HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 05/09/1989 GEORGIA RAMIREZ
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
A G E N D A
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
6500 PALMA
FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM
MAY 9, 1989
7 .00 P.M.
RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
* Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda.
* A person may speak for five ( 5) minutes .
* No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to
speak has had an opportunity to do so.
* No one may speak more than twice on any item.
* Council Members may question any speaker; the speaker may
respond, but, after the allotted time has expired, may not
• initiate further discussion.
* The floor will then be closed to public participation and
open for Council discussion.
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
City Council Comment
COMMUNITY FORUM:
The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and
comments from you, the citizen. The Public Comment Period is
provided to receive comments from the public on matters other
than scheduled agenda items . To increase the effectiveness of
Community Forum, the following rules will be enforced:
* A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum,
unless Council authorizes an extension.
* All remarks shall be addressed to Council, as a whole, and
not to any individual member thereof.
* No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or
personal remarks against any Council Member, commissions &
staff .
* Any .person desiring to submit written statements to the
Council may do so by forwarding nine (9) copies to the City
Clerk by 5 :00 p.m. on the Wednesday preceding the Council
Meeting.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR:
All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are considered
to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the form
listed 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, which shall then be
reviewed and acted upon separately after the adoption of the Con-
sent Calendar.
1. APRIL 25, 1989 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
2. APRIL 13, 1989 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION/PARKS
& RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES
3. RESOLUTION NO. 30-89 - AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF A STOP
SIGN ON CASCADA (EL CENTRO) AT ARCADE
4. RESOLUTION NO. 29-89 AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF A STOP
SIGN ON GARBADA AT TAMPICO
5. RESOLUTION NO. 28-89 - AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF A STOP
SIGN ON VEGA AT ARDILLA
6. ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL TRACT MAP 19-88 - 5900 Bajada Avenue
(Low/Cuesta Engineering)
7 . TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9-87 - 9000 Atas-
cadero Avenue
8. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AT THE ATASCADERO LIBRARY
9. ASBESTOS CHANGE ORDER AMOUNT - CITY HALL RENOVATION PROJECT
10. ESTABLISHMENT OF A RECYCLING COMMITTEE
11. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS - PALOMA CREEK PARK CONCESSION
B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES :
1. HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST - 7800 Balboa Road (Cont'd
from 4/25/89 )
2. FLOOD HAZARD PREVENTION ORDINANCE (City of Atascadero)
A. Ordinance No. 193 - Adding Chapter 5 to Article 7 of
the City of Atascadero Municipal Code relating to flood
damage prevention
( 2ND READING: Recommend motion for adoption of Ord.
No. 193 - Roll call) (Cont'd from 4/25/89)
2
3. RESOLUTION 26-89 - CENTURY PLAZA SEWER ABANDONMENT - Set
Public Hearing
x BREAK x
C. REGULAR BUSINESS:
1. SELECTION OF A MANAGING UNDERWRITER FOR LONG-TERM FINANCING
2. SLOACC - REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY DISCUSSION
3. PROPOSAL TO DONATE A BRONZE SCULPTURE TO ATASCADERO LAKE/
CHARLES PADDOCK ZOO BY SUSAN BEATIE
4 . FEASIBILITY OF ATASCADERO LAKE BOAT CONCESSION
D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION/AND OR ACTION:
1. City Council :
A. Committee Reports (The following represents ad hoc or
standing commitees . Informative status reports will be
given, as felt necessary. ) :
1 . City/School Committee (Nothing to report)
2 . North Coastal Transit (Nothing to report)
3 . S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council (See Item C-2)
4 . Traffic Committee (Report in agenda packet)
5 . Solid/Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Committee (Report in
agenda packet)
6 . Economic Opportunity Commission (Nothing to re-
port)
7 . Finance Committee ( See Item C-1)
8. Business Improvement Association (Nothing to
report)
9 . Downtown Steering Committee (Verbal report)
B. Signage re: Location of Churches/Schools (Mayor Bor-
geson - verbal)
2 . City Attorney
3 . City Clerk
4 . City Treasurer
5 . City Manager
3
MEETt_ AGENDA �_ �
DA REM. .;L_...:.
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
APRIL 25 , 1989
The regular meeting of the Atascadero City Council was called to
order at 7 :05 p.m. by Mayor Borgeson, followed by the Pledge of
Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
All Present: Councilmembers Dexter, Lilley, Mackey, Shiers and
Mayor Borgeson
Staff Present: Ray Windsor, City Manager; Henry Engen, Commun.
Devel. Dir. ; Paul Sensibaugh, Pub. Works Dir. ;
Chief Mike Hicks, Fire Dept. ; Lt. Bill Watton,
Police Dept. ; Mark Joseph, Admin. Svcs . Dir. ; Jeff
Jorgensen, City Atty. ; Andy Takata, Dir. of Parks
& Rec. ; Boyd Sharitz, City Clerk; Cindy Wilkins,
Admin. Secy.
COUNCIL COMMENT
Mayor Borgeson issued. two proclamations :
- "Special Olympics Day" , May 5 , 1989 , accepted by Jeanne
Anderson
- "GFWC California Federation Week" , April 23-29 , 1989 ,
accepted by Cheryl Burbach, Pres . of Atas . Juniors
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Mayor Borgeson reviewed, as listed on the agenda, that there are
written reports in the packet for the City/School Committee and
North Coastal Transit, and that Agenda Item C-3 is a Finance
Committee item.
S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council - Mayor Borgeson reported on
attending the 4/19/89 SLOACC meeting, where the possibility of a
consolidated transit authority was discussed and a tie vote was
taken. It will be further discussed at the next meeting, as well
as on the Council' s next regular agenda for discussion and fur-
ther direction. Minutes from the 4/19 meeting will be included
on the Council ' s agenda in May.__
1
COMMUNITY FORUM
Kathleen Daly, resident, presented a statement signed by 20 cit-
izens who attended the 4/11/89 School Board meeting expressing
that allegations of Commissioner Luna' s remarks at that meeting
as "threatening" are completely untrue. Ms . Daly also read a
prepared statement expressing concern about Mr. Highland' s abil-
ities to objectively serve the citizens of Atascadero.
Sue Terry, 9081 San Rafael Rd. , echoed the comments of the previ-
ous speaker and voiced respect for Commissioner Luna' s presence
at the 4/11 School Board meeting and for having the conviction to
state his opinion on the San Rafael site consideration.
John McNeil, 8765 Sierra Vista, expressed his feeling that Com-
missioner Highland' s comments regarding Commissioner Luna were
unprofessional as they were based on heresay information, and he
urged that Council either reprimand him or ask for his resigna-
tion.
Celia Moss, 8040 Coromar, expressed comments similar to the pre-
vious speaker.
Terril Graham, 6205 Conejo Rd. , spoke in support of Supvr. David
Blakely and urged that Council adopt a resolution condemning
recent recall actions against him, or that Council submit to
drug-testing themselves .
Mayor Borgeson directed the City Manager to schedule a meeting of
herself, Commissioners Luna, Highland, and Chairman Lochridge
prior to the Planning Commission' s next meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. April 11, 1989 City Council Minutes
2. City Treasurer' s Report - March, 1989
3. City Finance Director' s Report - March, 1989
4. Acceptance of Final Tract Map 18-88 3100 & 3150 ECR
(Golden west Community Partnership/Volbrecht)
5. Res. No. 25-89 - Acceptance of Cebada Rd. into the City-
maintained road system
6. Caltrans Agmt. for signal emergency vehicle pre-empt
7 . Claim of Maryanne Nolin - Recommend denial
8. Res. No. 23-89 - Declaring weeds a public nuisance and
commencing proceedings for abatement
Terril Graham requested Item A-8 be pulled for discussion.
Motion: By Councilwoman Mackey to approve Items A1-7 , sec-
onded by Councilman Dexter; passed unanimously by
roll-call .
2
re: Item A-8: Mr. Graham requested clarification of what this
item includes for adoption of the proposed resolution. Chief
Hicks read the text of proposed Res . 23-89 . Councilman Shiers
noted a citizen inquired if rubbish on a property adjacent to the
Atas . Library could be abated under the requirements of the Weed
Abatement Ordinance; Mr. Jorgensen, City Attorney responded that
subject property has a history and may require nuisance abatement
procedures, but they would be separate from those of the Weed
Abatement Ord.
Motion: By Councilwoman Mackey to approve Res . 23-89, sec-
onded by Councilman Lilley; passed unanimously by
roll-call.
B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES
1. Heritage Tree Removal Request — 7800 Balboa Road
Mr. Engen gave staff report, noting the difficulty encountered in
attempting to locate subject site due to both out-of-sequence
street numbering on Balboa and incorrect address posted adjacent
to subject property, with which Council concurred. Additionally,
Council expressed that subject trees were not marked for proposed
removal as required and, therefore, not located or difficult to
locate. The general problem of out-of-sequence street numbering
on parcels City-wide was discussed, and staff was requested to
investigate further and report back to Council .
Public Comment
David Smith indicated this is his project, and he stated that
there is no language in the tree removal criteria which indicates
that trees proposed for removal are to be marked; he noted the
heavily-wooded condition of subject property. Mr. Engen reviewed
the Tree Ordinance text addressing the requirements for posting
of property and the clear requirement that applicants identify
trees proposed for removal .
Motion: By Mayor Borgeson for continuance until the prop-
erty is properly posted, with the intent to have
this item on the Council ' s next regular agenda;
seconded by Councilman Shiers; passed unanimous-
ly.
2. ZC 17-88, Danish Care Center (Ord. No. 194 — First reading)
Mr. Engen gave staff report. Council discussion focused on con-
cerns that 55 beds per acre maximum is too high a density
standard. The need for this type of service in Atascadero at an
affordable cost was noted.
3
Public Comment
Paul McClain, a co-owner of Danish Care Ctr. , indicated this
request will enable them to expand the rear portion and upgrade
the existing facility, which he noted is the only convalescent
hospital within the City limits .
Celia Moss, having worked in the long-term and acute medical
field for several years, expressed the opinion that it' s unde-
sireable for a facility such as this to be too spread out.
Motion: By Mayor Borgeson to continue this matter, dir-
ecting staff to bring back additional information
on how the density figures are calculated, noting
that the majority of Council felt that 55 persons
per net acre was too high; seconded by Councilman
Dexter. Passed unanimously.
Councilwoman Mackey asked that staff approach the owners of
Danish to inquire what the added costs of providing the oppor-
tunity for separate rooms for its residents would be, in the
interest of their individual privacy needs.
3. Road Abandonment 1-89, 12405 Santa Road (First Nationwide
Mortgage Co./Davis/Volbrecht) - Resolution No. 22-89
Mr. Engen gave staff report.
Public Comment
Alan Volbrecht, Volbrecht Surveys, offered to respond to ques-
tions .
Motion: By Councilman Lilley to adopt Res. No. 22-89,
seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unani-
mously by roll-call .
4 . Flood Hazard Prevention Ordinance, City of Atascadero
(Ordinance No. 193 - First reading)
Mr. Engen gave staff report, noting correction to reflect that
the proposed ordinance adds Chapter 5 to Article 7 of the Muni.
Code (not Chapter 2, which has been pre-empted) and adding the
language at the beginning of the ordinance, "The Council of the
City of Atascadero does ordain as follows : Chapter 5 is hereby
added to Chapter 7 of the A_ tascadero Municipal Code, as fol-
lows . . . " . Mr. Sensibaugh made added comments and reviewed the
flood zone areas profiled within the City.
4
Council discussion ensued. Mr. Jorgensen clarified that the
basic intent of this ordinance is to comply with a technical
requirement of the Federal Govt. in order to enable persons
residing within the identified areas to qualify for flood insur-
ance, noting that it' s purpose is distinctly separate from that
of the Amapoa-Tecorida Development Fee ordinance.
Public Comment
Geraldine Brasher, resident, urged adoption of the proposed or-
dinance in order to enable persons residing in high flood hazard
areas to acquire appropriate insurance.
Motion: By Councilman Dexter to read Ord. 193 by title
only, seconded by Councilman Lilley; passed unani-
mously. Mayor Borgeson read Ord. 193 by title.
Motion: By Councilman Dexter to approve Ord. 193 on first
reading, as revised by staff comments, seconded by
Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously by roll-
call.
* Mayor Borgeson requested that item C-3 be considered first,
following the break, with which Council concurred.
COUNCIL RECESSED FOR BREAK FROM 8:40 TO 8 : 55 P.M.
C. REGULAR BUSINESS
*3. Resolution No. 24-89 - Authorizing long-term debt financing
for needed capital improvements
Mr. Windsor gave staff report, indicating staff recommends adop-
tion of the proposed resolution. He emphasized that approval of
the resolution and authorization for hiring a financial consul-
tant would not commit this Council to a specific dollar amount
for the three projects identified. Staff requested that the
selection of a financial institution be continued to allow for
review of local firms to determine their competitiveness with
others available. Mr. Joseph reviewed the available financing
methods and why COP' s are being recommended. Lengthy Council
discussion ensued.
Council consensus was to amend the proposed resolution, as
follows : Para. 7 , " . . . ( $2 ,000, 000) to be used for the above
projects herein identified. "
5
Public Comment
Gere Sibbach, City Treasurer, expressed the opinion that this
should be put before the voters as a general bond issue, and he
encouraged consideration of local financiers before final selec-
tion by Council. He also suggested the proposed resolution be
amended to reflect that the COP ' s will be invested temporarily in
an interest-bearing account to await their use.
Tom Bench, resident, expressed the opinion that too much emphasis
is being placed on only the police facility, and, although it' s a
necessity, he feels other major improvements (e.g. , lake lots and
the Pavilion) warrant financing considerations.
Fred Frank, resident, urged Council to expedite this proposal,
feeling it' s conservative and an important mechanism to fund
needed acquisitions, including the lake lots . He also urged that
specific amounts be identified and allocated toward the various
projects, when the time comes .
Terril Graham, resident, spoke in opposition to debt financing,
and expressed the opinion that this proposal is "tricky" in that
the public is not a participant in the decision regarding the use
of the funds .
Additional Council discussion followed.
Mr. Windsor recommended the following amendment to the proposed
resolution (see Mr. Sibbach' s comments, above) : Para. 6,
" . . .with the understanding that said issue shall be invested tem-
porarily in an interest-bearing account to await their use. . . " ,
and he clarified that the last line of Para. 7 should be amended
to read, " . . . ( $2, 000,000) to be used for the above projects here-
in identified. "
Motion: By Councilman Dexter to adopt Res . 24-89, as
amended, seconded by Mayor Borgeson; passed unani-
mously by roll-call .
Motion: By Councilman Dexter to direct staff to survey
available financing institutions with all possible
speed, seconded by Councilman Lilley; passed unan-
imously.
1. Asbestos Change Order - City Hall renovation project
Mr. Sensibaugh gave staff report.
6
Public Comment
Al Giacomazzi of R.P. Richards explained that the project has
been delayed for 24 days, extending it beyond the contracted
term by 12 days ( from 180 days to 192) , thus constituting the
need for additional overhead to administer the required changes .
He stressed that Richards is doing all they can to keep the
price as fair as possible. It was clarified that a new subcon-
tractor will be assigned to perform the work required in the pipe
chases and the dome access area, and the previous subcontractor,
Frank Garcia, Inc. , will be doing the insulation abatement around
the piping.
Council discussion followed. Mayor Borgeson expressed her desire
to sit in on the negotiations for the dollar amount of the change
order with the contractor.
Motion: By Mayor Borgeson that Council approve the reques-
ted change order and direct staff to negotiate
with the contractor, with Mayor Borgeson present,
seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimous-
ly by roll-call .
2. City Hall - Rotunda carpeting &permanent seating
Mr. Sensibaugh gave staff report, followed by Council discussion.
Public Comment
Geraldine Brasher, resident, asked if consideration has been giv-
en to hiring an interior decorator. Mr. Sensibaugh responded
that staff has already done so, and color selections will be rec-
ommended for the 1st through 4th floors of the Admin. Bldg. Mrs .
Brasher expressed concern that fixed seating may restrict rev-
enue-gaining uses of the Rotunda Rm.
Mr. Takata reviewed the recreational classes currently being held
in the Rotunda Rm.
Motion:. By Mayor Borgeson to follow staff recommendation
that the 4th Floor Rotunda Rm. be carpeted, sec-
onded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously
by roll-call .
4. Recycling discussion
Mr. Sensibaugh gave staff report. Councilwoman Mackey encouraged
the City Council to endorse white paper recycling and encourage
waste reduction and the purchase of recycled paper products .
7
Public Comment
Bill Gibbs, Wil-Mar Disposal, indicated that Wil-Mar is going to
do everything they can to help with the problem and has done some
research on a recycling program, however, would like additional
direction from staff.
There was no public comment.
Council consensus was to direct staff to bring back the recom-
mended make-up of a recycling committee, including staff repre-
sentation.
5. A.U.S.D. Proposal - Summer Swim Program
Mr. Windsor gave staff report, and brief Council discussion fol-
lowed.
Public Comment
Sarah Gronstrand, resident, urged that swimming free of cost be
made available for low-income families . Mr. Windsor responded
that this is an example of many details yet to be worked out.
Motion: By Mayor Borgeson to prepare for the operation of
the Atascadero School District' s Pool Program for
the summer of 1990, addressing both the public' s
and Council 's concerns expressed tonight, seconded
by Councilman Dexter; passed unanimously by roll-
call .
D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION/AND OR ACTION
City Council - Councilman Shiers requested that Council receive
their agenda packets earlier than they currently do. Consensus
was that staff have the agenda available on Thursday at the lat-
est.
Mayor Borgeson asked for Council consensus to direct that staff
prepare a resolution that Council meetings end at 11 p.m. , as a
general rule (begin no new business after 11 p.m. ) . Mr. Jorgen-
sen asked that he be directed to review the Municipal Code and
suggest an alternative.
Councilman Dexter asked if Council can attend the June 8-10
League of CA Cities Leadership Team Workshop, instead of the May
dates previously registered for.
8
City Manager - Mr. Windsor noted that if Council doesn' t attend
the June 8-10 workshop, they would have to wait until the
November session; Council concurred to attend in June.
Mr. Windsor inquired of the Council ' s interest in attending the
1989 Downtown Revitalization Conference June 28-29 in Sacramento.
Councilmembers Dexter, Shiers and Borgeson expressed interest in
attending.
Mr. Windsor announced that there will be a special ceremony to
plant a tree donated by the parents of Steve Richards, scheduled
for Thursday at 6 : 00 p.m. , Atascadero Lake Park. Steve was
killed in a traffic accident recently on Hwy. 41 .
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10 :45 P.M.
MINUTES RECORDED BY:
BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk
PREPARED BY:
CINDY WILKINS, Admin. . Secy.
9
MEETi
DAT
i'EM A Z
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
APRIL 13 , 1989
The joint meeting of the Atascadero City Council, Parks & Rec.
and Planning Commissions was called to order at 7 : 05 p.m. by
Mayor Pro Tem Dexter, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
City Council : Councilmembers Lilley, Mackey, Shiers & Mayor Pro
Tem Dexter (Mayor Borgeson absent)
Parks & Rec.
Commission: Commissioners Cooper, Bench, Smart, McKrell, Meyer
& Chairman Harris
Planning
Commission: Commissioners Brasher, Highland, Lopez-Balbontin,
Luna, Tobey & Chairman Lochridge (Commissioner
Waage absent)
Staff: Ray Windsor, City Mgr. ; Henry Engen, Commun. Devel .
Director; Steve Decamp, Senior Planner; Andy Takata,
Dir, of Parks, Rec . & Zoo; Cindy Wilkins, Admin. Secy.
COUNCIL COMMENT
Mayor Pro Tem Dexter made opening comments, clarifying that this
is a working session for the commissions and Council, with the
goal of reaching a consensus, following discussion and any input
from the public present, to send the proposed Parks & Recreation
Element to the Planning Commission for a public hearing.
Mr. Engen then provided an overview of the Parks & Rec. Element.
Beginning in the fall, Council and the Planning Commission had
meetings reviewing the residential character of the City, commer-
cial/industrial, circulation and other areas of the General Plan.
In the latter part of 1987 , a series of community forums, one in
each quadrant of the City, were held and paralleled meetings held
by the Planning Commission; one community-wide forum was held and
a questionnaire was put out by the Parks & Rec . Dept. to supple-
ment public input. This, in conjunction with analysis of Natl .
Parks & Rec . Assoc . standards, provided the basis for making pro-
posals for the draft Parks & Rec. Element that was transmitted,
dated May 31, 1988 . Following tonight' s meeting, staff will pre-
1
pare the necessary documents to go to public hearing before the
Planning Commission who will make formal recommendation to the
City Council.
Mr. Takata reported that, in a special meeting held April 3rd,
the P & R Commission reviewed the draft plan, which will serve
as a guideline for staff to utilize in the development of rec-
reational facilities and future land acquisition. He relayed
that the P & R Commission and staff wish to recommend ( 1 ) empha-
sis be placed on creating Graves Creek as a trailway or linear
park, ( 2) stress the open space element, (3) emphasize the zoo as
being a part of the Recreation Element and (4 ) consider recom-
mending in the plan the possibility of hiring a specialized
person for grants (not strictly for Parks & Rec. items but in
other areas which the City may have needs as well) . Mr. Takata
noted, at its last meeting, the P & R Commission stressed the
utilization of the neighborhood schools for parks .
Commissioner Highland asked, in view of Atascadero' s desire to
maintain large lots, if the Natl . Parks & Rec . Assoc. standards
are applicable to this community as they may be to the typical
urban area. Mr. Takata responded that the national standards are
general and non-specific as they relate to individual communi-
ties . He relayed that staff feels the creation of the open space
element is more important than the creation of mini-parks .
Commissioner Brasher feels the concept of mini parks should be
considered in MF areas and not equally distributed around the
City.
Mr. Windsor commented that there are over $15 million in identi-
fied needs and very limited resources . He expressed support for
the plan, however, believes it is important for the community to
know that the needs identified in the plan are what we would like
to have but probably won' t end up with a lot of due to costs . In
light of this, he' s very supportive of the joint use agreement
with the School District, which would benefit both entities in
terms of both cost and facilities .
Commissioner Harris indicated the P & R Commission realizes the
financial barriers, but is suggesting the idea of innovation and
creativity to its height and that there are a multitude of stra-
tegies to be tried.
Commissioner Highland expressed he feels that a general disclaim-
er should be included upon adoption of any element or re-write of
the Gen. Plan that listed goals/ideals will be realized within
the financial capacity of the City to realize them.
Councilman Lilley expressed concern that the draft P & R Element
assumes that the City will purchase properties, make any desired
improvements and provide ongoing related maintenance. He feels
2
the community effort which will be needed to realize some of the
ideas outlined should be placed in the document. He noted that
the JPA was touched on in the draft and has been discussed by the
City/School Committee with positive results. Three preliminary
areas of note are: (1) The prospect of working together with
regard to gymnasium rehabilitation and a possible future commu-
nity center; ( 2) coordinating in the JPA regarding the new school
campus in the northeast quadrant of the City and the possible
joint development of recreational sites (e.g. , tennis courts) for
both municipal and School District use; and (3) the creekway
plan, worked out between the City, School District and creekside
property owners, to include a walkway under ECR and Hwy. 101 .
Councilman Lilley relayed that there was a tremendous response
from Dr. Avina to the idea, who relayed the same on behalf of
several teachers; the District is supportive and eager to proceed
with the plan. If the concept has support, a steering committee
would be formed via the City/School Committee to develop a gener-
al, conceptual plan for review and hopeful adoption by both the
School District and City Council . Following brief discussion
among those present, consensus was to direct staff to determine
ownerships of the creekway properties under review.
Staff noted that master planning of parklands and recreational
facilities is essential in order to take advantage of any avail-
able grant funds .
There was brief general discussion regarding the collection of
fees for funding recreational facilities .
Chairman Harris reiterated that the P & R Commission is not tied
to the map designating placement of mini-parks which was dis-
played at its last meeting, nor to the conceptual need for them.
Councilwoman Mackey suggested that serious consideration be given
to establishing a local conservancy for parklands .
The various aspects of maintaining a few large park areas as op-
posed to several smaller ones was discussed. Mr. Windsor relayed
Council ' s discussion of acquiring additional lots around Atas .
Lake to possibly round out and improve the existing park and zoo
facilities there. Commissioner Tobey encouraged consultation
with the Police Dept. in planning for park sites relative to its
ability to patrol them.
Public Comment
Fred Frank, 7755 Graves Creek, read a resolution adopted by the
Homeowners Assoc. at its last meeting petitioning the City
Council to develop a comprehensive creekway inventory and long-
term acquisition and management plan to be incorporated in the
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and that it coincide with the
update of the Recreation Element and the Downtown Master Plan.
3
Steve LaSalle, resident, spoke in support of implementing the
Quimby Act to acquire recreational properties .
MAYOR PRO TEM DEXTER CALLED A BREAK FROM 8 : 25 - 8 :45 P.M. (The
Parks & Rec. Commissioners were dismissed. )
Mr. Engen commented on the status of the Appearance Review pro-
cess, which will be a part of the General Plan update, indicating
that staff is seeking direction with respect to language within
the text as it relates to appearance review standards and pro-
cedures .
Mr. Decamp commented on the architectural review guidelines, say-
ing that staff feels they have been effective and that people
have, by and large, been supportive when they realize that the
goal is a higher level of quality than what has occurred in the
past.
Commissioner Luna expressed a desire to see application of archi-
tectural review to SFR development. Mr. Engen responded that it
was originally proposed that the standards be applied in sensi-
tive site areas at the Commun. Devel . Director' s discretion; but,
SFR was excluded due to meeting with some resistence from the
public, and Council ' s feeling at the time was to concentrate ap-
plication on larger land uses only.
General discussion regarding appearance review ensued.
Staff was commended for expeditiously following up on reported
zoning violations, as well as for monitoring the appearance re-
view guidelines .
Public Comment
Steve LaSalle, resident, encouraged that professional renderings
be required on project submittals to allow for enhanced visual
impressions .
Fred Frank feels the more flagrant problems should be addressed
before SFR' s, and he spoke in support of establishing a sub-
committee to tighten appearance review standards .
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9 : 15 P.M.
MINUTES RECORDED BY: PREPARED BY:
ll �
HENRYENGEY, Comm. ev. Director
Cindy- Wilkins, A
dmin. Secy.
4
MENo�► -
DJ!'EriE!���,�`Z,
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Rau Windsor , Citv Manaaer
FROM: Paul M. Sensibaugh , Director of Public Works
Valerie Humphrey , Clerical Technician
SUBJECT : Establishment of Stop Intersections
DATE: May 2 , 1989
Recommendation :
The Traffic Committee recommends that Council adopt the
attached resolution establishing_ stop intersections at the
following locations :
El Centro Avenue at Arcade Avenue (Resolution No. 30-89)
Garbada Avenue at Tampico Road (Resolution No. 29-89)
Vega Avenue at Ardilla (Resolution No. 28-89)
Background:
These intersections are currentiv uncontrolled. The
Traffic Committee has received a number of requests for
review of these locations and acrree that the establishment of
stop intersections would improve traffic safety at all
locations .
Fiscal Impact :
The cost of this improvement will be approximately $150
to be paid out of 1988/89 budgeted funds .
RESOLUTION NO. 30-89
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO DESIGNATING A STOP INTERSECTION
ON EL CENTRO AT ARCADE AVENUE
WHEREAS, Section 4-2 . 801 et seq. of the Atascadero
Municipal Code allows the Citv Traffic Engineer to
determine the location of STOP intersections . and to glace
and maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating the
same; and
WHEREAS , the Atascadero Traffic Committee has
recommended that establishing a STOP intersection on El
Centro Avenue at the intersection with Arcade Avenue
will improve a hazardous traffic situation .
NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED that the Citv of
Atascadero directs the City Traffic Engineer to place and
maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating a STOP
intersection at the location listed above .
On motion by , and seconded by
,the foregoing Resolution is hereby
adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote :
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ATTEST :
BOYD C . SHARTIZ , City Clerk BONITA BORGESON, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT :
JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH
Citv Attorney Director of Public Works
City Engineer
•
f O
a ,l
2 �� 4�C,
a0 m
EL CORTA
04D RD.
OCb
`e-C (a5 - N
W
• < S owti°y
co
x
tv s CASCADA 'zn
•�D 701/ $T/9 2'+'y9<.J�� ROAD --4
04 G$G,
Z' U9 v �h cS
M
/* 0 0
so
41i/ �� W r 00!4 ➢ oS
d �
0
1-0
v 4Y pi
C') D �•
vi y O -m '• '°
_., O
7 � � till,
b.
O
--
C74
Q� D � w `0t Q'• °�
� m
o o > eo
VNII dl ; 0
MEETING $ AGENDA _
OA7EU`U ITEM!
RESOLUTION NO. 29-89
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO DESIGNATING A STOP INTERSECTION
ON GARBADA AVENUE AT THE INTERSECTION WITH TAMPICO
WHEREAS , Section 4-2 . 801 et sea, of the Atascadero
Municipal Code allows the Citv Traffic Engineer to
determine the location of STOP intersections , and to place
and maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating the
same ; and
WHEREAS , the Atascadero Traffic Committee has
recommended that establishina a STOP intersection on
Garbada Road at the intersection with Tampico will
alleviate a hazardous traffic situation ;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of
Atascadero directs the Cit_v Traffic Engineer to place and
maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating a STOP
intersection at the location listed above .
On motion by , and seconded by
,the foregoing Resolution is hereby
adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote :
. AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
ADOPTED:
ATTEST :
BOYD C . SHARTIZ , City Clerk BONITA BORGESON, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT :
JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN - PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH
City Attorney Director of Public Works
City Engineer
00
N
^ ti � a• o
5 4 m1 oc a
W a a
Q .H
ti a Q N
Cn
M.P�• SAV_ m N
_ w
O
`
^O Q J
v V � Q c
W \ �^ 4 �ry h r OQ LLC C
o _ l ' Q p _,� O
° +n
' cr
9_
U ^ a m \h-
`' = C .
1
3c, a�
O' a ;p N
ROAD QQ o
QD
O ?AMLU
P�CO
ud
ham ^ OI
^ nn C �..+
` V
V:'i 40 ` 3333? Y 4 a LL
CA CIA -
-
U
a
co�1' _ V Q U
/�/� C= ti 0 m �X70 • � �Q Q
O/ I ,/�
pZc m
NoJ1 0
ad
'o 0
i
m ^
a �m o� •2 / �. Q
m
M
qPM � Q
• MEETING AGENDA
DAT 1 1TEM -,-,,,t�..,.'�
RESOLUTION NO. 28-89
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO DESIGNATING A STOP INTERSECTION
ON VEGA AVENUE AT ARDILLA AVENUE
WHEREAS . Section 4-2 . 801 et seq, of the Atascadero
Municipal Code allows the City Traffic Enaineer to
determine the location of STOP intersections , and to place
and maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating the
same; and
WHEREAS, the Atascadero Traffic Committee has
recommended that establishing a STOP intersection on Vega
Avenue at the intersection with Ardilla Avenue will
improve a hazardous traffic situation .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of
Atascadero directs the Cit_v Traffic Engineer to place and
maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating a STOP
• intersection at the location listed above .
On motion by , and seconded by
,the foregoing Resolution is hereby
adopted in its entiretv on the following roll call vote :
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
ADOPTED:
ATTEST :
BOYD C . SHARTIZ, City Clerk BONITA BORGESON, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT :
JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH
City Attorney Director of Public Works
City Engineer
n
t�
IOr
O y
J b
o rn
O
.50 .,�.
6pt
J
•t .eln TT• .� y ;. _
N it {
• O D z
-pe"
_ o
N
Oo N N T
T N ti u V
A
O to , L�
r)
Z n`\y ' J W O •
'Q
N -, � �e_L �• z n
v � r
J•O ` y
Iw Co 1 m.
° o i zzrri
D
C
rri
n �
n
.30 z
70
u 9 �
Ln
•z�I ev ss_ r 1J D
zn
� s B.p �l• a� 0
� " O
rI to a t
rn
U V
7
i MEETtNG� AGENDA
DA7�_�/. /8.9 tTEM�
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council May 9, 1989
VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director J-Vfj
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL TRACT MAP 19-88
LOCATION: 5900 Bajada Avenue
APPLICANT: David and Valerie Low (Cuesta Engineering)
BACKGROUND:
On January 10, 1989, the City Council approved Tentative Tract
Map 19-88, subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with
the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
The required conditions have been complied with and the final map
is recommended for approval .
HE:ps
cc: David and Valerie Low
Cuesta Engineering
_--� '11 . � SIL'/ ■
TTM 19-88
�■ tea, ��� �. � � ■
♦ _
�� cru► �� ,� �i• �j♦ � ♦� � - ���.
Jul 11������
�f11/11
111/11WAFM none
���
"Mill Ills 11 lot
tit
Age
•W� ill . �.
~ice �i��i, � ■ t
&'i , Ut"' -°k-
0 i
MAY 9, 1989 CITY
COUNCIL MEETING
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council May 9, 1989
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director f4f
RE: Agenda Item A-7 : Time Extension for Tentative Parcel
Map 9-87 - 9000 Atascadero Avenue
A question has been raised as to how much the applicant has
invested in this tentative parcel map at this time. According to
their engineer, they have expended approximately $6,000 for
surveys and preparation of public improvement plans which are
required as condition of the parcel map.
HE :ps
ME E71 AGENDA
DA� .M.
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council May 9, 1989
VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9-87:
9000 Atascadero Avenue
BACKGROUND:
On April 18, 1989, the Planning Commission considered the above
referenced time extension on its consent calendar. On a 5 : 1 : 1
vote (Chairperson Lochridge abstaining and Commissioner Brasher
dissenting) , the motion was carried to approve a one year time
extension.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a one year time extension for Tentative Parcel Map 9-87,
per the Planning Commission' s recommendation.
HE:ps
Attachment: Staff Report dated April 18, 1989
Minutes Excerpt, Planning Commission-April 18, 1989
cc: John & Julie Kuhlman
MEUNG AGENDA
MEMORANDUM DATI �� ITEM Cf
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Steven L. DeCamp, Senior Planner
DATE: April 18, 1989
RE: Time Extension Request
TPM 9-87 (Kuhlman)
9000 Atascadero Ave.
The above referenced Tentative Parcel Map was approved by the
Planning Commission on May 19, 1987 and subsequently approved by
the City Council on July 14, 1987 based on the revised Findings
for Approval and Conditions of Approval in the attached staff
report. Staff originally recommended denial of this map. The
Planning Commission and City Council found, however, that the map
met the Zoning Ordinance provisions in effect at the time of the
application' s submittal. Also attached to this memo are minute
excerpts from the Planning Commission meetings at which this map
was considered.
Because the road improvement requirements imposed as conditions
of approval of the map are so extensive, the applicant has
requested an extension of time in order to file the final map
(see attached letter dated March 21, 1989) .
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of a one time, one year extension of
Tentative Parcel Map 9-87.
SLD/
Attachments: 1. Staff Report
2. Minute Excerpts
3. Request for Extension
AVTAcpmem i !
Item: B-1
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Planning Commission
FROM Oteven L. Decamp, Senior Planner
DATE: May 19, 1987
RE: Tentative Parcel Map 9-87
(Kuhlman/Bray)
9000 Atascadero Avenue
At your meeting of May 5, 1987, the Commission considered the above-
referenced parcel map application. After receiving testimony and
considering the staff report, the Commission directed staff to return
with draft Findings for Approval and Conditions of Approval.
The requested Findings and Conditions are attached to this memorandum
along with a copy of the prior staff report.
SLD:ps
EXHIBIT C - Tentative Parcel Map 9-87
Findings for Approval
May 19, 1987
FINDINGS:
1. The creation of these parcels conforms to the Zoning Ordinance and
General Plan.
2. The creation of these parcels, in conformance with the recommended
conditions of approval, will not have a significant adverse effect
upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the
project is adequate.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development
proposed.
4. The site is physically suitable for the density of development
proposed.
5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will
not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat.
6 . The design of the subdivision and the type of improvement will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access
through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; or
that substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided.
7. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474.6 of the
State Subdivision Map Act as to methods of handling and discharge
of waste.
i
EXHIBIT D - Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 9-87
May 19, 1987
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company
and water .lines shall exist at the frontage of each parcel or its
public utility easement prior to recordation of the final map.
2. All existing and proposed utility easements, pipelines, and other
easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are building
or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be
noted on the final map.
3. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans, prepared by a regis-
tered civil engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval
by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to
issuance of building permits in conjunction with installation of
driveways, access easements or structures.
4. Road improvement plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer,
must be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Department
prior to recording the final map. Road improvement plans shall
include the following: twenty (20) foot wide pavement width from
the centerline of the right-of-way along the entire property
frontage along Portola road and Atascadero Avenue. The corner
radius shall be thirty (3.0) feet at the edge of pavement and twen-
ty (20) feet at right-of-way. Two City standard drive approaches
shall be included to serve both parcels.
5. All existing and proposed utilities shall be shown on the road
improvement plans. Any alteration or relocation of existing
utilities shall be noted on the plan and shall be the responsibil-
ity of and at the sole expense of the developer.
6. Construction of road improvements shall be completed (or bonded
for) prior to recording the final map.
7. The applicant shall install all street signs, traffic delineation
devices, warning and regulatory signs, guardrail, barricades, and
other similar devices where required by the Public Works Director
as per approved site plan. Signs shall be in conformance with the
Public Works Department standards and the current State of Calif-
ornia uniform sign chart. Installation of traffic devices shall
be subject to review and modifications after construction.
8. The applicant shall offer for dedication to the City of Atascadero
the following rights-of-way:
a) Street Name: Portola Road
b) Limits: Ten (10) feet along entire frontage
C) Street Name: Atascadero Avenue
d) Limits: Five (5) feet along entire frontage
e) Corner Rounding: Twenty (20) foot radius at intersection
9. An offer of dedication shall be made to the public for the Public
Utilities Easements, if any.
10. Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to or
simultaneously to recording the final map.
11. Wastewater disposal shall be by connection to the public sewer.
12. Obtain a sewer connection permit from the Public Works Department
prior to connecting to the public sewer.
13. Pay sewer annexation fee for additional parcel being created prior
to recording the final map.
14. The sewer main in Portola Road shall be extended to allow private
lateral connection to sewer to be within property frontage. Plans
for the sewer extension shall be prepared by a Registered Civil
Engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to any
construction.
15. The access strip to the new lot shall be a minimum of twenty-five
(25) feet wide.
16. The boundary between the lots shall be redrawn to more nearly
equalize the net size of the two resultant lots.
17. The subdivider shall contribute $1,725 ($1,50 X VW X 2301L) to a
sidewalk sinking fund for the future installation of sidewalks
along the entire frontage of the property along Atascadero Avenue
and Portola Road.
18 . A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved
tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth
herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance
with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance
prior to recordation.
a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created
and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor
shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that corners
have been set or shall be set by a date specific and that
they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced.
b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submit-
ted for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
C. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for
review in conjunction with the processing of the final map.
19. Approval of this tentative parcel map shall expire two years from
the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted
pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date.
AT7'46H44chd7 r A
City of Atacadero Item: B-2
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: May 5, 1987
BY: A'Steven L. Decamp, Senior Planner File No: TPM 9-87
Project Address: 9000 Atascadero Avenue (Parcel A of AL 79-01)
SUBJECT:
Subdivision of one parcel containing 1.0 acres into two (2) lots con-
taining 0.5 acres each.
A. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Julie Kuhlman
2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . .John Bray
3. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.0 acres (gross) ; 0.88 (net)
4. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-X (20 ,000 square feet)
5. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Parcel 1 - Vacant
Parcel 2 - Single Family Dwell-
ing
6. General Plan Designation. . . .High Density Single Family
7. Environmental Status. . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted
April 6, 1987
B. ANALYSIS:
The application before the Commission proposes the subdivision of
one parcel containing 1.0 acres into two (2) parcels containing
0.5 acres each. The property proposed for subdivision is located
in an RSF-X zoning district. The minimum lot size in this zone is
20 ,000 square feet where sewers are available and 0 . 5 acres where
sewers are not available. Because sewers are available to the
property in question, the 20 ,000 square foot minimum lot size is
applicable.
The property in question contains 1.0 acres when measured to the
centerlines of Portola Road and Atascadero Avenue (gross average).
The net acreage, however , is 0. 88 acres (excludes road rights-of-
way) . The subdivision would result in parcels of 21, 405 square
feet (net) and 16,400 square feet (net) . The smaller of the two
proposed lots contains a single family dwelling and garage. The
second lot is currently vacant.
i 0 � •
Staff Report TPM 9-87
9000 Atascadero Ave. (Kuhlman/Bray)
Page Two
The City' s General Plan indicates, on page 58, that: "In the cal-
culation of lot area for the purposes of considering land divis-
ions. . . .gross
ivis-ions. . . .gross acreage shall be used". Although the proposed sub-
division meets the "letter" of the minimum lot size determination
language, it does not appear to meet the intent of the recently
adopted zoning ordinance amendment providing for 20,000 square
foot lots.
The intent of the Planning Commission and City Council in adopting
the zoning ordinance amendment allowing for 20 , 000 square foot
dots was intended to eliminate questions regarding road ownership
and "gross average" calculations. Staff believes that Tentative
Parcel Map 9-87 skirts the intent of the ordinance and results in
lots smaller than anticipated or desired.
Based on the intent of the Commission and Council, staff does not
believe that the proposed map (TPM 9-87) creates sites that are
physically suitable for the type or density of development pro-
posed.
C. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends disapproval of Tentative Parcel Map 9-87 based on
the Findings in Exhibit C.
SD:ph
Attachments: Exhibit A - Location &Zoning Map
Exhibit B TPM 9-87
Exhibit C - Findings for Denial
1 '
•
♦O
Eut�►8�T �
CITY OF ATAS CADERO M a
f
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TPM 9 — $7
DEPARTMENT
�7ENT.Or/yE P•9.PCEL rylAP
PA.oCEL M No.<9T 97-0�d
t`&►MirOi4rofA/oscxkro,laa�tyolSair /A�rey.vFjoiy:�i��lv�oi�•/..raii'sioo�� <ArKs�• cccfilytb.T.orpuies�cvrfa.o^
:-1<�t OOO..�fp.Ca�Ccii�odi✓%siaoof ttv/F:•�:.ctty .sno.w,:.>thc oal bnr-.•nir�i lif.�.- Ov<d�/<Jrbcrfolirsy .x«iey�rci.;l
lbr.ta4fivd^.�.t¢.a_/w.1/o.v/am,.
srsew.�cv►tA.nyo r/sd.rf Ma/. ?90 Mt infair.vrion.sMrw�/.•�:>i- --i'sT.-<».-,-t �e,/
- .4�e/ODw.Mr efiSre ad'/s{r d�,r ef/rre fo tifr Ocs.rni•..�..i�v�.:r"r o�n+tc,•r,� SD S.y.srd—a.,f,Ga.`.,G 1
Cowl/'r o�.fw�G...f OOispe!i..A/y. 2
LS\ .Da%drirs opera.y.i• d.•.> .i. i
AhsCoa v eb 9_a 2
. Ad/iers '�ooy.y �s.•!EPn A:E. �, - �
n
_ b'�.GJINpFiC':?!'FJ 7711:: a
A
O
o P0.Q7-04A
C-
0
,u R
APIA
• , /
�.vQCFL 2 zi
ecus j
'r - .•t ..�._. /i.,rrno.;•s�.. is bo
Z << o
i 1s �
- w50•arra
o
at
Vit.� .. / 4 i i'• --' -� �
rc..vrr,var
r..A.
RECEIVED
MAR 27 1987
�o .�r�•o�d
t-.se•
~
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT "or
,e..,......n..
EXHIBIT C - Findings for Denial
Tentative Parcel Map 9-87 (Kuhlman/Bray)
May 5, 1987
FINDINGS:
1. The creation of these parcels does not conform to the zoning ordi-
nance and the general plan.
2. The site is not physically suitable for the type of development
proposed.
3. The site is not physically suitable for the density of development
proposed.
AT7't�c-�l M�N i Z
MINUIM EXCERPT MAY 5 , 1987
2. Tentative Parcel Map 9-87 :
Request initiated by Julie Kuhlman (Jack Bray) to allow subdivi-
sion of one parcel containing 1.0 acres into two lots of 0. 5 acres
each. Subject site is located at 9000 Atascadero Avenue (Parcel A
of AL 79-01) .
Mr. DeCamp, Sr. Planner, gave staff report, recommending denial due to
net lot area of less than 20 ,000 sq. ft. , and responded to questions
from the Commission. He noted that a title report submitted with this
application indicates the applicant does have fee ownership to the
center of the streets (Portola & Atascadero Ave. ) .
Public Comment
Jack Bray, 9480 Atascadero Ave. , surveyor of record on TPM 9-87, spoke
in support of this application. He noted the application was based on
Planning staff having informed both him and Ms. Kuhlman that subject
lot met the criteria established by ordinance and could be legally
split; otherwise, the applicant would not have risked both time and
money on this endeavor . He urged that the Commission will address in
its decision not only the letter of the ordinances involved but, also,
the responsibility of our City officials in their interpretation of
our laws as well as addressing the responsibility for advice that is
given to the general public about these laws.
Dean Crawford, 8575 Portola (directly across the street from proposed
subdivision) , spoke in opposition to this proposal, based on the ap-
parent creation of flag lots.
Dennis Lockridge, 8935 Atascadero Ave. , encouraged the Commission to
concur with staff' s recommendation for denial of this application.
Julie Kuhlman, applicant, 9000 Atascadero Ave. , expressed her dis-
satisfaction with the change in staff' s position on this issue. She
noted the person from whom she purchased subject property added _ her
adjoining land to this parcel to make it an acre (in 1980) ; at that
time, she could have added more land, but City staff discouraged her
indicating that the streets were included and considered within her
acre.
Commission discussion over concerns expressed ensued. Mr . Decamp
noted this application was received on March 27, 1987, and was held
for approx. one month to allow the new 20 ,000 sq. ft. zoning to take
effect feeling the lot did not constitute the necessary one-half acre.
Also, at that time, the question of the roads was being reviewed with
the City Attorney and other agencies; staff' s position was that the
City owned the roads in fee. In the interim, staff has received the
City Attorney' s verbal opinion that the City does not own those
streets in fee, but they are owned by the adjacent property owners.
MOTION: By Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin to continue this item and
request that staff come back with findings and conditions of
approval for TPM 9-87, seconded by Commissioner Copelan;
passed by 6 :0 roll-call, with Commissioner Hatchell absent.
.2
Item: A.1
MINUTES - ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Monday, May 19, 1987 7 :30 p.m.
The regular meeting of the Atascadero Planning Commis ' on was
cal d to order at 7:33 p.m. by Chairman Bond, followed by a Pledge
of Al giance led by Commissioner Hatchell.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commi Toners Kidwell, Hatchell, Michi ssen (arrived 7 :45
P.M. ) , lan, Lopez-Balbontin, Copel n, and Chairman Bond
Absent: None
Staff Present: Steven De mp, Senior anner ; Paul Sensibaugh, Public
Works Direc r; Dou avidson, Assistant Planner; and
Patricia Shep ar Administrative Secretary I
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approval of 'nutes of the regul Planning Commission meet-
ing of May 1987
2. Approva of proposed Lot Line Adjustm t 9-87 - 5100/5102
Fres (Paul Baum/Cuesta Engineering)
3. A roval of interpretation request by Public Works Director
concerning Tentative Tract Map 20-86 (8305 Cor ar - Molina)
TION: Made by Commissioner Hatchell, seconded by Co issioner
Nolan and carried unanimously to approve the consent
calendar as presented.
B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES , AND REPORTS
1. Tentative Parcel Map 9-87 :
Request initiated by Julie Kuhlman (Jack Bray) to allow sub-
division of one parcel containing 1.0 acres _ato two lots of
0.5 acres each. Subject site is located at 9000 Atascadero
Avenue (Parcel a of AL 79-01) . (CONTINUED FROM 5/5/87 MTG)
Steve DeCamp presented the staff report summarizing the previous
meeting 's action on this item.
Jack Bray, engineer for the applicant, spoke in support of the
request and stated the applicant had no objections to the condi-
tions of approval.
V 0
Minutes - Planning wmmission - May 19 , 1987
Dennis Lockridge, 8935 Atascadero Avenue, asked some general ques-
tions pertaining the conditions of approval.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Nolan, seconded by Commissioner
Kidwell and carried unanimously with a roll call vote
to approve Tentative Parcel Map 9-87 subject to the
findings and conditions contained in the staff report.
Chairman Bond stated that he felt this map did not meet the intent
of the 20 ,000 square foot ordinance; however, it did meet the
letter of the law.
2. Road Abandonment 1-85 :
Request initiated by Arnold Pacific Properties Inc. to a ow
the abandonment of Solano Road to accommodate an ex nded
shopping center (Longs Drug Store) . (CONTINUED FROM 5/5/87
MEETING)
Chairman 8 d noted that the applicants have requested th the hear-
ing be re-op ned in order to allow for new testimony on he matter.
Steve DeCamp, S for Planner , stated he is in receip of a petition
from property own s throughout the City who are i favor of the aban-
donment of Solano R d. He noted there was no new information to
present.
Scott Thaver, Senior Vic President of Arno Pacific Properties, sum-
marized the intent of the oject which w ld be to abandon Solano
Road in order to bring in ngs Drug ore within the Lucky shopping
center . He felt that with the closin of Solano Road, they could pro-
vide an equal, if not better, a ess onto E1 Camino Real through cer-
tain mitigation measures.
Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin as ed Mr . Thayer if his position had
changed with regard to his w' lingness to participate in the drainage
mitigation problems associated with the site. Mr . Thayer responded
that they are willing to participate in the off-site improvements to
better the intersection r immediate area, but noted there is only
so much they can -do s developers. He noted,. he would be willing to
go along with a fair bare contribution but did `point out that he had
a problem with t conditions of approval pertaining to the drainage
and traffic signa ie conditions
requirements. \\
Gary Veasy, r resentative with Longs Drug Store (Walnit Creek) ,
thanked th Commission for taking a closer look at the project, i.e. ,
traffic pr lems. He stated that they can provide a sere E,e to the
communit He further noted that several local landowners h'kve been
in co act with his offices concerning the feasibility of othe sites
in t City and clarified that no agreements have been made with
oth r sites; he explained the reasons for wanting Longs Drug S re
t be a part of the Lucky shopping center .
2
. 47'-/74ckAAeN i 3
John & Julie Kuhlman
9000 Atascadero Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
March 21, 1989
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
Re: Project at 9000 Atascadero Avenue
Parcel A of AL 79-01
Gentlemen:
The improvement plans are in the process of being finalized by the City
Engineer. As soon as the plans are finalized we will begin construction
of the improvements. Also, our Engineer has contacted P.G.& E. about
relocating the power poles.
However, the street plans required much more time to prepare than antici-
gated, and we are still in the process of working out a partial reconvey-
ance with our lender.
We are therefore requesting an extension of one year on the above
referenced project.
Respectfully submitted,
Julie Kuhlman
p!a it n-,Ili �20 S/ovc- - 4I l �lay
PAGE EIGHT
he motion carried 6 : 0 .
Chairperson Lochridge o ered I services as a mediator and
will work as closely as he n with the Benches and staff in
an effort to resolve t matte
Commissioner H' and took his seat b on the Commission.
Chair on Lochridge advised the appellant t this matter
is pealable to City Council .
(A-2: Consideration of staff report for a time extension on
Tentative Parcel Map 9-87 at 9000 Atascadero Avenue -
Kuhlman
Chairperson Lochridge stepped down from the Commission due
to a possible conflict of interest.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Tobey, seconded by
Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin and carried 6 :0 to
continue the meeting past 11 : 00 p.m.
Mr. Decamp presented the staff report concerning the history
of this parcel map. The applicant is making efforts toward
completing the map; money has been expended on engineering
drawings and improvements . Based on the applicant' s
apparent vested right to continue with this map and based on
Council ' s direction to approve the map ( in -1987 based on
obsolete rules pertaining to minimum lot sizes) , staff is
recommending that the life of the map be extended for one
additional year.
Commissioner Luna asked for further clarification on vested
rights .
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Waage, seconded by Commis-
sioner Tobey to approve a one year time extension
for Tentative Parcel Map 9-87 . The motion carried
5 : 1 with Commissioner Brasher dissenting.
C. INDIVIDUAL COMMENT
1. Planning Commission
Commissioner Lopez-Ba ntin referenced the Bench map
application notin ere is a specific check list. He did
not see the n for a mediator.
Commi oner Brasher felt that staff needs to bend over
b wards in cooperating with the applicant.
MEET NL AGENDA B
i?ATEITE�4{N -Q
M E M O R A N D U M
To : City Council
Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager
From: Mark A. Joseph , Director of Admin. Services
Date: April 21 , 1989
Subject : Capital Improvements at the Atascadero Library
Background
A meeting was held on March 16, 1989, with myself, Sarah
Gronstrand of the Friends of the Library, and County staff, to
discuss improvements to the Atascadero Library. The three
projects agreed upon were to replace the automatic doors with
manual doors ( to reduce long-term maintenance and repair costs,
and , quite possibly, improve access in and out of the Library) ;
and install fencing in both the rear and front of the Library.
The fencing project , in particular , should enhance the overall
appearance.
Funding for these projects already exist in the construction
fund ; which is administered by the County. Board of Supervisors '
approval is required to appropriate interest earnings
(essentially an administrative task ) . Council endorsement is
recommended , along with the Friends, because of the three-way
funding . The Board of Directors of the Friends of the Library
has already endorsed the projects.
Recommendation
Staff recommends Council endorse these projects, which will be
managed by the County.
MAJ:al
\library
County of San Luis Obispo
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER SAN Luis OBISPO,CAUFORNIA 93408 - (805)549-5011
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICE OFME
DATE: APRIL 11, 1989 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
-
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO USE THE UNEXPENDED BALANCE OF THE ATASCADERO
LIBRARY BUILDING FUND MONIES TO CONSTRUCT A FENCE AND
REPLACE THE DOORS AT THE LIBRARY
Summary
After completing the final accounting close-out for the Atascadero Library
building project, staff has determined that approximately $17,700 is
available. Staff is requesting to expend approximately $16,000 of these
monies to replace the automatic doors at the library and construct fencing
around the facility. Both the City of Atascadero and the Friends of the
Library concur with this request. No additional monies are needed to fund
this request.
Recommendation
It is recommended that your Board expand the scope of the Atascadero
Library project to include the installation of fencing around the facility
and the replacement of the automatic doors at a cost of $16,000. It is
also recommended that your Board approve an appropriation transfer in the
amount of $5,900 appropriating additional interest earnings into the
project.
Discussion
As your Board is aware, the new Atascadero Library opened to the general
public in May of 1988. The project was a cooperative effort, funded with
monies from the City of Atascadero, the Atascadero Friends of the Library,
and the county. Since the opening of the facility, staff has had an
opportunity to evaluate the operational needs of the new library. Based
on this evaluation, it is recommended that the automatic doors installed
in the library be replaced with standard door hardware at a cost of
approximately $8,700. The automatic doors were originally installed as a
convenience to the general public. In actual practice, the doors open
slowly causing patrons to push open the doors activating the panic
hardware. In addition, the doors have created security problems and
resulted in inefficient usage of the air conditioning and heating systems
at the library. The doors have been adjusted on several occasions and
operate according to the manufacturer's specifications. These
adjustments, however, have not resolved the operating problems.
Therefore, staff feels that it would be in the library's best long-term
interest to replace the doors now.
Page Two
Board of Supervisors
April 11, 1989
Staff is also requesting to install fencing at various locations around
the library at a cost of $7,300. This fencing was deducted from the
original bid package as a cost savings measure. Library staff still feels
that the fencing is necessary and given the available savings in the
project, is recommending that the fencing be funded at this time.
Financing
Financing for the project will come from two sources, available savings in
the existing project ($11,800) and additional interest earnings on the
Atascadero Library Construction Trust Fund ($5,900). Any unused monies
will be returned to the city, county and Friends of the Library on a
pro-rata basis. The Auditor-Controller has reviewed and approved the
financing arrangements. Approval of this request requires a 4/5th's vote
of your Board.
Sincerely,
ROBERT E. HENDRIX
County Administrator
REH:dah:ataslib
DISTRIBUTION REQUEST NO.
Wt--Co.Clerk County of San Luis Obispo
Gr—Auditor
Yel—Org From'
Pink—Org—To TRANSFER REQUEST
Gold—Budget Analyist APPROPRIATION ❑ ESTIMATED REVENUE❑
DEPARTMENT DATE
April 4 1989
1. REQUEST TRANSFER AS LISTED BELOW
ORG. ACCOUNT ACTIVITY OPTION CHARGE CODE AMOUNT ACCOUNTTITLE
FROM 115-gnn.00 -- UnanticiDated Revenue
I
I
1
TO 5346 4020 I $5,900.00 Structures
1
1
JUSTIFICATION.(attach letter if required)
See attached letter.
DEPARTMENTf HEAD .
Bv:
2. ❑ Sufficient Funds are Available to Meet Above Request
AUDITOR CONTROLLER
❑ Requires Transfer of$ From Other Sources BY:
3. ❑ Board Action Required ❑ Four-Fifths Vote Required ❑ Board Action not Required
❑ Approve as Requested ❑ Approve as Revised ❑ Disapprove
REMARKS:
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
BY: -
4. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, th'
day of 19— bythe following vote, to wit:
AYES: SUPERVISORS
NOES: SUPERVISORS
ABSENT: SUPERVISORS
RESOLUTION NO.
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
SAN LUIS Osls►O COUNTY.CALIFORNIA
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MEETI � AGE NDA
D�ATITEM#
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager
From: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
�S
Subject : Amount Negotiated for Asbestos Change Order
Date : May 1, 1989
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the attached change order amount,
as a result of negotiating down the the line item for Gen.
Conditions (Equip ./Expenses) and the line item for District and Head
Office Overhead and Commission.
Background:
The following individuals met to discuss the amount of the
Proposed change order for asbestos removal for the City Hall
Renovation project : Mayor Borgesson, Director of Public Works
Sensibaugh, Superintendent of Public Works Leib, Fred Shott and Mark
Moore of Fred Schott & Assoc. , Al Giacomazzi , Ross Britt, and Marty
Landes of R.P. Richards Construction Co. , as directed by Council at
their last regular meeting.
Discussion:
The group agreed to disagree on certain theories relating to
appropriate compensation for delayed work, but settled for a new
total change order cost of $38, 664.54. This figure was arrived at
by awarding the $4, 944 for direct overhead but eliminating that
figure when applying the 25% general overhead to the subtotal .
Fiscal Impact:
The $38, 664. 54 additional cost to the City is $1 . 266 .46 less
than the $39, 931 . 00 originally sought by the contractor.
CACOR
R . P . RICHARDS CONSTRUCTION CO .
CITY Or ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
PHASE IIC REMODEL
CHANGE ORDER REQUEST
r OF
Revision #
r'
r fit Lr'tfG L 11' ��>.• y1.
U = :r iaLurl : A95X13=_----
ACctsS �S._Fi.__ .acj.'". _ = r- c��, , ��5 ?�o _ Pry ^� v +^-•,,� fir} -
f G f A r r _,,- VA r :-� l (.• P, �- Co�a�i Z
G;:n_•r•�1 �Ot1tr�Ctor'
G �
Direct Labor
I1'
of Labor (o7S _& � _ - -• . ., -
Gin . Conditions ( E_quieo jCx!pense•3 )
Layout
On•-site General and Administrative
'nnera). Cori tractor Subtol_a,l 0%)
J:
4
t
Subcontractor Subtotal ( B) Z'-{or-fI _
Mark-Up For Subcontractor' Work 4C !
Subtotal A . Z & C '72
District & Head Office O ?rhead 150
& Commission 10'=
Bond Premiumi ._._.. i1`L__ `.. -
TOTAL COS"C —__ ��9�! '= - • rI `t';>�.
! hc- above quOtod coy: t_ anw-1 ti 1 - is based on recci.vinu appro_ . -:i •2 :
'.hi•, change order by �q �g Any delay bf2yond that date rn= �
increase the cost and regUir- time _xten ion . The time exten:-icln r e',r.li : .
for r_h.i•_ change order i•_ wor•1;ing days .
w " R . :' . Richard-_ resE r'vac• the right %o ci.ziinl orhr•r CO': l:C. ei ld L . lfr '
?;•: ten5i0t1� because je cannot: d^termine the rulL lmpzict. if ::•rfly . tt) t;• _
con_- tr action schcdu1.e and r esuI Ling c.s.t•:; . al:imc-
R . P . richarid= Con; truct.ion Co . OWNER APPROVAL
i.�ned l;L� l.�nd
Q s t- .17� - 0
BID NO R . P . RICHNKUS • UUNS 1 KUU l lUN
y
DATE - /�-
,g; A DIVISION R. P . RICHARDS , INC .
BY ESTIMATE SUMMARY JOB NAME
CHECK SHEET OF
SECTION DESCRIPTION
LABOR MATERIAL SUB/EQUIP
f. DESCRIPTION DETAIL QUANTITY UNIT uNlr uNlr UNIT s �
PRICE PRICE PRICE
,y
n:
I '
I
i x
t
I I
� I
I
` I
ME Z _ g VDOAT ..g IC .____._.,....
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council '
i � Y
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager
t
From: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
- B
Subject : Recycling , �� �
Date: April 19, 1989
;k
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City become involved in some level of
recycling effort and that a Recycling Committee representing a wide
crosssection of the community be formed. Staff also recommends that
the initial direction of the committee be the preparation of a scope ;
of involvement and the establishment of goals to be presented to
Council for their approval .
Background:
Councilperson Mackey -serves on the Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management Committee at the County level . Recycling is an important
part of that committee 's function and goals. The State has directed
that all counties will reduce the amount of waste to landfills by
25% by 1990. The City must be a part of some form of recycling and,
indeed, may be the catalyst to get the community involved in a
volunteer program that will accomplish the State 's goal .
Discussion:
Our City government has been involved in recycling paper to a
limited extent and the Public Works Department plans to publicize
those efforts during National Public Works Week in May. In order to
accelerate this effort, more publicity should be promoted community—
wide . By reaching out to the School District, the State Hospital
and local printers who are probably the other major paper generators
in the City, the community as a whole could have an impact on waste
reduction. h
Bill Gibbs of Wil—Mar Disposal has investigated the commercial
viability of recycling and has found that a recycler in San Miguel
will receive cardboard; we also know that Paper People in San Luis
will buy white paper and ECO SLO will buy glass, newspapers, etc. ,
Cas will Lorin Heilman and the Country Market. The more material ,
that is collected, the more economical the effort will become, and r
thus, the more successful the goals will be.
MEETt AGENDA n
DAt
ITE M
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager
From: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Subject : Establishment of Recycling Committee
Date: May 2, 1989
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council appoint an ad hoc Recycling
Committee made up of the following community cross section.
Background:
At the last regular meeting Council directed staff to suggest an
appropriate committee makeup to deal with the topic of recycling.
Discussion:
Staff suggests that in order for the committee to be meaningful
and successful , the members should have a personal interest in the
goals and theory of recycling in general . Additionally, the
committee should be made up of a wide cross section of the
community. The following is recommended:
Member of City Council (Suggest Waste Management Representative)
Member of City Staff (Suggest Public Works)
Local Refuse Collector (Suggest Wilmar Disposal )
Local Recycler -P
Five (5) Citizens—at—large
The Citizen—at—large selection would be made by Council from a
list of interested applicants . Staff will advertise the volunteer
openings and forward the resumes to Council . If there is sufficient
interest to warrant interviews, that procedure will follow. Council
will formally make the final appointments at a regular council
meeting. The local recycler position is left to the choice of
Council .
The Recycling Committee will set its goals and operating rules
and bring a resolution back to Council for their adoption. All
business of the Committee will be reported to Council on at least a
monthly basis .
Fiscal Impact :
There is no cost to the City for this volunteer effort except
for an undetermined amount of staff time for meetings and
Presentation of reports to Council .
The Council needs to determine how much effort the City wants
to put into the recycling concept . Some early efforts could C1
include, but are not limited to, forming a committee, conducting a
public survey, initiating a trial project, passing a Waste Reduction
Policy and adopting a Waste Reduction Resolution. Attached are
several informational tid-bits which are a small portion of the
myriad of literature on the subject of recycling. Also attached is
a copy of the estimate that Wil-Mar Disposal did for the purchase
and pickup of small , colored recycling bins.
Fiscal Impact :
There is no estimate of City costs at this time and any such
costs will be a reflection of the amount of involvement in the
program.
c1f
L, M �
1918 1 ® �:., 1979
\AT�scAn�oy
I
A P P L I C A T I O N
CITY OF ATASCADERO
RECYCLING COMMITTEE MEMBER
Name:
Address:
(residence) (mailing )
Telephone No : Occupation:
PLEASE GIVE A SUMMARY OF YOUR EDUCATION, EXPERIENCE, AND/OR REASONS FOR
WISHING TO SERVE ON THE ATASCADERO RECYCLING COMMITTEE:
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS CORRECT, AND THAT I AM A REGISTERED
VOTER IN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO.
(Name) (Date)
` MEETt(�y AGENDA
DAtE-4� L�. ITEMS - �I
M E M O R A N D U M
Date : April 14, 1989
To: Ray Windsor, City Manager
Via: Andy Takata, Parks, Recreation and Zoo Director
From: Gil Dovalina, Recreation Supervisor
Subject : Concession RFP for Paloma Creek Park
BACKGROUND
The development of the multi-purpose building at Paloma Creek
Park for the purpose of operating a public concession is
available to accept proposals from qualified bidders for
Providing a concession service for the park. The RFP package
is attached for review and consideration.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorization from the Parks, Recreation and Zoo Director to
solicit proposals for the development of a concession area at
Paloma Creek Park.
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be no cost to the City, as the concessionaire will
pay a percentage of his/her gross receipts to the City on a
monthly basis . The monthly payment will pay for any costs
associated with the concession, including utilities . In
addition, any improvements made will be at the sole expense
of the concessionaire .
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
The City of Atascadero will be accepting written proposals in
the office of the Parks, Recreation and Zoo' Director until
5 :00 p .m. , May 17, 1989, for the establishment and operation
of a Concession Stand Operation at Paloma Creek Park.
No proposal will be considered unless it is made on the
Proposal forms provided by the City. Attachments to the
forms provided are acceptable . In addition to submitting a
written proposal statement, each proposer should complete the
enclosed Questionnaire and Bid Proposal Form. The Bid
Proposal Form must indicate the monthly rent the proposer
intends to pay the City.
Proposal documents may be obtained by contacting the Parks,
Recreation and Zoo Department, 6500 Palma Avenue, Room 104,
Atascadero, CA 93422 . Phone : (805) 466-8000, ext 123.
NOTICE TO PROPOSERS
To Establish and Operate a Concession Stand at Paloma Creek
Park, Atascadero, California.
INTENT OF PROPOSAL
The City of Atascadero is soliciting written proposals to
establish and operate a concession in the multi—purpose
building at Paloma Creek Park.
SELECTION PROCESS AND METHOD OF AWARD
Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of ability to
Perform work, qualifications of the proposer, as well as
revenue to the City of Atascadero. All proposals submitted
in a timely manner will be analyzed and reviewed by the
Parks, Recreation and Zoo Director. In the selection of the
apparent "Best Responsible Proposer" , consideration will be
given to a number of factors :
1 . Completeness of proposal
2 . Ability and willingness to operate the concession
during requested hours
3. Proposer' s proven management capabilities and
experience
4. Proposer' s plans for operation
5. Amount of rental consideration to City set forth in
proposal
6 . Other data as deemed relevant
The Parks, Recreation and Zoo Department will make a
recommendation to City Council for the "Best Responsible
Proposer" . Only one (1) proposer will be selected. The
ultimate contract will then be presented by the Parks,
Recreation and Zoo Department to the City Council for an
award.
The City reserves the right to reject and all proposals, and .
to waive minor defects and irregularities in any proposal
submitted.
INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSER:
1 . Proposers must submit along with the proposal , a
Proposal Form for Paloma Parks Concession Use Permit and
a fully answered Questionnaire on the forms provided in
the proposal package. All forms must be completed and
all blanks must be filled in. Inapplicable questions or
blanks must be marked "N/A" or "Not Applicable" .
Failure to do each of these things may disqualify the
proposer.
2. The submission of a proposal shall be deemed evidence
the proposer has carefully examined the proposed
concession area, these instructions, proposal forms, and
use permit
3. Proposals should be plainly marked on the outside of a
sealed env6lop : "PALOMA PARK CONCESSION PROPOSAL" .
4. Any proposal may be withdrawn at 'any time prior to the
time fixed for the opening of proposals. The withdrawal
of a proposal shall not prejudice the right of a
Proposer to file a new proposal prior to the time and
date set for the opening of proposals . Proposals may
not be withdrawn after the time of the opening.
5. The right is reserved to reject any and all proposals .
6. A failure of the successful proposer to. sign and deliver
the Use Permit Contract within fifteen (15) days of
receipt thereof and to provide the City of Atascadero
with any evidence of insurance required thereunder may
be treated as a refusal to execute if City so elects .
7. If there are any problems or questions about filling out
the forms or relating to proposal procedures or the
evaluation of proposals , assistance may be obtained from
the City of Atascadero, Park, Recreation and Zoo
Department Director, 6500 Palma Avenue, Room 104,
Atascadero, CA 93422, (805) 466-8000, ext 123.
8: All proposals must be prepared in ink or typewritten and
signed by the proposer.
9. A draft use permit is attached for review. Proposers
are expected to become familiar with details of the
permit . --
10. The proposer may propose a rental fee in excess of the
required minimum, but the minimum acceptable bid shall
be fifteen percent (15%) of total gross receipt per
month. The City shall pay utility costs (electric,
. .water and trash) .
11 . The Parks. Recreation and Zoo Department will provide
Proposers schedules of high use times at the park. It
is expected that, as a minimum, the concession will be
operated during these times.
PROPOSAL FORM FOR CONCESSION STAND USE PERMIT
PALOMA CREEK PARK
ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA is
Pursuant to Notice to Proposers to Establish and Operate a Concession Stand at
Paloma Creek Park.
NAME OF PROPOSER:
BUSINESS ADDRESS:
CITY/STATE/ZIP:
PLACE OF RESIDENCE:
STREET/CITY/STATE/ZIP:
TELEPHONE:
Business : Residence
In the event a Use Permit is awarded to the undersigned proposer, proposer
agrees to execute, in a timely manner, and perform under said Use Permit; and
to pay to the City of Atascadero a monthly fee of :
% of gross receipts .
The Notice to proposer, Questionnaire, and draft form of the Use Permit are
all made a part of this Proposal by reference, and this Proposal is made
subject to all provisions thereof, whether or not expressly set forth herein.
IMPORTANT NOTICE:
If the proposer is a corporation, the authorized corporate officers must sign
this proposal form and the corporate seal must be affixed. If the proposer is
a partnership, a general partner must sign. If the proposer is an individual ,
sign by using first, middle and last name in full .
Executed this day of 1989
By.
Title :
QUESTIONNAIRE
This Questionnaire is submitted in conjunction with and is a part of
the proposal to establish and operate a concession stand at Paloma Creek
Park. Information contained in this Questionnaire must be verifiable under
oath. All questions must be answered in full . If additional space is
required, please use the back of the page on which the question appears. Lf
the question is not applicable, please mark not applicable.
1 . What is your present business or employment? ------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------=
A. For haw long? ---------------
B. Is your business a sole proprietorship, corporation, partnership ,
or other? Explain:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
C. If a sole proprietorship , are you the owner? If other, what is your
position?
D. How many people do you employ or supervise?..........
E. How many years. concession operation experience do you have ?
F. What professional organizations do you belong to ?
------------- -------------------------------------------------------
G. Financial :
( 1 ) If involved in any litigation, describe.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Furnish names and addresses for all banks in which you have
accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------
(3) List by company, amount , and expiration date, all insurance
carried by your firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Give the names and addresses of at least three firms with .whom
you have had accounts during the past three years.
---------------------------------------------------------------
H. Give any other information concerning your present business or
employment which you feel is pertinent .
---------------------------------------------------------------
1
---------------------------------------------------------------
r
2. If your present business or employment does not cover the past five (5)
years, list such businesses or employment for the past five year period, '.'
with a description of each .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Have you ever been arrested , charged, or held for any criminal offense?
(You need not include anything that happened before your 16th birthday
or any traffic violations for which a fine of $100.00 or less was
imposed ) . (CHECK ONE)
YES --------------
If your answer is "YES" , list all offenses below, giving date, location, 0
nature and disposition for each .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Please give any other information you feel is pertinent to your proposal
which is not covered in this questionnaire. ----------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------
Signature in Accord with Proposal
2
VERIFICATION OF QUESTIONNAIRE
NOTE: SELECT PROPER VERIFICATION FOR EXECUTION:
INDIVIDUAL
The undersigned deposes and says that he/she has read and executed the
foregoing Questionnaire, and knows the contents thereof, and that they are
true of his/her own knowledge except as to matters that are therein stated on
his/her belief, and as to those matters that he/she believes to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dates this day of 1989, at
California.
PARTNERSHIP
•
The undersigned state that they are a partnership, that they have read and
ecuted the foregoing Questionnaire, and know the contents thereof, and that
ey are true of their own knowledge except as to matters which are therein
stated on their information or belief and as to those matters that the believe
them to be true .
We, and each of us, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Dated this day of 1989 at
California.
GENERAL PARTNER
GENERAL PARTNER
CORPORATION a .
The undersigned deposes and says that he/she is the
of a corporation; that he/she executed the
foregoing Concession Proposal together with the Questionnaire on behalf of
said corporation; that he/she has read the said proposal and know the contents
thereof, and that the same is true of his/her own knowledge except as to
matters that are therein stated on his/her information or belief and as to
those matters. that he/she believes it to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated this day of 1989 at
California. -
CORPORATE CERT I F I CATE
I . certify that I am the Secretary of the
Corporation named as Proposer in the foregoing Contract: that
who signed said Contract on behalf of the Proposer, was
then of said Corporation; that the Contract was
dully signed for and in behalf of said corporation by authority of its
governing body and is within the scope of its corporate powers.
SECRETARY ,
(Corporate Seal )
AfEETI
ITE
MEEtI AGENDA
DAT ITEM I �.L�..
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council April 25 , 1989
VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: TREE REMOVAL REQUEST: 7800 BALBOA ROAD
BACKGROUND :
The Tree Ordinance requires that heritage trees not be removed
unless approved by the City Council following public hearing.
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS :
As indicated in the attached site grading, drainage and tree
protection plan, David Smith and Don Cannon are proposing
construction of a single family home at 7800 Balboa Road. Two of
the trees proposed for removal are greater than 20 inches in
diameter and, thus, require Council approval for removal . As
noted in the attached arborist' s report, the site is heavily
wooded and development would not be possible without the removal
of some of the trees . The trees in question have been damaged in
the past, probably by fire, and snow damage. As further noted,
the home site lines up. directly with the 20 foot access easement
across the adjoining lot and the house is as close to that lot as
possible making tree removal inevitable .
The Tree Ordinance includes the following removal criteria:
" ( iv) Obstructing existing or proposed improvements that
cannot be reasonably designed to avoid the need for
tree removal . "
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the removal of the heritage trees as recommended by
the arborist.
HE:ps
Enclosures : Location Map
Site Grading, Drainage and Tree Protection Plan
Tree Protection Schedule and Notes
Arborist Letter dated April 17 , 1989
cc: David Smith
Don Cannon
r�
r
ae
R S;
10,
iU
IAOCIA
R
r R.
�� PA►0 i
RS
r MON f
11
j I
z �, -
s
W /
r
R S
v
1O'O
,P I
0O' 90JA
O
6 /
_ s ,
RSa
J � /
1 ,
/LOCATION MAP
790D B4.)-WA ISD.
RS _
S _ _
/ 4,v4
100
I�
--r-cfeA04
,Nf
/ -^'O\
i t
ND1630- t�l'jf ' �
NOCtlCO
30N9N�1
�s
J
J
{� i Z
,t
Z_
id z
i
t 4 \ 8 _
i 4 �� __ 1 \- ,' p p�to �_ - 0 3R
1 � — 7 --� CC • ° ana
Z
Ma
c� iiI il� i± Iii SII EI 8 g� � N .a'i. gH i11SS a 3 � L
�
•� � i�.,iE,t,IE ttE E! i i 71;iEa 4 ,1.4t ��°��Y # �j��
t ~ 1
Ck
Q _.uU— �1
t - g J y,
il
It 4 �, .
Unwl
L.
ZQ
Z c� #
a
_ v x ��p��a� �:x
/• .. ?"�� �`t"' ..fir_ '�.i ,�,�t,..�„s+E i]. ai `
Ir
k
Ada
At
ma
' o_
�_ Om A
47 F: 1r t� f vG
eH MEH-
b..G� �E 12 ;Gels G'E�l� 1�f �• t`I (v
=lit-D r GN L' P
fH iD1, 2G1,9/,7�L 2 i l o /60 LIVE OAI�-
3 �i ;d c7;GoD�' LcV'✓ o� t,E,Il r-IeLZ Wirth IN I vs o
if�..;,4A�:. Tod F G+�-.{1� k+�?7W-I
TRE! PROTECTION MOTES'
1. All existing trees are to be identified and retained i
unless-otherwise noted.
2. No cuts, fills, construction material or equipment allowed ��/�i/V✓1`�j
within the dripline of trees to be retained unless other-
vise noted. !t
3. No branches six inches or larger in diameter, one foot `
from the tree trunk shall be cut without prior approval j
of the City.
i t
4. Trees proposed to be removed shall be identified with a
sign provided by the City and posted with a Notice of
A Tree Removal permit visible from the street.
S. Temporary tree protection fences shall be instaljed at ,
the dripline of all trees twenty foot or closer to any y,/,,!
development. EJ\,t}'/t
6. Where development encroaches within the tree's dripline, j ''`i �C�' T —'
t Q i a tree protection fence shall be installed at the line of
encroachment.
7. All tree protection fences shall be installed before the
commencement of any work on the site and remain in place G! 1
until the development has final approval. L✓'_`!'� Q�. .�
8. Encroachment within the dripline of trees to be retained t
shall have specific dimensions and a profile showing the
extent of encroachment and tree protection measures.
9. All tree determinations and protection measures are to
approved by the City prior to any commencessat of work o j
this site. P ! �;
• � �RTtF��
G � O
.�: JACK BRAZEAL
TREE CONSULTANT
WESTERN CHAPTER 4531 SKIPJACK LANE 0
1924 PASO ROBLES, CA 93446
WCISA #163
(805) 227-6140
gyBG R\5_111\
April 17, 1989 �ip� 17 1999
CO;tiit� ,vfTY jrt ycit:r;1�
Henry Engens, Director
Community Development Department
P.O. Box 747
Atascadero, California 93423
RE: Tree Removals for residential site development
Lot 1, Tract 1284
7800 Balboa Road
Atascadero, California 93422
Dear Henry,
A Certified Arborist report as required by the Atascadero City
Ordinance was done, by me, at the above address in conjunction
with the Architect, Frank Henderson of McCarthy, Kuentzel and
Henderson, A.I.A. In the site review, it was determined that
trees would need to be removed in order to develop the desired
residence. Two of the trees to be removed were of heritage
tree status due to the circumference or diameter as stated in
the City Ordinance. I have no reservation about the removal of
these two trees for the following reasons:
(1) The lot is heavily forested and development would
not be possible without the removal of some trees.
(2 ) The trees in question are not real specimen trees
for the following reasons. . . .
a. Both trees are multi trunk and have co-dominant
stems, which are forced apart by growth expan-
sion and could become dangerous to a residence
or persons in the future.
b. Both trees have a large cavity at the base
and appear to have been injured by fire years
ago and the existing spars are in fact,
second growth, thus, co-dominant stems.
(cont'd)
Letter to - 2 - April 17, 1989
Henry Engens
City of Atascadero
C. The 21" diameter tree appears to be
healthy but has suffered considerable
snow damage with most of the canopy
destroyed. This has resulted in a
very poor specimen tree.
In my opinion, this is just cause for removal of these trees.
This letter was requested by the property owner/developer
David Smith and Dan Cannon, through the Architect, Frank Hender
son, in hopes that this site may be approved for development in
a more expedient manner.
Sincerely yours,
Jack Brazeal
Certified Arborist
JB:pb
MEETtNs3 AGENDA
�� 17EM�
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council May 9, 1989
VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. 193 - FLOOD HAZARD PREVENTION
BACKGROUND:
On April 25, 1989, the City Council conducted a public hearing on
the above-referenced subject. Upon review, the Council adopted,
with minor format revisions, Ordinance No. 193 on a first
reading.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of Ordinance No. 193 on second reading.
HE :ps
Attachment: Ordinance No. 193
0
ORDINANCE NO. 193
AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 5 TO ARTICLE 7 OF THE CITY
OF ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION
The Council of the City of Atascadero does hereby ordain as
follows:
Section 1. Text
Chapter 5 is hereby added to Article 7 of the Atascadero
Municipal Code as follows:
SEC. 7-5.100 - FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION
This Ordinance is enacted to protect the health, safety and
welfare of the citizens of Atascadero and their property and to
meet the requirements of state and federal legislation.
SEC. 7-5.101 STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION
The Legislature of the State of California has in Government Code
Sections 65302, 65560 and 65800 conferred upon local government
units authority to adopt regulations designed to promote the
public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizenry.
Therefore, the City Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain
as follows:
SEC. 7-5.102 - FINDING OF FACT
A. The flood hazard areas of the City of Atascadero are subject
to periodic inundation which results in loss of life and
property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce
and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures
for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax
base, all of which adversely affect the public health,
safety and general welfare.
B. These flood losses are caused by the cumulative effect of
obstructions in areas of special flood hazards which
increase flood heights and velocities, and when inadequately
anchored, damage uses in other areas. Uses that are
inadequately flood-proofed, elevated or otherwise protected
from flood damage also contribute to the flood loss.
SEC. 7-5.103- STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
It is the purpose of this ordinance to promote the public health,
safety, and general welfare, and to minimize public and private
losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions
1
designed:
A. To protect human life and health;.
B. To minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood
control projects;
C. To minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associa-
ted with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of
the general public;
D. To minimize prolonged business interruptions;
E. To minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such
as water and gas mains, electric, telephone and sewer lines,
streets and bridges located in areas of special flood hazard
F. To help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the
second use and development of areas of special flood hazard
so as to minimize future flood blight areas;
G. To insure that potential buyers are notified that property
is in an area of special flood hazard; and
H. To insure that those who occupy the areas of special flood
hazard assume responsibility for their actions.
SEC. 7-5.104- METHODS OF REDUCING FLOOD LOSSES
In order to accomplish its purposes, this ordinance includes
methods and provisions for:
A. Restricting or prohibiting uses which are dangerous to
health, safety, and property due to water or erosion
hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or
flood heights or velocities;
B. Requiring that uses vulnerable to floods, including
facilities which serve such uses, be protected against flood
damage at the time of initial construction;
C. Controlling the alterations of natural floodplains, stream
channels, and natural protective barriers, which help
accommodate or channel flood waters;
D. Controlling filling, grading, dredging, and other develop-
ment which may increase flood damage; and
E. Preventing or regulating the construction of flood barriers
which will unnaturally divert flood waters or which may
increase flood hazards in other areas.
2
SEC. 7-5.200 - DEFINITIONS
Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this
ordinance shall be interpreted so as to give them the meaning
they have in common usage and to give this ordinance its most
reasonable application.
A. "Appeal" means a review of the Floodplain
Administrator' s interpretation of any provision of this
ordinance or a request for standards modification.
B. "Area of shallow flooding" means a designated AO, or AH
zone on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) . The base
flood depths range from one to three feet; a clearly
defined channel does not exist; the path of flooding is
unpredictable and indeterminate; and velocity flow may
be evident.
C. "Area of special flood-related erosion hazard" is the
area subject to severe flood-related erosion losses.
The area is designated as Zone E on the Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM)
D. "Area of special flood hazard" - See "special flood
hazard area" .
E. "Base flood" means the flood having a one percent
chance o.f being equalled or exceeded in any given year
(also called the "100-year flood") .
F. "Basement" means any area of the building having its
floor subgrade (below ground level) on all sides.
G. "Breakaway walls" are any type of walls, whether solid
or lattice, and whether constructed of concrete,
masonry, wood, metal, plastic or any other suitable
building material which is not part of the structural
support of the building and which is designed to break
away under abnormally high tides or wave action
without causing any damage to the structural integrity
of the building on which they are used or any buildings
to which they might be carried by flood waters. A
breakaway wall shall have a safe design loading
resistance of not less than ten and no more than twenty
pounds per square foot. Use of breakaway walls must
be certified by a registered engineer or architect and
shall meet the following conditions:
1. Breakaway wall collapse shall result from a water
load less than that which would occur during the
base flood; and
3
• •
2. The elevated portion of the building shall not
incur any structural damage due to the effects of
wind and water loads acting simultaneously in the
event of the base flood.
H. "Development" means any man-made change to improved or
unimproved real estate, including but not limited to
buildings or other structures, mining, dredging,
filling, grading, paving, excavation -or drilling
operations.
I. "Flood or flooding" means a general and temporary
condition of partial or complete inundation of normally
dry land areas from (1) the overflow of flood waters,
(2) the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of
surface waters from any source, and/or (3) the collapse
or subsidence of land along the shore of a lake or
other body of water as a result of erosion or
undermining caused by waves or currents of water
exceeding anticipated cyclical levels or suddenly
caused by an unusually high water level in a natural
body of water, accompanied by a severe storm, or by an
unanticipated force of nature, such as flash flood or
an abnormal tidal surge, or by some similarly unusual
and unforeseeable event which results in flooding as
defined in this definition.
J. "Flood Boundary and Floodway Map" means the official
map on which the Federal Emergency Management Agency or
Federal Insurance Administration has delineated both
the areas of flood hazard and the floodway.
K. "Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) "means the official '
map on which the Federal Emergency Management Agency or
Federal Insurance Administration has delineated both
the areas of special flood hazards and the risk premium
zones applicable to the community.
L. "Flood Insurance Study" means the official report
provided by the Federal Insurance Administration that
includes flood profiles, the FIRM, the Flood Boundary
and Floodway Map, and the water surface elevation of
the base flood.
M. "Floodplain or flood-prone area" means any land area
susceptible to being inundated by water from any source
(see definition of "flooding") .
N. "Floodplain management" means the operation of an
overall program of corrective and preventive measures
for reducing flood damage, including but not limited to
emergency preparedness plans, flood control works and
4
• •
floodplain management regulations.
O. "Floodplain management regulations" means zoning
ordinances, sub-division regulations, building codes,
health regulations, special purpose ordinances (such as
floodplain ordinance, grading ordinance and erosion
control ordinance) and other application of police
power. The term describes such state or local
regulations in any combination thereof, which provide
standards for the purpose of flood damage prevention
and reduction.
P. "Floodproofing" means any combination of structural and
nonstructural additions, changes, or adjustments to
structures which reduce or eliminate flood damage to
real estate or improved real property, water and
sanitary facilities, structures and their contents.
Q. "Floodway" means the channel of a river or other
watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be
reserved in order to discharge the base flood without
cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation
more than one foot. Also referred to as "Regulatory
Floodway" .
R. "Functionally dependent use" means a use which cannot
perform its intended purpose unless it is located or
carried out in close proximity to water. The term
includes only docking facilities, port facilities that
are necessary for the loading and unloading of cargo or
passengers, and ship building and ship repair facil-
ities, but does not include long-term storage or
related manufacturing facilities.
S. "Highest adjacent grade" means the highest natural
elevation of the ground surface prior to construction
next to the proposed walls of a structure.
T. "Lowest floor" means the lowest floor of the lowest
enclosed area (including basement) . An unfinished or
flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of
vehicles, building access or storage in an area other
than a basement area is not considered a building' s
lowest floor; provided, that such enclosure is not
built so as to render the structure in violation of the
applicable non-elevation design requirements of this
ordinance.
U. "Manufactured home" means a structure, transportable in
one or more sections, which is built on a permanent
chassis and is designed for use with or without a
permanent foundation when connected to the required
5
0 •
utilities. For floodplain management purposes, the
term "manufactured home" also includes park trailers,
travel trailers and other similar vehicles placed on a
site for greater than 180 consecutive days.
V. "Manufactured home park or subdivision" means a parcel
(or contiguous parcels) of land divided into two or
more manufactured home lots for sale or rent.
W. "Mean sea level" means, for purposes of the National
Flood Insurance Program, the National Geodetic Vertical
Datum (NGVD) of 1929 or other datum, to which base
flood elevations shown on a community' s Flood Insurance
Rate Map are referenced.
X. 'New construction means, for floodplain management
purposes, structures for which the "start of
construction" commenced on or after the effective date
of a floodplain management regulation adopted by this
community.
Y. 'One hundred year flood" or "100-year flood" means a
flood which has a one percent annual probability of
being equalled or exceeded. It is identical to the
"base flood" , which will be the term used throughout
this ordinance.
Z. "Person" means an individual or his agent, firm,
partnership, association or corporation, or agent of
the aforementioned groups, or this state or its
agencies or political subdivisions.
AA. "Remedy a violation" means to bring the structure or
other development into compliance with State or local
floodplain management regulations, or, if this is not
possible, to reduce the impacts of its noncompliance.
Ways that impacts may be reduced include protecting the
structure or other affected development from flood
damages, implementing the enforcement provisions of the
ordinance or otherwise deterring future similar
violations, or reducing Federal financial exposure with
regard to the structure or other development.
BB. "Riverine" means relating to, formed by, or resembling
a river (including tributaries) , stream, brook, etc.
CC. "Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) "means an area having
special flood or flood-related erosion hazards, and
shown on a FHBM or FIRM as Zone A, AO, Al-30, AE, A99,
or AH.
DD. "Start of construction" includes substantial
6
improvement, and means the date the building permit was
issued, provided the actual start of construction,
repair, reconstruction, placement, or other improvement
was within 180 days of the permit date. The actual
start means either the first placement of permanent
construction of a structure on a site, such as the
pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles,
the construction of columns, or any work beyond the
stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufactured
home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not
include land preparation, such as clearing, grading and
filling; nor does it include the installation of
streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation
for a basement, footings, piers, or foundations or the
erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the
installation on the property of accessory buildings,
such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units
or not part of the main structure.
EE. "Structure" means a walled and roofed building,
including a gas or liquid storage tank, that is
principally above ground, as well as a manufactured
home.
FF. "Substantial improvement" means any repair,
reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost
of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market
value of. the structure either:
1. before the improvement or repair is started; or,
2. if the structure has been damaged, and is being
restored, before the damage occurred.
For the purposes of this definition "substantial
improvement" is considered to occur when the first
alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other
structural part of the building commences, whether or
not that alteration affects the external dimensions of
the structure. The term does not, however, include
either:
1. any project for improvement of a structure to
comply with existing state or local health,
sanitary, or safety code specifications which are
solely necessary to assure safe living conditions;
or,
2. any alteration of a structure listed on the
National Register of Historic Places or a State
Inventory of Historic Places.
7
0 •
GG. "Standards modification" means a grant of relief from
the requirements of this ordinance which permits
construction in a manner that would otherwise be
prohibited by this ordinance.
HH. "Violation" means the failure of a structure or other
development to be fully compliant with the community' s
floodplain management regulations. A structure or
other development without the elevation certificate,
other certifications, or other evidence of compliance
required in this ordinance is presumed to be in
violation until such time as that documentation is
provided.
SEC 7-5.301 LANDS TO WHICH THIS ORDINANCE APPLIES
This ordinance shall apply to all areas of special flood
hazards, areas of flood-related erosion hazards within the
jurisdiction of the City of Atascadero.
SEC. 7-5.302 - BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING THE AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD
HAZARD
The areas of special flood hazard, areas of flood-related
erosion hazards identified by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency or the Federal Insurance Administration in a scientific
0 and engineering report entitled "Flood Insurance Study for City
of Atascadero" latest edition, with an accompanying Flood
Insurance Rate Map is hereby adopted by reference and declared to
be a part of this ordinance. This Flood Insurance Study is on
file at 6500 Palma Avenue. This Flood Insurance Study is the
minimum area of applicability of this ordinance and may be
supplemented by studies for other areas which allow
implementation of this ordinance and which are recommended to the
Atascadero City Council by the Floodplain Administrator.
SEC. 7-5.303 - COMPLIANCE
No structure or land shall hereafter be constructed, located,
extended, converted, or altered without full compliance with the
terms of this ordinance and other applicable regulations.
Violations of the provisions of this ordinance by failure to
comply with any of its requirements (including violations
of conditions and safeguards established in connection with
conditions) shall constitute a misdemeanor. Nothing herein
shall prevent the City of Atascadero from taking such lawful
action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation.
SEC. 7-5.304 ABROGATION AND GREATER RESTRICTIONS
This ordinance is not intended to repeal, abrogate, or impair any
existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However,
8
0 •
where this ordinance and another ordinance, easement, covenant,
or deed restriction conflict or overlap, whichever imposes the
more stringent restrictions shall prevail.
SEC. 7-5.305 - INTERPRETATION
In the interpretation and application of this ordinance, all
provisions shall be:
A. Considered as minimum requirements;
B. Liberally construed in favor of the governing body;
and,
C. Deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers
granted under state statutes.
SEC. 7-5.306 - WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY
The degree of flood protection required by this ordinance is
considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on
scientific and engineering considerations. Larger floods can and
will occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by
man-made or natural causes. This ordinance does not imply that
land outside the areas of special flood hazards, areas of flood-
related erosion hazards or uses permitted within such areas will
be free from flooding or flood damages. This ordinance shall not
create liability on the part of the City of Atascadero, any
officer or employee thereof, or the Federal Insurance
Administration, for any flood damages that result from reliance
on this ordinance or any administrative decision lawfully made
thereunder.
SEC. 7-5.307 - SEVERABILITY
This ordinance and the various parts thereof are hereby declared
to be severable. Should any section of this ordinance be
declared by the courts to be unconstitutional or in-valid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a
whole, or any portion thereof other than the section so declared
to be unconstitutional or invalid.
SEC. 7-5.400 - ADMINISTRATION
Administration of this ordinance is vested with the Community
Development Director.
SEC. 7-5.401 - ESTABLISHMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
A Development Permit shall be obtained before construction or
development begins within any area of special flood hazards,
areas of flood-related erosion hazards or established in Section
7-5. 302. Application for a Development Permit shall be made on
forms furnished by the Floodplain Administrator and may include,
9
0 •
but not be limited to: plans in duplicate drawn to scale showing
the nature, location, dimensions, and elevation of the area in
question; existing or proposed structures, fill, storage of
materials, drainage facilities; and the location of the
foregoing. Specifically, the following information is required:
A. Proposed elevation in relation to mean sea level, of
the lowest floor (including basement) of all
structures; in Zone AO, elevation of -highest adjacent
grade and proposed elevation of lowest floor of all
structures;
B. Proposed elevation in relation to mean sea level to
which any structure will be floodproofed;
C. All appropriate certifications listed in Section 7-
5. 403.D of this ordinance; and
D. Description of the extent to which any watercourse will
be altered or relocated as a result of proposed
development.
SEC. 7-5.402 - DESIGNATION OF THE FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR
The Community Development Director is hereby appointed to
administer and implement this ordinance by granting or denying
development permits in accordance with its provisions.
SEC. 7-5.403 - DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE FLOODPLAIN
ADMINISTRATOR
The duties and responsibilities of the Floodplain Administrator
shall include, but not be limited to:
A. Permit review.
1. Review all development permits to determine that
the permit requirements of this ordinance have
been satisfied.
2. All other required state and federal permits have
been obtained.
3. The site is reasonably safe from flooding.
4. The proposed development, as determined by the
City Engineer, does not adversely affect the
carrying capacity of the areas where based flood
elevations have been determined but a floodway
has not been designated. For purposes of this
ordinance, "adversely affects" means that the
cumulative effect of the proposed development
10
when combined with all other existing and
anticipated development will increase the water
surface elevation of the base flood more than one
foot at any point.
B. Use of Other Base Flood Data. When base flood
elevation data has not been provided in accordance with
Section 7-5.302. , the City Engineer shall obtain,
review, and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation
and floodway data available from a Federal, State or
other source, in order to administer Section 7-5. 501.
Any such information shall be submitted to the
Atascadero City Council for adoption.
C. Whenever a watercourse is to be altered or relocated:
1. Notify adjacent communities and the California
Department of Water Resources prior to such
alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and
submit evidence of such notification to the
Federal Insurance Administration.
2. Require that the flood carrying capacity of the
altered or relocated portion of said watercourse
is maintained.
D. Obtain and maintain for public inspection and make
available as needed:
1. The certification required in Section 7-5. 501.C. 1
(floor elevations) ;
2. The certification required in Section 7-5. 501.C:2
(elevations in areas of shallow flooding) ;
3. The certification required in Section 7-5. 501.C.
3.c (elevation or floodproofing of nonresidential
structures) ;
4. The certification required in Section 7-5. 501.C.
4.a or SEC. 7-5. 501.C. 4.b (wet floodproofing
standard) ;
5. The certified elevation required in Section 7-
5. 503.B (subdivision standards) ;
6. The certification required in Section 7-5. 505.A
(floodway encroachments) ;
E. Make interpretations where needed, as to the exact location
of the boundaries of the areas of special flood hazards,
areas of flood-related erosion hazards or for example, where
11
there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and
actual field conditions. The person contesting the location
of the boundary shall be given a reasonable opportunity to
appeal the interpretation as provided in Section 7-5. 600.
F. Take action to remedy violations of this ordinance as
specified in Section 7-5. 303 herein.
SEC. 7-5.500 - PROVISIONS FOR FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION
The following sections are for the reduction of flood hazards.
SEC. 7-5.501 STANDARDS OF CONSTRUCTION
In all areas of special flood hazards the following standards
are required:
A. Anchoring
1. All new construction and substantial improvements
shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse
or lateral movement of the structure resulting
from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including
the effects of buoyancy.
2. All new construction and substantial improvements
shall beconstructedwith materials and utility
equipment resistant to flood damage.
3. All new construction and substantial improvements
shall be constructed with electrical, heating,
ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning
equipment and other service facilities that are
designed and/or located so as to prevent water
from entering or accumulating within the
components during conditions of flooding.
4. Require within Zones AH, or AO, adequate drainage
paths around structures on slopes to guide flood
waters around and away from proposed structures.
C. Elevation and Floodproofing
1. New construction and substantial improvement of
any structure shall have the lowest floor,
including basement, elevated to or above the base
flood elevation. Nonresidential structures may
meet the standards in Section 7-5. 501.C. 3. Upon
the completion of the structure, the elevation of
the lowest floor including basement shall be
certified by a registered professional engineer or
surveyor, or verified by the City Engineer to
12
be properly elevated. Such certification or
verification shall be provided to the Floodplain
Administrator.
2. New construction and substantial improvement of
any structure in Zone AH, or AO shall have the
lowest floor, including basement, elevated above
the highest adjacent grade at least as high as the
depth number specified in feet on the FIRM, or at
least two feet if no depth number is specified.
Nonresidential structures may meet the standards
in Section 7-5. 501.C. 3. if, upon completion of the
structure, the elevation of the lowest floor
including basement, shall be certified by a
registered professional engineer or surveyor, or
verified by the City Engineer to be properly
elevated. Such certification or verification
shall be provided to the Floodplain Administrator.
3. Nonresidential construction shall either be
elevated in conformance with Section 7-5. 501.C. 1.
or 2. or together with attendant utility and
sanitary facilities:
a. Be floodproofed so that below the base flood
level the structure is watertight with walls
substantially impermeable to the passage of
water;
b. Have structural components capable of
resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads
and effects of buoyancy; and
C. Be certified by a registered professional
engineer or architect that the standards of
this subsection are satisfied. Such
certifications shall be provided to the
City Engineer.
4. Require, for all new construction and substantial
improvements, that fully enclosed areas below the
lowest floor that are subject to flooding shall be
designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic
flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the
entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs for
meeting this requirement must either be certified
by a registered professional engineer or architect
or meet or exceed the following minimum criteria:
a. Either a minimum of two openings having a
total net areas of not less than one square
inch for every square foot of enclosed area is
13
subject to flooding shall be provided. The
bottom of all openings shall be no higher
than one foot above grade. Openings may be
equipped with screens, louvers, valves or
other coverings or devices provided that they
permit the automatic entry and exit of
floodwaters; or
b. Be certified to comply with a local
floodproofing standard approved by the
Federal Insurance Administration.
5. Manufactured homes shall also meet the standards
in Section 7-5.504.
SEC. 7-5.502 - STANDARDS FOR UTILITIES
A. All new and replacement water supply and sanitary
sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or
eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the system
and discharge from systems into flood waters.
B. On-site waste disposal systems shall be located to
avoid impairment to them or contamination from them
during flooding.
SEC. 7-5.503 STANDARDS FOR SUBDIVISIONS
A. All preliminary subdivision proposals shall identify
the flood hazard area and the elevation of the base
flood.
B. All final subdivision plans will provide the elevatidn
of proposed structure (s) and pads. If the site is
filled above the base flood, the final pad elevation
shall be certified by a registered professional
engineer or surveyor and submitted to the City Engineer
for review prior to transmittal to the Floodplain
Administrator.
C. All subdivision proposals shall be consistent with the
need to minimize flood damage.
D. All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities
and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical and water
systems located and constructed to minimize flood
damage.
E. All subdivisions shall provide adequate drainage to
reduce exposure to flood hazards.
14
• 0
SEC. 7-5.504 - STANDARDS FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES
All new and replacement manufactured homes and additions to
manufactured homes shall:
A. Be elevated so that the lowest floor is at or above the
base flood elevation; and
B. Be securely anchored to a permanent foundation system
to resist flotation, collapse or lateral movement.
SEC. 7-5.505 FLOODWAYS
Located within areas of special flood hazard established in
Section 7-5. 302 are areas designated as floodways. Since the
floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of
flood waters which carry debris, potential projectiles, and
erosion potential, as determined by the Floodplain Administrator
the following provisions apply:
A. Prohibit encroachments, including fill, new construc-
tion, substantial improvements, and other development
unless certification by a registered professional
engineer or architect is provided demonstrating that
encroachments shall not result in any increase in flood
levels during the occurrence of the base flood
discharge.
B. If Section 7-5.505.A is satisfied, all new construction
and substantial improvements shall comply with all
other applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of
Section 5.
SEC 7-5.507 FLOOD-RELATED EROSION-PRONE AREAS
A. The Floodplain Administrator shall require permits for
proposed construction and other development within all
flood-related erosion-prone areas as known to the
community.
B. Such permits shall be reviewed to determine whether the
proposed site alterations and improvements will be
reasonably safe from flood-related erosion and will not
cause flood-related erosion hazards or otherwise
aggravate the existing hazard.
C. If a proposed improvement is found to be in the path of
flood-related erosion or would increase the erosion
hazard, such improvement shall be relocated or
adequate protective measures shall be taken to avoid
aggravating the existing erosion hazard.
15
0 0
iD. Within Zone E on the Flood Insurance Rate Map, a
setback is required for all new development from the
ocean, lake, bay, riverfront or other body of water to
create a safety buffer consisting of a natural
vegetative or contour strip. This buffer shall be
designated according to the flood-related erosion
hazard and erosion rate, in relation to the anticipated
"useful life" of structures, and depending upon the
geologic, hydrologic, topographic and climatic
characteristics of the land. The buffer may be used
for suitable open space purposes, such as for
agricultural, forestry, outdoor recreation and wildlife
habitat areas, and for other activities using temporary
and portable structures only.
SEC. 7-5.600 - STANDARDS MODIFICATION AND APPEALS PROCEDURE
The following sections shall govern the processing of appeals and
modification of standards.
SEC. 7-5.601 - APPEALS
A. The Planning Commission of The City of Atascadero
shall hear and decide appeals and requests for
standards modification from the requirements of this
ordinance.
B. The Planning Commission shall hear and decide appeals
when it is alleged there is an error in any
requirement, decision, or determination made by the
Floodplain Administrator in the enforcement or
administration of this ordinance.
C. In passing upon such applications, the Planning
Commission shall consider all technical evaluations,
all relevant factors, standards specified in other
sections of this ordinance, and:
1. The danger that materials may be swept onto other
lands to the injury of others;
2. The danger of life and property due to flooding or
erosion damage;
3. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and
its contents to flood damage and the effect of
such damage on the individual owner;
4. The importance of the services provided by the
proposed facility to the community;
5. The availability of alternative locations for the
16
proposed use which are not subject to flooding or
erosion damage;
6. The compatibility of the proposed use with
existing and anticipated development;
7. The relationship of the proposed use to the
comprehensive plan and floodplain management
program for that area;
8. The safety of access to the property in time of
flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles;
9. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of
rise, and sediment transport of the flood waters
expected at the site; and,
10. The costs of providing governmental services
during and after flood conditions, including
maintenance and repair of public utilities and
facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and
water system, and streets and bridges.
D. Generally, standards modifications may be issued for
new construction and substantial improvements to be
erected on a lot of one-half acre or less in size
contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing
structures constructed below the base flood level,
providing items 7-5. 601.C. 1. through 7-5. 601.C. 11 have
been fully considered. As the lot size increases
beyond one half acre, the technical justification
required for issuing the standards modification
increases.
E. Upon consideration of the factors of Section 7-5. 601.0
and the purposes of this ordinance, the Planning
Commission may attach such conditions to the granting
of standards modification as it deems necessary to
further the purposes of this ordinance.
F. The Floodplain Administrator shall maintain the records
of all appeal actions and report any standards
modifications variances to the Federal Insurance
Administration upon request.
SEC. 7-5.602 CONDITIONS FOR STANDARDS MODIFICATION
A. Standards Modification may be issued for the
reconstruction, rehabilitation or restoration of
structures listed in the National Register of Historic
Places or the State Inventory of Historic Places,
without regard to the procedures set forth in the
remainder of this section.
17
• •
B. Standards modifications shall not be issued within any
designated floodway if any increase in flood levels
during the base flood discharge would result.
C. Standards Modifications shall only be issued upon a
determination that the standards modification is the
minimum necessary, consideringthe flood hazard, to
afford relief.
D. Standards Modifications shall only be issued upon:
1. A showing of good and sufficient cause;
2. A determination that failure to grant the
standards modification would result in exceptional
hardship to the applicant; and
3. A determination that the granting of a standards
modification will not result in increased flood
heights, additional threats to public safety,
extraordinary public expense, create nuisances,
cause fraud on or victimization of, the public, or
conflict with existing local laws or ordinances.
E. Standards Modifications may be issued for new
construction and substantial improvements and for other
development necessary for the conduct of a functionally
dependent use provided that the provisions of Sections
7-5. 602.A through 7-5. 602.D are satisfied and that the
structure or other development is protected by methods
that minimize flood damages. during the base flood and
create no additional threats to public safety.
F. Any applicant to whom a standards modification is
granted shall be given written notice that the
structure will be permitted to be built with a lowest
floor elevation below the regulatory flood elevation
and that the cost of flood insurance will be
commensurate with the increased risk resulting from the
reduced lowest floor elevation. A copy of the notice
shall be recorded by the Floodplain Administrator in
the office of the San Luis Obispo County Recorder and
shall be recorded ,in a manner so that it appears in the
chain of title of the affected parcel of land.
Section 2. Publication
The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published in the
Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed,
published, and circulated in this City, once within fifteen (15)
days after its passage, in accordance with Government Code
18
i •
Section 36933; and shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance;
and shall cause this Ordinance and certification to be entered
into the Book of Ordinances of this City.
Section 3. Effective Date
This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and
effect at 12: 01 A.M. on the 31st day after its passage.
On motion by Councilmember and seconded by
Councilmember the foregoing Ordinance is
hereby adopted in its entirety by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
BONITA BORGESON, Mayor
City of Atascadero
ATTEST:
BOYD C. SHARITZ
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
HENRY ENGEN
Community Development Director
PAUL SENSIBAUGH
City Engineer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
JEFFREY J. JORGENSEN
City Attorney
19
AGEN
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager
From: Paul MSensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Subject : Request for Sewer Easement Abandonment—Bowling Alley
Date : May 1, 1989
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council adopt Resolution 26-89 which sets
June 13 as a public hearing date for the consideration of the
abandonment of a portion of the sanitary sewer easement within the
Century Plaza parking lot (Detail "A") and the abandonment of a
portion of the Public Utility Easement (PUE) within the Century
Plaza parking lot (Detail "B") .
Note: The Resolution of Vacation will be presented at the June
13 Public Hearing to be voted on at that time . The Resolution of
Vacation will indicate that a public hearing was held and that the
facts are as stated- in the Resolution of Intention 26-89 above .
Background:
Century Plaza has requested an encroachment into the existing
sanitary sewer easement and the PUE, which they granted the City for
the development of the theater expansion project and Brookhill
Restaurant.
The proposed building bowling alley will protrude into the
sewer easement as a result of a Planning Commission request to shift
the building away from the creek and toward Capistrano (Bank of
America) . Therefore, it is necessary to request abandonment of a
Portion of the easement to accomodate the same . "Exhibit A" , which
will be placed in the June 13 agenda package and which is placed
herein in draft form only, is the indemnity agreement that controls
the above building near the easement . "Exhibit B" is the attachment
to the agreement that contains the sketches and descriptions for
both easement abandonment requests.
Discussion:
The Sanitary Sewer will have to be relocated as a condition of
construction and a new easement offered to the City prior to the
recording of the abandonment . Staff has reviewed the preliminary
Plans for that work and has made comments and changes . All such
work is expected to be completed prior to the above public hearing
date.
Fiscal Impact :
There is no cost associated with this request since no money
was given for the easement at the time of formation and since the
new sewer and easement will be provided at the expense of the
applicant .
RESOLUTION v6-89
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ]INTENTION TO
VACATE A POPTION ',:)F A 'SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT IN THE
CENTURY PLAZA PARKING LOT AND i'O VACATE A PORTION t i* A
P U .E IN THE CENTURY PLAZA PARKING LOT PURSUANT TO CH ,.f'TER
3 , SECTION € "20 ET. SEQ . . ()F THE STREETS .AND Hi GHWAYS CODE.
NOW. THERE"CRE. the Council of --he Citv ._ f Atascadero
resolves a,-:z f ollOWSR
1 . It is the intention of the City of Atascadero to
consider abandoning (1) a portion of the sanitary sewer
easement in the Century Plaza parking lot and 2) a portion
of a public utilitN easement (PUE) in the Century Plaza
parkina lot as shown on attached Exhibit B (pages 1-3) and
subiect to the agreement shown as Exhibit A . (paaes 1-5)
pursuant to Chanter 13 . Section 8,32-10 et . Seq. of the Streets
and Hicthwav s Code.
2 . The proposed abandonment is catNcrc_ri..kl1 .• exempt
from the -.provisions of the California Environment a! Cluallty
Act . (Class 5 . Section 15305)
Co-,ies of the map showin-: the narticuiars of the
proposed: abandonments are on rile in the Public
Department .
4 . The Citta C-louncil shall hold a ilubli c hearinra at
the re,auiarly sr. hedu=ed Cit_t- Council meeting to be held
June 1" 1989 at 7 : 00 p .m. or later . :,.n theCit•./ Council
Chambers , Administration Buiidinu. 6i1��! z'alnta Av•rnue,
Atascadero. The ->ublic hearin•x wi.il consider a Resolution
of Vacation at which time all persons interested in the
proposed vacations may be heard .
5 . The City ='lerk --hall cause the n:Jtice of this
public hearincr to he nu ,1ished in the same manner as c,t-
Re: olutions of the Council .
F� . The Director of Comn'unity L)eveloDment hdii t aLi' e
to De pOSi.rd . CdriSX>i. LLOuc notlCeS or vacation In com-oliance
with Streets and hiahways Code ;;Pr.tion 832:
•'
This Resolution was vassed and adopted on May 9. 1989.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT :
ATTEST:
BOYD C . SHARTTZ BONITA BORGESON. Mayor
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT : APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PALL M . SENSIBAUGH 61 JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN
Director o3: Pub is Works City Attornev
�'it.v Engineer
EXHIBIT(� JT
Recording requested bu� �
q y
When recorded mail to:
City of Atascadero
�f Sir
6500 Palma Avenue
. Atascadero, CA 93422
a
APN 29
INDEMNITY AGREEMENT
AFFECTING REAL PROPERTY
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of
--' 19_, by and between EL CAMINO ASSOCIATES, a
California General Partnership, hereinafter referred to as
"Indemnitor", and the CITY OF ATASCADERO, a Municipal
Corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred
to as "City".
WHEREAS, Indemnitor is the owner of that certain real
property located within the City of Atascadero, commonly known
as Century Plaza, and more particularly described in the 4
attached Exhibit "ill incorporated herein as though fully set
forth; and
WHEREAS, Indemnitor has applied to the City of Atascadero
for the partial abandonme t--o€-a-_sewer easement granted to the__g�•! i and rec ed at Wolume 1556 of Official Records at (image,
eK1�° in a office of the County Recorder, County of San huis
Obispo; and
WHEREAS, said partial abandonment of the sewer easement
is necessary and convenient to the further development of
Century Plaza by Indemnitor; and
WHEREAS, said partial abandonment of the sewer easement
will allow the construction of a building and other structures
within close proximity to a main sewer line owned and operated
by the City; and
WHEREAS, in consideration for said partial abandonment of
the sewer easement, the City requires that Indemnitor
indemnify and hold harmless the City for any and all claims
that may arise from the abandonment;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties
as follows:
1
r
1. Indemnification.
(a) Indemnitor shall defend, indemnify, and save
harmless the City of Atascadero, its officers, agents, and
employees, from any and all claims, demands, damages, costs,
expenses, liability, and attorneys' fees and costs arising out
of the above-referenced abandonment, including but not limited
to any negligent act or omission to act, or any wrongful act,
on the part of Indemnitor, or of agents, employees or
independent contractors directly responsible to Indemnitor,
which in any way causes damage to, interruption of, or
interference with the remaining sewer easement or the sewer
li a owned an op rated by .the the City f Atascadero e4�K
G�AM.yea sm
pi � ,;� - T�1L�c f sem, ► r�G►�.�.74,.. p 1...�.
(b) Indemnitor shall defend, indemnify, and save
harmless the City of Atascadero, its officers, agents, and
employees, from any and all claims, demands, damages, costs,
expenses, liability, and attorneys' fees and costs arising out
of the above-referenced abandonment, including but not limited
to any negligent act or omission to act, or any wrongful act,
on the part of Indemnitor, or of agents, employees or
independent contractors directly responsible to Indemnitor, or
for any act or omission arising out of the operation,
maintenance, or repair of the sewer line owned and operated by
the City of Atascadero which causes any damage to,
interference with, or settlement to the proposed building to
be constructed by Indemnitor as a part of the further 0
development of Century Plaza along the perimeter of the
remaining easement o& n4,A5 c r Ze .
(c) The foregoing shall apply to any wrongful act or any
passively negligent act or omission to act, committed jointly
or concurrently by Indemnitor, Indemnitor's agents, employees
or independent contractors, and the City of Atascadero, its
agents, employees or independent contractors. Nothing
contained in the foregoing indemnity provisions shall be
construed to require Indemnitor to indemnify the City against
any responsibility or liability in contravention of Section
2782 of the Civil Code.
2 . Right of Entry. City shall have the right of
reasonable entry onto the easement area, the partially
abandoned easement area, and the adjacent land of Indemnitor
during normal business hours for the purpose of operation,
repair, or maintenance of City's sewer line, and at any time
during an emergency.
3 . Binding on Successors in Interest. This Indemnity
Agreement shall run with the land described herein and shall
inure to the benefit of and be binding on all parties hereto
and on all heirs, assigns, or successors in interest.
2
4�417 ,2
4. Modification. This Agreement constitutes the entire
understanding of the parties hereto, and no changes, amend-
ments, or alterations shall be effective unless in writing and
signed by all the parties or their successors in interest.
5. Costs and Attorneys' Fees. In the event Indemnitor
or its successors in interest fail to indemnify City as
provided hereunder, Indemnitor and its successors in interest
agree to pay all costs and expenses incurred by City in
securing performance of such obligations, including costs of
suit and reasonable attorneys' fees.
6. Enforceability. If any term, covenant, condition,
or provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the
remainder of the provisions hereof shall remain in full force
and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired, or
invalidated thereby.
7. Agreement to be Recorded. Indemnitor and City
intend and consent to the recordation of this Agreement in the
office of the County Recorder in the County of San Luis
Obispo.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Agreement as of the day and year first above written.
INDEMNITOR: EL CAMINO ASSOCIATES,
a California General
Partnership
i
rB B Y M. HARRIS N, nneth Fryer,
naging IS
Partner General Partner
By ; B
ON, JR. , Little,`
General Partner General Partner
3
775
CITY: CITY OF ATASCADERO,
a Municipal Corporation
By
BONITA BORGESON, Mayor
ATTEST:
BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH,
Public Works Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
F Y NSEN,
C' y A or ey
JGJ: fr/12/29/88
C:AGATA680
4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO } ss.
On this day of 19 , before me,
a Notary Public, State of California,
duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared BONITA
BORGESON, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis
of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this
instrument as Mayor of the CITY OF ATASCADERO, a Municipal
Corporation of the State of California, and acknowledged to me
that said Municipal Corporation executed it.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name
and affixed my official seal on the day and year in this
certificate first above written.
Notary Public,
State of California
[Notary Seal]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
} ss.
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO )
On this day of 19 before me,
a No y Publ ' , Sta California,
duly, commissioned and sworn, personally appeared JAMES M.
HARRISON canel @:R— ,
(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be
the persons who executed this instrument as Managing General
Partner and .-nanQr=3 -partn", r_speeti. _' of EL CAMINO
ASSOCIATES, a California General Partnership, and acknowledged
to me that said General Partnership executed it.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name
and affixed my official seal on the day and year in this
certificate first above written
H. POLETTI
N0 .PY PUBLIC
< ' ' SAN LUIS �;S,S?U COUNTY
Y
My Commission Expires on Aoril 3,1992
N tart' Pub c,
State ofCkI
fornia
[Notary Seal]
5
0 0Xh,d,f
�3
SIERRA PACIFIC ENGINEERING_
CIVIL ENGINEERING TIMOTHY P. ROBEIV
SUBDIVISION DESIGN PRINCIPAL ENGINE
LAND USE PLANNING
PUBLIC WORKS DESIGN
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN
"A" SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT ABANDONMENT
That portion of Parcel 3 of Parcelo Map At 85-225 in the
City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of
Caofiornia according to the map filed in Book 45 of Parcel
Maps at Page 8 in the Recorder's office of Said County and
State as follows:
Beginning at the most Northeasterly corner of said Parcel 3 ,
said point being on the Westerly right-of-way of Capistrano
Avenue; Thence South 25 00' 21" West a distance of 63.84
feet to the true point of beginning; Thence South 21 97'
35" East a distance of 198.05 feet to a point on a P.U.E. as
recorded per 1556 O. R.89 of the Official Records of said
County; Said point being a a point of curvature having a
chord bearing of South 30 06' 31" West, A central angle of
0 57' 5611 , a radius of 691.30 feet, and a length of 16.64
feet; Thence North 21 07' 35" West a distance of 196.611 ;
Thence North 25 00' 21" East a distance of 16.60 feet to
the true point of beginning.
1940 SPRING STREET PASO ROBLES, CALIFORNIX�Ff46 1• (805) 238-5700 FAX: (805) 239-7878
0
�3
SIERRA PACIFIC ENGINEERING
NIL ENGINEERING TIMOTHY P. ROBERTS
SUBDIVISION DESIGN PRINCIPAL ENGINEER
LAND USE PLANNING
PUBLIC WORKS DESIGN
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN
"B" P.U.E. ABANDONMENT
That portion of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map AT 85-225 in the City
of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of
California according to the map filed in Book 45 of the
Parcel Maps at Page 8 in the Recorder's office of said
County and State as follows:
Beginning at the most Southeasterly corner of Parcel 3 , said
corner being on the Westerly Right-of Way of Capistrano
Avenue; Thence along the line common to Parcel l and 3 of
said Parcel Map South 80 461 4611 West a distance of 148.44
feet to the true point of beginning of said P.U.E.
Abandonment, said easement as recorded in 43 PM 8 of the
records of said County; Thence along said common line South
80 46' 46" West a distance of 70.60 feet; Thence North 35
09' 2111 East a distance of 11.73 feet; Thence along a line
curving Northwesterly through a central angle of 16 43' 0511
having a radius of 691. 30 feet for a distance of 201.71 feet
to a point of tangency; Thence North 18 26' 16 East a
distance of 79.80 feet to a point of curvature having a
chord bearing of South 43 41' 1511 East, a central angle of
14 46' 18t1 , a radius of 220.00 feet, and a length of 56.72
feet said curved line being the Westerly Right-of-Way of
Capistrano Avenue; Thence South 18 26' 1611 West a distance
of 53.36 feet; Thence along a curved line having a central
angle of 15 55' 0511 , a radius of 741. 301 , and a length of
205.95 feet] to the true point of beginning.
1940 SPRING STREET PASO ROBL ES, CALIFORNIA E6 1• (805) 238-5700 FAX: (805) 239-7878
i
Y: Y
Nil
10
W ;
� 4
iu
ge
\ 2.
Ito
oc �• :;
i l •
U l j di
Y v V
iu
i
RESOLUTION NO. 27-89
A RESOLUTION VACikTiNG A PORTION OF A SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT IN THE CENTURY PLAZA PARKING LOT AND TO VACATE
A PORTI01',4 0-17 A P.1-! . E. IN THE CENTURY PLAZA PARKING LOT
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 3. E=TICyN8 '2u. ET . E4 . . OF
THE STREETS AND HIGHWAY'S CODE.
NOW. THEREFC-)RE. the Council of the City of Atascadero
resolves as follows :
WHEREAS , it is the intention of the City of Atascacero
to abandon (1) a vortion of tt-,e sanitary sewer easement in
the Century Plaza narkina lot . and (2) a vortion or a
x�ublic utility eaCement (PUE) in the Centura. Plc.Za parking
lot as shoran rn attached Exhi :, t i�,, pursuant. to
rL on ✓J ��_) E't _:° f� vi +yle .: ee' - et"1_i .'l�t!ibJa4F
and ,
_iH T.= X1: 2 C
exemr,t Prom the roro--' oris of the California Environmental
Quality Act . (ClasF ` : Section 1` 3u5? and.
WHEREAS . Copies of the map showincr the particulars of
the proposed abandonments are on .rile in the the _Pub. is
Works Department ; and'.
WHEREAS , the itv Clerk did cause the notice of
publ is hearing t.o be vublished :in the manner required by
Streets and Hiah�ways Core Section 8--:.22 : and.
WHEREAS . the Director of Community Develo-Pment has
caused to be Frosted notices of -.>acati.on in con.iDliance with
Streets and Hiahways Code Section �--'32�1 : and.
WHEREAS , the Cit\, Council tincts that trom all the
a"-'idence sunmitt-�-d. the ?"or'tionti of easerinents de�.crlhed In
Exhibit F. ?tt. ched hel—F-o . care_ unnecps. ary for '� he presf-YIT:
or r,?`0:;T..)uCtlV? gF.SP,)er-., water C,r' other FjUbilC uti11tV
iDurposes , ane.
WHEREAS. the I ndemnit.- Agreement Af ect ina Real
Pror)erty referred to as Exhibit A and attached hereto has
been duly executed by the owners of the property over which
the rortions of the easements in Exhibit B pass : and
WHEREAS , the Citv Clerk has been instructed to record
said Indemnitv Acxreement r_�rlor to the recordation of the
Resolution of Vacation .
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council
hereby vacates a portion of a sanitary sewer easement in
the Century Plaza L�arkinq lot as shown in the attached
Exhibit B pursuant to Chapter 3 , Section 8320 , et . seq . , of
the Streets and Hiahways Code and subiect to the
recordation of the Indemnitv Agreement .
This Resolution was -oassed and adopted on T"lav 9. 1-939.
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT
ATTEST :
BOYD C . SHARITZ BONITA BORGESON
Citv Clerk Mavor
APPR(__)V D AS To C�14TEN`I' . APPROVED AS 'I'0 FO�iP1:
PAUL I1. SEN:;I BALiGH JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN
Director of Public Works City Attorney
City Enaineer
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
THE CITY COUNCIL � ILL HOLD A PUBLIC: HEARING AT
THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED CITY COUINCIL I°iEETING ON
JUNE 13 . 1989 AT % : i iU PJ-1 .
_R AFT ' I Ind THE CITY
COUNCIL CHAMBERS . ADMINISTRATION BUILDING. 6500
'ALMA AVENUE TO CONSIDER,
A RESOLUTION OF INTENTIt:JN TO VACATE A PORTION
;JF A .�4NI1?:xY S'E- ER EASEMENT iN THE CENTIURY PLAZA
PARKING OT PUnSIiANT TO Si'REE'I ;� AND HIGH-W"'Y:: i�ODE.
LAID RF;;OL'iTiUid r'k::?Pi;SE 1 SCHEDULING A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER A RES(?LiJTI(JN OF VACATION AT THE JU=NE
13 . 19 8 9 MEETING.
COPIES OF THE,' MAP SHOWING THE PARTI;''JLARS OF
THE PP,_PUSED =,BAN) )NI";ENT ARE ON FILE IN THE -PUBLIC
WORKS DEP.�a.RTI:ENT .
M y E `n: yy i y F �i OSED
�J
ALL P RSOI�S iIJTE_� S�� Pv TH R SE VACATION
-,N
MAY �,E �IE;.RD AT 'IHn i TIME.
DATE: PAY iii ,
Bi)YD C . SHt. 11 CITY CLERK
MEET tNv; AGENDA
DAT ,�'?,;e FI ITEM M
II
M E M O R A N D U M
To : City Council
Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager
From: Mark A. Joseph , Director of Admin. Services&
V
Date: May 3, 1989
Subject : Selecting a Managing Underwriter for Long-Term
Financing
This memo responds to Council ' s request to explore local
financial institutions that might be able to offer competitive
underwriting services for the $2 million Certificates of
Participation (COP) needed to provide funding in part for
selected Capital Improvements.
At Council ' s April 25 meeting , staff recommended First California
Regional Securities as our managing underwriter . This was based
on prior experience with the firm, the competitiveness of its
proposal and the additional services it can provide.
Subsequent to that meeting , two local banks were contacted and
one bank from Santa Maria called us. One local bank does not
make investments in the dollar range we are considering . At this
writing ( late Wednesday morning ) , we have not received word from
the remaining two banks. I will submit a revised memo as soon as
possible.
I would also like to clarify three points relating to this
matter . First , due to the number of institutions available (over
2,000 nationwide) , it was necessary to limit our scope to
regional firms only. Second , because this was our first long-
term financing that relies on General Fund resources, I felt a
negotiated bid was preferable to a competitive bid . Such an
approach provides more flexibility in structuring the issue and
also compensates for our lack of a credit history. Finally, a
distinction needs to be made between a "managing underwriter" and
a "financial advisor" . A managing underwriter provides
assistance in how an issue is put together as well as guarantees
the purchase of the bonds. A financial advisor provides
assistance regarding the structure of the issue and can
coordinate the funding process, but cannot actually bid on the
issue itself. The trade-offs are between the objectivity of the
advisor versus the cost-savings of the underwriter . In my memo
of April 17, 1989, I recommended First California as our
financial advisors. In fact , First California would act as our
managing underwriter .
Recommendation
In light of not hearing from the two local banks, I cannot make a
firm recommendation. However , I recommend that we use Brad
Kerwin of First California Regional Securities as a managing
underwriter unless either of the two banks can offer a
significantly better proposal .
MAJ:al
\debtfina
• • MEETtNG � AGENDA
QATF`! f ITEM ____--
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager
From: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Subject : San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council Agenda Discussion
Regional Public Transportation Consolidation
Date : May 2, 1989
Recommendation:
Staff has two members serving on the Technical Transportation
Advisory Committee (TTAC) which has voted to support Area Council ' s
staff recommendation. The Community Transportation Advisory
Committee (CTAC) also has affirmed the same . There is no other
recommendation being made since Mayor Borgesson serves on SLOACC and
has heard testimony shown in the enclosed material and desires
Council input prior to casting her vote on the matter.
Background:
The SLOACC May 10 agenda item B-1 is included for background as
well as the minutes of the April 19 SLOACC meeting. (The latter
agenda item was called B-2, and the option is #3 instead of option #6
as recommended by the Area Council staff . ) Other material included
is the minutes from TTAC and CTAC meetings (same reference numbers as
SLOACC April 19 meeting. ) Also inclosed is a seperate report from
Ron DeCarli , Program Manager for SLOACC regarding the various options
for consolidating three regional transit systems into one .
Discussion:
Ron DeCarli will be in attendance at the Council meeting to
outline the options being considered for the proposed merger.
Fiscal Impact :
The Option 6 has the same cost as the current formula option for
adding the transit service to Paso Robles and Nipomo and for merging
the regional systems . There are additional costs for three trips to
Atascadero by the Central Coast Transit but no increase due to the
merger or added South County trips . Ron DeCarli will give a more
detailed accounting of the cost implications to Atascadero.
San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council Arroyo Grande
"Grover City
Morro
and Regional Transportation Planning Agency Paso Rob*
Pismo Beach
San Luis Obispo
Son Luis Obispo County
r. 0� SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL
P� WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 1989
1:30 p.m.
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CHAMBERS
County Government Center
San Luis Obispo, California
President: Evelyn Delany Vice President: Dick Morrow
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
ELECTION OF NEW OFFICERS -- PRESIDENT/VICE PRESIDENT
PUBLIC COMMENTS
This portion of the agenda is set aside for members of the public to
directly address the legislative body on items of interest within the
jurisdiction of the Council. Persons are requested to limit their
comments to three minutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 19, 1989
A. CONSENT AGENDA: Approved by roll call vote on one motion (as
listed at end of agenda).
B. TRANSPORTATION
B-1 Public Hearing: Regional Public Transportation Consolidation.
(MERGE THREE REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEMS INTO A SINGLE AUTHORITY.)
B-2 Public Hearing: 1989 Regional Transportation Improvement
Program (RTIP) and State Highway Improvement Project Priorities
(ADOPT).
County Government Center, San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 (805) 549-5706
r
B-3 Proposition 5 and Article XIX -- Transit Funding. (REQUEST
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PLACE A MEASURE ON THE 1989 ELECTION BALLOT
ALLOWING REGION TO APPLY FOR TRANSIT GRANTS).
B-4 Pending State Legislation (ADOPT/ADVOCATE POSITIONS).
C. ADMINISTRATION
C-1 FY 89/90 Overall Work Program and Budget - Continued from
4/19/89 (ADOPT)
D. REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
The Area Council is now sitting as the San Luis Obispo Regional
Transit Authority.
D-1 Proposed FY 89-90 Budget - Regional Handicapped System.
(APPROVE)
CONSENT AGENDA
A-1 Progress Report for Highway 101 Visual Resource Study.
A-2 FY 88/90 Meeting Calendar (APPROVE).
A-3 Year-to-Date Financial Report (MODIFY BUDGET BETWEEN ACCOUNTS;
AUTHORIZE WORK STUDY INTERN).
A-4 Senior Van Insurance Program (SHIFT ADMINISTRATION TO REGIONAL
TRANSIT MANAGER).
A-5 Paso Robles Transportation Development Act Claim Amendments - FY
88/87, 88/89 (APPROVE AMENDMENT) .
A-6 California Association of Councils of Governments - Annual Meeting
Report - April 5th (Continued from 4/19/89 - INFORMATION ITEM).
NEXT MEETING: July 5, 1989
RD/cl/hf/sb/9381-1
4-28-89
SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT: May lo, 1989
Option Developu ent, Consolidation of Regional Transit
The Area Council affirmed on April 19, 1989, that the SLOSCAT transit
service had met performance objectives and should continue. The
organizational entity for lcng-term administration of such a service was
c3i.scussed without resolution. Several consolidation options were
explored, and a policy decision needs to be made whether to form a single
regional entity- from three JPA's or to merge the mute into an existing
community system, SCAT. Staff were dissected to develop these and other
options for Area Council consideration at the May meeting.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff: Approve Option 6 to form a single, consolidated regional transit
authority that incorporates CC'RTA, SIOSCAT, SLOCAT regional
routes and a trial Nipcmo commuter service into the San Luis
Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) , with costs to be
distributed according to exi�tirg fonmilas. Direct Regional
Transit Manager to prepare a final budget, amend JPA, initiate
merger process and implement trial regional transit service
exmnsion to Paso Robles and Nipceno.
Area Council Advisory Cormittees: Approve/concept of consolidation (MC,
CTAC, Productivity Ccmittee) .
C=: Approved consolidation of CCRTA services into the San Luis Obispo
Regional Transit Authority.
SLOSCAT: Approved consolidation of SIISCAT services into the South County
Area T•ansit.
DISCUSSION
Consolidation of regional transit is being suggested by policy makers,
transit staff, bus companies and transit consultants. The SLOSCAT board
has endorsed a sub-regional consolidation of the South County/SLO City run
into the South County Area Transit, with an attached cost efficient' of
about $10,000 over existing contract costs. Cooresponding savings have
been previously ompiled for a larger consolidation, showing $13,175
savings in audit costs, planning costs and backup bus costs alone. The
advisory committees of the Area Council have supported the concept of a
single regional ��ansit authority. A decision is needed soon for
B-1-1
• •
determining which entity administers the South County/SIA City route; it
is timely also to consider larger integration of all regional transit
operations. With service extended on a trial basis to Paso Robles,
public transit will--for the first time--connect all incorporated cities
in the region.
The concept of consolidation of regional transit is intimately tied to
funding formulas. Area Council members have called for options to be
developed, based upon various assumptions of funding formulas, service
levels and operating entities, in order to have some basis for
decisiormaking. A couparison table is attached, showing curative costs
for six different options, each of which is described more fully on one of
the following pages. Cost figures in the table have been taken from draft
budgets for existing provider agencies, and refer only to the TOA subsidy
portion of the 1989-90 budgets.
Concerns have been expressed by Area Council delegates that consolidation
will result in the total utilization of TDA funds for transit. Transit
expansions, however, are governed by Area Council action irrespective of
operating authority. The Area Council, by policy, sees three round trips
a day as meeting unmet meds; any extension beyond this level of service
is a local decision.
B-1-2
TDA ALLOCATIC 3 BY TRAI�-IT OPTION
COP T I ON 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3, CIPT I'IN 4 CIPT I CV ` LV T!r# 6
CI-v;RENT FL uM BY r FORS L.4
CITIES PCPU`ATI NN CURRENT BY TOTAL KAT/ WITH NIPOMO- EllCCA T1 SLOCAiT/
&D-ILINTY PER'XNT Fl f A POPULATION SUM3-r-AT U RTS NIFI1?"kl 1 NIPOMO 1
ARROYO GRANDE 6.721 245,032 x'0,1; 28,600 41 O-. 4),-/95 25,082
+ , 1
ATASCADERG 10.86% 44,508 48,688 44,502 44,508 C.5,?i7 44,50"0
f ,
f 1
GRROVER CITY 5.M. 20,0,-,'S 24,187 22,876 201 031,31, . 746 20,0"°
+KIRRO BAY z.".:2. 1 24,$1$ 1,071 .41 0a0 4,.a0 2%5' 63-3 2,v1v 1.
1 +
1PAM 0 S 7.581 1 37 75:
+ 1
sw a �• S. :,T , �/ ;A,-: 1;� A•1 1
: 111 R� F .�`..-^v', / 1:�.6.!1 15,5'r`: ,Ov, 13, .Ti .� .�,th•a i
• 1 1
+ 1 +
f .0 CiT'i 15..:01 1119,153 07,4.55 IO ,422 !i9
,1.�_
1 1 1
fSLO COUNT-.' 4:.:,>7. 1164,111 1eA"wu 1Az%-1711 174,_•11 2.51.1 .811 1
TOT r RE C, 1 448,46.=1 348,461 444t,642 458, :ti% a t: 607, 16-
r r
1 — .p! 1 s''CA:T tr :C•�x;T r qtr
fug�..AT i't'.A; F�,I�,r• a.�.�.�1.� a:F��NT �„�:;._,�; _°
Wyk' .y .,
�.�.~:���'1 PL+V p�::�-h1 F�1�':i I��J'f t'���N`+. 1''�-ti.ice. .•_i� i! �Y
F.'ICE U':'E.S: EXISTi EXISTING EXiSIII!- EA I.� i 4` EA ZT1
(EXISTING-, Fri-: IT Frt`t:1 NI`'lR'0 wri .U_frlSl Ft/h.CCv:�_•
f3 STM, .fir i.MT i" f3`�� k:'.V AN 111r1,�0.1
1_
LYIT1 a_ 1 4F�� ALL 76ti ?t :inti+IIAf Cr—�Ir1C I _UDE $1 1i J k1_ "IrENT FLR- ;LK`1 I..ASH SAYX..:-
f'P ��.. 1 i
OPTIC: 6 i'-S EXiT:'k' MCAT SERVICE TOTALLING, £
�r MST i '3r } SERVTr' it R 'T �= H
_-�� T. _. _....F+�t NIF'C�? _cr�L:.t FRC�'i 1 T_ ,i n_���snIF,, 1._
B-1-3
OPTION 1--{LJRRENT FORMULA
Plan: Consolidate CCRIA and SIASCAT into SIARTA. Paso Robles
trial service is incorporated; other routes are existing
service
Finance: Apply existing formulas to apportion costs, Paso Robles
trial service divided equally by four affected
jurisdictions.
/1 MONTEREY COUNTY \ I(.GS C.
Distribution w' --------- -------fl ' ------
of Cost: 1 w...
.°
Arroyo Grande $ 25,032
Atascadero 44,508 «..
Grover pC�ity 20,038 ,,.,.�� „ � 't
Morro Bay 24,818 PACIFIC OCEAN ,,... �.�
Paso Robles 37,799 S
Pismo Beach 13,001 N.'Ta�
SLO City 119,153
Wes Own
SIA County 164,11 3
TOTAL $448,461 iii�o eE.cw °o,°°°•°a
cnoaR ca
ou.»—
No—
SANTA BARBARA
eu•//o•eu►t �, ■`a�Aua COUNTY
Service Area: Regional connections between SIA City and North County,
Morro Bay/Cuesta, and to South County (Arroyo Grande,
Grover City, Pismo Beach, Oceano) .
Advantages: For All SIDRTA Consolidation Options:
o The cost cmparison tables are adjusted to show a hard
cash savings to the region of $13,175 for audits,
planning studies, bus backup. This is augmented by
staff time reductions in report/meeting preparation,
contracting, more effective area-wide marketing,
consolidated schedules and area wide fares and passes.
o Policy consistency--same governing board develops RTP,
decides Unmet Needs and monitors operations.
Disadvantaaes:
o Does not incorporate all regional transit initially, as
SID= services to the North Coast and Baywood/Los Osos
remain separate.
o SCAT/SLO6CAT merger efficiencies won't apply.
o South County cities perceive a loss of local control
and destiny.
o Does not address concerns voiced by STA City that their
city bears an unfair burden under existing formulas.
B-1-4
o—UO 22 POPULATION
Consolidate CCRTA
and SLOSCAT into ST-01ZM. Paso Robles
Plan: _-vice is included-
of
_ trial se._
to all jurisdictions
of consolidated sYs` total
Financ : Appor`i. n costs p laL,aon pe.'ventage basis
in region accordirK! 1/1/88)
comty wide population figtwes►
RINGS CC
MONTEITCv COUNrY _� •M-��-�--'r
Distribution �''"'"' w.•,;�i r�:,...
of Cost: �t n ••�
._.�-`•\ ins...+ PASO 00"Si
Arroyo Grande $ 30,132 •
Atascadero
48,688
24,187 —�
• Y.KNP �
Grover City PACIFIC OCEAN
21,891
Morro say N • S,N« I
Paso Robles 33,990 ., ..,.a.A•
Pisno Beach 15,586 ..VMS WSp
SLO City 87,455 . 5 WT
5717 County .wsocn.w
18-86,531 _M
$448,461 ot
TOM ,,,,.
• SANTA BARBARA
COUNTY
ns
ions between SIO City and North Cot�ntY,
Service Area: pe Bay/ �� to South County (Az="°17O Grande,
Grover City, Pismo Beach, Opo) -
Advantages: listed advantages of consolidation.
o All previously apportiornnent basis.
O Distribution matCYles?'t� forzrnulas, sinplifies allocation
o Eliminates cxm�lica�.ed
procedure-
Disadvantages: table bout region-
0 Service levels not equitable. it initially.
o Does not i.n,Arporate all regional trans
B-1-5
• •
OPTION--3 SCAT/SIDSCAT
Plan: Incorporate SIOSCAT run as Route 5 of SCAT, eliminating need
for SIDSCAT. Invite SLO city to participate in SCAT. Meige
CC CA into SIDRTA. Paso Robles trial service is included.
Finance: Current formulas applied as far as possible. Participation
of SLO City not assumed in allocation comparison table. Paso
Robles trial service divided equally by four affected
jurisdictions.
/� MONTEREY COUNTY KING ISI
Distribution i:' M-———————— !a —
of Cost: L..,..
!a w
Arroyo Grande $28,600 qSp RNMES a
ae !
Atascadero 44,508
Grover City 22,876
PACIFIC OCEAN
Morro Bay 24,818
Paso Robles 37,799 'y - "! STA GRA06
!„
Pismo Beach 14,876
SID City 105,422 5 .' It IVIS 0!lSrO
SID County 165,751 "
to
7r1TAL $444,642 .--
►lino lEKn ROTO WunOC
oc
I
!66
SANTA BARBAR
1JIM � g A"\A,n"."I& COUNTY
Service Area: Regional connections between SLO City and North County,
Morro Bay/Cuesta, and to South County (Arroyo Grande,
Grover City, Pismo Beach, Oceano) .
Advantages.
o Most of previously listed advantages of consolidation.
o Demonstrates cost efficiencies of consolidation under
current contractor who serves SCAT arra SLOStAT.
o Capable of being quickly implemented.
Disadvantages:
o Creates two regional transit authorities, without
consolidating all regional transit possibilities.
o Precludes cost efficiencies of large, single contract,
including more productive use of equipment and drivers.
o Precludes regionwide marketing/scheduling/fare
Pim a
o Continues user difficulties and confusion at SID
transfer point; regionwide passes not possible.
B-1-6
• •
OFIZON--4 CiJRRE C FORCLAS WTH NIPCMO
Plan: Consolidate CCFtTA and SLDSCAT into SLOM. Paso Robles
trial service is included, as well as trial cOM3.1te service
to Nipomo, one round trip a day.
Finance: Existing formulas applied to cast allocation whenever
available. Extension to Nipomo . is treated as a County
`"xpexze-
MONTEREY COUNTY
n� KINGS COUNTY
wl �5� ---
Distribution - ------ -" ..w
of Cost: f..f.... .l 1 _
1 0.30 OWES 1 '� � KERN COUNTY
.1
Arroyo Grande $25,032 1 I .
1
Atascadero 44,508 't_
.,.,..« 2 s. _
Graver City
20,038 PACIFIC OCEAN . 1
Morro Bay 24,818
Paso Robles 37,799
Pismo Beach 13,001 r, u" 3 RV .--�
SLO City 119,153 53 QT lot _-1
SLO County 174,31 '
` IfYO► {GlcN
AN
TOTAL $458,661 SCI:,,.-
1I
' SANTA BARBARA
wr K� �..
iua Ir\I r."1' COUNTY
IL T
Service Area: Regional connections between SLA City and North County,
Morro Bay/Cuesta, and to South County (Pismo Beach,
Grover City, ocean, Arroyo Grande and Nipa w) -
Advantagges:
o All previously listed advantages of consolidation.
o Service extended to larger area, without substantial
change to any jurisdictional TDA expenses except for
the County.
Disadvantactes
o Does not incorporate all regional transit initially.
o Does not address concerns voiced by SIA City that their
city bears an unfair burden under existing formulas.
Camients: The population of central Nipomo, at 7,000, would justify
service under the adopted Regional Transportation Plan
objective that calls for one round trip for minor population
centers of 5,000 or more. Three round trips are justifiable
for populations over 10,000; with rural Nipono added in, the
total is over 14,000. Either service, therefore, could be
provided under existing policies.
SLO City, as well as any jurisdiction, retains the option of
renegotiating the existing formulas with affected
jurisdiction, to reduce their required allocation.
B-1-7
OPTION--S BY POPULATION, LNCWDING SLOC'AT AND NIPOW
Plan: Consolidate c= and ST1?SCAT into SIAFaA. Consolidate two
of the transit services of SLOCAT into the larger SPA, to
now include Morro Bay/San Simeon run and Bay Osos Direct
cmmtx`,.e service and a single, trial round trip serving
Nipcmo. Paso Robles trial service is included.
Finance: Costs distributed by population, including all services
mentioned above.
MUN—ILIIIY CUUNIV --- --1%INW;
Distribution
of Cost: '`.'
Arroyo Grande $40,795 d •'
Atascadero 65,917
Kw.
Grover City 32,746 PACIFIC OCEAN q.u•K••
as
Morro Bay 29,638 - .. a 1
Paso Robles 46,019 " ' _ YGST•G«A«
s
Pismo Beach 21,102 SwwISw1sro
SLO City 118,404 s w — 3 P.T
SLD County52 2,541
TOTAL $607,161 ' : o� ' om .N«I P'T
.� too
w- C SANTA BARBARA
wawa �, COUNTY
N� is
Service Area: Regional -connections between SLO City and North County,
Morro Bay/Cuesta, and to South County (Pismo Beach,
Grover City, Oceano, Arroyo Grande and Nipomo) . Also
includes transit connection between Morro Bay and San
Simeon Acres.
Advantages.
o All previously listed advantages of consolidation.
o Baseline service levels extended to larger service
area.
o Irrplemens planned regional system per RTP.
o Allows maximum efficiency of operations, marketing,
scheduling and fare programs.
Disadvantages•
o service levels vary by area, cost shared by all.
o Higher costs for all jurisdictions resulting from cost
allocation of SLOCAT service.
8-1-8
OPTION-6 CURRENT FOPMJLA.S, INCLUDING Sl= AND NIPOMO
Plan: Consolidate CCM and SLOSCAT into SLORTA. Consolidate two
of the transit services of SLOCAT into the lamer JPA, to
now include Morro Bay/San Simeon run and Bay Osos Direct
commute service. Paso Robles trial service is included, as
well as one round trip a day trial service to Nipomo.
NOM-3 round trip service would acid $20,000-30,000 to
County cost shown below, leaving other jurisdictions
unchanged.
Finance: Current formulas as far as possible. Extension to Nipcmo and
SLOCAT runs are treated as county costs.
Distribution MONTEREY COON f Y \ � /� __—KING=C(
of Cost: �• /� `-
Ai2wyo Grande $25,032 `_� _ .6
Atascadero 44,508 ,�"" �}RT FASO"KES
Grover City 20,038
Morro Bay 24,818
Paso Robles 37,779 PACIFIC OCEAN .-,p.w.` () zz se �-
Pismo Beach 13,001 s.
SLO City 119,153 ~ ' ,SST.,.A06
SID County 322,811 y_,3,
Zl7TAL $607,161 " � �. w
risco 662" oro ca.■oc T
a CIT " t
WA
' SANTA BARBARA
GAA Pc K �'"T MARIA COUNTY
Service Area: Regional connections between SLO City and North County,
Morro Bay/Cuesta, and to South County (Pismo Beach,
Grover City, Ocean, Arroyo Grande and Nipomo) . Also
includes transit connection between Morro Bay and San
Simeon Acres.
Advantages:
o All previously listed advantages of consolidation.
o Baseline service levels extended to larger service
area, without affecting jurisdictions not served.
o Implements planned regional system per RIP.
o Allows maximum efficiency of operations, marketing,
scheduling and fare programs.
o Simplest program for riders; should increase ridership.
Disadvantages:
o Does not address concerns voiced by SLO City that their
city bears an unfair burden under existing formulas.
ComTents: SLOC'AT service presently funded by County. Proposal simply
in}(.egrates service into regional system.
SIA City's concerns are addressable; current formulas are
set through negotiation among affected entities.
B-1-9
San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council Ar`Ata rae o
Grover City
Morro Bay
'ter and Regional Transportation Planning Agency Paso Robles
Pismo Beach
Son Luis Obispo
- Son Luis Obispo County
MINUTES
SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL
APRIL 19, 1989
San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors' Chambers
County Government Center
San Luis Obispo, California
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating
Council held in the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors' Chambers,
County Government Center, San Luis Obispo, CA. , 1:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Harry Ovitt, Supervisor, District 1
Bill Coy, Supervisor, District 2
Evelyn Delany, Supervisor, District 3, President
Jim Johnson, Supervisor, District 4
David Blakely, Supervisor, District 5
Gene Moots, Councilman, City of Arroyo Grande (alternate)
Bonita Borgeson, Mayor, City of Atascadero
David Ekbom, Mayor, City of Grover City
Jeff Odell, Councilman, City of Morro Bay
Nick Russell, Councilman, City of Paso Robles
Dick Morrow, Councilman, City of Pismo Beach, Vice President
Penny Rappa, Councilwoman, City of San Luis Obispo
ABSENT:
STAFF Ronald L. De Carli, Program Manager
PRESENT: Dan Herron, Transportation Planner
Ray Biering, Legal Counsel
OTHERS George Protopapas, Regional Transit Manager
PRESENT: John Wallo, County Engineering Department
Richard Randise, County Engineering Department
Kristi James, Rideshare Coordinator
The following action minutes are listed as they were acted upon by the San
Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council and as listed on the agenda for the
meeting held April 19, 1989, together with the staff reports and related
documents attached thereto and incorporated therein by reference.
County Government Center, San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 (805) 549-5706
• 0
Area Coordinating Council April 19, 1989
Minutes Page 6
B-2 Final Determination of the One-Year San Luis Obispo South County
Area Transit Service (SLOSCAT) and Report on Operations and
'- Governing Entity. Ron De Carli, Program Manager, reviews the
staff report and addendum. Mr. De Carli recommends deleting
Option 1--Extend SLOSCAT Joint Powers Agreement, and Option
2--Merge SLOSCAT and CCRTA into a single system governed by
single Joint Powers Agency. Division of costs to cities and
county for regional transit are discussed. The SLOSCAT System
Cost Distribution handout is discussed. The cost savings in
auditing, marketing, etc. are reviewed as identified in Options
3 and 4. it is in the best interest of the general public, and
the riding public to select the overall consolidated system.
Savings benefiting South County area with one option and savings
benefiting the entire county with the other option is
discussed. It is pointed out that South County cities have
chosen to use their administrators' volunteer time to run the
system. Delegate Blakely indicates it is advantageous to
endorse the concept in Option 3, regional system. Staff
clarifies that in Option 3, CCRTA, SLOSCAT and the RTA are all
merged under the authority of the Area Council Board. The seven
jurisdictions will pay using a formula they adopted for their
share of the service.
Delegate Ekbom indicates the SCAT's Board is very reluctant to
join a regional system. South County is looking for advantages
for them. He speaks to savings being used somewhere else,
future costs going up, and retaining local control of TDA funds
as much possible. Delegate Ekbom speaks to providing free staff
time and using the money for the wheels of the bus and not to
the county government. He indicates the system is a success and
wishes to retain local control. He discusses the problems of
estimating cost savings as projected by staff.
Delegate Blakely indicates if the county does not regionalize,
it will be subsidizing the South County system; however, with
regionalization, the entire cost will be more evenly subsidized.
The advantages of the regional system far out weigh the small
savings of Option 4. He speaks to the importance of this Board
considering the regional needs.
Delegate Moots indicates that South County is happy with the way
the system is currently working; and explains the delegates were
elected locally to represent their local area, which is the
basis for their input at this meeting. He states South County
preference for making this route a fifth route of SCAT.
Delegate Ovitt speaks to the statement of voluntary staff time,
and that no one works for free. He addresses increased cost of
redundant programs.
Area Coordinating Council April 19, 1989
Minutes Page 7
Delegate Coy speaks to staff time not being free, the
possibility of false economy and expenditures not being shown,
and the fact that many people work overtime.
George Protopapas, Engineering Department, assures the delegates
it is his intent to use the savings from a regional plan
appropriately, for roads, and not requesting expansion of
services.
Arnold Dowdy, Secretary of SCAT, indicates his time is "cheaper
than free." He notes that consolidation of services is not
necessarily the best answer and requests to continue as
currently operating.
Delegate Morrow supports SCAT, stating he feels the local
contract is best.
Delegate Rappa is no longer present.
Delegate Ovitt reviews this item historically and indicates the
arguments will always be the same, but suggests it is time now
to develop a regional concept. In answer to Delegate Odell's
question "of who designed this system that works so well," it
accredited to county transit personnel.
Delegate Rappa is now present.
Ken Stokes, Santa Barbara Transportation, indicates from an
operator's viewpoint he sees the advantages of another system as
opposed to regional. Adel Stearns, League of Women Voters,
applauds the Council on the attempt to coordinate communities on
working together, to compromise efforts for the good of the
county. Melanie Tara, CTAC, speaks to the difficulty of
selecting a route with the many different systems and is in
favor of a regional transit system. Eileen Carpenter,
California Manor in Atascadero, addresses the difficulty in
obtaining transportation in Atascadero.
Delegate Rappa addresses the funding formula, and her concern
with the city of San Luis Obispo receiving approximately 20% of
TDA money, and being asked to fund over 30% of the system. The
surrounding population wants to go into San Luis Obispo, but San
Luis Obispo cannot count these people in their population
figures used to develop the population funding formula;
therefore, San Luis Obispo has problems accepting the population
funding formula. She suggests not voting on the funding portion
of this item today.
0
Area Coordinating Council April 19, 1989
Minutes Page 8
On motion of Delegate Blakely, seconded by Delegate Rappa, a)
Find the first year trial service by SLOSCAT to be a success;
and b) Implement Option 3 integrating all regional services into
a single entity with all regional costs shared countywide for a
base level of three round trips per day with additional trips
funded by affected jurisdictions on an agreed-upon formula.
Delegate Ekbom requests a "Super Vote." County Council explains
a Super Vote requires eight (8) affirmative votes. Motion
fails on a tie vote with Delegates Blakely, Coy, Odell, Ovitt,
Rappa, and Russell voting Yes; and Delegates Borgeson, Ekbom,
Johnson, Morrow, Moots and President Delany voting No.
Motion is made'by Delegate Johnson, seconded by Delegate Ovitt,
fails 7 to S with Delegates Blakely, Coy, Ekbom, Morrow,
Russell, Moots, and President Delany voting No; and Delegates
Borgeson, Johnson, Odell, Ovitt and Rappa voting yes, to support
regionalization with Nipomo included with a base level of three
round trips per day paid for on a population basis with
additional trips funded by affected jurisdictions on an
agreed-upon formula.
Motion is made by President Delany, seconded by Delegate Coy,
carries unanimously, directing staff to prepare a staff report
addressing regionalization, with specific reference on funding,
addressing various options including Nipomo. Discussion
continues on specifics of staff report.
On motion by Delegate Delany, seconded by Delegate Rappa,
carried unanimously, the first year trial service by SLOSCAT is
found to be a success.
C. ADMINISTRATION
C-1 FY 89/90 Overall Work Program and Budget -- continued to May 3,
1989 meeting.
C-2 FY 89/90 Transportation Development Act Fund Apportionment. Ron
De Carli, Program Manager reviews the staff report.
Delegate Borgeson is no longer present.
On motion of Delegate Ovitt, seconded by Delegate Blakely,
carried unanimously, the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and
State Transit Assistance (STA) fund apportionment for FY 89/90
is adopted.
0
SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE
SUBJECT: APRIL 19, 1989
REPORT ON SLOSCAT OPERATIONS AND GOVERNING ENTITY
SUMMARY
The first trial year has been completed for SLOSCAT service between the
Five Cities area and San Luis Obispo city. The service has met all
operating conditions imposed by the Area Council. This report clarifies
performance levels and develops four options for a long-range governing
body for the proven system.
A major new development is being proposed in the attached Option 3,
combining SLOSCAT, CCRTA and SLORTA into a single entity providing
regional transit services. A model is shown, distributing costs for
unified regionwide transit services on population basis for base level
services of three round trips/day. The model projects TDA cost increases
to Atascadero, Paso Robles (due to increased services) and county with
reductions for all other entities.
Recommendations are made to add protective measures in the JPA to address
cost sharing and local control.
SLOSCAT staff has submitted another consolidation option (#4) to merge
SLOSCAT into the SCAT system.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff: a) Find first year trial service by SLOSCAT to be a success.
b) Implement Option 3 integrating all regional services into a
single entity with all regional costs. shared countywide for a
base level of three round trips per day with additional trips
funded by affected jurisdictions on an agreed-upon Formula.
c) Direct Regional Transit Manager to prepare a revised RTA
Joint Powers Agreement and unified budget reflecting above,
and providing a provision to assure local control in that no
expansion beyond three round trips per day can be made
without majority affirmative vote of affected jurisdictions.
Productivity Committee: Concur with staff, but exclude the suggested
cost distribution
CTAC: Concur with staff
TT
Concur with staff
B-2-1
PILOT SERVICE
The SLOSCAT system was developed in response to the 1987 Unmet Needs
hearings subject to:
1. An "all-out" advertising campaign.
2. San Luis Obispo city to participate in JPA.
3. Maximum first year cost of operation: $70,000.
4. Accept lowest cost contractor in bid procedure.
5. •Separate Joint Powers Agency.
6. Minimum farebox ratio of 25% at the end of one year or terminate
service.
Start-up of the system was delayed by the necessity of obtaining an
acceptable cost allocation formula, establishment of a separate JPA,
known as SLOSCAT, and the Request for (bus service) Proposal process.
The system began service on March 14,- 1988.
Patronage on SLOSCAT grew during its first three months, then showed an
expected decline during the summer months. Ridership has continued to
increase since summer, reaching a high monthly farebox ratio of 31% in
December. By January 31, 1989, the cumulative farebox ratio equaled 25%,
the standard set by the Area Council for continuance of the system.
Total ridership has stayed relatively consistent at 1,000 riders a month.
since September. -
Ridership route statistics reveal widespread support for three round
trips per day with patronage very evenly distributed among all three
trips.
Governing Entity
The administration of the service has been an ongoing issue since its
inception. Area Council and other transit staff have been largely
supportive to integrate the service as a part of the regional system on
the basis of cost effectiveness and efficiency. The South County cities
have advocated a separate governing entity to assure local control over
service levels, administrative and overall costs. The following section
evaluates four different options and the pros, cons and costs of each.
A decision is needed on a service provider before the end of June, at
which time the current Joint Powers Agreement for SLOSCAT ends, unless
renewed by all parties (cities of San Luis Obispo, Arroyo Grande, Grover
City, Pismo Beach and San Luis Obispo County). A contract extension has
also been signed between SLOSCAT at Santa Barbara Transportation,
expiring on June 30, 1989.
B-2-2
OPTION 1 -- Extend SLOSCAT Joint Powers Agreement
The existing SLOSCAT Joint Powers Agreement can be extended for any
amount of time that is mutually accepted by the signing parties. These
are the cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover City, Pismo Beach, San Luis
Obispo, and the County of San Luis Obispo. Because of a provision of the
JPA, all parties must agree to any modification.
Advantages of this option are the configuration of an existing system
that uses "donated" administration and allows signatory jurisdictions
full authority over operations.
Disadvantages include operating a complete entity to administer a single
route, resulting in higher reporting costs, meeting costs, contracting/
promotion/bus backup costs and staff/elected officials time.
OPTION 2 -- MERGE SLOSCAT AND CCRTA INTO A SINGLE SYSTEM GOVERNED BY
SINGLE JOINT POWERS AGENCY.
Under this option the SLOSCAT board would merge responsibility for
administering the system with a regional fixed-route transit system,
Central Coast Regional Transit Authority (CCRTA). New board seats would
be created on CCRTA for. the cities of Arroyo Grande, Pismo Beach, and
Grover City. Formally, the complete authority for operating the bus
linkage between South County and SLO city would reside in the CCRTA
board; informally, the board would likely give extra consideration to
input made by South County representatives on - SLOSCAT issues.
Administration, marketing and analysis would be done by the county
Transit Manager's office. Board action would control the extent of
marketing and analysis.
The relative advantages of this option are found in the cost efficiencies
of consolidations, with fewer JPA to administer, few contracts/meetings/
reporting/audit requirements and freeing up city administration time for
other important city functions. Disadvantages include some loss of local
control and the direct charging of administrative costs.
Cost comparison tables were prepared for committee review showing that
the CCRTA option results in a savings in direct costs for audits,
mandated transit plans and backup bus costs, which is then consumed in
increased TDA costs being displayed for administrative monitoring and
system promotions. The trade-off for the higher administrative costs is
achieved through the use of transit professionals, investing twice the
number of support hours in monitoring to increase the efficiency and
effectiveness of the system. This results in a marked decrease in the
number of hours invested by elected officials, as the analysis and option
development is done by staff prior to meetings rather than at the
meetings themselves. Decisions can be made in quarterly meetings,
reviewing staff reports and recommended actions. From the policy
level, the decision needed is between low administrative support, and
B-2-3
• •
therefore fewer administrative costs, or a higher level of transit staff
work prior to board meetings. Option 2 requires more South County TDA
money for administration, but more than makes up the difference in
savings from reduced duplication in required reports, plans, equipment
usage and audits. It is important to note that no new administrative
staff are projected to be added to CCRTA under this option, as existing
staff time would simply be distributed over four routes instead of the
current three.
OPTION 3 -- MERGE ALL THREE REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEMS INTO A SINGLE SYSTEM
GOVERNED BY A SINGLE JOINT POWERS AGENCY.
Under this option both SLOSCAT and CCRTA JPAs would be dissolved. The
existing regional transit authority (the Area Council), which manages the
Regional Handicapped System, would be expanded to assume the prior
administration of both CCRTA and SLOSCAT. This option is very timely as
Paso Robles will soon be receiving regional service. Upon service
extension, all entities in the region will be served.
Major Provisions
1. Single countywide JPA for all regional transit systems under the
authority of the Area Council Board.
2. Managed by existing county transit staff.
3. Costs are equitably shared, on same basis as revenue received,
population basis for an equitable three round trips per day; with the
costs of any additional services being funded by the affected
jurisdictions on a formula they jointly develop.
4. To assure local control, a provision is recommended to restrict
additional services in excess of three round trips per day unless
agreed to by a majority of the affected jurisdictions. Other
provisions could be included to require the same approval for route
changes, schedule modifications, etc. South County cities continue
to raise concerns over the possible loss-of-control.
5. Combines three regional Joint Powers Agreements, governing boards,
audit and reporting requirements, provides policy continuity--system
planning coordination, funding and operation monitoring, would be
overseen by the same elected officials, the Area Council delegates,
sitting as the Regional Transit Authority (shown below).
5. Allows the ability to bid for a countywide transit contract or
portion thereof.
7. Provides an equitable level-of-service and includes a local control
provision.
S. Allows systemwide marketing and scheduling, and more effective use of
equipment and administrative oversight.
B-2-4
Funding distribution is shown in the succeeding tables. Column 1 shows
1988-89 funding allocations as they currently exist. Column 2 shows
funding distributions as they would have existed if all entities
participated on a population basis to fund regional service. Column 3
shows the distribution recommended by staff if unification of regional
transit is to proceed without unfairly burdening some jurisdictions with
the higher service levels of other areas. Three round trips a day are
seen as baseline regional service. The costs of operating service at
this level are computed for runs between North County and San Luis Obispo
city, South County and SLO city, Morro Bay and SLO city, and between-
Cuesta College and SLO city. These costs are then apportioned directly
to jurisdictions by population. Any service above three round trips is
considered extra, with costs to be borne by the benefited areas. Table 1
shows the current levels of service, and Table 2 shows the expected
services next year. Assumptions are shown on the tables, including an
inflation factor of 5%, service expansion to Paso Robles and service
expansion to Cuesta College.
Fairness of cost distribution is an important consideration in any
establishment of funding formulas. Transportation Development Act funds
are currently apportioned by population, with the county receiving the
largest percentage (42x) and Pismo Beach receiving the least (3.5x) . The
recommended proposal includes a baseline service level of three round
trips per day, to be funded on a population basis. Additional service
could be elected by any entity, but must be funded solely by the entities
benefited, at a formula they mutually agree to set.
This funding formula clearly benefits cities more than the unincorporated
county. Service between Morro Bay and San Simeon Acres would not be
included, as it is presently provided by the county with the SLOCAT
system. This presently is a lower cost system using smaller buses driven
by county employees serving solely unincorporated communities.
Baywood/Los Osos now is served by CCRTA Route 7 and by an express bus for
commuters by SLOCAT. The express bus would be seen as extra service,
funded again by the affected entities. Nipomo, with a disbursed
population of 7,000 would not likely receive service until the population
grows to approximately 10,000 people, recommended by the RTP or unless
there is some overwhelming support generated at future unmet needs
hearings.
Funding is available to accommodate all of the county increase necessary
to implement the model. Table 2 shows a projected increase of $37,672
needed from county funds to meet the recommended option.
The North County Transportation Study is almost complete with an expected
outcome of connecting Paso Robles to cities south with regional transit. •
If this study is endorsed by the Area Council, the final linkage between
all incorporated cities will be in place. A unified regional transit
system would be a timely addition for the 1989-90 fiscal year.
II
B-2-5
• •
OPTION 4 -- MERGE SLOSCAT INTO SCAT
This option would achieve a consolidation of the two systems serving
South County. SLOSCAT would be eliminated as a Joint Powers Agreement.
A reduction in audit costs performance audit and transit development
plans would result, as the number of operating entities would be reduced
from two to one. The back-up bus currently used for SCAT could now
benefit the South Counties/SLO city run, which would be seen as Route 5
of the South County Area Transit. The city of San Luis Obispo would be
invited to participate in the operations and funding of the enlarged SCAT
entity. Currently, this single membership defines the differences
between the SCAT Board composition and SLOSCAT (Arroyo Grande, Grover
City, Pismo Beach, San Luis Obispo city and San Luis Obispo county) . It
is unknown at this time whether San Luis Obispo would choose to
participate and what level of TDA funding would be required from SLO city.
The advantages of this are primarily in the cost savings South County
entities could expect as listed above and through "donated"
administration. Local control would reside more clearly in the South
County with Option 4. Disadvantages are found in the unknown
participation of SLO city, and that any cost savings found in merging two
systems would be increased in merging three; the full advantages of
unifying all regional transit could never be realized under this option.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTS
' Discussions on the options by advisory committees are seen by Area
Council staff to be important -for informed decisionmaking. The draft
minutes of three committees are therefore included in this agenda packet
(Item A ).
DH/cl/8547-1/150
4-03-89
B-2-6
m .. II ., u
W W n o N n -r y m W n G S
ds T TI n u� m In m �o - us u; a s
-WW` ii ° r_ s r_
of fY a 1R _, v m .� m •.' ii
•�,Ci I v iJ iJ ii
W iu 1 �'
O•••u jj
U v 1 I I Ln
ii _
11
T .• O m M1 to In it O `
w J ii N C 01 LO N m u0 I-
t0 b M1 IT u �ry
w 11 O� �! � li
La
lV N N N N -� ON !P it •J' W
O Z Z 11 II 4
11 H }
II U m
II ^
N `
�^� 11 Q +7 fT T N m N tV I!
J WW 1! IT In LO N -t M O m 11 v tP 0 S
i` dlSS II O W N O O N M1 II ...
L .a
II `I
J 2 W II v 7 S
O C•-•C M II n n 1.,
U v 11 H SU 4 L)
li V tY} m ® 0 0 m. m II O O T ?
W 11 M1 M1 �0 in •T �t m O II ND I�. •0 cx
0 11 .•. N G N m M1 M1 't 11 O N � A U.11
^ S II
r 6Y' 11 T .' N N m In w r4 m In '0 IT 11 y Y• w .••
J W 11 ® m 11
S .0 L Z
vi L,
a a n 11 0 L �.
ii U Wul rn ~
�� !L nl m m .n w• ii n ? u
1-Q ii ry in is i. It N
W T Vn m m 0+ %1 u a
W 11 m N N m :9 C. N rO0 jl 7 n Ci 3 O
tY O II
LL LL I; II 14 71 z
0
!
1 ►^ n C
IIJ
y D 0 a
�I 11 LO ID tD II m ; J 11
I
r ae
N 11 If r N � i1
Q' 11 11 7 v to aD 3
II •� at i4 r
Um 11 N If O0 m III t�z
1z,-z 1- u In In n a r 71 0
a 1^
If '' m
u
u
;�,1 m
M1 ii In o m� , m o
I 11 t0 M1 �I Vi 1 -91.
W
W ` \ II i = IA i T
U F u N T N
0JII N
' ' d lLIS II W O Or w
.. IL QC W U It n N O O O o O T 0 y ^
~ - O 11 a a _
W T m m II O Q. L >
2 J Z O it •M1- .m-. L 0 IY
N 11 IN It M1 IL w to A O
D.
O IJl1 11 III
W O I V h -II E A it Z
tl in
� m Z tfi M1 it O M 3r Ldl C
OG 2 2 11 M1 -. M1 W m W m N 11 J7 N A x 7 jY
'^ W a C II V m 6 N N;G M1 II e S m W U W
w tL L.1 II Ir N n ^ ^
^
1-
11
tl \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ II
If N m 10 LO m m m II G
z 11 M1 IA m lP -f If! m II y n
"J II LD O U, v ri m tT N 11
n
S 11 II
II 0 K In 0% C r- M1 II O 0
if m m m M1 m m wii N p
0-1= ii m N o o� m
m iim
O 11 ~ It 0 W
11 ;;
11 II
It W 11
II z } tPT II O
H S O 1- W U
IY "r J S
m In w z ii o ¢ m � m 0 iicx
O It } U W O O U t; It J
p O
O -+U ii cx i= O ix In Ln O O II Ix-
= U dl 11 OC 1- a b S .... J J 11 b
Ll LL VI lel II
it ;:------^------n--^--^
W u h — M1 O 0_+ M1 z N a 0
a0 LLI UI jI V % M. J, V, n. a' i� if
S W II v V 11
WII V N �D N h 0
J u:U ol TS ITi 11
O Z O ❑ v II
U'�•�v 11 II
N 171 m Q1 �D
it 11 m O
^ {I
V m 11 m U) N Rf m N O it I, m
I In
v Il II � �►
W -
r If II .7
pi+ fV �^ li tQ m fV N _O 'J• ID fi O VI
J W 11 M1 m 4 M1 N tD 7 II V CI
J d W V1II U) O 0) N R N I0
9 O 11 C
te5 S li V ii
.r W
• � _•�U tt �' `� � m ii qi a
r U�v ii li
II tl U •+
ILr f. i. v W N ti ITi �
i to yl m r. T D .. "
2 it v m IT! m %D O 11 m o
0
J D un
2 It d N D M1 1T/ a, 6 itN VI i
r• 17 r m ^J N _
N it 10 L
II 11 v 1
Vm II it
Il u u 0 +i
11 II N
!I N R N L
2 II h a+ 4 al m O O :D 11 m 4 L
.Wi.t I 11 h z ^ O
v D= 11 m R U, T M1 0 IT; II N rl L
v` ii M, Li N Mp 'lig ^+ If C r 7' L
•m W II ^ 11 N of S 0 IL
i1 .............................•
if C u
tt g D $ tt m °u iD r y a
m u
I OC li �D tQ �D %D it h L 0. Ib
I II N N N N II O Ill L m
if L 'L r.+
i II II 9 l ++
G S S II J N 11 a a C U 9 1
r 11 O' it D w
U r II m .D 11 m I.
D OZ
T U 11 y It. E ^ �-+
S I: 11
If N e iv Y b4,
z > .L+
G I 11 m If) O 11 M1 0 - L N N
W D I R 11 m In m 11 tD --• M m
U r l 11 M1 m Ili 11 m +� 0 N
I r 11 11 7 yzit N
i
W J W 11 .^ 11 .+ Go A '-
In GpW r u u :+ m a
LL C w r ii u7 tT r_ m if r^
N O L n S It m ID a- N N II G 'O L .D N T
O U 11 m %D In v v 11 U1 u D C +
W J M RV I
�u Z a c m
FS- J In 11 ..+ N It M1 (11% m
tY it .. T T y r
p r It 11 N O N Ia m +1 +1 m to T ii m 0 C
W r It IT N N N m h It m
r p OC 11 v N m v - G Ifi ITi 11
J J D it
W J II In ? Nr 11 M
m �C M1 11 O
O 11 11 N
r 11 0 m z u x
11 N 0J' iu W 4J v d• li u
u n M1 m m m Uo z UJ N It D
of n � In In v N m a% u
a If .. It
it tt tri
u n
¢mitW to m o
O m I,
m a+ u m d
r •� 11 it c
11 m N T t7 N T Z it v
G M1 11 N m m 11 O N
O 11 II N 111
ii v 11 li iZ
11 II
II II
11 I I
11 11
II 11
Ii lli ii z
II } 111
11 u: a' r 1- J m I-
11
} 11 U` W U 2 •" • }
r 11 O m O m" .r, 11 OC
W
U W Z 11 0 S O u
W 0 11 r U W D D C:V U 11 J
o U 10 If � ¢ Opt vl n o o u
L U S S U 4 u 4 v tt G-
O
0
m
coo
U f/! to i9 M
m
w
m ^
7 O N O N
p Ln of IT n
M
u
m m
v a m
m
m w
Q. o m m\ m .+ m �+
m u L Pa m T w L m Y m u W
d mw oexuu w w w .- m w T c m ar m O
Ouamooa of
• u 6 G 60'-\ c a G > w m w . o c> to
m oo aE m o0md w v w L ^ w au to
++ ++ s x y C a w.x 7'0 •-t\ 00 w 0. w
m y N u . .- a w to D am m o
N o m ° w.+ pp u c u �a w a to a m e w e n w �.
d U w td Al.O w v'O +y'O W w L M w
t +H w to+1 T\ T
L u 7 a L u C! > c m "
w L .-i L L \ m N \
C u c m C w C M w 0 +.°•O a a\ 0. C m �.'� an d _
O d U O .+ c ro O �7 U a a9 to 09 > 8%n 0. O +� t+0�= OD a
AJ a Uw w U itn tnd x 7N n to w u u u w
AJ y� w m Vf en 0. B .-i W 6 C•
O U C O C 3 v
u O Ci O
m .
O .•i •1 W) th fn
U M M
4O.J. i9 K
w w
m L L
w
O N N N J N %O O O �1-4 �T N %D
en r1 °-i I.y .-I r•1 r/ N
w 4
w _ L
B\ T O m m L ri u m W W m
\ m L\ eq e0 B a 00 a W w —
m w w M u L o0 x u m to w m
L \ �. . m w Y > ' m m U
0w m N a 8 w \ ^+ ++
N e°-I ... .� a w w a > 00 v
syn L 4 1 x T w O S^ m ^ w aJN m W
RL
L L •p O o0 v -en\ W m O m T 7 O0\
• 1 m c — S w 00 00 00 m\ 00 T C 8 f3\ a u to m w N
u
I 0 to AJ W u u u u m 0\ O\.. m *y U th 00 L
8 w w t0 N B C a U w m m + m 0.1 w ^a U i4 w L w 4
Op a T V w 0 t0\ \ t0 L a.° w u w .-1 L d T 00 >. O
.yF W. u .0.0 U. w w aL mLU C m \ w \ w
d m 0 m a c L w t u o :t w O N L a m W ^+ H m
C U .-I -i w T � w a to d °••1 m ® 00 W 00 0.
O N m m L O G a 00-i u 1-1 O— M— G v C v •• O S L 10 1 w u a
u 0 m c N w g L. 6 to U � O F L U y a y m a E �
Oto w d f v N N
O
\
L O
ca w w o G
c
u O O n
a x
a a a \
u 7 m 7 c -
m V7 N C,
ri •C 1
M W t0 L W a W m 1
pH
to L a m > L \O
y
i 0
® o 0 0 0
N
O O O O O
N �
N
u fn M yq fA iq �q
n
co
d wL
C V1 O c
B UN UN tr
NW tp
w It a CY, a e 00
1
C
cn cn
FN �v=
•v
cce�
N
.c
A
v w
vO1 7 N N N O
o ri ., x = ® ow
p V rl v -
V O • Ij.0 u w L O V1 � T Opp N
V O L NV)tiD 10 ?� N N b ri L IV
c0 n w O " \ O ON - P• +� N w
wv\ U 1-4 N u U N\ N U D.0 O
u V►O u M u C ALJ iA u d V N
c V) v w �\ t v aw o e po u
O ++v v u O 07 u\ cc a v c) w
u e0 rr► N N O v O N N cc O L h w 00 F
+r w V1 " w �D cn\ w
-+ N v .- a. Nv V• -4T Ln 3 w E U
eo u E A u@ m u y! 6 v a cA
p w pct C 7 w p v C F N u U O
u N c\ N O C\ w C a C U C U
N 6�w dv(Id 6v^� O V A 4U O fn
zD �
6
O •O O
M F v In h Ln O v01
O O U I i9 v! M h N
C
C
u
.J N ^ N
V O O U
E O
U7 N
O u u u a+
ti+ U U w
L Y L L
_ c_ •O t0 b m c
U i .N, w M tN+ V
cc o to co m
C
6 v Q v 6 v C
•-1
a
F O O O O O
ov o LrO% o o vv+i
., cn
F O ri ..+ N •O O
1.4
10
O in 64 M i9 i9
u
N ,r
FIC N O N V n
O N w m co
7 N u
U � W MN M A L •^/T
ti u F o u co
W O i•. .-� n .C W O
1
o C m `c 0
0 yo Grande
San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating ounc l Arr Ato adeno
Grover City
Morro Bay
and Regional Transportation Planning Agency Paso Robes
Pismo Beach
San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo County
TECHNICAL TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MARCH 17, 1989
MINUTES
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Technical Transportation Advisory
Committee held in Conference Room 1 , San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating
Council Offices, 1050 Osos Street, County Government Center, San Luis
Obispo, California, at 9:30 PM.
Present: Paul Sensibaugh Atascadero
Wayne Peterson SLO City
Tom Sullivan Grover City
Paul Karp Arroyo Grande
Michael Upton Morro Bay
John Wallo SLO County
Steve Devencenzi Grover City
Staff Present: Ron DeCarli Project Manager
Dan Herron Assistant Trans. Planner
1 ) Minutes. The meeting begins at 9:45. The minutes of the January 20,
1989 meeting are approved as submitted. No discussion of the Area
Council meeting minutes is held.
2. Unmet Transit Needs. - Dan Herron summarizes the progress of the 1989
Unmet Needs Hearing process. Three requests of seventy-five total have
been fully analyzed and staff is recommending they be determined to be
unmet needs, reasonable to meet. Paso Robles regional transit is
recommended to be initiated at a service level of three round
trips/dy. Note is made of the sparse population in Templeton and Santa
Margarita; service to these areas may not be supportable at three
round trips, and the option will exist to stay on Hwy 101 if ridership
fails to develop there. The need for Paso Robles community transit is
presented, with little comment. The lack of non-medical trips for
Runabout is not seen by committee members as an unmet need. The level
of community support for the requests is not high, though knowledgable
people say this is related to the perception that Runabout is
exclusively medical transportation. John Walla notes the lack of
success in previous attempts to gain non-medical ridership; expanding
service hours have typically been quickly filled by increased trips to
doctors. The addition of a van may not prove to be a solution. Dan
Herron notes the lack of a van is a barrier to service, agreeing that
County Government Center, San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 (805) 549-5706
��
9 ��
the �'/|u� i(in i� /.ol: e.j�>y b./i. LhI_- 82% medical u�aop OF Runat^out
for r|,mut�. narie M i |os suupori� thr J.
ven .a} i: c);it-- Jav hid to ho d~ni',d vict a.5 med;Cu| pri*' itie";
wev� |ed� a now van wou|J h.'!n ihi� �ituation, Kn// DeCar/ i po7o�� uu(
U"ai o,w v,--i`ic|v: i, P\ao'`rd f^, additiur` in th� fa: | . huvever,
c-urreoi plzx`s are to u�e this acouiait/on to e| iminate thio-
ba ck up
`�backup vun. 7ois will not add to �ervice Pot.entia| . Joh: Wa| |o
suqgcyts expand inq Saturday service' Note is oiado thai this is one of
I:he uos,,ibi | iLies o/ev/tiooed in the reoort. Two Sullivan woints out. the
staff report does not suoourt the conc)ueior) that a need exists;
cw/munity tuoport indioator� a,+ mixed. A motiun i5 made by Jot In
Wu/ |o, �econded by Tom Sullivan, to support 5tafF 'ecom/oendations
except Fur iten/ c) . the Runabout non-medica| servlce' A second motion
is madt! and c�rrivs to direct RTA -staff wiilgather information on
ridprship ' needs between now arid the acquisition of a new vehicle (Fall .
1989) ' Motion payues unuppoyeU,
Dao her rot. ca| }t� attention the pages �ummarizing a\ l requests r*ce(ved,
siaFF Findino--; arid actions Uaken, Mike Upton move-s'. sec^nded by Tom
Sullivan, to �-upPort the-,;e Findioqs' Motion passes unopposed'
3' SLOSCAT Report. Dan Herron summarizes the pruqress of SL0SCAT tra''�,it
service brt=eoo South County and SLD City, noting a current cumulative
farebov ratio of 26%' Tom Su| l iva// inrerjeoty that the subsidy
`upport For this 5e, vice is therefore 74%. Staff i�, recommending a
series of actions: Find the service a success, integrate it regio'e| lv
and reword SL0RTA Joint Powers Agreement to fund first three rouodtrip'S
nn a popuIation basis. with aFrected jurisdirtion� Fundi'/o additim'`a!
co-sts; and add provisions toas-,ore local can I.ro| of. serv(�e -
extensio/1:5, Pau| Karp, seco/`ded by Tom Sul livso^ moves tu eliminafe
the �,eryice in view uF the need for a 74% �oubsidy' Motion 5 fo
2. Tom 5u) | ivdn dioag''*r� with one wordinuon pane b-2-3 reca' dinq
"less uroFesyiu/'al t;tafF administrative monitoring", noting that it is
offensive to city administrative staff' Ron DeCarl | points out thvt
tran�;it omnitoriog of the system is less than other systems, and Lhat
staff oPe-rating data ana|y�io and ytaFF reports are largely |uck |/`g'
The tone oF the sentence will be revised for the Area Cuuncil report'
Tom Sullivan reels the staff renm't is biat5ed, and that opt ion i ,
retaini/'g curre/`t structure of SLO5CAT, /5 unfairly weighted' !ohn
Wallo notes that Arnold Dowdy originally called For control
during the te,,t period only, aqreeinq to fold service into a larger
sv�tem if it proved successful . Tum Sullivan denies this. John Wa| |o
t,peaks for the cc-)-,t savings consolidation would produce, nutab|v the
release of on $18.00G. standby bus' Ron OeCar) i describes the unified
transit model concept, noting the table-s shown on costs allow a
reduction in TOA costs For South County cities even without the
expected cost efficiencies. John Wo} |o says a major adva'`tage of the
unified system would be Found in the governing body (Area Council
delegates) Ueinq in charge of policy and regional transit ucierations'
Paul Ka,p, seconded by Wayne Peterson proposes a motion to yuoourt
staff recommendations. /nodiFvinu the sentence regarding administrative
mon itor inu. Mot ion Passes with one no vote From Torn Su} / ivan'
San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council Arroyo GraAtascadn
Grover City
Morro Bay
and Regional Transportation Planning Agency Paso Robles
Pismo Beach
San Luis Obispo
® Son Luis Obispo County
CITIZENS TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MARCH 20, 1989
MINUTES
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Citizens Transportation Advisory
Committee held in Conference Room 1 , San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating
Council Offices, 1050 Osos Street, County Government Center, San Luis .
Obispo, California, at 7:00 PM.
Present: Pat Mackie Paso Robles
Mark Shaffer 2nd District
Melanie Tara District 1
Ron Duvall Area Council
George Fulton Grover City
Wayne. King Area Council
Nina Marble District 5
Guest: Ike Nnaji Caltrans District 5
Staff Present: Ron DeCarli Project Manager
Dan Herron Assistant Trans. Planner
The following are action minutes of the meeting according to the agenda as
discussed and acted upon.
1 . Minutes. The January 23, 1989 meeting minutes are reviewed and
accepted as submitted. The Area Council minutes are commented upon;
Pat Mackie notes a need to support ridesharing augmentation. Ike
Nnaji provides an . explanation of Transportation Management
Associations, ' and the $10 million available to support
vanpools/transportation management. The governor is calling for a
10% reduction in trips for state employees. Pat Mackie makes a motion
encouraging the Area Council to pursue the governor's targetted
reduction, applying the 10% reduction to all tax-supported entities.
Wayne King seconds the motion. Wayne King notes a private sector
model program operated by the 3M Company in St. Paul . Conceptual
approval is preferred by Ron Duvall . The motion is withdrawn,
substituting the development of a plan of action to examine a 10%
reduction in trips, as a topic for the next CTAC meeting. Motion
passes by consensus.
County Government Center, San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 (805) 549-5706
i lnmon,t 'Not,�it,. Dzii i HL-r r o n ,r e-r,Nrit �, the �,taf F rer _�rnmenrjar i or =_. Fc)r Ir
urrmri. �t-1aiait: nf-etI, tl)crt auoear re-asc,nablc_ to meet. Of 15 c'�uue_:ts.
three have Uu-pti ruIIv an.3lv_ed. and are di�,ctjssed separateiv, Payo
-;
Robles i ec,iyctal tr ,3r;•;it i, are:jentvLJ a5 meet' ing al I tests of cnnnet
t ran;,i t. r reed,, Bohr T1 AC arid Product i v i ty cornrn i ttees concur. w i th fire
uncle rstand i nc th-it :sma l l er cummun it i es f Teiiip l etot , Santa Maryar i t 3l
inu�:t. prove ..abIti, to generate r idem. Comment i:; mane th,31- strc>nq
publicity rf Furt; are needed wi th any . new service. Paso Rob_I rs
c_ornmun i tv t r ans i t. needs :err- ' d,scussed, riot i rig the Nor th t_ounty
Transoor l:at i on�Studv t i nd i nqs i rid i tate ,needs For more service, and for
b:(:)aclt•niriy the, service populatiort. Runabout nonmedical service is
diticussed as a need, and the continents of TTAC acid Productivity
Comm ittees are presented. TTAC Feels the problems are best handled
admini�jtratively. and Productivity Committee concurred, but separately
reconitnerided that. SLORTA staff be directed to use banked hours by
contract end dal-.e, servinu a hither percentage of nem-medical transit
requests. A suggestion is irrade to examine the operation of Runabout.
to see if the problem can be resolved. Mark Shaffer, verifies the neer'
for _,ervice expansion in this area. A motion is made to concur with
staff rtccommendations, and direct RTA staff to work with RHS Advisory
Cuirn i t t ee and SLOACC staff to develop an action plan of immediate and
long ranch proposals to increase non-medical ridership and use
budgeted I10urs. The motion, made by Pat Mackie, seconded by Mark
Shaffer. passes unanimou,ly.
SLOSCAT Report. Dan Herron presents the result-; of the first year's
uperation of SLOSCAT, which has met perfurmance ob.iectives. Three
rrr_ominendat.ions air, discussed; find the service a success, integrate
it with others in a s i nq I e regional transit authority. and nr'ot:ert
local control of service level,. Note is also made of SLOSCAT staff
recommendation to integrate SLOSCAT as part of the SCAT system.
D i sews:;i un for_u-.;es on the integration concept., which i'3 seen to have
two main i,;,ue• : TDA funding chances and local cont.rc_>I nee:;, George
Fulton rtr>te-I that bigger is not necessarily better. , nd cautions
ac ,i i ns t Fast ar:jwth. Melanie Tara feel 5 the tune has came for
reg i or 1 i zat i on, which can p 1 art fur proper service crowth tc, meet
needs. Attention is paid l--o the consumer viewpoint. with a single
system much easier ror riders to understand and use. Ron DeCarl ;
notes the advantages in admini_�trative ;taFf usage, back-up bus co.:-ts.
s t arf and board efficiencies. He notes that many recommendations will
eo forward with this stair report For Area Council decisiurt, George
print; out that s;treets and roads are important. and y Larger
organizal- ion, if it is less efficient. will _ap needed Funding Frrtrn
1ocaI streets. Ron reminds the _corrnnittee of the staff recommendation
For a JPA revision to assure local control by requiring. aFfected
entities afrirrnative action on any suggested expansions. Nina Marble
supports the concept as beinq the best plan For the future. Melanie
rrK:)ves, with Nina's second, that the committee support staff
recomr:endations a. b, and c. Motion carries unanimously.
_ 1
ouncil Arroyo Grande
San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Atascadero
Grover City
Morro Bay
® rand Regional Transportation Planning Agency Paso Robles
Pismo Beach
San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo County
DATE: April 7, 1989
TO: Area Council Delegates
FROM: Ron DeCarli , Program Manager
SUBJECT: Addition to the April 19, 1989 Area Council Muting
B-1 Report on SLOSCAT Operations and Governing Entity
tomments and Responses to Governing Entity portion of item `B-I
N
t � 4
1 � u
Vr Al
}
County Government Cent6r, San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 (805) 549-5706
i •
Comments and Responses, SI.OSCAT Report
The staff report on the SIOSCAT•-Operations and Governing Entity has been
reviewed by your advisory councils, the Technical Transportation Advisory
Committee, the Regional Transit Productivity Cmuttee, and the Community
Transportation Advisory Committee. The principal focus of discussion has
been on the fusion of three Joint Kers Agreements (CCRTA, SIORTA and
SLOSCAT) into a single regional transit authority. Since the Area Council
staff report was prepared, several substantive comments have been received
from transit staff. They are listed below with responses from Area
Council staff.
Comment: The suggested reorganization melds three JPAs into one. The
SCAT/SIASCAT secretary is ping a reorganization that will
integrate two Seth County JPAs, with OCTA and SIGMA free to
consolidate separately. Both concepts, then, merge four JPAs
into two. What are the differences?
Response: Both options have clear advantages over maintaining the current
fragmentation of services. . Four JPAs are more difficult to
administer, duplicative in costs and confusing to the
consumer. Either option is an improvement over existing
operational structures.
Regional problems should be met with regional solutions.
Intercity transit is essentially a regional, not a local,
concern. The unification of regional transit with SIORTA as
the countywide hub seems natural, viable and efficient.
The alternative, consolidation of SCAT/sIDSCAT, is preferable
to maintaining the current four JPAs. It has advantages in
simplicity of implementation. Under the South County
consolidation the SIA/South County run would be considered
Route 5 of SCAT, with costs apportioned to the participating
jurisdictions.
In early April, new information was gained that made the
SCAT/SIOSCAT consolidation more attractive. The current
contractor for both transit services has suggested that the
heightened efficiency of this consolidation would allow him to
reduce the cost of the contracted South County/SID run by about
$10,000. Savings would come primarily from the shared use of
the SCAT backup bus among the 5 routes. On April 10, the
smscu Board met and reviewed a pznposal based upon this
offer, prepared by SIOSCAT secretary. The distributed contract
cost was presented for the 1988/89 year and projected for
1989/90 using a different base, exclusive of farebox revenues.
This comparison would be clearer if both columns of numbers
dared similar numbers, using either contract amount or
contract amount less farebox (roughly equivalent to TDA
costs) . In the chart below, a third oolumn has been added to
the figures presented at the SIIOSCAT meeting for more
appropriate comparison purposes.
(1)
SLOSCAT SYSTEM COST DISTRIBUTION
(Approximate)
1988-1989 1989-1990 Adjusted 88-89
Contract cost Contract less Contract less
Projected Fares Projected fares
Arroyo Grande $17,000 $14,825 $12,600
Grover City: . 13,000 11,819 9,700
Pismo Beach . 9,000 7,742 6,700
County of SID 8,000 6,795 5,900
SID City 21,000 0 15,500
TO'T'ALS $68,000 41,181 $50,500
The $41,181 total equals the contractor's offer of $58,680 less
a farebox estimate of $17,500. The $50,500 is derived by
reducing the $68,000 by $17,500, about 26% farebox return.
If San Luis Obispo City participates to any degree the costs to
the remaining agencies would decrease.
A major unresolved issue is whether or not SIO City will
participate in a South County consolidation. The City of San
Luis Obispo currently funds 30 percent of the total cost of
SLOSCAT. If SLO City agrees to participate and maintain
current funding formulas, TDA proportions will remain stable.
If SIO City disagrees, South County entities will absorb the
extra costs to maintain the existing service. The City
} benefits, however, from the service, and equity is better
served by their participation in any consolidation that occurs.
l
At this point the cost savings for the region are essentially
the same, favoring the South County consolidation by roughly a
thousand dollars.
The main disadvantage with a South County consolidation is that
cost efficiencies inherent in combining regional transit may
never be fully realizable. A larger system can use vehicles,
manpower and communication equipment more efficiently. This
will be especially true in 1992, when the current contract with
the CCRTA will be opened for cmipetitive bidding. Therefore,
Area Council staff are recommending consolidation of CCRTA,
SLOSCAT and SIORI'A into a single regional transit authority.
Comment: Table 1 shows $70,000 as an existing service cost for SLOSCAT.
This should be reduced by about $20,000 to account for fare
revenues. Moreover, no increase is shown in the united model to
account for administration. This is an error, because the
system will move from a no cost administration to one that
accounts for SIDRTA staff time and other administrative
expenses
(2)
i 0
Response: The $70,000 TDA allocation was used, without reduction for
fares, in accordance with the only budget figures reviewed by
swsc T, showing no anticipated revenues. All other figures in
Tables 1 and 2 are the TDA portions of larger budgets that show
total operating oasts; including active costs along
with other budget categories for equipment reserves, first
quarter reserves, fares and interest. For comparisons, a
better figure to use would be an adjusted TDA cost for SIDSCAT,
taking the annualized allocation of $70,000 and reducing it by
an estimated 26% farebox return ($18,200) for a TLIA adjusted
cost of $51,800. This figure is included in the revised Tables
1 and 2, attached to this report.
No new staff are planned for SIARTA under the unified model.
Current staff can handle the addition of one more route to the
system, given the reductions in meetings, reports, etc.
Consequently, a rxmdnal amount of $2,000 is included in the
attached revisions of the tables as the increase in
administrative expenses. The administrative budget will be
reviewed annually, with all jurisdictions involved in
establishing an appropriate level of professionalmarketing,
o
administrative monitoring and financial reporting for the
system-
Comment: Increased efficiencies are cited as resulting from a
unification of regional transit, yet the cmparison Tables 1
and 2 do not reflect reduced transit costs between present
formula and unified model column models. What are the
savings? Can they be incorporated into the tables for
comparison purposes.
Response: It is difficult to quantify many of the very real cost
reductions expected with unification. This is because they
deal with efficiencies of scale that result in lower contract
costs, elimination of duplicitive staff work, fewer meetings
and reports. Full use of buses and manpower becomes possible
when routes can be creatively interwoven. For example, a
single bus could continuously cover a route serving South
County, SLO City and Cuesta, provided that one contractor
served all regional routes. Many of the private bus meanies
have commented on the efficiencies involved with
consolidation. The cost savings involved are hard to
accurately predict but may be substantial: in testimony given
before the Area Council at the 1988 Unmet Transit Needs
Hearing, a former transit contractor_ predicted that "the
capital outlay, insurance and salary savings for - a single-
transit provider would cut a predicted $200,000 from regional
transit costs." _
Scene hard cost savings are quantifiable, based on current
audit/planning contracts and back--up bus agreements. These
savings are detailed in the attached table. They were not'
included in the previous report as only direct TDA transit
allocations were shown. The savings will indirectly benefit
all jurisdictions, as currently the audit and planning costs
are taken as Area Council expenses, prior to distribution of
TL1A allocations to jurisdictions. In effect, a $13,175 savings
off the top would mean that much more money apportioned to
jurisdictions. A revised table is included, showing these
savings for carrparison purposes.
Comment: The Board of Supervisors is reviewing a County-staff prepared
proposal for consolidation regional transit. How does that
proposal differ frcxn the unified model presented to the Area
Council?
Responds: The proposal similarly calls for SIOSCAT and CCRTA to be merged
into SIARTA. The differences are primarily in the cost sharing
formulas; the County plan would apply existing formulas to
fund a single managing agency. The staff report attached is
taken from the CCRTA Board's agenda package for their April 19,
1989 meeting.
C4,
• 0
REGIONAL COST SAVINGS RESULTING FROM
UNIFICATION OF REGIONAL TRANSIT
Current Unified
Systems SSystem
Fiscal. Audit Costs
RTA $ 750
CCRTA 1 ,400
SLOSCAT 1 ,025
3, 175 $ 2,000
Performance Audit Costs
(annualized)
RTA 1 ,500
CCRTA 1 ,500
SLOSCAT 1 ,500-
4,500 2,000
Transit Development Plans
(annualized)
RTA 2,000
CCRTA 2,000
SLOSCAT 2.000
6,000 2,500
Backup Crus
RTA 4,800
CCRTA 18,000
SLOSCAT 6,000
28,500 22.800
TOTALS $42,475 $29,300
REGIONAL SAVINGS $ 13, 175
Administrative Increase ( 2,000) .
NET SAVINGS 11 , 175.
Note: Above figures are hard cash savings, and do not include savings for':
o reduced staff time for meeting preparation, attendance and follow-up
o reduction in number of contracts, with consequent. reduction in staff
time for bidding, selection, negotiating and monitoring of contractors
o efficiencies inherent in competitive bidding larger contracts,
including economies of scale, intensive use of rolling stock, labor
cost savings, etc.
0 reduced time board members spend in meetings
11 C3
i i7) Q+ R, CO f,
� W W
d
of Ii m C, CEJ T. C+ tri
-1 z LIJ ii I I v a s
Q, C+
L 1-•4
i f ,++ _ _TJ
U II fri � n co-; C+ Q+ LD MI! S! 'C+ U-1W J I:
Cr) N Go w N f-•_ if f+ Vi -0 to a+ Ln
11 if J1 L -N z
7 7 h U_ "'' V 4L C+
L 4-
!t y:+
Cn L >-
if fI �• -� - rl, r
V1 Ii N C, tt5 iJ t.0 Cr! LTl it w N S
I- C 11 N C'J �J Cr! -+ fV w 11 m Lr: ''n w �- H
Ln I1 t1 v- C. o _
Ii 1! -iU, :t +l+ t-
LP,
Il O C+ C+ i! C+ O -0 a, C+ m CL
1+
C;, +4- + Iz c r-.
1 1 t s, w %. I I C:, -CI D 0 Ci
i LL i 1 Wu, LL i i U'• u+ "'°+ 4 V U, W
F- It
it ,1 L. U w L 3
If 17
U
if it ^? u+ - Nr If iti
m II N CU ii fJ L `4z
E- li L) N it iJ +_ m O _ _,
i- if -+..t _ C+
u 1t it •+ G+ t O 0
of 11 1 L Q+ i- -- -C }
S if
.4: UI m
LI J I Ii
C+ C+ 0 f• Clcn
^ 0
Mim-
W l_J i ii W iD LL' _ L rr
- W `. Cr' If rV Cn
If r Q, tt
If , COv S
W S 1i f- G, w lf+ If S
., i I i t- F- i i 'u! C•1 u+ G +r! i i t+ u
Lit iJ bi ul
F- z S HIT, rr, J `ry !+, S[ Cr1 °.: -1 rr,
1. it
.i t-}. J CC lfl it N C3 tC+ Lr? un if •-+ •-, L O ••"
I:ti S U G 11 1 i Il:+ Pit u, C. 3 H
if! c ill n
W v 17 ^7 'C* r'-- t',; !T! Cti u; r� ii C, _. ¢• L
!— it t1, .�� vr, e•� rFt •: r� i, Un
Ct T S I 1 f'- •--, f'•- m r�i1 ,L, ro N !t ',L+ :f R X � C+ QC
M W H II - • 11 S m W U. L�
z u a s f1 't t 1 ',G r-- ry C;i if T, W
Lu
H r. `, J t l 11 C� r•.
V1. L- U U) 11 of
+L, z
ii
S
W J if �• J
I- It f- U j rn .yr. ..t- Lo r,! f t C Cl`
II J it .� .r
r, U r--_ rn c N i 1 1- r,
V f f v LL
1!
It ,- U
If
1-- CL li {; Ci -.
Q •i Lr,t-
CL It Mm
—, i f „ - -1
r. rr i i rr. r., - •-r�. .+ .,y rte•. rr^ !� rte. _; W
CO OD 11 L
C;s li it •-+ p m
if
t•- it _ �� w
II !!
n
i1 If
I I W
11 ,rL C, W f r I t
z f1
U) 1- 11 C-j 01 -, I t
- C, i I
Lt! Z 11 O (MCt� �'
H ru
U-1 n_ 1--
L .>i i.
U 1 � J
Ci F- u:
ft
7i
LL
LL�
L.L
LL
IV
Staff Report - Agenda Item No. 6
FOR: CCRT Authority Meeting of April 19, 1989
BY : Richard Randise,O-Transit Systems Coordinator
SUBJECT: Pros/Cons and Options of Consolidation of Regional
Transit Services
Staff Recommendation:
1 . Approve the concept to consolidate the operations of CCRTA
into the existing SLORTA.
2. Direct staff to forward this report along with the Board ' s
action to San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council for its
April 19, 1989 meeting.
Background
During the last CCRTA meeting, the Board directed staff to include
this subject for this meeting. The SLOACC will be discussing this
issue later today . Area Council staff will present the attached
report to SLOACC.
Discussion
The Technical Transportation Advisory Committee , Citizens
Transportation Advisory Committee and the Regional Transit
Productivity Committee have debated this issue and all concur with
Area Council ' s recommendation. The County Engineer and Regional
Transit Manager will present the consolidation issue on April 18 ,
1989 to the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors . The
Regional Transit Manager concurs with the Area Council ' s
recommendation. However, the difference in the Regional Transit
Manager ' s recommendation suggests retaining the current funding
formulas for all regional services .
Consolidation of regional transit services include cost savings as
well as resources. The major cost savings is in Transportation
Development Act reporting requirements (see attachment A) .
Another cost savings is the coach lease payments, which can be
spread over all the ; routes. In this case , where all regional
services currently lease vehicles , the number of leased vehicles
can be reduced by at least one immediately .
Consolidation is easier on the customers . A single bus schedule
showing all regional routes can be produced , fares can be
standardized and transferring among regional routes would be more
convenient .
6-1
Of course there is an administrative cost involved . However , by
consolidating regional services into a single joint powers agency ,
fewer meetings will be required, thus a cost savings of
administrative staff time to prepare for meetings . This will
reduce each jurisdiction 's contributions . Staff can monitor
services and administer contracts more effectively . Finally ,
delegates will save a great deal of time as a result of
consolidating the regional services into San Luis Obispo Regional
Transit Authority . The same members of SLORTA also serve on the
SLOACC. As the Area Coordinating Council adjourns their meeting,
they would reconvene as the Regional Transit Authority for issues
that affect RTA.
Financing
Which jurisdiction should fund the services of RTA and by how much
will always be a controversial subject . Attachment B shows the FY
1988-89 estimated TDA costs for existing services . The estimates
are based on current funding formulas . Attachment C shows the FY
1988-89 estimated TDA costs for expanded services , i.e . , Route 9
expanded to Paso Robles including two mid-day round-trips. Again,
current funding formulas were used , however , an administrative
cost was added to SLOSCAT services since that JPA does not report
administrative costs. The consolidation of SLOSCAT into the RTA
is an issue that will be considered by the RTA at their April 19,
1989 meeting.
The recommendation in the Area Council staff report divides the
TDA cost sharing for all regional services on a population basis.
The basic service level is for three round-trips. Area Council
staff is recommending that jurisdictions contribute funds for this
basic service level by population and funding for any additional
round-trips to be paid by the jurisdictions who receive the
additional service levels .
Rather than debate the funding issue , staff has recommended
approval of the concept to consolidate , and retain the existing
funding arrangements until which time all jurisdictions can agree
on a more equitable funding arrangement.
3349x
6-2
IPTIONI OF EXISTIlIG AGENCIES WITH
JURISDI ON OVER TRANSIT IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
I SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONA` CENTRAL COAST SAI LUIS OBISPO
:AGENCY AREA COORDINATING TRANSIT REGIONAL TRA14SIT SOUTH COUNTY :
: } : COUNCIL AUTHORITY AUTHORITY AREA TRANSIT :
(JPA) (JPA) (JPA) (JPA) :
: ARROYO GRANDE ARROYO GRAND ARROYO GRANDE :
ATASCADERO ATASCADBt- ATASCADERO :
MOVER CITY GROVER CITY GROVER CITY :
MEMBER- : MORRO BAY MM RAY MORRO DAY :
:SHIP : PASO ROBLES PASO KOBLES :
PISMO BEACH PISMO BEACH PISMO BEACH ' :
SLO CITY SLO CITY SLO CITY SLO CITY :
SLO COUNTY SLO COUNTY SLO COLINTY SLO COUNTY :
: CUESTA COLLEGE :
' I
: EINTITIES : E ENTITIES 2 ENTITIES 5 ENTITIES 5 ENTITIES
VS. : 12 VOTES 12 VOTES 5 VOTES VC=TcS
: VOTES : (1 PER CITY, 0 PER CITY,
: :5 FOR THE COWN) 5 FOR THE CC>`RNTY) :
REGIONAL REGIONWIDE REGIONWIDE REGIONWIDE :
:SERVICE : TRANSPORTATION HANDICAPPED FIXED ROUTE FIXED ROUTE :
PLPMING DIAL-A-RIDE (SLO - ATAS. - (SLO CITY :
AGENCY MB - CUESTA) S CITIES) :
COST : PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE 7}iRtE FORM(&-AE T1rJ STAGE :
: ALLO- : OF POPULATION OF POPULATION BASED UPON POP., POP CATION :
CATION APPORTIONMENT APPORTI0.'N~eJ RIDERSHIP, k APPORTIONMENT :
POPIRIDERSHIP. :
NUMKR : SIX PER YEAR SIX PER YEAR FOUR PER YEAR TWELVE PER YEAR :
OF (MEETS CON- (MEETS CON- :
: MEETINGS : CURRENTLY CURRENTLY :
: WITH SLOACC) WITH S(:AT)
:REPORTING REQUIREMENTS (1)
a
. ANNUAL i
REPORT : YES YES YES YES :
FISCAL
AUDIT : YES YES YES YES :
:PERFORMANCE:
: AUDIT : YES YES YES YES
TRANSIT
PLAN : NO YES YES YES :
NOTES:
(1) AVERAGE COSTS OF REPORTS ARE
€1,500 PER FISCAL AUDIT
$4,500 PER PERFORMANCE AUDIT, PERFORMED EVERY THREE YEARS
$8,000 PER TRANSIT PLAN, PERFORMED EVERY FIVE YEARS ATTACHMENT A
FY 1988-89 ESTIMATED TDA COSTS
EXISTING SERVICE LEVELS
Central Coast Reg. Transit
LO-MB SLO- ATAS
-SLO CUESTA -SLO AG-SLO
JURISDICTION RTE . 7 RTE . 8 RTE . 9 SLOSCAT TOTALS
ARROYO
GRANDE 0 0 0 $ 13 , 125 $ 13 , 125
ATASCADERO 0 0 $ 6 , 610 0 $ 6 , 610
GROVER CITY 0 0 0 $ 10, 500 $ 10, 500
MORRO BAY $ 22 ,650 0 0 0 $ 22 , 650
PASO ROBLES 0 0 0 0 0
PISMO BEACH 0 0 0 $ 6 , 825 $ 6 , 825
SAN LUIS
OBISPO $ 49 , 100 $ 6 , 520 $ 6 ,610 $ 16 ,275 $ 78, 505
S L 0
COUNTY 5 54 , 790 $ 6 , 520 $ 6 , 610 $ 5, 755 $ 77 , 695
CUESTA
COLLEGE 0 $ 6 , 520 0 0 $ 6, 520
I
TOTALS $126, 5401 $ 19 , 5601 $ 19 , 830 $ 52 , 500 $211 , 910
ATTACHMENT E
6-4
0 •
FY 1988-89 ESTIMATED TDA COSTS
EXPANDED SERVICE LEVELS
Central Coast Reg. Transit
LO-MB SLO- ATAS
-SLO CUESTA -SLO AG-SLO
JURISDICTION RTE . 7 RTE. 8 RTE . 9 SLOSCAT TOTALS
ARROYO +
GRANDE 0 0 0 $ 14 , 767 $ 14 ,767 $ 1 , 642
ATASCADERO 0 0 $ 29 , 165 0 $ 29 , 165 $ 22 , 555
+
GROVER CITY 0 0 0 $ 11 , 813 $ 11 , 813 $ 1 , 313
MORRO BAY $ 22 , 650 0 0 0 $ 22 , 650 $ 0
PASO ROBLES 0 0 $ 29, 166 0 $ 29 , 166 $ 29 , 166
PISMO BEACH 0 0 0 $ 7 , 679 $ 7 , 679 $ 854
SAN LUIS +
OBISPO $ 49 , 100 $ 6 , 520 $ 29, 166 $ 18 , 310 $103, 096 $ 24 , 591
S L O +
COUNTY $ 54 , 790 $ 6 , 520 $ 29 , 166 $ 6 , 497 $ 96 , 973 $ 19 , 278
CUESTA
COLLEGE 0 $ 6, 520 0 0 $ 6 , 520 $ 0
+
TOTALS $126 , 54G $ 15 , 560 $116 , 6b3 $ 5 • , 066 1 $321 , 8291 $109 , 91911
A total of $6 , 566 have been added to the total TDA cost for the
SLOSCAT route since this represents the expected administration
allocated to this route when it becomes part of the Regional Transit
Authority.
ATTb.,-uMENT <_`
6-5
MEET1/ AGENDA
DAT � rrEM I s.
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: May 2, 1989
TO: Ray Windsor , City Manager
FROM: Andrew J. Takata, Director 66O
Department of Parks, Recreation and Zoo
SUBJECT: PROPOSAL TO DONATE A BRONZE SCULPTURE TO
ATASCADERO LAKE/CHARLES PADDOCK ZOO BY
SUSAN BEATIE
Mrs. Susan Beatie has approached the Parks and Recreation
Commission with her proposal to donate and place a life-size
bronze sculpture of a tiger in Atascadero Lake Park adjacent to
Charles Paddock Zoo entrance.
Susan will be receiving monies from private contributions and
grants to fund this project .
ANALYSIS:
The sculpture is not addressed in the City ' s Master Plan.
However , the sculpture would enhance both the zoo and park .
Option #1 :
Accept Susan Beatie' s proposal to allow placement of the
sculpture in Atascadero Lake Park .
Advantage:
Enhance the park and zoo by placing a piece of art for the public
to view.
Disadvantage:
The sculpture is not depicted in the present Master Plan of the
park .
Option #2•
Thank Susan Beatie for her presentation and decline the proposal
at this time.
Advantage:
This option complies with the present Master Plan of the park.
Disadvantage:
There would be a loss of art located in the park.
Staff is in agreement that this proposal would provide a
beautiful piece of art for the public to view and enhance the
park and zoo . Even though it is not specified in the present
Master Plan, the plan could be amended by staff.
The Parks and Recreation Commission concurs with staff ' s
recommendation.
FISCAL IMPACT•
None. Funding for the sculpture will be provided through private
contributions and grants.
RECOMMENDATION:
Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council accept Susan
Beatie ' s proposal to pursue her donation for the placement of a
life-size tiger sculpture in Atascadero Lake Park adjacent to the
Charles Paddock Zoo entrance, with funding being provided through
private contributions and grants obtained by Mrs. Beatie.
AJT: kv
File: alpi
MEET�hc ,�, ,�GENDa _
DAT rrEM I .
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: April 19, 1989
TO: Ray Windsor
City Manager /
FROM: Andrew J. Takata, Director
Department of Parks, Recreation, and Zoo
SUBJECT: FEASIBILITY OF ATASCADERO LAKE BOAT CONCESSION
. As you are aware, Pop ' s Tackle Shop Concession, operated by
Richard Oswald, is now vacated with all boat paraphernalia
removed from Atascadero Lake Park .
You have requested that staff investigate the possibility of
continuing the operation of this type of facility.
In order to receive the highest visibility, staff recommends
that the concession be relocated at the lake to attract more
participants. Hours of operation is suggested to be six days per
week , totaling 36 hours, Tuesday-Sunday and closed on Monday from
12 noon to 6 p.m. The concession could be operated from June 17
- September 3. Summer operation would include approximately 6
hours per day.
Two Recreation Leaders would be assigned, one for registration
and the other for dock assistance and safety. The necessary
equipment needed would be the normal supplies, materials, rental
agreement , and possible purchase of a cash register . Also,
needed would be the purchase of eight paddle boats, 36 life
jackets ( youth and adult ) , and a floating dock .
EXPENDITURES
8 Paddle Boats. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,886.00
Safety Equipment ( life jackets) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 213.60
Floating Dock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5,543.29
Salaries/Wages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,468.00
(2 Leaders at $4.45/Hr - 816 Hours Total )
Activity Supplies, Relocation of Concession. . . . . $ 1 ,000.00
Furniture/Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 500.00
(cash register , office supplies) -------------
Total
__________ _Total Expenditures $14,610.89
Use of Paddle Boats at $3 per half-hour
and $6 per hour with 9 hours of rental per
day for 66 days. . . . . . . . . . . . .Gross Revenues = - $ 3,672.00
------------
Net Expenditures = $10,938.89
As you review the expenditures and revenues, you will note that
there will be a loss factor . What needs to be taken into
consideration is that all equipment and boat purchasing will be
completed the first year of operation. Thereafter, there would
be additional monies available for wages and salaries, rental
agreements, and time cards.
This does not anticipate any additional income from increased
usage of . the boats from marketing strategies, increased use of
Atascadero Lake Park , and the possibility of selling sodas, ice
cream, sandwiches, etc . in addition to boat rentals. The
activity could be developed to be a self-sufficient concession
with no City subsidy of staff after the initial purchase of
boats, related equipment , and the development of a concession.
Staff feels that this could be an excellent addition to the
operation at Atascadero Lake, and could utilize high school age
people for the operation of said concession.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
AJT: kv
File ALP
MEET�+tG IK3EN � ���1
DATE? {TEM N
May 39 1989
TRAFFIC COMfIlvIITTEE:
At our April meeting a request was considered to red-
curb in front of the new AM-PM station on San Anselmo to
prevent _ large trucks from blocking visibility at both exits-
entrances to the station. The committee voted to paint the
curb from the market to the corner at Monterey Rd. because
it is a right turn only lane with no parking lane. Also to
paint a strip on either side of the entrances, allowing two
passenger cars to park there but no large trucks.
I mention this because immediately after, I had the same
request from a resident of that area. You may have heard the
same complaint.
WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION:
Thursday, May 4 I am scheduled to tour the Cold Canyon Land
fill. I will have a verbal report for next Tuesday or will
put wmething in your box before our meeting, if there is
anything to report.
DOWNTOWN STEERING COMMITTEE:
Thursday afternoon from 3-6 we will be meeting with the
consultant. We will have a report after that.
HAZARDOUS WASTE COMA MI SSION:
We will need to consider how to provide money for Hazardous
Waste collection during our next Council meeting.
Marj. Mackey