Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 12/10/1991 x RJBLIC REVIEW OOPY PLEASE DG NOT REMOVE FROM'COUNTER NOTICE: AT 4:00 P.M., THE CITY COUNCIL WILL 3 EE_T IN A SPECIAL ,SESSION FOR PURPOSES OF RECEIVING A DEMONSTRATION FROM THE `CITY'S .CONSULTANT (CRANFolw, MULTARI STARK) ON MW FISCAL ZMFACT :MODEL. AGENDA ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 6500 PALMA FOURTH FLOOR,, ROTUNDA ROOM DECEMBER 10, 1991 7:00 P.M. This agenda is prepared and posted pursuant to the require- ments of Government Code Section 54954.2. By listing a topic on this agenda, the City Council has expressed its intent to discuss and act on each item. In addition to any action ide�ntif ied in the brief general description of each item, the action that may be tak- en shall include: A referral to staff with specific requests for information; continuance; specific direction to staff concerning the policy or mission of the item; discontinuance of consideration; authorization to enter into negotiations and execute agreements pertaining to the item; adoption or approval; and, disapproval. Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the agenda are lon file in the office of the City Clerk, available for public insjp� ection, during City Hall business hours. The City Clerk will answer, any questions regarding the agenda. RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: * Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. * A person may speak for five (5) minutes. * No one may .speak for a second time until everyone wishing to speak has had an opportunity to do so. * No one may speak more than twice on any item. * Council Members may question any speaker; the speaker may respond but, after the allotted time has expired, , may not initiate further discussion. * The floor will then be closed to public participation and open for Council discussion. 1 Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call City :Council 'Comments -- Presentation to ,employees Georgia Ramirez and Officer Aen Spann regarding City's Volunteer Program caNB I'rY FORUK-. The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and comments from you, the citizen. The Community Forum period is provided to receive comments from the ,public on matters other than scheduled agenda items. To increase the effectiveness of Community Forum, the following rules will be enforced: A: maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum, unless Council authorizes an extension. * All remarks shall be addressed to Council, as a whole, and not to any individual member thereof. * No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member, commissions and staff. A COMMITTEE REPORTS (The following represent ad hoc or standing committees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary. ) : I. S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council/North Coastal Transit 2. Solid/Hazardous Waste Management Committee 3. Recycling Committee 4. Economic Opportunity Commission' 5. City/School Committee 6. Traffic Committee 7 County Water Advisory Board 8. Economic Round Table 9.'` B.I.A. 10. Colony Roads Committee B. CONSENT GALENUAR: All matters listed under .Item B, Consent Calendar, are consid- ered to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion on these items. A member of the Council or public may, by request, have any item removedfrom the Consent Calendar, which shall then be reviewed and acted upon separately after the adoption of the Consent Calendar: I. CITY COUNCIL XXX UTE S - NOVEMBER 12, 1991 2 3.. RESOLUTION NO. 109-91 - UPDATING CITY'S ANNWAL INVESTMENT :POLICY 3. RESOLUTION NO. 110-91 - AUTHORIZING FILING OF CLAIM FOR LOCAL 2RA15SPORTATION FUNDS & STATE 'TRANSIT ASSISTANCE;FUNDS, IN COM- PLIANCE WITH THE MRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACCT 4. AWARD ,OF SID *91-18 FOR PURCHASE OF ONE MARREDiPOLICE PATROI. SEDAN 5. RESOLUTION WO. 111-91 - AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMBNI WITH ASSOCIATED PROFESSIONS, INC., FOR DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS TO ATASCADERO ROAD 6. RESOLUTION NO. 112-91 - AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH ASSOCIATED PROFESSIONS, INC.i, FOR DESIGN IMPROV$MBNTS TO EL CAMINO REAL 7. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS '20 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC i C. HEARINGSJAPPEARANCES: 1. ORDINANCE NO. 237 - AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE BY ELIMINAT- ING SUBSECTION (a) OF SECTION 9-6.131, RECYCLING AND SCRAP, WHICH REQUIRES A 500' DISTANCE FROM RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND OTHER USES AND ZONES, AND REQUIRING THE URGENCY THEREOF (City Council-Initiated - 415- vote required) (Recommend motion to waive reading in full and adopt on single reading by title only) D. REGULAR BUSINESS 1.` ORDINANCE NO. 236 - ADDING CHAPTER 8, "WATERWAY INTRUSIONS", TO TITLE 5 OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE, PROHIBITING SPEC- IFIED ACTIVITIES IN ATASCADERO CREEK, GRAVES CREEK AND THE SALINAS RIVER (Recommend motion to waive reading in full and adopt on firs reading by title only) (Cont'd from 11/26/91) ; 2. PRESENTATION BY NORTH COUNTY ENGINEERING ON PROPOSED CITY ENGINEERING STANDARDS (Steve Sylvester) s 3. APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR ENGINEERINGSERVICES �OR RECOVERY OF RECLAIMED WATER' 4. ORDINANCE NO. 235 - AMENDING TITLE ,6, CHAPTER -;6 OF THE ATAS- CADERO MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING SMOKING IN CITY FACILITIES (Recommend motion to waive reading in full and approve on second reading by title only) 3 A. nwlyxDm'L DETERMTRATION ANDIOR 'ACTIONz 1. Zity Zouacil 2.. I*ity :Attoraey 3. Ia ty Mork 4. City Treasurer S. City mager: Request to be eacua®d frame meetin=g of 2/14/92 �. NOTICE: THE COUNCIL_WI= ADJOURN TO A CLOSED SESSION FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION RSGARDZRG POTENTIAL LITIGATION, ENTITLED 'PES=_ mj V. R'Y OF ATASCADERO, PURSUANT '20 'GOVE'R'4MEAT CODE SECTION 54956(a). FROM SAID CLOSES? SESSION, 2= COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO A SPECIAL MEETING# ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1991, 7 00 P.M. FOR .PURPOSES OF GENERAL PLAN UPDATE. IST OBSERVANCE OF CHRISTMAS,, THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 2428 HAS BEEN CANCELLED. _ .rte" II f, &fa s 4 Agenda Item #B-1 Meeting Date: 12/10/91 ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 12, 1991 MINUTES Mayor Shiers called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilman Dexter led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Lilley, Borgeson, Dexter and Mayor Shiers Absent: Councilman Nimmo (arrived at 6:30 p.m. ) Also Present: Muriel "Micki" Korba, City Treasurer and Lee Raboin, City Clerk Staff Present: Ray Windsor, City Manager; Henry Engen, Community Development Director; Mary Redus Gayle, Assistant City Attorney; Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director; Bud McHale, Police Chief and Robert Malone, Assistant Planner COUNCIL COMMENTS: Councilman Lilley mentioned that Atascadero Sewing Center had installed green awnings and congratulated the store owners for participating in the new downtown signing program. Mayor. Shiers and Councilman Dexter commented on the newly-remodeled and attractive appearance of the elevator in City Hall. COMMUNITY FORUM: Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, asked if the public comment period on the Highway 41 Environmental Impact Report was open and if Caltrans will receive letters from the public. Henry Engen, Community Development Director, reported that Caltrans had postponed a meeting tentatively set for December 12, 1991 because the document was not complete. He indicated that the public hearing would probably be set for sometime in January, 1992 and suggested that the public hold their letters until the 45-day review period is CC11/12/91 • Page 1 000 opened. Larry Sherwin, 2755 Campo Road, criticized recent Planning Commission action on creek setbacks and asked Council to look into possible "misuse of office" on the part of Commission Chairperson, George Luna. Mayor Shiers indicated that the Council would hold a public hearing on the General Plan Update during the month of December. Eric Michielssen, 5300 Aguila, referenced the Atascadero 2000 Plan and expressed hope that public input would still be accepted on the General Plan Update, specifically as it relates to job/housing balance and affordable housing issues. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS (The following represent ad hoc or standing committees. Informative status reports were given, as follows. ) : 1. S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council/North Coastal Transit - Councilwoman Borgeson reported that she had attended meetings for both bodies on November 6, 1991. She announced authorization had been given for an additional bus to meet the increased ridership on Route 9 and that the Regional Transportation Improvement Program, the Regional Aviation Improvement Program and the Revised Regional Housing Needs Plan had been adopted. She added that the delegates had been reminded that very low income is 50% of the county income and it is this group' s need that is not being met. Councilwoman Borgeson remarked that she had been told that "granny" units would be a positive step toward meeting the City' s affordable housing needs. In addition, she reported that the annual unmet need balance is currently 97 units. Mayor Shiers asked if the median county income figure was presented. Councilwoman Borgeson indicated that the exact amount had not been at hand, but discussion revealed that it was not more than $32, 000/year. She projected that 50% of the people are earning less than $15, 000/year. 2. Recycling Committee - Mayor Shiers reported that he had not been able to attend the last meeting but had reviewed the minutes. . He commented that the committee was planning out issues for the next six months and that members would be making short publications in the newspaper. He announced that the next meeting would be Thursday, November 14, 1991 at 4:30 p.m. in Room 102, City Hall. CC11/12/91 Page 2 • 001 3. City/School Committee - The City Manager noted the next meeting to be November 21, 1991 at 1:30 p.m. in his office. Mayor Shiers indicated that he had received a call concerning the lack of a safe route to school in the Del Rio Road area. He mentioned that the Circulation Element would address this matter, but suggested that maybe the committee should look into it. Councilwoman Borgeson added that extra care needs to be given during the construction phase of the new San Benito School. 4. Traffic Committee - Greg Luke advised that there were two recommendations made by the committee on the Consent Calendar. 5. Downtown Interim Sign Committee - Councilman Lilley deferred this report to Regular Business Item #D-3. 6. County Water Advisory Board- Councilwoman Borgeson reported that this board had met on the 6th of November and indicated that comments to the Board of Supervisors on "State Water" are being prepared. 7. Economic Round Table - the City Manager announced the next meeting ,to be November 20, 1991 at 7:30 a.m. in Room 102 of City Hall. Councilman Lilley added that the subcommittee chairs are currently working on reports to the City Council, as requested. B. CONSENT CALENDAR: Mayor Shiers read the Consent Calendar, as follows: 1. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 1991 2. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 8; 1991 3. CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 10, 1991 4. CONSOLIDATED CITY TREASURER'S REPORT - SEPTEMBER, 1991 5. RESOLUTION NO. 102-91 - ESTABLISHING 30 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT ON GRAVES CREEK ROAD FROM MONTEREY ROAD TO SAN FERNANDO ROAD 6. RESOLUTION NO. 103-91 - ESTABLISHING "NO PARKING" ZONE ON SANTA ROSA ROAD FROM MARCHANT WAY TO LAKEVIEW DRIVE 7. AWARD CONTRACT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR RECOVERY OF RE- CLAIMED WATER CC11/12/91 Page 3 tl1)2 8. AWARD BID #91-13 - CONTRACT FOR REHABILITATION OF WASTE WATER LIFT STATION #4 9. CIRCULATION ELEMENT AND EIR CONTRACT (DRS ASSOCIATES) Mayor Shiers mentioned a minor correction to the Minutes of September 24, 1991 (Item #B-1) . Councilwoman Borgeson pulled item #B-7. The City Manager pulled item #B-8. The City Clerk pulled Item #B-3 for clarification. MOTION: By Councilman Dexter, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Items #B-3, 7 and 8; motion carried unanimously by roll call vote. Re: Item #B-3. CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 10, 1991 The City Clerk clarified a statement made by Councilman Nimmo during the joint session of October 10, 1991. She read for Council proposed amended language on page four of the minutes, in the third paragraph under the item entitled, "Creekway Mapping Committee Final Report" . MOTION: By Councilman Lilley, seconded by Councilman Dexter to approve the minutes as amended; motion passed 4: 0. Re: Item #B-7 . AWARD CONTRACT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR RECOVERY OF RE-CLAIMED WATER The City Manager requested a continuance on this matter to allow staff to prepare additional requests for proposals. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Lilley to continue the matter to allow time to go out to bid; motion carried unanimously. Re: Item #B-8. AWARD BID #91-13 - CONTRACT FOR REHABILITATION OF WASTE WATER LIFT STATION #4 Mr. Windsor reported that the Assistant City Attorney was recommending some minor changes to the contract. Mary Gayle reviewed the semantic changes to the agreement and advised that with the corrections, the contract would then be approved by the City Attorney' s office. MOTION: By Councilman Lilley, seconded by Councilman Dexter to adopt the amendments as proposed by the City Attorney; motion carried 4:0. CC11/12/91 Page 4 003 C. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES: • 1. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 04-91, 7325-7329 SANTA YS ABEL - Appeal of Planning Commission' s recommendation to deny proposed conver- sion of existing 6-unit, multi-family project to condominiums. Henry Engen presented the staff report and recommendation to deny the appeal pursuant to the Exhibit "F" of the Planning Commission' s Findings for Denial. Responding to inquiry from Councilwoman Borgeson, the Community Development Director reported that this application had come in after the condominium conversion ordinance was adopted (January 8, 1991) . He stated that the final application was submitted in July and determined complete in August. Public Comments: John Faulkenstein, Cuesta Engineering, spoke on behalf of the applicant and provided background on the project application. He asked that the City Council allow an exception to the density standards of the RMF zone relative to condominium conversions. Don Sausserig, 10735 San Marcos Road, asked why it is that there is opposition to condominium conversion and stated that he believed they would fill a need for housing. Roberto Nathan, applicant, explained that he had bought the • property with the understanding that he could develop the project. He explained the process he had followed and the frustrations he had encountered. Mr. Nathan asserted that the project would provide affordable housing and urged the Council to grant the appeal. Valerie Lowe, 6500 Alcatara, remarked that she was a neighbor to the project site and spoke in support of the appeal. She stated that the complex fits all other criteria for conversion and pointed out that not all condominiums are purchased by homeowners, but rather by investors who will rent them out. ---End of Public Testimony--- Councilwoman Borgeson indicated that she had asked the Community Development Director at the time Council was looking at an urgency ordinance whether or not there were any applications in the "pipeline" and asked if this project was one of them. Mr. Engen reiterated that the project application had not been deemed complete until months after the moratorium. Individual Council comments followed supporting the Planning Commission' s recommendation to deny the appeal. CC11/12/91 • Page 5 - 004 MOTION: By Councilman Dexter, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to uphold the Planning Commission' s denial and approve the staff recommendation to deny the Tentative Tract Map 04-91 based on the Findings of Denial in Attachment "F"; motion unanimously carried 4:0. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 234 - AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT TO ALLOW AWNINGS AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO CONVENTIONAL SIGNS IN THE DOWNTOWN ZONES (Zone Change 10-91) (Recommend motion to waive reading in full and approve on first reading by title only) Henry Engen presented background and staff recommendations to approve. Robert Malone, Assistant Planner, distributed to Council copies of the brochure outlining the program. Councilwoman Borgeson commented that she thought limitations proposed for window graphics were too strict. In addition, she questioned the need for all awnings in the downtown to be in the same shade of green and asserted that she favored more individuality. Mr. Engen advised that the Downtown Master Plan allows .for awnings, but does not mandate specific color. Council- man Lilley explained that one fundamental purpose of the downtown signing program is to tie the diverse architectural building styles together and indicated that the use of one color for the awnings is a way to achieve this. He added that the B.I.A. strongly endorsed the color scheme. • Councilman Dexter expressed support for the program and made the following motion: MOTION: By Councilman Dexter, seconded by Councilman Lilley to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 234 in full and read by title only; motion unanimously passed. MOTION: By Councilman Dexter, seconded by Councilman Lilley to approve Ordinance No. 234 on first reading; motion passed 4: 0 by roll call vote. D. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1. 3-F MEADOWS ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (Public hearing closed) Mayor Shiers announced that the Council had received a request from 3-F Meadows resident Howard Marohn to continue this matter for two weeks. Councilwoman Borgeson asked for clarification from legal counsel relative to public hearing rights. Mary Gayle revealed that the Council had advertised, held and closed a noticed, public hearing CC11/12/91 Page 6 " - 005 on the matter and advised that it would not be appropriate or legal to take additional testimony on the issue. The City Manager recapped that the public hearing on September 24, 1991 had been closed and staff had been directed to review State Department of Real Estate (DRE) reports relative to the developer' s responsibility towards roads in the 3-F Meadows area. He advised that it might be well to receive a status report from the Assistant City Attorney, but noted that there was still work to be done. Mary Gayle briefly apprised the Council of her research to date. She reported that it was stated in the DRE report she had examined that the responsibility for the roads is that of the lot holder. She reported that the roads are private, that there are easements over them and they are not in the public domain or owned by the City or the County. In addition, she informed the Council that there are a number of streets in 3-F Meadows (Block 31) that are not listed in the DRE report she reviewed and advised that additional research will be necessary to this regard. The City Manager urged the Council to direct Mary Gayle to go to Sacramento to conduct further investigation noting that this matter ties into the whole issue of "Colony Roads MOTION: By Councilman Lilley, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to continue the matter, re-publish a public hearing on the matter and authorize the Assistant City Attorney, on the advice of the City Manager, to do what is necessary to complete the investigation and report back prior to the hearing. Discussion on the motion: Mr. Windsor pointed out that November 26, 1991 was the date requested by Mr. Marohn and asked the Assistant City Attorney if his request would allow sufficient time to obtain the information and notice the hearing. Mary Gayle indicated that it would not. Council agreed that a hearing date would not be set until it was certain that all the information had been received. Vote on the motion: Motion carried 4:0. Councilman Nimmo arrived at 8:30 p.m. 2. OFFERS TO PURCHASE REAL PROPERTY (Resolutions of Necessity) A. Resolution No. 104-91 - Finding and determining that the public interest, convenience and necessity require the acquisition of certain real property for public park and recreational purposes and all uses appurtenant thereto (Fluitt and Ward (Stadium Park) ) CC11/12/91 Page 7 006 Mary Gayle presented the staff report and advised the Council that it was only required by law to hear from the property owners or those with an option on the property. Public Comment: Clayton Fluitt, owner of the acreage, indicated that Earl Ward has an option on the property. He stated that he understood that Mr. Ward would be present and deferred comments to him. Mr. Ward was not present and no other member of the public presented testimony. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilman Lilley to adopt Resolution No. 104-91; motion unanimously carried. B. Resolution No. 105-91 - Finding and determining that the public interest, convenience and necessity require the acquisition of certain property for public purposes as a part of the Amapoa Drainage Project and 'all uses appurtenant thereto (Guidry (Lake Park) ) The City Manager reported that a request to continue this matter for thirty days had been received from the law firm of Mullen & Henzell, representing Mr. and Mrs. William P. Guidry, Jr. He suggested that the matter be put over until January 14, 1992. By mutual agreement, Council continued the hearing until January 14, 1992. Mary Gayle remarked that notices of continuance would be mailed to the property owners and their legal counsel. Mayor Shiers called a short recess at 8:45 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:00 p.m. 3. DOWNTOWN: INTERSECTION OF PALMA & ENTRADA AVENUES - Review of conceptual site plan for pedestrian-oriented intersection im- provements Robert Malone presented the staff report and overview of staff recommendations to endorse a downtown streetscape theme and prototype design for street improvements and street furniture P at the intersection of Entrada and Palma Avenues. He explained each of the two options proposed. Public Comments: Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, spoke in support of the concept and design. CC11/12/91 Page 8 _ 007 John Himes, representing the B.I.A. , indicated enthusiastic support and reported that the association was willing to transfer funds originally set aside for street lights as a way to help meet the costs of the proposed street furniture. He added that if the project is approved, he hoped that the work would be completed quickly so that it would not be too painful for the downtown. Sarah Gronstrand, 7620 Del Rio Road, reminded Council that she had been a member of the Downtown Master Plan Committee and disagreed with portions of the staff report regarding implementation of the plan. She asserted that the prototype design was a deviation from the Master Plan and proclaimed the proposed project pointless, wasteful and unnecessary. John Cole, 8710 Sierra Vista, described the proposed intersection as an extravagant expenditure and declared that there are matters of public health and safety which are in greater need of attention. He urged the Council to give this matter serious consideration. ---End of Public Testimony--- Councilwoman Borgeson indicated that she was not in support of the proposed project and pointed out that Council had not given priority to the matter by listing it in the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program. Councilman Dexter remarked that the Council had collectively made • downtown beautification a goal and contended that the theme is important t for restructuring the downtown. Councilman Nimmo stated that he was in full support and added that he did not perceive the expenditure to be wasteful. He asserted that it was time to begin making some progress in revitalizing the downtown. Councilman Lilley agreed, adding that it would be, in conjunction with private enterprise, a prudent investment in the economic future of the community. Councilwoman Borgeson affirmed that she was in favor of downtown revitalization but deems the expense of the proposition to be excessive. Mayor Shiers indicated that he was willing to support the project noting that it would attract business. He added that he surmised the City would get a return on the investment. MOTION: By Councilman Dexter, seconded by Councilman Lilley to approve Option #1 for downtown street improvements and furniture; motion carried 4: 1 with Councilwoman Borgeson voting in opposition. CC11/12/91 Page 9 ()Ild 4. AWARD OF BID #91-16 FOR PURCHASE OF PHOTOCOPIER Mark Joseph provided background and staff recommendation to award the bid to Eastman Kodak Company. He reported that product features of the Kodak machine, including volume capacity, accessibility and a continuous forms feeder were a component in making the decision to go with the second lowest bidder. He indicated that representatives from both Eastman Kodak and More Office Systems, the low bidder, were present. Public Comments: Tito Molfino, More Office Systems, told the Council that the Canon product he had bid met the specifications in the first and in the second bid. He compared features of the copier to those of the product offered by Kodak and emphasized that if a continuous forms feeder was desired, it should have been specified in the bid package. Mr. Molfino, who is an Atascadero resident, urged Council to buy from his firm, the lowest responsible bidder. Greg Swanson, Eastman Kodak Company, pointed out that his price had been the lowest one on the original bid. He noted that, the second time around, each vendor had bid the same machine only with lower prices and stressed that Kodak still came in second lowest. Mr. Swanson implored the Council to chose the copier recommended by those who will use it: City staff and volunteers. Councilman Nimmo asked the Eastman Kodak representative how many • copiers of this model were in San Luis Obispo County. Mr. Swanson responded that there was one. ---End of Public Testimony--- Council comments followed. Councilman Nimmo indicated that he was as uncomfortable with this bid as he' was with the first one and remarked that the invitation to bid should have addressed the issue of paper jams. Councilwoman Borgeson observed that staff had a preference for the Kodak when the lowest responsible bid was for the Canon. Councilman Lilley criticized the bid process remarking that a process should be adopted whereby specific details are evaluated and requested features are specified. Councilman Dexter recognized the need to fine tune the bid process, but commented that he favored going along with the staff recommendation. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to award the bid to More Office Systems of San Luis Obispo for a Canon NP-9800; motion carried 4: 1 with Councilman Dexter voting in opposition. CC11/12/91 Page 10 Meeting Date: 12/10/91 Agenda Item # B-1 AMENDED PAGES 11 & 12 5. APPOINTMENT OF NATIVE TREE ASSOCIATION STEERING COMMITTEE Mayor Shiers indicated that he had received from all councilmembers names for the Native Tree Association steering committee. He stated that more names were submitted than the proposed size of the committee and suggested that individuals whose names were mentioned by at least two councilmembers be appointed. Members of Council concurred. MOTION: By Mayor Shiers, seconded by Councilman Lilley to appoint Erika Banner, Eileen and Craig Cunningham, Fred Frank, Marj Mackey and Jim Patterson to be steering committee for the Atascadero Native Tree Association; motion unanimously approved. 6. ORDINANCE 233 - ADDING CHAPTER 5 TO TITLE 4 OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRING THE DISPLAY OF STREET ADDRESS NUMBERS (Recommend motion to waive reading in full and approve on second reading by title only) Mayor Shiers indicated this was the second reading of this ordinance. Councilman Dexter inquired about the size of street numbers as proposed by the ordinance. The mayor relayed the fire chief' s comments from the past meeting indicating his willingness to be somewhat flexible with this provision as long as the address • could easily be seen. MOTION: By Councilman Dexter, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to adopt Ordinance No. 233 on second reading; motion carried 5: 0 by roll call vote. 7 . DECEMBER MEETING SCHEDULE A. Regular Council Meeting December 24th Mayor Shiers pointed out that the second meeting would fall on Christmas Eve. MOTION: By Councilman Lilley, seconded by Councilman Dexter to cancel the meeting of December 24, 1991; motion passed unanimously. B. General Plan Hearing Schedule Mayor Shiers mentioned that the suggested date was Thursday, December 19, 1991 at 7: 00 p.m. There was consensus to set the special hearing for that date. is CC11/12/91 Page 11 C. Fiscal Model Demonstration by Multari, Crawford & Starr Mayor Shiers indicated that staff had requested Council meet at 6: 00 p.m. on December 10th to receive the consultants ' presentation. The City Manager stated that he would invite the members of the Planning Commission to also attend. Council concurred. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1. City Council Councilman Nimmo reported that he had attended on behalf of the mayor a meeting on October 29, 1991 for the purpose of nominating, at the request of the Governor, at least two city councilmembers to the California Coastal Commission. He stated that following three city councilmembers were nominated: Rosemarie Sheetz of Morro Bay, Chuck Comstock of Grover City and Dick Morrow of Pismo Beach. 2. City Treasurer Micki Korba reported that the September Treasurer' s Report shows the month' s interest from the Orange County Investment Pool as $55,901.75 and advised that this figure was actually the interest for the quarter ending June 30, 1991. She stated that the interest was not received until September, adding that there is a 10-week lapse between the time the interest is earned and it is posted to • the account. Ms. Korba advised that the interest for the quarter ending September 30th was $123,895. 84 THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 10:23 P.M. THE NEXT MEETING OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL IS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1991 AT 7 :00 P.M. MINUTES RECORDED AND PREPARED BY: jx LEE RABOIN, City Clerk CC11/12/91 Page 12 • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item: B-2 CITY OF ATASCADERO Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 12/10/91 From: Micki Korba, City Treasurer,h/4L� Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Updating Annual Investment Policy RECONNENDATION: Staff recommends Council adopt Resolution 109-91 approving the City' s Investment Policy. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The City's Investment Policy was significantly revised last December. State law required the policy be revised annually. Although that provision of the law has been repealed, it is nonetheless prudent to review the policy. In particular, the policy needs to reflect our current use of the Orange County Agency Investment Fund, as our primary investment tool. Other than the revision noted above, the policy is the same as last year. • 00 (112 RESOLUTION NO. 109-91 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO TO ADOPT ITS ANNUAL INVESTMENT POLICY WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero was required by state law to adopt an Annual City Investment Policy, for idle funds, and the law will probably be reinstated; and WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of the City Treasurer to propose such a policy as well as indicated by good business sense and prudent practice. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does readopt the attached Investment Policy to be followed by the City Treasurer in the investment of the City's idle funds. On motion by Councilperson , and seconded by Councilperson , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety, including the actual Investment Policy attached, by the following Roll Call vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: • ADOPTED: ATTEST: By• LEE RABOIN, City Clerk ALDEN F. SHIERS, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /✓��C-'ice' �/ �l s`t�/r ARTHER MONTANDON MURIEL RORBA City Attorney City Treasurer 0a (11 .3 • CITY OF ATASCADERO STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY 1.0 POLICY It is the policy of the City of Atascadero to invest public funds in a manner which will provide the highest investment return with the maximum security while meeting the daily cash flow demands of the City of Atascadero and conforming to all state, county and local statutes governing the investment of public funds -- safety, liquidity, and yield (SLY) . 2.0 SCOPE This investment policy applies to all financial assets of the City of Atascadero. These funds are accounted for in the City of Atascadero' s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and include: 2.1 Funds 2.1.1 General Fund 2.1.2 Special Revenue Funds 2.1.3 Capital Project Funds 2.1.4 Enterprise Funds 2.1.5 Trust and Agency Funds 2.1.6 Retirement/Pension Funds • 2.1.7 Any new funds unless specifically exempted. 3.0 PRUDENCE - Civil Code #2261 Investments shall be made with judgment and care -- under circumstances then prevailing -- which persons of prudence, discretion and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs, not for speculation, but for investment, considering the probable safety of their capital as well as the probable income to be derived. 3.1 The standard of prudence to be used by investment officials shall be the "prudent person" standard and shall be applied in the context of managing an overall portfolio. Investment officers acting in accordance with written procedures and the investment policy and exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security's credit risk or market price changes, provided deviations from expectations_ are reported in a timely fashion and appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments. 4.0 DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY - Per Government Code #53607 4.1 All solicitations for investments shall be made to and through the City Treasurer. ou (11 4.2 All brokers/dealers must have an application on file that • has been previously approved before any investment can be made through them. 4.3 Two signatures shall be required for any purchase of C.D. 's or other type of investment, except LAIF and Orange Co. Investment Pool. The two signatures shall be that of City Treasurer and Finance Director. If the latter is unavailable, the Assistant Finance Director may substitute. 4.4 Any out-of-state investment shall require consultation with and approval of the City Attorney. State laws differ and additional requirements may be appropriate for the safety of any investment. 5.0 REPORTING 5.1 The Treasurer shall submit a monthly investment report to the City Council. This report will include all required elements of the monthly report as prescribed by Government Code Section 53646. Required elements of the monthly report: 5.1.1 Type of Investment 5.1.2 Institution 5.1.3 Date of Maturity • 5.1.4 Amount of Deposit or Cost of the Security 5.1.5 Current market value of securities with maturity in excess of 12 months. 5.1.6 Rate of Interest 5.1.7 Statement relating the report to the Statement of Investment Policy. 5.1.8 Statement that there are sufficient funds to meet the next 30 days' obligations. 5.1.9 Effective January 1, 1991 accrued Interest as prescribed by the California Code Section 53646. 6.0 SAFEKEEPING AND CUSTODY All security transactions, including collateral for repurchase agreements, entered into by the City of Atascadero shall be conducted on a delivery - versus - payment (DVP) basis. Securities will be held by a third party custodian designated by the Treasurer and evidenced by safekeeping receipts. �1 e U� t :� • 7 .0 DIVERSIFICATION: The City of Atascadero will diversify its investments by security type and institution. With the exceptions of U.S. Treasury securities and authorized pools -- such as the State LAIF and Orange County Agency Investment Fund -- no more than 10% of the City of Atascadero's total investment portfolio will be invested in a single security type or with a single financial institution. 7.1 Permitted investments/deposits Securities of the U.S. Government Certificates of Deposits Negotiable Certificates of Deposit Bankers Acceptances Commercial Paper Local Agency Investment Fund (State Pool) County Agency Investment Fund Passbook Deposits Repurchase Agreement Reverse Repurchase Agreements 7.2 Competitive Bids-Purchase and sale of securities should be made on the basis of competitive offers and bids when practical. 7.3 Purchases shall be made only with corporations in a rating category of "A" or its equivalent or better by a nationally recognized rating service. 8.0 MAXIMUM MATURITIES To the extent possible, the City of Atascadero will attempt to match its investments with anticipated cash flow requirements. Unless matched to a specific cash flow, the City of Atascadero will not directly invest in securities maturing more than 2 years from the date of purchase. 9.0 INTERNAL CONTROL 9.1 A system of internal control shall be established and documented in writing. The controls shall be designed to prevent losses of public funds arising from fraud, employee error, misrepresentation of third parties, unanticipated changes in . financial markets, or imprudent actions by employees and officers of the City of Atascadero. Controls deemed most important include: control of collusion, separation of duties, separating transaction authority from accounting and recordkeeping, custodial safekeeping, clear delegation of authority, specific limitations regarding securities; losses and remedial action, written confirmation of telephone transactions, minimizing the number of authorized Investment Officials, documentation of transactions and strategies, and code of ethics standards. 00 016 10.0 STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY • The Statement of Investment Policy shall be reviewed and submitted annually to the City Council of the City of Atascadero, State of California Government (Code 53646) . I MURIEL C. RORBA, City Treasurer City of Atascadero a:investpolicy lj v i► i , REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item: B_3 CITY OF ATASCADERO Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 12/10/91 From: Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director ?f-� SUBJECT: Annual Claim for Local Transportation Funds. �j RECDATION: Staff recommends Council adopt Resolution No. 110-91, authorizing the filing of a claim for Local Transportation Funds. BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION The City annually files a claim for its share of local transportation funds. The effort is coordinated through the SLO Area Coordinating Council (SLO-ACC) . Funds are used to cover local transit needs (i.e. , Dial-A-Ride) ; two percent is earmarked for Bike/Pedestrian pathways, and the balance for streets and roads. For the last two years, no monies were used for Dial-A-Ride. This was because of the fund's high cash balance. This year, however $120,000 will be needed to maintain the Dial-A-Ride program. The actual claim is higher than staff originally budgeted. Our budget assumed $482,957; the claim is for $534,080. The main reason is the availability of $37,605 in State Transit Assistance (STA) monies. The table below shows the budget versus claim amounts, by category. TABLE ONE: FY 91-92 LTF BUDGET VS. CLAIM CATEGORY BUDGET CLAIM Dial-A-Ride (LTF) 120,000 82,355 Dial-A-Ride (STA) -0- 37,605 Dial-A-Ride, Subtotal 120,000 120,000 Bike/Pedestrian Routes 10,177 10,601 Streets/Roads (LTF) 352,780 403,479 482,957 5340,080 • Uu (11 H RESOLUTION 110-91 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A CLAIM FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS AND STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT WHEREAS, Articles 4 and 8 of Chapter 4 of the Public Utilities Code requires claims for operating funds to be filed with the transportation planning agency by local transportation operators; and WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero is eligible for transportation funds as provided in Chapter 4 of the Public Utilities Code; and WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council is the designated transportation planning agency for San Luis Obispo County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Atascadero does hereby authorize the filing of a claim for Local Transportation Funds in the amount of $534,080. If additional LTF funis become available said funds shall be used for the purpose of street maintenance. The claim form is attached hereto marked Exhibit A and by reference thereof made a part hereof. On motion by Councilperson and seconded by Councilperson the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE: ATTEST: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk ALDEN SHIERS, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: , v MARY REDUS GAYLE MARK JOSEP • Assistant City Attorney Administrative Services Director 00 ���y EXHIBIT A ANNUAL CLAIM FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS AND STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS CLAIM #12A-A1-91/92 TO: San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council FISCAL YEAR 1991/92 County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 FROM: CLAIMANT: CITY OF ATASCADERO ADDRESS: 6500 PALMA CITY: ATASCADERO, CA ZIP CODE:93422 CONTACT PERSON: MARK JOSEPH , FINANCE PHONE: 461-5017 This claimant, qualified pursuant to Section 99203 of the Public Utilities Code, hereby requests, in accordance with Chapter 1400, Statutes of 1971, as amended and applicable rules and regulations, that an allocation be made for the purposes and in the respective amounts as described in the attached Project and Financial Plan claim form. a) Annual (LTF) Apportionment $ 485,874 b) Annual Bicycle/Ped.Apportionment $ 10,601 c) Annual (STA) Funds $ 37,60S 1) Operator Revenues $ 3,11S 2) Apportionment $ 34,490 TOTAL FUNDS BEING CLAIMED ARE $ 534,080 Claimant Signature: Title: Date: This claim was KapprcSan Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council at their July 17, 1991 meeting, by Resolution No. 91-06. Ronald L. De Carla, Executive Director Date • dh:claims Uv REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B -4 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: Dec. 10, 1991 From: Richard ff. McHale, Chief of Police ---------------� ---------- ----------------------------------- SUBJECT: Bid award for purchase of one marked police patrol sedan. RECOMMENDATION: By motion, award the current bid proposal to Folsom Lake Ford for the purchase of one marked 1992 police patrol sedan (mid-sized Taurus) for an amount not to exceed the low bid meeting the specifications of $16,504. 00, including tax. BACKGROUND: Council will recall that the purchase of this patrol car was previously authorized in the current 1991-92 fiscal year budget. Bid packages including all specifications were prepared and mailed by the Finance Division and City Clerk to fifteen dealerships (including all within our city) in California. There were three bid proposals submitted for consideration from Atascadero Ford, Fuller Ford of Chula Vista and Folsom Lake Ford of Folsom. As indicated on the attached bid summary sheet, Folsom Lake Ford was the low bidder even after the required police options were added to their quoted base price. The difference between the lowest bidder and the second lowest bid is $1, 324.80. One final note: This special police package car is as indicated, a mid-sized sedan which is a departure from the full-sized patrol vehicles we ordinarily purchase. It is our intent to test this vehicle as a viable police unit during the next year so as to measure cost effectiveness, vehicle durability, suitability, safety, comfort, etc. FISCAL IMPACT: As stated, this purchase was. previously authorized by Council action in the adoption of our current budget. • RHM:sb Attachments: UV 02"1 BID SUMMARY • TO: Bud McHale Police Chief FROM: Lee Raboin City Clerk- BID NO. : 91-18 OPENED : 11/14/91 2:00 p.m. PROJECT: Police Sedan I received and opened today, the following bids: Dealer Name & Address Model Bid Amount Folsom Lake Ford Ford Taurus $14,370.43* # 9479 Madison Avenue Folsom, CA 95630 Atascadero Ford Ford Taurus L 17,828. 80 3850 E1 Camino Real Atascadero, CA 93422 Fuller Ford Ford Taurus 18,349.40 760 Broadway Chula Vista, CA 91910 * Please Note: Dealer deviates from bid specifications. Some options were quoted seperately from the total bid price. c: Cathy Sargent Attachments: 3 bids, as outlined above 2 "No bids" - C&M Chevrolet and Kimball Motor Company ,GL47NS � -Tb7nL- I S • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-5 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 12/10/91 Via: Greg Luke, Public Works Director From: ,*,,Steve Steve Sylvester, Consulting Engineer SUBJECT: Atascadero Road Improvements - Consultant Design Contract Award RECOMMENDATION: Council adopt Resolution 11191 authorizing the Public Works Director to execute a contract for $17,900. with Associated Professionals, Inc. to design improvements on Atascadero Road. BACKGROUND: The City's 1991-92 Capital Improvement program includes improvements to Atascadero Road from 600' north of San Diego Road to Santa Barbara (see attached exhibit) . $175,000. have been budgeted this year for this project. The improvements are necessary to correct an unsafe condition on that portion of Atascadero Road north of San Diego Road, and to provide pavement overlay and improvements to the portion south of San Diego Road. The City has distributed a Request for Proposals for the design contract for the project. DISCUSSION• On Monday, Decemeber 2, 1991, 8 proposals for the engineering design were received. The proposals were reviewed by the Public Works staff and by the City's engineering consultant, North Coast Engineering, Inc. , and based on overall content of the proposal and fee, the proposal by Associated Professions, Inc. , is judged to be the most appropriate. FISCAL IMPACT• $17,900.00 for engineering contract plus administrative costs. • Attachment: Project Vicinity Map 00 023 HPWOR91153.00C . 1 6 J i Vi(JO / C4ti R0 d R R S -- _ 1.0 a o `OEqo �I i R (FN) e ATASCADERO ROAD 600' N. OF SAN DIEGO ROAD TO SANTA BARBARA ROAD RESOLUTION NO. 111-91 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH ASSOCIATED PROFESSIONS INC. TO DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS TO ATASCADERO ROAD The City Council of the City of Atascadero, California, hereby resolves as follows: 1. The Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to execute an agreement with: Associated Professions Inc. to design improements to Atascadero Road. 2 . The Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to make minor corrections or modifications of a mathematical or clerical nature. 3 . The Finance Director is hereby authorized to: appropriate funds, if necessary; release and expend funds; and issue warrants to comply with the terms of this agreement. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Atascadero held on the CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA ALDEN SHIERS, Mayor ATTEST: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk Uu 111: REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-6 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 12/10/91 Via: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works From: ®Steve Sylvester, Consulting Engineer SUBJECT: E1 Camino Real Improvements - Consultant Design Contract Award RECOMMENDATION• Council adopt Resolution 112-91 authorizing the Public Works Director to execute a contract for $19,000. with Associated Professionals, Inc. to design improvements on E1 Camino Real. BACKGROUND: The City's 1991-92 Capital Improvement Program includes improvements to E1 Camino Real from San Gabriel Avenue to • approximately 800' south of the Atascadero State Hospital entrance (see attached exhibit) . The City has distributed a Request for Proposal for the engineering design services for the project. $200,000. have been budgeted this year for this project. Atascadero State Hospital has expressed the desire to share the cost of this project. Staff is currently working on details of this cost sharing and will present this to Council in January. DISCUSSION• On Monday, December 2, 1991, 6 proposals for the design services were received. The proposals have been reviewed based on content and fee, and the proposal submitted by Associated Professions, Inc. , is judged to be the most appropriate. FISCAL IMPACT: $19, 000.00 for design contract plus administrative costs. • Attachments: Project Vicinity Ma 7 y P WP\COR91152.DOC U V w fi i i T. /,-RSF (PD7) r LJ CR t / T T l % cS� / �R •'1 6 E c \ € o Iwo � �\ 4 R vE�� ,R F i RS • EL CAMINO REAL SAN GA9RIEL ROAD TO JOFZNAnA I ANF RESOLUTION NO. 112-91 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH ASSOCIATED PROFESSIONS INC. TO DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS TO EL CAMINO REAL The City Council of the City of Atascadero, California, hereby resolves as follows: 1. The Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to execute an agreement with: Associated Professions Inc. to design improements to E1 Camino Real. 2 . The Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to make minor corrections or modifications of a mathematical or clerical nature. 3 . The Finance Director is hereby authorized to: appropriate • funds, if necessary; release and expend funds; and issue warrants to comply with the terms of this agreement. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Atascadero held on the CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA ALDEN SHIERS, Mayor ATTEST: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk 06 liiry • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: B-7 CITY OF ATASCADERO THROUGH: Ray Windsor, City Manager MEETING DATE: 12/10/91 FROM: Andrew J. Takata, Director( Department of Community Services SUBJECT: CONTRACT FOR MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS RECOMMENDATION: City Council approve contract to: Lee Wilson Electric Company 1151 El Camino Real Atascadero, California 93422 City Council approve contract in the amount of: $540. 00 per month, Base Sum for each signalized intersection (5 signals) , listed in Exhibit "A", required by Section 1.02 (E) $ 96. 00 per month, for each signalized intersection (5 signals) , listed in Exhibit "A" required by Sections 1. 02 (B) (C) (D) (F) (G) (H) Labor Costs Listed in Exhibit "B" for 24 hour emergency service (Section 1. 02 (H) and other locations (Section 1.02(I) City Council approve contract term: 36 month contract (1991-1994) from date of authorization DISCUSSION: Lee Wilson Electric Company is the sole entity in this area to offer the services listed in the attached contract. Because Lee Wilson Electric Company is the sole entity in this area to offer the services listed in the attached contract, this request for services was not solicited for bids from other entities. Lee Wilson Electric Company contracted with the City of Atascadero from 1987 to present for this service, performed signal repair services prior to 1987, and is known to provide qualified service. 00 - 029 FISCAL IMPACT: Funds sufficient to enter into the proposed contract have been authorized by the City Council in the 1991/92 budget. AJT:kv ;ConWil 00 (gill • CONTRTACT FOR MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS This "CONTRACT FOR MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS (the "Contract") is made as of the day of , 1991 (the "Effective Date") , by and between LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Contractor", and the CITY OF ATASCADERO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City". The parties hereto, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions agree to the following terms and conditions: 1. 00 GENERAL PROVISIONS: 1.01 TERM: This Contract will become effective on the Effective Date and, except as otherwise provided herein, will terminate at the end of the thirty-sixth month thereafter ( _, 1994) ; hereinafter said period shall be referred to as the "Term"; provided, however, that an "Early Termination" as defined in Section 4, below, may occur pursuant to the provisions of said Section 4 . 1. 02 SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY CONTRACTOR: • Contractor shall perform or provide the following services and materials: A. All tools, equipment, apparatus, facilities, labor, services and materials and perform in a good and workmanlike manner, subject to the inspection and approval of the City by and through its Director of Public Works or his designated appointed inspectors or representatives, all work necessary to maintain in operable, safe condition the traffic signal facilities listed in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (hereinafter the "Signals") . B. Inspection, cleaning and adjustment of each controller unit for the Signals once each month during the Term of this Contract. C. Maintenance of a record in each cabinet containing each controller unit for each Signal or group of Signals showing the date and time of each inspection of each such controller unit. Except for temporary repair, no such controller unit shall be replaced without the prior approval of the City, acting by and through the Director of Public Works or his designated appointed inspectors or representatives. • Page 1 of 13 00 031 • D. Replacement and/or repair of any and all defective or worn out parts in any of the Signals which cause a Signal failure or malfunction as the occasion arises. E. Replacement of all lamps in all Signals using a standard of an eighty percent (80%) depletion curve, but not to exceed a period of twelve (12) months, using standard traffic signal lamps. The replacement of burned out lamps shall not be on an emergency basis, provided there are at least two (2) indications still operative for each direction of travel. In such case, replacement shall be handled as soon as possible in a routine manner. F. Cleaning, polishing and inspection of all lenses and reflectors in each Signal at the time lamps are replaced therein. At such time as lamps are replaced in each Signal, Contractor shall replace or change all broken or deteriorated parts in such Signal, as necessary. G. In the course of traveling to and from locations of the equipment to be serviced, Contractor shall observe the Signals at other intersections designated in Exhibit "A" for possible malfunctions. • H. Maintenance of a 24-hour per day emergency service for the replacement of burned out lamps or controller unit malfunctions. In the event of an emergency, contact for service shall be made to those of Contractors personnel listed in Exhibit "C". I. Contractor shall provided the same service for repair of other equipment and appurtenances at locations which not shown on Exhibit "A", including but not limited to safety lighting, pedestrian signals and detector devices, which City may request Contractor to repair, replace or refurbish from time to time. Except as otherwise provided above, Contractor shall determine the method, details and means of performing the above- referenced services, subject to inspection and approval of the City, acting by and through its Director of Public Works or his designated inspectors or their respective representatives. Contractor may, at Contractor's sole expense, employ such assistants as Contractor deems necessary to perform the services required of Contractor by this Contract. City may not control, direct or supervise Contractor's assistants or employees in the performance of those services. • Page 2 of 13 00 0,12 1. 03 COMPENSATION: In consideration for the services to be performed by Contractor, City agrees to pay Contractor the consideration set forth in the amounts and under the terms hereinafter provided: (A) For each signalized intersection listed in Exhibit "A", attached hereto, including the services required by Section 1. 02 (E) , above, City shall pay Contractor the sum of Five Hundred and Forty Dollars ($540) which shall hereinafter be defined as the "Base Sum". (B) In addition to the Base Sum, City shall pay the sum of Ninety-six Dollars ($96.00) per month for each signalized intersection listed in Exhibit "A", except when such repairs or services are necessitated by the obsolescence of the equipment or damage, including but not limited to collision, acts of God or vandalism, for the services listed in Section 1.02 (B) , (C) , (D) , (F) , (G) and (H) , above. (C) In addition to the Base Sum and those payment provided by Section (B) , above, City shall pay Contractor labor costs at the prevailing standard rates as set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto, for services rendered pursuant to Section 1. 02 (H) , above. (D) For any services provided pursuant to Section 1. 02 (I) , above, the rates set forth in above this Section 1. 02 (B) and 1. 02 (C) shall be charged. 1. 03 ADJUSTMENT OF RATES: Adjustment of the costs set forth iri Section 1. 02 , above, may be renegotiated by the parties on each annual anniversary of the Effective Date of this Contract; provided, however, that any increase in such rates shall be in the sole discretion and subject to the approval of the City Council. Any insurance increases may be also be negotiated at that time. Any change in rates shall be reflected in amendments to this Agreement by attaching a new Exhibit to this Agreement which indicate the date upon which the change is to become effective and the increase in rate as it applies to Section 1. 03 (A) , (B) , (C) or (D) , as the case may be. 2 . 00 OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTOR: 2 . 01 MINIMUM AMOUNT OF SERVICE BY CONTRACTOR: Contractor agrees to devote the hours necessary to perform the services set forth in Section 1. 02 of this Contract and to perform said services on City equipment as set forth in said Section 1. 02 of this Contract. Contractor may represent, perform services for, and be employed by individuals or entities other Page 3 of 13 011 0:43 than City, in Contractor's sole discretion; provided, however, that the performance of such services for such individuals or entities does not interfere with or take business away from Contractor's ability to perform its obligations to the City as described herein. 2 . 02 CONTRACTOR IS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: City and Contractor intend and agree that Contractor is an independent contractor of City and that neither Contractor nor Contractor's employees and agents have a right to worker's compensation or other employee benefits from the City. 2.03 INSURANCE: The following types of insurance shall be provided by Contractor, at Contractors sole cost, throughout the Term of this Contract at Contractor's sole cost and expense: (A) CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE: Contractor shall provide worker's compensation and other employee benefits, where required by law, for Contractor's employees and agents and agrees to hold harmless and indemnify City for any and all claims arising out of any injury, disability, or death of Contractor or any of Contractor's employees or agents. Contractor shall provide City with certificates issued by the company providing wofte-rs` compensatiion insurance for said employees showing that said insurance has been issued and is in full force and effect throughout the Term of this Contract. (B) PUBLIC LIABILITY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE INSURANCE: Contractor shall carry public liability and property damage insurance throughout the Term of this Contract in an amount of (1) not less than $500, 000 per injury, including accidental death, for injury to one person, and (2) not less than $500, 000 per injury, including accidental death, for injury to each person with no less than $1,000, 000 total for each accident involving injuries to two or more persons, and (3) property damage insurance in an amount not less than $50, 000. Contractor shall provide City with certificates issued by the company(ies) providing the aforedescribed liability insurance showing that said insurance has been issued and is in full force and effect throughout the Term of this Contract. (C) VEHICLE INSURANCE: Contractor shall obtain public liability and property damage to insure vehicles used or maintained by him in the performance of the work required of it by this Contract, insuring those vehicles Page 4 of 13 00 0,14 • in the amount of (1) not less than $500, 000 per injury, including accidental death, for injury to one person, and (2) not less than $500, 000 per injury, including accidental death, for injury to each person with no less than $1, 000, 000 total for each accident involving injuries to two or more persons, and (3) property damage insurance in an amount not less than $50, 000. Contractor shall provide City with certificates issued by the company(ies) providing the aforedescribed liability insurance showing that said insurance has been issued and is in full force and effect throughout the Term of this Contract. 3 .00 COOPERATION BY CITY: City shall comply with all reasonable requests of Contractor necessary to the performance of Contractor's duties under this Contract. 4. 00 TERMINATION OF CONTRACT: Unless renewed by the mutual agreement of the parties and subject to early termination as hereinafter set forth, this Contract shall automatically terminate at the end of the Term. An "Early Termination" may occur in any of the following circumstances: 4 . 01 TERMINATION ON NOTICE: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Contract, any party hereto may terminate this Contract, at any time, by giving at least sixty (60) days prior written notice to the other party to this Contract. 4 . 02 TERMINATION ON OCCURRENCE OF STATED EVENTS: This Contract shall terminate automatically on the occurrence of any of the following events: A) Bankruptcy or insolvency of any party; (B) Sale of the business of any party; (C) Death of Lee J. Wilson or termination of the business of the Contractor; (D) Loss or termination of the use by City's of the facilities upon which the services by Contractor are to be performed; (E) Assignment of this Contract by Contractor without the consent of the City. 5. 00 REMEDIES AND WARRANTIES 5. 01 TERMINATION BY ANY PARTY FOR DEFAULT OF • CONTRACTOR: Should any party default in the performance of this Page 5 of 13 00 (1:15 r Contract or materially breach of any of its provisions, a non- breaching party, at its option, may terminate this Contract, immediately, by giving written notice of termination to the breaching party. 5. 02 REMEDIES FOR FAILURE OF CONTRACTOR TO PERFORM: If Contractor should neglect to properly prosecute the work required of it hereby, or fail to perform any provisions of this Contract, the City, after three (3) days written notice to the Contractor, without prejudice to any other remedy City may have, may correct or perform such work and deduct the cost thereof from the payment then or thereafter due to Contractor. 5. 03 APPLICATION OF REMEDIES: The remedies set forth in this Contract shall not be exclusive but shall be cumulative with, and in addition to, all remedies now or hereafter allowed by law or equity. 5. 04 CONTRACTOR'S WARRANTIES TO CITY: Contractor warrants that all work performed by its pursuant to this Contract shall be done in a good and workmanlike manner and shall conform to state of the art services provided for like work within the County of San Luis Obispo. Except for manufacturer's factory warranty on all materials and replacements supplied by the • Contractor in the performance of the work required of it by this Contract, Contractor disclaims all warranties with respect to materials supplied pursuant to this Contract. 6. 00 INDEMNITIES 1. 6. 01 CONTRACTOR'S INDEMNITY OF CITY: Contractor shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City and its employees, officers, agents and representatives from all liability occurring by reason or arising out of the injury to any person or property of the City or any third party by reason of the negligence or fault of Contractor or its officers, agents, employees and representatives. It is specifically understood that Contractor's liability pursuant this Section 6. 01 shall be limited to those acts, events or occurrences in which Contractor or its officers, agents, employees and representatives are negligent or for which same are at fault. 6.02 CITY'S INDEMNITY OF CONTRACTOR: To the extent permitted by law, City shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless Contractor and its officers, agents, employees and representatives from from all liability occurring by reason or arising out of the injury to any person or property of Contractor or any third person by reason of the negligence or fault of City or its officers, agents, employees and representatives. It is specifically understood that City's liability pursuant this Page 6 of 13 00 Il:�h • Section 6. 02 shall be limited to those acts, events or occurrences in which City or its officers, agents, employees and representatives are negligent or for which same are at fault. 6. 03 INDEMNITIES NOT LIMITED BY INSURANCE: It is expressly understood and agreed by the parties that the indemnities set forth in Section 6. O1 and 6.02, above, are not limited by the extent of coverage of any policy of insurance currently in force, or in force during the Term of this Contract, which is held by either party. Nothing herein contained hsall be construed as limiting in any way the extent to which Contractor may be held responsible for liability to persons or property resulting from his operations under this Contract or any other contract it may have with third persons or any operation of subcontractors retained by Contractor in the performance of its duties under this Contract or any other contract it may have with third person. 7. 00 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS: 7. 01 NO WAIVER: The waiver of any breach by any party of any provision of this Contract shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of this Contract. 7 . 02 ASSIGNMENT: This Contract shall not assigned by Contractor to any person or entity. Any assignment or attempt to assign by either party, whether it be voluntary or involuntary, by operation of law or otherwise, is void and is a material breach of this Contract giving rise to a right to terminate as set forth in Section 4 (E) , above. 7 . 03 ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS: In the event of any controversy, claim or dispute between the parties hereto, arising out of or relating to this Contract, or the breach thereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled, in addition to other such relief to which the non-defaulting party may be entitled, to a reasonable sum as and for attorney fees and costs. 7. 04 DELAYS WHICH DELAY PERFORMANCE: Except as otherwise expressly provided for in this Contract, should the performance of any act required by this Contract to be performed by either party be prevented or delayed by reason by any act of God, strike, lockout, labor trouble, inability to secure materials, or any other cause except financial inability not the fault of the party required to perform the act, the time for performance of the act will be extended for a period of time equivalent to the period of delay and performance of the act during the period of delay will be excused; provided, however, that nothing contained in this Section shall exclude the prompt Page 7 of 13 00 017 payment by either party as required by this Contract or the performance of any act rendered difficult or impossible solely because of the financial condition of the party required to perform the act. 7. 05 NOTICE: Except as otherwise expressly provided bylaw, any and all notices or other communications required or permitted by this Contract or by law to be served on or given to any party to this Contract shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly served and given when personally delivered or in lieu of such personal service when deposited in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid to the following address for each respective party: PARTY ADDRESS A: CITY OF ATASCADERO 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 Attn: Director of Public Works B: LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California corporation P.O. Box 250 1151 E1 Camino Real Arroyo Grande, California 93421-0250 7. 06 GOVERNING LAW: This Contract and all matters relating to this Contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of California in force at the time any need for the interpretation of this Contract or any decision or holding concerning this Contract arises. 7 . 07 BINDING EFFECT: Except as otherwise provided herein, this Contract shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties hereto, but nothing in this Section shall be construed as a consent by City to any assignment of this Contract or any interest in this Contract by Contractor. 7 .08 SEVERABILITY; Should any provision of this Contract be held by a court of competent jurisdiction or by a legislative or rulemaking act to be either invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Contract shall remain in full force and effect, unimpaired by the holding, legislation or rule. Page 8 of 13 00 0,18 7. 09 SOLE AND ENTIRE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES: This Contract constitutes the sole and entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. This Contract correctly set forth the obligations of the parties hereto to each other as of the Effective Date and throughout the Term of this Contract. All agreements or representations respecting the subject matter of this Contract not expressly set forth or referred to in this Contract are null and void. 7. 11 TIME: Time is expressly declared to be of the essence of this Contract. 7. 11 DUE AUTHORITY: Each party to this Contract hereby represents to the other party that the individual (s) executing this Contract on behalf of the representing party are expressly authorized to do so on and in behalf of that party. 7. 12 CONSTRUCTION: The parties agree that each has had an opportunity to have their counsel review this Contract and that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting shall not apply in the interpretation of this Contract or any amendments or exhibits thereto. The captions of the sections are for convenience and reference only, and are not intended to be construed to define or limit the provisions to which they relate. 7. 13 AMENDMENTS: Amendments to this Contract shall be made only with the mutual written consent of all of the parties to this Contract. 7. 14 EXHIBITS: Exhibits "A", "B" and "C" attached hereto are incorporated herein by- this reference and all subsequent exhibits required to be prepared by this Contract shall be attached hereto and deemed incorporated herein when so attached. 7 . 15 COUNTERPARTS: This Contract has been executed in duplicate counterpart originals either of which may be deemed an original for purpose of enforcing the terms herein. Page 9 of 13 00 0,19 • This Contract consisting of thirteen (13) pages, including this signature page and three exhibits has been executed as of the day of 1991 Atascadero, California. CITY OF ATASCADERO, a municipal corporation By: Alden Shiers, Mayor ATTEST• Lee Raboin, City Clerk LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California corporation By: Lee J. Wilson, President [ATTACH CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR LEE J. WILSON] Page 10 of 13 00 040 LED�WU SOH . ELECTRIC COMPANY,,,, P.O. BOX 250 • ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 93421 -025 ESTABLISHED 1929 1151 EL CAMINO REAL PHONE 1605) 489-421 EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF ATASCADERO TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT LIST OF INTERSECTIONS 1) EL CAMINO REAL AT SAN ANSELMO 2) EL CAMINO REAL AT TRAFFIC WAY 3) EL CAMINO REAL AT CURBARIL 4) EL CAMINO REAL AT PALOMAR S) EL CAMINO REAL AT SANTA ROSA EXHIBIT "A" Page 1 of 1 00 (111 L Page 11 of 13 1 IEV*INILSAN ELECTRIC COM AP NYS P.O. BOX 250 - ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 934 ESTABLISHED 1929 1151 EL CAMINO REAL - PHONE 18051 a 2 EXHIBIT "B" CITY OF ATASCADERO TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT - RATES MONTHLY MAINTENANCE CHARGE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 96 . 00 PER MONTH/ INTERSECT EMERGENCY CALL OUTS: REGULAR HOURS (8 : 00 AM - 4 : 30 PM) . . . . . . . . $ 43 . 00/Hr. OVERTIME HOURS (4 : 30 PM - 5 : 00 AM) . . . . . . . $ S9. S0/Hr. OVERTIME HOURS (SATURDAY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ S9- SO/Hr. OVERTIME HOURS (SUNDAY & HOLIDAY' S) . . . . . . $ 74 . 00/Hr. EQUIPMENT RATES: a) SERVICE TRUCK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 7 . 50/HOUR b) BUCKET TRUCK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $21 . 00/HOUR c) CRANE TRUCK . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $21 . 00/HOUR MATERIAL RATES: MATERIAL TO BE BILLED AT COST +1S% (COST BASED ON END COLUMN OF BIDDLE TRADE BOOK) EXHIBIT "B" Page 1 of 1 UV li•��; Page 12 of 13 L.E? VWJLSON • ELECTRIC COMPANY P.O. BOX 250 • ARROYO GRANDE. CALIFORNIA 93421 -0: ESTABLISHED 1929 1151 EL CAMINO REAL • PHONE 1805 ' 489-4: EXHIBIT "C" CITY OF ATASCADE RO TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT EMERGENCY PERSONNEL 1 ) DELIS VELARDE. . . . . . . . . . . . .TELEPHONE 805/481-1220 2) LEE WILSON III . . . . . . . . . . . .TELEPHONE 805/438-5337 3) JOHN KEEN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .TELEPHONE 805/481-0590 EXHIBIT °C" Page 1 of 1 00 (),I j Page 13 of 13 STAFF REPORT CITY OF ATASCADERO ITEM: C-1 Through: Ray Windsor Mtg. .Date: 12/10/91 From: Henry Engen, Comm. Dev. Director (. File No: ZC 13-91 SUBJECT: Proposed urgency ordinance relative to siting standards for recycling centers. RECOMMENDATION: Read by title only and adoption of Ordinance No. 237 (4/5ths vote required) . BACKGROUND: Under the City's Zoning Ordinance, recycling and scrap operations may be permitted by use permit in the CPK (Commercial Park) , IP (Industrial Park) , and I (Industrial) districts subject to Planning Commission approval. Wil-Mar Disposal Company has begun its recycling program pursuant to its contract with the City, and has • been attempting to establish a location for a recycling center. They have worked with staff in this effort and it has become evident that the standards required under the Zoning Ordinance before a use permit may be established are such as to effectively preclude locating a center in the City. Specifically, Section 9-6. 131(a) (see attached) requires that they be located at least 500 feet from any "school, church, hospital, public building, commercial, or residential zone. " The practical effect of this requirement is to virtually ban recycling centers from the community. The other standards of the Zoning Ordinance seem reasonable including a minimum one acre site size, parking standards, and screening as required for storage yards (see attached ordinance excerpts) . DISCUSSION: The attached draft ordinance would delete the 500 foot standard from the present zoning regulations thereby enabling use permit applications. We have encouraged consideration of, industrial locations by Wil-Mar Disposal as opposed to Commercial Park zoning, which has high visability from Highway 101. 00 0114 By virtue of this being a proposed urgency ordinance, the ordinance change would be immediate, thus removing one major obstacle to successful pursuit of a permanent recycling site. In the meantime, the recycling program began on December 2nd, and Wil-Mar will have to process these recyclables on a temporary basis in a non-approved location. HE:ps Enclosures: Draft Ordinance No. 237 Zoning Ordinance Excerpts: Recycling and Scrap Regulations cc: Wil-Mar Disposal Co. 51/recycord.urg 00 0111) ORDINANCE NO. 237 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE BY ELIMINATING SUBSECTION (a) OF SECTION 9-6.131, RECYCLING AND SCRAP, WHICH REQUIRES A 500 FOOT DISTANCE FROM RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND OTHER USES AND ZONES, AND REQUIRING THE URGENCY THEREOF (CITY COUNCIL INITIATED) WHEREAS, Section 36934 of the Government Code authorizes local legislative bodies to enact urgency measures to protect the public safety, health, and welfare; and WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero is implementing a comprehensive program for the recycling of solid waste materials in compliance with AB 939; and WHEREAS, the City has entered a contract with Wil Mar Disposal Co. to achieve these objectives; and WHEREAS, Wil Mar Disposal Co. will need to establish a recycling center to process this, portion of the waste stream as may other enterprises; and WHEREAS, the City' s current Zoning Regulations, under Section 9-6. 131(a) , state that locations would be limited to at least 500 feet from any school, church, hospital, public building, commer- cial, or residential zones"; and WHEREAS, said criteria effectively precludes establishing a recycling center within the City of Atascadero; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero City Council held a noticed public hearing on December 10, 1991 to consider this urgency issue. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1. Zoning Text. The Zoning Ordinance Text is hereby amended by the deletion of Section 9-6. 131 (a) with subsequent subsections being re-lettered (a) through (c) . Section 2. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen ( 15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, • a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this 00 046 Ordinance No. 237 Page Two ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City. Section 3. Effective Date. The City Council hereby declares that this is an urgency ordinance necessary to preserve the public safety, health, and welfare due to the facts set forth above, and passed by a four- fifths (4/5ths) vote of the Council shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. On motion by and seconded by , the foregoing Ordinance is approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: • CITY OF ATASCADERO By ALDEN SHIERS, Mayor ATTEST: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director 00 011'7 ZONING ORDINANCE EXCERPTS RECYCLING & SCRAP REGULATIONS Recvcling and Scrap Establishments primarily engaged in assembling, breaking up, sorting, temporary storage and distribution of recvclable or reusable scrap and waste materials, including auto wreckers engaged in dismantling automobiles for scrap. Does not include waste disposal sites, which are separately defined. Does not include temporary storage of toxic or radioactive waste materials. 9-6. 131 . Recycling and Scrap: (a) Location: At least S00 feet from any school, church, hospital, public building, commercial, or residential zone. (b) Minimum Site Area: One acre. (c) Parking Requirement: Two spaces, plus one space for each .5, 000 square feet of use area. (d) Site, DesiQn and Operation: Recycling facilities and wrecking yards are subject to all provisions of Section 9-6. 140 (Storage Yards) . 9-6. 140. Storage Yards: Outdoor storage yards, including the storage of vehicles in other than a day use parking lot or garage are subject to the provisions of this Section. The storage of vehicles in a public or commercial parking lot or garage is I subject to Section 9-4. 114 (Parking) ; the storage of wrecked or i abandoned vehicles, or vehicles being dismantled, is subject to 1 Section 9-6. 131 (Recycling and Scrap) , in addition to this Section. (a) Site Design Standards: 00 li•ih (1) Access: There shall be only one access point to a storage yard for each 300 feet of street frontage. Such access point is to be a maximum width of 20 feet and shall be provided with a solid gate or door. r i (2) Screening: A storage yard (except a temporary off-site construction yard) is to be screened from public view on all sides by solid wood, painted metal or masonry fencing, with a minimum height of six feet. All required screening shall be continuously maintained in good condition to j assure that its intended purpose is accomplished. This requirement may be waived through adjustment (Section 9-1. 112) , when: (i) The side of storage yard abuts a railroad right-of-way; or (ii) The surrounding terrain, existing vegetation intended to remain or other conditions would make fencing ineffective or unnecessary for the purpose of screening the storage yard • from the view of public roads. (3) Parking Requirement: None, provided that sufficient usable area is available to accommodate all employee and user parking needs entirely on- site. (4) Site Surfacing: A storage yard shall be surfaced with concrete, asphalt paving, crushed rock, or oiled earth, and be maintained in a dust-free condition. (5) Office Facilities : When no buildings exist or are proposed on a storage yard site, one commercial coach may be utilized for an office, provided that such vehicle is equipped with skirting, and installed pursuant to the permit requirements of Title S of the City Code (the Building and Construction Ordinance) . (b) Operation: Except for vehicles or free-standing equipment, materials within a storage yard are not to be stacked or stored higher than six feet, unless screening requirements have been waived or modified pursuant to Subsection (a) (2) (ii) of this Section, or unless a higher wall or fence is constructed at the • required setback line under an approved building permit. REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: D-1 From: Ray Windsor, City Manager 4-11r Meeting Date: 12/10/91 SUBJECT: Waterway Intrusion Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Council review and adoption of the proposed Ordinance No. 236. BACKGROUND: This item was continued from Council' s meeting of November 26, 1991. The attached ordinance incorporates the City Attorney' s • amendments, following consultation with Councilmembers Borgeson and Lilley and staff. RW:cw • 00 ().ti(► ORDINANCE NO. 236 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 8 TO TITLE 5 OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES IN ATASCADERO CREEK, GRAVES CREEK AND THE SALINAS RIVER The City Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 8 is hereby added to Title 5 of the Atascadero Municipal Code to read as follows: CHAPTER 8. WATERWAY INTRUSIONS Section 5-8.01. Definitions. (a) Riparian corridor shall mean the area of land within the normal high water levels and the land containing riparian vegetation immediately adjacent to the following waterways: ( 1) Atascadero Creek (2) Graves Creek (3) Salinas River • The definition above shall apply until superceded by an "Offi- cial Creekway Map" is adopted by the City Council. When such a map or maps are adopted, the "riparian corridor" shall be that area so designated on that map for that area of the waterway. (b) Intrusion shall mean any encroachment or activity into the riparian corridor, as listed in 5-8.02 below, which may adversely impact the drainage, flora and fauna of the specified riparian corridors. (c) Pollutants shall mean any harmful substance, includ- ing but not limited to chemicals, fuels, fill materials, lumber, petroleum products, sewage, domestic animal waste and any other substance which could adversely impact: Drainage; cause flooding; contaminate water; destroy or damage flora or fauna. Section 5-8.02. Prohibited Uses and Activities. Each of the following uses and activities are prohibited: (a) The parking, operation or use of private motorized vehicles, including but not limited to motorcycles, ATVs, dune buggies, recreational vehicles, automobiles, go-carts, motor- ized skateboards or trucks in the riparian corridor. 00 0" 1 Ordinance No. 236 Page Two (b) Allowing or causing the accumulation, storing, place- ment, dumping or disposing of pollutants in the riparian corridor, unless done with a properly issued City grading permit or in an emergency flooding situation to protect life and property. (c) Allowing or causing the migration of pollutants into the riparian corridor. Section 5-8.03. Enforcement. A violation of any provision of this Title shall be a misdemeanor. Penalties for a violation of this Chapter shall be as set forth in Chapter 3, Title 1 of this Code. SECTION 2. PUBLICATION The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen ( 15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and cir- culated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the • Government Code; shall certify the adoption and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12: 01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. On Motion by Councilmember , seconded by Council- member , the foregoing ordinance is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll-call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA • ALDEN F. SHIERS, Mayor 00 (1S% Ordinance No. 236 Page Three ATTEST: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney • 00 053 • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date: 11-26-91 CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: D-2 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Via: Greg Luke, Public works Director C�_ From: Kelly Heffernon, Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: Proposal of a waterway intrusion ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: That Council review and adopt the proposed ordinance. BACKGROUND: The issue of destructive Human intrusions into areas of Graves Creek, Atascadero Creek and the Salinas River has emerged frequently in the past year. The most recent discussion of these nuisances was during the joint Council-Commission meeting on October 10, 1991 whereby staff received direction to prepare an ordinance, separate from the Zoning Code, regulating waterway intrusions. Attached is a copy of that ordinance for Council's evaluation. DISCUSSION: The ordinance was prepared with the purpose of identifying human activities causing the most destructive impact on the riparian habitat. These include: 1. Use of motorized recreational vehicles 2. bumping of pollutants 3 . Confinement of domestic animals 4 . Unauthorized construction 5. Removal, destruction or significant alteration of riparian vegetation Other destructive human activities may occur in the future. They may be added to this list as they are identified. It should be recognized that this ordinance includes the Salinas River, only a portion of which lies within the City limits. The Salinas River area experiences much recreational vehicle use during the weekends. Policing of that corridor would be difficult and Council should evaluate eliminating such use in this area. Council may therefore wish to pass this ordinance without reference to the Salinas River. FISCAL IMPACT: . Undefined increase in cost for enforcement. 00 W`4 0- "o ORDINANCE NO. 236 J AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ADDING CHAPTER 8 "WATERWAY INTRUSIONS" TO TITLE 7 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE I. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND DECLARE AS FOLLOWS: A. Riparian corridors Are a Vital Asset to the Community. Riparian corridors are environmentally sensitive areas requiring protection because they are a part of the cultural, historical and archeological heritage and a vital asset of the area serving the larger ecological system of the United States, the State of California, the County of San Luis Obispo and the City of Atascadero by providing shelter and serving as habitat for wildlife and aquatic animals, enhancing water quality, providing Qpen space, transporting and storing floodwaters and protecting the surrounding areas from erosion. B. Specific Intrusions into Riparian Corridors are Destructive. Specific types of intrusions by humans into riparian corridors are destructive to the stream bed and threaten the riparian habitat, water quality and floodwater containment and increase the possibility for erosion of surrounding areas. • C. Restricted Use of Riparian Corridors Necessary to Protect Public Health. Safety and Welfare. Protection of riparian corridors in order to preserve them is necessary to the general welfare, health and safety of the community and the ecological system. Protection of riparian corridors requires that certain uses of those areas by human beings be restricted. II. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, DECLARE AND ORDAIN THAT: In order to preserve and protect the riparian corridors located within the City of Atascadero, Chapter 8 "Waterway Intrusions" is hereby added to Title 5. "Public Welfare" of the Municipal Code, as follows: "Sec. 5-8.01 Purpose. The purposes of this Chapter shall be to preserve riparian corridors of the City as a vital part of the cultural, historical and archeological heritage of the City and to serve the large ecological system of the City and surrounding area by protecting such corridors in order that they may continue providing shelter and serving as habitat for wildlife and aquatic animals, enhancing water quality, providing open space, transporting and storing • floodwaters and protecting the surrounding areas from erosion. Ordinance No. 236 rim ffl�r page two Sec. 5-8. 02 Definitions. For the purposes of this Chapter the following words shall, unless otherwise defined within the text, have the following meanings: (a) Riparian Corridor shall mean that area encompassing both the waterway reservation and riparian vegetation adjacent to the waterway reservation. (b) Intrusion shall mean any encroachment into the riparian corridor that adversely impacts it's ecosystem. (c) Pollutants shall mean any substance, including without limitation refuse, chemicals, fuels, lubricants and raw sewage, which would adversely impact the ecosystem and the quality of water through and under a riparian corridor. (d) Domestic Animals shall mean all animals raised for human use or consumption, including without limitation horses, cows, sheep, pigs, goats, dogs, chickens and turkeys. Sec. 5-8. 03 Prohibited Uses and Activities. The following uses and activities are prohibited in the riparian corridors of Atascadero Creek, Graves Creek and the Salinas River: (a) Use of motorized recreational vehicles, including without limitation dirt bikes, motorcycles, motor homes and four wheel drive vehicles. (b) Dumping or disposing of pollutants. (c) Confinement of domestic animals, provided, however, that agricultural operations involving domestic animals which exist in any riparian corridor as of the date of enactment of this Ordinance shall be exempt from this Chapter so long as that existing use is continued. (d) Construction of any structure whether or not otherwise permitted by this Code. (e) Removal, destruction or alteration of riparian vegetation except upon the following findings by the City for which the burden of proof shall rest urn these responsible for the removal of riparian vegetation: 00 0.116 Ordinance No. 236 page three (1) Removal associated with, and necessary to, an activity permitted by this Code. (2) Removal associated with a resource restoration project. (3) Removal as necessary for flood control purposes. (4) Removal as required for construction or maintenance of an adjacent infrastructure. (5) Removal of trees pursuant which is necessitated for public health and safety; provided that such removal complies with the requirements of Title 9 of this Code. Sec. 508. 04 Enforcement. A violation of any provision of this Title shall be a misdemeanor. Penalties for a violation of this Chapter shall be as set. forth in Chapter T, Title 1 of this Code. " III. PUBLICATION The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once • within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City. IV. EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12 : 01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. On motion by Councilperson and seconded by Councilperson the foregoing ordinance is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: 0U (►�.� Ordinance No. 236 R. = page four CITY OF ATASCADERO ATTEST: By: ALDEN SHIERS, Mayor LEE RABOIN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: MARY REDUS GAYLE of Burke, Williams & Sorensen, Assistant City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: GREG LUKE Dir. of Public Works 00 W18 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: D-2 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 12/10/91 Via: Greg Luke, Public Works Director From: OP Steve Sylvester, Consulting Engineer SUBJECT• Engineering Standards RECOMMENDATION• Direct staff to circulate Draft Engineering Standards for public review and set hearing date for adoption by Council. BACKGROUND• On August 27, 1991, the Council reviewed the draft rural road policy and the framework for a complete set of Standard Specifications and Drawings for public works improvements. • Council directed staff to complete the document for subsequent review by the Council. DISCUSSION• The City's engineering consultant, North Coast Engineering, Inc. , has completed a Draft of the Engineering Standards. The standards address all aspects of construction for public works construction and for all projects ultimately serving five or more parcels. Timely implementation of these standards is necessary to provide uniformity in these projects. FISCAL IMPACT• None. Attachments: Draft Engineering Standards WWORP1210MC 00 0."9 • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: 12-10-91 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: D-3 From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Engineering Services for Recovery of Reclaimed Water RECOMMENDATION: Award Contract to John Carollo Engineers BACKGROUND• This item was originally scheduled for the November 12 , 1991 City Council meeting. Staff recommendation was that John Carollo Engineers be awarded the contract to conduct engineering services for recovery of reclaimed water. John Carollo's original proposal was for $99, 000. However, staff deleted several work items (Deep Monitoring Well and Subsequent Sampling) which reduced the fee to $75, 000. (See November 12 , 1991, staff report, attachment I) Because of legal concerns about the staff's authority to make such changes, the item was continued to allow staff additional time to review the selection process. Staff has completed the review and is placing the matter before the Council for action. With regard to the legality of the selection process, the City Attorney .has researched both City and State Codes, examined the request for proposal process, and reviewed the selection process. He has concluded that the entire selection process was conducted in full conformance with all applicable laws and regulations. To recap staff's review, basically three issues were examined: 1. Can a contract be awarded to a design professional who submits a proposal that quotes a price higher than other proposals? 2 . Can the City staff negotiate a lower price once a proposal has been submitted? 3 . If a change is made to the scope of work presented by the successful firm, should all firms be given the chance to submit new proposals on the project? 00 060 DISCUSSION: Question No. 1: Obligation to award on the basis of fee. The term "proposal" has a meaning which is quite different than "bid" . A bid is a fixed price offered by a contractor to perform a well defined product or service. The request for bid package contains detailed specifications and/or plans stating precisely what services or products are required. A bid is most often associated with a construction project or the purchase of a product. A proposal is essentially a document that sets forth an approach or methodology that a firm proposes to use to solve a problem. Proposals are solicited by a "request for proposals" (RFP) , which is prepared and distributed by City staff. The RFP defines the nature of the problem and outlines the goals of the study. Generally, the subject matter is not well defined and the RFP is quite general. When the proposals are received, staff evaluates a variety of factors, including the qualifications of the firm, the methodology proposed to conduct the work, innovative ideas that would produce a better product, and host of other qualities that assure the final report best meets the City's needs. Most proposals contain a price to perform the work. This is the price to perform the work as described by the candidate firm. The quoted price is only meaningful with respect to that particular proposed scope of work. It is inappropriate to compare the price quoted by the various firms since the proposed scope of work could be substantially different Comparing prices between consultant is a case of comparing "apples and oranges" . For example, one firm may have a very junior project team, while another firm may have more experienced people assigned to the project. Or, one proposal may have missed a key component of the work. Their resulting price to perform the work would be low, but the final product would be useless. Therefore, to answer the first question, it is quite appropriate and legal to award a contract to a consulting firm who has submitted a proposal with a higher price than another firm. The selection should be based on the relative quality or value of the proposal, not simply the price. John Carollo clearly has the superior qualifications, the most competent project team, the best technical approach, and a strong local client reference list. (Attachment II explains the logic for selecting John Carollo) . Their fee may be higher, but the quality of work is a quantum level higher than the other firms considered. 00 otil • Question #2 : Negotiating a final Scope of Work and Fee With regard to the second question, once a firm is selected is it appropriate to negotiate a change in scope and price? Again the answer is yes, but within limits. The original proposal demonstrates the firm's capability and their understanding of the problem. However, the original proposal prepared by the consultant typically contains tasks that the City may wish to modify, delay, or delete. For example, consider a proposal that calls for field_ work, such as collecting traffic counts, flow measurement, etc. The City may already have the information, or be able to obtain the information easier than the consultant. Therefore, the task of obtaining field work would be deleted from the final contract and the price adjusted accordingly. This was the case with Carollo Engineers. They proposed to drill a deep monitoring well and to sample groundwater into the future. These tasks may not be necessary, depending on the information gathered at the beginning of the study. Therefore, these tasks were dropped from the scope of work. This is not a fundamental change in the project, it is a refinement of the contract to best serve the City's needs. This issue does raise an area of concern that staff recognizes. During the negotiation process, care must be taken not to alter the underlying approach to the work described in the proposal. To press a consultant to cut costs simply to save money can destroy the approach contained in the original proposal. I do not believe that the deleted items in any way undermine the consultant's basic approach. At the worst, these two deleted tasks can be added at a latter date. I feel the City would not be well served by contracting now for services that later may not be required. Question #3 : Request for New Proposals The final issue addresses the City's obligation to send a project out for new proposals when the scope of work is changed. This is an ethical, rather than legal, question. A City is not legally obligated to follow a set procedure in the selection of a consulting firm. However, if the project changes substantially in scope, I believe professional ethics and a sense of fair play dictate that new proposals should be garnered. Conversely, if a project stays essentially the same, and the changes only refine the scope of work, then asking for new proposals can be counterproductive. All of the information submitted by the selected firm is public information, making it easy for another firm to shave the price slightly and take the job. Such an advantage is not enjoyed by the selected firm. Thus the "playing field is not level" when new proposals are called for. 00 og2 However, the most compelling reason for not asking for new • proposals is that on the "second go-around" consulting fees becomes a factor of overwhelming importance. If new firms are told exactly what tasks are necessary, the less qualified firms will tend to submit proposals with a low price in an effort to "buy the job" . The highly qualified firms will keep a higher price or simply not submit a new proposal. The reason for this is clear: the better qualified firms have personnel that are better trained, better equiped, and command a higher salary. When a City issues a RFP for the second time, the City almost becomes obligated to award the contract to the lowest fee. And, as described above, the firm with the lowest fee can be expected to be marginally qualified to perform the work. Therefore, in this case, it is my recommendation that the project not be re-released for new proposals. OPTIONS: If Council is uncomfortable with awarding the contract to John Carollo Engineers, I suggest that the proper procedure at this point is to create a second interview board. Second interviews are relatively common in• the professional practice. The second interview board could meet with the top two or three firms and make an independent evaluation for further Council action. FISCAL IMPACT: $75, 000. 00 Ocj TT. i • REPORT TO COUNCIL Meeting Date: 11/12/91 CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item• B-7 THROUGH: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Engineering Services for Recovery of Reclaimed Water RECOMMENDATION• Award Contract to John Carollo Engineers BACKGROUND: Atascadero presently reclaims a portion of its treated wastewater for irrigation of the Chalk Mountain Golf Course. Expanded use of this reclaimed water is restricted due to the lack of a final filtration process. Disposal of the remainder of Atascadero's wastewater is accomplished by percolation. The impact on Atascadero's water supply, of this percolated wastewater, is a growing concern. A geologic/hydrologic examination of subsurface conditions below the wastewater treatment facility is necessary to: 1) Determine the most effective means of protecting Atascadero's water supply and 2) to explore extraction of reclaimed water from below Atascadero's wastewater percolation beds after it has been filtered through the soil mantle. This detailed examination of sub-surface conditions below the City's Wastewater Percolation Ponds will focus on the protection of Atascadero's groundwater drinking supply through the development of extraction wells to reclaim percolated wastewater for unrestricted reclaimed water use. DISCUSSION/OPTIONS: Discussion of consultant proposals and basis of staff recommendation is presented on attachment "A" pages 1-3 . The original Request for Proposal is presented as attachment "B" and the Wastewater Divisions 1991-92 Capital Improvement Plan is included as attachment "C" for your reference. FISCAL IMPACT: $75, 000. 00 This ammount was budgeted for a Water Reclamation Feasibility • Study, as part of the Wastewater Divisions 1991-92 Capital Improvement Plan, which was approved by Council. 00 094 ATTACHMENT "A" • Consultant Selection For Water Reclamation Feasibility Study Staff Report and Recommendation Five engineering firms responded to a request for proposal for Engineering Services for Recovery of Reclaimed Water. The responding firms and the cost of their services are as follows: John Carollo Engineers $99,900 Converse Environmental $68, 328 Engineering Science $23,700 Boyle Engineering $22, 486+ Kennedy/Jenks $29, 000 After an initial evaluation, two proposals were rejected and three firms were selected for interviews. The proposals from Boyle Engineering and Kennedy/Jenks were rejected for the following reasons: Boyle's proposal at $22,486 required that the City be responsible for several tasks such as hiring a drilling contractor and responsibility for laboratory analysis among others. The additional "hidden" costs and City responsibilities was the basis for rejection of this proposal. Kennedy/Jenks not only missed the proposal deadline but also their proposed methods were judged to be inadequate for precise determination of subsurface conditions. John Carollo Engineers, Converse, and Engineering Science were invited to present their proposals to a City Public Works Panel consisting of Public Works Director Greg Luke, Chief of Wastewater Operations Mark Markwort, and respected local Geologist Don Asquith who's firm, The Morro Group, recently prepared a study for the City concerning the long-term viability Atascadero's water supply. Both Converse and John Carollo Engineers provided the panel with credible presentations, while a significant lack of project site knowledge and local hydrological conditions was demonstrated by Engineering Science. 00 06z.,) A summary of the interviews is as follows: Converse was the first firm to be interviewed and although their approach to this project seemed a little vague, the project team, particularly Converses' project geologist, was able to convince the panel that Converse had the ability and competence to perform a study of this type. Converse's approach to this project was based on the assumption that the Wastewater Treatment facility was located atop the same geologic formation through which the Salinas River flows. Converse proposed to sink a series of test wells into the alluvial river gravel in order to determine the size, shape, and flow direction of the water mound which was assumed to exist below the Wastewater Percolation beds. Converse believed that it may be necessary to sink a test well a distance of one mile, down gradient, from the treatment facility. Due to an open approach where one phase of the study would determine the next, Converse speculated that their study may culminate with a week-long pump test which may be necessary in order to determine reclaimed water recovery rates. Converse thought that such an extended pump test may be necessary because of the water flow characteristics of the Salinas River's sand and gravel. John Carollo Engineers was the next firm to be interviewed: Once introductions were completed and an opening statement was made, John Carollo's geologist proceeded to produced a geologic map of the area which encompassed the Wastewater Treatment Facility. This geologic map indicated that the Treatment Facility site was apparently atop a geologically complicated area which may not have direct geologic continuity with the Salinas River at all. John Carollo's geologist appeared to be extremely knowledgeable and was convincing in his argument that the most important aspect of this project was the precise determination of the geologic formation which lies beneath the Wastewater Treatment Facility, and especially, it's percolation beds. Contrary to Converse, John Carollo made few assumptions as to the geologic structure beneath the Wastewater Treatment Facility and proposed to first determine what they were dealing with before proposing pump tests or subsequent study. Scrutiny of the geologic map and questioning by Don Asquith (the City's geologic consultant) made it apparent that John Carollo had local site knowledge far superior to that of Converse. It was also apparent that the projects first step • should indeed be to determine, precisely, what the geologic formation is which lies beneath the treatment facility. 2 00 01$_6 Engineering Science was last to present their proposal: Engineering Science's approach to this study appeared "quick and dirty" when compared to the preceding presentations. Their approach consisted of the sinking of a few test wells, laboratory analysis and a pump test. When prompted to further explain their proposal in order to convince the panel of it's adequacy, Engineering Science's geologist indicated, on a map of the plant site, the location of their proposed test wells explaining that it would be best to locate the wells down gradient and opposite of the fullest "percolation" pond. At that point it was apparent that Engineering Science had not done their homework for, although Engineering Science had designed the treatment facility in 1981, the pond indicated as being a "percolation" pond was not a percolation pond at all but rather the treatment facilities lined polishing pond. Not only did Engineering Science demonstrate a remarkable lack of knowledge of their own treatment facility design, but their geologist did not appear to have any knowledge about the geology of the area to be studied. If Engineering Science were hired to conduct this study, once proper locations for the test wells were determined, this attempt to understand the subsurface hydrologic conditions below the Wastewater Treatment Facility may produce some relevant data. However, it is doubtful that the Engineering Science project team that was interviewed by the City panel could convince the Regional Water Quality Board of the validity of it's results or conclusions. Although $23 , 700 for this study appears to be a bargain, it is the panels conclusion that the results gathered from such an approach would not provide the City with the answers it needs to understand where it's percolated water goes or how to recover it. Unlike Engineering Science, Converse had been able to assure the panel of their ability to perform a credible study. However, it was John Carollo Engineers unsurpassed knowledge of the geological configuration of the project site and their subsequent project approach which overwhelmingly convinced the panel that John Carollo Engineers was the best choice for the project. It was imparted to John Carollo that, although their proposal was looked upon with favor, their proposal fee was beyond the maximum project budget of $75, 000. John Carollo agreed to make the necessary fee adjustment in order to meet our budget restraints. They further agreed to divide the project up into seven separate tasks and to attend meetings after completion of five of the tasks. • At each of these meetings, City representatives will evaluate the data gathered and provide guidance for completion of the project. 00 0917 ATTACHMENT "B" Request for Proposal For Engineering Services For Recovery of Reclaimed Water GENERAL NOTICE The City of Atascadero is seeking proposals from qualified firms for engineering services, including a hydrologic study, evaluating the feasibility of recovering reclaimed water from below the City's wastewater percolation ponds located at its treatment facility on Gabarda Road. BACKGROUND The City of Atascadero presently treats approximately 1.2 million gallons of wastewater per day at its treatment facility. A portion of this treated water is used to irrigate the Chalk Mountain Golf Course. The remainder of the treated water is discharged to percolation ponds where it percolates into the substrate and presumably blends with the ambient groundwater. PROJECT OBJECTIVE The wastewater treatment facilities lacks a final treatment process which would allow for greater flexibility in the use of its reclaimed water. In an effort to better manage its reclaimed water resource, to allow for its expanded use, and to help protect the ground water basin from elevated total dissolved solids concentrations present in the treatment facilities effluent, the city wishes to explore the possibility of reclaiming its treated wastewater from below its percolation ponds. WORK AND RESULTS EXPECTED The consultant shall complete a hydrologic study using field investigations including the drilling of shallow test wells to gather data on the City's treated wastewater percolation and migration patterns. The study will then evaluate the possibility of recovering the treated wastewater which has percolated from the city's wastewater discharge ponds. The completed study will addresses the following: 1. The feasibility of recovering the percolated water including the percent recoverability; rate of recovery and the best method and location for recovery. 00 (l;8 2 . Accurate documentation that the water recovered is water that has percolated from the City's wastewater percolation basins. If substantial blending with the ambient groundwater is unavoidable, the engineer shall provide an estimate of the extracted water's composition including how the estimate was calculated. 3 . Laboratory analysis of the extracted water, its ranking according to state wastewater reclamation criteria: Title 22, Div. 4, Section 60301 through 60355 and verification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board that the extracted water does indeed meet the quality standards cited. The consultant is encouraged to propose innovative methods or techniques for acquiring data and for recovering the percolated water. AVAILABLE DATA Department of Water Resources (DWR) Paso Robles groundwater basin study completed in 1979 A study of the long-term viability of Atascadero City's water supply prepared in April, 1991 by The Morro Group Recent geophysical data and field reconnaissance may be available from the USGS. • CONDITIONS Five copies of the draft report will be due 90 days after the Notice to Proceed. Ten copies of the final report will be prepared and delivered after staff review and comment. The consultant shall assist in a presentation to Atascadero City Council after the report is complete and also be available to assist the City in responding to questions which the Regional Water Quality Control Board may have concerning this project. SUBMITTAL The completed proposal should include: 1. Description of approach to work 2 . Qualifications and capabilities of firm 3 . Background and experience of project team 4. Proposal fee quotation shall be divided into categories to allow for the differentiation field research verses other costs. 00 01149 SII May 29, 1991 ADDENDUM ONE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR RECOVERY OF RECLAIMED WATER NOTICE This Addendum is issued to clarify the original Request for proposal by imposing a July 15, 1991 deadline for the submittal of your proposal to the City of Atascadero. Proposals shall be postmarked no later than the July 15th deadline and mailed to: CITY OF ATASCADERO 6500 PALMA ATASCADERO CALIFORNIA 93422 ATTN: MARK MARKWORT • Any further questions concerning this project can be referred to Mark Markwort at (805) 461-7607. 00 070 ATTACHM .NT "C" CITY --JF ATASCACERO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS (CIP) PLAN RUN DATE 1O/:8/9 PROJECT TITLE ESTIMATEDCOST FY 91-921 ------------------------------------------------- ----------------- WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT APPROVED FY 91-32 1 SEWER TRUNK LINE UPGRADE 368.:, 0�i(i X68.', 2 LIFT STATION 4 EGUIPMEN T REPLACEMENT 3J(:), (i(jq 35(ia (i(io 3 CENTRAL ALARM MONITORING SYSTEM 3SQ. (iciq 310. 00(; 4 UTILITY TRUCY:: REPLACEMENT $,55, citiQ $55� 0005 ;`SMP I NG STATION 5 UPGRADE $140, o0o $14•i, 000 -------------------------------------------------------- C I P BUDGET REV I_I OP.I 6 '=',4ER I NG OF C !,y D AREA "F" $17f. 00o 7 �A T ER RECLAMATION FE'SABiLIT'e S`'�C'� $T5, (�(';, R Li-)f^,ATI]N cN0 I L I T'.2-7 0. 0 C)i 9 EASTZ-14ATER FLAN; UF'GF:AC'`= �C, ^(�(:;, (i(>(; 10 C�7 MAPPING OF r, LLECT- ,. —,.t 3l0, o(i(} ,ter.. --- ----- T10 i AL a , 588, 006 $1 . •?��S. (:;i:it; PR:CJECT #1 HAS UNCEzGONE R E'J I S 10`1 Ar,D IS NCW E 3T I MATED TO COST i E'' - WA` iOT INCL'JD J ItJI — - c=F. ,c;E. . 10TH SUD�_E' R TSIG^� • 71\17Ff30J-lCED AT A FU7_R:E '-3U'4:-TL r ou 01/i STAFF REPORT To: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works From: Mark Markwort, Chief of Wastewater Operations Subject: Comparison of Proposals/Firms for Selection to Perform Feasibility Study for Recovery of Reclaimed Water Date: November 15, 1991 For background information concerning this subject, please refer to the Report To Council attached to this memorandum. A further comparison of the two engineering firms which staff considers most capable of conducting a water reclamation study which will provide the necessary credibility and depth of information which the City requires, is as follows: TECHNICAL APPROACH The Converse proposal began by stating that "the initial steps needed to develop a well defined scope of work consist of a thorough review of all (pertinent) available hydrologic and hydrochemical data. . . including published reports from the City of Atascadero, the U. S Geological Survey, and the California • Department of Water Resources (DWR) " . Depending on the results of the review of this information, Converse will conduct a well canvass to assess the potential of collecting hydrologic data from existing local wells. Converse assumes that six existing shallow aquifer wells will be accessible and will provide useful information. This data, combined with analysis of existing data, will provide guidance to finalize the requisite scope of work to assess the hydrogeologic system and the feasibility of recovering percolated wastewater. Converse then proposes to drill a network of groundwater monitoring wells ". . .to characterize the extent and hydrochemical nature of wastewater migration in the shallow alluvial aquifer. " In preparing this project approach, Converse makes the assumption that the geologic formation, below the project site, is relatively simple and consists of a deep lower aquifer and a shallow upper aquifer. During their interview, Converse expressed the belief that the City's wastewater is percolated into the upper aquifer and that this aquifer is part of the Salinas River's alluvial formation. It is Converse belief that this formation is so large that test wells may have to be drilled up to a distance of one mile from the Wastewater Treatment Plant site and that a week long pump test may be required to determine water migration patterns. i John Carollo, on the other hand, has already done "an extensive review of available published and open-file reports. . . " 0 pertinent to this project. A review of their proposal confirms this claim and gives credence to John Carollo's approach to this project. During their interview, John Carollo's project geologist produced a local geologic map which convinced the City's geologic consultant (Don Asquith) that the project site was geologically complex and that no assumptions could be made as to the sites hydrology or aquifer configurations until sub-surface geologic formations were studied and delineated. John Carollo's proposal, therefore, begins by concentrating on the determination of sub- surface geologic conditions by the drilling of exploratory bore holes. It is John Carollo's contention that a hydrologic profile of the site can be constructed only after more is known about the sites geologic formation. RELATED EXPERIENCE Converse appears to have extensive experience in ground water contamination: site assessments, monitoring programs, remediation and extraction systems. Although this previous experience can be directly related to tasks necessary for the location and extraction of the City's wastewater, Converse's experience has been chiefly concerned with groundwater contamination from Landfills, Petroleum Companies and Electronic Corporations. Converse's experience with municipal wastewater and domestic wastewater reclamation appears limited. John Carollo, on the other hand, is an engineering firm whose main focus is wastewater treatment and wastewater reclamation. Additionally, John Carollo's involvement in local wastewater treatment and wastewater reclamation projects is extensive. It was John Carollo which designed Atascadero's original wastewater treatment facility. Many of the unit process structures still exist and have been converted into buildings which house the City's Street Department. John Carollo's most recent local experience has been the design of a wastewater reclamation scheme for Cambria's Community Services District. Cambria will reclaim wastewater, purify it to drinking water standards and then inject it into their drinking water aquifer. The acceptance of this Wastewater Reclamation/Groundwater Recharge Project by the same Regional Water Quality Control Board which must approve of Atascadero's wastewater reclamation scheme, gives John Carollo an obvious advantage over engineering firms less experienced in dealing with our local water regulatory agency. The local geologic, hydrologic, and regulatory experience which John Carollo offers the City of Atascadero is considerable. The working relationship they have developed with our local Regional Water Quality Control Board is invaluable. John Carollo not only has the most credible project approach, but also the demonstrated ability and local experience to defend the City against the regulatory challenges which will no doubt arise. REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date: 12/2/91 CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item #D-4 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager From Lee Raboin, City Clerk SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 235 regulating smoking in City facilities. RECOMMENDATION: Approval and adoption of Ordinance No. 235 on second reading. BACKGROUND: On November 26, 1991, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the amended and updated version of the City' s "No- Smoking" ordinance. The revised ordinance specifically prohibits smoking inside public buildings owned and operated by the City of Atascadero. Upon review and with direction to staff to amend • certain language in the ordinance, it was approved on first reading. ANALYSIS: Text in Section 6-6. 01(d) has been amended to reflect language proposed by Councilwoman Borgeson. In addition, a typographical error has been corrected on page 3, - under Section 6-6. 03 as identified. by Councilman Nimmo. The word "are" has been replaced by the word "art"; as was originally intended by the author, the Assistant City Attorney. 00 074 ORDINANCE NO. 235 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AUTHORIZING AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 6, OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING SMOKING WHEREAS, Title 6, Chapter 6 of the Municipal Code of the City of Atascadero was adopted in 1982; and WHEREAS, since the adoption of Title 6, Chapter 6, significant new findings regarding the impacts of smoking and breathing sidestream or secondhand smoke have been issued by the Surgeon General of the United States; and WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the public health, safety and general welfare of the residents and visitors of the City to protect them from the impacts of breathing sidestream or secondhand smoke in facilities owned, managed and operated by the City of Atascadero. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Atascadero does hereby ordain that Chapter 6 of Title 6 of the Municipal Code shall be amended, as follows: Section 1. Ordinance Text • 1. A new Section 6-6. 01 shall be added which shall read as follows: "Sec. 6-6.01 Findings. Whereas the Surgeon General of the United States has determined and the City Council does hereby find that: (a) Smoking tobacco is a proven danger to the health of human beings; and . (b) Breathing sidestream or secondhand smoke is a significant health hazard for certain population groups including without limitation elderly people, those with cardiovascular disease or impaired respiratory functions, asthmatics and those with obstructed air passages; and (c) Tobacco smoke is a major contributor to indoor air pollution; and (d) The Surgeon General 's report on involuntary smoking states that there are proven health hazards from involuntary smoking by non-smokers. Uu O'7S • Ordinance No. 235 Page 2 2. Section 6-6. 01 of the existing Title 6, Chapter 6 shall be renumbered and shall be Section 6-6.02, as amended. The existing language in former Section 6-6. 01 shall be numbered as subsection (a) of the new Section 6-6. 02 and the following language shall be added to Section 6-6. 02, as subsection (b) : " (b) For the purposes of protecting the health and welfare of the public from sidestream or secondhand smoke in publicly owned, operated, managed and leased facilities, it is necessary to specifically prohibit smoking, as defined herein, inside all buildings, structures and indoor facilities owned, operated, leased or managed by the City which are used by or open to the public. " 3. Section 6-6. 02 of the existing Title 6, Chapter 6 shall be amended by deleting the existing subsection (b) and inserting in its place the following: " (b) Smoking as used herein shall mean the inhaling, exhaling, burning or carrying of any ignited pipe, • cigar or cigarette or any other combustible substance or substances, including without limitation tobacco, which are used for the purposes of inhaling or exhaling the smoke therefrom. " and said Section 6-6. 02, as amended, shall be renumbered and shall be Section 6-6. 03. 4. Section 6-6. 03 of the existing Title 6, Chapter 6, shall be amended by deleting former Section 6-6.03(c) and inserting the following in its place: " (c) Within all buildings, structures and indoor facilities owned, operated, leased or managed by the City and which are used by or open to the public, including without limitation public transportation, enclosed areas occupied by City staff, open office areas, shared offices, private offices, hallways, rest rooms, escalators, elevators, stairways, lobbies, reception and waiting rooms, classrooms, meeting or conference rooms and auditoriums, on-site cafeterias, lunchrooms, lounges, and any facility, school or educational institution being used by the City for the purpose of providing classroom instruction, • including without limitation instruction for technical or substantive training or for instruc- 00 O'7ti Ordinance No. 235 • Page 3 tion in dancing, art, musical or other cultural skills. " and said Section 6-6. 03, as amended, shall be renumbered and shall be Section 6-6.04. 5. Section 6-6. 04 of the existing Title 6, Chapter 6 shall be deleted and in its place shall be inserted Section 6- 6. 05, which shall read as follows: "Sec. 6-6. 05 Posting of Signs. Signs which designate the "no smoking" areas designated by this Chapter shall be conspicuously posted in every room, building, facility or other place so designated by this Chapter. the manner of such posting shall be at the discretion of the City Manager and/or his designee. The City Manager and/or his designee shall determine the manner for posting such signs on the basis of clarity, sufficiency and conspicuousness are apparent in communicating the intent of this Chapter. " 6. Section 6-6.05 of the existing Title 61 Chapter 6 shall • be deleted and its place shall be inserted Section 6-6. 06 which shall read as follows: "Sec. 6-6. 06 The City Manager and/or his designee and/or the ordinance enforcement officer shall have- authority to enforce the provisions of this Code." 7. Section 6-6. 06 of the existing Title 6, Chapter 6 shall be renumbered and shall be Section 6-6. 07. Section 2. Publication The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen ( 15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City. Section 3. Effective Date This ordinance shall go into effect in full force at 12:01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. 00 077 Ordinance No. 235 Page 4 On motion by Councilperson and seconded by Council- person , the foregoing Ordinance is approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO ATTEST: By: ALDEN SHIERS, Mayor LEE RABOIN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney • 00 078