HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC_2017_10_10_Agenda Packet
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
City Hall Council Chambers, 4th floor
6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California
(Entrance on Lewis Ave.)
REGULAR SESSION – CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Sturtevant
ROLL CALL: Mayor O’Malley
Mayor Pro Tem Fonzi
Council Member Bourbeau
Council Member Moreno
Council Member Sturtevant
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Roll Call
Recommendation: Council:
1. Approve this agenda; and
2. Waive the reading in full of all ordinances appearing on this agenda, and the titles
of the ordinances will be read aloud by the City Clerk at the first reading, after
the motion and before the City Council votes.
PRESENTATIONS:
1. Proclamation proclaiming October 8-14, 2017 as Fire Prevention Week
City Council Regular Session: 6:00 P.M.
Page 1 of 171
A. CONSENT CALENDAR: (All items on the consent calendar are considered to be
routine and non-controversial by City staff and will be approved by one motion if
no member of the Council or public wishes to comment or ask questions. If
comment or discussion is desired by anyone, the item will be removed from the
consent calendar and will be considered in the listed sequence with an opportunity
for any member of the public to address the Council concerning the item before
action is taken.)
1. City Council Draft Action Minutes – September 26, 2017
Recommendation: Council approve the City Council Draft Action Minutes of
the September 26, 2017, City Council Meeting. [City Clerk]
2. Annexation of Cerro Roble Development into Community Facilities
District 2005-1, Annexation No. 17 (11955 & 11975 Viejo Camino: Tract
3078)
Fiscal Impact: None.
Recommendation: Council adopt Draft Resolution declaring intention to
annex territory into Community Facilities District 2005 -1 (Public Services)
as Annexation No. 17 and to authorize the levy of special taxes therein –
(11955 & 11975 Viejo Camino: Tract 3078). [Community Development]
3. FY 2017-2019 Budget Amendment to Incorporate Additional Data for
Projects Funded by SB1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017
Fiscal Impact: None.
Recommendation: Council adopt Draft Resolution amending the Fiscal
Year 2017-2019 Budget to incorporate additional data for projects funded
by SB1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. [Public Works]
4. 1992 Street Assessment District Improvement Project Construction
Award
Fiscal Impact: Expenditure of $149,000 in budgeted 1992 Street
Improvement Assessment District funds.
Recommendation: Council:
1. Award a construction contract for Base Bid and Bid Alternate No. 1
in the total amount of $149,000 to Intermountain Slurry Seal for the
1992 Street Assessment District Improvement Project (Project No.
C2017R01).
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Intermountain
Slurry Seal in the amount of $149,000 for the construction of the
1992 Street Assessment District Improvement Project.
3. Authorize the Director of Public Works to file a Notice of Completion
with the County Recorder upon satisfactory completion of the
project. [Public Works]
Page 2 of 171
5. Bonus for Select Part-Time Employees
Fiscal Impact: One- time budgeted cost of $9,800.
Recommendation: Council authorize the City Manager to provide one -time
lump sum bonuses to part-time employees as follows:
[City Manager]
6. Approval of Minor Staffing Changes to Zoo Division and Police
Department
Fiscal Impact: The re-organizations are expected to result in minor savings
in the first two years of implementation; however, the long-term savings
from the proposed changes are negligible.
Recommendation: Council:
1. Concur with minor staffing changes in the Zoo Division, as
recommended by the City Manager.
2. Concur with minor staffing changes in the Police Department, as
recommended by the City Manager.
3. Amend the Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2017 -2018. [City
Manager]
7. Appointment of Atascadero Tourism Business Improvement District
(ATBID) Board Member to the Visit SLO CAL Tourism Marketing District
Board
Fiscal Impact: None.
Recommendation: Council appoint Amar Sohi to serve on the Visit SLO
CAL Tourism Marketing Board. [City Manager]
UPDATES FROM THE CITY MANAGER: (The City Manager will give an oral report on
any current issues of concern to the City Council.)
COMMUNITY FORUM: (This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wanting to
address the Council on any matter not on this agenda and over which the Council has
jurisdiction. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Please state your name for the record
before making your presentation. Comments made during Community Forum will not be
a subject of discussion. A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum,
unless changed by the Council. Any members of the public who have questions or need
information may contact the City Clerk’s Office, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. at 470-3400, or cityclerk@atascadero.org.)
<3 years
3 years - 5.99
years
6 years to 9.99
years
10 years or
greater
750 hours or more -$ 500.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,500.00$
<750 hours -$ -$ -$ -$
Years of Employment with the City as of 8/31/17
Hours Worked 9/1/16
through 8/31/17
Page 3 of 171
B. MANAGEMENT REPORTS:
1. Analyzing the Desirability of a North County Animal Shelter
Fiscal Impact: Expenditure of up to $20,000 in existing budgeted funds.
Recommendation: Council authorize the City Manager to share costs, (at
50% in an amount not exceed $20,000), with the City of Paso Robles’
agreements with Ravatt Albrecht & Associates and Petaluma Animal
Services Foundation to prepare an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of
developing and operating a North County Animal Shelter. [City Manager]
C. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Adult and Medical Use Cannabis Regulations Municipal Code
Amendments (PLN 2017-1633)
Fiscal Impact: Enforcement of cannabis regulations will incur additional staff
time, as City staff will need to respond to code enforcement issues and
provide guidance to individuals with personal cultivation questions.
Recommendation: Council introduce on first reading, by title only, the Draft
Ordinance repealing Title 9, Chapter 6, Section 9-6.186, Medical Marijuana
Facilities, of the Atascadero Municipal Code, and adding Chapter 17,
Cannabis Activities and Regulations within Title 9, of the Atascadero
Municipal Code. [Community Development]
COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS: (On their own initiative, Council
Members may make a brief announcement or a brief report on their own activities.
Council Members may ask a question for clarification, make a referral to staff or take
action to have staff place a matter of business on a future agenda. The Council may take
action on items listed on the Agenda.)
D. COMMITTEE REPORTS: (The following represent standing committees.
Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary):
Mayor O’Malley
1. City / Schools Committee
2. County Mayors Round Table
3. SLO Council of Governments (SLOCOG)
4. SLO Regional Transit Authority (RTA)
5. Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA)
Mayor Pro Tem Fonzi
1. Air Pollution Control District
2. Oversight Board for Successor Agency to the Community Redevelopment
Agency of Atascadero
3. SLO Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo)
4. City of Atascadero Design Review Committee
5. Atascadero Basin Ground Water Sustainability Agency (GSA )
Page 4 of 171
Council Member Bourbeau
1. City of Atascadero Design Review Committee
2. Homeless Services Oversight Council
3. City of Atascadero Finance Committee
4. SLO County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC)
5. Ad Hoc Animal Shelter Committee
Council Member Moreno
1. California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) Board
2. City of Atascadero Finance Committee (Chair)
3. Economic Vitality Corporation, Board of Directors (EVC)
4. Ad Hoc Animal Shelter Committee
Council Member Sturtevant
1. City / Schools Committee
2. League of California Cities – Council Liaison
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND / OR ACTION:
1. City Council
2. City Clerk
3. City Treasurer
4. City Attorney
5. City Manager
F. ADJOURN
Please note: Should anyone challenge any proposed development entitlement listed on this Agenda in
court, that person may be limited to raising those issues addressed at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at or prior to this public hearing.
Correspondence submitted at this public hearing will be distributed to the Council and available for review
in the City Clerk's office.
I, Amanda Muther, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Atascadero, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing agenda for the
October 10, 2017 Regular Session of the Atascadero City Council was posted on October 5, 2017, at the Atascadero City Hall, 6500
Palma Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422 and was available for public review at that location.
Signed this 5th day of October 2017, at Atascadero, California.
Amanda Muther, Deputy City Clerk
City of Atascadero
Page 5 of 171
City of Atascadero
WELCOME TO THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
The City Council meets in regular session on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month at 6:00 p.m. Council
meetings will be held at the City Hall Council Chambers, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero. Matters are considered
by the Council in the order of the printed Agenda. Regular Council meetings are televised live, audio recorded and
videotaped for future playback. Charter Communication customers may view the meetings on Charter Cable Channel
20 or via the City’s website at www.atascadero.org. Meetings are also broadcast on radio station KPRL AM 1230.
Contact the City Clerk for more information (470-3400).
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the Agenda are on
file in the office of the City Clerk and are available for public inspection during City Hall business hours at the Front
Counter of City Hall, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, and on our website, www.atascadero.org. Contracts,
Resolutions and Ordinances will be allocated a number once they are approved by the City Council. The minutes of
this meeting will reflect these numbers. All documents submitted by the public during Council meetings that are e ither
read into the record or referred to in their statement will be noted in the minutes and available for review in the City
Clerk's office.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City
meeting or other services offered by this City, please contact the City Manager’s Office or the City Clerk’s Office,
both at (805) 470-3400. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will
assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or
service.
TO SPEAK ON SUBJECTS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
Under Agenda item, “COMMUNITY FORUM”, the Mayor will call for anyone from the audience having business wit h
the Council to approach the lectern and be recognized.
1. Give your name for the record (not required)
2. State the nature of your business.
3. All comments are limited to 3 minutes.
4. All comments should be made to the Mayor and Council.
5. No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or negative personal remarks concerning any
other individual, absent or present
This is the time items not on the Agenda may be brought to the Council’s attention. A maximum of 30 minutes will
be allowed for Community Forum (unless changed by the Council). If you wish to use a computer presentation to
support your comments, you must notify the City Clerk's office at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Digital
presentations must be brought to the meeting on a USB drive or CD. You are required to submit to the City Clerk a
printed copy of your presentation for the record. Please check in with the City Clerk before the meeting begins to
announce your presence and turn in the printed copy.
TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS (from Title 2, Chapter 1 of the Atascadero Municipal Code)
Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. The Mayor will identify the subject, staff will give
their report, and the Council will ask questions of staff. The Mayor will announce when the public comment period is
open and will request anyone interested to address the Council regarding the matter being considered to step up to
the lectern. If you wish to speak for, against or comment in any way:
1. You must approach the lectern and be recognized by the Mayor
2. Give your name (not required)
3. Make your statement
4. All comments should be made to the Mayor and Council
5. No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or negative personal remarks concerning any
other individual, absent or present
6. All comments limited to 3 minutes
The Mayor will announce when the public comment period is closed, and thereafter, no further public comments will
be heard by the Council.
Page 6 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-1
DATE: 10/10/17
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT MINUTES
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
City Hall Council Chambers, 4th floor
6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California
(Entrance on Lewis Ave.)
CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION:
Mayor O’Malley called Closed Session to order at 5:01 p.m.
1. CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION -- PUBLIC COMMENT - None
2. COUNCIL LEAVES CHAMBERS TO BEGIN CITY COUNCIL CLOSED
SESSION
3. CLOSED SESSION -- CALL TO ORDER
a. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Govt. Code Sec. 54957.6)
Agency designated representatives: Rachelle Rickard, City Manager
Employee Organizations: Unrepresented part-time employees
4. CLOSED SESSION – ADJOURNMENT
5. COUNCIL RETURNS TO CHAMBERS
6. CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION – REPORT
The City Attorney reported that there was no reportable action.
City Council Closed Session: 5:00 P.M.
Successor Agency to the Community Immediately following
Redevelopment Agency of Atascadero conclusion of the City
Closed Session: Council Closed Session
City Council Regular Session: 6:00 P.M.
Page 7 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-1
DATE: 10/10/17
REGULAR SESSION – CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M.
Mayor O’Malley called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. and Council Member Moreno led
the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Council Members Bourbeau, Moreno, Sturtevant, and Mayor
O’Malley.
Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Fonzi.
Staff Present: City Manager Rachelle Rickard, Deputy Administrative Services
Director Cindy Chavez, Public Works Director Nick Debar, Associate
Engineer Mike Bertaccini, Police Commander Joe Allen,
Development Director Phil Dunsmore, City Attorney Brian Pierik, and
Deputy City Clerk Amanda Muther.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
MOTION: By Council Member Sturtevant and seconded by Council
Member Moreno to amend the agenda to add a Colony Days
presentation.
Motion passed 4:0 by a voice vote.
PRESENTATIONS:
1. Colony Days - Presentation by Maggie Vandergon
Maggie Vandergon gave a brief presentation on Colony Days. Mayor O’Malley purchased
Colony Days buttons from Ms. Vandergon and asked that she distribute the buttons to
anyone at the meeting that wanted one.
2. Pledge to Make a Smart Commute Choice During Rideshare Week,
October 2-6, 2017 - Presentation by Peter Williamson of San Luis Obispo
Council of Governments (SLOCOG)
Sarah Trauger, SLOCOG, gave a brief PowerPoint presentation on Rideshare Week and
answered questions from the Council.
3. RTA Proposed Bus Fare Increase – Presentation by Geoff Straw of San
Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA)
Geoff Straw, SLORTA, gave a brief PowerPoint presentation on RTA’s proposed bus fare
increase and answered questions from the Council.
Page 8 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-1
DATE: 10/10/17
A. CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. City Council Draft Action Minutes – September 12, 2017
Recommendation: Council approve the City Council Draft Action Minutes of
the September 12, 2017, City Council Meeting. [City Clerk]
2. August 2017 Accounts Payable and Payroll
Fiscal Impact: $3,014,800.18
Recommendation: Council approve certified City accounts payable, payroll
and payroll vendor checks for August 2017. [Administrative Services]
3. Prop 1B Allocation Request - Bus Stop Improvement Project
Fiscal Impact: Potential receipt of $7,406 in 14/15 Proposition 1B funding
and $163 in residual Proposition 1B funds for a project total of $7,569 for
the Bus Stop Improvement Project.
Recommendation: Council approve Draft Resolution, authorizing the
submission of an allocation request to the Public Transportation
Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account Program
(PTMISEA), for Proposition 1B funding for Atascadero Transit Center bus
stop improvements in the amount of $7,569. [Public Works]
4. Off-Sale Beer and Wine Type 20 Determination of Public Convenience-
Cigarettes 4 Less at 4060 El Camino Real
Fiscal Impact: A slightly positive fiscal impact is expected from increased
sales tax.
Recommendation: Council adopt Draft Resolution finding that a public
convenience will be served by allowing the issuance of a state license
permitting the sale of beer and wine for off -site consumption (off-sale) to
Vinod Patel, dba Cigarettes 4 Less at 4060 El Camino. [Community
Development]
5. Off-Sale Beer and Wine Type 20 Determination of Public Convenience- 99
Cents Only Stores at 7101 El Camino Real
Fiscal Impact: A slightly positive fiscal impact is expected from increased
sales tax.
Recommendation: Council adopt Draft Resolution finding that a public
convenience will be served by allowing the issuance of a state license
permitting the sale of beer and wine for off -site consumption (off-sale) to 99
Cents Only Stores, at 7101 El Camino Real. [Community Development]
6. 2017-2018 Citywide Salary Schedule and Memorandum of Understanding
Atascadero Police Association
Fiscal Impact: Changes to the APOA MOU will result in a one-time budgeted
cost of approximately $117,000.
Recommendations: Council:
1. Approve the Memorandum of Understanding for the Atascadero Police
Association.
2. Approve the Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2017-2018. [City Manager]
Page 9 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-1
DATE: 10/10/17
MOTION: By Council Member Moreno and seconded by Council Member
Sturtevant to approve the Consent Calendar. (#A-3: Resolution No.
2017-058, #A4: Resolution No. 2017-059, #A5: Resolution No. 2017-
060, and A6: Contract No. 2017-017)
Motion passed 4:0 by a roll-call vote.
Following a break in the City Council meeting, the City Council, by consensus, re-opened
Item #A5 for public comment as detailed below. No additional action was taken on Item
#A5.
UPDATES FROM THE CITY MANAGER:
City Manager Rachelle Rickard gave an update on projects and issues within the City and
answered questions from Council.
Council Member Bourbeau reported that Saturday, September 30th is Creek Cleanup
Day.
COMMUNITY FORUM:
The following citizens spoke during Community Forum: Dane Sensor and Susan Moore
(Exhibit A).
Mayor O’Malley closed the COMMUNITY FORUM period.
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None.
C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS:
1. Local Area Management Plan Update
Fiscal Impact: None.
Recommendation: Council provide feedback on Draft Local Area
Management Plan Update. [Public Works]
Public Works Director Nick DeBar gave the staff report and answered questions from the
Council. Associate Engineer Mike Bertaccini and Blaine Reely of Monsoon Consultants
also answered questions.
Mayor O’Malley recess the meeting at 8:08 p.m.
Mayor O’Malley reconvened the meeting with all present at 8:22 p.m.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
During the recess it came to the Council’s attention that a member in the audience, had
hoped to speak on Consent Calendar Item #A5, but did not realize the time for comment
had already passed.
Page 10 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-1
DATE: 10/10/17
There was Council consensus to reopen Consent Calendar Item #A5 to allow public
comment.
The following citizen spoke during the Public Comment period: Lonnie Winter.
Following Public Comment, Council discussed Consent Calendar Item #A5. City Attorney,
Brian Pierik answered questions from Council.
At the suggestion of Mayor O’Malley, the City Council requested the City Manager to
include concerns about issues related to alcohol sales, and the relationship between
Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) and businesses, in the next Strategic Planning
Meeting.
No additional action was taken by the City Council on Consent Calendar Item #A5.
Mayor O’Malley closed Item #A5 and re-opened Management Report Item #C1.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS
1. Local Area Management Plan Update (continued from above)
Mayor O’Malley opened the Public Comment period, and hearing no requests to
speak, closed Public Comment.
Following discussion, Council requested staff develop, in regards to the LAMP,
reasonable regulations to streamline the regulation process while preserving the
groundwater quality and ecosystem.
2. 2016-2017 Storm Water Annual Permit Report and Trash Amendment
Update
Fiscal Impact: At this time, most of the City’s costs to implement the program
and comply with permit requirements are costs associated with the
expenditure of significant staff time.
Recommendations: Council:
1. Receive and file the 2016-2017 Storm Water Annual Permit Report and
Trash Amendment Update.
2. Authorize the Administrative Services Director to appropriate $6,000 in
General Funds annually in the current adopted Budget for Stormwater
Software to comply with MS4 General Permit requirements.[Public
Works]
Deputy Public Works Director Ryan Hayes gave the staff report and answered questions
from the Council.
City Manager Rachelle Rickard clarified the recommendation, advising that the
appropriation of $6,000 for Fiscal Year 2017 -2018 would be out of the General Fund and
the appropriation in Fiscal Year 2018-2019 will be paid out of contingency.
Page 11 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-1
DATE: 10/10/17
MOTION: By Council Member Moreno and seconded by Council Member
Sturtevant to:
1. Receive and file the 2016-2017 Storm Water Annual Permit
Report and Trash Amendment Update.
2. Authorize the Administrative Services Director to appropriate
$6,000 in General Funds in the current adopted Budget for
Stormwater Software to comply with MS4 General Permit
requirements.
Motion passed 4:0 by a roll-call vote.
COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS: None.
Mayor O’Malley announced his appointment of Council Members Moreno and Bourbeau
to an ad hoc subcommittee of the City Council to explore a lower cost Animal Shelter
alternative.
D. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
The following Council Members gave brief update reports on their committees since their
last Council meeting:
Council Member Bourbeau
1. City of Atascadero Design Review Committee
Council Member Moreno
1. Economic Vitality Corporation, Board of Directors (EVC)
Council Member Sturtevant
1. League of California Cities – Council Liaison
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND / OR ACTION: None.
F. ADJOURN
Mayor O’Malley adjourned the meeting at 9:43 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED BY:
______________________________________
Amanda Muther
Deputy City Clerk
The following exhibit is available for review in the City Clerk’s office:
Exhibit A –North County Connection flyer distributed by Susan Moore
APPROVED:
Page 12 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 10/10/17
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report – Community Development Department
Annexation of Cerro Roble Development into
Community Facilities District 2005-1, Annexation No. 17
(11955 & 11975 Viejo Camino: Tract 3078)
RECOMMENDATION:
Council adopt Draft Resolution declaring intention to annex territory into Community
Facilities District 2005-1 (Public Services) as Annexation No. 17 and to authorize the
levy of special taxes therein – (11955 & 11975 Viejo Camino: Tract 3078).
DISCUSSION:
Background:
The Cerro Roble residential planned development was approved in 2016. The project is
moving forward with construction of all public and subdivision improvements with
recordation of the final map scheduled for late 2017/early 2018. The applicant, Midland
Cerro Roble LLC, is required to annex into the City’s Community Facilities District (CFD)
as a condition to finalize their subdivision maps and fulfill the conditions of approval. To
satisfy this requirement, the applicant has petitioned the City to annex into the CFD.
Analysis:
In July 2004, as a key part of the adoption of the City’s Comprehensive Financial
Strategy, the Council addressed the need to recover all costs associated with new
residential development by directing the formation of a Community Facilities District
(CFD). California law allows the formation of such districts for the purpose of recovering
the cost of providing public safety services, including police and fire services, and park
services for new developments. CFD’s ensure that new homeowners pay special taxes
in an amount equal to the actual cost of the City services they are expected to receive.
Without such special taxes in place, new residential units have a negative impact on the
General Fund.
The Citywide CFD was established in 2005. Consistent with this policy a number of
projects have been annexed into the CFD, as a requirement, prior to recordation of a
final map. With the submittal of the Draft Resolution, the City and the applicant are
initiating the process of annexing the Cerro Roble project into the City’s existing CFD.
Page 13 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 10/10/17
The Draft Resolution establishes November 14, 2017 as the date for public hearing on
the annexation action. There are no registered voters in the area being annexed so the
election will be a landowner vote. Following completion of the annexation, staff
anticipates levying taxes on the parcels on which development has actually begun in the
2019-2020 tax year.
Conclusion:
The Cerro Roble project was conditioned to be fiscally neutral through annexation into
the existing Citywide CFD. Annexation into CFD 2005-1 will satisfy the project’s
conditions of approval and allow for the annexation vote to occur. A total of 17 units will
be annexed into the CFD upon recordation of the project subdivision map.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
ALTERNATIVE:
Council may refer the item back to staff for additional review and analysis.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution
2. Petition to Annex into CFD 2005-1 – No. 17 (TR 3078)
Page 14 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
1
Attachment 1: Draft Resolution
DRAFT RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO
ANNEX TERRITORY INTO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT
NO. 2005-1 (PUBLIC SERVICES) AS ANNEXATION NO. 17, AND TO
AUTHORIZE THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAXES THEREIN
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero, C alifornia (the “City
Council”), has previously conducted proceedings to establish a community facilities district,
pursuant to the terms and provisions of the “Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982”,
as amended (the “Act”), Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5, commencing at Section 53311,
of the Government Code of the State of California, thereof designated as Community Facilities
District No. 2005-1 (Public Services) (“CFD No. 2005-1”); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received a petition (including waivers) from the
landowner requesting that it annex into CFD No. 2005-1 under the Act, to provide for the costs
of services, and the City Council now desires to commence proceedings to annex territory
into CFD No. 2005-1 as described herein; and
WHEREAS, under the Act, this City Council, as the legislative body for CFD No.
2005-1, is empowered with the authority to annex territory to CFD No. 2005-1 and now
desires to undertake proceedings to annex territory to CFD No. 2005-1.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Atascadero as
follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct.
SECTION 2. Public Convenience and Necessity. The City Council hereby determines
that a public convenience and necessity requires that territory be annexed into CFD No. 2005-1
in order to pay the costs and expenses for the required and authorized public services.
SECTION 3. Boundaries. A general description of the territory, included in the existing
CFD No. 2005-1, is hereinafter described as follows: All that property and territory, as
originally included in the existing CFD No. 2005-1, heretofore recorded as Instrument No. 2005-
037685 in the office of the County Recorder for the County of San Luis Obispo on May 9, 2005,
in Book 5 at Page 11-13 of Maps of Assessments and Community Facilities Districts, to which
map reference is hereby made, and as such map was amended as a result of prior annexations.
Page 15 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
1
A description of the boundaries and territory proposed to be annexed is as follows:
All the property and territory proposed to be annexed to CFD No. 2005-1, is shown on the
Annexation No. 17 Boundary Map, on file in the Office of the City Clerk, the boundaries of
which territory are hereby preliminarily approved and to which map reference is hereby made
for further particulars. The area proposed to be annexed to CFD No. 2005-1, is as shown in
Exhibit A, attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. The City Clerk is
hereby directed to cause to be recorded such Annexation Map, showing the territory to be
annexed, in the office of the County Recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo within fifteen
days of the date of adoption of this Resolution.
SECTION 4. Services. The services which CFD No. 2005-1 is authorized to finance are
in addition to those provided in, or required for, the territory within CFD No. 2005-1 and will not
be replacing services already available. A general description of the services to be financed is as
follows:
POLICE AND FIRE SERVICES
Police services and fire protection and suppression services (the “Services”) of the City
of Atascadero, required to sustain the service delivery capability for emergency and non-
emergency services to new growth areas of the City of Atascadero, including but not
limited to, related facilities, equipment, vehicles, ambulances and paramedics, fire
apparatus, services, supplies and personnel; provided, however, that any increases in
special taxes for costs related to employee wages and benefits shall be limited as provided
in the Rate and Method of Apportionment of the Special Taxes to fund such Services.
PARK SERVICES
Park services of the City of Atascadero required for the operation and maintenance
of public parks.
The City of Atascadero is authorized to finance and direct administrative and incidental
annual costs and expenses necessary to provide the maintenance and servicing for public
services. No additional services will be necessary or provided in CFD No. 2005-1 and the services
as described for CFD No. 2005-1 will serve the properties within CFD No. 2005-1. It is
presently intended that the services will be provided, without preference or priority, to the existing
territory in CFD No. 2005-1 and the territory proposed to be annexed to CFD No. 2005-1.
SECTION 5. Special Taxes. It is the intention of this City Council that, except where
funds are otherwise available, a special tax sufficient to pay for said services to be provided in
CFD No. 2005-1 and Annexation No. 17, secured by recordation of a continuing lien against all
non-exempt real property in Annexation No. 17, will be levied annually within the boundaries of
Annexation No. 17 from and after the annexation of such property to CFD No. 2005-1. The
special taxes shall be those as originally authorized through the formation of CFD No. 2005-1
and adopted by Ordinance of this legislative body, and no changes or modifications are proposed
in the special taxes from those as originally set forth and made applicable to CFD No. 2005-1.
Page 16 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
1
The particulars, of the rate and method of apportionment of the proposed special tax
(the “RMA”), as detailed in Exhibit B, attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this
reference, sets forth the method of apportionment to allow each landowner or resident within
Annexation No. 17 to clearly estimate the maximum annual amount that said person will have to
pay on said special tax.
The special taxes, to the extent possible, shall be collected in the same manner as ad
valorem property taxes and shall be subject to the same penalties, procedure, sale and lien priority
in any case of delinquency as applicable for ad valorem taxes; provided, however, CFD No.
2005-1 may utilize a direct billing procedure for any special taxes that cannot be collected on the
County tax roll or may, by resolution, elect to collect the special taxes at a different time or in a
different manner if necessary to meet its financial obligations.
SECTION 6. Public Hearing. Notice is given that on Tuesday, November 14, 2017, at
6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the regular meeting place of the
City Council, at the City of Atascadero, City Hall Council Chambers, 6500 Palma Ave,
Atascadero, California, is hereby appointed and fixed as the time and place when and where
this City Council, as legislative body for CFD No. 2005-1, will conduct a public hearing on the
annexation of territory to CFD No. 2005-1, and consider and finally determine whether the
public interest, convenience and necessity require said annexation of territory to the CFD No.
2005-1 and the levy of said special tax therein.
SECTION 7. Notice. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause notice of said public
hearing to be given by publication one time in a newspaper of general circulation in the area of
CFD No. 2005-1, including the area to be annexed to CFD No. 2005-1. The publication of the
notice shall be completed at least seven days before the date herein set for said hearing. The City
Clerk may also cause a copy of such notice to be mailed to the registered voters and land owners
within the territory proposed to annexed, which shall be mailed at least fifteen days before the
date of said hearing.
Page 17 of 171
EM NUMBER: A-2
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
1
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the ___ day of
________, 2017.
On motion by ____________ and seconded by __________, the foregoing Resolution is
hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CITY OF ATASCADERO
______________________________
Tom O’Malley, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Lara K. Christensen, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Brian A. Pierik, City Attorney
Page 18 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
1a
EXHIBIT “A”
ANNEXATION NO. 17 BOUNDARY MAP
Page 19 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
2b
EXHIBIT “B”
CITY OF ATASCADERO
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2005-1
(PUBLIC SERVICES), ANNEXATION NO. 17
RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
CITY OF ATASCADERO
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2005-1 (PUBLIC SERVICES)
RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
A Special Tax of Community Facilities District No. 2005-1 (Public Services) of the
City of Atascadero ("CFD") shall be levied on all Assessor's Parcels in the CFD and
collected each Fiscal Year commencing in Fiscal Year 2005-06 in an amount
determined by the City through the application of the rate and method of
apportionment of the Special Tax set forth below. All of the real property in the CFD,
unless exempted by law or by the provisions hereof, shall be taxed for the purposes,
to the extent and in the manner herein provided.
A. DEFINITIONS
The terms hereinafter set forth have the following meanings:
"Acre or Acreage" means the land area of an Assessor’s Parcel as shown on an
Assessor's Parcel Map, or if the land area is not shown on an Assessor's Parcel Map,
the land area shown on the applicable final subdivision map, other final map, other parcel
map, other condominium plan, or functionally equivalent map or instrument recorded in
the Office of the County Recorder. The square footage of an Assessor's Parcel is equal
to the Acreage multiplied by 43,560.
"Act" means the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, being
Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of
California.
"Administrative Expenses" means the actual or estimated costs incurred by the City
as administrator of the CFD to determine, levy and collect the Special Taxes, including
salaries, benefits and overhead costs of City employees whose duties are directly
related to administration of the CFD and the fees of consultants, legal counsel, the costs
of collecting installments of the Special Taxes upon the general tax rolls, preparation of
required reports; and any other costs required to administer the CFD as determined by
the City.
"Affordable Unit(s)" means dwelling units located on one or more Assessor’s
Parcels of Residential Property that are subject to deed restrictions, resale restrictions,
and/or regulatory agreements recorded in favor of the City providing for affordable
housing. Affordable Units will require annual application to the City for verification of
their affordable housing status. The City will have the authority to approve and
establish policies regarding Affordable Housing Dwelling Units and their status.
Page 20 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
2b
Affordable dwelling units shall be classified as Affordable Units by the CFD
Administrator in the chronological order in which the building permits for such property
are issued.
"Annual Escalation Factor" means the greater of, five percent (5%) or the annual
percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) of “All Urban Consumers” for the
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area.
"Approved Property" means an Assessor’s Parcel and/or Lot in the District, which
has a Final Map recorded prior to January 1st preceding the Fiscal Year in which the
Special Tax is being levied, but for which no building permit has been issued prior
to the May 1st preceding the Fiscal Year in which the
Special Tax is being levied. The term "Approved Property" shall apply only to Assessors’
Parcels and/or Lots, which have been subdivided for the purpose of residential or
commercial development, excluding any Assessor’s Parcel that is designated as a
remainder parcel determined by final documents and/or maps available to the CFD
Administrator.
"Assessor's Parcel" means a lot or parcel shown in an Assessor's Parcel Map
with an assigned assessor's parcel number.
"Assessor's Parcel Map" means an official map of the Assessor of the County
designating parcels by assessor's parcel number.
"Base Year" means Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2006.
"CFD Administrator" means an official of the City, or designee thereof, responsible for
determining the Special Tax Requirement and providing for the levy and collection of the
Special Taxes.
"CFD" means Community Facilities District No. 2005-1 (Public Services) of the City of
Atascadero.
"City" means the City of Atascadero.
"Council" means the City Council of the City of Atascadero, acting as the legislative body
of the CFD.
"County" means the County of San Luis Obispo, California.
"Developed Property" means all Taxable Property, exclusive of Property Owner
Association Property, or Public Property, for which a building permit was issued
after July 1, 2004 and prior to May 1st preceding the Fiscal Year in which the Special
Tax is being levied.
Page 21 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
2b
"Final Map" means an Assessor’s Parcel Map, a final subdivision map, other parcel
map, other final map, other condominium plan, or functionally equivalent map that has
been recorded in the Office of the County Recorder.
"Fiscal Year" means the period starting July 1 and ending on the following June 30.
"Land Use Class" means any of the classes listed in Table 1.
"Lot" means property within a recorded Final Map identified by a lot number for which
a building permit has been issued or may potentially be issued.
"Maximum Special Tax" means the maximum Special Tax, determined in
accordance with Section C below that can be levied in the CFD in any Fiscal Year on
any Assessor’s Parcel.
"Multi-Family Residence" means all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Property for
which a building permit has been issued for a residential structure consisting of two
or more residential units that share common walls, including, but not limited to,
duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, condominiums, apartment units, and secondary units
as defined in Ordinance No. 454.
"Non-Residential Property" means all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Property for
which a building permit(s) has been issued for a non- residential use and does not
contain any residential units as defined under Residential Property or Multi-Family
Property.
"Park Services" means the estimated and reasonable costs for maintaining authorized
parks within the City.
"Property Owner Association Property" means any property within the boundaries
of the CFD that is owned by, or irrevocably dedicated as indicated in an instrument
recorded with the County Recorder to, a property owner association, including any
master or sub-association.
"Proportionately" means in a manner such that the ratio of the actual Special Tax levy
to the Maximum Special Tax is equal for all Assessor’s Parcels within each Land Use
Class.
"Public Property" means any property within the boundaries of the CFD that is, at the
time of the CFD formation or at the time of an annexation, expected to be used for
rights-of-way, parks, schools or any other public purpose and is owned by or irrevocably
offered for dedication to the federal government, the State, the County, the City or any
other public agency.
Page 22 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
2b
"Public Safety Costs" means the estimated and reasonable costs of providing Public
Safety services, including but not limited to (i) the costs of contracting for police and
fire services, (ii) related facilities, equipment, vehicles, ambulances and paramedics,
fire apparatus, supplies, (iii) the salaries and benefits of City staff if the City directly
provides police and fire protection services, and (iv) City overhead costs associated
with providing such services within the CFD. The Special Tax provides only partial
funding for Public Safety.
"Residential Unit" means any residence in which a person or persons may live, which
comprises an independent facility capable of conveyance separate from adjacent
residential dwelling units and is not considered to be for commercial or industrial use.
This includes Single-Family Residence and Multi- Family Residence.
"Single-Family Residence” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Property for
which a building permit(s) has been issued for purposes of constructing one residential
dwelling unit.
"Special Tax" means the Special Tax to be levied in each Fiscal Year on each
Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Property to fund the Special Tax Requirement, and shall
include Special Taxes levied or to be levied under Sections C and D, below.
"Special Tax Requirement" means that amount required in any Fiscal Year for the
CFD to: (i) pay for Public Safety Costs; (ii) pay for Park Services; (iii) pay reasonable
Administrative Expenses; (vi) pay any amounts required to establish or replenish any
reserve funds; and (v) pay for reasonably anticipated delinquent Special Taxes based
on the delinquency rate for Special Taxes levied in the previous Fiscal Year; less any
surplus of funds available from the previous Fiscal Year’s Special Tax levy.
"State" means the State of California.
"Taxable Property" means all of the Assessor's Parcels within the boundaries of the
CFD that are not exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to law or as defined below.
"Tax-Exempt Property" means an Assessor's Parcel not subject to the Special Tax.
Tax-Exempt Property includes: (i) Public Property, (ii) Property Owner Association
Property, and (iii) property designated by the City or CFD Administrator as Tax-Exempt
Property.
"Undeveloped Property" means, for each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property not
classified as Developed Property or Approved Property, including an Assessor’s Parcel
that is designated as a remainder parcel and is not identified as potential Public Property
by any final document and/or maps available to the CFD Administrator.
Page 23 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
2b
B. ASSIGNMENT TO LAND USE CATEGORIES
Each Fiscal Year using the definitions above, all Taxable Property within the CFD shall
be classified as Developed Property, Approved Property, Non -Residential Property, or
Undeveloped Property. Developed Property shall further be classified as Residential
Units as specified in Table 1 and shall be subject to Special Taxes pursuant to Sections
C and D below.
C. MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATE
1. Developed Property
TABLE 1
Maximum Special Tax for Developed Property
Community Facilities District No. 2005-1 (Public
Services)
Land Use
Class
Description
Maximum Special Tax
Per Unit
1 Residential Units $440 per Unit
2 Affordable Units $0 per Unit
On each July 1 following the Base Year, the Maximum Special Tax Rates shall be
increased in accordance with the Annual Escalation Factor.
2. Approved Property
TABLE 2
Maximum Special Tax for Approved Property
Community Facilities District No. 2005-1 (Public Services)
Land Use
Class
Description
Maximum Special Tax
Per Lot
3 Approved Property $231 per Lot
On each July 1 following the Base Year, the Maximum Special Tax Rate shall be
increased in accordance with the Annual Escalation Factor.
3. Non-residential Property
TABLE 3
Maximum Special Tax for Non-Residential Property
Community Facilities District No. 2005-1 (Public
Services)
Land Use
Class
Description
Maximum Special Tax
Per Acre
4 Non-Residential
Property $1,848 per Acre
Page 24 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
2b
The minimum special tax Non-Residential Property shall be subject to is $50 per parcel.
On each July 1 following the Base Year, the Maximum Special Tax Rate for Non -
Residential Property shall be increased in accordance with the Annual Escalation Factor.
4. Multiple Land Use Classes
In some instances an Assessor’s Parcel may contain more than one Land Use Class.
The Maximum Special Tax levied on an Assessor’s Parcel shall be the sum of the
Maximum Special Tax levies that can be imposed on all Land Use Classes located on
that Assessor’s Parcel.
5. Undeveloped Property
Undeveloped Property will be assigned a Maximum Special Tax Rate of $410 per acre
or portion thereof, with a minimum rate of $100 for Undeveloped Property less than or
equal to one-fourth (1/4) of an Acre as described in Table 4.
TABLE 4
Maximum Special Tax for Undeveloped Property
Community Facilities District No. 2005-1 (Public
Services)
Land Use
Class
Description
Maximum Special Tax
Per Parcell|/Acre
5 Undeveloped Property
1/4 Acre $100 per Parcel
6 Undeveloped Property
>1/4 Acre $410 per Acre
On each July 1 following the Base Year, the Maximum Special Tax Rate, for
Undeveloped Property, shall be increased in accordance with the Annual Escalation
Factor.
D. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX
Commencing with Fiscal Year 2005-06, and for each following Fiscal Year, the CFD
Administrator shall calculate the Special Tax Requirement based on the definitions in
Section A and levy the Special Tax until the amount of the Special Tax levied equals
the Special Tax Requirement. The Special Tax shall be levied each Fiscal Year on
each Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Property Proportionately between Residential
Units up to 100% of the applicable Maximum Special Tax. Second, if the Special Tax
Requirement has not been satisfied by the first step, then the Special Tax shall be levied
each Fiscal Year on each Assessor’s Parcel of Approved Property up to 100% of the
applicable Maximum Special Tax for Approved Property. Third, if the first two steps
have not satisfied the Special Tax Requirement, then the Special Tax shall be levied
each Fiscal Year on each Assessor’s Parcel of Non-Residential Property up to 100% of
the applicable Maximum Special Tax for Non -Residential Property. Lastly, if the
preceding steps have not satisfied the Special Tax Requirement, then the Special
Tax shall be levied each Fiscal Year on each Assessor’s Parcel of Undeveloped
Property up to 100% of the applicable Maximum Special Tax for Undeveloped Property.
Page 25 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
2b
E. APPEALS
Any taxpayer that believes that the amount of the Special Tax assigned to a Parcel is
in error may file a written notice with the CFD Administrator appealing the levy of the
Special Tax. This notice is required to be filed with the CFD Administrator during the
Fiscal Year the error is believed to have occurred. The CFD Administrator or designee
will then promptly review the appeal and, if necessary, meet with the taxpayer. If the
CFD Administrator verifies that the tax should be changed the Special Tax levy shall
be corrected and, if applicable in any case, a refund shall be granted.
F. MANNER OF COLLECTION
Special Tax as levied pursuant to Section D above shall be collected in the same manner
and at the same time as ordinary ad valorem property taxes; provided, however, that
the CFD Administrator may directly bill the Special Tax, may collect Special Taxes
at a different time or in a different manner if necessary to meet the financial
obligations of the CFD or as otherwise determined appropriate by the CFD
Administrator.
G. TERM OF SPECIAL TAX
The Special Tax shall be levied in perpetuity or until such time as Council terminates the
Special Tax.
Page 26 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
2
Attachment 2: Petition to Annex into CFD 2005-1 – No. 17 (TR 3078)
Page 27 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
2
Page 28 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
2
Page 29 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
2
Page 30 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
2
Page 31 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
2
Page 32 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
2
Page 33 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
2
Page 34 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
2
Page 35 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
2
Page 36 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/10/17
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report - Public Works Department
Fiscal Year 2017-2019 Budget Amendment to
Incorporate Additional Data for Projects Funded by SB1
The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017
RECOMMENDATION:
Council adopt Draft Resolution amending the Fiscal Year 2017-2019 Budget to
incorporate additional data for projects funded by SB1: The Road Repair and
Accountability Act of 2017.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF:
The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB 1) provides new funding f or local
and state jurisdictions to address roadway maintenance and rehabilitation needs, as
well as other transportation related projects. This act became law in April 2017 and
annual reporting guidelines for local agencies (cities and counties) were fin alized in
August 2017. These guidelines describe annual reporting requirements and processes
for local agencies, including having specific project content to be included in agency
budgets for projects utilizing SB 1 funds. This report describes the actions needed by
Council to comply with these new guidelines, as well as a general overview of the SB 1
funding.
DISCUSSION:
Background:
On April 28, 2017 the Governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 1, which is
known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. To
address basic road maintenance, rehabilitation and critical safety
needs on both the state highway and local streets and road system,
SB 1: increases per gallon fuel excise taxes; increases diesel fuel
sales taxes and vehicle registration fees; and provides for
inflationary adjustments to tax rates in future years.
Page 37 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/10/17
Beginning November 1, 2017, the State Controller will deposit various portions of this
new funding into the newly created Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account
(RMRA). A percentage of this new RMRA funding will be apportioned by formula to
eligible cities and counties pursuant to Streets and Highways Code (SHC) Section
2032(h) for basic road maintenance, rehabilitation, and critical safety projects on the
local streets and roads system. RMRA funding will be generated by the following
sources:
An additional 12 cent per gallon increase to the gasoline excise tax effective
November 1, 2017.
An additional 20 cent per gallon increase to the diesel fuel excise tax effective
November 1, 2017.
An additional vehicle registration tax called the “Transportation Improvement Fee”
with rates based on the value of the motor vehicle effective January 1, 2018.
An additional $100 vehicle registration tax on zero emissions (ZEV) vehicles of
model year 2020 or later effective July 1, 2020.
Annual rate increases to these taxes beginning on July 1, 2020 (July 1, 2021 for the
ZEV fee) and every July 1st thereafter equal to the change in the California
Consumer Price Index (CPI).
SHC 2032(h)(2) specifies that 50 percent of the balance of revenues deposited into the
RMRA, after certain funding is set aside for various programs, will be continuously
appropriated for apportionment to cities and counties by the Controller pursuant to the
formula in SHC Section 2103(a)(3)(C)(i) and (ii). The other 50 percent of the balance of
revenues will fund State highways and transportation infrastructure.
Local Funding:
The following table shows the estimated SB 1 funding allocations for local streets and
roads maintenance and rehabilitation by jurisdiction for the SLOCOG region:
Page 38 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/10/17
The “Pre SB 1 HUTA” column corresponds to the estimated FY16/17 allocation from the
current gas tax. This amount will continue into future years. The “Loan Repayment”
columns corresponds to new allocations from gas tax adjustments and are treated like
the HUTA funds and not subject to SB 1 guidelines. The “SB 1” columns correspond to
new allocations from SB 1 and are subject to SB 1 guidelines. FY18/19 is the first full
year when most of the new revenues are fully implemented. Given that tax increases
and registration fees do not go into effect until November and January, respectively,
local jurisdictions will see a partial benefit in FY17/18. Loan repayments will be made
only for the first three fiscal years.
In addition to local road maintenance and rehabilitation, SB 1 provides additional
funding for local transit operators and regional discretion ary transit funding for the
SLOCOG region. As noted above, FY18/19 will be the first full year when most new
revenues are fully implemented, with FY17/18 seeing only a partial benefit. The
following table summarizes SB 1 funding for the SLOCOG region:
Annual Reporting Guidelines:
SB 1 emphasizes the importance of accountability and transparency in the delivery of
California’s transportation programs. Therefore, in order to be eligible for RMRA
funding, statute requires cities and counties to provide basic annual RMRA project
reporting to the California Transportation Commission (CTC). Guidelines have been
developed that describe the general policies and procedures for carrying out the annual
RMRA project reporting requirements for cities and counties and other statutory
objectives. A copy of the final version of the annual reporting guidelines is attached for
reference.
Page 39 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/10/17
In general, the annual reporting guidelines require the City to do the following:
Develop and submit a list of projects to the CTC each fiscal year
Develop and submit a project expenditure report to the CTC each fiscal year
Comply with all requirements including reporting requirements for RMRA funding
The guidelines also have a schedule and deadlines for recipient cities/counties, CTC,
and State Controller activities, including the following:
Activity Deadline
FY17/18 FY18/19
City/County Project Lists due to CTC 10/16/17 TBD (Apr.-May)
CTC submits Project List to State Controller 12/6-7/17 7/1/18
Controller Apportionments Begin mid-Jan. 2018 mid-Sept. 2018
City/County Project Expenditure Report due to
CTC
10/1/18 10/1/19
CTC posts Program accountability info. online 12/1/18 12/1/19
Section IV of the guidelines address requirements for annual project list submittals,
including content and format of project lists. CTC has developed a standard worksheet
template that must be used for the annual project list submittal. The list of projects
requires the following information to be included:
Project Description – a brief non-technical description of the project
Project Location – street names and project termini
Proposed Schedule for Completion – a “high-level” timeline for project completion
Estimated Useful Life – based on industry-standards
Technology, Climate Change, and Complete Streets Considerations – additional
project elements that will be incorporated into projects to the extent possible and
cost-effective, and where feasible
In addition, all proposed projects using RMRA funds must be included in the City budget
– either through regular adoption of the budget or through an amendment to the budget.
At a minimum, the budget needs to include a description, location, schedule for
completion, and useful life for the proposed projects using RMRA funds. The project li st
submitted to the CTC should include more detailed project information than the budget.
Section V of the guidelines addresses requirements for annual project expenditure
reporting and auditing. The annual completed and in-progress project expenditure
report will require updated content listed above for the list of projects, along with the
amount of funds expended for the project. The CTC will also have a standard template
to be used for submittal of the report. RMRA funds are also subject to State Controller
expenditure reporting and maintenance of effort monitoring (Item 15 in guidelines).
It should be noted that CTC does not “approve” project lists, but rather, determines if
they are complete and meet the basic statutory requirements, then submits to the State
Controller. Furthermore, the project list does not limit the flexibility of an eligible city or
county to fund projects in accordance with local needs and priorities, as long as the
projects are consistent with SHC requirements.
Page 40 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/10/17
Analysis:
Although SB 1 became law shortly before the Council adopted the FY2017 -2019
Budget, a “list of projects” with RMRA funding was identified in the adopted budget.
This list includes one project: El Camino Real Rehabilitation – North from San Anselmo
Road East to San Benito Road (Project). The adopted budget included $708,510 in
RMRA funds, $566,000 in Urban State Highway Account (USHA) funds, and $25,400 in
Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to be allocated toward the Project. The budget
allocates a combined funding of $630,000 for FY17/18 and $670,000 for FY18/19.
Design and preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates is currently underway
and construction is planned for mid-2018.
The El Camino Real Rehabilitation – North project is a high-priority project in the Capital
Improvement Program. This 0.78-mile segment of El Camino Real is heavily used and
the City receives numerous citizen complaints regarding its condition and inquiries of
when it will be repaired. The most recent pavement evaluation performed in June 2014
determined a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 34, or “poor”, for this segment of
roadway. This project will better define roadway configuration, including single to dual
travel lane transitions, center turn lane, bicycle lanes, and on -street parking. Complete
streets elements include adding a bike lane in the southbound direction and
constructing a 250 foot section of “missing link” sidewalk for pedestrian connect ivity.
Cold-in-place recycling is also being considered as a sustainable technique for
pavement rehabilitation, whereby reducing GHG emissions and reducing the carbon
footprint. Project completion is anticipated in December 2018 and the estimated useful
life for the project is between 15 to 25 years.
Although the annual reporting guidelines were not finalized until August 2017 (after
budget adoption), the budget includes most of the content required by the guidelines,
except for useful life. Documentation of inclusion of RMRA funded projects in the
adopted budget, including required project content, is required to be submitted to the
CTC with the proposed project list. Given the absence of useful life for the RMRA
funded project, staff recommends amending the adopted budget to incorporate this
missing data, along with better clarification of description, location, and completion
schedule to ensure the City meets the intent of the guidelines.
The RMRA budget amount of $708,510, for the El Camino Real Rehabilitation – North
project, is adequate and does not need to be modified.
Conclusion:
The attached Draft Resolution will provide the necessary documentation required, to be
included with the submitted project list to the CTC, and is anticipated to cover the
current two-year adopted budget cycle. This Resolution will be included with the project
list submitted to CTC.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact is anticipated with approving the recommendations in the staff report
and the Draft Resolution.
Page 41 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution
2. FAQ’s for SB 1 Fund Generation and Allocation
3. Annual Reporting Guidelines for 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding
Page 42 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/05/17
ATTACHMENT: 1
DRAFT RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2017-
2019 BUDGET TO INCORPORATE ADDITIONAL DATA FOR
PROJECTS FUNDED BY SB 1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017
(Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and Signed into law by the Governor
in April 2017 in order to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls
statewide; and
WHEREAS, SB 1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure
the residents of the City are aware of the projects proposed for funding in the community and
which projects have been completed each fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the City must include a list of all projects proposed to receive funding from
the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1, in the City budget,
which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule
for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and
WHEREAS, the City will receive and estimated $178,071 in Fiscal Year 2017-2018 and
$530,443 in Fiscal Year 2018-2019 in RMRA funding from SB 1; and
WHEREAS, the City has undergone a robust public process to ensure public input into
the community’s transportation priorities and capital improvement plans; and
WHEREAS, the City used a Pavement Management System to assist in the development
of the SB 1 project list to ensure revenues are being used on the most high -priority and cost-
effective projects that also meet the communities priorities for transportation investment; and
WHEREAS, the funding from SB 1 will help the City maintain and rehabilitate 139
centerline miles of roads, 20 bridges, and add active transportation infrastructure throughout the
City this year and hundreds of similar projects in the future; and
WHEREAS, the 2014 Pavement Management Program found that the City’s streets and
roads are in a “poor” condition and the revenue will help increase the overall quality of the road
system over the next decade, with the anticipation of bringing the streets and roads into a “fair”
condition; and
WHEREAS, without revenue from SB 1, the City’s streets and roads would continue to
degrade into a condition that would require higher costs and expenses to maintain and repair; and
Page 43 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/05/17
ATTACHMENT: 1
WHEREAS, if the Legislature and Governor failed to act, city streets and county roads
would have continued to deteriorate, having many and varied negative impacts on the
community; and
WHEREAS, cities and counties own and operate more than 81 percent of streets and
roads in California, and from the moment an individual opens the front door to drive to work,
bike to school, or walk to the bus station, they are dependent upon a safe, reliable local
transportation network; and
WHEREAS, modernizing the local street and road system provides well-paying
construction jobs and boosts local economies; and
WHEREAS, the local street and road system is also critical for farm to market needs,
interconnectivity, multimodal needs, and commerce; and
WHEREAS, police, fire, and emergency medical services all need safe reliable roads to
react quickly to emergency calls and a few minutes of delay can be a matter of life and death;
and
WHEREAS, maintaining and preserving local streets and the road system will reduce
drive times and traffic congestion, improve bicycle safety, and make the pedestrian experience
safer and more appealing, which leads to reduce vehicle emissions helping the State achieve its
air quality and greenhouse gas emissions reductions goals; and
WHEREAS, restoring roads before they fail reduces construction time which results in
less air pollution from heavy equipment and less water pollution from site run-off; and
WHEREAS, the SB 1 project list and overall investment in the local streets and roads
infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets
infrastructure, and using cutting-edge technology, materials and practices, will have significant
positive co-benefits statewide.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Atascadero:
SECTION 1. That the recitals set forth hereinabove are true, correct and valid.
SECTION 2. The adopted budget for Fiscal Years 2017-2019 is amended to incorporate
additional data for the following project planned to be funded with Road Maintenance and
Rehabilitation Account revenues:
Project: El Camino Real Rehabilitation – North
Description: Major pavement rehabilitation for approximately 0.78 miles of arterial
roadway to improve deteriorated pavement conditions and better define roadway
configuration for all roadway users, including motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Project will include constructing approximately 250 feet of a “missing link” of sidewalk
on the west side to provide pedestrian connectivity.
Page 44 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/05/17
ATTACHMENT: 1
Location: San Anselmo Road (East) to San Benito Road
Estimated Useful Life: 15 to 25 years
Schedule for Completion: December 2018
SECTION 3. Funding for the project listed above is currently included in the adopted
budget for Fiscal Years 2017-2019 and includes $708,510 in Road Maintenance and Repair
Account funding (Gas Tax Fund – Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017).
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the ___ day of
________, 2017.
On motion by Council Member _______________and seconded by Council Member
__________________, the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATASCADERO
________
Tom O’Malley, Mayor
ATTEST:
________
Lara K. Christensen, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________
Brian A. Pierik, City Attorney
Page 45 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
2
FAQ’s for SB 1 Fund Generation and Allocation
(from SLOCOG Staff Report Item B-1, dated June 7, 2017)
Page 46 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
2
Page 47 of 171
THE ROAD REPAIR AND
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017
2017 LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS
FUNDING
ANNUAL REPORTING GUIDELINES
August 2017
California Transportation Commission
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 48 of 171
ii
2017 LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS
FUNDING
ANNUAL REPORTING GUIDELINES
Adopted by the California Transportation Commission on
August 16, 2017
Pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 2034
Commissioners
Bob Alvarado – Chair
Fran Inman – Vice Chair
Yvonne B. Burke
Lucetta Dunn
James Earp
James C. Ghielmetti
Carl Guardino
Christine Kehoe
James Madaffer
Joseph Tavaglione
Senator Jim Beall – Ex Officio
Assembly Member Jim Frazier– Ex Officio
Susan Bransen – Executive Director
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 49 of 171
i
CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017
ANNUAL REPORTING GUIDELINES FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FUNDING
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
1. Background and Purpose of Reporting Guidelines .................................................. 1
2. Program Objectives and Statutory Requirements .................................................... 1
3. Program Roles and Responsibilities ......................................................................... 3
4. Program Schedule ...................................................................................................... 4
II. Funding ............................................................................................................................. 4
5. Source ......................................................................................................................... 4
6. Estimation and Disbursement of Funds .................................................................... 5
III. Eligibility and Program Priorities .................................................................................... 5
7. Eligible Recipients ...................................................................................................... 5
8. Program Priorities and Example Projects ................................................................. 5
IV. Project List Submittal....................................................................................................... 6
9. Content and Format of Project List ........................................................................... 6
10. Process and Schedule for Project List Submittal ....................................................10
11. Commission Submittal of Eligible Entities to the State Controller’s Office ...........10
V. Project Expenditure Reporting and Auditing ................................................................11
12. Scope of Completed Project Expenditure Report ....................................................11
13. Process and Schedule for Project Report Submittal ...............................................13
14. Commission Reporting of Project Information Received ........................................13
15. State Controller Expenditure Reporting and Maintenance of Effort Monitoring ....14
16. Workforce Development Requirements and Project Signage.................................16
Appendix A – Local Streets and Roads Project List Form ...................................................17
Appendix B - Local Streets and Roads Completed Project Expenditure Report Form ......19
Appendix C – Local Streets and Roads Program Schedule .................................................21
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 50 of 171
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
1
I. Introduction
1. Background and Purpose of Reporting Guidelines
On April 28, 2017 the Governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 1 (Beall, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017),
which is known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. To address basic road
maintenance, rehabilitation and critical safety needs on both the state highway and local streets
and road system, SB 1: increases per gallon fuel excise taxes; increases diesel fuel sales taxes
and vehicle registration fees; and provides for inflationary adjustments to tax rates in future years.
Beginning November 1, 2017, the State Controller (Controller) will deposit various portions of this
new funding into the newly created Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA). A
percentage of this new RMRA funding will be apportioned by formula to eligible cities and counties
pursuant to Streets and Highways Code (SHC) Section 2032(h) for basic road maintenance,
rehabilitation, and critical safety projects on the local streets and roads system. For a detailed
breakdown of RMRA funding sources and the disbursement of funding please see Sections 5 and
6 of these guidelines.
SB 1 emphasizes the importance of accountability and transparency in the delivery of California’s
transportation programs. Therefore, in order to be eligible for RMRA funding, statute requires
cities and counties to provide basic annual RMRA project reporting to the California
Transportation Commission (Commission).
These guidelines describe the general policies and procedures for carrying out the annual RMRA
project reporting requirements for cities and counties and other statutory objectives as outlined in
Section 2 below. The guidelines were developed in consultation with state, regional, and local
government entities and other transportation stakeholders.
The Commission may amend these guidelines after first giving notice of the proposed
amendments. In order to provide clear and timely guidance, it is the Commission’s policy that a
reasonable effort be made to amend the guidelines prior to the due date for project lists or the
Commission may extend the deadline for project list submission in order to facilitate compliance
with the amended guidelines.
2. Program Objectives and Statutory Requirements
Streets and Highways Code (SHC) Section 2032.5(a) articulates the general intent of the
legislation that recipients of RMRA funding be held accountable for the efficient investment of
public funds to maintain local streets and roads and are accountable to the people through
performance goals that are tracked and reported.
Pursuant to SHC Section 2030(a), the objective of the Local Streets and Roads Program is to
address deferred maintenance on the local streets and roads system through the prioritization
and delivery of basic road maintenance and rehabilitation projects as well as critical safety
projects.
Cities and counties receiving RMRA funds must comply with all relevant federal and state laws,
regulations, policies, and procedures. The main requirements for the program are codified in SHC
Sections 2034, 2036, 2037, and 2038 and include the following:
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 51 of 171
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
2
• Prior to receiving an apportionment of RMRA funds from the Controller in a fiscal year,
a city or county must submit to the Commission a list of projects proposed to be funded
with these funds. All projects proposed to receive funding must be included in a city or
county budget that is adopted by the applicable city council or county board of
supervisors at a regular public meeting [SHC 2034(a)(1)].
• The list of projects must include a description and the location of each proposed
project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life
of the improvement [SHC 2034(a)(1)]. Further guidance regarding the scope, content,
and submittal process for project lists prepared by cities and counties is provided in
Sections 9-10.
• The project list does not limit the flexibility of an eligible city or county to fund projects
in accordance with local needs and priorities so long as the projects are consistent
with RMRA priorities as outlined in SHC 2030(b) [SHC 2034(a)(1)].
• The Commission will report to the Controller the cities and counties that have
submitted a list of projects as described in SHC 2034(a)(1) and that are therefore
eligible to receive an apportionment of RMRA funds for the applicable fiscal year [SHC
2034(a)(2)].
• The Controller, upon receipt of the report from the Commission, shall apportion RMRA
funds to eligible cities and counties pursuant to SHC 2032(h) [SHC 2034(a)(2)].
• For each fiscal year in which RMRA funds are received and expended, cities and
counties must submit documentation to the Commission that includes a description
and location of each completed project, the amount of funds expended on the project,
the completion date, and the estimated useful life of the improvement [SHC 2034(b)].
Further guidance regarding the scope, content, and submittal process for program
expenditure reports is provided in Sections 12-13.
• A city or county receiving an apportionment of RMRA funds is required to sustain a
maintenance of effort (MOE) by spending at least the annual average of its general
fund expenditures during the 2009–10, 2010–11, and 2011–12 fiscal years for street,
road, and highway purposes from the city’s or county’s general fund [SHC 2036].
Monitoring and enforcement of the maintenance of effort requirement for RMRA funds
will be carried out by the Controller and is addressed in more detail in Section 15.
• A city or county may spend its apportionment of RMRA funds on transportation
priorities other than priorities outlined in SHC 2030(b) if the city or county’s average
Pavement Condition Index (PCI) meets or exceeds 80 [SHC 2037].
• By July 1, 2023, cities and counties receiving RMRA funds must follow guidelines
developed by the California Workforce Development Board (Board) that address
participation and investment in, or partnership with, new or existing pre-apprenticeship
training programs [SHC 2038]. Further information regarding the forthcoming Board
Guidelines and future Board-sponsored grant opportunities is available in Section 16.
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 52 of 171
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
3
3. Program Roles and Responsibilities
Below is a general outline of the roles and responsibilities of recipient cities/counties, the
Commission, the Controller, and the California Workforce Development Board, in carrying out the
program’s statutory requirements, as well as activities the Commission will undertake to meet the
legislative intent of SB 1:
Recipient Cities/Counties:
• Develop and submit a list of projects to the Commission each fiscal year.
• Develop and submit a project expenditure report to the Commission each fiscal year.
• Comply with all requirements including reporting requirements for RMRA funding.
Commission:
• Provide technical assistance to cities and counties in the preparation of project lists and
reports.
• Receive project lists from cities and counties each fiscal year.
• Provide a comprehensive list to the Controller each fiscal year of cities and counties
eligible to receive RMRA apportionments.
• Receive program expenditure reports from cities and counties each fiscal year and provide
aggregated statewide information regarding use of RMRA funds to the Legislature and the
public (e.g. the Commission’s Annual Report to the Legislature and a SB 1 Accountability
Website).
Controller:
• Receive list of cities and counties eligible for RMRA apportionments each fiscal year from
the Commission.
• Apportion RMRA funds to cities and counties.
• Oversee Maintenance of Effort and other requirements for RMRA funds including reporting
required pursuant to SHC 2151.
California Workforce Development Board:
• Pursuant to SHC 2038, establish a pre-apprenticeship development and training grant
program beginning January 1, 2019 that local public agencies receiving RMRA funds are
eligible to apply for or partner with other entities to apply for.
• Pursuant to SHC 2038, develop guidelines for public agencies receiving RMRA funds to
participate, invest in, or partner with, new or existing pre-apprenticeship training programs.
Local public agencies receiving RMRA funds must follow the guidelines by no later than
July 1, 2023.
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 53 of 171
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
4
4. Program Schedule
The following schedule lists the major milestones for the development of the 2017 Local Streets
and Roads Funding Annual Reporting Guidelines, initial submittal of project lists, and transmittal
of eligibility list to the Controller. See Appendix C for a more detailed program schedule.
Draft Guidelines Circulated for Public Review June 19 – July 10, 2017
Commission Adoption of Guidelines August 16-17, 2017
Technical Assistance and Outreach to Cities/Counties August 18 – October 16, 2017
Project Lists due to Commission October 16 , 2017
Commission Adopts List of Eligible Cities and Counties December 6-7 , 2017
Commission Submits List to Controller December 6-7, 2017
Controller FY 17-18 Apportionments Begin Mid-January 2018
II. Funding
5. Source
The State of California imposes per-gallon excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, sales taxes
on diesel fuel, and registration taxes on motor vehicles and dedicates these revenues to
transportation purposes. Portions of these revenues flow to cities and counties through the
Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA) and the newly established RMRA created by SB 1.
The Local Streets and Roads Funding Program administered by the Commission in partnership
with the Controller is supported by RMRA funding which includes portions of revenues pursuant
to SHC 2031 from the following sources:
• An additional 12 cent per gallon increase to the gasoline excise tax effective November 1,
2017.
• An additional 20 cent per gallon increase to the diesel fuel excise tax effective November
1, 2017.
• An additional vehicle registration tax called the “Transportation Improvement Fee” with
rates based on the value of the motor vehicle effective January 1, 2018.
• An additional $100 vehicle registration tax on zero emissions (ZEV) vehicles of model year
2020 or later effective July 1, 2020.
• Annual rate increases to these taxes beginning on July 1, 2020 (July 1, 2021 for the ZEV
fee) and every July 1st thereafter equal to the change in the California Consumer Price
Index (CPI).
SHC 2032(h)(2) specifies that 50 percent of the balance of revenues deposited into the RMRA,
after certain funding is set aside for various programs, will be continuously appropriated for
apportionment to cities and counties by the Controller pursuant to the formula in SHC Section
2103(a)(3)(C)(i) and (ii).
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 54 of 171
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
5
6. Estimation and Disbursement of Funds
While neither, the Commission nor the State Controller’s Office prepare formal estimates of
RMRA funds, the Department of Finance (DOF) estimates the total amount of funding that will be
deposited into the RMRA annually. The California State Association of Counties and the League
of California Cities use this information from DOF to develop city and county level estimates of
RMRA funds which are available here:
California State Association of Counties
http://www.counties.org/sb-1-road-repair-and-accountability-act-2017
League of California Cities
http://www.californiacityfinance.com/
Each fiscal year, upon receipt of a list of cities and counties that are eligible to receive an
apportionment of RMRA funds pursuant to SHC 2032(h)(2) from the Commission, the Controller
is required to apportion RMRA funds to eligible cities and counties consistent with the formula
outlined in SHC Section 2103(a)(3)(C)(i) and (ii). It is expected that the Controller will continuously
apportion RMRA funds on a monthly basis to eligible cities and counties using a process and
system similar to that of HUTA apportionments. RMRA funding is continuously apportioned and
is not provided on a reimbursement basis.
The Commission does not approve project lists and provide authorization to proceed with RMRA
funded projects. The Commission receives project lists, determines they are complete and meet
basic statutory requirements outlined in SHC 2034 and then approves and submits a statewide
list to the Controller of cities and counties that are eligible to begin receiving monthly RMRA
funding apportionments.
III. Eligibility and Program Priorities
7. Eligible Recipients
Eligible recipients of RMRA funding apportionments include cities and counties that have
prepared and submitted a project list to the Commission pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a)(1) and
that have been included in a list of eligible entities submitted by the Commission to the Controller
pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a)(2).
Recipients of RMRA apportionments must comply with all relevant federal and state laws,
regulations, policies, and procedures.
8. Program Priorities and Example Projects
Pursuant to SHC Section 2030(a), RMRA funds made available for the Local Streets and Roads
Funding Program shall be prioritized for expenditure on basic road maintenance and rehabilitation
projects, and on critical safety projects.
SHC Section 2030(b)(1) provides a number of example projects and uses for RMRA funding that
include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
• Safety Projects
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 55 of 171
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
6
• Railroad Grade Separations
• Complete Streets Components (including active transportation purposes, pedestrian
and bicycle safety projects, transit facilities, and drainage and stormwater capture
projects in conjunction with any other allowable project)
• Traffic Control Devices
SHC Section 2030(b)(2) states that funds made available by the program may also be used to
satisfy a match requirement in order to obtain state or federal funds for projects authorized by this
subdivision.
SHC Section 2030(c)-(f) specifies additional project elements that will be incorporated into RMRA-
funded projects by cities and counties to the extent possible and cost effective, and where feasible
(as deemed by cities and counties). These elements are:
• Technologies and material recycling techniques that lower greenhouse gas emissions
and reduce the cost of maintaining local streets and roads through material choice
and construction method.
• Systems and components in transportation infrastructure that recognize and
accommodate technologies including but not limited to ZEV fueling or charging and
infrastructure-vehicles communications for transitional or fully autonomous vehicles.
• Project features to better adapt the transportation asset to withstand the negative
effects of climate change and promote resiliency to impacts such as fires, floods, and
sea level rise (where appropriate given a project’s scope and risk level for asset
damage due to climate change).
• Complete Streets Elements (such as project features that improve the quality of
bicycle and pedestrian facilities and that improve safety for all users of transportation
facilities) are expected to be incorporated into RMRA funded projects to the extent
(as deemed by cities and counties) beneficial, cost-effective, and practicable in the
context of facility type, right-of-way, project scope, and quality of nearby facilities.
Pursuant to SHC Section 2037, a city or county may spend its apportionment of RMRA funds on
transportation priorities other than those outlined in SHC Section 2030 if the city’s or county’s
average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) meets or exceeds 80.
IV. Project List Submittal
9. Content and Format of Project List
Pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a)(1), prior to receiving an apportionment of RMRA funds from the
State Controller in a fiscal year, a city or county must submit to the Commission a list of projects
proposed to be funded with these funds pursuant to an adopted city or county budget, which may
include pertinent budget amendments.
Listed below are the specific statutory criteria for the content of the project list along with additional
guidance provided to help ensure a consistent statewide format and to facilitate accountability
and transparency within the Local Streets and Roads Program.
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 56 of 171
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
7
a.) Included in an Adopted Budget
All proposed projects must be included in a city or county budget that is adopted by the
applicable city council or county board of supervisors at a regular public meeting.
To ensure transparency and to meet the intent of SHC Section 2034(a)(1) “included in a
city or county budget” can mean either of the following:
a.) A specific list of projects proposed for RMRA funding adopted as part of the
city/county’s regular operating or capital improvement budget, at a regular public
meeting; or
b.) A specific list of projects proposed for RMRA funding amended into the
city/county’s regular operating or capital improvement budget, at a regular public
meeting.
Documentation of Inclusion in an Adopted Budget
A city or county must provide a public record which illustrates that projects proposed for
RMRA funding through the Local Streets and Roads Program have been included in an
adopted city or county operating budget. Examples of an acceptable public record include:
a.) An excerpt from the city/county’s regular operating or capital improvement
budget including the relevant list of projects and an adopting resolution;
b.) An excerpt from the city/county’s regular operating or capital improvement
budget including the relevant list of projects and meeting minutes documenting
approval at a regular public meeting.
c.) An excerpt from the city/county’s amended operating or capital improvement
budget including the relevant list of projects, or the staff report specifying the
projects to be included, as well as an adopting resolution or meeting minutes
documenting approval at a regular public meeting.
Submittal of electronic copies of the relevant excerpts from an operating budget (or
amendment) and support documentation (i.e. resolution or minutes) is encouraged.
Support documentation requirements are further discussed in Appendix A.
b.) List of Projects – Content
Pursuant to SHC 2034(a)(1), the project list must include a description and the location of
each proposed project, a proposed schedule for each project’s completion, and the
estimated useful life of the improvement. The project list is intended to cover, at a
minimum, the applicable fiscal year. Cities and counties may include project information
for future fiscal years but are expected to update the project list as needed every fiscal
year prior to submittal to the Commission.
Development and Content
The Commission recognizes the inherent diversity of road maintenance and rehabilitation
needs among the approximately 540 jurisdictions across the state that may utilize Local
Streets and Roads Program funding.
Given the emphasis SB 1 places on accountability and transparency in delivering
California’s transportation programs, cities and counties are encouraged to clearly
articulate how these funds are being utilized through the development of a robust project
list.
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 57 of 171
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
8
To promote statewide consistency in the content and format of project information
submitted to the Commission, and to facilitate transparency within the Local Streets and
Roads Funding Program, the following guidance is provided regarding the key
components of the project list. Please note that project lists included in a city or county
budget should, at a minimum, include the elements mandated by statute: description,
location, schedule for completion and useful life. Cities and counties should include more
detailed project information as described below in the project list submitted to the
Commission.
For further assistance, Appendix A has been developed to outline project list content and
format.
Project Description
The list must include a project description for each proposed project. The city/county is
encouraged to provide a brief non-technical description (up to 5 sentences) written so that
the main objectives of the project can be clearly and easily understood by the public.
The level of detail provided will vary depending upon the nature of the project; however, it
is highly encouraged that the project description contain a minimum level of detail needed
for the public to understand what is being done and why it is a critical or high-priority need.
Project Location
The list must include a project location for each proposed project. The city/county is
encouraged to provide project location information that, at a minimum, would allow the
public to clearly understand where within the community the project is being undertaken.
For example, providing specific street names where improvements are being undertaken
and specifying project termini when possible are preferable to more general information
such as “various” or “south-west side of city/county”. If project-specific geolocation data is
available, it is highly encouraged to be included in the project list submitted to the
Commission.
Proposed Schedule for Completion
The list must include a completion schedule for each proposed project. The city/county is
encouraged to provide a high-level timeline that provides a clear picture to the public of
when a project is reasonably expected to be completed. The proposed schedule for
completion should clearly articulate if a project will take multiple years to complete.
Estimated Useful Life
The list must include an estimated useful life for each proposed project. The city/county is
encouraged to provide information regarding the estimated useful life of the project that is
clear, understandable, and based on industry-standards for the project materials and
design, where applicable.
Technology, Climate Change, and Complete Streets Considerations
SHC Section 2030(c)-(f) specifies additional project elements that will be incorporated into
RMRA-funded projects by cities and counties to the extent possible and cost effective,
and where feasible. These elements are:
• Technologies and material recycling techniques that lower greenhouse gas emissions
and reduce the cost of maintaining local streets and roads through material choice
and construction method.
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 58 of 171
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
9
• Systems and components in transportation infrastructure that recognize and
accommodate technologies including but not limited to ZEV fueling or charging and
infrastructure-vehicles communications for transitional or fully autonomous vehicles.
• Project features to better adapt the transportation asset to withstand the negative
effects of climate change and promote resiliency to impacts such as fires, floods, and
sea level rise (where appropriate given a project’s scope and risk level for asset
damage due to climate change).
• Complete Streets Elements (such as project features that improve the quality of
bicycle and pedestrian facilities and that improve safety for all users of transportation
facilities) are expected to be incorporated into RMRA funded projects to the extent
(as deemed by cities and counties) beneficial, cost-effective, and practicable in the
context of facility type, right-of-way, project scope, and quality of nearby facilities.
Cities and counties are encouraged to consider all of the above for implementation, to the
extent possible, cost-effective, and feasible, in the design and development of projects for
RMRA funding.
To meet the intent of SHC 2032.5(a) as outlined in Section 2 of these Guidelines, in
addition to the statutory requirements outlined in Section 10, the standard forms
developed by the Commission will allow cities and counties to report on the inclusion of
these elements.
Other Statutory Considerations for Project Lists
Pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a)(1), the project list shall not limit the flexibility of an
eligible city or county to fund projects in accordance with local needs and priorities, so
long as the projects are consistent with SHC Section 2030(b). After submittal of the project
list to the Commission, in the event a city or county elects to make changes to the project
list pursuant to the statutory provision noted above, formal notification of the Commission
is not required. However, standard reporting forms will provide an opportunity for
jurisdictions to annually communicate such changes to the Commission as part of the
regular reporting process.
Pursuant to SHC Section 2037, a city or county may spend its apportionment of RMRA
funds on transportation priorities other than those outlined in SHC 2030(b) if the city or
county’s average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) meets or exceeds 80. This provision
however, does not eliminate the requirement for cities and counties to prepare and submit
a list of projects or the requirement to consider technology, climate change, and complete
streets elements to the extent possible, cost-effective and feasible, in the design and
development of projects for RMRA funding.
In the event a city or county will spend its apportionment of RMRA funds on transportation
priorities other than those outlined in Section 8 of these guidelines and pursuant to SHC
2037, cities and counties are encouraged to work with its respective Regional
Transportation Planning Agency or Metropolitan Planning Organization to ensure that
projects are included in the applicable Regional Transportation Plan.
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 59 of 171
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
10
c.) List of Projects – Standard Format
Please note that project lists included in a city or county budget should, at a minimum,
include the elements mandated by statute: description, location, schedule for completion
and useful life elements. Cities and counties should include more detailed project
information in the project list submitted to the Commission.
To promote statewide consistency of project information submitted to the Commission, a
standard project list format is under development and is further explained in Appendix A.
For the initial submittal of project lists in 2017, cities and counties are required to use the
standard form available. The form will be provided by the Commission to cities and
counties at the earliest opportunity after adoption of the guidelines.
The Commission intends to make available an online platform so that cities and counties
can quickly and easily enter project list information and upload support documentation
online.
10. Process and Schedule for Project List Submittal
A city or county must submit a project list and support documentation by October 16, 2017 to the
Commission. All materials should be provided electronically to: ctc@dot.ca.gov. In the event a
jurisdiction wishes to submit a hard copy please contact the program manager at:
Eric Thronson, Deputy Director
California Transportation Commission
Eric.Thronson@dot.ca.gov
(916) 654-7179
11. Commission Submittal of Eligible Entities to the State Controller’s Office
Pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a), a city or county must submit a project list to the Commission
to be eligible for the receipt of RMRA funds, and the Commission must report to the Controller
the jurisdictions that are eligible to receive funding. Upon receipt of project lists and support
documentation, Commission staff will review submittals to ensure they are complete. Once a
project list submittal has been received and deemed complete by staff, the city or county will be
added to a list of jurisdictions eligible to receive RMRA funding for that fiscal year as required by
SHC Section 2034(a)(2). All project lists and support documentation submitted by cities and
counties will be posted to the Commission’s website.
The list of eligible cities and counties will be brought forward for Commission consideration at a
regularly scheduled meeting where staff will request Commission direction to transmit the list to
the Controller. Upon direction of the Commission, staff will transmit the list to the Controller
pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a)(2) and the cities and counties included on the list will be deemed
eligible to receive RMRA apportionments for that fiscal year pursuant to SHC Section 2034 (a)(1).
Upon receipt of the list from the Commission, the Controller is expected to apportion funds to the
cities and counties included on the list pursuant to SHC Sections 2034(a)(2) and 2032(h).
In the event a city or county does not provide a complete project list and support documentation
for Commission consideration and eligibility designation pursuant to deadlines established by
these guidelines, cities and counties are expected to work cooperatively with Commission staff
to provide any missing information as soon as possible. Once completed information is
provided, Commission action to establish eligibility will be taken at the next earliest opportunity.
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 60 of 171
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
11
V. Project Expenditure Reporting and Auditing
12. Scope of Completed and In-Progress Project Expenditure Report
Pursuant to SHC Section 2034(b), for each fiscal year in which an apportionment of RMRA funds
is received and upon expenditure of funds, cities and counties must submit documentation to the
Commission pertaining to the expenditure of those funds that includes: a description and location
of each completed project, the amount of funds expended on the project, the completion date,
and the estimated useful life of the improvement. The project expenditure reporting process will
also provide an opportunity for cities and counties to report on the progress and expenditures
associated with multi-year projects that are not yet complete.
Listed below are the specific statutory criteria for the content of the completed project expenditure
report along with additional guidance provided to help ensure a consistent statewide format and
to facilitate accountability and transparency within the Local Streets and Roads Program.
a.) Completed and In-Progress Project Expenditure Report – Content
Development and Content
Given the emphasis SB 1 places on accountability and transparency in delivering
California’s transportation programs, it is vitally important that cities and counties clearly
articulate the public benefit of these funds through the development of a robust project
expenditure report.
To promote statewide consistency in the content and format of project expenditure
information submitted and to facilitate transparency and robust reporting within the Local
Streets and Roads Funding Program, the following guidance is provided regarding the key
components of the completed project expenditure report. Additionally, Appendix B has
been developed to provide an example of project expenditure report content and format.
The project expenditure report must cover the full fiscal year and include projects that
have completed construction and are fully operational. The standard form will also provide
an opportunity for cities and counties to report on the progress and expenditures
associated with multi-year projects that are not yet complete.
Project Description
The report must include a project description for each completed and in-progress project.
The city/county is encouraged to provide a brief non-technical description (up to 5
sentences) written so that the main objectives of the project can be clearly and easily
understood by the public.
The level of detail provided will vary depending upon the nature of the project; however, it
is highly encouraged that the project description contain a minimum level of detail needed
for the public to understand exactly what work was completed or will be completed in the
future.
Project Location
The report must include a project location for each completed and in-progress project. The
city/county is required to provide project location information that, at a minimum, would
allow the public to clearly understand where within the community the project was or will
be constructed. For example, specific street names where improvements were undertaken
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 61 of 171
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
12
and project termini should be specified. If project-specific geolocation data is available, it
is highly encouraged to be included.
The Amount of Funds Expended and the Project Completion Date
The report must include the amount of RMRA funds expended on the project and its date
of completion or expected date of completion. For the purposes of the project expenditure
report, a project is considered complete when it is operational/open to traffic. Construction
contract close-out is not required to be complete.
Estimated Useful Life
The report must include an estimated useful life for each proposed project. The city/county
is encouraged to provide information regarding the estimated useful life of the project that
is clear, understandable, and based on industry-standards for the project materials and
design, where applicable.
Technology, Climate Change, and Complete Streets Considerations
SHC Section 2030(c)-(f) specifies additional project elements that will be incorporated into
RMRA-funded projects by cities and counties to the extent possible and cost effective,
and where feasible. These elements are:
• Technologies and material recycling techniques that lower greenhouse gas emissions
and reduce the cost of maintaining local streets and roads through material choice
and construction method.
• Systems and components in transportation infrastructure that recognize and
accommodate technologies including but not limited to ZEV fueling or charging and
infrastructure-vehicles communications for transitional or fully autonomous vehicles.
• Project features to better adapt the transportation asset to withstand the negative
effects of climate change and promote resiliency to impacts such as fires, floods, and
sea level rise (where appropriate given a project’s scope and risk level for asset
damage due to climate change).
• Complete Streets Elements (such as project features that improve the quality of
bicycle and pedestrian facilities and that improve safety for all users of transportation
facilities) are expected to be incorporated into RMRA funded projects to the extent
(as deemed by cities and counties) beneficial, cost-effective, and practicable in the
context of facility type, right-of-way, project scope, and quality of nearby facilities.
Cities and counties are encouraged to consider all of the above for implementation, to the
extent possible, cost-effective and feasible, in the design and development of projects for
RMRA funding. In the event that completed projects contain technology, climate change,
and complete streets considerations pursuant to SHC 2030(c)-(f). Standard reporting
forms developed by the Commission will allow, cities and counties to report on the
inclusion of these elements in RMRA-funded projects.
Standard reporting forms developed by the Commission will also provide space for
supplementary information to be provided regarding the benefits of RMRA funded
projects. Cities and counties should consider providing additional information in the
proposed project list as appropriate in order to clearly communicate how RMRA funding
is being effectively put to use.
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 62 of 171
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
13
Other Statutory Considerations for Project Expenditure Reports
Pursuant to SHC Section 2037, a city or county may spend its apportionment of RMRA
funds on transportation priorities other than those outlined in SHC Section 2030(b) if the
city’s or county’s average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) meets or exceeds 80. This
provision, however, does not eliminate the requirement for cities and counties to prepare
and submit a completed project expenditure report or the requirement to consider
technology, climate change, and complete streets elements to the extent possible, cost-
effective and feasible, in the design and development of projects for RMRA funding.
b.) Project Expenditure Report – Standard Format
To promote statewide consistency of project information submitted, a standard completed
and in-progress project expenditure report format has been developed and is further
explained in Appendix B.
For the initial submittal of project expenditure reports in 2017, cities and counties are
required to use the standard form available. The form will be provided by the Commission
to cities and counties at the earliest opportunity after adoption of the guidelines.
The Commission intends to make available an online platform so that cities and counties
can quickly and easily enter completed and in-progress project information online.
13. Process and Schedule for Project Expenditure Report Submittal
Completed Project Reports must be developed and submitted to the Commission according to
the statutory requirements of SHC Section 2034(b) as outlined above in Section 12.
A city or county must submit a Completed and In-Progress Project Report by October 1, 2018
and October 1st of each subsequent year to the Commission. All materials should be provided
electronically to ctc@dot.ca.gov. In the event a jurisdiction wishes to submit a hard copy please
contact the program manager at:
Eric Thronson, Deputy Director
California Transportation Commission
Eric.Thronson@dot.ca.gov
(916) 654-7179
14. Commission Reporting of Project Information Received
In order to meet the requirements of SB 1 which include accountability and transparency in the
delivery of California’s transportation programs, it is vitally important that the Commission clearly
communicate the public benefits achieved by RMRA funds. The Commission intends to articulate
these benefits through the development of an SB 1 accountability website and through other
reporting mechanisms such as the Commission’s Annual Report to the Legislature.
Upon receipt of project expenditure reports, Commission staff will review submittals to ensure
they are complete. If any critical project information is missing (i.e. SHC 2034(b) requirements
such as project description, location, date of completion, expenditures, and useful life of
improvement) Commission staff will notify city/county staff to complete for resubmittal within 10
working days.
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 63 of 171
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
14
All completed project expenditure reports submitted by cities and counties will be posted to the
Commission’s SB 1 Accountability website. The Commission will also analyze the completed
project expenditure reports provided by cities and counties and aggregate the project information
to provide both statewide and city/county level summary information such as the number, type,
and location of RMRA funded projects. This information will also be provided on the Commission’s
SB 1 Accountability website by December 1st each year, and included in the Commission’s Annual
Report to the Legislature which is delivered to the Legislature by December 15th each year.
In the event a city or county does not provide a project expenditure report by the deadline
requested (October 1st each year) to allow for Commission analysis and inclusion on the SB 1
accountability website and in the Annual Report to the Legislature, absence of the report will be
noted on the website, in the Annual Report, and may be reported to the State Controller.
15. State Controller Expenditure Reporting and Maintenance of Effort Monitoring
This section provides general information regarding the detailed expenditure reporting and
maintenance of effort requirements that cities and counties are responsible for demonstrating to
the State Controller’s Office. It is important to note that the Commission has no oversight or
authority regarding these provisions. Specific guidance should be sought from the State
Controller’s Office in these areas.
In addition to the RMRA completed project reporting requirements outlined in SHC Section
2034(b), SHC Section 2151 requires each city and county to file an annual report of expenditures
for street or road purposes with the State Controller’s Office. SHC Section 2153 imposes a
mandatory duty on the State Controller’s Office to ensure that the annual streets and roads
expenditure reports are adequate and accurate. Additional information regarding the preparation
of the annual streets and roads expenditure report is available online in the Guidelines Relating
to Gas Tax Expenditures for Cities and Counties prepared and maintained by the State
Controller’s Office. These Guidelines were last updated in August 2015 and are anticipated to be
updated again to address new accountability provisions of SB 1.
Expenditure authority for RMRA funding is governed by Article XIX of the California Constitution
as well as Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2030) of Division 3 of the SHC.
RMRA funds received should be deposited as follows in order to avoid the commingling of those
funds with other local funds:
a.) In the case of a city, into the city account that is designated for the receipt of state funds
allocated for local streets and roads.
b.) In the case of a county, into the county road fund.
c.) In the case of a city and county, into a local account that is designated for the receipt of
state funds allocated for local streets and roads.
RMRA funds are subject to audit by the Controller pursuant to Government Code Section 12410
and SHC Section 2153. Pursuant to SHC 2036, a city or county receiving an apportionment of
RMRA funds is required to sustain a maintenance of effort (MOE) by spending at least the annual
average of its general fund expenditures during the 2009–10, 2010–11, and 2011–12 fiscal years
for street, road, and highway purposes from the city’s or county’s general fund, Monitoring and
enforcement of the MOE requirement for RMRA funds will be carried out by the Controller.
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 64 of 171
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
15
MOE requirements are fully articulated in statute as follows:
Streets and Highways Code Section 2036
(a) cities and counties shall maintain their existing commitment of local funds for street, road, and
highway purposes in order to remain eligible for RMRA funding apportionment.
(b) In order to receive an allocation or apportionment pursuant to Section 2032, the city or
county shall annually expend from its general fund for street, road, and highway purposes an
amount not less than the annual average of its expenditures from its general fund during the
2009–10, 2010–11, and 2011–12 fiscal years, as reported to the Controller pursuant to Section
2151. For purposes of this subdivision, in calculating a city’s or county’s annual general fund
expenditures and its average general fund expenditures for the 2009–10, 2010–11, and 2011–
12 fiscal years, any unrestricted funds that the city or county may expend at its discretion,
including vehicle in-lieu tax revenues and revenues from fines and forfeitures, expended for
street, road, and highway purposes shall be considered expenditures from the general fund.
One-time allocations that have been expended for street and highway purposes, but which may
not be available on an ongoing basis, including revenue provided under the Teeter Plan Bond
Law of 1994 (Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Section 54773) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of
the Government Code), may not be considered when calculating a city’s or county’s annual
general fund expenditures.
(c) For any city incorporated after July 1, 2009, the Controller shall calculate an annual average
expenditure for the period between July 1, 2009, and December 31, 2015, inclusive, that the city
was incorporated.
(d) For purposes of subdivision (b), the Controller may request fiscal data from cities and
counties in addition to data provided pursuant to Section 2151, for the 2009–10, 2010–11, and
2011–12 fiscal years. Each city and county shall furnish the data to the Controller not later than
120 days after receiving the request. The Controller may withhold payment to cities and
counties that do not comply with the request for information or that provide incomplete data.
(e) The Controller may perform audits to ensure compliance with subdivision (b) when deemed
necessary. Any city or county that has not complied with subdivision (b) shall reimburse the
state for the funds it received during that fiscal year. Any funds returned as a result of a failure
to comply with subdivision (b) shall be reapportioned to the other counties and cities whose
expenditures are in compliance.
(f) If a city or county fails to comply with the requirements of subdivision (b) in a particular fiscal
year, the city or county may expend during that fiscal year and the following fiscal year a total
amount that is not less than the total amount required to be expended for those fiscal years for
purposes of complying with subdivision (b).
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 65 of 171
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
16
16. Workforce Development Requirements and Project Signage
Pursuant to SHC Section 2038, by July 1, 2023, cities and counties receiving RMRA funds must
follow guidelines developed by the California Workforce Development Board that address
participation & investment in, or partnership with, new or existing pre-apprenticeship training
programs. Cities and Counties receiving RMRA funds will also be eligible to compete for funding
from the Board’s pre-apprenticeship development and training grant program that includes a focus
on outreach to women, minority participants, underrepresented subgroups, formerly incarcerated
individuals, and local residents to access training and employment opportunities. Upon California
Workforce Development Board adoption of guidelines and grant funding opportunities in this area,
the Commission will update the Local Streets and Roads Program Reporting Guidelines to
incorporate this information by reference.
To demonstrate to the public that RMRA funds are being put to work, cities and counties should
consider including project funding information signage, where feasible and cost-effective, stating
that the project was made possible by SB 1 – The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017.
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 66 of 171
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
17
Appendix A – Local Streets and Roads Project List Form
To promote statewide consistency in the content and format of project information submitted to
the Commission, and to facilitate transparency within the Local Streets and Roads Funding
Program, Appendix A provides the general outline of a standard Project List form that is under
development for cities and counties to use in submitting the proposed list of projects to the
Commission. This will be an electronic form with a series of drop-down menus, check-boxes, and
fillable fields.
For the initial submittal of project lists in 2017, cities and counties are required to use the standard
form once available. The form will be provided by the Commission to cities and counties at the
earliest opportunity after adoption of the guidelines. The Commission intends to make available
an online platform so that cities and counties can quickly and easily enter project list information
and upload support documentation online.
Please note that project lists included in a city or county budget should include, at a minimum, the
elements mandated by statute: description, location, schedule for completion and useful life
elements, while the form below includes more detailed project information.
The nature/type of information that will be included in the standard form is outlined below:
General Info:
• City and County Name
• Project Lead and Department Contact Information
• Legislative District(s)
• Jurisdiction’s Average Network PCI and date/year of measurement
• Fiscal Year
• Supplementary Information 1 (a place for the city/county to report how RMRA projects were
identified as a priority, how they demonstrate an efficient investment of public funds, and
any additional benefits of the projects).
Proposed Project A
Description:
• Brief description (up to 5 sentences) written in a non-technical way that is understandable
to the public and which includes some quantifiable measurement about the project (e.g.
replace 5 culverts, repave/resurface 2 miles of road, restripe 1 mile of bike lanes, etc.)
• Have city/county check boxes specifying the type of project it is based on RMRA priorities
or “other” and the inclusion of additional Technology, Climate Change and Complete
Streets elements (SHC 2030). Space will be provided for cities and counties to provide an
optional narrative description of the additional elements and check boxes for why
additional elements may not have been included i.e. feasibility.
• Local/Regional project number (if applicable)
2,3 Supplementary and location information can be used to demonstrate a variety of benefits of RMRA
projects including effective prioritization of funds, equitable distribution, and efficient utilization of funding.
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 67 of 171
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
18
Location:
• Should be as specific as possible (i.e. street names and project termini) and geolocation
information should be provided if available 2
Proposed Schedule for Completion:
• Anticipated construction year
Estimated Useful Life:
• Should be clear, understandable, and based on industry-standards as applicable.
Support Documentation
• Electronic Copy of excerpt from City/County’s Adopted Budget or Budget Amendment
including proposed list of projects, or the staff report specifying the projects to be
included in a budget amendment
• Adopting resolution or meeting minutes to document budget/amendment approval
• Additional information regarding support documentation is available in Section 10 of the
guidelines
Project Flexibility
Pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a)(1), this project list shall not limit the flexibility of an eligible city
or county to fund projects in accordance with local needs and priorities, so long as the projects
are consistent with SHC Section 2030(b).
2,3 Supplementary and location information can be used to demonstrate a variety of benefits of RMRA
projects including effective prioritization of funds, equitable distribution, and efficient utilization of funding.
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 68 of 171
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
19
Appendix B - Local Streets and Roads Project Expenditure Report Form
To promote statewide consistency in the content and format of project expenditure information
submitted to the Commission, and to facilitate transparency within the Local Streets and Roads
Funding Program, Appendix B provides the general outline of a standard Project Expenditure
Report form that is under development for cities and counties to use. This will be an electronic
form with a series of drop-down menus, check-boxes, and fillable fields.
For the initial submittal of project expenditure reports to the Commission in 2018, cities and
counties are required to use the standard form once available. The form will be provided by the
Commission to cities and counties at the earliest opportunity after adoption of the guidelines.
The Commission intends to make available an online platform so that cities and counties can
quickly and easily enter project expenditure information online.
The nature/type of information that will be included in the standard form is outlined below:
General Info:
• City/County Name
• Project Lead and Department Contact Information
• Legislative District(s)
• Jurisdiction’s Average Network PCI and year/date of measurement.
• Total Funds Apportioned during the Fiscal Year
• Supplementary Information 3 (a spot for the city/county to report how RMRA projects were
identified as a priority, how they demonstrate an efficient investment of public funds, and any
additional benefits of the projects).
Completed or In Progress Project A
Description:
• Brief description (up to 5 sentences) written in a non-technical way that is understandable
to the public and which includes some quantifiable measurement about the project (e.g.
replace 5 culverts, repave/resurface 2 miles of road, restripe 1 mile of bike lanes, etc.)
• Have city/county check boxes specifying the type of project it is based on RMRA priorities
or “other” and the inclusion of additional Technology, Climate Change and Complete
Streets elements (SHC 2034). Space will be provided for cities and counties to provide an
optional narrative description of the additional elements and check boxes for why
additional elements may not have been included i.e. feasibility.
• Local/Regional project number (if applicable)
• Space will be provided for cities and counties to identify any project list changes resulting
from the flexibility afforded by SHC 2034(a)(1) such as projects added, deleted, or
replaced if applicable.
3,4 Supplementary and location information can be used to demonstrate a variety of benefits of RMRA
projects including effective prioritization of funds, equitable distribution, and efficient utilization of funding.
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 69 of 171
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
20
Location:
• Must be as specific as possible (i.e. street names and project termini) and geolocation
inform ation is highly encouraged to be provided if available 4
Amount of Funds Expended:
• Enter the amount of RMRA funds expended on the project and the total project cost
• Enter the amount and type of other funds expended on the project
Completion Date:
• Drop down menu to select the month and year that the project is complete/operational etc.
• Place to enter status update on multi-year projects and expected completion date
Estimated Useful Life:
• Should be clear, understandable, and based on industry-standards as applicable.
Signage:
• Provide a place to report on the inclusion of project funding information signage, if applicable
3,4 Supplementary and location information can be used to demonstrate a variety of benefits of RMRA
projects including effective prioritization of funds, equitable distribution, and efficient utilization of funding.
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 70 of 171
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
21
Appendix C – Local Streets and Roads Program Schedule
FY 17-18
Adoption of Final Guidelines Call for Project Lists August 16-17, 2017
Technical Assistance and Outreach to Cities/Counties August 18 – October 16, 2017
Project Lists due to Commission October 16, 2017
Commission Adopts List of Eligible Cities and Counties December 6-7, 2017
Commission Submits List to Controller December 6-7, 2017
Controller FY 17-18 Apportionments Begin Mid-January 2018
Completed Project Report Submitted to Commission
for 2017 - 2018 Fiscal Year
October 1, 2018
Commission Posts Statewide LSR Program
Accountability Information Online
December 1, 2018
FY 18-19
Guidelines Update as Needed TBD
Call for Project Lists TBD 5
Commission Review, Approval & Adoption of List of
Eligible Cities and Counties
TBD 6
Commission Submits Final List to Controller July 1, 2018
Controller FY 18-19 Apportionments Begin Mid-September 2018
Completed Project Report Submitted to Commission
for 2018 - 2019 Fiscal Year October 1, 2019
Commission Posts Statewide LSR Program
Accountability Information Online December 1, 2019
5,6 The Commission is working with city and county representatives to develop a schedule for FY 18-19
that accommodates city and county budgeting processes; statutory clarification may be needed in this
area.
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 71 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-4
DATE:
10/10/17
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report – Public Works Department
1992 Street Assessment District
Improvement Project
Construction Award
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Council:
1. Award a construction contract for Base Bid and Bid Alternate No. 1 in the total
amount of $149,000 to Intermountain Slurry Seal for the 1992 Street Assessment
District Improvement Project (Project No. C2017R01).
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Intermountain Slurry Seal
in the amount of $149,000 for the construction of the 1992 Street Assessment
District Improvement Project.
3. Authorize the Director of Public Works to file a Notice of Completion with the
County Recorder upon satisfactory completion of the project.
DISCUSSION:
Background:
The Las Encinas (1992) Assessment District is a bond-backed assessment district
created to improve street conditions in areas of specific new developments. In 1993,
bonds were issued to construct specific road improvements and homeowners in the
improved areas were assessed an annual amount to re-pay those bonds. Repayment
of the bonds was completed in September of 2008 and annual assessments were
discontinued at that time.
After the bonds were issued, improvements constructed, principal and interest paid off,
there remains an estimated $175,000 in unused funds in the District today. The District
origination documents allow for any remaining funds to be used on maintenance and
repairs of the streets in the District. The 2017-2019 Budget included an appropriation
Page 72 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-4
DATE:
10/10/17
for the 1992 Street Assessment District Improvement Project (Project), to expend all
remaining funds and close out the fund. The Project consists of asphalt leveling course
and a surface scrub seal, and is intended to use the remainder of the fund balance.
Knowing that the funding available would not be adequate to complete work for all
roadway segments in the assessment district, traffic usage and pavement conditions
were evaluated for each roadway segment to prioritize the project scope. It was
determined that the Del Rio Road segment would be listed as the base bid, with four
separate bid alternates for Alturas Road, San Gregorio Road (two segments), and La
Canada Lane. Project plans, specifications, and estimates were prepared by in-house
engineering staff with the intention of maximizing the total amount of roadway
maintained and repaired.
A leveling course and scrub seal was determined to be the most cost-effective
treatment for pavement work in the project. Given the significant roadway cracking, the
use of the heavier polymer modified scrub seal is being recommended to bridge gaps
and provide maximum longevity.
A Finding of Exemption was prepared for this project under CEQA requirements. This
project was determined to be Categorically Exempt under Section 15301, Existing
Facilities. The Notice of Determination is on file.
Analysis:
The project was advertised for a minimum of 30 days, starting July 21, 2017, with a bid
opening on August 22, 2017. A total of one (1) bid was received by Intermountain
Slurry Seal of Sparks, NV, with Base Bid and Bid Alternate prices as follows:
Bid Schedule Bid Price Road Segments Included
Base Bid: $127,500 Del Rio Road
Bid Alternate 1: $ 21,500 Alturas Road
Bid Alternate 2: $ 44,000 San Gregorio Road (Station 10+00 to 46+00)
Bid Alternate 3: $ 62,000 San Gregorio Road (Station 46+00 to 91+20)
Bid Alternate 4: $ 20,000 La Canada Lane
The bid package was written so that the award of the contract would be based upon the
lowest Base Bid + Bid Alternates not to exceed $155,000, leaving approximately
$20,000 for design, inspection, and contingencies. To comply with this condition,
Intermountain Slurry Seal’s Base Bid for $127,500 plus Alternative 1 for $21,500 for a
total of $149,000 will make up the contract scope of work. The bid was reviewed for
accuracy and compliance with the City of Atascadero bidding requirements and was
determined to be responsive.
The received bid was considerably less than the engineer’s estimate of $181,295 (Base
Bid + Bid Alternate 1) and is considered very reasonable for the scope of work. Due to
the low risk of this type of project (no underground work or excavation, lump sum and
area-based bid quantities, and minimal potential for unexpected conditions), a 10%
contingency is expected to be sufficient.
Page 73 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-4
DATE:
10/10/17
During construction, some inconveniences are expected to vehicular and pedestrian
traffic along the roadway segments. The Contractor will be required to prepare a traffic
control plan, and City staff will work with the Contractor to minimize travel delays and
impediments to driveways. Property owners on each roadway segment will be notified
of the construction schedule prior to work beginning.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impact of the award of the 1992 Street Assessment District Improvement
Project is the expenditure of $149,000 in budgeted 1992 Street Improvement
Assessment District funds.
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
Design and Bid Phase $ 5,500
Construction Contract $ 149,000
Staff/Inspection/Testing/Construction Administration $ 5,600
Contingency (10%) $ 14,900
Total Estimated Expenditure: $ 175,000
BUDGET FUNDING
1992 Assessment District Funds $ 175,000
Total Estimated Expenditure: $ 175,000
ALTERNATIVE:
Council may direct staff to rebid the project. This is not recommended since the bid
which was received is determined to be an excellent value, and a rebid will likely result
in significantly higher bid proposals, and would result in the project being postponed
until the 2018 construction season.
ATTACHMENT:
Bid Summary
Page 74 of 171
CITY OF ATASCADERO
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
6500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO, CA 93422
Telephone (805) 470-3180 Fax (805) 470-3181
1992 ASSEMENT DISTICT RESURFACING PROJECT
August 22, 2017
Base Bid
Amount
+ Alt 1 + Alt 1-2 + Alt 1-3 + Alt 1-4 Contractor
127,500 149,000 193,000 255,000 275,000 Intermountain Slurry Seal, Inc.
Bid will be Awarded to the lowest base bid or base + alternates not to exceed $155,000.
ITEM NUMBER: A-4
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 75 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-5
DATE: 10/10/17
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report - City Manager’s Office
Bonus for Select Part-Time Employees
RECOMMENDATION:
Council authorize the City Manager to provide one-time lump sum bonuses to part-time
employees as follows:
<3 years
3 years - 5.99
years
6 years to 9.99
years
10 years or
greater
750 hours or more -$ 500.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,500.00$
<750 hours -$ -$ -$ -$
Years of Employment with the City as of 8/31/17
Hours Worked 9/1/16
through 8/31/17
DISCUSSION:
Part-time employees play a critical role in providing City services to the community. Many
functions such as lifeguards, score-keepers, office work, transit dispatchers, cashiers,
central receptionists, seasonal firefighters, and planning are provided in whole or part by
part-time employees. These employees are not represented and there is no
Memorandum of Understanding governing their wages and benefits.
A one-time lump sum bonus of $3,000 was provided to each full-time employee, as part of
agreements with each of the other five labor groups, (the Atascadero Police Officers
Association (APOA), the Atascadero Professional Firefighters Association (APFA), the
Mid-Management/Professional Employees Association (MMPEA), the Service Employees
International Union Local 620 (SEIU), as well as the Non-Represented Professional and
Management Workers and Confidential Employees (Non-represented)).
Recognizing the important role that certain part-time employees play in the success of the
City, it was determined that certain part-time positions should also receive a one-time lump
sum bonus.
The criteria proposed for the part-time bonus is that an employee must have worked a
minimum of 750 hours (slightly less than half time) during the period of September 1, 2016
through August 31, 2017. In addition to that, it is proposed that the bonus should be tiered
based on consecutive years of service to the City as of August 31, 2017.
Page 76 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-5
DATE: 10/10/17
FISCAL IMPACT:
Providing a one-time bonus to select part-time employees is expected to have a one -
time budgeted cost of $9,800.
ALTERNATIVES:
Council could direct staff to not provide bonuses to part-time employees or may direct
the City Manager to provide bonuses using a criteria other than that presented.
ATTACHMENTS: None.
Page 77 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-6
DATE: 10/10/17
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report – City Manager’s Office
Approval of Minor Staffing Changes to Zoo Division and Police
Department
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Council:
1. Concur with minor staffing changes in the Zoo Division, as recommended by the
City Manager.
2. Concur with minor staffing changes in the Police Department, as recommended
by the City Manager.
3. Amend the Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2017 -2018.
DISCUSSION:
City staff continues to look for better and more efficient ways to deliver many and varied
City services in a cost-effective manner. At the core of this continual improvement are
the City employees who perform these services. The City is very fortunate to have
recruited and retained highly skilled and highly professional persons that keep the City
running, and organizing personnel for each department is an importan t component of
optimizing City services and functions.
Zoo Staffing Changes:
Earlier this year, the City’s Senior Zookeeper resigned and left a vacancy in the Zoo
Division. In evaluating staffing levels and service needs in the department , it was
determined that with existing funding, a reorganization of the Division could result in
operational efficiencies, provide better coverage and maximize personnel’s expertise.
In order to achieve these results, the following changes are proposed to animal keeping
staff:
Page 78 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-6
DATE: 10/10/17
Budgeted
Positions
Proposed
Positions
Senior Zookeeper 1 0
Lead Zookeeper 0 2
Zookeeper I 4 3
Total Animal Care Staff 5 5
Two Zookeeper I employees will be promoted to the new Lead Zookeeper position, and
the City will conduct an open recruitment to fill the one vacant Zookeeper I position.
The Lead Zookeeper positions will split many of the duties and responsibilities formerly
performed by the Senior Zookeeper, allowing each time to continue to direct animal
care duties and provide supervisory coverage in the Zoo Director’s absence.
Because the Lead Zookeeper position is a new position, the City Salary Schedule will
need to be amended to reflect the new position at Range 15. There will be some minor
savings during the first two years of implementation, but by year three the costs are
projected to be similar to total cost of the Senior Zookeeper position currently in the
budget (within $130 a year).
Police Department Staffing Positions:
The City’s Support Services Supervisor, a long-time employee of the Police
Department, has announced her retirement at the end of this year. This caused staff to
look at various options for replacing this key employee and meeting some unmet needs
in the department. As part of this evaluation it was determined that splitting the dispatch
responsibilities and the records responsibilities between two lead positions would
provide smoother operations and some minor savings that would be used to hire
additional part-time records help. The following changes are proposed to Police
Department Staffing:
Budgeted
Positions
Proposed
Positions
Support Services Supervisor 1 0
Support Services Lead Technician 1 1
Records Lead Technician 0 1
Total Positions 2 2
The re-organization is slated to take place upon the retirement of the Support Services
Supervisor, however, in order to train the new employee and insure an orderly
transition, it is hoped that the new employee will be on -board with the City
approximately one month prior to the retirement. An open recruitment will be held to fill
the position.
Because the new Records Lead Position is a new position, the City Salary Schedule will
need to be amended to reflect the new position at Range SS24. There will be no
additional costs or savings due to this re-organization.
Page 79 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-6
DATE: 10/10/17
FISCAL IMPACT:
The re-organizations are expected to result in minor savings in the first two years of
implementation; however, the long-term savings from the proposed changes are
negligible.
ATTACHMENT:
Salary Schedule
Page 80 of 171
CLASSIFICATION RANGE STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP E
Account Clerk I 7 2,900.03 3,045.03 3,197.28 3,357.14 3,525.00
Account Clerk II 11 3,197.28 3,357.14 3,525.00 3,701.25 3,886.31
Accounting Specialist - Confidential 24c 4,498.89 4,723.83 4,960.02 5,208.02 5,468.42
Administrative Assistant 20 3,983.47 4,182.64 4,391.77 4,611.36 4,841.93
Administrative Assistant - Confidential 20c 4,080.63 4,284.66 4,498.89 4,723.83 4,960.02
Administrative Secretary 13 3,357.14 3,525.00 3,701.25 3,886.31 4,080.63
Administrative Services Director M54 9,250.94 9,713.49 10,199.16 10,709.12 11,244.58
Administrative Support Assistant 13 3,357.14 3,525.00 3,701.25 3,886.31 4,080.63
Assistant Planner 24 4,391.77 4,611.36 4,841.93 5,084.03 5,338.23
Associate Civil Engineer 37 6,028.93 6,330.38 6,646.90 6,979.25 7,328.21
Associate Civil Engineer - Registered
Engineer
41 6,646.90 6,979.25 7,328.21 7,694.62 8,079.35
Associate Planner 30 5,084.03 5,338.23 5,605.14 5,885.40 6,179.67
Bldg Inspector / Plans Examiner 27 4,723.83 4,960.02 5,208.02 5,468.42 5,741.84
Building Inspector I 22 4,182.64 4,391.77 4,611.36 4,841.93 5,084.03
Building Inspector II 26 4,611.36 4,841.93 5,084.03 5,338.23 5,605.14
Building Maintenance Specialist 13 3,357.14 3,525.00 3,701.25 3,886.31 4,080.63
Building Maintenance Supervisor 27 4,723.83 4,960.02 5,208.02 5,468.42 5,741.84
Capital Projects Manager 31 5,208.02 5,468.42 5,741.84 6,028.93 6,330.38
Central Receptionist 11 3,197.28 3,357.14 3,525.00 3,701.25 3,886.31
City Manager CM65 12,025.38 12,626.65 13,257.98 13,920.88 14,616.92
Code Enforcement Officer SS22 4,168.75 4,377.19 4,596.05 4,825.85 5,067.14
Community Development Director M54 9,250.94 9,713.49 10,199.16 10,709.12 11,244.58
Community Services Officer SS8 2,962.65 3,110.78 3,266.32 3,429.64 3,601.12
Corporal PD35 5,778.19 6,067.10 6,370.46 6,688.98 7,023.43
Corporal - Intermediate POST PD35I 5,922.65 6,218.78 6,529.72 6,856.21 7,199.02
Corporal- Advanced POST PD35A 6,067.10 6,370.46 6,688.98 7,023.43 7,374.60
Deputy Administrative Services Director M44 7,248.35 7,610.77 7,991.31 8,390.88 8,810.42
Deputy City Manager M44 7,248.35 7,610.77 7,991.31 8,390.88 8,810.42
Deputy Community Development Director M46 7,610.77 7,991.31 8,390.88 8,810.42 9,250.94
Deputy Community Development
Director / Building Official / Economic
Development Director
M51 8,600.67 9,030.70 9,482.24 9,956.35 10,454.17
Deputy Public Works Director M44 7,248.35 7,610.77 7,991.31 8,390.88 8,810.42
Engineering Technician I 13 3,357.14 3,525.00 3,701.25 3,886.31 4,080.63
Engineering Technician II 18 3,793.78 3,983.47 4,182.64 4,391.77 4,611.36
Finance Technician 20 3,983.47 4,182.64 4,391.77 4,611.36 4,841.93
Finance Technician - Confidential 20c 4,080.63 4,284.66 4,498.89 4,723.83 4,960.02
Fire Captain F40 6,571.09 6,899.64 7,244.62 7,606.85 7,987.19
Fire Captain/ Haz Mat Specialist F40H 6,702.51 7,037.64 7,389.52 7,759.00 8,146.95
Fire Captain/Paramedic F40P 7,228.20 7,589.61 7,969.09 8,367.54 8,785.92
Fire Captain/Paramedic/HazMat Spec.F40HP 7,359.62 7,727.60 8,113.98 8,519.68 8,945.66
Fire Chief FC59 10,443.55 10,965.73 11,514.02 12,089.72 12,694.21
Fire Engineer F33 5,537.91 5,814.81 6,105.55 6,410.83 6,731.37
Fire Engineer/ Haz Mat Specialist F33H 5,648.67 5,931.10 6,227.66 6,539.04 6,865.99
Fire Engineer/Paramedic F33P 6,091.70 6,396.29 6,716.10 7,051.91 7,404.51
Salary Schedule
MONTHLY
Effective October 10, 2017
Page 1 of 3
ITEM NUMBER: A-6
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 81 of 171
CLASSIFICATION RANGE STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP E
Salary Schedule
MONTHLY
Effective October 10, 2017
Fire Engineer/Paramedic/HazMat Spec.F33HP 6,202.46 6,512.58 6,838.21 7,180.12 7,539.13
Fire Marshal F40 6,571.09 6,899.64 7,244.62 7,606.85 7,987.19
Fire Marshal / Haz Mat Specialist F40H 6,702.51 7,037.64 7,389.52 7,759.00 8,146.95
Firefighter F30 5,148.62 5,406.05 5,676.35 5,960.17 6,258.18
Firefighter/ Haz Mat Specialist F30H 5,251.59 5,514.17 5,789.88 6,079.37 6,383.34
Firefighter/Paramedic F30P 5,663.48 5,946.65 6,243.98 6,556.18 6,883.99
Firefighter/Paramedic/HazMat Spec.F30HP 5,766.45 6,054.77 6,357.51 6,675.39 7,009.16
GIS Analyst I 25 4,498.89 4,723.83 4,960.02 5,208.02 5,468.42
Information Technology Manager 40 6,488.65 6,813.08 7,153.73 7,511.42 7,886.99
Inspector 22 4,182.64 4,391.77 4,611.36 4,841.93 5,084.03
Lead Zookeeper 15 3,525.00 3,701.25 3,886.31 4,080.63 4,284.66
Maintenance Leadworker 24 4,391.77 4,611.36 4,841.93 5,084.03 5,338.23
Maintenance Worker I 8 2,972.52 3,121.15 3,277.21 3,441.07 3,613.12
Maintenance Worker II 13 3,357.14 3,525.00 3,701.25 3,886.31 4,080.63
Maintenance Worker II - Pesticide Appl.15 3,525.00 3,701.25 3,886.31 4,080.63 4,284.66
Management Analyst I- Confidential 24c 4,498.89 4,723.83 4,960.02 5,208.02 5,468.42
Office Assistant I 5 2,761.93 2,900.03 3,045.03 3,197.28 3,357.14
Office Assistant II 9 3,045.03 3,197.28 3,357.14 3,525.00 3,701.25
Office Assistant III 11 3,197.28 3,357.14 3,525.00 3,701.25 3,886.31
Personnel Specialist- Confidential 24c 4,498.89 4,723.83 4,960.02 5,208.02 5,468.42
Police Chief PC59 10,443.55 10,965.73 11,514.02 12,089.72 12,694.21
Police Commander PC49 8,182.80 8,591.94 9,021.54 9,472.62 9,946.25
Police Officer PD31 5,240.99 5,503.04 5,778.19 6,067.10 6,370.46
Police Officer - Advanced POST PD31A 5,503.04 5,778.19 6,067.10 6,370.46 6,688.98
Police Officer - Intermediate POST PD31I 5,372.01 5,640.61 5,922.64 6,218.77 6,529.71
Police Officer Recruit SS21 4,067.07 - - - -
Police Records Technician SS14 3,429.64 3,601.12 3,781.18 3,970.24 4,168.75
Police Sergeant PD40 6,529.70 6,856.19 7,199.00 7,558.95 7,936.90
Police Sergeant - Advanced POST PD40A 6,692.94 7,027.59 7,378.97 7,747.92 8,135.32
Police Sergeant - Supervisory POST PD40S 6,856.19 7,199.00 7,558.95 7,936.90 8,333.75
Property Evidence Specialist SS25 4,483.94 4,708.14 4,943.55 5,190.73 5,450.27
Property Evidence Specialist - EMD SS25E 4,533.94 4,760.64 4,998.67 5,248.60 5,511.03
Property Evidence Specialist
- EMD with Longevity
SS25EL 4,758.14 4,996.05 5,245.85 5,508.14 5,783.55
Property Evidence Specialist
w/Longevity
SS25L 4,708.14 4,943.55 5,190.73 5,450.27 5,722.78
Public Works Director M54 9,250.94 9,713.49 10,199.16 10,709.12 11,244.58
Public Works Inspector 24 4,391.77 4,611.36 4,841.93 5,084.03 5,338.23
Public Works Operations Manager 34 5,605.14 5,885.40 6,179.67 6,488.65 6,813.08
Recreation Coordinator 18 3,793.78 3,983.47 4,182.64 4,391.77 4,611.36
Recreation Supervisor 26 4,611.36 4,841.93 5,084.03 5,338.23 5,605.14
Records Lead Technician SS24 4,377.19 4,596.05 4,825.85 5,067.14 5,320.50
Registered Veterinary Technician 12 3,277.21 3,441.07 3,613.12 3,793.78 3,983.47
Senior Building Inspector 31 5,208.02 5,468.42 5,741.84 6,028.93 6,330.38
Senior Building Maintenance Specialist 18 3,793.78 3,983.47 4,182.64 4,391.77 4,611.36
Senior Maintenance Worker 18 3,793.78 3,983.47 4,182.64 4,391.77 4,611.36
Page 2 of 3
ITEM NUMBER: A-6
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 82 of 171
CLASSIFICATION RANGE STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP E
Salary Schedule
MONTHLY
Effective October 10, 2017
Senior Planner 34 5,605.14 5,885.40 6,179.67 6,488.65 6,813.08
Senior Property Evidence Specialist SS31 5,190.72 5,450.26 5,722.78 6,008.92 6,309.37
Senior Property Evidence Specialist
- EMD
SS31E 5,240.72 5,502.76 5,777.90 6,066.80 6,370.14
Senior Property Evidence Specialist
- EMD with Longevity
SS31EL 5,500.26 5,775.27 6,064.03 6,367.23 6,685.59
Senior Property Evidence Specialist
w/Longevity
SS31L 5,450.26 5,722.77 6,008.91 6,309.36 6,624.83
Senior Technical Support Specialist 24 4,391.77 4,611.36 4,841.93 5,084.03 5,338.23
Senior Zookeeper 19 3,886.31 4,080.63 4,284.66 4,498.89 4,723.83
Support Services Lead Technician SS24 4,377.19 4,596.05 4,825.85 5,067.14 5,320.50
Support Services Lead Technician
w/ Longevity
SS24L 4,596.05 4,825.85 5,067.14 5,320.50 5,586.53
Support Services Lead Technician
- EMD
SS24E 4,427.19 4,648.55 4,880.98 5,125.03 5,381.28
Support Services Lead Technician
- EMD with Longevity
SS24EL 4,646.05 4,878.35 5,122.27 5,378.38 5,647.30
Support Services Supervisor SS33 5,450.26 5,722.77 6,008.91 6,309.36 6,624.83
Support Services Supervisor - EMD SS33E 5,500.26 5,775.27 6,064.03 6,367.23 6,685.59
Support Services Supervisor - EMD
with Longevity
SS33EL 5,772.77 6,061.41 6,364.48 6,682.70 7,016.84
Support Services Supervisor w/Longevity SS33L 5,722.77 6,008.91 6,309.36 6,624.83 6,956.07
Support Services Technician SS21 4,067.07 4,270.42 4,483.94 4,708.14 4,943.55
Support Services Technician - EMD SS21E 4,117.07 4,322.92 4,539.07 4,766.02 5,004.32
Support Services Technician - EMD
with Longevity
SS21EL 4,320.42 4,536.44 4,763.26 5,001.42 5,251.49
Support Services Technician w/Longevity SS21L 4,270.42 4,483.94 4,708.14 4,943.55 5,190.73
Systems Administrator III 34 5,605.14 5,885.40 6,179.67 6,488.65 6,813.08
Technical Support Specialist 14 3,441.07 3,613.12 3,793.78 3,983.47 4,182.64
Technical Trainer II 20 3,983.47 4,182.64 4,391.77 4,611.36 4,841.93
WWTP Operator I 16 3,613.12 3,793.78 3,983.47 4,182.64 4,391.77
WWTP Operator II 20 3,983.47 4,182.64 4,391.77 4,611.36 4,841.93
WWTP Operator III 24 4,391.77 4,611.36 4,841.93 5,084.03 5,338.23
WWTP Operator in Training 11 3,197.28 3,357.14 3,525.00 3,701.25 3,886.31
Zoo Director M39 6,417.95 6,738.85 7,075.79 7,429.58 7,801.06
Zoo Education Curator 9 3,045.03 3,197.28 3,357.14 3,525.00 3,701.25
Zoo Facilities Maintenance Tech.8 2,972.52 3,121.15 3,277.21 3,441.07 3,613.12
Zookeeper I 8 2,972.52 3,121.15 3,277.21 3,441.07 3,613.12
Zookeeper II 13 3,357.14 3,525.00 3,701.25 3,886.31 4,080.63
Page 3 of 3
ITEM NUMBER: A-6
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 83 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-7
DATE: 10/10/17
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report – City Manager’s Office
Appointment of Atascadero Tourism Business Improvement District
(ATBID) Board Member to the Visit SLO CAL
Tourism Marketing District Board
RECOMMENDATION:
Council appoint Amar Sohi to serve on the Visit SLO CAL Tourism Marketing Board.
DISCUSSION:
On April 29, 2015, the new Visit San Luis Obispo County Tourism Marketing District
(VSLOCTMD), currently referred to as Visit SLO CAL, created a 15-member Board of
Directors. The Directors include the following:
One lodging business representative from each of the cities is appointed by the
respective jurisdiction’s city council or tourism organization, as each city
determines (7)
One lodging business representative is appointed by the County Board of
Supervisors (1)
One lodging representative each from a vacation rental, bed and breakfast, a nd
an R.V. Park are elected by the Board of Directors (3)
Three at-large lodging representative members are elected by the Board of
Directors (3)
One representative (non-lodging owner) is appointed by the County of San Luis
Obispo (1)
Each Director must be a representative of an assessed lodging business , except for the
County representative. The City Council, with input from the Atascadero Tourism
Business Improvement District (ATBID) Advisory Board, has historically appointed the
City of Atascadero representative.
At a City Council meeting held June 13, 2017, J.P. Patel, was appointed as the ATBID
representative to serve on the Visit SLO CAL Tourism Board. The appointment was for
a three-year board term, July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2020. On September 7 2017,
Board Member J.P. Patel resigned his positions on ATBID and the Visit SLO CAL
Page 84 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: A-7
DATE: 10/10/17
Tourism Board due to the sale of his hotel property, Best Western Colony Inn. The
vacancy on the Visit SLO CAL Tourism Board will need to be filled with a representative
from an Atascadero assessed lodging business.
At their September 20, 2017 meeting, t he ATBID Advisory Board recently decided to
recommend both Tom O’Malley and Amar Sohi for consideration by the Council to fill
the vacant position through June 30, 2020 . However, Tom O’Malley has since.
removed his name from consideration.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
Page 85 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report - City Manager’s Office
Analyzing the Desirability of
a North County Animal Shelter
RECOMMENDATION:
Council authorize the City Manager to share costs, (at 50% in an amount not exceed
$20,000), with the City of Paso Robles’ a greements with Ravatt Albrecht & Associates
and Petaluma Animal Services Foundation to prepare an analysis of the cost-
effectiveness of developing and operating a North County Animal Shelter.
DISCUSSION:
Under state law, each incorporated City has the option of contracting with the County or
providing their own animal services consistent with state standards. All seven cities in
the County have, in turn, contracted with the County for animal services. Under this
service contract, all seven cities and the County share the cost of animal services based
on a formula that factors the agencies' proportionate use of field services and shelter
services. The County Division operates a single animal shelter to house and care for
stray and owner relinquished animals. This shelter, located at 885 Oklahoma Avenue in
San Luis Obispo, is the County's only open intake animal shelter and receives
approximately 4,500 animals annually. In April of 2015, the County Board of
Supervisors directed County staff to replace the animal shelter and to have cities pay
their proportionate share of the cost of the shelter.
After months of contentious negotiation, , the County required each City , by the end of
February 2017, to either opt out of participating in the new shelter or to approve an
agreement (Attachment A1) that provided for the following:
The total budgeted cost of the Project ($14.5 million) and the portion that the
County will exclusively pay ($1.45 million). The County will be paying 100% of
the land costs, the demolition costs for the existing facility and the remaining
depreciation value of the existing facility. The County will also pay for a larger
portion of the utility extension along Oklahoma Ave. See Exhibit D of the
Agreement for project budget details.
A procedure for authorization of excess construction costs. Any projected costs
that would bring the Project in 10% or more above the budget must be approved
by all cities.
Opt-out provisions that detail the withdrawing party’s obligations as follows:
Page 86 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
o After approval of the agreement, but prior to October 31, 2017 - the
withdrawing party shall pay its share (as detailed in Exhibit C) of costs
incurred by the County prior to the date of receipt of notice of withdrawal
and no financing/interest costs.
o After October 31, but prior to the beginning of construction - the
withdrawing party shall pay its share (as detailed in Exhibit C) of costs
incurred by the County prior to the date of receipt of notice of withdrawal
which could include financing/interest costs. (There may be differing
understandings of what the withdrawal language means in this instance.)
o After construction begins- the withdrawing party must pay its entire
proportionate share of “Total Project Costs” which could include all
financing/interest costs associated with the project
The County is to provide competitive long-term financing for the Project.
Allocation of costs based on a rolling three year proportionate use calculation.
As shown in Exhibit C of the Agreement, the City of Atascadero has averaged
14.37% of total shelter use over the last three years. This percentage will
change each year based on the average of the previous three years.
Governance of animal shelter operations. An operations committee comprised of
a County representative and 2-3 contracting city representatives will review
significant policy and budget decisions for the shelter.
A city may opt out of service contracts during the life of the shelter; however each
City is still responsible for their proportionate share of the Project costs.
A committee comprised of three contracting city representatives and two County
representatives shall participate in an ad-hoc value engineering team tasked with
investigating and identifying the most effective and efficient methods to construct
a shelter. Atascadero’s City Manager currently serves on this committee.
On February 14, 2017, the Council considered whether or not to participate in the
County-wide shelter. Although staff had reached out to other shelters and investigated
other service alternatives, a viable alternative was not found prior to the February
county deadline. Given the lack of viable alternatives at the time, the Council directed
the City Manager to execute the agreement on February 14, 2017.
Because the cost of the facility’s construction and operation will significantly increase
the costs to participating cities, the City of Atascadero and the City of Paso Robles have
continued to explore other options for service delivery. With the addition of costs for
the new shelter, it is expected that the City of Atascadero and the City of Paso Robles
together will be paying around $900,000 to the County for animal services. (The City of
Atascadero is currently paying almost $250,000 for field and shelter operation services,
and is expected to pay between $120,000 - $160,000 more per year for the animal
shelter, depending on the interest rate and term of financing.)
Recent investigations have indicated that there may be a potential service delivery
option for a North County Animal Shelter that may be cost effective and efficient.
Because there is not adequate information at this time to make a determination of the
viability of this service delivery method, the Mayors of Atascadero and Paso Robles
recently sent letters to the Board of Supervisors requesting the County to delay its
process in order to allow our two cities the time needed to decide whether or not to
construct a North County animal shelter. This time would allow the Cities time to retain
Page 87 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
an advisor to determine the nature and scope of capital improvements necessary for a
North County shelter; issue an RFP for an advisor on operations; and return to Coun cil
with recommendations. The County voted to move forward with their project with no
delay. There is need for prompt action, given the October 31, 2017 deadline.
There are many factors that need to be examined in order to determine if a North
County Shelter is the right decision for our cities. There are at least eight major criteria
that appear to be determinative
1. Cost—There are two factors that need to be examined to determine if a North
County shelter would be cost effective. The first is the cost to operate the shelter
and provide animal services, the second would be the cost of building and
maintaining the shelter facility.
2. Control—Attitudes towards the best approaches to animal services vary among
areas of the County. Paso Robles and Atascadero appear to have reasonably
similar practices, such that the operation of a north-County shelter could meet
the specific preferences of the two communities.
3. Convenience to residents—The County shelter is located on Highway 1, west of
San Luis Obispo, and approximately 22 miles from downtown Atascadero. When
a pet is taken to the shelter and the owner contacted, he or she must provide or
otherwise secure transportation to the shelter to recover the animal. This and all
other interactions require an investment of time and difficulty of access that
would not be the case with a North-County shelter.
4. Flexibility—A smaller facility, operated for just the two cities, can be more nimble
and flexible in its approach, operation, and policies. Thus, as changes beco me
necessary or desirable, they can be accomplished more quickly and cost -
effectively.
5. Publicly owned and operated vs. Public-private partnership model—The County
shelter is managed and operated by County staff; it is a County operation and,
although the cities would be participants of the shelter, essentially, the cities are
clients. The North-County approach would be community-based, utilizing
volunteers and community fund-raising to augment public resources. Neither
Atascadero nor Paso Robles have qualified in-house staff to manage or staff a
shelter and are not proposing to hire them. Instead, the North-County shelter
would be operated by a not-for-profit or a for-profit entity. This public-private
partnership approach appears to provide the best mix of attributes and cost
control to achieve a successful, long-term operation.
6. Risk—In spite of the best of planning and estimating, there is risk that costs could
be higher or that the new service delivery method does not work and the cities
will need to find another way of providing services. The County also has more
extensive support resources, and a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine manages the
County shelter. Thus, if changes in state law or other complexities arise, the
County can devote more resources to the solution of any problems.
7. Impact on other cities in the County and on the County—The other cities in the
County and the County itself are relying on the economies of scale that follow
from the participation of all jurisdictions, to lower the costs that each faces.
Atascadero and Paso Robles together account for more than a third of all of the
animal-nights incurred at the County shelter. Thus, without the participation of
Page 88 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
the two North-County cities, the annual costs to the other jurisdictions cont inuing
to participate in the County shelter would increase significantly.
8. Impact on the Police Department and other City operations —Other than paying
the bills and providing periodic management oversight, staff from neither
Atascadero nor Paso Robles are required currently to devote significant time to
animal control services. This would definitely change with a north -County
shelter. The additional responsibilities and workload would diffuse time and
energy now devoted to other, possibly higher -priority programs. A key question
is whether this is worth the potential cost savings. This question can by
answered only when we know what the savings will be.
In order to provide some critical answers prior to October 31st, the City of Paso Robles
has sought out two types of experts to assist in the analysis: an architect to project the
costs of designing and constructing a North County shelter; and an operational expert to
project the costs of staffing and operating the shelter.
On October 3rd, the Paso Robles City Council authorized the City Manager to hire
Ravatt Albrecht & Associates, a local architectural firm to assess needs and produce a
pro-forma cost estimate for a North County shelter. The total costs to conduct the
assessment and provide the cost estimate is expected to be under $30,000. Ravatt.
Albrecht and Associates is familiar with the North County and has designed a number of
animal shelters and related structures.
The Paso Robles City Council also authorized the City Manager to hire Jeff Charter, the
Executive Director of the Petaluma Animal Services Foundation. Mr. Charter has
operated and opened several shelters. The contract with Mr. Charter will be under
$10,000.
Combining the expertise of these two professional firms will provide us with needed
information necessary for any meaningful analysis before the end of October. Because
the City of Paso Robles has contracted with these firms to perform the analysis for a
North County shelter, serving both the City of Atascadero and the City of Paso Robles,
if approved tonight, the City of Atascadero would reimburse the City of Paso Robles up
to 50% of the costs of these two contracts, not to exceed a total of $20,000.
The current fiscal year budget includes $400,000 for County animal services. Because
financing is not expected to take place until March of 2018 and construction is not
expected to begin until June of 2018, it is anticipated that the City will not have to pay
for the full year of the new animal shelter costs and thus there is expected to be savings
in this line item that could be used to fund this analysis.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Authorizing the City of Atascadero to reimburse the City of Paso Robles up to 50% of
the contract costs associated with the analysis of costs associated with a North County
animal shelter will result in the expenditure of up to $20,000 in existing budgeted funds.
Page 89 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Take no action;
2. Provide alternative direction to staff.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. City of El Paso De Robles Council Agenda Report
1. County Contract
2. Ravatt Albrecht & Associates statement of qualifications
3. Petaluma Animal Services Foundation information
Page 90 of 171
CCouncil Agenda Report
From: Thomas Frutchey, City Manager
Robert Burton, Police Chief
Subject: Contracts with Ravatt Albrecht & Associates, Architects and with Jeff Charter, the Executive
Director of the Petaluma Animal Services Foundation, to Assist Paso Robles and Atascadero
in Analyzing the Desirability of a North County Animal Shelter
Date: September 19, 2017
Facts
1. Paso Robles currently contracts with the County for animal control field and shelter services. The
shelter is located at 885 Oklahoma Avenue, off Highway 1 between San Luis Obispo and Morro Bay.
2. The County is replacing the current shelter with an up-to-date facility. The agreement between the
County and each city (Attachment 1) requires that cities commit to financing their equitable share of
the facility, if they choose to continue to contract with the County for services. The Council directed
the City Manager to execute the agreement on February 21, 2017. The cost of the facility’s
construction and operation will significantly increase the costs to participating cities. The concern
over these increased costs has led the Council to seek other options.
3. On September 7, the City Council directed the City Manager and Police Chief to: send a letter to the
Board of Supervisors requesting the County to delay its process to allow the cities of Atascadero and
Paso Robles the time needed to decide whether or not to construct a north County animal shelter;
retain an advisor for to determine the nature and scope of capital improvements necessary for a north
County shelter; issue an RFP for an advisor on operations, such that operations would not dilute
other, higher priority Police functions; and return to Council with recommendations.
4. Staff have sought out two types of experts to assist the City in its analysis: an architect to project the
costs of designing and constructing a north County shelter; and an operational expert to project the
costs of staffing and operating the shelter.
5. Ravatt Albrecht & Associates, an architectural firm based in Santa Maria and San Luis Obispo, has
designed a number of animal shelters and related structures. Jeff Charter, the Executive Director of
the Petaluma Animal Services Foundation has operated and opened several shelters. We believe that,
together, the two will provide us the expertise needed to complete the necessary analysis before the
end of October.
Options
1. Take no action;
2. Direct the City Manager to execute agreements with Ravatt Albrecht & Associates, architects and
with Jeff Charter, the Executive Director of the Petaluma Animal Services Foundation;
3. Provide alternative direction to staff.
Analysis and Conclusions
Staff has qualified both contractors. There is need for prompt action, given the financing costs will begin
to accrue to the City as early as October 31, 2017. Thus, staff is recommending agreements with both on
Agenda Item No. 12 Page 258 CC Agenda 10-3-17
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A1
Page 91 of 171
a sole source basis, as there is not sufficient time for two competitive bid or proposal processes. The city
code allows sole source procurement in this type of situation.
Fiscal Impact
Paso Robles and Atascadero are likely to split the costs 50/50. If shared in this way, total costs for Paso
Robles will not exceed $20,000.
Recommendation
Authorize the City Manager to contract with Ravatt Albrecht & Associates, architects, and with Jeff
Charter, the Executive Director of the Petaluma Animal Services Foundation to prepare an analysis of the
cost-effectiveness of developing and operating a north County animal shelter, in comparison with the
proposed County shelter, so that the Atascadero and Paso Robles City Councils can decide prior to
October 31 whether to proceed with the County contract or not.
Attachments
1. County contract
2. Ravatt Albrecht & Associates statement of qualifications
3. Petaluma Animal Services Foundation information
Agenda Item No. 12 Page 259 CC Agenda 10-3-17
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A1
Page 92 of 171
Attachment 2
Page 1 of 12
AGREEMENT FOR ALLOCATION OF CONSTRUCTION AND FINANCING COSTS FOR AN
ANIMAL SERVICES SHELTER AT 865 OKLAHOMA AVENUE IN SAN LUIS OBISPO,
CALIFORNIA, BETWEEN THE CITIES OF ATASCADERO, ARROYO GRANDE, GROVER
BEACH, MORRO BAY, PASO ROBLES, PISMO BEACH, AND SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
THIS AGREEMENT, dated for reference as of February 1, 2017 (the “Agreement”), is entered into by
and between the COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (the “County”), and the cities of ATASCADERO,
ARROYO GRANDE, GROVER BEACH, MORRO BAY, PASO ROBLES, PISMO BEACH, AND
SAN LUIS OBISPO (each, a “City,” and collectively, the “Cities,” and, together with the County, the
“Parties”, or individually “Party”).
RECITALS
The County and each of the Cities are parties to a separate but similar Contract for Animal Care and Control
Services (“Services Contract”) effective as of July 1, 2016 and expiring, unless sooner terminated, on June
30, 2019, pursuant to which the County provides animal control services throughout San Luis Obispo
County, including within the jurisdictional boundaries of each of the Cities.
In conjunction with and pursuant to the Services Contract, the County operates an existing Animal Services
Shelter located at 885 Oklahoma Avenue in San Luis Obispo, California. Owing to the obsolescence of the
existing shelter, it is necessary to construct a new Animal Services Shelter (“Shelter” or “Project”) as
generally described in Exhibit A, at an address preliminarily identified as 865 Oklahoma Avenue, and as
generally depicted in Exhibit B (“Shelter Property”).
The Parties acknowledge the benefit of collaborative and joint efforts in constructing the Shelter.
The Parties enter into this Agreement to memorialize their participation and corresponding obligations with
regards to the allocation and repayment of the construction and financing costs for the Shelter.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
1. Recitals.
The above Recitals are true and correct.
2. Estimated Project Construction Costs.
a) The Project construction costs, excluding the portion of the Oklahoma Ave./Utility Extension costs
to be borne solely by the County, and excluding the County-only costs of the remaining
depreciation value of the existing facility, demolition of the existing facility, and land costs, and
excluding costs to be shared proportionally only by the Cities, for the Shelter are estimated at this
time to be Thirteen Million One Hundred Seventy Six Thousand Five Hundred Dollars
($13,176,500) as shown in Exhibit D (the “Estimated Project Construction Costs”). The Estimated
Project Construction Costs include expenses for soft costs, such as architectural and engineering
services; County costs for administration, project management service, environmental review,
planning and building fees, and inspections; and hard costs, such as actual construction costs.
b) The Estimated Project Construction Costs shall only include those expenses and costs generally
described above, which are incurred by the County specifically for the Shelter construction project.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary below, the total Project Costs, as defined in Paragraph
5(a) below shall not exceed Fourteen Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($14,500,000)
without a written amendment to this agreement signed by all Parties.
Agenda Item No. 12 Page 260 CC Agenda 10-3-17
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A1
Page 93 of 171
Attachment 2
Page 2 of 12
c) The Project will be managed as a “Design / Build” project, as approved by the County of San Luis
Obispo Board of Supervisors on April 12, 2016.
3. Excess Construction Costs
a) Prior to Authorization for Construction to Begin (“Construction Contract”).
(i) If the County receives information in the design or bidding process indicating that the
Estimated Project Construction Costs for the Shelter will exceed $13,176,500 by less than ten
percent (10%), the County shall provide written notice to each member of the Executive Board
(as defined in Section 9(b) below) of the revised estimated construction costs within a
reasonable period of time before such additional construction costs are incurred. The Executive
Board shall either approve or disapprove the additional construction costs, if any, by written
notice to the County, delivered within ninety (90) days after receipt of the County’s notice of
the revised construction costs. If any Executive Board member fails to timely approve in
writing, the Executive Board shall be deemed to have not approved and the County shall
promptly confer with all Cities regarding the additional construction costs and any means by
which such additional construction costs may be minimized.
(ii) If the County receives information as part of the design or bidding process indicating that the
Estimated Project Construction Costs for the Shelter will exceed $14,500,000, the County shall
immediately provide written notice to each City of the revised estimated construction costs
(“Excess Construction Costs”) and confer with the Cities as to whether to authorize the
Construction Contract or reject all bids.Each City shall either approve or disapprove the Excess
Construction Costs resulting in Estimated Project Construction Costs exceeding $14,500,000
by written amendment delivered to the County within ninety (90) days after receipt of the
County’s written amendment. If the decision is to authorize the contract, the County shall
prepare and deliver to the Cities a written amendment to this Agreement amending Section 2(b)
to increase the not-to-exceed amount. If any City fails to timely approve in writing, the City
shall be deemed to have disapproved. Should a City(ies) disapprove the Excess Construction
Costs, the County will immediately confer with all Cities in an attempt to reconcile the
disagreement. Should the Parties be unable to reach agreement, the measures shall be taken to
reduce the costs below $14,500,000 and in no such event shall the Parties be liable for Excess
Construction Costs absent a written amendment to this agreement.
(iii)If a City chooses to not participate in the shelter construction at that time, the City is allowed
to withdraw from this agreement and pay its proportionate share of all costs incurred as of the
date of withdrawal. The date of withdrawal shall be defined as the date that written notice is
received by the County of the City's desire to withdraw due to Excess Construction Costs
beyond amounts previously agreed. The County will recalculate future payments of the
remaining Parties using revised percentages of shelter use with the methodology in Section
6(a).
b) Authorization for Construction to Begin
(i) Upon County’s authorization for Construction to begin, total costs for the Project including any
incurred or future hard costs, soft costs, contingencies, and other miscellaneous costs related to
Shelter construction will be added to the estimated final construction costs (“Estimated Final
Construction Costs”). The Estimated Final Construction Costs will not exceed the Estimated
Project Construction Costs (or Excess Construction Costs), unless agreed to in writing by all
of the Parties in a written amendment to this Agreement. Should the Parties be unable to reach
agreement, measures shall be taken to reduce the costs below $14 ,500,000 and in no such event
Agenda Item No. 12 Page 261 CC Agenda 10-3-17
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A1
Page 94 of 171
Attachment 2
Page 3 of 12
shall the Parties be liable for Excess Construction Costs absent a written amendment to this
agreement.
(ii) If a City chooses to not participate in the shelter construction at that time, the City is allowed
to withdraw from this agreement and pay its proportionate share of all costs incurred as of the
date of withdrawal. The date of withdrawal shall be defined as the date that written notice is
received by the County of the City's desire to withdraw due to Excess Construction Costs
beyond amounts previously agreed. The County will recalculate future payments of the
remaining Parties using revised percentages of shelter use with the methodology in Section
6(a).
c) After Authorization for Construction to Begin
(i) If the County becomes aware, after its authorization for Construction to begin, that the costs of
construction will exceed the Estimated Final Construction Costs due to unforeseen or other
conditions, the County shall provide written notice, to each City of the revised estimated
construction costs within a reasonable period of time before such additional construction costs
are incurred. Each City shall either approve or disapprove the additional construction costs, if
any, by written notice to the County, delivered within ninety (90) days after receipt of the
County’s notice of the revised construction costs. If any City fails to timely approve in writing,
the City shall be deemed to have not approved and the County shall promptly confer with all
Cities regarding the additional construction costs and any means by which such additional
construction costs may be minimized. No additional construction costs shall be incurred that
exceed $14,500,000 without a written amendment signed by all the Parties. Should the Parties
be unable to reach agreement, measures shall be taken to reduce the costs below $14,500,000
and in no such event shall the Parties be liable for Excess Construction Costs absent a written
amendment to this agreement.
(ii) If a City chooses to not participate in the shelter construction at that time, the City is allowed
to withdraw from this agreement and pay its proportionate share of all costs incurred as of the
date of withdrawal. The date of withdrawal shall be defined as the date that written notice is
received by the County of the City's desire to withdraw due to Excess Construction Costs
beyond amounts previously agreed. The County will recalculate future payments of the
remaining Parties using revised percentages of shelter use with the methodology in Section
6(a).
4. Financing
a) County Advance of Funds. The County shall advance funds required to pay for the costs of
construction of the Shelter. The County intends to finance the funds it advances, including County
in house soft costs.
i) County Sole Discretion as to Financing Terms. The County, at its sole discretion, shall
determine financing terms based on market rates and terms available at the time of financing.
The anticipated financing interest rate is estimated to be between 3.5%-5%, based on a 25-year
term, see Exhibit D. The County may finance the Estimated Final Construction Costs (hard,
soft, design, etc.) for the Shelter in addition to customary out of pocket costs to obtain
financing, if any. The County may choose to provide in-house financing, provided the interest
rate charged to the Cities does not exceed commercially available rates for like projects and
terms of financing are equal to or more favorable to Cities than terms otherwise available to
the County.
(1) The County will provide notification to the Shelter Executive Board of its intentions
regarding external or in-house financing at least 30 days prior to taking action on
Agenda Item No. 12 Page 262 CC Agenda 10-3-17
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A1
Page 95 of 171
Attachment 2
Page 4 of 12
financing. Said notification will include final estimates of financing costs and anticipated
interest rates.
(2) Should the Cities desire to have costs identified as “Costs Shared Proportionally by Cities
Only” in Exhibit D included in any financing, the Cities shall provide written notification
to the County by October 31, 2017. Should all Cities fail to provide written notice, the
“Costs Shared Proportionally by Cities Only” will be proportionally allocated to each of
the Cities as shown in Exhibit C and billed accordingly, with a payment due date of
January 1, 2018.
ii) Estimated Project Financing Costs. The financing costs are estimated to range from $7,556,392
to $11,618,328, as shown in Exhibit D, depending on the applicable interest rate and whether
there are out of pocket costs to obtain financing (collectively “Estimated Project Financing
Costs”). If the actual interest rate is higher or lower than that estimated on Exhibit D, the actual
financing costs will vary.
5. Total Estimated Project Costs/Total Project Costs.
a) The Estimated Final Construction Costs and the Estimated Project Financing Costs are jointly
referred to as the Total Estimated Project Costs. Once the Shelter has been constructed and
financed, the County will prepare a final cost summary of the actual construction and financing
costs incurred by County in connection with the Shelter, excluding any costs that this Agreement
expressly provides shall be excluded from the calculation, to establish the total project costs and
annual repayment schedule based on the financing. Upon request, a City may review back up
material for the summary. After review and adjustment (if any) of the final cost summary by all
Parties, the approved final cost summary shall be known as the Total Project Costs. No City shall
unreasonably delay or disapprove the Total Project Costs.
6. Allocation of Total Project Costs.
(a) Allocation Based on Percentage of Shelter Use. Each Party shall pay its share of the Total Project
Costs, based on the annual repayment schedule associated with the financing. Each Party’s share
shall be based upon that individual Party’s percentage of shelter use. Shelter use is defined as the
number of shelter services (impounds, quarantines, animal surrenders, confiscations, euthanasia
requests, etc.) originating from, or requested by, an individual Party’s jurisdiction and/or its
residents. Each Party’s share shall be determined annually by the County as part of their normal
record keeping processes. The individual Party’s shelter use percentage shall be calculated using
the total number of shelter services allocated to an individual Party over the preceding three full
fiscal year periods, divided by the total number of all shelter services provided to all Parties over
the same preceding three full fiscal year periods.
%݄݈ܵ݁ݐ݁ݎ ܷݏ݁ =
( ܲܽݎݐݕ#݄݈ܵ݁ݐ݁ݎ ܵ݁ݎݒ݅ܿ݁ݏ ଵ + ܲܽݎݐݕ #݄݈ܵ݁ݐ݁ݎ ܵ݁ݎݒ݅ܿ݁ݏ ଶ + ܲܽݎݐݕ #݄݈ܵ݁ݐ݁ݎ ܵ݁ݎݒ݅ܿ݁ݏ ଷ )
(ܶݐ݈ܽ#݄݈ܵ݁ݐ݁ݎ ܵ݁ݎݒ݅ܿ݁ݏ ଵ + ܶݐ݈ܽ #݄݈ܵ݁ݐ݁ݎ ܵ݁ݎݒ݅ܿ݁ݏ ଶ + ܶݐ݈ܽ #݄݈ܵ݁ݐ݁ݎ ܵ݁ݎݒ݅ܿ݁ݏ ଷ )
Exhibit C indicates the percentage of each Party's actual use of the existing Animal Services shelter
for the Fiscal Years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16. Adjustments to each Party’s annual allocation
of Total Project Costs shall be adjusted annually based on the previous 3-year trailing average of
the percentages of shelter use.
b) Reallocation in the Event of Withdrawal or Termination. In the event that a Party withdraws or
terminates under Section 8 below, the allocation of each Party’s share of Total Project Costs shall
be adjusted upward for the remaining parties for the subsequent calendar year. The annual
calculation and any associated adjustments shall be made by December 31st of each year and shall
be due on July 1st of the next fiscal year.
Agenda Item No. 12 Page 263 CC Agenda 10-3-17
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A1
Page 96 of 171
Attachment 2
Page 5 of 12
7. Use of Shelter
a) The Shelter shall only be used as an Animal Services facility. No other County department or
agency or other person or entity shall use any portion of the Shelter without the prior written consent
of the Operations Committee (as defined in Section 9 (a) below). Such use shall be accompanied
by the payment of an appropriate rental charge.
8. Termination and Withdrawal
a) Withdrawal Prior to Authorization of Construction/Payment of Allocation of Soft Costs.
i) Any Party may withdraw from this Agreement prior to County’s authorization of the
Construction to begin by giving a minimum of one (1) year’s written notice to all Parties and
by payment of its share, based on the allocation set forth in Section 6, above, of costs incurred
by County prior to date of receipt of notice of withdrawal. Notice shall be deemed received on
the date of personal delivery, or if mailed by U.S. mail, five (5) days after date of mailing.
Such costs shall be reasonably determined by County and a majority of the Parties of the
Executive Board, excluding any Party(ies) electing to withdraw. Any withdrawing Party shall
pay its share by the effective date of its withdrawal. A withdrawing Party who withdraws prior
to October 31, 2017 shall not be required to pay any portion of financing costs, regardless of
whether outside financing or in -house County financing is ultimately provided. Any payment
of soft or hard costs by a withdrawing Party shall be deleted from the amount to be financed.
TheCounty will recalculate future payments of the remaining Parties using revised percentages
of shelter use with the methodology in Section 6(a).
b) Withdrawal After Construction Begins /Payment of Allocation.
i) Any Party may withdraw from this Agreement after the County’s authorization of construction
begin, by providing a minimum of one (1) year’s written notice to all of the other Parties and
prepaying its entire allocation of the Total Project Costs by the effective date of its withdrawal.
If a Party withdraws from this Agreement prior to October 31, 2017, any estimated financing
costs shall be deducted from the Total Project Costs before cal culating the withdrawing Party’s
Total Project Costs share. If County provides in-house financing, any finance or interest charge
accruing or payable after the withdrawal shall be deducted from the Total Project Costs before
calculating the withdrawing Party’s share of the Total Project Costs. Withdrawal from the
Agreement shall be effective as of December 31 of the year stated in the written notice. The
County will recalculate future payments of the remaining Parties using revised percentages of
shelter use with the methodology in Section 6(a).
c) The County shall not terminate a City’s access to or use of the Shelter if the City is not in default
of its payment obligations. For the purposes of this Agreement, a City shall be deemed to be in
default if said City is sixty (60) calendar days or more in arrears on any payment required under
this Agreement.
(i) Should the County desire to terminate a City’s access or use of the Shelter for default of its
payment obligations, the County shall include any non-defaulted Cities, at the non-defaulted
Cities’ sole discretion, in negotiations with the defaulted City, prior to their termination.
(ii) The County shall retain final decision authority to terminate any City’s access to or use of the
Shelter for default of said City’s payment obligations.
9. Animal Shelter Operations
a) An Operations Committee comprised of the County’s Health Agency Director or his/her designee
and a subset of City Managers or their designees shall be formed. At their sole discretion, all Parties
may be represented on the Operations Committee.
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263a
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A1
Page 97 of 171
Attachment 2
Page 6 of 12
b) An Executive Board composed of the County Administrative Officer (CAO) and a subset of the
City Managers (2-3) for each of the Cities, or their designees, shall consider significant policy or
budget changes and make recommendations prior to policy implementation or budget adoption for
the Shelter.
c) The Executive Board meetings shall be held as needed and in conjunction with the existing monthly
City Manager/CAO meeting. At a minimum, “Animal Services” shall be a standing item that is
considered twice in a calendar year. While any Party may request that “Animal Services” be added
to the agenda of any City Manager/CAO monthly meeting, it will be the responsibility of the chair
of the meeting to ensure Animal Services isplaced on the agenda and satisfiesthe minimum number
of meetings required by this Agreement.
d) If the City Managers’ recommendation is different from that of the CAO on budget or policy
matters, the County shall include the City Managers’ recommendation in any related staff report to
the Board of Supervisors and provide a summary of the nature of any disagreement.
e) Final policy and budgetary authority for Shelter operations reside with the County Board of
Supervisors.
f) Future Services Contracts shall be for 3-year terms.
g) If a City chooses to provide its own field services, it must provide to all Parties, a one (1) year’s
written notice of its intent to provide its own services and to terminate, or (if applicable) not to
renew, its Services Contract with the County, except as otherwise expressly provided in its Services
Contract with the County,
h) Service Contracts shall be separate from the Parties’ obligations to finance and pay their
proportional and allocated shares of Total Project Costs for the Shelter.
i) The County’s repayment obligation of its share of the Total Project Costs shall not be included in
the calculation of the Shelter’s operating costs. The County shall charge no rent for the Shelter or
Shelter Property or otherwise attempt to obtain compensation from the Cities for those items
identified in Appendix D as “County Only Costs”.
j) Any City shall have the ability to provide its own separate field services. The costs for accessing
the Shelter shall be reasonably determined by the County after consulting with the Executive Board
and shall only be for the fair share reasonable operating costs for Shelter operations.
k) Any City that elects to not participate in Shelter Total Project Costs shall immediately cease as a
Party to this Agreement and the County shall not be required to provide any animal services to such
City. Such City shall be required to provide its own animal services and shelter, in accordance with
all applicable laws and statues, effective on a date mutually agreed to by the City and the County.
If the City and the County are unable to mutually agree to a date, termination will be effective upon
the expiration of the City’s existing Service Contract or the date a Certificate of Occupancy is issued
for the new Shelter, whichever occurs first.
10. Animal Shelter Planning
a) The Parties agree to form an ad-hoc value engineering team consisting of up to three (3) City
representatives and a minimum of two (2) County representatives. City representatives shall fully
participate with the County to assist with investigating and identifying the most effective and efficient
methods to construct a Shelter that meets all Parties’ existing and future animal service’s needs. The
value engineering team shall meet as needed and provide input with architects, designers, construction
managers, and engineers during the development of plans and specifications for the Shelter.
b) Prior to the authorization of the Construction Contract, the Executive Board shall be presented
project plans and estimated budgets, and provide a recommendation that will be included in the
CAO staff report to approve the contract by the Board of Supervisors.
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263b
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A1
Page 98 of 171
Attachment 2
Page 7 of 12
11. Effective Date
a) Except as set forth above, this Agreement shall be effective for the period from January 5, 2017
until each Party has made the last payment required under Section 6 or, if applicable, Section 8, of
this Agreement
12. Entire Agreement
a) This is the entire agreement among the Parties with respect to the Project and supersedes any prior
written or oral agreements with respect to the Project. In the event of a conflict between the terms
of this Agreement and the Services Contract, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail.
13. Assignability
a) Except as otherwise expressly provided for herein, no Party shall assign any of its obligations or
rights hereunder without the written consent of all Parties.
14. Notices
a) Any notices required to be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be given in writing and shall be
mailed to all Parties to the Agreement, directed to the County Administrative Officer and County
Counsel, and to the City Manager or City Administrative Officer and City Attorney of each City.
15. Audit
a) The Cities may inspect and/or audit all records and other written materials used by County in
preparing the Total Project Costs and annual invoices to each City.
16. Good Faith Efforts
a) The Parties shall each act in good faith in performing their respective obligations as set forth in this
Agreement and shall work diligently to maintain their longstanding cooperative relationships.
17. Amendment
a) This Agreement may only be amended in writing, signed by all Parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, by their execution below, the Parties agree to be bound to the obligations stated
herein, and the Board of Supervisors of the COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO has authorized and directed
the Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors to execute this Agreement for and on behalf of the County,
and the Cities of ATASCADERO, ARROYO GRANDE, GROVER BEACH, MORRO BAY, PASO
ROBLES, PISMO BEACH, AND SAN LUIS OBISPO have caused this Agreement to be subscribed by
each of their duly authorized officers and attested by their Clerks.
Dated: _______________ COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
_____________________ ____________________________
Clerk of the Board
Dated: _______________ CITY OF ATASCADERO
_____________________ ____________________________
City Clerk By:
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263c
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A1
Page 99 of 171
Attachment 2
Page 8 of 12
Dated: _______________ CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
_____________________ ____________________________
City Clerk By:
Dated: _______________ CITY OF GROVER BEACH
_____________________ ____________________________
City Clerk By:
Dated: _______________ CITY OF MORRO BAY
_____________________ ____________________________
City Clerk By:
Dated: _______________ CITY OF PASO ROBLES
_____________________ ____________________________
City Clerk By:
Dated: _______________ CITY OF PISMO BEACH
_____________________ ____________________________
City Clerk By:
Dated: _______________ CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
_____________________ ____________________________
City Clerk By:
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263d
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A1
Page 100 of 171
Attachment 2
Page 9 of 12
EXHIBIT A
Animal Services Facility
The quantities listed below were derived from a review of the existing Animal Services facility, the 2010
"Needs Assessment, Feasibility, and Building Program Study" by Shelter Planners of America, and
meetings with Animal Services Manager Eric Anderson.
Building Floor Area: 16,000 square feet
Outdoor Runs: 3,000
Incinerator, Cold Storage: 2,000
Sally Port, Truck Wash, Truck Parking (8 trucks): 4,200
Disaster Response Equipment: 1,200
Visitor Parking (15 spaces): 5,300
Staff Parking (20 spaces): 7,000
Large Animal Pens: 27,000
Subtotal: 65,700
Additional 20% for Circulation, Landscaping: 13,140
TOTAL: 78,840 square feet
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263e
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A1
Page 101 of 171
Attachment 2
Page 10 of 12
EXHIBIT B
865 Oklahoma Ave
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263f
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A1
Page 102 of 171
Attachment 2
Page 11 of 12
EXHIBIT C
(Number of Shelter Service Provided)
Cities City Name 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Total Percent
Full Yr. Full Yr. Full Yr.
1 Arroyo Grande 286
7% 427 11% 291 8% 1,004 8.39%
2 Atascadero 476
12% 600 15% 643 17% 1,719 14.37%
3 Grover Beach 167
4% 142 4% 135 4% 444 3.71%
4 Morro Bay 126
3% 143 4% 118 3% 387 3.23%
5 Paso Robles 724
18% 734 18% 792 21% 2,250 18.81%
6 Pismo Beach 57
1% 61 2% 54 1% 172 1.44%
7
San Luis
Obispo 482
12% 486 12% 479 12% 1,447 12.09%
99 Unincorporated 1,745
43% 1,464 36% 1,332 35% 4,541 37.96%
4,063 4,057 3,844 11,964 100.00%
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263g
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A1
Page 103 of 171
Attachment 2
Page 12 of 12
EXHIBIT D
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263h
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A1
Page 104 of 171
ANIMAL SERVICES ENTRY
1 5 33ȃ +!1$"'3
22."( 3$223 3$,$-3
.%04 +(%(" 3(.-2
2DOSDLADQ
RAVATT ALBRECHT
& ASSOCIATES INC
Architecture & engineeringRA
&RUSRUDWH2ƫFH 6DQ/XLV2ELVSR2ƫFH
4MHNM UD
ʘ .QBTSS " /@BHƥB2SQDDS
/
.
!NW 2@MS@,@QH@ " 2@M+THR.AHRON "
3 3
"(38.%/ 2.1.!+$2
-.13'".4-38
-(, +2'$+3$1
%$ 2(!(+38234#8
6$17$%$5%$5$1257+&2817<-$,/
6$1/8,62%,632$1,0$/6+(/7(55(129$7,21&$77(5<352-(&7
6$1/8,62%,632-89(1,/(+$//(;3$16,21
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A2
Page 105 of 171
RA &,7<2)3$6252%/(61257+&2817<$1,0$/6+(/7(5678'<
2DOSDLADQ
33- 1NADQS!TQSNM "GHDENE/NKHBD
/@RN1NAKDR/NKHBD#DO@QSLDMS
#D@Q1NADQS
1@U@SS KAQDBGS RRNBH@SDRHRDWBHSDCENQSGDNOONQSTMHSXSNOQNUHCDXNT
VHSGNTQ2S@SDLDMSNE0T@KHƥB@SHNMRENQMDWS3TDRC@XŗR"HSX"NTMBHKLDDSHMF
6DG@UDHMBKTCDCRNLDHMENQL@SHNM@ANTSNTQƥQL HMBKTCHMFRHLHK@QOQNIDBS
DWODQHDMBD @MCHMENQL@SHNM@ANTSNTQOQHL@QXRTABNMRTKS@MSR
6DVNQJCHKHFDMSKXEQNLRHSD@M@KXRHRSGQNTFGMDDCR@RRDRRLDMS@MCBNMBDOST@K
CDRHFMSNCDUDKNORNKTSHNMRSG@S@CCQDRRSGDMDDCRNENTQBKHDMSR
.TQƥQL
G@RG@CDWODQHDMBDVHSGRDUDQ@KED@RHAHKHSXRSTCHDR BNMBDOST@KCDRHFMR @MC
LTKSHOKDOTAKHBVNQJROQNIDBSRHM2@M+THR.AHRON@MC2@MS@!@QA@Q@"NTMSHDR
1@U@SS KAQDBGS RRNBH@SDRBNLOKDSDCRBGDL@SHBCDRHFMENQSGD"NTMSXNE
2@M+THR.AHRON MHL@K2DQUHBDR1DMNU@SHNM"@SSDQX/QNIDBSRDUDQ@KXD@QR@FN
NTQRTABNMRTKS@MS !# QBGHSDBSTQD G@RCDRHFMDCRDUDQ@K@MHL@KRGDKSDQR
SGQNTFGNTSSGDBNTMSQX
.TQLNRSQDBDMSOQNIDBSRHM/@RN1NAKDR@MC S@RB@CDQNHMBKTCD@ED@RHAHKHSX
RSTCXENQSGD/@RN1NAKDR"HSX+HAQ@QXSNDWO@MCSGDHQE@BHKHSHDR@MCONRRHAKX
LNUD"HSX'@KKSN@MNSGDQKNB@SHNM @MCSGDL@RSDQOK@M@MCRBHDMBDK@ANQ@SNQHDR
ENQ S@RB@CDQN,HCCKD2BGNNK
3G@MJXNTENQSGDNOONQSTMHSXSNOQDRDMSNTQ2S@SDLDMSNE0T@KHƥB@SHNMR @MC
OKD@RDBNMS@BSTRHEXNTG@UDPTDRSHNMR
2HMBDQDKX
&QDF1@U@SS ( "(# /QHMBHO@K HM "G@QFD
"@KHENQMH@+HBDMRDC QBGHSDBS -N
"
&RUSRUDWH2ƫFH 6DQ/XLV2ELVSR2ƫFH
4MHNM UD
ʘ .QBTSS " /@BHƥB2SQDDS
/
.
!NW 2@MS@,@QH@ " 2@M+THR.AHRON "
3 [% 3 [%
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263j
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A2
Page 106 of 171
"HSXNE/@RN1NAKDR[-NQSG"NTMSX MHL@K2GDKSDQ%D@RHAHKHSX2STCX[
RA
5$9$77$/%5(&+7 $662&,$7(6
%NTMCDCHM 1@U@SS KAQDBGS RRNBH@SDR (MB
1 G@RADDM@BNQONQ@SHNM
RHMBDSGDƥQLŗRHMBDOSHNMXD@QR@FNVHSG&QDF1@U@SS@RSGDƥQLŗR/QHMBHO@K
@MC/QDRHCDMS @MC)HL KAQDBGS@R/QHMBHO@K@MC5HBD/QDRHCDMS
3GDO@QSMDQRG@C
ADDM@RRNBH@SDRKNMFADENQDSGDƥQLADF@M
3NC@X 1 HR@LTKSH CHRBHOKHM@QXCDRHFMƥQLOQNUHCHMFOK@MMHMF @QBGHSDBSTQD
LDBG@MHB@K@MCDKDBSQHB@KDMFHMDDQHMF OKTLAHMFCDRHFM @MCHMSDQHNQCDRHFMENQ@
VHCDQ@MFDNEOQNIDBSRENQ"HSX "NTMSX @MC%DCDQ@K&NUDQMLDMSBKHDMSR Q@MFHMF
EQNLMDVE@BHKHSHDR GHRSNQHB@KE@BHKHSHDR @CCHSHNMR SDM@MSHLOQNUDLDMSR @MC
RO@BDRSTCHDR
6G@SL@JDR1@U@SS KAQDBGSSGDEHVW@QBGHSDBSTQ@KƥQLENQSGD"HSXNE/@RN
1NAKDRHRSG@SVDG@UDVNQJDCVHSG@KLNRSDUDQXBHSX@MCSNVMHMSGD"NTMSXNE
2@M+THR.AHRON @RVDKK@RRDUDQ@KHM2@MS@!@QA@Q@"NTMSX
(M@CCHSHNM DWSDMCHMFRBGDCTKDRHRMNS@MNOSHNMENQLNRSNENTQBKHDMSR
%@HKHMF
SNLDDS@CD@CKHMDL@XQDRTKSHMCDK@XHMFSGDTRDNE@E@BHKHSXNQDUDMHMSGD
@AHKHSXSNRDBTQDETMCHMF
3GD1 3D@LBNMRHRSDMSKXCDKHUDQRNTSRS@MCHMFQDRTKSR
HMLDDSHMFODQENQL@MBDRBGDCTKDR L@M@FHMFTM@MSHBHO@SDCRBNODBG@MFDR
NUDQBNLHMFCDK@XR @MC@KV@XRCDKHUDQHMFVHSGHMSGDNQHFHM@KNQSGD@BBDKDQ@SDC
CDRHFMRBGDCTKDR
6D@QDOQNTCNENTQ@AHKHSXSNCDKHUDQNTQOQNIDBSRNMSHLD
2NLDNENTQLNRSQDBDMSRHLHK@QOQNIDBSRHMBKTCDSGDENKKNVHMF
Ş "NTMSXNE2@M+THR.AHRON MHL@K2DQUHBDR1DMNU@SHNM"@SSDQX/QNIDBS
Ş 2@M+THR.AHRON"NTMSX)TUDMHKD'@KK$WO@MRHNM
Ş 2@MS@,@QH@)TUDMHKD)TRSHBD"DMSDQ
Ş 2@MS@!@QA@Q@-NQSG"NTMSX)@HK
Ş S@RB@CDQN,HCCKD2BGNNK,@RSDQ/K@M
Ş "HSXNE/@RN1NAKDR+HAQ@QX%D@RHAHKHSX2STCX
Ş "HSXNE2@M+THR.AHRON2O@BD$U@KT@SHNM
Ş !DSSDQ@UH@&NUDQMLDMS"DMSDQ"NMBDOS#DRHFM
Ş "NTMSXNE2@MS@!@QA@Q@)TUDMHKD'@KK,DMS@K'D@KSG1DG@AHKHS@SHNM"DMSDQ
"NMUDQRHNM%D@RHAHKHSX2STCX
),50,1752'8&7,21
2)),&(/2&$7,216
/@BHƥB2SQDDS
2@M+THR.AHRON "
/ %
VVV
Q@U@SS @KAQDBGS
BNL
4MHNM UDMTD 2THSD
.QBTSS "
/
.
!NW
2@MS@,@QH@ "
/ %
7<3( 2) 25*$1,=$7,21
"@KHENQMH@"NQONQ@SHNM
"@KHENQMH@"DQSHƥDC2L@KK!TRHMDRR
),50 67$)) ,1)250$7,21 727$/
KHBDMRDC@QBGHSDBSR
@QBGHSDBSR HM SQ@HMHMF
DMFHMDDQR HM SQ@HMHMF
KHBDMRDCLDBG@MHB@KDMFHMDDQR
KHBDMRDCDKDBSQHB@KDMFHMDDQ
C@S@DMFHMDDQ
RODBHƥB@SHNMVQHSDQ
" #CQ@ESDQR
RTOONQSRS@Ƥ
Ş "HSXNE/HRLN!D@BG
Ş 3NVMNE-HONLN
Ş 3NVMNE"@XTBNR
Ş "HSXNE&T@C@KTOD
Ş "HSXNE!TDKKSNM
Ş "HSXNE+NR.KHUNR
Ş "HSXNE+NLONB
Ş "HSXNE2@MS@,@QH@
Ş "HSXNE2@M+THR.AHRON
Ş "HSXNE,NQQN!@X
Ş "HSXNE S@RB@CDQN
Ş "HSXNE/@RN1NAKDR
Ş "HSXNE QQNXN&Q@MCD
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263k
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A2
Page 107 of 171
"HSXNE/@RN1NAKDR[-NQSG"NTMSX MHL@K2GDKSDQ%D@RHAHKHSX2STCX[
RA
(;3(5,(1&( 6800$5<
ENTMCDQNE1@U@SS KAQDBGS RRNBH@SDR &QDFHRDWODQHDMBDCHM@VHCD
RODBSQTLNECDRHFM@MCOK@MMHMFOQNIDBSRENQLTMHBHO@K BNTMSX @MCEDCDQ@K
&NUDQMLDMSR @RVDKK@RENQK@QFDBNQONQ@SHNMR@MCCDUDKNODQR
'HRTMHPTDAKDMC
NEUHRHNM@QXSGHMJHMF@MCCNVM SN D@QSGHLOKDLDMS@SHNM@KKNVRGHLSNCDRHFM
ATHKC@AKD AD@TSHETKRSQTBSTQDR
*MNVMENQGHRBNMBDOST@KRJDSBGHMF &QDFB@M
PTHBJKXCQ@VUHRT@KHL@FDRNECDRHFM@KSDQM@SHUDRENQGHRBKHDMSR
'DQDFTK@QKX
OQDRDMSRCDRHFMOQNIDBSRSNBNLLTMHSX@MCFNUDQMLDMS@KRS@JDGNKCDQR@MC
CDBHRHNM L@JDQR GDKOHMFSGDLDMUHRHNMSGDHQOQNIDBS F@HMBNMRDMRTR @MC
OQNUHCDEDDCA@BJ
&QDFG@RKDCCDRHFMATHKCSD@LR BNMRSQTBSHNML@M@FDLDMS @MCBNMRSQTBSHNM
@CLHMHRSQ@SHNMENQGTMCQDCRNEOTAKHBVNQJROQNIDBSR
'DOQNUHCDRBNKK@ANQ@SHUD
CDRHFMNUDQUHDVENQ1 OQNIDBSR O@QSHBTK@QKXCTQHMFSGDMDDCR@RRDRRLDMS
RBGDL@SHB @MCBNMBDOST@KCDRHFMOG@RDR
6HSG@ENBTRNMHLOKDLDMSHMFDMDQFX
DƧBHDMSATHKCHMFSDBGMHPTDR GDG@RVNMCDRHFMQDBNFMHSHNMENQRDUDQ@KNEGHR
ENQV@QC SGHMJHMFCDRHFMR
5(/(9$17 352-(&7 (;3(5,(1&(
Ş "NTMSXNE2@M+THR.AHRON MHL@K2DQUHBDR1DMNU@SHNM"@SSDQX/QNIDBS
2@M+THR.AHRON "
Ş 2@M+THR.AHRON)TUDMHKD'@KK$WO@MRHNM /G@RD 2@M+THR.AHRON "
Ş 2@MS@,@QH@)TUDMHKD)TRSHBD"DMSDQ 2@MS@,@QH@ "
Ş #HRSQHBS SSNQMDXR.ƧBD1DMNU@SHNM +DVDKKDM)TRSHBD"DMSDQ 2@MS@,@QH@ "
Ş "NTMSXNE2@MS@!@QA@Q@"KDQJR!THKCHMF 2@MS@,@QH@ "
Ş 2@MS@!@QA@Q@-NQSG"NTMSX)@HK 2@MS@,@QH@ "
Ş S@RB@CDQN+HAQ@QX@MC-NQSG"NTMSX&NUDQMLDMS"DMSDQ S@RB@CDQN "
Ş 2@M+THR.AHRON"NTMSX)TUDMHKD'@KK$WO@MRHNM
Ş 2@MS@,@QH@)TUDMHKD)TRSHBD"DMSDQ
Ş 2@MS@!@QA@Q@-NQSG"NTMSX)@HK
Ş S@RB@CDQN,HCCKD2BGNNK,@RSDQ/K@M
Ş "HSXNE/@RN1NAKDR+HAQ@QX%D@RHAHKHSX2STCX
Ş "HSXNE2@M+THR.AHRON2O@BD$U@KT@SHNM
Ş !DSSDQ@UH@&NUDQMLDMS"DMSDQ"NMBDOS#DRHFM
Ş "NTMSXNE2@MS@!@QA@Q@)TUDMHKD'@KK,DMS@K'D@KSG1DG@AHKHS@SHNM"DMSDQ
"NMUDQRHNM%D@RHAHKHSX2STCX
Ş -DV"TX@L@%HQD2S@SHNM#DRHFM2STCX!QHCFHMF#NBTLDMSR -DV"TX@L@ "
*5(*25< 5$9$77 $,$ &,'
5DYDWW $OEUHFKW $VVRFLDWHV ,QF
352-(&7 52/(
3ULQFLSDO $UFKLWHFW RI 5HFRUG
<($56 2) (;3(5,(1&(
XD@QR
<($56 :,7+ 5$
XD@QR
5(*,675$7,216&(57,),&$7,216
"@KHENQMH@+HBDMRDC QBGHSDBS -N
"
"DQSHƥDC(MSDQHNQ#DRHFMDQ -N
"@KHENQMH@+HBDMRDC"NMSQ@BSNQ -N
('8&$7,21
!@BGDKNQNE QBGHSDBSTQD "@KHENQMH@/NKXSDBGMHB
2S@SD4MHUDQRHSX 2@M+THR.AHRON "
352)(66,21$/ $)),/,$7,216
LDQHB@M(MRSHSTSDNE QBGHSDBSR ŔOQDRDMS
"NTMSX!N@QCNE QBGHSDBSTQ@K1DUHDV
2@MS@!@QA@Q@ "
-NQSG"NTMSX!N@QCNE QBGHSDBSTQ@K1DUHDV
2@MS@!@QA@Q@ " Ŕ
#DRHFM!THKC(MRSHSTSDNE LDQHB@
'NLD!THKCDQŗR RRNBH@SHNMRNESGD"DMSQ@K"N@RS
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263l
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A2
Page 108 of 171
"HSXNE/@RN1NAKDR[-NQSG"NTMSX MHL@K2GDKSDQ%D@RHAHKHSX2STCX[
RA 352-(&7 (;3(5,(1&(
ANIMAL SERVICES ENTRY
&2817< 2) 6$1 /8,6 2%,632 $1,0$/
6(59,&(6 5(129$7,21 &$77(5< 352-(&7
3GHROQNIDBSV@RENQSGDCDRHFM@MCOQNEDRRHNM@KRTOONQS
RDQUHBDRENQ@MDV SN RPT@QDENNSB@SSDQX
HMBKTCHMFSGDQDKNB@SHNMNEDWHRSHMF@MHL@KHMS@JD@MCRDQUHBD
@QD@SNSGDQD@QNESGDE@BHKHSX OQNUHRHNMRENQ@MNTSRHCDB@S
BNLLNM@QD@ KNAAX@MCJDMMDKNƧBDLNCHƥB@SHNMRSNOQNUHCD
CHQDBSOTAKHB@BBDRRSNSGDJDMMDKR QDQNNƥMFNEDWHRSHMF
E@BHKHSX @MCB@LDQ@RTQUDHKK@MBD
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263m
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A2
Page 109 of 171
"HSXNE/@RN1NAKDR[-NQSG"NTMSX MHL@K2GDKSDQ%D@RHAHKHSX2STCX[
RA 352-(&7 (;3(5,(1&(
SANTA MARIA JUVENILE JUSTICE CENTER, SANTA MARIA, CA
Ravatt lbrecGt ssociates desiFned tGis neV sP
E t
Juvenile Hall
and 1 sP
Et
Juvenile CourtGouse OroIect to auFLent tGe Orevious
bed sinFle courtrooL Juvenile CoLOleW servinF Santa Barbara County
3Ge
exteriors of the buildings draw from the surrounding industrial, commercial,
and residential architecture colored concrete blocJs serve as the exterior
walls and the roofs are reminiscent of nearby airOlane hangars
Work included careful planning and phasing of the new buildings in order to
maintain the continued operations of the existing facility
3he proIect was
designed and constructed within the strict budget and timeline speciƥed in
state funding rePuirements
The result is a new 90-bed Juvenile Hall that includes three, 30-bed, self-
contained housing bays designed for direct staƤdetainee contact
$ach
bay contains a dining area, kitchenette, recreation yard, sleeping room, two
classrooms, and day room
$ach classroom space provides for 0 students,
a teacher area, and storage (meeting California Standards Association
regulationsŕformerly Board of Corrections Agency
(ntake, booking, medical,
and administrative areas are also included
TEAM
Ravatt Albrecht & Associates: Lead Design,
Mechanical/lumbing $ngineering
Greg Ravatt - Architect of Record
Paul Reinhardt - Project Manager
Jim Albrecht - M&P Engineer
Wallace &roup: Civil $ngineering
Fargen Surveys: Land Surveyor
Lampman & Smith: Structural $ngineering
T$C: Landscape Architect
CLIENT CONTACT
John &reen, /roIect Manager, Capital /roIects
County of Santa Barbara, General Services
91 W
Foster Road
Santa Maria, CA 93
(80 93-9
Ilgreen co
santa-barbara
ca
us
PROJECT STATS
/roIect Completion Date: 00
Construction Amount: $10 million
RA Contract Amount: $91,0
SIZE: 57,000 SF
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263n
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A2
Page 110 of 171
City of /aso Robles | -orth County Animal Shelter Feasibility Study | 7
RA PROJECT E;PERIENCE
BETTERAVIA GOVERNMENT CENTER CONCEPT DESIGN,
SANTA MARIA, CA
Ravatt Albrecht & Associates designed this new two-story, 13,460 square foot
L$$D Silver self-certiƥed facility to ƥt congruently within an existing business
park. The design team worked diligently with the County through a series
of design meetings to develop a functional building with spaces that meet
the diƤerent functions of the County Supervisors, support staƤ, and other
County services. The result is a facility that not only addresses the needs of
its users, but also provides an environmentally responsible solution for the
site. Originally intended and designed to support the public hearings and
meetings of the County government, due to economic constraints the building
design was adapted to include a North County Emergency Operations Center
& Computer Center. Speciƥcation of interior materials meets Tier 3 of the CBC
Green Building Code.
TEAM
Ravatt Albrecht & Associates: Architecture,
Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing Engineering
Greg Ravatt - Architect of Record
Michael DeMartini - Lead Designer
Jim Albrecht - MEP Director
Paul Reinhardt - Project Manager
AC&E: Cost Estimating
CLIENT CONTACT
John Green, Project Manager, Capital Projects
County of Santa Barbara
912 W. Foster Road
Santa Maria, CA 93455
(805) 934-6229
jgreen@co.santa.barbara.ca.us
PROJECT STATS
Project Completion Date: 2012
SIZE: 13,460 SF
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263o
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A2
Page 111 of 171
City of Paso Robles | North County Animal Shelter Feasibility Study | 8
RA PROJECT E;PERIENCE
SAN LUIS OBISPO JUVENILE HALL EXPANSION, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
Located on approximately 2 acres of County-owned land, the project consisted
of three new buildings and an exterior covered walkway that provided 22,800
square feet of additional new housing, recreation yard, classrooms, mental
health treatment rooms and oƧces, training/conference rooms, indoor multi-
purpose/recreation facility, and administrative/teachersŗ oƧce space.
The new 7,920 square foot maximum security housing facility is a single-story
building with 20 single-occupancy sleeping rooms, and includes a large day
room for eating meals and activities, and two counseling interview rooms.
Adjacent to this housing facility is a new 6,800 square foot outdoor recreation
yard. The academics/administration building, a 9,824 square foot 2-story
building, contains administration and staƤ support areas classrooms, group
treatment areas, and counseling rooms and mental health oƧces.
A 5,000 square foot multi-purpose/recreation facility is accessible from the
other buildings via an exterior covered walkway and serves as an indoor
multipurpose gymnasium. The gym allows daily physical education when it is
raining or there is other inclement weather.
The buildings were constructed of steel and concrete for long-term durability,
and included electrical plumbing mechanical heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning security digital cameras and ƥre protection systems. A retention
basin that provides storm water control measures, perimeter retaining walls,
security systems, ƥre access road, and secure fencing surrounding the facility
provide grounds security.
TEAM
Ravatt Albrecht & Associates: Lead Design,
Mechanical/Plumbing Engineering
Greg Ravatt - Architect of Record
Paul Reinhardt - Project Manager
Michelle Stokes - Project Architect
Jim Albrecht - M&P Engineer
Greg Allen Barker: Facilities Programmer
Lampman & Smith: Structural Engineering
Civil Design Studio: Civil Engineering
Dittmann Associates: Electrical Engineering
CLIENT CONTACT
Edward Liebscher
Chief Deputy Probation OƧcer, County of SLO
1730 Bishop Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781-5310
eliebscher@co.slo.ca.us
PROJECT STATS
Project Completion Date: 2016
Construction Amount: $15.3 million
RA Contract Amount: $1.3 million
SIZE: 22,800 SF
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263p
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A2
Page 112 of 171
City of Paso Robles | North County Animal Shelter Feasibility Study | 9
RA PROJECT EXPERIENCE
TEAM
Ravatt Albrecht & Associates:
Lead Design, Architecture, (nteriors,
Mechanical/Plumbing Engineering
Greg Ravatt - Principal Architect
Larry Mitchell - Project Manager
Michelle Stokes - Project Architect
Laura Joines - Project Designer
Jim Albrecht - M&P Engineer
Jim Williams - Technical Spec. Writer/Code Analysis
CLIENT CONTACT
County of Santa Barbara
Todd Morrison, Project Manager
912 W. Foster Road
Santa Maria, CA 93455
(805) 934-6228
tmorris@co.santa-barbara.ca.us
PROJECT STATS
Project Completion Date: 2016
Construction Amount: $4.3 million
RA Contract Amount: $156,380
SIZE: 8,570 SF
NEW CUYAMA FIRE STATION DESIGN STUDY & BRIDGING
DOCUMENTS, NEW CUYAMA, CA
RA provided architectural design and engineering services to support the
design build bridging documents necessary for bidding and construction
of the New Cuyama Fire Station 41 Design/Build project. The existing ƥre
station will be demolished and replaced with the new station. The objective
of the study was to compare the advantages and disadvantages of diƤerent
construction types to determine which is most suitable for the new ƥre
station. Services included:
Programming: Prepared programming documents based on input from the
ƥreƥghters, County, and as-built assessments of ƥre stations, including
extensive program of square footages and speciƥc space requirements
such as size, lighting, natural lighting, furnishings and materials. Program
included interior of ƥreƥghter living quarters, ƥre station apparatus room,
site amenities, parking, and landscaping.
Conceptual Design: Developed a conceptual site plan, Ʀoor plan, exterior
elevations, and renderings to convey the feeling and style of the building.
Cost Estimating : Delivered cost estimate of the basis of design metal
building system, and a cost estimate of a CMU system that was desired by
the ƥreƥghters. From the cost estimates it was deemed the additional funds
would give numerous energy and experiential advantages.
Code Coordination and Energy Standards: RA used the County Energy
Standards and CBC Code requirements to create building sections that would
satisfy code/energy requirements, which gave an accurate indication of costs
savings and expenses in complying with energy codes.
Schematic Floor Plan Schematic Elevation Options
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263q
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A2
Page 113 of 171
City of Paso Robles | North County Animal Shelter Feasibility Study | 10
RA PROJECT EXPERIENCE
TEAM
Rosser (nternational: Lead Architect, M&P
Engineering, Security Engineer
Ravatt Albrecht & Associates: Associate Architect
Greg Ravatt - Architect of Record
Paul Reinhardt - Project Manager
Jim Albrecht - M&P Engineer
Joe Torrez - Electrical Engineer
Penƥeld & Smith (nc: Civil Engineer
Cannon (nc: Structural Engineer
CLIENT CONTACT
John Green, Project Manager, Capital Projects
County of Santa Barbara, General Services
912 W. Foster Road Santa Maria, CA 93455
(805) 934-6229
jlgreen@co.santa-barbara.ca.us
PROJECT STATS
Contract Award Date: 2014
Project Completion Date: 2018 (estimate)
Construction Amount: $80 million (estimate)
RA Contract Amount: $533,650
SIZE: 139,000 SF
SANTA BARBARA NORTH COUNTY JAIL, SANTA MARIA, CA
The Santa Barbara North County Jail is a new 376-bed, Type (( county jail facility.
This project will design and construct approximately 39,000 sq. ft. of housing,
treatment, and program space on approximately 6 acres of the greater 50± acres
of County-owned land. The building will house both male and female inmates
in a mix of medium and maximum security, and will include special use beds
for mental health and medical purposes. (t will also include space for all core
operational functions.
The new jail will include appropriate treatment, program, and support services
space including, but not be limited to, health care services, intake and release,
vocational and industrial training, food preparation, laundry, transportation,
maintenance, visitation, administrative/staƤ support space, and records storage.
Additionally, this project will include the design of all systems including, but
not limited to: electrical plumbing mechanical heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning security ƥre protection systems site design architectural design
structural design and approximately 150 parking spaces for staƤ and visitors.
(n addition, there will be secure fencing surrounding the facility to provide
grounds security.
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263r
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A2
Page 114 of 171
City of Paso Robles | North County Animal Shelter Feasibility Study | 11
RA PROJECT EXPERIENCE
TEAM
Ravatt Albrecht & Associates: Lead Design,
Mechanical/Plumbing Engineering
*UHJ5DYDWW$UFKLWHFWRI5HFRUG
Michael DeMartini - Project Manager
Jim Albrecht - M&P Engineer
JMPE: Electrical Engineering
Ashley & Vance: Structural Engineering
Group Up Design: Civil Engineering
MBS Land Surveys: Land Surveyor
Collings & Associates: Fire Protection Engineering
AC&E: Cost Estimator
CLIENT CONTACT
County of San Luis Obispo
Bob Tomaszewski, Project Manager
976 Osos Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
(805) 781-5200
PROJECT STATS
Project Completion Date: May 2014
Construction Amount: $3.4 million
RA Contract Amount: $149,000
SIZE: 14,420 SF
ATASCADERO LIBRARY AND
NORTH COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
The County of San Luis Obispo and the Atascadero Friends of the Library engaged
in a major collaboration to provide a new library facility to serve the Atascadero
community and created a convenient, one-stop service center for County
services, the North County Government Center.
The Atascadero Library occupies the ƥrst Ʀoor of the building, while the second
Ʀoor houses County oƧces along with other Library services. This facility
replaced the old 7,748 square foot Martin Polin Regional Library located at 6850
Morro Road. This new library provides 14,420 square feet of space, close to twice
the space available in the old facility. The County’s service center occupies 6,831
square feet of the second Ʀoor.
The following are a few of the new library features:
• Expanded browsing capacity for new and popular books and AV media
• CoƤee and refreshments served at a coƤee cart concession
• Secondhand book sale and gift shop
• (ncreased seating and separate zones for quiet, collaborative, active uses
• Additional public computers—both desktop and laptop
• Meeting room that seats 100 people
• A separate area for children and families and dedicated space for teens
• An upstairs hallway art gallery that leads to a public community room with a
view of Atascadero City Hall and library support staƤ rooms
North County Government Center (partially shown above) provides:
• OƧces for the Building and Planning Departments
• OƧces for the County Clerk and Assessor
• High density storage
• Conference rooms and regional oƧces for department heads
Community Room
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263s
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A2
Page 115 of 171
City of Paso Robles | North County Animal Shelter Feasibility Study | 12
RA PROJECT EXPERIENCE
DANA ADOBE VISITOR’S CENTER, NIPOMO, CA
Ravatt Albrecht & Associates is currently providing architectural and engineering
design services as part of the development of the Dana Adobe Rancho Nipomo
Visitor’s Center. Improvements are being made to the Visitors Center, museum,
restroom facility, and Ramada Structure, along with site improvements which
include a parking lot, pathways, landscape and site utilities.
Located on approximately 130 acres in Nipomo, California, the project provides
public interpretation of the site’s unique geological, paleontological, prehistoric,
historical and environmental resources, and draws on the established cultural and
nature educational programs developed by the Dana Adobe Nipomo Amigos.
The Dana Adobe is a California State Historical Landmark, therefore, special
measures must be taken into consideration for the project, such as archeological
ƥndings, weather conditions, and preserving the habitat around and near the site.
The Dana Adobe is a California State Historical Landmark and is on the National
Register of Historic Places, as well as the California Register of Historic Resources.
TEAM
Ravatt Albrecht & Associates: Lead Design
Mechanical/Plumbing Engineering
*UHJ5DYDWW$UFKLWHFWRI5HFRUG
Michael DeMartini - Project Manager
Jim Albrecht - M&P Engineer
Stantec Consulting, Services, Inc. - Civil Engineer
Cannon - Structural Engineering
PleinAire Design Group - Landscape Architect
Collings & Associates - Fire Protection
GSI Soils, Inc. - Soils Engineering
CLIENT CONTACT
Aaron Regez - Dana Cultural Center
671 S. Oak Glen
Nipomo, CA 93444
(805) 929-5679
aaron@danaadobe.org
PROJECT STATS
Construction Completion: Under Construction
Construction Amount: Estimated $1.8 million
RA Contract Amount: $205,540
SIZE: 6,748 SF
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263t
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A2
Page 116 of 171
City of Paso Robles | North County Animal Shelter Feasibility Study | 13
RA PROJECT EXPERIENCE
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SPACE EVALUATION, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
Ravatt Albrecht & Associates recently provided on-call design services for Space
Evaluation and Recommendation Reports for the City of San Luis Obispo. Speciƥc
oƧce spaces in two City buildings were evaluated to determine if the spaces
were being utilized in optimum fashion. Three other locations of speciƥc City
buildings that were currently not being used for employee workspaces were also
assessed. Drawings were provided that presented recommendations for space
optimization, showing proposed space layouts for maximum occupancy, along
with staƤ material/work item storage for each facility. In addition, RA provided
short and long-term solutions, based upon staƧng level growth.
TEAM
Ravatt Albrecht & Associates:
Architecture, Programming
Greg Ravatt - Architect of Record
Michael DeMartini - Project Manager
Laura Joines - Project Architect
AC&E: Cost Estimating
CLIENT CONTACT
Mike McGuire, Project Engineer
Public Works Dept.
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781-7108
mmcguire@slocity.org
PROJECT STATS
Project Completion Date: 2016
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263u
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A2
Page 117 of 171
City of Paso Robles | North County Animal Shelter Feasibility Study | 14
RA
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS TENANT
IMPROVEMENTS, ARROYO GRANDE, CA
Ravatt Albrecht & Associates provided architectural and engineering
design services for the renovation of the City of Arroyo Grande City Council
Chambers. The former layouts of the men’s and women’s restrooms were
reconƥgured to provide separate ADA accessible facilities, the conference
room was relocated, and a small kitchen area was added to the conference
room. Upgrades included the installation of a permanent audio-visual system
and a new broadcast system for live coverage of the bi-weekly City Council
meetings. Necessary improvements to accommodate associated power and
data cabling requirements were also included in the scope of work.
TEAM
Ravatt Albrecht & Associates: Architecture, MEP
Engineering, Data Communications
Greg Ravatt - Architect of Record
Michelle Stokes - Project Architect
Jim Albrecht - Director of MEP
Joe Torrez - Electrical Engineer
Jim Logan - Plumbing Designer
Gary Gebhardt - Data Engineer
Smith Structural Group: Structural Engineering
AC&E: Cost Estimating
CLIENT CONTACT
Chris Magdosku, PE
Director of Public Works
City of Arroyo Grande
1375 Ash Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
(805) 473-5460
cmagdosku@arroyogrande.org
PROJECT STATS
Project Completion Date: February, 2017
Construction Amount: $413,303
SIZE: 2,800 SF
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263v
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A2
Page 118 of 171
City of Paso Robles | North County Animal Shelter Feasibility Study | 15
RA PROJECT EXPERIENCE
VANDENBERG VILLAGE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OFFICE
RENOVATION, LOMPOC, CA
Ravatt Albrecht & Associates is providing architectural, engineering, and interior
design services for this 4,480 square foot renovation of the Water Administrative
OƧce Building for the Vandenberg Village Community Services District. The
renovation of this existing commercial building, previously used as a bank, is a
comprehensive modernization of the exterior, interiors, and landscaping.
Although LEED certiƥcation is not required for this project, sustainability and
energy eƧciency are always implemented into our designs. This facilty will use
smart lighting, which adjusts with the amount of natural daylighting wherever
possible. In addition, south-facing glazing in the break room will allow for
passive solar heating in the winter.
Interior ƥnishes were designed to play oƤ of the theme of water, since the
building houses the Department of Water administrative oƧces. Custom
blue and green-toned mosaic tiles will compliment the new oƤ-white stucco
exterior both inside and out. The lobby features a glass wall that will separate
the conference room from the lobby, bringing in natural daylight from the
conference room windows. All restrooms were designed to be ADA compliant,
and use custom tiles and colors that tie in with the rest of the building.
RA assisted the District with the bidding process and will assist with construction
administration after the facility is built later this year.
TEAM
Ravatt Albrecht & Associates: Architecture,
Interiors, Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing
Engineering, Data Communications
Greg Ravatt - Architect of Record
Laura Joines - Project Manager
Larry Mitchell - Project Architect
Jim Albrecht - Director of MEP
Joe Torrez - Electrical Engineer
Jim Logan - Plumbing Designer
Gary Gebhardt - Data Engineer
Smith Structural Group: Structural Engineering
CJP Landscape: Landscape
AC&E: Cost Estimating
CLIENT CONTACT
Dr. Cynthia Allen, Vandenberg Village CSD
3735 Constellation Road
Lompoc, CA 93436
(805) 733-3417
callen@vvcsd.org
PROJECT STATS
Estimated Project Completion Date: April, 2018
Estimated Construction Amount: $700,000
SIZE: Approximately 4,480 SF
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263w
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A2
Page 119 of 171
City of Paso Robles | North County Animal Shelter Feasibility Study | 16
RA PROJECT EXPERIENCE
0UAD IMPROVEMENTS ȃ COMPLETED 2011 (ABOVE)
G8M MODERNI9ATION ȃ COMPLETED 2013
HIGH SCHOOL MASTER PLAN, ATASCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, ATASCADERO, CA
In 2010, using information gathered through circulation, parking studies,
and building massing studies, Ravatt Albrecht & Associates (RA) designed
a Master Plan with direction from the District Steering Committee and the
Facilities Management for Atascadero High School. This plan included quad
improvements, the Gymnasium Modernization, and other campus upgrades. The
District’s evaluation and review of the preliminary design led to the approval of
a master plan that permitted the contracts for the Gymnasium Modernization,
the Quad Improvements, and the VOIP Central Data Upgrade to be executed.
Some images can be seen to the right of these completed projects.
RA Managed SerYices
• Master Planning
• Site Evaluations
• Circulation Study
• Parking Study
• Building Massing Study
ProMect Status
Completed:
• Campus Master Plan
• Quad Improvements
• Gymnasium & Girls Locker Room
Modernization
• VOIP Central Data Upgrade
CLIENT CONTACT
Stu Stoddard
Director of Support Services
Atascadero Uniƥed School District
(805) 462-4243
CONTRACT VALUE
$17,000
COMPLETION DATE
2011
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263x
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A2
Page 120 of 171
City of Paso Robles | North County Animal Shelter Feasibility Study | 17
RA PROJECT EXPERIENCE
RESTORED ROTUNDA BUILDING HISTORIC PRINTERY BUILDING
NEW 6TH GRADE MIDDLE
SCHOOL COMPONENT
NEW 7TH & 8TH GRADE
SCHOOL COMPONENT
RENOVATE EXISTING
ELECTIVE COMPONENTS
NEW 1/8 MILE TRACK
REGRADE FIELDS
NEW EDUCATIONAL PLAZA
MIDDLE SCHOOL MASTER PLAN, ATASCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, ATASCADERO, CA
Ravatt Albrecht & Associates (RA) is working with the Atascadero Uniƥed School
District (AUSD) to create a Master Plan for their Jr. High School located on a 16.5-
acre parcel in the historic civic district of the downtown. The campus currently
has 12 buildings, but the Master Plan identiƥes the removal of two buildings
and two portables, and the modernization of 81,016 SF in the remaining 10
buildings. Four of the existing 7th/8th grade buildings will be updated to
accommodate the incoming 6th grade with 10 new classrooms. The internal
courtyard surrounded by the four buildings will be renovated with the removal
of paving to be replaced with landscaping. The 7th and 8th grades will be
relocated to a new two-story, 46,337 SF building that will house 22 classrooms,
a laboratory, a library, administrative oƧces and a regional classroom.
RA Managed SerYices
• Master Planning
• Structural Engineering
• MEP Engineering
• Civil Engineering
• Rooƥng Design
CLIENT CONTACT
Stu Stoddard
Director of Support Services
Atascadero Uniƥed School District
(805) 462-4243
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
$10,150,000
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE
January, 2019
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263y
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A2
Page 121 of 171
City of Paso Robles | North County Animal Shelter Feasibility Study | 18
RA PROJECT EXPERIENCE
TEAM
Ravatt Albrecht & Associates: Architecture and
Mechanical/Plumbing Engineering
Greg Ravatt - Architect, Project Manager
CLIENT CONTACT
Karen McNamara, President
Atascadero Printery Foundation
(805) 459-5113
info@atascaderoprintery.org
PROJECT STATS
Estimated Project Completion Date: 2019
Construction Status: Design Development
THE PRINTERY, ATASCADERO, CA
The Printery is currently an abandoned building in Atascadero’s downtown,
adjacent to the City Hall, the Middle School campus, and the rest of the
downtown core. It is listed in the National Register of Historical Landmarks but
is not much of a building in its current state. It is deteriorating and experienced
structural damage from the San Simeon earthquake of 2003. Earlier this year, it
was scheduled to be auctioned by the County of San Luis Obispo, however, the
Atascadero Printery Foundation formed and petitioned to save the building.
The Foundation wishes to transform the former Printery into a cultural center for
the community with a focus on education, history, and the arts. RA is working
with the Foundation to develop these plans to help convert it into a performing
arts theater for the residents of Atascadero to enjoy. Not only do the plans
include a theater space for live productions and musical events, but large and
small dining and meeting spaces, gallery display spaces, outdoor activity space,
and upstairs oƧce space are planned as well.
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263z
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A2
Page 122 of 171
City of Paso Robles | North County Animal Shelter Feasibility Study | 19
RA PRIMARY SUBCONSULTANT EXPERIENCE
Please see the following primary subconsultant information for BDA Architecture
and AC&E Cost Estimating on the following pages.
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263aa
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A2
Page 123 of 171
City of Paso Robles | North County Animal Shelter Feasibility Study | 20
BDA Architecture – Building Design for Animals; for 30 years
ŽƵƌĮƌŵŚĂƐďƵŝůƚĂƌĞƉƵƚĂƟŽŶŽĨĞdžĐĞůůĞŶĐĞ͕ŝŶŶŽǀĂƟŽŶĂŶĚ
ĂǁĂƌĚ ǁŝŶŶŝŶŐ ĚĞƐŝŐŶ͘ ^ƉĞĐŝĂůŝnjŝŶŐ ĞdžĐůƵƐŝǀĞůLJ ŝŶ ĂŶŝŵĂů
ĐĂƌĞ ĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJ ƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͕ ĚĞƐŝŐŶ͕ ĂŶĚ ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ ŚĂƐ
ĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚŽǀĞƌϵϬϬĂŶŝŵĂůĐĂƌĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŝŶϰϲƐƚĂƚĞƐĂŶĚ
ϭϮĐŽƵŶƚƌŝĞƐǁŝƚŚĂŶĂŐŐƌĞŐĂƚĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶǀĂůƵĞŝŶĞdžĐĞƐƐ
ŽĨΨϱϬϬŵŝůůŝŽŶ͘KƵƌĮƌŵŚĂƐĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚǀĞƚĞƌŝŶĂƌLJŚŽƐƉŝƚĂůƐ͕
ƚĞĂĐŚŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ ƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ ĨĂĐŝůŝƟĞƐ͕ ƵŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚLJ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ͕
ďŽĂƌĚŝŶŐĂŶĚĚŽŐŐŝĞĚĂLJĐĂƌĞĐĞŶƚĞƌƐ͕ĂŶĚƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐĨĂĐŝůŝƟĞƐ
ĨŽƌƐĞƌǀŝĐĞĂŶŝŵĂůƐ͖ŶĂƟŽŶĂůůLJĂŶĚ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƟŽŶĂůůLJ͘
^ŝŶĐĞϭϵϴϲŚĂƐƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚŽǀĞƌϯϱĂǁĂƌĚƐŝŶǀĞƚĞƌŝŶĂƌLJ
ŚŽƐƉŝƚĂů ĚĞƐŝŐŶ͕ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ sĞƚĞƌŝŶĂƌLJ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐƐ
,ŽƐƉŝƚĂůŽĨƚŚĞzĞĂƌĂǁĂƌĚŝŶϭϵϵϴ͕ϮϬϬϭ͕ϮϬϬϳ͕ĂŶĚĨŽƌ
ƚŚƌĞĞLJĞĂƌƐƌƵŶŶŝŶŐĨƌŽŵϮϬϭϯƚŽƚŚĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ͘KƵƌĮƌŵ
ĐŽŶƐƚĂŶƚůLJƐƚƌŝǀĞƐƚŽƌĂŝƐĞƚŚĞďĂƌŽŶŝŶŶŽǀĂƟǀĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĂŶĚ
ĂĞƐƚŚĞƟĐĂƉƉĞĂů͕ĐƌĞĂƟŶŐƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞĨƵŶĐƟŽŶĂů͕
ƐƚĂƚĞŽĨƚŚĞĂƌƚ͕ĂŶĚĚĞůŝǀĞƌŝŶĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůďĞĂƵƚLJ͘tŝƚŚ
ĨĂĐŝůŝƟĞƐ ǁŚŝĐŚ ŚĂǀĞ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚ ĚĞƐŝŐŶ ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƟŽŶƐ ĨŽƌ
ĂŶŝŵĂůƚLJƉĞƐƌĂŶŐŝŶŐĨƌŽŵĐŽŵƉĂŶŝŽŶĂŶŝŵĂůƐĂŶĚĂƚŚůĞƚĞƐ
ƚŽǁŝůĚůŝĨĞĂŶĚĨŽŽĚĂŶŝŵĂůƐ͛ƐĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞĂŶĚĞdžƉĞƌƟƐĞ
ĂƌĞƵŶƐƵƌƉĂƐƐĞĚ͘
dŚĞĮƌŵŝƐůĞĂĚďLJWƌŝŶĐŝƉĂůƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƐtĂLJŶĞhƐŝĂŬ͕WĂƵů
'ůĂĚLJƐnj͕ĂŶĚĂǀĞ'ĂƐƐĞƌ͛͘ƐƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƐƚĂīŽĨĞůĞǀĞŶ
ĐŽŶƐŝƐƚƐ ŽĨ ĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƐ͕ ƚĞĐŚŶŝĐŝĂŶƐ͕ ĂĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŽƌƐ͕ ĂŶĚ
ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ ƐƉĞĐŝĂůŝƐƚƐ͘ ůů ŽĨ ͛Ɛ ĚĞƐŝŐŶ ƚĞĂŵ ŚĂƐ
Our Firm
ƐƉĞĐŝĮĐƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞŝŶĂŶŝŵĂůĐĂƌĞĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJĚĞƐŝŐŶ͕
ĂŶĚĂƚŚŽƌŽƵŐŚƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐŽĨƚŚĞŝƐƐƵĞƐƐƉĞĐŝĮĐƚŽƚŚŝƐ
ĚŝƐĐŝƉůŝŶĞĂŶĚƚŚĞƐƵĐĐĞƐƐĨƵůĞdžĞĐƵƟŽŶŽĨĂŶĂŶŝŵĂůĐĂƌĞ
ĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJ͘
/ŶĂůůŽĨŽƵƌǁŽƌŬƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĮŶŝƐŚĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚ
ǁĞĚĞůŝǀĞƌŵƵƐƚŵĞĞƚƚŚĞŶĞĞĚƐŽĨĂůůƉĂƌƟĞƐŝŶǀŽůǀĞĚ͖ŶŽƚ
ŽŶůLJƚŚĞƐƚĂŬĞŚŽůĚĞƌƐ͕ďƵƚƚŚĞƐƚĂī͕ĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJĐůŝĞŶƚƐ͕ŐĞŶĞƌĂů
ƉƵďůŝĐ͕ĂŶĚŽĨĐŽƵƌƐĞ͕ƚŚĞĂŶŝŵĂůƐ͘ŶĂŶŝŵĂůƐŚĞůƚĞƌŝƐĂ
ǀĞƌLJĐŽŵƉůĞdžĂŶĚĚLJŶĂŵŝĐƚŚŝŶŐĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚƐŵŽƌĞ
ƚŚĂŶĂŶLJŽŶĞǁŚĂƚŐŽĞƐŝŶƚŽĂƐƵĐĐĞƐƐĨƵůĂŶŝŵĂůĐĂƌĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͖
ĞĂĐŚŽĨŽƵƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐĂƌĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚĨŽƌĨƵŶĐƟŽŶĂůŝƚLJĂŶĚŇŽǁ͘
KƵƌĮƌŵǁŝůůŝŶƐƵƌĞĞĸĐŝĞŶĐLJŝŶůĂLJŽƵƚ͕ƐĂĨĞƚLJƐLJƐƚĞŵƐĨŽƌ
ĂŶŝŵĂůƐĂŶĚƐƚĂī͕ĂŶĚŚŝŐŚƋƵĂůŝƚLJĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůĐŽŶƚƌŽů
ĨŽƌĂŝƌĂŶĚĂĐŽƵƐƟĐƋƵĂůŝƚLJ͘&ŝŶŝƐŚĞƐǁŝůůďĞĚƵƌĂďůĞLJĞƚ
ĞĂƐŝůLJĐůĞĂŶĞĚ͕ĐůĞĂƌĂŶĐĞƐǁŝůůďĞĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞĨŽƌǁŽƌŬŇŽǁ͕
ĂŶĚĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚůĂLJŽƵƚƐǁŝůůďĞĐŽƌƌĞĐƚĨŽƌƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐ͘
tŝƚŚŚƵŶĚƌĞĚƐŽĨƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŽǀĞƌƚŚĞƉĂƐƚϯϬLJĞĂƌƐĨŽĐƵƐĞĚ
ŽŶĂŶŝŵĂůĐĂƌĞ͕ŝƐƉƌŽǀĞŶƚŽƉŽƐƐĞƐƐƚŚĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůŝnjĞĚ
ĚĞƐŝŐŶŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂŶĚƚŚĞƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůĐŽŵƉĞƚĞŶĐĞƚŽůĞĂĚ
ŽƵƌ ĮĞůĚ͘ ZĞĐŽŐŶŝnjĞĚ ĂƐ ƚŚĞ ǁŽƌůĚ ůĞĂĚĞƌ ŝŶ ŝŶŶŽǀĂƟǀĞ
ĂŶŝŵĂůĐĂƌĞĨĂĐŝůŝƟĞƐ͕ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞŚĂƐƚŚĞĐĂƉĂďŝůŝƚLJ
ƚŽĚĞůŝǀĞƌĂǁŽƌůĚĐůĂƐƐĚĞƐŝŐŶ͘tĞƐƚƌŝǀĞĨŽƌŝŶŶŽǀĂƟŽŶ
ĂŶĚŽƵƌŐŽĂůŝƐƚŽĚĞůŝǀĞƌĂĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJƚŚĂƚŶŽƚŽŶůLJŵĞĞƚƐŽƵƌ
ĐůŝĞŶƚƐ͛ŶĞĞĚƐ͕ďƵƚƐƵƌƉĂƐƐĞƐƚŚĞŝƌĞdžƉĞĐƚĂƟŽŶƐ͘
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263bb
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A2
Page 124 of 171
City of Paso Robles | North County Animal Shelter Feasibility Study | 21
Paul Gladysz, AIA, NCARB, CSI, ICC
Principal in Charge - paul.gladysz@bdaarc.com | 505.858.0180
ĚƵĐĂƟŽŶ
Masters of Architecture -
State University of New
zŽƌŬ͕ƵīĂůŽ
Bachelor of Professional
Studies, Architecture -
State University of New
zŽƌŬ͕ƵīĂůŽ
>ŝĐĞŶƐƵƌĞ
Registered Architect:
ƌŝnjŽŶĂ͕ŽŶŶĞĐƟĐƵƚ
District of Columbia,
Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland, Mississippi,
New Mexico, New York,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, Tennessee,
and West Virginia
ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞͲBuilding Design for Animals
ŝŽŐƌĂƉŚLJ
WĂƵůŚĂƐŽǀĞƌϯϬLJĞĂƌƐĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞŝŶĚĞƐŝŐŶ͕ƉƌĂĐƟĐĞŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĂŶĚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ
management. Involved in over 300 animal health care projects, Paul specializes in
ĂŶŝŵĂůďŽĂƌĚŝŶŐ͕ǀĞƚĞƌŝŶĂƌLJƐƉĞĐŝĂůƚLJ͕ƌĞĨĞƌƌĂůĂŶĚĐƌŝƟĐĂůĐĂƌĞĐĞŶƚĞƌƐ͘tŽƌŬŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐ
projects in 40 states and abroad, ranging up to 100,000 SF.
WĂƵů͛ƐĂƌĞĂƐŽĨĞdžƉĞƌƟƐĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĚĞůŝǀĞƌLJƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ;ĞƐŝŐŶͬƵŝůĚ͕ͬDĂŶĚ
ƚƌĂĚŝƟŽŶĂůŵĞƚŚŽĚƐͿ͕ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶƚĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐLJ͕͘/͘D͘ĂŶĚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐĂŶĚ
ŵĞƚŚŽĚƐ͘WĂƵůŝƐĂĨŽƵŶĚŝŶŐƉĂƌƚŶĞƌŽĨDW͕/ŶĐ͕͘ĂĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶĂŶĚĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ
ŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƟŽŶĐŽŵƉĂŶLJĚĞĚŝĐĂƚĞĚĞdžĐůƵƐŝǀĞůLJƚŽĂŶŝŵĂůĐĂƌĞ͘WƌŝŽƌƚŽũŽŝŶŝŶŐWĂƵůǁĂƐ
ĂƉĂƌƚŶĞƌŝŶEĞǁzŽƌŬ^ƚĂƚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĂŶĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĮƌŵƐ͘
ZĞůĞǀĂŶƚ džƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ
WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂůŝŶŚĂƌŐĞ͗
^ŽƵƚŚĞĂƐƚĞƌŶ'ƵŝĚĞŽŐƐͲ
WĂůŵĞƩŽ͕&>
ϭƐƚWĞƚsĞƚĞƌŝŶĂƌLJĞŶƚĞƌƐͲ
Mesa, AZ
ZŽƐǁĞůůŶŝŵĂů^ŚĞůƚĞƌͲ
Roswell, NM
zhZĞdžďƵƌŐĂŵƉƵƐsĞƚĞƌŝŶĂƌLJ
dĞĐŚŶŝĐŝĂŶ^ĐŚŽŽůͲRexburg, ID
ŽƌŶĞůůhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚLJsĞƚĞƌŝŶĂƌLJ^ƉĞĐŝĂůŝƐƚƐ
ͲStamford, CT
<ͲϵZĞƐŽƌƚƐ&ƌĂŶĐŚŝƐĞƐͲ
New Jersey & Pennsylvania
tĂLJƐŝĚĞtĂŝĨƐ,ƵŵĂŶĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚLJͲ
Kansas City, KS
^ĂŶ>ƵŝƐKďŝƐƉŽŶŝŵĂů^ŚĞůƚĞƌ-
San Luis Obispo, CA
ŶŝŵĂůEĞƵƌŽůŽŐLJΘDZ/ĞŶƚĞƌͲ
ůŽŽŵĮĞůĚ͕D/
DŝĚůĂŶĚsĞƚĞƌŝŶĂƌLJůŝŶŝĐͲ
Poway, CA
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263cc
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A2
Page 125 of 171
City of Paso Robles | North County Animal Shelter Feasibility Study | 22
ĚƵĐĂƟŽŶ
Bachelor of Professional
Studies, Architecture -
University of New Mexico
>ŝĐĞŶƐƵƌĞ
Registered Architect:
Colorado
New Mexico
ĂǀĞ'ĂƐƐĞƌ, AIA, NCARB
Architectural Project Manager
ŝŽŐƌĂƉŚLJ
Since joining BDA Architecture in 1999, Dave has specialized his Architectural Degree
ŝŶƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŽĨĂŶŝŵĂůĐĂƌĞĨĂĐŝůŝƟĞƐ͘KǀĞƌƚŚĞƉĂƐƚĮŌĞĞŶLJĞĂƌƐ͕ŚĞŚĂƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚ
ŽǀĞƌϭϬϬĂŶŝŵĂůĐĂƌĞĨĂĐŝůŝƟĞƐĂůůŽǀĞƌƚŚĞhŶŝƚĞĚ^ƚĂƚĞƐ͘ůŽŶŐǁŝƚŚƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵŝŶŐ͕
ĐŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂůŝnjŝŶŐĂŶĚĚĞƐŝŐŶŝŶŐƚŚĞƐĞĨĂĐŝůŝƟĞƐ͕ĂǀĞŚĂƐĂůƐŽŵĂŶĂŐĞĚŵĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞŵ
ƚŚƌƵƚŚĞŝƌŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ͘
ƐĂWƌŽũĞĐƚDĂŶĂŐĞƌ͕ĂǀĞďƵŝůĚƐĐŽůůĂďŽƌĂƟǀĞƚĞĂŵƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶŽƵƌĐůŝĞŶƚƐ͕ĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌƐ͕
ĞŶŐŝŶĞĞƌƐ͕ĂŶĚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽĸĐŝĂůƐ͘ĂǀĞǁŝůůďĞĂĐƟǀĞůLJŝŶǀŽůǀĞĚŝŶĂůůƉƌŽũĞĐƚƉŚĂƐĞƐ͕
ĂƩĞŶĚŝŶŐƉƌŽũĞĐƚŵĞĞƟŶŐƐ͕ƉƌĞƉĂƌŝŶŐĂŶĚƌĞǀŝĞǁŝŶŐĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚĚƌĂǁŝŶŐƐ͕ĂŶĚŵĂŬŝŶŐ
ƐŝƚĞǀŝƐŝƚƐ͘ĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůůLJ͕ŚĞǁŝůůŽǀĞƌƐĞĞĂůůŽĨƚŚĞŝŶͲŚŽƵƐĞƉƌŽĚƵĐƟŽŶŽĨƐĐŚĞŵĂƟĐ
ĂŶĚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐ͕ƐƉĞĐŝĮĐĂƟŽŶƐ͕ƐƵďŵŝƩĂůƌĞǀŝĞǁƐ͕ĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌƉĂLJƌĞƋƵĞƐƚ
ƌĞǀŝĞǁĂŶĚŽŶͲƐŝƚĞŽďƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶ͘
ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞͲBuilding Design for Animals
ZĞůĞǀĂŶƚ džƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ
WƌŽũĞĐƚDĂŶĂŐĞƌ͗
&ĂƌŵŝŶŐƚŽŶZĞŐŝŽŶĂůŶŝŵĂů^ŚĞůƚĞƌͲ
Farmington, NM
ĞƌŶĂůŝůůŽŽƵŶƚLJŶŝŵĂůĂƌĞĂŶĚ
ZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞĞŶƚĞƌͲ
ůďƵƋƵĞƌƋƵĞ͕ED
ĂƌƐŽŶŝƚLJŶŝŵĂů^ŚĞůƚĞƌ-
Carson City, NV
dŚŝĞůDĞLJĞƌWĞƚĚŽƉƟŽŶͲ
<ĞƌƐŚĂǁŽƵŶƚLJ,ƵŵĂŶĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚLJ-
Camden, SC
dƌŝŽƵŶƚLJ,ƵŵĂŶĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚLJŶŝŵĂů
^ŚĞůƚĞƌͲBoca Raton, FL
&ƌŝĞŶĚƐŚŝƉŶŝŵĂů,ŽƐƉŝƚĂůͲ
Washington, DC
WĂůŵŝƚLJŶŝŵĂůůŝŶŝĐ-
Palm City, FL
ŝƌĐůĞKĂŬ ƋƵŝŶĞ^ƉŽƌƚƐDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ
ΘZĞŚĂďŝůŝƚĂƟŽŶͲ
Petaluma, CA
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263dd
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A2
Page 126 of 171
City of Paso Robles | North County Animal Shelter Feasibility Study | 23
ĞĐŬLJsĂůĞŶƟŶĞ
Design Manager | Veterinary Consultant
ŝŽŐƌĂƉŚLJ
ĞĐŬLJũŽŝŶĞĚƚŚĞƚĞĂŵŝŶϮϬϭϬĂŌĞƌŐƌĂĚƵĂƟŶŐǁŝƚŚĂĚĞŐƌĞĞŝŶƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞ͘
Her love for animals combined with her passion for design inspired her to pursue a
ƐƉĞĐŝĂůŝnjĞĚĐĂƌĞĞƌŝŶƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶΘĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶŽĨĂŶŝŵĂůĐĂƌĞĨĂĐŝůŝƟĞƐ͘ƐĂƉƌŽũĞĐƚ
manager and lead designer, she has completed several animal care facility projects all
across the United States, ranging from pet resorts and vet hospitals to animal shelters
ĂŶĚŐƵŝĚĞĚŽŐƐĨĂĐŝůŝƟĞƐ͘,ĞƌĂƌĞĂƐŽĨĞdžƉĞƌƟƐĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞŇŽŽƌƉůĂŶĚĞƐŝŐŶ͕ϯŵŽĚĞůŝŶŐ
ĂŶĚƌĞŶĚĞƌŝŶŐ͕ĞdžƚĞƌŝŽƌĞůĞǀĂƟŽŶĚĞƐŝŐŶ͕ŝŶƚĞƌŝŽƌĚĞƐŝŐŶ͕ĂŶĚŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐĞůĞĐƟŽŶ͘ĞĐŬLJ
ŵĂŶĂŐĞƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐĨƌŽŵƐƚĂƌƚƚŽĮŶŝƐŚǁŝƚŚĂĐŽůůĂďŽƌĂƟǀĞƚĞĂŵ͕ŽǀĞƌƐĞĞŝŶŐĞǀĞƌLJĂƐƉĞĐƚ
ĨƌŽŵĐŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂůĚĞƐŝŐŶƚŽƉĞƌŵŝƚĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐĂŶĚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶĂĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƟŽŶ͘
ĚƵĐĂƟŽŶ
Bachelor of Architecture -
California Polytechnic State
University
ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞͲBuilding Design for Animals
ZĞůĞǀĂŶƚ džƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ
WƌŽũĞĐƚDĂŶĂŐĞƌ͗
dŚŝĞůDĞLJĞƌWĞƚĚŽƉƟŽŶͲ
<ĞƌƐŚĂǁŽƵŶƚLJ,ƵŵĂŶĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚLJ-
Camden, SC
EĂƟŽŶĂů ĚƵĐĂƟŽŶĨŽƌƐƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŽŐ
^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐůͲPrinceton, MA
ŵĞƐďƵƌLJŶŝŵĂů,ŽƐƉŝƚĂů-
Amesbury, MA
ŶŝŵĂůDĞĚŝĐĂů,ŽƐƉŝƚĂůͲŚĂƌůŽƩĞ͕E
/ŶƚĞƌŝŽƌĞƐŝŐŶ͗
&ĂƌŵŝŶŐƚŽŶZĞŐŝŽŶĂůŶŝŵĂů^ŚĞůƚĞƌͲ
Farmington, NM
ĞƌŶĂůŝůůŽŽƵŶƚLJŶŝŵĂůĂƌĞĂŶĚ
ZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞĞŶƚĞƌͲ
ůďƵƋƵĞƌƋƵĞ͕ED
ĂƌƐŽŶŝƚLJŶŝŵĂů^ŚĞůƚĞƌ-
Carson City, NV
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263ee
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A2
Page 127 of 171
City of Paso Robles | North County Animal Shelter Feasibility Study | 24
Project Type: New Build Animal Shelter
Cost/Completed: $3,567,253 / November 2013
Client/Owner:
Julie Baird, General Services Director
(505) 326-3354
Project Delivery Method: Design-Bid-Build
Project Role: Prime Architect
Services Provided:
WƌŽŐƌĂŵŵŝŶŐ͕^ĐŚĞŵĂƟĐĚĞƐŝŐŶ͕ĚĞƐŝŐŶ
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕ĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ
ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐ͕ŝŶƚĞƌŝŽƌĚĞƐŝŐŶ͕ƉƵďůŝĐƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƟŽŶƐ͕
ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶĂĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƟŽŶ͕ďŝĚĚŝŶŐĂƐƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ
This 15,667SF has several unique features including a central courtyard
which provides a secure place for dogs to be exercised and allows the
ƉƵďůŝĐƚŽǀŝĞǁƚŚĞĂŶŝŵĂůƐĂƐƚŚĞLJǀŝƐŝƚƚŚĞǀĂƌŝŽƵƐĂĚŽƉƟŽŶƌŽŽŵƐ͖
ƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞ ĚŽƉƟŽŶ ĞŶƚĞƌ ĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞ ĂŶĚ ^ƵƌƌĞŶĚĞƌͬZĞĐůĂŝŵ ůŽďďLJ
ĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐǁŚŝĐŚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞŐƌĞĂƚĞƌĐŽŵĨŽƌƚĨŽƌƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐĂŶĚďĞƩĞƌ
ŇŽǁĨŽƌƚŚĞƐƚĂī͖ĂĚƌŝǀĞͲƚŚƌƵƐĂůůLJƉŽƌƚǁŚŝĐŚĂůůŽǁƐŶŝŵĂůŽŶƚƌŽů
ŽĸĐĞƌƐ ƐĂĨĞ ĂŶĚ ĞĂƐLJ ĂĐĐĞƐƐ ƚŽ ƵŶůŽĂĚ ƐƚƌĂLJ ĂŶŝŵĂůƐ ĨƌŽŵ ƚŚĞŝƌ
ǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐĂůŽŶŐǁŝƚŚƉůĞŶƚLJŽĨƐƚŽƌĂŐĞƐƉĂĐĞ͖ĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞůŽĐĂƟŽŶĂŶĚ
ĐŽŶŶĞĐƟŽŶŽĨĂƉƌĞĞdžŝƐƟŶŐƐƉĂLJĂŶĚŶĞƵƚĞƌĐůŝŶŝĐƚŽƚŚĞŶĞǁĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJ͘
The new shelter provides housing for 300 pets, a much needed
ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŽůĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJŵĂdžŝŵƵŵĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJŽĨϴϬ͘dŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
ĂůƐŽŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐĂůĂƌŐĞĐŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƌŽŽŵĨŽƌƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐĂŶĚĞǀĞŶƚƐ͕ŽĸĐĞ
ĂƌĞĂƐ͕ĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚƌŽŽŵƐĂŶĚĂƌĞĂƐĨŽƌƚŚĞŵƵůƟƚƵĚĞŽĨĨƵŶĐƟŽŶƐ
ŽĨƚŚĞZĞŐŝŽŶĂůŶŝŵĂů^ŚĞůƚĞƌ͕ĂŶĚďĞĂƵƟĨƵůŝŶǀŝƟŶŐƐƉĂĐĞƐĨŽƌƚŚĞ
ƉƵďůŝĐ͘
dŚĞĞdžƚĞƌŝŽƌƐŚĞůůǁĂƐĞŶŚĂŶĐĞĚǁŝƚŚŵƵůƟƉůĞĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐĂŶĚĮŶŝƐŚĞƐ͘
dŚĞǁĂůůƐǁĞƌĞĐůĂĚŝŶĂĐŽŵďŝŶĂƟŽŶŽĨŵĞƚĂůƉĂŶĞůƐ͕ƐƚŽŶĞǀĞŶĞĞƌ
ĂŶĚƐƚƵĐĐŽ͘tŽŽĚƚƌĞůůŝƐǁĂůŬǁĂLJƐĚŝƌĞĐƚƉƵďůŝĐƚŽƚŚĞƚǁŽƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞ
ĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐ ĂůŽŶŐ ǁŝƚŚ ǀĞƌƟĐĂů ǁŽŽĚ ƐůĂƚ ĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐ ƚŽ ďůŽĐŬ ĚŝƌĞĐƚ
ƐƵŶůŝŐŚƚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞǁĞƐƚĨĂĐŝŶŐǁŝŶĚŽǁƐ͘
Farmington Regional Animal Shelter - Farmington, NM
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263ff
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A2
Page 128 of 171
City of Paso Robles | North County Animal Shelter Feasibility Study | 25
Project Type: New Build Animal Shelter
Cost/Completed: $3,067,602 / September 2016
Client/Owner:
ZŽďĞƌƚ͘&ĞůůŽǁƐ͕^ĞŶŝŽƌWƌŽũĞĐƚDĂŶĂŐĞƌ
(775) 283-7370
Project Delivery Method: Design-Bid-Build
Project Role: Prime Architect
Services Provided:
WƌŽŐƌĂŵŵŝŶŐ͕^ĐŚĞŵĂƟĐĚĞƐŝŐŶ͕ĚĞƐŝŐŶ
development, fundraising materials, architectural
ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐ͕ŝŶƚĞƌŝŽƌĚĞƐŝŐŶ͕
ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶĂĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƟŽŶ͕ďŝĚĚŝŶŐĂƐƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ
This 10,726 SF facility provides housing for over 200 pets including
ĐĂŶŝŶĞ͕ĨĞůŝŶĞ͕ĞƋƵŝŶĞĂŶĚĞdžŽƟĐĂŶŝŵĂůƐ͘^ĞƉĂƌĂƚĞĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐĂŶĚ
ůŽďďŝĞƐ ĨŽƌ ĚŽƉƟŽŶ ĂŶĚ ^ƵƌƌĞŶĚĞƌͬZĞĐůĂŝŵ ŚĞůƉ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ ŵŽƌĞ
ĐŽŵĨŽƌƚĨŽƌƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐĂŶĚŵŽƌĞĐŽŶƚƌŽůĨŽƌƚŚĞƐƚĂī͘
sĞƚĞƌŝŶĂƌLJĨĂĐŝůŝƟĞƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂĚƵĂůͲƐƵƌŐĞƌLJƐƉĂLJĂŶĚŶĞƵƚĞƌĐůŝŶŝĐ͕ĂƐ
ǁĞůůĂƐĞdžĂŵƌŽŽŵƐĨŽƌŝŶƚĂŬĞ͕ƐƵƌƌĞŶĚĞƌ͕ĂŶĚƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ͕ĂŶ/h͕ĂŶĚ
ƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞŝƐŽůĂƟŽŶƌŽŽŵƐĨŽƌĐĂŶŝŶĞƐĂŶĚĨĞůŝŶĞƐ͘
ůƐŽŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƌĞĂDƵůƟͲƉƵƌƉŽƐĞĐŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƌŽŽŵ͕
ŵƵůƟƉůĞ ŽĸĐĞƐ͕ ĚƌŝǀĞͲƚŚƌƵ ŝŶƚĂŬĞ ŐĂƌĂŐĞ͕ ĂŶĚ ƐĞǀĞƌĂů ƉůĂLJ ĂŶĚ
͚ĂĐƋƵĂŝŶƚĂŶĐĞ͛ƌŽŽŵƐǁŚĞƌĞǀŝƐŝƚŽƌƐĐĂŶƐƉĞŶĚƟŵĞŐĞƫŶŐƚŽŬŶŽǁ
ƚŚĞĂŶŝŵĂůƐƉƌŝŽƌƚŽĂĚŽƉƟŶŐƚŚĞŵ͘
Carson City Animal Services - Carson City, NV
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263gg
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A2
Page 129 of 171
City of Paso Robles | North County Animal Shelter Feasibility Study | 26
Project Type: ZĞŶŽǀĂƟŽŶŶŝŵĂů^ŚĞůƚĞƌ
Cost/Completed: $1,532,603 / September 2015
Client/Owner:
Sharon Jones, Director – (803) 425-6016
Project Delivery Method: Design-Bid-Build
Project Role: Prime Architect
Services Provided:
WƌŽŐƌĂŵŵŝŶŐ͕^ĐŚĞŵĂƟĐĚĞƐŝŐŶ͕ĚĞƐŝŐŶ
development, fundraising materials, architectural
ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐ͕ŝŶƚĞƌŝŽƌĚĞƐŝŐŶ͕
ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶĂĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƟŽŶ͕ďŝĚĚŝŶŐĂƐƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ
dŚŝƐƌĞŶŽǀĂƟŽŶƉƌŽũĞĐƚǁĂƐĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂŶƵƉĚĂƚĞĚŚŽŵĞ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞ<ĞƌƐŚĂǁŽƵŶƚLJ,ƵŵĂŶĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚLJ͘dŚĞƵŶŝƋƵĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐ
ƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐĨŽƌƚŚĞĂĚŽƉƟŽŶĐĞŶƚĞƌ͕ƐƵƌƌĞŶĚĞƌͬĂŶŝŵĂůĐŽŶƚƌŽů͕
and spay/neuter clinic, allowing greater comfort for both the public
ĂŶĚ ƐƚĂī͘ dŚŝƐ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ŚĂƐ ƐĞǀĞƌĂů ƵŶŝƋƵĞ ĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ
indoor “street” for the public to tour as they visit all of the various pet
ĂĚŽƉƟŽŶƌŽŽŵƐĨŽƌĞǀĞƌLJƚŚŝŶŐĨƌŽŵƉƵƉƉŝĞƐĂŶĚĂĚƵůƚĚŽŐƐƚŽĞdžŽƟĐ
ďŝƌĚƐĂŶĚƌĞƉƟůĞƐ͘
Cats are housed in their own separate area within the building, away
ĨƌŽŵ ƚŚĞ ƐƚƌĞƐƐ ŽĨ ĂĐƟǀĞ ĚŽŐƐ͕ ǁŝƚŚ ŝŶĚŽŽƌͬŽƵƚĚŽŽƌ ĐŽŶŐƌĞŐĂƚĞ
ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƌŽŽŵƐ͘KǀĞƌĂůůƚŚĞĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJŚĂƐĂĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJĨŽƌϮϱϬƉĞƚƐ͘
dŚŝĞůDĞLJĞƌWĞƚĚŽƉƟŽŶĞŶƚĞƌͲĂŵĚĞŶ͕^
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263hh
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A2
Page 130 of 171
City of Paso Robles | North County Animal Shelter Feasibility Study | 27
Project Type: New Build Animal Shelter
Cost/Completed:
Ψϰ͕ϴϬϮ͕ϬϬϬͬWĞŶĚŝŶŐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ
Client/Owner:
<ĞƌƌLJĂƐƐŽƌĞ͕tĂƚĞƌΘ ŶĞƌŐLJŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶ
Planner
(505) 848-1552
Project Delivery Method: Design-Bid-Build
Project Role: Prime Architect
WƌĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶWŚĂƐĞ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐWƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ͗
WƌŽŐƌĂŵŵŝŶŐ͕^ĐŚĞŵĂƟĐĚĞƐŝŐŶ͕ĚĞƐŝŐŶ
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕ĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ
ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐ͕ŝŶƚĞƌŝŽƌĚĞƐŝŐŶ͕ƉƵďůŝĐƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƟŽŶƐ,
ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶĂĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƟŽŶ͕ďŝĚĚŝŶŐĂƐƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ
The facility will provide a new home for the Bernalillo County Animal
ĂƌĞ ĂŶĚ ZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞ ĞŶƚĞƌ͘ dŚĞ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞƐ ŝŶŶŽǀĂƟǀĞ
programming features such as individual suites for animal display,
ƉƌŝǀĂƚĞ ŚƵŵĂŶͲĂŶŝŵĂů ďŽŶĚŝŶŐ ĂƌĞĂƐ͕ ĂŶŝŵĂů ĐŽŶŐƌĞŐĂƟŽŶ ĂƌĞĂƐ͕
ĂŶĚƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐĨŽƌĂĚŽƉƟŶŐĐůŝĞŶƚƐĂŶĚƐƵƌƌĞŶĚĞƌŝŶŐĐůŝĞŶƚƐ͘
/ƚĂůƐŽŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐĂĨƵůůǀĞƚĞƌŝŶĂƌLJŵĞĚŝĐĂůĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJ͕ŝŶƚĂŬĞĂŶĚŚŽůĚŝŶŐ
areas, horse, swine, and other large animal corrals, and complete
ĂĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƟǀĞŽĸĐĞƐĂŶĚƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐƐƉĂĐĞƐ͘dŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁŝůůŚŽƵƐĞ
ϭϱϲĚŽŐƐ͕ϭϰϮĐĂƚƐ͕ĂůŽŶŐǁŝƚŚŵƵůƟƉůĞĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƟŽŶƐĨŽƌůĂƌŐĞĂŶĚ
ĞdžŽƟĐĂŶŝŵĂůƐ͘
dŚĞŇŽŽƌƉůĂŶǁĂƐĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽĞŶĐŽƵƌĂŐĞĂĚŽƉƟŽŶ͘ƐƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐ
ĞŶƚĞƌƐƚŚĞĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJƚŚĞƌĞǁŝůůďĞĂǀĞƌLJŶĂƚƵƌĂůŇŽǁƚŚĂƚƚĂŬĞƐƚŚĞŵ
ĨƌŽŵŽŶĞĂĚŽƉƟŽŶƐƉĂĐĞƚŽƚŚĞŶĞdžƚ͘ƚƌŝƉƚŽƚŚĞƐŚĞůƚĞƌǁŝůůďĞ
ŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶĂǀŝƐŝƚŝƚǁŝůůďĞĂƉŽƐŝƟǀĞĂŶĚĞŶŐĂŐŝŶŐĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞƚŚĂƚ
ǁŝůůďĞŶĞĮƚďŽƚŚƚŚĞƉĞŽƉůĞĂŶĚĂŶŝŵĂůƐŝŶƚŚĞĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJ͘
Natural light will be incorporated into all animal housing areas to
ŚĞůƉŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŚĞĂůƚŚ͕ƐƚƌĞƐƐůĞǀĞůƐ͕ĂŶĚĐŝƌĐĂĚŝĂŶƌŚLJƚŚŵ͘ƵƌĂďůĞ
ŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐĂŶĚĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƟŶŐĐŽůŽƌƐǁŝůůďĞƵƐĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJ
ƚŽĐƌĞĂƚĞĂĐŽŚĞƐŝǀĞĂŶĚŚĂƌŵŽŶŝŽƵƐďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶƚŚĂƚŝƐĨƵŶĐƟŽŶĂů
ĂŶĚƉƌĂĐƟĐĂůĨŽƌƚŚĞƐƚĂīĂŶĚĂŶŝŵĂůƐ͘
Bernalillo County Animal Care and Resource Center - Albuquerque, NM
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263ii
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A2
Page 131 of 171
City of Paso Robles | North County Animal Shelter Feasibility Study | 28
A C & E6XSSRUW6HUYLFHV provides Schematic, Design Development, Pre
Bid Cost, Value Engineering Estimates and CPM ( Critical Path Schedules).
Over the last 20 years we have provided Engineering Cost Estimates and Critical Path
Schedules for Schools, Airport expansion projects and Military projects. We also have
extensive experience with cost analysis and scheduling of both large scale and
small-scale projects, including Commercial - Industrial - Educational - Residential
SFD's - Multi Family projects. Because we developed and maintain our own Estimating
Software our track records for accuracy remains consistent within industry standards.
We are a Construction Cost Consulting firm dedicated to client success by providing
the strength of innovative analysis, and the security of broad-based project expertise
and professional and personalized attention. And because consulting is the focus of our
business, not a sideline, our clients benefit from greater accessibility, quicker
turnaround time, more personalized attention and lower fees
You may call on A C & E Support Services for environmental expertise, project
planning, project analysis, cost control, performance evaluation, comparative design
estimates, project scheduling, construction services and for expert testimony.
)or more information about our services you can visit our Web Site at
ACESUPP.COM
7o contact us directly, please feel free call our offices at 805 349-0049 and ask for Mike
Lewis
Respectfully Yours
1MGLEIP.0I[MW
Owner
A C & E Support Services
3KRQH )D[ (0DLODFHVXSS#DROFRP
/LJKWQLQJ6WUHHW6XLWH6DQWD0DULD&DOLIRUQLD
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263jj
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A2
Page 132 of 171
City of Paso Robles | North County Animal Shelter Feasibility Study | 29
over the last 20 years Mike Lewis has provided Engineering Cost Estimates and Critical Path Schedules for
schools, airport expansion projects and military projects. He also has extensive experience with cost analysis and
scheduling of both large scale and small-scale projects, including commercial, industrial, educational, residential
and multi-family projects. Our goal is to be within 7% of the lowest bid and 5% of the highest bid for a given
project, with a total spread of about 12%.
With Ravatt Albrecht & Associates
Renovate Bldg 331 NHCU PH1, Menlo Park, CA
Juvenile Services Center Remodel, Parcel A Highway 1, San Luis Obispo, CA
Holding Facility Expansion SLO, SLO County Government Center, San Luis Obispo, CA
ADA Upgrades, San Luis Obispo County, San Luis Obispo, CA
Renovate Bldg 331 NHCU PH2, 795 Willow Rd, Menlo Park, CA
Santa Maria Trial Court Clerk Bldg, Cook & Miller Street, Santa Maria, CA
Renovation Va Bldg 90-NHCU-LVD, Livermore, CA
ADA Facility Compliance Bid Package,15 Locations In SLO County, San Luis Obispo, CA
Maintenance Operations & Transportation Project, Atascadero Unified School District, Atascadero, CA
Interior Improvements Building 1628, Vandenberg Airforce Base, CA
Ag Commissioners Office Addition, Foster Rd, Santa Maria, CA
Ag Commissioners Office Modular, Foster Rd, Santa Maria, CA
Renovation of Building 836, Vandenberg Airforce Base, CA
UCSB Roof Replacement Theater, Goleta, CA
UCSB Replace Roof’s 4 & 7, Music Building, Goleta, CA
Miscellaneous Renovation Projects Housing Authority, San Luis Obispo, CA
Guadalupe Community Park Restrooms, Guadalupe Community Park, Guadalupe, CA
Santa Maria Fire Station #1, South Pine St Santa Maria CA
Santa Maria Fire Station #3, Donovan Rd Santa Maria CA
Solvang Vet Bldg Renovations, 1745 Mission Dr Solvang CA
Harrison Remodel, 2825 Tapedero Dr Los Olivos CA
District Councdil #16, 2705 Constitution Ave, Livermore, CA
E. O. Green Modernizations, 3739 C, Street Oxnard, CA
S B County Public Works Bldg C S A Architects N. Foster Road Santa Maria Ca
Office Expansion, 1370 White Ct, Santa Maria, CA
Santa Maria Fire Station #4, College & Bradley Rd, Santa Maria, CA
Mixed Use Commercial Building 153, 1201 East Main Street, Santa Maria, CA
Remodel DA Offices Santa Maria SBDA05 312 E. Cook Ave Santa Maria CA
Maint Bldg Restroom Remodel, 301 E. Third St., Oxnard, CA
Building D County Gvt Center, Betteravia Rd., Santa Maria, CA
Santa Cruz Transit Facility Remodel, 110 Vernon St, Santa Cruz, CA
Reroofing HVAC Atascadero Jr High School, Atascadero School District, 5601 W. Mall St, Atascadero, CA
Fire Alarm & Re Roof at San Antonio Elementary, 67550 Jolon Rd, Lockwood, CA
3KRQH )D[ (0DLODFHVXSS#DROFRP
/LJKWQLQJ6WUHHW6XLWH6DQWD0DULD&DOLIRUQLD
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263kk
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A2
Page 133 of 171
________________________________________________________________________
General Company Description
Petaluma Animal Services Foundation is a California non-profit corporation
serving the cities of Petaluma, Healdsburg, Cloverdale and Calistoga.
Mission Statement: Petaluma Animal Services Foundation provides Animal
Care and Control Services for stray, surrendered, injured and public services for
animals to residents of contract cities. Public services include adoptions,
collection and care of stray/injured animals, dog licensing, cruelty investigations
and animal law enforcement, public adoption events, and low cost dog
training/rehabilitation/crisis services for problem animals.
Company Goals and Objectives: Petaluma Animal Services Foundation
maintains the highest live release rate of any animal shelter in Sonoma County.
PASF is a leader in customer service with a loyal customer following. Our
specific objectives include reducing the length of stay for an animal to the
shortest possible time period, adoption follow-up to help with transition and
training, state of the art website of resources to our customer community as well
as other shelters, educating the community about pet needs, and a collaborative
working environment for our employees.
Business Philosophy: Customer satisfaction drives this business. Adopters, the
contract communities and the animals all receive the highest level of service. Our
animals are marketed throughout the service area for maximum exposure. As
more municipalities find themselves with financial challenges the subject of
Animal Services is visited. Our model is much cheaper for the contracting
agencies and much more successful for the animals in the community. Less than
3% of the animals entering our shelter required euthanasia. This engenders great
respect and support from the community and ensures very few citizen
complaints to the contracting agency.
Our most important resources lie in our personnel. All employees have a strong
commitment to animal welfare. Each area of the organization is represented by
an expert in that area: Animal Control, Canine Training, Customer Service and
Technology, Animal Veterinary Care, Volunteer Coordination, Humane
Education, Community Outreach, Executive Management. This diversified staff
and their commitment make the organization flourish.
Agenda Item No. 12 CC Agenda 10-3-17Page 263ll
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 10/10/17
ATTACHMENT: A3
Page 134 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
10/10/17
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report - Community Development Department
Adult and Medical Use Cannabis Regulations
Municipal Code Amendments
(PLN 2017-1633)
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission recommends:
Council introduce on first reading, by title only, the Draft Ordinance repealing Title 9,
Chapter 6, Section 9-6.186, Medical Marijuana Facilities, of the Atascadero Municipal
Code, and adding Chapter 17, Cannabis Activities and Regulations within Title 9, of the
Atascadero Municipal Code.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF:
At its September 19, 2017 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended (6-0) to
adopt a new ordinance regulating Cannabis activities. The Draft Ordinance repeals Title
9, Chapter 6, Section 9-6.186, Medical Marijuana Facilities, of the Atascadero Municipal
Code, and replaces it with an entire new Chapter (Chapter 17), that would contain
Cannabis Activities and Regulations. The following is a summary of proposed Municipal
Code Amendments:
Establish definitions specific to cannabis activities
Establish personal cultivation standards that to allow up to six (6) cannabis plants
for personal indoor or outdoor cultivation, consistent with State established
personal exemptions
Allow for adult and medical cannabis deliveries , from distribution centers located
outside the City Limits, to residents of the City, provided these businesses meet
established regulations, obtain a state license and obtain a business license
Allow for State licensed testing facilities, within certain non-residential zones, with
either a Major Conditional Use Permit, or an Administrative Use Permit
Include enforcement for personal and commercial cannabis activities to help
deter Ordinance violations.
Page 135 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
10/10/17
In response to a study session held on August 29, 2017, staff has provided some
additional information on topics which are not currently part of the Draft Ordinance. The
additional topics provide general information on:
Taxation for commercial cultivation, delivery services, manufacturing facilities,
and cannabis distribution centers
Review of banking regulations related to cannabis related transactions
DISCUSSION:
Background:
The study session held on August 29, 2017 was to review and provide direction on what
should be included the City’s new Cannabis Ordinance. With input from the public, both
the City Council and the Planning Commission provided direction on a final Draft
Ordinance.
The development of Zoning Code amendments is a gradual process that relies on
continuous community involvement. Four phases of the process, listed below, were
identified and presented to Council. The City is now in the final phase of the process:
Phase 1 – Gather public feedback through a series of public workshops
and informational discussions. This phase is complete.
Phase 2 – Direction from the City Council on the formulation of local
Ordinances. This phase is complete.
Phase 3 – Provide refined information to the City Council based on
specific feedback. Introduce land use definitions and information towards
Zoning Code development while hearing additional input. This phase is
complete.
Phase 4 - Hold required public hearings of the Planning Commission
and City Council, to review final amended Zoning Code language,
introduction of Draft Ordinance on first reading, and, adoption of
Ordinance on second reading.
The proposed Ordinance provides new definitions, personal cultivation standards, and a
review process to allow for testing facilities. All other commercial cannabis activities will
be prohibited at this time, other than deliveries that originate outside of Atascadero. The
City Council may elect to allow additional uses within zoning districts over time, and the
Draft Ordinance is written in a fashion that will allow for such code updates in the future,
as the industry matures and issues such as taxation and banking can be resolved.
Page 136 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
10/10/17
Land Use Definitions
The list of land use definitions has been refined to reflect the uses that would be
accommodated in the City. These definitions include the following:
Accessory Structure*
Cannabis
Cannabis Canopy
Commercial Hoop Structure
Cannabis Green House
Cannabis Testing Facility
Cannabis Commercial Cannabis
Activity
Cultivation
Day Care Center*
Full Enclosed Structure*
*Denotes definition specifically for the purposes of this section
Personal Cultivation
At the August 29, 2017 study session, an exception process was contemplated that
would allow more than 6 plants for a personal cultivation site with approval of a use
permit. However, we have since learned that the personal cultivation of more than 6
plants would require a state license for commercial cultivation. State law (MAUCRSA)
allows for a licensing exemption of six (6) plants or less. The City Council gave clear
direction that commercial cultivation would be prohibited in the City at this time.
Therefore, staff is recommending keeping a six (6) plant limit with no exceptions.
Personal – Indoor Cultivation for Adult and Medical Cannabis
Regulation Type Within A Residential
Unit
Within A Fully Enclosed
Accessory Structure
Maximum number of plants
allowed 6 Plants 6 Plants
Allowed in bedrooms no N/A
Max space allowed to cultivate
plants 120 Square Feet 120 Square Feet
Property Owner Consent Required Required
Indoor Cultivation
Outdoor Cultivation
Private Residence
Retail Cannabis Delivery Center
School*
State Cannabis Law
Youth Center*
Page 137 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
10/10/17
While the Draft Ordinance the Planning Commission approved for recommendation to
the City Council included a 240 maximum square foot space allowance for personal
outdoor cultivation, the direction of Council at the study session was to restrict the
maximum allowable space for outdoor cultivation to 120 square feet. The 240 square
foot maximum was not discussed at the Planning Commission, but was inadvertently
included in the staff recommendation to the Commission. The table below reflects the
suggested 120 square foot maximum allowance for outdoor cultivation and this 120
maximum allowance is reflected in the Draft Ordinance.
Personal – Outdoor Cultivation for Adult and Medical Cannabis
Regulation Type Outdoor Regulations
Maximum number of plants allowed 6 Plants
Max space allowed to cultivate plants 120 Square Feet
Visible from Public Right-of-Way no
Completely screened with neighborhood compatible
fencing and/or landscaping Required
Barbwire, razor wire fencing, chain-link fencing, plywood,
and unfinished materials allowed for fencing types no
Maximum fence height 7 feet
Setback from rear / side property line 15 feet
Setback from adjacent residences 25 feet
Setback from public right-of-way 25 feet
Allowed in the front yard setback no
Property Owner Consent Required
Additional regulations applicable to both indoor and outdoor personal cultivation of
medical and adult cannabis include:
Any modification to structures or land require compliance with the City’s adopted
building codes (Currently the 2016 California Building Code)
The use of solvents such as gas products, butane, propane, natural gas is
prohibited
Regulations for waste disposal have been included requiring that waste products
for personal cultivation be rendered in what is considered an “unusable form” and
must be contained in waste containers
Testing Laboratory
The Draft Ordinance allows cannabis testing facilities to be established through either
an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) or Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in certain non-
residential zones. Testing facilities would be prohibited in all Agriculture and Residential
Zones, as well as all Public Zoning Districts. The proposed Draft Ordinance contains
existing standards for testing facilities that include the following:
Prohibition of retail or wholesale sales to the public
Testing facilities prohibited within 600-feet of schools, parks, and youth facilities
Exterior signage is limited to 15 square feet
Page 138 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
10/10/17
Medical or Adult Cannabis Delivery
Medical and adult cannabis deliveries will be permitted from services located outside of
the City Limits to individuals within the City. The Draft Ordinance includes the following
regulations for delivery services:
Delivery service must be State licensed
Delivery service must obtain a business license within the City
No advertising is permitted on the vehicle utilized for cannabis deliveries
Delivery times limited to 7:00 am to 10:59 pm
Enforcement
After discussion with the City’s legal staff, it was determined that the State licensing and
enforcement process will be the primary enforcement tool. The City can use its current
enforcement tools to issue administrative citations, on a daily basis, to be more
proactive in enforcing the proposed new regulations. However, the City’s enforcement
policies on cannabis may not preempt State law.
Violations to the new Draft Ordinance will be enforced with the administrative citation
process include the following:
$100 fine for the 1st violation
$200 fine for the 2nd violation
$500 fine for all subsequent violations
The fine structure shown above could be utilized on a daily basis to enforce cultivation
limits, commercial cannabis activities, and any other activity that is inconsistent with City
Ordinance and/or the State licensing process. Instead of the current process, whereby a
letter is issued with a 30-day corrective notice, followed by additional time to abate the
code violation, violations of this Ordinance could be enforced in much shorter time
frames. For example, following issuance of a written notice, a citation could be issued
the following day with subsequent citations issued each day until the violation is
corrected. In the case of cultivation violations, such action may be necessary, as a
typical abatement process would allow maturity and harvesting of cannabis crop and
would make enforcement ineffective.
Taxation of Commercial Cannabis
The City Council requested information on taxation and the potential to revisit the
proposed Draft Ordinance, if measures were implemented to tax commercial cannabis
operations. Various cities throughout the State have placed ballot initiatives to tax
commercial cannabis sales, as well as, recover costs associated with inspections, etc.
These initiatives require voter approval to comply with Proposition 218. The following is
a cursory survey of some of the 37 tax initiatives that were approved throughout the
State in 2016:
Page 139 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
10/10/17
Municipality Gross Receipts Per Sq. Ft Tax
Carson 18% on all cannabis sales $25 for cultivators subject to CPI
Dixon 15% on all cannabis sales N/A
Grover Beach 5% on medical cannabis
10% on Adult Use
$25 up to 5,000 sf
$10 addition sf for cultivators
Subject to CPI
Gonzales 5% for the first 3 years
Up to 15% after 3 years
Up to $15 for the first 3 years for
cultivators
Up to $25 subject to CPI after 3rd
year.
Greenfield 10% on all cannabis sales Up to $25 with CPI
King City N/A $25.00 per square foot for the first
5,000 square feet
$10.00 per square foot thereafter
for cultivation;
not to exceed $5.00 per square
foot for nurseries;
$30,000.00 each for
manufacturing and testing
facilities; and may be adjusted
annually by CPI;
Coalinga N/A $25 for the first 3,000 sf
$10 for the remaining sf thereafter
Santa Barbara Up to 20% on all sales,
manufacturing, cultivation, etc.
N/A
Salinas 5% the first 3 years
10% thereafter
$15 per sf for canopy area for the
first three years
$25 per sf of canopy area
thereafter, adjusted for CPI for all
cultivators
There are many options for the direct taxation of the cannabis industry:
Tax the total amount of gross receipts for all industries, including testing labs.
This would be on top of taxes collected by the State, and sales tax for adult use
of cannabis.
Tax the total amount of gross receipts for dispensaries, retail outlets, and
distribution centers.
Tax cultivation, manufacturing, nurseries, etc. on a square foot basis for the
entire building, regardless of how many plants on the premise.
Tax cultivation based on “canopy” area, would be the area where cultivation
occurs, and omits areas utilized for processing, bathrooms, breakrooms, offices,
etc.
Some municipalities have placed flexibility in their taxations, including the use of
percentages that increase over time, have a cap, or are phased in. These approaches
are based on economic decisions to gain market share on the cannabis industry with
competing municipalities.
Page 140 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
10/10/17
Below is the general timeline to place a ballot measure on the November 2018 general
election ballot:
February 2018 - Authorize staff to craft a Draft Ordinance
May 2018 - Authorize placement of a ballot measure on the November 2018
general election ballot for consideration by Atascadero residents.
July 2018 - Impartial analysis, arguments for, against, proposed cannabis
commercial tax are due.
July 2018 - Complete a public inspection period of the impartial analysis, and
arguments for and against the Ordinance, and accept and/or draft rebuttal
arguments.
August 11, 2018 - Submit to the Clerk-Recorder Office ballot initiatives, analysis,
arguments for and against, and rebuttals
November 6, 2018 - Election to be held
Banking and Cannabis
Because the manufacturing, distribution, and dispensation of cannabis remains illegal,
under the Federal Controlled Substance Act (CSA), banks and other financial
institutions, providing services to cannabis-related businesses, risk violation of federal
anti-money laundering statutes, the unlicensed money-remitter statute, and the Bank
Secrecy Act (BSA). Financial institutions risk criminal liability for engaging in certain
financial and monetary transactions with the proceeds of a “specified unlawful activity”
and for failing to identify or report financial transactions that involve the proceeds of
cannabis-related violations of the CSA.
In 2014, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued guidance
clarifying due diligence expectations and reporting requirements for financial institutions
that wished to provide services to cannabis-related industries. The U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ) also issued a guidance memo clarifying the focus of its enforcement
efforts. Neither of these issuances, however, provide financial institutions with any safe
harbors or legal defenses from examination or regulatory or c riminal enforcement
actions brought by the DOJ, FinCEN, or other federal regulators.
While the DOJ memo notes that prosecution may not be appropriate if a financial
institution offers services to a cannabis-related business whose activities do not
implicate any of the priority factors that it has identified, it nevertheless also clearly
states that the guidance “does not alter in any way the Department’s authority to
enforce federal law” and does not provide a legal defense to any civil or criminal
violation of federal law. The guidance issued by the DOJ and FinCEN does not have the
force of law and is subject to change at any time, particularly since these guidelines
were crafted under a previous administration and the current administration has
signaled a potential shift to enforcement of current cannabis regulations .
Because of the high risk associated with cannabis -related transactions, many financial
institutions will not take on accounts associated with cannabis -related commercial
activities. There are a few smaller banks that are taking the risk and following the
guidance set up by the FinCEN and DOJ, however, these banks charge fees to recover
Page 141 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
10/10/17
costs such as compliance with these regulations. This is the primary reason the
cannabis industry remains primarily an “all cash” enterprise. With the amount of cash in
and around the industry, finding ways to deposit, pay taxes, and transport cash
becomes a potential for criminal activities.
The State of California has recognized this as a major issue and ob stacle to implement
Adult and Medical cannabis use. The State Treasurer has convened a “Cannabis
Banking Working Group” to formulate how to handle the taxation and the banking of
billions of dollars of transactions that will take place in California. A pot ential solution
that has been floated is the idea of a State run public bank. A similar bank, the Bank of
North Dakota, is the only publicly owned bank in the country, and was initially set-up to
aid farmers in the State in the early 1920s. Deposits are insured by the State itself,
removing all federal oversight, thereby side-stepping federal banking rules and
guidance. There are pro’s and con’s to such an idea, however, the State of California
has not signaled whether it would embark on such a concept.
Credit card companies follow the same set of regulations as financial intuitions. These
companies generally refuse to process transactions with cannabis -related industries.
Some businesses have established “work arounds” where cannabis patients may
purchase products online via a website and are “re-directed” to a website for payments
that are either a subsidiary or associated with the cannabis related businesses to
process the credit card transactions. Additionally, some cannabis business es have
resorted to creating limited liability companies and other non-cannabis businesses to
place cannabis related transactions within financial institutions.
Currently, a company operating out of Colorado has created an application to accept
debit or Automated Clearing House (ACH) secure transfer payments for electronic fund
transfers from cannabis consumers to cannabis businesses with accounts at certain
financial institutions, within the State of Colorado, whom have signed up to participate in
a “closed loop” system. The creators of this application, wish to bring this system to
California, however, banks would need to participate in the application , which is
accessed from a mobile phone, and weigh the risks associated with federal rules and
guidelines.
Ultimately, only a change in federal law can fix the banking system when it comes to
cannabis. At this point, cannabis businesses are finding other creative ways to deal with
the influx of cash in the industry and only time will tell whether their activities are
sustainable.
Conclusion:
The proposed Draft Ordinance has been crafted with input from the City Council,
Planning Commission and the public. The Planning Commission recommends that the
City Council adopt the proposed Draft Ordinance. The Council may also suggest
changes that are in the spirit of suggestions made during the Study Session.
As this is an evolving industry, it is likely the Ordinance will need to be revisited next
year, as State licensing matures and there is a better understanding of enforcement,
taxation, and other aspects. The Planning Commission, as a part of its
recommendation, would like a report, on the implementation of the Draft Ordinance, by
Page 142 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
10/10/17
Fall of 2018. For now, it is important to have policies in place in advance of the January
1st deadline.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This action is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality
Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and CEQA
Guidelines (Title 14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.) Section 15061
(b)(3) that the activity only applies to projects which have a potential for causing
significant effect on the environment and is therefore exempt from CEQA. Additionally,
the proposed Ordinance has been analyzed by City staff, for consistency with Section
15378, and the proposed Ordinance has no potential for resulting in physical change in
the environment, either directly or indirectly. The proposed Ordinance will not result in
any direct or indirect physical change in the environment because it does not involve an
irrevocable commitment of resources by the City of Atascadero to the activity, because
it is considered a ministerial action.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Enforcement of cannabis regulations will incur additional staff time, as City staff will
need to respond to code enforcement issues and provide guidance to individuals with
personal cultivation questions.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The City Council may make modifications to the proposed Draft Ordinance.
2. The Council may determine that more information is needed , on some aspect of
the Ordinance, and may refer the item back to staff to develop the additional
information. The Council should clearly state the type of information tha t is
required. A motion, and approval of that motion, is required to continue the item
to a future date.
3. The Council may deny the Ordinance. Should the City Council deny the
Ordinance, they will have until December 31, 2017 to implement a local
Ordinance regulating adult and medical use cannabis or risk ceding control of all
commercial and non-commercial cannabis use to State Law defaults.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance
2. Article – Cannabis Businesses and Cash
3. Article – Should California Start Its Own Bank?
4. Notice of Exemption
Page 143 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
1
DRAFT ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING
SECTION 9-6.186, MEDICAL MARIJUANA FACILITIES, OF TITLE 9 OF
THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE AND ESTABLISHING
CHAPTER 17, CANNABIS ACTIVITIES & REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, an application has been received from the City of Atascadero to amend
Title 9, Planning and Zoning, to implement provisions of the Medicinal and Adult Use of
Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) and certification of a Negative Declaration
("ND") for new regulations pertaining to cannabis regulations within the City of Atascadero; and
WHEREAS, the City has analyzed the proposed zoning amendment and determined that
it is not a project within the meaning of section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality
Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting in a physical change in the
environment, either directly or ultimately; and
WHEREAS, in the event that the proposed amendment is found to be a project under
CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3)
because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of a significant effect on the
environment; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code sections 65854 and 65855, the Planning
Commission has the authority to review and make recommendations to the City Council
regarding amendments to the City’s zoning ordinances; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2017, the City published a notice of public hearing, in the
Atascadero News, of the Planning Commission’s intent to discuss and consider an amendment to
the City’s zoning ordinances; and
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing, at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or in
opposition to, the proposed amendment to the City’s zoning ordinance and at which time the
Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment to the City’s zoning ordinance and
recommended approval of the proposed ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2017, the City published a notice of public hearing in the
Atascadero News of the City Council’s intent to discuss and consider an amendment to the
City’s zoning ordinances; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2017, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing,
at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or in opposition to, the
proposed amendment to the City’s zoning ordinance and at which time the City Council
considered the proposed amendment to the City’s zoning ordinance; and
Page 144 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
1
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby incorporates the foregoing recitals and makes the
following findings, with respect to the Atascadero Municipal Code, Title 9, zoning, text and map
amendments:
A. Findings for Approval of a Zone Text Change Amendment repealing Section 9-6.186
of Title 9 and establishing Chapter 17, Cannabis Activities & Regulations in Title 9.
1. FINDING: The Planning and Zoning Text Change is consistent with General
Plan policies and all other applicable ordinances and policies of the City.
FACT: The proposed ordinance is consistent with the City’s General Plan
policies and applicable ordinances and policies of the City.
2. FINDING: This Amendment, of the Zoning Ordinance, will provide for the
orderly and efficient use of lands where such development standards are
applicable.
FACT: The proposed ordinance includes development standards for personal
indoor cultivation of cannabis, outdoor cultivation of cannabis, testing facilities,
and delivery services located outside the City limits. The proposed development
standards ensure the health, safety, and welfare of surrounding residents.
3. FINDING: The Text Change will not, in and of itself, result in significant
environmental impacts.
FACT: The proposed ordinance will not result in significant environmental
impacts, as the ordinance is exempt from CEQA, and at this point, it is
speculative to consider potential new testing facilities and their potential
locations.
4. FINDING: Proposed Plans, if any, offer certain redeeming features to
compensate for requested modification.
SECTION 2. Repeal and Establish. The City Council of the City of Atascadero, in a
regular session assembled on October 10, 2017 resolved to introduce on first reading by title
only, a Draft Ordinance that would repeal section 9-6.186 of Title 9 of the City’s Zoning
Ordinance and establish Chapter 17 of Title 9 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 3. Adoption. The City Council of the City of Atascadero, in a regular session
assembled on October ____, 2017 adopted on second reading this Ordinance hereby adding
Chapter 17 of the Atascadero Municipal Code as follows:
Chapter 17 Cannabis Activities & Regulations
9-17.001 Title.
This chapter shall be known as the Cannabis Regulations of the City of Atascadero.
Page 145 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
1
9-17.002 Purpose and Intent.
(a) Purpose. It is the purpose and intent of this chapter to implement the provisions of the
Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MAUCRSA”) and to provide
access to adult-use of cannabis for persons over the age of 21 as authorized by the Control, Tax
& Regulate the Adult Use Cannabis Act (“AUMA” or “Proposition 64” passed by California
voters in 2016), while imposing sensible reasonable regulations on the use of land to protect the
City’s residents, neighborhoods, and businesses from disproportionately negative impacts. As
such, it is the purpose and intent of this chapter to regulate the cultivation, processing,
manufacturing, testing, sale, delivery, distribution and transportation of medicinal and adult-use
cannabis and cannabis products in a responsible manner to protect the health, safety, and welfare
of the residents of Atascadero and to enforce rules and regulations consistent with state law.
(b) Non-conflicting Enactment. Nothing in this chapter is intended to authorize the
possession, use, or provision of cannabis for purposes that violate state or federal law.
(c) Additional Provisions. The provisions of this chapter are in addition to any other
permits, licenses and approvals which may be required to conduct business in the City, and are in
addition to any permits, licenses and approval required under state, county, or other law.
9-17.003 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply.
(a) Accessory Structure. An accessory structure is a detached structure, with a “u”
occupancy that is accessory to and subordinate to the primary residential use.
(b) Cannabis. “Cannabis” shall have the meaning set forth in Business and
Professions Code section 26001(f), which includes all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa
Linnaeus, Cannabis indica, or Cannabis ruderalis, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the
resin, whether crude or purified, extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound,
manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds, or resin. “Cannabis”
also means the separated resin, whether crude or purified, obtained from cannabis. “Cannabis”
does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made
from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or
preparation of the mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the
sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination. For the purpose of this division,
“cannabis” does not mean “industrial hemp” as defined by Section 11018.5 of the Health and
Safety Code.
(c) Cannabis Canopy. All areas occupied by any portion of a cannabis plant,
encompassing all vertical planes (i.e. stacking of plants), whether contiguous or noncontiguous
on any one site. Cannabis Canopy” shall be measured by taking the longest length and widest
width of existing plants (including all gaps and open areas between plants) and multiplying the
length and width to get square footage.
(d) Cannabis Greenhouse. A fully enclosed permanent structure that is clad in
transparent material. Cannabis cultivation within an enclosed, non-transparent greenhouse is
considered indoor cultivation.
Page 146 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
1
(e) Cannabis Hoop Structure. A readily removable plastic covered hoop structure
without in-ground footings or foundations, which are not more than 12 feet in h eight and do not
have vertical sides that exceed 4 feet in height. Cannabis hoop structures are accessory uses on
residential land use categories which shall not exceed 120 square-feet. Cannabis cultivation
within hoop structures is considered outdoor cultivation.
(f) Cannabis Testing Facility. A facility, entity, or site that offers or performs
testing of cannabis or cannabis products and that is both accredited by an accrediting body that is
independent from all other persons involved in the cannabis industry in the state, and registered
with and licensed by the California State Department of Public Health.
(g) Commercial Cannabis Activity. “Commercial cannabis activity” shall have the
meaning set forth in Business and Professions Code section 26001(k), which includes the
cultivation, possession, manufacture, distribution, processing, storing, laboratory testing,
packaging, labeling, transportation, delivery or sale of cannabis or cannabis products as provided
in MAUCRSA (Business and Professions Code sections 26000 et seq.) and for which a state
license is required. Commercial cannabis activity shall also include the sale or distribution of
cannabis and/or cannabis products, in exchange for compensation in any form, for medicinal
purposes under Health and Safety Code sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 and following.
(h) Cultivation. “Cultivation” shall have the meaning set forth in Business and
Professions Code section 26001(l), which includes any activity involving the planting, growing,
harvesting, drying, curing, grading, or trimming of cannabis.
(i) Day Care Center. “Day care center” shall have the same meaning as Health and
Safety Code section 1596.76, which any child day care facility other than a family day care
home, and includes infant centers, preschools, extended day care facilities, and school-age child
care centers.
(j) Fully Enclosed Structure. A fully enclosed space within a building or separate
structure that complies with the California Building Code (CBC), as adopted by the City of
Atascadero, or if exempt from the permit requirements of the CBC, that has a complete roof,
foundation, slab or equivalent base to which the floor is secured by bolts or similar attachments,
and non-transparent walls on all sides.
(k) Indoor Cultivation. Cultivation, as defined in subsection h, of this section,
within a fully enclosed structure, as defined in subsection j, of this section.
(l) Outdoor Cultivation. Any location within the City of Atascadero that is not
within a fully enclosed structure, or cannabis green house, as defined in subsection d of this
section.
(m) Personal Cultivation. Cultivation of cannabis at a private residence, as defined
by subsection n of this section, for non-commercial cannabis activities, which is defined in
subsection g.
Page 147 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
1
(n) Private Residence. A house, apartment unit, mobile unit, or other similar
dwelling unit that is legally permitted within the City of Atascadero, and is considered a
residential occupancy type in the California Building Code, as adopted by the City of
Atascadero.
(o) Retail Cannabis Delivery Center. A “Retail Cannabis Delivery Center” is a
facility from which deliveries of cannabis and/or cannabis products originate pursuant to orders
placed by customers inside and/or outside the City.
(p) School. A private or public educational facility providing instruction in
kindergarten or grades 1 through 12.
(q) State Cannabis Laws. “State Cannabis Laws” shall mean and include California
Health and Safety Code Sections 11362.1 through 11362.45; California Health and Safety Code
Section 11362.5 (Compassionate Use Act of 1996); California Health and Safety Code Sections
11362.7 to 11362.83 (Medical Marijuana Program Act); California Health and Safety Code
Sections 26000 through 26211 (Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act
(“MAUCRSA”)); California Health and Safety Code Sections 26220 through 26231.2; the
California Attorney General’s Guidelines for the Security and Non-Diversion of Marijuana
Grown for Medical Use issued in August, 2008, as such guidelines may be revised from time to
time by action of the Attorney General; California Labor Code Section 147.5; California
Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 31020 and 34010 through 34021.5; California Fish and
Game Code Section 12029; California Water Code Section 13276; all state regulations adopted
pursuant to MAUCRSA; and all other applicable laws of the state of California.
(r) Youth Center. “Youth center” shall have the same meaning as Health and Safety
Code section 11353.1, which includes any public or private facility that is primarily used to host
recreational or social activities for minors, including, but not limited to, private youth
membership organizations or clubs, social service teenage club facilities, video arcades, or
similar amusement park facilities.
9-17.004 Personal Cannabis Cultivation.
The following regulations pertain to the personal cultivation of cannabis at a private
residence.
(a) All cannabis cultivation is prohibited within the City except no more than six (6)
living cannabis plants may be planted, cultivated, harvested, dried, or processed within a single
private residence, or upon the grounds of that private residence, at one time. In no instance may
personal cultivation occur on vacant property.
(b) Indoor Cultivation Regulations. Indoor cultivation on residential properties is subject
to the following regulations:
(1) Indoor cannabis cultivation shall only occur inside a private residence or an
accessory structure to a private residence that is fully enclosed and secured against
unauthorized entry.
(2) Sleeping Rooms within Residential Occupancies. Indoor cultivation may not
occur inside rooms designed for sleeping. Sleeping rooms are defined by the California
Building Code for residential occupancies.
Page 148 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
1
(c) Outdoor Cultivation. Outdoor cultivation on residential properties is subject to the
following regulations:
(1) Visibility. Outdoor cannabis cultivation shall not be visible from public rights-
of-way or neighboring properties.
(2) Screening. Outdoor cannabis cultivation must be completely screened with
permanent fencing and / or landscaping. Fencing must be compatible with the
neighborhood and be constructed of wood pickets, block, or other typical fencing
materials.
(3) Prohibited Fence Types. Electrical fencing, razor wire fencing, chain link
fencing, barbwire, plywood, and unfinished materials. Shade cloth, plastic, plywood,
OSB, and other temporary screening materials shall not be allowed.
(4) Fencing Height. Fencing for screening of outdoor cannabis cultivation must
not exceed seven (7) feet in height, measured from natural grade. Additional plastic or
other materials attached, suspended, or supported beyond the seven (7) foot height
limitation shall be prohibited.
(d) Setbacks. Personal cannabis cultivation shall be subject to the following setback
requirements:
(1) Property line. Cannabis greenhouses, cannabis hoop-structures, and all
outdoor cannabis cultivation must be located 15 feet or more from the edge of property
lines.
(2) Distance from Adjacent Residences. Cannabis greenhouses, cannabis hoop-
structures, and all outdoor cannabis cultivation must be located 25 feet or more from the
nearest adjacent residence.
(3) Front Yard Setback. No cannabis cultivation may occur within a designated
front yard setback.
(e) Total Coverage of Personal Cannabis Cultivation.
(1) Indoor Cannabis Cultivation. Indoor cannabis cultivation shall not take up
more than 120 square feet of indoor residential space.
(2) Outdoor Cannabis Cultivation. Outdoor cannabis cultivation shall not take up
more than 120 square feet of cannabis canopy coverage.
(f). Property Owner Consent. Where a private residence is not occupied or inhabited by
the owner of the residence, the owner of the property must provide written consent expressly
allowing cannabis cultivation to occur at said private residence.
(g) Applicability of Adopted Building Codes. All personal cannabis cultivation at a
private residence shall comply with applicable Building Code requirements set forth in the
Atascadero Municipal Code Title 8.
Page 149 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
1
(h) Use of Solvents. There shall be no use of gas products (CO2, butane, propane, natural
gas, etc.) on a property for purposes of cannabis cultivation.
(i) Waste Disposal. The following regulations apply to the disposal of cannabis waste on
residential property:
(1) Cannabis and cannabis infused products must be disposed in a secure waste
receptacle located on the residential property.
(2) Cannabis plants and products must be rendered unusable and unrecognizable
by grinding and incorporating cannabis waste with any non-consumable solid waste with
a resulting mixture of at least 50 percent non-cannabis waste.
9-17.005 Commercial Cannabis Activities.
All commercial cannabis activities are prohibited unless specifically allowed in this Table
17-1. It shall be unlawful for any person to commence, operate, engage in, to conduct, or carry
on (or to permit to be commenced, operated, engaged in, conducted or carried on) in or upon any
property located within the City a commercial cannabis activity unless that person does so in
strict compliance with State Cannabis Laws, this section, and all applicable Municipal Code
provisions.
(a) Table 17-1 identifies the uses of commercial cannabis activities that are permitted in
non-residential districts, and the planning permit required to establish each use, in compliance
with Chapters 9-1 and 9-2 of this code.
Table 17-1 – Commercial Cannabis Use Table
Allowed Land Uses and
Permit Requirements
Non-Residential Zones
A Allowed Use, Zoning Clearance Required
CUP Conditional Use Permit Required (Major)
AUP Administrative Use Permit Required
Not Permitted
Use Permitted Uses By Zones
CN CP CR CS CT CPK DC DO IP I
Commercial Cannabis Activity
Testing Facility CUP CUP AUP AUP AUP AUP
9-17.006 Commercial Cannabis Activities Development Standards.
(a) Cannabis Testing Facilities. The following are development standards for
cannabis testing facilities:
(1) On-Site Sales. Retail or wholesale sales to the public are prohibited.
(2) Distance. Cannabis testing facilities shall be prohibited within 600 feet of
schools, parks, and youth centers.
(3) Signage. Signage shall be limited to 15 square feet in size.
(b) Cannabis Deliveries. The following standards apply to Cannabis delivery services
located outside the incorporated City Limits of the City of Atascadero:
Page 150 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
1
(1) Deliveries within Incorporated City Limits. State-licensed Retail Cannabis
Delivery Centers located outside the City may personally deliver cannabis and cannabis products
to individuals within the City, provided that such deliveries are in strict compliance with State
Cannabis Laws and have obtained a business license tax certificate and paying the applicable
business license tax under Municipal Code Chapter 3-5.
(2) Vehicle Advertising. Vehicles used in the delivery process must be unmarked
without any designation or logo that identifies the vehicle as a cannabis delivery vehicle.
(3) Delivery Times. Cannabis and cannabis product deliveries within the City may
not occur between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
9-17.007 Commercial Cannabis Application and Procedures.
(a) Application Requirements. Any person applying for an AUP or CUP for a
cannabis testing facility, as allowed under this chapter, must submit the following information
with their application:
(1) The name of the proposed cannabis testing facility including, if applicable, the
name on file with the California Secretary of State and any fictitious business names and/or
DBA’s.
(2) The location of the proposed cannabis testing facility (must comply with the
zoning and location restrictions set forth above).
(3) The names, addresses, and contact information for each owner of the proposed
cannabis testing facility.
(4) If the proposed cannabis testing facility is incorporated, the names, titles,
addresses, and contact information of each corporate officer, the name, address, and contact
information of the agent for service of process, a certified copy of the articles of incorporation,
and copy of the bylaws.
(5) If the proposed cannabis testing facility is a partnership, the names, addresses,
and contact information for each partner and the agent for service of process.
(6) The name and contact information for each manager of a proposed
commercial cannabis business, establishment, or facility. If such information is not available at
the time the application is submitted, the proposed commercial cannabis business, establishment,
or facility shall submit such information to the Community Development Department as soon as
it becomes available.
(7) For each owner, corporate officer, partner, manager, employee, or volunteer,
a criminal history (“LiveScan”) prepared not more than two weeks prior to the date of submitting
the application demonstrating that there are no pending charges or convictions for any crime
(including, without limitation, theft, fraud, deceit, or assault) within the previous ten years, and
that the subject is not currently on parole or probation for the sale, possession for sale,
manufacture, transportation, cultivation, or distribution of a controlled substance. For each
owner, corporate officer, partner, manager, employee, or volunteer who becomes part of a
Page 151 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
1
cannabis testing facility after the required permit is issued, the cannabis testing facility must
submit the required criminal history to Community Development Department within two weeks
of the new owner, corporate officer, partner, manager, employee, or volunteer joining the
operation.
(8) A site plan and operations plan that demonstrate how the proposed cannabis
testing facility has already complied or will comply with the requirements of this chapter.
(9) A copy of all required permits and certificates under Title 8 (Buildings Code)
of this Code or an acknowledgment that the proposed cannabis testing facility will obtain all
required permits and certificates under Title 8 prior to its opening, establishment, operation,
and/or commencement.
(10) The name, address, and contact information for the owner of the property on
which the proposed cannabis testing facility will be located.
(11) An agreement signed by the owner of the property on which the proposed
cannabis testing facility is located consenting to use of the property as a cannabis testing facility
and agreeing to indemnify, defend (with an attorney selected by the city), and hold harmless The
City of Atascadero from any claims, damages, legal or enforcement actions arising from the use
of the property as a cannabis testing facility.
(12) Any supplemental information requested by the Community Development
Director or their designee to establish compliance with the requirements of this chapter.
9-17.008 Commercial Cannabis Application Approval or Denial of Entitlement.
(a) Criteria for Issuance or Denial of Permit. In addition to the criteria for land use
permits set forth in this Title, the Planning Commission, or the City Council on appeal, shall
consider the following criteria in determining whether to grant or deny a land use permit for a
cannabis testing facility:
(1) That the proposed location of the cannabis testing facility is not identified by
the City Chief of Police, or their designee, as an area of increased or high crime activity.
(2) For those applicants who have operated other businesses within the City, that
there have not been significant numbers of calls for police service, crimes or arrests in the area of
the applicant’s other business.
(3) That the location is not prohibited by the provisions of this section or any
local or state law, statute, rule, or regulation, and no significant nuisance issues or problems are
likely or anticipated, and that compliance with other applicable requirements of the City’s
Zoning Ordinance will be accomplished.
(4) That the operations plan and site plan have incorporated features necessary to
assist in reducing potential crime-related problems and as specified in the operating requirements
section. These features may include, but are not limited to, security on-site; procedure for
allowing entry; openness to surveillance and control of the premises; the perimeter, and
surrounding properties; reduction of opportunities for congregating and obstructing public ways
Page 152 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
1
and neighboring property; illumination of exterior areas; and limiting furnishings and features
that encourage loitering and nuisance behavior.
(5) That all reasonable measures have been incorporated into the operations plan
and site plan or consistently taken to successfully control and/or prevent disturbances, vandalism,
traffic problems, cannabis use in public, public or private nuisances, or interference in the
operation of another business.
(6) That the cannabis testing facility is likely to have no potentially adverse effect
on the health, peace, or safety of persons living or working in the surrounding area, overly
burden a specific neighborhood, or contribute to a public nuisance.
(7) That any provision of the Municipal Code or condition imposed by a City-
issued permit, or any provision of any other local or state law, regulation, or order, or any
condition imposed by permits issued in compliance with those laws, will not be violated.
(8) That the applicant has not made a false statement of material fact or has
omitted to state a material fact in the application for a permit.
(9) That the applicant has not engaged in unlawful, fraudulent, unfair, or
deceptive business acts or practices with respect to the operation of another business.
9-17.009 Commercial Cannabis Operational Requirements.
(a) Operational Requirements
(1) A cannabis testing facility permitted under this section may only operate
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
(2) A cannabis testing facility permitted under this chapter must comply with all
applicable State Cannabis Laws.
(3) A cannabis testing facility permitted under this chapter must comply with all
applicable provisions of Title 8 of this Code.
(4) A cannabis testing facility permitted under this section may not employ any
person who is not at least 18 years of age.
(5) A cannabis manufacturer permitted under this section shall not conduct or
engage in the commercial or retail sales of any cannabis or cannabis products on the premises of
the cannabis manufacturer.
(6) No cannabis cultivation may occur on the property of a cannabis testing
facility permitted under this chapter.
(7) A cannabis testing facility permitted under this chapter may not allow or
permit the use, inhalation, smoking, eating, ingestion, or consumption of cannabis or cannabis
products on the property of the commercial cannabis activity, including in the parking areas of
such property.
Page 153 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
1
(8) Criminal Background Requirements.
(i) No person who is currently charged with or has been convicted within
the previous ten years of a felony, a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, or
any crime involving the sale, possession for sale, manufacture, transportation, cultivation,
or distribution of a controlled substance, shall be an owner, corporate officer, partner,
manager, employee, or volunteer of a cannabis testing facility permitted under this
chapter. A conviction within the meaning of this section means a plea or verdict of guilty
or a conviction following a plea of nolo contendre or no contest.
(ii) Prior to commencing any work within or on behalf of a cannabis
testing facility permitted under this chapter, each owner, corporate officer, partner,
manager, employee, and volunteer must complete a current criminal history background
check that demonstrates compliance with subsection (g)(13)(i). Each criminal history
background check must be updated every 12 months.
(iii) A cannabis testing facility permitted under this section shall maintain
a complete register of each owner, corporate officer, partner, manager, employee, and
volunteer working for and/or associated with the cannabis testing facility, including a
copy of each required criminal history background check. The register and required
records must be made available for inspection by any city officer or official for purposes
of determining compliance with this chapter.
(iv) A cannabis testing facility permitted under this chapter shall notify the
city in writing of any disqualifying conviction described in subsection (g)(13)(i) for an
owner, corporate officer, partner, manager, employee, or volunteer within 10 days of the
conviction.
(v) A cannabis testing facility permitted under this chapter may submit to
the Police Chief a written request for a waiver of the prohibition in subsection (g)(13)(i)
with regard to a particular owner, corporate officer, partner, manager, employee, or
volunteer, on the ground that such person’s involvement with the cannabis testing facility
will not pose a threat to public safety. The Police Chief, in his or her unfettered
discretion, may deny such a written request, subject to the appeal procedures set forth in
Municipal Code sections 1-2.13 through 1-2.16.
(9) A cannabis testing facility permitted under this chapter shall provide the
name, phone number, facsimile number, and e-mail address of a manager or representative who
can be reached 24 hours a day in the event that the city decides to provide notice of an operating
problem associated with the cannabis testing facility.
(10) Disposal of chemical, dangerous or hazardous waste must be conducted in a
manner consistent with federal, state and local laws, regulations, rules or other requirements.
Cannabis waste must be made unusable and unrecognizable prior to leaving the licensed
premises by grinding it and incorporating it with fifty percent non-cannabis waste.
Page 154 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
1
(11) A cannabis testing facility permitted under this chapter must pay any
applicable taxes pursuant to federal, state, and local law.
(12) A cannabis testing facility permitted under this chapter shall provide a
secured storage area on-site. All cannabis and cannabis products shall be stored in this area
during non-business hours.
9-17.010 Suspension and Revocation of Entitlement.
(a) Suspension and Revocation:
(1) Authority to Suspend or Revoke. Any permit issued for a cannabis testing
facility may be suspended or revoked by the Planning Commission if it shall appear to the
Commission that the permittee has violated any of the requirements of this chapter or the
Municipal Code, the permittee is operating in a manner which violates the operational
requirements or operational plan required by this chapter, the permittee is operating in a manner
which constitutes a nuisance, the permittee’s state license under MAUCRSA has been
suspended, revoked, or terminated, or the permittee is operating in a manner which conflicts with
state or federal law.
(2) Annual Review of Permitted Cannabis Testing Facilities. The Community
Development Department and the Police Department are hereby authorized to conduct an annual
review of the operation of each permitted cannabis testing facility within the City for full
compliance with the operational, recordkeeping, nuisance and all other requirements of this
chapter. A fee in an amount established by resolution of the City Council may be established in
order to reimburse the City for the time involved in the annual review process. The staff may
initiate a permit suspension or revocation process for any cannabis testing facility which, upon
completion of an annual review, is found not to be in compliance with the requirements of this
chapter or which is operating in a manner which constitutes a public nuisance. Staff may, based
upon its annual review of the operation of a cannabis testing facility, place on a Planning
Commission meeting agenda, a proposal to suspend or revoke a cannabis testing facility permit.
(3) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, no permit shall be revoked or
suspended by the Planning Commission under the authority of this section until written notice of
the intent to consider revocation or suspension of the permit has been served upon a permittee at
least 10 days prior to the date set for such review hearing. Such revocation or suspension notice
shall state the specific reasons for the proposed suspension or revocation and must have been
provided to the permittee in writing prior to the hearing. Such notice shall contain a brief
statement of the grounds to be relied upon for revoking or suspending such permit. Notice may
be given either by personal delivery to the permittee, or by depositing such notice in the U.S.
mail in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid (via regular mail and return receipt requested),
addressed to the person to be notified at his or her address as it appears in his or her application
for a permit.
9-17.011 Enforcement.
The City may enforce this chapter in any manner permitted by law. Any violation of this chapter
shall be and is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and contrary to the public interest and
shall, at the discretion of the City, create a cause of action for injunctive relief.
Page 155 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
1
SECTION 4. CEQA. This Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of section
15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines because it has no
potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately. In the
event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA
exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with
certainty to have no possibility of a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of
competent jurisdiction, such decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each
and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional
without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid
or unconstitutional.
SECTION 6. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in
full once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of
general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in the City in accordance with Section
36933 of the Government Code. The City Clerk shall also certify the adoption and posting of this
ordinance, and shall cause this ordinance and certification together to be entered into the Book of
Ordinances of the City.
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council held on ____________________, and
PASSED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Atascadero, State of California, on
________________________________, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA
______________________________
Tom O’Malley, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Lara K. Christensen, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Brian A. Pierik, City Attorney
Page 156 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
2
ATTACHMENT 2: Cannabis Business and Cash
PLN 2017-1633
Page 157 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
2
Page 158 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
2
Page 159 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
2
Page 160 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
2
Page 161 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
2
Page 162 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
3
ATTACHMENT 3: Should California Start Its Own Bank?
PLN 2017-1633
Page 163 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
3
Page 164 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
3
Page 165 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
3
Page 166 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
3
Page 167 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
3
Page 168 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
3
Page 169 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
4
ATTACHMENT 4: CEQA Exemption
CITY OF ATASCADERO
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 805.461.5000
TO: File
FROM: City of Atascadero
Community Development Department
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in Compliance with CEQA Sections 15061and 15062
Project Title
ADULT AND MEDICAL USE CANNABIS REGULATIONS
Project Location (Include County)
Citywide, Atascadero, CA 93422 (San Luis Obispo County)
Project Description
This action consists of proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to Title 9 Planning and Zoning
Code to the following sections:
Repeal Section 9-6.186, Medical Marijuana Facilities
Add Chapter 17, Adult and Medical Use Cannabis Regulations.
Name of Public Agency Approving Project
City of Atascadero
Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project
Community Development Department, City of Atascadero
Exempt Status:
Reasons why project is exempt:
City Staff is proposing regulations for the personal cultivation of adult use and medical cannabis on
residential properties for a maximum of six (6) plants for either indoor or outdoor cultivation. Ordinance
includes provisions for screening, setbacks, as well as the area for proposed cultivation. Zoning
Ordinance provisions such as noise, lighting, etc are still applicable. Personal cultivation activities are
considered an ancillary use and is exempt from CEQA activities, specifically section 15303, small
structures, for accessory structure construction for use of indoor cultivation purposes, as well as section
15304 of the CEQA guidelines, minor alterations to land, for outdoor cultivation, as the activity is
considered private alteration to land for agriculture purposes.
Page 170 of 171
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
10/10/17
4
Additionally. Staff is proposing the allowance of a Cannabis Testing Facility within certain non-
residential zoning districts with approval of either an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) or a Conditional
Use Permit. Because of the multiple sites that may be available for this use, and no applicant has come
forward with the potential use, it is speculative to determine what, if any, environmental impacts will be
created. Environmental Review will be completed as entitlement applications are submitted.
Based on the provided analysis, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Section 15061.(3)(b)
Review for Exemption exempts activities which are covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only
to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment is hereby declared
for the following zoning ordinance amendments.
Date: September 14, 2017
______________________________________
Alfredo R. Castillo, AICP
Associate Planner
Page 171 of 171