Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 11/13/1990 PUBLIC REVIEW COPY PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE A G E N D A FROM COUNTER ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 6500 PALMA FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM NOVEMBER 13, 1990 7 :00 P.M. This agenda is prepared and posted pursuant to the require- ments of Government Code Section 54954 .2. By listing a topic on this agenda, the City Council has expressed its intent to discuss and act on each item. In addition to any action identified in the brief general description of each item, the action that may be .tak- en shall include: A referral to staff with specific requests for information; continuance; _specific direction to staff concerning' the policy or mission of the item; discontinuance of consideration; authorization to enter into negotiations and execute agreements pertaining to the item; adoption or approval; and, disapproval . Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk, available for public inspection during City Hall business hours. The City Clerk will answer any questions regarding the agenda. RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. * A person may speak for five (5) minutes . * No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to speak has hadan opportunity to do so. * No one may speak more than twice on any item. * Council Members may question any speaker; the speaker may respond but, after the allotted time has expired, may not initiate furtherdiscussion. * The 'floor will then be closed to public participation and open for Council discussion. Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call City Council Comment: * Proclamations: MADD' S "Project Red Ribbon" , November 20, 1990 = January 1, 1991 1 COMMUNITY FORUM: The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and comments from you the citizen. The Community Forum period is: provided to receive comments from the public on matters other than scheduled agenda items. To increase the effectiveness of Community Forum, the following rules will be enforced: * A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum, unless Council authorizes an extension. * All remarks shall be addressed to Council, as a whole, and not to any individual member thereof. * No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member, commissions & staff. A. CONSENT CALENDAR: All matters listed ander Item A, Consent Calendar, are con- sidered to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion on these items A member of the Council or public may, by request, have any item removed from the Consent Calendar, whish shall then be re- viewed and acted upon separately after the adaption of the Consent' Calendar. Where ordinance adoption is involved, action by Council on the Consent' Calendar will presuppose waiving of the reading in full of the ordinance in question. 1. OCTOBER 9, 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2. OCTOBER 30, 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 3. CITY TREASURER' S REPORT - SEPTEMBER 1990 4. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT SEPTEMBER 1990 5 . -UPDATE ON EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE" 6 . RESOLUTION NO. 121-90 - AUTHORIZING TEST USE AGREEMENT WITH COOPERATIVE PERSONNEL ' SERVICES 7 ADOPT WORKERS'` COMPENSATION POLICY FOR VOLUNTEERS 8. AUTHORIZE DONATION TO THE CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION CORPS 9 AUTHORIZE' FACSIMILE SIGNATURES FOR PAYROLL CHECKS 10 APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDERS FOR THE POLICE FACILITY' 11. AWARD OF BID #90-16 FOR INTERDEPARTMENTAL 'PERMIT: TRACKING SYSTEM 12. AWARD OF BID #90-14 FOR REPLACEMENT OF FIRE DEPARTMENT RESCUE- 1 MINI-PUMPER 2 13. ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL TRACT MAP 1382, VISTA ROAD - Finalization of Phase II, Tract Map 820802: 1 (Panorama Oaks II - Ibsen/ Gill/Stewart) 14. AUTHORIZATION TO REFUND AMAPOA-TECORIDA FEES: A. IN EXCHANGE FOR A 20' WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ACROSS THE THREE PROPERTIES @ 7220, 7300 & 7340 ATASCADERO AVENUE (Gardner/G.W. Land Co. ) B. IN EXCHANGE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF REGIONAL DRAINAGE FACILITIES BETTER HOMES & GARDENS BUILDING, 'MORRO RD & ATASCADERO AVE. (West/Bewsey-West Construction) B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES: 1. CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHMENT OF MANDATORY SOLID WASTE PICK- UP AND CURBSIDE RECYCLING THROUGHOUT THE CITY C. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1 . City Council : A. Committee Reports (The following represents ad hoc or standing committees . Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary. ) : 1 . City/School Committee` 2 . North Coastal Transit 3 . S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council 4 . Traffic Committee' 5 . Solid/Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Committee 6 Recycling Committee 7 Economic Opportunity Commission 8. B.I .A. 2 City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4. City Treasurer 5 . City Manager 3 P R O C L A M A T I O N "Project Red Ribbon" November 20, 1990 January 1, 1991 WHEREAS, 62 people are killed each day on our nation' s highways in alcohol-related crashes, compared to 76 people per day 10 years ago; and WHEREAS, drunk driving claims the lives of more than 22 , 415 Americans each year; and WHEREAS, MADD has played a vital role in the enactment of over 1 , 250 laws against drunk driving; and WHEREAS, September 5 , 1990 is the 10-Year Anniversary of Mothers Against Drunk Driving--an observance dedicated to the more than 22, 000 needless victims of drunk driving crashes in the United States each year; and WHEREAS, an estimated 39, 000 lives have been saved during the past decade due to the fight against drunk driving; and WHEREAS, thousands of volunteers across the country have dedicated countless hours to providing support for victims and preventing further drunk driving tragedies; and • WHEREAS, MADD and its members and supporters pledge to con- tinue diligent efforts in the next decade and beyond, as they say, "We' re In It For Lives"; and WHEREAS, MADD is asking Americans to tie a red ribbon to a visible location on their vehicles as a symbol that you join Mothers Against Drunk Driving in its hope for a safe and sober holiday season; and WHEREAS, MADD is asking citizens to "Tie One On For Safety" by participating in PROJECT RED RIBBON, a national holiday public awareness program; NOW, THEREFORE, I Robert Lilley, Mayor, do hereby proclaim November 20, 1990 through January 1 , 1991 as MADD' S Project Red Ribbon, "TIE ONE ON FOR SAFETY" and urge all citizens of our community to help make the holidays safer by driving sober this holiday season and throughout the year. ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor • City of Atascadero, CA Dated: November 13 , 1990 MEETING AGENDA DA7 11 01TEM# A_lam, • ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 1990 The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p .m. by Mayor Lilley . Councilman Shiers led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present : Councilmembers Shiers, Nimmo , Dexter , Borgeson and Mayor Lilley Also Present : Muriel Korba, City Treasurer and Lee Dayka, City Clerk Staff Present : Ray Windsor , City Manager ; Art Montandon, City Attorney; Henry Engen, Community Development Director ; Greg Luke, Public Works Director ; Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director ; Lisa Schicker , Natural • Resource Specialist ; and Bud McHale, Police Chief PROCLAMATION• Mayor Lilley - read the proclamation for "Fire Prevention Week" , October 7-13, 1990. COMMUNITY FORUM: Sarah Gronstrand , representing the Friends of the Lake Pavilion, announced that on May 5, 1991 there would be a benefit event , "Festival of the Oaks and Antique Show" . A. CONSENT CALENDAR: Mayor Lilley read the Consent Calendar : 1 . SEPTEMBER 11 , 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2. SEPTEMBER 20, 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES (Study Session) 3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11-90, 8065 AMAPOA - Request to subdivide one lot into four four airspa--e condominiums and a CC9125/90 • Page 1 common space (Academe Enterprises, Inc . /Summit Engineering ) • 4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12-90, 8045 AMAPOA - Request to convert an existing four-unit project into airspace condominiums (Shutt/Summitt Engineering ) 5. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13-90, 6655 TECORIDA - Request to subdivide one lot into four airspace condominiums and a common space (Borba/Cuesta Engineering ) 6. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13-88, 6375 TECORIDA - Time extension (Grinnell ) 7. FINAL TRACT MAP 3-90, 7715/7745 SINALOA ROAD Creation of six parcels ranging in size from 3,206 sq . ft . to 4,775 sq . ft . ( in conformance with Ordinance No . 198, Zone Change 8- 89, Planned Development Overlay No . 7) (Jones/Cuesta Engineering ) 8. FINAL TRACT MAP 15-89, 5900 BAJADA AVENUE - Amendment to a previously approved condominium tract map to allow an addition to unit #1 (Low/Cuesta Engineering ) 9. FINAL PARCEL MAP 20-89, 14205 SANTA ANA ROAD, 9800 6 9850 GARCERO ROAD - Subdivision of 17. 19 acres into three lots • containing approximately 5.7 acres each (Atascadero Highlands/ Volbrecht Surveys ) 10. RESOLUTION NO. 116-90 - ESTABLISHMENT OF A NO PARKING AREA ALONG A PORTION OF EL CAMINO REAL IN FRONT OF THE K-MART PLAZA 11 . RESOLUTION NO. 115-90 - ESTABLISHMENT OF A STOP INTERSECTION ON ARDILLA ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF BALBOA ROAD 12. RESOLUTION NO. 117-90 - ESTABLISHMENT OF A NO PARKING AREA ALONG A PORTION OF SAN LUIS AND PUEBLO AVENUES 13. AUTHORIZATION FOR PAVILION-RELATED EXPENSES (PHASE I ) 14. AWARD OF BID #90-12 FOR BUILDING DIVISION UTILITY VEHICLE 15. AWARD OF BID #90-5 FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT COMPUTER EQUIPMENT Councilwoman Borgeson pulled items A-13 and A-15 for clarification. CC9/25/90 Page 2 • • MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo to approve the Consent Calendar with the exceptions of items A-13 and A-15; motion unanimously carried by roll call vote. 13. AUTHORIZATION FOR PAVILION-RELATED EXPENSES (PHASE I ) Councilwoman Borgeson noted that she had pulled this item off the Consent Calendar to ask why there was a 5% discrepancy in the contingency. The City Manager , Mr . Windsor , stated that the 10% contingency previously approved by Council was not necessary and added that if it increases about the 5% speculated , the matter will come back to Council . 15. AWARD OF BID #90-5 FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT COMPUTER EQUIPMENT Councilwoman Borgeson stated , for the public record , that she had spoken with the Police Chief regarding the award of the bid and that she had been satisfied with his report . Chief McHale clarified that Witco Computers can supply the most well-trained backup and can support the entire department ' s computer system. • MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to approve items A-13 and A-15; motion carried 5:0 by roll call vote. B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES: 1 . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 09-89, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 21-89, AND ZONE CHANGE 15-89, 8555 EL CORTE - Appeal by Ray Bunnell of Planning Commission denial of proposal to subdivide six (6 ) existing lots of 21 acres into 78 lots for single-family homes, including one common lot , and to revise standards of the PD-6 Overlay Zone relating to the elevation at which structures can be built on the site (Continued from September 25, 1990) Henry Engen, Community Development Director , gave the staff report describing the proposed project and the additional amenities of a hiking trail and a common recreational lot . Mr . Engen reported that the initial staff recommendation was to support the proposed development and adopt the ordinance, but that the Planning Commission had recommended denial . He reported that the issues of concern included density, impact of off--site improvements , drainage, the request to change the 960 foot contour condition elevation and the impact of increased traffic . CC9/25/90 • Page 3 An alternative to the proposed 77-unit project , he added , would • be a 72-unit project , which is the scale schematically presented in support of the original re-zoning in 1986. Mr . Engen responded to questions from the Council regarding surrounding development , building heights, access routes and minimum lot size. Ray Bunnell , owner-developer , clarified that he was not requesting a re-zoning and that the proposed development would not be unusual or new for the area. He gave background and related comments in support of the Planned Development . In addition, Mr . Bunnell addressed the 960 foot elevation, tree removals and off-site improvements. At this time, Mr . Bunnell introduced his design team, who individually addressed the Council . Rob Strong , planning consultant , gave a slide presentation of the location and proposed development . Steve Pults, architect , presented slides rendering architectural concepts. Fred Schott , project engineer , addressed issues of drainage, road system, traffic and on-site grading . Mr . Bunnell then responded to questions from Council regarding • lot size, side yards and property lot line design. Public Comments : Art Wells, 9105 La Linia, spoke in opposition to the planned development claiming that it create major changes in character and traffic levels. David Mosher , 8895 E1 Centro , stated that he was riot against the property being developed , but asked that it be kept in line with one-half acre zoning . In addition, he opposed the proposed opening up of El Centro and expressed concern relating to drainage. Jay Peterson, 8519 El Dorado , submitted a petition (Exhibit A) signed by property owners who were asking that the property be restored to single-family residential zoning . He spoke regarding the initial development proposed by the former owner , Bill Poe , and opposed strongly to the planned development because of density and expected increased traffic . Mr . Peterson asserted that the proposed utilization was not in conformance with the neighborhood . CC9/25/90 Page 4 • • Ronetta 8545 El Dorado spoke in opposition to the Davidson, � P PP number of homes proposed and the opening up of E1 Centro . Mr . Sahl , 9083 La Linia, expressed concerns relating to drainage and traffic . Mario Perez , 8531 E1 Dorado , quoted an earlier engineering study regarding traffic congestion, spoke in opposition to opening up of E1 Centro and to the number of homes proposed . He urged Council to restore the half-acre zoning . Larry Waugh , 8580 E1 Dorado , proclaimed that the area already had inadequate culverts, stressing concerns for drainage. In addition, the resident stated that the proposed project was too dense. Mike Cox , resident of Morningside Drive in Atascadero , commented that he was surprised that the matter had become an issue and referred to the proposed development by Mr . Poe. He indicated that his concern at the time had been that the homes planned were to be duplex units and suggested that the current proposal was a more appropriate development . Vincent 'Lavorgna of Atascadero spoke on behalf of Mrs. Van Ryan, a neighboring property owner , who was in support of the project . • Bill Watton, 8990 Arcade, voiced opposition to the planned development stating that it would be more appropriate to cut the proposed number of units in half. He also referred to a past traffic fatality in the area and commented that the traffic problems have not been adequately addressed . Kay Wells , 9105 La Linia, noted that the development would add to the problems of drainage and would disturb the natural floral and wildlife habitats of an existing " live stream" . Additionally, the resident expressed concern for the safety of children if E1 Corte was opened up for through traffic . Ruben Diaz , 9085 La Linia, relayed concern for increased traffic , drainage and street surfacing . Richard Schenberger , 10535 San Marcos Road , spoke in favor of the project noting that it offered the feature of pride of ownership . Eric Hagen, 5500 Santa Fe Road , commented that the proposed project would blend with the hillside and topography. CC9/25/90 • Page 5 Mayor Lilley called for a fifteen minute recess at 9:30 P.M. • The meeting was reconvened at 9:45 p.m. Tim McCutheon, 786 Horstman in Templeton, referred to another Bunnell Construction project and stated that initially residents had similar concerns. He stated that the Cherry Meadows development was a good project and urged Council to approve the proposal . Janet Fillmore, 8830 E1 Centro Road , asked why there had not been an Environmental Impact Report done on the project . She expressed concerns relating to density, elevations and to the opening up of E1 Centro . Mr . Bunnell responded to concerns raised by the public regarding off-site improvements adding that the City has good control over follow-through . He indicated that he wanted to be proud of the project and had no objections to leaving the live stream open. He explained that once La Linia is improved , the streets will be safer and commended the staff for their report . Mr . Bunnell urged Council to approve the project . Discussion came back to individual comments from the Council . Councilman Nimmo stated that change is needed and that the property is an eye-sore. He voiced support for the proposed • development indicating that he favored it over the alternative of apartments and added that it offered an opportunity for improving the infrastructure. Councilman Shiers opposed the density level stating that it was not consistent with the neighborhood . He also noted that while he was supportive of alternatives to shielding cuts, he did not favor lifting the 960 ' contour line restrictions. In addition, he reiterated concerns about traffic and drainage. Councilman Dexter stated that there was a need for the kind of housing proposed because of the amenities it afforded ; but asserted that he could support the project if the number of homes was reduced to seventy-two (72) . He added that he was not , however , in agreement with the extension of E1 Centro . Councilwoman Borgeson declared that the previous re-zoning was done so inappropriately and stressed her concern that "unusable" land had been considered for overall building lot calculations. She expressed concurrence with the Planning Commission and their findings for denial . Councilwoman Borgeson referred to a comment made earlier by a member of the public regarding an E . I .R. and stated that there would indeed be impacts to the neighborhood . CC9/25/90 Page 6 • • She concurred with Councilman Dexter that development should be limited to seventy-two units. Mayor Lilley • indicated support of the planned development describing it as sensitive. He noted that the area had outgrown infrastructure and that staff had used planning tools to mitigate the residents of not only the new development , but also those of the present neighbors. The mayor commented that seventy-seven units were too many, but added that he would approve of seventy- two . Discussion ensued regarding the building height limitations. Councilman Shiers stated that if the 960 ' building height restriction is lifted , he wanted to ensure that the building height would not go above 30 ' . Mr . Engen reported that the applicant had indicated that he was not planning on going any higher . MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo to adopt an amendment to the official Zoning Ordinance text of the PD6 overlay zone relative to proposed buildings extending above a specific elevation, as set forth in Exhibit K of the staff report . • Discussion of the motion followed . Councilman Shiers asked if there was consensus that there would be a reduction in the number of homes and reiterated his concerns . Councilwoman Borgeson asked for an opinion from the City Attorney. Mr . Montandon advised that the action before them was the introduction of the ordinance and that it would be back for second reading in two weeks, at which time Council had the option of adopting it or not . Vote was taken; amendment to the ordinance was unanimous. Additional discussion Ensued regarding the number of units and options for Council direction. The mayor asked the applicant if he would be willing to reduce the amount of homes to seventy--two with one lot reserved for open space. Mr . Bunnell replied that he would be willing to amend his request for a Conditional Use Permit by reducing the number of living spaces to seventy-two with one uninhabited lot . He added that he would surrender an earlier request to waive the conditional off-site improvements associated with that reduction. CC9/25/90 • Page 7 MOTION: By Mayor Lilley to approve the Conditional Use Permit • subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the staff report in Exhibits "L" and "M" ; as amended at the request of the applicant for approval of seventy-two residential units and the balance of the lot in undeveloped open space; this motion contingent upon the applicant submitting a revised site plan and staff revising conditions of approval , all subject to further approval as a Consent Agenda item for the meeting of October 30, 1990; motion unanimously passed . MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo to continue the matter of accepting the tentative tract map , as a consent agenda item, to October 30, 1990; motion unanimously carried . 2. CONSIDERATION OF HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST, 12550 SANTA ANA ROAD, FOR PURPOSE OF PROPOSED DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION (Sandel ) Lisa Schicker , Natural Resource Specialist , was present to respond to questions. There were no comments from Council or the public . MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo • to support the findings of the Natural Resource Specialist and approve the heritage tree removal ; motion unanimously carried . 3. CONSIDERATION OF HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST, 9405 JAQUIMA FOR PURPOSES OF HOME CONSTRUCTION (Lund ) Lisa Schicker gave brief staff report . There were no questions from Council and no public comment . MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Shiers to approve the heritage tree removal with a 2: 1 replacement ; motion unanimously passed . C. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1 . GARCIA ROAD TREE REMOVAL ISSUE ( Cont ' d from 9/25/90) Lisa Schicker reported that the application for the construction of the Garcia Road had begun approximately i8 months ago and that an acceptable design for Garcia Road had been proposed following a series of designs, redesigns, prior City Council meetings , public hearings and field meetings. She explained that a tree CC9/25/90 Page 8 • • removal application and protection map had been prepared by the applicant ' s arborist , Jack Brazeal , and that the map had been used to determine which trees were to be saved and which trees were to be removed . She continued that on the basis of this map and field visits, Council approved the tree removal application for the road ; explaining that a maximum of sixty-nine trees ( 12 of them heritage size) would be removed . The Natural Resource Specialist stated that road construction had begun in early September and on the 20th day of September , it had come to the attention of the Public Works Director , the Community Development Director and herself that the trees removed had exceeded the permitted amount . She then reported that a stop work order had been placed on the job and that she had , along with Mr . Brazeal , completed a field survey to assess the situation. Ms. Schicker stated that there were a total of eighteen trees that had been removed that had been slated to remain, according to the map . She clarified that eight of those trees were of heritage size, and according to the existing Tree Ordinance, would have required Council action to allow for their removal . Ms. Schicker also noted that she had prepared some observations and suggestions as to how tree removal applications during road • constructions might be addressed in the future. MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo to extend the meeting beyond 11 :00 p .m. ; motion unanimously carried . Councilman Nimmo asked whether or not the applicant had been required to post funds for replacement of seventy-five trees in the amount of $15,000. Ms. Schicker responded that no posting was required ; that the applicants had agreed , based upon the sixty-nine trees to be removed , to replace these trees as well as an additional six trees (representing some thirty trees possibly impacted by the construction) . The City Manager clarified that Council had made it clear at their meeting on July 10, 1990, that $15,000 be determined as the amount to be paid by the applicants. He added that the applicants had concurred with this amount . Ms. Schicker read a portion of Mr . Engen ' s letter to the applicants which outlined the in-lieu donation to the Tree Replacement Fund of up to $15 ,000 based upon the final tree removal tally, noting that there might be a credit for costs incurred by the developers for additional survey work in CC9/25/90 • Page 9 relocating the alignment . • Public Comments: Don Vaughn, representing the developers , explained that the contractor on the job site had been sensitive to tree removals . He stated that it was very difficult to put a road of this size through a forest of trees and reported that there had been two cuttings. The first cutting , he explained , had included those trees marked for removal . Mr . Vaughn continued that two weeks following the first cutting , a request was made to the Public Works Department for approval of a second cutting . He remarked that it was "understood" that approval had been given. Jack Brazeal , arborist for the developers, gave background on the tree removals. He stated that it became evident that there were more trees in the right-of-way that would require removal and that the contractor contacted the City to receive tentative approval . Mr . Brazeal asked that , even though there were more trees removed than originally planned for , the applicants not be penalized because the end result would have been the same in order to get the road established as required by the City. Mayor Lilley asked Mr . Brazael if he had been on the job when the request was made for the removal of the additional trees. He • replied that he had not , but that the contractor had been in touch with him by telephone. Council comments followed regarding action to mitigate the unauthorized removal of trees. Councilman Nimmo stated that the developer be required to pay $200/tree for the trees cut down. Councilman Dexter asserted that Council rule should be followed and not circumvented by others. He added that the owners should pay $200/tree removed and let the City do its ' own assessment of blame. Councilwoman Borgeson stated that eighteen trees were removed without the consent of Council and proclaimed that $200/tree was not enough for those of heritage size. Councilman Shiers observed that proper procedure was not followed and that the Tree Ordinance could not be ignored . He indicated that he would be agreeable to $200/tree with an additional $100/tree for the eighteen infractions of the ordinance and acknowledged that even that figure was not really enough for the CC9/25/90 Page 10 • • heritage trees. Mayor Lilley recognized the efforts made by the applicants and expressed concern over. the situation. He stated that he was upset that policy made by Council was not followed and indicated that it should have been clear to anyone who had the map in their possession that the additional trees should have not been removed without further action by the Council . The mayor then suggested assessing $200/tree for the non-heritage trees removed without a permit and $300/tree for each heritage tree removed without a permit . Councilman Nimmo pointed out that Council had adopted an interim policy of $200/tree without any distinction between heritage and non-heritage. Councilwoman Borgeson asked the City Attorney what the fine was for an infraction of the Tree Ordinance. Mr . Montandon explained that it was $100. Councilman Nimmo asserted that he recalled' that Council had approved the removal of seventy—five trees at $200/each for a total of $15,000. • Lisa Schicker , in an effort to clarify Council ' s previous action, read a portion of the July 10, 1990 staff report recommending the tree removals. She explained that the replacement formula she had devised was a 1 : 1 replacement ratio for those trees to be removed (69 trees) , noting that the figure could have been reduced if minor changes were permitted in road building and alignment . A ratio of 1 :5, she explained , for a total of six trees was assessed for those thirty trees anticipated to be significantly endangered by cut and fill . Ms . Schicker stated that no money had yet been collected ; that funds were to be collected based upon the final field conditions, less any additional survey costs. Additional discussion followed regarding the assessment and the following motion was made: MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to assess $200/tree for every tree removed beyond those provided for in the permit plus an additional $100/tree per infraction: for a total amount of $5,400; motion carried 4: 1 with Councilman Nimmo voting in opposition. CC9/25/90 • Page 11 The City Manager indicated that there was another matter to be resolved , one regarding money being held for progress payments. Mayor Lilley clarified that an oral agreement had been made by an agent for the City and the applicant to retain the original collateral for the payment of the project subject to pay-up to the contractors and that it was necessary to ratify that agreement and to allow it to continue. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Shiers to ratify the agreement between the City and the applicant entered into with regard to the commitment for funds; motion unanimously passed . The City Council , by common consensus , directed the City Prosecutor , Mr . Montandon, not to pursue these infractions criminally. The City Manager asked for direction from Council to amend the ordinance as it relates to the issue of penalties. Council gave such direction to the City Attorney. In addition, Council was unanimously in support of directing the Natural Resource Specialist to incorporate proposed amendments to the Tree Ordinance for the implementation of tree removal plans as it relates to roadways within the City. 2. CARLTON SQUARE PROPOSAL • Mayor Lilley introduced Norman J. Norton of Norman Norton Construction. Mr . Norton referenced his letter of September 20, 1990 addressed to the Council and outlined plans for an extensive revitalization of the existing Carlton Hotel. He reported that if the developers were mandated to construct an additional parking area in order to meet existing parking requirements , the project would become financially infeasible and asked that consideration be given relating to parking requirements for the proposed commercial/retail mini-mall . Mr . Norton clarified that the institution considering lending the funds for the remodeling hadhad asked for assurances that the parking issue will be resolved by the City. Brief discussion followed . There was consensus that the Carlton Hotel was a key to the success of downtown renewal and that the City may need to show some flexibility relating to parking . The Community Development Director , in response to questions from Council , reported on the number of units required and noted that the Conditional Use Permit process before the Planning Commission offers some latitude. Additionally, Mr . Engen announced that the CC10/30/90 Page 12 • • Draft Downtown Master Plan would be, before the Planning Commission on October lb, 1990 and that the Commission would be considering attendant ordinances, including one that gives a variety of alternate ways of providing parking in the downtown. He also noted that the Planning Commission had also received Mr . Norton ' s letter . Sarah Gronstrand , Downtown Steering Committee, reminded the Council that the consultants for the Downtown Master Plan had emphasized strongly that it would be necessary to modify the parking requirements for anyone moving into the downtown area. John Himes, President of the B. I .A. , expressed enthusiastic support .for the remodeling of the hotel , recommended cutting the parking requirements by half and favored in-lieu fees to provide parking elsewhere. In addition, Mr . Himes voiced concern for the long term parking needs of residents of the hotel and asked that this issue be given some consideration. Mr . Norton reiterated that he needed some kind of assurance from the City as soon as possible before the project could go any further . The City Manager indicated that he wanted to meet together with the developers in the very near future so that he could come back to Council with a request for firm direction. • Council acknowledged that there is no present on-site parking and concurred that in-lieu parking would be appropriate . 3. PRIDE DAYS The City Manager asked the Council to give endorsement to a clean-up project initiated by City department heads. He indicated that he would , with the Council ' s blessings , send letters to the school district , service clubs and organizations, and the Atascadero Homeowner ' s Association in an effort to stimulate interest so that it might grow into a community-wide program. The mayor , on behalf of the Council , thanked Mr . Windsor for the initiative and gave approval to the program. John Himes, owner of the Paper Works on Entrada , congratulated the City staff and Council for the Pride Days project and thanked those who participated in the clean up of his store front . CC10/30/90 • Page 13 4. SET HEARING DATE FOR MANDATORY SOLID WASTE PICK-UP & • CURBSIDE RECYCLING Mayor Lilley noted that the tentative date for the hearing was November 13, 1990. The City Manager commented that he would use discretion and keep the agenda light for that evening , as he expected lengthy discussion of the matter . Council concurred and asked that staff give appropriate notice to the public . D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1 . City Council : A. Committee Reports - The following represents ad hoc or standing committees and informative status reports were be given, as follows: 1 . Recycling Committee - Councilman Shiers reported that the committee was happy with the new appointments and had set up sub-committees . 2. Solid/Hazardous Waste Committee Councilman Nimmo reported that the committee had met and had aired frustration with County government as it relates to funding . • 3. Traffic Committee - Councilman Dexter gave a brief report and referred . to items A-10, 11 and 12 of the Consent Calendar as those recommended by the Traffic Committee. 4. City/School Committee - Councilman Dexter reported that the committee had met for the first time this year and referenced the action summary in the agenda packet prepared by the City Manager . 2. City Attorney - No report . 3. City Clerk - No report . 4. City Treasurer - No report . 5. City Manager Mr . Windsor gave a brief status report on the investigation of an incident at the Waste Water Treatment Plant , noting that Council would be receiving a full report within the next few days. CC10/30/90 Page 14 • • MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Shiers to adjourn to closed session for the purpose of discussions relating to personnel matters; motion unanimously carried . THE OPEN SESSION WAS ADJOURNED AT 12:02 A.M. COUNCIL ADJOURNED THEIR CLOSED SESSION TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 30, 1990 AT APPROXIMATELY 12: 12 A.M. MIND E ECO AND REPARED BY: LEE DAYKA, City erk Attachment : Exhibit A ( Citizen Petition re: 8555 E1 Corte) • CC10/30/90 • Page 15 C010/9/90 EXHIBIT A }RECEED } AnERO • PETITION TO RETURN PROPERTY TO SINGLE FAMILY RESII����ZONING The under signed being the residents and/or owners of real property affected by the development of property located 8555 E1 Corte , City of Atascadero , California hereby petition the City Counsel to amend section 9-3 .650 of the City Municipal Code to revoke the Planned Development Overlay Zone Number 6 so as to restore the property to its original zoning of single family residences in conformity with the existing neighborhood instead of the present multiple family dwelling . Date Name Adress C -'44"via ze� 9 - L �' • Fell i r �t5�Sy S'22C CMZ C-IW f —Z `) 9 S Yate Name Address -5-5C s• 5 1 a ((e- Zc ua MW �f / k �2 V1 ,> PETITION TO RETURN PROPERTY TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONING • The under signed being the residents and/or owners of real property affected by the development of property located 8555 El Corte , City of Atascadero , California hereby petition the City Counsel to amend section 9-3.650 of the City Municipal Code to revoke the Planned Development Overlay Zone Number 6 so as to restore the property to its original zoning of single family residences in conformity with the existing neighborhood instead of the present multiple family dwelling. Date Name Adress �1�� Q _ ►�,� :,ti. � -�. Es -5 ';rx! -------------- 9 ' 9 4ij, X51 �4 S$S ��� -f • PETITION TO RETURN PROPERTY TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONING The under signed being the residents and/or owners of real property affected by the development of property located 8555 E1 Corte , City of Atascadero , California hereby petition the City Counsel to amend section 9-3 .650 of the City Municipal Code to revoke the Planned Development Overlay Zone Number 6 so as to restore the property to its original zoning of single family residences in conformity with the existing neighborhood instead of the present multiple family dwelling . Date Name Adress g 0- 2, - 9 v f .n�� �', �`'. „•,,�•� 5 9 3-0 �;'-tit.. ., � ��, �-,� c� �' f' ' ,.Z-✓.7”---� �J�',, • � � �S� ,FL C'��vT.PB L S'7 5-:r 6� 10 j/�"�C i MEETING AGENDA DAT 11 13 _ 0 ITEM N . ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 30, 1990 Mayor Lilley called the meeting to order- at 7:05 p .m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Nimmo . ROLL CALL: Present : Councilmembers Shiers, Nimmo , Dexter , Borgeson and Mayor Lilley Also Present : Muriel Korba, City Treasurer and Lee Dayka, City Clerk Staff Present : Ray Windsor , City Manager ; Art Montandon, City Attorney; Henry Engen, Community Development Director ; Greg Luke, Public Works Director ; Andy Takata, Director of Parks, Recreation and Zoo ; Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director ; Mike Hicks, Fire Chief; Bud McHale, Police Chief COUNCIL COMMENTS: Councilwoman Borgeson congratulated the Department of Parks, Recreation and Zoo for hosting the successful "Haunted House" during Halloween. Andy Takata clarified that congratulations should be extended to the Atascadero Jaycees, acknowledging that it had been a joint effort . Councilman Dexter noted that the City Manager , along with City department heads and members of Council , had initiated "Pride Daze" and invited others to participate in the clean-up of the downtown. Mayor Lilley reported that he, along with Councilman Nimmo , Councilman Dexter , the City Clerk , the Community Development Director , Fire Chief and Police Chief, had attended the Annual League of California Cities Convention in Anaheim the previous week . The mayor relayed that there seems to be a major war afoot between the State Legislature and local governments as to how to fund County government . He reported that decisions made in Sacramento have put that funding onto cities and indicated that CC10/30/90 Page 1 the cities are resisting those efforts. PROCLAMATION: Mayor Lilley read the following Proclamations: "Hospice Month" , November 1990 - Mayor Lilley commented that it was a pleasure to recognize the work of Hospice volunteers and asked the community to support their efforts. "Key Club Week" , November 4-10, 1990 - Mayor Lilley presented the proclamation to Nicole Lowe, Key Club Representative. "Pornography Awareness Week" , October 28 - November 4, 1990 COMMUNITY FORUM: Ray Jansen, 6655 Country Club Drive, read a prepared statement urging the acquisition of Stadium Park . A. CONSENT CALENDAR: Mayor Lilley read the Consent Calendar : 1 . SEPTEMBER 25, 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2. OCTOBER 4, 1990 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3. OCTOBER 13, 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES (Special Meeting ) 4. RESOLUTION NO. 118-90 - ENCOURAGING THE APPLICATION OF WATER CONSERVATION METHODS 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 09-89 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 21-89, 8555 EL CORTE - Consideration of Findings and Conditions of Approval for proposal to subdivide six existing lots of 21 acres into 73 lots for single-family homes ( including one common lot ) (Bunnell Development Co . ) (Cont ' d from 10/9/90) 6. ORDINANCE NO. 211 - ZONE CHANGE 15-89, 8555 EL CORTE- Proposed amendment of language of the Planned Development Overlay Zone No . 6 (PD6) applicable to 21 acres at subject address (Bunnell ) (Second Reading & Adoption) (Cont ' d from 10/9/90) CC10/30/90 Page 2 ?. RESOLUTION N0. • 119-90 — ENDORSING DESIGNATION OF THE CENTRAL COAST NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY 8. RENAMING OF TRAFFIC WAY PARK The mayor indicated that the Community Development Director had requested that items A-5 and A-6 be removed from the Consent Calendar . Councilwoman Borgeson asked that item A-8 be pulled for discussion. MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo to approve items A-1 , A-2, A-3, A-4, and A-7; motion unanimously carried . Discussions followed . 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 09-89 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 21-89, 8555 EL CORTE - Consideration of Findings and Conditions of Approval for proposal to subdivide six existing lots of 21 acres into 73 lots for single-family homes ( including one common lot ) (Bunnell Development Co . ) (Cont ' d from 10/9/90) 6. ORDINANCE NO. 211 - ZONE CHANGE 15-89, 8555 EL CORTE- Proposed amendment of language of the Planned Development Overlay Zone No . 6 (PD6) applicable to 21 acres at subject address (Bunnell ) (Second Reading & Adoption) (Cont ' d from 10/9/90) Henry Engen reported that at the October 9, 1990 meeting , the Council had approved , on first reading , the zoning change which eliminated the 960 ' contour elevation constraint on heights of buildings built below it . He indicated that the planned development had been approved , but at a lower density of 72 units rather than 77 units; and that Council had directed staff to bring back revised conditions of approval . The Community Development Director outlined the re-design and indicated which of the five homes had been deleted from the original application. Additionally, Mr . Engen noted specific language pertaining to the Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Map had been amended to reflect the redesign. Councilwoman Borgeson made reference to a letter dated October 30, 1990 submitted by Jay Peterson, read a portion of that letter and asked the City Attorney for direction. Mr . Montandon reported that he disagreed with the opinion of Mr . Peterson and advised that the Council was not violating any codes. The City Attorney clarified that the matter (pursuant to Section 9-1 . 111 of the Atascadero Municipal Code governing appeals of the City CC10/30/40 Page 3 Council ) does not have to go back to the Planning Commission because it had been affirmed in part. He also stated that the Conditional Use Permit is considered a master plan for the project and does not require an overlay plan. The Community Development Director concurred with the City Attorney ' s assessment of the use permit ' s purpose as a master plan for development. Councilman Shiers remarked that when he had voted for the project before he had anticipated that the houses that would be eliminated would be ones that were fairly close to the 960 ' contour line and stated that for this reason he did not support the redesign. Councilwoman Borgeson stated that perhaps the map should have been denied and sent back to the Planning Commission so that Council concerns could have been addressed . Councilman Nimmo commented that the Council had asked the applicant to reduce the project by five units and had not indicated the location of any of the homes to removed . He stated that the developer had acted in good faith and that it would be unfair to dictate which homes should be eliminated . Councilman Dexter remarked that the developer had shown a spirit of cooperation by the elimination of one home just below the 960 foot elevation. Councilwoman Borgeson stated that she thought the Council had given unclear direction as it relates to the appeal . Mayor Lilley recalled that the original appeal was a request for a density greater than the current plan reflects and noted that the applicant had been agreeable to the reduction of five homes. Councilwoman Borgeson reiterated that the zoning had been changed under a previous Council and clarified that the map for 72 units was bought by Mr . Bunnell , who then requested a density of 77 units. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Dexter to approve Condition Use Permit 09-89 and Tentative Tract Map 21-89 at 8555 E1 Corte; motion carried 4: 1 with Councilman Shiers opposing . (NOTE: Please see Pages 8-9 for clarification of this vote. ) CC10/30/90 Page 4 MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo to adopt Ordinance 211 on second reading, by title only; motion carried 4: 1 by roll call vote, with Councilman Shiers voting in opposition. B. RENAMING OF TRAFFIC WAY PARK Councilwoman Borgeson, who had removed - this item from the Consent Calendar for further discussion, reported that she had spoken with Andy Takata about the naming of this park and noted that the playing field had been known for many years as the "Henderson Park" . She added that some of the Henderson family was still residing in the community and expressed interest in keeping that name for at least the playing fields. Councilman Nimmo commented that, while he did not recall the park ever being referred to as the "Henderson Park" , he had no objections to the name and spoke highly of Mr . Earl Henderson. Mayor Lilley stated that he concurred with staff recommendation to develop a policy for naming parks for something other than individuals and naming playing fields for individuals in recognition of the commitments to the City. Public Comment: • Jerry Clay, of Atascadero , noted that there were three fields named after three different individuals: Earl Henderson, Bill Willhoit and Mr . Healy. He requested that if one name was continued to be used , that all three names be used . Councilwoman Borgeson agreed with the mayor ' s comments. MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to name ball fields after individuals and that the names of parks include the street name or other geographical identification; motion unanimously carried. B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES : 1 . BENCH PROPERTY PURCHASE AGREEMENT (Parcel 3 of Tentative Parcel Map AT 88-307) (Requires 4/5 Vote) A. Resolution No. 120-90 - Resolution of Necessity Mayor Lilley announced that this matter was on the agenda to allow Mr . and Mrs. Tom Bench to object , if they so desire, to a CC10/30/90 Page 5 possible condemnation of their property for a fee of $65,000 involving the parcel of property located in the creekbed adjoining their home. He stated that it was also open for public comment as to the City ' s appropriateness to acquire the property by way of condemnation. He clarified that the Council had not made a decision and that this negotiation was a prelude to determining whether or not they will make a decision. The City Manager made a correction to the staff report indicating that the Community Development Director ' s name on the letter of transmittal should be stricken and changed to the City Attorney. He reported that the matter comes before Council in this format in order to comply with statutory requirements relating to eminent domain proceedings for possible acquisition and the adoption of a resolution of necessity. Council then directed questions to staff. The Public Works Director responded to questions relating to the Curbaril right- of-way, noting that it is an established Colony road and that historically the City has proceeded as if the Colony right-of- ways are, in fact, City right-of-ways. Mr . Engen reported that development of the creek property would , in addition to meeting necessary building permit requirements, have to gain approval from the Department of Fish & Game. The City Attorney pointed out that passage of the Resolution of Necessity would require a 4/5 vote. Public Comments : George Luna, 10600 San Marcos Road , spoke as a private citizen. He remarked that the staff report seemed "a done deal " and opposed eminent domain proceedings. He added that there was no need to purchase the property. Joan Okeefe, 9965 Old. Morro Road East , objected to the City ' s purchase of the property because it was a non-buildable lot , was not a part of the Circulation Element and would not promote the kind of recreation the City wants for its ' young . Mari Mackey, urged Council not to approve the resolution and stated that it was inappropriate for the City to spend any money on the property at this time. Ellen Heinz , 7555 Carmelita, opposed the City ' s purchase of the Bench property and urged Council to use its ' funds for other park projects. CC10/30/90 Page 6 Bob Powers, 7505 Carmelita, also opposed the acquisition and commented that there were other areas of a higher priority. Joe Ramirez, 5405 Mercedes, stated that he represented tennis players of the community and pointed out that the City is not currently meeting their needs. He asked that the proposed funds be used to provide recreational space for tennis rather than on the Bench property acquisition. Larry Sherwin, 2755 Campo Road , spoke in favor of the purchase noting that the creek property was part of E.G. Lewis ' plan for the community. Virginia Powers, 7505 Carmelita, asserted that the proposed resolution does not exhibit public interest or necessity and declared that the acquisition would represent a waste of taxpayer ' s money. Marty Kudlac , 4740 Del Rio , addressed Council as a private citizen and gave support to the property purchase. He debated comments of others and urged adoption of the resolution initiating eminent domain proceedings. Sarah Gronstrand, 7620 Del Rio Road , voiced concern over the matter and asked the Council to listen to the expertise of its ' staff. She added that she thought it was unseemly for Planning Commissioners to lobby the Council and asked that money be appropriated for the purchase. Ron Mathias, 9195 Curbaril , opposed the purchase and asked the City to spend the money on tennis courts instead . Don Saueressig , 10735 San Marcos Road , commented that he believed the acquisition to be of a low priority and stated that there was no expenditures budgeted for this purchase. Additionally, Mr . Saueressig shared with Council his version of a traffic plan and outlined the area that would be best suited by a bridge. Celia Moss, 8040 Coromar , debated the level of priority this purchase would represent and stated that if Council were to approve it , they would be setting a precedent. Olive Bishop , 7655 Carmelita, opposed the purchase at this time and urged Council to wait until the property is needed for actual construction of a bridge. Individual Council comments followed . CC10/30/90 Page 7 Councilman Dexter affirmed that he would not be voting with any one particular group and could not , in clear conscience, vote to purchase the Bench property. Councilman Nimmo observed that the Bench property is not under threat of development and stated that there were other areas of higher importance. Mayor Lilley voiced his commitment to the Creekway Plan and quoted the General Plan as it relates to easements and acquisition. He commented that the easement is adequate and saw no necessity for condemnation. Councilwoman Borgeson stated that the General Plan recommends that , whenever possible, the City purchase creekway property and asserted that the opportunity comes along once in a lifetime. Ms. Borgeson also commented that policy is made at the Budget Hearings and that is where priority was set for the acquisition of park land and open space. Councilman Shiers stressed that the City has the opportunity to purchase the property at a price below market appraisal and that it may not have the chance again. He emphasized that the only way to protect the land , creekway and ecosystem for future generations is by acquiring the property. Councilman Shiers acknowledged that although the property may not currently be in danger of imminent 2development, it may be so in the future and reiterated his support of the purchase. MOTION: By Councilman Dexter to deny the Resolution No . 120-90. Councilman Nimmo raised a point of order noting that the only appropriate motion would be to adopt the resolution and clarified that absent such a motion, the matter would then die. Councilman Dexter withdrew his motion. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman Shiers to adopt Resolution No . 120-90; motion failed 2:3. Mayor Lilley called for a recess at 8:45 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:02 p.m. Councilwoman Borgeson requested a change in the recordation of her vote relating to Consent Calendar #A-5. She indicated she had inadvertently voted "Yes" and wished her vote to be recorded CC10/30/90 Page 9 0 as a "No" . 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10-900 6905 EL CAMINO REAL- Consideration of appeal by Gaylen Little of signage conditions approved by the Planning Commission for the Century Plaza Center (E1 Camino Associates) Henry Engen gave a background report on the appeal and outlined the applicant ' s request to enlarge the shopping center ' s existing pedestal sign. He noted that staff recommended denial of the appeal and upholding the conditions established by the Planning Commission. Public Comment: Gaylen Little, appellant , apologized for not having been at the Planning Commission hearing and indicated that he might have been able to eliminate some of the concerns. He noted that he concurred with the other recommendations (Exhibit I ) made by staff, which included a re-design of the proposed bowling alley sign. He also explained the reasons why he was appealing conditions 2(a ) and 2(b ) pertaining to the existing pedestal sign and stressed the importance of listing the anchor tenants on the sign. Mr . Little indicated that to avoid theft of the removable letters used to advertise the cinema, he was seeking to maintain a height of six and one-half feet from the base of the sign. Henry Engen pointed out that condition #3, calling for a demolition permit , would also be linked to the appeal . Mr . Little clarified that he did not wish to demolish the present sign. The mayor asked if the appellant was willing to go along with architecturally what was previously approved in 1985. Mr . Little indicated that he could soften the corners of the requested sign to make it look more pleasing . Councilman Shiers concurred with the Planning Commission ' s + 985 ties in with r sed in 1 decision, remarked that the style proposed the architectural layout of the plaza and added that the existing sign detracts from it . In addition, he asked Mr . Little if consideration had been given to electronic signage advertising movie engagements. The developer replied that it had not been considered and emphasized the cinema owner had already invested in the present sign. Councilwoman Borgeson agreed with Commissioners ' Johnson and Lochridge, who felt that there was too much signage and supported CC10/30/90 Rage 9 their decision relating to architectural style. • Mayor Lilley also agreed with the Commission in their decision to require the developer to return to the architectural style of 1985 and stated that there was a need for originality. Councilman Dexter gave suggestions for remodeling the top end of the proposed pedestal sign. Councilman Shiers opposed the use of a pedestal sign. Councilman Nimmo indicated that he did not object to a pedestal sign but asked whether or not the proposed sign could be revised without increasing the height of the sign. The appellant indicated that he was willing to revise the sign and reiterated his need for adequate height to avoid vandalism. Councilman Dexter proposed landscaping at the base of the sign. Mr . Little replied that additional vegetation could indeed be planted there. Henry Engen suggested that the existing non-conforming pedestal sign be remodeled in accord with the architectural design approved in 1985 and add a requirement that the base be landscaped to give it the look of a monument sign. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman Shiers to deny the appeal ; motion failed 2:3. Brief discussion followed . MOTION: By Mayor Lilley and seconded by Councilman Dexter to adopt the conditions approved with the exceptions of 2(a) and 2(b ) and modify those conditions to provide for the remodeling of the existing monument sign to retain its ' present height and dimensions and be in accord with the architectural details set forth in the 1985 approval for the project ; and should the sign be pedestal in style, that it be landscaped subject to staff approval . Motion carried 3:2 with Councilman Shiers and Councilwoman Borgeson voting in opposition. 3. URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 212 - EXTENSION OF CONDOMINIUM CONVER- SION MORATORIUM ORDINANCE NO. 210 (Requires 4/5 Vote) Mayor Lilley introduced the matter and asked the Community Development Director to describe the necessity of extending the urgency ordinance for twelve ( 12) months. CC10/30/90 Page 10 reported Mr . Engen gave background and po ed that the draft ordinance t had been presented to the City Attorney for legal review. He stated that it was his hope to have the condominium conversion ordinance go to hearing at the second Planning Commission meeting in November and explained that the one year period was to accommodate unforeseen continuances and/or revisions. Council comments followed. Councilwoman Borgeson and the mayor both expressed concern for extending the moratorium for one year . Mayor Lilley suggested shortening the time frame to six months and asked Mr. Montandon if it would be necessary to continue the matter as a result of such a modification. The City Attorney noted no continuance was needed in order to make that change. Councilman Nimmo stated that he was not prepared to go beyond six months. Public Comments : Tom Vaughn, Vaughn Surveys, asked for an exemption from the current extension of the moratorium for the four applications which were in the pipeline as of September 25, 1990. He indicated that there had already been a great deal of time involved and that 60-day notice, as required by the Subdivision Map Act , had been given. Mayor Lilley expressed concern that tenants had been given notice and asked for clarification. Mr . Vaughn stated that a Notice of Intent had been filed, not a Termination of Tenancy . Discussion followed relating to those applications for conversion which were deemed incomplete. The Community Development Director reported that staff was guided by the Permit Streamlining Act of California in making the declaration of completeness. Councilwoman Borgeson stated that some consideration be given to two applications which were substantially complete. The City Attorney noted that the original cut-off date determined was justified by case law and statute. He stated that the ordinance could be amended to exempt the two applications, but advised against it because of complexity and the added fact that one of those applications had withdrawn. Mr . Engen emphasized that the reason behind the moratorium ordinance is the desire to not process conversions without standards and stated that even though it might seem a bit brutal , it is consistent with declaring an emergency that needs instant attention. CC10/30/90 Page 11 Councilwoman Borgeson stated that she was in agreement with both the City Attorney and the Community Development Director . Geraldine Brasher , 3202 Monterey Road , spoke in favor of extending the moratorium for a period of six months. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman Shiers to approve interim Ordinance No . 212 extending the condominium conversion moratorium for up to six months; motion unanimously passed by roll call vote. 4. HEARING TO CONSIDER REVOCATION OF CITY BUSINESS LICENSE #90216 8052 CRISTOBAL (R & S Plumbing) (Cont 'd from 9/25/90) Henry Engen reported that Mrs. Brard had picked up the Transfer of Business License papers and asked that the matter be continued to the meeting of November 27, 1990. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman Shiers to continue the matter until November 27, 1990; motion carried . C. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1 . LOCAL WATER RESOURCES REVIEW A. Questions raised at the Special Meeting held October 13, 1990 B. Proposal for Water Resources Study Greg Luke, Public Works Director , gave a brief introduction and indicated that he would be happy to respond to questions relating to his staff report . Mayor Lilley thanked the Public Works Director for his in-depth , informative report . He stated that he would have difficulty authorizing a study to determine if the mechanical operation of the Water Company is as it ought to be. He indicated that he did , however , believe that the City has an obligation, in light of the drought , to do some independent study and suggested a cooperative regional study along with Paso Robles and Templeton. Councilwoman Borgeson referred to items #1 and #3 of Mr . Luke ' s staff report ( Item C-1-B) and expressed support for his recommendations. She also suggested that it be proposed to the Water Company that it allow an ex-officio representative from the City to attend its ' meetings to establish rapore between the two . CC10/30/90 Page 12 Councilman Shiers stressed the importance of bringing the Water Company in to participate in the study. The Public Works Director emphasized the need to develop management strategies and concurred that the process could not go any further without the cooperation of the Water Company. Public Comments: Doug Lewis, of Atascadero , suggested that the City, if it owns a substantial amount of property, have a representative on the Atascadero Mutual Water Board of Directors. In addition, he pondered where it was that the reported millions of gallons of water per day go that is used by the Chalk Mountain Golf Course and if some of that could be reclaimed . James Patterson, 9312 N. Santa Margarita Road , reported that he owned a nursery in the City and has been following the drought situation across the State for quite some time. He voiced support for the direction in which the City was moving to assess the situation on a regional basis and urged the City Council to take a lead roll in establishing a Water Management Plan to ensure water resources for the community. Eric Greening , 7365 Valle, relayed a word of caution relating to the Statewide Water Project and asked that the City not assume that it is guaranteed . Fred Frank , 3615 Ardilia, supported the comments of Mr . Patterson and urged Council to take advantage of a $10,000 contract to get a good , ball park estimate of what reliable resources are available to the City. Dennis Loftus, 4885 Arizona, implored the City Council to send a message to the Water Company asking them to give the City a plan the people can live with . Jerry Clay, 7285 Sycamore road, spoke on behalf of the Water Company, stated they were doing a good job and that the rates were very good compared to other cities. In addition, he agreed with others who stressed the importance of having a liaison person between the City and Water Company. Nancy Rice, 4245 Arena, remarked that the Water Company has not planned well and emphasized that water conservation is important . Councilwoman Borgeson noted that the Council does not have the benefit of reliable information at the present time and gave support to authorizing the funds for a study of water resources. CC10/30/90 Page 13 She added that if there is not enough water , the Council should not continue to allow new construction. Councilman Shiers remarked that other cities are much farther ahead of Atascadero with respect to actions in dealing with drought ( i .e. , moratoriums, low flow fixtures, etc . ) and agreed that it was time to hire a consultant to conduct a limited investigation. MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to request staff to 1 ) prepare a request for proposal to hire a private consultant to conduct a limited investigation on the long-term yield of the basin in the vicinity of the Water District ' s well field and 2) to further investigate the option of encourage and participating in a large long-range water quality and water supply study conducted by the Department of Water Resources. Discussion of the motion followed: Mayor Lilley asserted that it was time the City started developing and exercising a conservation program that patterns water use that is consistent with the environment . Ile added that , in addition to considering a request for proposal for a study, the City must encourage water responsibility among the citizens, independent from what the Water Company decides to do . Councilman Nimmo asked for clarification of a " limited investigation" . The Public Works Director reported that it would be a desk top study to provide an overview of what the reaction of the groundwater basin has been during the past four years of drought and what it is likely to be with increased pumping . Mr . Luke reiterated that the efficiency of the study will be greatly increased if the City can work cooperatively with the Water Company. A vote on the motion followed . Motion carried 4: 1 with Councilman Nimmo opposing . MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo to extend the meeting past 11 :00 p .m. ; motion carried . CC10/30/90 Page 14 • 2. BACKYARD BURNING RESTRICTIONS ORDINANCE Chief Hicks gave a brief report noting that he was seeking Council feedback on establishing a local ordinance regulating backyard burning . Council , by consensus, directed staff to prepare a formal ordinance for Council consideration. 3. BID #90-11 - AWARD THREE-YEAR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FOR CITY PARK PROPERTIES Andy Takata gave staff report and recommended that the bid be formally awarded to Banner Landscapes of San Luis Obispo . Mr . Takata responded to questions from Council noting that Banner Landscape was a licensed contractor and had agreed to do all the work proposed. In addition, Mark Joseph indicated that Banner Landscape had adequate insurance. Public Comment : Frank Grim, Frank Grim Mowing Service, pointed out that even though his contract had expired in July, he had been willing to continue the service on a month to month basis and asked Council to renew his contract because he is a local resident . MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to follow the staff recommendation and award Bid No . 907 in the amount of $2,700 per month for a three year contract to Banner Landscape; motion passed 5:0 by roll call vote. 4. ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CONTRACT RENEWAL Andy Takata requested a continuance on this matter indicating that he would be meeting with Tri-County Elevators on Friday, November 2, 1990. D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1 . City Council : A. Committee Reports ( The informative status reports were given, as follows) : 1 . City/School Committee - The City Manager reported that the committee had met two weeks prior and announced that the next meeting would be in December . Councilman CC10/30/90 Page 15 Dexter reported the discussion had related to City/County funding policies. 2. North Coastal Transit/S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council - No report . 3. Traffic Committee - No report. 4. Solid/Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Committee - Councilman Nimmo announced the next meeting date as November 1 , 1990. 5. Recycling Committee - Councilman Shiers reported that the committee had formed three subcommittees and had composed a letter to the business sector of the community. He also stated that the chairperson was seeing to it that there was more public notice in the local newspaper regarding the meetings. b. Economic Opportunity Commission - Councilman Dexter gave a brief report noting the success of some of the programs, i .e. Headstart and Family Planning. 7. B. I .A. - The City Manager reported that he had received a request from the Joyful Noise Committee (Christmas decorations) asking that the City share the cost of equipping poles for lighting . Mr . Windsor recommended approval and Council gave consent . 2. City Attorney Mr . Montandon reported that he was researching issues related to the delayed annexation fee of se50 currently due for each parcel in the Separado-Cayucos Assessment District . He stated that he was hoping to come back in thirty days with a report and asked that , for that period , no fines or liens be imposed for late payments. 3. City Clerk The Clerk asked for Council direction relating to the recruitments for two citizen members-at-large on the Traffic Committee and for youth representatives on the Traffic Committee, Recycling Committee and the Parks & Recreation Commission. She indicated that there had been only a minimal response to each . By common consensus, Council directed the Clerk to extend the recruitments. CC10/30/90 Page 16 r 4. City Treasurer Muriel Korba reported that a $99,000 CD had been transferred from Downey Savings & Loan to Century Federal Savings & Loan on October 16, , 1990. She indicated that even though the former institution' s interest rate would have been going down, Century Federal ' s negotiated rate was locked in for a year at 8.45%. Additionally, Ms. Korba reported that an annual investment policy is required by law and that it will , following her attendance at a weekend workshop , be presented in time to be adopted by January 1991 . 5. City Manager Mr . Windsor requested that a date be set for the next joint study session with the Planning Commission. Council agreed to schedule the meeting for Thursday, November 29, 1990 at 6:00 p .m. to receive the Fiscal Plan presentation. The City Manager also requested a closed session to discuss personnel matters. It was agreed that this meeting would take place on Wednesday, October 31 , 1990 at 5:00 p.m. MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo to adjourn to closed session on October 31 , 1990 for the purpose of discussion relating to personnel matters. Motion unanimously carried . THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 11 :30 P.M. MINUTES RECORDED AND TRANSCRIBED BY: LE YKA, rf ty Cle CC10130190 Page 17 MEETING ffEms 3 CITY OF ATASCADERO SCHEDULE OF CASH RECEIPTS AND TRANSFERS TREASURER ' S REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 1990 CASH RECEIPTS: Property Taxes $ 56,657.41 Sales Tax 193,374.25 Bed Tax 4,000.58 Property Transfer Tax 6,028.49 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 82,521 .22 Cigarette Tax 3,444 .27 Sanitation Fees 6, 114 .00 License/Permit/Fees 35,753.50 Franchise Fees 5,707.48 Fines/Penalties/Overages 7,832.46 Investment Earnings 965.54 Rents/Concessions 3 , 123. 48 Sales-Maps/Publications/Reports 538.60 Police Services 212. 00 • Parks and Recreation Fees 17 ,901 .99 P.O.S.T . Reimbursement 418 .00 Miscellaneous 36.48 Developer Fees 68,546.29 Zoo Receipts 4 ,771 .28 Dial-A-Ride 2,997. 62 B. I .A. Dues 560.00 SUB TOTAL 501 ,504.94 Other Cash Receipts Proceeds From Sale of Fixed Assets 323. 48 Reimbursement to Expense 12,231 .85 Total Other Receipts 2,950.97 Total Cash Receipts $517,011 . 24 • CITY OF ATASCADERO CASH ACTIVITY SUMMARY TREASURER ' S REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 1990 BEGINNING CASH RESOURCES $7,080,369. 77 ADD: RECEIPTS 517,011 .24 LESS: DISBURSEMENTS (830, 193.54 ) OTHER TRANSFERS/MISC. ADJUSTMENTS 1 ,803.32 ENDING CASH RESOURCES 6,768 ,-990.79 SCHEDULE OF CASH RESOURCES As of September 30, 1990 • Checking Account : Int . Due Mid-State Bank $ 140 .79 Rate Date Other Investments: Local Agency Inv . Fund 6,669,000 .00 3.382% N/A Downey Savings C.D . 99 ,000.00 8 .250% 10/16/90 Other Cash Resources: Petty Cash 850. 00 TOTAL CASH RESOURCES 6,768, 990.79 MURIEL C . KORBA, City Treasurer MEETIN4 DA 1 11 3 90 MMM# A-4� • CITY OF ATASCADERO SCHEDULE OF DISBURSEMENTS FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 1990 DISBURSEMENTS Hand Warrant Register for September , 1990 1 ,206. 14 9/7/90 Accounts Payable Warrants 104,031 . 18 9/ 14/90 Accounts Payable Warrants 134 ,322.98 9/21/90 Accounts Payable Warrants 107,468.87 9/28/90 Accounts Payable Warrants 233,036.21 9/12/90 Payroll Checks 101799 - 101960 125 , 113.59 9/26/90 Payroll Checks 101962 - 102115 126,437.61 Total 831 ,616.58 LESS : Voided Check #51156 9.00 Voided Check #52405 47.81 Voided Check #53359 32 .00 • Voided Check #53821 1 ,334 .23 Sub-Total Voided Checks 1 , 423 .04 Total Disbursements $ 830, 193.54 I , MARK A. JOSEPH, do hereby certify and declare that demands enumerated and referred to in the foregoing register are accurate and just claims against the City and that there are funds available for payment thereof in the City Treasurv. The breakdown detail on all accounts is available for your viewing in the Finance Office. MARK A. J PH � v Administrative Services Director • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-5 Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager Meeting Date: 11 /13/90 From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Update on Health Insurance RECOMMENDATION: By motion, staff recommends Council endorse the Health Insurance Committee ' s efforts and the new Health Plans being offered . BACKGROUND: During the Midyear Budget Review in February, 1990, the concern over rising health insurance costs for City employees was first discussed . Council directed staff to try to better contain those costs. As a result , the City ' s Health Insurance Committee began meeting regularly to work on this matter . • The Committee ultimately took two significant actions : first , it recruited a new insurance broker and second , it� offered three plans, in an effort to enhance employee options while maintaining or reducing overall costs. The results have been very rewarding . The new brokers ( Barbara Antonovich and Hans Kardel ) have been very responsive to date, and we look forward to the working relationship during the year . For example, three employee meetings were held to explain the relative benefits of each health plan -- something that has not been done in the last several years. Just as important , the Committee recommended three medical plans: the existing Blue Shield Indemnity Plan; Health Net , a replacement HMO (Health Maintenance Organization) plan for California Care; and Lifeguard , an HMO that has an extensive list of physicians to choose from. It is the second decision that has had the most direct financial effect . By offering three plans, many employees voluntarily shifted from Blue Shield towards Lifeguard , which is less expensive. A shift away from the lowest cost HMO - Healthnet - to Lifeguard also occurred . Overall the City saved a substantial amount of money in the process. • l • If no action had been taken, and the same two plans were maintained , along with no shift in the number of members in each plan, then the annual cost to the City would have been approximately $590,000. With the three plans offered , and the resulting shift in enrollments, the overall cost drops to $555,000 annually, or $35,000 less. Considering one-third of the fiscal year is under the old ( less expensive) plans, the actual FY 90-91 health insurance expense should be at or below the budgeted amount of $542,000. In summary, City employees now have more health plan options available to them, we have new brokers who appear to be much more responsive and helpful than their predecessors, and the City has avoided $35,000 in extra costs. Specific contracts will be submitted for Council approval as they are received . • • • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-6 Through ; Ray Windsor , City Manage Meeting Date: 11/13/90 From: Mark Joseph . Administrative Services Director SUBJECT-4 Approval of Cooperative Personnel Services Test Use Agreement (Resolution No . 121-903 . RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the renewal of the Test Use *agreement with Cooperative Personnel Services . BACKGROUND: The City has had an agreement with Cooperative Personnel Services E:i-,-)cL- Decomber 1 , 1979. The purpose of the agreement is to allow the Citv to rent the testing material of Coope'-ative Personnel � ervices, Jvjh 11 I e 0 i-,--10 through the recruitment Pr=ess. • FISCAL IMPACT: Rates have not increased from the prior- contract . rhe cost is based on the number of tests 4e use. • RESOLUTION N0, 121-40 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AUTHORIZING ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH COOPERATIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero entered into an agreement, Kith Cooperative Personnel. Services on October 1 , 1979 , for the purpose cf performing testinq services ; anG WHEREAS , Cooperative Personnel Services requires the Cit ,, to update the original agreement and to extend provisions of the agreement ; and NOW, THEPEEORE , be it resolved that the Atascadero City Council authorizes the Director of Administrative Services to eater into and sign an agreement with Cooperative Personnel Services. On motion by Councilperson --- - and seconded by Counci iperso:+ _--- _- the foregoinz • resolution is hereby- adopted in its entirety on the foilcwinq ro11 call vote: ;AYES . - NDES : ABSENT: ADOPTED : I Gy : RO jEPT L TLLE , NsYor AT7ET : LEE D()YkA, City Clerk • PREPARED BY: MARK A. JOSEPH, Director o= Administrative Service= APPROVED AS TO CONTENT : RAY WINDSOR, City Manager - APPROVED AS TO FORM: • ART-[AER MONTANDON, C i t y---A t t o r ney • • COOPERATIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES TEST USE AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS Section 1 - PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT This agreement defines Cooperative Personnel Services' (CPS) test use policies and procedures. It also explains CPS test security standards designed to protect the mutual interests of all clients that use the test materials, as well as the in- terests of persons who take such tests. In order that no person may gain special advantage by having improper access to the material,CPS requires as a condition for making its test materials available for rental that all users sign this agreement and fulfill its terms. Section 11 - CPS POLICIES AND PROCEDURES The following provisions shall govern CPS services for planning, scheduling, preparation, construction and scoring examinations. ._A. Preparing Custom Tests 1. Information Required from Clients. • A client desiring custom exam preparation services is responsible for fur- nishing to CPS a written description of the work to be performed, the knowledge, skills and abilities required to perform the duties of the position, special working conditions, shifts, location of the job, required licenses or certificates, salary and shift differential, if any. 2. CPS Preparation c;Test Materials. CPS shall construct a written examination,based on the information furnish- ed by the client, for each job classification for which an examination has been requested and agreed upon by CPS and the client. B. Ordering Stock and Custom Tests 1. Scheduling of Examinations. The client desiring exam preparation services shall notify CPS sufficiently in advance to allow time for scheduling and preparation. 2. Client Notification to CPS of Number of Candidates. Not less than 10 working days prior to the examination date, the client shall notify CPS of the total number of candidates in each classification to be tested. 3. Transmittal of Test Materials. CPS shah provide the client with sufficient examination booklets, Instruc- tions for administering the examination and such other material as CPS may deem necessary. • 4. Client Administration of Test and Return of Test Materials. The client shall administer the examination in accordance with instructions provided by CPS and immediately following the examination will return all used and unused examination booklets,keyed booklets,scoring keys(if pro- vided by the client), instructions, and any other materials furnished by CPS and not consumed(except that in such cases as provided in paragraph II. B (7), II. B(8), and II. B (9) time extensions may be granted by CPS). 5. Re-Use of Test Materials. Clients requesting test material use for a specific date and candidate count, will not be allowed to reuse the tests for another date or candidate group without prior permission of CPS. 6. Scoring of Tests. CPS will score all scannable answer sheets, at no cost to the client. At the discretion of CPS, responsibility for the scoring of standardized stock tests may be granted to the client. Custom tests and agency tests may be scored by the client.Open ended test question answers,such as essays,typing,and shorthand tests may be scored by the client,or CPS will score these tests for a fee. 7. Test Papers Inspection Under Client Policy. If the client has an officially adopted rule or established policy regarding can- didates' privilege of inspecting a keyed copy of an examination or answer sheets following the examination,and this rule or policy has been submitted • in writing to CPS at least 10 days prior to the first examination scheduled under this agreement for which such inspection is desired, CPS will comply with the inspection privileges as officially recognized by the client. Excep- tion: No inspection shall be allowed for standardized test materials, or test preduplicated as stock tests or semi-stock tests, or of questions not scored by an absolute standard. During key inspection, a representative of the client's Personnel or Ad- ministrative office must be present to assure that no candidate takes away from the review any notes regarding a test question. Upon request of the client, and when submitted in writing by a candidate who participated in the examination, CPS will analyze protests resulting from such review and recommend the action to be taken by the client. S. Test Papers Inspection Under CPS Policy. If the client has no officially adopted rule or established policy regarding can- didates' privilege of inspecting a keyed copy of an examination or answer sheet(s) following the examination and wishes to allow such an inspection privilege, the following CPS policy shall govern: a Key Inspection. Inspection of a keyed copy of the examination book, for the purpose of requesting a review of such items as the candidate may believe are incorrect or improperly keyed,will be allowed for five working days immediately following an examination, providing this has been requested by the client at least 10 day prior to the examina- tion. The inspection time allowed a candidate will not exceed one-half the amount of time originally allowed to answer the question during the administration of the examination. During key inspection, a representative of the client's Personnel or Administrative office must be present to assure that the candidate takes no notes of any kind regarding any test materials. Upon request of the client and when submitted in writing by a can- didate who participated in the examination,CPS will analyze protests resulting from such review and recommend the action to be taken by the client. b. Answer Sheet(s) Inspection. Inspection of a candidate's answer sheet(s),for the purpose of detecting whether any clerical or other er- ror has been made in the scoring of the answer sheets,shall be allow- ed for a 14-calendar-day period immediately following the notifica- tion to the candidate of examination results. Upon request, CPS will return the candidate's answer sheet(s) after scoring and a copy of a keyed answer sheet(s) to the client. Candidates are not allowed to review the question booklet during this inspection period. Not more than one hour will normally be allowed for answer sheet(s) review. A representative of the client's Personnel or Administrative office shall be present to assure that no changes or marks of any kind are • made by the candidate on the answer sheet(s) or the keyed answer sheet(s). c. Certain Tests Not to be Open for Key Inspection. Standardized tests, stock tests, semi-stock tests, and questions not scored by an absolute standard will not be available for keyed copy inspection nor may candidates be allowed to review copies of these tests at any time. 9. Extended Usage. If the client wishes to administer examinations on a continuous basis for certain mutually agreed upon classes, CPS may, at its discretion, supply the examination booklets, a scoring key and instructions for extended usage. Exten:ed usage is defined as the client's retention of examination booklets and Instructions after their initial administration for the purpose of readministerinc them. The client shall score such examinations. 10. Examination"Charges. In consideration of the performance by CPS for testing services specifically described in this Exhibit, the client agrees to pay CPS in ac- cordance with"Written Examination Price List"(Exhibit A)in effect at the time of rental arrangements. 11. Canceled or Postponed Examinations. Clients may be billed for work done on a canceled or postponed examina- tion up to the time CPS is notified of such action. Under certain cir- cumstances, credit may be given for work already performed if the test is rescheduled. i C. Client Responsibilities The client shall perform all parts of the examination process which have not specifically been requested of and agreed to by CPS. Client shall assume responsibility for the conformity of the examination process to any ap- plicable laws,rules,or ordinances and for the examination as a whole.Under the selection guidelines of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the client as test user is responsible for the results of the selection process and must be prepared to demonstrate that the process is valid and meets other testing standards if it adversely affects groups protected by fair employment laws. Section 111 - SECURITY OF TEST MATERIALS All test materials supplied by CPS under this agreement shall be and remain the property of CPS. They shall be held and stored in a manner that will pre- vent unauthorized persons from having access to them.The client agrees to be responsible for the security of all test materials supplied to the client and agrees to reimburse CPS for a portion or all of the replacement costs, as determined by CPS, for test materials that are lost or whose value for testing purposes, in the opinion of CPS, may have been destroyed while said test materials were subject to the custody of the client. Question booklets shall not be duplicated nor test questions copied by the client under any cir- cumstances. If any test material obtained from CPS should become involved in legal pro- ceedings by a court or other body vested with legal authority, CPS will take appropriate measures to safeguard the confidentiality of the test material in- cluding answer sheets such as by motion for protective order. Section IV - TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT CPS retains the right to terminate this agreement and withhold or recall its test materials if it believes the terms and conditions of this agreement are be- ing or have been violated. ...Y4iC5ir:?' -x is ■� .ap....�o�..w�....::s,ed..�"�i� .:� ... "`?iM �1if a c f CPS RENTAL RATES EFFECT=VE JULY 1 , 19 8 9 1 STOCK : CUSTOM AGENCY BASE FEE $200 $575 $300 QUANTITY PER BOOK CHARGE 10-100 $5.50 $9.50 $7.50 110.500 $5.00 $9.00 $7.00 510-1000 $4.50 $8.50 $6.50 1010-2000 $4.25 $8.00 $6.00 2010+ $4.00 $7.50 $5.50 ENTRY LEVEL FIRE FIGHTER STUDY BOOK Quantity Per Book Charge 10-100 $2.50 • 110-500 $2.00 510-1000 $1.75 1010+ $1.50 Tests are assembled and may be ordered only in packages of 10. 2 $25.00 credit on next stock order for each unbroken package of test booklets returned. Includes non-reusable test book, candidate answer sheet, proctor's instructions, oral passages (as appropriate), and machine scoring of answer sheets. Scoring includes summary test statistics, and rank order roster of candidates with raw and percentage scores. Alphabetical roster and scaled scores available free on request. $50 expedited service charge for orders without 2 weeks notice when order can be filled. 10% Shipping and handling fee (Federal Express 2-day air). 15% Shipping and handling fee (Federal Express overnight). • RELATED PRODUCTS AND SERVICES Scoring Stencil $10.00 r stencil _ � per Supplements $50 when ordered with Stock or Custom Tests. Stock booklet charge when ordered without other tests. Custom Test Review Copy $250.00 (Max. 10 subtests. 200 items) Preview Copy of Final Custom Test $50.00 Agency Test Review 335.00 Cancellation Fee $200.00 Stock S300.00 Custom Scoring Services (Non-CPS Tests) $50.00 plus .50 per candidate • Tia _ s f • V. PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT The parties to this Test Use Agreement are the Cooperative Personnel Services (CPS) and the client named below. A. PRINCIPAL SIGNER On behalf of this agency, I accept this agreement and assure compliance with its terms and conditions. CITY OF ATASCADERO Client Name 6500 PALMA AVENUE Address ATASCADERO, CA 93422 City State/Province Country Zip Code (Rns) X61 zoi5 Telephone number to contact regarding test orders MARK A. JOSEPH Name of Principal Signer • DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Title Signature/Date B. PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE TEST MATERIAL As the Principal Signer of this Test Use Agreement, I am authorizing the following members of this agency to be the only individuals able to receive test-related materials from CPS. (Please have the appropriate individuals who are authorized to receive the test material sign below. If more space is necessary, attach an additional sheet.) NAME TITLE SIGNATURE ALIC IA LARA PFRsnNwFT rnnRnTNATnR MARK JOSEPH ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR Please make one copy of this agreement. Sign and return original to CPS. This agreement must be renewed annually. • ..:. ,.s.— west ..af•-:, e .. COOPERATIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES 191 Lathrop Way, Suite A, Sacramento, California 95815 • BILLING INFORMATION ZON CITY OF ATASCADERO AGENCY NAME DEPARADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES - PERSONNEL TMENT 6500 PALMA AVENUE ADDRESS ATASCADERO, CA 93422 CITY STATE/PROVINCEJ COUNTRY ZIP CODE ALICIA LARA ATTENTION TO: NAME TITLE PERSONNEL COORDINATOR ( 805 461-5015 TELEPHONE NUMBER ONES ., ,, ■■■ .■■■...■.■ .■.■■.■■■■■ ■■■■■■ COOPERATIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES 191 Lathrop Way ■ Suite A ■ Sacramento, CA 95815 ■ (916) 924-2300 Dear Client . We are currently updating our security agreements and have discovered that the agreement Por your agency will expire soon. Enclosed please find a security agreement that will need to be signed and returned- to us before we can send any test materials to you. Should you need any further assistance, please do not hesitate to • call Cooperative Personnel Services on (916) 924-2300 within California or (800) 822-4277 outside California. Sincerely, Earline Henry Coordinator, Test Processing • A joint powers agency of: ■ City of Anaheim ■ East Bay Municipal Utility District ■ California State Personnel Board ■ Hayward Unified School District ■ County of Sacramento a County of Sonoma -Rfi3�►'...:_-.:..a..,-.,�a:x.,, ..e>_..: - aa:a�isz..wx>�=---- _t,r...-..,,.d. .._ -,._ -.,�,. �,�;`'�Yrm,-..x- �..a.oa.. >: • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-7 lihrough : Ray Windsor , City- Manager Meeting Date: 11/13/90 From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director SUBJECT.: Adopting a Word:erls Compensation Policy for Volunteers. RECOMMENDATION:, By motion, staff recommends Council adopt the attached policy statement regarding Worker ' s Compensation fb,, Volunteers . BACKGROUND: Early ,n 1990 , a Fal Poly Construction Management student injured himself wh1le wor'KiciQ on a new Zcc exhibit . The incident raised the IS=_ue of Worker ' s Compensation coverage for Voluntee7s. After dis--ussion and r E,✓ i E?w by the Risk Review Committee , t h e attached 'Jas developed , and is ror,a ready • for Courc i I end0rserr,,ET-,t . Basical 11 v , the City ;,j i 11 1 cover volunteers uj­der- our .:11-,rker Compensation PoliEy- , u n I sz l . ? the is part of an organization that al -ea-d," tIas insurance ( for e>rample . the RS)P Prcqram ) , or 2. 11 the •,-ollinttep-r is a sho­,--term assifinment ( for example , a student working towards a =Chool project ) . Specifically , Cal Rol,; Construction Mana:�em,2nt students would be ­c ­ered , as -.jel 1 as - V F - -cc Docents . li -cef iahte, s and Pclice Reserves are alT-ead,,/, unt_-sr n(-, r-red, would =till be E_= C3 i t 1 e tc file a , O3ca s t reco,ie,7 ariv losses . FISCAL IMPACT Overall , the fiscal impact would be rr.inimal . This o o I c: might result in a im o d Ei=t c r e a s e i n o u, e r Com- DeT S aC,­, premium. However , _i ; P A e a r e self :TM&c o u 1 d o-nl,,,/ be related to losses , a-d . t t:h,._ Cit l I be o liable reaardless . C­'rerino C-F ta C 1,U,7 Lr DDlicy , bde dU w a i e +-c den- h F 1 3 -f B,. e ­a m, tok pn . n d e r Worker LE 0 M P e 1­,sa t or-, t h e �d 1 i dr _;s 3. 5 3r! eligible to a c ua e, s c•a I r and sufferinQ" ., as i-. f =3 a b a-L,n • WORKER'S COMPENSATION FOR VOLUNTEERS Effective November 1 , 1990 POLICY: In order to clarify under what conditions volunteers will be covered under the City ' s Worker ' s Compensation Plan (Plan) or be required to file a liability claim against the City, these procedures have been developed . The general policy is as follows: 1 . The City will cover regular , ongoing volunteers under the City ' s Plan, subject to the exceptions noted below. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of number one above, the City will try to rely upon the insurance coverage of formal volunteer programs , such as RSVP, prior to covering those volunteers under the City ' s Plan. 3. Informal , ad -hoc volunteers will generally not be covered • under the City ' s Plan. For example , students volunteering their time in exchange for research on a school project . PROCEDURE: 1 . The following volunteers will not be covered through the City- - R .S.V .P . Volunteers (Due to existing insurance coverage provided by the RSVP Organization ) . • Irid i .iduaIs volunteering their time to the Citv as part of a "Community Service" requirement . 2. The following volunteers will be covered throUgh the City : -Volunteer Fire Fighters -Reserve Police Officers - Zoo Docents -Cal Poly Construction Students, while , olu-riteering their time assisting in the construction o - maintenance of City facilities . 3. Written Letters of Understanding. shall be D7epared between the City and the effected Agency ( as app-epriate ) , outlining at least the scope of the `,,olunteer ' s role and services , 'is well as which agerc•.; shall Drodide insurance coverage . • • 4. The procedures to add or delete categories of volunteers are outlined below: a . The appropriate Department Head shall prepare a written justification explaining why the City should include/exclude the group in question . The memo shall detail how many individuals would be effected , the approximate number of hours to be volunteered , and the nature of volunteer work to be performed . This memo shall be routed to the Administrative Service Director (copy the City Manager ) . b . The Administrative Services Director will solicit feedback from the Citv ' s liability insurance broker , and then submit the proposal to the Risk Review Committee . C . The Risk Review Committee will make a recommendation to approve/disapprove the proposal and forward it to Council for final action. d . If approved, the Administrative Services Director will implement the change by notifyina the City ' s insurance • broker and City Staff . The Director will also prepare the Letter of Understanding (See Section 3) . S. If covered under the City ' s plan, the volunteer will follow the same procedures as a regular paid employee, in the event of an on-the-job injury . If the volunteer is no_t covered , he/she shall follow the procedure=_ for filing-a� liability claim against the Citv . • • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: A-8 CITY OF ATASCADERO FROM: Andrew J. Takata, DirectorMEETING DATE: 11/13/90 Department of Parks, Recreation and Zoo VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager C SUBJECT: DONATION TO THE CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION CORPS RECOMMENDATION: City Council authorize the donation of $1, 000 to the California Conservation Corps for equipment reimbursement related to the development of Traffic Way Park. BACKGROUND: The California Conservation Corps was extremely helpful in the successfull completion of sports fields at Traffic Way Park this last summer. With their assistance, the fields were completed in • time for two regional softball tournaments to be held at the Traffic Way Park location. The Corps has also contributed their assistance on many other City related projects in the past. DISCUSSION: Attached, you will find a letter from the California Conservation Corps requesting a donation from the City of Atascadero for their involvement in the recent development of Traffic Way Park. The Conservation Corps will utilize the donation towards the purchase of equipment and tools. FISCAL IMPACT: Donation funds are available through the 1990/91 fiscal year approved budget. AJT:kv ;ccc • Attachment - CCC letter J STATE OF CALIFORNIA-RESOURCES AGENCY CALZFORN2A CONSERVATSa CORPS GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Cants-a1 COABt Service District P.O. Box 1380. San Luis Obispo. CA 93406 Ph 18051 549-3581 faX (805) 549-3583 TO September 11, 1990 Andy Takata Director of Parks, - Recreation and Zoo 6599 Palma Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 Dear Andy; The California Conservation Corps has donated a total of 3 ,848 labor hours on the recent completion of the beautiful Traffic Way Park. The work our Corpsmembers completed with your city staff has benefited our Corpsmember Skill Level and the residents of Atascadero. The California Conservation Corps would much appreciate a donation to our program. A total donation in the neighborhood of $1, 000. 00 • has been suggested by you. We would like to buy a Stihl 026 Chainsaw (approximately $360. 00) and the rest of the donations in the form of tools purchased at the tool outlet in Atascadero. The C.C.C. appreciates your recognition of our young adults in the form of this donation. The tools will enable us to continue the good work of the C.C.C. program in communities like Atascadero. Sincerely, Domenic Santangelo / Project Co-ordinator/C.C.C. And Atascadero Resident t DS/jm • DONATION-ATS REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-9 Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager Meeting Date: 11/13/90 From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director mzr SUBJECT: Authorizing Facsimile Signatures for Payroll Checks . RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends Council approve the attached resolution authorising facsimile signatures for Payroll Checks. BACKGROUND: Currently , all checks require two signatures, but one signature is a facsimile , or stamped signature ( the Mayor ' s ) . It • can take as long as one hour to sign all the payroll checks by hand . Since we have the shortest turnaround time *or payroll processing in the Coi�nt•y ! less than two days versus fi'•!e ) a,,d , since it is relatively difficult to Spot any payroll errors based on re••,iewinq the actual. payc�-:ec! , eliminating the hared signature saves time and offs--s ' i tt le or no In contrast , account= pa•/able checks generally have all the supporting documentation attached , and thus , a ;grief supervisorial 1-evie" is possitl? . In additi,n , since there has been some .modifications to our acccuntinq am pi.ar-chas: -�g s'yctens . =such, a re"•.•iew is actuality vera' appropriate . naRESOLUTION FOR FACSIMILE SIGNATURES MID-STATE BANK • Secretary of CITY OF ATASCADERO , a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California , do hereby certify that,at a meeting of the Board of Directors of said corporation duly held on the day of 19i ,at which a quorum was present and acting throughout,the following resolutions were adopted and are now in full force and effect: RESOLVED;That Mid-State Bank as a designated depositary of this corporation be and it (including its correspondent banks) is hereby requested,authorized and directed to honor all checks,drafts or other orders for the payment of money drawn on this corporation's name on its 02042215-02 accounts (including those drawn to the individual order of any person or persons whose names appear thereon as a signer or signers thereof) when bearing or purporting to bear the facsimile signature(s) of any one of the following: "The Mayor of Atascadero" • and that Mid-State Bank(including its correspondent banks)shall be entitled to honor and to charge this corporation for all such checks,drafts or other orders for the payment of money, regardless of by whom or by what means the actual or purported facsimile signature or signatures thereon may have been affixed thereto, if such facsimile signature or signatures resemble the facsimile specimens from time to time filed with Mid-State Bank by the Secretary or other officer of this corporation; and FURTHER RESOLVED: That all previous authorizations for the signing and honoring of checks,drafts or other orders for the payment of money drawn on the said Bank by this corporation are hereby continued in full force and effect as amplified hereby. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of said corporation this= day of Secretary of the Corporation (Corporate Seal) CITY OF ATASCADERO of the Corporation • NOTE: In case the Secretary is authorized to act, either individually or jointly with another officer, this Certificate must also be signed by a second officer, preferably one not so authorized. MS-400(8-85) • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-10 Through: Ray Windsor , City Manager Meeting Date: 11/13/90 From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director */I/ SUBJECT: Approving Change Orders for the Police Facility RECOMMENDATION: By motion, staff recommends Council approve the two change orders for the Police Facility, totaling $67,521 .95. BACKGROUND: The attached report reviews the overall Police Facility project cost , and provides detailed information regarding the two change orders. Sufficient funds exist within the construction fund . As the architect ' s memo notes, the two change orders represented slightly over 5 percent , which is not an unreasonable • amount for a project of this size. c\chgorder • M E M O R A N D U M Date: October 26, 1990 To : Ray Windsor , City Manager From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director Subject: Final Police Facility Costs The purpose of this memo is to briefly review the final police facility costs. Total estimated costs are listed below: Acquisition Costs $640,000 Construction Costs (Wysong only - includes Change Orders 1 & 2) 1 ,356,500 Miscellaneous Costs (Architect , Furnishings, Related Expenses) 160,200 • TOTAL $2, 156,700 The attached report from the Architect summarizes the construction costs and provides detail relating to the change orders. Overall , the change orders increased the total construction costs five percent , an amount included in the original C.O.P. budget . A variety of sources were used to pay for these costs. These sources are included in the next table: C.O.P. Bond 1 ,356,500 Revenue Sharing 391 ,500 Developer Agreement (Bordeaux ) 235,000 Developer Impact Fees 136,400 General Fund 37 ,300 TOTAL $2, 156,700 Some additional notes are useful regarding the Developer ' Impact Fee portion. The rule for General Purpose Projects is to apply 35 percent of the cost to new development (based on 65 percent build out of Atascadero when Developer Fees were adopted ) . Under this formula, approximately $750,000 should be supplied from Developer Fees ($2, 150,000 X .35) . Of this amount , $136,400 was used directly, leaving some $615,000 for C.O.P. Bond Debt Service, or $51 ,000 annually (over a 12 year period : 1988- 2000) . A Council item should be prepared in order to formally authorize the two Change Orders. (Although no additional monies are required . ) This will help resolve any concerns the Treasurer might have as the Trustee for the Construction Fund . r • Ross Levin & Maclntyre Architects 1129 Marsh Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93401 (805) 543-12q* DATE: September 21, 1990 TO: Larry Wyso g Construction FROM: Rod Levi RE: Atascadero Police Facility Attached is Change Order No. 2 signed by this office and ready for your signature and the City's approval. It is most interesting to note after adding up the numbers that the total of reported change orders equaled 5.1% of the original construction cost and the final cost per square foot of building area equaled approximately $112.00. These figures include all • site work and the specialty electronics systems. Furnishings and the cost of the site are not included. We would appreciate your forwarding the Change Order No. 2 application to the City. Thank you. [MEMOS\88020921. 90] • MEMORANDUM CHANGE OWNER PAGE 1 of 2 ORDER ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR 12 AIA DOCUMENT G701 FIELD ❑ OTHER IR State Board of Corrections • PROJECT: Atascadero Police Services FacilitQHANGE ORDER NUMBER: Two (2) (name, address) 5505 El Camino Real DATE: 9-20-90 Atascadero, CA 93422 TO CONTRACTOR: Larry Wysong Construction ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 8802 (name, address) 8485 Los Osos Road CONTRACT DATE: 11/16/89 Atascadero, CA 93422 CONTRACT FOR: General Construction The Contract is changed as follows: BULLETIN # ---------------------DESCRIPTION ADD DEDUC? --------------- ------------------------------------------- 8 1. A/B methods of attaching stone veneer. -0- Deleted -C 2. Add studs for attic draft stop . 2292.00 3. Change door #2 from H.M. to aluminum . 1183.00 4. Install outlet for irrigation controller 244.00 5. Omit factory keying for cylinders . 183.0 9 1. Re-pin stone veneer southwest elevation 6128.00 2. (N) door/frame opening #3 on previous Bulletin -0- -0- 3. Substitute #06L levers for #17 Schlage 507.0 10 1. Install soffit over womens lockers. 325.00 • 2. Raise wall lights and registers in lobby. -0- -0- 11 1. Furnish/install conduit for underground service 3228.00 2. Install doors behind dispatch console. 767.00 Not valid until signed by the Owner, Architect and Contractor. CONTINUED ON PAGE 2 The original(Contract Sum)(Guaranteed Maximum Price)was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 1,289,000.00 Net change by previously authorized Change Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 26,577.00 The(Contract Sum)(Guaranteed Maximum Price)prior to this Change Order was. . . . . . . . . .$ 1,315,577.00 The(Contract Sum)(Guaranteed Maximum Price)will be(increased)(decreased) (unchanged)by this Change Order in the amount of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 40,895.00 The new(Contract Sum)(Guaranteed Maximum Price)including this Change Order will be . .$ 1,356,472.00 The Contract Time will be(increased)(decreased)(unchanged)by ( 24 )days. The date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is July 20, 1990 NOTE: This summary does not reflect changes in the Contract Sum,Contract Time or Guaranteed Maximum Price which have been authorized by Construction Change Directive. Ross Levin MacIntyre & Varner Larry Wysong Construction City of Atascadero ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR OWNER 1129 Marsh Street 8485 Los Osos Road 6500 Palma Avenue Address Address Address San Luis,Obi5imp. CA 934 1 At aaaada ; CA 934 2 Atascadero, CA 93422 • BY . BY o BY Kenneth HM c n e DATE September 21 1990 ` DATE DATE AIA DOCUMENT 6701 • CHANGE ORDER • 1987 EDITION • AIA® • ©1987 • THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 G701-1987 PAGE 2of2 BULLETIN # DESCRIPTION ADD DEDUCT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 1. Install 1/2" CW service to A.C. precoolers 1897.00 2. Install additional class II base at parking. 2648.00 • 3. Furnish/install duplex outlets stor. #107 157.00 13 1. Additional water line/valve cells #114/115 . . -0- Deleted -0- 2. Construct full ht fire wall at el. panel. 468.00 14 1. Add data outlet in mug/print #116 . . . . . . 148.00 2. Furnish/install additional room signage . 741.00 15 1. Re-locate chain link fence/patch curb. 342.00 2. Fur out wall behind handicap shower . 179.00 3. Furnish/install attic vents . . 6686.00 16 1. Furnish/install 3 computer hubs in ceiling . 139.00 2. Furnish/install remote meter base . 366.00 3. Relocate catch basins/additional storm drain . . 4557.00 piping northwest side of bldg. 17 1. Furnish/install P.R.V. at irrigation system 106.00 18 1. Change breakers/wires for auto gate and power to cook top / install plug strip . 891.00 2. Repair leak at P.I.V. on fire 1 ne. 884.00 3. Furnish/install sensor loop and laser light at auto gate 1691.00 19 1. Modify landscaping (relocate plants and add some 280.00 plantings • 2. Complete door control circuiting . . 2847.00 3. Change HVAC grilles. . . . . 115.00 20 1. Furnish/install stainless steel access cover over 164.00 exterior door lock in detention area. 2. Add tel, outlet in room #126. 148.00 3. Change paint in hold ng cell area to oil base enamel 947.00 2 1. Relocate chain link fence. . 1017.00 TOTALS 41.585.00 <690.00) -------------------- GRAND TOTAL $40,895.00 • 09/27%90 09:52 V805 540 0490 RLJUG ARCHITECTS 10 002 CHANGE OWNER �'► � ORDER ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR • A[A DO CUWEN7 G701 FIELD n State- Fire Marshal OTHER K State Board of Corrections PROJECT: Pol.ica Services Faci 1 i tv (:I IANGI ORDER NUM13Er: One (1) (mme, address) City of Atascadero 5505 El Camino Real 'DATE: March 27, 1990 TO CONTRACTOR: Atascadero, CA ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 8$02 (n=c, address) harry Wys ong Const. Co. CONTRACT DATE: XTovembe r 16, 1989 3485 Los Osos Road Atascadero, CA 93422 CONTFU T FOR. General Construction. The C01-1=a Is cl=gcd as follows: ADD DEDUCT B-LTz� E''LN - TF1 Change faucet at WC-3/WC-4 to to Acorn #1760 i-G-M per State . requirements - - - - - $ 86.00 1,-2 Change faucet at WC-3 in F.C. cell to Acorn 101428—LO-3 per State requirements , - $ 210.00 #3 1ns4all grab bars in cell :'x'118 per State requirements. $ 244.00 n4 Add 3/4 hr. rating to 9 jail doors per State. requirements. $2,801.00 • ''S Srrzid by generator control change. N.C. V6 Circuicing ext. lights. Nk .C. "I Add spoke detectors in jail area per State requirements $1,117.00 s8 Install products pass through try in Dispatch Ir138 $ 268.00 Not valid until signed by the Ovmer,Architect and Contractor. CO\T=UED ON PAGE 2 Che origin_aI(CO=Rct Sum)(Guaranteed Maximum Pride)w.%-,. . ..... ... .. . .. . . . . . . .g 1,289:1000.00 Net Change by previously authorized Ch=ge Orders _.._ . __._._ . . S --0— Thc(Caotrscr Sum)(Cuaranteed Maximum Priec)prior to this Chzngc ordcs Ar;�s. - _ • . _ _. . .5 I,2 89,0 00.00 The;Con.mcl Sum)(Guarfntccd Maximum Price)will beincrrtpwd)(dca�ticd) (tt.Dcb=ged)by this Change Order in the amount of.. .-_. . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . ..S 26,577.00 The ter (Coutrntt Sum)(Guar---reed Maxmum Price)including di s C1�ange Order rill be - -S 1,315,577.00 Tbc Con=ct Time will be(IucreaS�(decrca�)(unch?ngcd)by ( 30 )days. The date of Substantial Compledon as of the dare of dtis Change Order thereforc is .lune 26, 19 go. Thii sL==ary docs not rcfleer changes in rhe Cgn=cx Sum.(:OrL zcr Time G:Gua.jnteed M2711—Pr_cr-which have beta au:horimd by i c mLnc.o�n Change Directive_ Ross Levin :laclat re & Varner Larry Wysong Construction City of Atascadero _�RL�i'F1'EC"i CO.'YTRAGTC3sZ ---- Qa'i� I ..-------- _- 1129 1, rsh Street 84$5 Los Osos Road 615 0 Palma Avenue .ddrtss ��.----- _.—_ �..iYi;C.- --_ Sti" 's 9 _ Atas :adeno, CA 93422 Atascadero, CA 93422 •� "BY - :i - fi al, BY _ yr ✓ dr satz® , B8Uld—KZ-- — --.... DATE - r t DATE - F O - At11 SUt�JMwr G701 A!A0• ' 11)87 71iE A.%95Ucn.` LWSTTTT.-TE OF hRCzTTEC7S, ,735 NEW YORK ftp, ti,x WA-- ,GTQN, D.C. ZrKM- G701-1987 _ . 09!27.90 09:53 $805 543 0493 RMV ARCHITECTS 0003 PAGE 2 ADD DEDUC A9 Delete transaction drawer in Dispatch "138 . - - $3,.826.00 "I0 Q'-11 Padding tobeState Fir M;►r!5hal �ip�,rov<!cl - . N.C. 7r11 Clarify wall designations _ - - zZ2 Aad 5/8" GWB to roof above detention area per State Fire Marshal - 52,678.00 x`113 Clarify- wall designations . - - - N.C. ti14 Add 1/4" fixed wire glass to jail doors per State Fire Marshal$ 879.00 u15 Add 5/8" GWB to clg. joists and dire dampers in meCII. outlets ;n cowrridor in jail per State requirements - - S1,478.00 416 Add 2 -x 6plat@_to top. of wall detail, 33-/A 30 per Ac-tCg rec, --$ it79.�0 "17 Add fire dampers in registers in ceiling adjacent to Lobby 104 per City requirements . - - _ $ 437.00 r18 Use metal curbs at mecb. unity N.C. 'rig Additional soffit framing to (P.) rafters front elev. - $ 529.00 F20 Re_'.nforce EIVAC ualt roof openings - - $2,304.00 B,Ur LETu'd `2 "1 Additional masonry work south elevation - cost not available • at this time. r';2 Relocation of chain link fence o-=fitted. P3 Licate public pay phone out?et to ext. of building - $ 168-00 r'f'r Cnail-ge. jail Comby unit to H.C. $ 185.00 s5 Extend 4" comm.. conduit to roof antenna from comm. equip. rm $.2,201.00 ,rb Omit .-nck cushion/vapor barrier under (N) concrete patchas $1,304.00 "7 Gait certain special inspections . . N.C. BULLETIN #3 :F1 Pack wood putty around openings in stzuct. hea,s at supports $ 224.00 7�? Apply good preservative r_o ends of GIu-Lam beams, west elev. $ 201.00 i3 lustali 2 x 6 transfer plates at certa=n roof yoists $ 170.00 BULLE ILIL nl Tu-,;tall sceel bumper plate at damaged retaining wal.1I $ 337.00 "? (N) aluminum break shape at aluminum store front to rock ;call N.C. 43 Remove 37' x 3' uznreinforcad stone -wall/re-frame portion / o 5ouch elevation _ $2,600.00 .-...�Ui.LEXLNN v5 • "1 Omit re uired by Pass so?_ ation at stand by generator. - - - $5,750.00 "2 Clnange walker duct in comm_ equip. roam to :'.=7A $ 230.00 t3 Z'ira sprinkler/fire detection plans to ba submitted to State for approval _ N.C. '4'9/27,'90 09:54 12805 5t9 0493 RLMV ARCHITECTS i.. 2004 PAGE 3 • ;� � ED #4 �oIIS�rCICt maso71 — ry walls/frami.IIH in detention area per ADD DUCT modified structural details . . $9,601.00 KLLETEN #6 1.`1 Extend 2-2" C_0•/1-I"-, C.0. from in Rosario st. for communicationslservice o (N) joint pole 17,27 Lnstall two 4'x8' 1 - $1,395.00 E ywood back boards is elect. egsipn. room - $ 113.00 f3 Extene 2-_" C.O. from elect. eq,?ip_ room to TTB in room ,#136 $2,300.00 X64 Install dbl, duplex outlets in lieu of single in el. equip. rm $ 15.00 �5 Mount panel G-2 on wall surface a - _ N.C. V6 '?7jit partit_=on and door #57 in comm_ equip. rm.. #137 ,77 Connect - ,. ---- -- - - = - $- .-604.00 power to EF l9 Y.C. #8 Add 1/2" C.O. from fire alai= control to HVAC units N.C. #9 Install P-1-V- valve in fire sprinkler system per City . Fire Depaz-�eat . . $1,449.00 A' t=ombzne some runs special systems nII Construct (N) partition and door with 1/2 lite se rating - corridor X165 from lobby #140 per direction if Chief McHale . $1,978.00 rr1?.. ?Ortl]ns of tel, home runs to run to TTB in el. room . N.C. ir7 nI=- C-range elect. ground from `-2 to 7`3. N.C. b. Change fixto subst ture S itute _ ?2• $ 279.00 -ristall Dex-O-Tex Neotex-261 in jail area floors in lzeu of atagral colored concrete $3,623.00 TO 3 "mir pltnabi:'c : _..sections to -wo'existirg H.B. south.elev_ --- --- r4 Traci; del �a ull�tir =6, item 6 N.C. #5 °.gin,,--?pct recess `o ?. camera in soffit of overhang sough elevation (,;,,t - . $ -0- 0TIALS $39,%20 .00 $13,143.00 • • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO AGENDA ITEM: A-11 -- ---------------- THROUGH: Ray Windsor , City Manager Meeting Date: 11 /13/90 VIA: Henry Engen, Community Development Director tk Greg Luke, Public Works Director--L _ �r FROM: Stephen Hicks, Building Officia ' J SUBJECT- Award of bid #90-16 for Interdepartmental Permit Tracking System RECOMMENDATION: After extensive research into their proposed equipment and their service reputation, it is Staff ' s recommendation that we award the Bid #90-16 to the low bidder , Coastal Computers. • There are two additional items Staff recommends the City Council authorize as a part of this bid package. These are items that were not included in the request for proposal , but through the research conducted I became aware that these items are necessary for the network system to run effectively. One item is 4 meg more of memory for the file server . This is needed to interface with the large hard disk (660 meg ) . Cost = $440 Another item is an uninterrupted power supply to protect the file server in case of a power failure. Cost = $405 Bid price from Coastal = $26,916.31 Additional items = 845.00 6.25% Tax = 52.81 Recommended Total = 27,814. 12 BACKGROUND: • This network system together with the software purchased from Micro-plan will serve the entire 3rd floor . All permit tracking for the Building, Planning , Code Compliance, and Engineering Divisions will be monitored by this system. All the individual PC ' s will be linked to the network system allowing the user to access the permit tracking system. This network purchased under bid # 90-16 consists of hardware • needed to run the above mentioned software. There will be a very fast file server with a very large hard disk that will keep all the records generated by the 4 Divisions as they issue permits and track the progress of applications, jobs, and complaints. Each Division will receive a workstation for the network as well as all the existing PC ' s being linked to the network . Each user of the system will be able to access the status of any application in the system. The network purchased will also allow the use of electronic mail . The system is planned to be installed within two weeks from the Council ' s approval . FISCAL IMPACT: Recommended Hardware Total = $27,814. 12 Under Capital Budget, Non-Department Item No . 22 there is $25,000 remaining after finance purchased their system. Under Public Works Minor Capital there is $4,500 for Computer related equipment . This totals $29,500. These approved budget items will cover the cost of the system. • • • BID SUMMARY TO: Steve Hicks, Building Official Building Department FROM: Lee Dayk.1 City Cierk BID NO. 90-16 OPENED 10/25/90 10:00 A.M. PROJECT: Computer The following bids were received and opened as follows: Name of Company Bid Price Discount Total Price Coastal Computers $27 ,465.b3 2;: 26, 91b . 31 3195 McMillan Ave. #13 ( 549. 32) San Luis Obispo , CA 93401 Comco Computers 27 , 934 .00 1': 27,654. 66 X7325-A El Camino Real (279 . 34 ) A+--ascadero , CA 93422 wl tcc Computers 27, 944 . 91 -0- 27, 944.81 3563-9 Su'el,do • 3an Luis Obispo , CA 93401 "Zuntec Computers 25 ,793. 75 2% 28,217 . 97 .i?83 El Camino Real ( 575.35) A7ascadero , CA 93422 E'_ -ech Sys*ems lnc . 29 536. 6? -0- 29 ;-6 62 4+ 252 3enicia Street Pr-emomt . Ca 94538 Lenard 30 ,060 . 1 , 2Q , 419 So . Broadway Santa Maria . CA 93454 Computerland 30 , 971 .25 -O- 301.971 . 25 1422 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo , CA 93401 Micro Business Svstams 31 , 489. 00 1'. 31 , 174 . 1 : 1275 W. Shaw Ave. (314 . 39 ) Fresno , CA 93711 Hoi-nbuckle Engineering 3? , 624 .Q6 -0- ?3 , 624 . 96 Centra'_ Avenge Facific Grove, CA 93950 (continued ) • City of 4tascadera Purchasing Agent 6504 Palma Avenue Atascadero , CA 93422 NOTICE OF BID AWARD Issue Date Bid No . Resolution No . You are hereby notified that the commodities andior services listed have beOn awarded to you subject to the terms and conditions of the bid number shown and to the General Conditions Of this Notice of Bid Award : V E N D 0 R • !'EM QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTIGN PRICE Purchasing Department Bv: Vendor ' s Recresentative • Phone REPORT TO CITY COUNCEL • CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda item: A-12 ------------------------------- ----------------------�--- Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting date: �� ? c From: Michael Hicks, Fire Chief/l/d SUBJECT: Replacement of Atascadero City Fire Department 1982 Rescue-1 mini- pumper. RECOIN01ENDATION• Award bid to Fire-Bann Corporation of Ontario, CA, for $90,698.00 plus tax. BACKGROUND: This item is budgeted in our present budget ($105,000.00). The recommendation to award the bid to Fire-Bann Corporation and not to Central States of Lyons, South Dakota, is based on conditions of the bid that the unit is to be delivered within 120 days after delivery of chassis. The low bidder from South Dakota used a 10 month delivery date after receipt of chassis and the recommended bidder is within four months after they receive the chassis. In addition, the low bidder asks for $20,000 down on receipt of chassis. The recommended bidder does not ask for any funds until delivery. The lowest bid is ($88,844.00) with $20,000.00 down upon receipt of chassis at their plant in South Dakota, with delivery 10 months after receipt of chassis. The second lowest bid is $90,698.00, a difference of $1,865.00 over the lowest bid, with delivery as specified within 120 days after receipt of chassis. Battalion Chief McCain and myself visited the Fire-Bann factory on 11/5/90. The purpose was to be sure that they understood the vehicle specifications and that they build quality apparatus. We were satisfied that they are a company of high standards. FISCAL RdPACT• Administrative Services Director will be investigating a lease purchase for this vehicle as we have done in the past. • - -- - - w _ -W -W Q) 44 M L J1 CUW H W V1 > VY cc O u O = O = O O = W 9z E u E u E E u O 0, 1 I H z H W .� _U U L 00 O O 00 O O eY1 O W In- -:T .t O Cl A ~ M CN u - O W D Q Ial00 w � 00 O O vi ^ >+ D m ^ ^ !: U O O C ro ^ O O c0 O 00 co .,.., O CO 'b O O U v1 1n > O M > L' 00 \O H O b \D c+') cz O D\ C r CL. O\ "o cc C W C ON ON 0 O ^ %D %10 > 00 O O •r-1 0 -4 -H cQ M N •r••I V] O cr) O 00 c0 O 4-j 4-j Ol,%D ca co O \-D c0 cc u 00 4-) a = c� -W b o 4-) b 4'9- r� 4c). o H cd O .--1 o —� BSE >•+ . 6\° N a) ,-I — O O 4c-VIC, a O w +J • } 4-J F 96 O e � O 04 4-J w o cvn Z O CD O z ON x -+ ow N C\ 0 Wo > 44 > d 1- z cn M acaONrl- -t ww0 zA oo � CW7zx �D � LO W r- M E-+ Wr- H dOcr) r- q: HO -4 CH UAL dOOr -cc = r) 000\ .7 N Q U d.0 I I HH I Z CU ++ z frl c+•) r- En rn A r- -D C). z � OoN+ rn I = a -CCC) Lr)) xH � oow 000 -CC C4—+ a d = CY) U) � xca �, wa3 � ¢ pq p D W, c ' t E- z E w rn H w A •• V) rxcvE- r••, X zoo cnooao I cn � oa4d�%4 >e HOzr- d W C) WW t\ W N x � a: -.9 rZ4 N 0 �;Z.i U H ..I 3 CN U � H. W c _z A H H (D z U Ch d 1 A zO D OW4 L H z G. . H �O A A O z U H z W CL. a--+ V) W C U E- A �® W z Q p W �+ O a_-+ A .... �- W (N J O o a D z x C [Hz..E o rA` = Er d z O _ UWO A L:. W _ d I > A z U �WF> PL z U W Q Z Q W Acle U z u n O H A U r W z w o � xc HH U H Uz - CD44HEO p� o - M - z z z -^� � cn O � C) H 7Z a H x � a -) r,) x aa � -4 3 > N � � � oHx � � ciao L Ucnd �tr d � U � O � W � A Q 'D N ?+ AG 00 00 W x a d .�+ E-+ W Q O� .-. U �pGn: �t �t zE+ cn � � P, WN W Eiz � HWS Z C� Q WPaGd, � � � � au) Lr) C3zM OW Wu) '0 w C4 o H wo � oa< ooz � � = C14 p" `n Fo W cs fid, c� Ln l- 00 a h-I �p O N rn -< --3, z fs+ 00 P. v G. Ls. N • Citv of atascadero Purchasing Agent 650('-) Palma Avenue Atascadero , CA 43422 NOTICE OF BID AWARD Issue Date Bid No . Resolution No . You are hereby notified that the commodities_ and%or services listed have been awarded to you subject to the terms and conditions of the bid number shown and to the General Conditions of this Notice of Bid Award : V E N 0 sR -TEM QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTIGN PRICE Purchasing Department By _ Vendor ' s Recresentative ?hone • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-13 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 11/13/90 File No: TTM 820802 : 1 (Tract 1382) From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director -46 SUBJECT: Acceptance of final Tract Map 1382 (Ibsen/Gill/Stewart) to finalize Phase II of Tract Map 820802 : 1 (Panorama Oaks II) on Vista Road. RECOMMENDATION : Acceptance of final Tract Map 1382 as all conditions of approval have been met by the applicant, including modifications to the alignment of Vista Road to minimize tree removals . • BACKGROUND: On May 23, 1983 , the City Council concurred with the Planning Commission' s recommendation to approve Tentative Tract Map 1382 based on the findings and revised conditions of approval . HE :ps CC : Robert Ibsen Dan Stewart Gordon Gill • AL > Ps W ,r NOAIT --- C♦ , pyo ' V O LIP �40 IN !, RS ' a 00� L(FH) o 1 L(FH) +� C N ° RS-(PD Z) �a T&A r 13&L L s RS RS , 1. r y .. o I PO► --SOL', _- Q ; w� t • O � ► � ��0. 0 vw •� �! • !a. �ilt° • o.q t? it.tv �1 � •,. +gyp. lk ssvh.H srsri. �' a t 1` Iw/tem �Tw•.i a -- ` of A" a � � y •ter ''� e''r q° 1 ��Ov •1 1 - `) �O V i d 14sa a 1 ti y .rr 1 ............... m\ 'o • o , � -\ to P` P�� REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-14 From: Ray Windsor, City Manager(P Meeting Date: 11/13/90 SUBJECT: Item #' s 14-A & B - Refund of Amapoa-Tecorida Fees RECOMMENDATION: To approve the refunds requested in Items A & B attached, and to direct staff to revise Resolution No. 9-86 . BACKGROUND : In 1986 , the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9-86 , which established the method for assessing properties within the Amapoa- Tecorida drainage basin. Apparently, over the years, requests for fee reimbursement, under certain circumstances, have been made and approved as provided for in Section 1-B of the resolution: "Appro- priate credits may be applied as determined by the Director of Public Works" . In light of recent concerns over issues of policy and staff discretion, staff believes that it would be more appropriate if the resolution language were modified as follows : "Appropriate credits may be applied as determined by the Director of Public Works and approved by the City Council" . An amended resolution will be added to your agenda for November 27th. RW: cw Attachment : Resolution No. 9-86 1 RESOLUTION NO. 9-86 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF is ATASCADERO RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AMAPOA-TECORIDA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 117 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero has adopted Ordinance No. 117 known as the Amapoa-Tecorida Development Impact Fee Ordinance, and WHEREAS, Section 3-9.04 and 3-9.06 of Ordinance No. 117 provides for the adoption of a fee schedule required to be paid by developers in the specified area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The following fee schedule shall be effective 30 days after passage of said Ordinance. a) The development or construction of residential or non- residential buildings, _ and the person causing such to be constructed shall pay a fee in the amount of: Commercial & Multifamily: $3 ,343 per cubic feet per second of runoff based on 3 cfs per acre, and Single Family: $2,996 per cubic feet per second of • runoff, based on 1.8 cfs per acre. The Development Impact Fee Report is hereby identified and incorporated as a part of this resolution. b) All developments which were previously conditioned for deposits pursuant to Resolution No. 42-85 shall pay this fee as meeting the obligation of contribution to the future drainage improvements and will be payable upon notice after passage. Appropriate credits may be applied as determined by the Director of Public Works. Councilman On motion by and seconded by COL1nC11WoM(jn the oregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Handshy, Mackey, Molina & Mayor Nelson NOES: Councilwoman Norris ABSENT: None DATE ADOPTED: 2/24/86 • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-14(A) Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 11/13/90 From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: 7220, 7300, 7340 Atascadero Avenue: Authorization to refund Amapoa-Tecorida fees in exchange for a 20 foot wide drainage easement (Robert Daniel Gardner/G. W. Land Company) . RECOMMENDATION: Reimburse the Amapoa-Tecorida fees collected from the applicant ($ 11,754.56) for a drainage easement across the three properties. BACKGROUND• The construction of three single family residences along Atascadero Avenue has recently been completed by G.W. Construction. As a result of the review of the grading and drainage plans for these projects the applicant was • required by the City to provide a 20 foot wide drainage easement across the back of parcels 11, 12, and 13 . The purpose of the drainage easement is to prevent additional flooding of existing upstream residences that were constructed at the historical elevation of the flood plain. The lots developed by G. W. Construction were filled substantially higher than the historical flood plain and have the potential to block the flow of water from the lots occupied by the existing residences. In order to prevent this possibility the offering of the easements was required and drainage ditches and culverts were installed along Atascadero Avenue. It is the intent of the Department of Public Works, as development of the flood plain proceeds, to continue to acquire drainage easements extending toward the intersection of San Andres Avenue, Atascadero Avenue and Morro Road. • DISCUSSION: • In the past, Amapoa-Tecorida fees have been exchanged for improvements installed by private development which have been installed to serve a regional purpose. For example, fees have been returned in exchange for the construction of a concrete channel located midway between Amapoa and Azucena that drains that region. Section 3-9.07 "Limitations On Use" of the Municipal Code defines the limitations on use of the fees collected. "All fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be placed in a capital outlay fund described as the Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage Impact Fee fund and used only to pay for costs of capital improvements as defined herein. " Ordinance No. 117, the Amapoa-Tecorida fee ordinance, Section 3- 9. 03 "Definitions" defines the "Cost of Capital Improvements" as including "all costs related to acquisition, construction, repair, and financing but does not include cost of routine maintenance. " It appears that if this definition includes the cost of acquiring drainage_ easements then the Council would be justified in reimbursing fees in exchange for the easements. FISCAL IMPACT: • Amapoa-Tecorida Fees Paid 7220 Atascadero Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3, 666.56 7300 Atascadero Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 044.00 7340 Atascadero Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,044.00 $ 11,754. 56 Total Easement Area Required: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 643 .20 square feet Total Cost of Lots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 264,999. 00 Total Area of Lots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,753 square feet Cost of Lots per Square Foot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2 . 63 Cost of Easement Area Paid by Applicant . . . . $ 20, 101.62 Thus, the cost of Amapoa-Tecorida fees that could be reimbursed is $11,754. 56 while the cost to the applicant for the easement land was approximately $20, 101. 62. • • enclosures: Page from First American Title Insurance Escrow Instructions and Counter Offer demonstrating that the applicant paid $530,000 for 6 lots. Easement Site Plan Fee Payment Records cc: Robert D. Gardner, G. W. Land Company • • e • AMENDMENT TO ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS TO: ESCROW NO: ATAS-868625-ST FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY DATE: DECEMBER 7, 1989 6905 EL CAMINO REAL, #13 PAGE: 1 OF 1 ATASCADERO, CA 93422 SALLY TWIFORD ESCROW OFFICER RE: 7355 MOM ROAD, ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 THESE ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS ARE HEREBY AMENDED/SUPPIDIENTED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: BUYER'S VESTING Is HEREBY AMENDED TO READ As FOLLOWS AT THE CLOSE OF ESCROW: G. W. LAND COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA GhNERAL PARTNERSHIP We, the partners of G. W. Land Company understand we have been designated to became Buyers of the property described in the above numbered escrow. We hereby consent to becoming the Buyers and by our signatures below acknowledge that we are familiar with the terms and provisions of the original escrow instructions dated August 30, 1989 and supplemental escrow instructions dated September 8, 1989, September 25, 1989, November 3, 1989 and December 1, 1989, and have received a copy of said instructions outside of this escrow. We hereby agree to be bound by the terms thereof in all respects, as if - we were the original Buyers named therein and will hand you all documents and funds necessary to close this escrow. All parties are aware that G. W. Land Company is the sole buyer of subject property and - funds on deposit in escrow in the amount of $5,000.00 shall be credited to the account of G'. W. Land Company for their sole use in this escrow. Any reimbursement of said funds shall be handled between the parties OUTSIDE OF ESCROW and Escrow Holder and First American Title Insurance Company shall not be required to aid in the recovery of said funds. • Buyer's to obtain a new loan in the amount $396,500.00 in favor of Mid State Bank. Buyer's execution of lender's loan documents shall constitute their approval of the terms and conditions of said loan. TOTAL CONSIDERATION TO BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: Buyer has deposited $ 5,000.00 Buyer to deposit prior to close of escrow $ 128,500.00 Trust Deed to record $ 396,500.00 TOTAL CONSIDERNrION $ 530,000.00 " ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS ESCROW SHALL REMAIN UNCHANGED. G. W. Land Company Ralph T. Runkle, Jr. Robert Daniel Gardner Barbara S. Runkle Jeff A. Wonsley YOURI C0('Y Kenneth Klaren APPROVED: x Nancy Klaren KENNETH KLAREN �, -: NANCY KLAREN • / H L\ V� v tJ N _ z w t I 20 � - ro0 �� •6B H;�; 4 I a C SIN � a h A I /90Z ta a t\ �6 2 c _ ~ D Arn �r rn O l- 1,4 h v • C1 1, � C iso* ' s 290 S 7.c - 135-97 C r � � it V s. fl ,1 Ij C• (il �i • _ _ _ _ — zip_ rs 0 � o O Moo - Oi z 8C: S�soq 76.! E c rn l' ' �JJ •QD 7C ow � � v `"y 5p 5 '+ o 76°#C n Q r 4 4 /Z rn p cn O - ° Tt C)CA D D rc� Jo �Z 38,IG n o m a . ANDRI taseadees INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979 1-18-9 0 Data Received: Date Issued: S -17- 9 PERMIT NO. 6872 ADDRESSOFPROJECT: 7300 Atascadero 0 Building 0 Electrical 0 Mechanical O Plumbing 0 Solar 0 Swim Pool 0 Owner O Lessee 0 Mail Address Phone K . Klaren 7635 ECR, Suite 7 Atas A 461 2An? Contractor/Builder Address Phone - Lic.No. GW Construction & Dev. 7625CRS,q►,;tA 7 , Atas A61 ,zAng Tach E"er;/D&s}gfen Address Phone Lic.No. P.O. Box318,M. B. ,CA 772-2180 Bank or other source of loan Address Type of Project: O New 0 Add. 0 Alter 0 Repair O Demolish 0 Move 0 Install 0 Compliance Survey 0 Change of Occupancy 0 Other Project Description: Construct a one story , three bedroom, 1910ft2 SFR w/attchd 704.ft2 garage/15ft2 cvd entry/184ft2 trellis cvd patio Legal Description: Assessor's No. Use Zone Lot Area Ltl2 . R1kOR, A( 21-052- 2 E-8 ^" ^^ 2 * * * * SIE SIE 4 * SIE FRAME FOUNDATION EXTERIOR WALL ROOF HEATIN O Wood Stud 0 Cont.Conc O Wood Sdg 0 Stone Vnr O Conc T/Up 0 Comp Blt-up O Elec. 0 Metal O Slab 0 Wood Trm O Brick 0 Metal 0 Comp Shingle 0 Gas Furn. O Timber O Piers 0 Stucco 0 Conc Blk 0 Brick Vnr 0 Wood Shgl/Shake O Gas Wall 0 Metal 13 Tile - ❑Solar TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: Type No. Occupancy Group REQUIREMENTS: FEES:Value$ 155 ,099 Business Lic. Construction: 1 , 861 . 00 State Contractor ' s Lic. pt�'- Worker ' s Comp. Ins . Electrical: Plumbing: Mechanical: Earthquake: 11 . 00 OBTAIN ENCR THRU PUBLIC WORKS RM Issuance: Plan Check: 441 .00 . 00 4 ,7T4. 00 gal.septic tank and sq.ft.leach field TOTAL FEES:$ 6 , 222 . 0 0 I have read this completed application carefully. Cl Owner 0 Agent Date Paid: 1-18-90/ 711 G� 21851 / 02,� Receipt No.: Si nteDH Agent s Name Prid taseade�® • INCOlfOtA7ED JULY Z, 1979 1-18-90 Date Received: Date Issued. S /7/?a PERMIT NO. 6878 ADDRESS OF PROJECT: 7220 A t as c ad e r o O Building 0 Electrical 0 Mechanical 0 Plumbing O Solar O Swim Pool 0 Owner O Lessee 0 Mail Address Phone J . Wonsley 7635 ECR Suite 7 Atas CA 461 �80� Contractor/Builder Address Phone - Lic.No. G,W. Cons .r�,ntion & n �. Fra r �.�,� �e n Address Phone Lic.No. Phone 772-2180 Bank or other source of loan Address Type of Project: O New O Add. O Alter 0 Repair O Demolish 0 Move 0 Install O Compliance Survey 0 Change of Occupancy O Other Project Description: Construct a one story , three bedroom, 1910ft2 SFR w/attchd 704ft2 garage/15ft2 cvd entry/184ft2 trellis cvd patio Legal Description: Assessor's No. Use Zone Lot Area AIRAM E FOUNDATION EXTERIOR WALL ROOF HEATING Wood Stud 0 Cont.Conc O Wood Sdg 0 Stone Vnr 0 Conc T/Up O Comp Blt-up 0 Elec. 0 Metal 0 Slab O Wood Trm 0 Brick 0 Metal O Comp Shingle 0 Gas Fes, 0 Timber 0 Piers 0 Stucco 0 Conc Blk 0 Brick Vnr 0 Wood Shgl/Shake 0 Gas Wall O Metal 0 Tile C3 Solar TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: Type No. Occupancy Group REQUIREMENTS: FEES:Value$ 155 , 099 Business Lic. Construction: 1 , 861 . 00 State Contractor' s Lic . Worker ' s Comp . Ins. Electrical: Plumbing: OBTAIN ENCR THRU PUBLIC WORKS RM 204 Mechanical: Earthquake: 11 . 00 Issuance: Plan Check: 441 . 00 . 00 A/'T gal.septic tank and sq.ft.leach field TOTAL FEES:$ tg . 5 6 I have read this completed application carefully. �wner 0 Agent .1-7- � 0 Date Paid: 21851 �,y02.� Receipt No.: Signajar� rADate Agent's Name Printed tascade�® Date Received 1/18/90 INCORPORATED JULY 2.1!7! Date Issued: s �S PERMIT NO. 6 8 7 9 ADDRESS OF PROJECT. 7340 A T A S C AD E R O O Building O Electrical O Mechanical O Plumbing O Solar O Swim Pool O Owner Lessee O Mail Address Phone ROBERT GARDNER 7365 EL CAMINO REAL ATAS CA 93422 461-380 Contractor/Builder Address Phone Lic.No. G. W. CONST . S DEV . 7635 EL CAMINO REAL, ATAS , CA 461-3802 557567 Arch./Engr./Designer Address Phone Lic.No. MARK ALLEN P .O . BOX 318 , MORRO BAY CA 93443 772-2180 Bank or other source of loan Address Type of Project:)QNew O Add. O Alter O Repair O Demolish O Move O Install O Compliance Survey O Change of Occupancy O Other Project Description: CONSTRUCT A ONE STORY, THREE BEDROOM, 1, 910 SQ. FT . SFR W/ATT . 704 SQ. FT . GARAGE, 15 SQ . FT. COVERED ENTRY S 184 SQ . FT . TRELLIS tERED nnTtE) �T Legal Descripption: Assessor's No. Use Zone Lot Area LT . 1 , BLK. OB , ATAS . COL. 31-052-23 LSF-Y(FH) 39 972 FRAME FOUNDATION EXTERIOR WALL ROOF HEATING 3 Wood Stud O Cont.Conc O Wood Sdg O Stone Vnr O Conc T/Up O Comp Blt-up O Elec. O Metal M Slab O Wood Trm O Brick O Metal O Comp Shingle UGas Furn. O Timber O Piers XXStucco O Conc Blk O Brick Vnr O Wood Shgl/Shake O Gas Wall O Metal XXri1e O Solar TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: Type No. Occupancy Group REQUIREMENTS: FEES:Value$ 155 , 099 Construction: 1, 861 . 00 Electrical: STATE CONTRACTOR ' S LIC. Plumbing: WORKER ' S CITY BUSINESS LIC . �Y WORKER ' S COMP . INS . �. Mechanical: Earthquake: 11 . 00 Issuance: Plan Check: 441 - 00 RAINAGE FEE , 40 . 00 A/T FEE 41, 044 . 00 gal.septic tank and sq.ft.leach field TOTAL FEES:$ 6, 397 . 00 I have read this completed application carefully. O Owner O Agent • _ Date Paid: 1-18-90/ a Receipt No.: 21851/ N oz $388 . 00/ Signature Date 42 Agent's Name Printed F COUNTER OFFER • TMii M INTENORD TO OR A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT.READ IT CAREFULLY - CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTOR"(CAR)STANDARD FORM This is a counter offer to thea Real Estate Purchase Contract and Receipt for Deposit,El Mobilehome Purchase Contract and Receipt for Deposit,❑ Business Purchase Contract and Receipt for Deposit, ElOther dated - 19�,on Property known as:��%T5 /� !Zr 3 /�,lyi ?:� r ,f ;' / ,;,% 77, in which 7% �R i,-o N x- is referred to as Buyer and ,C-1 �Gce e7S-C3..--;16- is referred to as Seller. ,Seller accepts all of the terms and conditions in the above designated agreement with the following changes or amendments: i9 -S .tel/G T.? /sF 2Y S 30 Ol�� Cin Zle - l.� ✓ /T 775 _5-Goo, o�_ - "/.; Ei: TO G.s-7.�.�= /n/u�s /h,/z r/O.J ��J /� Z! <_Gi✓Ti.✓l r,'.�'c � i ri ✓/ i5 w 3 c I • The Seller reserves the right to continue to offer the herein described property for sale and accept any offer acceptable to Seller at anytime prior to personal receipt by Seller or �'r i✓AYA-vi/2,A- <: ,Seller's authorized agent,of a copy this counter offer,duly accepted and signed byBuyer.Unless this counter offer is accepted in this manner on or before ri -,.<. -�,? , 19`,<-1 at L-06 -*t*/PM,it shall be deemed revoked and deposit shall be returned to the Buyer,Seller's acceptance of another offer shall revoke this counter offer. Receipt of a copy hereof is hereby acknowledged. Gated {t5 Z G 19,4, Seller Time ❑The undersigned Buyer hereby accepts the above counter offer,or ❑The undersigned Buyer hereby accepts the above counter offer with the following changes or amendments: Unless the above is accepted on or before 19-at-AM/PM,it shall be deemed revoked. Receipt of a copy hereof is hereby acknowledged. Dated —19— "v" 9 .et Time Receipt of signed copy on 19_at AM/PM,by Seller or Seller's authorized Agent is acknowledged. Y0°" urvoarl Seller accepts Buyer's changes or amendments to Seller's counter offer and agrees to sell on the above terms and conditions. Dated 19 Seller ` t Time Seller *' THS SUMWMIZED DOCUMENT FdR UBE M SIMPLE TPANSACTK06 HAS BEEN APFROVEDsY THE OAL.IPDRNA ASs=AnoN OF REALTORSA IN FORM ONLY. No REPRESENTATION IS MADE AS TO THE APPRO"AL OF THE FORM OF ANY SUPPLEMENTS NOT CURRENTLY PUBUSHED aY THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORSO OR THE LEGAL I11111IDITY OR ADEOUA Y OF ANY PROVISION N ANY SPE SHOULD NOT COM _ OR WITH EXTENSIVE RIDERS OR 7y,v.. >Oy`R BE USED IN COMPLEX TRANSACTIONS - -. ,. ,y <.�.r•T,q, ��.�, .[ '� .•-fi".-rte,.'�tD`4sse�� -:> !-f -. _.. A REAL ESDRE BROKER IS THE PERSOQUALEIED 7 REAL ESM TFiANSAGiI F . QI'1 YOU DESM LEGAL OR 1AX ADVICE.CONSULT AN APPROPRIATE .. - PROFESSIONAL'-,. Yon .aaT!T`IN 5a t .. f�R'`S.,s.fa'�2tak.e'�t_i«a;:':.eX'�.. This form is availeble for use by tare entire reel estate inA,etry.The use of the form a not intended to identity the user as a REALTOR®.REALTORS is a registered collective ' memWWW mark which may be used only by real estate licensees who are members of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORSS and who subscribe to its Code of Ethics, ~ offtcE use oNlr Copyrighro 1986,1987,CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of REALiDRS® BUYER'S COPY Reviewed by Broker o.Desgnee 525 South 7/87 ro Avenue.Los Angeles,Catilana 90020 100-14 Revised Deur u iri i DOC. NO.7270 Z • R E C E IV E© NSsUIOBlpOCo.CA OCT `L 3 1gg0 OCT 1 8 1990 ATh9UDER0 GLUM FRANCIS M.COONEY I County Clerk-Recorder _ RECORDING REQUESTED BY: TIME 9 e 4 0 AM FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY IRREVOCABLE & PERPETUAL r r OFFER TO DEDICATE DOC.NO. J804J 1;751 OFFICIAL RECORDS When Recorded mail to: SAN LUIS OBISPO CO.,CA City of Atascadero AUG 2 01990 RE:CEI City Clerk AUG 2.3 lqq� 6500 Palma FRANCIS M.GOONEY Atascadero CA 93422 County Clerk-Recorder ArAXADEAO TIME 8:00 AM My CLERK THIS OFFER TO DEDICATE, made the -7 day of 19 9o, by G.W. Land, a General Partnership of t e County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, hereinafter termed offeror: i WHEREAS, said Offeror desires to make an offer to dedicate, irrevocably to the public, an easement for drainage purposes which may be accepted at any time by any governmental entity which has the power to establish, • construct and maintain drainage facilities. a � m NOW, THEREFORE, said Offeror covenants and promises as follows: aim E 1. That said Offeror is the owner of the following interest described below: The west 20.0 feet of Lots 11, 12, &1; _ a Block Q-B of Atascadero Colony as shown in map book 4 at page 44 € `££ on record in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California. o� 8 Zes 2. That said Offeror does hereby irrevocably and in _ B perpetuity offer to such governmental entity a dedication of S. 2 a public right-of-way for drainage purposes and incidental 33 uses upon the following described property: s 3 Q Em The West 20.00 feet of said Lots 11, 12, and 13. ` This document is being re-recorded in order to correct an ommission in the legal description. Page - 1 VOL 3'n�+ 96 PAGE f X66 VQl 55PACE • 3. That until such time as the above offer of dedication is accepted by such a governmental entity, all owners of property contiguous to the above described drainage parcel shall have the right to use of said drainage parcel as a drainage easement. 4. That said Offeror agrees that said offer of dedication shall be irrevocable and that such a government entity may, at any time in the future, accept said offer of dedication of the public right-of-way. • 5. That said offeror agrees that this Irrevocable and Perpetual Offer to Dedicate is and shall be binding on his/her heirs, legatees and assignees. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Offer to Dedicate is hereby executed by the said Offeror on the day and year first above written. Offeror ROBERT D. GARDNER Offeror Loose Certificate attached to Offer to Dedicate dated 5/3/90 signed by Robert D. Gardner; STATE OF CALIFORNIA Iss. o. COUNTY OF San Luissbispo � or 0 On October 18, 1990 ,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for °' said State,personally appeared **ROBERT D. GARDNER** F= m v E Q LLpersonally known to me jf�CyO�y� � C to be the person(whose name(A is/ggsub- _ C.F7'"14L°M"L scribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that SALLY D. R"F:ivRD rm • MM"REM-ST Tr CAUFOF18A he/sy(9yfik)/executed the same. / WSn^A--NNrLUICS,,,OISIS?000UNNTY March a JM WITNESS my hand and o iai sea 0 / o Signature (This area for official notarial seal c VOL 3596 PAGE 667 i VOL 6 PAGE 8 STATE OF CALIFORNIA I COUNTY OF San I uic Db1Sn0 }sem r On 'May 3. 1990 before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for said State,personally appeared _ Robert D. Gardner personally known to me(or proved to me on the basis of satis- factory evidence) to be the person that executed the within instrument as the partner(s), on behalf of G. W LAND a general OFROAL WEAL KAREm AMMMfS partnership the partnershipwry Pym-Caftmila therein named and acknowledged to me that the partnership "M L=0W0=Kff executed it. OomE*M iwy it, im WITNESS my han and official seal. Signature-n/? "7fZL,y� (This area for official notarial seal) GOVMW= CODE 27361.7 certify under the penalty of perjury that the notary seal on the document to which :his statement is attached reads as follows: am of 133TARt: fi�l0;i�p v\ Q hA 2e Lzs DATE: CM OF COMM: L��S l^1��5 �� IDICAMON: San T.tti G Obispo ATE MOCCSSICK S: -7- 19 - 1 City, State of�CA IIisr AMMCAN nZM1UQ4= CONY 6�igaature of person malting verifica-' VOL 3 596PAGE 6g , PAGE 94 9 END OF DOCUMtKT • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-14(B) Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 11/13/90 From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Better Homes & Gardens Building Morro Road & Atascadero Avenue: Authorization to refund Amapoa-Tecorida fees in exchange for the installation of regional drainage facilities. (Scott West/Bewsey-West Construction) . RECOMMENDATION: Reimburse the Amapoa-Tecorida fees collected from the applicant ($ 2 , 507 .25) . BACKGROUND• Bewsey-West Construction constructed the Better Homes and Gardens office at the intersection of Atascadero Avenue and Morro Road. The developer for that project was required to install a 36 inch diameter storm drain and a drop inlet that serve a regional drainage function. • DISCUSSION: In the past, Amapoa-Tecorida fees have been exchanged for improvements installed by private development which have been installed to serve a regional purpose. For example, fees have been returned in exchange for the construction of a concrete channel located midway between Amapoa and Azucena that drains that region. Section 3-9.07 "Limitations On Use" of the Municipal Code defines the limitations on use of the fees collected. "All fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be placed in a capital outlay fund described as the Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage Impact Fee fund and used only to pay for costs of capital improvements as defined herein. " • Ordinance No. 117, the Amapoa-Tecorida fee ordinance, Section 3- • 9. 03 "Definitions" defines the "Cost of Capital Improvements" as including "all costs related to acquisition, construction, repair, and financing but does not include cost of routine maintenance. " FISCAL IMPACT: Amapoa-Tecorida Fees Paid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2, 507.25 Cost of Drainage Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . $ 9,753 . 00 The total fee that could be reimbursed is $ 2 ,507.25 enclosures: Bewsey-West letter dated 8-27-90, receipts Fee Payment Record cc: Scott West, Bewsey-West Construction • • Gary Sims 8-27-90 Public Works Dept. City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Ave. Atascadero, CA 93422 RE: Reimbursement of Amapoa-Tecorida Fee charged to the construction of Better Homes & Gardens Real Estate Office. The storm drain improvements for this project are nearly complete. It will be finished this week with the addition of the drop inlet at Morro Road and the rip-rap at the end of the storm drain. The actual construction costs are as follows: 36" RCP Storm Drain $ 3, 810 • Drop Inlets [ 2] 2 , 800 Import Material 1 , 200 Labor 1 ,943 Total $ 9, 753 Thank You, �7�_�6�A4— Scott West Bewsey-West Construction License Number 438276 • custom • remodel • commercial • Bewsey-West Construction 4605 Viscano Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 (805) 466-6350 L�pEI FRED) A-492189 GRADING-EARTHMOVING P4VIN G CSV- September 22, 1989 Scott [Jest 4605 Viscano Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 RE: Better Homes & Gardens Real Estate Building Dear Scott, We purpose to furnish all labor, materials and equipment necessary to per- form the following project. Accomplish the following list of construction processes on the above referred project. All per plans by Cuesta Engineering signed June 1, 1989 and per the soils report prepared by 'I'win Cities Engineering dated September 14, 1989. The items and costs are as follows: 1) Grub and demo the site per the plans. Over excavate both the building • site and the parking area per the soils report, scarify and recompact bottom most foot. Install capillary break, consisting of 6" leach rock ; 4" perforated styrene piles to daylight in the drainage channel with 111" i.)acl-flow preventer. Capped with 5NP geotextile in order to prevent intrusion or import- fill. Then import 1250 tons of Class IIII sub-base and collpact. Our price: $15,2.85.00 2) Parking lot paved with 2" compacted asphaltic cement over 12" compacted Class III aggregate base and stripe. Our price: $ 7,974.00 3) Off-site improvements, saw-cut existing asphalt, achieve sub-grade and base for curb, gutter and roadways per the road improvement plans. Pave with 3" compacted asphaltic cement in 2 .lifts over 12" compacted Class II aggregate base. Our price: $ 8,600.00 4) Storm drain installation which includes the drop inlet in Morro Road, 36" RCP 24" CMP, drop inlet in parking area rip-rap etc. , job complete. Our price: $10,343.00 (805)466-5060 ROBERT snMA ow Total rice: $42,202.00 FAX B05-466-0594 p $ C�pEL FREDFRl follows: Survey staking, engineer changes in the A-492189 Ci� Soils engineer, County engineer or any representa- r damage to utilities not shown on the approved •GRADING-EARTHMOVING itrol. P41/ING CV-Q' POST OFFICE BOX 573 • ATASCADERO, CA 93423 __.._, CA 93423 • PHONE:(805)466-5060 • FAX:805-466-0594 ° r LO cYj d b a u oo V (A W _N CC LLIQ 2u. EL ce 50W� oc x 3 d nLL!�ao ° �' p � W tiY O LLcL a a w (� = z o N � � r W N } � O W ° ` •1� w o w cr N2 ° 1 U Z Q Rl• W a. w 4-, 0 Q° v V Z C7 ° >�`��jLU G.X "' O u N W ca zi)10 !d ° 4 2 LU V, cr W W0� w \ a A a ° u, oG Luis � � ° � � � LU Y O LLf- \ U. W a z w w V1 N M d' In O n w O N M 7 In O n W M w O } I O W m ° � W � o U ' J D Q ° m � Ln U Z Q taseadel® INCORPORATED JULY Z, 1979 6-12-89 Date Received: Date Issued: ADDRESS OF PROJECT: 7005 Atascadero PERMIT NO.-870n 670n ( ) Building ( ) Electrical ( ) Mechanical ( ) Plunbing ( ) Solar ( ) Swim Pool ( ) Owner ( ) Lessee ( ) Mail Address Phone _ Academe et -pr Hn�g/GardPnc (3575 Mnrrn Rri et Con ractor/Builder ,Axa.s_•_,_ A - 111111 Bewsey-West Construction Address Phone Lic. No. Arch./Engr./Designer 4605 Viscano,Atas. ,CA 466-6350- 438276 Address -- R. P. Heim & Assoc. Phone Lic. No. 105 Main St. Tem leton 434-280 C0165 44 Bank or other source of loan Address -- Type of Project: ( )New ( )Add. ( )Alter ( )Re air ( ) Install P ( )Demolish ( )Move ( )Compliance Survey ( )Change of Occupancy ( )Other Project Description: Construct a two story, 2, 065 ft2 office building Legal Description: Assessor's No. Use Zone PtnLt20 Bl kPB Lot Area -� - - PD3 FRAME a FOUNDATION EXTERIOR WALL ROOF _HEATING { )Wood Stud ( )Cont. Conc ( )Wood Sdq ( )Stone Vnr ( )Conc T U { / p ( )Comp Blt-up ( )Elflc }Metal ( )Slab ( )Wood Trm . ( )Brick ( )Metal ( )Comp Shingle ( )T�.mber ( )Piers ( )Stucco ( )Gas F ( )Conc Blk ( )Brick Vnr ( )Wood Shgl/Shake ( )Gas Waw (Typ ( (e of Construction: Type No. Occupancy Group )Metal )Tile )Solar REQUIREMENTS: � ��' FEES: Value $ TU2 , Business Lic. O Construction: State Contractor's Lic. Worker's Comp. Ins. Electrical: OBTAIN DRWY/SEWER PERMITS THRU PUBLIC WORKS Plumbing: >' RM 204 z Mechanical: 0 NOTE: Road abandonment ( including offer of Earthquake: 15.00 n dedication for drainage/utility easement) to be recorded prior to final bldg inspection Issuance: L Plan Check: 291 .00 t, Ord 191 5 , 695.00 A7x 2,507 . 25 w ga. septic tank and sq. ft. leach field TOTAL FEES•$ 9 , 737 . 25 I have read this completed application carefully. 6-12-89 Ow er ( )Aa nt Date Paid: /7_2.3_ gO Receipt No. 31 716533 � 2 aU Signature �a ate tame Printed t R REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: Through: Ray Windsor , City Manager Meeting Date: 11/�1�3/90 From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director///, SUBJECT: Summarizing StafF Reports on Solid Waste Management RECOMMENDATION: None required . DISCUSSION In light of the material prepared for the Public Hearing on Mandatory Solid Waste Pick-up/Curbside Recycling , this memo serves to introduce the reports and raise some additional issues for discussion. The items are listed below: • 1 . Recycling Committee ' s Report - Reprinted from the August 28, 1990 Council session; it argues for recycling and also endorses mandatory pick-up . 2. Staff Report on Curbside Recycling This report supports curbside recycling and highlights future recycling efforts. 3. Staff ' s Report on Mandatory Solid Waste Collection - This report presents arguments for and against mandatory pick-up , concluding in favor of mandatory pick-up . 4. Extendinq Wil Mar ' s Contract - This report argues for extending the contract , but also advocates contract language to improve the City ' s rate review ability and to clarify responsibilities associated with mandatory pick-up . It includes a copy of the existing contract . 5. Old Appliance Disposal Service - This is a reprint of the staff report dated August 28, 1990. 6. Rate Analysis for Wil-Mar Disposal - This report analyzes Wil Mar ' s rate increase request , due to a general cast-of- living , as well as mandatory pick-up and curbside recycling. Staff also developed a volume based rate structure and recommends both a volume-based rate and a thorough rate • review 6-9 months after new rates are adopted . In addition to the material above, there are still a number of issues to consider . Some of these are identified below, including some very preliminary comments. w 1 . What efforts are being made with yard waste? Given the local terrain , recycling yard waste may ultimately reduce the waste stream more than curbside recycling of cans, glass and paper . The Recycling Committee has considered the issue and recommends a slow approach , due to a variety of program issues. In contrast , traditional curbside programs are fairly well established and can be relatively easy to implement . 2. Who actually performs curbside recycling? Who owns the recvclables? An argument can be made that two separate entities could be used : one to collect recyclables and one to pick-up solid waste . However , there are administrative benefits of using the same company -- reduced complexity in AB 939 reporting requirements , improved accountability with a single vendor , etc . In addition, as the recycling technology evolves, it may become operationally impractical to separate the two processes . • 3. Providing services within or throuahout the Urban Services Line. This applies to both recycling and trash pickup . The fairness _issue applies to both services. The City as a whole is responsible for reducing its waste stream; to allow a portion of the community to avoid participation only puts a larger burden on the rest of the community . It is possible that alternatives to curbside recycling may be considered , but it should be part of the 6-9 month rate review. 4. Should rate increase requests be segregated between general increase and expanded services? Implementing recycling/mandatory service may still require several months before the service actually commences; Wil Mar is currently operating in the red . In addition, increased costs associated with mandatory service/recycling occur before the services actually begin; how should we address Wil Mar ' s operating capital needs? In contrast , to increase rates prior to receiving the new service would not be appropriate, either . i • e 5. What should the implementation schedule bel Conceivably , Council could endorse the concepts of mandatory service/recycling at its November 13 Public Hearing , and direct staff to report back with an implementation plan . This would include proposed contract language and related ordinance , and might be completes before the end of the calendar year . From there , it could take 3-6 months to receive all the additional equipment , develoo routes, procedures and resolve all the other logistical matters that invariably come up . In summary , it is safe to say that a considerable amount of staff effort has gone into preparing the materials for the Public Hearing scheduled November 13, 1990. After all the public input • has been received , staff is ready to proceed , based upon direction from Council . i RECYCLING COMMITTEE REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL I . Introduction The Recycling Committe was appointed by the City Council as an Ad Hoc Committee to investigate methodology for reducing the solid waste stream and promote the recycling or materials that have traditionally been discarded as trash . The Committee has met regularly for the past year to discuss and research the wide range of topics associated with solid waste. The term recycling is often implied to mean the full array of alternative methods for reducing the quantity of waste that is currently disposed of at the landfill . The more strict meaning of recycling is the extraction and reuse of materials from the waste stream. Ther Committee quickly realized that recycling is only one component of the larger task of reducing the volume of solid waste . The enactmentof tough solid waste legislative mandates coupled with emerging alternative waste handling technology and a growing public concern over the environmental problems caused t. by landfills , is causing a complete re-shaping of our waste . disposal practices . To achieve more environmentally sensitive techniques of handling solid waste will require considerable time and effort . The Recycling Committee is pleased to present this report to initiate a program to redirect Atascadero' s waste disposal practices for many decades into the future , II . Administration The administration of an integrated waste management program will require cooperation and manpower . An on-going educational and advertising program must be established. City staff must be available to coordinate th program as well as administer contracts , liaison with regional planning efforts and update the City Council . A group of people trained to assist commercial , industrial , and multi-family units should be available to the community as ombudsmen and waste auditors . , � 1 III . Recycling vs . Precycling In an emerging technical field, new terminology often easily conveys important new concepts. The term "Precycling'' is such a term . It refers to the wide variety of methods to keep solid waste from entering the waste stream. Examples of precycling include : (1) Encouraging product manufacturers to minimize bulky , non-recyclable packaging; (2) encouraging consumers to buy products that are sold in recyclable packaging; (3) utilizing techniques that do not generate disposable solid waste, such as bringing carrying containers to stores or using cloth diapers rather than disposable ones : and (4) becoming more aware of everyday activities that produce significant quantities of solid waste and then looking for methods to change that activity to reduce waste production . The concept of recycling is often viewed rather narrowly . Taking glass , aluminum, and -newspaper to a recycling center is the common concept of "recycling" . However, reusing materials at home or business is an often overlooked method of recycling. Composting yard waste , cutting up tree -trimmings and old wood for kindling, swapping excess paint with neighbors , using newspapers for mulch , taking waste oil , tires , etc . , to area recyclers and a host of other practical techniques can be employed to increase recycling and decrease trash volume. IV . Recycling Goals and Stratecries State law requires that cities reduce the volume of solid waste entering landfills by 25% by 1995 and 50% by the year 2000 . The goal of the recycling program described in this report is to reduce the waste stream 25% . Expansion of this program and the implementation of additional waste reduction strategies will be necessary to reach the 50% reduction mandated by state law. To effectively intercept and control the flow of waste to the landfill , plus fairly distribute the cost of waste recycling and disposal , it is essential that Atascadero implement a mandatory waste collection system Monitoring the volume and composition of the waste stream without total participation would be impossible . Revenues generated from the sale of materials collected for recycling can be expected to cover only a fraction of the total cost of collecting, processing and marketing these materials . This service is best financed by incorporating the cost of the program in the monthly garbage collection rate . Additionally, mandatory garbage collection reduces the incidences of illegal dumping and burning plus reduces the amount of traffic at the landfill . 2 •( The garbage collection rate structure is another factor that influences the success of waste reduction and recycling programs . Traditional flat-rate and variable-can rate systems provide little to no incentive to reduce waste . A volume-based rate structure charges for the amount of garbage collected, thereby providing an economic incentive to reduce waste . Atascadero should base its garbage collection rate on a volume- based system. A. Curbside Collection of Recyclable Materials The purpose of this program is to provide a convenient means for local residents to remove recyclable materials from the waste stream and promote the concept of recycling and waste reduction . The emphasis is on maximizing participation by (a) making pickup convenient , and (b) structuring the rate schedule to provide an incentive t.o recycle and reduce waste . This program will initially be available to all single-family residences with eventual expansiion to multi-family and commercial establishments . The materials targeted for collection include : glass , aluminum, tin cans . PET (plastic beverage containers) , HDPE (plastic milk containers) and newspapers . Program Description : • 1) All single-family residences will receive three 12 gallon stackable containers . Newsprint will be placed in one container . Mixed glass will be placed in another container . All other items will be placed co-mingled in the third container . This system provides for the convenient separation and storage of recyclable materials in the home. It segregates the materials in a manner that minimizes contamination and facilitates collection , processing and marketing. 2) The containers will be placed at the curbside to be picked up by the garbage company on the same day as the regular garbage collection . 3) Recycled materials will be transferred to appropriate storage/shipping containers and transported directly to recycling mills or in the case of the co-mingled materials , transported to a processing facility where the items will be separated and sold. It is vital that reliable sources be found to accept the collected materials and contracts negotiated. The City must take all precautions to insure that a market for the recyclable materials be maintained. • 3 B. Curbside Pickup of Yard Waste • Yard waste, which is commonly called "green material' , consists of lawn clippings , leaves , trimmings , and similar organic waste . Green material represents approximately 30% of the waste ' stream. The material is either tied into bundles or stuffed into large, clearly marked garbage cans or recyclable paper bags . The bundles and bags are collected with a separate garbage truck which is capable of compressing the waste material along the pick-up route . The green material is transported to a processing site . The exact method for processing this material is still under study . However , the general concept is to chip , mulch and screen the material into a form that can be spread along pathways , or used in a variety of landscape applications . Currently , regulations _ regarding the composting of material , particularly when combined with sewage sludge, are somewhat vague and subject to constant change . In addition , composting requires additional equipment and considerable manual labor . It appears prudent to slowly transition into a composting operation . Program Descri7)tion : 1 . Establish the framework for a green material collection • program by advertising the service and distributing appropriate instructions and materials . 2 . Contract for a garbage truck to collect and compact the materials . This will require establishing rates and routes and pick-up schedules . 3 . Designate a processing yard, purchase a grinder and/or chipper , construct the necessary yard improvement , including overhead covering, ramps , storage bins , electricity and plumbing. Alternatively, this processing operation could be contracted out to a private firm. 4 . Arrange for the material to be transported from the processing yard and used in the community . City parks and maintenance operations could use a small portion of this material , however , it would be necessary to contract with some private topsoil/mulch distributor to find a permanent market for a reliable source of disposal . 4 • C. Recycling of Special Wastes Several types of waste materials are not conducive to regular curbside collection . White material Cie, large appliances) can be disassembled at facilities with special equipment to remove recyclable components . Scrap wood from construction sites or demolition projects can be chipped and sold to waste—to—energy plants . Rubble, broken concrete, and other inert aggregate can be crushed and screened and used for a variety of construction uses , such as fill and erosion protection . Each of these special wastes must be handled with a separate program. In the case of white materials and other large household items , it is recommended that the garbage company provide for the curbside collection of these materials on a periodic basis perhaps quarterly or semi—annually . Recycling of other special wastes is probably best handled by independent contractors . The City may facilitate this recycling effort by providing a transfer station to simplify the collection and transportation of this material . V . Public Awareness_and Education Public awareness and education is essential to the success of our recycling and waste reduction program. The task of reshaping society' s attitudes and habits involving waste disposal is a formidable one . It can only be achieved through a cooperative and persistant campaign of education . Public forums , _educational programs in the schools , informational brochures and media advertising should be used collectively to desseminate information to Atascadero residents on recycling and waste reduction . Informational campaigns should precede the implementation of new programs and continue throughout the duration of the program. The City , the Recycling Committee and the Garbage Company should all take an active role in the public education process . VI Regional Planning and Coordination Atascadero cannot conduct its recycling program in a vacuum. State Law AB 939 and several other laws encourage regional cooperation . Currently, Sari Luis Obispo County and its seven cities are actively involved in a regional program to reduce and recycle the waste stream. • 5 i It is premature to guess the types of programs this • planning effort will recommend. The magnitude of the regional program indicates that regional recycling facilities will not be in operation before 1993 . However, once in place, the regional facilities will benfit from an economy of scale and a program size that Atascadero can never expect to reach acting alone . This presents a challenge. During the next two to three years the City will need to reshape the attitude of our society toward trash collection, processing, and disposal . Programs must be developed to reduce, reuse , and recyle our waste products . Yet , it would be imprudent to invest money in expensive trash reduction facilities that could be replaced by a regional facility in five years . A key to meeting this challenge is to concentrate on low technology solutions . The programs described above are representative of these low technology solutions . (1) curbside collection of recyclables and green material , (2) simple sorting and grinding to process the material , and (3) the use of independent contractors to recycle the special waste products . Finally , a concentrated effort must be made to find markets and uses for our diverted material . VII . Summary and Recommendations The programs described in this report are designed to accomplish several important goals . They will begin to reshape the public' s attitude about solid waste and the host of problems it creates . When fully operational . they are expected to divert approximately 25% of the waste stream from the landfill . Finally , they are designed to easily adapt to the rapidl,r changing technologies and processes of the solid waste and recycling industries and integrate readily with regional facilities planned for the near future . The Recycling Committee recommends that the City adopt mandatory garbage collection with a volume-based rate structure . This service should include the periodic collection of "white goods" and other large household furnishings . The Committee further recommends the implementation of residential curbside collection of traditional materials and yard waste . • 6 ATASCADERO WASTE COLLECTION DATA Current : Actual Commercial Tonnaae 68 tons/wk 33°1 Multi-Family Res . 37 tons/wk 1810x' Single Family Res . 98 tons/wk 48% TOTAL 203 tons/wk TOTAL RESIDENTIAL TONNAGE = 135 tons/wk 66 Number of Single Family Residential Accounts = 4155 860 Number of Commercial Accounts (Inc . Apartments) 652 14% Wil Mar currently services approximately 7090 of the single family residences in Atascadero . With Mandatory Collection : Estimated Commercial Tonnage 68 tons/wk 28a Multi-Family Res . 37 tons/wk 15 0 Single Familv Res . 140 . tons/wk 57' TOTAL 245 tons/wk Number of Single Family Residential Accounts = 5935 901 Number of Commercial Accounts (Inc . Apartments) 652 10 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL TONNAGE = 177 tons/wk 72% NOTE: This table is not referenced in the report . It is for informational purposes only . i REPORT TO COUNCIL Meeting Date: • CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: THROUGH: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works SUBJECT• Analysis of curbside recycling. BACKGROUND• Curbside collection of recyclable materials is a method for encouraging recycling that has grown rapidly with cities throughout the U.S. Curbside collection can occur in many forms: segregated vs. combined materials, limited vs. comprehensive, voluntary vs. mandatory. Although the techniques are varied, curbside recycling has proven effective at removing the 15% of the waste stream that can easily be recycled. DISCUSSION• • A. Short-Term Perspective The recycling committee has correctly identified curbside recycling as one of the most cost effective methods of recycling waste material, namely aluminum, glass, newspaper and some plastics. The collection method recommended is known as Partially Co-mingled; that is, all colors of glass are placed in one container, newspaper placed in a second container, and all remaining recyclables placed in a third container. Both the glass and the combined recyclable materials will require post-sorting at a processing site. The partially co-mingled method of curbside recycling is a logical method of collection. Other methods considered include: 1. Total Co-Mingling - All recyclable material is placed in a single container. This method is convenient for the resident, but often results in contamination, such as broken glass mixed with newspapers, etc. 2. Total Segregation - Each category of recyclable material • is placed in a separate container. With three colors of glass, newspapers, aluminum cans, and two types of plastic, a total of 6 containers would be required. This number of containers is difficult for a resident to handle and could result in lower participation rates. Numerous publications are available discussing the detailed methodology for conducting a curbside recycling program. I have much of this literature and it is available to any member of the Council for review. Suffice it to say that the curbside recycling program identified by the Committee is quite flexible and versatile. Staff believes it is the preferred method to implement curbside recycling. A larger issue that should be examined is the overall need to implement curbside recycling, and how it fits into a long-term waste management program. While it is clear the method of solid waste disposal is changing, it is difficult to predict how a new system will function. This poses a potential problem. If a regional program is implemented in the future, is it possible that the curbside recycling program would become obsolete? Staff has examined this issue and believes that curbside recycling will play a vital long-term role in the overall integrated waste management program. Please refer to the attached f low chart which shows how the waste management process is expected to develop in the future. Although the diagram is rather complex, it can be seen that material collected by residential curbside service would be transported to a MRF (which is pronounced "MERF" and stands for Materials Recovery Facility) . This same facility would also accept materials from a wide variety of sources, including commercial cardboard and office paper. The MRF would be a processing facility to sort and package recyclable materials into a form that can be sold on the commercial market. Note also that a Composting/Chipping operation would be needed to handle yard wastes and other vegetative materials. Non- recyclable wastes would be taken to the landfill. To operate efficiently, both the composting/chipping and the MRF will probably need to be regional facilities. The current AB939 planning process is expected to identify how and where these regional facilities will be built. Considering the scenario described above, staff believes that curbside recycling is not only a logical first step to implement a city-wide waste reduction program but also will remain a key component of an integrated waste management program in the future. • I1iTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PROCESS Waste Source/Reduction Method Processing Methods Remaining • Construction/Demolition Grinding for use as mulch or roadbase Non-recyclable debris Residential Curbside Buy-back Yard waste Household hazardous waste Non-recyclable wastes Commerical Glass recycling Corregated Office/white paper Landscaping/ and waste Non-recyciable wastes Industrial Landfill F_ Corregated Office/white paper Landscaping MRF Misc. recyclables Non-recyciable wastes Composting/Chipping Waste Reduction: 10-15% 15-20% 20-25% r a REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: • Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Mandatory Solid Waste Collection RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to prepare regulations to implement mandatory solid waste collection procedures . BACKGROUND : Most counties and cities in California have instituted manda- tory solid waste collection by ordinance. With this system, all property owners are provided with waste collection services as part of the usual city services . Recognizing the inherent benefits of fairness and equity af- forded by such a system, particularly with solid waste recycling, • the City Council has chosen to examine the concept for possible action. DISCUSSION: A. General In Atascadero, public services are provided in a wide variety of ways . In some cases, such as police and fire protection, all of the residents pay for this service, primarily through property and sales taxes . However, the level of service is dependent at any given time on demand, and central to such services is the notion that, while all pay, some taxpayers will, of necessity, benefit more than others over time. In other instances , services are pro- vided by contract, such as Dial-A-Ride, where both the taxpayers and users share in the cost. Here again, some taxpayers may, by choice, benefit less than others . Utilities , such as power and gas, are independent quasi-public companies, either regulated by the State or Federal Government. Here, the service is paid for through a rate structure tied to need and use. Water, of course, is provided by a private mutual company and the service, in the form of water availability, is financed through a rate structure tied to use. Wastewater collection and treatment is provided only within the Urban Service Area and is paid for through a standard charge regardless of volume. 1 The point of the above discussion is that City services oper- ate under a wide array of rules and structure . With respect to • solid waste removal, the City' s past practice has been to contract for such service with a private company under a voluntary program. In other words , those residents who desired trash removal were allowed to contract for it . Even without the issue of solid waste reduction and recycling required in AB939 , argument can be made for a mandatory trash removal program. This is primarily related to the issue of illegal dumping, where some residents not under the voluntary trash removal program find it convenient to dump their refuse in commercial bins or on unimproved property in the community. Experience by other agencies using a mandatory program clearly shows that the temptation to abuse the privilege of choice in waste disposal is minimized and/or eliminated. B. Advantages of Mandatory Collection The positive impacts of implementing mandatory collection include the following: 1 . Ensures a fairer and more equitable cost distribution for solid waste handling, better program administration and management and, over the long run, a more efficient and effective removal ser- vice. 2 . State Mandates through AB939 : Currently, California cit- ies and counties are facing a fundamental change in the way solid • waste is handled. Previously, all solid waste was simply hauled to a landfull, either by a community garbage collection service or privately. With impending shortages of landfull capacity through- out the State, a new philosophy--referred to as integrated waste management--is being implemented. Integrated waste management is a broad term which refers to a series of measures to reduce the volume of solid waste and recycle any usable portion of the waste stream. The new concept of managing and controlling the quantity and quality of solid waste is fundamentally different than the current "throw away" philosophy. To effectively implement an integrated waste management program requires the participation of all res- idents . Mandatory solid waste collection and a uniform fee structure is an equitable way for all residents to share the re- sponsibility for the full cost of handling solid waste. Otherwise, a comprehensive program will result in a defacto subsidy of non- subscribers , in light of the fact that the overall costs of inte- grated waste management, including meaningful recycling, must still be borne but by fewer participants . Economies of scale would also be affected. The new State law requires that cities divert 25% of their waste stream that would normally enter the landfill by 1995 and 50% by the year 2000 . It is estimated that currently up to 30% of the • solid waste generated in Atascadero cannot be firmly accounted for. Some of this material is legitimately being transported to a land- fill, some is stockpiled on-site and some is definitely being 2 illegally dumped. In our opinion, the goals of AB939 and its man- dates to reduce the solid waste stream can only be accomplished in any meaningful sense through the full participation of all resi- dents and the full accountability for all solid waste generated in the community. This alone makes mandatory collection imperative. 3 . Landfill utilization: A mandatory program will undoubt- edly reduce the number of trips by private pick-up trucks and other vehicles to the landfill, which will also reduce the amount of roadside litter caused by trash which blows off or falls out of the trucks . There should also be a reduction in air pollution. C. Disadvantages of Mandatory Collection The disadvantages of implementing mandatory collection include the following: 1 . High cost to provide service in outlying areas . The outlying, rural areas of Atascadero are more costly to serve because of both the long travel time and the narrow, steep roads, which are difficult for a garbage truck to negotiate . How- ever, this problem is not insurmountable with cooperation. 2 . Difficulty in administering the program and in collecting the monthly payments . Unlike most other cities, Atascadero does not operate a city- wide utility, such as water or sewer service ( sewer limited to Urban Service Area) . Consequently, to implement a mandatory col- lection system will require a new billing system. It will be difficult to ensure that all developed properties participate in the waste collection program. New properties must be added to the list as they are constructed; vacant residences must be served when they are occupied. Basically, the program will require constant attention to ensure full participation. 3 . Additional equipment required to provide the service . To provide waste collection to the presently unserved resi- dences will require an additional garbage truck. The additional truck, plus the additional vehicle required for curbside recycling will result in additional truck traffic in rural areas, as well as additional costs to the hauler. D. Summary The City is under a legal mandate from the State to reduce the volume of solid waste entering the landfill . In addition, conser- vation and recycling of our resources is becoming a practical necessity. If the City is to accomplish these dual goals of volume reduction and conservation/recycling, the City must implement a comprehensive waste management program. The first step of such a 3 program is to ensure full control of the waste stream which, from any meaningful standpoint, means mandatory collection. • Mandatory trash removal is the rule and not the exception throughout California. Its greatest argument in favor is tied to issues of fairness and equity in terms of rates, cost of service and economies of scale. Certainly without it, one can argue that a defacto subsidization by service users occurs when non-subscrib- ers engage in illegal dumping. Beyond that, requiring a standard- ized, ongoing removal process will assure timely collection and transportation of waste and makes everyone more conscious of the need to be current with disposal . Voluntary programs of any kind tend to give wide discretion to participants, which in this case works against the desired community goal of beautification. With the mandates in AB939, we can now add the issue of responsible waste management and recycling to the community' s goals . Allowing continued voluntary involvement in waste removal tied to waste management and recycling is not, in our opinion, an incentive to see that we attempt to maximize this goal . FISCAL IMPACT: See mark Joseph' s memo, "Rate Analysis for Wil-Mar Disposal" , dated 11/13/90 . RW: cw 4 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: From: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: s SUBJECT: Extending Wil ' Mar' s contract associated with mandatory pick-up and curbside recycling. RECOMMENDATION : That the current contract be extended for a period of five years , commencing January 1 , 1991 . BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS : Wil-Mar has requested an extension on their current contract, which is scheduled to expire December 31 , 1992 . Wil-Mar' s request is for a seven-year extension, tied to what they believe to be a reasonable period of time to amortize the additional capital costs associated with mandatory pick-up and curbside recycling and the question of financing such investment. Staff does not object to a seven-year contract but feels more comfortable with five years • with options to renew. Regardless of the amount of time granted, the basis for the request is to provide assurance of contract extension sufficient to allow the company to make capital expenditure commitments re- quired by mandatory waste collection and curbside recycling. Curbside recycling will require an investment of some $148 , 000-- $63 , 000 for a truck and $85 , 000 for containers . Mandatory pick-up will affect some additional 1 , 100 customers, requiring at least one additional 25-yard rear-loader truck at a cost of $125 , 500 . In our opinion, requiring Wil-Mar or any other hauler to commit to this level cf capital investment, beyond the normal replacement of current rolling stock, does require assurance on their part that the financing of these additional capital improvements be covered through contract extension . While there would appear to be at least two other options open to the .Council--making no change to the current collection system and/or bidding a new program on mandatory pick-up and curbside re- cycling--neither one, in our opinion, seems viable when approached in the context of the deadlines for solid waste reduction imposed by AB939 , if in fact one agrees with the arguments for mandatory pick-up and curbside recycling as the soundest methods to accom- plish the mandates of AB939 . Why? The most compelling reason is that Wil-Mar still has over two years remaining on its current contract (see attached) , and since the only recourse the City now has to terminate it ahead of time is to find that Wil-Mar has "failed to perform" , the very best we can hope for in starting from scratch is to wait until the current contract expires in December 3 1992 . This, of course, would mean putting off the two essential components of mandatory pick-up and curbside recycling until that time. And, since in our opinion it would take a minimum of six months to structure and adopt a new program along with bidding the system, it is unlikely that we could have any meaningful comprehen- sive integrated waste management program in affect before the end of 1993 . If, in fact, Council sees fit to extend Wil-Mar' s contract beyond its current term, necessary to accomplish a program of man- datory pick-up and curbside recycling effective immediately, staff recommends that the current agreement be reviewed and updated in order to provide or strengthen the language on the City' s rate review capacity, the question of payment for services on default (how collected) , the issue of who maintains property owner and/or resident lists for billing purposes, the desirability of a ter- mination clause beyond just "failure to perform" and any other pertinent issue associated with a change in our contractual ar- rangement as a result of mandatory pick-up and curbside recycling. Finally, it should be noted for the record that the number of complaints received by staff about Wil-Mar' s services is extremely low. In our experience over the past three years, Wil-Mar has provided a consistently high level of customer service at relative- ly low rates . In our opinion, as long as adequate rate review controls exist, we have no reason to believe that Wil-Mar will not continue to provide the highest level of service to the community. • RW: Cw Attachments 2 OIX +/1/1't FILE COPY SOLID WASTE COLLECTION CONTRACT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 13th day of May 1985 , by and between the CITY OF ATASCADERO, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter called "City" , and WIL-MAR DISPOSAL COMPANY, INC. , a California corporation , hereinafter called "Contractor" . Witnesseth For and in consideration of the payments to be made by Contractor to City, and in further consideration of the full and faithful performance by Contractor of all terms , covenants , and conditions of this Agreement , as well as complete compliance with the laws of the State of California and all pertinent present and future ordinances and resolutions of the City; It is mutually agreed as follows : 1 . Scone of Work. Contractor shall provide all labor , materials , tools , and equipment necessary to perform all work required to collect and haul all solid waste from locations within City in accordance with this Agreement . s 5/8/85 - 1 - 2 . Term. The term of this Agreement shall January 1, 1986 . • extend for five ( 5 ) years from However , Contractor may appear before the City Council of the City at any time after each two (2 ) years of service under this agreement and request an additional two ( 2 ) year contractual period . The granting of an additional two ( 2 ) year contractual period shall be discretionary with the City . The length of contract shall not exceed five ( 5 ) years at any time of contractual period . 3 . Performance . Contractor shall provide a minimum of weekly regular collection for its customers with collection hours limited to 6 : 30 A.M. to 7: 00 P.M. in residential areas and 6 : 00 A.M. to 9 : 00 P.M. in commercial areas . Contractor shall insure that cans or bins are returned to the same location from which removed to dump contents into the collection truck . 4 . Cleanup Efforts . Contractor agrees to participate in official City cleanup efforts and may be required to provide trash bins or trucks at convenient locations for use by the public at no charge to City. This requirement may not be imposed for any longer than one week, once during the calendar year . 5 . Free Services to City Facilities . Contractor agrees to provide solid waste disposal to City facilities , as well as to service public trash receptacles in the business district , at no charge . Such . City facilities shall include , but not be limited to , the 5/8/85 - 2 - Administration Building , the Fire Department, the • Corporation Yard on Traffic Way , the Sanitation Division , the City Park and Zoo , Alvord Field , Henderson Field , South Atascadero Park , and any other additional City facilities . This condition does not apply to construction debris or any other solid waste generated off the public facilities premises . Trash receptacles used for City facilities and those lcoated on sidewalks within the business district shall be serviced once per week or sooner if required . 6 . Rates for Service . Contractor agrees to perform such collection services at the rates established by resolution of the Council . 7 . Maintenance of EQuinment. A. Trucks . All trucks shall be kept in good condition regularly by steam cleaning , and oil leaks shall be eliminated . All trucks shall pass a California Highway Patrol (C.H .P . ) safety inspection annually . B . Commercial Bins . Commercial bins shall have lids , be watertight , cleaned and painted regularly, a minimum of once per year . 8 . Indemnification , Bond , and Insurance Rec7uirements . A. Indemnification. Contractor agrees to indemnify , defend , and save harmless , City and its officers , agents , and employees from and against any and all liability, claims , demands , costs , expenses , damages , judgments , and causes of action in any way arising out of 5/ 8/85 3 - this Agreement , or out of the performance or attempted performance of the provisions hereof , including but not i limited to any act or omission to act by Contractor or its I agents , employees , or independent contractors directly responsible to Contractor . B. Bond Reauirements . Contractor agrees to furnish a cash or surety bond to City in the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50 ,000 .00 ) , conditioned upon the faithful performance of this Agreement and the provisions of the City Municipal Code . In lieu of the above , City may, at its discretion, accept some other type of financial arrangement guaranteeing City payment in case of nonperformance under the terms of this Agreement . C. - Workers Compensation Insurance . Contractor agrees to procure, carry , and keep in full force and effect during the life of this Agreement , full compensation insurance with an insurance carrier as defined by and in accordance with the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California . Contractor shall furnish a copy of the certificate of insurance to City. D . Public Liability Insurance . Contractor agrees to procure , carry , and keep in full force and effect during the life of this Agreement , public liability insurance with a carrier agreeable to City to the extent of rive Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500 ,000 .00 ) for the death or injury to one person , and One Million Dollars ( $1 , 000 ,000 . 00 ) for the death or injury to more than 5/8/85 4 - one person , and property damage insurance to the extent of • One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100 , 000 .00 ) upon each of the trucks or vehicles used by Contractor in carrying out the work called for in this Agreement , said insurance to cover both Contractor and City , with City , its officials , and its employees named as additional insureds . Contractor agrees to provide City with a copy of the insurance contract, with a rider attached thereto providing that the insurance contract shall not be cancelled for nonpayment of premium or otherwise , without thirty ( 30 ) days prior written notice to City , sent by certified mail , directed to the attention of. the City Manager : 9 . Pavment to City. Contractor hereby promises and agrees to pay to City for the rights and privileges herein granted, five percent ( 5% ) of the gross cash receipts of the garbage , refuse and rubbish collection business conducted by Contractor within City , said amounts to be payable monthly on or before the fifteenth (15th ) day of the ensuing month , and said payment shall cover the gross cash receipts for the month preceding the payment date . The revenue received under this provision shall be placed in City ' s General Fund . Payment not made by the fifteenth ( 15th ) day of the month shall bear interest at the rate of twelve percent (12% ) . 10 . Accounting Records . Within Contractor ' s accounting records , all items of revenue and expense for 5/8/85 - 5 - • operations pertaining to the services provided by this Agreement shall be complete and clearly defined . The accounting and statistical records of such revenue and expense items shall be adequately segregated to meet the needs of analysis for rate making . Contractor ' s records shall be available for audit at any time during usual business hours . This provision shall be accomplished within one ( 1) year of the execution of this Agreement . 11 . Identification of Ecauioment . Contractor shall clearly identify all refuse trucks and commercial bins with the firm name and telephone number. Contractor shall require its crewmen to wear clean uniforms with a conspicuous firm name and employer identifier on the uniform. 12 . Identification of Violations . Contractor shall attach a tag designating a reason for noncollection to any can or container not being collected because of being overweight or for other violations . 13 . Maintenance of Office . Contractor shall maintain an office within City where bills may be paid , services applied for , and complaints made , which office shall be equipped with a telephone and shall have a responsible person in charge during usual 'business hours . 14 . Complaints . A copy of all written complaints and statements of all verbal complaints received by Contractor or its employees shall be maintained by Contractor with a duplicate copy forwarded to City , 5/8/85 6 - { attention of the City Manager , at least once per month , no • later than the fifth ( 5th) calendar day following the month in which the complaint was received . Said records shall be maintained for the term of this Agreement . 15 . Rules and Regulations . Contractor shall , at its expense , mail annually to each subscriber a statement of rules , container limitations , fees , telephone numbers , and other pertinent information . 16 . Failure to Perform. Upon the failure or omission of Contractor to keep , fulfill , or perform any of the terms , provisions , or conditions of this Agreement, or of the City Municipal Code , and the failure of Contractor to remedy or correct any such failure or omission within twenty ( 20 ) days after notice in writing of such failure or • omission , this Agreement shall , at the option of City officials by resolution of the City Council , be terminated and ended , and Contractor shall thereafter have no further rights , powers , or privileges as granted by City under or arising through this Agreement . 17 . Assignment Prohibited . This Agreement shall not be assigned or sublet without the approval of the City Council . 18 . Effect of Litigation . In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction declares that this Agreement is void by reason of the application of the Federal Antitrust Law or the California Antitrust Law , then this Agreement shall be of no further force and effect , and City 5/8/85 - 7 - shall have the right to contract for solid waste collection • services from other sources . 19 . Notices . All notices to beg iven to Contractor may be y given in writing personally or by depositing in the U. S. Mail , postage prepaid , addressed as follows : Wil-Mar Disposal Company , Inc . P. 0. Box 1199 Atascadero, CA 93423 All notices to be given to City may be given in writing personally or by depositing in the U. S. Mail , postage prepaid, addressed as follows : City Manager City of Atascadero P. 0. Box 747 Atascadero , CA 93423 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first above set forth . This Agreement shall become operative after January 1, 1986. CITY OF ATASCADERO WIL-MAR DISPOSAL COMPANY, INC. ROLFE NELSON, Mayor WILLIAM GIBBS , President APPROVED AS TO CONTENT; MINNIE GARIBALDI, Secretary- Treasurer . ATTEST: MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager r ROBERT JONES , City Clerk 5/8/85 9 - iI WRIGHT & SANDERS A LAW CORPORATION ,WILLIAM 0. WRIGHT (RETIRED) 5950 ENTRAOA AVENUE TELEPHONE ETTV R. SANDERS POST OFFICE BOX 6001 (805) 466-9026 ROBERT DIMITRIJEVICH ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 August 30, 1988 Mr. Paul Sensibaugh Director of Public Works City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Re: Solid Waste Collections Contract Dear Mr. Sensibaugh: Pursuant to the terms of the contract entered into between Wil-Mar Disposal and the City of Atascadero in May, 1985, Wil-Mar requests an additional 2 years extension of its contractual period . The contract language states , "Contractor may appear before the City Council of the City at any time after each two ( 2) years of service under this agreement and request an additional two ( 2) year contractual period . " The present contract became operative on January 1, 1986 We are, therefore, well beyond the first 2 years . Please advise me if you require further information. Bill Gibbs and I would be pleased to discuss the matter with you at your convenience. I look forward to hearing from you . Very truly-yours , BETTYR. SANDERS BRS/baw C .C. Bill Gibbs `M MEETI DAT Amt � • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council FROM: Ray Windsor, City Manager PAIII SUBJECT: Request for Contract Extension by Wil-Mar Disposal DATE: November 22 , 1988 BACKGROUND I am attaching copy of the existing Solid Waste Collection Contract with Wil-Mar, which provides for a five-year franchise agreement . Under the terms of the contract referenced by Attorney Betty . Sanders in her letter to the City, dated 8/30/88, " . . .Contractor may appear before the City Council of the City at any time after each two ( 2 ) years of service under this agreement and request an additional two ( 2 ) year contractual period" . As indicated by Mrs . Sanders, Wil-Mar is requesting an additional two-year ex- tension, which, if approved, would become effective in January 1989 . In our meeting with Mrs . Sanders and Bill Gibbs , President of Wil-Mar, it was stated, for the record, that the extension of the agreement would permit Wil-Mar to move ahead with plans to purchase two additional pieces of capital equipment ( rolling stock) . Staff is not aware of any major problems with the trash service, and I have not personally received any negative comments about Wil-Mar. In reading the existing contract, I note that it calls for an annual clean-up effort in conjunction with a City-wide program, and I would just like to say that I strongly urge the City to initiate this in the Spring of 1989 . With respect to the requirement of Wil-Mar to provide various insurances , we have checked the records and find that everything is in line with the terms and conditions as outlined. RECOMMENDATION That Council authorize a two-year extension of the contract with Wil-Mar for solid waste collection and authorize the City Attor- ney to draw up the necessary resolution. RW: cw Attachment • FIRST AMENDMENT OF SOLID WASTE COLLECTION CONTRACT Re: Solid Waste Collection Contract, dated May 13 , 1985, between CITY OF ATASCADERO, a political subdivision of the State of California, and WIL-MAR DISPOSAL COMPANY, INC. , a California corporation, covering solid waste collection within the City of Atascadero for a term expiring December 31, 1990. The undersigned, CITY OF ATASCADERO and WIL-MAR DISPOSAL COMPANY, INC. , do hereby agree to amend the above-referenced Solid Waste Collection Contract, effective January 1, 1989, as follows: Extension of Term. The term of the Solid Waste Collection Contract is extended for a period of two (2) years so that the expiration date of said Solid Waste Collection Contract shall be changed from December 31, 1990 to December 31, 1992. Notices. Notice to the City of Atascadero shall be changed to City Manager, City of Atascadero, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422 . All of the other terms, covenants, conditions, provisions, and agreements of said Solid Waste Collection Contract, dated May 13, 1985, as amended herein, shall remain in full force and effect. Dated: December 13, 1988 CITY OF ATASCADERO By BONITA BORGESON, Mayor ATTEST: 1 BOYD C. SHARITZ, City 17, erk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Y G. 0 ENSEN, City Attorney • 1 • APP VED AS TO CONTENT: ./A/ RA WIN SOR, City Manager WIL-MAR DISPOSAL COMPANY, INC. BY , L. .n.... L"J C'6�' President B Secretary-Treasurer JGJ: fr C:AGATA677 2 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: 3 Through : Ray Wirdsor , City Manager Meeting : 8/29/90 (6:00 p.m. Session) From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Old Appliance Disposal Service RECOMMENDATION: Staff proposes Council review this report , and select one of the options below. BACKGROUND: At its July 24 , 1990 meeting Council considered Dennis Bryant ' s proposal to pick up and dispose of old appliances at no cost to citizens. The cost , estimated at $13,000 annually , "ould come from the City ' s General Tund . Mr . Bryant ' s prcmosal is attached . • The matter was referred to the Rev :cling Committee , which considered the matter at its July 26 meeting . The Committee heard additional information and although sympathetic to Mr . Bryant ' s plight , was not that supportive of the concept . summary of their meeting is also included . At this point , Council has at least three owtions : 1 . Take no further action. In this alternative ! Council would find that the problem is -"lot significant enrol qh to warrant City funds . 2. Defer the matter until the issue_ sley"Aould be — ce c =service is resolved . This implies that ;41 included as part of the Waste Disposal Company ' s 7eaponsibility , and either charged separately or included in the 7pw disposal rates. 3. Proceed w i t h a Regent f o,_ Pr_2ppsa I sand1a j-27-0 0_1 Or- for the service . The costs would initially be atsocbed by the General Fund , although cost recovery could be aEhie /ed torcuqh a waste disposal surcharge. M E M O R A N D U M Date: August 9, 1990 To : Councilmembers Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director Subject : Update on Old Appliance Pick-Up Service At their July 24 , 1990 meeting , Council directed staff to refer the above service, proposed by Dennis Bryant , to the Recycling Committee for review. The Recycling Committee met on July 26 and reviewed the matter . Based on news coverage of the proposal , Mr . Heilman (of Heilman ' s Salvage) attended the meeting and provided additional • information. In addition, Wil-Mar Disposal representatives were also present . Based on the information supplied , the following observations were made: 1 . Residents who need their old appliances removed have at least three alternatives: a . ) Wil-Mar will pick-up and remove the appliance for a fee; b . ) Heilman ' s will take appliances for $5.00 per unit ; and c . ) Chicago Landfill will take appliances for $10.00 ( they transport them to Heilman ' s and pay the $5.00 fee ) . Thus, although the service is not free, it is relatively inexpensive, and there is curbside pick-up available. 2. Practical problems could emerge if the service was established : a. ) Appliances from outside City limits could be " imported" at Atascadero Taxpayer ' s expense; b . ) if Mr . Bryant intended to use his existing site to process the appliances, a serious nuisance problem would quickly develop , aggravating the existing situation; and c . ) the service should be limited to residents only. This restriction would not resolve Mr . Bryant ' s problem of illegal dumping and could lead to the appearance of a conflict of interest (e.g . , allegations that he-used taxpayer ' s dollars to dispose • of his surplus appliances) . 3. As an alternative, the service could be integrated into a mandatory disposal plan and factor the service cost into the rates. Overall , the Committee was not very supportive of the proposal . They felt the problem as identified was not as wide spread as suggested and that the $13,000 could be better allocated towards other solid waste-related services. The Committee was sympathetic, however , to Mr. Bryant ' s plight as a victim of illegal dumping . In light of the fact that the Recycling Committee will be making a presentation on Solid Waste on August 28th , I would recommend this be discussed further at that time. In the meantime I will proceed with a draft RFP. c\appliance City of Atascadero c/o Mr. Windsor 6500 Palma Ave. Atascadero, Ca. 93422 • SUBJECT: Appliance Removal Problem. Dear Mr. Windsor, The city of Atascadero has received numerous complaints regarding the unscreened storage and dumping of appliances. Our business AKA- SOS Appliance Repair located at 5925 Entrada, has become the focal point of this problem. People have for years now been dumping appliances in the creek beds or in alleys, but this problem has currently magnified Heilman's Salvage now charges for all appliances, Chicago Landfill won't take them, and now the Thrift Shop put up a fence and won't accept them at all. People are freely dumping their trashed appliances behind our building when we're closed, which turns this into a-major problem for us. This puts us in violation of Section 9-6.103 of Title 9 of the Municipal Ordinance. The City has a definite problem that will only get worse. People will throw or dump an appliance anywhere,now that it's so hard to dispose of one properly. The danger of a child getting stuck inside one alone, should make the City sit up and take notice. PROPOSAL: Our proposal to the city is to obtain an annual grant for our business to have a weekly pick up date where we would pic': up people's appliances. There would be no fee to the individual and we would dispose of them properly. We have figured it would take about $13,000 annually to make this work. If the City agrees to this proposal, we will write up a legal proposal and acceptance to that fact. We guarantee this will solve the problem this City has and will ensure a cleaner and safer future for Atascadero. BREAKDOWN: The City's annual grant of $13,000 would be broken down as such: A- Employee expenses B- Truck expenses C- Disposal expenses D- 20% administration fee Please respond to this notification by July 25th so we can make arrangements with you indicating our proposed course of action and time table. Respectfully, Dennis Bryant (owner) �SO ;��r`'� U AKA- SOS Appliance Repair 5925 Entrada Ave. Atascadero, Ca. 93422 461-1771 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager Meeting Date: 11//13/90 /�rk;,j From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director/j SUBJECT: Rate Analysis for Wil-Mar Disposal RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council review the material as part of a public hearing on the issue of solid waste services. Staff makes two additional recommendations: • 1 . Utilize a volume-based rate structure for residential disposal service. 2. Conduct a thorough rate review 6-9 months after the new rates are adopted . BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: I have reviewed the material submitted by David Smith , C .P .A. on behalf of Wil-Mar , in support of their rate increase request . In an effort to summarize the data as much as possible, I have included a number of tables, which I will explain in a moment . Before addressing the tables , a brief overview is appropriate. Mr . Smith ' s analysis has broker, down all the operating costs and allocated those costs based on a variety of criteria , such as customers , routes or yardage . Having broken down these components, he then reassembled the parts into new rates . In so doing , he made no effort to consider offsetting residential costs by surcharging commercial container rates, a common practice ( indeed , the practice used at the last general rate increase) . Nor did he analyze cost recovery using a volume- based rate . In short , each service level was designed to recover its own costs. • The approach I have taken is to examine the material in order to identify the actual increased costs due to general inflation, mandatory service, and curbside recycling ; and then compare the various rate yields to those increased costs. Often times, detailed rate analysis loses sight of whether or not the "bottom line" is red or black . i With this in mind , consider Table One. This table reflects current disposal costs for Wil-Mar , distinguished between Atascadero and other areas ( Templeton and Santa Margarita ) . General Expenses are distributed on an averaqe customer basis. Shop and vehicle costs are allocated based on the number of route hours . Driver Costs are based on route hours times employee costs . Container costs are associated with the 90-gallon containers ( residential ) and commercial containers. Landfill costs are dumping fees per compacted yard ( fixed at $4 .50 per yard ) . The add-on represents Wil-Mar ' s 6% Return on Investment (ROI ) ; the City ' s 5% Franchise Fee; and the balance towards State and Federal Taxes. For other communities, the 5% Franchise Fee is excluded . Table Two includes the general increase requested by Wil - Mar . These figures are based on voluntary pick-up . The general rule of thumb is a 6% increase, although a variety of additional costs have been requested . These include: An additional administrative position and one clerical position, totalling $37,000 annually; an upgraded computer system, estimated at $13,500, and possibly higher expenses for fuel and insurance. Overall , the increase is 7 .B%. • Table Three shows the full costs of mandatory service for Atascadero only . The largest increases are shop , vehicle and driver costs. This is because of an additional route that would be added to cover the increased capacity. Table Four identifies the annual net increase for each cost category, and includes curbside recycling . The Recycling budget was supplied by Wil-Mar and is included as Exhibit I . There is no offset for the sale of recylcables ; at this point in time , the revenue estimate is roughly 10-15% of cost . However , the markets are very volatile and the City might be better off if any revenues were accumulated until a steady cash flow develops. As can be seen, if mandatory pick--up , curbside recycling and the general rate increase are all approved , the total could represent approximately $413,000 per year in additional costs. Tables Five-A, Five-B and Five-C attempt to reconcile these expenses with the new rates. Revenue yields are based on Exhibits II (container revenue) and III ( Residential cans) . The general increase, mandatory and recycling rates were de✓eloped by Wil-Mar . The various volume-based rates were developed by myself, in an effort to create several "break-even" levels based on different assumptions. In the first scenario , commercial customers would receive a flat b percent increase. The extra revenue would help keep residential rates down. In the second , a 3 percent commercial increase is included . Finally , no commercial increase is considered . Comparing the total revenues with the estimated expenses shows a deficit at present and a slight one with the volume-based rates; a surplus would result from Wil-Mar ' s mandatory rate. ( This may be due to the unknown revenue potential from the sale of "bags" . ) To put these increases in perspective, I also generated a set of rates needed to meet the general increase only and compared them to the volume-based rates. The general increase reflects six percent over the existing residential rates and assumes mandatory service. The results are shown in Tables Six- A, Six-B and Six-C. Again, the impact depends on the level of commercial involvement . In all cases, however , the greatest increase would be placed on 90-gallon customers, reflecting the higher costs associated with higher volumes . Also , except for "bag" service, the volume-based rates are consistently less than the rates proposed by Wil-Mar . COMMENTS ON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS • 1 . Utilize a volume-based rate structure for Residential Service Only. Such a structure encourages recycling and it is fundamentally fair ; that is, the more you generate, the more you pay. This would help offset the anticipated resistance to mandatory pickup . The actual rates depend upon the extent to which Council approves the general increase , mandatory service, and/or curbside recycling , as well as to what extent commercial customers' rates would be effected . No change in the commercial rate structure is recommended , only because mandatory service and curbside recycling are not being proposed for commercial container customers at this time. 2. Conduct a thorough rate review 6-9 months after the neo•, rates are adopted . This was requested by Wil--Mar and I strongly agree. A substantial amount of change is being proposed and it is likely that items may have "fallen through the cracks" or been significantly under or over- estimated . In addition, several administrative problems may emerge which would require further review . i TABLE ONE: CURRENT DISPOSAL COSTS, INCLUDING NEW LANDFILL FEES COST COMPONENT ATASCADERO OTHERS TOTAL General Expenses $169,190 $58,627 $227,817 Shop & Vehicle Costs 417,200 221,900 639,100 Driver Costs 214,250 111,900 326,150 Container Costs 105,600 19,000 124,600 Landfill Costs 275,000 78,900 353,900 ----------------- -------------------- Subtotal 1,181,240 490,327 1,671,567 Plus Taxes and ROI 184,921 45,748 230,668 TOTAL 1,366, 161 536,075 1,902,235 TABLE TWO: DISPOSAL COSTS WITH GENERAL INCREASE PCT. COST COMPONENT ATASCADERO OTHERS TOTAL INC. General Expenses $205,800 $71,300 $277, 100 21.6% Shop & Vehicle Costs 451,950 240,350 692,300 8.3% Driver Costs 227, 100 118,600 345,700 6.0% Container Costs 112,000 20,200 132,200 6. 1% Landfill Costs 275,000 78,900 353,900 0.0% --------------------------------------------- Subtotal 1,271,850 529,350 1,801,200 7.8% Plus Taxes and ROI 199, 106 49,388 248,494 7.7% TOTAL 1, 470,956 578,738 2,049,694 7.8% • TABLE THREE: DISPOSAL COSTS WITH MANDATORY PICK-UP (ATASCADERO ONLY) NET TOTAL COST COMPONENT INCREASE COST General Expenses $31,000 $236,800 Shop & Vehicle Costs 76,500 528,450 Driver Costs 38,800 265,900 Container Costs 0 112,000 Landfill Costs 15,300 290,300 -------------------------- Subtotal 161,600 1, 433, 450 Plus Taxes and ROI 25,298 224, 404 TOTAL 186,898 1,657,854 TABLE FOUR: NET INCREASED COSTS DUE TO THE VARIOUS FACTORS (ATASCADERO ONLY) NET PCT. OF COST CATEGORY INCREASE TOTAL --------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- General Increase $104,795 25.3% Mandatory Pick-up 186,898 45.2% • Curbside Recycling 121,900 5% ---------29 ----- TOTAL 413,593 100.0% 05-Nov-90 TABLE FIVE-A: REVENUE YIELDS, BASED ON 6 PERCENT COMMERCIAL RATE (ATASCADERO ONLY) COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL REVENUE ESTIMATED RATE-TYPE------------------CONTAINER---CANS/CARTS-------TOTAL------COSTS--BALANCE- Current Rates 675,477 641,356 1,316,833 1,366,161 (49,328) General Increase (COLA) 620,626 853,196 1,473,822 1,470,956 2,866 Mandatory 3 COLA 597,133 1,168,693 1,765,826 1,657,854 107,972 Volume-based Rate 716,006 1,053,307 1,769,312 1,779,754 (10,442) TABLE SIX-A: COMPARISON OF VARIOUS RATE INCREASES (ATASCADERO ONLY) CURRENT GENERAL VOLUME VOLUME VS VOLUME SERVICE TYPE RATE INCREASE RATE CURRENT VS COLA 1 can service $6.00 $6.35 7.00 16.7% 10.2% 90 gal. service $13.65 $14.50 18.50 35.5% 27.6% Per bag $0.00 $2.50 2.75 NA 10.0% NOTES: 1. The volume rate includes the general Cost-of-Living increase, mandatory pick-up and curbside recycling. 2. The volume rate revenues include a general increase for commercial customers of 6 percent. • 05-Nov-90 TABLE FIVE-B: REVENUE YIELDS, BASED ON 3 PERCENT COMMERCIAL RATE (ATASCADERO ONLY) COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL REVENUE ESTIMATED RATE-TYPE ------------------CONTAINER ---CANS/CARTS-------TOTAL ------COSTS --BALANCE - Current Rates 675,477 641,356 1,316,833 1,366,161 (49,328) General Increase (COLA) 620,626 853,196 1,473,822 1,470,956 2,866 Mandatory & COLA 597,133 1,168,693 1,765,826 1,657,854 107,972 Volume-based Rate 695,741 1,067, 177 1,762,918 1,779,754 (16,836) TABLE SIX-B: COMPARISON OF VARIOUS RATE INCREASES (ATASCADERO ONLY) CURRENT GENERAL VOLUME VOLUME VS VOLUME SERVICE TYPE RATE INCREASE RATE CURRENT VS COLA 1 can service $6.00 $6.35 $7.25 20.8% 14.2% 90 gal. service $13.65 $14.50 $18.65 36.6% 28.6% Per bag $0.00 $2.50 $2.75 NA 10.0% NOTES: 1. The volume rate includes the general Cost-of-Living increase, mandatory pick-up and curbside recycling. 2. The volume rate revenues include a general .increase for commercial customers of 3 percent. i i 05-Nov-90 TABLE FIVE-C: REVENUE YIELDS, BASED ON NO COMMERCIAL RATE INCREASE (ATASCADERO ONLY) COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL REVENUE ESTIMATED • RATE TYPE CONTAINER CANS/CARTS TOTAL COSTS BALANCE Current Rates 675,477 641,356 1,316,833 1,366, 161 (49,328) General Increase (COLA) 620,626 853,196 1,473,822 1,470,956 2,866 Mandatory 8 COLA 597,133 1,168,693 1,765,826 1,657,854 107,972 Volume-based Rate 675,477 1,091,157 1,766,634 1,779,754 (13,119) TABLE SIX-C: COMPARISON OF VARIOUS RATE INCREASES (ATASCADERO ONLY) CURRENT GENERAL VOLUME VOLUME VS VOLUME SERVICE TYPE RATE INCREASE RATE CURRENT VS COLA 1 can service $6.00 $6.35 $7.25 20.8% 14.2% 90 gal. service $13.65 $14.50 $19.00 39.2% 31.0% Per bag $0.00 $2.50 $3.00 NA 20.0% NOTES: 1. The volume rate includes the general Cost-of-Living increase, mandatory pick-up and curbside recycling. 2. The volume rate revenues include no general increase for commercial customers. • • 05-Nov-90 EXHIBIT I • CURBSIDE RECYCLING ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES ANNUALIZED COSTS: Recycling Operations Supervisor $ 7 ,000 (Part-time position - 20%) Recycling Coordinator $ 15,000 _ (Part-time position - 75%) y Collection Vehicle $ 9,000 Drivers $ 20,000 Employee Benefits $ 8,800 Vehicle Fuel/maintenance/service $ 3 ,000 Vehicle Insurance $ 6,000 Vehicle Major Repair $ 2,200 • Tires _ $ 2,500- Yard/Administration ,500Yard/Administration Costs $ 8,000 Recycling Container Acquisition $ 11 ,500 7% Container Replacement $ 5,600 Start Up Promotional Expense $ 6,800 TOTAL $105,400 Per Household Costs (7,000 homes) ------------------- Operating Costs $ 1.25 Federal/State Tax- $ .02 Franchise Fee (5%) $ .07 TOTAL $ 1.32 EXHIBIT II SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL RATES, 16-Sep-90 . CONTAINER COSTS ONLY CONTAINER CUSTOMERS WKLY CURRENT COLA HAND. CURR. COLA HAND. YARDS FRED. CUST. YARDS RATES RATE RATE REV. REV. REV. ssasssssssssaaxszaasxazsssssssasssssssasaxsssxsassas:sxssszaassasxaxxssssxaaaasassssxs 1 1 226 226 33.20 31.30 31.00 7,503 7,074 7,006 1 2 34 68 61.10 53.70 53.25 2,077 1,826 1,811 1 3 1 3 88.95 76.05 75.45 89 76 75 1 4 1 4 116.80 98.45 97.65 117 98 98 1 5 7 35 144.65 120.80 119.90 1,013 846 839 1 6 2 12 172.55 143.20 142.10 345 286 284 1.5 1 48 72 38.75 36.70 36.40 1,860 1,762 1,747 1.5 2 13 39 72. 15 64.50 64.05 938 839 833 1.5 3 3 13.5 105.55 92.30 91.70 317 277 275 1.5 4 0 0 138.90 120.10 119.30 0 0 0 1.5 5 4 30 172.30 147.90 146.95 689 592 588 1.5 6 0 0 205.70 175.70 174.55 0 0 0 2 1 118 236 44.25 42.10 41.80 5,222 4,968 4,932 2 2 53 212 83.15 75.30 74.85 4,407 3,991 3,967 2 3 14 84 122.10 108.15 107.90 1,709 1,514 1,511 2 4 0 0 161.00 141.00 140.90 0 0 0 2 5 6 60 199.90 173.85 173.95 1,199 1,043 1,044 2 6 0 0 238.80 206.70 206.95 0 0 0 3 1 27 81 55.20 52.95 52.65 1,490 1,430 1,422 3 2 50 300 105.05 96.95 85.05 5,253 4,848 4,253 3 3 30 270 154.90 140.95 117.50 4,647 4.229 3,525 3 4 0 0 204.75 184.95 149.95 0 0 0 3 5 4 60 254.60 228.95 182.40 1,018 916 730 3 6 4 72 304.50 272.95 214.85 1,218 1,092 859 4 1 27 108 66.25 63.75 63.45 1,789 1,721 1,713 4 2 25 200 127.95 118.55 118.10 3,199 2,964 2,953 4 3 13 156 188.05 173.40 172.75 2,445 2,254 2,246 4 4 10 160 248.95 228.20 227.40 2,490 2,282 2,274 4 5 5 100 309.85 283.05 282.10 1,549 1,415 1,411 4 6 10 240 370.75 337.85 336.75 3,708 3,379 3,368 ---------------- ------------------------------- WEEXLY 735 2,842 012,990 911,935 011,483 MONTHLY NA 12,313 956,290 951,719 949,761 ANNUAL NA 147,758 9675,477 9620,626 9597,133 COMPACTED YARDS* 36,940 * Assumes 4:1 compaction rate. � r EXHIBIT III COST ANALYSIS FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL, 07-Oct-90 ' BASED ON VARIOUS SERVICE LEVELS VOLUNTARY SERVICE ASSUMED CUST. CURR. COLA CURR. COLA SERVICE TYPE COUNT RATE RATE REV. REV. ------------------------------- 1 can service 1630 6.00 10.55 9,780 17,197 90 gal. service 3199 13.65 16.85 43,666 53,903 Per bag NA 0.00 2.55 0 0 WKLY TOTALS 4,829 $12,334 816,408 MNTHLY TOTALS NA 53,446 71, 100 ANNUAL NA 641,356 853,196 MANDATORY SERVICE ASSUMED CUST. HAND. W/RECYC. HAND. RECYC. SERVICE TYPE COUNT RATE RATE REV. REV. 1 can service 2,704 11.65 12.95 31,502 35,017 90 gal. service 3,199 17.85 19.15 57,102 61,261 Per bag--est. • 3,515 2.50 2.50 8,787 8,787 WKLY TOTALS 5,903 922,475 $24,246 MNTHLY TOTALS NA 97,391 105,065 ANNUAL NA 1, 168,693 1,260,780 * Based on 1 can customers using an extra bag 30% of the tine.