a good project. The items listed by staff are of a semi- minor nature and can be dealt with on an individual basis. He stated he prefers that the landscaping plan be contiguous with the existing project and doesn't believe the new code should be the requirement for landscaping, street tree easements, sidewalks, etc., because it puts a jog in the project and does not match. If a variance is necessary so that the project is contiguous and looks good then, in his opinion, that is acceptable. He commented that. each item by itself is insignificant and can be .mitigated in some form or anothef. He stated this project is continuously bumping heads with the other property owners and. City staff, instead of resolving the issues. He noted the owners of Parcel 2 have to be dealt with in terms of water flow, parking and the curb issue on the loading dock. There are also property owners involved on the sidewalk issue. All of the issues are still pending and it is necessary that these be resolved before the City approves the project. With regard to th~ parking issue, Chair Lubin stated he doesn't think this issue is going to be resolved any time soon and, in his opinion, the Commission is going to have to take a stand one way or anoth.er at some point, and eventually the issue will have to be resolved by th~ property owners. There being no further comments, the following action was taken: _.,--,.._-~,-.---,.- . . . Arroyo Grande Planning Commission AttachRlent K December 1, 1998 RESOLUTION NO. 98-1676 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-565 APPLIED FOR BY ROBERT ANDERSON, LOCATED AT 200 STATION WAY (VILLAGE CREEK PLAZA) On motion by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: . AYES: Commissioners Greene, Parker and Lubin NOES: Commissioner Keen ABSENT: Commissioner Haney The foregoing resolution was adopted this 1 st day of December 1998. Chair Lubin advised that this matter could be appealed to the City Council within 10 days. PUBLIC HEARING - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM (PSP), CASE NO. 98-128 AND VARIANCE CASE NO. 98-212, APPLICANT: SIZZLER RESTAURANT; LOCATION: 1170'W. BRANCH STREET Community Development Director Hamilton reviewed the staff report dated December 1, 1998. He advised that the Sizzler site is located adjacent to the Five Cities Center. In 1986 the Sizzler received approvals from the Architectural Review Committee for the existing building and associated signs. Four signs were approved totaling approximately 145 square feet, and included a double-faced monument sign and three parapet mounted wall signs. Mr. Hamilton advised that the applicant is requesting a modification to the sign program; they would like to add an additional 32 square foot sign on the northeast facing elevation. As a result of the Five Cities Center, a redesign of the circulation and parking around this property necessitated that on the existing monument sign be relocated. They are also planning to re-face all of the signs as part of a corporate identity change and they will be replacing the sign faces in each of the parapet mounted wall signs. Mr. Hamilton noted that under the current zoning ordinance, this project would not meet the standards for the number of wall signs. The monument sign is conforming and does meet. the current standards for size, height, location, etc. However, under the current ordinance, they would only be allowed two wall signs; they currently have three, and the additional sign would make four wall signs on the property. The sign ordinance requires before any additional signs can be approved where there are non-conforming signs, all signs must be brought into conformance with the City's Sign Ordinance or a Variance must be approved. In this case a Planned Sign Program and Variance have been applied for. He stated that the Architectural Advisory Committee has reviewed the project and have made their recommendation for approval to allow the additional sign and to approve the overall sign package establishing a Planned Sign Program for the Sizzler Restaurant. J!.t'~QC_1 ?/1 /Q~ Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 6 December 1, 1998 After a brief discussion between staff and the Commission, Chair Lubin opened the hearing for public comments. Richard Herman. Architect for the Project, stated that as Mr. Hamilton pointed out, they currently have more signs than would be allowed by the ordinance. He advised that owner has gone through a lot of negotiations with the developer of the center and a lot of consideration was given to design a way that the restaurant would look tied in with the center. One of the ways they came up with to try deal with this was to change the entry, however, it was determined that this would be economically unfeasible. Another idea to make the restaurant look related to the center was to Modify the look of the rear of the re~taurant. The service entrance area was changed to make it look a lot more decorative, and also it is felt that the addition of the sign at the rear of the restaurant lets the rest of the people in the center know there is a restaurant there. He commented that one of the concerns expressed by the Architectural Advis.ory Committee was the visibility of this sign from the northwest behind Wal-Mart. He stated with all that will be going on in the center, such as lights, etc., he did not think the 32 square foot sign would have any significance from beyond the boundaries of the parking "lot. Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chair Lubin closed the public hearing and restricted further comments to the Commission. Commissioner Keen stated he was over there last Sunday in the parking Jot on the Wal- Mart side and it was his feeling that even though this is going to exceed the amount of signs that are allowed, that side of the building is so bleak, that this sign will enhance and improve the appearance of that side of the building. He stated he hesitates to -approve this many signs, however, in this case is seems appropriate. Commissioner Parker agreed that side of the building would benefit by having a sign and it would help tie the building in to the Five Cities Center. She stated she does have a problem with adding an extra sign and she doesn't think four signs are necessary. She also doesn't feel it is necessary for Sizzler to have two signs on West Branch Street advertising the restaurant. She suggested one sign could be located on either the western side or the southern side, .and they could choose to change one of those signs and put it towards the back of the building so people in the Five Cities Center could see there is a restaurant and where it is located. Commissioner Greene pointed out that the ground sign cannot be seen when traveling east on the freeway heading towards the project. but you can see the parapet sign on the side of the building facing the Levitz store. He stated that normally he would have a concern about the proliferation of signs, but the ground sign is an identifying feature only for those who are essentially right next to it. He also agreed with Commissioner Keen that the back side of the building does need a sign because the Sizzler needs to be identified for people who are parked behind it and are patronizing the rest of the center. He stated he is prepared to support the applicant's application for a variance, and he is not sure that removing the AGPC. 12/1198_ ---~-_.".~- -~ -~_._-- Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 7 December 1, 1998 parapet sign on the West Branch side of the building is necessarily going to make any significant diffarence in terms of aesthetic appearance. Chair Lubin stated he supports the additional signage and would support the resolution. He stated he looked at the site and agreed that the building needs something "on the back, and since it is a small sign, it will not be visually obtrusive to the people across the way. He also commented that the Sizzler Restaurant has been there for a long time and, in his opinion, deserves the City's support. After a brief discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 98-1677 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY" OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE SIZZLER PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM 98-128 AND VARIANCE 98-212 APPLIED FOR BY SIZZLER, INC., LOCATED AT 1170 WEST BRANCH STREET On motion by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Keen, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Greene and Lubin NOES: Commissioner Parker ABSENT: Commissioner Haney The foregoing resolution was adopted this 1 st day of December 1998. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 98-213, REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE ON A SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE; APPLICANT: SUSAN P. FLORES; LOCATION: 529 E. BRANCH STREET Associate Planner Tom Buford reviewed the staff report. He advised that the applicant is seeking a variance to permit the construction of a garage, approximately 12' x 28' in size on the northeast portion of the lot. He stated that" the applicant is requesting a variance from the interior side yard setback of 5', rear yard setback of 20' and minimum distance between buildings of 10'. The maximum permitted lot coverage is 40%; the applicant's lot is approximately 4,000 square feet in area. The lot coverage for the residence and garage would total approxima.tely 1,540 square feet for ~ lot coverage of 38.5%. Mr. Buford stated to the right of the proposed garage is a cement block retaining wall and a planter on the other side of the wall. There is also a fence or hedge along the wall, so there is an additional height along there between this property and the property to the east He stated he spoke to Lori Quinn at 531 East Branch and she had expressed some concerns regarding light and drainage from the project. Also, Mr. Quinn expressed some concern that their home would be only 4-1/2 feet from the garage if it were constructed in this AlToyo Grande Planning Commission Page 8 December 1, 1998 location. Mr. Buford advised some comments had been received regarding the residence at the rear of this property, and that residence has a deck which comes very close to the property line. Also, coming off the deck are some windows leading into one of the rooms of the home, and that would be fairly close to the rear lot line. Mr. Buford referred to the garage at the residence at 531 East Branch Street, stating it also appears to be at or very near the lot line. He commented that one the relevant issues for granting a variance are the privileges enjoyed by the surrounding properties. There is some relevance to the fact that the lots at this end of the block are smaller than lots elsewhere. One of the concerns raised had to do with the type of construction to ~ used in the garage and concerns about fire safety. The type of construction materials regarding fire safety is normally determined by the Building Department at the time the building permit is issued. After discussion between staff and the Commission, Chair Lubin opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission. Susan P. Flores, 529 East Branch Street. owner of the subject property, described the property, the plans for the proposed garage, and the location of retaining walls and planters on the property. She stated she had talked to the Building Department and was informed she will either have to put a mncrete wall in, or a two-hour fire. With regard to the house to the rear of her property, she advised the house is 6 feet behind the wall and the deck will be about even with the peak of the roof. The block wall that is back there has a fence on top and is approximately 8-112' high. She advised that the deck in the back actually sits above her and is above her retaining wall and fence, so there is no imposition on them whatsoever. There being no further comments from the audience, Chair Lubin closed the public hearing and restricted further comments to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Greene stated he was unable to visit the site, however, he believes the request has some merit but would feel more comfortable. going to the site before making a decision. Commissioner Keen stated since the applicant is basically going to have a single car garage with a little work space, what would be the possibility of shortening the garage to the . standard single car length and putting the extra length to the left, and it would possibly center in that space a little better. Ms. Flores stated if she were to extend as suggested, she would lose all aesthetics in the back there, and also the cost factor would be prohibitive. Commissioner Parker stated she has some real concerns about this request and cannot agree to this project the way it is set up without some kind of change. She commented, in her opinion, the close proximity to the building next door and the fact that it is someone's home, and the garage is going to be 3 feet from this home, is too close even with a two hour fire wall. She commented she did not have a problem with the zero lot line in the back, the height of the garage, or the 40% coverage, what she is worried about is the fire hazard and putting this garage so close to an existing home. An-oyo Grande Planning Commission Page 9 December 1, 1998 Chair Lubin stated he likes the project, it is the only way to get a garage on the property, and if it is built to code the proper fire protection will be there. Hearing no further discussion, the following action was taken: . RESOLUTION NO. 98-1678 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING VARIANCE CASE NO. 98-213 APPLIED FOR BY SUSAN P. FLORES AT 529 EAST BRANCH STREET On motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Greene, and by the . following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Greene and Lubin NOES: Commissioner Parker ABSENT: Commissioner Haney The foregoing resolution was adopted this 1 st day of December 1998. DISCUSSION ITEMS - None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Campbell briefly reviewed the issues referred to in the letter from John Harrison, dated November 10, 1998, regarding the proposed road at the eastern base of Equestrian Way and Noyes Road. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP REPORTS Community Development Director Hamilton advised that the theater sign is going to be relocated on the property shortly. He noted the sign itself will not be changed and is only being relocated. Chair Lubin noted that there was a lot of discussion during the approval process of the Wal-Mart project sometime ago that Rancho Parkway would not be closed for any length of time, and it has now been closed for a significant period of time. He asked when Rancho Parkway was scheduled to be re-opened. Senior Consultant Engineer Campbell advised he has the exact date of the re-opening in his office and would send Chair Lubin that. information. Mr. Hamilton advised that the Rite-Aid CUP application will be coming before the Commission at their meeting of December 15, 1998 and possibly the Rodeo Heights EIR will be on the agenda for certification. In regards to the James Way Annexation, Mr. Hamilton advised that a public hearing on this item would be held at the first meeting in January. ADJOURNMENT AGPC 1?/1I9R ______. AlToyo Grande Planning 'Commission Page 10 December 1, 1998 There bein~ no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Greene, and unanimously carried. ATTEST: Pearl L. Phinney, Commission Clerk Sandy Lubin, Chair AS TO CONTENT: Jim Hamilton, AICP Community Development Director Attachment L . . CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CON'l\1MtJNITY DEVELOPl\1ENT DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR VILLAGE CREEK PLAZA PROJECf, CONDmONAL USE PERMIT 98-565, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 98-548 '0 WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: 'he Community Development has prepared Negative Declaration pursuant to Section 15083 of the State Iuidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. The issuance of a Negative )eclaration affinns our opinion that there are no significantly adverse unavoidable impacts associated with the roposed project, and the project does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (ErR). ~he a~ached Initial StudylNegative Declaration fonn identifies and discusses potential impa~ mitigation, and ~sidual impact for identified subject areas. Specific mitigation measures and monitoring language are included in he issue area discussions. >UBLIC COl\1MENTS: ;taffwill accept written or oral comments on the adequacy of the information contained in the Draft Negative )eclaration during the public review pe.riod. Please make sure that written comments reach this office by 5:00 ).m. on May 29, 1998, the close of the public review period. The DRAFTND' and all documents referenced in he ND may be reviewed at our office. A public hearing will be held on the project before the Planning :ommission om June 2, 1998. PROJECf DESCRIPTION: The project consists of a proposed lot split and construction offour buildings for commercial use. Building I would be 7,900 sq. ft.; Building II 7,275 sq. ft.; Building ill 8,550 sq. ft.; and Building IV 3,525 sq. ft. The project also includes adjacent parking area totaling 115 spaces, loading areas, pedestrian walkways and landscaping. \.--'" PROJECf LOCATION: 100 Station Way, City of Arroyo Grande, CA (see attached map) CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE INITIAL STUDY ; , ... . ,. PROJECT: Village Creek Promenade : LEAD AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS: City of Arroyo Grande P.O. Box 550/214 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 . CONTACT PERSON & PHONE #: Lezley Buford, Contract Planner, 473-5420 . PROJECT LOCATION: 201 Station Way, Arroyo.Grande, CA . PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME & Dr. Robert Anderson ADDRESS: 201 Station Way Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 . . GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial . ZONING: General Commercial (CG) i. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: rhe proposed project consists of a lot split and construction offour buildings for commercial use. Building I vould be 7,900 sq. ft.; Building IT 7,275 sq. ft.; Building ill 8,550 sq. ft.; and Building IV 3,525 sq. ft. The )roject also includes adjacent parking area totaling 115 spaces, loading areas, pedestrian walkways and andscaping. The project site is a vacant parcel, and is generally flat. The parcel is within the urbanized area of the City of Arroyo Grande. Neighboring land uses are as follows: ~orth: Commercial buildings (Village Creek I & IT) South: Fair Oaks Avenue, single family residences and highway commercial West: Highway 101, agricultural; uses East: Commercial (automobile dealership), United States PoSt office )ETERMINATION. )n the basis of this initial evaluation: . . -- I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prep~ed. X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ~nnnL'\1I.T1\A"C1\JTA T ThIfP ArT "RT:'P()~T i<: rpnl1irprf Potentially Lcs 11uzn :Ssues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potcrtially SignifICant Significant SignifICant Unless 1mpad No Impact Kdigirt~d lmpad [. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or X zoning? (source #(s): 1,2,3,4) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (source #(s): 1,6,7) X c) Affect " agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (source #(s): 9,11) X d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (source #(s): 2,4,11) X II. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the proposal: " a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (source #(s): 1,5,9) X b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? .X (source #(s): 9,10) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (source #(s): 9,10,11) X DI. 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? (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? " (source #(s): 10) X t) Subsidence ofland? (source #(s): 5,6) X. g) Expansive soils? (source #(s): 5,6) X h) Unique geologic or physical features? (source X' #(s): 5,6,10,11) IV. WATER: Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (source X #(s): 10) P'--'dia/ly Less 11ian ;sues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Signijiamt Signij;amJ SignifICant Unless- Impad ND . 1mI'm Kdigated Impact 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 X of swface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? (source #(s): 9) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (source #(s): 9,10) X e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (source#(s): 9,10) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either . -. .. through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X (source #(s): 9,10) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (source #(s): 9,10) X h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (source #(s): X 9,10) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of X water otherwise available for public water supplies? (source #(s): 6) 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/CJRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X (source #(s): 13) b) Hazards to safety trom design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or X incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (source #(s): 9,10) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to X nearby sites? (source #(s): 9,10) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (source #(s): 3,9,10) X e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (<!!^"yo"'... III <!! \. 0 1 n\ X Polen , LG$ T1uzn Cssues (and Supporting Infonnatiou Sources): PotentialIy Signl/h._d Signifr&ant Signiftu:ld Unless Impact 'No Impad Mitigated Impad t) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (source #(s): 9,10) X VB. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) .Endangered, threatened or rare species or their X habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (source #(s): 6) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? (sourc~ #(s): 10,11) X c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., .. . .- .X,- oak forest, coastal habitat)? (source #(s): 10,11) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal X pool)? -. - ~ (source #(s): 9,11) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X (source #(s): 11) VID. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X (source #(s): 1,6) 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 substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? X (source #(s): 9) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X, (source #(s): 9,10) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (source #(s): 9,10) X d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (source #(5): 9,10,11) X e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (source #(s): 10,11) u . X X. NOISE. Would the proposal result ill: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (source #(s): X 1,9) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X (source #(5): 9,10) XL PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have .... .. .._H..... . .............._..__ .. ..... ..' ...... . . .~. _U... ............ ..._...-._....... .......:........... _..__. ..... '.' an effect upon, or result in a ,,~ed 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) e) Other governmental services? (source #(s): 6) X ~ UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a needfor new systems, or substantial alterations to the following .... utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (source #(s): 9,10) X b) Communications systems? (source #(s): 9,10) X c) Local or regional water treatment or distnoution ,X facilities? (source #(s): 6) , d) Storm water drainage? (source #(s): 6) X , e) Solid waste disposal? (source #(s): 6) X XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X (source #(s): 1,10,11) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X (source #(s): 9,10,11) c) Create light or glare? (source #(s): 9,10) X XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (source #(s): X ~ID ' b) Disturb archaeological resources (source #(s): X 6,11 ) c) Affect historical resources? (source #(s): 6,11) X d) Have the potential to cause a physical change X which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (source #(s): 11) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (source #(s): 10,11) X XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? X (source #(s): 1,3) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (source #(s): 1,5) X VVT M A NT) A Tn1?V 'JITNT\TN't:~ nl? SIGNIFICANCE. " a) Does .the project have the ~ "~ntial to degrade, X the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species. cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels. threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or ". prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-tenn, to the disadvantage oflong-term, environmental goals? X c) Does the project have impacts that are, individual1y limited, 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 X probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects X which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? I I I I . . . I I ... .... ......_..~~..J.J_..""""...... OURCE LIST: . City of Arroyo Grande General Plan .. . City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Land Use Map . City of Arroyo Grande Development Code ~.' City of Arroyo Grande Zoning Map i. City of Arroyo <;3rande Existing Setting and Community Issues Report ). City of Arroyo Grande General Plan EIR 7. Air pollution Control District Clean Air Plan 1. FEMA - Flood Insurance,Rate Map ~. Project Description to. Project Plans ',1. Site Inspection " 2. Ordinance 431 C. S. 3.Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. . - -' . ,. J . :XPLANATIONS: 1/. Air Qualitv - Grading and site preparation would result in the generation of dust and contribute to PM10 in the area. This impact could be mitigated through implementation of the following measure. Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless.mitigated. Mitigation Measure: 1. .Dust generated by the development activities shaU be kept 0 a minimum with a goal of retaining dust on the site. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or Transportation of cut or fill materials~ water trucks or sprinkler systems are to be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities cease. V. Water - Development of the proposed project would require water for both domestic use and landscape irrigation. The water consumption by'this project would further reduce the City's supply of available water. This impact could be mitigated through conservation and the development and implementation of an individual water neutr~lization program. Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated. Mitigation Measures: 2. All new construction shall utilize fixtures and designs that minimize water usage~ Such fixtures shall include,. but are not limited .to, low flow shower heads, water saving toilets, instant water heaters and hot water recirculating systems. . Water conserving designs and fixtures shall be installed prior to final occupancy. Monitoring: Review of building plans Responsible Department Building and Fire Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of a building. permit 3. All landscaping shall be consistent with water conservation practices including the use of drought tolerant landscaping, drip irrigation, and mulch. To the greatest extent possible, lawn areas and areas requiring spray irrigation shall be minimized. Monitoring: Review of landscaping plans Responsible Department: Parks ana Recreation Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of a building permit 4. The applicant shall provide for review and approval by the City Council, an individual water program that will propose mitigating measures to neutralize projected water demand for the project. As part of the water program, the City Council may adjust projected water demand based upon proposed water conservation measures or other factors that decrease use of City water supplies. The approved program must- be implemented or bonded for, prior to issuance of building permits. Monitoring: Review of water conservation plans Responsible Department: Public Works Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permits I. DrainaQe - Development of the proposed proiect would increase thA vnh rmA nf c:"rf~,..o:> ~..n",ff . . from the site. This run may contain pollutants from parkir Ireas. . . Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated Mitigation Measure 5. All runoff water from impervious areas shall be conveyed by impervious conduits to existing drainage facilities. drainage plan' which incorporates the above shall be submitted to t the City prior to the issuance of any permits. . Monitoring: Review of drainage/grading plans Responsible Department: Public Works Department. Timeframe: Prior to issuance of a grading permit i. Traffic - The proposed project woulfd contribute new vehicle trips. Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated. Mitigation Measure: 6. The applicant shall pay the City's Traffic and Signalization impact fee (based on the adopted fee at thetime of building permit issuance). Currently, this fee is $1,076 per 1 ,000 square feet of building area. Monitoring: Condition of approval on plans Responsible Department: Public Works Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permits. '" Noise - The project is adjacent to an arterial street and there are no sensitive land uses within about 500 feet of the site. Therefore, operations are not expected to significantly increase noise levels for sensitive land uses. However, all operations shall comply with the City's Noise Ordinance.:, ~ Cultural Resources - The site is located in close proximity to a recorded archaeological site. The site was previously graded and there is no evidence of the existence of potential cultural resources. However, because the site is located near a known the following mitigation sahli be implemented. Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated Mitigation Measure: 7. The following note shall be placed on the grading and improvement plans for the project: Uln the event that during' grading, construction or development of the project, archeological resources are uncovered, all work shall be halted until the resources are reviewed to determine their significance. If human remains (burials) are encountered, the County Coroner (781-4513) shall be contacted immediately. The applicant may be required to provide archaeological studies an/or additional mitigation measures as . required by , California Environmental Quality At '. archaeological resources are found on the slte~ n Monitoring: Review of grading plans and site visits by the Public Works Inspector Responsible Department: Public Works, Building Departments Timeframe: Prior to issuance of. a grading permit and during site grading - .- . . . . . .. . . ... . . . . . . G' . . . . . . . . . ::::::'-~\';A: :::::.'::::::. ............. .. .... .....--.. ........... ... .. .. -.-...-.- .. ....:...........-...... .-. ....... ....."::...... ~ .. .. w...... ..- .-.... ........... -.. .-...-... w. -... -.- ... -.:- .-. G' ...... ...... 1. . .\........ .~.:.:.~.:-F.F.>::.. ,.~-... '.. ,...... .. ...... ........ .. .. . .. .... .. , .. .. .. .. .. .. ... -.-... .; -, . . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. ...... .. . ............. . - '. .. .... . . .. . , .' . ., . - . .. .... .. .. , ' . ., .- .. ,. . '. . -.. .. . .-....... .. ..... .. ' ,- .... ...... . '.- . . " .................... .. .... ............. .... ~':::."~:::' ::::.. :::::.-:: :::::::: .-1:. ::: :'. :: ::::::~:f-tf::---:':': .::- -:: - .. .. . .. q q ...........!fn...... .. ..... n.... .___ ..__. _ .___ .. .. .. ' . 'p - .:. :.:-: .:. :.:.:.:. :.:.: .:. :.:~:.:.:.:.: .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.] I ,,-.. ~--""'-'-'I -- --..-..---.----. ., ...,....... .. r::::::::::~~:::::::::::::~::~::_::.~::=:=:=:::::~:::::::::::~:-. ".:.:.: - -:-~..' >::':..1. \, - ........................-...... . . . . - . - . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . n . ., ';::. .:..................:. .:: :::: :::::. -:]I! ...--... ( ( Attachment M &6J: BRAD ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION, INC. November 20, 1998 City of Arroyo Grande ' . ,-. .. -, '..1 ".- ~ . ; . . Mr. Jim Hamilton COli1mun;~j ,) ::.".i:._.;.-:,:;~t O~~~;:. P.O. Box 550 ~J;j :j 1998 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Re: Village Creek Professional Dear Jim, Attached please find seven copies of the above-mentioned project for your review and distribution to the Planning Commission. These plans are the last set that will be submitted for review, and they are unchanged' from the set submitted on October 30, 1998. We take exception to most of the planning commissions statements of November 41h. This project was approved in concept and design by the MC on May 4, 1998. The project retains the style and~Architecture of the existing development to the north and east. The Parking requirements were outlined in staff's report of June 2, 1998 and set the parking count at 109. We have provided that amount of parking. Mr. Miners argument regarding existing parking is not vaiid, as commented by Ms. Buford and your City attorney in the same staff report, therefore we will provide the 109 parking spaces &s required by the development code and no more. .. As for the question of the density of the project, we an~ at either 22% or 29%, depending on were you count the square footage. I.e.: property line or ROW. Either way, we are dignificantly less than the 45% allowed by the development code. The build out of the neighboring properties is at least 35% at Miners and in the case of the Car lot on the Corner of Fair Oaks and Station Way it is at 100% density. The landscaping for this lJruJect is aiso in excess of which is already installed on the rest of the previous de'v"elopm-=3nt. We removed the Concrete promenade across the front of the project and added considerable landscaping in ifs place whid, abuts the parking lot and provides more than the 10% required for parking areas. vVe a:e requesting that a staff recommend approval of this project as it is in compliance with the development code. We have been delayed by several months, justifying items that are already consistent with the code and were on the plans. If you have any questions, please feel free to call at anytime. Cc: Bce f'_,cerson, Jerry Weaver, Esq., and Bob Hunt pn ~n)( 111=;1 ~I:u::jnYn r-D^"lnl= rl1 0':1L!'.J1 .. Qn~.AQq-L1C::;7C::;.. j:^',( QnE:;J1QQ.JI-:J':1E:; --"~" ~ . Attachment N Miner's RECEIVED CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE 1056 Grand Ave .. 9.~ JAH 29~ PH, t; 51 Grover Beach, CA 93433 TEL: 805-489-2931 Hardware FAX: 805-489-2971 January 19, 1999 Arroyo Grande City Council City of Arroyo Grande 214 East Branch Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 RE: Anderson Project Dear Council Members: I urge you to uphold the AG Planning Commission's denial of CUP 98..565 (Anderson's Project). My reasons for this request fall into two areas: first parking and deliveries and second Anderson's almost complete refusal to listen to either City Staff or the Planning Commission. A brief discussion of both areas follows. Parking & Deliveries Anderson's property lies within the Village Creek Plaza (VCP) which consists of 4 parcels that are joined through cross parking easements and CC&R's. I am deeply con~ that Anderson's Project, as currently envisioned, would cause serious parking problems for the entire VCP for the following reasons: . 27 Spaces on Anderson's Project are required for other VCP parcels (CUP 85-389). Anderson seeks to "double count" these spaces as part of his project. . Development on the North end of Station Way has required the removal. of all off-street parking. I believe that Anderson's development on the Southern end of Station will have the same result thereby further reducing the total available parking for the entire VCP. The Phase I development of VCP (Miner's & Video Choice Buildings) had poorly designed delivery facilities that continue to cause problems and defy solutions.' Anderson's project seeks to repeat these past mistakes by not providing adequate delivery facilities in his new development. Anderson Won't Listen Before Anderson purchased the parcel he was warned in writing by the seller that there were serious parking issues and concerns. In early 1998 Anderson submitted preliminary plans to City Staff for a 27,000+ sq.ft. project. Not liking what Staff had to say Anderson approached the Planning Commission on April 21, 1998. Among the Commission's comments was the statement - r by a majority of the board that the size of the project was too big. Anderson returned to the Commission two additional times with virtually the same 27,000+ sq.ft. project. Each time the Commission told him that among other problems, such as landscaping, delivery and drainage, that the project was too big. On December 1, 1998 Anderson approached the Planning Commission for the fourth and last time. Instead of making the required changes Anderson "resubmitted the same 27,000+ sq.ft. project along with a letter that read in part "...These plans are the last set that will be submitted for review, and they are unchanged trom the set submitted on October 30, 1998." For obvious reasons the Planning Commission then voted to deny AndersOn's CUP # 98-565. While Anderson continually states that he has tried to work with the City and has made countless modifications and compromises, the facts simply do not support this view. . It is clear that Anderson has no intention of working with City Staff, nor of solving the problems identified by VCP or the Planning Commission. I therefore respectfully request that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's denial of Anderson's Project. Sincerely, tM~ Mike Miner ~--- --,-.- - ----- .....-..----- 9... MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: LYNDA K. SNODGRASS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES SUBJECT: CASH DISBURSEMENT RA TIFICA TION DATE: JANUARY 26, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for the period January 1 - January 15, 1999. FUNDING: There is a $434,528.85 fiscal impact. DISCUSSION: The attached listing represents the cash disbursements required of normal and usual operations. It is requested that the City Council approve these payments. ATTACHMENTS: ATTACHMENT A - Cash Disbursement Listing ATTACHMENT B - January 1, 1999 Accounts Payable Check Register ATTACHMENT C - January 8,1999 Accounts Payable Check Register ATTACHMENT 0 - January 15,1999 Accounts Payable Check Register ATTACHMENT E - January 15, 1999 Payroll Checks and Payroll Benefit Checks -- CI1Y OF ARROYO GRANDE INDEX FOR BUDGET DEPARTMENTS EDEN COMPUTER SYSTEM GENERAL FUND (010) SPEGAL REVENUE FUNDS City Government (Fund 010) Pad< Development Fee Fund (Fund 213) 4001 - City Council 4550 - Park Development Fee 4002 - City Oerk Traffic Signal Fund (Fund 222) 4003 - City Attorney 4501 - Traffic Fbnd 4101 - City Manager Transportation Fund (Fund 225) 4102 - Printing/Duplicating 4553 - Public Transit System 4120 - Finandal Services Construction Tax Fund (Fund 230) 4121 - Taxes/ Insurance/ Bonds 4556 - Construction Tax 4130 - Community Development Police Grant Fund (Fund 271) 4131 - Community Building (CDBG) 4202 - State AB3229 Cops Grant 4140 - Management Information System 4203 - Federal COPS Hiring Grant 4145 - Non Departmental 4204 - Federal Local Law Enforcement Public Safety (Fund 010) 4201 - Police ENTERPRISE FUNDS 4211 - Fire Sewer Fund (Fund 612) 4212 - Building & Safety 4610 - Sewer Maintenance 4213 - Government Buildings Water Fund (Fund 640) Public Works (Fund 010) 4710 - Water Administration 4301 - Public Works-Admin & Engineering 4711 - Water Production 4303 - Street/Bridge Maintenance 4712 - Water Distribution 4304 - Street Lighting Lopez Administration (Fund 641) 4305 - Automotive Shop 4750 - Lopez Administration Parks & Recreation (Fund 010) 4420 - Parks CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 4421 - Recreation 5501-5599 - Park Projects 4422 - General Recreation 5601-5699 - Streets Projects 4423 - Pre-School Program 5701-5799 - Drainage Projects 4424 - Recreation-Spedal Programs 5801-5899 - Water/Sewer/Street Projects 4425 - Children in Motion 5901-5999 - Water Projects 4430 - Soto Sport Complex 4460 - Parkway Maintenance Deft. Index for CoundLxIs -~.~_...- ATTACHMENT A CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CASH DISBURSEMENTS *JM t4e PeWut ot ~., 7~ ~ 15, 1999 January 26,1999 Presented are the cash disbursements issued by the Department of Financial Services for the period January 1 to January 15, 1999. Shown are cash disbursements by week of occurrence and type of payment. January 1, 1999 Accounts Payable Cks #88444-88500 B $ 25,371.19 January 8, 1999 Accounts Payable Cks # 88505-88583 C 101,284.88 January 15, 1999 Accounts Payable Cks #88584-88703 D 67,168.63 Payroll Checks and Payroll Benefit Checks E 240,704.15 307,872.78 Three Week Total i434.528.6~ . _.__n_ ATTACHMENT B VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 1 12/29/98 08:26 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 20 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 88444 01/01/99 000234 A << R WELDING SUPPLY OXYGEN CYLINDER 010.4211.5206 13,00 13.00 88445 01/01/99 100897 AMERICAN TEMPS HAWORTH SVCS-12/11 284.4103,5303 502.40 502.40 88446 01/01/99 005772 ARROYO GRANDE COMM. HOS PHYSICAL-GRAVES 010.4211,5324 161. 50 161.50 88447 01/01/99 013026 BRISCO MILL << LUMBER V-BELTS 220.4303.5613 2.90 2.90 88448 01/01/99 017030 CA.SPECIALIZED TRNG.INS DISPATCHER REGIS-MILTON 010.4201,5501 225.00 225.00 88449 01/01/99 018018 CA.ST,DEPT.GENERAL SVCS L/DIST.PHONE 010.4145.5403 104.52 104.52 88450 01/01/99 018330 CA,ST,DEPT.OF JUSTICE FINGER PRINTS 010.4425.5255 134.00 134.00 88451 01/01/99 018876 CA. ST. DEPT. TRANSPORTATI 10/98-SIGNAL/LIGHTING MAINT 010,4304.5303 72.46 88451 01/01/99 018876 CA,ST,DEPT.TRANSPORTATI 10/98-SIGNAL/LIGHTIN ELEC 010.4304,5402 107.37 179.83 88452 01/01/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET LUBE/OIL/FILTER/SVCS-PD943 010.4201. 5601 36.05 88452 01/01/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET SMOG TEST-PW4 220,4303.5601 24.95 88452 01/01/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET SMOG TEST-PW 16 220.4303.5601 24.95 85.95 88453 01/01/99 024180 COAST NUT << BOLT BOLTS/NUTS 640.4712.5610 196.26 196.26 88454 01/01/99 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220.4303,5307 10.25 88454 01/01/99 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220.4303.5307 69.75 80.00 88455 01/01/99 024832 COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS REPR,ANTENNA SYS-LIFT #1 612.4610.5610 145,08 88455 01/01/99 024832 COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS REPR.ANTENNA SYS LIFT #6 612.4610,5610 180.08 325.16 88456 01/01/99 025428 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL TIMER/LIGHTS 010.4213.5604 131.14 131,14 88457 01/01/99 026286 CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL LAB CCTC WATER SAMPLES 640.4710.5310 105.00 105.00 88458 01/01/99 026754 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER C BOTTLED WATER 010.4001. 5201 15.00 88458 01/01/99 026754 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER C BOTTLED WATER 010.4421. 5201 35.00 50.00 88459 01/01/99 027534 D,G,REPAIR PUMP SEAL-P28 010,4420.5601 155.22 155,22 88460 01/01/99 100896 LISA DEL VAGLIO REIMB.MILEAGE-DEL VAGLIO 010.4425.5255 66.65 66.65 88461 01/01/99 027456 DFM ASSOCIATES 99 CALIF,ELECTION CODES 010.4002.5506 41. 04 41. 04 88462 01/01/99 029484 DIESELRO INC, REPL,HYDRO.FILTERS/LUBE 640.4712.5601 413.04 413.04 88463 01/01/99 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES SUBSCRIPTION-1/1/2000 010.4201,5503 42.00 88463 01/01/99 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES LEGAL 829 010.4130.5301 81. 00 88463 01/01/99 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES LEGAL 830 010.4130.5301 67.50 88463 01/01/99 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES LEGAL 831 010.4130.5301 54.00 244.50 88464 01/01/99 035802 FRANK'S LOCK << KEY INC DUP KEYS 010.4305.5601 4.83 4.83 ------._----- ---- ~ . VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 2 12/29/98 08:26 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 20 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 88465 01/01/99 100700 G << M MOBILE SERVICE REPR.HYDRO ELECT. HOIST 640.4712.5303 910.59 910.59 88466 01/01/99 038376 GRAND AUTO PARTS WIPER BLADES 220.4303.5601 13.96 13.96 88467 01/01/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY WASTEBASKET 010.4212.5201 5.31 88467 01/01/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 640.4710.5201 20.35 88467 01/01/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4211. 5201 4.80 88467 01/01/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4212.5201 4.25 88467 01/01/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4130.5201 16.62 88467 01/01/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010,4211.5201 15.36 88467 01/01/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4130.5201 8.31- 88467 01/01/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4001. 5201 150.10 88467 01/01/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4120.5201 209.63 88467 01/01/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4101. 5201 53.40 88467 01/01/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010,4002.5201 1.92 88467 01/01/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 220.4303.5201 10.70 88467 01/01/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4102.5255 77 .01 561.14 88468 01/01/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-CONST.INSP 010.4301. 5403 223.21 223.21 88469 01/01/99 042354 HI STANDARD AUTOMOTIVE TROY FACEPLATE 010.4211.6301 89.00 89.00 88470 01/01/99 044050 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS,I MAINT/COPY USEAGE 010.4421. 5602 246.49 246,49 88471 01/01/99 044496 INFORMATION SERVICES CLETS/LS CHARGE 010.4201.5606 48.95 48.95 88472 01/01/99 045162 INTL CONF OF BUILDING 0 ICBO DUES-SCHMIDT 010.4212.5503 195.00 195.00 88473 01/01/99 046176 J J'S FOOD COMPANY ORAL BOARD SUPPLIES 010.4301. 5201 4.27 88473 01/01/99 046176 J J'S FOOD COMPANY BLOOD BANK SUPPLIES 010.4211. 5504 70.21 74.48 88474 01/01/99 100087 HOLLY JARRATT JAZZERCISE CLASS-JARRATT 010.4424.5351 122.48 122.48 88475 01/01/99 100869 KIS COMMUNlCATIONS,INC E-MAIL SVC-JAN/FEB/MARCH 010.4140,5303 329.75 329.75 88476 01/01/99 054248 DONNA MCMAHON ANSWERING MACHING-C/C COORD 010.4421. 5201 34.31 34,31 88477 01/01/99 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER << BRAKE ALIGN/LUBE/OIL 220.4303.5601 98.69 88477 01/01/99 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER << BRAKE TIE ROD/ALIGN-PD941 010.4201. 5601 118.17 88477 01/01/99 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER << BRAKE REPR.LOCK/LUBE/OIL/FILTER 010.4420.5601 64.77 281.63 88478 01/01/99 057018 REBECCA MILTON DISPATCHER W/SHOP-MILTON 010.4201.5501 380.94 380.94 88479 01/01/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BUILDING MATERIALS 640.4712.5604 12.87 88479 01/01/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BOLTS/NUTS 640.4712.5610 14.41 88479 01/01/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE SANDPAPER/WOOD PATCH 010.4213.5604 4.88 88479 01/01/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BUILDING MATERIALS 010.4305.5603 68.63 88479 01/01/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE ASSORT. ANCHORS 010.4213.5604 6,64 88479 01/01/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE DRILL BITS 010.4213.5604 6.09 88479 01/01/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE TRUCK ROPE 220.4303.5613 56.56 88479 01/01/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE COMBO WRENCH 640.4712.5273 6.29 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 3 12/29/98 08:26 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 20 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 88479 01/01/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BOLTS/NUTS 640.4712,5610 32.89 88479 01/01/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PIN HINGERS/LUMBER 640,4712.5604 15,37 88479 01/01/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE TAPE RULE/WIRE NAILS 220,4303.5273 13.71 238.34 88480 01/01/99 058578 MULLAHEY FORD GENERAL MAINT/LUBE/OIL/WIPERS 640.4712.5601 35.26 35.26 88481 01/01/99 059124 MUSTANG TREE CARE TRIM PALM TREES-NELSON 010.4420.5605 1,000.00 1,000.00 88482 01/01/99 060996 NAT.VOLUNTEER FIRE COUN 99 FIRE COUNCIL DUES 010.4211.5503 40.00 40.00 88483 01/01/99 061308 NELSON OFFICE EQUIPMENT TIME STAMP RIBBON 010.4101. 5201 19.91 19.91 88484 01/01/99 061542 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, I ANTENNA 010.4211.5603 60.33 88484 01/01/99 061542 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, I HI-CAD BATTERY/DOOR 010.4211.5603 186.40 246.73 88485 01/01/99 062712 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE GORILLA RACKS 010.4420.5605 160.84 88485 01/01/99 062712 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE GORILLA RACKS 010.4420.5605 107.23 88485 01/01/99 062712 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE GORILLA RACKS 010.4420.5605 160.84 428.91 88486 01/01/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL RADIO 451-0183 010.4145.5403 193.04 88486 01/01/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 473-1935 640.4710.5403 20.17 88486 01/01/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 841-3953 010,4211.5403 33.06 88486 01/01/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 841-3955 640.4710.5403 231.65 88486 01/01/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 841-3956 220.4303.5403 33.06 88486 01/01/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 841-3959 640.4710.5403 33.06 88486 01/01/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 841-3960 010.4211.5403 33.06 88486 01/01/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 841-3961 612.4610.5403 33.06 88486 01/01/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 841-3962 612.4610.5403 33.06 88486 01/01/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 841-3963 612.4610.5403 33.06 88486 01/01/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 841-3964 612.4610.5403 33.06 88486 01/01/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL CENTREX PHONE-5400 010.4145.5403 1,383.94 88486 01/01/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL PAY PHONE 489-9816 010.4145.5403 42.27 2,135.55 88487 01/01/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE VELDHUIS SVCS-12/13 220.4303.5303 475.23 88487 01/01/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE GOMEZ SVCS-12/13 220.4303.5303 416.64 88487 01/01/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE STEARS SVC-12/6 010.4213.5303 548.00 1,439.87 88488 01/01/99 066320 PIONEER EQUIPMENT CO. INSTL.GLASS WINDOW 220.4303.5603 249.52 249.52 88489 01/01/99 090284 SHAWN PRYOR PUBLIC RECORDS W/SHOP-PRYOR 010.4201.5501 256.00 256.00 88490 01/01/99 100143 QUAGLINO ROOFING REPR.ROOF-STATION 010.4213.5604 172.50 172.50 88491 01/01/99 073320 SAN JOAQUIN SUPPLY CO. LINERS 010.4213.5604 25.65 25.65 88492 01/01/99 075130 SAN LUIS OBISPO CNTY.NE CLASS AD-ADMIN SECRETARY 010.4130.5201 613.80 88492 01/01/99 075130 SAN LUIS OBISPO CNTY.NE CLASS AD-ASSOC. PLANNER 010.4130.5201 702.38 88492 01/01/99 075130 SAN LUIS OBISPO CNTY,NE CLASS AD-OFFICE ASST 284.4103.5201 531.96 88492 01/01/99 075130 SAN LUIS OBISPO CNTY.NE CLASS AD-CLERK TYPIST 010.4301.5201 356.96 88492 01/01/99 075130 SAN LUIS OBISPO CNTY.NE CLASS AD-MAINT WORKER 1 010.4213.5255 286.44 2,491.54 ----"--------- VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 4 12/29/98 08:26 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 20 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 88493 01/01/99 078156 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIB. GEAR OIL 220.4303,5603 30.63 88493 01/01/99 078156 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIB. DIESEL FUEL 010.4211.5608 105.75 88493 01/01/99 078156 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIB. GASOLINE 010,4201.5608 835.20 971.58 88494 01/01/99 082040 STAPLES OFFICE CHAIRS/COMPUTER CART 010.4421.6001 300.27 88494 01/01/99 082040 STAPLES BLK INK JET CARTRIDGE 010.4421.5201 27.34 88494 01/01/99 082040 STAPLES COPIER LABELS 010.4421. 5201 26.80 88494 01/01/99 082040 STAPLES SELF LAMINATE PAPER 010.4421.5201 13.93 88494 01/01/99 082040 STAPLES OFFICE CHAIR 010,4421.6001 160.86 88494 01/01/99 082040 STAPLES OFFICE CHAIR 010.4421.6001 160.86 88494 01/01/99 082040 STAPLES CR:OFFICE CHAIR 010.4421.6001 160.86- 88494 01/01/99 082040 STAPLES OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4421.5201 80.35 88494 01/01/99 082040 STAPLES OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4421.5201 6.04 88494 01/01/99 082040 STAPLES REFUND ADJUSTMENT 010.4421.5201 .01- 88494 01/01/99 082040 STAPLES OFFICE SUUPLIES 010.4421.5201 19.58 88494 01/01/99 082040 STAPLES CR:OFFICE CHAIR 010.4421. 6001 160.86- 474.30 88495 01/01/99 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS UHF BASE STATION 010,4211.6201 739,38 88495 01/01/99 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS PORTABLE RADIO 010,4211.6201 1,481.12 2,220.50 88496 01/01/99 084708 RICK TERBORCH CA.POLICE CHIEF CONF-TERBORCH 010.4201. 5501 58.00 58.00 88497 01/01/99 100852 TUCKFIELD & ASSOCIATES WATER/SEWER RATE STUDY 11/30 350.5805.7701 5,300.00 5,300.00 88498 01/01/99 088084 UNITED GREEN MARK,INC, VALVE BOX/BODY 010.4420.5605 18.18 88498 01/01/99 088084 UNITED GREEN MARK,INC. HUNTER PGP ROTOR 010.4420.5605 253.65 88498 01/01/99 088084 UNITED GREEN MARK, INC. UNAPPLIED CREDIT 010.4420.5605 18.54- 88498 01/01/99 088084 UNITED GREEN MARK, INC. UNAPPLIED CREDIT 010.4420.5605 14.53- 238.76 88499 01/01/99 087672 US RENTALS, INC LOG SPLITTER RENTAL 220.4303.5552 362.56 362.56 88500 01/01/99 090480 WAYNE'S TIRE TIRES-PW21 220.4303.5601 231. 84 231. 84 TOTAL CHECKS 25,371.19 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 5 12/29/98 08:26 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 20 FUND TITLE AMOUNT 010 GENERAL FUND 14,406,32 220 STREETS FUND 2,125.90 284 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND 1,034.36 350 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 5,300.00 612 SEWER FUND 457.40 640 WATER FUND 2,047.21 TOTAL 25,371.19 ~~---- -~.._-- ATTACHMENT C VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 1 01/06/99 08:47 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 20 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 979 01/04/99 100905 TONY M. FERRARA LOCC CONF-FERRARA 010.4001. 5501 144.00 144.00 980 01/04/99 100036 STEVE TOLLEY LOCC CONF-TOLLEY 010.4001.5501 318.40 318.40 88505 01/08/99 000468 A T & T-L/DIST SVC, L/DIST PHONE 010.4211.5403 6.05 88505 01/08/99 000468 A T & T-L/DIST SVC, L/DIST,PHONE 010.4211.5403 5.76 88505 01/08/99 000468 A T & T-L/DIST SVC, L/DIST FAX 473-0386 010.4145.5403 23.19 35.00 88506 01/08/99 000898 ADDICTION MEDICINE CONS DOT DRUG & ALCOHOL TESTING 010.4145.5501 1,100.00 1,100.00 88507 01/08/99 002340 JOHN ALLEN DELINQ.CONTROL W/SHOP-ALLEN 010.4201. 5501 4,208.00 4,208.00 88508 01/08/99 003120 AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SUP RAIN GEAR 220.4303.5255 145.06 145.06 88509 01/08/99 100897 AMERICAN TEMPS HAWORTH SVCS-12/20 284.4103.5303 423.90 423.90 88510 01/08/99 100902 AVCO FIRE EXTINGUISHER ABC FIRE EXTING/BRACKET/PIN 010,4211.5601 98.67 98.67 88511 01/08/99 009438 BARKLOW'S FIRE TRUCK PA GAGES 010.4211. 5601 269.30 88511 01/08/99 009438 BARKLOW'S FIRE TRUCK PA CR:GAGES 010.4211.5601 174.23- 95.07 88512 01/08/99 009750 BRENDA BARROW REIMB.AM/PM SUPPLIES 010.4425,5255 160.61 88512 01/08/99 009750 BRENDA BARROW GAMES/SPORTS EQUIPMENT 010.4424.5252 200.00 360.61 88513 01/08/99 012480 CARL BRANDT REIMB.PORTABLE RADIO 010.4211.6301 500.00 500.00 88514 01/08/99 017160 CA.ST,BOARD OF EQUALIZA 1998 USE TAX-STOP STICK 010.4201.5272 116,00 88514 01/08/99 017160 CA. ST. BOARD OF EQUALlZA 1998 USE TAX-STOP STICK 275.4204.5255 110.64 88514 01/08/99 017160 CA.ST.BOARD OF EQUALIZA 1998 USE TAX-TARGET TURNER 010.4201. 5605 84.09 88514 01/08/99 017160 CA. ST . BOARD OF EQUALI ZA 1998 USE TAX-WRESLING UNIFORMS 010,0000.2205 57.01 88514 01/08/99 017160 CA.ST.BOARD OF EQUALlZA 1998 USE TAX-BLEACHERS 350.5506,7001 62.25 88514 01/08/99 017160 CA. ST. BOARD OF EQUALlZA 1998 USE TAX-CASH REGISTER TA 010.4120.5201 4.13 88514 01/08/99 017160 CA.ST.BOARD OF EQUALlZA 1998 USE TAX-CASH REGISTER TAP 010.4421.5201 2.73 88514 01/08/99 017160 CA. ST. BOARD OF EQUALlZA 1998 USE TAX-CASH REGISTER 010.4201. 5201 1.41 88514 01/08/99 017160 CA. ST ,BOARD OF EQUALlZA 1998 USE TAX-FASTPOST SOFTWARE 010.4120.5602 108.74 547.00 88515 01/08/99 018096 CA,ST.DEPT. GENERAL SER NOV 98 L/DIST 010.4145.5403 60.38 60.38 88516 01/08/99 016692 CALIF.PEACE OFFICER'S A PUBLIC RECORDS ACT-PRYOR 010,4201. 5501 144.00 144.00 88517 01/08/99 016302 CALIFORNIA MENS COLONY CMC LABOR-NOV 98 220.4303.5303 2,980.06 2,980.06 88518 01/08/99 021918 CENTRAL COAST SUPPLY SEAL & WAX 010.4213.5604 73.90 73.90 88519 01/08/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET SMOG TEST-PD 932 010,4201.5601 33.00 88519 01/08/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET SMOG TEST 220.4303.5601. 33.00 88519 01/08/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET SMOG CHECK 010.4211.5601 24.95 90.95 88520 01/08/99 100898 CYNTHIA COLLINS REF. PARKING CITE #6033/6000 010.0000.4203 40.00 40.00 88521 01/08/99 100904 COMPU-D INTERNATIONAL, I HP 4000TN LASER PRINTER 010.4140.6101 1.585.55 1,585.55 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 2 01/06/99 08 :47 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 20 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 88522 01/08/99 025428 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL LIGHT BULBS 010.4213.5604 217.08 217.08 88523 01/08/99 100901 RANDALL COOPER REF. WATER DEP-265 SPRUCE #F 640.0000.2302 140.00 88523 01/08/99 100901 RANDALL COOPER CLOSING BILL-265 SPRUCE #F 640.0000.4751 69.53- 88523 01/08/99 100901 RANDALL COOPER CLOSING BILL-265 SPRUCE #F 640.0000.4751 35.16- 35.31 88524 01/08/99 026286 CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL LAB WATER SAMPLES 640.4710.5310 35.00 35.00 88525 01/08/99 026754 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER C BOTTLED WATER 010.4301. 5201 15.00 15.00 88526 01/08/99 100306 DELINQUENCY CONTROL INS REGIS-JOHN ALLEN DELINQ.CONTRO 010.4201. 5501 700.00 700.00 88527 01/08/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. REPL.FILTERS/WIPERS/LUBE 612.4610.5601 685.92 88527 01/08/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. REPL.FILTERS/HEATER CONTROL 640.4712.5601 168.11 88527 01/08/99 029484 DIESELRO INC, REPL.FILTERS/HEATER CONTROL 612.4610.5601 168.11 88527 01/08/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. REPL.FILTERS/HEATER CONTROL 220.4303.5601 168.12 88527 01/08/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. OIL/FILTER/LUBE 220.4303.5601 281. 35 88527 01/08/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. OIL/FILTER/LUBE 220.4303.5601 328.50 88527 01/08/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. OIL/FILTER/BELTS 220.4303.5601 241.59 2,041.70 88528 01/08/99 032838 FAMILIAN PIPE & SUPPLY FLANGE/NIPPLE 640.4712.5610 21.45 21.45 88529 01/08/99 034164 FIRE DEPT. SAFETY OFF.A FIRE DEPT. SAFETY OFFICERS DUES 010.4211.5503 75.00 75.00 88530 01/08/99 100100 HERMAN H. FITZGERALD NEWSOM SPRINGS/CALDWELL CONDEM 350.5754.7301 7,356.24 7,356,24 88531 01/08/99 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES 5C TPR SUBSCR TO 1/2000 010,4130.5503 42.00 88531 01/08/99 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES 5C TPR.SUSCR TO 7/1/99 010.4120.5503 21. 00 88531 01/08/99 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES 5C TPR SUBSCR TO 1/2000 010.4101.5503 42.00 88531 01/08/99 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES 5C TPR SUBSCR TO 1/2000 010.4212.5503 42.00 88531 01/08/99 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES 5C TPR SUBSCR TO 7/99 010,4002.5503 21.00 88531 01/08/99 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES 5C TPR SUBSCR TO 1/2000 010.4301.5503 42.00 210.00 88532 01/08/99 100700 G & M MOBILE SERVICE REPR.YARD GATE 010.4201.5605 200.00 200.00 88533 01/08/99 100907 GRACE BIBLE CHURCH REF.O/PAY-FlRE HYDRANT REPR 640.0000.4807 5.0'0 5.00 88534 01/08/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4420.5201 11.15 88534 01/08/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4211.5201 12.15 88534 01/08/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4301.5201 1.44 88534 01/08/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4211.5201 9.44 88534 01/08/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4211.5201 51. 86 86.04 88535 01/08/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-CM 010.4145.5403 25.49 88535 01/08/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-PD CHIEF 010.4201.5403 56.47 88535 01/08/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-WATCH COMMANDER 010,4201. 5403 19.02 88535 01/08/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-PD PORTABLE 010.4201.5403 18.24 88535 01/08/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-INVEST. PROPERTY 010,4201.5403 21.11 88535 01/08/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-SUPPORT SVCS 010.4201.5403 20.26 88535 01/08/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-OPERATIONS COMMAND 010.4201.5403 19.97 88535 01/08/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-INVEST. PERSONS 010.4201.5403 24.80 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 3 01/06/99 08:47 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 20 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 88535 01/08/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-PK DIR 010.4421.5602 45.88 88535 01/08/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-PK SUPER 010.4421.5602 18.47 269.71 88536 01/08/99 100583 NANCY HAGLUND REIMB.AFSS QTLY MEETING 010,4211.5501 43.60 43.60 88537 01/08/99 042862 HONEYWELL, INC. MAINT TO 3/31/99 010.4213.5303 6,467,75 6,467.75 88538 01/08/99 044304 IMPULSE MFG, REPR.TAILGATE 220.4303.5601 130.00 130.00 88539 01/08/99 044496 INFORMATION SERVICES SEPT 98 ON LINE TRANSACTIONS 010.4201.5606 93.55 88539 01/08/99 044496 INFORMATION SERVICES NOV 98 ON-LINE TRANSACTIONS 010.4201.5606 31. 06 124.61 88540 01/08/99 100903 INTERMOTlVE,INC, OVERDRIVE INVERTER 010,4211.5601 144.80 144.80 88541 01/08/99 046176 J J'S FOOD COMPANY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4301.5201 5.99 5.99 88542 01/08/99 046722 JERRY'S SPORT CENTER, I 15 BERETTA 96F CLIPS 271.4202.6201 359.25 359.25 88543 01/08/99 047600 KAISER SAND << GRAVEL CO ASPHALT 220,4303.5613 177.22 88543 01/08/99 047600 KAISER SAND << GRAVEL CO ASPHALT 220.4303.5613 176.34 88543 01/08/99 047600 KAISER SAND << GRAVEL CO ASPHALT 220,4303.5613 354.15 88543 01/08/99 047600 KAISER SAND << GRAVEL CO ASPHALT 220,4303.5613 355.04 1,062.75 88544 01/08/99 048516 KEYLOCK SECURITY SPECIA KEYS/PADLOCK/SHACKLE GUARD 010.4305.5603 29.57 29.57 88545 01/08/99 052144 LIEBERT,CASSIDY << FRIER C. COAST EMPLOYMENT RELAT. DUES 010.4145,5501 1,600.00 1,600.00 88546 01/08/99 054834 PAUL MARSALEK REIMB.GRADE 3 WATER EXAM-MARSA 640.4712,5501 52.00 52.00 88547 01/08/99 055536 MATCO TOOLS 3 SOCKETS 010.4211.5273 84.57 84.57 88548 01/08/99 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER << BRAKE SLAVE CYLINDER/THERMOSTAT 010.4420.5601 362.82 88548 01/08/99 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER << BRAKE THERMOSTAT/GASKET/OIL 220,4303.5601 193.09 555,91 88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE MISC. HARDWARE 010.4430.5273 84.56 88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE DUGOUT ROOFS 010.4430.5605 56.82 88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE C2 BATTERIES 640.4712.5255 19.24 88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE SMITH RODS/MINI BULBS 640.4712.5255 9.62 88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BATTERIES/BULBS 010.4213.5604 20.55 88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE STRAP HANGERS 010.4211.5601 3.20 88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE SNIP/JIG BLADE 010.4211.5273 28.58 88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE SPREADER 010.4430.5273 30.56 88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BULBS 010.4213.5604 5.24 88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE SIMPLE GREEN/CLOROX 010.4213.5604 16.60 88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE D2 BATTERIES/MAGLITE 010.4420.5605 33.00 88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE SIMPLE GREEN/CONDUIT 010.4211.5255 23.04 88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PLUMBING SUPPLIES 010.4420,5605 23.58 88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE 9V BATTERIES/PUTTYKNIFE 010.4213.5604 16.47 88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE SPRAY PAINT 640.4712.5610 23.08 88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE EPOXY 640.4712.5610 31. 09 88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE WHITE GREASE 640.4712.5610 4.60 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 4 01/06/99 08:47 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 20 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BARK 010.4420.5605 21.41 88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE SPRAY EPOXY 640.4712.5610 12.84 88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE DRILL BITS/SCREWS 640.4712.5610 10.69 88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE ROLLER FRAME/MOUSE TRAPS 010.4420.5605 17.30 88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BRASS NIPPLES 640.4712.5610 1.28 88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE FLEXOGEN HOSE 220.4303.5255 90.07 88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE CEMENT/BUILDING SUPPLIES 010.4430.5605 107.23 88550 01/08/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE DRILL BIT/KEYLESS DRILL 010.4430.5273 155.78 846.43 88551 01/08/99 058578 MULLAHEY FORD INSPECT STEERING/LUBE/OIL 010.4201. 5601 91. 30 88551 01/08/99 058578 MULLAHEY FORD ROTATE TIRES/PITMAN ARM/LUBE 010.4201.5601 319.26 88551 01/08/99 058578 MULLAHEY FORD INSPECT STEERING 010.4201. 5601 275.68 88551 01/08/99 058578 MULLAHEY FORD COOLING SYS.FLUSH/WIPERS 010.4201. 5601 245.22 931. 46 88552 01/08/99 060060 NAT'L CRIM.JUSTICE ASSN NAT'L CRIMINAL JUSTICE DUES 010.4201.5503 85.00 85.00 88553 01/08/99 060840 NATIONAL SANITARY SUPPL SEAT COVERS/WRINGER BUCKET 010,4213.5604 482.18 482.18 88554 01/08/99 062712 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE GALV.NIPPLE 640.4712,5610 10.71 88554 01/08/99 062712 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE ANT/ROACH SPRAY 640.4712.5610 5.35 16.06 88555 01/08/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL DATA LINE 473-0379 010.4140.5303 120.50 88555 01/08/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL L/DIST FAX 473-0386 010.4145.5403 29.08 88555 01/08/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 473-2041 010.4201.5403 19.88 88555 01/08/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL FAX 473-2198 010.4145.5403 23.65 88555 01/08/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL CENTREX PHONE 473-5100 010.4145.5403 681.59 88555 01/08/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL DATA LINE 473-5141 010.4145.5403 78,23 88555 01/08/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL PHONE 481-6944 010.4201,5403 127.66 88555 01/08/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL SLO COMPUTER 473-9523 010.4145.5403 70.87 1,151.46 88556 01/08/99 064308 PAPER DIRECT,INC. CERT.JACKETS/CERTIFICATES 010.4001.5201 113.60 113.60 88557 01/08/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE VELDHUIS SVCS-12/18 220.4303.5303 416.64 88557 01/08/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE JACKSON SVCS-12/20 612.4610.5303 161.19 88557 01/08/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE JACKSON SVCS-12/20 640.4710.5303 241.77 88557 01/08/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE GOMEZ SVCS-12/20 220.4303,5303 475.23 88557 01/08/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE STEARS SVCS-12/13 010,4213.5303 548.00 88557 01/08/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE STEARS SVCS-12/20 010.4213.5303 548.00 2,390.83 88558 01/08/99 066924 PLAQUE SHAQUE DOOR SIGN 010.4425.5255 10.73 88558 01/08/99 066924 PLAQUE SHAQUE HALLOWEEN CONTEST RIBBONS 010.4424.5252 5,63 88558 01/08/99 066924 PLAQUE SHAQUE HOLIDAY DECORATE. RIBBONS 010.4424.5252 42.22 88558 01/08/99 066924 PLAQUE SHAQUE PICTURE PLATES/DESK SIGNS 010.4001.5201 98.61 88558 01/08/99 066924 PLAQUE SHAQUE SR.ADV. COMM. SIGN 010.4421.5201 14.00 88558 01/08/99 066924 PLAQUE SHAQUE EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION AWARDS 010.4001.5504 90.63 88558 01/08/99 066924 PLAQUE SHAQUE UPDATE PERPETUALS/AWARD PLAQUE 010.4201.5504 128,70 390.52 88559 01/08/99 068200 PROMEDIX GLOVES/COMPACT MANUAL RES 010.4211.5206 252.41 252.41 88560 01/08/99 068562 PRYOR INDUSTRIES,INC. DESK/COUNTER DOOR 010.4301. 6001 1,209,20 1,209.20 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 5 01/06/99 08:47 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 20 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 88561 01/08/99 070668 RYAN RIPLEY REIMB.VAC.BELT 010.4213.5604 1. 90 1. 90 88562 01/08/99 072638 S & L SAFETY PRODUCTS SHOP TOWELS/SAFETY GLASSES 220.4303.5255 260.34 260.34 88563 01/08/99 100192 SAN LUIS MAILING SVC BUSINESS LICENSE POSTAGE 010.4145.5201 425.92 88563 01/08/99 100192 SAN LUIS MAILING SVC BUSINESS LICENSE MAILING SVCS 010.4120.5201 41. 95 467.87 88564 01/08/99 076830 SANTA MARIA TIRE INC. TIRES/STEMS/WEIGHTS 010.4211.5601 245.78 245.78 88565 01/08/99 078156 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIB. DIESEL/GASOLINE 010.4211.5608 173.67 173 . 67 88566 01/08/99 078468 SENSUS TECHNOLOGIES,INC 2SR WATER METERS-CCTC PROJECT 640.4712.5207 565.94 565.94 88567 01/08/99 080340 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORP CIRCUIT TESTER/SHEARS 010.4305.5273 102.85 102.85 88568 01/08/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY FUSE HOLDER/POLISH/RELINE BRAK 010,4211.5601 4.74 88568 01/08/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY RAD.CAP/HEATER HOSE 010.4211.5601 9,46 88568 01/08/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY COOLANT/WATER OUTLET 010.4211.5601 9.80 88568 01/08/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY WEATHERSTRIP 010.4211.5601 21.02 88568 01/08/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY COOLANT/LONGNOSE PLIERS 010.4211.5601 35.55 88568 01/08/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY COOLANT/SPARK PLUGS 010.4211.5601 17.90 88568 01/08/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY AIR FRESHNER 640.4712.5601 8.55 107.02 88569 01/08/99 100899 SOUTHERN CA. GAS COMPANY CLAIM 272-S0UTHERN CA. GAS CO 010.4145.5577 187.65 187.65 88570 01/08/99 100906 SPECTRUM HYDROSEEDING HYDROSEED BASIN 010.4420.5605 2,000.00 88570 01/08/99 100906 SPECTRUM HYDROSEEDING HYDROSEED BASIN 010.4430.5605 2,000.00 4,000.00 88571 01/08/99 082486 STEWARD CO PRINTING SUPPLIES/DEVELOPER 010.4102.5255 159.32 159.32 88572 01/08/99 083226 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH SEPT. CAR WASH 010.4201.5601 355.00 88572 01/08/99 083226 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH CAR WASHES 010.4420.5601 7.50 88572 01/08/99 083226 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH CAR WASHES 010,4301.5601 60.00 88572 01/08/99 083226 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH CAR WASHES 220.4303.5601 16.00 88572 01/08/99 083226 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH CAR WASHES 640.4712.5601 15.00 453.50 88573 01/08/99 085878 TRANS-KING TRANSMISSION TRANSMISSION SERVICE 220.4303.5601 43.58 43.58 88574 01/08/99 088084 UNITED GREEN MARK,INC. SPRINKLER SUPPLIES 010.4430.5255 43.89 43.89 88575 01/08/99 087672 US RENTALS, INC PAINT 010.4430.5274 16.95 16.95 88576 01/08/99 088826 PEGGY VALKO ARTS & CRAFT CLASS 010.4424.5351 473.60 473.60 88577 01/08/99 088842 VALLEY AUTO SERVICE TIRE REPR 010.4212.5601 14.00 14.00 88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC, UG STORAGE TANK REPLACEMENT 350.5401. 7301 394.79 88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. DON ROBERTS FIELDS 350.5501. 7301 523.12 88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. TENNIS COURT RESURFACING 350.5504.7301 12.50 88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. GRAND AVE CORRIDOR STUDY 350.5603.7301 438.00 88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. OPTICOM DEVICES 350.5604.7501 25.00 ~ VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 6 01/06/99 08 :47 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 20 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. BIKEWAY PROJECT ONE 350.5606.7301 325.37 88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. CREEKSIDE PATH 350.5607.7301 76.50 88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. STREET SEAL-COAT PROJECT 350.5612.7301 188.50 88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 350.5613.7701 1,550.50 88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. BRISCO/101 INTERCHANGE ALTS 350.5615,7301 303.16 88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. EL CAMPO/101 INTERCHANGE ALTS 350.5616.7301 230.20 88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. CENTRAL COAST TOWN CENTER 350.5617,7301 13,203.99 88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. MONTEGO STREET SIDEWALKS 350.5622.7501 1,603.00 88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. PARKING LOT BEHIND CITY HALL 350.5623.7501 1,437.50 88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN/FINANCE 350.5752.7701 4,318.53 88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. NEWSOM SPRINGS 350.5754.7701 955.00 88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. DISASTER SVCS 1998(DR-1203) 350.5755.7301 126.00 88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. DISASTER SVCS 1998 (DR-1203) 350.5755.7501 2,783.75 88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. SEWER/WATER RATE STUDY 350.5805.7301 91.33 88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. GRAND AVE/ELM TO HALCYON 350.5806.7501 4,627.25 88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. BEDLOE LANE MAINT,PROJECT 350.5808.7301 440.10 88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. RESERVOIR #1 DESIGN 350.5903.7501 1,416.99 88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. WATER MASTER PLAN 350.5904.7701 3,320.49 88579 01/08/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. GENERAL CONSULTING SVCS 010.4301.5303 11,947.05 50,338.62 88580 01/08/99 090480 WAYNE'S TIRE STOCK TIRES 010.4201.5601 211. 93 88580 01/08/99 090480 WAYNE'S TIRE TIRES 010.4201,5601 191. 63 403.56 88581 01/08/99 092508 NANCY WILLIAMS REIMB.PRE-SCHOOL SUPPLIES-WILL 010.4423.5253 68.21 68.21 88582 01/08/99 092586 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COM INSTL,CIRCUIT/RECEPTACLE 010.4430.5303 366.35 88582 01/08/99 092586 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COM REPL.LAMP-EL CAMPO/OAK PARK 010.4304.5303 30.25 396,60 88583 01/08/99 100900 TRISH WILSON REF. CLASS FEE-WILSON 010.0000.4605 12.00 12.00 TOTAL CHECKS 101,284.88 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 7 01/06/99 08:47 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 20 FUND TITLE AMOUNT 010 GENERAL FUND 45,423.80 220 STREETS FUND 6,865.38 271 STATE COPS BLOCK GRANT FUND 359.25 275 96-97 FED LOCAL LAW ENFORMT GT 110.64 284 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND 423.90 350 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 45,810.06 612 SEWER FUND 1,015.22 640 WATER FUND 1,276,63 TOTAL 101,284.88 ATTACHMENT D VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 1 01/13/99 09:31 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 20 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 981 01/11/99 100911 TOASTMASTERS INTL MEMBERSHIP-SPAGNOLO 010.4301. 5503 43.24 43.24 982 01/12/99 100036 STEVE TOLLEY LOCC POLICY COMM-TOLLEY 010.4001.5501 64.00 64.00 88584 01/15/99 000234 A & R WELDING SUPPLY OXYGEN/ACETYLENE 010.4305.5303 64.93 88584 01/15/99 000234 A & R WELDING SUPPLY OXYGEN/ACETYLENE 010.4305.5303 13.00 77.93 88585 01/15/99 000858 ADAMSON INDUSTRIES AMMUNITION 271.4202.5255 1,594.81 1,594.81 88586 01/15/99 068127 AG PRINT N COPY COPIES-GRAND AVE CORRIDOR 350.5603.7301 106.18 88586 01/15/99 068127 AG PRINT N COPY COLORED COPIES-ST. SWEEPING 010.4301. 5201 3.39 109.57 88587 01/15/99 003120 AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SUP RAIN GEAR 220.4303.5255 251.46 251. 46 88588 01/15/99 004760 WILLIAM ANDREWS PD COMPUTER MAINT-DEC 010.4140.5607 1,300.00 1,300.00 88589 01/15/99 004914 APEX SHARPENING WORKS REPL.PARTS-WEED EATERS 220.4303.5603 136.05 88589 01/15/99 004914 APEX SHARPENING WORKS OIL 220.4303.5603 12.87 88589 01/15/99 004914 APEX SHARPENING WORKS HUSQUARNA BLOWER 220.4303.5273 359.23 88589 01/15/99 004914 APEX SHARPENING WORKS OIL 220.4303.5603 12.87 88589 01/15/99 004914 APEX SHARPENING WORKS WEED EATER PARTS 220.4303.5603 70.52 88589 01/15/99 004914 APEX SHARPENING WORKS WEED EATER LINE 220.4303.5603 129.99 721. 53 88590 01/15/99 008190 B & T SERVICE STN, CONTR SVCS-FUEL TANKS 010.4305.5603 46.00 46.00 88591 01/15/99 009906 RITCHIE BARRETT FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00 88591 01/15/99 009906 RITCHIE BARRETT FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00 60.00 88592 01/15/99 009750 BRENDA BARROW REIMB.SUPPLIES-BARROW 010.4425.5255 161.75 161.75 88593 01/15/99 010296 BEACH FRONT AUTO SERVIC REPR-PW29 FOR SMOG 220,4303.5601 409.46 88593 01/15/99 010296 BEACH FRONT AUTO SERVIC SMOG-PW29 220.4303.5601 32,75 88593 01/15/99 010296 BEACH FRONT AUTO SERVIC REPL.COOLANT HOSE/ADJ. BRAKES 010.4430.5601 41. 87 88593 01/15/99 010296 BEACH FRONT AUTO SERVIC BATTERY/WATER PUMP. THERMOSTAT 010.4201. 5601 477 .48 961.56 88594 01/15/99 010608 MICHAEL BEEMAN FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 88594 01/15/99 010608 MICHAEL BEEMAN FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211,5145 30.00 60.00 88595 01/15/99 100618 BERCHTOLD EQUIPMENT CO INSTL A CROSS KIT/YOKE 010.4420.5603 93.54 93.54 88596 01/15/99 011856 KIMBERLY BOESE REIMB.BOOK-BOESE 010.4201. 5502 152.27 152.27 88597 01/15/99 012558 CARL BRANDT FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 88597 01/15/99 012558 CARL BRANDT FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00 88598 01/15/99 100196 PETER BRINKERHOFF FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 88598 01/15/99 100196 PETER BRINKERHOFF FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00 88599 01/15/99 013026 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER PLASTIC WRAP/TAPE 640.4712.5610 17.14 88599 01/15/99 013026 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER TUBING/TUBING CUTTER 640.4712.56l0 27.18 44.32 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 2 01/13/99 09:31 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 20 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 88600 01/15/99 100923 ROBERT W. BUCY REF. VARIANCE APP.#98-214 010.0000,4503 343.80 343.80 88601 01/15/99 100921 JOSEPH E BUTTERS FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 88601 01/15/99 100921 JOSEPH E BUTTERS FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00 88602 01/15/99 021940 C.COAST TAXI CAB SERVIC TAXI SVCS-11/16-11/31 225.4553.5507 1,186.50 1,186.50 88603 01/15/99 017472 CA,ST.DEPT.CONSERVATION S.M.I.P,2Q 98/99 010.0000,2208 1,745.89 1,745.89 88604 01/15/99 015160 CALIFORNIA CONTRACTOR S DRILL BITS-HIGH SPEED 010.4305.5603 182.83 182.83 88605 01/15/99 020514 CHRISTOPHER CASH FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 88605 01/15/99 020514 CHRISTOPHER CASH FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00 60.00 88606 01/15/99 023010 RICHARD CHECANSKY CA,JUVENILE OFFICERS-CHECANSKY 010.4201.5501 86.00 88606 01/15/99 023010 RICHARD CHECANSKY JUVENILE LAW UPDATE-CHECANSKY 010.4201.5501 110.30 196.30 88607 01/15/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET SMOG-PW2 010.4301. 5601 24.95 88607 01/15/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET SMOG-PW36 010.4305.5601 24.95 88607 01/15/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET SMOG-PW3 010.4301.5601 24.95 88607 01/15/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET SMOG-P20 010.4420.5601 24.95 88607 01/15/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET SMOG-P33 010.4420.5601 24.95 88607 01/15/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET SMOG-P5 010.4420.5601 24.95 88607 01/15/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET SMOG-P15 010.4430.5601 24.95 88607 01/15/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET LUBE/OIL/FILTER-P13 010.4420.5601 23.84 88607 01/15/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET LUBE/OIL/FILTER-P-28 010.4420.5601 22.66 88607 01/15/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET CR:SMOG-PD932 010.4201.5601 8.05- 88607 01/15/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET CR:SMOG-PW4 220.4303.5601 8.05- 205.05 88608 01/15/99 023634 CLASSIC TEES SWEAT SHIRTS 010.4422.5256 462.46 462.46 88609 01/15/99 100912 TROY COLEMAN FIRE MlLEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211,5145 30,00 88609 01/15/99 100912 TROY COLEMAN FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00 88610 01/15/99 024832 COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS REPR.ALARM PROBLEM-LIFT#l 612.4610.5610 70.00 88610 01/15/99 024832 COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS REPR.RADIO SYSTEM-LIFT#l 612.4610.5610 266.02 88610 01/15/99 024832 COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS REPR.ELECT.CONTROL LIFT#l 612.4610.5610 210.00 88610 01/15/99 024832 COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS MATERIALS-SCADA SYS UPGRADE 612.4610,6201 238.40 784.42 88611 01/15/99 026598 JOHN CRO'ITY FIRE MlLEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 88611 01/15/99 026598 JOHN CRO'ITY FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00 88612 01/15/99 100631 CUESTA CONSULTING CUESTA SVCS-12/27 010.4130,5303 6,540,00 6,540.00 88613 01/15/99 026832 CUESTA EQUIPMENT CO CHEST WAITERS 220.4303.5613 74.00 74.00 88614 01/15/99 028548 DAYSTAR INDUSTRIES STREET SWEEPING 612.4610.5303 3,471.70 3,471. 70 88615 01/15/99 100896 LISA DEL VAGLIO AM/PM SUPPLIES 010.4425.5255 80.00 88615 01/15/99 100896 LISA DEL VAGLIO AM/PM SUPPLIES 010.4425.5255 100.00 180.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 3 01/13/99 09:31 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 20 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 88616 01/15/99 100197 JEREMY DENTON FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 88616 01/15/99 100197 JEREMY DENTON FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00 60.00 88617 01/15/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. OIL/FILTER/WIPER BLADES-P31 010.4420.5601 205.35 88617 01/15/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. SAFETY INSPECT-PW30 220,4303.5603 27.50 88617 01/15/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. SMOKE TEST-PW27 220.4303.5601 45.01 88617 01/15/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. SMOKE TEST-PW32 640.4712.5601 45,01 88617 01/15/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. SMOKE TEST-PW51 612.4610.5601 45.01 88617 01/15/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. SMOKE TEST-PW50 640.4712.5601 22.51 88617 01/15/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. SMOKE TEST-PW50 612.4610.5601 22.50 88617 01/15/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. SMOKE TEST-PW19 220.4303.5601 45.01 88617 01/15/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. SMOKE TEST-PW41 220.4303.5601 58.00 88617 01/15/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. SMOKE TEST-PW33 220.4303,5601 45.01 88617 01/15/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. CR:SMOKE TEST-PW41 220.4303.5601 12.99- 547.92 88618 01/15/99 032682 FAIR OAKS PHARMACY ACE BANDAGE 612,4610.5255 5.63 5.63 88619 01/15/99 032838 FAMILIAN PIPE & SUPPLY COUPLINGS 640.4712.5610 88.77 88.77 88620 01/15/99 033696 HOWARD FERGUSON FIRE MlLEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211,5145 30.00 88620 01/15/99 033696 HOWARD FERGUSON FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00 88621 01/15/99 034850 SEAN FLEMING FIRE MlLEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 88621 01/15/99 034850 SEAN FLEMING FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00 88622 01/15/99 035802 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY INC LOCK-ELM ST.REC. 010.4420.5605 108.32 88622 01/15/99 035802 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY INC DUP.KEYS 220.4303.5255 8.04 88622 01/15/99 035802 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY INC DUP.KEYS-P7 010.4420.5605 19.14 88622 01/15/99 035802 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY INC DUP. KEYS- BABE RUTH 010,4420.5605 9.65 88622 01/15/99 035802 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY INC MASTER LOCKS-WATER METERS 640.4712.5255 140.15 285.30 88623 01/15/99 100700 G & M MOBILE SERVICE REPR. PUMP MOTOR 612.4610.5603 408.36 408.36 88624 01/15/99 037206 GIBBS INTERNATIONAL TRU MIRROR BRACKET-PW32 640.4712.5601 14.28 14.28 88625 01/15/99 100485 GOLD COAST FLORAL FLOWERS-FERDOLAGE/HAMILTON 010.4201. 5504 53.63 53.63 88626 01/15/99 038376 GRAND AUTO PARTS WIRE BRUSHES 010.4305.5255 14.70 88626 01/15/99 038376 GRAND AUTO PARTS GLUE 010.4305,5255 10.81 25.51 88627 01/15/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 640.4710.5201 2.63 88627 01/15/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4002.5201 17.58 88627 01/15/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4421.5201 28.93 88627 01/15/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4430.5201 4.64 88627 01/15/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 640.4710.5201 2.68 88627 01/15/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4101.5201 17.95 88627 01/15/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4002.5201 24.94 88627 01/15/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4101. 5201 17.14 88627 01/15/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4120.5201 42,43 88627 01/15/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4002.5201 23.94 88627 01/15/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4305.5201 21.43 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 4 01/13/99 09:31 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 20 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 88627 01/15/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4120.5201 70.79 88627 01/15/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 640.4710,5201 2.69 277,77 88628 01/15/99 038688 GLENN GRAVES FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00 88628 01/15/99 038688 GLENN GRAVES FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00 60.00 88629 01/15/99 036504 GTE MOBILNET CAR ADAPTERS-CELL PHONE 640.4710.5403 18.74 88629 01/15/99 036504 GTE MOBILNET CAR ADAPTERS - CELL PHONE 612.4610,5403 18.74 88629 01/15/99 036504 GTE MOBILNET CAR ADAPTERS-CELL PHONE 220.4303.5403 37.49 74.97 88630 01/15/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-AUTO 010,4305.5403 31.40 31. 40 88631 01/15/99 100913 SEAN F HAGERTY FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 88631 01/15/99 100913 SEAN F HAGERTY FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00 88632 01/15/99 100635 HARRY'S RADIATOR SVCS REPL.RADIATOR/THERMOSTAT/GASKE 010.4420.5601 356.27 356.27 88633 01/15/99 041808 CRAIG HENDRICKS TUITION-HENDRICKS ALCO SENSOR 010.4201.5501 10,00 10.00 88634 01/15/99 042158 BOB HICKS TURF EQUIPMEN TURF EQUIPT.CLASS-SOARES 010.4430.5501 40.00 40.00 88635 01/15/99 100914 CASEY L. HIDLE FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00 30.00 88636 01/15/99 100193 DAN HORN FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00 88636 01/15/99 100193 DAN HORN FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00 88637 01/15/99 043134 MICAH B. HOWZE FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 30.00 88638 01/15/99 039584 HPC/EAGLE ENERGY DTE LIGHT OIL 640.4711.5603 61. 27 88638, 01/15/99 039584 HPC/EAGLE ENERGY DTE LIGHT OIL 640.4711.5603 30.64 91.91 88639 01/15/99 100915 PATRICK J. lREY FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00 30.00 88640 01/15/99 100910 AMBER JOHNSON REF. PARKING CITE #D5795 010.0000.4203 20.00 20.00 88641 01/15/99 047600 KAISER SAND & GRAVEL CO ASPHALT 220.4303.5613 88.46 88.46 88642 01/15/99 047736 JERRY KAUFMAN FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010,4211.5145 30.00 88642 01/15/99 047736 JERRY KAUFMAN FIRE MlLEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00 60.00 88643 01/15/99 100922 MICHAEL R KING FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 88643 01/15/99 100922 MICHAEL R KING FIRE MlLEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010,4211.5145 30.00 60.00 88644 01/15/99 100783 KIRBY'S MOTORCYCLES FULL SERVICE-PD983 010.4201,5601 234.21 88644 01/15/99 100783 KIRBY'S MOTORCYCLES REPR,LEFT HAND GRIP 010.4201. 5601 12,00 88644 01/15/99 100783 KIRBY'S MOTORCYCLES CLUTCH CABLE-PD983 010.4201.5601 18.32 88644 01/15/99 100783 KIRBY'S MOTORCYCLES AIR FILTER/OIL/VALVE STEMS 010,4201.5601 191.36 455.89 88645 01/15/99 100916 GREG KLOSINSKI FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 30.00 88646 01/15/99 052280 LIMBERG EYE SURGERY PRES. SAFETY GLASSES-lNESS 010,4305.5303 223.00 223.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 5 01/13/99 09:31 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 20 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 88647 01/15/99 053118 LUCIA MAR UN.SCH,DIST. GYM USE-9/29/98 010.4424.5251 42.00 42.00 88648 01/15/99 053196 MEL LUSARDI FIRE MlLEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 88648 01/15/99 053196 MEL LUSARDI FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00 88649 01/15/99 053274 LYON & CARMEL PROF. LEGAL SVCS-12/98 010.4003.5304 10,573.67 10,573.67 88650 01/15/99 100917 RYAN S. MALONEY FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 88650 01/15/99 100917 RYAN S. MALONEY FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00 88651 01/15/99 054912 MICHAEL MARSDEN FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00 88651 01/15/99 054912 MICHAEL MARSDEN FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60,00 88652 01/15/99 100918 CHRISTOPHER L. MARSHALL FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00 30.00 88653 01/15/99 053820 MC CARTHY STEEL INC DIAMOND PLATE STEEL-BEDLOE 612.4610.5610 140.78 140.78 88654 01/15/99 056628 MID STATE BANK-MASTERCA GASOLINE 010.4201.5608 75.07 88654 01/15/99 056628 MID STATE BANK-MASTERCA CHRISTMAS CARDS 010.4201.5201 81. 24 88654 01/15/99 056628 MID STATE BANK-MASTERCA BUSINESS LUNCH/TRAINING 010,4201.5501 430.78 88654 01/15/99 056628 MID STATE BANK-MASTERCA COMPUTER HUB 010.4140.5607 166.24 753.33 88655 01/15/99 056940 MIER BROS. FLOAT ROCK 640.4712.5610 24.13 88655 01/15/99 056940 MIER BROS. CONCRETE 640.4712.5610 39.58 88655 01/15/99 056940 MIER BROS. CONCRETE 640.4712.5610 39.58 88655 01/15/99 056940 MIER BROS. CONCRETE 640.4712.5610 83.01 88655 01/15/99 056940 MIER BROS. CONCRETE 640.4712.5610 59.85 246.15 88656 01/15/99 056950 BRIAN MILLER FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 88656 01/15/99 056950 BRIAN MILLER FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00 88657 01/15/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE DUP.KEYS 010.4420.5605 1.06 88657 01/15/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE FLAGGING TAPE 220.4303.5255 24.32 88657 01/15/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PAINTBRUSHES 640.4712.5610 6.82 88657 01/15/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE NIPPLES/PLUGS/BALL VALVE 640.4711.5603 71. 53 88657 01/15/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE TEFLON TAPE 640.4712.5610 1.60 88657 01/15/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE CLOCK 640.4712.5255 8.35 88657 01/15/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE GREASE/PAINT 640.4712.5610 5.57 88657 01/15/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PLUGS/VALVES/COUPLER 640.4711.5603 9.18 88657 01/15/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE ALLEN BOLTS 640.4712.5610 6.51 88657 01/15/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE ROOF NAILS 640.4712.5604 4.08 88657 01/15/99 057096 MINER I S ACE HARDWARE BACK FLOW FI'ITING 010.4420.5605 2,09 88657 01/15/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE GREASE 640.4712.5610 4.60 88657 01/15/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BUSHING/NIPPLE/FOAM 640.4712.5610 5.97 88657 01/15/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BALL VALVE/COUPLER 640.4712.5610 5.31 88657 01/15/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE C2 BA'ITERY 612,4610.5255 2.56 159.55 88658 01/15/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE MATS/DUST MOPS 010.4213.5604 41. 00 88658 01/15/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE MATS 010.4213.5604 28.00 88658 01/15/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 010.4102.5255 7.30 88658 01/15/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 010.4213.5604 53.22 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 6 01/13/99 09:31 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 20 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 88658 01/15/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 220.4303.5143 229.09 88658 01/15/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 220.4303.5255 42.00 88658 01/15/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 640.4712.5143 115.35 88658 01/15/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 612.4610.5143 32.50 88658 01/15/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 010.4420.5143 97.50 88658 01/15/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE TOWELS/FENDER COVERS 010.4305.5255 45.00 88658 01/15/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 010.4305.5255 67.42 758.38 88659 01/15/99 100925 CITY OF MONTEREY REGIS-SNODGRASS 010.4120.5501 305.00 305.00 88660 01/15/99 058382 LAW OFFICES OF SARAH MO PROF. LEGAL SVCS 010.4003.5327 1,237.50 1,237.50 88661 01/15/99 100239 N.CA.JUVENILE OFFICERS REGIS-JUVENILE UPDATE-CHECANSK 010.4201.5501 40.00 40.00 88662 01/15/99 100909 N.CA.JUVENILE OFFICERS REGIS-CHECANSKY-CA.JUVENILE 010.4201.5501 155.00 155.00 88663 01/15/99 059436 DAVID NACCARATI FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 88663 01/15/99 059436 DAVID NACCARATI FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00 88664 01/15/99 100782 NETWORK ASSOCIATES TAX-ANTI-VIRUS LIC. 010.4140.5607 121. 66 121. 66 ( 88665 01/15/99 100919 MATTHEW M OSBORNE FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 30.00 88666 01/15/99 063258 RANDY OUIMETTE FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 88666 01/15/99 063258 RANDY OUIMETTE FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00 88667 01/15/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 010.4304.5402 860.84 88667 01/15/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 640.4712.5402 222.30 88667 01/15/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 640.4711.5402 1,179.63 88667 01/15/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 612.4610.5402 642.96 88667 01/15/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 010.4145.5401 5,256.89 88667 01/15/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 010.4304.5402 11,285.86 88667 01/15/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 010.4304.5402 44.70 19,493.18 88668 01/15/99 100920 MATTHEW J PALM FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 30.00 88669 01/15/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE JACKSON SVCS-12/27 640.4710.5303 145.73 88669 01/15/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE JACKSON SVCS-12/27 612.4610.5303 97.15 88669 01/15/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE VELDHUIS SVCS-12/25 220.4303.5303 364.56 88669 01/15/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE VELDHUIS SVCS-1/1/99 220.4303.5303 364.56 88669 01/15/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE JACKSON SVCS-1/3 640.4710.5303 165.60 88669 01/15/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE JACKSON SVCS-1/3 612.4610.5303 110.40 88669 01/15/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE GOMEZ SVCS-12/27 220.4303.5303 364.56 88669 01/15/99 065050 PEOPLE PROFESSIONALS TE GOMEZ SVCS-1/3 220.4303.5303 364.56 1,977.12 88670 01/15/99 066300 PEARL PHINNEY PHINNEY SVCS-12/15 010.4130.5303 262.50 262.50 88671 01/15/99 100198 MATTHEW POLKOW FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 88671 01/15/99 100198 MATTHEW POLKOW FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00 88672 01/15/99 100908 TOM PRELESNIK REF. WATER DEP-559 LE POINT 640.0000.2302 180.00 180.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 7 01/13/99 09:31 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 20 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 88673 01/15/99 068874 PAUL QUINLAN FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 88673 01/15/99 068874 PAUL QUINLAN FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00 88674 01/15/99 100432 RADISSON HOTEL RESV-R.CHECANSKY 010.4201. 5501 267.00 267.00 88675 01/15/99 070668 RYAN RIPLEY FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00 88675 01/15/99 070668 RYAN RIPLEY FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00 88676 01/15/99 071292 LARRY D, RODKEY FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 88676 01/15/99 071292 LARRY D. RODKEY FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010,4211.5145 30.00 60.00 88677 01/15/99 071838 CHARLES RUDA FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010,4211.5145 30.00 88677 01/15/99 071838 CHARLES RUDA FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00 88678 01/15/99 076740 SANTA MARIA TIMES CLASS AD-CLERK TYPIST-PW 010.4301. 5201 63.75 88678 01/15/99 076740 SANTA MARIA TIMES CLASS AD-OFFICE ASST I-RDA 284.4103,5201 87.40 88678 01/15/99 076740 SANTA MARIA TIMES CLASS AD-ASSOCIATE PLANNER 010.4130.5201 204,20 88678 01/15/99 076740 SANTA MARIA TIMES CLASS AD-ADMIN.SECY-CDD 010.4130.5201 102.10 457.45 88679 01/15/99 077766 JERRY SCHULTZ FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00 88679 01/15/99 077766 JERRY SCHULTZ FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00 88680 01/15/99 078156 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIB. GASOLINE 010.4201.5608 980.05 980.05 88681 01/15/99 079560 JEFF SILVA FIRE MlLEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 88681 01/15/99 079560 JEFF SILVA FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00 88682 01/15/99 079638 JOE SILVA FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 88682 01/15/99 079638 JOE SILVA FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010,4211.5145 30.00 60.00 88683 01/15/99 073660 SLOCO DATA, INC, MAILING LIST-RANCHO GRANDE 010.4421. 5504 50.00 50.00 88684 01/15/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY RUBBER STRAPS W/HOOKS 010.4305.5603 12.76 12.76 88685 01/15/99 080964 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICES 010.4145.5401 111.26 88685 01/15/99 080964 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICES 010.4145.5401 447.33 88685 01/15/99 080964 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICES 010.4145.5401 46.47 88685 01/15/99 080964 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICES 010.4145.5401 144.38 88685 01/15/99 080964 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICES 010,4145.5401 102.42 88685 01/15/99 080964 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICES 010.4145.5401 57.19 909.05 88686 01/15/99 082212 RANDY STEFFAN FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00 88686 01/15/99 082212 RANDY STEFFAN FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00 88687 01/15/99 082836 STREATOR PIPE & SUPPLY FITTINGS 640.4712.5610 115.10 115.10 88688 01/15/99 082992 GREGORY STUMPH FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 88688 01/15/99 082992 GREGORY STUMPH FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00 88689 01/15/99 084084 TAYLOR'S TUNE-UP SHOP ADJ.CARBURATOR/CLEAN/SCOPE 010.4201.5601 65.06 65.06 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 8 01/13/99 09:31 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 20 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 88690 01/15/99 084630 JASON P. TENYENHUIS FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010,4211.5145 30.00 88690 01/15/99 084630 JASON p, TENYENHUIS FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00 j 88691 01/15/99 100371 TOSCO REFINING COMPANY REF.C/B DEPOSIT-TOSCO 010.0000.2206 250.00 88691 01/15/99 100371 TOSCO REFINING COMPANY BLDG.SUPER-TOSCO 010.0000,4355 103.50- 146.50 88692 01/15/99 085956 TREADWAY GRAPHICS DARE TEE 010.4201.5504 4.25 4.25 88693 01/15/99 086932 WINTON TULLIS FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 88693 01/15/99 086932 WINTON TULLIS FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00 60.00 88694 01/15/99 087204 DIANE ULIBARRI REIMB,SIGN-CNTY CRAFT JAMBOREE 010.4424.5351 33.46 33.46 88695 01/15/99 088084 UNITED GREEN MARK,INC. SPRINKLER SUPPLIES 010.4430.5605 34.65 88695 01/15/99 088084 UNITED GREEN MARK, INC. RAINBIRDS 010.4420.5605 11. 33 45.98 88696 01/15/99 089114 JUSTIN VANDERLINDER FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 88696 01/15/99 089114 JUSTIN VANDERLINDER FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010,4211. 5145 30.00 60.00 88697 01/15/99 089388 MARSHALL VAUGHAN FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00 30.00 88698 01/15/99 089600 VENTURA COMMUNITY COLLE REGIS-HENDRICKS-ALCO SENSOR 010,4201.5501 30.00 30.00 88699 01/15/99 091026 WEST PUBLISHING PAYMENT PENAL CODES 010.4201. 5255 168.92 88699 01/15/99 091026 WEST PUBLISHING PAYMENT CA CODE UPDATES 010.4003.5503 581. 73 750.65 88700 01/15/99 092274 STEVE WHITNEY FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 88700 01/15/99 092274 STEVE WHITNEY FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00 88701 01/15/99 092586 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COM REPR.PED BUTTON-COURTLAND 010.4304.5303 241.50 241.50 88702 01/15/99 100183 SCOTT WHIZ FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 88702 01/15/99 100183 SCOTT WHIZ FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00 60.00 88703 01/15/99 093480 KEVIN WYMAN FIRE MILEAGE-JULY/DEC 98 010.4211. 5145 30.00 88703 01/15/99 093480 KEVIN WYMAN FIRE MILEAGE-JAN/JUNE 98 010.4211.5145 30.00 60.00 TOTAL CHECKS 67,168.63 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 9 01/13/99 09:31 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 20 FUND TITLE AMOUNT 010 GENERAL FUND 51,861.63 220 STREETS FUND 3,576.33 225 TRANSPORTATION FUND 1,186.50 271 STATE COPS BLOCK GRANT FUND 1,594.81 284 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND 87.40 350 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 106.18 612 SEWER FUND 5,782.71 640 WATER FUND 2,973.07 TOTAL 67,168.63 ----- ATTACHMENT E CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION PAY PERIOD 12/25/98 TO 1/07/99 1/15/99 FUND 010 218,289.95 Salaries Full time 115,726.17 FUND 220 9,351.01 Salaries Part-Time 27,609.17 FUND 284 - Salaries Over-Time 4,418,06 FUND 612 3,356.24 Holiday Pay 4,232.91 FUND 640 9,706.95 Sick Pay 2,234.41 240,704.15 Annual Leave Pay 2,383.00 Vacation Pay 8,873.20 Comp Pay 4,795.62 Annual Leave Pay 2,342.59 PERS Retirement 17,672.38 Social Security 13,396.52 PARS Retirement 197.91 State Disability Ins. 70.00 Health Insurance 18,577.04 Dental Insurance 3,672.11 Vision Insurance 667.61 Life Insurance 485.45 Long Term Disability - Uniform Allowance 12,625.00 Car Allowance 350.00 Council Expense 375.00 Employee Assistance - Boot Allowance - Total: 240,704.15 . .. - -~- - --.------ 9.11. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: LYNDA K. SNODGRASS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES ~ SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF AUDITED ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORTS DATE: JANUARY 26,1999 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors receive and file the respective Audited Annual Financial Reports and the Management Letter for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1998, FUNDING: There is no fiscal impact from this action. DISCUSSION: The firm of Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP was hired to audit the City of Arroyo Grande's/Redevelopment Agency's financial records for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1998. Audit services are retained for two reasons, First, to have an independent review of internal control and secondly to ensure that the resulting financial reports fairly represent the financial position of the City/Redevelopment Agency, The auditors conducted testing of the internal control in early July 1998. The procedures for receiving and disbursing cash, the accounting methodology used to record transactions, the separation of duties to avert collusion, and asset security were reviewed. As part of the auditing process, a Management Letter detailing areas of internal control that need to be strengthened is issued at the conclusion of an audit. There were forty Findings and Recommendations listed in the June 30, 1996 Financial Report that impacted all areas of financial accounting, The auditors have been favorably impressed with the progress the City has made in implementing those recommendations. The Management Letter from Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co. issued this year listed five findings/recommendations. Even though there are five remaining Audit Findings and Recommendations, it should be recognized that much was accomplished with the removal of thirty-five findings. The remaining findings/recommendations required foundation work (Le. installation of a financial management system) before implementation could take place, It is expected that implementation of the remaining findings/recommendations will occur during the next twelve months, In November of 1998 an audit was conducted on the 1997-98 financial transactions. Documentation in support of the assets, liabilities and fund balance of all the funds in the City was examined and verified. This process assures an impartial review and ACCEPTANCE OF AUDITED ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORTS Page 2 substantiation of the City's/Redevelopment Agency fund balances. The result of this review is the attached Financial Reports. Generally Accepted Accounting Principals (GAAP) require that the expenditures in the Governmental Funds (General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, etc.) be compared with the authorized budget. This comparison on Page 5 shows that total expenditures in the General Fund and the Special Revenue Funds exceed budget by $113,494 and $142,885, respectively. This unfavorable variance resulted from an accounting entry to record the assets purchased with lease purchase financing. The City Council authorized the purchase of assets through lease purchase financing, however, an appropriation of $192,500 in the General Fund, and $172,100 in the Special Revenue Funds was not recorded for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 assets. Therefore, when the assets were recorded an unfavorable variance occurred. Auditors may issue three different types of opinions at the conclusion of an audit, an Unqualified, Qualified, or Adverse Opinion. In August 1998 the Governmental Accounting Standards Board required that all entities receiving Unqualified Opinions have implemented extensive year 2000 compliant programs. The City's auditing firm of Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co. determined that Unqualified Opinions would not be issued to any of its clients after the new requirement was implemented. This Auditor decision was predicated on the uncertainty surrounding the year 2000 compliant issue. Despite the fact that the Computer Technology Committee has been actively working to ensure that the City is year 2000 compliant, the City of Arroyo Grande and the Redevelopment Agency were issued Qualified Opinions, The opinion basically says that the auditing firm cannot provide assurance that the City/RDA will be year 2000 compliant but except for this one item the financial position of the City of Arroyo Grande and the Redevelopment Agency is fairly presented, ~ . . 9.c. MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JANUARY 12,1999 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING , Mayor Lady called the meeting to order at 6: 15 P.M. Mayor Pro Tern Ferrara, Council Members Tolley, Runels, Dickens, City Manager Hunt and City Attorney Carmel, were present. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT: None 2. CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Lady. announced that the Council was going to meet in closed session to discuss the following matters: a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a): i. Campbell v. City of Arroyo Grande: California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Case No. GRO 0017282 ii. Blanck v. City of Arroyo Grande. et al.: United States District Court. Central District of California. Case No. 95-5118 DDP lRZX) b. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - anticipated litigation, pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) involving one (1) potential case c. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EV ALUA TION pursuantto Government Code Section 54957: Title: City Manager 3. RECONVENE TO REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING: The meeting was adjourned at 7:34 P.M. to the regular City Council meeting. 4. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS: There was no reportable action from the closed session. MICHAEL A. LADY, Mayor ATTEST: NANCY A. DAVIS, City Clerk j CITY COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 1999 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET, ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 1. CALL TO ORDER The Honorable City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande met in regular session at 7:30 p.m. Reportable Action taken at 6:15 p.m. Special Meeting: Mayor Lady said no reportable actions were taken. 2. FLAG SALUTE David Irwin, Arroyo Grande Rotary Club 3. INVOCATION Reverend Wayne Lidbeck of Huasna Valley Community Church 4. ROLL CALL C~uncil/Board: X. Lady X Ferrara X. Runels X Tolley X. Dickens ST AFF PRESENT X. City Manager X. City Attorney X. City Clerk X. Chief of Police X. Director of Building and Fire _ Director of Community Development X. Director of Public Works _ Director of Parks and Recreation X. Director of Financial Services X. Senior Consulting Engineer 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS A Culinary Award Plaque was presented by the Mayor to Donna Hunt, who has provided cookies for the Council, staff, and the public at the Council Meetings for three years. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1999 6. AGENDA REVIEW None 6.A. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES READ IN TITLE ONLY Council Member Runels moved, Council Member Ferrara seconded, ~nd the motion passed unanimously that all resolutions and ordinances presented at the meeting shall be read in title only and all further reading be waived. 7.A. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None 8. CITIZEN INPUT, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS: None 9. CONSENT AGENDA Council Member Runels moved and Council Member Tolley seconded the motion to approve the following Consent Agenda Items 9.a. through 9.f., 9.j., and 9.k., with the recommended courses of action. Council Member Tolley said he would not vote on 9.j., as he had a potential conflict of interest. City Attorney Carmel read the title of Ordinance 500 C.S. in item 9.f. f - Voice Vote X- Roll Call Vote A'JJ! Lady ~ Ferrara ~ Runels A'JJ! Tolley (Abstain on 9.j.) ~ Dickens There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, and one abstention on 9.j. only, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. a. Cash Flow Analysis/Approval of Interfund Advance from the Sewer Facility B.IruI b. Authorization to Solicit Bids - Replacement of Traffic Enforcement Radar c. Cash Disbursement Ratification d. Statement of Investment Deposits e. Minutes of City Council Meetings of November 1 0 and 24 and December 3 and 8, 1998 2 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 12,1999 f. Adoption of Ordinance No. 500 C.S. Modifying the California Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) Contract - Ordinance No. 500 C.S~ j. Acceptance of Improvements for Tract 1834 Phase 3 - Resolution No. 3344 k. Annual Adjustment of Traffic Signalization Fee - Resolution No. 3345 Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara asked questions and made comments concerning Consent Agenda Item 9.g., Award of Contract - Grand Avenue/East Branch Street Corridor Study. He suggested changes in the timing of traffic counts for the Corridor Study and the Project Study Report on Brisco Road/Route 101. Council Member Runels asked when the traffic signals near the 5 Cities Center would be working and Public Works Director Spagnolo said January 18 and 22, 1999. Council Member Dickens asked for clarification on the Corridor Study funding source; the difference between traffic forecasting and a corridor study, and whether or not the work being done is compatible with the City's General Plan and the traffic model. It was moved by Council Member Dickens and seconded by Council Member Tolley to approve Consent Agenda Item 9.g.; award the Grand Avenue/East Branch Street Corridor Study contract to Higgins Associates, and direct the City Clerk to forward the City's standard consultant services agreement to the consultant for execution. . Council Member Dickens and Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara spoke about Consent Agenda Item 9.h. Approval of Employment Agreement (for the City Manager). They said they were not qualified to evaluate the performance of the City Manager during the past year because they were not on the City Council. Council Member Dickens said the Employment Agreement has now been amended to say the performance evaluation shall occur no later than the end of October of each year. Council Members Tolley and Runels and Mayor Lady said they w~re extremely proud and fortunate to have Mr. Hunt as the City Manager. Council Member Tolley moved and Council Member Runels seconded the motion to approve Consent Agenda Item 9.h. Approval of Employment Agreement. Voice Vote X Roll Call Vote Aye Lady Abstain Ferrara Aye Runels 3 _ "'_~_' '___'__"m~'....__...._ , CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1999 Aye Tolley Abstain Dickens There being 3 A YES and 2 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. Council Member Dickens said he had concerns about Consent Agenda Item 9.i. Change in Position title from City Clerk (Staff) to Director of Administrative Services. He said he wanted the public to understand what the Council was doing. He asked what the elected City Clerk would be responsible for. The City Manager said primary examples of duties include canvassing the votes, protecting the City Seal, and updating the City Code. He said other duties fall under the staff position. Council Member Dickens asked if the title change were to be denied, the Council could use a recruitment process to employ a new City Clerk? The City Manager said yes, but a modification of the Municipal Code would be necessary. Council Member Dickens said he appreciated the benefits of the proposal but he feared the public could misunderstand. He said the voters were recently asked if . they wanted the position to be appointed and they voted no. He said he thought the voters wanted to keep the job duties in tact. Council Members Tolley and Runels, Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara, and Mayor Lady agreed with the staff recommendations. Council Member Tolley moved and Council Member Runels seconded the motion to approve staff recommendation, as follows: . Adopt Resolution No. 3346 approving a change in name from City Clerk (staff) to Director of Administrative Services; . Authorize staff.to initiate recruitment for the aforementioned Director of Administrative Services position; . Assuming an April 1999 hire date, authorize an overlap between the current City Clerk (staff) and the new Director of Administrative Services through April 30, 1999 for purposes of orientation and training. Voice Vote X Roll Call Vote Aye Lady 4 -_.'-"--'--~ .....~-~ .- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1999 Aye Ferrara Aye Runels Aye Tolley No Dickens There being 4 A YES and 1 NO, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 1 O. A. REVISION TO THE FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE Staff comments and recommendation: Staff recommended Council conduct the first reading of the Ordinance. Public Works Director Spagnolo said the proposed Ordinance requires floor elevations in new structures to be constructed one-foot above the flood plain elevation as opposed to equal or above the floodplain elevation in the current Ordinance. He said the proposed Ordinance will bring the City's standards into current compliance with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Council questions of staff: Council Members asked for explanation of one-foot requirement and if the new Ordinance follows FEMA's model. Council discussion: Council Member Runels said some remodels could require 15 feet of fill. He said the entire Arroyo Grande valley is in a floodplain. He asked about insurance rates and the Public Works Director said rates would be reduced according to what flood zone a resident was in. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara moved and Council member Runels seconded the motion to introduce the revised Floodplain Management Ordinance for first reading. X Voice Vote Roll Call Vote Aye Lady Aye Ferrara Aye Runels Aye Tolley Aye Dickens There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 11.A. WATER MASTER PLAN Staff recommended Council authorize the distribution of a Draft Water Master Plan and return in 45 days with a summary of public comments, make modifications, and approve the Water Master Plan. 5 - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1999 Council questions of staff: Questions were asked about "unaccountable water," the "Gentlemen's Agreement," and agricultural diversion. Council discussion: Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara and Council Member Dickens asked that references on Pages 1..1 and 1-2 concerning annexation, agricultural conversion, and water rights be modified. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara referred to the last paragraph of Page 5-3 and asked that the statement that recycled water is not cost-effective be modified. Council Member Runels said reclaimed water is expensive. He said Residential Rural and Residential Hillside lots use a lot of water and the numbers need to be noted. He referred to Page 4-1 showing 10- year water usage and said it should be known that Lopez Dam had enough water, after a seven-year drought, to supply all the water that was needed and that was before the supplementation of State water into the project. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara moved and Council Member Dickens seconded the motion to approve staff recommendations as modified. Voice Vote X Roll Call Vote X Lady X Ferrara X Runels X Tolley X Dickens There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 12. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS a. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara said he had a positive meeting with some local small business owners and planned to have more meetings in the future. b. Council Member Tolley said he and Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara met with Pismo Beach Council Members at a League of California Cities Conference and a joint meeting was discussed. There was Council consensus to direct staff to set up such a meeting. c. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara passed out copies of City Resolution No. 2133 and Ordinance No. 355 C.S. Concerning Royal Oaks Estates and restrictions placed on Lot 182. He said a concerned citizen asked that the documents be distributed in connection with the Rodeo Heights Project. 6 . -, CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1999 d. Council Member Runels said a kickoff luncheon was held for Mayors of the South County Cities to hear about the Zone 3 retrofit of Lopez Dam to make it seismically safe. e. Mayor Lady brought up the matter of Council/Staff and Commission/Staff Leadership workshops. There was Council consensus to direct Staff to check dates and options with Council Members for the Council/Staff workshop. 13. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS None 14. ADJOURNMENT Council Member Runels moved, Council Member Dickens seconded, and the motion passed unanimously to adjourn the meeting. Time: 8:42 p.m. MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR NANCY A. DAVIS, CITY CLERK -7 9.cL MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAG~ SUBJECT: COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS TO VARIOUS BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS DATE: JANUARY 26,1999 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council approve the appointments to various Boards and Commissions pursuant to the attached lists. FUNDING: This is no fiscal impact. DISCUSSION: On January 14, 1997, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 481 C.S. amending the composition of applicable Commissions and Boards from seven to five members and adopted Resolution No. 3192 establishing Council policy as it relates to the appointment procedure to various Commissions and Boards. Council Members have solicited applicants to serve on the various Commissions and Boards. The recommended appointments of each respective Council Member are attached. Although not required under the Ordinance or the resolution, the applicants have submitted Reservoir of Citizens to Serve forms. Staff will notify all applicants of their appointment and provide relevant information regarding their respective Board or Commission. jv MAYOR LADY RECOM MENDED APPOINTMENTS +- PLANNING COMMISSION Nancl Parker +- TRAFFIC COMMISSION Kirk Scott +- SENIOR ADVISORY COMMISSION Marilynn Fairbanks +- DOWNTOWN PARKING ADVISORY BOARD - Pending - +- PARKS AND RECREATION COM MISSION Leslie Brown +- ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COM MITTEE Chet Klelan c:\ooundlappg.canm. _._----_..."_....._-_.,_.,'~ ", CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RESERVOIR OF CrnZENS TO SERVE ./' Planning Commission ~ - Parks and Recreation Commission Years Uved in Arroyo Grande Traffic Commission Registered Voter of Arroyo Gra~ _ Senior Advisory Commission Yes_ No_ _ Special Committees O.e. Teen Advisory, Architectural Advisory, etc.) NAME t\\ Po ~~\. ":\) A(Z.Ke.~ " HOME ADDRESS \."2. 01.. E. C. \-\ E ~~'( f\\)6 PHONE 4-7 ~ . ~:>'3.3 PRESENT PRESENT EMPLOYER POSITION OFFICE BUSINESS ADDRESS TELEPHONE EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND High School (r)f.Jc.oRu j c..A. College ~ '" P\-S~oc. . S('~\ 6 \.1c..6 . " ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION \c.u) ~lC.u J ~C.L'5> c va.. ~ E.M"" t. '-{ EN~O\.LC~ ~L8c!.~ '51"r-tl't V 1>.)\ \)€ a..s. 1,,"1.1 ~f.A.LT" .5 ~"E..s " , "'\~\S \fl.Y\ 11 0 N ~I=' p,- CDOa~\~~~ C.Af2 t"),\ f\~ PUL YV\o~ An. ~ {2.. G t\-~ L I \'1\-\\ n.J COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS rII\... \ w\"li2E~T<:; L( E It--.> ~{:;" P L t:+N W \ t-) G- o~ c;... (C Ow T\-\- "'" C€\fE LOP Mf ~T \ \~ ?~~-S ~R~\rJ(_ ouR \ ~ YV'\ A-LL mu)N c. ~ It c"U:fi<.. .....) \-4\l"G C I\-{ 5 ? eoW\ D" tJ (;..- PL ~~N t:b R ~'hP()",~\gl.b 6-1'C.ow~ . The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References: NAME ADDRESS 1. aT\. So. PA6-~ ~oCo M'{(.2.,TLt= 2. ::] lH... \ b Ln~~oN :t~7 Lf.:\ Clt.~ G-rA 3. FA- I\'" \-\ wF~cO~ '2.0~ E . c..~E'R~~ ARE YOU WilLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION MEETING TIMES SHOWN BELOW: I Yes~ ..t Planning Commission, First and Third Tuesday of each month. 7:30 p,m. No_ Parks and Recreation Commission, Third Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m.; Yes_ No~ Traffic Commission, Monday Previous to Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes_ No_ Senior Advisory Commission, First Wednesday of each month. 7:00 p.m. Yes_ No_ Special Committee O.e. Teen Advisory, Architectural Advisory, etc.), Various meeting times and dates Yes_ No_ Slgr'jature ~~~. ~~ Date~~ /.5'" /998-- , The Arroyo Grande City Council requests information about your interest, (and education. if applicable) in serving on a commission, specifically your comments and views relative to the role and responsibilities of the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation" Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Commission or a Special Committee. Please note such information on the reverse side of this form. Thank you for your i~erest. THIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD IF APPOINTED. COMPLETION OF A STATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM IS REQUIRED (01!2:W7) .. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RESERVOIR OF cmZENS TO SERVE . . . RFCFiVED ___ Planning Commission " ~v DC" ~[tRoyn ~r~' T'',:" -? ~Parks and Recreation Commissio~ I I I i-.\ \ ~ 1.::.\..1 d-'.... Years Uved in Arroyo Grande ,<. -L. TraffIC Co~ission. G~) J~!! r:> ') r ~; q: C; I Registered Voter of Arroyo Grande _ Senior AdvISory COmmISSion )(j L':.-. L. o.J ,.:.1 J '" I YesX No_ _ Special Committees (Le. Teen Advisory, Architecturai Advisory, etc.) NAME R'llfl( S-corr HOME ADDRESS S-rl C> V/11 VA C)VEIt 0 A. C. PHONE.. //t? /- ~~.?.s- PRESENT ~ PRESENT EMPLOYER c'TI If,f /J POSITION OFFICE BUSINESS ADDRESS TELEPHONE EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND HighSchooIFIJIR/J~vJIIT /11(11- /)IJ YTDU 01110 CollegeBA.-OII/o JTIJ1C ttAJllI€IfSJ7 Y ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION L.(C~Jc/J ~64L eS7A'Tcg~o~U-5r~7E Or C~LI,c. COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References: NAME ADDRESS 1. !)EL 4fl1llE)I /99 1/11/ 3//,v~(JL.!"A'o /J.b. 2. 'nAlY r-rCtftf/J,(/} 7~lJ VIii SlJvf)dLE,<r; A.(;. 3. ~/1 7"'"/lLSQr /t)/S" ;'IJ~,,/J()V J,//J Y II. C. ARE YOU WILLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION MEETING TIMES SHOWN BELOW: Planning Commission, Rrst and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.rn. Yes_ No_ Parks and Recreation Commission, Third Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. ~ Yes V No_ Traffic Commission, Monday Previous to Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes_ No_ Senior Advisory Commission, Rrst Wednesday of each month, 7:00 p.rn. Yes_ No_ Speciai Committee O.e. Teen Advisory. Architectural ~dvIsory, etc.), Various meeting times and dates Yes_ No_ ~- y, "M Date pj!9? The Arroyo Grande City Council requests information about your interest, (and education. if applicable) in ~1Ving on a commission, specifically your comments and views relative to the role and responsibilities of the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Commission or a Special Committee. Please note such information on the reverse side of this form. Thank you .for your interest. THIS FORM IS A MATIER OF PUBLIC RECORD IF APPOINTED. COMPLETION OF A STATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM IS REQUIRED (011ZW7) , 4" CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE . RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS TO SERVE Planning Commission RECEIVED - Parks and Recreation Commission CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Years Lived in Arroyo Grande 7 ~. _ Traffic Commission Registered Voter of Arroyo Grande ~ Senior Advisory Commission 97 FEB 21 PH~: 44 Yes~ No_ _ Special Committees (Le. Teen Advisory, Architectural Advisory, ete.) NAME M~~~ ~~~) . HOME ADDRESS. <i?'( ~ /-(}~-1 . . PHONE t/r/-- ZJ-%--t PRESENT JG:;t-~ PRESENT .- EMPLOYER ---- . POSITION OFFICE BUSINESS ADDRESS TELEPHONE EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND .. H~gh School e.;-6f..L';::'-1 ~ 'U-.,~ ~ College - ."_~__~~ ___ ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS ~A'l~a.tj ~ II-~. ~~ . a ~ ~ ~ -.. (~~.'f~. --,M) s~- . ~~ B~t-~J,i~p' d?L- [;i~ - rr~~ ~ The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References: . NAME ADDRESS ~. ~ IKJ1 rJJ~.r !i4. -'- 4. w'q~ ~. - ~~ g07:7~ tt$ 3. B/~ ~ .~r ~ . - t(., ., ARE YOU WIlLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION MEETING TIMES SHOWN aa.ow: .. - Planning Commission, First and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes_ No_ Parks and Recreation Commission, Third Wednesday of each month, 6;00 p.rn. Yes_ No_ Traffic Commission, Monday Previous to Third Tuesday of each month~ 7:30 p.rn. Yes No Senior Advisory Commission, First Wednesday ot each month, 7:00 p:m. Yes.-+ No_ Special Committee (Le. Teen Advisory, Architectural Advisory, etc.), Various . meeting times and.dates Yes_ No_ Slgnatu.. '>>1~ ~~ Dme ~~tf-97 . The Arroyo Grande City Council requests information about your interest, (and education, if applicable) in serving on a commission, specifically your comments and views relative to the role and responsibirtties ot the Planning CommiSsion, Parks and Recreation Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Commission or a Special Committee.. Please note such inforrnaDon an ttre reverse side of this form. Thank you for yo.ur interest. . THIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD IF AP~OINTED. COMPLETtON OF A ~ATE CONFUCT OF INTEREST FORM IS REQUIRED _.~-~.-- -- _.~---,._- " CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS TO SERVE -"~--~ -- .--- --- ~llgDI4q~ . A~Einmlsslon Driver's License No. ~~ ~F ARROYO GRA~iDE Years Lived In Arroyo Grande 2. . -Parks and Recreation Commission 96 JU<<.~nc ~;sMfn Registered Voter of Arroyo Grande _ Senior Advisory Commission Yes~ No_ ----:- Special' Committee (I.e. Teen Advisory, Architectural Advisory, etc.) Mr.: Mrs.: Miss W\s. I .€9it. D(OL0~ (Please circle one) LJ DO ~ fA ~ PHONE LJ &'1- Cf1" D HOME ADDRESS 0 0 \J't... MARITAL STATUS Mttrrftcl NUMBER OF CHILDREN L PRESENT -E' ait-. J d<< t.!tj Ii . ( PRESENT LMo<< rYltlA'tu 'P1\)1~ C()()(d,. EMPLOYER (I)) 11\.5 ~ POSITION OFFICE BUSINESS ADDRESS~~ -S. rAJIAMA.. ~t. TELEPHONE 1&' - 1..7. DO EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND High School kJDDtiS)tit. ~^- 0tN:o 1 collegef:>>A .~oclolCZf4 - ut..s~ ~ ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION (l t:f-=1T ) M5. r t.lb"4-c. AdmtlYU sty"a:tf M.. - Vrli~l~ {)'/~~ I~r~ Are you aware that you may be required to fill out a CONFLICT OF INTEREST Form. Yes.K.. No_ EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE (If Applicable} rv J'A L'") I Do you represent any special groupl Yes_ NoK If so, please give name of group. COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS' If.ttclM".s~ p ~~ W.s Dbi.:sP!~if1' S' ..'S lU\ u,u"".s ObI lJ.Jet/lJ 'j The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References: .HAME ADDRESS ~~:~~~ I//Ill ~,'"- ~/U"/) ~fl;.l B-f WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION MEETING NIGHTS SHOWN BELOW: Planning Commission,. First and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Y85_ No~ Parks and Recreation Commission, Third Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. YesX- No_ Traffic Commission, Monday Previous Third Tuesday of each month. 7:00 p.m. Yes_ No2S:- Senior Advisory Commission, First Wednesday of each month, 7:00 p.m. Yes - No~ Special Committee (I.e. Teen Advisory, Architectural Advisory, etc.t Various mee"~ .... da'es Ye. _ HeX SIGNATURE ~. bY7Ylh'-- - DATE--.io..)C;:rlq(P The Arroyo Gr. City Council needs some information about yoc.r interests, (and education, If applicable) in serving on a Commission, specifically yo... comments and views relative to the role and responsibilities of the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Com- mission or a Special Committee. Please note such Information on the reverse side of this form. Thank you for your Interest. THIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD ~~_..._"----,.- -~---~ CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RESERVOIR OF CmZENS TO SERVE _ Planning Commission F;ECEI'/EO - Parks and Recreation Commission CiT\! OF J\RRO'{O GRA.:!OE Years Uved in Arroyo Grande 12 Traffic Commission Registered Voter of Arroyo Grande - ., . . C'" 111' ro,,. r~1 '1. "-7 _ Senior AdvISory CommISSIon J 0 '"' '.' ~ .) U r 1- '-''; I Yesx..- No_ ....!- Special Committees O.e. Teen Advisory, Architectural Advisory, etc.) NAME Chet Kielan HOME ADDRESS 174 Pin~ st. Arroyo Grande,CA . PHONE 805-481-5013 PRESENT PRESENT EMPLOYER Self POSITION. Architect/Principal. OFFICE BUSINESS ADDRESS Same as above TELEPHONE ~nmA n~ nhOVA EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND Lawrence Institute of Technologr Detroit Mi. High School Hazel- Park High School CollegeKenyon Co lege, Gami>ier Hazelgark Mi. Ohio. Univ.Of Mich.Ann ADDITIONAL EDUCATI NAL INFORMATION :a,rbor Mi. Calif.State Bachelor of Arts/Architecture t}ni V! , F~~s.no , Calif. Bachelor of $cience/Engineerin9, Graduate studies in Art and Design COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS Rotary Club of Arroyo Grande, YMCA Advisory Board, Architectural Advisory BOnrd for r.l nrk ThAnt-F'!r fnr t-hA PArfnrmi ng ~rt-~ Fr~. & Acc~ptAd Mn~on~ Of r.nlif ,~hrinAr~ nf r.nlif . ~mArir";:In Tn~tit-nt... .of Architects., RAMS (Retired Active Men. The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References: NAME ADDRESS 1. 2. 3. None at this time ARE YOU WILLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION MEETING TIMES SHOWN BELOW: Planning Commission, First and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 P.rn. Yes_ No_ Parks and Recreation Commission, Third Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes_ No_ Traffic Commission, Monday Previous to Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes_ No_ Senior Advisory Commission, First Wednesday of each month, 7:00 p.rn. Yes_ No_ Special Committee (i.e. Teen Advisory, Architectural Advisory, etc.)"Various Yes~ meeting times an es No_ Signature ,. Date July 29,1998 The Arroyo Grande C' Council requests information about your interest, (and education, if applicable) in serving on a commission, specifically your comments and views relative to the role and responsibilities of the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Commission or a Special Committee. Please note such information on the reverse side of this form. Thank you for your interest. THIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD IF APPOINTED. COMPLETION OF A STATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM IS REQUIRED (01123'97) MAYOR PRO TEM FERRARA RECOM MENDED APPOINTMENTS . PLANNING COMMISSION Joseph M. Costello . TRAFFIC COMMISSION Gary L. Borda . SENIOR ADVISORY COM MISSION Jeannette Tripodi . DOWNTOWN PARKING ADVISORY BOARD John Gutierrez . PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Philip V. Lozano . ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE B. David Sachson o:\oouncllappttl.comll'l. ,-----------...- . . CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS TO SERVE ,)<i. Planning Commission - Parks and Recreation Commission ? Traffic Commission Years Lived in Arroyo Grande _ Senior Advisory Commission Registered Voter of Arroyo Grande _ Special Committees (Architectural Review, etc,) Yes~ No_ NAME 00s <:.f h f'A.. CD~Jlo HOME ADDRESS {DfjB 2:>6,"" C, ~<;.-{c::..- PHONE 1f-7 J-.2 ~v. J PRESENT PRESENT EMPLOYER S7JI7T OF CA. Cr,v. O-P;a.. e>f E;,., SuoJftr'-5 POSITION Ct"V"7 A-oA'N'S"f"/ftP770~ OFFICE BUSINESS ADDRESS PD f3D,Io fia.,3 ,u,..,p J-trJ 6.;,~ OIJI.rjO.; S'(...{} TELEPHONE 6"~ 'i. 3 ~$" 3 EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND 1'-11 II I'J II High School Sr. Mo "', C4s /<;J.<i-_j.~ College tJtVlf/. 0;:- S...... ~~c,s.c.-O, ':gA /9')2- ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS V, [oJ /0 rn-Il. hcw"i?J/l.. _ () Ct:.""N tI ( o.J & It;.y.,e>t ~'J - The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References: NAME ADDRESS 1,13 rJ'rD O'LA<J &~f.,11o.....J 70,tt G.r.t. ,.J .., A.. 6-. 2, 101'" '"'1\0 I'" P .sON 100 ~q,,.J Grc-/~ A. (1.,. 3. -120 /c f;.--r" r ::r 6 h A.I S Tl).\) t.",-/() U 8-r-k PL ;.... 6- ' ARE YOU WILLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION/COMMITTEE MEETING TIMES SHOWN BELOW: Planning Commission, First and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p,m. Yes ../ No - Parks and Recreation Commission, Second Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes - No - Traffic Commission, Monday Previous to Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes - No - Senior Advisory Commission, First Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes - No - Special Committee (i.e. Architectural Review Committee, etc.), Various meeting times and da s Yes - No - ~,~ Date I;LIJI /1 t c , The rroyo rande City Council requests information about your interest (and education, if applicable), in serving on a co . ion or committee, specifically your comments and views relative to the role and responsibilities of the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Commission, or a Special Committee. Please note such information on the reverse side of this form, Thank you for your interest. THIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD IF APPOINTED. COMPLETION OF A STATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM IS REQUIRED (11/02198) .. - ~ '" .. -- ___u _~." C I T Y ARROYO o F 9RANDE RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS TO SERVE ~-"------'----"-- ~Parks and Recreation Commission Driver's Li~ense No. ;JJ Df"L/ift. 90 \ _Planning Commission Years Lived in Arroyo -Grande. :J-.,fJ ~. ~parking and Traffic Commission Registered Voter of Arroyo Grande YESk NO ---- _Special Committee ITHIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD. I ~i Mrs. i Miss &Pt~'f t. ,.1bte.6A (Please circle one) , RESIDENC~ HOME ADDRESS JI..r-.p t..J 11-I-D w Lv . A /f./l. 0 frO ~AI~.e PJI>NE 'r/1.9'- 7?J-,/ ;' . MARITAL STA'lUS /'7 NUMBER OF CHILDREN d- PRESENT A Co. PRESENT A (;$";"- EMPLOYER J-L.. f .., A '7 &: ;1",.;.(" POSITION ...rk , A cC.O,,"'/ r . OFFICE hJ. f? (lj-;. 11/ CJJ . BUS INESS tTrI/-tj t j I ADDRESS I....r ...rb /::J. (;. TELEPJI>NE / EDUCATIONAL Bigh School AU(I Yr' GApW~~ G,!. 4 Lv Jt~,,/".GlfrJ 71,., ,r.t Q BACKGROUND College . r. ;' / ADDITIONAL &IZAj) I..I.R 'iff"IJ ~/.. .LJ5/j...E /14/ ;/ ~ .1/14/.# od....t ED. 'L. INFO Ah 71-1 f....r. 4.E~~~ I Are you aware that you may be required to fill out a YES V:o CONFLICT OF INTEREST Form. - EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE (If Applicable) NO V - If so, please give name of grou~. Do you represent any special .groupT YES_ COHKJNI'lY AND CIVIC INTERESTS 'l11e City Council would like to have the Name of three Arroyo Grande References: JWm ADDRESS 1. "1/;;~If"'j )./A~~C~ /,J:>.. f. trRArJCH I A~il()vn tfl'Z.Aw"~ 2. (l.d..../ ~ I) A Y t:",r H I ..p...r') W 1L..J-rII..v LJV . (. I , 3. 'it11P:: ~ "'&:f"'rJ~~ ... l.,t~ i'tM~~ I. I,. W01J E WI ING ERVE ON THE COMMISSION TI BELOW: PAlUCS & RECREATION CO!tfISSION MEETINGS, 2nd Wed. of Ea. Month YES - NO - PlANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS, 1st 7 3rd Tues. of Ea. Month YES ~ NO _ PARKING & TRAFFIC COMHISS ION HEEnNGS, Monthly Meetings YES NO - SPECIAL COHHITTEE, Various YES NO - DATE ) -,r>dJ9 SIGNA'lURE. ~ ~il - The Arroyo Grande Council needs some information about your interests, (and education, if applicable) in serving on a Commis~ion, specifically your comments and views relative. to the role and responsibilities of the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Coauds810D, the Parking and Traffic Commission or a Special Committee. Please note such Infor.atlon on the reverse Bide of tbis form. -- ---~--_._-_.,,-_.~ -- ---- ~ \...- . CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS TO SERVE _ Planning Commission Parks and Recreation Commission Traffic Commission Years Lived in Arroyo Grande ~ Senior Advisory Commission Registered Voter of Arroyo Grande _ Special Committees (Architectural Review, etc.) Yes - No - NAME J -e" ,., n ~ ::1+ ~ T p ;.p () d ; HOME ADDRESS 51.( E, CA..ev-f'Y PHONE ~~Cf-~7' ( PRESENT ~\r- rCeL PRESENT EMPLOYER POSITION OFFICE BUSINESS ADDRESS ~ TELEPHONE --- EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND High School ..3~ " 4- ~ 'I JI\. e 2- ~o. II e r College U. c.. Sa f\ f rot '" e../S'c-<> " Il rs ,,) J ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS PC(f F> II\. ~IJ.. i er fe~t J... '^-C.., a. f'ft C{ ar ~c hDCJ ( -...J 0 'I..( f\. --I~ e f/' C \"'l)\f ~\'" f!..eac" V't'!l-r--eA..fl"Y\ - ejC -€ C c.. c;. t"" The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References: NAME ADDRESS 1, ~c.(\ -+ T ~ "T;IY\ g '1"'0 W 1""\ AI l--e V' 2. '\)1 5'+ Y"A.', t ka a t\-A.... 4 V\- "'f 3.~ -r:l tl; ~ ~(;(rd~n ~ ARE YOU WILLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION/COMMITTEE MEETING TIMES SHOWN BELOW: Planning Commission, First and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes - No - Parks and Recreation Commission, Second Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes - No - Traffic Commission, Monday Previous to Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes No - - Senior Advisory Commission, First Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes+- No_ Special Committee (Le. Architectural Review Committee, etc.), Various meeting times and dates Yes No Signature ~A1""""~~ ~~ . Date I ~ 7 - 11 - The Arroyo ~de City Council requests information about your interest (and education, if applicable), in serving on a commission or committee, specifically your comments and views relative to the role and responsibilities of the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Commission, or a Special Committee. Please note such information on the reverse side of this form. Thank you for your interest. THIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD IF APPOINTED. COMPLETION OF A STATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM IS REQUIRED (11/02/98) _._.m____~__.__,. . CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS TO SERVE _ Planning Commission Parks and Recreation Commission -.tL = Traf!ic Co~mission .. Years Lived in Arroyo Grande - Semor AdvIsory Commission p. ~ Registered Voter of Arroyo Grande -X- special;r:.mittees (Architectural Review, etc.) DrJ-n. ~ Yes ----.2S.... No_ NAME :J 0 t-h0 E( u T L 8~'"l..f=t HOME ADDRESS L-{f{2- ?R-l0Tt~ ~, PHONE PRESENT ~ ST "\)c-U PRESENT ~EfC EMPLOYER ~l+ POSITION OFFICE ~l C, D~Ci4- ~I' BUSINESS 8: q tJ... ADDRESS TELEPHONE -=v/ ~~ q EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND High School \..-0 i 0 LA- ~lA-- ~ College ~AKJ ~~ ~ L.tN\J, ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION ~ .-- t:D~ COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS ~~L ~, /~~ ~ ~, , The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References: NAME ADDRESS 1, ~~ 9, } ~L- Atbl - 2,~"'T) ~\A~ V \'v4- LA- ~~_~ 3. _lj(2fIT) lli t- L--- t~, ~Lfu-)3) cJ-1 . ARE YOU WILLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION/COMMITTEE MEETING TIMES SHOWN BELOW: Planning Commission, First and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes - No - Parks and Recreation Commission, Second Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes No ~- Traffic Commission, Monday Previous to Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Ye No Senior Advisory Commission, F t Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes_ No_ Special Committee (Le. Archit ct ral Review Committee, etc.), Various meeting times s Signatur The Arroyo G a (je City Council request ormation about your interest (and e tion, if applicable), in serving on a commission or committee, specifically your comments and views relative to the role and responsibilities of the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Commission, or a Special Committee. Please note such information on the reverse side of this form, Thank you for your interest. THIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD IF APPOINTED. COMPLETION OF A STATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM IS REQUIRED (11/02/98) ~"~- ., CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS TO SERVE Planning Commission =sL Parks and Recreation Commission ~ _ Traf!ic Co~mission ,. Years Lived in Arroyo Grande ~ _ Semor AdvIsory Commission Registered Voter of Arroyo Grande _ Special C . e:s A~chitectural Revi w, Yes ~ No_ NAME HONE 47~ - 0<.- / / .7 PRESENT E~E~.' ~~ EMPLOYER OSITI OFFICE USINES ADDRES~ TELEPHONE - / EDUCAT~CKGROUN~ HighScho __~4JI/r:;( /. #- ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References: NAME 1. ARE YOU WILLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION/COMMITTEE MEETING TIMES SHOWN BELOW: Planning Commission, First and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p,m. Yes _ No_ Parks and Recreation Commission, Second Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes ~ No_ Traffic Commission, Monday Previous to Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes _ No_ Senior Advisory Commission, First Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes _ No_ Special Committee (i.e. Architectural Review C mittee, etc.), Various meeting times and dat Yes _ No_ Date /-/~-~" r r The Arroyo Grande City C unci! requests' ation about your interest (and education, if applicable), in serving on a commission or committee, specifically ou omments and views relative to the role and responsibilities of the Planning Commission, Parks and Recre . n Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Commission, or a Special Committee. Please note such information on the reverse side of this form. Thank you for your interest. THIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD IF APPOINTED. COMPLETION OF A STATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM IS REQUIRED (11/02198) , . CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS TO SERVE _ Planning Commission RECEIVED _ Parks and Recreation Commission CITY OF' ARROYO GR~DE: . I _ Traffio,!Commission ears Lived in Arroyo Grande 1 ,1 2 _ Senior Advisory Commission 99 JAN 1 1 AH 10: ~gistered Voter of Arroyo Grande ~ Special Committees (Architectural Review, etc.) Yes --LX.... No_ NAME B . DAVID SACHSON HOME ADDRESS 391 CHAPARRAL LANE PHONE 481 4309 PRESENT PRESENT EMPLOYER ARCHITECT RETIRED POSITION OFFICE BUSINESS ADDRESS TELEPHONE EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND High School STUYVESANT H.S College. U . OF PENNSYLVANIA ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION U. OF PERUGA, ITALY U. OF ROME, ITALY COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ISSUES The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References: NAME ADDRESS 1. (JERRY TUFTE 542 Avenida deDiarnonte 2, lURK SCOTT Arrovo Grande 3. JIM WEBSTER 207 Rodeo Dr. ARE YOU WILLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION/COMMITTEE MEETING TIMES SHOWN BELOW: Planning Commission, First and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m, Yes XX No - Parks and Recreation Commission, Second Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes No Traffic Commission, Monday Previous to Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes XX No - Senior Advisory Commission First Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes - No - Special COl)1mittee (i. r i ctural Review Committee, etc.), Various meeting times and dat / (;S-ZL No_ Signature Date I 11 1 , I The Arroyo Grande City Council requests information about your interest (and education, if applicable), in serving on a commission or committee, specifically your comments and views relative to the role and responsibilities of the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Commission, or a Special Committee. Please note such information on the reverse side of this form. Thank you for your interest. THIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD IF APPOINTED. COMPLETION OF A STATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM IS REQUIRED (11/02/98) As a retired architect, I have a trained sense of design and and construction, as well as code standards. I have made numerous presentatio~s to Design Review Boards, Planning Commissions and City Councils. T have worked with various .!. City and State Departments of Fire Prevention, Building & Safety, Disabled Access, Traffic et ale My training and experience will allow me to see and under- stand many items that the average person will not. I have no business interests in Arroyo Grande, I have little history in the City, so I believe all of my observations and/or comments would be based solely on the Prcject. I do believe, however, that unrestricted growth would be a disaster fot this city, and all growth should be carefully considered and evaluated before approval. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS TO SERVE _ Planning Commission RECEIVED' _ Parks and Re~reation Commission CITY Of ARROYO GR~DE . . . _ TraffiQ,Commlssion ears Lived in Arroyo Grande 1 1/2 _ Senior Advisory Commission 99 JAN 1 1 AM 10: ~gistered Voter of Arroyo Grande -*20 Special Committees (Architectural Review, etc,) Yes --LL No_ NAME B . DAVID SACHSON HOME ADDRESS 391 CHAPARRAL LANE PHONE 481 4309 PRESENT PRESENT EMPLOYER ARCHITECT RETIRED POSITION OFFICE BUSINESS ADDRESS TELEPHONE EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND High School STUYVESANT,H.S CollegeU. OF PENNSYLVANIA ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION U. OF PERUGA, ITALY U. OF ROME, ITALY COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ISSUES The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References: NAME ADDRESS 1. (JERRY TUFT[' 542 Avenida deDiamonte -- 2. KIRK SCOTT Arrovo Grande 3. JIM WEBSTER 207 Rodeo Dr. . ARE YOU WILLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION/COMMITTEE MEETING TIMES SHOWN BELOW: Planning Commission, First and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m, Yes XX No - Parks and Recreation Commission, Second Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes No Traffic Commission, Monday Previous to Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes XX No - Senior Advisory Commission First Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes - No - Special Cor:nmittee Q. rc i ctural Review Committee, etc.), Vartous meeting times and dat ill/hi-=- No_ Signature Date I · The Arroyo Grande City Council requests information about your interest (and education, if applicable), in serving on a commission or committee, specifically your comments and views relative to the role and responsibilities of the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Commission, or a Special Committee. Please note such information on the reverse side of this form. Thank you for your interest. THIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD IF APPOINTED. COMPLETION OF A STATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM IS REQUIRED (11/02198) -- -'---'~---'- "._--,,--,.,,---- ---...- - retired archi t'ec't,' I; ha:ve 'a . ; T . As a trained sense of design and .. -' ~ ,..~ C' ., - ..,. .'-' - and construction, as' 'weit' as ' code standards. I have made numerous presentatio~s to Design Review Boards, Planning Commissions and City Councils. I have worked with various City and State Departments of Fire Prevention, Building & Safety, Disabled Access, Traffic et al. My training and experience will allow me to see and under- stand many items that the average person will not. I bave no business interests in Arroyo Grande, I have little history in the City, so I believe all of my observations and/or comments would be based solely on the Project. I do believe, however, that unrestricted growth would be a disaster fot this city, and all growth should be carefully considered and evaluated before approval. ----------- -~~--.._-,--_.,_._- _ _m______ COUNCIL MEMBER TOLLEY RECOM MENDED APPOINTMENT . ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Craig R. Smith c:\oounollappls.comm-: TEL 805 5443380 P. 1 -- ......... ...,. c........ '.. j " '.'1"" I'":I':~:U i t) 1J~:Ht11.lt. 805 473 e3eG P.03 crrv OF ARROYO GRANDE R F ~ _ Planning Commission CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE "". i{' ~O - Parkt and R~E!8tiOn Commission 99 JAM 18 PH 2. '" . 1,' ~ _ TtIfIIc COmmiSSIon · rs I..l\fed in Arroyo O,.nde . g StnlOf AdVisory Commi$Jlon Registeted VotX' ~ Arroyo Grande :x: Speci8f Commtttees (Art"..hitectural Review, etc.) Yes No_ NAMe~<# HOME ADDRESS . PHONE ~ ... U~ I PRESENT PRESENT EMPlOYER ~1i1I (t.. 5MI..'m.~ t 1611JG_ POSITION C$O OFFICE BUSINeSS ADDRESS 6~ M/JIl"('J)l4y Sr. ~."'. c,t. TeLEPHONE~-M#O emJCATIONAL BACIS,GROUNO "ifi'! HighSchoOI~S~. ~.,} -C'J1': _College C-1rJ- WJt.--( jl() - ~ 1" , " · (Jc.t..A - 1M.A*tt .. hDDtTIP~ !DUCA~L INFOR.,MATION . - - . ~MY.N!r~N9 CIVIC iNTERESTS J!J:)T f'UhJIA pJ(, ~"'f~~h_",.~L CIty " f't~ .~J ~~ eMS ()1ftJ '" . - ....... .-...~- . ~ - .- - ...... J!:1~6~ DI'- 1t..t..A...!.-..,____ -_. , The City couoar would li1(e 10 have the names of thrae (3) Arroyo Grandt References: ADM.. 1. _ t; t 1... Afl.{lt>( () $0..,.. . A.G. 2. ~(~ ArfaYd $):-. 4 &~dT 3. 1-5!O~Y~ Jr6 ARE YOU WILLING TO SERVE ON THe COMMISSIONlCOMMI11"EE MEETING TIMES SHOWN BeLOW: Planning CommisSion, fl'irst and Third rlAesday of each month. 7:30 p.m. Ve,_ No_ Parks end Recreation Commission. second Wednesday of flam month, &:00 p.m. Ves_ No_ Tr1IIfi& Commission. Monday PrevfOtI$ to Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes_ No_ senior ~ CommiMton. FIt"St Wednesday of eacn month. 6:00 p.rn, Y"_ No_ Special CornmJttee (i.e. Architectural Review Committee. etc.), VariOUS meeting LV...x.. No_ times and die" Signature Dare ~/i/qr The Arroyo Gl'llnde City Cou . requests information about your interest (and edUC8tlon, If .~).Ift eeMflg on it comtI'IIIIIOn or comrnlltee, SpecificaUy your comments and views relative to the role and '.......1 of the Planning OOmmiS$ion, Pam and Recreation Comrrnmon, Traff'1C Commission. Senior AdvlsofJ CO"'1I1'.on. or . SpecIal Committee. Please note such informatiOn on 'he reverse side of utis fonn. Thank you for your ifIte.-t. THIS fQRM IS A MATTER OF PU8UC RECORD (11102198) iF A~PotK{ED. COMPL&TION OF ASTATE CONFuc;T OF 'NTERqT FORM 8 _0I1NIFl1 TOTAL F'. 03 - ~.. ..- - - - - - .-. -~ - - - - - ", - - - - - _. _. - - - - - .... - .- - - -- -.. - - - - - .- - - - - - - ~... - - - COUNCIL MEMBER DICKENS RECOMMENDED APPOINTMENTS + PLANNING COM MISSION - Pending - + TRAFFIC COMMISSION L. George Tappan + SENIOR ADVISORY COM MISSION N. Imogene "Jean" Hubbard + DOWNTOWN PARKING ADVISORY BOARD Gary Andreini + PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Colleen T. Martin + ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Warren E. Hoag - C:\COIjtIoIlappta.comm. ---- CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS TO SERVE _ Planning Commission RECEIVED Parks and Recreation Commission CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE =x Traffic Commission Years Lived in Arroyo Grande ~ _ Senior Advisory Commission 99 JAN 22 A~.sldied Voter of Arroyo Grande _ Special Committees (Architectural Review, etc.) , Yes~ No_ NAME ,-, 6EOR.6E T APPA,I\! HOME ADDRESS If) 90 SUNSET DR-~ PHONE ~~I [4'~ PRESENT PRESENT EMPLOYER LvelA MA(J.. VNlrl ED SCc-bOL..S Q'ST~ POSITION OA'f c.~:s -rOO'..4M A"- OCEANo OFFICE he;... BUSINESS -1734110 (~M"~ ADDRESS OfLfUAtto ST Afl.P.tJ'(o G1~E TELEPHONE EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND High School SI. Pl\J.5 Z VtoUJ~Y(!,A:; CAt..a F College :L y~ 6Ewc'1l.A1- Eo. q 1 AlIa" HetIt6~1t ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS ()C$NJo e t...€""" ENTAfly ~t'fvOL- FAC-, {...tTIC5 COMM ('I --rEE OAMp.A-lGN W To E L- E::1::.:r -:JIM D lcJ<E:N5 to Ccry COUNC.L The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References: NAME ADDRESS 1.~C(--thr P r\ iDk-ctrcl 6, 10 HV/tStJA ~D 2. Sir pH-EN S(!\lDO~ " 8'-' SV!\15E1 DtL 3. LtWPA W, fVc e ~I2...S ~" 11>1: S of r-ee t. ARE YOU WilLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION/COMMITTEE MEETING TIMES SHOWN BELOW: Planning Commission, First and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes_ No~ Parks and Recreation Commission, Second Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes No )< Traffic Commission, Monday Previous to Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes2L- No= Senior Advisory Commission, First Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes_ NO-1- Special Committee (Le. Architectural Review Committee, etc.), Various meeting No~ times and dates Yes_ Signature Date ,-~-.JY The Arroyo Grande City Council requests information about your interest (and education, if applicable), in serving on a commission or committee, specifically your comments and views relative to the role and responsibilities of the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Commission, or a Special Committee. Please note such information on the reverse side of this form. Thank you for your interest. THIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD IF APPOINTED. COMPLETION OF A STATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM IS REQUIRED (11/02198) .- .~. . .". " - .' :'j"/ c ",:;;,,' .~. . 'I' : , ." , -'.- . ',,-' . ,.-, - ' '.' "........ -w \N Hv "^ \ T MA'f (!(J}jC:e:t<N rr 15M'1 ..r J-rrvt e:5T ""00 S -Dl. v ~ 01" 1'"t~ ~OY1J ~",D-E: T~P(C. C<::I.N'\M \ 55t (jJJ. , .:t \AAV-e- Sc)t'AE :t.9EA5 A&ouT STi.eAN\W fJ itJ~ \AAFFlC- '.n.ttlo v €i t1 l)ur't "TOWN. .r W,../V'i -C-o L,.f;AttfJ /"^O~ Aev,.:'f \...10 \IV O~~ DEPAttTM€"W'lS QA,..J W~(!J,,< '"(D Gtlt~ -\"0 wHLt) A (J;)MMC^, 60 Al-.. J: v fa, ""\ --r 0 MA teE: ~ v ~t O€V t:l.-O PEJ2...> A(l..€ f"I".b 4 ~s ~u.N S 1'B L E ro~. ~tv'\ ~\ eo v1"' N G- &' prC" IN"'Co "'t"~ ,AO:JAC-eN--r COJA,.M.VNl-r( t 5 \tI ( w- \\\ <:l..4; ""'( {~(t \' '(l.c> '":S' tc- "T 5 AFF-EC.'T. J: t>. L..l"-C ~O 5~ fN> (1-,,- w Q..L Pert JVE:'D e t K{: P f\-i ft 5 I \-'-,A '" Q l (A-f Ace f" 55 AA-f\^.p 5 , l Ot: wA{..K 5 5 I 6 tV A- E) {;: I f AND lA 6t+'T{ 1\\ Q 0Et-o!'l\(; S'\ArJt?N'--D. .:etA AL-So CON C(f;'(l.../V f;""'J) FoJt- -roc SArTey OF- ()V'f.... C.{.(-iL...vl'Z..elV' wHv 'f'LAy ANt) '(L\.Q€: AUN6- OV~ S\~"TI E.5Y€ClA-LL'1 Ovf4l'Jcr Tttr? bAA-Nt> AVE:t-IvE. t~(AvA-'T ,J ~ (0 aoJ"€C-T "" l+t c."" \IJ l(.L fVO PouBT \)~ ~"'lo'(1-\.JT5 -Co frL-TE:M"A-TE f'JE t Gr\"e:oJf!.t\oot> ~v"'ie-5 , WE" IM-So fJR:r> \:D MAr-..E ,A.- 0DU) AN \) (.(l.e-.A-"t ( ~ ~ t.A-N <!:>F ~w To MD\J~ t'4-SIDC'f'J'lS E;A5T 0 ~ \"Wt V([..LM~ ,M:.t1o 55 TO\;J,J \,v li11bvT t? rAtJCH fLt> · /'^O fl.t: . CctV'-es7 IN' () v €}z... At...<...... --rN\ ~ f\I'(~S t1) ANO CAi'A-\3' . . ~ I~ T~ ~)€S(~N lLrr~5 Do \0 CFFI fk Or \N ~'T ~yo Gf.A.NDc ~AN OF \~(C N7"t.Jj Co~~L- T(ff:- I.fJt:Vt'TAf/L€." 6t.4i#TH Q.5 (3) tI~ 'TOWN C)CPA/VO s. rt~K ~6u ~r l~vr Ccf'-'~<H:"'___ L, G.g;>~-e Tott~ --~~---- ------, -" . . -rf> \N Hv ft^ t T MAl (1()Ne.~N ~-r \ S M't 5JV""C"EYZeST W S-D'LV~ 0# 7"t-h;: ~O~1) C.-{<A/'JD-6 -r~P(C. Cc;)MM \ SSt <IN. . x. ~ SoN\.f: :t:t>€A5 A&DU( STleAMl-t '}oJ i ,v~ \(l,AFF\c- --rtt(lov 6 l1 ()u(l 'tOwN. :r Wf'+s'l -c-o L-{;A.fl../J ~ ~ ~~ ,:'f \.-\0 W O'T~ D€P Att"T M€ N"iS QA,J 'Wo{4< \:'t) GEll~ -("e wNt-'\) A CO""-t<AotJ 60Ac.-, J: V~f'J\ -to ,,^~\CE: ~I,.; fl.t t>€V-E1-0 P~5 ~fL€ fV"-D U '(2..€:S "0 J'i" S\ '8 L e roil- ~'\ ~ \ \3> \J"'T' N G- &' AC.K \N'CO ""t~ AOJ'AC1;N1""" CO~M.VtV rTr E" 5 \,.1 ( 'W- ~ c. \:-\ ~ (~(t ~ '(2-c '"! tc-l' 5 A F FaT" :r: t:>" L-l ,,"C- ,1"D 5.f:1;" f'^c~~ v.sQ<- OEf'l JV€\> 0\ Kt: PATf+5, ~A,v'Ol cPrf Ac.c.f"55 ~,?5 , lOt W'A<..K5 5 16N'A-6,=" I " I A~O L,..t 6 \t'T ll\\ Q e€"t-ol'^~ S '\AtJ t/.A1LD . J:~ ALSo C.ON C6YL/'It1') FotL -rffC SArrSY OF Ov~ G~L-t)(L€rJ '#\+0 ~4 ANi) ~Df: Pd.o.toJG- OV(l.. S"t~5 E.SY€ClI'rU'1 OukNG- THE" GAA,.',f'P A\J~vc. t)<(AVA-l tJ ~ (Q acJ'€cr \.AI ~c.\-\- \N\.LL. IVC Pc uS" \)~ Mc>"Toh5TS -Co .A1.--r€~A-Tt f'.JEl5n~Jltt-\vot> ~v-re-5 ~ 'WE p.L$o N"~ \:0 MAr~ ~ 00LO ,A.N1) Q2.e-.A-1'(VC ~ LA-N c!>F ~w To /v\cvr; ~StDE,...1"S ~Tor \~ Vl~~ ~S5 TO\JJ ,J \N \"rHt>~T t? rPrtJCH P-O. I'^<:>~ , CotJG..es'T iN ~ Ov€)t... ~ '1:M 1: tJ'(€lL€S AN 0 <:,Af A-6' . . -r€t) I ~ T~ ~€S t Ej 1\1 lLlT~5 · ~Da \0 Cff=1 SEN-G o~ wHA" ~yo G..A""SD~ C:AIJ of \~(C: a ~. Co..vr~l- -rfff:' IJV t:Vt7"AeL~ 61kL-vrH 5 <P~(l. l"o",",',v t}(PAN~S, ~~K '[ou ~r L~vr Cc.,-,~c:.~~ __ L, G~1-e Totta-/ _._~.., CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS TO SERVE _ Planning Commission RECEIVED _ Parks and Recreation Commission CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE - Traffic Comm,ission 99 JAN 19 AM 90 O,;Years Lived in Arroyo Grande 32 -L Senior Advisory Commission 0 "'Registered Voter of Arroyo Grande _ Special Committees (Architectural Review, etc.) Yes ~ No_ NAME N.' Imogene "Jean" Hubbard HOME ADDRESS 251 North Elm, Arroyo Grande PHONE 489-1701 PRESENT PRESENT EMPLOYER POSITION Retired - Writer OFFICE BUSINESS ADDRESS TELEPHONE EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND High School ~r~nnl1~ tp College ? Years ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION An Historian is never through learning. All the State and Regional organizations are continually hosting seminars that add to ones COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS 1<nowledge. Local, County and State Historical Societies. I am active in my church. (Methodist) The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References: NAME ADDRESS 1. Mrs. Billie Swigert 127 Nelson Street. 2, Mr. and Mrs. Al Gauss 221 North Elm Street 3. Carrol Pruett 2878 Huasna Road ( Outside the city?) Dic~ Blankenburg 997 Magnolia Drive ARE YOU WilLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION/COMMITTEE MEETING TIMES SHOWN BELOW: Planning Commission, First and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes _ No_ Parks and Recreation Commission, Second Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes _ No_ Traffic Commission, Monday Previous to Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes _ No_ Senior Advisory Commission, First Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p,m, Yes ---X.... No_ Special Committee (Le. Architectural Review Committee, etc,), Various meeting times and dates Yes _ NO_, Signature Date The Arroyo Grande City Council requests infonnation about your interest (and education, if applicable), in selVing on a commission or committee, specifically your comments and views relative to the role and responsibilities of the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Commission, or a Special Committee. Please note such infonnation on the reverse side of this fonn. Thank you for your interest. THIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD IF APPOINTED. COMPLETION OF A STATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM IS REQUIRED (11/02198) . '''.''\ -....., . . ..--' . .. ~ " . '. . > ., . . ~ . .. '. I .' \ # . .......;,...: i' (". Q:O' :):! ';"'~I .J "-!........ I . '. .'-# ..... \. None of my education prepared me to any great extent for t"he problems I nm., face in my 70s. However, "having lived long enough to be well into the so-called "Golden Years," I am intereste<'l in a num~er of tnings that would en- hance a senior's life. More housing 'for moderate income seniors. Transportation for those who do not drive. . None of my education prepared me to any great extent for the problems I now face in my 70s. However, having lived long enough to be well into the so-called "Golden Years," I am interested in a num~er of tnings that wouln en- hance a senior's life. More housing -for moderate income seniors. Transportation for those who do not drive. ~.. "~-"-"-'-'''- APPOINTMENT TO DOWNTOWN PARKING ADVISORY BOARD - GARY ANDREINI RECEIPT OF COMPLETED RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS FORM PENDING. ..--.- --~._- .----..-,,- CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS TO SERVE Planning Commission RECEIVED X Parks and Recreation CorGhTi~sWi ARROYO GRANDE _ Traffic Commission Years Lived in Arroyo Grande 10 Y r5. _ Senior Advisory Commissi099 JAN - 8 PM I: 12 Registered Voter of Arroyo Grande _ Special Committees (Architectural Review, etc.) Yes 1- No_ NAME )J]f5 Co//un -r jJf Vlf'-h'y/ HOME ADDRESS %'5 0/ /Ve Sfree.-r PHONE 60'7. 1'61.21 C:7f PRESENT PRESENT EMPLOYER POSITION OFFICE BUSINESS ADDRESS TELEPHONE EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND High School ~hfLt6()JOr1;-h College ,fA. c. Vavl".s} C. $. (J. Nor+hricfJ ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION Rea) ~6mte / /cen6ee /0 yea../'-.:5 COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS (},OJY)p .171-0 leader 6 :leafS 1t.C:,.. try Cnre ~U,D member -for'ihe.. &.neraJ j)/CU) scroo/ :site Covncil.:5 HQ/lo~CL Pau/d/f?9 SchoolS The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References: NAME . ADDRESS 1. LeslIe., Bec-h~~..J /0/5' S.!j{;OJY>or6 '-If117tJ3 g 2, 5a.nde va U 1-5 57CJ D/a...nCL P/a...c.eJ t/~ og-~;2. 3. Rog.e.-r Jd-t -rn'nif:j tf~ {)~7' ARE YOU WILLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION/COMMITTEE MEETING TIMES SHOWN BELOW: Planning Commission, First and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p,m. Yes _ No ~ Parks and Recreation Commission, .Second Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p,m. Yes ~ No_ Traffic Commission, Monday Previous to Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes _ No X Senior Advisory Commission, First Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p,m. Yes _ No-K.. Special Committee (Le. Architectural Review Committee, etc.), Various meeting times and dates. Yes No Signature ~0.~ Date~[JLqq1 The Arroyo Grande City Council requests infonnation about your interest (and education, if applicable), in serving on a commission or committee, specifically your comments and views relative to the role and responsibilities of the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Commission, or a Special Committee. . Please note such infonnation on the reverse side of this fonn. Thank you for your interest. THIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD IF APPOINTED. COMPLETION OF A STATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM IS REQUIRED (11/02198) /ippt'''-- y, ;/rtLAd. C."""ik~~;'ju ("!f'I"'-4;::t [2 ~ ~ ~ n '/J ~ lID ~-' ~iAo iN .....---^-/~ ~ ~/fJ(J/9.3 CITY OF ARROYO G~~D~ ~) 'FEB 1 1993 RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS TO SERVE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE ARROYO GRANDE - Planning Commission Driver's License No. R0253812 _ Parks and Reaeation Commission Years Lived in Arroyo Grande 17 '_ Traffic Commission Registered Voter of Arroyo Grande _ Senior Advisory Commission Yes...!.- NO_ ~ Spe~;lI. Committee (i.e. Teen Advisory! ~Itectural Adv~ etc.) ~'Mn.; Miss warren E. Hcag Please drcle one) 622 Taylor p1cice Arroyo Gran3e ___h HOME ADDRESS. - .. ... '. . "' ~ PHONE ,489-8782 MARITAL STATUS married NUMBER OF CHILDREN 2 # PRESENT .- PRESENT Prin:::ipal Planner - Advance Plannin;J EMPLOYER SLO CWnty Plann:in1 & Bldg Dept. POSITION . . OFFICE CWnty Gov't Center BUSINESS ADDRESS_.San I1lis Obispo, CA. 93408 TELEPHONE 781-5982 EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND High School' Sierra H. s., Whittier, CA.; College_ U.c. Santa Barbara; B.A. in - graduated 1967 Gecx;1raIi1y,1971 ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION Carpleted one year of two year Masters of Urban an:i Regional Plann:in1 program, Cal state Fresno, 1974-75. Participated in 1'IIJIDe1:'OUS . CXII'1tinuirq education ooorses, seminars an:i wcrkshops on a wide variety of p1.arlnin] an:i CXIImJt1ity deve10puent subjects an:i issues. Are you aware that you may be required to fill out a CONFLICT OF INTEREST Form. Yes-L No_ EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE (If Applicable) OYer 1'3 years eap10yment as a lccal goI/erI1IDent lan:t use planner, inc11.1dirq two years with the City of Graver BeIId1 am 15 years with SID Q:Iunty. ~ experience 00IIerS a wide ran;,e of cIevelq:ment review, advance plamin;J am CCIIIIIJlIity cIevelq:ment matters, inc11.1dirq administratiat of lan:t use and zcrUnq regulaticxlS, fOrDLllatiat of design 9Uidelb1es ani review of cIevelq:ment projects. Do you represent any special group? Yes _ No _ x_ If so, please give name of group. - COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS ~ specific interest is to serve at the Arc:hitecbD:al J\dvisary O:mIIi.ttee as a way to cx:nt:rib.tte JSrf professional experience and 1cncw1edge to the city's efforts in prc1IIDI:jJ'q quality dew1c:IpIIent am maintainiJq its dist1nc:t1ve visual character. I also hav8 a general interest in IIIIlintainirq livable ~, ~ effective ani . mlanced CCIIIIIJlIity PlarInin:1 and lllllXiJDizing educational ani recreational ~tJ.es for ddldren. The City Council w 10 liKe 'to nave 'tne names OJ 'tnree (3) Arroyo Grande References: .NAME ADDRESS 1._ Mark Matson . 624 Taylor Place }J:rayo Gran:le 2._ Bob BaJ:ris . 245 Walnut street Arroyo Grande 3.--,: Ab1:ri Gallagher .1064 Rodgers ecm-t Arroyo Gran:le WOUI.,D YOU BE WILLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION MEETING NIGHTS SHOWN BELOW: Plann!ng Commission, . First and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. 'fes_ No_ Parks and Reaeation Commission, Third Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes_ .No_ Traffic Commi~ion, Monday Previous Third Tuesday of each. month, 7:00 p.m. Yes_ No_ Senior Advisory Commission, First Wedne onth. 7:00 p.m. Yes_ No_ Special Committee (I.e. Teen Advisory ectural Adviso etc.}. Various Yes--!- No meeting times a dates - -,--- SIGNATURE DATE January 28, 1993: The Arroyo Grande City COlmcil needs some i tion about your interests. (and education. if applicabie) in serving on a Commission, spedfically your comments and views relative to the role and responsibilities of the Planning Commission, Parks and Reaeation Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Com- mission or a Special Committee. Please note such Information on the reverse side of this form. Thank you for your interest. --..-.- -~--~,---- ----- --." 9.e. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL ~ FROM: DANIEL C. HERNANDEZ. DIRECTOR PARKS AND RECREATION SUBJECT: WAIVER OF FEES - HARVEST BAG. INC. DATE: JANUARY 26, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council approve a waiver of the $250 fee for renting the City of Arroyo Grande and Woman's Club Community Center for a craft fair hosted by Harvest Bag, Inc., to be held on Saturday, March 6, 1999. FUNDING: Approval of the request for a fee waiver YIOuld result in a reduction in the Community Center's rental fees of $250. Harvest Bag, Inc., is not requesting a waiver of the $250 refundable deposit. DISCUSSION: Harvest Bag, Inc., has requested a waiver of rental fees in the amount of $250 for use of the City of Arroyo Grande and Woman's Club Community Center for its craft fair to be held Saturday, March 6,1999, from 6:30 A.M. to 3:30 P.M. There is a c;teposit of $250 that may be refunded to applicant after the event. For the last four years, it has been the practice of past City Councils to grant a 100% waiver of the fee. Revenue from the craft fair helps support Harvest Bag's operating costs. Harvest Bag, Inc., meets five of the seven criteria listed on the Fee Waiver or Reduction Criteria Form (Attachment 1). In support of the requested fee waiver, it is recommended consideration be given to the numerous local organizations supported by Harvest Bag, Inc., including food donations to the City's Parks and RecreatiOn Department for programs and special events. The organization of volunteers distributes over 3,600 bags of food every month on Wednesdays at the Soto Sports Complex. Calculation of Costs: Current fees charced to user crouP: Rental Fee $250 Actual costs to the City: $47.81/hr. x 9 hours (6:30 A.M. - 3:30 P.M.) = $430.29 (Attachment 2) MEMORANDUM: WAIVER OF FEES - HARVEST BAG JANUARY 26, 1999 PAGE 2 Alternatives: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Approve staff's recommendation; - Do not approve staff's recommendation and charge the entire fee of $250; - Modify the fee as appropriate; or - Provide direction to staff. c:\StaffRpt\FeeWalverHarvestBag,126 Cfbe C)(vv~st Cfla<<J.. Jpc:. p.o. tJ301(628J OceanoJ C9L 93445 tIe!. (805) 489-4223 January 12, 1999 City of Arroyo Grande Attn.: City Clerk Post Office Box 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 Re.: Waiver of Fees Council Members: Harvest Bag, a local non-profit organization that provides fooq for the needy in this community, requests waiver of all fees for use of the Women'$ Club Hall. We wish to reserve and use the Hall on March 6, 1999 for our spring Craft Faire. Our nOJ;l-profit ill number has been included on the application, Our charitable se~e. is provided to anyone in need. At least 50% of those who avail themselves of our service are residents of Arroyo Grande and at least 500.10 of 091' membership resides in Arr(\yo Grande. Your consideration ofthif\ request will be appreci~~d. Sincerely, ....~ L..--c; Hennan Olave, President HO:pc ~.--.",---_._..._.._--_.'_.- - _._.~_..- .---.- --.-..- Att;lchment 1 ~ . CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ! '" FEE W IVER OR REDUCTION CRITERIA FORM Name: . v.s:: P,,, c A~ess: ?p~ i>> /Y~Phone#: Yf1-t~"'3 Type of ee Requested to Be Waived: ~tL. 't1'1iJ.1- Total Fee Amt. To Be Considered: $ ,1.J" WAIVER OF FEES: All groups/organizations/sponsors requesting a waiver of fees must submit a completed Fee Waiver or Reduction Criteria Form with a letter stating: (a) the facility requested, (b) event, (c) which fees should be waived, and (d) verification of information requested on the criteria form (e.g., organization donates 50% of its budget-supporting programs in the Five Cities area). Please include all additional information on a separate sheet of paper along with your letter of request. All fonns and letters should be submitted to the Parks and Recreation Office and addressed: For Reauests for Fees Totalina $200 or Less: For Reauests for Fees Totalina $201 or More: Parks and Recreation Commission Arroyo Grande City Council c/o Parks and Recreation Office Attention: City Clerk Post Office Box 550 Post Office Box 550 1221 Ash Street 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 Check below each item that acclies to vour arOUD or oraanization: .JL.... 1. Local Arroyo Grande-based non:-profrt group or organization # tJ? ")Sf 1/ 7t (provide 1.0. number). "Local" is defined as 50% membership from the City of Arroyo Grande. -- 2. Non-profit group/organization services youth only, ages 6 - 18; and no specific program fees are charged - youth (other than registration; Number of youth served:\.,(tf> . Registration fee charged to ~3. youth: 0 . ~ J,k;:h-~~.J-'~. The group/organization donates 50% of its budget supporting programs/activities within the City of Arroyo Grande r the Five Cities area. Exam les of ; p. 9Qrams/activities supported: , J- L 4. The facility/activity requested and all proceeds will be used for a specific City of Arroyo Grande/Five Cities are .public project, benefit, or cause. Example of specific service/project: ; vi 5, The event proposed is open to the public, and the organization/sponsor is not requesting a donation or - charging a fee for entry or to participants (vendors, speakers, etc.). (~6. Group or organization provides a yearly donation (equipment, monetary, services-in-kind) to the City of Arroyo Grande. Specific donation: .fbOoPl i""'~ + "~ " ,f t/.w.Ju.() , Date of donation: .fa."..i1, Zj)'f/t..J - 7, Mid-week or shared scheduling of facility. The group has requested a date during the week (Monday- Thursday), and another organization will be meeting at the same time. ~S TOTAL NUMBER OF CRITERIA ITEMS WHICH APPLY. QUALIFICATIONS: Groups meeting criteria items 1 - 7 above score 1 point each. A score of 5 or more pOints qualifies a group for a waiver or reduction of fees, DETERMINATION: All requests for the reduction or waiver of fees that require a Public Safety and Welfare Permit or Police Department Auxiliary Police Services (e.g., fees established by City Ordinance or Resolution) are appealed directly to the City Council. Field rental fees (excluding tournaments, lighting, and field preps) shall be waived for all youth sport activities scoring five (5) points or more on a fUlly completed Fee Waiver or Reduction Criteria Fonn. .Youth sport activities- shall be defined as any leaguelteam roster having members under the age of 18, with the exception that a maximum of three (3) members may be 18 or older, at the time the roster is submitted to the Parks and Recreation Department. FOR FEES TOTALING 5200 OR LESS FOR USE OF A CITY FACILITY: Waiver or reduction of the fees can be approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission. All decisions made by the Parks and Recreation Commission can be appealed to the City Council. FOR FEES TOTALING 5201 OR MORE FOR USE OF A CITY FACILITY: Waiver or reduction of fees must be approved by the City Council. c:\forms\FeeWaiverJrm (Revised: 11124197) u____.._ " . ,- Attachment 2 User Fee Determination Cost Analysis Worksheet User Fee Description Fund Program Account Oep8ltmenl/OiYlsion Date Woman's Club Rental Fee per day 14 3400 001 Recreation Division 2-11-97 $2501$32.00. per hour Description of Service, Demand, SubsidY and Other Comments: This fee is beinQ revised to partially offset the cost incurred bYi the City to operate, maintain, and staff the Woman's Club Commu",~ Center. 22 groups/organizations non-pro it and private meet at the center each month. the cost to operate the faci ity is $47.81 per hour. For groups of 10-225. There is a high demand for use of the facility. Personnel Costs Rates' Position Fringe Benefits Dept, Of Div, Total BUldened Hours by Position Plr Unit Total Labor Cost per Straight Time Unit at Service Labor Overhead Labor CostIHr. Building Coordinator $ 8.07 $1.75 23% $2.26 $12.08 1.0 $12.08 Janitorial (Full lime) $12.78 $4.97 23% $2.13 $19.88 1,0 $19.88 Building Supervisor $ 6.27 $ .52 23% $1.56 $ 8.35 1.0 $ 8,35 Total Burdened Personnel Costs Per Unit of Service $40.31 Material & Rental Costs Description Cost each Quantity;;e~irl: Unit Cost Janitorial Supplies - toilet paper, towels, cleaners, can liners $10.83 per day 10, hrs $1.08 per hour Total Material & Rental Costs per Unit of Service $1,08 Other Costs (EQuipment. 8uildinQ UsaQe, Part-time Labor w/o Benefits\ Description Cost Each Quantity Reauir.c Unit Cost Utilities (gas, electric, garbage) $325 mo. 30 days $10,83 per day 10, hrs $1,08 per hour Total Other Costs per Unit of Service $1,08 Fee Companson Data Jurisdiction Fee per unit More or (Less) than Arroyo Grande's Fee per Unit of $ 42.47 Service Total Service Direct Costs City of Arroyo Grande S250.oo Dollars Percentage City-Wide General & \ 5,34 divided by 8 Administrative' 53t 251$32.00 Rate @ 12.5~. 47.81 Grover Beach 543.75 +$12,50 +29% TOTAL SERVICE COST/UNIT RECOMMENDED FE: $ 31.251$32.00 Plsmo Beach $70.00 +$38,75 +55% Recommended Fund Subsidy $ 15,81 San Luis Obispo 543.75 +12,50 +29% Current Fee Amount $ 15,00 Santa Maria S67.18 +$35.93 +54% Fee Increase (Decrease) +$ 17.00 Atascadero NlA Paso Robles $55.00 +$23.75 +43% Morro Bay $49.50 $18.25 -+37% c:\budgel\userfee211 _.._._---_._~---_..._----- ---~ . . 9.f. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPA~NOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER # SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE REVISING THE FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE DATE: JANUARY 26,1999 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council adopt Ordinance No. 501 C.S., repealing and replacing Section 9-09.050 of Chapter 9 of Title 9 and amending Section 9-18.030 of Chapter 18 of Title 9 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code. FUNDING: No direct fiscal impact. Possible savings on insurance premiums by property owners. DISCUSSION: The City Council, at its meeting of January 12, 1999, introduced without modification Ordinance No. 501 C.S. for first reading. Therefore, it is recommended the City Council adopt Ordinance No., 501 C.S. Attachment: Ordinance 501 C.S. ORDINANCE NO. 501 C.S. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE REPEALING AND REPLACING SECTION 9-09.050 OF CHAPTER 9 OF TITLE 9 AND AMENDING SE,CTION 9-18.030 OF CHAPTER 18 OF TITLE 9 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Statutory Authorization. The Legh;lature of the State of California has in Government Code Sections 65302, 65560, and 65800 and in Water Code Sections 8400 et seq. conferred upon local government units authority to adopt regulations designed to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizenry. Therefore, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby adopt the following floodplain management regulations. SECTION 2: Findings of Fact. The flood hazard areas of the City of Arroyo Grande are subject to periodic inundation which results in loss of property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare. These flood losses are caused by uses that are inadequately elevated, flood proofed, or protected from flood damage. The cumulative effect of obstructions in areas of special flood hazards which increase flood heights and velocities also contribute to the flood loss. SECTION 3: That Section 9-09.050 of Chapter 9 of Title 9 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code is hereby repealed and deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new Section 9- 09.050 of Chapter 9 of Title 9 as shown in Exhibit "A" attached. hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth. SECTION 4: That Section 9-18.030 of Chapter 18 of Title 9 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth. SECTION 5: If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, 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, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrases be declared unconstitutional. -'-- ----.---- __n____ ORDINANCE NO. 501 PAGE 2 SECTION 6: 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 propo$ed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full text of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the Ordinance, the summary with the names of those City Council members voting for and against the Ordinance shall be published again, an~ the City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance. SECTION 7: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member and on the following roll call vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this day of ,1999. . . -......--.----..-.- -~"._----_. ---- ORDINANCE NO. 501 C.S. PAGE 3 MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: NANCY A. DAVIS, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/CITY CLERK ~ROVED AS TO ~T: ~TL, tfLLl.J1 ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY I, NANCY A. DAVIS, Director of Administrative Services/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. 501 C.S. is a true, full, and correct copy of said Ordinance passed and adopted at a regular meeting of said Council on the 26th day of January, 1999. WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this day of .1999. NANCY A. DAVIS, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/CITY CLERK EXHIBIT A SECTION 9-09.050 FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT(FH) DISTRICT A. Statement of Purpose and Intent It is the purpose of this Section to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to minimize public and private losses do to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions designed to: 1. Protect human life and health. 2. Minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects. 3. Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public. 4. Minimize prolonged business interruptions. 5. Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains, electric, telephone and sewer lines; and streets and bridges located in areas of special flood hazard. 6. Help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of areas of special flood hazard so as to minimize future blighted areas caused by flood damage. 7. Ensure that potential buyers are notified that property is in an area of special flood hazard. 8. Ensure that those who occupy the areas of special flood hazard assume responsibility for their actions. B. METHODS OF REDUCING FLOOD LOSSES. In order to accomplish its purposes, this ordinance includes the following methods and provisions: 1. Restrict or prohibit uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or flood heights or velocities. 1 2. Require that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction. 3. Control the alteration of natural flood plains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters. 4. Control filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damage. 5. Prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood waters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas. C. General Provisions 1. Lands to which this ordinance applies This ordinance shall apply to all areas of special flood hazards within the jurisdiction of the City of Arroyo Grande. 2. Basis for establishing the areas of special flood hazard The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the Elood. Insurance Study (FIS) dated March 19,1984 and accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps (FBFMs), dated September 19, 1984, and all subsequent amendments and/or revisions, are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. These areas are the minimum area of applicability of this ordinance and may be supplemented by studies for other areas which allow implementation of this ordinance and which are recommended to the City of Arroyo Grande by the Floodplain Administrator. The study, FIRMs and FBFMs are on file at the Department of Public Works, 214 East Branch Street, City of Arroyo Grande, California 93421. 3. Compliance No structure or land shall hereafter be constructed, located, extended, converted, or altered without full compliance with the term of this ordinance and other applicable regulations. Violation of the requirements (including violations of conditions and saf~guards established in connection with conditions) shall constitute a misdemeanor. Nothing herein shall prevent the City of Arroyo Grande from taking such lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation. 2 _..._u.".. "- 4. Abrogation and greater restrictions This ordinance is not intended to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this ordinance and another ordinance, easement, covenant, or deed restriction conflict or overlap, whichever imposes the more stringent restrictions shall prevail. 5. Interpretation In the interpretation and application of this ordinance, all provisions shall be: a. Considered as minimum requirements; b. liberally construed in favor of the governing body; and c. deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers granted under state statutes. 6. Warning and disclaimer of liability The degree of flood protection required by this Section is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on scientific and engineering considerations. Larger floods can and will occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by man-made or natural causes. This ordinance does not imply that land outside the areas of special flood hazards or uses permitted within such areas will befree from- flooding or flood damages. This ordinance shall not create liability on the part of City of Arroyo Grande, any officer or employee thereof, the State of California, or the Federal Insurance Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, for any flood damages that result from reliance on this ordinance or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder. D. Administration 1. Establishment of development permit A development permit shall be obtained before any construction or other development begins within any area of special flood hazard established in Section 9-09.050 C. Application for a development within an area of special hazard shall be made on forms furnished by the Floodplain Administrator and may include, but not be limited to: plans in duplicate drawn to scale showing the nature, location, dimensions, and elevation of the area in question; existing or proposed structures, fill, storage of materials, drainage facilities; and the location of the foregoing. Specifically, the following information is required: a. Proposed elevation in relation to mean sea level, of the lowest floor (including basement) of all structures - in Zone AO, elevation of highest 3 -.. ----..'-.....,-.,-- -----.--..---- - ----- adjacent grade and proposed elevation of lowest floor of all structures; or Proposed elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any nonresidential structure will be flood proofed, if required in Section 9-09.050 E1c(3). b. All appropriate certifications listed in Section 9-09.050 D3d of this ordinance. c. Description of the extent to which any watercourse will be altered or relocated as a result of proposed development. 2. Designation of the Floodplain Administrator The Director of Public Works is hereby appointed to administer, implement, and enforce this ordinance. 3. Duties and responsibilities of the Floodplain Administrator The duties and responsibilities of the Floodplain Administrator shall include, but not be limited to the following. a. Permit Review. Review all development permits within the special hazard areas to determine that; (1 ) Permit requirements of this ordinance have been satisfied, (2) The site is reasonably safe from flooding, and (3) The proposed development does not adversely affect the carrying capacity of areas where base flood elevations have been determined . but a floodway has not been designated. For purposes of this ordinance, "adversely affects" means that the cumulative effect of the proposed development when combined with all other existing and anticipated development will increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point. b. Review and Use of Any Other Base Flood Data When base flood elevation data has not been provided in accordance with Section 9-09.050 C2, the Floodplain Administrator shall obtain, review, and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and flooc;tway data available from a federal or state agency, or other source, in order to administer Section 9- 09.050 E. 4 ------ c. Notification of Other Agencies Whenever there is an alteration or relocation of a watercourse: (1 ) Notify adjacent communities and the California Department of Water Resources prior to alteration or relocation. (2) Submit evidence of such notification to the Federal Insurance Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency. (3) Assure that the flood carrying capacity within the altered or relocated portion of said watercourse is maintained. d. Documentation of Floodplain Development Obtain and maintain for public inspection and make available as needed the following: (1 ) Certification required by Section 9-09.050 E1c(1) (lowest floor elevations ). (2) Certification required by Section 9-09.050 E1 c(2) (elevation or flood proofing of nonresidential structures). (3) Certification required by Section 9-09.050 E1c(3) (wet floodproofing standard). (4) Certification of elevation required by Section 9-09.050 E3b (subdivision standards). (5) Certification required by Section 9-09.050 E6a (floodway encroachments ). e. Map Determinations Make interpretations where needed, as to the exact location of the boundaries of the areas of special flood hazard, for example, where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field conditions. the person contesting the location of the boundary shall be given a reasonable opportunity to appeal the interpretation as provided in Section 9-09.050 F. f. Take action to remedy violations of this ordinance as specified in Section 9- 09.050 C3. 5 "-".--.....---- -..- -------------- E. Provisions for Flood Hazard Reduction In addition to the development standards of the District with wich the FH district has been combined and the standards contained in Chapter9-10 and 9-11, the standards contained in this shall apply. In the event of a conflict in the applicable regulations, the provisions of this Section shall govern. 1. Standards of construction In all areas of special flood hazards thefollowing standards are required: a. Anchoring (1 ) All new construction and substantial improvements within special flood hazard areas shall be adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy. (2) All manufactured homes shall meet the anchoring standards of Section 9-09.050 E4. b. Construction materials and methods All new construction and substantial improvement with special flood hazard areas shall be constructed; (1 ) with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage; (2) using methods and practices that minimize flood damage; (3) with electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding; and if (4) within Zones AH or AO, so that there are adequate drainage paths around structures on slopes to guide flood waters around and away from proposed structures. c. Elevation and flood proofing. 6 ----------- See Section 9-18.030 for definitions for "basement," "new construction," "substantial damage" and "substantial improvement". (1 ) Residential construction, new or substantial improvement, shall have the lowest floor, including basement, (a) in an AO zone, elevated above the highest adjacent grade to a height exceeding the depth number specified in feet on the FIRM by at least one foot, or elevated at least three feet above the highest adjacent grade if no depth number is specified. (b) in an A zone, elevated at least one foot above the base flood elevation, as determined by the community. (c) in all other Zones, elevated at least one foot above the base flood elevation. Upon the completion of the structure, the elevation of the lowest floor including basement shall be certified by a registered professional engineer or surveyor, and verified by the community building inspector to be properly elevated. Such certification or verification shall be provided to the Floodplain Administrator. (d) For floodplain management purposes the term lowest floor means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area, including basement definition. An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure below the lowest floor that is usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage in an .area other than a basement area, is not considered a building's lowest floor provided it conforms to applicable non-elevation design requirements, including, but not limited to: The flood proofing standard in Section 9-09.050 E1c(3). The anchoring standards in Section 9-09.505 E1a. The construction materials and methods standards in Section 9-09.050 E1b. The standards for utilities in Section 9-09.050 E2. (2) Nonresidential construction, new or substantial improvement, shall either be elevated to conform with Section 9-09.050 E1c(1) or together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities; 7 (a) be flood proofed below the elevation recommended under Section 9-09.050 E1 c(1) so that the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water; (b) have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; and (c) be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the standards of this Section 9-09.050 E1c(2) are satisfied. Such certification shall be provided to the Floodplain Administrator. (3) All new construction and substantial improvement with fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor (excluding basements) that are usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage, and which are subject to flooding, shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwater. Designs for meeting this requirement must exceed the following minimum criteria: (a) be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect; or (b) have a minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwater. (4) Manufactured homes shall also meet the standards in Section 9- 09.050 E4. 2. Standards for utilities a. All new and replacement water supply and sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate: (1 ) infiltration of flood waters into the systems, and (2) Discharge from the systems into flood waters. b. On-site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them, or contamination from them during flooding. 8 3. Standards for Subdivisions a. All preliminary subdivision proposals shall identify the flood hazard area and the elevation of the base flood. b. All subdivision plans within special flood hazard areas will provide the elevation of proposed structure(s) and pad(s). If the site is filled above the base flood elevation, the lowest first floor and pad elevations shall be certified by a registered professional engineer or surveyor and provided to the Floodplain Administrator. c. All subdivision proposals shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage. d. All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage. e. All subdivisions shall provide adequate drainage to reduce exposure to flood hazards. 4. Standards for Manufactured Homes a. All manufactured homes that are placed or substantially improved within Zones A1-30, AH, and AE on the community's Flood Insurance Rate Map, on sites located: (1 ) Outside of a manufactured home park or subdivisions (2) In a new manufactured home park or subdivision (3) In an expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision or (4) In an existing manufactured home park or subdivision on a site upon which a manufactured home has incurred "substantial damage" as the result of a flood, shall be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated at least one foot above the base flood elevation, and shall. be securely fastened to an adequately anchored foundation system to resist flotation collapse and lateral movement. b. All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved on sites in an existing manufactured home park or subdivision within Zones A 1-30, AH, AE on the community's Flood Insurance Rate Map that are not subject to the 9 .-.-._- provisions of Section E4a will be securely fastened to an adequately anchored foundation system to resist foundation collapse and lateral movement, and will be elevated so that either the; (1 ) Lowest floor of the manufactured home is at least one foot above the base flood elevation, or (2) Manufactured home chassis is supported by reinforced piers or other foundation elements of at least equivalent strength that are no less than 36 inches in height above, grade. 5. Standards For Recreational Vehicles a. All recreational vehicles placed on sites within Zones A 1-30, AH, and AE on the community's Flood Insurance Rate Map will either (1 ) be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days, and be fully licensed and ready for highway use. A recreational vehicle is ready for highway use if it is on its wheels or jacking system, is attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices; and has no permanently attached additions, or (2) meet the permit requirements of Section 9-09.050 D and the elevation and anchoring requirements for manufactured homes in Section 9- 09.050 E4a 6. Floodways Located within areas of special flood hazard established in Section 9-09.050 C2 are areas designated as floodways. Since the floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of flood waters which carry debris, potential projectiles, and erosion potential, the following provisions apply. a. Prohibit encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvement, and other new development unless certification by a registered professional engineer or architect is provided demonstrating that encroachments shall not result in any increase in the base flood elevation during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. b. If Section 9-09.050 E6a is satisfied, all new construction, substantial improvement, and other proposed new development shall comply with all other applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of Section E. 10 F. Variances and appeals 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande shall hear and decide appeals and requests for variances from the requirements of this Section. 2. The Planning Commission shall hear and decide appeals regarding any decision or determination made by the Floodplain Administrator in the enforcement or . administration of this section may be appealed to the City Council of Arroyo Grande 3. The variance criteria set forth in this section are based on the general principle that variances pertain to a piece of property and are not personal in nature. A variance may be granted for a parcel of property with physical characteristics so unusual that complying with the requirements of this ordinance would create an exceptional hardship to the applicant or the surrounding property owners. The characteristics must be unique to the property and not be shared by adjacent parcels. The unique characteristic must pertain to the land itself, not to the structure, its inhabitants, or the property owners. 4. Review of Variance Requests In passing upon requests for variances, the Planning Commission shall consider all technical evaluations, all relevant factors, standards specified in other sections of this ordinance, and the; a. danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others; b. danger of life and property due to flooding or erosion damage; c. susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the existing individual owner and future owners of the property; d. importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community, e. necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable; f. availability of alternative locations for the proposed use which are not subject to flooding or erosion damage; g. compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development; h. relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and floodplain management program for that area; 11 i. safety of access to the property in time of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles; j. expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the, flood waters expected at the site; and k. costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions, including maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water system, and streets and bridges. 5. Conditions for Variances a. Generally, variances may be issued for new construction, substantial improvement, and other proposed new development to be erected on a lot of one-half acre or less in size contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the base flood level, providing that the procedures of Sections 9-09.050 D and E of this ordinance have been fully considered. As the lot size increases beyond one-half acre, the technical justification required for issuing the variance increases. b. Variances may be issued for the repair or rehabilitation of historic structures upon a deten;nination that the proposed repair or rehabilitation will not preclude the structure's continued designation as an historic structure and the variance is the minimum necessary to preserve the historic character and design of the structure. c. Variances shall not be issued within any mapped regulatory floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result. d. Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the "minimum necessary" considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. "Minimum necessary" means to afford relief with a minimum of deviation from the requirements of this ordinance. For example, in the case of variances to an elevation requirement, this means the City need not grant permission for the applicant to build at grade, or even to whatever elevation the applicant proposes, but only to that elevation which the City believes will both provide relief and preserve the integrity of the local ordinance. e. Variances shall only be issued upon a; (1 ) showing of good and sufficient cause; (2) determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant; and 12 (3) determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety; or extraordinary public expense, create a nuisance cause fraud or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances. Hardship as used herein means the exceptional hardship that would result from a failure to grant the requested variance. The hardship must be exceptional, unusual, and peculiar to the property involved. Economic or financial hardship alone is not exceptional. Inconvenience, aesthetic considerations, physical handicaps, personal preferences, or the disapproval of one's neighbors likewise cannot, as a rule, qualify as an exceptional hardship. Public safety and nuisance as used herein means, that the granting of a variance must not result in anything which is injurious to safety or health of an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary . manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin. Fraud and victimization as used herein, means that the variance granted must not cause fraud on or victimization of the public. In examining this requirement, the City will consider the fact that everY newly constructed building adds to government responsibilities and remains a part of the. community for fifty to one-hundred years. Buildings that are permitted to be constructed below the base flood elevation are subject during all those years to increased risk of damage from floods, while future owners of the property and the community as a whole are subject to all the costs, inconvenience, danger, and suffering that those increased flood damages bring. In addition, future owners may purchase the property, unaware that it is subject to potential flood damage, and can be insured only at very high flood insurance rates. f. Variances may be issued for new construction, substantial improvement, and other proposed new development necessary for the conduct of a functionally dependent use provided that the provisions of Sections 9-09.050 F5a through F5e are satisfied and that the structure or other development is protected by methods that minimize flood damages during the base flood and does not result in additional threats to public safety and does not create a public nuisance. g. Upon consideration of the factors of Section 9-09.050 F4 and the purposes of this ordinance, the Planning Commission may attach such conditions to the granting of variances as it deems necessary to further the purposes of this ordinance. 13 6. Any applicant to whom a variance is granted shall be given written notice that; a. the issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood level can result in substantially increased premium rates for flood insurance, as determined by their in.surance carrier, b. such construction below the base flood level increases risks to life and property; 7. The Floodplain Administrator will maintain a record of all variance actions, including. justification for their issuance, and report such variances issued in its biennial report submitted to the Federal Insurance Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency. . 14 -----..-..- EXHIBIT B DEFINITIONS The following definitions add to, or replace (as noted) existing definitions contained in Section 9-18.030 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code. ADDED DEFINITIONS Area of Shallow Flooding: A designated AO or AH Zone on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The base flood depths range from one to three feet; a clearly defined channel does not exist; the path of flooding is unpredictable and indeterminate; and velocity flow may be evident. Such flooding is characterized by ponding or sheet flow. Area of special flood-related erosion hazard: Is the land within a community which is most likely to be subject to severe flood-related erosion losses. The area may be designated as Zone E on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). Area of special flood hazard: See "Special flood hazard area." Encroachment: For floodplain management purposes means the advance or infringement of uses, plant growth, fill, excavation, buildings, permanent structures or development into a floodplain which may impede or alter the flow capacity of a floodplain. Existing manufactured home park or subdivision: For floodplain management purposes means a manufactured home park or subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including, at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed before the effective date of the floodplain management regulations adopted by a community. Flood, flooding, or flood water: see Flood Hazard Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM): The official map on which the Federal Emergency Management Agency or Federal Insurance Administration has delineated both the areas of special flood hazards and the floodway. Flood Insurance Study: The official report provided by the Federal Insurance Administration that includes flood profiles, the Flood Insurance Rate Map, the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map, and the water surface elevation of the base flood. Floodplain or flood-prone area: Any land area susceptible to being inundated by water from any source - see "Flooding". 1 Floodplain management regulations: Section 9-09.050 and other zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, building codes, health regulations, special purpose ordinances (such as grading and erosion control) and other application of police power which control development in flood-prone areas. This term describes federal, state or local regulations in any combination thereof which provide standards for preventing and reducing flood loss and damage. Floodproofing: Any combination of structural and nonstructural additions, changes, or adjustments to structures which reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or improved real property, water and sanitary facilities, structures, and their contents. Floodway fringe: The area of the floodplain on either side of the "Regulatory Floodway" where encroachment may be permitted. Highest adjacent grade: For floodplain management purposes means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to construction next to the proposed walls of a structure. Historic structure: Any structure that is 1. listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a listing maintained by the Department of Interior) or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as meeting the requirements for individual listing on the National Register. 2. certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as contributing to the historical significance of a registered historic district or a district preliminarily determined by the Secretary to qualify as a registered historic district; 3. individually listed on a state inventory of historic places in states with historic preservation programs which have been approved by the Secretary of Interior, or 4. individually listed on a local inventory of historic places in communities with historic preservation programs that have been certified either by an approved state program as determined by the Secretary of the Interior or directly by the Secretary of the Interior in states with approved programs. Levee: A man-made structure, usually an earthen embankment, designed and constructed in accordance with sound engineering practices to contain, control or divert the flow of water so as to provide protection from temporary flooding. Manufactured home park or subdivision: A parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land divided into two or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale. Obstruction: For floodplain management purposes, includes, but is not limited to, any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment, protection, excavation, 2 ___,_._,,,.,", ~d ,.,._.. ---._~ --- channelization, bridge, conduit, culvert, building, wire, fence, rock, gravel, refuse, fill, structure, vegetation or other material in, along, across or projecting into any watercourse which may alter, impede, retard or change the direction and/or velocity of the flow of water, or due to its location, its propensity to snare or collect debris carried by the flow of water, or its likelihood of being carried downstream. Regulatory floodway: The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. Substantial damage: For floodplain management purposes, means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. Substantial improvement: For floodplain management purposes, means any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or othe~ proposed new development of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement. This term includes structures which have incurred "substantial damage", regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either 1. any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations or state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions, or 2. any alteration of a "historic structure", provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure's continued designation as a "historic structure". DEFINITIONS WHICH ARE MODIFIED Basement Old definition: A portion of building partly or wholly underground and having more than one-half of its height below the average level of the adjoining ground. New definition: Any area of the building having its floor subgrade - i.e., below ground level on all sides. New construction Old definition: For floodplain management purposes, structures for which the start of construction commenced on or after the effective date of a floodplain management regulation adopted by Ordinance 312 C.S. effective July 26, 1984, as amended by Section 1 , Ordinance No 366 C.S., effective January 8,1988. New definition' For floodplain management purposes, means structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of floodplain management regulations adopted by the City, and includes any 3 subsequent improvements to such structures (Ordinance 312 C.S. effective July 26, 1984, as amended by Section 1, Ordinance No 366 C.S., effective January . 8, 1984, and as modified by Ordinance No 501 C.S. 4 9.g. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: RICK TerBORCH, CHIEF OF POLlCE~ SUBJECT: WAIVER OF FEES - SOUTH COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY DATE: JANUARY 26, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve a request by the South County Historical Society for waiver of a $20.00 public safety and welfare permit fee and a $300.00 exhibition fee for its Annual Antique Show and Sale. FUNDING: This would result in a reduction of fees to the City of $320.00. DISCUSSION: The South County Historical Society has requested a waiver of permit fees for its Annual Antique Show and Sale. The South County Historical Society will sponsor this event at the South County Regional Center on February 13 and 14, 1999 from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. daily. This event is one of the Society's major fund raisers. An entrance fee of $3.50 will be charged, with discount coupons available reducing the entrance fee to $3.00. The South County Historical Society meets six of the seven conditions listed on the Fee Waiver or Reduction Criteria Form. The organization has worked for 22 years to open a museum to the public and to preserve the heritage of the Arroyo Grande area. Profits from this fund raising event will fund retrofitting of its building on Bridge Street. The organization participates in the annual Strawberry and Harvest Festivals. It also provides historical programs for schools and leads walking tours of Arroyo Grande. Alternatives The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Approve staff's recommendation; - Do not approve staff's recommendation. .-- -.. -----_._- 16th Annual Antique Show to benefit the South County Historical Society Museum Fund Feb. 13 -and 14, 1999. FEE WAIVER OR REDUCTION CRITERIA FORM So Co Regional Center Name Douglas 1-1. Le Sage . Address 297 Miller Way A. G. Phone 489-1735 ~s Ways and Means Chairman 1. Local Arroyo Grande-based non-profit group or organization # 95-3539454 (provide Ld. number). Local is defined as 50% membership from City of Arroyo Grande. 501 (C) IRS exempt Prior years fees were waived by the Council _ . y'~ r- Non-profit group/organization services, youth only, ages 6-19; and no specific program fees are charged youth. . t.s when accompanied by adults ye 3. The group/organization donates 50% of its budget supporting programs/activities within the City of Arroyo Grande or Five Cities area. The SCHS has worked for 20 years to open a museum to ,the public and. ~ to preserve the heritage of our area. See brochure. 4. The facility/activity requested and all proceeds will be used for a speclfte City of Arroyo Grande/Five Cities area, public project, benefit, or cause'MuselUi1 Fund to retrofit our building on Bridge Street. i/~ 5. The event proposed is open to the public, and the organization/sponsor is not requesting a donation or charging a fee for entry or to participants (vendors, speakers, etc.). k 6. Group or organization provides a yearly donation (equipment, monetary, services-in-kind) to the City of Arroyo Grande. Donation to Explorer Scouts for traffic direction at this show. Participation in Strawberry and Harvest Festivals. Provides historical programs for schools and NV leads walking tours of our city. 7. Mid-week or shared scheduling of facility-The group has requested a date during the week (Monday-Thursday), and another organization will be meeting at the same time. ~ Total Oualifications: Groups meeting the criteria 1-7 score 1 point each. A score of 5 or more points qualifies a group for consideration of a waiver or reduction of fees. Waiver of Fees: All groups/organizations/sponsors requesting a Waiver of Fees must submit a completed Fee Waiver/Reduction Criteria form with a letter stating the facility requested and/or event, which fees should be waived, ad verification of information requested on the criteria form (e.g., organization donates 50% of its budget-supporting programs in the Five Cities area). All forms and letters should be addressed to: City of Arroyo Grande Attention: City Clerk POBox SSO 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 Determination: All requests for the reduction or waiver of fees that require a Public Safety and Welfare Permit or Police Department Auxiliary Police Services (e.g., fees established by City Ordinance or Resolution) are appealed directly to the City Council. For fees totaling $200 or less for use of a City facility, waiver or reduction of the fees can be approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission. All decisions made by the Parks and Recreation Commission can be appealed to the City Council. For fees totaling $201 or more for use of a City facility, waiver or reduction of fees must be approved by the City CounciL ~ .stlI3IT""'E.~ I-Ie-~ -----. ---~---- -~-,------_...._- &udh~ 7{;~~ RE~ IVEO f'j)tUl 0/.I1n- r&z 633 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE cbnupJ ~ @of 93421 99 JAN 15 PM 12: "3 MEMORANDUM TO: ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL VIA: ~~~;-RUNT, CITY MANAGER FROM: SOUTH COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY DATE: JANUARY 14, 1999 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR FEE WAIVER, ANTIQUE SHOW & SALE On behalf of the South County Historical Society, I request a waiver of City Exhibition Ordinance fees for our annual antique show and sale to be held at the South County Regional Center on February 13 and 14, 1999, This show and sale is a fund raiser to benefit the museum fund of the South County Historical Society, a non-profit organization located in Arroyo Grande that is dedicated to preserving the heritage of the local area, Your consideration of this request is appreciated. Douglas M. LeSage P. O. Box 633 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 (805) 489-1735 ---...-^ ._-------~_. 10... MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER ~ SUBJECT: DATE FOR WORKSHOP ON WATER RECLAMATION PROJECTS/ISSUES DATE: JANUARY 26, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council select a date to conduct a workshop on water reclamation projects/issues. FUNDING: There are no funding impacts at this time. BACKGROUND: On July 14, 1998, the Council considered a staff recommended program to revise the City's current water neutralization policy. Part of the proposed program established an in- lieu fee to allow ease of administration and less processing time for projects. As part of the program, a list of specific supplemental water projects needs to be identified. Potential projects include those intended to provide for the reclamation of water currently being discharged to the ocean to replenish groundwater as well as harvesting of underground fresh water sources. On December 10, 1998 a Council workshop was scheduled to discuss reclamation issues with representatives from the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District and County staff operating Lopez Reservoir to review projects currently in development or discuss new projects that might be appropriate for applying any fees received from the City's program. The meeting, however, was canceled due to a lack of a quorum. It is recommended the workshop be rescheduled. The following Thursdays are being presented for Council consideration: February 25, 1999 March 11, 1999 March 25, 1999 April 8, 1999 The workshop will be scheduled for 6:30 pm in the Council Chambers. Attachments- Draft Press Release Staff Report of July 14, 1998 Sanitation District Letter dated October 7, 1998 Sanitation District Letter dated September 16, 1998 Article on Water Recycling - ---~.._- .... -..- .._~- . ----._- - PRESS RELEASE ISSUE DATE: IMMEDIATE RELEASE CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCES WORKSHOP ON WATER RECLAMATION PROJECTS/ISSUES The Arroyo Grande City Council has announced that a workshop will be conducted on ,6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber to exchange information and ideas on various options, opportunities regarding potential water reclamation projects. The educational effort will include presentations by staff from the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District and County staff operating the Lopez Reservoir. Information gained from the workshop will assist the City in developing a revised water neutralization program/policy. Citizens are encouraged to attend. ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER DATE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER (805) 473-5440 ------~-_.__.__._- _____d_______.__.._ _' MEMORANDUM - TO: CITY COUNCIL VIA: ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGE~ FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER r!:f8 SUBJECT: WATER DEMAND NEUTRALIZATION POLICIES/PROGRAMS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT DATE: JULY 14, 1998 <. . RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve, in concept, the revised water neutralization program and direct staff to return ~ith specific measures to implement the program. FUNDING: Not applicable at the present time; however, the proposed water neu~ralization program modifies the City's fee structure to provide funding for future water projects. Studies must be undertaken to establish the amount of an in-lieu fee. The cost of such studies will be a component of the in-lieu fee and will be recovered through collection of the fee. BACKGROUND: Since February 1992, discretionary development projects have been required to mitigate increased water demand above historical usage to ensure an adequate water supply. A standard mitigation measure has been included in the conditions of approval for each project, requiring the applicant to submit. for review and approval by the City Council, an individual water program that will neutralize projected water demand for the proposed project. Mitigation of additional water usage above historical levels has been required for approximately 20 developments since 1992. Approximately 100 acre feet per year (AFY) of additional water usage has been "neutralized" through project requirements. Water Source~ The City of Arroyo Grande relies upon local groundwater and surface water stored in Lopez Reservoir. The Arroyo Grande Sub-basin lies within the larger Tri-Cities Groundwater Basin which in turn is geologically connected as part of the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin. In addition to the City's allocation of the Arroyo Grande Groundwater Basin, Well ---.." -----.._--- - ~"'-"," WATER DEMAND NEUTRALIZATION POLICIES/PROGRAMS .'.: . FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT - - JULY 14,1998 PAGE 2 #9 pumps from the Pismo formation and is able to produce 100 acre .feet per year. Although not to be included in the City's reliable .Iong term sources, surplus water from Lopez Reservoir is available on an average of 500 acre feet per.year. Water releases from Lopez Reservoir serve the cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, . Pismo Beach, the Oceano Community Services District, and CSA No. 12 (serving the Avila Beach CSD and the adjoining area). In addition to the 4,595 acre feet of water released for the above entities, approximately 4,200 acre feet of water is available for release into . the Arroyo Grande Creek for downstream vested interests and groundwater recharge. Development Potential The further development of the City is currently being studied as. part of the General Plan Update. Current figures indicate that the build out population will be approximately 18,700. At the present time, the City has 927 new dwelling units either approved (483) or in process (444). Two hundred twelve (212) units of the 927 units pending approval are proposed increases to the existing General Plan density and are likely to require water quantities above historical usage. If so, these units are subject to a water neutralization program. Water Neutralization Alternatives The present procedure: At the present time development is being conditioned to mitigate its increased water usage above hi~toricallevels for the site. For example, if a duplex is proposed where only one single family residence existed before, the mitigation requirement is equivalent to the amount of water projected to be used by the proposed duplex minus the existing water usage. . Developers are required to submit a "water neutralization" plan indicating how they will make up the difference in usage. Overwhelmingly, this neutralization involves some type of retrofit program. Staff reviews these plans and submits them to Council for final approval. Projects with approved plans are permitted through the Building Division and inspected for compliance once completed.. Local Programs Many other local agencies require water neutralization using various methods. Some. of the methods' utilized are: -mandatory retrofit for any increased usage (City of San Luis Obispo) at a two for one offset. This means that any new development (even a ministerial building permit or proposed development in conformance with the City's general plan) must offset its calculated water use by twice that amount. It is estimated that a developer must retrofit WATER DEMAND NEUTRALI~TION POLICIES/PROGRAMS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT - JULY 14,1998 PAGE 3 approximately 10 to 12 single family residences to obtain enough water savings for each new unit. The costs are estimated to be approximately $3,500 to $4,500 for the necessary retrofits to gain each new unit. This approach is similar to Arroyo Grande in that there is no in-lieu fee and retrofit is the primary method of gaining compliance. ' -retrofit fee (City of Grover Beach). The City of Grover Beach has calculated a fee of $1 ,936. for new development based on retrofitting enough watertoprovide.aone for one offset. The fee is paid to the City which then hires contractors to retrofit residences and J businesses that have signed up for low flow fixtures. All residential development is required to pay the fee; however; commercial development is exempt. SUMMARY: -Based on available data, the City's water supply is sufficiel1tfor its.projected usage at buildout and provides enough water for development in accordance with the City's adopted General Plan. -The dependable yield of the groundwater basin is currently being studied by the County, and a draft report from the Department of Water Resources is under review and comment. It is uncertain whether that report will conclude that the City's existing groundwater allocation under the "Gentlemen's Agreement" will continue at its existing level. If an overdraft is determined, then calculations for.water supply and demand should be revised. -The present water neutralization program imposed upon development by the City is difficult to administer. This requires review by the City staff of the data and method used to calculate the amount to be neutralized as well as confirming that all of the items listed in the plan have been completed. -A simple approach providing for an "in-lieu" water neutralization fee would be preferable to the existing system. -Water consumption can be related to a fee which can then be used for water projects or to retrofit businesses and residences wishing to install water conserving fixtures in existing units. . RECOMMENDED PROGRAM: Because existing development has relied upon the City's past actions to provide a reliable water supply for General Plan buildout, it would be appropri~te to allow that development to continue without extraordinary water neutralization requirements. However, it is recommended any water usage above historical usage continue to be mitigated. Furthermore, it is recommended that an in-lieu fee can be established to allow for ease of administration and less processing time. It is anticipated that a fee, based on fees currently being collected by other agencies, could be approximately $2,000 to $3,000 per equivalent single family dwelling unit. This proposed fee will need to be refined and supported with standardized water use factors and calculations in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600) before being incorporated into an ordinance. Also, any such fee must be indexed for inflation. As water studies are concluded which better refine the .--.."---- _. ...._._...._.m..._._ ----~ '---- WATER DEMAND NEUTRALIZATION POLICIES/PROGRAMS .h.. FOR NEW DEVELOPMENt - JULY 14,1998 PAGE 4 amount of the City's w~ter supply, further adjustments to this program can be implemented. The recommended program will not negatively impact staff workload since it is anticipated that time spent on administration of the new program will be equivalent or less than the workload under the existing program. Potential projects for the City administered program could include installation of a grey water pipe to be connected to an upstream point of the Arroyo Grande Creek to replenish . groundwater and harvesting of underground fresh water sources. immediately off sh9re. Another program could involve-the City's Redevelopment Agency. The Agency is required to assist low and moderate income residents/families with various housing. needs. Coupling the water mitigation in-lieu fees with the Agency's housing set-aside funds, the Agency ccmld develop a program to retrofitlre-plumb low and moderate income housing to promote water conservation efforts. . Based on an average fee of $2,200 per equivalent single family dwelling unit, the 212 dwelling units in process, which are above the existing General Plan density and likely require an increase in water above historical usage, would generate a total of $466,400. This amount would fall short of funding required for the large scale projects. However, this program could be combined with Water Facilities funds (640) as a way of meeting the fiscal requirements of larger projects. The Water Facilities Fund will have an estimated fund balance of $2,885,137 as of June 30, 1998. For those projects currently in the pipeline and subject to the existing water neutralization mitigation program, staff is recommending, until ,a new program/policy is in place, project proponents be given the option to continue under the existing program (Le. developer proposed program for retrofitting approved by the Council) or the developer can offer a cash deposit of $2,200 per unit with the understanding that if the final fee is less, a refund of the difference will be made. Altel:natives , The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: 1. Continue the existing program that requires the developer to neutralize increased water usage above historical usage. 2. Direct staff to develop a program for water neutralization of all new development with water requirements in excess of historical usage. The program will allow developer/applicant the option to pay a fee or develop their own plan for water neutralization. 3. Continue to explore other options. 4. Provide direction to staff. '_n -~...'_. -~._- --~._-- ---'- STANDARD MITIGATION MEASURES A negative declaration with mitigation measures has been adopted for this project. The -following mitigation measures shall be implemented as , . conditions of approval and shall be monitored by the appropriate City department or responsible agency. The applicant shall be responsible for verification in writing by the monitoring department or agency that the mitigation measures have been implemented. . WATER ->Ja._ The applicant shall submit, for review and approval of the City Council, an individual water program that will neutralize projected water demand for the project. The approved program shall be implemented prior to issuance of building permits. Time Frame: Prior to issuance of building permits. Monitoring Department: Public Works Department (NOT APPLICABLE TO SUBDIVISION MAP ACT PROJECTS) _>1b._ The applicant shall submit, for review and approval of. the City Council, an individual water program that will neutralize projected" water .demand for the project. The approved program shall be implemented prior to recordation of final/parcel map. Time Frame: Prior to recordation of final/parcel m~p Monitoring Department: Public Works Department (SO) 2. All construction shall utilize fixtures and designs which minimize water - usage. Such fixtures and designs shall include,' but are not limited to, low flow shower heads, water saving toilets, instant water heaters or hot water recirculating systems, drip irriga~ion with drought tolerant landscaping and so forth. Time Frame: During building plan check . Monitoring Department: Building and Fire Department 3. All water conserving designs or fixtures shall be installed. Time Frame: Prior to final o~cupancy of any structure. Monitoring Department: BuildingOand Fire Department 4. All landscaping shall be consistent. with water conservation practices - including the use of drip irrigation, mulch, gravel, and bark. To the greatest extent possible, lawn areas and areas