Arroyo Grande City Council
April 12, 2022

The City of Arroyo Grande / South County Sanitary Service, Inc.

Amendment #3 to the Amended and Restated Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement March 11, 2022 – FINAL DRAFT Page 32 of 41
pursue all legal rights and remedies it may have against the Waste Generator(s) of such Hazardous Waste, if the Waste Generator(s) can be identified.”
Article 6.

Other Services: Billing, Reporting, Record-Keeping and Public Education

6.10 Public Education
Article 6, Section 6.10 of the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
“Contractor acknowledges and agrees that education and public awareness are critical, key and essential elements of any efforts to achieve requirements of Applicable Law including, but not limited to, AB 939,AB 341, AB 1826, AB 876, AB 901, SB 1383, and other current or future Federal, State or local regulations, as amended. Accordingly, Contractor agrees to take direction from City to exploit opportunities to expand public and Customer knowledge concerning needs and methods to reduce, reuse and Recycle Solid Waste and to cooperate fully with City in this regard.

Contractor acknowledges that they are part of a multi-party effort to operate and educate the public about the regional integrated waste management system. Contractor shall cooperate and coordinate with the City Manager on public education activities to minimize duplicative, inconsistent, or inappropriately timed education campaigns. The Contractor shall cooperate with and shall not impede, interfere, or attempt to impede or interfere with the implementation, expansion, or operation of public education and outreach programs or campaigns conducted by the City.

Contractor shall maintain its own program of providing information relevant to billing and Discarded Materials services, issues and needs with its bills. Contractor shall also include in Customer bills additional information, including information on Recycling programs, as directed by the City.

Contractor shall bear all labor costs with respect to inserting public education materials with the billings. Contractor agrees to insert and distribute brochures, newsletters, or other information developed by the City, as inserts in Contractor’s Customer invoices at no additional charge to the City. Up to letter-sized bill inserts shall be designed and produced by the City, with review and comment by Contractor, and final approval by the City. Annually, Contractor shall be responsible for printing the bill inserts. For Customers receiving electronic bills, Contractor agrees to distribute brochures, newsletters, or other information developed by the City, as attachments to Customer invoices at no additional charge to the City. Contractor shall provide electronic bill inserts (or separate email attachments) to Customers who are billed electronically, and paper bill inserts to Customers who receive paper bills. Electronic bill inserts/attachments must be readily available for the Customer to view upon receipt of the invoice (attachments shall not be provided as links). Upon the City’s request for such inserts, Contractor shall comply with such request during its next billing cycle for the targeted Customer group. Contractor shall perform this service with no additional requirement for compensation.

All public education materials shall be approved in advance by the City. Contractor shall obtain approval from the City on all Contractor-provided public education materials outside of the City’s education plan, including, but not limited to: print, radio, television, or internet media before publication, distribution, and/or release. All education and outreach materials detailed in this Section shall be provided in at the very least English and Spanish, as to comply with SB 1383 and other Applicable Law. City shall have the right to request that Contractor include City identification

The City of Arroyo Grande / South County Sanitary Service, Inc.

Amendment #3 to the Amended and Restated Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement March 11, 2022 – FINAL DRAFT Page 32 of 41
and contact information on public education materials and approval of such requests shall not be unreasonably withheld.

At the direction of the City, Contractor shall participate in and promote activities of AB 939, AB 341, AB 1826, SB 1383 and other current or future Federal, State or local regulations, as amended, and other Solid Waste management techniques at community events and local activities. Such participation would normally include providing, without cost, educational and publicity information promoting the goals of the City's Solid Waste program.

Not less than once per year during each calendar, Contractor shall prepare and distribute to each Generator in the City a mailer that includes information specified in 14 CCR Section 18985.1(a). Such mailer shall be distributed by Contractor to all Residential and Commercial mailing addresses including individual Multi-Family Dwelling Units. Contractor shall also make this notice available in an electronic format through the Contractor’s website.”

6.12 Generator Waivers and Contract Exemptions (New)
Article 6, Section 6.12 is hereby added to the Agreement as follows:

6.12.1 “General. The City or its designee may grant waivers described in this Section to Commercial or Multi-Family Generators that impact the scope of Contractor’s provision of service for those Customers; provided, the Generator shall continue to subscribe with Contractor for franchised Collection services to the extent such services are not waived by the City. Waivers issued shall be subject to compliance with SB 1383 requirements, pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18984.11, or other requirements specified by the City.

6.12.2 Generator Waivers.

6.12.2.1 De Minimis Waivers. The City or its designee may waive a Multi-Family’s, Commercial Business’, or its Property Owner’s obligation to comply with some or all of the Recyclable Materials and Organic Materials requirements set forth in this Agreement, SB 1383 Regulations, and the City Code if the Multi-Family, Commercial Business, or its Property Owner provides documentation, or the City has evidence demonstrating one of the following de minimis conditions:

6.12.2.1.1 The Multi-Family’s or Commercial Business’ total Solid Waste Collection service is two (2) cubic yards or more per week, and Organic Materials subject to Collection comprises less than twenty (20) gallons per week, per applicable Container, of the Multi-Family’s or Commercial Business’ total waste; or,

6.12.2.1.2 The Multi-Family’s or Commercial Business’ total Solid Waste Collection service is less than two (2) cubic yards per week, and Organic Materials subject to Collection comprises less than ten (10) gallons per week, per applicable Container, of the Multi-Family’s or Commercial Business’ total waste.

6.12.2.2 Space Constraint. The City or its designee may waive a Multi-Family’s, Commercial Business’, or its Property Owner’s obligation to comply with some or all of the Source Separated Recyclable Materials or Organic Materials Collection service requirements set forth in this Agreement, SB 1383 Regulations, and/or as required in the Municipal Code, in the event that the Generator qualifies for a space constraint waiver under the City’s Municipal Code.

The City of Arroyo Grande / South County Sanitary Service, Inc.

Amendment #3 to the Amended and Restated Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement March 11, 2022 – FINAL DRAFT Page 32 of 41

6.12.3 Waiver Requests. Generators may submit requests for de minimis waivers and physical space waivers to the Contractor. If a Generator submits a request for a waiver to the Contractor, the Contractor shall refer the Generator to the City. Upon request of the City, the Contractor shall support the City in the waiver review process by providing requested Customer information. If the City or its designee grants a waiver to a Generator, the City shall notify the Contractor and Contractor shall update the Customer’s information and Service Level in accordance with Exhibit G.”

6.13 Procurement of Recovered Organic Waste Products
Article 6, Section 6.13 is hereby added to the Agreement as follows:

6.13.1 SB 1383 Compliance. To assist the City in SB 1383 compliance related to organic waste product procurement, Contractor shall make reasonable efforts to provide SB1383 RNG, power, and Compost or Mulch as described below to maximize the procurement credit to the City.

6.13.2 “Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) Vehicles. Under this Agreement, the Contractor shall make a best effort for all Collection vehicles to be powered by SB 1383 RNG generated by a local facility or powered by SB1383 RNG that is purchased through a wheeling agreement with a party(ies), provided that the wheeling agreement is for purchase of gas derived from Organic Waste that has been Diverted from a Landfill and Processed at an in-vessel digestion Facility that is permitted or otherwise authorized by Title 14 of CCR to recover Organic Waste and meets the requirements of 14 CCR Section 18993.1(h). Upon City’s request, Contractor shall obtain and provide the City with a written certification by an authorized representative of the publicly-owned treatment works or the wheeling agreement contractor certifying that the in-vessel digestion facility produces the SB 1383 RNG consistent with the requirements of 14 CCR Section 18993.1(h). Contractor shall maintain records of the amount of SB 1383 RNG purchased and shall report this information in accordance with Exhibit D. Contractor shall agree to the City’sright to report this SB 1383 RNG usage toward the City’s fulfilment of its annual recovered Organic Waste product procurement target in accordance with 14 CCR Section 18993.1.

6.13.3 Power. To the extent that electricity produced from the Approved Organic Materials Processing Facility qualifies for City's procurement credit under SB 1383, City shall be allocated its proportional share of such qualified electricity usage based on the inbound tonnage delivered by City divided by the total inbound tonnage of the Approved Organic Materials Processing Facility for that same time period.

6.13.4 Compost Give-Away Events. Contractor shall make available for distribution an annual total of at least one thousand (1,000) cubic-yards of Compost for all Member Agencies, including but not limited to the City, utilizing the Approved Processing Facility to City residents at no additional cost to the City or Customers at two (2) public events. To the extent that such distribution qualifies for City's procurement credit under SB 1383, City shall be allocated its proportional share of such qualified procurement based on the inbound Tonnage of Organic Materials collected by Contractor from City divided by the total inbound Tonnage of the Approved Organic Materials Processing Facility to which Contractor delivered such City Tonnage during the applicable measurement period by each Member Agency. The location, date, and time of such events shall be determined by the City with notice provided to the Contractor within twenty (20) Business Days of the date of the event and may be held in conjunction with other City -approved events. Contractor shall deliver the

The City of Arroyo Grande / South County Sanitary Service, Inc.

Amendment #3 to the Amended and Restated Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement March 11, 2022 – FINAL DRAFT Page 32 of 41
Compost to the agreed-upon event location at no cost to City. Contractor shall provide at least one (1) attendant for at least six (6) hours per event.” Article 7.

Payments to City

7.2 AB 939/SB 1383 Reimbursement Fee
Article 7, Section 7.2 of the Agreement is hereby retitled, and amended as follows:
“If requested by City, Contractor shall pay an AB 939/SB 1383 Reimbursement fee to City each month, to be specified annually by City, and, in addition, if the San Luis Obispo Integrated Waste Management Authority "IWMA" currently implements an AB 939, SB 1383, or Solid Waste Management fee, shall pay that fee directly to the IWMA. Said fees shall be an allowable cost in Contractor’s rate application. All AB 939 fees, SB 1383 fees, or Solid Waste Management fees paid to City or IWMA shall be considered a pass-through cost for purposes of rate setting, and, as such if the City or IWMA changes these fees the Contractor’s rates shall be adjusted accordingly subject to all applicable laws and regulations. The City or the IWMA shall have the right to establish and adjust the AB 939, SB 1383, or Solid Waste Management fee at any time, provided that any changes are considered a pass through cost for the purposes of rate setting, at the time of the change in the AB 939, SB 1383, or Solid Waste Management fee.”

7.4 Other Fees
Article 7, Section 7.4 of the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
“The City shall receive a landfill savings payment that recognizes the capital improvement saving at the landfill by entering into this Agreement. Within two (2) days of the effective date of this Agreement and on every annual anniversary of the effective date, the Contractor shall pay the City of Arroyo Grande $22,340. This payment shall not be included as a pass through cost for the purpose of rate setting and shall be adjusted annually by the same percent increase to the rates granted by the City.

The City shall reserve the right to set "Other" Fees, as it deems necessary. These expenses will be determined and a fee designed to reimburse City. Such fees shall be set annually by City and may be considered a pass-through cost for purposes of rate setting, and as such if City adopts or changes these fees, Contractor’s rates shall be adjusted accordingly.” Article 9.

Records, Reports and Information, Studies and Hearing Requirements

9.1 Records
1) Article 9, Section 9.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
“Contractor shall maintain records required to conduct its operations, to support requests it may make to City, to respond to requests of the City, and to help City fulfill its obligations under Applicable Law including, but not limited to, AB 939, AB 341, AB 1826, AB 876, AB 901, SB 1383, and other current or future Federal, Stator or local regulations, as amended. Adequate record security shall be maintained to preserve records from events that can be reasonably anticipated such as a fire, theft and earthquake. Electronically maintained data and records shall be protected and an adequate backup system shall be provided for such data and records. The protection and backup

The City of Arroyo Grande / South County Sanitary Service, Inc.

Amendment #3 to the Amended and Restated Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement March 11, 2022 – FINAL DRAFT Page 32 of 41
systems shall be subject to approval by the City. The following records shall be maintained for the City in form and detail satisfactory to the City, relating to:
 Customer services and billing;
 Weight of Solid Waste, especially as related to reducing and Diverting Solid Waste.

Information is to be separated by kind of account;
 Special annual clean-up event results;
 Routes;
 Facilities, equipment and personnel used;
 Facilities and equipment operations, maintenance and repair;  Processing and Disposal of Solid Waste;
 Complaints; and
 Missed pick-ups.

Contractor shall maintain records of Transfer, Diversion and Disposal of all Solid Waste Collected in the City for the period of this Agreement and all extensions to this Agreement or successor Agreements. In the event Contractor discontinues providing Solid Waste services to City, Contractor shall provide all records of Diversion and Disposal of all Solid Waste Collected within the City to City within thirty (30) days of discontinuing service. Records shall be in chronological order, and organized in a form readily and easily interpreted.

Records for other programs shall be tailored to specific needs. In general, they shall include:
 Plans, tasks, and milestones; and,
 Accomplishments in terms such as dates, activities conducted, quantities of products used, produced or distributed, and numbers of participants and responses.”

9.3 Report Formats and Schedule
Article 9, Section 9.3 of the Agreement is hereby amended as follows :
“Records shall be maintained in forms and by methods that facilitate flexible use of data contained in them to structure reports, as needed. Reports are intended to compile recorded data into useful forms of information that can be used to, among other things:
 Determine and set rates, and evaluate the financial efficacy of operations; and  Evaluate past and expected progress towards achieving goals and objectives; and  Determine needs for adjustment to programs; and
 Evaluate Customer service and Complaints.

The City may at no cost to itself request that Contractor provide such additional information in the reports set forth below as the City deems necessary or appropriate to meet its needs, including provision of AB 939 report information. Contractor may propose report formats that are responsive

The City of Arroyo Grande / South County Sanitary Service, Inc.

Amendment #3 to the Amended and Restated Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement March 11, 2022 – FINAL DRAFT Page 32 of 41
to the objectives and audiences for each report. The format of each report shall be subject to approval by the City.

Contractor shall submit all reports to the City, electronically via e-mail using software acceptable to the City. The City reserves the right to require the Contractor to maintain records and submit the reports required herein through use of the City-selected web-based software platform and/or Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, at the Contractor’s expense.

Monthly reports shall be submitted within ten (10) calendar days after the end of the report month.

Quarterly reports shall be submitted within fifteen (15) calendar days after the end of the quarter.

Quarters end on November 30, February 28, May 31, and August 31.

All reports shall be submitted to: City Manager
City of Arroyo Grande
PO Box550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421”

9.4 Monthly Reports
Article 9, Section 9.4 of the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
“The information listed shall be the minimum reported for each service:
 Discarded Materials, Collected, Transferred, Diverted and Disposed of, by sector (Commercial, industrial, Residential) of Waste Generator-Collected by Contractor, in Tons, by month.  Complaint summary, for month and cumulative for report year, as above, summarized by nature of Complaints.
 Narrative summary of problems encountered and actions taken with recommendations for the City, as appropriate.
 All requirements specified in Exhibit G.”

9.5 Quarterly Report
Article 9, Section 9.5 of the Agreement is hereby amended to as follows:
“Quarterly reports shall be formatted and submitted as outlined in Exhibit G. ”

9.7 Additional Reports (NEW)
Article 9, Section 9.7 is hereby added to the Agreement:
“AB 901 Reporting. At the City’s option, the City may require that Contractor provide the City with the aggregate tonnage data related to AB 901 reporting that the City needs for its SB 1383 reporting, to the extent available to Contractor within five (5) Business Days of City request, or mutually agreed time. At the City’s option, the City may review specific Customer information; however, City shall not be permitted to make copies or take records specific to Customer information.

The City of Arroyo Grande / South County Sanitary Service, Inc.

Amendment #3 to the Amended and Restated Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement March 11, 2022 – FINAL DRAFT Page 32 of 41
Article 12.

Default, Remedies and Liquidated Damages

12.3 Liquidated Damages
Article 12, Section 12.3 of the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
“A. General. City finds, and Contractor agrees, that as of the time of the execution of this Agreement, it is impractical, if not impossible, to reasonably ascertain the extent of damages which shall be incurred by City as a result of a breach by Contractor of its obligations under this Agreement.

B. Service Performance Standards; Liquidated Damages for Failure to Meet Standards. The Parties acknowledge that consistent, reliable Discarded Materials service is of utmost importance to City and that City has considered and relied on Contractor's representations as to its quality of service commitment in awarding the Agreement to it. The Parties further recognize that some quantified standards of performance are necessary and appropriate to ensure consistent and reliable service and performance. The Parties further recognize that if Contractor fails to achieve the performance standards, comply with Complaint resolution criteria, or fails to submit required documents in a timely manner, City and its residents will suffer damages and that it is and will be impractical and extremely difficult to ascertain and determine the exact amount of damages that City will suffer. Therefore, without prejudice to City's right to treat such non-performance as an event of default under this Article 12, the Parties agree that the following Liquidated Damage amounts represent a reasonable estimate of the amount of such damages considering all of the circumstances existing on the date of this Agreement, including the relationship of the sums to the range of harm to City that reasonably could be anticipated and the anticipation that proof of actual damages would be costly or inconvenient. Recognizing the importance of resolving any failure to meet the service performance standard, the City shall contact Contractor within two (2) days of any failing reported directly to the City. In addition Contractor agrees to meet with the City Manager within 2 days of a requested meeting to discuss the Contractor's performance.

Contractor agrees to pay (as Liquidated Damages and not as a penalty) the amounts set forth below:

Collection Reliability and Quality
For each failure over five (5) annually to commence service to a new Customer account within seven (7) days after order: $150.00
For each failure over twenty-four (24) annually to Collect Discarded Materials, which as been properly set out for Collection, from an established Customer account on the scheduled Collection day and not Collected within 24 hours after notice of missed pick-up: $150.00 For each failure to Collect Discarded Materials, which have been properly set out for Collection, from the same Customer on two (2) consecutive scheduled pickup days: $150.00 For each occurrence over five (5) annually of damage to private property: $250.00 For each occurrence over ten (10) annually of discourteous behavior: $250.00

The City of Arroyo Grande / South County Sanitary Service, Inc.

Amendment #3 to the Amended and Restated Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement March 11, 2022 – FINAL DRAFT Page 32 of 41
For each failure over ten (10) annually to clean up Discarded Materials, spilled by Contractor from Containers: $150.00
For each occurrence over five (5) annually of Collecting Discarded Materials, during unauthorized hours: $250.00
For each failure to respond to a Customer Complaint within twenty-four (24) working hours:
$100.00
Timeliness of Submissions to City
REPORTS Any report shall be considered late until such time as City receives a correct and complete report. For each calendar day a report is late, the daily assessment shall be:

Monthly Reports: For each infraction $25 per day
Annual Reports: For each infraction $50 per day
Violations: SB 1383 (New)
Use of Unauthorized Facilities. For each individual occurrence of delivering Discarded Materials to a Facility other than an Approved Facility(ies) for each Discarded Material type under this Agreement: $0 for first five (5) failures; $1,000 per each subsequent failure Failure to Implement three-Container System. For each occurrence of failing to provide Customers with the three-Container system required by and compliant with Section 5.2 and

5.4 excluding Generators and Customers granted waivers pursuant to Section 6.12 of this Agreement, and excluding Generators and Customers that demonstrate compliance with Recycling and Organic Waste Self-Hauling requirements pursuant to City Municipal Code and 14 CCR Division 7, Article 12, Article: $100 / Generator or Customer / occurrence / Day until compliance achieved.

Failure to Comply with Container Labeling and Colors. For each occurrence of Contractor’s failure to comply with Container labeling and color requirements pursuant to Section 5.6.3 of this Agreement: $150 / Container / occurrence
Failure to Perform Public Education and Outreach. For each failure to perform any individual education and outreach activity as required and in the timeframe specified by this Agreement:
$180 / occurrence
Failure to Allow Access to Records. For each failure to provide access to records in compliance with and in the timeframe specified in this Agreement: $120 / day Failure to Issue Contamination Notices. For each failure of Contractor Collection personnel to issue contamination notices and maintain documentation of issuance as required by Section 4.7 of this Agreement.: $100 / Contractor Route / day Improper Fee Issuance. For each fee that is issued to a Generator without prior authorization from City under this agreement: $100 /Customer/Day

The City of Arroyo Grande / South County Sanitary Service, Inc.

Amendment #3 to the Amended and Restated Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement March 11, 2022 – FINAL DRAFT Page 32 of 41
Liquidated damages will only be assessed after Contractor has been given the opportunity but failed to rectify the damages, as described in this Agreement (e.g., twenty-four (24) working hours to respond to a Complaint). City may determine the occurrence of events giving rise to Liquidated Damages through the observation of its own employees or representative or investigation of Customer Complaints.

Prior to assessing Liquidated Damages, City shall give Contractor notice of its intention to do so. The notice will include a brief description of the incident(s)/non-performance. Contractor may review (and make copies at its own expense) all information in the possession of City relating to incident(s)/non-performance. Contractor may, within ten (10) days after receiving the notice, request a meeting with City. If a meeting is requested, it shall be held by the City Manager or their designee. Contractor may present evidence in writing and through testimony of its employees and others relevant to the incident(s)/non-performance. The City Manager or designee will provide Contractor with a written explanation of his or her determination on each incident(s)/non-performance prior to authorizing the assessment of Liquidated Damages. The decision of the City Manager or designee shall be final.

C. Amount. The City Manager or their designee may assess Liquidated Damages for each calendar day or event, as appropriate, that Contractor is determined to be liable in accordance with this Agreement.

D. Timing of Payment. Contractor shall pay any Liquidated Damages assessed by City within thirty (30) days after they are assessed. If they are not paid within the thirty (30) day period, City may proceed against the security required by this Agreement or order the termination of this Agreement, or both.”
Article 13.

Other Agreements of the Parties

13.6 Subcontracting
Article 13, Section 13.6 of the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
“Except as approved in writing by City, Contractorshall not enter into an agreement to have another Person perform Contractor’s duties of this Agreement. Contractor must obtain written agreements with Processing Subcontractors, including the Approved Organic Materials Processing Facility to the Facility’s capacity to Process Discarded Materials. Contractor shall undertake to pay City its reasonable expenses for attorney’s fees and investigation costs necessary to investigate the suitability of any proposed Subcontractor, and to review and finalize any documentation required as a conditionfor approving any such Subcontracting agreement.” IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on the day and year first above written.

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE:

By:

Caren Ray Russom, Mayor

SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY SERVICE,
INC.

By:

The City of Arroyo Grande / South County Sanitary Service, Inc.

Amendment #3 to the Amended and Restated Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement March 11, 2022 – FINAL DRAFT Page 32 of 41
ATTEST:

By: _________________________________
Jessica Matson, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney

The City of Arroyo Grande / South County Sanitary Service, Inc.

Amendment #3 to the Amended and Restated Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement March 11, 2022 – FINAL DRAFT Page 32 of 41

EXHIBITS
Exhibit G Recordkeeping and Reporting (NEW)
Exhibit G, Recordkeeping and Reporting, is hereby added to the Agreement as follows:
“G.1 General
Contractor shall maintain such accounting, statistical, and other records related to its performance under this Agreement as shall be necessary to develop the reports required by this Agreement or City Municipal Code. Contractor agrees to conduct data collection, information and record keeping, and reporting activities needed to comply with Applicable Laws and regulations and to meet the reporting and Discarded Materials Collection, Processing, and Disposal program management needs of the City. At the written direction or approval of City, the records and reports to be maintained and provided by Contractor in accordance with this Exhibit and other Articles of the Agreement may be adjusted in number, format, and frequency, if required to comply with State or Federal regulatory or reporting requirements.

Information from Contractor’s records and reports can be used to, among other things:

1. Determine and set Rates and evaluate the financial efficacy of operations;

2. Evaluate past and expected progress toward achieving the Contractor’s Landfill Disposal reduction or Diversion goals and objectives;

3. Provide concise and comprehensive program information and metrics for use in fulfilling reporting requirements under Applicable Law;

4. Determine needs for adjustment to programs;

5. Evaluate Customer service and Complaints; and,

6. Determine Customer compliance with AB 341, AB 1826, and SB 1383 statutes and corresponding regulations; and, any subsequent State-mandated landfill Disposal reduction, Recycling, recovery, or Diversion statutes, regulations, or other requirements.

G.2 Record Keeping
A. General. Contractor shall maintain Customer contact data, Customer service, accounting, statistical, operational, and other records related to its performance as shall be necessary to provide reporting required by this Agreement and Applicable Law and to demonstrate compliance with this Agreement and Applicable Law (such as, but not limited to, AB 939, AB 341, AB 1826, AB 876, AB 901, and SB 1383 statutes and corresponding regulations).

Record keeping and reporting requirements specified in this Agreement shall not be considered a comprehensive list of reporting requirements. In particular, this Exhibit is intended to highlight the general nature of records and reports and their minimum content and is not meant to comprehensively define the scope and content of the records and reports that Contractor is required to maintain and report by Applicable Law or this Agreement. Upon written direction or approval of City, the records and reports required by Contractor in accordance with this and other Articles of the Agreement shall be adjusted in number, format, or frequency.

Contractor shall maintain adequate records, and corresponding documentation, of information required by this Exhibit, such that the Contractor is able to produce accurate monthly, quarterly,

The City of Arroyo Grande / South County Sanitary Service, Inc.

Amendment #3 to the Amended and Restated Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement March 11, 2022 – FINAL DRAFT Page 32 of 41
and annual reports, and is able to provide records to verify such reports. Contractor will make these records available and provide to the City any record or documentation necessary for the City to fulfill obligations under Applicable Law including, but not limited to, AB 939, AB 341, AB 1826, AB 876, AB 901, and SB 1383 statutes and corresponding regulations; and, other current or future Federal, State, or local statutes and regulations, as amended. Upon request by the City, Contractor shall provide access to Contractor’s requested records in a timely manner, not to exceed ten (10) Business Days from the time of City’s request to Contractor.

B. Record Retention and Security. Records shall be maintained in forms and by methods that facilitate flexible use of data contained in them to structure reports, as needed, pursuant to this Exhibit.

Contractor’s records shall be stored in one central location, physical or electronic, that can be readily accessed by Contractor. City reserves the right to require the Contractor to maintain the records required herein through the use of a City-selected web-based software platform, at Contractor’s expense. Unless otherwise required in this Exhibit, Contractor shall retain all records and data required to be maintained by this Agreement for the Term of this Agreement plus five (5) years after its expiration or earlier termination.

Records and data shall be in chronological and organized form and readily and easily interpreted.

Contractor shall maintain adequate record security to preserve records from events that can be reasonably anticipated such as a fire, theft, and an earthquake. Electronically-maintained data and records shall be protected and backed-up. To the extent that Contractor utilizes its computer systems to comply with record keeping and reporting requirements under this Agreement, Contractor shall, on a monthly basis, save all system-generated reports supporting those record keeping and reporting requirements in a static format in order to provide an audit trail for all data required.

C. Compilation of Information for State Law Purposes. Contractor shall maintain accurate records for its operation, including, but not limited to, Discarded Materials quantities Collected and quantities Transported to or Transferred to each Approved Facility, listed separately by material type, Customer type, and Facility. Records shall be maintained in such form by methods that facilitate the use of data for the production of reports as needed. Contractor will make these records available and provide to the City any record or documentation necessary for the City to fulfill obligations under Applicable Law including, but not limited to, AB 939, AB 341, AB 1826, AB 876, AB 901, AB 1595, and SB 1383 statutes and corresponding regulations; and, other current or future local, Federal or State statutes and regulations, as amended.

G.3 Reporting
G.3.1 General
A. General Purpose. Reports are intended to compile recorded data into useful forms of information that can be used by the City. All reports shall be adequate to meet City’s current and future reporting requirements to CalRecycle, including AB 939, AB 341, AB 1826, and SB 1383 statutes and corresponding regulations, or any other State or Federal agency statutes and regulations throughout the Term of this Agreement.

B. Failure to Report. Failure of Contractor to comply with the reporting requirements as set forth in this Section may result in an assessment of Liquidated Damages in accordance with the Liquidated Damages provision in Section 12.3 of this Agreement. Contractor’s repeated failure to submit reports, and/or failure to submit reports on time, may be deemed an event of default and may

The City of Arroyo Grande / South County Sanitary Service, Inc.

Amendment #3 to the Amended and Restated Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement March 11, 2022 – FINAL DRAFT Page 32 of 41
result in the termination of the Agreement at the discretion of the City Manager, in accordance with Article 12 of this Agreement.

C. Report Format. Contractor shall submit all reports to the City, electronically via e-mail using software acceptable to the City. The City reserves the right to require the Contractor to maintain records and submit the reports required herein through use of the District-selected web-based software platform and/or Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, at the Contractor’s expense.

D. Submittal Process. All reports shall be submitted to the City, Department of Public Works or as directed by the City Manager. Reports shall be submitted electronically via email or uploaded to a document sharing platform agreed upon by the Parties. City reserves the right to require the Contractor to maintain records and submit the reports required herein through use of a Cityselected web-based software platform, at the Contractor’s expense.

G.3.2 Monthly Reports
Monthly reports shall be submitted by Contractor to City and shall include the following information pertaining to the most recently completed calendar month. In addition, each monthly report shall include a year-to-date summary page that includes the data submitted from the monthly report(s) submitted in the calendar year prior to the submittal of the current monthly report. Contractor shall report the information included in the following subsections.

A. Tonnage Report

1. Contractor shall report the total quantities in Tons of Discarded Materials Collected, Transferred, Processed, and Disposed by the Contractor, all of which shall be based on actual certified scale weights for each load, if available, or similarly accurate methodology pursuant to weighing protocol. Tonnage shall be reported separately by:
a. Material type, which shall include, at a minimum, separate reporting of Source Separated Recyclable Materials, Source Separated Organic Materials, Solid Waste, and any other type of Discarded Material separately Collected by Contractor (including, but not limited to: Bulky Items, used oil, dirt, rock, metals, Cardboard, wood waste, , Salvageable Materials, etc.);
b. Customer/sector type (Single-Family, Multi-family, Commercial Roll-off); and, c. Approved Facility and Facility type.

2. Report Residue level and Tonnage for all Discarded Materials Processed, listed separately by material type Collected and Approved Facility(ies) used.

3. Source Separated Recyclable Materials Tonnage Marketed, by commodity, and including average commodity value for each, and Processing Residue Tonnage Disposed, listed separately by material type Collected and Approved Facility(ies) used.

4. Documentation of all Discarded Materials exported out of State, as provided in 14 CCR Sections 18800 through 18813.

B. Collection and Subscription Report

1. Number of Containers at each Service Level by Customer Type and program, including:

The City of Arroyo Grande / South County Sanitary Service, Inc.

Amendment #3 to the Amended and Restated Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement March 11, 2022 – FINAL DRAFT Page 32 of 41
a. A summary of the total gallons of Cart service, cubic yards of Bin service, and pulls; and cubic yards or Tons of Drop Box and Compactor service by Customer Type. b. Calculation of the average volume of service received per: Single-Family Dwelling Unit (separately identifying Dwelling Units in a duplex, triplex, or fourplex); Multi-Family Dwelling Unit; and, Commercial Customer.

2. A summary of Customer subscription data, including the number of accounts; the number of Customers subscribing to each Cart, Bin, and Roll-Off Service Level listed separately for SingleFamily, Multi-Family, and Commercial and separately for each type of Discarded Material; the number and type of waivers (i.e., de minimis or physical space constraint) active for Customers for each type of Discarded material; and the number of Bulky Items Collections performed.

C. Contamination Monitoring Report
The Contractor shall submit the following information regarding Contractor conducted contamination monitoring and issuance of Prohibited Container Contaminant Notices, conducted pursuant to Section 4.7 of this Agreement:

1. Description of the Contractor’s Process for determining the level of contamination;

2. Summary report of Customer Notices which shall include the date of issuance, Customer name, and service address.

3. A record of each inspection and contamination incident, which shall include, at a minimum:
a. Name of the Customer
b. Address of the Customer
c. The date the contaminated Container was observed
d. The staff who conducted the inspection
e. The total number of violations found and a description of what action was taken for each f. Copies of all notices issued to Generators with Prohibited Container Contaminants g. Any photographic documentation or supporting evidence.

4. Any other information reasonably requested by the City or specified in contamination monitoring provisions of this Agreement.

D. Customer Service Report

1. Contractor shall maintain a record of all SB 1383 non-compliance Complaints as defined in 14 CCR Section 18995.3 and responses and submit the following information:
a. Total number of SB 1383 non-compliance Complaints received and total number of SB 1383 non-compliance Complaints investigated
b. Copies of documentation recorded for each SB 1383 non-compliance Complaint received, which shall at a minimum include the following information:
i. The SB 1383 non-compliance Complaint as received;
ii. The name and contact information of the complainant, if the SB 1383 nonPage 158 of 432 The City of Arroyo Grande / South County Sanitary Service, Inc.

Amendment #3 to the Amended and Restated Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement March 11, 2022 – FINAL DRAFT Page 32 of 41
compliance Complaint is not submitted anonymously;
iii. The identity of the alleged violator, if known;
iv. A description of the alleged violation; including location(s) and all other relevant facts known to the complainant;
v. Any relevant photographic or documentary evidence submitted to support the allegations in the SB 1383 non-compliance Complaint; and, vi. The identity of any witnesses, if known.
c. Copies of all SB 1383 non-compliance Complaint reports submitted by Contractor to the City.
d. Copies of all investigation reports submitted to the City which shall include at a minimum:
i. The SB 1383 non-compliance Complaint as received;
ii. The date the Contractor investigated the SB 1383 non-compliance Complaint; iii. Documentation of the findings of the investigation; iv. Any photographic or other evidence collected during the investigation; and, v. Contractor’s recommendation to the City on whether or not the entity investigated is in violation of SB 1383 Regulations based on the Contractor’s investigation.

E. Education Program Report
The monthly status of activities identified in the annual public education plan described in Section 6.10 of this Agreement.

G.3.3 Annual Reports
In addition to the monthly reporting requirements in this Exhibit and Section 9.6, the Contractor shall provide an Annual Report, covering the most recently-completed calendar year, in accordance with the format and submittal requirements of this Exhibit. The Annual Report shall include the information in the following subsections.

A. Collection and Subscription Report

1. A summary of all data provided in the Tonnage report section, including quarterly and annual totals and averages.

2. The type(s) of Collection service(s) provided, a list of all hauler routes serviced, and a record of the addresses served on each hauler route.

3. A summary of Customer subscription data, including the number of accounts; the total number of Generators enrolled with Contractor for service, listed separately by Service Level and Container type (Cart, Bin, and Roll-Off service), separately by Single-Family, Multi-Family, and Commercial Customers, and separately for each type of Discarded Material.

4. A detailed list of Single-Family, Multi-Family, and Commercial Customer information, including Solid Waste Container Waste, Recyclable Materials, and Organic Materials Service

The City of Arroyo Grande / South County Sanitary Service, Inc.

Amendment #3 to the Amended and Restated Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement March 11, 2022 – FINAL DRAFT Page 32 of 41
Levels, Customer type, and Customer service addresses reflecting Customer Service Levels as of December 1 (for the year in which the report is submitted) B. Processing Facility Report

1. Approved Organics Processing Facility: Contractor shall provide documentation demonstrating the actual percent of the material removed for landfill disposal that is Organic Waste is less than the percent specified in 14 CCR Section 17409.5.8(c)(2) or 17409.5.8(c)(3), whichever is applicable, and, if applicable, demonstrations compliance with the digestate handling requirements specified in 14 CCR Section 17896.5.

2. Temporary Equipment or Operations Failure: If the Contractor is granted a Processing facility temporary equipment or operational failure waiver, in accordance with Section 5.7 or 5.11 of the Agreement, the Contractor shall include the following documents and information:
a. The number of days the Processing Facility temporary equipment waiver or operation failure waiver was in effect;
b. Copies of any notifications sent to the City pursuant to Section 5.7 or 5.11 of the Agreement, and copies of City notices to Contractor pursuant to Section 5.7 or 5.11 of the Agreement;
c. Documentation setting forth the date of issuance of the waiver, the timeframe for the waiver; and,
d. A record of the Tons of Organic Materials, Recyclable Materials, and Solid Waste redirected to an Alternative Facility or Disposed at an Approved Disposal Facility as a result of the waiver, recorded by Collection vehicle or Transfer vehicle number/load, date, and weight.

3. Quarantined Organic Waste: A record of all compliance agreements for quarantined Organic Waste that are Disposed of, including the name of Generator, date issued, location of final disposition, and the amount of quarantined Organic Waste that was required to be Disposed at a Landfill, pursuant to Section 5.7 of the Agreement
C. Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Report

1. A summary of the total number of SB 1383 Regulatory non-compliance Complaints that were received and forwarded to the City or their designee.

2. The total number of Prohibited Container Contaminant Customer Notices and Contamination Processing Fees, categorized by type of Generator.

3. The number of violations that were resolved, categorized by type of Generator.

4. Copies of all Prohibited Container Contaminant Customer Notices issued and, educational materials issued to non-compliant Generators.

D. Public Education and Outreach Report

1. A copy of all education and outreach materials provided to Generators, or otherwise used for education and outreach efforts in accordance with this Agreement, including, but not limited to: flyers, brochures, newsletters, invoice messaging/billing inserts, and website and social media postings.

The City of Arroyo Grande / South County Sanitary Service, Inc.

Amendment #3 to the Amended and Restated Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement March 11, 2022 – FINAL DRAFT Page 32 of 41

2. A record of the date and to whom the information was disseminated or direct contact made, in the form of a list that includes: the Generator’s name or account name, the type of education or outreach received; the distribution date, and the method of distribution.

3. For any mass distribution through mailings or bill inserts, the Contractor shall maintain a record of the date, a copy of the information distributed, and the type and number of accounts that received the information.

4. A copy of electronic media, including the dates posted of: social media posts, e-mail communications, or other electronic messages.

5. A summary of the status of the annual education plan of the reporting year, including activities conducted and the quantitative and/or qualitative results of those activities.

6. The annual public education plan required by Section 6.10 of the Agreement for the upcoming then-current calendar year. For example, Contractor submittal of a 2021 annual report in February 2022 shall include Contractor submittal of the annual public education plan for calendar year 2022.

7. Contractor shall maintain a record of all technical assistance efforts conducted pursuant to Section 6.10 of the Agreement, including:
a. The name and address of the Customer/Generator receiving technical assistance, and account number, if applicable.
b. The date of any technical assistance conducted and the type of technical assistance, including, but not limited to: waste assessments, compliance assessments, direct outreach, workshops, meetings, events, and follow-up communications. c. A copy of any written or electronic educational materials distributed during the technical assistance process.

8. A copy of all special event reports submitted to the City in accordance with Section 5.9 of the Agreement.

G.3.4 Additional Reports
A. Upon Request Reporting. City reserves the right to request additional reports or documents in the case of unforeseen legislative or regulatory changes, requests from CalRecycle, or additional requirements imposed upon the City. The Contractor shall provide the requested reports, documents, or information within ten (10) Business Days upon receipt of the request or within a timeframe determined by the City Manager, which shall not to exceed ten (10) days.

B. Facility Capacity Planning Information. To the extent such information is available to Contractor, City may require Contractor to provide City with information of available Organic Waste Processing capacity for any Approved Processing Facilities, where available capacity may include identification of monthly Tons of additional Organic Waste that such Approved Facilities have the ability to receive within permitted limits. Contractor shall respond to City within sixty (60) days of City’s request for information regarding available new or expanded capacity, to the extent such information is available to Contractor and, at City’s option may be required to submit reports on a more regular basis (such as monthly, quarterly, or annually). If Contractor uses a Subcontractor to perform some or all of the Facility-related services required by this Agreement, Contractor shall use commercially reasonable

The City of Arroyo Grande / South County Sanitary Service, Inc.

Amendment #3 to the Amended and Restated Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement March 11, 2022 – FINAL DRAFT Page 32 of 41
efforts to secure any City-requested Facility capacity planning information from its Subcontractor(s).

The annual Facility capacity planning report shall comply with the following:

1. Include reports of current throughput and permitted capacity and available capacity for Organic Materials Processing for any Facility in the City that Processes Organic Materials.

Existing capacity may include identification of monthly Tons of additional Source Separated Recyclable Materials, Source Separated Organic Materials, and/or Solid Waste capacity such Facility has the ability to receive within permitted limits.

2. Include description of potential new or expanded Processing capacity at those Facilities, operations, and activities for Processing of Organic Materials, including information about throughput and permitted capacity necessary for planning purposes.

3. Be submitted using a form or format approved by the City Manager.”

Item 8.l.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Whitney McDonald, City Manager
Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Declaring a Continued Local Emergency Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Authorizing the Continuance of Remote Teleconference Meetings of the Legislative Bodies Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e)(3)
DATE: April 12, 2022
SUMMARY OF ACTION:

Adoption of the Resolution will continue the declared local emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic and will also enable the City to continue to comply with the requirements of legislation, AB 361, to authorize the continued use of teleconferencing for meetings of the City’s legislative bodies.

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

There are no direct fiscal impacts related to the proposed action; however, adoption of the Resolution will facilitate the ability for the City to request resources including financial support and reimbursement from the State Office of Emergency Services and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for costs incurred in preparation and/or response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution declaring a continued local emergency related to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and authorizing the continuance of remote teleconference meetings pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e)(3).

BACKGROUND:

As the City Council is aware, in accordance with Section 8.12.060 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, the former City Manager, in his capacity as the Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed a local emergency on March 16, 2020, regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. The City Council ratified the proclamation at its regular meeting on March 24, 2020, and adopted resolutions declaring a continued local emergency since that time as the pandemic has persisted.

Item 8.l.

City Council
Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Declaring a Continued Local Emergency Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Authorizing the Continuance of Remote Teleconference Meetings of the Legislative Bodies Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e)(3)
April 12, 2022

In addition, AB 361 amended Government Code Section 54953, adding a new subsection (e) that permits legislative bodies, when there is a proclaimed State of Emergency declared by the Governor pursuant to Government Code Section 8625, to make a determination to authorize meeting remotely via teleconferencing as a result of the emergency. To do so, a resolution would need to be adopted in which the legislative body finds that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, or that State or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing.

The City Council first adopted a Resolution making findings in accordance with AB 361 and Government Code Section 54953(e) at its September 28, 2021 meeting. The Resolution is valid for thirty (30) days after teleconferencing for the first time under the new regulations. If the State of Emergency remains active after that 30 day period, the local agency may act to renew its resolution authorizing remote teleconferenced meetings by passing another resolution which includes findings that the State of Emergency declaration remains active, the local agency has reconsidered the circumstances of the State of Emergency, and the local agency has either identified: A) ongoing, direct impacts to the ability to meet safely in-person, or B) active social distancing measures as directed by relevant State or local officials.

In the past, the City has adopted separate resolutions related to the continuing emergency declaration and the continuance of remote teleconference meetings pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e)(3). Staff has combined the two items into one resolution to eliminate the need for separate agenda items.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 8.12.065(C) provides that the City Council is to “Review the need for a continuing emergency declaration at regularly scheduled meetings at least every twenty-one (21) days until the emergency is terminated.” Accordingly, the City Council has adopted the appropriate Resolutions declaring a continued local emergency related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic within the required 21-day time period since the ratification of the proclamation at its March 24, 2020 meeting.

This item is being presented to the City Council to satisfy the requirements of Section

8.12.065(C) given the ongoing State of Emergency proclaimed by the Governor, the ongoing public health orders issued by the State, and the ongoing work required of City staff to respond to the pandemic and these proclamations and orders. In addition, the draft Resolution will allow the City to continue conducting its public meetings via teleconference. The Resolution includes continued findings based upon a determination that, as a result of the proclaimed State of Emergency in California due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its continued spread in San Luis Obispo County and Arroyo Grande

Item 8.l.

City Council
Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Declaring a Continued Local Emergency Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Authorizing the Continuance of Remote Teleconference Meetings of the Legislative Bodies Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e)(3)
April 12, 2022

through the Omicron and BA2 variants of SARS-CoV-2, which are far more transmissible than prior variants of the virus and, as even fully vaccinated individuals can spread the virus to others, holding meetings in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.

While the Resolution provides authority for the City to continue conducting public meetings remotely for the next thirty (30) days, the City has also determined to resume meetings in-person prior to the expiration of that thirty-day period, and conducted the City Council meetings on March 8 and March 22, 2022, as in-person meetings at Council Chambers while also retaining an option for the public, staff, and consultants to participate via Zoom. It is recommended that the proposed Resolution be adopted to continue to provide flexibility for future meetings of the City Council and its advisory bodies in the event that guidance from the State or County Health Officers changes within the next thirty (30) days. This flexibility will also allow members of the City Council or advisory bodies to attend meetings remotely if they also desire or if they are required to quarantine due to exposure to COVID-19.

Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the City Council adopt the Resolution declaring the need to continue the emergency declaration and also authorizing the continuance of remote teleconference meetings pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e)(3).

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:

1. Adopt the Resolution declaring the need to continue the declared local emergency and authorizing the continuance of remote teleconference meetings;

2. Do not adopt the Resolution; or

3. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

Adoption of the Resolution will satisfy the requirement of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code regarding the periodic review of the declared local emergency related to the COVID19 pandemic. It will also satisfy the requirements of Government Code Section 54953(e)(3) and allow the City to safely continue carrying out its business in a manner that will minimize the risk of contracting COVID-19 for everyone involved.

DISADVANTAGES:

No disadvantages have been identified to adopting the Resolution.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

No environmental review is required for this item.

Item 8.l.

City Council
Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Declaring a Continued Local Emergency Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Authorizing the Continuance of Remote Teleconference Meetings of the Legislative Bodies Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e)(3)
April 12, 2022

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2.

Attachments:

1. Proposed Resolution

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ARROYO GRANDE DECLARING A CONTINUED LOCAL
EMERGENCY RELATED TO THE CORONAVIRUS (COVID19) PANDEMIC AND AUTHORIZING THE CONTINUANCE

OF REMOTE TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS OF THE

LEGISLATIVE BODIES OF THE CITY OF ARROYO

GRANDE PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54953(e)
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 8.12.060 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, the former City Manager, in his capacity as the Director of Emergency Services proclaimed a local emergency on March 17, 2020, regarding the COVID-19 pandemic; and
WHEREAS, the City Council ratified the emergency proclamation through adoption of Resolution No. 4974 at its regular meeting on March 24, 2020; and WHEREAS, Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 8.12.065(C) provides that the City Council is to review the need for a continuing emergency declaration at regularly scheduled meetings at least every twenty-one (21) days until the emergency is terminated; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Resolutions declaring a continued local emergency related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on April 14, April 28, May 12, May 26, June 9, June 23, July 14, August 11, August 25, September 8, September 22, October 13, October 27, November 10, November 24, December 8, 2020, January 12, January 26, February 9; February 23; March 9, March 23, April 13, April 27, May 11, May 25, June 8, June 22, July 27, August 10, August 24, September 14, September 28, October 12, October 26, November 9, November 23, December 14, 2021, January 11, January 25, February 8, February 22, March 8, and March 22, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Secretary of Health and Human Services Director issued a Determination that a Public Health Emergency Exists and has existed as of January 27, 2020; and WHEREAS, the President of the United States declared a State of National Emergency; the Governor of the State of California has proclaimed a State of Emergency for the State of California and issued Executive Orders and direction regarding measures to mitigate the spread of cases of COVID-19 within the State of California and all recitals set forth therein, are included as though fully set forth herein; and WHEREAS, subsequently, in March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Newsom issued Executive Orders N-25-20 and N-29-20. These orders suspended certain elements of the Brown Act and specifically allowed for legislative

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 2
bodies as defined by the Brown Act to hold their meetings entirely electronically with no physical meeting place. On June 11, 2021, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N08-21 which provided that the provisions in Executive Order N-29-20 suspending certain elements of the Brown Act would continue to apply through September 30, 2021; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021 Governor Newsom signed AB 361, which added subsection (e) to Government Code section 54953 of the Brown Act, and makes provision for remote teleconferencing participation in meetings by members of a legislative body, without compliance with the requirements of Government Code section 54953(b)(3), subject to the existence of certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, a required condition of AB 361 is that a state of emergency is declared by the Governor pursuant to Government Code section 8625, proclaiming the existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the State caused by conditions as described in Government Code section 8558; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a Resolution making findings in accordance with AB 361 and Government Code Section 54953(e) authorizing remote teleconference meetings on September 28, October 26, November 23, and December 14, 2021, and on January 25 and February 22, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the COVID-19 pandemic continues to spread rapidly worldwide and in the U.S., continuing to present an immediate and significant risk to public health and safety, and resulting in serious illness or death to vulnerable populations, including the elderly and those with underlying health conditions.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande that:

1. All recitals set forth above, are true, correct and incorporated herein.

2. A local emergency is declared to continue to exist throughout the City of Arroyo Grande, and the City has been undertaking, and will continue through termination of this emergency to undertake necessary measures and incur necessary costs, which are directly related to the prevention of the spread of COVID-19 and are taken in furtherance of: the Secretary of Health and Human Services’ determination that a public health emergency has existed since January 27, 2020; the Governor’s Proclamation of a State of Emergency on March 4, 2020; the President of the United States’ Declaration of a National Emergency on March 13, 2020 and the City Director of Emergency Services’ Proclamation of Local Emergency on March 17, 2020; and related orders and directives.

3. In accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 54953(e)(3), the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby finds and determines that it

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 3
has reconsidered the circumstances of the State of Emergency and that the State of Emergency continues to exist and to directly impact the ability to meet safely in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and its continued spread in San Luis Obispo County and Arroyo Grande through the Omicron and BA2 variants of SARS-CoV-2, which are far more transmissible than prior variants of the virus, and can be spread to others even by fully vaccinated individuals, and therefore holding meetings in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.

4. The City Manager and legislative bodies of the City of Arroyo Grande are hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Resolution including, continuing to conduct open and public remote teleconferencing meetings in accordance with the requirements of Government Code section 54953(e) and other applicable provisions of the Brown Act.

5. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and shall be effective for thirty (30) days after its adoption, subject to being extended for an additional 30 day period by the City Council’s adoption of a subsequent resolution in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(3) to further extend the time during which the legislative bodies of the City of Arroyo may continue to teleconference without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Government Code section 54953.

On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

The foregoing Resolution was approved this 12th day of April, 2022.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 4

CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:

JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

WHITNEY MCDONALD, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY

Item 8.m.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Brian Pedrotti, Community Development Director
BY: Robin Dickerson, PE, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Consideration of Approval of Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services with GHD to Expand Scope of Services to allow for the Completion of the Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan DATE: April 12, 2022
SUMMARY OF ACTION:

Approval of the Amendment to Agreement for Consultant Services will allow GHD to complete the Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan.

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

The cost of the additional services is $42,150. Staff proposes to utilize funds from the Community Development Planning Contractual Services account, which includes $240,000 in the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the Amendment to Agreement for Consultant Services with GHD for the completion of the Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan.

BACKGROUND:

The Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan is a Capital Improvement Plan project that is intended to produce a “Complete Streets Blueprint” for the Halcyon Road corridor that lies within the City of Arroyo Grande and the County of San Luis Obispo. The project will develop a Plan to improve safety, mobility and accessibility for all users of the Halcyon Road corridor which extends from its junction with U.S. Route 101 to its junction with State Route 1. The project has included an aggressive public outreach component to actively engage stakeholders in identifying and prioritizing both the existing deficiencies and needed improvements. The original project objectives and end product were anticipated to include:
 Evaluate existing conditions to identify deficiencies in relation to the City's complete streets and multi-modal circulation opportunities.  Incorporate stakeholder input regarding barriers to the desired function and operation of the project area.

Item 8.m.

City Council
Consideration of Approval of Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services with GHD to Expand Scope of Services to allow for the Completion of the Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan
April 12, 2022
 Evaluate project area using multimodal design standards.  Prepare a comprehensive plan document with unified vision of the community to guide the development and improvements of the project area that will stimulate the local economy, enhance the corridor’s natural and man-made environment, and address social inequities.
 Maximize involvement of and sensitivity to the concerns of all stakeholders, City officials, residents, property owners, businesses and advocacy groups. This element of the project will require a very high degree of public input in order to gain collective support for the completed plan by all stakeholders.  Create mapping and documents that clearly explain the plan to the public and in formats that are useful, web-accessible and easily distributed.

The end product will be a stand-alone document useable as a guide to making future improvements to the Halcyon Road corridor and should be easily integrated into the existing Arroyo Grande General Plan and the San Luis Obispo County General Plan.

History. A summary of the milestones associated with the Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan is provided as follows:
 April 12, 2016 - City Council awarded GHD (previously Omni Means) a consultant service agreement for preparation of the Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan.  January 24, 2018 - City staff authorized SWCA to prepare an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the project.
 May 2018 – The consultant submitted a revised draft of the plan with the roundabout option at the intersection of Halcyon Avenue and Fair Oaks Avenue.  September 2019 - Draft IS/MND was submitted to the City.  October 2019 – July 2021 - the project was put on hold due to limited staff resources to complete the plan and the original contract was allowed to expire.

Subsequently, the COVID-19 pandemic created a further delay due to a shift in staff priorities and resources.
 July 2021 - Circulation Element update was completed and recommended that the Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan be completed.
 September 2021 - staff re-reviewed the 2018 draft plan  November 2021 - staff authorized GHD to update the plan to incorporate data collected as part of the Circulation Element Update under the August 1, 2021 Agreement for Consultant Services.

Item 8.m.

City Council
Consideration of Approval of Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services with GHD to Expand Scope of Services to allow for the Completion of the Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan
April 12, 2022
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

Following completion of the Circulation Element Update in July 2021, which included a recommendation for completion of the Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan, staff held a series of discussions regarding the future of the plan and began to look for an opportunity to re-engage the consultant to complete the plan. Staff began by reviewing the draft plan that was completed in May 2018, which included a roundabout as the sole option at the intersection of Halcyon Road and Fair Oaks Avenue. Based on staff’s review, the plan needed several updates, including providing consistency with the recently adopted Circulation Element Update, adding a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis, updating project cost and re-engaging the County and SLOCOG.

During the update, and following a pedestrian/vehicle collision on Halcyon Avenue that resulted in an injury, staff received feedback at a community meeting on December 7, 2021 from various concerned neighbors (Halcyon Neighbors) about pedestrian and bicycle safety associated with a roundabout at this location. Further, staff has also received general comments from community members concerned with the cost and rightof-way acquisition for the roundabout option. Staff determined that re-engaging the stakeholder’s group and the community would be beneficial before presenting a final plan for approval and that the plan should present an option that would not include a roundabout at the intersection of Halcyon Road and Fair Oaks Avenue.

To complete the plan, an amendment to the existing agreement with GHD is needed to provide the following additional services:

1. Develop a concept for the Halcyon/Fair Oaks intersection to remain signalized.

2. Develop a Class IV protected bike lane alternative for selected portions of the plan.

3. Expand the alternatives analysis section of the plan which will compare a roundabout and a signalized intersection including pedestrian and bike improvements to the intersection.

4. Participation in the stakeholder’s group and public engagement, which will include the Halcyon Neighbors and the community.

The cost of the additional services is $42,150 and is covered by the existing Planning Contractual Services budget for FY 2021-22. If the Amendment to the on-call contract with GHD is approved, next steps will include:

1. Prepare a refined roundabout and signalized intersection plan for Fair Oaks and Halcyon.

2. Complete the exhibits for the Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan with both alternatives from the item above. These exhibits will show Halcyon Road from El Camino Real to the Pike.

Item 8.m.

City Council
Consideration of Approval of Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services with GHD to Expand Scope of Services to allow for the Completion of the Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan
April 12, 2022

3. Set up a website and interactive map so the neighborhood, stakeholders and the community can provide feedback.

4. Set up a meeting with the Halcyon Neighbors and receive feedback regarding the exhibits.

5. Reengage the previous stakeholders group and coordinate a community meeting so that the stakeholders and community can provide feedback for the exhibits.

6. Provide a Study Session at a future Council Meeting (TBD).

7. Revise the exhibits and complete the plan per comments received from the Halcyon Neighbors, Stakeholders Group, Community and City Council.

8. Provide an update to the IS/MND for the plan for public review and comment as required by CEQA. (30 day review).

9. Set plan and environmental document for public hearing at Planning Commission with recommendation for adoption of both plan and environmental document to City Council.

10.Set plan and environmental document for public hearing at City Council for adoption of both plan and environmental document.

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:

1. Approve staff’s recommendations;

2. Do not approve staff’s recommendations; or

3. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

Approval of the Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services will allow GHD to complete the Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan.

DISADVANTAGES:

The completion of the Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan will continue to require staff time and City funds.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

To meet CEQA requirements, a draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared by SWCA in September 2019. The IS/MND will be updated and circulated for public review later this year. The draft IS/MND has been prepared in accordance with the CEQA, Public Resources Code §21000 et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations (CCR) §15000 et seq.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2.

Item 8.m.

City Council
Consideration of Approval of Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services with GHD to Expand Scope of Services to allow for the Completion of the Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan
April 12, 2022
Attachment:

1. Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement with Exhibit A - GHD Additional Services Agreement #2

ATTACHMENT 1

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
This Amendment to Agreement for Consultant Services ("Amendment") by and between GHD, INC. (“Consultant”) and the CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, a Municipal Corporation (“City”), is made and entered into this 12th day of April, 2022.

WHEREAS, the parties entered into an Agreement for Consultant Services dated August 1, 2021 for On-Call Civil Engineering Consultant Services (“Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the parties desire to modify the Agreement as set forth herein.

NOW THEREFORE, for valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

1. To include the services as specified in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

2. Except as modified herein, all other terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement shall remain unchanged.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and CONSULTANT have executed this Amendment the day and year first above written.

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE:

Caren Ray Russom, Mayor
GHD, INC:

By:

Its:

ATTEST:

Jessica Matson, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney

ATTACHMENT 1
Exhibit A
Scope of Services

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

Item 8.n.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Nicole Valentine, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Approving Fiscal Year 2023 Community Project Funding Request for the Swinging Bridge Project DATE: April 12, 2022
SUMMARY OF ACTION:

Adopt the Resolution supporting the Fiscal Year 2023 (FY23) Community Project Funding Request for the Swinging Bridge Project.

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

Minimal future staff time is projected to prepare the request for Community Project Funding. The FY23 Community Project Funding Request will seek approximately $1,000,000 to fund the full project costs for the Swinging Bridge Project.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt the Resolution supporting the FY23 Community Project Funding Request for the Swinging Bridge Project and designate the City Manager or her designee as the City’s signature authority to take all actions necessary to seek and apply for the funding opportunities.

BACKGROUND:

The office of Congressman Salud Carbajal announced a process for seeking FY23 Community Project Funding, previously referred to as “earmarks,” which is a supplement to the traditional federal appropriations process that allows for direct project inclusion in federal appropriation bills. The City of Arroyo Grande has a number of projects that require funding and would directly benefit from the FY23 Community Project Funding.

The current deadline to submit project proposals is April 14, 2022.

The Swinging Bridge was originally constructed in early 1875 by the Short family, whose land was divided by the Arroyo Grande Creek. The bridge spans a total length 171 feet and is suspended 40 feet above the creek. The bridge is owned and maintained by the City of Arroyo Grande and is the only bridge of its kind in California. The bridge was damaged by a falling tree in March 1995. With strong community support, it was restored in May 1995. However, during a subsequent review of the bridge, there were indications

Item 8.n.

City Council
Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Approving Fiscal Year 2023 Community Project Funding Request for the Swinging Bridge Project April 12, 2022
Page Number
of structural deficiencies in the foundation. In 2016, a capital improvement project was added to the budget for Phase One, an evaluation of the critical components of the bridge by a structural engineer. Then, based on the findings of the evaluation, Phase Two of the project would consist of the preparation of plans, specifications and cost estimates for the City to publicly advertise the project for a contractor to complete permanent repairs.

Phase Three would be the construction of the repairs.

Phase One was completed in 2016 and identified the needed repairs for Phase Two. The evaluation prepared in 2016 also recommended a load restriction on the number of persons that should be on the bridge at any given time until Phases Two and Three were completed.

Phase Two and Three of the Swinging Bridge project was included in the Capital Improvement Budget for the FY 2021-23 Biennial Budget with a budget of $616,269 of Local Sales Tax Funds. On December 14, 2021, the City Council approved construction plans and specifications for retrofitting and upgrading the structural components of the Swinging Bridge. The Project consisted of removing and replacing the existing cables and helical anchors, reinforcing the existing concrete abutments, cleaning and painting the existing towers, and tightening and/or installing bolts at the suspension bridge wood connections. At the time, the total estimate for the project was $730,870The staff report and supporting documents from this item are provided in Attachment 2.

During the bidding process for the project, the condition of the existing wood members of the bridge itself was reviewed in detail and it was determined that the treated lumber on the bridge had moved past its useful life. To address this, an Addendum was issued presenting as-built plans that contained a design for replacing the wood members. On February 1, 2022, two bids were received for the project. Based on the bids received, if just the base bid (structural repairs) was awarded, the total estimate for the project would be approximately $662,100. If replacement of the treated lumber and with painting as an option, the total estimate for the project would range from approximately $831,200 to $978,400. Upon receiving and reviewing the bids, staff determined that, had the replacement of the bridge’s existing wood members been identified prior to bid advertisement, it would have been made part of the base bid and the required contractor licensing would have included both Class A and Class B licenses, resulting in a larger pool of potential contractors and perhaps a more competitive bidding environment. Based on these factors, on February 22, 2022, the City Council rejected all bids and directed staff to solicit new bids after modifications are made to the construction documents to include replacement and painting of the wood members as part of the base bid, and to include both Class A and Class B contractor licensing for the project. The staff report and supporting documents from this item are provided in Attachment 3. To allow for the cost of material and freight, which continues to remain inflated due to economic forces, staff estimates the total project cost at this time at approximately $1,000,000. The repackaged project will be rebid in Fall 2022, with a construction contract potentially awarded by the end of 2022. The ordering of materials requiring long lead times could begin in early 2023

Item 8.n.

City Council
Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Approving Fiscal Year 2023 Community Project Funding Request for the Swinging Bridge Project April 12, 2022
Page Number
and construction during the allowable environmental window would occur in Summer 2023.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

One of the constitutional duties of Congress is the annual appropriation process of allocating discretionary funding through federal programs. Congressman Carbajal’s Office reached out to invite the City to participate in submitting a request for priority projects for possible funding through these programs. These requests will be funded through numerous government funding bills. Congressman Carbajal can only submit 15 requests to fund Community Projects, and those projects are not guaranteed to be funded.

The FY23 Community Project Funding Resource Guide provided information regarding the submission process:
 The FY23 funding period will be October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023  Funding will be available for the “period of availability” – this could be for one year, two years, or five years depending on the type of project;  Projects should be “shovel ready”;
 Cities should submit one priority project;
 Projects without other grant funding sources available will be considered; and  The projects should have demonstrated community support.

City staff has evaluated the guidance for the specific federal funding programs and has selected the Swinging Bridge Project as the most suitable and top priority project for this funding opportunity. This project is not otherwise supported by any grant funding and will rehabilitate an important historical asset of the Arroyo Grande community that supports tourism and the local economy, as well as the vibrancy of the City’s downtown core.

Staff is working diligently to complete the appropriations request form and collect all supporting documents, including community support documents such as the proposed Resolution, to submit by the April 14, 2022, deadline.

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:

1. Adopt the Resolution approving the FY23 Community Project Funding Request for the Swinging Bridge, or

2. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

Potential FY23 Community Project Funding could cover a portion or all funding for the Swinging Bridge Project, which will otherwise be funded entirely by the City’s Local Sales Tax Fund and may not be able to fund the full scope of the project.

Item 8.n.

City Council
Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Approving Fiscal Year 2023 Community Project Funding Request for the Swinging Bridge Project April 12, 2022

DISADVANTAGES:

There are no identified disadvantages for approving the FY23 Community Project Funding request.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

No environmental review is required for this item.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 549 54.2.

Attachments:

1. Proposed Resolution

2. December 14, 2021 Staff report

3. February 22, 2022 Staff report

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2023

COMMUNITY PROJECT FUNDING REQUEST FOR THE

SWINGING BRIDGE PROJECT APPLICATION UNDER

THE FEDERAL COMMUNITY PROJECT AND/OR

FEDERAL APPROPRIATION SUBCOMMITTEE

PROGRAMS
WHEREAS, the U.S. House of Representatives has issued a call for applications to the Community Project Funding (CFP) program; and
WHEREAS, the CFP program is a set of earmarked funding requests from each Congress member; and
WHEREAS, Congressman Salud Carbajal represents California’s 24th Congressional District, which includes the City of Arroyo Grande; and WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande recognizes that, in current times, the financing of public capital projects is becoming more challenging in California and nationally; and WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande desires to take the necessary actions to achieve critical project development for the maximum benefit of the community; and WHEREAS, the Swinging Bridge was originally constructed in 1875 and is an important historical asset of the Arroyo Grande community that supports tourism and the local economy, as well as the vibrancy of the City’s downtown core; and WHEREAS, the Swinging Bridge is in need of critical repairs if it is to remain in use; and WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande has identified the Swinging Bridge Project as a previously-approved Infrastructure Capital Improvement Projects which could be eligible under specific federal grant programs; and
WHEREAS, the Swinging Bridge Project will rehabilitate and stabilize an iconic and historic bridge that provides a vital asset and benefit to the community of Arroyo Grande and the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to participate in these federal funding opportunities, hereby, directs staff to seek, prepare, and submit applications for these opportunities; and WHEREAS, the City Council retains its authority to accept and approve funding awards or contracts related to any funding opportunity applications submitted by the City.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 2
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande as follows:

1. All recitals set forth above, are true, correct and incorporated herein.

2. The City Council approves the submittal of a FY23 Community Project Funding request for the Swinging Bridge Project.

3. The City Manager or her designee is delegated signature authority and shall take all actions necessary to seek and apply for funding for this project.

4. The City Council retains its authority to accept and approve funding awards or contracts related to any funding opportunity applications submitted by the City.

5. The City Council retains its authority to approve a budget amendment if needed for any related matching funding as is required by the grant program.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that this Resolution shall be effective April 12, 2022.

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 12th day of April, 2022.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 3

CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:

JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

WHITNEY MCDONALD, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY

Attachments 2 - 3
ATTACHMENT 2 - December 14, 2021 Staff Report
Available as a link:
https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=540 ATTACHMENT 3 - February 22, 2022 Staff report
Available as a link:
https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=1410

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jessica Matson, Legislative & Information Services Director/City Clerk SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
Agenda Item 8.n. – Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Approving Fiscal Year 2023 Community Project Funding Request for the Swinging Bridge Project
DATE: April 12, 2022
Attached is correspondence received before 4 p.m. for the above referenced item. cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director
Administrative Services Director
Recreation Services Director
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website (or public review binder)

From: Jim Gregory
To: public comment
Cc: Sheridan Bohlken; Jan Scott
Subject: The Swinging Bridge
Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 1:46:50 PM
Attachments: toptitle32.png
To the Council:

The South County Historical Society would like to endorse the pursuit of funding, through Cong. Carbajal, of repairs to Mr. Short's Swinging Bridge.

It's been 35 years since substantive restoration work was done on the bridge. It is indeed an "iconic" part of downtown and happily leads to Heritage Square and the Society's museum complex.

Thank you for considering the opportunity to restore a structure that linked Newton Short to his fruit orchards and now links Arroyo Grande to its rich agricultural past.

My best wishes, and, again, I am looking forward to seeing you at the April 26 Council meeting for the proclamation that recognizes World War II Commemoration Week.

Jim Gregory
President, South County Historical Society

From: Melissa Murray
To: public comment
Cc: Melissa Murray; Sheridan Bohlken
Subject: Letter of Support for Resolution #8n
Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 11:53:20 AM
Attachments: AG Letter of Support.pdf
Hello Ms. Matson,
Please see Visit SLO CAL’s letter of support for Resolution #8n, A Resolution to Approve FY 2023 Community Project Funding Request for the Swinging Bridge Project. Please let me know if there are any questions or concerns.

Kind regards,
Melissa Murray
Melissa Murray
Project Manager, Destination Management
Visit SLO CAL
[email protected]
O: 805.541.8000 ext. 107 | C: 805.380.6806
SLOCAL.com

®
April 12, 2022
City of Arroyo Grande
Attn: Mayor and City Council
300 E Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
RE: Request to Adopt a Resolution to Support of Fiscal Year 2023 Community Project Funding Request
Dear Honorable Mayor Caren Ray Russom and City Council Members:

I write to share our strong support for the FY23 Community Project Funding program request by the City of Arroyo Grande for restoration of the city’s historic Swinging Bridge. The Swinging Bridge, first built in 1875, is one of the only bridges of its kind in the state of California and a popular landmark for residents and visitors to view the Arroyo Grande Creek.

The nearly150-year-old the iconic bridge now suffers from structural deficiencies in its foundation. Arroyo Grande has identified the Swinging Bridge Project as a previously-approved Infrastructure Capital Improvement Project, making it eligible for federal infrastructure improvement funding under specific federal grant programs. This project will not otherwise be supported by any grant funding. The Community Project Funding Request will allow rehabilitation and stabilization of this historic bridge, a vital asset and benefit to the community of Arroyo Grande and the State of California.

City staff have evaluated the guidance for the specific federal funding programs and have selected the Swinging Bridge Project as the most suitable and top priority project for this funding opportunity. We stand with the community and ask the City Council to adopt a resolution in support of Fiscal Year 2023 Community Project Funding program to rehabilitate the Swinging Bridge.

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

All the best,
Chuck Davison, CDME
President & CEO

Item 9.a.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Nicole Valentine, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Resolution Updating Operating Fees Set Forth in the Master Fee Schedule
DATE: April 12, 2022
SUMMARY OF ACTION:

Increase fees paid by users of City services to reflect increased costs to provide the services effective June 13, 2022.

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

Implementation of the increased fees is projected to generate approximately $50,000 annually, assuming activity levels are consistent with projections.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution updating operating fees set forth in the Master Fee Schedule, effective June 13, 2022.

BACKGROUND:

On September 13, 2016, the City Council received the results of a comprehensive study that calculated the cost of providing a variety of City services. At that time, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 4758, providing that the Master Fee Schedule would be updated annually by modifying the adopted value up or down in conformance with the annual change in the City’s budgeted labor costs (Attachment 2). Resolution No. 4758 further provided that the factor for adjustment of the fees shall be calculated and established each year by the Director of Administrative Services. In addition, phased increases of Planning fees would be implemented at 5% per year for four years, until an overall cost recovery level of 75% is achieved for Planning related fee activities.

On April 24, 2018, the City Council reviewed the City’s fiscal situation and recommended budget balancing strategies for the 2018-20 Biennial Budget. Discussed in that report were recommended revenue enhancement strategies that increased the overall cost recovery goal for Planning fees to 80% and accelerated the time frame to achieve the goal. In addition, Recreation fees were proposed that would increase the cost recovery target to 100% of direct costs for the Recreation Services Department. With the adoption

Item 9.a.

City Council
Resolution Updating Operating Fees Set Forth in the Master Fee Schedule April 12, 2022

of the 2018-20 Biennial Budget, the City Council directed staff to undertake the follow-up actions necessary to implement the budget balancing strategies identified.

On June 25, 2019, the City Council reviewed the Master Fee Schedule and adjusted fees by a factor of 3%, increased the Planning fees to 80% cost recovery, and adjusted certain Recreation fees by 9% to account for the increase in minimum wage in a continued effort for Recreation fees to reach 100% cost recovery. This Master Fee Schedule went into effect on August 26, 2019, and is the current Schedule that is being used today, with one exception. On August 25, 2020, the City Council established a new fee for the Children In Motion’s Enrichment Lab to account for different programming needs generated by the COVID-19 pandemic. This program supports local families that need a safe and supervised environment for their children to participate in distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

Consistent with Resolution No. 4758, the Administrative Services Director has calculated the overall increase in labor costs as 2.83% for the period covering the two fiscal years from FY2019-20 to FY 2021-22. This 2.83% labor cost increase has been incorporated into the proposed Resolution and Master Fee Schedule update for FY 2022-23.

Recreation Cost Recovery
As requested by City Council in 2018, staff reviewed Recreation revenues to determine the impact of raising Recreation fees. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a reduction of recreation services revenue occurred due to school closures, social distancing and indoor masking policies, additional cleaning and licensing regulations, as well as, stay-at-home orders. In light of the significant impacts of the pandemic, the adopted Biennial Budget for Fiscal Years 2021-23 projected revenues of $512,595 and $600,635 for FY 2021-22 and FY 2022-23 respectively. This equates to 46% and 53% cost recovery for the Recreation Services Department during Fiscal Years 2021-23.

Staff reviewed the revenues received through March 2022 of FY 2021-22 and determined that recreation revenues are $541,700. Although the budget did not provide 100% cost recovery for the Recreation Services Department, it is a very positive sign that revenues for 75% of the fiscal year have met budgeted revenue totals for the full FY 2021-22.

As the pandemic continues to impact both Recreation Services Department operations and the needs of the community for child care and other services provided by the Department, it is recommended that fees not be increased at this time to obtain full 100% cost recovery for the Department. However, as in-person school has returned for the 2021-2022 school year and there is no anticipation of returning to distance learning, the Children in Motion’s Enrichment Lab fee is proposed to be removed from the Master Fee Schedule.

Item 9.a.

City Council
Resolution Updating Operating Fees Set Forth in the Master Fee Schedule April 12, 2022

Planning Cost Recovery
As indicated in Resolution No. 4758, staff reviewed Planning revenue and expenditures to determine the cost recovery percentage through mid-year FY 2021-22. Revenues for Planning fees were reported at $203,962 and expenditures were reported at $214,939 with a cost recovery percentage of 95%. Staff did note that the FY 2021-22 budgeted cost recovery was 54% due to a change in budgeted positions in the Planning Division increasing with the addition of a Planning Manager position.

Encroachment Permit Fee
Currently, the City has three types of Encroachment Permit Fees as shown in the table below:

The first Encroachment Permit is for Minor use items related to pods and dumpsters. The second Encroachment Permit is for Standard use items. Examples of Standard fee size projects include construction of all utility tie-ins (new or replacement) and new public improvements within the city right of way. The third Encroachment Permit is for Franchise Annual fees.

Staff recommends creation of a fourth Encroachment Permit fee for small size projects that do not require as much staff time and resources for processing as Standard projects but require more resources than Minor projects. A Small Size project would include installation of concrete sidewalk panels, drive approaches, and replacement of existing curb and gutters at single family residences. The new fee is $180 and is calculated as one fourth of the standard fee cost. It is estimated that the small size projects would take approximately a quarter of the time that a standard permit review would take.

The new Encroachment Permit Fees section of the Master Fee Schedule would include the new Encroachment Permit – Small Size as shown in the table below:

Updated User Fee Study
The Administrative Services Department has issued a request for proposals (RFP) to update the City’s User Fees as the last study was completed in 2016. Staff anticipate reviewing the submitted proposals and will bring an item to Council for consultant selection at a future meeting. During this User Fee update, staff will work with the Fee Description FY 2019-20 Fee FY 2022-23 Fee
Encroachment Permit - Minor (pod, dumpster) 57.00 59.00 Encroachment Permit - Standard - per Month 698.00 718.00 Encroachment Permit - Franchise Annual 17,475.00 17,970.00 Fee Description FY 2019-20 Fee FY 2022-23 Fee
Encroachment Permit - Minor (pod, dumpster) 57.00 59.00 Encroachment Permit - Small Size - 180.00
Encroachment Permit - Standard - per Month 698.00 718.00 Encroachment Permit - Franchise Annual 17,475.00 17,970.00

Item 9.a.

City Council
Resolution Updating Operating Fees Set Forth in the Master Fee Schedule April 12, 2022

consultant to review and provide recommendations to the City Council on feasible cost recovery rates for fees, including Planning and Recreation user fees, in the current economic climate.

Next Steps
There is a minimum 60-day waiting period between the adoption of new fees and when the new fees can take effect. Therefore, it is recommended that the effective date for the updated Master Fee Schedule be Monday, June 13, 2022. This mid-month effective date is recommended based on the start date for many summer Recreation programs that begin following the end of the school year for students attending the Lucia Mar Unified School District.

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:

1. Adopt a Resolution increasing the operating fees in the Master Fee Schedule as presented;

2. Modify and Adopt the Resolution increasing the operating fees in the Master Fee Schedule;

3. Do not adopt the Resolution; or

4. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

Approving the recommended increases will allow the City to maximize revenue by recovering the estimated cost of providing the service and reduce the subsidy borne by the General Fund.

DISADVANTAGES:

The disadvantage of the recommendation is that it will result in fee increases to the public.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

No environmental review is required for this item.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66016, notice was also given to individuals requesting notice of new or increased fees.

Attachments:

1. Proposed Resolution Updating Operating fees set forth in the Master Fee Schedule

2. Resolution No. 4758

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO

GRANDE UPDATING OPERATING FEES SET FORTH IN THE MASTER

FEE SCHEDULE
WHEREAS, in January 2015 the City of Arroyo Grande retained Wohlford Consulting to conduct a User (operating) Fee Study for City services; and
WHEREAS, operating fees are intended to be paid by persons utilizing the program or service and to reimburse the City for the actual cost of said program or service; and WHEREAS, the City has established a proposed Master Fee Schedule based on the User Fee Study, which includes fees related to planning, building, engineering, police, recreation, and public works charges; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the question of whether or not to adjust or establish User (operating) Fees for City services to reflect the estimated amount that is required to recover the actual cost to the City of providing such services; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a methodology to annually update fees in order to reflect the change in the actual cost to the City of providing services and reduce the subsidy of the General Fund for planning related services; and
WHEREAS, the amount of the fees does not exceed the estimated cost of providing the City services; and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public meeting, the City Council considered all verbal and written presentations that were made regarding the proposed fees; and WHEREAS, at least ten days prior to the public meeting, the City made available to the public data indicating the amount of cost, or estimated cost required to provide the services for which the fee or service charge is levied and the revenue sources anticipated to provide the service, including General Fund revenues.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande as follows:

1. The schedule of fees entitled “Master Fee Schedule” in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, is hereby adopted.

2. Fees shall be adjusted annually by modifying the adopted value up or down in conformance with the annual change in the City’s budgeted labor costs. The factor for the adjustment of the fees shall be calculated and established each year by the Director of Administrative Services.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that this Resolution shall be effective June 13, 2022.

On motion of Council Member ______, seconded by Council Member ________, and by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this ____ day of ______, 2022.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 3
___________________________________

CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
___

JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
___________________________________

WHITNEY MCDONALD, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 4

EXHIBIT A

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Fees effective June 13, 2022
Issued by the Administrative Services Department

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 5
City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Hourly rates for all City staff positions will be calculated and provided by the Administrative Services Department.

In the absence of an established fee for service, the City will recover costs based on the reasonable time and materials required to provide the service, as calculated by the Administrative Services Department

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 6
City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Fee Description FY 2019-20 Fee FY 2022-23 Fee
Budget $ 40.00 $ 40.00
Financial Statements copy costs copy costs
Business License Fees:
(Basic fees are prorated per the application date: Jan 1-Jun 30, 100%; Jul 1-Dec 31, 50%)
Basic Fee--All businesses except Specific License Fees listed below 34.00* 34.00* >Per Employee, Partner, or Associate (Except those listed below) 5.00 5.00 Specific License Fees:

Contractor 64.00* 64.00*
Motels & Hotels (Basic Fee) 34.00* 34.00*
>per room 1.00 1.00
Trailer Parks 34.00* 34.00*
>per space 1.00 1.00
Hospitals, Sanitariums, Rest or Nursing Homes 44.00* 44.00* >per bed 3.00 3.00
Taxi Cabs 49.00* 49.00*
>per vehicle 15.00 15.00
Billboards 129.00* 129.00*
Commercial Auctions - Per Year 89.00* 89.00*
Commercial Auctions - Per Day of Auctioning 29.00* 29.00* Circuses and similar shows (per day) 70.00 70.00 + $4 State Fee Bazaars and street fairs:
>Small Bazaars (1-4 displays or exhibits) per display per every two (2) days 15.00 15.00 + $4 State Fee
>Large Bazaars (5 or more displays or exhibits) per day 70.00 70.00 + $4 State Fee * Includes $4 per license per State law (AB 1379)
Copies, per page (Black and White) 0.20 0.20
Color copies Actual cost Actual cost
Maps--Chamber of Commerce 1.00 1.00
Utility Fees and Penalties:

Renter's Deposit 180.00 180.00
New Utility Account Set Up Fee 40.00 40.00
Past Due Penalty (% of Past Due Total) 10% 10%
Lock Cut Replacement Fee 15.00 15.00
Reconnection Fee (Reconnect by City Personnel) 50.00 52.00 Unauthorized Reconnection Fee (Reconnect by non-City Personnel) 180.00 180.00 Returned check fee (NSF) -Per CA Civil Code Section 1719 25.00 25.00

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 7
City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Fee Description FY 2019-20 Fee FY 2022-23 Fee
Administrative Fine for Municipal Code Violations
1st Violation in a 12 month period 100.00 100.00
2nd Violation of the same ordinance 200.00 200.00
3rd or future Violation of the same ordinance 500.00 500.00 Administrative Fines for Building and Safety Violations [Government Codes Sections 25132 and 36900 (c)]
1st Violation 130.00 130.00
2nd Violation of the same ordinance within one year 700.00 700.00 Each additional Violation of same ordinance within one year of first violation 1,300.00 1,300.00
For commercial property that has an existing building at the time of the violation and the owner failed to remove visible refuse or prohibit unauthorized use of the property, a fine for each additional violation of the same ordinance within 2 years of the first violation 2,500.00 2,500.00 Late Penalty
Failure to pay fine within the time period set forth in any citation 10% of fine 10% of fine Failure to pay fine and penalty after 60 days, with interest (on penalty amount) 7% 7%
Inspection fee if not timely corrected/abated after receiving notice 100.00 100.00

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 8
City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

CITY CLERK/LEGISLATIVE AND INFORMATION SERVICES
Fee Description FY 2019-20 Fee FY 2022-23 Fee
City Council Meeting Audio CD 5.00/each 5.00/each
City Council Meeting DVD Vendor cost Vendor cost
Candidate Filing Fee no charge no charge
Candidate Statement actual cost actual cost
Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition (EC 9202) 200.00 200.00 Copies, per page (Black and White) 0.20 0.20
Color copies Actual cost Actual cost
Copies of records sent to a commercial copier Actual cost Actual cost Document Certification 10.00 10.00
Fair Political Practices Commission Forms:

Statement of Economic Interests Form 700 (GC 81008) 0.10/page 0.10/page Campaign Statements (GC 81008) 0.10/page 0.10/page
Retrieval fee for statements 5 or more years old (GC 81008) 5.00/request 5.00/request Notary (per signature) 15.00 15.00

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 9
City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

ENGINEERING
Fee Description FY 2019-20 Fee FY 2022-23 Fee
Printing/Copying Charges:
8 1/2" x 11 (per page) $ 0.20 $ 0.20
18" x 30 (per page) 3.00 3.00
24" x 36" (per page) 4.00 4.00
36" x 48" (per page) 5.00 5.00
Standard Plans 35.00 35.00
Land Use Map and Zoning Maps (each)
24x36 3.00 3.00
36x48 4.00 4.00
Overtime Inspections (per hour- 2 hour min.) 158.00 162.00 Map Review - Final (LLA, PM, TM 0-2 Lots) 5,874.00 6,040.00 Each Additional Lot 140.00 144.00
Additional Map Review - After 3 2,797.00 2,876.00
Encroachment Permit - Minor (pod, dumpster) 57.00 59.00 Encroachment Permit - Small Size - 180.00
Encroachment Permit - Standard - per Month 698.00 718.00 Encroachment Permit - Franchise Annual 17,475.00 17,970.00 Certificate of Compliance 2,159.00 2,220.00
Certificate of Correction / Merger 781.00 803.00
Transporation Permit - each occurrence 40.00 41.00
Public Improvement Plan - Plan Check (based on Engineer's estimate of construction cost):
$0 - 10,000 2,576.00 2,649.00
$10,001 - 50,000 2,961.00 3,045.00
$50,001 - 100,000 3,408.00 3,504.00
$100,001 - 250,000 3,925.00 4,036.00
$250,001 - 500,000 5,459.00 5,613.00
$500,001 - 1.0 Million 7,119.00 7,320.00
Each additional $500,000 (over $1M) 2,192.00 2,254.00
Additional Review Public Improvement Plan - Plan Check - After 3 (based on Engineer's estimate of construction cost):
$0 - 10,000 625.00 643.00
$10,001 - 50,000 701.00 721.00
$50,001 - 100,000 779.00 801.00
$100,001 - 250,000 931.00 957.00
$250,001 - 500,000 1,233.00 1,268.00
$500,001 - 1.0 Million 2,141.00 2,202.00
Each additional $500,000 (over $1M) 907.00 933.00

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 10
City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

ENGINEERING
Fee Description FY 2019-20 Fee FY 2022-23 Fee
Grading / Drainage / Erosion Plan Review:
0 - 50 cy $ 1,276.00 $ 1,312.00
50 cy to 100 cy 1,370.00 1,409.00
100 cy to 1,0000 cy 1,547.00 1,591.00
1,000 cy to 10,000 cy 1,724.00 1,773.00
10,000 cy to 100,000 cy 1,900.00 1,954.00
Hydraulic / Hydrology Report Review 801.00 824.00
SWPPP Review 801.00 824.00
Stormwater Control Plan Review 801.00 824.00
Inspection Agreement, including Subdivision Agreement
(based on Engineer's estimate of construction cost):
$0 - 10,000 747.00 768.00
$10,001 - 50,000 1,943.00 1,998.00
$50,001 - 100,000 3,718.00 3,823.00
$100,001 - 250,000 7,422.00 7,632.00
$250,001 - 500,000 14,276.00 14,680.00
$500,001 - 1.0 Million 27,697.00 28,481.00
Each additional $500,000 (over $1M) 13,484.00 13,866.00 Major Project with a Contract Engineer - Actual cost of Contractor passed directly through to Applicant
Major Project with a Contract Engineer - City Project
Management and Administrative Charge 1,289.00 1,325.00

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 11
City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fee Description FY 2019-20 Fee FY 2022-23 Fee

COPY FEES
Development Code w/out Appendices $ 50.00 $ 50.00
Appendix 1 15.00 15.00
Appendix 2 5.00 5.00
Development Code w/Appendices 70.00 70.00
General Plan 25.00 25.00
Housing Element 2003 35.00 35.00
General Plan EIR 12.00 12.00
Design Guidelines for Historic Districts 25.00 25.00
Design Guidelines for Traffic Way/Station Way 6.00 6.00 Design Guidelines for Mixed Use Districts 30.00 30.00
East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan 20.00 20.00
Land Use Map and Zoning Maps (each)
24 x 36 3.00 3.00
36 x 48 4.00 4.00
DVD (Planning Commission meetings) Vendor cost Vendor cost Audio recording copies 5.00 5.00
Copies, per page (Black and White) 0.20 0.20
Color copies Actual cost Actual cost
Arroyo Grande Bike Plan 26.00 26.00

IN-LIEU FEES
Downtown Parking in lieu fee (per resolution 3994) 24,000.00 24,000.00 Affordable Housing in lieu fee 5% 5%

PROCESSING FEES
Notary (per signature) 15.00 15.00
Annexation - deposit (fee based on actual time at staff at hourly rates) 20,000.00 20,000.00 Time and Materials (if project exceeds 50 hours of staff time) Appeals:

CD Director to Planning Commission 491.00 505.00
Planning Commission to City Council 1,163.00 1,196.00
Certificate of Compliance 3,512.00 3,611.00

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 12
City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fee Description FY 2019-20 Fee FY 2022-23 Fee
Conditional Use Permit:

Project - Major (multi building) $ 14,347.00 $ 14,753.00 Time and Materials (if project exceeds 50 hours of staff time) Project - Minor (routine) - as det'd by CDD 6,212.00 6,388.00 Amendment 3,137.00 3,226.00
Development Agreement - deposit 24,024.00 24,704.00
Time and Materials (if project exceeds 50 hours of staff time) Dev. Code Amendment - Major 16,187.00 16,645.00
Time and Materials (if project exceeds 50 hours of staff time) Dev. Code Amendment - Minor 8,901.00 9,153.00
Environmental Impact Determination:

Initial Study Fee 3,412.00 3,509.00
Negative Declaration (in addition to Initial Study Fee) 554.00 570.00 Mitigated Neg Dec (in addition to Initial Study Fee) 2,318.00 2,384.00 General Plan Amendment (Major) 16,187.00 16,645.00
Time and Materials (if project exceeds 50 hours of staff time) General Plan Amendment (Minor) 8,901.00 9,153.00
Home Occupation Permit 166.00 171.00
Lot Line Adjustment 3,326.00 3,420.00
Lot Merger / Reversion to Acreage 3,273.00 3,366.00
Mailing Label Production 406.00 417.00
Request for Meeting Continuance 461.00 474.00
Minor Use Permit - Architectural Review
Major (e.g. subdivision if PUD or CUP is not concurrently processed) 5,145.00 5,291.00 Minor (e.g. single lot) 923.00 949.00
Minor Use Permit - Historic Resource Designation 1,472.00 1,514.00 Minor Use Permit - Large Family Day Care 561.00 577.00
Minor Use Permit - Minor Exception 999.00 1,027.00
Minor Use Permit - Plot Plan Review 735.00 756.00
Minor Use Permit - Temporary Use Permit 294.00 302.00
Minor Use Permit - Viewshed Review: 1,130.00 1,162.00

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 13
City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fee Description FY 2019-20 Fee FY 2022-23 Fee
Planned Unit Development Permit (Major) $ 15,261.00 $ 15,693.00 Time and Materials (if project exceeds 50 hours of staff time) Planned Unit Development Permit (Minor) 7,301.00 7,508.00 Planning Commission lnterpretation or Waiver 1,810.00 1,861.00 Pre-Application 1,228.00 1,263.00
Public Art Permit 927.00 953.00
Research (deposit) 221.00 227.00
Signs:

Planned Sign Program 2,391.00 2,459.00
Administrative Sign Permit 343.00 353.00
Administrative Sign Program 1,347.00 1,385.00
Specific Plan or Amendment (deposit) 23,978.00 24,657.00 Time and Materials (if project exceeds 50 hours of staff time) Tentative Parcel Map (0-4 lots) 9,537.00 9,807.00
with Vesting (added to base fee) 591.00 608.00
Amendment 4,620.00 4,751.00
Tentative Tract Map:
5-20 lots 15,670.00 16,113.00
over 20 lots 18,190.00 18,705.00
with Vesting (added to base fee) 1,535.00 1,578.00
Amendment 6,879.00 7,074.00
Time Extension 2,568.00 2,641.00
Variance 3,633.00 3,736.00
Zoning Compliance Letter 147.00 151.00

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 14
City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23
POLICE
Fee Description FY 2019-20 Fee FY 2022-23 Fee

ANIMAL CONTROL / IMPOUND
Dog Impound Fee
1st Impound $ 23.00 $ 24.00
2nd Impound 45.00 46.00
3rd Impound + 68.00 70.00
Cat Impound Fee
1st Impound 23.00 24.00
2nd Impound 45.00 46.00
3rd Impound + 68.00 70.00
PERMITS & LICENSES:

Alarm Permit
Original Application Permit Processing Fee 107.00 110.00 Annual Renewal Permit Processing Fee 50.00 51.00
False Alarm Response
Fourth False Alarm within 12 months 169.00 174.00
Fifth False Alarm within 12 months 339.00 349.00
Sixth or more false alarm within 12 months (per incident) 507.00 521.00 Block Party Permit
Block Party Permit 29.00 30.00
Commercial Filming / Still Photography Permit
Permit Processing Fee 57.00 59.00
Commercial Filming (per day) 282.00 290.00
Still Photography (per day) 112.00 115.00
City Staff Assigned - 4 hour minimum (if applicable) overtime rate overtime rate Concealed Weapons Permit Original Application
Police Department Investigation Fee $ 112.00 $ 115.00
Dept of Justice & FBI fingerprint process (DOJ passthrough fee paid by applicant) 93.00 93.00 Live Scan Fingerprint Rolling Fee (per penal code section 13300) 25.00 25.00 Identification Card 23.00 24.00
Concealed Weapons Permit Biennial Renewal:

Police Department Investigation Fee 29.00 30.00
Dept of Justice Renewal Fee (DOJ passthrough fee paid by applicant) 52.00 52.00 Identification Card 23.00 24.00
Mobile Vendor Permit
Permit Processing Fee 141.00 145.00
Live Scan Fingerprint Rolling Fee (per PC 13300) 25.00 25.00 Dept of Justice & FBI Fingerprint Process actual cost actual cost Mobile Vendor Employee Permit

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 15
Permit Processing Fee 141.00 145.00
Live Scan Fingerprint Rolling Fee (per PC 13300) 25.00 25.00 Dept of Justice & FBI Fingerprint Process actual cost actual cost

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 16
City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23
POLICE
Fee Description FY 2019-20 Fee FY 2022-23 Fee
Sidewalk Vending Permit
Permit Processing Fee 280.00 280.00
Palmreader Fortune Teller Permit - Original Application Permit Processing Fee 141.00 145.00
Dept of Justice & FBI fingerprint process (DOJ passthrough fee paid by applicant) actual cost actual cost Live Scan Fingerprint Rolling Fee (per penal code section 13300) 25.00 25.00 Palmreader Fortune Teller Permit - Annual Renewal
Permit Renewal Processing 112.00 115.00
Palmreader Fortune Teller Establishment Permit - Original Application Permit Processing Fee 141.00 145.00
Live Scan Fingerprint Rolling Fee (per penal code section 13300) 25.00 25.00 Dept of Justice & FBI fingerprint process (DOJ passthrough fee paid by applicant) actual cost actual cost Palmreader Fortune Teller Establishment Permit - Renewal Application Permit Processing Fee 112.00 115.00
Public Safety and Welfare Permit:

Less than 200 Non-Commercial Event 57.00 59.00
More than 200 Non-Commercial Event 112.00 115.00
Commercial Event 141.00 145.00
Second Hand Dealer Permit Original Application
Permit Processing Fee 141.00 145.00
Live Scan Fingerprint Rolling Fee (per penal code section 13300) 25.00 25.00 Dept of Justice & FBI Fingerprint process (DOJ passthrough fee paid by applicant) actual cost actual cost Second Hand Dealer Permit Biennial Renewal
City Processing Fee 112.00 115.00
Solicitation Permit (per solicitor)
Permit Processing Fee $ 141.00 $ 145.00
Live Scan Fingerprint Rolling Fee (per PC 13300) 25.00 25.00 Dept of Justice & FBI Fingerprint Processing Fee actual cost actual cost Taxi Cab Driver Permit Original Application
Permit Processing Fee 141.00 145.00
Live Scan Fingerprint Rolling Fee (per PC 13300) 25.00 25.00 Dept of Justice & FBI Fingerprint Process actual cost actual cost Taxi Cab Driver Permit Annual Renewal

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 17
Annual Renewal 112.00 115.00
Tobacco Retailers License
Permit Processing Fee 141.00 145.00

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 18
City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23
POLICE
Fee Description FY 2019-20 Fee FY 2022-23 Fee

OTHER FEES
Citation correction certification 29.00 30.00
Civil Witness Fee (Deposit) 275.00 275.00
Copies, per page (Black and White) .20 per page .20 per page Copies - Color copies per page 5.00 5.00
Court Ordered Booking 141.00 145.00
Criminal history summary examination
Live Scan Fingerprint Rolling Fee (per PC 13300) 25.00 25.00 Dept of Justice & FBI Fingerprint Process actual cost actual cost Disturbance 415PC
Second Response 169.00 174.00
Third Response 339.00 349.00
Fourth Response 563.00 579.00
Emergency DUI Response -Impaired Driver Accident - Actual Time @ Staff Hourly Rates actual cost actual cost
Local Records Check 16.00 16.00
Photographs
per disc 25.00 25.00
Property Handling for Mailing / Shipping actual cost actual cost Replacement of lost/stolen Permits, Licenses and registration receipts 50.00 51.00 Repossessed Vehicle (per GC 41612) 15.00 15.00
Subpoena Duces Tecum
Production of Records for Subpoena deuces Tecum 15.00 15.00 .20 per page produced actual cost actual cost
postage/shipping actual cost actual cost
Custodian of Records Court Appearance 275.00 275.00
Vehicle Release - Impound/Stored Vehicle Release 57.00 59.00 Vehicle Release 30-day Impound Release Review 84.00 86.00 Clearance letter 50.00 51.00

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 19
City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

BUILDING MISC
Fee Description
Plan Check
Fee FY 19-20
Inspection Fee
FY 19-20
Plan Check
Fee FY 22-23
Inspection Fee
FY 22-23
Cellular/Mobile Phone, free-standing NEW $ 1,111.00 $ 1,584.00 $ 1,142.00 $ 1,629.00 Cellular Tower with Equipment Shelter 1,111.00 1,776.00 1,142.00 1,826.00 Cellular Tower Equipment Demolition 427.00 447.00 439.00 460.00 Awning (not patio cover) Tents / Canopies / Booths 115.00 174.00 118.00 179.00 Change of Occupancy No T.I. w/ plan check &
Inspection 194.00 353.00 199.00 363.00
Close Existing Openings 115.00 237.00 118.00 244.00
Compliance Inspections/Reinspections 215.00 290.00 221.00 298.00 Deck (with Calcs) 249.00 311.00 256.00 320.00
Demolition 115.00 365.00 118.00 375.00
Demolition - MultiFamily/Commercial 115.00 365.00 118.00 375.00 Door 115.00 250.00 118.00 257.00
Fence or Wall (wood, chain link, wrought iron):
>6 feet in height, 1st 100 s.f. 115.00 319.00 118.00 328.00 Each additional 100 sf 88.00 115.00 90.00 118.00
Fence or Freestanding Wall (masonry / garden):

City Standard, 1st 100 s.f. 115.00 319.00 118.00 328.00 Each additional 100 sf 88.00 115.00 90.00 118.00
Engineered Wall, 1st 100 sf 149.00 319.00 153.00 328.00 Each additional 100 sf 122.00 115.00 125.00 118.00
Fireplace (masonry or pre-fab) 115.00 231.00 118.00 238.00 Flag pole (greater than 6 feet in height) 115.00 231.00 118.00 238.00 Grading (Cut and Fill):
0-50 Cubic Yards (Cut and Fill) 149.00 231.00 153.00 238.00 Each Add'l 50 CY (or portion thereof) 73.00 174.00 75.00 179.00 Pilaster each 10 115.00 231.00 118.00 238.00
Lighting pole (each) 115.00 197.00 118.00 203.00
Stucco Applications 72.00 231.00 74.00 238.00
Retaining Wall (concrete or masonry):

First 50 sf 238.00 264.00 245.00 271.00
Each additional 50 sf 210.00 149.00 216.00 153.00
Re-roofing:

Composition - no tear off 95.00 222.00 98.00 228.00
Other roofs (first 10 squares) 95.00 222.00 98.00 228.00 Each additional 10 squares 23.00 55.00 24.00 57.00
Roof Structure Replacement 149.00 264.00 153.00 271.00
Sauna - steam 115.00 277.00 118.00 285.00

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 20
City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

BUILDING MISC
Fee Description
Plan Check
Fee FY 19-20
Inspection Fee
FY 19-20
Plan Check
Fee FY 22-23
Inspection Fee
FY 22-23
Siding:

Stone and Brick Veneer (interior or exterior) $ 95.00 $ 277.00 $ 98.00 $ 285.00 All Other 72.00 277.00 74.00 285.00
Signs:

Directional / Menu 238.00 277.00 245.00 285.00
Freeway sign 546.00 305.00 561.00 314.00
Ground / Roof / Projecting Signs 227.00 264.00 233.00 271.00 Wall, Illuminated 95.00 277.00 98.00 285.00
Skylight (Residential each) 72.00 244.00 74.00 251.00
Skylight (Commercial) one 95.00 244.00 98.00 251.00
Spa or Hot Tub (Pre-fabricated) 95.00 277.00 98.00 285.00 Stairs - per story 348.00 264.00 358.00 271.00
Storage Racks each set of plans 403.00 331.00 414.00 340.00 Temporary Utility Connection or Occupancy - 95.00 - 98.00 Window or Sliding Glass Door (first) 238.00 264.00 245.00 271.00 Each additional 210.00 123.00 216.00 126.00
Board of Appeals 895.00 - 920.00 -
Business License Inspection 45.00 69.00 46.00 71.00
Business License Re-inspection 45.00 36.00 46.00 37.00
Product Review 673.00 - 692.00 -
Disabled Access Compliance Inspection 134.00 90.00 138.00 93.00 Supplemental Plan Check Fee (first 1/2 hour) 122.00 - 125.00 - Each Additional 1/2 hour (or portion thereof) 110.00 - 113.00 - Supplemental Inspection Fee (first 1/2 hour) - 122.00 - 125.00 Each Additional 1/2 hour (or portion thereof) - 110.00 - 113.00 Emergency (Non-Scheduled) Call-Out Fee (first
hour) 2 hour minimum - 233.00 - 240.00
Each additional hour - 220.00 - 226.00
After Hours Inspection 2 hour minimum - 233.00 - 240.00 Each additional hour - 220.00 - 226.00
After Hours Plan Review 2 hour minimum 233.00 - 240.00 - Each additional hour 220.00 - 226.00 -
Copies, per page (Black and White) 0.20 per page
Color copies actual costs

City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

BUILDING FIRE
Fee Description
Plan Check
Fee FY 19-20
Inspection Fee
FY 19-20
Plan Check
Fee FY 22-23
Inspection Fee
FY 22-23
Fire Sprinkler Systems - New Construction:
1-50 Heads $ 221.00 $ 242.00 $ 227.00 $ 249.00
51-100 Heads 277.00 344.00 285.00 354.00
101-200 Heads 500.00 412.00 514.00 424.00
Every 200 Heads above 200 220.00 158.00 226.00 162.00
Fire Sprinkler Systems -Tenant Improvements:
1-25 Heads 221.00 242.00 227.00 249.00
26-100 Heads 334.00 378.00 343.00 389.00
Every 100 Heads above 100 110.00 253.00 113.00 260.00
Fire Alarm System (including Sprinkler Monitor System) - New Construction:
1-50 Devices 221.00 242.00 227.00 249.00
51-100 Devices 277.00 344.00 285.00 354.00
Every 50 Devices above 100 110.00 227.00 113.00 233.00
Fire Alarm System (including Sprinkler Monitor System) - Tenant Improvements:
1-50 Devices 221.00 276.00 227.00 284.00
51-100 Devices 277.00 378.00 285.00 389.00
Every 50 Devices above 100 167.00 227.00 172.00 233.00
Other Suppression Systems:

Inert Gas Systems 388.00 485.00 399.00 499.00
Dry Chemical Systems 221.00 485.00 227.00 499.00
Wet Chemical/Kitchen Hood 332.00 485.00 341.00 499.00
Foam Systems 221.00 663.00 227.00 682.00
Paint Spray Booth 499.00 719.00 513.00 739.00
Other Fire Fees:

Hydrants/Underground Fire Service Plan Check
Hydrant Flow Test (existing hydrants)
444.00
-
-
663.00
457.00
-
-
682.00
Special Event Inspection (e.g., fairs) These are group events, when multiple booths/tents are erected Booth / Tent 59.00 64.00 61.00 66.00
Booth / Tent with Electricity 84.00 104.00 86.00 107.00 Booth / Tent with Cooking (includes Electricity) 91.00 125.00 94.00 129.00 Special Event Application Review - 24.00 - 25.00
Additional Fire related services are provided by Five Cities Fire Authority (FCFA). See the FCFA fee schedule for fees.

City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

BUILDING MPE
ADMINISTRATIVE (BASE) FEES:

Permit Issuance and Administration $ 113.00 $ - $ 116.00 $ -

MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES
FAU less than 100,000 Btu/h 56.00 68.00 58.00 70.00
FAU greater than 100,000 Btu/h 56.00 103.00 58.00 106.00 Floor furnace (including vent) 56.00 137.00 58.00 141.00 Suspended, wall, or floor-mounted heaters 56.00 103.00 58.00 106.00 Appliance vents not included in an appliance permit
Boiler or compressor, from 15 HP to 30 HP /
absorption

56.00 103.00 58.00 106.00
system from 1,000,000 Btu/h to 1,750,000 Btu/h. 56.00 103.00 58.00 106.00 Boiler or compressor, from 30 HP to 50 HP /
absorption
P
Fee Description
Plan Check
Fee FY 19-20
Inspection Fee
FY 19-20
Plan Check
Fee FY 22-23
Inspection Fee
FY 22-23
system from 1,000,000 Btu/h to 1,750,000 Btu/h. 110.00 137.00 113.00 141.00 Boiler or compressor, over 50 HP /
absorption system over 1,750,000 Btu/h. 166.00 103.00 171.00 106.00 Air-handling unit, including attached ducts. 110.00 103.00 113.00 106.00 Air-handling unit over 10,000 CFM 166.00 137.00 171.00 141.00 Evaporative cooler 56.00 68.00 58.00 70.00
Ventilation fan connected to a single duct 110.00 103.00 113.00 106.00 Ventilation system (not a portion of heating or a/c
system) 166.00 137.00 171.00 141.00
Incinerator, residential 276.00 204.00 284.00 210.00
Commercial or Industrial-type incinerator 331.00 204.00 340.00 210.00 Misc. appliances or equipment. 166.00 137.00 171.00 141.00 Stand Alone Mechanical Plan Check (hourly rate) 220.00 - 226.00 - Other Mechanical Inspections (per hour) - 137.00 - 141.00 LUMBING / GAS PERMIT FEES:

Plumbing fixtures 56.00 68.00 58.00 70.00
Building sewer 110.00 103.00 113.00 106.00
Rainwater systems (per drain) 56.00 68.00 58.00 70.00
Gray Water system 166.00 170.00 171.00 175.00
Private sewage disposal system 166.00 170.00 171.00 175.00 Water Heater 110.00 68.00 113.00 70.00
Industrial waste pretreatment interceptor 56.00 103.00 58.00 106.00 Water piping and/or water treating equipment 56.00 103.00 58.00 106.00 Repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping,
each fixture 56.00 103.00 58.00 106.00
Each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter 56.00 68.00 58.00 70.00 Backflow devices each unit 110.00 68.00 113.00 70.00
Atmospheric-type vacuum breakers: 1-5 units 110.00 68.00 113.00 70.00 Atmospheric-type vacuum breakers: each unit over
5 units 110.00 68.00 113.00 70.00

City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

BUILDING MPE
Fee Description
Plan Check
Fee FY 19-20
Inspection Fee
FY 19-20
Plan Check
Fee FY 22-23
Inspection Fee
FY 22-23
PLUMBING / GAS PERMIT FEES (continued):

Stand Alone Plumbing Plan Check (hourly rate) $ 220.00 $ - $ 226.00 $ - Other Plumbing and Gas Inspections (per hour) - 137.00 - 141.00 SYSTEM FEES:

Swimming Pools 166.00 238.00 171.00 245.00
Outdoor Events 166.00 103.00 171.00 106.00
Electric generator and electrically-driven rides 110.00 103.00 113.00 106.00 Mechanically-driven rides/ attractions with electrical 166.00 103.00 171.00 106.00 Each system of area and booth lighting 110.00 103.00 113.00 106.00 Temporary Power Service 110.00 68.00 113.00 70.00
Temporary power pole 110.00 68.00 113.00 70.00
Sub poles (each) 56.00 47.00 58.00 48.00
UNIT FEES:

Receptacle, Switch, and Lighting Outlets
First 10 110.00 68.00 113.00 70.00
Each Additional 10 56.00 34.00 58.00 35.00
Lighting Fixtures:

First 10 110.00 68.00 113.00 70.00
Each additional 10 56.00 34.00 58.00 35.00
Pole or platform-mounted lighting fixtures (each) 110.00 103.00 113.00 106.00 Theatrical-type lighting fixtures or assemblies 110.00 137.00 113.00 141.00 Residential Appliances (each) 110.00 68.00 113.00 70.00 Nonresidential Appliances 166.00 137.00 171.00 141.00
Residential appliances and self-contained,
nonresidential appliances, (each) 166.00 137.00 171.00 141.00 Appliances not exceeding one horsepower (HP)
kilowatt (KW), or kilovolt-ampere (KVA), in
rating,(each) 220.00 137.00 226.00 141.00
Power Apparatus:

Motors, generators, transformers, rectifiers,
synchronous converters, capacitors, industrial
heating, air conditioners
and heat pumps, cooking or baking equipment,
and other apparatus (all sizes) 166.00 68.00 171.00 70.00 Signs, Outline Lighting, and Marquees:

Signs, Outline Lighting, or Marquees supplied from
one branch circuit (each)
Additional branch circuits within the same sign,
outline lighting system, or marquee (each)
110.00 103.00 113.00 106.00
110.00 68.00 113.00 70.00

City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

BUILDING MPE
Fee Description
Plan Check
Fee FY 19-20
Inspection Fee
FY 19-20
Plan Check
Fee FY 22-23
Inspection Fee
FY 22-23
UNIT FEES (continued):

Service or Panel:
200 amp or less Electrical Panel (each) $ 166.00 $ 137.00 $ 171.00 $ 141.00 Over 200 amp up to 1000 amp Electrical Panel 276.00 170.00 284.00 175.00 Over 1000 amp Electrical Panel (each) 441.00 204.00 453.00 210.00 Miscellaneous Apparatus, Conduits, and Conductors 110.00 103.00 113.00 106.00 Electrical apparatus, conduits, and conductors for
which a permit is required, but for which no fee is
herein set forth 110.00 137.00 113.00 141.00
Photovotaic Systems - each 166.00 204.00 171.00 210.00
Stand Alone Electrical Plan Check (hourly rate) 220.00 - 226.00 - Other Electrical Inspections (per hour) - 137.00 - 141.00

City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

BUILDING PLAN
CHECK

PLAN CHECK VARIABLE FEE SCHEDULE FOR NEW

CONSTRUCTION
All fees include MPE plan checks.

Note:

Fee #
CBC
(ICC)
Use
Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 19-20
Each
Additional
SF FY 19-20
Base Fee
FY 22-23
Each
Additional
SF FY 22-23
1 A-1 Assembly Group - Theaters
2,000 $ 4,716 $ 0.212 $ 4,849 $ 0.218
8,000 $ 5,988 $ 0.285 $ 6,157 $ 0.293
20,000 $ 9,411 $ 0.309 $ 9,677 $ 0.318
40,000 $ 15,594 $ 0.207 $ 16,036 $ 0.213
100,000 $ 28,028 $ 0.280 $ 28,821 $ 0.288
2 A-2
Assembly Group - Restaurants,
nightclubs
1,000 $ 3,042 $ 0.244 $ 3,128 $ 0.251
4,000 $ 3,773 $ 0.331 $ 3,880 $ 0.341
10,000 $ 5,761 $ 0.359 $ 5,924 $ 0.369
20,000 $ 9,349 $ 0.241 $ 9,613 $ 0.248
50,000 $ 16,587 $ 0.332 $ 17,056 $ 0.341
3 A Assembly Group - TI
250 $ 1,593 $ 0.334 $ 1,638 $ 0.343
1,000 $ 1,843 $ 0.405 $ 1,895 $ 0.417
2,500 $ 2,451 $ 0.442 $ 2,520 $ 0.455
5,000 $ 3,557 $ 0.285 $ 3,658 $ 0.293
12,500 $ 5,692 $ 0.455 $ 5,853 $ 0.468
4 A-3
Church and Religious Bldg -
Complete
1,000 $ 3,042 $ 0.244 $ 3,128 $ 0.251
4,000 $ 3,773 $ 0.331 $ 3,880 $ 0.341
10,000 $ 5,761 $ 0.359 $ 5,924 $ 0.369
20,000 $ 9,349 $ 0.241 $ 9,613 $ 0.248
50,000 $ 16,587 $ 0.332 $ 17,056 $ 0.341
5 R-4 Congregate Care - Complete
500 $ 2,173 $ 0.295 $ 2,234 $ 0.304
2,000 $ 2,616 $ 0.386 $ 2,690 $ 0.397
5,000 $ 3,775 $ 0.420 $ 3,881 $ 0.432
10,000 $ 5,874 $ 0.278 $ 6,040 $ 0.286
25,000 $ 10,050 $ 0.402 $ 10,334 $ 0.413
6 A-3 Church and Religious Bldg - TI
250 $ 1,593 $ 0.334 $ 1,638 $ 0.343
1,000 $ 1,843 $ 0.405 $ 1,895 $ 0.417
2,500 $ 2,451 $ 0.442 $ 2,520 $ 0.455
5,000 $ 3,557 $ 0.285 $ 3,658 $ 0.293
12,500 $ 5,692 $ 0.455 $ 5,853 $ 0.468
7 E Educational Building - Complete
2,000 $ 3,669 $ 0.157 $ 3,772 $ 0.161
8,000 $ 4,610 $ 0.215 $ 4,740 $ 0.222
20,000 $ 7,195 $ 0.233 $ 7,399 $ 0.240
40,000 $ 11,859 $ 0.157 $ 12,195 $ 0.162
100,000 $ 21,307 $ 0.213 $ 21,910 $ 0.219
8 E Educational Building - TI
250 $ 1,593 $ 0.334 $ 1,638 $ 0.343
1,000 $ 1,843 $ 0.405 $ 1,895 $ 0.417
2,500 $ 2,451 $ 0.442 $ 2,520 $ 0.455
5,000 $ 3,557 $ 0.285 $ 3,658 $ 0.293
12,500 $ 5,692 $ 0.455 $ 5,853 $ 0.468

City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

BUILDING PLAN
CHECK

PLAN CHECK VARIABLE FEE SCHEDULE FOR NEW

CONSTRUCTION
All fees include MPE plan checks.

Note:

Fee #
CBC
(ICC)
Use
Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 19-20
Each
Additional
SF FY 19-20
Base Fee
FY 22-23
Each
Additional
SF FY 22-23
9 S-2 Parking Garage - Complete
500 $ 1,834 $ 0.220 $ 1,886 $ 0.226
2,000 $ 2,165 $ 0.280 $ 2,226 $ 0.288
5,000 $ 3,003 $ 0.304 $ 3,088 $ 0.313
10,000 $ 4,523 $ 0.199 $ 4,651 $ 0.205
25,000 $ 7,509 $ 0.300 $ 7,721 $ 0.309
10 R-1 Hotel Low/Mid Rise - Complete
1,000 $ 3,042 $ 0.244 $ 3,128 $ 0.251
4,000 $ 3,773 $ 0.331 $ 3,880 $ 0.341
10,000 $ 5,761 $ 0.359 $ 5,924 $ 0.369
20,000 $ 9,349 $ 0.241 $ 9,613 $ 0.248
50,000 $ 16,587 $ 0.332 $ 17,056 $ 0.341
11 R-1 Hotel Low/Mid Rise - Shell
1,000 $ 1,787 $ 0.104 $ 1,838 $ 0.107
4,000 $ 2,100 $ 0.132 $ 2,160 $ 0.136
10,000 $ 2,893 $ 0.144 $ 2,975 $ 0.148
20,000 $ 4,329 $ 0.094 $ 4,452 $ 0.097
50,000 $ 7,146 $ 0.143 $ 7,348 $ 0.147
12 R-1 Hotel Low/Mid Rise - TI
250 $ 1,545 $ 0.313 $ 1,588 $ 0.322
1,000 $ 1,779 $ 0.374 $ 1,829 $ 0.385
2,500 $ 2,341 $ 0.409 $ 2,407 $ 0.421
5,000 $ 3,364 $ 0.262 $ 3,459 $ 0.269
12,500 $ 5,329 $ 0.426 $ 5,480 $ 0.438
13 B Offices, etc. - Complete
500 $ 2,286 $ 0.313 $ 2,351 $ 0.322
2,000 $ 2,757 $ 0.396 $ 2,835 $ 0.407
5,000 $ 3,945 $ 0.431 $ 4,056 $ 0.443
10,000 $ 6,100 $ 0.282 $ 6,273 $ 0.290
25,000 $ 10,324 $ 0.413 $ 10,616 $ 0.425
14 B Offices, etc. - Shell
1,000 $ 1,569 $ 0.080 $ 1,614 $ 0.083
4,000 $ 1,811 $ 0.098 $ 1,862 $ 0.100
10,000 $ 2,396 $ 0.107 $ 2,464 $ 0.110
20,000 $ 3,461 $ 0.068 $ 3,559 $ 0.070
50,000 $ 5,511 $ 0.110 $ 5,667 $ 0.113
15 B Offices, etc. - TI
100 $ 1,362 $ 0.575 $ 1,400 $ 0.591
400 $ 1,534 $ 0.646 $ 1,578 $ 0.665
1,000 $ 1,922 $ 0.709 $ 1,977 $ 0.729
2,000 $ 2,631 $ 0.439 $ 2,706 $ 0.452
5,000 $ 3,949 $ 0.790 $ 4,061 $ 0.812
16 F Industrial Building - Complete
1,000 $ 3,042 $ 0.244 $ 3,128 $ 0.251
4,000 $ 3,773 $ 0.331 $ 3,880 $ 0.341
10,000 $ 5,761 $ 0.359 $ 5,924 $ 0.369
20,000 $ 9,349 $ 0.241 $ 9,613 $ 0.248
50,000 $ 16,587 $ 0.332 $ 17,056 $ 0.341

City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

BUILDING PLAN
CHECK

PLAN CHECK VARIABLE FEE SCHEDULE FOR NEW

CONSTRUCTION
All fees include MPE plan checks.

Note:

Fee #
CBC
(ICC)
Use
Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 19-20
Each
Additional
SF FY 19-20
Base Fee
FY 22-23
Each
Additional
SF FY 22-23
17 F Industrial Building - Shell
1,000 $ 2,076 $ 0.137 $ 2,134 $ 0.141
4,000 $ 2,487 $ 0.178 $ 2,557 $ 0.183
10,000 $ 3,555 $ 0.193 $ 3,655 $ 0.199
20,000 $ 5,488 $ 0.128 $ 5,644 $ 0.131
50,000 $ 9,324 $ 0.186 $ 9,588 $ 0.192
18 F Industrial Building - TI
250 $ 1,545 $ 0.313 $ 1,588 $ 0.322
1,000 $ 1,779 $ 0.374 $ 1,829 $ 0.385
2,500 $ 2,341 $ 0.409 $ 2,407 $ 0.421
5,000 $ 3,364 $ 0.262 $ 3,459 $ 0.269
12,500 $ 5,329 $ 0.426 $ 5,480 $ 0.438
19 S-1
Repair Garage & Service St -
Complete
500 $ 2,076 $ 0.274 $ 2,134 $ 0.282
2,000 $ 2,487 $ 0.356 $ 2,557 $ 0.366
5,000 $ 3,555 $ 0.387 $ 3,655 $ 0.398
10,000 $ 5,488 $ 0.256 $ 5,644 $ 0.263
25,000 $ 9,324 $ 0.373 $ 9,588 $ 0.384
20 S-1 Repair Garage & Service St - Shell
500 $ 1,449 $ 0.135 $ 1,490 $ 0.138
2,000 $ 1,651 $ 0.157 $ 1,697 $ 0.161
5,000 $ 2,121 $ 0.172 $ 2,181 $ 0.176
10,000 $ 2,979 $ 0.108 $ 3,063 $ 0.111
25,000 $ 4,603 $ 0.184 $ 4,734 $ 0.189
21 S-1 Repair Garage & Service St - TI
100 $ 1,521 $ 0.752 $ 1,564 $ 0.773
400 $ 1,746 $ 0.900 $ 1,796 $ 0.926
1,000 $ 2,286 $ 0.982 $ 2,351 $ 1.010
2,000 $ 3,268 $ 0.626 $ 3,361 $ 0.644
5,000 $ 5,148 $ 1.030 $ 5,293 $ 1.059
22 M Retail Sales - Complete
500 $ 2,173 $ 0.295 $ 2,234 $ 0.304
2,000 $ 2,616 $ 0.386 $ 2,690 $ 0.397
5,000 $ 3,775 $ 0.420 $ 3,881 $ 0.432
10,000 $ 5,874 $ 0.278 $ 6,040 $ 0.286
25,000 $ 10,050 $ 0.402 $ 10,334 $ 0.413
23 M Retail Sales - Shell
500 $ 1,449 $ 0.135 $ 1,490 $ 0.138
2,000 $ 1,651 $ 0.157 $ 1,697 $ 0.161
5,000 $ 2,121 $ 0.172 $ 2,181 $ 0.176
10,000 $ 2,979 $ 0.108 $ 3,063 $ 0.111
25,000 $ 4,603 $ 0.184 $ 4,734 $ 0.189
24 M Retail Sales - TI
100 $ 1,521 $ 0.752 $ 1,564 $ 0.773
400 $ 1,746 $ 0.900 $ 1,796 $ 0.926
1,000 $ 2,286 $ 0.982 $ 2,351 $ 1.010
2,000 $ 3,268 $ 0.626 $ 3,361 $ 0.644
5,000 $ 5,148 $ 1.030 $ 5,293 $ 1.059

City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

BUILDING PLAN
CHECK

PLAN CHECK VARIABLE FEE SCHEDULE FOR NEW

CONSTRUCTION
All fees include MPE plan checks.

Note:

Fee #
CBC
(ICC)
Use
Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 19-20
Each
Additional
SF FY 19-20
Base Fee
FY 22-23
Each
Additional
SF FY 22-23
25 - Warehouse - Complete
2,000 $ 2,076 $ 0.069 $ 2,134 $ 0.071
8,000 $ 2,487 $ 0.089 $ 2,557 $ 0.091
20,000 $ 3,555 $ 0.097 $ 3,655 $ 0.099
40,000 $ 5,488 $ 0.064 $ 5,644 $ 0.066
100,000 $ 9,324 $ 0.093 $ 9,588 $ 0.096
26 I Medical/24 Hour Care - Complete
1,000 $ 3,042 $ 0.244 $ 3,128 $ 0.251
4,000 $ 3,773 $ 0.331 $ 3,880 $ 0.341
10,000 $ 5,761 $ 0.359 $ 5,924 $ 0.369
20,000 $ 9,349 $ 0.241 $ 9,613 $ 0.248
50,000 $ 16,587 $ 0.332 $ 17,056 $ 0.341
27 I Medical/24 Hour Care - Shell
1,000 $ 1,834 $ 0.110 $ 1,886 $ 0.113
4,000 $ 2,165 $ 0.140 $ 2,226 $ 0.144
10,000 $ 3,003 $ 0.152 $ 3,088 $ 0.156
20,000 $ 4,523 $ 0.100 $ 4,651 $ 0.102
50,000 $ 7,509 $ 0.150 $ 7,721 $ 0.154
28 I Medical/24Hour Care - TI
100 $ 1,738 $ 0.992 $ 1,788 $ 1.020
400 $ 2,036 $ 1.244 $ 2,094 $ 1.279
1,000 $ 2,782 $ 1.354 $ 2,861 $ 1.392
2,000 $ 4,136 $ 0.882 $ 4,254 $ 0.907
5,000 $ 6,783 $ 1.357 $ 6,974 $ 1.395
29 B Medical Offices - Complete
1,000 $ 3,042 $ 0.244 $ 3,128 $ 0.251
4,000 $ 3,773 $ 0.331 $ 3,880 $ 0.341
10,000 $ 5,761 $ 0.359 $ 5,924 $ 0.369
20,000 $ 9,349 $ 0.241 $ 9,613 $ 0.248
50,000 $ 16,587 $ 0.332 $ 17,056 $ 0.341
30 B Medical Offices - Shell
1,000 $ 1,834 $ 0.110 $ 1,886 $ 0.113
4,000 $ 2,165 $ 0.140 $ 2,226 $ 0.144
10,000 $ 3,003 $ 0.152 $ 3,088 $ 0.156
20,000 $ 4,523 $ 0.100 $ 4,651 $ 0.102
50,000 $ 7,509 $ 0.150 $ 7,721 $ 0.154
31 B Medical Offices - TI
250 $ 1,738 $ 0.397 $ 1,788 $ 0.408
1,000 $ 2,036 $ 0.498 $ 2,094 $ 0.512
2,500 $ 2,782 $ 0.542 $ 2,861 $ 0.557
5,000 $ 4,136 $ 0.353 $ 4,254 $ 0.363
12,500 $ 6,783 $ 0.543 $ 6,974 $ 0.558
32 - Restaurant - Complete
500 $ 2,317 $ 0.328 $ 2,382 $ 0.337
2,000 $ 2,808 $ 0.433 $ 2,888 $ 0.445
5,000 $ 4,106 $ 0.469 $ 4,222 $ 0.483
10,000 $ 6,453 $ 0.312 $ 6,636 $ 0.321
25,000 $ 11,140 $ 0.446 $ 11,455 $ 0.458

City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

BUILDING PLAN
CHECK

PLAN CHECK VARIABLE FEE SCHEDULE FOR NEW

CONSTRUCTION
All fees include MPE plan checks.

Note:

Fee #
CBC
(ICC)
Use
Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 19-20
Each
Additional
SF FY 19-20
Base Fee
FY 22-23
Each
Additional
SF FY 22-23
33 - Restaurant - Shell
500 $ 1,593 $ 0.167 $ 1,638 $ 0.172
2,000 $ 1,843 $ 0.203 $ 1,895 $ 0.208
5,000 $ 2,451 $ 0.221 $ 2,520 $ 0.227
10,000 $ 3,557 $ 0.142 $ 3,658 $ 0.146
25,000 $ 5,692 $ 0.228 $ 5,853 $ 0.234
34 - Restaurant - TI
250 $ 1,472 $ 0.280 $ 1,514 $ 0.288
1,000 $ 1,682 $ 0.329 $ 1,730 $ 0.339
2,500 $ 2,176 $ 0.359 $ 2,237 $ 0.370
5,000 $ 3,074 $ 0.228 $ 3,161 $ 0.234
12,500 $ 4,785 $ 0.383 $ 4,920 $ 0.394
35 I-4 Day Care Facility - Complete
250 $ 2,028 $ 0.525 $ 2,086 $ 0.539
1,000 $ 2,422 $ 0.682 $ 2,490 $ 0.701
2,500 $ 3,444 $ 0.740 $ 3,542 $ 0.761
5,000 $ 5,295 $ 0.489 $ 5,445 $ 0.503
12,500 $ 8,961 $ 0.717 $ 9,214 $ 0.737
36 I-4 Day Care Facility - TI
100 $ 1,738 $ 0.992 $ 1,788 $ 1.020
400 $ 2,036 $ 1.244 $ 2,094 $ 1.279
1,000 $ 2,782 $ 1.354 $ 2,861 $ 1.392
2,000 $ 4,136 $ 0.882 $ 4,254 $ 0.907
5,000 $ 6,783 $ 1.357 $ 6,974 $ 1.395
37 H Hazardous H - Complete
500 $ 1,883 $ 0.231 $ 1,936 $ 0.237
2,000 $ 2,229 $ 0.295 $ 2,292 $ 0.303
5,000 $ 3,113 $ 0.321 $ 3,201 $ 0.330
10,000 $ 4,716 $ 0.210 $ 4,849 $ 0.216
25,000 $ 7,872 $ 0.315 $ 8,094 $ 0.324
38 H Hazardous H - Shell
500 $ 2,317 $ 0.328 $ 2,382 $ 0.337
2,000 $ 2,808 $ 0.433 $ 2,888 $ 0.445
5,000 $ 4,106 $ 0.469 $ 4,222 $ 0.483
10,000 $ 6,453 $ 0.312 $ 6,636 $ 0.321
25,000 $ 11,140 $ 0.446 $ 11,455 $ 0.458
39 H Hazardous H - T I
100 $ 1,738 $ 0.992 $ 1,788 $ 1.020
400 $ 2,036 $ 1.244 $ 2,094 $ 1.279
1,000 $ 2,782 $ 1.354 $ 2,861 $ 1.392
2,000 $ 4,136 $ 0.882 $ 4,254 $ 0.907
5,000 $ 6,783 $ 1.357 $ 6,974 $ 1.395
40 - Commercial Building - Foundation
200 $ 1,352 $ 0.282 $ 1,390 $ 0.290
800 $ 1,521 $ 0.316 $ 1,564 $ 0.325
2,000 $ 1,900 $ 0.346 $ 1,953 $ 0.356
4,000 $ 2,592 $ 0.214 $ 2,665 $ 0.220
10,000 $ 3,877 $ 0.388 $ 3,987 $ 0.399

City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

BUILDING PLAN
CHECK

PLAN CHECK VARIABLE FEE SCHEDULE FOR NEW

CONSTRUCTION
All fees include MPE plan checks.

Note:

Fee #
CBC
(ICC)
Use
Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 19-20
Each
Additional
SF FY 19-20
Base Fee
FY 22-23
Each
Additional
SF FY 22-23
41 - Commercial Building - Addition
200 $ 1,400 $ 0.308 $ 1,440 $ 0.317
800 $ 1,585 $ 0.354 $ 1,630 $ 0.364
2,000 $ 2,010 $ 0.388 $ 2,067 $ 0.399
4,000 $ 2,786 $ 0.242 $ 2,865 $ 0.249
10,000 $ 4,240 $ 0.424 $ 4,360 $ 0.436
42 R-2 Apartment Building
1,000 $ 3,042 $ 0.244 $ 3,128 $ 0.251
4,000 $ 3,773 $ 0.331 $ 3,880 $ 0.341
10,000 $ 5,761 $ 0.359 $ 5,924 $ 0.369
20,000 $ 9,349 $ 0.241 $ 9,613 $ 0.248
50,000 $ 16,587 $ 0.332 $ 17,056 $ 0.341
43 R-3 Single-Family (custom or model)
1,000 $ 2,451 $ 0.139 $ 2,520 $ 0.143
2,000 $ 2,590 $ 0.717 $ 2,663 $ 0.737
3,000 $ 3,307 $ 0.374 $ 3,400 $ 0.385
5,000 $ 4,055 $ 0.531 $ 4,170 $ 0.546
7,500 $ 5,382 $ 0.718 $ 5,535 $ 0.738
44 R-3 Single-Family - Production/Repeat
667 $ 1,441 $ 0.081 $ 1,482 $ 0.083
1,333 $ 1,495 $ 0.276 $ 1,537 $ 0.283
2,000 $ 1,679 $ 0.215 $ 1,726 $ 0.221
3,333 $ 1,965 $ 0.250 $ 2,021 $ 0.257
5,000 $ 2,381 $ 0.476 $ 2,448 $ 0.490
45 R-3 Moved Building - Residential
333 $ 1,373 $ 0.145 $ 1,412 $ 0.150
667 $ 1,422 $ 0.443 $ 1,462 $ 0.456
1,000 $ 1,569 $ 0.382 $ 1,614 $ 0.393
1,667 $ 1,824 $ 0.425 $ 1,876 $ 0.437
2,500 $ 2,178 $ 0.871 $ 2,240 $ 0.896
46 R-3 Manufactured Home - Complete
800 $ 1,250 $ 0.049 $ 1,286 $ 0.051
1,600 $ 1,290 $ 0.100 $ 1,326 $ 0.103
2,400 $ 1,370 $ 0.125 $ 1,409 $ 0.128
4,000 $ 1,569 $ 0.121 $ 1,614 $ 0.124
6,000 $ 1,811 $ 0.302 $ 1,862 $ 0.310
47 R-3 Prefabricated Dwelling - Complete
667 $ 1,250 $ 0.059 $ 1,286 $ 0.061
1,333 $ 1,290 $ 0.120 $ 1,326 $ 0.123
2,000 $ 1,370 $ 0.150 $ 1,409 $ 0.154
3,333 $ 1,569 $ 0.145 $ 1,614 $ 0.149
5,000 $ 1,811 $ 0.362 $ 1,862 $ 0.372
48 - Commercial Coach - Complete
120 $ 1,096 $ 0.235 $ 1,127 $ 0.242
480 $ 1,180 $ 0.186 $ 1,214 $ 0.192
1,200 $ 1,315 $ 0.212 $ 1,352 $ 0.218
2,400 $ 1,569 $ 0.106 $ 1,614 $ 0.109
6,000 $ 1,953 $ 0.325 $ 2,008 $ 0.335

City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

BUILDING PLAN
CHECK

PLAN CHECK VARIABLE FEE SCHEDULE FOR NEW

CONSTRUCTION
All fees include MPE plan checks.

Note:

Fee #
CBC
(ICC)
Use
Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 19-20
Each
Additional
SF FY 19-20
Base Fee
FY 22-23
Each
Additional
SF FY 22-23
49 - Modular Building - Complete
240 $ 1,096 $ 0.117 $ 1,127 $ 0.121
960 $ 1,180 $ 0.093 $ 1,214 $ 0.096
2,400 $ 1,315 $ 0.106 $ 1,352 $ 0.109
4,800 $ 1,569 $ 0.053 $ 1,614 $ 0.055
12,000 $ 1,953 $ 0.163 $ 2,008 $ 0.167
50 -
Manufactured Building -
Foundation
500 $ 1,121 $ 0.061 $ 1,152 $ 0.063
2,000 $ 1,212 $ 0.053 $ 1,246 $ 0.054
5,000 $ 1,370 $ 0.059 $ 1,409 $ 0.061
10,000 $ 1,665 $ 0.031 $ 1,712 $ 0.032
25,000 $ 2,134 $ 0.085 $ 2,195 $ 0.088
51 U Residential Garage
167 $ 1,250 $ 0.237 $ 1,286 $ 0.243
333 $ 1,290 $ 0.480 $ 1,326 $ 0.494
500 $ 1,370 $ 0.599 $ 1,409 $ 0.616
833 $ 1,569 $ 0.579 $ 1,614 $ 0.595
1,250 $ 1,811 $ 1.449 $ 1,862 $ 1.489
52 U Pool/Spa - Standard Plan
40 $ 1,159 $ 0.874 $ 1,192 $ 0.898
160 $ 1,264 $ 0.813 $ 1,300 $ 0.836
400 $ 1,459 $ 0.902 $ 1,500 $ 0.927
800 $ 1,820 $ 0.505 $ 1,871 $ 0.519
2,000 $ 2,425 $ 1.213 $ 2,494 $ 1.247
53 - Commercial Building - Remodel
200 $ 1,738 $ 0.496 $ 1,788 $ 0.510
800 $ 2,036 $ 0.622 $ 2,094 $ 0.640
2,000 $ 2,782 $ 0.677 $ 2,861 $ 0.696
4,000 $ 4,136 $ 0.441 $ 4,254 $ 0.453
10,000 $ 6,783 $ 0.678 $ 6,974 $ 0.697
54 - Commercial Building - Repair
200 $ 1,690 $ 0.470 $ 1,738 $ 0.483
800 $ 1,972 $ 0.583 $ 2,028 $ 0.600
2,000 $ 2,672 $ 0.636 $ 2,748 $ 0.654
4,000 $ 3,944 $ 0.413 $ 4,055 $ 0.424
10,000 $ 6,420 $ 0.642 $ 6,601 $ 0.660
55 U Accessory Building - Commercial
50 $ 1,140 $ 0.654 $ 1,172 $ 0.672
200 $ 1,238 $ 0.590 $ 1,273 $ 0.607
500 $ 1,415 $ 0.656 $ 1,455 $ 0.675
1,000 $ 1,743 $ 0.358 $ 1,792 $ 0.368
2,500 $ 2,280 $ 0.912 $ 2,344 $ 0.938
56 U Commercial Carport
50 $ 1,140 $ 0.654 $ 1,172 $ 0.672
200 $ 1,238 $ 0.590 $ 1,273 $ 0.607
500 $ 1,415 $ 0.656 $ 1,455 $ 0.675
1,000 $ 1,743 $ 0.358 $ 1,792 $ 0.368
2,500 $ 2,280 $ 0.912 $ 2,344 $ 0.938

City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

BUILDING PLAN
CHECK

PLAN CHECK VARIABLE FEE SCHEDULE FOR NEW

CONSTRUCTION
All fees include MPE plan checks.

Note:

Fee #
CBC
(ICC)
Use
Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 19-20
Each
Additional
SF FY 19-20
Base Fee
FY 22-23
Each
Additional
SF FY 22-23
57 R-3
Single-Family Residential -
Addition
167 $ 1,441 $ 0.325 $ 1,482 $ 0.334
333 $ 1,495 $ 1.103 $ 1,537 $ 1.134
500 $ 1,679 $ 0.859 $ 1,726 $ 0.883
833 $ 1,965 $ 0.998 $ 2,021 $ 1.027
1,250 $ 2,381 $ 1.905 $ 2,448 $ 1.959
58 R-2 Multi-Family Residential - Addition
333 $ 1,645 $ 0.213 $ 1,691 $ 0.219
667 $ 1,716 $ 0.883 $ 1,764 $ 0.908
1,000 $ 2,010 $ 0.570 $ 2,067 $ 0.586
1,667 $ 2,390 $ 0.722 $ 2,458 $ 0.743
2,500 $ 2,992 $ 1.197 $ 3,077 $ 1.231
59 R-3
Single-Family Residential -
Remodel
333 $ 1,237 $ 0.115 $ 1,272 $ 0.118
667 $ 1,275 $ 0.220 $ 1,311 $ 0.226
1,000 $ 1,348 $ 0.289 $ 1,387 $ 0.297
1,667 $ 1,541 $ 0.275 $ 1,585 $ 0.282
2,500 $ 1,770 $ 0.708 $ 1,820 $ 0.728
60 R-2 Multi-Family Residential - Remodel
667 $ 1,380 $ 0.074 $ 1,419 $ 0.077
1,333 $ 1,430 $ 0.225 $ 1,470 $ 0.231
2,000 $ 1,580 $ 0.194 $ 1,624 $ 0.199
3,333 $ 1,838 $ 0.216 $ 1,890 $ 0.223
5,000 $ 2,198 $ 0.440 $ 2,261 $ 0.452
61 R-3 Residential Building - Foundation
333 $ 1,069 $ 0.071 $ 1,099 $ 0.073
667 $ 1,092 $ 0.284 $ 1,123 $ 0.292
1,000 $ 1,187 $ 0.188 $ 1,221 $ 0.193
1,667 $ 1,312 $ 0.235 $ 1,349 $ 0.242
2,500 $ 1,508 $ 0.603 $ 1,551 $ 0.620
62 U Accessory Building - Residential
83 $ 1,028 $ 0.230 $ 1,057 $ 0.237
167 $ 1,047 $ 0.893 $ 1,077 $ 0.918
250 $ 1,122 $ 0.636 $ 1,154 $ 0.654
417 $ 1,228 $ 0.763 $ 1,263 $ 0.785
625 $ 1,387 $ 2.219 $ 1,426 $ 2.282
63 U Residential Carport
133 $ 1,028 $ 0.144 $ 1,057 $ 0.148
267 $ 1,047 $ 0.558 $ 1,077 $ 0.574
400 $ 1,122 $ 0.397 $ 1,154 $ 0.409
667 $ 1,228 $ 0.477 $ 1,263 $ 0.490
1,000 $ 1,387 $ 1.387 $ 1,426 $ 1.426
64 U Residential Patio Cover
83 $ 1,028 $ 0.230 $ 1,057 $ 0.237
167 $ 1,047 $ 0.893 $ 1,077 $ 0.918
250 $ 1,122 $ 0.636 $ 1,154 $ 0.654
417 $ 1,228 $ 0.763 $ 1,263 $ 0.785
625 $ 1,387 $ 2.219 $ 1,426 $ 2.282

City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

BUILDING PLAN
CHECK

PLAN CHECK VARIABLE FEE SCHEDULE FOR NEW

CONSTRUCTION
All fees include MPE plan checks.

Note:

Fee #
CBC
(ICC)
Use
Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 19-20
Each
Additional
SF FY 19-20
Base Fee
FY 22-23
Each
Additional
SF FY 22-23
65 U Residential Balcony/Deck
83 $ 1,163 $ 0.379 $ 1,196 $ 0.390
167 $ 1,195 $ 1.759 $ 1,229 $ 1.809
250 $ 1,342 $ 1.008 $ 1,380 $ 1.036
417 $ 1,510 $ 1.364 $ 1,552 $ 1.402
625 $ 1,794 $ 2.870 $ 1,844 $ 2.951
66 U Residential Patio Enclosure
83 $ 1,130 $ 0.338 $ 1,162 $ 0.348
167 $ 1,158 $ 1.542 $ 1,191 $ 1.586
250 $ 1,286 $ 0.920 $ 1,323 $ 0.946
417 $ 1,440 $ 1.212 $ 1,480 $ 1.247
625 $ 1,692 $ 2.708 $ 1,740 $ 2.784

City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

BUILDING INSPECTION

INSPECTION VARIABLE FEE SCHEDULE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
Fee
#
CBC
(ICC)
Use
Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 19-20
Each
Additional
SF FY 19-20
Base Fee
FY 22-23
Each
Additional
SF FY 22-23
1 A-1 Assembly Group - Theaters
2,000 $ 3,270 $ 0.400 $ 3,362 $ 0.411
8,000 $ 5,669 $ 0.347 $ 5,829 $ 0.357
20,000 $ 9,833 $ 0.298 $ 10,112 $ 0.307
40,000 $ 15,797 $ 0.338 $ 16,244 $ 0.347
100,000 $ 36,051 $ 0.361 $ 37,072 $ 0.371
2 A-2
Assembly Group: Restaurants,
nightclubs
1,000 $ 2,654 $ 0.631 $ 2,729 $ 0.648
4,000 $ 4,546 $ 0.654 $ 4,674 $ 0.673
10,000 $ 8,473 $ 0.540 $ 8,712 $ 0.555
20,000 $ 13,871 $ 0.639 $ 14,263 $ 0.657
50,000 $ 33,033 $ 0.661 $ 33,968 $ 0.679
3 A Assembly Group - TI
250 $ 719 $ 0.749 $ 740 $ 0.770
1,000 $ 1,281 $ 0.265 $ 1,317 $ 0.273
2,500 $ 1,679 $ 0.292 $ 1,726 $ 0.300
5,000 $ 2,409 $ 0.260 $ 2,477 $ 0.268
12,500 $ 4,362 $ 0.349 $ 4,485 $ 0.359
4 A-3
Church and Religious Bldg -
Complete
1,000 $ 2,161 $ 0.496 $ 2,222 $ 0.510
4,000 $ 3,648 $ 0.623 $ 3,752 $ 0.640
10,000 $ 7,385 $ 0.494 $ 7,594 $ 0.508
20,000 $ 12,329 $ 0.610 $ 12,678 $ 0.627
50,000 $ 30,618 $ 0.612 $ 31,485 $ 0.630
5 R-4 Congregate Care - Complete
500 $ 1,387 $ 0.614 $ 1,426 $ 0.631
2,000 $ 2,308 $ 0.696 $ 2,373 $ 0.715
5,000 $ 4,395 $ 0.534 $ 4,519 $ 0.549
10,000 $ 7,066 $ 0.698 $ 7,265 $ 0.717
25,000 $ 17,531 $ 0.701 $ 18,027 $ 0.721
6 A-3 Church and Religious Bldg - TI
250 $ 536 $ 0.546 $ 551 $ 0.561
1,000 $ 945 $ 0.218 $ 972 $ 0.224
2,500 $ 1,272 $ 0.224 $ 1,308 $ 0.230
5,000 $ 1,831 $ 0.217 $ 1,883 $ 0.223
12,500 $ 3,456 $ 0.276 $ 3,553 $ 0.284
7 E Educational Building - Complete
2,000 $ 3,209 $ 0.391 $ 3,299 $ 0.402
8,000 $ 5,556 $ 0.345 $ 5,713 $ 0.355
20,000 $ 9,697 $ 0.295 $ 9,971 $ 0.304
40,000 $ 15,605 $ 0.336 $ 16,046 $ 0.345
100,000 $ 35,749 $ 0.357 $ 36,761 $ 0.368
8 E Educational Building - TI
250 $ 536 $ 0.546 $ 551 $ 0.561
1,000 $ 945 $ 0.218 $ 972 $ 0.224
2,500 $ 1,272 $ 0.224 $ 1,308 $ 0.230
5,000 $ 1,831 $ 0.217 $ 1,883 $ 0.223
12,500 $ 3,456 $ 0.276 $ 3,553 $ 0.284

City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

BUILDING INSPECTION

INSPECTION VARIABLE FEE SCHEDULE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
Fee
#
CBC
(ICC)
Use
Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 19-20
Each
Additional
SF FY 19-20
Base Fee
FY 22-23
Each
Additional
SF FY 22-23
9 S-2 Parking Garage - Complete
500 $ 719 $ 0.374 $ 740 $ 0.385
2,000 $ 1,281 $ 0.133 $ 1,317 $ 0.136
5,000 $ 1,679 $ 0.146 $ 1,726 $ 0.150
10,000 $ 2,409 $ 0.130 $ 2,477 $ 0.134
25,000 $ 4,362 $ 0.174 $ 4,485 $ 0.179
10 R-1 Hotel Low/Mid Rise - Complete
1,000 $ 2,161 $ 0.496 $ 2,222 $ 0.510
4,000 $ 3,648 $ 0.623 $ 3,752 $ 0.640
10,000 $ 7,385 $ 0.494 $ 7,594 $ 0.508
20,000 $ 12,329 $ 0.610 $ 12,678 $ 0.627
50,000 $ 30,618 $ 0.612 $ 31,485 $ 0.630
11 R-1 Hotel Low/Mid Rise - Shell
1,000 $ 769 $ 0.201 $ 791 $ 0.206
4,000 $ 1,371 $ 0.070 $ 1,410 $ 0.071
10,000 $ 1,788 $ 0.078 $ 1,839 $ 0.080
20,000 $ 2,564 $ 0.068 $ 2,636 $ 0.070
50,000 $ 4,603 $ 0.092 $ 4,734 $ 0.095
12 R-1 Hotel Low/Mid Rise - TI
250 $ 536 $ 0.546 $ 551 $ 0.561
1,000 $ 945 $ 0.218 $ 972 $ 0.224
2,500 $ 1,272 $ 0.224 $ 1,308 $ 0.230
5,000 $ 1,831 $ 0.217 $ 1,883 $ 0.223
12,500 $ 3,456 $ 0.276 $ 3,553 $ 0.284
13 B Offices, etc. - Complete
500 $ 2,408 $ 1.230 $ 2,476 $ 1.265
2,000 $ 4,254 $ 0.790 $ 4,374 $ 0.812
5,000 $ 6,622 $ 0.741 $ 6,810 $ 0.762
10,000 $ 10,326 $ 0.760 $ 10,618 $ 0.782
25,000 $ 21,729 $ 0.869 $ 22,344 $ 0.894
14 B Offices, etc. - Shell
1,000 $ 436 $ 0.109 $ 449 $ 0.112
4,000 $ 764 $ 0.048 $ 786 $ 0.049
10,000 $ 1,053 $ 0.047 $ 1,083 $ 0.048
20,000 $ 1,523 $ 0.048 $ 1,566 $ 0.050
50,000 $ 2,973 $ 0.059 $ 3,057 $ 0.061
15 B Offices, etc. - TI
100 $ 317 $ 0.763 $ 326 $ 0.784
400 $ 546 $ 0.404 $ 561 $ 0.415
1,000 $ 788 $ 0.360 $ 810 $ 0.370
2,000 $ 1,148 $ 0.412 $ 1,180 $ 0.424
5,000 $ 2,384 $ 0.477 $ 2,452 $ 0.490
16 F Industrial Building - Complete
1,000 $ 2,100 $ 0.479 $ 2,160 $ 0.492
4,000 $ 3,537 $ 0.619 $ 3,637 $ 0.636
10,000 $ 7,248 $ 0.489 $ 7,453 $ 0.503
20,000 $ 12,137 $ 0.606 $ 12,480 $ 0.623
50,000 $ 30,316 $ 0.606 $ 31,174 $ 0.623

City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

BUILDING INSPECTION

INSPECTION VARIABLE FEE SCHEDULE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
Fee
#
CBC
(ICC)
Use
Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 19-20
Each
Additional
SF FY 19-20
Base Fee
FY 22-23
Each
Additional
SF FY 22-23
17 F Industrial Building - Shell
1,000 $ 507 $ 0.129 $ 522 $ 0.133
4,000 $ 894 $ 0.053 $ 919 $ 0.054
10,000 $ 1,210 $ 0.054 $ 1,244 $ 0.055
20,000 $ 1,745 $ 0.053 $ 1,795 $ 0.054
50,000 $ 3,320 $ 0.066 $ 3,414 $ 0.068
18 F Industrial Building - TI
250 $ 692 $ 0.719 $ 712 $ 0.739
1,000 $ 1,231 $ 0.258 $ 1,266 $ 0.265
2,500 $ 1,618 $ 0.282 $ 1,664 $ 0.290
5,000 $ 2,322 $ 0.254 $ 2,388 $ 0.261
12,500 $ 4,226 $ 0.338 $ 4,345 $ 0.348
19 S-1
Repair Garage & Service St -
Complete
500 $ 1,018 $ 0.411 $ 1,047 $ 0.423
2,000 $ 1,635 $ 0.648 $ 1,681 $ 0.666
5,000 $ 3,578 $ 0.466 $ 3,680 $ 0.479
10,000 $ 5,910 $ 0.654 $ 6,077 $ 0.673
25,000 $ 15,721 $ 0.629 $ 16,166 $ 0.647
20 S-1
Repair Garage & Service St -
Shell
500 $ 477 $ 0.241 $ 490 $ 0.247
2,000 $ 838 $ 0.101 $ 861 $ 0.104
5,000 $ 1,142 $ 0.101 $ 1,174 $ 0.104
10,000 $ 1,648 $ 0.101 $ 1,695 $ 0.104
25,000 $ 3,169 $ 0.127 $ 3,259 $ 0.130
21 S-1 Repair Garage & Service St - TI
100 $ 317 $ 0.763 $ 326 $ 0.784
400 $ 546 $ 0.404 $ 561 $ 0.415
1,000 $ 788 $ 0.360 $ 810 $ 0.370
2,000 $ 1,148 $ 0.412 $ 1,180 $ 0.424
5,000 $ 2,384 $ 0.477 $ 2,452 $ 0.490
22 M Retail Sales - Complete
500 $ 1,111 $ 0.461 $ 1,142 $ 0.475
2,000 $ 1,803 $ 0.660 $ 1,854 $ 0.679
5,000 $ 3,782 $ 0.483 $ 3,890 $ 0.497
10,000 $ 6,199 $ 0.665 $ 6,374 $ 0.684
25,000 $ 16,173 $ 0.647 $ 16,631 $ 0.665
23 M Retail Sales - Shell
500 $ 584 $ 0.300 $ 601 $ 0.308
2,000 $ 1,034 $ 0.115 $ 1,063 $ 0.119
5,000 $ 1,380 $ 0.121 $ 1,419 $ 0.125
10,000 $ 1,985 $ 0.114 $ 2,042 $ 0.117
25,000 $ 3,698 $ 0.148 $ 3,803 $ 0.152
24 M Retail Sales - TI
100 $ 317 $ 0.763 $ 326 $ 0.784
400 $ 546 $ 0.404 $ 561 $ 0.415
1,000 $ 788 $ 0.360 $ 810 $ 0.370
2,000 $ 1,148 $ 0.412 $ 1,180 $ 0.424
5,000 $ 2,384 $ 0.477 $ 2,452 $ 0.490

City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

BUILDING INSPECTION

INSPECTION VARIABLE FEE SCHEDULE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
Fee
#
CBC
(ICC)
Use
Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 19-20
Each
Additional
SF FY 19-20
Base Fee
FY 22-23
Each
Additional
SF FY 22-23
25 - Warehouse - Complete
2,000 $ 2,865 $ 0.356 $ 2,946 $ 0.366
8,000 $ 5,000 $ 0.222 $ 5,142 $ 0.228
20,000 $ 7,660 $ 0.201 $ 7,876 $ 0.207
40,000 $ 11,689 $ 0.218 $ 12,020 $ 0.224
100,000 $ 24,776 $ 0.248 $ 25,477 $ 0.255
26 I
Medical/24 Hour Care -
Complete
1,000 $ 2,161 $ 0.496 $ 2,222 $ 0.510
4,000 $ 3,648 $ 0.623 $ 3,752 $ 0.640
10,000 $ 7,385 $ 0.494 $ 7,594 $ 0.508
20,000 $ 12,329 $ 0.610 $ 12,678 $ 0.627
50,000 $ 30,618 $ 0.612 $ 31,485 $ 0.630
27 I Medical/24 Hour Care - Shell
1,000 $ 538 $ 0.138 $ 553 $ 0.141
4,000 $ 950 $ 0.055 $ 977 $ 0.056
10,000 $ 1,278 $ 0.056 $ 1,315 $ 0.058
20,000 $ 1,841 $ 0.054 $ 1,893 $ 0.056
50,000 $ 3,471 $ 0.069 $ 3,570 $ 0.071
28 I Medical/24Hour Care - TI
100 $ 285 $ 0.684 $ 293 $ 0.703
400 $ 490 $ 0.383 $ 504 $ 0.394
1,000 $ 720 $ 0.330 $ 741 $ 0.340
2,000 $ 1,051 $ 0.394 $ 1,080 $ 0.405
5,000 $ 2,233 $ 0.447 $ 2,297 $ 0.459
29 B Medical Offices - Complete
1,000 $ 2,161 $ 0.496 $ 2,222 $ 0.510
4,000 $ 3,648 $ 0.623 $ 3,752 $ 0.640
10,000 $ 7,385 $ 0.494 $ 7,594 $ 0.508
20,000 $ 12,329 $ 0.610 $ 12,678 $ 0.627
50,000 $ 30,618 $ 0.612 $ 31,485 $ 0.630
30 B Medical Offices - Shell
1,000 $ 554 $ 0.142 $ 569 $ 0.146
4,000 $ 979 $ 0.056 $ 1,006 $ 0.057
10,000 $ 1,312 $ 0.058 $ 1,349 $ 0.059
20,000 $ 1,890 $ 0.055 $ 1,943 $ 0.057
50,000 $ 3,547 $ 0.071 $ 3,647 $ 0.073
31 B Medical Offices - TI
250 $ 723 $ 0.752 $ 743 $ 0.773
1,000 $ 1,286 $ 0.267 $ 1,323 $ 0.274
2,500 $ 1,687 $ 0.293 $ 1,734 $ 0.301
5,000 $ 2,419 $ 0.261 $ 2,488 $ 0.268
12,500 $ 4,377 $ 0.350 $ 4,500 $ 0.360
32 - Restaurant - Complete
500 $ 1,111 $ 0.461 $ 1,142 $ 0.475
2,000 $ 1,803 $ 0.660 $ 1,854 $ 0.679
5,000 $ 3,782 $ 0.483 $ 3,890 $ 0.497
10,000 $ 6,199 $ 0.665 $ 6,374 $ 0.684
25,000 $ 16,173 $ 0.647 $ 16,631 $ 0.665

City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

BUILDING INSPECTION

INSPECTION VARIABLE FEE SCHEDULE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
Fee
#
CBC
(ICC)
Use
Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 19-20
Each
Additional
SF FY 19-20
Base Fee
FY 22-23
Each
Additional
SF FY 22-23
33 - Restaurant - Shell
500 $ 492 $ 0.250 $ 505 $ 0.257
2,000 $ 866 $ 0.103 $ 890 $ 0.106
5,000 $ 1,176 $ 0.104 $ 1,209 $ 0.107
10,000 $ 1,697 $ 0.103 $ 1,745 $ 0.106
25,000 $ 3,245 $ 0.130 $ 3,337 $ 0.133
34 - Restaurant - TI
250 $ 723 $ 0.752 $ 743 $ 0.773
1,000 $ 1,286 $ 0.267 $ 1,323 $ 0.274
2,500 $ 1,687 $ 0.293 $ 1,734 $ 0.301
5,000 $ 2,419 $ 0.261 $ 2,488 $ 0.268
12,500 $ 4,377 $ 0.350 $ 4,500 $ 0.360
35 I-4 Day Care Facility - Complete
250 $ 1,111 $ 0.923 $ 1,142 $ 0.949
1,000 $ 1,803 $ 1.320 $ 1,854 $ 1.357
2,500 $ 3,782 $ 0.966 $ 3,890 $ 0.994
5,000 $ 6,199 $ 1.330 $ 6,374 $ 1.368
12,500 $ 16,173 $ 1.294 $ 16,631 $ 1.330
36 I-4 Day Care Facility - TI
100 $ 255 $ 0.598 $ 262 $ 0.614
400 $ 434 $ 0.363 $ 446 $ 0.373
1,000 $ 652 $ 0.303 $ 670 $ 0.312
2,000 $ 955 $ 0.376 $ 982 $ 0.386
5,000 $ 2,082 $ 0.416 $ 2,141 $ 0.428
37 H Hazardous H - Complete
500 $ 1,111 $ 0.461 $ 1,142 $ 0.475
2,000 $ 1,803 $ 0.660 $ 1,854 $ 0.679
5,000 $ 3,782 $ 0.483 $ 3,890 $ 0.497
10,000 $ 6,199 $ 0.665 $ 6,374 $ 0.684
25,000 $ 16,173 $ 0.647 $ 16,631 $ 0.665
38 H Hazardous H - Shell
500 $ 461 $ 0.232 $ 474 $ 0.239
2,000 $ 809 $ 0.100 $ 832 $ 0.102
5,000 $ 1,108 $ 0.098 $ 1,140 $ 0.101
10,000 $ 1,600 $ 0.100 $ 1,645 $ 0.102
25,000 $ 3,094 $ 0.124 $ 3,181 $ 0.127
39 H Hazardous H- T I
100 $ 255 $ 0.598 $ 262 $ 0.614
400 $ 434 $ 0.363 $ 446 $ 0.373
1,000 $ 652 $ 0.303 $ 670 $ 0.312
2,000 $ 955 $ 0.376 $ 982 $ 0.386
5,000 $ 2,082 $ 0.416 $ 2,141 $ 0.428
40 -
Commercial Building -
Foundation
200 $ 255 $ 0.299 $ 262 $ 0.307
800 $ 434 $ 0.181 $ 446 $ 0.186
2,000 $ 652 $ 0.152 $ 670 $ 0.156
4,000 $ 955 $ 0.188 $ 982 $ 0.193
10,000 $ 2,082 $ 0.208 $ 2,141 $ 0.214

City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

BUILDING INSPECTION

INSPECTION VARIABLE FEE SCHEDULE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
Fee
#
CBC
(ICC)
Use
Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 19-20
Each
Additional
SF FY 19-20
Base Fee
FY 22-23
Each
Additional
SF FY 22-23
41 - Commercial Building - Addition
200 $ 285 $ 0.342 $ 293 $ 0.352
800 $ 490 $ 0.192 $ 504 $ 0.197
2,000 $ 720 $ 0.165 $ 741 $ 0.170
4,000 $ 1,051 $ 0.197 $ 1,080 $ 0.203
10,000 $ 2,233 $ 0.223 $ 2,297 $ 0.230
42 R-2 Apartment Building
1,000 $ 2,073 $ 0.513 $ 2,132 $ 0.527
4,000 $ 3,611 $ 0.589 $ 3,713 $ 0.606
10,000 $ 7,147 $ 0.500 $ 7,349 $ 0.514
20,000 $ 12,148 $ 0.562 $ 12,492 $ 0.577
50,000 $ 28,996 $ 0.580 $ 29,817 $ 0.596
43 R-3 Single-Family (custom or model)
1,000 $ 1,887 $ 1.123 $ 1,941 $ 1.155
2,000 $ 3,010 $ 1.147 $ 3,095 $ 1.179
3,000 $ 4,157 $ 1.028 $ 4,274 $ 1.057
5,000 $ 6,212 $ 0.841 $ 6,388 $ 0.864
7,500 $ 8,314 $ 1.108 $ 8,549 $ 1.140
44 R-3
Single-Family - Production /
Repeat
667 $ 1,188 $ 0.998 $ 1,222 $ 1.026
1,333 $ 1,853 $ 0.974 $ 1,906 $ 1.002
2,000 $ 2,503 $ 0.837 $ 2,574 $ 0.861
3,333 $ 3,619 $ 0.771 $ 3,721 $ 0.793
5,000 $ 4,904 $ 0.981 $ 5,043 $ 1.009
45 R-3 Moved Building - Residential
333 $ 205 $ 0.386 $ 211 $ 0.396
667 $ 334 $ 0.406 $ 343 $ 0.417
1,000 $ 469 $ 0.367 $ 482 $ 0.377
1,667 $ 714 $ 0.281 $ 734 $ 0.289
2,500 $ 948 $ 0.379 $ 975 $ 0.390
46 R-3 Manufactured Home - Complete
800 $ 156 $ 0.128 $ 160 $ 0.132
1,600 $ 258 $ 0.135 $ 265 $ 0.139
2,400 $ 366 $ 0.126 $ 377 $ 0.130
4,000 $ 568 $ 0.091 $ 584 $ 0.093
6,000 $ 750 $ 0.125 $ 771 $ 0.128
47 R-3
Prefabricated Dwelling -
Complete
667 $ 156 $ 0.154 $ 160 $ 0.158
1,333 $ 258 $ 0.162 $ 265 $ 0.167
2,000 $ 366 $ 0.151 $ 377 $ 0.156
3,333 $ 568 $ 0.109 $ 584 $ 0.112
5,000 $ 750 $ 0.150 $ 771 $ 0.154
48 - Commercial Coach - Complete
120 $ 125 $ 0.204 $ 129 $ 0.209
480 $ 198 $ 0.233 $ 204 $ 0.240
1,200 $ 366 $ 0.153 $ 377 $ 0.157
2,400 $ 550 $ 0.250 $ 566 $ 0.257
6,000 $ 1,449 $ 0.241 $ 1,490 $ 0.248

City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

BUILDING INSPECTION

INSPECTION VARIABLE FEE SCHEDULE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
Fee
#
CBC
(ICC)
Use
Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 19-20
Each
Additional
SF FY 19-20
Base Fee
FY 22-23
Each
Additional
SF FY 22-23
49 - Modular Building - Complete
240 $ 125 $ 0.102 $ 129 $ 0.105
960 $ 198 $ 0.117 $ 204 $ 0.120
2,400 $ 366 $ 0.077 $ 377 $ 0.079
4,800 $ 550 $ 0.125 $ 566 $ 0.128
12,000 $ 1,449 $ 0.121 $ 1,490 $ 0.124
50 -
Manufactured Building -
Foundation
500 $ 125 $ 0.049 $ 129 $ 0.050
2,000 $ 198 $ 0.056 $ 204 $ 0.058
5,000 $ 366 $ 0.037 $ 377 $ 0.038
10,000 $ 550 $ 0.060 $ 566 $ 0.062
25,000 $ 1,449 $ 0.058 $ 1,490 $ 0.060
51 U Residential Garage
167 $ 251 $ 0.920 $ 259 $ 0.946
333 $ 405 $ 0.954 $ 416 $ 0.981
500 $ 564 $ 0.859 $ 580 $ 0.883
833 $ 850 $ 0.679 $ 874 $ 0.698
1,250 $ 1,133 $ 0.906 $ 1,165 $ 0.932
52 U Pool/Spa - Standard Plan
40 $ 242 $ 1.409 $ 249 $ 1.449
160 $ 412 $ 0.888 $ 423 $ 0.913
400 $ 625 $ 0.730 $ 642 $ 0.751
800 $ 917 $ 0.922 $ 943 $ 0.948
2,000 $ 2,023 $ 1.011 $ 2,080 $ 1.040
53 - Commercial Building - Remodel
200 $ 474 $ 0.598 $ 487 $ 0.614
800 $ 832 $ 0.253 $ 856 $ 0.260
2,000 $ 1,135 $ 0.252 $ 1,167 $ 0.259
4,000 $ 1,639 $ 0.253 $ 1,686 $ 0.260
10,000 $ 3,155 $ 0.315 $ 3,244 $ 0.324
54 - Commercial Building - Repair
200 $ 474 $ 0.598 $ 487 $ 0.614
800 $ 832 $ 0.253 $ 856 $ 0.260
2,000 $ 1,135 $ 0.252 $ 1,167 $ 0.259
4,000 $ 1,639 $ 0.253 $ 1,686 $ 0.260
10,000 $ 3,155 $ 0.315 $ 3,244 $ 0.324
55 U
Accessory Building -
Commercial
50 $ 150 $ 0.624 $ 154 $ 0.641
200 $ 244 $ 0.590 $ 250 $ 0.607
500 $ 421 $ 0.415 $ 432 $ 0.427
1,000 $ 628 $ 0.628 $ 646 $ 0.645
2,500 $ 1,569 $ 0.628 $ 1,614 $ 0.646
56 U Commercial Carport
50 $ 184 $ 0.804 $ 189 $ 0.827
200 $ 304 $ 0.639 $ 313 $ 0.657
500 $ 496 $ 0.476 $ 510 $ 0.489
1,000 $ 734 $ 0.667 $ 755 $ 0.686
2,500 $ 1,735 $ 0.694 $ 1,784 $ 0.714

City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

BUILDING INSPECTION

INSPECTION VARIABLE FEE SCHEDULE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
Fee
#
CBC
(ICC)
Use
Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 19-20
Each
Additional
SF FY 19-20
Base Fee
FY 22-23
Each
Additional
SF FY 22-23
57 R-3
Single-Family Residential -
Addition
167 $ 301 $ 1.082 $ 310 $ 1.113
333 $ 481 $ 1.109 $ 495 $ 1.141
500 $ 666 $ 0.988 $ 685 $ 1.016
833 $ 996 $ 0.806 $ 1,024 $ 0.829
1,250 $ 1,331 $ 1.065 $ 1,369 $ 1.095
58 R-2
Multi-Family Residential -
Addition
333 $ 794 $ 1.350 $ 816 $ 1.388
667 $ 1,244 $ 1.329 $ 1,279 $ 1.367
1,000 $ 1,687 $ 1.150 $ 1,734 $ 1.183
1,667 $ 2,453 $ 1.036 $ 2,523 $ 1.066
2,500 $ 3,317 $ 1.327 $ 3,411 $ 1.364
59 R-3
Single-Family Residential -
Remodel
333 $ 284 $ 0.517 $ 292 $ 0.532
667 $ 457 $ 0.524 $ 470 $ 0.539
1,000 $ 631 $ 0.474 $ 649 $ 0.487
1,667 $ 947 $ 0.383 $ 974 $ 0.394
2,500 $ 1,266 $ 0.506 $ 1,302 $ 0.521
60 R-2
Multi-Family Residential -
Remodel
667 $ 409 $ 0.360 $ 421 $ 0.370
1,333 $ 649 $ 0.362 $ 668 $ 0.372
2,000 $ 891 $ 0.319 $ 916 $ 0.328
3,333 $ 1,316 $ 0.272 $ 1,353 $ 0.280
5,000 $ 1,769 $ 0.354 $ 1,819 $ 0.364
61 R-3
Residential Building -
Foundation
333 $ 251 $ 0.460 $ 259 $ 0.473
667 $ 405 $ 0.477 $ 416 $ 0.490
1,000 $ 564 $ 0.430 $ 580 $ 0.442
1,667 $ 850 $ 0.340 $ 874 $ 0.349
2,500 $ 1,133 $ 0.453 $ 1,165 $ 0.466
62 U Accessory Building - Residential
83 $ 172 $ 1.326 $ 177 $ 1.363
167 $ 283 $ 1.407 $ 291 $ 1.447
250 $ 400 $ 1.299 $ 412 $ 1.336
417 $ 617 $ 0.958 $ 634 $ 0.985
625 $ 816 $ 1.306 $ 839 $ 1.343
63 U Residential Carport
133 $ 156 $ 0.769 $ 160 $ 0.791
267 $ 258 $ 0.812 $ 265 $ 0.835
400 $ 366 $ 0.757 $ 377 $ 0.778
667 $ 568 $ 0.545 $ 584 $ 0.560
1,000 $ 750 $ 0.750 $ 771 $ 0.771
64 U Residential Patio Cover
83 $ 156 $ 1.231 $ 160 $ 1.266
167 $ 258 $ 1.299 $ 265 $ 1.336
250 $ 366 $ 1.211 $ 377 $ 1.245
417 $ 568 $ 0.871 $ 584 $ 0.896
625 $ 750 $ 1.200 $ 771 $ 1.234

City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

BUILDING INSPECTION

INSPECTION VARIABLE FEE SCHEDULE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
Fee
#
CBC
(ICC)
Use
Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 19-20
Each
Additional
SF FY 19-20
Base Fee
FY 22-23
Each
Additional
SF FY 22-23
65 U Residential Balcony/Deck
83 $ 156 $ 1.231 $ 160 $ 1.266
167 $ 258 $ 1.299 $ 265 $ 1.336
250 $ 366 $ 1.211 $ 377 $ 1.245
417 $ 568 $ 0.871 $ 584 $ 0.896
625 $ 750 $ 1.200 $ 771 $ 1.234
66 U Residential Patio Enclosure
83 $ 156 $ 1.231 $ 160 $ 1.266
167 $ 258 $ 1.299 $ 265 $ 1.336
250 $ 366 $ 1.211 $ 377 $ 1.245
417 $ 568 $ 0.871 $ 584 $ 0.896
625 $ 750 $ 1.200 $ 771 $ 1.234

City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

RECREATION SERVICES
Fee Description
FY 2019-20
Fee
FY 2022-23
Fee
Copies, per page (Black and White) $ 0.20 $ 0.20
Park Facility Use Fees:

Park Event Fee (over 80 people) per use 255.00 262.00
Bounce House per use 26.00 27.00
Strother Park-Large Barbecue per use 103.00 106.00
Strother Park-Security Deposit per use 50.00 50.00
Strother Park-Small Barbecue per use 58.00 60.00
Strother Park-Security 1,2,3 per use 100.00 103.00
Strother Park Deposit per use 50.00 50.00
Elm Street Park-Barbecue per use 103.00 106.00
Elm Street Park-Security Deposit per use 50.00 50.00
Rancho Grande Park - Large BBQ per use 103.00 106.00
Rancho Grande Park - Small BBQ (areas 2 and 3) per use 58.00 60.00 Kingo Park per use 58.00 60.00
Kingo Park Deposit per use 50.00 50.00
Rotary Bandstand Fees:

Rent per use 124.00 128.00
Deposit per use 50.00 50.00
Soto Sports Complex Use Fees:

Campbell Field Rental Fee per hour 21.00 22.00
Campbell Field Rental Fee (with lights) per hour 47.00 48.00 Pilg Field Rental Fee per hour 21.00 22.00
Pilg Field Rental Fee (with lights) per hour 47.00 48.00 Santos Field Rental Fee per hour 21.00 22.00
Volunteer Field Rental Fee per hour 21.00 22.00
Volunteer Field with Lights Rental per hour 47.00 48.00 Ikeda Field Rental per hour 21.00 22.00
Ikeda Field with Lights Rental per hour 47.00 48.00
Porter Field Rental Fee per hour 27.00 28.00
Porter Field with Lights Rental per hour 56.00 58.00
Tennis Court Rental-1 court per hour 12.00 12.00
Tennis Courts - 4 courts per day 121.00 124.00
Pickleball Club - Annual Fee 110.00 110.00
Food Booth Rental Fee (Soto) per day 200.00 206.00
Food Vendor Space Rental Fee 15% of Gross 15% of Gross
Cleaning Deposit per use 325.00 325.00
Meeting Room Rental Fee (Jaycee room) per day 27.00 28.00 Field Prep Fees (except Porter) per prep 63.00 65.00
Field Prep Fees - Porter per prep 94.00 97.00
Tournament Sch. & Coordination Fee per tournament 89.00 92.00 Tournament Non-Refundable Booking Fee 302.00 311.00
Tournament Staff Attendant per hour 25.00 26.00

City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

RECREATION SERVICES
Fee Description
FY 2019-20
Fee
FY 2022-23
Fee
Soto Sports Complex Use Fees - APPROVED YOUTH GROUPS:

Field Rental (practice and league games) - each field per hour $ 3.00 $ 3.00 Field Rental (practice and league games) - each field (with lights) per hour 29.00 30.00 Concession Stand Fee - Buildings per hour 6.00 6.00
Concession Stand Fee - Mobile per hour 4.00 4.00
Non-resident - per participant 3.00 3.00
Fundraiser Event Fee 200.00 200.00
Woman's Club Use Fees:

Non-Resident Fee Mon-Thur, before 5 pm per hour 68.00 70.00 Partial day rental - Mon - Thurs, after 5 pm per hour 68.00 70.00 Full day rental - Friday, Saturday, or Sunday 752.00 773.00 Second day rental - Friday, Saturday or Sunday 376.00 387.00 Security Deposit (No Alcohol/No Band) 400.00 400.00
Security Deposit (with Alcohol) 1,000.00 1,000.00
Building Supervision Fee per hour 25.00 26.00
Rental Fee (on-going users):

Non-profit groups/Service clubs/Youth groups:
(20 or less attendees) per hour 4.00 4.00
(21 - 50 attendees) " 5.00 5.00
(51 or more attendees) " 6.00 6.00
Groups with reciprocal services " 4.00 4.00
Private groups or clubs: per hour
(20 or less attendees) " 13.00 13.00
(21 - 50 attendees) " 15.00 15.00
(51 or more attendees) " 16.00 16.00
Groups with reciprocal services " 7.00 7.00
For-profit groups per hour 36.00 37.00
Custodial Fee (special event rentals only) 150.00 150.00 Reservation Cancellation Fees:

If cancelled 30 days or more ahead of event 100.00 100.00 If cancelled less than 30 days ahead of event 200.00 200.00 Amenities Fees:

Chairs per chair 1.00 1.00
Tables per table 2.00 2.00
Audio/Visual system use per day 52.00 53.00
Community Garden Deposit 50.00 50.00
Community Garden Plot per 6 months 45.00 46.00

City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

RECREATION SERVICES
Fee Description
FY 2019-20
Fee
FY 2022-23
Fee
Mark M. Millis Community Center (formerly Elm Street Community Center) Use Fees:

Rental Fee per hour $ 41.00 $ 42.00
Rental Fee - full day per day 211.00 217.00
Building Supervision Fee per hour 25.00 26.00
Security deposit 200.00 200.00
Adult Sport League Fees:

Adult Softball 515.00 530.00
Adult Basketball 438.00 450.00
Non-Resident Fee 10.00 10.00
Pre-School Fees:

Annual Registration Fee per child 25.00 25.00
Play & Learn-Tues & Thur. per hour 6.00 6.00
Play & Learn-Mon, Wed & Fri. " 6.00 6.00
Kindergartens in Training " 6.00 6.00
Summer Play & Learn " 6.00 6.00
Late Pick-up Fees:

First late pick-up per child 5.00 5.00
Second late pick-up " 10.00 10.00
Third late pick-up " 20.00 20.00
Children In Motion Program:

Children In Motion Annual Registration per child 25.00 25.00 Branch School - Mornings
5 Days Per Week per 4 wks 143.00 147.00
4 Days Per Week " 121.00 124.00
3 Days Per Week " 97.00 100.00
2 Days Per Week " 68.00 70.00
Branch School - Afternoons
5 Days Per Week per 4 wks 261.00 268.00
4 Days Per Week " 223.00 229.00
3 Days Per Week " 178.00 183.00
2 Days Per Week " 125.00 129.00
Extra Day - Branch School
Morning per day 10.00 10.00
Afternoon " 17.00 17.00
Late Start Monday per day 5.00 5.00

City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

RECREATION SERVICES
Fee Description
FY 2019-20
Fee
FY 2022-23
Fee
Children In Motion Fees (continued):

Kindercare - Branch School
5 Days Per Week per 4 wks $ 285.00 $ 293.00
4 Days Per Week " 243.00 250.00
3 Days Per Week " 194.00 199.00
2 Days Per Week " 137.00 141.00
Extra Day per day 19.00 20.00
Ocean View School - Mornings
5 Days Per Week per 4 wks 143.00 147.00
4 Days Per Week " 121.00 124.00
3 Days Per Week " 97.00 100.00
2 Days Per Week " 68.00 70.00
Ocean View School - Afternoons
5 Days Per Week per 4 wks 285.00 293.00
4 Days Per Week " 243.00 250.00
3 Days Per Week " 194.00 199.00
2 Days Per Week " 137.00 141.00
Extra Day - Ocean View School
Morning per day 10.00 10.00
Afternoon " 19.00 20.00
Late Start Monday per day 5.00 5.00
Mark M. Millis Community Center (formerly Elm Community Center) - Afternoons Care Plan A 5 Days Per Week per 4 wks 166.00 171.00
4 Days Per Week " 142.00 146.00
3 Days Per Week " 113.00 116.00
2 Days Per Week " 80.00 82.00
Mark M. Millis Community Center (formerly Elm Community Center) - Afternoons Care Plan B 5 Days Per Week per 4 wks 428.00 440.00
4 Days Per Week " 364.00 374.00
3 Days Per Week " 291.00 299.00
2 Days Per Week " 205.00 211.00
Winter/Spring/Summer - Full Day
5 Days Per Week per week 215.00 221.00
4 Days Per Week " 182.00 187.00
3 Days Per Week " 151.00 155.00
Minimum Days (teacher work day/early release)
Regular day of attendance per day 13.00 13.00
Non-regular day of attendance " 23.00 24.00

City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

RECREATION SERVICES
Fee Description
FY 2019-20
Fee
FY 2022-23
Fee
Children In Motion Fees (continued):

Late Pick-up Fees:

Children in Motion is open until 6:00 pm. Additional fees apply for children picked up after 6:00 Pickup 6:01 - 6:15 pm per child $ 10.00 $ 10.00
Pickup 6:16 - 6:30 pm " 20.00 20.00
Pickup 6:31 - 6:45 pm " 30.00 30.00

City of Arroyo Grande

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2022-23

PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES
Fee Description FY 2019-20 Fee FY 2022-23 Fee
LABOR COSTS (per hour):

DURING REGULAR WORK HOURS:

Full Time employee $ 74.41 $ 74.61
Part Time employee 24.58 25.13
AFTER REGULAR WORK HOURS:

Full Time employee 111.61 111.92
Part Time employee 36.87 37.70

MINIMUM CALL-OUT RATE
2 hours at 1.5
times billing rate
2 hours at 1.5
times billing rate
EQUIPMENT BILLING RATE (per hour)
Pickup Truck 17.00 17.00
Service Truck 42.00 42.00
Backhoe 43.00 43.00
CAT Generator 82.00 82.00
Loader 50.00 50.00
6" Pump 23.00 23.00
Dump/Flat Bed Truck (5-7 yds) 36.00 36.00
Sewer/Vacuum/Jet Truck 125.00 125.00
Chipper 44.00 44.00
Concrete Saw 10.00 10.00
Air Compressor 17.00 17.00
5-Ton Roller 30.00 30.00
Mini Excavator 60.00 60.00
Skid Steer 50.00 50.00
MATERIAL COST: (cost plus tax)
Concrete (per yard) 195.00 195.00
Sand (per ton) 25.00 25.00
Class II Base (per ton) 30.00 30.00
A/C (per ton) 100.00 100.00

ATTACHMENT 2

Item 10.a.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Brian Pedrotti, Community Development Director
BY: Patrick Holub, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: Consider Potential Permanent Parklet Program
DATE: April 12, 2022
SUMMARY OF ACTION:

Receive an update on the City’s temporary parklet program and provide direction to staff regarding the draft permanent parklet program.

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

Staff time from both the Community Development Department and the City Attorney will be required to draft any future ordinance changes. Costs to support a permanent parklet program include in-house and/or contractual services for manual street sweeping, barrier adjustments, inspection and maintenance, and general program administration.

Currently, there are a total of fourteen existing parking spaces displaced. It is recommended that parklet applicants fully cover the costs of the permanent parklets.

These costs are listed under “Analysis of Issues,” and may be offset include permitting fees, rental costs associated with the loss of City property, and rental fees for physical barriers.

RECOMMENDATION:

Consider and provide direction to staff regarding the draft parklet program.

BACKGROUND:

The COVID-19 pandemic that began in 2020 created a public health crisis and unprecedented economic impacts throughout the country, State, and at the local level. In the City of Arroyo Grande (City), local businesses have been economically impacted by this public health emergency, especially restaurants, hotels, and retail establishments.

This created both a significant challenge for the City - with an urgent need to support both public health and economic recovery of local businesses - as well as a unique opportunity to re-imagine how the City’s public right-of-way can be utilized to improve long-term community vibrancy and economic vitality.

Item 10.a.

City Council
Consider Potential Permanent Parklet Program
April 12, 2022

In response to the initial COVID-19 reopening process, the City adopted a resolution on June 23, 2020, authorizing the Community Development Director to waive application fees for encroachment permits and Minor Use Permits/Temporary Use Permits for restaurants that were seeking additional outdoor dining space.

Starting in July of 2020, the City facilitated the installation of five temporary parklets for eight individual businesses in the Village. All of these parklets remain in use today. About eight other businesses, both in the Village and in other City commercial areas, took advantage of the opportunity to expand outdoor dining within private parking lots, including restaurants that utilized temporary barricades (concrete K-rail) provided by the City and installed at the City’s expense, in order to remain in business outdoors. Most of the temporary barriers used to provide outdoor dining space in parking lots outside of the Village area have been removed. The only temporary street closure that remains in effect is the closure of Short Street between Branch Street and Olohan Alley, which will be evaluated and presented to the Council as a separate future item. Attachment 1 includes a map of the parklets installed during the temporary program. Existing parklets within the Village displace a total of fourteen (14) parking spaces, which include partial spaces that can only support smaller vehicles. There are a total of sixty-one (61) on-street parking spaces along East and West Branch Streets in the Village. The parking spaces lost to parklets currently account for approximately twenty-three percent (23%) of the on-street parking in the Village. Attachment 2 includes photos of the existing parklets.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

Parklet Study Session
On November 23, 2021, the City Council held a study session on the status of the temporary parklet program and discussed the potential for a permanent parklet program.

Council expressed concerns with various aspects of parklets, including the number, their proximity to each other, the safety of users, the amount of staff time dedicated to a permanent program, their consistency with the historic downtown, design of the parklets, and costs. Council directed staff to return with the framework of a program that evaluated and provided recommendations on the following issues:
 Associated costs for application, rent, encroachment, and in-lieu parking;  Safety considerations;
 Suggested design standards;
 A cap on the number of parklets;
 A proposed proximity between parklets;
 Eligibility; and
 Application and notification procedures.

Costs and Safety Considerations
It is recommended that parklet applicants fully cover the costs of the permanent parklets, which utilize public space to support private business operations. Costs involved include:
permitting fees; rental costs associated with the loss of City property; and the rental costs

Item 10.a.

City Council
Consider Potential Permanent Parklet Program
April 12, 2022

associated with the physical barriers situated between the parklet and the roadway that ensure safety of all parklet users.

In determining the rental costs to the City for the loss of on-street parking spaces, staff has reviewed information created by nearby jurisdictions. The Cities of Paso Robles and San Luis Obispo both have done research for the purpose of determining rental costs for the lost parking spaces from parklets. The City of Paso Robles indicated in a September 7, 2021 staff report that each of its downtown parking spaces generated $1,500-$1,600 in revenue based upon the total tax generation of the downtown businesses divided by the number of lost parking spaces. The City of San Luis Obispo indicated in a July 20, 2021 staff report that the expected cost for each parklet was $5,000-$6,000 annually. Of this figure, $3,500 is the expected lost revenue from the City’s paid parking areas and the remaining expected cost includes costs for manual street sweeping; inspection and maintenance; and general program administration. Although different conditions exist within Arroyo Grande, City staff believes that rental costs for the use of parking spaces in the Village should be relatively consistent with these figures.

As an alternative means to calculate the rental cost per parking space lost, the City’s onetime Downtown Parking In-Lieu Fee could be referenced. Established by Resolution 3994, the City’s current parking in-lieu fee in the Village is $24,000 per space and is a cost paid by applicants unable to provide the required parking for their proposed use of a property. With no other reference point for parking revenue such as parking meter collection, staff has proposed a rate of five percent (5%) annually as commensurate with the tax generation cited in other nearby cities, resulting in a per-space cost of $1,200 per year. Staff has identified this fee to be a reasonable monthly rental amount but would like feedback from Council as to the appropriateness of this amount.

An additional comparison for rental cost considerations may be made to the existing lease agreement between the City and the owner of the Gina’s restaurant property. The outdoor patio area of the restaurant is within City owned property and the City currently receives $95 per month for the use of that space, which is approximately 275 square feet. This amounts to $0.35 per square foot. Parklets could be charged a similar cost per square foot as rent for use of the City’s right of way. However, important differences exist between Gina’s restaurant use of City property that would likely be otherwise used for pedestrians or landscape versus use of parking spaces that serve patrons of Village businesses. In other words, the loss of parking may add an additional consideration for the calculation of rental costs.

Based on the information collected and described above, staff has identified a potential rental fee amount in Table 1 below of $100 per month ($1,200/year). This amount was selected for discussion purposes and represents the monthly cost for the City to collect five percent (5%) of the parking in-lieu fee for each space annually.

Item 10.a.

City Council
Consider Potential Permanent Parklet Program
April 12, 2022

The safety of parklet users and vehicles on Branch Street (there are portions of East and West Branch Street in the Village) is a primary concern for City staff, and was highlighted in the study session by the City Council. In contrast with other local cities streets that contain parklets, Branch Street was designated as State Highway 227 until 2008 and remains a truck route with a fairly narrow travel way with heavy truck and agricultural equipment traffic. The narrow road way width places patrons in close proximity to traffic.

Public Safety and Public Works staff have seen traffic incidents with vehicles hitting the k-rail barriers, along with evidence of tire marks at two locations that are a result of side swipes. Considering these factors, if a permanent parklet program is established, proper barriers and their location/design will be critical to increase the safety of outdoor diners, moving vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.

City staff have conducted a preliminary investigation regarding permanent safety barriers that could replace the existing rented k-rails that provide a vehicle barrier between the travel lanes and the parklet. One company, Bertleson Precast, manufactures a concrete safety barrier that measures ninety-six inches (96”) in length, twenty-four inches (24”) wide and thirty-five inches (35”) in height. In order to replace the existing rented k-rails, staff has determined the need to purchase approximately twenty (20) or thirty (30) of these barriers. The manufacturer indicated a cost of approximately three thousand dollars ($3,000) per barrier for this quantity of barriers. Staff recommends that the City purchase each of the necessary safety barriers dedicated for the entire permanent parklet program.

This would amount to a total initial cost to the City of at least $60,000-$90,000 to purchase the barriers. Additional costs would be incurred for transportation and installation of the barriers, which have not been calculated by staff at this time.

With an average parklet encompassing two parking spaces, a total of six (6) barriers would be needed to provide adequate protection for patrons of the parklet, amounting to at least $18,000 per parklet. Because of the large up-front cost associated with purchasing the barriers, and because the City would own and retain the barriers following purchase, staff would recommend renting the barriers to parklet owners in an amount that would enable the City to recoup its costs over a reasonable period of time. The per-barrier rental fee, if set at an annual percentage rate of twenty percent (20%) of the overall cost to purchase, would be six hundred dollars ($600) per barrier per year. This would bring the total annual cost to rent the necessary number of safety barriers for an average parklet to three thousand six hundred dollars ($3,600) per year. While there are other solutions to ensure the safety of the public, these barriers provide a more decorative appearance than the existing k-rails and can be customized if desired while also providing as much safety as possible to the parklet patrons.

In addition to the costs for renting the parking spaces and protecting them with the adequate number of safety barriers, applicants will need to cover the costs for permitting the intended use. A one-time approval of a Minor Use Permit – Plot Plan Review (PPR) will allow staff to verify that the minimum requirements are met to be eligible for a permanent parklet. The application fee for a PPR is currently $735.

Item 10.a.

City Council
Consider Potential Permanent Parklet Program
April 12, 2022

Furthermore, parklet permit holders will be required to maintain a valid Right of Way (ROW) Permit, also known as an Encroachment Permit. Approval of a monthly ROW permit will allow the City to receive proof of liability coverage that provides both bodily injury and property damage insurance with the City added as additionally insured, as well as an indemnification requirement. The liability coverage shall be in an amount no less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) and include a CG 2012 (or approved equivalent) additional insured endorsement attached to it.

Table 1 below shows an itemized list of potential annual costs as well as one-time costs to participate in the permanent parklet program.

Table 1

Item 10.a.

City Council
Consider Potential Permanent Parklet Program
April 12, 2022

Table 1
* The identified Encroachment Permit fee represents a new fee category for small projects that do not require as much staff time and resources for processing as Standard projects but require more resources than Minor projects. This new fee category is being proposed in a different agenda item to update operating fees set forth in the Master Fee Schedule.
**Total annual and monthly costs assume two parking spaces per parklet and six safety barriers per parklet.

Performance Standards & Design Standards
The City’s previous temporary parklet program included performance standards aimed at ensuring compliance with ADA standards. With the consideration of a permanent parklet program, staff is proposing to implement a series of performance standards, including ADA compliance and design standards that would address safety considerations and the aesthetic character of the parklets. If the Council ultimately approves a permanent parklet program, staff would process amendments to the Municipal Code to incorporate any approved performance standards.

Staff also encourages the permanent parklet program to utilize a consistent looking physical security barrier. The dimensions of the security barriers should all be uniform throughout the City. Furthermore, staff recommends that no visual obstructions be placed on or above these barriers to ensure a consistent appearance as well as to facilitate traffic and pedestrian safety by removing visual distractions and obstructions.

In addition to the size and location of the barriers, staff is recommending that the materials chosen for the interior of the parklets (e.g. decking, shade structures, etc.) are consistent throughout the parklet program and that these materials are in keeping with the character of the Village. The Village Design Guidelines specify that “all new projects shall use materials that fit within the character of the Village. Using similar materials or replicating these materials on all projects and restorations will extend the existing character extended throughout the Village” (Attachment 3). The Guidelines go on to recommend the use of

ITEM COST FREQUENCY ANNUAL TOTAL
Annual Cost
Encroachment Permit* $180 Per Month $2,160
Parking Space Rent $100 Per Month $1,200
(Per Space) (Per Space)
Safety Barrier Rent $50 Per Month $600
(Per Barrier) (Per Barrier)
Total -- Monthly Costs** $680
Total – Annual Costs** $8,160
One-Time Costs
Minor Use Permit – Plot
Plan Review $735 One-Time $735
Total -- One-Time Costs $735

Item 10.a.

City Council
Consider Potential Permanent Parklet Program
April 12, 2022

materials such as: weatherboard or clapboard siding; cement plaster; yellow indigenous sandstone; and brick and stone block. The typical existing character of the buildings in the Village Core are brick and stone masonry construction and any permanent parklets should complement these building materials and contribute to the overall character of the Village.

Based on these considerations, staff has included the following performance standards, including parklet design, for consideration and discussion by Council:

Parklet Location

1. A parklet shall only be located in designated on-street parking areas.

2. A parklet shall not block sight distance of motorists at intersections or driveways.

Accordingly, a parklet may not be located less than 25 feet from a roadway intersection or adjacent driveway or other points of off-street access which require line of sight standards as required by the Public Works Department. The final location of a parklet will vary based on the proposed parklet design, and shall be subject to review and approval.

3. Parklets are prohibited in disabled and no-parking zones.

4. A parklet may not cover or impede access to any utility equipment, utility pole, fire hydrant, parking permit kiosk, or utility access such as manhole covers, drainage inlets, and equipment shelters.

Parklet Design

5. Parklets shall be no more than two parking spaces, or 20-feet in length.

6. A parklet’s walls or railing shall not have a continuous height that exceeds 42 inches and shall not block views in or out of the parklet. Columns or other vertical framing for overhead elements are permitted. All elements of a parklet shall have a maximum height limit of 10-foot.

7. The depth (dimension measured perpendicular to curb) of a parklet shall be no less than the minimum dimension required to meet ADA accessibility requirements. Portions of the required parklet depth may be located within an existing sidewalk area as long as the sidewalk encroachment does not reduce the pedestrian path of travel to a width of less than 4.5 feet in the public right of way.

8. A parklet shall include an element of the parklet enclosure that addresses public safety and provides a barrier or fortified railing between moving vehicles and parklet users.

9. Parklets shall have a flush transition at the sidewalk and curb to permit easy access and avoid tripping hazards.

10.A parklet shall comply with applicable Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility standards. Compliance with ADA standards is required with respect to design elements of the parklet, as well as for adjacent areas that may be impacted by the parklet. Parklets shall use a slip-resistant surface to minimize hazards and should be accessible to wheel-chair users.

Item 10.a.

City Council
Consider Potential Permanent Parklet Program
April 12, 2022

11.The four corners of a parklet shall have a reflective element or other clearly visible design feature, such as a soft-hit post, bollard, or raised pavement marker, to illuminate the parklet at night and signify the parklet envelope.

12.Parklets shall be consistent with the Village Design Guidelines.

13.The primary materials shall be stone, brick, wood, or composite wood. Wood materials such as lattice and T1-11 plywood siding, are prohibited.

14.Color schemes shall consist of one primary color and one secondary color, at a minimum.

15.Areas for the storage of trash, recycling, and green waste receptacles shall not be visible from the public right of way and all waste receptacles shall be emptied and maintained by the applicant in a neat and sanitary order.

Staff will continue to evaluate additional appropriate design criteria to ensure design consistency between individual parklets as part of any parklet program. Council may wish to provide staff with additional direction regarding performance standards for permanent parklets. If staff is directed to pursue a permanent parklet program, the City’s Architectural Review Committee will be consulted to help develop the design standards that will apply to permanent parklets.

Proximity and Density
The current placement of the parklets allows for adequate on-street parking between each of the parklets, which leaves available parking spaces for customers who wish to park on Branch Street or for those who are patronizing businesses that do not have a parklet.

Staff recommends that a future permanent parklet program include distancing requirements that prevent entire portions of the on-street parking from being made inaccessible. A suggested distance is approximately five parking spaces, or ninety (90) feet, which would provide adequate separation to ensure that an individual business is not overly impacted by a reduction in their business frontage. This distance between parklets should only be measured on the same side of the street.

In addition to spacing requirements, staff is recommending an overall cap on the number of allowable parklets under a potential future permanent parklet program based upon the overall percentage of available on-street parking within the Village. Of the sixty-one (61) on-street parking spaces in the Village, staff recommends that no more than fifteen (15) of them be occupied by a permanent parklet to ensure availability of parking for all Village users. A permanent parklet program with this many encumbered parking spaces would account for approximately twenty-five percent (25%) of the available on-street parking spaces within the Village.

Eligible Uses
Staff recommends that permanent parklets be limited strictly to restaurant and dining uses. The economic benefits of parklets noted in the study session and survey were generally identified as creating a vibrant and pedestrian-friendly atmosphere, making Branch Street more active and inviting. Staff is concerned that extending parklet use to

Item 10.a.

City Council
Consider Potential Permanent Parklet Program
April 12, 2022

retail or other non-dining establishments would potentially create a cluttered appearance and the proliferation of obstructions in the sidewalk area, would be inconsistent with the intent of the Village Historic Overlay District, and would not achieve the benefits identified by the Council and the public.

Permit Process
For parklets to remain in place permanently, it is recommended that applicants be required to obtain a Minor Use Permit – Plot Plan Review, which is a permit process consistent with other similar uses in the Municipal Code, to ensure that the parklet’s placement will not have unintended consequences on neighboring businesses and property owners and will not contribute to a loss of parking that could have negative effects on the rest of the Village. There is a one-time fee of $735.00 to apply for a Plot Plan Review and this permit type is an administrative approval reviewed by the Community Development Director.

In addition to the need for the approval of a Minor Use Permit, parklet owners will also need to obtain an encroachment permit to ensure liability within the parklet is transferred from the City to the business owner. City staff is in the process of developing a new encroachment permit category (Encroachment Permit – Small Size) that will be applied in situations that do not require as much staff time and resources for processing as Standard projects but require more resources than Minor projects, such as installation of concrete sidewalk panels, drive approaches, and replacement of existing curb and gutters at single family residences. This prospective fee will be presented to Council in a different agenda item with the City’s updated Master Fee Schedule. If approved, this fee would total $180 per month and would become effective as of June 13, 2022. These costs would account for the staff time required to inspect the parklets, ensure that they are creating life safety concerns and the administrative time required to process each application. The City will require that the business owners provide the City with a Certificate of Liability that covers the City in the event of any damage to City property or injury occurring within the parklet area.

As a comparison, the cost of a standard encroachment permit is $698 for each month that the encroachment occurs. Alternatively, the City offers a minor encroachment permit, which costs $57 monthly. This minor encroachment permit type is generally reserved for items such as storage containers or dumpsters parked temporarily within the right of way.

These minor permits are typically used in situations where little to no staff time is required to oversee the encroachment.

Notification and Appeal
Minor Use Permits require notification of administrative approval to the Planning Commission per AGMC 16.12.155. As part of this notification process, any decision made by the Community Development Director is appealable to the Planning Commission by any member of the public. Additionally, the Planning Commission may also choose to appeal such a decision with a simple consensus among them.

Item 10.a.

City Council
Consider Potential Permanent Parklet Program
April 12, 2022

In addition to the typical notification procedures for Minor Use Permit approvals, if the parklet program is extended on a permanent basis, staff will notify Village business owners of this change.

Expiration/Termination
The economic and social benefits of a permanent parklet program such as increased downtown vibrancy and activity, which were expressed in the community survey conducted in 2021, rely on the continuous use and maintenance of parklets. Further, having underutilized structures in the Village could have the potential to create a cluttered atmosphere. To ensure that parklet structures are not sitting vacant for long periods of time, staff has recommended that approval of parklets run with the approved business operator, with the use permit terminating when such business operator vacates the premises adjoining the parklet. In addition, in the Municipal Code includes revocation procedures for Minor Use Permits in the case of non-compliance with performance standards or lack of use of the parklet. These expiration provisions would be included in the Development Code amendments that will be necessary to complete a permanent parklet program.

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:

1. Direct staff to remove existing parklets and end the Temporary Parklet Program;

2. Provide direction to staff on the draft Permanent Parklet program, and direct staff to:
a. Draft a final program with associated ordinance amendments; b. Schedule ARC review of design standards;
c. Schedule Planning Commission review of the program and Municipal Code amendments; and
d. Schedule City Council hearing with a finalized program.

3. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

Continued public discussion of a potential permanent parklet program provides an opportunity to evaluate impacts and opportunities of such amenities.

DISADVANTAGES:

No disadvantages are identified relating to having a public discussion about potential permanent parklets.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This study session itself does not constitute a “Project” under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378.

Item 10.a.

City Council
Consider Potential Permanent Parklet Program
April 12, 2022

Parklets in some form of permanent continuation would be categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) because the actions are limited to permitting, leasing, and minor alteration of existing public facilities. However, staff will carefully evaluate any activities considered for continuation and conduct the appropriate level of project specific CEQA review prior to returning to Council with any permanent program or policy proposals.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2.

Attachments:

1. Parklet Map

2. Parklet Photos

3. Village Design Guidelines Excerpt

4. Correspondence

5. Draft Parklet Program

6. Safety Barrier Images

ATTACHMENT 1

Attachment 2
Parklet Photos
Rooster Creek
Café Andreini

Villa Cantina
Humdingers/Village Café/Doc Bernstein

C ITY OF A RROYO G RANDE G UIDELINES & S TANDARDS FOR H ISTORIC D ISTRICTS

CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
This section provides examples of the most
commonly found building materials used in
the Village area of Arroyo Grande. There
are also examples of construction materials
under the Village Core and the Residential
sections specific to those areas.

All new projects shall use materials that fit
within the character of the Village (see
following examples). Using similar
materials or replicating these materials on
all projects and restorations will extend the
existing character extended throughout the
Village.

All restorations shall use materials that
match or complement the original structure
facilitating compatibility and preservation of
its character.

WEATHERBOARD OR CLAPBOARD

WOOD SIDING
Most of the original housing and a few of
the commercial buildings used horizontal
wood siding or vertical board and batten for
the exterior walls and trim of the buildings.

Wood siding gives the buildings a sense of
historic character, adding detail and texture.

CEMENT PLASTER
Cement plaster (including stucco) is not as
common as wood or brick, however some of
the commercial and residential buildings
within the Village have plaster exteriors.

Cement plaster buildings require detailing
that gives them a historic “Village” feel.

Buildings with plain plaster walls and no
ornamentation are not appropriate for The
Village.

YELLOW INDIGENOUS SANDSTONE
This type of stone is used on the old
I.O.O.F. Hall on Bridge Street and the Old
Brisco Hotel on East Branch Street. It is a
golden stone that is shaped in large irregular
chunks. The color of this natural stone adds
a warm variety and individuality to the area.
20 ATTACHMENT 3

C ITY OF A RROYO G RANDE G UIDELINES & S TANDARDS FOR H ISTORIC D ISTRICTS

BRICK AND STONE BLOCK
Brick and stone blocks are most common on
commercial buildings in the Village. Brick
is an old construction material that was used
in the late 1800s and early 1900s when the
bulk of the historic commercial buildings in
Arroyo Grande Village were built. The use
of exposed plain concrete block is not
permitted in the Historic Village Core
District.

WINDOW SASHES AND DOOR FRAMES
Doors should be made of wood or a material
that resembles an older style wooden door.

For commercial areas, large industrial style
glass doors and windows with metal frames
are not appropriate. Doors with wood trim
and windows with wood framing should be
used. Aluminum and other frames that have
a modern metal look are not appropriate for
the Village.
21

C ITY OF A RROYO G RANDE G UIDELINES & S TANDARDS FOR H ISTORIC D ISTRICTS

VILLAGE CORE DOWNTOWN
(VCD)
This section of the Guidelines and Standards
applies to all parcels in the Village Core
Downtown area and may also be applicable
within Community Facilities (including
Public Facilities and Parks), and Mixed Use
districts as shown on the Design Overlay
District Map.

An objective of the Village Core Downtown
area is to enhance and maintain a compact,
active street frontage with commercial uses
that attract pedestrians. A visual continuity
should be maintained through site design
and compatibility of scale and materials.

MIXED USES WITHIN THE DISTRICT
There are properties within the Village Core,
Mixed Use and Community Facilities
overlay districts that have residential
architectural styles, and are currently being
used as stores, shops, residences, or offices.

In order to preserve and enhance mixed use,
the character of any new building or
renovation shall be consistent with the
surrounding area.

EXISTING CHARACTER
Many of the Downtown district historic
commercial buildings were erected in the
period from 1885 to 1910, and represent a
variety of architectural styles. Although
building material and detail differ, there are
definite patterns that should be respected
and incorporated into new development and
renovation. Common elements of design
include façade height and structure, strong
pedestrian orientation, and attention to
ornamentation.

Similarity in Height, Mass and Scale
Most buildings are one or two stories high
and range from about eighteen to thirty feet
in height. The majority of the buildings in
the Village on Branch Street between Traffic
Way and Mason Street are also narrow as
well, which emphasizes their vertical
character.

The most common façade design is two
stories high, although some buildings use a
“false front” to achieve the impression of
height. This façade treatment, when used on
a relatively narrow building, stresses the
strong vertical elements in the structure and
creates an impressive image.

Buildings are also made to appear larger by
creating a series of attached facades, linking
several smaller structures to create the
appearance of one large building. These
techniques lead to a more impressive
appearance without losing pedestrian scale
or blocking views and light.
28

C ITY OF A RROYO G RANDE G UIDELINES & S TANDARDS FOR H ISTORIC D ISTRICTS Similarity of Material
Brick and stone masonry construction is
common, especially along Branch and
Bridge Streets. Although some exteriors
have been painted, such as the Olohan
Building, the buildings retain many
architectural details of “brick front”
construction. This was one of the most
popular storefront types of vernacular
design, and incorporated commercial
establishments on the ground floor with
storage, offices or living quarters on the
second level. An unusual vernacular style
that uses locally quarried yellow stone is
also found in the Village Downtown
district. The unifying element is the stone
itself, which calls for simplicity of
construction and ornamentation, but the
buildings using this material vary
significantly in design. Another common
material is wood siding, especially
clapboard or weatherboard.

Sense of Experimentation
Although similar architectural styles are
evident, and many elements are common,
there is no one predominant architectural
style, and elements are often combined in
creative ways. The historic character,
however, is maintained.

Pedestrian Orientation
Most commercial buildings have large
display windows and a main entrance that
faces the street, oriented to pedestrian
traffic. There is no setback from the
sidewalk, and buildings are generally
designed and detailed to human scale,
contributing to an atmosphere where
pedestrians feel comfortable.

Variety in Building Form
There is sufficient variety in height, mass,
scale and proportion to create visual interest
in the Village Core Downtown Area. There
is also a mixture of uses that includes retail
establishments, cafes, restaurants and
offices, often within the same block.

DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
Mixed Use Projects Within the Village
Core Downtown
Mixed use projects within the Village Core
Downtown shall be predominantly
commercial in character. Upper story
residential and office uses designed to be
compatible with ground floor retail uses are
appropriate. Design of mixed use projects
shall not impede pedestrian flow or disrupt
concentration of retail, cultural and
entertainment uses.

The following building elements shall
NEITHER overpower the project or
detract from the visual continuity of the
streetscape or neighborhood NOR
produce redundancy in feature or pattern
that is discordant with the historic
character of the district:
• Building scale
• Building form
• Building façade
• Building entrance
• Roofline
• Fencing, rails or trellis
• Archways, columns or towers
• Doors and windows
• Signage or feature designed for sign
placement
• Colors
29

C ITY OF A RROYO G RANDE G UIDELINES & S TANDARDS FOR H ISTORIC D ISTRICTS Site Design

1. All new projects or renovations shall
adhere to the site development standards
of the Development Code.

2. The existing front setbacks of zero to
fifteen feet (0’ to 15’) shall be required
with main entries facing the street. A
majority of the building frontage shall
face the street and incorporate design
features oriented to the pedestrian.

3. Streetscape improvements shall
complement the existing design
sidewalk paving, lighting schemes and
street furniture within the district.

4. All enclosures for service areas, trash or
recycling containers shall be designed as
part of the overall project or building.

Materials, textures and colors should be
consistent with those of the proposed
project and compatible with adjacent
buildings.

5. Landscaping shall retain existing trees
and plants as much as possible. Street
trees and sidewalk planters shall be
incorporated where feasible and
pedestrian circulation will not be
obstructed. (Streetscape elements
within the public right-of-way, require
an Encroachment Permit from the Public
Works Department.) Landscaping in
parking areas shall conform to the
requirements of Title 16 of the
Municipal Code (Development Code).

Building Design

1. The height of new buildings shall not
exceed development standards allowed
in Title 16 of the Municipal Code. Scale
and massing of any building within this
area shall be consistent with that of the
neighboring buildings, as described
above in “Similarity in Height, Scale
and Massing”.

2. The existing pattern of building façades
shall be incorporated into new
development projects. Dominant façade
designs incorporate either brick front
elements or parapet features. Roof
patterns generally associated with
residential buildings such as gable, hip
or gambrel are generally not appropriate
for commercial building frontages in the
Village Core Downtown District.

3. For retail commercial buildings, display
windows should complement the design
of surrounding historic buildings and
shall be oriented to pedestrian traffic.

4. Transoms are common over display
windows, and were used for light and
ventilation. When possible, transoms
should be incorporated into new
building design, and existing transoms
should be used in building renovations.

5. New construction should include
elements such as cladding, roof structure
and ornamentation common to the
district. All new projects shall use
materials – including roof materials –
that fit within the character of the
Village Core Downtown district. By
using similar materials or replicating
these materials on all projects and
restorations, the existing character will
be reinforced and extended.

6. Decorative fixtures, including awnings,
signs, and lighting, shall be integrated
with other design elements of the
structures.

Construction Materials

1. Brick and stone masonry are the most
common façade materials used on
historic character structures in the
Village Core Downtown district, and are
acceptable façade materials. Some
brickwork has been painted, and this is
consistent with design style of the 1870-
1939 period.
30

C ITY OF A RROYO G RANDE G UIDELINES & S TANDARDS FOR H ISTORIC D ISTRICTS Other acceptable façade materials
include yellow sandstone (such as that
on the I.O.O.F. building), and wood
cladding. Wood cladding shall be of
painted clapboard, painted
weatherboard, or board and batten
styles.

Materials of similar design, color and
texture may be considered. Smooth
plywood panels are not appropriate
unless detailed for the historic period.

2. Window sashes shall be of wood or
painted steel, and consistent with the
historic period. Materials that
approximate the appearance of original
materials may be substituted subject to
the approval of the Architectural Review
Committee, but unfinished aluminum is
not allowed.

3. Door materials were traditionally wood
panel and glass, either single or double.

New or replacement doors shall be
wood or an approved substitute material
that approximates the appearance of
original materials. Aluminum entry
doors with large glass panels are
inappropriate for the Village Core
Downtown District.

4. Original decorative details should be
retained during renovation. If the
original materials have deteriorated and
must be removed, they shall be replaced
with materials that match as closely as
possible the original in design, color,
and texture.

5. Reflective glass is not appropriate in the
Village Core Downtown District.

Stained glass may be used as an accent
material if it is consistent with the
historic period of the building.

Building colors

1. The number of colors used on a building
should be kept to a minimum.

2. While bright colors may be used for
limited accent, their use is subject to
review by the Architectural Review
Committee (ARC).

3. Color samples shall be submitted as part
of Plot Plan Review or Conditional Use
Permit process.

4. The use of fluorescent, “neon” or “dayglo” colors on building facades is not appropriate, historic base colors should
be used instead.

5. Accent colors used for ornamentation,
awnings, dentils, friezes or other details
shall harmonize with the predominant
building color.

6. Color palettes shall complement the
majority of the neighboring buildings
and be consistent with the historic
period.
31

From: Jessica Matson
To: Brian Pedrotti; Patrick Holub
Cc: Bill Robeson
Subject: FW: Parklets
Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 2:14:29 PM
Attachments: emaillogo 190eb98f-3dbf-4ac8-a0d6-5f778ed0ba4d1111111111111111111111111111111111111.png Please see below to consider including with the staff report.

Thanks,
Jessica Matson, CMC
Director of Legislative & Information Services/City Clerk Legislative and Information Services, City of Arroyo Grande Tel: 805-473-5418 | www.arroyogrande.org
300 E. Branch St | Arroyo Grande | CA | 93420
City Hall Business Hours: M-Th 8:00 am - 5:00 pm; Closed Fridays The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email or phone and delete the message. Please note that email correspondence with the City of Arroyo Grande, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt by law.

From: Caren Ray Russom
Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 1:41 PM
To: Jessica Matson <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Parklets
Hi JessicaCan you please receive the email below as public comment for the parklet item? Also, please forward to Council. I have already responded to her and thanked her under separate cover.

Yours in service,
Caren
Caren Ray Russom
Mayor, City of Arroyo Grande
[email protected]
Tel: 805-473-5400 | www.arroyogrande.org
ATTACHMENT 4

300 E. Branch St | Arroyo Grande | CA | 93420
From: Laura Jeffrey < >
Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 1:10 PM
To: Caren Ray Russom
Subject: Parklets
Hi Caren,
Thank you for seeking out opinions on the parklets. I would much prefer to have the street parking back for our customers, and tenets. With few spaces now available, and the one-lot paid parking, my preference would be to go back to the way it was.

It is obvious that some businesses benefit, but others are possibly losing business due to the difficulty parking and maneuvering around the barriers.

The restaurants did receive monies to help during COVID which I am grateful for, however, now we are back to pre-pandemic days. The business was aware of the space they are paying for, and it seem inequitable to give them additional footage where others don't have that use.

Kind regards,
Laura Jeffrey
Certified Sommelier
WSET Certified
Owner | https://link.edgepilot.com/s/082385d9/FT6n-hPrZkqb6bOHcFILUQ?u=http://www.101winetours.com/ https://link.edgepilot.com/s/f98f0167/8Id8xbNq60WStwAvlwMXhg?u=http://www.facebook.com/101winetours Instagram/Twitter: @101winetours
5 Star Reviews on Trip Advisor & Yelp!
Links contained in this email have been replaced. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to

proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning.

From: Jessica Matson
To: Brian Pedrotti
Cc: Patrick Holub
Subject: FW: AG parklets
Date: Thursday, April 7, 2022 11:57:40 AM
Attachments: emaillogo 190eb98f-3dbf-4ac8-a0d6-5f778ed0ba4d1111111111111111111111111111111111111.png Importance: High
Please see below for possible addition to the Parklets staff report.

Thanks
Jessica Matson, CMC
Director of Legislative & Information Services/City Clerk Legislative and Information Services, City of Arroyo Grande Tel: 805-473-5418 | www.arroyogrande.org
300 E. Branch St | Arroyo Grande | CA | 93420
City Hall Business Hours: M-Th 8:00 am - 5:00 pm; Closed Fridays The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email or phone and delete the message. Please note that email correspondence with the City of Arroyo Grande, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt by law.

From: Caren Ray Russom
Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022 11:54 AM
To: Lori Pritchard
Cc: Jessica Matson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: AG parklets
Hi LoriThank you so much for taking the time to write your thoughts to me. I love how happy you are living in the Village!
I will consider this carefully along with all other correspondence. I will also forward to our City Clerk so your comment can be entered into the record and shared with the rest of the council.

I also encourage you to attend the meeting and speak. You will have a zoom option, so you can do it from the comfort of your home. We are so happy to have this option now.

Yours in service,
Caren

Mayor Caren Ray Russom
City of Arroyo Grande
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
From: Lori Pritchard
Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022 11:24:11 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: AG parklets
Hello Mayor Russom,
I just read your April Monthly update in the South County Chambers newsletter.

You asked for opinions & input regarding the parklets in Arroyo Grande. My husband & I live in an apt in The Village and we love the parklets. We lived in Europe 7.5 years and it reminds us of our time there. Especially the one on Short street, but also Andrinis and Mule. We will always vote for more walking, less parking options. If parking is a problem, it encourages people to find other modes of transportation ie: walk, bike, scooter.

The outdoor venues create such a great, inviting atmosphere and I think The Village is thriving because of it.

Thank you,
Lori Pritchard

ATTACHMENT 5
Draft Parklet Program Framework
Parklet Performance Standards
Parklet Proximity and Density

1. No parklet shall be closer than 90 feet from another parklet.

2. The number of parklets in the program shall be limited based on a cap on a total of fifteen (15) displaced parking spaces.

Parklet Location

3. A parklet shall only be located in designated on-street parking areas.

4. A parklet shall not block sight distance of motorists at intersections or driveways.

Accordingly, a parklet may not be located less than 25 feet from a roadway intersection or adjacent driveway or other points of off-street access which require line of sight standards as required by the City Engineer and Public Works Department. The final location of a parklet will vary based on the proposed parklet design, and shall be subject to review and approval.

5. Parklets are prohibited in disabled and no-parking zones.

6. A parklet may not cover, impede access or impede operation to or of any utility equipment, utility pole, fire hydrant, parking permit kiosk, or utility access such as manhole covers, drainage inlets, gutter drainage and equipment shelters.

Parklet Design

7. Parklets shall be no more than two parking spaces, or 20-feet in length.

8. A parklet’s walls or railing shall not have a continuous height that exceeds 42 inches and shall not block views in or out of the parklet. Columns or other vertical framing for overhead elements are permitted. All elements of a parklet shall have a maximum height limit of 10-foot.

9. The depth (dimension measured perpendicular to curb) of a parklet shall be no less than the minimum dimension required to meet ADA accessibility requirements. Portions of the required parklet depth may be located within an existing sidewalk area as long as the sidewalk encroachment does not reduce the pedestrian path of travel to a width of less than 4.5 feet in the public right of way.

10. A parklet shall include an element of the parklet enclosure that addresses public safety and provides a barrier or fortified railing between moving vehicles and parklet users. This barrier system shall be provided by and approved by City Engineer and Public Works Department as part of the permit process. Associated fees rental fees must also be paid.

11. Parklets shall have a flush transition at the sidewalk and curb to permit easy access and avoid tripping hazards.

12. A parklet shall comply with applicable Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility standards. Compliance with ADA standards is required with respect to design elements of the parklet, as well as for adjacent areas that may be impacted by the parklet. Parklets

shall use a slip-resistant surface to minimize hazards and should be accessible to wheel-chair users.

13. The four corners of a parklet shall have a reflective element or other clearly visible design feature, such as a soft-hit post, bollard, or raised pavement marker, to illuminate the parklet at night and signify the parklet envelope.

14. Parklets shall be consistent with the Village Design Guidelines and be consistent with approved parklet design requirements

15. The primary materials shall be stone, brick, wood, or composite wood. Wood materials such as lattice and T1-11 plywood siding, are prohibited.

16. Color schemes shall consist of one primary color and one secondary color, at a minimum.

17. Areas for the storage of trash, recycling, and green waste receptacles shall not be visible from the public right of way and all waste receptacles shall be emptied and maintained by the applicant in a neat and sanitary order.

Parklet Use

18. Parklets will be limited to eating establishments, including restaurants, coffee shops, and bakeries.

19. Amplified Sound: No audio systems or other sound amplification devices are permitted for incorporation in the design of any parklet, and shall not be used on any parklet.

20. Electrical/power to the parklet shall be served by the associated business, be approved by a City of Arroyo Grande Building Inspector and cannot present any tripping or overhead hazards. If a City outlet and power are requested for use, an associated per month usage fee will be applied of $15.00. LED lighting that is consistent with design requirements may only be used.

21. Minor Use Permit – Plot Plans for parklets shall run with the approved business operator, and will terminate when a separate business occupies the adjoining eating establishment.

Parklet Costs

ITEM COST FREQUENCY ANNUAL TOTAL
Annual Cost
Encroachment Permit $180 Per Month $2,160
Parking Space Rent $100 Per Month $1,200
(Per Space) (Per Space)
Safety Barrier Rent $50 Per Month $600
(Per Barrier) (Per Barrier)
Total -- Monthly Costs* $680
Total – Annual Costs* $8,160
One-Time Costs
Minor Use Permit – Plot
Plan Review
$735 One-Time
Total -- One-Time Costs
$735
$735

**Total annual and monthly costs assume two parking spaces per parklet and six safety barriers per parklet.

Permitting
General steps in the application process (Minor Use Permit/Plot Plan):

1. Pre-application meeting – An Applicant shall bring a site map of the location and a sketch of the conceptual design to a pre-application meeting with City staff. This step is required and intended to provide initial feedback regarding site location and design to determine parklet feasibility.

2. Application Submittal:
a. Site map
b. Application Fees
c. Encroachment Permit
d. Certificate of Liability
e. Building Permit: In the event that the proposed parklet will include a roof, cover, or other type of overhead element, or involve any structures of greater than 120 square feet or involve electrical, mechanical or plumbing work, the applicant shall obtain a building permit from the Community Development Department prior to constructing the parklet.

3. Notification and Appeal:
a. Review by the Architectural Review Committee
b. Approval by Community Development Director
c. Appealable to the Planning Commission
d. Notification of all property owners for Village businesses on West Branch Street

ATTACHMENT 6

4VSXIGXXLITYFPMGERHTVSTIVX]JVSQEGGMHIRXWERHYR[ERXIHEGGIWW 7IGYVMX]MWSRXLIXSTSJIZIV]SRIvWEKIRHE[LIXLIVJSVKSZIVRQIRXFYMPHMRKWWTSVXWEVIREWSV 8LIGPIERPIERPMRIWSJSYVTVIGEWX
WXVIRKXLERHHYVEFMPMX]
3YVWXYVH]ERHPS[QEMRXIRERGITVIGEWXGSRGVIXIWIGYVMX]FEVVMIVW[MPPGSQTPMQIRXER]IRZMVSRQIRX 7MRGI
&IVXIPWSR4VIGEWXLEWFIIR[SVOMRK[MXLEVGLMXIGXWHIWMKRIVWERHKIRIVEPGSRXVEGXSVWXS HIZIPSTE
97%QEHITVSHYGXW
]SYRIIHMX=SYGERHITIRHSRYW
SVWXERHSR
'SRWXVYGXIH[MXLWXIIPVIFEV
8LIWIVYKKIHTVIGEWXGSRGVIXI
WIGYVMX]FEVVMIVWQIIXEPPWXERHEVHWSJ
%ZEMPEFPIMREZEVMIX]SJWXERHEVH
GSPSVWXSGLSSWIJVSQ
0SKSWERH'YWXSQHIWMKRWEZEMPEFPI
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
46)'%78'32'6)8)7)'96-8=&%66-)6
FEVW%WOYWEFSYXGYWXSQHIWMKRWERHPSKSWJSV]SYVGEQTYWERHTVSNIGXWMXIW

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jessica Matson, Legislative & Information Services Director/City Clerk SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
Agenda Item 10.a. – Consider Potential Permanent Parklet Program DATE: April 11, 2022
Attached is correspondence received for the above referenced item. cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director
Community Development Director
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website (or public review binder)

From: Harmony Collins
To: public comment
Subject: The temporarily built parklets in the village need to go Date: Friday, April 8, 2022 9:31:20 PM
To whom it may concern,
I am a lifetime resident of Arroyo Grande and a small business co-owner of the past 8+ years in Arroyo Grande as well. While I do find that the dining parklets were an essential addition at he height of the pandemic, when outdoor only guidelines for dining were in place, now that dining indoors is back to pre-pandemic capacity, I do feel that it is time for the parklets along Branch St to be removed. I also believe that it is time for Short St. to be open again as an entrance to the parking lot near the historic swinging bridge, removing the eyesore of a tent and barricades in the street. Again, I do feel that these additions were absolutely necessary when indoor dining was completely shutdown and at limited capacity, but now that we have returned to regular indoor capacity and we are moving into the Summer months, let's return the Village to what it was prepandemic in all its charm! Thank you for your consideration on this matter.

Sincerely,
Harmony Collins
--
Harmony Collins
Co-Owner/Operator
Ember Restaurant
1200 E. Grand Ave
STE 101
Arroyo Grande, CA

From: Janeth Arinaga
To: public comment
Subject: Humdinger Parklet
Date: Friday, April 8, 2022 10:14:42 AM
Good Morning!
Please allow Humdinger Brewing to keep their parklet area.

I’ve seen many families enjoy wonderful meals in their parklet area, including my own family.

My family and I frequent humdinger at least once a week. We always sit in their parklet area because we normally bring our dog and our kids with us.

The parklet area also allows for those individuals who are uncomfortable with being inside, due to the pandemic, to enjoy their meals outside. It will make zero sense to remove their parklet area and “cram” everyone inside their restaurant.

Thank you,
Janeth Arinaga

From:

To: public comment
Subject: Parklets
Date: Friday, April 8, 2022 2:39:57 PM
I wanted to email as a long time resident of Arroyo Grande and supporter of our local village; I feel like the impact of the parklets has drawn more people down to the village to restaurants and in turn shopping. We have beautiful weather so much of the year that additional seating outside is a plus. I hope that we can keep and even improve what we have in the village.

When I've heard of other cities getting rid of their parklets, I was sad because this is a missed opportunity. It brings the community and small town feel to the village and true charm to sit outside, wave to neighbors and friends as they pass by.

Thank you for your consideration in keeping our parklets in the village of Arroyo Grande! Kirsten Atkison

Humdinger has over 25 extra seats and they are not the only ones whom (now that everything is% 100 open) are unfairly getting more profit from the community and visitors.

How many more people would come to us if there was a wait or not outdoor seating? MANY.

These parklets take up too much space and they definitely take away from the old village charm.

They look uninviting and create a “closed down” feeling when everything should be open.

The pandemic was hard for us and we want our equal opportunity to thrive BACK. Please do not make this a rented space agreement. They need to go ASAP.

I appreciate your time and hope this changes
Thank you
Kacey

From: Lacey Pearl
To: public comment
Subject: Parklets
Date: Friday, April 8, 2022 6:15:36 PM
Hello!
I heard you were taking community input on wether or not to keep the parklets up. While I think we all understood their utility at the beginning of Covid, it’s time, in my opinion to take them out. So many parking spaces are taken up with their existence and if people can’t find parking in the village they just drive on through. Without stopping. I know I do. I’d also love for the visual charm to come back to the village and with the parklets there it’s hard to see the charming businesses and buildings.

Thanks!
Lacey Pearl
Sent from my iPhone

From: Mandie Blaze
To: public comment
Subject: Parklet comments
Date: Friday, April 8, 2022 11:36:34 AM
I would like to respectfully request that the park lets in Arroyo Grande be allowed to stay. They have been a welcomed addition that provides much needed outdoor dining options. Without Covid they’d be delightful but with Covid they are absolutely necessary for people who are unable, for medical or safety concerns, to dine indoors.

Thank you for your consideration.

Mandie

From: Mallory Bullock
To: public comment
Subject: Parklets
Date: Friday, April 8, 2022 11:34:04 AM
Please have mercy and get rid of those trashy looking parklets lining the streets of our precious AG village. It takes away from the charm of the village and not to mention limits parking. If they were done properly and with more money, maybe they wouldnt be such an eyesore.

Thanks for your consideration.

From: Robbie Bruzus
To: public comment
Subject: Parklets in the Village
Date: Friday, April 8, 2022 3:49:48 PM
Hello,
I am a resident of AG, and I would like to express that I’m in favor of keeping parklets in the Village district.

Thank you.

Robbie Bruzus

From: Susan Evard
To: public comment
Subject: Comment on keeping parklets in the Village
Date: Friday, April 8, 2022 6:11:18 PM
Dear City Council Members,
I understand that on April 12, 2022, you will be making a decision on whether to keep the parklet program in the village. As a resident of AG, I would like to offer the following comments.

I think the parklet program adds a wonderful option for outdoor seating in the village. This is important considering that Covid-19 is becoming endemic and we may have many surges in the coming months and years. It gives people an option who are still not comfortable dining indoors. The parklets on Branch Street definitely are a positive addition to the village (i.e in front of Cafe Andreini's, Humdinger, Roosters etc).

However, there are two exceptions to this program that I would like to see end:

1. The tables, chairs and tent on Short Street, between Rooster Creek Tavern and Gina’s are a huge eyesore. The area is not well maintained, it is dirty, full of leaves and it looks unattractive. The folding tables & chairs, and the heaters that have cords running all over, all look tacky. Roosters has a nice parklet on Branch Street as well as an attached patio and Gina’s has a lovely patio also. I think that extra outdoor seating on Short St should be removed.

2. The other exception is the huge tent behind Mason’s. If Mason’s could install a permanent patio structure in the back, it would be attractive. But that giant circus tent in the back parking lot does not enhance the village atmosphere. And I can add from personal experience, it is not pleasant to dine in that tent. Furthermore, when the tent is filled with people, you don’t even feel like you are dining outdoors. I’m not sure it is any safer for people who don’t feel they can dine indoors.

Thank you for your consideration and for your service to our community. -Susan Evard

From: Toni Pelletier
To: public comment
Subject: Parklets
Date: Friday, April 8, 2022 11:50:08 PM
Dear the City,
Going on 3 years, I have endured the parklet in FRONT of my business knowing that everyone struggled through the pandemic. Unfortunately, no one really cared that the hair salons were closed completely for six months off and on, while food places could do pick-up or curbside. Now that food places are serving inside, the parklets have become just extra seating that really aren’t taken care of, not to mention free sq. footage, and the loss of MANY much needed parking spaces.

I have seen bicycles, strollers, and people stand in the way of my clients or others walking past. I have seen children climbing on the barricades and running in the street. I have seen cars back into the parklet because there is no signage or barrier. I have seen drivers making u-turns that can’t be completed because they did it in front of a parklet. And to top it off, umbrellas hide my business because the parklet is in FRONT of my business.

My business has been here 45 years. I have dedicated myself to it and to the Village as a volunteer. All I’m asking is, IF the parklets are going to be allowed to stay, please move them to the business they belong to and expect them to be kept clean, including the gutters underneath them.

I’m growing weary of “money talks” instead of “the quaint Village of Arroyo Grande”.

Thank you,
Toni Pelletier/ The Village Salon

From: Abby Boult
To: public comment
Subject: Parklets
Date: Saturday, April 9, 2022 11:21:00 PM
Hey city counsel members,
I would like my voice heard in that I would love to see the parklets become a permanent part of the village. The atmosphere they bring to the village is cozy, inviting, and friendly. We have great weather to support outdoor dining nearly year around, why not take an advantage of that? I would also like to add that I think they all need to have a universal look. The ones rooster creek, village cantina, and cafe andreini’s have are all very nicely gone, however the one in front of Doc Bernsteins and the brewery is somewhat of an eyesore. The privacy bars between the fencing is distracting and not appealing.

My family has use the parklets tons of times and we all love the space and feel of dining in them.

One thing I would like to see changed is opening the road back up between Gina’s and rooster creek. They have plenty of seating and they both have designated outside dining area already so I feel it unnecessary to keep that road blocked off. It would be beneficial to open it back up to help alleviate traffic flow to the parking area.

I look forward to hopefully seeing the parklets because a permanent characteristic of our beautiful village. The village is the heart of our town and keeping the parklets supports our overall welcoming, friendly, inviting, cozy, happy, beautiful feel that we all love!
Thank you for hearing my opinion,
Abby Boulton
(Life time Arroyo Grande resident, besides my time away for college)

From: Amethyst Ehrler
To: public comment
Subject: Parklet
Date: Saturday, April 9, 2022 11:51:07 AM
Our family loves the outdoor seating that parklets provide. Please continue to allow them.

Thanks,
Ehrler family

From: April Schirmer
To: public comment
Subject: Comment re: parklets
Date: Saturday, April 9, 2022 5:07:19 PM
Good afternoon,
Thank you, Council Members, for receiving and taking time to read all public comments.

As a TBID Board member for this city, I applaud the council for continuing to revisit the subject of the parklets that were put in place during the pandemic. I will always support doing what we can to grow our tourism and generate revenue for the city.

As a small business owner, I always want to support other small businesses that are working hard to support their families, employ others, and make our community the best on the central coast.

That said, I have a mixed opinion regarding the parklets that I'd like to share.

The parklets were specifically put in place during the pandemic when indoor dining was not allowed. To expand outdoor dining areas so businesses could continue to operate as close to a maximum capacity as possible was a super idea.

I have often questioned some of the parklet structures that were so quickly erected. Since they are not permanent fixtures, I understand they do not require a permit but were they inspected and signed off as "approved" for safety? I've personally witnessed a few scary episodes when winds are high.

In the Village, there are some establishments that have benefited by a much larger additional footprint than others and that's an issue that needs to be addressed if the parklets remain.

Mason Bar & Kitchen has a tent that seats more people than their entire restaurant while reducing almost all of their parking. With that, patrons are parking in other lots that should be available for other businesses, including the spaces at The Agrarian. I worry that if lack of parking becomes a problem as tourism numbers grow, we will not be inviting others to enjoy our wonderful town.

I'm unsure if the tent between Rooster Creek & Gina's is considered seating for both restaurants or if it is only for Rooster Creek customers.

Regardless, these areas provide much more space than what is allowed for some businesses on the west end of Branch St in the village. Sidewalk Cafe, The Village Grill, Villa Cantina, even Branch St Deli have not been granted the same leeway.

I respectfully ask the Council to consider a new plan for the parklets that will allow a more fair opportunity for drawing customers rather than creating and dividing business owners as competitors. If such a plan cannot be agreed upon, then maybe the parklets need to be removed altogether.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,
April Schirmer
AG TBID Board Member
Owner -AdVerb Marketing Group
Partner-Vista Lago Adventure Park/Mustang Waterpark
April Schirmer
AdVerb Marketing Group, LLC
805.202.1569
https://link.edgepilot.com/s/ae966ec0/7uXsucrDqk2e7dWQqkzgZQ? u=http://www.adverbgroup.com/
Links contained in this email have been replaced. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning.

From: Amanda Speciale
To: public comment
Subject: Parklets in AG
Date: Saturday, April 9, 2022 9:53:08 AM
Keep the parklets!!!!

From: beehearts
To: public comment
Subject: Parkers in Village
Date: Saturday, April 9, 2022 10:30:53 AM
Hello,
I love the village and lived here all my life. I wanted to comment on the parklets. I think they are great but think there should be changes to some.
1)I think some should be removed. Mostly Rooster Creek/Gina's big tent, while the ones stay in the street. That should be an access road again. Rooster already has plenty of seating in and outside. And I think the parklet on Branch is fine, just think that access road should be back.

And honestly at this point the access road one is rarely used. 2)And if some city parklets remain, then they should be for everyone and not assigned to one particular restaurant/business.

Thank you,
Brenna Dotson
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S22 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone

From: Corey Kielan
To: public comment
Subject: Parklets
Date: Saturday, April 9, 2022 6:18:17 PM
To whom it may concern,
I am not a resident of the city, however, I do frequent the village to eat and shop. The parklets were once a necessity, but aren’t any longer. They take up valuable parking and some are far from attractive. The one for Humdinger often ends up restricting the flow of pedestrian traffic and usually makes it nearly impossible to push a stroller through The “parklet” for Rooster Creek and Gina’s is not even a parklet. It has taken up a portion of a public street.

Normally, closing a public street would involve a hearing and possibly some sort of compensation. This is exactly what needs to be done now if parklets are to stay. Each individual business should have to apply to keep it just as they would apply for permits to expand their business.

Corey C Kielan
Sent from my iPhone

From: Dustin Grise
To: public comment
Subject: Permanent Parklets Consideration
Date: Saturday, April 9, 2022 3:32:08 PM
To Whom It May Concern,
The COVID-19 pandemic was a horrible time and caused permanent damage in the form of lost family, friends, wages, and opportunities. If there is something good that came out of a terrible time, we should promote that for the future.

The additional business spaces provided by the outdoor parklets were not just a necessity to support our small businesses. They were a way to hold onto a sense of normal where we can gather and enjoy an outdoor meal when connection with others was especially difficult.

I ask that we not just keep the parklets out of a sense of nostalgia. But, the future opportunities for our town and the small businesses is something that we should jump at.

The number of parking spots sacrificed is trivial in comparison to the additional space they create for us to gather in. A more permanent, professional construction would only enhance the home-like atmosphere of The Village. Our family sits in the outdoor seating for 2-3 meals a week. We get coffee, lunch, dinners, and a beer in these areas. They have become a source of family joy and hometown pride.

Please keep the parklets in The Village!
Sincerely,
Dustin Grise & Family

From: Erinn Sawyer
To: public comment
Subject: Save the parklets in the village!
Date: Saturday, April 9, 2022 11:22:59 AM
I love the village, and I love the option of the parklets! Having the choice to sit Outside is wonderful! Please don’t remove them!
Sent from my iPhone

From: George Terterian
To: public comment
Subject: Parklets
Date: Saturday, April 9, 2022 8:43:27 AM
I encourage Arroyo Grande to make the Branch Street parklets in the Village permanent.

I have lived in AG for 9 years. Not until the parklets arrived did AG ever have a “café culture”. It does now and my friends and I would hate to lose it to a few parallel parking spots. There is ample parking in the two big lots on the north and south of Branch.

The parklets add a charm and sense of community that can be enjoyed pretty much year round. It makes AG more welcoming and frankly safer and more of an attraction for locals and tourists passing through to stop, have a bite or a coffee or a drink and hang out in our town.

Please weigh the pros and the cons and do what you think is best. But please consider the positive effects of a café culture and street side tables and chairs and how they add to AG’s charm and translate to more money being spent in our town.

Thanks,
George Terterian
--
George Terterian

From: Jana Ljepava
To: public comment
Subject: Parklets
Date: Saturday, April 9, 2022 9:48:17 PM
To whom it may concern,
Please let the businesses that want to keep their parklets do so. They create a more community feel and increase what I have always felt the village does for Arroyo Grande. Some of the parklets are really cute, creative and add to the charm of the village.

We hope you will choose to allow them to stay.

Sincerely,
Jana Ljepava
for the Ljepava family
"trust in the LORD with all your heart, do not depend on your own understanding. Seek His will in all you do, and He will show which path to take." Proverbs 3:5-6

From: Joyce Nielsen
To: public comment
Subject: Parklets and tents
Date: Saturday, April 9, 2022 7:47:47 AM
Hey city….it’s time to put the pandemic garbage behind us and get back to NORMAL….our small businesses are suffering needlessly….do away with the parklets and tents!! Joyce Nielsen
Oceano

From: Kacey Collins
To: public comment
Subject: Parklets
Date: Saturday, April 9, 2022 7:34:09 AM
We are against keeping the parklets and white tent on short street. Is is completely unfair to let some business profit with extra space and create more competition among the small businesses!
There is already frustration circling and it is causing divides in a what was before, a connected Village.

They also take up parking, look bad and take away from the Village charm that has been so protected before the pandemic.

We feel personally effected by them and that more people would be coming to our large patio if the parklets were gone!
***This is about an equal opportunity to thrive and the City allowing for the disturbance in that right. If kept it would be “rented space” for city and parklet businesses to profit. That is not ok to funnel profit for some and provide losses for others in doing so. Please go back to normal! They were intended to help when we shut down indoor dining and that is OVER.

Respectfully
Kacey & Brett Collins
Sidewalk Cafe

From: marleenf91
To: public comment
Subject: Town parklets
Date: Saturday, April 9, 2022 6:00:31 PM
Please remove the parklets in Old Arroyo. They're not only an eyesore, and traffic hazard, but they add to the daily traffic nightmare, especially for traffic coming in from the east. You have big rigs hauling produce and tractors, school busses, workers, delivery trucks parked in the middle lane. Add making illegal U turns for a parking spot or holding up traffic searching for one. Then you have people darting out in the street and middle school kids getting out of school. Not only is it dangerous, it's difficult to drive thru town. Restaurants are able to use indoor seating now, so they aren't necessary, and the parklets take up way too much valuable parking space. It's showing favoritism to a few merchants, and in some cases, making others lose customers and sales due to inconvenience.

Get rid of them, they're tacky !!
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone

From: Sarah Araya
To: public comment
Subject: Comment on parklets in the village of AG
Date: Saturday, April 9, 2022 2:04:57 PM
Dear City Council Members,
I understand that on April 12, 2022, you will be coming to a decision regarding the parklet issue in the village. As a 33 year resident of the village I would like to present the following comments.

I like the option for outdoor seating, giving us a choice in these Covid times. The parklets originally were to help our local businesses survive. But now they for the most part still look temporary, and still appear to be a quick fix.

Safety is an issue too. The traffic has exploded in the village. Sitting in the street sometimes feels like a life or death decision - 18 wheelers, school buses, huge campers, trucks with boats or trailers, and cars oblivious to the 25 MPH speed limit whizzing by - is scary.

I also understand that Sidewalk Cafe was not given the option to have a parklet, and on top of that, have to rent from the City their sidewalk space? If true, how is that fair to them? On to the eyesore tent between Gina's and Rooster Creek. It is not maintained - always full of leaves and debris, folding chairs, heaters, cords.

Rooster Creek already has a nice parklet plus an attached patio. Gina's as well has a lovely patio. This eyesore has closed Short St.! The beautiful view of the swinging bridge and Heritage Park is now gone.

How can a street be closed for a chosen few? Isn't a city street considered city property making it our property too? Why does one business have this advantage? Also - the huge circus tent behind Mason Bar (aren't they owned by the same people as Rooster Creek?). From personal experience, eating under a tent in a parking lot is not a pleasant space or atmosphere to have a meal. Speaking of the parking lot, how are they allowed to take away so many parking spaces when village parking has always been an issue? The inequity of advantages and privileges is curious and upsetting.

So - in short, I would like to see the parklets remain but all in a similar more permanent, safer style.

Also - get rid of the tents on Short St. and behind Mason Bar. They give an unfair advantage, and they are an eyesore to the village.

Thank you so much for your consideration, I realize it is a hard task - and for your service to our community.

Sarah Araya

From: stacie schram
To: public comment
Subject: Parklets
Date: Saturday, April 9, 2022 8:39:37 AM
Hi,
I am writing to say I am in favor of the parklets staying in the village. We are so fortunate to live in a place where we have beautiful weather year round. These parklets allow for more outdoor seating for many business. I also love when I drive through the village and see people in the parklets; they help enhance the charm the village already has.

I urge you to keep these parklets in the village, as the residents and costumers prefer them. I am less likely to eat at a restaurant where my option is to sit indoors.

Thank you,
Stacie Vanderlei
Sent from my iPhone

From: Stacey
To: public comment
Subject: Parklets
Date: Saturday, April 9, 2022 4:40:11 PM
The Parkletts have been great during times where we were unable to eat inside. However it has been so extremely frustrating to try and find parking because so many of the park lets have taken over the parking spots. Especially now that tourist season is coming and everyone will be out in full force it will be hard for locals and tourists like to find parking when so much of it has been taken up by the parklets.

They were handy when we needed them but they aren’t needed anymore and definitely don’t go with the cute local vibe that the village has always had. It takes away from the charm of the area.

With so many other cute little “main streets “around locally I know that if I can’t find parking especially on a busy day there are others that I could go to. Would I rather stay local at the village absolutely but if there’s nowhere for me to park due to all of these outdoor seating options then I’ll be forced to go elsewhere. I feel like tourists and other locals may feel the same way when they experience the frustration of trying to park.

Maybe the community can rally together to put some public outdoor seating and some of the grassy areas. That way people can take their food to go and still enjoy eating outside but making parking at the village more accessible to all.
--
*The man who stands tallest is the man who bends to help a child.

From: Tina Reynolds
To: public comment
Subject: Parklets
Date: Saturday, April 9, 2022 9:19:56 PM
Please consider doing away with the parklets within A.G. We already do not have enough parking for our little village. It has also become very biased for businesses that do not have the parklets in front of their buildings…….

And we would also like to drive in between Rooster Creek and Gina’s to get to parking.

Grew up in this town,
please make smart and fair choices for all.

Sent from my iPhone

From: Tiana Vistro
To: public comment
Subject: Parklets
Date: Saturday, April 9, 2022 11:38:24 AM
To whoever it may concern,
In my opinion the parklets must stay! They give the village character and allow businesses extra seating. There is plenty of parking available, so that is not an issue.

From:

To: public comment
Subject: Parklets
Date: Sunday, April 10, 2022 4:22:04 PM
I really hope we keep the parklets. I think it’s great for the businesses and it’s nice for customers. The businesses have done a great job to creat nice spaces for their customers. It would be nice if we could we could decorate the barriers so they look nicer from the street.

Please keep the parklets!
Catherine Gauchat

From:

To: public comment
Subject: RE: Town parklets
Date: Sunday, April 10, 2022 12:22:18 PM
But will it actually be read by a human as well as a computer? And will it be received for consideration?
I hope the decision isn't being made to please the few businesses who are gaining from the parklets. Also, I forgot to mention, the tent thing on Short Street looks like a cheap carnival booth and obstructs traffic, vehicle and pedestrian from one of the few parking lots.

Luckily tragedy was avoided a while back when a vehicle hit the berm in front of the Mexican restaurant, but summer is coming, along with much more boat and camper traffic headed east to Lopez Lake in addition to increased produce trucks to the Upper Arroyo Grande Valley! Keep in mind, Arroyo Grande came into being as a farming town and still is a farm community, and without that it's just another cheesy tourist trap.

Thank you for your assumed consideration.

Marleen Cecchetti Freire
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone -------- Original message --------
From: [email protected]
Date: 4/9/22 6:00 PM (GMT-08:00)
To:

Subject: Town parklets
Thank you for providing comment on the City Council Agenda. We have received your comment and it will be included in the record and provided to City Council.

Sincerely,
Arroyo Grande City Clerk

From: Summer Rogovoy
To: public comment
Subject: Parklets
Date: Sunday, April 10, 2022 9:13:34 AM
I am writing in regards to the parklet situation in the Village of AG.

While we enjoy outdoor dining very much, the time has come and gone for the parklets. They are a safety hazard, an eyesore that is not the vibe of the Village at all, and provide an unfair advantage for seating over other businesses.

The part that is the worst though is that an entire city street has been closed WAY too long to accommodate 2 businesses. I am speaking of the tent for Rooster Creek and Ginas. How can the city think it is ok to close an entire PUBLIC street for PERSONAL profit? It is time for the parklets to GO!
Thank You,
Summer Rogovoy
Arroyo Grande, Ca 93420

From: Tina Allen
To: public comment
Subject: Parklets
Date: Sunday, April 10, 2022 12:33:04 PM
To whom it may concern,
I wanted to provide my input on the conversation around the parklets in the Village of Arroyo Grande. I believe the parklets have served their purpose during the height of the pandemic and added options for the downtown businesses during the pandemic. But now that indoor dining has resumed for quite some time, I think it is time to remove the parklets. The business owners were aware of the city ordinances when they opened their businesses and the parklets are not a very attractive addition in the downtown area. I believe they should be removed completely, and if some additional outdoor dining area is of benefit for everyone then there should be something more permanent built in one area. Perhaps by the swinging bridge or permanently close the alley between Gina’s and Rooster Creek and build a permanent outdoor structure that all restaurant patrons can enjoy, but owned and operated by the city and not one business.

Thank you,
Bryan Allen
Arroyo Grande Resident

From: Tani McMillan
To: public comment
Subject: Parklets
Date: Sunday, April 10, 2022 11:25:06 AM
To Whom It May Concern,
The parklets in AG village are great. They create a really nice vibe. They provide outdoor seating that is very enjoyable.

They need to stay !
Please and thank you ,
Tani McMillan

From: Barbara Grant
To: public comment
Subject: Parklets
Date: Monday, April 11, 2022 8:02:34 AM
Hello,
The parklets give a nice neighborhood feel but are too industrial looking. A more decorative look would be in keeping with the image of a village.

Thanks,
Barbara Grant

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jessica Matson, Legislative & Information Services Director/City Clerk SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
Agenda Item 10.a. – Consider Potential Permanent Parklet Program DATE: April 12, 2022
Attached is additional correspondence received for the above referenced item. cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director
Community Development Director
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website (or public review binder)

From: Christine Jarrett
To: public comment
Subject: Parklets
Date: Monday, April 11, 2022 8:03:20 PM
I have lived in Arroyo Grande my entire life and I understand there is supposed to be a vote on whether or not to keep the parklets in the village. I believe it is a great benefit having the parklets and I would vote to keep them.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Christine Jarrett

From: Deanna
To: public comment
Subject: Keep the parklets!
Date: Monday, April 11, 2022 8:10:56 PM
Sending comment to keep the parklets in Arroyo Grande! They are a wonderful addition to the downtown area…for visitors and businesses!
Thank You,
Deanna ELMERICK

From: Donalyn Millerl
To: public comment
Subject: Arroyo Grande parklets
Date: Monday, April 11, 2022 5:01:05 PM
To whom it may concern:

Regarding the future of the town’s parklets, I am definitely in favor of keeping them. I believe they have contributed to increased tourism which financially helps the city along with businesses. The locals also enjoy the extended seating outside.

Let’s keep the parklets!!
Donalyn Miller
Sent from my iPhone

From: Judy Cecchetti
To: public comment
Subject: Parklets
Date: Monday, April 11, 2022 7:48:26 PM
Greetings to the Arroyo grande city council,
The parklets were an advantage to the business owners and also their customers. The time has come to take them down. Parking is limited in town, they are not attractive, they hide the beautiful buildings, they are not safe, they impede the businesses next to them and they are intimidating to walk through. I realize that there is parking behind those businesses but not everybody is lucky enough to walk well, and feel unsafe parking back there.

The tent at short Street needs to be taken down and the street reopened for safety reasons.

Thank you, judy cecchetti
Sent from my iPad

From:

To: public comment
Subject: Parklet/outdoor dining
Date: Monday, April 11, 2022 8:18:23 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear councilmembers,
I am writing to express my support to keep existing parklets/outdoor dining areas in the Arroyo Grande Village. Through the Covid-19 pandemic, I made a point to frequent our eateries in the Village to support local businesses that were drastically affected by the imposed closures and constant changes being imposed. The uncertainty experienced by business owners through the pandemic along with worrying about the health and safety of family, friends, patrons and employees coupled with the added stress of financial instability has not been easy. The added seating provided by the parklets and seeing patrons supporting our local businesses brought a sense of relief. The added seating and ability to sit safely at our local restaurants added a sense of community that I do not want to see go away. Although Covid-19 variant cases are low… we are still in an uncertain time and having the option to be seated outside while supporting our local eateries isn’t something I want to see taken away.

Please take my input into consideration when considering the future of our parklets.

Best regards,
Joey Lopez, Trustee
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
The information contained in this electronic mail transmission (including any accompanying attachments) is intended solely for its authorized recipient(s), and may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, or responsible for delivering some or all of this transmission to an intended recipient, you have received this transmission in error and are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from reading, reviewing, copying, using, printing, disseminating, distributing, re-transmitting, retaining, or disclosing any of the information contained in it. In that event, please contact us immediately by telephone at 805-783-2306 or electronic mail at [email protected] or by facsimile transmission at 805-270-4258 and delete the original and all copies of this transmission (including any attachments) without reading or saving in any manner.

From: Kaaren Abbate
To: public comment
Subject: Parklets in AG
Date: Monday, April 11, 2022 6:29:33 PM
To Whom It May Concern,
Please find this email as an endorsement in support of keeping parklets in the village of Arroyo Grande.

I have found this extra outdoor space to be an inviting and beneficial option for greater community interaction.

It is not only beneficial for the businesses, but also the community.

Thank you,
Kaaren Abbate
Sent from my iPhone

From: kara susank
To: public comment
Subject: Parklet
Date: Monday, April 11, 2022 6:20:28 PM
We feel that the parklets have made a great addition to our village of Arroyo Grande. They have really helped to foster a community and have encouraged people to get out, while also benefitting our businesses. Please keep! Thank you,
Kara Susank
Sent from my iPhone

From: Leila
To: public comment
Subject: Please keep our parklets!
Date: Monday, April 11, 2022 5:03:39 PM
Dear City Council,
I’m writing to voice my love for the parklets throughout the village of Arroyo Grande. Having the added outdoor space to sit and enjoy our beautiful weather is my new favorite thing about the village. I truly hope they can become permanent!
Thank you,
Leila Gangi
AG resident

From:

To: public comment
Subject: Parklets
Date: Monday, April 11, 2022 11:16:33 PM
Not sure if my earlier email got through so sending another one. I support the continuation of the parklets for outdoor dining. With our beautiful weather it makes sense to increase outdoor seating, pandemic or not. I support parklets like Cafe Andrini’s, which is attractive, not the big white concrete walls. Parklets should add to the quaint village feel not be obnoxious and ugly. If the weather is nice I would select to eat outside every time.

Thanks for your consideration.

Lori Hunstad
Arroyo Grande resident
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
Links contained in this email have been replaced. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning.

From: SHIRLEY ST.DENIS
To: public comment
Subject: Parklets
Date: Monday, April 11, 2022 6:44:36 PM
I am in favor of keeping the Parklets in the Village. They are a good addition. Some people still don’t like to be inside a restaurant and who knows when the Pandemic will flare up again.

Sincerely.

Shirley St.Denis
Sent from my iPhone

From: Tony Burrows
To: public comment
Subject: Outdoor dining
Date: Monday, April 11, 2022 8:18:08 PM
I believe the business are benefiting from these outdoor spaces. My families do as well. The village is a very small town with very small space. We would love for these parklets to stay in place as we enjoy them so much. The added outdoor space has been such a nice addition & we hope it stays for good.

Thank you,
Tony Burrows

From: Becca burton
To: public comment
Subject: KEEP THE PARKLETS PLEASE
Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 9:24:23 AM
I love sitting outside, it’s beautiful and brings in more money for the villiage. Allows more tourist to stop and visit and spend their money. It would be a shame and a loss of income if we took away extra seating.

From: Frank Schiro
To: public comment
Subject: Permanent Parklet Proposal
Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 8:49:18 AM
City Council and Staff,
Thank you for all the time and thought you have put in to not only this parklet proposal but all the time, energy and effort you have made over the last two + years helping your community navigate through an incredibly difficult time. As business owners in other cities we can say from experience that the Arroyo Grande City Council, staff and the community members effort in getting us through such an uncertain time in our history has been unmatched.

Specifically regarding the permanent parklet proposal the following our our thoughts as owners of Rooster Creek Tavern and Mason Bar and Kitchen. First for all those businesses that don’t have an outside space for dining should be allowed and encouraged to have some form of outside dining. Whether it’s a Parklet, sidewalk tables or an actual patio. Allowing sidewalk tables when 36 inches of walk through clearance is available would also be a more desirable option for some without any negative parking affects. While many customers feel perfectly safe dining inside we have quite a few customers who still do not want to sit inside and will dine only outside. If there is any resurgence of Covid as some have predicted this desire will only increase and for those without an outside dining area these outside dining areas will likely become crucial for their survival once again and will aid in their solvency as many factors besides Covid are contributing to the profitability of many businesses in the state of California.

Second, we agree that these spaces need to be aesthetically pleasing and in line with Village Design Guidelines. For those who have been critical of some of these spaces please remember we constructed our outdoor areas, parklets and tents out of the desire to SURVIVE. Quite frankly I personally was extremely skeptical that anyone would come and the idea of spending money that we weren’t making seemed risky to say the least. Why would anyone regularly dine in a “wedding tent?” If Covid lasted only a few weeks like many prognosticators claimed this expense would have been a huge waste of dollars and could actually have expedited our demise. We NOW know how long Covid has lasted and quite simply Covid has changed (at least temporarily) our customers standards for what an adequate restaurant space looks like and it has changed our customers desire for outside dining. Third, while we totally understand the needs of the other businesses that have parklets with no other outside space Rooster Creek will not be seeking to make its parklet permanent as our customers prefer the seating on our existing patio. We will also be taking down our tent on Short Street as we believe that it has served its purpose and is aesthetically not up to our standards in a post Covid world(let us hope).

I’d like to conclude with a couple of closing thoughts. I believe that Covid has shown us just how connected we all are. Local retail, restaurants, government and community members each help and need each other. When one succeeds that helps the others succeed and when one fails this hurts everyone as well. Unfortunately I fear that for many reasons business failure is not just a thing of the past but a future reality even for Arroyo Grande as well.

Approving additional outdoor dining is one action the City Council can take now to help alleviate the pressure that all businesses are currently experiencing. While not part of this proposal we realize that parking is a concern for many businesses but particularly those in retail that benefit from parking spot turnover. I would like the City Council to consider in the near future additional 20 minute street side spots for those businesses who feel that would help their businesses. We understand that some businesses emphasize the importance of street parking in front of their business as the most important spots. We believe the underutilized upper lot with 72 spots still holds the key to adequate parking for all. If we educate and encourage our customers, employees and community to use that lot as much as possible we will certainly be able to mitigate any negative parking loss from the parklets if they are approved.

Sincerely,
Frank Schiro
Rooster Creek Tavern
Mason Bar and Kitchen
Sent from my iPad