Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 092308 CITY OF A TASCADERO 191a' r r f,-: 1979 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Tuesday, September 23, 2008 City Council: 6:00 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers 6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero, California REGULAR SESSION: 6:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Clay Y ROLL CALL: Mayor Brennler Mayor ProTem Beraud Council Member Clay Council Member Luna Council Mayor O'Malley APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Roll Call PRESENTATION: 1. Recognition of Grace Pucci, former Deputy City Clerk, for her years of service to the City of Atascadero 2. Presentation of Employee Service Awards 1 A. CONSENT CALENDAR: (All items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and non-controversial by City staff and will be approved by one motion if no member of the Council or public wishes to comment or ask questions. If comment or discussion is desired by anyone, the item will be removed from the consent calendar and will be considered in the listed sequence with an opportunity for any member of the public to address the Council concerning the item before action is taken. DRAFT MINUTES: Council meeting draft minutes are listed on the Consent Calendar for approval of the minutes. Should anyone wish to request an amendment to draft minutes, the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and their suggestion will be considered by the City Council. If anyone desires to express their opinion concerning issues included in draft minutes, they should share their opinion during the Community Forum portion of the meeting.) 1. City Council Draft Minutes — June 10, 2008 ■ Recommendation: Council approve the City Council Meeting Minutes of June 10, 2008. [City Clerk] 2. City Council Draft Minutes — June 24, 2008 ■ Recommendation: Council approve the City Council Meeting Minutes of June 24, 2008. [City Clerk] 3. Ordinance Amendment Pertaining to Voluntary Abstentions ■ Description: This ordinance, if adopted, would clarify the interpretation of an abstention vote. ■ Fiscal Impact: None. ■ Recommendation: Council adopt on second reading, by title only, the Draft Ordinance amending Title 2, Chapter 1, Section 2-1.15 of the Atascadero Municipal Code pertaining to voluntary abstentions. [City Manager] 4. Dormant Building Permit Applications Time Extensions -- Title 8 Code Text Amendments ■ Fiscal Impact: Collection of unpaid plan check fees is estimated to provide a financial benefit to the City of approximately $150,000±. ■ Recommendation: Council adopt on second reading, by title only, draft Ordinance A amending Title 8 to retroactively extend dormant and expired single family residential, multi-family residential, industrial, and commercial building permit applications to June 30, 2010, once all outstanding, unpaid plan check fees have been paid; and to clarify the City's building permit fee refund policy and Board of Appeals membership. [Community Development] 2 5. San Luis Obispo County Narcotics Task Force - Memorandum of Understanding ■ Fiscal Impact: The fiscal impact is approximately $150,000 of budgeted funds consisting of one full time police officer, and related equipment. ■ Recommendation: Council authorize the City Manager to execute the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the State Office of the Attorney General, State Department of Justice, Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement (BNE), and the City of Atascadero for operation of the county Narcotics Task Force. [Police] 6. California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control — Grant Assistance Program ■ Fiscal Impact: The fiscal impact is a positive $29,254 in grant fund revenues and a corresponding $33,754 in expenses to conduct special operations and to administer the grant. The $4,500 difference in revenues and expenses will come from budgeted police funds. ■ Recommendation: Council designate the 2008/2009 California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) monies for use in reducing the availability of alcoholic beverages to minors. [Police] 7. Federal Emergency Management Agency Requirement - Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance ■ Fiscal Impact: None. ■ Recommendation: Council adopt on second reading by title only, the Draft Ordinance, amending Title 7, Chapter 11 of the Atascadero Municipal Code pertaining to Flood Damage Prevention. [Public Works] COMMUNITY FORUM: (This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wanting to address the Council on any matter not on this agenda and over which the Council has jurisdiction. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Please state your name for the record before making your presentation. The Council may take action to direct the staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum, unless changed by the Council.) B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. California Manor Purchase and Renovation Funding ■ Disclosure of Ex Parte Communications: ■ Fiscal Impact: None. ■ Recommendation: Council adopt the Draft Resolution approving the issuance of Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds for the purpose of financing the acquisition and rehabilitation of California Manor. [City Manager] 3 C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: 1. Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) - Storm Water Management Plan - NPDES Phase II ■ Fiscal Impact: The long term fiscal impact is unknown at this time but could be significant. Staff is estimating the consultant costs will likely range between $30,000 and $50,000 to study the impacts of the new requirements and prepare a compliant SWMP. ■ Recommendation: Council direct staff to file the 2004 Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) with the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) with language that the City will conduct a future process to attempt to incorporate the Board's February 15, 2008 revised standards to the extent practicable for this community. [Public Works] 2. Draft Campaign Ordinance— Discussion of Council Options ■ Fiscal Impact: Depending upon the direction from the City Council, Staff will be in a position to provide an estimate of the expenses that would be associated with the preparation of any further documents and the extent of staff time which would be involved with implementing Council direction and the cost associated with any campaign ordinance. [City Attorney] 3. Creation of a Vector Control Program and Benefit Assessment ■ Fiscal Impact: No fiscal impact to the City's budget. However, City residents would be assessed an annual rate of $9.80 - $25.00 per single- family residence depending on the number of acres. ■ Recommendations: Council: 1. Allow the County to provide vector control services within the Atascadero city limits; and, 2. Allow property owners within Atascadero city limits to participate in the Proposition 218 Ballot Measure to fund the program. [City Manager] 4. Amendments and Additions to Fee Schedule ■ Fiscal Impact: There will be an estimated annual increase in operating revenue of$40,000 from the changes to these service fees. ■ Recommendation: Council adopt Draft Resolution A adding new fees and amending selected existing fees. [Administrative Services] 5. Colony Park Community Center Status Report ■ Fiscal Impact: None. ■ Recommendation: Council review Colony Park Community Center status report and receive and file. [Community Services] 4 COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS: (On their own initiative, Council Members may make a brief announcement or a brief report on their own activities. Council Members may ask a question for clarification, make a referral to staff or take action to have staff place a matter of business on a future agenda. The Council may take action on items listed on the Agenda.) D. COMMITTEE REPORTS: (The following represent standing committees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary): Mayor Brennler 1. County Mayors Round Table 2. Air Pollution Control District (APCD) 3. Finance Committee Mayor Pro Tem Beraud 1. Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) 2. City / Schools Committee Council Member Clay 1. City / Schools Committee 2. Atascadero Youth Task Force Council Member Luna 1. Finance Committee Council Member O'Malley 1. S.L.O. Council of Governments (SLOCOG) 2. S.L.O. Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) 3. Economic Vitality Corporation, Board of Directors (EVC) 4. League of California Cities — Council Liaison and CITIPAC Board Member E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND / OR ACTION: 1. City Council 2. City Clerk 3. City Treasurer 4. City Attorney 5. City Manager 5 F. ADJOURNMENT: Please note: Should anyone challenge any proposed development entitlement listed on this Agenda in court, that person may be limited to raising those issues addressed at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at or prior to this public hearing. Correspondence submitted at this public hearing will be distributed to the Council and available for review in the City Clerk's office. I, Victoria Randall, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Atascadero, declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing agenda for the September 23, 2008 Regular Session of the Atascadero City Council was posted on September 16, 2008 at the Atascadero City Hall, 6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422 and was available for public review in the Customer Service Center at that location. Signed this 16th day of September, 2008 at Atascadero, California. Victoria Randall, Deputy City Clerk City of Atascadero 6 City of Atascadero WELCOME TO THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING e City Council meets in regular session on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month at 6:00 p.m. unless there is a Community Redevelopment Agency meeting commencing at 6:00 p.m. in which event the Council meeting will commence immediately following the conclusion of the Community Redevelopment Agency meeting. Council meetings will be held at the City Hall Council Chambers, 6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero. Matters are considered by the Council in the order of the printed Agenda. Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the Agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk and are available for public inspection during City Hall business hours at the Front Counter of City Hall, 6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero, and on our website, www.atascadero.orq. An agenda packet is also available for public review at the Atascadero Library, 6850 Morro Road. Contracts, Resolutions and Ordinances will be allocated a number once they are approved by the City Council. The minutes of this meeting will reflect these numbers. All documents submitted by the public during Council meetings that are either read into the record or referred to in their statement will be noted in the minutes and available for review in the City Clerk's office. Council meetings are video taped and audio recorded, and may be reviewed by the public. Copies of meeting recordings are available for a fee. Contact the City Clerk for more information (470-3400). In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting or other services offered by this City, please contact the City Manager's Office or the City Clerk's Office, both at (805) 470-3400. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service. TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS (from Title 2, Chapter 1 of the Atascadero Municipal Code) Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. The Mayor will identify the subject, staff will give their report, and the Council will ask questions of staff. The Mayor will announce when the public comment period is open and will request anyone interested to address the Council regarding the matter being considered to step up to the lectern. If u wish to speak for, against or comment in any way: 1. You must approach the lectern and be recognized by the Mayor 2. Give your name and address (not required) 3. Make your statement 4. All comments should be made to the Mayor and Council 5. No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or negative personal remarks concerning any other individual, absent or present 6. All comments limited to 3 minutes 7. No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to speak has had an opportunity to do so, and no one may speak more than twice on any item. If you wish to use a computer presentation to support your comments, you must notify the City Clerk's office at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Digital presentations brought to the meeting on a USB drive or CD is preferred. Access to r required to submit to the Cit Clerk a printed hook up your laptop to the City's projector can also be provided. You are eq y p copy of your presentation for the record. Please check in with the City Clerk before the meeting begins to announce your presence and turn in the printed copy. The Mayor will announce when the public comment period is closed, and thereafter, no further public comments will be heard by the Council. TO SPEAK ON SUBJECTS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA Under Agenda item, "COMMUNITY FORUM", the Mayor will call for anyone from the audience having business with the Council to: • Please approach the lectern and be recognized • Give your name and address (not required) • State the nature of your business is is the time items not on the Agenda may be brought to the Council's attention. A maximum of 30 minutes will be _..owed for Community Forum (unless changed by the Council). 7 8 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 09/23/08 A P iais � 97e CITY OF ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL ©RAFT MINUTES Tuesday, June 10, 2008 REGULAR SESSION Mayor Brennler called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. and Council Member Clay led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Council Members Clay, Luna, Beraud and Mayor Brennler Absent: Council Member O'Malley (excused) Others: Administrative Assistant Shannon Sims Staff Present: City Manager Wade McKinney, Public Works Director Steve Kahn, Acting Lieutenant Brian Dana and City Attorney Brian Pierik APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to approve the agenda. Motion passed 4:0 by a roll-call vote. CC Draft Minutes 06/10/08 Page 1 of 11 9 ITEM NUMBER: A- 1 DATE: 09/23/08 PRESENTATION: 1. Veterans Memorial Update Colonel Bill Hatch, Veteran's Memorial Committee, presented a PowerPoint update on the progress of the Veteran's Memorial Project. He expressed appreciation to all of the hardworking volunteers that have made this project possible. Col. Hatch answered questions of the Council. Chuck Ward, Veteran's Memorial Committee, informed the Council that 100% of all electric components will be donated to the Memorial by a lighting company. He thanked the construction industry for their contributions and asked that any inquiries about contributing be referred to (805) 423-5482. A. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. City Council Draft Minutes — March 11, 2008 ■ City Clerk Recommendation: Council approve the City Council Meeting Minutes of March 11, 2008. [City Clerk] 2. City Council Draft Minutes — March 25, 2008 ■ City Clerk Recommendation: Council approve the City Council Meeting Minutes of March 25, 2008. [City Clerk] 3. January 2008 Investment Report ■ Fiscal Impact: None ■ Recommendation: Council approve the City Treasurer's report for January 2008. [Treasurer] David Broadwater pulled Consent Items #1 and 42. MOTION: By Council Member Clay and seconded by Council Member Luna to approve Consent Item #3. Motion passed 4:0 by a roll-call vote. David Broadwater said he has comments, not corrections, to Consent Items #1 and #2. He referred to questions he had asked in both the March 11 th and 25th Council Meetings that are still not addressed. City Manager Wade McKinney responded that there are no discussions or information to report on with regards to Impact Development Fees for the Del Rio project. City Attorney Brian Pierik said he would look into the circulation of the memo Mr. Broadwater referred to. CC Draft Minutes 06/10/08 Page 2 of 11 10 ITEM NUMBER: A- 1 DATE: 09/23/08 MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Beraud and seconded by Council Member Clay to approve Consent Items #1 and #2. Motion passed 4:0 by a roll-call vote. COMMUNITY FORUM Mitch Paskin, resident on San Marcos Road, informed Council that he intends to start an initiative to get a road cut from Oakridge Estates down to Highway 41. He requested help g from staff with accessing documents and inquired how the Council can help stop Castlerock's construction. Joan O'Keefe, stated she is again requesting to know who is responsible for enforcing deed restrictions on the Printery. She quoted a letter to the editor by Lee Perkins regarding the Printery. Lee Perkins, representative of Oppose WalMart and the Shield Initiative, encouraged the City Clerk to finish checking signatures by Thursday, June 12th. She stated that the City Clerk took less time checking signatures on the petition submitted last year. Eric Greening, asked to agendize the preparation of an Ordinance requiring all meetings that are not Closed Session be recorded by audio or video, and to take an interim step of creating a policy until that ordinance takes effect. David Broadwater, referred to intimidation, harassment and threats by Council Members and asked for a written declaration and acknowledgement of what was heard at the Public Trust Meeting. He passed out a formal complaint to Council. (Exhibit A) Bob Wilkins, lifetime resident and business owner, thanked Bill Hatch for the magnificent job he has done. He quoted from Dr. Watkins comments and encouraged Council to put aside their selfish wants and save our City. He suggested that the economic survey be cancelled, thus saving $100,000 and asked Council to give staff positive direction to move forward with WalMart. Nora Trinicosta, complimented the Veteran's Memorial Committee. She referred to the UCSB Economic Forecast and stated that she saw a lot of things that did not seem so negative. Ms. Trinicosta said she finds the timing of the report suspicious, since we are going into an election season and urged Council to adopt the Shield Ordinance. Tom Comar, stated he was an eye witness to Council Member O'Malley's threats towards the Mayor and he supports David Broadwater's suggestions. He said he found the UCSB Forecast report to be a politically useful document, not a planning document. Heather Moreno, stated that she was in attendance at the Public Trust Meeting and does not agree with people painting Council Member O'Malley as an unprovoked bully and expressed her hopes that more attention is not paid to it. CC Draft Minutes 06/10/08 Page 3 of 11 11 ITEM NUMBER: A- 1 DATE: 09/23/08 Joanne Main, relayed that the first of the Tuesday Evenings in the Park barbecues is set for June 17th and will benefit the Atascadero Firefighter's Association. She also mentioned the upcoming Atascadero Wine Festival on June 21St at Atascadero Lake Park. Ms. Main stated that the Chamber has done the economic forecasts for 8 years now, and they are always held on the same date, by a reputable company and are in no way political. Ron Walters, expressed his opinion that the Anti-WalMart group needs to register as a group and expose their influence. He urged Council to run professional meetings and refrain from making disparaging remarks. Ann Hatch, expressed her embarrassment that our City Council is the subject of such discussion. She stated she's tired of hearing accusations from groups and those same groups providing no suggestions. Ms. Hatch encouraged Council to reach out to the public and to work together. Tom McGee, resident since 1970, commented on the lack of jobs in the City and the expense of living in this area. He encouraged Council to put time, energy and creativity into making our City bigger and stronger. Al Fonzi, referred to the times when Atascadero was part of the County and remembered the length of time emergency responses took. He commented that we already have 12-13 minute response times and does not want to see that increase. Mayor Brenner closed the Community Forum period. Mayor Brennler directed Mr. Paskin to see City Clerk, Marcia McClure Torgerson, for help with acquiring public documents and for questions about initiatives. City Attorney Brian Pierik addressed Ms. O'Keefe's questions. He said according to the deed, the City has the power to enforce the conditions on the Printery owner. City Manager Wade McKinney said that the Printery is scheduled for a future agenda. He assured Ms. Perkins that the checking of signatures will be completed within the 30- day time period. There was Council consensus to have a staff report brought back on options and costs associated with audio taping all meetings. Mayor Brennler stated that he forgives Council Member O'Malley for what happened and wants to move forward. He did state, however, if something like that were to occur again, he thinks Council would need to address the issue. Mr. Brennler encouraged Council to read and review the points in the binder pertaining to conduct. CC Draft Minutes 06/10/08 Page 4of11 - 12 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 09/23/08 Council Member Clay said that Council Member O'Malley's comments were out of frustration, not anger. He encouraged Council to move beyond it. Mayor Pro Tem Beraud stated she thinks that we all have insecurities and strengths but the high road is needed to be taken. She said she hopes Council Member O'Malley will apologize and she is willing to let bygones be bygones. Council Member Luna stated he thinks the expectation is that Council be as professional as staff, and staff has the desire for Council to come together. He said he concurs with what everyone has said about coming together and working together. Council Member Clay said he thinks that staff is more professional than Council is at this time. Council Member Luna expressed discontent with the UCSB Economic Report. He stated that he doesn't doubt the numbers but questions the political nature. He cited numerous sections of the report that he questioned. Mr. Luna said he agrees Council needs to come together. Council Member Clay stated in regards to the Rottman Group, he believes their feeling was that their project would not work without an anchor. Mayor Brennler commented that he was a little disappointed with the report because he thought the report was injected with quite a few political points. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Ordinance to Amend City's Smoking Ordinance to Include Prohibition of Smoking at Atascadero State Hospital ■ Disclosure of Ex Parte Communications ■ Fiscal Impact: None. ■ Recommendation: Council introduce for first reading by title only, the Draft Ordinance adding Section 8 to Title 6, Chapter 6 of the Atascadero Municipal Code providing for the prohibition of smoking at the Atascadero State Hospital. [Police and City Attorney] City Attorney Brian Pierik gave staff report and answered questions of the Council. Ex-Parte Communications: • Mayor Brennler stated he attended the Atascadero State Hospital Advisory Board on May 29th and advised the Board of the status of this amendment and that it was anticipated to go before the Council tonight. CC Draft Minutes 06/10/08 Page 5 of 11 13 ITEM NUMBER: A- 1 DATE: 09/23/08 PUBLIC COMMENT Jon DeMorales, Atascadero State Hospital, addressed the Bill that was spoken about and asked that Council proceed with approval of the proposed Ordinance. Mayor Brennler closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Beraud to introduce for first reading by title only, the Draft Ordinance adding Section 8 to Title 6, Chapter 6 of the Atascadero Municipal Code providing for the prohibition of smoking at the Atascadero State Hospital. Motion passed 4:0 by a roll-call vote. C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS 1. Final Map 2007-0156 (Tract 2733) 6905 EI Camino Real (TTM 2005-0071 Amendment) Colony Square (James Harrison/Community Redevelopment Agency of Atascadero) ■ Fiscal Impact: None. ■ Recommendations: Council: 1 . Adopt and Approve Final Map 2007-0156 (Tract 2733); and, 2. Accept offer of dedication for Capistrano Avenue. 3. Reject, without prejudice to future acceptance, the offer of dedication for easements for sewer and storm drain on behalf of the Public. 4. Order the abandonment, in Accordance with Government Code Section 66499.20-1/2 with the filing of the map, of the offer of dedication for Public Highway and incidental purposes, recorded January 17, 1922, in Book 150 of Deeds at Page 110, the easements for sewer pipeline purposes to the Atascadero County Sanitation District per the documents recorded March 3, 1970, in Book 1556 of Official Records, At Pages 89 and 91, The easement for sewer line purposes as granted to the City of Atascadero by deed recorded October 19, 1990, in Book 3598 of Official Records at Page 65, and the easements for Public Utility, Storm Drain and Sewer Line purposes per Parcel Map at 85-225 as recorded February 29, 1988, in Book 43 of Parcel Maps at Page 8, and the same. 5. Authorize and direct the City Clerk to endorse the City Council's approval on the map. 6. Authorize City Manager to sign a Subdivision Improvement Agreement for improvements associated with Final Map 2007-0156. [Public Works] CC Draft Minutes 06/10/08 Page 6 of 11 14 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 09/23/08 Public Works Director Steve Kahn gave the staff report and answered questions of the Council. PUBLIC COMMENT - None MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to: 1. Adopt and Approve Final Map 2007-0156 (Tract 2733); and, 2. Accept offer of dedication for Capistrano Avenue; and, 3. Reject, without prejudice to future acceptance, the offer of dedication for easements for sewer and storm drain on behalf of the Public; and, 4. Order the abandonment, in Accordance with Government Code Section 66499.20-1/2 with the filing of the map, of the offer of dedication for Public Highway and incidental purposes, recorded January 17, 1922, in Book 150 of Deeds at Page 110, the easements for sewer pipeline purposes to the Atascadero County Sanitation District per the documents recorded March 3, 1970, in Book 1556 of Official Records, At Pages 89 and 91, The easement for sewer line purposes as granted to the City of Atascadero by deed recorded October 19, 1990, in Book 3598 of Official Records at Page 65, and the easements for Public Utility, Storm Drain and Sewer Line purposes per Parcel Map at 85-225 as recorded February 29, 1988, in Book 43 of Parcel Maps at Page 8, and the same; and, 5. Authorize and direct the City Clerk to endorse the City Council's approval on the map; and, 6. Authorize City Manager to sign a Subdivision Improvement Agreement for improvements associated with Final Map 2007-0156. Motion passed 4;0 by roll-call vote. (Item #C-1.6 Contract 2008- 016) 2. Agreement between the City of Atascadero and Colony Sauare Regarding the Recording of Master CC&R's for Tract 2733 ■ Fiscal Impact: None. ■ Recommendation: Council authorize the City Manager to execute an Agreement between the City of Atascadero and Colony Square regarding the recording of Master CC&Rs for Tract 2733. [Public Works] Public Works Director Steve Kahn gave the report and answered questions of the Council. PUBLIC COMMENT - None CC Draft Minutes 06/10/08 Page 7 of 11 15 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 09/23/08 MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to authorize the City Manager to execute an Agreement between the City of Atascadero and Colony Square regarding the recording of Master CC&Rs for Tract 2733. Motion passed 4:0 by a roll-call vote. (Item #C-2 Contract 2008- 014) 3. Streetscape Phase Ila Award (City Bid No. 2008-005) ■ Description: Construction of Improvements at Palma and Traffic Way and Virginia Plaza Crosswalk. ■ Fiscal Impact: $730,161.20 in budgeted redevelopment funds. ■ Recommendation: 1. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract in the amount of $730,161.20 with Granite Construction Incorporated to construct the improvements at Palma and Traffic Way and Virginia Plaza Crosswalk; and, 2. Authorize the Public Works Director to file a notice of completion after the project is finished. [Public Works] Public Works Director Steve Kahn presented the staff report and answered questions of the Council. PUBLIC COMMENT Steve Martin, asked if the construction on Phase Ila would be finished prior to the Holiday season and also inquired what the plan for traffic is during construction. Public Works Director Steve Kahn said the construction will be finished before the Holiday season and relayed traffic information. Mayor Brennler closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract in the amount of $730,161.20 with Granite Construction Incorporated to construct the improvements at Palma and Traffic Way and Virginia Plaza Crosswalk and authorize the Public Works Director to file a notice of completion after the project is finished. Motion passed 4:0 by a roll-call vote. (Item #C-3.1 Contract 2008- 015) CC Draft Minutes 06/10/08 Page 8 of 11 16 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 09/23/08 COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS: Council Member Clay commented that he thinks one of the Council's downfalls is that they over-study things. Mayor Brennler stated that Council Member Luna, City Manager Wade McKinney and himself attended the League of California Cities Executive Forum and leadership workshops. He also thanked the community for their patience with the Highway 101/41 project. Public Works Director Steve Kahn announced US 101 will be closed from June 16 — 27, weekdays, from 9:00 p.m. — 5:00 a.m. He stated that the closure areas will be Northbound, from Curbaril off ramp to the Rosario off ramp, and Southbound, from Traffic Way off ramp to Curbaril off ramp. Mr. Kahn answered questions of the Council. Mayor Brennler thanked Heather Young Curry for her efforts with the Annual Atascadero Art Tour event. He also thanked the Atascadero Police Department and law enforcement for participation in the Special Olympics torch run. City Manager Wade McKinney, on behalf of Council Member O'Malley, announced the appointment of Heather Moreno to the Planning Commission and read a brief biography about her. PUBLIC COMMENT Heather Moreno, thanked Council for the opportunity to serve on the Planning Commission. Mayor Brennler closed the Public Comment period. 1. Mayor Pro Tem Beraud & Council Member O'Malley Update on Building Public Trust Program City Manager Wade McKinney read a prepared statement from Council Member O'Malley. Mayor Pro Tem Beraud stated that the committee goals were to talk about how to implement a public trust program and the steps and timeline. She said they would like further clarification from the Council. A brief discussion ensued among Council Members regarding the Building Public Trust programs. CC Draft Minutes 06/10/08 Page 9 of 11 17 ITEM NUMBER: A- 1 DATE: 09/23/08 PUBLIC COMMENT David Broadwater, said there are four things he'd like to see addressed this evening: pursuing an ordinance that puts caps on campaign contributions; caps of campaign expenditures; criteria for recusal of City Council Members; and criteria and requirements for transparency. He also stated that he thinks all meetings should be taped. Joanne Main, announced that the Chamber has secured a couple of dates in October to do a candidates forum and a debate. Joan O'Keefe, suggested having more structure and incorporating microphones in the next public meeting set up. She also stated that the Facilitator needs to control the meeting better and be able to stand up to the strong personalities of some Council Members. Heather Moreno, Planning Commissioner, commented on finance and campaign reform. She asked for clarification on caps on contributions and expenditures. Tom Comar, stated he is a supporter of campaign finance reform. He said he supports separating campaign finance reform from the public trust issue and moving forward with it. Sandy Jack, stated he is opposed to separating finance reform from overall campaign reform. Mayor Brennler closed the Public Comment period. Mayor Pro Tem Beraud suggested giving direction to City Clerk/Assistant to the City Manager Marcia McClure Torgerson to research posting 460 forms on the web site. City Attorney Brian Pierik stated that posting 460's on the web site can be done but there might be some limitations in terms of what information on a 460 can be disclosed. He answered questions of Council regarding campaign finance. There was Council consensus to pursue the committee's recommendations and consensus to have staff research and return with the issue of posting the 460's online. Council Member Clay stated he does not think having campaign finance reform brought back is necessary. There was Council consensus to have staff bring back campaign finance reform as a Management Report or discussion item on a variety of different ways to pursue campaign finance reform. CC Draft Minutes 06/10/08 Page 10 of 11 18 ITEM NUMBER: A- 1 DATE: 09/23/08 D. COMMITTEE REPORTS Mayor Pro Tem Beraud commented that she saw Superintendent John Rogers at a school event and he was recovering well from his injury and is back to work. Mayor Brennler County Mayor's or's Round Table — Meeting at the end of the week. Finance Committee — Minutes have been prepared from the last meeting and are available for public viewing. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION Mayor Pro Tem Beraud announced she has summarized her comments about the Economic Forecast and will be submitting them to the Atascadero News and The Tribune. Council Member Clay complimented Mayor Pro Tem Beraud on the job she did relaying her comments in a positive manner. He stated that sooner or later the City is going to run out of funds and we need to address this issue. Council Member Luna stated that retail sales tax has been a real problem in Atascadero for many years. He commented on the importance of the Economic Development Strategy. City Manager Wade McKinney mentioned the Economic Development Strategy is currently being updated. He stated that interviews are taking place and efforts to assemble focus groups are being made for June 26t"-27t". Mr. McKinney said the survey is completed and should be out in the mail within the next couple of days. F. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Brennler adjourned the meeting at 9:29 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED BY: Shannon Sims, Deputy City Clerk CC Draft Minutes 06/10/08 Page 11 of 11 19 20 ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 09/23/08 Fr�1� ,1 CITY OF A l"A4 SCA®EE�O - CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES Tuesday, June 24, 2008 Closed Session 5:00 p.m. Regular Session 5:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero, California CLOSED SESSION: 5:00 PM Mayor Brennler called meeting to order at 5:02 pm. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT— CLOSED SESSION Council Member O'Malley expressed concern that more information on the Closed Session items was not disclosed to the public. City Attorney Pierik explained that items were not disclosed, as they pertained to consideration of potential litigation. Mayor Brennler closed Public Comment. CC Draft Minutes 06/24/08 Page 1 of 16 21 ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 09/23/08 2. CALL TO ORDER a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c) (Number of cases: 5) 3. ADJOURN CLOSED SESSION REPORT City Attorney Pierik reported that there was no reportable action. REGULAR SESSION: 6:00 PM Mayor Brennler called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and Council Member Luna led the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Brennler asked for a moment of silence in honor of former Council Member Roland Dexter's recent passing. ROLL CALL: Present: Council Members Clay, Luna, O'Malley, Beraud and Mayor Brennler Absent: None Others Present: City Clerk / Assistant to City Manager Marcia McClure Torgerson, Deputy City Clerk Victoria Randall. Staff Present: City Manager Wade McKinney, Assistant City Manager Jim Lewis, Fire Chief Kurt Stone, Police Chief Jim Mulhall, Public Works Director Steve Kahn, Community Development Director Warren Frace, Director Administrative Services Rachelle Rickard, Community Services Director Brady Cherry, and City Attorney Brian Pierik. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Council Member Clay asked that the two items on page 6 dealing with placement of Wal-Mart and Mayoral issues on the November ballot be moved up to follow the Shield Initiative discussion so that it is considered tonight given time constraints. City Manager McKinney requested that Item A-10 be dropped from the agenda (Woodbridge Las Lomas tract). CC Draft Minutes 06/24/08 Page 2 of 16 22 ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 09/23/08 City Clerk Torgerson confirmed that in order for these items to be placed on the November ballot, they would need to be considered at the July 8 to Council meeting agenda. Council Member Luna stated he does not support the request due to the other agenda items needing to be addressed. Mayor Brennler concurred. Council Member Clay requested Council consensus to forego adjournment until the two items were discussed. Council consensus was not reached. MOTION: By Council Member Clay and seconded by Council Member O'Malley to move Council Member Clay's two items dealing with the Wal-Mart and Mayor election ballot measure proposals placement on the JUly 8th Council agenda to immediately follow the Shield Initiative agenda item. Motion failed 2:3 by a roll-call vote. (Luna, Beraud and Brennler opposed) MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Beraud to approve amended agenda, removing Item #A-10. Motion passed 3:2 by a roll-call vote (Clay and O'Malley opposed). PRESENTATION: 1. Recognition of Paige Buck-Moyer, Former Parks & Recreation Commission Youth Representative Mayor Brennler thanked Paige Buck-Moyer for her services as youth representative on the Parks and Recreation Commission and presented her with a commemorative plaque. A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. City Council Public Trust Workshop Draft Minutes - April 2 & 3, 2008 ■ Recommendation: Council approve the City Council Public Trust Workshop Minutes of April 2 & 3, 2008. [City Clerk] 2. City Council Draft Minutes - April 8. 2008 ■ Recommendation: Council approve the City Council Minutes of April 8, 2008. [City Clerk] 3. General Municipal Election November 4. 2008 ■ Description: The City Council must adopt resolutions to initiate the election process, and to combine our election with the County. CC Draft Minutes 06/24/08 Page 3 of 16 23 ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 09/23/08 ■ Fiscal Impact: The cost to the City is determined by the number of registered voters on Election Day, and the number of Candidate Statements included in the Voter Pamphlet. The City Clerk's estimate is $20,000.00. ■ Recommendations: Council: 1 . Adopt Draft Resolution A, calling and giving notice of the holding of a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 4, 2008; and, 2. Adopt Draft Resolution B° requesting thea Geoardof neral Municipals of the Election County of San Luis Obispo to consolidate to be held on November 4, 2008. [City Clerk] 4. February 2008 Investment Report ■ Fiscal 1= None ■ Recommendation: Council approve the City Treasurer's report for February 2008. [Treasurer] 5. Catering Agreement Approval for the Pavilion on the Lake ■ Fiscal Impact: The City of Atascadero will receive $150 per month rental fee of the cafe, plus 20% of gross receipts for all on-site cafe & catering sales, and 10% of gross receipts for all off-site catering sales. ■ Recommendation: Council approve a five-year contract for catering and food services for the Pavilion on the Lake with Pacific Harvest Catering, effective June 30, 2008 through June 30, 2013. [Community Services] 6. Final Map 2008-0156 (Parcel Map AT 07-00801, 6305 Morro Road (LLA 2007-0080), Giessinger ■ Fiscal Impact: None ■ Recommendations: Council: 1. Adopt and approve Final Parcel Map 2008-0156 (Parcel Map ATAL 07 0080); and, 2. Abandon a portion of the Marchant Avenue Right-of-Way, according to Streets and Highway Code Section 66499.20 1/2 and as approved by the City Council on October 9, 2007, with the Filing of this map; and, 3. Authorize and direct the City Clerk to endorse the City Council's approval on the map. [Public Works] 7. Paloma Creek Park Sports Field Lighting Proiect — Materials Only Package Award — City Bid No. 2008-003 ■ Fiscal Impact: $149,300.00 in Vehicle and Equipment funds. ■ Recommendation: Council authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Musco Lighting West, Inc. in the amount of $149,300 for the purchase of materials for the replacement of the Softball Field Lighting at Paloma Creek Park. [Public Works] CC Draft Minutes 06/24/08 Page 4 of 16 24 ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 09/23/08 8. Community Development Block Grant Program Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011 ■ Fiscal Impact: Continued availability of approximately $190,000 annually during the next 3 years for CDBG eligible programs. ■ Recommendation: Council authorize continued participation in the Urban County Community Development Block Grant Program for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011. [Public Works] 9. 2006/2007 Rehabilitation Project Award (Del Rio/ San Jacinto Road) City Bid No. 2008-006 ■ Fiscal Impact: $708,714.39 allocated from Local Transportation Funds and Proposition 113 Funds. ■ Recommendations: Council: 1. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Union Asphalt, Inc. in the amount of $708,714.39 for construction of the 2006-2007 Road Rehabilitation Project; and 2. Authorize the Public Works Director to intermittently close portions of Del Rio and San Jacinto Road during the construction period. [Public Works] 10.Woodridge/Las LomasTract 2525, Phases I and II Acceptance of the Offers of Dedication for Public Ogen Space No. 1, No. 2 and No. 4, Certify Completion of and Begin Warranty Period for Landscape and Reduce Bond Amounts for Public Improvements ■ Fiscal Impact: The City's costs for the 2007-2008 (current year) are estimated to be $6,678.00. ■ Recommendations: Council: 1. Adopt Draft Resolution A accepting the Public Improvements within the areas proposed for Dedication of Public Open Space on Tract 2525, Phase I and reject the improvements in the areas of dedication for maintenance; and, 2. Adopt Draft Resolution B accepting the Offer of Dedications for Public Open Space No. 1, No. 2 and No. 4, in Fee Simple, on Tract 2525, Phase I; and, 3. Authorize the Public Works Director to reduce Tract 2525, Phases I and II Public Improvement Bonds to reflect work completed and to accept Landscape Improvements as complete and subject to a one-year warranty period; and, 4. Authorize the Public Works Director to accept the Paloma Creek Pedestrian Bridge as complete and subject to a one-year warranty period. [Public Works] 11.Ordinance to Amend City's Smoking Ordinance to Include Prohibition of Smoking at Atascadero State Hospital ■ Fiscal Impact: None. ■ Recommendation: Council adopt on second reading by title only, the Draft Ordinance adding Section 8 to Title 6, Chapter 6 of the Atascadero Municipal Code providing for the prohibition of smoking at the Atascadero State Hospital. [Police and City Attorney] CC Draft Minutes 06/24/08 Page 5 of 16 25 ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 09/23/08 Items pulled: Mike Jackson, Item #A-1 Brady Cherry, Item #A-5 MOTION: By Council Member O'Malley and seconded by Council Member Clay to approve consent items 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. Item #A-1 Mike Jackson stated he had comments about the draft minutes. Discussion ensued among Council Members on appropriate time to make comments on this item. Eric Greening asked if any other physical record existed for the meeting reflected in Item #A-1. Mike Jackson commented on the agreement reflected in the April 2-3 draft minutes regarding Mayor Brennler's concerns. Mayor Brennler stated that issues have been resolved. City Clerk Marcia Torgerson confirmed that the minutes represent the physical record of the meeting and that it was not recorded. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Beraud to approve consent item A-1. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. Item #A-5 Brady explained that the percentage in the staff report fiscal impact and page 2 of the attached agreement were incorrect; correction should read 16% of gross receipts rather than 20% for on-site sales. PUBLIC COMMENT: Betty Hoak expressed concern with the order of agenda items. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Beraud to approve consent item A-5 as amended. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. COMMUNITY FORUM: Pastor Steve Shively, representing the Ministerial Association, commented on the June 22"d All-City Prayer event in Sunken Gardens and led those in attendance in prayer. CC Draft Minutes 06/24/08 Page 6 of 16 26 .Tr-.A &H rRN1 r_m. A 7 ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 09/23/08 Chuck Ward announced that Home Depot has pledged a $25,000 donation to the Atascadero Veterans Memorial Foundation. He introduced Tom Burgett, new manager of the Atascadero store, who facilitated the contribution. Mitch Paskin of 12040 San Marcos Road, advocated cutting a new road from Oak Ridge Estates to Hwy 41 to address his concerns with road safety and maintenance in his neighborhood. Eileen O'Grady challenged community members to focus on facts and sound reasoning to support their arguments and not engage in name calling or labeling. Gordon Chapman expressed concerns with fire protection, road maintenance and sewage disposal. He advocated bringing commerce into the City to generate additional revenue to address infrastructure. Lee Perkins commented on the positive environment of the Lake Park and the downtown areas, but expressed concern about condition of the former City Hall building. She also asked the status of the stop sign at Curbaril. Leon Korba commented on a survey he received regarding Wal-Mart. He felt the question relating to the subject of transportation being totally tied up if Wal-Mart was part of the City was an unfair question. George Billings asked that the City restore the lake, as it is good for tourism. He stated the City needs Wal-Mart because it needs revenue. Keith Mathias encouraged the Council to do what is best for the City rather than operate on public consensus only. He expressed concern with the Council's denial of the Rottman Group's affordable housing project last year. Tish Keely commented on resident concerns with the affordable housing project discussed by Mr. Mathias. She asked that Council keep regional concerns in mind when considering growth for the City. Joanne Main invited the public to Tuesdays in the Park BBQs to support the non-profit groups that are hosting the events. Steve Martin announced that Main Street will hold its annual fundraiser, "Wild West Mayhem," on July 12th at the Taft Barn. He added that downtown merchants have extended their business hours until 7:00 p.m. on Wednesdays to accommodate the working schedules of residents. Each open store will post a blue balloon. Jeffrey Brandonetti, asked about the values of the Council unrelated to money when considering projects. He also asked about City Hall bike racks and reported on racist graffiti near the high school. Mayor Brennler closed Community Forum. CC Draft Minutes 06/24/08 Page 7 of 1.16, 27 ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 09/23/08 City Manager McKinney addressed questions asked during Community Forum: • Concerns about road safety and maintenance. • Discussed safety factors impacting upkeep at the historic City Hall. Mr. McKinney also stated the City is working on the Curbaril stop sign, but is awaiting appropriate approvals and design. • Discussed progress made in lake quality restoration, including water exchange and the recently installed floating island. • Confirmed the bike rack locations at City Hall. He stated the graffiti report will be investigated. Council Member O'Malley stated, for the record, that he wanted to make a decision on the hearing tonight. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Initiative Petition to Amend the General Plan and Zoning Code ■ Fiscal Impact: The cost to the City is determined by the number of registered voters on Election Day, and the number of pages used in the Voter Pamphlet for the Ballot Measure text, impartial analysis and arguments. The City Clerk's estimate is $2,000.00. ■ Recommendations: Council: 1. Receive the Certificate of Sufficiency from the City Clerk, certifying the Initiative Petition to Amend the General Plan and Zoning Code to Prohibit Commercial Establishments in Excess of 150,000 Square Feet of Gross Floor Area or Retail Discount Stores in Excess of 90,000 Square Feet with at Least 5% of Gross Floor Area Dedicated To Items Such As Groceries that was filed with the City Clerk on May 8, 2008; AND 2. Take one of the following actions: a. Adopt the proposed Ordinance, without alteration, amending the General Plan and Zoning Code to Prohibit Commercial Establishments in Excess of 150,000 Square Feet of Gross Floor Area or Retail Discount Stores in Excess of 90,000 Square Feet with at Least 5% of Gross Floor Area Dedicated to Items Such as Groceries. OR b. Call for an election. i. Submit the Ordinance, without alteration, to the voters by adopting the Draft Resolution A, ordering the submission, to the qualified electors of the City, of a certain measure relating to amending the General Plan and Zoning Code, at the General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 4, 2008, as called by Resolution No. ; and, CC Draft Minutes 06/24/08 Page 8 of 16 28 ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 09/23/08 ii. Adopt Draft Resolution B, setting priorities for filing written arguments regarding a City measure and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis. OR c. Order a report on the impact the adoption of this ordinance would have on the City. (Once the Council receives this report, the Council shall either adopt the ordinance within 10 days or order an election.) [City Clerk] City Clerk Torgerson gave the staff report and answered questions of Council. City Attorney Pierik discussed the timing of a first and second reading and offered to provide further direction if Council decides to adopt the ordinance. Ex Parte Communications: Council Member Clay stated he received approximately 250 emails on the subject, of which about 200 were positive toward putting initiative on the ballot. He received about 30 phone calls, all of which supported putting the initiative on the ballot; he noticed most of the calls to City Hall were in support of the initiative. He stated it was approximately 10:1 in favor of putting the item on the ballot. Council Member O'Malley did not recall talking with an official representative of Wal- Mart, Rottman Group or the Shield Initiative about the initiative; his conversations were more about the project. He saw reports of approximately 70 phone calls coming into City Hall, most of which were weighted more in support of the initiative. Of his approximately 300 emails, less than 50 were in support of the initiative. Over 90% were in support of letting the people vote. Mayor Brennler stated that he had received a large number of phone messages and has had conversations with residents discussing the pros and cons. He received between 150-300 emails. He was also contacted by Tom Comar who discussed his opinions. Mayor Pro Tem Beraud apologized for the problems with her email which caused a delayed response to the emails. She discussed this issue with acquaintances and made some inquiries into the community. Council Member Luna estimated he received the same emails and phone calls, including those transmitted from City Hall. He read all of the emails and attempted to respond. He agreed with Council Member Clay and Mayor Brennler's estimation of the composition. He also spoke to Tom Comar last week about various options. Mayor Brennler called for a recess at 7:49. Mayor Brennler called the meeting back to order at 8:08. CC Draft Minutes 06/24/08 Page 9 of 16 29 ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 09/23/08 Mayor Brennler invited the Initiative's spokesperson to make his 10-minute presentation. He stated that the applicant will also be able to speak for ten minutes and the time will be split between Aaron Rios and Keith Mathias. Tom Comar, representing Oppose Wal-Mart, gave his presentation advocating for adoption of the Shield Initiative and answered questions of Council. Aaron Rios, representing Wal-Mart, and Keith Mathias, representing The Rottman Group, made their presentations advocating against adoption of the Shield Initiative tonight and answered questions of Council. PUBLIC COMMENT: Sondra Flores asked Council to support Wal-Mart so residents would not have to spend the money to travel to Paso Robles. Mike Anderson spoke in support of letting the initiative go to the ballot. Ray Johnson stated he supports the electorate voting on this issue and added that if the ordinance is adopted tonight, an effort to repeal it will be initiated. Jim Shannon expressed concerns about the process and spoke in support of the initiative going to a vote rather than adopting it tonight. Bob Marks, spoke in support of the initiative going to the ballot to enable the maximum amount of citizen participation. Tish Keely said the Council needs to address the issues of direction and of revenue, but that Wal-Mart may not be the answer. She supports passage of ordinance, but would approve of it going to the ballot. Tim McCutcheon spoke in support of the initiative being placed on the ballot. He added that petition signers were told their signatures would bring it to a vote. Maggie Moore stated she supported adoption of the ordinance tonight, but that since she supports the citizens' right to vote, she urged the Council to send this to election. Franka Lanski expressed her concern with how individuals disrespect one another. She supports small business and buying American and felt the City should fight corporative takeovers. Jeff Grandinetti spoke against Wal-Mart due to working conditions imposed by Wal-Mart in other countries. Tim O'Keefe urged Council to adopt the ordinance tonight to give workers a chance at a fair salary and stated that the majority of organized labor opposes Wal-Mart due to employment practices. CC Draft Minutes 06/24/08 Page 10 of 16 30 ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 09/23/08 Tom McGee, independent business owner, urged Council to add this issue to the ballot, stating that the initiative will stifle businesses coming in. Roberta Fonzi spoke in favor of putting the initiative on the ballot, stating that adoption tonight would remove some of the Council's options and expose the City to a possible discrimination lawsuit. Heather Moreno said the Shield Initiative restricts the City's options and she urged the Council to put it on the ballot. She added that many people signed the petition under the assumption this would put it on the ballot. Gordon Chapman urged Council to put it on the ballot, adding that free enterprise and competition should not be feared. Suzy Anderson spoke against adoption of the ordinance tonight, adding that a petition circulator told her that a signature would help put this on the ballot. She confirmed that a referendum is being drafted, should the ordinance be passed. She also expressed her concern with a telephone conversation with Mayor Brennler. Pearl Tarpley Gardiner spoke in support of the initiative going to the ballot, adding that Paso Robles has passed up Atascadero due to a more welcoming climate for business and industry. Joanne Main urged the Council to place the initiative on the ballot so that all voices may be heard, adding that the EIR is needed before a decision should be reached. Donna Wallace, former planning commissioner, urged the Council to reject the ordinance and put it to the voters. She added that adoption would also open the City up to a lawsuit. Jay DeCou urged the Council to put the initiative to a vote and stated that a big-box shield will reinforce Atascadero's unfriendly business image. Lynn Hunter asked the Council to adopt the Shield Initiative tonight. She said the General Plan, which allowed a specific use for the property, should be the guide. Richard Moen stated he is against changing the rules once the process has started. He asked that if the initiative passes, it should apply to new applicants, not existing ones. Bob Wilkins, asked that the Council let the initiative go to ballot and set an example for young people that a good government does not operate by demand of a vocal minority. John Taylor, on behalf of the Atascadero Police Association, urged the Council not to adopt the Shield Initiative but to let it go to vote of people. He said the Atascadero Police Association supports commercial development so our citizens can continue to receive legendary public service. CC Draft Minutes 06/24/08 Page 11 of 16 31 ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 09/23/08 Frank Sommers said he was approached by petition circulators who said the signatures would help to put the issue on the ballot. Steve Tillman urged Council not to delegate their decision and that the Council has the responsibility to lead. Jay Slane urged Council to adopt the ordinance tonight. He said the Council should accept research from institutions such as the University of Iowa and US House of Representatives and not only the UCSB. Kelly Goodman, business owner, supports Wal-Mart and said that small businesses can survive if they change the way things are done. She urged the Council to let the Initiative go to a vote. George Raft stated the Shield Initiative will block free enterprise and urged the Council to send this matter to the voters. Chuck Ward asked the Council to let the initiative go to the voters. He stated that the City needs a positive, welcoming environment to attract businesses and corporations. Catherine Baker spoke in opposition to Wal-Mart and asked the Council to adopt the Shield Initiative. She shared findings from her research on Wal-Mart. Wesley Doss said the City needs an anchor to draw people to the area. He asked the Council to put this to a vote of the people and not to adopt the ordinance tonight. Fred Frank commended Council for supporting the ADE economic study and encouraged more efforts in economic development. He urged the Council to adopt the ordinance and not allow an outside corporation to dominate its influence. Bev Aho said the City can become pro business and let Wal-Mart in to help bring businesses into town; or it can raise property and sales taxes; or it can become a Community Service District. She urged the Council to turn this situation around. Ann Hatch stated that adoption of the ordinance violates the public's right to vote, and she urged the Council to place it on the ballot so the issue can be resolved. Lee Perkins addressed points made by previous speakers and urged the Council to adopt the Shield Initiative tonight. She added that the Shield Initiative would not prohibit a grocery store at the north end of town. Don Idler spoke against adopting the Shield Initiative tonight and asked that they let the people vote. He added that the City needs more retail. Greg Barber stated he supports free enterprise and urged the community to support Wal-Mart. CC Draft Minutes 06/24/08 Page 12 of 16 32 ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 09/23/08 Mary Arnold asked the Council not to adopt this ordinance tonight, but to put it on the ballot. She said entrepreneurs know how to survive and succeed. John Holman voiced support for the Shield Initiative and said it protects markets that anchor our current retail centers. Chris Thompson voiced his opposition to a super Wal-Mart and supports diversity in the marketplace. Robert Skinner, petition circulator, said that circulators told the public the ordinance could either go to the voters or be adopted by the Council. He urged the Council to approve the ordinance. He read aloud an email from another Initiative supporter. Mayor Brennler called a recess at 10:27 pm Mayor Brennler called meeting back to order at 10:36 pm PUBLIC COMMENT (continued): Beth Hetra, San Luis Obispo resident, discussed land usage issues for Atascadero. She cautioned the Council to proceed carefully and advised against pushing bigger. Michael Stornetta, Atascadero Professional Firefighters 3600, said expanding retail development will enable the City to provide services, but that the Initiative stands in the way of that goal. Ashley Stornetta said that 10% of population is not an accurate representation of the community and that the people of Atascadero ought to be allowed to voice their opinion. Shannon Stanley, Paso Robles resident, commented on the state of businesses in Atascadero and encouraged the Council to give the City a chance. Jolene Horn asked the Council to place the initiative on the ballot to allow voters to have a voice. She stated that a referendum will be submitted should the ordinance be adopted. Kelly Long supported putting the Initiative to a ballot and opposed adoption tonight tonight. She added that more retail is needed. Stan Sherwin advocated for strong leadership and increased business activity in this town to keep us from withering away. Steve Isaacson urged the Council to allow the Initiative to go to a vote and opposed adoption or requiring an additional report on the subject. He felt that adoption tonight would permanently divide the community. Tino Santos said the petition circulators told him his signature would help to put the issue on the ballot. He voiced support for putting the Initiative on the ballot. CC Draft Minutes 06/24/08 Page 13 of 16 33 ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 09/23/08 Frank Henderson supported the Initiative going to the ballot, adding that the ballot would provide a true survey of the public's preferences. MOTION: By Council Member O'Malley and seconded by Council Member Luna, to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. Ron Rothman said Wal-Mart did not respect the General Plan process when they submitted their initial plans for a supercenter. Robert Winslow voiced concerns about petition circulators' tactics and the City's economic situation. He encouraged more development and growth in Atascadero and urged the Council to let the people vote on the Initiative. Ron Olson, voiced support for Wal-Mart for its affordable prices, creation of jobs and revenue, and competition. He asked the Council to let the people vote on this issue. John Angel questioned Wal-Mart's record of paying its fair share in other communities and stated he felt Wal-Mart's presence hurts other businesses. George Billings said businesses are not worried about Wal-Mart. He urged the Council to put let the people vote on this issue. Steve LaSalle, read a letter from Atascadero resident, Daphne Fahsing, in which she voiced her opposition to Wal-Mart and added her support for adopting the ordinance tonight. Mr. LaSalle voiced his agreement. Tess Comar spoke in favor of this issue going to a vote in November. Bill Shaffer voiced his support for adoption of the ordinance tonight. He said the Council needs to preserve the long-term benefit of the community and he urged them to work together in this process. Ray Buban stated that the people will make their preferences known in the upcoming election. Mayor Brennler closed the Public Comment period. Mayor Brennler asked if adoption would invite a successful lawsuit or constitute a violation of the first amendment. City Attorney Pierik stated that these issues would require legal analysis. Council Member Clay advocated putting this on the ballot and letting people make the decision. CC Draft Minutes 06/24/08 Page 14 of 16 34 ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 09/23/08 Mayor Pro Tem Beraud stated that Wal-Mart should not be viewed as the only solution to our economic difficulties. She felt it was important to proceed with the economic development study and diversify our strategies. She expressed concern that Atascadero was the only sizeable city in the county that did not have a Big Box ordinance and read statements of Mayor Tony Navarro Ferraro from Arroyo Grande regarding supercenters. She also shared input from her conversations with business owners. She stated her belief that the Council lead in the decision on this issue. Council Member Luna stated it is time to move forward, as the issue is divisive to the community and mentioned that prior Councils have also struggled to increase retail development. He voiced concern that the General Plan was not fully protecting the City's rural nature. Council Member Luna stated that the 30-month review process involves economic studies researching impacts to other businesses, but that this information will not be available before November's election. However, he stated the voters should have the opportunity to decide the issue. Council Member O'Malley discussed the enhanced shopping opportunities in years past and discussed some of the advances in recent years, while setting money aside into reserves. He said he thinks part of the downturn in the last couple of years is due to some of the decisions made. He is concerned with the City's current and expected deficit and advocated for letting the voters decide this issue. Mayor Brennler stated this is a very difficult decision. In his talks with community members, friends and family, he feels this is a difficult issue. He stated he would support the democratic process and will yield to the people's will. He said he remains committed to do whatever possible to improve downtown revitalization. Council Member Clay cited data for salary and benefit packages at Wal-Mart and reflected on past retail development brought into the City. He supported letting the people vote on this issue. Mayor Brennler encouraged all to be civil toward each other as we move forward. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member O'Malley to receive the Certificate of Sufficiency from the City Clerk, certifying the Initiative Petition to Amend the General Plan and Zoning Code to Prohibit Commercial Establishments in Excess of 150,000 Square Feet of Gross Floor Area or Retail Discount Stores in Excess of 90,000 Square Feet with at Least 5% of Gross Floor Area Dedicated To Items Such As Groceries that was filed with the City Clerk on May 8, 2008. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. MOTION: By Council Member O'Malley and seconded by Council Member Clay to call for an election: i. Submit the Ordinance, without alteration, to the voters by adopting the Draft Resolution A, ordering the submission, CC Draft Minutes 06/24/08 Page 15 of 16 - 35 ITEM NUMBER: A- 2 DATE: 09/23/08 to the qualified electors of the City, of a certain measure relating to amending the General Plan and Zoning Code, at the General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 4, 2008, as called by Resolution No. 2008-049; and, ii. Adopt Draft Resolution B, setting priorities for filing written arguments regarding a City measure and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis. Motion passed 4:1 by a roll-call vote. (Beraud opposed) F. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Beraud and seconded by Council Member Luna to adjourn. Motion passed 3:2 by a roll-call vote (Clay and O'Malley opposed) Council Member Clay expressed disappointment that the item regarding the Mayor election, was not addressed at tonight's meeting. Mayor Brennler adjourned the meeting at 11:55 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council on July 8, 2008. MINUTES PREPARED BY: Victoria Randall, Deputy City Clerk CC Draft Minutes 06/24/08 Page 16 of 16 36 ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 9/23/08 � In go 19f8 = ® 197 Atascadero City Council Staff Report - City Manager's Office Ordinance Amendment Pertaining to Voluntary Abstentions (This Ordinance, if adopted, would clarify the interpretation of an abstention vote.) RECOMMENDATION: Council adopt on second reading, by title only, the Draft Ordinance amending Title 2, Chapter 1, Section 2-1.15 of the Atascadero Municipal Code pertaining to voluntary abstentions. DISCUSSION: Atascadero Municipal Code section 2-1.15 presently provides: "Unless a Councilmember states that he or she is not voting because of a conflict of interest, his or her silence shall be recorded as an affirmative vote." Section 2-1.15 could be susceptible to legal challenge due to the lack of a reasonable basis supporting the rule. As such, we recommend that the City consider amending the provision to make it more consistent with the Affirmative Majority Rule. The "traditional rule" in California, which follows Roberts Rules of Order, treats voluntary abstentions as non-votes. A second, and the recommended, alternative which we have labeled the "Affirmative Majority Rule," would preserve the primary advantage of the City's existing regulation in terms of preventing a "stalemate" vote. This rule counts voluntary abstentions as an affirmative vote only where such vote is needed in order for the legislative body to take action. Otherwise, the traditional rule would apply. The third alternative is to follow the "common law rule," which provides that voluntary abstentions are considered to be acquiescence to the majority vote and are therefore recorded as a concurrence with the majority. Section 2-1.15, which provides that voluntary abstentions are always counted as affirmative votes, does not fall squarely within any of these three rules. 37 ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 9/23/08 Consistent with their authorization under state law to adopt procedural rules, some local legislative bodies have enacted what may be deemed an "Affirmative Majority Rule." Such rule essentially provides that rather than not being counted, or always being counted with the majority, an abstention may be counted with the majority or to create a majority for the purposes of taking action where without the vote the agency would otherwise not be able to conduct business. Such a local abstention rule was considered in Dry Creek Valley Assn., Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 839. There the court upheld a local rule of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors that provided that if one less than the necessary number of "aye" votes had been cast, then an abstention would constitute concurrence with the "aye" votes. The adoption of an ordinance similar to the one in the Dry Creek case would be useful in situations where an abstention makes the difference in whether or not the City Council can take action on a matter. Such an ordinance would likely be upheld because of its similarity to the local rule in the Dry Creek case, and the fact that Government Code section 36813 authorizes the City Council to adopt local rules concerning City Council proceedings. Consequently, we recommend that the City amend ordinance 2- 1 .15 in conformance with the Affirmative Majority Rule. The City Council introduced this ordinance for first reading on September 9, 2008 and if adopted on second reading on September 23, 2008, will go into effect on October 23, 2008 FISCAL IMPACT: None. ALTERNATIVE: Take no action. ATTACHMENT: Draft Ordinance 38 DRAFT ORDINANCE ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 2, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 2-1.15 OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO VOLUNTARY ABSTENTIONS WHEREAS, California Government Code section 36813 authorizes a city council to establish rules for the conduct of its proceedings; and WHEREAS, Title 2, Chapter 1 of the Atascadero Municipal Code sets forth the City Council's procedural rules; and, WHEREAS, Atascadero Municipal Code section 2-1.15 provides presently that "[u]nless a Councilmember states that he or she is not voting because of a conflict of interest, his or her silence shall be recorded as an affirmative vote;" and, WHEREAS, the "traditional rule" in California, which follows Roberts Rules of Order, treats voluntary abstentions as non-votes; and, WHEREAS, the City would like to adopt a new voluntary abstention policy that is an alternative to not counting abstentions or counting them with the majority in all instances. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION ONE. Findings. The City Council hereby incorporates the foregoing recitals and findings. SECTION TWO. Adoption. The City Council of the City of Atascadero hereby amends Section 2-1.15 of Title 2, Chapter 1 of the Municipal Code as follows: Section 2-1.15 Voluntary Abstentions. (a) If a Member of the City Council, Planning Commission or Parks and Recreation Commission states he or she has a conflict of interest, the Member must declare the conflict prior to consideration of the item and leave the dais and also leave the room (unless allowed to remain in the room due to a personal interest) and abstain from participating in the item and from voting and the abstention will be treated as non- vote. (b) In all situations other than as provided in subsection (a), the abstention will be treated as follows: 39 (1) In the event that one less than the necessary number of `aye' votes has been cast, then an abstention will constitute concurrence with the affirmative votes, and the minutes will reflect such concurrence and that the matter was passed pursuant to this rule. (2) An abstention in all situations other than described in subsection (b)(1) will be recorded in the minutes as an abstention and treated as a non-vote. (3) Failure to vote when in attendance at a meeting by silence or otherwise will be treated as an abstention. SECTION THREE. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with the ayes and noes, must be published twice: at least five (5) days prior to its final passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Atascadero, and, before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its final passage, in the Atascadero News. A copy of the full text of this ordinance must be on file in the City Clerk's Office on and after the date following introduction and passage and must be available to any interested member of the public. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council held on and PASSED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Atascadero, State of California, on by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO Marcia McClure Torgerson, C.M.C., Mike Brennler, Mayor City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Brian Pierik, City Attorney 40 ITEM NUMBER: A-4 DATE: 09/23/08 Armnr,: lr F r 'r ' i91a' r C?'I-^ 1976. Atascadero City Council Staff Report - Community Development Department Dormant Building Permit Applications Time Extensions Title 8 Code Text Amendments RECOMMENDATION: Council adopt on second reading, by title only, draft Ordinance A amending Title 8 to retroactively extend dormant and expired single family residential, multi-family residential, industrial, and commercial building permit applications to June 30, 2010, once all outstanding, unpaid plan check fees have been paid; and to clarify the City's building permit fee refund policy and Board of Appeals membership. REPORT-IN-BRIEF: On September 9, 2008, the City Council introduced for first reading an ordinance amending the Local Building Code, Title 8 to provide a retroactive time extension for dormant building permit application. The Council stipulated that the extension would run to June 30, 2010, and be contingent on all outstanding plan check fees being paid by February 28, 2009. FISCAL IMPACT: Collection of unpaid plan check fees is estimated to provide a financial benefit to the City of approximately $150,000±. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ordinance A 41 ITEM NUMBER: A-4 DATE: 09/23/08 Attachment 1:Draft Ordinance A DRAFT ORDINANCE A AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE BY REPLACING SECTIONS 8-2.102(C) AND 8-2.102(E) OF THE LOCAL BUILDING CODE The City Council hereby finds and declares as follows: WHEREAS, the National, State and local economy have experienced a significant economic downturn in 2007 and 2008; and, WHEREAS, this economic downturn has had a considerable negative effect on the construction industry, especially the residential construction sector; and, WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero now has a backlog of over 250 building permit applications for new residential and commercial projects with outstanding plan check fees of $370,000; and, WHEREAS, the building code requires building permit applications to be deemed abandoned after 180 days of inactivity; and, WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed this issue on August 9, 2008, and determined that it was in the economic interests of the City of Atascadero to provide relief to the construction industry by extending the permit extension deadlines; and, WHEREAS, the City Council directed staff to prepare a code text amendment that would provide an addition time extension to inactive building permit application; and, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Section 8-2.102(c) of the Atascadero Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 105.3.2. Time limitations of application. 1. Expiration of Plan Review. Applications for which no permit is issued within 180 days following date of notification of approval/ready for issuance by the Building Division, or applications within 180 days following date of notification of permit corrections to be picked up or returned, shall 42 ITEM NUMBER: A-4 DATE: 09/23/08 expire by limitation, and plans and other data submitted for review may thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed by the building official. In order to renew action on an application after expiration, the applicant shall resubmit plans and pay a new plan review fee. No extension is allowed except by written appeal to the Building Official. The Building Official is authorized to grant one extension of time for an additional period not exceeding 180 days. No application shall be extended more than once. 2. Fee refund. Application fees and permit fees are assessed to cover the cost of providing permit issuance services and therefore are not refundable once service has been obtained. A full refund (100%) can only be given when a cancelled application was submitted and/or reviewed due to staff error. Refunds for cancelled applications will not include submittal fees, document imaging fees, and plan review fees (once a plan review has been completed). Refunds must be requested in writing and within one (1) year of application submittal date. Refunds for cancelled permits will include up to 80% of the permit fee, provided no work has commenced and the request for refund is within one (1) year from permit issuance. Refunds must be requested in writing and within one (1) year of permit issuance. Refunds will not be processed for applications and/or permits that have been suspended or revoked, or that have expired due to limitation. 3. Dormant building permit application one-time-only blanket extension. In addition to the time extension allowed in section 105.3.2.1., any building permit application for new single-family-residence, new multi-family- residence, new commercial or industrial building, or a commercial or industrial addition, submitted to the City of Atascadero on or before September 9, 2008, may opt into a one-time-only application extension. In order to be considered for this program, all outstanding plan check fees must be paid in full on or before February 28, 2009, and any subsequent building permit regulated by this program must be paid for in full and issued on or before June 30, 2010. Any building permit application or subsequent building permit regulated by this program that does not meet all timeframes indicated in this section will be cancelled and become null and void, and any subsequent work will require a new permit application, new plans, and new plan check and permit fees. 43 ITEM NUMBER: A-4 DATE: 09/23/08 SECTION 2 Section 8-2.102(e) of the Atascadero Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 112.1 Appeals Board. The Board of Building Appeals shall be as described in Section 2-12.01 of the Atascadero Municipal Code. SECTION 3: A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with the ayes and noes, shall be published twice: at least five days prior to its final passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Atascadero, and; before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its final passage, in the Atascadero News, a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Atascadero. A copy of the full text of this ordinance shall be on file in the City Clerk's Office on and after the date following introduction and passage and shall be available to any interested member of the public. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council held on and PASSED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Atascadero, State of California, on by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO Marcia McClure Torgerson, C.M.C., Mike Brennler, Mayor City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Brian Pierik, City Attorney 44 ITEM NUMBER: A-5 DATE: 09/23/08 Atascadero City Council Staff Report - City Manager's Office San Luis Obispo County Narcotics Task Force Memorandum of Understanding RECOMMENDATION: Council authorize the City Manager to execute the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the State Office of the Attorney General, State Department of Justice, Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement (BNE), and the City of Atascadero for operation of the county Narcotics Task Force. DISCUSSION: The City of Atascadero is a continuing participant in the County Narcotics Task Force (NTF). NTF consists of twelve municipal, county, and state agencies working in conjunction to effectively enforce controlled substance laws of the State of California and applicable federal laws relating to the trafficking of controlled substances. Agencies in the Task Force target their investigations toward the apprehension of all participating 9 9 levels of violators, to include gang activity, organized crimes, and outlaw motorcycle groups. NTF is managed by two commanders assigned from the State Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement. The commanders answer to a Board of Governors consisting of the Chiefs of Police or directors of participating agencies, the Sheriff, and the District Attorney. The term of agreement shall be from July 1 , 2007 and shall remain in effect indefinitely, or until the Task Force is dissolved or participating agencies agree that significant modification and/or renewal of the agreement are appropriate. Any participating agency shall be able to withdraw from this agreement by providing notice in writing to the Board of Governors, and such withdrawal shall be effective within thirty (30) days after such notification. Although this Document is dated July 1, 2007, it has only been recently submitted to the Board of Governors for signature after the necessary state signatures were obtained. NTF continues to function using this MOU as a guideline, however, the state has 45 ITEM NUMBER: A - 5 DATE: 09/23/08 requested the date remain as is, to ensure that state funding of NTF remains consistent without a break in the Agreement. The City of Atascadero currently supplies one full time officer, one equipped undercover vehicle, and necessary safety equipment to NTF. The City has full access to NTF resources, and therefore has the added benefits of being able to use officers from other jurisdictions assigned to NTF on narcotic operations within this City just as other cities benefit from the use of the assigned officers. Additionally, because the City is a principal member (provides personnel and equipment) with regards to larger, more complex cases, the NTF Commanders, as members of the State Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement have access to both State and federal resources to offer assistance in these complex cases. The officer assigned task force is also available to assist, train, and consult with other Atascadero City Police officers in narcotics detection, surveillance, and investigative techniques, culminating in an increased level of narcotic awareness and appropriate courtroom testimony leading to a higher conviction and incarceration rate. In addition, this position is highly sought after by police officers and provides another retention tool of experienced officers. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact is approximately $150,000 of budgeted funds consisting of one full time police officer, and related equipment. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Do not sign the MOU and therefore, withdraw from NTF. Doing so would limit the City's access to NTF's resources. 2. Request more information from staff. ATTACHMENTS: San Luis Obispo County Narcotic Task Force Memorandum of Understanding with effective date of July 1, 2007. 46 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY NARCOTIC TASK FORCE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Effective July 1 , 2007 47 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY NARCOTIC TASK FORCE Memorandum of Understanding Table of Contents I Partcipating Agencies......................................................................4 II. Purpose.......................................................................................4 III. Mission.......................................................................................4 IV. Board of Governors........................................................................5 A. Participating Agency..................................................................5 B. Structure................................................................................. 5 C. Role.......................................................................................5 D. Board Chairman.......................................................................5 E. Policy Authority........................................................................5 F. Votes of Board.........................................................................5 V. Management.................................................................................5 VI. Task Force Commander..................................................................6 VII. Compensation...............................................................................6 VIII. Budget.........................................................................................6 IX. Training......................................................................................6 X. Annual Report...............................................................................6 XI. Participating Agency Resources..........................................................7 XII. Supporting Agencies.......................................................................7 XIII. Facilities, Equipment and Property.....................................................7 XIV. Asset Forfeiture............................................................................8 XV. Administration and Audit................................................................8 XVI. Inspection Process..........................................................................8 2 48 XVII. Non-Discrimination Clause..............................................................9 XVIII.Respective Responsibilities...............................................................9 XIX. Policy and Procedure Manual...........................................................9 XX. Term of Agreement........................................................................9 W. Authorization..............................................................................10 XXII. Signatures..................................................................................10 49 I�I SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY NARCOTIC TASK FORCE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING I. PARTICIPATING AGENCIES This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is to establish the San Luis Obispo County Narcotic Task Force (hereinafter referred to as Task Force) is entered into by the California Department of Justice (CA DOJ) Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement (BNE) and the following participating agencies: • California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo—Police Department • California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation-Parole&Community Services Division • City of Arroyo Grande—Police Department • City of Atascadero —Police Department • City of Grover Beach—Police Department • City of Paso Robles—Police Department • City of Pismo Beach—Police Department • City of San Luis Obispo—Police Department • County of San Luis Obispo District Attorney's Office • County of San Luis Obispo Department of Social Services, Child Welfare Services • County of San Luis Obispo Probation Department • County of San Luis Obispo— Sheriff s Department II. PURPOSE The purpose of this memorandum is to set forth the responsibilities of the participating agencies as they relate to the San Luis Obispo County Narcotic Task Force. Working in conjunction, the participating agencies will endeavor to effectively enforce the controlled substance laws of the State of California as expressed in the Health and Safety Code, and applicable federal laws relating to the trafficking of controlled substances. Agencies participating in the San Luis Obispo County Narcotic Task Force will be targeting their investigations toward the apprehension of all levels of violators. Use of this task force concept is intended to ensure well- coordinated narcotic enforcement regionally and increase the flow of narcotic-related intelligence information between the various law enforcement agencies participating in the BNE Task Force program. III. MISSION The mission of the San Luis Obispo County Narcotic Task Force will be to significantly diminish the availability and use of illegal drugs in the San Luis Obispo County areas and surrounding jurisdictions, and apprehend the responsible offenders, thereby increasing public safety. 4 50 IV. BOARD OF GOVERNORS County Narcotic Task Force will be governed by a"Board of The San Luis Obispo Co P tY Governors." A. Participating Agency—A"Participating Agency" is an allied local, state, or federal law enforcement agency that has made a commitment of significant resources or personnel for an agreed upon time period. B. Structure—The Board of Governors will consist of the Senior Special Agent in Charge (SSAC)or Special Agent in Charge (SAC) of the Los Angeles Regional Office (LARD) of the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement or their designee, and the department heads of each participating agency or their designee. C. Role—The Board of Governors shall meet on a bi-monthly basis for the purpose of reviewing the activities of the San Luis Obispo County Narcotic Task Force. Also,the participants shall have a general responsibility for the oversight of the San Luis Obispo County Narcotic Task Force operations. D. Board Chairman—One participant of the Board of Governors shall be elected as the Chairperson and serve for a minimum of one year term. Unless otherwise assigned, in the absence of the Chairperson the immediate past Chairperson will act as the Chairperson for purposes of Board of Governor Meetings and other duties of the chairperson. The BNE Senior Special Agent in Charge/Special Agent in Charge shall not serve as the Chairperson. E. Policy Authority—The Board of Governors shall be responsible for the San Luis Obispo County Narcotic Task Force policies and operating procedures. The Board shall periodically review and evaluate the San Luis Obispo County Narcotic Task Force operations, goals, objectives,policies and procedures. F. Votes of Board—Any action taken by the Board of Governors shall be by a o a quorum eater than 50/o of participating majority m attendance provided q (gr ) P P re agencies are resented at the meeting. g P V. MANAGEMENT The management and supervision of the San Luis Obispo County Narcotic Task Force's resources will be the responsibility of the Task Force Commander. The Task Force Commander shall retain supervisory control of the personnel assigned to the San Luis Obispo County Narcotic Task Force. When the number of law enforcement investigative personnel from participating agencies drops permanently below four, BNE may terminate the MOU. When the number of law enforcement investigative personnel from participating agencies is over nine, BNE may add a second Special Agent Supervisor (SAS). 5 51 VI. TASK FORCE COMMANDER A Special Agent Supervisor from BNE shall be assigned as the Task Force Commander and will be responsible for managing and supervising the San Luis Obispo County Narcotic Task Force. The Task Force Commander will be under the direct supervision of the BNE Los Angeles Regional Office Senior Special Agent in Charge or Special Agent in charge, and report to the Board of Governors through the Chairperson of the Board. The Task Force Commander will provide the Board of Governors with monthly and annual reports of the San Luis Obispo County Narcotic Task Force activities. Any personnel assigned to the San Luis Obispo County Narcotic Task Force shall adhere to the adopted policies and procedures of the San Luis Obispo County Narcotic Task Force. VII. COMPENSATION Each participating agency is responsible for providing its respective personnel with salaries, benefits and overtime in accordance with FLSA regulations and other contractual obligations. VIII. BUDGET The Task Force Commander will prepare a proposed budget each year (date to be determined by the Board of Governors) for the ensuing fiscal year for approval by the Board of Governors. The fiscal year will begin on July 1 and end on June 30. A monthly report of expenditures shall accompany the monthly activity & statistical report submitted by the Task Force Commander to the Board of Governors as outlined in the Policy & Procedure Manual. IX. TRAINING Training of personnel assigned to the Task Force is the responsibility of each participating agency according to their agency budgets. A specialized training plan for all Task Force personnel shall be prepared upon their initial assignment to the Task Force. For assigned law enforcement officers, the minimum mandatory training required shall be basic narcotics school,basic lab school and basic weapons training. X. ANNUAL REPORT The Task Force Commander will provide the Board of Governors and BNE Headquarters with an annual report of activity no later than March 15 of each year. This report will summarize the proceeding calendar year's operation and shall include a section for statistical data broken down in a similar fashion to that of the monthly reports. The report shall contain sufficient information regarding controlled substance abuse and trafficking trends to enable the Board of Governors to reassess task force goals and objectives. 6 52 XL PARTICIPATING AGENCY RESOURCES The participating agencies understand that the changing criminal activities as well as fiscal resources will require flexibility in both the tasks and the structure of the Task Force. Therefore, participation in and responsibility for personnel resources and equipment will be determined on an annual basis through the adoption of the Task Force budget by the Board of Governors, in conjunction with the budget processes of the participating agencies. Participating agencies agree to either assign personnel or contribute a minimum of $20,000 operating funds annually to the Task Force. The Board of Governors may approve deviations from this minimum contribution. The contributions of personnel and/or resources by each participating agency are listed in Appendix A. XII. SUPPORTING AGENCIES With approval by the Board of Governors, other agencies and/or organizations may be designated as a Supporting Agency to the San Luis Obispo Narcotic Task Force. These agencies generally offer limited support and assistance to the San Luis Obispo Narcotic Task Force but not to the same level as Participating Agencies. Supporting Agencies will not have a vote on the Board of Governors or be a signatory to the San Luis Obispo Narcotic Task Force MOU. The list of supporting agencies is contained in Appendix B. XIII. FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT & PROPERTY When the number of law enforcement personnel from participating agencies permanently drops below four, BNE may terminate the MOU. In such cases, any balance of the facilities' lease agreement (or any other contractual agreement) will be funded on a pro- rata basis by the participating agencies listed in this MOU, or paid with any asset forfeiture funds. Any and all property, including equipment, furniture, or furnishings purchased or acquired with DOJ funds shall be the property of DOJ, and at the termination of this agreement and whereupon no new agreement is reached, all said property shall be returned to DOJ. Any equipment purchased with Task Force funds (whether through budgeted or seized assets) that is damaged, broken, misplaced, lost or stolen, through gross negligence, wrongful act, omission of an officer or agent assigned the San Luis Obispo County Narcotic Task Force, or involvement in a traffic collision, shall be repaired or replaced by the agency of the responsible employee at the determination of the Task Force Commander with concurrence from the Board of Governor Chairperson. 7 53 With respect to facilities, all of the following items will be paid for by BNE. 1. Lease of office space. 2. Monthly, local, ATSS, and long distance charges for existing telephone lines. 3. Utilities (unless included in full-service lease). 4. Alarm equipment, maintenance and monitoring. 5. CLETS machine on a single or county line. 6. Janitorial services (unless included in full-service lease). 7. Landscape services (unless included in full-service lease). XIV. ASSET FORFEITURE It shall be the responsibility of the Task Force to investigate asset seizures initiated by the Task Force pursuant to Section 11470 of the California Health and Safety Code and 21 United States Code 881. Such seizures will then be deposited in interest bearing accounts when appropriate. Expenditures of proceeds derived from such seizures after disposition shall be authorized by majority vote of the Board of Governors in compliance with 11489 of the California Health and Safety Code and/or federal guidelines. In the case of joint investigations involving both Task Force and non-Task Force resources from other law enforcement agencies that result in the seizure of assets, the involved agencies (including the Task Force) will negotiate an equitable share of the asset forfeiture proceeds to reflect the proportionate contribution of resources from each agency dedicated to the investigation. For state forfeitures, if the Task Force and other involved agencies cannot agree to an equitable distribution, the District Attorney of San Luis Obispo County shall be the decisive arbitrator of an equitable distribution based on the District Attorney's determination of the proportionate contribution of resources from the Task Force and the other agencies involved. For federal forfeitures, the lead federal agency's sharing policies and procedures shall prevail. XV. ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT In no event shall the participating agencies charge any indirect costs to DOJ for administration or implementation of this agreement during the term thereof. Any and all records pertaining to the San Luis Obispo County Narcotic Task Force expenditures shall be readily available for examination and audit by BNE or any other participating agency. In addition, all such records and reports shall be maintained until audits and examinations are completed and resolved, or for a period of (3) three years after termination of the agreement,whichever is sooner. XVI. INSPECTION PROCESS It is the policy of BNE to maintain a formal administrative inspection program. This program requires inspections of each BNE supervised regional task force once every eighteen(18) months or as necessary, with follow-up inspections as needed within six (6) 8 54 months. Copies of the inspection report will be delivered to the Senior Special Agent in Charge or Special Agent in Charge of the BNE-LARO and the Task Force Commander. The Senior Special Agent in Charge or Special Agent in Charge shall forward a copy of the inspection report and response to the Chairperson of the Board of Governors. At change of command, an audit of the controlled substance evidence, undercover funds, weapons and specialized equipment shall be performed. XVII. NONDISCRIMINATION CLAUSE All participating agencies will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and all requirements imposed or pursuant to the regulations of the U.S. Department of Justice (CFR, Part 42, Subparts C and D) issued pursuant to Title VI relating to discrimination on the grounds of race, color, creed, sex, age or national origin and equal employment opportunities. XVIII.RESPECTIVE RESPONSIBILITIES For the purpose of indemnification, each participating agency of the San Luis Obispo County Narcotic Task Force shall be responsible for the acts of its participating officers(s) and shall incur any liabilities arising out of the services and activities of those officers while participating in the San Luis Obispo County Narcotic Task Force. Personnel assigned to the San Luis Obispo County Narcotic Task Force shall be deemed to be continuing under the employment of their jurisdictions and shall have to same powers, duties, privileges, responsibilities and immunities as are conferred upon them as peace officers in their own jurisdictions. XIX. POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUAL All members of the Task Force shall abide by the applicable policies and procedures as expressed in the San Luis Obispo County Narcotic Task Force manual, which is specific in content to the needs, objectives and goals of the San Luis Obispo County Narcotic Task Force. XX. TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this agreement shall be from July 1, 2007 and shall remain in effect indefinitely, or until the Task Force is dissolved or participating agencies agree that significant modification and/or renewal is appropriate.. Any participating agency shall be able to withdraw from this agreement by providing notice in writing to the Board of Governors Chairperson, and such withdrawal shall be effective thirty (30) days after such only notification. The San Luis Obispo County Narcotic Task Force will y be responsible le for financial obligations incurred by Task Force participating agencies during the term of this agreement. 9 55 XXI. AUTHORIZATION The participating agencies, by their duly authorized officials, have executed this MOU on the respective dates indicated below. This MOU will become effective upon receipt by the BNE headquarters of the original MOU with any/all attachments. All future amendments must be forwarded to BNE headquarters and will become effective upon receipt. XXII. SIGNATURES ➢ California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Name Title Signature Date ➢ California State Parole and Community Department Name Title Signature Date ➢ City of Arroyo Grande Name Title Signature Date 10 56 City of Atascadero Name Title Signature Date City of Grover Beach Name Title Signature Date City of Paso Robles Name Title Signature Date City of Pismo Beach Name Title Signature Date 11 57 City of San Luis Obispo Name Title Signature Date County of san Luis Obispo Department of Social Services Name Title Signature Date County of San Luis Obispo District Attorney's Office Name Title Signature Date County of San Luis Obispo Probation department Name Title Signature Date 12 58 County of San Luis Obispo, Sheriffs Department Name Title Signature Date 13 59 courll,t lorsall Imis Ohispa,Sheriff's Departme"A N mn-o 'title Special AI!QaL in cllargoi�.,Rui-egis of Niarcoric Enforcement,I—A.Regional Offitcu Kaino .fide Sianaturc Datc r Chief.Bureau of,,Narc-otic Einforcemcot NMI], FL to Acting AsNisU,0 Clvicf.Divi-,iifm of I I)v Enforvernent aino Tide 13 60 f Assikianl Dire&OT, 1}OT'DiNisioia nI`.:dministrativ Support m�rc. Name i ilk Signfaurr. Irate 14 61 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY NARCOTIC TASK FORCE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Appendix A Contributions of Participating Agencies California DOJ- Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement One Special Agent Supervisor One equipped undercover vehicle Necessary safety equipment $12,000.00 undercover funds Administrative support Miscellaneous investigative equipment Facility support as noted in the MOU California Polvtechnic University Police Department. San Luis Obispo $4,000.00 towards operational funds Computer Technical support California DC&R—Parole and Community Services* One Parole Agent One equipped vehicle Necessary safety equipment Arroyo Grande Police Department One Police Officer/Investigator One equipped undercover vehicle Necessary safety equipment Atascadero Police Department One Police Officer/Investigator One equipped undercover vehicle Necessary safety equipment Grover Beach Police Department $20,000.00 operational funds Paso Robles Police Department One Police Officer/Investigator One equipped undercover vehicle Necessary safety equipment Pismo Beach Police Department $20,000.00 operational funds 1 62 San Luis Obispo Police Department One Police Officer/Investigator One Police Records Clerk One equipped undercover vehicle Necessary safety equipment Miscellaneous accounting support San Luis Obispo County Department of Social Services- Child Welfare Services One Social Worker One vehicle One remote access computer San Luis Obispo County District Attornev's Office Two Investigators One Administrative Assistant (funded with Asset Forfeiture Funds) Necessary equipment Two undercover vehicles Necessary safety equipment San Luis Obispo County Probation Department One Probation Officer One vehicle Necessary safety equipment San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Department One Sheriff's Deputy/Investigator One equipped undercover vehicle Necessary safety equipment *The California State Parole Agent, the San Luis Obispo County Probation Officer assigned to the San Luis Obispo County Narcotic Task Force (SLOCNTF) will maintain a caseload level consistent with fellow agents at his/her respective unit offices. Their caseloads will consist of mostly g"hi h risk" offenders who have been arrested, or are suspected of committing County, State and/or Federal crimes, which would include, but not limited to, drug related offenses, murder, rape, robbery, felonious assault, and felonious weapons possession. n will act as the rima State Parole liaison and the Probation Officer will act as The Parole Agent primary the primary San Luis Obispo County Probation liaison with the participating agencies of the Task Force. The Parole Agent and Probation Officer will have the responsibility of being the direct conduit with a parolee/probationer's "handling" agent/officer if that parolee/probationer becomes a subject of interest to the Task Force. Task Force members will assist the Parole Agent/Probation Officer with his/her narcotic related caseload, surveillance operations, arrests, searches and other activities which require additional assistance and/or supervision. 2 63 At no time will the assigned Parole Agent/Probation Officer be requested to work in an "undercover operation" capacity conducting buys, and as with all participating agencies, both the Parole Agent and Probation Officer will follow their respective agency's policies, procedures and regulations whenever there are conflicts with the SLOCNTF Poly &Procedures Manual. 3 64 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY NARCOTIC TASK FORCE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Appendix B Supporting Agencies 1. Morro Bay Police Department 2. U.S. Secret Service 3. Cuesta College Police Department 4. California Highway Patrol 1 65 66 ITEM NUMBER: A-6 DATE: 9/23/08 n -(i9i8 1978 Atascadero City Council Staff Report - Police Department California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Grant Assistance Program RECOMMENDATION: Council designate the 2008/2009 California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) monies for use in reducing the availability of alcoholic beverages to minors. DISCUSSION: Background: The City of Atascadero has been awarded a grant in the amount of $29,254 from the ABC. The grant will provide funding for the Police Department to help reduce the availability of alcoholic beverages to minors and to decrease the number of underage DUI arrests and minor in possession of alcoholic beverage citations in the City of Atascadero. These funds will be used to facilitate special enforcement as well as education and prevention programs targeted at reducing the availability of alcoholic beverages to minors. The grant requires approval of the City Council prior to allocating the funds. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact is a positive $29,254 in grant fund revenues and a corresponding $33,754 in expenses to conduct special operations and to administer the grant. The $4,500 difference in revenues and expenses will come from budgeted police funds. ALTERNATIVES: Decline use of grant funds. ATTACHMENT: State of California Standard Agreement # 08G-LA32 67 STATE OF CALIFORNIA STANDARD AGREEMENT AGREEMENT NUMBER STD 213(Rev 06/03) 08G-LA32 REGISTRATION NUMBER I This Agreement is entered into between the State Agency and the Contractor named below: STATE AGENCY'S NAME Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control— CONTP ACTOR'S NAME City of Atascadero throuLA the Atascadero Police Department 2. The term of.thisA�Bement July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009 3. The maximum amount $ 29,254.00 of this Agreement is: 4. The parties agree to comply with the terms and conditions of the following exhibits which are by this reference mad a part of the Agreement: Exhibit A - Scope of Work/Project Narrative 4 pages Exhibit B - Budget Estimate I page Exhibit C - General Terms and Conditions GTC 307* Exhibit D - Payment Provisions 2 pages Exhibit E - Special Terms and Conditions I page Items-shown with an Asterisk(*)are hereby incorporated by reference and made part of this agreement as if attached hereto. These documents can be viewed at www.documents.dzs.ca.,zovIolsIGTC-307doc IN WITNESS WHEREOF,this Agreement has been executed by the parties hereto. CONTRACTOR California Department of General Services Use Only CONTRACTOR'S NAME(Ifother than an individual,state whether a corporation,partnership,etc.) City of Atascadero through the Atascadero Police Department BY(Authorized Signature) DATE SIGNED(Do not type) PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON SIGNING James F. Mullhall, Chief of Police ADDRESS 5505 El Camino Real Atascadero, CA 93422 STATE OF CALIFORNIA AGENCY NAME Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control BY(Authorized Signature) DATE SIGNED(Do not type) PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON SIGNING Exempt per Ed Jimenez,Assistant Director,Administration ADDRESS GC14616 3927 Lennane Drive, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95834 _7 68 Exhibit A SUMMARY Atascadero is a rural community located in the Central Coast with a population of 27,800. The City of Atascadero is a young growing community with over 27% of the population under the age of 18. Within the City, there are currently 76 ABC active retail licenses. The Atascadero Police Department currently has 31 sworn police officers broken down as follows: Chief of Police, 2 Lieutenants, 5 Sergeants, 7 Senior Police Officers, and 16 Police Officers. In 2007, the Atascadero Police Department responded to 24,682 calls for service. With an average patrol staff of 16 officers, the average Atascadero police officer responds to nearly 1,700 calls for service each year, leaving little time for officers to be proactively looking for ABC violations. Therefore, the Atascadero Police Department is requesting $29,254 to compensate overtime for officers to actively enforce ABC violations. If provided the funding requested, we will be able to be a better educated Police Department in locating and enforcing ABC violations. Officers will then be able to partake in a variety of ABC enforcement programs such as Shoulder Tap and the TAPPED Program. In addition, at the completion of the grant period,the goal of the Atascadero Police Department is to educate the youth of the City and reduce the amount of minor in possession citations. Furthermore,the Atascadero Police Department is aspiring to reduce the number of DUI arrests for minors, with the understanding that reducing these numbers will save the lives of minors from being involved in a DUI related traffic collision. 69 Exhibit A PROBLEM STATEMENT "W'e cannot 2-1ways build the future for our youth,but we can build our youth for the future." --Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945S)-- In the city of Atascadero alcohol is a major problem among the youth. At this time, a major concern for our community is the limited number of activities for teenagers to participate in because of the recent closure of our City's movie theater and bowling alley. These vacancies have left the youth of our City with few options. Therefore, many youth regularly attend parties where alcohol is consumed. Consequently, the largest portion of the requested funding will be focused on educational presentations at the high school and the TAPPED Program. Funding will also focus on combating the ability of minors to purchase alcohol at community ABC licensed facilities. Funding will also have a lasting effect on the community by educating not only the youth but the Atascadero Police Department officers as well. PROJECT DESCRIEPTION Program Objectives 1. Conduct at least 4 "Shoulder Tap" operations. Z. Conduct at least 4 minor decoy operations. 3. Conduct at least 4 compliance checks operations. 4. Conduct at least 6 "Tapped" operations. 5. Implement a new/improved system of transmitting arrest reports by September 1". 6. Increase alcohol awareness with high school students by meeting with high school classes at least two times. 7. Develop and implement an ongoing standardized ABC enforcement procedure within the Atascadero Police Department. 70 L Program Methods and Timeline The Atascadero Police Department will begin the grant period by sending two officers to the ABC GAP conference in July of 2008. Those two officers will also attend the GAP training in January of 2009. The Atascadero Police Department will purchase a computer and printer to assist officers to better accumulate ABC data which will be sent to ABC. In addition, the Atascadero Police Department will implement one enforcement strategy per month throughout the duration of the funding period. The enforcement strategy will vary each month between shoulder tap, minor decoy and compliance checks. The Atascadero Police Department will deploy 2 TAPPED enforcement strategies prior to October 01, 2008,two additional TAPPED enforcements prior to March 01, 2009 as well as two TAPPED enforcements prior to June 30, 2009. The Program Director will collaborate with High School staff to organize two specific times that officers can put together an alcohol awareness presentation for high school students. One of the presentations will be before January 01, 2009 and the other will be before June 01, 2009. The Atascadero Police Department will also inform the local media and community groups regarding the programs to be implemented as well as how the programs were funded. At the conclusion of the grant period, the local media will be notified concerning the success of the grant. 71 LX 11 M A PROJECT PERSONNEL Each of the specific ABC enforcement programs takes between two to four officers to execute. The position will be filled by officers who volunteer to work and each officer will be compensated with overtime pay. One of the two officers who attend the ABC GAP conference will be in charge of the enforcement programs on the night of execution. The majority of involved officers are currently assigned to our patrol division however; assistance will also be provided by an officer assigned to investigations as well as our special enforcement team. At this time,Lieutenant B. Dana is assigned as the Operations Lieutenant and will be the Project Director and in charge of the overall administration of the grant including the enforcement planning and grant evaluation. Officer C. Davis will be in charge of coordinating the alcohol awareness presentations at the high school, which will be put on by two police officers. References: http://www.abc.ca.gov retrieved March 19, 2008 http://www.atascaderochamber.orretrieved March 19, 2008 72 Exhibit B BUDGET ESTIMATE BUDGET CATEGORY AND LINE-ITEM DETAIL COST (Round budget amounts A. Personnel Services (salaries, overtime, and benefits) to nearest dollar) 4 Shoulder Taps----4 Officers X 5 hours each Officer Total 80 hours 4 Decoy Operations-2 Officers X 5 hours each Officer Total 40 hours 4 Compliance Checks-2 Officers X 5 hours each Officer Total 40 hours 6 TAPPED Checks----4 Officers X 5 hours each Officer Total 120 hours Training Overtime for conference Total 96 hours Educational discussions at High School Total 32 hours $22,240 Total Overtime Est. 408 hours * $55.00 per hour $1,514 Employee Benefits-Benefits estimated at 6.75% x $22,240 TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES $23,754 B. Operating Expenses (maximum $2,500) Decoy and Shoulder Tap Operations $500 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $500 C. Equipment (maximum $2,500) Computer with Monitor and printer $2,500 TOTAL EQUIPMENT $2,500 D. Travel Expense/Registration Fees (maximum $3,500) Registration for Jul 2008 GAP Conference 2 Attendees at $200 each $400 Y g Registration for January 2009 Conference 2 Attendees at $200 each $400 Travel, per diem, and Lodging for the January and July GAP $1,700 conference TOTAL TRAVEL EXPENSE $2,500 TOTAL BUDGET ESTIMATE,ALL CATEGORIES $29,254 73 74 11tM NU1V1btK: H- ITEM NUMBER: A-7 DATE: 09123/08 i o 1918 1878 Atascadero City Council Staff Report— Public Works Department Federal Emergency Management Agency Requirement Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Council adopt on second reading by title only, the Draft Ordinance, amending Title 7, Chapter 11 of the Atascadero Municipal Code pertaining to Flood Damage Prevention. DISCUSSION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has created new Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and a new model Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. FEMA is requiring every City and County in America to adopt the new model Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. Background: Title 7, Chapter 11 of the Atascadero Municipal Code (AMC) addresses Flood Damage Prevention. The Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance is required by FEMA for property owners to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Lending institution will not loan on properties in flood prone areas that cannot obtain flood insurance. The purpose of the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Atascadero's citizens and their property. The Ordinance establishes duties and responsibilities of a Floodplain Administrator, restricts uses in flood-prone areas, controls grading and filling in the floodplains, sets construction standards for facilities in the floodplain and regulates other floodplain issues. Analysis: FEMA is in the process of modernizing Flood Rate Insurance Maps by creating digital flood maps over aerial pictures. The new Maps became effective on August 29, 2008. As part of this modernization, FEMA is requiring every City and County in America to standardize their Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. 75 ITEM NUMBER: A-7 DATE: 09/23/08 The proposed Ordinance was supplied to the City by FEMA. The proposed Ordinance and Maps do not change the currently mapped flood zones in Atascadero. Listed below is a chart of the proposed changes to our current Ordinance: Item Changed Existing Proposed Flood Plain Administrator Community City Manager or designee Development Director Flood Plain Board of Appeals (1) Planninq Commission City Council Variance Hearings to the Flood Planning Commission City Council Consideration Ordinance (1) Consideration Definitions (2) Definitions Definitions Added Automatic Adoption (3) Flood Insurance Study Flood Insurance Study Flood Insurance Rate Ma Standard for Construction (4) Standards Expand d standards Severability Clause (5) None Added im- (1) This body hears appeals the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance and requests for variances. The City has never had a request for an appeal or variance. (2) Definitions added are: accessory structure, accessory use, apex, development, encroachment, fraud and victimization, governing body, historic structure, levee, market value, obstruction, programming deficiency, public safety and nuisance, recreational vehicle, regulatory floodway, substantial damage, variance, water surface elevation and watercourse. (3)This will provide for automatic adoption of all future revised Flood Insurance Rate Maps and Studies. (4) Standards for construction on construction materials and methods and elevations and Floodproofing were expanded. (5)This section states if any section of this Ordinance is found unconstitutional or invalid by the courts the remaining sections shall still be valid. Conclusion: Staff has worked with FEMA to ensure that the proposed Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance meets the needs of Atascadero's Citizens and maintains the City's participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. The proposed Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance changes are minimal and will not affect or change City wide flood plain regulation. Staff recommends approval of the Ordinance. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the City that will be caused by this City Council Action. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council has the option to not adopt the updated flood ordinance. This alternative is not recommended since FEMA has the option to exclude the City from the National Flood Insurance Program if the updated Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance is not adopted. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance 76 DRAFT ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 7, CHAPTER 11, FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION, OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE The City Council hereby finds and declares as follows: WHEREAS, the Municipal Code Title 7 Public Works Chapter 11 Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance was approved in 1988 and amended in 1993 and 2004. This Ordinance was required by Federal Emergency Management Agency to allow the City of Atascadero to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program; and, WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is requiring the City of Atascadero to amend the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance to bring it in compliance with new Ordinance provision; and, WHEREAS, the required changes are administrative and clarifying in nature and do not make major changes to the current Ordinance; and, WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has initiated an update to change, clarify and modify the provisions of the Municipal Code Title 7, Chapters 11, pertaining to flood damage prevention. NOW, THE , REFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION ONE: Findings for Approval of a Flood Damage Prevention Text Change. The City Council finds as follows: 1. The Flood Damage Prevention text change is consistent with General Plan policies and all other applicable ordinances and policies of the City. 2. Amendment of the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance will provide for the orderly and efficient use of lands where such flood damage prevention standards are applicable and will comply with the Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements to allow the City of Atascadero to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. 3. The text change will not, in itself,result in significant environmental impacts. SECTION TWO: Adoption. The City Council of the City of Atascadero hereby amends Title 7, Chapter 11 of the Municipal code as follows: Title 7, Chapter 11 is to be repealed and a new Chapter 11 is to be inserted as follows: 77 CHAPTER 11 FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION 7-11 .001 Flood damage prevention 7-11 .002 Statutory authorization 7-11.003 Findings of fact 7-11.004 Statement of purpose 7-11.005 Methods of reducing flood losses. 7-11.006 Definitions 7-11.007 Lands to which this chapter applies 7-11.008 Basis for establishing the areas of special flood hazard 7-11.009 Compliance 7-11.010 Abrogation and greater restrictions 7-11.011 Interpretation 7-11.012 Warning and disclaimer of liability 7-11 .013 Administration 7-11.014 Severability 7-11.015 Designation of the floodplain administrator 7-11.016 Duties and responsibilities of the floodplain administrator 7-11.017 Development permit 7-11.018 Appeals 7-11 .019 Provisions for flood hazard reduction 7-11 .020 Standards of construction 7-11.021 Standards for utilities 7-11.022 Standards for subdivisions and other proposed development 7-11.023 Standards for manufactured homes within manufactured home parks or subdivisions 7-11.024 Standards for recreational vehicles 7-11.025 Floodways 7-11.026 Flood-related erosion-prone areas 78 7-11 .027 Variance Procedure 7-11 .028 Nature of variances 7-11 .029 Conditions for variances 7-11 .030 Appeal Board 7-11.001 FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION The ordinance codified in this chapter is enacted to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Atascadero and their property and to meet the requirements of state and federal legislation. These regulations take precedence over any less restrictive conflicting local laws, ordinances and codes. 7-11.02 STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. The Legislature of the State of California has in Government Code Sections 65302, 65560, and 65800 conferred upon local governments the authority to adopt regulations designed to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizenry. Therefore, the City Council of the City of Atascadero does hereby adopt the following floodplain management regulations. 7-11.003 FINDINGS OF FACT A. The flood hazard areas of the City of Atascadero are subject to periodic inundation which results in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare. B. These flood losses are caused by uses that are inadequately elevated, flood proofed, or protected from flood damage. The cumulative effect of obstructions in areas of special flood hazards which increase flood heights and velocities also contributes to flood losses. 7-11.004 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE It is the purpose of this chapter to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by legally enforceable regulations applied uniformly throughout the community to all publicly and privately ownedland within flood prone mudslide � i.e. mudflow] orflood related erosion areas. These regulations are designed to: A. Protect human life and health; 79 B. Minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects; C. Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public; D. Minimize prolonged business interruptions; E. Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains; electric, telephone and sewer fines; and streets and bridges located in areas of special flood hazard; F. Help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of areas of special flood hazard so as to minimize future blighted areas caused by flood damage; G. Ensure that potential buyers are notified that property is in an area of special flood hazard; and H. Ensure that those who occupy the areas of special flood hazard assume responsibility for their actions. 7-11.005 METHODS OF REDUCING FLOOD LOSSES In order to accomplish its purposes, this chapter includes methods and provisions to: A. Restrict or prohibit uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or flood heights or velocities; B. Require that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction; C. Control the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel floodwaters; D. Control filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damage; and E. Prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert floodwaters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas. 7-11.006 DEFINITIONS 80 Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this chapter shall be interpreted so as to give them the meaning they have in common usage and to give this chapter it's most reasonable application. "A zone" - see "Special flood hazard area". "Accessory structure" for the purposes of Chapter 7-11 means a structure that is either: A. Solely for the parking of no more than 2 cars; or B. A small, low cost shed for limited storage, less than 150 square feet and $1,500 in value. (Note: Accessory structures, as defined in other chapters of the City of Atascadero Municipal Code that do not comply with this definition, shall comply with Section 7- 11.020 C.5.b.) "Accessory use" means a use which is incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the parcel of land on which it is located. "Alluvial fan" means a geomorphologic feature characterized by a cone or fan-shaped deposit of boulders, gravel, and fine sediments that have been eroded from mountain slopes, transported by flood flows, and then deposited on the valley floors, and which is subject to flash flooding, high velocity flows, debris flows, erosion, sediment movement and deposition, and channel migration. "Apex" means a point on an alluvial fan or similar landform below which the flow path of the major stream that formed the fan becomes unpredictable and alluvial fan flooding can occur. "Appeal" means a request for a review of the Floodplain Administrator's interpretation of any provision of this chapter. "Area of shallow flooding" means a designated AO or AH Zone on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The base flood depths range from one to three feet; a clearly defined channel does not exist; the path of flooding is unpredictable and indeterminate; and velocity flow may be evident. Such flooding is characterized by ponding or sheet flow. "Area of special flood hazard" - See "Special flood hazard area." "Area of special flood-related erosion hazard" is the land within a community which is most likely to be subject to severe flood-related erosion losses. The area may be designated as Zone E on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). 81 "Base flood" means a flood which has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (also called the 100-year flood"). Base flood is the term used throughout this chapter. "Base flood elevation" (BFE) means the elevation shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map for Zones AE, AH, Al-30, VE and V1-V30 that indicates the water surface elevation resulting from a flood that has a 1-percent or greater chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. "Basement" means any area of the building having its floor subgrade - i.e., below ground level - on all sides. "Building" - see "Structure". "Development" means any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials. "Encroachment" means the advance or infringement of uses, plant growth, fill, excavation, buildings, permanent structures or development into a floodplain which may impede or alter the flow capacity of a floodplain. "Existing manufactured home park or subdivision" means a manufactured home park or subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including, at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed before May 9, 1989. "Expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision" means the preparation of additional sites by the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads). "Flood, flooding, or flood water" means: A. A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from the overflow of inland or tidal waters; the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source; and/or mudslides (i.e., mudflows); and B. The condition resulting from flood related erosion. "Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM)" means the official map on which the Federal Emergency Management Agency or Federal Insurance Administration has delineated both the areas of special flood hazards and the floodway. 82 "Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)" means the official map on which the Federal Emergency Management Agency or Federal Insurance Administration has delineated both the areas of special flood hazards and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. "Flood Insurance Study" means the official report provided by the Federal Insurance Administration that includes flood profiles, the Flood Insurance Rate Map, the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map, and the water surface elevation of the base flood. "Floodplain or flood-prone area" means any land area susceptible to being inundated by water from any source - see "Flooding." "Floodplain Administrator" is the community official designated b title to administer P Y 9 Y and enforce the floodplain management regulations. "Floodplain management" means the operation of an overall program of corrective and preventive measures for reducing flood damage and preserving and enhancing, where possible, natural resources in the floodplain. Corrective and preventative measures include and are not limited to emergency preparedness plans, flood control works, floodplain management regulations, and open space plans. "Floodplain management regulations" means this chapter and other zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, building codes, health regulations, special purpose ordinances (such as grading and erosion control) and other application of police power which control development in flood-prone areas. This term describes federal, state or local regulations in any combination thereof which provide standards for preventing and reducing flood loss and damage. "Floodproofing" means any combination of structural and nonstructural additions, changes, or adjustments to structures which reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or improved real property, water and sanitary facilities, structures, and their contents. For guidelines on dry and wet floodproofing, see FEMA Technical Bulletins TB 1-93, TB 3-93, and TB 7-93. "Floodway" means the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. Also referred to as "Regulatory Floodway." "Flood-related erosion" means the collapse or subsidence of land along the shore of a i s lake or other body of water as a result of undermining caused by waves or currents of water exceeding anticipated cyclical level or suddenly caused by an unusually highh water level in a natural body of water, accompanied by a severe storm, or by an r n abnormal tidal sure or b unanticipated force of nature, such as a flash flood o a g Y some similarly unusually and unforeseeable event which results in flooding. 83 "Flood-related erosion area" or "Flood-related erosion prone area" means a land area adjoining the shore of a lake or other body of water, which due to the composition of the shoreline or bank and high water levels or wind-driven currents, is likely to suffer flood-related erosion damage. "Flood-related erosion area management" means the operation of an overall program of corrective and preventive measures for reducing flood-related erosion damage, including but not limited to emergency preparedness plans, flood-related erosion control works, and floodplain management regulations. "Floodway fringe" is that area of the floodplain on either side of the "Regulatory Floodway" where encroachment may be permitted. "Fraud and victimization" as related to 7-11.027 of this chapter, means that the variance granted must not cause fraud on or victimization of the public. In examining this requirement, the City Council of the City of Atascadero will consider the fact that every newly constructed building adds to government responsibilities and remains a part of the community for fifty to one hundred years. Buildings that are permitted to be constructed below the base flood elevation are subject during all those years to increased risk of damage from floods, while future owners of the property and the community as a whole are subject to all the costs, inconvenience, danger, and suffering that those increased flood damages bring. In addition, future owners may purchase the property, unaware that it is subject to potential flood damage, and can be insured only at very high flood insurance rates. "Functionally dependent use" means a use which cannot perform its intended purpose unless it is located or carried out in close proximity to water. The term includes only docking facilities, port facilities that are necessary for the loading and unloading of cargo or passengers, and ship building and ship repair facilities, and does not include long-term storage or related manufacturing facilities. "Governing body" is the local governing unit, i.e. county or municipality that is empowered to adopt and implement regulations to provide for the public health, safety and general welfare of its citizenry. "Hardship" as related to 7-11.027 of this chapter means the exceptional hardship that would result from a failure to grant the requested variance. The City Council of the City of Atascadero requires that the variance be exceptional, unusual, and peculiar to the property involved. Mere economic or financial hardship alone is not exceptional. Inconvenience, aesthetic considerations, physical handicaps, personal preferences, or the disapproval of one's neighbors likewise cannot, as a rule, qualify as an exceptional hardship. All of these problems can be resolved through other means without granting a variance, even if the alternative is more expensive, or requires the property owner to build elsewhere or put the parcel to a different use than originally intended. 84 "Highest adjacent grade" means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to construction next to the proposed walls of a structure. "Historic structure" means any structure that is: A. Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a listing maintained by the Department of Interior) or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as meeting the requirements for individual listing on the National Register; B. Certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as contributing to the historical significance of a registered historic district or a district preliminarily determined by the Secretary to qualify as a registered historic district; C. Individually listed on a state inventory of historic places in states with historic preservation programs which have been approved by the Secretary of Interior; or D. Individually listed on a local inventory of historic places in communities with historic preservation programs that have been certified either by an approved state program as determined by the Secretary of the Interior or directly by the Secretary of the Interior in states without approved programs. "Levee" means a man-made structure, usually an earthen embankment, designed and constructed in accordance with sound engineering practices to contain, control or divert the flow of water so as to provide protection from temporary flooding. "Levee system" means a flood protection system which consists of a levee, or levees, and associated structures, such as closure and drainage devices, which are constructed and operated in accord with sound engineering practices. "Lowest floor" means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area, including basement (see "Basement" definition). A. An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure below the lowest floor that is usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage in an area other than a considered a building's lowest floor provided it conforms to basement area is not cons g applicable non-elevation design requirements, including, but not limited to: 1. The flood openings standard in Section 7-11.020.C.3; 2. The anchoring standards in Section 7-11.020.A; 3. The construction materials and methods standards in Section 7-11.020.B; and 85 4. The standards for utilities in Section 7-11.021. B. For residential structures, all subgrade enclosed areas are prohibited as they are considered to be basements (see "Basement" definition). This prohibition includes below-grade garages and storage areas. "Manufactured home" means a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached to the required utilities. The term "manufactured home" does not include a "recreational vehicle". For floodplain management purposes, the term "manufactured home" also includes park trailers, travel trailers and other similar vehicles placed on a site for greater than one hundred eighty (180) consecutive days. "Manufactured home park or subdivision" means a parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land divided into two or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale. "Market value" is defined in the City of Atascadero substantial damage/improvement procedures (see Section 7-11.016.B.1) "Mean sea level" means, for purposes of the National Flood Insurance Program, the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929, North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) of 1988, or other datum, to which base flood elevations shown on a community's Flood Insurance Rate Map are referenced. "New construction", for floodplain management purposes, means structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or after May 9, 1989, and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. "New manufactured home park or subdivision" means a manufactured home park or subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed on or after May 9, 1989. "Obstruction" includes, but is not limited to, any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment, protection, excavation, channelization, bridge, conduit, culvert, building, wire, fence, rock, gravel, refuse, fill, structure, vegetation or other material in, along, across or projecting into any watercourse which may alter, impede, retard or change the direction and/or velocity of the flow of water, or due to its location, its propensity to snare or collect debris carried by the flow of water, or its likelihood of being carried downstream. "One-hundred-year flood" or "100-year flood" - see "Base flood." 86 "Person" means an individual or his agent, firm, partnership, association or corporation, or agent of the aforementioned groups, or this state or its agencies or political subdivisions. "Program deficiency" means a defect in a community's floodplain management regulations or administrative procedures that impairs effective implementation of those floodplain management regulations. "Public safety and nuisance" as related to Section 7-11.027 of this chapter, means that the granting of a variance must not result in anything which is injurious to safety or health of an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin. "Recreational vehicle" means a vehicle which is: A. Built on a single chassis; B. 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projection; C. Designed to be self-propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck; and D. Designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use. "Regulatory floodway" means the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. "Remedy a violation" means to bring the structure or other development into compliance with State or local floodplain management regulations, or if this is not possible, to reduce the impacts of its noncompliance. Ways that impacts may be reduced include protecting the structure or other affected development from flood damages, implementing the enforcement provisions of the chapter or otherwise deterring future similar violations, or reducing State or Federal financial exposure with regard to the structure or other development. "Riverine" means relating to, formed by, or resembling a river (including tributaries), stream, brook, etc. "Sheet flow area" - see "Area of shallow flooding." "Special flood hazard area (SFHA)" means an area in the floodplain subject to a 1 percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. It is shown on an FHBM or 0 AE A99 or, FIRM as Zone AAOAl A3 , , AH. 87 "Start of construction" includes substantial improvement and other proposed new development and means the date the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, placement, or other improvement was within 180 days from the date of the permit. The actual start means either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufacture home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading, and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, or foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. For a substantial improvement, the actual start of construction means the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of a building, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the building. "Structure" means a walled and roofed building that is principally above ground; this includes a gas or liquid storage tank or a manufactured home. "Substantial damage" means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. "Substantial improvement" means any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement. This term includes structures which have incurred "substantial damage", regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either: A. Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations or state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions; or B. Any alteration of a "historic structure," provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure's continued designation as a "historic structure." "Variance" means a grant of relief from the requirements of this chapter which permits construction in a manner that would otherwise be prohibited by this chapter. "Violation" means the failure of a structure or other development to be fully compliant with this chapter. A structure or other development without the elevation certificate, other certifications, or other evidence of compliance required in this chapter is presumed to be in violation until such time as that documentation is provided. 88 "Water surface elevation" means the height, in relation to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929, North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) of 1988, or other datum, of floods of various magnitudes and frequencies in the floodplains of coastal or riverine areas. "Watercourse" means a lake, river, creek, stream, wash, arroyo, channel or other topographic feature on or over which waters flow at least periodically. Watercourse includes specifically designated areas in which substantial flood damage may occur. 7-11.007 LANDS TO WHICH THIS CHAPTER APPLIES This chapter shall apply to all areas of special flood hazards within the jurisdiction of the City of Atascadero. 7-11.008 BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING THE AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the "Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for the City of Atascadero' dated July 20, 1981, with accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM's) and Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps (FBFM's), dated January 20, 1982, and all subsequent amendments and/or revisions, are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this chapter. This FIS and attendant mapping is the minimum area of applicability of this chapter and may be supplemented by studies for other areas which allow implementation of this chapter and which are recommended to the City Council of the City of Atascadero by the Floodplain Administrator. The study, FIRM's and FBFM's are on file at the Department of Public Works, 6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422. 7-11.009 COMPLIANCE No structure or land shall hereafter be constructed, located, extended, converted, or altered without full compliance with the terms of this chapter and other applicable regulations. Violation of the requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards) shall constitute a misdemeanor. Nothing herein shall prevent the City Council of the City of Atascadero from taking such lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation. 7-11.010 ABROGATION AND GREATER RESTRICTIONS This chapter is not intended to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this chapter and another chapter, 89 easement, covenant, or deed restriction conflict or overlap, whichever imposes the more stringent restrictions shall prevail. 7-11.011 INTERPRETATION In the interpretation and application of this ordinance, all provisions shall be: A. Considered as minimum requirements; B. Liberally construed in favor of the governing body; and C. Deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers granted under state statutes. 7-11.012 WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY The degree of flood protection required by this chapter is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on scientific and engineering considerations. Larger floods can and will occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by man-made or natural causes. This chapter does not imply that land outside the areas of special flood hazards or uses permitted within such areas will be free from flooding or flood damages. This chapter shall not create liability on the part of the City Council of the City of Atascadero, any officer or employee thereof, the State of California, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency, for any flood damages that result from reliance on this chapter or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder. 7-11.013 ADMINISTRATION Administration of this chapter is vested with the City Manager or his designee. The City Manager shall designate his representative in writing. 7-11.014 SEVERABILITY This chapter and the various parts thereof are hereby declared to be severable. Should any section of this chapter be declared by the courts to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the chapter as a whole, or any portion thereof other than the section so declared to be unconstitutional or invalid. 7-11.015 DESIGNATION OF THE FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR The City Manager or his duly authorized designee is hereby appointed to administer, implement, and enforce this chapter by granting or denying development permits in accord with its provisions. 7-11.016 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR 90 The duties and responsibilities of the Floodplain Administrator shall include, but not be limited to the following: A. Permit Review. Review all development permits to determine: I 1. Permit requirements of this chapter have been satisfied, including determination of substantial improvement and substantial damage of existing structures; 2. All other required state and federal permits have been obtained; 3. The site is reasonably safe from flooding; 4. The proposed development does not adversely affect the carrying capacity of areas where base flood elevations have been determined but a floodway has not been designated. This means that the cumulative effect of the proposed development when combined with all other existing and anticipated development will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than 1 foot at any point within the City of Atascadero; and 5. All Letters of Map Revision (LOMR's) for flood control projects are approved prior to the issuance of building permits. Building Permits must not be issued based on Conditional Letters of Map Revision (CLOMR's). Approved CLOMR's allow construction of the proposed flood control project and land preparation as specified in the "start of construction" definition. Projects that have been issued building permits, and are under construction, prior to adoption of this revision of Chapter 11 are exempt from this provision. B. Development of Substantial Improvement and Substantial Damage Procedures. 1. Using FEMA publication FEMA 213, "Answers to Questions About Substantially Damaged Buildings," develop detailed procedures for identifying and administering requirements for substantial improvement and substantial damage, to include defining "Market Value." 2. Assure procedures are coordinated with other departments/divisions and implemented by community staff. C. Review, Use and Development of Other Base Flood Data. When base flood elevation data has not been provided in accordance with Section 7-11.008, the Floodplain Administrator shall obtain, review, and 91 reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a federal or state agency, or other source, in order to administer Section 7-11.016. NOTE: A base flood elevation may be obtained using one of two methods from the FEMA publication, FEMA 265, "Managing Floodplain Development in Approximate Zone A Areas — A Guide for Obtaining and Developing Base (100- year) Flood Elevations" dated July 1995. D. Notification of Other Agencies. 1. Alteration or relocation of a watercourse: a. Notify adjacent communities and the California Department of Water Resources prior to alteration or relocation; b. Submit evidence of such notification to the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and c. Assure that the flood carrying capacity within the altered or relocated portion of said watercourse is maintained. 2. Base Flood Elevation changes due to physical alterations: a. Within 6 months of information becoming available or project completion, whichever comes first, the floodplain administrator shall submit or assure that the permit applicant submits technical or scientific data to FEMA for a Letter of Map Revision (LOMB). b. All LOMR's for flood control projects are approved prior to the issuance of building permits. Building Permits shall not be issued based on Conditional Letters of Map Revision (CLOMR's). Approved CLOMR's allow construction of the proposed flood control project and land preparation as specified in the "start of construction" definition. Projects that have been issued building permits prior to adoption of Chapter 11 are exempt from this provision. Such submissions are necessary so that upon confirmation of those physical changes affecting flooding conditions, risk premium rates and floodplain management requirements are based on current data. 3. Changes in corporate boundaries: Notify FEMA in writing whenever the corporate boundaries have been modified by annexation or other means and include a copy of a map of the community clearly delineating the new corporate limits. 92 E. Documentation of Floodplain Development. Obtain and maintain for public inspection and make available as needed the following: 1. Certification required by Section 7-11.020.0.1 and Section 7-11.023 (lowest floor elevations); 2. Certification required by Section 7-11.020.0.2 (elevation or floodproofing of nonresidential structures); 3. Certification required by Sections 7-11.020.0.3 (wet floodproofing standard); 4. Certification of elevation required by Section 7-11.022.A.3 (subdivisions and other proposed development standards); 5. Certification required by Section 7-11.025 (floodway encroachments); and 6. Maintain a record of all variance actions, including justification for their issuance, and report such variances issued in its biennial report submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. F. Map Determination. Make interpretations where needed, as to the exact location of the boundaries of the areas of special flood hazard, where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field conditions. The person contesting the location of the boundary shall be given a reasonable opportunity to appeal the interpretation as provided in Section 7-11.018. G. Remedial Action. Take action to remedy violations of this chapter as specified in 7-11.009. H. Biennial Report. Complete and submit Biennial Report to FEMA. I. Planning. Assure community's General Plan is consistent with floodplain management objectives herein. 7-11.017 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT A development permit shall be obtained before any construction or other development, including manufactured homes, within any area of special flood hazard established in Section 7-11.008. Application for a development permit shall be 93 made on forms furnished by the City of Atascadero. The applicant shall provide the following minimum information: A. Pians, drawn to scale, showing: 1. Location, dimensions, and elevation of the area in question, existing or proposed structures, storage of materials and equipment and their location; 2. Proposed locations of water supply, sanitary sewer, and other utilities; 3. Grading information showing existing and proposed contours, any proposed fill, and drainage facilities; 4. Location of the regulatory floodway when applicable; 5. Base flood elevation information as specified in Section 7-11.008 or Section 7-11.016.C; 6. Proposed elevation in relation to mean sea level, of the lowest floor (including basement) of all structures; and 7. Proposed elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any nonresidential structure will be floodproofed, as required in Section 7-11.020.C.2 of this chapter and detailed in FEMA Technical Bulletin TB 3-93. B. Certification from a registered civil engineer or architect that the nonresidential floodproofed building meets the floodproofing criteria in Section 7-11.020.C.2. C. For a crawl-space foundation, location and total net area of foundation openings as required in Section 7-11.020.C.3 of this chapter and detailed in FEMA Technical Bulletins 1-93 and 7-93. D. Description of the extent to which any watercourse will be altered or relocated as a result of proposed development. E. All appropriate certifications listed in Section 7-11.016.E of this chapter. 7-11.018 APPEALS The City Council of the City of Atascadero shall hear and decide appeals when it is alleged there is an error in any requirement, decision, or determination made by the Floodplain Administrator in the enforcement or administration of this chapter. 7-11.019 PROVISIONS FOR FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION Sections 7-11.020 through 7-11.024 are for the reduction of flood hazards. 7-11.020 STANDARDS OF CONSTRUCTION 94 In all areas of special flood hazards the following standards are required: A. Anchoring All new construction and substantial improvements of structures, including manufactured homes, shall be adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy. B. Construction Materials and Methods All new construction and substantial improvements of structures, including manufactured homes, shall be constructed: 1. With flood resistant materials, and utility equipment resistant to flood damage for areas below the base flood elevation; 2. Using methods and practices that minimize flood damage; 3. With electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding; and 4. Within Zones AH or AO, so that there are adequate drainage paths around structures on slopes to guide flood waters around and away from proposed structures. C. Elevation and Floodproofing 1. Residential construction All new construction or substantial improvements of residential structures shall have the lowest floor, including basement: a. In AE, AH, Al-30 Zones, elevated to or above the base flood elevation. b. In an AO zone, elevated above the highest adjacent grade to a height equal to or exceeding the depth number specified in feet on the FIRM, or elevated at least 2 feet above the highest adjacent grade if no depth number is specified. c. In an A zone, without BFE's specified on the FIRM [unnumbered A zone], elevated to or above the base flood elevation; as determined under Section 7-11.016C. 95 Upon the completion of the structure, the elevation of the lowest floor, including basement, shall be certified by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor, and verified by the community building inspector to be properly elevated. Such certification and verification shall be provided to the Floodplain Administrator. 2. Nonresidential construction All new construction or substantial improvements of nonresidential structures shall either be elevated to conform with Section 7-11.020.C.1 or: a. Be floodproofed, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, below the elevation recommended under Section 7-11.020.C.1, so that the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water; b. Have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; and c. Be certified by a registered civil engineer or architect that the standards of Section 7-11.0210 C.2.a & b are satisfied. Such certification shall be provided to the Floodplain Administrator. 3. Flood openings All new construction and substantial improvements of structures with fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor (excluding basements) that are usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage, and which are subject to flooding, shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwater. Designs for meeting this requirement must meet the following minimum criteria: a. For non-engineered openings: 1 . Have a minimum of two openings on different sides having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding; 2. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade; 3. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwater; and 96 4. Buildings with more than one enclosed area must have openings on exterior walls for each area to allow flood water to directly enter; or b. Be certified by a registered civil engineer or architect. 4. Manufactured homes a. Manufactured homes located outside of manufactured home parks or subdivisions shall meet the elevation and floodproofing requirement in Section 7-11.020.C. b. Manufactured homes placed within manufactured home parks or subdivisions shall meet the standards in Section 7-11.023. Additional guidance may be found in FEMA Technical Bulletins TB 1-93 and TB 7- 93. 5. Caraaes and low cost accessory structures a. Attached garages. 1. A garage attached to a residential structure, constructed with the garage floor slab below the BFE, must be designed to allow for the automatic entry of flood waters. See Section 7-11.020.C.3. Areas of the garage below the BFE must be constructed with flood resistant materials. See Section 7-11.020.8. 2. Aarag e attached to a nonresidential structure must meet the above 9 requirements or be dry floodproofed. For guidance on below grade parking areas, see FEMA Technical Bulletin TB-6. b. Detached garages and accessory structures. 1. "Accessorystructures used sole) for parking 2 car detached garages Y P 9 ( g 9 or smaller or limited storage (small, low-cost sheds), as defined in Section 7-11.006, may be constructed such that its floor is below the base flood elevation (BFE), provided the structure is designed and constructed in accordance with the following requirements: i. Use of the accessory structure must be limited to parking or limited storage ii. The portions of the accessory structure located below the BFE must be built using flood-resistant materials 97 iii. The accessory structure must be adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse and lateral movement iv. Any mechanical and utility equipment in the accessory structure must be elevated or floodproofed to or above the BFE v. The accessory structure must comply with floodplain encroachment provisions in Section 7-11.025 vi. The accessory structure must be designed to allow for the automatic entry of flood waters in accordance with Section 7- 11.020.C.3. 2. Detached garages and accessory structures not meeting the above standards must be constructed in accordance with all applicable standards in Section 7-11.020. 6. Crawl Space Construction This sub-section applies to buildings with crawl spaces up to 2 feet below grade. Below-grade crawl space construction in accordance with the requirements listed below will not be considered basements. a. The building must be designed and adequately anchored to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy. Crawl space construction is not allowed in areas with flood velocities greater than 5 feet per second unless the design is reviewed by a qualified design professional, such as a registered architect or professional engineer; b. The crawl space is an enclosed area below the BFE and, as such, must have openings that equalize hydrostatic pressures by allowing for the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters. For guidance on flood openings, see FEMA Technical Bulletin 1-93; c. Crawl space construction is not permitted in V zones. Open pile or column foundations that withstand storm surge and wave forces are required in V zones; d. Portions of the building below the BFE must be constructed with materials resistant to flood damage. This includes not only the foundation walls of the crawl space used to elevate the building, but also any joists, insulation, or other materials that extend below the BFE; and e. Any building utility systems within the crawl space must be elevated 98 above BFE or designed so that floodwaters cannot enter or accumulate within the system components during flood conditions. f. Requirements for all below-grade crawl space construction, in addition to the above requirements, to include the following: 1. The interior grade of a crawl space below the BFE must not be more than 2 feet below the lowest adjacent exterior grade (LAG), shown as D in figure 3 of Technical Bulletin 11-01; 2. The height of the below-grade crawl space, measured from the interior grade of the crawl space to the top of the crawl space foundation wall must not exceed 4 feet (shown as L in figure 3 of Technical Bulletin 11- 01) at any point; 3. There must be an adequate drainage system that removes floodwaters from the interior area of the crawl space within a reasonable period of time after a flood event, not to exceed 72 hours; and 4. The velocity of floodwaters at the site should not exceed 5 feet per second for any crawl space. For velocities in excess of 5 feet per second, other foundation types should be used. 7-11.021 STANDARDS FOR UTILITIES A. All new and replacement water supply and sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate: 1. Infiltration of flood waters into the systems; and 2. Discharge from the systems into flood waters. B. On-site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them, or contamination from them during flooding. 7-11.022 STANDARDS FOR SUBDIVISIONS AND OTHER PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT A. All new subdivisions proposals and other proposed development, including proposals for manufactured home parks and subdivisions, greater than 50 lots or 5 acres, whichever is the lesser, shall: 1. Identify the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) and Base Flood Elevations (BFE). 99 2. Identify the elevations of lowest floors of all proposed structures and pads on the final plans. 3. If the site is filled above the base flood elevation, the following as-built information for each structure shall be certified by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor and provided as part of an application for a Letter of Map Revision based on Fill (LOMR-F) to the Floodplain Administrator: a. Lowest floor elevation. b. Pad elevation. c. Lowest adjacent grade. B. All subdivision proposals and other proposed development shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage. C. All subdivision proposals and other proposed development shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage. D. All subdivisions and other proposed development shall provide adequate drainage to reduce exposure to flood hazards. 7-11.023 STANDARDS FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES WITHIN MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS OR SUBDIVISIONS All manufactured homes in special flood hazard areas shall meet the anchoring standards in Section 7-11.020.A, construction materials and methods requirements in Sections 7-11.020.8, flood openings requirements in 7-11.020.C.3, and garages and low cost accessory structure standards in 7-11.020.C.5. Note: Manufactured homes located outside of manufactured home parks or subdivisions shall meet the elevation and flood proofing requirement in Section 7- 11.020.C. A. All manufactured homes that are placed or substantially improved, on sites located: (1) in a new manufactured home park or subdivision; (2) in an expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision; (3) or in an existing manufactured home park or subdivision on a site upon which a manufactured home has incurred "substantial damage" as the result of a flood shall: 1 . Within Zones Al-30, AH, and AE on the community's Flood Insurance Rate Map, be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the 100 manufactured home is elevated to or above the base flood elevation and be securely fastened to an adequately anchored foundation system to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement. B. All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved on sites in an existingmanufactured home ark or subdivision within Zones Al30 AH and AE p , on the community's Flood Insurance Rate Map that are not subject to the provisions of Section 7-11.023.A will be securely fastened to an adequately anchored foundation system to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement, and be elevated so that either the: 1. Lowest floor of the manufactured home is at or above the base flood elevation; or 2. Manufactured home chassis is supported by reinforced piers or other foundation elements of at least equivalent strength that are no less than 36 inches in height above grade. Upon the completion of the structure, the elevation of the lowest floor including basement shall be certified by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor, and verified by the community building inspector to be properly elevated. Such certification and verification shall be provided to the Floodplain Administrator. 7-11.024 STANDARDS FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES A. All recreational vehicles placed in Zones Al-30, AH, and AE will either: 1. Be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days; or 2. Be fully licensed and ready for highway use. A recreational vehicle is ready for highway use if it is on its wheels or jacking system, is attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices, and has no permanently attached additions; or 3. Meet the permit requirements of Section 7-11.017 of this chapter and the elevation and anchoring requirements for manufactured homes in Section 7- 11.023.A. 7-11.025 FLOODWAYS Since floodways are an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of flood waters which carry debris, potential projectiles, and erosion potential, the following provisions apply: 101 A. Until a regulatory floodway is adopted, no new construction, substantial development, or other development (including fill) shall be permitted within Zones Al-30 and AE, unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined with all other development, will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than 1 foot at any point within the City of Atascadero. B. Within an adopted regulatory floodway, the City of Atascadero shall prohibit encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and other development, unless certification by a registered civil engineer is provided demonstrating that the proposed encroachment shall not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. C. If Sections 7-11.025.A & B are satisfied, all new construction, substantial improvement, and other proposed new development shall comply with all other applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of Section 7-11.019. 7-11.026 FLOOD-RELATED EROSION-PRONE AREA A. The Floodplain Administrator shall require permits for proposed construction and other development within all flood-related erosion-prone areas known to the community. B. Permit applications shall be reviewed to determine whether the proposed site alterations and improvements will be reasonably safe from flood-related erosion, and will not cause flood-related erosion hazards or otherwise aggravate the existing hazard. C. If a proposed improvement is found to be in the path of flood-related erosion or would increase the erosion hazard, such improvement shall be relocated or adequate protective measures shall be taken to avoid aggravating the existing erosion hazard. D. Within Zone E on the Flood Insurance Rate Map, a setback is required for all new development from the ocean, lake, bay, riverfront or other body of water to create a safety buffer consisting of a natural vegetative or contour strip. This buffer shall be designated according to the flood-related erosion hazard and erosion rate, in relation to the anticipated "useful life" of structures, and depending upon the geologic, hydrologic, topographic, and climatic characteristics of the land. The buffer may be used for suitable open space purposes, such as for agricultural, forestry, outdoor recreation and wildlife habitat areas, and for other activities using temporary and portable structures only. 102 7-11.027 VARIANCE PROCEDURE The following sections shall govern the processing of appeals and modification of standards. 7-11.028 NATURE OF VARIANCES The issuance of a variance is for floodplain management purposes only. Insurance premium rates are determined by statute according to actuarial risk and will not be modified by the granting of a variance. The variance criteria set forth in this section of the chapter are based on the general principle of zoning law that variances pertain to a piece of property and are not personal in nature. A variance may be granted for a parcel of property with physical characteristics so unusual that complying with the requirements of this chapter would create an exceptional hardship to the applicant or the surrounding property owners. The characteristics must be unique to the property and not be shared by adjacent parcels. The unique characteristic must pertain to the land itself, not to the structure, its inhabitants, or the property owners. It is the duty of the City Council of the City of Atascadero to help protect its citizens from flooding. This need is so compelling and the implications of the cost of insuring a structure built below flood level are so serious that variances from the flood elevation or from other requirements in the flood ordinance are quite rare. The long term goal of preventing and reducing flood loss and damage can only be met if variances are strictly limited. Therefore, the variance guidelines provided in this chapter are more detailed and contain multiple provisions that must be met before a variance can be properly granted. The criteria are designed to screen out those situations in which alternatives other than a variance are more appropriate. 7-11.029 CONDITIONS FOR VARIANCES A. Generally, variances may be issued for new construction, substantial improvement, and other proposed new development to be erected on a lot of one-half acre or less in size contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the base flood level, providing that the procedures of Sections 7-11.013 and 7.11.018 of this chapter have been fully considered. As the lot size increases beyond one-half acre, the technical justification required for issuing the variance increases. B. Variances may be issued for the repair or rehabilitation of "historic structures" (as defined in Section 7-11.006 of this chapter) upon a determination that the proposed repair or rehabilitation will not preclude the structure's continued designation as an historic structure and the variance is the minimum necessary to preserve the historic character and design of the structure. 103 C. Variances shall not be issued within any mapped regulatory floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result. D. Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the "minimum necessary" considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. "Minimum necessary" means to afford relief with a minimum of deviation from the requirements of this chapter. For example, in the case of variances to an elevation requirement, this means the City Council of the City of Atascadero need not grant permission for the applicant to build at grade, or even to whatever elevation the applicant proposes, but only to that elevation which the City Council of the City of Atascadero believes will both provide relief and preserve the integrity of the local ordinance. E. Any applicant to whom a variance is granted shall be given written notice over the signature of a community official that: 1. The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood level will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of insurance coverage, and 2. Such construction below the base flood level increases risks to life and property. It is recommended that a copy of the notice shall be recorded by the Floodplain Administrator in the Office of the San Luis Obispo County Recorder and shall be recorded in a manner so that it appears in the chain of title of the affected parcel of land. F. The Floodplain Administrator will maintain a record of all variance actions, including justification for their issuance, and report such variances issued in its biennial report submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 7-11.030 APPEAL BOARD A. In passing upon requests for variances, the City Council of the City of Atascadero shall consider all technical evaluations, all relevant factors, standards specified in other sections of this chapter, and the: 1. Danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others; 2. Danger of life and property due to flooding or erosion damage; 3. Susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the existing individual owner and future owners of the property; 4. Importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community; 104 5. Necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable; 6. Availability of alternative locations for the proposed use which are not subject to flooding or erosion damage; 7. Compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development; 8. Relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and floodplain management program for that area; 9. Safety of access to the property in time of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles; 10.Expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the flood waters expected at the site; and 11.Costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions, including maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water system, and streets and bridges. B. Variances shall only be issued upon a: 1. Showing of good and sufficient cause; 2. Determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional "hardship" to the applicant; and 3. Determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, or extraordinary public expense, create a nuisance (see "Public safety and nuisance"), cause "fraud and victimization" of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances. C. Variances may be issued for new construction, substantial improvement, and other proposed new development necessary for the conduct of a functionally dependent use provided that the provisions of Sections 7-11.029.A through 7- 11.029.11) are satisfied and that the structure or other development is protected by methods that minimize flood damages during the base flood and does not result in additional threats to public safety and does not create a public nuisance. D. Upon consideration of the factors of Section 7-11.029.A and the purposes of this chapter, the City Council of the City of Atascadero may attach such conditions to the granting of variances as it deems necessary to further the purposes of this chapter. E. The Atascadero City Council may, at its sole discretion, hire outside experts 105 including but not limited to engineers and attorneys for appeal review and technical advice. The applicant shall reimburse the City of Atascadero for the actual cost of any outside expert(s) hired to advise City Council. SECTION THREE: A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with the ayes and noes, shall be published twice: at least five days prior to its final passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Atascadero, and; before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its final passage, in the Atascadero News, a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Atascadero. A copy of the full text of this ordinance shall be on file in the City Clerk's Office on and after the date following introduction and passage and shall be available to any interested member of the public. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council held on and PASSED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Atascadero, State of California, on by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO Marcia McClure Torgerson, C.M.C., Mike Brennler, Mayor City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Brian Pierik, City Attorney 106 ITEM NUMBER: B- 1 DATE: 09/23/08 nu EI® e; 1918 * ® -1979 u 'sAT�►`SrAn�O/% Atascadero City Council Staff Report - City Manager's Office California Manor Purchase and Renovation Funding RECOMMENDATION: Council adopt the Draft Resolution approving the issuance of Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds for the purpose of financing the acquisition and rehabilitation of California Manor. DISCUSSION: Michael L. Condry, Micon Real Estate, proposes to purchase and rehabilitate California Manor, a 95-unit senior congregate care facility. A letter from Mr. Condry dated April 22, 2008 that details his proposed project is attached (Attachment 3). The City Council is being asked to adopt the Draft Resolution which would approve the issuance of multifamily housing revenue bonds by the California Statewide Communities Development Authority ("CSCDA") for the purpose of financing the acquisition and rehabilitation of a multifamily residential housing facility (the "Project") located in the City. The purpose of the resolution is to allow the financing to meet a requirement of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The adoption of this Resolution is the first step in the process of financing the proposed Project. Prior to the issuance of bonds the Project will need to receive "private activity bond" allocation from the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee and CSCDA will be required to adopt a resolution which would approve the execution and delivery of certain bond documents that would reflect the terms of the bonds. The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the "Code") requires that the "applicable elected representatives" of the jurisdiction in which a project to be financed with "private activity bonds" is to be constructed adopt a resolution approving the issuance of such "private activity bonds" after holding a public hearing which has been noticed in a newspaper of general circulation in such jurisdiction. The City Council is being asked to hold such public hearing which has been noticed as required by the Code. The proposed resolution would act as the approval by the "applicable elected representatives" with 1 107 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 09/23/08 respect to the proposed Project. The CDLAC application for "private activity bond" allocation for a multifamily housing project requires the inclusion of the approval resolution. If the City Council adopts this resolution, CSCDA will proceed with the submission to CDLAC of an application for "private activity bond" allocation for the purpose of financing the acquisition and construction of the Project. As announced in the published notice, this hearing is simply an opportunity for all interested persons to speak or to submit written comments concerning the proposal to issue the debt and the nature or location of the Project. There is no obligation on the part of the City Council to respond to any specific comments made or submitted. The City would not be a party to the financing documents. As set forth in Section 9 of the Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement of CSCDA, the debt would not be secured by any form of taxation, or by any obligation of either the City or CSCDA. Neither would the debt represent or constitute a general obligation of either the City or CSCDA. Pursuant to the governing California statutes and the JPA Agreement, a member of CSCDA is not responsible for the repayment of obligations incurred by CSCDA. The debt would be payable solely from amounts received pursuant to the terms and provisions of financing agreements to be executed by the Developer of the proposed facility. In the financing documents the Developer will also provide comprehensive indemnification to CSCDA and its members, including the City. The City's membership in the Authority bears with it no cost or other financing obligation, but serves as a public acknowledgement by the host jurisdiction of the project financing. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the adoption of the resolution. ALTERNATIVES: Decline to approve the Draft Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution 2. TEFRA Hearing Requirements 3. Letters dated February 29, 2008, March 14, 2008, March 20, 2008, March 24, 2008, April 11, 2008 and, April 22, 2008 4. Housing Bond Application dated March 24, 2008 2 108 Attachment 1 DRAFT RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION OF CALIFORNIA MANOR WHEREAS, the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (the Law to issue and deliver Authority ) is authorized by the laws of the State of California (the ) multifamily housing revenue obligations for the purpose of financing the acquisition, construction/rehabilitation and development of multifamily residential rental facilities located within the area of operation of the Authority which are to be occupied, in part, by very low and low income tenants; and WHEREAS, Atascadero California Manor, LP, a California limited partnership, or a limited liability company or other limited partnership to be formed by Micon Real Estate (the "Borrower") has requested the Authority to issue and deliver multifamily housing revenue obligations in the anticipated principal amount of $11,500,000 (the "Obligations"), the proceeds Of which may only be used for the purpose of financing the acquisition and rehabilitation of a 95- unit multifamily residential rental facility commonly known as California Manor located at 10165 El Camino Real in the City of Atascadero, California (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Obligations which are expected to be issued and delivered to finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Project would be considered "qualified exempt facility bonds" under Section 142 (a) of the Internal revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and Section 147(f) of the Code requires that the "applicable elected representative" with respect to the Project hold a public hearing on the issuance and delivery of the Obligations; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero as the "applicable elected representatives" to hold said public hearing, has held said public hearing at which all those interest in speaking with respect to the proposed financing of the Project were heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are true and correct. Section 2. For purposes of the requirements of the Code only, the City Council hereby approves the proposed financing b of the Project by the Authority with the proceeds of the Obliclations. b Section 3. The issuance and delivery of the Obligations shall be subject to the approval of and execution by the Authority of all financing documents relating thereto to which the Authority is a party and subject to the sale of the Obligations by the Authority. 109 Section 4. The adoption of this Resolution is solely for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the Code and shall not be construed in any other manner, the City nor its staff having fully reviewed or considered the financial feasibility of the Project or the expected financing or operation of the Project with regards to any State of California statutory requirements, and such adoption shall not obligate (i) the City to provide financing to the Borrower for the acquisition, rehabilitation and development of the Project or to issue the Obligations for purposes of such financing; or (ii) the City, of or any department of the City, to approve any application or request for, or take any other action in connection with, any environmental, General Plan, zoning or any other permit or other action necessary for the acquisition, rehabilitation, development or operation of the Project. Section 5. The City Clerk of the City shall forward a certified copy of this Resolution and a copy of the affidavit of publication of the public hearing notice to: Thomas A. Downey Jones Hall, A Professional Law Corporation 650 California Street, 181h Floor San Francisco, California 94108 Section 6. This resolution shall take effect upon its adoption. On motion by Council Member and seconded by Council Member the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO Marcia McClure Torgerson, City Clerk Mike Brennler, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Brian Pierik, City Attorney -2- 110 Attachment 2 TEFRA Requirements The following is a brief discussion relating to the public hearing process under the Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 ("TEFRA"), and the significance of such public hearing in relation to a tax-exempt revenue bond financing to be accomplished through the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (the "Authority"). The TEFRA hearing process is a public accountability procedure involving the legislative body of the local agency in which the proposed project is located. During such process, the legislative body conducts a public hearing providing members of the community the opportunity to speak on behalf of or against the nature and location of the proposed project to be financed with tax-exempt bonds. Notice of such hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least 14 days prior to the date of the public hearing. Before the public hearing can be completed, the legislative body will be asked to adopt a resolution to become a member of the Authority's Joint Powers Agreement. Once the legislative body becomes a member to the Authority and the public hearing is completed, the legislative body will be asked to adopt a resolution approving of the issuance of tax-exempt bonds for the financing of the proposed project. Such approval is required for compliance with the federal tax laws under TEFRA, as well as Section 9 of the Authority's Amended and Restated Joint Powers Agreement (the "Agreement"). This approval will not constitute any other approval of the local agency. Therefore, in order for any financing for a private entity to be completed on a tax-exempt basis, the TEFRA hearing process must be completed by the legislative body of the local agency in which the proposed project will be located. P P J The Authority is a California joint exercise of powers authority, organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (specifically, California Government Code Section 6500 and following), and is sponsored by the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties. Under the California Government Code, cities and counties are authorized to form by agreement a governmental entity that combines the powers of such entities to perform certain governmental functions specifically outlined in the Agreement. With respect to the Authority, over 470 California cities, counties and special districts have entered into and executed the Agreement to become a member of the Authority for the purpose of issuing bonds for the financing of projects that promote economic development. Each financing completed by the Authority has been structured so that the local agency completing the TEFRA hearing process has no liability with respect to the issuance of bonds or the repayment of any debt service relating to such bonds. More importantly, the local agency completing the TEFRA hearing process is not a party to any of the financing documents relating to the issuance of the bonds nor is it named in any of the disclosure documents describing the bonds or the proposed financing. 111 Attachment 3 LJSDA United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development California www.rurdev.usda.gov/ca February 29,2008 Ms. Judy Nevis Department of Housing and Conti-nunity Development Financial Assistance Division MHP Proi!ram 1800 Third St. Sacramento, CA 95814 Ms, Joarile.lones Kelly, Executive Director California Debt Limit Allocation Committee 915 Capitol Mall, Room 303 Sacramento, CA 95814 Mr. William Pavdo California Tax Credit Allocation Committee 915 Capitol Mall, Suite 485 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Ms. Nevis, Ms. Kelly and Mr. Pavdo: RE: California Manor(the "Project-) 10165 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422 Preservation of-At Risk" Section 515 Affordable Rental Housing Original Restricted Use Provision Expiration Date, 10/10/2006 Section 515 Rural Rental Housin-Pro-ram Occupan cj>is tle-sigizated and restricted unticr 42 IQ .0 1485 to F,�Ider/17 Tenants 2LL USDA Rural Development ("USDA") is working with Micon Real Estate, (the "Developer") who is appI *n(, to you for MIIP funds. The Borrower is currently under yl , y contract to acquire the Project referenced above, The Project was financed under USDA Rural Development's Section 51.5 Program (the "Loan"). The Loan with a current balance of approxintately$3,330,339.50 as of 02/29/08- is secured by 11 first deed of trust on the Project for the balance owing on the Loan. USDA's borrowers, the current owners, axe now at or near the end of USDA-mandated affordable housing restrictions 112 U"S United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development California www.rurdev.usda.gov/ca and therefore the project is "at risk" of losing those restrictions if the, Loan B voluntarily prepaid. The current owners want to sell the Project and may sell to a buyer who does not wish to continue the afford-ability with corresponding State and Federal subsidies. The Borrower plans to continue the affordability by assuining the Loan and extending, the affordability restrictions attached to the I-oan in addition to financinzg,the Project with MHP funds. USDA is committed to prcsci�ing the apartments as affordable housing under any approved new ownership; therefore. USDA is actively processing an approval of the Followin-transaction to accompany the proposed MI-IP assistance: 1. "New ten-ns" eligible transfer & assumption. USDA Rural Development is to approve new terms, eligible transfer and assumption of the full existing 515 debt by the Developer, The "new terms"would rewrite the 515 debt at an interest credit interest rate of I%, with a 50-year amortization and a 30-year term. 2. Debt and Equity Financing. The Borrower is to obtain CDLAC approval for a tax- exempt bond mortgage from a suitable tender and apply for and receive an MHP loan fron-i the State of California to pay the balance of the sales price and complete rehab and upgrade work on the project. 3. Subordination with adequate security. Ifa.MHP loan is approved, the loan will be subordinate to the new tax-exempt mortgage and the USDA 51.5 loan. After the transfer, the total of the USDA and tax-exempt mortgage will not exceed the appraised fair market mortgage value"value-in-Ilse, after rel-Lab"of the property. I am the Mutt]-Family Housirtg Program Director for USDA Rural Development III California and will have the authority to approve these actions subject to onmill- z:7 __ Laiderwriti.rig and due diti-ence, The outlines of the transaction have been approved by USDA in other preservation situations like this one. The State's support of the requested financing would be most helpful in. assuring the preservation of affordable rural rental housing. M11P funds are an important component ofthis transaction top reserve affordable rural rental housing. If' I can be of further assistance, please contact me at (530) 792-5830 or 113 i STEPfltiti NNODIM Multi-Famliv Housing Proin-am Director 114 H k_ATY OFATAsCADERO March 1=1,2(:08 Mr.Michael 1,. C"ondry Micon Real Estate 1.370 Jensen, Suite I3 Sanger. CA 93657 RE Application for Multi-Faniily Housing Progrrnn(NMP) funds for Acquisition and Rehabilitation of. the California Matior Apartments locatedat 10165 U Camino Real Dear Mur. Condry: The City of Atascadero supports M.icon Real Estate in its application to-the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for Multi-Family Housing Program (1\111P) financin; to partially finance the: acquisition and rehabilitation,of the California Manor Apartments in the. City-of Aaascadero. The California Manor Apartments are currently being financed with.a USDA-RD loan and receive a project-based rental subsidy on£1 of the 95 units MSDA-Rural Development 'Section 515 rental subsidies) (I manager's unit) to ensure "their project to be"fit-Risk'" of l �i" � � sulenis ofthe City.' USDA-RD considers the I affordability tttlr�Yvarid vt.�� l�tt�-inecm� ze1 ffo y converting to market rate units in the future:. Conversion of this affordable rental project to market rate projects has r result in significant econornie. hardshi . Int is doubtful that the the potential to displace several residents and rest � p 1 ar project Find other, affoa clablc housm Gviflain. the Cit In addition, flats particul p J residents would be able to feat la Y includes two(2)ADAaccessible units which are in short supply in our City. The existing affutdablca reeiients for C'altfcrria Manor re due to e x ire in 2006. At this 1 o'int]n t1aC the City does not have any projects in the,pipeline that would provide replacement housita!g,fol'the CLurent residents. If received, the M11p funds combined•with,other private arid public financing will both rehabilitate the, properties and maintain their affordability for qualified'househt lds living in the C'iru of Atascaclerc� 1 i,e(4"iter is c{?f�,�Y�ittci t,:, retaining its rental Horsing and its affordable housing projects as expressed in the City's General Plan Housing Element policies. California Manor is a congregation luring) facility that provides affordable rental units for ambulatory senior residents with the option Of buyiiat!'prepared meals. This is the only project within the City that provides :ell of these services, meeting the needs of lower income senior; that" while end pendent, may require assistance with some meal preparation. We look forward to working with You in providing continuing affordable housing for the residents of file City of A tascadero. Sincerely, - y� r Warren Fracc Community Develop=:nt Dir cetor d'it lManorldisg,Need Lcuei fur N1111'fundv doc 6907 EL CATNUN 3 REAL ATA+CADERC1,CA X13422 (805)461-5000 FjiX(805)466-7612 115 wrw.M I C H E I,LT D.C O M SEAPORT CENTER 70 FARG,O STREET SUITE 907 BOSTON, MA 02210 1' 617.261.4646 1- 617.34 5.4 293 M I C H F. 1, ASSOCIATES LTD March 20,2008 Mr. Michael L. Condry Micon Real Estate 1370 Jensen Avenue Sanger, CA 93657 Re: California Manor Apartments, Atascadero, CA (the "Property") Dear Mr. Condry: This letter sets forth the agreement between Micon Real Estate and/or your designee (the "General Partner") and Michel Associates, Ltd. ("Michel"). The General Partner hereby retains Michel to exclusively provide equity capital for the Property, and Michel accepts such retention under the following terms and conditions. Michel will provide the equity capital through an affiliated private placement limited partnership in accordance with all relevant securities laws or, at its sole option, transfer its commitment to a direct corporate investor or correspondent fund (the "Fund"). The equity capital provided by the Fund will be used to acquire an interest as the sole limited partner in Atascadero California Manor, LP, a California limited partnership (the "Partnership") that owns the Property. The Fund may also invest as a limited partner in other similar properties. A. Capital Contributions Subject to the terms hereof and of the Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement (the "Partnership Agreement") to be entered into, the Fund will make capital contributions of $5,062,377 ("Capital Contributions") to the Partnership as follows: 1. $2,531,188 on the date an amendment to the Partnership Agreement is filed admitting the Fund into the Partnership as its limited partner(the "Admission Date"); 2. $1,518,713 on the later to occur of (a) September 15, 2009 or (b) the Substantial Completion Date(as hereinafter defined); 3. $506,238 on the later to occur of(a) the Completion Date (as hereinafter defined) or (b) January 15,2009; 4. $506,238 on the later to occur of(a) January 15, 2009 or(b)the issuance of IRS Form 8609 or(c)the Rental Achievement Date(as hereinafter defined)or(d)receipt by the Fund of the final Partnership Tax Return and payment of the Asset Management Fee for the prior year. 116 Condry,Michael Page 2 March 20,2008 The Substantial Completion Date is defined as the date on which the last of the following events occurs: (1) completion of construction as certified by the Property Architect; (2) receipt of Certificates of Occupancy (or local equivalent) for all 95 dwelling units in the Property; (3) execution of any applicable Rental Assistance Agreements; (4) receipt of payoff letters or lien waivers from contractors and receipt of an endorsement to the Owner's Policy of Title Insurance bringing the effective date forward to the Substantial Completion Date; (5) receipt of an As-Built Survey of the Property certified to the Fund; (6) funding by the General Partner of all construction cost overruns; and (7) the General Partner and/or Partnership is not in default with respect to any financial obligations. The Completion Date is defined as the date on which the last of the following events occur: (1) the Substantial Completion Date has occurred; (2) with regard to the loans shown in Exhibit A, it shall have been closed and funded and the benchmarks to achieve permanent loan status have been met; and (3) receipt of the Accountant's Cost Certification together with all materials supporting the General Partner's submission to the LIHTC granting authority for issuance of IRS Forms 8609; (4) the General Partner and/or the Partnership is not in default with respect to any financial obligations. Payment of the third and fourth, installments of the Capital Contributions by the Fund is contingent on the Completion Date having occurred and upon the Property reaching Rental Achievement, including the funding of Replacement Reserve of$4,038 per month; the Rental Achievement Date is the first time following three (3) consecutive full calendar months of operations after the Completion Date (with each month considered individually) that the Property generates a 1.15 to 1.00 Debt Service ratio using income from the normal operation of the property received on a cash basis compared with accrued operating expenses equal to the greater of such accrued expenses or $38,000/month plus all mandatory debt service payments; provided, however, that the Rental Achievement Date shall in no event occur prior to the closing of all Permanent Loans; provided further that the Fund will only recognize income being received from income-qualified LIHTC tenants plus laundry and miscellaneous income from the Property. B. Assumptions The Property is a 95 unit apartment complex for seniors located in Atascadero, California. Development of the Property is being financed by the loans shown in Exhibit A (hereinafter referred to as the "Permanent Loan")and 100%of the dwelling units will receive any applicable rental subsidies Rental Assistance Payments. Other significant assumptions are: Permanent Loan Amount See Exhibit A Construction Loan Amount $11,217,466 Construction Start Date December 2008 Construction Completion Date September 2009 Rental Achievement Date December 2009 Low Income Housing Tax Credit(LIHTC") 117 Condry,Michael Page 3 March 20,2008 Eligible Dwelling Units 95 Acquisition Rehabilitation LIHTC Basis (,Aith 130%boost) $10,000,000 $ 7,213,477 LIHTC Rate 3.36 % 3.36 % LIHTC Reservation by Component $ 336,000 $ 242,373 LIHTC Total Supported by Basis $578,373 LIHTC Reservation Total $578,373 LIHTC to Fund (99.98%) $578,257 Projected LIHTC to Fund for 2009* $ 144,564 for 2010-2016 (annually)* $ 578,257 for 2017 $ 144,564 *Based upon delivering 25%of the credits in 2009. C.Partnership Terms The following sets forth the basic terms and conditions in the Partnership Agreement: Ownership, Tax Allocations, Depreciation, and Gross Capital Contributions -- The Fund will acquire a 99.98% limited partner interest in the Partnership and the General Partner will retain a 0.02% interest. An affiliate of the Fund will also be admitted as a Special Limited Partner. Tax profits, tax losses and tax credits will be allocated 99.98%to the Limited Partner and 0.02%to the General Partner and the Partnership will be eligible to depreciate the building and improvements on a 27.5-year depreciation schedule. Gross Capital Contributions (the "Gross Capital Contributions") are defined as the Capital Contributions plus an amount equal to the Fund's organizational and offering costs associated with its investment in the Partnership. Gross Capital Contributions are projected to be approximately $5,568,600. The exact amount of the Gross Capital Contributions will be determined prior to the Admission Date. Net Proceeds from a Capital Transaction. Upon sale or refinance of the Property, proceeds will be allocated in the following priority: 1. to pay the expenses of the sale or refinancing and satisfaction of underlying financing plus any other third-party obligations and debts (excluding those to Partners or affiliates) and including the establishment of any required reserves; 2. to repay the Fund or the Asset Manager any amounts due from the General Partner under its guarantees under the Partnership Agreement; 3. to repay the General Partner any amounts due for Operating Deficit Notes or other advances, and to repay the Development Fee Note, if any; 4. to pay$5,000 to the Special Limited Partner; and 5. the remaining proceeds to be distributed 80% to the General Partner and 20% to the Limited Partner. 118 Condry,Michael Page 4 March 20,2008 Completion Guarantee -- The General Partner will guarantee to provide all funds necessary to complete construction of the Property and have the Property reach the Rental Achievement Date. The General Partner will receive a Residual Receipt Note for any such advances not covered by the permanent loan and/or the Capital Contributions. This note will be non-interest bearing and repayable solely from the proceeds of a sale or refinancing of the Property. Development Fee -- The Developer will receive a Development Fee. To the extent that the Development Fee is not paid from Capital Contributions, the Developer will receive a Development Fee Note. This note will be non-interest bearing and repayable from available cash flow from the Property and from the proceeds of a sale or refinancing of the Property, prior to the end of the Compliance Period. If the Development Fee Note has not been repaid at the end of ten years, the General Partner must make a capital contribution to pay any amount outstanding at that time. Operating Deficit Guarantee -- The General Partner will guarantee to fund all operating deficits of the Property for up to $200,000 and for up to the later to occur of: a) 5 years commencing on the Rental Achievement Date, or b) following a calendar year in which 1.15 Debt Service Coverage was maintained. To support this operating deficit guarantee, the Partnership shall deposit $225,000 in an Operating Deficit Escrow account, which shall be used solely for the purposes of funding payment of Operating Deficits during the 15 year Compliance Period. No funds shall be released from the Operating Deficit Escrow except with the consent of Michel; provided, however, that up to $5,000 per year can be used to fund operating deficits; and provided, further,beginning in the fifth year following the Rental Achievement Date, the Fund agrees to release the sum of $5,000 to the General Partner following a calendar year in which 1.15 Debt Service Coverage is maintained so long as the Minimum Balance defined below is funded. Assuming that breakeven operations has occurred in a calendar year and that the balance in the Operating Deficit escrow account is at least $75,000 (the "Minimum Balance"), then any interest earned by the Operating Deficit escrow account will be paid to the General Partner as an Incentive Management Fee; otherwise, interest earned will be considered Cash from Operations. Assuming that the General Partner is not in default of any of its obligations under the Partnership Agreement, the General Partner will receive all amounts remaining in this Operating Deficit Escrow at the end of the Partnership as an Operating Deficit Guaranty Fee. To the extent that the General Partner must fund operating deficits with its own funds (i.e. apart from the Operating Deficit Escrow) the General Partner will receive Operating Deficit Notes for any such advances. These notes will be non-interest bearing and repayable in the order of Priority Payments from available Cash from Operations or the proceeds of a sale or refinancing of the Property. Right of First Refusal--The General Partner or its qualified non-profit designees will have a"right of first refusal" to purchase the Property following the 15 year low income compliance period at the "minimum purchase price" as defined in Section 42 (i) (7) of the Internal Revenue Code, including the Fund's exit taxes and any Unrecovered Adjustment pursuant to Section E(Price Adjusters)below. Repurchase Guarantee -- The General Partner will refund 100% of the Gross Capital Contributions of the Fund until three consecutive years where the Rental Achievement Date has occurred if: 119 Condry,Michael Page 5 March 20,2008 1. Construction is not completed by December 31,2009. 2. Any Construction or Permanent Loan commitment is lost (and not replaced by a loan satisfactory to the Fund in its sole discretion) or any Construction or Permanent Loan is foreclosed; 3. Any Permanent Loan is not non-recourse; 4. An LIHTC Allocation is not received or is later revoked by the LIHTC granting authority respectively; 5. Any Mortgage Lender and, if required by law, the LIHTC granting authority has not approved the Fund as a limited partner to the Partnership within 180 days of the Admission Date; 6. Any representation or warranty made by the General Partner proves to be false at the time it was made and such false representation or warranty has a material adverse effect on the Partnership,the Fund, or the Property. If the General Partner must make payments under this Repurchase Guarantee, the amount due the Fund will equal the Gross Capital Contributions plus the Fund's share of any interest and penalties imposed by the IRS for any recapture of LIHTC less: 1) any cash distributions paid the Fund under this Agreement; 2)an amount equal to 95% of any LIHTC received by the Fund and which is not subject to recapture under the IRS Code; and 3) any Capital Contributions under this Agreement which have not yet been paid to the Partnership under this Agreement. Hazard and Liability Insurance—As a condition of the Admission Date,the Partnership shall deliver evidence of hazard insurance from carriers acceptable to the Fund, in an amount equal to the replacement cost of the apartment improvements. The hazard insurance must include endorsements for inflation adjustment and code upgrade coverage. Liability insurance shall be in the amount of not less than$5,000,000. Escrows—To the extent not required by any mortgage lender, the Partnership shall maintain funds in a segregated escrow account, in an amount sufficient to pay all real estate taxes and insurance premiums when due. Payment and Performance Bond or Letter of Credit—The Contractor for the Apartment Complex shall provide payment and performance bonds in form and substance satisfactory to the Fund, in the full amount of the general contract naming the Partnership as obligee issued by a bonding company acceptable to the Fund or a letter of credit in the amount of not less than 15% of the general contract issued by a bank acceptable to the Fund. 120 Condry,Michael Page 6 March 20,2008 Asset Manager-- Michel or an affiliate (the "Asset Manager") will serve as an intermediary between the Partnership and the Fund on all matters. By March 1 of each year,the Asset Manager will receive a guaranteed annual payment (the "Asset Management Fee") of$5,000 for its services which will be paid by the Partnership. The fee will pay the costs of the Fund relating to investor communications, site visits and annual accounting and tax reporting. To the extent that the Partnership's funds from operations are insufficient to pay this fee,the General Partner agrees to pay the fee annually throughout the Compliance Period. The Asset Manager will have the right to approve the accountant for the Partnership. The General Partner will be required to provide the Fund with the Partnership tax returns by March 1 and the audited Partnership financial statements by May 1 of each year. Removal Rights—The Fund shall have the right to remove the General Partner for cause as will be set forth in the Partnership Agreement, enabling the Special Limited Partner to act in those defined circumstances. No removal right without cause shall exist. Cash Flow— Cash Flow is Available Cash of the Partnership [generally, gross revenues less operating expenses, debt service, required deposits to any replacement reserve, the Asset Management Fee, and Unrecovered Adjustments (defined below)] less certain Priority Payments, including: 1) if applicable, the amount needed to maintain the Minimum Balance in the Operating Deficit Escrow; 2) if applicable, to repay first any Development Fee Note and next any General Partner Operating Deficit Notes or other advances; 3) to the General Partner, a non-cumulative Partnership Administration Fee up to $20,000 per year; 4) to the General Partner, a non-cumulative Incentive Management Fee up to 10% of gross revenue collected,payable from 80%of the then remaining cash from operations; 5) any remaining cash from operations will be distributed as Cash Flow 0.02% to the General Partner and 99.98%to the Fund. Representations and Warranties -- The Partnership Agreement and related documents will contain, among other items, standard representations and warranties of the General Partner with respect to the Property, the LIHTC, the Construction and Permanent Loans and the Partnership, including, but not limited to, the status of the Partnership, the General Partner, title to the Property, real estate development and construction, Construction and Permanent financing, land use and environmental issues and the tax credit allocation from the state housing authority. Further, the General Partner will make representations and warranties as to its right and authority to enter into this transaction with the Fund. Closing Requirements -- On or before the Admission Date, the General Partner will be required to provide all "due diligence" documents that Michel and its legal counsel deem relevant to the 121 Condry,Michael Page 7 March 20,2008 Partnership, the Property, construction, interim and/or permanent financing and the General Partner including, at the General Partner's expense: 1) an opinion of the Partnership's legal counsel satisfactory to the Fund's counsel that includes, but is not limited to, the following matters: the legal formation of the Partnership and any corporate general partner(s), due execution and delivery of all Property documents, the Partnership's classification as a partnership for income tax purposes, the non-recourse nature of the permanent financing, all LIHTC matters (including the LIHTC reservation carryover allocations and final allocation) and local real estate, title, environmental and land use issues; and 2) an Owner's Title Insurance Policy satisfactory to the Fund's legal counsel (including comprehensive, zoning, Fairways and Non-Imputation endorsements and other endorsements reasonably requested by the Fund) in the amount of the Permanent Loan plus the Capital Contributions of the Fund to the Partnership; and 3) satisfaction of the requirements shown in the generic due diligence checklist in Exhibit B attached hereto, which will be tailored to this transaction by Michel and the Fund's counsel once the General Partner has delivered sufficient information to finalize the due diligence checklist; and D. Management Agent Michel and, if required either the Lender or the LIHTC granting authority, shall approve both the Management Agent and the Management Agreement, understanding that the General Partner or its designee (which may be an affiliate of the General Partner) may manage the Property. The Fund will require the Management Agent to make certain certifications as to property management matters under the Partnership Agreement and to subordinate its management fee to all other operating expenses and the payment of mandatory debt service. The Fund will require the Management Agent to grant the Fund a power of attorney to effect its removal upon: 1) an event of material default under the Management Agreement; 2) its causing the General Partner to be in material default under the Partnership Agreement; 3)the Management Agent's actions or failure to act causing delays in receipt or recapture of LIHTC; and 4) failure to subordinate its fee to all other operating expenses and the payment of mandatory debt service. The Management Agreement shall contain similar provisions. E. Price Adjusters Downward Adjusters -- The amount and timing of the payments of the Capital Contributions are tied to the amount and timing of the LIHTC as outlined in Section B. Any reduction of or delay in the receipt of LIHTC will require that adjustments be made to the amount of the Capital Contributions made by the Fund to the Partnership, specifically as follows: 122 Condry,Michael Page 8 March 20,2008 1. If by reason of delay in the completion or lease-up of the Property, the amount of LIHTC generated in 2009 is less than the LIHTC amount represented in Section B above, then the Capital Contributions shall be reduced by 100%of said shortfall; 2. If for any reason there is a reduction or recapture of the amount of LIHTC shown in Section B, then the Capital Contributions shall be adjusted: (a) if said reduction or recapture occurs prior to the payment of the last installment of Capital Contributions, then the reduction in capital is calculated as $.88 for each$1.00 of LIHTC not available to the Fund; and (b) if said reduction or recapture occurs after the payment of the last installment of Capital Contribution, then the reduction in capital is calculated as$.98 for every$1.00 of LIHTC not available to the Fund. The General Partner will guarantee that all -- dwelling units in the Property will remain in LIHTC compliance for the full 15 year period required under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code in order to avoid the recapture of previously taken LIHTC. If at any time after payment of the final installment of the Capital Contributions, there is a recapture or reduction of LIHTC benefits to the Fund, such recapture cost or benefit reduction will be repaid by the General Partner with interest at a rate two (2) percent over the Prime Lending Rate of Bank of America; any amount including interest not so paid ("Unrecovered Adjustments") will then be paid from first available cash flow, and, if cash flow is insufficient,then will be payable from the proceeds of a sale or refinancing of the Property as a priority payment before any General Partner participation; provided further that the General Partner shall not have any liability for any loss of tax benefits as a result of any changes in the Code or Regulations which limit or eliminate the deductibility of losses or which limit or eliminate the ability of the Fund to use LIHTC generated by the Property to reduce the federal tax liabilities of its investors. Upward Adjuster--If the amount of LIHTC is greater than the amounts shown in Section B,then the Fund agrees to increase its Capital Contributions by $.88 for each dollar of increased LIHTC to be realized by the Fund. In addition, the Fund agrees that it will increase the Capital Contribution by $.40 for each ach addition dollar of LIHTC delivered in 2009 above $144,564. However, if the Fund does not have sufficient funds to be able to pay this additional Capital Contribution, then the Fund's Partnership Interest shall be reduced to a percentage which maintains the ratio of Capital Contributions paid to LIHTC received as otherwise contemplated herein; notwithstanding the foregoing,in no event shall the Ownership Interest of the Fund be reduced below 90%because of this provision. F. General Partners and Net Worth The General Partner will elect to have the Partnership to be taxable as a partnership and will provide personal financial statements indicating sufficient net worth and liquidity to support its guarantees under this Agreement. 123 Condry,Michael Page 9 March 20,2008 If the General Partner is an entity other than an individual(s), the obligations of the General Partner set forth in this Agreement shall be jointly and severally guaranteed by the shareholders, partners or members of such entity (including spouses if assets are jointly held) or by affiliates of the General Partner or by such other parties as Michel or its counsel deem necessary(the "Guarantors"). G. The Agreement By returning an executed copy of this letter (the "Agreement"), the General Partner gives Michel the exclusive right to proceed with all activities contemplated in the Agreement. Michel will use its best efforts to complete this transaction. Michel's obligations under this Agreement are subject to a satisfactory due diligence review of the Property, the Partnership, the General Partner, the Managing Agent, the financing documentation, the LIHTC allocation documentation, all other relevant documentation and the assumptions contained herein. We look forward to working with you. Very truly yours, MICHEL ASSOCIATES, LTD. Accepted and Agreed to: By: Michael L. Condry Micon Real Estate Date: March ,2008 124 Condry,Michael Page 10 March 20,2008 Exhibit A Permanent Loans First Mortgage Lender: Washington Mutual Amount: $4,375,000 (Est.) Interest Rate: 5.5% (Est.) Term: 30 Years Related Party: No Amortization Schedule: 30 Years Repayment: Monthly payments of principal and interest of $24,841 (Est.) The outstanding principal and accrued interest shall be due at maturity. Second Mortgage* Lender: Rural Development(RD 515) Amount: $3,300,000 (Est.) Interest Rate: 1%(pay rate) 6%(est. note rate) Term: 30 Year Related Party: No Amortization Schedule: 50 Years Repayment: Monthly payments of principal and interest of$6,985 (Est.) The outstanding principal and accrued interest shall be due at maturity. *Existing RD 515 loan assumed by Partnership and re-amortized over new 50 year schedule. Third Mortgage Lender: MHP Amount: $5,000,000 Interest Rate: 3% Term: 30 Year Related Parry: No Amortization Schedule: 55 Years Repayment: 0.42%paid from cash flow. Estimated at$21,000/annually. The outstanding principal and accrued interest shall be due at maturity. 125 Washington Mutual Community Lending 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 800, Oakland, California 94612 Telephone 510.267.6261 Mail Stop: OAKSFCA CDLAC; Commitment I._,etter (Direct Purchase) March 24, 2008 Mr. Mike.Condry= Micon Real Estate 1370.1ensen Avenue, Suite.B Sanger, Cts 93657 Re; Borrower; Atascadero California Manar, LP, a California limited partnership: with Atascadero California Manor, LLC, and Central Valley Coalition for Affordable flausing (collectively the "General Partners"); and Michel Associates, as the limited partner and to credit investor("Investor") Property.- 95 Affordable Multi-fancily Housing Units California Manor 10165 pal Camino Real, Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, CA Fear Mike: Thank YOU for presenting; to Washington Mutual Bank, FA ("Bank") Borrowees request for a loan ("Loan") on the Property.. Klink hereby offers to snake the Loan, subject to the terms and conditions set forth ill this letter. It is conteni:platcd that the Loan will include the following: I., Loan A.niou.nt and Type. The Loan will be a combined construction or rehabilitation loan ("Construction Loan"), convcrti le upon the satisfaction of ecrtu.in ternis and conditions to a term loan ("Pei-rnanent Loan"). The Loan will be made from the proceeds of tai exempt revenue Bonds or revenue notes ("the Bonds") to be issued by California Statewide Con inunities Development authority ("C'SCDA") pursuant to a tai: exempt bond allocation for the :Project as defined Below. Bank will purchase the. Bonds concun-ent`ly with the closing of the Loati. 126 -.A>r_. -.___.f._,- Mike Conciry March 24,200 'a:-e 2 a. The Construction Loan amount shall be the least of the followin-: (1) S11,2:17,46t (2) eighty percent(80%) of'the appropriate appraised value (as defined by Bank) of the Property, ]-rased upon all appraisal acceptable to ]utak in Bank's sole; discretion. The appropriate appraised.value is anticipated. to be based on the couabination of the stabilized restricted rent value plus the present value of the Tax Credits. (3) An amount no greater than the Permanent Loam plus other sources of Construction Loan repayment acceptable to Bank in bank's sole discretion. b. The Pernianerr t Loan amount shall be the least of the followiiag: (1) $4,375,001 (2) seventy five 'percent (75%) of the appropriate appraised. value (as defined by Batu]-) of the Property,(cased upon an appraisal acceptable to Bank in Bank's sole discretion. The appropriate appraised value is anticipated to be based on the stabilized unrestricted market value, assuring a three (3) year conversion to market rents as permitted by the Internal Revenue Code for tax credit projects, and assuming all liens and (feed restrictions imposing tenant income or affordability restrictions and the like are subordinated to the Per nanent'Loa,n. (3) That: amount for which the Property generates 4innual net operating income: after expcnses and reserves (as determined by Bank-) equal to at least one hundred fifteen percent (115%) of the aggregate annual debt service on the Permanent Loan and all other encumbrances on the Property,as calculated by Bank at time of conversion.. I Pu�c. The purpose of the Loan is to provide for the acquisition and rehabilitation of the improvements ("Improvements") and long-term Financing for a 95-unit affordable multifatnily project ("Project"). Within the Project, there will be: S7 one-bedroom( units and & two-bedroom units, all affordable to tenants wit], incomes of no more than t'a()% of area median. income ("AMI"), and other Project features and amenities as described in the CDLAC application for the, Project. 3. LoLoan Terms. The interest irate, repayment formula and other terms of tyre Loan shall ber.is outlined in Exhibit A attached to this letter, subject to the precise terms and conditions of ;Batik's loan__doctrnaeKats evidencing, and seccuringthat type of loam ("Loam Documents"). The terms of the Loans may be different from or in addition to those stated lac:reira, based on the results of Bank-'s review of the information furnished or to be furnished by or ora behalf of Borrower in connection with Bank's underwriting of the Loam. Al NG1TEROSDIt3CrIIECTI'LAZ tiASLLFITFli 127 Nili:C C"ond'V March 24,2008 Page i Wil. unior Finaiic_ ing. Borrower shall provide evidence satisfactory to Bank in Banks sole discretion that the United States Department of A.grrcultrrre ("USDA") will provide a lour in the amount of S3,300,000 to finance a portion of the costs of construction or rehabilitation with respect to the Project ("USDA Loart"). The: terms, conditions, budget and documentation for the USDA Loan are subject to Bank's review and approval as a condition to the closin(f of the Loan. The USDA. Loan must be closed prior to, or concurrently with, the closing of the Loan. `l"he, USDA Loan must be fully funded and disbursed prior to any disbursement of the proceeds of the Loan, unless Bank agrees to an alternate procedure acceptable to Barak. :All draw requests from the USDA Loafs must be subject to co-approval by Bank. The USDA Loan documents must provide that repayinent of the USDA 1_,oan will be based only on residual receipts of the Project (cash flow available after- pay►rrcnt of Project expenses, debt service on the Loan. and reserves required by Batik). The L,'SDA Loan and all related tenant income and af'fordab:ility restrictions must be subordinate in all respects to the Loan, and must provide that any restrictions related to the, USDA Loan will be released following the acquisition of title to the Property by foreclosure under the Loan or deed in Iieu thereof: Borrower shall provide evidence satisfactory to Bank in Bank's sole discretion that the State of California Department of )"lousing and Community Development ("MRP") will prov;de a permanent loan. in the amount of$5,000,000. The terms conditions, budget an(] documentation for the Ml~:ll' Loan are subject to Bank's review and approval as a conditiolr to the closilaM. of the Loran. The MHP Loan must be closed prior to or concurrently with, the. Conversion to tlae Permanent Loan. The MFIP Loan documents must:provide that rcpra�,inont of the:MHP Loan will be based only on residual receipts of the Project (cash now available after payment of Project expenses, debt service on the Loan and reserves required by Bank). The MHP Loan and. all related tenant income and affordability restrictions must be subordinate in all respects to the Loan, and must provide that any restrictions related to the MHP Loan will be released following the acquisition of title to the Property by foreclosure under the Loan or deed in licit thereof. Any junior financing to the extent not specifically described as to source and tennis in this letter will be subject tes Bank's approval in Bank's soli discretion and must be con-inritted prior to closing;o "the Loan. 5. Equity Contribution. The following equity contribution is contenrplate;d for tho Project. a. There will be a total equity contribution in the estimated amount of S5,062,375 ("Equity Contribution") .from Investor, based upon an award of 41?o Federal tax credits in the amount of $578,373 per year for ten years ("Tax Credits") by the Tax Credit Allocation Committee of the State of California ("TC.AC") with respect to the Project_ The terms of Borrower's final partnership or operating a�greci:nent. (" orination Ayreemen.t"j, including, without limitation., the amounts, terms and conditions of the. Equity Contribution to be ,made by the investor:, are subject to Bank's approval in .Bank's scale discretion. The Formation Agreement must be executed in final form with Bank's approval, and the: Borrower must be formed and in good standing under the laws of the State of California, prior to the closing of the Loan: h"t.�"aC'.�.[StRCi i'I7E.�C°i�dRl,t`"f 1*G-lt('71.1'�k r IkrE"F1r 128 Mike Condry March 24,2008 t'aae 4 6. Loan Documents. The Loan will be evidenced by a promissory note; the Loan will be secured by a first deed of trust encombering the. Property, i_ncludin in assignment of rents and ]cases and a security agnre ernent; the Loan will be further evidenced and secured by documents with respect to the Construction Loan as described below; assignments of all plan:, contracts and permit rights relating to flxe Project; a financing statement; and such other documents and afreenients as Bank may require; all of which documents and agreements erre to be on forms prescribed by Bank or Bank's counsel. if required by Bank,, the Loan shill also be tt s secured by an assignment of all general partnership interests in 13c>rrr-c��ccr grad ,r.rclt other documents as Bank may require in order to obtain an assignment satisfactory to Batik of the Borrower's and of the General Partner's ri�.,hts to the Investor's capital contribution to Bank as security, Borrower must also execute such other cioeurxxcaxts as may be prescribed by counsel reasonably acceptable to Baur ("Bond Counsel") in order to obtain an opinion of Bond Counsel certified to Bank that interest on the Bank Loam shall be and remain.excluded from `Toss income; of the holder under federal task lav, the issuance of which opinion is a condition of closing of the Loan. 7. Tax and Insurance hnpocinds. Unless waived by Bank, during the Pen-nanent Loan, Borrower shall establish with Bank one or, more non-interest bearing irnpotrnd accounts for the payment of real property taxes and assessments and insurance prerniurns with respect to the Property,to be in accordance with Bank',,;requirements for such accounts. 8 Construction Loam Closi!,ig, Borrower must obtain or satisfy the following arraorx other tlairt. s, with respect to the;Construction Loan prier to Construction Loan closing, (with Bank's approval or satisfaction to be itt Bank's sole discretion): a.. All fees required by Bank shall have been ]maid, or will be paid concurrently with the Construction Loan closing. b. Bank's approval of final plans and specifications, soils reports, enr ineerinl reports, environmental reports, surveys and the like with respect to the;Property and the Project, as approved by the local governmental authority heaving,jurisdiction over the Project. c. Buildiriy and. all other required permits for construction or renovation, as the case may be, of the Improvements, or proof acceptable to Bank that permits are available subject only to the payi-rient of permit fees. d. Bank's approval of a construction cost breakdovm in a tornxat acceptable to Bank with respect to the construction or renovation, as the case may be, of the Improvements, covering rte costs of developing, building, lcasrt.g..� , managing and carrying the c 3- Project until lruxarxezt'I.,o4tn scan cve t,rs.or . C. Bank's approval of corxtracts from rata architect, an engineer. a crencral contractorand major subcontractors as Batik may require. __ 129 Mike Condry Mardi 24,2008 Page 5 f. Bank's approval of the sources and uses of fiends with respect to tile 'Project. 0. Borrower must deposit into a non.-Interest bearing loans-in-process type account with Batik., or othemise secure to Bank's satisfaction, any amounts by which the costs of construction or renovation with respect to the Project exceed the aniount of the Construction Loan allocated for such purposes. li. Borrower must obtain and pay premiums for full performance bonds and payment bonds accel)table to Bank; builder's risk and course of construction insurance; title insurance and all other insurance and bonds as required by Bank; ftoin carriers or banding companies approved by Bank. i. Borrower must sign Bank's Construction and Permanent Loan Agreement and ancillary documents with respect to the Construction Loan, providing far, among other things, disbursements of Loan proceeds according to Bank's disbursement system,and a ten percent 10% retention on hard costs until, among other things, a lien free title endorsement or title policy rewrite has been issued. i Such additional items with respect to the Construction Loan as Bank may require. 9. Permanent Loan Closing. Borrower must obtain or satisfy the following among other things, prior to conversion of the Construction Loan to the Peri-naitont Loan (NvIth Bank's approval or satisfaction to be in Bank's sole discretion): a. All fees required by Bank- shall have been paid. b. Borrower shall have received all applicable portions of the Equity Contribution in accordance with Borrower's Formation Agreement as approved by Bank. C. /Vny excess balance of the Construction Loan shall have been paid down,to the Permanent Loan amount as approved by Bank.at the time of conversion. d, A final unconditional Certificate of Occupancy shall have been issued, and a valid Notice of Completion must have been recorded with respect to the Improvements. e. At least ninety percent (901X0) of the residential units on the Property must be occupied at the scheduled rents previously approved by Bank, for a continuous period of ninety days. f. Bank shall have received a lien free title endorsement or title polley rewrite insurinbu hen-free completion of the constructioii/r-chabil.itatio.ii of the Improvements. LITTI-It 130 Mike Condry March 24,2008 Paye 6 & Batik shall have received in updated appraisal, in form and Substance acceptable to Batik-, at Borrower's cost, in order to determine the current value of the Property, if required by Batik, h. Bank shall have received siich rent rolls and operating statements with respect to the Property as Bank requires In order to determine (in Bank's sole discretion) the pro�jectedannual net operating income for the Project. I indod replacement i Borrower shall have established and initially ft reserves as per the Replacement Reserve Agreement required by Bank. These reserves are to be 5250 per unit per year if a new construction project, or $300 per unit per year if rehabilitation project,with an initial deposit of three(3)times the monthly reserve amount, j. No material default shall CXiSt Under the CoDstructiou Loan or under any other obligation of BorroNver. M 0 inion of Borrower's and Agency's Counsel, As a condition to closing of the Loans, .13,uik must receive a written opinion from Borrower's counsel, 'which counsel. and opinion must be satisfactory to Bank and Bank's counsel., to the effect that, arriong other things, (a)BorroN.\,cr and each of Borrower's 4rerieral partners or members are validlyfornied and existing and have the UlthOrity to consunimate the Loan; (b) the docunients evidencing and securing the Loan are valid and enforceable in accordance with their terms, gubject, only to bankruptcy and any other custornary exceptions-, (c) any consents which are required rrt connection with the L,omi have been obtained; (d) there are no proccedings pendi.n.- or threatened against BOTTOiz,e.r, or any general partner or member of Borrower, if any, or the Property, which would im[lair the Properiv or Borrower's or any general partner's or member's ability to enter into or perform under the documents evidencing and securing the Loan; and (e) such other customary matters as Batik, or Bank's counsel may require. In addition, to the extent Borrower's counsel has provided other parties, including but not limited to, any Investor and any govemmental authorities, with any legal opinions concerning the Tax Credits for the Project, that Borrower's counsel shall incorporate such opinions in its legal opinion to Batik or separately issue such opinions to Batik. 11. NQ11TCCOUrse. The documents evidencing the Loan will include a provision to the efflect that, upon conversion to the Perrnanent Loan, and subject to Batik's custornary carveouts, in the event of default as to payment of principal or interest, Bank's sole recourse will be to the security for the Loan, and not to Borrower. 12. Guarantees. Michael Condry ("Guarantor") will provide completion and repayment guarantees of the Loan,on Bank's forin, to be released upon conversion to Pernianent Loan. 13, Contractor's Bonds. The Project contractor must be bondable for the flill amount of the general contact, and must provida full performance and payment bonds for the work covered by the general contract. PURCiMS-F,IXTTE'T� 131 Mike Condry March 24,2008 Page 7 14, Completed Annlication. Borrower's application For the Loan must contain all information requested by Bank, Barth reserves the right to require Borrower to provide any additional. inforniation that Bank decors necessary as part of Bank's underwriting process. If Borrower has, or will apply for a bond allocation thoutjm the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee ("CDLAC"), any missing items from the Batik's application package must be provided to Bank no later than 20 days after the final allocation tneeting (herein defined as "Batik's Deadline"). Borrower shall inform Bank immediately upon receipt of CDLAC's Resolution regarding bond allocation. 15. Loan Fees. Seethe attached Exhibit A. 16. Other Fees, and Costs. Borrower must pay such other fees incurred by Batik, including, without limitation, appraisal, appraisal review, environmental consulting and revie,kv, cost engineering and planreview, draw administrationflinspection fees of $500,00 per month fi-om Loan closin- throe-h final retention, processing, title and attomevs fees, at such times and in such amounts as Bank may require in connection with tire, processing, documentation, closing and disbursement of the Loan. Batik- shall not be obligated to pay, and Borrower shall hold Batik hartilless front, and indemnify Batik against, any closing costs 111 connection with the Loan. Certain costs to be paid by Borrower are identified in the Application Fee Agreement, attached as E-xhibit B hereto. 17. Brokers, Borrower shall indemnify Bank and hold Batik hanliless front and against any claire for payment of a broker's foe, finder's fee or consultant's fee in connection with the placement of tile Loan, 18. Final Approval. Borrower's request for credit from Batik is subject to approval, in their sole discretion, by Bank's appropriate credit officers or committees, who may consider, without limitation, the financial condition of and management ability of Borrower, General Partner(s), Mernber(s), Guarantor(s), Investor arld Borrower's general contractor for the Project, economic and physical feasibility of the Project, sufficiency of Project net cash flow to cover debt service, additional sources of financing and equity funding for the Project, credit histories, title matters and such other matters as Bank may determine. Borrower's request is, also subject to compliance with laws and regulations applicable to Batik. PURCHASC lzrrER 132 M tba�fi� I�rR F tE 9.;f1 ai 3r .T ., j r1l :f t i�.�,.. ��li. 4. �d_Y X�.4 .�` a,,l f ati i. r.�F; � Cl..a__>' � � .J :i[':p_i i Ley Npa : ft r k {...'}� X�S�,S >'�,A.€8,�t�.w��3�a.` 133 Mike C"ondry March 24,2008 Page 9 EXHIBIT SUMMARY OF I.,ONN' '['I;ItMS *These terrri;s are subject to adjusti-hent by I—qj , if Loan has not closed within 1801 days after date o[this letter (.7oustruction Loan Rate: Sarne as Pennaiient Loan Date. Monthly Payment: Interest only on funds as disbursed until maturity--. Maturityr:, Ei ltt en (18)months, subject to any e tension options. Origination Fee: One percent (,1.0%)of the Construction-oaii amount, due at. recordation of Construction Loan. Extensions, Subject to satisfaction of terms and conditions, two (2) extension options shall be available for six (6) months each, at a fee:of 0.50% of Construction Loan aniount for each extension. Prcpaymnent Fee: 'Mone, res:uniptionlTransfer: Not permitted. Bank's due;can transfier clause applies. Exceptions may be made with Bank's consent for(i) speci:6.c futur€:transfer to be approved pre-closins, and(ii)replacement of Borrower's general partner or managing member for cause per Rorrower`,,,; organization bloc urnent ', Arn',c„Ar rko CDL1%C DIFE(ITUR(HASE;LT,7,rrr;. 134 N'like Condry March 24,2008 Page 10 Permanent Loan Rate: Fixed rate of one and three quarter percentage points (1.60'Xo) III excess of the 30-year Treasury bond as of the date Loan Documents are finalized, discounted by an appropriate tax exempt factor. The rate, if the Loan were to be funded today, would be approximate 5.261/'0. Monthly Payment: Based on thirty(30) year amortization., cornmenerne upon conversion to PernIanent Loan. Maturity'. The Maturity Date for the Loan will be 30 years from the date of Conversion to the Permanent Loan. Prepayment Fee; Yield Maintenance ASSLIMption/Transfer: Not pen-nitted. Bank's dUe on transfer clause applies. Exceptions may be made, with Bank's consent for(i) specific future transfer to be approved pre-closing and (ii) replacement ofBorroiver's general partner or managing member for cause,per Borrowm's organization documents. A I LFI-rFR 135 Mike Landry March 24,2005 Page 11 Exhibit B CDLAC APPLICATION FEE AGREEMENT This Application Fee Agreement ("Agreement") is considered to bean addendum to the CDLAC Commitment Letter("Letter") issued to Atascadero California Manor, LP ("Borrower-) for California Manor Oil March 24, 2008. The Agreement and the Letter are to be. read together and considered as one document. In order for Lender to explore further the possibility of providiril-, financing, Lender requires Borrower's payment of certain_ fees and deposits as specified in this Agreement, Therefore, Borrower and Lender agree as follows: 1. Con-inleted Application and Pavnient of Fees. Borrower's application for the Loan must contain all information requested by Lender. 11' Lender has not rcceivcd a completed application For the Loan, and payment of all fees and deposits required in this Letter, by the earlier of (the "Expiration Date"): a) June 25, 2008, or b) the Lenders Deadline, Lender shall have no further liability or obligation to Borrower with respect to processin(,�, Borrower's 1 application. Lender reserve-, the right to require Borrower to provide any additional informationZ:� that Lender deems necessary as part of Lender's underwriting process. 2. Other Fees. Borrower must pay such other fees, including, without limitation, appraisal, appraisal review, environmental consulting and review, cost engineering and plan review, draw administration inspection Cees of$500.00 per month from Loan closing through final retention, processing, title and attorney's fees, at such times and in such amounts as Lender may require in connection with the processing, documentation, closing- and disbursement of the Loan. Leader shall not be obligated to pay, and Borrower shall hold 'Lender harrnIcss from, and indemnify Lender against, any closing costs in connection with the Loan. Without limiting the generality of the 'foregoing, Borrower must pay to Lender, no later than the Expiration Date, the 1`61lo4w-ing: a. A nonrefundable Appraisal Deposit in the amount of$6,500 for the cost of an appraisal and appraisal review of the Property. If the actual cost thereof is more than the amount paid by Borrower, then Borrower agrees to pay to Lender such increased Cost LII)On request. If Lender's actual appraisal expenses are less than the amount paid by Borrower, then Lender shall apply the difference as a credit toward the Construction Loan Fee it' the Construction Loam closes. The full cost of the arpraisaland appraisal review must lie paid prior to theLender's cric,,,agernent of the appraiser. ,-..........-- NOTE: Lender will order its own Appraisals. b, A nonrefundable Wal Deposit in the amount of 510,000 for legal expenses incurred by Lender in connection with the Loan, IfLunder's actual legal expenses are Z7 more thari the arnount paid by Borrower, then Borrower agrees to pay to Lender such increased ATASCADUM-CIA AC DiRa-ITURC!iAS1'1.r,rn7R 136 Mike Condry %larch 24,21008 Page 12 amount upon request. 117 Lender's actual legal expenses, are less than the amount paid by Borrower, then Lender shall apply the difflerence as a credit toward the Construction Loan Fee if the,Construction Loan closes. C. A nonrefundable Cost Engineering Fee of S1,500 for the cost of cost engineering and constniction review services. If the Lender's cost enuinecring expense,,, are more than the amount paid by Borrower, then Borrower agrees to pay to Lender such increased arnOUnt upon request. d. A nonrefundable Environmental AssessrncnVRcvjeXv Fee of waived (per site) for the cost of Lender's (or Lender's Consultant's) review of environmental assessment reports, asbestos and lead-based paint sampling reports, abatement \vork specifications, abatement and monitoring contracts, and close-out reports, as applicable. If the I Lender's actual environmental assess in en t/rev i cvv, e-xpenses, are more than the URIOUnt PZ11d by Borrower, then Borrower agrees to pay to Lender Such increased amount upon request. "I I � NOTE: Under requires that the Borrower order its environmental assessment reports from licensed environmentalconsultants on the Lender's approved list, and that the reports be prepared according to standards that will be provided by Lender to Borrower. Outside Environmental Assessment Surveys may be reviewed for acceptability and use, if they -ire less than six months old. If acceptable to Lender's environmental consultant, they may be used in lieu of a new report. Borrower acknowleftes that the Lender's Environmental Assessment/Review Fee is to cover Lender's review of the Borrower's reports anIv, and does not cover the actual cost of any of the reports. Borrower will be directiv responsible for orderinp,and paving for its own reports. Al ASCADEK0 CDLACIM�rc'T PURCHASE LEI TER 137 Nike Condry March 24,2008 lla-e 13 4. Total Fees/Deposits. Borrower must remit a check fbi-S18.000, representing the total of the.fees/deposits quoted above, prior to the I`xpiratloi) Date. UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED: Atascadero California Manor, LP, a California limited partnership By: Atascadero Cal.1,16mia Manor. LLC, a Califor.iiia limited liability company Its: General Partner By: Its: Dated: By: Central Valley Coalition for Affordable Housing a California non-profit coTT,)oration Its: General Partner By:_ Its: Dated., I MA WE LMEX 138 y SIM p 0110.i.: �. W VTIA 1.0I.•4i1. l.arte°Uae.cy Cit, of ltascaderca 6967 i'.i Cari.irata Rail Re.: Iaulalic I-Ie aritar>rccaaaCsr f0Tt California Manor Dear M.rrt : Vlietm Real 1°.state "he ".` pplicant") has submitted to the C.ali:fi�rnia Statewide C011ataaaaaaitiCS l.)CVCI0l)ttaenr Authority (die Muthcatig") an application (the "Applicatit as)") Ccar tale Iitlaracing of the saceluisitican and rehabilitation of a senior housin« faciiita (t(zt "Project") through tlac issuatacc of tai;-c.Xempt VA"aticxsas ill x111 aggro atc p itac ipal amcyessat not to moscmi SI II nx`alli M 'Ile Isoject is 1<rcated in the (ate° of ,' rascad ro at 10165 1'll Camino Real. as &soul ed itz the atrached ;Ipplicatir>ta. l'he purpos of this len-Cr is to reeiucrst the.assistance of tlac Gita' of Aniscad .ro in c uducting asta `1i esd avlutac I(')t}t. public::hearing nth r"pecr it) tine prcTcrsed Iin.ancVg. As you are aware, the .lttst>my is .a jt ht cmche of powers taaathority cm istbg of nutaacrtaus California cities, counties .and special districts, including the (;ity of Aniscadero. The Authm'ity, httrsu.ant to its Amended and Restatcd )()int l:-xercise of 1 overs Agreement, is authorized to ;assist ill the financing of fac:ilitics for senior housing. Ill ordcr to initiate such a fan atacilig, the member participant of tie Authority ill which the proposed facilities will be located trust 6) conduct xa public hearing and (iij approve the Authority's issuauacc of- indchtednem I'hcrcbm, although the.. Authority will be the issuer of tale taN-excroipt ruv er>uc txhlil�ati«rls for the applicant; the financing catmot proceed Nvithout the City of Arascadcj-os approval of the final cing. i l have attached for your pa copy of the Application iccva the 1ihr rlrv: will he receiving slaaartic °a letter f om Tom Doc vncy of Jones H.111, sewing :as bond Jing the public he-wring process .and the re uivenicnts under smtc and federal. cy�attasrl,_dc�ettl , 1 l laws, 'including thea Tax F�cluity and I;iscal Responsibility Act (lET1iA). This letter will include for vour review the form of Notice of Public I learitag and the form of Qy Coulwil. RemAuti m evidenciiig that the City has approvcd of tile fiaxancing: 139 - 2 . April 11,2008 Thank vou for vour attention to the inatua, 111(asc. contact mc at vour carliest COMICIlicnec (c) discuss the City's Nvillingness in the scheduling of Such Public hcaling. Silicerely, A Terrence Murphy Tom Dowtim,tones Hall;tdowney(( joncAmllxom PlICIOSLItCS 140 Micon Real Estate 1370 Jensen Avenue Sanger, CA 93657 April 22, 2008 Mr. Marty Tracey City of Atascadero Re: California Manor Apartments Dear Mr.Tracey: Please accept this letter as a description of the acquisition/rehabilitation project known as California Manor Apartments. My wholly owned company, Micon Real Estate, a sole proprietorship, has under contract to purchase California Manor, a 95 unit senior congregate care facility,for$11,500,000. The project is currently financed with a USDA 515 mortgage with a principal balance of $3,000,000. The project is subject to a Use Restriction Agreement between Owner/Seller and the USDA restricting the rents and incomes of the tenants living at the project. The current restriction is set at 80%of the County's median income level. The project also benefits from 81 units of USDA provided rental assistance, allowing those qualified tenants to pay rent and utilities at 30%of their income level, with the USDA making up the difference between that rent level and the rent level needed to support the expenses and debt service at the project with rental assistance. USDA has offered to increase the level of rental assistance to 94 units at closing. I intend to take the project through the USDA's preservation program of transfer and assumption, which will require that I purchase the project at a price supported by an MAI appraisal approved by USDA. I will rehabilitate the project pursuant to a Capital Needs Assessment by an independent third party provider, reviewed and approved by the USDA's architect. I will finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of the project by selling tax-exempt bonds allocated by the State of California Treasury Department's California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC)to Washington reserved to the project b the State of f federal tax credits e Mutual Bank,or another lender, the sale o p J Y California Treasury Department's California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) to investors, it assumption of the existing USDA 515 financing, and by way of a soft money loan by the Multiple Family Housing Program, administered by the Housing and Community Development Department of the State of California. If the project is fortunate enough to receive financing from MHP,the City of Atascadero will not need to participate in the financing of the project. Pursuant to the financing involved, I will execute and record Use Restriction Agreements with CDLAC, CTCAC, HCD and the USDA which will govern the operation of the project for a least the next 30 years. 141 Mr. Marty Tracey April 22, 2008 Page Two HCD requires affordability at levels lower than the other agencies, but at a minimum, 10%of the units will be restricted to those seniors earning 50%of the County's median income level and 90%of the units will be restricted to those seniors earning 60%of the County's median income level. The rehabilitation will involve repair or replacement of all major capital improvements, including but not limited to the roofing, siding, fencing, parking lot improvements, exterior paint, cabinets, appliances, carpet,vinyl, lighting, and more. Not less than 5% of the units will be made fully handicap accessible and the site and project interiors will be made accessible for the handicapped pursuant to an Access Barrier Report, prepared by an independent third party and reviewed and approved by the USDA's architect. Prevailing wages will be paid for the construction work needed and will involve not less than$31,000 of hard costs per unit. The tenants will be relocated according the Uniform Relocation Act,which governs relocation activity. It is likely that every tenant now living at California Manor will qualify to continue to live at the project, without a rent increase. The rent will be adjusted upward to cover new debt used to acquire and rehabilitate the project, but the rent increase will come from increased rental assistance, not from tenants. Tenants will be compensated in the event they will be required to move from one unit to another during rehabilitation. California Manor suffers from a 30%vacancy at this time, which will allow temporary relocation to occur on-site. The project now offers one meal per day per tenant, without the requirement that any tenant purchases said meal. Only a handful of tenants avail themselves of the meal program. Each unit is equipped with a fully operational kitchen. The USDA has determined that the meal program at California Manor is no longer needed or required and this service will be discontinued once the project completes the process of transfer and assumption. At the time this service is discontinued,we will have Meals on Wheels, or another similar program, assisting tenants with meals in the transition from having meals prepared for them to preparing meals on their own. TEFRA(the Tax Exempt Fiscal Responsibility Act) requires that any developer intending to finance affordable housing with federally tax-exempt bond debt contact the local municipality for purposes of conducting a public hearing to allow the municipality and its citizens to weigh the appropriateness of the project for the community. It is for this reason that we have provided you with a resolution, staff report and noticing instructions. An approved resolution must be returned to CDLAC within 30 days of the application deadline for the application to meet one of the threshold requirements. I would appreciate it if the City could calendar the TEFRA hearing as soon as practicable so that we can satisfy this requirement. A successful TEFRA hearing is also a contingency within my purchase agreement with Owner/Seller. 142 Mr. Marty Tracey April 22, 2008 Page Three Micon Real Estate acts as developer, Micon Builders acts as general contractor and Valley Relocation Services handles relocation activity, including coordination between property management, the tenants and the construction crews. There will be an independent third party property management company approved by the USDA operating the project once escrow closes and the transfer and assumption process is complete. At closing, a limited partnership, wherein Michael L. Condry, dba Micon Real Estate, as sole p p t as Administrative General Partner, will take title member/manager of a limited liability company, will ac , as owner. Central Valley Coalition for Affordable Housing, a 501 C3 Non-Profit Corporation,will act as Managing General Partner. The partnership will admit limited partners, a tax-credit investment fund, whichrovides equity to the project through the sale of the federal tax credits. The partnership will p q Y apply to the State Board of Equalization for the welfare tax exemption. Micon Real Estate, independently and through partnerships with others, has acquired and rehabilitated twenty(20) affordable housing projects comprising approximately 3,000 units in the States of California and Hawaii, and continues to successfully own and operate said units under the auspices of CDLAC, CTCAC, USDA, HUD and other state and local agencies. When this process is complete,the City of Atascadero and the tenants living at California Manor will benefit from a newly rehabilitated affordable senior housing project, with several new Use Restriction Agreements running an additional 30 years or more,with competent and capable management and ownership. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Michael L. Condry Email version Hard Copy on Letterhead by mail 143 Attachment 4 Housing Bond Application APPLICANT INFORMATION Application Number: 2008052 Name of Developer: Micon Real Estate Primary Contact: Michael Condry Title: Owner Street Address: 1370 Jensen Suite: B City: Sanger State: CA Zip Code: 93657 Telephone Number: (559) 875-3330 Fax Number: (559) 875-3365 E-mail: mcondry@miconrealestate.com BORROWER DESCRIPTION Type of Entity: For-profit Corporation Non-profit Corporation Municipality Partnership Other(specify): For Non-profits only: Will you be applying for State Volume Cap? Yes Name of Borrowing Entity: Atascadero California Manor, LP Date Established: 3/24/2008 Number of Multi-Family Housing Projects Completed in the Last 10 Years: 11 Number of Low Income Multi-Family Housing Projects Completed in the Last 10 Years: 11 PRINCIPAL FINANCE TEAM INFORMATION UNDERWRITERIPLACEMENT AGENT BOND COUNSEL Firm: Washington Mutual Firm: Jones Hall Contact: Marty Jones Contact: Tom Downey Address: 180 Grand Avenue Address: 650 California Street Oakland, CA 94612 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (510)267-6251 Telephone: (415) 391-5780 Fax: tbd Fax: (415)391-5484 E-mail: marty.jones@wamu.net E-mail: tdowney@joneshall.com Page 1 of 4 144 FINANCING STRUCTURE Type of Financing: Public Sale Private Placement Refunding For Refundings only: Will you be applying for State Volume Cap? No For Refundings only: Is this a transfer of property to a new owner? Maturity: 30 Years Interest Rate Mode: F7 Fixed Variable Credit Enhancement: None Letter of Credit Bond Insurance l Other(specify): Name of Credit Enhancement Provider or Private Placement Purchaser: N/A Expected Rating: Unrated r S & P Moody's F Fitch Projected State Allocation Pool: General Mixed Income Rural Will the project use Tax-Credit as a souce of funding?: Yes PROJECT DESCRIPTION Current Project Name: California Manor New Project Name: same Project Street Address: 10165 EI Camino Real City: Atascadero State: CA Zip Code: 93422 County: San Luis Obispo Is Project located in unincorporated part of the County? No Total Number of Units: Market: 0 Restricted: 94 Total Units: 94 Lot Size: 4.73 acres Amenities: tbd Type of Construction (i.e., Wood Frame, 2 Story, 10 Buildings): 1 Two Story Wood Frame Building, 1 Maintenance Building Type of Housing: Family F7 Senior New Construction Acq/Rehab City or county contact information: Contact Name: Title: Phone Number: Ext. Fax Number: E-mail: Page 2 of 4 145 SOURCES & USES CONSTRUCTION SOURCES USES $9,000,000 Land Acquisition: $1,500,000 Tax-Exempt Bond Proceeds: Building Acquisition: $10,000,000 Taxable Bond Proceeds: $4,742,269 Construction or Remodel: $2,295,249 Tax Credits: $57,515 Cost of Issuance: $219,120 Developer Equity: Capitalized Interest: $50,000 Other Funds(Describe): $3,300,000 Reserves: $450,000 USDA Other Funds(Describe): .............. Relocation $300,000 ................. Developer fee $1,964,616 ....................... Architect/Engineering $100,000 TOTAL: $17,099,784 Soft Costs $220,799 ....................... TOTAL: $17,099,784 PUBLIC BENEFIT Percentage of Units in Low Income Housing: 99% Percentage of Area Median Income(AMI)for Low Income Housing Units: 10@50%AMI; 84@60%AMI Total Number of Management Units: 1 #of Restricted Restricted Market Expected Unit Size AMI Units Rent Savings 1 Bedroom 50 9 $628 $699 $71 1 Bedroom 60 78 $753 $837 $84 2 Bedrooms 50 1 $753 $837 $84 2 Bedrooms 60 6 $904 $1,005 $101 Remarks: Page 3 of 4 146 PRINCIPAL FINANCE TEAM INFORMATION continued FINANCIAL ADVISOR REBATE ANALYST Firm: N/A Firm: TBD Contact: Contact: Address: Address: Telephone: Telephone: Fax: Fax: E-mail: E-mail: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT Please provide the following as an additional attachment: Attachment Description of Information A $5,000 non-refundable* application fee payable to"California Communities.". *Refundable only if financing not approved. MAILING ADDRESS California Communities 2033 N. Main St., Suite 700 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Page 4 of 4 147 148 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 9/23/08 �Rinim� �u `ilii Atascadero City Council Staff Report - Public Works Department Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Storm Water Management Plan NPDES Phase II RECOMMENDATION: Council direct staff to file the 2004 Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) with the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) with language that the City will conduct a future process to attempt to incorporate the Board's February 15, 2008 revised standards to the extent practicable for this community. REPORT-IN-BRIEF: During this past year, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has taken two actions that affect the City of Atascadero. The first is to amend the Basin Plan. The Basin Plan update includes a number of new onsite wastewater (septic system) regulations, one of which requires the City to develop a Septic System Management Plan. The second action requires Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) revisions. The actions differ in that the Basin Plan.changes affect onsite wastewater systems (septic systems) while the SWMP changes affect the City owned storm water system. Both actions will require the allocation of additional City resources. Staff plans to update the Council on the Basin Plan at a future meeting. This report focuses on the RWQCB's latest request for revisions to the City's SWMP. City staff has been working to prepare a SWMP since 2003. The City of Atascadero originally submitted a draft SWMP in 2003, but like most other Central Coast cities, the SWMP was not approved by the RWQCB. In February 2008, the RWQCB issued a letter regarding the processing of SWMPs. The letter included four new regulations that 9 g p g g would need to be incorporated into the City's SWMP prior to being approved. These four requirements are in addition to the six minimum storm water pollution control measures that are required by the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II regulations. The City is required to amend its draft SWMP and secure RWQCB approval by March 2009. City staff is requesting Council direction on how to proceed with the SWMP. 149 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 9/23/08 DISCUSSION: What is NPDES, what does it do, and how is it enforced? The NPDES program was established under the Federal Clean Water Act in 1977 to protect and restore surface waters of the United States. Surface waters include wetlands, lakes, creeks, and rivers. The enforcement of NPDES is delegated by the Federal government to the states. The California State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) is responsible for State implementation of NPDES. The State Board, a regulatory state agency, and the nine RWQCBs coordinate implementation throughout California. The RWQCB that oversees Atascadero is Region 3 - Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Our RWQCB covers a six-county area, including San Luis Obispo County, Santa Barbara County, Monterey County, San Benito County, Santa Clara County and Santa Cruz County. The RWQCB is composed of nine officials that are appointed by the Governor and serve four-year terms. The RWQCB appoints an Executive Officer who is responsible for day to day operations and enforcement of regulations. How do Storm Water Management Plans (SWMP) relate to NPDES and what do the plans cover? A SWMP is required for every City and County in the State as part of NPDES Phase If. NPDES was implemented in two phases depending on the size of agencies. Phase I required agencies with populations over 100,000 to comply. NPDES Phase II required cities smaller than 100,000 in population to comply. SWMPs define strategies and provide guidelines for the protection of water quality and the reduction of pollutant discharge. Prior to the Region 3 RWQCB's additional regulations, a SMWP was required to address six minimum requirements: 1. Public Education 2. Public Participation 3. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 4. Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control 5. Post Construction Storm Water Management 6. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations What Process has the City followed to prepare a SWMP? In February, 2002, the City Council directed staff to begin development of a SWMP as required by NPDES Phase II. The City retained URS Inc., to assist staff in drafting the plan. In March 2003, the City Council directed staff to submit the SWMP to the RWQCB. The RWQCB reviewed the plan and requested a number of revisions. The City was working earnestly to get the SWMP plan approved. By December 2004, the City and RWQCB had completed three re-submittal cycles of the SMWP and responded to comments from the RWQCB. 150 i ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 9/23108 Shortly after December 2004, RWQCB staff indicated that the City of Atascadero's Storm Water Plan adoption would be delayed because of problems with staffing and heavy opposition to other cities' plans from environmental groups. Coincidentally, the City of Paso Robles' SWMP, which had been submitted in the same timeframe as Atascadero's, was approved. The City's draft SWMP remained under review with the RWQCB for several years. Staff did not receive any further comments from the RWQCB until November 2007. In November 2007, the RWQCB notified Atascadero and other agencies that a new timeline and process for adopting the outstanding SWMPs would be imposed. The new process and timeline was presented and approved at the RWQCB meeting on December 7, 2007. At this meeting many agencies were concerned about the lack of detail provided in the Board's staff report regarding the four additional SWMP requirements imposed by the local RWQCB. On February 15, 2008, RWQCB staff notified the City of Atascadero and other cities of the new requirements and timeline for Storm Water Plan adoption (refer to Attachment 1). The letter included four new requirements that are likely to have a major impact on Atascadero's future development and "housekeeping" practices. What are the new requirements being imposed by the RWQCB? Listed below is a summary of the four new RWQCB requirements that were released in the February 15, 2008 letter (refer to attachment 1 and 2). 1. Maximize infiltration of clean storm water, minimize runoff volume and rate: The RWQCB believes that excess storm water is a problem for streams and creeks. According to the RWQCB, excess water may cause erosion of stream banks and down cutting of stream beds. Therefore, the RWQCB is requiring agencies to modify development practices to retain the same amount of water onsite post-development as occurred prior to development. The City currently requires the rate of stormwater run-off to be maintained at pre-development levels but does not restrict the quantity of run-off. The proposed changes would res quantity p p restrict the uantit of run-off to pre-development levels. This represents a change in the thinking and design of how stormwater has been handled for decades. In order to comply with this requirement projects will likely have to incorporate onsite retention systems and utilize other means such as porous paving materials which will allow stormwater to permeate back into the site. 2. Protection of riparian areas, wetlands and their buffer zones: The RWQCB is requiring agencies to determine and implement appropriate setbacks to riparian areas, creeks, and wetlands. It is not clear exactly which waterways would be affected by this requirement. It appears that the minimum setbacks could be greater than those currently adopted by the City's General Plan. 151 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 9/23/08 3. Minimize pollutant loading: The RWQCB is requiring agencies to incorporate Best Management Practices (BMP) into SWMPs that will minimize the discharge of pollutants affecting creeks and streams. For example, the City will need to incorporate specific BMP that will address low dissolved oxygen and pathogens into Atascadero Creek. This requirement will likely require modifications to the City's existing stormwater drainage system that may result in expensive modifications, maintenance and retrofits. 4. Provide long-term watershed protection: Agencies are required to develop plans to control watershed impacts, also known as hydromodification. The RWQCB desires that watersheds contain no more than 3-10% impervious surfaces (paving). This means that the City will have to develop plans and requirements that limit new and redevelopment impacts on storm water runoff volume in creeks and watersheds through site design and limitations on lot coverage. These requirements are complicated and the boundaries of the watershed are not clearly delineated. Due to the unique nature of Atascadero's topography which includes several valleys, creeks, and riparian areas, the City could potentially contain multiple watersheds. Since many parts of Atascadero already exceed the 5% threshold, this rule is likely to change development practices and redevelopment. It is not clear how this rule will affect compact infill development like the City encourages Downtown. Additionally, the cost of complying with these new requirements is not known. What is the timeline for approving/enacting new SWMP? The timeline provided by the RWQCB is provided below: Table 1, Water Board Timeline Task Date Phase (:Water Board Assessment of July 8, 2008 Water Quality Challenges Phase II: City Finalization of Draft SWMP and Water Board Staff and September 17, 2008 Public SWMP Review Phase III: City SWMP Redraft October 29, 2008 Phase IV: Water Board staff Final November 19, 2008 Review and Posting of SWMP Phase V: Water Board Action (if March 20, 2009 needed) 152 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 9/23/08 In essence, the Board is giving cities 60 days from the date comments are provided by RWQCB staff to complete the revised SWMP. While this may seem like an appropriate amount of time, staff has had concerns that once comments are received, this does not allow for adequate time to analyze the specific impacts of these regulations on the community and then have time for public comment, workshops and deliberation. As of the date of this report, the City has yet to receive comments on the previously submitted 2004 SWMP, and therefore it has been difficult to draft a revised plan. In the meantime, the timeline continues to move forward. Subsequently, staff requested an extension in order to have time to receive comments from the Board, study the impacts of the new regulations, and have a public process to consider impacts of the SWMP. A letter was received from RWQCB staff on August 12, 2008 (see Attachment 3), that denied the City's request for additional time. Staff has submitted a letter requesting reconsideration of the RWQCB's time extension denial. I 153 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 9/23/08 What Are Other Cities Doing? Atascadero is not the only agency facing the imposition of the four new requirements. Twenty-four agencies in the RWQCB jurisdiction are facing the same requirements. The following chart outlines several other agencies and their actions taken to date: SCcrr Water plan �►gency Curren#F�lan'Status ` t A rivallate Submitted December 2004 Draft for initial Water Board review. Staff will be responding to the Water Board Atascadero March 2009 based on City Council direction. The Water Board has notified staff that comments will be provided to the City based on the 2004 draft and the City is still required to address the four additional requirements. Submitted Draft in August 2008. The LSD's plan Templeton CSD March 2009 addresses facilities they own. The County of San Luis Obis o's plan covers the rest of the town. The Water Board has notified the City that they will be Paso Robles* Approved 2004 addressing the four additional requirements during their next Storm Water Plan update in 2009. The Water Board has notified the County that they will be County of San Luis Obispo* Approved 2008 addressing the four additional requirements during their next Storm Water Plan update in 2012. The City resubmitted its Storm Water Plan in September 12, 2008 for initial Water Board Review. The City has addressed the four additional requirements by either City of San Luis Obispo April 2009 telling the Water Board they already have standards that address the Water Board's concerns (LID and riparian setback standards), or offering to do study's and report back to the Board in three years to present options H dromodification Plan). The plan has made it through the appeal period and was approved in early September. The City City of Santa Maria September 2008 responded to the Regional Board saying that they would study the issues brought up in the February 15 letter and report back to the Regional Board in two ears. Lompoc and the Building Industry Association has appealed the Storm Water Plan approval to a Full Water City Lompoc October 2008 Board Hearing. The City of Lompoc was required to submit a Storm Water Plan prior to the RWQCB's July 10, 2008 letter which relaxed requirements that Lompoc previouslyaddressed. The City has re-submitted to the Regional Board on September 5, 2008. The City revised their Storm Water City of Morro Bay April 2009 Plan to be similar to the County of San Luis Obispo Storm Water Plan. The City's Storm Water Plan will now be subject to a sixty day review before final approval. A hearing will be held if any person or agency requests one. *The City of Paso Robles and San Luis Obispo County already have approved Storm Water Plans. Agencies with approved Storm Water Plans will be required to address the four additional measures when their Storm Water Plans are up for their five year review. 154 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 9123/08 How Should the City Respond to the RWQCB's New Requirements? Staff is very concerned about the RWQCB's four new SWMP requirements. In addition, the RWQCB has provided a short timeframe to analyze and integrate the requirements into the City's draft SWMP. Staff is also concerned that the short timelines have limited the opportunity for public participation in the SWMP process. Staff has reviewed the approach of neighboring cities to comply with SWMP requirements. The City of Santa Maria has submitted its SWMP with a provision that they will review and incorporate standards that implement the new requirements in the next two years. It is staff's understanding that the RWQCB has approved Santa Maria's SWMP. Therefore, staff is proposing Atascadero resubmit the SWMP with a provision agreeing to review and study these issues in the future. The approach would allow time for adequate staff analysis and public participation regarding these four new requirements. What Alternatives Are Available to the City? 1. The City does not File a Timely SMWP It is staff's understanding that if the City's SWMP is not submitted by November 19, 2008, RWQCB staff will unilaterally insert the new requirements into the City's plan and they will then be in effect. RWQCB staff's action could be appealed at the RWQCB Board meeting of March 20, 2009. 2. Incorporate the Four Requirements into the SWMP Council could direct staff to begin a thorough evaluation of the four additional requirements and return to the City Council for approval of a plan that fully complies with the latest RWQCB plan requirements. Staff would need to hire a consultant to assist with this effort and begin a public participation process. Staff does not think this could be accomplished before the November deadline. 3. Resubmit the existing SWMP The City could resubmit the existing 2004 SWMP without modification. Staff would expect the RWQCB to reject this plan and unilaterally add the four requirements. This alternative likely has the same end result and Alternative 1 above. In addition, the Council could direct staff to: A. Seek Legislative Relief: The City could approach its legislators to have laws written or changed to provide relief from the four additional requirements. This option would be time consuming and require significant staff resources. B. Seek Judicial Relief: The City could challenge the requirements and the process in court. This option would be time consuming and expensive with significant City Attorney time required. 155 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 9/23/08 FISCAL IMPACT: The long term fiscal impact is unknown at this time but could be significant. Staff is estimating the consultant costs will likely range between $30,000 and $50,000 to study the impacts of the new requirements and prepare a compliant SWMP. ATTACHMENTS: 1. RWQCB staff's February 15, 2008 Letter 2. RWQCB staff's July 10, 2008 Letter 3. RWQCB staff's August 12, 2008 Letter— denying time extension request 156 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 9/23/08 Attachment 1 RWQCB's February 15, 2008 process fetter California Regional Water (duality Control Board Linda S.Adams Central Coast Region Rgeney.Secretary Arnold Sehwmn =er 2ntemet Address: htip:/lwww.waterboards.ea govicmtrilcoast Governor 895 Aerovista Place,Suite 101,San Luis Obispo,Caliromia 93401-7906 Phone(805)549-3147•FAX(805)543-0397 February 15,2008 «AddressBlock» «AgencyMailingAddressu «AgencyCity»,CA«AgencyZipat aGreetingLineu: Notification to Traditional,Small M84s on Process for Enrolling under the State's Gieneral NPDES Permit for Storm Water Discharges Introduction As Executive Officer of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region (Water Board), I am writing to notify you of the Water Board's revised process for enrolling traditional, small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) under the State's General Permit No. CAS000004 (General Permit). Water Board staff have identified you as an entity that owns or operates an MS4,so you must enroll in the General Permit and develop and implement a Storm Water Management Program(SWMP). This letter describes the SWMP approval process and our expectations regarding the content of your SWMP to comply with the General Permit,and provides you with the schedule Water Board staff intend to follow for review of your SWMP and enrollment ofour MS4 under the General Permit. Staff will communicate further withou as ou y your enrollment ollment cycles begin,to establish specific schedules for the five phases leading to enrollment. Water Board staff will evaluate your SWMP for compliance with the General Permit requirements, including the Maximum Extent Practicable standard, and as appropriate will approve the SWMP and enroll you in the General Permit. If requested,Water Board staff will schedule a public hearing before the Central Coast Water Board for consideration of an individual SWMP. The Water Board's revised enrollment process is a fundamental shift from the way we have reviewed and approved SWMPs to date. The revised enrollment process eliminates the: multiple SWMP reviewledit iterations and negotiations that characterized our previous approach. For SWMPs that do not meet the schedule and content described here for General Permit compliance, staff will draft specific resolutions or individual permits for Water Board consideration that will protect water quality,beneficial uses,and the biological and physical integrity of watersheds. Enrollment Process and Schedule Water Board staff grouped the 24 remaining un-enrolled traditional MS4s into eight enrollment cycles (Table 1). Each cycle spans a period of 33 to 38 weeks and concludes, on the projected date, with Water Board approval of individual SWMPs and enrollment of the M34s under the General Permit. Each enrollment cycle includes five time-limited phases requiring specific actions by both Water Board staff and the MS4 (Table 2). The precise timing and duration of each phase is subject to California Environmental Protection Agency to Recycled Paper 157 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 9/23/08 «First—Name»«Last—Name» -2. February 15,2008 change; Water Board staff will develop specific schedules at the commencement of each enrollment cycle. Table 1:Enrollment C cies for Attachment 1 and 2 MS4s Projected Projected Projected Cycle MS4 Group Group Members Start Date for Executive Board SWMP Enrollment Cycle Officer SWMP Approval — Approval 1 Santa Maria/Lompoc Santa Maria Jan.22,2008 July 28,2008 Sept.5,2008 Lompoc San Luis Obis O 2 Coastal Santa Barbara Goleta Jan.29,2008 September 2, Oct.17,2008 County Carpinteria 2008 Santa Barbara Santa Barbara UC Santa Barbara 3 Santa Cruz Mountains Santa Cruz County Mid February 2008 October 20, Dec.5,2008 and Coast Capitola 2008 San Luis Soquel Obispo Aptos Ben Lomond Boulder Creek Live Oak Felton Coralitos Watsonville City of Santa Cruz Scotts Valley UC Santa Cruz 4 Coastal San Luis Arroyo Grande Mid April 2008 January2009 2009—1 Obispo County Grover Beach Quarter Pismo Beach San Luis Oceano Obispo Morro Bay King City Bavwood—Los Osos 5 Upper Salinas Early June 2008 February 2009 2009—16 Templeton Quarter Atascadero Salinas 6 City of San Luis Obispc City of San Luis Early September April 2009 2009—2 Obispo 2008 Quarter San Luis 7 Upper Pajaro Obispo Wro Y Early November August 2009 2009—3 San Martin 2008 Quarter Santa Clara Watsonville 8 Santa Ynez Sueliton Mid November August 2009 2009—3` Solvang 2008 Quarter Vandenberg AFB San Luis Obis o I. Board approval only required if a hearing is requested by stakeholder California Environmental Protection Agency Recycled Paper 158 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 9/23/08 oFirst_NameA ccLast_Name» -3- February 15,2008 Table 2: Phases of MS4 Enrollment Cyclo.. Duration weeks Phase I:Water Board Staff Assessment of Water Quality Challen es Water Board staff: Assess available water quality information Accept input from stakeholders on water quality conditions Prepare and transmit to MS4 staff a statement of current knowledge of water quality Challenges that must be addressed by SWMP Phase It:Water Board Staff SWMP Review Water Board staff: Review SWMP and"red-lines"text 3--4 Send red-lined SWMP and letter explaining requirements to MS4 Phase III: MS4 SWMP Redraft MS4 staff re-draft SWMP and post for Public Review ti Phase IV:Water Board Staff Final Review and Postin of SWMP Water Board staff review SWMP 2-4 1 Water Board staff post SWMP and table of required revisions for Public Review ,3 Water Board staff respond to public comment and EO approves SWMP 3.-4 Phase V:Water Board Action If hearing requested) Water Board staff prepare Staff Report with recommendation and resolution for 2 SWMP approval Water Board Staff: Post Staff Repon with Board Agenda for Public Review Respond to additional public comment 6 Prepares Presentation for Hearing Conduct internal review up to Board Meeting Total 331io 38 Communication Clear and open communication between Water Board staff,MS4 staff,and stakeholders is vital to the success of this enrollment process. Also, the Phase II General Permit requires public participation as a component of developing and implementing successful stormwater management programs for MS4s. To comply with the General Permit,you must verify that you have achieved broad and timely distribution of announcements of scoping meetings, draft stormwater program documents, and local agency actions on stormwater program activities when you submit your SWMP for Water Board staff review. Water Board staff are committed to ensuring that the enrollment process proceeds with open communication, Staff will employ a list-serve (email notification)for notifying all interested parties of important milestones In each enrollment cycle. Water Board staff will also maintain an MS4 enrollment tracking webpage where staff will post relevant documents and indicate the:status of each MS4 in the enrollment process. Additionally,an individual Water Board staff person will be assigned to each enrollment cycle. We request that you also identify an individual to serve as point of contact representing your MS4 with whom we will communicate during the enrollment process. You must identify your point of contact when Water Board staff contact you to initiate your enrollment cycle. California Environmental Protection Agency Recycled Paper 159 ITEM NUMBER: C — 1 DATE: 9/23/08 uFirst_Name»eLast—Name)) -4- February 15,2006 Central Coast Water Board Expected SWMP Content The federal Clean Water Act(CWA)provides that National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for MS4s must require municipalities to reduce pollutants in their stormwater discharges to the Maximum Extent Practicable(MEP)(CWA§402(p)(3)(B)). The California Water Boards have established the meaning and application of this standard through several adopted stormwater permits(the MEP standard is the same for Phase I and Phase II municipalities)'. The Water Board implements the General Permit to be consistent with its Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)to ensure protection of water quality, beneficial uses, and the biological and physical integrity of watersheds according to the issues in the Regions. Your SWMP must include an array of Best Management Practices (BMPs), including the six Minimum Control Measures listed in the General Permit,to achieve the following conditions: I. Maximize infiltration of clean stormwater,and minimize runoff volume and rate 11. Protect riparian areas,wetlands,and their buffer zones III. Minimize pollutant loading;and IV. Provide long-term watershed protection I.Maximize Infiltration of clean stormwater,and minimize runoff volume and rate Water Board staff expect your SWMP to present a schedule for development and adoption of control standards for hydromodif!cation. For SWMP adoption, staff will recommend to the Water Board the following interim requirements, which would apply until such time that you develop acceptable control standards for hydromodification: • For new and re-development projects, Effective Impervious Area shall be maintained at less than five percent(5%)of total project area. • For new and redevelopment projects that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface, the post-construction runoff hydrographs shall match within one percent (1%) the pre-construction3 runoff hydrographs, for a range of events with return periods from 1-year to 10-years. • For projects whose disturbed project area exceeds two acres,preserve the pre-construction drainage density (miles of stream length per square mile of watershed) for all drainage areas serving a first order stream` or larger, and ensure that post-project time of concentration is equal or greater than pre-project time of concentration. These interim requirements must be implemented for all applicable projects subject to your discretionary approvals within six (6) months of your enrollment in the Phase Il permit. Your schedule for development and adoption of your own control standards for hydromodification must include: • Numeric criteria for controlling stormwater runoff volume and rates from new and redevelopment. Several stormwater permits adopted by different Regional Boards have been legally challenged. All have been upheld by the State Water Resources Control Board and the courts. The Water Boards have broad authority to regulate stormwater and land use activities that result in discharges to waters of the State. Urbanization is one the most Important land use activities affecting water quality,beneficial uses,and the physical and biclogical integrity of watersheds in the Central Coast Region. Effective Impervious Area is that portion of the Impervious area that drains directly to a receiving surface waterbody via a hardened storm drain conveyance without first draining to a pervious area. In other words, impervious surfaces tributary to pervious areas are not considered Effective Impervious Area, 3 Pre-construction condition is defined as undeveloped soil type and vegetation. °A first order stream is defined as a stream with no tributaries. California Environmental Protection Agency r�° Recycled Paper 160 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 9/23/08 «First—Name»«Last_Namev -5- February 15,2008 • Numeric criteria for stream stability required to protect downstream beneficial uses and prevent physical changes to downstream stream channels that would adversely affect the physical structure,biologic condition,and water quality of streams. • Specific applicability criteria,land disturbance acreage thresholds,and exemptions. • Performance criteria for control BMPs and an inspection program to ensure proper long term functioning over. Education requirements for appropriate municipal staff on hydromodification and Low Impact Development. You must include an effective strategy to control hydromodification, or Water Board staff will recommend to the Water Board requirements in the resolution approving your SWMP and enrolling you in the Phase 11 permit. 11.Protect ri arian areas wetlands and their buffer zones: Your SWMP must include BMPs andlor other control measures to establish and maintain a minimum 30-foot buffer zone for riparian areas and wetlands5. The buffer zone is a protective area that is undisturbed to the maximum extent practicable. Your SWMP must Include consideration and prioritization of local conditions, such as habitat degradation, water quality, and land management practices, and apply more substantial buffer zones where necessary to protect riparian areas and wetlands. You must include an effective strategy to adopt and implement protection of riparian areas, wetlands, and their buffer zones, or Water Board staff will recommend to the Water Board requirements in the resolution approving your SWMP and enrolling you in the Phase 11 permit. 111 Minimize pollutant loading Your SWMP must include BMPs and/or other control measures to minimize pollutant loading, including volume-and/or flow-based treatment criteria. Your SWMP must include consideration and prioritization of local conditions,such as existing pollutant loading,water quality,303(d)listed impaired waters, pollutants of concern,habitat degradation, and land management practices,and apply more stringent control measures where necessary to minimize pollutant loading. You must include an effective strategy to reduce pollutant loading, or Water Board staff will recommend to the Water Board requirements in the resolution approving your SWMP and enrolling you in the Phase 11 permit. IV Provide Iona-term watershed protection You must include in your SWMP a strategy to develop watershed based hydromodification management plans. These plans should incorporate Low Impact Development strategies with the goal of Post Construction Storm Water Management to achieve an Effective Impervious Area of no more than three to ten percent(3—10%)of watershed area within your jurisdiction,depending on local conditions. The requirements listed above are often characterized as hydromodification controls, or Low Impact Development. These terms are related and their meanings overlap. These requirements are necessary to ensure protection of water quality,beneficial uses,and the biological and physical integrity of watersheds and aquatic habitat. You can reference information on hydromodification controls and Low Impact Development principles on the Central Coast Water Board's website: 5 The Central Coast Water Quality Control Plan(Basin Plan)requires protection of riparian and wetland habitat and their buffer zones(Basin Plan,Section V.G.4). California Environmental Protection Agency Recycled Paper 161 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 9/23/08 «First Nameu«Last_Namea -6. February 15,2008 http•//www.waterboards.ca.gov[GentralcoasVstormwater/low%20impact°/o20devel/lid index.htm. Evaluation of Proqram Effectiveness and Progress toward Water Quality Goals Because MEP is a dynamic performance standard which evolves over time as stormwater management knowledge increases, MS4 managers must continually assess and modify their programs to incorporate improvements in control measures and BMPs to achieve MEP. Therefore, your SWMP should contain a detailed plan for evaluating its effectiveness and progress toward complying with the General Permit, Your SWMP must also explain how you will communicate evaluation results with stakeholders, Your evaluation plan should include quantifiable measures for evaluating the effectiveness of the program and be based on the following objectives: • Assess compliance with requirements of the General Permit,including: Inspection Programs Construction Site Controls Elimination of unlawful discharges New development and redevelopment requirements • Verify that BMPs are being implemented (e.g., all new applicable developments meet hydromodification control requirements described above and as further described in your SWMP); • Assess the chemical, physical, and biological impacts on beneficial uses caused by pollutants of concern in stormwater discharges; • Characterize watersheds and stormwater discharges; • Identify sources of pollutants;and • Evaluate long-term trends in receiving water quality. Conclusion Please become familiar with the schedule for the enrollment cycle for your MS4, and the steps in the enrollment process. When Water Board staff contact you to initiate your enrollment cycle, please provide us with contact information for the individual that will be representing your MS4. Please begin updating or preparing your SWMP to include the following as explained in this letter: • Hydromodification controls for new and redevelopment; • Protection of riparian and wetland habitat and their buffer zones; • Minimization of pollutant loading; • Provision of long-term watershed protection;and • Evaluation of program effectiveness. Your SWMP must be specific and must include:well-defined BMPs and other actions that you will implement, schedules, measurable goals, and measures to determine the effectiveness of your program. If your SWMP is not comprehensive or lacks specificity, I will not approve it, and Water Board staff will draft a resolution or an individual permit for consideration by the Water Board at a hearing. I am clarifying the Water Board's revised enrollment process and SWMP content and requirements to speed up approval of SWMPs for MS4s in the Central Coast Region that will protect water quality, beneficial uses, and the biological and physical integrity of watersheds. I am also committing staff time to regulate MS4s and provide technical and financial assistance to municipalities for stormwater management programs. California Enviror:mental Protection Agency Recyded Paper 162 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 9/23/08 ((First—Name))((Last Name» .7- February 1,5,2008 The Proposition 84 Storm Water Grant Program funds may be used to provide matching grants to local public agencies for the reduction and prevention of stormwater pollution of rivers,lakes,and streams. A total of approximately $82 million will be available for matching grants. A scoping meeting to answer questions and to solicit input will be held at our office in San Luis Obispo on Monday, March 3,2008,from 1:00—4:00 PM. For more information on the Proposition 84 Storm Water Grant Program and workshops, visit the State Water Boar's welbsite at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/fundirig/prop84.htrnl. I anticipate you will have questions about this letter and the expected content of your SWMP. Please contact us. Our lead staff for this enrollment process is Dominic Roques, droquesftwaterboards.ca.oov or at(805)542-4780. Sincerely, (7�`� Roger W.Briggs Executive Officer WAStorm WaterWunicipaRPhase II MSA\M54 Enrollment Strategies\MS4 No0cation LtrlPhasellNofiflcations2-12-08.doc California Environmental Protection Agency Regvied Paper 163 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 9/23/08 Attachment 2 RWQCB's July 10, 2008 process letter California Regional Water Quality Control Board Linda S.Adams `Central Coast Region Arnold Schwamenegger Agency Secretary Gmt raor Internet Address: httpalwww.waterboazds.ea.gov/centralcoast 895 Acrovista Place,Suite 101,San Luis Obispo,California 93401-7906 Phone(805)5493147-FAX(805)543A397 July 10,2008- David Athey City of Atascadero 6907 EI Camino Real Atascadero,CA 93422 Dear David Athey: FOLLOW UP TO NOTIFICATION TO TRADITIONAL, SMALL MS4s REGARDING PROCESS FOR ENROLLING UNDER THE STATE'S GENERAL NPDES PERMIT FOR STORMWATER DISCHARGES On February 15, 2008, 1 sent a letter to you with my expectations regarding the content of Storm Water Management Plans (SWMPs), and an explanation of our process for enrolling traditional, small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) under the State's General Storm Water Permit. This letter responds to feedback we received regarding my February 15 letter and is a follow up to the meetings we have had with several municipalities. This letter presents: • An example approach for including quantifiable measures of healthy watersheds in stormwater management programs • Additional time for developing interim hydromodification criteria • Reiteration of our authority to provide expectations for SWMP content • The current status of the enrollment process • The availability of technical and financial assistance My February 15 letter emphasized that SWMPs must include BMPs to achieve the following conditions, which are necessary to ensure protection of water quality, beneficial uses, and the biological and physical integrity of watersheds and aquatic habitat: I. Maximize infiltration of clean stormwater,and minimize runoff volume and rate 11, Protect riparian areas,wetlands,and their buffer zones 111. Minimize pollutant loading:and IV. Provide long-term watershed protection My February 15 letter specifically required your SWMP to include an "Evaluation of Program Effectiveness and Progress toward Water Quality Goals." This means that your SWMP must identify quantifiable measures to determine whether your stormwater program achieves the conditions (1,-IV.) above and any other water quality goals your SWMP is designed to achieve (e.g., pollution reduction). In my February 15 letter I included interim requirements for hydromodification control that could serve as quantifiable measures and that I considered adequate for recommending SWMP approval to our Board. California Environmental Protection Agency Recycled Paper �' 164 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 9/23/08 David Athey -2- July 10,2008 Several responses to my February 15 letter requested that I consider different interim requirements for hydromodification control that could serve as quantifiable measures for recommending SWMP approval to our Board. This information is discussed in the next section on quantifiable measures, below. We also received requests for additional time to align SWMPs with my expectations. This issue is discussed below under Additional Time for Developing Interim Criteria for Hydromodification. Finally, some responses questioned our legal authority to base SWMP approvals on the expectations I presented in the Feb. 15 letter and claimed that they are not necessary for compliance with the State General Permit. This issue is discussed below under Leoal Authority to Provide Expectations for SWMP Content. The list of goals above (listed as I. through IV.) includes our expectation that you "provide long- term watershed protection." This means that your SWMP must include a schedule (of BMPs)to integrate all stormwater management control measures into all aspects of land use planning and development (municipal plans, policies, ordinances, codes, conditions of approval, etc.) to attain/protect healthy watersheds. Municipalities must understand the specific water quality and watershed issues in their areas, such as pollutant loading, aquatic habitat degradation, types of land uses and their impacts, trends, and the cumulative effects from multiple municipalities in a watershed. Municipalities must plan comprehensively to define their future growth, including infrastructure and redevelopment, in the context of long-term watershed protection. I recommend that municipalities located in the same watershed work together and pool resources to define water quality and watershed scale issues, and assess watershed conditions, in a coordinated manner. This type of collaborative approach is being used by almost 3000 farmers in our region, as they also learn how to comply with the Water Board's requirements to define and resolve water quality and watershed scale issues. Farmers in our region established a non-profft organization that coordinates and streamlines their compliance efforts, helps minimize costs, and helps disseminate information among farmers and between farmers and the Water Board. We acknowledge the challenge this presents, and that it will take years for municipalities to learn how to incorporate and implement these changes beyond the project or site-specific scale. It will take time to build the institutional capacity to do the work, and to measure results. Please see the p Y section at the end of this letter on the availability of financial and technical assistance. An Example Approach for Including Quantifiable Measures of Healthy Watersheds in Stormwater Management Programs The attached information may help you develop quantifiable measures of healthy watersheds, including numeric criteria for hydromodification control and watershed protection controls. The information is not comprehensive, but provides examples to demonstrate how a control measure should be linked to, a)a desired condition (or goal), b)the parameter(s)that define the:condition, and c)quantifiable measures that serve to evaluate performance of the control measure. We will use this type of approach to evaluate the control measures and quantifiable measures (including interim criteria for hydromodification controls)in your SWMPs. We recognize that different Phase II communities are at different junctures in developing or implementing their SWMPs and selecting quantifiable measures. Thus, the attached information may assist you in different ways; for example, it may assist your selection of interim hydromodification criteria, or, it may help you improve your SWMP's measures of long-term performance. California Environmental Protection Agency Recycled Paper 165 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 9123/08 David Athey -3- July 10,2008 Additional Time for Developing Interim Criteria for Hvdromodification My February 15 letter stated that we expect you to implement our interim requirements for hydromodification control for all projects subject to your agency's discretionary approvals within six (6) months of your enrollment in the Phase II General Permit, i.e.,when your SWMP is approved by the Executive Officer or adopted by the Water Board. In response to the feedback we received, we are providing flexibility in three ways: 1) 1 am providing you an additional six (6) months, (to make it a full year),before you apply interim criteria for hydromodification control,2) 1 am willing to consider other hydromodification control criteria that you develop,if they are reasonably equivalent to those I specified in my February 15 letter, and 3) 1 am willing to consider the applicability of hydromodification control criteria based on local conditions. Water Board staff's expectation is that within one year of enrollment under the General Permit,you will have adequate development review and permitting procedures to impose conditions of approval, or other enforceable mechanisms,to implement quantifiable measures (numeric criteria) for hydromodification control. Your SWMP must include a commitment and a schedule to develop any alternative interim criteria, should you choose to develop them. If you fail to develop alternative criteria acceptable to the Water Board, you will be subject to our interim criteria as stated in the February 15 letter. We are available to discuss hydromodification control measures (BMPs), acceptable numeric criteria for those controls, and the criteria for their application(applicability criteria). If you intend to . develop your own interim criteria for hydromodification control, please include your schedule for developing the criteria in your SWMP and allow for a period of no less than three (3) weeks for Water Board staff to review the proposed criteria. Water Board staff will also consider economic factors in reviewing hydromodification control criteria and applicability criteria. To ensure our allowance of additional time does not come at a cost to watershed health, we propose that by our original six-month date,you inform property developers that, in the absence of established detailed criteria (interim or otherwise)for hydromodification control, you only approve and permit projects that incorporate substantive hydromodification evaluation and controls(that is, the developers can propose their own approach to meet the intent until detailed criteria are established). Legal Authority to Provide Expectations for SWMP Content As noted in my February 15 letter, the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) provides that National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for MS4s must require municipalities to reduce pollutants in their stormwater discharges to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) (CWA §402(p)(3)(B)). The California Water Boards have established the meaning and application of this standard through several adopted stormwater permits (the MEP standard is the same for Phase I and Phase II municipalities)'. The Water Board implements the General Permit to be consistent with its Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) to ensure protection of water quality, beneficial uses, and the biological and physical integrity of watersheds according to the issues in the Regions. The General Permit contemplates that low impact development will be a component of 'Several stormwater permits adopted by different Regional Boards have been legally challenged. All have been upheld by the State Water Resources Control Board and the courts. The Water Boards have broad authority to regulate stormwater and land use activities that result in discharges to waters of the State. Urbanization is one the most important land use activities affecting water quality,beneficial uses,and the physical and biological integrity of watersheds in the Central Coast Region. California Environmental Protection Agency T t5 Recycled Paper 41 166 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 9/23/08 David Athey .4- July 10,2008 SWMPs, See Fact Sheet to General Order at page 6. The General Permit also requires the SWMP to contain measurable goals, including, for example, percent reduction in pollution load. The General Permit has been in effect for nearly five years and the Central Coast Water Board expects that Phase 11 communities will have benefited from their own experience and other communities in developing a robust SWMP. The General Permit expects Phase II communities to learn from Phase I communities in implementing MEP. The February 15 letter did not require that each community include the specific recommendations, but rather stated that the Executive Officer would not approve a SWMP that does not include adequate low impact development 13MPs and measurable goals. Our approach, including our February 15, 2008 letter, is consistent with the General Permit. Current Status of Enrollment Process Since initiation of the new enrollment strategy, several enrollment cycles have begun. Table 1 presents the status of the cycles. Please check our website for more specific scheduling information and notices for public comment periods. http://www-swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/starmwaterlindex.htm Availabilitv of Technical and Financial Assistance Several grant programs are currently available to provide matching grants to local public agencies to protect watersheds, reduce and prevent stormwater pollution, and implement LID planning and design principles and practices. These programs include California Proposition 84 Storm Water funds, California Proposition 1E Flood Prevention and Stormwater Management, and the US EPA West Coast Estuaries Initiative. I encourage you to pursue these grant opportunities. For more information specifically on the Proposition 84 Storm Water Grant Program and workshops,visit the State Water Board's website at: http://www waterboards ca gov/water issues/programs/g rants loans/orop84/index.shtml You may also contact our grant manager, Angela Schroeter, at 805-542-4644, or at ASchroetergwaterboards.ca.aov,regarding these grant opportunities. The Water Board is also providing partial funding for a Central Coast Low Impact Development Center. The Center will assist municipalities, engineers, and developers to implement Low Impact Development on the Central Coast. We anticipate technical assistance will be available from the Central Coast LID Center office starting fall 2008. In the meantime,we encourage you to contact the LID Center of Maryland (http://www.lowimpactdevelopment.org , as they have extensive experience in helping municipalities implement LID throughout the Unites States, including California. We also encourage you to contact other professionals who are qualified to implement LID and watershed protection, such as the Center for Watershed Protectionwww.cNP.or-g and www.stormwatercenter.net), and The Center for Water and Land Use (http://extension.ucdavis.edulunit/center_for water_and_land_use/about.asp) to use their many technical and educational resources(many of which are free). These services will help you create the institutional capacity to integrate all stormwater management control measures into all aspects of land use planning and development (municipal plans, policies, ordinances, municipal codes, conditions of approval,etc.)to protect healthy watersheds. California Environmental Protection Agency Recycled Paper 167 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 9/23/08 David Athey -5- July 10,2008 Table 1:Status of Enrollment Cycles for Attachment 1 and 2 MS4s rojected 3rojected Projected taff Cycle MS4 Group Group Members 3tart Date for Executive Officer Board hone(805 nrollment Cycle 3WMP Approval SWMP a rea Code) A rovai 1 Santa Maria Santa Maria Jnderway ugust 11,2008 Sept.5,2008 Dominic San Luis oques Obispo 42-4780 2 Coastal Santa Goleta Jndenvay September 2,2008 Oct.17,2008 3randon Barbara County Carpinteria Santa Sanderson Santa Barbara Barbara 49-3868 UC Santa Barbara Lompoc(originally in Cycle 7 3 Santa Cruz Santa Cruz County nderway February,2009 March 6, Phil Hammer Mountains and Watsonville 2009 49-3882 Coast City of Santa Cruz San Luis Scotts Valley Obispo UC Santa Cruz 4 Coastal San Luis Arroyo Grande Jnderway January 2009 2009—1 amara Obispo County Grover Beach Quarter Presser Pismo Beach San Luis 49-3334 Oceano CSD Obispo Morro Bay Los Oscs CSD 5 Upper Salinas King City June 2008 February 2009 2009—1 avid Innis Templeton Quarter 9-3150 Atascadero Salinas 6 City of San Luis City of San Luis Underway April 2009 2009—2"" Tamara Obispo Obispo Quarter resser San Luis 49-3334 Obispo 7 Upper Pajaro Gilroy Early November August 2009 2009-3 Dominic San Martin 2008 Quarter Roques Santa Clara Watsonville d2-4780 8 Santa Ynez Bueilton Mid November August 2009 2009—3 Dominic Solvang 2003 Quarter ioques Vandenberg AFB San Luis 42-4780 Obispo Agencies, municipalities, and consultants are all on a learning curve with respect to stormwater management, LID implementation,and watershed protection. Water Board staff are not design or planning experts, and as with all of our requirements,we cannot legally tell those we regulate how to comply. Municipalities must build their capacity to be able to comply with the Board's requirements. This includes hiring qualified personnel to develop and implement SWMPS, and providing the most up to date, relevant education on an ongoing basis. When relying on consultants, it is critical that you carefully consider the qualifications and experience of the professionals you retain. Many consulting firms are on the same learning curve as agencies and municipalities. Z Board approval only required if a hearing Is requested by stakeholder California Environmental Protection Agency Co Recycled Paper 168 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 9/23/08 David Athey -6- July 10,2008 If you have any questions regarding this letter,please contact Dominic Roques at droguesAytaterboards.ca.gov or at(805) 542.4780. If you have any questions regarding the status of a particular enrollment cycle,please contact the staff person indicated in Table 1. Thank you for your commitment to developing a SWMP that will support healthy watersheds in the Central Coast Region. Sincerely, Roger W. Briggs Executive Officer Cc: Hillary Hauser, Heal The Ocean Steve Shimek,The Otter Project Kira Redmond, Santa Barbara ChannelKeeper Christine Sotelo,SWRCB Chris Crompton, California Stormwater Quality Association Jerry Bunin, Homebuilders Association of the Central Coast Attachment:An Example Approach for Including Quantifiable Measures of Healthy Watersheds for Stormwater Management Programs W:\Stormwater\_Stormwater Program\_Municipal ProgramThase MMS4 Enrollment StrategiesWlS4 Notification LtrTollow-up Lfr FollowuptoFebl5Final dr.doc California Environmental Protection Agency T `, Recycled Paper 169 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 9/23/08 Attachment 3 RWQCB's August 12, 2008 process letter �\ California Re; Tonal Water Quality Cottrol Board " Central Coast Region Linda S.Adams 895 Acrovista Place,Suite 101,San Luis Obispo,Califomia 93401-7906 Arnold Schwarzenegger Secret or (805)549-3147•Fax(805)543.0397 �1'/ Governor Environmental Protection http;//www.waterbowds.ca.gov/centralcoast August 12, 2008 Steve Kahn City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Dear Mr. Kahn: ENROLLMENT SCHEDULE — STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN; CITY OF ATASCADERO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY,WDID# 3 40MSO4027 Central Coast Water Board staff David Innes met with you and David Athey on July 8, 2008 to discuss the City of Atascadero's enrollment in the Municipal Stormwater General Permit. The emphasis of your meeting was to discuss the schedule we e- mailed to you on June 24, 2008. The schedule reflects the direction our Board approved at the December 7, 2007 hearing, my Notification to Traditional, Small MS4s letter dated February 15, 2008, and my recent Follow-up letter dated July 10, 2008. The schedule provides a firm date for a March 2009 Board hearing, if requested, to consider approval of your Storm Water Management Program (SWMP). Our schedule requires you to submit a revised draft by August 13, 2008. However, you won't meet this timeline because of your decision to present our requirements to your City Council in September before submitting revisions in October 2008. Atascadero is one of 24 communities participating in this enrollment process. As 1 emphasized in my February and July letters, the current enrollment process has certain dates that each community must meet. The schedule staff provided reflects these dates, but the interim due dates have some flexibility. This flexibility, however, may have consequences if you chose to side step the required dates. In this case,we would receive your SWMP during Phase III: MS4 SWMP Redraft. At this approximate October 10th date, you would have only one week to respond to our staff and public comments. Essentially, your modification of the schedule would skip most of Phase II and your opportunity to receive our feedback. The consequence of missing our dates is the potential we may require a series of recommendations and resolutions we would attach after public posting of your SWMP and Staff Report preparation, if portions are unacceptable to staff. We plan to work with you and your staff to help develop a SWMP that meets all expectations of the General Permit and our enrollment notifications. In 2004 we provided comments to your SWMP and we plan to provide additional comments to the December 2004 draft in the next few weeks. If you incorporate the recommendations California Environmental Protection Agency Recycled Paper .i �.a 170 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 9/23/08 City of Atascadero -2- August 12, 2008 we provide, our later recommendatiortl resolutions for your SWMP will likely be minimal. We look forward to working with you in a cooperative fashion. However, we are committed to finalizing Atascadero's SWMP by March 2009. We hope the flexibility we've given you to plan within our schedule will result in a substantive and specific set of BMPs and measurable goals to improve stormwater control in Atascadero. Sincerely, 'rBoger W. Briggs Executive Officer S:\Stormwater\_Stormwater Program\_Municipal Program\Phase II\MS4 Enrollment Strategies\Enrollment Schedules for MS4 S Groups\Upper alinas Atas-Templ-KingMAtas schedule modification.doc File:Atascadero SW file California Environmental Protection Agency ° :.ate Recycled Paper 171 172 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 09/23/08 �ann n n 1918 p ® -1979 AtaScadero City Council Staff Report - City Attorney's Office Draft Campaign Ordinance Discussion of Council Options DISCUSSION: As requested by the City Council at its meeting on August 12, 2008, the City Attorney has drafted a campaign ordinance which includes a voluntary expenditure limit and also reduces the contribution amount which triggers late contribution reports. The draft ordinance is attached to this staff report for your review. At the City Council meeting on July 8, 2008, the City Attorney submitted a detailed report at the request of the Council regarding campaign ordinances and related issues. The report had several attachments including an article by the League of California Cities from February 2008 on campaign regulations, a chart prepared by the Olson law firm listing the campaign ordinances of 413 California cities out of a total of 480 cities, ordinances from several cities with campaign regulations and codes of ethics, the State of California declaration regarding Code of Fair Campaign Practices and Fair Political Practices Commission(FPPC) Form 460. As noted in the City Attorney report of July 8, 2008, according to the Olson chart, it appears that 100 California cities have campaign ordinances. In addition, the cities which have adopted campaign ordinances often do so in conjunction with a code of ethics. The City Attorney has not drafted a code of ethics as there has not been a request from the Council to prepare one. At the City Council meeting of July 8, 2008, there were public comments following the oral report from the City Attorney. After hearing public comments, the Council continued consideration of this matter to its meeting of August 12, 2008. At the City Council meeting on August 12, 2008, Council again heard public comments and thereafter discussed this subject. Following Council discussion, the Council directed the City Attorney to prepare a draft campaign ordinance with a $.50 cent per resident limit and a reduction in the late contribution reporting amount from the State requirement of $1000 on the FPPC Form 497 down to $250. In addition, the Council directed consideration of posting mid-year Form 460 filings on the internet, and also a 173 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 09/23/08 requirement for ex parte disclosure at Council meetings of campaign contributions by proponents and opponents of an agenda item. The City Attorney has drafted a campaign ordinance which is Attachment 1 to this staff report. This campaign ordinance was prepared by the City Attorney based upon a review of the ordinances of several other cities, including those cities with ordinances that were Attachments to the staff report presented at the Council meeting on July 8, 2008. The primary components of the campaign ordinance are the amount of the voluntary expenditure limit [see Section 2-19.03(c)] and the incentives/benefits for compliance with the limit[see Section 2-19.03(f)]. Voluntary Expenditure Limit -- Amount A review of the draft ordinance will show that the ordinance includes the .50 cent per resident provision as a voluntary expenditure limit. In the course of researching the campaign ordinances of other cities, the City Attorney found that there were a number of cities which enacted a lump sum amount rather than a per resident limit so this has been presented in the ordinance as an alternative. Both the limit based on resident and the lump sum limit alternative have a cost of living adjustment based upon the Consumer Price Index. With regard to the amount of the voluntary expenditure limit, the City Attorney found that those cities with the per resident limit had limits which varied from .25 cents up to $1.00 per resident and here is a sampling of some of those cities listed by limit amount and city population: Amount Citv Population $.25 cents Montclair 36,343 $.35 Santa Cruz 55,322 $.50 Albany 15,974 $.50 Arcardia 56, 218 $.50 Danville 40,975 $.50 Murrieta 90,555 $.75 Lancaster 143,616 $1.00 Azusa 46,612 174 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 09/23/08 $1.00 Bell Gardens 44,848 $1 .00 Fresno 470,508 $1 .00 Highland 51 ,304 $1.00 La Mesa 53,990 $1.00 La Mirada 49,801 $1 .00 Newark 41 ,680 $1.00 Palmdale 140,882 $1 .00 Rancho Palos Verdes 41 ,3998 $1.00 San Jose 939,899 An alternative used by some cities is a lump sum amount and listed below are several cities which use the lump sum limit by amount, name of city and population: Amount Citv Population $5000 Ukiah 15,030 $10,000 Sonoma 9,863 $14,000 Palo Alto 58,246 $26,000 Ventura 103,219 $50,000 Hayward 140,943 $60,000 Beverly Hills 34,597 Incentives and Benefits for Compliance with Voluntary Expenditure Amount The draft ordinance requires that City Council candidates sign a Declaration [see Attachment 2 for a Draft Declaration] in which the candidate declares whether he/she accepts or rejects the voluntary expenditure limit. See Section 2-19.03(b) The draft ordinance allows a candidate who has accepted the voluntary expenditure limit to rescind their acceptance if another candidate has rejected the limit, but the 175 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 09/23/08 rescission must be within three working days of the notification from the City Clerk, of which candidates have rejected the limit, which comes following the close of the candidate filing period. See Section 2-19.03(e). The draft ordinance includes four benefits for City Council candidates to comply with the voluntary expenditure limit. These incentives/benefits include the financial benefit of the City paying the cost for the Candidate's Statement of Qualifications, and dissemination to the public through various sources the fact that the candidate has agreed to the voluntary expenditure limit. See 2-19.03(f). If a candidate accepts the voluntary expenditure limit, and then exceeds that limit, the draft ordinance provides that the candidate shall pay the cost of the Candidate Statement of Qualifications, discontinue use of "voluntary spending limit candidate" in election and campaign materials and the City Clerk is to post on the City's website and at City Hall a notice that the candidate accepted the voluntary expenditure limit, but has exceeded the limit. See Section 2-19-03(f). Reduction Of Dollar Amount For Late Contribution Reports As requested by the City Council, the draft ordinance includes a provision which reduces the amount required to be included in the late contribution report(FPPC Form 497) from the State requirement of $1000 down to $250. See Section 2-19.04. Posting of Mid-Year 460 Forms on Internet The City Council at its meeting on August 12, 2008 expressed an interest in requiring that mid-year 460 Forms on the internet. The Council can take such action by either a motion or resolution and an ordinance is not necessary to impose such a requirement. Ex Parte Disclose of Campaign Contributions During Council Meetings At the City Council meeting on August 12, 2008, the Council also indicated an interest in requiring that Council Members disclose during ex parte communications at Council meetings whether they had received any campaign contributions from proponents or opponents of a matter coming before the Council. The Council could include such a requirement in its Council Norms and an ordinance is not necessary for this purpose. FISCAL IMPACT: Depending upon the direction from the City Council, Staff will be in a position to provide an estimate of the expenses that would be associated with the preparation of any further documents and the extent of staff time which would be involved with implementing Council direction and the cost associated with any campaign ordinance. 176 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 09/23/08 ALTERNATIVES: This Draft Ordinance includes two alternatives with regard to a voluntary expenditure limit for City Council candidates. The first alternative is an amount per resident of $.50 cents. The second alternative is a lump sum amount. With both alternatives, there is a cost of living adjustment provision included in the ordinance. With regarding to the late contribution amount being reduced from $1000 down to $250, the alternatives include leaving the amount at $1000 or providing for another amount below $1000. The City Council has other alternatives including not adopting any campaign ordinance or adopting a campaign ordinance which has different provisions from those included in the draft ordinance attached to this staff report. ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Draft Campaign Ordinance 2. Draft Declaration of Candidacy Statement 177 Attachment 1 DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR DISCUSSION AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9-23-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 19 TO TITLE 2 ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE TO BE KNOWN AS "ATASCADERO CAMPAIGN ORDINANCE" WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt an ordinance providing for a voluntary expenditure limit on campaigns by City Council candidates; and WHEREAS, the City Council further desires to provide incentives and benefits to encourage candidates to comply with the voluntary expenditure limit; and WHEREAS, the City Council further desires to reduce the dollar amount requirement for late contributions from the requirement set by State law NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION ONE. Findings. The City Council hereby incorporates the foregoing recitals and finds that this ordinance will include a voluntary expenditure limit on campaigns by City Council candidates with incentives and benefits to encourage compliance with the limit, and this ordinance will reduce the dollar amount requirement for late contributions from the State law requirement. SECTION TWO. Adoption. The City Council of the City of Atascadero hereby amends Title 2 of the Municipal Code by adding Chapter 19 as follows: 2-19.01 Title. This chapter shall be known as the "Atascadero Campaign Ordinance" and is intended to supplement the provisions of the State Political Reform Act (California Government Code Section 81000, et. seq.). The provisions of this chapter are expressly intended to be more restrictive than the provisions of State law. This chapter applies only to candidates for City Council. 2-19.02 Purposes and Intent. The City Council enacts this chapter to provide benefits and incentives that encourage City Council candidates to agree to voluntarily limit campaign expenditures. 178 2-19.03 Voluntary Expenditure Limit. (a) Expenditures The term "expenditures" as used in this chapter shall mean the total of the expenditures by a City Council candidate and any campaign committee controlled by the candidate. (b) Declaration of Candidacy Statement Each candidate for City Council office shall file, with their nomination papers, a "Declaration of Candidacy Statement" ('Declaration") which will be in a form to be determined by the City Clerk. At the time of filing his/her Declaration, the candidate shall indicate on the Declaration his/her acceptance or rejection of the voluntary expenditure limit set forth herein. City Council candidates who agree to adhere to voluntary campaign expenditure limitations in accordance with this chapter, and who spend more than the voluntarycampaign expenditure enditure limitation, must notify the City b ClerkP ursuant to the provisions of this chapter. (c) Limitation on Expenditures (1) Alternative 1: Limit based on specified amount per resident. The voluntary campaign expenditure limitation shall be calculated at a rate which corresponds to $0.50 per City resident as adjusted in the manner provided by this chapter. In determining the appropriate number of City residents for purposes of this calculation, the City Clerk shall use the most recent number of residents established by the California Department of Finance. By way of example: If the City population is 28,000 residents, a candidate who agrees to voluntary campaign expenditure limitations will be authorized to spend a maximum of $14,000 ($0.50 x 28,000) on his or her City Council campaign. The $0.50 fiz:1 referenced in this section shall be d. For Cit adjusted b the Cit Clerk each year for which a City Council election is schedule y J Y Y Y Council elections conducted with the City's general municipal election, the adjustment will be made on June 1. For special elections called to fill a vacant seat on the City Council, the adjustment will be made ninety days before the special election. The adjustment will be rounded off to the nearest hundred dollar figure: downward if $49.99 or less or upward if $50.00 or more. The adjustment called for by this section shall be the cost of living adjustment (COLA) computed by reference to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all urban consumers for the Los Angeles/Riverside/Orange, CO, CA Area (all items) provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as indexed from a base year that commences in June 2008. (2) Alternative 2: Limit based on lump sum. The voluntary camp aiaexpenditure limit shall be thousand dollars ($_,000.00 bn in the manner provided b this chapter. as adjusted P established in June 2008 P Y and the base was est J The adjustment to the voluntary expenditure limit will be calculated by the City Clerk. For City Council elections conducted with the City's general municipal election, the adjustment will be made on June 1. For special municipal elections called to fill a vacant seat on the City Council, special election The adjustment will be the adjustment will be made ninety days before the J J 2 179 rounded off to the nearest hundred dollar figure: downward if$49.99 or less or upward if$50.00 or more. The adjustment will be based upon the Consumer Price Index increment as determined by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Consumers (CPI-U), Los Angeles/Riverside/Orange, CO, CA Area— all items, or successor index. (d) Within three working days of the close of the candidate filing period for City Council, the City Clerk shall notify in writing all candidates of the acceptance or rejection of the voluntary expenditure limit by the other candidates. (e) A candidate who agrees to accept the voluntary expenditure limit in this article may not change that decision, except that if an opposing candidate files a statement of rejection of the voluntary expenditure limit, the candidate may rescind by written notice to the City Clerk his/her acceptance of the voluntary expenditure limit within three working days of receipt of the notice from the City Clerk issued pursuant to Section 2-19.03(d). (f) Incentives and Benefits For candidates accepting the voluntary expenditure limits, the following benefits and incentives will apply: (1) The City will pay the cost of the Candidate's Statement Of Qualifications as printed in the Official Voter Information Guide. (NOTE: The cost for the candidate statement in the 2006 election was $215.21.) (2) The fact of a candidate's participation in the voluntary expenditure limit program will be posted by the City Clerk on the City's website and at City Hall. (3) Ten working days after the close of the candidate filing period for City Council, the City Clerk will issue a press release to newspapers, radio and television stations announcing the names of the City Council candidates, if any, who have accepted the voluntary expenditure limit established by this chapter. (4) Each participating candidate may use the designation "voluntary spending limit candidate" in all election and campaign materials except for the Candidate's Statement of Qualifications that is included in the voter pamphlet. (g) Should a City Council candidate agree to accept the voluntary expenditure limit in this chapter and thereafter, whether intentionally or inadvertently, fail to abide by that agreement, then the candidate upon discovering said failure shall cause written notice of such failure to be received by the City Clerk's Office within one working day and the following rules shall apply: (1) The candidate shall forthwith pay the City Clerk's estimated cost of the Candidate's Statement Of Qualifications as printed in the Official Voter Information Guide. (2) The candidate shall immediately discontinue use of the designation "voluntary spending limit candidate"in all election and campaign materials. 3 180 (3) The City Clerk shall post a notice on the City's website and at City Hall and issue a press release stating that the candidate had agreed to the voluntary expenditure limit, but has exceeded the limit. (h) The candidate shall be responsible for monitoring his/her campaign expenditures to ensure compliance with the voluntary expenditure limit set by this chapter. The City Clerk is not responsible for monitoring campaign expenditures or advising candidates who have exceeded, or are close to exceeding, the expenditure limit as that is the responsibility of the candidate. 2-19.04 Reduction of dollar amount for late contribution reports. In addition to all contribution reporting requirements set forth in the California Government Code and other applicable state laws, the threshold requirement for reporting late contributions for City Council candidates shall be reduced from the State requirement, currently $1000, down to $250 (two hundred and fifty dollars), including in kind services and donations. These late contributions shall be reported on the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) late contribution form, currently referred to as the 497 Contribution Report. 2-19.05 Applicability of other laws. Nothing in this chapter shall exempt any person from applicable provisions of any other laws of this State or the City. SECTION THREE. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with the ayes and noes, shall be published twice: at least five days prior to its final passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Atascadero, and; before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its final passage, in the Atascadero News, a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Atascadero. A copy of the full text of this ordinance shall be on file in the City Clerk's Office on and after the date following introduction and passage and shall be available to any interested member of the public. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council held on , and PASSED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Atascadero, State of California, on by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 4 181 ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO Marcia McClure Torberson, C.M.C., Mike Brennler, Mayor City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Brian Pierik, City Attorney 182 Attachment 2 DRAFT CITY OF ATASCADERO DECLARATION OF CANDIDACY STATEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE/REJECTION OF CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS I. CANDIDATE INFORMATION: OFFICE SOUGHT: NAME OF CANDIDATE: RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: TELEPHONE:( ) ( ) Home Work II. CANDIDATE EXPENDITURE LIMIT STATEMENT: (Title 2, Chapter 19 of the Atascadero Municipal Code) (CANDIDATES FOR CITY OFFICE ARE REQUIRED TO FILE THIS STATEMENT WITH THEIR NOMINATION PAPERS) ELECTION DATE: ACCEPT THE VOLUNTARY EXPENDITURE CEILING OF $ FOR THE ELECTION STATED ABOVE. DO NOT ACCEPT THE VOLUNTARY EXPENDITURE CEILING OF $ FOR THE ELECTION STATED ABOVE. III. VERIFICATION: CERTIFY (OR DECLARE) UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. EXECUTED: AT CALIFORNIA (DATE) (PLACE) SIGNATURE (CANDIDATE) 183 184 ITEM NUMBER: C-3 DATE: 09/23/08 1979. City of A tascadero Staff Report - City Manager's Office Creation of a Vector Control Program and Benefit Assessment RECOMMENDATIONS: Council: 1 . Allow the County to provide vector control services within the Atascadero city limits; and, 2. Allow property owners within Atascadero city limits to participate in the Proposition 218 Ballot Measure to fund the program. DISCUSSION: Background: In June 2007, the Grand Jury released a report in which it recommended that the County conduct an educational campaign to inform residents of the need for and benefits of additional mosquito abatement and pest control, and then survey voters to determine the likelihood that a special assessment would be passed. In November of 2007, the Board of Supervisors directed its staff to conduct a public opinion survey to determine the level of support for the development of a benefit assessment that would provide permanent funding for vector control program. In summary, the survey found that if San Luis Obispo County proceeded with a benefit assessment of $9.80 - $25.00 per year for a typical single-family property depending on the number of acres. The measure was supported by effective outreach to the community, and the measure would likely achieve a weighted majority of property owner support. The survey found the overall weighted support of such a benefit assessment to be 53.8%. In addition to quantifying the level of support and at what annual rate, the survey results identified the top priorities for services as follows: 1 185 ITEM NUMBER: C-3 DATE: 09/23/08 • Test and respond to disease outbreaks associated with rodents, ticks, or fleas. • Reduce mosquito populations using environmentally safe approaches. • Improve control of mosquitoes and the diseases they carry: West Nile Virus, Encephalitis, Dog Heartworm. The following recommendations for a benefit assessment ballot to fund the vector control program are: 1. A vector control program funding measure. 2. The funding measure should be centered on funding a vector control program that uses environmentally safe methods to control mosquitoes/vectors and the diseased they carry. 3. An effective informational outreach focusing on the need for a stable source of funding for vector control services, and the need to control mosquitoes and other vectors and the diseases they carry is necessary to educate people about the benefits of a vector control program. Conclusion: Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the County Health Agency to provide vector control services and allow property owners to participate in the Proposition 218 Ballot Measure to fund the program within the City of Atascadero. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact to the City's budget. However, City residents would be assessed an annual rate of $9.80 - $25.00 per single-family residence depending on the number of acres. ATTACHMENT: April 1, 2008 Board Letter and attached Opinion, Research and Survey. 186 2 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL ;1)DEPARTMENT (2)MEETING DATE (3)CONTACT/PHONE Health Agency/ Public April 1, 2008 Curt Batson, Director of Environmental Health Health—Environmental 781-5500 Health (4)SUBJECT Submittal of public opinion survey results in continuing response to a 2006-07 Grand Jury Report on the possible creation of a Vector Control Program benefit assessment (5)SUMMARY OF REQUEST In June 2007 the Grand Jury released a report in which it recommended that the County conduct an educational campaign informing residents of the need for and benefits of additional mosquito abatement and pest control, and then survey voters to determine the likelihood that a special assessment would be passed. In November of 2007, the Board directed staff to conduct a public opinion survey to determine the level of support for the development of a benefit: assessment that will provide permanent funding for a vector control program. The survey found the overall weighted support for such a benefit assessment to be 53.8%. (6)RECOMMENDED ACTION It is recommended that the Board direct staff to proceed with a ballot measure to create a benefit assessment that will provide permanent annual funding for a vector control program. (7)FUNDING SOURCE(S) (8)CURRENT YEAR COST (9)ANNUAL COST (10)BUDGETED? General Fund $250,000 N/A ® No ❑Yes ❑NIA (11)OTHER AGENCY/ADVISORY GROUP INVOLVEMENT(LIST): West Nile Response Task Force (Ag Dept., Animal Services, State Department of Public Health) and the Clerk/Recorder's Office have provided input on this subject. (12)WILL REQUEST REQUIRE ADDITIONAL STAFF? ® No ❑Yes,How Many? Permanent ❑Limited Term_ ❑Contract ❑Temporary Help (13)SUPERVISOR DISTRICT(S) (14)LOCATION MAP (15)Maddy Act Appointments 1:11st, 1:12nd,1:13rd,[]4th,❑5th,®Ail ❑Attached ®N/A Signed-off by Clerk of the Board ❑NIA (16)AGENDA PLACEMENT (17)EXECUTED DOCUMENTS ❑Consent 1:1Hearing(Time Est. ) 11Resolutions(Orig+4 copies) ❑Contracts(Orig+4 copies) Presentation ®Board Business(Time Est:60 mins.) ❑Ordinances(Orig+4 copies) ®NIA (18)NEED EXTRA EXECUTED COPIES? (19)BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUIRED? ❑Number: ❑Attached ®N/A ❑Submitted ❑4/5th's Vote Required ®N/A (20)OUTLINE AGREEMENT REQUISITION NUMBER(OAR) (21)W-9 (22)Agenda Item History ® No ❑Yes ® N/A Date:11-27-07;F-1 (23)ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REVIEW C om -Mica 9 E1-1 41112008 187 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY HEALTH AGENCY IB50� - iltn ee 2180 Johnson Avenue San Luis Obispo, California 93401-4535 805-781-4719•FAX 805-781-1273 4 P�....;.. Jeff Hamm Health Agency Director TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Jeff Hamm, Health Agency Director DATE: April 1,2008 SUBJECT: Submittal of public opinion survey results in continuing response to a 2006-07 Grand Jury Report on the possible creation of a Vector Control Program Benefit Assessment Recommendation It is recommended that the Board direct staff to proceed with a ballot measure to create a benefit assessment that will provide permanent annual funding for a vector control program. Discussion Survey Results and Recommendations On November 27, 2007, the Board directed staff to conduct a survey and informational outreach to determine the level of support for the development of a benefit assessment that will provide permanent annual funding for a vector control program. The primary purposes of the survey were to: 1. Evaluate property owners' support, desires and priorities with respect to the proposed vector control program. 2. Measure the relative level of support and priorities of the property owners and voters overall in the area by type of property owner and voter. 3. Measure the level of financial support for the proposed vector control program. The survey presented information regarding the proposed services and an annual rate of assessment for a typical single-family home of$9.80. The actual proposed assessments were independently calculated for each property owner and were based upon property use and property size and the proposed assessment was individually printed on each survey. Examples of typical assessments are as follows: E1-2 4/112008 188 Vector Control Program Benefit Assessment Page 2 of 6 Property Type Benefit Assessment per year Single Family residence less than one acre $9.80 Single Family residence 5 acres $22.15 100 unit apartment complex $162.60 'h acre office property $27.84 '/z acre retail store $9.80 1000 acre open range land $16.46 20 acre shopping center $392.00 100 acre agriculture property $8.23 Vacant lot $2.94 The survey found the overall weighted support for the proposed benefit assessment to be 53.8% with a margin of error of+1.9%. The margin of error means that there is a 95% certainty that the actual levels of support in the County are between 51.9% and 55.7% average weighted support. A benefit assessment requires a 50%plus one average weighted support for passage. The survey was designed to be predictive in evaluating the support a benefit assessment measure would likely receive in the actual mailed-ballot election. In January 2008, over 10,000 surveys were mailed toproperty owners within the County. The survey includedgeneral information about the funding measure and a questionnaire with an enclosed ostaggge- aid return envelope.e. Over 2,500 surveys were received from the property owners, representing a response rate of over 26%. Based on the consultants experience with other similar projects,this response rate is very good. In 2004, a similar survey of property owners in San Luis Obispo County was conducted. The following table shows a comparison of weighted support between the 2008 survey and the 2004 survey. It also shows the percent of vote by property type for the 2008 survey. This comparison shows that the current level of support for the proposed benefit assessment is only slightly less than it was in 2004. Taking into consideration that the 2004 survey occurred after extensive outreach to the community and discussions at the Board and the 2008 survey did not have similar outreach or discussions, the results indicate a core level of support for funding a vector control program at the annual assessment rate of$9.80 per single-family residence. Weighted upport Percent of Vote Property Type 2004 Survey 2008 Surve 2008 Single Family 63.5% 59.1% 63.2•% Residential Apartment and 45.5% 44.8% 16.7% Investment Property Business and Industrial 51.9% 39.6% 11.6% Large Property Owners 45.9% 29.9% 2.5% Agriculture, Other 52.0% 53.7% 6.0% Overall 56.2% 1 53.8% 100% E1-3 4/1/2008 189 Vector Control Program Benefit Assessment Page 3 of 6 In addition to quantifying the level of support and at what annual rate, the survey results identified the top priorities for services as follows: • Test and respond to disease outbreaks associated with rodents, ticks, or fleas. • Reduce mosquito populations using environmentally safe approaches. • Improve control of mosquitoes and the diseases they carry: West Nile Virus, Enchephalitis, Dog Heartworm. In summary,the survey found that if San Luis Obispo County proceeded today with a benefit assessment of$9.80 per year for a typical single-family property and the measure was supported by effective outreach to the community, the measure would likely achieve a weighted majority of property owner support. The following recommendations for a benefit assessment ballot to fund the vector control program are: 1. A vector control program funding measure not to exceed $9.80 per single family residence. 2. The funding measure should be centered on funding a vector control program that uses environmentally safe methods to control mosquitoes/vectors and the diseases they carry. 3. An effective informational outreach focusing on the need for a stable source of funding for vector control services and the need to control mosquitoes and other vectors and the diseases they carry is necessary to educate people about the benefits of a vector control program. Benefit Assessment Ballot Process and Milestones The Health Agency recommends retention of a consultant to conduct a benefit assessment rate analysis, mail out a ballot measure, and provide an engineering assessment report to assist the Health Agency in pursuing a new financing source to fund a vector control program in San Luis Obispo County. The ballot proceeding will be conducted in three phases as follows: Phase 1 —Assessment Engineering This phase identifies the budget for the proposed vector control program and the corresponding assessment rate matrix as well as the benefit assessment methodology. This phase answers the question: What is the benefit assessment for each of the property types? This phase includes an Engineer's Report that meets the requirements of a Proposition 218 ballot proceeding. Phase 2—Assessment Ballot Proceeding This phase includes designing,printing, addressing and mailing the notice and assessment ballots to approximately 100,000 affected property owners. The returned ballots will be tabulated by the San Luis Obispo County Clerk of the Board office. E1-4 190 4/1/2008 Vector Control Program Benefit Assessment Page 4 of 6 Phase 3 —Project Administration This phase includes preparation of the property database, levy, ownership information and other data required for administration of the assessment. This phase also includes updating the assessment rolls and assessments to reflect all changes in the ownership, property type and assessments. It also includes submitting final assessment to the San Luis Obispo County Auditor's office. If the Board decides to conduct a ballot proceeding, details of the three phases will be provided in a formal written proposal of services. The following is a milestone chart that outlines the process for conducting a mail-out ballot: Note: Bolded items are for public hearings with the Board of Supervisors Milestone Date Board authorization to conduct a benefit April 1, 2008 assessment ballot measure Board authorization to contract with a September 30,2008 qualified consultant to assist with the rocess Request support from cities for the benefit November—December 2008 assessment ballot measure Board Update about City status January 2009 PHASE,1- Draft Engineer's Report submitted to February 2009 County Complete Assessment Engineer's Report March 2009 Notification of Public Hearing j February 2009 Return to BOS for Public Hearing on 1) March 30,2009 Preliminarily approve budget, assessment rates and Engineering Assessment Report and Resolution of Intention to mail-out ballot and 2)Adopt Prop 218 Assessment Ballot Proceedings_ "Eli Notice and Ballot created and finalized April 2009 Print and address notices and Ballots May 1 — 10, 2009 Mail-out ballot to property owners May 11, 2009 Balloting Period (45 days minimum) May 12, 2009—June 30, 2009 Public Hearing accepting and closing June 30,2009 mail-out ballots Counting returned ballots July 1-13, 2009 Return to BOS for approval of the July 14-31,2009 results and resolution levying assessments for FY 2009-10 if weighted majority support E1-5 4/1/2008 191 Vector Control Program Benefit Assessment Page 5 of 6 PHASES: Per parcel assessment charges to Auditor's Before August 10, 2009 Office First installment of assessment proceeds January 2010 Environmental Health staff will meet with city officials to request support for the benefit assessment ballot measure. Each city has the option of participating in the vector control program. If a city wishes to not participate in the program,then properties in that city will not be sent a ballot and will not participate in the ballot proceeding and will not receive services from the program. Proposed Vector Control Program (if funded through a benefit assessment) The proposed vector control services will consist of public education, surveillance, abatement, and response to disease outbreaks for all vectors and vector-borne diseases. However, it will primarily focus on mosquitoes,ticks, fleas, and rodents. In response to mosquito-borne diseases such as West Nile Virus, most of the resources would be dedicated to the abatement and surveillance of the mosquito populations as well as public education focused on mosquito-borne diseases. In the future, at the direction of the Health Officer and the county decision makers, resources may be reallocated to respond to other vectors and vector-borne diseases. The goals of the vector control services are proposed as follows: • Increase public awareness of vectors and vector-borne diseases through public education and outreach. • Conduct surveillance activities to identify the presence of vector species and vector-borne diseases as well as vector population densities and anticipate conditions that would increase vector populations. • Prevention and abatement efforts to reduce vector populations. • Respond to disease outbreaks in a timely and targeted fashion and coordinated with local and state agencies. The vector control program,based on a countywide program,projected levels of staffing, necessary equipment and supplies to carry out the above goals,and overhead costs is expected to cost as indicated in the following table: Description Estimated Costs Salaries $500,000 Services and Supplies $325,000 Overhead $100,000 Total 5925,000 E1-6 4/1/2008 192 I Vector Control Program Benefit Assessment Page 6 of 6 Other AQencv Involvement/Impact The Clerk of the Board has been consulted on this matter and will tabulate the returned ballots. In addition,the West Nile Response Task Force consisting of representatives from the Agriculture Department, Animal Services, and State Department of Health Services/Vector Control Branch support the vector control program. Numerous vector control jurisdictions throughout the state including, Santa Cruz,Napa, San Mateo, Kern, Ventura, and others were consulted for information on staffing,budget, and services. Support for the vector control program and the benefit assessment ballot measure to fund the program will be requested from each city. Financial Considerations Staff has obtained cost estimates for the project from a qualified consultant. Estimates are indicated below,broken out into three phases. The third phase, project administration,would only occur if the measure passed. Tabulation of the ballots is proposed to be through the Clerk of the Board. Estimated cost for the tabulation of ballots is $63,000. The three phases of the project are as follows: Phase 1 -Assessment engineering$22,000 Phase 2 - Assessment ballot proceeding including ballot tabulation $165,000+$63,000 Phase 3 -Project administration$30,000 (contingent upon a successful ballot outcome) This cost estimate includes assistance with the planning for the educational outreach campaign. If the Board decides to proceed with the ballot measure,the Health Agency would require General Fund support to finance the three phases identified above for an estimated total of$280,000. If the ballot initiative succeeds, there will be sufficient funds recovered to return the cost of the ballot measure to the General Fund. If the measure fails, we would.not proceed with Phase 3 costs, and the County's one-time loss would be $250,000. At the present time a benefit assessment of$9.80 per single-family residence and equivalent rate for other property types is the best estimate to recover the Vector Control Program's estimated annual operating costs of$925,000. Results If approved,the results of this action will be to conduct a ballot measure for creation of a benefit assessment that will provide permanent annual funding for a vector control program. If successful,the ballot measure would accomplish the following: • Provide estimated annual revenues of$925,000 to fund a vector control program. • Return the cost of the benefit assessment ballot proceeding to the General Fund by June 2010. Attachment: Report on Opinion Research and Survey of Property Owners El-7 4/1/2008 193 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY OF PROPERTY OWNERS FEBRUARY 15,2008 PREPARED FOR: SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS I PREPARED BY: PConsultingGroup 4745 MANGELS BOULEVARD FAIRFIELD,CALIFORNIA 94534 r" I PHONE 707.430.4300 a FAx 707.430.4319 www.sci-cq.com El-8 4/l/2008 194 Page All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means—graphic, electronic or mechanical, including any photocopying„ recording, taping or information storage and retrieval systems — without permission of SCI Consulting Group. SCI Consulting Group 4745 Mangels Boulevard Fairfield, CA 94534 PH: 707.430.4300 FAX: 707,430.4319 SII SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAMiiiiiimml OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 ConsultingGroup E1-9 4/1/2008 195 Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LISTOF FIGURES...................................................................................................................III INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1 PURPOSE........................................................................................................................1 SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATION ................................................................1 METHODOLOGY...............................................................................................................2 SAMPLE..........................................................................................................................2 DATA COLLECTION METHOD.............................................................................................2 MARGINOF ERROR...................................................................................................... ...3 BENEFIT ASSESSMENT FUNDING OVERVIEW............................................................................4 BENEFIT ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW................................................................................ ...4 COMPARISON OF BENEFIT ASSESSMENT WITH SPECIAL TAX................................................5 SURVEY RESULTS ADJUSTED TO PROJECT WEIGHTED BALLOT OUTCOME............................6 SURVEYFINDINGS..................................................................................................................7 TYPES OF PROPERTY AND WEIGHTED VOTES THEY HOLD...................................................7 FIRST SURVEY QUESTION................................................................................................8 OVERALL SURVEY RESULTS.............................................................................................8 SUPPORT FROM SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNERS ONLY........................................................8 OVERALLSUPPORT.......................................................................................................11 OVERALL WEIGHTED SUPPORT BY OWNER TYPE............................................................. 12 SERVICEPRIORITIES......................................................................................................15 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................17 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 'ConsuitingGrauP E1-10 47172008 196 Page iii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 -COMPARISON OF PARCEL TAXES AND BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS.................................6 FIGURE 2-WEIGHTED ASSESSMENT BY PROPERTY TYPE-OVERALL........................................7 FIGURE 3-SUPPORT BY RATE,SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNERS ONLY........................................9 FIGURE 4-DETAILED SUPPORT BY RATE,SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNERS ONLY-OVERALL......10 FIGURE 5-OVERALL SUPPORT BY PROPOSED RATE-OVERALL............................................. 11 FIGURE 6-DETAILED WEIGHTED SUPPORT-OVERALL..........................................................12 FIGURE 7-DETAILED WEIGHTED SUPPORT-COMPARISON WITH 2004 SURVEY....................... 12 FIGURE 8-SUPPORT BY AGE...............................................................................................13 FIGURE 9-SUPPORT BY HOUSEHOLD PARTY AFFILIATION......................................................14 FIGURE 10-PROPERTY OWNER SUPPORT LEVEL..................................................................16 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 ConsuttingGroup C1-11 4/l/2008 197 Page 1 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE This report presents the findings of a scientific survey of voters and the owners of property located within San Luis Obispo County (the County) conducted by SCI Consulting Group (SCI). The primary purposes of the study were to: a. Evaluate property owners' support, desires and priorities with respect to the proposed mosquito, vector and disease control services. b. Measure the relative level of support and priorities of the property owners and voters overall in the area by type of property owner and voter. c. Measure the level of financial support for the proposed mosquito, vector and disease control services. The survey presented the proposed services and an annual rate of assessment for a typical single family home of $9.80. It should further be noted that the actual proposed assessments were independently calculated for each owner and were based upon on property use and property size, and individually printed on each survey. After a brief overview of the methodology employed in the survey, this report presents a summary of the key survey findings. The survey utilized a mailed survey approach because SCI has found this survey technique to more closely and accurately model actual ballot results for a property owner mailed ballot proceeding. SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATION The survey found the overall weighted ballot support for the proposed funding measure for the proposed annual rate of$9.80 to be 53.8%. Based on these results, and as described in more detail below, SCI recommends that the County could proceed with a successful funding measure if there will be an organized and active effort to educate property owners about the measure before the ballots are mailed. SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 ConsuttingGroup E1-12 4/1/2008 198 Page 2 METHODOLOGY The survey was designed to simulate the specifics of a property owner weighted ballot proceeding for a benefit assessment in the County. The survey accounts for the unique participant response pool, effect of ballots weighted by proposed assessment amount, one ballot per household and other unique aspects of the benefit assessment ballot proceeding. In this way, the survey results will be predictive in evaluating the support an assessment measure would likely receive in the actual mailed-ballot election, SAMPLE SCI created a randomized, stratified sample pool comprised of property owners in the County. The sample was designed to draw from the property owners who would be eligible to participate in the mailed ballot proceeding for this funding mechanism and in proportion to their representation of property ownership throughout the area. Oversampling for certain types of property owners was also employed. Next, a sub-sample was created from this pool. The sub-sample was designed to test different levels of support at an annual assessment level of $9.80 per single family dwelling. The sub-sample for this research project was created using a randomized, stratified approach designed to replicate the ownership profile of property owners in the County. DATA COLLECTION METHOD Surveys were designed as a mail-based survey to replicate the mailed-ballot proceeding that would be used if the County proceeded with a benefit assessment measure. In January 2008, over 10,000 surveys were mailed to property owners within the County. The survey included general information about the funding measure and a questionnaire with an enclosed postage-paid return envelope.This data collection method closely mirrors the mailed-ballot proceeding and has proven to be highly reliable for predicting the results from an actual benefit assessment ballot measure. Over 2,500 surveys have been received from the property owners, representing a response rate of over 26%. Based on SCI's experience with other similar projects, this response rate is very good. SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 ConsultingGroup E1-13 4/1/2008 199 Page 3 MARGIN OF ERROR The overall statistical margin of error for the results presented in this report is about 1.9%. This margin of error means that there is a 95% certainty that the actual levels of support in the County are ± 1.9%from the results presented in this report. SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 ConsultingGroup E1-14 4/1/2008 200 Page 4 BENEFIT ASSESSMENT FUNDING OVERVIEW BENEFIT ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW As noted, the funding mechanism being considered in this study is a benefit assessment, Benefit assessments are a common local funding alternative for mosquito, vector and disease control services and such assessments have been approved in many other areas in California. Benefit assessments are levies on real property that are based on the "special benefit" each property receives from the mosquito, vector and disease control services to be funded by the assessments, Such assessments for mosquito, vector and disease control services have a long history of use in California. The application of special benefits generally means that the amount of proposed assessment will not be uniform for all properties. Properties that are deemed to receive greater benefit (larger properties and properties with higher numbers of dwelling units) will typically have relatively higher assessments. The benefit assessment is different from other revenue vehicles in its makeup, design, and voter participation. In short, it is charges levied upon parcels of real property to pay for benefits the parcels receive from local improvements and services. The charge is derived from the "special benefit," or a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the County or to the public at large. All property owners who would pay the proposed assessments are eligible to vote. Furthermore, the method of voting is through a mailed ballot procedure by which every property owner receives a ballot indicating the total amount of the proposed assessment for their property. The property owners who cast their ballots are voting based on the total dollar amount of their proposed assessment. Therefore, the results are determined by a weighting of total proposed assessments of the returned ballots. In order for the benefit assessment to pass, a majority of the weighted amount of the proposed assessments of the returned ballots is needed. In other words, the weighting of assessment ballots is the equivalent of one vote per dollar of proposed assessment. If the proposed assessment is$10 per home ,and $5.00 per fifth acre for business properties, an owner of a single family home could cast a ballot that is worth $10.00 in weighted votes, and the owner of a business on '/4 acre could cast a ballot that is worth half as much, or$5.00 in weighted votes. SAN Luis OBISPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 - `:ConsultingGroup E1-15 4/1/2008 201 Page 5 COMPARISON OF BENEFIT ASSESSMENT WITH SPECIAL TAX The primary local funding alternatives for the proposed services are a special tax (parcel tax) or a benefit assessment. A parcel tax is decided by registered voters in the proposed service areas, typically in a one-day election, and it requires 66.7% voter support. As noted, a benefit assessment is decided by all property owners in the proposed service areas, including business owners, apartment owners and agricultural property owners, and it requires a weighted majority support from property owners, In an election to approve a parcel tax, only registered voters are eligible to vote. This includes tenants who will not pay the proposed tax and excludes property owners such as business owners, apartment owners and others who will have to pay the tax, Because non- owner voters have a significant say in parcel tax elections and many other property owners who would pay the taxes are excluded from the voting, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association ("HJTA"), via Proposition 13, established a two thirds (super-majority) requirement for parcel tax elections. Conversely, all property owners being asked to support an assessment, including the owners of businesses, apartments and agricultural property, can vote on benefit assessments, and these property owners have a "say" that is proportional to their proposed assessment. Therefore, because all property owners who own property within the proposed service areas can vote and each owner's vote is proportional to how much they are being asked to pay, the HJTA established a weighted majority threshold for these mailed ballot measures (via Proposition 218). Figure 1 on the next page provides a further comparison of parcel taxes and benefit assessments: SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 '.Consultin g G ro up E1-16 4/1/2008 202 Page 6 FIGURE 1—COMPARISON OF PARCEL TAXES AND BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS I mom „� � il�'o-ie� 4971MIdr n r vdfd Ydli�l �i• Who Votes? Registered Voters Property Owners Who Created Requirements? Jarvis Taxpayers Jarvis Taxpayers Election Venue Polling Booth Mail Ballot Election Period 1 Day 45 Days Does Everyone Who Will Pay Get a Vote? No Yes Are Votes Proportional to How Much You Will Pay? No Yes Tax/Assessment Amounts Based on Benefit? No Yes Threshold of Vote Required for Success Super Majority Weighted Majority Common For Mosquito and Vector Control Agencies No Yes SURVEY RESULTS ADJUSTED TO PROJECT WEIGHTED BALLOT OUTCOME This survey was specifically designed to predict the outcome of a benefit assessment mailed-ballot proceeding, including the relatively higher weighted ballots for the owners of larger business and investment properties and the likely participation rates for various types of property owners. Unless otherwise noted, the level of support presented in this study is the projected actual weighted ballot result for the overall measure, including ballots from the owners of residential property, businesses, apartments, investment property and other properties. SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 TConsultingGroup E1-17 4/1/2008 203 Page 7 SURVEY FINDINGS Before discussing the survey findings, it is helpful to review the types of property in the surveyed area and their respective"weighted" votes. TYPES OF PROPERTY AND WEIGHTED VOTES THEY HOLD The following Figure presents the percentage of overall weighted "votes" for each type of property surveyed. As shown, in the areas surveyed, single family residential owners represent approximately 63% of the overall weighted vote, apartment and investment property represents 17%, business and industrial properties represent 12%; agricultural and other properties (which are primarily vacant parcels) represent 6%. FIGURE 2—WEIGHTED ASSESSMENT BY PROPERTY TYPE—OVERALL 13 Series1, Percent of Vote ® Series1, Single Agricultural and Family Other,6.0% Residential, 63.2% El Series1, Large Property Owners, s 2.5% l�' i9il�dl El lil r tl �4ri ill I'.l i i�a r�,l iI tl , SerieS1, BUSIneSS ,"� 1i�ill�i6hi 11 and Industrial, 1111--du a �, I I I�I I�u J�p �i�• ulnlr1� ' Iy'UI gJ� IIiIS Series1, Apartment and ;Mill Investment Property, 16.7% Note: Weighting of assessments and"votes"is based on likely assessment methodology based on experience by SCI. SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM �- OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 :ConsultingGroup E1-18 4/112008 204 Page 8 FIRST SURVEY QUESTION After the potential assessment rates and potential weighted votes were calculated for each property, the survey questionnaire and informational sheets were finalized and mailed. As noted, a postage-prepaid survey and informational document were mailed to a stratified sample of property owners within San Luis Obispo County. In the survey, property owners were first asked whether they would support or oppose a proposal to pay an annual property assessment for the information being presented. The first survey question on the proposed local funding measure was as follows: Question#1 (First Survey Question) In order to: • Improve services to control mosquitoes and the diseases they carry; • Establish more thorough testing,monitoring,and public education programs for diseases carried by mosquitoes and other vectors(such as rats and ticks) would you support a new annual assessment for your property(s)*in the amount of 9 *(Note the specific amount of proposed assessment for all of the properties owned by each surveyed owner was printed on each survey in the area underlined) OVERALL SURVEY RESULTS SUPPORT FROM SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNERS ONLY Figure 3 on the next page summarizes the level of support from single-family homeowners only for the proposed measure. It is important to note that the percentage of support displayed in these tables does not include other property owners, such as business, vacant and apartment owners. The analysis for single-family homeowners only is presented as an important datum to evaluate levels of support versus other measures, areas,etc. As shown in this Figure, support from single family homeowners overall was 59.1% at the proposed rate of$9.80 per year. SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 G)nsoltingGroup E1-19 4/1/2008 205 I Page 9 FIGURE 3—SUPPORT BY RATE,SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNERS ONLY SFIR Support by Proposed Rate 100.0% - ----- — -- -- - ---- 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% I 59.1% 60.0% o �V I CL 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% I I 20.0% 10.0% - i i d 0.0% $9.80 Rate SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 ConsultingGroup E1-20 4/1/2008 206 Page 10 Figure 4 below presents further details about the degree of support or opposition from single family owners in the County. This figure shows that many of the property owners are in the "Probably Yes" category. SCI has typically found that such owners will vote yes on the actual ballot measure if clear information about the proposed services is provided and an active opposition campaign does not develop. An equal percentage of respondents were in the "Definitely Yes" and "Definitely No" categories. This indicates that equal numbers of property owners are in strong support or opposition. SCI has found that most often these respondents will not be influenced to vote differently on the actual ballot measure. FIGURE 4—DETAILED SUPPORT BY RATE,SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNERS ONLY—OVERALL $9.80 27.1% 32.0% 13.8% 27.1% Detailed SFR Support by Proposed Rate 100% ----I 90% 80% ! 70% ki w{d �I V Ilu I �IINIIIHh9ldP y 13 8�IIG I 60°/ I ,', till hfhlNiaGf °II E o e 0 50%Tir6i4pm, li�ahly,'i11I 50% 40/° ®ssmes��malc I Ihl�lil Illldf iii I i ° J p{J320/bl I e} I-0 i 30% alu�ih2nwVi iie`�I wr" 20% 10% i 0% mom, $9.80 Rate cDefinitelyYes oProbablyYes aProbably NooDefinitelyNN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM '9Consons -u OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 uitingGroup E1-21 4/1/2008 207 Page 11 OVERALL SUPPORT As noted, one rate, $9.80 was tested for mosquito and vector control services. Figure 5 below shows the overall level of projected weighted support from all types of property owners at the $9.80 rate tested. Given the overall support is above the threshold of 50%, a ballot measure for an assessment amount at or below $9.80 could be successful if it is preceded and accompanied by an actual educational outreach effort. FIGURE 5—OVERALL SUPPORT BY PROPOSED RATE—OVERALL Detailed Overall Support by Proposed Rate 100% -- --- — _ — 90% i 80% 70% I + i i i;rj4 I wt,�il nqi Itl I� il9 y�iNJr I ,. r 80% d' �1IVyM92a3bdjolliu�ilP'ik�lPn411 50% a iii is 50% lj'ih�ri i�1' i Ipitiikd kl ° 40% il�� l�y9l 321°�"�Ij�ui�:IIV�4 IIi6V I /° 30% 20% 10% 0% $9.80 Rate oDefinitelyYes oProbablyYes t3ProbabtyNo CDefinitelyNo SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 ConsuttingGroup E1-22 4/1/2008 208 Page 12 OVERALL WEIGHTED SUPPORT BY OWNER TYPE Figure 6 provides more detail on the survey findings from all property owners. As shown, the level of support is highest from single family residential and agricultural property owners with support declining among business and industrial and apartment and investment property owners. FIGURE 6—DETAILED WEIGHTED SUPPORT—OVERALL ercentz. r o f. Single Family Residential 63.2% 59.1% Apartment and Investment Property 16.7% 44.8% Business and Industrial 11.6% 39.6% Large Property Owners 2.5% 29.9% Agricultural and Other 6.0% 53.7% Total 100.0% 53.8% In January 2004 SCI conducted a similar survey of property owners in San Luis Obispo County. Figure 7 below provides a comparison of the overall survey findings from the 2004 survey with the survey findings from the recent survey, This comparison shows that current support for the proposed assessment is only slightly less than it was in 2004. FIGURE 7—DETAILED WEIGHTED SUPPORT-COMPARISON WITH 2004 SURVEY 19k �10 ,Property:[yp� rVey Single Family Residential 63.5% 59.1% Apartment and Investment Property 45.5% 44.8% Business and Industrial 51.9% 39.6% Large Property Owners 45.9% 29.9% Agricultural and Other 52.0% 53.7% Total 56.2% 53.8% SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MosQurro AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM '=LW:.MMi -= OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 Cc nsultingGrouP E1-23 4/1/2008 209 Page 13 Figure 8 presents an analysis of levels of support from property owners by age groupings. This data demonstrates that support for the proposed funding measure increases as the age group increases, with the 65 to 90 age group being most supportive. It should be noted that the 18-29 age group held the smallest number of property owners, so the results for that age group have a higher margin of error. FIGURE 8—SUPPORT BY AGE Support by Rate and Age 70.0% 60.0% <. 50.0% ° I i p 40.0% v CL I � ❑$9.80 30.0% 4 i 20.0% 10.0% ! i 0.0% 18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 to 99 Age SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM :s- OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 _'.:'�ConsultingGroup El-24 4/1/2008 210 Page 14 Figure 9 presents the analysis of levels of support by political party affiliation for households whose owners are registered to vote. This data shows that support is higher among Democrat and Mixed households, and lower among Other and Republican households. FIGURE 9—SUPPORT BY HOUSEHOLD PARTY AFFILIATION Support by Political Party and Rate 80.0% ---� 70.0% 60.0% r ;t I 0% 50. � z , pCL aw it 40.0% (n s 30.0% I 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% D DD MX OR R RR Political Party Source: San Luis Obispo County Registrar of Voters SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 IiConsultingGroup E1-25 4/1/2008 211 Page 15 SERVICE PRIORITIES After indicating their degree of support for the measure, property owners were presented with a list of potential features and arguments for and against the measure, and were asked to indicate the degree to which each feature or argument would persuade them to vote for or against the measure. These questions were asked even of those owners who indicated that they intended to vote against the measure, This ensures that the reaction to the features and arguments reflect the overall community reaction, not just the reactions of those who intend to vote for the measure. As the figure on the following page illustrates, the top priorities and services, garnering more than 60% favorable responses or better were: ■ Test and respond to disease outbreaks associated with rodents, ticks or fleas ■ Reduce mosquito populations using environmentally safe approaches ■ Improve control of mosquitoes and the diseases they carry.- West Nile Virus, Encephalitis, Dog Heartworm These reactions to the services provide important insight to the community. The top priorities relate to reducing mosquito and vector populations and the diseases they carry. The results for all the services, issues and arguments are summarized in Figure 9 on the next page. SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM P= OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 Consulting Group EI-26 4/1/2008 212 m I Ir o T !� a PO m Y n .J a ry I' ❑ I Y e N J C8 cn 'j "a o C I I i O m a n. a. v E CL — o Q i ❑ w 0 I Z N d a N m c o LM m E o � O ca a3i U N O E U N E fl a1 v o 3 o E o m H ° m u U) c N a O @ c 13 r' $ E m c W J2c r U O = c ry Q Y (•) 'O d mo- E. `o a o tm N O J y m m m E E 0 • Y m rn o `m � z o C3 111 d U N C U ca Lu co dl 'O O' L L R O D O p N N 4UI D N z N 'O Q LLI E N (0 a o E cc w 0 > a E 5 v t o 9 m Cl) U) n O d 4 ma`. o y Z m m m a Q ~ = U c U Q N V O OO w E vai Cn O N ° m W e p ° o a c E (nZ p > so y O W J Z a Z a E U)0 E E1-27 4/1/2008 213 Page 17 RECOMMENDATIONS The survey respondent pool closely parallels the likely universe of property owners who would probably vote in a mailed-ballot proceeding, and the survey results presented in the Report have been adjusted to account for the projected ballot participation and ballot weighting aspects of a benefit assessment ballot proceeding. Therefore, the overall results presented in this survey should be reflective of the actual weighted ballot outcome from a benefit assessment ballot proceeding, assuming the measure does not receive organized opposition and the local and national economic conditions remain similar to the time of the survey. This survey found that if the San Luis Obispo County Mosquito Abatement Program proceeded today with a benefit assessment of $9.80 per year for a typical single family property and the measure was supported by extensive and effective outreach to the community, the measure would likely achieve a weighted majority of property owner support. SCI makes the following recommendations for a benefit assessment ballot to fund the proposed services: 1) Rate Recommendations As noted, based on the findings from the survey, SCI recommends that a mosquito, vector and disease control services funding measure can be successful if the rate is not more than $9.80. Section 3 below lists further educational outreach recommendations to build community support, 2) Controlling Mosquitoes,Vectors and the Diseases they Carry are Top Issues The top priorities for a local funding measure centered on controlling mosquitoes, vectors and the diseases they carry, as well as the use of environmentally safe methods to do so. This indicates that property owners will support a local funding measure if it is centered on effectively controlling mosquitoes, vectors and the diseases they transmit. 3) Education and Outreach Recommendations. An educational outreach and informational messaging approach is highly recommended. The message focus should be on the need to provide a stable funding source for mosquito, vector and disease control services, and the need to control mosquitoes, vectors and the diseases they carry. SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 :ConsultingGroup E1-28 4/'1!2008 214 Page 18 Following are additional recommendations: ❑ Address the Key Issues and Form a Consistent Message. The County will need to address the key issues controlling mosquitoes, vectors and the diseases they carry, and environmental concerns raised in the survey and form several concise messages to present to the public. These messages should be designed to further educate the public about the value of mosquito and vector control services and the need for funding to continue the County's current level mosquito and vector control services and to expand future services. The County should also inform residents of all current and future efforts to improve mosquito and vector control services. The outreach effort should also work to increase participation in educational outreach programs because increased participation and awareness translates into increased support. ❑ Explain that all funds raised will be used locally. The County should include in all messaging a statement that all of the funds raised by this assessment will be used for services and projects in the County, and that none of the money raised can be appropriated by Sacramento or Washington. ❑ Educate the Large Agricultural, Business and Apartment Owners. Most of the votes in a benefit assessment ballot are held by the owners of residential properties. SCI's experience has shown that providing sufficient information and establishing dialogue with the owners of these types of property can translate into higher levels of understanding and even support for the funding measure. These property owners typically require more detailed information in order to make an informed decision on this issue. SCI's experience has shown that with additional information and personal contacts such owners will likely better understand the need for the proposed assessment. These owners typically recognize that their property and the local economy benefits from mosquito and vector control services. ❑ Use Media as a Conduit. Work with local media, particularly newspapers, to raise community awareness of the proposed services. Also utilize sections in all available publications to continue the educational outreach approach. ❑ Involve Community Leaders. Identify important community leaders and enlist them to assist with the planning and outreach efforts. ❑ Make Contact with Community. The most effective way to build awareness and understanding of a local funding measure is for local volunteers to contact other SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM "`='ry^'"'' iimm OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 'ConsuitingGroup El-29 4/1/200$ 215 Page 19 property owners in the area. Such contacts, which can be by phone or in person, are the best way to build support for a local funding measure. ❑ Involve the Community Stakeholders. Community Stakeholders are those who may benefit most significantly from the improved mosquito and vector control services. These stakeholders could include homeowners associations, agricultural associations, seniors, and families with children. Stakeholder leaders will need to communicate the need for improved mosquito and vector control services, within the consistent message,to their memberships. SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM ry OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 ConsultingG ro u p E1-30 216 4/1/2008 ITEM NUMBER: C-4 DATE: 09/23/08 �'a iwia inn C-11918 ' ® 1979 Atascadero City Council Staff Report - Administrative Services Department Amendments and Additions to Fee Schedule RECOMMENDATION: Council adopt Draft Resolution A adding new fees and amending selected existing fees. DISCUSSION: The purpose of City government is first and foremost to service the needs of the people. That is done in many different ways in Atascadero, and one of these ways is by providing recreational, athletic, and educational opportunities to the community. These services are funded in part by General Fund subsidy, and in part by Service Fees paid by the user. Staff is preparing for a full Planning and Service Fee Update in which evaluations will be done to effectively calculate the cost of providing each service. Additionally, staff will provide a comparison with similar fees in other cities. Until that is presented to Council, however, staff recommends some interim updates to Service Fees. Like other service agencies, the City needs to be competitive in price and variety of recreational offerings. On review of the Fee Schedule, staff determined that opportunities to provide new services existed, but without a mechanism to recover some of the costs of these new services, they couldn't be offered. With the additions and changes on the attached Fee Schedule, the City can offer a wider range of activities and can have the opportunity to add appropriate service-related fees in the future (with proper staff authority and within Council constraints). Additionally, staff found that there were a few minor services that weren't addressed in current fee schedule. These services, such as Minor Tree Protection Plan Reviews and Fire Express Permits, would benefit the community. Fees to provide these services are included in the attached Additions and Amendments to Fees for Planning and City Services 217 ITEM NUMBER: C-4 DATE: 09/23/08 Other general service items have also been included in the schedule following Council's direction to maintain consistent fee recovery. Finally, critical to legendary customer service is the ability to, with the appropriate authority, waive a fee. Staff proposes that Council approve a fee waiver on the Service Fee Schedule that would give staff, with the approval of the Director of Administrative Services, the ability to waive certain fees that were incurred due to staff error. The Service Fees will go into effect sixty days (60) after the resolution is adopted. FISCAL IMPACT: There will be an estimated annual increase in operating revenue of $40,000 from the changes to these service fees. ALTERNATIVES: • Council may change any of the proposed fees. • Council may keep the current fees. This option is not recommended as the amount of tax dollars necessary to provide these services would increase, reducing the amount of money available for key Council priorities. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolution A 218 DRAFT RESOLUTION A A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ADDING NEW FEES AND AMENDING "FEES FOR PLANNING AND CITY SERVICES" (ATTACHMENT A TO RESOLUTION 2006-080) WHEREAS, the City wishes to comply with both the letter and the spirit of Article X11113 of the California Constitution and limit the growth of taxes; and, WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero provides various planning and building development services to the public including, but not limited to, processing applications, reviewing plans and maps, issuing permits and reviewing development agreements (the "Planning Services"); and, WHEREAS,the City of Atascadero desires to establish a policy for recovering some portion of the costs reasonably borne by providing special services, including but not limited to park and recreation services, rental of city property, police and fire services, and other miscellaneous city services, of a voluntary or limited nature, such that general taxes are not diverted from general services of a broad nature and thereby utilized unfairly and inequitably such special services ("City Services")-, and, WHEREAS, City Council intends to collect various fees (the "Fees") and, in certain cases, require advance deposit of the Fees, to offset the costs associated with providing the Planning Services and City Services; and, WHEREAS, City Council desires to collect fees fairly and thereby gives authority to the City staff, with the approval of the Director of Administrative Services, to waive certain fees that arise as a result of a staff error; and, WHEREAS, because some of the Fees are described in Government Code section 66014, (i) notice of the time and place of this meeting as well as a general description of the matter,to be considered are to be mailed at least 14 days prior to the date of this meeting to those parties (if any) who have filed requests for such notification, and since no requests were filed no notices were mailed and (ii) data indicating the amount of the estimated cost required to provide the Services and the resources anticipated to fund the Planning Services were made available to the public at least 10 days prior to the date of this meeting, all in accordance with Government Code section 66016; and, WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66016 applies to fees authorized in Government Code sections 51287, 56383, 57004, 65104, 65456, 65863.7, 65909.5, 66013, 66014 and 66451.2, Health & Safety Code sections 17951, 19132.3 and 19852, Public Resources Code section 41901 and Public Utilities Code section 21671.5 consisting of primarily fees for zoning variances, zoning changes, use permits, building inspections, building permits, filing and processing applications and petitions filed with LAFCo, the processing of subdivision maps, tentative, final and parcel maps and planning services to be charged for development projects; and, WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66018 applies to the adopting or increasing fees to which a specific statutory notice requirement does not apply; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code sections 66016 and 66018 the enactment or increase I 219 in any fees to be charged for services must be adopted by the City Council by ordinance or resolution, after providing notice and holding a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Additions and Amendments to the Fees for Planning and City Services detailed in Exhibit 1 attached hereto are consistent with the City of Atascadero General Plan; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code sections 66016 and 66018, the data required to be made available to the public prior to increasing the amount of the fees by this resolution was made available for public review at least 10 days prior to the date of this meeting; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code sections 66014, 66106, 66018 and 6062a, notice of a public hearing on the increase to the amount of fees was published in the Atascadero News twice, with at least five days intervening the two publications, commencing at least ten days prior to the date of this meeting; and, WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing before the City Council was held on September 23, 2008, at which public testimony was received and duly considered on the proposed Planning Services and City Services Fees; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has previously adopted Resolution No. 2006-080 setting forth such fees, and desires to amend and restate potions of that resolution without rescinding said adoption; and, WHEREAS, the amount of the Fees do not exceed the true cost of providing the Planning Services and City Services; and, WHEREAS, the increase to the amount of the fees is not a "project" subject to the California Environmental Quality Act because it is a funding mechanism having no physical effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Atascadero : Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and the City Council so finds and determines. Section 2. Establishment of the Fees. The fees as established in Attachment A of Resolution 2006-080, "Fees for Planning and City Services" are amended and added to as detailed in Exhibit 1 to this Resolution for the purpose of funding the cost of providing the Services. Section 3. Collection of the Fees. The Fees levied pursuant to this resolution shall be paid to the City either at the time the Planning Service or City Service is requested or required or shall, in certain cases, be advanced to the City in the form of an advance deposit as further detailed on Exhibit 1. Section 4. Constitutionality. If any portion of this Resolution is declared invalid or unconstitutional then it is the intention of the City Council to have passed the entire Resolution and all its component parts, and all other sections of this Resolution shall remain in full force and effect. 220 Section 5. Repealer. All resolutions and other actions of the City Council in conflict with the contents of this Resolution are hereby repealed. Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect 60 days after the, effective date of this Resolution, and shall remain in effect, until revised by the City Council. On motion by Council Member and seconded by Council Member the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO Mike Brennler, Mayor ATTEST: Marcia McClure Torgerson, C.M.C. City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Brian Pierik, City Attorney 221 C N O N C N a C V O cn O ) Q ` "O N• N .-. C W O U)QO C NO NN , i O O O C6 O Q co O O U O = O C CSULO CNCC OC U N aS FO OU) NLo O + + O N LL E E OU O CC } EU O C C CO Q LO UO R3 U E Q) O 00 a) p O N N C (0 oyf y, u) -o O E E E '� 7 a? � � � ._ LL CC LL C N O C) CO O E Q a) 'C C O O - m U) CV T N N O O ON ce (Z C7 N N coCLO C\j ^C 5 O •L .'D cz O C 7 N O a) N '� a C C\jO O N N C O E 6 O C a) n Y C C - Q U LL cn C E Q C E C O CUO "00 a O `O E N N LL Lcu m L O E O o a) ._ m o L i m .� in > LL m 4LL CZ TU a �� ooCU Q Y o— Q Q ti ° oQ Q Z d o W cC .. Z •C ': :� E U = C .C.OEM IT U Q .off LZ a .•,c o 0 Z d h `a Ccro D J *J) d Ll N , uim o o i� c ro c� cl y ro (1) ski (D C4, a LL O a �+ yC Q c E Q m 0 cn C) m 1 .d, o O d' C 4 LL: cn c s Q � F N CD co 222 o U) LO c N 0 69 0 70 cro a ro t o E o C o E c,) LO o ro ro ca m t4 U E > ro cn a) N cu V) t O U) O C E C u m e co E 0 E a) cn ,C o ° `° U _ L) - o co Cl) U o to `o aci m - m :5 E _o u > ti O a) J 0 ! 0 L m E ca - roE ro E mE -o o o N 0 o °� F E o � O E a m U _ _ i B O O L.q — ' O 0 — M 0) ro 0 U •c E ro O ro c a? ro -0 ao ^ ro E aro) - 0 c U) N (Z cz- G) ,: o c c E ac) ro ro °' _ ro 0 E ro U) LL mcu N v aci Cl) ! o oU roo - ° oo � T v Ec n aroia`�i a) ._ cz > ro .0 — N »_ a — O c to EA ro a) cn cn L 'G ] ] 7 0 0 0 O ro Y 0 (f) .� Q) O 7 (6 (� "" O O EF3 Eo � n > � do U) m - m E Nocm o E o00 foo d > N ro ro < 0 0 a E E _ o c N E N `� E a� °ts c m C o E c ° E c 3 ro a) o o ._ 0 ro � 3 U) o o 0 0 > .� `-' cad E � co c � - O m U a� •0m0 c � C/) j= � � � E o � ro ro o 0 0 o ro U 7 cz c roi tach o 2 <n � � >° (zifl c .� o � � � � z �' U) Z W q rd. c. Fcc a ao.�`�C D'pr cl r Li _ W L y. LZn 15 to T5LO N N,. N N "Y'a w E W '> a E s � a � mar 0 a) �� •0 0 C C: o a� E E: C. CIL- r 'y4 A) � U 'Ali — 2 1-- � a- o cr } r 0 0 N: r- 223 0 •c � O — ,� -p V cd c E - 8 c m cc c a) roa) Cc ° - Q) c to 00 c a� m c U DIro n Y w U) C: - '0 -� N COcq N ro p N C >o E LL N o o = U roO c ca r O. ro c i O m a� r v c = cn _ O -o a E _ro .0 69 � 0 c ro 'oa co c Q ro c N O c 0) 0 0 d N o f ani a) a� a� o o LL y cn c_ D ro o `n ro V cz U) w o E o 000000co > > E cn '� o c CD N ca o cV V � 7 U U i ,Z7 - c > ro •c U) c s s Y CD v > E a > o »_ o ca m < < o ro ro ro `m Q U U C u) E N d cL a C � () a) U c1'5 ro L O L O > a) N ro in fn ro E c f- v v F- U °� ,- m c c W U E © C 0 o! a. a L e 0 � a, r m d - Z � :c 'd • O �- � o z u. Lu E cc LL i — � r fn ro O Q N 0 0- 0 > :cU aO .0 Rf „ N o 0 N "f aroi a o 3 u_ LL U) -o Q am CO m � o (a) a_ ° 7 'p E aso `m a `� Q at8 � r w rr y �- w J, rollo v_ 224 U) N U) U V O p c m ° i ' CZU ° ° o m O N ro U N U a) C O C O!. > o `O ° cn ro > c ro v z ro C N o C N o o t °o a c o o CO CO o c c .� o m c .� '� ° 0. ° c s - > a s c o c m o .�. .0 fVn u'QdC. •� Z f— C C a� OOc UCNUC(n N o C O 'aam) U O o C ro --0 C CUoC O N U C) 0 ro ,a 0 � a) To0 ° 04> U 0 N U U° ro ro ro ro .O i ° Nro D, ro - ca CU 0 0 > oU° •Oo C) 76 a .0 12 n o �a) a� m ° o -o -o a� m 'a -o a� a� ro o (J > a� W a r �3 UU vUC 'CroO_ �C ca ro .. .... O +. 2 L o'nU ❑ C Ttf7 Cro CN . C) •. L NN (n 0 C O O cz .5 cu o c m C15aOO °cn ° ( a ` ` aaa E U) C) mC) G) D Z � oca o + � C/) Co u Zo0 oLOocno a) z ca C) mN Cl) 7 tCMO +. -0 ti OJ (a C ' W O ` = C Q to . F 73 L N- O0° C 1 %0— •fl 'Q_ T v� Q Cco c U. c OFC F N J *.. w CcC r F � � cLL o q a Lli uj d U LL' a a fn U 225 O °0 L 0 0 Lo cm m c o (n c E m 0 U rn N > Y � 0 a a > — U cU) c (n i 0l. C 0 .> cti •- to tz- = 0E �- � 0 RS >= cn co •- c w - c i o � c o c o c o c E o vs ,L Q U c i o m m o m m d > � o o Ec0w Ec Ecca Ec Ec LL � '� m o N c m E c m E c a> E c N m E c m o c 0 0 = — o o c L o ca L o 0 ro L o 0 Q Q 0 LO o o o -0 o o N O O O 0 O a o 0 0 0 0 o y o V _ vi co o o c c c c o > > c c 0 O ,N 0 i 'a Z3 o o 0 0 o o 0 0 0 o o 0 o CIOo o 0 o 0 0 0 -00 0 •� 0 — o ca o cs oss c oLCC c � at � sL � � � c � L L ,i CI d c aco 0 C7 c c o o `m `m a� N `m a� m a� `n `m `m `m a� `m . > a� m °� a� N as > C: 0 '� E - � � c c c cam c c c EM o + .- .(SS Y 0 LI) O q'ELO Ln 0 LO LD 0 0 0 -- Ln 0 0 0 0 0 O I N � .- •-• •.• = N Y c Y c •;Q en 'e •c L L o e c� o v �t e o cn cD e - cn o co rr e co o -T Lo c co E o ++ c c o L 0 � cv E — �s m � > � o o � > 69 E 0 Z c °o CO con Ccn °� Q C7 69 LU 0 w U W cm •� d C C _£c w ciQa L N %0- O O r a r 0 LL ;v c a CO w E � •a a T a N ' aoi C LL. m O' N J Z w Lz 0 J �€I Q in 14-�, O p'lz 7 CD 226 ». z '— t). o ro E o a� a. E C E C0U, iii > N (o U C � E U) _ U) U) U1 0 ) Ecn O _ fn O O _ Cn C _ (% N C •� .O O` C C i C i 5 C i Q) .0 "O E C (n to a 0 N O N (D O a) a) a) (6 N C O O m ° E c E c M - E c E E m E E a) ° c c E m E c° f E °c E o 0 E � o °c U o ° m °c °c N m v ° as ° ° M 0 0 ° CO o o T ' a o o o 0 0 o `o o `0 0 0 o ao 0 0 `o 0 fCf CoV to ° ° c c c c c c c > > > c ° ro 0 0 ° 0 ° ° c E c = c O O -° O 0 0CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _c L -2 0 C C O 0 0 0 c U) a� `m °� m > 0 0 0 (6 `m 2 0 o > `m a`) 02 `m cn m a`) 0 `° � � O O `m cr0 ca o `c c c ° � c c (no o � Y � c000 -2oo n 'C to to C O C y (C) O O LO 'C to C 0 � � y 0 0 O O 'C CA r C 0 Q j Cl) 6 0) a) L!') C C7 j 60 (O C 6Cl)0 69 co C 69 > 69 69 E O N c\j1! CO N (`7 ('7 N w (3: w 01 co LM LLI �► V i, � Q 0 r�'W! LL d ' v z Fogar a J a a N Lu E LL O O, o�� w c � O m ' c', a Q a w ° CD 227 U) � ro ro ro w m o 3 o ZS L O a �a o ro a m UcM a) ro Cl) -0 o ro 3 60a� m. ro C 0 N + 0 _ _ U i CZO ro coro r LO N ro > Mp. Lcz + "O O "d C U 4) -rop N a ro C O O N d .«_ a) .� a 0 Ln O C U N L ca cn LL C 69 m ro LO ro v7 ro ro O a0 ro p •• U O _ O U O N 169 U N C a) ro -p N X "ro0 "O Ln O 0 U O — L d _ r O CO U y — •U r V 69U O O O — N L 69 r N d o m — 3 m ami cLL Co � : 0 � cn ro o Z aro) o cl oN oo > 0 ° o 0 aoi 3 � � m °� � .0 LL OC ro LL .-. O 'O C U 'T r Q cn d U L L C N 10 � a) d U E U C .O a) N ro o d U) U U O r 0 ro + roo � � a� � a>i �° ? EUaom � .� ro � � LmN U L Q) w •— Q) CV O ro _O O d L ca ro O > > O > O - o cz cc 69 � V •` 'z NT— N r V U C) C) m ro C7 U) d- n0a- If— J � � U � cfl LU tC +p+ Z � co CSLM a ca V H FL . 73Q o c r •� , . Z ; OLL M M CT .r J *' N k w E Fco— L Ey a 3 a m m :R p Cy E 'D C >. Y� O co N r N N c C 41 O O o O- ,' a��r ! LL LL m R m ro �� a 0ra) a) .o 3 .o a rt+ C p C: 0 � o mm a wIL Dom° 3U m 3CD � 3U co Q z U v r w z U o c of O Z W W O Q W LLL W U Z, —i C'1 } wa } waZ U W Q �— F— S Q � f— S — Zco 0- - ZU � LL Z Z Cl) } Z W S Z W S W > W > Z J 2 W 2 J 2 W 2 a Q W Q W O O W W 00 W W W r co W a r. M c2 OL C 228 C) o _ cz L O C > p N E O/ U N p cC N 0 U _ 0 Un C a Un. . _ co -ON m O a '0 O fr RS L _ — � i + C -p ` N a mr O a) _ O U j O O ca U D. N; O O Un d' a LO O C L + N N O N C QN(�B U _ ` cri= c 0 O N "d 41 N C •U _ (n U '�' N .0 n — O a LL cl C a w (n co mN N p 0 cz O w O C C _O a) O .0 U C -0 O p O E O x i O C O Q) — aJ Un Lo cn a� m = o ois � a L— CD � 60 °a) 0N LsLL `L 000Oa) a> E0um + O 0 0 N . Q a) 4.0 � Ca O O a) ro E p > o c° o o co CO Un O O N d in Lo Q _ 9 _ 0.9. Q � > 04 a, O ' £ c C,0 1 .� O _ w 173 LL. _ r o .., a► 7 4W „ < FrW cn cn F c U LL. Q CoO � Q U U `s c cn C cn C) p E o = ai ami W a =3 o moo a� E) ` m C� c W .E a Q u=L LL W W J �V W W Q td' Z ZZ J W WW W Q Cn U U W Z >- � GJ ZZ Z W WO � U) u.. � Q pia Co LLJ < OLL, 000 Q¢ w UU UU W C7 Ircc + Cl)r T r r ` M ° co 229 U ° c c 3 0 c .00 N o ,C .. ,> C C o U O O N •C O N U a U) N U U U C C = N t0.. O C .� cLf � Fn W O _O .fl -0 L U a0> o °� O ° c a E c c° m ° F- ro 60 ° c .. o 0 o c c o - L O E = N ° = � ° o c o Uo NN O t� 0 En 0 ° N �LV »..�Cd•. > > O O= L � iU cora 78 N O U a . O U cu N —•UC C O U O UL U cz UUE C U aONU w> UO C U O O O N N O C6 0 U cu L =O =O aO pUcri >O 0 0 00 C C L L L OC UN LO q U Z) LL r C�►.�+� _ UI U O U D L6 Ir LO LO vC Uo Cj U Y (6 + „ 69 cu Q)roVz W co EL c Q L N A C5 OLp� r Q ! L "E d1 W � a a LL cc a : Ct' LL m 'D yr •,° ac; C -Up � N O c a N � � J J 'd Q Z Lij Z Cl) LLI Z Y Q LIJJ = w p1: (D ro 0 230 � c — M 0 U) c ~ 3 0 m m E m c ° mo o E D) c m °� � mac° � ° E0 °'In C) � m c - 0. rn ¢ m mcz o o is ca U c E ° U U Lo m O O m a ° o o cc mam ° occ o �CD a� E c U m co c (� cO °O >g > cn oc m L .0 N � O w° — '° C c O O m (a — >dJ U i .fl O V C _ a NO N OcC 0O 7O (C NN O O O ° N m m m mc o 'D M M ¢ O E a a om cu am m ° s (Z¢ a 'o -o w o c ° ° c "° ` c a ca m o (D mm0 � O =(/ m ° CoE o o + -E U) oo maaY 'o (n LO N C O O 0 0 Y�9 ncZno c� W »� sc' 0 Q a 0 s Ccy c LL c mo . c E-- 0 0 i Zj Q x�WA a oc a gZ Nl ami � 0 aa C: c A C ¢ Q Q e W K i hw`a w ' W a W o W Li- ' � a: ¢ ° ¢ ¢ � •' 0 0 231 V C Cd o '� E C p — CC O N to O O O Lo O O � N O cu 3 y � N w a O C r tC1 Lo :� p ?� O a) (D + (If .� N A V V a (llco i N co O 7 O O o (zcu ° O c C\I oo °� o o � c � °) o � E oc 69 H o s o m o � a m o ro n c� .Lo n a� c o r ' u. o o _m a �- p o ° o — air cz o v o N o fA o s cn o co V d C O O O CO •L� 'EOdCl �iCo" aN OCO N (COll "tOO NC co . ' NO CY N r aC6 fC C CY N � > � > > o C = (Z N 2 _0 ' N sCS > (C N _c _ p 'O O O C co (COaC 0 > C CCn CD coo NO CO O s Cn "= C .� O o N 0 0 0 0 0 ..O C C O '� (6 fll N N w0 :p O O O O .,_. 70 Lo o o = (no (> o 0 4 c -o L 2 - o (o -o0o -a o goo o � � a U !� r � L m U N N N (O Z o o C O c0 O N N (n Lo co N t h a)69 69, 0 C to 69w — O ca Z WIMdLM a M � clo Q 0 „ C:. Z 0 , 0 0 cn Wxk an LLLL L LL 0 3 a a e0` LL a ¢ Q Q Z Q co H I}— Z v W J J W U) U fr P,Z, QU LL � � W W U W1¢L � J , � > W W o W Q W rr i' QQ cpi Q W � � m 2 ., Ir 0] �— N Q m m ' .. O O O co O r O O CO 232 "-' LO CD_ U LO - o E Ca > 0 Q) ai a a) o O > a c C^ N C O UC _r + U E U N E O µp RS: ro0 C _ 0. "a ro U 'O U C5 (D a) rn = cz ro °' --m ,%oi _ O N .0 fn a) (n y U O a) — 0 m N C p a) O U C C E C cz 0 ro b C C = (z r O Cy C > O QEQQ� o ' L)co `m ww c c m¢ co AD roro vr= Oi io o = 2. 76 mEEU)c ro 70 Lo N un0OrZ LL co ca O ai CD 69 .m 60 LL ZWc �, 0 cm Cr c cr U LL C;Z a y C. l N .,.. y J +, d c� 0 w O C OWC a) = 0) 13D) a) v O a '(. w co c w •c p 0 �� con vi r .� 0 CZ c ro c a ro 0 c s tT? U- .� T° (z •- ro - a a) ro c 0 (n a nab `0 E U) = a Cl) i ro C c o6 >, a) > ro a c O Co a o :J a) c a) a� _ m 3 c E > ro m N *wrr d a) LL O U N N O U N CD 0 0 iy a) a LL C a) ' C 0 ` O N N U) m C1 0 N y Q a) a) a) a) i N �� 7 U) ,E C 0 } a) N a) ro C ro C a) (0 C ro c N a) 0 a) Q to ZT L -O LL ~O '0 LL O U LL 3: O 0 LL LL LL LL (1) in '0 N N .U) LL °) > (n .(n > cn 3 3 � ro o O n (n 3 Q m m E m r �' ro x Q) �' ro x a) m 0 a) = m co O x m m E Q• Z - LL Q ZF- CL 3: W Z I- a W Z Z Z Z !- 3CR2 W in Z Q H W Z Z Z Ur f- w Cp a W ZQZ m' ¢J < ZZ _ZZ ¢ ~ Z n 2 � U Z Q (j0 LL Zp ZLD O z � mZw (n O O p } U Z WZ W ZZw ZF- ZF- W } W Z U W Q } CL WO � O � o J � -j Q ~ � mmmOLL Z O > ci < ~ UF- Z n W Z 0- Ir Z J � O (WjZW W J X L O W F- � W � Z c. W � L�LI W WLUJ W WF- O () F- W � W > � WULL W <� E vi OJCn FFW - +� O Ww < (1) OOW QOw � OWwQI- 00 �Lu �� c (Z wQp Z } ° � LL ? m � U � � U2 2Uo (nJZU Li— [f LL O (na W U m ui LL O O CD r-- N N LO 4) O O O O Q r r O O O \ 1 .�....M,.:� CD O co CD Z O (D CD O CD 233 ro m ai cn L c co ° E c o o c o ° o E a, V ° `oaci �_ ° c cu a� E E c .cZc Z > cz C o s ro v c = E E _ m 0 •cn N .0 o cn 3 _ 0 ° » 'E a) — � ? � E mQ � > ° o cz = Y c p _ p t ° _ N R o 0 o y o o U p 'a o U p o 0 o = i� p v m °E M � am T Z ° ° m c U � rC) -° ° > cU) � ° d to 69 U) L4 ° T N o C-)i U � m LOmOQ > � � Q > -0 ° O Cw O O O — U r VV1CEy ; c a°i cED U ro c > — to 0 _ ° U ° ° = +° ° O ac U) UC) DC-)0 � maa ° Ym° ioao Qin c am oo 0 o o o cii oo ° a) ELL � rocto 0C C- C) CU "6 ° `E ° o o EEo r ° Em O C °O U - co O vO ° cam f» � iO— ° n� `vNcca' cz W 7 V C c•co a Qtea $ ,� Q T Cs CL L6 Ll cl CL G r-• ;':;I N J ,.. N LL m v LL 'x L LLQ ;r4 U- G) a> C i W W l L LL LL w C "O a O co O U . , .O N C C C IL ¢ ¢ a z z Oz J p W O d Z p Z 00 p O p U w O O Z aZi O OU _wp0 IL U U � v � O cn w ¢ z w > w U) ¢ O p Owp z < O > UY WO w W � ~ 00 � 2iO wF- F J U U U W Z W U U > U) U � s w w � w uj �owO ¢ � O OwUw a U a Ir 4- F- m v) 0- fr w p aC Q LL w 0 am Q 0o CD cfl CD cD cD co co Z z 234 ITEM NUMBER: C-5 DATE: 09/23/08 o�iris ® p 1979 C" A tascadero City Council Staff Report - Community Services Department Colony Park Community Center Status Report RECOMMENDATION: Council review Colony Park Community Center status report and receive and file. DISCUSSION: Background: The Colony Park Community Center (CPCC) opened in December, 2007. The facility has now been open for nine months. Staff would like to report on the Center's program of activities and the public use of the facility to date. Programming: One of the most important elements of the new Community Center is the level of service for programs and activities. Many of the City's programs formerly located at the Pavilion have moved over to the new building, and many new activities have been added. Fees paid to the School District for use of their facilities have been greatly reduced. The CPCC hours of operation when school is in session are: Monday through Friday, 3:00pm to 8:00pm, Saturday 11:00am to 9:00pm, and Sunday 1:00pm to 5:00pm. The Cafe, operated by the concessionaire, is open Monday — Friday 8:00am to 8:00pm and Saturday 11:00am to 9:00pm. The Cafe is closed on Sundays. The Community Center hours are adjusted for holidays and when school is not in session. The Teen Center is a major component of the Community Center. This area includes the game room, which is open on a drop-in basis. Some of the activities include: video games, ping pong, pool table, air hockey, foosball, movies, TV, etc. The area is adjacent to the Cafe, which is off to a good start with LeBoeuf's BBQ, our new concessionaire. The Teen Center area will serve kids from the 7th through the 12th grades. Through August, there were 692 teens that became members of the Teen Center, and the kids made 5,674 visits to the Teen Center since it opened. This does not include kids who visit the gym, for drop-in basketball, for example. Teen Center memberships have brought in $6,788 to date. No teen is turned away due to inability to pay for a card. The Teen Center tends to average between 20-30 kids per 235 ITEM NUMBER: C-5 DATE: 09/23/08 day, with over 90 teens on the single highest day. Male members outnumber female by a ratio of 66% to 34%. The supervised Homework Lab re-opened on September 5th, 2008, and is available from 3:00-5:00pm, for kids who would like help with their homework. The Lab is a quiet space that is free to kids of all ages. Twelve (12) laptop computers are available that are connected to a printer. The CPCC is open later in the evening for special events and activities such as teen dances or concerts, which occur on a periodic basis. The CPCC houses many other activities such as youth and adult sports. The facility offers adult leagues as well as drop-in activities. These activities have generated over 300 unduplicated participants since opening. Additionally, the Center is home to "Start Smart" a developmental sports program for preschoolers 3-5 years old. Another area of programming includes special interest classes. Some of these classes include: yoga, tai chi, karate, dance, gymnastics, art, language, sports, piano and more. Over 1 ,000 individuals have enrolled in classes and similar activities at the Center since December. These classes are conducted on a contract basis; the gross revenue is split with the independent contract instructors. The CPCC is available for rental activities, and has generated over $8,304 to date. Previous rentals have included North County Christian home basketball games, the Youth Task Force, dances, concerts, library events and various meetings. No alcohol is allowed in the facility. LeBoeuf's Cafe is available to cater events at the facility. Under the direction of Recreation Supervisor Jennifer Fanning, the facility part-time staff supervises the front counter and game room and is responsible for general facility welfare. Other staff and contract instructors are assigned based upon the scheduling of new or existing programming for the facility, and they supplement the Supervisor/Center Director and part-time staff. Sandy Scott, of Public Works, oversees the facility maintenance. He is doing an excellent job caring for the facility. Facility Policies, Procedures and Standards of Operation: Staff has implemented specific facility use policies and standards of operations. Thus far, these policies have served the City well in daily operations. Annual costs of operating the Colony Park Community Center are approximately $400,000. The Colony Park Community Center operations are currently under budget. Moreover, the facility is meeting the community's long-standing need to have for a special place for teens and recreational facilities for the larger community. FISCAL IMPACT: None. 236