Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 12/08/1987 CINDY WILKINS DEPUTY CITY CLERK NOTE: THERE WILL BE A CLOSED COUNCIL SESSION AT 6 :30 P.M. IN THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING FOURTH FLOOR CLUB ROOM REGARDING LITIGATION MATTERS THERE WILL BE A SPECIAL OPEN SESSION AT 7 :00 P.M. IN THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING FOURTH FLOOR CLUB ROOM FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVIEWING THE 1986/87 FISCAL YEAR CITY AUDIT AGENDA ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING FOURTH 'FLOOR� ROTUNDA. .ROOM DECEMBER 8, 1987 ._ p. RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION * Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. * A person may speak for five (5) minutes. * No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to speak has had an opportunity to do so. * No one may speak more than twice on any item. * Council members may question any speaker ; the speaker may respond; but after the alloted time has expired, may not initiate further discussion. * The floor will then be closed to public participation and open for Council discussion. Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call City Council Comment 1 Committee Reports - (The following represent Ad Hoc or Standing Committees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary 1. City/School Committee 6. Equal Opportunity Commission 2. North Coastal Transit 7. Police Facility Committee 3. San Luis Obispo Area 8. Atascadero Lake Acquistion Coordinating Council Committee 4. Traffic Committee 9. Tree Committee 5. Solid Waste Mgmt Committee 10. Bicentennial Committee 11. Pavilion Committee (Approximate Time - 30 Minutes) COMMUNITY FORUM The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and comments from you the citizen. The public comment period is provided to receive comments from the public on matters other than scheduled agenda items. To increase the effectiveness of Community Forum, the following rules will be enforced: * A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum, unless Council authorizes an extension. * All remarks shall be addressed to Council as a whole and not to • any individual member thereof. * No questions shall be asked of a Council Member or City staff without permission of the Mayor. * No person shall be allowed to make slanderous, profane, impertinent, or personal remarks against any Council Member or member of the City staff. * Any person desiring to submit written statements may do so by forwarding to Council, prior to the Council Meeting, nine (9) copies to the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday preceeding the Council Meeting. A. CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar , are considered to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed be- low. There will be no separate discussion of these items. A member of the Council or public may, by request, have any item removed from the Consent Agenda, which shall be reviewed and acted upon separately after the adoption of the Consent Calendar. 1. Approval of City Council Minutes - November 24, 1987 2. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 34-87 - 5450 Santa Fe Road Subdivision of .97 Acres into Two Parcels of 20 ,000 and 20,655 Square Feet Each Hill/Tartaglia/Hughes Engineerinq 3. Approval of Contract Agreement with Alice Carey Architects- $8, 500 - Historic Structures Report (Conceptually approved at 11/24/87 Council Meeting) 2 B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES/REPORTS (Approximate Time 30 Minutes) 1. Police Facility Committee Status Report Regarding Financing of Police Facility C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Approximate Time - 15 Minutes) 1. Tentative Parcel Map 21-87 - 8665 Portola - Proposal to Resubdivide 2 Existing Developed Residential Lots, Totaling 2.03 Acres into 4 Lots, Varying in Size from 20, 401 Square Feet to 23,346 Square Feet - Gouff/Daniel Stewart (Cont'd from 11/24/87 Council Meeting (Consent Calendar) (Approximate Time - 20 Minutes) 2. Resolution 119-87 - Proposal to Accept a Portion of Santa Ana Road, from Santa Lucia to Corriente, into the City Maintained Street System (Cont'd from 11/24/87) D. NEW BUSINESS (Approximate Time- 15 Minutes) • 1: Authorization to Enter into Agreement with Ross, Levin, & MacIntyre Architects an amount not to exceed $800 - Beno' s Site Renovation Cost Estimate for a Police Facility 2. Resolution 121-87 - Authorization to File Application, in Behalf of the North County Women' s Shelter Organization, to the State Department of Housing and Community Development, for Homeless Assistance Funds Totaling $50 ,000 3. Resolution 120-87 - Opposing Future Shipment of Rocket Fuel through Atascadero City Limits Via Highway 101 E. ATASCADERO SANITATION DISTRICT (Council will recess and convene as the Atascadero County Sanitation District Board of Directors) (Approximate Time - 5 Minutes) 1. Authorization to Solicit Proposals - Redesign of Septic Tank Dump Facility (Cont'd from 11/24/87) • 3 F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION 1. City Council 2. City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4. City Treasurer 5. City Manager NOTE: THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1987, IS CANCELLED. THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING WILL BE HELD TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 1987. • 4 Mi! . i iNGrt Li-c'V'JH DATE i 7 1-1 SAA ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL • MINUTES NOVEMBER 24, 1987 The regular meeting of the Atatscadero City Council was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Borgeson followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Bourbeau, Borgeson, Mackey, and Handshy It is noted that Mayor Norris is absent during the regular Council Session, but did attend the 6:30 p.m. Closed Session. Mayor Pro Tem Borgeson states that Council held a closed session at 6:30 p.m. regarding personnel matters, with no action taken. Reverend John Taylor , Church of Christ, gives the meeting' s invocation. An appreciation plaque is presented to the "Friends of the • Library" representative Sara Gronstad for their generous contri- butions towards the new branch library. A status report on the library followed, with an opening date supported by the County as March, 1988 No Council comment is given at this meeting. COMMITTEE REPORTS The City/School Committee had met recently regarding the Atascadero Creek Bridge, with no conclusions to report. North Coastal Transit Committee is working on a new route to include the North County. The San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council is presently reviewing County-wide transit unmet needs, with a meeting on same December 3. The Traffic Committee is begining a new approach of group site reviews of the city's road system. The Police Facility Committee - There will be a special Council closed session reviewing this issue on November 30, 1987. • Atascadero Lake Properties Committee - There will be a special , Council closed session reviewing this issue on November 30, 1987 Tree Committee representatives met with building contractor representatives and their comments will be forwarded to the full committee prior to scheduling before the Planning Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mr. Lou Arambollie, Atascadero resident, thanks the City and Gordon Davis for their excellent efforts on the Llano Road reconstruction. Ms. Bernice Hazbrook, Balboa Road resident, expresses her desire to have Council expedite the Police Department relocation. CONSENT CALENDAR: Consent Calendar items are as follow: 1. Approval of City Council Minutes - November 10, 1987 2. Authorization to Solicit Bid Proposals - Development of a Concession Area at Paloma Creek Park (Cont'd from 11/10/87) 3. Approval of the Finance Department Report- October, 1987 4. Approval of the City Treasurer ' s Report - October, 1987 •> 5. Acknowledgement of Letter of Appreciation to Union Asphalt, Inc. —Donation Toward Tree Planting Adjacent to Paloma Creek Park 6. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 21-87 - 8665 Portolla Approval to Resubdivide 2 Existing Developed Residential Lots Totaling 2. 03 Acres into 4 Lots, Varying in Size from 22,990 Square Feet to 20,225 Square Feet - Gouf/Daniel Stewart 7. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 29-87 - 10655 Realito Rd Subdivision of 10.35 Acres into 2 Parcels of 7.34 and 3.06 Acres Each - Kinz 8. Approval of Tentative Tract Map 33-87 - 4555 E1 Camino Real - Converting a Commercial Complex Under Construction into 9 Commercial, Air-Space Condominium Units - Hull 9. Acceptance of Final Map 39-86 - 9359 Musselman — Norton/Cuesta Engineering 10. Acceptance of Final Tract Map 16-86 - 7635 - 7655 E1 Camino Real - Vaughn/Carlin/Cuesta Engineering Councilmember Borgeson removes Item A-6 from the Consent Calendar . for separate discussion. MOTION: Councilmember Mackey moves approval of the Consent Calendar, excluding Item A-6; Councilmember Bourbeau seconds; Motion carries 4-0 (Mayor Norris absent) A-6 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21-87 - 8665 PORTOLA - APPROVAL TO RESUBDIVIDE 2 EXISTING DEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL LOTS, TOTALING 2. 03 ACRES, VARYING IN SIZE FROM 20, 401 SQUARE FEET TO 23,346 SQUARE FEET - GOUFF/DANIEL STEWART ENGINEERING Community Development Director Henry Engen states that the Planning Commission reviewed this issue on four occassions and approved a redesigned proposal. Mr. Engen notes that the site has two existing homes and that the applicant is proposing four lots total. The westerly driveway easement width was modified from 20 feet to 14 feet by the Planning Commission to allow for an existing garage to remain undisturbed. The Fire Department has stated that the 12 foot paved driveway with 2 foot shoulders meets City requirements. Community Development Department staff and Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director , recommend retaining the 20 foot easement in that the design would likely lead to three lots being served. Thomas Gouff, Applicant, states that the County had originally approved a lot split on these parcels in 1978, but later , during City incorporation, the zoning was changed from 1/2 acre to 1 acre minimum. Mr. Gouff states that he proposes two driveways, with each serving two homes (to reduce traffic congestion). He states that the City' s code requires a 12 foot driveway and he is proposing 14 feet. Councilmembers Bourbeau and Borgeson discuss their concerns for public safety and support the 20 foot wide driveway alternative. Council Member Handshy and Mackey support a 14 foot driveway proposal, as it meets the City' s code requirements. As Council has mixed opinions on this item, it is continued to the December 8, 1987, Council Meeting for review by the full Council, as Mayor Norris is absent during this meeting. B-1 UNDERGROUNDING OF PG&E UTILITIES (Cont'd from 10/27/870 A. PUBLIC HEARING B. RESOLUTION 118-87 - ESTABLISHMENT OF BOUNDARIES FOR UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING DISTRICT #2 Public Works Director Paul Sensibaugh reviews the boundaries proposed by PG&E and staff. Paul notes that this is the second • public hearing on this issue. Staff did speak at a recent Business Improvement Association Meeting regarding this subject, as it affects the downtown area. Community Development Director Henry Engen clarifies that there is a $30 permit/inspection fee for utility hookups. Staff will be coordinating with B.I.A. representatives regarding process and timing of inspections. In response to questions, he notes that the fee is a normal inspection charge, but could be waived, if Council directs such. Wayne Cooper of PG&E, Jess Lee of Pacific Bell and Tom Hatchell of Falcon Cable T.V. are outside agencies staff representatives on this issue. B.I.A. representative Kirk Pearson states his support of this viable improvement to the downtown area. The B.I.A. intends to coordinate utility inspections with City staff. Mrs. Judy Mora, 5690 Traffic Way, who is included within the proposed boundaries, questions if all utility poles within the boundaries will be placed underground. Paul Sensibaugh clarifies that the boundaries set will not auto- matically determine that utility poles within it will be placed underground. Depending on bid results, some poles on outer perimeters may not be placed underground due to lack of funds. Paul clarifies also that if the two utility poles at the 5690 Traffic Way site are not placed underground, they will be relocated, at no charge to the property owner , by PG&E. MOTION: Councilmember Bourbeau moves approval of Resolution 118-87; Councilmember Mackey seconds; Motion carries 4-0 (Mayor Norris absent) B-2 ATASCADERO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS A. PUBLIC HEARING . B. REPORT ON WEEKEND AND EVENING DIAL A RIDE TAXI SERVICE Ron De Carli, San Luis Obispo Council of Governments represent- ative, presents this item. He states that a portion of State sales taxes are used for transportation needs. Prior to utili- zation of these funds for road improvements, State law requires that public hearings be held to determine and meet all viable transit needs. After local imput, an additional public hearing will be held at the County seat on December 3, 1987. Atascadero presently has weekday Dial-A-Ride services and access to a county-wide handicapped service. All needs presented will be later evaluated by the Area Council for acceptability/cost effectiveness, and thereafter acted upon. Determinations will be presented back to Council at a later date. It is clarified to Mr. Ed Hecco that the Dial-A-Ride service provides a "main line" transit service, but does not prohibit an independent taxi service in the area. No other public comment is given. Councilmember Borgeson states that she has received a petition with approximately 50-75 signatures requesting weekend transit services, and requests this request be considered by the Area Coordinating Council. Public Works Director Paul Sensibaugh feels that a weekend taxi service, at this time, is not economically feasible .in meeting minimum required fare box ratios, required by the State. Councilmember Mackey echos Councilmember Borgeson' s concern that a need does exist for weekend transit services, even if it may not be economically feasible at this time. MOTION: Councilmember Mackey moves that the Atascadero Transit Needs Report be forwarded to the San Luis Obispo Area Council for consideration as an unmet need, and request formal action, and that action be represented to City Council at a later date; Councilmember Bourbeau seconds; Motion carries 4-0 (Mayor Norris absent) C-1 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 27-87 - 7565 SOMBRILLA AVENUE (LOT 3 OF BLOCK E) - SUBDIVISION OF- 2 PARCELS AT 1.46 ACRES INTO 3 LOTS , RANGING FROM 20 ,000 TO 23,100 SQUARE FEET EACH - BRINK/CUESTA ENGINEERING (Cont'd from 10/27 and 11/10/87 Council Meeting) Community Development Director Henry Engen reviews previous Council action, conceptually denying this proposal due to deensities, terrain unsuitability and inconsistencies with the General Plan. Staff has presented formal findings for denial, per Council request. John Falkenstein, Cuesta Engineering and applicant representative states that the applicant is not present at this meeting, and that he will later be re-proposing to a two lot lot-line- adjustment instead of the present three lot split. Henry Engen clarifies that there is presently two existing lots, and applicant would be re-proposing relocation of the existing • boundary in a lot line adjustment. Council declines to comment on any alternate proposal at this time. Alden Shires and Linda Shoff, Sombrilla Avenue residents support denial of the present three lot subdivision before Council due to additional impacts in densities and traffic hazards. MOTION: Councilmember Bourbeau moves to Approve the Formal Findings for Denial presented by staff and denial of Tentative Parcel Map 27-87; Councilmember Mackey seconds; Motion carries 3-1 (Councilmember Handshy opposed and Mayor Norris absent) C-2 RESOLUTION 106-87 AMENDMENT OF RESOLUTIONS 21-85 AND 112-86 - CITY MANAGER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT - F/Y 1987/88 (Cont'd from 10/27 and 11/10/87 Council Meetings) City Manager Michael Shelton gives brief description of proposed salary/benefit increases proposed, which provide an approximate 5% increase for fiscal year 1987/88 . Joe Nyle, Atascadero resident, expresses his desire to have the City Manager replaced due to his past actions in City business. Joe Grissante, Atascadero resident, expresses a need in the City for more leadership and meeting the people' s needs. MOTION: Councilmember Mackey moves • approval of Resolution • 106-87; Councilmember Bourbeau seconds; Motion carries 4-0 (Mayor Norris absent) C-3 AWARD OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES REPORT TO ALICE CAREY ARCHITECTS -$8,500 Public Works Director states that after receiving a State . Historical Preservation Grant for the Administration Building improvements, the State later placed a requirement for a Historic Structures Report, which will list all previous changes made to the building and address proposed improvements. Improvements made to date under this grant, include structural improvements and asbestos removal from some ceilings. Staff is waiting for State authority to allow the City to proceed with the mechanical (heating/air conditioning) improvements, while the report is being prepared. MOTION: Councilmember Bourbeau moves to award the preparation of the Historic Structures Report to Alice Carey Architects for $8, 500; Councilmember Mackey seconds; Motion carries 4-0 (Mayor Norris absent) C-4 RESOLUTION 113-87 - RATE INCREASE PROPOSAL BY WILMAR • DISPOSAL FOR SOLID WASTE REMOVAL (Cont'd from 11/10/87) Administrative Services Director David Jorgensen reviews three alternate proposals by staff to meet Council' s directives • from the November 10 Council Meeting. No public comment is given on this item. Council reviews all alternate proposal merits. It is clarified that Wilmar Disposal Company will be providing a notice in it' s next bill that all 1 can pickup requests need to be re-applied for. It is further clarified by the Wilmar Disposal representative that Wilmar is also proposing a salary increase to it' s employees of approximately five percent. MOTION: Councilmember Mackey moves approval of Resolution 113-87 with Alternative 3; Councilmember Handshy seconds; Motion carries 4-0 (Mayor Norris absent) D-1 RESOLUTION 117-87 - REDUCING SPEED LIMIT ON PORTOLLA ROAD TO 35 MILES PER HOUR In response to complaints received regarding an excessive speed limit on Portolla, a traffic survey was conducted and later presented to the Traffic Committee, who supported a speed reduction to 35 miles per hour. Paul Sensibaugh will present a proposal to the Traffic Committee to also reduce the speed limit to 35 miles per hour on San Gabriel and Santa Rosa Roads, per David Mann, San Gabriel resident, request. MOTION: Councilmember Bourbeau moves to adopt Resolution 117-87; Councilmember Handshy seconds; Motion carries 4-0 (Mayor Norris absent) D-2 ATASCADERO LAKE PAVILION BUILDING - STATUS REPORT Community Development Director Henry Engen states that after a recent inspection of the Pavilion Building by City Inspectors, it was determined that the building, in it' s present condition, is unsafe for any activities. All activities have since relocated. Estimated costs for improvements to the building far exceed the $50 ,000 the City has budgeted for restoration. Ms. Laura Echo, El Camino Real resident, reviews the building' s historical significance, beautiful setting, and ample parking. She feels the building should be restored and not ignored. She further suggests the City to request volunteer help from the community for this worthy cause. Maggie Rice, Chamber of Commerce representative, feels the building should be preserved to maintain the character of the city. David, Lang feels this is a viable building to be restored by the City, as it, like the City Administration Building, should receive preservation consideration, as part of Atascadero' s past. Robert Gummer, Pismo Avenue, reviews the building' s historical past, and volunteers to do an informal survey for citizen opinion on preserving the building. Mike Shelton, City Manager, clarifies that the item has been presented at this time to gather public input and to let the public know that present estimated renovation costs to the building exceed monies budgeted. Council discusses needed capital improvement priority list, and that it has no intent at this time to demolish the building. Council also discusses, as a side issue, the current use of the Ranger Station at the park , which is currently rented out. MOTION: Councilmember Bourbeau moves to stop all work on the Pavilion Building at this time; and to direct staff to bring back a feasibility study regarding use of the Ranger Station at Atascadero Lake Park; Councilmember Mackey seconds; Motion carries 4-0 . (Mayor Norris absent) D-3 RESOLUTION 119-87 - PROPOSAL TO ACCEPT A PORTION OF SANTA ANA ROAD, FROM SANTA LUCIA TO CORRIENTE, INTO THE CITY MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM Public Works Director Paul Sensibaugh states that he has reviewed the project and supports the proposal to accept Santa Ana Road into the City' s maintained street system. He states that the road intersects with Santa Lucia, a maintained road, and the Corriente section, which will be proposed in the near future, . will connect the other end with San Fernando, another City maintained street. Councilmember Borgeson expresses her concerns regarding the road' s curves not being wide enough to allow vehicles to remain on the pavement, need for reflectors in certain areas, and a need for a guard rail at one location. She feels the road is difficult to drive, as built, and if accepted into the City' s maintained street system, increases the City' s liability. In response to questions, Paul Sensibaugh states that striping of roads is not enforced outside the Urban Services Boundary Line due to economics. Paul also clarifies that wider curve radius were not required by the City at the time the roadway was constructed, which have since been modified by the City. Councilmember Borgeson requests Mr . Sensibaugh to review the road deficiencies with developer Gordon Davis and negotiate improvements of such. MOTION: Councilmember Bourbeau moves to continue this item • to the December 8, 1987 Council Meeting due to a lack of a quorum and to allow additional review of the road; Councilmember Mackey seconds; Motion carries 3-0 (Councilmember Handshy and Mayor Norris absent) E-1 AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT PROPOSALS - REDESIGN OF SEPTIC TANK DUMP FACILITY Public Works Director Paul Sensibaugh reviews the proposed development of the sewer plant. It is noted that the Request for Proposals has been omitted from the staff report, which clearly defines what Council is being requested to act upon. Council agrees to continue this item to the December 8 , 1987 Council Meeting to allow staff to submit the Request for Proposal for Council review. F-1 SALINAS RIVER SAND AND GRAVEL EXCAVATION STATUS REPORT In response to previous River Garden resident request for Council to help reduce impacts from Salinas River excavation projects, • the Community Development staff has contacted the Water District, operators of the excavation project, regarding relocation. The Water Company is hesitant to relocate due to access. The Army Corps of Engineers were also contacted, who is the government authority regarding this location. They have stated that they will be contacting the Water Company regarding permits, etc. on their operations and responding back. Staff has met with representatives from the neighborhoods, and per Council request, will be mailing the document packet, presented to Council, to all residents in this area. F-1-b BURN DAY SCHEDULES Fire Chief Mike Hicks presents and supports proposed burn days for the new season. He feels that the burn periods help to reduce fire hazards in this rural area with large amounts of open space. The Environmental Health Department has done air pollution tests in the past, and not recommended eliminating burning to date. They did, however, suggest possible elimination of burning . on parcels of one acre or less. The Fire Department is not able to enforce such a request at this time. It was stated that at one time burn permits were issued, but were discontinued due to lack of resources. Council agrees that there is still a definite need for burn periods, in spite of air' pollution caused. The burn schedule has been published in the local newspaper. Burn days are not rescheduled due to weather restrictions because of excessive administrative work entailed. Meeting is adjourned at 11:30 p.m. to a Special Council Meeting on November 30, 1987. Submitted KA N VAUGHAN De uty City Clerk MEET6NG AG` 40A DATE _,l ��l��t i p EP,A q� • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council December 8, 1987 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager tkl - FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 34-87 LOCATION: 5450 Sante Fe Road APPLICANT: Charles Hill (Tartaglia & Hughes) REQUEST: To subdivide 0 .97 acres into two parcels of 20,000 and 20,660 square feet each. BACKGROUND: • On November 17 , 1987 , the Planning Commission conducted a public hear- ing on the subject matter and on a 6: 0 vote, approved the land divi- sion request subject to the findings and conditions contained in the attached staff report, with the addition of condition #15 to read: "15. The minimum width of the easement to the rear parcel shall be 25 feet. " There was brief discussion on easements and driveway width policies with regard to the Fire Department' s requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 34-87 per the Planning Commission' s recommendation. HE:ps cc: Charles Hill Tartaglia and Hughes • • CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B-3 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: Nov. 17, 1987 BY: Joel Moses, Associate Planner File No:TPM:34-87 SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 34-87 to subdivide . 97 acres of property at 5450 Santa Fe Road into two parcels containing 20, 000 & 20,660 square feet. BACKGROUND: A. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Charles Hill 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tartaglia & Hughes Engineers 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . .5450 Santa Fe Road • 4. Legal Description. . . . . . . . . . . .Lot 2B being Resub. of Lots 1,2, 3, of Blk. 5 Eaglet No.2 5. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 97 acres 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-X (Residential Single Family) (20, 000 sq. ft. with sewer) 7. General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Single Family 8. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant 9. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted October 30, 1987 B. ANALYSIS: The application before the Planning Commission proposes the subdivision of a single lot containing 0. 97 acres into two parcels containing 20,000 and 20, 655 square feet. The property proposed for subdivision is located in the RSF-X (Residential • Single Family) zone district. The minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet where sewers are available and 0. 5 where there is no sanitary sewer. Because sewers are available to the subject property, the 20,000 square foot minimum lot size is applicable. The proposed subdivision proposes the use of a flag lot design. The rear lot would gain access from Santa Fe Road by way of an access strip along the western property line. The access strip has been flared at the street frontage to protect an existing 18 inch oak tree along the property line The front parcel will gain access directly from Santa Fe Road. The property proposed for subdivision is vacant at the present time. The site contains several large oak trees. As noted one of these trees is located in the access strip for the rear lot, but the access is designed to accommodate the tree. Parcels of 20,000 square feet are consistent with the size of residential lots in the rest of the neighborhood. Comments on the proposed project were received from several out side agencies. The Fire Department notes the need to upgrade a City fire hydrant at the corner of Santa Fe and El Dorado. The Building Division and the State Archaeological Site Survey Center both note no problems with the site. The Public Works Department notes the need for standard condition as to the final map, road improvements, a 6 '-0" Public Utility Easement along the street frontage, an offer of dedication along the frontage, and the payment of sewer fees. Development of the property as proposed is in keeping with the general neighborhood character and the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. In general, staff believes that the proposed development, as conditioned, is appropriate for the site in question. C. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 34-87 based on the Findings contained in Exhibit C and the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit D. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - Tentative Map Exhibit C - Findings Exhibit D - Conditions of Approval JM/jm EXHIBIT A LOCATION MAP T CITY OF A ASCADERO Tent Map TPM: 34-87 r'/91�'•e - . 187• 5450 Santa Fe Road `- ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • (Hill/Tartaglia) DEPARTMENT \ Site 5450 Santa Fe Roadj TPM:34-87 (Hill/Tartaglia) MPD o a K' a / •I r 7y\\\/ ��\\ �Z F 00, \\\ \ �Q \ \ �\. �: / • ui I I' IES > / �? O q .9 z \\ i S 4 Oq R c c� �R Q AS 4 EAG O "� EXHIBIT B TENT.MAP CITY OF ATASCADERO s„� Tent.Map TPM: 34-87 � j COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 5450 Santa Fe Road DEPARTMENT (Hill/Tartaglia) sw` sw , masa• JI ar., co srJw 1 ✓raw 1 - de JY•/O'N'W II N e.1 •. ,M/•Y IIIfCIA/RO —or Yr— .. / / Ylf/N/TY MAP 1000, 100, /rgNoaR r (e..r w1/� r/o../�) 100, i 00 �00 . . LOt- .!1 It/rM OAwNE.I'J OEiffi.�/tA7C �:-` • I''. FNtf/NEER;! G'ERE/fYGS�7 i 7EA/MMf PARCEL MAP 47,&7-23 r•w.v�r Jwwy /o►.r.•++sna M wN t'rd~ ei n/+e w,/ei/nrr .rw+✓r ov rry kir !: ::�'.' I..��. . iirvi/e+�orw wiv ro..'��err iwne�v/iw w•' o ` •F N/.w• o/vu.w r aor/s.ov rr ,.�- � d- —10 'IrN.�lOO/Nr"NY A�AM/N/r q!OwM+/rr rJeiir1.1.I�c C,Io✓pwrbr�wyl� '1 I' r:rMI JW ✓/ATN ,rCo ' Jl.wArWL/wrj.w &e w&Arllra o/ ar : �: JOCK p10w/4•YCI;{, . r%V oli7 iY Nr Aygp J lY/I 4/JM, Jr+rJ a✓�iL/oRN I. ��'�'��'%�,/I' I './AMrO ".r•�4� � /_�-� f. ••W.loK r MY /II .mr�or; �� IY.•,LIdiL # I d.'•j ; wwrwr r ra�rrau wcr. aww ., r ... _ .A~ss _ ssrJr caw,,,,.,, .�.it .. ^t+ s 1 Ip:r`•.,wrsi _P.n. R. its• . 96sGR1 C. TARTIQi/I A.vri�otsr0r GA. s.vo i a i EXHIBIT C - Findings for Approval is Tentative Parcel Map 34-87 5450 Santa Fe Road November 17, 1987 FINDINGS 1. The creation of the proposed parcels conforms to the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan land use designation, densities and other policies. 2 . The creation of these parcels , in conformance with the recommended Conditions of Approval, will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 4. The site is physically suitable for the density of the development proposed. 5. The design of the subdivision, and the proposed improvements, will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat 6 . The design of the subdivision , and the type of the improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or the use of property within the proposed subdivision; or substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 7. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474. 6 of the State Subdivision Map Act as to the methods of handling and discharge of waste. 8. The proposed subdivision conforms to the City of Atascadero' s Design Review Manual Guidelines. JM/jm • EXHIBIT C - Conditions of Approval Tentative Map 34-87 5450 Santa Fe Road November 17, 1987 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1 . Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. Water lines shall be extended to the frontage of each parcel or its public utilities easement prior to the recording of the final map. 2. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or other easement are to be shown on the final map. If there are building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. 3 . Road improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Community Development and Public Works Departments for review and approval for the construction, of Santa Fe Road pave out prior to the recording of the final map, or prior to the issuance of any building permit, which ever comes first. 4 . Construction of the public road improvements shall be completed (or bonded for) prior to the recording of the final map. 5. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be responsibility of the developer at his sole expense. 6. The newly created lot shall be connected to the Public Sewer. All annexation permit fees shall be paid for the newly created lot prior to the recording of the final map. 7. Address identification signs shall be approved as a part of the public improvement plans. The signs shall contain 4" (inch) reflective address numbers for each residential unit served by a driveway. The signs shall be located on the right hand side of the drive way and shall be placed so as not to effect the visibility of the intersection. 8 . Prior to the approval of the improvement plans by the Director of Public Works, either the Subdivider shall acquire sufficient title or interest in the off-site land to allow the improvements to be made as required by these conditions: or the City Council , upon request by and at the expense of the subdivider, shall have made all appropriate findings and adopted Resolution of Necessity as required by law so that the City may exercise its power of Eminent Domain. • 9 . Fire hydrant at the corner of Santa Fe Road and El Corte shall be upgraded to meet minimum City Standards. 10. Offer of dedication to the City of Atascadero the following rights-of-Way and or easements: Street Name: Santa Fe Road Limits: 20 '-0" from centerline along entire property frontage Minimum Width: 40 '-0" Right-of-Way 11 . Offer for dedication to the Public the Public Utility Easements .6 '-0" adjacent to the Sante Fe Road right-of-way. 12. Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to or simultaneous to the recordation of the final map. 13 . A final map in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City' s Subdivision Ordinance prior to the recording of the final map. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created and a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that the corners have been set or will be set by a specific date and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced. b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. c. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 14. Approval of this tentative map shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. JM/jm MEETING AGENDA DATCE # MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Through: Michael Shelton, City Manager AL From: Paul M. ��Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Subject: Presentation of Proposals Requested for the Historic Structure Report Date : November 17, 1987 Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council award the Historic' Structure Report to Alice Carey Architects of San Francisco for the amount of $8,500 . Backround: Attached is the Scope of Services 'for the RFP for the above Project, the previous staff report and the letter from Council to the State Historic Preservation Office . Discussion: Two proposals were received out of four firms that showed interest in the project . The other firm is Sally Swanson Associates also from San Francisco. Both firms were very well qualified and both have interactions with the SHPO. Both firms met the SOS (no pun intended) and both firms are willing to work with the volunteer efforts of the Historical Society. The second firm quoted $14,400 for the report work. Fiscal Impact : The $8, 500 will come out of the room renovation Portion of the funds programmed for the Administration Buildin Renovation project . /der 1 e1` CbCos-f Woes no-1- /i!C 1k d e abo m / /�7a/cues *.5-70 4, a 1*na1brce � ��rci�kF skalnc s 3 m�s ,erre C���rfzc78A:� ( revised) MEET.N13 AGENDA DATE '7 Em IT • M E M O R A N D U M To : City Council From: David G. Joren and Mike Shelton Date: November 24, 1 87 Subject : Capital Project Financing This report was prompted by the need to determine financing for a police facility. In order to adequately address this immediate need , we have to look at the broader picture of city- wide capital improvement needs and the funds available to pay for them. DEVELOPMENT FEES The logical place for any report on capital project financing to begin is the source of revenues available to cover the costs of the capital projects. Until two years ago , the City relied exclusively on Revenue Sharing and grants to finance capital improvements. With the discontinuing of Revenue Sharing and the cut back on available grants, the City had to look for a more stable and secure source of capital project revenues and a source the City Council had control over . In October , 1985, the Council implemented the 50-cents per square foot development mitigation tax . This was followed approximately six months later by the implementation of development fees. These fees were also based upon the square footage of a project . These two fees were the results of much staff work and the direction of a committee appointed by the Council to study this issue. It was the hope of all those involved in the process that enough annual revenue would be generated by them to meet both existing and future capital project needs. Without recreating the total staff report recommending adoption of the development fees, (a complete copy is available from Public Works) , there were a few assumptions made that are • impacting the current level of revenues being generated . Most of the assumptions dealt with the square feet of construction generated each year . 1 • Single family 300,900 Sq . Ft . per year Multi family 209, 100 Sq . Ft . per year Commercial 145.000 Sq . Ft . per year Total 655,000 Sq . Ft . per year These average base amounts were used in determining the amount of fee to be charged . In each development fee category, it was anticipated that this level of construction would generate fees as follows: Drainage $ 46,940 Traffic 78,680 Bridges 74,645 Roads 31 ,991 Parks 70,609 Police 86,056 Fire 82,319 Bldgs. & Grounds 55,660 Total $526,900 In addition to these fees, the Council had previously • adopted a 50-cent tax or development mitigation tax that was anticipated to generate $327,500 per year . This tax was applied the same to all projects (x.50 x # of sq . ft . = fee) . The breakdown by category shows: General $162,800 Drainage 14,660 Traffic 24,720 Bridges 23,355 Roads 10,009 Parks 21 ,991 Police 26,944 Fire 25,681 Bldgs. & Grounds 17, 340 Total $327,500 2 The total annual amount projected to be generated by development fees and 50-cent tax by category is: General $162,800 Drainage 61 ,600 Traffic 103,400 Bridges 98,000 Roads 42,000 Parks 92,600 Police 113,000 Fire 108,000 Bldgs. & Grounds 73,000 Total $854,400 The maximum amount of the fee was also established by Council directive. It was the Council ' s desire to keep the total of all fees (development , school district , sewer , ' etc . ) below $4,000 per single family residence. This placed a cap on the amount of fee that could to be generated . Since the fees were implemented , we have only one complete year of experience to determine how close the estimates were to reality. In 1986-1987, the amount of square feet per category was: Single family 475,790 sq . feet Multi family 168,984 sq . feet Commercial 167,952 sq . feet Total 812,726 sq . feet This resulted in total development fees and 50-cent tax of $763,512 or 690,888 less than was projected . In comparing the actual amounts with those projected by category , it shows: Amount Actual Actual Actual Percentage Projected Dev. Fee x.50 Tx Combined Achieved General $162,000 $ -0- $267,449 $267,449 164% Drainage 61 ,600 20, 151 24,449 44,777 73% Traffic 103,400 43,524 38,307 81 ,831 79% Bridges 98,000 38,886 38,307 77, 193 79% Roads 42,000 16,478 16,417 32,895 78% Parks 92,600 23,788 38,307 62,095 67% Police 113,000 22,843 43,779 66,622 59% Fire 108,000 21 ,576 43,779 65,355 61% Bldg/Grnds. 73,000 35, 197 30,098 65,295 89% Total $854,400 $222,443 $541 ,069 $763,512 3 0 The first question that comes to mind when analyzing the above figures is, whey are there such wide variations in the percentage achieved? This is due primarily to the fact that each development fee category gets a different amount depending on the type of construction involved . For example, Bldgs. & Grounds, Bridges, Roads and Drainage are heavily weighted toward single- family projects, i .e. , they get a larger percentage of the fee on single-family construction than on other types of construction. Therefore, in a year when single-family construction is high , these categories will receive a higher percentage of revenue. Police, Fire and Parks (especially Parks) are highly dependent on multi-family construction. Commercial construction fairly uniformly helps all fee categories except Parks, which receives no revenue from commercial projects. In 1986-1987, single-family and commercial construction exceeded the original projections and multi-family was significantly under the original projections; hence, the differences in percentages achieved by category. Thru four months of the 1987-1988 fiscal year , the only type of construction that fees have been paid on is single-family construction. To date, no permits have been issued for multi- family or commercial buildings. Therefore, project categories highly dependent on fees from these two sources are lagging far behind projections. In making the beginning budget projec- tions, it was anticipated that construction would be less than last fiscal year . It was anticipated that approximately 498,000 square feet of construction would be completed this fiscal year . This breaks out as follows: Single family 360,000 sq . feet Multi family 38,000 sq . feet Commercial 100,000 sq . feet While realistic , this shows a heavy dependence on single family construction to generate revenue for capital projects. Those projects categories primarily dependent on a share of multi-family and commercial development will not come anywhere near achieving the revenue projected in the original development fee report . The future does not look too bright . Multi-family construction has become virtually non-existent , a trend that under the current tax laws is expected to continue. Commercial construction is something of an enigma . Even though we haven ' t seen any projects to date in this fiscal year , many projects are in the planning stages. Some of these may reach fruition. The problem is that a sense of being over-built 4 commercially seems to be permeating the community. Many completed structures are vacant and have been for quite some time. As long as this overabundance exists, new commercial construction will tend to poke along without any measure of reliability. Additionally, we are running out of buildable lots available for commercial projects. Those project categories that rely primarily on multi-family and commercial projects to generate revenue will not meet the amounts anticipated when the development fees were established . This is especially crucial for major multi-year projects like the police facility. CURRENT CAPITAL PROJECT ALLOCATIONS Some capital projects adopted with the 1987-1988 fiscal year budget may be short of funding this fiscal year . Exhibits 1-9 detail the projects adopted and revenue levels needed to complete the projects. With current year development fees coming in way below expectations and with the square footage projections substantially below those projected in the original fee report , capital projects, like the police facility, that rely solely on these fees for financing are going to come up short of what is needed . Even if debt financing is used there is no reliable funding source to service the debt without short changing other projects. FIVE YEAR CAPITAL PROJECT NEEDS A sampling of projects proposed for funding during the next five years show the continuation of some ongoing projects as well as some relatively high priority new projects. 5 ONGOING PROJECTS Devel . Year Approx . Project Category Proposed Cost Handicap Ramps* Roads 1988-89 $ 24,000 1989-90 24,000 1990-91 24,000 1991-92 24,000 Road Widenings* Roads 1988-89 12,000 1989-90 12,000 1990-91 12,000 1991-92 12,000 Santa Ysabel Re- Roads 1988-89 100,000 construction* 1989-90 100,000 Signs* Roads 1988-89 6,500 1989-90 6,500 1990-91 6,500 1991-92 6,500 Pavement Marking* Roads 1988-89 16,000 1989-90 16,000 1990-91 16,000 1991-92 16,000 * Both TDA and Gas Tax funds can be used for these projects. Devel . Year Approx . Project Category Proposed Cost Drainage Projects Drainage 1988-89 $ 50,000 Misc . 1989-90 50,000 1990-91 50,000 1991-92 50,000 Drainage Design Drainage 1988-89 5,000 1989-90 5,000 1990-91 5,000 1991-92 5,000 Local Bridges Bridges 1988-89 50,000 1989-90 50,000 1990-91 50,000 1991-92 50,000 6 Devel . Year Approx . Project Category Proposed Cost Police Vehicles General 1988-89 $ 45,000 1989-90 45,000 1990-91 45,000 1991-92 45,000 Streets Vehicles/ General 1988-89 69,000 Equipment 1989-90 69,000 1990-91 69,000 Public Works Computer General 1988-89 2,000 Software 1989-90 2,000 1990-91 2,000 Mapping Reproductions General 1988-89 2,400 1989-90 2,400 1990-91 2,400 Vehicle Leases Fire 1988-89 55,000 1989-90 55,000 1990-91 55,000 1991-92 55,000 Police Facility Police 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 Traffic Way Fields Parks 1988-89 65,000 #2 Public Works Shop Buildings & 1988-89 18,000 Building Grounds 1989-90 18,000 1990-91 18,000 Room Renovations Buildings & 1988-89 20,000 Grounds 1989-90 20,000 1990-91 20,000 M 7 NEW PROJECTS Devel . Year Approx . Projects Category Proposed Cost San Jacinto/Traffic Drainage 1988-89 $ 365,000 Way Drain 1989-90 95,000 1990-91 75,000 1991-92 90,000 Santa Rosa Lake Brdg . Bridges 1988-89 50,000 Viejo Camino Bridge Bridges 1988-89 50,000 Atas Ave/Hwy 41 Sig . Traffic 1988-89 100,000 Santa Barbara- Traffic 1989-90 50,000 Caution Curbaril-Hwy 41 Sig . Traffic 1989-90 50,000 San Gabriel-Hwy 41 Traffic 1990-91 50,000 Signal Del Rio/ECR-Caution Traffic 1990-91 50,000 East Mall-Caution Traffic 1990-91 50,000 Santa Ysabel/Hwy 41 Traffic 1991-92 50,000 Signal Elec . Dist . Measure General 1988-89 6,500 City Hall Phone Sys. General 1989-90 50,000 Purchase Fire Fire 1988-89 37,500 Station #3 Site 1989-90 37,500 Aerial Equipment Fire 1988-89 115,500 1989-90 115,500 Replace Rescue #1 Fire 1988-89 32,500 1989-90 32,500 Land Acquisition Parks 1988-89 70,000 North Atascadero Land Acquisition Parks 1988-89 100,000 San Gabriel Alvord Field-Irri . Parks 1989-90 15,000 Creekway Devel . Parks 1989-90 10,000 1990-91 20,000 Paloma Park Parking Parks 1990-91 30,000 Lot 1991-92 60,000 North Atas Park Dev. Parks 1991-92 75,000 Community Ctr Parks 1991-92 1 ,025,000 City Hall Elevator Bldg/Grads 1988-89 65,000 1989-90 65,000 Remodel Fire Sta. #1 Bldg/Grnds 1988-89 25,000 1989-90 25,000 These lists do not represent a total identification of capital project needs over five years. Other projects have been identified , but not included in this short summary. Duringthe next five ears other projects of critical importances" Y will be identified and need funding . 8 The purpose for listing these projects is to show that ; ( 1 ) we have more needs than we have revenue to pay for ; (2) there are many existing commitments we have obligated ourselves to that funding must be maintained for and ; (3) there are many potentially high priority projects, that with the few financial resources we have, must be considered in the process of looking at financing a police facility. POLICE FACILITY FINANCING ALTERNATIVES With the previous background behind us, we can now look at some alternatives to financing a police facility. This section is an update to a previous report done for the Council on September 21 , 1987. There are two basic ways to pay for a police facility; ( 1 ) pay cash ; (2) use debt financing . Pay Cash It may seem strange to mention this as an alternative to look at for financing the police facility. However , it ' s not such a remote possibility, but it is dependent on how the Council sets its priorities. There are at least five basic ways " to pay cash for a police facility: ( 1 ) Over a period of time. This is sort of like a layaway plan. The City would use the current available cash to buy the building and do the absolute minimum to get the department moved into the facility. The criteria to be used is when you run out of cash you stop work . Then each year as development fees become available, more work would be done. Positive features: ( 1 ) No debt financing . Negative features: ( 1 ) Won ' t have a fully usable facility for 3-7 years after department occupies it . (2) Reallocate all capital project money currently available to the police facility. Positive feature: ( 1 ) No debt financing . Negative feature: is ( 1 ) Will delay other projects for at least one year until new fees are generated . 9 0 (3) Use the cash currently available to build a smaller size facility. (5,000 - 7,000 square feet ) Positive feature: ( 1 ) No debt financing . (2) Will have new facility. Negative feature: ( 1 ) Building would be smaller than desired . (2) Current cash available may not be enough even for a smaller facility. (4) Sell surplus City property and allocate these funds to the police facility instead of property acquisition on Morro Road . Positive feature: ( 1 ) No debt financing . Negative feature: ( 1 ) May lose opportunity to purchase Morro Road property. (5) According to the preliminary audit report , there is additional unallocated fund balance in the general fund . This is money currently on hand that was unidentified at budget time and therefore is found surplus. The amount of cash is approximately $200,000. Debt Financing Debt financing has always been considered a viable alternative for financing the police facility. I ' m not sure given the current development fee structure that debt financing continues to be viable. The problem is finding a reliable source or sources of annual revenue in an amount great enough to service the debt over 15 to 20 years, without other capital projects being short-changed . Here is an example of the problem. Example #1 Total cost of facility - $1 .4 million Cash payment - $700,000 Amount to be financed - $700,000 Assume 20 years at 9% Annual payment - $76,080 Currently there is no one source of revenue that can be relied upon to generate this amount of revenue. Police fees alone in 1986-87, the only full year we have had under the development fee 10 system, generated only $66,622. This was a particularly strong building year for all types of construction. Through four months of this year ( 1987-88) this same fee category has generated only $5, 106. This is a long way from being either reliable or enough . Another example of debt financing shows: Example #2 Total cost of facility - $1 .4 million Cash payment - $-0- Amount to be financed - $1 .4 million Current cash of $700,000 invested at 7.25% Assume 20 years at 9% Annual payment - $152, 161 For the first 5 1/2 years, the $700,000 would be enough to make the annual payment . After this time, the City would have to find the $152, 161 annual payment from another source. Example #3 Total cost of facility - $1 .4 million Cash payment - $-0- Amount to be financed - $1 .4 million Current cash of $700,000 invested at 7.25% Annual development fee revenue $50,000 Assume 20 years at 9% Annual payment $152, 161 For the first 9 1/2 years, the $700,000 and the annual $50,000 from development fees would be enough to make the annual payment . After this time, the City would have to find the $152, 161 annual payment from another source. I don ' t think any of these examples give us enough security to commit ourselves to . Example #1 may come the closest if the Council is willing to forgo for 20 years some or similar projects outlined in the previous pages of this report . There is another form of debt financing to briefly consider . This, for want of a better term, I call modified or conditional development . For each new commercial or large multi-family development over a certain size (5-10 acres? ) , a set fee of $100,000 could be assessed to go toward the police facility. This would be in addition to the development fees already imposed . The danger is that you would dry up any building in either of these project categories because it would be too expensive to develop . 11 • Until the Council directs staff to review the breakout on development fees and restructure it to give greater reliability and balance to those areas of Council priority, debt financing is an uncer`ain proposition. Additional Alternative There is another alternative for the Council to consider . This may not be practical , but I ' ll mention it anyway. Instead of using the $700,000 cash for a police facility, use it to build a recreation/community center . I believe this would be much less expensive to construct than a police facility. By doing this, once the library moves out , it would leave the entire first floor of the Administration building available for the police department . I ' m not sure how many square feet this would be. It ' s obviously not 11 ,000 but it might work and keep us out of debt financing we will have to struggle for 20 years to pay off. POLICE FACILITY ONGOING COSTS Very little thought or discussion has been had regarding the ongoing expenses of a police facility. Approximate annual costs for ongoing expenses show: Utilities $13,000* Phone 4,000 Copying costs 3,000 Custodian Costs 24,000 Total $43,000/yr . * Based on 11 ,000 square feet , 24 hour operation approximately twice what fire station #1 costs. Additional employees: I ' m showing a full-time custodian to exclusively handle the police facility . It might be more cost effective to contract this service, but it is unlikely that current staff could handle this need . By moving to a separate location, the police department will need a separate phone system. Additional items: New copy machine - Although the police department has its own copy machine, it is not a high volume machine. It may be necessary to lease/purchase a higher volume copier once again increasing costs. 0 12 There may be other costs associated with this move not identified . Also , these expenses may be already determined and identified. At the least , as discussions on a new facility progress, these costs must be included in any discussion. Especially important is how we are going to pay for them. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE - DECISIONS TO BE MADE 1 . The Council needs to set priorities regarding which projects are most important to them. Everything can ' t be done. There isn ' t reliable funding to do every project currently identified . If the Police facility is the number one priority project , then existing financial resources need to be directed to accomplishing this project . 2. Assuming that the police facility is the highest priority project , then the Council needs to select a financing alternative to accomplish this priority. 3. Staff needs to provide the information necessary to convert the 50-cent tax to development fees. This, by statute, needs to be done before November 19ee. Part of this analysis should include a proposed redistribution of fees by type of construction based on current market conditions. " Summary Development fees, as currently structured , are an unreliable source of revenue for long range projects or to cover annual debt financing payments. The lower we can bring the amount to be debt financed , for a police facility, the better able we are to meet the annual payment . Current year capital improvement projects are primarily funded by previous year fund balances. The amount of new development fees and 50-cent tax to be generated this fiscal year appear to be going to fall short of projections. With this in mind it is incumbent upon the staff to monitor capital improvement project expenditures very closely . In converting the 50-cent tax to a development fee, care must be taken to retain the reliability that currently exists with the 50-cent tax . Any adjustment to the development fee distribution that may be done concurrently with the conversion of the 50-cent tax could result in fewer funds being available to other types of projects unless the overall amount of the development fees is increased . With all this in mind , it is most prudent to attempt to allocate as much existing cash to the police facility as possible, thereby reducing the amount to debt finance; which reduces the annual amount needed from development fees to make the debt service payments. 13 • Police Facility Funding Formula Proposal Total amount of project $1 ,200,000 Current cash available (700,000) Total amount remaining to fund $ 500,000 Use of other cash resources to pay for facility: Lake Pavilion funds (25,000) Revenue Sharing Land Purchase funds (45,000) Sale of Traffic Way lot ( 125,000) Sale of Sycamore lot (45,000) Additional General Fund surplus (200,000) Sale of Santa Rosa lots (65,000) Amount remaining to finance - $ -0- This amount can be further augmented if existing 50-cent tax balances in other capital project categories are reallocated to the police facility. The amounts by category are: Roads $16,000 Drainage 24,000 Parks 30,000 Bldg . & Grounds 25,000 Total $95,000 Under this scenario it is conceivable the City could pay cash for the police facility. budget\cip\cipmemo 14 Exhibit #1 ROAD PROJECTS 1987-88 1987-88 Exp . to Projects Budget 10/31/87 Handicapped Ramps $ 19,500 -0- Road Widenings 12,000 -0- Resurfacing 362, 191 -0- Maintenance Dist . 30,000 -0- Total $423,691 -0- Rev. to Revenue 10/31 /87 Maintenance Dist . $ 30,000 -0- Gas Tax 93,797 -0- TDA Funds 168,394 -0- 50-cent Tax Curr . 7,470 1 ,096 14.7% 50-cent Tax Prior 16,417 16,417 100.0% Devel . Fee Curr . 20,996 3,073 14.6% Devel . Fee Prior 144 144 100.0% Total $337,218 $20,730 6. 1% :budget cip projects Exhibit #2 DRAINAGE PROJECTS 1987-88 1987-88 Exp to. Projects Budget 10/31/87 Miscellaneous Drainage $ 73,000 $ 1 ,000 Projects Amapoa-Tecorida 30,000 $ 3,000 Total $103,000 $ 4,000 Revenue 50-cent Tax Curr . $ 12,450 $ 1 ,826 3.9% 50-cent Tax Prior 24,626 24,626 Dev. Fee Curr . 29, 118 5, 141 Dev. Fee Prior 20, 151 20, 151 Bordeaux Fee 28,000 -0- Amapoa-Tecorida Fee 30,000 72 14.7% 100.0% Total $144,345 $ 51 ,816 17.6% 100.0% budget cip .2% projectl 35.9% S Exhibit #3 BRIDGE PROJECTS 1987-88 1987-88 Exp to . Project Budget 10/31 /87 Graves Creek Bridge $ 300,000 $ -0- Sycamore Road Bridge 480,000 3,201 San Andreas Avenue Bridge 340,000 4,931 Garcia Road Bridge 165,000 4,424 Atascadero Creek Bridge 96,000 2,500 Total $1 ,381 ,000 $ 15,506 1 . 1% Revenue $ 101 ,750 $ -0- 0.0% Bordeaux Contrib . 1 ,064,000 -0- 0.0% Grants 17,430 2,556 14.7% 50-cent Tax Curr . 38, 307 38,307 100.0% 50-cent Tax Prior 49,292 6,419 13.0% Dev. Fee Curr . 23,308 23,308 100.0% Dev. Fee Prior 101 ,000 -0- 0.0% FAU Funds $1 ,395,087 $ 70,590 5.0% Total budget cip projectl - p2 Exhibit #4 TRAFFIC PROJECTS 1987-88 1987-88 Exp . to Project Budget 10/31/87 E1 Camino Real/West Mall $180,000 $ 4,735 Santa Rosa/West Front 100,000 -0- Santa Rosa/El Camino Real 100,000 -0- Total $380,000 $ 4,735 1 .2% Revenue Contributions $195,000 $ -0- Cal Trans 75,000 -0- FAU Funds 50,000 -0- 50-cent Tax Curr . 17,430 2,556 14.7% 50-cent Tax Prior 38,307 38,307 100.0% Dev. Fee Curr . 51 ,200 2,775 5.4% Dev. Fee Prior 43,524 43,524 100.0% Total $470,461 $ 87, 162 18.5% budget cip projectl - pg3 • Exhibit #5 GENERAL PROJECTS 1987-88 1987-88 Exp . to Project Budget 10/31/87 Binding Machine $ 700 $ -0- Photocopier 1 ,200 -O- Cabinets 400 -0- Dictaphone 625 557 Pick-up Truck (repl/Bldg ) 11 ,000 10,598 Used Vehicle - Planning 2,000 -0- General Plan Update 40,000 10, 142 Pick-up Truck (new Bldg . ) 11 ,000 11 ,019 Police Computer 22,000 -0- Police Vehicles 45,000 55,310 Salvage Vacuum 825 -O- Desk & Chair 650 -0- Files 800 -0- Vehicle Replacement/Fire 2,000 -0- Recreation Computer 3,000 284 Utility Vehicle - Parks 9,800 8,218 Survey Van 15,000 -0- Base Radio 1 ,500 -O- Vehicle Radio 1 ,000 -0- Planimeter 500 -O- Automatic Level 3,500 -0- Gas Powered Concrete Saw 800 -0- Mapping Reproductions 2,400 -0- Computer Software 1 ,000 -O- Paint Mixer 3,500 2,737 Economic Base Analysis 45,000 6,730 Land Purchase 45,000 -0- Total $270,200 $105,595 39. 1% Revenue 50-cent Tax Curr . $122,010 $ 17,895 14.7% 50-Cent Tax Prior 108,911 108,911 100.0% Revenue Sharing 90,000 90,000 100.0% Total $320,921 $216,806 67.5% budget cip projectl - pg 4 Exhibit #6 FIRE PROJECTS 1987-88 1987-88 Exp . to Project Budget 10/31/87 Truck Leases $ 45,000 $ 7,885 Suction/Resuscitator 1 ,475 -0- Mobile Radio 2,200 -0- Base Radio 3,500 -0- Engine-3 Equipment 5,600 -0- Gang Charger 755 -0- Total $ 58,530 $ 7,885 13.5% Revenue Devel . Fee Curr . $ 37,884 $ 2, 116 5.5% 50-cent Tax Curr . 19,920 2,921 14.7%. 50-cent Tax Prior 41 ,690 41 ,690 100.0% Total $ 99,494 $ 46,727 47.0% budget cip projectl - pg5 Exhibit #7 POLICE PROJECTS 1987-88 1987-88 Exp . to Project Budget 10/31/87 Police Facility $ 574,286 $ 7,293 Total $ 574,286 $ 7,293 1 .3% Revenue Dev. Fee Curr . $ 39,526 $ 2, 185 5.5% Dev. Fee Prior 22,843 22,843 100.0% 50-cent Tax Curr . 19,920 2,921 14.7% 50-cent Tax Prior 43,779 43,779 100.0% Bordeaux 235,000 -0- 0.0% Revenue Sharing 329,020 329,020 100.0%. Total $ 690,088 $ 400,748 58.0% budget cip projectl - pg 6 Exhibit #8 PARKS PROJECTS 1987-88 1987-88 Exp . to Project Budget 10/31/87 Lake Pavilion $ 50,000 $ 2, 129 Paloma Creek Phase II 50,000 22,874 Lake Improvement 200,000 8, 140 Traffic Way Fields Ph . I 54,000 2,216 Parks Workshop 15,000 8, 118- Group Barbeque 4,000 -0- BIA Proposal 10,000 -0- Babe Ruth Contrib . 5,000 -0- Total $ 388,000 $ 43,477 11 .2% Revenue Revenue Sharing $ 25,000 $ 25,000 100.0% Paloma Grant 50,000 40,000 80.0% Lake Grant 200,000 -0- 0.0% Traffic Way Grant 54,000 -0- 0.0% 50-cent Tax Curr . 17,430 2,556 14.7% 50-cent Tax Prior 38,307 38,307 100.0% Dev. Fee Curr . 17, 146 1 ,053 6. 1% Dev Fee Prior 10,469 10,419 100.0% Total $ 412,352 $ 117,335 28.5% budget cip projectl - pg7 • Exhibit #9 BUILDING AND GROUNDS PROJECTS 1987-88 1987-88 Exp . to Projects Budget 10/31/87 Room Renovations $ 25,600 $ -0- Park Light Timers 1 , 125 -0- Public Works Shop Build . 18,000 -O- Sidewalks 5,000 450 Irrigation System 3,000 624 Admin. Building Renov. 241 ,000 -0- Total $ 293,725 $ 1 ,074 .4% Revenue Grants $ 129,000 $ -0- 0.0% 50-cent Tax Curr . 14,940 2, 191 14.6% Dev. Fee Curr . 41 ,338 6,221 15.0% Revenue Sharing 112,000 112,000 100.0% Dev. Fee Prior 21 ,033 21 ,033 100.0% 50-cent Tax Prior 30,098 30,098 100.0% Total $ 348,409 $ 171 ,543 49.2% budget cip projectl - pg8 • M E M O R A N D U M DATE : November 3, 1987 TO : Planning Commission FROM : Joel Moses, Associate Planner SUBJECT : Tentative Tract Map 21-87 - 8665 Portola Road Gouff / Stewart BACKGROUND The Planning Commission on September 15 , 1987 held a Public Hearing concerning the proposed map. After hearing testimony and discussing the proposal directed that the applicant revise the lot design to be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant has now submitted a revised design for review. The new plan squares off the lot design. The access has been revised for the property. Access to Parcels 1 & 2 (the most rear) will be by way of a 14 foot access easement on the west side of the property. The two remaining parcels 3 & 4 would receive access • by way of a driveway and access easement in the middle of Parcel e ANALYSIS The revised design meets the minimum requirement of the zoning Ordinance and the General Plan and the findings are still applicable. The revised access would meet the minimum requirements of the City ' s Ordinances and Guidelines. This is due solely to the restriction the applicant intends to place on the access. These conditions would require Parcel 3 to use a separate access splitting Parcel 4. Parcel 3 would be restricted from using the easement on its own western property line. In reality the access to Parcels 1, 2, & 3 would come from the single 14 foot wide easement. The easements minimum width is being set by the existing garage in the side yard of Parcel 4. The applicant wishes to save the garage for use with the existing house on the parcel. Normally the access easements are 20 feet wide . This width is to provide room for both driveways , utilities, and fire access. A 12 foot drive way is allowed for the access to two or less homes. When a third residence is added, the Fire Code then requires the width to be 20 feet with approved • turn around. The splitting of the access in the manner proposed k allows for a technical loop hole to be used to eliminate the A1IL:ET NG r AGZNOA DATE— L! HEM# M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council November 24, 1987 & December 8, 1987 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 21-87 LOCATION: 8665 Portola Road APPLICANT: Thomas Gouff (Dan Stewart) REQUEST: To resubdivide two existing lots into four parcels varying in size from 20, 401 to 23,346 square feet. BACKGROUND: On September 15, 1987, October 6 and 20 , 1987, and November 3, 1987, public hearings on the above-referenced subject were conducted by the Planning Commission. On a 4 : 2:1 vote (Commissioners Bond and . Kidwell dissenting and Commissioner Copelan absent) , the land division request was approved subject to the revised conditions of approval (attached) .* There was considerable discussion and testimony as reflected in the attached minutes excerpts. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 21-87 per the Planning Commission' s recommendation (revised conditions of approval) . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: At the City Council' s November 24th meeting, a motion to approve the parcel map resulted in a tie vote (no action) and the matter was con- tinued to the meeting of December 8, 1987 . HE:ps cc: Tom Gouff Dan Stewart Attachments: Staff Report - November 3, 1987 Revised Conditions of Approval - November 3, 1987 Minutes Excerpts - November 3, 1987 , October 6 , 1987, October 20, 1987 & September 15, 1987 logical implementation of standard requirements for public safety. Logic would dictate that the access to the site parcels not having direct frontage on Portola to be by way of a 20 foot paved access along the western property line. This will require the removal or relocation of the existing garage. The front parcel could use a separate access drive way to a relocated garage. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend the conditional approval of Tentative Map 21-87 based on the Findings contained in Exhibit C (dated Sept. 15, 1987) and the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit D (dated Nov. 3, 1987) . Attachments Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - Revised Site Plan Exhibit C - Staff Report (Sept. 3, 1987) Exhibit D - Revised Conditions of Approval (Nov. 3, 1987) f JM/jm f 44 �� ��►� 1 ►. � ` �� it its VAO ®.•. cors.. , ., � � ♦. EXHIBIT B - REV.SITE PLAN CITY OF ATASCADERO Tentative Parcel Map 21-87 �'"'"'■� ` ■ I '"'•-7 8865 Portola Road - --CAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .. Gouff / Stewart - � DEPARTMENT ( 3 Nov. 87) ' r 04 - POgrO 'lr ail I S r .o� I ;,ea Ff, 477 77- _ ] - . •.�, I ... EXHIBIT C - Staff Rep. Tentative Parcel Map 21-87 8865 Portola Road Gouff / Stewart CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B-4 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: BY: Joel Moses Associate Planner File No: TPM 21-87 SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 21-87 initiated by Tom Gouff to resubdivide two existing RSF-X zoned and developed lots into four parcels varying in size from 22,990 to 20,225 square feet (Exhibit A) BACKGROUND: The site was recently reviewed and approved for higher density as a part of a General Plan Amendment & Zone Change (GP;2G-85) .The site is within the Urban Services area and the current development is served by sewer from Portola Road. A. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tom Gouff 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dan Stewart 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8865 Portola Road 4. Legal Description. . . . . . . . . . . .Parcels 1 & 2 of PM 29-18 (Ptn.Lot 32 B1k. 7 Atas.Col. ) 5. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 03 acres 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-X Residential Single Family ( 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size with sewer. ) 7. General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Single Family 8. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Existing two lots are developed with single family residences. 9. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted August 31, 1987 0 Tentative Parcel Map 21-87 September 15,1987 Page 2 B. ANALYSIS: The applicants proposal meets the minimum lot size standards for the zoning with the four proposed lots containing 21, 780, 22, 651, 22, 990, and 20, 825 square feet of property. The site currently contains two lots that are both developed single family residences. The resubdivision with two lots will provide two new lots for development. The lot lines are so configured to provide direct access to Portola Road for two of the lots ; the other two lots will be provided access by way of an access easement between the fronting lots. The existing residences and accessory structures will meet all setback requirements of the zoning ordinance under the new lot configuration. In reviewing the project, comments were received from several outside agencies.The Fire Department noted the need for a fire hydrant at the driveway entrance. Public Works concerns will also need to be addressed; these included sidewalk contributions, drainage improvements, sewer annexation fees, access restriction and street improvements. The City also received comments from the •Regional Office of the California Archaeological Site Survey. As a response to those comments a Site Survey was conducted and no significant archaeological materials were noted. This would not vacate the requirement that if archaeological material is found that the City be contacted and all work stopped until an evaluation is made of the find (Sec9-4. 162) C. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conditional approval of tentative Parcel Map 21- 87 based on the Findings contained in Exhibit C and the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit D ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Findings Exhibit D - Conditions of Approval JM:jm 0 �y a ■ ® AN �.Sao ♦ � ♦ i �� _ � �® ��D �l/l►� .VAP fmVAP FROMo ,1' ``� CITY EXHIBIT B SITE PLAN OF ATASCADERO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 191 mc r97 Tentative Parcel Map 21-8' � � 8865 Portola Road DEPARTMENT Gouff / Stewart . 9 z W -- - _----- --- - - - - yJ. __' W �- LW CD W c D - s 79 sF j ia,_ yq°'�01yo� SS �vu is ti �qj d y; ,p1 J O s1 . S . i EXHIBIT C - Findings for Approval Tentative Parcel Map 21 - 87 8665 Portola Road September 15, 1987 FINDINGS 1. The creation of the proposed parcels conforms to the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan land use designation , densities, and other policies. The proposal also conforms to the Subdivision Ordinance. 2 . The creation of these parcels , in conformance with the recommended Conditions of Approval, will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. 3. The site is physically suitable for the -type of development proposed. 4. The site is physically suitable for the density of the development proposed. 5 . The design of the subdivision , and the propos improvements,will not cause substantial environmental damage substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat 6 . The design of the subdivision , and the type of the improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or the use of property within the proposed subdivision; or substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 7. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474. 6 of the State Subdivision Map Act as to the methods of handling and discharge of waste. EXHIBIT D - Conditions of Approval Tentative Map 21-87 September 15, 1987 (Revised) Conditions of Approval 1 . Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. Water lines shall be extended to the frontage of each parcel or its public utilities easement prior to the recording of the final map. 2. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or other easement are to be shown on the final map. If there are building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. 3 . Grading, and drainage plans for the private driveways and access easements, prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to the recording of the final map. 4 . Improvement plans for the proposed private access driveway, prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Community Development and Public Works Department for review and approval prior to the recording of the final map . Improvements shall include the development of the driveway to meet Fire Code standards of a 16'-0" paved surface and 2'-0" graded shoulders. 5 . Construction of the private access driveways shall be completed prior to the recording of the final map. 6. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department for all work to be done in the Public right-of-way. 7 . A road maintenance agreement , in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be recorded with the deed to each parcel at the time it is first conveyed. A note to this effect shall appear on the final map. 8 . Road improvement plans for Portola Road prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Community Development and Public Works Departments for review and approval prior to the recording of the final map. Improvements shall include the pave out of Portola Road 15 '-0" from the ultimate center line of the right-of-way to the edge of pavement with a 6" A.C. berm with a 2 '-0" graded shoulder and the up grading of the fire hydrant to the west of the site on Portola Road. 9 . Construction of the public road improvements shall be • completed prior to the recording of the final map. 10. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be responsibility of the developer at his sole expense. Conditions of Approval (Cont) Tentative Parcel Map 21-87 September 15, 1987 11 . All grading and drainage work required for the access easement driveways and public improvements shall be completed prior to the recording of the final map. 12 . The newly created lots shall be connected to the Public Sewer. All annexation permit fees shall be paid for the newly created lot prior to the recording of the final map. 13. The applicant shall deposit with the Director of Public Works a dollar amount determined by the Director of Public Work, which shall be utilized for the future development of improvements for the implementation of a Routes to School Plan for Santa Rosa Elementary School. Fees shall be deposited with the Public Works Department for the linear feet of frontage where sidewalk is not constructed, at a unit price of $1.50 per square foot. 14 . Public Improvement plans prepared for the site shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department. The plans shall include a standard turn around on the private access easement driveway, and a fire hydrant at the intersection of the driveway and Portola Road. Design and location shall be approved prior to . the recording of the final map. 15. Parcel 3 shall have no direct access to Portola Road. Access shall be by way of the access driveway easement across parcel 4. Relinquishment of access rights shall be delineated on the final map. 16. An address identification sign shall be approved as a part of the public improvement plans . the signs shall contain 4 ' reflective address numbers for each residential unit served by a driveway. The signs shall be located on the right hand side of the drive way and shall be so placed as not to effect the visibility of the intersection. 17 . A final map in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City' s Subdivision Ordinance prior to the recording of the final map. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created and a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that the corners have been set by the date specific and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced. b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. • Conditions of Approval (Cont) Tentative Parcel Map 21-87 September 15, 1987 c. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 18. Approval of this tentative map shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. EXHIBIT D - Conditions of Approval Tentative Parcel Map 21-87 8865 Portola Road Gouff / Stewart November 3, 1987 (Revised) Conditions of Approval 1 . Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. Water lines shall be extended to the frontage of each parcel or its public utilities easement prior to the recording of the final map. 2. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or other easement are to be shown on the final map. If there are building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. 3. A 20 foot paved access easements shall be provided along the western property line of Parcels 3 & 4 . Applicant shall construct City Standard driveway approach to serve existing driveway and proposed driveway prior to the recording of the . final map. 4 . Improvement plans for the proposed private access driveway, prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Community Development and Public Works Department for review and approval prior to the recording of the final map.Improvements shall include the development of the driveway to meet Fire Code standards of a 16'-0" paved surface and 2 ' -0" graded shoulders. 5 . Construction of the private access driveway shall be completed prior to the recording of the final map. 6. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department prior to start of construction within the Public right-of-way. 7 . A road maintenance agreement , in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be recorded with the deed to each parcel at the time it is first conveyed. A note to this effect shall appear on the final map. 8 . Road improvement plans for Portola Road prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Community Development and Public Works Departments for review and approval prior to the recording of the final map. Improvements shall include the pave out of Portola Road 15 ' -0" from the center line of the right-of-way to the edge of pavement with a 6" A.C. berm with a 2'-0" graded shoulder and the up grading of the fire hydrant to the west of the site on Portola Road. • 9 . Construction of the public road improvements shall be • completed prior to the recording of the final map. 10. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be responsibility of the developer at his sole expense. 11. An offer of dedication shall be made to the City for 5 feet of property along the Portola Road frontage of the property. A 5 foot Public Utility Easement shall also be dedicated along the Portola frontage. 12 . All grading and drainage work required for the access easement driveways and public improvements shall be completed prior to the recording of the final map. 13 . The newly created lots shall be connected to the Public Sewer. All annexation permit fees shall be paid for the newly created lot prior to the recording of the final map. 14. The applicant shall deposit with the Director of Public Works a dollar amount determined by the Director of Public Work, which shall be utilized for the future development of improvements for the implementation of a Routes to School Plan for Santa Rosa Elementary School. Fees shall be deposited with the Public Works Department for the linear feet of frontage where sidewalk is not constructed, at a unit price of $1. 50 per square foot. 15 . Public Improvement plans prepared for the site shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department. The plans shall include a standard turn around on the private access easement driveway, and a fire hydrant at the intersection of the driveway and Portola Road. Design and location shall be approved prior to the recording of the final map. 16. An address identification sign shall be approved as a part of the public improvement plans. the signs shall contain 4 inch reflective address numbers for each residential unit served by a driveway. The signs shall be located on the right hand side of the drive way and shall be so placed as not to effect the visibility of the intersection. 17 . A final map in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City' s Subdivision Ordinance prior to the recording of the final map. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created and a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that the corners have been set by the date specific and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced. b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. c . A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 18. Approval of this tentative map shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. JM/jm SUBJECT DRIVEWAYS: I. FACT: Their are now two driveways 2. FACT: We are asking for two driveways 3. FACT: Staff recommends two driveways 4. The garage in question is more than a two car garage, it has a seperate room approximately 12 x 30 on back used as a hobby shop and a large covered patio built on to it. Diagram below: Which the engineering drawing shows is as large as the house. Two Hobby Covered car room Patio garage 5. FACT: Neighbor on east smaller lot serving one house has three driveways Diagram below: r } t T Driveways t 'C ! 6. FACT: We are allowed two driveways 7. FACT: 12' driveways allowed we propose 14' 8. FACT: The only way we can put 20' wide driveways in, is to remove garage, hobby room and patio. 9. We feel that two homes per driveway is more compatiable to rural atmosphere than a road serving more lots. 10. We fully comply with all safty and fire standards, zoning and codes. Thomas H. Gouff EXHIBIT D - Conditions of Approval Tentative Parcel Map 21-87 8865 Portola Road Gouff / Stewart November 3, 1987 (Revised by Planning Commission) Conditions of Approval 1 . Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. Water lines shall be extended to the frontage of each parcel or its public utilities easement prior to the recording of the final map. 2. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or other easement are to be shown on the final map. If there are building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. 3. A 14 '-0" foot paved access easement shall be provided along the western property line of Parcels 3 & 4. Parcel 3 shall be excluded from using the access easement. A noting so stating shall appear on the recorded final map. Applicant shall construct City Standard driveway approach to serve existing driveway and proposed driveway prior to the recording of the final map. 4. Improvement plans for the proposed private access driveway, prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Community Development and Public Works Department for review and approval prior to the recording of the final map.Improvements shall include the development of the driveway to meet Fire Code standards of a 12 '-0" paved surface and 2 '-0" graded shoulders. 5 . Construction of the private access driveway shall be completed prior to the recording of the final map. 6. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department prior to start of construction within the Public right-of-way. 7 . A road maintenance agreement , in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be recorded with the deed to each parcel except Parcel 3, at the time it is first conveyed. A note to this effect shall appear on the final map. 8 . Road improvement plans for Portola Road prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Community Development and Public Works Departments for review and approval prior to the recording of the final map. Improvements shall include the pave out of Portola Road 15 '-0" from the center line of the right-of-way to the edge of pavement with a 6" A.C. berm with a 2 ' -0" graded shoulder and the up grading of the 0 fire hydrant to the west of the site on Portola Road. 9 . Construction of the public road improvements shall be completed prior to the recording of the final map. 10. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be responsibility of the developer at his sole expense. 11. An offer of dedication shall be made to the City for 5 feet of property along the Portola Road frontage of the property. A 5 foot Public Utility Easement shall also be dedicated along the Portola frontage. 12 . All grading and drainage work required for the access easement driveways and public improvements shall be completed prior to the recording of the final map. 13 . The newly created lots shall be connected to the Public Sewer. All annexation permit fees shall be paid for the newly created lot prior to the recording of the final map. 14. The applicant shall deposit with the Director of Public Works a dollar amount determined by the Director of Public Work, which shall be utilized for the future development of improvements for the implementation of a Routes to School Plan for Santa Rosa Elementary School. Fees shall be deposited with the Public Works Department for the linear feet of frontage where sidewalk is not constructed, at a unit price of $1. 50 per square foot. 15 . Public Improvement plans prepared for the site shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department. The plans shall include a standard turn around on the private access easement driveway, and a fire hydrant at the intersection of the driveway and Portola Road. Design and location shall be approved prior to the recording of the final map. 16. An address identification sign shall be approved as a part of the public improvement plans. The signs shall contain 4 inch reflective address numbers for each residential unit served by a driveway. The signs shall be located on the right hand side of the drive way and shall be so placed as not to effect the visibility of the intersection. 17 . A final map in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City' s Subdivision Ordinance prior to the recording of the final map. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created and a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that the corners have . been set by the date specific and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced. b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. c. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 18. Approval of this tentative map shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. JM/jm MINUTES - ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Tuesday, November 3, 1987 7:30 p.m. Th regular meeting of the Atascadero Planning Commissio was called t order at 7 :33 p.m. by Chairman Nolan, followed by the ledge of Allegi ce led by Commissioner Bond. ROLL CALL: Present: Commiss ners Kidwell, Hatchell, Michielsse Bond, Lopez- Balbontin and Chairman Nolan Absent: Commissioner Copelan (excused) Staff Present: Henry En en, Community De lopment Director; Joel Moses, As ciate Planner ; Doug Davidson, Associate Planner; Pat icia Sheppha Administrative Secretary At this point, Chairman Nolan a wised at Items B-2 (Tentative Parcel Map 8-87 - Silberstein/Barbieri) an B-5 (Tentative Parcel Map 30-87 - High/Harrison) had been withdraw by the applicants and, therefore, • no public hearing would be heHowever , any one wishing to speak on either of the two matters wo dbe elcome to do so. A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of inutes of the regular P1 ning Commission meet- ing of Oct er 20, 1987 Chairman Nol offered the following amendment o the minutes Page 1 ( der Roll Call) , the minutes shoul reflect Chairman Nolan in ead of Bond. MOTIO Made by Commissioner Bond, seconded by C missioner Hatchell and carried 6 :0 to approve the cons e t calendar as presented with the above-noted change. B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS 1. Tentative Parcel Map 21-87 : Request initiated by Tom Gouff (Dan Stewart) to resubdivide two existing developed residential lots totaling 2. 03 acres into four lots varying in size from 22,990 square feet to 0 20 , 225 square feet. Subject site is located at 8665 Portola Road; legal description being a portion of Lot 32 of Block 7 in Atascadero Colony (CONTINUED FROM COMMISSION MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 15, OCTOBER 6, AND OCTOBER 20 , 1987) Minutes - Planning Commission - November 3, 1987 Mr. Moses presented the staff report summarizing the background information noting that the tentative map has been redesigned. It 0 was pointed out that the revised access would meet the minimum re- quirements of the City' s applicable ordinances and guidelines. He then responded to various questions from the Commission relative to the driveway improvements, access driveways, etc. Tom Gouff, applicant, presented the Commission with a hand-out explaining the factors involved with the redesign of the map, and re-iterated the history of the project. He noted his opposition to condition #3 concerning the requirement for 20 foot paved access easements. He then responded to questions from the Commis- sion. With regard to condition #8, he raised a concern with pro- viding a 6" A.C. berm. Mr . Moses explained the reasoning for requiring the berm. No public testimony was given on this matter . There was considerable discussion among the Commission pertaining to the proposed 20 foot paved access easement as opposed to a 14 foot access easement thereby eliminating the need for relocation of the existing garage on the property. Commissioner Michielssen commented on Condition #7 pertaining to a proposed road maintenance agreement. Commissioner Bond felt that this map was creating three flag lots and noted his concur- rence with the recommended 20 foot access easement with 16 feet paved surface and 2 feet graded shoulders. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Bond and seconded by Commissioner Kidwell to approve Tentative Parcel Map 21-87 subject to the findings and conditions contained in the staff report. The motion was defeated 4 :2 with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bond and Kidwell NOES: Commissioners Hatchell, Michielssen, Lopez-Balbon- tin, and Chairman Nolan Discussion continued concerning other appropriate alternatives to the access easement issue. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Hatchell and seconded by Commis- sioner Michielssen to approve Tentative Parcel Map 21-87 subject to the findings and revised conditions of approv- al (November 3, 1987) with modification to the following: -3 (revised to a 14 foot paved access easement . . . . (with wording to be added "excluding utilization of that easement by Parcel 3 and so recorded on final map) . -4 (modified to reflect a 12'-0" paved surface (instead of 16 ' -0") ) 2 Minutes - Planning Commission - November 3, 1987 -7 (to be modified to exclude Parcel 3) (along with revision to any conditions to note limited restricted access to Parcel 3) The motion carried 4 :2 with a roll call vote as follows: AYES: Commissioners Hatchell, Michielssen, Lopez-Balbon- tin and Chairman Nolan NOES: Commissioners Bond and Kidwell ABSENT: Commissioner Copelan 2. Tentative Parcel Map 8-87: Request initiated by Steve Silberstein and Alphons Barbieri or reconsideration of the conditions of approv 1 regarding t improvement of the access to the rear lots. Subject site is ocated at 8700 Coromar Road. Chairman No an reminded that the applicant h withdrawn this matter , ther ore, there will not be a public Baring. He invited any public tes imony. No public testimo was given. 3. Tentative Parcel ap 29-87 : Request initiatedRichard K' z to subdivide 10.35 acres into two parcels ntaining . 34 and 3.06 acres each. Sub- ject site is located t 1065 Realito Road. Mr. Moses presented the sta report recommending conditional approval. He noted that an a itional finding should be added to reflect that the proposed rcel does meet the special condition of the lot division ord ' ance t allow a lot to exceed the width to depth ratio. Tom Vaughan, agent f the applicant, ted that the staff report makes reference t a possible futur lot line adjustment. He clarified that th ' will not transpire si e the property owners were unable to reach an agreement. With egard to condition #3, he noted that did not see any requiremen for grading until such time th site is actually developed; he sked that this con- dition be d eted. Mr. Moses explained the con ' tion is standard and app ie for most maps by the Public Works Dep rtment. He felt this req rement could be satisfied at the time of uilding permit issuanc . MOTI Made by Commissioner Kidwell, seconded by Com ssioner Bond and carried 6 :0 with a roll call vote t approve . Tentative Parcel Map 29-87 subject to the findi s and conditions contained in the staff report with mo fica- tion to condition #3: 3 Item: A. 1 Minutes - Planning Commission - October 20 , 1987 MINUTES - ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Tuesday, October 20 , 1987 7:30 p.m. The re ular meeting of the Atascadero Planning Co mission was called to or er at 7:32 p.m. by Chairman Nolan, followe by the Pledge of Allegiance ed by Commissioner Copelan. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner Kidwell, Hatchell, M' ielssen, Bond (arrived at 7:35 p.m. ) , Copelan, and Chair an Bond Absent: Commissioner Lope -Balbontin xcused) Staff Present: Henry Engen, C muni Development Director; Steven DeCamp, Senior P a er; Doug Davidson, Associate Plan- ner ; and Patrici hepphard, Administrative Secretary I A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of m' utes of the regular lanning Commission meet- ing of Octo r 6, 1987 2. Conditio al Use Permit 5-87 - Santa Luci. School: Findings for De ial to establish a private element\byC Subject site s located at 9148 Palomar; legal deing Lot 1, lock 10 in Atascadero Colony. MOTI Made by Commissioner Hatchell, secondsioner Copelan and carried 5:0 to approve thcalendar as presented. B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS 1. Tentative Parcel Map 21-87 : Request initiated by Tom Gouff (Dan Stewart) to resubdivide two existing developed residen- tial lots totaling 2. 03 acres into four lots varying in size from 22, 990 square feet to 20 ,225 square feet. Subject site is located at 8665 Portola Road; legal description being a portion of Lot 32, Block 7 in Atascadero Colony (CONTINUED FROM COMMISSION MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 15 AND OCTOBER 6, 1987 - RECOMMEND CONTINUANCE TO MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 1987) Mr. DeCamp noted that the applicant is still working with staff to revise the proposed map to conform to the Planning Commission' s request to have the lots configured in a more logical pattern. - He stated that a continuance to a future meeting would be in order. 1 Minutes - Planning Commission - October 20 , 1987 There was no public testimony given. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Kidwell, seconded by Commissioner Copelan and carried 5 :0 to continue the hearing on Tenta- tive Parcel Map 21-87 to the meeting of November 3, 1987. 7:35 p.m. - Commissioner Bond is now present. At this point, it was noted that the applicant nor the re resenta- tiv for item B-2 was present so the Commission would g ahead and proce d with item B-3. 3. Ge ral Plan Cycle 1 - 1988: Preliminary revi w of General Plan Amendment applications submitted for th first cycle of 1988. Mr. DeCamp pr sented the staff report noting is application was originally inc uded in the south Atascadero eneral Plan amendment proposal earlie this year. Staff is reco ending the study area be expanded to include the parcel at he intersection of Viejo Camino and El Cami o Real (which would provide a more logical boundary for any re ltant zone change or General Plan amendment) . Mr. DeCamp further sta ed that staf is not recommending any ad- ditional City-initiate General lan amendments be considered at this time due to the ongo ' ng wor on the General Plan revision program. There was discussion regardi whether this particular application should be reviewed as part f e overall General Plan update; timing factors were revi ed b ween considering this application at this time versus the engthier review process under the compre- hensive General Plan r -write. There was no public estimony given o this matter . MOTION: Made by ommissioner Hatchell, econded by Commissioner Bond a d carried 6 :0 with a roll call vote to recommend to t City Council the study are for the first cycle of 198 General Plan amendments as re renced in the staff r ort. At thi point, Chairman Nolan asked for a consens s of the Commis- sion s to whether or not to continue or proceed wi h the hearing on tem B-3 as the representative nor applicant had still not ar ived. Mr . Engen advised that the Commission could egally pro- ed with the hearing and take action or could continue the matter until such time that the applicant is present. He added that the applicant and representative did receive a copy of the taff re- port. 2 Minutes - Planning Commission - October 6, 1987 M Falkenstien addressed concerns raised by the pre ious sp akers. Addi 'onal comments in opposition were addressed by Mr . S ers and Mrs. haff. Mr . Brin stated he had listened to the neighbors ' c ncerns but emphasize that this project is in confomance wit the existing General Pl and Zoning Ordinance regulations. Commissioner and stated he was opposed to the fi st map design, but felt the r vised map complied with the nece ary criteria. He suggested that he word "existing" be added be re the " . . . . . . . 950 foot contour lin . . . . " in Condition # 12. MOTION: Made by Co issioner Bond, sec ded by Commissioner Hatchell an carried 6 :0 on a roll call vote to approve Tentative Par el Map 27-87 subject to the findings and conditions co tained in the taff report, with modifica- tion to Conditi #12 as fo ows: "12. The area of he sit located above the existing 950 foot con our ine as shown on the revised ten- tative map dat d eptember 24, 1987 shall be placed in a scenic eas ent wherein no building construc- tion or plac m t shall occur. Said scenic ease- ment and bui ing estrictions shall be shown and noted on th final ap. 2. Tentative Parcel M p 25-87 : Request initiate by Don Messer/N th Coast Engineering to allow subdivisi of 6. 7 acres int four parcels of 1.6, 1.3, 1.7, and 2.1 a res each. Subject si a is located at 5805 Capistrano A enue; legal descripti n being Parcel 1 of PM 17-06 in At cadero Colony. (CONTINUE FROM COMMISSION MEET- ING OF SEP MBER 1, 1987) . (APPLICANT SUBMITTING A RE- VISED MAP - THIS ITEM WILL BE RESCHEDULE AT A LATER DATE) . Mr. DeCamp ted that the applicant has met with staff which has resulted i an agreement that a revised map will e submitted at a later dat which particularly relates to the phasi of the pro- ject. a recommended that the matter be continue to an indefi- nite d e. Ther was no public testimony given. MO ION: Made by Commissioner Hatchell, seconded by Commi ioner Kidwell and carried unanimously to continue the earing on Tentative Parcel Map 25-87 to a future date. 3. Tentative Parcel Map 21-87 : Request initiated by Tom Gouff (Dan Stewart) to resubdivide 3 Minutes - Planning Commission - October 6, 1987 two existing developed residential lots totaling 2.03 acres into four lots varying in size from 22,990 square feet to 20 ,225 square feet. Subject site is located at 8665 Portola Road; legal description being a Portion of Lot 32, Block 7, in Atascadero Colony (CONTINUE FROM COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1987) - (RECOMMEND POSTPONEMENT TO MEETING OF OCTOBER 20, 1987) . Mr. Moses summarized the background involved with this request from the previous hearing and indicated the applicant is still working with staff to revise the map, and asked that this matter be continued to the meeting of October 20th. No public testimony was given on this matter . MOTION: Made by Commissioner Copelan, seconded by Commissioner Hatchell and carried unanimously to continue the hearing on Tentative Parcel Map 21-87 to the meeting of October 20 , 1987 . 4. Establishment of Road Name: Request initiated y Michael wkins (Cuesta Engineering) to consider the a ablishment of Ale re Avenue for the public street created o serve Tract 1489 . The application also includes a req st to allow bond- ing for ublic improvements. Mr. DeCamp prese ted the staff report re ommending approval of Alegre Avenue as a treet name, but note staff does not recommend providing for bondin of the road impr ements (Condition #7) . He then responded to ques ons from the ommission. Mike Bewsey, representing e app scant, stated that the primary reason for bonding is to exp i e paperwork with the Department of Real Estate in order to sell lots; he indicated the applicant has no intention of selling he 1 is before completion of the road improvements and added th the imp vements are under construc- tion at this time. There was discussion mong the Commission oncerning bond guaran- tees with regard to ' percentages and tha any bonding agreement would need to be cceptable to the Public Wor Director and City Attorney. Commissione Kidwell expressed concern that a prece t may be set for futur developments by allowing the applicant to b d for the road i rovements on this application. Chairman Nolan e that any pr cedent the Commission would set is based on a cert ' n set of acts given at the time. Commissioner Bond concurre with Ch rman Nolan' s statements noting that each case is considere on s individual merits. 4 Minutes - Planning Commission - September 15, 1987 Commissioner Bond sta d he liked the esign and plan of the project. MOTION: Made by Commissioner B d, seconded by Commissioner Copelan and carried on a roll call vote to recommend approval of Zone Ch ge 9 7 as reflected in the draft resolution and entative ct Map 10-87 subject to the revised condit ' s of approval. Commissioner Michie sen took his place back n the Commission. 4. Tentative Parcel Map 21-87: Request initiated by Tom Gouff (Dan Stewart) to resubdivide two existing developed residential lots totaling 2.03 acres into four lots varying in size from 22,990 square feet to 20 , 225 square feet. Subject site is located at 8865 Portola Road; legal description being a portion of Lot 32, Block 7, Atascadero Colony. Mr. Moses presented the staff report recommending approval of the the application. He pointed out a revised set of conditions which superceded the condition contained in the agenda packet. Mr. Moses and Mr. Sensibaugh then responsed to various questions from the Commission. Tom Gouff, applicant, talked about the background involved in ini- tially trying to obtain p lot split back in 1978 through the County. He expressed concerns with Conditions #4 (improvement plans for private access driveway) ; #14 (fire hydrant) ; #6 and #8 (road improvements) ; #12 (annexation fees) . Discussion followed with clarifications and reasonings on the conditions offered by Mr. Moses and Mr. Sensibaugh. There was discussion among the Commission concerning the flag lot figuration; the possible reduction in lots from four lots to three lots; and concerns with the road easement to Parcel 3; and the possibility of a redesign of the site plan. Discussion also cen- tered on clarification and possible modifications to the condi- tions which were of concern to the applicant. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Bond and seconded by Commissioner Kidwell to deny Tentative Parcel Map 21-87 . Discussion continued among the Commission. The motion was defeated 4 : 2 with a roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bond and Kidwell NOES: Commissioners Michielssen, Lopez-Balbontin, Cope- lan, and Chairman Nolan 4 Minutes - Planning Commission - September 15, 1987 MOTION: Made by Commissioner Copelan, seconded by Commissioner Michielssen to approve. Tentative Parcel Map 21-87 subject to the findings and revised conditions of approval as previously discussed. Discussion followed; Mr. Sensibaugh responded to questions from the Commission as it pertains to the drainage swale on the site. The motion failed with a 3 :3 vote as follows: AYES: Commissioners Copelan, Michielssen, and Chairman Nolan NOES: Commissioners Lopez-Balbontin, Bond and Kidwell There was continued discussion between Mr. Gouff and the Commis- sion regarding the feasibility of redesigning the map. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Michielssen, seconded by Commis- sioner Lopez-Balbontin and carried with a 6 :0 roll call vote to continue the hearing on Tentative Parcel Map 21-87 to the October 6th meeting in order to allow the applicant an opportunity to bring back a redesign of the tentative map. Chaff man Nolan called a recess at 9:15 p.m. ; meeting re nvened at 9 :25 p 5. Conditi al Use Permit 1-87 : Request i tiated by Atascadero Ford (Du Sawyer) to allow for and ds ion to site signs in exces of the allowable 100 square feet o ignage, a wall-mounte freeway identification sign, modificati of landscaping, d a building addition. Subject site is ocated at 386 E1 Camino Real; legal des- cription being porti s of Lots and 3 of Block 18 in Atas- cadero Colony. Mr. Moses presented the staff rt and provided a background on previous actions and appr als ' th this use permit. Reference was made to a letter from F ances Gr i es, 3725 Monterey, highly critical of Atascadero ords lack of ompliance with past condi- tions of approval. There was some disc sion concerning the prop ed location of the trash enclosure. In response to question fro Commissioner Kid- well, Mr. Moses xplained why a formal landscapin plan has not yet been su itted, and added that the type of lan caping which KMart has w ld be appropriate for the Atascadero For ite. Dis- cussion a o centered around the parking layout for the ' te. 5 AG� D�fNG� It;/�`7 TEN1'#A • MEMORANDUM TO: City Council THROUGH: Mike Shelton , City Manager FROM: Faui� nsibaugh , Director of Public Works SUBJECT : Road Acceptance Resolution DATE: November 17, 1987 Recommendation : Staff recommends that Council approve the attached Resolution accepting a portion of Santa Ana Road into the city-maintained road system. Background: The road section referred to here was constructed in . 1985 by the Gordon T . Davis Cattle Co : , in accordance with plans approved by the City Engineer . All required inspections have been completed and the road has been determined to have been constructed as to the plans . Fiscal Impact : By accepting this road into the city-maintained system the city will become responsible for the repair , however, no significant work is expected for several years . RESOLUTION NO. 119-87 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ACCEPTING SANTA ANA ROAD FROM THE INTERSECTION OF SANTA LUCIA TO THE INTERSECTION OF CORRIENTE The Council of the City of Atascadero resolves as follows : 1 . Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1806 of the California Streets and Highways Code, the following streets are hereby accepted into the city street system: street Name Length in—Feet Miles Santa Ana 10, 032+— 1 . 9 ` 2 . A copy of this resolution shall be furnished to : Gordon T . Davis Cattle Co . On motion by Council Member and seconded by Council Member the • Atascadero City Council hereby adopts the foregoing resolution in its entirety on the following roll call vote : AYES; NOES : ABSENT : ADOPTED: ATTEST : BOYD C . SHARITZ BARBARA NORRIS , Mayor City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT : -� WN J ' ENSEN PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH tt ne Director of Public Works � J f s4'n a n °4p1 NTE , O a � ,�/ •"i,.'AiE `/ - _ ..�.ya-qZ•it �_.. - a co ,.� _. ,1l ;. t •r�flak �-; r`.." +r {., .Ry:wt r ,43�, S, Ift 71, ?i r WMI-iF r'et'ry �' rsk _ _i�' - � a •_�y.�'/! ch }� div.+•-J � :.,, ��. T - _I 9� TE'ECOLO Lg 7 y 1 / t 13 sl 00000 0 00 I I • r 11 Z 1 I � I N q 1 '1 11 _ f 1 Ll i OTLI N Q ? , of >san lois obispo county P.O. Box 654, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 805/544-6163 ENterprise 14429 December 8 , 1987 Ms Barbara Norris Mayor City of Atascadero Atascadero , Ca . 93422 Dear Ms Norris : I am writing regarding the proposed item on the tonight's City Council agenda for new police department facility. As the main 24 hour HOTLINE service for seventeen crisis and information services throughout San Luis Obispo County , we come in contact daily with individuals who need to obtain assistance from the Atascadero Police Department. You are aware of the fact that when a victim or an individual in crisis goes to the Police Department there is no available private space for them to utilize . Interviews are conducted in the one and only room utilized for a number of other functions including a staff room. This type of situation is quite detremental to the individual in crisis since they are in a state of trauma and certainly reluctant to be interviewed by law enforcement to begin with. The lack of a private space adds to the trauma and leaves the individual feeling resentful and reluctanct in obtaining the necessary assistance. I would appreciate it if you would give strong consideration to providing a police department facility that would offer adequate space for all of the different functions that take place in a department of this size . I know that if the individuals who we work with could they would in fact support this action , yet for reasons that you can well understand they choose to remain anonymous . Thank you for consideration to this matter Sincerely, WSariingleton ve Director 7- -'A M E M O R A N D U M • TO: City Manager Mike Shelton and City Council members FROM: Chief of Police SUBJECT: Renovation Estimates - Beno's DATE: December 1, 1987 RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: By motion, authorize the police chief to hire the services of Ross, Levin and Maclntyre Architects for the purpose of the development of a report which will more specifically estimate the renovation/remodeling costs of the Beno's store. Such study and report is not to exceed $800.00 total. BACKGROUND: Since July, 1987, City Council and City staff have focussed attention and efforts upon the Beno's store at 5505 E1 Camino Real as the most cost effective alternative for a police facility site. Although negotiations with the property owner are not complete as yet, it appears, as Council knows, that we may be able to purchase the store A a • price very close to the appraisal which we financed in August, 1987. Previously, our architect had estimated that conversion of the Beno's store (11,700 square feet) to a proper police facility would cost approximately $656,000.00. This estimate was based upon industry-wide general knowledge of renovation costs which were not specific to the Beno's site. In keeping with Council concerns regarding the total cost of this project, it now appears appropriate to develop a more specific plan for the interior of the building and thus estimate a more specific cost estimate upon which Council may make a more informed decision later. i With Council concurrence, I will work closely with our architect and his project estimator in the development of a preliminary floor plan and cost estimate. FISCAL IMPACT: The $800.00 fee can be drawn from our police facility project fund. For your consideration. . . RICHARD H. McHALE RHM:sb M E M O R A N D U M • TO: City Council December 8 1987 FROM: Michael Shelton City Manager SUBJECT: SUBMITTAL OF GRANT APPLICATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $50 ,000 FOR THE NORTH COUNTY WOMENS RESOURCE CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: The City Council adopt Resolution 121-87 , applying for grant funds to be used by the North County Womens Shelter, as authorized by the Federal McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. BACKGROUND: The State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is requesting proposals from eligible cities and counties for funding, authorized by the Federal McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. Detailed information on source, purposes, eligibility, and application procedures are attached for further information. • The City Council has traditionally provided funding and support to the North County Womens Resource Center, which provides tem- porary housing and support for battered women. The North County Womens Resource Center has requested the City apply for funds in the amount of $50,000 to enhance and continue the provisions of shelter services to the community. FISCAL IMPACT: No direct cost. If the grant application is approved, the City will be the recipient agency for the funds, and will be required to subcontract with the Womens Shelter for use of the funds. MS:kv • 1 RESOLUTION 121-87 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF A GRANT PROPOSAL IN THE AMOUNT OF $50 ,000 FOR NORTH COUNTY WOMEN' S RESOURCE CENTER 'WHEREAS, the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is requesting proposals for funding, authorized by the Federal McKinney Homeless Assistance Act; and WHEREAS, HCD has authority, under State law, to accept Federal funds and distribute them in accordance with Federal requirements; and WHEREAS, the North County Women' s Resource Center would like to apply for these funds to enhance the continuing operation of the Women' s Shelter ; and WHEREAS, the grant policy requires proposals to be submitted by Cities and Counties for grant funding; and WHEREAS, the City may subcontract with the Women' s Shelter for the use of acquired Homeless Assistance Grant Funds; and WHEREAS, applications must be submitted to HCD no later than • December 16, 1987, and must be accompanied by a resolution from the City. THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Atascadero City Council hereby approves and submits the attached proposed application for $50 ,000 in grant funds for use by , the North County Women' s Shelter , in accordance with Federal requirements. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO BOYD C. SHARITZ BARBARA NORRIS City Clerk Mayor 1 APPROVED AS TO FORM: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MICHAEL SHELTO City Manager • 2 XiM County Women's .She a Past Office Box 1709 i Awsatiftro, California 93423 November 23 , 1987 Michael B. Shelton City Of Atascadero P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, Ca. 93423 The State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is requesting proposals from eligible cities and counties for funding authorized by the Federal Mckinney Homeless Assistance Act and regulations issued by the U.S . Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) . Applications for eligible activities in amounts ranging from $30,000 to $250, 000 will be accepted at HCD headquarters until December 16, 1987 at 5 :00 P.M. The Homeless Assistance Act (Public Law 100-77) authorizes HUD to allocate $50 million nationwide to units. of local government using the allocation formula of the Community Development Block Grant Program. If the formula produces an allocation of less than $25,000 to a local government then that locality's allocation is combined into a Statewide Allocation for distribution by States. In California, 21 cities and 16. urban counties (including small cities which joined with those counties for CDBG funding) received allocations directly from HUD. The Act requires that before the State distributes its funds, the State must submit a Comprehensive Homeless Assistance Plan to HUD. HCD has submitted its plan which has been approved. HCD has authority under State Law (Health and Safety Code 50406) to accept these funds and distribute them in accordance with the Federal requirements. The North County Women' s Resource Center would like to apply for these funds for the smooth continuing operation of The Women' s Shelter. The WRC cannot independently apply for these funds, the City must apply on our behalf. At this time we estimate we will apply for about $50 ,000. The proposals were just recently sent to us and time has not permitted us to give you any more details than' we have listed here. We will be giving you the completed copy of the proposal for your inspection. A resolution by the City Council must be included in the total package. Thank You. for your consideration in this matter. . Sincerely, UtLtc�' Suz1.e Van Benthuys Executive Director " • -1- Request for Proposal (RFP) Federal Emergency Shelter Grants Program California Allocation I. INTRODUCTION The State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is requesting proposals from eligible cities and counties for funding authorized by the Federal McKinney Homeless Assistance Act and regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Applications for eligible activities in amounts ranging from $30,000 to $250,000 will be accepted at HCD headquarters until December 16, 1987 at 5:00 p.m. or may be delivered to HCD headquarters by mail if, postmarked by December 16, 1987. Applications must be submitted in accordance with the instructions and forms found in this RFP. II. AUTHORITY The Homeless Assistance Act (Public Law 100-77) authorizes HUD to allocate $50 million nationwide to units of local government using the allocation formula of the Community Development Block Grant Program. If the formula produces an allocation of less than $25,000 to a local government then that locality's allocation is combined into a Statewide Allocation for distribution by States. In California, 21 cities and 16 urban counties (including small cities which joined with those counties for CDBG funding) received allocations directly from HUD (See Attachment 1), The Act requires that before the State distributes its funds, the State must submit a Comprehensive Homeless Assistance Plan to HUD. HCD has submitted its plan which has been approved. HCD has authority under State law (Health and Safety Code 50406) to accept these funds and distribute them in accordance with the Federal requirements. III. APPLICATION PROCEDURES Three copies of a complete application package should be either delivered to the Department in person by December 16, 1987 at 5:00 p.m. or delivered by mail postmarked no later than December 16, 1987. Late applications will not be accepted under any circumstances. Applications mailed to the Department should be addressed as follows: Gwen Espinoza Department of Housing and Community Development 921 Tenth Street, Room 402 Sacramento, CA 95814-2774 A complete application package consists of: - 1. Forms 1 through 7 with all information provided; 2. An executed Certifications Form; o —2- 3. A certified copy of the Resolution of the governing body authorizing submittal; also, if applicable, a letter from the Chief Executive Officer of a jurisdiction, other than the applicant, in which the shelter is located acknowledging submittal of the application on its behalf; (see below for explanation.) 4. Cost estimates showing how the grant funded activity costs were arrived at; S. Documentation of: a. support services available; b. site control; c. funding match commitments; d. local land use/planning status. 6. Letter of intent from each shelter provider (if different from the applicant) indicating support for and willingness to carry out the activities. Applications may include more than one activity per shelter and/or activities involving more than one shelter. Shelters receiving assistance need not be located within the jurisdiction applying for funding. For example, an eligible. County application may include shelters located in an eligible incorporated City within that County if the Chief Executive Officer of the City signs a letter acknowledging submittal of an application by the County on its behalf. (An existing cooperative agreement between the County and a City which has resulted in financial assistance to the shelter benefiting from this funding may be submitted in lieu of a letter from the Chief Executive Officer of the City.) Joint applications from two or more eligible jurisdictions may also be submitted if there are resolutions from governing bodies of all participating jurisdictions authorizing submittal and designating one of the jurisdictions as "lead agency." If there is more than one application submitted which assists shelter(s) in a given city or unincorporated area, only one application will be accepted. For example, a city cannot submit an application if a county has also submitted an authorized application on its behalf. In the event two applications are received which would provide assistance in the same City or unincorporated area, the applications will be returned to the applicants to resolve which one is to be filed. IV. FUNDING LIMITS Applications requesting a total of less than $30,000 or more than $250,000 will not be accepted and will be returned. Individual activities and/or shelters within an application may request less than $30,000 as long as the cumulative total of all activities and/or shelters per application is between $30,000 and $250,000. HCD will award the -3- total amount requested in an application or none of what is requested. Partial funding may only occur if an application is ranked just above the funding cut-off line and there are insufficient funds to award the entire amount proposed. V. ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES The Federal law dictates what specific activities are eligible for funding. Any activity that is not specifically listed as eligible is not eligible. A. Renovation Funds may be used to renovate an existing building for use as an emergency homeless shelter. "Renovation" is defined as rehabilitation that involves costs of 75% or less of the value of the building before rehabilitation. A building being rehabilitated at a cost of less than 75% of a building's value is required to be used as a shelter for three years from date of initial occupancy or date of fund obligation, whichever is later. Labor, materials, and.tools can be paid for to replace or repair electrical, plumbing, carpentry, windows, or any other components of a building. Also eligible under this heading are installation of security devices, alterations, additions.to, or enhancements of existing buildings, and installation of energy efficiency items such as insulation, solar heating, etc. (Refer to Section VIII. C. of this RFP for prohibitions on use of grant funds for renovation, major rehabilitation or conversion of buildings owned by primarily sectarian organizations. ) B. Major rehabilitation Major rehabilitation is defined as rehabilitation that involves costs of more than 75% of a building's value before rehabilitation. Buildings receiving major rehabilitation are required to be used as a shelter for ten years from date of initial occupancy or date of fund obligation, whichever is later. C. Conversion Funds may be used to change the use of a building to an emergency homeless shelter through major rehabilitation. Buildings converted using these funds must remain as shelters for at least ten years from initial occupancy or funding obligation, whichever is later. D. Provision of Essential Services Funds may be used to pay for staff and other costs associated with the provision of services, including but not limited to permanent housing, employment, health, substance abuse, education, or food. The services funded must be new or a quantifiable increase over what has been provided in the 12 months preceding the application submittal. In addition, only 15% of the total requested amount may be used for this activity.* In a multi-shelter or multi-activity *See page 10 for aro p posed federal rule change to this section. -4- application, one or more of the activities may be up to 100% services, as long as the total costs do not exceed 15% of the total application. For example, Shelter A in a city can receive $30,000 for nutrition counseling staff and suppplies, and Shelter B is in the same city can receive $170,000 in conversion and rent costs, for a total application of $200,000, 15% of which is for services. E. Maintenance Funds may be used to pay for shelter maintenance, including labor and materials associated with cleaning and minor repairs. F. Rent Funds may be used to pay regular rent or lease payments for homeless shelter facilities. Mortgage payments or that portion of a lease/option going toward a down payment are ineligible. G. Non-Staff Operations Funds may be used to pay for any ongoing operational cost such as insurance, utilities, beds, chairs, linens, and food. Operational staff costs, such as administration and supervision, are ineligible. VI. INELIGIBILE ACTIVITIES The funds cannot be used for any activity not specifically listed above. Examples of activities which are ineligible are: A. New construction of a shelter, although additions to existing shelters are eligible; • B. Homeless shelter acquisition costs, such as options, down payments, mortgage payments, escrow fees, and financing fees; C. Rental of commercial transient accommodations, such as motel or hotel rooms;* D. Any administrative costs, including general administration of the grant; E. Rehabilitation work write-ups, inspections, or any other rehab cost other than labor and materials; F. Rehabilitation or conversion of buildings owned by primarily religious organizations or entities. * VII. EVALUATION CRITERIA All applications will be reviewed for completeness. Incomplete applications will be returned with a written explanation of what was missing. *See page 10 for a proposed federal rule change to this section. CALIFORNIA ALLOCATION FEDERAL EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANTS PROGRAM Form 1 : Application Summary A. Applicant Jurisdiction: City/County of: City Of Atascadero B. Contact Person and Title: Mike Shelton, City Manager C. Mailing Address: 6500 Palma Ave. Atascadero, Calif. 93422 D. Phone Number(s): 466-8000 E. Shelters to receive funding from this grant: Name of Shelter Mailing Address Activity Types $ Requested 1 . North Countyt Resource Center / Atascadero, Ca. Housing Assistant m n s a er r gram i rens Services 2. 3. • 4. F. Legislative Representatives: TOTAL: $ Congressional District No. Assembly District No. Senate District No. 14th. Name Leon Panetta Name Eric Seastrand Name KPn 1-fac3r3y Address 1160 Marsh Address 523 Higuera Address 864 Osos ,fan Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo CMET—. 7a if. G. Application Checklist: G Resolution from Applicant Governing Board ❑ Cost Estimates NAIL setter from C.E.O.-of jurisdiction of G Match commitment letters shelter if different from Applicant 0 Local Government planning letter G Letter of Intent from C.E.O. of shelters G Site control documentation to receive assistance G Forms' l and 2 (1 per application) C Resumes O Forms 3, 4, and 5 (1 per-shelter } O Services documentation 0 Forms 6 and 7 (1 per activity/shelter) 0 Certifications -41- CALIFORNIA ALLOCATION FEDERAL EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANTS PROGRAM Form 2 : Site Control and Total Beds Created Submit one form in the application. A. List the name of each shelter for which funding is requested, the name of the entity who owns the shelter, and the legal relationship between the owner and the shelter provider. Attach a copy of either the deed, signed lease or rental agreement, or other documentation of the status of the site for each shelter to be funded. Shelter Name: Structure Owned By: Leased? Time remaining: Rented? Other 1 Wnrnpn Steve T4ol man V.acz 3 1 Resource Cente /237 Ginger Ln. 2 S qholf-av Paso Robles, Calif. 3. 93446 4. Describe any special circumstances: 0 B. List the name of each shelter for which funding is requested. Enter the number of permanent beds currently provided by each shelter, not including overflow cots or mats, and the number of new permanent beds that will be created as a direct result of this .grant. Shelter Name: # Existing Beds # Proposed New Beds Total Beds 1 r,? f� Resource Center/ 12 3 15 2. 1omen's Shelter 3. 4. TOTALS: 12 3 15 % Increase in beds: 25 % -42- CALIFORNIA ALLOCATION FEDERAL EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANTS PROGRAM • Form 3: Shelter Program Summary Submit one form for each shelter to;be assisted. Attach additional sheets as necessary. A. Name of Shelter: North Counter ['JomPn 's ghPl1-Pr P-rngr= B. Name of Organization Running Shelter: Horth County Womens Resource Center .C. Is the shelter in a building owned by a primarily sectarian (religious) organization? Yes X No D. Provide a chronological history of the shelter and the organization's involvement with running shelters. The North County Women's Resource Center was formed in 1982. Due to increased reporting of domestic violance in the northern region of San Luis Obispo County a North County Women's Shelter was develope by members of the Resource Center in January 1984. This Shelter serves battered women and their children from the vast northern region of the count During the first two years of operation 322 victims of domestic violance have been served by the shelter program. The Shelter provided food and shelter and housing on a 24 hour, 7 days a week basis. Additional advocacy and counseling are available thru the Resource Center and has served over 11000 clients in the office in the past 2 years. The staff consists of a full time director, t. time bookee n a u ers. E. Describe the total shelter program as it ��T 1" e�s� �i tai ��SGE�F�}�idi��,�nc�MM client group(s) served, services provided, linkages with other agencies or services. Attach brochures, reports, or other forms of documentation. The Federal Emergency Shelter Grant funding will allow for extensive program/shelter development. In addition to the purchase of new beds, equipment and other furniture, the Women's Shelter intends to expand its direct services to shelter residents, these services will include: coordination of employment/job training for residents, specialized counseling for abused women and their children, and permanent relocation services for residents. The 141omen' s Shelter will continue to network with numerous human service agencies for completion of services. F. Describe the experience of the primary staff involved in running the program, including the activities applied for. Attach resumes. Suzie Van Benthuysen was the founder of The North County Women's Shelter in 1984. After creating a 'Nomen' s Resource Center it was apparent that there was a serious need for a North County Shelter to .assist abused women. sirs. Van Benthuysen was instrumental in gathering community support, local and state government funding, and many donated services to create a viable, strong shelter program. G. Of the other funds shown on Form 4 for this shelter, show which are to be counted toward the one-for-one match commitment: (Attach documentation from Source.) Type Source(s) $ Amount Status of Commitment Federal rT/A -0- N/A State , ome. of OP, - - 24,498 1 year commitment-renewable Local 1 les o ascaaero, 17 500 1 year commitment-renewable Volunteer CommunityMemberss and rd number Private Local community servic4 100000- nn rloing clubs 6c run raising .� —43-R, O0 � ti\0 w +� N N N O O 0 0 i w w C ►-c ` 1 N H O to p C cU co 01 p C` o•r• -d- O O w w w co 0--' t �- d +� CCIU O \ i .II � f0 to � C O O N 4-3 G= ZS •�-� O O O i O o L\ w w O w N r � C3- > \10 O 4-) Ln Z F- +3 U O Z¢ O 0 O Q co L ca (U p O O C) LLJ m n. 0 tl til pi ¢ J +> w w W r •� C\7 CC tnn r t° N � } N O U rrl rte+ coco cn r O O 00 r O E o 0 Kl O til N W LL 41 w w ww N ¢ V) til Kl til N C` C' r W G in CL O C 00 w ) w w lil Q 4J C� C O c- fel +4.) b4 o p1 000 In til t� O' oo p Kl N N N \ O «l N -Cc) I C5 c0 N O N L r I O -::� O U +) 4-i a' La .H X00 CO �O � o 0a, a a a� 4.3 aii � 4 O � N bjO ami � H� i O u i LL. N N N C'S H O O V4 EM O 4-) C7 C'3 O O fy 01 -+) +) N C +) +� •r p i U i U r u $:.Ib U O,x r r E = Vf Q) L O L ra i > i O cu � L� 4.3 .� O r 4-) 47 .0 O m t 4-) O +-t O r O O H 0 i 0 OQ) O 4J N LO F- O N O N -.t cn L.) U a Ln C(L 3 F- 0 -44- CALIFORNIA ALLOCATION FEDERAL EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANTS PROGRAM Form 5: Shelter Services Submit one form for each shelter in the Application. Attach additional sheets as necessary. Name of Shelter: North County Women' s Shelter Provide the requested information separately for each type of service provided directly to clients of the shelter: SERVICE 1 : Crisis Intervention and CounselingServices Address where clients are served: On Site & Off-site at times depending u=on needs. Name of organization providing service: North County Women' s Shelter If provided off-site, is free transportation provided to clients? . X Yes No If Yes, describe transportation: Volunteers transport residents to adz rni ri ate agencies when necessary. Briefly describe the service:The shelter operdtes a 24 hr_ cri si s hots i n . Pvery day of the year. A crisis worker can respond in person 24 hrs_ a day_ Follow up counseling services are available,***** SERVICE 2: Accompaniment and Advocacy Services Address where clients are served: i1Yam.Si to Name of organization providing service: North County iHoments Shelter If provided off-site, is free transportation provided to clients? _X Yes No If Yes, describe transportation: -Staff or Vol un PPr tranGpnrtati nn Briefly describe the service: ctnff / Volunteers provide Pccnrt cervi cPP to law enforcement agencies, hospitals, social service agencies R, curt,when nenecsar, staff will advocate on residents bakaif. SERVICE 3: T,e3ni Assist nr, Address where clients are served: On-site & sometimes room 121 County Courthouse Name of organization providing service: North County Women' s Shelter & Victim Witness Assistance Center If provided off-site, is free transportation provided to clients? _Yes No If Yes, describe transportation: Staff or Volunteers will• trnnsport to si tp. Briefly describe the service: Staff provides assistance to domestic violan .P victim in processing restraining order,, custody or divorce papers_ ***** SERVICE 4: Job Training and R to ion �qrvi cP Address where clients are served: nn ,qit Name of organization providing service: nrth county Tomen ' s ghPl tPr If provided off-site, is free transportation provided to clients? _ Yes No If Yes, describe transportation:t�,]hen TTPr•Pccar� �TnlnntPPrc/staff t+yZll tranc�GZrt Briefly describe the service: Specialized contra6tual onrvises w=1q: besouah': to provide career guidance, job training, and housing _Relocation.___ stance to Shelter Guests ** gPrvicPs Available Only 'If Funded By Federal Emergency Shelter Grant Service # 5: Childrens Therapy Services • Address - On-Site North County Women' s Shelter On-Site Service Specialized contractual counseling services will be available for Children of Shelter guests. Such services will include individual and group therapy designed for children who have lived in violent homes. Additionally a weekly parenting education workshop will be conducted on-site for Shelter guests who have children with them. Services available only if founded by Federal Emergency Shelter Grant. .' -45- CALIFORNIA ALLOCATION FEDERAL EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANTS PROGRAM Form 6: Activity Description Submit one form for each activity in each shelter in the Application. Attach additional sheets as necessary. A. Name of Shelter: 1lorth County Women's Shelter B. Type of Activity (Check only one per form; refer to RFP for definitions) : Name Grant Funds Requested Renovation $ Major Rehabilitation $ Conversion $ U Provision of Essential Services $ 301,480 Maintenence $ Rent $ F-1 Non-Staff Operations $ C. Describe why this activity is necessary to carry out the shelter program and why this grant is the most appropriate funding source. In general, it is difficult to secure funding for personnel salaries and wages through grants. While this shelter has funding for administration and minimal program operations it cannot expand the provision of support services unless additional is awarded. In order to break the welfare cycle among shelter residents it is critical that they receive specialized job training assistance while in the shelter. Additionally, staff can assist residents in relocating to permanent housing. Another vicious cycle which needs to be broken is the Cycle of family violance, such children and their Mothers must receive counseling and education to change their likely patterns of violance. D. Describe the activity in detail , and identify the staff, consultants, or others responsible for carrying out the grant-funded work. Include how the activity will benefit the beds shown on G.1 of this form. Attach cost estimates which justify the funds requested above. Show the milestones and applicant budget for this- activity on Form 7. private consultants will be responsible for carrying out these activities. A job training specialist will conduct career guidance seminars, individual job training assistance, career testing coordination and scheduling interviews with college, private industry counseling and related agencies, and follow up career counseling. Additionally she/he will be responsible for assisting-shelter guests with permanent housing relocation. Such assistance may include coord- inating interviews with Housing Authority, low - income housing assist- ance programs, federal state and local housing subsidy programs; housing advocacy on clients behalf; and related services. This specialist will work 20 hours a week for the shelter program. Re : Children's services, a licensed therapist or registered intern • therapist will be hired contractually to provide specialized counseling service to children residing at the shelter. Counseling will include individual and group therapy depending on the childrens ages, in addition cont. -46— Form 6: Activity Description, Continued E. If the activity is for Renovation or Major Rehabilitation, provide an estimate of the value of the building to be rehabilitated: $ N/A Provide the source of the estimate and attach documentation: N/A F. Describe the current status of local governmental land use approval for the activity and what still needs to be obtained prior to commencement of the work. For example, a zone change, use permit, or building permit may be applied for, pending, approved, etc. Attach letter from planning official of the local government. N/A G. Calculate the grant cost per person/shelter days supported by this activity, as follows: 1 . Enter the total number of beds benefited by this activity: 1 .5 2. Enter the average number of beds vacant per day: 2 3. Enter the total number of days per year the shelter is open: 365 4. Subtract the total beds vacant (2.) from the total beds benefited (1 ,) and multiply by the number of days the shelter is open (3.) Calculation: 1 . - 2. x 3. = 4. 4,745 5. Enter the total grant funds requested for this activity: $ 30-LAO 6. Divide the person/shelter days (4.) into the total funds requested (5.) to obtain the cost per person/shelter days. Calculation: 5. 4. = 6. $ 6,42 1 -45- CALIFORNIA ALLOCATION FEDERAL EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANTS PROGRAM • Form 6: Activity Description Submit one form for each activity in each shelter in the Application. Attach additional sheets as necessary. ' A. Name of Shelter: North County Women's Shelter B. Type of Activity (Check only one per form; refer to RFP for definitions) : Name Grant Funds Requested Renovation $ Major Rehabilitation $- Conversion $ Provision of Essential Services $ - Maintenence $ Rent $ a Non-Staff Operations $ 11 .625 C. Describe why this activity is necessary to carry out the shelter program and why . this grant is the most appropriate funding source. A fully functioning shelter must have operable appliances and equipment. Currently, the shelter contains mostly antiquated & .used appliances, furniture etc, which has been used daily since the shelter opened. Federal Emergency Shelter Grant is an appropriate source of funding for these expenses because there are currently no other funding sources available. All current government contracts awarded to the shelter have specific line-item budgets which do not include the requested equipment and furniture. D. Describe the activity in detail , and identify the staff, consultants, or others responsible for carrying out the grant-funded work. Include how the activity will benefit the beds shown on G.1 of this forma Attach cost estimates which justify the funds requested above. Show-.the milestones and applicant budget for this- activity on Form 7. The Executive Director will be responsible for surveying the most reasonable prices for the requested equipment & appliances & for their subsequent purchase. This activity will benefit the beds on available space by, l ) replacing the delapitated beds,2) providing 3 new beds, 3) insuring that the shelter guests can wash & dry their clothes, bedding etc. , 4) creating an atmosphere which promotes self growth and development, 5) providing 3 nutricous meals per day and 6) providing smooth, safe general shelter operations. The Executive Director and house mana;ers will be responsible for general operations at the shelter. i weekly parenting classes will be conducted to teach better parenting skills. . These activities will greatly effect the residents of the shelter by improving their self esteem, confidence, skills and abilities to: 1 ) Turn their lives around, 2) Enter a career, 3) Get off welfare 4) improve parenting skills, 5) Re-locate to permanent housing, 6) live, generally healthier lives. Additionally, the development of these services will increase the availability of bed space in the shelter because residents will likely relocate sooner. -466— Form 6: Activity Description, Continued • E. If the activity is for Renovation or Major Rehabilitation, provide an estimate of the value of the building to be rehabilitated: $ N/a Provide the source of the estimate and attach documentation: F. Describe the current status of local governmental land use approval for the activity and what still needs to be obtained prior to commencement of the work. For example, a zone change, use permit, or building permit may be applied for, pending, approved, etc. Attach letter from planning official of the local government. N/A G. Calculate the grant cost per person/shelter days supported by this activity, as follows: • 1 . Enter the total number of beds benefited by this activity: 1 2. Enter the average number of beds vacant per day: 3. Enter the total number of days per year the shelter is open: 3ti 4. Subtract the total beds vacant (2.) from the total beds benefited (1 .) and multiply by the number of days the shelter is open (3.) Calculation: 1 - 2. x 3. = 4. 4 .745 5. Enter the total grant funds requested for this activity: $ 11 ,h 5 6. Divide the person/shelter days (4.) into the total funds requested (5.) to obtain the cost per person/shelter days. Calculation: 5. 4. = 6. $ • -45- CALIFORNIA ALLOCATION FEDERAL EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANTS PROGRAM Form 6: Activity Description • Submit one form for each activity in each shelter in the Application. Attach additional sheets as necessary. A. Name of Shelter: North County Women' s Shelter B. Type of Activity (Check only one per form; refer to RFP for definitions) : Name Grant Funds Requested Renovation $ Major Rehabilitation $- Conversion $ Provision of Essential Services $ Maintenence $ F1 Rent $-_7,895 MNon-Staff Operations $ C. Describe why this activity is necessary to carry out the shelter program and why .- this hy -this grant is the most appropriate funding source. Rent is abasic expense to -"keep most shelters operable. Federal Emergency Shelter Grant funding is requested to assist in the annual ren-t budget which averages $1.2,000 a year for the women's shelter. It is necessary to request Federal Emergency Shelter Grants funding to off set rental costs because the other funding sources have have been budgeted to pay for other shelter expenses. D. Describe the actiVity in detail , and identify the staff, consultants, or others responsible for carrying out the grant-funded work. Include how the activity will benefit the beds shown on G.1 of this form. Attach cost estimates which justify the funds requested above. Show-.the milestones and applicant budget for this_ activity on Form 7. As mentioned the shelter program is currently staffed by an Executive Director and 2 part time house managers and a part time bookeeper. These people are responsible for general program operations. The Executive Director supervises the staff and is responsible for over all shelter programs. -46 • Form 6: Activity Description, Continued E. If the activity is for Renovation or Major Rehabilitation, provide an estimate of the value of the building to be rehabilitated: $ N/A Provide the source of the estimate and attach documentation: N/A F. Describe the current status of local governmental land use approval for the activity and what still needs to be obtained prior to commencement of the work. For example, a zone change, use permit, or building permit may be applied for, pending, approved, etc. Attach letter from planning official of the .local government. N/A G. Calculate the grant cost per person/shelter days supported by this activity, as follows: 1 . Enter the total number of beds benefited by this activity: 15 2. Enter the average number of beds vacant per day: 2 3. Enter the total number of days per year the shelter is open: 365 4. Subtract the total beds vacant (2.) from the total beds benefited (1 . ) and multiply by the number of days the shelter is open (3.) Calculation: 1 . - 2. x 3. = 4. 4, 745 5. Enter the total grant funds requested for this activity: $ 7,895 6. Divide the person/shelter days (4.) into the total funds requested (5.) to obtain the cost per person/shelter days. Calculation: 5. 4. = 6. $ 1 .66 • —47— C% 4cc ar 4-3 1 G i r t O C) N t 'Cr tfY +-) 4J r♦ O N ON t 1 N 4-) Q1co co � p ¢ i N M b9 N � O C rn 4J .> co Q pl 4J 1 ¢ m w N N ta4 O U tI C v • U O•� GJ i L 0% • 1 O Cl O Co cr I i O 0 i0 dCn � 4J 1 C.D C 4- N O r if} d N E L i _O tC O Z cn r Z 4- r N O Z i N � CO 4J N d co C7 F- •v 41 o .Q _ z U U rC N +j U O 4J C`I p CJ w J N GY 64 Q J O W N N CC �- N m O \ N i p to co —W N CD v ++ �� ¢ U- 01 Z •r r i r•C 7 w > a N i ¢ 41 O (a U ui U. Ln W S- p J •• oo 41 ¢ n co Cr LU Id in i Cd a 4J W O UU co U- U- 41 i •N • vi co +)CO CD, LL- N g 4- r 4J O cN 7 ta4 r t+R C i>1� co �. O •r � O Cr > >> >> N 1 N >> O U p O p J -P O (d O O �j 4a O r I E O O r 4— -P O 4-1 bD W rtf Q +> > +� O O O + ai O co (V r_ vc >, a� U � g-:U •±- U 4-J 4-) V Q Q0� O fn O (!1 -) co •r > •r N C Gl X N N > U O •r-I -r-IO r •r r IT to •rj W •r O.r. 0 U > 0 4-) C t, a-o i O L r +1 �:s •rl F-1 CZ U (d (z ri G U G.O C3 i •r u O > Iv -N N-N P Q Q Q co N CL ... Q Ste. f-1- l r1 r-I r-I 4-3 �-1 O 4 CR ti (A U1 Q CQ U ;d w 4- Q1 -47— • co rn I c o' 1 z r s a� d• 4 s 0 00 cr 4 M lz r-•a I ''� i S- c M b9 a) s O Z C%4-) ( M •r co Cr O 4J C U r• N b4 eo a) N U O•r a) o aa)) p Cr O LL_ N o cn O� 4J 1 O O r a. H Ei F a) (o o M to r Z 4- r- Np Z F- •r c >-, i M O Z i a) 4j to 00 4-) Wsd M r-. F- 4 o •a+ a0i O' Nz w C) s •r cY 4,94 O-j H ami cn E M ¢ cn W 'II N N cn I• M m a)o aco 4-3 N ¢ M O U •r•r01% r- F LL. Z •r r i �-+ LL) > C. a) i A 0-43 ¢ C +� C tC M L) m ¢ N� » W S. C) N cc n co O' N N w Eq N N LL) O U 4- LL- U. L - +� O i h U co 4-3 � M: I• co O• Co •• • • • Qt LL_ 4- r +3 O N 7 r• 64 bb n 0 1 r-> � >, >, N � •� L) �o•r L C s a) zS O U #T a) O +J �i co O +-) N pq L. i H O U a rt L O R Cr•N > O' :J4 r ++ Z +. TJ +-► N N 4-1 p C co O N a) O •r > •r a) C O X N N > t� r- •r r (T fo 'rl W•r a)-r- CIL rC 4-) CL-0 i O s r ; U U U C. U C. O CJ i F— •r U � � �-1 Q Q Q 03 N d Q •r a, a w • -47- i OC Cr O1 Z r.0 O G7 d' b4 t O S: N - 00 Q• Q ON r� 7 i i M t,4 O s O 7 .r CO Cr > ON 4J a U r N 64 SL t O U U O•.- S- L Q N i d N ON ti O O r i-) •7 C'3 C 4- N � � O r b4 M CL N E i F G7 to O F N r Z 4- r N F •... Q L O C r r co cr M F- -0 ++ O 0.4-) ON Z U cc CI +- U O r ice-)CDM J W +-) N M d J cr O F W '!J N N F d 2 O F �+ N m \ N L N M LL. Z -r- o" ro" W > C. U L � J LD 'r 0-4 — M kA F Q +-) = (0 M U � Q V) TN W 0 F� 'a co oma • S M W (� N r'C Q M le LLJ 0 U 4-3 LL L N tf! F co 4-) 4-) F p C` i. M CO 4-) li 4- ^ •h) F O 4--% N •7 b4 r !A 41 m a rz n- ON � o r > u 00N +-� F-d i•) N +� 0 .r .. 'b�- i O a i � v m ro L +.) o F E � � •r 4- rtt Cr+•> > 4-a 4J Z' 4-) '0-i4 W o L.1 •r U +1 4-3 U C_ 4)•r 0 •r > •r CJ C C! X N N > N r •r r Q1 4f •r)W •r o•r- Q_ U Cl. C C7 OL H .r U � 0 Q Q d [a N a. v � d a a, •r r M ct F- Ll') t0 Ri U Z7 Cl 4- Q1 -48- • CALIFORNIA ALLOCATION FEDERAL EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANTS PROGRAM STATEMENT OF CERTIFICATIONS The City/County of Atascadero hereby assures and certifies that: (a) It possesses the legal authority to apply for the grant, and to execute the proposed program; (b) Its governing body has duly adopted or passed as an official act or resolution, motion, or similar action authorizing the filing of the application, including - all understandings and assurances contained therein, and authorizing the applicant's chief executive officer or other designee to act in connection with the application and to provide such additional information as may be required; (c) No renovation, major rehabilitation, or conversion activity funded by this grant drill: (1) involve adverse alterations to a property that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, is located in an historic district or is immediately adjacent to a property that is listed on the Register, or is deemed by the State Historic Preservation Officer to be eligible for listing on the Register; i (2) take place in any lOG-year floodplain designated by map by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), unless the community in which the area is situated is participating in the National Flood Insurance Program and regulations thereunder or less than a year has passed since FEMA notification regarding such hazards, in which case the grantee ensures that flood insurance on the structure is obtained; (3) jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered or threatened species as designated by the U.S. Department of the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service) or the U.S. Department of Commerce (National Marine Fisheries Service) or affect the critical habitat of such a species; (d) It consents to assume the role of either "Lead Agency" as defined by Section 21067 of the California Public Resources Code, or if another agency is or will be designated "Lead Agency", it consents to assume the role of "Responsible Agency" as defined by Section 21069 of the California Public Resources Code in order to comply with the California Envirorumental Quality Act (CEQA); (e) It will comply with the policies, guidelines and requirements of OMB Circular A-87 and A-102 as they relate ,to the acceptance and use of emergency shelter grant amounts by local governments, and A-110 and A-122 as they relate to the acceptance and use 'of emergency shelter grant amounts by private non-profit organizations; • (f) It will comply with the following regarding nondiscrimination: (1) Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and implementing regulations; -48- CALIFORNIA ALLOCATION • FEDERAL EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANTS PROGRAM STATEMENT OF CERTIFICATIONS The City/County of hereby assures and certifies that: (a) It possesses the legal authority to apply for the grant, and to execute the proposed program; (b) Its governing body has duly adopted or passed as an official act or resolution, motion, or similar action authorizing the filing of the application, including all understandings and assurances contained therein, and authorizing the applicant's chief executive officer or other designee to act in connection with the application and to provide such additional information as may be required; (c) No renovation, major rehabilitation, or conversion activity funded by this grant will: (1) involve adverse alterations to a property that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, is located in an historic district or is immediately adjacent to a property that is listed on the Register, or is deemed by the State Historic Preservation Officer to be eligible for listing on the Register; (2) take place in any 100-_year floodplain designated by map by the • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), unless the community in which the area is situated is participating in the National Flood Insurance Program and regulations thereunder or less than a year has passed since FEMA notification regarding such hazards, in which case the grantee ensures that flood insurance on the structure is obtained; (3) jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered or threatened species as designated by the U.S. Department of the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service) or the U.S. Department of Commerce (National Marine Fisheries Service) or affect the critical habitat of such a species; (d) It consents to assume the role of either "Lead Agency" as defined by Section 21067 of the California Public Resources Code, or if another agency is or will be designated "Lead Agency", it consents to assume the role of "Responsible Agency" as defined by Section 21069 of the California Public Resources Code in order to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); (e) It will comply with the policies, guidelines and requirements of OMB Circular A-87 and A-102 as they relate to the acceptance and use of emergency shelter grant amounts by local governments, and A-110 and A-122 as they relate to the acceptance and use of emergency shelter grant amounts by private non-profit organizations; (f) It will comply with the following regarding nondiscrimination: • (1) Title VIZI of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and implementing regulations; -49- (2) Executive Order 11063 and implementing regulations; (3) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and implementing regulations; 1 (4) The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; (5)- Executive Order 11246 and implementing regulations; (6) Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968; (7) Executive Orders 11625, 12432, and 12138 regarding encouragement of minority and women's business participation; (8) The prospective contractor's signature affixed hereon and dated shall constitute a certification under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the bidder has, unless exempted, complied with the nondiscrimination program requirements of Government Code Section 12990 and Title 2, California Administrative Code, Section 8103; (g) For major rehabilitation or conversion, it will comply with the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (24 CFR Part 40, Appendix A); (h) No person who is an employee, agent, consultant, officer, or elected or appointed official of the grantee or non-profit recipient (or of any designated public agency) that receives emergency shelter grant amounts and who exercises or has exercised any functions or responsibilities with respect to assisted activities or who is in a position to participate in a decision-making process-or gain inside information with regard_to such activities, may obtain a personal or financial interest or benefit from the activity, oc have an interest is any contract, subcontract, -or agreement with respect hereto, or the proceeds thereunder, either for him or herself or those with whom he or she has family or business ties, during his or her tenure or for one (1) year thereafter; (i) It will comply with the applicable requirements of the Lead Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act and implementing regulations; (j) It will not employ, award contracts to, or otherwise engage the-services of any contractor while that contractor is in a period of. , debammnt, suspension, or placement in ineligibility status under the. provision of 24 CFR Part 24; (k) It will maintain records necessary to document compliance with applicable requirements and will give HUD, the Comptroller General, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), or any of their authorized representatives access to and the right to examine all records related to the grant; (1) It will supplement its grant amount with an equal amount of funds from sources other than this grant after the date of grant award; (m) The buildings for which grant amounts are .used for renovation, conversion, or major rehabilitation will meet the local government standard of being in safe and sanitary condition; -50:- (n) 50= " n The buildings for which rant funds are used will be maintained as a • ( ) g 9 shelter for the homeless for not less than a three (3) year period, or for not less than a ten (10) year period, if the grant amounts are used for major rehabilitation or conversion of the building; (o) Homeless individuals will be given assistance in obtaining appropriate supportive services; (p) Reports required by the State or HUD shall be submitted in a timely manner and contain all required information as can reasonably be made available. This Certification is made under penalty of perjury under the laws of the .State of California. CERTIFYING OFFICIAL: Suzie - Ian. Renthuysen Print Name �l�L7 Date Signature • - NDA ,RESOLUTION 120-87 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO OPPOSING FUTURE SHIPMENT OF ROCKET FUEL THROUGH ATASCADERO CITY LIMITS VIA STATE HIGHWAY 101 WHEREAS, the United States Department of Transportation and the California Highway Patrol have authorized Highways 46 and 101 as alternate routes to Vandenberg Air Force Base for the trans- port of highly toxic rocket propellant; and WHEREAS, up to nine shipments of highly toxic fuel is expected to be transported to Vandenberg Air Force Base via Highways 46 and 101 during the month of December, 1987; and WHEREAS, use of Highways 46 and 101, from Bakersfield, . represents an unreasonably long route traversing two-way traffic on Highway 46 and the Cuesta Grade on Highway 101; two known dangerous routes; and • WHEREAS, the potential spill of the shipment of toxic fuel represents a significant health hazard to the residents of Atascadero; and WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero, the _Co_unt, of San Luis Obispo, and other ci within Sa ' havs o County do not e _ resources nqx trained personnel to handle a azardous spill or disaster that could result from a potential mishap in the transport of toxic rocket fuels; and WHEREAS, rerouting of highly toxic rocket propellent, via Route 5 and Highway 166 represents a shorter, less hazardous route through a less populated area. THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Atascadero City Council does hereby oppose the transport of toxic rocket fuel through Atascadero City Limits via State Highway 101. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: . ADOPTED: • ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO . BOYD C. SHARITZ BARBARA NORRIS City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MICHA1 L SHE5, 6N City Manager ADMINISTRATION BUILDING �.�. POST OFFICE BOX 747 ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93423 POLICE DEPARTMENT PHONE: (805) 466-8000 POST OFFICE BOX 747 ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 CITY COUNCIL PHONE: (805) 466-8600 CITY CLERK L!! CITY MANAGER seade�eCITY TREASURER PORATED JULY 2. 1979 ~' ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 93422 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT PHONE: (805) 466-2141 December 4, 1987 Mr. Carl Hysen Chairman of the Board County of San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors County Government Center San Luis Obispo, California `93408 Dear Chairman Hysen: The City of Atascadero is very concerned about the sudden intended transport of large quantities of lethal fuels through the city limits of Atascadero. The exposure potential to Atascadero is great due to Highway 101 traversing through the middle of the city for a distance ofseven miles. Atascadero does not have equipment nor personnel expertise to deal with a potential ' spill disaster , subjecting our community of 21, 000 residents to potential extreme peril. Atascadero joins in with the other cities and the County of San Luis Obispo calling for an extension of the December 17, 1987 transport moratorium until the Air Force alternate risk assess- ment study is completed and the County has an opportunity to hold public hearings and review recommendations. It is very important that the study have involvement by local officials, familiar with transportation hazards unique to San Luis Obispo County, prior to the conclusion of the study. Until such time as the risk assessment study is completed, Atascadero strongly objects to any further premature shipments and requests additional required shipments to be reverted to known safe routes previously utilized. We are very concerned with the total lack of communication on this issue. We feel it is appalling that Federal and State agencies take upon themselves complete unilateral authority to make decisions having potentially devistating consequences on local communities. Very truly yours, Barbara Norris Mayor County of San Luis Obispo COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER SAN LUIS OBISPO,CAUFORNU 93408 • (805)549-5011 1,. TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �J t FROM: WILLIAM E. BRIAM, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR OFFICEOFT»E COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DATE: DECEMBER 8, 1987 SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION OF TOTAL ROCKET FUEL MATERIALS TO VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE History In September of this year, shipments of rocket fuel to Vandenberg AFB, through the Los Angeles area, were temporarily discontinued while alternative routes were examined. In early October, the county was informed that the Air Force would be conducting "risk assessments" of alternative routes and that Highway 166 in the southern portion of our county was one of the alternatives to be considered. The Board of Supervisors directed that we correspond with appropriate officials to: 1. Ask that our county be involved in the "risk 'assessment," and be able to review and comment on the final draft. 2. That all forms of transportation be studied, including rail , ship and air. 3. That mitigation measures such as pre-shipment notification to local governments, use of pilot cars, and limitation of transport hours be considered. That was done on October 27, 1987. No comment was received from any of the parties until the week of November 30, 1987 at which time we were notified by the Air Force that an "interim alternative route" had been selected. Formal notice that Highway 46 and Highway 101 would be used came on Monday, November 30, just two days before shipments through our county commenced. No risk assessment of alternative routes has been conducted as of this date. Shipments took place on Wednesday, December 2 and Thursday, December 3. Since that time we have been in constant contact with both Congressman Leon Panetta and Bill Thomas for assistance. Through their efforts, further shipments will not take place until December 17 at the earliest. In addition, they have received the commitment of the Air Force that the risk assessment of alternative routes will be completed by December 15. Actions to Date On Wednesday, December 2, our Emergency Services staff scheduled a meeting of representatives from Vandenberg AFB and county and city emergency responders to attempt to prepare for the impending shipments. Board of Supervisors Page 2 December 8, 1987 Letters to our congressional delegation were sent on December 4, 1987 summarizing our extreme frustration with the communications surrounding this issue. Recommendation It is recommended that staff be directed to immediately do the following: 1. Get mandatory participation with the California Highway Patrol and Air Force in the conduct of their risk analysis of alternative ground transportation routes. 2. Continue to stress that alternative forms of transportation such as rail , air or ship be considered. Also, manufacture of the rocket fuel on base should be considered. 3. Continue to stress improved communication between the Air Force and local government about delivery times and routes. The current six-hour notification is insufficient. 4. Stress the need to get cooperation from Vandenberg AFB's staff in terms of training and equipment for our emergency response personnel. 5. Work directly with our cities and the County of Kern regarding issues of route selection. 6. Continue to stress that future handling of this situation must involve much better communication than has taken place in this instance. 7. Work with the involvement of our Federal and State elected representatives. WEB/bkm (8378v) County of San Luis Obispo COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER • SAN LUIS OBISPO.CALIFORNIA 93408 (805)549-5011 December 4, 1987 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Congressman Leon Panetta D-Carmel Valley 16th District 339 Cannon House Office Building Washington , DC 20515 Dear Congressman Panetta : Our thanks for your close liaison on the issue of transport of rocket fuels through our County and on getting us some breathing room by negotiating a one week moratorium on further shipments . It is our understanding that the Air Force will have conducted a risk assessment by December 15th and that no shipments will be made before that date . We must have input into that process , as the alternate route that has been selected is not only extremely dangerous but passes through almost the entire length of our County and all of our highly populated areas . Not only is that a concern , but so is the fact that the route was selected and used with little or no notification of local agencies . The folly of selecting that route was borne out when the first shipment passed through our county. One of the trucks became disabled on Cuesta Grade , barely made it through the City of San Luis Obispo, and sat inoperative for several hours just south of the City. The frustrating aspect of this whole situation is that the Los Angeles area was able to have shipments ceased along their highways while a "risk assessment" of alternative routes took place . No such assessment has taken place , yet we fall heir to the shipments with wholly- inadequate notice . You will find along the shipment route three over capacity State institutions housing an overly large share of the states incarcerated population , many of whom came from the Southern California area . Yet you will not find a proportionate share of facilities in Los Angeles , a testament to the fact that we have less of a voice with regards to matters like these . We believe that we ' ve taken more than our fair share in many areas , and cannot tolerate another path of least resistance decision . While we don ' t have the numbers , we have citizens whose lives and safety count every bit as high as those in other areas of the state . 0 Congressman Leon Panetta . December 4 , 1987 Page Two A selected route could not have been chosen that would have put more of our citizens and communities at risk. Not only that , but the "detour" through Kern and San Luis Obispo Counties adds hours to the transport time of this highly volatile material and takes it over many highways far more dangerous than the Southern California freeway system. In short , we must take whatever action necessary to prevent use of an "alternative route" that exposes the vast majority of our citizens . We recognize the significance of the role played by these rocket fuel materials at Vandenburg AFB . However, we feel we cannot overemphasize the importance of involving our local emergency planning and response staff in the analysis of these very important issues . We have corresponded with Congressman Collins in the attached letter, but seek your continued support in preventing this unreasonable hazard to itizens . Sincerely, cerely, v � WILLIAM E . BRIAM CARL HYSEN County Administrator Chairman , Board of Supervisors cc : Congressman Bill Thomas , 20th Congressional District Senator Ken Maddy, 14th Senatorial District Assemblyman Eric Seastrand , 29th Assembly District Assemblyman Jack O' Connell , 35th Assembly District Congressman Robert Lagomarsino , 19th Congressional District Commander, California Highway Patrol , Sacramento Santa Barbara County Administrative Office Kern County Administrative Office California Highway Patrol , San Luis Obispo Office California Department of Forestry/ County Fire Department County Sheriff County of San Luis Obispo 3 M . COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER • SAN Luis OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93408 (805)549-5011 December 4, 1987 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Congressman Bill Thomas U. S . Representative , 20th District House Office Building Washington , DC 20515 Dear Congressman Thomas : Our thanks for your close liaison on the issue of transport of rocket fuels through our County and on getting us some breathing room by negotiating a one week moratorium on further shipments . It is our understanding that the Air Force will have conducted a risk assessment by December 15th and that no shipments will be made before that date . We must have input into that process , as the alternate route that has been selected is not only extremely dangerous but passes through almost the entire length of our County and all of our highly populated areas . Not only is that a concern , but so is the fact that the route was selected and used with little or no notification of local agencies . The folly of selecting that route was borne out when the first shipment passed through our county. One of the trucks became disabled on Cuesta Grade , barely made it through the City of San Luis Obispo , and sat inoperative for several hours just south of the City . The frustrating aspect of this whole situation is that the Los Angeles area was able to have shipments ceased along their highways while a "risk assessment " of alternative routes took Place . No such assessment has taken place , yet we fall heir to the shipments with wholly inadequate notice . You will find along the shipment route three over capacity State institutions housing an overly large share of the states incarcerated population , many of whom came from the Southern California area . Yet you will not find a proportionate share of facilities in Los Angeles , a testament to the fact that we have less of a voice with regards to matters like these . We believe that we ' ve taken more than our fair share in many areas , and cannot tolerate another path of least resistance decision . While we don ' t have the numbers , we have citizens whose lives and safety count every bit as high as those in other areas of the state . 0 Congressman Bill Thomas December 4 , 1987 Page Two A selected route could not have been chosen that would have put more of our citizens and communities at risk. Not only that , but the "detour" through Kern and San Luis Obispo Counties adds hours to the transport time of this highly volatile material and takes it over many highways far more dangerous than the Southern California freeway system. In short , we must take whatever action necessary to prevent use of an "alternative route" that exposes the vast majority of our citizens . We recognize the significance of the role played by these rocket fuel materials at Vandenburg AFB . However, we feel we cannot overemphasize the importance of involving our local emergency planning and response staff in the analysis of these very important issues . We have corresponded with Congressman Collins in the attached letter, but seek your continued support in preventing this unreasonable hazard to our citizens . Sincerely, Sincerely, WILLIAM E . BRIAM CARL HYSEN County Administrator Chairman , Board of Supervisors cc : Congressman Leon Panetta , 16th Congressional District Senator Ken Maddy, 14th Senatorial District Assemblyman Eric Seastrand , 29th Assembly District Assemblyman Jack O' Connell , 35th Assembly District Congressman Robert Lagomarsino , 19th Congressional District Commander, California Highway Patrol , Sacramento Santa Barbara County Administrative Office Kern County Administrative Office California Highway Patrol , San Luis Obispo Office California Department of Forestry/ County Fire Department County Sheriff County of San Luis Obispo F COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER • SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93408 (805)549-5011 December 4 , 1987 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Congresswoman Cardiss Collins , Chair Government Activities and Transportation Subcommittee Rayburn House Office Building Room B-350-A-B Washington , D. C . 20515 Dear Congresswoman Collins : The transportation of rocket fuel materials through San Luis Obispo County has recently become an issue of increased and great concern . In an October 27 letter to your Committee , we respectfully requested that the issue of ground transportation of Nitrogen Tetroxide ( rocket fuel ) to Vandenburg Air Force Base be thoroughly evaluated in a risk assessment and that local jurisdictions like San Luis Obispo County be given the opportunity to review and comment on that assessment . The Air Force has not conducted a risk assessment , and has clearly not involved this County in any consideration of routes . We have found out only this week that the Air Force has also designated an " interim alternate route" over some of the most dangerous highways in this county . The selected route also passes the most heavily populated areas of our County, and is clearly the most unreasonable path for this highly toxic material . Beyond that , our notice about the route selection and first shipment came just the day before shipments began . This kind of cavalier attitude about the impact on the local communities is unacceptable . As you might expect , our last minute notification was both a surprise and a disappointment to San Luis Obispo County and its cities . We ' re sure that these unilateral actions by the Air Force must be a great disappointment to your committee . Consequently, we must again strongly request your Committee to work with the Department of Transportation and the Department of Defense to implement the following actions . 1 . Complete the preparation of a detailed risk assessment study relating to transportation of the rocket fuel materials . The study should address all alternatives, such as other transportation modes and manufacture of the material right at i Vandenburg AFB . The study should also include an analysis of Congresswoman Collins December 4 , 1987 page 2 . various mitigation measures such as escort vehicles , pre-notification efforts and special emergency response training . Former, or alternate routes through the Los Angeles area should also continue to be viewed as available alternatives . 2 . San Luis Obispo County and other local jurisdictions should have an opportunity to review and comment on the risk assessment study prior to its finalization . 3 . No " interim alternate route" should be designated or utilized without the benefit of a completed risk assessment and the opportunity for local input . 4 . If an interim alternate route designation is absolutely necessary for national security reasons , then the Highway 166 route should be considered as an alternative to the presently designated route . We recognize the significance of the role. played by these rocket fuel materials at Vandenburg AFB . However, we feel we cannot overemphasize the importance of involving our local emergency planning and response staff in the analysis of these very important issues . Again , thank you very much for your assistance in this regard . Sincer&l- Sincerely, Carl Hys William E . Briam Chairman , Board of Supervisors County Administrator cc : Congressman Leon Panetta, 16th Congressional District Congressman Bill Thomas , 20th Congressional District Senator Ken Maddy, 14th Senatorial District Assemblyman Eric Seastrand , 29th Assembly District Assemblyman Jack O ' Connell , 35th Assembly District Congressman Robert Lagomarsino , 19th Congressional District Commander, California Highway Patrol , Sacramento California Highway Patrol , San Luis Obispo Office California Department of Forestry/County Fire Department County Sheriff Kern County Administrative Office Santa Barbara County Administrative Office M E M O R A N D U M DATE: 12/2/87 TO: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Michael Hicks, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Vandenberg rocket fuel shipments You may have seen the KSBY News broadcast on 12/1/87 , regarding the shipments of rocket fuel across Highway 46 to Highway' 101 southbound to Vandenberg Air Force Base. The first I knew of such a plan was while watching the news and saw. the San Luis Obispo Fire Chief being interviewed regarding the city's notification. This made me curious as to why we in the North County were not notified. The San Luis Obispo City and the San Luis Obispo County Administrators office were notified. My research has resulted in the following information: 1 ) Vandenberg notified the San Luis Obispo Office of Emergency Services , who in turn notified the County Administrator's Office, as well as the San Luis Obispo Fire Department, that sometime in the next 24 hours there would be a shipment through the County (Highway 46 south on Highway 101 through the City of Atascadero) . The product or products to be shipped are: a. Red fuming nitric acid Health hazards : Poisonous , may be fatal if swallowed or absorbed through skin. Contact may cause burns to skin and eyes . Fire may produce irritating or poisonous gases . Run-off from fire control or dilution water may cause pollution. Fire hazards : May ignite other combustible materials (wood, paper, oil , etc. ) Violent reaction with water. Reaction with fuels may be violent. Run-off to sewers may create fire or explosion hazard. This is the same product that was being shipped to Vandenberg through Santa Barbara a couple of years ago which leaked and caused a large scale emergency. r • Memo - 12/2/87 Page 2 b. Nitrogen Tetroxide Health hazards : Poisonous , may be fatal if inhaled. Contact may cause burns to skin and eyes. Contact with liquid may cause frostbite. Run-off from fire control or dilution water may cause pollution. Fire hazards : May ignite other combustible materials (wood, paper, oil , etc. ) . Mixture with fuels may explode. Container may explode in heat of fire . Vapor explosion and poison hazard indoors , outdoors , or in sewers. Needless to say, if an accident was to happen while these products were being transported through our City, we would not have adequate resources to deal with this type of disaster. It is my opinion there wouldn't be adequate resources in the entire County to deal with such an incident. • In addition, these are the same products that were being transported through Southern California until Mayor Bradley and others decided it was too dangerous . It is my opinion, as well as that of the Fire Chiefs of this County, that a better route is available ( I-5 and across 166 ) which is a sparsely populated area. This is only an information item at this time and I will be proactive with the County Fire Chiefs Association in getting the route changed and in formulating a better notification system regarding the movement of hazardous materials , unless I am advised otherwise. I suggest the Managers group and the Mayors group also pursue this item. You may want to give copies of this memo to the Council as I have had inquiries from Council . MIKE HI AS MH:pg CC: Battalion Chief Captains DECEMBER 2 , 1987 (SENT 10 : 30 A.M. ) TO: SENATOR MADDY STATE CAPITOL, ROOM 305 SACRAMENTO, CA. 95814 ASSEMBLYMAN ERIC SEASTRAND STATE CAPITOL SACRAMENTO, CA. 95814 GOVERNOR DEUKMEJIAN STATE CAPITOL SACRAMENTO, CA. 95814 CONGRESSMAN WILLIAM THOMAS 1830 TRUXTUN AVE. #200 BAKERSFIELD, CA. 93301 THE CITY OF ATASCADERO IS HIGHLY CONCERNED WITH THE PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION OF ROCKET FUEL TO VANDENBERG AiIR FORCE BASE THROUGH THE CITY ON HIGHWAY 101 . WE DO NOT HAVE ADEQUATE RESOURCES TO HANDLE A POSSIBLE ACCIDENT. WE STRONGLY SUPPORT THE RE-ROUTING OF THIS CARGO VIA HIGHWAY 166 (A LESS HAZARDOUS ROUTE THROUGH A LESS POPULATED AREA) . ( 56 WORDS ) (TO BE SENT WESTERN UNION, 3-5 HOUR SERVICE ) MEETING AGENDA DATEITEM ZE� 1 • MEMORANDUM To: Board of Directors/Atascadero County Sanitation District Through: Michael Shelton, City Manager From: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Subject : Scope of Services for RFP for Septic Tank Dump Date : November 30, 1987 Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Board accept the scope of services attached hereto and to authorize staff to request proposals for the redesign of the Septic Tank Dump facility. Background: (See attached memo dated November 18, 1987 . ) •Discussion: At the last regular meeting the Board asked to view the scope of services for the above project prior to acting on the authorization for the RFP. Attached is a copy of the scope of services within the letter that will be sent to selected consultants. Fiscal Impact : The Board will either award or reject the forthcoming proposals . No monies will be obligated until that time although $50, 000 has been budgeted for the above purposes . • November 30, 1987 Name Title Street Address P.O.Box No. City, State Zip Dear Consultant You are invited to submit a proposal to the City of Atascadero to provide a design for the Septic Tank Dump Facility at the Wastewater Treatment Plant . Your proposal should be based upon the following Scope of Services: Scope of Services 1) Gather existing plans, maps and other data. 2) Phase I . Analyze the existing facility regarding • Problems associated with pumping, intake clogging outlet clogging,and existing and future capacity. Determine if the structure can be rehabilitated and the cost for the same . Estimate the cost of the construction of a completely new facility. Review the results with the Director of Public Works 3) Phase II . (a) Either design the rehabilitation of the existing facility or, (b) Design a completely new facility. 4) The Director will determine, based upon the results of Phase I , which design will take place in item (3) above . 5) The consultant shall give a fee seperately for Phase I , Phase II (a) and Phase II (b) . Each cost will be a lump sum, not to exceed figure and shall include all incidental costs such as printing, travel , etc . 6) The consultant will be expected to meet with staff at least on a weekly basis at the discretion of the Director and at least once before the Board of Directors of the Atascadero County Sanitation District . 7) The City will provide any maps, records or other data that it has readily available upon request . The consultant should satisfy himself prior to submittal as to what information is available . 8) The consultant shall present the City with backround information on his/her firm and the key individuals that will work on this project . A contact person will be named if the proposal is accepted. 9) The consultant shall estimate a time of completion for each phase of work. We look forward to your submittal and are ready to answer any questions that you may have . Proposals are due on or before 2 :00pm, December 23, 1987 at the office of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Very Truly Yours, ��W . q-a:Paul M. Sensbaugh, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer MEMORANDUM To: Board of Directors/Atascadero County Sanitation District Through: Michael Shelton, City Manager From: Paul M Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Subject : Request for Proposals for the Septic Tank Dump Design Date : November 18, 1987 Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Board authorize staff to request proposals for the redesign of the Septic Tank Dump faci-lits. Background: The Septic Tank Dump facility has not functioned prop ly since the WWTP came on line in 1984. Solids, particularly said clog the suction line and the bottom is sloped to encourage settleht at this pipe . The facility needs to be either redesigned to correct these matters, or if the changes are too difficult to retrofit, a complete redesign may be more economically feasible . The Regional Water Quality Control Board has received several complaints, mostly from one particular direction, regarding odor from the septic tank dump facility. The odor problem will be addressed in the redesign of the structure . Discussion: This will not be a particularly large job and therefore should not require a lot of emphasis on consultant selection. If a new facility results then its location should be selected with respect to anticipated future Wastewater Treatment Plant expansions . Basically an hourly rate will be given with an estimate of the total cost of design and construction dependent upon the final scope of the project . Staff plans to discuss the issue with firms located within San Luis Obispo County and establish their expertise on wastewater design. Fiscal Impact : The current budget has allotted $50, 000 for the design and reconstruction of the above facility. The design portion will probably be about 10%, or approximately $5, 000, including inspection. RIFP� (Approximate Time - 20 Minutes) 4. Resolution 113-87 - Rate Increase Proposed by Wilmar Disposal for Solid Waste Removal (Cont'd 11/10/87) D. NEW BUSINESS (Approximate Time - 10 Minutes) 1. Resolution 117-87 - Reducing Speed Limit on Portolla Road to 35 Miles Per Hour (Approximate Time 20 Minutes) 2. Atascadero Lake Pavilion Building - Status Report (Approximate Time - 15 Minutes) 3. Resolution 119-87 - Proposal to Accept a Portion of Santa Ana Road, From Santa Lucia to Corriente, into the City Maintained Street District E. ATASCADERO SANITATION DISTRICT (Council will recess and convene as the Atascadero County Sanitation District Board of Directors) (Approximate Time - 5 Minutes) 1. Authorization to Solicit Proposals - Redesign of Septic Tank Dump Facility F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION 1. City Council A. Salinas River Sand and Gravel Excavation Status Report B. Burn Day Schedule 2. City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4. City Treasurer 5. City Manager NOTE: THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNS THIS REGULAR COUNCIL MEETIN A SPECIAL COUNCIL' MEETING ON NOVEMBER 30, 1987 IN THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING FOURTH FLOOR CLUB ROOM REGARDING:' 6:30 P.M. - CLOSED COUNCIL SESSION REGARDING PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS POLICE FACILITY (BEND'S) AND LAKE PARK PROPERTIES 8:00 P.M. OPEN COUNCIL SESSION REGARDING TRAFFIC COMMITTEE INTERVIEWS 4