HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC_2020_03_10_AgendaPacket
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
Tuesday, March 10, 2020
City Hall Council Chambers, 4th floor
6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California
(Entrance on Lewis Ave.)
REGULAR SESSION – CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Fonzi
ROLL CALL: Mayor Moreno
Mayor Pro Tem Bourbeau
Council Member Fonzi
Council Member Funk
Council Member Newsom
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Roll Call
Recommendation: Council:
1. Approve this agenda; and
2. Waive the reading in full of all ordinances appearing on this agenda, and the titles
of the ordinances will be read aloud by the City Clerk at the first reading, after the
motion and before the City Council votes.
PRESENTATIONS: None.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR: (All items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine
and non-controversial by City staff and will be approved by one motion if no member of
the Council or public wishes to comment or ask questions. If comment or discussion is
desired by anyone, the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and will be
considered in the listed sequence with an opportunity for any member of the public to
address the Council concerning the item before action is taken.)
1. City Council Draft Action Minutes – February 25, 2020
Recommendation: Council approve the February 25, 2020 Draft City Council
Meeting Minutes. [City Clerk]
City Council Regular Session: 6:00 P.M.
Page 1 of 187
2. Subrecipient Agreement with San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority
Fiscal Impact: The City receives approximately $200,000 annually in FTA 5307
Program funds.
Recommendation: Council approve Draft Resolution approving a Subrecipient
Agreement with the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA) to
receive pass-through Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding for FTA
Section 5307 and 5339 Programs for Atascadero Transit services.
[Public Works]
3. Approve Final Map for Tract 3147 - Bosque Court
Fiscal Impact: None
Recommendation: Council adopt Draft Resolution approving the Final Map for
Tract 3147. [Public Works]
UPDATES FROM THE CITY MANAGER: (The City Manager will give an oral report on any
current issues of concern to the City Council.)
COMMUNITY FORUM: (This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wanting to
address the Council on any matter not on this agenda and over which the Council has
jurisdiction. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Please state your name for the record
before making your presentation. Comments made during Community Forum will not be a
subject of discussion. A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum,
unless changed by the Council. Any members of the public who have questions or need
information may contact the City Clerk’s Office, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. at (805) 470-3400, or cityclerk@atascadero.org.)
B. CITY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT:
1. Mobile Home Rent Stabilization
Fiscal Impact: None.
Recommendation: Council discuss the ad hoc Committee report and consider
actions. [ad hoc Committee]
C. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 2020 Community Development Block Grant Funding Recommendations
Fiscal Impact: $164,833.00.
Recommendation: Council review and approve funding recommendations for
the 2020 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) as detailed in the staff
report and authorize staff to adjust final award amounts proportionately upon
receipt of the final funding amount. [Public Works]
Page 2 of 187
D. MANAGEMENT REPORTS:
1. Del Rio Road/US 101 Interchange Traffic Sensitivity Analysis
Fiscal Impact: Abandoning the roundabout design for the Del Rio Road/US
101 Interchange and El Camino Real inters ection in favor of Mitigation 2
improvements would result in substantial net savings.
Recommendations: Council:
1. Receive and file Draft Traffic Sensitivity Analysis for the Del Rio Road
Interchange Report.
2. Abandon work on the roundabout design for the Del Rio Road Interchange
Project.
3. Direct staff to amend the current agreement with Wallace Group to pursue
alternative interchange improvements and prepare a plan line for the Del
Rio Road/US 101 Interchange and Del Rio/El Camino Real Corridor that
incorporate adding a westbound right-turn lane on Del Rio Road to
northbound US 101 ramp, signal modifications, and lane reconfigurations
on El Camino Real.
4. Direct staff to investigate a plan line for a second phase to Del Rio/US 101
interchange improvements associated with bridge widening to determine
future land acquisition needs.
5. Direct staff to draft amendments to the Del Rio Specific Plan to
accommodate Del Rio Road/US 101 Interchange and Del Rio Road/El
Camino Real Corridor plan line setbacks, refined land uses, and a refined
Master Plan of Development. [Public Works]
2. SLO Countywide Regional Compact
Fiscal Impact: None.
Recommendation: Council adopt Draft Resolution approving and authorizing
the Mayor to sign the San Luis Obispo Countywide Regional Compact. [City
Manager]
E. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS: (On their own
initiative, Council Members may make a brief announcement or a brief report on their own
activities. The following represent standing committees. Informative status reports will
be given, as felt necessary):
Mayor Moreno
1. City Selection Committee
2. County Mayors Round Table
3. Economic Vitality Corporation, Board of Directors (EVC)
4. SLO Council of Governments (SLOCOG)
5. SLO Regional Transit Authority (RTA)
Mayor Pro Tem Bourbeau
1. City / Schools Committee
2. City of Atascadero Finance Committee
3. Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA)
4. SLO County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC)
Page 3 of 187
Council Member Fonzi
1. Air Pollution Control District
2. Atascadero Basin Ground Water Sustainability Agency (GSA)
3. City of Atascadero Design Review Committee
4. SLO Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo)
Council Member Funk
1. City of Atascadero Finance Committee
2. Homeless Services Oversight Council
3. League of California Cities – Council Liaison
Council Member Newsom
1. California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) Board
2. City / Schools Committee
3. City of Atascadero Design Review Committee
4. Visit SLO CAL Advisory Committee
F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND / OR ACTION: (Council Members may ask a
question for clarification, make a referral to staff or take action to have staff place a matter of
business on a future agenda. The Council may take action on items listed on the Agenda.)
1. City Council
2. City Clerk
3. City Treasurer
4. City Attorney
5. City Manager
G. ADJOURN
Please note: Should anyone challenge any proposed development entitlement listed on this Agenda in court, that person
may be limited to raising those issues addressed at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence
delivered to the City Council at or prior to this public hearing. Correspondence submitted at this public hearing will be
distributed to the Council and available for review in the City Clerk's office.
Page 4 of 187
City of Atascadero
WELCOME TO THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
The City Council meets in regular session on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month at 6:00 p.m.
Council meetings will be held at the City Hall Council Chambers, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero. Matters
are considered by the Council in the order of the printed Agenda. Regular Council meetings are televised live,
audio recorded and videotaped for future playback. Charter Communication customers may view the meetings
on Charter Cable Channel 20 or via the City’s website at www.atascadero.org. Meetings are also broadcast
on radio station KPRL AM 1230. Contact the City Clerk for more information at cityclerk@atascadero.org or
(805) 470-3400.
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the Agenda
are on file in the office of the City Clerk and are available for public inspection during City Hall business hours
at the Front Counter of City Hall, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, and on our website, www.atascadero.org.
Contracts, Resolutions and Ordinances will be allocated a number once they are approved by the City Council.
The minutes of this meeting will reflect these numbers. All documents submitted by the public during Council
meetings that are either read into the record or referred to in their statement will be noted in the minutes and
available for review in the City Clerk's office.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a
City meeting or other services offered by this City, please contact the City Manager’s Office or the City
Clerk’s Office, both at (805) 470-3400. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services
are needed will assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide
accessibility to the meeting or service.
TO SPEAK ON SUBJECTS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
Under Agenda item, “COMMUNITY FORUM”, the Mayor will call for anyone from the audience having business
with the Council to approach the lectern and be recognized.
1. Give your name for the record (not required)
2. State the nature of your business.
3. All comments are limited to 3 minutes.
4. All comments should be made to the Mayor and Council.
5. No person shall be permitted to m ake slanderous, profane or negative personal remarks concerning
any other individual, absent or present
This is the time items not on the Agenda may be brought to the Council’s attention. A maximum of 30 minutes
will be allowed for Community Forum (unless changed by the Council). If you wish to use a computer
presentation to support your comments, you must notify the City Clerk's office at least 24 hours prior to the
meeting. Digital presentations must be brought to the meeting on a USB drive or CD. You are required to
submit to the City Clerk a printed copy of your presentation for the record. Please check in with the City Clerk
before the meeting begins to announce your presence and turn in the printed copy.
TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS (from Title 2, Chapter 1 of the Atascadero Municipal Code)
Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. The Mayor will identify the subject, staff will
give their report, and the Council will ask questions of staff. The Mayor will announce when the public comment
period is open and will request anyone interested to address the Council regarding the matter being considered
to step up to the lectern. If you wish to speak for, against or comment in any way:
1. You must approach the lectern and be recognized by the Mayor
2. Give your name (not required)
3. Make your statement
4. All comments should be made to the Mayor and Council
5. No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or negative personal remarks concerning
any other individual, absent or present
6. All comments limited to 3 minutes
The Mayor will announce when the public comment period is closed, and thereafter, no further public
comments will be heard by the Council.
Page 5 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: A-1
DATE: 03/10/20
Atascadero City Council
February 25, 2020
Page 1 of 4
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT MINUTES
Tuesday, February 25, 2020
City Hall Council Chambers, 4th floor
6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California
(Entrance on Lewis Ave.)
REGULAR SESSION – CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M.
Mayor Moreno called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and Council Member Funk led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Council Members Fonzi, Funk, Newsom, Mayor Pro Tem Bourbeau and
Mayor Moreno
Absent: None
Staff Present: City Manager Rachelle Rickard, Public Works Director Nick DeBar,
Police Lieutenant Jason Carr, Community Development Director Phil
Dunsmore, Fire Chief Casey Bryson, City Attorney Brian Pierik, Deputy
City Manager/City Clerk Lara Christensen, and Deputy City Manager
Terrie Banish
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
MOTION: By Council member Newsom and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem
Bourbeau to:
1. Approve this agenda; and,
2. Waive the reading in full of all ordinances appearing on this
agenda, and the titles of the ordinances will be read aloud by
the City Clerk at the first reading, after the motion and before
the City Council votes.
Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote.
City Council Regular Session: 6:00 P.M.
Page 6 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: A-1
DATE: 03/10/20
Atascadero City Council
February 25, 2020
Page 2 of 4
PRESENTATIONS: None.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. City Council Draft Action Minutes – February 11, 2020
Recommendation: Council approve the February 11, 2020 Draft City Council
Meeting Minutes. [City Clerk]
2. January 2020 Accounts Payable and Payroll
Fiscal Impact: $2,413,272.11
Recommendation: Council approve certified City accounts payable, payroll
and payroll vendor checks for January 2020. [Administrative Services]
3. December 2019 Investment Report
Fiscal Impact: None
Recommendation: Council receive and file the City Treasurer’s report for
quarter ending December 31, 2019. [Administrative Services]
4. Amendment to 2019-2020 Salary Schedule to include Office Assistant II
Classification and Approval of Minor Staffing Adjustment
Fiscal Impact: The proposed changes will have a fiscal impact of
approximately $4,200 annually.
Recommendations: Council:
1. Effective July 1, 2019, amend the Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2019 -
2020 to include the Office Assistant II position as follows:
2. Authorize City Manager to execute a Side Letter with the SEIU MOU adding
Office Assistant II at the salary range shown above.
3. Concur with Office Assistant staffing adjustment as recommended by the
City Manager.[City Manager]
MOTION: By Council Member Fonzi and seconded by Council Member Funk to
approve the Consent Calendar. (#A-4: Contract No. 2018-013-A3)
Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote.
UPDATES FROM THE CITY MANAGER:
City Manager Rachelle Rickard gave an update on projects and issues within the City.
COMMUNITY FORUM:
The following citizens spoke during Community Forum: Geoff Auslen and Jackie Kinsey
(Exhibit A)
Mayor Moreno closed the COMMUNITY FORUM period.
CLASSIFICATION STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP E
Office Assistant II $3,145.85 $3,303.14 $3,468.30 $3,641.72 $3,823.81
Page 7 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: A-1
DATE: 03/10/20
Atascadero City Council
February 25, 2020
Page 3 of 4
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None.
C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS:
1. Proposed First Amended Marketing Agreement With Cliff Branch and James
Smith for Billboards and First Amendment to Ground Lease
Fiscal Impact: The fiscal impact will be approximately $4,200 a year in
budgeted funds for lease and maintenance costs for the City’s Billboard Face;
and an estimated $1,000 for printing and installation every time the City
chooses to change its billboard.
Recommendation: Council approve Proposed First Amended Marketing
Agreement with Cliff Branch and James Smith for Billboards and First
Amendment to Ground Lease. [City Attorney]
City Attorney Pierik gave the staff report and answered questions from the Council. City
Manager Rickard and Deputy City Manager Banish also answered questions from Council.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
The following citizens spoke on this item: Geoff Auslen,
Mayor Moreno closed the Public Comment period.
MOTION: By Council Member Funk and seconded by Council Member Fonzi
to approve Proposed First Amended Marketing Agreement with
Cliff Branch and James Smith for Billboards and First Amendment
to Ground Lease. (Contract No. RA002-2010-A1)
Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote.
D. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS:
The following Council Members made brief announcements and gave brief update reports
on their committees since their last Council meeting:
Mayor Moreno
1. County Mayors Round Table
Mayor Pro Tem Bourbeau
1. Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance ad hoc Committee
Council Member Fonzi
1. SLO Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo)
Council Member Funk
1. Homeless Services Oversight Council
2. League of California Cities – Council Liaison
Page 8 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: A-1
DATE: 03/10/20
Atascadero City Council
February 25, 2020
Page 4 of 4
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND / OR ACTION: None.
F. ADJOURN
Mayor Moreno adjourned the meeting at 6:46 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED BY:
______________________________________
Lara K. Christensen
Deputy City Manager / City Clerk
APPROVED:
The following exhibit is available for review in the City Clerk’s office:
Exhibit A - Atascadero Library event cards
Page 9 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 03/10/20
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report – Public Works
Subrecipient Agreement with San Luis Obispo
Regional Transit Authority
RECOMMENDATION:
Council approve Draft Resolution approving a Subrecipient Agreement with the San Luis
Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA) to receive pass-through Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) funding for FTA Section 5307 and 5339 Programs for Atascadero
Transit services.
DISCUSSION:
Background
Atascadero Transit, known as Dial-A-Ride (DAR), has been providing transportation
service to the residents of Atascadero since the City’s incorporation in 1979. The service
is a curb-to-curb, demand response public transit system serving disabled and mobility-
impaired individuals, seniors and the general public. The Atascadero DAR fleet is
comprised of four Ford F450 18 passenger buses equipped with wheelchair lifts, bike
racks and GPS/dispatching tablets. Three buses are in service Monday through Friday
with one bus serving as a backup.
Atascadero DAR services are eligible and funded through Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) grant programs comprised of FTA Section 5307 Urbanized Area formula Funding
Program (5307 Program) and FTA Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities Program (5339
Program). Operational costs are funded by the 5307 Program while capital bus and bus-
related purchases are funded by the 5339 Program. Atascadero Transit grant fund
requests are solicited and implemented by San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority
(RTA), which is the lead transit agency for our metropolitan planning region (SLOCOG).
As the lead transit agency receiving FTA fund ing, RTA is required to comply with the
Federal regulations and other requirements of the FTA funds. In turn, RTA is responsible
to ensure that all subrecipients also comply with these regulations and requirements,
including annually reporting and periodic audits of the subrecipients.
Analysis
In October 2019, FTA performed a Triennial Review of RTA for compliance with FTA
regulations and identified three areas of deficiencies. One of these deficiencies was
related to FTA requirements for written agreements for pass -through entities. RTA
currently uses a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) as a subrecipient agreement for
FTA program funds, but the MOU lacks many of the required elements for FTA
Page 10 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 03/10/20
requirements. A written Subrecipient Agreement was developed in collaboration with
RTA and City staff and is inclusive of the FTA requirements listed in the 2019 Triennial
Review. The agreement recognizes RTA as the lead transit agency and Atascadero
Transit as the subrecipient for FTA 5307 and 5339 Program Funds. The Subrecipient
Agreement is included with the Draft Resolution and includes Project (Program)
Summary and Scope of Work (Exhibit A), Project Management and Payment Provisions
(Exhibit B), General Terms and Conditions (Exhibit C), and Special Terms and Conditions
(Exhibit D).
The City of Atascadero benefits from FTA capital and operating assistance funding and
these federal funds will be withheld from Atascadero Transit should the City fail to enter
into the Subrecipient Agreement with RTA. FTA funds are vital to assure that Atascadero
Transit Dial-A-Ride will continue to provide alternative transportation for residents;
therefore staff recommends Council adopt the Draft Resolution approving the
Subrecipient Agreement and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement.
The Agreement will be renewed each fiscal year. The Draft Resolution authorizes the City
Manager to sign the current agreement and the future annual agreements.
ALTERNATIVE:
Council may suggest modifications to the proposed agreement, but caution should be
used since the agreement includes FTA requirements listed in the Draft 2019 Triennial
Review that must be included to receive FTA Program Funds. Any significant changes
will require approval from FTA and RTA and could delay FTA funding.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The City receives approximately $200,000 annually in FTA 5307 Program funds.
ATTACHMENT:
Draft Resolution
Page 11 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
03/10/20
1
DRAFT RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (RTA) TO RECEIVE PASS-
THROUGH FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) FUNDING
FOR FTA SECTION 5307 AND 5339 PROGRAMS FOR
ATASCADERO TRANSIT SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero operates Atascadero Transit (Dial-A-Ride) that
provides a curb-to-curb, demand response public transit system serving disabled and mobility-
impaired individuals, seniors and the general public; and
WHEREAS, Atascadero Transit services are eligible and principally funded by Federal
Transit Administration Funding (FTA) Section 5307 and 5339 Programs that provide for Atascadero
Transit Services; and
WHEREAS, Atascadero Transit receives pass-through funding from the San Luis Obispo
Regional Transit Authority (RTA), which is the lead transit agency for the San Luis Obispo
metropolitan planning region (SLOCOG), and required to comply with the FTA regulations and
requirements; and
WHEREAS, in 2019, FTA performed a Triennial Review of RTA compliance with FTA
Programs and identified a deficiency of written agreements for pass-through funding between RTA
and Atascadero Transit; and
WHEREAS, a Subrecipient Agreement between RTA and Atascadero Transit has been
prepared to allow San Luis Obispo RTA to receive and pass-through FTA funding for FTA Section
5307 and 5339 Programs to Atascadero Transit Services.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Atascadero:
SECTION 1. That the recitals set forth hereinabove are true, correct and valid.
SECTION 2. That the City Council hereby approves the Subrecipent Agreement between
RTA and Atascadero Transit that has been prepared to allow San Luis Obispo RTA to receive pass-
through funding for FTA Section 5307 and 5339 Programs to Atascadero Transit Services marked
“Exhibit A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 3. That the City Manager is authorized to execute the Subrecipient Agreement
with San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA) for FY2019/20 and renewals in subsequent
fiscal years.
SECTION 4. This Resolution is approved by at least a two-thirds vote of said Council.
Page 12 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
03/10/20
1
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the ______ day
of ____________, 2020.
On motion by Council Member ___________ and seconded by Council Member
___________, the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CITY OF ATASCADERO
________________________________
Heather Moreno, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lara K. Christensen, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Brian Pierik, City Attorney
Page 13 of 187
1
179 Cross Street, Suite A
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781-4472 Fax (805) 781-1291
www.slorta.org
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Attached is the Subrecipient Agreement between your organization and the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority
(RTA). Please review the Subrecipient Agreement carefully, including all of the Exhibits. If any of the terms, conditions,
dates and/or schedules set forth in the Subrecipient Agreement are not acceptable, notify the Grants and Finance
Manager to discuss if changes to the Subrecipient Agreement are possible.
To proceed with the Subrecipient Agreement, please print and sign two paper copies of the Subrecipient Agreement’s
signature page. The person signing the Agreement must be so authorized in a resolution from your agency’s governing
body. Each signature page must be signed in blue ink with an original, wet-ink signature. Return both of the signed
pages to the RTA at the following addresses.
San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority
Attn: Grants and Finance Manager
179 Cross Street, Suite A
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7597
Upon execution by the Executive Director of the RTA, you will be notified that your agency may proceed with the
approved project in accordance with all of the terms and conditions of the Subrecipient Agreement.
One hard copy of the fully-executed Subrecipient Agreement with wet signatures will be returned for your records.
If the project subject to this Subrecipient Agreement requires a procurement process, that process cannot proceed until
the procurement solicitation documents and process have been reviewed and approved in writing by the RTA.
Requests for Reimbursement (RFR) shall not be submitted to the RTA before this Subrecipient Agreement has been
approved and signed by the RTA and, if applicable, the RTA has approved the procurement documentation.
The Regional Transit Authority is a Joint Powers Agency serving residents and visitors of:
Arroyo Grande Atascadero Grover Beach Morro Bay Paso Robles Pismo Beach San Luis Obispo and The County of San Luis Obispo
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1A
Exhibit A
Page 14 of 187
1
1. This Subrecipient Agreement is entered into between the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA) and the
Subrecipient named below:
LEAD TRANSIT AGENCY NAME: SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (RTA)
SUBRECIPIENT NAME: CITY OF ATASCADERO
2. The term of this Agreement is:
FROM: July 1, 2019 TO: June 30, 2020
3. The parties agree to comply with the terms and conditions of the following exhibits, which are by this reference
made a part of the Agreement.
Exhibit A - Project Summary and Scope of Work
Exhibit B - Project Management and Payment Provisions
Exhibit C - General Terms and Conditions
Exhibit D - Special Terms and Conditions
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties hereto.
SUBRECIPIENT For SLORTA Use only
SUBRECIPIENT NAME (if other than an individual, state whether a corporation, partnership, etc.) City of Atascadero
SUBRECIPIENT DUNS # 120959952
BY (Authorized Signature in Blue ink)
DATE SIGNED
PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON SIGNING Nicholas D. DeBar, PE Director of Public Works
ADDRESS 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero CA 93422
LEAD TRANSIT AGENCY
AGENCY NAME
San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority
LEAD AGENCY DUNS #
125137096
BY (Authorized Signature in Blue ink)
DATE SIGNED
Geoff Straw, RTA Executive Director
ADDRESS
179 Cross Street, Suite A, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7597
Agreement No. FAIN # FTA Category Fund Program
CA-2020- FTA Sections 5307 OP FY2020 Operating Assistance
AGREEMENT NUMBER AMENDMENT NUMBER
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (RTA)
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT
(09/19/2019)
Current Encumbrance $
Prior Encumbrance $
Total Encumbrance $
Project Name
Project ID
Agreement Amount FY
FY 2020 Operating Assistance – City of Atascadero $ FY2020
SIGNATURE OF GRANTS AND FINNANCE MANAGER (Authorized Signature in Blue ink)
DATE SIGNED
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1A
Page 15 of 187
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT Subrecipient Name: City of Atascadero
Agreement No. _______________
2
EXHIBIT A
PROJECT SUMMARY AND SCOPE OF WORK
Funding Program: Section 5307
Project Type: Operating Assistance (OP)
Hours when PROJECT shall operate: Start: 7:30 AM End: 3:30 PM
PM
Days/Dates when PROJECT shall operate: Monday - Friday
Location where Service shall be offered: City of Atascadero
Detailed Description of Work:
FTA Section 5307 Atascadero Operating Assistance FY 2019/20 from the Atascadero/El Paso de Robles UZA.
Atascadero Transit operates demand response services through its Dial-A-Ride services. For the fiscal year
ending June 30, 2020 (7/1/2019-6/30/2020), the City of Atascadero will claim the federal portion of its total transit
costs for fiscal year FY 19/20 in an amount not-to-exceed $201,000. Details to this grant will be pinned in TrAMs.
The funds for these projects are included in the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) 2019
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and was approved on September 15, 2018. The California Department
of Transportation and the US Department of Transportation formally approved the TIP submitted on November 2,
2018 and December 15, 2018 respectively.
Contract Projects:
CFDA #
(5-digit)
ALI Project Federal Local Toll Total Fed Local
Code Description Share $ Share $ Credits Cost Share % Share %
Contract Schedules:
Project Schedule: Procurement Schedule:
Project Start: July 1, 2019 Bid Package/RTA Review
Project End:
Last Date to
Amend Agreement:
Expires
June 30, 2020
June 01, 2020
Issue RFP/IFB
Award Contract/PO
Final Delivery/Install
Final Invoice Due: Sept. 30, 2020
SLO RTA Contact: Grants and Finance Manager
Contact Name Email Address Phone Number
Melissa C. Mudgett mmudgett@slorta.org (805) 781-4467
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1A
Page 16 of 187
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT Subrecipient Name: City of Atascadero
Agreement No. _______________
3
EXHIBIT B
PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND PAYMENT PROVISIONS
1. The San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (hereafter called the RTA) is the lead transit agency
authorized to evaluate and submit to the Federal Transit Administration (hereafter called FTA) grant
requests from eligible program Subrecipient for eligible program purposes. The FTA receives its authority
from Chapter 53 of Title 49 of the United States Codes (USC). The RTA participates in a number of federal
programs, which are identified in 49 USC Chapter 53.
A. FTA Section 5307 Urbanized Area formula Funding Program (5307 Program). The 5307 Program (49
U.S.C. 5307) makes federal resources available to urbanized areas and to governors for transit capital
and operating assistance in urbanized areas and for transportation -related planning. The federal
share is not to exceed 80 percent of the net project cost for capital expenditures. The federal share
may be 90 percent for the cost of vehicle-related equipment attributable to compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Clean Air Act. The federal sh are may not exceed 50 percent of
the net project cost of operating assistance. FTA Circular 9030.1E “Urbanized Area Formula Program:
Program Guidance and Application Instructions”, dated January 16, 2014 (5307 Circular).
B. FTA Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities Program (5339 Program). The purpose of the 5339 Program is
to fund to eligible agencies the purchase of capital bus and bus-related projects that support the
continuation and expansion of public transportation services. FTA Circular 5100.1 “Bus and Bus Facilities
Formula Program: Guidance and Application Instructions, dated May 18, 2015, (5339 Circular).
2. This Subrecipient Agreement is governed by numerous policies and guidance documents issued by the
FTA, which is incorporated herein and shall include:
A. FTA Circular 4220.1F, “Third-Party Contracting Guidance,” November 1, 2008, (Third-Party Contracting
Circular) and any later revision thereto.
B. FTA Circular 4702.1B “Title VI Requirements and Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration
Recipients”, dated October 1, 2012, (Title VI Circular) and any later revision thereto.
C. FTA Circular 5010.1D, “Grant Management Requirements” dated November 1, 2008, and revised August
27, 2012, (Grant Management Circular) and any later revision thereto.
D. FTA Project and Construction Management Guidelines, as updated July 2011, (Project and Construction
Management Guidelines), an advisory handbook published by USDOT.
E. Fiscal Year 2017 Annual List of Certifications and Assurances for FTA Grants and Cooperative
Agreements, as published December 20, 2016.
F. Veterans Employment as provided by 49 U.S.C. § 5325, U.S. Code Title 49 Contract
Requirements for Veteran Preference for Capital Projects, as defined in section 2108 of title
5.
3. The SUBRECIPIENT has been designated by the RTA as eligible under 49 USC Chapter 53 Section 5307 and
5339. The SUBRECIPIENT is proposing transportation services (hereafter called the PROJECT) that are
eligible for assistance under the applicable Section of 49 USC Chapter 53.
4. The SUBRECIPIENT agreement for Federal funding (under 49 USC Chapter 53) has been determined by the
RTA as having met all the statutory and administrative requirements for PROJECT approval. The purpose
of this Subrecipient Agreement is to implement the approved PROJECT.
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1A
Page 17 of 187
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT Subrecipient Name: City of Atascadero
Agreement No. _______________
4
5. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to provide transportation services that meet the specific requirements and intent
of the applicable Program described in 49 USC Chapter 53, which is providing the funding for this PROJECT.
6. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to complete the defined PROJECT described, and all term and conditions of the
Subrecipient Agreement.
7. Transportation services under this Subrecipient Agreement shall be provided for a minimum of 20 hours per
week.
8. It is the parties’ intention that grant funds will be available for timely expenditure, commencing with the
fiscal year when this Subrecipient Agreement is executed. The SUBRECIPIENT’s obligations under this
Subrecipient Agreement shall remain in effect until the PROJECT is completed under the terms of this
Subrecipient Agreement. Upon closeout of this Subrecipient Agreement, no further invoices shall be paid
to SUBRECIPIENT.
9. Invoices may be submitted no more frequently than once per month for the PROJECT.
10. The full PROJECT invoice, showing both Federal Share and Local Share, shall be submitted by
SUBRECIPIENT to the RTA for review and approval prior to payment. The RTA shall verify PROJECT costs
and payments made by the SUBRECIPIENT to ensure that funding shares are reported accurately for award
of federal grants.
11. Invoices shall meet all the requirements of this Subrecipient Agreement, be itemized in a manner consistent
with the budget for PROJECT found in the PROJECT description, and be submitted to the RTA. Appropriate
backup documentation to support all PROJECT costs to be reimbursed shall be included. Appropriate
Request for Reimbursement (RFR) documents may include, but are not limited to, purchase orders, signed
invoices for materials, supplies and equipment, and for travel describing the purpose of travel as it pertains
to the PROJECT, classifications of employees performing PROJECT work, hourly rates, and identification of
work to be reimbursed for the payment period (if applicable), and contractor costs itemized similarly to
those of the SUBRECIPIENT. SUBRECIPIENT certification that goods or services purchased have been
received and accepted shall accompany the invoice. Proof of payment made to the vendor/contractor or a
copy of the method of payment must be submitted by the SUBRECIPIENT. Proof of payment includes bank
statements or cancelled checks showing check number and "Paid in Full" or SUBRECIPIENT accounting
records showing the transaction.
12. The SUBRECIPIENT invoices and the vendor/contractor's invoices shall be consistent internally and with any
purchase order applicable to the PROJECT and shall include a breakdown of equipment unit costs, sales
tax, registration fees, and any other items procured with said purchase orders, including items and costs
not reimbursable under this PROJECT and any items not subject to sales tax. The latter includes "items
and materials when used to modify a vehicle for physically handicapped persons", which are exempt from
sales tax under Revenue and Taxation Code Section 6369.4.
13. Only work performed or goods or services received that fall on or between the Performance Period dates in
this Subrecipient Agreement are eligible for reimbursement. Invoices shall show dates of work, services or
receipt of goods.
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1A
Page 18 of 187
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT Subrecipient Name: City of Atascadero
Agreement No. _______________
5
14. Eligibility for reimbursement of costs for the PROJECT shall be determined as follows.
A. For Public Agencies and Commercial Organizations, the net PROJECT cost and allowable individual items
of PROJECT cost shall be determined in conformance with Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 48, Federal
Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Chapter 1 Part 31 “Contract Cost Principles and Procedures”, 2 CFR Part
225 (formerly Office of Management and Budgets (OMB) Circular A-87) “Cost Principles for State, Local,
and Indian Tribal Governments”, FAR Chapter 1 Subpart 31.2, “Contracts with Commercial
Organizations,” and other applicable regulations, circulars, or memoranda that may be issued by FTA.
15. Direct and Indirect Costs.
The SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with 2 CFR Part 225 or 2 CFR Part 230 (including the application of the de
minimis rate per §200.414 Indirect (F&A) costs), as applicable, and certifies that all direct costs (and indirect
costs, if permitted) billed are allowable. All direct costs, even for PROJECT administration activities must be
adequately supported with proper documentation. Indirect costs must be supported by an approved Cost
Allocation Plan (CAP).
16. Payment for services satisfactorily provided, work satisfactorily performed or goods received under this
Subrecipient Agreement shall be made on a reimbursement basis and in arrears only for actual eligible
costs.
17. Incomplete or disputed invoices shall be returned to SUBRECIPIENT, unpaid. Corrected invoices must
be resubmitted to the RTA prior to the payment of the invoice or RFR.
18. Upon the RTA’s review and acceptance of an undisputed invoice by the RTA, the RTA agrees to reimburse
the SUBRECIPIENT for eligible costs. Reimbursement will be made at the rate of Federal Share percentage
shown in Exhibit A, up to the total amount of Federal Share.
19. Final invoice shall be submitted to the RTA no later than sixty (60) days after the expiration of this
Subrecipient Agreement. In no case, shall a final invoice be submitted after the date specified in
Exhibit A.
20. The parties agree that only the following section(s) of Exhibit B that have a mark ("X’’) opposite to the
transportation services category (hereafter called the PROJECT) shall apply to this Subrecipient
Agreement.
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1A
Page 19 of 187
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT Subrecipient Name: City of Atascadero
Agreement No. _______________
6
A. Assistance and Transit Capital in Urbanized Areas (5307)
1. Operating assistance costs eligible for reimbursement under this Agreement are costs directly
related to system operations and may include fuel, oil, salaries and fringe benefits for drivers,
dispatchers, maintenance employees, mechanics and administrative staff whose duties are directly
related to this PROJECT, and licenses.
2. The SUBRECIPIENT’s scope of work shall be as described in Exhibit A of this Subrecipient
Agreement.
3. The SUBRECIPIENT’s geographic area that will be served by the transportation program shall be
as described in Exhibit A.
4. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to operate the equipment funded and made available through the
PROJECT within the service area as described in Exhibit A.
5. The SUBRECIPIENT shall use the PROJECT equipment at all times exclusively and in conformity
with the Project Scope of Work in Exhibit A and the Project Description and Justification for
Funding Request (Attached to this Agreement).
6. The PROJECT period for which transit operational expenses or transit capital costs are eligible
for reimbursement under this Subrecipient Agreement is the Performance Period as specified in
Exhibit A.
7. The RTA’s obligation to compensate the SUBRECIPIENT under the terms of this Subrecipient
Agreement shall terminate upon payment of SUBRECIPIENT’s invoice(s) for the FTA allowable
portions of PROJECT costs. Reimbursements will only be allowed after the execution of this
Subrecipient Agreement and for the performance period of this Subrecipient Agreement as
specified in Exhibit A.
8. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to report in accordance with 49 U.S. Code 5325 regulations for
“Veterans Employment for Federal Award Capital Projects”. To the extent practicable,
SUBRECIPIENT agrees to and shall assure its contactors: 1. Will give a hiring preference to
veterans (as defined in 5 U.S.C. § 2108), who have the skills and abilities required to perform
construction work required under a third party contract in connection with a capital project
supported with funds made available or appropriated for 49 U.S.C. chapter 53, and 2. Will not
require an employer to give a preference to any veteran over any equally qualified applicant who
is a member of any racial or ethnic minority, female, an individual with a disability, or a former
employee.
9. The RTA will be the lien interest in the PROJECT until the end of the PROJECT’s Useful Life as
shown in Exhibit C is reached and the RTA has received and approved from the SUBRECIPIENT to
release its interest in the PROJECT. The RTA’s lien interest shall survive this Subrecipient
Agreement and the SUBRECIPIENT shall be responsible for using the PROJECT in compliance with
state, federal and applicable program requirements stared herein, including reporting.
10. Prior to disposition or transfer of SUBRECIPIENT federally funded vehicles and equipment shall
receive written approval by the RTA.
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1A
Page 20 of 187
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT Subrecipient Name: City of Atascadero
Agreement No. _______________
7
11. If the PROJECT includes capital costs of contracting, allowable expenses may include depreciation
and interest on facilities and equipment, as well as other capital costs such as preventive
maintenance. Under the capital cost of contracting, only privately-owned assets are eligible.
Detailed information regarding the capital cost of contracting is available in the 5307 Circular.
12. Preventive Maintenance activities consist of routine revenue and non-revenue vehicle inspection and
maintenance for bus operations including: inspecting revenue vehicle components on a
scheduled preventive maintenance basis (e.g., engine and transmission, fuel system, ignition system,
chassis, body-exterior and interior, electrical system, lubrication system, trolleys, pantographs and
third rail shoes, trucks, braking system, air-conditioning system); performing minor repairs to the
above-listed revenue vehicle components; changing lubrication fluids; replacing minor repairable
units of the above-listed revenue vehicle components; making road calls to service revenue vehicle
breakdowns; towing and shifting revenue vehicles to maintenance facilities; rebuilding and
overhauling repairable components; performing major repairs on revenue vehicles on a scheduled
or unscheduled basis.
13. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to report in its transit asset management (TAM) plan accordance with 49
CFR part 625. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to set performance targets annually that contain inventory
and condition assessment. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to participate in the RTA’s group TAM Plan
and provide the RTA with its annual fleet inventory.
14. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to report in accordance with FTA regulations for “Uniform Administrative
Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards,” 2 CFR part 200. The
SUBRECIPIENT shall submit quarterly milestone progress reports (MPR) to the RTA within twenty
(20) days following the close of the quarter. The RTA may withhold payment for the failure of the
SUBRECIPIENT to submit these reports to the RTA in a timely manner.
15. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to address areas of non-compliance, problems, delays, or adverse
conditions may affect the SUBRECIPIENT’s ability to achieve the objectives of the Subrecipient
Agreement within the scheduled performance period. The MPR shall include actions taken and/or
contemplated to resolve the situation.
16. The SUBRECIPIENT shall keep federally funded vehicles, equipment, facilities, and Americans with
Disabilities (ADA) accessibility features in good operating condition. The SUBRECIPIENT shall provide
to the RTA a written Maintenance Plan which shall include maintenance records, preventative
maintenance and warranty claims system (including a list of vehicles/equipment currently under
warranty) for all federally funded assets (including vehicles, facilities, equipment wheelchair lifts and
other accessibility features.
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1A
Page 21 of 187
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT Subrecipient Name: City of Atascadero
Agreement No. _______________
8
B. Capital Project (Vehicle/Equipment) (5339)
1. The SUBRECIPIENT’s scope of work shall be as described in Exhibit A
2. New projects for equipment or new vehicles shall not be designated as “used” by the Federal
Trade Commission Agency 16 CFR Part 455.1(d)(2) or California Vehicle Code Section 100-680
application for federal assistance, which is on file with the STATE.
3. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to operate the equipment funded and made available through the
PROJECT within the service area as described in Exhibit A.
4. The SUBRECIPIENT shall use the PROJECT equipment at all times exclusively and in conformity
with the Project Scope of Work in Exhibit A and the Project Description and Justification for
Funding Request (Attached to this Agreement).
5. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to report in accordance with 49 U.S. Code 5325 regulations for
“Veterans Employment for Federal Award Capital Projects”. To the extent practicable,
SUBRECIPIENT agrees to and shall assure its contactors: 1. Will give a hiring preference to
veterans (as defined in 5 U.S.C. § 2108), who have the skills and abilities required to perform
construction work required under a third party contract in connection with a capital project
supported with funds made available or appropriated for 49 U.S.C. chapter 53, and 2. Will not
require an employer to give a preference to any veteran over any equally qualified applicant who
is a member of any racial or ethnic minority, female, an individual with a disability, or a former
employee.
6. The RTA’s obligation to compensate the SUBRECIPIENT under the terms of this Subrecipient
Agreement shall terminate upon payment of SUBRECIPIENT’s invoice(s) for the FTA allowable
portions of PROJECT costs. Reimbursements will only be allowed after the execution of this
Subrecipient Agreement and for the performance period of this Subrecipient Agreement as
specified in Exhibit A.
7. The RTA holds a lien interest in the PROJECT until the end of the PROJECT’s Useful Life as shown
in Exhibit C is reached and the RTA has received and approved from the SUBRECIPIENT to release
its interest in the PROJECT. The RTA’s lien interest shall survive this Subrecipient Agreement and
the SUBRECIPIENT shall be responsible for using the PROJECT in compliance with state, federal
and applicable program requirements stared herein, including reporting.
8. Disposition or transfer of SUBRECIPIENT federally funded vehicles and equipment shall receive
prior written approval by the RTA.
9. If the PROJECT includes capital costs of contracting, allowable expenses may include depreciation
and interest on facilities and equipment, as well as other capital costs such as preventive
maintenance. Under the capital cost of contracting, only privately-owned assets are eligible.
Detailed information regarding the capital cost of contracting is available in the 5339 Circular.
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1A
Page 22 of 187
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT Subrecipient Name: City of Atascadero
Agreement No. _______________
9
10. The SUBRECIPIENT shall keep federally funded vehicles, equipment, facilities, and Americans with
Disabilities (ADA) accessibility features in good operating condition. The SUBRECIPIENT shall provide
to the RTA a written Maintenance Plan which shall include maintenance records, preventative
maintenance and warranty claims system (including a list of vehicles/equipment currently under
warranty) for all federally funded assets (including vehicles, facilities, equipment wheelchair lifts and
other accessibility features.
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1A
Page 23 of 187
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT Subrecipient Name: City of Atascadero
Agreement No. _______________
10
EXHIBIT C
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Subrecipient. For the purpose of this Agreement, the SUBRECIPIENT is as referenced in the Federal
Transportation Funding Law and the applicable Program Circular. As a receiver of FTA funds the
SUBRECIPIENT agrees to comply with the federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, directives and
administrative requirements which relate to funding received from FTA.
2. Budget. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees that it will provide funds in an amount sufficient, together with the
grant, to assure payment of those actual total net PROJECT costs. The funds provided shall include
sufficient funds from other eligible sources to provide the PROJECT local matching requirements in
accordance with Federal Transportation Funding Law.
3. Prompt Payment.
A. All payments by the RTA to the SUBRECIPIENT shall be made in accordance with California Government
Code (GC), Chapter 4.5, commencing with Section 927, which is known as the California Prompt
Payment Act.
B. The SUBRECIPIENT must pay third-party contractors within thirty (30) days of receipt of undisputed
invoice(s)
4. Approval.
A. Except as provided herein, this Subrecipient Agreement is of no force or effect until signed by
both parties.
B. Commencement of work shall not be authorized until federal authorization has been obtained and
upon the RTA’s approval.
C. It is mutually understood between the parties that this Subrecipient Agreement, for the mutual
benefit of both parties.
D. This Subrecipient Agreement is valid and enforceable only if sufficient funds are made available to the
RTA by the State and/or United States Government or the California State Legislature for the purpose
of this program. It is mutually agreed that if the Congress or the State Legislature does not
appropriate sufficient funds for the program, this Subrecipient Agreement shall be amended to
reflect any reduction in funds.
E. State Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted according to the laws of the State of California, except
as to those provisions where federal law shall apply; as to those provisions where federal law applies,
the rules, regulations, statutes and executive orders of the federal government shall be applicable.
F. No issuance of a Subrecipient Agreement or amendments will be provided until proof that the project
has been programmed and approved by the federal government.
5. Enforcement/Remedies for Non-Compliance. If a SUBRECIPIENT materially fails to comply with any term
of this Subrecipient Agreement, the RTA may take one or more of the following actions:
A. Disallow or temporarily withhold cash payments pending correction of the deficiency by the
SUBRECIPIENT.
B. Wholly or partially suspend or terminate the current award for the SUBRECIPIENT’s PROJECT.
C. Withhold future awards to the SUBRECIPIENT for the program.
D. Withhold or demand a transfer of an amount equal to the amount paid by or owed from remaining
grant balance and/or future apportionments, or any other funds due SUBRECIPIENT.
E. Take any other remedies that may be legally available.
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1A
Page 24 of 187
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT Subrecipient Name: City of Atascadero
Agreement No. _______________
11
6. Timeliness. Time is of the essence in this Subrecipient Agreement. The SUBRECIPIENT shall return the
signed Agreement to the RTA within 60 calendar days prior to the start of the performance period. In
the event this Subrecipient Agreement is not signed and returned within 60 days of the start of the
performance period, the PROJECT identified in Exhibit A of this Subrecipient Agreement may be
withdrawn and cancelled at the discretion of the RTA.
7. Amendment. No amendment or alteration of the terms of this Subrecipient Agreement shall be valid unless
submitted in writing, signed by the parties and approved as required. This Subrecipient Agreement may be
amended in writing, by mutual consent of the parties, on a case-by-case basis where warranted. The
request for an Amendment must be made in writing to the RTA Executive Director at least two months
before the Subrecipient Agreement Expiration Date shown in Exhibit A.
8. No Oral Understanding or Agreement. No oral understanding or agreement not incorporated in
this Subrecipient Agreement is binding on any of the parties.
9. Assignment. This Subrecipient Agreement is not assignable by the SUBRECIPIENT, either in whole or in
part.
10. Independent Contractor. The SUBRECIPIENT, and the agents and employees of the SUBRECIPIENT, in
the performance of this Subrecipient Agreement, shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers
or employees or agents of the RTA.
11. Buy America. The SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with the Buy America requirements of 49 USC Section
5323(j) and 49 CFR Part 661 for all procurements of steel, iron and manufactured products used in
PROJECT. Buy America requirements apply to all purchases, including materials and supplies funded as
operating costs, if the purchase exceeds the threshold for small purchases (currently $150,000). Separate
requirements for rolling stock are set out at 49 USC Section 5323(j)(2)(c) and 49 CFR Part 661.11.
12. Accounting Records. The SUBRECIPIENT shall establish and maintain separate accounting records and
reporting procedures specified for the fiscal activities of the PROJECT. The SUBRECIPIENT’s accounting
system shall conform to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and uniform standards. All records
shall provide a breakdown of total costs charged to the PROJECT including properly-executed payrolls, time
records, invoices and vouchers.
13. Vehicle Operator Licensing. The SUBRECIPIENT is required to comply with all applicable requirements of
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulations and the California Vehicle Code
including, but not limited to, the requirement that all vehicle operators have a valid State of California driver’s
license, including any special operator license that may be necessary for the type of vehicle operated.
14. Audit Requirements. The SUBRECIPIENT shall be responsible for meeting the audit requirements of
Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, 2 CFR
Part 1201.
15. Record Keeping. The SUBRECIPIENT and all contractors shall maintain all books, documents, papers,
accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to the performance of this Subrecipient Agreement.
All parties shall make such materials available at their respective offices at all reasonable times during
the performance period and for three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Subrecipient
Agreement and all subcontracts.
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1A
Page 25 of 187
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT Subrecipient Name: City of Atascadero
Agreement No. _______________
12
16. Examination of Records. The RTA shall have access to any books, records, and documents of the
SUBRECIPIENT and its contractors that are pertinent to this Subrecipient Agreement for audits,
examinations, excerpts, and transactions. Copies thereof shall be furnished by SUBRECIPIENT upon request.
Where any information required of a SUBRECIPIENT is in the exclusive possession of another who fails or
refuses to furnish this information, the SUBRECIPIENT shall so certify to the RTA what efforts it has made to
obtain the information. The SUBRECIPIENT shall include a clause to this effect in every contract entered into
relative to the PROJECT.
17. Reporting Forms. The SUBRECIPIENT shall furnish the RTA with any additional reports or data that may be
required by the FTA or other federal agencies.
18. Debarment and Suspension. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees as follows:
A. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to comply with the requirements of the U.S. DOT regulations on “Debarment
and Suspension” and 49 CFR Part 29 and agrees to refrain from awarding any third-party contract of
any amount to or entering into any sub-agreement of any amount with a party identified in the “U.S.
General Services Administration’s (U.S. GSA) System for Award Management (https://www.RFP.gov)
B. In accordance with 2 CFR Part 1200 and OMB, “Guidelines to Agencies on Government-wide Debarment
and Suspension (Nonprocurement),” the SUBRECIPIENT agrees to obtain a debarment and suspension
certification from each prospective contractor before award of contract of $25,000 or more.
19. Compliance with Federal Statutes. During the performance of this Agreement, the SUBRECIPIENT, its
assignees and successors in interest, agree to comply with all Federal statutes and regulations applicable to
grantee recipients under 49 USC Chapter 53, including, but not limited to the following:
A. Nondiscrimination Title VI Plan. In accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, as amended, 42 USC
Subsection 2000d, Section 303 of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, 42 USC Subsection
6102, Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C Subsection 12132, and federal
transit law at 49 USC Section 5332, the SUBRECIPIENT agrees that it will not discriminate against any
employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age or
disability. In addition, the SUBRECIPIENT agrees to comply with applicable Federal implementing
regulations FTA may issue. In accordance with 49 CFR Part 21 and as described in the Title VI Circular, as it
may be updated or amended, and the California Department of Transportation Title VI Program Plan, the
SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with and ensure that each third-party contractor of the PROJECT also complies
with the federal Title VI reporting requirements.
1. Should an update of the SUBRECIPIENT or its contractor’s Title VI plan occur during the performance
of this Agreement, the SUBRECIPIENT agrees to submit to the RTA the updated Title VI Plan in
advance of its adoption for the purposes of regional Civil Rights program review.
B. Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO). The following equal employment opportunity requirements
apply to the underlying contract:
1. Race, Color, Creed, National Origin, Religion, Sex, Age and Disability. In accordance with Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act, as amended, 42 USC Subsection 2000e, and federal transit laws at 49 USC
Section 5332, Employment Act of 1967, and Section 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act the
SUBRECIPIENT agrees to comply with all applicable EEO requirements of U.S. Department of Labor
(U.S. DOL) regulations, and with any applicable Federal statutes, executive orders, regulations, and
Federal policies that may in the future affect construction activities undertaken in the course of the
PROJECT.
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1A
Page 26 of 187
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT Subrecipient Name: City of Atascadero
Agreement No. _______________
13
2. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to comply with the FTA Circular Section 4704.1A with regard to the Equal
employment Opportunity (EEO) program guidelines for grant recipients. The SUBRECIPIENT and its
contractors agree to submit the RTA its EEO plan for the purposes of regional Civil Rights program
review.
C. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to include the foregoing requirements in each solicitation for transit-related
contract financed in whole or in part with Federal assistance and agrees to notify the contractor of their
obligations under this Subrecipient Agreement and the Regulations relative to Civil Rights.
20. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE). The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to:
A. Comply with 49 CFR Part 26 “Participation by Disadvantaged Enterprises in Department of
Transportation Financial Assistance Programs,” and shall cooperate with RTA with regard to maximum
utilization of DBEs, using its best efforts to ensure that DBEs shall have the maximum opportunity to
compete for sub contractual work under this Agreement.
B. The SUBRECIPIENT shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the award
and performance of any federally-assisted contract or in the administration of its DBE program. The
SUBRECIPIENT’s DBE program, as required by 49 CFR Part 26 and as approved by USDOT, is incorporated
by reference in this Agreement.
C. The SUBRECIPIENT shall must ensure its third-party contractors also comply with these requirements.
21. Section 504 and Americans with Disabilities Act Program Requirements (ADA). The SUBRECIPIENT will
comply with 49 CFR Parts 27, 37 and 38, which implement the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973 (29 USC Section 794) and ensure its third-party contractors operating public transportation service
also comply with these requirements.
22. Establishing Fares. Fares charged seniors, persons with disabilities or an individual presenting a Medicare
card during off peak hours will not be more than one-half the peak hour fares. The SUBRECIPIENT is
expected to have a written, locally developed process for soliciting and considering public comment before
raising a fare or carrying out a major transportation service reduction. The SUBRECIPIENTS shall develop,
publish, and afford an opportunity for a public hearing on any potential fare increases.
23. Warranty. When the PROJECT includes the acquisition, improvement, or operation of public
transportation, the SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with applicable transit employee protective requirements as
specified by 49 USC Section 5333(b). When applicable, those terms and conditions are described in Exhibit E
of this Agreement. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to include any applicable requirements in each subcontract
involving transit operations financed in whole or in part with Federal assistance provided by the FTA.
24. Lobbying.
A. The SUBRECIPIENT shall ensure the SUBRECIPIENT and its contractors will not use federal assistance
funds assigned to the PROJECT to support lobbying, in accordance with 31 USC Section 1352 and 49 CFR
Part 20, “New Restrictions on Lobbying” and will provide to the RTA the contractor’s annual lobbying
certification.
B. The SUBRECIPIENT shall require that the following certification language be included in the award
documents for all transit contracts (including subcontracts, sub-grants, and contracts under grants,
loans, and cooperative agreements) which exceed $100,000.
C. The SUBRECIPIENT shall provide annually to the RTA a copy of its and any contractor’s lobbying
certification.
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1A
Page 27 of 187
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT Subrecipient Name: City of Atascadero
Agreement No. _______________
14
25. Drug-Free Workplace. The SUBRECIPIENT certifies by signing this Subrecipient Agreement that it will
provide a drug-free workplace, and shall establish policy prohibiting activities involving controlled
substances in compliance with GC 8355 et seq. The SUBRECIPIENT is required to include the language of
this certification in award documents for all sub-awards (including subcontracts, contracts under grants,
and cooperative agreements). To the extent the SUBRECIPIENT, any third-party contractor, perform a
safety-sensitive function under the PROJECT, the SUBRECIPIENT agrees to comply with, and assure the
compliance of each affected third-party contractor with 49 USC 5331, and FTA regulations, “Prevention of
Alcohol Misuse and Prohibited Drug use in Transit Operations,” 49 CFR Part 655. The Subrecipient and its
contractors agrees to have a drug and alcohol testing program in place for all safety-sensitive employees
with an ongoing drug-free awareness program. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to provide to the RTA quarterly
testing reports and drug-free policies upon request.
26. Termination Clauses.
A. Termination for Default.
1. The RTA may terminate this Subrecipient Agreement upon a finding that the SUBRECIPIENT has not
made satisfactory progress toward procuring the PROJECT equipment, services, salary and wages, as
appropriate, within twelve (12) months of execution of this Subrecipient Agreement, has not billed
for operating assistance funds within twelve (12) months of execution of this Subrecipient
Agreement, or that the SUBRECIPIENT is otherwise not complying with the terms of this
Subrecipient Agreement. Termination shall be by written notice specifying the reason for
termination and giving the SUBRECIPIENT thirty (30) days to correct the default. If the
SUBRECIPIENT fails to remedy the breach or default or any of the terms, covenants, or conditions of
this Subrecipient Agreement to the RTA's satisfaction, the RTA shall have the right to terminate the
Subrecipient Agreement without any further obligation to the SUBRECIPIENT.
2. The RTA may terminate this contract upon finding that the SUBRECIPIENT is not operating the
PROJECT equipment in accordance with the project description in Exhibit A of this Agreement, or
that the SUBRECIPIENT is otherwise not complying with the terms of this contract. Termination shall
be by written notice specifying the reason for termination and giving the SUBRECIPIENT thirty (30)
days to correct the default. If the SUBRECIPIENT fails to remedy to the RTA's satisfaction the
breach or default of any of the terms, covenants, or conditions of this contract, the RTA shall have
the right to terminate the contract without any further obligation to the SUBRECIPIENT.
B. Period of Performance Extension. If it is later determined by the RTA that the SUBRECIPIENT had an
excusable reason for not performing, such as a strike, fire, or flood, events which are not the fault of or
are beyond the control of the SUBRECIPIENT, and after determining a new delivery of performance
schedule, the RTA may allow the SUBRECIPIENT to continue work or treat the termination as a
termination for convenience.
C. Mutual Termination. The PROJECT may also be terminated if the RTA and the SUBRECIPIENT agree
that its continuation would not produce beneficial results commensurate with the further expenditure
of funds or if there are inadequate funds to operate the PROJECT equipment or otherwise complete the
PROJECT.
27. Disputes. The RTA and the SUBRECIPIENT shall deal in good faith and attempt to resolve potential disputes
arising under this Subrecipient Agreement informally. If the dispute persists, the SUBRECIPIENT shall submit
a written demand for a decision regarding the dispute to the San Luis Obispo Counsel of Government
(SLOCOG/MPO’s) authorized representative for this Agreement or his or her designee.
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1A
Page 28 of 187
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT Subrecipient Name: City of Atascadero
Agreement No. _______________
15
28. Procurement.
A. Exclusionary or Discriminatory Specifications. Apart from inconsistent requirements imposed by Federal
statue or regulations, the SUBRECIPIENT agrees that it will comply with the requirements of 49 USC
Section 5323(h)(2) by refraining from using any Federal assistance funds awarded to support
procurements using exclusionary or discriminatory specifications.
B. For all procurements of commodities, property, supplies, equipment or services under an FTA assisted
grant, the SUBRECIPIENT shall provide full and open competition and comply with the procurement
requirements set forth in 49 USC Section 5325(a), applicable third-party procurement requirements of
49 USC Chapter 53, 49 USC Section 5325(b) to award a third-party contracting using a competitive
procurement process, and other procurement requirements of Federal laws in effect now or as
amended to the extent applicable. The SUBRECIPIENT shall prepare a bid or proposal package, including
equipment and material specifications or a scope of work and submit to the RTA for review and approval
prior to issuance.
C. Purchases shall contain all applicable federal third-party contract clauses. Upon request for
reimbursement, the SUBRECIPIENT shall submit a copy of the purchase order to the RTA.
D. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees that it may not use FTA assistance to support its procurements unless there is
satisfactory compliance with federal laws and regulations. In accordance with applicable USDOT third-
party procurement regulations at 2 CFR Part 1201 and the provisions of the Third-Party Contracting
Circular, including, but not limited to, the following provisions apply to all procurements:
1. To state clearly that the final contract award to any bidder or proposer requires that
procurement solicitations are consistent with the PROJECT description identified in Exhibit A.
2. To comply with applicable Federal laws and regulations including, but not limited to, Federal transit
laws at 49 USC Chapter 53, FTA regulations, and other Federal laws and regulations that contain
requirements applicable to FTA recipients and their FTA assisted procurements. Also, to include all
required Federal procurement provisions in each subcontract financed in whole or in part with
Federal assistance provided by FTA.
3. In accordance with 49 USC Section 5325(e)(1), in the procurement of rolling stock, may not enter
into a multi-year contract to purchase additional rolling stock and replacement parts with options
exceeding five (5) years after the date of the original contract.
4. To comply with 49 USC Section 5325(f), agrees that any third-party contract award it makes for
rolling stock will be based on initial capital costs, or on performance, standardization, life cycle costs,
and other factors, or on a competitive procurement process.
5. To comply with the requirements of 49 USC Section 5323(m) and FTA regulations, “Pre-Award and
Post-Delivery Audits of Rolling Stock Purchases,” 49 CFR Part 663, and any revision thereto.
6. To comply with the requirements of 49 USC Section 5318(c) and (e) and FTA regulations, “Bus
Testing”, 49 CFR Part 665, including the certification that before expending any Federal assistance to
acquire the first bus of any new bus model or any bus model with a new major change in
configuration or components or before authorizing final acceptance of that bus, that model of bus
will have been tested at the Altoona Bus Research and Testing Center. The SUBRECIPIENT must
obtain the final testing report and provide a copy of the report to the RTA with its request for
reimbursement.
7. To require each bidder to certify that it has complied with 49 CFR Part 26, which requires each
transit vehicle manufacturer to submit a certification that it has complied with FTA’s DBE
requirements.
8. In subcontracts exceeding $100,000, to comply with all applicable standards, orders, or regulations
issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 USC Section 7401 et seq. and federal Clean
Water Act, as amended, 33 USC Section 1251 et seq. SUBRECIPIENT agrees to report and require
each third-party contractor or subcontractor at any tier of the PROJECT to report any violation of
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1A
Page 29 of 187
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT Subrecipient Name: City of Atascadero
Agreement No. _______________
16
these requirements resulting from any PROJECT implementation activity of a third-party contractor,
subcontractor, or itself to FTA and the appropriate U.S. EPA Regional Office.
9. To comply with the mandatory energy standards and policies of the STATE’s energy conservation
plans under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, 42 USC Section 6201 et seq., and
perform an energy assessment for any building constructed, reconstructed or modified with federal
assistance.
10. To comply with mandatory standards and policies relating to energy efficiency, which are contained
in the state energy conservation plan issued in compliance with the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act of 1975 (Public Law 94–163, 89 Statute 871, enacted December 22, 1975).
11. To the extent applicable, agrees to conform to the National Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)
Architecture and Standards as required by 23 USC Section 517(d), 23 USC Section 512 note, and 23
CFR Parts 655 and 940, and follow the provisions of the FTA Notice, “FTA National ITS Architecture
Policy on Transit projects,” 66 Fed. Reg. 1455 et seq., and any other implementing directives FTA
may issue at a later date, except to the extent the FTA determines otherwise in writing. Third-party
contracts involving ITS must comply with Federal requirements.
12. In accordance with 40 CFR Part 85, “Control of Air Pollution from Mobile Sources,” 40 CFR Part 86,
“Control of Air Pollution from New and In-Use Motor Vehicles and New and In-Use Motor Vehicle
Engines,” and 40 CFR Part 600, “Fuel Economy of Motor Vehicles, the SUBRECIPIENT must include
provisions in all third-party contract for procurement of rolling stock to ensure compliance with
applicable Federal air pollution control and fuel economy regulations.
13. SUBRECIPIENT shall refer to FTA “Best Practices Procurement Manual” for additional procurement
guidance on procurement processes and any omissions applicable to the PROJECT. The
SUBRECIPIENT’s failure to comply with all mandates shall constitute a material breach of this
Subrecipient Agreement.
14. SUBRECIPIENT must comply with 2 CFR Part 225 or 2 CFR Part 230, as applicable, in determining
whether PROJECT costs are allowable or unallowable.
15. SUBRECIPIENT must have written protest procedures describing its pre-bid/pre-proposal, post
proposal, and post-delivery certification and audit procedures and shall disclose the protest
procedures and appeal process to all bidders.
16. The SUBRECIPIENT shall forward to the RTA at least twenty (20) business days prior to the release of
the bid solicitation, a copy of the bid solicitation document, proposed third-party contract,
independent cost estimate and cost price analysis for federal awards over $250,000.00, and bidders
list for review and approval prior to advertising and award of contract.
29. FTA Regulations, Policies, Procedures and Directives. The SUBRECIPIENT shall at all times comply with
all applicable FTA regulations, policies, procedures and directive, including, without limitation, those listed
directly or by reference in the USDOT FTA Master Agreement between the RTA and FTA, as they may be
amended or revised from time to time, during the term of this Subrecipient Agreement. The SUBRECIPIENT's
failure to so comply shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. In the event any portion, term,
condition or provision of this Subrecipient Agreement should be deemed illegal or in conflict with the laws
of the State of California or with federal law or otherwise be unenforceable, the remaining portion, terms,
conditions or provisions shall not be affected thereby.
30. Incorporation of FTA Terms. The provisions in this Subrecipient Agreement include, in part, certain
Standard Terms and Conditions required by the USDOT, whether or not expressly set forth in the
Agreement. All contractual provisions required by the USDOT, as set forth in the Third-Party Contracting
Circular are hereby incorporated by reference. Anything to the contrary herein notwithstanding, all FTA-
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1A
Page 30 of 187
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT Subrecipient Name: City of Atascadero
Agreement No. _______________
17
mandated terms shall be deemed to control in the event of a conflict with other provisions contained in
this Agreement. The SUBRECIPIENT shall not perform any act, fail to perform any act, or refuse to comply
with any RTA requests which would cause the RTA to be in violation of these Standard Terms and
Conditions.
31. Amendments to Federal, State and Local Laws, Regulations and Directives. The terms of the most recent
amendment to any Federal, State, or local laws, regulations, FTA directives, and amendments to the grant or
cooperative contract that may be subsequently adopted, are applicable to the PROJECT to the maximum
extent feasible, unless FTA provides otherwise in writing.
32. Property Maintenance and Inspection. While the PROJECT is in the possession or control of the
SUBRECIPIENT, the SUBRECIPIENT shall operate or maintain the PROJECT in accordance with detailed
maintenance and inspection schedules provided by the manufacturer, keeping a written log or record of all
repairs and maintenance. The RTA shall have the right to conduct periodic inspections for the purpose of
confirming the existence, condition, and proper maintenance of the PROJECT. No alterations may be
made to the PROJECT in its as-received condition without first receiving written approval from the RTA.
The SUBRECIPIENT shall notify the RTA within ten (10) working days of any loss or damage, including
accident, fire, vandalism, theft, to the PROJECT.
33. Useful Life Standard. In accordance with the Grant Management Circular, the following Useful Life
Standard (ULS) shall determine when PROJECT property will no longer be subject to monitoring and
reporting requirements. SUBRECIPIENT will be released from the monitoring and reporting requirements
after the RTA has approved SUBRECIPIENT’s request for disposition of PROJECT property through email.
While age and mileage are the primary criteria used to determine the useful life of vehicles, this
determination is based on the date the vehicle or other equipment was put into active service, not the
actual model year of the vehicle. These criteria are subject to review by the 5307 or 5339 Program Chief,
as applicable, if either factor is less than the value shown herein.
TYPE OF EQUIPMENT USEFUL LIFE STANDARD
Minivans 4 years or 100,000 miles
Small, Medium, Large Bus 5 years or 150,000 miles
Larger Bus 7 years or 200,000 miles
Largest Bus (5311/5339 Only) 10 years or 350,000 miles
Computer Equipment 3 years
Asphalt Paving, Parking Lot (5311 Only) 10 years
Bus Shelters (5311 Only) 10 years
Building Structures (5311 Only) 40 years
Bus Lift 15 years
Bus Stop Signs (5311 Only) 5 years
Communication Equipment 3 years
Communication Equipment on Vehicles Same as ULS associated with Vehicle
Farebox/Ticket Machine 10 years
Surveillance Equipment 3 years
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1A
Page 31 of 187
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT Subrecipient Name: City of Atascadero
Agreement No. _______________
18
34. Property Ownership and Relinquishment.
A. At all times while PROJECT property or equipment is in the possession or control of the SUBRECIPIENT,
the SUBRECIPIENT shall be the registered owner and the RTA shall be the legal owner (lien holder).
Whenever any PROJECT property or equipment is withdrawn from the PROJECT for any reason, the
SUBRECIPIENT shall immediately notify the RTA of its request. The SUBRECIPIENT shall not transfer
ownership of PROJECT property or equipment at any time while this Subrecipient Agreement is in effect.
The RTA shall retain the original Certificate of Title until such time that disposition of PROJECT property
or equipment is released by the RTA to the SUBRECIPIENT or other appropriate party.
B. Whenever any PROJECT property or equipment is withdrawn from the service for any reason prior to
meeting the ULS, and at the discretion of the RTA, the SUBRECIPIENT shall be required to do one of the
following:
1. Remit to the RTA a proportional amount of the fair market value of the property, which shall be
determined on the basis of the ratio of the Federal grant funds paid under
2. Relinquish the property to the RTA in the same condition as when received by the SUBRECIPIENT
except for reasonable wear and tear resulting from its use.
3. When PROJECT property is lost or damaged by fire, casualty, or natural disaster, the fair market
value shall be calculated on the basis of the condition of the property immediately before the fire,
casualty, or natural disaster, irrespective of the extent of insurance coverage. Based on the
calculation, the proceeds shall be applied to the cost of replacing the damaged or destroyed
PROJECT property taken out of service.
4. If any damage to PROJECT property results from abuse or misuse occurring with the SUBRECIPIENT’s
knowledge and consent, the SUBRECIPIENT agrees to restore the PROJECT property to its original
condition or refund the value of the Federal interest in that property to the RTA.
35. Insurance.
A. While the PROJECT equipment is in the possession or control of the SUBRECIPIENT, the SUBRECIPIENT
shall maintain adequate insurance protection against liability for damages for personal bodily injuries
(including death), property damage, and vehicle damage as conditioned in this section.
B. The RTA, its officers, employees, and agents shall be named as additional insured.
C. Prior to the annual insurance policy expiration date, the SUBRECIPIENT shall furnish to the RTA a new
certificate of insurance or other written evidence of insurance.
36. Potential Subcontractors. No Relationship between the RTA and Third-Party Contractor. Nothing
contained in this Subrecipient Agreement or otherwise, shall create any contractual relation, obligation or
liability between the RTA and any third-party contractors, and no third-party agreement shall relieve the
SUBRECIPIENT of its responsibilities and obligations hereunder. The SUBRECIPIENT’s obligation to pay its
third-party contractors is an independent obligation from the RTA’s obligation to make payments to the
SUBRECIPIENT. As a result, the RTA shall have no obligation to pay or to enforce the payment of any
moneys to any third-party contractor.
37. Indemnification. Neither the RTA, its officers nor employees thereof is responsible for any injury, damage
or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by SUBRECIPIENT and/or its agents
under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction conferred upon SUBRECIPIENT under this
Subrecipient Agreement. It is understood and agreed that SUBRECIPIENT and/or its agents shall fully
defend, indemnify and hold harmless the RTA and all its officers and employees from all claims, suits or
actions of every name, kind and description brought forth including, but not limited to, tortious,
contractual, inverse condemnation or other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of
anything done or omitted to be done by SUBRECIPIENT and/or its agents, employees, and representatives
under this Subreceipient Agreement.
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1A
Page 32 of 187
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT Subrecipient Name: City of Atascadero
Agreement No. _______________
19
EXHIBIT D
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Purchase Order. Upon approval by the RTA of a procurement award, the SUBRECIPIENT (or procurement
agent acting on its behalf) may issue a purchase order for the PROJECT. Each purchase order shall be
consistent with the approved bid award listed in Exhibit A, be consistent with Billing and Payment
instructions listed in Exhibit B, and include a reference to the contract number as assigned to this
Subrecipient Agreement.
2. Disposition. The disposition of the PROJECT and any PROJECT-related equipment or property shall be
made in accordance with 49 USC Chapter 53 and the applicable Program Circular. Disposition requests
shall be submitted to the RTA prior to disposition.
3. Release of Title. As long as the RTA is lien holder of the vehicle, SUBRECIPIENT is obligated to provide
required periodic reporting described in Exhibit D, even if the ULS for the PROJECT has been exceeded.
When the ULS has been achieved, the RTA shall remain the lien holder for vehicles or equipment until all of
the steps in the disposition process described in the preceding regarding Disposition have been completed.
Upon completion of the disposition process, the RTA shall make a determination as to whether the ULS has
been achieved. Useful Life requirements are enumerated in Exhibit C of this Agreement. The RTA has the
discretion to base its determination upon either PROJECT mileage, PROJECT age or a combination of both.
Upon determining that the ULS has been achieved, the RTA shall release title to the SUBRECIPIENT. Upon
release of title to SUBRECIPIENT, the SUBRECIPIENT shall keep the PROJECT or alternatively, the proceeds
from the sale of the PROJECT, in its public transportation program.
4. Reporting Requirements. Upon request by the RTA, the SUBRECIPIENT must submit the following reports
(Failure to meet these requirements may result in withholding of all invoice payments and may be grounds
for PROJECT termination):
A. Milestone Reporting.
1. Capital and Operating Projects. The SUBRECIPIENT shall submit a quarterly report of
vehicle/equipment usage or its progress of the mobility management activities within twenty (20)
calendar days after the close of each federal reporting period. The federal reporting periods are:
1) October 1 through December 31
2) January 1 through March 31
3) April 1 through June 30; and
4) July 1 through September 30
2. Annual Reporting (Operating Assistance Projects). The SUBRECIPIENT shall submit an annual
report of progress made on the PROJECT by no later than thirty (30) days after the close of the
annual federal reporting period of October 1st through September 30th. Annual reports are due
no later than October 30th.
B. Final Reporting / Close-out of subaward. The SUBRECIPIENT shall submit a final PROJECT report
documenting final PROJECT costs (including expenditures report with bank statements or financial
system reports). This report shall include PROJECT narratives of work performed and PROJECT
outcomes, how program performance measures have been met by this PROJECT for the target group
as referenced in the SUBRECIPIENT’s application.
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1A
Page 33 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 03/10/20
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report – Public Works Department
Approve Final Map for Tract 3147
(Bosque Court)
RECOMMENDATION:
Council adopt Draft Resolution approving the Final Map for Tract 3 147.
DISCUSSION:
Background
The Vesting Tentative Map for Tract 3147 (previously Tract 3085) was originally
approved by the Atascadero Planning Commission on May 17, 2016 (PC Resolution
No. 2016-0015), which authorized the subdivision of two mirrored flag lots
(10075/10085 Atascadero Avenue) totaling approximately 6.7 acres into six single-
family lots of one acre or more. A location map is shown below.
Subdivision Improvement Plans were approved by the City Engineer and comprised of
a new cul-de-sac street to be constructed to City Standards (Bosque Court – previously
El Mojon Court) and public utilities, including a public sanitary sewer main, to serve the
subdivision.
Page 34 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 03/10/20
The subdivider, DA2 Development, LLC, opted to construct all subdivision improvements
prior to seeking approval for recordation of the Final Map, which eliminated the need for a
subdivision improvement agreement and financial security for the improvements. During
that time, the tentative tract map expired and the subdivider was required to obtain a new
tract number from the County (now Tract 3147) and reapply to approve the tentative map.
The Planning Commission reconsidered and approved Vesting Tentative Map for Tract
3147 on January 7, 2020 (PC Resolution No. 2020-0001)
With exception to some minor items covered by a warranty secur ity, construction of the
public improvements is now complete and the subdivider requested approval of the final
map by the City for recordation. The map is being considered for approval by the City
Council since the subdivider has provided offers of dedic ation on the final map that
need to be accepted or rejected by the governing body.
Analysis
The City Engineer and Community Development Director have reviewed the final map
and accompanying documents, fees, and materials for filling of Tract 3147, and
determined they are in substantial conformity with the approved tentative map and
conditions of approval. Pursuant to California Government Code (CGC) Section 66458,
the approving legislative body (City Council) shall approve a final map provided it
conforms to all requirements of CGC Section 66458 and any local subdivision
ordinance.
In addition, the following offers of dedication to the public and City Engineer’s
recommended action to accept, accept subject to improvement, or reject without
prejudice are indicated on the Final Map for Tract 3147 :
An offer of dedication for public street purposes for Bosque Court (Reject without
prejudice to future acceptance by City Council).
An offer of dedication for a public sewer easement (Accept).
The Director of Public Works/City Engineer recommends that the Council accept the
sanitary sewer main constructed with Tract 3147 improvements into the City’s
Wastewater Collection System. Doing so will allow these facilities to be owned and
maintained by the City of Atascadero, which is funded by the Wastewater Enterprise
Fund through on-going sewer service charges. Staff recommends that the Council
authorize the City Engineer to accept the satisfactory completion of subdivision
improvement work on their behalf.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution
2. Tract 3147 Map
Page 35 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
03/10/20
1
DRAFT RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING FINAL MAP FOR TRACT 3147 AND ACCEPTING
PORTIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS INTO THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the Vesting Tentative Map for Tract 3 147 (previously Tract 3085) was
originally approved by the Atascadero Planning Commission on May 17, 2016 (PC Resolution
2016-0015) and Public Improvement Plans for “Tract 3085, El Mojon Court” were approved by the
City Engineer on September 28, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the Vesting Tentative Map expired and was reconsidered and approved by
the Atascadero Planning Commission on January 7, 2020 (PC Resolution 2020-0001) as Tract 3147;
and
WHEREAS, the Subdivider, DA2 Development , LLC, has completed the construction of
Improvement Plans comprised of a new cul -de-sac street (Bosque Court) and public utilities,
including a public sanitary sewer main , to serve the six lot subdivision ; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer and Community Development Director have reviewed the
final map and accompanying documents, fees, and material s for filling of Tract 3147, and
determined they are in substantial compliance with the approved tentative map and conditions of
approval .
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Atascadero:
S ECTION 1. Final Map for Tract 3147 is hereby approved.
SECTION 2. Final Map for Tract 3147 offers of dedication for public street purposes for
Bosque Court are rejected without prejudice to future acceptance on behalf of the public and shall
be privately maintained.
S ECTION 3 . The public sanitary sewer main on Bosque Court in Tract 3 147, constructed
as part of the Improvement Plans , is hereby accepted into the Atascadero W astewater Collection
System and the offer of dedication for public sewer is hereby accepted .
SECTION 4. The City Engineer is hereby authorized to accept the satisfactory completion
of subdivision improvement work on behalf of the Council for Tract 3147.
Page 36 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
03/10/20
1
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 10th day of
March, 2020.
On motion by Council Member ________ and seconded by Council Member_________, the
foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CITY OF ATASCADERO
______________________________
Heather Moreno, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Lara K. Christensen, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Brian A. Pierik, City Attorney
Page 37 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: A-3DATE: 03/10/20ATTACHMENT: 1ATTACHMENT: 2Page 38 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
Atascadero City Council
Report of the City Council ad hoc Committee
Mobile Home Rent Stabilization
RECOMMENDATION:
Council discuss the ad hoc Committee report and consider actions.
DISCUSSION:
Background
At its September 24, 2019 meeting, the City Council received testimony from several
members of the public requesting that the Council consider a Mobile Home Park Rent
Stabilization Ordinance (MRSO). The Council provided direction to staff to bring the
issue back for formal discussion and staff prepared a report for consideration at the
October 22, 2019 meeting.
At its October 22, 2019 meeting, the Council heard testimony from numerous members
of the public, primarily mobile home residents and park owners or representatives. The
Council elected not to adopt an MRSO at the meeting but did appoint an ad h oc
Committee consisting of Mayor Pro Tem Bourbeau and Council Member Fonzi to meet
with residents and owners to investigate issues and consider alternatives.
On December 3, 2019, the ad hoc Committee met with mobile home park residents at
the Rancho Del Bordo community room. There were approximately two dozen persons
in attendance from Rancho Del Bordo and a few residents from other parks. Mr. David
Loop, an attorney with the Golden State Mobile home Owners’ League (GSMOL), joined
the meeting by phone and provided input and answered questions for residents.
On December 10, 2019, the ad hoc Committee met with owners and owner
representatives at City Hall and via conference call. Owners or represe ntatives from
Lost Oak, Villa Margarita, Camino del Roble Estates, and Circle M parks were present.
A representative of Western Manufactured Housing Communities, who represents
some park owners in Atascadero, was also included. The owner of Rancho Del Bordo
was not on the conference call. However, Committee Member Bourbeau had
previously spoken with her at length.
Committee members also spoke separately with:
SLO County personnel responsible for implementing the county’s ordinance.
Page 39 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
City attorneys for SLO and Santa Maria regarding their ordinances.
Realtors selling mobile homes in Atascadero.
Manager at Manufactured Home Sales, a dealer of new manufactured homes on
Theater Dr. in Paso Robles.
Karen Levanway, a resident of Rancho Del Bordo, who has been a ctive on this
issue, coordinated the Committee’s visit to the park, and provided information
gathered from residents and the GSMOL.
What The Ad Hoc Committee Learned
Almost all complaints the Committee heard from residents were from one park, Rancho
Del Bordo. Residents of Rancho Del Bordo have long-term leases that include a
provision limiting rent increases to changes in the consumer price index (CPI) and
under state law long term leases are exempt from rent control provisions. The
complaints from Rancho Del Bordo residents centered on what happens upon vacancy,
that is when a mobile home owner wishes to move and sell their mobile home. A new
owner is subject to a new lease at a rate set by the park owner.
According to Rancho Del Bordo residents, monthly space rents for new owners, have
been raised considerably in excess of the CPI in the last few years, from the $700s to
$850 to $925 with the park ownership purportedly planning to raise rents for new
owners to $1,000 in 2020. The park owner at Rancho Del Bordo indicated that they did
not exercise pass through provisions that would allow rent increases greater than CPI
for major capital expenditures, and they felt it was more beneficial for park residents to
raise rents on new owners in the park, rather than on all residents.
Both park residents and park owners recognize that there is a direct inverse relationship
between space rents and the market value of a home in a park. In a community with
rapidly rising prices for both rental and owner-occupied housing, mobile home parks
present a question as to whether the financial benefit of the higher prices people are
willing to pay for housing should go to those owning the land, like an apartment owner
in the form of higher rents, or to those who own the mo bile home, in the form of a
higher selling price due to a limit on space rent.
Rancho Del Bordo residents’ second major complaint revolved around park ownership’s
approval, or rather frequent disapproval, of prospective buyers/new tenants. If the park
disapproves a potential buyer’s application to rent a space in the park, then the seller
must find a new buyer, likely at a lower price. If a seller’s motivation to sell is very time
sensitive, i.e. moving away for job reasons or due to ill health, they may have to leave
the property vacant, with space rent accruing, or sell to the park itself at a much lower
price. This is known to happen in the industry. The Committee could see through real
estate listings where some Rancho Del Bordo homes were listed an d then reduced in
price, but the Committee did not confirm any specific instances in Rancho Del Bordo
where the park ended up buying a home at an extremely low price.
Park owners may disapprove new resident applications based on an applicant’s ability
to pay (based on income, assets, and credit history), and the likelihood of following park
rules based on previous tenant history. Residents complained that Rancho Del Bordo
requires four times space rent in monthly income and is strict about taking into
consideration assets that applicants may use to pay rent, while other parks only require
Page 40 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
three or 3.5 times space rent in income, and are more generous in counting assets.
The Committee’s discussion with park owners indicated this was generally true but
each park owner based their approval/disapproval decision on the totality of the
relevant information provided. Multiple realtors conveyed that Rancho Del Bordo was
the most difficult park in town in which to obtain approval of new buyers.
All park owners conveyed that approving buyers is a basic business decision , which the
City should not interfere with unless it is prepared to guarantee the payment of rent. In
response to questions posed by the ad hoc Committee, the City Attorney’s office also
expressed concern about the City’s ability to make and sustain findings regarding
imposing on park owner approval/disapproval decisions. Park owners are required to
provide their approval/disapproval decision in writing along with the reason for
disapproval if applicable. It was unclear to the Committee if that was being done.
Five of the six parks in Atascadero are individually or family owned and operated. Lost
Oak, on San Diego Way, is corporate owned by Thomsen Properties LLC, which
according to their online profile, owns and operates 26 mobile home parks and RV
facilities in California. An active resident at Rancho Del Bordo did pass along a written
message from a resident of Lost Oak with complaints about some management
practices but not specifically about rent increases.
At the park owner meeting, there was unanimous opposition to an MRSO or a
moratorium on rent increases even if it allowed for CPI based increases. The park
owners present felt they have good relations with their residents and they shou ld not be
subjected to an ordinance when complaints arise from one park. More than one park
indicated they do not always increase rents by the CPI, but if they believed the City
were about to enact an ordinance, they would feel compelled to raise rents im mediately
to catch up with the market. Most of the other parks use short-term leases and could
raise rents immediately. The small number of residents of other parks that Committee
Members encountered, specifically from Villa Margarita and Camino del Robl e,
expressed great satisfaction with their owners and concern that involvement by the City
could adversely affect them in the form of preemptive rent increases.
On Nov 19, 2019, the City of Santa Maria adopted an enforceable model lease , which
includes provisions for limiting annual rent increases and limiting rent increases upon
sale (vacancy control). The ordinance requires park owners to offer the model lease if
the park owner and resident cannot agree on other provisions. The model lease
includes provisions limiting annual rent increases and allowing for greater but still
limited increases upon vacancy. It is noteworthy that the Western Manufactured
Housing Communities Association (a park owners group) supported the enforceable
lease, albeit with some reservations.
The ad hoc Committee met with Karen Levanway, a resident of Rancho Del Bordo, who
has gathered information from many residents and from GSMOL, and coordinated
meetings on the subject. As an advocate of an MRSO or emergency moratorium
ordinance (EMO) on rent increases she stressed her opinion that without one of these
protections, mobile home owners are vulnerable to substantial unaffordable rent
increases, in the case of short term leases, or substantial rent increases upon vacancy
that lessen the value of their homes, in the case of long term leases. She feels that it is
Page 41 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
inevitable that family owned parks will ultimately sell to corporate owned entities whose
sole purpose is to maximize profits at the expense of captive residents. She als o
argued that mobile homes are a primary source of affordable housing especially for
senior citizens and that failure to enact some protection jeopardizes that affordable
housing.
As an advocate for an MRSO or EMO, Ms. Levanway seeks protections including :
limiting annual rent increases to changes in the CPI , no significant increases for new
owners upon sale of a home, no pass through to residents of increased operating or
maintenance expenses in addition to CPI changes, and advised a model lease with
similar provisions would also be acceptable.
ALTERNATIVES:
As discussed in staff’s original report of Oct 22, 2019, the Council should consider the
likely impact on all mobile home park residents, both currently and in the future, the
impact on park owners, and the likelihood and costs of potential legal challenges to any
action. Alternatives available to the Council include:
1. Take no action at this time. If further problems involving significant adverse
impacts on residents were to arise, the Council co uld reconsider this course at
another time in the future.
2. Direct staff to bring back an MRSO. Council already elected not to pursue this
action.
3. Direct staff to bring back an ERO. The State recently adopted legislation limiting
rent increases to CPI changes plus 5%. The legislation did not apply to mobile
homes. An ERO which can be adopted for 45 days and extended up to a total of
2 years could be viewed as an interim step to see if the State extends such
protections to MH.
4. Direct staff to bring back a model lease program patterned after Santa Maria.
5. Require additional disclosures be provided to mobile home purchasers regarding
how rent increases affect the value of their purchase.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City of Atascadero staff report for City Council meeting of October 22, 2019
2. City of Santa Maria staff report on model lease for November 19,2019 meeting, and
accompanying comments from mobile home owners group and park owners
association
3. Rancho Del Bordo Mobile Home Estates Ten -Year Lease agreement
Page 42 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report - City Attorney
Discussion of Mobile Home Park
Rent Stabilization Issue
RECOMMENDATION:
Council discuss mobile home park rent stabilization issue and provide direction to staff.
DISCUSSION:
This Staff Report is submitted pursuant to the direction of the City Council at its meeting
on September 24, 2019.
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Rent Stabilization Ordinances
Attached to this Staff Report are copies of examples of rent stabilization
ordinances including:
County of San Luis Obispo -- Attachment 1
City of Morro Bay -- Attachment 2
Rent stabilization ordinances have many provisions in common includin g a
statement of the purpose and intent of the ordinance, definitions, exemptions,
establishment of a rent review board, statement of the powers and duties of the board,
determination of base rent and allowable increases, park owner hardship exceptions,
hearing procedures for the rent board, standards of review, decisions by the board and
appeals of the board decision.
B. Actual Costs: Study, Adoption and Administration
There are actual costs (City staff time, legal expenses, accounting expenses)
which will be incurred with rent stabilization ordinances including, but not limited to,
costs to study whether to adopt an ordinance, costs to draft an ordinance, and costs to
administer the ordinance.
Page 83 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 43 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
To provide some examples of such actual costs, the County of Ventura has a
rent stabilization ordinance and has reported that its annual administration costs are
approximately $125,000 not including legal fees. The City of Modesto has a rent
stabilization ordinance and, according to newspaper reports, the City expected the costs
for the program in the first year to be $106,000 with some of the costs diminishing for
future years.
C. Potential Costs: Litigation
The above described actual costs do not include damages that may be incurred
in the event a park owner files a legal challenge to the adoption of a rent stabilization
ordinance claiming that there has been a taking of property without just compen sation.
In addition, a park owner can file a legal challenge against a city claiming the rent
increase approved is not sufficient.
In the event these legal challenges are successful, the city is exposed to
potentially uninsured liability for damages in potentially very significant amounts. While
the outcome of such lawsuits would be for the courts to decide, there wou ld be, at a
minimum, substantial time and expense for the City to defend against such lawsuits.
D. Alternatives to Rent Stabilization
Attachment 3 is a copy of a Memorandum from the County of El Dorado which
has a section on Alternatives to Rent Stabilization (pages 10-11) including: Model
Leases and Memorandums of Understanding (MOU), Resident Assistant Programs
(Space Rent Subsidy), conversion to resident ownership, County purchase of mobile
home park to stabilize rents and purchase by non-profits.
II. CALIFORNIA MOBILEHOME RESIDENCY LAW
Under the state Mobilehome Residency Law contained in Civil Code Section 798
to Section 799.11, the following mobile home spaces are exempt from local rent control
regulations:
1. Mobile home rental spaces with a rental agreement in excess of twelve
(12) months is entered into between the management and homeowner for
the personal and actual residence of the homeowner (Cal. Civ. Code §
798.17)
2. Mobile home rental spaces that were constructed and initially held out for
rent after January 1, 1990 (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 798.7, 798.45); and
3. Under certain circumstances, mobile home rental spaces where the space
is not the principal residence of the mobile homeowner and the homeowner
has not rented the mobile home to another party. (Cal. Civ. Code § 798.21).
In addition to these exemptions from local rent control ordinances, the
Mobilehome Residency Law contains other provisions that preempt more general local
landlord-tenant regulations that may apply to mobile home park owners and tenants.
Page 84 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 44 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
For example, mobile home rent control ordinances may not allow landlords to
charge tenants “fees” or “pass-throughs” for certain services unless specifically
authorized by statute. (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 798.31-798.38, 798.41, 798.44, 798.49, Karrin
v. Ocean-Aire Mobile Home Estates (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1066). In addition, state law
may preempt local regulations relating to notices of rent increases, security deposit
requirements, and grounds for eviction. (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 798.30, 798.39, 798.56.).
III. COURT DECISIONS
There are a number of the court decisions relating to the subject of rent control
ordinances and the potential for claims by a property owner that such ordinances could
constitute a regulatory taking of their property and/or violate due process rights.
A. Federal Court Decisions
1. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York (1978) 438
U.S. 104
In Penn Central, the United States Supreme Court describes when a regulatory
taking may occur which requires payment of just compensation. In Penn Central, a
property within the city was designated as a landmark site under the city’s landmarks
preservation law. Subsequently, the property owner entered a lease under which the
tenant would construct a multistory office building above the property and pay the owner
rent for use of the new construction. However, under the city’s preservation law, the city
denied the property owner’s request to build the new office space. The owner sued the
city, alleging that a taking of property occurred withou t just compensation.
To determine if a regulatory taking has occurred, Penn Central (at p. 124)
identified three factors to consider:
(1) The regulation’s economic impact on the claimant,
(2) The extent to which the regulation interferes with distinct
investment-backed expectations, and
(3) the character of the government action.
2. Adamson Companies v. City of Malibu (C.D. Cal. 1994) 854
F.Supp. 1476
In Adamson Companies, mobile home park owners challenged a local rent
control ordinance enacted by the city shortly after the city’s incorporation. The
ordinance contained various components, including an immediate rent rollback,
limitations on rent increases, temporary rent freezes, vacancy control, park closure
conversion restrictions, pass-through provisions, and procedures to adjust rents to
receive a fair return. The park owners challenged the city’s ordinance as violating
substantive due process and equal protection, as well as constituting a taking without
just compensation.
The Court found the ordinance was in violation of the property owners’ due
process rights. The city eventually settled with one park owner for $400,000 and second
property owner for $605,448 plus attorneys’ fees of $398,308 and costs of $30,725.
Page 85 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 45 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
3. Guggenheim v. City of Goleta (9th Cir. 2010) 638 F.3d 1111
In Guggenheim, the Ninth Circuit addressed a challenge by a mobile home park
owner to a rent control ordinance. The case involved a mobile home rent control
ordinance enacted by Santa Barbara County in 1979, and later adopted by the City of
Goleta as required by law upon incorporation in 2002. The property owners purchased
the mobile home park in 1997, 18 years after the county ordinance was enacted. The
park owners sued the city in 2002, claiming that the ordinance was a regulatory taking
without just compensation and that the ordinance violated substantive due process and
equal protection.
The Court applied the Penn Central factors and held that the ordinance was not a
regulatory taking. The court emphasized that the second Penn Central factor regarding
investment-backed expectations was fatal to the property owners’ claim because the
rent control ordinance was enacted long before the property owners purchased the
mobile home park, and therefore the price the owners paid for the park reflected the
burden of rent control the owners would thereafter suffer. Applying rational basis
review, the court also held that the rent control ordinance did not deny the property
owners substantive due process or equal protection of the laws. (Note that Mobile
Residency Law discussed in Section II above cites the law that mobile home rental
spaces constructed and initially held out for rent after January 1, 19 90 are exempt from
local rent control regulations).
4. MHC Financing v. City of San Rafael (9th Cir. 2013) 714 F.3d 1118
The MHC case is another decision by the Ninth Circuit involving mobile home rental
control issues. The case involved a rent control ordinance that was enacted in 1989, and
subsequently amended in 1993 and again in 1999. Between the 1993 amendment and
the 1999 amendment, the mobile home park owners purchased the park at issue in the
case. Following the 1999 amendment, mobile home park owners sued the city alleging
that the ordinance violated the park owners’ substantive due process rights, constituted an
uncompensated regulatory taking, and constituted an improper private taking.
The court in MHC held that the ordinance did not constitute a regulatory taking.
Similar to Guggenheim, the court emphasized that the property owners purchased the
mobile home park after the mobile home rent control ordinance was in effect. As a result,
with regard to the first two Penn Central factors the court explained that the property
owners only experienced a slight diminution in value when the ordinance was amended in
1999, and at the time of purchasing the property the owners could not have had
investment-backed expectations of collecting illegal amounts of rent in violation of the rent
control ordinance. In addition, the court held that no private taking had occurred and the
ordinance did not violate substantive due process because under rational basis review,
the ordinance was rationally related to a conceivable public purpose.
5. Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson (2018) 888 F. 3d 445
In the Colony case, the City of Carson adopted a rent control ordinance for mobile
home parks in 1979. In 1998, the City adopted Implementation Guidelines in regard to the
rent control ordinance including permitting consideration of a Gross Profits Maintenance
Page 86 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 46 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
Analysis (“GPM”). On April 4, 4006, Colony purchased a mobile home park in the City for
$23,050,000 and financed $18,000,000 with an accompanying debt service. In October
2006, the City amended its Guidelines to permit the Board to consider “Maintenance of
Net Operating Income Analysis (“MNOI”) which did not include consideration of debt
service expenses. In 2007 and again in 2008, Colony requested rent increases and the
Board did not consider debt service expenses in calculating the approved rent increase.
Colony filed a lawsuit against the City alleging a facial and as-applied takings and due
process claims. Colony obtained a judgment against the City in the trial court in the
amount of $7,464,718.41. The City filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
The Court in Colony discusses the issue of when a regulation constitutes a taking
stating that judicial decisions considering regulatory takings claims are typically
“characterized by essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries, designed to allow careful
examination and weighing of all the relevant circumstances.” (Page 450). The Court
also notes, as in Guggenheim and MHC, that Colony purchased the mobile home park
after the City had adopted a rent control ordinance stating (page 453): “As a general
matter, an investor must account for ‘the burden of rent control’ in its expectations about
future increased rental income.” (Page 453). The Court reversed the trial court
judgment finding the Board’s denial of the Colony requested rent increases were not the
functional equivalent of a direct appropriation of the property (page 455).
Thus, in cases of Guggenheim and MHC and Colony, the Ninth Circuit rejected
the claims brought by the mobile home park owners. However, an important ground for
the decisions in these cases was that the rent control ordinances for these cities had
been enacted before the park owners had purchased the park. As stated in
Guggenheim, the price paid for the park reflected the burden of rent control the owners
would thereafter suffer. Likewise, in MHC, the Court notes there was a rent control
ordinance in effect at the time the owners purchased the park so the owners could not
have had investment-backed expectations of collecting illegal amounts of rent in
violation of the rent control ordinance. In Colony, as noted, the Court confirmed that the
investor must account for the “burden of rent control”.
B. State Court Decisions
1. Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 761
In Kavanau, the California Supreme Court held that, in addition to the three Penn
Central factors (noted above), there are ten (10) additional relevant factors that may be
considered when determining whether a regulatory taking has occurred:
(1) Whether the regulation interferes with interests that are sufficiently
bound up with the reasonable expectations of the claimant to
constitute “property” for Fifth Amendment purposes;
(2) Whether the regulation affects the existing or traditional use of the
property and thus interferes with the property owner’s “primary
expectation;”
Page 87 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 47 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
(3) The nature of the State’s interest in the regulation and whether the
regulation is reasonably necessary to the effectuation of a
substantial public purpose;
(4) Whether the property owner’s holding is limited to the specific
interest the regulation abrogates or is broader;
(5) Whether the government is acquiring “resources to permit or
facilitate uniquely public functions” such as government’s
“entrepreneurial operations;”
(6) Whether the regulation permits the property owner to profit and to
obtain a reasonable return on investment;
(7) Whether the regulation provides the property owner benefits or
rights that mitigate whatever financial burdens the law has
imposed;
(8) Whether the regulation prevents the best use of the land;
(9) Whether the regulation extinguishes a fundamental attribute of
ownership; and
(10) Whether the government is demanding the property as a condition
for the granting of a permit.
The Court in Kavanau (at p. 776) emphasized that this is not an exhaustive list of
factors that may be relevant in evaluating a takings claim, and courts are not required to
rigidly apply all factors in every case. Instead, courts should apply (or not apply) these
factors as appropriate to the facts of the case.
2. Besaro Mobile Home Park v. City of Fremont (2012) 204 Cal. App.
4th 354
The court in Besaro Mobile Home Park, LLC v. City of Fremont (2012) 204 Cal.
App. 4th 354 did address mobile home park issues. However, in Besaro, the park owner
was not contending that owner had been denied on fair return on its investment:
Page 351: “Besaro did not take the position that the increase was
necessary to provide a fair return on its investment in the property, but focused
on the current market rents for mobile home spaces and on the possibility that
the park would close if the rents were not increased.”
Page 351: “David Berretta, the managing member of Besaro, testified that
an increase in rent was not needed to provide a fair return on the historical
investment in the property.”
Page 358: “Besaro does not claim that it has been denied a fair return on
its investment.”
Page 362: “We emphasize again that Besaro does not claim it has been
denied a fair return.”
Furthermore, the Court made a factual finding in the Besaro case that the park
owner was earning a fair return on its investment, see Page 359: “Here, the Ordinance
Page 88 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 48 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
has not had a confiscatory effect because Besaro is earning a fair return on its
investment. Consequently, the application of the Ordinance does not violate Besaro's
expectation of the right to use its property in a manner yielding a fair return.”
3. Findings
There is no assurance that a Court would make the same finding as in Besaro
regarding the fair return on investment if the City of Atascadero were to adopt a rent
control ordinance.
In addition, as noted above in the discussion regarding the California Supreme
Court case of Kavanau, the analysis by the courts on whether or not there has been a
taking involves the weighing of the three Penn Central factors as well as consideration
of the ten additional factors set forth in Kavanau.
IV. MOBILE HOME RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCES IN CALIFORNIA
A. Statewide
Golden State Manufactured – Home Owners League, Inc. (GSMOL) prepared a
list dated October 10, 2013 of California jurisdictions with mobile home park rent
stabilization ordinances. See Attachment 4 which was provided by Bruce Stanton
(attorney for GSMOL) at our request. This document lists 97 California jurisdictions
consisting of 90 cities and 7 counties. Four of the cities have repealed their ordinances
(Capitola, Delano, Hollister and Napa) which leaves 86 cities with ordinances out of the
482 cities in California which is about 18%. The document lists 7 counties out of 58
counties in California which is about 12%.
B. Stanislaus County
In 2006, the County of Stanislaus and the cities of Modesto, Ceres, Riverbank
and Oakdale, formed an Ad Hoc Committee (the "Ad Hoc Committee") to look at options
regarding mobile home rents. The Ad Hoc Committee was made up of elected officials
from each jurisdiction. After several months of study, the County of Stanislaus decided
not to adopt a rent stabilization ordinance and instead decided to work with the mobile
park owners in an effort to address rent issues.
C. San Luis Obispo County
In San Luis Obispo County, there is the County and seven cities . The status of
those cities, regarding rent stabilization ordinances and including the year of adoption,
is as follows:
San Luis Obispo (County) – 1988 (Adopted by Voters)
Arroyo Grande – None (Repealed in 1998)
Atascadero – None
Grover Beach – Adopted 1987
Morro Bay –Adopted 1986
Page 89 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 49 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
Paso Robles – None
Pismo Beach – Adopted 1981
San Luis Obispo (City) – Adopted 1988
D. Adoption Since 2000
As noted, approximately 86 cities have adopted a rent stabilization ordinance and
most of those ordinances were adopted before 1990. The cities which have adopted a
rent stabilization ordinance since 2000 include the following:
Goleta -- 2002 (Adopted at time of incorporation based on the County of
Santa Barbara code. See Guggenheim case discussed above).
Humboldt County -- 2016 (Adopted by voters).
Marina -- 2011
Modesto -- 2007
Santa Rosa -- 2004
Ukiah -- 2010
E. Repealed Rent Stabilization Ordinances
The following counties and cities had adopted a rent stabilization ordinance, but
later repealed the ordinance:
Arroyo Grande – 1998
Capitola -- 2011
Delano -- 1994
Hollister -- 1994
Los Angeles County -- 1994
Ontario -- 1999
Napa -- 1985
Santa Cruz (City) – 2003
Westminster -- 1985
F. City of Arroyo Grande
With regard to the City of Arroyo Grande, see Attachment 5 which includes three
Staff Reports (without attachments).
The September 23, 1997 Staff Report, describes the direction given to the City
Attorney on February 25, 1997 to revise the City’s rent stabilization ordinance and the
subsequent distribution to interested parties of a draft ordinance to repeal and replace
the City’s rent control ordinance.
Page 90 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 50 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
The Staff Report on January 13, 1998, presented six options to the Council.
According to the Staff Report, over the past year, staff spent approximately 100 hours
working the program at a cost of over $3000 not including the City Attorney’s times.
On January 27, 1998, the Council repealed the rent stabilization ordinance.
V. MOBILE HOME PARKS IN ATASCADERO
PARK YEAR ADDRESS SPACES SGL DBL TPL INFO
Rancho del
Bordo
1974 10025 El Camino
Real
128 7% 92.5% .5% Senior 55+
Park
Residents with
long term leases
& are exempt
from rent control
Hill Top Manor 1960 5715 Santa Cruz
#66
61 60% 40% 0% All ages
Lost Oak 1986 9191 San Diego
Way
55 10% 90% 0% All ages
Villa Margarita 1976 10995 El Camino
Real
70 10% 79% 1% Senior
No complaints
regarding rent
Camino Del
Roble Estates
Unknown 1215 El Camino
Road
62 22% 78% 0% Senior
No complaints
regarding rent
Circle M Unknown 8850 El Camino
Road
23 99% 1% 0%
TOTALS 399
VI. STUDIES OF RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCES
Some cities have retained consultants to study the issues regarding a rent
stabilization ordinance. In fact, at least one city (City of Marina) retained two
consultants to prepare reports on a possible rent stabilization ordinance. Due to the
length of these reports, only sections and excerpts from the Staff Report have been
included, as noted below.
A. Michael St. John
Attachment 6 includes excerpts from the December 2008 Report by Michael St.
John which contains four recommendations, none of which include a rent stabilization
ordinance. The four recommendations include: (1) A process to work out a
cooperative solution; (2) a renegotiated memorandum of understand and a model
lease; (3) the City should abandon a proposal to re-zone mobilehome parks and (4)
consideration of a rent subsidy program funded by the park owners to address the
income needs of the lowest income park residents.
Page 91 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 51 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
B. Kenneth Barr
Attachment 7 includes excerpts from the December 31, 2008 Report by Kenneth
Barr including a Summary regarding the number of mobilehome parks, average space
rents, purchase prices, lack of bargaining power of residents, income levels of park
residents and other information. At page 33, a section commences with a number of
recommendations. One of the recommendations (page 34) is the following: “Cities
should not simply copy ordinances of other jurisdictions. Often provisions from other
ordinances are copied verbatim without any understanding of their meaning or
implications or how they operate in practice.”
VII. COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCES
There are actual costs (City staff time, legal expenses & accounting expenses)
which will be incurred with rent stabilization ordinances including, but not limited to,
costs to study whether to adopt an ordinance, costs to draft an ordinance, and costs to
administer the ordinance.
The County of Ventura has a rent stabilization ordinance and has reported that
its administration costs are $125,000 not including legal fees.
The City of Modesto adopted a rent stabilization ordinance effective October 4,
2007. Under the terms of the ordinance, if a mobile home park owner chose to
participate in a voluntary lease program, those parks are exempt under Section 4-19.05 if
the park entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City. Under the
MOU, the park owner must provide all mobile home owners and residents the opportunity
to enter into an approved long term lease. There are nine mobile home parks in
Modesto. Eight of the nine parks agreed to enter into the MOU. The long term leases
allow for rent increases of up to 7 percent a year and a 15% increase when someone
moves. According to newspaper reports, the City expected the costs for the program in
the first year to be $106,000 with some of the costs diminishing for future years.
The above described costs do not include liability exposure if a park owner files a
takings lawsuit in the event a city adopts a rent stabilization ordinance claiming that there
has been a taking of property without just compensation. In addition, as noted, a park
owner can file a legal challenge against a city claiming the rent increase approved is not
sufficient as in the Colony Cove case. In the event these legal challenges are successful,
the City is exposed to liability for damages in potentially very significant amounts.
The costs for the administration of a rent stabilization ordinance can be partially
offset by charging an annual fee to the park owner and an annual fee to the park
residents which is collected by the park owner with the rent.
VIII. ENFORCEMENT
One of the issues to be addressed in regard to a rent stabilization ordinance is
how to enforce the terms of the ordinance in the event of a violation.
One option is for the City to assume the cost for enforcing the code by pursuing a
code enforcement process, including court proceedings if necessary.
Page 92 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 52 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
Another option is to treat the violation of the ordinance as a civil matter to be
resolved by park owner and park residents. For example, the County of San Luis
Obispo has this information on its website:
“Who enforces the state and local rent control laws?
Please be aware that neither the state Mobilehome Residency Law nor the
County’s Title 25 provide a mechanism for enforcement. Neither the State nor the
county have the ability to impose a fine or a citation. A violation of the rent control
laws is a civil matter, and the suffering party may use civil litigation to remove the
violation. This applies whether there is a home owner who does not pay the space
rent or a park manager who overcharges for the mobile home space. The County
encourages alternative methods to be considered before engaging in legal action.
Homeowners who fee that there has been a rent overcharge (in violation of the
County’s Title 25) can choose to pay the full rent amount ‘under protest,’ and
continue working to resolve the matter outside of court.”
IX. MORATORIUM
A city does have the ability to adopt a moratorium ordinance for a period of time
to study a possible rent stabilization ordinance. The moratorium would be for an initial
period of 45 days and could be extended, if circumstances warrant an extension, for
10.5 months and another extension of 12 months.
If the City were to adopt such an ordinance, there is a risk of a takings claim by a
park owner. The general rule for whether a temporary moratorium is a “taking” depends
on whether moratorium denies the property owner all viable economic use of the
property, which is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. (See Tahoe-Sierra Preservation
Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002) 535 U.S. 302.)
For rent control regulations, the analysis depends upon whether the action denies
the property owner a just and reasonable return. (Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control
Bd. (1977) 16 Cal.4th 761, 771.) Although the phrase “just and reasonable return” has
never been specifically defined, courts consider relevant investor interests against the
consumer interest to be protected. Relevant investor interests include whether the return
is commensurate with returns on comparable investments, sufficient enough to attract
capital, encourages good management and financial integrity, and fairly compensates
investors for risks assumed. For example, if a property owner has a historic practice of
increasing rents by 5%, and the moratorium eliminates this, then the property owner may
argue that the moratorium is denying them the reasonably expected, just, and reasonable
return that they had anticipated. Of course, a successful challenge will depend on the
underlying facts for each challenging property owner.
The risk of a takings claim might be mitigated by including some exceptions for
permissible rent increases during the moratorium. Other cities (Oakland, Santa Rosa)
have included certain provisions that allow for controlled rent increases (tied to
Consumer Price Index and other factors) to mitigate any arguments that the moratorium
denies the property owner a just and reasonable rate of return during the period which
the moratorium is effective.
Page 93 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 53 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
X. COUNTY OF EL DORADO MEMORANDUM
Bruce Stanton provided a copy of the County of El Dorado’s Community
Development Services Planning and Build Department Long Range Planning (Attachment
3) Memorandum submitted to the Board of Supervisors dated March 14, 2018 on the
subject of Mobile Home Park Space Rent Stabilization. The El Dorado Memorandum
addresses a number of issues relating to rent stabilization including the following.
A. County Resources
At page 7, the El Dorado Memorandum notes: “The preparation necessary for
the Board to consider adoption of a countywide mobile home park rent stabilization
ordinance would require a significant commitment of County resources to conduct
surveys, analyze data, and conduct public and stakeholder meetings.”
B. Arguments For Rent Stabilization (Memorandum at page 9)
1. Mobile home park rent stabilization provides relief to mobile home park
tenants from excessive rent increases.
2. A shortage of mobile home spaces exists in the area causing artificial
increase in rent space.
3. Mobile homes are costly and difficult to move.
4. Excessively high space rent drives down the prices of mobile homes should
an owner elect to sell a mobile home.
5. High rental rates will more negatively impact seniors and other persons on
fixed incomes.
C. Arguments Against Rent Stabilization (Memorandum at page 9)
1. Mobile home park rent rates should be left to adjust themselves by
operation of market forces without government intervention.
2. Rent control imposes a severe and continuing burden on the landowner.
3. Rent stabilization ordinances are technical and complicated, are costly to
prepare, and implementation requires considerable staff time and public
hearing time.
4. Rent stabilization ordinances require administrative oversight thus
requiring additional staff which must be managed, supervised and funded
by a public entity.
5. Rent stabilization ordinances have been the subject of a great deal of
litigation and public entity may incur substantial legal expenses and costs
to defend a lawsuit.
Page 94 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 54 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
D. Alternatives to Rent Stabilization (Memorandum at page 9)
The El Dorado Memorandum has a section on Alternatives to Rent Stabilization
(pages 10-11) which include: Model Leases and Memorandums of Understanding
(MOU), Resident Assistant Programs (Space Rent Subsidy), conversion to resident
ownership, County purchase of mobile home park to stabilize rents and purchase by
non-profits.
E. Stanislaus County
The El Dorado Memorandum (page 10) references the 2008 Marina Mobile
Home Report by Michael St. John and the case study of Stanislaus County which
formed an Ad Hoc Committee to negotiate with a park ownership ground and those
negotiations ultimately failed.
F. Conclusion of El Dorado Memorandum
The El Dorado Memorandum concludes (page 10) that “in the absence of local
data, there is no compelling argument for or against a countywide RSO.” In addition,
the Memorandum lists 15 questions that should be answered if the County should
provide direction to staff to move forward with a study for a countywide RSO.
At page 11, the El Dorado Memorandum concludes with this paragraph:
“Developing a countywide RSO will require an extensive amount of
research and analysis and stakeholder engagement. The
experience of other jurisdictions that have considered adopting a
rent control ordinance, whether successfully or not, demonstrates
that it is a long complicated process because housing insecurity
stirs deep emotions, but at the same time, all stakeholders have
legitimate and understandable concerns and arguments for and
against this type of ordinance.”
FISCAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. County of San Luis Obispo Ordinance
2. City of Morro Bay Ordinance
3. El Dorado County Memorandum
4 GSMLO October 2013 list of CA Jurisdictions with Rent Control
5. City of Arroyo Grande – Staff Reports
6. Excerpts from Michael St. John Report for City of Marina
7. Excerpts from Kenneth Barr Report for City of Marina
Page 95 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 55 of 187
1
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Title 25 - MOBILEHOME RENT STABILIZATION
o Chapter 25.01 - PURPOSE AND INTENT
25.01.010 - Purpose and intent.
(a)
There is presently within the County of San Luis Obispo a shortage of spaces for the location
of existing mobilehomes. Because of this shortage, there is a very low vacancy rate and rents
have been for several years, and are presently, rising rapidly and c ausing concern among a
substantial number of San Luis Obispo County residents.
(b)
Mobilehome tenants, forced by the lack of suitable alternative housing, have had to pay the
rent increases and thereby suffer a further reduction in their standard of livi ng.
(c)
Because of the high cost and impracticability of moving mobilehomes, the potential for
damage resulting therefrom, the requirements relating to the installation of mobilehomes,
including permits, building requirements, landscaping and site prepar ation, the lack of
alternative homesites for mobilehome residents and the substantial investment of mobilehome
owners in such homes, it is necessary to protect the owners and occupiers of mobilehomes
from unreasonable rent increases, while at the same time recognizing the need of park owners
to receive a suitable profit on their property with rental income sufficient to cover increases in
the costs of repair, insurance, maintenance, utilities, employee services, additional amenities,
and other costs of oper ation, and to receive a fair return on their property.
(d)
It has been found that the present low vacancy rate and frequent rent increases are particularly
hard upon and unfair to residents of mobilehome parks within the county. Large numbers of
these residents are senior citizens and others on fixed incomes who installed their mobilehomes
in the county when inflationary rent increases could not reasonably have been foreseen.
(e)
However, it is recognized that a rent stabilization ordinance must be fair and equitable for all
parties and must provide appropriate incentives to mobilehome park operators to continue their
parks' profitably, as well as to attract additional investors for new parks.
(Ord. 2342 § 4 (Exh. A) (part), 1988)
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 96 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 56 of 187
2
o Chapter 25.02 - DEFINITIONS
25.02.010 - Definitions.
For the purpose of this title certain words and phrases used herein are defined as follows:
"Capital improvements" means those improvements that materially add to the value of the
property and appreciably prolong its useful life or adapt it to new uses, and which may be
amortized over the useful life of the improvement in accordance with the Inte rnal Revenue
Code and regulations issued pursuant thereto, provided that this definition shall be limited to
capital improvements either approved by more than fifty percent of the tenants in the affected
park or constructed to comply with the direction of a public agency.
Just and Reasonable Return on the Property. The phrase "just and reasonable return on the
property" shall mean a return based upon the actual capital investment of the owner of the
mobilehome park as of December 31, 1982, which will allow an efficient owner a rate of
return, with adjustments for inflation or deflation, sufficient to enable the owner to maintain
the same net profit as obtained in the year January 1, 1982 to December 31, 1982. The phrase
"just and reasonable return on the pr operty" for any mobilehome park completed after
December 31, 1982, shall mean a return based upon the actual capital investment of the owner
of the mobilehome park as of the date of completion, which will allow an efficient owner a rate
of return, with adjustments for inflation or deflation, sufficient to enable the owner to maintain
a reasonable profit. The phrase "just and reasonable return on the property" for any
mobilehome park purchased after December 31, 1982, shall mean a return based upon the
actual capital investment of the owner of the mobilehome park at the time of purchase which
will allow an efficient owner a rate of return, with adjustments for inflation or deflation
sufficient to enable the owner to maintain the same net profit as obtained in the first full fiscal
year after the purchase.
"Mobilehome park" means an area of land which rents spaces for mobilehome dwelling
units.
"Mobilehome park owner" or "owner" means the owner, lessor, operator or manager of a
mobilehome park.
"Mobilehome park rent review board" or "board" means the mobilehome park rent review
board established by this chapter.
"Mobilehome tenant" or "tenant" means any person entitled to occupy a mobilehome
within a mobilehome park pursuant to ownership of the mobilehome or under a rental or lease
agreement with the owner of the mobilehome.
"Rehabilitation work" means any renovation or repair work completed or in a mobilehome
park performed in order to comply with the direction or order of a public agency or to repair
damage resulting from fire, earthquake or other casualty.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 97 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 57 of 187
3
"Space rent" means the consideration, including any security deposits, bonuses, benefits
or gratuities, demanded or received in connection with the use and occupancy of a mobilehome
space in a mobilehome park, or for housing services provided, but exclusive of any amount
paid for the use of a mobilehome dwelling unit.
(Ord. 2342 § 4 (Exh. A) (part), 1988)
Chapter 25.03 - EXEMPTIONS
25.03.010 - Exemptions.
The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following tenancies in mobilehome
parks:
(1)
Mobilehome park spaces rented for nonresidential uses;
(2)
Mobilehome parks managed or operated by the United States Government, the State of
California or the County of San Luis Obispo;
(4)
Tenancies which do not exceed an occupancy of twenty days and which do not contemplate an
occupancy of more than twenty days;
(5)
Tenancies for which any federal or state law or regulation specifically prohibits rent regulation;
(5)
Tenancies covered by leases or contracts which provide for more than a month -to-month
tenancy, but only for the duration of such lease or contract. Upon expiration of or other
termination of any such lease or contract, this title shall immediately be applicable to the
tenancy;
(6)
Mobilehome parks which sell lots for factory-built or manufactured housing, or which provide
condominium ownership of such lots, even if one or more homes in the development are rented
or leased out.
(Ord. 2342 § 4 (Exh. A) (part), 1988)
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 98 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 58 of 187
4
Chapter 25.04 - MOBILEHOME RENT REVIEW BOARD
25.04.010 - Mobilehome rent review board.
(a)
There is established a mobilehome rent review board consisting of three members who are
elected county officials other than members of the board of supervisors.
(b)
There shall be three regular members and two alternate members to serve in the abs ence or
disqualification of regular members.
(c)
The regular members shall be (1) the county assessor, (2) the county auditor and (3) the county
clerk-recorder. The first alternate shall be county treasurer -tax collector-public administrator
and the second alternate shall be the county sheriff -coroner.
(d)
The board members and the alternates shall be persons who are not connected with the
mobilehome rental housing industry for their personal gain. None of the members or alternates
shall be tenants of a mobilehome park or have any financial interest (as defined by state law) in
any mobilehome park. The members and alternates shall file a declaration to this effect in the
office of the county clerk.
(e)
Board members and alternates shall not be compensated for their services as such, but may
receive reimbursements as provided by the board of supervisors for traveling and other
expenses incurred while on official duty.
(f)
Terms of board members and alternates shall be the same as their term of office for their
elected position.
(Ord. 2342 § 4 (Exh. A) (part), 1988)
Chapter 25.05 - POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE BOARD
25.05.010 - Powers and duties of the board.
Within the limitations provided by law, the board shall have the following powers and
duties:
(1)
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 99 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 59 of 187
5
To meet from time to time as required by the board of supervisors and to utilize the county
offices, facilities and personnel as needed;
(2)
To receive, investigate, hold hearings on, and pass upon the issues relating to mobilehome park
rent stabilization as set forth in this chapter, or to any decreases in, or charges for, services or
facilities;
(3)
To make or conduct such independent hearings or investigations as may be appropriate to
obtain such information as is necessary to carry out its duties;
(4)
To increase or decrease maximum rents upon completion of its hearings and investigations;
(5)
To render after every rent review hearing a written report to the board of supervisors
concerning its activities, holdings, actions, results of hearing, and all other matters pertinent to
this chapter which may be of interest to the board of supervisors;
(6)
To adopt, promulgate, amend and rescind administrative rules, as it deems appropriate to
effectuate the purposes and policies of this chapter.
(Ord. 2342 § 4 (Exh. A) (part), 1988)
Chapter 25.06 - DETERMINATION OF BASE RENT AND ALLOWABLE INCREASES
25.06.010 - Determination of base rent and allowable increases.
(a)
(1)
Base Rent. The base rent for purposes of this chapter shall be the monthly space rent as of
December 31, 1982. Any reduction in services or amenities after December 31, 1982, shall
result in a corresponding decrease in rents.
(2)
Lease Expiration. Upon the expiration of any lease, the new space rent shall be the rent in
effect at the expiration of such lease.
(b)
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the maximum monthly space rent may be
increased no more than once a year by an increase over the then existing space rent equal to
sixty percent of the cost of living increase (All Urban Consumers, Los Angeles, Long Beach,
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 100 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 60 of 187
6
Anaheim area as furnished by the Division of Labor Statistics and Research, State of
California, Department of Industrial Relatio ns) for the preceding twelve-month period.
(c)
Calculation of the one-year limitation on rental increases as provided herein shall be from the
date the last increase became effective at the park.
(d)
No owner shall either (1) demand, accept or retain a rent from a tenant in excess of the
maximum rent permitted by this chapter or (2) effect a prohibited rent increase by a reduction
of general park facilities or services.
(Ord. 2342 § 4 (Exh. A) (part), 1988)
25.06.011 - Continued control of rents on change of ownership.
The maximum space rent may be increased by the park owner when there is a change of
ownership of a mobilehome unit. However, such increase may not exceed ten percent of the
previous space rent. Space rent increases are not restricted by this title for mobi lehome spaces
which become vacant due to a change of ownership and the relocation of a mobilehome unit
outside of the mobilehome park. Nothing in this section shall preclude any adjustments as may
be otherwise provided for in this title. (Measure F § 1, pa ssed by voters 11-8-94)
Chapter 25.07 - HARDSHIP EXCEPTION—APPLICATION
25.07.010 - Hardship exception—Application.
(a)
An owner who has been required to make extraordinary expenditures, or has incurred costs of
such amounts that he will be unable to make a just and reasonable return on his property given
the maximum increase permitted by the section above, may file with th e board an application
for a rent increase for one or more spaces or application to reduce, or charge for, certain
services or facilities, in either event referred to hereinafter as "application" or "application for
rent increase."
(b)
An application for rent increase pursuant to this section shall be accompanied by the payment
of a fee of three hundred dollars. The application shall specify, as applicable, the address of the
mobilehome park, the space number or numbers for which rent is requested to be increased, the
amount of the requested rent increase or service or facilities reduction or charges, the proposed
effective date of such increase, reduction or charge and the facts supporting the application.
The applicant shall produce at the request of the board any records, receipts, reports or other
documents that the board may deem necessary for the board to make a determination whether
to approve the application.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 101 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 61 of 187
7
(c)
The owner shall serve each affected tenant, either personally, or b y mail, with notice of the rent
increase or decrease or change in services or facilities requested and with notice that
application or approval of same is being filed with the board. Proof of service complying with
the title and all applicable state laws s hall be filed with the board concurrent with the filing of
the application. Copies of the application shall be available free of charge to any affected
tenants requesting same at the business office in the affected park.
(d)
The board shall set a hearing on the application complying with the requirements of the section
no less than ten days and no more than thirty days after receipt of the application and proof of
service. The board shall notify the owner and tenants, in writing, of the time, place and da te set
for the hearing. No hearing or any part thereof may be continued beyond thirty days after the
initial hearing date without the owner's consent. If the board approves an application as
requested or as modified, the same shall take effect as noticed b y the owner or as the board
may otherwise direct.
(Ord. 2342 § 4 (Exh. A) (part), 1988)
o Chapter 25.08 - CONDUCT OF THE HEARING
25.08.010 - Conduct of the hearing.
(a)
All review hearings held by the board shall be conducted in accordance with the Ralph M.
Brown Act, at Section 54950 et seq. of the California Government Code.
(b)
All interested parties to a hearing may have assistance from an attorney or such other person as
may be designated by the parties in presenting evidence or in setting forth by argument their
positions. All witnesses shall be sworn in and all testimony shall be under penalty of perjury.
(c)
In the event that either the owner or the tenant(s) should fail to appear at the hearing at the
specified time and place, the board may hear and review such evi dence as may be presented,
and make such decisions as if all parties had been present.
(d)
Applicant and affected tenants may offer any relevant evidence and the formal rules of
evidence shall not apply.
(e)
The board shall maintain a record of all proceedings by electronic recording or by use of a
court reporter. Either the applicant or tenants will have the right to procure the services of a
court reporter at their own expense to record and transcribe the pr oceedings.
(Ord. 2342 § 4 (Exh. A) (part), 1988)
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 102 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 62 of 187
8
Chapter 25.09 - STANDARDS OF REVIEW
25.09.010 - Standards of review.
In evaluating the application the board may consider, along with all other factors it
considers relevant, changes in costs to the owner attributable to a n increase or decrease in
utility rates, property taxes, insurance, advertising, variable mortgage interest rates, employee
costs, normal repair and maintenance, master land and/or facilities lease rent provided such
lease to a bona fide third party existe d prior to January 1, 1983, and other considerations,
including, but not limited to, rehabilitation work, capital improvements, upgrading and
addition of amenities or services, net operating income and the level of rent necessary to
permit a just and reasonable return on the owner's property.
(Ord. 2342 § 4 (Exh. A) (part), 1988)
Chapter 25.10 - DECISION OF THE BOARD
25.10.010 - Decision of the board.
(a)
The board shall make a final decision no later than twenty days after the conclusion of its
hearing. The board's decision shall be based on the preponderance of the evidence submitted at
the hearing. The decision shall be based on findings. All parties to the hearing shall be advised
by mail of the board's decision and findings.
(b)
Pursuant to its findings, the board may (1) permit the requested rent increase to become
effective, in whole or in part, or (2) deny the requested rent increase, or (3) permit or deny, in
whole or in part, requested reductions of or charges for, facilities or services.
(c)
Any decision of the board shall be final unless, within fifteen days after mailing of the decision
and findings the owner or any affected tenant appeals the decision to the board of supervisors.
(Ord. 2342 § 4 (Exh. A) (part), 1988)
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 103 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 63 of 187
9
Chapter 25.11 - APPEALS
25.11.010 - Appeals.
(a)
Any appeal from a decision of the board shall be filed with the county clerk. The date for
consideration of the appeal shall be set by the county clerk no less than ten days nor more than
thirty days after the expiration date for filing of an appeal. Notic e of the date, time and place
shall be given by the county clerk to the owner and all affected tenants.
(b)
At the time set for consideration of the appeal, the board of supervisors shall review and
consider the record of board hearing and the decision a nd findings of the board. After review
and consideration, the board of supervisors may either: (1) determine that a further hearing
shall be held, to be conducted before the board of supervisors at the second regular meeting of
the board of supervisors fol lowing the determination that such further hearing is necessary; or
(2) ratify and adopt the decision and findings of the board. If a further hearing is conducted,
the board of supervisors may, upon conclusion of the hearing, and in no event more than thir ty
days thereafter, modify, reverse or uphold the decision of the board, and shall make the
findings in support thereof.
(Ord. 2342 § 4 (Exh. A) (part), 1988)
Chapter 25.12 - TENANT'S RIGHT OF REFUSAL
25.12.010 - Tenant's right of refusal.
A tenant may refuse to pay any increase in rent not made in conformity with this chapter.
Such refusal to pay shall be a defense in any action brought to recover possession of a
mobilehome space or to collect the rent increase.
(Ord. 2342 § 4 (Exh. A) (part), 1988)
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 104 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 64 of 187
10
Chapter 25.13 - RETALIATORY EVICTION
o 25.13.010 - Retaliatory eviction.
Notwithstanding Section 25.12.010, in any action brought to recover possession of a
mobilehome space, the court may consider as grounds for denial any violation of any
provisions of this title. Further, the determination that the action was brought in retaliation for
the exercise of any rights conferred by this title shall be grounds for denial.
(Ord. 2342 § 4 (Exh. A) (part), 1988)
Chapter 25.14 - OWNER TO PROVIDE COPY OF THIS TITLE
25.14.010 - Owner to provide copy of this title.
Any tenant offered a lease or contract which is accepted would come under the provisions
of this act and shall be provided with a copy of this title by the mobilepark owner.
(Ord. 2342 § 4 (Exh. A) (part), 1988)
Chapter 25.15 - SEVERABILITY
25.15.010 - Severability.
If any provision of any clause of this title or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance is held to be unconstitutional or to be otherwise invalid by a final judgment of
any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect oth er provisions or clauses
or applications thereof which can be implemented without the invalid provision or clause or
application, and to this end, the provisions and clauses of this title are declared to be severable.
(Ord. 2342 § 4 (Exh. A) (part), 1988)
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 105 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 65 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 106 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 66 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 107 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 67 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 108 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 68 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 109 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 69 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 110 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 70 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 111 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 71 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 112 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 72 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 113 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 73 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 114 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 74 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 115 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 75 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 116 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 76 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 117 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 77 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 118 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 78 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 119 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 79 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 120 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 80 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 121 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 81 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 122 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 82 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 123 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 83 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 124 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 84 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 125 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 85 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 126 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 86 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 127 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 87 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 128 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 88 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 129 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 89 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 130 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 90 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 131 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 91 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1DATE: 10/22/19ATTACHMENT: 4Page 132 of 176 ITEM NUMBER: B-1DATE: 03/10/20ATTACHMENT: 1Page 92 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1DATE: 10/22/19ATTACHMENT: 4Page 133 of 176 ITEM NUMBER: B-1DATE: 03/10/20ATTACHMENT: 1Page 93 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1DATE: 10/22/19ATTACHMENT: 4Page 134 of 176 ITEM NUMBER: B-1DATE: 03/10/20ATTACHMENT: 1Page 94 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1DATE: 10/22/19ATTACHMENT: 4Page 135 of 176 ITEM NUMBER: B-1DATE: 03/10/20ATTACHMENT: 1Page 95 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1DATE: 10/22/19ATTACHMENT: 4Page 136 of 176 ITEM NUMBER: B-1DATE: 03/10/20ATTACHMENT: 1Page 96 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 5
Page 137 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 97 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 5
Page 138 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 98 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 5
Page 139 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 99 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 5
Page 140 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 100 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 5
Page 141 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 101 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 5
Page 142 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 102 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 5
Page 143 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 103 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 5
Page 144 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 104 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 5
Page 145 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 105 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 5
Page 146 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 106 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 6
Page 147 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 107 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 6
Page 148 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 108 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 6
Page 149 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 109 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 6
Page 150 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 110 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 7
Page 151 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 111 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 7
Page 152 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 112 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 7
Page 153 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 113 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 7
Page 154 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 114 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 7
Page 155 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 115 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 7
Page 156 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 116 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 10/22/19
ATTACHMENT: 7
Page 157 of 176
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 117 of 187
FOR THE COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 19,2019
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TO:City Council
FROM:City Manager and City Attorney
SUBJECT:APPROVAL OF ENFORCEMENT AGREEMENT FOR MODEL LEASE
2020
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute the
enforcement agreements for the Model Lease 2020 with mobile home park owners.
BACKGROUND:
In 1999,the City Council was asked to adopt a rent control ordinance.The City Council
declined and determined that the City should facilitate the creation of a 10 year Model
Lease.In the July 6,1999,staff report,the City Attorney pointed out that mobile home
rent control had been considered by the City Council in 1981,1982,1984,and 1990,
with the City Council declining to enact such a measure.The 1999 Model Lease was
voluntary and consisted of four paragraphs that the park owners agreed to place in long
term leases.An example of this agreement is attached as Attachment
In 2009,the City facilitated the negotiation of the 2009 Model Lease,which had a ten
year term.The 2009 Model Lease was based upon the lease proposals of Casa
Grande,Rancho Buena Vista,and Casa Del Rio leases.
In 2018,the City Council directed the City Manager and City Attorney to facilitate a new
ten year Model Lease.At that time,the park residents,through various representatives,
requested that the Model Lease be enforceable,as opposed to voluntary.
Over the last year,the park owners and resident representatives have met numerous
times,with the City Attorney and City Manager facilitating,to prepare a draft lease.This
was accomplished in August 2019,and the City Attorney then negotiated with park
owners and prepared an enforcement agreement between the City and the park
owners.That document is before City Council tonight for approval.
DISCUSSION:
The residents and park owners made concessions during the negotiating process.
When the parties were unable to come to a consensus,the City Attorney,as facilitator,
has inserted compromise provisions.
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 118 of 187
The purpose of the facilitated Model Lease 2020 is to provide a backstop agreement
that will provide the residents with a lease that is available at any point if a negotiated
long term lease is unable to be agreed upon.An example enforcement agreement and
Model Lease 2020 is attached hereto as Attachment “B.”The enforcement agreement
imposes the obligation on the park owners to provide notice of Model Lease 2020
availability to all existing residents and new mobile home owners upon purchase.
As of the date of posting of the agenda,4 Park owners have submitted executed
enforcement agreements.These park owners represent 54 percent of the mobile home
spaces within the City.
Enforcement Agreement provisions:
The enforcement agreement specifies that if a park owner and resident reach an
impasse in negotiating a long term lease:
“The Model Lease attached hereto as Exhibit “A”shall be offered to the resident
without addition or redaction as to its provisions other than filling in the blanks
therein and adding any park-specific terms.If the Model Lease is accepted by the
resident,OWNER and the resident shall enter into the Model Lease for the space
in question within seven (7)days of said acceptance.”
if the park owner fails to do so,after a 15-day notice period:
“The City will file a complaint for specific performance under this Agreement.
OWNERS consent to an immediate temporary and permanent restraining order
maintaining the current rent of the space in question from the last effective date
of the prior lease to the trial on the complaint.Further,OWNERS agree to
stipulate to an expedited trial date.”
Additionally,the City will be entitled to its attorney's fees and costs in the event a
complaint is filed.
The term of the enforcement agreement is 10 years.The City agrees to refrain from
considering implementing a rent control ordinance for the term of this Agreement,in
exchange for owners entering into this Agreement.
Lease provisions:
Unlike the prior Model Leases,the Model Lease 2020 is an actual,fully executable
lease.It includes all statutory required provisions for a lease of real property.
Its key provisions include the following:
-Rent adjustments shall be calculated based upon one hundred (100)percent
of the "United States Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for All
Urban Consumers,"as published for the B and C Class of City for the
Western States index (“|ndex");
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 119 of 187
o A floor rent increase of 2.5 percent if the Index is less than 2.5 percent;
-A ceiling rent increase of 6 percent if the Index is more than 6 percent;
-A 7.5 percent increase upon sale only once in a 5 year period,regardless of
the number of sales that occur within that time period;and,
o A 5 or 10 year term.
Staff believes the Model Lease 2020 creates a balance between the park owners and
the expressed intent of the residents.The intent of the residents for the Model Lease
2020 was expressed by representative Gary Hall,in an email to the City Attorney.The
executive summary states:
Enforceable Model Lease 2020 (EML 2020)is a City of Santa Maria enforced
program that has been developed to restrain the rapidly rising and often
exorbitant space rents imposed on Manufactured/Mobile Homes (MH)located in
Manufactured/Mobile Home parks (MHP)within the city limits of Santa Maria.
EML 2020 represents a compromise and balanced approach that provides
affordability protection to the MH owners‘while still providing the MHP owners’
access to a fair return on their investment.This is accomplished by establishing a
base set of lease provisions with protective limits.Values assigned to the base
set of lease provisions that are better than the limits is also allowed.The balance
of the non-base lease provisions remain flexible and subject to negotiation
between the MH owner and MHP owner.All MHP leases taking effect in 2020
shall conform to the EML 2020.The program is applicable to all Santa Maria
MHP and will be communicated by the City of Santa Maria to all MH owners
and/or residents and MHP owners.Enforcement of EML 2020 will be provided by
the City of Santa Maria in the same manner as is employed for any ordinance,
rule,regulation or initiative adopted by the City of Santa Maria.
Staff believes that the Model Lease 2020 and the enforcement agreement before the
City Council fulfills the above goals.Of equal importance is the consent by the park
owners to be bound,contractually,to the enforcement agreement.
Alternatives:
1.The City Council may decline to take any action.If the City Council does not take
any action,the mobile home park owners and residents will continue to negotiate
leases without the City's enforceable Model Lease 2020 as a backstop.
2.The City Council also may direct staff to explore alternatives to the facilitated
Model Lease 2020 and enforcement agreement.
Fiscal Considerations
There is no fiscal impact to the City.In the event that enforcement of a City/park owner
agreement is required,the City Attorney’s office would litigate the action and seek
recovery of all attorney's fees and costs expended from the park owner.
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 120 of 187
Impact to the Community
The benefit to the residents of the various mobile home parks is to create stability and
certainty with a “backstop”lease for a period of 10 years.The lease terms of the Model
Lease 2020 would be a starting point for individual negotiations and,potentially,result in
better negotiated lease terms between residents and park owners.
L—.
JASON STlL ELL
City Mana
THOMAS T.WATSON
City Attorney
Attachments:A:Example of Model Lease 1999
B:Example Enforcement Agreement and Model Lease 2020
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 121 of 187
I agree to offer the existing residents of my mobilehome park,
who are not currently on a long—term lease,the new city—wide
model lease for Santa Maria.I will draft the lease and offer it
to my residents if they demonstrate,in writing,that a majority
(50%plus 1)of the spaces in my park want the lease.
I understand the terms of the model lease to be as follows:
-Term of Lease
Either five or ten years (the resident chooses either term.)
0 Annual Rent Increase
100%of the ConsumerPrice Index for the Los Angeles area.
I Pass—throughs
Only qovernment mandated costs may be passed-through to the
residents (taxes,fees,specials assessments).
0 vacancy Decontrol (This is the provision that specifies how
'much the parkowner can raise the rents when a home sells.)
A maximum of 10%of the existing rent.
Name of Park Signature Date
Attachment A
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 122 of 187
AGREEMENT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF
MODEL LEASE 2020
This Agreement for Enforcement of Model Lease 2020 (“Agreement”)is made on
,20_,by and between
(“Owner”)and the City of Santa Maria,a California Municipal Corporation and charter
city (“City”),in Santa Maria,California,based on the following recitals:
WHEREAS,Owner and City desire to provide stability and maintain affordability
for residents of the mobile home parks in the City of Santa Maria;
WHEREAS,the parties agree that an enforceable Model Lease provides Owner
and residents with the flexibility to negotiate their own lease terms,but serves as a
backstop to prevent impasses in the negotiation process;
WHEREAS,City intends to provide residents with appropriate lease protections
and Owner has agreed thereto;and
WHEREAS,City has agreed to refrain from considering implementing a rent
control ordinance for at least the term of this Agreement,in exchange for Owner
entering into this Agreement.
NOW,THEREFORE,IT IS AGREED:
1.Recitals true.The above recitals are true.
2.General.
2.01.Term and Termination.The term of this Agreement is ten (10)years,
beginning on the date first written above.This Agreement may be extended by mutual
consent of the parties.
2.02.Services to be Performed.In the event that an existing resident or a
new,approved resident and Owner are unable to agree upon a negotiated long-term
lease within sixty (60)days of the resident’s purchase of a mobile home located in
Owner’s mobile home park,or within sixty (60)days of the expiration of a prior lease for
a space in Owner’s mobile home park,the Model Lease attached hereto as Exhibit “A”
shall be offered to the resident without addition or redaction as to its provisions other
than ?lling in the blanks therein and adding any park-speci?c terms.lfthe Model Lease
is accepted by the resident,Owner and the resident shall enter into the Model Lease for
the space in question within seven (7)days of said acceptance.
2.03.City’s Duties.City will provide a fifteen (15)day notice to cure any
default under this Agreement (“cure period”),after receipt of notice from a resident that
Owner failed to comply with Paragraph 2.02 above.
2.04.Exhibit.Exhibit “A”is the Model Lease,which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
///
Agreement for Enforcement (Owner Ally Revised).docx
ATTACHMENT B
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 123 of 187
3.Remedies for Breach.
3.01.Speci?c Performance.Owner agrees that if City provides the notice to
cure referenced at Paragraph 2.03 above,and Owner and the resident do not enter into
a negotiated long-term lease,or the Model Lease,by the end of the cure period,City
will file a complaint for specific performance under this Agreement.Owner consents to
an immediate temporary and permanent restraining order maintaining the current rent of
the space in question from the last effective date of the prior lease to the trial on the
complaint.Further,Owner agrees to stipulate to an expedited trial date.If the trial does
not occur before the next annual rent increase under the prior lease,Owner shall be
entitled to that rent increase and shall forego the annual rent increase included in
Minimum Guaranteed Monthly Rent under the Model Lease,so long as the latter occurs
less than twelve (12)months after the former.If the latter occurs more than twelve (12)
months after the former,Owner shall be entitled to both rent increases.
3.02.Notice.Owner shall provide copies of this Agreement and Exhibit “A”
to all existing residents of its mobile home park within sixty (60)days of the execution of
this Agreement.Owner shall also provide copies of this Agreement and Exhibit “A”to
all new,approved residents of its mobile home park as a result of any transfer of any
mobile home therein,whether through sale,foreclosure,inheritance or gift,prior to said
residents entering into new leases with Owner.
3.03.Attorney's Fees.To the fullest extent permitted by law,the prevailing
party in any action based upon this Agreement shall recover all reasonable attorney’s
fees,costs and expert fees incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement.
4.Miscellaneous
4.01.Notices.All communications relating to this Agreement shall be
exchanged between a designated representative of City and a designated
representative of Owner,listed below.All notices shall be addressed as follows,unless
a written change is ?led with City:
To City:To Owner:
Attn.City Manager [insert name and address of Owner’s
110 East Cook Street representative]
Santa Maria,CA 93454
If the name or address of the designated representative for either party changes during
the term of this Agreement,a written notice shall be given to the other party prior to the
effective date of the change.Any written notices required under this Agreement shall
be effective five (5)days after deposit into United States mail,postage prepaid,
addressed to the designated representative,or upon confirmation of receipt of delivery if
another notification process is used.
4.02.Compliance with Laws etc.Owner shall comply with all laws,
including but not limited to the Santa Maria Municipal Code,in performing this
Agreement.
4.03.Integration.This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the
parties with respect to the subject matter thereof.All modifications,amendments,or
waivers of the terms of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by the appropriate
Agreement Ior Enforcement (Owner Atty Ravisaamacx
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 124 of 187
representatives of the parties.
4.04.Interpretation.This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with
the laws of the State of California.
4.05.Jurisdiction.Jurisdiction and venue of all disputes over the terms of
this Agreement shall be in the Cook Division of the Superior Court of the County of
Santa Barbara,State of California.
4.06.Warranty of Authority.Each person signing this Agreement on behalf
of a party warrants that he or she has authority to do so.
4.07.No Waiver.Failure to enforce with respect to a default shall not be
construed as a waiver.
4.08.Severability.The provisions of this Agreement are severable.If any
part of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction,the remainder
of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect unless amended or modi?ed by
mutual written consent of the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,this Agreement for Enforcement of Model Lease 2020 is
executed by the parties on the date first written above.
[insert name of Owner]CITY OF SANTA MARIA,a political
subdivision of the State of California
By:[insert name of Owner's Alice M.Patino
representative]Mayor
ATTEST:
Rhonda M.White,CMC
Chief Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Risk Manager
City Attorney
Agreement for Enlorcement (Owner Atty Revised)docx
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 125 of 187
EXHIBIT A
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 126 of 187
LEASE AGREEMENT
THIS LEASE SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM ANY ORDINANCE,RULE,REGULATION,
OR INITIATIVEMEASURE ADOPTED BY ANY LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY
WHICH ESTABLISHES A MAXIMUMAMOUNT THAT A LANDLORD MAY CHARGE
A TENANT FOR RENT.
This Lease Agreement ("Lease")is made and executed this day of
,20_,by and between
("Owner"),and ,jointly and severally
("Resident").
1.Leased Premises.Owner hereby leases to Resident,and Resident hereby
leases from Owner,that certain Space ("Space"),situated in
("Park“).
2.Term.The initial term of this Lease shall be ?ve (5)or ten (10)years,
commencing ,20_,and terminating
,20_.In the event that the term ofthis Lease commences on
any day other than the first day of the month,the rent for the partial month shall be
prorated on the basis of a thirty (30)day month,and the prorated amount shall be paid
promptly by Resident to Owner.
3.Rent and Security Deposit.
A.Minimum Guaranteed Monthly Rent.Resident shall pay to Owner
as rent,without deduction,setoff,prior notice or demand,the sum of $
("Minimum Guaranteed Monthly Rent").Said Minimum Guaranteed Monthly Rent shall
be due and payable on the first day of each month of the Lease term.The Minimum
Guaranteed Monthly Rent under this Lease shall be the amount due as rent as of the last
date of the previous lease,together with the annual Consumer Price Index adjustment as
set forth below.
The Minimum Guaranteed Monthly Rent may be adjusted on each
anniversary of the Lease according to the following formula:The adjustment shall be
calculated based upon one hundred (100)percent of the "United States Bureau of Labor
Statistics Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers,"as published for the B and C
Class of City for the Western States index ("Index").The annual adjustment shall be no
less than two and one half percent (2.5%)of the previous rent,and no more than six
percent (6.0%)of the previous rent,regardless of the amount of the Index,if more than
six (6)percent.Owner's failure to notify Resident in a timely manner of an adjustment to
the Minimum Guaranteed Monthly Rent shall not preclude Owner from notifying Resident
thereof at a later date and collecting the increase in the rent from the date of the notice to
Resident.All rent shall be paid at the Park office,or such other place as Owner may
designate in writing.
Model Lease 1019
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 127 of 187
An additional adjustment shall be made each January 1 during the term of
the Lease,to re?ect 1/12 of 1/[insert number of spaces in park]of any
government mandated or non—government mandated capital expenditures assessed
against or applicable to the Park or the Space,including,but not limited to,any increase
in real estate taxes in excess of two percent (2.0%)over the prior year's real estate taxes,
all government mandated capital expenditures,capital expenditures required by the
Park's insurance company and/or lender,capital expenditures overTen Thousand Dollars
($10,000.00)that are not government mandated but are approved by the residents,and
capital expenditures equal to or under Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00)that are not
government mandated,whether approved by the residents or not.
Capital expenditures shall be characterized by Owner’s accountant in
accordance with sound accounting principles and the Internal Revenue Code,and shall
not include items of repair or maintenance."Capital Expenditure"means any capital
outlay or project with a useful life of at least one (1)year that provides a betterment or
addition to the Park,including the replacement of a component part of an asset by an
improved or superior asset resulting in a more productive,efficient and longer-lived
property.“Betterment”is considered capital outlay when it is “signi?cant,”i.e.,generally
twenty percent (20.0%)or greater of the market value ofthe component part of the asset.
“Maintenance”means any expenditure for repair or alteration to a facility,which neither
materially adds to the value of the facility,nor appreciably prolongs its life.Maintenance
expenses shall not be passed through or charged back to Resident.
Those Capital Expenditures deemed necessary by Owner that are not
mandated by a governmental agency and cost over Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00)
shall only have the balance over Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00)charged back to
Resident if the Capital Expenditure was approved by a majority vote of the residents (one
vote per space)before it was charged back.Should a majority of the residents not
approve a Capital Expenditure costing over Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00),Resident
shall pay as additional monthly rent during the useful life of the Capital Expenditure an
amount equal to 1/12 of 1/[insert number of spaces in park]of the ?rst Ten
Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00)of the cost of the Capital Expenditure‘s annual
depreciation,calculated using a straight line method of depreciation as determined by
Owner's accountant.Except for Capital Expenditures approved by a majority of the
residents,only one (1)non-government mandated Capital Expenditure may be passed
through to the residents in any calendar year.
As used herein,'‘real estate tax"shall include,but not be limited to,all
assessments,whether regular or special,and all other items,including,but not limited to,
sewer charges reflected on a real estate tax bill,or similar bill,prepared by the Santa
Barbara County Tax Assessor.
In addition to the Minimum Guaranteed Monthly Rent or Adjusted Minimum
Guaranteed Monthly Rent,Resident shall pay vehicle and recreational vehicle
storage charges by separate agreement,if facilities for such storage are provided by
Owner.»
Model Lens:1019
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 128 of 187
8.Security Deposit.Upon initial occupancy in the Park,at Owner's
option,Resident shall deposit with Owner the sum of one (1)month's rent as a security
deposit for the performance by Resident of the provisions of this Lease.If Resident
defaults on the Lease,Owner may use the security deposit,or any portion thereof,to cure
the default or compensate Owner for any damage sustained as a result of the default.
Resident shall,immediately upon demand,pay to Owner a sum equal to the portion of
the security deposit used by Owner as provided in this paragraph,so as to maintain the
security deposit in the sum initially deposited with Owner.If Resident is not,upon the
expiration or termination of this Lease,in default,Owner shall return the security deposit
to Resident.Owner's obligation with respect to the security deposit is that ofa debtor and
not a trustee.Owner may maintain the security deposit separate and apart from Owner's
general funds,or may co-mingle the security deposit with Owner's general and other
funds.Owner shall not be required to pay Resident interest on the security deposit.if
Resident pays all rent,utilities and reasonable service charges owing to Ownerwithin five
(5)days ofthe date such amounts are due for any consecutive twelve (12)month period,
or upon resale of the mobile home,whichever is earlier,and makes a written request for
return of the security deposit,the security deposit shall be returned to Resident within
thirty (30)days following the end of the twelve (12)month period,or the date of resale of
the mobile home.
4.Utilities.
[list those utilities that are included in rent andlor paid to the park]Resident shall
contract with and pay directly to the applicable providers the costs of all other utilities
required by Resident.If Resident fails to pay any utility costs and such failure results in
a lien being placed on Owner's property,the amount owing shall be added to Resident's
monthly statement,as additional monthly rent,and shall be paid by Resident upon receipt
thereof.Resident shall contact the appropriate providers to commence service.Owner
shall not be liable for,and Resident shall not be entitled to,any abatement or reduction
of rent by reason of any failure to furnish any of the foregoing utilities,when such failure
is caused by accident,breakage,repair,strikes,lockouts or other labor disputes of any
nature,any force majeure,or by any other cause,similar or dissimilar,beyond the
reasonable control of Owner.Owner shall not be liable under any circumstances for loss
of or injury to property,however occurring,through or in connection with or incidental to
any failure to furnish any of the foregoing utilities,with the exception ofwillful misconduct
or gross negligence of Owner.Resident shall not connect,except through existing
electrical outlets,natural gas or water pipes on the Space,any apparatus or device for
the purpose of using electricity,natural gas or water.
5.Maintenance.Resident shall keep and maintain the Space,and every
part thereof,in first class repair and condition.The Park may charge a reasonable fee,
which shall be additional rent,for services relating to the maintenance of the Space in the
event that Resident fails to maintain it in accordance with the Park’s Rules and
Regulations and the other Park documents.The Park may charge the fee only after it
has noti?ed Resident in writing of such failure and Resident has not complied within
Model Lens:1019
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 129 of 187
fourteen (14)calendar days.The written notice shall state the specific condition to be
corrected,and an estimate of the fee to be charged if Resident does not correct the
condition and the Park or its agents do so.
6.Late Charges.Resident acknowledges that late payment by Resident to
Owner of the Minimum Guaranteed Monthly Rent or Adjusted Minimum Guaranteed
Monthly Rent will cause Owner to incur costs not contemplated by this Lease,the exact
amount of such costs being extremely dif?cult and impracticable to fix.Such costs
include,without limitation,processing and accounting charges and the late charges that
may be imposed on Owner by the terms of any encumbrance and/or note secured by any
encumbrance covering the Space.Therefore,if any payment due from Resident is not
received by Owner within five (5)calendar days of its due date,Resident shall pay to
Owner an additional sum of [insert flat amount or percentage of overdue
payment]as a late charge,which shall be additional monthly rent.The parties agree that
this late charge represents a fair and reasonable estimate of the costs Owner will incur
by reason of late payment by Resident,and that acceptance of any late payment or late
charge shall not constitute a waiver of Resident's default with respect to the overdue
amount,nor prevent Owner from exercising any ofthe other rights and remedies available
to Owner.Additionally,there will be a $[insert amount]handling charge
for all checks dishonored by Resident's bank for any reason.
7.Default and Owner's Remedies.Resident shall be in default and in breach
of this Lease if Resident does not pay the monthly rent when the same becomes due,or
does not pay any other charge for which Resident is liable when the same becomes due,
or if Resident fails to cure a breach of any other term of this Lease,including the
documents incorporated herein,after receipt of notice from Owner of the nature of the
breach.Upon default,Owner shall have all remedies available under this Lease and the
then-applicable California law.Such remedies include,but are not limited to,the ?ling of
a complaint for unlawful detainer,which will go to trial within twenty (20)days ofthe Park's
filing of a request to set for trial,and which may be followed by an eviction by the Sheriff's
Department within ?ve (5)calendar days of entry ofjudgment and issuance of a writ of
possession.Judgment will include all past due rent,utilities and other charges,holdover
rent,utilities and other charges,and the Park's attorney's fees and costs as ordered by
the court
8.Owner's Lien.The Park may assert a lien on Resident's mobile home,if
any,pursuant to Civil Code Section 798.38,as it may be revised from time to time.
9.Abandonment Prohibited.Resident shall not abandon the Space at any
time during the term of this Lease.Abandonment is de?ned as a failure to occupy the
Space,and a failure to pay rent on the Space for at least sixty (60)days,without giving
written notice to Owner of an intention not to occupy the Space for such a period.Should
Resident abandon the Space,Resident shall not be relieved of any of the obligations
under this Lease,including,but not limited to,the obligation to make timely rent payments.
Model Lease 2nI9
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 130 of 187
10.Owner's Right of Entry.Resident shall permit Owner,or its authorized
agents,to enter upon the Space for the purposes listed in Civil Code Section 798.26.To
the extent possible,such entry shall not be in a manner or at a time that would
unreasonably interfere with Resident's quiet enjoyment of the Space.Owner may enter
Resident's mobile home or enclosed accessory structure without Resident's prior written
consent in case of an emergency or when Resident has abandoned the mobile home or
accessory structure.
11.Age Restrictions and [delete the foregoing if not a senior park]
Prohibited Uses.The Park is for seniors only.The age restrictions applicable to all
residents are stated in the Park's Rules and Regulations.[delete the foregoing two
sentences if not a senior park]
Resident shall not use or permit the Space,or any part thereof,to be used
for any purpose other than a residence for the persons named herein,all of whom must
comply with all duties and obligations imposed upon Resident hereunder respecting the
use and occupancy ofthe Park and the Space.No other persons may reside at the Space
without the prior written permission of Owner,which shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Written permission is required from Owner for guests visiting longer than twenty (20)
consecutive days or a total ofthirty (30)days in a calendar year,and such guests may be
charged a guest fee.
In order to comply with Department of Housing and Community
Development requirements,Resident must provide the Park with a copy of the most
recent registration on his or her mobile home.
12.Indemnification.Resident hereby waives all claims against Owner for any
damage or injury to Resident or Resident's property occurring on the Space or in the Park
at any time arising by reason of any cause other than the negligence,gross negligence
or willful misconduct of Owner or its employees.Resident hereby agrees to indemnify,
defend,protect and hold Owner harmless from liability for Resident's failure to properly
repair and maintain the mobile home and the Space,or the negligence of Resident,any
person residing with Resident,or Resident's guests.Resident shall pay immediately upon
written demand from Owner for any damage to the Space orthe Park caused by Resident,
any person residing with Resident,or Resident's guests.
13.Insurance.Resident understands and hereby acknowledges that Owner
does not provide insurance for damage to or loss of Resident's mobile home,accessory
structures,household goods,furnishings or other personal property.Resident must
obtain such insurance in an amount equal to the value of those items.Such insurance
shall include,but not be limited to,liability coverage of not less than One Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00)for bodily injury and property damage occurring on the
Space as a result of the negligence of Resident,any person residing with Resident,or
Resident's guests.Resident shall be solely liable for Resident's failure to maintain such
insurance.
Model Lease ml 9
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 131 of 187
14.Attorney's Fees.In the event of any dispute arising out of or in any way
related to this Lease,including the interpretation or enforcement thereof,the prevailing
party in such dispute shall be entitled to reimbursement for its actual attorney's fees,if
reasonable,and all other costs of such dispute actually and necessarily incurred,
including fees and costs incurred.This agreement is made for the benefit of the Owner,
Resident,and by extension the City of Santa Maria.The City may enforce any provisions
provided herein as an express third party bene?ciary of this agreement.
15.Waiver by Owner.The waiver by Owner,or any failure of Owner to take
action for breach of any term,covenant or condition in this Lease,shall not be deemed a
waiver of such term,covenant or condition,or subsequent breach thereof,or any term,
covenant or condition herein.The subsequent acceptance of rent by Owner shall not be
deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach by Resident of any term,covenant or
condition in the Lease,other than the failure of Resident to pay the particular rent so
accepted,regardless of Owner's knowledge of such preceding breach at the time of
accepting such rent.
16.Holding Over.Any holding over after the expiration of the term of this
Lease shall be construed to be a tenancy from month to month at the monthly rental as
adjusted in accordance with the terms of this Lease,and shall otherwise be on the
terms and conditions herein specified so far as applicable.Notwithstanding the foregoing,
the amount of rent due for such period of holding over may be altered in accordance with
the terms of the Mobile home Residency Law,Civil Code Section 798,et seq.("Mobile
home Residency Law").
17.Sale,Increase upon Sale or Transfer and Subletting.Resident may sell
Resident's mobile home at any time pursuant to the rights and obligations of Resident
and Owner under California law.Resident must,however,give Owner sixty (60)days’
written notice of Resident's intent to vacate his or her tenancy and allow his or her mobile
home to remain in the Park.One purpose of the notice is to enable the Park to schedule
and perform an inspection upon sale pursuant to Civil Code Section 798.73.5.If a
prospective buyer of the mobile home intends for the mobile home to remain in the Park,
said prospective buyer must (1)complete an application for residency;(2)be approved
for residency by Owner,including being in compliance with the Park's age restrictions,as
stated at Paragraph 11 above and in the Park's Rules and Regulations [delete after
“Owner”if not a senior park];(3)execute a lease agreement;and (4)execute and
deliver to Owner copies of the documents listed at Paragraph 23 below,all of which are
incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
Upon any sale or transfer of Resident's mobile home to any person other
than an immediate family member,defined as Resident's parents or children,the
Minimum Guaranteed Monthly Rent or Adjusted Minimum Guaranteed MonthlyRent
may be increased by up to seven and one half percent (7.5%)but in no event shall it
exceed seven and one half percent (7.5%).An adjustment on sale may only be made
once every five (5)years,regardless of the number of sales which occur during that
time frame,if this lease is for a term of more than ?ve years.The rent will not be
Model Lease 2019
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 132 of 187
increased upon any transfer to Resident's immediate family members,but such persons
must meet the residency requirements if they wish to reside in the Park,and the rent will
be increased when such persons sell the mobile home to a person who is not an
immediate family member.All other terms of the lease agreement between the Park
and the buyer shall not differ substantially from the terms of this Lease.
[Insert whether subletting is allowed only as required by Civil Code Section
798.23.5 or under additional circumstances]
18.Responsibility of Owner.In addition to the utilities speci?ed above as
provided by Owner,ifany,Resident shall enjoy for so long as this Lease shall remain in
effect and Resident shall not be in default hereof,the non-exclusive use of the common
areas of the Park,including,without limitation,all streets,drives and non-restricted
parking areas,all recreational facilities,buildings,pools (except as prohibited by law),and
all conveniences.[revise as applicable]Resident's use of all such services and facilities
shall be limited and restricted as speci?ed in this Lease and by the Park’s Rules and
Regulations as legally adopted from time to time.Except as otherwise provided herein,
Owner agrees to provide and maintain these common areas in good working order and
condition,and to continue such services and facilities without addition,alteration,
depletion of services,equipment or physical improvements for the period of Resident's
occupancy of the Space,except to the extent that Owner is prevented from doing so by
good cause,accident,breakage,repairs,strikes,lockouts or other labor disturbances of
any nature,force majeure,or by any other cause,similar or dissimilar,beyond the
reasonable control of Owner.
19.Notice ofchanges to Rules and Regulations,Etc.The Park’s Rules and
Regulations,the other Park documents,and the Park's maintenance standards,services,
equipment and physical improvements may be changed from time to time as provided by
the Mobile home Residency Law.Management shall meet and consultwith the residents
upon written request,either individually,with duly elected representatives,or collectively,
on the following matters:(a)amendments to Rules and Regulations;(b)maintenance
standards regarding physical improvements in the Park;and (c)additions to or alterations
or deletions of services,equipment,or physical improvements.Any collective meeting
shall be conducted only after notice thereof has been given to all requesting residents ten
(10)calendar days prior to the date set for the meeting.
20.Subordination.This Lease is subordinated to all current encumbrances
on the Park,and at the option of a lender or proposed lender of Owner,it shall be
subordinated to future encumbrances placed on the Park by Owner.Resident agrees to
execute any instrument or document necessary to effect any such subordination within
?ve (5)business days of request by Owner.
Model Leas:zI)I9
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 133 of 187
21.Transfer of Owner's Interest.In the event that Owner transfers its interest
in the Park,or any portion thereof,Owner shall be relieved of any obligations hereunder
accruing after the date of such transfer,and such obligations shall be assumed by the
transferee,provided that Owner shall not transfer said interest unless the transferee is
reasonably capable of discharging Owner's obligations hereunder.
22.Management of the Park.Owner shall be represented by management
and/or its other authorized agents,who shall be vested with all legal right and authority to
act on behalf of Owner,and to enforce on behalf of Owner this Lease and the documents
incorporated into the Lease,unless said right and authority have been specifically
reserved to Owner.Management and/or Owner's other authorized agents’decisions shall
be final.The term "management,"as used in the Lease and the documents incorporated
into the Lease,shall mean Owner,the Park manager(s),andlor Owner's other authorized
agents.
23.Incorporated Documents.The following documents,as they may be
amended from time to time,are incorporated herein by this reference,and Resident
acknowledges receipt of copies thereof:
A.The current Mobile home Residency Law,a copy ofwhich is attached
hereto as Exhibit "A";
B.The Park's current Rules and Regulations,a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit "B";
[insert additional Park documents];
_.The document entitled “Important Notice to All Manufactured
Home/Mobile Home Owners,”required by Civil Code Section 798.15(i),a copy of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit and
_The document entitled “Mobile home Park Rental Agreement
Disclosure Form,"required by Civil Code Section 79875.5,a copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit “_.
In addition to the foregoing,the use ofthe clubhouse,recreational and other
Park facilities is conditioned upon compliance with the rules and regulations posted in
and around said facilities,as said rules and regulations may be amended from time to
time,and said rules and regulations are incorporated herein by this reference.
24.Megan's Law Notice.The following notice is provided for Resident's
information,and must be provided in all residential rental agreements:
Pursuant to Section 290.46 of the Penal Code,information about specific
registered sex offenders is made available to the public via an Internet website maintained
by the Department of Justice at www.meganslaw.ca.gov.Depending on an offender's
Model Lease 2019
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 134 of 187
criminal history,this information will include either the address at which the offender
resides,or the community of residence and ZIP code in which he or she resides.
The law further provides that based on this notification,the Park,the seller
of the mobile home,and the real estate broker(s),are not required to provide information
in addition to that contained in the notice regarding the proximity of registered sex
offenders.The information in the notice is deemed to be adequate to inform the
prospective buyer of the mobile home about the existence of a statewide database ofthe
locations of registered sex offenders and information from the database regarding those
locations.The information in the notice will not give rise to any cause of action against
the disclosing party by a registered sex offender.
25.Inspection of Premises.By signing this Lease,Resident acknowledges
that Resident has carefully inspected the Space and all of the Park's facilities,has found
them to be in good and sanitary order,condition and repair as represented by Park to
Resident,either orally or in writing,and to the extent that they are not exactly as
represented,either orally or in writing,agrees to accept them as they are.
26.Miscellaneous Provisions.
A.Time of Essence:Time is of the essence in this Lease.
B.Captions:The captions to the various paragraphs and
subparagraphs of this Lease are for convenience and ease of reference only,and do not
define or limit the scope,content or intent of this Lease.
C.Severabilityz If any particular part ofthis Lease should be determined
to be invalid,unenforceable or otherwise illegal,such part shall be severed therefrom,
and the remaining clauses and parts thereof shall remain in full force and effect.
D.Notices:All notices and demands required to be given hereunder
shall be deemed,unless the law provides othenlvise,to be received upon the earlier of (i)
delivery to the person to be notified;or (ii)two (2)days after being deposited in the United
States mail with postage prepaid and addressed to the party to be noti?ed at the last
address on ?le with the party giving notice.
E.Zoning Etc.:The zoning of the Park is [insert zoning].The
Park operates under a permit that does not have an expiration date [OR The Park
operates under a permit that expires on |.The Park operates under a
land lease that expires on [OR The Park does not operate under a land
lease].
Model Lease 1019
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 135 of 187
27.Information Regarding Mobile Home and Legal Owner Thereof.
Resident understands that Owner is entitled to know the legal owner of
Resident's mobile home,if other than Resident,and that Owner is required by law to send
copies of certain notices to the legal owner,so Resident hereby provides that information:
Name:
Address:
In addition,Resident understands that Owner is entitled to know the
manufacturer,model,year of manufacture and decal number of the mobile home,so
Resident hereby provides that information:
Manufacturer:
Model:
Year of Manufacture:
Decal Number:
Resident agrees to update the foregoing information in the event that it
changes during the term of this Lease.
28.Acknowledgments.Owner and Resident agree that this Lease,and the
documents incorporated herein,contain the entire agreement between the parties.All
prior negotiations or agreements that preceded or accompanied the execution of this
Lease are conclusively deemed to have been superseded.This Lease may be altered
only by written agreement of Owner and Resident,or by operation of law.Resident
acknowledges that Resident has received,read and understood copies of this Lease,
and the exhibits hereto,including a copy of the current Mobile home Residency Law,
and agrees to be bound by their terms.
Resident also acknowledges that Resident had at least thirty (30)days from
the date this Lease was first offered to Resident to accept or reject it.
Finally,Resident acknowledges that Resident had seventy—tvvo (72)hours
after signing this Lease and returning it to management to notify management in writing
that Resident wished to void the Lease,and that Resident did not provide any such
notification.
10
Model Lease 2019
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 136 of 187
The parties hereto have executed this Lease Agreement as of the date ?rst
noted above.
RESIDENT:OWNER:
[insert name of Park owner]
By:By:
OTHER PERSONS WHO WILL OCCUPY THE
SPACE:
11
Modal Least:2010
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 137 of 187
I
i
RANCHO DEL BORDO MOBILE HOME ESTATE
10025 El Camino Real
Atascadero,Ca 93422
805-466-2400
TEN-YEAR LEASE
THIS AGREEMENT WILL BE EXEMPT FROM ANY ORDINANCE,RULE,REGULATIONS,
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION,OR INITIATIVE MEASURE ADOPTED BY ANY LOCAL
GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY THAT ESTABLISHES A MAXIMUM AMOUNT THAT MAY BE
CHARGED FOR RENT.
Rancho Del Bordo Mobile Home Estates (hereinafter “Park”and
(hereinafter “Homeowners”)agree that Homeowners may lease Space No.
120 months,beginning
pursuant to the terms and conditions specified in this agreement.
The initial rent will be per month.
of the Park for
unless this agreement is terminated or renewed
rkl
For purposes of this lease,the term “Homeowners”is used as the term is used in the Mobile home Residency
Law,Civil Code 798.9.to refer to persons who have a tenancy in the Park under a rental agreement
1.FACILITIES AND SERVICES PROVIDED BY PARK;MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARK AND
HOMEOWNERS.
1.1 Inspection of Facilities nnrf Sen-ices by Homeowners
"^BysigningthisligFeement,Homeowriers acknowlcdgcthatthcyhavecarefullyinspccted
th’espaceto'beleased'and'thePark'sfacilitiesandliavefoundthemto bein-every^respecLas
represented by the Park to them,either orally or in writing,and to the extent that they are not
exactly as represented,accept them as they are,except for the following:
C^Homeowners further acknowledge that they have read the Park's disclosure statement and accept the
conditions described in it Homeowners agree to notify the Park in writing if any problems should develop
in the future with respect to the space and the Park's facilities.
1.2 Park Responsibility for maintenance of Common Facilities
a.^Ifisthe'P^k’si'esponsibiiitj'TomaintainThephysicaliinprovements^iiMhexomnionareasofthc
Park in good working order and condition.With respect to sudden or iunforeseeable breakdown or
deterioration of these improvements,the management shall have a reasonable period of time to repair the
sudden or unforeseeable breakdown or deterioration and bring the improvements into good working
order and condition after the Management knows or should have known of the breakdown or
deterioration.The Park shall not be liable for any loss,damage or injury to homeowners,their guests,or
their visitors,arising out of any condition existing in the Park,unless resulting from the negligence or
willful acts of the Park or its employees.
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 138 of 187
I
exceeding the capacity of the electrical system of the space if the system meets the regulatory standardsapplicabletothePark.I
For some lots ,electric meters will record use of electricity due to street lighting .In suchcases,the rent has been reduced to reflect the average amount of electricity attributable to the streetlighting.Homeowners agree to pay ail charges for electricity ,without further deduction or offset due tostreetlighting.
f.
g.Because the Park ’s electrical service delivery system is subject to minor momentary andtransientvoltagesurges,fluctuations and disruptions ,which may occur in the normal operation of thePark's electrical system and which are beyond the control of the Park ,Homeowners are solely responsibleforobtainingauxiliaryprotectivedevicesontheloadsideofthesendeedeliverytoprotecttheirelectricalequipmentfromthesevoltagesurges,fluctuations ,and disruptions .
h.Homeowners understand that the Park ’s sewage system is susceptible to blockage anddamageifgrease,paper towels ,sanitary napkins ,tampons ,tea bags ,diapers ,Q-tips ,etc .,are putthroughthesewagesystem.Homeowners agree to pay for related repairs ,if it Is determined thatHomeownersareresponsiblefordoggingthesewagesystem.
I.Homeowners agree to remove any accessory structures or landscaping installed contrarytotheParkruleswithin7daysafterreceiptofawrittenrequestbyfoePark.
rjjri With the exception of trees that create a hazard ,Homeowners understand that it is theirresponsibilitytomaintainthelandscapingontheirspace,which includes maintaining any trees located onthespacesothattheydonotencroachonotherspaces,extend to the streets ,or create an unsightly
appearance .
k.Homeowners shall be personally responsible for controlling their conduct ,foe conduct oftheirguests,and the conduct of their pets to avoid disturbing other Homeowners .
L.Homeowners agree to defend ,indemnify and hold Park harmless against any claims by
other Homeowners or other persons that arise from Homeowners 'failure to comply with foe terms of this
agreement or foe Park rules ,or violation of foe Park rules by Homeowners 'guests ,visitors ,and
contractors .Homeowners agree to be personally responsible for all damage caused by any contractorsthatHomeownershire.
To foe extent that occurrences such as earth movement ,fires or weather conditions
damage the condition of foe mobilehome space and foe mobiiehome located on the space ,Homeownersshallberesponsibleformaintenanceandrepairorobtainingnecessaryinsurancetocoverdamageresultingfromtheseconditions.Homeowners understand that installation of foe mobilehome andaccessorystructuresincompliancewithregulationspromulgatedbytheDepartmentofHousingandCommunityDevelopment,Title 25 of California Code of Regulations ,and regular maintenance ,such asreleveillngfoemobiiehome,painting ,waxing ,weathering and weather proofing foe home ,have been
known to prevent or minimize damage due to natural occurrences .Homeowners will also be responsible
for continued payment of rent ,even if natural disasters or factors not within foe control of the Park render
the mobilehome space uninhabitable .
their guests ,and their visitors from liability ,property damage or injury .Any insurance foe Park maintainsissolelyforsituationswheretheParkwouldbelegallyliableforloss,damage ,or injury .If Homeownerswishtoobtainprotectionforliability,fire ,floods ,earthquakes ,or other casualties ,they should obtainextendedcoverageforfoefrmobilehomesattheirownexpense.
m.
Homeowners are responsible for obtaining their own insurance to protect themselves ,
10 Year Lease (Current Homeowners )Page 3 of 12
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 139 of 187
I
exceeding the capacity of the electrical system of the space if the system meets the regulatory standardsapplicabletothePark.I
For some lots,electric meters will record use of electricity due to street lighting.In suchcases,the rent has been reduced to reflect the average amount of electricity attributable to the streetlighting.Homeowners agree to pay ail charges for electricity,without further deduction or offset due tostreetlighting.
f.
g.Because the Park’s electrical service delivery system is subject to minor momentary andtransientvoltagesurges,fluctuations and disruptions,which may occur in the normal operation of thePark's electrical system and which are beyond the control of the Park,Homeowners are solely responsibleforobtainingauxiliaryprotectivedevicesontheloadsideofthesendeedeliverytoprotecttheirelectricalequipmentfromthesevoltagesurges,fluctuations,and disruptions.
h.Homeowners understand that the Park’s sewage system is susceptible to blockage anddamageifgrease,paper towels,sanitary napkins,tampons,tea bags,diapers,Q-tips,etc.,are putthroughthesewagesystem.Homeowners agree to pay for related repairs,if it Is determined thatHomeownersareresponsiblefordoggingthesewagesystem.
I.Homeowners agree to remove any accessory structures or landscaping installed contrarytotheParkruleswithin7daysafterreceiptofawrittenrequestbyfoePark.
rjjri With the exception of trees that create a hazard,Homeowners understand that it is theirresponsibilitytomaintainthelandscapingontheirspace,which includes maintaining any trees located onthespacesothattheydonotencroachonotherspaces,extend to the streets,or create an unsightlyappearance.
k.Homeowners shall be personally responsible for controlling their conduct,foe conduct oftheirguests,and the conduct of their pets to avoid disturbing other Homeowners.
L.Homeowners agree to defend,indemnify and hold Park harmless against any claims byotherHomeownersorotherpersonsthatarisefromHomeowners'failure to comply with foe terms of thisagreementorfoeParkrules,or violation of foe Park rules by Homeowners'guests,visitors,andcontractors.Homeowners agree to be personally responsible for all damage caused by any contractorsthatHomeownershire.
To foe extent that occurrences such as earth movement,fires or weather conditionsdamagetheconditionoffoemobilehomespaceandfoemobiiehomelocatedonthespace,Homeownersshallberesponsibleformaintenanceandrepairorobtainingnecessaryinsurancetocoverdamageresultingfromtheseconditions.Homeowners understand that installation of foe mobilehome andaccessorystructuresincompliancewithregulationspromulgatedbytheDepartmentofHousingandCommunityDevelopment,Title 25 of California Code of Regulations,and regular maintenance,such asreleveillngfoemobiiehome,painting,waxing,weathering and weather proofing foe home,have been
known to prevent or minimize damage due to natural occurrences.Homeowners will also be responsible
for continued payment of rent,even if natural disasters or factors not within foe control of the Park renderthemobilehomespaceuninhabitable.
their guests,and their visitors from liability,property damage or injury.Any insurance foe Park maintainsissolelyforsituationswheretheParkwouldbelegallyliableforloss,damage,or injury.If Homeownerswishtoobtainprotectionforliability,fire,floods,earthquakes,or other casualties,they should obtainextendedcoverageforfoefrmobilehomesattheirownexpense.
m.
Homeowners are responsible for obtaining their own insurance to protect themselves,
10 Year Lease (Current Homeowners)Page 3 of 12
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 140 of 187
>••«/vt
r%t »
»:i
*ii"3v
‘V?-•*Date •Signature
»*
'>.
V.Printed Name
N.1 ^<
*
“*•<
'<1 -Date Signature .I *T.
\%*1
Printed Name •
'\
v,
t
••
S
PARK MANAGER:
J
Date ignature
Printed Namev\
\V •*
l
‘s\;•<»•'V ;*'!.V '•*
--c.'A -c ,^*v \-t
'5\>
%s 1
*s
1 S/
*\A
Pogo 4 of 4ADRAgreement(Current Homeowners )
1
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 141 of 187
1
The costsof arbitrationshallbe shared equallyamong all "parties'1 and tha estimatedcostsshall
be postedin advance.
*.
I agree to Part 1.4 of the DisputeResolutionprovisions.
aBto
eslNo
1.5 Release
The Park and Homeownersrelease each other of any claims or disputesthey may have with
each other,whetherknown or unknownuntilthe date when this agreementis signed.Each party to this
agreementknowinglywaivesthe provisionsof CivilCode §1542 whichprovides:"a generalrelease does
not extend to claims which a creditordoes not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of
executing the release,which if known by him must have materially affected his settlementwith the
debtor.”This agreementIs Intendedto put an end to any past disputesthat may have existedbetween
the parties.Each party shall be liable for any costs and attorneys'fees incurredby the other party In
defendinga claiminconsistentwiththisrelease,regardlessof the meritsof the claim.
v I agree to Part 1.5 of the DisputeResolutionprovisions.
Please Initial and Cixgte Yes or No
0
to
BY SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT CONTAINING DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROVISIONS,THE
PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY MAY BE WAIVING RIGHTS THEY
MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE TO HAVE CERTAIN DISPUTES LITIGATED IN A COURT OR JURY
TRIAL.
HOMEOWNERS:
Signature
PrintedName
Signature
PrintedName
ADR Agreement(CurrentHomeowners)Page 3 of 4
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 142 of 187
Calculation of Operating Expensesa.
Adjustments for operating expenses,including taxes,maintenance,insurance and services andfacilitiesotherthansubmeteredutifitieswlffbecalculatedasfollows:The expens^foihheM^PCatendar.
JT'W ~w ^Igp..—«ih S'-.TT
^_J^that^^nott^pa^se(^tHrougMii^^thgiVtobilehomje:iswshaiWJS^xaOded.
Taxes"includes all categories of real estate tax,personal property tax,or bonds,fees,charges,surcharges,and assessments made in lieu of real property taxes.
"Insurance"indudes any insurance related to the operation of the Park.
"Services and facilities"refers to services and facilities that are made available to residents in theParkexcept"capital expenses"and services for which the Homeowners pay a charge separate from therent
Capital Expenses and Uninsured Lossesb.
^fnc __-_r r.capita]expenses for installing,maintaining orupgradingsubmeteredTTfiIities)~wfFBe calculated by dividing the total expense by at least.60 months,thenbythenumberofmobilehomesinthePark.Increases based on uninsured losses will be calculated bydividingthetotallossbyatleast12months,then by the number of mobilehomes in the Park.
rO
^?i^“Captter^^nsef?Bciudean ..R^Sfl2SBfnWife3ofciTKxe^han^T2Th^Rsr^luPiSerest^rof^ional^esrindPa3mini^i^e1 costsassoc?ate5^l?oEterh!ng»the’equfomenI^oo33Sflha3heIfeg2]fS3irHmprovemenits.If the Park does not/borrow from a third party,the amount of interest expense tolae "[ncKfded'wiitije equal to the prime rateplus2%.
to
"Uninsured Losses"include any loss to the Park for which no compensation has been provided,except (1)those losses that come within the definition of Capital Expenses (e.g.,damage to Park propertyinvolvingexpensesforrepairsorreplacementsexpectedtohaveausefullifeofmorethan12months),and (2)money damages awarded by a court against the Park for violation of the Mobilehome ResidencyLaw.
Adjustments upon Assignment and before Expirationc.
Assignment of this agreement may be permitted at Park’s sole discretion.Park reserves foe righttoIncreaseteerentifassignmentispermitted.Any assignment made without express writtenauthorizationfromParkmanagementshallbenullandvoid.
4.3 Postponement or Waiver of Rent Adlustments
if the Park elects not to adjust the rent as provided for In this agreement,the Park may reserve(the right to include tee rent adjustments at a later date (without interest)by a written statement of teeamountoftherentadjustment,identifying the nature of tee adjustment teat would otherwise apply,andIndicatingteatteeadjustmentwillbedelayedorpostponed.The Park may also waive tee adjustmentpermanentlybystatinginwritingteattheadjustmenthasbeenwaived.
USE OF THE MOBILEHOME SPACE;GUESTS
The parties agree teat tee mobilehome space shall be used only as tee private residence ofHomeowners.Homeowners agree not to use the mobilehome space for commercial purposes.At all .times,one of tee persons listed on the signature page of this agreement must be tee legal registeredownerofthemobilehome,and that person must regularly occupy tee mobilehome.
5.
5.1
10 Year Lease (Current Homeowners)Page 5 of 12
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 143 of 187
*<>.
n RANCHO DEL BORDO MOBILE HOME ESTATES10025ElCamlnoReal
Atascadero,CA 93422
(805)466-2400
ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AGREEMENT
1.DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Homeowners must circle either “Yes’or “No".The Park will be bound by ionprocedurestotheextentthatHomeownersagreetobeboundbythem,as e alsbelow.
1.1 Notice of Complaint and Opportunity To Correct
XV^Homeowners_shall not-make any compiatnt to any court otgovemmentiegenCy,or begin anyarbitrationproceedingagainsttheParkbasedonanyactoromissiononthepartofthePark,any allegeddefectiveconditionoftheParkoranydisputeconcerningtheinterpretationorenforceabilityofthetermsofthisagreementynthoutfirstgivingwrittennoti^toJhePark specifying (a)the grounds for complaint,(b)the harm caused orthreatened,and'(c)lhe corrective measures requested.Such written notice shall begivenattheearliestpossibledate,and in no event later than 60 days after Homeowners have knowledgeofthefactsthatgiverisetothecomplaintTheParkshallnotbeliabletoHomeownersforanyexpense,damage or injury sustained during any period when Homeowners had the opportunity to notify the Park ofthegroundsforcomplaintbutfailedtodoso.Homeowners shall not raise any defense In a legal actionorproceedingbaseduponanyallegeddefectiveconditioninthePark,if Homeowners have not compliedwiththisprovision.To be effective,the notice shall be signed by the Homeowners and addressed to theParkManagement
If the Park has a complaint about Homeowners,the Park shall give written notice before takinglegalactionagainstthem.
I agree to Part 1.1 of the Dispute Resolution provisions.
Please nd Circle Yes or No
(Vejfrlo
No
1.2 Park Negotiation and Mediation Procedures
The Park has a policy of being available to discuss any problems Homeowners may wish toThaParkandHomeownersagreethatexceptforemergenciesorunlawfuldetainerdiscuss.
proceedings,Homeowners and the Park shall attempt to resolve their disputes by use of the followingproceduresbeforesubmittingthedisputetoarbitration.
The Park or the Homeowners seeking to resolve a dispute shall send a notice requestingameeting.The notice shall be sent by personal delivery,if persona!delivery is possible.If personaldeliveryIsnotpossible,the request for a meeting shall be made by telephone,with a copy of the noticesentbyregularmail.The notice shall state the subject of the complaint,the problem to be resolved,and 'a tentative date for a meeting to discuss it.4
a.
ADR Agreement (Current Homeowners)Page 1 of 4
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 144 of 187
'*•i
LIENS AND CLAIMS9.
Homeowners shall not allow any lien,claim or demand arising from any work of construction ,
repair ,restoration ,maintenance ,removal ,or any other services done for them ,or for their mobilehome or
space to be enforced against the Park .Homeowners shall pay all such claims ,liens ,and demands ,^ailure 'to promptly -pay -ail.such -.claimsr -liens ,-and jlemands is -grounds ,for^terminating ,Homeowners ’tenancy .^Homeowners agree to hold the Park free and harmless from all liability for any'and ”all such
claims ,demandsTor liens ,together with all costs and expenses ,including ,but not limited to,attorneys 'fees and court costs incurred by the Park in connection with them.
10.SUBORDINATION
Homeowners 'rights under this agreement ,including any hold -over tenancy ,are subordinated to
the present or future mortgages and ground leases affecting the real estate or any part of it Homeowners
shall execute any further Instrument or instruments required by the Park owner to effect suchsubordination.
11.ZONING AND USE PERMIT INFORMATION
The nature of the zoning in which the Park operates is:R4B2D-HIgh Density Multiple Zone
U721204 :1.The conditional use permit required to operate the Park has no expiration date .The Park is
not now located on leased ground ,but the Park owner may elect in the future to lease the ground orimprovements.The Park owner expressly reserves the right to modify,change or amend the zoning oruseofthepropertyonwhichtheParkislocatedatanytimeatitsdiscretion.In such case ,the term of this
rental agreement shall be truncated accordingly so as to terminate concurrent with notices required for
termination of tenancy as specified in the Mobilehome Residency Law (Civil Code §§798 ,etseq .)
12.CONDEMNATION
If any portion of the Park is taken under the power of eminent domain ,or is affected by
condemnation to the point where it is impractical to continue operations ,the Park will have the right to
terminate this agreement as of the date toe condemning authority takes possession .The entire amount ofanyawardfortoetakingofalloranypartofaspaceortheParkwillbethePariesproperty.
13.ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE
Homeowners 'righto under this agreement will not be modified by toe sale of the Park unless
Homeowners are given written notice as required by taw.Homeowners shall inform any prospective buyer
of toe Park of Homeowners 'interest In toe space by signing an estoppel certificate .If the Park presents
Homeowners with an estoppel certificate ,Homeowners agree to complete and sign toe estoppelcertificatestatingtoetermsofthisagreementandanyamendments,if Homeowners toil to sign anestoppelcertificate,they shall pay liquidated damages in toe sum of $500 to toe Park .
14.NOTICE REGARDING REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS
California law requires that we give you toe following notice:
Notice:Pursuant to Section 290.46 of toe Pena !Code ,Information about specified registered sex
offenders Is made available to toe public via an Internet Web site maintained by toe Department of Justice
at www.meganslaw .ca .gov.Depending on an offender 's criminal history ,this information willinclude eithertoeaddressatwhichtoeoffenderresidesortoecommunityofresidenceandZIPCodeinwhichheorshe
resides .
15.INCORPORATION OF OTHER DOCUMENTS
15.1 The following documents are Incorporated and made a part of this agreement
10 Year Lease (Current Homeowners )Page 0 of 12
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 145 of 187
'*•i
LIENS AND CLAIMS9.
Homeowners shall not allow any lien,claim or demand arising from any work of construction,
repair,restoration,maintenance,removal,or any other services done for them,or for their mobilehome or
space to be enforced against the Park.Homeowners shall pay all such claims,liens,and demands,^ailure'to promptly -pay-ail.such-.claimsr-liens,-andjlemands is -grounds ,for^terminating,Homeowners’tenancy.^Homeowners agree to hold the Park free and harmless from all liability for any'and”all such
claims,demandsTor liens,together with all costs and expenses,including,but not limited to,attorneys'fees and court costs incurred by the Park in connection with them.
10.SUBORDINATION
Homeowners'rights under this agreement,including any hold-over tenancy,are subordinated to
the present or future mortgages and ground leases affecting the real estate or any part of it Homeowners
shall execute any further Instrument or instruments required by the Park owner to effect suchsubordination.
11.ZONING AND USE PERMIT INFORMATION
The nature of the zoning in which the Park operates is:R4B2D-HIgh Density Multiple Zone
U721204:1.The conditional use permit required to operate the Park has no expiration date.The Park is
not now located on leased ground,but the Park owner may elect in the future to lease the ground orimprovements.The Park owner expressly reserves the right to modify,change or amend the zoning oruseofthepropertyonwhichtheParkislocatedatanytimeatitsdiscretion.In such case,the term of this
rental agreement shall be truncated accordingly so as to terminate concurrent with notices required for
termination of tenancy as specified in the Mobilehome Residency Law (Civil Code §§798,etseq.)
12.CONDEMNATION
If any portion of the Park is taken under the power of eminent domain,or is affected bycondemnationtothepointwhereitisimpracticaltocontinueoperations,the Park will have the right to
terminate this agreement as of the date toe condemning authority takes possession.The entire amount ofanyawardfortoetakingofalloranypartofaspaceortheParkwillbethePariesproperty.
13.ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE
Homeowners'righto under this agreement will not be modified by toe sale of the Park unless
Homeowners are given written notice as required by taw.Homeowners shall inform any prospective buyer
of toe Park of Homeowners'interest In toe space by signing an estoppel certificate.If the Park presentsHomeownerswithanestoppelcertificate,Homeowners agree to complete and sign toe estoppelcertificatestatingtoetermsofthisagreementandanyamendments,if Homeowners toil to sign anestoppelcertificate,they shall pay liquidated damages in toe sum of $500 to toe Park.
14.NOTICE REGARDING REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS
California law requires that we give you toe following notice:
Notice:Pursuant to Section 290.46 of toe Pena!Code,Information about specified registered sexoffendersIsmadeavailabletotoepublicviaanInternetWebsitemaintainedbytoeDepartmentofJustice
at www.meganslaw.ca.gov.Depending on an offender's criminal history,this information will include eithertoeaddressatwhichtoeoffenderresidesortoecommunityofresidenceandZIPCodeinwhichheorshe
resides.
15.INCORPORATION OF OTHER DOCUMENTS
15.1 The following documents are Incorporated and made a part of this agreement
10 Year Lease (Current Homeowners)Page 0 of 12
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 146 of 187
*<>.
n RANCHO DEL BORDO MOBILE HOME ESTATES10025ElCamlnoReal
Atascadero,CA 93422
(805)466-2400
ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AGREEMENT
1.DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Homeowners must circle either “Yes’or “No".The Park will be bound by ionprocedurestotheextentthatHomeownersagreetobeboundbythem,as e alsbelow.
1.1 Notice of Complaint and Opportunity To Correct
XV^Homeowners_shall not-make any compiatnt to any court otgovemmentiegenCy,or begin anyarbitrationproceedingagainsttheParkbasedonanyactoromissiononthepartofthePark,any allegeddefectiveconditionoftheParkoranydisputeconcerningtheinterpretationorenforceabilityofthetermsofthisagreementynthoutfirstgivingwrittennoti^toJhePark specifying (a)the grounds for complaint,(b)the harm caused orthreatened,and'(c)lhe corrective measures requested.Such written notice shall begivenattheearliestpossibledate,and in no event later than 60 days after Homeowners have knowledgeofthefactsthatgiverisetothecomplaintTheParkshallnotbeliabletoHomeownersforanyexpense,damage or injury sustained during any period when Homeowners had the opportunity to notify the Park ofthegroundsforcomplaintbutfailedtodoso.Homeowners shall not raise any defense In a legal actionorproceedingbaseduponanyallegeddefectiveconditioninthePark,if Homeowners have not compliedwiththisprovision.To be effective,the notice shall be signed by the Homeowners and addressed to theParkManagement
If the Park has a complaint about Homeowners,the Park shall give written notice before takinglegalactionagainstthem.
I agree to Part 1.1 of the Dispute Resolution provisions.
Please nd Circle Yes or No
(Vejfrlo
No
1.2 Park Negotiation and Mediation Procedures
The Park has a policy of being available to discuss any problems Homeowners may wish toThaParkandHomeownersagreethatexceptforemergenciesorunlawfuldetainerdiscuss.
proceedings,Homeowners and the Park shall attempt to resolve their disputes by use of the followingproceduresbeforesubmittingthedisputetoarbitration.
The Park or the Homeowners seeking to resolve a dispute shall send a notice requestingameeting.The notice shall be sent by personal delivery,if persona!delivery is possible.If personaldeliveryIsnotpossible,the request for a meeting shall be made by telephone,with a copy of the noticesentbyregularmail.The notice shall state the subject of the complaint,the problem to be resolved,and 'a tentative date for a meeting to discuss it.4
a.
ADR Agreement (Current Homeowners)Page 1 of 4
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 147 of 187
J
HOMEOWNERS:
Printed Name
Signature
Printed Name
SignatureDate
Printed Name
SignatureDate
Printed Name
PARK MANAGER:
Printed Name
(Check if applicable)
The Park manager will sign this agreement upon receipt of proof that prospective Homeownershavereceived,or will receive,title to the mobiiehome that occupies or will occupy the subject space.
%*
IN CASE OF AN EMERGENCY,PLEASE CONTACT:
Name:Telephone #:,
Relationship:.Address:
10 Year Lease (Current Homeowners)Page 10 of 12
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 148 of 187
*<>.
n RANCHO DEL BORDO MOBILE HOME ESTATES10025ElCamlnoReal
Atascadero ,CA 93422
(805)466-2400
ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AGREEMENT
1.DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Homeownersmustcircleeither“Yes’or “No".The Park willbe boundby ionprocedurestotheextentthatHomeownersagreetobeboundbythem,as e alsbelow.
1.1 Notice of Complaint and Opportunity To Correct
XV^Homeowners_shall not-make any compiatntto any court otgovemmentiegenCy,or begin anyarbitrationproceedingagainsttheParkbasedonanyactoromissiononthepartofthePark,any allegeddefectiveconditionoftheParkoranydisputeconcerningtheinterpretationorenforceabilityofthetermsofthisagreementynthoutfirstgivingwrittennoti^toJheParkspecifying(a)the groundsfor complaint,(b)the harmcausedorthreatened,and'(c)lhecorrectivemeasuresrequested.Such writtennoticeshallbegivenattheearliestpossibledate,and in no event later than 60 days after Homeownershave knowledgeofthefactsthatgiverisetothecomplaintTheParkshallnotbeliabletoHomeownersforanyexpense,damageorinjurysustainedduringany periodwhenHomeownershad the opportunityto notifythe Park ofthegroundsforcomplaintbutfailedtodoso.Homeownersshallnot raise any defenseIn a legalactionorproceedingbaseduponanyallegeddefectiveconditioninthePark,if Homeownershave notcompliedwiththisprovision.To be effective,the noticeshallbe signedby the Homeownersand addressedto theParkManagement
If the Park has a complaintaboutHomeowners,the Park shall give writtennoticebeforetakinglegalactionagainstthem.
I agree to Part 1.1 of theDisputeResolutionprovisions.
Please nd Circle Yes or No
(Vejfrlo
No
1.2 Park Negotiation and Mediation Procedures
The Park has a policy of being available to discussany problemsHomeownersmay wish toThaParkandHomeownersagreethatexceptforemergenciesorunlawfuldetainerdiscuss.
proceedings,Homeownersand the Park shall attempt to resolve their disputesby use of the followingproceduresbeforesubmittingthedisputetoarbitration.
The Park or the Homeownersseekingto resolvea disputeshallsend a noticerequestingameeting.The notice shall be sent by personaldelivery,if persona!deliveryis possible.If personaldeliveryIsnotpossible,the requestfor a meetingshall be made by telephone,witha copy of the noticesentbyregularmail.The noticeshallstate the subjectof the complaint,the problemto be resolved,and 'a tentativedate fora meetingto discussit.4
a.
ADR Agreement (Current Homeowners )Page 1 of 4
*<>.
n RANCHO DEL BORDO MOBILE HOME ESTATES10025ElCamlnoReal
Atascadero,CA 93422
(805)466-2400
ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AGREEMENT
1.DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Homeownersmustcircleeither“Yes’or “No".The Park willbe boundby ionprocedurestotheextentthatHomeownersagreetobeboundbythem,as e alsbelow.
1.1 Notice of Complaint and Opportunity To Correct
XV^Homeowners_shall not-make any compiatntto any court otgovemmentiegenCy,or begin anyarbitrationproceedingagainsttheParkbasedonanyactoromissiononthepartofthePark,any allegeddefectiveconditionoftheParkoranydisputeconcerningtheinterpretationorenforceabilityofthetermsofthisagreementynthoutfirstgivingwrittennoti^toJheParkspecifying(a)the groundsfor complaint,(b)the harmcausedorthreatened,and'(c)lhecorrectivemeasuresrequested.Such writtennoticeshallbegivenattheearliestpossibledate,and in no event later than 60 days after Homeownershave knowledgeofthefactsthatgiverisetothecomplaintTheParkshallnotbeliabletoHomeownersforanyexpense,damageorinjurysustainedduringany periodwhenHomeownershad the opportunityto notifythe Park ofthegroundsforcomplaintbutfailedtodoso.Homeownersshallnot raise any defenseIn a legalactionorproceedingbaseduponanyallegeddefectiveconditioninthePark,if Homeownershave notcompliedwiththisprovision.To be effective,the noticeshallbe signedby the Homeownersand addressedto theParkManagement
If the Park has a complaintaboutHomeowners,the Park shall give writtennoticebeforetakinglegalactionagainstthem.
I agree to Part 1.1 of theDisputeResolutionprovisions.
Please nd Circle Yes or No
(Vejfrlo
No
1.2 Park Negotiation and Mediation Procedures
The Park has a policy of being available to discussany problemsHomeownersmay wish toThaParkandHomeownersagreethatexceptforemergenciesorunlawfuldetainerdiscuss.
proceedings,Homeownersand the Park shall attempt to resolve their disputesby use of the followingproceduresbeforesubmittingthedisputetoarbitration.
The Park or the Homeownersseekingto resolvea disputeshallsend a noticerequestingameeting.The notice shall be sent by personaldelivery,if persona!deliveryis possible.If personaldeliveryIsnotpossible,the requestfor a meetingshall be made by telephone,witha copy of the noticesentbyregularmail.The noticeshallstate the subjectof the complaint,the problemto be resolved,and 'a tentativedate fora meetingto discussit.4
a.
ADR Agreement (Current Homeowners)Page 1 of 4
*<>.
n RANCHO DEL BORDO MOBILE HOME ESTATES10025ElCamlnoReal
Atascadero,CA 93422
(805)466-2400
ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AGREEMENT
1.DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Homeowners must circle either “Yes’or “No".The Park will be bound by ionprocedurestotheextentthatHomeownersagreetobeboundbythem,as e alsbelow.
1.1 Notice of Complaint and Opportunity To Correct
XV^Homeowners_shall not-make any compiatnt to any court otgovemmentiegenCy,or begin anyarbitrationproceedingagainsttheParkbasedonanyactoromissiononthepartofthePark,any allegeddefectiveconditionoftheParkoranydisputeconcerningtheinterpretationorenforceabilityofthetermsofthisagreementynthoutfirstgivingwrittennoti^toJhePark specifying (a)the grounds for complaint,(b)the harm caused orthreatened,and'(c)lhe corrective measures requested.Such written notice shall begivenattheearliestpossibledate,and in no event later than 60 days after Homeowners have knowledgeofthefactsthatgiverisetothecomplaintTheParkshallnotbeliabletoHomeownersforanyexpense,damage or injury sustained during any period when Homeowners had the opportunity to notify the Park ofthegroundsforcomplaintbutfailedtodoso.Homeowners shall not raise any defense In a legal actionorproceedingbaseduponanyallegeddefectiveconditioninthePark,if Homeowners have not compliedwiththisprovision.To be effective,the notice shall be signed by the Homeowners and addressed to theParkManagement
If the Park has a complaint about Homeowners,the Park shall give written notice before takinglegalactionagainstthem.
I agree to Part 1.1 of the Dispute Resolution provisions.
Please nd Circle Yes or No
(Vejfrlo
No
1.2 Park Negotiation and Mediation Procedures
The Park has a policy of being available to discuss any problems Homeowners may wish toThaParkandHomeownersagreethatexceptforemergenciesorunlawfuldetainerdiscuss.
proceedings,Homeowners and the Park shall attempt to resolve their disputes by use of the followingproceduresbeforesubmittingthedisputetoarbitration.
The Park or the Homeowners seeking to resolve a dispute shall send a notice requestingameeting.The notice shall be sent by personal delivery,if persona!delivery is possible.If personaldeliveryIsnotpossible,the request for a meeting shall be made by telephone,with a copy of the noticesentbyregularmail.The notice shall state the subject of the complaint,the problem to be resolved,and 'a tentative date for a meeting to discuss it.4
a.
ADR Agreement (Current Homeowners)Page 1 of 4
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 151 of 187
\•
D The meeting will be an informal discussion.between Homeowners and the Park owner'sdesignatedrepresentativetoresolvedisputesarisingfromHomeowners’tenancy.Ether the Park orHomeownersmayhavelegalrepresentativesorwitnessespresentduringfoemeeting.
I agree to Part 1.2 of foe Dispute Resolution provisions.
Please In
b.
d Circle Yes or No
No
No
1.3 Complaint to HCD Ombudsman
The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)has designated'a-MobilehomeQTribudsman'withirvfoe -Department to'address.'camp!alntsfrom-resIdents:about.variousaspectS:oMiyihgInthemanufacturedhomesandmobilehomesInfoeStateofCalifornia.The name and telephonenumberoffoeHCDOmbudsmanIspostedinthePark.Before making any complaint to any court orgovernmentagencyotherthan'HCD,and before beginning any arbitration proceeding against foe ParkbasedonanyactoromissiononfoepartofthePark^Hpmeownersshallbringfoeircomplaint toHCDand
<waituriti7 HCD‘has (»mp!eted'itefavIew'6Ffo1febmptiint’befare-proceedlngTJrfoeragainstthePark.TheParkagreestorespondtoanyreasonablerequestsforactionorInformationfromHCDthataredirectlyrelatedtofoecomplaintpresented.
I agree to Part 1.3 of foe Dispute Resolution provisions.
Please Inl and Circle >and Circle Yes or No
n 14 Arbitration
Homeowners and foe Park agree to submit all disputes that cannot be resolved between them tobindingarbitrationexceptforrequestsforrecoveryofmaintenancefeespursuanttoSection1.3(d)of foeLeaseAgreement,and proceedings for unlawful detainer or eviction of unlawful occupants.
For purposes of these arbitration procedures,foe term "party"refers to each Individual person orentityinvolvedinanarbitrationproceeding.
Arbitration,Procedure:The party seeking to arbitrate a dispute shall begin arbitrationbyservingawrittendemandtoarbitrateonfoerespondentandtheJudicialArbitrationandMediationServices(‘JAMS”).One arbitrator who has had no previous dealings with any of foe parties or attorneysinvolvedshallbeappointedtoarbitratethematterinaccordancewiththisagreement
During foe arbitration proceeding,the rules of evidence shall not be relaxed,unless objectionsarewaivedorfoepartiesotherwiseagree.Neither party shall communicate to the arbitrator in writingwithoutprovidingfoeopposingsidewithacopyoffoecommunication.Neither party shall engage in oralcommunicationswithfoearbitrator,unless the opposing party Is also given an opportunity to participate Infoecommunication.
a.
Limitations of Action:A claim by either party that is subject to arbitration shall bebarred,and no damages will be recoverable if demand for arbitration is not made within 180 days afterfoepetitionerhasknowledgeoffactsgivingrisetofoecomplaintNeitherpartyshallrecoverdamagessustainedmorethan6monthsbeforefoefilingoffoecomplaintTheseperiodsshallbetoiledor'
extended pending negotiations or completion of corrective measures if,and only if,foe respondent agreesInwritingthatthelimitationsperiodsshallbetolledorextended.
b.
n
ADR Agreement (Current Homeowners)Page 2 of 4
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 152 of 187
1
The costs of arbitration shall be shared equally among all "parties'1 and tha estimated costs shall
be posted in advance.
*.
I agree to Part 1.4 of the Dispute Resolution provisions.
aBto
eslNo
1.5 Release
The Park and Homeowners release each other of any claims or disputes they may have with
each other,whether known or unknown until the date when this agreement is signed.Each party to this
agreement knowingly waives the provisions of Civil Code §1542 which provides:"a general release does
not extend to claims which a creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of
executing the release,which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the
debtor.”This agreement Is Intended to put an end to any past disputes that may have existed between
the parties.Each party shall be liable for any costs and attorneys'fees incurred by the other party In
defending a claim inconsistent with this release,regardless of the merits of the claim.
v I agree to Part 1.5 of the Dispute Resolution provisions.
Please Initial and Cixgte Yes or No
0
to
BY SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT CONTAINING DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROVISIONS,THE
PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY MAY BE WAIVING RIGHTS THEY
MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE TO HAVE CERTAIN DISPUTES LITIGATED IN A COURT OR JURY
TRIAL.
HOMEOWNERS:
Signature
Printed Name
Signature
Printed Name
ADR Agreement (Current Homeowners)Page 3 of 4
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 153 of 187
>••«/vt
r%t »
»:i*ii\"3vV‘V?-•*Date •Signature
»^V*t r-*
'>.
V .Printed Name
N.1 ^<
*i
“*•<
'<1 -Date Signature .I *T.
\%*1
Printed Name •
'\
v,
t
••S
PARK MANAGER:
J
Date ignature
Printed NameVv\
\V •*
l
‘s\;•<»•'V ;*'!.V '•*
"V •--c.'A -c,^*v \-t
'5\>\\
%s 1
*s /
1 S/
*\A
Pogo 4 of 4ADRAgreement(Current Homeowners)
1;
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 154 of 187
From:Kathy Choate <clerkchoate@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 9, 2020 8:49 AM
To:Heather Moreno; Susan Funk; Heather Newsom; Roberta Fonzi; Charles Bourbeau; City
Clerk
Subject:March 10, 2020 Item B-1 Mobile Home Rent Stabilization
Attachments:GSMOL Lesgislation paragraph2.rtf
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
Honorable City Council members,
Attached is a document being considered for attachment to SB 915, that relates to Item B-1 on March 10 City
Council agenda.
Lost Oak Mobile Home Park (LOMHP) residents would like the attached document entered into the record for
March 10, 2020 Item B-1 Mobile Home Rent Stabilization.
While rent stabilization is very specific, there are circumstances in LOMHP, since being purchased by a
corporation, effecting home owners in a negative way, including Thomsen Properties, LLC (TPL) response to
complaints; "if you don't like it, move." When a current home owner leaves the new owner pays a much higher
rent. Intimidation and bullying is being used to drive existing residents to sell.
LOMHP under private ownership with 24/7 management on site was a friendly, private, and enjoyable
community. We now have no onsite management and are managed by code violations primarily. TPL
"corporate policy is to write five (5) violations per week even if there aren't any." A direct quote by
management staff.
LOMHP residents now reside in fear of intimidation, retaliation, and eviction. Our clubhouse was shut down to
use by reservation only. We no longer have our community area to enjoy one another's company, play cards,
afternoon tea, knit or crochet together, gatherings, BBQs, Bunco, or just sit and read a book, and many other
enjoyable occasions we have had as residents.
Our clubhouse was stripped of the brand new furniture purchased for our use. The bookcases and all the books
were removed, never to be seen again. TPL has turned the clubhouse into a three story office. While the office
is a room upstairs, management overflows into all areas of the building. Management has taken over the
clubhouse.
Office hours are by appointment only and often calls are not returned by residents trying to reach management.
The bulletin board by the mailboxes is now a glass, key locked unit where only management can post notices.
Prior to TPL owning us, the bulletin board was used by managers and residents. There is no communication to
residents about changes, no discussion, no consideration.
Residents have no bulletin board to post community related interest s; births, deaths, accomplishments, recipes,
lost pets, etc. LOMHP has been stripped of our "family" Park. It is comparable to a NAZI CAMP and that term
is being used by many residents who reside here. Residents are living in fear and anxiety daily.
Than k you for your service to the community,
Kathy
on behalf of Lost Oak Mobile Home Park Residents
It is imperative to pass SB 915, which will require managers be trained and certified!!
I am a 20 year resident of Lost Oak Mobile Home Park (LOMHP). I have raised three children and seven
grandchildren grew up in and still visit, and spending many days enjoying the family community known
as LOMHP. I have many friends and acquaintances made in LOMHP over my 20 years residing here.
Built in 1986 and owned privately, a little over five (5) years ago LOMHP was purchased by a
corporation, Thomsen Properties, LLC (TPL) based in Costa Mesa, CA. Since the purchase there has been
no on site Manager. This is a violation of state law as LOMHP has 55 mobilehomes, one is a clubhouse
and two have been converted to rentals owned by the Park. In previous years we always had an onsite
manager 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. The result of no 24/7 LOMHP manager is the following:
Amenities are denied and enforcement of compliance violations are a weekly occurence. TPL
policy is to "write five violations per week, even if there aren't any," a direct quote by TPL
Manager.
LOMHP clubhouse once open daily is now available only by reservation, it is time consuming to
do so and the list of rules to use it are unreasonable. The new leather couches with wood
frames that were purchased for the enjoyment of the residents were thrown away in a rolloff by
the TPL management. the bookshelves filled with books just disappeared from the lower level of
our clubhouse, never to be seen again. TPL moved the Park office from an existing mobile home
to the clubhouse and now "rent" the "office" mobilehome. They have rented this space to a
person that they charge more rent than space rent and renter receives "kick backs" on said rent
if they spy on other resident's property and reports to the Manager (basically a mole). The
renter has expressed fear of the Manager.
Video Surveillance: TPL staff monitors the LOMHP from cameras that were installed under the
premise of security, but are used to spy on residents and make accusatory statements based on
what they think they see, not on what they know or take the time to know. No signs are posted
informing residents or public there are cameras in use.
There is no longer the same lease agreement between tenants, there are multiple lease
agreements, all different. As to break down the community aspect of the rules. Thomsen
Properties refused to give signed copies of original lease agreements to existing tenants and as
agreements come time to renew, tenants are pressured to sign because they are made afraid
they will be evicted by TPL which is a bully tactic. This last year evictions became the "new
management style." After an agreement was made by a resident to have 6 months, rather than
30 days to sell her home, Management came back into LOMHP and proceeded to inform the
next eviction victim, "don't mess with us, we win." They manage by intimidation and fear daily!!
Infrastructure issues are deferred, corporate project management staff gets so frustrated with
lack of support projects are left in limbo; no support from corporate. See Thomsen Properties,
LLC employee comments on line, very negative feedback on administration.
Road was paved last year; not finished properly.
Towing of resident vehicles is abused. I was informed West Coast Towing refused to tow any
more vehicles every time TPL managers called for a tow due to abuse of power.
Water leaks that go for years, pool leaked for over a year and a half, causing an owner per
manager's direction to run a hose from the flooded back yard out to the street so the water
would stop flooding his property. The leak was not addressed for a year and a half.
Neo Nazi Manager (a term used by many who reside here, not flippant but truthful) that
conducts herself as though she is above the law and is training her subordinate to do the same.
Managers insist they have a right to come on resident's property without notice. They come up
into our yards, take pictures, peek in our windows, write violations for personal property items
that are not in violation of any code or regulation, very subjective Management.
TPL trained the Regional Manager, who started out here as a reasonable and communicative
Manager to be aggressive. They brought someone in to spend an entire day with her to teach
her how to be very aggressive. She is now Regional Manager.
Emergency Plan Memo issued by TPL to residents - in the event of a catastrophic emergency,
please call the Costa Mesa office to chat.
Cease and Desist Order - when a resident speaks on behalf of all residents and corporate does
not agree with the spokesperson they are issued a letter warning no contact with TPL
employees, any communication is to be in writing only to Guzman Law Firm, with the attorney
Erin Guzman only or legal action will be taken. Guzman Law Firm does not respond to phone
calls and in no timely manner to written correspondence.
Their conduct is one of malfeasance (creative eviction) and a breach of their duties to LOMHP.
Currently, three evictions are in litigation and one long term resident was forced to sell her
home. There are trying to skirt under the veil of a corporation, using less than ethical tactics.
Landscaping requirements are subjective; e.g., manager does not like rose petals on the ground,
recommends no one plant roses. Roses require very little water and provide breathtaking
beauty.
Painting outside of home is subjective; there was once a color wheel, now it is subject to
Manager's preference.
Mismanagement of discretionary funds ($400 per month). Former ECP employee has additional
information.
The sense of community we had for years is gone. Many of us have lived here more than 10
years, and quite a few more than 20 years.
TPL Managers violate the Constitution of the United States, Amendment IV consistently, there is no
privacy in our homes. Amendment VIII is violated as well with cruel and unusual punishment inflicted by
the untrained, in-your-face Managers who conduct themselves as though they are above the law.
The current managers have managed to divide and instill through intimidation, abusive behavior,
mismanagement of funds, deferred maintenance, and lack of day-to-day running of a mobilehome park
to bring fear, anxiety, evictions, effect the overall general health and well being of those who live here.
The comfort, privacy, and hope of long term residency here is in jeopardy. We have spent years of sweat
equity improving our homes, with records of great tenants and now a corporation with greedy pockets
wants those tenants out so they may charge higher rent and increases under the veil of a corporation.
Affordable housing in San Luis Obispo County is very limited and the eggregious manner in which TPL
conducts itself is despicable! Put your feet in our shoes! We have been told straight up by TPL, if we
don't like it here, MOVE!! by the corporate President. She stated, and I quote, "I would never live in a
trailer park."
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 03/10/20
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report – Public Works Department
2020 Community Development Block Grant
Funding Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION:
Council review and approve funding recommendations for the 2020 Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) program as shown below and authorize staff to adjust
final award amounts proportionately upon receipt of the final funding amount.
2020 CDBG Funding Allocations Draft
Recommendations
December 2019
Final Funding Staff
Recommendations
Public Facilities (PF) and Housing Projects (HP)
Estimated 2020 Allocation $91,046 (Atas.) + $18,939 (Morro Bay
Repayment) + $5,823 (Reallocation) = $115,808
City of Atascadero – Santa Rosa Accessibility - Barrier Removal
Project (PF) $115,808 $115,808
Public Services – Limited to 15% of 2020 Allocation ($21,011)
City of Atascadero – Youth Activity Scholarships 12,500 12,500
El Camino Homeless Organization (ECHO) – Operation of
Homeless Shelter 8,511 8,511
Administration – Limited to 20% of 2020 Allocation ($28,014)
City Program Administration Costs $9,805 $9,805
County Program Administration Costs $18,209 $18,209
Total 2020 Grant Funds Available $164,833 $164,833
Reallocations of Previous Years’ Fund Balance Draft
Recommendations
December 2019
Final Funding Staff
Recommendations
2018 Administration Reallocate to Santa Rosa Accessibility &
Barrier Removal Project $4,804 $4,804
2018 Youth Scholarship Reallocate to Santa Rosa Accessibility
& Barrier Removal Project $1,019 $1,019
Page 155 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 03/10/20
DISCUSSION:
Background
The 2020 CDBG award process began in the fall of 2019. Workshops were held
throughout the County to solicit public comment on community needs. The County
published a request for CDBG proposals and the City received eight applications. Total
available funding for the 2020 cycle, based on previous levels, is anticipated to be
approximately $140,071. Final funding amounts are anticipated to be released by the
Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD) in early 20 20.
The City will also receive $18,939 from the City of Morro Bay’s 2020 CDBG allocation for
a combined total of $159,010. In 2016, the City of Atascadero reallocated $236,420 to
Morro Bay to complete a shovel ready project. The City of Morro Bay allocate d their
annual CDBG funding to Atascadero on a dollar-per-dollar repayment until paid in full.
The City received repayment from Morro Bay in 2017 ($77,662 ), 2018 ($79,367),
and 2019 ($60,452) leaving a balance owed of $18,939 which will repay the loan in full in
the 2020 CDBG cycle.
Analysis
CDBG funds are available for community development activities, which meet at least
one of the three national objectives:
1. A benefit to low and moderate-income persons;
2. Aid in the prevention or elimination of blight;
3. Address urgent needs that pose a se rious and immediate threat to the health or
welfare of the community.
In order for a program to qualify under the low and moderate income objective, at least
51% of the persons benefiting from the project or program must earn no more than 80%
of the area median. Additionally, at least 70% of the CDBG funds must be spent toward
this objective.
There is a minimum award threshold of $8,000 per project, meaning the City can only
allocate less than $8,000 for a particular public service activity if another agency in the
County commits to programming the remainder to equal a Countywide cumulative total
of at least $8,000.
The following criteria should also be used to guide selection of CDBG programs:
1. The proposal is consistent with the national objectives and eligibility criteria of
the HUD CDBG program;
2. The proposal is consistent with the Urban County Consolidated Plan;
3. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and other City
codes/ordinances.
4. The proposal will achieve multiple community development objectives;
5. The proposal can be implemented in a timely manner, without significant
environmental, policy, procedural, legal, or fiscal obstacles to overcome; and
6. The project is not financially feasible without CDBG funding.
Page 156 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 03/10/20
On December 10, 2019, after reviewing the applications, Council approved the draft
funding recommendations for the 2020 cycle. The recommendations were then published
for the required minimum of 30 days during which time a public workshop was held by the
County.
In addition to the annual CDBG allocation, the City has $5,823 in unexpended carryover
2018 funds due to unspent Administration and Youth Scholarship funds. These funds can
only be allocated to the Public Facilities project. At the December 2019 City Council
meeting, these funds were recommended to supplement the Santa Rosa Accessibility
project.
Conclusion
Once the Council has approved the funding recommendations for the 2020 CDBG
program, they will be forwarded to the County for approval by the County Board of
Supervisors and inclusion in the countywide Consolidated Plan.
The amount of funding shown for 2020 is an estimate provided by the County based on
available information from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. If
the amount awarded to the City is more than the amounts shown, the additional amount
will be dispersed equally among the awarded applicants.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The 2020 County CDBG allocation is estimated to be $140,071 with an additional $18,939
repayment from Morro Bay and the reallocation of $5,823 in unexpended 2018 funds for
a total of $164,833.
ALTERNATIVES:
Council may modify the grant recommendations prior to approval. However, awards must
meet program requirements; a minimum award of $8,000 for public service activities on
a Countywide cumulative basis, providing a minimum of 70% of funding for benefit to low
and moderate-income persons, and no more than 15% of the current year allocation can
be awarded in the public service category.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
A complete packet of submitted applications is available for public review at the City of
Atascadero, Public Works Department, 6500 Palma Avenue.
Page 157 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: D-1
DATE: 03/10/20
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report - Public Works Department
Del Rio Road / US 101 Interchange Traffic Sensitivity Analysis
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Council:
1. Receive and file Draft Traffic Sensitivity Analysis for the Del Rio Road Interchange
Report.
2. Abandon work on the roundabout design for the Del Rio Road Interchange Project.
3. Direct staff to amend the current agreement with Wallace Group to pursue
alternative interchange improvements and prepare a plan line for the Del Rio
Road/US 101 Interchange and Del Rio/El Camino Real Corridor that incorporat e
adding a westbound right-turn lane on Del Rio Road to northbound US 101 ramp,
signal modifications, and lane reconfigurations on El Camino Real.
4. Direct staff to investigate a plan line for a second phase to Del Rio / US 101
interchange improvements associated with bridge widening to determine future
land acquisition needs.
5. Direct staff to draft amendments to the Del Rio Specific Plan to accommodate Del
Rio Road/US 101 Interchange and Del Rio Road/El Camino Real Corridor plan line
setbacks, refined land uses, and a refined Master Plan of Development.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF:
This report discusses the traffic sensitivity analysis recently completed for the Del Rio
Road/US 101 Interchange between Ramona Road and El Camino Real. This analysis
evaluated eight different land use scenarios for four large undeveloped parcels that will
influence future traffic demand on the corridor. This evolving land use has resulted from
the cancellation of the Walmart project application and has influence on the transportation
needs along the Del Rio Road corridor, including the US 101 interchange, to support
future traffic demands. A background of the Del Rio Road/US 101 Interchange project is
included, as well as a summary of the traffic analysis and conclusion.
Page 158 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: D-1
DATE: 03/10/20
DISCUSSION:
Background
During the review phase for the Walmart/Annex Project in 2008, the City analyzed the
project’s impact on the Del Rio Road/US 101 Interchange. A traffic analysis study
performed by the City’s traffic consultant (W -Trans) indicated the traffic capacity of the
interchange would need to be expanded to a ccommodate the Walmart and Annex
projects at build out. Build out includes the assumption that all development assumed in
both the Specific Plan and General Plan that could impact this area would be completed.
The study analyzed options to increase capacity and recommended roundabouts at the
ramp intersections based upon future performance and cost analysis. A layout of the
roundabout mitigation is shown below.
The Walmart/Annex project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluated other traffic
impacts that would result from the developments and found the current interchange
configuration could accommodate the Walmart development but would need to be
improved to the roundabout configuration before any permit issuance for the Annex
development. The study also determined that 53% of the projected traffic generated at
the interchange would be generated by the Walmart and Annex projects, while 47% of
the traffic would be generated by other future development.
The Walmart and Annex developments were conditioned to pay their fair share (53% of
the estimated interchange roundabout costs) through traffic impact fees. These impact
fees were calculated based upon a cost estimate of $4.5 million at time of conditional
approval (March 2012). This estimate was reviewed by several engineers and seemed
on par with other estimates and other actual costs for similar roundabout projects
provided to the City at that time.
Page 159 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: D-1
DATE: 03/10/20
In addition to these special roundabout mitigation fees, both Walmart and the Annex were
further conditioned to pay the City’s Standard Traffic Impact Fees (TIF) and to pay a
maximum of $200,000 each toward cost overruns if necessary. Overall, the Walmart and
Annex are conditioned to pay about $5.3 million in TIF to the City. This averages to about
$20.66 per square foot in Traffic Impact Fees.
The Walmart project is also responsible for constructing a third roundabout at El Camino
Real (ECR)/Del Rio Road, installing a new signal light at ECR and San Anselmo Road
(East), improving a half-mile of ECR as a 4-lane arterial, improving 1,000 feet of Del Rio
Road, and installing amenities such as an enhanced transit stop, Class II bike lanes,
street landscaping and sidewalks.
The City began the Caltrans process for the Del Rio Road/US 101 Interchange Project in
November 2012 when Wallace Group was hired to perform the Project Initiation
Document (PID) phase.
Wallace developed an updated current dollar project cost estimate of approximately $12
million for the interchange project as part of the PID phase. This estimate was broken
down into approximately $9 million for construction and right of way costs and $3 million
for other “soft” costs such as planning, environmental documentation, final design,
construction management, etc. This estimate was significantly higher than the $4.5
million provided at the time of conditional approval. The major contributing f actors to the
higher construction costs were related to increases in soil import, land acquisition (right -
of-way), construction contingencies, and the project addition of widening the bridge to
accommodate sidewalk improvements. In addition, the previous $4.5 million estimate
seems to underestimate appropriate “soft” costs required to deliver a project through the
Caltrans project development process. This discrepancy in the cost estimate was
discussed with the City Council at their September 23, 2014 meeting.
Funding for the interchange project was also discussed at the September 23, 2014
meeting. The $5.3 million to be collected in Traffic Impact Fees was originally anticipated
to go toward fully funding both the Walmart/Annex share of the estimated $4.5 million
interchange improvements, but also the portion attributed to future development. In
September 2014, with the new cost estimate of $12 million, it was clear that the City would
have to look for additional funding to fund the City’s (future deve lopment’s) fair share of
the interchange improvements. The following cost sharing scenarios for regional
SLOCOG funding levels were discussed at the September 23, 2014 meeting:
Current Project
Budget
SLOCOG 50% Match/
Local 50% Match
SLOCOG 45% Match/
Local 55% Match
SLOCOG 40% Match/
Local 60% Match
Walmart Traffic Impact Fees 2,474,876$ 2,674,876$ 2,674,876$ 2,674,876$
Walmart Outlier Building Traffic Impact Fees 183,230 183,230 183,230 183,230
Annex Traffic Impact Fees 2,229,288 2,429,288 2,429,288 2,429,288
Other Traffic Impact Fees 268,126 712,606 1,312,606 1,912,606
Local Match 5,155,520 6,000,000 6,600,000 7,200,000
SLOCOG Contribution - 6,000,000 5,400,000 4,800,000
Capital Project Budgeted Amount 5,155,520$ 12,000,000$ 12,000,000$ 12,000,000$
101 @ Del Rio Interchange Project
Page 160 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: D-1
DATE: 03/10/20
Staff was directed by the City Council to continue moving the interchange project forward
through the PID phase while working with SLOCOG on additional funding opp ortunities.
Caltrans is required to assess the viability of proposed projects and available funding
before expending oversight staff time on the project. The funding shortfall was a known
issue and a funding source needed to be identified before processing could continue.
Regional funding through a SLOCOG match was looking promising until July 2015 when
the California Transportation Commission (CTC) notified SLOCOG that total
programming capacity had decreased from an expected $14 million to zero.
The City Council discussed the project shortfall on September 22, 2015 as part of the
agenda item to approve $798,500 in professional engineering and environmental services
to Wallace Group for Phase 2 (PAED) of the project. Although the outlook for regional
funding was unknown, it was recommended that project development for the interchange
continue since funding is likely to occur if the project becomes “shovel ready”. The Walmart
project was in full gear at that time, and the City was aware that the Annex and other
development (other than Walmart) could not proceed until the interchange was completed.
Walmart notified the City in February 2017 that they would no longer be pursuing the
development of their Del Rio store in Atascadero. Walmart’s decision was primarily based
upon the change in retail shopping from “brick and mortar” to internet sales. The progress
on the Del Rio Road/US 101 Interchange project has slowed since Walmart’s
announcement to a pace that allows the project status to remain in good-standing with
Caltrans. The interchange project is included on the 2019 Regional Transportation Plan
(RTIP) that qualifies the project for regional funding, but no funding source was identified.
Without the synergy from the Walmart project, the Annex site is highly unlikely to be a shopping
center use as previously planned. The owner of the Annex has informed staff of this and it is
further demonstrated by current construction of the Home 2 Suites hotel on the NW Area of
the Annex. This change in land use also changes future traffic patterns and the associated
scope of infrastructure improvements required to have acceptable traffic conditions.
Over the past couple years, staff has met and discussed potential land uses with the
Annex owner and other property owners and potential developers of parcels in and
around Del Rio Road/US 101. Current plans include a 200,000 square foot business
park, a lodging use on the West side of Highway 101, and the Barrel Creek project. Staff
has also discussed the Walmart site with its representatives, who indicate that any sale
of their site will likely include deed restrictions of competing land use and operations.
Current applications indicate that jobs serving uses, visitor serving uses and housing are
likely to be developed in this area. These new land-uses reduce traffic volume, allowing
the City to contemplate alternative, cost saving and land saving transportation plans.
2019 Traffic Sensitivity Analysis:
In 2019, W -Trans was hired to complete a traffic sensitivity analysis of the Del Rio Road
Interchange corridor to assess the intensity of development that can be accommodated in
the vicinity of the Del Rio Road interchange while maintaining acceptable operations. This
report was discussed at the June 25, 2019 Council meeting. Staff identified four areas of
undeveloped and developing parcels that will have the greatest impact with future traffic
demand on the interchange and corridor. These areas included the previously studied
Walmart and Annex areas, and also included a large tract on the northwest quadrant of the
interchange (Church Site). The parcels south of the NW Area of the Annex were also
merged into the Annex West area. These four locations are shown on the map below.
Page 161 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: D-1
DATE: 03/10/20
At the time and based on conversations with landowners and developers, staff developed
several scenarios for potential land-uses. Each land use was assumed to generate a
certain amount of daily vehicle trips, and the combined land uses for each scenario
reflected the future traffic demand for that scenario. The table below summarizes the
various scenarios with assumed land uses on each site.
Land Use
Assumptions
Scenario #1Scenario #2Scenario #3Scenario #4Scenario #5Scenario #6BaselineDel Rio Specific Plan*Retail (Sq. Ft.)- 80,000 20,000 - 49,000 18,000 - 254,000
Grocery (Sq. Ft.)- - 30,000 - 60,000 - - -
Business Park (Sq. Ft.)150,000 50,000 30,000 230,000 80,000 349,000 220,000 -
Office (Sq. Ft.)- 140,000 100,000 20,000 104,000 - - -
Hotel/Motel (Rooms)210 120 120 145 120 240 220 -
Restuarants (Sq. Ft.)6,000 8,000 7,500 5,000 5,500 5,000 8,000 -
Micorbrewery (Sq. Ft.)20,000 20,000 - - - - - -
Coffee Shop (Sq. Ft.)1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 - - -
Fast-Food/Drive-Through
(Sq. Ft.)- - - 3,000 2,000 5,500 3,000 -
Gas Station 1 - 1 - 1 2 1 -
Residential (Units)35 70 100 80 90 211 35 -
Rv Resort (Units)35 - - - - - - -
* Does not include Church Site and portions of Annex West
Land Use Assumptions for Each Traffic Analysis
Page 162 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: D-1
DATE: 03/10/20
The 2019 Analysis showed that the additional traffic from all above land use scenarios,
when combined with assumed City build-out, would result in unacceptable operations
without mitigations in operational improvements.
While the conclusions of the 2019 Traffic Sensitivity Analysis indicate d that acceptable
traffic conditions could be achieved for the each of the land use scenarios with operational
improvements (left turn lane and signal modifications), there were other factors that
needed to be considered prior to concluding that the roundabout design is no longer
needed.
At the June 2019 meeting, Council directed staff to pause work on the curre nt roundabout
design for the Del Rio Road Interchange Project and amend the current agreement with
Wallace Group to evaluate alternative interchange and corridor improvements that are
consistent with traffic needs from anticipated development in the vicinity.
2020 Traffic Sensitivity Analysis:
As a result of the 2019 Traffic Analysis, staff coordinated with the Wallace Group and
W-Trans Team to move the traffic sensitivity analysis forward. The 2020 Analysis
considered the following:
1. The 2019 traffic sensitivity analysis was a conceptual, high-altitude evaluation of
the traffic generated by land uses and sensitivities to mitigation measures. The
2020 Analysis incorporated regional growth and 20-year forecast scenarios in
order to allow Caltrans to determine impacts to their facilities.
2. The 2019 traffic sensitivity analysis focused on delay time and queue lengths as to
whether or not mitigation measures are appropriate. The 2020 Analysis further
investigates the traffic signal configurations, roadway geometrics, and right-of-way
impacts. The 2020 Analysis showed that the mitigation measures proposed are
feasible.
3. The 2019 land use scenarios were based upon projected development applications,
and anticipated land uses in the vicinity. The 2020 Analysis includes land-use
assumptions for planning applications that have been submitted to the City.
4. Caltrans owns and operates the two traffic signals at the ramp intersections of Del
Rio and US 101. Caltrans priority will be mainline traffic operations on US 101 and
ensuring exiting traffic does not queue onto the mainline traffic lanes from off ramps.
The 2020 Analysis further studied the timing of the traffic signals and ramp queuing
in preparation for coordinating with Caltrans on implementing the proposed
mitigation measures. Working through the Caltrans process necessary to change
the timing of the ramp intersection signals is expected to be a lengthy process.
Land Use Scenarios
Annex West projects have been submitted for permitting, and staff has had further
discussions with Annex East and Church Property (NE quadrant) developers to get better
clarity on likely land uses. Two additional land use scenarios were developed and
analyzed based on this latest information. Below is a summary of the two additional land
use scenarios and daily trip generation. Detailed traffic data for each scenario can be
found in the attachments.
Page 163 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: D-1
DATE: 03/10/20
Rate Trips
Hotel 120 rooms 310 Hotel 8.36 1003
Fuel station w/ conv. Store 6 fuel sites 945 Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market 205.36 1232
Restaurant Pad 1 1.5 ksf 932 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 112.18 168
Restaurant Pad 2 2 ksf 931 Quality Restaurant 83.84 168
Subtotal:2571
5%Pass-By for Restaurant Pad 1:-8
Totals:2563
Annex East Light manu w/ office & warehouse190 ksf 770 Business Park 12.44 2364
Totals:2364
Grocery store 80 ksf 854 Discount Supermarket 90.87 7270
Mattess Store 2 ksf 890 Furniture Store 6.3 13
Light Industrial/Warehousing 30 ksf 770 Business Park 12.44 373
Multi-family zoned site 35 units 220 Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)7.32 256
Subtotal:7912
5%Pass-By for Grocery Store:-364
5%Internal Capture:-377
Totals:7171
Single family residential 100 units 210 Single-Family Detached Housing 9.44 944
RV resort 20 units 416 Campground/Recreational Vehicle Park 2.7 54
Light Industrial/Warehousing/Retail100 ksf 770 Business Park 12.44 1244
Totals:2242
Scenario 7 Grand Total 14340
Assumed Land Use Scenario 7 (Long-Term)
Church Property
ITE LU Name
Daily
Annex West
Wal Mart Site
Location Component Quantity Unit ITE LU #Short Term (7a)Medium Term (7b/c)Long Term (7d)Rate Trips
Hotel 120 rooms 310 Hotel 8.36 1003
Fuel station w/ conv. Store 12 fuel sites 945 Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market 205.36 2464
Sit-Down Restaurant Pad 2 ksf 932 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 112.18 224
Retail Pad 2 ksf 820 Shopping Center 37.75 76
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Through1.9 ksf 934 Fast-Food Resturant with Drive-Through Window 470.95 895
Subtotal:4586
5%Pass-By for Sit-Down Restaurant Pad:-11
10%Pass-By for Fast Food Restaurant:-90
Totals:4485
Annex East Light manu w/ office & warehouse190 ksf 770 Business Park 12.44 2364
Totals:2364
Warehousing 30 ksf 150 Warehousing 1.74 52
Sit-Down Restaurant Pad 2 ksf 820 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 112.18 224
Mixed use: retail 15 ksf 932 Shopping Center 37.75 566
Mixed use: residential 10 units 220 Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)7.32 73
Light Industrial/Warehousing 30 ksf 770 Business Park 12.44 373
Multi-family zoned site 35 units 220 Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)7.32 256
Subtotal:1544
5%Pass-By for Sit-Down Restaurant Pad:-11
5%Internal Capture:-77
Totals:1456
Single family residential 120 units 210 Single-Family Detached Housing 9.44 1133
Hotel 120 units 310 Hotel 5.49 659
Light Industrial/Warehousing/Retail36 ksf 770 Business Park 12.44 448
Retail Pad 1 3.5 ksf 820 Shopping Center 37.75 132
Retail Pad 2 3.5 ksf 820 Shopping Center 37.75 132
Micro-Brewery 5 ksf 970 Winery 45.96 230
Sit Down Quality Restaurant 2.5 ksf 931 Quality Restaurant 83.84 210
Subtotal:2944
5%Internal Capture:-147
Totals:2797
Scenario 8 Grand Total 11102
Assumed Land Use Scenario 8 (Long-Term)
Daily
Annex West
Wal Mart Site
Church Property
Location Component Quantity Unit ITE LU #ITE LU Name
Short Term (8a)Medium Term (8b)Long Term (8c)Page 164 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: D-1
DATE: 03/10/20
The above trip generation analysis also evaluated traffic demand at peak hours during
morning and afternoon commute times (7:00 am to 9:00 am, 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm). The
following table summarizes new trip generation from all scenarios evaluated in the 2019
and 2020 Analysis.
Level of Service and Queue Length
The traffic demand during peak hours sets a basis for how much delay can be expected
at each intersection and how many vehicles queue (stack) in availab le queue length
storage leading up to the intersections. Delay and overall intersection performance is
measured in terms of Level of Service (LOS) from A through F based upon the number
of seconds it takes to get through an intersection. The following table summarizes the
LOS for traffic signalized intersections delay times.
LOS
Average Control Delay
(sec./vehicle)
Type of Traffic Flow
A 0 to 10 Stable
B >10 to 20 Stable
C >20 to 35 Stable
D > 35 to 55 Approaching Unstable
E >55 to 80 Unstable
F >80 Forced
Queue length is more or less a pass/fail grade based upon whether there is enough
stacking capacity for vehicles to wait to pass through an intersection without spilling into
nearby lanes. Available queue lengths are measured for each intersection leg approach
and compared to the combined length of vehicles waiting in each lane.
Daily
Trips Trips In Out Trips In Out
1 8556 515 281 233 608 317 291
2 8482 592 377 213 826 372 455
3 10941 670 395 274 856 412 445
1A 7371 468 248 219 553 292 261
4 7535 507 279 227 436 221 216
Baseline 8909 536 281 255 555 291 263
5 14764 889 529 359 1182 570 613
6 16138 929 467 462 1032 539 492
7a 2563 146 79 67 186 99 87
7b 8817 341 190 151 618 315 304
7c 12098 432 242 190 893 451 442
7d 14340 550 286 264 1039 535 504
8a 6849 369 201 168 395 200 195
8b 8305 436 234 202 510 260 250
8c 11102 590 293 297 762 402 360
Trip Generation Summary
AM Peak PM Peak
Scenario
Page 165 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: D-1
DATE: 03/10/20
The City’s General Plan Circulation Element Policy 1.3 addresses Level of Service as
follows:
“Maintain LOC C or better as the standard at all intersections and on all arterial
and collector roads. Upon City Council approval, accept LOS D where residences
are not directly impacted and improvements to meet the City’s standard would be
prohibitively costly or disruptive.”
W-Trans performed traffic analysis for each intersection to determine delay and queue
for traffic demand of existing + future regional growth + land use scenario 8c (worst case).
This traffic demand was performed with the following conditions:
1. Existing layout (no mitigations).
2. Mitigation 1 (M1) = Add westbound right-turn lane pocket to westbound Del Rio to
northbound US 101 ramp.
3. Mitigation 2 (M2) = M1 plus the following signal modifications:
a. Signal interconnect and coordination for all locations.
b. ECR/Del Rio northbound left-turn: Replace protected movement with
protected+permissive movement
c. ECR/Del Rio southbound left-turn: Replace protected movement with
permissive movement
d. ECR/Del Rio southbound approach: Added right-turn lane.
The following tables summarizes the delays and queuing for Future+LU 8c:
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
Future+LU 8c 119.0 14.3 21.9 0.8 10.5
Mitigation 1 = Add westbound right-turn lane at Del Rio Road/US-101 Northbound Ramps
Future+LU 8c 119.0 10.1 22.1 0.8 10.5
Mitigation 2 = Mitigations 1 plus signal modifications (see below)
Future+LU 8c 14.2 19.3 14.1 18.2 19.2 27.3 0.8 0.8 10.5 10.5
LOS B B B B B C A A B B
Delay Summary Table
Land Use (LU) Scenario
Del Rio Road &
El Camino Real
Del Rio Road &
US-101
Northbound
Ramps
Del Rio Road &
US-101
Southbound
Ramps
Del Rio Road &
Ramona Road
Del Rio Road &
Ramona Road
(Northbound
Approach)
Page 166 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: D-1
DATE: 03/10/20
The above tables indicate that all intersections work acceptably with Mitigation 2, both
from a level of service and adequate queue length. Additional traffic information is
included in the attachments.
Proposed Improvements:
Mitigation 2 Improvements
Wallace Group prepared preliminary geometric layouts showing Mitigation 2
improvements adding a westbound left-turn lane pocket and a ECR southbound right-turn
lane pocket (see below and attached). Both added lanes front the proposed Taco Bell
restaurant on the northwest corner of Del Rio Road and ECR. A retaining wall is proposed
to be utilized to minimize Right-of-way needed for the improvements, which includes a
ten-foot wide maintenance access offset from the wall. The additional right -turn lane
pocket for southbound El Camino Real is currently conditioned to be constructed as part
of frontage improvements with Taco Bell. It appears that the current layout of the Taco
Bell project will need some slight tweaks to accommodate Mitigation 2 improvements.
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
Ex. Lengths 240 240
Future+LU 8c 1029 222 263 100 194
Mitigation 1 = Add westbound right-turn lane at Del Rio Road/US-101 Northbound Ramps
Future+LU 8c 1049 206 266 99 190
Mitigation 2 = Mitigations 1 plus signal modifications (see below)
Future+LU 8c 148 254 114 131 172 237 120 119 196 189
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
Ex. Lengths 290 290 960 960 240 240 290 290 900 900
Future+LU 8c 214 73 660 222 366 119
Mitigation 1 = Add westbound right-turn lane at Del Rio Road/US-101 Northbound Ramps
Future+LU 8c 241 76 654 114 270 124
Mitigation 2 = Mitigations 1 plus signal modifications (see below)
Future+LU 8c 281 287 73 74 194 377 154 105 148 215 82 129
* Signal modifications:
All locations: Signal interconnect and coordination
El Camino Real/Del Rio Northbound Left-Turn: Replace protected movement with protected+permissive movement
El Camino Real/Del Rio Southbound Left-Turn: Replace protected movement with permissive movement
El Camino Real/Del Rio Southbound Approach: Added right-turn lane
El Camino Real/Del Rio Road
NB Approach SB Approach EB Approach WB Approach
Del Rio Road/US 101 South Ramps
Del Rio
Rd/Ramona Rd
NB Approach
Queue Length Summary Table
WB Approach EB Approach SB Approach
EB Approach
Land Use (LU) Scenario
Land Use (LU) Scenario
Del Rio Road/US 101 North Ramps
WB Approach EB Approach
Page 167 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: D-1
DATE: 03/10/20
Staff also received existing timing and phasing for the US 101 traffic signals from Caltrans.
The two signals already have existing interconnection, which should simplify
interconnection to the El Camino Real signal. Other Mitigation 2 improvements related
to the signal modifications at El Camino Real are program and equipment related and do
not impact geometric layouts significantly.
Alternative Phase 2 Improvements (Bridge Widening)
Although the 2020 Traffic Analysis demonstrates that Mitigation 2 improvements will allow
the interchange and corridors to operate in an acceptable manner, this analysis is based
upon assumed future land use along with current General Plan buildout. Mitigation 2
improvements will require significantly less land acquisition than the roundabout concept,
which will provide more buildable land for the adjacent developers. However, if actual
future traffic demands are significantly higher than those calculated with th e analysis, a
roundabout concept will likely be infeasible due to the unavailable land or high cost for
land and building acquisition.
Council has the discretionary authority to approve all amendments to the specific plan
and to the General Plan. As part of that authority, Council could restrict certain land uses
or business types that create higher traffic levels (e.g. fast food restaurant with drive thru)
to control traffic demand volumes to help provide certainty.
What options would the City have if a large traffic generating use is proposed in the future
and it is something that the Council feels is right for the City? A widening of the bridge
Page 168 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: D-1
DATE: 03/10/20
over Highway 101 could increase the capacity beyond the capacity anticipated in the land -
use scenarios studied. A bridge widening could also occur as part of CalTrans bridge
replacement program. The current bridge was constructed in the 1960’s and will likely be
replaced sometime in the next 15-30 years. At that time, it is likely that CalTrans will want
to widen the bridge, at a minimum to support bike lanes and additional sidewalks.
Because some sort of bridge widening is likely to be required in the future, the City could
pursue Mitigation 2 improvements now (Phase 1) but have a backup plan to increase
traffic capacity by bridge widening (Phase 2) in the event that future traffic demand is
significantly more than what Mitigation 2 improvements provide.
Wallace prepared a preliminary geometric concept layout for a potential bridge widening
to accommodate a new center left-turn lane to the bridge (see attached). The bridge
widening would primarily occur on the south side but may require additional land
acquisition of approximately ten feet for Del Rio Road from the Taco Bell site. While this
additional land acquisition would only be needed if a bridge widening were to occur, it
would be important to consider a plan line setback so permanent structures are not
constructed within it.
Next Steps
Staff and its consultants are scheduled to meet with the Caltrans project manager and
traffic engineers to discuss the traffic analysis and proposed improvements prior to the
March 10 Council meeting. If Caltrans is receptive to the traffic analysis and proposed
improvements, a new scope of work, fee, and schedule will be developed and discussed
with Council in the near future.
It is anticipated that the Council will consider adopting amendments to the Del Rio Area
Specific Plan to reflect these new land uses and future traffic demand later this spring.
The roundabout concept for the corridor, as well as other offsite public improvements and
funding contributions by developers, are mitigations required by the Specific Plan EIR.
Alternative designs and prorated cost allocations should be developed in conjunction with
any amendments or revisions to the Specific Plan. As such, a plan line for the Del Rio
Road / US 101 / El Camino Real Corridor will also be considered for adoption by the
Page 169 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: D-1
DATE: 03/10/20
Council that identifies right-of-way areas needed for the alternative improvement design.
Adopting the plan line will allow the City to enforce building setbacks to accommodate
future right-of-way needs. Applicability of previously conditioned off -site public
improvements (e.g., new traffic signal at K-Mart entrance) will also be re-evaluated.
Changes needed to amend the Specific Plan will occur simultaneous and in conjunction
with the alternative transportation design work described above. Staff has worked with
developers and property owners to finalize anticipated land uses with the intent of looking
for opportunities to keep future traffic demand within alternative design constraints, while
encouraging those land uses that will meet the City goal of lever aging place-making in
the commercial areas for long-term economic development. The City Council’s recent
action to address traffic impact fees for drive through restaurants and fuel stations has
helped this effort.
A funding plan for the alternative imp rovement design will be prepared that sets a
schedule for each development to pay a pro -rated “fair share” towards the alternative
improvements, or assigns responsibilities to construct portions thereof.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Abandoning the roundabout design for the Del Rio Road / US 101 Interchange and El
Camino Real intersection in favor of Mitigation 2 improvements would result in substantial
net savings. The cost of the roundabout improvements and the long time -frames
associated with the construction of the roundabout improvements are a significant barrier
to economic development in the area. It is anticipated that by moving forward with
changing the assumed land-uses in the area to more closely match the current market,
abandoning the current roundabout design, and implementing alternative mitigation,
future development of the sites will be streamlined and more cost effective.
ALTERNATIVES:
One alternative to modifying the project is to continue with the current roundabout
interchange design and get the project “shovel ready”. Completing Phase 2 (PAED) and
Phase 3 (PS&E) will make the project more favorable for regional and federal funding.
However, it is estimated that an additional $1.0 to $1.5 million will be needed to bring the
roundabout project to a “shovel ready” status, and a 50% matching local cost share will
be likely for the estimated $10 to $12 million construction costs.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Traffic Sensitivity Analysis Study
2. Preliminary Layouts for Alternative Improvements (Mitigation 2)
3. Preliminary Layouts for Phase 2 Alternative Improvements (Bridge Widening)
Page 170 of 187
490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 201 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 707.542.9500 w-trans.com
SANTA ROSA • OAKLAND • SAN JOSE
March 3, 2020
Mr. Nick DeBar
City of Atascadero
Public Works Department
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
Traffic Analysis for the Del Rio Road Interchange – 2020 Update
Dear Mr. DeBar;
As requested, W-Trans has updated the analysis of the Del Rio Road interchange based on the most recent land
use development proposals in the vicinity of the interchange. The highest intensity version of the most recent
development scenario was combined with estimated cumulative traffic to estimate the potential need for
mitigations under a future “worst case” scenario. The purpose of this letter is to describe the methodology and
findings of this analysis.
Existing Conditions
The study area consists of Del Rio Road between El Camino Real and Ramona Road, including intersections with
the US-101 Northbound Ramps and US-101 Southbound Ramps. The intersections of Del Rio Road/El Camino Real,
Del Rio Road/US-101 Northbound Ramps, and Del Rio Road/US-101 Southbound Ramps are signalized, while the
intersection of Del Rio Road/Ramona Road is stop-controlled on the Ramona Road approach and free-flowing on
the Del Rio Road approaches. From Ramona Road to the US-101 Northbound Ramps, Del Rio Road is two lanes
with no median or turn lanes. Between the US-101 Northbound Ramps and El Camino Real, Del Rio Road widens
to include a median and an eastbound right-turn lane, for three lanes total.
Traffic counts were collected in March 2018. The average daily traffic at each intersection ranges from around
3,700 vehicles per day at Del Rio Road/Ramona Road to around 11,000 vehicles per day at Del Rio Road/El Camino
Real, with the majority of vehicles traveling eastbound and westbound.
Future Conditions
Link volume data was collected from the SLOCOG travel demand model for the 2015 and 2035 model years. The
link volumes were then combined with the 2018 traffic counts in a “Furness” process to generate future turning
movement volumes. The Furness method is an iterative process that employs existing turn movement data,
existing link volumes and future link volumes to project likely turning future movement volumes at intersections.
Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) data for each of the parcels surrounding the interchange was also collected from
SLOCOG. The TAZ data includes estimates for housing and employment levels as they correspond to the travel
demand model. Land uses that duplicated those proposed in this analysis were removed to avoid double
counting of trips. For example, there are two existing houses contained within the same TAZ as the “Church
Property.” The future model assumes seven houses will exist in this TAZ for a net increase of five houses. This
analysis assumes a net increase of 120 houses will be constructed on the Church Property; therefore, the five net
new houses from the SLOCOG model were removed from the future volumes to avoid duplication.
ITEM NUMBER: D-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 171 of 187
Mr. Nick DeBar Page 2 March 3, 2020
Sensitivity Analysis Land Use
To test the sensitivity of the Del Rio Road corridor, 15 land use scenarios were assessed. Land Use Scenario 8c
(Buildout of Scenario 8) was selected as the most intensive likely scenario for further assessment. This scenario
contains potential land uses for redevelopment of four vacant lots along the corridor:
1. Annex West: Lot on northwest quadrant of Del Rio Road/El Camino Real intersection;
2. Annex East: Lot on northeast quadrant of Del Rio Road/El Camino Real intersection;
3. Wal-Mart Site: Lot on southeast quadrant of Del Rio Road/El Camino Real intersection that was slated to be
developed into a Wal-Mart store; and
4. Church Property: Lot north of Del Rio Road to the west of US-101.
Land Use Scenario 8c tests a variety of land uses on these four lots, including hotels, restaurants, business parks,
apartments, houses, retail, and offices.
Vehicle Trip Generation
The anticipated vehicle trip generation for the proposed land uses was estimated based on standard rates
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017 for “Hotel”
(ITE LU 310), “Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market” (ITE LU 945), “High-Turnover (Sit-Down)
Restaurant” (ITE LU 932), “Shopping Center” (ITE LU 820), “Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window ” (ITE
LU 934), “Business Park” (ITE LU 770), “Warehousing” (ITE LU 150), “Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)” (ITE LU 220),
“Single-Family Detached Housing” (ITE LU 210), “Winery” (ITE LU 970), and “Quality Restaurant” (ITE LU 931). Note
that the “Winery” land use was selected as the closest ITE land use type for the proposed micro-brewery.
Internal Capture Trips
The Trip Generation Manual also includes data and methodologies that can be applied to determine the proportion
of internal trips that may occur within a development area that includes a variety of land uses. Internal trips occur
at mixed-use developments, and in the case of the Church Property and Wal-Mart Site would consist of residents
and hotel guests patronizing adjacent restaurant and retail uses, as well as employees of nonresidential uses
patronizing other nonresidential uses, such as employees of the business park eating at the restaurant. The
majority of these trips would be made by walking, and the few that would be made by automobile would only
travel on-site, so would not affect the adjacent street network.
Pass-by Trips
Some portion of traffic associated with the restaurant uses is drawn from existing traffic on nearby streets. These
vehicle trips are not considered "new," but are instead comprised of drivers who are already driving on the
adjacent street system and choose to make an interim stop and are referred to as “pass-by.” The percentage of
these pass-by trips was developed based on information provided in the Trip Generation Manual. This reference
includes pass-by data collected at numerous locations for many land uses, such as the restaurant use applied in
this traffic analysis. At the proposed project, pass-by trips would in essence be “captured” from traffic on Del Rio
Road or El Camino Real.
Total Area Trip Generation
The expected trip generation potential for Land Use Scenario 8c is indicated in Table 1, with deductions taken for
pass-by and internal capture. The proposed land uses are expected to generate 11,782 trips per day, including
627 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 813 during the p.m. peak hour. After deductions are considered, the
development of the Del Rio Road Interchange area would be expected to generate 11,429 new trips on a daily
basis, including 604 during the morning peak hour and 785 during the evening peak hour; these new trips
represent the increase in traffic associated with the land uses compared to existing volumes.
ITEM NUMBER: D-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 172 of 187
Mr. Nick DeBar Page 3 March 3, 2020
Table 1 – Trip Generation Summary for Land Use Scenario 8c
Land Use Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate Trips Rate Trips In Out Rate Trips In Out
Annex West
Hotel 120 rooms 8.36 1,003 0.47 56 33 23 0.60 72 37 35
Gas Station 12 fs 205.36 2,464 12.50 150 77 73 14.00 168 86 82
Sit-Down Restaurant 2 ksf 112.18 224 9.94 20 11 9 9.77 20 12 8
Pass-by -5% -11 -5% -1 -1 0 -5% -1 -1 0
Retail 2 ksf 37.75 76 0.94 2 1 1 3.81 8 4 4
Fast-Food Restaurant 1.9 ksf 470.95 895 40.20 76 39 37 32.70 62 32 30
Pass-by -10% -90 -10% -8 -4 -4 -10% -6 -3 -3
Annex East
Business Park 190 ksf 12.44 2,364 0.40 76 46 30 0.42 80 37 43
Wal-Mart Site
Warehousing 30 ksf 1.74 52 0.17 5 4 1 0.19 6 2 4
Sit-Down Restaurant 2 ksf 112.18 224 9.94 20 11 9 9.77 20 12 8
Pass-by -5% -11 -5% -1 -1 0 -5% -1 -1 0
Mixed-Use Retail 15 ksf 37.75 566 0.94 14 9 5 3.81 57 27 30
Mixed-Use Residential 10 du 7.32 73 0.46 5 1 4 0.56 6 4 2
Business Park 30 ksf 12.44 373 0.40 12 7 5 0.42 13 6 7
Apartments 35 du 7.32 256 0.46 16 4 12 0.56 20 13 7
Internal Capture -5% -77 -5% -4 -2 -2 -5% -6 -3 -3
Church Site
Houses 120 du 9.44 1,133 0.74 89 22 67 0.99 119 75 44
Hotel 120 rooms 8.36 1,003 0.47 56 33 23 0.60 72 37 35
Business Park 36 ksf 12.44 448 0.40 14 9 5 0.42 15 7 8
Retail Pad 1 3.5 ksf 37.75 132 0.94 3 2 1 3.81 13 6 7
Retail Pad 2 3.5 ksf 37.75 132 0.94 3 2 1 3.81 13 6 7
Micro-Brewery 5 ksf 45.96 230 2.07 10 7 3 7.31 37 19 18
Sit-Down Restaurant 2.5 ksf 83.84 210 0.73 2 1 1 7.80 20 13 7
Internal Capture -5% -164 -5% -9 -4 -5 -5% -14 -8 -6
Subtotal 11,782 627 318 309 813 431 382
Reductions -353 -23 -12 -11 -28 -16 -12
Total 11,429 604 306 298 785 415 370
Note: du = dwelling unit; ksf = 1,000 square feet; fs = fuel stations
ITEM NUMBER: D-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 173 of 187
Mr. Nick DeBar Page 4 March 3, 2020
Sensitivity Analysis
These total area vehicle trips estimated to be generated by these land uses were added to the future traffic
volumes to determine how they would affect the study corridor, and the metrics of delay and queue length were
used to assess operations. Delay is how much travel time is added on average to each driver traveling through an
intersection by the presence of intersection itself, such as from stopping and waiting for a green light or for cross
traffic to clear. Generally, Caltrans and the City of Atascadero maintain a delay threshold of 35 seconds or more
per driver as unacceptable.
The reported queue length is the maximum combined length of vehicles that are stopped at the intersection for
95-percent of the peak hour signal cycles. The segment of the Del Rio Road overpass between the US-101
Southbound Ramps and US-101 Northbound Ramps is approximately 290 feet long, which means that a queue
length greater than 290 feet would cause queuing to spill back into the upstream intersection and thus is
considered unacceptable. The segment of Del Rio Road between the US-101 Northbound Ramps and El Camino
Real is approximately 240 feet long, which means that a queue length greater than 240 feet would cause
operational impacts and thus is considered unacceptable.
Queue lengths on the freeway offramps were also considered, as typically a queue extending past the offramp
gore point and onto the freeway mainline is considered unacceptable. The northbound offramp has a length of
900 feet available between the stop bar at Del Rio Road and the gore point on US-101 North. For the southbound
offramp, this distance is 960 feet.
Potential Interchange Improvements
As part of this analysis, two mitigation measures to avoid unacceptable traffic operations in the form of either
delay or queuing were developed.
Mitigation 1 – This mitigation measure is to use the excess lane and median width on Del Rio Road between the
US-101 Northbound Ramps and El Camino Real to add a westbound right-turn lane within the existing paved
right-of-way. By splitting westbound traffic into through and right-turn lanes, the queue length can be reduced
by giving drivers two lanes to queue instead of one. Additionally, splitting through traffic and right-turn traffic
will allow turning drivers to bypass through drivers who are waiting for a green light, reducing delay and
improving operations at Del Rio Road/US-101 Northbound Ramps.
Mitigation 2 – This mitigation measure would be, in addition to the above westbound right-turn lane, to update
the signal timings to better serve the new traffic flows caused by the proposed development. For example, each
land use scenario adds significant northbound left-turn traffic to Del Rio Road/El Camino Real. Without updating
the timing of this signal to accommodate the added traffic, the drivers turning left would face major delays which
would cause the intersection to operate unacceptably.
In addition to updating the signal timings, the second mitigation tested would involve several modifications to El
Camino Real/Del Rio Road, including the addition of a southbound right-turn lane, replacement of the
northbound protective left-turn phasing with protected-permissive operation, replacement of the southbound
protective left-turn phasing with permissive phasing, and interconnection with the US-101 ramp intersections to
enable cycle coordination between the three signals.
Operational Analysis
The Del Rio Road corridor conditions were assessed with anticipated future traffic volumes including trips
generated by the Scenario 8c land uses. Additionally, the Future plus Scenario 8c volumes were assessed with the
ITEM NUMBER: D-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 174 of 187
Mr. Nick DeBar Page 5 March 3, 2020
two potential interchange improvements detailed above. In the interest of expediency, only the higher-intensity
p.m. peak hour was assessed as part of this analysis. The results in terms of delay are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2 – Future plus Land Use Scenario 8c Intersection Delay
Study Intersection
Approach
PM Peak Delay
No Mitigation Mitigation 1 Mitigation 2
1. Del Rio Rd/El Camino Real 119.0 119.0 19.3
2. Del Rio Rd/US-101 N Ramps 14.3 10.1 18.2
3. Del Rio Rd/US-101 S Ramps 21.9 22.1 27.3
4. Del Rio Rd/Ramona Rd 0.8 0.8 0.8
Northbound Approach 10.5 10.5 10.5
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled
intersections are indicated in italics; Bold text = deficient operation; Mitigation 1 is to add the westbound right-
turn lane to Del Rio Road/US-101 North Ramps; Mitigation 2 is to combine Mitigation 1 with signal retiming at all
three signalized intersections, as well as modify the intersection of El Camino Real/Del Rio Road
With Future plus Land Use Scenario 8c traffic, the intersection of Del Rio Road/El Camino Real would operate
unacceptably with either no mitigation or with only Mitigation 1. The addition of Mitigation 2 (which includes
Mitigation 1) would decrease the delay to an acceptable level. The other three study intersections would operate
acceptably with or without either mitigation.
In addition to delay, queue lengths were assessed using SimTraffic software to take an average of each of ten runs.
Where there are multiple lanes on one approach, the lane with the greater queue length was used. These results
are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3 – Future plus Land Use Scenario 8c Queue Lengths
Study Intersection
Mitigation
Available
Storage
PM Peak Maximum Queue Length
No Mitigation Mitigation 1 Mitigation 2
Del Rio Rd/El Camino Real
Eastbound Approach 240 263 266 237
Del Rio Rd/US-101 N Ramps
Westbound Approach 240 222 114 105
Eastbound Approach 290 366 270 215
Northbound Approach 900 119 124 129
Del Rio Rd/US-101 S Ramps
Westbound Approach 290 214 241 287
Southbound Approach 960 660 654 377
Notes: Maximum Queue based on the average of the 95th-percentile queue value from ten SimTraffic runs; all distances
are measured in feet; Bold text = deficient operation; Mitigation 1 is to add the westbound right-turn lane to Del
Rio Road/US-101 North Ramps; Mitigation 2 is to combine Mitigation 1 with signal retiming at all three signalized
intersections, as well as modify the intersection of El Camino Real/Del Rio Road
ITEM NUMBER: D-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 175 of 187
Mr. Nick DeBar Page 6 March 3, 2020
The Future plus Land Use Scenario 8c traffic volumes would result in unacceptable queue lengths on the
eastbound approaches to Del Rio Road/El Camino Real and Del Rio Road/US-101 North Ramps. The addition of
Mitigation 1 would decrease the eastbound queue length at Del Rio Road/US-101 North Ramps to an acceptable
level, although the eastbound queue length to Del Rio Road/El Camino Real would remain unacceptable. With
Mitigation 2, all queue lengths would be within acceptable limits.
Conclusions
This analysis focused on the proposed land uses of Land Use Scenario 8c, as applied to the anticipated future
traffic volumes of the Del Rio Road interchange.
Land Use Scenario 8c would be expected to generate 11,429 daily trips, including 604 a.m. trips and 785 p.m.
trips.
Under Future Conditions with the development of Scenario 8c, the intersection of Del Rio Road/El Camino
Real would operate with unacceptably high delay and unacceptably long queue lengths for the eastbound
approach. In addition, the eastbound approach to Del Rio Road/US-101 North Ramps would also have
unacceptable queue lengths.
Mitigation 1 would add a westbound right-turn lane to Del Rio Road/US-101 North Ramps, which would
mitigate the unacceptable queue length for the eastbound approach but would not remediate either failing
condition at Del Rio Road/El Camino Real.
Mitigation 2 would add to Mitigation 1 by retiming all three signals, as well as installing several improvements
to Del Rio Road/El Camino Real. These include adding a southbound right-turn lane and eliminating the
protected left-turn phasing on El Camino Real in favor of protected-permissive phasing in the northbound
left-turn direction and permissive phasing in the southbound left-turn direction. All of these mitigations
combined would result in acceptable operations and queue lengths for all study intersections.
Thank you for giving W-Trans the opportunity to provide these services. Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kevin Carstens, PE, MBA
Associate Engineer
Stephen J. Weinberger, PE, PTOE
Senior Principal
SJW/krc/ATA031.L2
Attachments – Intersection LOS calculations and queuing estimates
ITEM NUMBER: D-1
DATE: 03/10/20
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 176 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: D-1DATE: 03/10/20ATTACHMENT: 2Page 177 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: D-1DATE: 03/10/20ATTACHMENT: 2Page 178 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: D-1DATE: 03/10/20ATTACHMENT: 3Page 179 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: D-1DATE: 03/10/20ATTACHMENT: 3Page 180 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: D-2
DATE: 03/10/20
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report – City Manager
SLO Countywide Regional Compact
RECOMMENDATION:
Council adopt Draft Resolution approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign the San Luis
Obispo Countywide Regional Compact.
DISCUSSION:
Providing an adequate supply and range of housing choices affordable to residents and
working families/individuals is a significant challenge in San Luis Obispo County, and
requires the efforts of public agencies, private industries, residents and working
individuals to overcome it.
Pursuant to State law, the State Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) determines the region’s future housing needs by affordability level and directs the
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) to assign the required housing units
to each of the seven Cities and the County’s unincorporated areas. This is known as the
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process. In December 2018, the SLOCOG
Board accepted the State HCD’s final determination that the San Luis Obispo County
region must plan for 10,810 new housing units by 2028. Subsequently, in October 2019,
the SLOCOG Board adopted the 2019 RHNA Plan, allocating the 10,810 new housing units
across the eight local land use planning agencies, generally based on each jurisdiction’s
proportional share of the region’s population and jobs. Table 1 below shows each agency’s
allocation and allocation within each State-defined income category1. Each of the eight
agencies is now required to identify adequate sites and plan for future housing needs as
they update their Housing Element by December 31, 2020.
1 "Very Low Income" is defined by Health and Safety Code Section 50105 as 50% or less of county median income; "Lower Income"
is defined by Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5 as 80% or less of county median income; "Moderate Income" is defined by
Health and Safety Code Section 50093 as 120% or less of county median income; and “Above Moderate Income” is defined as
those exceeding the moderate income level of Health and Safety Code Section 50093.
Page 181 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: D-2
DATE: 03/10/20
Table 1: Regional Housing Needs Allocation for 2020 - 2028
Jurisdiction Total
Allocation
Very Low
Income
Allocation2
(24.6%)
Low
Income
Allocation2
(15.5%)
Moderate
Income
Allocation2
(18.0%)
Above
Moderate
Income
Allocation2
(41.9%)
Arroyo Grande 692 170 107 124 291
Atascadero 843 207 131 151 354
Grover Beach 369 91 57 66 155
Morro Bay 391 97 60 70 164
Paso Robles 1,446 356 224 259 607
Pismo Beach 459 113 71 82 193
San Luis
Obispo
3,354 825 520 603 1,406
Unincorporated 3,256 801 505 585 1,365
Regional Total 10,810 2,660 1,675 1,940 4,535
Meeting the current and future RHNA cycles will require our communities to plan for
additional growth and prioritize investment in housing and infrastructure.
Meeting the housing needs of the San Luis Obispo County region is a challenge shared
by all eight local land use jurisdictions and SLOCOG and will take collective actions to
overcome. With this great challenge also comes an opportunity for regional collaboration.
The proposed San Luis Obispo Countywide Regional Compact (Exhibit A to Attachment
1) is an aspirational document. It sets the tone and goals for future recommended plans
and actions among the local agencies. It establishes a united regional framework to
unlock the potential to develop an adequate supply of housing and resilient infrastructure
that support our economic prosperity. It recognizes that people, water, transportation,
connectivity, and housing form the foundation of the San Luis Obispo County region’s
healthy, livable communities and thriving economic opportunity.
The region’s local agencies, building and development community, residents and
workforce have an opportunity to unite around six shared regional goals that provide a
vision to guide collaborative resolution of the underlying issues.
Goal 1. Strengthen Community Quality of Life – We believe that our Region’s
quality of life depends on four cornerstones to foster a stable and healthy economy
for all: resilient infrastructure and resources, adequate housing supply, business
opportunities, and educational pathways.
Goal 2. Share Regional Prosperity – We believe that our Region should share
the impacts and benefits of achieving enduring quality of life among all people,
sectors and interests.
Goal 3. Create Balanced Communities – We believe that our Region should
encourage new development that helps to improve the balance of jobs and housing
throughout the Region, providing more opportunities to residents to live and work
in the same community.
Page 182 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: D-2
DATE: 03/10/20
Goal 4. Value Agriculture & Natural Resources – We believe that our Region’s
unique agricultural resources, open space, and natural environments play a vital
role in sustaining healthy local communities and a healthy economy, and therefore
should be purposefully protected.
Goal 5. Support Equitable Opportunities – We believe that our Region should
support policies, actions, and incentives that increase housing development of all
types, available to people at all income levels.
Goal 6. Foster Accelerated Housing Production – We believe that our Region
must achieve efficient planning and production of housing and focus on strategies
that produce the greatest impact.
The Regional Compact is recommended for approval by the governing boards of all eight
local agencies and SLOCOG. Signatories to the Regional Compact commit to acting as
partners in aligning actions with these regional goals. The Regional Compact is an
important first step that will help to protect and enhance the region’s communities, build
critical infrastructure, protect natural resources and create a forward -thinking future for
the region. By taking collaborative actions to further these goals, our region can solve
critical issues and become a statewide leader in sustaining vibrant communities.
Additionally, given the State’s pro-housing focus, the Regional Compact shows the San
Luis Obispo County region’s intent to work collaboratively to plan for our region’s future
and its growth. This may make the region more competitive for housing and infrastructure
funding opportunities.
Overcoming the challenges highlighted in this staff report will require a signif icant focus
on increasing regional collaboration related to affordable housing , economic prosperity
and the critical infrastructure to support it. As part of this regional effort, staff and
consultants preparing each jurisdictions’ Housing Element update are also coordinating
and developing the region’s first “regional chapter” common to all eight local agencies’
Housing Elements. The following are anticipated dates for all nine local and regional
agencies to approve the Regional Compact, and pending approval by all, will culminate
in a public signing event (tentatively set for April 3rd).
Proposed Regional Compact
Signatories
Anticipated Date of
Regional Compact
Approval
Status
County of San Luis Obispo February 25, 2020 Adopted
City of Grover Beach March 2, 2020 Adopted
City of Paso Robles March 3, 2020 Adopted
City of Pismo Beach March 3, 2020 Adopted
City of Arroyo Grande March 10, 2020 TBD
City of Atascadero March 10, 2020 TBD
City of San Luis Obispo March 17, 2020 TBD
City of Morro Bay March 24, 2020 TBD
San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments
April 1, 2020 TBD
Page 183 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: D-2
DATE: 03/10/20
In the months leading up to presentation of the Regional Compact, various stakeholders
were engaged and informed including but not limited to: the Coalition of Housing Partners
(including representation from the Central Coast Homebuilders Association, Economic
Vitality Corporation, San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce, Housing Trust Fund, San
Luis Obispo and Paso Robles Housing Authorities, People’s Self Help Housing and
Habitat for Humanity), REACH (previously known as Hourglass Project), Central Coast
Home Builders Association, Economic Vitality Corporation’s Building, Design and
Construction Cluster, Healthy Communities Work Group and the Local Agency Formation
Commission.
Approval of the recommended Draft Resolution and Regional Compact will provide an
aspirational vision as staff of the nine local agencies develop various planning documents,
strategies, and actions, aimed at achieving the six stated goals.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None. There is no direct fiscal impact to participating in the San Luis Obispo Countywide
Regional Compact; however, it is anticipated that the compact will help the region be
more competitive for various infrastructure and housing grants.
ATTACHMENT:
Draft Resolution
Page 184 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: D-2
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
03/10/20
1
DRAFT RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN
THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTYWIDE REGIONAL COMPACT
WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo County region is a rural coastal county with seven
vibrant cities and numerous unincorporated communities that depend on collaborative
relationships between and among government agencies, community organizations, and residents
to solve significant regional issues; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65584 requires the San Luis Obispo
County region’s local land use agencies to plan for their Regional Housing Needs Allocation of
10,820 new housing units by 2028 and future allocations as determined by the California
Department of Housing and Community Development; and
WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo Countywide Regional Compact, attached hereto as
Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference, and prepared by leaders from each of the
region’s local agencies, creates a united regional framework to unlock the potential to develop an
adequate supply of housing and resilient infrastructure that support economic prosperity; and
WHEREAS, the regional goals set forth therein will help to protect and enhance our
communities, build critical infrastructure, protect natural resources, and create a forward-
thinking future for local communities in addition to underpinning the future Regional
Infrastructure and Housing Plan, creating compatibility among the eight local land use agencies’
Housing Elements, and driving future recommendations for collaborative actions; and
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero is committed to improving the jobs housing balance
throughout the region; and
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero continues to make economic development and the
creation of jobs a priority for the City; and
WHEREAS, over 500 new housing units were built in the City of Atascadero in the four
year period of January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2018; over half of which were either
affordable to moderate income families or lower income families; and
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero will continue to be a leader in the region for the
production of housing for all income levels.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Atascadero:
Page 185 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: D-2
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
03/10/20
1
SECTION 1. The San Luis Obispo Countywide Regional Compact, Exhibit A attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby approved.
SECTION 2. The Mayor is authorized to sign the San Luis Obispo Countywide
Regional Compact.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the ______
day of ____________, 2019.
On motion by Council Member ______ and seconded by Council Member _______, the
foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CITY OF ATASCADERO
______________________________
Heather Moreno, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Lara K. Christensen, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Brian A. Pierik, City Attorney
Page 186 of 187
ITEM NUMBER: D-2
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
03/10/20
1
Exhibit A
Page 187 of 187